The dark matter myth | Pavel Kroupa full interview

In this insightful interview, renowned astrophysicist Pavel Kroupa challenges the conventional understanding of astrophysics by questioning the existence of dark matter.
Despite the long-held belief in dark matter as a key part of our cosmology, Kroupa presents compelling statistical evidence that calls its existence into question. Instead, he proposes an alternative theory known as Modified Newtonian Dynamics.
Watch this thought-provoking conversation where Kroupa explains why scientists continue to support the problematic theory of dark matter despite the evidence against it: iai.tv/video/beyond-the-darkness?KZbin&
00:00 Introduction
02:48 Why do you think claiming that the Higgs Boson exists is not a scientific statement?
04:14 Many physicists do support the idea that dark matter exists, where does your scepticism come from on that subject
7:53 Why do people still cling on to the idea of dark matter?
11:05 Do we need an alternative to dark matter to fully comprehend our theory of gravity?
13:41 What is the right way to think about MOND's paradigm?
16:20 Is MOND able to account for the discrepancies in time when it comes to different gravitational fields?
19:23 Could the underdetermination theory be the reason why the scientific community is hesitant to move towards MOND?
22:38 - What is the most common response to your critique of the dark matter theory?
25:44 - What's wrong with the promise that a more complete theory of gravity could unify quantum mechanics
29:28 - Can you comment on the aether theory of relativity?
Pavel Kroupa is a Professor of Astrophysics at the University of Bonn in Germany, where he leads the Stellar Populations and Dynamics research group.
#PavelKroupa #DarkMatter #ModifiedNewtonianDynamics
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting-edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?KZbin&
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

What do you think of Modified Newtonian Dynamics? Let us know in the comments below! To continue the conversation with Pavel Kroupa, visit iai.tv/video/beyond-the-darkness?KZbin&+comment&

[@PetraKann]

Statistical evidence? An Oxymoron right?

[@enbangli7609]

As well known in the field, Vera Rubin discovered the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies using optical spectra, which could be a Noble prize worth discovery. However, very few people noticed that when Vera Rubin interpreted her observational results, she made a very simple mistake: She applied the spherical model to the spiral galaxies (see the paper published in Science by Vera Rubin: Science, New Series, Vol. 220, No. 4604 (Jun. 24, 1983), pp. 1339-1344). Also, when you read the paper published by Fritz Zwicky in 1937 (THE ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL, Vol. 86, No. 3, 217-246) carefully, you will notice that he also utilized a spherical model to estimate the mass of the Coma cluster. As every physicist should know, an object with a spherical mass produces a Keplerian rotational curve, but a disk-like mass distribution will not follow that. Therefore, the key issue is how the mass is distributed in a galaxy. Any galaxy with a spherical (or close to spherical) mass distribution will not need dark matter. For details, please read: DOI:10.1142/S2424942417500049. Before the recent no dark matter discovery in the NGC1277, there are also the results of NGC1052-DF2 and DF4. In fact, a paper published in Science in 2003 already reported similar results for a number of elliptical galaxies (see: DOI: 10.1126/science.1087441). With the latest GAIA data, we can show that by using a disk mass distribution model and by solving the Poisson equation of the Galaxy, we obtain a flat rotation curve which reproduces the key observed features with no need for a dark halo (see arxiv paper 1612.07781.pdf). MOND is just another way to reflect the effects caused by the non-spherical mass distributions. If MOND is correct, how can Newtonian mechanics work for DF2, DF4 and NGC1277 without modifications? So, dark matter does not exist and it is just a consequence of misusing Newton’s law in gravitational systems with non-spherical mass distributions. Newtonian mechanics does not need to modify when the non-spherical mass distributions are considered.

[@enbangli7609]

As well known in the field, Vera Rubin discovered the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies using optical spectra, which could be a Noble prize worth discovery. However, very few people noticed that when Vera Rubin interpreted her observational results, she made a very simple mistake: She applied the spherical model to the spiral galaxies (see the paper published in Science by Vera Rubin: Science, New Series, Vol. 220, No. 4604 (Jun. 24, 1983), pp. 1339-1344). Also, when you read the paper published by Fritz Zwicky in 1937 (THE ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL, Vol. 86, No. 3, 217-246) carefully, you will notice that he also utilized a spherical model to estimate the mass of the Coma cluster. As every physicist should know, an object with a spherical mass produces a Keplerian rotational curve, but a disk-like mass distribution will not follow that. Therefore, the key issue is how the mass is distributed in a galaxy. Any galaxy with a spherical (or close to spherical) mass distribution will not need dark matter. For details, please read: DOI:10.1142/S2424942417500049. Before the recent no dark matter discovery in the NGC1277, there are also the results of NGC1052-DF2 and DF4. In fact, a paper published in Science in 2003 already reported similar results for a number of elliptical galaxies (see: DOI: 10.1126/science.1087441). MOND is just another way to reflect the effects caused by the non-spherical mass distributions. If MOND is correct, how can Newtonian mechanics work for DF2, DF4 and NGC1277 without modifications? So, dark matter does not exist and it is just a consequence of misusing Newton’s law in gravitational systems with non-spherical mass distributions. Newtonian mechanics does not need to modify when the non-spherical mass distributions are considered.

[@johnwebber750]

Just an interested and thoughtful person here... Cosmology/Astrophysics deal with extremes beyond our daily experiences so testing any ideas/hypothesis/theories can be a tedious and difficult matter. Science is a human enterprise and so it cannot be isolated from human/social/community idosyncracies. And it works within a paradigm because everything is so complex. Just like Kuhn says, paradigm changes when it is due; it doesn't when it is not. Scientific endeavour also involves risk taking and struggle, just like business. Don't worry, once more convincing data show that dark matter is really an obsolete idea, it will be left to history. Until then let the experts get more data and debate. There are always alternative theories to consider all the time on everything. Just don't be dogmatic about anything in science, just like in business. Or it becomes religion.

[@ianw7898]

_"What do you think of Modified Newtonian Dynamics?"_ Ever heard of retrospective curve-fitting? Welcome to MOND!

[@haroldkatcher1369]

In my own field of the biology of aging, I could not get funding or even publication in American or British journals because the "leaders" held an opposing "theory" of aging. I was eventually proven correct, though it took two decades.

[@markseabolt5959]

But did you age two decades during the two decades it took for you to prove your theory of aging? Did you do your research while in orbit or at the bottom of the sea?

[@nzb6784]

Unfortunately, Mr. Kroupa never talks about the weaknesses and shortcomings of MOND. When asked about why other physicists are not buying it, his answers are very superficial and evasive, citing funding interests etc. He never addresses primary objections to MOND, which is a huge red flag. MOND as it stands is basically an empirical data fitting model. There is no explanation of why F=ma turns into F=ma^2 at larger scales, he is just making wild speculations involving quantum interactions, which I don't know if are measurable.

[@blacklot97]

Kroupa seems suspect right off the bat, opening with a rant about how no theory is 100% provable beyond doubt (duh...that's the name of the game) shows either a fundamental misunderstanding of the philosophy of science or he's intentionally using it as a rhetorical tool. I suspect the latter, since when questioned what other scientists think of his opinions he starts dodging the question like a matrix fight scene.

