Very interesting. I love how Hooper was able to construct a new example on the spot. This guy knows his stuff, since he is able to craft new examples and not just repeat the examples others have already thought out.
Yet 7 years later and still the best evidence they have is that single galaxy.... Its time to give up on DM and DE, retrace our steps and figure out where we went wrong instead of chasing this rabbit off any more cliffs.
Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but accounts for most of the matter in the universe. The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe. It has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics
@@ortherner your is the possessive of you so it is your computer, your backpack etc. You’re is a contraction of you are, so it is you’re correct etc. To use these in a sentence: Sitting at your computer , you’re being a troll.
Great explanations. I cannot wait to see the results of the next 30 years. Hopefully a result is forthcoming. I’m no particle physicist, but I can say that anything is nature is very natural and we see that, once we are aware how any given system works. The spin of the galaxies is very curious indeed. Black holes have more to them then just existing and creating gravitation waves. Scientists do not attempt to understand their inner structure, and I think this is a major mistake. While past the event horizon lays “elsewhere” it still represents volume within our universe. What is their function......
Kalum Batsch ...no, no, no. The "pulse" in "pulsar" refers to the pulse of light/energy, emitted from the middle of a galaxy (the name "pulsar" is a misnomer, named before we knew what the source is so it's stuck; why they don't change it to reflect current knowledge is beyond me. But the same is true of man-made constructs, like religion that, in these times of free-flowing, widely available knowledge, people still believe in god(s) and ghosts & angels and shit like that! I.e., humans are a silly bunch.
"Dark matter" is the flow of electrons into galaxies. The galaxies have B-fields and when electron flows into gives a force f=eVxB=mv^2/r. The result rotation v=(e/m)(z/c)I=220km/s. The electrons come from escaped hot bodies. See my book The Universe is Electric.
Sir: I am grateful for your ideas and equations which have contributed to a better comprehension and increased admiration towards the Field of PHYSICS, Astronomy and Astrophysics. Ana M. Abreu.
Don't believe Dan answered Troy's question: "What were you smoking when you wrote the paper?" Think it was lead-up to the follow-up question:"Where can I get some of that?" Great imaginative work on DM annihilation. Good job, now get back to work!
Man I really love how that dude just popped out stage right and yelled "GOOD EVE TO YOU M'LADIES ET GENTLESOULS" with a tip of the fedora and a twinkle in his eye.
What is more likely? That 96% of the Universe is invisible, or there is some fundamental flaw in our scientific understanding of gravitational effects? Really now, grumpkins and snarks?
So a black hole do emit: (1)Gamma rays from it's poles, (2)Hawking radiation, (3)Gravity waves when two BH collide and (4)Explode upon shrinking to the smallest size. Can black holes radiate dark energy too? (Since stars emit light) Just seems like there is more going on here...
Yes, black holes produce high energy photons. What else could explain the high energy photons coming from black holes throughout the universe? According to physics and laws of motion gas and dust do not have the mass required to produce angular momentum. Thus gas and dust should be on a beeline straight towards black holes. Rubbing together to produce the high energy photons would imply that the dust and gas were falling at different rates which would violate the theory of general relativity. Matter falls at the same rate without regards to weight.
Like explaining looking for intelligent messages from space in high energy wave lengths while ignoring crop circles around the globe. Fermilabs telling us that Dark Matter exists while ignoring the massive amounts of Blackholes in the Universe .... remember, when going the speed of light, drive around the black holes - black holes are black, nothing escapes their grasp, not even light
My hypothesis that Dark Matter is not a weakly interactive massive particle (WIMP), but maybe is a deformation of space-time by which the curvature of space-time itself is the cause of the gravitational effect. Gravity is the consequence of the curvature of space-time when mass is present. It may be possible that the structure of space-time itself could be warped without the presence of mass. So, how did this warping occur? We believe this warping of space-time occurred during the extreme conditions present during inflation. Space-time has been shown to react like a fabric by warping, twisting, and propagating independent of mass. These properties have been proven with observations of gravitational lensing, frame dragging, and now gravitational waves. Fabrics can be stretched, pressured, and/or heated to the point of deformation. Such extreme conditions were all present during inflation, so it is plausible that space-time’s elastic nature could have hit its yield point and permanently deformed. Therefore, if gravity is the consequence of the warping of space-time, and fabrics can be permanently deformed, then a deformation could create a gravitational effect independent of mass. Thus, the unidentified dark "matter" that seems to be so elusive to modern science may not be matter at all but merely warped deformities causing gravitational effects. We have a prediction using gravitational lens mapping to prove Dark Matter isn’t a weakly interacting massive particle, but instead is a floating fixed pocket of warped geodesics in space-time geometry causing gravity wells.
