New Data Spell Trouble for Dark Matter's Biggest Competitor
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 06. 2024
- 💰Special Offer!💰 Use our link joinnautilus.com/SABINE to get 15% off your membership!
Today we have an update on the biggest astrophysics drama of the year, that’s an observation which seems to be ruling out the most popular alternative to dark matter. Then we have a group of geologists who claim that parts of the moon are stuck in the mantle of earth, a new and quite plausible explanation for the sudden dimming and brightening of the star Betelgeuse, plans for a smaller and more energy-efficient particle collider, the first full colour images from the EUCLID mission, earthquakes in the laboratory, a microscopic engine with record efficiency, plans to produce hydrogen with small nuclear reactors, climate scientists who say we’d be better off cooking with synthetic oil, and of course, the telephone will ring.
The quiz for this video is here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/...
🤓 Check out our new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support us on Donatebox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.substack.com/
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXl...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
00:00 Intro
00:57 Evidence Against MOND
04:25 Pieces of the Moon in Earth's mantle
05:47 Betelgeuse might have eaten its companion star
07:00 Particle physicists evaluate plan for smaller collider
10:01 First colour-images from Euclid satellite
10:54 Earthquakes in the laboratory
12:09 A mini-engine with record efficiency
14:16 Rolls Royce to make hydrogen with nuclear power
15:30 Synthetic fats more environmentally sustainable, scientists say
16:43 Nautilus special offer
#science #sciencenews - Věda a technologie
The quiz for this week's video is here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1699829246080x253651048553139140
If wormhole were real wouldn't the gravity at 1 end pull in gravity at other end even with Portal closed in a nano nano second. The gravital paths would altered . Area's of gravity would closer linked then would otherwise
Dark Life is a possible type of life in Dark Matter. Also, space is something material.
It's not part of the Moon that's in Earth's mantle. It's part of Thaia. It was Thaia that collided with the Earth - not the Moon. The Moon formed only _after_ the collision and as a result of the collision. Get your causality right, It's not quantum mechanics.
"BETTLEJUSS?" I suppose that's one way to avoid summoning that zombie dude in the stripy suit. "IT'S SHOWTIME!"
:) 17:06 "They serve science with style" - Wait, isn't that YOUR niche?
Actually, the coffee I drank this morning is dark matter's biggest competitor.
😅
The, “caffeino!” ^.^
@@user-pw2ro7gt4rwhere his beans come from?
Well, unless your coffee is engaging in nuclear fusion or self-illuminating in another fashion, it's just tasty dark matter.
I don't get it?
All this time, I didn't know battle-jazz was an option!
Dr. Becky has just made a wonderful video on that new paper. It was extremely insightful. She covered the methodology of this paper and even the history behind its authors. What amazed me the most is that the first cited author of this paper used to be a huge proponent of MOND and he was actually looking for a way to prove it when he and his collaborators got these very results.
The "Scientific Method" at work.
And that is the hallmark of a good scientist.
I find it peculiar to mention this. It's an ad-hominem argument and I usually stay away from those.
@@SabineHossenfelder-- One of the authors most likely having a bias againt the conclusion of a paper means that much less bias went for the conclusion.
The sample of WBSs which is claimed to falsify MOND is WBSs within 250pc around the Sun, according to the abstract of the paper by Banik e.a. However, the galactic acceleration around the Sun at 8 kpc from the Center of the Galaxy is higher than Milgrom's a0, I guess, and that renders MOND not applicable to WBSs in this region of the Galaxy. So it is the idea of viewing WBSs at 8kpc plus minus 250pc from the Center of the Galaxy as isolated gravitational systems which could be described by MOND is actually falsified, and it is not that surprising because the Galactic gravity is too strong for MOND to work within at least 1 kpc from the Sun (look at the Galaxy rotation curve assuming that the flat region is described by MOND). Maybe, the paper falsifies just a specific understanding of MOND as a sort of "modified classical gravity" theory rather than a modification of Newton's 2nd law at very small _total_ accelerations of the order or smaller than Milgrom's a0 ~10^{-10} m/s^2.
So for that article on synthetic cooking oil, there doesnt seem to be any nutritionists, or human dietary specialists listed. They all seem to have credentials for chemical engineering and or the planets health not yours. In food science circles its been discussed if seed oils like Canola or sunflower oil are even healthy for us, i would be very suspicious of how healthy these synthetic versions of oils would be.
Steven J Davis department of earth systems science
Kathleen Alexander Orca Sciences, Kirkland, WA (PhD at MIT in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering)
Juan Moreno Cruz School of Environment, Enterprise, and Development, University of Waterloo
Chaopeng Hong - Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Ecological Remediation and Carbon Sequestration, Institute of Environment and Ecology,
Matthew Shaner Orca Sciences, Kirkland, WA, (Phd Chemical Engineering)
Ken Caldeira Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, CA
Ian McKay Orca Sciences, Kirkland (phd chemical engineering)
The bigger thing we should be taking note of from Gaia data is that it shows that Stars and gass are not circulating at the same speed in the Milkyway. Differential speed can only result from differential forces and the most likely force acting differently would be electromagnetics upon the gas/plasma which the stars basically shrug off due their enormouse mass. The stellar velocities rotation curves that were assumed in other galaxies from the observation of gas and thus the 'plataue' effect for which both Dark Matter and MOND are explinations may infact just not exist, or atleast are so minor as to push down the required amount of Dark matter so much that it falls within the range of reasonably unobserved normal matter.
