For those who didn't watch until the end: You can’t just take any one of these plots from McGaugh and collaborators out of context and jump to "JWST falsifying dark matter". We don’t have enough evidence to claim that, at least not yet. MOND is actively being researched in universities and institutions around the world; it is not something that is being swept under the rug or ignored. MOND is a hypothesis that needs more work as it currently fails to explain some observations of the universe. Our currently accepted model is λ-CDM (using Einstein's theory of general relativity to explain gravity) because it can explain more of our observations of the Universe than any other model we have.
I find it interesting as in a way, we are back to the original question from many decades ago, which is: there's something that we can't (properly) detect.
The model has to be known and actively explored before it can be ruled out. The well for dark matter cause is drying up -- what then. The locating of dark matter is via gravitational lensing. Thus it is assumed this is accomplished by a mass, unseen. This is an extension of why there is an apparent violation of angular momentum involving inner galactic stars. This slowing is believed caused by an phantom mass. There is another plausible reason. One that is not on the radar of grants. It could be simple optical bending caused by denser space. Space has been denser in an earlier time. So thinking that denser space can not exist, well, is nonsense. How it becomes denser is a lack an understanding. Apparently applying the 'Pauli exclusion' principle isn't in the tool set. As mass accumulates in a volumn of space, it pushes out other particles forming a halo around stellar structures -- denser space. Again this halo is observed by presumed gravitational lensing when it is simple optical lensing. The bullet cluster and others have proven this halo can detach from the parent matter. This detachment of halos, rogue ones, is responsible for vanishing and phantom stellar structure observations but having currently an unknown cause.
No sweeping , biased over simplified sensationalist conclusion drawn here, just the facts born from observation. Delivered with infectious passion. My thanks.
When you fill out one theory with caution and caveats and scrutiny under a microscope; and the other theory pretty much gets a pass, then I'll call that bias. MoND is always treated with a grain of salt while LCDM is accepted as "the best we know so far".
facts from observation .., hmm no need more? like doin it for real in the real world , and come up with solid proof , and no one can debunk it , then its way better : ) cheers , big up .
@@roderickbeck8859What are you talking about? You’re the one that’s clearly showing bias! All she’s doing is staying “scientific”. Consume all the data, analyze the data, test the data, etc., before you make foolish statements, just as you’ve just done. Bad form, mate, bad form.
I'm just very appreciative of Dr. Becky's pedagogical skills. Not just that she teaches with such clarity and ardor; even little things like the way she spells out her outline for the lesson before she begins. Every teacher should do this...
@@Eztoez Which is why I didn't say that she was. I expressed some very restrained appreciation for her approach. That's all. What is wrong with people?
Thank you Dr Becky! Instead of sensationalizing the findings and jumping to conclusions, you point out the uncertainties and next questions that are raised. You do us non-scientists a great service!
As a layman, I don't understand all of it, but with Dr. Beckys delivery being so brilliant, I understand some of it. Thank you, Dr. B., I learn more with each and every video. ❤
Because, for the longest time, elementary astrophysics science has been plagued with content deemed certitudes, in colleges, while being mere educated guesses.
I subscribe to ~200 RUclips channels, most of them lapsed. The time elapsed between my receiving notification of, and clicking on, a newly posted video is the shortest for your channel - almost instantaneous. Keep up the awesome work!
RUclips unscribes people from channels frequently or refuses to deliver notifications, and deletes comments. This site isn't about sharing information and knowledge, it's about controlling what can be shared.
@@aaronperelmuter8433 I'm up to 480 subscribed channels. Many of them are either math-y or science-y, but and a lot are about video games or books or fantasy, or this twink archer that does rolls around and shoots stuff upside-down, I could easily name more than 20 general genres of channels I subscribe to, each with many channels in each genre. I mean, Anton, Derik, Becky, every SciShow channel they ever made, Mehdi, Hank, all the late nights, god the list just keeps going.
As a data analyst I found this really fascinating, watching you pick apart those very dense charts. It's so easy for a weird chart axis, or a lack of knowledge about where a benchmark comes from, to completely mess up your understanding of what a chart is telling you. I would never have known the context about the TNG models and the fitting of models to Hubble observation. I didn't even notice the change in the cosmic age axis. Also, unrelated but I just love seeing cool scifi-sounding terms like "protogalactic fragments" 😁. Anyway, just wanted to say this is my favourite kind of video that you do - listening to actual expertise from an actual expert.
Great video. Thank you. Also thanks to McGraugh et al. You have done a great job of showing how complicated and interwoven things get when necessary assumptions are used. No soundbites here (other than 'it's really exciting'). And I particularly like your conclusion: Not 'which theory is correct', but 'which theory supports the observations best.' Excellent.
Agree. The explanation of the subtleties of knowledge of evidence for something, and for the negation of something, is very well done. I think Dr Becky helps the public understand the scientific method and how theories (even well supported at a given time) are provisional.
Sabine Hossenfelder put out a video (that I likely grossely misinterpreted as) saying MOND is the thing now, and then Dr. Becky saves the day by pointing out the most scientific answer: "We dunno yet." That's a great thing and I'm here for it. I love the perspectives and interpretations of the data and research. Great video!
I don't think Sabine comes down conclusively, just leans that way - for now. I don't see a major conflict. All are up in the air but have their leanings - until new data changes their mind.
Sabine, who I've followed for almost all of her RUclips career, has flip-flopped on the idea a number of times. On the whole I think she leans towards MOND, but she's very open to alternate postulates. This is how she put it one day: Dark matter supposes a new particle, while MOND supposes a new field. New particles that influence spacetime so strongly should be relatively easy to find, but fields that work on such large distances by their very nature will be difficult to study. This is why I err on the side of MOND rather than Dark Matter. But nobody really knows, although a lot of people talk like they do.
Go Dr Becky, go! This is the most amazingly comprehensive collection of all of the current data applied to all of the current models that I have ever seen! Thank you!
These are the kinds of videos that i subscribed to you for. Thank you so much for sharing your years of experience and taking the time to explain things. The sensationalism in much of my science feed that I used to love has really discouraged my willingness to watch a lot of science communicators lately.
wow, this video is probably the best piece of science communication media i've seen all year in terms of clarity and presentation. your work is truly astounding!!
This channel is the best Astro seminar I’ve been in, and I have a phd in physics (in hep). Learning a lot from your videos, thank you for your clear and deep explanations!
What a wonderful explanation. I was so frustrated with all the panic and felt that in time we would begin to understand what was really going on in the early universe! Your coverage of the assumptions being made in interpreting the data and the complexity that causes in our interpretations. And your detailing of other factors that could lead us to misinterpret these early galleries as over massive: incorrect distribution of stars, unusual about of massive bright stars, or light from the effects of a growing black hole at the center of the galaxy. All new information to me although I’ve done a lot of reading it this area. Just a marvelous podcast. So very informative. Also love the part about MOD as an alternative answer. Just awesome!❤
Sooo grateful to be able to listen to your views. There are so many posts that make extravagant claims about new research with eye catching headlines to draw in viewers (Like ‘JWST proves scientists have been wrong all along’) and similar. THANK YOU:-)
It is genuinely cool to me the way you talk about research results and interpretations in a way that is 1. Digestible to a non-expert like me 2. Exciting and compelling 3. Deeply imbued with the scientific method I feel like its such a hard balance to strike, especially getting that excitement aspect while paying full respect to the way evidence-based science actually goes down in practice
@@DrBeckyThanks for the video. I point out you fail to mention why MOND doesn’t have hugely expensive simulations run with it. Money. IE: one of the main reasons you don’t like this result is that it hasn’t had 1000 post docs working on it for two decades. Classical Kuhn!
I was one of the the (apparently many) people asking about just this thing. Thanks for clarifying this and especially, how bloody hard it is to make meaningful observations at these kind of distances.
Thank you Becky. You are really good on explanations. Thank you for that i dont have to read all theese heavy sience reports (of which i mostly dont understand a thing) as long as you explain it so easy to understand and very interesting. Thank you for generously sharing with us all your hard work. You are a bright star 🌟🙏🏻
Thanks for another fantastic video, Dr. Becky! You're truly one of the best at explaining complex topics. I was just wondering why isn't the age of the universe being questioned in light of this new data? Could the universe be older than we currently think, giving those early galaxies more time to form? I’m sure researchers are exploring other possible explanations to reconcile these findings, but I haven’t come across any videos discussing this yet. Thanks again!
I hear in your voice an excitement about science that makes someone want to do more exploration. I feel like we've lost the wonder of the universe which drives us to discovery.
Wow, super super fantastic video. I hardly understand any of the technical stuff, but you do a great job at explaining what it means. Space has always fascinated me, thank you for your work and for sharing your expertise.
