No it does not. MOND Is obviously incorrect. But it's a step in the right direction, so it's a good thing. The leading candidate now is the superfluid dark matter hypothesis.
It's really interesting how well this topic was explained. There are a few science channels on youtube that tackle similar topics, but in my opinion they don't quite manage to break a topic down such that it can be understood by everyone (even me). Please keep us up to date with your videos!
Sabine, your presentations, including this one are fantastic and refreshingly objective! For this MOND presentation, you might have also mentioned how Erik Verlinde's Emergent Gravity theory potentially provides a theoretical underpinning and thus supports Milgrom's observationally-based MOND hypothesis. When you say MOND is "wrong" I would humbly suggest a better adjective would be "incomplete".
There is so much left to solidify in physics. Not only can't we link macroscale physics to quantum physics, we don't even have a fully satisfying equation of gravity.
I heard about quantized inertia recently. It reminds me of MOND. Hope you do a video on it some day. I like your videos. You speak English very well btw.
I've always been an avid consumer of physics and cosmology and Dr. Hossenfelder has quickly become one of my preferred sources for this. She's clear and seems more inclined than many to think objectively and logically about the issues and because of this I feel I am getting a more complete understanding of the issues!! I am happily subscribed!!
if anyone wants to explain how visible light can pass through water, lose velocity, and then regain velocity after it leaves the water (or other dense, visible medium), then you deserve the Nobel Prize, and you've also solved the mystery of why many stars orbit faster, the farther from the center of their galaxies...and we can do-away with Dark matter / Dark energy theory in the process - you've basically solved the most fundamental of problems in astrophysics, and you didn't need particle accelerators or any high-priced equipment, either.
The previous dark matter video was brilliant. Be sure to watch that first. If I actually learned something you will too. I very much look forward to this video.
What if the space-time tissue is not only an elastic structure, but it also moves around by the action of very large rotating masses as huge black holes? That could, probably, explain the apparent larger' stars speed on the galaxies' borders...
A possible explanation is that Space has an effect similar to Gravity and Waves, where when acted upon by a heavy object, produces Gravity nearby but spreads, because of the local disturbance, outward like a wave causing acceleration. Thus both "dark matter" and "dark energy" from the same Gradational effect.
My thoughts : 🤔 Galaxy rotation curve is may be little bit due to distribution of gravitational time dilation of space from galactic center to us and from us to outer side of galaxy for our Galaxy and same for all galaxy's Because mass density in the center of galaxy is higher then middle ( where our earth is ) so time runs slower in center then middle , so stars only appears that it is moving slower relative to us . And for why we see outer stars of galaxy orbiting faster then it should be it is because time runs faster in less dense area of outer side of galaxy so that appears that they are moving faster relative to us . If it's wrong then why ???
"MOND however explains the observations in a very simple way." I see, awesome. "However, we already know that MOND is wrong." Not gonna lie, you had me in the first half.
Sabine's presentation skills have come a long way since this video, but I have this one unusually informative. I like that the mathematical equations are presented and explained.
Your videos are really terrific. You have excellent communications skills. You break down a difficult subject into simple language so that even us non-physicists have no trouble understanding it. I've started reading your book, Lost in Math, and am enjoying that, also.
Great Video Dr.Sabine! I always had an idea in my mind that that i never found an answear: in the center of the galaxy we have a really active area because of density of material and energy and Sagitarius A*. In the external area of the galaxy everything is quieter, also the stars in this area are older. What if in the very exterior of the galaxy (halo) there are very very old stars at the end of their lives (BH, WD, NS, materials from SN explosions... ecc.) those almost do no emit light but have matter.
I have problems accepting that most of the stuff that exists is undetected - dark energy, dark matter. If you have to come up with hypothetical matter accounting for ~95% to explain our observations, it’s probably a bogus theory. I find MOND to be a much better candidate, set aside baryonic mass that should further reduce the discrepancies. That, or Erik Verlinde’s ‘emergent gravity’ theory.