I'm also immediatly skeptical of any falsification which is dependent entirly on how you cut or sample the data, you can easily throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak. Given the nature of confirmation bias which is particularly strong in astonomical communities I fear this will be yet another excuse for continuing to malign MOND in particular and all Dark Matter alternatives generally. It's not like this is the first time MOND was 'irrevocobably disproven to double digit sigma levels' and each time it's turned out that the falsifications were wrong or incomplete.
Data cutoff is necessary because bad data can seriously degrade results and you end up with inconclusive or even erroneous studies. This is especially true if you know your data has a systematic bias. We have methods of telling which data points shouldn't make the cut, and you can make these cuts while provably not introducing bias. MOND is consistently indicated when controls for data quality is at their poorest. The same thing happens in various studies of woo - the worse the study, the more likely it is to be in favor of woo.
As to the gas moving differently from the stars, there are many influences that could cause them to differ, however it does not matter as to the proportion of dark matter/MOND because a galaxy like ours has ~10 times the amount of gas as it does stars, by mass, so even if you subtract out all the stars in such a galaxy, the motion of the gas would still be anomalous.
The main reason dark matter is pretty much the only game in town is because it steadfastly refuses to go away. There is a ton of observational data that really point specifically to dark matter - like in galactic collisions that strip the gas of the galaxies from their stars. Without dark matter, you would predict that the gravitational lensing should be around the gas (which has ~10x the mass of the stars), but that's not where the gravitational lensing is found. It's with the stars, which really shouldn't be able to generate that much gravitational lensing. Even MOND theories require dark matter of some sort in order to work. When the main rival of dark matter says, "Bro, there's dark matter," it's time to consider that it's really there.
@@wyrmofvt "The main reason dark matter is pretty much the only game in town is because it steadfastly refuses to go away"
Yup. The scientific method isn't to PROVE your theory, but fail to DISPROVE it
Anything disproven is automatically eliminated from contention, leading one to the Sherlock Holmes principle: Once you eliminate what can't be, whatever's left - however improbable - is likely to be your answer
One hypothesis I recall from ~35 years ago is that dark matter could be quintillions of basketball-sized (or smaller) primordial black holes, but I'm aware the way dark matter (fails to ) interact with normal matter pretty much eliminates this idea from contention
I love how disgusted and annoyed Sabine acts when the phone rings.
5:47 “You probably heard of ‘Battlejus’”.
*Me:* What??… Oh!.. you mean ‘Beetlejuice’.
I misheard small earthquakes in the laboritory as small earthquakes in the LAVATORY 😮😮😮😊
As a working-class guy who left formal education with a couple of A levels, I feel as though I only really got educated after I left school. exercising my curiosity by reading as many good books as I could and later through a great deal of travel (I lived and worked in Asia, mainly India for 20 years) I remember the times before the Internet and that gives me a great appreciation for it, most of the knowledge I could ever want a keyboard away. Ms Hossenfelder's podcasts are among my favorite sites as quantum mechanics and Cosmology really fascinates me. Thank you very much for taking the time to share your knowledge in a way intelligent laymen can understand
I studied at degree level but dropped out. My son did the same. But we read. Anything from politics to, in his case ckassical history, in mine archaeology. Plus both had varied work lives. I knew an old guy who had been labelled stupid in his 1920s schooldays. Later after he taught himself to read realised he was dislexic. Became a mosaicist, then radio technician working on radar repairs during WWll. Was a mostly self taught silver and gold smith passed his city and guilds. Grew up in the local countryside. A mine of all sorts of information.
Love you guys for your sincere attitude towards Science which is not even shared by every professional nowadays, as far I can judge my colleagues.
This is the only weekly series on any media that I look forward to. You cover such interesting papers and topics, and your explanations are always great.
Science news (except climate science) is a sanctuary compared to the other news at the moment. All of it is interesting and most is reassuring in some way.
Thank you Sabine.
Was The Earth really The Earth before Thea hit it? It should have been called Hyperion. According to Greek mythology, Thea married her brother, Hyperion, and then gave birth to the moon.
Would like to hear a little more about the laboratory produced oils. Specifically, what raw materials are involved, what manner of fats are produced and has anyone yet investigated industrial scale production and projected cost. You said that they are expensive to produce, but that is presumably based on the current scale (ie very small laboratory scale).
