Plot Twist: There’s No Dark Matter. Our Theory of Gravity is Broken
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 02. 2023
- It has been 90 years since the concept of dark matter was introduced in astronomy. It lies at the heart of the most successful cosmology model, the LCDM model. However, even after a century, astronomers struggle to know the true nature of dark matter. Even the Standard Model of particle physics is silent about it. Several experiments on dark matter have returned empty-handed. This raises a critical question: What if there's no dark matter? What if there's a fundamental flaw in our understanding of gravity itself?
Some physicists are trying to develop a new theory of gravity that explains galaxy rotation curves without needing dark matter. And the latest study shows that one such modified theory called AQUAL can explain galaxy rotation curves better than the LCDM model.
The 47th episode of the Sunday Discovery Series explains the discovery and the paper in detail.
All Episodes Of The Series: bit.ly/369kG4p
Basics of Astrophysics series: bit.ly/3xII54M
REFERENCES:
Distinguishing Dark Matter, Modified Gravity, and Modified Inertia, K.H. Chae - bit.ly/3XO18HL
Rotation Curve of the Milky Way Out To ∼200 kpc, Bhattacharjee et al. - bit.ly/3SaoAxI
Rotation and Mass in the Milky Way and Spiral Galaxies, Sofue et al - bit.ly/3IeUfcO
Created By: Rishabh Nakra and Shreejaya Karantha
Narrated By: Jeffrey Smith
The Secrets of the Universe on the internet:
Website: bit.ly/sou_website
Facebook: bit.ly/sou_fb
Instagram: bit.ly/sou_ig
Twitter: bit.ly/sou_twitter - Věda a technologie
honestly I always kinda felt like this was the case...dark matter is kind of just a placeholder concept until we figure out what's really going on there
Confident
I completely agree, it never convinced me.
if you go deeper you will not be this confident on rejecting the existence of dark matter
It certainly would not be the biggest surprise if it did not exist.
Dark matter was fairy dust. It was outright scientific fraud. Most know the BBT is wrong but in order to get funding, scientists have to bow at the altar of the BBT
Our universe is electromagnetic based plasma based cosmology.
Negative information is the key here I think. Knowing what something isn't can often lead one to discovering what something actually is
this comment reminds me of that missile video trying to describe how target lock and tracking worked
The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't, by subtracting where it is, from where it isn't, or where it isn't, from where it is, whichever is greater, it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance sub-system uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is, to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position where it was, is now the position that it isn't. In the event of the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has required a variation. The variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too, may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was.
@@arandom35yearold aye laddie
Ampersand an aught sine knot
@@TileBitan The terms dark energy and dark matter are such because whatever it is, it doesn't interact with baryonic matter. In the same way that you can locate a black hole by observing star orbits, it is by indirect means that we must acquire the desired information. Considering what something might be when there are many possible values, it helps knowing which values it can't be\won't be\isn't and that lowers the possible outcomes lightening the workload. This is one application of the concept of negative information
It's all garbage science, click bait. All these "tHiS ChAnGeS EvERYtHiNG!!!" videos.
If you want science, don't go to CZcams.
It's not really a plot twist we know our model of gravity is incomplete. I still like the additional dimension based theories. A dimension beyond our ability to perceive is just a neat idea.
However the universe never cared much about what we consider neat ideas..
@@georgelionon9050 Sure but u till we have a proof for a theory of the universe that works it's the best we can do. String theory is a pretty major topic of research in theoretical physics. It is however still not proven in a compelling fashion (although I probably wouldn't understand it even if it was).
@@ThePirateParrot yup, well string theory has some issues, first there is not "one" string theory, but many, in a way it's a mathematical framework that explain everything (like every conceivable universe, even those who we are not living in) and with this its explaining power is rather mood. Secondly about additional dimensions, recent LIGO results ware quite a blow on the idea that gravity leaks into other dimensions (they may still be there, but are not a gravity leak, or they are sooo small, they don't play any role) Anyway it seems more dimensions is not an answer to why gravity is weak compared to other forces.
@@georgelionon9050 I know XD but they are still neat. Look I'm not a theoretical physicist and I'm a pretty bad mathematician (for someone who has a degree in it). An additional dimension or in the case of string theory 6 would be outside of our understanding. Geometry beyond say 6 dimensions becomes increasingly difficult to comprehend and as such any model based on that is just weird to be. But it is a cool idea.
Extra dimensions are just as convininent as dark matter
To me, the big flaw with these theories is that I've been reading about galaxies we've found which act as if they have no dark matter at all, and others which seems to be made of nearly all dark matter. So that I don't see how this idea can stand up against those observations.
That’s the problem right? That’s why people came up with dark matter to begin with. Because different galaxies are behaving differently.
😮
Everything you've read is jewish owned bullshit propaganda
@@paulthomas963 What's the ratio of : ? If, as I suspect, it's thousands to one then you would assume that we have weird dark matter for the thousands and even weirder "something else" for the one, no?
Dark matter is a catch all term I think for unidentified weight
Remember how complicated the orbits of planets were... until the sun was put at the centre of the solar system? Are we missing something like that, and when discovered will explain a lot of things without having to add cosmological constants, dark matter and the like? Probably.
Yep. It feels like physicists lost the plot and they need some genius to lead them out of the darkness once again
@@YouReadMyName intressting
@@YouReadMyName your math doesn't add up. The very reason there's idea that time slows down is based on constant speed of light
@@YouReadMyName Hm I am not entirely sure I follow you here. We know that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. Thus, it will remain the same unless it goes to another medium. Now, the reason why physicists put the speed of light at the center of everything is because it is a constant. Physicists always try to "link" their equations/theories to constants (things we know are always going to have a very specific value and are intrinsically linked to our universe). Now, how do we know the speed of light is a constant? We have Maxwell's equations and Einstein's thought experiments/relativity to prove it. So light can't magically slow down at the edges of a galaxy or somewhere (unless it changes medium). So the fabric of space and time and relativity how we know it requires the speed of light to be constant.
Dark matter is just a place name for something we have no idea of, so if we find something like this, that in essence would be "dark matter".
If it can't account for gravitational lensing or how the galaxies hold together than it has a Major problem. I don't feel this theory holds up.
Also how some galaxies have varying amounts of dark matter. Some galaxies even have none while other galaxies are entirely made of dark matter. I agree, a modified theory of gravity doesn't seem to explain everything.
@@CallsignJoNay I've seen that it's either mond or dark matter, but what if dark matter is a thing and we also have gravity not understood?
Maybe it’s not gravity causing the lensing. Maybe it’s plain old refraction, or a combo.
Every great discovery starts with an idea. No dark matter. It’s just a gravitational wave, space/time distortion that interacts with light in such a way that these galaxies appear blended to rotate at even velocities from our perspective. Sometimes the simplest answer is the right one.
@@subtleylil 🤦♂️You are a perfect example of dunning Dunning Kruger effect. You think you understand the things you're talking about but it's laughable.
They are saying "We tuned a model to get better results on one aspect, but cannot replicate any of the results in another aspect" I hardly think this means we should throw out Dark Matter at this point. We definitely need a way to explain gravitational lensing before we can trust these tuned models.
Do you mean something else? Gravitational lensing is no secret. Light bends with spacetime as it travels through the gravity well of a celestial body, a lesser expression of the same reason why black holes are invisible.
