New evidence AGAINST dark matter?!

[@captain_context9991]

I tried so hard, I got so far. But in the end it wasnt even matter.

[@DrBecky]

😂😂😂 this just made my day

[@captain_context9991]

@@DrBecky Put it on a t-shirt. 😂

[@eljcd]

?? I don't get it, sorry. Its a english thing?

[@majlordag1889]

@@eljcd it's a piece of song lyrics

[@RialuCaos]

@@eljcd It's a reference to Linkin Park's "In The End".

[@boahneelassmal]

Science in one sentence: "There's more work to be done"

[@guifdcanalli]

well there is always something to be discovered

[@DrBecky]

Of course! If we knew everything there’d be no point in doing more science

[@boahneelassmal]

I'm not meaning it in a bad or demotivating way. I mean it - for the lack of a better description - as an overly simplified defining characteristic. Just like people connect the sky with the clour blue one connects _There more work to be done_ with science :)

[@michaelpettersson4919]

@@DrBecky Explaining why the Q in Star Trek tend to be bored... 😉

[@BarbarianGod]

The fun never stops!

[@nassimabed]

I guess the trick in science is to stay humble and not become a die-hard fan of any particular formula.

[@paavobergmann4920]

Yup. wild-eyed exaltation is a drug to stay away from

[@TheBaconWizard]

Exactly this.

[@clagen86]

"The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you" -Neil deGrasse Tyson

[@carljohan9265]

That's pretty much the trick to life in general.

[@u.v.s.5583]

Then why do certain formulae work so great?

[@greid1317]

I'm an experimental psychologist so on the other side of the scientific spectrum but I absolutely love Dr Becky's videos!!! You are superb at explaining your discipline! Keep up the great content :)

[@DrBecky]

Glad you like them!

[@eljcd]

Umm, I I don't know. Maybe the assistance of a psichologist is exactly what is need in the Astrophysics community with regard to the DM paradigm, if only to identify thinks like confirmation bias, groupthinking, cognitive dissonance...

[@thomassherer5962]

I don't know there's a big difference. Human Apes are very complex, too, and much less predictable.

[@mackhomie6]

What in God's name is an experimental psychologist? That reminds me of this shady motel by a methadone clinic that said executive residency but executive was written in cursive and I thought it said extreme

[@alastorgdl]

@@mackhomie6 The psychology specialized in EXPERIMENTING? It took me several weeks to figure it out but...no, it actually took me FIVE SECONDS

[@StoveLad]

why has the great almighty algorithm just now bless me with this channel. its like i found a Scott Manley but astrophysics.

[@DrBecky]

All hail the algorithm

[@Thorcat001]

And I never heard of Scott Manley but now I have thank you.

[@peterlloyd6969]

Very interesting thought. As interesting to think about your name....I wonder what algorithm was running to bring me to watch this post and read your comments.....Matrix anyone?

[@StoveLad]

@@peterlloyd6969 you happen to live near the great lakes particularly in Ohio? Or have family lineage to Ireland/England. We may be cousins! lol. My family moved from Wales to Ireland then to the United States. The double L Is from Welsh steaming from the surname Llwyd (means gray in welsh)

[@stephenking6590]

@Lance Jagger And the stars are just the turds in a toilet bowl.

[@eduardoh.m2072]

MOND was the main focus of my "thesis" (I don't know how you English-speaking people call the dissertation at the end of university) as an undergraduate in Physics in Brazil. My professors had never heard of MOND and it seemed like they were already convinced that dark matter was the only game in town and it baffles me to this very day. Great introductory video, by the way!

[@DrBecky]

Nice! Hope this was a fun update for you then. I don’t think you can research dark matter without considering some form of modified gravity at the same time

[@christophercampbell4166]

"Thesis" está certo. Também pode ser "dissertation."

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

@@DrBecky what you said is that stars in "lonely" galaxies spin faster? did you mess this one up?

[@nathandegner5187]

@@DrBecky would you be my friend

[@nathandegner5187]

@@DrBecky do you live in the USA ?

[@tarmaque]

“The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." ~Thomas Huxley

[@stewitr]

In this case it's a hideous ugly theory that needed to be put to bed a long time ago. Just a shame it's taking so long. It's like some are very happy to believe it exists without any proof...sounds oddly familiar

[@eljcd]

I think the respost to this should be: "The great glory of Science- the explanation of an incomprehensible fact by the right hypothesis" ~ Me

[@tarmaque]

@@stewitr Yeah, I love it. We observe something that contradicts what we expect to see based on our current understanding, and rather than reexamining our current postulates we invent an invisible, undetectable _thing_ with the properties that would explain away the one observation that is troubling our current understanding. This isn't "science." It borders on religion.

[@A55455In47I0n]

@@eljcd is incomprensible a word?

[@poksnee]

@@tarmaque It also borders on research grants. Like the stupid theories of string and multiverse...before it. Astrophysicists as well as a number of other branches of science live or die on research grants.

[@josephmoore2527]

I've used this quotation from the middle of this video: “Now apparently the authors spent months checking their work, just to make sure it was robust and would stand up to very intense scrutiny because they knew it was going to get that. They checked it for measurement error and systematic error and statistical errors, but by the end of it they just couldn’t deny what they found. You know, even the most die-hard of dark matter fans could not deny what they found.” As an example of what a study, and, indeed, what science itself, IS. Thanks.

[@MattsCrazyArt]

If only the softer sciences took this robust an approach before declaring new theories as fact...

[@mylesleggette7520]

@@MattsCrazyArt If it were possible to do that with their subject matter they wouldn't be soft sciences...

[@Rohan-vo3qc]

Maybe the real dark matter was the friends we made along the way.

[@lizardlegend42]

@Roger Loquitur Quantum mechanics is weird and unintuitive, but the standard model has actually been one of our most successful theories to date. It predicted the existance of the Higgs Boson decades before it was actually discovered and has stood up to scrutiny for around a hundred years since its inception. We are now at a stage where we understand quantum mechanics well enough to integrate that knowledge into practical uses. Quantum computing has made massive strides in even the last 5 years, with google achieving quantum supremacy just last year, being able to perform certain specific tasks billions of times faster than with classical computers. We trust in theories because they work, certainly not faith. Neuton's equations are extremely outdated and incorrect at extreme scales yet they are still used in say engineering because they work. We don't know why electron spin happens, but we know how it happens well enough to make quantum computers. That in the end is the beauty of science, it doesn't dictate what the world is, it's merely our attempts at describing it. It's always changing, every day new discoveries are made or theories challenged. When something no longer works, it's thrown out in favour of a better description that does work. This slowly refines our knowledge. We'll never know everything, but we'll keep knowing more than we did. That's beautiful, don't you think?

[@lizardlegend42]

@Roger Loquitur I don't know enough about the history of the field to answer that, but frankly it's completely irrelevent. Like it really doesn't matter what its called, just what it is. You're just arguing meaningless semantics to detract from the point.

[@biswaroopchowdhury1647]

@Roger Loquitur Umm, Sir we can actually look at an atom and sub atomic particles using the modern devices we have developed now.... Just because you haven't seen one doesnt mean it has not been observed by other people.

[@lizardlegend42]

@Roger Loquitur I refuted to that idea in my original comment. I can't see an atom with my eyes (well, not without equipment anyway). But how do you think that device you're typing with works? Pixie dust? We know electrons to exist because we *can* and do use their properties in everyday life. Transistors are getting exponentially smaller to the point that they actually are approaching the atomic scale. The theories we've developed accurately predict how they've functioned in practical use, so we keep them around until something better comes along. But even when something better does come along we'll still likely use the old theories for those particular fields because they'll still be useful, just as engineers and the like still use Neuton's laws 300 years later Then as I talked about there's the fledgling field of quantum computing. We don't know quite why electron spin happens yet, just that it happens. And that's enough to use it practically for quantum circuits. These properties aren't just theoretical, they're practical. Subatomic particles do enter into a superposition state and measuring them does physically collapse that state. We know that, because we've been able to apply it to actual, real world devices

[@lizardlegend42]

@Roger Loquitur Hey mr philosophy wannabe, computers aren't grown on trees, they're built by normal humans like you and me. If you don't know how they're built, that's on you. It's a very well documented process developed purely thanks to our current understanding of electronic behaviour. Like honestly from that rant you went on I'm half convinced you don't even know what a transustor is. And wtf is your definition of knowledge? Because it seems quite different to the definition everyone else uses. You say you can't turn this information to knowledge, but knowledge is literally just information a person posesses. Information *is* knowledge, they're the same thing. Here's an example, "I have information about the subject" is the same sentance as "I have knowledge about the subject". I think you have a problem with the English language or something.

[@insertcalamity7961]

I love science. It's like "hey I found evidence of this!" "But now there are even more questions"

[@CloneDaddy]

Isn't it beautiful?

[@asdf3568]

I loathe scientists who state things we barely know anything about as fact. Dark matter and dark energy are two such things.

