Are Dark Matter and Dark Energy Scientific?

[@hoptoads]

In astronomy, DARK is the technical abbreviation for " Don't Actually Really Know ".

[@mingonmongo1]

'Fer sure, they were both invented because they SHOULD be there... 'IF' the reigning 'hypothesis' is correct.

[@KibyNykraft]

There is no evidence for dark matter. Period. Dark energy is a more realistic suggestion but not necessarily relevant for anything.

[@jefflittle8913]

@@KibyNykraft "There is no evidence for dark matter. Period." This reminds me of the story of the English professor who spent 20 years researching to put together a proof that The Odyssey and The Iliad weren't actually written by Homer, but by a blind person from an earlier era *who just happened to have the same name*.

[@technomage6736]

Ha! 👍

[@IFearlessINinja]

KibyNykraft That's not the point. The point is that it's the most likely quantifiable solution we have available. We have proof that the theory is wrong, but nobody is giving us anything better

[@colinfox6258]

I am in love with this woman !!!! She used the Vulcan greeting.

[@cq33xx58]

funny it supposedly represent highly logical beings yet originated from the root of abrahamic religions... what an irony

[@jw7196]

Colin Fox Why do people interested in science so often have to be so cartoonishly nerdy?

[@colinfox6258]

cq33xx what did it mean for them ?

[@jw7196]

Colin Fox It meant "live briefly and lose everything," roughly

[@derdagian1]

Colin Fox 🖖🏻 Live Long and Prosper!

[@tsopmocful1958]

The old saying applies here: "You know when people know what they're talking about when they can accurately explain complex things in simple terms."

[@jurisbogdanovs1]

In reality, there are no such thing as Dark Matter or Dark Energy. Both these theories would be perfectly normal theories if they were based on true arguments that led to them. Dark Matter derives from Einstein's description of what is Gravity. We have to admit that it is an interesting thinking, but it is absolutely impossible. After all, there is a reason why the drawing of it in 3D is impossible. Dark Energy derives from assumption that the Universe is expanding. In reality we have misinterpreted what is and how work Light. Redshift has nothing to do with objects moving away. Another idea scientists got wrong is the pattern of Magnetic field. Yes, we know that we don't know what Magnetism is. There is an article on Quora that explains how the pattern of Magnetic field looks like and how we can know that. This story proves that science can be very misleading on many things... Including "Dark things".... www.quora.com/How-can-we-know-that-the-claim-about-the-pattern-of-magnetic-field-looking-completely-different-to-what-our-textbooks-show-is-true/answer/Juris-Bogdanovs-1

[@tsopmocful1958]

@@jurisbogdanovs1 At 30 seconds, she says that dark energy and matter 'may turn out to be wrong', so the properly scientific disclaimer and acceptance of what we don't know was inserted straight away. And I am far from being a physicist, but I am scientifically literate enough to know that all scientific ideas are tentative, especially when it comes to poorly understood phenomena.

[@jurisbogdanovs1]

@@tsopmocful1958 Well, that is true. But that makes you and Sabine exceptions, as the vast majority of scientists become hostile straight away after I declare that many things are EXTREMELY WRONG IN EXISTING THEORIES.

[@alexkaapa]

@@jurisbogdanovs1 Tell me then, how is Einstein's description of gravity "IMPOSSIBLE", yet being confirmed in so many different ways? How do you interpret redshift then? And as far as magnetic fields go, I have never heard anywhere that there is anything wrong with our understanding of them, and I specifically work with them in my research. Maxwell's equations perfectly describe them. Don't know where you are coming from? Are you one of these "self-taught" physicists that has a very superficial understanding of physics, and somehow thinks they are extremely competent?

[@jurisbogdanovs1]

@@alexkaapa You asked 3 large questions in one comment. I am working on a paper about Light, Vacuum, Redshift. And also on Gravity and Magnetism. There will be at least two books about this all too. So, I don't want to tell more than I said. And the pattern of Magnetic field is exained in that article.

[@jackwillson579]

A physics professor ran through a red light and was stopped by the policeman. He explained to the policeman that because he moved towards the red light, the light would blue shift, so he saw green light. The policeman said: Oh, then you were speeding.

[@abhishekshah11]

That's impossible because to generate energy that will accelerate a car to such speeds, the size of the fuel tank and the conventional engine would have to be much bigger than the city the car drives around.

[@oldpichacker]

@@abhishekshah11 The Story goes the Judge said would you like a ticket for that speed.

[@tsopmocful1958]

@@abhishekshah11 It would also be highly unlikely that the policeman would be able to catch up with the driver in the first place, and even less able to stop him at that velocity even if he did. That means that this joke is quite literally a joke in a number of ways.

[@Roger_Gadd]

I liked that one thanks. Posted it to my Facebook page. 😊

[@djbabbotstown]

Another Sabine video and I’m in self isolation. Comfy 😊

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Same here!

[@djbabbotstown]

Sabine Hossenfelder Are immunity voodoo spells scientific yet?

[@a.randomjack6661]

I prefer calling it *solidarity confinement*

[@JCO2002]

Same here, in Jamaica, out of choice not necessity. Not many cases yet, but there will be soon.

[@derdagian1]

Sabine Hossenfelder 🙌🏼

[@illogicmath]

Your videos make the quarantine more bearable

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Happy to hear that!

[@MichaelFrith]

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”- Isaac Asimov

[@IncompleteTheory]

And the guy hadn't even met Trump.

[@timmyg44]

sometimes humble ignorance of things beats someone's claim of knowledge is all.

[@stillkickin3919]

@@timmyg44 Interestingly, your comment is one of the better examples of the meaning of the quote.

[@neilcreamer8207]

@@stillkickin3919 Not really. Timmuh's comment is more in line with Daniel Boorstin's "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge ". The humility to say, "I don't know" is pretty rare in the best-known science figures although it's more common in proper scientists. Asimov was justified in what he said but there is also a lot of belief masquerading as knowledge.

[@GeekfromYorkshire]

Science is the study of what we observe, Philosophy is the study of what we think, and Religion is the study of what we made up.

