Planet Nine Might Be Something Far Stranger Than a Planet featuring Kate Brown and Harsh Mathur 

John, these two guests were an absolute pleasure. Have them back at every opportunity.

Kate Brown is a voice of reason in a Dark Matter gold rush. I would like to learn more about quantum level acceleration - especially as it concerns light. One of the best interviews lately (and that's saying something!)

I truly hope that “planet 9” is a black hole. It would instantly become the primary focus of study in our solar system. The knowledge we’d gain in a relatively short period would be amazing.

Dr Mathur's research into testing the law of gravity in the outer solar system brings to mind author Larry Niven's Known Space scify comment that mankind didn't discover hyperdrive until they performed their experiments outside of the suns gravity well.

A very interesting topic. It's always great to hear that alternative hypotheses to theories we treat as truth are still welcome in physics at least. It doesn't matter if it ends up being true or not, the important part is that it highlights where our knowledge is incomplete.

This has to be my favourite show to lessen to every Thursday. Thank you.

"Get out the good dishes hun. We're watching a new episode of Event Horizon while we have supper."

Pluto will always be a planet for people over 45

I could keep coming back just for the visual graphics and music alone! The informative narratives and fascinating discussions are really just icing on the cake.

Friday mornings in Perth Australia like clockwork. Thanks.

"Pluto is a planet" - Jerry

Thanks for this John, one of my favourite topics 👍❤️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

I absolutely love the content you make. So informative!

This podcast is very underrated. The alignment of the Kuiper belt explained by MOND is very interesting. But I think dark matter also explains it.

That intro music always gets me.

I'm amazed at how Good all these guests are. The show is just consistently excellent. And I can generally follow along. Being a non scientist without any PhD, a channel like PBS spacetime always has me hopelessly confused within the first few minutes. Here, things are explained clearly enough that I can get it, lol.

It will be awesome if MOND is more correct that what we understand now, the dark matter is kind of sketchy, more sketchy than idea that we can understand something wrong, because of our calculations or because misunderstood observations - we like it or not we are observing universe from single tiny point, maybe gravity or actually mass/energy (or lack of it between clusters) doing something with it, like compressing or stretching the distance on a cosmic level. I really like that something is happening in this subject.

Anyone else miss Pluto ?

Wow definitely one of my favourite interviews so far and I'm only half in!

Without great minds like harsh & Kate we would not have progress in this amazing field. Great debates and an understanding of the immense amount of evidence give us more certainty going forward. Even if there are some mistakes having the ability to recognise that is fundamental to new discovery. Amazing people always on your videos in this amazing world on which we live with John Michael Godier asking the great questions. 👍

Never heard of MOND; exciting! Many thanks to you and your guests.

Just finished my last night shift of the week and have a 3 day weekend. Perfect thing to come home to. I promise to stay awake until the end!

Cheers, been waiting for the upload so I can fall asleep. Don't worry, I'll listen this to at work in the morning again.

The audio track is much fuller. I can hear the highs and especially the bass in your lead in music. It is a stellar piece. Pun intended

Awesome interview, John! Thanks!!! 😃 Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊

Why, why, WHY do galaxies swirl? Why do infant galaxies start with the S shape - that wiggle - and then add more arms? Universe, answer me!

I loved both of these guests. They're both such great explainers and they bounce off each other so well, why don't they have a podcast?

Most interesting interview in a long time.

I suppose an interesting question I have that I would love to see answered would be what happens to the universe assuming MOND is real? What I mean is does MOND change the current idea of the big freeze for the universes end? I’m not sure!

I’m so excited about planet 9 and Al the possibilities. Amazing channel JMG!

