Wonder how she feels now that the theory has been disproved based on the fact that the data used was doctored to fit the model... She even has a more recent video released yesterday with the guy who was in the team who debunked it...
20:30 reminds me what my professor of theoretical physics used to said, that there are two ways of doing physics: one is rigorously, the other is vigorously.
In order to make certain predictions work. Two parameters are added: 1) Dark matter and 2) Dark energy These are the parameters that physicists are constantly quantifying. There is so much of this and so much of that.
@@Nostradamus_Order33 Or the theory you derive your answers from is wrong, which would also explain why you have to add 95% of the universe, and then say its also invisible, to make the theory work..
Wonderful discussion. I also apprecieated the contentions that some of the speakers raised against each another's ideas and research. Disagreeing with each other where there is merit to do so may be equally as enlightening as it is dramatic.
A great discussion. All sides were talked about, all made suggestions for improvement. What more can we expect! They are all trying to advance our knowledge.
Knowledge of whats not there. Is not prove of nothing or something.. what you imagine you can see ... that is the nature of a creative mind a creative universe..
I like Erik Verlinde. These negative comments about him are uncalled for. All he is saying is that we need to look at gravity differently; we need another approach/paradigm. He isn't saying his theory is absolutely correct for sure. He acknowledges many others are also working on new theories to better explain the phenomenon. I like outliners in science. Scientific consensus fossilizes science. It is bad science.
I'm a massive 'fan boy' of her whole approach ... Ecology could really use her as an antidote to ill-informed government and activists. Her stuff on EV's and Nuclear was absolutely bang-on in my op, I've been going about 'zero carbon' being a bit of a ruse for ages.
I am pondering some hypothesis and need some advice/help. QUESTION : How can I test / verify / check these hypothesis? Is there an existing answer? How can I build the apparatus for test #2 safely? GR implies no energy conservation. expansion red-shift destroys energy. Dark energy creates new space. Empty space has vacuum energy, so this is creating energy. Hypothesis 1 : expansion red-shift of certain energies(eg photons) has space-energy conservation. space to energy / energy to space conversion is occurring, and if you factor in space as energy there is conservation. Test 1: a)check if the there is any variance in expansion rate between regions of space-time b)Check if expansion rate and energy passing/radiating through regions of space is correlated. Hypothesis 2 : All red/blue shifting includes an energy to space conversion. While traveling at high speed if light is emitted forward it is blue shifted and converts some space into energy, emit light backwards and it creates space. This may act similar in principal to a warp drive. *I realize number 2 is a bit ridiculous because the gained/lost energy of the photon should be accounted for by momentum gain/loss, but perhaps there is a space-energy conversion component. Test 2: 1)arrange a time dilation test by accelerating a time counter. Sandwich it between 2 powerful LED arrays, one facing forward and on facing backwards. check if time dilation is affected when light is emitted forward and/or backwards. I realize these are quite out there. And GR guys keep yelling at me "GR means no energy conservation" as if that answers my question. For test 1 I am having trouble finding data. Will I have to calculate these myself? Are there any maps of expansion rates over time? is dark energy proved to be uniform throughout space or just assumed so? -Is there some good data to help me get started (estimated historical expansion rates for regions of space, estimated radiation energy passing through regions of space)? -Has anyone already looked into this or is there some literature that can explain why this hypothesis is wrong? For test 2 I can easily build timers to compare, lights, and a spinning device. But I will need at least 1km/s and even then I would probably need to spin a 60cm disc at 1khz for days just get a single sample. -Anyone have suggestions for how I can induce velocity time dilation reasonably? I assume spinning is my only reasonable option. -can someone suggest a reasonable way to DIY a terahertz frequency timer for this application? (Mhz easy, GHz doable, THz I'm unclear) -is there no real hope and s should I just submit the experiment to NASA or something? -is this idea ridiculous? why? A more theoretical disproof also works, but not just "GR means no energy conservation", something more specific to this hypothesis would be preferable. Is there a better way to test this? Thank you kindly in advance, Matthew DeBlock
I don’t have an answer for you but I do know a theoretical physicist who used to work with Dr. Verlinde and who might be able to give you some direction, but I have no way to copy your comment. If you could copy the comment and send it to my email, I would forward it for you. klwong43atgmaildotcom
One insight from this debate: Sabine Hossenfelder seems to be completely right in her criticicm of the current state of the scientific community, physics in general. Catherine Heymans (at least the way she presented herself in this debate) is the living example for everything that is wrong in modern physics. Just a personal thought.
I don't think that is quite fair. Sabine has criticized particle physicists that want to build much bigger colliders without really any guarantee that something will be found. Catherine's big telescope proposal would certainly find lots of new stuff, you can be guaranteed of that.
@@andyiswonderful No doubt about that. But I think it is problematic, when a (persumably) senior scientist waters down a somewhat serious debate to a level of a general TEDx presentation. I cannot take a scientist seriously, who acts permanently overexcited about commonly known trivia. An enthusiastic undergrad, OK, but not a serious scientist. It worsens the credibility crisis of modern science.
@Daniel Paulson I think it may come to this: There's a saying that if all you have is a hammer, you likely see every problem as a nail. All she has are telescopes and colliders.
I'm a guy and I've seen lots and lots and lots and - well you get the idea - of these talks.. Seldom do I see a panel with more female then male, thumbs up.
What pushes the universe apart is the intrinsic expansion of the universe that transforms the self- gravitational potential energy into ever increasing the kinetic energy like a compressed spring accelerates as it expands.
Yes, but the elephant in the room wasn't even mentioned: expansion as an explanation of the hubble constant which is just the slope of the line made when graphing distance with redshift. Why jump on such an impossible notion as expansion in the first place? Yes, the further light travels, the more redshifted it is. So there are other explanations far more palatable for this, than coming up with expansion and consequently dark energy.The entire LCDM paradigm is in question.
My dad used to say to me when I was a little kid trying to draw trees ...son...rather than look at the leaves ,look at the spaces inbetween the leaves.
Tonight I asked God about the BM and BE riddles. HE answered me ! -and gave me the right solution oh boy, a weird idea indeed! HE graciously confided also some good hints on the unification of GR and QM... Unfortunately, the space in this screen is too small to write it down.
The "smug" cosmologists should read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Then they'd realize they are stuck in a paradigm which is sinking fast but because that paradigm has proved its worth in CERTAIN observations and because they have sanctified Einstein and his math and because they currently have no other explanations it's like they've become like a priest-of-old whose certainty was about "god" was decidedly smug.
I loved the comment buried away in this discussion about The LHC, "It's wonderful and it discovered The Higgs Boson, but actually it hasn't discovered anything else so far," and it should have done and even then the discovery of the Higgs was a bit of a fudge and even now it still hasn't been confirmed to same stranded of accuracy that all the other Standard Models particles have been.
The money for the LHC could have feed a lot of starving children, and now they want a bigger one costing even more money? Not to mention the trillions of dollars already spent on science since they invented the BOMB!!.. Where are our priorities???....
@@tiemiahu9947 Ah yes, always those poor starving children ? If some of the NGOs paid themselves less and were better disbursing the money they already have then that would be a better start. The problem with LHC is that it hasn't really delivered the goods, they had to move the goalposts even to get the discovery of the Higgs Boson accepted and since then non of other stuff they were anticipating has shown up. There's clearly something wrong/missing from our in many ways highly successful model of the physical universe, but until we have a better idea of what it is just hitting stuff with an ever bigger, "hammer," may not yield any useful results ?
@@Eris123451 Yeah thats true, our world is surely corrupt, but I expected a lot more from the science community, they have the knowledge to solve the problems of the world, but all their funding comes in to promote discovering the mysteries of space, I suspect for Americas race for Universe Domination, but also in the development of new methods for technology so big companies can become even richer? But what about global warming, safe food production and the development of better materials. Fair enough to say they are constricted by where and what they are funded for, So those science fields that don't get the big funding are left to struggle, while the areas that make the rich even richer get all the funding, It's just not right. As for what's missing in their calculations or in more particular their models of the universe, I made a comment and gave a suggestion, did you read it? Check it out, and give me some feedback. I'm right into these science videos, they've helped me to understand and explain what I know in a more scientific way, instead of gobblygook, ha ha... Thanks for your response Eris, good stuff.
Regarding the title.. seems most of the discussion was on Dark Matter, not Dark Energy. I've heard Sabine on a podcast where she mentions that Dark Energy isn't very mysterious, however I haven't heard her describe exactly how this energy comes about that is causing the universe to accelerate.
Bro, I'm no scientist, but it's because their theory about the expansion is all wrong and they know it, even though their spectroscopic estimations of velocity are fairly reliable within our galaxy, but when used to measure the far distant galaxcies further out, they are off by more than one hundred miles a second for every million light years increase in distance. Also they say nothing goes faster then light, then they come up with the expansion speed at a rate of an unbelievable 30,000 miles a second???... Read the Urantia Book bro, science is on the right track , but they got the wrong model.
Wonderful discussion, my favorite part at the beginning , the one gal states , mabey what all these observations are telling us is mabey we are missing some very fundamental pieces of the puzzle. Spot on ! Keep working on it , I have no doubt we will learn more in time. We need patience.
*Vern:* You think Mighty Mouse could beat up Superman? *Teddy:* What are you, cracked? *Vern:* No, I saw him on TV the other day, he was holding five elephants in one hand. *Teddy:* Boy, you don't know nothing. Mighty Mouse is a cartoon. Superman's a real guy. There's no way a cartoon could beat up a real guy. *Vern:* I guess you're right. It'd be a good fight though.
