"Electromagnetic Fields and Waves" by Lorrain & Corson (2nd Edition) contains two problems relating Electrodynamics and Cosmology. Problem 4-22 starts with: "In 1959 Lyttelton and Bondi [Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A, vol. 232, p.313] suggested that the expansion of the Universe could be explained on the basis of Newtonian Mechanics if matter contained a [tiny] net electric charge." A follow-on problem, Problem 10-11, mentions that correction terms to curlB and divE due to the creation of this charge should be on the order of R^-2 where R is on the order of the radius of the Universe, so that the new terms would be negligible at all length scales but cosmological situations. This hypothesis is consistent with the linear velocity-distance observations. Rather thought-provoking questions from an Undergraduate E&M textbook!
i've tried to publish an alternative explanation of dark matter, but some five editors rejected the manuscript. The first 4 said "this is too detailed and too fundamental new information for our journal, you should send it to some more fundamental journal" and the 5th one said "i've read all this elsewhere, you should know we publish original research only". So good luck with publishing something new! :D
I am a mere dabbler in cosmology, but I am wondering how much reality there is in theories which hypothesise particles and matter which we can not see and can only infer from observations which may in themselves be flawed - standard candles for example, which, as it turns out aren't quite so standard as was thought. Obviously - all theories stand only as provisional, until they can be falsified.
@@Tonyv1951 Indeed. All theories are ultimately false. However... things have to go on. Otherwise we would still be burning witches and wave bibles in our hands...
@@Tonyv1951But since most of us who are interested in cosmology & all the fundamental physical baggage that goes along with it aren't even sure if we actually exist, because we don't & probably never will understand the meaning of life OR the nature of consciousness/"soul" that is consumed with its importance (which is to say, ourselves), I maintain that it's a bloody impressive house of cards we've built for ourselves to stand on. So remember to try not to lose your balance! May as well be happy in the knowledge of your infinite greatness AND smallness, all at the same time, & that purpose means nothing & chance explains everything. Which is a nice way of saying that the more we seem to learn, the less we seem to know...🤗🤪
Great video! I'm an amateur astronomer/astrophotographer and very interested in these topics and try to stay up on the latest developments. I've long had questions around this topic that I've never been able to truly find good answers. I've always been more of a MOND fan than DE/DM due to the fact that, as I understand, these are mear values inserted into equations to make them work so they match the observations. I love your open mindset where I've seen other videos where they take a hard stance on there is DM/DE and we just have to find it. I've thought a lot about this and have read articles on things like "Warp Drive", etc. which talk about bending space on either side of a starship. This made me think that we really don't understand how to interact with space. We understand that spacetime is a thing, and can see how the presence of matter can "bend" it to explain gravitational attraction. At least, that's the assumption of how it works. I've also read about quantum theories on particles like gravitons that do this interaction, yet, no evidence has been found to support this. I've read about string theory, etc., which tries to explain some of this. However, what if we simply don't fully understand the nature of space itself? Is it possible that it's just a property of space that it has to expand much like a balloon in a vaccum where the fact that there's no barrier at the edge of our universe to stop it and it simply must grow to fill the void? Is there a difference between space and a void where spacetime doesn't exist? What if we treated space as a separate physical construct that doesn't require particles to explain? I've noticed that they are always searching for a physical particle to explain such theories but never seem to contemplate the notion that spacetime has more properties that are yet to be defined? Can the equations that use the values for DE/DM be used in such a way to explain these properties? The thing that makes this make sense to me is the variance in red shift for more distant objects and explains the observation that the universe seems to be expanding in all directions away from us while accelerating. Perhaps this rate of expansion can be quantified and used in these equations. So when you're calculating the spin of a galaxy, are you also allowing for this expansion of space within the galaxies? Have we measured the rate of expansion between objects within the Milky Way? It has to happen everywhere if it's true. We wouldn't see it within very close proximity of a gravity field such as us walking on the earth or even between here and the moon. It would be only very slight between objects closer to the center, but more noticeable on the outer rim where things are much farther apart. We should see stars in the outer parts of our galaxy sort of pushing each other away very slightly because of the distance of space between them expanding if this were true. Ok, I've probably outdone myself on the crackpot scale, but would appreciate any further discussion to better understand these ideas. If I'm totally off base, I'd appreciate that feedback as well. These are just questions I have that keep me up at night. Thank you!
The simple explanation for the reason for stars at the outside of the galactic radius is the DIFFERENCE between gravity and electromagnetism is 2.4x10^39 in the favor of ELECTROMAGNETISM. Pretty simple, really.
Question: in a simulation of a three body system, usually one of the objects flings out of the system, and the other two become stable around each other. A chaotic as the system is, this is usually what happens (other than stable solutions). Now when we model formation of galaxies with dark matter, which makes it match the observations better, does the model consider that some dark matter must fling out of the system for everything else to become stable?
Funny how predictive software written bye biased hominids to actauly insert some thing that has no evidence to support it , Just claim, then that predictive software is not predictive it is biased. every algorithm and predictive software that show dark matter is just super imposed over normal gravitational influence, hence Dark matter is a bigger fraud than religion.
We should assume that we can't detect any interactions that dark matter has beyond its gravitational influences on galaxies and photons, and we should NOT assume that it doesn't interact with anything. Our desperate and confused ignorance is the most likely obstacle to answering any question.
Awesome that mathematical models based on the philosophically untenable paradigm of chronocentric atomism have taken us this far. Fix that … and explaining the various phenomena for which DM is required … becomes quite trivial, as does understanding why the mathematical models of QM and GR work where they do. Physics though, is focused on mathematical models,not what regular people call Theories (understanding of mechanism). Note that Copernicus' model of planetary motions did not offer better predictions than did epicyclic models. It did simplify the picture though and advanced our understanding of mechanism. Escaping geocentricism required observations of the phases of Venus. Not better predictions. Escaping the current paradigm … should have happened long ago, but physics has firewalled itself very effectively, and has way more mathematical objects with which to tweak their mathematical models than did the poor epicyclists, who just had circles. End chronocentricism. Invert atomism. Insist on simplicity … it really isn't that hard ;)
Dark matter is the right answer. The problem is we have no reliable explanations as to what dark matter actually is because we cannot interact with it. And MOND continues to fall apart in the time since this video came out. It makes sense to continue studying dark matter because we can observe its effects. Something is definitely there. We need to figure out what it is
I think when a light wave is stopped in a black hole it loses its speed component. Time stops in a singularity and the only thing left would be mass with no energy, just gravity. Maybe a quasi- particle? E0=M in a black hole.
I was wondering the same. Given the vast distances between the stars and the unfathomable distances between galaxies, I wonder if there is room for huge amounts of very dispersed gas molecules in the inter-stellar and intergalactic medium. This is a guess. I have no evidential background. I also struggle with the idea of a Big Bang coming out of nowhere. I am of the view from a merely logical point of view, that the universe has existed in some form, be that mass in some form, or energy, for eternity.
early formation of Galaxies from Globular clusters disproves the Dark Matter Hypothesis. I can give you the link to the paper at the preprint archive should you be interested.
You are a SUPERB teacher, Mr. Sutter! For the first time in a long time I can watch an Astro/Quantum physics video & find someone who can explain it to me CLEARLY!🥳 There's too many science presenters out there who can neither describe nor explain these often arcane concepts in a manner that convinces me they that they themselves even understand them!🤪🤤🤤🤤🧐
Some commenters have said that DM is wrong. I wonder what information, observations, or theories allowed them to come to that conclusion. But they could be right about DM being wrong. Two problems I see are that DM "measurements" are post-hoc, i.e. they look at the mass of all the visible matter and calculate how much DM must be present to account for the motion of the stars in a galaxy or the movement of galaxies in a cluster, so they cannot see DM they cannot predict what the motions will be, rather they must measure the motions and determine the mass of dark matter. The other problem is that physicists have not idea of where DM fits into the Standard Model, and I'm not sure any have come up with a hypothesis of where DM fits, or with an alternative Model that explains everything the Standard Model explains while also explaining DM. So is there a more massive particle that has not been discovered yet? Probably a reason to build a MUCH more powerful collider.
In the depths of space, where darkness reigns, The enigma of dark matter still remains. Ask a Spaceman, they'll ponder the question, Does dark matter fail, or is it our obsession? Through galaxies vast, it silently drifts, A cosmic enigma that the universe sifts. Binding galaxies with its invisible hand, Yet eluding our grasp, like shifting sand. In the cosmic dance, it plays its part, Yet questions linger, deep in the heart. Does it fail to explain, or is there more to find? Ask a Spaceman, with knowledge refined. In the depths of the cosmos, where mysteries dwell, Dark matter's secrets, only time will tell. For in the quest for truth, we journey far, Guided by curiosity, like a guiding star. So ask a Spaceman, and they'll explore, The mysteries of dark matter, forevermore. In the tapestry of the universe, it weaves its tale, A cosmic enigma, that may yet prevail.
Compliments on objectivity and clarity. The problem is the discovery of these early galaxies now contradict the dark energy theory or I should say hypothesis.
IT'S THE "FABRIC" OF SPACE TIME!!!!!!!!!! No need for dark anything, whatever it is that makes up space/time which is able to warp and drag and bend. The "fabric" that is in, around and through everything in space, will explain it all. Even without knowing the make-up of it you can see how it would hold galaxies together, keeping them from ripping apart as they spin.
Hi Paul ! Dark matter is made three particules, two invisible, the gluon (inert), the (almost) zero energy photon (bouncing around, named quanton = h) and, the three kinds of neutrinos always on the move. How do I know that ? You will find out soon.
Dark matter is the source of superconductivity. At 2.72K, photons pass through it and it generates the cosmic microwave background. This is why all light from stars is observed in the red shift. Using the Planck constant and e=mc^2, it calculates a mass of 1.181 X 10^-39 kg. This mass fits into the mass discrepancies of the atom, both the missing mass and the “empty” volume. It is responsible for electromagnetism, the weak force, the strong force and the motions of the stars & planets. We do not have 4 fundamental forces, we have 1 fundamental force, in which dark matter is the source of, that we are able to observe in 4 different states/configurations.
What about John Moffat's MOdified Gravity Theory, aka STVG Scalar-Tensor-Vector Gravity - it explains all kinds of cosmological phenomena without the need tor dark matter. Can you do a video covering Moffat's work? Seems really intriguing but it is hardly covered. Thanks!
The problem I see with so many thought experiments is that they begin with a host of unexamined assumptions, the most glaring being what consciousness is. A lot of scientists suppose that consciousness arises from matter, but from the non-dualist perspective, it is the other way around. Also, often concepts like consciousness, thought, mind, ego, identity - all get muddled together and are not sorted out. The terms are then used interchangeably when they are distinct concepts. Another flaw I see is the assumption that for every single quantum result, the assumption is being made that everything in existence is being duplicated on a macro level and then continues onward. And so what? Maybe it is just consciousness, or awareness, or the non-dualistic nature of reality that is simply experiencing ALL material possibilities. We are sadly limited in our localized consciousness and struggle to process this view of the universe, it does not sit well with our ego-centric view of reality. Just another thought experiment with unexamined assumptions. Here's a thought experiment: if MWT is correct and for every single quantum interaction a parallel world exists, so what? Because if the Universe is infinite then everything in all forms exists. Infinity necessarily includes everything. My complaint with the Many Worlds Theory is that it is not empirically verifiable. That does not mean it is wrong, just that we will never know if it is correct. So what good does it do us on any practical level? It seems like a scientific dead end to me - but it's great for metaphysical conversations.