I recently spilled about 5 liters of dark matter in my basement. It seems like everything that's not tied down gets attracted to it. Clean up is going to be impossible.
I have some questions: Since we don't know what exactly DM is, how do we know they can annihilate and create Gamma rays? Also If the most of DM within the galaxy is contained at the center, doesn't that mean that the Galaxy should still move like it doesn't have any dark matter? (like the left Galaxy at 7:50) I thought the dark matter has a different distribution than the light matter and that's what is causing the Galaxy to move Faster on the outer radii than it should.
+SAHM I'll take this one. We don't know that CDM particles can annihilate and create gamma rays. That is the theory that is being tested at the moment. There is an otherwise unexplained level of gamma wavelength radiation that has been observed since the Fermi telescope has been operational. This is an attempt to explain what it is. Dr. Hooper explained some other candidates for the radiation may be: black holes, pulsars, etc... but CDM particles seem to be the most likely candidate, which is the basic principle of the whole talk. A really nice way to help confirm this is if CDM detectors (like the xenon one) actually got a corresponding detection that can't be explained by the standard model ... or if CERN made some new particle at these energy levels. The halo of DM making up the Milky Way has been determined to be spherical and does indeed drop off in density as you get farther away from the center. It is also significantly larger than the luminous portion (totally enveloping it). So that, combined with the spherical geometry, leads to the observed spin (the model on the right in this presentation). You would be correct that galactic spin would be different if it were all concentrated in the center and spiral in geometry (model on the left).
My question is : What would be the difference if all that dark matter was ordinary matter with the same mass, and same distribution? How would the galactic spin be different between these two cases? I thought their distribution at least should be different.
+SAHM So if all the dark matter would be instantly (magically) replace by, say, just free hydrogen atoms of the same total mass in the exact same density distribution, then the galactic spin would be the same as now (the same as with dark matter). Heck, if you distributed golf balls through the galaxy with the same overall density distribution replacing the current dark matter, the galactic spin would remain the same. That might be convenient, but the reason we know DM it isn't hydrogen, golf balls, or any luminous matter currently in the standard model of particle physics is that we could see evidence of any of those things via clouding, refraction, absorption, etc... and if it were "normal" matter, it would react with other "normal" matter and have clumped together settling into solar systems and stuff by now (since our galaxy is well over 10 billion years old).
Brian R Wait, my question is not about their existence, (eg they said we need 5 times more mass for gravity pulls to work) My question is about their distribution that he said is mostly in the galactic core ( just like ordinary mass).
I like in every model of the singularity it is surrounded by a dark space. In the model too it has to be surrounded by dark space before light can travel. That a magical area helped to cool down the infant universe and it physically did it all on its own with nothing to radiate that kind of heat. Found it kind of interesting that they thought of interactions with antimatter. That ultimately dark matter is interacting with particles if it is primed down to size.
DM is an elegant explanation - best fit. But we don't know what we don't know and a better understanding of quantum mechanics may bring other explanations. Particles with no locality or time signature, entanglement, and virtual particles may offer an alternative to explain the phenomena responsible for accelerated expansion.
Here is an idea... I wonder if light (EM radiation) from stars can somehow increase the production rate of virtual electron-positron pairs in free space due to ever-present quantum vacuum fluctuations. And these virtual electron-positron pairs are interacting gravitationally (no outside EM interaction) before popping out of existence again. Maybe dark-matter isn't permanent, but more a property of how space behaves when the quantum fields are excited by passing bosons. Virtual particle production and destruction rates are able to reach different equilibrium pair concentrations (more-or-less gravity), depending on the concentration of bosons flying through a volume of space. That's why you would find "dark-matter" clustered around normal matter. It's because that's where the highest radiation concentrations are. I think we will need to understand gravity a lot better (quantum theory) before we will be able to determine what dark matter is.