[@dennisdonovan4837]

Yes … “May you live long and prosper” … with or without “dark things” to ponder … 🖖🏽

[@jean-philippegarneau6224]

Thanks for this video. Simple and yet, I get the feeling that complexity is not compromised. (I still wonder though what the « cosmological constant » - or any constant - has to do with « nature », but it’s most likely because of my poor understanding of these matters)

[@hypehuman]

My understanding is that "constant of nature" refers to a quantity that is not predicted by theory, but that we can only determine by measurement. For example, the speed of light is a constant of nature. General relativity does not predict how fast light moves, but instead just defines a symbol for it and uses that symbol in its equations. If use the equations to do calculations, you have go first measure the speed of light. As another example, the density of water at standard temperature, and pressure, and isotope balance (and maybe some other stipulations) is a constant, but it NOT a fundamental constant of nature. You can use quantum mechanics, plus other constants like the masses of various fundamental particles, to predict the density.

[@gotchaabeech]

Love the points you made !!

[@nathanm.8823]

She makes a couple of good points in this video. 😅

[@the_hanged_clown]

really glad I found your channel Ms Hossenfelder, you do such an excellent job of translating the jargon in a way that a simple layman like myself can understand what you're talking about. thank you!

[@jamesdriscoll9405]

Good to see you looking well, thank you for another timely and topical video. - I have "Casandra" in rotation, it's been dark.

[@monte314]

Another great video... very helpful. I was falling into the notion that dark matter was just another "luminiferous aether", phlogiston, or maal. I am glad that is not correct.

[@RussellMWebb]

The best description I heard; the "darks" [the names] are just placeholders, like asterisks, until we find out what the stuff is. The effects of darks are too pronounced to deny their existence. I love your talks.

[@michaelblacktree]

Yeah, we're basically 'in the dark' as to what it is. Hopefully that will change sometime soon.

[@tsopmocful1958]

Yes, that description covers it well.

[@b-m605]

there are models of the universe which do not require dark matter to make them work. the current model according to wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg begs the questions "who suspended the third law of motion?"

[@RWin-fp5jn]

I am Sorry Russell. This is not how science is supposed to work. The problem with scientists (Sabine Including in this case) is that they are simply not willing to fundamentally re-visit their core fundamental believes. In order to fit all problems, they only produce ADD-ON theories like dark mass and dark energy and next produce semantic discussions whether they are 'scientifically' legalized to discuss them. But that is not the point. The point is that logic dictates that decades of failed add-on theories means the core theories we take for granted (though mathematically accurate) are physically likely incorrect. That is not an opinion , that is a logical reversed engineering argument. But out of shame and vanity, our scientists vehemently resist to question their own collective work. In stead we get discussions about 'scientific' validity of their fictional fudge dark add-on only theories. What a scam! I suggest we fire them all and reclaim all salaries and pensions for holding humanity back....

[@euanthomas3423]

@@RWin-fp5jn Scientists are reluctant revolutionaries. They will do their best to patch existing theories until it becomes impossible to do so and only then will a revolutionary approach be contemplated. This was true of the displacement of classical by quantum mechanics. Any new theory not only has to explain the new phenomenon but also everything currently explained by the existing theory. Needless to say, this usually very difficult.

[@eljcd]

Nice video. Explain in a nutshell stuff that gets complicated really fast. Long life and prosperity to everyone!

[@Nostradamus_Order33]

It must be very cold in her studio

[@PhilanderingBastard]

Headlights on!

[@keithdubose2150]

Appropriate post from 'troll master's

[@Relbl]

As if her presentation wasn't stimulating enough... !!

[@shvnmn]

Thanks! Best summary and analysis of these two subjects I've had so far. Great youtube channel too. Very appreciated.

[@stephanieparker1250]

Another amazing outfit 🥰

[@saketpandey507]

Subject: Alternative theory for dark matter IMAGE GRAVITY (SS):- Existing structure of galaxies are not stables without dark matter But a new force which is image gravity (named by me as “SS”) will be introduced by me. Explanation in brief :- Line of attraction (Gravity ) between two celestial objects is the vector sum of two components one in a straight line and other is in a curve. Curve component is only in plane normal to equator. The angle (named by me as Angle of Power, P) can be as high as 40- 50 Degree for bullet clusters or around 1 degree for stars on outer rings of galaxies. 1. Angle of Power (P) is proportional to distance (R), and Rotation of object. 2. Gravity field (normal component) + Gravity field (curve component) are equal to (G Mm /R 2) normal gravitational law for near objects only. 3. Gravity Field (normal component) is reduced with square of R but Gravity Field (Curve component) is reduced by R only as it is one dimension less than gravity. 4. Angle of Power (P) is called so because it provides extra energy and pull for the revolving object. 5. Image gravity (SS) will be created at the point of interaction of the curve component of both the objects. 6. A constant is required in the equation. 7. After solving this equation on available data of many galaxies we can actually find the correct value of G also ( up to 20 Decimal points ). 8. For a cluster of galaxies it can be taken analogues to a domain in a magnet.

[@stp926]

What a great start to the morning! Free content coming from the ROH, wonderful Sabine, and a Joe Wicks workout. Thank you Sabine. 🙏🏻

[@RobertSmith-pw9io]

You always seem to put out a video on the exact same topic I am trying to comprehend at the same time, and so are the best guide to these subjects I could hope for.Please keep it up!

[@navidazadi4280]

Thank you, a very clear and simple description. I'm currently coping with the virus, I hope to stay alive and can complete an article in the next few months, that theoretically leads to the "appearance" of dark matter and MOND phenomenological formula, and I also send it to you. Maybe 2020 is the end of "dark stuff"! Science is always triumphant.

[@rvooyen]

I still believe there is an issue with the "measurements" in astro physics. Everything seems to be built from the red shift. What if there is another explanation for why we think we see red shift. Just postulating. Like your vids.

[@locutusdborg126]

Good luck and hopefully we won't have to cope with a Dark Virus.

