Does Dark Matter exist? MOND - modified gravity alternative!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 бер 2020
- Install Raid for Free ✅ IOS: clik.cc/e5vSL ✅ ANDROID: clik.cc/mKo8k ✅ PC: clik.cc/RINxk and get a special starter pack 💥 Available only for the next 30 days!
Is it possible that what we have invented as dark matter to explain the motion of stars in galaxies and clusters is a figment of our imagination? Could it be that Einstein’s General Relativity has a flaw? Does dark matter exist?
Vera Rubin verified that stars in the outer edges galaxies are moving around the galactic center at about the same speed as those closer to the center. This cannot be explained by all the visible matter. This faster than predicted motion it was theorized is due to extra unseen matter, or Dark Matter that surrounds all galaxies.
But could this motion be equally well explained by a modification of Einstein’s General Relativity, just like Newton’s equations were modified by Einstein’s General Relativity?
GR has been shown to be highly accurate for massive objects up to several light years apart. Is it possible that gravity behaves very differently, at larger distances? In 1983, Israeli physicist Mordehai Milgrom published a hypothesis showing that a modification of Newtonian mechanics could almost perfectly explain our observations.
Milgrom found that if you calculate using just the laws of Newton, the acceleration due to gravity at the point where you need dark matter to explain the velocity of stars, this acceleration was the same for every galaxy. There was some critical value of acceleration, such that if the acceleration was larger than that value you didn’t need dark matter, but when the acceleration was smaller, you needed dark matter.
So what Milgrom said is that maybe we just need to modify the theory of gravity such that at high acceleration, it falls off by one over radius squared, as in Newton's equation But at smaller accelerations, gravity falls off at one over the radius, instead of radius squared.
If you invoke Milgrom’s hypothesized modification of gravity, it fits the data almost perfectly. It fits our observations of the motions of stars not just in our own galaxy, but dozens of other galaxies.
So the idea that you don’t need dark matter, and Newton’s laws work just fine inside a certain radius, but a modification of Newton’s laws works on the outside of this radius seems to make it work quite well in many galaxis. Milgrom’s hypothesis is called Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or MOND.
Both the idea of MOND, and the theory of a dark matter halo surrounding galaxies seem to work equally well. Why don't we adopt MOND, and get rid of dark matter theory? Because the problem is that while Milgroms theory explains the motion of stars within galaxies well, it does not explain the motion of CLUSTERS of galaxies.
This means that the bullet cluster is not explained by Milgrom’s theory. Gravitational lensing indicates that the majority of the mass of this cluster is located in the blue areas where less ordinary matter can be seen. So there must be unseen dark matter in these areas as indicated by the gravitational lensing. This is very strong evidence for the idea of dark matter being a particle. This cannot be explained or predicted by Milgrom’s modification of newton’s equations.
Maybe we need both - a modification of Newton’s laws as well as dark matter particles to fully explain our observations of both the motions of stars within galaxies. One benefit of adopting both ideas would be that it would allow the possibility that the dark matter you would need to explain the behavior of clusters of galaxies may be different than the popular candidates likeWIMPs and Axions, which are theoretical and have never been detected.
This dark matter could perhaps be ordinary matter such as Neutrinos. Scientists don’t think neutrinos can explain the motion of stars in galaxies because neutrinos move too fast to allow halo formations around galaxies. But they do move slowly enough that they could form halos around clusters of galaxies on the scales millions of light years across, such as the bullet cluster.
#mond
#darkmatter
But another nagging reason Dark matter needs to exist is the microwave background radiation. This is the way the universe looked at about 380 thousand years after the big bang. And its structure tells us a lot about the way ordinary matter came together in a process called nucleosynthesis. And based on matching our observations with prediction made by known equations, we can estimate that the amount of ordinary matter in the universe, and is 5%. But the critical amount of matter needed to make a flat universe, that is a universe that is not curved in 4 dimensions, is 30%. So this means that 25% of this 30% can not be ordinary matter. This number matches perfectly with our observations of galaxy rotations. - Наука та технологія
Arvin still explains Raid Shadow Legends better than most peeps 😂
I hated that this was advertised but I love your comment lmao!
@Platzpropeller It's not delusional if the person is unaware that the advertisement is a script given by Raid -- that's simply called being uninformed.
@Platzpropeller Are you talking about the author of the comment? Amy? I would imagine she is female.
@Platzpropeller I wasn't insinuating that it makes a difference -- just trying to make sure we're referring to the same comment since there's also a reply by someone named Kevin (who probably is a "bro"). But I still don't understand how you can conclude that she is delusional by seeing a difference in deliveries of an advertisement script by different people (assuming she even knew it was a script).
I really hate that kind of ads. And I really don't care about such "products", or "games" or whatever. If it was a good game I would know of it already.
So I watched this munching on cereal with my 2 year old daughter, hoping I’m instilling a love of this in her. I can’t imagine what her generation will discover. It’s like sitting on the shoulder of a giant... eating lucky charms lol.
The imagery of you sitting with your daughter eating cereal and watching my video is absolutely adorable! Priceless!
Tell her to hurry up. SHE has to invent immortal-ization. This way we can discover together AND we don't have to die. Or die another day, 007 Style!
@@MrEiht Immortality is overrated, just look at Greek mythology. The immortals were always causing or getting into trouble. Then there's Adams' "Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged." Poor sod.
@@tncorgi92 true words. Some say that it might also become boring. But honestly, who has time to die? Only rich folks or some Monks from Tibet...