@@ncg8259 The amount of lensing observed AGREES with models of the universe that incorporate dark matter, and that use dark matter to explain the apparent mismatch between galactic rotation speeds. More mass -> more lensing
Which is to say, the amount of lensing observed DISAGREES with models of the universe that don't incorporate dark matter. The lack of mass seen in such galaxies fails to predict the amount of lensing seen in these galaxies.
This point is actually mentioned in the video, but glossed over.
@@neomorphicduck That doesn't really track. Mass isn't something you can see, except through effects caused by it such as gravitational lensing or galactic orbital velocities. So when there is a galaxy that is spinning too fast or being too distorted--the phenomena I thought we used to measure mass in the first place--it's much more plausible to think that we are simply wrong about the mass of that galaxy due to hubris or something.
What's going on right now is basically the same as watching a bowling ball and a feather drop in a vacuum chamber through binoculars from 3 miles away and concluding that they are the same mass because we couldn't see the glass chamber from so far away and they hit the floor at the same time.
@@ncg8259 unfortunately, that's not gravitational lensing predicts at all.
It predicts that the amount of lensing we see is proportional to the amount of mass we see, as per the equation linked below.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#Explanation_in_terms_of_spacetime_curvature
without this added mass from dark matter, the lensing factors are off by A LOT! The amount of lensing that occurs also lines up almost exactly with the increase in mass we'd expect for increased rotational rate of galaxies.
modifying the laws of gravity doesn't explain lensing, but the "simpler" guess that dark matter is there does explain both rotation rate and lensing distortion factor, at the same time, and their quantities, both of which line up to explain what's going on nearly perfectly.
the fitted model can do slightly better at one, but totally doesn't acknowledge the other at all. :)
czcams.com/video/U5AaG_OIxPo/video.html Here is the timestamp at which the VIDEO ITSELF admits that the amount of gravitational lensing predicted by this model is wrong.
Cool video, but one thing to keep in mind: Modifier gravity is specifically *designed* to match rotation curves, so it's not exactly strong evidence that a theory designed to explain something very well explains that one thing very well. I'd be more curious on the predictions and explanations on everything else.
That's the problem. The thing that makes general relativity so accepted is the fact that it predicts many phenomenon for which it wasn't specifically designed to explain. I do believe early forms of relativity *were* designed to explain away the existence of an "ether" continuum that could carry electromagnetic waves. The Lorentz transformations were originally seen as "fudge factors to make the equations work". Until Einstein took it a step farther that was all it was. Relativity wasn't fully accepted as a complete theory until Einstein formulated it in a specific way that predicted all kinds of things from gravitational bending of light to mass-energy equivalence. So far there just isn't a similar "grand theory of gravity" that explains many different phenomenon. A formulation macro-gravity that only works well for galaxy rotation speeds just isn't very robust.
@@marshallsweatherhiking1820 Just for the information of you and your audience: "phenomenon" has the plural "phenomena".
@@HansDunkelberg1 I know. Typo. I’m dyslexic when trying to think and write at the same time on a phone.
There is a book that contains such extensive list of MOND predictions that were later confirmed: “A Philosophical Approach To Mond” by Davide Merritt. One of the most exciting ones is the prediction of the ratio of amplitudes of the first two peaks in CMB spectrum
I've always believed our scientists made up Dark matter/energy because they didn't fully understand Gravity.
Same goes for black holes
@@paultyler7535 I can believe Black Holes given the evidence I've seen. But this is also where our scientists confuse the whole issue. They say gravity is a weak force. They justify this because we aren't crushed by it. But get to close to a black hole and you will be "spagehtified". So which is it weak or strong?
@Randall Porter Black holes cannot exist based on known physics. They get around this by saying "physics breaks down" in black holes which is code for they are making it up. Spaghettification is theory only, there is no empirical evidence to say this happens. I prefer the theory that galaxies are being organised by electric magnetic forces which require no big infinite mass at the middle and if true the black holes we think are hiding in the middle of galaxies don't exist at all
@@paultyler7535 What do you believe that photo we got of a supposed black hole a bit ago is then, if you don't think black holes exist?
@Anna Tuominen A photo of a black region of space does not prove that the black part is an object of infinite mass where physics stops working
You don't discover a theory, you theorize it
The ultimate criteria for a new model being used is: does it more accurately predict what we would see in the aspect you need better than the previous model.
The process to go from an Earth centric to a Sun centric model started with Copernicus and ended with Kepler and Newton because the new model became better than the old model.
The same thing will happen but it will take time and patience to get a new model right.
Exactly. And that's why I really dislike video titles like "new JWST data destroy Big Bang theory" or something similar. With the usual cosmologists from the YT university who all have known always that the BBT was wrong and their model is much better. That their model does not encompass many other observations they simply have never heard of because they never really did research, who cares. They have their model and they are right.
And up to now, all observations point to a Big Bang. A new model must include all previous observations. That usually negates a model that is completely and radically different.
A good example is Newtonion gravity vs. Einstein theory of relativity. Einstein's new theory was revolutionary, but in the end if you set the right boundary conditions (e.g. objects with speed below roughly 10% c) you are back at newtonian gravity.
And if there ever will be a new model of how the universe came into existence, it will be some form of Big Bang. Maybe not in the sense as we know it today, but today's BBT will be a part of the new model.
@John much like Newton’s laws got us to the Moon but both Newton’s laws and Einstein’s relativity made GPS possible.
I agree wholeheartedly! And as a young boy I would find the smoothest longest broom handle I could find and go behind the barn and release my constipation simultaneously trying to give myself oral pleasures. Very easy as a young lad. Harder as I have aged.
Awol does not. Which is why this video is silly. Where's the empirical proof it actually works?
@@robertsteinbach7325 Newtonian physics DOES NOT give you black holes. Without black holes there is NO modern cosmology. We now know definitively that black holes are FUNDAMENTAL to the large scale structure of the cosmos.
As much as you'd like to fanboy over the great Isaac Newton, he was insufficient to deconstruct the secrets of the Cosmos.
And it was actually Einstein, not Newton, who explained WHY gravity obeys an inverse square law which is a key reason why Paul Dirac, a man smarter than anybody posting on CZcams, believed General Relativity was here to stay permanently. Meaning any theory that replaces GR has to account for everything GR predicts in addition to any anomalies outside its purview.
GOOD LUCK.
Oh and "Newtons' Laws" aren't really "Newton's Laws," they are Kepler's laws, Galileos Laws (relativity), synthesized into what is now known as "Newton's Laws" event though 2 of the 3 laws of motion originated with the other two aforementioned geniuses.
"dark matter" has never sat right with me. I'm just an armchair type so I don't know much about anything, but I have always wondered if there's a very simple fundamental misunderstanding that has inferred its existence when in fact it doesn't really exist.
It's similar to quantum mechanics/particle physics for me. Big elaborate interpretations like many-worlds or Copenhagen are all the rage, but in the end I think it's going to be something more "boring", like pilot wave (de Broglie/Bohm), it's just that the idea of many-worlds, or all these crazy probability states that collapse when observed are more enticing because it gets our imaginations going. Of course pilot-wave has its own set of problems (non-locality for instance), but I feel like, yet again, our imaginations are tripping us up.
I'd love to be wrong though (and I usually am), I love a good mystery!
It is easy to look at pictures of galaxies, yet fail to appreciate how utterly vast they are. In our own galaxy, the Milky Way, the far edge is over 60,00 light years away, i.e. what we see is what it looked like 60,000 years ago, or 58,000 BC. I am intrigued that the rotation of such a vast object can actually be observed, even over a period of several years.