As to the pronunciation of the giant red star in the constellation of Orion which may, or may not, go supernova sometime soon (ish): I have always heard it pronounced like Beatle (think John Lennon) Juice (think orange). In fact you are the first person I ever heard pronounce it as you did. At first I thought it was a German thing.
Anyway, I love your work and have been a long time subscriber.
Thank you for the science news.
I second this
@@assburgers3457 I second your seconding of this.
I LOVE Sabine! it's Science!
00:31 "battlejus" That's the first time I hear it pronounced that way.
It's Arabic.
Bat-al-Jauza
Obrigado pelo vídeo, Sabine!
Scientists have discovered bits of the Moon stuck in the Earth? Great! Now we have to fix the Moon
Great stuff, hooray Sabine! Pls cover the potential generator that creates electricity from the humidity in the air if you haven't already, thanks.
As a central Ohio resident I agree with you.
as a central Ohio resident I don't get why she's putting us down? GO BUCKEYES!
That bit and the deadpan delivery caught me off guard. Top tier.
Wonderful channel ☺thank you for your commitment. Interesting topics so clear worked out for us.
I love this channel and how it tells us all of the exciting things that won’t happen any time soon ha ha
11:24 If they instead of using outdated equipment, and simply sample seismic differences on 3 places,
like 30 meters apart, they can also pinpoint the origin of each of these seismic mini events,
which then tells where they originate and where the density of such events is the highest.
All you'd need then is a large quake, to see which location requires which density to have
a more signifcant seismic event. The amount of time preceding is unknown to me.
Thanks for the science news, Sabine! 😊
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Sabine, that was a great and concise explanation as to why MOND may have been falsified!
If anyone could convince me to drink this "oil", aka, Soylent Green, it would be you, dear lady. 🤣
3:01 good back to the basics of astrophysics excellent. Your thumbnail for this episode needs to be reviewed 😢 however good show as always ❤
Isn't the main reason colliders are usually underground is to avoid interference from external radiation/particles?
I think it's more about keeping the equipment out of the weather, and in a controlled temperature and humidity environment, while maintaining the farm land that's on top.
You might be thinking about sensitive underground experiments, like the ones that look for neutrinos or dark matter particles. Those detectors do need shielding from cosmic particles to reduce the noise in the data.
I’m still holding out for mond 🤞
Then please explain what's wrong with the research paper which ruled it out at 16 sigma.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514It's not clear to me that their picking of data points is justified. It doesn't seem like the data we have is of a high enoygh quality to rule one way or the other.
@@appa609 Well, Sabine seems to think their picking of data points _is_ justified and the data _is_ of a high enough quality - and that's despite the fact that she has been quite sympathetic to MOND in the last months.
Dark matter being the only game in town just shows how little we know about gravity. There's no dark matter.
hello Sabine
can you please tell as something about QUASARS
THANK YOU
Dr. H -- So where in Ohio are the moon pieces aside from the Niel Armstrong Museum? Is it the Serpent Mound crater near Peebles, Ohio? Or is this a joke for OSU's astronomy department?
Settled on a title for the video then! Hehe.. Love this channel x
2:10 ... this is why the wide binaries are so interesting. These are cases where two stars orbit around each other, but at a big distance. If they're close togetehr, you should not see a modification of gravity. If they're far apart, you should see it. The data come from ESA's Gaia mission. 2:28 ... 4:26
I love the comic wit. Brilliant.
I do not join in for my protection. But you are so precise and no bulshit. Thank you human.
You've made me want to try frying an egg with my expensive synthetic racing engine oil 😂
safe the planet, quit your life make davossiac climaniacs like biden's climate commissar JK happy (and rich).
This is one of the best Weekly Science News yet!!
No. It is not.
@SabineHossenfelder - funny, I was going to ask you to check that new study that allegedly debunks MOND. I wonder if the whole distant galaxies predicted by MOND discovered by the James Web telescope has any say on this. I would def. be waiting for the other study you said you know it's being worked on.
Thanks much for the work you put in all these videos- much appreciated!
I talked about this last year in my video on the webb telescope czcams.com/video/h6DhWQzYuuk/video.html
I sailed past the point at which I ceased retaining anything meaningful from your hugely entertaining reports already some time ago, so I shan't be taking the quiz.
As usual, interesting video Sabine & It's good that you have Einstein by your side to continually monitor the gravity of any situation that may arise! 😉😉👍👍
"Kids, just say no to getting high on gravity. It may seem like fun at first, but eventually gravity will just bring you down."
---Albert Einstein
i was waiting for your take on the new paper statistically reevaluating the wide binary data to see if MOND can explain it. They used baysian statistics on high quality data from GAIA wide binaries and introduced a parameter which mixes in different fractions of MOND with regular gravity: 1=no MOND, 2=full MOND. The parameter was allowed to vary continuously and it came up close to =1, meaning MOND wasn't needed at all. The fact that they checked the influence of all the parameters on the conclusion, and that high uncertainty data introduced a bias for MOND was very interesting. Also interesting is that one of the main authors has previously been a major proponent of MOND and seems to be convinced by the rigor of the tests they devised to rule it out. Will be interested to see what comes out next!