I am also sure my wife would kick my rear or worse if I would be just "dead". If I just nap for 12-16 hrs she gets nervous and pokes me with the hoover.
MrEiht c
There is no doubt that this is a highly underrated channel. Great work, keep it up👍👍
It fills me with anticipation and child-like excitement when you say "thats coming up, right now" and warmly happy when you end with "I'll see you in the next video my friend", I know my friend will come back to teach me more!
You're the best Arvin Ash😊
Raid Shadow Legeds is a meme at this point xDD
RaId ShAdOW LeGenDs
You can completely hear when he switched from "I played it a couple times and liked it" to reading their script. It was like Krusty saying "I strongly endorse this event or product."
rade shadough legns
@@mal2ksc yep... Sounded to me like "I am commander Shepard and this is my favorite game in the Citadel"
noob
Best "normal" science channel on youtube, easily.
I like how the entire video is not a waste. No wasting first 10 seconds to introduce bla bla. Just make me excited from second 1.
there is no other channel that can explain physics so understandable, than you for sharing this video
Astronomers: “there must be some sort of invisible matter”
Electromagnetism: “do I mean nothing to you?”
the electromagnetism in my work gets neutralized cause whene adding in pairs they ad the same.
espacio hexadimencional serna
what
@@tonyhakston536 Yes all systems electromagnetism gets neutralized as well matter cause when adding each pair by orbits all of theme give the same Hz in each orbit respectivelly. It is proven with DNA and a Mayan Calender that I decoded; if you want you can check it out in my channel.
An update after rel-MOND was published would be of great help as it seems to address many of the issues it couldn't solve before
Why is no one talking about that?
@@TheLoneMitten good question! I suppose the people really working on it and doing regular review of different approaches are really few. If it is good, it will catch on in the next decade though, as often happens with innovations in astrophysics
Fascinating. I always liked the quote "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
Let's hope the human race hangs around long enough to discover just how weird the universe really is.
damnnn, a raid shadow legends ad on an arvin ash video, now it’s finally objectively confirmed that this is an a+ channel
haha...Is this nerd part of the "cool" crowd now?
@@ArvinAsh more like part of the first-rate nerd crowd. :)
It’s so great to see the channel grow and helping us to grow altogether
Thanks ash
Excellent content - been subbed for a while, vids are so good exciting topics well presented, super enjoyable and informative. Thanks team AA.
Congratulations Arvin, I have only watched two of your videos and I'm already a fan.
Glad you like them!
@Arvin Ash I could watch your videos every day non-stop and not get bored. Thank you!
Thanks, Arvin. Great explanation as usual. I'm quoting two sections of your video related to some questions I have.
@ 2:55
As I showed in the previous video, Vera Rubin in the 1970s, verified that stars in the outer edges of galaxies are moving around the galactic center at about the same speed as those closer to the center. But according to the laws of gravity, they should be moving much slower because the effect of gravity goes down by the square of the distance. This can be seen in the motion of the earth and all the planets in our solar system. The planets further away from the sun are moving much slower than planets closer to the sun.
@ 5:55
In other words, there was some critical value of acceleration, such that if the acceleration was larger than that value you didn't need dark matter, but when the acceleration was smaller, you did need dark matter. So what Milgrom said is that maybe there isn't any dark matter, maybe we just need to modify the theory of gravity such that if the acceleration is greater than a certain value, it's a one over radius squared, as Newton's equations indicate.
As you point out, in our solar system, the orbital speed of the planets goes down by the square of the distance, just as Newton's equations indicate. This is the same result as if there weren't any dark matter in our solar system.
However, most adherents to the theory of dark matter state that they are unseen massive particles causing the increased rotation of galaxies and that the entire Milky Way, including our solar system, is surrounded by a dark matter halo. If so, shouldn't the presence of dark matter logically affect the orbital speed of our planets? As you describe, MOND offers an explanation for this inconsistency. Is there an alternative explanation using dark matter that also resolves this inconsistency?
I understand that in October 2021, a new MOND paper was published that claims to account for cosmic microwave background. Perhaps you might consider updating this video to discuss your take on this new paper on the subject.
phys.org/news/2021-10-mond-theory-account-cosmic-microwave.html
You are fantastic to explain complex (dark) matters in a simple way. Thx:-)
Great insight! Making my interest exponentially increase in astrophysics,quantum physics and physics in general everyday! Im also getting progressively more curious abt the universe Thanks! Keep up the great work
This show has become one of my week rituals
Thank you so much ❤
The way you explain every concept is phenomenal
This channel and the content has massively improved. Appreciable.
Great work Avinash
Excellent explanations Arvin!! I just put full on notifications! 👍
I love watching your videos. Great job
I am glad someone makes the obvious analogy between the degree of reality of dark matter and that of planet Vulcan.
Of course the existence of dark matter matches observations, because its amount is made up for each instance that defies the current law of gravity.
The demonstration of MOND is the next revolution in physics, prepare large bins to dispose of the current papers. 😅
your videos are awesome ...do u have team creating this graphics? can u share some insights of how u make these videos...what graphics software u use...by the way u have a incredible ability to simply and explain things....
2nd revision to the Newtonian Mechanics.. oof
But this is how science should progress forward 👍
Once again an amazingly broken down and helpful video. Robert
The best video ever... I always treated dark matter as a glitch in our outdated mathematical model.
Thank you Arvin...I feel smarter just for having watched this!....on to the next.
Good. That's my hope.
@@ArvinAsh You do your best real well.
The music in the intro kept me watching all the video..
Thanks.