I find it more interesting we are able and conscious to observe it
Not completely sure about what I am about to say, not an expert at all, but I think that we don’t actually see galaxies rotating. However, we can more or less easily calculate the speed of stars, and their direction. So if you you have that for a good amount of stars in a galaxy, you can get the overall movement, and then « see » the rotation of the galaxy. This could be completely wrong, but that is how Hubble (the person) saw the general movement of celestial objects going away from us and concluded on the expansion of the universe
@@grosdodo151 This is indeed one method we use. We can even detect planets with redshifts. That we can detect galaxy rotation is trivial.
The rotation is determined based on the redshifts of the stars within the galaxy. Essentially, we can't really see the movement, but we can observe a Doppler Effect and use that to infer the movement.
@@nathanaelburns-watson194 Thank you. Makes sense. Stars on one side of the galaxy (receding) will show a greater red shift than those on the other.
Nice video! It is clearly explain which questions could be answered if dark matter/energy existed. Modified gravity theory do not require dark matter to answer these questions of the cosmos but has some problems either. You could analyze them, too in another video.
I love how the difference is basically
Guy 1: *y’know, we don’t know everything and something currently unseeable is currently unseeable*
Guy 2: *Bullshit, lemme just tweak some old things and invent stuff so i have an excuse to not confront not being able to understand everything*
Guy 3 is like but we can figure out how far we should be able to see... At least a logical boundary is something imaginable, that beyond which truly we have yet no means to infer.
Great video! Although most of it was over my head I still found it fascinating. We are not always as smart as we think we are. We don't know as much as we think we know. Nor how understand how the universe works or is held together or any of that. All we have are theories, it's not that we know any damn thing. But I appreciate this video cuz I was talking to my son-in-law about Dark Matter yesterday...
Best comment here, especially amongst the “weellll, accctually.” comments.
Alternative Explanation of Dark Matter and Dark Energy - Newly proposed model of Universe can explain both of Dark Matter and Dark Energy
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
Nice one actually taught me a new theory instead of mouth breathing Dark Matter is Fake News like some virtue signaling anti establishment zombie.
You can imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm saatisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track.
Einstein quote
Einstein realized all his ideas were wrong but too many people have been brainwashed with them
Space time is a lens. There is no time. Distance is what creates the illusion of time. Gravity is the key to everything we observe.
@@tubesurfer007 our universe is electromagnetic based plasma cosmology, not gravity based
time is a man made attribute
“It is generally accepted..” not good enough.
This was one of the best episodes of the Sunday Discovery Series so far! The way you explain keeps me hooked till the end. I have learned so much from this series and the best part is you cover a broad range of topics: From stars to galaxies to dark matter and the solar system. Keep it up
This theory is not true or accurate in understanding of Dark Matter.
This AQUAL theory has been disproved conclusively. Also, it's various other variations.
This video feels cheaply produced, with its voice generated actor not pausing properly between names of people and the title of their work. This screams I want to make money off of science education videos than an actual researched piece of education.
How is this a good episode? It simply pushes a theory that has problems explaining observable phenomena, like time dilation.
@@davek.3581 Pretty sure it's AI-voiced. And I'm 100% sure this comment we're replying to is bot-generated.
There is another hypothesis out there that many smaller black holes 🕳 in galaxies account for the missing mass.
I wonder, was dark matter basically equivalent to the luminiferous aether talked about before the hypothesis of light always traveling at the same speed?
I think it's so fun to think we might be totally wrong in our understanding and are about to move forward in a big way. Science!
THIS. This is the smart take. If dm/de exist and we 'prove' it then science has made a hige advance. If it cannot be verified then it is more excitong because it means there is something fundamental we dont understand about physics. Both are a win
Love it
its a blackhole at the centre of every galaxy
I don't think anyone in the scientific community is really taking this theory seriously because it's actually worse at predicting the effects of gravity than our current General Relativity/Dark matter model. Yes our current understanding on gravity is "wrong", but it's still the best theory we've ever had for it, as in the one that best fits observation. MOND and AQUAL are a step backwards, not forwards.
That's not science. That's fiction. If you are always wrong, how could you be right ever?
Very informative as always!!
If photons gradually lengthened their wavelength per unit distance travelled (very gradually), it would create a second form of red shift (in addition to Doppler), and account for the universe 'appearing' to expand, and if the wave lengthened enough it would be virtually undetectable - but it would still exist.
Problem is that photons do not experience time, so changes like that can't really occur.
I always thought something like this might be at play....we notice it everywhere over vast distances as if doppler is happening on a scale we didn't account for and for the layman at least would appear there's just an unaccounted for shift in the wavelengths of light. Maybe it's tied into the way light behaves both as particles and as waves....I'm sure scientists have done their best to account for this but still many mysteries abound.
Dark matter always struck me as a bad idea. Oh no, my new observations no longer match up with my predictions, i know, there must be invisible magic that I can't see!!! My initial assumptions just couldn't possibly be wrong.
The Ether of the 20th century /s
Exactly. The big bang theory has so many modifications to correct its wrong predictions that a used car salesman wouldn’t touch it.
I guarantee you no scientist on planet earth has proposed "invisible magic" my dude
Is there a better alternative though? As far as i know the one presented in this video (and any that tries to use the same rule for all galaxies) doesnt seem to account for galaxies acting differently even though they look similar, which can be explained with dark matter
Im still fairly new to all this, can you explain?
@@doodoo2065 The Big Bang violates the _First Law of Thermodynamics:_ *Energy can not be created nor destroyed.* Common sense alone should tell you _something_ *can’t* come from _nothing_ (because mathematicians would love to have a word with you) , but ignore the cognitive dissonance that all the Laws of Physics just “magically” appeared, without any cause. /s
There have been a few alternatives (Steady State Universe, Eternal Inflation, Oscillating Universe, Flat Hologram, Digital Simulation) but the dogma of Scientists “dies one funeral at a time” so the junk Science of the Big Bang persists.
The modus operandi of modern Science is ad hominem fallacies attacking alternative theories labeling anyone who suggests “heresy” as a quack so most stay quiet.
Eventually mainstream Scientists will discover the 6 fundamental forces, the toroidal shape of the universe, that FTL is possible, Einstein was a planted stooge & plagiarist, etc. but don’t hold your breath any time soon. MAYBE this century. There is a reason Max Planck wrote that _Science advances one funeral at a time. Eventually opponents die out,_ because 70+ years ago he already saw the political nature of Science.
Science is a linear, subtractive system of Truth. Modern Science is a complete clusterfuck of ignorance. A non-linear, additive system is a far faster way to acquire Truth so if you want answers explore that.
Well, most of that was over my head. That’s still fascinating. I’ve always been leery of dark matter. But a Qual is just as confusing. Is it saying that the further away you are from the galactic center the faster you go? Smarter brains, than mine will have to figure this out and I will be long gone by then.
I’m with you. I’m fascinated with all the new ideas and discoveries (especially considering how many kids today aren’t proficient in math- I’m looking at you Baltimore)… I’m 55 and only have a high school education, (but a lifetime of common sense? Haha)! Anyway, a lot of the finer detail went over my head, but I’m still awed by the data, and the idea that everything can change by a single discovery as well as the amount of tedious work that goes into those discoveries!
And you're right. DM is bs but mond isn't solution either..
It relies on Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) which says that gravitational pull at larger distances drops off more linearly rather than by the inverse square of the distance as with regular Newtonian models. Much more energy around to tug the outer stars along with the inner.
