@@scottdorfler2551 Chanting scientism dogmas is no big deal Talking about their imaginary friends (dark matter and dark energy) is as easy for scientism adepts as for catholics to talk about Marian Mysteries Hard and scientific would be if he talked about why latest JWST discoveries make this dark matter drivel not only impossible but the smoking gun of scientism
@Dev_Phoenix said "They are phenomena we don't understand" False They are AD HOC HYPOTHESIS to save Big Bang, just like inflation is Dark matter was invented to match red shift with observed rotations but then there's too much matter and they had to invent dark energy, which must act against gravity to compensate that excess Problem is you know the gospel but don't know the science because scientism is a gospel for idiots, not science
I didn't know about this and it's relevant to what I work on. You can actually detect very light particles even as light as 1e-22 eV. These particles would have very high local density and produce coherent wavelike oscillations with a period of about 1.3 years. Depending on the interaction with normal matter there are some experiments that could be very sensitive. Operating years long experiments is not super practical, but it's definitely possible. Constraints on particles that are slightly heavier are more practical.
This is very interesting news. I hope we get to see the correct identification of the dark matter particle in the next decade. Thank you for another wonderful video, Anton!
@@infinitemonkey917 sure, links to things. It's not like he could've said their names or names of the teams, right? Always better to just refer to people as "the scientists", never actually talking about the people working hard on this. He does this for every single video. It's absurd.
@@Gafferman ...it’s not like he’s taking credit for anything. He is reporting to the masses and all of his sources are always noted for those who care to do more research. He does often mention specific researchers, but then there are always the people who ask “what about every one else who worked on it?” “What about the person who discovered it?””what about the person who rediscovered it?” What about the person who first theorized?””what about the person who was the source material for the first person to theorize the new idea?” It just gets bothersome. No?
@@gibbyrockerhunter no, he isn't taking credit, that's not the point. Also, some people saying "who else?" Is a non-issue as nobody has ever said that and even if it was... Not mentioning anyone is the exact opposite of a solution... "Getting bothered" of crediting people has got to be the worst perspective I've heard.
@@Gafferman you don't plaster the people who built your house on your front gate do you? Simply put, we don't have to do what we don't owe people, it's just how things are, and how it will always be. Going against the norm doesn't make you a better person, nor make it the better thing to do. Why don't you take it a step further and credit "the scientists'" parents as well? No parents, no babies, no scientists, no Anton Petrov 🤯 If it were as big as an issue as you seemingly make it out to be, "the scientists" would be the first to let Anton know.
We might be studying cosmology but how on Earth does Anton bring us so many amazingly educational and interesting videos on such a regular basis...!?!?
There’s a lot of science going on and with Astrophysics, Astrobiology, plain old Physics and Mathematics thrown out in multiple journals for each discipline; there is a plethora of interesting items to talk about.
I mentioned this a while back on a previous video (that one being about certain radio galaxies possibly casting shadows on the CMB), but if the CMB we're seeing is distorted by gravitational lensing AND microwave sources from distant galaxies...how do we really know what the "original" CMB looked like? So much of cosmology hinges on picking out the finest details of it after all.
@@Unethical.Dodgson not at all. Got excited about dilithium/trilithium, transparent aluminum, space/time warping, alcubiere drive, bosons, black holes and black hole collisions, gravity waves/wakes. When I was young, these terms were limited to science fiction.
One of my favourite topics... I get totally mesmerised, when watching RU-vid vid's on particle physics. IT'S, KEYS TO THE UNIVERSE STUFF... if we can, finally get our heads around it? This would be the greatest achievement, in human history.⚛🙏
The lensing result is much more tentative than it sounds, because the data from strong lensing like this doesn't give a detailed map of the distribution of dark matter, only a few spots where the light happens to be curved into our direction. There are many many models of the dark matter which could produce the same light-bending.
Honestly I feel much modern science is making models to fit the data collected. Rather the creating a experiment to then collect data. I also think as a engineer our own machines are shaping the kind of data we get, becuase of the geometry of the very small our own experment intfer woth their natural properties and change thier geometries.