Thank you Dr becky. I look forward to every educational and informative piece of work that you put out the benefit all of us in RUclips land.. once again thank you and I look forward to every post you make young lady🤙🤑💯
Since I have been a detractor before (over the whole BetterHelp thing), I think it's only fair to say that I thoroughly approve of sponsors that position themselves as luxury goods, and then actually deliver. Even if I lack the disposable income, I don't feel like there is anything shady going on. They're just not for me at the moment and that's fine. Many people say "every sponsor sucks", and I suppose if we saw ads for these pens _everywhere,_ I'd probably agree. But they're targeting wisely, and I want other people who have been critical in the past to notice this. _It is possible_ to be a non-shady sponsor. It just doesn't scale, because the moment you succeed too much, you chase away your original market. As Yogi Berra put it, "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."
You’re the best Dr. Becky! I love when I see a science communicator forego the spectacular clickbait and take a calm, reasoned, thorough, and nuanced look at the data. Yes! This is a really exciting time in cosmology. We don’t need clickbait conspiracy theories to make this spectacular news.
Another contender to MOND and dark matter is the Wolfram physics project! Interestingly, Wolfram in a recent video, suggested that what we think of as dark matter, could possibly be similar to brownian motion we see from molecules et al. That is underlying graph structure causes the effects we see that we currently associate with dark matter. It’s an interesting idea they are formulating.
I think people have calculated that these potential hypergraph artifacts would be incredibly small and far from sufficient to explain dark matter. But I'd be happy to be convinced. I'd like Wolfram to be correct but I don't find him convincing enough so far
This is such a great video. As a non-scientist who has been fascinated for years about the nature of dark matter/energy - Watching the debate to see if the answer lies in new theories or better observations is just so interesting.
Great to see you covering this! Take note too that MOND predicts that the reionization era happened earlier that LCDM says. Also, I wonder how all the gravitational lensing caused by these big galaxies affect the CMB measurements...
@@esecallumWeirdly consistent artefacts? The cameras are noise calibrated, and the data we collect does come with uncertainty, but the CMB falls beyond the uncertainty. If artefacts, please explain the redshifted nature of the CMB?
Maybe you're confusing it for Dark Energy. Dark Matter and MOND are two different specific proposals for explaining what we see in the gravitational behavior of galaxies. Dark Matter says there is matter that does not interact with electromagnetic fields but does have mass, while MOND says there's no matter but actually gravity itself just behaves differently at large distances.
I wouldn't mind Dark Matter so much if that was the case in more of its explanations, but there are certain properties that are expected of "Dark Matter" that make it dissatisfyingly exotic.
I believe that neither MOND nor LCDM are on the right track. And yet, they seem to be wrong by just the same 'margin of error', so they can make similar (unjustified) claims.
No, it's very specific set of theories which account for confusing observations by asserting that some kind of extra matter is in galaxies. But there are alternate theories which do not propose extra matter to explain the observations.
this is absolutely amazing. I'm a biologist, and english is not my first language, so I find this topic very hard to understand. I'm always watching videos of scientists vs intelligent design advocators, and I almost never really understand what the scientists are saying. so I'm blown away by how good your explanation is. thank you so much for this! it would be great if this video was subtitled in other languages!!!
every time dark matter is mentioned dr becky links to a previous video explaining a lot of the evidence that we have for dark matter and why actual experts in the field prefer it over other theories, and despite all that, a big chunk of the comments is still always "I don't know much about this topic but I just feel like dark matter isn't real, have people considered this?". what people need to realize is that they're not unique or special for having thought of this, and that actual astrophysicists with all the background and expertise have also thought of this and have tried to explain it away and YET it's still the preferred theory to this day
I think dark matter is an exercise in circular reasoning, and is probably one of the most scientifically backwards assumptions I've ever seen. We see extra gravity, and gravitational effects in places we hadn't expected, and we say "there must be mass here! We just can't see it". Everyone goes. Ok, what proof do you have? And they are told "look at all these examples of gravity working like there is more mass!". Yeah, that's why people came up with dark matter. We had more gravity than there should have been. That's not proof of unknown mass. The hypothesis used to explain something can't reference what it's explaining for proof. Being somewhat wrong about how gravity works should be the default explanation. We should require hard evidence before we assume there is some exotic matter that makes up most of the matter in the universe. The error is that we don't need a better explanation to take dark matter as the accepted answer. "I don't know" works just fine as a default position. Dark matter should really be treated as a totally unsupported hypothesis. There isn't an ounce of evidence to suggest that this is due to exotic matter, compared to other explanations we may not yet understand.
This feels like a response to Sabine Hossenfelders outlandish claims that no one was looking into MOND, and that MOND did all the data better. Glad to see Becky clear the air there
@@oystercatcher943 I have to admit that I don't watch her videos. Never have seen a single one. I've read a few of her books, a mixed bag. Still, her point is valid.
I just know that eventually an image of the entire universe will reveal that the patterns of galaxies along all the webs spell out... "Drink Coca-Cola"
No, that was what the Soviets thought the plan was in the 1960's. The joke goes like this: "Comrade. did you hear the Americans are panting the Moon red?" "Why would they do that? Red is the color of Soviet flag." "Yes, but is also the color of corporate symbol of Coca Cola." ...and when the CEO of Coca Cola heard that joke, he thought for a minute and went... "Naaaah."
@@ladamyre1 I recall there was a company in the 1980s or 1990s that explored using the Moon as a billboard by spreading a thin layer of carbon black particles across the surface. There might have been a plan to "wipe" the surface to replace one corporate message with another.
I would love to hear your take on Neil Turok's theory. His theory does not require the definition of new particles to merge quantum mechanics and relativity. Also, dark matter is explained by a flavour of Neutrinos.
We should take both theories with teaspoons full of salt. I tend to think that some of the assumptions we are making such as the cosmological principle are part of the problem.
Agreed. I'd extend that to even the concepts of Zero and Infinity. We sure like to use both in equations, without having proven if either really exist while they also nullify each other
But if they provide simple solutions such as inert gas evenly distributed around galaxies, instead of "dark matter, dark energy, and singularities," then their funding will decrease.
I've heard for decades about how there were experiments ongoing to prove dark matter exists and how they'd prove it within the next year... they never actually manage to make those experiments work!
thank you for using a soft color/pattern on the background of graphs and screenshots, instead of just solid white or black. makes it a lot more comfortable on the eyes :)
I can believe lambda cdm may not have everything figured out, but going with mond is like bringing back slightly better epicycles to explain inconsistencies in mercury’ orbit.
@@vanessacherche6393 This assumes Lamda-CDM is trying to be a complete model. It makes no such claim - it is a current best fit model for the observable and observed universe which is refined with each observation. Despite your MOND comparison reading like a triggered response, I would be fascinated to read how you reconcile the comparison.
@@vanessacherche6393- yet I feel that Dark Matter is more like epicycles because it's inventing something outside the Standard Model that, almost by definition, we can't detect.
@@adrianbruce2963 I see the hypothesis of dark matter as balancing the equation. Could there be a deeper understanding that takes dm and explains what we’ve missed? I hope so, but I doubt mond will ever be that. Newtonian dynamics are a really good approximation, but are fundamentally incorrect. Without taking general relativity into account, an approach will never give a deeper understanding. Mond could still be useful as an approximation.
Wtf kinda brain dead logic is that xD look back to when dark matter and energy was proposed and know they tried that for decades leading to stagnation and the data you seen in this video its a dead horse and even then its not a horse but a greyhound way past its prime @@Aizetone
@@Goryus It's in the name, MOdified Newtonian Dynamics. There are some relativistic expansions, but they don't agree with observations. Every test we have come up with agrees strongly with GR, so it is extremely difficult to come up with a relativistic theory of gravity that isn't GR and yet agrees with experiments.
Short answer is Newtonian dynamics are an approximation of general relativity. And simple changes to it like turning a constant into a variable doesn't actually change the relativistic equations..
I'm totally clueless about the facts. Quantum physics and relativity is beyond me. I've tried to understand them, but gave up and studied technology instead. But I've always felt iffy about dark energy and dark matter, way before the crisis in cosmology. They don't sit right with me. But MOND has always struck me as a sticks-'n-duct tape model to understand the universe. My gut feeling has always been that (some of) what we think of as constants, may only (have been) constant for a given point in the expansion of the universe. I'm definitely just clueless, but I would have wished someone could debunk that option, that some constants are just variables.
So there are people that have hypothesized that some of the constants aren't actually constant, and in fact several people believe that dark energy can change over time (DESI says it might fit the data but is not sure yet), but the thing is, we just don't have enough data, the error bars are too big on this stuff. We just need more observations.
@@ericvilas Yeah we are definitely detecting some sort of phenomena, we just don't know enough yet to be satisfied what it is. Dark Energy and Dark Matter can just be place holders. Same thing happened in Newtons day - nails gravity until someone notices Mercury is not behaving. Along comes Einstein and again nails gravity, then someone notices galaxies are not behaving. Some one will eventually come along and straighten that all out..... fingers crossed lol
Both dark energy and dark matter are names for sets of observations, not hypotheses made out of whole cloth. So if the present theories don't sit well with you, you have to come up with something that explains the observations.