[@cbody70]

Pavel is a phenomenal teacher. His use of analogies makes his points sparkling clear even to a lay person like myself. I will be looking for more of his content.

[@KibyNykraft]

Yes. But I noticed that he gets sloppy around 28 minutes when mildly parroting the esoterical form of field wave theory from the CI and the avantgarde people of the early 1900s, that was very inspired by older assumptions before vacuum tubes and before the electron was proved by JJT, so that one believed that patterns exists by themselves by a form of magic without localities (this is called pareidolia) .. Einstein's photoelectric effect proved well that photons are discrete units. This is also a vitally important way of how you transport solar energy to the plant, which it needs, which essentially charges the electrons of the plant like a battery is being charged (roughly the same general principle, but different details). These are pure mechanics if we stretch the word mechanical a bit, but some would prefer here to say subatomically physical instead of mechanical. Particles do not occur by magic. Many are very confused about what a wave is. A wave is not a secret unphysical form in nature. A wave is the path of entities that are spinning by two spin-dimensions or stacks (axial spin+ wobble). You can prove this easily with whatever object proper, like a spinning-top toy in a length directional motion at spinning. If the toy wobbles while travelling, it is itself a wave (there are no waves involved apart from the spin physics). Dip its foot in a liquid and have a paper on the table and the toy will draw a 2d wave. A transversity is a 3d wave. The DNA molecule is for example a complexified transversity. It may play a part in its enormous storage capacity of data for its tiny size. "Quantum" in how the word is used now is so esoterical that I find it hard to believe that scholars do not see the weakness of that... The scientific meaning of a quantum originally was simply the single of quanta, that meant many. Quantum field however in 1920s-40s physics was the name of the area where the particle was possible to find. A particle is very very small and moves often very fast (can be at C) respective to its size, so you could say that locating a particle by coordinates is impossible in a normal way without high tech LHC systems involved for example. Quantum field was the area where the particle would turn up along a wave f ex. That does not mean that the particle has its own rules apart from the rest of nature :) And it surely doesnt mean that a particle occurs if or when you look at something. (I suggest finding and going through the most skeptical physicist challenges aganst the most common and esoterical interpretation of the double slit experiment). It is not even certain that a soundwave must be a field wave although it depends on how we define a field. The molecules needed to vibrate or intermediate sound energy do not cancel out the likelyness of sound origin being a form of photons or quarklike or other mechanical/vibratory entities

[@herrrmike]

One of the most provocative discussions of cosmology that I’ve heard in a while. Is it really possible that the standard model could be upended so thoroughly in coming decades?

[@cbody70]

Sounds like the Standard Model has been upended but nobody can afford to pay attention to the MOND guys and jeopardize their funding.

[@r.i.p.volodya]

This is FANTASTIC! I'm not a working scientist by any means, I merely have a Masters in Theoretical Physics - I consider myself to be a reasonably educated enthusiast on the subject - BUT - I have NEVER been convinced by the idea of 'dark matter' and this the first and only time that I've heard the notion refuted. I'm so pleased.

[@TheMrMT]

It is great that you are pleased but Google is great for creating an echo chamber. You should go and try to understand why most in the field think that dark matter is real. When he says that scientists (astronomers, cosmologists, etc...) cling to the idea of dark matter for "no rational basis" alarm bells should go off. There was also a PBS Spacetime video just a couple of days ago about the issues with dark matter theories, it is worth checking out. Despite what claims, I could also find a paper claiming a measurement of the slowing of the rotation of the Milky Way...

[@Jan96106]

I'm so glad you posted this interview of Pavel Krupa. I always enjoy his clear explanations/criticisms.

[@dewiz9596]

This guy could be the new “Copernicus”

[@KibyNykraft]

@@dewiz9596 That will never happen anymore, as there are probably 1200 guys today far above Copernicus at IQ. (assumingly) You see that the smartest today are involved in either advanced chemistry+genetics , unpopular atheist skepticism, or in advanced engineering, or in ambitious businesses. Society is different. In the copernican age, most people were very limited for several reasons, so those who could spell their own name were essentially relatively a genius each and one. Today probably few would have heard of Copernicus or Newton or Einstein, if they were young or middle-aged scholarly types now. This because they would have done other things than being unique for their time. Those who now are posted forward as top scholars are often just religious philosophers and new age nuts who mass produce books or go to interviews at silly TV shows like Ancient aliens. This is like Kroupa hints about carefully a problem coming from America, but farther back the problem was not only created there, which is a long story I'll skip here.

[@herbertdarick7693]

Kroupa is his name. Ou pronounced like oa in the word boat.

[@oo88oo]

Wow. It’s great to hear a scientist call out the warping effect on science that follows the funding schemes in science. The interviewer’s follow-up questions keep indicating that he isn’t listening. He also seems to be wedded to the false notion that “wrong” physical models get completely thrown out and replaced by “good” ones, instead of simply seeing that the models get better and better. (I.e., Newton wasn’t wrong! And neither was Galileo, or Kepler, or Aristotle!)

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

The models never change. The people do. A hundred years pass: all new people.

[@KibyNykraft]

No models have improved in theoretical physics since the age of the late classics, like Einstein. What has improved is technical advance, to some degree of course (and with some flaws to it but that is a more specific problem that will be solveable). There has been a large increase of abstract equations that answer a hypothesis, although that of course is forbidden in science for very good reasons.

[@KibyNykraft]

Well the funding you mention is more like a pillow. One of the major problems in theoretical physics now is simply that most of the theorists have religious backgrounds+ having grown up in the age of Modernity and/or Postmodernity + have watched a lot of fiction content in their childhood. ("Hollywood") They even see it as a benefit. It surely isn't. It doesnt make you more creative, it makes one more stupid and assumptious.

[@marwin4348]

I completely disagree with what he said about funding. The reality is, almost all research and science is done by private coorporations, not adademia. Like it's a 10:1 ratio. Competition guarantees that humanity focuses it's resources on usefull stuff. That is the whole premise of our capitalist system, and out in the real world it has been proven to be much much more effective than alternative systems. If there was no competition, who would decide who gets to use the resources that are required for doing science? Astrophysics research is extremely expensive.

[@KibyNykraft]

@@marwin4348 In most cases of tech development, the most actual research is funded privately because it is the most useful and most scientific. The exception is for example in biology, geology and medical chemistry where probably more than half the proper science is funded by public budgets (but for somewhat different reasons). In the case of science outside of tech, the private funding can too much go to pseudo science for commercial reasons (profit motives), in a way where for example downsides of some medicine or foods are falsely claimed to be harmless by funding from the production company. *Theoretical physics* today is not anymore science (mostly just esoterica cloaked in abstracted equations), so we will also see that in the future all of their funding will come from the private medias and commercials for the sake of entertainment and by religious motives (like conspiracy theories and the ET/aliens stuff).

[@jimmy56100]

Maybe we'll see the day where consensus catches up with what many have been saying for years. Dark matter can't be used as evidence when it has never once been detected. If we can get back to following the scientific method, we can move forward. Need more honest experts like this guy

[@antonioarroyas7662]

My hope is that James Webb speeds up the process of evolving a new interpretation. Another possibility is that an unrelated field like quantum computing makes a discovery that changes the current trajectory?