The standard model describes the nuclear binding force responsible for attracting nucleons together into atomic nuclei in terms of virtual charged pion exchanges. Once anticipated to be a fundamental force, it's now relegated to a residual effect of the more-fundamental quark-gluon interaction holding nucleons themselves together. As such, it doesn't have its own gauge boson, and isn't considered as one of the four fundamental forces of nature.. despite being the lynchpin of every atom. Few people will be aware however that back in the 80's, an alternative model was being actively investigated by shadowy Pentagon-run special access programs, which, based upon intelligence procured from certain foreign entities, instead formulated the nuclear binding force in terms of spacetime curvature, only much stronger, and much shorter-ranged than the weak, long-ranged gravity we're familiar with. The reason for their interest was the proposition that there was a stable isotope of a certain heavy element which happened to expose a hitch by which this field could be harnessed and accumulated by means of amplifying waveguides, thus making it possible to 'blow bubbles' of strong force - extremely steep gravity wells, trivially able to form miniature Schwarzchild black holes, despite their gravitational influence going to zero a few femtometers above their surface. You can see real video of just such a spectacle on my channel, complete with red and blue wavelength-shifting on either side - spin-Doppler from frame-dragging. The projects referred to this force as 'gravity A', as distinct from the more-familiar 'gravity B' of Newton and GR. You could crudely model atomic binding simply in terms of an attractive force with a higher scaling function than electromagnetism's square of radius; for instance radius-cubed would mean halving or doubling distance would change the force by a factor of sixteen. In principle, _any_ value greater than EM's quadratic function results in some threshold radius above which repulsion dominates, but below which attraction takes over. Yet reality's more complex; the standard model *doesn't* treat the binding force as a constant, but _variable with distance.._ even inverting to repulsion beyond a certain proximity, thus preventing nucleons simply automatically fusing. So not only is it not fundamental, and not constant, it also flips between attraction and repulsion as required. Yet since nucleons are massive particles, they're prevented from death-spiralling simply due to centrifugal force - the closer they approach, the faster they co-orbit one another, CF force squaring with that rising velocity.. and whereas the mass of orbiting bodies at classical speeds is constant, as they approach lightspeed, relativistic mass starts to kick in. The impossibility of accelerating mass past c starts to apply - the gravity well can only squeeze the orbits to some finite speed and proximity, at which point they can approach no closer, because they can't orbit any faster. The reason larger nuclei are progressively more unstable is due to the short range of the binding force, compared to the electrostatic or Coulomb force repulsing like-charges - as more protons are added, those on opposite sides of the nucleus are under stronger long-range mutual repulsion from one another than mutual attraction from the shorter-ranged binding force, which most strongly affects neighboring nucleons. Hence stable isotopes of heavy elements depend on having more neutrons than protons, in order to swing this balance of forces their way. Note also that the characteristic hue of gold is attributed to relativistic effects in its nucleus; coincidentally the same colour as this enigmatic metal being studied by these covert programs.. So what of this dualism of 'gravity A' vs 'gravity B' - are there really _two_ types of gravity? Two different types of spacetime curvature, operating at vastly different scales? Or else, might the latter somehow be a residual effect of the former, in much the same way _it_ has been relegated to an epiphenomenon of the quark-gluon interaction? Maybe the spacetime curvature that is gravity at Newtonian scales is a kind of frame-dragging effect that _begins_ with this sub-atomic gravity down in the nucleus? Does this not point to a naturalistic quantum theory of gravity? Sonia Bacca's work on helium nuclei - arguably the simplest atomic nucleus - shows the standard virtual charged pion model unable to predict their maximum size with better than chance accuracy; despite its successes, it's evidently a placeholder theory, if not straying into epicycles. What implications, if any, this resolution of gravity and nuclear forces may have for issues such as the galactic spin problem remains open to further speculation, but if the binding force _is_ spacetime curvature (and the video evidence alone strongly supports this), such a paradigm shift would inevitably yield a deeper understanding of gravity at larger scales..

I miss Vulcan 😅

SagA* : the ultimate Planet 9!

That was really interesting! I hope you can invite them both back at some point for an update.

Would love to see you bring on Anton Petrov sometime. 2 of the best in the game. Make it happen, Cap’n!

A very good show. A really good first experience with the show. I agree with the many comment; very good guests.