@@minugoa I think I know the episode you mean... I found that one pretty egregious myself. I'm pretty sure Dr Becky is referring to it in this episode and in her pinned comment too.
I'm not a physicist but I absolutely remember a decade or so ago MOND being called nonsense, pseudoscientific and fringe science... I first heard about it quite a long time ago, and at the time people researching it or believing in it were treated like conspiracy theorists and ridiculed in interviews with popular physicists on TV.
It's still not highly regarded. MOND struggles to account for the dynamics of galaxy clusters without additional unseen mass, suggesting the presence of dark matter or other modifications. Observations of the CMB and large-scale structure formation are better explained by the standard model of cosmology, which includes dark matter, rather than MOND. MOND does not match the data as much as the standard model of cosmology.
Plate tectonics were treated the same way for decades. Sadly Wikipedia really doesn't do the ostracization of those researching the subject justice. Always best to keep an open mind, or at least I do my best to. We really just don't know until we have the evidence and exhausted the possibilities we can think of. In the end, that's why we have so few "laws" and so many "theories" even if they're generally accepted to be true. Discovering new possibilities is the fun part of science!
@@TheArikast scientific theories don't become laws when proven, that is a common misconception, the shortest form i've seen the distinction explained is "a law is what happens and a theory is why it happens", hence why plate tectonics is still a theory
@@XellithUS We have to keep in mind that MOND is what Sabine worked in her time, so she's a bit biased towards it. At the same time, there is no theory for dark mater (what is it made of? Why is it dark?), so MOND is an interesting avenue that should be investigated. At least in my amateur opinion
Thank you Dr. Becky for this review of the McGaugh+24 paper. There is a lot of work to be done to resolve some of the bigger unanswered questions with MOND, such as how gravitational lensing occurs or why the mass distribution in the Bullet cluster does not match the light distribution? Λ-CDM easily describes these, however, Λ-CDM does not do well with dwarf galaxies (core-cusp and number) or the too-big-to-fail problem. I share your excitement about seeing science happen in real time. With JWST it might turn out that the more you know, the less you know.
That pen is absolutely not an invention from 2022, I used to have those pens when I was a child and in-fact threw two of them in the garbage bin a few days ago when I was clearing out the garage! Back in the day those were just free gift pens, worth about 25 cent each including mark-up.
@thekaxmax and honestly, those things were dirt cheap when I was a child... that was 30+ years ago. When I look up these pens today, it is pure hipster cashgrabs.
I know all you scientist are always looking for answers, but do you get more or less excited when new observations bring up more questions than answers?
Less excited. Because now there's going to be more naysayers, science haters and conspiracy theory nuts pissing on science. They just get in the way of progress.
I don’t understand. Doesn’t the fact that gravitational effects don’t always distribute with visible matter mean that dark matter has to exist?. No version of MOND could possibly explain such distributions. If MOND is true it surely has to be another effect alongside dark matter?
There was paper that shown that there is no MOND, at least for binaries that are far apart. I know because I wanted to write thesis about MOND but prof came out with bad news. But I still hope there is something to it
Which gravitational effects specifically? My guess is that gravitational lensing effects will be hard to explain with MOND but gravitational effects within galaxies will be easier to explain with MOND.
Well, there is another paper that shows that there is MOND, at least gor binaries that are far apart. So is too soon to expect the binaries decides the winner... at least one had already made up its mind.
@@davegold I think gravitational lensing is opposite of MOND because lenses are very massive objects curving the path of light while MOND is for very very weak gravitational attraction. And in the middle there''s Newton
Totally non-trained person in this space, so basically just someone who's really interested in 'space stuff', but I don't think dark matter exists. I think there's some 'weirdness' going on that gives rise to the impression of matter being there when it isn't. I just hope I live long enough to find out either way!
You have. Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. But don't look for it in the peer-approved literature, which is desperate to keep Big Bang nonsense alive.
Same here. Biologist by academic training (franchise sales by future career…wonderful how those degrees work out for us), not cosmology, I’ve said for a couple decades it has to be some emergent property of gravity. Imagine my delighted surprise when in the last year I’ve started paying attention to astrophysics and cosmology that I discovered there actually was something out there called MOND!😅
What if it's just the remaining aether of the early universe before light started to shine through? The various gasses and dusts and stuff that just straight up never congealed to anything?
@@shanekeenaNYC the aether doesn't exist, it was what the MME disproved and the only thing ir disproved, yet something different is claimed out of it and the one thing that it did actually disprove is somehow forgoten, well, not by me, the aether was disproven. we don't know when the early universe was, if it even exists.
It is incredible how for science has taken us, given that all observations are made basically in one spot in space and time. I love the back and forth between theoretical physics and experimental physics. The latter have the task of confirming or (in my view even more importantly) trying to break theories.
@@danilooliveira6580 The Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) s a scientific theory proposed by Moti Milgrom as a solution to the missing mass problem in extragalactic astronomy. Rather than invoking some invisible form of dark matter, it hypothesizes a subtle change to the effective force law at extremely low accelerations (< 10-10 m/s/s). The scientific hypothesis regarding dark matter proposes that a mysterious, invisible substance exists which does not interact with light or electromagnetic radiation, but exerts gravitational influence, making up a significant portion of the universe's mass and explaining observed gravitational anomalies in galaxies and galaxy clusters; the most prevalent theory is that dark matter consists of yet-to-be-discovered subatomic particles like weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) or axions.
I'm a huge fan of the 'Max Planck energy' of just drawing a few lines that accurately solve the problem and then worrying if you've broken all of current scientific understanding next week. Or probably more like next year at this point. New century, new science! Incredible video, incredible topic that is developing incredibly.
Right. Agreeing with some data (as interpreted) isn't evidence to support a curve-fitting theory like BBT. Physical evidence is needed, like actually finding dark matter.
Thank you for the video. I am a solar physicist so I only fully understand part of what you discuss, but huge swathes of stuff I have no clue about. I love these videos, so well presented whilst respecting the complexity you probably need multiple PhDs to wrap your head around! I would love to suggest a topic for one of your future videos - *overfitting*. It is my main concern when I read these papers about DM or MOND etc, there are so many more free parameters in the models than observables it is hard for me to not be skeptical about any of the results! You touched on it in this video, where the λ-CDM model is calibrated precisely onto near-universe observations. It is my main hangup with λ-CDM, since I would argue there are enough levers hidden (e.g. spatial distribution of DM halo; growth rates etc) to fit any data with no issue. It would be fantastic to hear your thoughts, as somebody who understands these models much better than me. It would also be fantastic to hear how you break down the pitfall of overfitting in a way the public can understand, you have a real gift for this - and I would shamelessly copy (with citation of course)!
The solar model was merely an hypothesis for decades after Bethe. And then the 'neutrino problem' threw doubt on it. That got sorted eventually, when people finally took Pontecorvo's ideas seriously, and tested them. That is where DM is. The lensing observations of colliding clusters show us that the bulk of the mass is separated in these collisions. It is not separated in non-colliding clusters. That takes a heck of a lot of explaining unless you invoke a particle with mass that cannot be detected. Finding what that particle is could take something a lot more powerful than CERN. It is still the best and most parsimonious explanation.
Thanks for making this very professional, very informative video that I assume is a response to Sabine Hossenfelder's ridiculous claim that JWST scientists forged data to cover up that MOND is a better model.
What video is this? If you are referring to the video entitled "Webb Falsified Dark Matter Prediction - And No One Cares", then your claim misrepresents the points made in the video. If it is something else, please post the title or link.
Thanks for this summary and the caveats about taking stuff out of context. It's important to be clear about what we know and don't know and you do a great job of that. I love that you're talking about MOND in spite of (as you've covered in previous videos) it's inability to explain some known facts (in it's current form), especially in a video talking about how current models are also failing to explain some known facts. Science is SO _exciting!_ Barely apropos to the video, I wish when you mentioned general relativity you'd mention the context as well and that it's been well tested within it's applicable domain. You and others in your field know about the in-applicability mathematically of the equations when trying to discuss behavior in domains either smaller than the Planck distance or more curved than the Planck distance, and that attempts to use them there lead to singularities. Certainly you don't have to explain all that, but it would be nice to just mention something like, "with it's applicable domain," like undergrads are taught to be careful of.
It will be more exciting if you look beyond these two failed theories. Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe, based on proven EM forces -- no "dark" stuff needed.
I went to Secondary School and although they might be trained smarter they still don't know the answer, and relying on basically two blokes Newton and Einstein (All the rest just proved that either one was correct in this or that section basically), well I can do that come up with an answer that is not correct that is! It might take me a little longer to think of a reason why my version of the galaxy doesn't work though but there's always AI, and if that's the best version so far which costs god knows how much Blimey Charlie we are in for a long wait, unlike Newton and Einstein they observe but they do not 🙈!?!
