I always tell friends, "If you read 'Earth shattering' news about astronomy, wait a month and there will always be an article explaining that it was dust or a rounding error and Einstein was not proven wrong."
Thanks Nick. Great video, as usual. I really wish that you'd consider doing a long one, about the Dark Matter vs MOND debate. Thanks again and All the Best from West Wales.
Way over my head, but the film "Pitch Black" kinda showed a 3-sun solar system that was stable in that their planets moved in a 22-year cycle but looked like gravity would go nuts due to their closeness and differing planes of orbit. Just a thought from a fan ❤
If all those fields that quantumness is supposed to happen in actually exist, why can't they have their own particular substance and therefore mass? What is an eg. electromagnetic field actually made of anyway? Nice one Nick, was hoping for a buy me a coffee link, you certainly deserve several.
That's a good question and one that probably underlies the kind of efforts needed to (some day) achieve Unification. So far it seems we can consider them attributes or sectoral manifestations of space (or space-time). My highly speculative take is that only the fermion fields actually manifest as particles and that all the rest (essentially photons and gluons, which I'd dare suggest are the same thing in different conditions) is just vibes in space. This is because the photoelectric effect does not prove the photon as quantum but the electron sensitivity as quantized only (always my opinion). The question is why electrons and quarks emerge as quantum particles, how does weirdo spin 1/2 correlates to it and how electrons and quarks (especially quark up, which is the only one that doesn't decay) are related to each other (their differences are electric charge and mass only).
@@robertoverbeeke865 - Not necessarily nice vibes anyhow: too much ultraviole(n)t will burn you and gamma is the kind of stuff Hiroshima is (un-)made of. Even the "mostly harmless" radio waves can be "modulated" to fit the agenda of whoever controls the radio station...
This channel is many great things--including serious research and reliable adherence to accuracy. That much is already noteworthy. But the choice of topics, with no hesitation for daunting trouble, is brave and flawless. More specifically, Nick's easy mastery of sequential logic is really wonderful. I know that's like saying the pitcher threw the ball and the batter hit it, unless she didn't, so then the catcher caught it. But I'm not being specious because in our Age of the Insipid Influencer, when Book-Banners are a major political party, and the hottest new drug is one everyone can afford and is lethal, well, sequential logic is an endangered species and an enviable skill, a well-made product and a worthy way of living. You're pure gold, Nick; not panned gold, not fool's gold and not CGG--computer-generated gold. Truly, true gold.
The sigma scale of being sure of something? I'm sure it has a perfectly reasonable foundation. But it sounds a lot like scientists on a playground trying to 1 up each other? "Your 6 sigma sure? Well I'm 20 sigma sure" *Other scientists all go "ohhhhhhhh!!!!"
It's just good sport for a researcher to game their p-values. When a social science paper with n=25 reports some correlation with a p-value of 0.01, that's basically code for "I had a lot of fun torturing the data for this one".
It is also used in quality assurance/control, by people who don't really understand probability, but like having books with titles like 'reaching five sigma control'. The joy. Like I don't really understand it, but at least I know I don't
While I don't believe that MOND is going to be proven correct, I also don't think we should dismiss it simply because there are things we attribute to dark matter that MOND cannot explain. The true answer need not be a case of either/or; it could be a case of both/and.
GR is mostly correct, but it's not complete. Maxwell's equation for c is exactly like the speed of a transverse wave on a string, v = Sqr(T/D), where T is tension and D is the linear density. Maxwells is c = Sqr(1/u*e), where u is magnetic permeability of space and e is the electric permittivity of space. So the speed of light has to vary across the vastness of space, it looks constant is our solar system, but it's not across the whole galaxy. Note: u is Henries/m and e is Farads/m.
TIL that you have to get deep into undergrad physics to learn that there is a unit called Henry. And that there's a unit called Henry. Though, haven't there been numerous attempts to measure variance in c in astronomical data? I keep hearing mumblings about people asking, but never that anyone got meaningful results.
