Does anti-gravity explain dark matter? 

no doubt you have in mind Feynman's example of an antigravity device: a chair. Feynman was one of the few dreaming followers of the religion scientism, that had the wits to recognise that it is no more than a religion. 'Anti-gravity ' my arse!

@@vhawk1951kl And, how is this helpful? I'm withholding judgement here, to ask the question. tia!

That's just how iconic Dr. Hossenfelder is. I deeply admire this woman.

I was reflecting on my own science education as a kid and how my science fair project one year didn't produce the results I wanted, and I was so conditioned that wrong=bad that I faked the results and still passed. I think it could have changed a lot about how I approached science if things has been otherwise and I was more comfortable examining why I was wrong rather than just "getting the right answer"

I said something similar with rather more words. This is one of many reasons I low-key adore Sabine.

@@comradequestion4206 If you were a physicist, you might've been able to spin a paper out of it. :-9

A negative result is always a positive thing, not for the people hoping(thinking) that it would yield a positive result, for the scientific field it is part of. Knowing what something is not slims down the possibilities what it can be and therefore avoid scientific research furthering going down paths that are incorrect.

I learned more from failed theories than from successful theories. Understanding why they are wrong is valuable knowledge. I often participate in “pointless” online arguments just because often they have arguments which seems to be wrong (and they ARE wrong), but I can’t clearly explain why they are wrong. An argument with a flat-Earth theorist will never persuade them that the Earth is round, but I learn a lot about geometry, light refraction and gravity.

That is a good quote. Your boss sounds like a wise man (woman?).

Actually, the real quote from Huxley is "...the great tragedy of Science-the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact..." From a speech to fellow scientists in Liverpool England in 1870. The text of his speech was reproduced in _Nature_ magazine, and went down in history. The quote has variously been falsely attributed to Charles Darwin, Benjamin Franklin, and John Tyndall, among others. It is often rearranged or phrased differently, even by Huxley himself. None of this makes it any less poignant and relatable to scientific thinkers.

Aldous Huxley experienced a conscious state of binary superposition in his 1950s "Doors of Perception" where a conscious singular observer sees the beauty of its own existence. He recognized this could be seen as both a blissful revelation of one's conscious existence or a horrifying realisation of singular but isolated loneliness, very eloquently. Depending on ones viewpoint and situation, the observation problem, there's a binary superposition of positive and negative, so to speak.

Conspiracy theorists agree on that.

he later became a mathematician to circumvent this dilemma (not actually, I think)

That's when you have the wrong theory. I always tend to have the right theory, it's simply better.

Thanks for the kind words 😊

you are kissing her behind :D)) she isn't doing physics anyway

It's not wrong to explore a theory and conclude that it doesn't work. Sometimes more is learnt that way than exploring a theory that does work.

@@bogdy72000 That's a behind worth kissing, metaphorically speaking.

@@CAThompson kiss it all you want :D that's hylarious

Same. So much important context

Yes! I agree. I learned a lot.

Indeed; the more we learn the more we understand how much we don’t know

Who’s to say the universe exists??

At the stake, dear Michael Piz (I swear you aren't myself) is if geometry might give birth to anything, or either gravitation comes from a Higgs- like mechanics.

@@anywallsocket Well who can then?

@@anywallsocket If the universe didn't exist, neither would you. You commented, therefore you exist, therefore the universe exists.

@@micaelapizza510 Geometry is a human invention designed to describe the universe, i.e. that which existed prior to geometry. So geometry doesn't "give birth" to anything but more ideas in the human mind. Nice name. 😁

JA VIEL BITTE

Sabine acts the part of Einstein's granddaughter - she's already got that lovely accent - she's inherited Einstein's last lost secret papers on antigrav technology that he kept secret for fear of what the military would do with it. But now the technology is needed to save Earth.

@@DavidOfWhitehills 🙂

@@DavidOfWhitehills Considering Einstein's attitude to the US military after WW2, I have watched many a hollywood movie that started with a far, far weaker premise. I have read Sci-Fi books that were far weaker too. Maybe you should expand that into at least a short story?

@@DavidOfWhitehills You forgot to mention she inherited his hair too.

Her point is part of a long standing argument she's been making: informed guessing is fine so long as it is warranted and driven by real inconsistencies/problems to be resolved. It's not okay when it's just driven by aesthetics. That is, beauty in a theory is no indication of truthfulness. So she's demonstrating this applies to her own work, too. And more, she's revealing a bit about why, on a personal and not merely professional level, this is important to her.

i agree, i would argue it certainly was not wasted since it is part of her personal and scientific development.

I was going to say the same thing. Finding out what doesn't work is crucial to finding out what does work.

I agree.