Yet another scientist being convinced to join the dark side. All those who believed in the force have either changed their allegiance or will soon be dead. It is futile to resist the dark side... err I mean matter 🤔
I am rather sceptical of their analysis method and I doubt it'll hold up. But I don't work on this stuff any more and it's someone else's call to make.
There is much more grants and money in "dark matters" and ad hoc "modified gravities" than in MOND. This drives 99% of the people and their priorities and conclusions nowadays.
@ika5666 that doesn't sound like a very good justification for disregarding a paper.
@@april5054 My post sounds like disregarding the paper only to those who celebrate it as a justification of continuation of their job of drawing new epicycles of various "dark matters" at the cost of taxpayers and calling it science. I have posted a more specific argument elsewhere in this discussion and won't repeat it here.
Just a clarification regarding engines, power and efficiency, there isn't a law that dictates that a more powerful or bigger heat engine will be less efficient. There are different strategies to increase power output. The first is to burn more fuel, for example in a car when you push the throttle you burn more fuel and increase rpm and power output, by doing so the the efficiency will rise reach a peak (around 2000 rpm for gasoline engines in cars) and then fall again while rpm and power could still be increased. The second strategy to get more power is to get a bigger engine, this is usually done when engines operate in a more constant conditions such as power plants, interestingly the bigger the engine or the power plant the more efficient it is, that is one of the reasons to build few big power plants and not a lot of small ones, and for comparison a typical car engine has a efficiency of less then 30% while massive container ship engines which are also piston engines can reach efficiencies of around 40% to 50%. A third commonly used strategy to increase power output is to increase thermal efficiency itself, this can be done using a turbo-compressor coupled to the engine of a car for example, that is why modern 1~1.5L turbo engines today are more powerful and consume less fuel then their aspirated equivalents from the 90s.
It's not clear exactly what about the prevailing Theia/Earth-Collision Moon-Creating theory is being challenged by the new paper. We've known about the LLSVPs for some time, their masses are understood and it's easy to add them to the mass of the Moon to get approximately the theorized mass of Theia (10% that of the Earth). Does the paper imply that the Moon just formed more slowly than previously thought after the collision, or not at all? Or, does the paper simply question the idea that the Earth and Theia were not still completely molten when the collision occurred, that crusts had already formed on them? Thanks...
It's worth noting that the lead author on the dark matter paper used to be one of MOND's leading proponents. This is him standing up an saying yeah nah, I got it wrong.
It's a theory and follow the money 😀
And it proves nothing.
Holy Bots what is this
Damn, these bots getting more and more advanced these days
the bots found eachother@@Levigeddon
Um, if MOND is ruled out because of high uncertainties, doesn’t that mean dark matter this too?? Aren’t they both trying to explain the same phenomenon???
no
No to the former, sort of to the latter. Both are attempts to explain certain phenomena, such as the rate at which some galaxies spin being too fast to be explained properly by general relativity, and certain instances of gravitational lensing amongst other things. The "dark matter" hypothesis postulates that these phenomena are the result of matter that doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation, but only through gravity. MOND (or Modified Newtonian Dynamics) attempts to explain these phenomena by, as its name suggests, modifying our existing theories of gravity rather than suggesting these phenomena are due to matter that only interacts through gravity. However, to my knowledge, MOND didn't attempt to explain instances of gravitational lensing where we can't see what is doing the lensing, for instance. If MOND really has been ruled out, that doesn't mean that the dark matter hypothesis has been either, nor does it show that to be correct; evidence would have to be put forward showing that dark matter actually exists.
MOND modifies gravity at certain distances and so it predicts a change in the orbit of these stars compared to Newtonian gravity. The study asks if we need MOND to explain stars orbiting at great distances and concludes no, we don't. Dark matter causes its effects based on its distribution. If there is not enough dark matter between the stars to influence their orbit then no change from Newtonian gravity is predicted by dark matter. The study therefore doesn't say anything about whether dark matter exists or not.
I guess I was specifically referring to Sabines comment that she felt MOND with respect to galactic disc speeds was only applicable to galaxies with high uncertainties-but this should likewise invalidate the need for dark matter in this cases as well. (See 3:50)
5:49 This may be a star ejecting out a fusion product heavier than helium and hydrogen.
Or possibly an inverse, where heavier atoms fissioned again, suddenly releasing an
amount of energy otherwise not regular for that star, and with it a large explosion
with an emission of once again lighter atoms. I'd love to know the composition
of that 'flare'.
I'd also say that most of the energy was left behind and reheated Betelgeuse, increasing light output.
Regarding deep field images: in case of a resolution high enough, would we see objects movement over time,that is smeered out on an image ?
Another excellent video! Recht vielen Dank, Frau Doktor!
One small note: While one says "degrees Celsius", the correct form is just "kelvins" for the SI unit for temperature.