Superb presentation. I watched it twice. I’m a geophysicist and glad that I deal with tangible matter and energy here on earth. I’m completely out of my depth when it comes to dark matter. However, if I was looking for dark matter and I had come up empty after decades I would put my full effort into approaching it through the back door. What is the ‘origin’ of dark matter? What is the rationale for its existence to provide all of these observations? Why would dark matter have the properties that it does? If does dark matter exist than it ‘has to’ exist. It’s not the rotation just of galaxies , etc that need dark matter to explain their properties but fundamental physics at the time of Inflation, etc need dark matter to be logical.
Since EVERYTHING is "explained" by exotic math, I don't suppose it ever occurs to a bunch of self-aggrandizing overpaid & tenured-for-life one-upping grant-grubbing petty egomaniacal crybabies whose life ambition is nothing more than to see their name at the top of some paper written 99% by one of their Ph.D. suckup students published in one of the "right" journals & then turn around to their peers & say: "I got another one than you do!"🥳 that maybe the only thing that all that exotic math 🤯🤯🤯🤪 actually explains is its, & their, own worthlessness.🧐 But hey, it's a job.🤔
If dark matter has a large impact on the gravity of a galaxy, would you say that it permeates the galaxy? If so, wouldn't the Earth be bathed in dark matter to some degree? Then wouldn't dark matter be contributing to the gravitational constant G? But to what degree? When we thought G was only due to the matter we know about, how could we tell what proportion of it was also due to dark matter? Is dark matter distributed unevenly throughout a galaxy? If so, then G would be different in different places in the galaxy. Since G is determined experimentally, and the only place we've run the experiment is on Earth, then variations could happen elsewhere. This could really shake things up, but it could also be used to explain galaxy rotation. But why would dark matter be unevenly distributed? For the same reason regular matter is, I suppose. Maybe the uneven distributions are the result of the interplay between the two forms of matter. There is much to contemplate.
I personally suspect that dark matter is correct but it isnt actually within our universe as we assume, it sort of overlaps, acting as if the other side of the sheet in the demonstration of a mass pulling in gravity. A particle which is outside our reality but is still influenced by the quantum fields of our universe and thus mass and it interact with eachother in the field but not in the physical. Alternatively if string theory holds true, perhaps what we are observing are extradimensional particles. I suppose that we do not see them not because they are rare or hard to see but because we cannot see them. We cannot currently observe with certainty that which may be beyond our universe and we cannot see that which exists physically in a higher or lower dimension.
"ALL the available data"??? I don't think so, not by a factor of a billion or more. "Explain all the things that WE know and have explained" -- "but we will not put what we know in a form that is complete, accessible, and testable." I thought it said, "Does Dark Matter Fall?" A much better question. Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
I would like to ear Paul Sutter comments about RELMond, a recent relativistic extensions of MOND, that seems to check all the boxes, including reproducing CMB power spectrum. The time wasted talking about TeVeS demonstrates lack of knowledge... TeVeS was falsified by gravitational waves episodes, since the predicted Shapiro effect wasn't observed. So, in conclusion, a shallow and imprecise analysis, reinforcing my opinion that MOND people know a lot more about lambda CDM than the opposite...
Dark matter is only needed when you try to fit the rotational observations into the box of relativity. I feel there has to be a quantum element involved. One paper (don’t recall the author) described a black hole as a giant atom … I think that approach is going to more quickly resolve the rotational problem, and likely give us a better unified theory in the process.
Every black hole interior may simply be another expanding universe. From the outside, each black hole may behave as a single particle. Don't get me wrong, I am not implying that particles are black holes.
@@stevenverrall4527 yes that was part of it as well, that our universe is a black hole (or inside a black hole). New measurements of the charge radius of the proton are changing how we understand the strong force, as it looks like it could be quantum gravity at work, which seems like a much better explanation of the force than "strong"
@@philnykamp Have you seen my recent (published Jan 23, 2023) paper in Foundations of Physics? The title is Ground state quantum vortex proton model. The proton's magnetic moment and charge radius are calculated from proton mass. A gravitation mechanism is also proposed. I am currently working on making my proton model more rigorous. I have discovered a charge-generation mechanism within the framework of my proton model.
@@stevenverrall4527I think you're definitely on the right track here, although I don't understand many of the terms. Are you saying (generally) that the mechanism for collapsing the wave form to "create" the photon is a quantum vortex? That would be very consistent with my writing (unpublished)
Dark matter comes from dark energy . What is dark energy ? Plasma . Protons and Electrons stripped down to their consituents by speed . When the speed becomes slower or cooler , then the dark matter becomes and this then leads to the periodic table with space . The dark energy and matter are in the coldest regions of space . And therefore the fastest parts of space .
I know what it is. It is "incomplete" particles! I broke second law of thermodynamics and its consequence was this revelation. The universe has enormous amount of "uninteractable particles" you cannot interact with them because they are "incomplete" and it makes them interact onl;y through gravity because they cannot violate topological property of "complete" particles. And when incomplete particle gets enough energy it produces gravitational gradient around it. and it gets devoured by complete particles but it is not enough for anything, except when thermonuclear synthesis happens it cannot happen without these incomplete particles. Physics of the sun is absolutely different according to my theory.
@@robertspence7766 no credentials, and now I dislike Americans, so I started making nuclear weapons from water that I will charge up in radiation belts of earth and then drop them at American cities.
Albert Einstein held in his gen, rel. equations that Gravity had a corresponding outward characteristic that was equal to It's 'attractive charicteristics. but You know this, Start over in Einsteins notations.Look at Rubens (Zwicky again.
Yes, of course...That nothing is exciting. And even then you're not sure, because nobody's proven nothing yet; the harder they'll look, the more of it they seem to find. A theory then, that proves itself no matter what the outcome appears to be!🌈🦄🤣🤣🤣🤧
Looking for dark matter particles instead of a dusty universe, dead stars, gas giants, and rocks. How many particles of dark matter would it take to equal one child's marble of normal space stuff ? Could it be the universe is full of static electric currents and electromagnetism ?
Yes - I've wondered the same. Brown dwarf's - failed stars must exist in their billions and are probably evenly distributed among the stars. They would be far enough away from one another and other stars not to really obstruct much light and would not have enough gravity to do much in the way of lensing. I wonder if they, and the sparsely distributed gas and dust in the interstellar and inter-galactic medium would possibly account for the missing mass we drop into our cosmological theories. Do we really need an exotic unseen form of matter when more prosaic explanations may fit?
Lay person Question: Can something exist in two places at the same time? Like a quantum remnant of the Big Bang. It’s mass is here but it “lives” or is visible somewhere else…
We have every reason to think that there are particles that are currently undetectable. We know of reasons they might be undetectable. A very weakly interacting particle in particular should be extremely hard to detect. Not having found a dark matter particle fits the data. Lol!
No that's wrong. Dark matter doesn't pass thru each other, that said it fills the universe also is like compressed. Gravity is a consequence from mass on spin(earth")thru d.m.(space") compressed displacement(curvture") of Dark matter and also produces a like friction consequence (gravity ") dark matter also does have reaction to magnetic fields, also I'm quite sure electromagnetic as well but haven't verified it yet.
I've always had a gut feeling that there is additional layers to forces of nature. Especially gravity. I feel we comprehend Gravity to a point. But. I feel there is other layers to gravity once you get to immense scales like on the scale of entire galaxies and multiple galaxies interacting and many multiple galaxies interacting with all the properties of, density's, temperature's, velocity's, static charges, electromagnetism, plasma, Etc. All interacting with each other, and then it gets even bigger than that. I do not feel we actually have the ability to comprehend and accurately calculate this type of nature of the universe. So maybe there is a small scale gravity, average level gravity, and a Large scale gravity layer? It's just a hypothetical idea I have.
I have often thought the same. Not quite that there are different forces of gravity at different scales but much like Einstein's equations for General Relativity predicted that as objects American the speed of light, relativistic speeds, they are subject to effects that affect their mass or even the perception of the universe around them, then at large enough scales similar coefficients or extra term need to be added to Newton's Laws of Gravity. The fact that we don't have Quantum Theory for Gravity is problematic, which makes me think that we just don't understand gravity well enough. I don't like the Dark Matter explanation. It may be true, but to me it seems like something we'll never be able to prove beyond circumstantial evidence, which for me is like how before Einstein came up with his Theory of Special Relativity all physicists were including aether to make all their proposed theories fit the experimental results. I personally don't think there is a silver bullet answer that will explain everything here, hence why we've found it hard to find an easy solution. It may be, in my opinion, a combination of many things we don't yet know. But particles that don't interact with anything else (light of matter), but have mass and this exert a gravitational effect only interacting with space time curvature just sounds very far fetched, even if it is the most likely explanation. As a true scientist I'm skeptical of either proposed solution until the evidence is there to prove either correct.
Gravity has an equal opposite counterpart called energy. To move matter against the pull of gravity an equal opposite amount of energy is required. Even more energy is required for the same matter to reach an escape velocity. Energy is required to cause galaxies to move away from each other against the pull of their gravity. Energy is the action, motion or gravity is the reaction. Gravity is what happens to matter that is unable to produce energy to counter the effects of gravity, cancel out the gravity so to speak. So a boulder is attracted to the Earth because it doesn't radiate enough energy to counter the Earth's gravity. Expansion of space between objects happens when the objects produce an excess of energy against the pull of their gravity. Example, you have two stars radiating a constant solar wind full of hot charged particles at 2 million miles per hour and the two stars will not collide. Well, as long as they are not on a direct trajectory or path towards one another. When they are not on the same trajectory their solar winds will force them apart. This is the equal opposite action causing their gravity. Energy is the action and motion is the reaction. Gravity is described as motion of mass. Mass is radiating energy producing motion we call gravity. When energy is created deep in the cores of large spherically shaped objects, gravity becomes the equal opposite counterpart, causing small matter to be attracted. But if both of the objects are radiating a constant flow of energy then a repulsive reaction occurs. Energy flowing upon small objects produces an attraction and the energy flowing upon large objects produces a repulsive force. The direction of motion then is determined by the object radiating energy and the objects receiving the energy. Attraction and repulsion occurs. Can this be proven in experiments? Yes, it has. Research ion lifters. When energy radiates from the metal causes them to defy gravity. Also research ARV, alien reproduction vehicle.
@@ronaldkemp3952 I'm sorry but that's just rubbish, a whole lot of rubbish. I don't know where to start with it, but your premise that energy is the exact opposite of gravity is just not true, and I'm not going to waste my time refuting the rest of this nonsense.
I know that there is precisely 0% probability that this comment is either appropriate or appreciated but nonetheless l wish to express my satisfaction with this video popping up at the desperate end of a horrendous four day drinking binge induced by some rather unfortunate life circumstances. Soothing intonation and rationality. Hic.
I feel we should be a little crazy as dark matter is. I mean like applying philosophy to see if we can make any progress in the issues. Let's say that dark matter is sort of "component of the human mind", weird, isn't it? But it can't be more weird than the subject. You may ask why am I so off track, well, recently we are beginning to understand some eerie nature of reality though not confirmed but no other way to explain it. These are; the situation argument, space and time is doomed, consciousness being fundamental in nature etc. If you actually look at it what we call normal matter is indeed the odd matter because it makes a smaller amount of matter in the universe. So who knows the next bottle neck we bomb into.
It's really unhelpful to science communication to perpetuate the sloppy description of 'dark matter' as a scientific hypothesis.... Also, I can't believe you posted this in 2022, the Bullet Cluster is a huge _problem_ for dark matter.