A hilarious continuation of the Solvay Physics Conference of 1927 infamous ‘Herding of cats film’…none of the participants touched om many of numerous semi-oblivious 800 pound gorilla-like physics problems that unquestionably exist in this talk . Erik hits the preverbal nail on the head at Minute 13: 30 …long story short - we don't know!….INVERSION physics is one of those 800 pound gorillas that should be examined more…
Knowledge or reason exists and it also expresses the properties each existence possesses. It depends on the variable standards of truth, proof and evidence you wish to apply wither the knowledge is adequate for it's objective purposes or not. Knowledge always appears in a certain defined standardised form. Once a standard has been set and agreed that provides a platform to raise the standard or improve the knowledge. It's a moving target so it's subject to continuous assessment. There's a history being made.
Sabine Hossenfelder, you are awesome! I have to go back to one of your other videos where you talk about dark energy. Is the Universe really expanding or are there problems with the observations or something else entirely?
It is all electric. Everything has magnetic fields, therefore there must exist an electric current. I do understand the arguments against this theory, however, and simply because the timeline of creation cannot be determined or the place of the power is generated cannot be pinpointed does not change the fact that: in order to have a magnetic field, there must be a current. As well as plasma cosmology describes our universe, the Electric Universe can fully fill in the blanks. I firmly believe that nature has been used to describe the math, whereas the math is supposed to describe the nature. I believe science has allowed the mathematics to create an alleged universe, not explained the universe with equations of man's creation. Nature has, and always will take the path of least resistance(my meaning: nature is not complicated while being complicated). And, this only took me 40 years to realise some of these things...... Sabine is very intelligent, yet she is living dangerously when she questions the big money science wheels, but I am glad someone is beginning to do so.
@@waylonwebb3053 Of course you realize that the electric universe is pure quackery intended to prop up a cult and explains nothing whatsoever. It's word salad, not some great theory.
Is dark matter just another theoretical patch to cover up that GR is not universally true (Verlinde's hypothesis I suppose)? Or does this matter really exist, and GR is universal? Or a combination of both? We cannot answer the question which hypothesis is true, just by observing gravitic interaction, and since there is no electromagnetic radiation emitted by 'dark' matter apparently, the question remains unanswered. Ockham's razor is in favour of Eric Verlinde's hypothesis because it is the simplest explanation for the observations, that is all.
Is it possible that the constant production of virtual particles in "empty" space could account for both dark matter and dark energy -- dark matter for the gravitational effects of the virtual matter, and dark energy for the expansionist effect of the virtual particles exerting pressure on each other. Okay, I'm not a physicist, and this is probably ridiculous for any number of reasons -- just putting it out there.
We need to understand how our energy works in the system in which we are incorporated into the greater whole of a dimensional variety. In engineering and science, dimensional analysis is the analysis of the relationships between different physical quantities by their base quantities (such as length, mass, time, and electric current) and units of measure (such as miles versus kilometers or pounds versus kilograms) and tracking these measurements as calculations or comparisons are performed. Length, mass, time, temperature / pressure and load related to gravity and distance, weight, time (cause of gravity), temperature / pressure (bubble point and dew point with gravitational circumstances) and load (gravity with energy and dark energy). Therefore, we need to understand the common relationship of gravity, space and time that is in weak (and temporal) existence down to dark energy, if any.
Sabine is great. But thanks Jupiter that she became a physicist instead of joining Germany's Foreign Ministery and becoming a diplomat. Her bluntness sometimes approaches Sheldon's level
29:55 “Mapping all the killer asteroids that might obliterate planet Earth, don’t worry you’re safe” Safe that we will know it’s coming and that’s about as safe as we will ever be from this threat.
Too bad Catherine Heymans speaking that much on non physic matter. Waisted time I drop listening middle of her creed explanation. Too bad because Sabine and Erik have interesting thing to say
There are, apparently, two major sources of mass in the universe: the strong nuclear force and the Higgs Mechanism. This makes me wont to think that there might well be a similar pair of relationships between "dark energy" and "dark matter,," both of which are only hinted at but remain undetected and largely unexplained.
The cosmological principle for uniform and isotopic universe is not correct. The dark mater is little difference of the vacuum energy in same zones of cosmos. The different quantity of virtual particles made the gravity and different flow of time speed. Erik have the right intuition. Dark matter is only anomaly of the dark energy.
Intergalactic space is an interesting place. When supernovas explode they scatter many atoms, which form the matter, into this intergalactic space. So we assume from supernovas that the dark matter is there, in form of atoms like iron and lighter ones. The trouble is this structure form a landscape that is more analogous to fog than to clouds, that is it is too dark to detect, or, to be more precise, to cold for our telescopes to detect. Otherwise, the astronomers have mapped the universe perfectly. They made beautiful cartography of the galaxies and all. Visible matter painted light, dark matter painted dark, it makes perfect sense that it all looks that way, like a fractal.
Every time we think we've got a handle on whats out there. The universe always bitchslapps us for our arrogance the more we discover the less. We know. We really want to put the theory of everything on hold. For the forseeable future
I wander if any of the theoretician attempted to start from unorthodox assumption, such as that gravity does not exist, as it is caused by matter, as in Einstein’s general relativity theory. What if what we now call “gravity” is an effect of acceleration, as currently we know both are indistinguishable in certain conditions? For example, as noticed by Galileo two objects moving in constant speed in the same direction do not move in relation to each other, so if these two objects are moving and accelerating in the same direction and rate then they both might assume that they are stationary in a gravitational field. What is accelerating, on what level and what is causing it, might be an another subject of theoretical research?.. mind boggling....
Sabine is brilliant. Of all the scientific community throughout the world, she is definitely closer to the discovery of Dark Matter. If only I could get acquainted with her, my research and her ability to work out all formulas would produce the Nobel Prize. Germany is not within my reach at this time.
@@steveaspen6773 You can just email her I'm sure. But you should check and make sure research is top notch and written in a standard format so she can evaluate it.
The Wolfram Physics Project model has space as the only substance. If true then dark matter is simply structured space (vacuum energy). Dark energy on the other hand I believe is a redundant concept since photons can interact slightly with the vacuum energy which causes photons to lose energy over vast distances.
So, the 5% we see makes up 100% of our daily lives. Like Newton's laws they worked for most observations in our daily lives. Mercury's orbit however, did not fit Newton's equations. Einstein and relativity fixed that. Now relativity in some extreme situations is not adequate and shall be superseded eventually if we have adequate brain power as humans.
This is good Common Sense thinking It's funny I think most people are completely unaware of how much accurate knowledge is securely within our grasps And what a change this is because for thousands of years people lived with in accurate knowledge Obviously superstitions and pseudoscience are still a problem in today's world But the good news is we have incredibly accurate knowledge that in my opinion will prove to be correct for ever into the future Yes technology and science will continue to be refined and improved. But just like you said Newton's equations are still very relevant and accurate within a limited domain. Our current understanding will still be accurate a million years from now It's not like in a million years we will say that atomic theory was inaccurate. The same goes for Quantum field Theory DNA theory of evolution germ theory of disease cellular understanding of biology, molecular biology, and so many other avenues of current science None of these branches of science will shown to be grossly inaccurate. They will be revised and improved upon but they will still hold a great deal of accuracy within certain domains. Most people don't understand what an incredible achievement this is.
@@origins7298 Pseudoscience works well today because you can make all kinds of claims about things (quantum physics) that do not interact with us at the macro level. Testing those claims is difficult. If you know the science to any degree you realize it is kooky. Agreed there is a base of science that we just continue to build on hypothesis --> experiment --> theory --> hypothesis --> experiment. It seems the challenge we are running into is two fold A) at the very small the energies required to study and look for particles is now huge and financially not feasible to build B) at the very large distances the granularity of the data coming in is at its limit (I saw talk on this I did not quite understand) something to do with the inverse square law I am sure. I find I speak with otherwise, intelligent people, yet, because they are not into cosmology and theoretical physics their ideas of how things work at the very small and very large can be very misguided or just plain ignorant. Yet, they are very successful because these things have nothing to do with every day life. In fact, I find that cosmology, theoretical physics, neuroscience and consciousness some of the most fascinating and pointless topic at the same time. Black holes, and brain scans while miraculous will never have any bearing on whether I get up and go to work tomorrow or not.
AW Crowe, not like Earth and climate studies, eh. If some of what these sciences say is true, your getting up and going to work may be a temporary phenomenon. Talk about relevance.
Can galaxies hold together wih additional mass coming from dust ions and smaller objects as it appears to be much more than we thought ? Voyager 1&2 confirm there is much more we thought even clise to heliosphere. Is 80% of mass only dust ions and small invisible objects ?
The whole problem with your model is the notion that the entire universe can expand. If you get rid of just that assumption then the expansion of any dark energy would have the effect of dark matter since it wouldn't have anywhere to go and would therefore crush back in on itself wherever it could because of some slippage. This slippage is a sort of circular motion in the substance, a vortex called gravity. You can either proceed from there, or continue with an impossible and completely mystical assumption. If you do assume this an expansion into nothing though, you can't blame others for inventing the dragons on those imaginary borders of the universe.
