No Dark Matter. On MOND with Mordechai Milgrom

#DarkMatter #MOND #ModifiedNewtonianDynamics
Mordehai "Moti" Milgrom is an Israeli physicist and the Isidor Rabi Professor Emeritus of Physics in the department of Particle Physics and Astrophysics at the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot, Israel.
He received his B.Sc. degree from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 1966. Later he studied at the Weizmann Institute of Science and completed his doctorate in 1972. In 1981, he proposed Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) as an alternative to the dark matter and galaxy rotation curve problems. Milgrom suggests that Newton's Second Law be modified for very small accelerations. In the academic years 1980-1981 and 1985-1986 he was at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. Before 1980 he worked primarily on high-energy astrophysics and became well-known for his kinematical model of the star system SS 43.
00:00:00 Intro
00:02:10 What is MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics)
00:12:06 Why not use galaxy culsters, the most massive gravitationally bound structures in the Universe?
00:17:14 What gave you the courage to take on established physics?
00:20:33 Urbain Le Verrie, the discovery of Neptune and the blunder of Vulcan.
00:28:17 How do galaxies with no dark matter (baryonic only) fit into MOND?
00:35:45 What are the implications of the bullet cluster for MOND?
00:43:20 What does Moti think of the possible detection of dark matter by the DAMA experiment?
00:50:50 What advice would you give your younger self?
Join this channel to get access to perks:
kzbin.info/door/mXH_moPhfkqCk6S3b9RWuwjoin
📺 Watch my most popular videos:📺
A New Contender is Here! kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y2ekZ6CvqtdgY8U
Frank Wilczek kzbin.info/www/bejne/aaubg6SBgrZ7m5Isub_confirmation=1
Weinstein and Wolfram kzbin.info/www/bejne/hXqTco1qjpl8ppYsub_confirmation=1
Sheldon Glashow: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l2HCmpSNnN2EqqMsub_confirmation=1
Neil deGrasse Tyson kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z5zbmH5sf5mGa7s
Michio Kaku: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aaXSaqyjo5KLgas
Sir Roger Penrose: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d37Yoqx3q71qjdE
Jill Tarter kzbin.info/www/bejne/hWquaoJ4mZipfs0sub_confirmation=1
Sara Seager Venus LIfe: kzbin.info/www/bejne/h4HWdnelhLmIbM0sub_confirmation=1
Noam Chomsky: kzbin.info/www/bejne/f5LdZ31_rambbLssub_confirmation=1
Sabine Hossenfelder: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZmcaZath9Ctd6M
Stephen Wolfram: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pISklqCIrd-gjq8
Avi Loeb: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hGrPhpabfdh_iNk
Jim Simons: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bJfVaYuFqceDp68
Be my friend:
🏄‍♂️ Twitter: DrBrianKeating
🔔 Subscribe kzbin.info
📝 Join my mailing list; just click here briankeating.com/mailing_list.php
✍️ Detailed Blog posts here: briankeating.com/blog.php
🎙️ Listen on audio-only platforms: briankeating.com/podcast.php
A production of imagination.ucsd.edu/
Support the podcast: www.patreon.com/drbriankeating
-~-~~-~~~-~~-~-
Please watch: "Neil DeGrasse Tyson: Plays the Race Card!"
kzbin.info/www/bejne/eaSXgnaJmpVof5Y
-~-~~-~~~-~~-~-

[@DrBrianKeating]

Apologies for the poor audio quality. It’s Moti’s first podcast! *Is MOND a better theory than dark matter?* 00:00:00 Intro 00:02:10 What is MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) 00:12:06 Why not use galaxy culsters, the most massive gravitationally bound structures in the Universe? 00:17:14 What gave you the courage to take on established physics? 00:20:33 Urbain Le Verrie, the discovery of Neptune and the blunder of Vulcan. 00:28:17 How do galaxies with no dark matter (baryonic only) fit into MOND? 00:35:45 What are the implications of the bullet cluster for MOND? 00:43:20 What does Moti think of the possible detection of dark matter by the DAMA experiment? 00:50:50 What advice would you give your younger self?

[@eljcd]

The first...¡? Well, that's shameful. Thank you for bring him to the light, I hope you can fix the audio soon.

[@YJRamone]

Great content nevertheless!

[@grolmidri7759]

Sound quality isn’t too bad. I can hear everything he says fine. Thanks for this and all the episodes you do - it’s a fantastic endeavour and v much appreciated.

[@DrBrianKeating]

You’re welcome. It was just ok but too important not to release.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks

[@saganscott1795]

My face is starting to hurt from squinting and head tilting while trying to understand at least 5% of the audio. Shame, I was looking forward to this interview.