I Love this woman. She has courage and rationality. I wish she would make a video that would add the notion of a living and CONTAINED UNIVERSE integrated into our currant understanding of what we as humans can or cannot see. Mankind, cosmology, physics, and even the term Humans are boxed in by the rules that we humans have defined. Light, Light speed, Time, Absolute Zero, Waters Boiling Point, Distance, and on and on, and are constructs valid only on the ladder rung we exist on from a fractal stand point. Our bodies are living semi contained and isolated environments. Why not A living and alive universe? Think scale. Talk to Mr. Mandelbrot. Furthermore. Ponder this. What if the reason for not being able to see beyond the quote, big bang is simply biological in nature. After all. We know that the human ovum does not become a living being until after impregnated by a sperm. replace the cosmologists term 'expansion" with the word "growth". and then everything after that makes sense. You could if so inclined. Ask your mother how big the bang was. Probably not a good idea.
If the celestial body (mass body) performs a constant linear motion, it will be fun if an unknown force comes out. If such an unknown force exists in space, it would be: -The unknown power is not gravity. But it's a new force acting between masses. -The unknown power seems to exist only in the form of repulsion. So it seems that we will create a harmonious universe against gravity that only has gravity. -The unknown power seems to be very difficult to observe in our solar system. Because most of the celestial bodies in the solar system are elliptical orbital motions, the unknown force that appears only during constant linear motion is almost zero. So maybe I haven't found it ... -As anyone who has played with magnets knows, the magnetic force increases only in very close proximity. On the contrary, the power of that unknown seems to increase only in a very distant place. The longer the celestial body is, the smaller the gravity will be, so a constant linear motion will be possible ... Maybe this is the vacuum energy that scientists once looked for? -But the drifting planets and asteroids that wander the dark interstellar outside the solar system will move out of the elliptical orbit and move closer to the constant linear motion. In other words, numerous interstellar objects create unknown powers. -What would happen if so many interstellar objects created mutual repulsion? Space expansion? And as the universe expands, the orbits of interstellar objects become more and more straight. Then accelerated expansion is also possible .. Therefore, there is no need for dark matter or dark energy. What do you think?
it relates to the cosmological constant - seems that has to be correct. I mean is that like if you walked up a particle physicist and pulled a firecracker is their ear and said wake up - would that work ?
I don't know who would read this, but I never liked dark matter just because it never made any sense... I was thinking about the vacuum bags, and put a ball in it. As the vacuum closed in on the ball, it created pockets of less dense air but still available space. What if space were not fluid in it's warping like the vacuum bags. Like lightning finds the path of least resistance these pockets would be gravity wells that branch away from the source looking for other gravitational sources. At the near the inverse law would be relatively the same as should be but the far could still reach and connect to far distances. This could explain the seeming neural types of connections that have been illustrated lately. I'm no physicist, so by all means if this is what's happening run with it and don't even worry about a mention; just kill the dumb dark matter malarkey already. I got a doozy for dark energy when this ones out of the picture.
Superflat galaxis have the most "Dark Matter" but as rounder they go, they have- no -Dark Matter. There must be a geometrical influence from where the forces are pulling. A big problem vor a physik who is "lost in math" and has vorgotten to look to struktures.
thank you Frau Sabine Hossenfelder for great explaination and you inspired as woman, me to do more hard work in science thank you so much. No offence to any gender
Do we know that the long range gravitational field of a supermassive black hole behaves the same as normal star? Does the field drop off with 1/r^3 or 1/r^2, or some other equation? Could the supermassive black holes have a gravitational halo near the edge of its galaxy? Perhaps coupled to the center through extra dimensions?
You did explain Dark Matter halo between (example) Sun and earth, where : Gravity is dependant upon Dark Matter and acting as glue, but Dark Matter is not dependent upon Gravity but rather it bends or molds around solid matter. So many are close to my research but keep looking in the wrong place. Of course I cannot give you the answer otherwise you would get the Novel Price.
Sabine, do the modified equations include the twisting of spacetime by the galaxy’s movements? I wonder if the squiggles in the resulting star velocity charts are due to the differing galaxy morphologies.
t could be a new particle very similar to the hypothesized graviton but with different characteristics. I ask as an ignorant person on the subject, could you theorize mathematically like you did with the graviton even if it hasn't been found yet, or is it really too complicated?
What if MOND or something like it (modified to work with relativity) is right and our understanding of the early universe and maybe even of galactic clusters is wrong?