[@Lakoda26]

just like a good anime

[@a.e.jabbour5003]

Well, if all the 10s of 1000s of hours I've spent watching shows like "Law and Order" and "Criminal Minds" has taught me anything, it's that the very nature of any good investigation is that each reveal brings up many new questions. At least on tv shows. :)

[@erikig]

I would name this episode "Newton Strikes Back"

[@TheZacdes]

Not very hard,lol

[@romydrah5606]

More like McCulloch Strikes Back, since that's the guy who created the theory (Quantised Inertia) that actually predicts galaxy rotation without dark matter

[@TheZacdes]

@@romydrah5606 keep in mind that even she still thinks dark matter is the best fit:/ Also DM is just a term to describe something that does not emit any radiation we can detect and is transparent in all wavelengths:/

[@thomaswoodworth7644]

Newton had an equation for a falling apple. It works well in are local planetary group, but falls apart out of our solar system.

[@En_theo]

The return of Darth Matter

[@viperstrike0]

so every time i get up in the morning im fighting against every galaxy in the universe? no wonder its so hard.

[@spacecadet1249]

Every galaxy in the universe that the Earth isn't shielding you from, is lifting you up off your bathroom scale. Count your blessings... ;-)

[@shardsofcontent4829]

Not really a fair fight ... I’ll just stay in bed 😆

[@CloneDaddy]

@@spacecadet1249 Clearly, the Earth isn't shielding me nearly enough, then. Sigh.

[@russell7489]

Brilliant

[@peter.g6]

Yeah, it's really hard in the morning.

[@olegil2]

This is the first time I've seen that rotational chart, and suddenly I also understand why we're looking for dark matter. Thank you so much.

[@HELLBENDER77]

good luck finding it!

[@ogmoiga4729]

I agree I also never seen the rotating chart now i understand why they are so hardcore on dark matter

[@bigdaddyyute6472]

I FELT EXACTLY THE SAME THANK YOU !

[@MrAnthonyfrench]

same

[@morn1415]

Obviously in more dense environments the simulation takes more computation time... :/

[@HAL-oj4jb]

Time dilation in GRT is just lag due to a lot of objects in a small volume lol

[@Krissycrabcake]

@@james-faulkner ​ wtf? first of all she's not that kind of scientist - she's a physicist not any kind of environmental scientist - second of all you're responding to someone else's completely unrelated comment with this, and third, who the hell raised you that you think it's appropriate to "motivate" anyone with "tell them to get off their fat ass"? Haven't you ever heard of respect?

[@nousernamejoshua1556]

@@Krissycrabcake in the foundations of logic group, I've seen them talk to the A.i. in very derogatory terms. There's several models used for different purposes of solving, And when the A.i. returns an average unqualified answer, sometimes there's a tirade of comments. Perhaps the man think Dr.Becky is an A.I. and not flesh and blood human.

[@steemlenn8797]

We should be careful to not do the computation work on too many cores, or the core density will slow it too much.

[@morn1415]

@@steemlenn8797 I hope whoever runs this Universe has an Uninterruptible Power Supply and proper backups...

[@hazardmouth]

This makes more sense to me, the idea that dark matter "exists" because it's simply the missing variable to the equation just isn't enough for me anymore. Great video 👍

[@DoveArrow]

By the way, I love your channel. I have never seen anyone explain some of these concepts so clearly. I learn so much where you put a new spin on something that I thought I understood before. I comment a lot on your videos and I worry it's maybe annoying, but you're just so intelligent, engaging and funny. I feel like I'm sitting on my couch having a fun, late night conversation with a friend. I want to contribute to the conversation. 🙂

[@nealsterling8151]

When my equations didn't work out, i too always told my teacher that there where some other unknowns involved. She wasn't amused...

[@haveyouseenchefplis932]

No shit bruh, she's not "not amused", she just disappointed about your mindset. Your "take" literally would answers "everything" but explain and contributes "nothing" to the discussion.

[@st20332]

@@haveyouseenchefplis932 it's a joke... why did you feel the need to say that?

[@haveyouseenchefplis932]

@@st20332 ??? there's a people who would see this and think this mindset is okay. confirmation bias basically. besides, sarcasm/satire doesn't translate well when it comes as a text format.

[@st20332]

@@haveyouseenchefplis932 maybe for you. Anyone with an inch of critical thinking could see this was a joke. It's making a joke of confirmation bias... the thing you're mad about 4 months after your first comment... Are you saying people shouldn't make jokes, incase someone "sees the mindset as okay"?... So much there that I can't be arsed to unpack but people aren't all as stupid as you are LOL

[@haveyouseenchefplis932]

@@st20332 >people shouldn't joke i never make those points tho', if op comments are indeed sarcas/satire, a genuine reply would be fine as well, you do realize that people can have the same exact points with different wording right? op > criticising the people who would answer everything with "there's unknown factor involved" by using sarcasm. mine > criticizing op's behaviour in this story hence the "answer everything but explain nothing" see the goal? same exact thing. criticizing people's lack of effort to explain things better. my 2nd comment is not related to the op comment itself, but rather on how people would thought that somethig they did/might do is okay whlist something they saw wasn't exactly a genuine behaviour but rather an act. do better.

[@shawnkelley9942]

So the more we know. The more we realize that we don’t really know anything.

[@solapowsj25]

Accepting the wonders around you is easy and enjoyable. Trying to know more isn't 😊.

[@RaonakDM]

​@@solapowsj25 Depends on the person I guess, trying to push the boundaries of reality is far more interesting to me. If people weren't searching for more, we would still think that the earth was the entire universe, and we wouldn't have realised the fact that each star in the night sky is a star in itself with planets orbiting it.

[@RaonakDM]

the more we know, the more there is to know. The universe is likely infinitely complex, and that makes it all the more interesting.

[@douglasphillips5870]

Another way to look at it is that in order to learn we must acknowledge that we don't know. It's a vicious circle

[@fidgetyrock4420]

cause as u spend time thinking u know something... someone else out there silently thinks "Yes let them think that, while I do something else without them noticing" The very act of focusing seems to exclude something else in parallell.

[@seanjoseph8637]

"Dark matter", dark energy", both just astrophysics speak for "dunno!".

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

Antimatter says, "Hello darkness my nonexistent friend."

[@showmeanedge]

It's a sort of "God of the gaps" situation, to be sure.

[@Swolecows]

Dont forget "primordial"

[@CoenBijpost]

It’s pretty lazy, imo, as well. Finding a fault in the theory should trigger a search for a more robust theory, not just a big, dirty “can’t see, feel or interact with magic dust”-patch to keep it together. There’s just too much arrogance in the scientific communities, like it has always been in the past. There’s a lot of dark matter in the brains of scientists that creates resistance to change... even though change is the most constant factor in scientific history.

[@manichaean1888]

I always felt that the dark matter is sort of gimmick. Like the epicycles when the scientists still tried to save the theory that all the planets rotate around the Earth. The fact that this idea is very dark and uncertain.

[@i-love-space390]

Intelligence is so beautiful to watch. The mechanism causing the phenomenon of inertia to arise has always been something that needed to be addressed. Physics has become very "descriptive" but not very explanatory. Einstein's General Relativity tried to create an explanation for why gravity does what it does. (Gravity was always "spooky action at a distance" in the Newtonian World.) I have always wondered if there was a mechanism to explain why inertia exists. The modified Newtonian idea of inertia arising from all of the gravity of all the objects in the universe is a very intriguing idea. (I believe one of my physics professors in college might even have mentioned the idea when talking about Mach's principle.) It is interesting that someone has thought of a way to investigate the effect via the differences in local concentration of gravitational masses. I hope all this leads to a greater understanding of basic principles and perhaps more explanations of the nature of forces, rather than the old descriptive theories that said "this is just the way it is, and here is a formula to describe it." Were you the one with the video about the tiny quantum wormhole created in the quantum computer? I watched it yesterday and can't remember who made it. Anyway that's another really cool idea that wormholes explain quantum entanglement. It would be another blow to "spooky action at a distance" that Einstein hated so much. BTW. If you were my professor, I would certainly have an insane crush on you. You rock!

[@lancecampbell4323]

You have an amazing talent in explaining highly technical theories in layman’s terms. A difficult skill that you have mastered. Do you teach undergraduate courses at Oxford?

[@DrBecky]

No, I'm a postdoctoral researcher at the moment and not a permanent member of staff hired to teach (i.e. a Professor)

[@NemisCassander]

@@DrBecky You're quite good at it, regardless. Please keep this up. I tend to be highly technical (industrial engineering - operations research) but I don't pay attention to a lot of theory. Coming from my own discipline's grounding (statistics), it sounds to me that dark matter is an effort to explain a source of variation that would otherwise be biased error in a lot of measurements. Would you say that that is a good way to summarize it?

[@SyS591]

Man I would love someone who's passionate as her would taught me physics!

[@fartmaker]

@@DrBecky it's possible that dark matter don't exist and instead si background space anisotrphy?

[@lancecampbell4323]

@@DrBecky Thank you for the reply. I certainly hope Oxford sees what a talent they have and you can pass you knowledge and enthusiasm to the next generation of scientists. Wishing you nothing but success in you career. PS A friend from Canada was at Oxford a couple of years ago in the Geology post-grad program. She said you can feel the history and the knowledge of all the brilliant people there just being on campus. Definitely on my bucket list to visit. Cheers from the colony

[@Martin0815DE]

Hi Dr. Becky, Just stumbled about your video and I love the way you explain, your so clearly understandable English! Thanks for your way of explaining! All the best!

[@PeterRoscoe]

Her enthusiasm for her subject is inspirational. I think I'm going to get her book.