[@alpachino2shae]

Enable CC, helps a bit

[@RWin-fp5jn]

Thank you so much for having Mordechai on. Amazing how you keep getting the very top people in your podcast. MOND is an important topic in current day cosmology, as it embodies what drives science forward: To always first question what we thought we already knew instead of simply adding more epicycles like dark matter. So then, how does one question the working of Newtonian Physics? Actually, there are two ways: Option 1: We can question the rules of Newtonian physics itself, OR, option 2; we can question the ASSUMED homogenous nature of the grid that it operates in, i.e. our ASSUMED homogeneous distribution of spacetime inside the galactic plane. MOND focuses on option 1 and gets good mathematical approximations using properties of stars (distance, speed, acceleration). But these are correlations and not clear causations. Moreover, if the rules of Newtonian physics were wrong, then why do we only see these flaws specifically in our galactic plane and not inside our solar system or in the wider cosmos in general? This is where option 2 of distributed spacetime (MOND/DST) has the clear advantage. How so? Well, imagine that within the confinement of our galactic orb, spacetime is NOT the dominant grid form, but only present in the form of emergent ST bubbles around individual stars. This in turn would mean our galactic plane is a conglomerate of overlapping stellar spacetime bubbles. Why does this help? It helps because this means that the area between spiral arms can then NOT be defined as spacetime (since almost no stars). This in turn means that we need to subtract these gaps from the observed spatial distance between the outer stars to the galactic core which results in considerable smaller distances and thus lower absolute rotational speeds for the outer stars. This solves the entire issue. Distributed spacetime is by no means a hypothetical phenomenon; Already upon leaving our solar system, both Voyager and Pioneer crafts have encountered pockets of increased ‘energy as the grid’ filaments, causing slightly shorter than expected trajectories in the spacetime grid. In the subatomic realm we already use the alternative grid definition of ‘energy as the grid’ and ‘mass as the clock’ (Penrose 2020), yet apparently this alternative grid setting repeats beyond our solar system, arguably dominating beyond the Oort cloud. We can further test the idea of MOND/DST in our galactic plane by simply comparing observations of our wider outside cosmos, viewed through our galactic plane, vs viewed perpendicular to it. We should observe clear DST induced discrepancies in e.g. the CMBD and galactic redshift of furthest galaxies. Do we dare to look through our telescopes to check this?

[@Jenalgo]

you're totally gullible. mond was shot down years ago.

[@odinip]

⁠@@Jenalgoif it had been shot down years ago do you really think Brian would have done this interview? There are even today debates over some of the jwst and Gaia data that have an easier time to be explained by mond, I do not think mond is correct but I also don’t think current cosmolological model is correct

[@chadriffs]

Yeah I can't understand this one, and clicking on closed captioning helps but maybe you could provide a written transcript?

[@tcarr349]

That would actually be great I was unable to understand it either. A transcript is an excellent idea!

[@BrianNeil]

What a shame, the audio is so poor.

[@FrederickTheGrt]

Dark matter was discovered by Franz Mesmer, at that time though he used a different term. Science is now about faith, and we must all have faith in dark matter.

[@stun9771]

Hope the sound is better for you… 8 can’t understand a word he is saying…!! Very frustrating

[@NeroDefogger]

same

[@andyoates8392]

Thank you both. For trying to shed a bit of light on the subject of dark matter, through what sounded like white noise.💚♾️

[@eljcd]

I hope you go deeper in the MOND phenomenology on the future. Maybe bring in people like Stacy McGaugh or Pavel Kroupa to discuss their work?

[@DrBrianKeating]

Good suggestion

[@rovosher8708]

I would add to the list, Justin Khoury.

[@galaxybidhan1034]

Thank you so much for this live streaming

[@davidgarofalosteachingcorner]

If dark matter dominates the gravity, why are there strong correlations between galaxies and the gravitational pull of the baryons?

[@rovosher8708]

The “keep it simple” principle is that gravity is not a force. Modifying gravity as if it was a force, and on top of it, at a certain threshold is a violation on top of a violation of this principle. What is missing is a mechanism that explains in sufficient simplicity due to what circumstances this threshold should arise. Correction! After digging a little deeper, I found out that Justin Khoury suggests such a mechanism. In his theory, dark matter on the galactic scale, but not at the cluster of galaxies scale, is a cold super fluid whose dynamics is dominated by phonons. This could give MOND, its peculiar dependence on the threshold acceleration and thereby explain the galactic rotational curves. It would also predict the Tully-Fisher effect. It may not be a simple explanation but at least an explanation!

[@quantx6572]

fyi, i can hear a mouse clicking and someone typing on a keyboard in the background. very distracting to the listener, and now that I think about it, disrespectful to the guest being interviewed. i have noticed this with several of the videos on this channel.

[@djorfuusk]

and always seems to “randomly” type, mumble, or make noise at the exact moment of explanation Isn’t it a bit odd that you never hear the background racket when the guys is just sitting there.. 🤔🤔🤔

[@leon_noel1687]

Respect, you had many big topics the last weak on your podcast. The quality keeps rising. Greetings from Berlin!

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks very much more to come

[@connecticutaggie]

Is it possible to detect the deviations that MOND predicts in the lab? Since the deviations occur at small values of m/s^2 could we detect it not large s values but instead for small m values. If so, how small of a mass would we need to measure the force for to detect the MOND deviation from Newtonian physics?