Shoot a lead ball, into space, spinning at very high speed, perpandicular to the direction of travel. If the trajectory curves, that might be proof, that space is full of matter, in some form. Not: you can't row a boat, with a tennis wracket.
From Dr H's talk on gravity waves, she mentioned that said waves travel at the speed of light. Does this mean that the gravity communication vector also travels at the speed of light? If not, what is the speed of that communication vector?
Ive never been a fan of Dark Matter. To add Dark Matter is just to add another unknown number to an equasion. Mond is a far better theory without having to add anything else. However its still an approximation. We just dont understand Gravity well enough imo.
A lot more parameters to get Dark Matter to distribute correctly - that reminds me of Freeman Dyson trying to explain nuclear behaviour before Quarks. Enrico Fermi, to whom Dyson went to get advice with the curves he fitted to the experimental data, asked him: "How many free parameters does your calculation use, son?" - "Five, Sir." - "Well, with four free parameters I can draw you an elephant. And with five I'll let it wiggle its trunk."
For a hammer everything looks like a nail, and for particle physicists anything can be "explained" by the presence of elementary particles, so WIMPS(weakly interacting particles) "must" be the behind what is known as "dark matter". But relatively recent results in algorithmic information theory and metamathematics strongly suggest that complex systems will exhibit "strong emergence": the presence of properties and behaviors that cannot be reduced or explained by the properties of the system elementary components; and obviously Galaxies are very complex systems. There is no need to introduce any ad hoc non observable "black matter" as there was not need to introduce the non observable luminiferous aether. Reductionism is intrinsically flawed.
Every physical formula will remain an approximation. Stars are not on stable circular orbits around the galaxy center, but behave like molecules in a water vortex (with many swirls at the galaxy bar). And for galaxy clusters the "binding energy" - shared "particles" will influence the stability (like in molecules/shared orbitals).
sure, MOND is incomplete, it's a scrap, but it's important to have an understanding of what's going on. I'm especially thinking of also spacetime itself that would not be like, a flat plane. I'll try to word this in english better, I already posted on the subject, not sure if you're intrested. I highly suspect something going on with the distribution of time and space itself.
If MOND is also wrong, then it is about time to consider another platform that could explain the rotation "anomaly" of galaxies. This platform is provided by the "Novel quantitative push gravity/electricity theory poised for verification". Mass, matter (= hyle), force fields and much more can be explained in simple and palpable terms, as they should. We should start using this platform to explain existing experimental and observational data. The examination of alternatives is always a fruitful exercise.
Wow that's really interesting. Honestly I thought MOND was dead. When I'd first learned about it back in, I think 1998, my impression was that this was an ad-hoc explanation for the flat rotation curves, to solve the dark matter problem with new physics. But it also appeared to be the idea of a single individual, who may not have had a full understanding of General Relativity. I didn't know the connection to the cosmological constant, which could certainly give it some credibility. I played for days with the idea that dark energy somehow could be responsible for the rotation curves, but it looks like accelerating expanding space is quantitatively not enough to explain it, and also, would act to decrease the flatness of the curves, not increase them.
Arg, I do not like your velocity profile graphs used in this video at time 1:54 and in the previous one. The velocity at the center is zero, not some large value. Once you start showing the data from the papers around 2:10, one can see that the V=0 when R=0. It is a bummer that RUclips doesn't allow for edits. One of my favorite observations about the flat velocity profile curve is just how crazy weak the gravitational force is out there. We are talking some ten orders of magnitude weaker that the gravity on the Earth's surface. I think it would take a week for an apple to fall 2m.
The gravitational force produced by stars in a galaxy gradually builds up, extending throughout the galaxy. Although its influence weakens quickly at close distances due to its rapid operation, it endures on a larger scale and stays within the galaxy until it exits. It's important to note that gravity behaves differently in the fourth dimension and on a large scale. Detecting the effects of gravity at a 90° angle can be challenging because it is symmetrically distributed over a short range. Nevertheless, as the galaxy rotates and certain space curvatures produced by the same source break free from the galaxy, the situation undergoes a transformation.