Hi Paul, From my current reading it looks like my teachers were wrong when they taught us the universe started with a Big Bang from a singularity followed by inflation. It might be time to give us a video to set us straight and educate us oldies who may be stuck on that way of thinking. Could you include current thinking on the cause of inflation and if it ended or could dark energy just be a remnant of it. Thanks.
The Universe has no obligation to create Dark Matter that interacts though anything but Gravity. All of the research looking for WIMPs has assumed that D.M. can interact with "normal" matter in some way other than Gravity. Axions are another kettle of fish.
Do the quantities of dark matter needed for the cosmic microwave background radiation, the star rotation speeds in galaxies and the gravitational lensing observations all support the total estimates of dark matter in the universe?
Just a question... perhaps more about your choice of words than what physicist specialists use... Right about 5 minutes in, you say that dark matter doesn't interact with light. But earlier, you say that some of the evidence FOR dark matter comes from gravitational lensing, which to my mind by definition means *interaction*. So which is it? I don't know because I'm not trained. (Just an engineer making measurement instrumentation for scientists.) But I think because you mention gravitational lensing earlier, that you were mistaken when around at 5 minutes in you say that it does NOT interact with light. So I'm just chalking this up to loose talk in a video (I can't cast any stones -- guilty too) and I'm going with "Yes, dark matter interacts with light -- at least, it does so in a gravitational meaning as it is expressed when the general theory of relativity is deduced into specific situations that produce mathematical calculations which can be tested by observational, experimental result."
Why can't both be right or at least partially didn't? I'm sure there are fundamental particles we've not discovered yet and also I'm sure there are circumstances at which the laws of physics break down and we need better theories. I don't quite understand why we need a single bullet solution. Sure any theory needs to fit in with existing theories and explain phenomena at all scales (or at least be able to be reduced down into the existing theories at these scales, in a mathematical sense at least), but why can't MOND be right, but there also be done Dark Matter out there? Sure Dark Matter seems to be the most likely but if it can never be directly detected how can we ever prove that it exists?
Yes MOND could be correct (in some ways) if you include dark matter. And if you include other modifications of MOND then maybe the combination could explain everything, but the evidence is not compelling for any MOND variation.
@@tonywells6990 Yes, I understand that, and from my days studying for a masters in physics degree I remember loving how elegant some of the solutions from the greats Inn physics were, how the equations simplified out perfectly when applying the limits to the Newtonian equations, and then there was Quantum Mechanics which was just plain weird and didn't seem to tally with how we see reality on a human scale, but it works. I just think there's a lot we still have to learn. Just as with Quantum Mechanics gravity may be stranger than we think, it may differ under different conditions in the universe and different scales, speeds, under extreme conditions that can't just be deduced from mind experiments like Einstein so cleverly did with his theories of relativity, but I'm also sure there are weird particles that might not be found in our neighborhood, but are only created in far off parts of the galaxy, or that don't interact. All I know it's that it doesn't sit easy with me having Dark Matter, a particle (or class of particles) we may never be able to detect that don't interact with anything, but have a gravitational pull in very large quantities. Something to me doesn't say there isn't something out there not of that type, just that I think something weirder is going on and we may need a mind even greater than Einstein, even greater than Hawking or Penrose, and we may have to wait a while for someone to come along, to think outside the box, to come up with a solution to it all. I don't think building a bigger particle accelerator or just crunching a huge amount of data is going to give us the answer unfortunately.
@@mattpotter8725right∆ so simple , one may ponder why one with no education discovered (highschool dropout) can provide visible direct evidence for your own eyes to see so easily that for about 10-15$ even a cern employee can view it and have a new theory that the size of space is based on dark matter capacity. To say, there's no empty space but full.. theory... ....
There is an elephant in the room explanation for those abnormally high star rotation rates. We all heard the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". This phenomenon is illustrated in a common relativity graph with velocity (from stationary to the speed of light) on the horizontal line and dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) on the vertical line. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. Even mass that exists at 75% light speed is partially dilated. Wherever you have an astronomical quantity of mass dilation will occur because high mass means high momentum. There is no place in the universe where mass is more concentrated than at the center of a galaxy. 99.8% of the mass in our solar system is in the sun. 99.9% of the mass in an atom is in the nucleus. If these norms are true for galaxies than we can infer that there is 100's of trillions of solar masses at the center of common spiral galaxies. There is no way to know through observation, there is far too much interference, dilation and gravitational lensing. If we attribute a radius to these numbers than we can calculate that relativistic velocities exist in these regions, the same way we could calculate the surface velocity of the sun if we doubled it's mass. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. In some sublime way that mass is all around us because as the graph shows we are still connected to it. It was recently discovered that low mass galaxies (like NGC 1052-DF2) have normal star rotation rates. This is what relativity would predict because there is an insufficient quantity of mass to achieve relativistic velocities. This is virtual proof that dilation is the governing phenomenon at galactic centers, there can be no other realistic explanation for this fact. A simple way to confirm this would be to calculate the star rotation rates of a large number of galaxies. This would show that all the high mass galaxies have star rotation rates that defy the known laws of physics and all the low mass galaxies (some galaxies can appear to be low mass but can have high mass at the center) would have predictable star rotation rates.
Why can't the phenomena attributed to Dark Matter be explained by long-wavelength gravitational waves, where galaxies are standing wave vortices sweeping matter into spiraling crests, and the Bullet Cluster has a lensing wave peak separating the luminous halves?
Hi Dr. Sutter! This question has been driving me nuts, and it doesn't appear to me that its answer is simple enough for a 30-second clip. Your channel might be the perfect place to explain the answer. Could you help me out? Since all of the red shifted light from non-local-group galaxies is millions or billions of years old, we only know for certain that the universe _was_ expanding when that light was emitted. What's the evidence that proves the universe is still expanding at the same rate (or even faster) than it was millions and billions of years ago?
The universe was expanding much faster in the early universe and then the rate of expansion decreased, but its rate of slowing decreased and is now increasing again due to dark energy. The evidence is the red shifting of light, closer galaxies are still moving away from us at high speeds consistent with theory.
Наблюдавшаяся учеными странность - существенно увеличенная по сравнению с ожидаемой (расчетной) скорость вращения звезд в составе галактических дисков , - в некоторой степени обусловлена некорректными исходными посылками при вычислении указанной скорости вращения звезд в диске галактики по аналогии с вычислением скорости движения планет Солнечной системы вокруг Солнца. А именно в этом кроется диалектическая ошибка. Галактика является сложной с и с т е м о й со множеством взаимодействующих между собой по различным параметрам элементов - галактических объектов, в т.ч. звезд. Свойства сложной системы о т л и ч а ю т с я от свойств отдельных элементов той же системы. Так, например, характер вращения сырого яйца как системы (по внутреннему строению) отличается от характера вращения того же сваренного яйца, которое выступает в качестве единого элемента. В рассматриваемом нами случае, применявшееся учеными вычисление скорости вращения звезды в диске галактики по аналогии со скоростью вращения планеты в Солнечной системе, соответствует вычислению скорости движения, исходя из свойств отдельного элемента системы. При этом упускается из виду, что звезда, скорость движения которой вычисляется и измеряется, одновременно взаимодействует (в частности, гравитационными, магнитными силами) с остальными вещественными объектами галактики. Образно говоря, из-за указанного взаимодействия диск галактики приобретает некоторую связку, становится "жестче", и потому линейная скорость вращения отдаленных частей диска возрастает. ... Если представить себе, что диск галактики (со всеми его внутренностями) стал жестким, то имеющаяся вращательная энергия диска перераспределится так, что угловая скорость вращения жесткого диска станет меньше, при этом уменьшится и линейная скорость вращения ближней к центру вращения части диска, а линейная скорость дальних от центра вращения частей диска еще больше увеличится. И "темное" вещество, искомое учеными, при э т о м ни при чем. ... «Тёмная материя» существует, но в другом месте. [22.03.2024]
В описываемой учеными, уповающими на формулы, картине мироздания НЕ з а м к н у т цикл кругооборота материи в природе. В этом сущностный недостаток Квантовой гипотезы, который порождает *парадоксальное восприятие* некоторых физических явлений. Данное обстоятельство подтвердит развитый Искусственный интеллект. Так, из упомянутой картины толком не видно: куда и как девается в е щ е с т в о , многими миллиардами лет поглощаемое многими миллиардами черных дыр? Какова роль материи (в том числе энергии), соответствующей упомянутому веществу, в физических явлениях природы? - Хотя бы сказочно представим себе ответы на эти вопросы. При тех давлениях, температурах, гравитационных и прочих полях, которые существуют в центральной части активно действующих черных дыр (фонтанирующих мощнейшими джетами на расстояние до миллиона световых лет) , все в е щ е с т в а (включая и элементарные частицы, имеющие массу или её свойства), поглощенные черными дырами за многие миллиарды лет, разваливаются на "труху" (имеющую соответствующий всем поглощенным массам энергетический потенциал), из которой и состоит энергетический вакуум. "Труха" - это новый сказочный персонаж, облегчающий понимание схематически изложенных далее сказочных явлений. В отличие от вещества, имеющего массу, "труха" как форма существования материи не испытывает гравитационного, электростатического, магнитного притяжения, но является п р о в о д н и к о м соответствующих полей. И если, например, ни одна частица вещества, имеющая массу или ее свойства, не может вырваться наружу из поля тяготения черных дыр, то "труха" свободно оттуда исходит наружу, "растворяя" таким образом черные дыры. А энергетический вакуум с высокой концентрацией "трухи" расплывается от черных дыр по всему окружающему пространству космоса, выравнивая свою концентрацию и пронизывая (не хуже нейтрино!) в с е объекты природы, в том числе атомы. [22.03.2024.]
Раз существуют зоны, в которых вещество, имеющее массу, трансформируется в «труху» (в энергетический вакуум), то должны существовать и зоны, где «труха» при некоторых условиях рекомбинирует до вещества с массой, например, водорода. С появлением вещества, имеющего массу, появляются соответствующие гравитационные силы, сгущающие образовавшийся водород до газовых облаков, затем до газовых планет, и далее по известной цепочке, замыкающей кругооборот материи в Природе. Одной из подобных зон может быть околосолнечная зона. [22.03.2024.]
Имею дерзость интуитивно утверждать, что поскольку постоянная Планка связана с энергией (мощностью) излучения, а излучение происходит в пространство, заполненное энергетическим вакуумом, то уровень излучения будет зависеть в том числе и от *концентрации* энергетического вакуума, в который происходит излучение. Таким образом, постоянная Планка является постоянной на локальном уровне, а в межгалактических масштабах она является *переменной* . В соответствии с указанным свойством якобы «постоянной» Планка следует оценивать влияние изменений «постоянной» Планка на красное смещение, на разбегание галактик и на прочие космические чудеса. Очень может быть, что гравитационная постоянная тоже зависит от концентрации энергетического вакуума. [22.03.2024.]
1. "Весло, погруженное в воду, кажется нам надломленным. Таким образом, важно не только то, что мы видим, но и как мы его видим." (Мишель Монтень, "Опыты" ). 2. «Кто ищет - вынужден блуждать.» (И. - В. Гёте «Фауст» ). [22.03.2024.]
Чтобы меньше блуждать при исследовании и познании явлений, целесообразно использовать, в частности, системный подход. Об этом смотрим, например, книгу: Могилевский В.Д. Методология систем: вербальный подход. - М.; ОАО «Издательство «Экономика», 1999. - 251 с. [28.03.2024.]