@@94leroyal I'm pretty sure MOND and AQUAL still don't account for time dilation or gravitational lensing, which are observable phenomena.
dark matter doesn't exist, they never took in account magnetic fields and electric currents in space, that's the 'missing matter'....even tho magnetic fields can be found everywhere in space.
I've been watching and learning from your videos for two years now and I'm really grateful for all the helpful information you've provided. Thanks for your great content!
It’s a timey wimy mess so it is.
This theory has been entirely disproven
It's crap "pop science" and it's just click bait. It's trash.
There's a model that fits observations and solves neatly the issue with dark energy etc by extending Einstein's field equations with negative energy and negative gravity (if i understand it correctly). Model is called Janus, put together by French cosmologist Jean-Pierre Petit. He has a CZcams channel and at least one video in English where he explains it.
I'm going to check it out. Thanks, mate!
Could dark matter be matter in a different dimension, or time? Maybe gravity gets weaker exponentially through time just as it does through space? Has this been explored?
Considering this is being discussed for decades and there is a feature about MOND theories like every other month in mainstream television for about 3 years now, calling it a 'plot twist' or 'new' is a bit ambitious imho.
Exactly, it is click bait. But it gets eyeballs on the video, and $$$$$ in the pockets of the creator. So what if it overstates the importance of the supposed "find" More people questioning reality is a good thing, right?
nah. Most people have never heard of mond. De/Dm are "sexy" and the prevailimg theory right now sp putside physicists and physics nerds they are all people have heard of
@@wimpymcsteel4458 What's evil about making money with an altogether sober and informative depiction of a scientific discussion? If someone believes that he could first hear about an important progress of sciences on a certain CZcams channel, that's his or her own problem, isn't it? Worse ways to invest one's money exist - e.g., buying cigarettes.
I am so fascinated by this Aqual Theory now, and you offered a very deep yet understandable explanation of everything put forth here for Aqual, and Dark Matter Theory, and even some Newtonian Physics! Well done!
AQUAL theory is not valid, it produces wrong results in many cases and has been disproved.
The electric universe model is very interesting
AQUAL has been around for almost 4 decades..
@WorksopGimp It's not even remotely a candidate for a valid interpretation of our observations of the universe. It's wrong, fallacious and invalid on almost every concept you test it against.
First you got duped by dark matter, now you’re gonna get duped by ‘aqual’. Don’t believe everything you hear.
Since mass and time are related, I keep wondering if stars at the edges of galaxies go faster because there is less mass on the rim. As per Interstellar, more mass, time slows down. The inverse should be true.
Yes, Alexandre Kassianchouk wrote a book about this. It's short and free on the internet.
I never felt comfortable with the current theories of "dark matter" and "dark energy". It's just scientific double speak for "...we don't know", so let's make something up so that we can plug "fudge factors" into the models we have. A technique learned from Tycho Brahe.
Yes, the current theory is seriously flawed, but still rigorously defended… you really have to question the human condition in all this, as it appears progress in the sciences only proceeds one funeral at a time (Max Plank).
This theory MOND is the seriously flawed one. If it can't account for gravitational lensing it completely falls apart. Also the speed at which stars travel further out in the galaxy isn't the problem with gravity. It's the fact that they hold together at all. They don't have enough mass to be able to hold together. The extra mass is what we call Dark Matter.
“Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest” Denis Diderot
@@rezadaneshi so morbid but incredibly true lol
Don't need dark matter without expansion.
@@eleventy-seven Not quite but closer to why Einstein preferred the static universe. No one had conceived of measuring the red shift yet so the math was easier
I use "dark matter all the time."
When I am missing an answer I just say "dark matter, or even dark energy."
For example 2+2=348, People say no, wrong.
I say.... "did you account for the dark matter?"
Of course you are right they say.
Lol excellent
This is racialist
These people are like the equation "2 fairies plus 3 fairies equals 5 fairies" proves fairies exist.
Another thing is that matter does not orbit the centers of galaxies as such to produce a rotation curve that requires dark matter in the first place.
If the matter orbit is more elliptical, i.e. it goes from the edge toward the center and then back to the edge, then the resulting rotation curve would be largely static as it appears based on observations.
Any discrepancies at this point could be attributed to innate electromagnetic field generated by the galaxy itself, mostly the much denser inner core.
I would actually prefer our view of gravity to be wrong than it actually relying on something like dark matter or energy.
According to my calculations 2+2 = 1. But then when I test it I get the answer 4. So there must be some invisible numbers! No way my calculations are wrong 👍
@@djohnson6585 these cant compare
@@flaror3496 no? So.. dark matter isn't just something we invented to make observations fit in with our equations?
@@djohnson6585 i mean you cant compare his ideas with the truth of 2+2=4
@@flaror3496 exactly like the truth that our equations for gravity do not line up with observations of gravity on large scales
That's the point.
If someone says 2+2=1 and then has to invent a magical invisible force to explain why that doesn't correlate with the realities of observation then it is clear to us that the equation is wrong and that inventing invisible phenomena is stupid
It is just as stupid to invent dark matter just to keep our equations of gravity as they are. It is far more likely that our equations are incorrect than a magical invisible unfalsifiable (eg supernatural) phenomenal exists
Interesting theory. I have previously wondered f Dark Matter really was an actual thing . The simplest analogy I can think of is "epicycles" - how certain Ancient Greek schools of Astronomy sought to explain the movements of stars and planets in an Earth-centric universe.
What is the center of the universe? It’s not the sun. There is no known center. So in effect, the earth (or more precisely each person) is the existential center of our own existence. The fact that the earth revolves around the sun and the sun revolves around the center of the Milky Way is of little importance in the grand scheme of things, of which we know very little.
dark matter doesn't exist, they never took in account magnetic fields and electric currents in space, that's the 'missing matter'....even tho magnetic fields can be found everywhere in space.
@@bencoad8492 THIS. Electric fields literally extend outward towards the edge of existence and every charge affects every other in the universe. Gravity as we know may really not be anything more to than an effect similar to London dispersion forces which see otherwise electrically inert molecules attract other likewise molecules.
@@bencoad8492I agree. The electric universe theory is plausible. And black holes are bunkum.
Quality content. Thanks
Wow, this was something, I understood the first 1/3 of this and completely floored about the astronomy but after that my brain couldn't keep up. Why don't we hear more about this. Is there anyway you could tell me about this, like I was a 4th grader?
Basically the MOND/AQUAL model says that frames where there is not a lot of acceleration, the effects of gravity don't fall off as quickly with distance. Or maybe a better way to put it is that the effects can be felt more strongly at distance. So on our scale (like our solar system) it works like we think it does normally, but once you get to galactic scale, it works a bit differently.
Watch The Big Bang Never Happened on CZcams.
It's odd that they expected the outer arms of the galaxy to be moving slower than the inner part. If that were true, wouldn't the galaxy's arms "wind up" around the axis? It's what my eyes expected to see happen when I was watching the animation. When a wheel rotates, the outer rim has to move faster because it covers more distance in the same time, since the thing is moving as a unit. So if the galaxy were retaining it's spiral shape, wouldn't that mean the outer edges have to moving as fast or faster?
Sounds logical.
The real arms are density waves, not what you see
I haven't studied much on this subject so I'm probably way off, but I've never thought that black matter was actual, I thought it was the missing mass that was needed for the equations to work. But, couldn't the missing mass be accounted for by black holes?
The term runs _"dark_ matter".
Would be more interesting to know who made that theory that they discovered.
