Why we have not discovered dark matter: A theorist’s apology

A preponderance of astronomical evidence suggests that the galaxy is filled with dark matter. Despite knowing remarkably little about what this dark matter is, we expect that it is not composed of ordinary matter. Though we have spent 30 years expecting that it may be related to pressing open problems in fundamental physics, a heroic experimental program has shown that dark matter is even more elusive than we had initially imagined.
On February 28, University of California Riverside faculty member Flip Tanedo will discuss how we got things so wrong, why we can be optimistic about the future, and what it means to “do physics” on something where the only thing we really know is that it probably exists.
Perimeter Institute (charitable registration number 88981 4323 RR0001) is the world’s largest independent research hub devoted to theoretical physics, created to foster breakthroughs in the fundamental understanding of our universe, from the smallest particles to the entire cosmos. Perimeter public events are made possible in part by the support of donors like you. Be part of the equation: perimeterinstitute.ca/inspiri...
Subscribe for updates on future webcasts, events, free posters, and more: insidetheperimeter.ca/newslet...
perimeter
pioutreach
perimeterinstitute
Donate: perimeterinstitute.ca/give-today

[@rickr530]

I'm very confused by the attempt to draw parallels between dark matter and DEI initiatives in theoretical physics. I think he was trying to say that we need diversity of thought to come up with new ideas and solutions, but I don't accept the claim that a diverse set of arbitrary social attributes is going to yield better results. We don't all just have some natural aptitude for advanced math and theoretical physics, it takes education and practice to develop skills in these domains and so first and foremost that should be the filter. We might say that we need diversity of thought to build quantum computers but that doesn't mean bringing a carpenter, a painter, and an amputee onto your team for their valuable lived experience... Make your selection process blind and then select the best fitting candidates with the most interesting ideas worth pursuing.

[@timelapseofdecay9028]

Yes, very disappointing to see woke crap in a physics lecture.

[@saturdaysequalsyouth]

The world isn’t fair. With or without DEI.

[@shawns0762]

Dark matter is dilated mass. General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein 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 General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star 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". He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. A graph illustrates its squared nature, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation, it's not just time that gets dilated. There is no singularity at the center of our galaxy. It can be inferred mathematically that dilation is occurring there. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. More precisely everywhere you point is equally valid. In other words, that mass is all around us. This is the explanation for dark matter. The "missing mass" is dilated mass. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. To date 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 have been confirmed to show no signs of dark matter. This also explains why all planets and all binary stars have normal rotation rates, not 3 times normal. The concept of singularities is preventing clarity in astronomy. Einstein is known to have repeatedly said that they cannot exist. Nobody believed in them when he was alive including Plank, Bohr, Schrodinger, Dirac, Heisenberg, Feynman etc.

[@hahtos]

That "philosopher" in the end...ugh...way to highjack a physics discussion with total BS

[@sonarbangla8711]

This guy just might hit the right button. He is so eloquent and he prepared for this delivery for over 11 years and he didn'y tumble once. And he just might be correct.

[@MM-dh3wr]

If matter invisible look for visible action If action is invisible look for visible matter……at least one must be visible or observable

[@user-mb9zx9lg7p]

what does Equity have to do with anything

[@timelapseofdecay9028]

He has to declare his allegiance to the woke mind virus.

[@Dlweta57]

Some wood say everything,, but I don't fall for that dei woke bs

[@tonibat59]

The walking-talking duck left for good, its now time for some hands raising..

[@4CardsMan]

Why did it take 4:40 to get off the ground?

[@chuckschillingvideos]

It got off the ground? Really?

[@audience2]

Thanks for the timestamp.

[@MrMichaelFire]

Equity and diversity.

[@markevans8206]

@@MrMichaelFirehave you considered stepping away from the hate fest and touching grass?

[@rickr530]

@@markevans8206What does that even mean?

[@beateuhlmann4206]

Interesting talk (although a bit long) . Why did Prof. Tanedo not mention the efforts to find axions? In my home town, Hamburg Germany, Dr. Lindner is working on that at DESY institute. By the way, he thinks these are very tiny little "particles".

[@DrDeuteron]

it's just called DESY. No institute. axions were proposed for something else, but could be dark matter.

[@beateuhlmann4206]

@@DrDeuteron Perhaps in English GESY (German Electron Synchrotron) . It is a collider. I heard a talk of Dr. Axel Lindner, and he is definitely searching for axions as dark matter particles.

[@DrDeuteron]

@@beateuhlmann4206 it's just called "DESY", I've been there many times. Axions are interesting regardless of dark matter, it's that DM funds projects. Finding an obscure particle proposed 50 years ago does't. Also, they couple to parallel electric & magnetic fields, so they are merely "dim matter".

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

@@beateuhlmann4206 DrDeuteron is right, it's only called DESY, not DESY institute. DESY is the name of both the collider and of the whole research center. "By the way, he thinks these are very tiny little "particles"." Not only he thinks that, _every_ physicist who works on axions thinks that. "he is definitely searching for axions as dark matter particles" Nobody said otherwise, you don't need to defend that.

[@123Wspy]

"A theorist’s apology" give me a break. Stop with this overdramatic nonsense.

[@brendabeamerford4555]

Deciphering mind attuned

[@brendabeamerford4555]

Be wise

[@Grundewalt]

I think the thumbnail is misleading. The problem with dark matter is not that is invisible, we have a long history of things that are invisible but we can show it, just think of Infrared, Xrays, atoms etc..The real problem is is UNDETECTABLE with means in our toolbox. Chances are, if it exists, one day we will find a way to "see" it and to model a way to put it on display.

[@jeff__w]

51:43 “Every culture for as long as humanity has been human has had a story, has had a cosmology of how we belong, how we came to be, who we are, where we came from.” That’s false. The Pirahã in the Amazon rainforest have _no_ stories of how they came to be, where they came from. From an article “A people lost for words” in _New Scientist,_ according to Dan Everett, a linguist who lived with the Pirahã for seven years, they lack a mythology and “they also have virtually no notion of time, and seem to live entirely in the moment. There is no creative storytelling and no oral history beyond two generations.”

[@schmetterling4477]

Sounds like the Republican party... sorry... couldn't suppress that thought. ;-)

[@davegold]

When we calculate a map of dark matter and find bubbles around the galaxies, how can we be sure that this is not just a consequence of dark matter being measured as gravitational effects on observable objects (typically galaxies). How would we measure the amount of dark matter in area with no galaxies, such as a void?

[@Octa9on]

when you see light bending but you don't see anything there (and it's not the right shape and size to be a black hole)

[@SiqueScarface]

Probably by gravitational lensing. If there is mass out there, it will change light's behaviour. There is a saying, which describes the upper limits to all those possible effects: "Hubble pictures are too crisp." The way objects are morphed in Hubble (and now JWST) pictures gives a limit on how large so far not accounted for effects can be.

[@DrDeuteron]

Mo particles, mo problems was a great line. Not even a chuckle from the audience looking bored af.

[@DrDeuteron]

I know what R parity is and I don’t know what the R stands,for.