Tchuess! 😊
I find it interesting that the moon left a big chunk in what is now central Ohio, and most astronauts who went to the moon are from Ohio. It's like... it was calling them home.
Likely a false correlation. Maybe Ohio is just oh so bad they wanted to get as far away as was technologically possible ;o)
(apologies to Ohian Buckeyes ---- I haven't ever been, I'm sure it's a lovely place to be.)
😂👍
🤣 A kind of psychic gravity ! 🤣
@@bbbf09in that case it would a strange irony that they tried to get so far away only to end up on the same rock xD
I think the central Ohio thing was a joke, but I could be wrong.
Plus the Glenn research center for NASA is in Ohio. Too strange to be a coincidence! 😊
The WeWork skit was hilarious... Love it..!
Hello Sabine. Please review Dr Neil Turoks theory about the Universe. Dr Turok neatly solves the question of Dark Matter. Plus Dr Turoks theory predicts the mass of Neutrinos, a prediction that can be tested. Also solve CPT symmetry breaking.
I wonder if a Boring Company tunnel would be big enough for the new particle collider.
As you have pointed out in other videos, dark matter has so many issues and makes many wrong (and right) predictions. Current gravity theory works at the scales that we use it (just like newtonian theory did), but maybe a more accurate theory is available
I must have missed the video with all the wrong predictions.
That's exactly what MOND is trying to be, but so far with no conclusive results.
@@stargazer7644 There are a few videos that i was watching just this morning before she uploaded this one. The videos are: 1. Webb Telescope sees Galaxies too large to exist, 2. Dark Matter: The situation has changed, 3. What might the new Webb Telescope discover?
@@chriskill08 "Webb Telescope sees Galaxies too large to exist"
That claim is totally outdated, it has already shown to be wrong months ago. (And additionally, it has essentially nothing to do with the question if dark matter exists or not.)
"Dark Matter: The situation has changed"
That's a quite old video, in the meantime the situation has changed again - as this very video here shows.
"What might the new Webb Telescope discover?"
That video is also quite old.
Do you have any _actual_ news, or only outdated stuff?
"but maybe a more accurate theory is available"
And what theory should that be? As Sabine explained in this video, MOND is conclusively ruled out.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Dont just read the title of the videos to make your analysis, go and listen to all the things Sabine say in those videos. She says way more than what that title reads.
The videos are not that old, they were released in 2021, 2022 and just a few months ago (2023). The last video is just a few months old. She gave many examples of predictions that Dark Matter theory gets wrong (and also, right). Not all the wrong predictions or inconsistencies or dark matter that she mentioned in those videos have been reconciled yet.
MOND is conclusively ruled out, but as Sabine says in this very video, ruling out MOND does not confirm dark matter theory, it merely rules out the alternative
Thx Sabine, what got me confused is the Rolls Royce SMR connected with electrolyser for Hydrogen news. What exactly is the science connection here? This news could make sense in business insider, but in science news?
A big double-take from me at 16:43. You said "Dan Falk has written..." but I heard "Dumb Fuck" instead. I scrubbed back 3 or 4 times before finally digging the video out from behind 37 other windows so could read the words. Yes, I'm one of those weirdos who pretends CZcams is a podcast app. 😁
It's still as likely as dark matter. (Imagining an invisible gremlin that exists to explain why your math needs a standard deviation is very different from finding evidence for a tiny invisible gremlin.)
Dark matter has nothing at all to do with "an invisible gremlin that exists to explain why your math needs a standard deviation".
Thanks for showing that you don't understand the topic at all. Obviously you don't even know what "standard deviation actually means.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 I see you're emotionally invested in the luminous aether existing and thus not worth debating 👍🏻👍🏻
@@TheGrinningViking :D :D: :D Dark matter has nothing at all to do with the luminous aether. Thanks for showing that you don't have the tiniest clue what you are talking about. (Oh, well, that was already clear above when you wrote that complete nonsense about invisible gremlins.)
You are totally ignorant and even proud of that. Congratulations, you don't even notice that you make a complete fool of yourself here.
This is a rather dark matter for MOND.
I was really looking forward to those Peter Higgs clones. I imagined everyone could have their own Peter Higgs in the comfort of their own home.
been waiting for a heat engine for decades
Sabine should also talk about the revolutionary new Perovskite Solar Panels.
It's already in one of her last videos
@@Thomas-gk42
Odd I did not see it. Thanks.
🙏 Good Morning Prof Sabine! Thank You So Much for the many interesting science updates! Speaking of cooking oils ... Natural oils with their natural cholesterol like Olive Oil , Butter , Coconut Oil & Ghee are better for our bodies' cells communication as compared to synthetic oils or highly processed vegetable oils that contained substances that may block cell communication that might lead to Parkinson Disease , Alzheimer , Schizophrenia & other neuro complications! 🙏🕯🌍🕊
That Orange County Chopper humor is the best...
3:53 The further apart the binaries, the more leftover colloidal matter between them.