@@ttyler2987 I did learn it in high school, but only because I took physics. Which was an elective, the kids that didn't take that class didn't learn it. How is this possible? Because I went to a shit high school.
There seems to be some law of the universe that states that the less you know about some particular thing, the more sure you are that your standpoint is correct. I like that you tend to stay in the analog domain when discussing fits, rather than going all digital. You not only point out the caveats, but go into how, often, assumptions for parameters that feed into the conclusion can change just a bit, and suddenly fits go south, and non fits slide right in.
You should make a video about astrophysics graphs. Why do they always look like someone blasted a piece of graph paper with a shotgun? Then they put some arbitrary line over the plot and claim "model of the universe #1" seems to fit the data best. Like sure it does, lets just ignore the giant error bars on every data point. I'm sure the results are legit but as a layman, it just looks like you forced some polynomial to fit a couple of the points. What's the Rsquared on these plots??
I mean I understand that, I’m just saying they never look convincing because it looks like you took a shotgun to graph paper stuck a line over it and say “this model fits!”.
LOL. I just searched RUclips for "how best fit models works" to see if there were any videos on the subject. There are a few, but the results included mostly, um, videos of "fit models" (nothing too racy if you have your safesearch on).
yeah，after watching sabine"s video, I was like, how come this channel not specifically on this problem, and I actually searched for the related content, today finally we have it
If you mean articles of the type "the secret THEY are trying to keep from you", I agree. If you are talking about the main alternative theories, Dr. B did not do that.
What would you rather call it, invisible matter, hidden Mass, shadow matter, non-luminous matter, the dark force? It's the simplest term, for likely a highly complex field.
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus They don't have an issue with the name, they just hope it's not the explanation for the discrepancy. And I agree because that means more new science to explore.
@@Soken50dark matter, as you know, it's simply a moniker. If it turns out to be "dark matter", we still don't know how it was formed, it's complexities, or if it's mathematically explainable in all cases. That would result in the science you're looking for.
Thank you for explaining this with such clarity and enthusiasm. And for putting in the links to the source papers. I have only just found your channel, Dr. Becky, and I look forward to catching up as many of your videos as I can. Where's that SUBSCRIBE button....?
Well that goes without saying. I've got a piece of fish in the back of my refrigerator that is probably beyond the use-by date that's greater than NDT.
Lol i had that pen on my Amazon wish list for years and never heard anyone ever mention it and suddenly this year I'm seeing RUclips sponsors for it everywhere
Every time we cook up a invisible, undetectable force or soup of 'stuff' that everything we do see is supposed to be affected by, be it Akasha, Quintessence or Aether, later science disproves it. The idea that this something is undetectable, uninteractable, unwhateverable except to specifically fix a rather specific problem in our theories and models is such a red flag. The tricky thing is that its so hard to disprove such a nebulous thing.
Except that it's the other way around this time. We didn't posit something being there and then went looking for it, we went in thinking there was nothing, only to have the data scream at us that yes, there was. Everything after that simply follows the duck principle.
You have it the wrong way around. We observe the universe through through the standard model and make predictions based on it. This standard model that works for most things suddenly is producing inaccurate results to our actual observations. Dark matter isn't any one thing. It's simply "our standard model is failing us, so there must be some other factor". Even saying "the standard model is flawed" is a theory of dark matter. You can't even say dark matter is a theory because there is no unifying dark matter theory. It's a laundry list of unanswered questions and things that don't add up.
In this wonky weird world we live in, it's wonderful to be be reminded that there are new and exciting things to learn, and clever, cautious teams of people working to extract these deeply embedded nuggets of evidence. You do that so well, DrBecky, thank you!
For those who didn't watch until the end: You can’t just take any one of these plots from McGaugh and collaborators out of context and jump to "JWST falsifying dark matter". We don’t have enough evidence to claim that, at least not yet. MOND is actively being researched in universities and institutions around the world; it is not something that is being swept under the rug or ignored. MOND is a hypothesis that needs more work as it currently fails to explain some observations of the universe. Our currently accepted model is λ-CDM (using Einstein's theory of general relativity to explain gravity) because it can explain more of our observations of the Universe than any other model we have.
@@DrBecky falsification is not necessarily black and white. So it's not wrong to say something is falsified if falsifyinv evidence is presented.
I find it interesting as in a way, we are back to the original question from many decades ago, which is: there's something that we can't (properly) detect.
The model has to be known and actively explored before it can be ruled out. The well for dark matter cause is drying up -- what then.
The locating of dark matter is via gravitational lensing. Thus it is assumed this is accomplished by a mass, unseen. This is an extension of why there is an apparent violation of angular momentum involving inner galactic stars. This slowing is believed caused by an phantom mass. There is another plausible reason. One that is not on the radar of grants. It could be simple optical bending caused by denser space. Space has been denser in an earlier time. So thinking that denser space can not exist, well, is nonsense. How it becomes denser is a lack an understanding. Apparently applying the 'Pauli exclusion' principle isn't in the tool set. As mass accumulates in a volumn of space, it pushes out other particles forming a halo around stellar structures -- denser space. Again this halo is observed by presumed gravitational lensing when it is simple optical lensing. The bullet cluster and others have proven this halo can detach from the parent matter. This detachment of halos, rogue ones, is responsible for vanishing and phantom stellar structure observations but having currently an unknown cause.
@@TheObserver-h7c What???
23:53 Save yourself the trouble and call it "J-dubs" like the cool kids do.
No sweeping , biased over simplified sensationalist conclusion drawn here, just the facts born from observation. Delivered with infectious passion. My thanks.
She is still defending the orthodoxy. Sabine is right. A huge amount of money spent looking for dark matter with nothing but negative results.
When you fill out one theory with caution and caveats and scrutiny under a microscope; and the other theory pretty much gets a pass, then I'll call that bias. MoND is always treated with a grain of salt while LCDM is accepted as "the best we know so far".
facts from observation .., hmm no need more? like doin it for real in the real world , and come up with solid proof , and no one can debunk it , then its way better : ) cheers , big up .
@@roderickbeck8859What are you talking about? You’re the one that’s clearly showing bias! All she’s doing is staying “scientific”. Consume all the data, analyze the data, test the data, etc., before you make foolish statements, just as you’ve just done. Bad form, mate, bad form.
@@FactsNotPropoganda Science probably needs a leap. Not more walking down a dark road going nowhere.
I'm just very appreciative of Dr. Becky's pedagogical skills. Not just that she teaches with such clarity and ardor; even little things like the way she spells out her outline for the lesson before she begins. Every teacher should do this...
Steady on. She's no Richard Feynman or Walter Lewin.
You used AI to write this comment. Sheesh.
@ No. No, I didn’t. As a teacher, I just really appreciate her approach.
@@Eztoez Which is why I didn't say that she was. I expressed some very restrained appreciation for her approach. That's all. What is wrong with people?
Or the fact that her logic is flawed in the fact that her own logic ruins her own suggestion
Thank you Dr Becky! Instead of sensationalizing the findings and jumping to conclusions, you point out the uncertainties and next questions that are raised. You do us non-scientists a great service!
This, ladies and gentlemen is proper science communication.Thank you Dr Becky.
As a layman, I don't understand all of it, but with Dr. Beckys delivery being so brilliant, I understand some of it. Thank you, Dr. B., I learn more with each and every video. ❤
I would take Dr. Becky any time of the day over NDT.
@@jorgen7180 Becky is hands down a better teacher, she's not egotistical, and she has not turned into a woke nut as NDT has.
Yes, also much better than Sabine's video
Because, for the longest time, elementary astrophysics science has been plagued with content deemed certitudes, in colleges, while being mere educated guesses.
I subscribe to ~200 RUclips channels, most of them lapsed. The time elapsed between my receiving notification of, and clicking on, a newly posted video is the shortest for your channel - almost instantaneous. Keep up the awesome work!
I suppose it's a pro of being less popular channel...
WTF?? How could you possibly have found THAT many channels you thought are worth watching? I only subscribe to 5 or 6 channels. 🤯
@@aaronperelmuter8433 There are a whole load of channels that make somewhat good to extremely good content.
RUclips unscribes people from channels frequently or refuses to deliver notifications, and deletes comments. This site isn't about sharing information and knowledge, it's about controlling what can be shared.
@@aaronperelmuter8433 I'm up to 480 subscribed channels. Many of them are either math-y or science-y, but and a lot are about video games or books or fantasy, or this twink archer that does rolls around and shoots stuff upside-down, I could easily name more than 20 general genres of channels I subscribe to, each with many channels in each genre. I mean, Anton, Derik, Becky, every SciShow channel they ever made, Mehdi, Hank, all the late nights, god the list just keeps going.