TO ANYONE WHO HAS ANY SORT OF CLUE ABOUT THE GALAXY ROTATION CURVE PROBLEM: Can this not just be the result of mis-calcutions of the size/dimensions of the universe, and these galaxies are much closer to earth? Due to scale invariance you can pull the galaxy closer to earth and shrink it accordingly and surely there will be a point where the velocity of the total galaxy matches gravity. I have never heard of anyone considering that we may have the dimensions wrong, they just keep adding something/nothing to the system to make the numbers match, so if anyone is mathematically familiar with the GRC Problem please can you try a quick calculation and treat the 5% known matter (4.5% hydrogen and 0.5% stars and planets) as 100% of the system, which will rescale the total observable universe, but what would that calculate to be reduced from 8.8×1026 m diameter? Can anyone help me or at least guide me as I have done a basic calculation but the numbers look too small?
I don't think the scale will change anything. The rotation curve issue is due to not observing enough luminosity to explain the movement of stars on the outer edges of the universe. If you change the scale, both the scale of which you observe the luminosity in the inner regions of the galaxy and the scale of the stars on the outer regions of the galaxy change accordingly. (unless of course I am misunderstanding what you are trying to argue, which is very likely!)
@@joshyman221 The error as I understand is that the spin of the galaxy was mismatching according to the theories of gravity. So the further from the centre of the galaxy the gravity would/should decrease and the outer edge should "spray off" similar to spinning a wet tennis ball. What they observed is the outer edge is not spraying off its held tightly in place as if the velocity at the centre of the galaxy is similar to the outer edge and the conclusions I see from it are either: 1/. There is some invisible "dark matter" glue sticking keeping them all together 2/. Dimensions are wrong I see most physicists always talking about the dark stuff that no one has directly evidenced, but I have not seen consideration for dimensions being wrong, as if you draw the galaxy in enough, due to scale invariance the rotational velocity will have a sweet point where they match observed reality, it would just mean the galaxy is much smaller. Its a paradigm shift to say we have the universe incorrectly scaled, but the past ~90 years have been a paradigm shift to believe there is a new type of matter and energy which science has never discovered before, and we have the likes of Erik Verlinde's theory stating gravity is a manifestation of thermodynamics and dark matter does not need to exist, you have Dr Farnes from the University of Oxford saying we should liken it to electric by using a minus sign and treating the whole system as fluid, but I have not seen any physicist ask the question "What if the actual raw data we are getting IS the raw data, and there is no weird and wonderful matter and energy, it just IS the measurement and we should adapt the model to cater, not adapt the laws of physics to cater, as this goes against General Covariance". Hope that helps you understand my standpoint.
@@Gleem I think I understand you're argument better and I do think my response will suffice then. Perhaps additional clarification will come from learning about observational technique that is used to determine these speeds: redshift. This is the method of measuring the change in wavelength of light from stars moving in the galaxy and can allow one to determine the speed at which the particle moves. Changing the dimensions of the radial part of the galaxy won't have an effect due to what I explained above (in that even though it would change the speed, it would also accordingly change the mass observed and hence there would still be the disparity).
@@joshyman221 Thanks for your insight. I am fully aware of Redshift, and with it's anomalies suggested by Halton Arp. The thing is Redshift never accounted for dark energy and dark matter when constructing these distances based on light colour. The dimension change is much the same as "The sun and moon appear the same size but one is 400 times the size and 400 times the distance, giving this apparent illusion". So something a lot smaller spinning closer to us could account for the lack of "throwing the outer matter off". I understand what you are saying that "If the mass was less the gravity would be less and there would still be a discrepancy" but I beg to differ as from Machian/Relativistic viewpoint if the mass was smaller then the escape velocity of the net system would also decrease and therefore they would physically be going slower and we should not expect them to be slowed down by something, but merely are going by the recorded / measured velocity as the actual velocity, basically just treating the raw data as king and build the model around that raw data instead of building the law around the model.
@@joshyman221 if you see the galaxie as 7 circles were six of them enclose one at the center and this one in the center is made by the six arround so as this center one rotates so will the others, click in my channel to see the wheel roll i love to imagen them roll man.
@@takanara7 I didn't realise there was a girl anywhere in this video.. I’m sure you are not one of those misogynistic dickheads and you just mistakenly commented on the wrong video.
Could Space be more like a Medium in which matter resides/is suspended and not a Febric there is a difference, if it is a medium then we need to dismiss Einsteins Theory of Gravity on the scale of Galaxies and think about turbulence created in the medium by galaxies whirling around at great speed and the impact on that medium. Medium is the intervening substance through which sensory impressions are conveyed or physical forces are transmitted.
Wow!! Dr Hossenfelder, I admire your fearless adherence to standards of the logic and procedure of science. Is there a possibility that space-time is not only warped my matter and velocity, but is warped erratically when the Big Bang occurred. I know I'm being "mystical" and am not educated enough to dig in (MSEE).
We know photon charge interaction induce loss of photon energy. Is an alternative explanation to the obversed red shift in addition to Dopler efect. But this not only makes the picture more complicated but accordingly would mean stars are much closer ?
Ask the great sages of ancient India about the nature of Reality and the Cosmos. They will probably say "dark matter" is nothing more than the etheric template for the Universe we can perceive with our senses. That which our limited instrumentation can fathom to exist based on our relationship to Consciousness. All dimensions exist in the same "space".
Because a string theorist is seating next to Sabine Houssenfelder, thats why (even though he might not be one of the worst in her view, since he made some testable proposal). Plus, physics is in the middle of a crisis of cosmic proportions (I couldn't resist) and as the astronomer said, it is all very embarrassing that there was not much theoretical progress since the late 80's. Mean while, people speculate about building colliders under the golf of Mexico and giant telescopes in the dark side of the moon (specially the collider one, since the LHC was supposed to find much more than just the Higg's boson. That is another thing that pisses of Sabine greatly and she is vocal about it. Did you see what the guy said in the end, the last minute or so? That some of their colleges (string theorists) need to start to investigate theories that are actually about the universe we are measuring, that has a positive cosmological constant, than theories that only works in a hypothetical universe (that has negative cosmological constant). They are supposed to be physicists, not mathematicians. So there is some physics backroom drama going on.
To have a telescope on the FAR side of the moon would be problematic. Not just building it but receiving data from the telescope because there would be no line of sight. COULD use a satellite to transfer data however, if you're planning to use a satellite to transfer data, makes more sense to make a LARGE telescope IN ORBIT for a fraction of the cost. Telescope on the moon is something a physicist would suggest where an engineer would go with the satellite in space. One idea makes sense, the other idea is goofy science fiction with failing practical logistics.
You have got your brains to think deeply on everything which exists, if you noticed any explosions caused to devise the materials in a different sizes ! And any objection on space, carries some of the original materials which caused the Big Bang
🤓 Then we should see (since the big bang) an exponential lateral shift in position of all matter in the universe in one direction. Right? We don't. Right?
I didnt like the host. He didnt let Sabine talk as much as the others. And he ends with "You mostly agree broadly". I didnt feel like Sabine would agree with that.
I do not "believe" Verlindes rather lazy approach is the answer. General Relativity has been tested and tested and tested... I think we're going to have to, no matter WHAT, figure out Quantum Gravity before we can even attempt to understand Dark Matter AND Dark Energy.
Now they have tested general relativity by taking a photo of a black hole. From what I've seen there's no black hole at all. And with that, the theory is wrong. Unless they can come up with a better image.
@@alexanderhugestrand How does one take a picture of a Black hole? The Event horizon project is still going thru the data. Else then that I don't see how we could get an image of an Black Hole via the Optical spectrum... Radio/XRay maybe but how get an image except of the accretion disk? www.astronomy.com/news/2019/02/astronomers-map-a-black-hole-using-echoes-of-light
@@Raydensheraj All I know is that they have used telescopes all around the world to get a picture of the "black hole" Sagittarius A* at the center of our galaxy. They have gathered all the data and are now trying to stitch it all together. The first image is shared by Anton Petrov in this video: ua-cam.com/video/TiKNMvEnpbQ/v-deo.html
Dark energy is energy that consists entirely of bs. Both General Relativity and quantum mechanics utilize the erroneous equation E=hv (or E=hf) where E is energy in Joules, h is Planck's constant in Joule*seconds, and v (or f) is the frequency of light in Hertz. This is an unbalanced mathematical equation when unit analysis is performed. The unit analysis of the Hertz is cycles per second. So we end up with Joules=(Joules*seconds)*(cycles/second) which reduces to Joules=Joules*cycles. This is a fundamental error that has made a mess of physics. This is how they turned a wave into a particle, aka quantized a wave. Everything that follows from this error is just more error.
hertz is not cycles/s. Hz = s^-1 = 1/s, also called reciprocal second. You are confusing ordinary frequency with angular frequency. Actually, this confusion is exactly why the unit Hz was invented, to substitute the older cycles per second. So we use Hz for frequency and rad/s to measure angular frequency (cycle is kind of a angular measure). Another way to look at this is understand the word "cycle" there as a count. 1 Hertz means "one occurrence per second". It is like frequency in statistics, where it represents occurrence. And, obviously, "occurrence" is not a unit. That way there is no confusion. Hope this helped.
@@Alkis05 It didn't. The Hertz unit is the unit of frequency. A frequency is a count of a number of cyclical events or "cycles" per a specific amount of time. Frequency is not the "inverse of time" like you are claiming. The cycles are physical measurements that cannot be just discarded indiscriminately or willy nilly. In the case of Max Planck's derivation of Planck's constant, h, he was literally counting light waves per second. The light waves were the cycle. This was the only measurement taken. To throw out this information is the same as throwing out the unit of measurement for the entire experiment and it makes the measurement itself meaningless. I hope this helps.
@@Alkis05 If the Hertz unit was what you say it is, the unit for velocity is meter*Hertz and the unit for acceleration is meter* Hertz^2. Makes no sense at all.
