I completely agree that "Dark Photon" is a terrible name. To me it implies that there is dark electromagnetic radiation and a dark electromagnetic field that normal matter does not interract with.
@@peterclarke3020 we can call them rage and angry or fear and terror , or after any other negative feelings that we experienced!.like envy, or gluttony and lust.
I love Fraser's instinctual dubiety right off the bat at the idea that we should be jumping in head first to a new "dark ___" name for a concept. And I have to say, for the sake of science communication I do genuinely think we should shut this "dark photon" naming down now, PARTICULARLY because it's proposing a particle with MASS lol. Sometimes scientists are their own worst enemy, which I'm saying in a light-hearted way.
Yeah, I had the same feeling there. It feels like a bit of a stretch and more something of the current scientific hypetrain than an actual breakthrough.
Strong agree! I really appreciate how he wrangled the conversation. That said I totally agree it feels like Iwas listening to some random guy talking about his ideas of dark matter more than someone actually able to explain what they learned
@@FugueNation we kind of witnessed Fraser casually doing an on the fly peer-review here. You could almost see the cogs turning in his head. It was pretty impressive by scientist standards. This man is way more than a well informed science communicator.
It’d be awesome if it turned out that dark matter wasn’t just one thing, but a whole new branch of particle physics with its own unique spectrum of particles and interactions that only mildly overlap with what we know of. If 80% of the universe wasn’t just diffuse blobs of inert particles but rather a whole invisible world just as complex or even more so than what we know… it’s probably not, but it’s fun to imagine!
Where are the Gravaton and Chronon? What is the difference between a gravity wave, and a gravitional wave? Atmospheric gravitational waves are seen in clouds while we have gravity maps of the earth and moon, we know there is time dilation and frame drag, how much of the gravity spectrum is "dark energy " and if the graviton exists and it compresses time space and matter "dark energy " graviton we are playing with it, it is on the standard model, chronon also, we have proven time dilation and frame drag, but it is a theoretical particle
@@veggiet2009 Yeah, like we really just start with the simplest model and build from there. Right now we get pretty decent accuracy modeling the universe with cold inert dark matter and a cosmological constant, but now we're starting to see hints (like the recent DESI results) that maybe that cosmological constant isn't so constant after all, and we'll need a better theory of dark energy that accounts for it changing over the age of the universe (if that is what the data bears out, their data wasn't wholly incompatible with LambdaCDM either). I imagine similarly we'll find where Cold Dark Matter of a single variety starts to breakdown as a theory and we'll find there's a lot more going on.
Love your content Fraiser. Thank you for all the work ya do. You answered one of my questions years ago and i cant seem to find the video. You had a guest answer it and ive watched every video youve made since then
I like the idea of scanning through the energy levels in the LHC. I too think of it as analogous to the Hubble deep-field photo you alluded to. I think it's fine to dedicate the lion's share of instrument time looking at particular regions of interest to theorists, but I'd also like to see some time set aside to simply turn the knob slowly and see if any surprises turn up,
Amazing, I just now asked Google Bard about a speculation I came up with about massive photons for dark matter and it replied that there already is such hypothesis called dark photons. And then I found this video.
@FraserCain, could dark matter just be matter we are not accounting for in added dimensions of space? To me, I still have not been convinced that the dark matter is not just a under sampling of black holes, maybe even premoridial BHs
I don't think black holes would account for the dark matter at the edge of galaxies. Simply because, there's no reason I can think of for why black holes would orbit the galaxy any differently than stars, or star systems with similar mass. The dark matter at the edge of galaxies, I think, should be attracted by gravity and repelled by something the galaxy is emitting, photons, neutrinos, or something like that. The best theories I've heard of dark matter are black holes, undiscovered particles, and a new theory of gravity. Maybe even astronomically scaled Bose Einstein condensates could account for some of it, and cosmic strings. There's a lot of theories. Fortunately, there's also a lot of dark matter. I think it's ultimately going to have a few different explanations, I'm not sure what the majority of it would be, though. Probably particles, it does still seem like there's plenty to be discovered there.
That's pretty interesting. The math (under a Kaluza-Klein-like model) would seem to suggest that if **either** mass or charge of a fundamental particle is zero, then motion through time would be zero making velocity in a vacuum the same as the speed of light. Is there anything that would prevent a neutral fundamental matter particle from existing in QED or elsewhere?
Would it technically be possible to “slingshot” telescopes or other objects into orbit rather than using fuel or vast sources of energy? Similar to aircraft carriers but more advanced for example. Are there other creative options being explored ? Thank you for your insights and interviews really fascinating content!
In case you're not answered, probably not in the near future with any kind of ground launch. When you throw something on the Earth, the ballistic arc it follows is actually already an orbit. It's just the very top part of an ellipse that's mostly underground. More launch power means a bigger ellipse, and the 3 km/s the US Navy's railguns probably reach is enough to put the top of that ellipse in space, but you're never escaping the fact that that ellipse intersects with the ground (AKA suborbital), so you can't stay in space. The only ways around this are: 1. Launching with so much speed that you escape the gravity well on the first pass and never return (a hyperbolic orbit instead of an elliptical one). There are many small bodies around the solar system this might be useful on, but on Earth, you would need a launch speed of 11 km/s, obviously a lot of energy and probably not the kind of orbit you had in mind. 2. Having some way to change (AKA circularize) your orbit at the top of the arc so that your new orbit no longer intersects the ground. If another gravity well is in reach, you could swing off that, but for our case, the moon is all there is and it's too far away to be useful. The only alternative is bringing lots of fuel, which is what every spacecraft today does and what any ground launch system (like SpinLaunch) needs to do to handle orbital payloads. As for other options for energy efficient access to space, the best way to make launches more sustainable is automating fuel production for rockets. Beyond that, nothing will probably beat rockets for efficiency until we reach the point we can build space elevators, skyhooks, and orbital rings, which are awesome, but this comment is already dragging on, so I'll just let you look them up.
@@EricJW thank you very much for the ellaborated answer ! I am unaware of a lot of basics but you just gave me some food for thoughts and something to get interested with!
No problem! If you research any of this and come up with questions you can't answer, don't be afraid to ask back here. Space physics can be unintuitive. To give you a head start, a good way to understand orbits better is watching Scott Manley's tutorials for Kerbal Space Program. Even if you never play the game (which is fantastic), seeing orbits and how they change with maneuvers makes their mechanics much more obvious. If you're interested in structures like space elevators and the megastructures humanity might build beyond them in the more distant future, a good channel for that is Science & Futurism with Isaac Arthur.
Yes. A company based in Long Beach California has already performed successful spin-launches with a small proof-of-concept machine. You can find RUclips videos of these spin-launches.
@@douglaswilkinson5700 See my first comment. That would be the SpinLaunch I mentioned. I hope they're successful, but even with their planned full size machine, they only expect to get up to 2 km/s out of the launcher and still need 8 km/s worth of fuel to reach orbit. That's still significant mass savings due to the rocket equation, but I think they're trying to give off the perception that the launcher is contributing more than that. For comparison, the test launches peaked somewhere around 0.5 km/s.
Hints of something new there ! So this has to be looked into and try to be confirmed. It sounds like - if it’s correct - it has the potential to open up an entire new areas.
Layman's question here: Is it possible that dark matter could be the products of decay beyond 1st generation matter particles? In other words, another even lighter set of two leptons and two quarks, a 0th generation if you will.
Ok, full disclosure, I just had an edible and I am WAY out of my depth here, but what if we don’t really understand how photons are created? What if dark photons (I hate the name too. I would refer to them as DPs but I don’t want to get Frazier demonetized) are a byproduct of photons being created? I mean those electrons that create the photons have to come from somewhere right? What if something else is emitted that does have mass and what if they stick around and accumulate? Dang. We are about to be buried in DPs. These gummies are great. I gotta call my guy. LOVE this channel. Oh yeah, I forgot. Didn’t watch the whole thing because I’m 💯 not smart enough for this conversation.