[@frankbrown6716]

Dr. Becky, You present cosmology, astronomy, and astrophysics in a way that is understandable to those of us who don't have the maths while keeping the information intellectually stimulating. You even have made connections to particle physics and quantum mechanics where necessary. I love your channel and recommend your channel and also share individual videos with my friends. You caught me with your videos on supermassive black holes and I have stuck around for dark matter, dark energy, big bang vs steady state, gravity, expanding universe, speed of light, the latest telescope updates, etc. Thank you.

[@darth856]

Dark matter always seemed to me a thing that they came up with because they just didn't have a better explanation.

[@MissJ970]

Same here

[@GodwynDi]

Thats exactly what it was.

[@briansmith1027]

Was? It hasn’t been proven or not yet, like most things to do with the universe, it’s all theory and nobody actually knows. I would doubt they will know for quite a few years yet.

[@eventhisidistaken]

That's exactly what it is. It might also still turn out to be real.

[@zakuro8532]

"There must be another continent on the southern hemisphere because otherwise, the earth would not balance itself and fell off the sky."

[@MattDawson01]

This channel's awesome. I listened to the whole thing expecting to have no idea what you were going on about (as usual), but it all made sense! Glad KZbin is boosting it right now.

[@jimofaotearoa3636]

There exists much in the Universe that we will never perceive in any way, shape or form...we are specialised to live at the bottom of a gravity well called Earth. To fully understand the Universe we will need to leave the Earth. We are but fish in a fishbowl looking at a blurry bookcase thinking "i wonder what those colorful lines are"? Never once guessing at the existence of, let alone the knowledge contained in those "books".

[@InimicusSolitus]

To know the universe, is to observe it from the outside.

[@cyberneticbutterfly8506]

I'd argue that human intelligence crossed a tipping point where we are able to deduce and infer what things in the distance are with methods that give quit precise understanding. It's indeed possible that we have sufficient intelligence to understand the universe. A wolf doesn't know what the moon is but humans can infer it from evidence and observation, without going there. If we can do so with the moon how can you say so certainly that we can't with the rest of the universe?

[@kierandevine8521]

@@InimicusSolitus ~ The Revelation of Sonmi 451 "To be is to be perceived, and so to know thyself is only possible through the eyes of the other. The nature of our immortal lives is in the consequences of our words and deeds, that go on and are pushing themselves throughout all time. - Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb, we are bound to others, past and present, and by each crime and every kindness, we birth our future.”

[@googleyoutubechannel8554]

I think what most non-physicists objected to is not the idea of an unknown that dark matter represented, it was the arrogance and overstatements made by physicists touting what was essentially a placeholder, or non-theory.

[@michaelsommers2356]

Watch Dr. Becky's video on the history of dark matter.

[@danielmeecham464]

Thank you Dr. Becky! I love hearing your descriptions and explanations. I have difficulty keeping up, but I certainly enjoy the chase.

[@poulwinther]

The reason I am skeptical about dark matter is the way it was contrived: "Our gravitational math if off by a factor 10^114th. Let's invent some stuff to make up for it..."

[@KaraZiasapiens]

This is basically the story of physics in a nutshell.

[@nickscurvy8635]

This is the first video I'm watching of yours. Holy crap I love your energy and excitement and stuff!

[@thomasipad7719]

I never believed in DM and always thought, there will be another explanation. DM seemed too strange in an otherwise reasonable universe

[@duncankilburn7612]

Me too

[@jonchambers724]

I agree about DM being unlikely, but we don't live in a reasonable universe. It's weird man!

[@tomschmidt381]

I like Sabine Hossenfelder's argument that the disconnect between MOND and Dark Matter may be the result of something akin to phase change. The paper you cited seems to imply something similar.

[@Dragrath1]

Yes exactly it seems the most natural solution I have seen particularly as it comes from noticing the similarity between MOND and the equation of state for a Bose Einstein Condensate Superfluid medium with a phase change from a gas at warmer temperatures. (I think it works out to be around 4 Kelvin?) I mean otherwise it would be quite an unexplained coincidence why MOND just so happens to produce a very specific equation of state. Equations of state in statistical mechanics arise from quantum level particle interactions whereas MOND kind of just supposes "this is so" and offers no explanation whatsoever. Plus this approach allows it to be consistent with General Relativity. It also fits nicely with the discovery of sub halos within dark matter halos inferred by gravitational lensing of galaxy clusters as you could naturally explain those with a larger gaseous dark matter halo locally condensing into a superfluid state around individual galaxies within the cluster. I.e. effectively catching the expected phase transition in action.

[@raypraise]

@@Dragrath1 true.. phase change can create geometric isomorphism. Contractions of spatial dimension's.

[@rodgersericv]

@@Dragrath1 no

[@u.v.s.5583]

If Kripke had given Leonard his liquid helium, this would have been discovered during the making of the Big Bang Theory!

[@Dragrath1]

@@rodgersericv Well if you are so enlightened to know better than scientists please elucidate us. If it holds up to scrutiny perhaps there will be a Nobel prize for you.

[@burkhardhuegerich4408]

Inertia mass, I guess you rather wanted to say, resists change in motion rather than motion ...

[@keepa1]

Dark Matter: the aether of today's physics.

[@Johnny_Tambourine]

I think Aether is being called Dark Energy now. One more and we'll have a Dark Trinity.

[@Skylancer727]

Aether wasn't even a theory like dark matter is. Aether was just a hypothesis that never had any evidence for it. Totally different.

[@AnoNymous-js7qy]

@@Skylancer727 there's absolutely no evidence for dark matter, it's just h wrong hypotesis

[@Jhiaxus315]

Reminds me more of phlogiston.

[@kennethferland5579]

Epicycles might be a better analogy, as dark matter can, if placed in the right way in each instance, explain ANY anomaly in motion we see. It's a classic 'over-fitting' problem. Epicycles were hypothesizes perfect circles the planets would move on and could with enough layers match any observation. The aether by contrast made firm predictions and was falsified quite easily by one observation. Dark Matter is essentially unfalsifiable by nature and can't make any predictions about a system.

[@edwardallon468]

Hi Becky, I'm an engineer not an astrpysist but understand the basics of sthe dynamics of solid liquid and gases as well as the basics of light refraction. From what I understand dark matter can't be detected in microwave images of the cosmos; through the effects of lensing and distortion of objects when viewed through clouds of dark matter . In both cases the assumption that dark matter cannot be detected with instruments using light or other wavelengths perhaps is not strictly correct. Another thing about dark matter appears that it's prevalence increases as the distance from a star increases. I am also led to believe that as a star increases in size dark matter density around the star also teduces? A simple deduction would conclude that dark matter behaves like all kinds of ordinary matter from what is observable. Given that the space which is space is said to be predominately hydrogen it then seem quite logical that dark matter and it's illusive mass is merely hydrogen that transisions from a solid to liquid form as the space to a star decreases. Indeed would not a newly formed star need to be fueled from the space around it as it grows until it stabilizes? Would that not account for a reduction of the dark matter around it as it grows. But being an element and and an atom particle an baryonic matter it must be detectable am I right. Still given hydrogen having no neutron does buck this trend as "strictly" being baryonic. Is it very possible that in a restricted state as a solid / liquid movement within it's atomic structure makes it virtually undectable through reactive/absorbsion light wave measurement while still distorting light like a transparent lens in space? After spending decades in engineering education and research involved in adult education, has revealed metacognition has enormous benefits however one of its shortfalls has been that nearly current knowledge (and research) is built upon what has been "accepted theory" and the basis of institutionalised learning. Any new research that seeks to offer merely alternative lines of enquiry are difficult to to get up due to the need of "rigour". However, unfortunately rigour although denotes the high discipline of research, it also provides the gatekeepers of the field in which they are based powers of influence that may be used for good and also for self interest. This creates an environment in which "excessive" creative thought is difficult making the honorable vocation of research much more bogged down and difficult and useful progress very slow. In addition, any kind of plausible contribution from intelligent researchers from outside of that field most unlikely considered. As a teacher I often told my students "oftentimes the simplest solution is the best solution". I enjoyed your vids. Very well presented and you made it easy to follow. Just another interesting point. Apart from H2O as solids melt it's substance expands in its volumetric space as do liquids as they are heated and become gaseous. If dark matter is actually the denser states of hydrogen, then if heated by forming or established suns in close proximity their expansion into a gaseous state this must surely increase the the volumetric space that it previously contained it. This model is exactly what is apparently being observed under the expanding universe theory. Given gravity increases as mass density increases dense states of hydrogen would have for a given gravity within the volume of space that contains it. As it expands and the density decreases as the volume that contains increases it's gravity is not lost but rather distributed as the mass density is distributed over a larger volume of space. This may explain why an galaxy maintains a consistent gravity as it expands. Thanks muchly, Edward Allon

[@decam5329]

Universe : Newton Strikes Back! The adventure continues.

[@dm121984]

Yeah, but given how weak a Newton is, he must have had a weak ass punch.

[@mahshshsrklingfa7031]

Take that Eienstein

[@Maxcallaghanphysics]

@@mahshshsrklingfa7031 Einstein: hey look at Newton he didn’t get gravity right want an idiot. wait 102 years Newton: got ya bitch look you couldn’t even describe gravity and dark matter

[@worldtraveler930]

Like Newton himself I've always said F=m×a is a good description but not one that's fully understood / explained.

[@w7mjr]

Mach strikes back!