I'm not formally educated on the subject so apologies if non of what I'm going to suggest is nonsense but wonder if dark matter is normal matter, hidden in higher dimensions, relative to an observer. I believe entangled particles are connected by the same principle so that relative to photons, they appear next to each other but relative to an observer, they're however many feet, miles or lightyears apart. What or whom hides certain objects in space is anyone's guess but it could be why we've found no signs of life. I've also wondered whether photons travel on the fabric of space & it is this fabric that creates the waves & not photons; that photons are only particles & the variance of colours of light is due to a stretching & contracting of that fabric, & that it isn't the photons themselves that are a wave. If so, they would still be affected by gravity.
@@AlexisOmnis : Photons indeed travel on (or rather through) the fabric of space, but it largely isn't space that creates them, instead space guides them by defining distances and what is vs isn't a straight line. Photons themselves are a manifestation of the universal electro-magnetic field; the "waves" are essentially self-perpetuating disturbances in that field, and "particles" are what happens when that self-perpetuating behavior is disrupted by something that causes the wave to reconfigure itself (even to the point of merging with some other wave).
@@absalomdraconis Sorry, I probably didn't use the correct terminology but I didn't mean photons are created by space; just that they travel through it 🙂
@@tenaciousgamer6892 This isn't a bad thing--- that's what you have to do in science. Weak lensing gets you detailed distribution of dark matter, but strong lensing can suggest the locations by making models. You then check the different models with weak lensing. It's just that weak lensing requires a Hubble, because it requires seeing the small distortions on distant objects, rather than the huge distortions of strong lensing.
Love watching the discussion on this in comments. People are starting to wrap their heads around 4 dimensional space (not time) and thinking about the possabilities of hidden wave variants and what that entails. Very positive! ;O)-
I've been thinking about 4d space a lot recently. It still blows my mind to have incomprehensible shapes and i'm sure the stellar objects we see are just mere slices of larger objects
@@AwfulnewsFM Ohhh! 😃 I personally appreciate it when someone catches & brings to my attention (preferably objectively, respectfully, or politely) when I make assumptions/unwarranted presumptions, flex hubris, speak from an institutionalized/dogmatic/rigid/etc. point of view, when I don't realize that I've said something without thinking on it first, & so on because it helps to humble me & make sure that I haven't lost my head up my own ass. 😄
@@Gafferman Actually, I'm reading your other pissy trollish comments fixating on the same tired subject. This is just a channel dedicated to bringing information to mostly laymen, not a review panel or a scientific publication. Seek help.
@@mikelouis9389 I'm perfectly fine thank you, more reasonable than you it seems. Not sure what this channel being for a "layman" has to do with not crediting people but... Given you're telling someone to "seek help" that you have had no actual discussion with, I don't think you're worth entertaining. Perhaps take your own advice.
I don't know, it just seems "convenient" to theorize a particle that we've never been able to find as having exactly the properties needed IF they exist in massive numbers but that we'll never be able to confirm. Unfalsable even.
Very strange, since the standard is - gravity is the effect of a mass within spacetime. I'll be looking forward to more about dark matter. Very weird stuff.
He has always seemed a very genuine guy to me and links papers often but at the same time, I’m well aware he’s just giving me the latest news from across the globe. I appreciate what he does.
@@TayWay86 I do too but it's very unfortunate that he reports all information but the actual people doing this work. It's a critical failure as a reporter. Also makes the videos annoying when you notice how much he's doing it.
@@Gafferman Ok, I don’t post comments very often, but when I do it’s always in support of someone…. Positivity. I don’t know how, but my comments always get hate. I wonder if this is just the state of the world, or my choice of supporting comments….
Fyi the whole dark matter problem comes from the fact we don't know how much stuff is in the universe, combined with the fact we don't know how far away stuff is. This is really important for accurately modelling the dimensions of the universe. Black holes mass needs to be subtracted from the total. The centre of black holes are dimensionless because of a weird quirk of curves but can contain a large volume of no dimensions, so the mass there isn't really in the universe. I saw the calculations and was blown away by how unintuitive, yet how simple and elegant it all is.