As a data analyst I found this really fascinating, watching you pick apart those very dense charts. It's so easy for a weird chart axis, or a lack of knowledge about where a benchmark comes from, to completely mess up your understanding of what a chart is telling you. I would never have known the context about the TNG models and the fitting of models to Hubble observation. I didn't even notice the change in the cosmic age axis. Also, unrelated but I just love seeing cool scifi-sounding terms like "protogalactic fragments" 😁. Anyway, just wanted to say this is my favourite kind of video that you do - listening to actual expertise from an actual expert.
Great video. Thank you. Also thanks to McGraugh et al.
You have done a great job of showing how complicated and interwoven things get when necessary assumptions are used. No soundbites here (other than 'it's really exciting'). And I particularly like your conclusion: Not 'which theory is correct', but 'which theory supports the observations best.'
Excellent.
Agree. The explanation of the subtleties of knowledge of evidence for something, and for the negation of something, is very well done. I think Dr Becky helps the public understand the scientific method and how theories (even well supported at a given time) are provisional.
Maybe dark matter is just hiding. If i had 85% of the mass of all matter i'd be pretty self conscious of my weight too.
"Does this dark colour make my mass look big?"
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Dark matter is slimming. This is known.
I think the galaxies are just trying to get away from all these unqualified unfunny comedians.
Fat matter?
Sabine Hossenfelder put out a video (that I likely grossely misinterpreted as) saying MOND is the thing now, and then Dr. Becky saves the day by pointing out the most scientific answer: "We dunno yet." That's a great thing and I'm here for it. I love the perspectives and interpretations of the data and research. Great video!
Sabine did not say it's mond but the data are closer to mond than to DM.
I don't think Sabine comes down conclusively, just leans that way - for now.
I don't see a major conflict. All are up in the air but have their leanings - until new data changes their mind.
Sabine, who I've followed for almost all of her RUclips career, has flip-flopped on the idea a number of times. On the whole I think she leans towards MOND, but she's very open to alternate postulates. This is how she put it one day: Dark matter supposes a new particle, while MOND supposes a new field. New particles that influence spacetime so strongly should be relatively easy to find, but fields that work on such large distances by their very nature will be difficult to study. This is why I err on the side of MOND rather than Dark Matter. But nobody really knows, although a lot of people talk like they do.
@@tarmaqueIt's obviously MOND, bro. Source: I'm an armchair scientist with no formal training 😎.
@@tarmaque I've even seen a suggestion using dark matter modeling theories as base for a modified gravity theory
Go Dr Becky, go! This is the most amazingly comprehensive collection of all of the current data applied to all of the current models that I have ever seen! Thank you!
These are the kinds of videos that i subscribed to you for. Thank you so much for sharing your years of experience and taking the time to explain things. The sensationalism in much of my science feed that I used to love has really discouraged my willingness to watch a lot of science communicators lately.
wow, this video is probably the best piece of science communication media i've seen all year in terms of clarity and presentation. your work is truly astounding!!
Thanks! Very kind words
This channel is the best Astro seminar I’ve been in, and I have a phd in physics (in hep). Learning a lot from your videos, thank you for your clear and deep explanations!
She in a class of her own when it comes to presenting these highly technical papers to the general public.
Truly compelling and captivating.
The BBC has certainly taken notice...
She's*
And she doesn't sound smug at all. There are a few science communicators out there that appear to love the smell of their own interstellar gas.
@@EnglishMike Did they offer her a TV deal or something?
@EnglishMike She should keep well away from the BBC.
What a wonderful explanation. I was so frustrated with all the panic and felt that in time we would begin to understand what was really going on in the early universe! Your coverage of the assumptions being made in interpreting the data and the complexity that causes in our interpretations. And your detailing of other factors that could lead us to misinterpret these early galleries as over massive: incorrect distribution of stars, unusual about of massive bright stars, or light from the effects of a growing black hole at the center of the galaxy. All new information to me although I’ve done a lot of reading it this area. Just a marvelous podcast. So very informative. Also love the part about MOD as an alternative answer. Just awesome!❤
Sooo grateful to be able to listen to your views. There are so many posts that make extravagant claims about new research with eye catching headlines to draw in viewers (Like ‘JWST proves scientists have been wrong all along’) and similar. THANK YOU:-)
It is genuinely cool to me the way you talk about research results and interpretations in a way that is
1. Digestible to a non-expert like me
2. Exciting and compelling
3. Deeply imbued with the scientific method
I feel like its such a hard balance to strike, especially getting that excitement aspect while paying full respect to the way evidence-based science actually goes down in practice
Merry Christmas.
Merry Christmas Michael Summers. Have a blessed day of your eye-opening week with a month of successful days
Thank you! And to you and yours
@@DrBecky No. Thank YOU, for years of amazing videos.
@@DrBeckyThanks for the video. I point out you fail to mention why MOND doesn’t have hugely expensive simulations run with it. Money. IE: one of the main reasons you don’t like this result is that it hasn’t had 1000 post docs working on it for two decades. Classical Kuhn!
I was one of the the (apparently many) people asking about just this thing. Thanks for clarifying this and especially, how bloody hard it is to make meaningful observations at these kind of distances.
Thanks for asking me to cover it!
Dr. Becky, I have to say that that paper rendering with light brown background with a shadow: aesthetic as hell, love it!
Thank you Becky. You are really good on explanations. Thank you for that i dont have to read all theese heavy sience reports (of which i mostly dont understand a thing) as long as you explain it so easy to understand and very interesting. Thank you for generously sharing with us all your hard work. You are a bright star 🌟🙏🏻
Thanks for another fantastic video, Dr. Becky! You're truly one of the best at explaining complex topics. I was just wondering why isn't the age of the universe being questioned in light of this new data? Could the universe be older than we currently think, giving those early galaxies more time to form? I’m sure researchers are exploring other possible explanations to reconcile these findings, but I haven’t come across any videos discussing this yet. Thanks again!
I hear in your voice an excitement about science that makes someone want to do more exploration. I feel like we've lost the wonder of the universe which drives us to discovery.
Wow, super super fantastic video. I hardly understand any of the technical stuff, but you do a great job at explaining what it means. Space has always fascinated me, thank you for your work and for sharing your expertise.
This Cosmos is really uncooperative.
😅 Yes why won't it agree with me😂
Maybe it just doesn't like us.
Sue it 😊
@@ravenmad9225 Probably. We on the whole aren't very likable.
Bit of a diva really, the cosmos; acts like it's the only one 😒.
Thanks for those great explanations Dr. Becky!
Fascinating! Thanks, dr. Becky! 😊
But... Where's the cat??? 😬
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Thank you Dr becky. I look forward to every educational and informative piece of work that you put out the benefit all of us in RUclips land.. once again thank you and I look forward to every post you make young lady🤙🤑💯
Since I have been a detractor before (over the whole BetterHelp thing), I think it's only fair to say that I thoroughly approve of sponsors that position themselves as luxury goods, and then actually deliver. Even if I lack the disposable income, I don't feel like there is anything shady going on. They're just not for me at the moment and that's fine.
Many people say "every sponsor sucks", and I suppose if we saw ads for these pens _everywhere,_ I'd probably agree. But they're targeting wisely, and I want other people who have been critical in the past to notice this. _It is possible_ to be a non-shady sponsor. It just doesn't scale, because the moment you succeed too much, you chase away your original market. As Yogi Berra put it, "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."
I've enjoyed watching videos with less problematic sponsors as well, and like the change.
Got me wondering whether or not those pens have a left handed version because the one depicted would be hell.
This Collaborators guy has an insane writing output. How does he even get to work on both sides of the argument!?! 😮
The duality of mankind: Collaborators vs Floridaman
You’re the best Dr. Becky! I love when I see a science communicator forego the spectacular clickbait and take a calm, reasoned, thorough, and nuanced look at the data. Yes! This is a really exciting time in cosmology. We don’t need clickbait conspiracy theories to make this spectacular news.
Rocket City Trash Pandas! My partner's dad works as an engineering contractor for NASA there. Love to see it!
Glad you recognised it haha!
Trash Pandas. Is that a nickname for the Astros? 😂
Great explanation! Thank you for making science more available for the general public, it is a huge inspiration :)
always double check when someone both presents you with a problem and they already "know" the solution.
Great explanation ! So exciting to see where this is going !
well of course, we had this exact same conversation at Thanksgiving, right after our annual political/religion debate....thank you Dr Becky 😉
Another great thought provoking webcast. Thank you for sharing your work with us all.
Another contender to MOND and dark matter is the Wolfram physics project!
Interestingly, Wolfram in a recent video, suggested that what we think of as dark matter, could possibly be similar to brownian motion we see from molecules et al. That is underlying graph structure causes the effects we see that we currently associate with dark matter. It’s an interesting idea they are formulating.