[@glenmcvey2265]

Goodnight dark matter! Dr Becky “There’s still work to be done” Me patting myself on the back. I’m way more comfortable with this new truth...

[@スノーハッピー]

Just found this channel... you're an amazing science communicator, really complex science and the history of these scientific debates boiled down to summaries that we laypeople can take to others and have a conversation with. Definitely subscribed!

[@uglybob7505]

Just started getting into Dr Becky's videos.....understand about 30% of this and keep on learning about the rest. Thanks for the content 🙂

[@Johnny_Tambourine]

Future astrophysicists - "Maybe the Dark Matter was being hidden by the Aether." :D But I think we rebranded The Aether to Superfluid Space-Time sooo...

[@TheSquarecow]

Isn't it now called a ball of wibbly wobbly time-wimey... stuff?

[@immortalsofar5314]

@@TheSquarecow Wibbly, wobbly spacey-timey stuff, I think.

[@mouserr]

that is only slightly incorrect. the missing matter is dust piled up on the path of an either extant or extinct cosmic electric field of course the 'aether' has also been quantified and is literally the quantum energy field that the u of ark has finally figured out how to tap for energy ... but people dismiss such things because 'that cant be true'

[@PrivateSi]

@@mouserr .. All that is needed to explain the mysterious problems afflicting fundamental physics is a simple, self-balancing base subspace field of +ve charge cells (subspace charge quanta) held together by a free-flowing, ethereal sea of -ve charge... Matter-Antimatter, the stong+long instant off, force, the electrostatic force and magnetic spin, weak force, permanent and temporary junk particles we observe, and of course, gravity/dark energy (two sides of the same coin) and dark matter.. Nothing more, nothing less.

[@PrivateSi]

@@mouserr .. The Electric Universe model you're pushing is not good. Electricity is the movement of electrons. It is not fundamental and not gravitational. You need a subspace charge field to explain where electrons, positrons come from. This field does shape our universe, but extremely sparse free electrons cannot... All they can do is attract and be attracted to +ve charged particles extremely close to them, as per Coulomb's Law.

[@alexbowman7582]

To quote Rowan Atkinson they are like the blind man in the coal shed with the lights out looking for a black cat which isn’t there.

[@johnwythe1409]

Hahaha that is a good one.

[@davidthomas1424]

Is that because the blind man can "feel" the very small reflections of light that are still there?

[@hanniffydinn6019]

I miss British comedy, it’s dead now,,,🤡🤡🤡🌍🌍🌍

[@diggie9598]

@@davidthomas1424 What you mean by "that"?

[@fredneecher1746]

That is actually the definition of philosophy. The definition of religion is the same except that you find the cat.

[@luislopes9825]

It’s ironic that I normally defend MOND against “dark matter army” and today I‘m a bit in the opposite position. These findings aren’t really evidences against dark matter and their discovery, if confirmed, isn’t the end of dark matter. Truly they mean a big feather in the hat of MOND, since EFE is a characteristic signature of it, and no other theory ever made this prediction, that falsifies GR Strong Equivalence Principle. So its another evidence in favor of MOND, that reinforces the exceptional performance of this theory in “small scales” of the Universe, since fits observational data in a very close way and has a lot of predictive power, much more than any competing theory. And the universally accepted BTFR arises directly from MOND, linking velocity of galaxy rotation exclusively with baryonic mass. Having said that, when we pass to larger scales, clusters, there is a deficit of mass to explainits dynamics. According to MOND there is a ratio of 2:1, much closer than traditional cosmology, 10:1, without invoking dark matter. This deficit is addressed considering undetected baryonic matter (its commonly accepted that the identified quantity of it isn’t consistent with BBN or CMB data), and some dark matter, probably in the form of sterile neutrinos. So to position correctly the problem, it isn’t a combat of MOND vs. Dark Matter, is more just trying to explain, with an open mind, what observational data shows. And there “MOND people” have a big advantage against “dark matter people”, because the first normally were educated according to mainstream cosmology, and abandoned it when they identified insolvable cracks in it, when trying to explain observational data. This to say that “MOND people” know a lot more about the “opposite field” than the reverse, where MOND is seen more or less like a “flat earth theory”. Finally a comment about MOND and gravitational waves, it isn’t true that GW events falsified MOND (meaning “Milgromian MOND”), this is a very common mistake, it was said so many times that it became true. “Milgromian MOND” is Newtonian, not relativistic, so doesn’t make any kind of predictions about GW propagation speed, it’s completely out of its scope. Some relativistic extensions of it, TeVeS, for instance, had that prediction, it is called Shapiro delay, and these really were falsified, but that was not the case for “Milgromian MOND”, as well as other relativistic extensions, that don’t include that prediction, namely RELMOND, presented in 2020 by Skordis and Zlosnik.

[@johnnyfortpants1415]

But dude Dark Matter Army is a hell of a name for my next Metal band, so thanks

[@gmweb1304]

Doesn't EU theory discount dark matter as an abstract concept only to justify a gravitational model of the universe?

[@EnglishMike]

@@gmweb1304 "EU theory" is just a bunch of random crap dressed up to sound sciency by pseudoscientists. You're not going to get any traction with that nonsense on this channel.

[@brucebaxter6923]

I quite like frame drag and the fabric of the universe having mass. It explains dark matter, light speed being constant to the observer, mass gain at high speed etc

[@luislopes9825]

@@gmweb1304 EU isn't exactly real science... :-)

[@drreason2927]

I like a scientist that is willing to question the "unquestiinable" when evidence suggests it is nessesary. Thank you for your effort in true science.

[@alastorgdl]

That you cheer about happened FIFTY YEARS AGO Now we're in the "we're desperate to find a face-saving way out" stage but scientism cannon fodder live in a cult

[@jhogrute]

as a fellow oxford postdoc, who loves to teach... impressed by your teaching skills, spot on

[@sam21462]

One would think that you would punctuate better and I have little doubt that oxford is in favor of Oxford.

[@gooblepls3985]

@@sam21462 no need

[@TheHarrip]

🤦 I had to teach my 7 year old niece this past few weeks. I thought I wanted to be a teacher. It's hard. Too hard.

[@alwaysbored47]

@@TheHarrip Yes... You think it's easy until you realise they don't really understand at all.

[@nousernamejoshua1556]

Oxbow Fyord?

[@stevenverrall4527]

Thanks for being open minded. Remember that the theory of epicycles lasted for about 2000 years before the weight of evidence against it finally came to bare. Theories that preceeded Quantum Mechanics and Plate Techtonics didn't go easily either. Note that Quantized Inertia is an improvement over MOND that fits data better than MOND. Research I am doing shows how to derive Quantized Inertia from General Relativity in a way that provides a novel theory of Quantum Gravity.

[@eljcd]

Hi, can you provide some reference?

[@stevenverrall4527]

@@eljcd Only very recently have I finished working out the details needed for a complete and coherent argument. I have an extremely busy teaching schedule, so I hope to submit this work for publication later this year. Current working title: "Extending Einstein's eqivalence principle to obtain gravitation from radiation" However the title may end up being very different... This work is intended to be the first publication of a lengthy project developing a novel atomic model as an alternative to Quantum Chromodynamics. In my opinion, QCD has failed miserably in its decades-long quest to explain most nuclear measurables: Nucleus size, particle masses, magnetic moments, intrinsic angular momentum, etc... The model I am developing can calculate most of the measurable properties of the proton to good precision. It is much more precise than QCD and does not require sophisticated number crunching.

[@BronzeDragon133]

If they each got it half right, then both would have gotten it far more right than I would have... :-)

[@TheMrPeteChannel]

Well MOND supporters say that near weightless photons & neutrinos can explain the Dark Matter effects in Galaxy clusters.

[@nousernamejoshua1556]

Word exchanges. We were talking about concepts and context and it may be that only this 'fits' in a context of concepts, but I really liked this post with some minor word changes. The replies were really good and maybe I can share them at some point, but it is from a closed group. Can be used inversely too in context." Space = Emptiness Time = Life Zero = Source, Faith, Courage Motion = Speed of light transfer or rate of understanding. Senses = Time Limit Objects = Framework (nothing yet for subject) Change = Coherence Energy = Change Substance = Parallax, change of mind Monad = Grave or Death. Which only sometimes seems right - that we are either Zero or One. ?? Motion, space, and time. Dynamism vs Staticism. What is the analytic essence of motion/time/space? How do they relate to dynamism vs staticism? Most people view time as a necessary pre-cursor to motion, as in, time is necessary for there to be motion. This is the view of time as a *static container* of which motion unfolds within. This is essentially the view proposed by aristotle. Things move IN time. Then we have the platonic view. Time is not a an eternal pre-cursor, rather, time exists because of the motion of things. Time is now dependent upon extended motion. Without extended motion, there is no experience of time. Within these two views, we have time as a thing in itself, and then we also have time arising from the interactions of the phenomenal representation of things in themselves. -------------------------------------------- Lets ponder space and time zero for a moment. Suppose you are experiencing the conditions before the big bang. The conditions prior to and leading right up to the big bang. At that moment, there is no extended space, no extended time. If clocks could be attached to any zero point entity, clocks would not tick. So we are presented with a very clear moment where time and space do not formally exist as extension (spacetime, being in spacetime). The big bang itself is quite naturally a process all about motion. Quantum fluctuations, a reference to motion BEFORE the formal existence of extended space and extended time. The question remains.. does motion necessarily need extended time? Or does motion happen REGARDLESS of extended time. Another key point. Energy. The essence of energy is to ALWAYS be in motion. Whether energy is outside of, or in, spacetime, energy is always in motion. It can never stop, it can never run out. These are consequences of both the first law of thermodynamics AND the first law of motion). So we see here that there is indeed motion without actually being in time, which means experiencing time/ticking of a clock. Motion is NOT dependent on time. --------------------------------------------- If everything is reducible back to zero.. space zero, time zero, then zero must contain all the analytic causes that bring forth the phenomenal experience of space and time. While these causes bring forth space and time, they themselves are not in space and time, nor are they eternally referred to as space and time. They do not exist eternally as "space and time" or "spacetime". --------------------------------------------- As a little side thought, imagine an entity travelling in a straight line forever. This entity is travelling through spacetime, as space and time are inversely related (faster through space, slower through time and vice versa). This entity is always going forward in regards to motion. Meaning the consequence of motion is always moving in a straight line, what we could call "the arrow of motion" or "the action of motion". This motion necessarily goes from past/present/future, as it continues along its trajectory. Lets say we take said entity and change its direction. It is now going in the opposite direction as opposed to its original route. We have changed its direction in spacetime, but does this mean we have reversed the "arrow of motion", and its motion is now going from future/present/past? Or is it still following the same inherent arrow of motion going from past/present/future, albeit now with a different direction. The point here is that motion is the bearer of change, change being actions that bring us from the past to the future, while forever being within the present moment. Past actions do not exist as places. You cannot reverse a past action. You can only ammend it for the future. m.facebook.com/groups/213457235811124?view=permalink&id=550118425478335