Fraser you're 100% correct about having clear naming. Astrophysics has some of the coolest names, but also some of the worst and misleading names in all of science imo, for a discipline that wants to be seen as seeking the truth/facts about the universe.
I think it will be easier to come up with a better name - once we understand what it is we are talking about - until then ‘Dark Matter’ is the best working description. Maybe it’s an entirely different ‘sub space’ ? With different quantum properties.
The speed of light in a vacuum is constant for all observers regardless of there relative motion per Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. This has been extensively tested and confirmed. What peer-reviewed published papers based on 6σ verifiable evidence can you cite that would contradict this?
What does this new development mean for other competing dark matter explanations. Does it make modified gravity theories for example appear less likely?
This difference in effect of 'normal matter' (Standard model) and matter of unknown properties could well mean that there are two or more Standard models for particle and waves - maybe a better understanding of how fields (current explanation is mathematical hand waving) work is in order.
We already have a hard time pinpointing when a regular photon acts as matter and when it doesn't. Imagine figuring out when a rather theoretical particle acts like something we can only calculate through how it interacts with regular matter. This feels a bit like a hail Marie tbh. 6 and a half sigma is promising though.
So they believe they’ve found another elementary particle that emits darkness rather than light ? Can this particle be seen ? and measured I’ve heard of non baronial matter that doesn’t emit light but can be detected through its gravity
It's an illusion that 'with the Standard model we almost have all the answers'. Einstein illustrates that. A good resource to tap in answering 'what else is there to know' is a full map listing human limitations against what we think we know.
The specialized experiments that your guest mentioned are also, like LHC, brute force experiments. Lack of creative thinking is limiting the tools available for experiment.
Quantum Mechanics question: in the double split experiments is the multiple positions that electrons, photons, etc. is the particle manifesting into different forms?
The Standard model may be associated with the Hawaiian 8 dim particles model. These other particles could be an indication of a sort of 9 dim particles model that goes beyond the 8 dim model.
why is there more matter than antimatter? Well because antimatter is not negative matter. Anti matter has an a bit misleading name imo, because the only thing that's anti about it are its charges. what I mean is: If we combine matter with anti-matter, we get positive energy out of it which we could use to make normal matter out of, but true opposite matter (negative matter) would combine with matter into 0 energy
Awesome video, only for the fact that dark photons are mentioned. Although, I think that the photons that aren't dark, have influence as well. Still, I think that there are like a lot of things out there that give extra gravity. While they are not visible to the "eyes" of humans yet.
The 'we need bigger machines' answer blindly ignores the compromises bigger machines require. The brute force (LHC) approach means the adherents don't want to tap their creativity to come up a smaller machine to solve the problem they want to overcome. Start with the original solutions like double slit experiment and tap their creativity.
Hey Nicholas - So near but yet so far. Working Model: Its a photon (correct), but it has no mass - ie it has a massless curvature. Its a photon that transitions to its ground state when it losses its energy. I.e quantum Field Theory model of photons simply appearing and disappearing from the universe is sooo (provably) wrong. New Model: The spin-1 phton does not dissappear when it transfers its energy. A curvature carrying spin-1 photon is mobile, but a curvature carrying ground state photon is not mobile. Now you can get massy or short lived phat photons (Z0 Boson for example). But that's a dead end in terms of tracking dark matter. They are tragically unstable so cannot manifest that (extrinsic) mass curvature for any length of time. GR is stuck as it sees particles as sitting on top of spacetime. Hint - that's not how it works. Particles carry spacetime and they make up spacetime. Its the massive dense graveyard of invisible photons that makes all the difference - as they densely pack out space and make up spacetime. I.e. particles carry their own curvature. Which includes the spin-1 photon as well as its sedentary ground state. Whacky new model - No actually way more conservative than current magic of quantum theory. Fortunately - it is backed by established proofs that corner this solution. .....more coming soon.
"Protons decay" Possible, you would think any particle that emits or interacts with anything is in some way having to decay. I also wonder if the fact when the high energy energy microscopes look at things like protons that they're always the same, that we may be making a category error in our understanding. Maybe they're not all the same, they could vary wildly naturally, independent of shooting things at them to look inside. From the outside they may function almost identically, but they're different internally. That same question might apply to other particles too. It's just a thought, but if they decay, of course that would have to be true or partially true, simply by being at different states of decay, unless they all decay equally for some reason.
Where do all the photons go that never find anything to reflect off of? If the edges of the universe had walls, an off-white, would the universe eventually be aglow like light in a room?
It depends on the curvature and expansion of the Universe. If the Universe has positive curvature (loops back on itself), then all photons would continue looping around the Universe, eventually encountering something to interact with, so long as there's something they _can_ interact with at their wavelengths. If the Universe has zero or negative curvature, then they would continue on forever, perhaps never encountering something to interact with, regardless of their wavelengths. With the expansion of the Universe, photons that don't interact with something get stretched out over time, becoming less and less energetic - a continuous existence tax paid from their energy, if you will. Eventually, their wavelengths would be so long (their energies so low) as to render them practically non-existent in any meaningful way. If the expansion of the Universe stops, then the photons would remain as they were forever, their energy not changing. If the expansion of the Universe reverses, then photons would get contracted over time, increasing in energy until the Universe collapsed back down to a singularity. Currently, the best data for the curvature of the Universe still has a margin of error that includes positive, zero, and negative curvature, so we still don't know about that. However, there is an abundance of evidence that the Universe is expanding, and that its expansion is speeding up, not slowing down. Our best current understanding is that photons that don't encounter something to interact with will lose energy at an ever-increasing rate, until there's nothing they can interact with anymore - regardless of what the curvature of the Universe is.
They get absorbed by the first electron they run into, especially if that electron is in an atom and it has a low orbital. Remember that photons are just packages of energy with different energy levels some of which we can detect as colours or radio waves or micro waves or x-rays, etc. Also don't forget that photons do not experience time.
"Force anomalies" Maybe possible to increase the odds, but they are not creating the particles they're look for, as much, potentially revealing their presence by random chance of weak interactions under extreme conditions. You're trying to pull a fish with a bucket pulling out a random gallon of water from the entire ocean. Possible but most of the times you're going to miss. You would have better luck if you knew where to look, and those places might not be convenient.
Where do normal photons fit into this? I'm specifically talking about the normal photons that have been given off by objects over billions of years, and now there is a large field of photons like this in all directions and not bound together by gravity like matter that is not photons would be.
Just a silly thought: dark matter is decayed matter in a similar process of Hawking radiation. Decayed matter becoming space pushing out on the surrounding space, basically everything emits this radiation of "space" and everything's held in place by gravity. And the collision of one galaxy of "space decay force" against another would increase the speed of the weaker force momentum out expanding the universe further.
When physicists lavish praise on the Standard Model (for particles and waves), I ask how the Fields model equivalent shows fields emanating in space. Of course, that requires explaining how Space/Time emerges.
The first thing you have to admit, acknowledge and understand is that the speed of light is not constant because the measures of time and distance used to measure or determine C are not constant. The speed of light depends on it's proximity to mass. The outer arms of galaxies are moving faster than expected because time passes by faster and the distances are not actually as far compared to our measures of time and distance inside of a galaxy. Things happen faster and the distances are less than what people think. It's really not that complicated when you do the thought experiments. The speed of light (C) being constant is only a mathematical construct but when you understand that the measures of time and distance are never the same, everything makes sense.
The issue with the dark matter stuff is that it is a "fudge" in the sense that it is only needed in our currently accepted model of physics, what if our model is wrong and we need a completely different way to view it ? that is just as reasonable as the necessity to have this thing dark matter to exist.
The current model of physics exists to account for the observations of dark matter. The rotation curve problem, the Keplerian cliff, gravitational lensing and overdensities in the CMB. Life would be a lot easier if those observations hadn't been made. Something is affecting things with gravity, or we don't understand gravity. Either would explain dark matter.
@@frasercainMOND. Modified Newtonian Dynamics. Pavel Kroupa. Dark Matter is a concept made up by cosmologists to explain away their ignorance. If you use this term and state unequivocally that it exists then that's dogma not science.