You mean the Gorard hypergraph work? Give the guy who actually came up with the bulk of the idea a bit of credit…
I think people have calculated that these potential hypergraph artifacts would be incredibly small and far from sufficient to explain dark matter. But I'd be happy to be convinced. I'd like Wolfram to be correct but I don't find him convincing enough so far
This is such a great video. As a non-scientist who has been fascinated for years about the nature of dark matter/energy - Watching the debate to see if the answer lies in new theories or better observations is just so interesting.
Great to see you covering this! Take note too that MOND predicts that the reionization era happened earlier that LCDM says. Also, I wonder how all the gravitational lensing caused by these big galaxies affect the CMB measurements...
mond is rubbish
CMB is digital artifacts from signal processing and is false
@@esecallum Re: CMB. No matter how often you say this, it doesn't make it any less wrong.
@@esecallumWeirdly consistent artefacts? The cameras are noise calibrated, and the data we collect does come with uncertainty, but the CMB falls beyond the uncertainty.
If artefacts, please explain the redshifted nature of the CMB?
@andr9285 They use the same software to produce the same 'results' a Japanese group used different software and got different results!!!!
I find this stuff very interesting and appreciate your ability to communicate it from the academic jargon.
The way I understood it, "Dark Matter" was just a placeholder for "There's something we don't understand here".
Maybe you're confusing it for Dark Energy. Dark Matter and MOND are two different specific proposals for explaining what we see in the gravitational behavior of galaxies. Dark Matter says there is matter that does not interact with electromagnetic fields but does have mass, while MOND says there's no matter but actually gravity itself just behaves differently at large distances.
I wouldn't mind Dark Matter so much if that was the case in more of its explanations, but there are certain properties that are expected of "Dark Matter" that make it dissatisfyingly exotic.
Sadly, millines gave been wasted in this crap
I believe that neither MOND nor LCDM are on the right track.
And yet, they seem to be wrong by just the same 'margin of error', so they can make similar (unjustified) claims.
No, it's very specific set of theories which account for confusing observations by asserting that some kind of extra matter is in galaxies. But there are alternate theories which do not propose extra matter to explain the observations.
this is absolutely amazing. I'm a biologist, and english is not my first language, so I find this topic very hard to understand. I'm always watching videos of scientists vs intelligent design advocators, and I almost never really understand what the scientists are saying. so I'm blown away by how good your explanation is. thank you so much for this!
it would be great if this video was subtitled in other languages!!!
every time dark matter is mentioned dr becky links to a previous video explaining a lot of the evidence that we have for dark matter and why actual experts in the field prefer it over other theories, and despite all that, a big chunk of the comments is still always "I don't know much about this topic but I just feel like dark matter isn't real, have people considered this?". what people need to realize is that they're not unique or special for having thought of this, and that actual astrophysicists with all the background and expertise have also thought of this and have tried to explain it away and YET it's still the preferred theory to this day
Kinda makes me feel like a Flat Earther. . .
evidence? isnt it only hinging on " movement is like that, without dark matter it would not make sense"
Dark matter would be weird as hell if it exists, but everything else is even weirder to explain if it doesn't exist
I think dark matter is an exercise in circular reasoning, and is probably one of the most scientifically backwards assumptions I've ever seen.
We see extra gravity, and gravitational effects in places we hadn't expected, and we say "there must be mass here! We just can't see it".
Everyone goes. Ok, what proof do you have? And they are told "look at all these examples of gravity working like there is more mass!". Yeah, that's why people came up with dark matter. We had more gravity than there should have been. That's not proof of unknown mass. The hypothesis used to explain something can't reference what it's explaining for proof.
Being somewhat wrong about how gravity works should be the default explanation. We should require hard evidence before we assume there is some exotic matter that makes up most of the matter in the universe.
The error is that we don't need a better explanation to take dark matter as the accepted answer. "I don't know" works just fine as a default position. Dark matter should really be treated as a totally unsupported hypothesis. There isn't an ounce of evidence to suggest that this is due to exotic matter, compared to other explanations we may not yet understand.
When your IQ is 115 but you're still predisposed to conspiracy theories
I really like the statistical analysis you bring to these publications!! Thanks Dr. Becky!
This feels like a response to Sabine Hossenfelders outlandish claims that no one was looking into MOND, and that MOND did all the data better. Glad to see Becky clear the air there
I feel like sometimes she jumps the gun because she's salty about quitting academia...
What Hossenfelders has repeatedly pointed out is the lack of evidence for anything since the Higgs Boson.
This is 100% a reply to Sabine's video.
I like Sabine but I'm getting a bit tired of the sensationalism. Becky conveys excitement and drama but with honesty
@@oystercatcher943 I have to admit that I don't watch her videos. Never have seen a single one. I've read a few of her books, a mixed bag. Still, her point is valid.
Thank you for explaining that data. Really highlights the room for more observation into early universe. Great video, thank you!
I just know that eventually an image of the entire universe will reveal that the patterns of galaxies along all the webs spell out... "Drink Coca-Cola"
I'm glad that you put the full force of your intellect into solving this problem.
Now we can just drop it and go about our lives.
"Be sure to drink your Ovaltine"
No, that was what the Soviets thought the plan was in the 1960's. The joke goes like this:
"Comrade. did you hear the Americans are panting the Moon red?"
"Why would they do that? Red is the color of Soviet flag."
"Yes, but is also the color of corporate symbol of Coca Cola."
...and when the CEO of Coca Cola heard that joke, he thought for a minute and went...
"Naaaah."
@@ladamyre1 I recall there was a company in the 1980s or 1990s that explored using the Moon as a billboard by spreading a thin layer of carbon black particles across the surface. There might have been a plan to "wipe" the surface to replace one corporate message with another.
It'll be that or a giant Amazon logo.
I would love to hear your take on Neil Turok's theory. His theory does not require the definition of new particles to merge quantum mechanics and relativity. Also, dark matter is explained by a flavour of Neutrinos.
We should take both theories with teaspoons full of salt. I tend to think that some of the assumptions we are making such as the cosmological principle are part of the problem.
Agreed. I'd extend that to even the concepts of Zero and Infinity. We sure like to use both in equations, without having proven if either really exist while they also nullify each other
But if they provide simple solutions such as inert gas evenly distributed around galaxies, instead of "dark matter, dark energy, and singularities," then their funding will decrease.
I've heard for decades about how there were experiments ongoing to prove dark matter exists and how they'd prove it within the next year... they never actually manage to make those experiments work!
Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. Based on proven EM forces, no "dark" stuff needed.
thank you for using a soft color/pattern on the background of graphs and screenshots, instead of just solid white or black. makes it a lot more comfortable on the eyes :)
What comes after MOND then, TUES obviously.
TUESD
Thanks Becky, I'll add this info to my cosmology lecture. That MOND graph is so interesting.
mond fits the data, dark matter does not, therefore science forces us to use mond to predict the universe. F A C T
Doesn't MOND have trouble with things like gravitational waves and gravitational lensing, though?
I can believe lambda cdm may not have everything figured out, but going with mond is like bringing back slightly better epicycles to explain inconsistencies in mercury’ orbit.
@@vanessacherche6393 This assumes Lamda-CDM is trying to be a complete model. It makes no such claim - it is a current best fit model for the observable and observed universe which is refined with each observation. Despite your MOND comparison reading like a triggered response, I would be fascinated to read how you reconcile the comparison.
@@bertram-raven where did i assume anything? i think you have a comprehension problem.
@@vanessacherche6393- yet I feel that Dark Matter is more like epicycles because it's inventing something outside the Standard Model that, almost by definition, we can't detect.
@@adrianbruce2963 I see the hypothesis of dark matter as balancing the equation. Could there be a deeper understanding that takes dm and explains what we’ve missed? I hope so, but I doubt mond will ever be that. Newtonian dynamics are a really good approximation, but are fundamentally incorrect. Without taking general relativity into account, an approach will never give a deeper understanding. Mond could still be useful as an approximation.
Thanks!
Thank you!
My face kinda dropped when I saw MOND appear again. "Aw shit, here we go again." lol
Lol, me too. 😂
That fucking theory. Keeps making predictions
Dark matter is much better, you can always add it where something is missing. But for some reason it is so elusive as if it does not exist.
Wtf kinda brain dead logic is that xD look back to when dark matter and energy was proposed and know they tried that for decades leading to stagnation and the data you seen in this video its a dead horse and even then its not a horse but a greyhound way past its prime @@Aizetone
of course, it is the accurate model of the universe
Great video as always, amazes me how we have access to this information presented in a high quality fashion for free
Can someone explain why MOND receives so much attention instead of, say, modifying general relativity?
Cos any attempt at coming up with a modified general relativity has failed to fit observation
Because MOND IS a modification of general relativity
@@thekaxmax a lot of them, but not all
@@Goryus It's in the name, MOdified Newtonian Dynamics. There are some relativistic expansions, but they don't agree with observations. Every test we have come up with agrees strongly with GR, so it is extremely difficult to come up with a relativistic theory of gravity that isn't GR and yet agrees with experiments.