@@GulfsideMinistries yes 100% agree with you. The OP has validity too though because her own growth (and now ability to help others investigate more fruitfully) was attained in large part due to learning from that "waste" thereby not truly being a waste. Just absolutely a worthwhile and valuable lesson to empart on others 👍

Heck. Finding a dead end and a wrong answer in science is discovery in itself. Being wrong is pure discovery. The real answer remains unknown. As much as we crave being right: We love a mystery.

Exactly. It's a HUGE part of the process of science.

I think it says a lot about this woman. Humility is a virtue.

What you say is in strong contradiction to the video. SH is NOT supporting your view!

@@soren6045 What, exactly, is she saying?

I think it's an area where Edison's quote applies - it's not a failure, it's successfully identifying one approach that doesn't work so that people can move on to the next.

It wasn't proven wrong. This is the current best theory, like everything else in science.

If 'gravity' is due to spacetime distortions, what would 'anti-gravity' be due to? It takes 'energy' to distort spacetime in order to produce gravity so if it is the case that 'negative energy' is required to produce 'anti-gravity' then that would mean that 'negative energy' would be subject to a different Second Law of Thermodynamics than the one that governs 'positive energy'. And there is one more confusing issue I have: if a particle annihilates with its anti-particle counterpart, is it 'energy' or 'anti-energy' that is released? I mean, we can account for the masses of the original particles in terms of the debris and energy released and there is nothing left unaccounted for that would require the need to consider that some of the mass had been converted into a form of energy, 'anti-energy', that cannot be detected by our equipment except by deduction. Right? Surely 'anti-gravity' is a scientific cul-de-sac?

Agree

You don't know they're useless until after you pursue them. This is not bad science, it's just science.

LOL! The grad student part though.

@@KenOtwell thank you

@@KenOtwell Agreed Ken.

We can’t know for sure that it doesn’t work, until we prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it doesn’t work, and eliminates that possibility from our reasoning. So yes, it’s important to prove what is and what isn’t. Deductive reasoning. Some things we’ve recently discovered about quantum physics doesn’t make a lot of sense, a good thing someone did pursue those avenues of thought and not just assumed it was too crazy to work.

The phrase "waste of time" makes me wonder out loud: Could "time" not be a field that is ever present in physics as well as natural languages? If time indeed might be a field, what does it imply? that it might not be emergent, virtual or non-existent?

Indeed, but also her follow up point is a good one touched in philosophy of science. Much, much, much of the effort has been done on how one can determine if a hypothesis is a true one or wrong one. There is actually little to no work one how you can get good hypothesis. In classical PoS they just come from nowhere.

You must have seen another video. Sabine said exactly the opposite, it was a pure waste of time. I wonder if this misunderstanding is intended by her to reach antiscientiest crackpot but also science fans. Of course any scientist knows that you learn most from your failing ideas and experiments. Understanding why it fails is usually a big step forward. But this is clearly not said in the video and also not in her anti scientist book.

Every road? I'm not sure if I agree. I guess explore sufficiently to know the road is a cul de sac - it would then not be logical to continue further down that path. Just saying.

I believe she referring to spending tons of time ignoring the fact that facts were not going to let her beautiful math ever work out. In other words she could have found out she was wrong way faster without her bias preventing accepting she was wrong. So her being wrong on theory helpful, spending way to much time before accepting wrongness only helpful if others heed the warning that there a time to accept your wrong and to always watch if your own bias is preventing you from knowing your wrong. Bias actually warps reality is been shown to have people unable to recall reading facts opposing their view and in other cases warping recall of the facts to support your idea so much they don't resemble reality anymore. Gulf War Intelligence failure a great lesson on how heavy bias can make people think something that is not true. Especially if one of the bosses lies in information they give out at start. This is why investigations looking for deliberate lies on this and other intelligence failures don't find anything as everyone thought they telling the truth but group think and heavy bias caused information countering their views ignored looked at briefly and filed away often with no recall of ever reading it. Here of course Saddam refusing to fully cooperate and hassling inspectors combined with fact he did have chemical weapons and did have an atomic bomb project before the Israelis blew it up feed the heavy bias. Saddam is over fifty percent responsible for that war. Simple full access and sharing all records quickly would have allowed inspectors prove he had no weapons. But Saddam wanted to have eat his cake yet still have the cake uneaten so to scare others with him possible having WMD while getting West to leave him alone.

This is where Sabine differs from most of us...it's a mistake for the rest of us to take our own advice...

Advises are usually reserved for others (eg students)

@Jonathan Camp I rather wish I found Sabine's blog last decade, then I wouldn't have wasted time on getting into woo metaphysical life-coaching crap a few years ago. Sabine is a much better role-model.