Great episode, good interview, remarks and questions. Thank you for expressing feelings people like me have, about confusing naming. ie ' dark matter' and this 'dark photon'. It doesnt sound too cool to get rid of, it sounds misleading. I think we should name the particle, to the scientists who discovered it. The Hunt-Smith particle, much less confusing. You're a great guy. Even if this is not ' the solution for our search for 'dark matter'', it could lead to new insights. Like the anomaly they found now. People like me, who say 'dark matter' is made up 100, actually more like 200, years ago. I am interested in science/universe related news and discoveries. And i did't learn all science, i'm not pretending i have. But 'dark matter' = it does not appear to interact with the electromagnetic field, which means it does not absorb, reflect, or emit electromagnetic radiation and is, therefore, difficult to detect. Its existence is implied by various astrophysical observations which cannot be explained by general relativity unless more matter is present than can be seen. Unless more matter is present that can be seen. Combine that with the recent adjustment/discovery of the mass of the Milky way galaxy, up to 80% less mass, then we previously thought. And i'm a simple guy, then i'm thinking. Maybe these astronomers/scientists, hundreds of years ago were right, and there is a lot off mass flying around which we can not see, ie small pieces of rock , or other ruble, not something invisible, but something not visible. Which we simply can not detect because it is too small, and our instruments are not accurate enuf. Just like the satelitte which rediscovered mass of MwGalaxy. And or we after years discover some other planets also have ' rings' of small ruble circling that planet, not only Saturnus, in our own solarsystem, that indicates to me our measurements are far from accurate. We constantly discover, that our previous assumptions and measurements, calculations were not accurate. Or unless our understanding of general relativity might be wrong.(and measurements) And yes, there are many fenomena which are not fully explained, like cosmic microwave background, gravitational lensing, forces at particle level, etc etc. Do we really have to find 1 particle or 1 'thing', to explain it all. Let's not call it dark matter, let's just call it unexplained fenomena. Great episode, thanks 👌
And allthough i'm hopefull, hearing this scientist explain they observed an anomaly. The story is the same old same old, he thinks an possible explanation could be. But he also admits he does not grasp all, there is a lot of uncertain and unknown. But it makes me happy people like Nicholas, do this kind of work. And hopefully discover many new anomalies, and further our insight. There is so many, i think, undiscovered. Seeing this video i wonder, how would the scientific discoveries-breakthrough , be looked upon in history. If history tells us that the ancient greeks were allready busy with the concept of gravity, and discussing it and having different opinions about it. But then finally it took up to the 17th century for the world to reach consensus about the concept of gravity. And now there is general relativity, which disputes that consensus of the 17th century.
And how sure are we that the speed of light is always constant? There is a double split experiment. Which kind of disagrees with Einsteins assumption that the speed of light is always a constant. Which then thus disagrees with the relative gravity theory of Einstein. I saw another experiment explained in another youtube video. This was an setup, in a rectangle shape, where on the corner 2 and 3 of the rectangle, detectors were fitted. And on corner 1, a photon (or a proton, i cant find the video anymore to verify, lets say particle) was send over the rectangle lines. And they build in '1 way mirrors' after the detectors, so the particle could in theory not return after it passed a detector. The particle would or follow path 1, wich led pass detector 1, or would follow path 2 pass detector 2, towards corner 4, where the exit-registration was. So they send the particle in, detected it went pass a detector, and immediately after that very very fast, they observed the outcome-registration happen (So they observed the outcome-registration allready before the particle arrived there, but only after it passed a detector). And they discovered that the outcome, and the path followed by the praticle was different, then the detector detected. Somewhat like the double-spilt experiment, but different because they didnt watch wave patterns. they used a single particle, and saw the particle , ' travelled back in time' and followed the other path. So it actually passed twice the distance, the particle could normally travel, using known physics. The time measured was for both instances the same, whether the particle travelled the shortest way, passing only 1 detector then outcome registration. Or the anomaly passing it 1 detector, and when observing outcome registration, they noticed it passed the 1st detector, "turned around" and went the other way, back to corner 1(insertion spiltpoint) passed the other detector2, and then outcome registration. Its a pitty my story is a bit of a mess, unfortunately i cannot find the video back, where it was explained more clearly. Another anomaly we can not fully explain. But we can be sure, we must doubt all we think we know.
Cool video! All kinds of probabilities.Can a being made of dark matter, see themselves or others ?I suspect yes. I mean they are, all resonating at similar frequencies. Can a being made of dark matter see photons aka-us
First time in my life I hear 6.5σ. And I'm very much not 30. Or 40. Or even 50. And also a physicist. And also smell fish. 21:00 is the right question from Fraser. I'm totally sure we observe massive non-self-interacting field in a cold vacuum, not “near black holes or something, astronomers should know” at 40GeV. It's a bit little extremely hard to stuff another scalar field into the SM. At some point, the whole story becomes ridiculous. I sincerely wish I were wrong, and I wish Nicholas to receive the Nobel for this prediction. I just have too many reasons to doubt it.
I'm glad an actual physicist feels this way too... 6.5 sigma is a huge claim that smells more like fudging the data for "please give us more grant money" marketing than anything else. Especially for some random speculative particle. Especially for something with a catchy cool name like Dark Photon.
@@lunafoxfire Don't hold a scientist in bad faith without firm evidence. This is too serious an accusation to throw easily. Statistics is hard, and I've seen worse. Most people just take a formula, ignore the not-so-fine print “i.i.d.” on it, obtain statistically insane result, double-check calculations, sigh, send the paper for review. Both the editor and the reviewer miss the “i.i.d” thing, and deem the paper good to go. You see, you included into your conspiracy three people at the least (if the paper is returned with reviewer's notes, it may end up with a different reviewer on the next iteration; 3 is the minimum!). This makes no sense. Use the Hanlon's razor first, as a rule.
@@cykkm fair enough, i was too harsh by making an accusation of intentional forgery which isn't fair to the scientists and probably isn't true in almost any cases. words are cheap on the internet and I was insensitive. honestly I am just biased against a lot of theoretical particle physics these days that seems to be inventing particles looking for data.
@@lunafoxfire Not only “these days.” Recall how Planck invented “quantum of light,” photon, and Dirac “invented” positron. If you think about it, this is all theoretical physicists do. Nobody can design an experiment without any idea whatsoever _what_ they're trying to detect. “Dark photon” is a stupid name, I agree, as photon is the boson of EM interaction, while the “dark photon” isn't, and is just a catchy name, for everything “dark” is _en vogue._ But the name has nothing to do with physics. 6.5σ is very suspicious, but who knows.
Maybe the dark photons like a invisible strong force if you will or anti photon that instead of being projected outwards pulls particles inwards prior to a stars collapse into a black hole which would explain it's extreme density. It would be like saying dark matter also called dark energies are particles smashed into their desnsest state of existence.
A dark photon might be a black hole something with infinite mass that's opposite to the white dwarf like planetary bodies mimicking the process of density evolution
Fraiser is absolutely right, Dark Photon is absolutely terrible as a name. "It's like a photon, but it has mass and doesn't travel at the speed of light", so... it's nothing like a photon. Being massless is probably the most fundamental property of a photon. Calling something an photon, that isn't massless is just dumb.
I wonder if dark photons can be explained by paired photons. i.e. photons that are paired up with exactly out-of-phase photons. It seems to me that a massive number of them could have been generated in the big bang conditions. They wouldn't be detectable under ordinary circumstances. Only random quantum circumstances that could edge out one of the pair, such as the event horizon of a black hole, would separate them again and make them detectable. Even though I am sure they exist, and act like dark matter, they wouldn't act like axions because they still have no mass. So, still not an explanation for dark matter. But maybe an explanation for the quantum vacuum energy.
Particle physicists will have to give up their obsession with the event that didn't happen, the Big Bang. Time to move on to how Space/Time emerged and similar things.