I have a supposition for you. What if "dark energy" or "the cosmological constant" is a measure of the curvature of space/time... Would this have any bearing on the properties of the a(naught) parameter for MOND? What other implications would follow? Disclaimer: I don't actually believe that the universe is accelerating its expansion, but that the observations are misinterpreted and based on failures in the underlying theories. Here's a very simple model. What if you have a glass sphere or curved lens. You will find distortions at the edges where the curvature is greatest. If you were unaware of the curvature then you might assume that the edges are "accelerating" away from you... just saying maybe the red shift is misinterpreted. Maybe the curvature itself is not constant. Maybe it is dependent on something else, such as local energy density.
I have a hard time accepting that there is a sudden switch from dependence upon the reciprocal square of the radius to the reciprocal of the radius instantly at some velocity. It would seem that modified gravity should switch from Newtonian gravity to Tully-Fisher gradually as R increases, with the MOND relationship lying somewhere in the middle between extremes. If dark matter was gravitationally attractive at intragalactic distances but gravitationally repulsive at intergalactic distances, that would seem to make it possible to combine dark matter and dark energy into a single entity. That would in turn explain why a-nought is related to the cosmological constant. What am I missing, since I am sure some theoretical physicist must have already tried this?
Visible matter contributes about 5% to the overall mass budget and consists of many different types of particles/fields. Dark matter, on the other hand, contributes about 24% to the overall mass budget and most people strangely seem to take it for granted that it can be explained by one kind of particle/field only. Why not just assume that on the galactic scale and at the intergalactic scale we are dealing with two different phenomena?
Q: how does mond explain a star's velocity in a galaxy as compared to another idendkcal galaxy except where one galaxy has a significant difference of mass of dark matter than the other?
And how does mond apply to smaller systems or larger systems? Satellites and planets speed up when closer to their parent mass. Mond doesn't seem to account for that.
Ich lese Ihr Buch jeden Tag auf dem Weg zur Arbeit und zurück nach Hause. Es macht so viel Spaß
Felipe Gomá Brockmann Also macht spass is not what I am thinking of in relation to these videos
I love these vids! what an age we live in where we have access to this kind of knowledge in the living room!
Conversely, it's sad that a lot of people seem to have no comprehension of library books.
Yea it’s crazy. Agree though completely
And she tells the REAL truth not just for funding 😜😜😜
watching this in 2022 and WOW - the production values on Sabine's videos has gone WAY UP! Great improvements! (contents is still top notch though :)
Prefix: Dark | Meaning: I have no freaking clue
I love this woman. Shes the most interesting person on youtube. Smart, strange, sarcastic, and sexy. These music vids are dope.
Does MOND play nicely with the 19 or so small galaxies that have been discovered, apparently without any dark matter?
No it does not. MOND Is obviously incorrect. But it's a step in the right direction, so it's a good thing. The leading candidate now is the superfluid dark matter hypothesis.
what a cliffhanger 😳🙃
"Zey have viggles". I think German is the true language of physics, it always sounds better to have these theories explained in a German accent.
Chris Morlock U racist or what?
@@peteralund german is a race? You dumb fck
Your comment made my day
Chris Morlock 😂
It used to be the language of physics
Well done Dr H. You explain it so well. Next chapter soon please.
It's really interesting how well this topic was explained. There are a few science channels on youtube that tackle similar topics, but in my opinion they don't quite manage to break a topic down such that it can be understood by everyone (even me). Please keep us up to date with your videos!
this page needs more cowbell
Yes.
Bill Nye: has more cowbell but less substance.
Bill Nye is a globalist shill
Sabine, your presentations, including this one are fantastic and refreshingly objective! For this MOND presentation, you might have also mentioned how Erik Verlinde's Emergent Gravity theory potentially provides a theoretical underpinning and thus supports Milgrom's observationally-based MOND hypothesis. When you say MOND is "wrong" I would humbly suggest a better adjective would be "incomplete".
Interesting to see old videos of yours!
I still am for MOND and latest JWST observations seem to support it
no they don't :)) it's the mond proponents/supporters that say the observations support the hypothesis, and of course they'll say that, lol
There is so much left to solidify in physics. Not only can't we link macroscale physics to quantum physics, we don't even have a fully satisfying equation of gravity.