My theory is :- dark energy are waves of extremely low frequencies and long wavelengths. Dark matters are waves of ultra low frequencies and long wavelengths( but higher in frequencies and shorter in wavelengths than dark energy). Visible matters are waves of frequencies higher and wavelengths shorter than dark matter. Apart from frequencies and wavelengths, there are no other difference between visible matter, dark matter, and dark energy. E = Mc^2.
I like watching scientists trying to explain what they do to a general audience - some do so extremely fluently and others struggle tremendously but either way it's a break from all those samey TV drama shows they encourage you to buy twice. SLAC have got the right idea with the catchy thumbnails and I know you could probably get in touch and they would sell you a hard copy of your preferred presentation but how about releasing an entire series? I know your teenagers would be pleased you stopped off after work on Monday for the latest box set even if you could have downloaded it on cable.,..
I have a new theoretical direction. That is, our world is made up of multi-dimensional space. Normal matter mainly represents the amount of changes in the motion of objects in three-dimensional space. Dark matter represents the amount of change in motion of objects in more than three-dimensional space. For example, the information in text is a kind of dark matter, because text can affect various movements of people. The knowledge we learn is in words, and we all communicate through words. So words have a lot of energy, and this energy is a kind of dark energy. Any object has many spatial dimensions. The dark matter problem we are currently facing lies in the fact that we have always believed that the world is composed of three-dimensional space. Normal matter and energy are to change the amount of movement of objects in three-dimensional space. For example, petroleum and nuclear energy are mainly used to provide energy for objects in three-dimensional space.
We keep saying we know less and less about what the universe is made up of. It's now down to about 4 percent known substance, and 96 percent absolutely unknown. I encourage you to really look at galaxies. It looks like many of them are expelling matter and generating stars from the middle and hurling them outward, expanding rather than collapsing.
Scalable Aether, Casimir Effect Universe. "The smaller the spacial footprint, the higher the capacitance". Space and Counterspace are the plates and the infinite capacitance, Inertial plane attracts and repels the plates. Dark matter is in Counterspace. The Universe is a negative hologram. Inertial plane(0D, "Condensate of Universe")~Dielectric energy(longitudinal pulses)~Dielectric voidence field/Magnetism = transverse waves, EM waves path, needs both paths. Aether = e- ~ Inertial plane ~ p+. >~< Aether's hyperboloid rotates in one direction. Oscillating Inertial plane = neutrino. Absolute zero is in the Inertial plane/Counterspace. That's why absolute zero can not be reached from above or below.
Most awesome discovery would be to find out that universe is an enormous brain, and everything is a manifestation of computation happening in that system...
Alice Zeiger. This was lots of fun, and the lecturer was great The only reservation I have in saying so is that, in physics, there is always a denominator lurking around somewhere. And I'm never ready for it. Therefore, in a really good lecture, I often don't realize that I don't understand what's going on as well as I just thought I did. Except, maybe, after the lecturer is done.
Dark matter is what our universe expands into. The dark matter forces the universe matter through a smaller space which speeds up our expansion and produces dark energy from the friction of dark matter on the universes matter.
I have great respect for theoreticians; not only for their vast intelligence but for their courage when making statements like "Dark matter is my area of expertise" followed by "we don't know what dark matter is."
They'll resolve it when they can finally revisit two things: 1. The life energy described by Wilhelm Reich. It strives to move to higher concentrations of itself. It is easy to see why his work was run out of town on a rail. I picked up Introduction to Orgonomy at my gf's place and the first page would make most people run for their lives, starts talking about people healed via m*st*rb*tion (resolving the stagnant state apparently). Our universe works much the same as we do--let me put it this way, a phrase we all know--as above, so below. 2. Ether (aether). See #1 They will be able to remove the b.s. patches from their equations, i.e. imaginary numbers as a bridge to get past parts that are otherwise a complete blank right now. The hardware side of Reich's stuff, accumulators or cloudbusters (affecting the weather with a simple device) should be easy to study, but nobody is doing it. That will also contain the key to fusion energy for example and a lot more. They understand dark matter conglomerates but do not realize it is to radiation as oxygen to fire. Organic materials draw it stably, inorganic like metal accept it but then shoot it away. We can avoid concepts like this and be comfortable, and go nowhere or discomfort ourselves outside the box and make progress.