[@NeroDefogger]

no, the galactic attraction force is 1/r so it only has a significant effect at distances of more or less a light year and more, at less distance it is much much smaller than the gravitational attraction and therefor is extremely hard to measure, at the distance of Jupiter gravity might be 3 or 4 orders of magnitude stronger, even gravity stops having a significant effect at very small distances

[@ImperatorSomnium]

Finally, reality comes to the more mainstream media 👍🍻

[@heliotsuzuki6954]

I'm a physicist, I believe that when unify the quantum and the gravitation it will explain. It's just a scale problem. My point of view is that we float in a vacuum (maybe another dimension) (Dirac sea, QED vaccum, QCD vaccum) and energy/mass interacts/modify with that vacuum. In a single atom with little energy there is little, but on a stellar scale it has significance. And the "black hole" has a maximum density limit (it does not go to infinity) and would be a massive object formed by elementary particles.

[@shawns0762]

There is an elephant in the room explanation for those abnormally high rotation rates. For some reason people don't know that Einstein said that singularities are not possible. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" he wrote "the essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of GR predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." Einstein was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y). This is illustrated in a common relativity graph with velocity (from stationary to the speed of light) on the horizontal line and dilation on the vertical. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside/stationary/Earthbound observer. General relativity does not predict singularities when you factor in dilation. Einstein is known to have repeatedly spoken about this, nobody believed in black holes when he was alive for this reason. Wherever you have an astronomical quantity of mass, dilation will occur because high mass means high momentum. There is no place in the universe where mass is more concentrated than at the center of a galaxy. According to Einstein's math, the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated, in other words that mass is all around us. It was recently discovered that low mass galaxies (like NGC 1052-DF2) have normal star rotation rates. This is what relativity would predict because there is an insufficient quantity of mass at the center to achieve relativistic velocities, therefore they are not infused with dilated mass.

[@helixxharpell]

Thank you Dr. Keating for once again an informative podcast. I've been a mechanical engineer for 34 years. Of course I primarily deal with motion and forces on a small scale. I've always had trouble visualizing how the big bang theory works & how dark matter plays a part in cosmic scale motions/interactions. But, as it pertains to dark matter, why wouldn't the the more densely packed stars in the center of the galaxy move slower because they're actually pushing on one another while the stars in the "suburbs" have more room to travel the more open roads? I'm over-simplifying of course. Wouldn't this explain stars in the burbs moving faster? There has to be repulsion force component in this problem. It's not dark matter per se, its the way matter warps space in densely packed regions vs sparsely packed ones. Just a theory.

[@kennethhicks2113]

I have to say that I've only found Dr. Keating's YT channel this year, but have to say, he brings FIVE 5 participation and CONTENT, Thank you Dr. Keating.

[@oneshot2028]

Fundamental particles like electrons and quarks don't exist either. The words and categories that describe these particles are in reality tools to describe patterns, they don’t have an ontology.

[@TRFan26]

Maybe just my connection, but the guest’s audio was almost unintelligible.

[@stevelenores5637]

"If it can't be seen and held in our hands, then it can't possible exist." - What authorities once said about air.

[@TheMasterashton]

so looking forward to this, too bad the audio is so bad i wont be listening to it

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Would modified gravity explain rotation in galaxy, not bullet cluster?

[@tomusmc1993]

I can't do it. I really really wanted to hear this. Audio was mostly unintelligible to me.

[@samlewis2849]

I was taught 'simple' Newtonian physics at school. I remember being taught that Newton had showed that the 'effective gravitational mass' of a sphere , like the Sun , say, could be considered as if ALL the mass acted at the centre of mass. My question is thus - "isn't the 'flat' rotation curve of a spiral DISK galaxy exactly as Newton predicts? The geometry of the globular cluster ( a SPHERICAL geometry, r-cubed ) mimics the 'solar system' rotation curve. but a DISK geometry has the effective gravitating mass increasing as r-squared. Which neatly explains why v remains flat in the outer disk, exactly as Milgrom's modification expects. Globular clusters defy Milgrom's 'modified' gravity, being spherical ( r-cubed) and having no need for it ! The real question , is not that the outer disk rotation is flat.. but WHY is the inner rotation curve different ? WHY is the central-bar rotating as if it were a rigid bar, with it's outer ends having the same angular velocity .. and why the central blob ( ? black hole mass )

[@patrickmchargue7122]

Can MOND be used to explain redshifts of far distant objects?

[@DrBrianKeating]

No

[@esakoivuniemi]

And gravitational lensing?

[@patrickmchargue7122]

@@Sonex1542 Thank you.

[@Justbad3111]

I've had this threory for a long time and it would fit in well with this threory. What if gravity is everywhere? We can see when the influence of gravity ends on galaxy by the end of the distortion of light, but what if gravity as a force is still under space. Once you get past a point gravity is no longer noticable but its still there. Why this is important is because once two waves of gravity hit each other it would cause a spike in gravity where there is not mass to be seen. This would explain why we see a web of dark matter around Galaxy clusters. It would be the gravity of each cluster interacting with each other. It would also give you the extra gravity you need inside galaxy clusters because as the waves hit each other, where there should be no gravity, the gravity of each galaxy and the spike of gravity between them, will start to merge together forming a large mass of gravity that wouldn't be that large normally. IDK the math behind it, but i've always thought that this is a better way to look at the universe then to think that there is a matter we can't see or interact with but takes up more of our universe then we can see.

[@johneonas6628]

Thank you for the video.

[@dalecavallino4029]

Some quiet music helps kill the white noise, with headphones anyway.

