Several Studies Just Killed MOND Hypothesis of Gravity Once and For All
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 06. 2024
- Get a Wonderful Person Tee: teespring.com/stores/whatdamath
More cool designs are on Amazon: amzn.to/3QFIrFX
Alternatively, PayPal donations can be sent here: paypal.me/whatdamath
Hello and welcome! My name is Anton and in this video, we will talk about more evidence for the failure of cosmological model known as MOND
Links:
theconversation.com/is-dark-m...
academic.oup.com/mnras/articl...
doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty2007
www.aanda.org/articles/aa/ful...
academic.oup.com/mnras/articl...
arxiv.org/abs/2403.09555
Previous video and study: • MOND Theory of Gravity...
#mond #physics #gravity
0:00 Dark matter hypothesis
1:40 Israeli changed the law of gravity - MOND
2:30 Studies kill MOND?
3:25 What MOND predicted and why it mattered
4:30 Issues with this model
5:10 First study that used wide binary stars
6:25 More evidence from the solar system and various comets
7:40 Failure inside clusters
8:10 Saturn study shows orbits are Newtonian
10:00 Conclusions and what it means
10:55 So what now?
Support this channel on Patreon to help me make this a full time job:
/ whatdamath
Bitcoin/Ethereum to spare? Donate them here to help this channel grow!
bc1qnkl3nk0zt7w0xzrgur9pnkcduj7a3xxllcn7d4
or ETH: 0x60f088B10b03115405d313f964BeA93eF0Bd3DbF
Space Engine is available for free here: spaceengine.org
Enjoy and please subscribe.
Twitter: / whatdamath
Facebook: / whatdamath
Twitch: / whatdamath
The hardware used to record these videos:
New Camera: amzn.to/34DUUlv
CPU: amzn.to/2LZFQCJ
Video Card: amzn.to/2M1W26C
Motherboard: amzn.to/2JYGiQQ
RAM: amzn.to/2Mwy2t4
PSU: amzn.to/2LZcrIH
Case: amzn.to/2MwJZz4
Microphone: amzn.to/2t5jTv0
Mixer: amzn.to/2JOL0oF
Recording and Editing: amzn.to/2LX6uvU
Some of the above are affiliate links, meaning I would get a (very small) percentage of the price paid.
Thank you to all Patreon supporters of this channel
Special thanks also goes to all the wonderful supporters of the channel through CZcams Memberships
Credits:
Nielander CC0 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma_Cl...
Mark Ward CC BY-SA 3.0 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEAP#/m...
Stefania.deluca en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifie...
Licenses used:
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/... - Věda a technologie
MOND was an idea that needed to be investigated. In science, leaving a stone unturned is not good science. Thank you MOND for an alternative we had to chase down and confirm or reject. Maybe it will lead us to consider a new direction?
very true. many need to take on this way of thinking.
Wouldn't surprise me if all leading theories are completely wrong.
Very well said!
science is all about being wrong until you aren't
@@whereammysounds more like engineering lol
That Newton guy was pretty smart.
I think I heard about him one time
When you really think about its ... Its freakin impressive what this guys have tough wrote and acheive for science
Its actually mind blowing literaly !
Yeah great uncle Newton was definitely something... I mean based off the fact that ASD is super prevalent in his blood relatives, that something was almost definitely autistic but that and smart tend to overlap lol
Did lovely work with fig filled cookies too.
@Sean-Green It's complex.
Cassini dropped into Saturn's atmosphere to become a faint metallic scent a few years ago but still delivers science today :)
It's nearly his 400th birthday too. Well, next year. Imagine his delight for what was done bearing his name. He would need a refresher first ha
I had the contexts for these two comments reversed... Giovanni Cassini dropped into Saturn's atmosphere; the space probe is nearly 400 years old.
@@iburuma3621 🤣
One should never undervalue the contribution of proving that something doesn't work.
Hey Anton, recognition to your,"to the point," never clickbait thumbnail policy, and of course, applying what appears to be your best, which no one can expect more than that, BRAVO and thank you so much for providing quality content!
Anton is truly an international treasure, and must be preserved. Zero clickbait, concise, accessible, and interesting. Channels like Astrum would do well to copy his model.
Actually that is a good thing with him. I remember he got a lil upset with me in a reply a few years ago when I called out putting in too much filler to hit 10mins for the youtube algorithm. But yeah, doesn't clickbait, no wonder I watch his videos.
@@MW-cx3sb I can relate to receiving "emotional" responses regarding constructive criticism I sent to a couple content creators, although Anton remained cool when I told him he was injecting the same word too many times & he should work on his lexicon. I believe he either ignored it or applied the suggestion because he's improved! The tuber that flipped out on me said," watch someone else," and I took his advice, although we banterd back in forth a lil as I dissected him like a surgeon after his response, which must've been painful for him, I shared his remark & attitude publicly and unsubscribed too! I'm sure he would've done the same to anyone, hence sharing and took his advice & unsubscribed, sound advice it was! 😂
I love how you mimicked Zwicky from his photo when you paraphrased his discovery of dark matter. Top tier comedy right there
We actually know what Fritz Zwicky said about dark matter (lower case):
1. According to the mass-luminosity relation, the conversion fac-
tor from absolute luminosity to mass is different for different types
of stars. The same holds true for any kind of luminous matter. In
order to determine the conversion factor for a nebula as a whole,
we must know, therefore, in what proportions all the possible lumi-
nous components are represented in this nebula.