@@ArvinAsh welcome to India. 😉
@@quicksilver3431 didnt notice the music, I was deeply consentrated in the words that are way to clear to understand the idea.
I love your videos and spclly the way you explain things in your videos 😀😍😍
Such an excellent explanation. Thank you!
love it. keep it going sir.
Great video! I love the idea of an entirely new particle to explain dark matter.
Thanks for great videos. Can you do something about Quantized Interia (as an alternate theory ) that claims to explain the bullet cluster as well.
Love this video. If you've ever seen a sample of an amplitude modulated wave(like a sample of a voice), then you've seen a strange looking waveform. The shape looks odd but in theory it is just a sum of the contributing factors(frequency and intensity). I would think that gravity would act very similar. Since the affects we observe are gravitational and explained as "dark matter", I would expect gravity(if it could be seen), would look strange(like a soup). I wonder how much effects of gravity are due to the total mass of the universe and the combined mass of the local area in the universe. I wonder if all the effects of the mass outside of the observed targets(stars, star systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, etc) get accounted for accurately.
Best explanation of MOND I've seen yet.
Thank you sir
It is worth noting that one of the major mathematical consequences that severely constrain's a pure MOND solution is that by deviating from a 1/r^2 distance dependence it implies that gravity can't be a conservative "force" and thus gravitational waves must travel slower than light which the observation of Kilonova events greatly constrain. A MOND dark matter hybrid model naturally can get around this but that just loops back to the overarching issues with the lack of detection of dark matter.
Of course the other problem is that we can't rule out dark matter since a massive particle could easily exist in a way consistent with observations if it does not interact via the weak or electroweak interactions. This bothers me as it makes the issue potentially unfalsifiable
I think from now on when someone asks me something I will say "The details... are coming up... right now!"
So this is why Gene Roddenberry named his most logical alien race "Vulcan"? Damn. That's deep.
Fascinating.
Very interesting, as usual. Thanks.
"Luke, join me on the dark [matter] side... It is your destiny."
I remember listening to a talk and physicists said that space isn't actually empty. In empty space particles appear and disappear spontaneously. In the center of a galaxy there is more mass and less empty space, thus less spontaneously appearing particles. The further out from the center there is more empty space and more spontaneously appearing particles. Could it be that the mass generated by these spontaneously appearing particles are responsible for the observations that have scientists scratching their heads and turning to theories of dark matter? A good analogy would be spraying a surface with water. You don't realize how much water is actually there until you squeegee it into a pool.
I think you are talking about the apparent mass of the vacuum energy. That is an interesting idea, but such an effect should have been apparent in our own solar system as well, since we are surrounded by this vacuum energy of empty space.
I'm enjoying your vid's more and more thank you. Has anyone ever studied the contribution of virtual particles to the missing mass?
Yes, more on this on my next video on Dark energy.
Hi Arvin, I'd love to see a video on plank stars if you can one of these days? there's very little content about that subject but it explains the infinite density point paradox perfectly - from memory of a non-physicist: black holes would just be an implosion frozen in time, that break space-time.
Ok. I don't know much about it.
@@ArvinAsh this is the only video I found on the subject ua-cam.com/video/TP4loCNCzpM/v-deo.html, relating to the following study arxiv.org/abs/1401.6562. It seems like a very elegant and intuitive way to explain black holes and the information paradox. That said general relativity and quantum physics are counter-intuitive at the best of times so I'm wondering if the maths stand up?
You answered me on a comment on a previous video that dark matter is more aboundant where ordinary matter is more aboundant and there's less dark matter where there is no ordinary matter. Based on that and on this video I can imagine 2 options:
1. It has the prupose of glue galaxies together and someone has "put it there". But this option is less scientific and assumes the existence of a god-like thing.
2. Ordinary matter/gravity on a large scale has some properties that we don't understand yet.
Bonus option: Maybe we should look for the solution in the extra dimensions predicted by string theory. Some say that dark matter can be the gravitational effect of parallel universes.
Anyway, the video is great as always!
I tend to fall into the camp that thinks dark matter may just be ordinary 'macho' type matter consisting of dead stars, black holes, and the like. Right now most astronomers say there hasn't been nearly enough of this type of matter detected to account for all the missing mass required to explain large scale gravitational effects observed, but I wouldn't doubt if more of it will be detected as our telescopes or other detection methods improve.
Machos have largely been abandoned for two reasons. They do not explain the smooth distribution of dark matter. And the CMB indicates that ordinary matter, during nucleosynthesis, in the early universe can only consist of 5% of the observable matter, presuming the universe has flat curvature.
MOND and quantized inertia, the two best known alternatives to this untestable dark matter
Great work
To Arvin: another wonderful video (particularly given our recent chat w.r.t. potential errors in general relativity .. needless to say, I was very excited!). As with some other theories, I'm on the fence as it pertains to dark matter. I know that we "need" it to make the math work, but lack of proof has my hackles up a bit.; however, I surely cannot rule it out, as we do not yet have proof of a graviton, yet we surely know that gravity exists. I sure wish that advancements in science could be fast-forwarded, as I'm getting a bit "long in the tooth", but I'm desperate for the answers! Love your vids - keep 'em coming, and thanks for all you do.
I feel like I say it too often, but. . . Thank-you once again for the well presented information.
Thank you. It's appreciated.