Once this reaches a certain amount, it'll strengthen the bond between the stars,
leaving them able to orbit faster than they should.
Once again, it's not dark matter, it's just regular matter, in sufficient quantities
to make an observational difference. (Even small quantities make a difference,
but they aren't observable or noticeable.)
The fact that the stars orbit also keeps the matter between them in place.
If a collidal molecule doesn't get swept up and moved into either star,
they keep on moving back and forth.
If stars are further apart than like 0.5 LY, the matter gravity 'bridge'
(bridge because it bridges gravitational forces from both stars) pulls at both stars
and keeps them together at a near stable orbit, which has a higher orbital pull towards
the center, which in turn allows for the higher speed, than the one derived from
each star's mass. This won't last forever, since matter is always off center.
With time it would go either way and join up,
but this in turn is governed by speed differentials which at distances of LY may
need trillions of years to go either way.
Any molecule between two stars serves as a bridge for gravity of both stars.
Once the number of molecules reaches something akin 1E+57, will that equate
a pull on both stars as if another star is between them akin the Sun.
This pull is alongside the regular gravity both stars exert on each other.
At a distance of 1 LY from each other this can be spread over a volume of a globe of at
least 0.5 LY radius, giving a total volume of 5E47 m3, concluding 1e10 atoms per m3,
which is less than a microgram. This is just regular matter, not dark matter.
Also, MOND does not apply either. They're both wrong.
And nope, Albert was wrong too, even though not as far off as MOND or dark matter searchers.
Dark matter is like the ether. We don't know what it is, we can't see it, but somehow it exists.
and it'll go the same way in the fulness of time...
Astrophysicists call dark matter "an observable effect for which a cause has not yet been found."
@@douglaswilkinson5700 religious people call it god
The main problem being distribution. If it were everywhere, it wouldn't solve galaxy issues. If it is only on the outskirts of the galaxies - how the f. did that happen?
Scared of light or heat - we should probably call it vampire matter.
@@vensroofcat6415 Dark matter is not *per se* matter. Dr. Becky (Oxford) explain that we can observe its effects but not what causes these effects. Approximately the same problem arose when magnetism was first studied. They saw its effects but could not "see" the magnetic field. Eventually the "cause" of the "effect" was discovered.
"Dark matter's biggest competitor might just have been falsified"
Sure. But where is the Dark Matter?
Astrophysicists call dark matter "an observable effect for which a cause has not yet been found."
We know where dark matter is (we see its extra gravitational influence everywhere), we just don't know what it is.
@@tonywells6990 so it hangs out on the outskirts of most galaxies, but not all. Does so in a perfect circle, but is too shy to enter the center or it would nullify the whole advantage it just created? I'm not so sure the God created this universe anymore. Does light and heat destroy dark matter?
@@vensroofcat6415 Dark matter forms around galaxies in a roughly spherical volume and is denser towards the centre of a galaxy. Dark matter does not appear to interact with normal matter or light, except by gravity.
@@tonywells6990 If it were everywhere, it would have neutral impact. Gravity is not a force, it's the space being bent.
If it were more at the center, star systems closer to the center of a galaxy would go faster than they should. We have problem on the outer stars running too fast in most(?) galaxies. I should be careful though saying "most" when comparing one "infinity" to another. After all it's the same scientists telling us we know everything, except 84% matter and 3/4 of the energy in this universe.
16:43 I could swear Sabine is saying "dumb f**k" rather than Dan Falk 😀
I've never heard Betelgeuse pronounced like that before.
Ouch. That 16 sigma p value has got to hurt.
Again, a fabulous science update! Just a minor remark: There are no degrees kelvin, there is only Kelvin (you probably already knew it). PS: I'd like to test the lab oil acceptance among my science friends. Would they drink and enjoy it, or would the magic of knowing its 'dirty' origin win the battle?
Considering the health mess the medical and industrial industries made the last time they told us their synthetic fats were just fine I'm not going to be their guinea pig. I refer of course to the "heart healthy" trans-saturated fats, and in fact the whole notion of low fat diets. Replacing natural fats with modified food starch was such a huge benefit when it shot type 2 diabetes through the roof.
Habe eine Frage. Aber brauche Hilfe von Expertinnen und Experten😊
Kann das auch sein, dass sich der Raum in der Galaxie selbst dreht? So wie rotierende schwarze Löscher den Raum um sie herum auch mit rotieren lässt?
Könnte dadurch die Geschwindigkeitskurve über den Radius relativ zu dem mit rotieren Raum abfallen?
The sample of WBSs which is claimed to falsify MOND is WBSs within 250pc around the Sun, according to the abstract of the paper by Banik e.a. However, the galactic acceleration around the Sun at 8 kpc from the Center of the Galaxy is higher than Milgrom's a0, I guess, and that renders MOND not applicable to WBSs in this region of the Galaxy. So the idea of viewing WBSs at 8kpc plus minus 250pc from the Center of the Galaxy as isolated gravitational systems which could be described by MOND is actually falsified, which is wrong anyway because the Galactic gravity is too strong for MOND to work within at least 1 kpc from the Sun (look at the Galaxy rotation curve).
aren't they examining the orbit of the wide binary around eachother, which would be determined by the gravitational field holding them together? If MOND is a thing, their orbit should differ from Newtonian gravity as the distance between them increases. What does the galactic gravitational field have to do with this?