[@TheMorpheuuus]

Fantastic interview 😊with a genuine Out of the box mindset and courage 👍 this is the kind of scientist that inherited the spirit of QM and GR founders, paramount to move forward while majority is stucking defending existing models.

[@uweseemann8571]

Karl Popper gave us a method to gain scientific knowledge. It's nice to hear that there are researchers who use it.

[@shingnosis]

Sir Karl Popper.

[@andrewhughes7642]

@@shingnosis Karl Popper. Medieval titles are ridiculous in this day and age.

[@francisgrizzlysmit4715]

scientist do not really read or study Popper or any other philosopher, any correlation between the way we think and what he said is due to the accuracy of his observations, in all my years of studying science Popper was never mentioned let alone studied in any class.

[@ika5666]

That was Occam and his razor.

[@shingnosis]

@@andrewhughes7642 Sure, sure. Medieval titles are ridiculous. Like the title "doctor" from the the Latin word "docēre", meaning "to teach". Or "president" from 14th century French meaning "chosen leader of a body of persons", with roots in the Latin word Latin "praesidentum" meaning roughly "governor". Lol. Are you by any chance from the US and jealous that you missed the medieval era and never had any Kings and Queens? Because that is quite common I've noticed.

[@kuboaa101]

I've been saying this about dark matter for years, but without all of the supporting theory and math. They are so invested in the current model that they invented dark matter. Q:Where is this DM you speak of? A:Everywhere. It's everywhere but you can't see it. You actually can't interact with it in any way. Q:Then how do you know it's there? A:It has to be. Our current understanding of the universe tells us it has to be there. If it's not there, the equations don't worrr.... Q: Right. You are starting to see. Any scientist who believes in dark matter is veering away from reason and toward religion. Isn't it more likely that our fundamental understanding of gravity is wrong? It's an "epicycle moment." But they don't want face it.

[@alexpavalok430]

It is humorous to me how many dogmatic scientists there are, especially amateur internet ones...to act as if science has all the answers is a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of the study of knowledge. I fully agree that many have crossed the threshold into full on worship of unproven and in many cases untestable scientific theories. Yet, if you are an honest scientist, you will admit there it appears the universe itself prevents us from Knowing certain things. Socrates is apt here.

[@danatowne5498]

This was a FASCINATING interview, thank you so much for posting! Now this is real science - clear about what we do and do not "know" (or accept as factual) and why; also excitement for current and future ideas to be tested. Great stuff!! I wish the interviewer seemed to understand him better.

[@ozymandiasultor9480]

He discovered hot water, that no scientific theory can ever be proved to be "right"...what is right according to him? In scientific methodology, in science the word theory is used because science is not religion, it is trying to discover the best model for the description of reality, but there are rules on how scientists get to scientific theories, theories are right just enough, and if tomorrow someone discovers better way od describing reality, has experimental evidence, can predict things with that new theory, if that new theory is falsifiable, then the old theory will be discarded and the new theory will be accepted as the best way of description of reality, but it will never become "truth" as some religious dogma. That is what differs religion of science, science uses methodological skepticism to find errors and to improve, and religious thinking doesn't want skepticism. I recommend Thomas Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and Karl Popper for all those who think that he said something new or discovered something new with that first claim.

[@guavabakka]

Wow! This was amazing. 40 mins and I've updated my whole learnt understanding of cosmology. New things to learn. MOND, Milgram, Pavel Kroupa, wonderful content... Thank you🎉🎉

[@mc4ndr3]

Seems to me that it's more likely that we have a poor understanding of the existing standard model of physics, than that dark matter exists.

[@dichebach]

At minimum, EVERY serious scientist should remain open to discussions and explorations of this viewpoint! That is the main thing: dogma is not scientist. I am an evolutionary scientist myself (anthropology). And there is NO WAY I would ever assert that "evolution is proven" and cannot be in any way questioned or re-examined. No serious falsification of any hypothesis derived from the theory has ever occurred, so it is safe to say that the theory remains almost entirely unchallenged by proper scientific inquiry. It is our "best" explanation for the existence of biological diversity. Nonetheless, it likely is not the final word, even if the final word includes it in large part.

[@Dismythed]

He spoke correctly, but on one issue, there can only be two possibilities: either 1) particles are waves and the void of outer space is a physical object known as the aether (a.k.a., QFT) that is creating the waves and has an absolute rest frame or 2) particles are pointlike physical realities and the void of outer space has no existence at all and all effects are geometric and relative. Never the twain shall meet. There is no in between nor any dichotomous existence. It is as disparate a difference as there can be. The facts support the latter: - The supposed aether ALWAYS zeroes out without exception. - The chase for physical alterations or attributes to the void itself ALWAYS ends in nothing. - the void NEVER generates particles. - An absolute rest frame has never been demonstrated. - Waves are easily explained mathematically. - There is zero evidence that photons are wave packets. - Einstein's Relativity has been shown not to be wrong 99% of the time and its effects observed. The universe is geometrically relativistic. There is zero doubt.

[@KibyNykraft]

- The chase for physical alterations or attributes to the void itself ALWAYS ends in nothing. - the void NEVER generates particles... And what does this tell you? It should tell you that all localities are *always present in a void* (there is no "creation", no universe, only a Cosmos), and that they only can occur or be destroyed given that you move energy somehow, and that energy from this requirement can only be a locality state. You are then saying that waves are easily explained mathematically. Yes ...? :) And you can claim that god is easily seen as behind evolution unless you are able to identify how political regimes in ancient history created god, and how all the expressions that were translated into god are actually false translations at proper scrutiny (see Biglino). So the concept of god is a pure invention for political purposes. Which means that for humans to even ask such a question or make such an assumption, that god is behind evolution, would be totally ridiculous for someone with more knowledge than the illiterate. In other words, evolution of organisms never started, it appeared gradually completely by itself, as a gradually increasing complexity of molecular structurality (into the RNA, then later the DNA after cells already were in place). Language and maths are of course not superstions like god, but they are representations. A word is not the same as the object it points to. A wave is a wave because it is mechanical. If not it could not have occured at all. If you know enough about object paths from laboratories you know that a wave is the result of a path of an object, and that path requires the object to inhibit a certain energy state and motion aspect.

[@KibyNykraft]

Relativity means in a skeptical context the motion of localities in a non-uniformity. This was and is the meaning of the word, from its original scientific purpose. It doesn't mean anything ELSE :) Once you ask the bigger cosmological questions or the more difficult subatomic questions, you are not doing away with relativity regardless of how much you try. What is often called relativity now is mostly just religious babble. It's Michiu Kaku cackle on fiction shows.

[@Dismythed]

@@KibyNykraft Why are you preaching about atheism in my thread? I never mentioned God.

[@robertfraser9551]

What a knockout of a discussion. So much to think about.

[@itzchi]

Great interview! We need to challenge such theories and try to replace with simpler ones. Just because ideals like, dark matter, black hole singularity, string theories, multiuniverse & multidimensions sounds amazing, does not mean they are real. We need to keep challenging these ideas and keep exploring. Science only cares about the truth. LET THERE BE THUTH.

[@peteranderson2687]

Yes I agree 😅 It seems to me that all these theories are right in that everyone has a different perspective in there approach to the topic.

[@gene8945]

Liked the interview a lot. Learned the observation method with 2 galaxies, that was great! Didn't think about it at all.