[@dalecavallino4029]

More specifically music with heavy high hats

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Could modified gravity rotate galaxy, and there be dark matter in galaxy clusters?

[@rgc121044]

How then do we understand the "big bang”? As the separations of matter and antimatter are random and occur very frequently, any probability has a sure outcome and some of these events accumulate a great amount of matter opposing to antimatter, storing enough potential energy to enable the breaking of the "force" of separation and returning to its state of zero energy with a huge explosion (exactly like lightning happens in our atmosphere when the accumulation of negative and positive charges break the dielectric of the air). This release of energy is a "bang" that does not come from a singularity as described in classical physics, it is a real explosion that nurtures from the energy of the collusion of the Higgs Field and the Uncertainty Principle. This explosion produces gravitational waves that push the fabric of the “empty” universe, overcoming its inertial force and deforming its structure. Dark Matter’s gravity is produced during the multiple contributions to gravity during the formation of baryonic mass. Gravity is not a linear phenomenon* and is always emerging since many (maybe all) of the mass that forms eventually “dissipate”, giving back the borrowed energy to the vacuum space.

[@rikcoach1]

Love you guys but the audio was unlistenable. I had to bail.

[@rajeevgangal542]

Does Newtonian gravity imply instant effect of gravity? Where's that term? At best it says nothing about what would happen if say a massive object were to disappear suddenly...

[@chriskennedy2846]

Is the amount of hypothesized dark matter in galaxies needed to explain the rotation curves, equal to the amount needed to explain the velocity of galaxies in clusters? Do they match? That would seem to be an important analysis. And the same for MOND (and also MOG if you are a fan of John Moffat's theory): Does the non-dark theory have consistency inside and outside of the galaxies as a function of distance. Personally - the Dark Matter hypothesis has always seemed kind of suspect to me. Supposedly, 99% of all observed galaxies (which vary in mass, size, shape) just happen to not only have the right amount of dark matter - they also just happen to have the proper distribution of that dark matter to produce flat or near flat rotation curves. Imagine that. What are the odds??? I think it must be something more fundamental.

[@kennethferland5579]

No they don't match. Under current LCDM theory a portion of dark matter is in a halo around each galaxy and their is a larger halo around a whole cluster, and then a third component needs to be present outside of even clusters to give the nessary mass budget for the universe. Each 'bin' of Dark matter is a seperate calculation and has a different ratio with respect to our inventory of matter know at each level. How MOND effects the universe as a whole is another topic which has yet to be determined, the whole notion of the mass nessary to make the universe open/closed will be radically different under MOND.

[@chriskennedy2846]

@@kennethferland5579 Thanks. Out of all of that - it is the "halo" I'm most suspicious of. It's as if the dark matter is operating with some sort of agenda. If there truly is dark matter - why wouldn't it be more random in its distribution? Why would dark matter care to avoid existing in the center and middle of galaxies and concentrate around a galaxy's edge. The explanation all seems so forced.

[@shawns0762]

There is an elephant in the room explanation for those abnormally high rotation rates. For some reason people don't know that Einstein said that singularities are not possible. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" he wrote "the essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of GR predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." Einstein was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y). This is illustrated in a common relativity graph with velocity (from stationary to the speed of light) on the horizontal line and dilation on the vertical. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside/stationary/Earthbound observer. General relativity does not predict singularities when you factor in dilation. Einstein is known to have repeatedly spoken about this, nobody believed in black holes when he was alive for this reason. Wherever you have an astronomical quantity of mass, dilation will occur because high mass means high momentum. There is no place in the universe where mass is more concentrated than at the center of a galaxy. According to Einstein's math, the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated, in other words that mass is all around us. It was recently discovered that low mass galaxies (like NGC 1052-DF2) have normal star rotation rates. This is what relativity would predict because there is an insufficient quantity of mass at the center to achieve relativistic velocities, therefore they are not infused with dilated mass.

[@chriskennedy2846]

@@shawns0762 Thank you - I will check out the 1939 reference. The concept of mass being dilated and being all around us is new to me. I'm not quite sure of what that implication means on a physical level. I have problems with some of the specific claims that associate time dilation with black holes. For example: Some say there is a region where time dilates so much that it actually stops. That may be true but if it is - it is not consistent with the entirety of General Relativity. In GR, relative clock rates between two clocks experiencing different gravitational positions will vary in an equal but opposite manner. Meaning: if I see your clock running slower, you will see my clock running faster by the same factor. If time stops for an observer near or in a black hole, they would see the observer outside of the black hole as having clock time running infinitely fast, which means the entire future of the universe will fly by in an instant. But if somehow we found a way to dislodge the black hole observer from their time-stopped position, they would go back to existing with a running clock and see that the universe has not reached the end of time. Kind of a contradiction.

[@johnreford]

Great interview, but I wish you would have asked him about baryon acoustic oscillations in the CMB since that imo is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for dark matter as a particle and one that I've not ever heard a MOND explanation for that was satisfying.

[@PearlmanYeC]

Looks interesting. Sharing. FYI No reason to predict/require any of the 'Dark Matter' if SPIRAL (Hyper-dense proto galactic (Stellar) formation Preceded the hyper cosmic expansion (Inflation) epoch is the SPI of SPI-RAL. See SPIRAL 'GRIP' hypothesis on galactic rotation. If SPIRAL expect normal matter is over 99% of all matter.