There’s a theory our Milky Way galaxy has an unseen process of looping, crossing over, if so would the process mess with current knowledge ? If not & the biggest questions be answered, what actual benefit ? Interesting pod

If they cannot find Planet 9, could they run a MOND model then try again? May be it cannot be found as they are looking in the wrong place...

Outstanding episode to me! I would really like to find a way to make Julia Galef aware of it. You can be proud of your content.

The detection bias towards outer solar system objects with highly elliptical orbits mentioned by Dr. Mathur at around 28 minutes is something I hadn't considered. I guess I always assumed that (as with their wildly varying inclinations), pretty much everything orbiting that far out should preserve oval-shaped orbits because they have undergone far fewer close interactions with other bodies to 'round them out' over time.

best scientists ever. thank you

Does the MOND version also predict the other features that a Planet 9 could explain like the Kuiper belt objects at 90 degree inclination and that the Sun is tilted a few degrees with respect to the plane of the planets?

My hands were cramping up but then I heard Brown Kate Thank you

Super interesting. I wonder how this compares to Mike McCulloch's approach to doing away with dark matter. Aka quantized inertia, a development based off of Unruh waves and such. Interesting because I have not heard a peep since he was involved in a couple cubesats testing his hypothesis

It’s the annunaki

as Chuck Berry says... "you never can tell" haha

I passed it the other day. Seemed fine.

Im really hoping it's a mini black hole that we could potentially study up close one day.

@Event Horizon, Please look into and present the latest papers completely RULING OUT what these authors present in this video (ie, MOND). Just a few months ago (late 2023) Indranil Banik et al used the Wide Binary Test data on Wide Binary stars. This paper rules out MOND at a 16sigma confidence. Remember Indranil Banik was one of the strongest proponents of MOND but verifying data is excluding MOND at 16sigma to 19sigma...has certainly shifted his position on this theory. Furthermore, Banik et al is not the only paper dismissing MOND. On top of this, applying the same stringent criteria used by Banik et al to the paper in 10sigma support of MOND (the Chae data) the results of Chae et al change dramatically...in the other direction (ie, no more strong support for MOND). This is Astrophysics, this is Science. The way these MOND authors you interviewed present the information is unsettling biased. This needs a AUDIATUR ET ALTERA PARS from you. My 2 cents.

So good. Thanks

I listened to this entire thing and I have no idea WTF they are on about 😅 - I love it anyway. Long live John Michael G!

26:30 - Does this research take into account the ongoing collision of the major part of our Galaxy with some formerly independent galaxies, the Magellanic "Clouds" and the Magellanic Arc? I imagine these influences would make the mass motions within the Milky Way unpredictable enough to invalidate many early observations.

Is MOG still a thing? I know very little about this alternative alternative theory of gravity. I'd love to listen to an interview about that if it is still a viable hypothesis.

So what would be the physical mechanism for the mond effects? I have always believed that there should be some effect from white that leaves a imprint on the fabric of SpaceTime. On a quantum level and everything bubbles up and pops into existence from spacetime itself. Gravity and moving objects warp spacetime. This happens to the extent of giving off gravitational waves. I think light or more accurately the electromagnetic spectrum should have some type of dragging effect on spacetime. Calculations of the square cube law into this effect should have the reduction over large distances. I'm probably wrong because The less you know about something, the more you think you know right? I did. Just want to toss out the idea though

The art thing, while cool conceptually, is a little too esoteric for me. But I need to look more into it as I am very ignorant about fractals. The modified physics though was very captivating though!

Great video and information !

3:55 Draw the boundary at the 'cliff'. Makes sense to me, we draw up states by rivers, why not the same, but on an astronomical scale?

I subscribe to Planet 9 co-champion Konstantin Batygin's contention that Planet 9 COULD be a 6-9 earth mass burrito. I would further assert that it's a "mission style" type burrito which would make it even MORE exciting to contemplate.