2. We must know how much dark matter is incorporated in nebu-
lae in the form of cool and cold stars, macroscopic and microscopic
solid bodies, and gases.
Quoted from
THE ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SPECTROSCOPY AND ASTRONOMICAL PHYSICS
volume 86 OCTOBER 1937 number 3
page 218.
@@smmasongt About 100:1. The Sun dominates our Solar system mass-wise.
MOND = My Observation Now Died
I read "Died" as "Die" and it really changed the meaning of this acronym lol
I only heard of it the day it died. Reminds of the heartbreak of raising fruit flies as pets. 😮💨
The observation survived. The theory died.
Lmao. When I was a kid, I was obsessed with frogs. In Cheyenne after a rain, puddles would be filled with tiny, partially bifurcated white creatures that looked remarkably like tadpoles. I remember getting excited at the idea of becoming a frog breeder and selling them to neighbpurhood kids as pets, and got an aquarium for the purpose. Great fun until the local game warden explained to me that I was lovingly breeding a type of fly.
@@livinginvancouverbc2247
I mean... MOND was NEVER an observation, but a model to try and _explore_ (NOT explain) the areas the standard model with GR don't work (for observable phenomenon).
Every single MOND model I've ever heard of _started_ with a known failure point of replacing GR or the standard model.
This is how science works, when it really works. Now, the scientists just have to figure out how the surviving theory really works. What all this dark matter is. The MOND scientists just need to forget MOND and figure out what reality really is.
Narrowing the search space is a huge help in exploration, and the process often gives us new tools to use in the future
While not an accurate model of reality, MOND was still a success (just like how string theory has been incredibly useful regardless if it's 'right')
@@subjekt5577 Saying it's right because it got two things right doesn't mean it's still useful, it's just confirmation bias.
Thank goodness there are brilliant minds in the world like yours to tell them what to do.
luckily there weren't too many MOND scientist to begin with.
Several particles completely ignore one force or another.
What's too hard to believe about a particle that ignores all three except gravity?
everything you can ever think of, zwicky wrote a paper debunking it in 1930s.
Pleasing Angela Collier to no end.
Why? Are you one of the ones that just doesn't get what "dark matter is not a theory" means?
Oh, and actually, Anton's one of the ones responsible for perpetuating exactly the misconception she was talking about. She would NOT be pleased at all by this video.
@@Sonny_McMacsson Are you her publicist?
If only the experimental physicists didn’t hate the theoretical physicists so much…
@@tommylakindasorta3068Just answer the questions. Can't be too hard, right?
I'll go first: No.
10:22 you may want to listen more closely here. And possibly listen more closely to Angela’s new video. Her snark on that video is next level but she did spend a fair amount of time dunking on “those 3 MOND people” and the disproportionate representation in media vs. the portion of dark matter researchers they represent.
"... just as mysterious as it ever was."
Love it!
"but it's definitely matter"
@@MassDefibrillator Dark matter, matters
Not MOND, not Wimps, maybe WTFs ? Anyway, keep looking!
It always bothers me that this topic is seemingly always discussed as "Dark matter vs MOND". Disproving MOND rules out a narrow set of hypotheses which had been proposed as one explanation, it does NOT prove that dark matter (i.e. some weakly interacting gravitational particle) exists. There might still be some modification of our theories of gravity (and note that we already know that Newtonian gravity specifically is wrong -- our best model of gravity is General Relativity) which correctly describes reality, and thus doesn't require the existence of some mysterious particle that is 5x more common than all other matter.
@@ccwong2984 - well healthy skepticism is a good thing, and the reply should be “prove it, via peer review”.
on the other hand, the few galaxies which were found without dark matter effect prooves dark matter. also, for 2 bodies, if they arent close to eachother, newton works just fine.
The dark matter theory has too much build in overfitting. Even if we move to more complex variants of MOND to take the new findings into account they will still overfit less than dark matter.
Awesome 👏
ACollier just made a follow up video a few days ago explaining her “dark matter is not a theory” video, which received a TON of stupid commenters who didn’t watch the video and cited MOND without knowing what the status of dark matter actually is. They all cited mond….😅
I saw that, too. And Anton here is making the *same* mistake that was the main point of her video:
0:04 "[Dark Matter is] a proposition for some kind of invisible particle ..."
No! It is not a proposition or a hypothesis or a theory! It is the *problem*, the unexplained data.
I remember very well Thomas Edison's reply "I know 10,000 ways not to make a light bulb.'
The way you phrased this made it sound like you were there when he said it 😅.
@@louisrobitaille5810 Maybe he was, don‘t assume
@@louisrobitaille5810 The internet may well have accounts of ghosts haunting it. It certainly has swarms of bots.
@@louisrobitaille5810 Greetings from the BIG SKY. At 74, I almost was. My dad may have been there.
the thief?
Naturally, Harry Des-MOND was destined to finish off MOND.
Perfect Zwicky photo. Another great video, Anton. 🙂
Anyone who doesn't use that photo is a "spherical bastard" 😂
Zwicky, he deserves much more attention, many people in Swiss don't even know him.
Looks like a missed opportunity that William Demerast missed never played him in a movie.
Well, aren’t you special Mr. fancy Patreon provider
A perfectly erudite scientific discussion, and someone has to whip out a zwick-pic.