[@howardjones2021]

I personally think that dark matter is actually the vast number of photons floating around the universe.. minimal mass each, but when you consider the amount of mass to energy transformations taking place every second in all the billions of stars and galaxies.....

[@carlstevens4981]

I find mond more acceptable than dark matter. For example, particle physacists have found all the particles in the standard model. Althought we have never found a dark matter particle or cannot varify its existence. It's still more realistic to say it exists, rather than say we know of all the particles, but they only make up 15% of our universe. Until we understand the fabric of space time, we may never know what theory is correct. A theory is just that, until disproven

[@rikimitchell916]

Any genuine attempt to redefine the peocess/relationship that is gravitation one must first removed it from the picture so that it may re-emerge from the remaining interactions of the system in question . Assuming objects to be gravitationally bound and then trying to work backwards is doomed to fail

[@fullyawakened]

Elephant in the room: there is no version of MOND that eliminates Dark Matter. The most extreme versions of MOND, ones that are 100% definitely NOT true, still don't even come close to eliminating the need for Dark Matter. No matter how you twist MOND it is never going to fit into the hole... all possible derivations have been thoroughly explored by this point thanks to about a million undergrads.

[@shawns0762]

There is an elephant in the room explanation for those abnormally high rotation rates. For some reason people don't know that Einstein said that singularities are not possible. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" he wrote "the essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of GR predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." Einstein was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y). This is illustrated in a common relativity graph with velocity (from stationary to the speed of light) on the horizontal line and dilation on the vertical. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside/stationary/Earthbound observer. General relativity does not predict singularities when you factor in dilation. Einstein is known to have repeatedly spoken about this, nobody believed in black holes when he was alive for this reason. Wherever you have an astronomical quantity of mass, dilation will occur because high mass means high momentum. There is no place in the universe where mass is more concentrated than at the center of a galaxy. According to Einstein's math, the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated, in other words that mass is all around us. It was recently discovered that low mass galaxies (like NGC 1052-DF2) have normal star rotation rates. This is what relativity would predict because there is an insufficient quantity of mass at the center to achieve relativistic velocities, therefore they are not infused with dilated mass.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Does modified gravity explain behavior galaxies in clusters, like rotation of galaxy?

[@singingphysics9416]

I'd love to listen but the bad sound is so annoying that I need to leave now

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Are the motions of galaxies in clusters more complicated?

[@joedavis4150]

.. oh dear, what can the matter be?

[@alikaperdue]

Someone get this man a better microphone. Interesting, but difficult to follow, because the mic was not close and kept cutting out during silence. ie: squelch too high I think.

[@ronconte4292]

Formulae for gravity typically assume point sources. But when you have a galaxy with billions of stars, maybe that is a misleading assumption. Maybe space-time is affected differently with billions of stars orbiting a point without enough gravity in the center to cause that orbit. It's like the JWST orbiting a moving point in empty space.

[@DavidBrown-om8cv]

"... MOND ... jump on the bandwagon and start working on it ..." Assume that gravitational energy is conserved, all gravitons have spin 2, dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0, and supersymmetry occurs in nature. How might MOND's empirical success be explained? Consider the following hypothesis: Gravitons & gravitinos have empirically significant MOND charges, and all other fundamental particles have empirically insignificant MOND charges. Can string theorists use the preceding hypothesis to explain why MOND makes many successful predictions?

[@quantumdave1592]

Until we understand what exactly is the “Fabric” of spacetime, much of what is theorized is most likely incorrect. In addition, my immediate thoughts on this lead me to visualize a whirlpool. Perhaps the collective mass of a galaxy or other such dense collections of matter, effect spacetime more severely than lesser aggregates of matter? Maybe this causes a gravitational well in which the matter finds itself bounded.

[@kafalonitis]

Well, MOND is not the only alternative way to break out of the current impasses in physics. The "anomalous" rotation of galaxies and other problems in cosmology can be addressed yet differently. The meaning of mass has been deciphered in the "Novel quantitative push gravity/electricity theory poised for verification". Mass, matter (= hyle), force fields and much more can be explained in simple and palpable terms, as they should. The novel theory provides an alternative platform to map out existing experimental and observational data. The examination of alternatives is always a fruitful exercise. Please give it a try.

[@parva777]

My God, this so unfortunate, the sound is just terrible, awful, but the subject is so important and the speaker so interesting .... I can't go more then 8 minutes ....

[@patrickmchargue7122]

"What gave you the courage to take on established physics?" A question you might ask Eric Lerner in a future interview.

[@nolan412]

Will Eric Verlinde be providing a counter argument?

[@jimmyjasi-anti-descartes7088]

Good question

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Modified gravity rotates galaxy; when stars, planets and other bodies get close enough to each other, inverse square gravity takes over?

[@sverkere]

yeah.

[@ErnestoEduardoDobarganes]

I almost could not understand Mordechai because of his audio😪

[@tuberroot1112]

Interesting but sadly barely audible sound quality.

[@martinsoos]

Oh, just put it in one sentence. Physicists got the math wrong.