[@rudypieplenbosch6752]

An extremely interesting scientist, he seems to be questioning a lot of the dogmas out there. Good that he talks about the social pressures making our science less scientific, at least one scientist making sense, in contrast with a lot of other "scientists" out there. I seriously wonder about the intellectual level of a lot of these "scientists" that seem unable to think straight and tell us "just follow the science".

[@stevenverrall4527]

When a scientist says "follow the science," they usually mean follow the funding streams. In other words, go with the flow. That strategy is unsustainable in that it ALWAYS eventually fails.

[@peanutnutter1]

This has to be my favourite talk so far.

[@DrssaFerri]

Amazing and interesting video! Thanks a lot! Dr.Kroupa is a fantastic sientist and i love his way of explain and conidering other ways of thinking.

[@morphixnm]

My absolute favorite astrophysicist for years. A true scientist and independent thinker!

[@jhnxavier]

𝗦𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰 𝗠𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗱: An isolated cause is shown to entail an effect. 𝗣𝘀𝗲𝘂𝗱𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲: An effect is observed, therefore presuppose a cause.

[@robinchambers6748]

Fantastic explanation from Dr Pavel Kroupa.

[@karimshariff7379]

To interviewer, re your question about discarding General Relativity (GR): The equations of GR are designed to give Newtonian Gravity as a limit. Similarly Bekenstein (2005) derived a Modified General Relativity whose limit is Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MonD). Presumably all the tests that GR has passed to date would also be passed by Modified GR. Modified GR involves an additional scalar and vector. field. This is still a classical (non-quantum) theory. So one need not entirely discard the GR idea to make it compatible with MoND.

[@ashsilverwizard3275]

I encounter a single concern: there exist counterinstances for Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). Some galaxies lack dark matter haloes, while others possess a greater amount of dark matter. Consequently, MOND has been falsified as well

[@ronald3836]

Within two minutes the interviewer destroyed Pavel's assertion that theorems in physics cannot be proven. The earth is definitely not flat.

[@andrewhughes7642]

It seemed like that to me too, but I assumed I wasn't understanding something about his argument.

[@chekote]

Love this guy! ❤ that statement about waves and refraction indexes blew my mind. Such an elegant description. 🤯 💡

[@KibyNykraft]

Shortened down from TheHonestScientist home site (not me) : Aether and charge are caused by interactions on the subatomic scales. When the subatomic interact (usually on their side) it leads to spins; axially around a pole like the Earth spinning, around a central point in the x-axis like the Earth orbiting the Sun, and also about y and z-axes, with fixed “jumps” between layers like a gyroscope. Similar mass particles like protons and neutrons have the same number of spin levels but slightly different outer (x/y/z) layer orders. Once there are enough spin layers on the photons they behave as a rotating porous sphere/cage like our local sun, and have additional mass/energy beyond the fundamental particle and spins due to an excess of smaller particles coming in mainly through the poles and going out mainly around the equator, so much so that for a proton ~95% of its “mass” is actually this stream of smaller particles temporarily captured (but merely passing through). This stream then causes electrons/protons to “attract” and “repel” each other via real physical interactions, with certain configurations being stable and forming the different elements, and certain configurations of these atoms being stable and forming molecules. Certain configurations of these align in a manner that allows huge streams of these particles to travel in the one path which gives us electricity, with the spinning around the outside magnetism. Ergo you have subatomic, EM, atomic, molecular, chemical and a host of other processes explained via one mechanism, so fulfilling Per Bak’s discovery that Nature is fundamentally simple, with complex processes emerging from this underlying simplicity.

[@jimgraham6722]

I like that he upends a lot of conventional wisdom with strong argument. The idea that quantum effects are in play with many of the effects we see aldo seems credible to me. Theory can change radically. In the fifties the theory of continental drift was thought to be off with the pixies. Not much later it came to acceptance.

[@Ismaelrodenbrock]

What is the correct spelling of the publication from 2018 that poses a different explanation for CMB, that Kroupa mentions in the end? Bavritsuk? I can't find that publication online or any references to it.

[@windowlessmonad9915]

"Universe opacity and CMB" by Vaclav Vavrycuk

[@BrianFedirko]

This actually made me kind of sick/overwhelmed. I've been asking about dust my entire adult life, but even things the size of baseballs or larger, we have NO idea in between stars/galaxies. We just assume vacuum. But the Oort cloud which is close, gives us no data there either, and light will pass through insane amounts of spread-out debris. Ether? I don't like the inference, but the Higgs field alone qualifies doesn't it? Yeah, I think I might need to vomit. Thanks for speaking up. ☮

[@jimsteen911]

I’ve been following Kroupa for a long time. The guy is brilliant. Unfortunately, he spends a lot of time being a therapist for dark matter Priests.

[@johnvanderpol2]

I always was wondering how much the particles in empty space would affect everything, and I always got the answer it had no effect whatsoever, because if it would, light would never be able to pass through. That is why I was wondering if the amount of quantum fluctuations are maybe less in empty space. Great interview, going to rewatch it now.

[@KibyNykraft]

Let me turn around the problem for you a bit : If any form of energy can fluctuate, in other words inhibit motion, it must have a locality presence. If it has a locality presence, so something else than its background, then its background (or medium if you like) = an absence of energy. Without that absence that we call empty spce ,there would be no motion at all, just an infinity of a thermodynamical heat death. The mechanical particle and energy model is by far still the most intelligent and the most proveable by the standards of *science*.

[@johnvanderpol2]

@@KibyNykraft But now let the photon temporary interact with a quantum fluctuation, would it have for that short moment not mass? Even if this happens rarely, it should have an effect.

[@galaxia4709]

But the quantum fluctuations happen on an immensely smaller scale than photons

[@alancham4]

If light is a wave what is waving when light moves through empty space?

[@tarikilhan1892]

The colleague he mentioned, Václav Vavryčuk, deserves more attention. He has been very active in the last two years and may actually have a working solution to the cosmos that works without dark matter. Please check him out!

[@uninspired3583]

There are some red flags in my mind here. His criticism of the establishment sounds a lot like the talking points I've heard from conspiracy theorists. When pressed on time dilation, he doesn't address the question. He talks around it and in the end dismisses relativity without explaining the falsification criteria.

[@AltQuarkMod]

Many thanks to Dr Kroupa for his insights into the sociological pressures of science. Certainly competition for funding inhibits creativity in science, but the peer review process generally inhibits or dilutes fresh ideas. Peer review discourages revolutionary ideas and favors evolutionary or incremental advances. As I am discovering with the alternating quark model, new paradigms with broad implications across more than one science specialty domain are nearly impossible to publish.

[@marwin4348]

" Certainly competition for funding inhibits creativity in science," This is completely bullshit. Most innovation is happening in the private sector, not in academia. Competition is root of all innovation. This guy knows a lot about physics, but most smart people like him are extremely overconditend when talking about things outside of their expertise. If he would study economics he would understand how idiotic his statement is.

[@slatebook2384]

I'm glad I found this video. Pavel Kroupa is presenting his thinking in a very humble and simple way. I don't believe dark matter exists as I can't believe that space is nothing, it's there it can't be nothing. I really like the arm galaxy explanation and the emergent phenomenom that gravity could be. Potential differences in the field that space is ought to be makes a lot of sense, at least much more than an invisible and magical matter that seems to please so many generoulsly subsidized scientists.