It is a fascinating and infuriating thing that observations of the large scale universe tell us something is wrong with our understanding of gravity or reality or both. Those observations cannot be fixed with a sticking plaster. The very badly named "dark" matter is neither a plaster, nor will it stick. MOND is at least trying to accommodate something using existing models. Both are most likely very wrong. Some heads need knocking together. Until we understand what "spacetime" actually is, we don't stand a chance of understanding deeper mysteries around how both matter and energy interact with it. Good luck, guys.
But surely the more theories and data documented in an expansion of hard drives will affect the local gravitational field and corrupt all astronomical measurements? Surely?
Nothing can really disprove Dark Matter. Nevertheless, if Chae and Hernandez's results hold in future surveys, explaining them with Dark Matter would be a great trick. And yet MOND predicts that behaviour...
It has been suggested that our galaxy is in its old age and with a dwindling supply of hydrogen is past its prime star birthing period. If so the amount of matter thrown out and losing momentum reduces the speed of rotation, causing the galaxy to start shrinking. Just a minute, I'm caught in a loop. (It's 4am).
No, it is not. There are also a few galaxies out there that behave as they should. Meaning devoid of dark matter. Dark matter is also not puzzling because it only seems to work at the cosmic scale, because that's bull. Thing is gravity is relatively weak and space is huge... so what we can observe and measure is at relatively large scales. Besides that, if you thought for a second, you know the "dark matter only works at cosmic scale" is utter bull because the best fit for it would be a particle. Albeit a particle that does not interact electromagnetically (hence no light, hence transparent) and a particle that does not interact strongly with itself. And thus we need a lot them bunching up together to detect its effects. MOND is just tweaking a formula and appealing to conspiracy theorists. It doesn't even do relativity. And relativity has that all important thing: why pretty much explained. In fact, the why forms the basis of the theory. MOND has nothing behind it other than curve fitting. It is a caricature of science.
@@FrancisFjordCupola The Standard Model did not predict dark matter. Various searches using particle accelerators and big tank detectors have come up empty. Maybe it's time to consider other possibilities.
The biggest problem is that we can’t assert that all physical laws remain constant without actually going into interstellar space and extra galactic space
My hypothesis is that the universe is a giant database of relationships between particles, and dark matter are residual records that were deleted but not physically erased from the storage medium, thus still taking up space despite being inaccessible from the user interface, because the erasure process would bog-down the simulation. 😛
I kinda think that would help explain the cosmic speed limit, also. Lots of cached database lookups for local observers, so finding a way to jump the queue and functionally teleport would cause all sorts of conservationlaw errors.
Nick, would you eventually mind trying to talk a bit more uniformly? Once you shout, the other time you almost whisper, then you speak hastily, making you even harder to listen to... Or just mark your videos "for native English speakers only".
I think there is a tool in most sound editors that can help reduce the dynamic variance, but IIRC I never got very good performance out of them. Since it sounds like most videos have a few lines that have to be looped in during post, I'd still suggest looking into it.
“Dark matter” is just the label applied to an OBSERVED phenomenon. Nobody made it up. The observation is real, then there’s the problem of how to explain it. Scientists think it must be some kind of invisible matter BECAUSE OF THE OBSERVABLE DATA not because they don’t want to admit that Einstein was wrong. Proving Einstein “wrong” would be Nobel prize material and any scientist would love it. Tiny problem is that you have to PROVE it not just assert it.
I don’t have a dog in this fight. My only observation is how powerfully sides believe in their own theory even when the universe stubbornly disagrees with it. This phenomenon isn’t confined to cosmology, everything from virology to climate seems to have been captured by computer modelling that falls apart the moment it touches the real world, but is still held onto like a religion.
@@LuisAldamiz Maybe he's just trolling, but he has a point. GR doesn't predict dark matter (or dark energy) and GR alone cannot account galactic-scale observations. So, GR is "fact" in the same way that Newtonian Mechanics was "fact".