[@PsRohrbaugh]

Matter in a galaxy or galactic cluster is gravitationally bound - it follows the same rules as the moon orbiting the earth or the earth orbiting the sun. Some galaxies (which we say have little or no dark matter), behave exactly as we expect them to based on the matter we can see. The orbits make mathematical sense. But other galaxies... The orbits don't make sense based on what we can see. Addition observations using techniques like "gravitational lensing" (where light of distant objects is bent by gravity) shows us the mass is there for the orbits to work - we just can't see where that mass is coming from. That's about all we know with certainly about dark matter. There's multiple observations that suggest the presence of mass that we can't see. Beyond that, it's mostly debating theories - microscopic black holes, an exotic type of matter, etc. But dark matter can best be thought of as a giant question "why do we have evidence for mass we can't see in some places, but not all places?"

[@showmewhyiamwrong]

I get a kick out of the makeup of the audience at lectures of this type. Mostly older people like me who come looking for answers to the questions that have lurked in the back of their minds most of their lives that they never had time to address as "life" got in the way.

[@JackAdrianZappa]

I think I missed something. At 23:59, why is it not a good feature that protons are pretty darn stable?

[@holz_name]

I think the point is that you need to explain why protons are very stable. If you have more particles with those new theories then the proton have more ways to decay in those new particles. In the standard model it's pretty simple: protons cannot decay because the baryon number conserved. A proton is the lightest baryon, therefore a proton must "decay" into another proton so that the baryon number is conserved. A proton cannot decay into a heavier particle. But if you have new lighter baryons then the proton could decay into those lighter baryons, but the proton does not decay, so there must be new conserved numbers why the proton cannot decay. For example, a neutron is heavier than a proton. Proton+electron→neutron+electron-neutrino. The neutron have baryon number 1. Proton have baryon number 1. So the neutron can decay into the lighter proton. Neutron→Proton+electron+electron-neutrino. Baryon numbers: 1→1+0+0. So 1=1.

[@lukegratrix]

He's saying that his tribe the particle theorists screwed up a perfectly good particle, the proton, with their ad hoc super symmetry mathematics, which turned out to be the beginning of a mess of speculation and nonsense in the particle physics community that culminated in the embarrassment of a 10 billion dollar collider that didn't produce much.

[@bradcarlsson1135]

Is it me or is the initial slide showing the force due to gravity missing the gravitational constant?

[@HiReeZin]

Probably just you: 20:09

[@DrDeuteron]

gravity is not part of The standard model, which is a quantum field theory of known particles and their interactions via QFTs.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

@@HiReeZin What do you mean? The slide at 20:09 shows neither the force due to gravity nor the gravitational constant.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

What slide do you mean, Brad? I didn't see any slide showing an equation for the force of gravity?

[@bradcarlsson1135]

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Hi Bjorn. No biggie, just the initial backdrop when he was being introduced...

[@howardlandman6121]

The LHC was not built to look for the Higgs, it was built to confirm SuperSymmetry, which turned out to be completely wrong (none of the predicted SuSy particles were found).

[@stargazer7644]

The LHC was not built ONLY to look for the Higgs. FTFY

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

Homepage of CERN, page "facts and figures about the LHC", section "What are the main goals of the LHC?". The very first goal that is listed there is searching for the Higgs boson. So why do you think that the LHC was _not_ built to look for the Higgs, Howard?

[@howardlandman6121]

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514Hmm, the earliest copy of the CERN website (home.cern) in the Wayback Machine (Internet Archive) is 20 Oct 2015. It does mention the Higgs prominently. However, the Higgs was announced on 4 July 2012, 3 years earlier. So, I don't believe that I can easily get solid evidence either way. LHC Project Report 83 (1996) doesn't say anything about justifications. What I'd like is a document from before 1996 that gives the justification for the LHC and either mentions the Higgs or doesn't. Do you know of one?

[@howardlandman6121]

For what it's worth, ChatGPT-4 thinks "The primary scientific goal of the LHC, from its inception, was to explore the Standard Model of particle physics and beyond. This included the search for the Higgs boson". But of course it's not always right.

[@howardlandman6121]

LHC Project Report 53 is also useless. :-(

[@Inimbrium]

So DOES dark matter interact with itself or not? And what implications are there?

[@KarelGut-rs8mq]

It's not known. One thing it would entail is that it would be easier to detect. I'm not enough versed in the theory to say what other implications there would be.

[@musicmaker99]

Starts at 4:30

[@oliverjamito9902]

My Heir thank you for attending unto our OWN. Love you too! What is worth more than our neighbors given to glorify all that are made that are made. Many who am I? Tumbleweeds can easily be blown away!

[@lyledal]

A fantastic presentation!

[@chuckschillingvideos]

Personally I found it nauseatingly unscientific. It was more in the nature of a pep talk for science fiction fantasists.

[@MrMichaelFire]

@@chuckschillingvideosyeah, this clown wasted my time (and yours) I stayed out of curiosity as to if it would get worse and worse.. it did.

[@lyledal]

@@MrMichaelFireYou and Chuck must be amazing fun at parties!

[@maddocentertainment8856]

Would a missing force not making additional matter obsolete?

[@tomfeng5645]

The question then is, what is that missing force? For all known types of forces, none match up to generate what we see, and for potential new forces, why has it not been observed in any other contexts? It would be easily as problematic as the concept of 'dark matter,' where the questions are 'what is dark matter made of' and 'why can't we seem to observe it.' MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) is a major competing theory that I think is similar to what you're proposing - basically, it poses that gravity works differently from how we think it does, and tries to come up with a mathematical fit to what we observe. It uses Newtonian Dynamics as the base since it models large-scale gravity well-enough and is mathematically much easier to modify than General Relativity is - note that most working in it hope that whatever empirical equation (equation made to fit observations) might lead to a new theory that fixes everything. In the meantime, the debate between MOND and Dark Matter currently mostly sits on whether the equations that model where Dark Matter is or the added parts to equations for gravity in MOND can fit what we observe with the least complexity, with the idea that whichever is simplier is more likely to be the better theory in the end. Currently, I'd say Dark Matter has been looking better and better with the most recent observations, but it's for sure not definite.

[@Syphirioth]

@@tomfeng5645 Why we observe a gap?

[@StarmaxStarmax-zn3xt]

There is a difference between invisible (not able to be seen) and not radiating -- either inherent or reflected light. You would not say that your had becomes invisible in an dark mine (zero light) even though you cannot see it.

[@ranmanfl5597]

great explanation for motivated physics spectators like me

[@fwill182]

DEI puts too much force too late in the game to give us the next outsider such as an Oliver Heavyside who gave us a better way of looking at the Maxwell equations.

[@misterbonzoid5623]

32:03 Caught snoozing despite all his energy. 53:50 can't hear the question.

[@ritishify]

LOL

[@lyxaduong5530]

Why don't we start by having the list of each one of these related evidences clearly shown before taking about its result: the dark mater?

[@user-wm1ro6bj9q]

If dark matter only interacts with gravity and you say that it surrounds any collection of matter or planets or stars or galaxies, then one would expect that this dark matter would be present right here with me at a significant density. Since we can't detect it and we can't feel it or see it, then the only conclusion is that it cannot interact with anything, even with itself. Don't you think that this might be seen as being a bit convenient? I don't think that the extra mass that you are looking for is dark energy, it is another fundamental interaction that we can't experience on Earth due to the presence of a greater gravitational interaction. If we are lucky, may the two voyager spacecraft detect it faint presence.