Thanks, Anton, for all your hard work assembling this information for us. Many in the comments sound very ungrateful. I, for one, think otherwise. Thank you, again.
Idk. The thing that doesn't get me into dark matter partical camp (like axions etc.... ) is that massive things tend to centralize. If dark matter is concentrated outside of galaxies there has to be something else going on or the dark matter must be more diffuse or concentrated near galactic centers. Something like that. Like a gravity wind or something that pushes the particles out where they would naturally be.
I wonder if dark matter is normal matter, hidden in higher dimensions, relative to an observer. & I believe entangled particles are connected by the same principle so that relative to photons, they appear next to each other but relative to an observer, they're however many feet, miles or lightyears apart. What or whom hides certain objects in space is anyone's guess but it could be why we've found no signs of life. I've also wondered whether photons travel on the fabric of space & it is this fabric that creates the waves & not photons; that photons are only particles & the variance of colours of light is due to a stretching & contracting of that fabric, & that it isn't the photons themselves that are a wave. If so, they would still be affected by gravity.
From what we observe, things only centralize themselves (or "clump", to put it another way) if there's some force slowing them down in relation to each other- basic Newtonian physics. The only way we _know of_ to do this with dark matter is through gravity, and if we look at even just _mostly_ gravitationally-interacting objects that we can observe (stars in galaxies; planets, asteroids, comets, and meteors in our star system), we conclude that dark matter could go without clumping up for a _very_ long time.
Personally, I think Dark Matter is the macro effect of quantum gravity. One of the big issues with reconciling Relativity with Quantum Mechanics is that a wave function doesn't localize the position of a particle until it needs to, for some local interaction; until then, the particle is "smeared out" over the entire area of the wave function. But it's gravitational effect, according to Relativity, *can't* be smeared out like that; it _needs_ a specific location on which to act. So if the particle is in any number of potential locations, but the gravity can't be in all those potential locations at the same time, then the two theories just can't work together. Well, I asked the question, "what if gravity _could_ be in several hypothetical locations at once?" Dark Matter could, potentially, be "Gravity Echos" of Quantum Gravity effects; leftover gravitational warping of spacetime after a quantum wavefunction collapsed but had already left its "mark" by all these little "gravity dents" from potential locations for that particle. It would be negligible on the small scale, but when you collect the effect from a galaxy worth of quantum wavefunctions forming and collapsing over billions of years, it "accululates" as a halo. And, since nothing is stationary, all these galaxies are hurtling through space, they'd also leave behind a trail, like the wake of a boat, along their path. In essence, Dark Matter are kind of like a Quantum equivalent of Lagrange Points
@@AlexisOmnis this is all valid theory with the whole bit on extra dimensions, until the last bit about light which weve actually tested conclusively, or atleast somewhat, that fun experment is called the double slit experiment which shows the quantum effects of light being in duality as a particle and a wave.
Those axions sound like preons - hypothetical ingredients of the quarks and leptons. Maybe they are such... By the way, if there are dark matter planets, they might act as space traps for space travelers. You can suddenly fall onto them, without hitting any surface, untill your ship get stuck in the middle...
@@elio7610 Black hole has an event horizon and will destroy your ship. Dark matter planets would have something like the gravity of earth, but you just can't hit them, because dark matter do not interact with normal matter (such as a spaceship). You can touch and feel objects (like the earth's surface) because your body interacts electromagnetically with the material of the earth. But dark matter planets would be untouchable. Imagine a planet of thin air, with gravity that makes you fall to its center, but nothing to touch at all...
You wouldn't get stuck in a dark matter planet, since you would carry the same momentum out as you carried in. It's the same reason that interstellar comets keep going back out: there's not enough resistance to stop them.
How could Axions be created with low enough energy per particle to be slow enough to be bound to a galaxy or galaxy cluster? This is the thing about Axions as cold dark matter that needs the most explanation for me.