[@navidazadi4280]

@@rvooyen As Dr. Hossenfelder mentioned in this video, the evidence for DE is not quite as strong as for DM. so evidences ascribed to DM are more strict at least. there are some alternatives for redshif of course, but there are problems with them for this situation. kzbin.info/www/bejne/h33cgIeOabNgfrc Dark matter is suggested by preserving Newtonian dynamics whereas MOND is presented with the assumption of breaking of dynamics and/or gravitational inverse square law of Newton. These two approaches are practically rival to each other. What I have achieved is that, these two alternatives are appeared in a unified picture by a simple model in general relativity (and therefore by preserving Newtonian dynamics).

[@navidazadi4280]

@@locutusdborg126 :)) Thank you

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

Recommend you if posible for you get some plant that grows in oak trees is the only plant with green leaves that lives up in oak trees its a plag or kind of a virus that lives up in them, the flowers are red or orange and has some kind of black balls, the leaves are the ones you need, boiol them in water and drink it little by little hot or warm is a real good drink as well you may add some sugar and believeme you will be like new in few days, you may add some lemon or orang juice.

[@danielforrest3871]

When she gave the Vulcan salute I had a nerd-gasm.

[@tsopmocful1958]

The 'Anton Petrov' youtube channel just uploaded an interesting and related video a few days ago about dark matter possibly being 'hexagonal quarks' that may form 'Einstein/Bose(?) condensates'.

[@Mandragara]

Sounds like a mix of buzzwords.

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

hes with all the news and follow them well.

[@tsopmocful1958]

@@Mandragara Perhaps you should just check out the video for yourself.

[@212809]

Hello wonderful person.

[@Mandragara]

@@tsopmocful1958 Name of video? I'm openminded

[@dees9502]

Such important points I’ve been missing. So glad I found your channel.

[@JohnABrady]

The idiom I think you were looking for there was “smoking gun” although that is almost always caused by the “shooting gun” :-)

[@vojtehurbancic6113]

Sabine, I really enjoy your lectures (and your dressing, by the way). One of the best youtubers on this subject. You are one of the few who correctly pronounces the last name 'Einstein'. All English speakers are pronouncing with pure 's'.

[@jeffreyquinn3820]

To be fair, English speakers will pronounce it correctly after they've had a few steins . . .

[@thstroyur]

0:32 I can only speak for myself when I say the dark sector is 'unscientific' not in the sense it isn't a valid hypothesis, but in that it shouldn't be cosmologists' go-to explanation because, no matter how seemingly simple, it still invokes 'new physics' - and we all know that Sagan quote, right? -, while there are tons of ideas utilizing 'old physics' out there - inhomogeneity, anisotropy, viscosity, spin - that don't get the attention they deserve. Plus, it is painfully obvious that the dark sector is just a Band-Aid affair (I don't quite agree with your two points defending DM, but since this is a TL;DR already, will just say the second point is the weakest)

[@austin3789]

You seem to be using a different definition of unscientific than Sabine is.

[@thstroyur]

@@austin3789 Occam's razor is a common principle in sorting between null and alternative hypotheses - and adding 'new physics' to the roster complicates the big picture. Besides, there's that falsifiability issue: if the Universe is under contractual obligation to have a RW metric, cosmology reduces to figuring out how much dark stuff we need to put in to fit the data, and we did that already...

[@magicmulder]

Iago Silva // Either we‘re eventually be able to detect dark matter/energy directly or we‘re gonna be forced to drop the theory eventually. Remember the Higgs Boson? It was theorized decades before being discovered. So nothing but a „dark particle“ that eventually was discovered directly.

[@thstroyur]

@@magicmulder Problem is, unlike the Higgs, there's no real hard theoretical reason (that I'm aware of) to go this road experimentally. If cosmologists started with, say, the slightly more general (i.e., less symmetrical) LTB field, put the data in, and saw that, in spite of the elbow room, the best fit _still_ was RW+dark sector, by no means that'd be proof of the dark sector, but I'd be considerably more lenient with the current empirical searches. As it is, however, it's more like spending millions of dollars looking for unicorns that you postulate to have eaten the grass of your lawn, rather than pausing a second to ponder on all the reasons why unicorns are unlikely to explain your defaced lawn.

[@telectronix1368]

@@The_Real_H But the "yes of course the SM is (still) correct......as long as we introduce an entirely unknown and unobserved directly form of matter and of energy. oh and we need the total mass in the universe to be 1900% higher" is a LOT of extra steps. It might be that 'dark energy/matter' do exist but equally it might be that we just don't understand how the fundamental forces and matter in the universe really work.

[@kevyngreen5038]

She is fantastic, I understand very little but it's something about her.

[@fixxxery2k]

Sabine, could you make a video on emergent gravity please?

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Thanks for the suggestion, I will keep it in mind.

[@RWin-fp5jn]

@@SabineHossenfelder Please do. It is the only viable explanation of gravity as I am sure you know. It was already laid down by Einstein in detail in his Special Relativity under the aspect of 'length contraction' of speeding objects. This physically means frontal grid contraction by speeding objects of course. I know you are smart enough to fully understand that gravity is the emergent directional spacetime contraction effect caused by SPEED of mass. What's keeping you back form telling the truth?

[@adriang.cornejo4800]

Dear Sabine Hossenfelder. You are right. I won't try to convince you otherwise, but that was also the case when the planet Vulcan was proposed. It was also an entirely normal, and perfectly scientific hypotheses, which was ultimately proven not to be a correct hypothesis. Regarding dark matter, the issue is that the classical Newtonian law of gravitation only considers two terms, which are the Newtonian gravity force and the centrifugal force to define the classical total force. Then, it has some limitations proper of this classical theory since it does not consider any other energy or force involved in the rotating systems. This is the reason why is required to add some matter or forces to adjust the calculations to the rotational velocities observed in spiral galaxies, such as the dark matter concept, which has not been detected to date, or even perform some adjustments like the proposed in the Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) theory. On the other hand, the net or absolute total force in the relativistic solution considers a third term, which includes the force related to the Coriolis force in a rotating system, which is inverse of the distance to the fourth power. The following link shows a video with the effect of the Coriolis force on spiral galaxies: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z32upoV9pc2HaZo

[@chaitanyasangle966]

Thanks for the explanation! Watching videos from your channel for an hour now, and it's getting more and more interesting 🤠

[@derdagian1]

Chaitanya Sangle groups.google.com/forum/m/#!msg/talk.origins/VVcVch1TTh0/h-xqtjVrYfEJ Duane Gruber

[@chaitanyasangle966]

@@derdagian1 what's this?