@@wesbaumguardner8829 Sure, if you want to make things more obscure than they are, I guess you can always use an unintuitive unit. But, sure, you can think like that, if you want. For example: Let's say you are a roman soldier and you are in march. Each step has a very definite length, since you are a disciplined soldier. How are they able to keep the same speed and move orderly? They keep the same frequency of steps. Actually the expression "double time" means doubling the frequency of steps to double the speed. They even use music to help keep their rhythm synchronized. In rome, mile had a 2000 steps (it was actually called a half-step), and they marched a league per hour, that is 3 miles/h. So you could define their standard marching speed as 1 step at 100bpm, or 1.23 m*Hz (using the roman feet of 0.296m), or 4.43 Km/h There you have it.
The quest for dark matter and energy has some similarities to the quest of ether. In the end, it will also be solved with a new paradigm, not with more experiments and observations (Zwicky's question has not been changed!)
I think that higgs particle even does not exist and that gravity is not a force. I also think that space is not a media. Even not homogenous. If it expands outside matter, what is with space inside it?
Hydrogen binds into nebulae into stars and galaxies. This is the path of all matter. Some stars collapse/condense into neutron stars. This the next phase change of matter. This is the highest energy density allowable. The gravity of surface of neutron star is almost c. More mass falls in and there is an inversion. The photons are , because of gravity , moving 90deg from usual. Their frequency has been increased to Planck frequency. The neutrons fall into themselves at c. The photons form a shell/membrane on the surface inducing the same mass field as the neutrons had. They are energy in orbit, at c, which being infinitesimally thin induces inertia momentum c^2. m=E/c^2. Energy in orbit is mass. The neutrons fall through the single Planck moment of time and emerge as antimatter on the other side of manifold. But since all values are reversed viewed from the other side of membrane all the antimatter that just manifested in antimatter realm that antimatter in antimatter universe appears as matter, neutrons, on our side. Even though the passage of hamiltonians seems over a Klein bottle, and thus there should be all this antimatter falling into our universe, because time is infinitesimal all values on one side of temporal membrane are continuously present as inversions on other side. The neutrons which fell into event horizon re-emerge in lowest energy regions of space. Least energy, least curve. Deep void regions of space. The neutrons emerge, and then decay into hydrogen. The volume of a single neutron is tiny. The volume of a hydrogen atom including electron cloud? As big as it is allowed to be. This difference in volume between emerging neutrons and their decay remnants, gaseous atomic hydrogen, is the expansive dark energy. Each atom has electron field exterior. Like charges repel. Dark energy is electrostatic repulsion between all the non ionized particles. Diffusion. Gravity and ionic/magnetic coupling and binding slowly bring the decayed neutrons, hydrogen, along that path again. H nebula star neutron star black hole. A continuous flow. Apply an EisteinDicke parameter to explain Hubble curvature and cmb.
Ch=299792458*6.62607*10^-34 vacuum energy equal to 4.9154 time proton’s mass (1.67262*10^-27(kg))per cube meter is dark energy belong to de sitter expanding space under critical mass(5.99).
If dark energy exists, then everything is made from the same dark energy (i.e. the 5% of matter). However, because we have no clue what dark energy is and all matter is made from it, we have no clue what matter is either. So it follows we have 100% no clue about anything.
All these brilliant minds yet no answer. Why? Because only the galaxies are expanding, not the whole universe. Space can't push a galaxy. They are expanding because they were a result of a collision between two giant objects at an astronomical speed in a static universe. It's no different than pieces of a car in a car crash. The atmosphere isn't expanding the car pieces, the impact is. It's so friggin simple.
I’m afraid that in discussions of dark matter and dark energy, I would come across as the cosmological equivalent of a flat earther. There has to be a simpler explanation. . . I would posit that there is a very serious problem with the distance ladder.
@@AndrewBlucher Physics grew out of everyday, common-sensical observations. Are you saying that those observations aren't the proper subject matter of physics?
@@galek75 No. Physics is a mathematical explanation of those observations. Until we have a mathematical explanation we only have ideas. A mathematically well described idea is called a theory. A worthwhile theory makes predictions. When the predictions are found to be accurate the theory gains credence.
@@AndrewBlucher Mathematics doesn't explain anything lol. It just another level of description. And that it *must* be mathematical should be backed up, lest you fall into complete naivete.
It’s not about Dark matter, it is about structure. *Galactic rotation phenomena has been resolved and No dark matter is necessary! (The case of an elephant in the room).* Dark matter need not exist, there is an underlying web structure (skeletal like) within every galaxy, the web network is made of Plasma filaments.This phenomenon has been predicted by plasma physicist. See Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995.) see the galactic web www.abc.net.au/reslib/201109/r834402_7721995.jpg *These plasma filaments Form Elongated structures that can undulate in space and also induces Periodic clusters (cloud like clumps) within the length of the filament .* Considering that 99% of the luminous matter is plasma not gas, but unfortunately Plasma physics has mostly been ignored by the astrophysicist Community, but Physicists Have been working with plasma for decades. Nevertheless, this Astrophysical-plasma Has been acknowledged by some to Exist outside of the Solar System.The accepted view of scientists is that much of the baryonic matter in the universe exists in this state (plasma). science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast07sep99_1 Due to the abundance to plasma (99%) its Dynamics should play in important roll in Astrophysics and its properties and structural specifications should be considered.. see: Hannes Alfvén, Cosmic Plasma, (1981). Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 82 (1981) Springer Verlag. ISBN 90-277-1151-8. *Structural properties of plasma filaments* Note: these cosmic filaments Have an internal structure (tubular structure) with some degree of rigidity, analogous to the collagen in biology. Collagen forms fibrils that provide the structure in biological systems, and Plasma filaments provides structure in the galactic scale. These Plasma Filaments form web like structure which gives some structural Rigidity to galaxies and the cohesiveness of the structures are 40 order of magnitude above gravity, with Relatively low density and are transparent a light. All of these properties meet the requirement for dark matter. See Biological fibers filaments s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images/wp-content/uploads/sites/1223/2017/01/31001814/Figure_33_02_06-e1485822088926.jpg See cosmic filaments ucrtoday.ucr.edu/25894/cosmic-web
![Gravity and the universe | Sabine Hossenfelder, Erik Verlinde, Priyamvada Natarajan [FULL DEBATE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1j0Xh9XM34M/mqdefault.jpg)
Sabine appears to want to rip the other's throats out, but tries so very hard not to. Love her.
Wonder how she feels now that the theory has been disproved based on the fact that the data used was doctored to fit the model... She even has a more recent video released yesterday with the guy who was in the team who debunked it...
@@EyeIn_The_Sky Not sure it's been "disproved" although some big holes might have been shot into it.
@@EyeIn_The_Sky It's not been disproved, it's just been shown that the evidence is not as compelling as we were led to believe, right?
Sabine always looks like that 😋
She is hilarious
20:30 reminds me what my professor of theoretical physics used to said, that there are two ways of doing physics: one is rigorously, the other is vigorously.
Stefano Pinchetti
Too many parameters (Dark matter/dark energy) = a whole lot of BS.
ThisIsMyRealName So, what is your hypothesis?
In order to make certain predictions work.
Two parameters are added: 1) Dark matter and 2) Dark energy
These are the parameters that physicists are constantly quantifying. There is so much of this and so much of that.
ThisIsMyRealName
I really doubt you have ever or will ever reach the level of education that I have. “LOL”
@@Nostradamus_Order33
Or the theory you derive your answers from is wrong, which would also explain why you have to add 95% of the universe, and then say its also invisible, to make the theory work..
Wonderful discussion. I also apprecieated the contentions that some of the speakers raised against each another's ideas and research. Disagreeing with each other where there is merit to do so may be equally as enlightening as it is dramatic.
A great discussion. All sides were talked about, all made suggestions for improvement. What more can we expect! They are all trying to advance our knowledge.
Agreed!
Knowledge of whats not there. Is not prove of nothing or something.. what you imagine you can see ... that is the nature of a creative mind a creative universe..
You pay for it then
I like Erik Verlinde. These negative comments about him are uncalled for. All he is saying is that we need to look at gravity differently; we need another approach/paradigm. He isn't saying his theory is absolutely correct for sure. He acknowledges many others are also working on new theories to better explain the phenomenon. I like outliners in science. Scientific consensus fossilizes science. It is bad science.
@Jan96106 i agree. I wonder what contribution that Sabine has made aside criticisms
Sabine is that person everyone hates because she shits on their stupid parade. Her brand of skepticism is to be admired.
I'm a massive 'fan boy' of her whole approach ... Ecology could really use her as an antidote to ill-informed government and activists. Her stuff on EV's and Nuclear was absolutely bang-on in my op, I've been going about 'zero carbon' being a bit of a ruse for ages.
Easier criticizing than making your contribution 😂
Everyone polite and humble.
Sabine enters: "I'm taking offense with the question"...😁
Dude Sabine! First time seeing her in a Brian Greene style conference like this. One of my favorite physicists.
I am pondering some hypothesis and need some advice/help.
QUESTION : How can I test / verify / check these hypothesis? Is there an existing answer? How can I build the apparatus for test #2 safely?
GR implies no energy conservation. expansion red-shift destroys energy.
Dark energy creates new space. Empty space has vacuum energy, so this is creating energy.
Hypothesis 1 : expansion red-shift of certain energies(eg photons) has space-energy conservation. space to energy / energy to space conversion is occurring, and if you factor in space as energy there is conservation.
Test 1:
a)check if the there is any variance in expansion rate between regions of space-time
b)Check if expansion rate and energy passing/radiating through regions of space is correlated.