[@guesswhosecomingfordinner9494]

i am god here everything depends on me Evil Dopplegangers Invaded Earth

[@nousernamejoshua1556]

I tossed some paper towel in my brother's smoldering fire last night. I said, 'be free' and 'take care of yourself.'

[@Andlekin]

Fantastic video. I also doubt that dark matter will be thrown out, but the differences in galactic rotations is probably meaningful and a step in the right direction.

[@Blackholefourspam]

I enjoyed the “Defining gravity” cover

[@Blackholefourspam]

@Roger Loquitur I am not exactly sure what you are trying to say, If I understood correctly, I guess I would say it is possible to define experiences to the extent that it is meaningful to define anything. It's not always perfect, but it usually get's the job done. experiences don't have to be identical for component pieces to be similar and useful as building blocks. I have heard some people argue all our experiences could be made up (via some simulation or Boltzmann brain situation). But since there is apparently no sure fire way to test this, I find it a horrendously useless thing to worry about in practice. All that said, I wasn't trying to be philosophical earlier, I just noticed she was singing "Defining Gravity" by Acapella Science (sung to the tune of "Defying Gravity" from the play Wiked) seen here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4W0qnmwidFofaM

[@Blackholefourspam]

@Roger Loquitur I am sorry but I have read that sentence 5 or so times and it just isn't parse-able to me. There are certainly experiences and emotions that are easier to share and comprehend than others, but you can relay the general idea of the experience in virtually all cases.

[@eyewonder6448]

Do you take into account the time dilation effect of all of the mass at the center of a Galaxy? The difference in perceived rotational speeds would be affected. From an outside observer perspective, it would appear as though the outside of the Galaxy is moving much faster... but it is not because proximity to the time dilation effect of a supermassive black hole. Time and space are a function of matter.

[@freefall9832]

No they don't

[@jmacd8817]

Does MOND have any effect on the red shift measurement for the age on the universe? Perhaps to explain the differences seen versus CMB?

[@calebschultz4270]

if it dose... it would settle nothing. Creationist's will take it as prof that scientist's evidence is wrong while Scientist use the same measurement to claim they were correct. Both would claim they now have new undeniable evidence for why there side is correct, and will think the other is even more stupid for not agreeing with them.

[@umbrascitor2079]

@@calebschultz4270 Seems like a creationist's opinion would be totally irrelevant to OP's question, which is simply made in the interest of improving the science.

[@danieljensen2626]

You'd need a relativistic extension of MOND, which currently doesn't exist.

[@OG-Paul-Valentine]

But science isn't about merging theories, it's about proving or disproving theories. Honestly I don't think "merging" the best parts of the different theories will get us any closer to the truth.

[@demircruz6291]

Physicists: *Fight over Dark Matter* Chemists: "Here they go again". Biologists: "They look so cute". (PD: This is a joke. Love U Physicists ❤️)

[@moontlc]

The best KZbin notification of all.

[@goozebump]

Take a sip of water

[@user-ut3ni6bu7b]

Facts

[@JoshBenore]

Same here, I been waiting for them to get rid of that dark matter junk out of their dumb theories for a long time.

[@johnkeith8072]

"That looked just like a negative reality inversion..." Neil, from the British sitcom The Young Ones.

[@AwwwPishhh]

"Boomshanka. May the seed of your loins be fruitful in the belly of your woman" That's what goes at the end of all my letters to the bank manager

[@MonkeyJedi99]

@@AwwwPishhh Dear fascist bully boy. Give me some money, please. Love, Neil.

[@jwvandegronden]

I had forgotten how good TV was back in the day... Thanks for the reminder!

[@thelolsamshow]

I have no idea what I'm talking about, but in my mind, we know very little about how gravity actually work. We can't do large scale lab tests of gravity. What does huge clusters of galaxies do to the gravitational field? Does the gravitational waves behave in a different way and interact with itself on a massive scale? Imagine gravity itself being dark matter. It may travel at the speed of light, but does that mean that it doesn't get trapped?

[@apathtrampledbydeer8446]

So wait, they lied to us about the fuel of the Planet Express ship? My life is a lie!

[@nousernamejoshua1556]

Wasn't watching energy turn to mass fun?

[@nousernamejoshua1556]

Go to Church. Not cat@holics.

[@roy1701d]

Clearly, there's a lot in physics (and astrophysics) that we don't understand. Moreover, there's a lot that we THINK we understand but really don't. And the biggest deficit in our understanding lies in gravity: apparently "missing" matter and our inability to make our current model work with QM are prime examples of this. The meta-problem, of course, is that the models we DO have work so darn well. What clues are we missing? Where did we go wrong? We'll have to wait for the next mathematical supergenius to figure it out, I suppose. 🙂

[@flatearth5821]

Gravity will never be comprehended because it does not exist

[@gnualmafuerte]

@@flatearth5821 Then what do you call the force that made your mother drop you on your head *so hard* as a baby?

[@roy1701d]

@@flatearth5821 You're a gotdamn idiot.

[@DoveArrow]

Dark matter is one of those theories that does leave me feeling skeptical, because it reminds me so much of the luminiferous aether theory. That theory led to some good science, like Maxwell's Equations. However, every experiment we used to try and detect it failed utterly. It wasn't until General Relativity came along that we realized it was a bad theory and discarded it. Until then, we were killing ourselves to figure out what it was and why it was so difficult to detect. Now I am the first to admit I know almost nothing. I like hearing about physics and astronomy, but I don't even own a telescope or know where to find much more than Orion and the Big Dipper in the night sky. I have a BA in English and an MA in Psychology. I could analyze "On Walden Pond" for you or recommend interventions for dealing with crippling anxiety. But physics and astronomy? I bow to you. What I do know is that history has shown time and again that we get stuck on theories like dark matter for a long time before we realize where we went wrong. In each instance, we tend to look back on how foolish our theories were and we laugh and shake our heads for having believed then. All the while, we stand in the present hanging onto some equally foolish notion until someone comes along and blows a great big hole clean through it. Is dark matter one of those theories that we will later abandon as ridiculous? I have no clue. It wouldn't totally shock me, but again I know next to nothing about the actual physics. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[@electric_claire]

It also reminds me of all the extra predicted planets before GR. In order to explain planetary orbits according to Newtonian physics we needed all these extra planets that hadn't been detected but people were sure must exist.

[@RobbieHatley]

Interesting video, but its logic seems backwards. The curves shown in the research appear to support the _opposite_ of the authors' conclusion. Note that in the galaxies marked "high Genv" (I'm assuming that means lots of gravity from nearby galaxies) the rotation rate actually _speeds up_ as one approaches the edge of the galaxy, much as with The Milky Way; whereas, with "loner" galaxies, the rotation rates are flat. To me, these _both_ appear to contradict the "MOND" theory and support the "Dark Matter" theory instead. Am I missing something here?

[@eljcd]

MOND will give you the flat rotation curve of a galaxy if you have measured his mass, meaning barionic,"visible"mass(this don't meant easy to see, though). The better the measure, more close MOND will be to the real speeds.Aditionally, predicts the EFE in environments were the background acceleration "pushes back" the MOND boundary (determined by a0)of a galaxy. And that produced a tiny (tiny!)downslope in the rotation curve. The graphs show various cases, to the left with the EFE added to the curve(pink), to the right without. For more detail, of course check the paper posted in the description, or Stacy McGaugh blog: tritonstation.com/2020/12/18/statistical-detection-of-the-external-field-effect-from-large-scale-structure/

[@vipahman]

Metallica was way ahead of its time when it wrote "Nothing Really Matters".

[@TeslaMaster2]

All this mass we just don't see-ee... and nothing else matters...