@@janami-dharmam That'd because it's easier to tell other people what you think they should do. :)

@@CAThompson Hi C Thompson. How is my favorite Aussie? Don't underestimate the power of your mind. You'll never anti-gravitate yourself off from the planet, but no astronaut ever made it into orbit without first having been mindful of what it takes to get there. Keep what is important to you at the forefront of your thoughts and things will happen to make them happen.

This video does not address the possibility of antigravitation being from time compression alone, with inertial masses remaining the same. In other words, bosons having exclusively inertial mass, and only fermions having gravitational influence on curvature of spacetime. There is some evidence that neutrinos may oscillate at different rates; what if that is because relic neutrinos are actually responsible for creating such time compression and in fact are the halos mentioned and disregarded above? Similar story for asymmetric decay rates: Can antimatter cause time compression, such that reactions appear imbalanced if we ignore that time progression difference?

I think you could if you had enough ‘negative’ mass !! ( that’s not anti matter ) anti matter is just positive matter with its charges reversed I believe 🤔 . negative mass would be something very different to anti-matter, to use the rubber sheet idea , the negative mass sphere would be under the rubber sheet pushing up to create your hill !! , it would have some cool properties, like reverse time dilation , time travel into the past would become possible , anti-gravity would be possible etc ..

Sounds like what they are calling "dark energy".

Think of all the people Sabine has saved from following this bunny trail if they simply read her paper.

SH said it was a waste of time, so your interpretation of the video is in contradiction to what she is saying. But it shows that many of her fans do not really get what she is saying and implying. It is just her strawman anti-mainstream bias they are fascinated.

She lamented that it was a waste of time scientifically, but clearly it was not a waste of time for her personal and professional development as she explains it led to her book and contributed to her judgement.

A Nobel exclusion principle?

Michelson Morley experiment. They won a nobel price for a negative result. I think the novelty was in the experimental procedure and setup rather than the theory it was supposed to test (luminiferous ether).

You can derive this in an approximation. This is nicely explained in Zee's QFT book (which is generally awesome): www.amazon.com/Quantum-Field-Theory-Nutshell-nutshell/dp/0691140340

The source of the idea of negative mass is from the Klein Gordon equations. Some of the solutions are negative energy which at first was considered an invalid solution. It turned out to be the solution to anti-matter. Feynman once ran with the idea of negative mass for anti-matter.

Part of that the Quantum Mechanics ideas that call for Gravity to be a force like the others with a Gravitron then in that case one could counter gravity with a opposite gravity field projecting Gravitrons. And use the same wave canceling ideas that are done with sound. Unfortunately Gravity still not Quantized and if Relativity is right it will never be. One of the lost in the math things. This long and still no Quantum gravity detected and relativity applies to the smallest levels we can measure. Maybe time to give more support the lessor number chasing Relativity complaint Quantum Mechanics were Gravity is not a force that will combine with the other forces in a combined force right after the Big Bang. Gravity in Relativity best described as an effect, a measurement of SpaceTime curvature not something it self.

What would be the parallel way to the objectives to show that NE does exist?

Thanks for the new word, I had no idea what 'orthogonal' meant.

@@CAThompson Some strange extra dimensions, I suppose. But I don't see how to cancel out energy without cancelling out momentum as well.

Time is fascinating ... and I personally believe that all of the major forces are very closely related in ways we don't yet understand. Some of it we do, other relationships we have yet to discover. Physics is fascinating and mind bending at the same time.

If we could define time as the instability of the vacuum, which forms the basis of the space-time fabric, time would be the fluctuation of state of the particles before the wave function collapses, and the virtual particles.

Objective time is a number counted by a clock, so it is difficult for it to have "energy". Experienced time may have energy, "mental energy" probably.

*Failed hypotheses. A scientific theory is the result of a bunch of hypotheses that have gone through the scientific method. You first form a hypothesis and subject it to a lot of tests and experiments and observations to arrive at something that would be called a theory. So it's never a *theory* until it's been through all kinds of scrutiny. A scientific law is a statement about what something is, while a scientific theory is an explanation of how or why, after the theory has been compiled through running a bunch of hypotheses through all kinds of tests to verify them.

She is referring to the true waste of time chasing the beautiful math for way way too long when the facts showed it was not going anywhere or it clear there was no way to falsify so no point in continuing at this moment. (excepting like pure math the mind developing part) She picking on string theory a bit here at least the huge efforts on it plus dark matter projects to find a dark matter particle that keep failing for decades. I in no way saying these areas should have no effort but it as the point were at least traditional things need reexamining. There is a proposed dark matter string math that just came out that has some promise but still lacks proof. Wish people including Space Time would stop stating Hawking radiation as a proven fact when as far as I know proof of it a long way off if ever.

well I must have missed that... do you have a link?