[@DanJanTube]

far more likely that a base assumption is wrong

[@TheStephaneAdam]

Like what assumption? Those "base assumptions" have been tested millions of time by people who would loooove to be the one individual to prove Eistein wrong. Those base assumptions make your cellphone work and adjust GPS satellites to take time dilation into account. You want to change a base assumption? Sure, go ahead, Just make sure said changed assumption has to work with ALL the previous observations we've made AND work better than the current models. The more I know on the subject the more in-line with the "establishment" I've become. Or more accurately I know where the current models of dark matter come from.

[@DanJanTube]

Thanks@@TheStephaneAdam but you can dispense with the condescension. I'm not claiming to know what's wrong with the models. I'm simply observing that if you have to invent an invisible form of matter to make your math work, at some point it becomes reasonable to stop and ask if maybe you're missing something more fundamental. Wish I had answers, but as I've gotten older I only have more questions.

[@TheStephaneAdam]

@@DanJanTube And what condescention? Dude, you're the one who implies a whole room of physicist are idiots inventing stuff to protect their fragile feelings instead of very smart people who have been studying and working on the problem for decades. Infantilising muich? They didn't 'invent" invisible matter in the first place. You can't see air but wind still pushes you around. Neutrinos can go through a light year of lead without interacting with anything. We already know that kind of particle exist, it's just that the ones we have been able to detect don't have enough mass to explain dark matter. Look, if you find a dog turd in your driveway, are you gonna determine a dog did his business on your property or will you reinvent physics from the ground up? You haven't SEEN the dog in action after all...

[@micheleploeser7720]

This reminds me of a song by foreigner the name of that song is star Rider

[@Inquiring_Together]

👍. Great presentation. A good mixture of creativity and close attention. The sociology weaving in and out from the beginning was neat. To come upon unknowing through the known can be frustrating. A choice-less awareness, one which can see and break through its own limitations, renders the question between what dark matter may be and how humanity can evolve alongside its understanding, into cohesion.

[@andrewsparkinson1566]

Great talk Mr Tornado, thankyou for you're open to alternatives combining. Intuition would have 'R' Parity simply meaning rotational. As for theoretical anything we always project a reflection of our minds eye, which if we look real close is a backwards (Reversed) model in imaginations. So is it to be I wonder, the future might be flipped and each galaxy (historical universe) is in fact a progression towards ' theoretical big bang' collapse into a black hole direction after all? PS dark matters.

[@MrMichaelFire]

Low entropy …precludes that.

[@DrDeuteron]

R is not for rotation. that symmetry is covered under conservation of angular momentum

[@user-sr6no5ne5d]

These concepts represent the death of astrophysics. Black holes, nuetron stars, hyper dense white dwarfs, spacetime are nails in the coffin.

[@marklawrence7872]

I thought this was pretty poor. The style was a little annoying and the content hard to receive.

[@pronaif9917]

It's just non-proximal curvature.

[@showmewhyiamwrong]

With regard to DM here is one of my current thoughts with regard to what it may be if indeed it has an existence in the normal sense of the word. So here is where I start. Ever since Einstein told the World about GR we have viewed Matter, Gravity and Spacetime in specific way. To sum it up we say Matter tells Spacetime how to curve, and Spacetime tells Matter how to move. The implication is that absent of any Matter, Spacetime would have no intrinsic curvature in the normal sense of the word. But what if there is a Tension threshold built into Spacetime, such that , in the presence of some overall density of Normal Matter NM per cubic volume of Spacetime, ST is forced to curve at a greater amount or perhaps differently. Think of it this way: If you take any ordinary elastic material and stretch it at some point you will find it stretches more under the same force. So if ST has a similar sort of Modulus of elasticity then perhaps DM is not a “Thing” in the normal sense of the word but actually just an inherent property of ST that is only made manifest in the presence of some particular Density of NM per cu. Volume of ST. It would not interact with Light or anything else for that matter because it would have no existence outside of the Fabric of ST itself.

[@ReasonBeing25]

Sounds like you are describing MOND (theories of modified gravity). Essentially, they say that in certain situations or distances, the curvature of spacetime acts differently than what is described by general relativity.

[@showmewhyiamwrong]

​@@ReasonBeing25 I will check that out, but it sounds somewhat like what I am thinking about. What really strikes me about any of the theories that we, as a Species, come up with is how we automatically assume some astronomically insignificant thing such as ourselves believe that any theory we come up with and test in our immediate neighbourhood would then naturally be applicable throughout the infinity of Spacetime. We have at least one glaring example of why we should not make such an assumption in the evolution of Newton's Law of Gravity into Einstein's GR. Additionally what is "telling" is the role, "Distance in Space," plays and also how you can fit Newtons Law of Gravity in GR as a special case approximation. Perhaps a New Theory would encompass GR as a "special case" within some defined distance in Spacetime.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

"Matter tells Spacetime how to curve" That's a bit dumbed down. More correct would be: energy, momentum, pressure and mechanical stress tell spacetime how to curve. "The implication is that absent of any Matter, Spacetime would have no intrinsic curvature in the normal sense of the word." No. For a non-zero cosmological constant, spacetime has curvature even in the absence of matter. You start your whole train of thought from at least two false premises.

[@ioanbota9397]

Realy I like this video so much

[@garyjohnson1466]

Very interesting…

[@1n3c]

Maybe ... dark matter is the momentum of space time itself. Why do we have spiral galaxies? Maybe the spin/movement of space-time itself - is the stuff we are missing? If the momentum of space-time is energy - then the movement of space-time/energy would have gravity. Enjoyed - like always Perimeter Institute lectures.

[@iiz67]

The Electric Universe Model and Plasma Cosmology. Answers there you will find.

[@MindForgedManacle]

The electric universe is long debunked crank nonsense based literally on no data.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

@@iiz67 That model actually explains almost nothing. It makes lots of claims, but provides virtually no evidence that any of these claims is actually right. Which is mainly due to the fact that almost all proponents of that model seem to be quite allergic to maths and do almost no actual calculations.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

"dark matter is the momentum of space time itself" How does that explain the rotation curves of galaxies? How does that explain gravitational lenses? How does that explain the BAOs? "Why do we have spiral galaxies?"" The spiral arms are density waves, look it up. What has "dark matter is the momentum of space time itself" to do with spiral galaxies? "If the momentum of space-time is energy" Huh? Momentum and energy are two different things. That's high school physics! "then the movement of space-time/energy" What does "movement of space-time" mean? Why do you write "space-time/energy" here?

[@tevatronlhc244]

very nice talk, beautiful summary of the last 30 years of dm-research ... also pretty funny :). im not sure if dm is really made up of particles, but if yes. perhaps physicists have put the cart before the horse. what i mean is. we live in that 15% stuff we call ordinary matter. from problems of this small stuff physicists try to derive "corrections" for the 85% dm. normally one would try it the opposite way. may be one schould call dark matter as ordinary and we are the strange stuff, start with complete new frame works of dark matter models (of the 85%) and try to derive ther strange stuff, namely us, the 15% as pertubations from it, like symmetry breaking in the new framework or what ever is possible. the problem of such an approach would be: its also completely dark, with what assumpions one would start with none experimental evidence of dm-particles at al. but may be im thinking to naively. anyway, very nice talk

[@Yezpahr]

If it is truly matter and doesn't respond to light other than the light responding to its gravity, wouldn't that imply their electron shells are incapable of undergoing orbital transitions? What kind of an atom could do that? And how would we go about detecting such atoms?