Oldie but a goldie
I heard about quantized inertia recently. It reminds me of MOND. Hope you do a video on it some day. I like your videos. You speak English very well btw.
An absolute unbiased demystification by the most brilliant theoretical physicist . Thanks Dr.Sabine
I've always been an avid consumer of physics and cosmology and Dr. Hossenfelder has quickly become one of my preferred sources for this. She's clear and seems more inclined than many to think objectively and logically about the issues and because of this I feel I am getting a more complete understanding of the issues!! I am happily subscribed!!
if anyone wants to explain how visible light can pass through water, lose velocity, and then regain velocity after it leaves the water (or other dense, visible medium), then you deserve the Nobel Prize, and you've also solved the mystery of why many stars orbit faster, the farther from the center of their galaxies...and we can do-away with Dark matter / Dark energy theory in the process - you've basically solved the most fundamental of problems in astrophysics, and you didn't need particle accelerators or any high-priced equipment, either.
The previous dark matter video was brilliant. Be sure to watch that first. If I actually learned something you will too. I very much look forward to this video.
What if the space-time tissue is not only an elastic structure, but it also moves around by the action of very large rotating masses as huge black holes? That could, probably, explain the apparent larger' stars speed on the galaxies' borders...
Cant wait for your next video, hoping it is about SFDM :)
This is a breath of fresh air, finally a explanation of theories and facts, very informative videos. Thank you
A possible explanation is that Space has an effect similar to Gravity and Waves, where when acted upon by a heavy object, produces Gravity nearby but spreads, because of the local disturbance, outward like a wave causing acceleration. Thus both "dark matter" and "dark energy" from the same Gradational effect.
My thoughts : 🤔
Galaxy rotation curve is may be little bit due to distribution of gravitational time dilation of space from galactic center to us and from us to outer side of galaxy for our Galaxy and same for all galaxy's
Because mass density in the center of galaxy is higher then middle ( where our earth is ) so time runs slower in center then middle , so stars only appears that it is moving slower relative to us . And for why we see outer stars of galaxy orbiting faster then it should be it is because time runs faster in less dense area of outer side of galaxy so that appears that they are moving faster relative to us .
If it's wrong then why ???
"MOND however explains the observations in a very simple way."
I see, awesome.
"However, we already know that MOND is wrong."
Not gonna lie, you had me in the first half.
Well, now they are suggesting epicycle MOND with multiple fields... so much for "simple way". :-)
Sabine's presentation skills have come a long way since this video, but I have this one unusually informative. I like that the mathematical equations are presented and explained.
I read Milgrom's model provides a one parameter explanation that works at any scale without the requirement of dark matter
2: 19 This reminds me of the "crack the whip" velocities from the handle to the tip.
There could be different physics for large rotating mass or observed data of distance past at great distance may be distorted.
This is clearly this is due to the time cube
Your videos are really terrific. You have excellent communications skills. You break down a difficult subject into simple language so that even us non-physicists have no trouble understanding it. I've started reading your book, Lost in Math, and am enjoying that, also.
2:18 SomEtimeS theY haVe ViGGles.
Great Video Dr.Sabine! I always had an idea in my mind that that i never found an answear: in the center of the galaxy we have a really active area because of density of material and energy and Sagitarius A*. In the external area of the galaxy everything is quieter, also the stars in this area are older. What if in the very exterior of the galaxy (halo) there are very very old stars at the end of their lives (BH, WD, NS, materials from SN explosions... ecc.) those almost do no emit light but have matter.
Sabine sounds much less depressed these days! 👍
Maybe cosmological constant / dark energy has something to do with velocity of stars in galaxy, even if no dark matter?
Nicely presented.
I have problems accepting that most of the stuff that exists is undetected - dark energy, dark matter. If you have to come up with hypothetical matter accounting for ~95% to explain our observations, it’s probably a bogus theory.
I find MOND to be a much better candidate, set aside baryonic mass that should further reduce the discrepancies.
That, or Erik Verlinde’s ‘emergent gravity’ theory.