I enjoyed the episode but I subsequently got a chance to speak with Mike Brown at length and he said that the math in this paper was incomplete. A deeper dive would show that the outer solar system would be largely unbound if this MOND equation is employed. FWIW he also thinks that the primordial black hole conjecture also doesn't hold up to the math. His explanation about why planet 9 hasn't been found yet is also fascinating. Time to have him as a guest once again!

I dont think mond explains galaxies which contain mostly dark matter? Nor gravitational lensing observed by what we think is dark matter

I've said this before but what we're looking for resides in a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum. It's their but we just don't have the technology to se it yet. My guess its way past the infrared.

24:55 Planet 9 and MOND crossover!! Woaah 🎉

Nice talk

Ah yes, an example of my favorite form of deduction! ‘If you hear hoofbeats, you should assume it’s a species of hoof-bearing animals that’s that’s never been seen, but has been theorized to exist’

Very very cool!!!

I find it insane that "dark matter" is assumed to be exotic when its actual meaning is just matter we are not currently able to detect, a very broad category of unknowns. It is most surely just dust and gas that is ambient temperature. As our telescopes have gotten better we have been able to see more and more of it. I agree with Kate Brown that it will affect things a little bit but I do not believe it is the main factor. I see MOND being a more likely explanation due to the amount of matter required for "dark matter" to be viable. That WOULD be detectable and even if we couldn't directly see it we would see more interference of light than we do. I think just looking at gravitational lensing and visible matter in a close by galaxy would be enough to settle this argument due to the extreme amount of extra mass needed in the dark matter theory.

Pluto...still rocks as far as I am concerned 😊

The field always has a signature, apple bananas pears, its a given algebra because its in a vacuum. But i dont suppose it doesn't heterodyne at infinite antenna length, or get shifted by solar influence, as one space travels through another at reasonable dopler integration of normal one dimensional fractal x-ray fields. Mainly the distance acting like the big band. So lets take capacitors, as long as your have similar size capacitors trading charge, the strength of the charge pressure is elastically conservative. So gravity comes from a moon, around 500km wide capacitor. But light comes from a star a billion dollar's away, very narrow and unloved, so it does heterodyne, but just the average over antenna length.

8:55 what happens if C is not a constant?

We need to work really hard on figuring out the universe, being that we won't ever leave this solar system, and be lucky to survive another century at all. If only all of these minds cared about whether this planet would survive, maybe planted nine is earth two, if not we are pretty well screwed.

I wonder why no one tries to apply MHD in cosmic web simulations...?

Don't forget that there is a planet 10 or "X" which is hard to see because it is distant enough to be able to hide behind Pluto. Wonder what it is made of?

I've never forgotten your episode on Lurker Probes. Brilliant . On to MOND, the influence would be 650 billion miles away -7000 AU. (And we think the Pacific ocean is big). If there are trillions of rogue planets just in this galaxy, being lighter than stars/suns, they would wind up.....where ? And invisible. Spinning around solar systems.(?) Just a thought. Maybe I have a correct one, once inna while.(?)

As some smart person once said, the simplest theory is probably the most plausible, in this case MOND.

Gaia not giving accelerations? Wouldn't a second measurement show movement, thus acceleration?

So... We know gravity warps space, we have all seen the demos with the sheets and heavy stuff put in the sheets, right? Well... What if space can be a little wrinkled or warped without gravity. Perhaps the expansion of space is more of an unrolling of 3D fabric rather than a stretchy expansion, and sometimes space just unrolls a bit wrinkled for whatever reason. Then... Matter gets stuck in these wrinkles, sorta like lint in your belly button. The matter makes the wrinkle a little deeper, but that slows down the rollout of space making it more wrinkled.... So... There's no dark matter, just wrinkled space...

This may be a dumb question but if we don't know what "dark matter" is or how to detect it how can we say there is none in the Milkyway ??

So wait, Jackson Pollack was throwing paint randomly on a canvas? Color me shocked! Shocked I say! Also, please let there be a planet 9. I am not a physicist so I have no stake in MOND vs Newtonian dynamics, but I would really love it if there was a planet 9 after all. I'm still 'miffed' about the demotion of Pluto.