[@DrDeuteron]

it's not an atom with structure, its a point particle like a neutrino. You got trillions of them going through you, and you don' notice. but it could a been. Dark matter tells us a "parallel" universe can actually be a dark universe sitting in the same space we occupy...

[@rayjasmantas9609]

A simplifying approach to understanding dark matters existence: According to me only! If viewing empty space has the ability to move/or adjust with a hidden current flow, it would have the ability to say it could "condense" to. With the Higgs Field presents established, shows how condense areas could obtain weight, and weight is a mass property that promotes a gravitational pull automatically, which as a domino effect, promotes unity and unity promotes a exchange of energy to account distances, etc. Example to follow: Higgs and Einstein's representation of a condensing and expansion (proton/electron logic and accounting their energy exchanges) based a like galaxy area's spin having control of one atom on one end still allowed recognition of the opposite galaxy end atom and its movement.

[@rayjasmantas9609]

One note, gravity is the lasting force out of the force list to explore more properly.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

Please try again using proper English. Even the grammar is wrong in many sentences. It's totally incomprehensible what you want to say.

[@gerardjones7881]

I notice we can't detect the abomnable snowman too.

[@CydoniaPhysGeekGirl]

It's VEC. Vacuum energy condensate. Entirely compatible with Loop Quantum Gravity.

[@Googler1221]

The VEC is not mathematically described by Dr.Einsteins 4D relativistic universe. The limitation of the 4D requires higher dimensionality. Come over to the "Dark side of the force" and contemplate 11D string theory. Recommended viewing is Dr.Juan Maldacena String theory talks.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

How does VEC explain all the available evidence for dark matter?

[@CydoniaPhysGeekGirl]

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514Chiral symmetry breaking & spinor tensor coupling.

[@i-m-alien]

1...hello humans 2...so ur living in my constructed and created universe 3...those humans ,who are trying to understand the construction and execution of universe ,so you want my chair..? 4...why u want to understand the working procedure of universe...? 5...bcoz u want cheatcode to activate the free will facility 6...it is impossible to crack the ,my created universe in which ur present now 7...i am just making you walk from 1 stop to another stops ,and this stops are endless , so keep walking

[@dxhelios7902]

How do they know that it is invisible but not transparent - similar to glass?

[@karimshariff7379]

The hypothesized dark matter does not interact with light, so light goes right through it without changing speed. Glass is transparent (does not absorb light) but it does slow light down. The definition of ideal dark matter is matter that feels and exerts only the gravitational force and nothing else. Oh, one should mention that gravity bends spacetime and so a concentration of dark matter will bend space time around it and so and light traveling through it will get bent (gravitational lensing).

[@paulwolf3302]

I've been wondering if Pierre Robitaille's Liquid Metallic Hydrogen model might explain it.

[@DrDeuteron]

no.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

Robitaille writes heap of utter nonsense. He doesn't understand lots of quite basic physics.

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

How about CIG Theory? What is CIG Theory telling us?

[@huntera123]

Sort of sounds like Aether 2.0

[@user-ve4zj2jf7s]

Ummmm how so?

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

Not at all. The aether was merely proposed because people thought that every wave needs a medium, there was no evidence at all that it actually exists. In contrast, there are mountains of evidence that dark matter exists.

[@Some_Cat_]

I always assumed it was called "dark" because you can't see it. As in "hidden". Whoever thought it was actually black?

[@thenigerianprince70]

@RoryEliza your looks of consternation are the funniest things I've seen in over a month! I'd gladly refund you the UberEats money 🎉🎉🎉😂😂😂❤❤❤

[@pinchopaxtonsgreatestminds9591]

It's like me in 2004, but I have 20 years more knowledge now.

[@nox6095]

if it doesnt interact with light then it does not "matter"

[@DrDeuteron]

so neutrinos aren't matter, even though the carry away 1% of the sun's power in kinetic energy, and over the lifetime carry away half the core's electron number...I mean 4H -> He loses 2 electrons....where did they go? They were matter.

[@nox6095]

@@DrDeuteron no one knows. i dont know. they tell me what they know but i do not know for a fact. - dirac

[@DrDeuteron]

@@nox6095 preach

[@JerkoFlapdoodle]

Low resolution discussion best left for anyone without a clue about physics. PI produces much better stuff, look thru their other videos.

[@Mentaculus42]

50:35 “The thing that is holding us back is human”! If it were only that simple. I “believe” it to be more complex than that, maybe be the “Tyranny of Orthodoxy” needs to be also factored in also. But I guess the “Calcification of Thinking” is a “People Problem” ultimately.

[@tonibat59]

2 mins into the talk and he is already lost. Nice engaging talk nevertheless. Thanks Prof. Tanedo & Perimeter.

[@MrMichaelFire]

Embarrassing… I thought he was going to start crying more than once…..

[@JohnDelong-qm9iv]

I thought he was going to explain dark matter

[@DrDeuteron]

welcome to theoretical physics. we don't know wtf it is.

[@123Wspy]

Nope, guess not

[@Nivloc317]

Out of nothing something grew. Out came Life from something new. First there was energy which formed Hydrogen, then from gas, to stars, to supernovae and back to stars again, matter’s forms and states evolved until finally, around our star revolved a speck of dust too cool to glow, too hot to freeze, and too small to show, but it was positioned well and set just so that another new thing began to glow. This chemical spark wasn’t bright. It didn’t form galaxies or look quite right, but one of the forms it would take eventually would hesitate to reflect opon the nothing that called it’s name when out of NOTHING this something came.

[@badhombre4942]

No..no...DM is so dark, it's invisible. However, one must wonder, if the dark in DM, refers to the state of mind DM leaves us in, rather than the state of the matter.

[@Dysolus]

He needs to calm down and just talk calmly and present his information clearly.

[@Realnatur3]

Dark matter is the atmosphere of the Universe., Actually dark matter = CMB .......🙏🙏

[@egay86292]

woo.

[@spiridonnspiridonn4596]

Наблюдавшаяся учеными странность - существенно увеличенная по сравнению с ожидаемой (расчетной) скорость вращения звезд в составе галактических дисков , - в некоторой степени обусловлена некорректными исходными посылками при вычислении указанной скорости вращения звезд в диске галактики по аналогии с вычислением скорости движения планет Солнечной системы вокруг Солнца. А именно в этом кроется диалектическая ошибка. Галактика является сложной с и с т е м о й со множеством взаимодействующих между собой по различным параметрам элементов - галактических объектов, в т.ч. звезд. Свойства сложной системы о т л и ч а ю т с я от свойств отдельных элементов той же системы. Так, например, характер вращения сырого яйца как системы (по внутреннему строению) отличается от характера вращения того же сваренного яйца, которое выступает в качестве единого элемента. В рассматриваемом нами случае, применявшееся учеными вычисление скорости вращения звезды в диске галактики по аналогии со скоростью вращения планеты в Солнечной системе, соответствует вычислению скорости движения, исходя из свойств отдельного элемента системы. При этом упускается из виду, что звезда, скорость движения которой вычисляется и измеряется, одновременно взаимодействует (в частности, гравитационными, магнитными силами) с остальными вещественными объектами галактики. Образно говоря, из-за указанного взаимодействия диск галактики приобретает некоторую связку, становится "жестче", и потому линейная скорость вращения отдаленных частей диска возрастает. Если представить себе, что диск галактики (со всеми его внутренностями) стал жестким, то имеющаяся вращательная энергия диска перераспределится так, что угловая скорость вращения жесткого диска станет меньше, при этом уменьшится и линейная скорость вращения ближней к центру вращения части диска, а линейная скорость дальних от центра вращения частей диска еще больше увеличится. И "темное" вещество, искомое учеными, при э т о м ни при чем. ... «Тёмная материя» существует, но в другом месте. [22.03.2024]