Here's a fascinating thought: Dark Matter is affected by the gravity of a Black Hole, but it doesn't "feed it" like normal matter would. Is that Dark Matter trapped within the Event Horizon, or not?.
We have never seen a galaxy rotate any appreciable amount. The only thing we have are Doppler shifts. We are making conclusions based only on Doppler shifts. Another shocking possibility is that our extremely fledgling observations are not being interpreted correctly.
Martin Aguilar The raw observation gives a number. The observation may be affected by actual velocity, space time expansion, gravity wells, non-dispersive photon energy loss, etc... The math hasn't worked out so far with the observations. That's why things like dark matter, dark energy, quintessence, inflation, etc... have been introduced. More will be introduced as time goes on--you can count on it. My point was not this, however. It is that from the Doppler velocity measurement, we can infer that galaxies are spinning. We can't tell if there is a net inward flow of stars, or if they're flowing outward from the center. That component of the Doppler shift is too small. We assume they're being gravitationally drawn inward. This assumption may be false in some cases. That's all I'm saying. If you really look at some galaxies, it looks like some have star factories in the middle, flinging them outward onto an expanding space. This also might not be true, but it really looks like that in many cases. Our terrestrial experience suggests that things are being pulled inward, but if you look at the moon/Earth system, the moon is actually being pushed outward from the center of gravity by a tidal transfer effect.
If galaxies really are sucking inward (which I doubt), it's just black holes and brown dwarfs in an old universe. Nothing magic. Look -- galaxies these days rotate, notionally, about once every quarter BILLION years. The universe is, supposedly, only some 13-14 billion years old and has expanded from a singularity to a visible horizon of 93 billion light-years in that time. You have to think about that massive amount of expansion in a small number of current galactic revolutions. From point to galaxy. From point to supercluster. From point to cosmos. Galaxies are flying apart too, even now, despite any "gravitational bind". The expansion causes gravity as a side effect, as the inertia of mass resists.
Dark matter is obviously just a variation of matter that's not bound to this exact position in the 4th dimension but is close enough that we can see its interactions with the matter that is in our position in the fourth dimension. You can email me for details on how to send me the nobel prize, you're welcome.
The dismissal of neutrinos as was very fast. I think it would have deserved some more atttention because that's the first idea an amateur student would usually think of. Because, obviously, they have been getting produced alot, even at the beginning at the universe - and have we got estimates how many ?
I have also wondered why neutrinos are always immediately dismissed. There could be an extremely dense sea of low energy neutrinos around you and you would have no way of knowing about it. They dismiss them based on predictions of big bang cosmology which is now in a lambda-CDM morphology. Another alternative is electron-positron pairs in lower energy states than detectable positronium.
N Marbletoe We simply can't detect most neutrinos. We can only detect ones of high energy, and even then, only very rarely compared to how much we think there are.
onehit pick Isn't it also the case, that since neutrinos have such low mass and therefore move very near the speed of light, they can't accumulate like the dark matter has to do given all the measurements of the movements of galaxies?
I watched Dr Dan's video & i read the comments & i would like to give an aether perspective (ie a non-Einsteinian perspective). Ranzan says that a neutrino is made of two helical photons sharing the same axis (the fields negate). Hencely a neutrino has a mass of twice the mass of a single photon (the standard model says that photons dont have mass). Anyhow the destruction of a neutrino must produce two photons. Elementary particles are made of confined-photons, made when a free-photon bites its own tail & forms a loop (Williamson). If free-neutrinos (dark photons) likewise form loops then perhaps this gives dark elementary particles (possible i think), which form dark sub-atomic particles (impossible i think), which form dark atoms (impossible), giving us a class of dark matter (yes & no), & a class of blackhole (possible i think). I reckon that dark elementary particles (having no charge & no electro magnetic field), would not be able to form nuclear atoms (ie dark atoms), but would be able to directly form the equivalent of a neutron star, but made of dark quarks & dark electrons packed tightly together (due to gravity). These dark-stars need not be very massive, in which case they could be called dark-planets, & dark-moons, & dark-asteroids, & dark-dust. They need not be very massive, but all of them would be as dense as any neutron star. This type ofdark-mass might be as black as the mythical Einsteinian BlackHole, perhaps blacker. Dark-mass would gravitationally attract ordinary (visible) mass, & this might create very visible bursts of ordinary photons. A dark-star colliding or merging with another dark-star (or other dark-mass) might also create bursts of ordinary photons, giving visibility for a while (including gamma rays etc). Dr Dan might be measuring these gamma rays. Dark-quarks & dark-electrons would have no charge or emf (the opposite of what Dr Dan says-expects). Very massive ordinary stars (ie neutron stars) if having a plasma atmosphere must be blueholes due to Cherenkov (blue) light, hencely these are not blackholes (they are blueholes). Einsteinian BlackHoles (where the mass can become a singularity & where the escape velocity equals or exceeds c) are impossible. Anyhow blueholes can be much less massive than BlackHoles, & there might be a great number of blueholes distributed throo all of the Milky Way. I haven’t done the math but i think that unless a dark-star or a neutron-star can shrink to form a singularity (or very nearly) then the escape velocity can never reach c. Ranzan has a theory where mass disappears out of existence inside a super-massive star. Regarding dark-mass, neutrinos have mass & hencely are themselves dark-mass. Ordinary photons have half the mass of neutrinos & hencely can be classed as dark-mass, not because they are dark, but because Einsteinians are blind to them.