[@hardyje1915]

Audio is mmmmwwahhh! 🤫👌

[@gokulgopisetti741]

What is Philosophy? What has philosophy got to do with science or physics? Aldous Huxley’s famous comment on Einstein’s theory of relativity was “Einstien broke the Newtonian orthodoxy.”. Thomas Huxley’s famous comment on Darwin’s theory of evolution was “How foolish of me not have thought of it.”. We all know the religious reaction to the theory of evolution. There is a marked difference between the reactions and the comments. The comments are not just comments they are statements of fact. We start by asking who is the entity that is making the statements? Is there an entity at all? I have been discussing the import of the observer for many years. What makes up the psychological observer? All what has been put into us right from the moment we were born up until the last moment makes up the observer. I mean our cultural, religious, political, communal, national, educational etc. conditioning or programing builds the psychological frame of reference or the observer. The doctrines, the dogmas, the beliefs, the fears, etc. condition or program us. All what we have gathered psychologically through millennia upon millennia conditions or programs us. The program or the observer then dictates our choices, our likes, dislikes, whatever we agree to or disagree with. It influences our world view; it casts a shadow on our world view and colors facts. If you wear the tinted glasses of prejudice/bias, you are going to color the fact. The prejudice/bias is going to prevent you from seeing the fact. Now that we have settled what the psychological observer is we proceed with an example. A baby is born into a hindu household. For twenty-five years he is religiously programmed/conditioned as a Hindu. The result or the virtue of the Hindu-program is his belief in reincarnation and karma. He then converts to Christianity. For the next twenty-five years he is programmed/conditioned as a christian. He stops believing in reincarnation and karma instead he believes in resurrection and the second coming of Christ. Again, the result or the virtue of the Christian-program is the belief in resurrection. The hindu-program or the christian-program sees a Muslim. Now, where is the Muslim? Is the Muslim out there in the object or human or is he in the hindu or christian program? Obviously, the Muslim is the virtue of the hindu-program or the christian-program. You must be seeing a human (the fact), instead why are you seeing a Muslim? The Muslim, the observed is the virtue of the hindu-program, the observer. The observer is the observed. The Muslim is in the Hindu or the Christian and not in the object or human you are looking at. The observer influences or interferes with observation. Observation is when the observer is not. Otherwise, it is a measurement.

[@djorfuusk]

It would be nice to get the unedited/uncut/unblurred(sound) version of this video.. Clearly edited and “muffled” at certain points... Welcome to youtube these days.

[@fesimco4339]

I just can't hear him and it's a shame, I think MOND seems interesting but I know so little about it.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Do rotations of galaxies effect clusters?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Where are the supermassive black holes in bullet cluster?

[@wells2671]

Headphones help the audio.

[@bravadita]

I wonder how MOND applies to superstructures

[@gokulgopisetti741]

What has philosophy got to do with science and physics? By moving from one scientific insight to another scientific insight, we are learning, aren’t we? Who is the entity that is preventing insight? The observer, right. Observation is when the observer is not. Otherwise, you cannot see anything new. (The observer as individual knowledge or the observer as the sum of all human knowledge.) Physics is the science of measurement? Observer and measurement link philosophy and physics. Let us be very clear that in physics, what they mean by observation is essentially measurement. It was the genius of Galileo Galli that introduced the pivotal role the observer plays in observation or measurement in Modern Physics: typically, the Galilean frame of reference. Einstein showed that the observer turns what seems absolute into something relative or how the movement of the observer influences measurement: typically, the inertial and non-inertial frames of reference. Then came the absolute stunner, the observer in Quantum mechanics. What is the difference between the observers in Galilean relativity, Special and General relativity, and Quantum mechanics. In the relativities, the observer is an objective observer-something concrete, tangible, but in Quantum mechanics the observer is subjective-something abstract. We are so used to or so conditioned to an objective observer that we find it hard to abandon the idea that an objective observer is the only type of observer. I started by asking who is the entity that is making the statements “Einstien broke the Newtonian orthodoxy.”, and “How foolish of me not have thought of it.”. Sirs, the observer cannot see anything new, right, and observation is when the observer is not, right. But relativity and evolution are new and groundbreaking. So, there is no entity or observer who is making the statements. It is observation that is making the statements. Reaction is always of the observer while sensitivity is not. Those steeped in religious or political ideology like the Dravidian ideology can never be amenable to learning or create an environment conducive to creativity. In physics parlance, the strength of their observer influence is mind boggling! Don’t let the Indian gurus peddle their bilge (karma, their idea of consciousness, supraconsciousness etc.,) into the sublime portals of scientific and philosophical enquiry.

[@nunomaroco583]

Hi, if i understand, Mond only explain half of the problem, dark matter explain other 50%. ......