[@spiridonnspiridonn4596]

В описываемой учеными, уповающими на формулы, картине мироздания НЕ з а м к н у т цикл кругооборота материи в природе. В этом сущностный недостаток Квантовой гипотезы, который порождает *парадоксальное восприятие* некоторых физических явлений. Данное обстоятельство подтвердит развитый Искусственный интеллект. Так, из упомянутой картины толком не видно: куда и как девается в е щ е с т в о , многими миллиардами лет поглощаемое многими миллиардами черных дыр? Какова роль материи (в том числе энергии), соответствующей упомянутому веществу, в физических явлениях природы? - Хотя бы сказочно представим себе ответы на эти вопросы. При тех давлениях, температурах, гравитационных и прочих полях, которые существуют в центральной части активно действующих черных дыр (фонтанирующих мощнейшими джетами на расстояние до миллиона световых лет) , все в е щ е с т в а (включая и элементарные частицы, имеющие массу или её свойства), поглощенные черными дырами за многие миллиарды лет, разваливаются на "труху" (имеющую соответствующий всем поглощенным массам энергетический потенциал), из которой и состоит энергетический вакуум. "Труха" - это новый сказочный персонаж, облегчающий понимание схематически изложенных далее сказочных явлений. В отличие от вещества, имеющего массу, "труха" как форма существования материи не испытывает гравитационного, электростатического, магнитного притяжения, но является п р о в о д н и к о м соответствующих полей. И если, например, ни одна частица вещества, имеющая массу или ее свойства, не может вырваться наружу из поля тяготения черных дыр, то "труха" свободно оттуда исходит наружу, "растворяя" таким образом черные дыры. А энергетический вакуум с высокой концентрацией "трухи" расплывается от черных дыр по всему окружающему пространству космоса, выравнивая свою концентрацию и пронизывая (не хуже нейтрино!) в с е объекты природы, в том числе атомы. [22.03.2024.]

[@spiridonnspiridonn4596]

Раз существуют зоны, в которых вещество, имеющее массу, трансформируется в «труху» (в энергетический вакуум), то должны существовать и зоны, где «труха» при некоторых условиях рекомбинирует до вещества с массой, например, водорода. С появлением вещества, имеющего массу, появляются соответствующие гравитационные силы, сгущающие образовавшийся водород до газовых облаков, затем до газовых планет, и далее по известной цепочке, замыкающей кругооборот материи в Природе. Одной из подобных зон может быть околосолнечная зона. [22.03.2024.]

[@spiridonnspiridonn4596]

Имею дерзость интуитивно утверждать, что поскольку постоянная Планка связана с энергией (мощностью) излучения, а излучение происходит в пространство, заполненное энергетическим вакуумом, то уровень излучения будет зависеть в том числе и от *концентрации* энергетического вакуума, в который происходит излучение. Таким образом, постоянная Планка является постоянной на локальном уровне, а в межгалактических масштабах она является *переменной* . В соответствии с указанным свойством якобы «постоянной» Планка следует оценивать влияние изменений «постоянной» Планка на красное смещение, на разбегание галактик и на прочие космические чудеса. Очень может быть, что гравитационная постоянная тоже зависит от концентрации энергетического вакуума. [22.03.2024.]

[@spiridonnspiridonn4596]

1. "Весло, погруженное в воду, кажется нам надломленным. Таким образом, важно не только то, что мы видим, но и как мы его видим." (Мишель Монтень, "Опыты" ). 2. "Кто ищет - вынужден блуждать" (И.-В. Гёте, "Фауст" ). [22.03.2024.]

[@spiridonnspiridonn4596]

О некоторых сказочных свойствах энергетического вакуума изложил подробные *Комментарии* на: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ppXEpH6GidqleM0 [23.03.2024.]

[@raindrop5533]

My favorite amateur theory is that the CMBR is an event horizon, that the universe is falling, and that we see it thru a fish lens.

[@MindForgedManacle]

Well that doesn't make any sense. You could say the edge of the universe is a sort of event horizon, but not in the same way as we mean with a. Black hole.

[@mikelwrnc]

Loved this talk

[@hooked4215]

The dark matter is something that we can't see and the questions about dark matter are something that we can't hear.

[@dupex2]

Awesome!

[@user-if1ly5sn5f]

Okay, what if everything is real, like we go through our day and wish to be the other things but we can’t just become them, there needs to be a path. So the paths are all real but just under our noses and it take our own expansion to integrate and flow into the differences to find them. Maybe dark matter is all the opposites hidden between the real. We call it the unreal but maybe it’s just not integrated because the path isn’t constructed yet. Like how a baby needs the integration of mother and father to expand and become “real” when it was always real just uninterested or undiscovered.

[@JohnKuhles1966]

9:59 When I see smart person wearing a facemask it is for me the ultimate paradox cringe time :/

[@Yezpahr]

Yea, I don't want my surgeons to wear facemasks either, let them dribble into my wounds who cares. (Sorry, I had to, you opened yourself up for that one haha)

[@JohnKuhles1966]

@@Yezpahrhahahha you know that your "sarcasm" is beyond stupid ... assuming it is all the same "protection"

[@DrDeuteron]

@@JohnKuhles1966 I am so with you on that: the cringe audience shot after the cringe intro. Flip could tell those people that a singe visible light photon is MUCH LARGER than a single virus, and a surgical mask that keeps your own spit in ain't gonna do jack when the particles come knocking.

[@stargazer7644]

WTH is wrong with you?

[@TheWayOfRespectAndKindness]

Or...our current understanding of physics contains errors that we need to correct.

[@iiz67]

No. Dark matter is fairy dust. Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe Model fits the observational Universe, with out the need for fairy dust. Just sayin'.

[@TheWayOfRespectAndKindness]

@@stevhen42 correct.

[@MindForgedManacle]

Yes and that was investigated, and the attempt known as MOND has completely collapsed as a failed attempt to rework gravitational understanding. That suggestion of yours has been attempted and it failed. Dark matter as a new type of matter is the only viable theory so far. And if you think otherwise, you go show us how it's done.

[@hooked4215]

Are not the same epistemological situations: A ---> I don't believe in this that I see, B ---> I don't believe in this that I can't see.

[@wmpx34]

The problem is that if you replace the word “see” with “detect” then that logic falls apart. We can measure the gravitational effects of dark matter, so either there’s “matter” of some sort there or our theory of gravity is wrong. We can’t visibly see the millions of neutrinos streaming through us every second, and for many decades we couldn’t prove that they were there. Then one day, we did.