The issue with MOND as a theory is that it doesn’t provide a new model. It doesn’t have any underlying mechanism to explain why there’s two domains to gravity. Dark matter at least puts forth a mechanism, even if it has some real issues.
I seem to remember physicists mentioning similar galaxies but with different rotatioanal speed, where the explanation would be e.g. no dark matter halo (or significantly less). Any other theory would need to be able to account for such phenomenan as well, were seemingly similar galaxies (visibly) still behave differently.
This is why this video is kinda dumb (and hardly the first to allege that we have some new theory to replace Einstein's GR lol, inevitably it fails). Whoever made this video is likely not a practicing physicist.
ANY new theory has to presuppose curved space (i could go into a whole explanation of why space is curved and how we know it to be true). GR is first, and thus far only, theory of gravity that explains WHY gravity obeys an inverse square law - something Newtonian gravity doesn't do.
Any new theory also has to retain the possibility of wormholes to help account for the non-locality inherent in quantum entanglement.
Does AWOL do any of that? Yeah. Click bait video!
Yes, this is where all forms of modified gravity fall apart. Dark matter's final test was finding galaxies with very little, and galaxies with a larger amount. Both have been discovered now. We've found galaxies with very little dark matter that behave in a completely newtonian way. Modified gravity would not allow this. Dark matter does because we just say "That galaxy has none because reasons".
@@brandonn6099 That's a proof against dark matter, what are you on?
@@LecherousLizard no?
@@skya6863 Yes. It changes the conclusion from "We don't know" to "There's less/more of this untraceable McGuffin here."
It's the same exact conclusion, except one of them requires honesty to admit.
If the universe began with a big bang it must've happened at one point. That point from which everything expanded MUST be the center of the universe, yet the boffins claim there is no center, so everything's rushing away from...what? Have always been confused by this.
there is no centre and everything is running away from nothing ,
To be clear bigbang started ,time start to exist and let's say there is already infinite space and when you can look at a portion of that infinite space as 2 x 2 cube of region space and that space expended into 4 × 4 cube ,so everywhere in that infinite space expending like that at the same time
Can the gravitational lensing be a large galaxy or cluster of galaxies, that we just can’t see because of the bending of space around it ?
If gravity has gravitons like light has photons would the bending of space also affect the travel path of the gravitons? Could this then cause what we observe ?
~ NOTE: Take in mind that Electromagnetism & Gravity, both have infinite ranges, as you read the following.
~ A perfectly spherical black hole has an equally spherical electromagnetic & gravitational signature, which makes them relatively indistinguishable in size from each other.
However when the black hole assumes the shape of a gravitational accretion disk, then the electromagnetic properties & characteristics also equally transform into a jet stream.
(The shape transformation is due to the colour & density size signature of the particular object, with the strong & weak force determining the limits, ie...a quasar is larger than a galaxy, a galaxy is larger than a solar system, etc...therefore their colour & density shape & size signatures are different, yet uniquely distinguishable) ie...a quasar is larger than a galaxy, a galaxy is larger than a solar system, etc...therefore their colour & density shape & size signatures are different, yet uniquely distinguishable)
Since the electromagnetic & gravitational signatures are still relevently relative to each other, then they are balanced & equilibrated around their center of gravity & electromagnetic signatures.
And as the shape of the black hole relative to the electromagnetic stream changes, from the point of the center of the gravitational & electromagnetic signature, then this causes the gravitational lens effect, as well as the electromagnetic lens effect. Of which both consequences are the temporal dilation & the spatial contraction effects.
~ All the so called missing dark matter is out there, hidden in plain sight, only further out in the void of space, as it encompasses all possible matter, including visible & not visible matter.
The same goes for any missing electromagnetic radiation, it is hidden in plain sight, as it also reaches further out into the vacuum void of space, beyond visible & not visible light, to us.
Very interesting video.
Nice to see open minds trying to understand the unknown.
However ,modifying a proven law to fit a misunderstood phenomena is a mistake in itself.
Keep up the good work.
@@johnhummel99
Granted it has its limitations,
However, it is still technically called "Newton's LAW of universal gravitation" and not
Called "Newton's THEORY of universal gravitation"
Probably for the same reason "Einstein's THEORY of general relativity" is not called "Einstein's LAW of general relativity" .
Yea ,maybe was too blunt with the comment and do applaud the guy for trying to come up with a better working model .
Hi there! In what way do you think a phenomenon (which has the plural "phenomena"!) has been misunderstood, here?
@HansDunkelberg1 thanks for the spelling correction. Well, you will have to wait until I publish my theory
before I have that discussion. But thanks for reading my comment and asking about it. :)
@mevenstien well said yet the "law"makers were the one whom named it. This is just a theory. And the proof needed to be a "law" is what is not observable without building on or from Newtons theory being modified.
Dark matter I believe might have been a filler for un known mechanics. Yet we search for unknown evidence and over and over again mistakenly continue to look towards this dark place while refusing alternative and still looking. No evidence
@@HansDunkelberg1Just stop Hans....good grief !😮
Ahh, tweaking the formula - always fun
I’ve learned some great theory from Rick but by far the most important lesson he teaches is how to listen to all types of music with enthusiasm and an open heart and mind.
at 8:10 the graph shown shows that every part of the rising curve was measured with starlight, while every part of the gradual curve measured hydrogen. could it just be a discrepancy with how hydrogen and stars move, or a discrepancy with the way we measure them, or is this a stupid question?
Obviously someone accidentally moved a decimal when they coded our simulation. Or they set the draw distance too low.
AQUAL was introduced by Bekenstein and Milgrom in 1984.
How would you use brightness and number of galaxies in order to calculate mass of a galaxy cluster, I'm sure I'm missing something here as scientists generally would be accounting for all these things but by definition galaxies are thought to all have supermassive black holes at their center, is this somehow accounted for in the mass of the galaxy? I would assume they calculate the mass based on motion accounting for gravity vectors from all nearby galaxies and then use that to somehow calculate estimates for each galaxies' mass? That to me would make more sense than using brightness of the galaxies to account for mass of the galaxy since black holes are by definition dark, hyper-massive and would not factor into the galaxy's brightness...
Given that General Relativity is a better model for things like the orbit of Mercury and gravitational lensing, has anyone tried using that instead of Newtonian Mechanics for the rotation of galaxies to see if that can explain the observations? For example, Special and General Relativistic effects are needed to accurately keep time in GPS satelites.
I know that Newtonian Mechanics is easier to compute, but it is known to be inaccurate in high gravitation fields. -- For example, it could be that the presence of supermasive blackholes in the centre of galaxies are affecting the rotation.
And/or some other effect due to the distribution of mass in a galaxy that is warping spacetime, especially as more mass is concentrated toward the centre of the galaxy and that galaxies are rotating. Thus, the resulting spacetime will also be rotating like in LIGO observed and modelled two blackhole mergers. -- This would have the effect that the inner part of the galaxy is more "twisty" than the outer part, and the drop off in speed could be the point at which that "twistyness" drops off.
You can imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm saatisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track.
Einstein quote
Einstein realized his ideas were wrong but too many people have become brainwashed with them.
This is an interesting theory and at one point could have made a strong case for replacing dark matter. However in 2006 the gravitational lensing of the Bullet Cluster provided strong evidence against it. To simplify if there was only Baryonic matter there, they would have observed the lensing in a smaller area(or the gas left from when the galaxies passed thru each other), but what was actually observed was two separate lensing areas (the weakly interacting dark matter would have just passed thru)
I won't be shocked if we find out in some years that we are simply overthinking it.....