[@denysvlasenko1865]

At ~7:30, the explanation that dynamic friction is not observed is rather suspicious. I never heard anything like that. Whether dynamic friction is happening or not would be very difficult to detect. You need to somehow measure tangential deceleration of a satellite galaxy (or a globular cluster, etc). But unlike velocity, measuring small accelerations of remote objects is very difficult (Doppler effect wouldn't work for it, unlike for velocities). Anyone has links to the purported papers which claim that dynamic friction was measured?

[@Thomas-gk42]

Wow, interesting and controversal interview, thanks

[@peters616]

Very interesting and Dr. Kroupa made some good points. However, I've heard the problem with MOND is that it does not properly explain gravitational lensing and the movement of galaxies within galaxy clusters. Would be interested to hear Dr. Kroupa address those specific issues.

[@leoself9858]

I do think relativistic MOND had more potential than cold dark matter cul-de-sac. Always felt DM was invented to plug a gap in explaining galaxies rotation curves. Maybe at that scale they don’t obey the same physics and carry the kinetic energy from the flat accretion disc from which they formed? Unlike our solar system which has slowed. No extra mass needed = conserving energy. Great subject I like Pavel.

[@martinwilliams9866]

Alternatives to Dark Matter & MOND 1.Nested Gravity Wells/Contextual Gravity, Clusters Superclusters, Super Super Clusters etc. 2.Tufted Space-time, Curvature Differential between the Negative Curved Galactic Space-time & the Positive Curved Intergalactic Space-time. 3.Relative Mass, as the Galaxies are Accelerating Away from Each other. 4.Probability Mass/Superposition Mass, the Mass in the Wave-functions where the Particles Usually aren't. 5.Ambient Mass, the Mass of the Particles, such as Photons, Neutrinos, & Baryon Acoustic Oscillations etc, emitted by the Cosmos passing through our Galaxy. Michelson-Morley also presupposed that the Aether was static rather than dynamic & had viscosity.

[@Trajectionable]

Blockbuster interview. I wish the late Wal Thornhill was here to hear and comment.

[@jurisbogdanovs1]

I cannot believe there are such clear-minded people like this guy. Pleasantly surprised...

[@ALANT667]

Interesting interview. Here's something I don't understand though: Pavel says that a galaxy moving through a dark matter halo will be slowed by tidal drag and we don't see that. Now, I don't understand enough about fluid dynamics etc. to know if that's right or wrong, but it does make sense. But if it is so, shouldn't the same drag effect operate on other moving bodies? Such as a binary star pair orbiting each other, or the earth and other planets orbiting the sun? They should be slowed down by the tidal drag of the dark matter halo they are moving though, and we don't observe that. Can someone help me to understand this?

[@marlou169]

Very interesting... thank you, food for thought!

[@SpotterVideo]

Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. ------------------------ String Theory was not a waste of time. Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist. The model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .

[@anterosalo2734]

I am so glad to hear news about dark matter, which I hav doubted from the beginning. The revelation of the possible origin of CMB from the intergalactic dust rather than from the big bang was also most interesting. Could you give me a link to this paper ? Needless to say the standard model of cosmology has also been on my list to get rid of. (Big bang, the inflation etc) We need to hear more on the matter of dimensions. Sorry to say, they are not curled up to tiny bits that cannot be examined. Every dimension exists that way. How large is one of the three dimensions, how large is a point, etc? And whos to say that the universe is expanding. It might well be that the baryonic matter is contracting, thus elimineting the need for energy of the vacuum coming from somewhere (?) out of nothing. It is much simpler to get rid of the excessive energy simply by disaapating it through Hawking radiation outside our universe from the event horizon. By the way , the speed of light in a vacuum is the escape velocity from our universe through event horizon where the information of this universe is projected.

[@malectric]

Actually, the Higgs boson doesn't exist - until you create it by concentrating a specific amount of energy in a small enough volume. Re the ether: call it the virtual/quantum sea. The problem with Michelson and Morley's experiment was that it didn't take into account that the "sea" is actually bounded by any particle/entity within it. Which means that light/energy always propagates at c with respect to _any_ particle/fermion. ?

[@nosuchthing8]

They need to have a pro and con discussion. Lay people dont know what is true or false.

[@mandelbraught2728]

Thanks for an interesting, and provocative interview. I find the "meta" process around Dark Matter most interesting atm. It seems to this ignorant outsider that there are more and more loose threads showing in the existing theories and there's an opening for new ideas. It's a strange thing when the Universe is clearly telling us something, but we don't know yet what it's saying. It could be something trivial or it could be a complete rewrite, or something in between. Fascinating.

[@KibyNykraft]

Why do you assume a christian doctrine to be true? You are saying universe instead of Cosmos or multiverse. How do you prove there is a "uni", given all we know of energy being easily proved many times as "no free lunch"? This mistake was repeated many times in history, the mistake of assuming that the Earth is the center of "the" Cosmos, further that the solar system is "the" Cosmos, which didn't last long until one had to accept the existing galaxy we live in, then proving a whole range of galaxies. To put it differently, why look for or just assume a totality as a something out of a nothing, when this is logically unrealistic? what is logical is a multiverse, where our galactic supercluster (assumed universe) is a part of a bigger system.

[@KibyNykraft]

(if there was a big bang, it could only have occured in a multiverse; if there was no big bang we are still left with a multiverse.. I am not talking about the new age-mathematical model of a multiverse which is just christian garbage)

[@dichebach]

Sadly, the philosophical basis of science is very rarely taught. It is so refreshing to encounter a physical scientist who is a fine example of an exception to that sad norm.

[@alexpavalok430]

And yet we have wasted billions on following an untestable philosophical math to explain reality...I am so glad we are talking about string theory less finally...I always thought it was needlessly complex and that good science is never untestable so I couldnt ever understand why particle physics and string theory don't have to follow the rules of good science.

[@jerbib9598]

I thought MOND was recently (nearly) falsified with observations, but Dr. K seems so convinced I surely don't know now. This is science in progress!

[@DESOUSAB]

Another way to think of "5 sigma" is using signal to noise ratio. If you are looking for a signal (an effect), there is always, always going to be random background noise (variance). A very noisy background will obscure a signal, should it exist. In order to detect that signal, one needs to decrease noise. The lower the noise, the more confident we will be that an observed signal is real, instead of just being part of the noise. Using statistics, we can measure the degree of confidence we've detected a real signal by setting an arbitrarily high signal to noise ratios as a prerequisite. 5 sigma is that.

[@patrickmchargue7122]

Pavel Kroupa and Eric Lerner should be interviews together.

[@KibyNykraft]

Lerner is culturally polluted and the way we see this is that he ends up in first debunking the christian theological cosmology, based on that something is made out of nothing into a time-arrow context, the "uni"verse, by debunking the Big bang of the Hawking model, then still maintaining that this means there is a god (like Hawking does). They just have their sort of indirect ways of stating it mostly. This is the angloamerican disease as well as the catholic world's and the islamic world's. They want that to be the case, and then try to adapt all their logic thereafter.

[@KibyNykraft]

80 percent of why Kroupa is interesting here is that he doesn't come from an english-speaking, russian-speaking, spanish-speaking nor arab-speaking nation, thus he is not quite as culturally polluted as many of those fostered in theocratic societies/cultures.