[@hooked4215]

So you didn't get the point at all. Of course, you can postulate any causal agent and assign to it any measurable effect, but it is a leap of faith to believe that it really is in spite of the fact of its complete invisibility. @@wmpx34

[@PsRohrbaugh]

To add to this reply, we've examined thousands of galaxies and have found that some indicate large amounts of dark matter, while others indicate almost none. When a galaxy has dark matter, we can see it perform "gravitational lensing" just like visible matter. It's possible that the laws of physics work differently in different parts of the universe, but at that point gaining any insight is essentially impossible. One of the core tenants for our understanding of the universe is that the laws of physics are universal. So if we see orbits of stars work one way in one galaxy, and work a different way in another galaxy, there must be some invisible mechanism affecting them. That's what we call "dark" matter.

[@yaweno9555]

What? The missing talent puzzle? In a talk on Dark Matter? He suggests we should fill the room with people based on their look, gender, religion instead of their ability. No wonder we don't have an understanding of Dark Matter, we don't seem to want the best qualified people to work on it. The room just needs to look right. His attitude creates an environment where you question whether he is where he is because he's Filipino or the best at what he does. It's just so sad. I didn't listen to the rest if his talk as it seemed to be a waste of time, but will follow up on Katie Mack not because of her gender, race or religion, but because of her accomplishments in physics.

[@123Wspy]

Agree

[@friendlyone2706]

Question for anyone : Why is the speed of light called a constant when, according to Einstein's famous E = mC^2, equivalent to (E/m)^1/2 = C, which says the speed of light is a ratio of the total energy of the universe divided by the total mass (the square root, but we're talking about such big quantities , for simplicity's sake, I'm just going to concentrate on the ratio part. We have learned energy and matter are two versions of the same thing, nuclear bombs are an example of matter turning into energy. If E = 0 and it's all one hunk of matter, C = 0 because there's no place to go. If m approaches 0, and it's all energy, C will increase, in fact, C will approach infinity. Question: If the ratio changes, will all light waves/photons change speed or will ones released during a different epoch "remember" it's earlier speed? Or will they simply adjust to their new reality, and analogue style smoothly change with the changing ratio. Can the ratio E/m change? It does so within stars and atomic bombs, so why not the universe as a whole? Similar to how a Gaussian closed 3-D surface can be treated as if its center of mass point contained all of its mass, can an area of space be treated as if its average E/m ratio were the universe’s E/m ratio? In other words, if in interplanetary space, can a space station behave as if the mass of the universe were much less than it is, thus raising the speed of light on the station? If the stars were closer than they appear, how would that affect the need for dark matter?

[@TheRealPaulMarshall]

Several things in there. First, nothing says that a conversion factor between to quantities tells you anything at all about the relative abundances of those two quantities in the universe. Second, you've ignored the momentum term. Third, the speed of light is actually the speed of causality and is a function of the permittivity and permeability of the medium - there is no reason to think that photons emitted at a time when those may have been different from current values would ignore the current values. That would imply that light emitted in a vacuum would be able to retain its vacuum speed while traveling through another medium.

[@friendlyone2706]

@@TheRealPaulMarshall So light would vary as the ratio varied. Logical. And no way to tell if a photon is old or new... just like all fundamental items, whether seen as wave or particle.

[@TheRealPaulMarshall]

@@friendlyone2706I believe that the speed of light varies as the inverse of the square root of the product of the two. Other than that, yeah.

[@friendlyone2706]

@@TheRealPaulMarshallYou're right, no way to tell past speed, only measure current.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

"which says the speed of light is a ratio of the total energy of the universe divided by the total mass" No, the equation doesn't say that. For starters, E = mc² is only right for the _rest_ energy, not for the _total_ energy.

[@OKAMIKNIGHTS]

It’s invisible … nothing really new from this

[@jorgikralj905]

Incredible!

[@user-do1qn4pj4w]

When did the moon shut down

[@matkomatej]

Wouldn't dark matter be just the density of gravity? And if so?... What is the coefficient?

[@dexter8705]

Time dilation?

[@Syphirioth]

@@dexter8705 Forget space-time and seperate them again to make things real?

[@dexter8705]

@@Syphirioth I think gravity is the conversion of one to another, it's seems real to me

[@Syphirioth]

@@dexter8705 I truly think gravity is opposing electromagnetic radiation like light and vica versa. Creating all the spins we see everywhere. But scientist gonna argue that the force is to weak to do so. Ok fine. Not gonna happen then.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

"Wouldn't dark matter be just the density of gravity?" Err - no? Why do you it is?!?

[@bimmjim]

It's not matter and it's not in space-ttime.

[@Syphirioth]

Correct. That leaves one simple option. And it seems they might be daring to finally say. I say it for years and years now. But im a nutter. So take with grain of salt. Space is still left and cannot be observed on itself alone. And we just made things harder to understand by adding time to the 3 dimensions and use that everywhere as something fundamental that cannot be seperated. But i am a nutter like I said.

[@bimmjim]

@@Syphirioth Gravity makes space-time wobble. .. This means that gravity is outside of space-time, our spacee-time, that is. .. There are about 7 similar space-times also called "nearby paralell universes." .. One gravity acts on all these space-times. Where we see a galaxy there are about 6 more galaxies combining their gravities. This is why most galaxies appear to spin faster than they should. .. Searching for a dark matter particle or particles is a waste of time. I'll just have to wait and watch. .. Good luck humans. Your science is very small. .. General Relativity is nowhere near the end of all knowledge of the universe and universes. And more --> There is a consciousness spectrum. Like the gravity spectrum, the consciousness spectrum is also outside of space-time. Humans have only been doing science for 400 years. The universes is 14,000,000,000 years old. .. What do you expect?

[@Syphirioth]

@@bimmjim Define space-time ^^ And yes ofcourse gravity is outside space-time. If we kept the time seperated from the space we would be able to understand that better tho. I say gravity is the first and most fundamental. Making way for all other fundamentals to exist. It's the weaver of webs. it's purest form is what we conceive as nothing. Black holes are it's offspring. Like the most bright stars are the offspring of everything. Making buildings blocks of life. 2 opposing absolutes. Able to dance and destroy eachother when balance is tipped. in between there is what we observe. So i say space has negative and positive regions countering and balancing eachother out. Ofcourse at border of these regions things get very interesting and might be beyond our understanding of physics in our solar system. Just because earth is within a positive region cause the energy from the sun is blasting everything creating a net plus. We can be alive. But all our observations are from within that net plus. Untill you completely have left the solar system it's web you have no way of truly knowing what the forces do. Because there are still major forces at play to interfere with things. Not visible on particle distance yet on light years. Interesting fact is that electromagneitc forces only can truly overcome gravity enough on small distances. Just like a normal magnet defy gravity when stick it onto metal ceiling. But many people start arguing when you say that electromagnetic forces are opposing gravity create orbits of planets and create a spin. One upwards force and one downwards. They do not interact with eachother yet the both interact with mass. But this is all i gonna say now. The comment getting to long otherwise.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

@@bimmjim "Gravity makes space-time wobble" No. Why do you think so? "This means that gravity is outside of space-time" No. Why do you think so? "There are about 7 similar space-times also called "nearby paralell universes." " Why do you think so? And so on. Essentially every sentence is an unsupported claim with no arguments and no evidence given. "This is why most galaxies appear to spin faster than they should." That neither explain why rotation curves are flat far away from the center, nor why they drop off proportional to the inverse cube of the distance even further out. "the gravity spectrum" What's that?