Anton does it again. Bravo, sir! 🎉😊
Thanks. You always explain things in a straightforward and concise way.
Well this is great news, it should be celebrated! 🎉 In science, knowing for a fact something doesn't work is as powerful as knowing for a fact that something does work! Proving and disproving well formed hypothesis is how knowledge grows. No effort is wasted 💪🏻
Sure, but the reality is that MOND is not a particularly credible explanation and hasn’t been for a long time, but for some reason it is very popular amongst non-physicists despite the evidence that more or less precludes it (bullet cluster, varying amounts of dm in different galaxies). I very much doubt this new finding will have an impact on these people who seem to have an emotional attachment to the theory.
@@crow-dont-know Beats lying for the baby jesus though!
This is good news. Ruling a theory out is important, too. I mean hypothesis.
Love that Zwicky pic. Stay Wonderful, Anton!
Interesting discussions, nice presentation, thanks 👍😊
That Newton fella was on to something.
yeah, maybe half of something, and of course, that's not his fault, he didn't have access to the dynamics of what happens to mass on galactic scales, or the Planck scale for that matter, so, when you think about it, hardly surprising that Newtonian gravity only works for us, here, at our scale.
I've lost my MOND!
hahaha
Epic comment!! Lol love it
I've wondered why no one (that I'm aware of anyway) has looked into the possibility that the apparent puzzling rotation of galaxies is due to a kind of gravity wake? Like if billions of stars are rotating around a point then wouldn't make sense that gravity is also making waves in a similar spiraling formation? A human scale equivalent would be like having a vortex in water and being surprised that centrifugal forces aren't causing things to get flung out of it.
There's not enough mass for this to happen.
Only rapidly spinning massive black holes can drag spacetime to that degree, and only in their immediate vicinity
And how would they start to gather and spin around each other..?
@@Flaschenteufel Ampère's right-hand grip rule comes to mind.
What I find really weird and impressive is how they even "observe" rotational speed in galaxies, because of all of this:
We also discovered that everything further away is basically in slowmotion from our perspective, the further away it is, up to the CMB where it stands still.
0:56 Dark Matter seems to be responsible for keeping fast-spinning galaxies in check instead of flying apart.
So we already have to account for distances before we even know how to interpret the mass/velocities and maybe even red-shift of the object ... it quickly boggles the mind.
We can measure the red shift of the left half of a galaxy vs the right half.
In science, especially in observational science, especially in observational science with very small signal to noise ratios, you have to make a lot of assumptions, in order to make sense of anything. This is the case for cosmology.
The CMB doesn't "stand still" it isn't "frozen in time" in any way.
Your understanding is wrong.
Think of it this way, the CMB that can be seen today exists behind the CMB that could be seen yesterday.
The CMB that was measured ten years ago isn't the same CMB that is measured now, light travels, it doesn't sit still.
It may look the same but the light is literally ten years apart in distance. You are looking at a different part of the CMB every day, light travels.
@@JamesCairneywhat they’re saying is the motion of objects in the CMB is extremely slow. The time passes for the CMB very slowly-and that is also why it is so red shifted.
When you look at a galaxy's spectrum's lines, you effectively get a shift from the base redshift and then a skewed line that looks a lot like tan(x). Regarding the distance factor. Objects at high redshift are slower from our perspective, but at a redshift of 0.1, that's a ~10% speed reduction. This covers almost all objects less than a billion light years or around 160k galaxies. That's close to the limit of known galaxies in the 1950's and plenty to derive these features.
Angela Collier has a couple great videos on the subject of dark matter which defines the issue in a much more detailed and approachable way for the non-physicist. She is a research physicist and has spent years working on the dark matter issue. Spoiler, few astrophysicists take MOND seriously. Nevertheless, Collier describes how "dark matter" is the observation of gravitational effects, not some specific particle theory. Well worth hearing her piece since she actually knows what she is talking about.
I think most people already know that.
@@takanara7 This video called dark matter a particle.
Except she's wrong. When you group together more than one observation you are implying they have a common mechanism, which makes them no longer just observations. They now encode, if subtly, a hypothesis.
@@isaacyonemoto She is addressing a common misunderstanding in the broader non-physicist audience (a misunderstanding restated in the video above). Context is everything. Like Feynman said, how deep do you want to go?
@@isaacyonemoto she is absolutely not wrong. You may assume that the grouping is explained by a common mechanism, but that is just not implied by the data. As she explains - dark matter is a problem, a set of observations, and the proposed solutions that would explain these we can call hypotheses or maybe theories. Assuming that these are explained by one phenomenon is one hypothesis, but it does not make dark matter a theory or hypothesis. One could make a hypothesis that dark matter is explained by a hundred different unrelated effects that all deviate from any commonly accepted view of physics. It might be a bad theory, but we just don't know. Dark matter might be a hole in our understanding of physics, or actual matter we cannot observe, or any number of things and their permutations, which is why it is a problem and not a theory or a hypothesis. The encoding is all done by you. Data in itself is simply just not the hypothesis that explains itself - you are just starting with a conclusion, i.e. there is a single hypothesis that explains all these findings, and so you can state 'all these findings lay the tracks for a hypothesis'. If you did not make the conclusion first, you could not make the second statement with confidence.