I Love this woman. She has courage and rationality. I wish she would make a video that would add the notion of a living and CONTAINED UNIVERSE integrated into our currant understanding of what we as humans can or cannot see. Mankind, cosmology, physics, and even the term Humans are boxed in by the rules that we humans have defined. Light, Light speed, Time, Absolute Zero, Waters Boiling Point, Distance, and on and on, and are constructs valid only on the ladder rung we exist on from a fractal stand point. Our bodies are living semi contained and isolated environments. Why not A living and alive universe? Think scale. Talk to Mr. Mandelbrot. Furthermore. Ponder this. What if the reason for not being able to see beyond the quote, big bang is simply biological in nature. After all. We know that the human ovum does not become a living being until after impregnated by a sperm. replace the cosmologists term 'expansion" with the word "growth". and then everything after that makes sense. You could if so inclined. Ask your mother how big the bang was. Probably not a good idea.
Isn’t Mond a better predictor for what James Webb has observed with well developed galaxies in the early universe?
Omg when she said viggles I almost fell over.
Excellent overview on the basics of modified gravity.
Thank you !
If the celestial body (mass body) performs a constant linear motion, it will be fun if an unknown force comes out.
If such an unknown force exists in space, it would be:
-The unknown power is not gravity. But it's a new force acting between masses.
-The unknown power seems to exist only in the form of repulsion. So it seems that we will create a harmonious universe against gravity that only has gravity.
-The unknown power seems to be very difficult to observe in our solar system. Because most of the celestial bodies in the solar system are elliptical orbital motions, the unknown force that appears only during constant linear motion is almost zero. So maybe I haven't found it ...
-As anyone who has played with magnets knows, the magnetic force increases only in very close proximity. On the contrary, the power of that unknown seems to increase only in a very distant place. The longer the celestial body is, the smaller the gravity will be, so a constant linear motion will be possible ... Maybe this is the vacuum energy that scientists once looked for?
-But the drifting planets and asteroids that wander the dark interstellar outside the solar system will move out of the elliptical orbit and move closer to the constant linear motion. In other words, numerous interstellar objects create unknown powers.
-What would happen if so many interstellar objects created mutual repulsion? Space expansion? And as the universe expands, the orbits of interstellar objects become more and more straight. Then accelerated expansion is also possible ..
Therefore, there is no need for dark matter or dark energy.
What do you think?
I love your videos. The way you present and explain things is wonderfully clear.
it relates to the cosmological constant - seems that has to be correct. I mean is that like if you walked up a particle physicist and pulled a firecracker is their ear and said wake up - would that work ?
Physics doesn't work ... Ah dark matter..
I don't know who would read this, but I never liked dark matter just because it never made any sense...
I was thinking about the vacuum bags, and put a ball in it. As the vacuum closed in on the ball, it created pockets of less dense air but still available space. What if space were not fluid in it's warping like the vacuum bags. Like lightning finds the path of least resistance these pockets would be gravity wells that branch away from the source looking for other gravitational sources.
At the near the inverse law would be relatively the same as should be but the far could still reach and connect to far distances.
This could explain the seeming neural types of connections that have been illustrated lately.
I'm no physicist, so by all means if this is what's happening run with it and don't even worry about a mention; just kill the dumb dark matter malarkey already. I got a doozy for dark energy when this ones out of the picture.
Superflat galaxis have the most "Dark Matter" but as rounder they go, they have- no -Dark Matter. There must be a geometrical influence from where the forces are pulling. A big problem vor a physik who is "lost in math" and has vorgotten to look to struktures.
Fine lecture with the math fluidly built-in, but the moving backgrounds are distracting unless you are talking directly about them.
A new hope for theoretical physics. Thank you Sabine. Read the book!
Why is Sabine so low key hot
thank you Frau Sabine Hossenfelder for great explaination and you inspired as woman, me to do more hard work in science thank you so much. No offence to any gender
Do we know that the long range gravitational field of a supermassive black hole behaves the same as normal star? Does the field drop off with 1/r^3 or 1/r^2, or some other equation? Could the supermassive black holes have a gravitational halo near the edge of its galaxy? Perhaps coupled to the center through extra dimensions?
Great video! I wish someone taught me this in any of my physics classes
The moon is getting away from us or is it getting near?
You did explain Dark Matter halo between (example) Sun and earth, where : Gravity is dependant upon Dark Matter and acting as glue, but Dark Matter is not dependent upon Gravity but rather it bends or molds around solid matter.