@@FredPlanatia MOND is valid at small total accelerations. You are right if the binary system is isolated from external gravitational fields. However, the starts of binary systems in the kiloparsec vicinity of the Sun are subject to the Galactic acceleration which exceeds the small acceleration at which MOND would work. So the result barely falsifies MOND per se, imho.
The external gravity from the rest of the Galaxy is included in some detail in my paper on wide binaries. Certainly the external field effect is important and it reduces the Milgromian enhancement to gravity. But after accounting for all that, there is still some effect of MOND. Local wide binaries should orbit 20% faster than the Newtonian expectation if their separation is larger than their MOND radius and they are in the so-called MOND regime. This prediction is falsified at high significance.
@@indranilbanik3424 Thanks for the comment, I have to look into it in more detail then. However, it sounds like you're saying equivalently that at 8 kpc from the Center of the Milky Way Galaxy the galactic acceleration is small enough for MOND to be applicable and that means that the Galaxy rotation curve is flat already at 8 kpc from the Center. Perhaps you are using a specific interpolating function \mu(a) which has proven to work for the Milky Way Galaxy and you expect it to be covering the non-deep MOND dynamics at 8 kpc. I really have to read the paper. If the latter is true, then the specific interpolating function \mu(a) is falsified rather that Milgrom's deep MOND dynamics hypothesis.
@@ika5666 You are correct that only the specific interpolating function tried out is ruled out. A different interpolating function would match local wide binaries. But you cannot make an interpolating function that is simultaneously consistent with local wide binaries and galaxy rotation curves.
I get it, MOND doesn't work because there is too much uncertainty in the stuff we see. Thus we are free to use a theory that includes stuff we cannot see at all. Well OK, maybe I don't get it, but I am uncertain.
5:57 Little Albert😎
You are the only person on you tube that has pronounced betelgeuse correctly 😂
Alright. Google claims "BEH Tuhl Jaz" is the British Pronunciation. But in the BBC TV production of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, they said "Beetlejuice." Wikipedia lists 4 common pronunciations, but none of them end with "Jaz," they all have a long O sound as in smOOth. I'd never heard Behtuhljaz before...
Wikipedia also says it's from a bad romanization of يد الجوزاء or "Yad al-Jawzā’." So no one is right.
@@davidghandehari30 Isn't that Beh Tuhl Goose?
not six sigma but sixTEEN sigma !!! that's a p value of 10 to the power of minus 57 !!!! Sounds a bit ambitious, how can you measure ANYTHING to this precision?
yes indeed
For example, let's say you have a coin that you think is fair. Then you toss it 250 times and get heads every time. That would be a 16 sigma event :).
of course ..... thanks @@TheEternalVortex42
@@TheEternalVortex42 try flipping it once and having a nickle land standing sideways on a concrete sidewalk whats the calculations for a definitive bigbang reoccurence
@@TheEternalVortex42 Yes, but in that case you know it's a Gaussian.
My hypothesis is that Dark Matter is simply matter displaced along a fourth spatial dimension, but otherwise just like Standard Model particles. The fourth dimension transmits gravity but not electromagnetism. Some of it could be the ANTIMATTER that corresponds to our normal matter. It allows Dark Matter to interact with itself and form Dark Matter stars and planets which can pass right through regular matter and should be deposited within regular matter stars and planets. As a bonus, the energy that pushed apart regular and Dark Matter creates a gravitational potential energy, which may be a driver of the Dark Energy driving acceleration of gravitational expansion.
This was a cool run-through
So we're back to trying to find dark matter, which has utterly defied every attempt to detect it.
I suspect we're missing something enormous here. Well, two things. Dark energy is also a huge problem.
"I suspect we're missing something enormous here. "
I suspect that we think of gravity and mass as separate, so the theories are wrong.
We are spinning the old theory mill that is wrong
As Feynman said: If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. I like the idea myself, but if it's wrong, it's wrong.
Experimenters make mistakes. Especially on the long convoluted analyses. ….I mean it’s not: hey look, a pion.
Ah, but this is not a experiment, is about potentially confusing data and how is interpreted. This is a good example, with three well done papers reaching different conclusions.
Question if a box is empty and you fill it with half the space with air.. does the empty half mix or separate...
Small nuclear reactors and reprocessing are a sustainable human future, if safety and security can be managed.