I thought MOND also required dark matter, just on a much smaller scale than general relativity. For example, MOND cannot explain the CMB without incorporating dark matter. Maybe it's just the fog of memory but I'm pretty sure I watched a lecture on this topic here on UA-cam.
Thanks for Your Presentations Dark Matter and The Invisible Universe is Monotonic Gold Au Gold Au causes Invisibility at Extreme Temperatures and has become Man's Obsession of Everything for Endless MILLIONS of YEARS The Universe is The Best Elementary Science Kit
There is no magnetic attraction. It's magnetic attraction to a mediated to center, low pressure vortex into Counterspace. Magnetism gives Magnitude to the Universe. Aether's Space vortex, of Aether's hyperboloid. Aether's Counterspacial vortex, of Aether's hyperboloid is Dark Mass. Gravity is the same, into a low pressure vortex into Counterspace. Mediated to center of galaxies is zero point/the Inertial plane/Counterspace. Mediated to galactic center, is the apex of Aether's hyperboloid. The smaller the spacial footprint, the higher the capacitance. Dark Mass is in Counterspace. That's why we can't see it. It's not in our Space Universe, it's in Counterspace. Blackholes/Counterspacial Sinks are Aether's hyperboloid, it's Inertial plane is into Counterspace. Stars are Aether's hyperboloid, its Inertial plane is into Space. Scalable Aether Universe!
Do you know of anyone who has seriously persued the notion of "We have the standard candles/measurements to them incorrect" and these galaxies are smaller than recorded? This may avoid invention of any new matter or any modifications to existing laws, just adjusting the scales and measurements to fit the observable result?
No offence, but suggesting measurement errors is like saying to the surgeon, hey did you know you can transplant one kidney? ;) Check the Wikipedia page on dark matter, especially the observational evidence part.
@@pavel9652 "No offence, but suggesting measurement errors is like saying to the surgeon, hey did you know you can transplant one kidney?" None taken, the offense is all sciences, however I guess this means the answer to my question is no? The reason I ask is that you are comparing Astrophysics to Medical Surgery using an analogy about something mankind has its hands on and has had the opportunity to examine, versus something vastly completely unknown. "Check the Wikipedia page on dark matter, especially the observational evidence part." If you are acting like stating the obvious has already happened, then please point me to any resources to look at where someone has actually proposed it could be a measurment mismatch issue and not a change in Newtonian Dynamics at certain scales or introducing unobservable matter? You will see on wiki there is no mention of the scale issue hence why MOND and Dark Matter are the primary propositions. Of which to add, there is no obsverational evidence for dark matter at all, there is only a consequential effect which we have assumed is a new form of exotic unknown matter, hence the question. I do not know where you see my other comment shouting out Jan Oort and Kent Ford but please do assume I had read much more deeper than just the wiki page on the topic, especially when the wiki page confirms the primary reason here "The primary evidence for dark matter comes from calculations". Now you can take that as an incomplete cherry pick if you need to, but that would be avoiding the very point of me asking the question.
@@Gleem 1) Looking for errors and refining measurements is the bread and butter in astronomy. Also, see the distance ladder on Wikipedia. I can't point you to any research, but on top of my head, I recall ongoing attempts to refine the Hubble constant, which is related. 2) There are 11 observational phenomena explained by DM and described in Wikipedia. Some of which could be explained only with large quantities of invisible and inert matter such as predicted DM.
@@pavel9652 1/. Hubble constant has a massive issues at the moment which has increased the "crisis" of cosmology already beyond dark matter and dark energy. I know of one scientist who did suspect this very thing, called Halton Arp, who was swiftly removed from all telescope time on the basis of "That's a ridiculus suggestion". Maybe you will understand my question more with more context, he has many videos on yt, even a wiki page. 2/. Dark matter is not an explanation its a placeholder label for something we do not have a clue about. What I am more after is "Has anyone actually considered the most simpliest layman solution to the problem, as opposed to inventing new invisible stuff and modifying something which works so well in the solarsytem making the matter more complex than it should be as us humans are liable to do". I believe the answer is "No science just assumes we have all the calculations correct". If you need to understand my stance more, here are more advanced questions which may help: From 1887 to 1925 (38 years) we have searched for an exotic form of matter called Luminiferious Aether. This idea was generally abandoned in the publics knowledge under the assumption it was not needed as we could not find any direct evidence of its existence. From 1930 to 2022 (92 years) we have searched for an exotic form of matter called Dark Matter. This idea is still being persued 92 years after its proposal without any direct evidence found ever. a/. Why did we abandon Aether so quickly yet are holding on to Dark Matter in comparison, when they carry the same layman descriptor of "A directly undetectable thing filling space"? b/. How much human arrogance has influenced the scientific model, enough to believe that the majority of the universe is filled with supernatural matter and energy, but *not* be classed as a religion?
@@Gleem 1) "swiftly removed from all telescope time" - do you have a source for this claim? sounds like another conspiracy; he received awards in astronomy, so doesn't seem to be swiftly removed from anywhere 2) "Dark matter is not an explanation its a placeholder label for something" - DM is a hypothetical form of matter that explains at least 10 observed phenomenons 3) "Has anyone actually considered the most simplest layman solution" - most of the particles in the standard model were discovered in the last 50 years 4) "No science just assumes we have all the calculations correct" - not true, there are always error bars; see measurements of the Hubble constant for instance 5) "From 1887 to 1925 (38 years) we have searched for an exotic form of matter called Luminiferious Aether. This idea was generally abandoned in the public knowledge under the assumption it was not needed as we could not find any direct evidence of its existence." - I know it; sounds like the exact opposite of DM, except it can't be observed directly; DM is observed indirectly, just like black holes were observed for decades 6) "yet are holding on to Dark Matter in comparison" - it took 40 years to observe the Higgs boson; science is getting only harder; most of the particles in the standard model were discovered in the last 50 years 7) "How much human arrogance has influenced the scientific model" - scientists are the least arrogant people I know; the Nobel prize can be won for proving oneself wrong 8) "majority of the universe is filled with supernatural matter and energy, but not be classed as a religion" - you are going way off here; DM is a falsifiable hypothesis and is not supernatural
There is one alternative to dark matter that explains everything that the dark matter postulate does not. It's called accelerating propulsion theory. The theory claims only stars and galaxies are affected, indicating the stars and galaxies slowly propel themselves over great lengths of time at a rate of about 0.0000002007 in/s. This slow propulsion even explains why stars and satellite galaxies are unable to reach an escape velocity from their host galaxy. It explains why planets, moons, comets and other small bodies don't produce this slow acceleration. If gravity were causing the unexplained motion then it would affect the motion and orbits of the small bodies just as it would affect the motion of stars. All bodies fall at the same rate regardless of mass, weight or density. But this unexplained motion doesn't happen to planets and other small bodies. Thus it cannot be gravity or missing mass causing the unexplained motion. Dark matter is dead.
It would seem the dark matter problems would be fixed with a tiny (on the order of gravity) anti normal matter force. This would also explain why we can’t detect it.
Difference among your point of view and others scientists is that you used a lot the word "hypothesis". Big part of scientific community avoid to use this term "hypothesis", and considers that Dark Matter exists, we Just need to find It.
Human and mammalian genome, made of DNA (nucleotides) wherein anywhere between 70-90 percent in genome is "junk" of unknown function but has subtle influence . Most accumulated due to viral integration etc. It "protects" coding or functional dna since mutations happen within these long stretches rather than more frequently in functional part.sometimes it also gains a function and affects genes in other ways. So maybe dark matter makes structure formation possible and protects them from insults in some way? And like it's genomic counterpart, is also made of the same stuff...yeah anologous. I still hate dark matter and energy though and would like another explanation
1) Do you have source of the claim? I have heard it in the past, but some 90% of junk code seems to be somewhat excessive. 2) How junk code protects from mutations since the amount of mutations should rise linearly with the length of the code? It might protect from certain types of mutations, though. I would have to think about it. 3) The dead code influences the evolution since parts can get activated. I agree on that one! 4) Dark matter help form structures like spiral galaxies because it has large mass or there is a lot of it, but it does not interact with EM fields, so doesn't heat up, etc.
Pubmed has references to these claims. I used to work on this in late 1990s . No more. This claim is indeed disputed and there used to be an active discussion but I don't follow it any longer. But given that the genome is 5 billion letters and even if we assume 100000 genes( actual no is supposed to be much lower although proteins are many more) it doesn't seem sufficient to cover that length. And you're right. Some can get activated and influence the course of evolution too or have influence on phenotype.
When it comes to science, Einstein science, logic, or even general principles the best idea sucks if you can't back it up with a theory, concept or some down to earth facts ! Dark matter suppose to be a type of gravity, but they have no equations or concept to show for it. Einstein showed theories, concepts, working equations and explanations all about his gravity. I know there's no such thing as dark matter because it's just a filler to help support the flimsy big bang idea 💡.........
@Paul M Sutter Paul, Zwicky & Rubin had interesting ideas. Unfortunately, when we factor in all other observations made about the Universe, not only do their theories fall apart, but as you've said before, so to does General & Special Relativity. G&SR and Dark Energy/Matter are wrong. There is currently a better explanation, but it's not widely known. It not only explains observations but also reveals information about the Universe we currently have no explanations for. I'd love to show you and explain. Send me an email if you'd like to know more.
That Porche's engine is in the rear by the way.
I like how folks in the comments show up to give Paul Sutter insights into physics.
Ha! I was thinking the same. Why I cringe opening comments, but like a slow motion train wreck I just can't look away.
There is nothing better than a good mystery that needs explaining.
"Electromagnetic Fields and Waves" by Lorrain & Corson (2nd Edition) contains two problems relating Electrodynamics and Cosmology. Problem 4-22 starts with: "In 1959 Lyttelton and Bondi [Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A, vol. 232, p.313] suggested that the expansion of the Universe could be explained on the basis of Newtonian Mechanics if matter contained a [tiny] net electric charge."
A follow-on problem, Problem 10-11, mentions that correction terms to curlB and divE due to the creation of this charge should be on the order of R^-2 where R is on the order of the radius of the Universe, so that the new terms would be negligible at all length scales but cosmological situations. This hypothesis is consistent with the linear velocity-distance observations.
Rather thought-provoking questions from an Undergraduate E&M textbook!
MOND has a harder time explaining observations, but considering the ratio of people working on MOND vs on Dark-Matter, you have to give it a chance!
i've tried to publish an alternative explanation of dark matter, but some five editors rejected the manuscript. The first 4 said "this is too detailed and too fundamental new information for our journal, you should send it to some more fundamental journal" and the 5th one said "i've read all this elsewhere, you should know we publish original research only". So good luck with publishing something new! :D
I am a mere dabbler in cosmology, but I am wondering how much reality there is in theories which hypothesise particles and matter which we can not see and can only infer from observations which may in themselves be flawed - standard candles for example, which, as it turns out aren't quite so standard as was thought. Obviously - all theories stand only as provisional, until they can be falsified.
@@Tonyv1951 Indeed. All theories are ultimately false. However... things have to go on. Otherwise we would still be burning witches and wave bibles in our hands...
@@Tonyv1951But since most of us who are interested in cosmology & all the fundamental physical baggage that goes along with it aren't even sure if we actually exist, because we don't & probably never will understand the meaning of life OR the nature of consciousness/"soul" that is consumed with its importance (which is to say, ourselves), I maintain that it's a bloody impressive house of cards we've built for ourselves to stand on.