[@clouds5]

Dark Matter talks always sound like a religious thing to me :D here are 12 very strong and very complicated arguments so BELIEVE ME this stuff truly exists.

[@JungleJargon]

The earth is flat locally the same as the speed of light is the same locally but not on a larger scale. The earth is round on larger scales and the speed of light depends on the measures of time and distance which change depending on the amount of gravity in the surrounding area. This means that distant starlight arrives instantaneously from distant galaxies which aren’t as far away as they appear to us to be with our measures of time and distance and the time is also passing by at a much faster rate since there’s no matter between us and distant galaxies to slow down time or shorten distance according to general relativity which is now an observation and not just a theory. …and things approaching a black hole look stopped to us because of how slow they are moving. The changes in time and distance compound the changes in the speed of light as observed from our frame of reference. Do a thought experiment. Hold your hands a foot apart representing 186,000 miles saying “one thousand and one” representing one second while pretending to see an imaginary photon going from one hand to the other. Now expand the distance saying “one thousand and one” as fast as you can. You should notice that the speed of the imaginary photon increases the more distance expands and the more time speeds up just same as the farther away from the center of the galaxy it is. The opposite is also true. Someone moving in the direction of a black hole will seem to us to be stopped. *If you change the size of a cubit you will change the size of the house that you build with it.*

[@CydoniaPhysGeekGirl]

When you say 'Earth', you mean the universe, right?

[@JungleJargon]

@@CydoniaPhysGeekGirl No.

[@CydoniaPhysGeekGirl]

@@JungleJargon Oh. Cool cool.

[@chaoticmoh7091]

We had beautifully working theories (to the best of our "then" observation), with which we create models. Then new observations deviated from our models. So rather than start from scratch, let us just assume the problem comes from nature, not our models. Good science.

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

Err, one of his main points was that physicists should be aware that models are not the same as nature, i. e. he is well aware that the problem is with our models, not with nature. Did you miss that point somehow, or what are you talking about?!

[@solapowsj25]

Energy in the Higgs exceeds Graviton truth quark primary 168.4 GeV vacuum secondary 130 GeV vacuum. It can draw away the universe, leaving the large "hole" perhaps as it was in the beginning.

[@mak-mikko-karjalainen]

Love the lady at 32:03. Could be me. :D

[@michaelduke1405]

...interesting. :However, the existance of something that 'exists' for a billionth of one billionth of a second asks the man in the mirror:---are you sure?

[@OneLine122]

I came for physics, got some racist drivel.

[@phpn99]

Shame on wheoever wrote the cheesy clickbait title on the thumbnail

[@Cat_Woods]

I thought there was a fair amount of cheese, and even some cringe. But I guess that's just me.

[@123Wspy]

Agree

[@roydoorenspleet1548]

Good to see some people taking not partaking in spreading sarscov2 seriously at this public meeting and wearing ffp2/n95!

[@guffeluffe5987]

get a life

[@TimAZ-ih7yb]

Good presentation, then he wedged in his blather to appease the DEI gods. What a tool.

[@OpenWorldRichard]

It is all explained in my book titled The Evolution of the Universe Open World book 1 which is available on Amazon priced $10 or £7.50. Richard

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

I may guess: The book contains lots of words, but not one single equation, right?

[@OpenWorldRichard]

⁠ There is a complete mathematical analysis. Starting from a constant expansion of space dR/dT = KT you get log (R) = KT and so R = exp(KT). This relates the explanation of space to elapsed time. It shows that any given volume of space expands by e^3 every 14 billion years. From the Einstein equations of general relativity we get a new energy conservation law which includes the energy of space curvature in the total energy equation. From this you get the conclusion that the number of galaxies in the universe must increase by a factor of e^3 (about 20) every 14 billion years. From this you get an estimate that the first galaxy formed around 126 billion years ago. I use the Schwarzschild radius formula to show that it would take around 28 billion galaxies to form an event horizon at a distance of 8.77 billion light years at a time 13.8 billion years ago. I also show that radiation from a distance of 8.77 billion light years would take 13.8 billion years to arrive due to the expansion of space. The CMBR is coming from radiating matter held at the event horizon. I hope you do buy the book. I think you will enjoy reading it and I would welcome specific comments here if you don’t agree with the calculations. Richard

[@OpenWorldRichard]

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514​​⁠ There is a complete mathematical analysis. Starting from a constant expansion of space dR/dT = KT you get log (R) = KT and so R = exp(KT). This relates the explanation of space to elapsed time. It shows that any given volume of space expands by e^3 every 14 billion years. From the Einstein equations of general relativity we get a new energy conservation law which includes the energy of space curvature in the total energy equation. From this you get the conclusion that the number of galaxies in the universe must increase by a factor of e^3 (about 20) every 14 billion years. From this you get an estimate that the first galaxy formed around 126 billion years ago. I use the Schwarzschild radius formula to show that it would take around 28 billion galaxies to form an event horizon at a distance of 8.77 billion light years at a time 13.8 billion years ago. I also show that radiation from a distance of 8.77 billion light years would take 13.8 billion years to arrive due to the expansion of space. The CMBR is coming from radiating matter held at the event horizon. I hope you do buy the book. I think you will enjoy reading it and I would welcome specific comments here if you don’t agree with the calculations. Richard

[@OpenWorldRichard]

Apologies. The constant equation is dR/dT = KR then you get R = exp(KT).

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

@@OpenWorldRichard Please explain what the terms mean. What is R? (Usually that means a radius, but the radius of what? Of the universe?! That would imply that the universe is a sphere. Why do you think it is?) What is T? (Usually that means a temperature, but that makes no sense here. Perhaps time?!? That is usually denoted by t.) What is K? Does the equation say that the radius of the universe increases exponentially with time? If yes, that's simply wrong, that does _not_ fit the available evidence. And why do you call that the _constant_ equation?!? That makes no sense!

[@mikemian]

The current work seems to be epicycle like. It seems likely it is going to be discarded when a deeper perspective is attained, probably when we can correctly compute the Higgs mass,

[@henryj.8528]

A little over a hundred years ago, we'd be getting a lecture on "The Luminiferous Ether." This group-think run amuck...

[@derrickfoster644]

And 100 years ago there were people who weren't convinced and demonstrated that there wasn't. That is how science works. The best evidence drives discussions on possibilities and possible experiments that lead to more or less evidence for theories.

[@MindForgedManacle]

The aether was a presumption, dark matter quite literally comes from the best data we have at the moment. Unless and until that changes, you're just wanting to pretend you know more than you do. The data don't exist to back up your comparison.