[@mcguigan97]

Great comments. Very rational which I appreciate. Question: what method would you allocate limited research dollars? There is not going to be consensus on who’s project gets funded. As long as it’s human beings who decide who gets the funds, it’s a type of competition I think.

[@CACBCCCU]

You probably should factor in an increase in apparent angular area covered by spinning matter for the two spinning stars in a binary pair if they're passing extremely closely at perigee, not just their distance apart there, but this is a very quantum approach that begs questions on the impact of a concrete invisible gravitational field particle size-scale. You also should look into why anti-deSitter space, where gravity compresses space and time instead of expanding it, avoids confrontation with Newton's/Einstein's gravity well in the minds of holographic gravity "experts" and thus avoids confrontation with Euclidean space, and flat time, and bent "c."

[@KibyNykraft]

If there is or would be a dark matter, it would have to cover also the expression dark energy, and with the classification only separating the lesser unit (energy) from the larger unit (matter), just like with "regular"(say baryonic) matter vs that you can't have energy as the same as its medium of background (void, emptyness..) - in which it would not be an energy state at all. (So energy is only possible as discrete supersmall particles- as subphotons or "strings" or similar). You can't transmit a half nothing, as there is no half nothing. You can only transmit entities, as transmittance = the motion of localities.

[@KarlDelphi]

Dude, are you drunk posting?

[@QUABLEDISTOCFICKLEPO]

I prefer reading transcripts to watching videos. It saves time; however, clicking on "show transcript" accomplished nothing. How do I see the transcript? Never mind. I finally managed to find the transcript and then copy and paste it. It took awhile, but it got me to thinking how great it would be if it were routinely possible to easily obtain transcripts.Hopefully, this idea will catch on. PS: I've now subscribed to this channel. Now that I know how to use its transcription feature, I'm expecting great things from it in the future.

[@Nuts-Bolts]

Transcripts are invaluable for mumbling interviewees.

[@QUABLEDISTOCFICKLEPO]

Is that remark as ridiculous as I think it is, or is it that I just don't understand?@@Nuts-Bolts

[@Nuts-Bolts]

@@QUABLEDISTOCFICKLEPO Some people mumble so much that even the auto-subtitles can’t make out what they are saying. Its can be worse if they are not speaking in their mother tongue and get the pronunciation all wrong.

[@QUABLEDISTOCFICKLEPO]

@@Nuts-Bolts Sorry for my harshness. Your comment makes more sense upon a second reading; however, .It doesn't invalidate my original comment.. MAKE TRANSCRIPTS AVAILABLE!

[@ronald3836]

@@QUABLEDISTOCFICKLEPO Sometimes it can be surprising that someone agrees with you on the internet :-) :-)

[@ButtonBrand]

Sounds convincing but misleading. I believe that a discussion between experts on both sides of the argument is the only useful way to gain a understanding. There are many issues that cannot be explained by modified Newtonian theory. The bottom line is that whichever is adopted, both theories are full of holes.

[@lemmer89]

Another model bites the dust. The last part of this interview is truly catching : "if Vavrichuk's calculation are right, we have a nuclear bomb for cosmology" (sorry if i misspell his name) ... Also very interesting part when he says that science is art, and should not be driven by competition, but instead by guenuine motivation.

[@tnekkc]

I never believed in dark matter....so I am biased and enjoyed this video a great deal.

[@philiprice6961]

It would be interesting to hear Kroupa's response to claims that galaxies such as NGC 1277 and gravitational lensing in the Bullet Cluster disprove MOND.

[@Thomas-gk42]

the Bullet-cluster does not prove CDM, it´s a wrong presentation in the press. Sabine Hossenfelder explained it in one of her videos.

[@ianw7898]

@@Thomas-gk42 Never mind youtube videos, where is her paper? And it is not just the Bullet cluster. There are numerous similar lensing observations which MOND simply cannot explain.

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@ianw7898 right, but particle DM can explain it neither. Unfortunately I don't find the video about Sabine's claim in the moment, but her conclusion was obvious, and she normally has good references.Think there's a lot of confusion in the physics community about DM in the moment, since neither the xenon experiments nor the LHC found any wimps/susy-particles.

[@ianw7898]

@@Thomas-gk42 _"right, but particle DM can explain it neither."_ It is precisely what we would expect for particle dark matter! Even MOND needs 'some' dark matter to try to remain relevant. For an hypothesis that started off trying to do away with relativity and dark matter, it finds itself now needing both! Not to mention needing a speed of gravity that differs from c, which has also now been shown to be false. It has been an exercise in retrospective curve-fitting. Not a robust model at all. Anyone that tries to sell MOND as being in a close-run race with LCDM is lying. It is not even close.

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@ianw7898 agree, but there are more than just two hypothesis, the two phases of a fluid/superfuid is another one, the superfluid creates a new field, that's similar to gravity. As I said, much confusion currently

[@ghwrudi]

The interviewer didn't seem terribly bright, but Kroupa's explanations were very interesting. MOND is a viable theory with much evidence in it's favour and it needs to be pursued. Kroupa concentrated here on the parts of the theory that do seem to be confirmed with high certainty, but there are parts of the theory that still show discrepancies. So, MOND is also not a perfect theory and more will be discovered. As an aside, as a South African, I was surprised by how strong Kroupa's South African accent still is, even after decades in Europe and Australia.

[@jesseschwab1813]

This video is astonishing. I am still trying to compute whether Mr. Kroupa is a genius trailblazer or a mischievous crackpot. There is no middle ground because he is so controversial! And his final 'nuclear bomb' is completely new information to me! What is the dude's name (spelled out please) and where can we find his paper (dude from Prague, 2018?)

[@mconnah1]

I don’t like the idea of dark matter, but I’m always suspicious of scientists that claim with great confidence that everyone else is wrong. If it was so easy to dismiss dark matter, why is a single scientist still working on it?

[@oberstvilla1271]

This is because very few people (and scientists) tend to stand up and say "I was wrong!". Or as Max Planck once said: "Truth does not prevail. Its opponents die out".

[@CACBCCCU]

Consider a "true vacuum" as empty space with negative energy, compared to a "false vacuum" that is fully occupied with field particle expressions, and then treat both as limited complementary peers of similar resolution limits, with negative energy holding a perpetual edge in fineness that centralizes it within a quantum of space. Suppose bound composites of the two energies can define an extremely cold "true" vacuum. Imagine how such vacuum energy particles of space could be polarized to express cold matter gravity flows, while remaining massless, carrying quantum spin, and at the same time being capable of carrying a characteristic infinitesimal angular momentum affecting any impacts of their carried energies on matter. Keeping it quantum means keeping it real.