So many are close to my research but keep looking in the wrong place. Of course I cannot give you the answer otherwise you would get the Novel Price.
By the way, I forgot to mention that you were correct.
Sabine, do the modified equations include the twisting of spacetime by the galaxy’s movements? I wonder if the squiggles in the resulting star velocity charts are due to the differing galaxy morphologies.
Cheio de amor na matemática 😂😂😂😂😂❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
First like
Here is a very interesting thing to think of where does the electron come from and how does it work ?
Sabine I would love to see you do a video on the data on the Higgs Particle where it came form Thank you !!!
t could be a new particle very similar to the hypothesized graviton but with different characteristics.
I ask as an ignorant person on the subject, could you theorize mathematically like you did with the graviton even if it hasn't been found yet, or is it really too complicated?
Is that the cosmological constant or a witch's hat?
Thank you!
Well, try to modify it a little more. Next time I trip I'd like to land softly
What if MOND or something like it (modified to work with relativity) is right and our understanding of the early universe and maybe even of galactic clusters is wrong?
Your prophetic👍
@@paullee4619 Thank you
G.P.S. ~~~ Gravitational Propulsion Telepathy. Or Gravitational Propulsion System.
This is more about MOND than MOG tbf ;P
Fascinating
Shoot a lead ball, into space, spinning at very high speed, perpandicular to the direction of travel. If the trajectory curves, that might be proof, that space is full of matter, in some form.
Not: you can't row a boat, with a tennis wracket.
Yes, indeed, I keep you on my phone and TV!
From Dr H's talk on gravity waves, she mentioned that said waves travel at the speed of light.
Does this mean that the gravity communication vector also travels at the speed of light?
If not, what is the speed of that communication vector?
Ive never been a fan of Dark Matter. To add Dark Matter is just to add another unknown number to an equasion. Mond is a far better theory without having to add anything else. However its still an approximation. We just dont understand Gravity well enough imo.
A lot more parameters to get Dark Matter to distribute correctly - that reminds me of Freeman Dyson trying to explain nuclear behaviour before Quarks. Enrico Fermi, to whom Dyson went to get advice with the curves he fitted to the experimental data, asked him: "How many free parameters does your calculation use, son?" - "Five, Sir." - "Well, with four free parameters I can draw you an elephant. And with five I'll let it wiggle its trunk."
For a hammer everything looks like a nail, and for particle physicists anything can be "explained" by the presence of elementary particles, so WIMPS(weakly interacting particles) "must" be the behind what is known as "dark matter".
But relatively recent results in algorithmic information theory and metamathematics strongly suggest that complex systems will exhibit "strong emergence": the presence of properties and behaviors that cannot be reduced or explained by the properties of the system elementary components; and obviously Galaxies are very complex systems.
There is no need to introduce any ad hoc non observable "black matter" as there was not need to introduce the non observable luminiferous aether.
Reductionism is intrinsically flawed.
Every physical formula will remain an approximation. Stars are not on stable circular orbits around the galaxy center, but behave like molecules in a water vortex (with many swirls at the galaxy bar). And for galaxy clusters the "binding energy" - shared "particles" will influence the stability (like in molecules/shared orbitals).
Wonderful presentation!
Wie wär's mit Dunkler Gravitation?
: D
is our universe simpler ? or not ?
sure, MOND is incomplete, it's a scrap, but it's important to have an understanding of what's going on.
I'm especially thinking of also spacetime itself that would not be like, a flat plane.
I'll try to word this in english better, I already posted on the subject, not sure if you're intrested. I highly suspect something going on with the distribution of time and space itself.
If MOND is also wrong, then it is about time to consider another platform that could explain the rotation "anomaly" of galaxies. This platform is provided by the "Novel quantitative push gravity/electricity theory poised for verification". Mass, matter (= hyle), force fields and much more can be explained in simple and palpable terms, as they should. We should start using this platform to explain existing experimental and observational data. The examination of alternatives is always a fruitful exercise.
Wow that's really interesting. Honestly I thought MOND was dead. When I'd first learned about it back in, I think 1998, my impression was that this was an ad-hoc explanation for the flat rotation curves, to solve the dark matter problem with new physics. But it also appeared to be the idea of a single individual, who may not have had a full understanding of General Relativity. I didn't know the connection to the cosmological constant, which could certainly give it some credibility.