So remember to try not to lose your balance!
May as well be happy in the knowledge of your infinite greatness AND smallness, all at the same time, & that purpose means nothing & chance explains everything.
Which is a nice way of saying that the more we seem to learn, the less we seem to know...🤗🤪
@@Tonyv1951 Just do the math.🤗
8:38 At least we have seen that Bigfoot exists as your shot of the Patterson/Gimlin film shows. That at least has visible evidence!
Sabine Hossenfelder left the chat in tears and was last seen drunk on a pub in Munich.
Great video! I'm an amateur astronomer/astrophotographer and very interested in these topics and try to stay up on the latest developments. I've long had questions around this topic that I've never been able to truly find good answers. I've always been more of a MOND fan than DE/DM due to the fact that, as I understand, these are mear values inserted into equations to make them work so they match the observations. I love your open mindset where I've seen other videos where they take a hard stance on there is DM/DE and we just have to find it.
I've thought a lot about this and have read articles on things like "Warp Drive", etc. which talk about bending space on either side of a starship. This made me think that we really don't understand how to interact with space. We understand that spacetime is a thing, and can see how the presence of matter can "bend" it to explain gravitational attraction. At least, that's the assumption of how it works. I've also read about quantum theories on particles like gravitons that do this interaction, yet, no evidence has been found to support this. I've read about string theory, etc., which tries to explain some of this. However, what if we simply don't fully understand the nature of space itself? Is it possible that it's just a property of space that it has to expand much like a balloon in a vaccum where the fact that there's no barrier at the edge of our universe to stop it and it simply must grow to fill the void? Is there a difference between space and a void where spacetime doesn't exist? What if we treated space as a separate physical construct that doesn't require particles to explain? I've noticed that they are always searching for a physical particle to explain such theories but never seem to contemplate the notion that spacetime has more properties that are yet to be defined?
Can the equations that use the values for DE/DM be used in such a way to explain these properties? The thing that makes this make sense to me is the variance in red shift for more distant objects and explains the observation that the universe seems to be expanding in all directions away from us while accelerating. Perhaps this rate of expansion can be quantified and used in these equations. So when you're calculating the spin of a galaxy, are you also allowing for this expansion of space within the galaxies? Have we measured the rate of expansion between objects within the Milky Way? It has to happen everywhere if it's true. We wouldn't see it within very close proximity of a gravity field such as us walking on the earth or even between here and the moon. It would be only very slight between objects closer to the center, but more noticeable on the outer rim where things are much farther apart. We should see stars in the outer parts of our galaxy sort of pushing each other away very slightly because of the distance of space between them expanding if this were true.
Ok, I've probably outdone myself on the crackpot scale, but would appreciate any further discussion to better understand these ideas. If I'm totally off base, I'd appreciate that feedback as well. These are just questions I have that keep me up at night. Thank you!
Excellent stuff Paul.
The simple explanation for the reason for stars at the outside of the galactic radius is the DIFFERENCE between gravity and electromagnetism is 2.4x10^39 in the favor of ELECTROMAGNETISM. Pretty simple, really.
Indeed. What are the magnetohydrodynamic consequences of all of these stars swirling around as they emit stellar wind?
I don't know.
Question: in a simulation of a three body system, usually one of the objects flings out of the system, and the other two become stable around each other. A chaotic as the system is, this is usually what happens (other than stable solutions). Now when we model formation of galaxies with dark matter, which makes it match the observations better, does the model consider that some dark matter must fling out of the system for everything else to become stable?
Funny how predictive software written bye biased hominids to actauly insert some thing that has no evidence to support it , Just claim, then that predictive software is not predictive it is biased.
every algorithm and predictive software that show dark matter is just super imposed over normal gravitational influence, hence Dark matter is a bigger fraud than religion.
We should assume that we can't detect any interactions that dark matter has beyond its gravitational influences on galaxies and photons, and we should NOT assume that it doesn't interact with anything. Our desperate and confused ignorance is the most likely obstacle to answering any question.
What are the magnetohydrodynamic consequences of all of these stars swirling around as they emit stellar wind?
Shout out notable mentions in the history, Jan Oort and Kent Ford.
Awesome that mathematical models based on the philosophically untenable paradigm of chronocentric atomism have taken us this far.
Fix that … and explaining the various phenomena for which DM is required … becomes quite trivial, as does understanding why the mathematical models of QM and GR work where they do.
Physics though, is focused on mathematical models,not what regular people call Theories (understanding of mechanism).
Note that Copernicus' model of planetary motions did not offer better predictions than did epicyclic models. It did simplify the picture though and advanced our understanding of mechanism.
Escaping geocentricism required observations of the phases of Venus. Not better predictions.
Escaping the current paradigm … should have happened long ago, but physics has firewalled itself very effectively, and has way more mathematical objects with which to tweak their mathematical models than did the poor epicyclists, who just had circles.
End chronocentricism. Invert atomism. Insist on simplicity … it really isn't that hard ;)
Basically, DM is the wrong answer, but it's the Best Wrong Answer we have right now.
Why spend untold millions of dollars on idea we know is wrong?
Dark matter is the right answer. The problem is we have no reliable explanations as to what dark matter actually is because we cannot interact with it. And MOND continues to fall apart in the time since this video came out. It makes sense to continue studying dark matter because we can observe its effects. Something is definitely there. We need to figure out what it is
@@WoodlandTdo we need to?
I think when a light wave is stopped in a black hole it loses its speed component. Time stops in a singularity and the only thing left would be mass with no energy, just gravity. Maybe a quasi- particle? E0=M in a black hole.
Where's my Suspicious Observers at?? 😂🤣😂🤣 Right again!!!
"Space is strange. It's the last place I ever thought I'd fall in love." -Inspector Gadget
Isn't it possible that there's a lot more stuff, ice rock and gas, between stars that isn't being accounted for?
I was wondering the same. Given the vast distances between the stars and the unfathomable distances between galaxies, I wonder if there is room for huge amounts of very dispersed gas molecules in the inter-stellar and intergalactic medium. This is a guess. I have no evidential background. I also struggle with the idea of a Big Bang coming out of nowhere. I am of the view from a merely logical point of view, that the universe has existed in some form, be that mass in some form, or energy, for eternity.
Gravitaaion lisäkomponentti on erilaiset kenttien ja aineen rotaatiot kuten spin ja niin edelleen. Kentillä on myös paino, joka on otettava huomioon.
early formation of Galaxies from Globular clusters disproves the Dark Matter Hypothesis. I can give you the link to the paper at the preprint archive should you be interested.
You are a SUPERB teacher, Mr. Sutter!
For the first time in a long time I can watch an Astro/Quantum physics video & find someone who can explain it to me CLEARLY!🥳
There's too many science presenters out there who can neither describe nor explain these often arcane concepts in a manner that convinces me they that they themselves even understand them!🤪🤤🤤🤤🧐
Some commenters have said that DM is wrong. I wonder what information, observations, or theories allowed them to come to that conclusion. But they could be right about DM being wrong. Two problems I see are that DM "measurements" are post-hoc, i.e. they look at the mass of all the visible matter and calculate how much DM must be present to account for the motion of the stars in a galaxy or the movement of galaxies in a cluster, so they cannot see DM they cannot predict what the motions will be, rather they must measure the motions and determine the mass of dark matter. The other problem is that physicists have not idea of where DM fits into the Standard Model, and I'm not sure any have come up with a hypothesis of where DM fits, or with an alternative Model that explains everything the Standard Model explains while also explaining DM. So is there a more massive particle that has not been discovered yet? Probably a reason to build a MUCH more powerful collider.
Isn't it like an episode of Quincy Md?
In the depths of space, where darkness reigns,
The enigma of dark matter still remains.
Ask a Spaceman, they'll ponder the question,
Does dark matter fail, or is it our obsession?
Through galaxies vast, it silently drifts,
A cosmic enigma that the universe sifts.
Binding galaxies with its invisible hand,
Yet eluding our grasp, like shifting sand.
In the cosmic dance, it plays its part,
Yet questions linger, deep in the heart.
Does it fail to explain, or is there more to find?
Ask a Spaceman, with knowledge refined.
In the depths of the cosmos, where mysteries dwell,
Dark matter's secrets, only time will tell.
For in the quest for truth, we journey far,
Guided by curiosity, like a guiding star.
So ask a Spaceman, and they'll explore,
The mysteries of dark matter, forevermore.
In the tapestry of the universe, it weaves its tale,
A cosmic enigma, that may yet prevail.
Compliments on objectivity and clarity. The problem is the discovery of these early galaxies now contradict the dark energy theory or I should say hypothesis.
IT'S THE "FABRIC" OF SPACE TIME!!!!!!!!!! No need for dark anything, whatever it is that makes up space/time which is able to warp and drag and bend. The "fabric" that is in, around and through everything in space, will explain it all. Even without knowing the make-up of it you can see how it would hold galaxies together, keeping them from ripping apart as they spin.
What about the geometry of stars and their position in galaxy?is it possible to affect not to depart them from the galaxy?
Hi Paul ! Dark matter is made three particules, two invisible, the gluon (inert), the (almost) zero energy photon (bouncing around, named quanton = h) and, the three kinds of neutrinos always on the move.
How do I know that ? You will find out soon.
Thank you
We do not see the wind, just the effect.
Dark matter is the source of superconductivity. At 2.72K, photons pass through it and it generates the cosmic microwave background. This is why all light from stars is observed in the red shift. Using the Planck constant and e=mc^2, it calculates a mass of 1.181 X 10^-39 kg. This mass fits into the mass discrepancies of the atom, both the missing mass and the “empty” volume. It is responsible for electromagnetism, the weak force, the strong force and the motions of the stars & planets. We do not have 4 fundamental forces, we have 1 fundamental force, in which dark matter is the source of, that we are able to observe in 4 different states/configurations.
What about John Moffat's MOdified Gravity Theory, aka STVG Scalar-Tensor-Vector Gravity - it explains all kinds of cosmological phenomena without the need tor dark matter. Can you do a video covering Moffat's work? Seems really intriguing but it is hardly covered. Thanks!
The problem I see with so many thought experiments is that they begin with a host of unexamined assumptions, the most glaring being what consciousness is. A lot of scientists suppose that consciousness arises from matter, but from the non-dualist perspective, it is the other way around. Also, often concepts like consciousness, thought, mind, ego, identity - all get muddled together and are not sorted out. The terms are then used interchangeably when they are distinct concepts. Another flaw I see is the assumption that for every single quantum result, the assumption is being made that everything in existence is being duplicated on a macro level and then continues onward. And so what? Maybe it is just consciousness, or awareness, or the non-dualistic nature of reality that is simply experiencing ALL material possibilities. We are sadly limited in our localized consciousness and struggle to process this view of the universe, it does not sit well with our ego-centric view of reality. Just another thought experiment with unexamined assumptions.
Here's a thought experiment: if MWT is correct and for every single quantum interaction a parallel world exists, so what? Because if the Universe is infinite then everything in all forms exists. Infinity necessarily includes everything.
My complaint with the Many Worlds Theory is that it is not empirically verifiable. That does not mean it is wrong, just that we will never know if it is correct. So what good does it do us on any practical level? It seems like a scientific dead end to me - but it's great for metaphysical conversations.