[@razeezar]

You mean "Nothing Else Matters"

[@nousernamejoshua1556]

Sign sign every where a sign. Teslamatters. There was a known Sign in Antioch California: "The Posting of Signs Is Prohibited" Isn't that a sign? And the history of Antioch was were the Trojans fought, and before that, I think it was the Hittites, but I don't remember. Signed and the signified.

[@nousernamejoshua1556]

@Roger Loquitur only Jesus beat the tu quogue fallacy or the liar paradox. But it doesn't mean we agree false is true, when false is false is true. False is not true, so if we deny false statements as the true defining statement we return less false positives. Let True be True and false not exist. For iff you say false you negate and make a claim, so you must then present true, thus false doesn't exist. That's going to take more than I got to get clear of in these dark ages.

[@nousernamejoshua1556]

Also as related to the Trojan War, didn't they steal the Beautiful Aphrodite? I honestly don't remember, but King David fell for the same Trojan trap I think all of us men do.

[@mtgradwell]

2:30 "If you look at the speed that the planets orbit around the Sun you can see that it drops off as you get further away from the Sun". This is not a hard and fast rule for all bodies orbiting the Sun. For instance, the Earth orbits the Sun exactly once per year, but so too does a body which is on a line connecting the Earth and Sun and about 1.5 million km closer to the Sun than the Earth is. And the same is true for a body which is about 1.5 million km further away than we are. The reason is that these objects are at the L1 and L2 Lagrange points respectively. The simple explanation of a Lagrange point of the Sun-Earth system is that it is a point where the influence of the Sun and the influence of the Earth are in balance. It's not just the Sun-Earth system that has Lagrange points. Any pair of orbiting bodies has them. So there are Lagrange points for the Earth-Moon system, for instance, and for Sun-Jupiter. So an object can orbit the Sun in the exact same amount of time that Jupiter takes to do so, despite being slightly closer to the Sun than Jupiter is, or slightly further away. Now consider how this might work on a galactic scale and on a geological (million of years) timescale. Each star orbits not just the galactic centre but also at least some of its near neighbours. The number of pairs of stars that can be considered to form temporary systems actually outnumbers the individual stars by a considerable margin. And for each pair there are 5 Lagrange points in total. The effect of all these Lagrange points is to even out the rotational speeds of all the stars in a spiral arm, so that the outer arm is able to keep pace with the inner. It should be obvious even without sophisticated spiral arm speed measurements that this is the case. If the outer part of a spiral arm was not able to keep pace with the inner, the after just a couple of revolutions there would be no spiral arms. Everything would get smeared out. And it should be obvious that things work as they do because a star is typically MUCH closer to its near neighbours than it is to the Galactic centre and so its orbital speed is much more influenced by those near-neighbours (and their numerous Lagrange points, so numerous that they effectively form a continuum unlike those of the Solar System) than it is by that centre.

[@engineerahmed7248]

Martin "your continuum theory" doesn't hold in actual continuum like atmosphere on earth, or in more appropriate stars & black holes formation. Debries just get sucked & u get bigger & bigger (SPHERICAL) until u explode & create another SPHERICAL EXPLOSISION OF DEBREE.... As we clearly c atmospheric density increasing as we get closer to earth. The matter just spiral in towards the centre & concentrates. Lagrange points r rare & the moment u leave it slightly u get sucked into an orbit of some massive body....Only dark fluidistic dark matter (Newton called Aether just forgot to tell it has boundary layer just like fluid to silence Nickelson Morley experiment misdirection) presence can explain it all & also the NON SPHERICAL FORM OF MOST GALAXIES...

[@mtgradwell]

​@@engineerahmed7248 ""your continuum theory" doesn't hold in actual continuum like atmosphere on earth" While gravity does apply to the individual interactions between neighbouring molecules in Earth's atmosphere, it is by far the smallest force at that level, dwarfed by the force of intermolecular collisions and by chemical and thermal interactions. ".. As we clearly c atmospheric density increasing as we get closer to earth." There also appears to be greater density at the centre of a galaxy than at the edges. That is part of the reason why the "dark matter" hypothesis is problematic. As the name implies; we don't see it; and there is no other evidence for it either which is not subject to other explanations. I was not addressing the density gradient within a galaxy, I was talking about relative velocities. " Lagrange points r rare" Five for each pair of gravitationally interacting objects is not rare. As for the rest: Newton did not believe in an aether. He believed that light was composed of "corpuscles", and I would say he was proven right though today we call them "photons". I won't get into Michelson-Morley here except to note that most scientists agree that it disproved the aether theory. I do not believe that "dark matter" could be a resurrected aether, and in any case there is as little evidence for one as there is for the other. Thank for interacting, it is much appreciated.

[@engineerahmed7248]

@@mtgradwell " Continuum modelling will always take shape of a spherical clusturs with mass density progressively decreasing outwardly - way more than "There also appears to be greater density at the centre of a galaxy than at the edges" ...Globular clusters shape can satisfy your theory, but their density doesn't increase inwardly enough to satisfy continuum modeling's predicted rate or langrage points have to fit really perfectly.......Newton did invoke luminiferous aether to justify refraction, diffraction & double slit experiments............The most INTERESTING OBSERVATION is spooky resemblance of galaxies with whirlpools & weather system buildups in satellite imagery...They r water droplets or small objects suspended in SWIRLING INVISIBLE AIR, so on analogy if we develop a theory that matter & INVISIBLE DARK MATTER/AETHER is orbiting around concentrated mass of galaxy at centre - add to that boundary layer theory to aether/dark matter & everything gets explained, from galaxies shapes, gravitational lensing, apparent g variation around supermassive objects without the need to invoke spacetime gravity fabric trickery.

[@mtgradwell]

​@@engineerahmed7248Continuum modelling is an approximation which assumes that the substance of an object completely fills the region of space which the object occupies. It says nothing about the shape of that region, except that it should not be self-intersecting. Spherical clusters can be spherical because they are not rotating. A spiral galaxy IS rotating. Rotation of a non-rigid body tends to stretch that body out, regardless of how it is modelled. "Newton did invoke luminiferous aether to justify refraction, diffraction & double slit experiments" Newton never invoked luminiferous aether for any purpose, and the first double slit experiment was in 1801. Newton died in 1727. From the Wikipedia article on luminiferous aether: Newton rejected light as waves in a medium because such a medium would have to extend everywhere in space, and would thereby "disturb and retard the Motions of those great Bodies" (the planets and comets) and thus "as it [light's medium] is of no use, and hinders the Operation of Nature, and makes her languish, so there is no evidence for its Existence, and therefore it ought to be rejected". Just like "invisible dark matter".

[@zeuso.1947]

Question: This explanation would mean there's a lot less mass in the universe. How does that effect 'end of universe' theories?

[@JRandallS]

10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, ......

[@NieR.Amanda]

That's a good topic to raise. Amongst its supposed influences on the motion of galaxies we may have missed its unhealthy influence on cosmology as a whole. If we come up with a new theory or set of theories about gravity it could be a good thing. Science is not a finished product, but a living, evolving endeavor.

[@michaelkenner3289]

Unclear, dark energy and cosmic inflation are probably the key factors and we're still trying to figure those out. If we discover we have to rewrite the laws of gravity and general relativity we're probably even further from knowing a clear answer just yet.

[@l00d3r]

If MOND came out by modifying Newton's equations, couldn't we also modify GR in the same (or a similar) way? Could that give better results?

[@eljcd]

GR is really hard to modify and keep consistent with all the phenomena that explains (DM and DE really aren't modifications, only adding of parameters to the stress-energy side of the equations). MOND begins with a modification of Newton's equations, but a RelativisticMOND is another thing entirelly. A strategy like introducing a field to account the change in strengh of gravity, like inTeVes, produces things like GWs being slower than c, something so far not measured. At the moment, relMOND theories are too inmature to build an alternative cosmological model. The closer thing is this, I believe: tritonstation.com/2020/07/13/a-significant-theoretical-advance/

[@marcusdirk]

I love the acronyms in that paper you showed. Such potential for misunderstanding (or comedy) 😁 "An SEP is something that we can't see, or don't see, or our brain doesn't let us see, because we think that it's somebody else's problem. That's what SEP means. Somebody Else's Problem."-Douglas Adams, Life, the universe and everything

[@nousernamejoshua1556]

That's also the "herd mentality" that predators always pick at the edges in reality. With people, going to the outside makes it easy to spot, and everone knows what should be done. If you go in between the group, they don't see so well as the "all eyes strong", coherence is divided, weaker. They are lazier in reaction thinking someone else will do something about it? Not my job, but we all see the problem? Subdivided people lack attention, left on their own they might dip below the light curve. Did something cause us to leave a member down? Maybe we were wrong about the light we thought we were in. Never betray your country and never leave a man down. Separated from a battalion would you patch up a foreign soldier or easy pickings?

[@nicolasdupreslatour3005]

*"Really sceptical"...? I'm really sceptical about everything in science, because this is how science works, science is driven by doubt and questionning, not by unchanging certainties !*

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

Are you skeptical that water is H2O?

[@williamh4172]

I question things in every field of study because every field of study is controlled by agendas.

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

@@williamh4172 The 'agenda' in science is figuring out what is going on. There is usually no big money on either side of a question, so no bias. Oil science is an exception, and indeed, there, the scientific consensus is wrong. Astronomy sorted out dark matter, it's real, get over it.