@@dirremoire - General Relativity does not predict dark matter (why would it?) but it does explain its effects, such as gravitational lensing and everything else very well, while MoND doesn't (they never talk of gravitational lensing for instance, which is one of the key evidences for dark matter as such "matter"). With all due respect to Newton, his system never explained gravity to the level Einstein did. It was a good approximation of its effects but even good old Isaac admitted that he had no idea of how everything worked and that finding the answer to that was something for future people to discover. That future people was essentially Albert Einstein. Now, said that, Einstein could say the same not about how gravity actually happens, that's already understood (bending space-time) but how matter/mass (concentrated energy, notably hadrons or the strong nuclear force rather) bends space-time. That's something for future people to unravel and something modern physicists are not working on as far as I can discern, obsessed as they are with quantum mechanics being supposedly the answer to everything (which is clearly not).
![Summer Walker - Heart Of A Woman [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SFddctbZzw8/mqdefault.jpg)
I always tell friends, "If you read 'Earth shattering' news about astronomy, wait a month and there will always be an article explaining that it was dust or a rounding error and Einstein was not proven wrong."
As ever a thought provoking upload. Thanks Nick!
Thanks for the update PN! Awesome 😎
Both ParallaxNick and John Michael Godier upload new videos within minutes of each other. We are being spoilt for choice.
Good start to a great weekend. 👍
ParallaxNick easy. Godier will probably uncritically support Avi Loeb in his video
@@orsonzedd: Godier has questioned Avi Loeb many times, just not as harshly as you apparently wish he would.
@@orsonzedd fortunately not in this case. Mr Loeb is a dangerous crank.
I enjoy informative videos about rare topics. Keep it up
Always good content. Thanks Nick!
Thanks Nick. Great video, as usual. I really wish that you'd consider doing a long one, about the Dark Matter vs MOND debate. Thanks again and All the Best from West Wales.
Cheers, Parallax. Very interesting subject.
Better name might be "unknown gravity".
I always like your videos. Nick, I hope you're doing well
Everyone sit down. Shhhh. Nicks got a new one…
Way over my head, but the film "Pitch Black" kinda showed a 3-sun solar system that was stable in that their planets moved in a 22-year cycle but looked like gravity would go nuts due to their closeness and differing planes of orbit. Just a thought from a fan ❤
I don’t remember that from the movie but if each star is located at each others Trojan point (60°) then they could be stable.
If all those fields that quantumness is supposed to happen in actually exist, why can't they have their own particular substance and therefore mass? What is an eg. electromagnetic field actually made of anyway? Nice one Nick, was hoping for a buy me a coffee link, you certainly deserve several.
That's a good question and one that probably underlies the kind of efforts needed to (some day) achieve Unification. So far it seems we can consider them attributes or sectoral manifestations of space (or space-time).
My highly speculative take is that only the fermion fields actually manifest as particles and that all the rest (essentially photons and gluons, which I'd dare suggest are the same thing in different conditions) is just vibes in space. This is because the photoelectric effect does not prove the photon as quantum but the electron sensitivity as quantized only (always my opinion). The question is why electrons and quarks emerge as quantum particles, how does weirdo spin 1/2 correlates to it and how electrons and quarks (especially quark up, which is the only one that doesn't decay) are related to each other (their differences are electric charge and mass only).
@@LuisAldamiz just vibes in space...love it!
@@robertoverbeeke865 - Not necessarily nice vibes anyhow: too much ultraviole(n)t will burn you and gamma is the kind of stuff Hiroshima is (un-)made of. Even the "mostly harmless" radio waves can be "modulated" to fit the agenda of whoever controls the radio station...
This channel is many great things--including serious research and reliable adherence to accuracy. That much is already noteworthy. But the choice of topics, with no hesitation for daunting trouble, is brave and flawless.
More specifically, Nick's easy mastery of sequential logic is really wonderful. I know that's like saying the pitcher threw the ball and the batter hit it, unless she didn't, so then the catcher caught it. But I'm not being specious because in our Age of the Insipid Influencer, when Book-Banners are a major political party, and the hottest new drug is one everyone can afford and is lethal, well, sequential logic is an endangered species and an enviable skill, a well-made product and a worthy way of living.
You're pure gold, Nick; not panned gold, not fool's gold and not CGG--computer-generated gold.
Truly, true gold.
The sigma scale of being sure of something?
I'm sure it has a perfectly reasonable foundation.
But it sounds a lot like scientists on a playground trying to 1 up each other?