[@vladimirrogozhin7797]

Thank you very much! An excellent topic for a open global brainstorm. "We are no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself." J.A. Wheeler "The true physics is that which will, one day, achieve the inclusion of man in his wholeness in a coherent picture of the world." Pierre Teilhard de Chardin Total uncertainty in the foundations of knowledge: "dark matter"... "antimatter"... "dark energy"... Fundamental science (mathematics, physics, cosmology) is experiencing a conceptual - paradigmatic crisis of the metaphysical / ontological basis, which manifests itself as a "crisis of understanding" ("J. Horgan "The End of Science", Kopeikin K.V. "Souls" of atoms and "atoms" of the soul : Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and "three great problems of physics"), "crisis of interpretation and representation" (Romanovskaya T.B. "Modern physics and contemporary art - parallels of style"), "loss of certainty" (Kline M. "Mathematics: Loss of Certainty"), "trouble with physics" (Lee Smolin "Trouble with Physics"). Fundamental science "rested" in the understanding of space and matter (ontological structure), the nature of the "laws of nature", the nature of fundamental constants, the nature of the phenomena of time, information, consciousness. ). To overcome the crisis, the Big Synthesis is needed, a critical look at the entire path of philosophy and science. "Curved space" is a philosophical naivete. The famous theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli in the article “Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics” (2017) outlined a list of issues and topics currently being discussed in theoretical physics. It can be seen that most of the questions relate to the sphere of philosophical ontology. And this list is not complete. The first question on the list is "What is space?" Second: "What is time?".. In order to establish the ontological status of "space" and "time", theoretical physicists must "dig" deeper into ontology to the most remote semantically distinguishable depths and develop the ideas of Whitehead's metaphysics of the process and rethink all dialectical ideas from Heraclitus to Whitehead. "Formulas" are always "clippings" from the existence of the Universe as a Whole. Space is an ideal entity, an ideal limit for the states of matter. The ontological structure of space (absolute, ontological, existential) is rigidly connected with the absolute forms of the existence of matter (absolute states). The paradigm of the Universe as an eternal holistic generating process gives a new look at matter. MATTER is that from which all meanings, forms and structures are born. There are three and only three absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute states): absolute rest (linear state, absolute Continuum) + absolute motion (vortical, circular, absolute Discretuum) + absolute becoming (absolute wave, absolute DisContinuum). What is especially important: each absolute form of the existence of matter has its own ONTOLOGICAL PATH (bivector of the absolute state). Accordingly, SPACE (absolute, ontological, existential) has three ontological dimensions and 9 gnoseological dimensions. It is necessary to “dig” deeper into ontology in order to “grasp” the MetaNoumenon - ONTOLOGICAL (structural, cosmic) MEMORY, “soul of matter”, its measure. Ontological (structural, cosmic) memory is that "nothing" that holds, preserves, develops and directs matter (enteleschia, nous, Aristotelian mind, prime mover). Therefore, we must write not "space-time", but "SPACE-MATTER/MEMORY-TIME". Fundamental science requires a Big Ontological revolution in the metaphysical / ontological basis of knowledge. Physics must move from the stage "Phenomenological physics" to the stage "Ontological physics". The paradigm of the Universe as a WHOLE must come to the aid of the “part paradigm” that dominates science. The New Information Revolution is also pushing for this. A.N. Whitehead: "A precise language must await a completed metaphysical knowledge." J.A. Wheeler: ." "To my mind there must be, at the bottom of it all, not an equation, but an utterly simple idea. And to me that idea, when we discover it, will be so compelling, so inevitable, that we will say to one another, 'Oh, how beautiful. How could it have been otherwise?'"

[@roverwaters3875]

what watch is that?

[@markusantonious8192]

The other idea that might explain the 'flat rotation curve' of spiral galaxies comes from 'plasma cosmology', i.e. the notion that galaxies are permeated by electric and magnetic fields which act like 'spokes' constraining the outer reaches of the galactic arms and maintaing the inner rotation velocities. Of course, plasma cosmology never gets a hearing in the mainstream, orthodox cosmological community despite numerous papers over the past twenty years confirming the existence of powerful galactic (and inter-galactic) electric currents and corresponding magnetic fields (and which focusing into the core can easily explain the energetic processes re-emanating from 'active galactic cores').

[@pn2543]

Thomas Kuhn would be chuckling with glee to see such a clear case of paradigm shift unfolding

[@thethirdchimpanzee]

I was leaning towards modified gravity, because none of our attempts to detect it have found anything, nor has it appeared particle accelerators, and dark matter is NOT accounted for by the Standard Model. HOWEVER... astronomers have measured LARGE galaxies with seemingly *small* amounts of dark matter, and small galaxies with LARGE amounts of dark matter. Then *other* large galaxies have large amounts dark matter, and other small galaxies have small amounts. Where as if *gravity* is the issue, then across the board, large galaxies would seem to have correspondingly large amounts of dark matter and small galaxies would all have seemingly small amounts of dark matter.

[@ferrantepallas]

What does he say about string theory?

[@DESOUSAB]

Scientists need to be precise in their language, or they risk falling into a faith-based paradigm. I am glad to have found Dr. Pavel Kroupa, one of the rare astrophysicists who respects the scientific method and understands the difference between an observation and an inference based on that observation. Most communicated physics today seems to be inference masquerading as observation.

[@r.i.p.volodya]

This is wonderful! The Michaelson-Morely experiment and the CMBR are both potentially OUT too!!!!!!!

[@carlhitchon1009]

There was nothing wrong with the experiment. What it demonstrated is the question.

[@helenamcginty4920]

I know nothing one way or another but get so irritated that many commentators seem to accept any new idea as valid before it has been properly investigated by those capable of doing the work. It may or may not be, just because some other scientists are doubtful about the new idea they are dismissed as being wrong. This is not the attitude I hear from so many scientists I have listened to. They profess to be excited by new ideas as they are explorers. But still might caution acceptance until more work is done. There is nothing wrong with that. The businessmen who ultimately hold the purse strings are often a problem.

[@andrewhughes7642]

Why do you say that it is businessmen who hold the purse strings? Funding tends to be governmental.

[@georgefischer8446]

a really good interview, very clear. One question though: Pavel refers to a "dark matter theory"; is there such thing? I thought dark matter was more characterised by the absence of any underlaying theory. I thought it was more of an explanation of a measurement discrepancy.

[@anthonyBosSoCal]

Based on Recent data analysis, MOND has been proven incorrect to 16 Sigma. The OBSERVATIONS stand, (Rotation Curves) So we don't have a good description of Dark Matter. But the FACT is something is causing the OBSERVATIONS.

[@ralphhebgen7067]

But does MOND not fail at the scale of galaxy clusters? It seems to work very well at the level of galaxies, but not at larger scales? Indeed, MOND starts working better at larger scales if I include heavy omega-neutrinos, but this is again DM, which I thought the point of the theory was to do without? Finally, evidence from the Bullet Cluster appears not to be explainable without DM. Does not mean that Newtonian gravity can not ALSO be modified, but certain phenomena do not seem to be explainable without the theory of DM. What am I missing?

[@TheMrGuyver]

MoND isn't the only contender to dark matter. The Janus model, which has been the subject of peer-reviewed publications, gets ird or dark matter and dark energy, using only the principle of action / reaction on spacetime. Just imagine that the Big Bang have birth to two opposite Universes, in which time flows in opposite directions and only interacting through negative gravity. The matters of each face groups because of gravity, making galaxies in our Universe. Matter from the other face repels outs, creating a containment on our galaxies and thus explaining that they don't disassemble under their own centrifugal force. In the same time, reciprocal repulsion from each face accelerates the expansion as observed. An elegant, parcimonious and efficient model that deserves more attention in my opinion.