Hypothesis 2 : All red/blue shifting includes an energy to space conversion. While traveling at high speed if light is emitted forward it is blue shifted and converts some space into energy, emit light backwards and it creates space. This may act similar in principal to a warp drive.
*I realize number 2 is a bit ridiculous because the gained/lost energy of the photon should be accounted for by momentum gain/loss, but perhaps there is a space-energy conversion component.
Test 2: 1)arrange a time dilation test by accelerating a time counter. Sandwich it between 2 powerful LED arrays, one facing forward and on facing backwards. check if time dilation is affected when light is emitted forward and/or backwards.
I realize these are quite out there. And GR guys keep yelling at me "GR means no energy conservation" as if that answers my question.
For test 1 I am having trouble finding data. Will I have to calculate these myself? Are there any maps of expansion rates over time? is dark energy proved to be uniform throughout space or just assumed so?
-Is there some good data to help me get started (estimated historical expansion rates for regions of space, estimated radiation energy passing through regions of space)?
-Has anyone already looked into this or is there some literature that can explain why this hypothesis is wrong?
For test 2 I can easily build timers to compare, lights, and a spinning device. But I will need at least 1km/s and even then I would probably need to spin a 60cm disc at 1khz for days just get a single sample.
-Anyone have suggestions for how I can induce velocity time dilation reasonably? I assume spinning is my only reasonable option.
-can someone suggest a reasonable way to DIY a terahertz frequency timer for this application? (Mhz easy, GHz doable, THz I'm unclear)
-is there no real hope and s should I just submit the experiment to NASA or something?
-is this idea ridiculous? why?
A more theoretical disproof also works, but not just "GR means no energy conservation", something more specific to this hypothesis would be preferable.
Is there a better way to test this?
Thank you kindly in advance, Matthew DeBlock
I don’t have an answer for you but I do know a theoretical physicist who used to work with Dr. Verlinde and who might be able to give you some direction, but I have no way to copy your comment. If you could copy the comment and send it to my email, I would forward it for you. klwong43atgmaildotcom
One insight from this debate: Sabine Hossenfelder seems to be completely right in her criticicm of the current state of the scientific community, physics in general. Catherine Heymans (at least the way she presented herself in this debate) is the living example for everything that is wrong in modern physics. Just a personal thought.
I completely agree
I don't think that is quite fair. Sabine has criticized particle physicists that want to build much bigger colliders without really any guarantee that something will be found. Catherine's big telescope proposal would certainly find lots of new stuff, you can be guaranteed of that.
@@andyiswonderful No doubt about that. But I think it is problematic, when a (persumably) senior scientist waters down a somewhat serious debate to a level of a general TEDx presentation. I cannot take a scientist seriously, who acts permanently overexcited about commonly known trivia. An enthusiastic undergrad, OK, but not a serious scientist. It worsens the credibility crisis of modern science.
@Daniel Paulson I think it may come to this: There's a saying that if all you have is a hammer, you likely see every problem as a nail. All she has are telescopes and colliders.
I'm a guy and I've seen lots and lots and lots and - well you get the idea - of these talks.. Seldom do I see a panel with more female then male, thumbs up.
What pushes the universe apart is the intrinsic expansion of the universe that transforms the self- gravitational potential energy into ever increasing the kinetic energy like a compressed spring accelerates as it expands.
Yes, but the elephant in the room wasn't even mentioned: expansion as an explanation of the hubble constant which is just the slope of the line made when graphing distance with redshift. Why jump on such an impossible notion as expansion in the first place? Yes, the further light travels, the more redshifted it is. So there are other explanations far more palatable for this, than coming up with expansion and consequently dark energy.The entire LCDM paradigm is in question.
My dad used to say to me when I was a little kid trying to draw trees ...son...rather than look at the leaves ,look at the spaces inbetween the leaves.
A theorist's mission is not to rip on anyone but to come up with affirming hypotheses that seek to describe reality.
Tonight I asked God about the BM and BE riddles.
HE answered me ! -and gave me the right solution oh boy, a weird idea indeed! HE graciously confided also some good hints on the unification of GR and QM...
Unfortunately, the space in this screen is too small to write it down.
The "smug" cosmologists should read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Then they'd realize they are stuck in a paradigm which is sinking fast but because that paradigm has proved its worth in CERTAIN observations and because they have sanctified Einstein and his math and because they currently have no other explanations it's like they've become like a priest-of-old whose certainty was about "god" was decidedly smug.
You can be sure that they all have.
I loved the comment buried away in this discussion about The LHC, "It's wonderful and it discovered The Higgs Boson, but actually it hasn't discovered anything else so far," and it should have done and even then the discovery of the Higgs was a bit of a fudge and even now it still hasn't been confirmed to same stranded of accuracy that all the other Standard Models particles have been.
The money for the LHC could have feed a lot of starving children, and now they want a bigger one costing even more money? Not to mention the trillions of dollars already spent on science since they invented the BOMB!!..
Where are our priorities???....
@@tiemiahu9947
Ah yes, always those poor starving children ?
If some of the NGOs paid themselves less and were better disbursing the money they already have then that would be a better start.
The problem with LHC is that it hasn't really delivered the goods, they had to move the goalposts even to get the discovery of the Higgs Boson accepted and since then non of other stuff they were anticipating has shown up.
There's clearly something wrong/missing from our in many ways highly successful model of the physical universe, but until we have a better idea of what it is just hitting stuff with an ever bigger, "hammer," may not yield any useful results ?
@@Eris123451 Yeah thats true, our world is surely corrupt, but I expected a lot more from the science community, they have the knowledge to solve the problems of the world, but all their funding comes in to promote discovering the mysteries of space, I suspect for Americas race for Universe Domination, but also in the development of new methods for technology so big companies can become even richer?
But what about global warming, safe food production and the development of better materials. Fair enough to say they are constricted by where and what they are funded for, So those science fields that don't get the big funding are left to struggle, while the areas that make the rich even richer get all the funding, It's just not right.
As for what's missing in their calculations or in more particular their models of the universe, I made a comment and gave a suggestion, did you read it? Check it out, and give me some feedback. I'm right into these science videos, they've helped me to understand and explain what I know in a more scientific way, instead of gobblygook, ha ha...
Thanks for your response Eris, good stuff.
Great and very informative video!
0:47 She smiled! 😱
Thats hilarious.
Einstein X ........gosh, I missed that!
I laughed to hard at this XDD
A sarcastic smile.
Regarding the title.. seems most of the discussion was on Dark Matter, not Dark Energy. I've heard Sabine on a podcast where she mentions that Dark Energy isn't very mysterious, however I haven't heard her describe exactly how this energy comes about that is causing the universe to accelerate.
Bro, I'm no scientist, but it's because their theory about the expansion is all wrong and they know it, even though their spectroscopic estimations of velocity are fairly reliable within our galaxy, but when used to measure the far distant galaxcies further out, they are off by more than one hundred miles a second for every million light years increase in distance. Also they say nothing goes faster then light, then they come up with the expansion speed at a rate of an unbelievable 30,000 miles a second???... Read the Urantia Book bro, science is on the right track , but they got the wrong model.
She specializes in criticizing not making her own theory😂
Wonderful discussion, my favorite part at the beginning , the one gal states , mabey what all these observations are telling us is mabey we are missing some very fundamental pieces of the puzzle.
Spot on ! Keep working on it , I have no doubt we will learn more in time. We need patience.
*Vern:* You think Mighty Mouse could beat up Superman?
*Teddy:* What are you, cracked?
*Vern:* No, I saw him on TV the other day, he was holding five elephants in one hand.
*Teddy:* Boy, you don't know nothing. Mighty Mouse is a cartoon. Superman's a real guy. There's no way a cartoon could beat up a real guy.
*Vern:* I guess you're right. It'd be a good fight though.
Stand By Me!
Stand By Me!
A hilarious continuation of the Solvay Physics Conference of 1927 infamous ‘Herding of cats film’…none of the participants touched om many of numerous semi-oblivious 800 pound gorilla-like physics problems that unquestionably exist in this talk . Erik hits the preverbal nail on the head at Minute 13: 30 …long story short - we don't know!….INVERSION physics is one of those 800 pound gorillas that should be examined more…
A very interesting group of speakers on a top matter. Great!
Just skip to Hossenfleder
she said she is a scientist that is into predictions :))) what a clown
Knowledge or reason exists and it also expresses the properties each existence possesses. It depends on the variable standards of truth, proof and evidence you wish to apply wither the knowledge is adequate for it's objective purposes or not. Knowledge always appears in a certain defined standardised form. Once a standard has been set and agreed that provides a platform to raise the standard or improve the knowledge. It's a moving target so it's subject to continuous assessment. There's a history being made.
Sabine Hossenfelder, you are awesome! I have to go back to one of your other videos where you talk about dark energy. Is the Universe really expanding or are there problems with the observations or something else entirely?
It is all electric. Everything has magnetic fields, therefore there must exist an electric current. I do understand the arguments against this theory, however, and simply because the timeline of creation cannot be determined or the place of the power is generated cannot be pinpointed does not change the fact that: in order to have a magnetic field, there must be a current. As well as plasma cosmology describes our universe, the Electric Universe can fully fill in the blanks. I firmly believe that nature has been used to describe the math, whereas the math is supposed to describe the nature. I believe science has allowed the mathematics to create an alleged universe, not explained the universe with equations of man's creation. Nature has, and always will take the path of least resistance(my meaning: nature is not complicated while being complicated). And, this only took me 40 years to realise some of these things...... Sabine is very intelligent, yet she is living dangerously when she questions the big money science wheels, but I am glad someone is beginning to do so.