[@derdagian1]

Chaitanya Sangle The Big Bang was disproved in 2007. kzbin.info/www/bejne/ipuooXZ7jb6taK8 kzbin.info/www/bejne/d16ZiaSnjryti5o kzbin.info/www/bejne/sKqkfKaLbtOdj68 I was only an algorithm: derdag. Until I used a valid E-mail address in 2017. I’m Duane Gruber. I was LOST! My Brothers Becker and Moroder have searched and Sabine has Cried and Prayed to God. I’m alive. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jZ6zZIKAga-VeJI

[@chaitanyasangle966]

@@derdagian1 cool I'll check it out

[@derdagian1]

Chaitanya Sangle I broke physics. I break things. lol groups.google.com/forum/m/#! 2007: The Various Big Bang Theories called the Theoretical Universe all had the same problems. They were missing 95% of the Mass Required. Ergo Procto Duane Gruber.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Sabine is great. Every time I think, I've seen all of the interesting stuff, she presents so smart, clear and understandable, there pops up another illuminating video

[@rc5989]

Staying subscribed to Sabine with notifications on is highly logical.

[@GreyDeathVaccine]

I see what you did here.... Tuvok :D

[@ChrisP3000x]

I appreciate your points.

[@Melomathics]

Good one.

[@Debonair.Aristocrat]

Another 'room too cold' video. 👍

[@ChrisP3000x]

@@Debonair.Aristocrat Must be cold as ice in there.

[@aws0mo63]

I knew I couldn't be the only one

[@MyEarthEcoNut]

😂😂😂

[@EvoRoadster]

Wonderful explanation. Short, simple and right to the point.

[@wkg19591]

Very clear and informative Sabin, you make good points. Stay safe :-)

[@danieljackson654]

In fact, we have returned two thousand years ago to the concept of "saving the phenomena." More and more, despite our new technologies of measurement and calculation, we return to the fundamental issue that has been around for the last five thousand years: how to make our theories conform with observable celestial phenomena. This, I find very confirming. Thank you for such an explicit discourse.

[@edsmelly]

Thank you Sabine. A wonderful explanation. On an unrelated note i really like your dress.

[@michaelszabados3245]

Ed Smelly how’ bout the headlights?

[@felipemonteiro5877]

Great video as usual, Sabine! Thank you!

[@scudder991]

Clear and logical rebuttal, Sabine. "Fascinating!"

[@Healitnow]

Sabine I admit I have been one of the ones writing about the none existence of dark matter and energy. It is because of a comment made by Dr. Kaku on a video saying that no matter how fast the red-shift was of a galaxy away from us the signals always arrived here at the speed of light. This means to me that the signal has to travel at faster than light speed from its source in order to get here at that speed. If the galaxy is leaving us at point .3 of light speed away, and we receive the signals at light speed, simple math shows us that this signal is traveling at 1.3 times the speed of light from its source point. This throws Einstein and his speed limit out the window and allows for measurements beyond light speed for measuring the universe. This makes it all a guess as there is no longer a rudder of light speed to hinge calculations on. If light can go 1.3 times light speed why not 6.4 or 10 .1. I feel because of Dr Kakus comment all measurements are now nothing but guesses, and to establish the real speed light does travel, we need to take the current calculated radius of the universe, divide it by the age, and see how fast light would have had to travel to be at the proper speed to match the measurements. Dr, In short would it not be better to establish a realistic speed of light instead of the other way around. Remember with out light speed as a guide we need to rethink things . Hope this triggers some ideas. I believe this would allow is more realistic calculations of mass that including more normal galaxies, etc. possibly removing the need to invent dark matter and energy. Dr. If I am wrong I apologize. My formal education is grade 12 in 1967. Thank You.

[@craig2493]

Thank you for your comments. You have great skill in thought experimenting.

[@lukabc31]

imagine any movement as jumps between infinite number of static positions. No matter how fast you make the jumps - light will leave the static particle and now the problem with faster then light speed disappears. Or imagine it as little bits of energy in waves.. The speed of propagation though ether stays constant, only the wavelenght grows when ppeding away from you and shortens when approaching. If space were expanding then the speed of light would be affected relative to the observer. But this does not happen. Universe is not expanding.

[@MauriceApophis]

Sehr guter Vortrag!... Und: Die Frisur hält! ;)

[@volleyballschlaeger]

3 Wetter Taft.

[@matthewdoddridge8204]

I feel like this was just a reiteration of exactly the problem: "We have a theory, our observations don't fit so we have to either make a new theory or make up some thing that is making our observations not fit the theory. Einstein called it the cosmological constant we call it dark matter." But critics are saying "You had a theory, your observations don't fit so you have to make a new theory. You can't just make up some thing that is making your observations not fit the theory, that's unscientific" They can theorize that dark matter may exist but not say that they know it does.

[@billrock6734]

You have to hand it to Sabine she's constantly good..

[@carlosgaspar8447]

consistently

[@derdagian1]

carlos gaspar kzbin.info/www/bejne/sKqkfKaLbtOdj68

[@eugene7518]

Hand what?

[@cameroncroker8389]

I love your videos Sabine!

[@DIGtotheIT]

My brain when this popped up on my feed: “oOooOOOOOOOO”

[@michaelblacktree]

same here

[@derdagian1]

groups.google.com/forum/m/#!msg/talk.origins/VVcVch1TTh0/h-xqtjVrYfEJ kzbin.info/www/bejne/ipuooXZ7jb6taK8

[@derdagian1]

michael blacktree It’s a Post-derdag Universe.

[@beback_]

The problem is with the emotionally charged word "dark" in the name that tickles people's bullshit detectors.

[@Mrosen7542]

Last time I was this early, it was the Quark-Gluon Plasma epoch.

[@ZEZERBING]

We'll done sir 👏

[@timbeaton5045]

Ahh, so you must have met Mr. Inflaton!