"Your 6 sigma sure? Well I'm 20 sigma sure"
*Other scientists all go "ohhhhhhhh!!!!"
It's just good sport for a researcher to game their p-values. When a social science paper with n=25 reports some correlation with a p-value of 0.01, that's basically code for "I had a lot of fun torturing the data for this one".
It is also used in quality assurance/control, by people who don't really understand probability, but like having books with titles like 'reaching five sigma control'. The joy. Like I don't really understand it, but at least I know I don't
Fire 🔥 video content, saved some of these on my Amazon list ✔️
While I don't believe that MOND is going to be proven correct, I also don't think we should dismiss it simply because there are things we attribute to dark matter that MOND cannot explain. The true answer need not be a case of either/or; it could be a case of both/and.
OK Nick, How Long has DR Chae been on the "Wanted" LIst. Thank you for work Nick. Love j.
GR is mostly correct, but it's not complete. Maxwell's equation for c is exactly like the speed of a transverse wave on a string, v = Sqr(T/D), where T is tension and D is the linear density. Maxwells is c = Sqr(1/u*e), where u is magnetic permeability of space and e is the electric permittivity of space. So the speed of light has to vary across the vastness of space, it looks constant is our solar system, but it's not across the whole galaxy. Note: u is Henries/m and e is Farads/m.
TIL that you have to get deep into undergrad physics to learn that there is a unit called Henry. And that there's a unit called Henry.
Though, haven't there been numerous attempts to measure variance in c in astronomical data? I keep hearing mumblings about people asking, but never that anyone got meaningful results.
But if the speed of light is not constant then our observations are.......wrong 😮
It is a fascinating and infuriating thing that observations of the large scale universe tell us something is wrong with our understanding of gravity or reality or both. Those observations cannot be fixed with a sticking plaster. The very badly named "dark" matter is neither a plaster, nor will it stick. MOND is at least trying to accommodate something using existing models. Both are most likely very wrong. Some heads need knocking together.
Until we understand what "spacetime" actually is, we don't stand a chance of understanding deeper mysteries around how both matter and energy interact with it. Good luck, guys.
What's worse is that DM has become a dogma. Meaning that if you don't agree with it, you're stupid and anti-science.
It’s all fun and games and Nick get serious and the tone he takes. Authentic. There’s an authoritative tone. I believe him.
But surely the more theories and data documented in an expansion of hard drives will affect the local gravitational field and corrupt all astronomical measurements? Surely?
Observations are the foundation of science.
Nothing can really disprove Dark Matter. Nevertheless, if Chae and Hernandez's results hold in future surveys, explaining them with Dark Matter would be a great trick.
And yet MOND predicts that behaviour...
It has been suggested that our galaxy is in its old age and with a dwindling supply of hydrogen is past its prime star birthing period. If so the amount of matter thrown out and losing momentum reduces the speed of rotation, causing the galaxy to start shrinking. Just a minute, I'm caught in a loop. (It's 4am).
Thanks nick!
Why does the photo of the Doctor look like a mug shot?
Hey it's his professional shot. Whatever works for you I guess.
@@parallaxnick637 Yeah, I just looked at my driver's license. I can't talk. XD
very interesting - thanks
Hmm, at 4:53 there is a picture of a flat Earth out in space. Why?
To illustrate how the best hypotheses can be undone by false base assumptions
Amazing writing. wow
Good explanation. Dark matter is puzzling because it only seems to work at the cosmic scale. MOND is probably on the right track.
No, it is not. There are also a few galaxies out there that behave as they should. Meaning devoid of dark matter. Dark matter is also not puzzling because it only seems to work at the cosmic scale, because that's bull. Thing is gravity is relatively weak and space is huge... so what we can observe and measure is at relatively large scales.
Besides that, if you thought for a second, you know the "dark matter only works at cosmic scale" is utter bull because the best fit for it would be a particle. Albeit a particle that does not interact electromagnetically (hence no light, hence transparent) and a particle that does not interact strongly with itself. And thus we need a lot them bunching up together to detect its effects.
MOND is just tweaking a formula and appealing to conspiracy theorists. It doesn't even do relativity. And relativity has that all important thing: why pretty much explained. In fact, the why forms the basis of the theory. MOND has nothing behind it other than curve fitting. It is a caricature of science.