Dark matter may not necessarily be a particle. Dark matter effect may be a field intersecting into our spacetime from an extra dimension other than the regular four dimensions. Not a particle, but a field that intersects across spacetime cosmic web and the matter in it with only gravity effect.
You seem to want to uncouple fields and particles but you don't realise that a particle is an excitation of a field. If you have a field... you have a particle. And you first need to demonstrate that "higher dimensions" can exist.
@@Unethical.Dodgson Field and particle are essentially interchangeable. A field can represent a particle, and a particle can represent a field. Propagation through dimensions by a field rather than particles makes more sense, especially in regard to an effect that only registers in gravity and nothing else.
@@georgehunter2813 You're conflating completely separate ideas. Particles are not represented in fields but fields are represented in particles. Particles are excitations in fields. It's as simple as that. don't overcomplicate it!
You're lost in your own circular wording. You entangle argumentatively and make demands. My point is direct and clear. Others get my point. That's all I need. You remain wanting. Be calm. Be content with your ideas. Make another video.
'Dark matter' may be a particle in hyperspace projecting as a field into our spacetime. A dimensional translation. Hyper-particle in hyperspace. When a hyper-particle intersects into our spacetime we see it as a black hole. A black hole has no dimension in spacetime, but in hyperspace it may exhibit dimensionally. A black hole communicates gravity, but no dimension or particular charge in spacetime.
Thanks for breaking down these extremely complex ideas into explanations non-scientists like me can at least have a sense of what’s going on. Fascinating research and I’m looking forward to more.
is there also an approaching 0.00% probability of large crystalline lenses occuring naturally in the void? I know many interplanetary bodies contain high percentages of ice crystals for example... lensing and prismatic effects *could* occur; in our universe though?
The lenses ocurre near black holes. When light travels must pass through gas, ice, water and other particles. Light get dimmed by other particles. Altering the observable object at the distance.
That would technically be photons as particles without rest mass. They are not gravitationally interacting with heavy masses at all. They are only indirectly affected by curved space time as a consequence of gravity. I don’t know enough to say if photons have anything to do with strong and weak nuclear force, though.
@@elio7610 : Yeah, I'm not convinced it is different. If there is any difference, then it's just in regards to whether they act as a source of gravity, since they demonstrate all of the other _known_ interactions.
A study cannot "confirm that axions might be dark matter". It could perhaps exclude axions as a solution, but like we have seen with string theory and supersymmetry, once detectors rule out the current models, the current models get updated. And the second study mainly points out that WIMPs would be too massive. We have had earlier studies that were not in favor of WIMPs.
As I understand it, physicists believe gravity affects antimatter the same way it does matter. That is, gravity is attractive for antimatter, too. This is hard to measure so I don't think there's experimental confirmation. No one knows what dark matter is so it's hard to tell if it has an antiparticle. Some particles are their own antiparticles.
I actually understood what you meant when you spoke of "gravitational lensing", Anton. I have learned some things from watching for a few years. Axions and wimps are the two candidates ffor dark matter at present. Are axions like photons; both wave and particle? Thank you, Anton!
All particles have both wave and particle characteristics, including protons, neutrons and electrons. The preference for which depends on the mass, with more massive particles having less wave like qualities.
@Saminul Haque Huh? How can something be a degree of "waviness" Even "size" is an inappropriate measure. Bise Einstein Condensate can be huge, but no less "wavy". Something is either a Quantum Entity, or it's not. There is no "degree" Like, the book titled "There are no Particles, only Fields"
Anton: It would seen that Dark Matter might be an artifact from a higher dimension. For example, a two dimensional world would see a 3 dimensional world as a point (a sphere in contact with a plane). Perhaps dark matter manifests itself in our dimensional reality through the interaction of gravity. That is why we cannot see dark matter as well as dark energy. Of course if this is indeed true, we will never measure dark matter directly. Just a thought thinking outside the conventional box.
@@elio7610 We exist in nature (reality) in a 3-D realm. Perhaps going to higher dimensions require higher energy or perhaps organic life cannot exist in higher dimensions because our brains cannot sense it. However, people on drugs and those who claim ESP might glimpse further/multiple dimensions because of their brain usage. We know that only 10% of the brain is actually used. Maybe it takes full use of the brain to see beyond our current reality?? Just saying.