[@DrStrangeBrew]

you have to do this one again this audio is terrible

[@גבריאל-ח3י]

I think CMD proves dark matter and dark energy both exist. However our understanding of mass and gravity also appears incomplete. Galaxy formation detected by the JWST doesn't seem to follow GR. Gravity expands in distances beyond the speed of light and the relationship between the expansion of space - time and the expansion of gravity is poorly understood. Is inflation wrong? Did we simply misunderstand gravity? GR is based on observation of current behaviors yet it can not account for the galactic clustering JWST observes because the amount of time for causality is too short. All the evidence seems to point towards a tipping point in the behavior of matter as it transitions from field behaviors in the QM scale to particle behaviors in the observable scale. MOND is not able to describe this tipping point and thus falls short as a useful mathematical tool for describing gravity based systems. Recent discoveries at the Jefferson labs regarding gravity indicate that 99% of baronic matter produce mass through the binding movement of gluons and 1% of mass is produced by the Higgs field - specifically only W and Z bosons - accounting for the remaining mass contained in the weak force. Conceptually it makes sense to expect the solution to GR and QM to describe a theory of Quantum Gravitation that describe exotic states of matter. One where black holes are not infinite collapses but rather the concentration and conversion of matter into the binding movement of gluons as they are constrained by the strong force into a mass of quarks and gluons. A black hole would then become a single massive particle filled with quarks and gluons held at temperatures only seen at the Big Bang. (Reference: "Groundbreaking Proton Discovery That May Rewrite Science Textbooks" Anton Petrov Aug 24, 2022 The argument is that if a back hole is actually an infinite collapse there would be no gravity because this mechanism that produces it would no longer exist.) i.e. all energy and matter are reduced to quarks and gluons by gravity.

[@georgejetsonr5862]

Poor audio quality Professor - you’re going to have to improve your podcast QC. 📣

[@andrewwest5344]

Terrible Audio, unfortunately had to drop out. What a pity, I would have found this very interesting

[@Lalakis]

That is how it is done Brian. Enough with the academic monolithic dinosaurs measuring their egos. Embrace everything.

[@pr9415]

The audio coming from Israel is atrocious. It’s very difficult to understand Moti. Sad to say, because he is such a brilliant scientist.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Will do a part two sometime

[@Naomi_Boyd]

I like MOND in principle, but it seems like Mordehai has run out of ideas and is just playing string theory with the numbers. I'm 100% convinced that the answer lies in a more complete theory of gravity and not in some magic particle. I just think Morti is on the wrong track.

[@Aslowfade]

What a shame , I was looking forward to this but really can not understand a word.

[@nyttag7830]

Why stop with cancelation of only 90 % of all matter when we can go with 100% and eliminate all inconsistencies 😆

[@JungleJargon]

The problem is that you are not taking into account general relativity. You aren’t considering the variable rate of time and the differing measures of distance. Einstein burned into peoples minds that the speed of light doesn’t change. The units of measurement to measure the speed of light do change over large distances and galaxies cover large distances. That means that the speed of light does change over large distances as observed by us. The speed of light doesn’t change. The rate of time changes and the measure of distance changes… *which effectively changes the speed of light as we observe it over great distances.* Time runs faster in outer space where there is no matter and much less gravity. This is the reason the outer spiral arms of the galaxies move much faster than expected. It’s because events take place at a faster rate the less gravity there is. Distance is expanded in outer space (not expanding). Plasma jets do not stream of five times the speed of light since the distance is expanded away from gravity wells. Time doesn’t run at the same rate everywhere in the universe. Time runs faster in outer space. It just dawned on me the other day that a thousand years and a single day happen at the same time in different places in the universe. It's simple (observed) general relativity. Time slows down and distance is contracted because of gravity where there is a lot of matter. Conversely, time speeds up and distance is greatly expanded where there is no matter in outer space. This eliminates the need for dark matter since time is sped up in the outer spiral arms of a galaxy where there is not nearly as much matter. It eliminates the need for dark energy where distance in outer space is expanded where there is no matter. So the result of general relativity is that billions of years pass by in outer space (13 billion years) at the same time as thousands of years pass by where we are inside of the Milky Way galaxy. ...! Billion of years and mere thousands of years are the same thing *at the same time* in deep outer space and where we are, according to physics and according to relativity. In review, time slows down where we are. Time speeds up with less gravity so the outer spiral arms of galaxies move faster. There is no need for dark matter. Distance increases where there is no matter in outer space. There is no need for dark energy to expand space since the expansion of space is from not having any matter far away from the galaxies. Deep time (billions of years) and thousands of years exist simultaneously in this universe where there is no single rate of time or measure of distance! Just think what could be the reality *when* the photons register with our eyes or our cameras/detectors and there is a collapse of the wave function as seen or detected by us within our dilated time and distance. (Our rate of time is not the universal rate of time, especially for photons.) Conclusion: The time it took for Creation and since Creation in the Bible is absolutely true! Time itself is a (real) fabrication.

[@aprylvanryn5898]

The audio really isn't that bad at 1.25 x speed

[@aprylvanryn5898]

Thanks for the like Dr K

[@antoninodelpopolo9539]

it is incredible that space is given to a sorcerer of our times who introduced meaningless ideas

[@S1nwar]

the bullet cluster is still the best evidence for dark matter and against MOND and Milgroms explanation that with using MOND there has to be other undiscovered baryonic matter to fill the discrepancy of the dark matter explanation seem A BIT LACKLUSTER

[@manfredullrich483]

To bad, that some gremlins took over the line on his side. Or, maybe it was dark matter, letting him know, it's there, and it's interacting with baryonic matter, if it decides to do so.🙄😋😝

[@threedeespace]

the sound is terrible

[@JerryMlinarevic]

Dark matter is aether, is the Highs field, is gravity and what light is produced from. Want to know the details? Get a high security clearance first.