[@davidlawson8103]

Ha muito tempo. Já fazem trinta e nove anos que eu tenho feito as mesmas perguntas sobre os assuntos analisados nesse vídeo por você Sabine e cheguei às mesmas conclusões você está completamente certa

[@TheGreatSteve]

"You can't just invent something that's invisible." Hasn't stopped religion.

[@thstroyur]

Or air, for that matter.

[@ihsahnakerfeldt9280]

@@thstroyur Air is physical and we can directly observe its effects. It can knock us off our feet. Weak analogy.

[@thstroyur]

@@ihsahnakerfeldt9280 ​ Ihsahn Åkerfeldt And we can observe the effects of anything physical because contingent physical things exist that can have any effects at all, ITFP. Plus, the OP was bitching about invisibility, not physicality. Weak - and obvious - reply.

[@ihsahnakerfeldt9280]

@@thstroyur Wtf are you on about? The OP was quoting people who were complaining about the habit some scientists have of inventing invisible stuff ad hoc to make their models agree with reality, and these people obviously think this stuff has no basis in reality (thus non-physical and obviously invisible). OP notices this is also a trend with religious and other superstitious people. This is where you swoop in with your valuable contribution and compare this to air. Air isn't stuff we invented ad hoc to justify a theory. Air is a physical substance that surrounds us and one we can even directly feel on our skin. Your analogy remains weak.

[@videoformer]

Thank you Doc Hoss for this new video!

[@d3m0n0gr4ph1c]

Hey! Her eyes are UP THERE

[@LecherousLizard]

I know "flat is justice", but that's a bit past the expiration date, mate.

[@rufusapplebee1428]

Live Forever and Prosper.

[@arcanaco]

Is the universe actually expanding?

[@ristopaasivirta9770]

The farther away a galaxy is the faster it moves away from us. This applies uniformly to all observable galaxies. Only way this can be so is that everything is expanding. This was proven by Edwin Hubble (and by Georges Lemaître, independently), thus it is called Hubble's Law. Then in the late '90s they discovered that not only are galaxies moving away from us, they are doing so at an ever-increasing acceleration thus this became known as Dark Energy (according to classical mechanics in order for an object to accelerate a force must act upon it).

[@arcanaco]

Yes I am well aware of the theory of universal expansion and the necessity for the associated theory of dark matter it creates. Thank you.

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

They are misunderstanding data: the particles and gas that the sun throus out speeds up after getting out of the suns electromagnetism because the sun eruption finds a much less dense area, same thing happens to the supernovas readings, hubbles fit well inside the system they are but after living the electromagnetism that encircles them is where hubbles law is out of tune because the next stars are found in a much less dense area so they are more distant from one to another.

[@ristopaasivirta9770]

@cary becker I don't think you can say that light accelerates. It's speed is constant. The path it takes gets more complicated when it encounters density, such as water, glass or air. For the light to escape the core of the sun it actually takes hundreds of thousands if not millions of years, because the light bounces around the dense core before finally managing to emerge to outer layers. Remember that from the point of view of the light, the distance to any destination is zero and the time it takes to reach there is zero. It cannot feel any sort of change in it's speed, ie. no acceleration (or deceleration for that matter).

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

@@ristopaasivirta9770 my thinking that comes from all I have beeing from my coppy right books is that light must to get faster as it goes up each level respectively.

[@dsc4178]

What's also interesting is that Einstein reached his conclusions by looking at things in a different way than the Newtonian et al view. Dark matter and Dark Energy are not revolutionary, but attempts to fit and maintain accepted views/knowledge, not break new ground. Not that new ground needs to be broken, but it is likely.

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

Einsteins ideas are kind of wrong, dont think that space is flat cause matter follows atomic weight into space making 2 sides so a plaine space just makes no sense cause has levels.

[@dewiz9596]

When all my measurements don’t make sense, I’d be heading down to Staples for a new ruler. . . Perhaps all our constants are a “Local Effect”. . .

[@Quroxify]

You are thinking along the same lines. Consider the global effect it would have if there was a systematic error in the measurements of the great distances involved in astronomy. The offshoot I imply has a pleasant side effect. All that stuff seen in the telescope is closer than you think. Food for thought.

[@sanjursan]

Totally inadequate. Five minutes per week of Sabine is simply not enough. We demand MORE!

[@hellavadeal]

Plasma cosmology works better without invoking magic particles.

[@morphixnm]

Exactly. Though I agree with Sabine that the dark matter hypothesis is not inherently unscientific, it does however put nearly too many eggs in the gravity-must-explain-all basket, leaving out plasma cosmology and the dramatic effects of electromagnetic forces on galaxy formation and the arrangement of large cosmological structures.

[@esra_erimez]

The studio must be a little chilly again

[@KlaudiusL]

So, insted of inventing stuff to make a Einsten's hypotesis fit .. physicists must stablish new hypotesis to explain what they observe. They're inventing 'dark' things to force the universe behive as 115 years old hypotesis. Edit: 🖖

[@itheuserfirst3186]

They have observed the effects of dark particles. Dark particles have the most evidence attached to them out of any other alternative. We see the effects of gravity , but we don't know what causes it. Is it guaranteed to be right? No, but you don't abandon that which has the most evidence attached to it. Do you not think scientists have been racking their brains for other explanations?

[@manservantchris]

I wish I could give this video two likes. One for each

[@lukabc31]

you can. log in as another user and give more likes.

[@DavidOfWhitehills]

When the universe was a microsecond old, the scientists of the time unravelled the mysteries of their cosmos and exclaimed "Wow, the universe is sooo ancient !"

[@mikelouis9389]

You are probably correct.

[@tomgentry1164]

It seems most descriptions of dark energy is that it is something that is accelerating the expansion. Has there been any considerations that dark energy is the observation of our universe racing into a space if lower pressure?

[@noname-nd8ec]

There is an underlying influencing energy, some call it dark matter, some call it God, I call it Burt because it's always nice to have a beer with Burt.

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

JUST A BEER?

[@DwainDwight]

Thanks Sabine. love the common sense approach.