The theory of gravity seems to be much like how atoms were thought of until now; at first we had a basic, simple idea of what atoms may be, but over time after more and more observations were made until the idea of the atom, which was originally simple and basic, is now extremely complex with more and more aspects and observations and theories coming to light.
So a dude in 1933, without a calculator, said "There's not enough matter in these galaxies to keep them together with gravity" and nearly a century later we're still looking for what this dude suggested. Intellectual phase locking, my man.
There was a wonderful physics paper released last year, which indicated that gravity was the force that time created (or an aftereffect) when it interacted with matter. and the reason the paper was little noticed at the time is their conclusion that our calculations for gravity were wrong, and that it was highly likely that dark matter didn't exist. They had a lot of really eye opening models to prove it too. it was a fascinating paper, which to date i don't think anyone has disproven yet.
Disproving is not a thing. The theory must be proven to make useful and testable predictions and agree better with real observations. It has not been shown that this theory does that better than GR.
@@wrenturkal8540disproven is a thing. That is what happens constantly. That is also how we knew, before relativity, that Newton didn’t explain it all. It simply did not hold up in some cases. Still usefull, just not the whole story about gravity.
"Disproving is not a thing"
wut
That’s basically the relativity theory of gravity. It’s a space-time dilation effect that matter has.
@@Pyladin let me elaborate since you're willfully missing my point.
Disproving does happen. Having said that, requiring this theory to be disproved to discount its value is not required. We already have a theory (GR) that has predictions that align with a fair amount of observable phenomena. Folks who want to see some other theory replace it have to prove that it does a better job making predictions.
A small amount of looking into more credible physics CZcams channels will show that many of the ideas pushed in this video have implications that are contrary to actual observations. In my very non-expert opinion, the most notable problems are handling time dilation and gravitational lensing.
What specifically do you think this theory addresses?
It is likely that our knowledge of gravity is incomplete, and there is also something like dark matter out there. We have a lot of theories that work well in many cases, but none of them work for everything. It is likely some weird combination of theories that is actually true and it is hard to figure out. We are looking for x, but it likely we need to find x,y, and z.
The thing is that the current prevalent theory is off by two orders of magnitude without those "dark" thingies and we have exactly zero proof for them, except that observations don't agree with said theory otherwise.
It's a catch 22.
Logically you'd take a set backward and fundamentally reassess the theory instead of trying to randomly glue pieces to it, hoping it starts working again.
We already know that there are particles like the neutrino that don’t interact with the electromagnetic force and thus appear to be dark
There is no dark matter or dark energy its BS to explain away aether and keep you stupid
@@LecherousLizard Agenda are Agendas and do not have to be logical in terms of real physics. The agenda: control energy & travel which also leads to control of food and thus the human species. THINK!
Space and time is like a fabric. If I took a pencil and started puncturing the fabric while simultaneously spinning the pencil; I would assume the outter parts of the fabric would be pulled at the same speed as the spinning pencil.
A black hole is the pencil puncturing the fabric of space-time. While the black hole spins, the fabric is pulled and twisted thus, making the outer stars at orbit at a faster rate than expected.
I’m just theorizing. I don’t know if this spinning pencil hypothesis has already been accounted for. But it would make sense.
"...and most importantly... How can the new idea lead to anti-gravity and warp drives..."
That's what I want to know anyway.
We does not have any idea yet what we call "gravity". It means we do not know even what kind of force acting among of our chair and our soft part. And same time we seriously tring to explain what goes on there, millions of lightyears distances far!
George Kirakosyan, "Rethinking Formal Methodology"
we actually do. Spacetime. Introduced in general relativity. We however are taught newtonian physics from childhood and only people who study physics are aware of spacetime.
@@cdreid9999 O.K. let it be so. But we must at last to understand for our self - what we mean under this term? Is it the kind of physical reality? If yes, then where its characterised constant? But there are no any constant, which means its have only some verbal - empty role. If we accept it as the some property of some other physical reality, then where its "owner"? So, In relativity theories contains some elementary logic nonsense, that we need to solve to be realize its real significance, that I have tried to do in my work.
It's always cool to see ideas change. Hopefully theory change will shake up fusion energy research.
Fusion does now already work anyway - haven't you got it?
There will always be more questions than answers; when we look up at the stars we still feel the wonder that the first men felt.
These guys are like a dog looking out a window giving commentary to the cat as they watch the neighbor doing a brake job on his truck.
Cosmology.....
Such an amazing name for the title.
The quality of videos is also increasing day by day. Great job SOU
I totally get the Dark Energy stuff, strangely i do, the theories nd explanations just make sense to me, but i NEVER bought into the Dark Matter stuff, it just felt like such a lazy cop out for "well, we just dont know honestly", i like that people took an alternative approach so thanks for this
It is acutally anything but. We found Neptune and Pluto because our data implied there is more matter than we know. It told us how much it is and where to look for it. Is the same method that led to the postulation of dark matter. The data seems to point to some matter that seems to be distributed as if it only interacts with gravity but not with the electromagnetic force. The latter is also the reason why we can't see it (if it exists) and struggle to find it, but this isn't a cheap excuse, it is predicted by the data (if it is a particle).
The Standard Model has a hole in the shape of duck, that quacks like a duck. Predicting a duck might turn out to be wrong, but it is not a cop-out.
@@Crimsonraziel lol
@@Crimsonraziel Your comparison to the prediction and identification of Neptune fits especially well inasmuch as Neptune has been the first planet nobody could see with the naked eye.
1:20 Can anyone tell me why the phrase " The void of space " was ever mentioned?
Always thought dark matter was an excuse for something we didn’t understand
I totally get where you're coming from! Dark matter can seem like a mysterious concept, and it's true that we still have a lot to learn about it. But scientists use the term "dark matter" to describe the unexplained gravitational effects observed in the universe. It's like a placeholder name until we figure out exactly what it is. So, it's more of an ongoing quest to unravel the mysteries of the universe rather than an excuse. Keep on questioning! 🌌✨
Great video. I have never believed in dark matter and always assumed our understanding of gravity was the issue.
Same here. I was always very skeptical of "dark matter." It was always spoken of in such certain terms like it definitely was a thing, but to me otherwise made no sense whatsoever. Tying this in w/gravity instead makes more sense to me. It also makes more sense to me that maybe science does not fully understand/appreciate gravity.
This theory is still not completely there. It misses a significant amount of observable phenomena
Well I never understood our beliefs, and always understood our assumptions were the issue.
I’ve wondered how they can measure the orbital speeds of stars around a galaxy. Especially near the edge. The time scales would mean even after 100 years barely anything would appear to move.
Redshift. In the part of the galaxy rotating toward us the star light(or better, star clusters) is blue shifted, in the part moving away from us is redshifted. Comparing that with the average galay's redshift the rotation velocity can be estimated.
If you think is complicated, you are absolutely right!
@@eljcd have we actually testing to verify under a controlled environment that red shift actually does happen the way Doppler shift works for sound?
@systematic101
Yes we sure do
It can be verified with different experiments and works along the entire electromagnetic spectrum, including most obviously radio waves. All this can be predicted & derived by special relativity.. or even without if you just consider light to be a classical wave in that an increase or decrease in frequency is just the peaks or troughs being closer together or further apart in time received (however relativity is still required to explain the constancy of lights velocity of propagation) :)
Incidentally using this doppler effect turns out to be one of the most accurate & precise things you can use to measure something's velocity.. provided you send and receive a signal of known frequency, or in the case of astronomy, you compare known spectral lines of common materials in stars etc to the same lines observed in light from the object in question
@@systematic101 In laboratory element and all kind of compounds have been measured to get their characteristic espectra. These are effectively the fingerprints of the elements. What Redshift does is that a Spectrum we know exists at a certain wavelength, is found at a higher one. And this can be traduced to distance.