Short answer is Newtonian dynamics are an approximation of general relativity. And simple changes to it like turning a constant into a variable doesn't actually change the relativistic equations..
Merry Christmas to you and your family. May your troubles be less and your blessings be more and nothing but happiness come through your door. 😊😊
I'm totally clueless about the facts. Quantum physics and relativity is beyond me. I've tried to understand them, but gave up and studied technology instead. But I've always felt iffy about dark energy and dark matter, way before the crisis in cosmology. They don't sit right with me. But MOND has always struck me as a sticks-'n-duct tape model to understand the universe. My gut feeling has always been that (some of) what we think of as constants, may only (have been) constant for a given point in the expansion of the universe. I'm definitely just clueless, but I would have wished someone could debunk that option, that some constants are just variables.
So there are people that have hypothesized that some of the constants aren't actually constant, and in fact several people believe that dark energy can change over time (DESI says it might fit the data but is not sure yet), but the thing is, we just don't have enough data, the error bars are too big on this stuff. We just need more observations.
@@ericvilas Yeah we are definitely detecting some sort of phenomena, we just don't know enough yet to be satisfied what it is. Dark Energy and Dark Matter can just be place holders. Same thing happened in Newtons day - nails gravity until someone notices Mercury is not behaving. Along comes Einstein and again nails gravity, then someone notices galaxies are not behaving. Some one will eventually come along and straighten that all out..... fingers crossed lol
Both dark energy and dark matter are names for sets of observations, not hypotheses made out of whole cloth.
So if the present theories don't sit well with you, you have to come up with something that explains the observations.
Feeling iffy isn't really a good standard for judging the validity of a scientific theory.
Just sayin'
@@thekaxmax You're missing the point I was making.
I love how you can make something like this understandable to me.
That's a good antidote to Sabine's hyperbole.
JUST watched one of Sabine's videos on dark matter and watching Dr. Becky's felt like a breath of fresh air 😭
Glad someone else finds her tiresome
@@minugoa I think I know the episode you mean... I found that one pretty egregious myself. I'm pretty sure Dr Becky is referring to it in this episode and in her pinned comment too.
Yeah… I very seldom select Sabine’s vids anymore
Thank you for the breakdown. Love your vids!
I'm not a physicist but I absolutely remember a decade or so ago MOND being called nonsense, pseudoscientific and fringe science... I first heard about it quite a long time ago, and at the time people researching it or believing in it were treated like conspiracy theorists and ridiculed in interviews with popular physicists on TV.
It's still not highly regarded.
MOND struggles to account for the dynamics of galaxy clusters without additional unseen mass, suggesting the presence of dark matter or other modifications.
Observations of the CMB and large-scale structure formation are better explained by the standard model of cosmology, which includes dark matter, rather than MOND.
MOND does not match the data as much as the standard model of cosmology.
Plate tectonics were treated the same way for decades. Sadly Wikipedia really doesn't do the ostracization of those researching the subject justice. Always best to keep an open mind, or at least I do my best to. We really just don't know until we have the evidence and exhausted the possibilities we can think of. In the end, that's why we have so few "laws" and so many "theories" even if they're generally accepted to be true. Discovering new possibilities is the fun part of science!
@@TheArikast scientific theories don't become laws when proven, that is a common misconception, the shortest form i've seen the distinction explained is "a law is what happens and a theory is why it happens", hence why plate tectonics is still a theory
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus What do you think of that video on MOND by Sabine Hossenfelder? "Webb Falsified Dark Matter Prediction - And No One Cares"
@@XellithUS We have to keep in mind that MOND is what Sabine worked in her time, so she's a bit biased towards it. At the same time, there is no theory for dark mater (what is it made of? Why is it dark?), so MOND is an interesting avenue that should be investigated.
At least in my amateur opinion
Thank you Dr. Becky for this review of the McGaugh+24 paper. There is a lot of work to be done to resolve some of the bigger unanswered questions with MOND, such as how gravitational lensing occurs or why the mass distribution in the Bullet cluster does not match the light distribution? Λ-CDM easily describes these, however, Λ-CDM does not do well with dwarf galaxies (core-cusp and number) or the too-big-to-fail problem. I share your excitement about seeing science happen in real time. With JWST it might turn out that the more you know, the less you know.
That pen is absolutely not an invention from 2022, I used to have those pens when I was a child and in-fact threw two of them in the garbage bin a few days ago when I was clearing out the garage!
Back in the day those were just free gift pens, worth about 25 cent each including mark-up.
The pen is new, not the holder.
Show me a 25c pen that fits the description
@thekaxmax whatever, a magnetically levitated pen is nothing new no matter what you added to it.
@thekaxmax and honestly, those things were dirt cheap when I was a child... that was 30+ years ago.
When I look up these pens today, it is pure hipster cashgrabs.
What a brilliant explanation. Thank you!
I know all you scientist are always looking for answers, but do you get more or less excited when new observations bring up more questions than answers?
I think in general more excited. Something more to learn and think. An other problem to work on etc
Less excited. Because now there's going to be more naysayers, science haters and conspiracy theory nuts pissing on science. They just get in the way of progress.
Loved the video. You lay the facts out well.
I don’t understand. Doesn’t the fact that gravitational effects don’t always distribute with visible matter mean that dark matter has to exist?. No version of MOND could possibly explain such distributions. If MOND is true it surely has to be another effect alongside dark matter?
My thoughts exactly. Probably MOND and DM are both contributing factors
There was paper that shown that there is no MOND, at least for binaries that are far apart. I know because I wanted to write thesis about MOND but prof came out with bad news. But I still hope there is something to it
Which gravitational effects specifically? My guess is that gravitational lensing effects will be hard to explain with MOND but gravitational effects within galaxies will be easier to explain with MOND.
Well, there is another paper that shows that there is MOND, at least gor binaries that are far apart. So is too soon to expect the binaries decides the winner... at least one had already made up its mind.
@@davegold I think gravitational lensing is opposite of MOND because lenses are very massive objects curving the path of light while MOND is for very very weak gravitational attraction. And in the middle there''s Newton
Now we need a video re Timescape! Many thanks.
Totally non-trained person in this space, so basically just someone who's really interested in 'space stuff', but I don't think dark matter exists. I think there's some 'weirdness' going on that gives rise to the impression of matter being there when it isn't. I just hope I live long enough to find out either way!
You have. Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. But don't look for it in the peer-approved literature, which is desperate to keep Big Bang nonsense alive.
Same here. Biologist by academic training (franchise sales by future career…wonderful how those degrees work out for us), not cosmology, I’ve said for a couple decades it has to be some emergent property of gravity. Imagine my delighted surprise when in the last year I’ve started paying attention to astrophysics and cosmology that I discovered there actually was something out there called MOND!😅
yes, is called mond by most people, it is a bad name, a better name is a galactic force, but yeah, that's what is causing it
What if it's just the remaining aether of the early universe before light started to shine through? The various gasses and dusts and stuff that just straight up never congealed to anything?
@@shanekeenaNYC the aether doesn't exist, it was what the MME disproved and the only thing ir disproved, yet something different is claimed out of it and the one thing that it did actually disprove is somehow forgoten, well, not by me, the aether was disproven. we don't know when the early universe was, if it even exists.
It is incredible how for science has taken us, given that all observations are made basically in one spot in space and time. I love the back and forth between theoretical physics and experimental physics. The latter have the task of confirming or (in my view even more importantly) trying to break theories.
It seems that MOND rises from the dead even more often than Dracula.
Because MOND is a scientific theory that can be tested and disproved, then reworked. Dark Matter, as Dr. Becky says, is an idea.
@@johnbox271 no ? Dark Matter is a theory, it's a scientific model that makes accurate predictions. MOND is an hypothesis.
@@danilooliveira6580 The Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) s a scientific theory proposed by Moti Milgrom as a solution to the missing mass problem in extragalactic astronomy. Rather than invoking some invisible form of dark matter, it hypothesizes a subtle change to the effective force law at extremely low accelerations (< 10-10 m/s/s).
The scientific hypothesis regarding dark matter proposes that a mysterious, invisible substance exists which does not interact with light or electromagnetic radiation, but exerts gravitational influence, making up a significant portion of the universe's mass and explaining observed gravitational anomalies in galaxies and galaxy clusters; the most prevalent theory is that dark matter consists of yet-to-be-discovered subatomic particles like weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) or axions.
I hope that M-theory stages a return at some point. I liked those curly strings and gradients.
@@danilooliveira6580 "dark matter hypothesis" vs Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) is a theory...
I'm a huge fan of the 'Max Planck energy' of just drawing a few lines that accurately solve the problem and then worrying if you've broken all of current scientific understanding next week. Or probably more like next year at this point. New century, new science!
Incredible video, incredible topic that is developing incredibly.