[@iruleandyoudont9]

it's "smoking gun" jsuk

[@massecl]

In today's physics where we have strings, supersymmetry, inflaton, and nonempty emptiness, sure dark matter is "normal" and comparatively "scientific." But that's not the issue. The issue is: is today's science scientific?

[@eilrruughei]

👌🍼👌🍼

[@sarqf212]

🤤

[@roberts7107]

I have no idea what she's talking about but she sure is pleasant to look at And listen to.

[@madderhat5852]

Thank you for the brain food and live long and prosper to you as well.

[@4or871]

I try to combine the cosmological constant and the schrodinger solution on the planck scale. I used planck units. At the end I went back to SI units to compare with the measured vacuum energy density (0.63 10^-9 J/m^3.) Combine: 1) Einstein, cosmological constant 2) Schrödinger solution 3) Planck units Result: - vacuum catastrophe solved? 1)Einstein, cosmological constant Λ = (8π 𝐺 ƐΛ)/(𝑐^4) Planck units: G=1 c=1 Λ (6.1871424 10^34)^-2 = (8π ƐΛ [planckEnergy/planckVolume] 1.1056 10^-52 (6.1871424 10^34)^-2 = 8π ƐΛ 0.001149 10^-120 = ƐΛ 0.1149 10^-122/ ƐΛ = 1 2)Schrödinger solution, n=1 (ℎbar^2 𝑛^2 𝜋^2) / (2𝑚𝐿^2) = E Planck units hbar=1 n=1 m= mplanck =1 L= Lplanck=1 0.5 𝜋^2= E 1= E/0.5 𝜋^2 3)Einstein, Cosmological Constant = Schrödinger solution 0.1149 10^-122/ ƐΛ = 1 = E/0.5 𝜋^2 0.1149 10^-122 0.5 𝜋^2= ƐΛ Eplanck Eplanck =1 0.1149 10^-122 0.5 𝜋^2= ƐΛ 0.567 10^-122 = ƐΛ [planckEnergy/planckVolume] 0.567 10^-122 1.9561 10^9 /(1.61625502 10^-35)^3= ƐΛ [J/m^3] ƐΛ = 2.627 10^-9 [J/m^3] Measured: 0.63 10^-9 [J/m^3] I am looking forward to your response.

[@gianfrancosavino6366]

I love your channel and your approach to physics and popularization. Might we just do without that star trek salute, please?

[@space_audits]

Just close your eyes so nothing bothers you.

[@Fireonthemountaintop]

That's it! Your live long and prosper sign was to perfect, you must be a Vulcan...........someday............hopefully.

[@dougmarkham]

When people say unscientific, I think that there is confusions as to what science is. Science as a concept could be thousands of years old. Early ideas distinguished between understanding and physically handling things---what we call theory and experiment. Theory arises out of mental abstraction of objects, from which ideas arise from descriptive language eg, use of verbs and adjectives to describe events and actions. Comparison and contrast of many ideas leads the creation of concepts, axioms etc, and also theoretical perceptions arising from multiple concepts, all of which culminates in the invention of arranged schemes which could/might explain observations. As Feynman said: science starts with making stuff up to explain things. The Hindhus called this theoretical realm: Dharma, ie, where 'Dha' is the root meaning 'to place, arrange, order'---a concept later to be used for laws. The Greek equivalent root for 'Dha' is 'The', as: the sound 'Dh' in Sanskrit is represented by 'Th' in Ancient Greek, and the A sound in 'DhA' (Sanskrit) is represented by the E sound in the Greek root 'Theo' (and also in many other Greek equivalent roots). India and Greece share a common ancestor language, so science (coming from the Greek root 'Scio') is similar to the Sanskrit root 'Ci'. Similarly, the Hindhus had another concept: to handle, physically interrogate. They used the word Karma, which is made from one if the Sanskrit words for 'hand' (Kara) and the suffix for action '-Ma'. The Greeks may have had an equivalent root, but our modern word for Karma is experiment. This comes from the Latin experio, from the Greek roots Ek (outwards) + perio (to stab, pierce). Greek soldiers would use their spears to measure the river depth in order to navigate safe passage across a river. This sense of measuring is our modern idea of what constitutes science. People complain that if something isn't directly measured, then a theory is not on firm scientific ground. This isn't the full story. The problem with this notion is that science is an evolving relationship between theory and experiment---between understanding and measuring. No scientific theory is ever 100% safe because measurement is always at some limited resolution, and most theories model what we know and not what we don't. Often, real biological systems turn out to be much more complex and emergent than earlier simple models considered. So the theoretical idea of dark matter and dark energy might not ever be measured and objectified like the existence of the elements in the periodic table. However, the concepts of dark matter and dark energy are scientifically useful, even if just as a placeholder to mark where are current best theories are lacking and inspire the hunt for new particles or fields to discover something to evolve our currentunderstanding around. If you look at the history of science, many theories have been disproven or have evolved well beyond the original concepts to a point of being nothing like the first notions. All theories used by scientists can be said to be scientific, but they are only actively scientific if they meet one of two criteria: 1) There is some experimental backing to the theory and/ or useful applications 2) The theory provides some useful landmark from which active experimental and theoretical research is being done. Where any concept is beyond the objective world, eg string theory, the theory has more mathematical utility than scientific, although some of the ideas possibly indirectly measurable. The scientific utility may become more objective as time passes. When it comes to measuring formless notions (eg, is space-time truely infinite) , then those ideas/questions aren't strictly objective: no experimental relationship would ever be possible in the attempts to research such ideas. However, they are theoretically useful in some models of reality, so are scientific. In other words, conjecture from scientific knowledge counts as scientific theory, as it has some relationship to the scientific process and current state of research. Complete speculation to explain observations is also scientific---sometimes you have to start from no objective grounds at all, and then begin study. What is not scientific: ideas which offer no reasoned understanding. Even the weirdness of quantum mechanics is reasoned; whereas the idea of ghosts existing isn't based upon reason.

[@francislong5114]

Sabine has dark energy in her outfit!!;-)♡.

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

doesnt she shines?

[@eugene7518]

Dark energy doesn't shine

[@tomschmidt381]

I really enjoy your posts, great explanation of our current understanding and summary of the many open questions.