"Small" nuclear reactors are likely to be a dead end. You need at least 1GW electrical output to be economic on the turbine side
If you're producing hydrogen from nuclear power then you have the energy available to take the extra steps and invest that energy in tacking on carbon atoms to make easily handleable (and much denser) hydrocarbons, rather than investing triple the hydrogen production energy into compressiong or liquifying that hydrogen for transportation purposes (plus the stupidly high handling costs incurred all along the chain)
Anyone pushing the idea of nuclear power producing reticulated (piped) hydrogen misses the point that such hydrogen would be more expensive per MJ than electricity, so nobody would buy it (natural gas is 20-30% the price of electricity, which is why people use it)
Can we appreciate how accepting Sabine is of the peer reviewed result ruling out MOND? Science! 💜
She is sells you science. Don't blame her for some salesmanship shtick she embraced.
@@jantonisito ??? Pardon? She doesn't "sell" this science. She gets no money for specifically talking about a paper _against_ MOND.
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 not "*this* science" but "science". Yes, she sells "science".
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 I can only wish there were more science popularizers as skilled in selling it as Dr Hossenfelder. I watch her channel regularly. And yes she sticks to facts but in the same time she adds some dramatic edge. Usually not as much as some YT other channels but she knows how to keep viewers interested. So if she dramatizes MOND versus that voodoo Dark stuff - more power to her.
@@SupGaillac What has that to do with what Alexander wrote above - praising her for accepting a paper which rules out MOND?!
. 15:52
COULD SOME KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSON tell me what type of chart this is? I don't think I've ever seen a bar chart where [it appears] bar height and width are significant. I don't know if I'm comprehending it fully, or if I'm missing something.
On the MOND wide binary study: Contrary to what you stated, cherry picking data can introduce artifacts that are not accurate. The study used poor quality data and controversial Bayesian methods to reach a conclusion. Wide binaries, with their long periodicities and variable line of sight yield highly uncertain datasets. If you read the papers you saw the scatter plot of the data from which a fit was pulled in the studies. This data does not invalidate MOND.
"Betelgeuse" is usually pronounced "beetle juice". 🙂
By english speakers.
Does it taste good though?
Try saying that 3 times.
I have suspected for years that dark matter is actually reverse gravity generated from vacuum pockets. The less matter in an “empty” area of space, the stronger the repulsive force. I thought you had previously discussed this exact theory. Did I imagine that?
I don't know why well insulated supercooled magnets would use a lot of energy once they're down to temperature
5:58 Haha, Einstein wears dark glasses too ...😎
I was considering the research paper against MOND. Not surprisingly, if you throw out data with high uncertainty and do an analysis with data of high certainty, essentially all they did was confirm that general relativity is correct. Which has been done before. They took data that conformed to our understanding and checked to see if it conforms to our understanding. I haven't read the paper yet, i was just thinking about the language used in the video to describe the analysis done. Just a thought
ok Sheldon🤣
I would posit that certainty means small ranges of precision error, not being biased towards GR.
" Not surprisingly, if you throw out data with high uncertainty and do an analysis with data of high certainty, essentially all they did was confirm that general relativity is correct."
??? Pardon?!? Why should that follow? You make no sense.
"They took data that conformed to our understanding"
That's totally wrong! Where did you get that idea from?
"I haven't read the paper yet, i was just thinking about the language used in the video to describe the analysis done."
Then you have _totally_ misunderstood the language in the video!
If you want to get MOND to work you have to stand in front of a mirror and say Betelgeuse 3 times.
10:43 is it me, or is there a ring of stars slightly left of center to the main cluster starting from the yellow star at the top and proceeding anticlockwise to 5 o'clock?
Where exactly does one purchase tiny sunglasses for a tiny Albert? (5:57)
early
MOND was always 1 step forward, 5 steps back. So glad we can stop wasting time and effort on it now. Right? …right? We’re going to stop wasting effort on ideas that miss the fundamentals, right?
Although I think that MOND is very probably wrong, I don't think it is a waste of time. It's totally sensible to examine our assumption that the fundamental laws of gravity are right.
When Einstein first worked on Relativity, he "missed" the fundamentals. But it worked. Same for Plank (UV catastrophe). So if this may be a waste of time (why not), this is not a good criterion.
@@SupGaillac "When Einstein first worked on Relativity, he "missed" the fundamentals. ... Same for Plank (UV catastrophe). "
??? What do you mean? What exactly did they miss?
Thanks for the savings for Nautilus
Question if solar sails collect particles can it be funneled is that the word... tunneling and pressurized and ejected.. maybe self ionizing field projector.. short hand a fan..
We're already consuming synthetic oils. PFOA'S... we all know their impact on human health... Anyway, refined oils aren't very healthy. We should consume whole fats - whole nuts etc because this is how they grow naturally and this means this is how we're evovled to consume them.
irstly we don't really know the effects of PFOA on the body, and then we can't live with walnuts only, there isn't enough room on planet earth to feed everybody with nuts...
Lucy and her family were surviving with nuts, and bone marrow, because only them could extract these with stones, but at this stage they were maybe a few thousands on Earth! Not 8+ billion, and rising as fast as ever...