The year is 3125. AI have ruled the planet for centuries. Buried deep in the Earth, the last of humanity lies sheltered. Deep in the recesses of humanity's last vestige, a lone researcher reaches out to the few remaining human-centric networks. "MOND is still a valid theory of gravity!" he cries out to the void. There is no dissention, as there is no response at all. The researcher is satisfied, "I have finally won the debate."
😂🤦♀️
11 dimensional strings has his last shriek
And someone else, “we’ll find the dark matter particle”
:) Great! That guy re-invented the internet all by himself by reducing it to its core function: Being able to completely ignore other people's arguments!
@@dayegilharno4988HUZZAH!
Oh well, back to the drawing board! Thanks Anton.
Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. 👍☺️
Excellent explanation, as usual. Thank you.
Alright Anton, I want a signed t-shirt or a signed fusion reactor...lol.
Why are they comparing MOND against Newtonian gravity, not relativistic gravity? Is the difference between Newtonian gravity and relativistic gravity imperceptible in the regimes they're studying? If not, I'd think their evidence in support of Newtonian gravity would be evidence against not only MOND, but also relativistic gravity.
In a very simplistic way: MOND proposed that gravitational influence behaves differently at different accelerations, thus being in opposition to Newtonian gravity and, by extension, general relativity, which refines the classical physics on greater distances.
Basically, general relativity is built upon Newton's conclusions, while MOND wasn't based on it, at least not entirely.
MOND is MOdified Newtonian Dynamics. It wouldn't make much sense to compare its results with general relativity
Newtonian and relativistic gravity differ very little at large distance scales and low relative velocities. MOND proposes a difference in the areas where gravity is almost "flat" while relativistic gravity describes differences where gravity is very much not flat.
Yeah, the simple answer is that at the relevant scales and speeds, the difference between Newton and Einstein is what is technically known as "mondo small". Wasting your time trying to calculate something known to be less than 1% of 1% of the expected effect is a serious waste of time.
There is just such a thing: teves gravity (tensor, vector, scalar gravity) is the general relativity equivalent of mond.
It doesn't help. It's actually worse.
The tensor field it introduces has the same mathematical form as the dark matter it tried to do away with, but without any physical intuition about what the tensor field is (whereas this interpretation is obvious with particulate dark matter as being the density of dark matter)
Thanks for the shout out to Zwicky. He was a cool, somewhat crazy scientist.
Very clear presentation on a fascinating topic. TY for concise summaries of recent publications. The convergence of predictions from binary systems, galactic clusters and Saturn's orbit is compelling. Giving you a (rare for me) like and subscribe.
this gonna really upset some people 💀 mond only got traction bc it’s so simplistic
It's almost like there's some kind of danger In our tendency to arbitrarily lump things into groups when we do not know what they are 😅
MOND got traction because the particulate dark matter theory is ridiculous. Even if MOND goes away (it won't there will always be diehards), that doesn't suggest that the particulate dark matter theory has been solved or proven. This is science, not a game show.
@@ThecouncilOf8 We want to much to fast, average humans
“We take what we want, we keep what we take”.
Cheers From California 😎
In the end we are right back where we started. The explanatory gap doesn't demonstrate a gap in nature, but a gap in our understanding of nature.
We observe the effects of what we call dark matter, but are unable to identify its source. I've always wondered if this dark matter source exists in a higher dimension? We would be observing the multidimensional gravitational effects from its source, without the tools or current ability to directly observe into that higher dimension.
You're going in the opposite direction and over-complicating things now. We already have and know about neutrinos that are extremely difficult to detect. It's not much of a step for just a simple particle even harder for us to actually detect (other than its effects of course).
You're kind of approaching string theory at that point and we all know that way lies madness.
@@mooferoowell that’s certainly what the mainstream folks are desperately holding on to but until that elusive, mysterious particle is actually detected, the “something from a higher dimension” idea is just as plausible.
@@mooferoo are you aware of the baryonic tully-fisher relation? the fact that the internal dynamics or galaxy rotations closely match the internal dynamics of the observed baryonic morphology, implying that if gravity was correct, then DM would have to be baryonic, and therefore track the baryonic morphology, which would rule out neutrinos.
I don't think he's saying neutrinos are DM, he's just saying there exists particles which are extremely difficult to detect, and DM may be still harder to detect than a neutrino@@MassDefibrillator
Hey, I love your channel, guy
Post Quantum Gravity explains not just Dark Matter (the proposed formuras, just like MOND, suggest gravity is weaker at super small accelerations) but also Dark Energy. It's amazing in a lot of ways, it might just be the holy grail that finally unifies quantum with gravity
We call this A “working Hypothesis “
Then why isn’t it working
@@oberonpanopticon HAHAHA , good joke I like it!
If your Hypothesis is incorrect or doesn’t “work” you try to understand why
@@oberonpanopticonlol the word "working" is usually used in this context as an "ongoing or developing" process that has some utility. But also funny joke 10/10
Is it now an unemployed hypothesis?
Isn’t mond that thing you catch from kissing 😘?? Have they disproved that??
😂
My buddy in high school caught mond and spent his sophomore year with his rotational axis orthogonal to the gravitational pull of the earth. 🛏
Newtonian gravity dynamics on small scales is unassailable.
Two or more independent discrete massive objects interact according to Einstein's formula of spacetime geometry which is equal to mass-energy density.
The larger the mass the larger the distortion of space-time and the stronger the force of gravity.