Great presentation thanks
Milgrom seems more like a street smart guy than a scientist. He noticed a constant difference between expected motion and observed motion in many galaxies. So he picks up the equation of gravity and applies a constant factor in the denominator. He just tweaked the equations with a constant factor to suit observation. And then he applies some fancy transformation around the constant so that it doesn't look too convenient. I used to do this in engineering exams. If they asked to derive some equation and I couldn't remember the derivation, I would work my way from bottom up. Write the equation at the bottom of the paper, and literally fill it up to the top by writing silly modifications in every step.
Awesome command of science knowledge. Wow. Thanks
Hey Arvin! I have a very interesting question. Do you think maybe the modified Newtonian physics could be a result of measurement uncertainty that could propagate at larger distances? Movement of things millions of light years away seems like a fairly tough task, but I’m just a college student 😅
it is probably not due to a measurement limitation, if that is what you mean, because there are ways to compensate for that. If it is real, then it could really mean that there is some variation in something we had believed to be a constant, but perhaps it is not noticeable until you get to really large scales. But the bullet cluster data would still need to be explained.
Your background music is a little too loud, or at least the frequencies compete too much with the speech. I’m using pretty good headphones, so it may be different under different acoustics, but I suspect you would prefer to cater to all listeners. Had to stop cuz couldn’t concentrate after 30 min... but seems very high quality info. I SUB’d and liked. Thanks.
Thanks. We will look into the sound. Could be the track we used, which was a new one.
Amazing video!
Bring back Space Invaders!
Modify the Theory to fit the Data, just as in Astronomy 🌠
That is just a glitch in the matrix. They didn't think it through.
I was going to also say that. :-)
😀😀
They tried, but It overloaded their supercomputers. Suddenly it dawned upon them-"hey, we need to keep the nerdy type batteries busy, so let it be. For the dumb batteries, there is UA-cam."
Maybe they should plugin √r instead of r and check out where it starts to fail (MOND equation). Just a random thought. Regards Sir 🙏🌹
Very clear explanation, what I value is that Arvin is not fanatical about issues and that he provides several perspectives on the issue being addressed. One question: could dark matter be composed by the famous Higgs boson? Very little is said about it. Does it travel at light speed like fotons? Does it interact with the electromagnetic fields and the strong and weak force?
Thank you for the kind words. The Higgs field is present everywhere so that it will be wherever dark matter is too. The Higgs boson is not a candidate for dark matter for many technical reasons.
Really nice explanation... can u please explain the more recent developments from 2021, which seem to suggest that a modified MOND eliminates the need for dark matter?
Hi Arvin, would you do a video explaining Primer Field Theory please? I've watched David LaPoints video's on it but still in need of some explanation.
Thanks for your request. I try not to do videos on fringe theories that don't have at least several papers from different sources verifying their validity.
@@ArvinAsh I appreciate the reply Arvin thank you. I'm also of the same thinking with regards to fringe theories but this one really has merit. It explains a lot of what we see in the observable universe that current physics still can't. Of course it raises some questions at the same time.
@@ArvinAsh Is it GR respalded as valid still whene we see it does not work in the long run, respalded by a STANDARD MODEL with out knowledge of where it comes from gravity and the fundaments of GR is fundded in it but is not included in the STANDARD MODEL; dont want to be an asshole or mean to be to you but dont think this are so correct as to say: yea we are in the right track jet. a single what if may take it down so why not to see every budys view?¡
Maybe Dark matter is the universe memory leak. Its consuming memory, aka mass, but does not interact with the rest of the program anymore. And the memory leak is the rounding error as the universe is discrete but has a spherical area
of influence, so it cannot approximate a sphere perfectly.
We once jokingly convinced a friend that hard drive will grow heavier the more data you write to it. So how about this: stars and galaxies are actually supercomputers that crunch enormous calculations and dark matter is the outcome answers they output :D
Arvin, the wonkyness of it all can be traced to the wonkyness of the standard model and there is good evidence for that.
Use the same high school physics project we did with a spinning merry-go-round. The movement of the central pindle and platform was slower (not faster), while the outer edge and velocity of the platform was faster (not slower) - like this universe example. Whoever made the statement of inner-faster outer-slower is a basic fallacy.
Gravity is not quite like merry-go-round. Newtonian laws show that gravity decreases with the square of the radius. So the planet that are further away from the center (sun), are slower than the planets closer to the sun, since the radius of closer planets is smaller.
@@ArvinAsh Newton's formula only applies to a standardized model of equivalent matter across the entire universe, out to the outer edges, with the accretions of spiral arms inside. To have high speed at the outer edges, one must have higher gravity particles and majority free dark matter (quarks) in this supra universal region, creating this increased gravity (and attraction) at distance versus the standard model with reduced gravity and velocity. It also implies that the inner portions of such universe has less gravity-attraction with minimal free dark matter (quarks) in the interior areas. All things thusly being unequal, the inner gravity and velocity will appear the same across the universe and the outer areas with higher gravity-attraction and dark matter quarks and high velocity.....
The EM radiation emitted by stars for the last 13 bil. years is still in space. That energy equates to matter, too.
It doesn't, the relationship E=mc^2 is for rest masses, objects that don't move. The full relationship is E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
P is the momentum or impulse of the particle in question. But light can have mass when you have a collection of it going in different directions. Canceling the momenta of the individual particles. Problem is that all that light doesn't have five times as much energy as all matter in the universe, it's off by a factor of 10-100 thousand.
That explains "dark energy" or the acceleration of expansion of the universe. Galaxies act like solar sails all being pushed away from each other.
Basing the understanding that any field implies a suitable particle I think is not enough. The evolution process of fields (esp. Spacetime) , particles, major conditions of both and interaction of them may reveal more.