Love to hear and learn from these lectures. Anyone who refutes the conclusions here is an idiot unless they understand the science as well as this gentleman and has data to back up their refutation. Scientists say what they think and they reveal the data that causes them to think as they do. I love hearing scientists explain things in reference to what is known and what is not yet known. My only issue is the amount of money we spend and the value the common man gets from that expense. What is the point of science if we refuse to learn from it?
James Smith ...absolutely! ESPECIALLY those brainwashed cult-type babblers who keep bringing up the retarded idea of "electric universe"; a terrible idea for which there exists ZERO EVIDENCE supporting it. It's just one of those things, like bad conspiracy theories (which are all of them), that impressionable, ignorant people absorb like sponges!!!
Gravity is not about two bodies pulling each other. It is about seeking the center of mass. Dark matter did not come into existence. They are the raw material that what became of the fragmentation as a result of the big bang. They (dark matter) would be released as the body disintegrates as they they die and heading towards their black hole. The universe, galaxies and planetary bodies come and go but not the four elements. They are the only permanent objects in the universe.
Say you shoot a photon left, and then you shoot another photon right, and you ask yourself where is the mass of that system of two massless photons? Each one is massless individually, but the system of both is massive. There isn't a "thing" still there at the origin of two photons flying apart, imagine a star (or many) moving through spacetime and emitting photons until stellar death, you can imagine a trail of dark matter (which is actually not a thing you can see or touch, it's just the mass of two things which are very far apart) along the path of the star. Imagine a galaxy (or many), and you can imagine an oblong halo of dark matter around it (or them), but you can't see a material object or particles, you can only sense the gravitational effects of the invariant mass of the system of counterpropagating photons that aren't there at the origin anymore. That's what I think dark matter is.
It's soooo simple. If you look at the way gravity warps space you can see that all matter is dark matter and conversely all dark matter is matter depending on where you are located. People open your eyes!
If his assertion is correct that there may be represented a new sub-particle then there also may be a way to make stable elements previously found impossible within the periodic table. An entirely new understanding of physical dynamics may actually exist. If the sub-particle is a stable version of the Higgs Boson, or even a transient manifestation of it, other worlds unimagined might still be in the offing!
Oscar nominated film?!?! What the?!-- no doubt she was looking for something like "Titanic". Being old-school myself, it's obviously a classic (mystery) like "The Maltese Falcon"
If black holes 🕳️ keep are imperative for the galaxy to form and dark matter keeps our galaxy from falling apart and the universe is expanding then how is it that the Andromeda galaxy will one collide with the Milkyway?
Joseph Karpinski need more/newer observations to tell what the mass might be. QFT tells us particles annihilate and clan give their energy (could be lots or little) to outgoing photons (more than one by the conservation of momentum)
Good lecture but he didn't really answer most of the audience's questions. If one doesn't know the energy of the dark particle, how can you run the gravitational lensing or matter consolidation models? Without those numbers, what led him to conclude that particle annihilation could be detected by the gamma ray telescope? He mentions that there may not even be a dark matter anti particle to annihilate. So what interaction would be giving off the GR signal? Guess we need to read the papers.