Its a hidden force, another weak field. You have to imagine some force entangled light, and what is unaccounted for sound and time? I would think sound waves squeezed here on earth into our hearing range can be a part of matter all the same. Crazy sounding, but imagine a place where light is frozen in time and space, a singularity where forces are such that only the centrifugal forces of tiny bundles of packed light can resist the squeeze, you may well need a dark star of just the right size. If you can pack light to form a proton, you have all the makings of reality. You need to try to account for all things sound waves wrapped up the same. At that scale you have perfect magnets, and what effect to time might you have with light racing around itself in the quantum scale? In any case I would say electromagnetism, the weak and strong force are one in the same, just different colors masses. To what we are aware of that leaves what? Can time be a wrapped force? Can sound? To point what gave light mass? Was it the entanglement and angular momentum alone? A dance in time? A missing force like sound waves that would have been present in the same creation? I bet sound waves are a massive force in a singularity, certainly faster than light in the same.
If dark energy is what expand the universe I think it took the anti photon with it and if a dark photon exist then it's linked with dark matter or anti gravity or dark gravity!!!
statements like "as we know the vast majority of the matter in the universe is made of dark matter" really irks me, No we don't know that. it's extremely likely yes and all our best models point in that direction. But no we do in fact not know that, and it could be something else entirely like an unknown force that's at play. locking us in this mindset is kinda bad as we then don't look at other posibilities.
Dark matters are something that you cannot see through your telescope whether that is territerial or space. Anything that emmits light or gravitational lensing or any form of radiations which can be detected are not dark matter rest everything is dark matter. If something is extremely hot or extremely cold than those objects should be dark matter and the radiations emitted by such objects should be dark photon or dark energy.
One of the problems with reductionist thinking and building bigger and bigger machines to perform experiments is the scientific jargon becomes more and more discipline orientated and less and less public understandable.
My poison well, is a black hole emission of a gravaton, it is slower than light, it is subject to the inverse square law, a collection of dark photons would make up a gravity wave, as an entangled dark Photon wave, it may collect particles and energy as a wave at the beach does, if you had a dark photon telescope, you could see black holes, but also the gravity well of objects. A dark Photon beam, would have the effect of a tractor beam. A dark photons telescope would be a ccd of a light gas, that would be lifted by the detection of a dark Photon against the dark photons of the earths gravity, but I would call it a graviton not a dark Photon
Why does General Relativity get a hall pass from good scientific practise? Science should: make observations; come up with a theory to explain those observations; make predictions based on that theory; test the predictions by making more observations. General Relativity started off OK, making correct predictions about the transit of Mercury etc. But when it came to predicting orbits of stars in galaxies, or galaxies in clusters, then the predictions made by General Relativity are way off. But instead of saying the theory is wrong, the hypothetical dark matter is proposed as a conjecture and then people go on saying such things as "General Relataivity has passed every test made of it!!!".... well yeah, but only if you accept the conjecture of Dark Matter and now Dark Energy. Is science being too differential to General Relativity by accepting it as gospel and striving to find observations of imaginary things that are required to support that gospel? Sure MOND also doesn't have the answers, but at least it is questioning if the gospel is really true or not!
General relativity predicts an ABSURD number of things correctly: gravitational lensing, black holes, time dilation, gravitational waves, redshifting of light -- to name a few. All of these things were predicted by GR, and were then observed. It takes a moment to comprehend how ridiculous it is that one theory correctly predicts all of these completely different phenomena. General Relativity is much more than gravitational predictions, it predicts fundamental features of the universe (that we observe to exist). That is why it is trusted. This statement: "But when it came to predicting orbits of stars in galaxies, or galaxies in clusters, then the predictions made by General Relativity are way off" is a very strange way to look at things. Understand that in astrophysics we are constantly working with incomplete information. If we see a bunch of stars orbiting an empty spot in space then the sane conclusion is "oh there must be something there that we can't see", simply because there are probably things in the universe that don't emit light. This is actually how Sagittarius A* (the Milky Way's central black hole) was discovered. If we instead decided that a bunch of stars orbiting an empty spot in space meant "well, throw away general relativity", then... that gets us nowhere? We are predicting, using GR, which has proven itself in many other areas, that there are sources of gravitational mass that we can't see. Finally, you start with "Why does General Relativity get a hall pass..." and then end your comment talking about MOND. As you point out, MOND itself is a hypothesis that does not give General Relativity a "hall pass". So the answer to your first question is simply -- relativity does _not_ get a pass. There are scientists thinking about and working on alternatives to conventional gravity at this very moment. Relativity is not gospel, it is well-tested and extremely versatile and useful. But astrophysicists are still constantly looking for ways that it might be wrong.
"matter" implies material, a physical thing...no evidence. "photon" is a word which means a bit (wavicle?) of light. Dark photon is therefore an oxymoron, so wrong. Until we have evidence of what the nature of the effect is for why not call it a gravity field anomaly or a space-time distortion? Or "What's This Field?": WTF?
@@theOrionsarmsThey can't rest therefore must travel at the Universe's speed limit. Everthing travels through spacetime at the same velocity whether it be a snail or a photon.
@@douglaswilkinson5700 you most be understanding wrong something of what I said, you said that a photon have no mass when is in rest,and I replied that never happens, because always move(and move with the same speed), first part of your new message seems to agree with that, but at the end you added that weird line that everything move at the same speed, witch isn't true for everything that isn't a photon. And that everything else has a rest mass.
I completely agree that "Dark Photon" is a terrible name. To me it implies that there is dark electromagnetic radiation and a dark electromagnetic field that normal matter does not interract with.
Agree, this is a train wreck that could be avoided if we act now
i agree
We can call it tenebrion
Almost as if, there could be other sets of quantum properties that only show up in this ‘dark realm’…
@@peterclarke3020 we can call them rage and angry or fear and terror , or after any other negative feelings that we experienced!.like envy, or gluttony and lust.
I love Fraser's instinctual dubiety right off the bat at the idea that we should be jumping in head first to a new "dark ___" name for a concept.
And I have to say, for the sake of science communication I do genuinely think we should shut this "dark photon" naming down now, PARTICULARLY because it's proposing a particle with MASS lol.
Sometimes scientists are their own worst enemy, which I'm saying in a light-hearted way.
I had to Google "dubiety" to see if it's really a word. Turns out that it is - so I learned something today. Thanks! 🖖
Live long and prosper!
Consider 6 dark universes. .. (👽)
The Aliens showed me.
Yeah, I had the same feeling there. It feels like a bit of a stretch and more something of the current scientific hypetrain than an actual breakthrough.
Strong agree! I really appreciate how he wrangled the conversation.
That said I totally agree it feels like Iwas listening to some random guy talking about his ideas of dark matter more than someone actually able to explain what they learned
@@FugueNation we kind of witnessed Fraser casually doing an on the fly peer-review here. You could almost see the cogs turning in his head. It was pretty impressive by scientist standards. This man is way more than a well informed science communicator.
It’d be awesome if it turned out that dark matter wasn’t just one thing, but a whole new branch of particle physics with its own unique spectrum of particles and interactions that only mildly overlap with what we know of. If 80% of the universe wasn’t just diffuse blobs of inert particles but rather a whole invisible world just as complex or even more so than what we know… it’s probably not, but it’s fun to imagine!
Honestly, most scientific discoveries find more complexity, not less. It may not be a whole universe, but it's probably not just one thing either
Hahaha I definitely didn't think of it like that, buh I'm like too now, thank you for sharing your thoughts you good soul.
Where are the Gravaton and Chronon? What is the difference between a gravity wave, and a gravitional wave? Atmospheric gravitational waves are seen in clouds while we have gravity maps of the earth and moon, we know there is time dilation and frame drag, how much of the gravity spectrum is "dark energy " and if the graviton exists and it compresses time space and matter "dark energy " graviton we are playing with it, it is on the standard model, chronon also, we have proven time dilation and frame drag, but it is a theoretical particle
@@veggiet2009 Yeah, like we really just start with the simplest model and build from there. Right now we get pretty decent accuracy modeling the universe with cold inert dark matter and a cosmological constant, but now we're starting to see hints (like the recent DESI results) that maybe that cosmological constant isn't so constant after all, and we'll need a better theory of dark energy that accounts for it changing over the age of the universe (if that is what the data bears out, their data wasn't wholly incompatible with LambdaCDM either). I imagine similarly we'll find where Cold Dark Matter of a single variety starts to breakdown as a theory and we'll find there's a lot more going on.