I think these graphs confirm that far too much emphasis has been placed on “curve fitting” mathematics in astrophysics over the past decade or so
Right. Agreeing with some data (as interpreted) isn't evidence to support a curve-fitting theory like BBT. Physical evidence is needed, like actually finding dark matter.
Thank you for the video. I am a solar physicist so I only fully understand part of what you discuss, but huge swathes of stuff I have no clue about. I love these videos, so well presented whilst respecting the complexity you probably need multiple PhDs to wrap your head around!
I would love to suggest a topic for one of your future videos - *overfitting*. It is my main concern when I read these papers about DM or MOND etc, there are so many more free parameters in the models than observables it is hard for me to not be skeptical about any of the results! You touched on it in this video, where the λ-CDM model is calibrated precisely onto near-universe observations. It is my main hangup with λ-CDM, since I would argue there are enough levers hidden (e.g. spatial distribution of DM halo; growth rates etc) to fit any data with no issue. It would be fantastic to hear your thoughts, as somebody who understands these models much better than me. It would also be fantastic to hear how you break down the pitfall of overfitting in a way the public can understand, you have a real gift for this - and I would shamelessly copy (with citation of course)!
The solar model was merely an hypothesis for decades after Bethe. And then the 'neutrino problem' threw doubt on it. That got sorted eventually, when people finally took Pontecorvo's ideas seriously, and tested them. That is where DM is. The lensing observations of colliding clusters show us that the bulk of the mass is separated in these collisions. It is not separated in non-colliding clusters. That takes a heck of a lot of explaining unless you invoke a particle with mass that cannot be detected. Finding what that particle is could take something a lot more powerful than CERN. It is still the best and most parsimonious explanation.
Thanks for making this very professional, very informative video that I assume is a response to Sabine Hossenfelder's ridiculous claim that JWST scientists forged data to cover up that MOND is a better model.
Lol... I commented on that and challenged her (SH) To produce any evidence of science publications forging or hiding data. She never replied.
happens all the time. 97% of research is fake falsified
Lol imagine believing in MOND when you still need dark matter, even with MOND, to account for different rotation curves
What video is this? If you are referring to the video entitled "Webb Falsified Dark Matter Prediction - And No One Cares", then your claim misrepresents the points made in the video. If it is something else, please post the title or link.
@@HunsterMonter mond is nonsense
Thanks for this summary and the caveats about taking stuff out of context. It's important to be clear about what we know and don't know and you do a great job of that. I love that you're talking about MOND in spite of (as you've covered in previous videos) it's inability to explain some known facts (in it's current form), especially in a video talking about how current models are also failing to explain some known facts. Science is SO _exciting!_
Barely apropos to the video, I wish when you mentioned general relativity you'd mention the context as well and that it's been well tested within it's applicable domain. You and others in your field know about the in-applicability mathematically of the equations when trying to discuss behavior in domains either smaller than the Planck distance or more curved than the Planck distance, and that attempts to use them there lead to singularities. Certainly you don't have to explain all that, but it would be nice to just mention something like, "with it's applicable domain," like undergrads are taught to be careful of.
It will be more exciting if you look beyond these two failed theories. Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe, based on proven EM forces -- no "dark" stuff needed.
@@williamschlosser Plasma cosmology is pure woo. It explains nothing.
"essentially you take Newton's equations to describe gravity that we all learn in high school"
I think you went to a better high school than I did.
That's taught in 10th grade science. It is a mandatory course. How did you not learn it? What did they teach instead?
I went to Secondary School and although they might be trained smarter they still don't know the answer, and relying on basically two blokes Newton and Einstein (All the rest just proved that either one was correct in this or that section basically), well I can do that come up with an answer that is not correct that is! It might take me a little longer to think of a reason why my version of the galaxy doesn't work though but there's always AI, and if that's the best version so far which costs god knows how much Blimey Charlie we are in for a long wait, unlike Newton and Einstein they observe but they do not 🙈!?!
@@ttyler2987 I did learn it in high school, but only because I took physics. Which was an elective, the kids that didn't take that class didn't learn it. How is this possible? Because I went to a shit high school.
I know, how sad is that? (I say as in it indeed isn't usually learnt in schools, I didn't learn them in school either)
There seems to be some law of the universe that states that the less you know about some particular thing, the more sure you are that your standpoint is correct. I like that you tend to stay in the analog domain when discussing fits, rather than going all digital. You not only point out the caveats, but go into how, often, assumptions for parameters that feed into the conclusion can change just a bit, and suddenly fits go south, and non fits slide right in.
You should make a video about astrophysics graphs. Why do they always look like someone blasted a piece of graph paper with a shotgun? Then they put some arbitrary line over the plot and claim "model of the universe #1" seems to fit the data best. Like sure it does, lets just ignore the giant error bars on every data point. I'm sure the results are legit but as a layman, it just looks like you forced some polynomial to fit a couple of the points. What's the Rsquared on these plots??
That line is the best fit to all of the most likely results. The error bars and spread of results are to show how trustworthy the line is.
I mean I understand that, I’m just saying they never look convincing because it looks like you took a shotgun to graph paper stuck a line over it and say “this model fits!”.
LOL. I just searched RUclips for "how best fit models works" to see if there were any videos on the subject. There are a few, but the results included mostly, um, videos of "fit models" (nothing too racy if you have your safesearch on).
yeah，after watching sabine"s video, I was like, how come this channel not specifically on this problem, and I actually searched for the related content, today finally we have it
This is such a great and detailed refutation of so much of the nonsense out there!
If you mean articles of the type "the secret THEY are trying to keep from you", I agree. If you are talking about the main alternative theories, Dr. B did not do that.
Nicely explained as always
I really want "dark matter" to not be the explanation of our observations. It just seems clumsy.
At the present time it is the best explanation we have until someone comes up with a better one.
@@mikehipperson And OP is saying they really hope someone does.
What would you rather call it, invisible matter, hidden Mass, shadow matter, non-luminous matter, the dark force?
It's the simplest term, for likely a highly complex field.
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus They don't have an issue with the name, they just hope it's not the explanation for the discrepancy.
And I agree because that means more new science to explore.
@@Soken50dark matter, as you know, it's simply a moniker. If it turns out to be "dark matter", we still don't know how it was formed, it's complexities, or if it's mathematically explainable in all cases. That would result in the science you're looking for.
Thanks
Thank you!
Thanks for providing a model for what science exposition should be! (I'm looking at you SH!)
me when the complicated thing is nuanced fr fr. Thanks for the amazing video doctor
[place screwball, whack-a-doo lay person's pet theory here]
"Time is an illusion perpetrated by the manufacturers of space."
OK Angela Collier.
@@deltalima6703 it's a list of observations
*Avi Lœb entered the chat
@@tarmaque"Manufacturers of space have put a hold on time. Seems the necessary supplies have run short and so delivery times are not being met."
Thank you for explaining this with such clarity and enthusiasm.
And for putting in the links to the source papers. I have only just found your channel, Dr. Becky, and I look forward to catching up as many of your videos as I can. Where's that SUBSCRIBE button....?
Here’s to all the weirdos at the end of the universe
Cheers.
we live in exciting times, and Dr Becky is there for us.
Dr. Becky > NDT
Neil destroyed himself when he claimed some days he wakes up feeling feminine.
Well that goes without saying. I've got a piece of fish in the back of my refrigerator that is probably beyond the use-by date that's greater than NDT.
NDT > scimanDan
Even a potato chip is better than NDT.
@deltalima6703 Not in my book.
Lol i had that pen on my Amazon wish list for years and never heard anyone ever mention it and suddenly this year I'm seeing RUclips sponsors for it everywhere
Every time we cook up a invisible, undetectable force or soup of 'stuff' that everything we do see is supposed to be affected by, be it Akasha, Quintessence or Aether, later science disproves it. The idea that this something is undetectable, uninteractable, unwhateverable except to specifically fix a rather specific problem in our theories and models is such a red flag. The tricky thing is that its so hard to disprove such a nebulous thing.
Except that it's the other way around this time. We didn't posit something being there and then went looking for it, we went in thinking there was nothing, only to have the data scream at us that yes, there was. Everything after that simply follows the duck principle.
You have it the wrong way around. We observe the universe through through the standard model and make predictions based on it.
This standard model that works for most things suddenly is producing inaccurate results to our actual observations.
Dark matter isn't any one thing. It's simply "our standard model is failing us, so there must be some other factor". Even saying "the standard model is flawed" is a theory of dark matter.
You can't even say dark matter is a theory because there is no unifying dark matter theory. It's a laundry list of unanswered questions and things that don't add up.
In this wonky weird world we live in, it's wonderful to be be reminded that there are new and exciting things to learn, and clever, cautious teams of people working to extract these deeply embedded nuggets of evidence. You do that so well, DrBecky, thank you!
There is no dark matter.
Most likely, imo
Its amazing. TKS.