Whats the music at the end?

what if planet nine is the friends we made along the way?

The speed of light is one. A second is 186k miles. A second is the distance of causality. Dark matter is a quantum collapse condition. I.e a particle exists as a wave and is in many possible places this gives a distributed gravity locus. When you collapse all the possibilities in your now the particle locations-are absolutely known and the distributed gravity effect disappears. Simply Dark mass does not have a particle it is the probability of a particle that cannot be seen until the probability collapse.

40 years? Then folks have been unsuccessfully looking for 'dark matter' almost half as long as folks have unsuccessfully looking for 'Planet 9'.

Wasn't there a recent paper that suggested MOND was pretty likely wrong?

planet nine is mine, I claim it and I plan to use it as my own personal open bathroom, just a solid gold toilet on top of whatever the tallest mountain is just for me, and no one else is allowed to use it or look toward planet nine when I'm using it

Hi John😊

A film prof. i had, Stan Brakhage, who during his younger life in nyc, was invited with a friend, an acq. of Pollack's, to meet Pollack at his own studio, once, who basically did not want ANYONE there, even after agreeing to have them, & who actually, said Nothing he was doing was 'accidental,' & punctuated his statement with a full ball of paint on his brush, then hurling the paint-ball across the big room, & hitting the door knob, perfectly. They left, after that. :) &, getting the right thickness of paint, & weilding buckets around a gigantic canvas all days, was most probably: whaddya think... ]: ⚡️

Yes this is probably correct.

The gravity well of a black hole is not Newtonian, obviously, as demonstrated by the orbit of stars in a galaxy. Baryonic objects 7000 earth orbits away from the sun become heavily influenced by non-Newtonian gravity. I hypothesize that in 3D, space is "compressed" around a black hole. The idea of warping can only exist if space can be compressed. The 2.5 graphic of the well of a black hole everybody thinks of, is just one point in a spherical set of points. From all points of 3D view - space is compressed. Gravity is -exponential - in compressed space. Space- Compressed is itself non-Newtonian. "Compressed Gravity" or Exponential Gravity is not dark matter. This hypothesis needs an equation. (Uncle Dav's crazy ideas)

Why doesn't anyone acknowledge that alternate realities pressing upon our universe could account for this dark matter. Layers of matter separated by reality boundaries. The effects of gravity pass through the film separating realities, but less so, the more layers away they are. Most of this science is the beginning descriptions of the separating membranes and the matter of adjoining realities. Nothing acts separately from it's environment, yet we insist that our reality is separate when we attempt to understand it.

Could it simply be a higher than assumed metallicity of the stars, gas, and dust making up the missing mass? Isn't that a simpler solution that should be tested before leaping to these math alternatives?

So stars shouldn’t conform to the galactic disc as much with dark matter, that is interesting, but why couldn’t/wouldn’t the dark matter also conform to the disc?

So this goes deepah than Uranus?

Everytime she adds her two cents the curtain of confusion descends on the stage. Whenever he speaks things are so clear. He would make such a good teacher! I feel sorry for her students, if she has any.😢

Live and learn…lots.

Modified by electricity. Intergalactic rivers of charge. Electric Universe. Speed of gravity.

Thats what i thought out side solar gravitational pull is what is upsetting the math

I believe there is method hidden in Pollock's seemingly haphazard approach, but it's far from mathematical precision of any sort.

Dark matter reminds me of the celestial spheres

I for one am glad they demoted Pluto. They should probably demote Mercury while they’re at it.

*5:00** Nobody has ever been able to tell me why "dirt" isn't dark matter. We're not going to be able to see a handful of sand beyond our solar system, right? Last time I checked, quartz is denser than hydrogen. So isn't all dark matter, just 12 billion years of dirt?* I mean, if I don't dust every week, I get a good coat of dust on stuff. That's in a week. Imagine 12 billion years of dust building up. This is said in a joking manner, but I am serious. There's plenty of elements that are not going to put off a single wavelength of any radiation, so it's dark. Aren't those dark matter then?