MOND
MOND is a collective gravitational effect requiring large scale "symmetrically distributed" gravitational fields that are additive across the radial diameter of a galactic disk plane and also between clustered galaxies in close proximity.
In a disk shaped galaxy, containing billions of stars, the independent stellar gravitational fields "overlap" with other stars (and gas) that are in close gravitational proximity and become gravitationally locked relative to each other.
The angular momentum of the gravitationally bound stars in the disk insure that they maintain their orbital path around the galactic center as the galaxy rotates. The collective gravitational field of the stars making up the disk maintain their placement, which effectively gravitationally locks them in place within the disk as they rotate around the galactic center. Individual stars in close proximity, that orbit each other, still maintain their overall orbital positions relative to the rotation of the disk.
In effect, the total gravitational field of the galaxy is additive radially across the diameter of the galaxy disk, similar to stacking magnets or batteries which increases the total energy of the stack. The energy (gravitational field) measured radially from the center of the galaxy increases across the galactic plane and extends far beyond the disk of the galaxy. The more stars that are in the galaxy the larger the total galactic gravitational field it exerts and the greater the warp of space-time.
The weight and gravity of Newton discovery, I have not yet encountered anyone who meant more business than Newton !
I really wanna know what he would see and discover if we could somehow bring him back and give him all of our modern Data.
I wanna see his reaction when he realize that we can dismantle atoms but yet we have no idea of how gravity works.
But most importantly what is his thought on Dark Matter!
question do virtual particles have virtual gravity?
😅 That's the Trillion dollar question. The standard model Ignores gravity completely because it is so weak on small scales
my foolish intuition says yes because most of our mass comes from these particles that cause interactions. And our mass produces gravity ergo probably.
Virtually.
Gravity is a function of spacetime being affected by mass. Many particles have mass, they don't "have gravity" virtual or real. If a particle has no mass then it cannot distort spacetime to manifest as gravity.
Listen to yourself...
MOND never had a leg to stand on, it was just easy to explain to non-academics and they kept saying it over and over, so non-academics were like "i understand that, so that's the most likely explanation" but it was always terrible, inconsistent and did not fundamentally even make sense. They were trying to say that different galaxies had different physics without even explaining why, or worse, just going back to some vague dark matter theory ON TOP of MOND. It was always utter nonsense.
So, we ended up where we began. No need to follow that path anymore. Still, it's anybody's guess.
That's a pretty ignorant thing to say. MOND was being able to answer to some problems that DM just wasn't able to, at that time.
Tbf, so was the atomic model until Einstein came along 🧐. It somewhat made sense, but it was still very questionable because it just doesn't look like it at our scale. Dark matter is the same, but instead of tiny to our scale, it's from ours to intergalactic scale.
@@KnightspaceORG Still isn't able to. IDK why people have such a hard with simply admitting that we don't know something. I mean, that's the whole point of science, but we seem driven by our collective egos to make bold, stupid claims about the universe.
Your answer is pretty much unscientific as well. Prior to these results those two theories were competing. If I as an M. Sc. in chemistry was asked:
1. Do you think there's mass in the universe condensed in invisible particles that hardly interact with anything so we have no clue of their existence? Do you think mass can exist without detectable matter? Mass out of nothing?
or do you think
2. We might have to modify one of our oldest basic models to explain it without creating mass out of nothing?
As a chemist I would go for option 2. That does not mean I would rule out option 1 completely. But by performing research and with the current results destroying MOND science has eliminated a possible explanation and can close in on reality a little bit further.
Thanks Anton! ❤️
POSIT: absolute chaos, undifferentiated homogeneity, no thing. A perturbation occurs, disrupting this state. Ripples radiate at maximal speed, some of radiation gets deflected, refracted, reflected movement causes vortexes, radiant gets captured in vortexes slows, some gets trapped, slowed velocity becomes matter. Not all vortexes capture and slow radiant, hence, dark matter.
the baryonic tully-fisher relation is a big problem for non-baryonic DM though. i.e. the fact that the internal dynamics of the orbital velocities closely match the internal dynamics of the observed baryonic matter. This would imply, if gravity is correct, the hidden matter would have to track the morphology of the observed matter. But this is not the case for non-baryonic dark matter, which is supposed to take on a halo shape, largely disconnected from the morphology of the baryonic matter. And then there's also the fact that baryonic dark matter has been largely ruled out. CDM also has many problems predicting the internal structures of galaxies, given evolution simulations.
As far as I'm concerned, both are wrong, and equally falsified. The only reason dark matter sticks around, is because its predictions aren't as precise and rigid as MOND; it's far more malleable, and so less falsifiable in nature.
Very nice, now say it again, but this time in English.
@@davidfiler7439 let me translate: "I don't understand dark matter observations"
@@davidfiler7439 I've tried saying it without the technical jargon before, and it just causes people to misunderstand me. I'd rather be not understood than misunderstood.
For example, you can scale up the gravitational affects of the observed matter only, and it will better predict the rotational velocity distribution than dark matter models.
The reason being, dark matter is predicted to be non-baryonic, meaning not interact electromagnetically, meaning it will settle as a spherical shape around the galaxy, instead as disk shape. The problem is, the so called dark matter contributions look to be coming from a disk shape, not a spherical shape.
Again?
Don't expect the Mondites to give up easily. They are very persistent.