@@waylonwebb3053 Of course you realize that the electric universe is pure quackery intended to prop up a cult and explains nothing whatsoever. It's word salad, not some great theory.
@@waylonwebb3053
Everything useful from the "electric model" was incorporated into the standard model while ago..
Is dark matter just another theoretical patch to cover up that GR is not universally true (Verlinde's hypothesis I suppose)? Or does this matter really exist, and GR is universal? Or a combination of both? We cannot answer the question which hypothesis is true, just by observing gravitic interaction, and since there is no electromagnetic radiation emitted by 'dark' matter apparently, the question remains unanswered. Ockham's razor is in favour of Eric Verlinde's hypothesis because it is the simplest explanation for the observations, that is all.
SHUT THAT DOOR
Was dark energy opeing the door and dark matter trying to close it?
Is it possible that the constant production of virtual particles in "empty" space could account for both dark matter and dark energy -- dark matter for the gravitational effects of the virtual matter, and dark energy for the expansionist effect of the virtual particles exerting pressure on each other. Okay, I'm not a physicist, and this is probably ridiculous for any number of reasons -- just putting it out there.
We need to understand how our energy works in the system in which we are incorporated into the greater whole of a dimensional variety. In engineering and science, dimensional analysis is the analysis of the relationships between different physical quantities by their base quantities (such as length, mass, time, and electric current) and units of measure (such as miles versus kilometers or pounds versus kilograms) and tracking these measurements as calculations or comparisons are performed. Length, mass, time, temperature / pressure and load related to gravity and distance, weight, time (cause of gravity), temperature / pressure (bubble point and dew point with gravitational circumstances) and load (gravity with energy and dark energy). Therefore, we need to understand the common relationship of gravity, space and time that is in weak (and temporal) existence down to dark energy, if any.
Sabine is great. But thanks Jupiter that she became a physicist instead of joining Germany's Foreign Ministery and becoming a diplomat. Her bluntness sometimes approaches Sheldon's level
Sometimes you are left with no choice but to wander in the dark.
To sit and do nothing at all, will guarantee that you find nothing.
29:55 “Mapping all the killer asteroids that might obliterate planet Earth, don’t worry you’re safe”
Safe that we will know it’s coming and that’s about as safe as we will ever be from this threat.
By the time the last theme was introduced, I didn care what anybody had to say about it, I only wanted to know what was the deal with that damn door!
Too bad Catherine Heymans speaking that much on non physic matter. Waisted time
I drop listening middle of her creed explanation.
Too bad because Sabine and Erik have interesting thing to say
Physics begins with observations, not assumptions.
25:26 Sabine scoffing and gesturing with her hand lmao
You sure it’s 25:26?
You sure it's 25:26?
There are, apparently, two major sources of mass in the universe: the strong nuclear force and the Higgs Mechanism. This makes me wont to think that there might well be a similar pair of relationships between "dark energy" and "dark matter,," both of which are only hinted at but remain undetected and largely unexplained.
Maybe if it do not emit radiation and it has mass it can be defined as dark matter…???
The cosmological principle for uniform and isotopic universe is not correct. The dark mater is little difference of the vacuum energy in same zones of cosmos. The different quantity of virtual particles made the gravity and different flow of time speed. Erik have the right intuition. Dark matter is only anomaly of the dark energy.
Intergalactic space is an interesting place. When supernovas explode they scatter many atoms, which form the matter, into this intergalactic space. So we assume from supernovas that the dark matter is there, in form of atoms like iron and lighter ones. The trouble is this structure form a landscape that is more analogous to fog than to clouds, that is it is too dark to detect, or, to be more precise, to cold for our telescopes to detect.
Otherwise, the astronomers have mapped the universe perfectly. They made beautiful cartography of the galaxies and all. Visible matter painted light, dark matter painted dark, it makes perfect sense that it all looks that way, like a fractal.
Every time we think we've got a handle on whats out there. The universe always bitchslapps us for our arrogance the more we discover the less. We know. We really want to put the theory of everything on hold. For the forseeable future
i swear i get nothing new from these debates
I wander if any of the theoretician attempted to start from unorthodox assumption, such as that gravity does not exist, as it is caused by matter, as in Einstein’s general relativity theory. What if what we now call “gravity” is an effect of acceleration, as currently we know both are indistinguishable in certain conditions? For example, as noticed by Galileo two objects moving in constant speed in the same direction do not move in relation to each other, so if these two objects are moving and accelerating in the same direction and rate then they both might assume that they are stationary in a gravitational field. What is accelerating, on what level and what is causing it, might be an another subject of theoretical research?.. mind boggling....
Great discussion. Thanks for sharing.
Sabine is intimidating.
Sabine is brilliant. Of all the scientific community throughout the world, she is definitely closer to the discovery of Dark Matter. If only I could get acquainted with her, my research and her ability to work out all formulas would produce the Nobel Prize.
Germany is not within my reach at this time.
She is brillian and ruthless and an amazing electro musician. You should check out her channel!
she is not intimidating
@@steveaspen6773 You can just email her I'm sure. But you should check and make sure research is top notch and written in a standard format so she can evaluate it.
@@takanara7 I don't have her email.
Thank you
The Wolfram Physics Project model has space as the only substance. If true then dark matter is simply structured space (vacuum energy). Dark energy on the other hand I believe is a redundant concept since photons can interact slightly with the vacuum energy which causes photons to lose energy over vast distances.
So, the 5% we see makes up 100% of our daily lives.
Like Newton's laws they worked for most observations in our daily lives. Mercury's orbit however, did not fit Newton's equations. Einstein and relativity fixed that. Now relativity in some extreme situations is not adequate and shall be superseded eventually if we have adequate brain power as humans.
This is good Common Sense thinking
It's funny I think most people are completely unaware of how much accurate knowledge is securely within our grasps
And what a change this is because for thousands of years people lived with in accurate knowledge
Obviously superstitions and pseudoscience are still a problem in today's world
But the good news is we have incredibly accurate knowledge that in my opinion will prove to be correct for ever into the future
Yes technology and science will continue to be refined and improved. But just like you said Newton's equations are still very relevant and accurate within a limited domain. Our current understanding will still be accurate a million years from now
It's not like in a million years we will say that atomic theory was inaccurate. The same goes for Quantum field Theory DNA theory of evolution germ theory of disease cellular understanding of biology, molecular biology, and so many other avenues of current science
None of these branches of science will shown to be grossly inaccurate. They will be revised and improved upon but they will still hold a great deal of accuracy within certain domains. Most people don't understand what an incredible achievement this is.
@@origins7298 Pseudoscience works well today because you can make all kinds of claims about things (quantum physics) that do not interact with us at the macro level. Testing those claims is difficult. If you know the science to any degree you realize it is kooky.
Agreed there is a base of science that we just continue to build on hypothesis --> experiment --> theory --> hypothesis --> experiment. It seems the challenge we are running into is two fold A) at the very small the energies required to study and look for particles is now huge and financially not feasible to build B) at the very large distances the granularity of the data coming in is at its limit (I saw talk on this I did not quite understand) something to do with the inverse square law I am sure.
I find I speak with otherwise, intelligent people, yet, because they are not into cosmology and theoretical physics their ideas of how things work at the very small and very large can be very misguided or just plain ignorant. Yet, they are very successful because these things have nothing to do with every day life.
In fact, I find that cosmology, theoretical physics, neuroscience and consciousness some of the most fascinating and pointless topic at the same time. Black holes, and brain scans while miraculous will never have any bearing on whether I get up and go to work tomorrow or not.
AW Crowe, not like Earth and climate studies, eh. If some of what these sciences say is true, your getting up and going to work may be a temporary phenomenon. Talk about relevance.
The Dutch scientist is the only one who actually looks embarrassed.
5% is the matter and 95% is the power of expantion of territory the mass posses.
Can galaxies hold together wih additional mass coming from dust ions and smaller objects as it appears to be much more than we thought ? Voyager 1&2 confirm there is much more we thought even clise to heliosphere. Is 80% of mass only dust ions and small invisible objects ?
The two women are fantastic!
The whole problem with your model is the notion that the entire universe can expand. If you get rid of just that assumption then the expansion of any dark energy would have the effect of dark matter since it wouldn't have anywhere to go and would therefore crush back in on itself wherever it could because of some slippage. This slippage is a sort of circular motion in the substance, a vortex called gravity. You can either proceed from there, or continue with an impossible and completely mystical assumption. If you do assume this an expansion into nothing though, you can't blame others for inventing the dragons on those imaginary borders of the universe.
TO ANYONE WHO HAS ANY SORT OF CLUE ABOUT THE GALAXY ROTATION CURVE PROBLEM:
Can this not just be the result of mis-calcutions of the size/dimensions of the universe, and these galaxies are much closer to earth? Due to scale invariance you can pull the galaxy closer to earth and shrink it accordingly and surely there will be a point where the velocity of the total galaxy matches gravity. I have never heard of anyone considering that we may have the dimensions wrong, they just keep adding something/nothing to the system to make the numbers match, so if anyone is mathematically familiar with the GRC Problem please can you try a quick calculation and treat the 5% known matter (4.5% hydrogen and 0.5% stars and planets) as 100% of the system, which will rescale the total observable universe, but what would that calculate to be reduced from 8.8×1026 m diameter? Can anyone help me or at least guide me as I have done a basic calculation but the numbers look too small?