I played for days with the idea that dark energy somehow could be responsible for the rotation curves, but it looks like accelerating expanding space is quantitatively not enough to explain it, and also, would act to decrease the flatness of the curves, not increase them.
Can we expect a visible effect from polarized gravitons?
What does the asymptotic F_MOND ~ 1/R tell about the dimension of space?
Wow! I consider myself pretty smart (IQ tests confirm, but ya know) and reasonably knowledgeable on the subject, but 🤯
Arg, I do not like your velocity profile graphs used in this video at time 1:54 and in the previous one. The velocity at the center is zero, not some large value. Once you start showing the data from the papers around 2:10, one can see that the V=0 when R=0. It is a bummer that RUclips doesn't allow for edits.
One of my favorite observations about the flat velocity profile curve is just how crazy weak the gravitational force is out there. We are talking some ten orders of magnitude weaker that the gravity on the Earth's surface. I think it would take a week for an apple to fall 2m.
The gravitational force produced by stars in a galaxy gradually builds up, extending throughout the galaxy. Although its influence weakens quickly at close distances due to its rapid operation, it endures on a larger scale and stays within the galaxy until it exits. It's important to note that gravity behaves differently in the fourth dimension and on a large scale. Detecting the effects of gravity at a 90° angle can be challenging because it is symmetrically distributed over a short range. Nevertheless, as the galaxy rotates and certain space curvatures produced by the same source break free from the galaxy, the situation undergoes a transformation.
I have a supposition for you. What if "dark energy" or "the cosmological constant" is a measure of the curvature of space/time... Would this have any bearing on the properties of the a(naught) parameter for MOND? What other implications would follow? Disclaimer: I don't actually believe that the universe is accelerating its expansion, but that the observations are misinterpreted and based on failures in the underlying theories. Here's a very simple model. What if you have a glass sphere or curved lens. You will find distortions at the edges where the curvature is greatest. If you were unaware of the curvature then you might assume that the edges are "accelerating" away from you... just saying maybe the red shift is misinterpreted. Maybe the curvature itself is not constant. Maybe it is dependent on something else, such as local energy density.
I have a hard time accepting that there is a sudden switch from dependence upon the reciprocal square of the radius to the reciprocal of the radius instantly at some velocity. It would seem that modified gravity should switch from Newtonian gravity to Tully-Fisher gradually as R increases, with the MOND relationship lying somewhere in the middle between extremes. If dark matter was gravitationally attractive at intragalactic distances but gravitationally repulsive at intergalactic distances, that would seem to make it possible to combine dark matter and dark energy into a single entity. That would in turn explain why a-nought is related to the cosmological constant. What am I missing, since I am sure some theoretical physicist must have already tried this?
Visible matter contributes about 5% to the overall mass budget and consists of many different types of particles/fields. Dark matter, on the other hand, contributes about 24% to the overall mass budget and most people strangely seem to take it for granted that it can be explained by one kind of particle/field only. Why not just assume that on the galactic scale and at the intergalactic scale we are dealing with two different phenomena?
Clearly explained. Wonderful ma'am and thanks
First time I have heard so clearly the evidence that dark matter is designed to explain.
Wow she has improved making RUclips videos over 4 years... She's so monotone and serious here.
Q: how does mond explain a star's velocity in a galaxy as compared to another idendkcal galaxy except where one galaxy has a significant difference of mass of dark matter than the other?
And how does mond apply to smaller systems or larger systems? Satellites and planets speed up when closer to their parent mass. Mond doesn't seem to account for that.
Really liking your presentation Sabine, if I can help with any art drop me a line via pm. I'm only amateur but check out my channel for examples.
You know it's a good channel when sub count is greater than view count
No you don't. That suggests that people subscribe but don't bother to look at the videos that turn up in their feed.
hahaha ... i only came here from a Miles Mathis pdf ... hahaha
The apparent relationship between gravitational interaction and the cosmological constant is extremely tantalising.
I don't think dark matters exist. It's more likely there's 2 types of gravity.
My wife has likened Sarbine as a saint of physics.I dont really know what she really meant.