Check out Post Quantum Gravity. Provides a theoretical framework from first principles to explain not just MOND-like behavior of gravity, but also gets rid of Dark Energy
There are some VERY popular science communicators that love MOND
At least it could've been tested, unlike some really popular theory that invokes the existence of invisible and untouchable unicorns.
Because dark matter as a theory is ridiculous.
@@corley-ai is it ridiculous or are you just unable to wrap your head around the idea?
Granted, dark matter hypothesis may be wrong, but if it is, someone has to come up with a better explanation. And this is where all attempts failed.
If it sounds stupid but works, it isn't really stupid.
If it sounds smart and doesn't work, it isn't really smart.
Mp proposal is this .. Imagine gravity as space collapsing , and open mostly massless space space as where the majority of expansion happens .. Like super voids for example .. Maybe it has a effect forcing the outskirts of a galaxy to need more escape velocity near the edges ...
We are the wonderful persons. Thanks for sharing.
The statement at 10:43 : "The effects of "dark matter" are there. We cannot explain them using modern theories." is wrong.
Several explanations have been proposed based on Einsteins GR with no need for dark matter.
That's literally what he's saying has been disproven by these latest studies. Also MOND can't explain the amount of gravitational lensing we see by these galaxies and clusters.
@@takanara7 MOND is already outdated since quite some time. We have to explain the world based on General Relativity. Several such proposals have been put forward, but instead of discussing those, most scientists and communicators ignore them and still consider MOND. That is simply dispensable. My impression is that the reason lies in the laziness or ignorance to apply GR to more sophisticated models of the universe than what is usual practice.
Still better theory than String theory
😂
Ouch. Shots fired! You're right though.
@@Peterski at least it made some predictions with which it is testable unlike some imaginary math fantasies
String theory is beautiful but useless
Please more on the Quadpole!
I just had thought, could it be that what we see and explain as dark matter simply be an inability to properly read the level of matter in a galaxy? Redshift could outright make weaker light decay over intergalactic distances, and a way to test this would be measuring different galaxies at different distances from us and seeing how severe the discrepancy between amount of matter and rotation speed, where further away galaxies having higher discrepancies could point to that being the case, it's just normal matter who's light wasnt strong enough to make it here,or is just redshifted to a degree where it's nearly undetectable, so not necessarily dark matter but dark light.
The problem is that the difference isn't small, it's MASSIVE. We are not talking about a tiny error in measurement or some source of invisible matter we know exists but forgot to account for. There is about 5 times more mass in a galaxy than we can "see." And when I say see, I don't just mean what we have visual confirmation of but 5 times more than what we are pretty sure is actually there whether we have actually seen it or not.
Also "seeing" means in this case rather scanning in different frequencies so it's basically impossible that it's anything we know or can detect in any (known) way.
Dang you should tell the physicists, they probably didn't think of that
It's not a systematic error because there's no correlation to the amount of inferred 'dark matter' and the galaxy being observed. You can have multiple widely different galaxies with the same 'amount' of 'dark matter' and multiple similar ones with widely different 'amounts' of 'dark matter'.
Newton is smiling down upon us. Although he is still pissed at that Einstein guy.
Newton had little data to work with, Einstein had a lot to work with.
@@johnlawrence7386 This is not really the case. Einstein worked with thought experiments and probably did not know about Michelson-Morley.
@@davidhoward4715Einstein had newton’s work to study. We stand on the shoulders of giants.
Aw, it all relative.
I think Newton would be(or is) quite pleased to see his work being continued and improved upon.
Regardless of what prople may say, or fhink of him personally.
I believe he, like so many others, was lifelong focused on the work of understanding the universe, and how it works. And in the process of discovering it.
MOND requiring some hidden dark matter made me assume it was dead in the water.
Dark matter exists. That's not in contention.
@@davidhoward4715 Dark matter is the observation, not the explanation.
@@Sonny_McMacssonAnd yet the effect exists regardless
fallacy, a theory is not supposed to explain everything in one go, it must only be true otherwise relativity should go to the bin
@@KnightspaceORG Regardless of what?The observed effect is the measurement. The hypothesis is the supposed reason for it.
It's all those neutron stars. Lots more of those heavy but small stars that we have difficulty in seeing. They are everywhere. They are even down the road and hiding in your neighborhood.
Thank you Anton! Great video!
MOND is a nice idea but it's demise has been coming for some time - the evidence has been compounding for a good few years now. I am not a scientist, just an enthusiast, but I tend to think we're missing something - that the 'dark matter' isn't actually matter that doesn't interact with anything except gravitationally, I think it's something we haven't yet though of.
The same things which bury MOND are things which support dark matter... We are finding galaxies with more and less amounts of it. Explaining this with a law of physics is difficult. Explaining this as some substance is more tenable
Dark matter will NEVER be found.
Its too gosh dang dark 😂
They might as well call it, phantom matter or ghost matter. It’s so ridiculous.
You have to understand that dark matter is a concept, its not something you can even imagine having. There are humongous discrepancies in physics that can only be esplained based on things we already know. We dont know what we dont know.
@@corley-aiyou watch the wrong content creators.
I bet a crate of Haribo's that you're wrong
Why do we only think of velocity of the edge of galaxy only by the mass inside the galaxies. We should think about it like a cup of coffee. The cloud of coffee only moves that fast because of the friction with border of the cup. Why scientists can figure that the should be none visible matter around galaxies repelling baryonic matter making the flatness of the velocity of stars at the edge...