[@merlin5by533]

Gee, we can't explain excess gravity, so we invent Dark Matter without any observation. Then we can't explain the expansion of the universe, so we invent Dark Energy, without any observation of it, and despite Conservation of Energy.. How is this science at all?

[@JCO2002]

There are observations of their effects.

[@merlin5by533]

@@JCO2002 How do effects define particles and energy from nowhere?

[@merlin5by533]

@@JCO2002 Which can be explained by ignorance of the actual mechanics. Dark Energy, and Invisible Dark Matter, both violate basic physics, Conservation of Energy, and quantum physics.

[@JCO2002]

@@merlin5by533 Your argument can be extended to include gravity using those criteria. Do you accept the existence of that?

[@MugenTJ]

All this Dark stuffs and Gravity not fully understood is due to the nature of space itself being poorly known. Everything we study are “stuffs in space.” I put those in quotes because science seem to avoid the possibility that perhaps stuffs and space are very much linked, and probably the same thing. There is absolutely no need for gravity to be a particle of some sort, it could very well be the property of space itself.

[@timmyg44]

from watching this video, i learned there is a lot less evidence for the 2 than I had ever imagined. thanks science.

[@touisbetterthanpi]

Well to be fair, it’s a 5 minute overview of an ongoing area of research. And she’s making a point about where or not it’s a scientific hypothesis, not making a value judgment about its evidence. Ultimately the consensus is that our simple conception of dark matter does not quite work, but our predictions are much better even with that than without it. Certainly there is something going on that we don’t understand, and the evidence for that is very strong

[@henryseldon6077]

Evidence is growing that the "standard candle" used to measure the rate of expansion isn't so standard after all. There appears to be more variety in the types and causes of nova's and supernova's bringing into question it's use in measuring the rate of expansion. Also, we may be seeing the rate of expansion as it was billions of years ago, not today, and the rate of expansion may not be uniform everywhere in the universe.

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

super novas as well must to be found at the 7 levels(densitys) as theire readding suggests.

[@Problembeing]

No. They’re not scientific. They’re ‘mathematical’. Not the same thing at all.

[@RWin-fp5jn]

@Alchemist Don't overestimate the limited intelligence of scientific groupthink. The question of whether dark matter is 'scientific' solely depends on what you define as 'scientific' and who has the self appointed exclusivity to determine this. The community has monopolized the right to determine what in their opinion is 'scientific' and what is not. Whatever, let them do their thing if they must, but don't take these self-proclaimed high priests of dark matter too seriously. Of course 'dark matter' is utter nonsense (and they know it!!!) they just want to keep the gravy train of non-sensible research subsidies going. Gravity is simply linear spacetime contraction CAUSED by the speed of objects (as per Einteins 'length contraction' in his Special Relativity). That FULLY explains the 'extra gravity' observed in high speeding galaxies in galaxy clusters. As such the community is mixing up CAUSE and EFFECT. At the sub atomic scale, the same speed effect goes on with high speed sub atomic particles, causing countless unaligned mini space-time contractions which ACCUMULATIVELY give the impression of 'restmass' spacetime contraction (a.k.a. 'gravity') working radially as per Einsteins GENERAL Relativity. General Relativity therefor is a beautiful but merely MATHEMATICAL construct, derived form SPECIAL relativity, not the other way around!. Again, the community is (deliberately?) messing up cause and effect when it comes to gravity and speed. Dark Matter is therefor COMPLETELY not needed. It is a decade old FARCE, a FRAUD and FAKERY. So if that is what it takes to call something 'scientific' then by all means...But I just wish they finally stop violating and overcomplicating the basics of physics...sigh.....

[@RWin-fp5jn]

@Alchemist Sorry Alchemist. You did not read (rather understand) what I said. spacetime contraction as an inherent effect of SPEED (as opposed to the opposite primary effect) is 100% consistent with both fomarlizations of Einsteins Special and General Relativity and ALL observations including lensing. The only thing that is different is that by reversing cause and effect gravity now does not need to have an extra mysterious component (i.e 'dark matter') since we have speed to back it up as per Einsteins SR. In line with Ockham's razor principle this is therefor the SUPERIOR physical explanation. There cannot be a discussion. As for Einstein: Einstein's GR is NOT a fundamental physical theory because it does not describe gravity at the level of fundamental particles. It merely described MATHEMATICALLY correct how subatomic particles COLLECTIVELY exert their spacetime contraction as 'restmass'. So Einsteins speed induced SR length contraction is the fundamental theory of gravity and Einsteins GR is merely the mathematical effect of this on the collective 'restmass' level. Einstein lost his physical insights the moment he became infatuated with his (beautiful) Mathematical theory of GR. From that point on we stopped looking for the physics behind the mathematics and 'got lost in math' as Sabine so aptly says, yes ironically also promotes. But make no mistake. The subject of gravity is solved. You are obviously a cheerleader for the community so pls fiddle along for decades to come. They will never find 'dark matter' because it does not exist. Which is precisely why this is so popular in the community: Endless fake research squandering our precious tax dollars...enjoy !

[@RWin-fp5jn]

@Alchemist A child can see the setup behind gravity and why the community doesn't want to go there (think of shame, admitting failure and fear of loosing budget). Yet if it waggles like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are..its a duck...Science is not democracy and Sabine knows dark matter is utter nonsense. She can't say so since the community pays here. She is playing the role of occasional jester which is fine. She also knows about research that is being conducted in Germany looking into the speed related origin I pointed out..stay posted I'd say :-)

[@nunyabeeswax9463]

Did anyone else notice her sweater???? Oh yeah. Interesting video.

[@politicalprisoner6632]

Sometimes, rarely, people will speak from the heart and expose their true colors, even to be ridiculed. But I say this from the heart, you have wisdom and femininity, beauty and intellect. I am very attracted to your presentation. It is different, distinguishable , entertaining. You have figured it out, nicely done.

[@jimgraham6722]

Indeed another Hypatia

[@fremtidenkommer]

Thanks a lot for this super nice explanation 😊

[@МилаяЛилу]

Yeah ! I loved it ! Very accurate in the used terms. A well explained focus on this subject ;)

[@Raphael_NYC]

As always Dr. H, your explanations are so good and clear and important. Thank you for sharing so generously with us. raphael santore

[@sgcollins]

I was not expecting the smile.