Praetor2000 mass is just a parameter in the equations we use... check: pa.brown.edu/articles/Lewin_Smith_DM_Review.pdf like figure 1 on second page. The annihilation is CLEARLY measured/detected by exp't so what do you mean about GRT?
Dark Matter is a Demential issue where the fourth and fifth demotion has lost its boundaries. The fourth demential has been folding in to the fifth. So the energy is escaping from the 4 to the fifth detention. Like in a black hole's event horizon as matter leaves the view point or the edge this gives off light. Because we are in the middle of the event we have no View Point or our view of the event is obscured from our 4 demotion.
Wonder if an advanced species in the universe, is watching this like we would watch a comedy show. Thinking WOW this is so dumb it's funny. Basically we have no idea what Dark Matter, or Dark Energy is, or how to detect it. We are still babe's in the woods trying to make sense of the forest. I hope they keep trying and learning so maybe one day we will know. Also he's a very informative and engaging speaker, and seems to really care about discovery. Which is rare when most only care about ten-year. Go Dude.
I vote for an extra dimension. Because everyone is saying dark matter can't possibly be protons and neutrons I'm going to say dark matter is protons and neutrons. Maybe we don't know baryonic matter that well. If protons were six times more massive than we currently believe but only express one sixth of their gravitational mass locally that would account for the observed amount of missing mass just about. 5/6 = 83.33%, very close to the Planck satellite measurement of 84.5%. And if neutrons were seven times more massive that would bring the value even closer, to about 83.7%. I say the neutron is seven times more massive than we believe because it decays to a proton and an electron, so an electron's mass is probably 938.272 Mev/c2. You really didn't think it was only .511 Mev/c2 did you? And have zero radius? The proton expresses more mass because the surface of the hypersphere cuts through it's equator.The electron seems to have no radius because it is entirely in 4D space and just touches the surface of the hypersphere It may even be a di-particle with half on one side and half on the other side of the surface of the hypersphere. All elementary particles are four dimensional objects and all express only a fraction of their inertial mass in 3D space. If you object to this conclusion by reasoning that the elementary particles cannot be 4D because we live in 3D space and to be 4D they have to exist in 4D space you would be correct about the second part but wrong about the first. We definitely do live in 4D space. The biggest illusion of all is that we live in 3D space. The apparent 3D space we live in is actually simulated by 4D matter in 4D space. All elementary particles are ''pinned" to the surface of the hypersphere. They cannot move in the 4D direction. They can only slide around on the surface of the hypersphere in the other three of the four dimensions. This shape, that of a hypersphere, solves the problem of having a finite but unbounded 3D space. That's what the dark matter measurements and other evidence I've gathered suggest to me.
I think that more needs to be known about the area in space you are observing the density of gamma radiation in. You mention it, but it is worth restating that a feeding black hole (or anything else either massive enough or intense enough - e.g. particle collision at speed in the Hadron Collider) can or does create gamma rays which are also a byproduct of E=MC squared. Great presentation, is there a rationale behind why you are finding a density of gamma rays in the data rather than finding a spread of gamma rays? I guess what I'm not following is - if we are assuming Dark Matter to be non-EMI based and ruling out the EMI forms of matter and that Dark Matter doesn't interact with normal matter (as explained as passing through our hand) I don't entirely follow how the presence of an electromagnetic wave such as a Gamma ray indicates a density of Dark Matter. In the initial description Dark Matter sounds like it's proposed to be some form of a non-conductor which doesn't interact with the electromagnetic spectrum. It would almost seem that absence of gamma rays in an area could be more an indication of dark matter - supposing that as a non-conductor it block or somehow deflects the path of the gamma ray - which also sounds improbable if the description that it does not interact with EMI and there by shouldn't reflect, change the course, or absorb something based in the EMI.
In *1967* the first gamma-ray emissions were discovered in our galaxy from satellite Orbiting Solar Observatory. *1969* OSO3 detected from the galactic center gamma rays with energies > *1 MeV.* What is now so new here?
In fact, it seems more and more..that Milky Ways and Galaxy's (and every other item in the universe) are not orbiting just around gravity. It's a lot more to do with Electromagnetic Fields than you and I think. Check 'Primer fields' and you will have some more clues and answers. (and a lot more questions!)