[@channelwarhorse3367]

lol for security, the Standard Model is the continuation of the Periodic Table. Gravity propulsion applies to all mass and energy. Beyond gravity propulsion's application upon satellites, yes rocketry leads to it, you can apply it to the water molecule and neutrinos as it lifts water while generating electricity. Beyond the Hell of a climate change solution, you kind of know how the UFO propulsion systems works, meta-material process production. It's just for security.

[@chuckschillingvideos]

"Dark matter" ?? Such an unfortunate premise. All it is....is the void in our understanding of the true nature of gravity at galactic scales. Nothing more, nothing less.

[@channelwarhorse3367]

Mass is energy, only transferable. Nice. Gravity propulsion is applicable to all mass as neutrinos are solid mass acceptable like a satellite is mass.

[@mykofreder1682]

Something in the matter world doesn't make sense because of the difference in distribution from the matter we see, denser in the center and less so to the edge vs an invisible hollow around the galaxy, if it were a small effect, I could buy it. Initially space had evenly distributed hydrogen probably doing Brownian motion, something massive attracted it over vast distances, the dark matter also made this journey in a billion years, behaving like matter. A galaxy forms in a billion years and for the next 5 or 10 billion years matter behaves one way and dark matter puts on the brakes on the edge for various reasons. That makes no sense when you consider it behaved like matter when it had a lot of distance and reasons to stay parked a long way from the eventual galaxy. We only have physics for the matter field and no physics for the space time field and the particles of gravity we know about and maybe other things we do not, in essence the space time field is dark to us and the dynamics of that field could be responsible for movements on vast scales. Do the non-dark matter galaxies have the dense/black hole centers, is their mass distribution typical, and how does their rotation compare, the missing center could have a big effect on time space?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

How might dark matter explain clusters of galaxies?

[@lsarasua2659]

Dark matter is the result of not having gray matter.

[@codyadkins3061]

Wasn’t this guy on star talk??

[@DrBrianKeating]

Yes I was

[@joshua3171]

Planets behaving Badly

[@joshua3171]

Sound is not very good

[@saintsuzie]

Terrible audio … I’m regrettably out!

[@executivesteps]

Audio is unlistenable. I’m out too.

[@marlou169]

Oh oh... dark matter took it’s revenge on the audio

[@mikel4879]

Mordechai is very hard to express himself. I will never be able to listen to him a second time, because what he says is almost non inteligibile. The so-called "Dark matter" ( and "Dark energy" ) doesn't exist at all. Mordechai idea of explaining some discrepancies by other reasons than the existence of a stupid absurdity called "dark matter" ( ...of my as ) is correct, but his explanations and theory are not correct. It is just a theoretical band-aid for what happens in the natural causal entropic reality of the Universe. Therefore, the real dynamic of a galaxy, of a cluster, of a "bullet cluster", etc, are all, in reality, a part of a completely different real universal process than the one that Mordechai's Mond presupposes. Sorry, Mordi!😏

[@vesawuoristo4162]

To me it has been more logical that something needs to changed with our understanding of gravity than trying detect an unknown invisible matter does not react with anything. 😏

[@mikebellamy]

BIG BANG Gravity Problem: 1. Big Bang assumes energy and matter from nothing in a quantum singularity or fluctuation 2. The density is quoted variously as extreme to infinite 3. The total mass of the universe curves space and shapes the universes destiny 4. Black Holes have an escape velocity at their event horizon equal to the speed of light 5. The size of a Black Hole is measured by its mass which gives the diameter of the event horizon 6. The mass of the universe is ~1e80 protons = 6.7e53 Kg 7. The formula for escape velocity = (2GM/r)^0.5 Therefore r = 2GM/v^2 8. Given M = 6.7e53 Kg and v = 3e8 m/sec therefore Dia = 2.r = 52.5 billion light yrs 9. The universe cannot at any time have been smaller than 52.5 billion light yrs in diameter 10. This is called the Schwarzschild's Radius of any mass and is well known 11. Hence the matter in the universe can only have been created *after the expansion of space..* *The Big Bang is falsified as a violation of the law of gravity! Q.E.D.*

[@davidwilkie9551]

This is a repeat problem of failure to use the kind of default reasoning such as Galileo identified, the simultaneous superposition superimposed math-musical measures. It's pure-math wave-packaging and relative-timing ratio-rates containment states of Time Duration Timing modulation. TINA.

[@yrebrac]

what a shame it's unintelligible

[@Danomax]

It's the super massive black holes in the galaxy centers, dragging spacetime with them around the galaxy, keeping the Baryonic matter in place. Same thing also drives the expansion of space when spacetime falls in to the super massive black holes. It's pretty stupid nobody figured this out yet.

[@cidfacetious3722]

Soon we will stop calling smart people Einstein and start calling them Daniel

[@professorbrainyspecs7366]

They don't have as much influence on the galaxy as a whole as you are indicating

[@martinpollard8846]

I can't really understand Mordechai Milgrom's audio so sorry I have to give you a thumbs down and leave the live stream - dam shame I think it would have been good content

[@Mrcatcherye]

awful.did u not test things first!?