More details
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
And how astronomers apply redshift to galaxies:
czcams.com/video/VsmTl7pn1vY/video.html
So all we did was change the equation a bit? But how does it explain the rotation curve? I didn't get that.
This reminds me of Erik Verlinde's 2009 proposed entropic gravity also featuring modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) and also, AQUAL is proposed in 1984, so the title suggesting that we just discovered that our theory of gravity is broken is a bit clickbait-like.
I remember the "missing mass" problem and thought why not write an equation that describes what you do see rather than worrying about something missing that shows your equation wrong. Could be there's torque..
Einstein did that. He added the Constant later to make the math work. It's just his theories work for everything else far better then classical mechanics that assumes no Relativity Of Observer.
@@ExecutiveChefLance I think Einstein introduced the cosmological constant to stabilize the universe to keep it from collapsing under gravity. He wanted it static. Thats my opinion. When they decided the universe is expanding the constant wasn't necessary and he called the constant a "blunder".
There’s probably a lot of micro dust out there that we don’t see. Write an equation that matches the observation.
@@conradnelson5283 I haven't looked into this for years. When I did I gave up. I need paper pencil and some time.
@conradnelson5283
Particle size doesn't have as much to do with the visibility of dust as you might think.. although dust and cold hydrogen may not be very impressive in visible light they become quite evident in infrared to radio frequencies.. in fact the James Webb telescope was designed to take advantage of infrareds ability to show us "dust lanes" in greater detail among other things :)
Also dust and gas, when present, absorb certain bands of light coming from stars and galaxies.. measuring which lines in the spectrum those are and how strong they are gives you some idea of what materials and how much of them there are obscuring our view.
It's good to think about guys but honestly do yall think you're the first ones to think of dust as a contributor of mass to a galaxy? It's astronomers' jobs to think of and understand these things.. and there's lots of people from many specialized fields that have to deal with this problem.. there's a good amt of evidence to suggest there is some "matter" present in these situations which isn't "visible"
Astronomers just wouldn't call it dust because that would imply it's normal atomic matter which is pretty well ruled out by observation over the years
I've never subscribed to dark matter or dark energy, and inventing a force(s) to explain incomplete observations, is not good science.
Essentially the "DARK" labeling simply interferes with and/or reasoning of many attempting to consider the two influences... semantics sometimes SUCKS... 😎
Oh no, You mean scientists were guessing based on limited information this entire time!?
Finally some are starting to talk about this, thanks a lot
Please look into Plasma cosmolgy
Or was Nassim Haramein right after all when he said protons are mini black holes made of vacuum energy, which's gravity is enough to overcome the coulomb force?
I too am fascinated with these and many new theories although I am often amused at how so many in the science community pitch the theories and ultimately sell as though it is irrefutable fact we all must accept.
Then a few years and studies go by and “oops…no we were wrong but…this NEW one now is definitely FACT!”
I’ve no problem whatsoever with theories disproving past ones, it’s an evolution but I laugh when any are spoken of as definitive and so many are.
They are…until they’re not.
All cool stuff though.
I had an argument on here with a guy taking his Masters in physics who kept claiming dm/de as proven science. Yet he couldnt come up with any science to do so. He simply relied on dogmatism. It honestly made me pretty sad a future physicist was arguing dogmatism. I think it will be great if we prove de/sm or find a better theory. But the dogmatism is annoying from presumed scientists
"AQUAL is a theory of gravity based on Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), but using a Lagrangian. It was developed by Jacob Bekenstein and Mordehai Milgrom in their 1984 paper, "Does the missing mass problem signal the breakdown of Newtonian gravity?". "AQUAL" stands for "A QUAdratic Lagrangian""
It's not new, it's rejected because it's false. U are just being duped for clicks and money.
You're confusing scientists with the media 🤷
@@cdreid9999 proofs in mathematics exist and proofs in physics do not. No scientific theory can be “proved”, although the unfortunate phrase “scientifically proven” has gained common currency. In physics (as in any natural science). Reddit? I personally do not trade in theory absent proof, or as we perceive steps of proves.
In other words…our models don’t exactly work right so we patched them until the next Einstein comes along. 🤔
Professor Colin Rourke produces accurate rotation curves by assuming the rotation of the giant black holes at the centre of galaxies drags space yime in the direction of the rotation, with the effect dropping off by 1/r, where r is the distance from the centre.
Convention says this effect can be ignored as it is assumed to drop off ad 1/r^3, based on the Kerr metric, which is the unique solution assuming space is avacuum.
Rourke points out that space is not a vacuum
0:20 You have that galaxy rotating in the wrong direction...
The problem is that MOND only explains rotation curve of galaxies, and introduces a completely arbitrary function into game. On the other hand, dark Matter explains a lot more, for instance bullet clusters and cosmological, large scale observation, like the power spectrum of CMB temperature.
And not all galaxies have the "Dark Matter Phenomena". If they propose using MOND, then that means some galaxies have different rules for gravity. And there are voids that have very strong "Dark Matter Phenomena". This means MOND would need to explain empty space having lots of gravity. Mind you, these are extreme outliers that they're still investigating. Always possible there's an observation error somewhere that gave erroneous results.
Which means both are likely wrong
@@Slackware1995 or, simply, that the dark matter content of those galaxies is negligible
@@giovannipiccoli5239 so neglitable as to be underdetectable.
@@Slackware1995 one thing is to be unable to detect the single particles, another is to observe the effects of them as a whole
What comes to mind for me is that there's a hidden force at work. What I envision is a quantum force similar to entanglement in which distant objects 'communicate' with each other... This communication becomes a pull as the objects are further apart, as they continue to want to communicate instantly. As the objects are further apart, however, this communication becomes more difficult. The distant objects pull on each other in their effort to remain connected. In this way, greater force is exhibited as a consequence of greater distance, resulting in what 'appears' to be a violation of the inverse square law.
That's great and all but what evidence do you have to support your theory? Because we can all sit around and postulate explanations, but science relies on evidence. And dark matter and energy are the theories that best support the evidence at the moment.
@@Ryan-gx4ce Perhaps, however, as pointed out in this and other highly credibly sources, the very lack of evidence for dark matter, and, conversely, the evidence against it and for (some type of) steady-state theory is mounting, (including the appearance of fully developed stars & galaxies in what was thought to be the early universe) demanding an explanation that takes into account these new observations.
@@MiddleIrvington "the very lack of evidence for dark matter" is a stupendously false statement. Moreover, while AQUAL has gained recent traction, it still fails to predict gravitational lensing accurately. It also cannot eliminate the need for dark matter because even when using AQUAL for galaxy clusters there is still unaccounted for mass. It also has problems explaining the CMB and so on.