Sir ash your videos are priceless💙💙
Thank you so much 😀
@@ArvinAsh oh my god you replied to me im so excited thank you so much sir you made my day
Wasn’t there a galaxy found recently that did not show a typical dark matter acceleration pattern. This causes a huge problem for MOND because it can not explain why this galaxy behaves that way. Whereas a dark matter theory would just say that the particular galaxy in question just doesn’t have any (or at least very much) dark matter.
Yes, it would if the info. is correct, but my understanding is that the data is as yet unconfirmed.
I'm sceptical of both MOND and dark matter. To me the answer seems more likely to be a flaw on how we estimate large scale objects to behave and a miscalculation of how much matter galaxies have. Or even something fundamentally different about the curvature of time space at large distances.
1/r^4 in nuclei range
1/r^2 between nucleus, in the middle of galaxies
1/r^1 in galaxy range
1/r^(1/2) between galaxies
1/r^8 in the middle of nucleus
etc. above and below (1/r^(1/4), 1/r^16 ...)
Thanx Arvin for show diferent sides of the coin, in the past video you showed THE BULLET CLUSTTER as how 2 clusters of galaxies pass through each other with out any problem for dark matter that just went by but not matter that was reteined by little after passing each other. - Dont want to be controvessial but my point of view is that the half circle that is very bright is to me the efect of 2 quasars that are in between a galaxie that has a central white sphere that throw out light and matter away by an explosion or explosions that happens inside the sphere and the mass and light that emits is tuneled way out the system to the left and to the right as many same sistems that are all around, in this case we are only seeing the right side efect that makes when the explossion hits the electromagnetism in which all sistems are; take a look to the right up side corner and note that in the back of the red front side is a system that emites light and notice that the light of the system hits the back of the front of the BULLET mak ing the form of an : a in violet color.
Interesting. Is there any study or paper that determined these could be quasars? Quasars have different light signature and other effects that we should have been able to see. Also, they are generally much older.
@@ArvinAsh Not that I know but the form that it makes or has tells me that that is what we are looking at, I can tell that the red pink colors in there dont match the size of the clusters because if you notice the right up side corner where the system from bihind hits makes an : a form in violet color that is about the size or bigger than the white half sphere that makes the BULLET FORM this same efect tells me that the red pink colors there are not around the clusters but the syatem is way out to the pictures front. - There is another system at the back of the red pink area at about the medle of the center figure but a bit to the bottom side, the light of the system hits in between the red pink colors at the back side of the bullet, what Iam telling you is better seen in other videos that is painted little different cause I just notice that the upper system in the back shows kind of blue, green and yellow colors, is not marked in violet as in other pictures, the bottom center system in the back looks like some kind of yellow and in this picture of yours is not ease to see what I am telling you but is kind of clear that the back systems really hit the front of the picture and cant be that only one system at the back may be so big cause there is a number that says 3,720,000,000 LY. so is imposible that only one system light could have the size it shows. - You may say that that size is because the back system is way back but the systems light and mass is always tuneled out of them that dont let light expand the way commonly does. - this is what I see.
I hope your repply so we may feed one another as well all the others that join your videos.
Thanx.
@@ArvinAsh if not quasars could be something else like a nebula that as well emites light and matter too, are there more candidates? I really dont know how systems acomodate in the cosmos as you say quasars are much older.
@@ArvinAsh Well Arvin speaking of the bullet cluster that you discribed in the past video that as well you mentioned in it again you showed how the simulated coallission takes place and there are 2 balls, the left ball is anlist double the other right one before the coallission, whene this 2 balls colide and go through one another only the right side presents a HALF WHITE SPHERE kind of a white arc but can you tell as why there is only one side with such efect? is it the big circle strongger than the small or the oposite? are they resembling scales of each side?
HOPE you wont scape of answering this questions I think is a thing we shoud or may know from you and if some one in the comments section can check if what I say that the thing I told you what the half right sphere is an effect of the explossion that makes the systems when they hit the electromagnetism that they possess.
I think the answer has just been somewhat overlooked. If you place a star in empty space, you then have a curvature in space time. We realize that time flows different in different areas in that curvature. But what we do not expect is that gravity due to changes in the gravitational constant and cosmological energy to be affected as well. If the Star is the king of the stage, or black hole is when looking at it from a galaxy perspective. The stage king tells all the lesser masses how much energy they will show depending on there distance from it “hence gravity.” On the outskirts of galaxies space is more dense so more space, more interaction, more gravity. So dark matter would just be small amounts of real matter with just stronger gravity. Testable, Cavendish experiment but like on Pluto (lol).But that also would tell us that our universe might not be expanding then. Well, maybe when photons move through space they come into contact with virtual particles. Before “A” and “B” can self annihilate with each other, “A” self annihilates with part of the photon’s energy. Leaving “B” to wonder the universe alone. The father the travel the more stealing goes on. Could be used to calculate the Cosmological Energy. And it might explain why light acts like a wave and a photon. Wouldn’t it be weird if gravity = changes in time with changes in cosmological energy or I could just be wrong.
So, from a few different people I’ve heard, they say it’s not matter but a better term is dark gravity but they’re not really sure what it is. But an obscure theory that I heard sounds plausible to me is- is that it’s light/energy, because you can’t see light unless it has something to reflect off of and what we are measuring is light perturbation from different sources in one place.
And the red and blue light is light in a Venturi and what you’re seeing is the acceleration/deceleration of light.
Thoughts anyone?
See my previous video on "What is dark matter made of?" -- the problem with light is that it can not accumulate around galaxies. It is "hot" meaning it travels too fast, and would not form a halo around large bodies of ordinary matter.