I propose the name "umbron" from the latin _umbra_ meaning shadow or darkness.
May I recommend a similar but better name 😆 Umbreon sorry I had to 😂 it's a dark type pokemon fits perfectly
Darkness is the absence of light. But these dark photons can even exist in the brightest light. Bad idea
@@werkstattkreuzberg4234 They wouldn't contribute to the brightness tho, so they themselves would still be dark. 🥸
No the name Fakeron is better suited
Going to get sued by Nintendo for that
Thank you for answering my question Frasier and giving me a heads up about this interview. Absolutely fascinating and fills me with awe. 10/10 ✨
Love your content Fraiser. Thank you for all the work ya do. You answered one of my questions years ago and i cant seem to find the video. You had a guest answer it and ive watched every video youve made since then
Was it with Anton Petrov?
@realzachfluke1 i dont think so. My question was "how did we figure out where our solar system is in the milky way?" Or something like that.
Thanks!
I like the idea of scanning through the energy levels in the LHC. I too think of it as analogous to the Hubble deep-field photo you alluded to. I think it's fine to dedicate the lion's share of instrument time looking at particular regions of interest to theorists, but I'd also like to see some time set aside to simply turn the knob slowly and see if any surprises turn up,
Amazing, I just now asked Google Bard about a speculation I came up with about massive photons for dark matter and it replied that there already is such hypothesis called dark photons. And then I found this video.
My vote for particle name would be umbrion
@FraserCain, could dark matter just be matter we are not accounting for in added dimensions of space? To me, I still have not been convinced that the dark matter is not just a under sampling of black holes, maybe even premoridial BHs
I don't think black holes would account for the dark matter at the edge of galaxies. Simply because, there's no reason I can think of for why black holes would orbit the galaxy any differently than stars, or star systems with similar mass.
The dark matter at the edge of galaxies, I think, should be attracted by gravity and repelled by something the galaxy is emitting, photons, neutrinos, or something like that.
The best theories I've heard of dark matter are black holes, undiscovered particles, and a new theory of gravity. Maybe even astronomically scaled Bose Einstein condensates could account for some of it, and cosmic strings.
There's a lot of theories. Fortunately, there's also a lot of dark matter. I think it's ultimately going to have a few different explanations, I'm not sure what the majority of it would be, though. Probably particles, it does still seem like there's plenty to be discovered there.
Dark photons means we might finally learn what the Speed of Dark is!
Shadows and reflections travel with the speed of light. Do dark photons create reflections and shadows that travel at the speed of dark light
Appreciate how you kept coming back to ground on this one, especially the 6.5 sigma result. That is spectacular.
That's pretty interesting. The math (under a Kaluza-Klein-like model) would seem to suggest that if **either** mass or charge of a fundamental particle is zero, then motion through time would be zero making velocity in a vacuum the same as the speed of light. Is there anything that would prevent a neutral fundamental matter particle from existing in QED or elsewhere?
Would it technically be possible to “slingshot” telescopes or other objects into orbit rather than using fuel or vast sources of energy?
Similar to aircraft carriers but more advanced for example.
Are there other creative options being explored ?
Thank you for your insights and interviews really fascinating content!
In case you're not answered, probably not in the near future with any kind of ground launch. When you throw something on the Earth, the ballistic arc it follows is actually already an orbit. It's just the very top part of an ellipse that's mostly underground. More launch power means a bigger ellipse, and the 3 km/s the US Navy's railguns probably reach is enough to put the top of that ellipse in space, but you're never escaping the fact that that ellipse intersects with the ground (AKA suborbital), so you can't stay in space. The only ways around this are:
1. Launching with so much speed that you escape the gravity well on the first pass and never return (a hyperbolic orbit instead of an elliptical one). There are many small bodies around the solar system this might be useful on, but on Earth, you would need a launch speed of 11 km/s, obviously a lot of energy and probably not the kind of orbit you had in mind.
2. Having some way to change (AKA circularize) your orbit at the top of the arc so that your new orbit no longer intersects the ground. If another gravity well is in reach, you could swing off that, but for our case, the moon is all there is and it's too far away to be useful. The only alternative is bringing lots of fuel, which is what every spacecraft today does and what any ground launch system (like SpinLaunch) needs to do to handle orbital payloads.
As for other options for energy efficient access to space, the best way to make launches more sustainable is automating fuel production for rockets. Beyond that, nothing will probably beat rockets for efficiency until we reach the point we can build space elevators, skyhooks, and orbital rings, which are awesome, but this comment is already dragging on, so I'll just let you look them up.
@@EricJW thank you very much for the ellaborated answer !
I am unaware of a lot of basics but you just gave me some food for thoughts and something to get interested with!
No problem! If you research any of this and come up with questions you can't answer, don't be afraid to ask back here. Space physics can be unintuitive.
To give you a head start, a good way to understand orbits better is watching Scott Manley's tutorials for Kerbal Space Program. Even if you never play the game (which is fantastic), seeing orbits and how they change with maneuvers makes their mechanics much more obvious.
If you're interested in structures like space elevators and the megastructures humanity might build beyond them in the more distant future, a good channel for that is Science & Futurism with Isaac Arthur.
Yes. A company based in Long Beach California has already performed successful spin-launches with a small proof-of-concept machine. You can find RUclips videos of these spin-launches.
@@douglaswilkinson5700 See my first comment. That would be the SpinLaunch I mentioned. I hope they're successful, but even with their planned full size machine, they only expect to get up to 2 km/s out of the launcher and still need 8 km/s worth of fuel to reach orbit. That's still significant mass savings due to the rocket equation, but I think they're trying to give off the perception that the launcher is contributing more than that. For comparison, the test launches peaked somewhere around 0.5 km/s.
We loved this episode Fraser 😊
Awesome. I wish the audio quality was a little better.
Hints of something new there !
So this has to be looked into and try to be confirmed. It sounds like - if it’s correct - it has the potential to open up an entire new areas.
Layman's question here: Is it possible that dark matter could be the products of decay beyond 1st generation matter particles? In other words, another even lighter set of two leptons and two quarks, a 0th generation if you will.
What about Dank Matter? It never gets any coverage. 🤔
What I'm hearing is we literally don't know the power of the dark side
Ok, full disclosure, I just had an edible and I am WAY out of my depth here, but what if we don’t really understand how photons are created? What if dark photons (I hate the name too. I would refer to them as DPs but I don’t want to get Frazier demonetized) are a byproduct of photons being created? I mean those electrons that create the photons have to come from somewhere right? What if something else is emitted that does have mass and what if they stick around and accumulate? Dang. We are about to be buried in DPs. These gummies are great. I gotta call my guy. LOVE this channel.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Didn’t watch the whole thing because I’m 💯 not smart enough for this conversation.
Fraser you're 100% correct about having clear naming. Astrophysics has some of the coolest names, but also some of the worst and misleading names in all of science imo, for a discipline that wants to be seen as seeking the truth/facts about the universe.
Is the higs boson scalable?
I think it will be easier to come up with a better name - once we understand what it is we are talking about - until then ‘Dark Matter’ is the best working description.
Maybe it’s an entirely different ‘sub space’ ? With different quantum properties.
Dark.. to us.
Invisible Transparent
Indetectable Unmeasurable
Zero
The Lut you used on this video looks really nice.
What are the challenges and opportunities of finding rogue planets with liquid oceans?
Jus a thought.....could this theoretical "Dark Photon" be the elusive graviton particle, possibly the missing link to unify GR with QM......?
The speed of light in a vacuum is constant for all observers regardless of there relative motion per Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. This has been extensively tested and confirmed. What peer-reviewed published papers based on 6σ verifiable evidence can you cite that would contradict this?
What does this new development mean for other competing dark matter explanations. Does it make modified gravity theories for example appear less likely?