[@williamh4172]

@@annaclarafenyo8185 - LOL. You really don't know how it works. Either you are very close-minded and ignorant or you are a gate keeper. Those of us with real critical thinking skills understand that space is far from the empty vacuum that is taught and plasma/dust (real matter) perfectly explain what they try to fill in with dark matter. I would just as well believe in the Easter Bunny as I would dark matter now.

[@TheZacdes]

@@williamh4172 Plasma would be visible in one spectrum or other. The amount of dust needed would block a good portion, if not all of the light from a galaxy, so no, think harder:/

[@Ten28film]

Thank you for all your hard work making us all smarter!

[@ThePixel1983]

Somehow my brain turned your "hard" into "dark"...

[@Aurinkohirvi]

I haven't become smarter. Maybe somewhat wiser.

[@patrickfitzgerald2861]

@@Aurinkohirvi Yep. Smarts you're born with. Thoughtful experience and education (like this video) make you wiser . . . or at least a bit less ignorant. 😉

[@Stroheim333]

You'll see, the real solution will explain _both_ what we now call Dark Matter _and_ Dark Energy. There is an unknown force pulling galaxies apart, and also has a reverse effect _on_ the galaxies, a force that is almost undetectable between the individual stars but is significant on the intergalactic scale. Here we anticipate an elegant, simple solution that is on par with other breakthroughs ("paradigm shifts") in the history of science. Just my two cents.

[@BlockoStudios]

Can we get a full cover of Defying Gravity though? I was just about to go to sleep, and then I heard you start singing and I won't lie I pogged, that shit was angelic

[@Nightis81]

"Darkmatter" and "Dark energy" is just one way to say "I do not know".

[@Alondro77]

Dark energy = The Dark Side! :O lol

[@niloufarzamani4806]

😂😂👍

[@VoxTox]

No, these boots are made for Walken. Christopher Walken

[@thrakkorzog75002]

Yep, it's a bit like Black holes. Start trying to divide by infinity, and the models just say 8008135. Need too work on those models.

[@Tech_Publica]

Dark matter has always reminded me of Aether and Epicycles. An artificial , ad hoc hypothesis which tries to adapt reality to our flawed theories instead of adapting our theory to reality...

[@danieljensen2626]

To be fair MOND is kinda like adding epicycles into the equations rather than saying they're a property of space. All hypotheses are ad hoc until we finally have enough concrete evidence to say which is right and which is wrong. There have been other attempts to modify our theories of gravity, but MOND is the only one that comes close to explaining the evidence we see consistently. And even MOND gets a few things wrong, generally it has been considered to have more problems than the dark matter theory, which is why dark matter has persisted. Currently it's still the best theory at explaining that we've observed in multiple different situations.

[@Dragrath1]

@@SeanPeckham-xe2gt Yeah exactly MOND on its own doesn't solve the problem or explain why there is this correction term/additional fields. Plus as Sabine Hossenfelder points out the equations for MOND are very similar to the equations of state for matter embedded within a Bose Einstein Condensate medium. If such a dark matter medium were cold darkmatter undergoing a quantum mechanical phase transition into a Bose Einstein Condensate superfluid around a few degrees kelvin suddenly it explains the MOND results naturally where it is applicable and why cold dark matter but not MOND works so well elsewhere such as the early universe and furthermore it explains the odd observations of sub halos within inferred dark matter halos of galaxy clusters based on observed Gravitational lensing

[@3mpt7]

Yeah, but consider the example of 'Planet X'. We observed deviation from expected values in the orbit of Uranus (Ouranos), and found Neptune as a result of it. Then we tried to do the same thing again, when deviation occurred in the orbit of Neptune, and found Pluto. Then we found many more solar system bodies, previously undetectable, but it turned out the observed deviation in the orbit of Neptune was down to measurement error. Dark matter just means we need better telescopes, or gravity wave observation stations. @Dragrath Okay. That's going way over my head. It sounds as if we're seeing a recently confirmed fundamental state of matter in nature? All I'm interested in is what this means for Einstein--if I'm going to get another wave of 'Einstein was wrong' science students, I need to batten down the hatches.

[@Raging.Geekazoid]

I would expect those nearby galaxies to put some kind of stress on the surrounding vacuum, specifically whatever mechanism is responsible for implementing gravity. If that mechanism has a finite capacity, and it gets saturated, or "maxed out", by all that external stress, the stress might block signals from the galactic interior. Dominance of the effect in the galactic outskirts can be explained by a nonlinearity in the vacuum's response that allows strong signals to overwhelm weak ones.

[@dibenp]

Oooo! Interesting topic. Thanks!

[@flamingworldz7663]

"Paper like dishbelif that's, what. This dish belief? I believe, in dishes" XD

[@amadman8149]

Hey, it's almost as if we don't know everything yet!

[@peterconway6584]

If we did, it would be the end of scientific investigation.

[@amadman8149]

@Theunis de vierde van Brabant did you bang your head? There's always another question! Science is a path, not a destination! Every answer must be questioned, again and again. All evidence must be examined, and everything we thought we knew, changes in an instant!

[@amadman8149]

@Theunis de vierde van Brabant It's the theory, we've got at the moment. Whoever comes up with evidence either way will probably win a Nobel prize. However even evidence of dark matter or an improvement in our understanding of gravity will only lead to the next question.

[@nothingbutlove4886]

@Theunis de vierde van Brabant Because it exerts a gravitational force on it's evironment. That is what this whole problem is about. There is no evidence that it is actually matter. Otherwise it wouldn't be a mystery.

[@mikexhotmail]

@Bob De Baviaan Indeed.

[@kal9001]

The idea that I myself here and now am being influenced by Andromeda, and indeed every other piece of matter in the universe is frankly so obvious I'm not sure why it's part of a debate? Or is it more of how much the actual effect is?

[@WaruWicku]

"If you try to accelerate your car, you're doing it fighting against the pull of the Andromeda Galaxy" Best quote ever

[@point-xn4tu]

Plus, what are the chances of finding your car keys, which only comprise 0.00000000000000000000000000% of the matter in our galaxy? (Some margin of error accounting for model and make) One cannot reasonably be expected to do that! And it's not just once, but multiple times throughout our lifetimes.

[@spacecadet1249]

But if Saturn and Jupiter are in front of you, you have nothing to worry about...

[@RaumBances]

The dark matter band aid has practically stopped scientists from looking in the right direction for understanding for decades. I'm happy to hear not everyone is on that hype train.

[@tonywells6990]

What is the right direction? Nobody knows for sure but there is some extra stuff that gravitates, and MOND can be only a small part of it.

[@clickrick]

Now I want a song about believing in dishes, and for Dr Becky to add it to her album when she finally releases it.

[@santyclause8034]

Perhaps radar dishes like the VLA telescope dishes? Like -horses- Sunflowers, the dishes will know which way to point. We just have to believe in them.

[@themeatpopsicle]

If I don't believe in dishes, do they exist? Would that get me out of washing them?

[@Timberwolf69]

@@themeatpopsicle I fear only a dishwasher can get you out of that chore...

[@nousernamejoshua1556]

Journey is about: "Dont Stop Believing"6 Hold on to that feelin' Streetlight, people Don't stop, believin' Hold on Streetlights, people Just on the outskirts are there dishes. The rest are streetlight, people? Yeah, come on particle fizzes, we need some soapy bubbles here. Particle fizzesist dont interact with light. 4:14 Is Adromeda moving towards us because we are squashing? Relationship matters and equivalence principle.

[@PowerScissor]

Merger sounds like such peaceful way to describe two neutron stars coming together.

[@Martial-Mat]

Quote from Alan Boss, exoplanet theorist: "In regard to our discoveries, the score is something like Observers 230 Theorists 0" (got that from another channel today).

[@stevenverrall4527]

Except for the direct detection of Dark Matter where observers score zero.

[@xochilguevara3429]

Although I’m all for actual observation, I have to disagree with the Boss. Theories have been proven by later, sometimes much later, observations. Much of what we understand is directed by theorizing.

[@merrymachiavelli2041]

@@xochilguevara3429 Yeah, plus, when papers come up that support or elaborate on a particular theory, it doesn't necessarily get as much attention outside of the niche area the article is actually focused on.

[@Martial-Mat]

@@stevenverrall4527 Absolutely not. Observers have recognised that there is a gravitational force not accounted for by non-theoretical physics. That tells them that standard model physics is not fully accurate OR that there is something else (dark matter) is at play. The observations are leading the theories.

[@Martial-Mat]

@@xochilguevara3429 I'd have to say that the universe CONSTANTLY disproves the theories - standard brightness quasars, the habitable zone, the nature of black holes, the range of planetary types, planet 9, the big crunch - have all been shot down in flames the past few decades. That said, of course there is a symbiotic relationship between theory and observation. Spectacular successes for theory include gravity waves, the Higgs Boson, and the photography of black holes.

[@mordirit8727]

Yesterday, youtube: hey you like memes, this channel has a "Space Memes" reaction. I check it. Today, youtube: hey you like science stuff, this channel you visited before has uploaded this good science video. And that was how I subscribed... Thanks youtube, I guess your algorithm works well now and then ^^

[@DrBecky]

👋

[@FLPhotoCatcher]

@@DrBecky Here's an idea that my brother and I came up with. Gravity could be caused by 'gravitons' that push, and objects weakly block the push. Gravity would thus be stronger on the edges of galaxies, and could explain why stars orbit galaxies faster than expected on the outskirts of galaxies. That would explain dark matter. Recently, whole galaxies that are inside of galaxy clusters, had stars that were observed to orbit their galaxies slower. This is evidence that the 'gravitons' are blocked by the matter of the surrounding galaxies. So, what are these 'gravitons'? An undiscovered force? Maybe some sort of particle that appears only in empty space? Maybe these could also explain the initial inflation and current acceleration of the universe?