[@williambunting803]

That was an extremely good talk, Flip. Thankyou. What amazes me in the “search” for Dark Matter is,….and it interests me that you began your arguments with the Higgs Particle….is that theorists are completely disinterested in the Higgs Field. The Higgs Particle was primarily the proof for there being a Higgs Field, a field that encompasses all of space, and we know that now so that is yesterday’s news. What we have, physicists seem to obsess, is a new Particle. Everything is wrong about it but it is the clue we have been waiting for. Wrong. The Higgs Particle is not a functional particle, it is just what you get if you hit the Higgs Field hard enough in the right way,…this “Particle” appears ever so briefly. Fact is that the Higgs Particle is a clue about the nature of the Higgs Field. The Higgs Field is the real story. The Higgs Field to physicists is the poor kid on the block because all it does is give matter the property of Mass, but physicists are more excited about all of the other fields they have dreamt up to make their Quantum Field Theory work. Important to note here that all of the experimental observations of Quantum Energy Dynamics are the basis, but reality might well be in how we conceptually and mathematically interpret that huge body of evidence. What do we know about the Higgs Field? It’s every where. It gives Matter Mass. It limits the movement of energy through space to the observed speed of light. If you hit it hard enough with 2 particles with the closing speed of 2 times light speed a particle like body appears for a brief instant. Let me suggest that the next free labor student that your have come knocking, preferably a lateral thinker, put them to work on studying what the Higgs Field is, what it does, and how it does that? Also what does the Higgs Field do in between the electron shell horizon and the Proton/Neutron Nucleus horizon? What you should discover is that the Higgs Field is a scalar field that is not uniform. The Higgs Field is most energized at the Proton Nucleus boundary, and reduces by the square of the distance to the electron shell horizon where it is balanced to be that of the Gravitational “Force” exhibited by that atom. Gravity is the Higgs Field Energy Intensity Gradient across the Universe where in cold dark space it is the minimum, and at the Proton quark interaction turbulent zone (strong Nuclear “Force”) it is at the energy intensity level of the Higgs Particle. Think about it where is all of the Energy in the Universe? It is in the Nucleii of matter particles. That is the origin of Graivity, and the mechanism for how that works is the reaction of that matter energy with the Higgs Field. Matter pushes against the Higgs Field, and so Matter Pushes itself together, not some “force” that pulls matter together. When you have got that far you then have to look at what happens when a Neutron star becomes so dense that the Higgs Field can no longer contain the quark matter energy, there is a massive reaction where the matter energy attempts to escape, much of it does, but the Higgs Field event horizon withdraws to a new energy balance level which becomes the event horizon of a black hole encompassing not matter as is presumed, but pure energy in some form. But the interesting part of this is that much of the Higgs Field Energy that contained individual Neutrons becomes dissociated from the matter energy it once regulated. This Higgs Field energy cannot discharge itself so remains energized to perform as Phantom Matter, having the properties of there being matter in the gravitational influence field of the new Black Hole ie much less than the original Neutron Star. The Field Energy Intensity difference appears as Dark Matter., or Phantom Matter. You can prove this with one relatively cheap energy experiment at the LHC. The argument is that by energizing Protons to near the speed of light, that Kinetic Energy is effectively Phantom Matter as it is energy developed as a reaction of matter, Protons, with the Higgs Field. The LHC has the unique property of being a machine that can create matter, or the matter equivalent, phantom matter , with in the near light speed Proton Beam. It should therefore exhibit the properties of matter in that it should bend light, and exhibit a gravitational attraction. So a combined experiment where a laser light intersecting the Proton beam should measurably deflect, also a specialized LIGO mechanism set up normal to the LHC Proton Beam should be measurably affected as the LHC Beam is powered up, powered down, and or diverted to another ring. Enjoy your physics prize, you will have earned it.

[@MendTheWorld]

No... I think YOU will have earned it. 🫢

[@williambunting803]

@@MendTheWorld Thanks, MTW. It’s the people who do the maths and the experiments who deserve the credit. Thanks for reading the idea, through. Frankly I am dying to know the answer, which ever one is the true reality.

[@beateuhlmann4206]

hello, are you also a quantum physicist? I thought that the Higgs field gives mass to electrons, but I am not sure that it gives mass to all elementary particles. Does it? Protons are glued together by gluon bosons and neutrons as well. The strong nuclear power between protons and neutrons is mediated by the pion condensate (mesons appearing and disappearing)- as far as I know. I do not know how the Higgs field interacts in that all. Can someone explain this to me??

[@basedgamerguy818]

Absolute word salad

[@williambunting803]

@@basedgamerguy818 I’m glad you enjoyed your lunch! Your free lunch.

[@toddwerther188]

Not sold that it's extra matter instead of some type of force, or a byproduct of forces. Amazing we can have quantum mechanics, which operates completely different, but we can't have macro mechanics, because ??? This is like trying to figure out ocean wave mechanics without knowing wind exists. Wind isn't dark nor is it matter. Doubtful it will end up being 'dark', or even matter.

[@MindForgedManacle]

Because we're already doing "macro mechanics" and attempts to rework our understanding of Gravity failed and actually showed the strength of our existing models makes that avenue look unlikely. That is, unless new data comes in to change the state of things.

[@schmetterling4477]

Matter is the result of "some type of force". The strong force, which has SU(3) symmetry is responsible for protons, neutrons and nuclei. The electromagnetic force which has U(1) symmetry is responsible for atoms. We strongly suspect that there are higher symmetry groups which these symmetries are embedded in and they generate plenty of dark matter candidates. The problem is that the theory is generating way too many. Without experimental data we can't tell which symmetry is the right one.

[@johnnynephrite6147]

why the French thing? learn English, its the lingua franca of the world including science.

[@geoffreywright4719]

It does not matter; yes, it does... A little levity/philosophical comedy in appreciation of "great talk"... ty

[@PhilipSportel]

(weak force/strong force) > (electromagnetism/gravity) > (dark matter/dark energy) | Each works at a progressively larger scale and has very little impact at the previous/next scales. If there's somewhere to look, it may be in this pattern.

[@D1N02]

Matter that only interacts through gravity is bs. How would gravity exist, where the strong, weak and electromagnetism are missing? Whitout those forces there is no gravity.

[@schmetterling4477]

You should publish that. You are the only person in the world who thinks that. I am sure you have evidence for it, too. ;-)

[@DrDeuteron]

got mass?

[@D1N02]

@@schmetterling4477 since Einstein died I am the only one

[@schmetterling4477]

@@D1N02 You ain't no Einstein. You ain't even a Zweistein. ;-)

[@KarelGut-rs8mq]

@@schmetterling4477 You spelled Keinstein wrong...

[@mieczyslawherba2723]

I agree Dark Matter is transparent. Much weird ideas in this presentation, and the presenter - he is not scientist at all - made some crucial mistakes, because he didn't know where he should direct his way of thinking. He wanted to discuss something he had no idea what is this. As the result, he simply referred the actual knowledge about Dark Matter, but didn't answer any questions. Wrong basics, he started from Big Bang, it never happened.

[@MrMichaelFire]

Yes… I was appalled.

[@schmetterling4477]

Why are you projecting? ;-)

[@user-xq8mk5qu8n]

I found this presentation to be simplistic and too nonobjective and not sufficiently grounded in value-neutral terminology.

[@quantumentanglementsolved2531]

“Why we haven’t discover dark matter” :It doesn’t exist.

[@RandomNooby]

The man is a legend. Well played...

[@RubenCLeon]

If 15% of the universe is "visible" and 85% is not, the "dark matter" question is simple. It simply means that 85% of the universe has been converted to invisible "energy" like photons, x-rays, gamma rays, black holes etc. Since photons, and all other forms of energy, has mass, the mass of 13+ billion years of energy is what is being called "dark matter". In other words, 85% of the universe has been converted to non-visible matter, including energy, black holes and burned out stars etc. All of the energy transmitted since the initial inflation still exists, and if it isn't inside a black hole, it's in-transit. Whatever the mass was of the universe was 13+ billion years ago, it all still exists, but 85% has been converted into energy or swallowed up by a black hole.