Loving your interviews.
Fraser, I have literally been telling you about PDM which has dark photons for years.
This difference in effect of 'normal matter' (Standard model) and matter of unknown properties could well mean that there are two or more Standard models for particle and waves - maybe a better understanding of how fields (current explanation is mathematical hand waving) work is in order.
We already have a hard time pinpointing when a regular photon acts as matter and when it doesn't. Imagine figuring out when a rather theoretical particle acts like something we can only calculate through how it interacts with regular matter. This feels a bit like a hail Marie tbh. 6 and a half sigma is promising though.
Yes, a photon can act as matter. It's called wave-particle duality. A high energy γ-ray can become matter by pair production.
So they believe they’ve found another elementary particle that emits darkness rather than light ? Can this particle be seen ? and measured I’ve heard of non baronial matter that doesn’t emit light but can be detected through its gravity
It's an illusion that 'with the Standard model we almost have all the answers'. Einstein illustrates that. A good resource to tap in answering 'what else is there to know' is a full map listing human limitations against what we think we know.
Very fascinating topic here!
The specialized experiments that your guest mentioned are also, like LHC, brute force experiments. Lack of creative thinking is limiting the tools available for experiment.
Is this a Fermi Paradox solution?
Quantum Mechanics question: in the double split experiments is the multiple positions that electrons, photons, etc. is the particle manifesting into different forms?
The Standard model may be associated with the Hawaiian 8 dim particles model. These other particles could be an indication of a sort of 9 dim particles model that goes beyond the 8 dim model.
why is there more matter than antimatter? Well because antimatter is not negative matter. Anti matter has an a bit misleading name imo, because the only thing that's anti about it are its charges. what I mean is: If we combine matter with anti-matter, we get positive energy out of it which we could use to make normal matter out of, but true opposite matter (negative matter) would combine with matter into 0 energy
Awesome video, only for the fact that dark photons are mentioned.
Although, I think that the photons that aren't dark, have influence as well.
Still, I think that there are like a lot of things out there that give extra gravity. While they are not visible to the "eyes" of humans yet.
Very interesting and really exciting!
What's the speed of the dark?
The 'we need bigger machines' answer blindly ignores the compromises bigger machines require. The brute force (LHC) approach means the adherents don't want to tap their creativity to come up a smaller machine to solve the problem they want to overcome. Start with the original solutions like double slit experiment and tap their creativity.
what if all the proposed super symmetry opposite particles arent other standard particles but a symmetric set of dark particles?
Hey Nicholas - So near but yet so far.
Working Model: Its a photon (correct), but it has no mass - ie it has a massless curvature.
Its a photon that transitions to its ground state when it losses its energy.
I.e quantum Field Theory model of photons simply appearing and disappearing from the universe is sooo (provably) wrong.
New Model: The spin-1 phton does not dissappear when it transfers its energy.
A curvature carrying spin-1 photon is mobile, but a curvature carrying ground state photon is not mobile.
Now you can get massy or short lived phat photons (Z0 Boson for example). But that's a dead end in terms of tracking dark matter. They are tragically unstable so cannot manifest that (extrinsic) mass curvature for any length of time.
GR is stuck as it sees particles as sitting on top of spacetime. Hint - that's not how it works. Particles carry spacetime and they make up spacetime.
Its the massive dense graveyard of invisible photons that makes all the difference - as they densely pack out space and make up spacetime.
I.e. particles carry their own curvature. Which includes the spin-1 photon as well as its sedentary ground state.
Whacky new model - No actually way more conservative than current magic of quantum theory.
Fortunately - it is backed by established proofs that corner this solution.
.....more coming soon.
Frasier, here is a question for you could dark matter be parallel universes , interacting through gravity ?
Question :
Does dark matter fall into black holes and doea it add up to their masses?
How about dark neurons causing all the darkness?
"Protons decay" Possible, you would think any particle that emits or interacts with anything is in some way having to decay. I also wonder if the fact when the high energy energy microscopes look at things like protons that they're always the same, that we may be making a category error in our understanding. Maybe they're not all the same, they could vary wildly naturally, independent of shooting things at them to look inside. From the outside they may function almost identically, but they're different internally. That same question might apply to other particles too.
It's just a thought, but if they decay, of course that would have to be true or partially true, simply by being at different states of decay, unless they all decay equally for some reason.
Where do all the photons go that never find anything to reflect off of? If the edges of the universe had walls, an off-white, would the universe eventually be aglow like light in a room?
It depends on the curvature and expansion of the Universe.
If the Universe has positive curvature (loops back on itself), then all photons would continue looping around the Universe, eventually encountering something to interact with, so long as there's something they _can_ interact with at their wavelengths. If the Universe has zero or negative curvature, then they would continue on forever, perhaps never encountering something to interact with, regardless of their wavelengths. With the expansion of the Universe, photons that don't interact with something get stretched out over time, becoming less and less energetic - a continuous existence tax paid from their energy, if you will. Eventually, their wavelengths would be so long (their energies so low) as to render them practically non-existent in any meaningful way. If the expansion of the Universe stops, then the photons would remain as they were forever, their energy not changing. If the expansion of the Universe reverses, then photons would get contracted over time, increasing in energy until the Universe collapsed back down to a singularity.
Currently, the best data for the curvature of the Universe still has a margin of error that includes positive, zero, and negative curvature, so we still don't know about that. However, there is an abundance of evidence that the Universe is expanding, and that its expansion is speeding up, not slowing down.
Our best current understanding is that photons that don't encounter something to interact with will lose energy at an ever-increasing rate, until there's nothing they can interact with anymore - regardless of what the curvature of the Universe is.
They get absorbed by the first electron they run into, especially if that electron is in an atom and it has a low orbital. Remember that photons are just packages of energy with different energy levels some of which we can detect as colours or radio waves or micro waves or x-rays, etc. Also don't forget that photons do not experience time.
"Force anomalies" Maybe possible to increase the odds, but they are not creating the particles they're look for, as much, potentially revealing their presence by random chance of weak interactions under extreme conditions.
You're trying to pull a fish with a bucket pulling out a random gallon of water from the entire ocean. Possible but most of the times you're going to miss. You would have better luck if you knew where to look, and those places might not be convenient.
Always go, to the light... Whether dark, or whether bright!
Where do normal photons fit into this? I'm specifically talking about the normal photons that have been given off by objects over billions of years, and now there is a large field of photons like this in all directions and not bound together by gravity like matter that is not photons would be.
Just a silly thought: dark matter is decayed matter in a similar process of Hawking radiation. Decayed matter becoming space pushing out on the surrounding space, basically everything emits this radiation of "space" and everything's held in place by gravity. And the collision of one galaxy of "space decay force" against another would increase the speed of the weaker force momentum out expanding the universe further.
When physicists lavish praise on the Standard Model (for particles and waves), I ask how the Fields model equivalent shows fields emanating in space. Of course, that requires explaining how Space/Time emerges.
Previous interviews about axion dark matter:
- Kier Rogers: ruclips.net/video/SruXU-Owz_M/видео.html
- Amruth Alfred: ruclips.net/video/M7IO6FkHRhE/видео.html
The first thing you have to admit, acknowledge and understand is that the speed of light is not constant because the measures of time and distance used to measure or determine C are not constant. The speed of light depends on it's proximity to mass. The outer arms of galaxies are moving faster than expected because time passes by faster and the distances are not actually as far compared to our measures of time and distance inside of a galaxy. Things happen faster and the distances are less than what people think. It's really not that complicated when you do the thought experiments. The speed of light (C) being constant is only a mathematical construct but when you understand that the measures of time and distance are never the same, everything makes sense.
Astrophysicists are well aware of the effects of relativity, and no that cannot account for the observed effects we explain with dark matter.
@@atticmuse3749 The variable speed of light has been around for over 100 years since Einstein.
Smart guy
Very interesting that we might be onto something here, might be the first step into this dark area of our understanding, as she says : Huge if true
The issue with the dark matter stuff is that it is a "fudge" in the sense that it is only needed in our currently accepted model of physics, what if our model is wrong and we need a completely different way to view it ? that is just as reasonable as the necessity to have this thing dark matter to exist.