Excellent content
Superb presentation. I watched it twice. I’m a geophysicist and glad that I deal with tangible matter and energy here on earth. I’m completely out of my depth when it comes to dark matter. However, if I was looking for dark matter and I had come up empty after decades I would put my full effort into approaching it through the back door. What is the ‘origin’ of dark matter? What is the rationale for its existence to provide all of these observations? Why would dark matter have the properties that it does? If does dark matter exist than it ‘has to’ exist. It’s not the rotation just of galaxies , etc that need dark matter to explain their properties but fundamental physics at the time of Inflation, etc need dark matter to be logical.
Since EVERYTHING is "explained" by exotic math, I don't suppose it ever occurs to a bunch of self-aggrandizing overpaid & tenured-for-life one-upping grant-grubbing petty egomaniacal crybabies whose life ambition is nothing more than to see their name at the top of some paper written 99% by one of their Ph.D. suckup students published in one of the "right" journals & then turn around to their peers & say: "I got another one than you do!"🥳 that maybe the only thing that all that exotic math 🤯🤯🤯🤪 actually explains is its, & their, own worthlessness.🧐
But hey, it's a job.🤔
If dark matter has a large impact on the gravity of a galaxy, would you say that it permeates the galaxy? If so, wouldn't the Earth be bathed in dark matter to some degree? Then wouldn't dark matter be contributing to the gravitational constant G? But to what degree? When we thought G was only due to the matter we know about, how could we tell what proportion of it was also due to dark matter? Is dark matter distributed unevenly throughout a galaxy? If so, then G would be different in different places in the galaxy. Since G is determined experimentally, and the only place we've run the experiment is on Earth, then variations could happen elsewhere. This could really shake things up, but it could also be used to explain galaxy rotation. But why would dark matter be unevenly distributed? For the same reason regular matter is, I suppose. Maybe the uneven distributions are the result of the interplay between the two forms of matter. There is much to contemplate.
Wait...I never thought I'd hear Paul speak negatively about the power of cheese. 😛😋
I personally suspect that dark matter is correct but it isnt actually within our universe as we assume, it sort of overlaps, acting as if the other side of the sheet in the demonstration of a mass pulling in gravity. A particle which is outside our reality but is still influenced by the quantum fields of our universe and thus mass and it interact with eachother in the field but not in the physical.
Alternatively if string theory holds true, perhaps what we are observing are extradimensional particles.
I suppose that we do not see them not because they are rare or hard to see but because we cannot see them. We cannot currently observe with certainty that which may be beyond our universe and we cannot see that which exists physically in a higher or lower dimension.
I love your explanations of physics... everything!
One day we'll look back and say, interesting...
Truly Thank you
So the æther _does_ have mass and gravity!
Could it be that "dark matter" lacks polarity i.e. is mono-polar or a-polar?
To balance all the movement and motion of the universe
"ALL the available data"??? I don't think so, not by a factor of a billion or more. "Explain all the things that WE know and have explained" -- "but we will not put what we know in a form that is complete, accessible, and testable." I thought it said, "Does Dark Matter Fall?" A much better question. Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
I would like to ear Paul Sutter comments about RELMond, a recent relativistic extensions of MOND, that seems to check all the boxes, including reproducing CMB power spectrum. The time wasted talking about TeVeS demonstrates lack of knowledge... TeVeS was falsified by gravitational waves episodes, since the predicted Shapiro effect wasn't observed. So, in conclusion, a shallow and imprecise analysis, reinforcing my opinion that MOND people know a lot more about lambda CDM than the opposite...
Dark matter is only needed when you try to fit the rotational observations into the box of relativity. I feel there has to be a quantum element involved. One paper (don’t recall the author) described a black hole as a giant atom … I think that approach is going to more quickly resolve the rotational problem, and likely give us a better unified theory in the process.
Every black hole interior may simply be another expanding universe. From the outside, each black hole may behave as a single particle.
Don't get me wrong, I am not implying that particles are black holes.
@@stevenverrall4527 yes that was part of it as well, that our universe is a black hole (or inside a black hole). New measurements of the charge radius of the proton are changing how we understand the strong force, as it looks like it could be quantum gravity at work, which seems like a much better explanation of the force than "strong"
@@philnykamp Have you seen my recent (published Jan 23, 2023) paper in Foundations of Physics? The title is Ground state quantum vortex proton model. The proton's magnetic moment and charge radius are calculated from proton mass. A gravitation mechanism is also proposed.
I am currently working on making my proton model more rigorous. I have discovered a charge-generation mechanism within the framework of my proton model.
@@stevenverrall4527 I haven't seen that paper but I'm definitely going to check it out ... thanks!
@@stevenverrall4527I think you're definitely on the right track here, although I don't understand many of the terms. Are you saying (generally) that the mechanism for collapsing the wave form to "create" the photon is a quantum vortex? That would be very consistent with my writing (unpublished)
So we are looking for Super Fat Neutrino like Ninja Particles that like to only hangout with themselves?
Dark matter comes from dark energy .
What is dark energy ? Plasma . Protons and Electrons stripped down to their consituents by speed . When the speed becomes slower or cooler , then the dark matter becomes and this then leads to the periodic table with space .
The dark energy and matter are in the coldest regions of space . And therefore the fastest parts of space .
I know what it is. It is "incomplete" particles! I broke second law of thermodynamics and its consequence was this revelation. The universe has enormous amount of "uninteractable particles" you cannot interact with them because they are "incomplete" and it makes them interact onl;y through gravity because they cannot violate topological property of "complete" particles. And when incomplete particle gets enough energy it produces gravitational gradient around it. and it gets devoured by complete particles but it is not enough for anything, except when thermonuclear synthesis happens it cannot happen without these incomplete particles. Physics of the sun is absolutely different according to my theory.
Then write a paper for peer review and publish it.
@@robertspence7766 no credentials, and now I dislike Americans, so I started making nuclear weapons from water that I will charge up in radiation belts of earth and then drop them at American cities.
Occam's razor and so on
Albert Einstein held in his gen, rel. equations that Gravity had a corresponding outward characteristic that was equal to It's 'attractive charicteristics. but You know this, Start over in Einsteins notations.Look at Rubens (Zwicky again.
While I have only been studying astronomy on my own now for 7 years, dark matter is the most interesting/ exciting thing for me to read about.
Yes, of course...That nothing is exciting. And even then you're not sure, because nobody's proven nothing yet; the harder they'll look, the more of it they seem to find. A theory then, that proves itself no matter what the outcome appears to be!🌈🦄🤣🤣🤣🤧
Is the Higgs field part of the answer? Totally have no clue just a layman.
Looking for dark matter particles instead of a dusty universe, dead stars, gas giants, and rocks. How many particles of dark matter would it take to equal one child's marble of normal space stuff ? Could it be the universe is full of static electric currents and electromagnetism ?
Yes - I've wondered the same. Brown dwarf's - failed stars must exist in their billions and are probably evenly distributed among the stars. They would be far enough away from one another and other stars not to really obstruct much light and would not have enough gravity to do much in the way of lensing. I wonder if they, and the sparsely distributed gas and dust in the interstellar and inter-galactic medium would possibly account for the missing mass we drop into our cosmological theories. Do we really need an exotic unseen form of matter when more prosaic explanations may fit?
Lay person Question: Can something exist in two places at the same time? Like a quantum remnant of the Big Bang. It’s mass is here but it “lives” or is visible somewhere else…
Thanks, very clear
We have every reason to think that there are particles that are currently undetectable. We know of reasons they might be undetectable. A very weakly interacting particle in particular should be extremely hard to detect.
Not having found a dark matter particle fits the data. Lol!
No that's wrong. Dark matter doesn't pass thru each other, that said it fills the universe also is like compressed. Gravity is a consequence from mass on spin(earth")thru d.m.(space") compressed displacement(curvture") of Dark matter and also produces a like friction consequence (gravity ") dark matter also does have reaction to magnetic fields, also I'm quite sure electromagnetic as well but haven't verified it yet.
I've always had a gut feeling that there is additional layers to forces of nature. Especially gravity. I feel we comprehend Gravity to a point. But. I feel there is other layers to gravity once you get to immense scales like on the scale of entire galaxies and multiple galaxies interacting and many multiple galaxies interacting with all the properties of, density's, temperature's, velocity's, static charges, electromagnetism, plasma, Etc. All interacting with each other, and then it gets even bigger than that. I do not feel we actually have the ability to comprehend and accurately calculate this type of nature of the universe. So maybe there is a small scale gravity, average level gravity, and a Large scale gravity layer? It's just a hypothetical idea I have.
I have often thought the same. Not quite that there are different forces of gravity at different scales but much like Einstein's equations for General Relativity predicted that as objects American the speed of light, relativistic speeds, they are subject to effects that affect their mass or even the perception of the universe around them, then at large enough scales similar coefficients or extra term need to be added to Newton's Laws of Gravity.
The fact that we don't have Quantum Theory for Gravity is problematic, which makes me think that we just don't understand gravity well enough. I don't like the Dark Matter explanation. It may be true, but to me it seems like something we'll never be able to prove beyond circumstantial evidence, which for me is like how before Einstein came up with his Theory of Special Relativity all physicists were including aether to make all their proposed theories fit the experimental results.
I personally don't think there is a silver bullet answer that will explain everything here, hence why we've found it hard to find an easy solution. It may be, in my opinion, a combination of many things we don't yet know. But particles that don't interact with anything else (light of matter), but have mass and this exert a gravitational effect only interacting with space time curvature just sounds very far fetched, even if it is the most likely explanation. As a true scientist I'm skeptical of either proposed solution until the evidence is there to prove either correct.
Gravity has an equal opposite counterpart called energy. To move matter against the pull of gravity an equal opposite amount of energy is required. Even more energy is required for the same matter to reach an escape velocity. Energy is required to cause galaxies to move away from each other against the pull of their gravity. Energy is the action, motion or gravity is the reaction.
Gravity is what happens to matter that is unable to produce energy to counter the effects of gravity, cancel out the gravity so to speak. So a boulder is attracted to the Earth because it doesn't radiate enough energy to counter the Earth's gravity. Expansion of space between objects happens when the objects produce an excess of energy against the pull of their gravity. Example, you have two stars radiating a constant solar wind full of hot charged particles at 2 million miles per hour and the two stars will not collide. Well, as long as they are not on a direct trajectory or path towards one another. When they are not on the same trajectory their solar winds will force them apart. This is the equal opposite action causing their gravity.
Energy is the action and motion is the reaction. Gravity is described as motion of mass. Mass is radiating energy producing motion we call gravity. When energy is created deep in the cores of large spherically shaped objects, gravity becomes the equal opposite counterpart, causing small matter to be attracted. But if both of the objects are radiating a constant flow of energy then a repulsive reaction occurs. Energy flowing upon small objects produces an attraction and the energy flowing upon large objects produces a repulsive force. The direction of motion then is determined by the object radiating energy and the objects receiving the energy. Attraction and repulsion occurs.
Can this be proven in experiments? Yes, it has. Research ion lifters. When energy radiates from the metal causes them to defy gravity. Also research ARV, alien reproduction vehicle.
@@ronaldkemp3952 That's not what we would call 'research'.
@@ronaldkemp3952 I'm sorry but that's just rubbish, a whole lot of rubbish. I don't know where to start with it, but your premise that energy is the exact opposite of gravity is just not true, and I'm not going to waste my time refuting the rest of this nonsense.
I know that there is precisely 0% probability that this comment is either appropriate or appreciated but nonetheless l wish to express my satisfaction with this video popping up at the desperate end of a horrendous four day drinking binge induced by some rather unfortunate life circumstances. Soothing intonation and rationality. Hic.