I don't think the scale will change anything. The rotation curve issue is due to not observing enough luminosity to explain the movement of stars on the outer edges of the universe. If you change the scale, both the scale of which you observe the luminosity in the inner regions of the galaxy and the scale of the stars on the outer regions of the galaxy change accordingly. (unless of course I am misunderstanding what you are trying to argue, which is very likely!)
@@joshyman221 The error as I understand is that the spin of the galaxy was mismatching according to the theories of gravity. So the further from the centre of the galaxy the gravity would/should decrease and the outer edge should "spray off" similar to spinning a wet tennis ball. What they observed is the outer edge is not spraying off its held tightly in place as if the velocity at the centre of the galaxy is similar to the outer edge and the conclusions I see from it are either:
1/. There is some invisible "dark matter" glue sticking keeping them all together
2/. Dimensions are wrong
I see most physicists always talking about the dark stuff that no one has directly evidenced, but I have not seen consideration for dimensions being wrong, as if you draw the galaxy in enough, due to scale invariance the rotational velocity will have a sweet point where they match observed reality, it would just mean the galaxy is much smaller. Its a paradigm shift to say we have the universe incorrectly scaled, but the past ~90 years have been a paradigm shift to believe there is a new type of matter and energy which science has never discovered before, and we have the likes of Erik Verlinde's theory stating gravity is a manifestation of thermodynamics and dark matter does not need to exist, you have Dr Farnes from the University of Oxford saying we should liken it to electric by using a minus sign and treating the whole system as fluid, but I have not seen any physicist ask the question "What if the actual raw data we are getting IS the raw data, and there is no weird and wonderful matter and energy, it just IS the measurement and we should adapt the model to cater, not adapt the laws of physics to cater, as this goes against General Covariance". Hope that helps you understand my standpoint.
@@Gleem I think I understand you're argument better and I do think my response will suffice then. Perhaps additional clarification will come from learning about observational technique that is used to determine these speeds: redshift. This is the method of measuring the change in wavelength of light from stars moving in the galaxy and can allow one to determine the speed at which the particle moves.
Changing the dimensions of the radial part of the galaxy won't have an effect due to what I explained above (in that even though it would change the speed, it would also accordingly change the mass observed and hence there would still be the disparity).
@@joshyman221 Thanks for your insight. I am fully aware of Redshift, and with it's anomalies suggested by Halton Arp. The thing is Redshift never accounted for dark energy and dark matter when constructing these distances based on light colour.
The dimension change is much the same as "The sun and moon appear the same size but one is 400 times the size and 400 times the distance, giving this apparent illusion". So something a lot smaller spinning closer to us could account for the lack of "throwing the outer matter off". I understand what you are saying that "If the mass was less the gravity would be less and there would still be a discrepancy" but I beg to differ as from Machian/Relativistic viewpoint if the mass was smaller then the escape velocity of the net system would also decrease and therefore they would physically be going slower and we should not expect them to be slowed down by something, but merely are going by the recorded / measured velocity as the actual velocity, basically just treating the raw data as king and build the model around that raw data instead of building the law around the model.
@@joshyman221 if you see the galaxie as 7 circles were six of them enclose one at the center and this one in the center is made by the six arround so as this center one rotates so will the others, click in my channel to see the wheel roll i love to imagen them roll man.
The humans always like to knows everything at once ! But the science has to go forward, naturally!
Sabine's thoughts throughout most of this discussion: "You talk too much."
so?
she talks a lot too
Like why is that girl giving a general expiation of dark matter, i'm sure most people watching this live or on UA-cam know what it is, lol.
@@takanara7 aren't you fun
@@takanara7 I didn't realise there was a girl anywhere in this video.. I’m sure you are not one of those misogynistic dickheads and you just mistakenly commented on the wrong video.
Sabine 👌
Could Space be more like a Medium in which matter resides/is suspended and not a Febric there is a difference, if it is a medium then we need to dismiss Einsteins Theory of Gravity on the scale of Galaxies and think about turbulence created in the medium by galaxies whirling around at great speed and the impact on that medium. Medium is the intervening substance through which sensory impressions are conveyed or physical forces are transmitted.
Wow!! Dr Hossenfelder, I admire your fearless adherence to standards of the logic and procedure of science. Is there a possibility that space-time is not only warped my matter and velocity, but is warped erratically when the Big Bang occurred. I know I'm being "mystical" and am not educated enough to dig in (MSEE).
We know photon charge interaction induce loss of photon energy. Is an alternative explanation to the obversed red shift in addition to Dopler efect. But this not only makes the picture more complicated but accordingly would mean stars are much closer ?
This would also explain the inhomogenous distribution of missing mass. 25 % is more tgan plausible and even more than that
Sabine is super critical without providing any coherent answer herself
not knowing the answer is not an excuse to peddle your untestable theories as fact.
Don’t worry,she knows exactly what she’s talking about,if you’re familiar with her work…
Ask the great sages of ancient India about the nature of Reality and the Cosmos. They will probably say "dark matter" is nothing more than the etheric template for the Universe we can perceive with our senses. That which our limited instrumentation can fathom to exist based on our relationship to Consciousness. All dimensions exist in the same "space".
Some interesting points.
20:18 Sabine’s epic smack down. This woman deserves a cape.
Bro why does the atmosphere on this video feel so heavy 😩 **passive aggresiveness intensifies**
Because a string theorist is seating next to Sabine Houssenfelder, thats why (even though he might not be one of the worst in her view, since he made some testable proposal). Plus, physics is in the middle of a crisis of cosmic proportions (I couldn't resist) and as the astronomer said, it is all very embarrassing that there was not much theoretical progress since the late 80's.
Mean while, people speculate about building colliders under the golf of Mexico and giant telescopes in the dark side of the moon (specially the collider one, since the LHC was supposed to find much more than just the Higg's boson. That is another thing that pisses of Sabine greatly and she is vocal about it.
Did you see what the guy said in the end, the last minute or so? That some of their colleges (string theorists) need to start to investigate theories that are actually about the universe we are measuring, that has a positive cosmological constant, than theories that only works in a hypothetical universe (that has negative cosmological constant). They are supposed to be physicists, not mathematicians.
So there is some physics backroom drama going on.
Cuz Sabine is super prickly and not really a fan of "people", but I love her anyway (her channel is amazing).
@@Alkis05 "colliders under the golf of Mexico"
Will they detect collisions between Mexican golf balls?
@@RadicalCaveman LMAO. I didn't notice the typo. It took me a second to understand what the joke was about.
Thx for the laughs, I needed it today.
Where stands Sabines theorie, she talked about here, today? - Superfluidity of DM?
I am a layman ..
But when he says the gravity is less .. is that not from the obsvervor??…
"If you want to be mathematically rigorous ..."
*Gödel's incompleteness theorems*
enter the chat
You're all still guessing ! Though I have the most respect for Sabine.
To have a telescope on the FAR side of the moon would be problematic. Not just building it but receiving data from the telescope because there would be no line of sight. COULD use a satellite to transfer data however, if you're planning to use a satellite to transfer data, makes more sense to make a LARGE telescope IN ORBIT for a fraction of the cost. Telescope on the moon is something a physicist would suggest where an engineer would go with the satellite in space. One idea makes sense, the other idea is goofy science fiction with failing practical logistics.
You have got your brains to think deeply on everything which exists, if you noticed any explosions caused to devise the materials in a different sizes ! And any objection on space, carries some of the original materials which caused the Big Bang
Dark Energy is simply the Universe turning very slowly ,but strong enough to create a vacuum.
🤓 Then we should see (since the big bang) an exponential lateral shift in position of all matter in the universe in one direction. Right? We don't. Right?
@@EverHappyDude rotating with respect to what?
WE NEED ANOTHER EXPLAINATION FOR RED SHIFTS THAT FITS THE DATA. THE ACCELERATING EXPANDING THING NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT FROM THE FLOORBOARDS UP!
Regarding bigger telescopes , curious as to why the JWST wasn't mentioned ?
Four years ago now
Could the Unruh effect be checked with some high energy particle collision experiment?
I didnt like the host. He didnt let Sabine talk as much as the others. And he ends with "You mostly agree broadly". I didnt feel like Sabine would agree with that.
If my two cents was worth a hoot I would utter a definition. Its worth nothing so I keep quiet.
I do not "believe" Verlindes rather lazy approach is the answer. General Relativity has been tested and tested and tested... I think we're going to have to, no matter WHAT, figure out Quantum Gravity before we can even attempt to understand Dark Matter AND Dark Energy.
I agree, I think Erik Verlinde does fake physics.
Now they have tested general relativity by taking a photo of a black hole. From what I've seen there's no black hole at all. And with that, the theory is wrong. Unless they can come up with a better image.
@@alexanderhugestrand How does one take a picture of a Black hole? The Event horizon project is still going thru the data. Else then that I don't see how we could get an image of an Black Hole via the Optical spectrum... Radio/XRay maybe but how get an image except of the accretion disk?
www.astronomy.com/news/2019/02/astronomers-map-a-black-hole-using-echoes-of-light
@@Raydensheraj All I know is that they have used telescopes all around the world to get a picture of the "black hole" Sagittarius A* at the center of our galaxy. They have gathered all the data and are now trying to stitch it all together. The first image is shared by Anton Petrov in this video:
ua-cam.com/video/TiKNMvEnpbQ/v-deo.html
@Dead Light So you didn't watch the video then. :P
Laws of Physics mat be a “local effect”. . . thibking of Poul Andersons “Brainwave” novel. . .