Arvin Ash, I see, but isn’t this making the assumption that light can’t travel that fast?
Arvin Ash and could gravity/electro-magnetism have that kind of effect on light?
Arvin Ash at 9:00 minutes you accurately depict a Venturi, at exactly the place where the light changes from red to blue
Thanks for this video, Arvin! It's great that first you post a video about dark matter and then follow it up by alternative ideas. Knowing that MONDs has its shortcomings, I still don't like that dark matter seems to be physics dogma now. And even if there is a lot of data that seems to provide evidence for dark matter, that still is not a reason to make DM dogma until we actually understand what it is.
its a mistake¡ do I remind you an 80 song, its a mistake, its a mistake yes got it man at work that was mucic then¡¡¡
as the old stuff around the world the older the better.
Good Stuff!
I just discovered dark matter. Unfortunately I flushed it.
It's my understanding that time slows down as the gravitational field density increases. For example, an outside observer wouldn't actually witness someone/something falling through the event horizon of a black hole - the target object, from the observer's reference frame, would simply get slower and slower as it got closer and closer to the black hole, eventually red-shifting out of existence. By the same token, the time in the center of a distant galaxy should also be slowed down relative to the time on the galaxy's edge. Has this been taken into account in the calculations of galactic motion? Is this effect anywhere large enough to account for the anomalous motion?
The distances are so vast, that using Newton's laws, the effect of gravity, and hence time dilation, is negligible at these distances.
Finally a good visual explanation of the deal of Dark Matter.
Though MOND modification is correct for few galaxy's , it dose not explain gravitational lensing and stars at edge should be free from galaxy if no dark matter exist, it cannot explain CMB patterns. Milky-way has no evidence of loosing stars.
yep.
It’s not gravity-bearing particles because they would clump together to form dark matter stars and black holes. It’s probably option 3, some variation of causality or time dilation that we don’t yet suspect.
IMPORTANT: How do we know that gravitational lensing model is correct? It is caused by gravity, which we are trying to measure?
It looks like there might be some flaws.
great video...
Hey Arvin, at timestamp 8:15 when you were talking about the bullet cluster you said that ordinary matter or interstellar gas interacts with itself to create X-rays, how does that happen?
X-rays can be produced from inter molecular collisions. Sometimes this can happen when gases from nearby supernovae interact with the interstellar gas.
Great video...
Would you mind investigate if "spooky" plasma cosmology could be another material for your amazing show? :)
Others have asked about it as well. I put it on my list of future episodes.
@@ArvinAsh I see plasma as the neutral and even that is neutral it has 3 tipes of charge: positive, neutral and negative, is like water in our planet goes up as vapor and goes down as running water.
I can dispense with Dark Matter and modify gravity at a stroke. The answer is that we attribute too much mass to the cause of a gravitational force. Here goes:
Mass causes a gravitational field, the more mass, the stronger the gravitational field. But regardless of how strong the gravitational field is, there is no gravitational force without something else. A gravitational force exists between two things, the same goes for speed and motion. No one thing alone can have linear speed, linear motion or gravitational force.
Things that have a significantly strong gravitational field usually form spheres, like the stars, planets and moons. Spheres follow the inverse square over distance with regards to gravity and luminosity. It is fair to say that both radiate outward from the sphere equally in all directions.
Therefore it should also be fair to say that we can only see a fraction of the sun’s light on a sunny day. It’s other light shines in other directions and we certainly can’t see the sun’s emitted light on its far side.
The same goes for gravity. A man standing in London can’t possibly feel the effects of gravity in Sydney, New York or New Delhi. In fact, the gravity in Sydney is acting in the opposite direction to the gravity in London. Yet all currently theories on gravity attribute the whole mass of both objects for the gravitational force between the two.
My modification is that only a fraction of the mass of two bodies (the Earth and the Moon for example) is responsible for the gravitational force. This means that gravity is much stronger than first thought.
To calculate the amount of mass of the Earth responsible for the gravitational attraction of something small, like a man, the formula is:
(a/A*100)*M
Where:
a = The area of the Earth’s surface that the small object occupies.
A = The surface area of the Earth.
M = The mass of the Earth.
To find the mass responsible for the gravitational attraction of two celestial bodies (these formulas are written for online scientific calculators capable of handling many digits):
Mss1 = 2*pi*R2^2*(R2-(R2*sin((180-(2*atan(R2/D)))/2)))/3/(pi*R2^3/3*4)* M1
Mss2 = 2*pi*R1^2*(R1-(R1*sin((180-(2*atan(R1/D)))/2)))/3/(pi*R1^3/3*4)* M2
Where:
R1/R2 = the radius of the sphere.
D = the distance between the spheres’ centres.
M1/M2 = the mass of the spheres.
Mss1/Mss2 = mass responsible for the gravitational force.
And to find the gravitational force using my modified theory:
F = G √ (Mss1 * Mss2)
Where:
G = 15.97180204921563752672
The absolute easiest way to evolve to a grand design spiral galaxy simulation is to treat a dominant dense galactic core's curved gravity well as a force (thus vector) field to be corrected through multiplication with (thus rotation by) a stationary galactic-wavelength-scale cosine co-factor, which gets applied as a function of distance along any path of gravitational information flow.
Nobody else seems to have recognized this quantum-like correction, however I do have a brief easy-to-understand plausible explanation for this dark matter halo-effect-producing cosine; I also have a separate explanation of dark matter filaments, a bit more complicated but not much.