Cool find!!
R.I.P. MOND 🪦🪦🪦
Dark matter is not a "proposition". Dark Matter is the silly name for the mismatch between our model of the universe and specific observations that conflict with that model. It is the name of a problem that has not yet been solved by a satisfactory proposition (hypothesis).
So dark matter is not a proposition trying to explain the mismatch ?
@@bobdemtrich5162 Right now, there are many competing ideas about what might possibly explain the mismatches between model and observations, but the process of elimination is just at its beginning. "Dark Matter" is the name of the problem, not an explanation for it.
It's not a "silly name" it's literally just matter that's dark (which we therefore can't see with telescopes). There are a bunch of theories as to what that might be. The fact that it sounds all mysterious or whatever is just a coincidence.
@@takanara7 Matter that is dark is just an untested hypothesis. It might be something else, entirely that is wrong with our model of reality. .
@@jpopelish The thing is, we can see where it is. We can detect places with more or less dark matter. That is one of the things that killed MOND. If it's matter, there can be more of it in some places than others. If it's a law of reality, that's inexplicable why it works that way in some places but differently in others.
MOND was interesting, but it never really explained why. The number of "why's" before "we don't know" is always finite, but it had a rather unimpressive range. I did rather like it while it still held it's virgin simplicity though.
Every fuckin day you’re clogging up my feed with some new existential dread content video,can you cool it with the reality bending info FOR 5 MINUTES??
For some reason I am so sick of hearing about "dark matter".
You are not an astrophysicist. They love a good mystery in the field to which they have dedicated their lives.
I absolutely hate the phrase "dark matter" We are assuming something exists because our understanding of maths can not account for differences in measurements.
The earth was the centre of the universe at one point until we discovered we orbit the sun.
So now we invent dark matter because we don't know why we have a difference in calculations and physics.
It should be called “Unexplained Gravitational Observations” UGOs
That's what I think too. We're simply missing something. Or it's some kind of an effect we haven't though of yet. And you're making a good point, that the whole dark matter idea is based on the fact that observations don't match calculations. Observations made from thousands or millions of lightyears away.
Dark matter dark matter dark matter dark matter
@@AdrianBoyko Observable Unexplained SpaceTime Geometries
Agreed. "Dark matter" is not a theory, it's a number of observations. I learned that online. Thanks AC!
Sometimes a bad name serves a purpose by making a concept seem accessible, but then it has to deal with the confusion it creates.
MOND always looked like an ad hoc theory from the ground up. Never understood the fuss about it...
ad hoc theories are attractive the way conspiracy theories are. very neat and tidy and make you feel smart. Until someone points out the obvious hole in them.
Correct usage should match the verb to the actual subject of the sentence. Since "disagreements" is plural, the correct form is "There are going to be a lot of disagreements." Regardless, it's just more mounting evidence pointing towards the direction of the electric universe hypothesis rather than a "gravitical- only" model. Remember potential is simply the presence of energy with a degree of separation(dielectric), there's the mass you're looking for- it's separated-still not molecularly sociated. There, I said it.
O.K. but why are there still people that think earth is flat!?!?!
Stupidity.
Mostly they like feeling like they're the underdogs of science
@@KnightspaceORGcalling it science is an insult to every scientist who’s ever lived
Because we’re in the misinformation age. Ignorance is something to be proud of, echo chambers reign supreme.
Watching endless Cornfields and only reading the Bible can do that.... 🤷♀️
I'm curious what Sabine Hossenfelder has to say about this!
Maybe watch her video on the topic
So what video ?
What link have you smartas provided ?
@@AdrianBoyko which one? Her MOND videos are not as recent as this one.
I bet she wears the pink top.
I think her last video on the topic pointed out that MOND was modified Newtonian gravity and Newtonian gravity was superceded by relativity, so there's still some work to be done to be prove that modified relativistic gravity is ruled out (for the few people who think it's a thing).
I absolutely hate the notion of using a fudge factor to make the equations work, a trick I learned in college. Trouble is, it’s oftentimes the only way past otherwise impervious walls. So MOND is dead, and the fudge factor, aka Dark Matter, lives. It’s a strange universe we live in. I hope we figure out what the FF/DM is before I head off to the Great Beyond.
Nice presentation.
Please do a follow up video on the various proposals for modified gravity. While MOND is the most well known dark matter alternative, it is not the only one. If you interpret MOND as a theory about modified acceleration, then yes the wide binary studies seem to have ruled it out. If you interpret it as a universal force law then yes it fails at galactic cluster scales. However, MOND on its own is just a force equation, not a relativistic field theory. There are modified gravity theories (full relativistic field theories) that reproduce a MOND like equation for galactic rotation curves but are fully Newtonian for wide binaries and which also depart from MOND at cluster scales.
MOND never sat right with me, good news 👍
The only thing we know for sure is that dark matter researchers will be getting more grant money in the years and decades to come. They eating WELL! 🤗
Stick to your Jesus magic.
@@davidhoward4715 Seethe harder, I'm telling him you said that. 😉
anton always has the highest quality space background videos
TY Anton. I guess that means interesting times ahead:)
Well, that's the beauty of science. It's not to necessarily say what it is, but what was never demonstrated differently... And what things aren't.
Somewhere in your comments and Sabines' I declared this D.O.A. LONG ago.