Any honest dark matter scientists will tell you that they do not know what it is. But that they can observe it's effects and that we are working on detecting and learning more about it. Claiming that some more specific theory, AQUAl or another modified Newtonian dynamics theorem, is better than dark matter supercedes the claims made by dark matter and requires a more rigorous proof than for the dark matter case. And at the moment, AQUAL can't even meet the burden of proof that dark matter does
Understood, re: circumstantial evidence for dark matter, etc. My points here are that 1. The very fact that both entangled particles move simultaneously, despite the distance IS a form of communication, despite what anyone says, whether WE can know that the other entangled object moved simultaneously, or NOT! Adding to what I stated earlier, when observations (such as complex stars & large galaxies in the newly formed universe), those observations MUST be taken into account. Occham's Razor states that the simplest theory that takes ALL reputable observations into account is likely to be correct, DESPITE it's deviation from previous explanations.
@@hah-vj7hc If there's one thing that is constant in our universe, it's change (toward increased entropy 2nd law of thermodynamics). That being the case, as I understand it, if objects are to remain entangled, they will each have to change simultaneously when the other does, with no time delay. Otherwise, they're no longer entangled. Direct evidence of those changes (other than the fact that both objects are constantly changing) from the distant object is unavailable. However, IF both objects continue to be entangled, they would need to respond to the changes of their partner (or how can we say that they're entangled?) The independent confirmation of the other object's change is subject to SOL restrictions. Nevertheless (what I'm calling information) is the simultaneous changes each experience themselves, not their confirmation.
It makes sense that an equation modified to fit rotation of galaxies, should fit rotation of galaxies better than say standard Newtons's laws. But what does it predict that we can test (observe)?
I think the issue lies in the way that galaxies and stars form: planets form from star matter, which is dominantly from the center of a star system; while stars and galaxies may be a different occasion. After all, starting conditions of space system formation are different
Makes more sense than impossible to detect dark matter to me.
If gravity extends infinitely through the cosmos, and if there is infinite matter in the universe, that’s a lot of gravitational interplay
I always wonder what the thread count is of the fabric of space time?
Haha, interesting question! Spacetime doesn't have a thread count like fabric, but it's a fascinating way to think about its interconnected nature.
Gravity is totally wrong it is not what we assume, the rotation of galaxies is not dependant upon dark matter and dark energy, these are all sea serpents designed to explain effects that we don't comprehend,
There are a few explanations as to why stars on the edges of galaxies rotate as they do, the galaxy actually operates as a gigantic electromagnetic dynamo and rotation within a magnetic field induces electrons to flow, these flow from the centre's of the cluster radially out toward the edges, it is this charge sheet rotating and flowing out radially to its edges that exert a force chaining stars to one another forming low frequency waves causing the galaxies rotate as they do, had space been denser we would witness this rather like lightning,
but Newtonian gravity does need modification MOND and actually effects structures on the very very large scale that is walls of galaxies it is why the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating, these effects are minimal within scales of a single galaxy, so we have two separate effects both appearing to be classical gravity, and it is not what Newton and Einstein thought it was.
While I'm sure there's forms of matter and energy we cant detect yet, dark mater never made since to me.
The gist of my favorite theory that I've heard is that in areas as close to perfect empty as possible in space (no matter or energy which is rare) the quantum field causes matter to appear and disappear and sometimes it stabilizes and doesn't disappear again.
Causing a fast at first and now slow but clearly growing universe.
There are galaxies that are apparently devoid of "dark matter". Without an actual weakly interacting particle comprising dark matter that's very difficult to explain with some kind of modified gravity.
The "dark" means 'Unknown." Its a placeholder and always has been. We know there are forms of matter we can't detect, so we call those things Dark (Unknown) Matter.
@@etherraichu
It actually means undetectable.
Dark matter makes a ton of sense. It's just matter not affected by three of the forces. That's it. It's simple. There could be 5 or 6 or more forces. Maybe our matter isn't affected by some of the forces so we cannot even perceive them. Dark matter is simply only affected by gravity that we know of. It could be affected by forces we cannot detect.
@@brandonn6099
The idea of Dark matter it's self and the idea that it may act differently is not the issue with the theory.
It's issues come in to play when it used as an explication to the start, formation, and movement in the universe.
This video explains how scientists are drifting away from this explication and towards another for a reason.
Giant black holes in the center of galaxies + the stars in the outer part of the galaxy go faster than the center = a simple distortion in space time? In other words, wouldn't we perceive the stars in the galaxy center to be slower as they're closer to the black hole?
At the entropy death of the universe, will time disappear? As the universe expands, cools, and basically disintegrates, less will "happen." When nothing happens (delta S= 0) will space and time disentangle? If not, how can there be time with no "event?" Or, will uncertainty always account for sufficient non-homogeneity to support the existence of time? I would very much appreciate comments and explanations.
I'm a high school dropout and even I found it annoying that they invented a mythical no-seeum material because their math didn't add up.
It makes sense to assume something like dark-matter, but the idea that there assumptions about gravity were wrong was never given any press as far as I know.
The thunder bolts project explains these phenomena very well without using dark matter nor dark energy. Check them out.
Whenever the physics types start talking about "dark matter" I think back to those old cartographers who were making maps of "the known world" and had large portions covered by "Here Be Dragonnes". Dark Matter is the physicists version of saying "we don't know but we need to look like experts so we made something up". It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Phlogiston and the aether
I think dark matter and energy is more an admission of what we don't know. Also, limits around what it could be have been found. This means we are slowly narrowing in on a better explanation over time. That better explanation may very well include new theories, but AQUAL doesn't currently appear to be better than GR for describing what we can observe.
@@nickcarroll8565 Aether was replaced when we learned more about how light behaved, just like GR will be when something better comes along. AQUAL doesn't appear to be that thing.
Agreed, just posted the exact same thing honestly, never bought the dark matter explanations "fancy way to say we dont know basically", where as the dark energy explanations make a TON more sense for me
Well not exactly right. As a thought experiment, let's say someone smashed you in the back of the head with a hard heavy object and knocked you out. When you woke up, you knew it was a hard and heavy object as you observed the effect it had on your head. The big bump, knocking you out and the pain. Now would you be considered "ignorant" if you could not describe exactly what that object was? Dark matter is like that, it behaves like matter when it comes to gravity and its effect on galaxy, we just haven't been able to see or interact with it. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, we just don't yet know exactly what it is. It's not "made up" it's just described using what we do know.
I'm just a random dude interested in the universe. But it sounds like the problem might be that we're applying the same laws of gravitational rotation (faster speeds closer to the center) in our solar system, to distant galaxies when theres one major difference: Ones rotating around a star, and the other's rotating around a black hole. Perhaps we dont fully understand the effects black holes have on surrounding bodies and time-space. Perhaps the black hole is literally sucking the "time" out of the closer bodies. The further away the bodies are, the more they travel at their "normal" speed. Idk interesting to think about.
So if I draw a line on a CD going from it's center to it's edge, then label each point on that line, and put it to play. If I then put an arrow on the side of the cassette it's playing in, what is the likelihood of any of those points lining up with that arrow at the same time, suggesting the ink particles dont collide into each other as the CD rotates?
42
@@viktorvondoom9119 lmao, I'll accept this for the lolz, but the correct answer would be 100% of the time
@@viktorvondoom9119 the point being that if a whole object rotates as one system you won't have a point on the inner different from one at the outter. Everything in the galaxy is pulling on everything around it. With the exception of any clumping or collision the underlying force pushing the rotation won't change.
So the black hole at the center influences all the way to the edge of its sphere evenly throughout. Because each piece of matter it attracts extends it's pull. Sort of like how you can use paperclips to extend the reach of a magnet, but only so far.
It's more of a reaction in distance, electromagnetic particles in mater is the "dark mater". The reach of its effect is still being researched
what you typed here is nonsensical.