@@SabineHossenfelder Well, the article I read was in Portuguese, from Brazil. But I'm going to search for it!

I think there may be a hole in your translation?

@@Ava31415 I already posted a link in English here. But RU-vid... You know. 😕

@@Ava31415 a wormhole??

In a sense this could indeed be. But you're not the first one thinking of it. An aspect that is almost certainly wrong tough is that our particle horizon would be the event horizon of the outer black hole, that would mean, earth would be right in the center.. and this is almost certainly not the case. It is a result of Einstein-Cartan (EC) theory, that black holes wouldn't in the inside go to an singularity, but space-time on the inside would blow up again. Which also sounds like dark energy. The basic idea of EC is that space-time can not only bend, but also twist. The downside of the theory, is that it is incredibly difficult to proof if it's true. It is beyond our current abilities. However, I keep wondering why it isn't often mentioned at least as a possibility.. my understanding to the why tough is, in the later 20th century it was expedited by some guy who was perceived as a dick, and because people disliked him, they disregarded the theory as a whole..

The jet of a black hole is parts of the accretion disc being diverted by magnetic fields from the accretion disc to shoot out at the poles. This is a very chaotic process, so I bet the CMB would not look as homogenous as it does. Jets have a direction, so there would be other effects than just an area which seems to attract parts of our universe, like the expansion and redshift would be different depending on the direction you look.

I think your idea's crazy, that's why I like it.

First THANK YOU! Hopefully I can drop this one now😂 Just two points String Theory doesn't have a singularity, the black hole is a fuzzy ball. Not sure if that makes a difference? Also would the "evenness" depend on the relative sizes? After all the visible universe would still have started out very small inside a very large high energy event. Wouldn't that prevent large deviations in energy density?

A big THANK YOU! Hopefully I can drop this one now. Just one thing, wouldn't "evenness" depend on the relative sizes? After all, the visible universe would still have been extremely small in a very large high energy event. Wouldn't that prevent any significant variations?

Because in such a case scenario with strong asymmetry, it is the greater negative mass density that drives the whole cosmic game and generates the large-scale structure of the universe (of the positive mass) as we observe it. Due to its greater density, negative mass is the first to coalesce into giant conglomerates of hot gas. The positive mass then has no choice but to be repelled into the interstitial space between such giant negative nebulae (the giant repelling cosmic voids we observe, that are in reality not "void" but full of (invisible) repelling negative mass. Into these reduced spaces, the positive mass is compressed and organizes as elongated filaments, flat walls and sheets, like the thin walls of soap around joint bubbles, and there, they benefit from a MUCH FASTER radiative cooling, while giant invisible negative mass stays very hot at the heart of their massive conglomerates, never cooling down enough to ignite and form stars. That's why hot negative mass can confine our cold galaxies by repulsive antigravity, giving the apparent "missing mass effect" we call "dark matter" and that we interpret classically as undetectable cold attractive baryonic matter of positive mass inside the galaxies, whereas it may be repulsive hot negative mass instead, that appears to be invisible because such negative mass emits negative energy photons that follow the null-geodesics of their own, distinct metric. But you are well aware of this hypothesis already, whose basis have been written down in the scientific peer-reviewed literature under the prior name of the "twin universe theory) back to 1977… You just choose not to talk about it.

@@fluxcapacitor You just translated the Janus theory of Jean Pierre Petit in english, that's great. I'm just an engineer, I don't pretend to manage physics at the point where I can tell if it's true or not, but I find it really brilliant.

If you feel generous I would love someone smart to look at the crazy thought i had and posted in the comments 🙄

Op thinks he's in charge here.

@@jables2329 Well, I am the most intelligent person in this whole comments section, after all.. By most intelligent, I do mean sanest. Insanity means you don't have a good grip on reality. So, if we do indeed live in a holodeck scenario like I believe then that means that I understand the nature of our reality better than everybody else in this comments section, which means that I have the strongest understanding of / grip on reality here. That would make me the sanest and therefore the most intelligent person also.. by reason. ..if we live in a holodeck scenario.. Guess what! We don't live on an actual planet moving through space in an expanding universe. It only appears as though we do. We are all living inside a super-advanced, hyper-realistic holodeck complex super-structure and the walls, floors and ceilings of the holodecks are hidden from us in the other six dimensions of our overall 9D reality, yet they project/create all the 3D matter of our reality. Genius! The sky is a hyper-realistic projected image. The universe as we think we know it doesn't actually exist in reality. It would only exist as a concurrently running computer simulation. I know it's very 'red pill' but the good news is that holodeck scenarios are potentially eternal unlike true organic big bang scenarios which are doomed.. 🙏

@@jables2329 Cat got your tongue?