I imagine dark matter to be a different STATE of space.
Like matter has States(solid liquid and gas), so does space has some unknown States.
The state of space changes around matter on the scale of galaxies light years across.
Now to detect space is not the same as trying to detect matter or particles and hence it is elusive.
The space around large matter has a property of pushing things inward, so galaxies and clusters don't fly apart.
The space that is NOT around matter has a state that pushes outward and hence the expansion of universe.
Comments?
I think we should not call it dark MATTER. We don't know if it's really matter in the first place.
Somehow large distance produces this effect. Will have to listen again about galaxy clusters. Something to do with space/time that is not a smooth effect but not abrupt. Probably quantum in nature and probably has to do with something like Heisenberg's uncertainty principal over an exceeding distance.
Amazing video as always Arvin, you must be a physicist ;) Physicists have always known that Einstein's theory and QM are incomplete theories..we just don't have the tools yet to look at those tiny scales 10 to the minus 33.. Idk, dark.matter could be a 5th force at those tiny scales or a particle but in another dimension that we cannot see precisely because those tiny scales
I love to be a fish.
Look at Messier 81, a shape not uncommon for a placid spiral, it's showing you a gravity wavelet: Newton's classical gravity well, radiatively married to a sinusoidal factor expressing a vector field with quantum-wave flip.
Not much in the way of a bar there but if the the inner ring somehow became dense enough to undergo self-constriction, and it became tidally stretched enough, then the gravity there will set up a clear bar, showing up as quantum-gravity-localized tip-over effects, imo. Many galactic bars likely evolved from ring forms
Alternative Explanation of Dark Matter and Dark Energy - Newly proposed model of Universe can explain both of Dark Matter and Dark Energy
The problem of modern physics is they're trying to explain everything with particle physics and the physics is being cornered more and more to the dead end. To escape the dead end, they invent or design another imaginary particle in vain instead of trying to revise their way to approach to the problem.
I agree to that idea that the interaction between mass and space must be explained with quantum mechanics.
But that doesn't mean gravity is the QM phenomena.
That's because gravity is not a force.
Gravity is just a joint effect of the expansion of the Universe and the curvature of spacetime.
Details are given below.
Einstein’s theory of General Relativity states that spacetime is curved by the presence of mass.
This curvature influences the motion other objects with mass and gives rise to gravitation.
Thus, gravity is a result of geometric features in spacetime.
However, we also observe gravitational effects - curvature of spacetime - in areas without any detectable mass.
This has given rise to the concept of dark matter, which is matter that does not interact in any detectable way with normal matter, except through gravity.
So, there is some large quantity of dark matter scattered throughout the universe, which curves spacetime and causes gravitational effects just like normal matter, but we cannot see or detect it with any known method.
An alternative theory to the identity of dark matter is proposed - it is not matter at all, but rather an intrinsic curvature of spacetime.
In other words, spacetime is not naturally flat. Even in the absence of matter, we observe some inherent curvature of spacetime.
So, the question is now - why is spacetime naturally curved? Why is it not flat in the absence of mass?
The universe is 4-dimensional, with 3 spatial dimensions and one dimension in time.
Rather than consider time as a linear dimension, we can consider it as a radial one.
Therefore, rather than describing the universe with a Cartesian coordinate system, we describe it with a 4-dimensional spherical coordinate system - 3 angular coordinates, φ1, φ2, φ3, and one radial coordinate in time, t.
We live on the 3-dimensional surface of a 4-dimensional bubble which is expanding radially in time.
Thus, the Big Bang represents t=0, the beginning of time.
The crucial point is that the expansion of the universe is not homogeneous in all directions.
The expansion rate at one point on the bubble’s surface may differ slightly from another point near it.
The universe is only roughly spherical in 4 dimensions, the same way that the Earth is only roughly spherical in 3 dimensions.
The same way we observe local mountains and valleys on the surface of Earth, we observe local “mountains” and “valleys” on the surface of the universe bubble.
The inhomogeneity of the expansion of the universe has given rise to natural curvature of spacetime. This natural curvature causes the phenomenon of “dark matter”. “Valleys” in spacetime pull matter in, similarly to the warping of spacetime of massive objects.
So “dark matter” is really “valleys” in spacetime that are expanding slower than the regions surrounding it.
These valleys tend to pull matter in and create planets, stars, and galaxies - regions of space with higher-than-average densities of mass.
Conversely, “mountains” in spacetime will repel matter away, an “anti-gravitational” effect, which gives rise to cosmic voids in space where we observe no matter.
Each point on the surface of the universe bubble traces out a time arrow in 4-dimensional space, perpendicular to the surface.
These time arrows are not parallel to each other since the universe is not flat.
This causes points to have nonzero relative velocity away from each other.
It is generally accepted that the universe is expanding faster than observable energy can explain, and this is expansion is believe to be still accelerating.
The “missing” energy required to explain these observations has given rise to the theory of dark energy.
The time dilation caused by non-parallel time arrows can be proposed as an explanation for dark energy.
Alternatively, dark energy is real energy coming from potential energy gradients caused by non-parallel time arrows.
As a sanity check, we can calculate the expansion rate of the universe based on the universe bubble model.
Since the radius of the universe bubble is expanding at the speed of light in the time direction, it increases at 1 light second per second.
Therefore, the “circumference” of the 3-dimensional surface increases by 2π light seconds per second, or about 1.88*10^6 km/s.
This expansion is distributed equally across the 3-dimensional surface, so the actual observed expansion rate is proportional to the distance from the observer.