[@qzamboni]

@@DrBecky Really cool, thanks for showing the paper! Astrophysics isn't my area and I'm only a graduate student, but another finding that stood out to me was that sound waves formally have negative mass, after hearing about the proposal of including negative masses in Einstein's equations. I can't help but imagine a theory based off of MOND and ideas such as this, where 'dark matter' is ultimately explained as some sort of large-scale 'sound'- or superfluid-like phenomena.

[@jarduhat8267]

scientist continue to come up with cool ways of saying "we don't really know"

[@SuperFriendBFG]

I've always understood Dark Matter as being a somewhat tentative concept, in the sense that Physicists and Astronomers know that something is there and must be having an effect on gravity in order for our universe to "work" as it seems to now, it's just that we have frustratingly not been able to properly observe what causes this. So "Dark Matter" started to come up more often and the concept started to gain more traction as further research didn't disagree with Dark Matter existing. Perhaps it's less whether Dark Matter exists or not, and more about whether the concept of Dark Matter as we understand it evolves, and perhaps in the future, the name "Dark Matter" would give way to a more apt name.

[@havan56]

Way to "shed light" on the current status of Dark Matter theory. ;-)

[@gggrow]

Nooooooooo

[@wreckitfelix]

@@gggrow more like yes tbh

[@spacecadet1249]

I wonder how much a square foot of dark matter would weigh? Could it be contained by normal matter? Is it dense enough to pick up, handle, maybe be machined into something useful? Or would we find it to be a gasseous substance that our hands would pass right through? If it got cold enough, would it then become a solid? Is the reason we can't seem to find any because perhaps gravity affects it negatively, and it's out there in space hanging out, as far as it can get from all the normal matter? Or is the only difference the frequency of molecular vibration, and if we figure that out, we might make ourselves vibrate like that and become invisible? What did I miss?

[@OlleLindestad]

Lovely video. I was surprised to hear that long-distance gravitational interaction between galaxies would not be expected under the conventional models of gravity. Why is this? Doesn't it just decrease by the distance squared? Is there normally assumed to be a distance beyond which the strength of gravity decays to zero, or something?

[@eljcd]

Hi, there is a background acceleration in every part of space caused by the circundant large scale estructure. The EFE of MOND is a value additional not existent in LCDM, because there are parts in space where gravity will decrease following a linear funtion, not a square.

[@Drokkstar_]

Lookup hill sphere. Can extrapolate to particles from there. But basically, yes.

[@englishmuffinpizzas]

It is expected. But what isn’t expected is that the presence of object 3 should influence the force object 1 exerts on object 2. The EFE is saying that the force between 1 and 2 actually depends on the forces from everything else in the universe which is actually extremely strange

[@rodgersericv]

If this theory is true, it's possible it could be used to measure the size of the universe. It may also lead to an understanding of the "Great Attracter".

[@iconoclad]

It has no size, it is infinite.

[@sethcourville8936]

Thank you for feeding us your knowledge DrBecky.

[@mlguy8376]

Last time I was this early nuclei were still collecting electrons..

[@lordgarion514]

Too soon 😓😁😁😁

[@justaguy2033]

Booooo!!

[@Deathtobunny1]

Copying this from another commenter, because it deserves to be a full comment: 'I assume (because I've heard such comments before) that you are both trying to snipe at dark matter theory as the "religion". It's funny because your description is better aimed at MOND and similar ideas. MOND advocates have always believed their theory in spite of the evidence. Dark matter was (as Becky noted) only hypothesised because of the evidence. No-one wanted it, no-one likes it. It's just trying to explain facts that astronomers observed. Theory following observation. MOND exists purely because some researchers don't like the idea of dark matter and so have been trying to explain away the observations. Their theory kept failing tests (until this new paper) and still can't explain core observations without some other effect. (Epicycles.) When the issue of galactic rotation curves came up, I was immediately a fan of MOND. It's a very elegant solution. But it didn't work. Evidence kept piling up against it and the advocates kept having to change their theory to follow, instead of leading towards new observations. In that Huxley quote, dark matter is the ugly fact, MOND is a very beautiful theory that keeps failing. And I suspect that'll be the case in this new paper. "rather than reexamining our current postulates we invent an invisible, undetectable thing with the properties that would explain away the one observation that is troubling our current understanding. This isn't "science." " It's how we discovered X-rays. It's how we discovered the big bang. It's how we discovered neutrinos, how we discovered Neptune. We saw something we couldn't explain (certain metals fogging photographic film, red-shifted galaxies, unbalanced mass numbers in nuclear reactions, oddities in Uranus' orbit) and siad "I guess there's something there that we can't see." Then we tried to map the properties of the mysterious new thing, and it just worked. Hell, that's why X-rays are called X-rays. It literally meant "the unknown radiation we can't see". They could have called it "dark rays" (just as UV was originally called "black light" for the same reason.) And later, "Gamma radiation" was just the "third" type of radiation emitted by certain nuclear reactions: alpha, beta, gamma. The first two turned out to be known stuff (helium nuclei and electrons, respectively), the third turned out to be a new band of EM radiation beyond X-rays. This stuff is standard in science. Find the gap, look in the gap. Most of the time it'll be mundane. Occasionally it'll be a new thing. New things are good.' @UCDsuz03eA1mZ3Z8fLnqt5Uw@UCDsuz03eA1mZ3Z8fLnqt5Uw@UCDsuz03eA1mZ3Z8fLnqt5Uw1FatLittleMonkey

[@eelcohoogendoorn8044]

Assuming the theory is incomplete and assuming the data is incomplete are not mutually exclusive.

[@snorefest1621]

omg this is underrated. Vsauce subscribers should go here

[@razeezar]

Also recommended : CGMatter's recent video about M&Ms

[@ADAJ342]

Im glad i found this, i was looking through the scientific articles on this topic but I couldnt understand any of them. This made things a lot clearer,though I still dont understand a couple things but hey, progress has been made.

[@eljcd]

Hello, are you reading papers without previous formation? That's a deep dive, indeed! If that's the case, I recommend you that before take on a paper, check some page that discuss it. My places to go, for example: tritonstation, to everything Astrophisical; even better, you will found this paper discussed in detail there. stars with a bang, good introductions to a variety of themes of Physics and Cosmology. backreaction, where Dr. Hossenfelder cuts through the bullshit in her inimitable way(has a youtube channel too!).I recommend her wholeheartedly.

[@ADAJ342]

@@eljcd ,oh man. These really helped, thank you so much :)

[@PhilW222]

I’ve thought for a while that we have got some of the fundamental theories wrong (or at least “not quite right”) in cosmology. An excellent video.

[@OttoGrainer27]

Overdue for an overhaul going back 50 years, if not more. But I've been listening to too many "alternate-minded" people.

[@jimbarnes8467]

Completely wrong

[@Skylancer727]

We'll we always knew there is something wrong or missing. But it's really hard to narrow it down.

[@busybillyb33]

7:10 When she talked about how lonely that galaxy was...I felt that.

[@MsSonali1980]

I'm so alone, I feel no gravitational pull from anyone else.

[@nousernamejoshua1556]

She might be referring to Antagonists, and not actually being alone in the Universe, anti-agonist. Alone is singled out, by some unknown mechanisms of community standards. Each still being individual are only not alone if they share the same idea types. See, opposites don't attract when it comes to friendship, while nothingness is a worse thing like going to a museum and not recognizing anything eachother sees.

[@OttoGrainer27]

@@MsSonali1980 I hope that funny remark was made only in jest, because even though we are all temperamentally alone, I think you're important and I would pull you towards my cluster if I held a galaxy, no innuendo intended. Stay humble in this life; growing is the entire point of it.

[@nadiaalibaig]

OMG I found an astrophysicist on KZbin 😭 I used to be deeply fascinated with space at 10 and I still am fascinated so yay me!

[@SuperChooser123]

dark matter is a hoax

[@GodwynDi]

@@SuperChooser123 Always was

[@mikeperalta2190]

There are 7000 demons for every living human. There are 20,000 angels for every human. Maybe this is the reason for dark matter and dark energy?

[@TheGnewb]

This is a mind tickling that I enjoy.

[@point-xn4tu]

Just wait until you try the other types of tickling our human species takes part in... yes, dear interstellar visitor, you will enjoy your stay.

[@glenben92]

"there's one concept in physics.." Subbed.

[@macmuggo5459]

You should unsub, there are several concepts in physics

[@frenchexpat5601]

That makes no sense. So much intelligence in one video and this is what you subscribe for?

[@edsiles4297]

When I saw this in my recommendations, I first read "drunk matter" then "dank matter" Yeah, I was kind of wasted

[@joshuabroyles7565]

Dank matter radiates density.

[@HaloInverse]

lol galactic spin distributions go brrrrrr

[@scottblack6]

I totally agree. My observation is that usually when you have two items of question and you can not tell what one is correct it ends up being some where in the middle.