Not only dark "matter" can deviate light, but dark "energy" (equivalent to matter) should deviate light as well.
Not if it's a property of spacetime since it's "everywhere" then.
@@hinata5736 I agree, if the dark energy is uniformly distributed everywhere.
Dark energy is energy that consists entirely of bs. Both General Relativity and quantum mechanics utilize the erroneous equation E=hv (or E=hf) where E is energy in Joules, h is Planck's constant in Joule*seconds, and v (or f) is the frequency of light in Hertz. This is an unbalanced mathematical equation when unit analysis is performed. The unit analysis of the Hertz is cycles per second. So we end up with Joules=(Joules*seconds)*(cycles/second) which reduces to Joules=Joules*cycles. This is a fundamental error that has made a mess of physics. This is how they turned a wave into a particle, aka quantized a wave. Everything that follows from this error is just more error.
hertz is not cycles/s. Hz = s^-1 = 1/s, also called reciprocal second.
You are confusing ordinary frequency with angular frequency. Actually, this confusion is exactly why the unit Hz was invented, to substitute the older cycles per second. So we use Hz for frequency and rad/s to measure angular frequency (cycle is kind of a angular measure).
Another way to look at this is understand the word "cycle" there as a count. 1 Hertz means "one occurrence per second". It is like frequency in statistics, where it represents occurrence. And, obviously, "occurrence" is not a unit.
That way there is no confusion. Hope this helped.
@@Alkis05 It didn't. The Hertz unit is the unit of frequency. A frequency is a count of a number of cyclical events or "cycles" per a specific amount of time. Frequency is not the "inverse of time" like you are claiming. The cycles are physical measurements that cannot be just discarded indiscriminately or willy nilly. In the case of Max Planck's derivation of Planck's constant, h, he was literally counting light waves per second. The light waves were the cycle. This was the only measurement taken. To throw out this information is the same as throwing out the unit of measurement for the entire experiment and it makes the measurement itself meaningless. I hope this helps.
@@Alkis05 If the Hertz unit was what you say it is, the unit for velocity is meter*Hertz and the unit for acceleration is meter* Hertz^2. Makes no sense at all.
@@wesbaumguardner8829 Sure, if you want to make things more obscure than they are, I guess you can always use an unintuitive unit.
But, sure, you can think like that, if you want.
For example: Let's say you are a roman soldier and you are in march. Each step has a very definite length, since you are a disciplined soldier. How are they able to keep the same speed and move orderly? They keep the same frequency of steps. Actually the expression "double time" means doubling the frequency of steps to double the speed. They even use music to help keep their rhythm synchronized.
In rome, mile had a 2000 steps (it was actually called a half-step), and they marched a league per hour, that is 3 miles/h.
So you could define their standard marching speed as 1 step at 100bpm, or 1.23 m*Hz (using the roman feet of 0.296m), or 4.43 Km/h
There you have it.
The quest for dark matter and energy has some similarities to the quest of ether. In the end, it will also be solved with a new paradigm, not with more experiments and observations (Zwicky's question has not been changed!)
Wal Thornhill should have been part of this debate.
You missed the part where the debate was about physics and cosmology, not a scam that nurtures a cult, so Thornhill had no place there.
I think that higgs particle even does not exist and that gravity is not a force. I also think that space is not a media. Even not homogenous. If it expands outside matter, what is with space inside it?
Hydrogen binds into nebulae into stars and galaxies. This is the path of all matter. Some stars collapse/condense into neutron stars. This the next phase change of matter. This is the highest energy density allowable. The gravity of surface of neutron star is almost c. More mass falls in and there is an inversion. The photons are , because of gravity , moving 90deg from usual. Their frequency has been increased to Planck frequency. The neutrons fall into themselves at c. The photons form a shell/membrane on the surface inducing the same mass field as the neutrons had. They are energy in orbit, at c, which being infinitesimally thin induces inertia momentum c^2. m=E/c^2. Energy in orbit is mass.
The neutrons fall through the single Planck moment of time and emerge as antimatter on the other side of manifold. But since all values are reversed viewed from the other side of membrane all the antimatter that just manifested in antimatter realm that antimatter in antimatter universe appears as matter, neutrons, on our side.
Even though the passage of hamiltonians seems over a Klein bottle, and thus there should be all this antimatter falling into our universe, because time is infinitesimal all values on one side of temporal membrane are continuously present as inversions on other side.
The neutrons which fell into event horizon re-emerge in lowest energy regions of space. Least energy, least curve. Deep void regions of space. The neutrons emerge, and then decay into hydrogen. The volume of a single neutron is tiny. The volume of a hydrogen atom including electron cloud? As big as it is allowed to be. This difference in volume between emerging neutrons and their decay remnants, gaseous atomic hydrogen, is the expansive dark energy. Each atom has electron field exterior. Like charges repel. Dark energy is electrostatic repulsion between all the non ionized particles. Diffusion.
Gravity and ionic/magnetic coupling and binding slowly bring the decayed neutrons, hydrogen, along that path again. H nebula star neutron star black hole. A continuous flow.
Apply an EisteinDicke parameter to explain Hubble curvature and cmb.
Ch=299792458*6.62607*10^-34 vacuum energy equal to 4.9154 time proton’s mass (1.67262*10^-27(kg))per cube meter is dark energy belong to de sitter expanding space under critical mass(5.99).
If dark energy exists, then everything is made from the same dark energy (i.e. the 5% of matter). However, because we have no clue what dark energy is and all matter is made from it, we have no clue what matter is either. So it follows we have 100% no clue about anything.
Or Nested Gravity Wells for Dark Matter, Cosmic Void Theory for Dark Energy maybe?
With the new theory and it’s information, everyone of us can thinking, and finds the unknown objects
25:40 ¹Πi vs Ampstië
28:00 -· pseun
31:56 x-
32:43
I predict that if and when they find the"graviton" particle it will be the smallest particle they find to date and perhaps the smallest they'll find.
first. any hypothetical graviton has to be massless (gravity propagates a C).
second. massless particles are as large as they need to be.
Progressor 4ward .. It won’t ever be found..... not in ten years or ten thousand...
Gravity shouldn't need particles at all
Sound is to low, cant hear you!
All these brilliant minds yet no answer. Why? Because only the galaxies are expanding, not the whole universe. Space can't push a galaxy. They are expanding because they were a result of a collision between two giant objects at an astronomical speed in a static universe. It's no different than pieces of a car in a car crash. The atmosphere isn't expanding the car pieces, the impact is. It's so friggin simple.
Sabine is sooo attached to her ego and being right she has absolutely no opening for other possibilities
I’m afraid that in discussions of dark matter and dark energy, I would come across as the cosmological equivalent of a flat earther. There has to be a simpler explanation. . . I would posit that there is a very serious problem with the distance ladder.
Dark matter = Our theories don't work, lets invent a name for the time being.
At this point dark energy and dark matter are no more "fudge factors". The truth lies elsewhere.
"If you want to be mathematically rigorous ..."
LMAO
Explain?
@@galek75 If the math is not rigorous then it's not math. If physics isn't described by math then it isn't physics.
@@AndrewBlucher Physics grew out of everyday, common-sensical observations. Are you saying that those observations aren't the proper subject matter of physics?
@@galek75 No.
Physics is a mathematical explanation of those observations. Until we have a mathematical explanation we only have ideas. A mathematically well described idea is called a theory. A worthwhile theory makes predictions. When the predictions are found to be accurate the theory gains credence.
@@AndrewBlucher Mathematics doesn't explain anything lol. It just another level of description. And that it *must* be mathematical should be backed up, lest you fall into complete naivete.
Brane Mass Alignment for Dark Matter, Hyper-rotating Universe for Dark Energy maybe.
It’s not about Dark matter, it is about structure.
*Galactic rotation phenomena has been resolved and No dark matter is necessary! (The case of an elephant in the room).*
Dark matter need not exist, there is an underlying web structure (skeletal like) within every galaxy, the web network is made of Plasma filaments.This phenomenon has been predicted by plasma physicist. See Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995.) see the galactic web www.abc.net.au/reslib/201109/r834402_7721995.jpg
*These plasma filaments Form Elongated structures that can undulate in space and also induces Periodic clusters (cloud like clumps) within the length of the filament .* Considering that 99% of the luminous matter is plasma not gas, but unfortunately Plasma physics has mostly been ignored by the astrophysicist Community, but Physicists Have been working with plasma for decades.
Nevertheless, this Astrophysical-plasma Has been acknowledged by some to Exist outside of the Solar System.The accepted view of scientists is that much of the baryonic matter in the universe exists in this state (plasma). science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast07sep99_1
Due to the abundance to plasma (99%) its Dynamics should play in important roll in Astrophysics and its properties and structural specifications should be considered..
see: Hannes Alfvén, Cosmic Plasma, (1981). Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 82 (1981) Springer Verlag. ISBN 90-277-1151-8.
*Structural properties of plasma filaments*
Note: these cosmic filaments Have an internal structure (tubular structure) with some degree of rigidity, analogous to the collagen in biology.
Collagen forms fibrils that provide the structure in biological systems, and Plasma filaments provides structure in the galactic scale.
These Plasma Filaments form web like structure which gives some structural Rigidity to galaxies and the cohesiveness of the structures are 40 order of magnitude above gravity, with Relatively low density and are transparent a light. All of these properties meet the requirement for dark matter.
See Biological fibers filaments s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images/wp-content/uploads/sites/1223/2017/01/31001814/Figure_33_02_06-e1485822088926.jpg
See cosmic filaments ucrtoday.ucr.edu/25894/cosmic-web