The current model of physics exists to account for the observations of dark matter. The rotation curve problem, the Keplerian cliff, gravitational lensing and overdensities in the CMB. Life would be a lot easier if those observations hadn't been made. Something is affecting things with gravity, or we don't understand gravity. Either would explain dark matter.
@@frasercainMOND. Modified Newtonian Dynamics. Pavel Kroupa. Dark Matter is a concept made up by cosmologists to explain away their ignorance. If you use this term and state unequivocally that it exists then that's dogma not science.
Great episode, good interview, remarks and questions.
Thank you for expressing feelings people like me have, about confusing naming. ie ' dark matter' and this 'dark photon'. It doesnt sound too cool to get rid of, it sounds misleading. I think we should name the particle, to the scientists who discovered it. The Hunt-Smith particle, much less confusing.
You're a great guy.
Even if this is not ' the solution for our search for 'dark matter'', it could lead to new insights. Like the anomaly they found now.
People like me, who say 'dark matter' is made up 100, actually more like 200, years ago.
I am interested in science/universe related news and discoveries. And i did't learn all science, i'm not pretending i have. But 'dark matter' = it does not appear to interact with the electromagnetic field, which means it does not absorb, reflect, or emit electromagnetic radiation and is, therefore, difficult to detect. Its existence is implied by various astrophysical observations which cannot be explained by general relativity unless more matter is present than can be seen.
Unless more matter is present that can be seen. Combine that with the recent adjustment/discovery of the mass of the Milky way galaxy, up to 80% less mass, then we previously thought.
And i'm a simple guy, then i'm thinking. Maybe these astronomers/scientists, hundreds of years ago were right, and there is a lot off mass flying around which we can not see, ie small pieces of rock , or other ruble, not something invisible, but something not visible. Which we simply can not detect because it is too small, and our instruments are not accurate enuf. Just like the satelitte which rediscovered mass of MwGalaxy. And or we after years discover some other planets also have ' rings' of small ruble circling that planet, not only Saturnus, in our own solarsystem, that indicates to me our measurements are far from accurate. We constantly discover, that our previous assumptions and measurements, calculations were not accurate.
Or unless our understanding of general relativity might be wrong.(and measurements)
And yes, there are many fenomena which are not fully explained, like cosmic microwave background, gravitational lensing, forces at particle level, etc etc.
Do we really have to find 1 particle or 1 'thing', to explain it all.
Let's not call it dark matter, let's just call it unexplained fenomena.
Great episode, thanks 👌
And allthough i'm hopefull, hearing this scientist explain they observed an anomaly. The story is the same old same old, he thinks an possible explanation could be. But he also admits he does not grasp all, there is a lot of uncertain and unknown.
But it makes me happy people like Nicholas, do this kind of work. And hopefully discover many new anomalies, and further our insight.
There is so many, i think, undiscovered.
Seeing this video i wonder, how would the scientific discoveries-breakthrough , be looked upon in history. If history tells us that the ancient greeks were allready busy with the concept of gravity, and discussing it and having different opinions about it. But then finally it took up to the 17th century for the world to reach consensus about the concept of gravity. And now there is general relativity, which disputes that consensus of the 17th century.
And how sure are we that the speed of light is always constant? There is a double split experiment. Which kind of disagrees with Einsteins assumption that the speed of light is always a constant. Which then thus disagrees with the relative gravity theory of Einstein.
I saw another experiment explained in another youtube video. This was an setup, in a rectangle shape, where on the corner 2 and 3 of the rectangle, detectors were fitted. And on corner 1, a photon (or a proton, i cant find the video anymore to verify, lets say particle) was send over the rectangle lines. And they build in '1 way mirrors' after the detectors, so the particle could in theory not return after it passed a detector. The particle would or follow path 1, wich led pass detector 1, or would follow path 2 pass detector 2, towards corner 4, where the exit-registration was. So they send the particle in, detected it went pass a detector, and immediately after that very very fast, they observed the outcome-registration happen (So they observed the outcome-registration allready before the particle arrived there, but only after it passed a detector). And they discovered that the outcome, and the path followed by the praticle was different, then the detector detected.
Somewhat like the double-spilt experiment, but different because they didnt watch wave patterns. they used a single particle, and saw the particle , ' travelled back in time' and followed the other path. So it actually passed twice the distance, the particle could normally travel, using known physics. The time measured was for both instances the same, whether the particle travelled the shortest way, passing only 1 detector then outcome registration. Or the anomaly passing it 1 detector, and when observing outcome registration, they noticed it passed the 1st detector, "turned around" and went the other way, back to corner 1(insertion spiltpoint) passed the other detector2, and then outcome registration. Its a pitty my story is a bit of a mess, unfortunately i cannot find the video back, where it was explained more clearly.
Another anomaly we can not fully explain.
But we can be sure, we must doubt all we think we know.
Cool video! All kinds of probabilities.Can a being made of dark matter, see themselves or others ?I suspect yes. I mean they are, all resonating at similar frequencies. Can a being made of dark matter see photons aka-us
Frasier, you're a gift.
First time in my life I hear 6.5σ. And I'm very much not 30. Or 40. Or even 50. And also a physicist. And also smell fish. 21:00 is the right question from Fraser. I'm totally sure we observe massive non-self-interacting field in a cold vacuum, not “near black holes or something, astronomers should know” at 40GeV. It's a bit little extremely hard to stuff another scalar field into the SM. At some point, the whole story becomes ridiculous. I sincerely wish I were wrong, and I wish Nicholas to receive the Nobel for this prediction. I just have too many reasons to doubt it.
I'm glad an actual physicist feels this way too... 6.5 sigma is a huge claim that smells more like fudging the data for "please give us more grant money" marketing than anything else. Especially for some random speculative particle. Especially for something with a catchy cool name like Dark Photon.
@@lunafoxfire Don't hold a scientist in bad faith without firm evidence. This is too serious an accusation to throw easily. Statistics is hard, and I've seen worse. Most people just take a formula, ignore the not-so-fine print “i.i.d.” on it, obtain statistically insane result, double-check calculations, sigh, send the paper for review. Both the editor and the reviewer miss the “i.i.d” thing, and deem the paper good to go. You see, you included into your conspiracy three people at the least (if the paper is returned with reviewer's notes, it may end up with a different reviewer on the next iteration; 3 is the minimum!). This makes no sense. Use the Hanlon's razor first, as a rule.
@@cykkm fair enough, i was too harsh by making an accusation of intentional forgery which isn't fair to the scientists and probably isn't true in almost any cases. words are cheap on the internet and I was insensitive. honestly I am just biased against a lot of theoretical particle physics these days that seems to be inventing particles looking for data.
@@lunafoxfire Not only “these days.” Recall how Planck invented “quantum of light,” photon, and Dirac “invented” positron. If you think about it, this is all theoretical physicists do. Nobody can design an experiment without any idea whatsoever _what_ they're trying to detect. “Dark photon” is a stupid name, I agree, as photon is the boson of EM interaction, while the “dark photon” isn't, and is just a catchy name, for everything “dark” is _en vogue._ But the name has nothing to do with physics. 6.5σ is very suspicious, but who knows.
I remember the super conductor super collider. It was canceled for the International Space Station. Too bad we could not have built both of them.
Maybe the dark photons like a invisible strong force if you will or anti photon that instead of being projected outwards pulls particles inwards prior to a stars collapse into a black hole which would explain it's extreme density. It would be like saying dark matter also called dark energies are particles smashed into their desnsest state of existence.
God said let their be light to this singularity obviously created photons somehow out if dark energy and matter
A dark photon might be a black hole something with infinite mass that's opposite to the white dwarf like planetary bodies mimicking the process of density evolution
Fraiser is absolutely right, Dark Photon is absolutely terrible as a name. "It's like a photon, but it has mass and doesn't travel at the speed of light", so... it's nothing like a photon. Being massless is probably the most fundamental property of a photon. Calling something an photon, that isn't massless is just dumb.