I feel we should be a little crazy as dark matter is. I mean like applying philosophy to see if we can make any progress in the issues. Let's say that dark matter is sort of "component of the human mind", weird, isn't it? But it can't be more weird than the subject.
You may ask why am I so off track, well, recently we are beginning to understand some eerie nature of reality though not confirmed but no other way to explain it. These are; the situation argument, space and time is doomed, consciousness being fundamental in nature etc. If you actually look at it what we call normal matter is indeed the odd matter because it makes a smaller amount of matter in the universe. So who knows the next bottle neck we bomb into.
There seems to be evidence that blackholes emit dark matter. Is this true?
It's really unhelpful to science communication to perpetuate the sloppy description of 'dark matter' as a scientific hypothesis.... Also, I can't believe you posted this in 2022, the Bullet Cluster is a huge _problem_ for dark matter.
I wish he would say ''Galactic'' instead of ''Galaxy'' scales though.🙃
Hi Paul, From my current reading it looks like my teachers were wrong when they taught us the universe started with a Big Bang from a singularity followed by inflation. It might be time to give us a video to set us straight and educate us oldies who may be stuck on that way of thinking. Could you include current thinking on the cause of inflation and if it ended or could dark energy just be a remnant of it. Thanks.
The Universe has no obligation to create Dark Matter that interacts though anything but Gravity. All of the research looking for WIMPs has assumed that D.M. can interact with "normal" matter in some way other than Gravity. Axions are another kettle of fish.
They estimate a less than 50 but greater than 10 % chance of success with the underground xenon experiment.
Tisk tisk. One has to add the proliferation of black holes (voids) which create gravity through fluid dynamics and pressure differentials.
Or maybe a dark matter is like a time, u don’t see it but it has its own motion
What if the gravitational constant is not constant throughout the Universe?
Documents for existence of big foot is more than those for dark matter😅
It's very real. I discovered it last year. I have direct evidence. Theres no such thing as empty space
Do the quantities of dark matter needed for the cosmic microwave background radiation, the star rotation speeds in galaxies and the gravitational lensing observations all support the total estimates of dark matter in the universe?
Just a question... perhaps more about your choice of words than what physicist specialists use... Right about 5 minutes in, you say that dark matter doesn't interact with light.
But earlier, you say that some of the evidence FOR dark matter comes from gravitational lensing, which to my mind by definition means *interaction*. So which is it?
I don't know because I'm not trained. (Just an engineer making measurement instrumentation for scientists.) But I think because you mention gravitational lensing earlier, that you were mistaken when around at 5 minutes in you say that it does NOT interact with light.
So I'm just chalking this up to loose talk in a video (I can't cast any stones -- guilty too) and I'm going with "Yes, dark matter interacts with light -- at least, it does so in a gravitational meaning as it is expressed when the general theory of relativity is deduced into specific situations that produce mathematical calculations which can be tested by observational, experimental result."
Why can't both be right or at least partially didn't? I'm sure there are fundamental particles we've not discovered yet and also I'm sure there are circumstances at which the laws of physics break down and we need better theories. I don't quite understand why we need a single bullet solution. Sure any theory needs to fit in with existing theories and explain phenomena at all scales (or at least be able to be reduced down into the existing theories at these scales, in a mathematical sense at least), but why can't MOND be right, but there also be done Dark Matter out there? Sure Dark Matter seems to be the most likely but if it can never be directly detected how can we ever prove that it exists?
Yes MOND could be correct (in some ways) if you include dark matter. And if you include other modifications of MOND then maybe the combination could explain everything, but the evidence is not compelling for any MOND variation.
@@tonywells6990 Yes, I understand that, and from my days studying for a masters in physics degree I remember loving how elegant some of the solutions from the greats Inn physics were, how the equations simplified out perfectly when applying the limits to the Newtonian equations, and then there was Quantum Mechanics which was just plain weird and didn't seem to tally with how we see reality on a human scale, but it works.
I just think there's a lot we still have to learn. Just as with Quantum Mechanics gravity may be stranger than we think, it may differ under different conditions in the universe and different scales, speeds, under extreme conditions that can't just be deduced from mind experiments like Einstein so cleverly did with his theories of relativity, but I'm also sure there are weird particles that might not be found in our neighborhood, but are only created in far off parts of the galaxy, or that don't interact.
All I know it's that it doesn't sit easy with me having Dark Matter, a particle (or class of particles) we may never be able to detect that don't interact with anything, but have a gravitational pull in very large quantities. Something to me doesn't say there isn't something out there not of that type, just that I think something weirder is going on and we may need a mind even greater than Einstein, even greater than Hawking or Penrose, and we may have to wait a while for someone to come along, to think outside the box, to come up with a solution to it all. I don't think building a bigger particle accelerator or just crunching a huge amount of data is going to give us the answer unfortunately.
@@mattpotter8725 Yes, the answer could be extremely simple or could require totally new physics to understand. Nobody knows!
@@mattpotter8725right∆ so simple , one may ponder why one with no education discovered (highschool dropout) can provide visible direct evidence for your own eyes to see so easily that for about 10-15$ even a cern employee can view it and have a new theory that the size of space is based on dark matter capacity. To say, there's no empty space but full.. theory... ....
There is an elephant in the room explanation for those abnormally high star rotation rates. We all heard the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". This phenomenon is illustrated in a common relativity graph with velocity (from stationary to the speed of light) on the horizontal line and dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) on the vertical line. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. Even mass that exists at 75% light speed is partially dilated.
Wherever you have an astronomical quantity of mass dilation will occur because high mass means high momentum.
There is no place in the universe where mass is more concentrated than at the center of a galaxy. 99.8% of the mass in our solar system is in the sun. 99.9% of the mass in an atom is in the nucleus. If these norms are true for galaxies than we can infer that there is 100's of trillions of solar masses at the center of common spiral galaxies. There is no way to know through observation, there is far too much interference, dilation and gravitational lensing. If we attribute a radius to these numbers than we can calculate that relativistic velocities exist in these regions, the same way we could calculate the surface velocity of the sun if we doubled it's mass.
The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. In some sublime way that mass is all around us because as the graph shows we are still connected to it.
It was recently discovered that low mass galaxies (like NGC 1052-DF2) have normal star rotation rates. This is what relativity would predict because there is an insufficient quantity of mass to achieve relativistic velocities. This is virtual proof that dilation is the governing phenomenon at galactic centers, there can be no other realistic explanation for this fact.
A simple way to confirm this would be to calculate the star rotation rates of a large number of galaxies. This would show that all the high mass galaxies have star rotation rates that defy the known laws of physics and all the low mass galaxies (some galaxies can appear to be low mass but can have high mass at the center) would have predictable star rotation rates.
@@lepidoptera9337 what we all learned in high school is bullshit?
Why can't the phenomena attributed to Dark Matter be explained by long-wavelength gravitational waves, where galaxies are standing wave vortices sweeping matter into spiraling crests, and the Bullet Cluster has a lensing wave peak separating the luminous halves?
We never saw bigfoot.
I know what dark matter and yes it does interact that's why it behaves the way it does
Hi Dr. Sutter! This question has been driving me nuts, and it doesn't appear to me that its answer is simple enough for a 30-second clip. Your channel might be the perfect place to explain the answer. Could you help me out?
Since all of the red shifted light from non-local-group galaxies is millions or billions of years old, we only know for certain that the universe _was_ expanding when that light was emitted. What's the evidence that proves the universe is still expanding at the same rate (or even faster) than it was millions and billions of years ago?
The universe was expanding much faster in the early universe and then the rate of expansion decreased, but its rate of slowing decreased and is now increasing again due to dark energy. The evidence is the red shifting of light, closer galaxies are still moving away from us at high speeds consistent with theory.
Наблюдавшаяся учеными странность - существенно увеличенная по сравнению с ожидаемой (расчетной) скорость вращения звезд в составе галактических дисков , - в некоторой степени обусловлена некорректными исходными посылками при вычислении указанной скорости вращения звезд в диске галактики по аналогии с вычислением скорости движения планет Солнечной системы вокруг Солнца. А именно в этом кроется диалектическая ошибка. Галактика является сложной с и с т е м о й со множеством взаимодействующих между собой по различным параметрам элементов - галактических объектов, в т.ч. звезд. Свойства сложной системы о т л и ч а ю т с я от свойств отдельных элементов той же системы. Так, например, характер вращения сырого яйца как системы (по внутреннему строению) отличается от характера вращения того же сваренного яйца, которое выступает в качестве единого элемента. В рассматриваемом нами случае, применявшееся учеными вычисление скорости вращения звезды в диске галактики по аналогии со скоростью вращения планеты в Солнечной системе, соответствует вычислению скорости движения, исходя из свойств отдельного элемента системы. При этом упускается из виду, что звезда, скорость движения которой вычисляется и измеряется, одновременно взаимодействует (в частности, гравитационными, магнитными силами) с остальными вещественными объектами галактики. Образно говоря, из-за указанного взаимодействия диск галактики приобретает некоторую связку, становится "жестче", и потому линейная скорость вращения отдаленных частей диска возрастает. ... Если представить себе, что диск галактики (со всеми его внутренностями) стал жестким, то имеющаяся вращательная энергия диска перераспределится так, что угловая скорость вращения жесткого диска станет меньше, при этом уменьшится и линейная скорость вращения ближней к центру вращения части диска, а линейная скорость дальних от центра вращения частей диска еще больше увеличится. И "темное" вещество, искомое учеными, при э т о м ни при чем. ...
«Тёмная материя» существует, но в другом месте.
[22.03.2024]
В описываемой учеными, уповающими на формулы, картине мироздания НЕ з а м к н у т цикл кругооборота материи в природе. В этом сущностный недостаток Квантовой гипотезы, который порождает *парадоксальное восприятие* некоторых физических явлений. Данное обстоятельство подтвердит развитый Искусственный интеллект. Так, из упомянутой картины толком не видно: куда и как девается в е щ е с т в о , многими миллиардами лет поглощаемое многими миллиардами черных дыр? Какова роль материи (в том числе энергии), соответствующей упомянутому веществу, в физических явлениях природы? - Хотя бы сказочно представим себе ответы на эти вопросы.
При тех давлениях, температурах, гравитационных и прочих полях, которые существуют в центральной части активно действующих черных дыр (фонтанирующих мощнейшими джетами на расстояние до миллиона световых лет) , все в е щ е с т в а (включая и элементарные частицы, имеющие массу или её свойства), поглощенные черными дырами за многие миллиарды лет, разваливаются на "труху" (имеющую соответствующий всем поглощенным массам энергетический потенциал), из которой и состоит энергетический вакуум. "Труха" - это новый сказочный персонаж, облегчающий понимание схематически изложенных далее сказочных явлений. В отличие от вещества, имеющего массу, "труха" как форма существования материи не испытывает гравитационного, электростатического, магнитного притяжения, но является п р о в о д н и к о м соответствующих полей. И если, например, ни одна частица вещества, имеющая массу или ее свойства, не может вырваться наружу из поля тяготения черных дыр, то "труха" свободно оттуда исходит наружу, "растворяя" таким образом черные дыры. А энергетический вакуум с высокой концентрацией "трухи" расплывается от черных дыр по всему окружающему пространству космоса, выравнивая свою концентрацию и пронизывая (не хуже нейтрино!) в с е объекты природы, в том числе атомы.
[22.03.2024.]