[@themcchuck8400]

The more I see things like this, more more I realize that we really don't understand motion. That seems to be the heart of the problem - what exactly is motion, what causes it, how does it continue, how does it change, etc. And no, saying "motion is a vector" isn't answering the question at all. Motion is the heart of the space/time issue, and gravity is a very closely related issue. Once we solve motion, the rest of these problems should (?) fall into line. After all, they are all caused by observations of motion not following a variety of theories.

[@Dowlphin]

Assuming that the theories on which GPS relies are flawless truth would be a fallacy, because they only have to be good enough to allow a system like GPS to work within its parameters. You can also accurately diagnose illnesses based on a four-elements system, but only the illnesses you consider actually existing, based on that very system and its limitation. Eventually you develop a more complex system that allows more detailed perception of illness and identifies more causes. But beware, you might be losing sight of the more big-picture insights provided by the four elements system. A test of open-mindedness for scientists is to ask whether they could imagine a vague scenario in which the Flat Earth thesis ends up having the last laugh, so to speak. Because if you can do that, then your mind is open towards more balanced eye-opening insights, by unlocking the ability to find some kind of wisdom in anything. (This is related to out-of-the-box thinking.)

[@0zyris]

And perhaps the redshift could also be caused by the gravity of the intergalactic dust and other particles rather than by the Doppler effect?

[@CACBCCCU]

Idealistically approximating a star with a black hole seems to be part of the flux-free gravity con physics they're using for reference, not sure if spinning (gravito-magnetism) black holes are considered. I doubt that using spinning black holes to model spinning stars in a binary is the perfect answer either. The "X" pattern in NGC 2424 is apparently due to amplified frame dragging no one wants to mention, even if it explains the brightness of NGC 1277, billed recently as "A Massive Galaxy With Almost No Dark Matter" that MOND fanatics have successfully avoided seeing. MOND is mixling physics, half quantum-hating, half quantum agnostic, no less a bastardization than the Thunderbolts dirt-clods. Keep aiming for security by evolving obscurity, Lagrangian AQUAL MOND modified gravity cheerleaders.

[@ttls14]

Well delivered, the more varied theoretical ideas discussed the sooner we get off the merigoround.. pay all physasits well, equally with rewards for results not books. More debates without being biased/ constrained due to funding.. break free of contraints🤨

[@jeetsom9659]

Paying for “results” is the problem, an hypothesis maybe wrong, pay for good science

[@robotaholic]

As if you didn't know, dark matter is an observation not a theory. We use it as a lense with our telescopes to view other cosmological objects. Look at the bullet nebula - that will flat out prove it to you if you haven't seen it.

[@herbertvanlynden6629]

To be continued I understood, because I have just learnt from Sabine Hossenfelder's weekly science news that a peer reviewed paper has been published that rules out MOND.

[@jansammer1163]

Milgromian gravitation works by introducing not one, but *two* fudge factors, the μ(x) “interpolating” function and a new “fundamental” constant. The methodology is positively Ptolemaic. Observations do not agree with your theory? No problem, just add another epicycle, or, as in this case, two new epicycles.

[@mimArmand]

Very interesting! So we might see the theory of Aether to come back?!! 🤯😅

[@MichaelSmith420fu]

"maybe in fifty years time we will understand the universe in a complete radically different way"- I wanna go!

[@giosasso]

Why wait 50 years? Why not start at the end and work backwards?

[@Wlodzislaw]

Great explanation. I have made similar arguments about quantum mechanics, dynamical vacuum, or connecting QM with consciousness. A lot of inertia in thinking about physics.

[@RWin-fp5jn]

Love this guy. Very true words, which is probably why he is shunned by the community. DM has been disproved with over 5 sigma confidence. Indeed and yet the entire community must cling to it in order to keep their jobs. Indeed DM is not a serious physical theory by now but a social-pathology case. With the community so far gone, what hope is there for humanity to progress? The academic inversions of truth are so deeply embedded one has to wonder if we ever will get ourselves out of it. Take the myth repeated in this segment that Einstein would reject aether. No he didn't ; read his closing words of his 1920 Leiden Lecture; ... Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it....' Indeed unless and until we recognize there is this form of aether, there will never be a physical connection between the two mathematical approximations of GR and QP. And no human understanding of gravity which is the SIMPLEST 'force' of nature to understand...Who or what ever constructed the100 years of roadblocks on our path to understanding truly must have superior intelligence....

[@robertanderson3905]

JUST FOR THE JOY OF KNOWING

[@theeddorian]

What should be underscored is the difference between observational facts, and extensional predictions made based upon the properties we postulate based on what is known about the phenomena we observe. Observationally the earth is not flat, it is very close to a perfect sphere, but is not perfectly spherical. All "flat earth" hypotheses that would differentiate between a plate and a sphere have been falsified repeatedly.

[@malikanomad1623]

Remettre en question la théorie d’Einstein, pour faire avancer la science ne dit pas adhérer à celle de ”la terre plate” qui est pour moi un non débat. Le modèle cosmologique doit évoluer. Les différents académiciens dans le monde se refusent à le faire. L’establishment placardise tous les physiciens, mathématiciens et cosmologistes travaillant sur de nouveaux modèles. Le transhumanisme, les NBIC, la robotique, l’IA, le génie génétique, la numérisation de toute l’activité, sont financé à coup de milliers milliards partout dans le monde mais la recherche fondamentale travaillant sur la cosmologie, le temps, et la conscience sont elles boycottées par la finance et surtout le monde politique. ET CELA JE LE CONTESTE.

[@davidevans2810]

Oppose Neoliberalism, it is the reverse of capitalism.

[@jonathanhockey9943]

"The hypothesis that the higgs boson does not exist has been falsified with 5 sigma confidence". You cannot falsify the non-existence of something, anymore than you can verify the positive existence of something. Not when that something is a universal claim. All you can say is that given this hypothesis, of which there could be others which explain it better which we do not know about yet, this little resonance pattern we picked up on in about 2 or 3 experiments ever performed amongst the noise of data, with all the attendant risks of confirmation bias that must also be allowed for, suggests that such resonance patterns will show up consistently, and given the assumption that nature follows Platonic symmetrical mathematical structures, this resonance pattern is a stable structure called a higgs boson, with the added proviso that such quantum level entities do not exist stably and locatable at a definite location in space and time, and are not atomic in nature. Once we properly understand what quantum theory actually is and represents, we can tell you more perhaps about its existence status.

[@jonathanhockey9943]

Sure, he wants to criticise some point about dark matter, that is great, but I notice so often with these supposed "outside the box thinkers", they only criticise one little area, and then double down on the accepted dogma in all other areas. They are all still very much trying to hide behind the bloated prestige that physical science has come to have in the Western world based on an error that goes back all the way to a misunderstanding at the foundations of both the theory of relativity and quantum theory. As soon as mathematical groups were taken Platonically to represent reality with no epistemological bridge, we have been in a world of models that have no ontological grounding in the actual surrounding reality we have direct physical contact with.

[@YellowRambler]

It refreshing to hear something other than heard mentality dogma.

[@georgeangles6542]

Popular science and funding holds back progress. No different than string theory multiverse. The world needs more people that tell it how it is. More people like Steven Weinberg. He was as much for string theory multiverse as he was against it. He didn't need to be part of MCU to have something to offer. I like this guy Pavel Kroupa aswell. Whether right or wrong he's necessary