I wonder if dark photons can be explained by paired photons. i.e. photons that are paired up with exactly out-of-phase photons. It seems to me that a massive number of them could have been generated in the big bang conditions. They wouldn't be detectable under ordinary circumstances. Only random quantum circumstances that could edge out one of the pair, such as the event horizon of a black hole, would separate them again and make them detectable. Even though I am sure they exist, and act like dark matter, they wouldn't act like axions because they still have no mass. So, still not an explanation for dark matter. But maybe an explanation for the quantum vacuum energy.
Yes, that concept would resolve several issues surrounding mysterious photon behavior
If dark photons interact with regular photons, could that explain the distortion pattern in the double slit experiment?
No
No. That is destructive interference.
Can't hear you over the sound of me eating this dark toast that I smothered with dark butter and dark jam
How to define a dark photon?
To be honest i am in a sh!t mood today. That said,hearing this interview my BS meter is ringing very loud
that would be crazy if there was speed of darklight.. (DE)^2 = DM * (Dc)^2
Particle physicists will have to give up their obsession with the event that didn't happen, the Big Bang. Time to move on to how Space/Time emerged and similar things.
Go Mean Machine on that particle Imho
My vote for the particle name would be Dave.
Terrible name, someone named a whole TV channel Dave.
Should they be called Scotons instead of dark photons? Just to keep it Greek
Its a hidden force, another weak field. You have to imagine some force entangled light, and what is unaccounted for sound and time? I would think sound waves squeezed here on earth into our hearing range can be a part of matter all the same. Crazy sounding, but imagine a place where light is frozen in time and space, a singularity where forces are such that only the centrifugal forces of tiny bundles of packed light can resist the squeeze, you may well need a dark star of just the right size. If you can pack light to form a proton, you have all the makings of reality. You need to try to account for all things sound waves wrapped up the same. At that scale you have perfect magnets, and what effect to time might you have with light racing around itself in the quantum scale? In any case I would say electromagnetism, the weak and strong force are one in the same, just different colors masses. To what we are aware of that leaves what? Can time be a wrapped force? Can sound? To point what gave light mass? Was it the entanglement and angular momentum alone? A dance in time? A missing force like sound waves that would have been present in the same creation? I bet sound waves are a massive force in a singularity, certainly faster than light in the same.
It’s the Under-verse!
I think anti photons and dark energy are connected and then if a dark photon exist it could b linked with other forces like dark gravity
If dark energy is what expand the universe I think it took the anti photon with it and if a dark photon exist then it's linked with dark matter or anti gravity or dark gravity!!!
statements like "as we know the vast majority of the matter in the universe is made of dark matter" really irks me, No we don't know that. it's extremely likely yes and all our best models point in that direction. But no we do in fact not know that, and it could be something else entirely like an unknown force that's at play. locking us in this mindset is kinda bad as we then don't look at other posibilities.
When not talking to the general public physicists call dark matter an observable effect whose cause has not been discovered.
A shot in the dark
Schematic Cognition, this is my new term for the autistic disorder of math magicians and peculiar physicists
Anybody else remember Darkon theory? I do.
Dark matters are something that you cannot see through your telescope whether that is territerial or space. Anything that emmits light or gravitational lensing or any form of radiations which can be detected are not dark matter rest everything is dark matter. If something is extremely hot or extremely cold than those objects should be dark matter and the radiations emitted by such objects should be dark photon or dark energy.
If we should follow the principle of renaming what we do not like to a foreign language, let me suggest we call the big bang "fragor magnus"
One of the problems with reductionist thinking and building bigger and bigger machines to perform experiments is the scientific jargon becomes more and more discipline orientated and less and less public understandable.
Every high school goth kid knows what dark photons are :P
I’m pretty sure I made dark matter after eating too many refried beans an hour ago.
If this s called 'dark photon' has mass, then it can't move at the speed of light so 'slow photon' might be a better name.
Now we know what the Dark Lords are made of. 😈🤘
What if the dark photon carries the gravitational force.. and that's why we can't see it
My poison well, is a black hole emission of a gravaton, it is slower than light, it is subject to the inverse square law, a collection of dark photons would make up a gravity wave, as an entangled dark Photon wave, it may collect particles and energy as a wave at the beach does, if you had a dark photon telescope, you could see black holes, but also the gravity well of objects. A dark Photon beam, would have the effect of a tractor beam. A dark photons telescope would be a ccd of a light gas, that would be lifted by the detection of a dark Photon against the dark photons of the earths gravity, but I would call it a graviton not a dark Photon
Why does General Relativity get a hall pass from good scientific practise? Science should: make observations; come up with a theory to explain those observations; make predictions based on that theory; test the predictions by making more observations. General Relativity started off OK, making correct predictions about the transit of Mercury etc. But when it came to predicting orbits of stars in galaxies, or galaxies in clusters, then the predictions made by General Relativity are way off. But instead of saying the theory is wrong, the hypothetical dark matter is proposed as a conjecture and then people go on saying such things as "General Relataivity has passed every test made of it!!!".... well yeah, but only if you accept the conjecture of Dark Matter and now Dark Energy. Is science being too differential to General Relativity by accepting it as gospel and striving to find observations of imaginary things that are required to support that gospel? Sure MOND also doesn't have the answers, but at least it is questioning if the gospel is really true or not!
General relativity predicts an ABSURD number of things correctly: gravitational lensing, black holes, time dilation, gravitational waves, redshifting of light -- to name a few. All of these things were predicted by GR, and were then observed. It takes a moment to comprehend how ridiculous it is that one theory correctly predicts all of these completely different phenomena. General Relativity is much more than gravitational predictions, it predicts fundamental features of the universe (that we observe to exist). That is why it is trusted.
This statement: "But when it came to predicting orbits of stars in galaxies, or galaxies in clusters, then the predictions made by General Relativity are way off" is a very strange way to look at things. Understand that in astrophysics we are constantly working with incomplete information. If we see a bunch of stars orbiting an empty spot in space then the sane conclusion is "oh there must be something there that we can't see", simply because there are probably things in the universe that don't emit light. This is actually how Sagittarius A* (the Milky Way's central black hole) was discovered. If we instead decided that a bunch of stars orbiting an empty spot in space meant "well, throw away general relativity", then... that gets us nowhere? We are predicting, using GR, which has proven itself in many other areas, that there are sources of gravitational mass that we can't see.
Finally, you start with "Why does General Relativity get a hall pass..." and then end your comment talking about MOND. As you point out, MOND itself is a hypothesis that does not give General Relativity a "hall pass". So the answer to your first question is simply -- relativity does _not_ get a pass. There are scientists thinking about and working on alternatives to conventional gravity at this very moment. Relativity is not gospel, it is well-tested and extremely versatile and useful. But astrophysicists are still constantly looking for ways that it might be wrong.
If it's useless to go hunting for it, then why not call it Snark Matter?
He’s quite handsome!
“Come to the dark side Luke.”
"matter" implies material, a physical thing...no evidence. "photon" is a word which means a bit (wavicle?) of light. Dark photon is therefore an oxymoron, so wrong. Until we have evidence of what the nature of the effect is for why not call it a gravity field anomaly or a space-time distortion? Or "What's This Field?": WTF?
Don't photons have a very small mass? They are effected by gravity and the universe is absolutely full on them.
I NEVER believe that a photon has zero mass
Is'nt e=mc²
Call me clueless i guess😢
The photon has no rest mass.
@@memyshelfandeye318 true, but also a photon never rest!
@@theOrionsarmsThey can't rest therefore must travel at the Universe's speed limit. Everthing travels through spacetime at the same velocity whether it be a snail or a photon.
@@douglaswilkinson5700 you most be understanding wrong something of what I said, you said that a photon have no mass when is in rest,and I replied that never happens, because always move(and move with the same speed), first part of your new message seems to agree with that, but at the end you added that weird line that everything move at the same speed, witch isn't true for everything that isn't a photon. And that everything else has a rest mass.