At present, the age of the universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years, so the radius of the universe bubble is 13.8 billion light years, or about 4233 megaparsecs (3.26 million light years to 1 Mpc).
Thus, we can calculate the expansion rate of the universe, per megaparsec from the observer, as:
Expansion rate = ((d(circumference))/dt)/radiusofuniverse=(1.88*〖10〗^6 km⁄s)/(2π*4233Mpc)=(1.88*〖10〗^6 km⁄s)/26598Mpc=70.82(km⁄s)/Mpc
The popularly accepted empirical expansion rate is 73.5 + 2.5 km/s/Mpc, so our calculated value is close.
There may be some additional source of expansion (or observed red shift) to make up for the discrepancy. For example, if two adjacent points have some gravitational gradient due to non-parallel time arrows, then light passing through these points will be red-shifted.
- Cited from www.academia.edu/82481487/Title_Alternative_Explanation_of_Dark_Matter_and_Dark_Energy
I'm so thankful that UA-cam has recommended this channel to me.
At the very least this would mean there is less dark matter required as well. A win-win for both theories. Just like how the Big Bang is being modified I truly believe no science should be completely “thrown out” great video and great insight!
There's other obvious problems with this MOND, which is that I can tell you right now, the first time having ever heard of it, is that it falls apart and creates nonsense when you try to have superposition because of its nonlinearity, and it would allow for a perpetual motion machine to be made. For instance, since it means that if you have an object which produces a gravitational field below this critical level from a certain distance, that its gravity will be stronger than it should be for its mass, you could have 3 objects, and move them around in a cycle that produces net energy, for instance, by having all 3 of them together, then moving one of them far from the other 2, and because the other 2 are together, their combined gravity is less than it would be if they were apart since they're above the threshold, so it takes less energy for the 3rd object to be moved away from them, then you separate the 2 objects, and move the 3rd object to the midpoint of the 2 and then move the 3 all together again and in total it will have produced work for you. This is all because in this nonlinear setup, the gravity of object A plus the gravity of object B is greater than the gravity of object A+B. So sure, go ahead, take this MOND seriously, if you're willing to break all of physics.
Good video but you should mention Erik Verlinde’s postulate on gravity: what we became to call Dark Matter to explain the high velocity of the outer zones of galaxies, is NOT a particle. The ‘extra’ force needed to keep a galaxy together, is the result of the interaction between Dark Energy and baryonic matter. Instead of wanting to comply with Einstein’s GRT, Verlinde postulates that a deviation of GRT occurs on galactic and above scales, because at those distances information stored in the VOLUME of a region of space (additional to the information stored on the AREA of the boundary of that region of space) comes into effect and, entropicly, raises the amount of gravity that GRT predicts. This guy Verlinde is a real scientist, not a hobbyist with crazy physics ideas. You should look into it. Not surprisingly, his ideas don’t come right with some scientists that spent their total career on the quest of the magic DM candidate particle, and even got a Nobel price for it, like Wilczek and his axion. But the status of those people shouldn’t impede us from looking at gravity and DM from a totally different starting point, i.e. INFORMATION and entropy, especially since 50 years or so of hunting the candidates for a DM particle have been in vain. He deserves to be mentioned in the DM debate.
My point of view is that the galaxies are divided by 7 groups(stars belts or colors as the rainbow show) my research is based in it and as well contradicts Einsteins when he clames that VIOLET and BLUE LIGHT are havier than all lights which is true but not of WHITE white is the sea of light(all colors, 7 of them) cause is the last that stays whene a generator produces light. - See, the ULTRAVIOLET CATASTROPHY is better explained as follows: - In the 19 hundreds PHYSICS asked why the order of light apperance in a bikes dinamo is always as follows, first comes RED, then comes ORANGE then YELLOW and LAST IN TURN is WHITE to stay as long the bikes speed dont go down. . From this they asked why BLUE and VIOLET never appeared in the bulves light? - The answer is as follows: whene we start to pedal the dinamos began to absorve RED atoms from the top and by doing it VIOLET is out cause it needs of RED to exist, same thing happens to the others, when orange is absorbed BLUE is gone, in turn of YELLOW GREEN is vanished then for last comes WHITE that is the bottom of all the above mentioned, that is why Einstein is wrong in this case whene confronted with light that as well in other cases he JUST CANT STAND in his words as FLAT SPACE with out a POSITIVE, NEUTRAL and negative SPACE. - WHITE is the union of the rest of colors and as the outer stars from WHITE move so will the others that there is stars speed flattens.
whene scientists take colors seriously then they will understand nature even DNA: JJSS.
I have a somewhat important question.
I assume that it maybe totally of of context of this video
Here is my question
Would it be possible to create an energy ball or new elements or plasma ball by propelling a cluster of four positive ion clusters (the positive ion clusters will consist of the hydrogen positive ions in a shell formation with the neutron or more at the centre).
Towards an array of electricity arcs, in a more descriptive context in a direction that is perpendicular to the direction of the electrons flowing/moving in the electric arcs.
Now would these electrons be able to combine with the positive ion clusters or the main cluster and the form either a new element ; a plasma ball and/or an energy blast and/or something else that is new.
@dave carter why not, I'd like a full explanation so that I can it to my knowledge.
Your ideea its called fusion ! Congrats dude for figure it out solo !
@@cazymike87 correct but incomplete if u think about it there is fusion but when the atom would collide with surface or another object fission could take place.
@dave carter ok thx man
@@ThatOneOddGuy I know thats incomplete...and specifically I left it like this, for you to replay . Congrats once again