[@humanitech]

I don't mind when any speculative scientific theory or hypothesis is put forwards when the information, data, evidence and measurements are either confusing, limited or is conflicting or are different to predictions based on other previously believed and accepted theories. However sometimes it seems that we have always jumped the gun and quickly latched on to theories and hypothesis (especially if it either holds up and maintains and defends previous hypothesis and/or theories that are starting to struggle to fit what is happening and being observed) and also vigorously promoted and defended too...when it might actually be something else at work which we are overlooking or refusing to consider because we are stuck defending theorectical maths over real events. Where as... in these situations science should be more open and lateral and willing to recheck, relook and also to explore other hypothesis and ideas the might now fit and work better. For example can we really be 100% sure that red shift is actually what we think is? and is it a truly accurate way to confirm the speed and distance of objects expanding out far beyond are capacity to know. So more interesting questions to me would be ....what if there was not such thing as dark energy and matter or black holes (or black taurus"s or spheres??)....what other theories might then work and fit current observations and data?

[@humanitech]

@Paul Wolf The truth and situation is that all current theories, be it the big bang singularity, or the alternative EU plasma web, or the multi multiverse ideas and theories are all at the same position in that none can be scientifically proven or confirmed conclusive. However the maintain consensus favours big bang and therefore research investment and fund is directed more towards supporting that investigation...which ironically and luckily will and should eventually prove, validate or diss-prove each of the concepts and theories. Sadly interest and funding for EU is far lower therefore it is slightly at a disadvantage interns of what level of research can be done, but the underlying reality is the cosmos can only be what it is...irrespective of how many stupid, weird and wacky ideas and notions humans put forwards and place on it. The truth is there to be found and confirmed

[@JROD082384]

I think the contention comes from the way dark matter and dark energy are described, just like in this very video. You state matter of factly that "dark matter is this and dark energy is that" rather than stating, "we believe dark energy to be this and dark matter to be that, but we still have not discovered/observed/confirmed any new particles or forces directly linking our theories as of yet, just some holes in our understanding of the universe that our maths have determined should be there", and people would not be as critical of your description of two phenomena in the universe that we still really don't have a firm handle on yet in science.

[@yawasar]

Dark Energy is cP. Energy is W=[c,V][ ,P]=[-vp,cP] W=[,-mGM/r,cP] Force F=XW=[d/dr,Del][-mGM/r,cP] F=[mGM/r^2-cDel.P, cdP/dr + mGMR/r^3 + cDelxP] Cosmological Constant is the derivative of Dark Energy, cDel.P

[@allenjenkins7947]

I think Neil deGrasse Tyson (I think it was him - or I might be misquoting) was right when he said that we should be referring to dark gravity, rather than dark matter. However, it all reminds me of my physics lab prac days when we sometimes used Skinner's Constant - which is a number added to, subtracted from, multiplied by or divided into the answer you got, to give you the answer you should have got.

[@davidw4987]

I'm looking forward to next week.

[@phoenix042x7]

I very much appreciate this stance on the subject and wish more physicists were more direct about how these are merely placeholder concepts that cover for current discrepancies in our understanding. It still bothers me that we must rely on such 'band-aids' to hold our observations and theories together in the interim, but I suppose that should be a normal response to this in lieu of a viable, albeit currently unavailable better explanation. As a relative layperson on the subject, I sometimes worry that my skepticism of these concepts merely amount to wanting to complain without proposing a viable solution... which I will not purport to have.

[@OpenWorldRichard]

It is really useful to name theories such as dark matter and dark energy because it labels a specific issue to be resolved. Many people have commented that we call it dark because we don't know what they are. While it seems to solve the problem of dark energy, saying that we just have to add back the cosmological term in the Einstein equations which Einstein put in and then took out again, the big concern is that we are adding a term to the most fundamental equation based on something that we don't understand. This I would say is unscientific. The harsh reality is that we will not be able to resolve the question of dark energy until we discard the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory is based on a number of assumptions which are completely unproven. 1) The cosmological principle 2) The assumption that all matter formed at the same time 3) The assumption about the cause of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. Once you see the evolution of the universe from a different world view it becomes clear that the expansion of the universe is constant and not accelerating and the unexpected recession velocity of distant galaxies is a gravitational effect which we observe as a result of our position in the universe quite close to the centre (26 million light years). Dark matter is also explained: www.academia.edu/5009126/The_evolution_of_the_universe Richard

[@fleetwood3754]

The Greeks defined the world as having 4 elements of matter; Earth, Water, Air, and Fire. All's we did was added 2 more: dark matter and dark energy. We are still the Ancient Greeks and we always will be.

[@adriang.cornejo4800]

Dear Sirs. As reference, the paper where is described a solution of the rotational velocities observed in spiral galaxies, without using dark matter (but adding the Coriolis force in the rotating system, from the General Theory of Relativity), is the following (from 2020): article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.astronomy.20200902.01.html

[@adriang.cornejo4800]

@Paul Wolf Are you referring to the work of Chae, Lelli et al (Testing the Strong Equivalence Principle)? Yes, the author did know about it. But Chae's group's work has a solution on the MOND theory. On the other hand, the work I refer to has a solution completely on general relativity (which considers that the additional force in spiral galaxies in rotation is due to the Coriolis force). So, they are works under different theories.

[@hyperduality2838]

Energy is dual to matter -- Einstein Dark energy is dual to dark matter Negative curvature (repulsive gravity, hyperbolic geometry) is dual to positive curvature (gravity) - Gauss, Riemann. Perpendicularity in hyperbolic geometry is measured in terms of duality! Thesis is dual to anti-thesis -- The time independent Hegelian dialectic. Alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non being) -Schrodinger's or Hegel's cat.

[@WJ1043]

Why must space be uniform at the galactic scale? I like the idea of another String Theory brane inter-reacting with the one we live in to cause spacial non-uniformity that Dark matter is use to explain. In which case, spacial non-uniformity would be the first observational evidence that directly supports String Theory.