It's an intriguing theory. Maybe gravity also acts like electromagnetic, where it has some orbitals that makes matters to behave differently than what we regularly observed.
Check out the paper on the proposed Ninth Gluon. Strong case for it being the Graviton.
In general relativity, the rate of time and the measure of distance change. This has been observed both with variable rates of time and variable measures of distance which is what we use to measure speed. This means the speed of light changes as the rate of causation changes. This accounts for both superluminal motion and the faster than expected movement of the stars in the outer spiral arms of galaxies.
We are only exploring the outer limits of our ignorance, it’s humbling.
i’m still on team “dark matter doesn’t exist”, just because we can’t see or detect something doesn’t mean there’s an invisible and mysterious something, it might just not be there to see or detect, we’re probably just not smart enough to get how the universe works yet in that aspect.
your 'team' is a bunch of science deniers alongside you. Please hold back from commenting without research as you are basically insulting the entire science community by doing so 👍
@@willclark8946 jesus christ dude. is your mom dark matter or something? i’m allowed to question an unproven hypothesis, especially about something any scientist will gladly say we have zero clue what’s actually going on. we not that long ago and in the age of the scientific method thought there was an ether that light traveled through and there was a planet between mercury and the sun because our math wasn’t perfect. we’re human we make mistakes, just like that ridiculous venomous post you hated at me for no reason.
You're misunderstanding what is meant by dark matter. You have dark matter, the collective term for the observations that can't be explained, and then you have dark matter, the cause of those observations. When scientist say dark matter, they mean the former. If they wish to allude to a theory *of* dark matter, they might say dark matter particle for example. To use an analogy, saying you don't believe in dark matter is like saying you don't believe in gravity, when really, what you should be saying is you don't believe in gravitons.
@@johnsoberi’m very aware what many physicists and astronomers have to say about dark matter, fred and wilma, whatever anyone wants to call it. the oroblem is your pompous big brain attitude and insane amount if sass directed at me first suggesting we’re thinking about the whole situation wrong similar to many previous situations that SCIENTISTS have gone through. i never said i didn’t believe the effects were being observed, or that gravity isn’t real, or that galaxies aren’t rotating faster than their mass should allow. i am merely suggesting you chill the fuck your tits out before flying off the “anti-science” handle.
Love all your videos you have a broad spectrum of science
Could dark matter and energy be related to what the universe is expanding into and somehow reacting with our matter
Very big somehow?
I bought a T-shirt and a mug . I like your videos very much I like the way you explain things so I can understand them I really appreciate everything you do thank you
Gravity has got to be The Key to Unlocking much of science
Very good and interesting video many thanks
Everything is scale solder foam. You can only see scales that frequency capture. So if your parked betwean two dump trucks, the FM radio works great, it's the same size. But as soon as they turn the engine on, there's no cell phone. For alot of reasons as far as frequency, but solder foam physically mathematically explains it to no conceivable end. The jacobian of any Cramer rule fractal solder foam. Low temperature solder means their job'n-job'n it. But in space, unused foamy becomes ultra rigid and dense, thus distorting the lens, so it seams to have extra dimension causing gravity. A book a day lives under the sea, what a new thing to take with me, yippi.
I like the statement (I think by Dr. Becky), that the term "dark matter" is misleading and transparent matter was much better.
@Anton Petrov can you cover Terrance Howard’s video? Specially their periodic table and including using NASA simulator and successfully recreating Saturn with its rings and hexagon pole without dark energy or dark matter as part of equation
sadly the world is too closed minded and dogmatic
Is there somewhere a hypothesis exploring the possibility that dark matter is actually nothing other than blackholes ? What if there are actually much more of them than we previously thought to be ? If there are actually much more stars simply not going nova but directly collapsing into black holes couldn't that be the "missing" mass of things?
Cool stuff, thanks Anton.
(Oh, BTW. Dark matter is a swarm of tiny black holes as you will soon find out)
Dear Reader,
Just a simple thought. All these stars in galaxies will certainly eject enormous amounts of matter, and energy, by solar winds and radiation. So can they, when combined, explain the speed of the outer regions of these systems? Let's imagine a row of stars in a spiral arm, all blowing a lot of material off their surfaces, but perhaps also blowing a small en steady stream of particles against the other stars in their surrounding (perhaps because those particles travel along the magnetic fields between the stars), not withstanding the distances. Perhaps they just push up each other in a increasing speed.
The proof/counter argument can be: does the speed of the stars in the outer region stays the same (counter argument) or does it increase (a sort of proof?) by time?
Michel F. van den Brun
Viewer
stars are mostly omnidirectional. they don't steadily accelerate through space
What if instead of gravity behaving differently over longer distances, it behaves differently over extremely long periods of time? Like a point in space with mass dilates time over time. Escape velocity is in turn, much faster.
anton can you look into if G is universally constant, or if its value keeps coming different at different places and times. Rupert Sheldrake had brought this up.
What about MOND-like effects of superfluid dark matter? That would explain why it doesn't affect stellar systems or galaxy clusters, if the necessary conditions were limited to the regions around normal galaxies.
So, dark matter wins again. Eventually, the champion must be defeated, but not this time. In a perverse way I find it comforting that dark matter remains both elusive and real.
Thanks for this next chapter in the search for dark matter, Anton.
A particle hard to find. Hiding in the fabric time.
Making its presence felt on the grandest of scales. Giving birth to the wildest of tails.