@@FrancisFjordCupola The Standard Model did not predict dark matter. Various searches using particle accelerators and big tank detectors have come up empty. Maybe it's time to consider other possibilities.
The biggest problem is that we can’t assert that all physical laws remain constant without actually going into interstellar space and extra galactic space
Oh, Nick, I was hoping for the clickbait title and thumbnail :
"**Dark Matter Disproved?**"
Really, I'm disappointed.
My hypothesis is that the universe is a giant database of relationships between particles, and dark matter are residual records that were deleted but not physically erased from the storage medium, thus still taking up space despite being inaccessible from the user interface, because the erasure process would bog-down the simulation. 😛
I kinda think that would help explain the cosmic speed limit, also. Lots of cached database lookups for local observers, so finding a way to jump the queue and functionally teleport would cause all sorts of conservationlaw errors.
Nick, would you eventually mind trying to talk a bit more uniformly? Once you shout, the other time you almost whisper, then you speak hastily, making you even harder to listen to...
Or just mark your videos "for native English speakers only".
I think there is a tool in most sound editors that can help reduce the dynamic variance, but IIRC I never got very good performance out of them. Since it sounds like most videos have a few lines that have to be looped in during post, I'd still suggest looking into it.
Turn on captions. Most of us native speakers like variation in tone. It keeps the video from being monotonous.
@@dirremoire If I would like to read a text, I wouldn't go watching a video. And most people in the world are not native English speakers.
Yes. Electromagnetism explains the problems.
Im back
Totally in agreement. I find very annoying that supposedly respectable physicists our societies are paying salaries to waste their time in MOND.
Good luck to professor Kyu-Hyun, since most of his colleagues would rather make stuff up like dark matter than admit Einstein had it wrong.
MOND also requires dark matter to work …
“Dark matter” is just the label applied to an OBSERVED phenomenon. Nobody made it up. The observation is real, then there’s the problem of how to explain it. Scientists think it must be some kind of invisible matter BECAUSE OF THE OBSERVABLE DATA not because they don’t want to admit that Einstein was wrong. Proving Einstein “wrong” would be Nobel prize material and any scientist would love it. Tiny problem is that you have to PROVE it not just assert it.
I don’t have a dog in this fight. My only observation is how powerfully sides believe in their own theory even when the universe stubbornly disagrees with it. This phenomenon isn’t confined to cosmology, everything from virology to climate seems to have been captured by computer modelling that falls apart the moment it touches the real world, but is still held onto like a religion.
Cmmnt for algo
Liked and commented to kick the algorithm
general relativity is wrong
sure it's wrong or incomplete. but it is less wrong than 2+2=4. We need a better idea than the best idea ever had.
Sure Mr. Dunning Kruger.
Because you say so? It's the most proven theory ever, it is essentially FACT by now.
@@LuisAldamiz Maybe he's just trolling, but he has a point. GR doesn't predict dark matter (or dark energy) and GR alone cannot account galactic-scale observations. So, GR is "fact" in the same way that Newtonian Mechanics was "fact".
@@dirremoire - General Relativity does not predict dark matter (why would it?) but it does explain its effects, such as gravitational lensing and everything else very well, while MoND doesn't (they never talk of gravitational lensing for instance, which is one of the key evidences for dark matter as such "matter").
With all due respect to Newton, his system never explained gravity to the level Einstein did. It was a good approximation of its effects but even good old Isaac admitted that he had no idea of how everything worked and that finding the answer to that was something for future people to discover. That future people was essentially Albert Einstein.
Now, said that, Einstein could say the same not about how gravity actually happens, that's already understood (bending space-time) but how matter/mass (concentrated energy, notably hadrons or the strong nuclear force rather) bends space-time. That's something for future people to unravel and something modern physicists are not working on as far as I can discern, obsessed as they are with quantum mechanics being supposedly the answer to everything (which is clearly not).
At least here science isnt a religion. Safe and effective, 1 in 73
I call it clickbait 'science' for low information netizens. The kind of idiots that think Elon Musk is a jeenius.