Раз существуют зоны, в которых вещество, имеющее массу, трансформируется в «труху» (в энергетический вакуум), то должны существовать и зоны, где «труха» при некоторых условиях рекомбинирует до вещества с массой, например, водорода. С появлением вещества, имеющего массу, появляются соответствующие гравитационные силы, сгущающие образовавшийся водород до газовых облаков, затем до газовых планет, и далее по известной цепочке, замыкающей кругооборот материи в Природе. Одной из подобных зон может быть околосолнечная зона.
[22.03.2024.]
Имею дерзость интуитивно утверждать, что поскольку постоянная Планка связана с энергией (мощностью) излучения, а излучение происходит в пространство, заполненное энергетическим вакуумом, то уровень излучения будет зависеть в том числе и от *концентрации* энергетического вакуума, в который происходит излучение. Таким образом, постоянная Планка является постоянной на локальном уровне, а в межгалактических масштабах она является *переменной* . В соответствии с указанным свойством якобы «постоянной» Планка следует оценивать влияние изменений «постоянной» Планка на красное смещение, на разбегание галактик и на прочие космические чудеса.
Очень может быть, что гравитационная постоянная тоже зависит от концентрации энергетического вакуума.
[22.03.2024.]
1. "Весло, погруженное в воду, кажется нам надломленным. Таким образом, важно не только то, что мы видим, но и как мы его видим." (Мишель Монтень, "Опыты" ).
2. «Кто ищет - вынужден блуждать.» (И. - В. Гёте «Фауст» ).
[22.03.2024.]
Чтобы меньше блуждать при исследовании и познании явлений, целесообразно использовать, в частности, системный подход. Об этом смотрим, например, книгу: Могилевский В.Д. Методология систем: вербальный подход. - М.; ОАО «Издательство «Экономика», 1999. - 251 с.
[28.03.2024.]
❤ Very good 👍🏼
I thought MOND also required dark matter, just on a much smaller scale than general relativity. For example, MOND cannot explain the CMB without incorporating dark matter. Maybe it's just the fog of memory but I'm pretty sure I watched a lecture on this topic here on UA-cam.
Whatever I love dark matter. And it might even love me back for all we know 😄
dark matter... aliens!... ancient aliens!
Thanks for Your Presentations
Dark Matter and The Invisible Universe is Monotonic Gold Au
Gold Au causes Invisibility at Extreme Temperatures
and has become Man's Obsession of Everything for Endless MILLIONS of YEARS
The Universe is The Best Elementary Science Kit
There is no magnetic attraction. It's magnetic attraction to a mediated to center, low pressure vortex into Counterspace. Magnetism gives Magnitude to the Universe. Aether's Space vortex, of Aether's hyperboloid. Aether's Counterspacial vortex, of Aether's hyperboloid is Dark Mass.
Gravity is the same, into a low pressure vortex into Counterspace.
Mediated to center of galaxies is zero point/the Inertial plane/Counterspace.
Mediated to galactic center, is the apex of Aether's hyperboloid. The smaller the spacial footprint, the higher the capacitance.
Dark Mass is in Counterspace. That's why we can't see it. It's not in our Space Universe, it's in Counterspace.
Blackholes/Counterspacial Sinks are Aether's hyperboloid, it's Inertial plane is into Counterspace. Stars are Aether's hyperboloid, its Inertial plane is into Space.
Scalable Aether Universe!
Maybe Electromagnetism!(Electromagnetic Force) is working as a cosmic glue?????
Do you know of anyone who has seriously persued the notion of "We have the standard candles/measurements to them incorrect" and these galaxies are smaller than recorded? This may avoid invention of any new matter or any modifications to existing laws, just adjusting the scales and measurements to fit the observable result?
No offence, but suggesting measurement errors is like saying to the surgeon, hey did you know you can transplant one kidney? ;) Check the Wikipedia page on dark matter, especially the observational evidence part.
@@pavel9652 "No offence, but suggesting measurement errors is like saying to the surgeon, hey did you know you can transplant one kidney?"
None taken, the offense is all sciences, however I guess this means the answer to my question is no? The reason I ask is that you are comparing Astrophysics to Medical Surgery using an analogy about something mankind has its hands on and has had the opportunity to examine, versus something vastly completely unknown.
"Check the Wikipedia page on dark matter, especially the observational evidence part."
If you are acting like stating the obvious has already happened, then please point me to any resources to look at where someone has actually proposed it could be a measurment mismatch issue and not a change in Newtonian Dynamics at certain scales or introducing unobservable matter? You will see on wiki there is no mention of the scale issue hence why MOND and Dark Matter are the primary propositions. Of which to add, there is no obsverational evidence for dark matter at all, there is only a consequential effect which we have assumed is a new form of exotic unknown matter, hence the question.
I do not know where you see my other comment shouting out Jan Oort and Kent Ford but please do assume I had read much more deeper than just the wiki page on the topic, especially when the wiki page confirms the primary reason here "The primary evidence for dark matter comes from calculations". Now you can take that as an incomplete cherry pick if you need to, but that would be avoiding the very point of me asking the question.
@@Gleem 1) Looking for errors and refining measurements is the bread and butter in astronomy. Also, see the distance ladder on Wikipedia. I can't point you to any research, but on top of my head, I recall ongoing attempts to refine the Hubble constant, which is related.
2) There are 11 observational phenomena explained by DM and described in Wikipedia. Some of which could be explained only with large quantities of invisible and inert matter such as predicted DM.
@@pavel9652 1/. Hubble constant has a massive issues at the moment which has increased the "crisis" of cosmology already beyond dark matter and dark energy. I know of one scientist who did suspect this very thing, called Halton Arp, who was swiftly removed from all telescope time on the basis of "That's a ridiculus suggestion". Maybe you will understand my question more with more context, he has many videos on yt, even a wiki page.
2/. Dark matter is not an explanation its a placeholder label for something we do not have a clue about. What I am more after is "Has anyone actually considered the most simpliest layman solution to the problem, as opposed to inventing new invisible stuff and modifying something which works so well in the solarsytem making the matter more complex than it should be as us humans are liable to do". I believe the answer is "No science just assumes we have all the calculations correct".
If you need to understand my stance more, here are more advanced questions which may help:
From 1887 to 1925 (38 years) we have searched for an exotic form of matter called Luminiferious Aether. This idea was generally abandoned in the publics knowledge under the assumption it was not needed as we could not find any direct evidence of its existence.
From 1930 to 2022 (92 years) we have searched for an exotic form of matter called Dark Matter. This idea is still being persued 92 years after its proposal without any direct evidence found ever.
a/. Why did we abandon Aether so quickly yet are holding on to Dark Matter in comparison, when they carry the same layman descriptor of "A directly undetectable thing filling space"?
b/. How much human arrogance has influenced the scientific model, enough to believe that the majority of the universe is filled with supernatural matter and energy, but *not* be classed as a religion?
@@Gleem 1) "swiftly removed from all telescope time" - do you have a source for this claim? sounds like another conspiracy; he received awards in astronomy, so doesn't seem to be swiftly removed from anywhere
2) "Dark matter is not an explanation its a placeholder label for something" - DM is a hypothetical form of matter that explains at least 10 observed phenomenons
3) "Has anyone actually considered the most simplest layman solution" - most of the particles in the standard model were discovered in the last 50 years
4) "No science just assumes we have all the calculations correct" - not true, there are always error bars; see measurements of the Hubble constant for instance
5) "From 1887 to 1925 (38 years) we have searched for an exotic form of matter called Luminiferious Aether. This idea was generally abandoned in the public knowledge under the assumption it was not needed as we could not find any direct evidence of its existence." - I know it; sounds like the exact opposite of DM, except it can't be observed directly; DM is observed indirectly, just like black holes were observed for decades
6) "yet are holding on to Dark Matter in comparison" - it took 40 years to observe the Higgs boson; science is getting only harder; most of the particles in the standard model were discovered in the last 50 years
7) "How much human arrogance has influenced the scientific model" - scientists are the least arrogant people I know; the Nobel prize can be won for proving oneself wrong
8) "majority of the universe is filled with supernatural matter and energy, but not be classed as a religion" - you are going way off here; DM is a falsifiable hypothesis and is not supernatural
There is one alternative to dark matter that explains everything that the dark matter postulate does not. It's called accelerating propulsion theory. The theory claims only stars and galaxies are affected, indicating the stars and galaxies slowly propel themselves over great lengths of time at a rate of about 0.0000002007 in/s. This slow propulsion even explains why stars and satellite galaxies are unable to reach an escape velocity from their host galaxy. It explains why planets, moons, comets and other small bodies don't produce this slow acceleration. If gravity were causing the unexplained motion then it would affect the motion and orbits of the small bodies just as it would affect the motion of stars. All bodies fall at the same rate regardless of mass, weight or density. But this unexplained motion doesn't happen to planets and other small bodies. Thus it cannot be gravity or missing mass causing the unexplained motion. Dark matter is dead.
I like this definition of dark matter: Spooky Action.
Space teapots...for sure.
It would seem the dark matter problems would be fixed with a tiny (on the order of gravity) anti normal matter force. This would also explain why we can’t detect it.
Difference among your point of view and others scientists is that you used a lot the word "hypothesis". Big part of scientific community avoid to use this term "hypothesis", and considers that Dark Matter exists, we Just need to find It.
Human and mammalian genome, made of DNA (nucleotides) wherein anywhere between 70-90 percent in genome is "junk" of unknown function but has subtle influence . Most accumulated due to viral integration etc. It "protects" coding or functional dna since mutations happen within these long stretches rather than more frequently in functional part.sometimes it also gains a function and affects genes in other ways. So maybe dark matter makes structure formation possible and protects them from insults in some way? And like it's genomic counterpart, is also made of the same stuff...yeah anologous. I still hate dark matter and energy though and would like another explanation
1) Do you have source of the claim? I have heard it in the past, but some 90% of junk code seems to be somewhat excessive. 2) How junk code protects from mutations since the amount of mutations should rise linearly with the length of the code? It might protect from certain types of mutations, though. I would have to think about it. 3) The dead code influences the evolution since parts can get activated. I agree on that one! 4) Dark matter help form structures like spiral galaxies because it has large mass or there is a lot of it, but it does not interact with EM fields, so doesn't heat up, etc.
Pubmed has references to these claims. I used to work on this in late 1990s . No more. This claim is indeed disputed and there used to be an active discussion but I don't follow it any longer. But given that the genome is 5 billion letters and even if we assume 100000 genes( actual no is supposed to be much lower although proteins are many more) it doesn't seem sufficient to cover that length. And you're right. Some can get activated and influence the course of evolution too or have influence on phenotype.
When it comes to science, Einstein science, logic, or even general principles the best idea sucks if you can't back it up with a theory, concept or some down to earth facts ! Dark matter suppose to be a type of gravity, but they have no equations or concept to show for it. Einstein showed theories, concepts, working equations and explanations all about his gravity. I know there's no such thing as dark matter because it's just a filler to help support the flimsy big bang idea 💡.........
Then write a paper for peer review and publish it.
@@robertspence7766 HI BOB......BETTER YET I'M WRITING A BOOK ON IT. IT'S BEING TYPED UP BY A FRIEND.
@Paul M Sutter
Paul, Zwicky & Rubin had interesting ideas. Unfortunately, when we factor in all other observations made about the Universe, not only do their theories fall apart, but as you've said before, so to does General & Special Relativity. G&SR and Dark Energy/Matter are wrong. There is currently a better explanation, but it's not widely known. It not only explains observations but also reveals information about the Universe we currently have no explanations for. I'd love to show you and explain. Send me an email if you'd like to know more.
"dark matter" should be called "lazy scientist matter."