What's bothering me is that bullet like picture of collision of two galaxies when two globes of dark matter fly thru each other with no collision. okay, dark matter does not interract with regular matter - thats okay for me. But dark matter is gravitationally involved , that means dark matter particles should stick to each other gravitationally and if they not interract there should be ultimate mass concentrated in singular point after a while! Shouldn't be a somewhat like Lennard-Jones potential for dark matter?
If the observation holds up: what parts of the theory-"playground" are excluded? I mean in order for the models to be distinctive, they have to make different predictions... (- aside from the problems DM was invented to solve: mass distribution / structure formation).
I have a theory that dark matter has developed as the universe developed and has increased over time and the reason we cannot see it isnt because it is "dark" or consisting of non polarized particles that block light. (That theory makes no sense because if it were the case we would not see any stars) I think we cant see it because it is opaque. I theorise dark matter as being liquid helium that has collected in deep space between galactic bodies. Every star emits megatons of helium everyday, expelling helium in all directions. Have scientists ever thought about what role that helium plays in the universe? Or what happens with all that helium and how the helium interacts in subzero temperatures and in low gravity regions? I think the answer is right under our nose and is much more simple than scientists thought. I think it's existence has been overthought and we've been looking in the wrong perspective, hence why we cant understand it. We looked too far beyond what it could be and is much more simple than the common theories
As reference, the paper where is described a solution of the rotational velocities observed in spiral galaxies, without using dark matter, is the following (from 2020): article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.astronomy.20200902.01.html
i love how we rewrite an entire universe to make it fit our minuscule minds when we should be rethinking our minuscule minds to fit our virtually endless universe
That's what physicists do all the time. There are plenty of crazy ideas out there that go way beyond the already established theories. A presentation like this will focus on the most plausible things from what we already know, but that doesn't mean that research constraints itself to this.
Quantum field is more fundamental than space, time, energy, black matter/energy, gig bang, big bounce, inflation etc. I wonder why physicists doesn't focus on QF.
"About 100 million years ago they underwent a collision and passed through each other. ... This redder pink stuff - that's where an X-ray telescope detects stuff. ... This bullet-like shape - that comes from the collision. ... These big blue blobs are where we can tell most of the mass is. ... The dark matter just kept going." The preceding analysis assumes that Einstein's field equations are 100% correct. However, I conjecture that the field equations need to be corrected for the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect. Google "witten milgrom", "mcgraugh dark matter", and "kroupa dark matter". PREDICTION: The LISA Pathfinder science team will find a very slight and very puzzling "instrument failure" because they have ignored the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect.
i'm not convinced and no i don't take your word for it. "dark matter" is fucking non-sense...your theory doesn't account for 95% of the force in the universe so you slap the name dark on it and call it a day. just because you name something doesn't mean it exists or that you understand it. like the "electron cloud"...an electron is 99.9999999% “empty space” or “vacuum” or “æther” it’s not a cloud at all The phrase "electron cloud" first came into use around 1925, when Erwin Schrödinger and Werner Heisenberg were seeking for a way to describe the uncertainty of the position of electrons in an atom. it’s just a way to describe something you don’t understand and make it sound like you actually do “you see it’s the charge contained in the electron cloud” oh okay, but what’s an electron cloud? “well it’s a word used describe uncertainty” oh okay, but what’s uncertainty? “we don’t know” "SCIENTISTS" AND "PHYSICISTS" STOP PRETENDING LIKE YOU KNOW WHEN YOU DON'T...IT'S OKAY TO SAY "I DON'T KNOW"
It was cute. I don't know much about physics so I was kind of interested too but at the same time, it didn't have much to do with his talk. You could kind of see how he was underwhelmed by the question.
At the end of the nineteenth century there was the hypothesis of the luminiferous ether. Maxwell, through mathematics, proved that light did not need a medium to propagate. Who knows? The dark matter is but another Ether, which will be discarded later in time. We will search for it until a new Michelson emerges in the science world. For example, the galaxy NGC 4736 no need any dark matter to show it. That is, dark matter exists here and there, but not everywhere?
on this day Monday 12th of February I unified QUANTUM MECHANICS AND GENERAL RELATIVITY! now can someone please tell me who requires the answer and how do i get it to them.