@@maxrusty3596 Sure, but like, what is actually physically stopping us? 2D creatures can't really exist in our 3D world, so how can 3D creatures exist in a 4D world? If there are 4 spatial dimensions then presumably we are 4 dimensional creatures, so what exactly stops us from being able to observe 4 dimensions in at least some limited capacity?
The suggestion that super light axions are the source of dark matter gravitational effect doesn't fit in the basic dimensional sense. Axions...'super light particles, but so many of them....' evades the spatial density requirement to have the gravitational effect. Axions are light weight and too diffuse even if numerous. Some factor would have to concentrate the axions to have the gravity effect. At least a cosmic lens of some sort is required. Maybe the big bang itself could be that lens.
One thing left out of dark discussions is the density of dark matter. Any estimate is somewhat vague. But ten proton like weights is so small as to suggest a space time Heisenberg turbulence rather than some particle that repels itself forming a spherical object rather than a disk as visible matter does. Dark matter should rotate with the galactic disk where the edge of the dark mater lens should be rotating at a high velosity. If it is matter then it cant rotate faster than C. Then there is a limit on the maximum size of a gravitational lens. Also a rotating sphere will flatten at the axis of rotation. Professor Lisa Randall wrote a book about Dark Matter. There are questions not usually covered by Dark Matter videos.
@AntonPetrov is there ever a case of the object causing the lensing being behind and further away from our observation points? My imagination is stoked by the simulated and real images of event horizons - could an object bend light through more than 178° essentially?
Black holes do this. There is a tight ring of light visible just outside of the event horizon which is partially a mirror, in essence. With an impossibly high resolution you could hypothetically look back in time at yourself.
Seriously tho if we encase matter inside of an energy field then couldn't we create a buffer between us and the rest of everything else ? Then couldn't we move as fast as the energy the field is made of . Maybe faster in areas of dark matter .
he's lying. they're not correct at all unless you jump through a million hoops and twist yourself into a pretzel to make it work, hence "dark matter" is 80& of the universe yet it can't be seen or detected and there's no proof of it's existence whatsoever
that's why i love physics. We don't know know what dark matter is, but we still are able to deduce it's properties from how it is distributed. Beautiful
There are no such things as photons, the assumption they exist is based on an incomplete understanding of quantum dynamics. There existence would imply that photons exist for the entire EM spectrum, and if they have mass, the ability for photons to travel throughout the universe so easily would be extraordinarily hindered.
I think the expansion of space is due to a misunderstanding of general relativity. Well actually more due to trying to fit the observations into a Procrustean bed such as the cosmological principle or the Copernicus principle.
It amazes me that in this age of such advanced technology the only domain science can think of is 'particles'. Can we finally realize that the Universe isn't just particles? Until we start to think outside this 'sandbox' of particles we aren't going to understand much of Reality.
projected fields are consequential of the particles that cause them in many cases though, gravity fields, electro-magnetic fields - where are you imagining non-particles and in what form do they come?
@@charliec6020 At the smallest 'particle' level, energy and matter are 'undecided'. Why do we assume the particles came before the energy? Frankly, this seems very unimaginative and entirely too mechanical. It's much more likely the energy 'caused' the expression of particles, not the other way round, after all. There are relationships and attributes that are the result of Being that simple mechanical material Being cannot account for. I believe gravity to primary in this regard. There is no graviton, it's the relationship between material, informed matter, not a prior particle to matter,
@PL mechanical being limited to 3d + time I can't agree more. The recent descriptions of the mass generating behaviour of quark gluon complexes indicates so
These studies suggest that dark matter _includes_ particles, it doesn't _exclude_ non-particle formulations. The exclusion of non-particle possibilities requires checking for the absence of effects related to those other theories.
Who proposed the idea? Who are the quite a lot of scientists"? Who made the propositions? Why do you consistently leave out the names of people, studies and the teams behind them? Who are the "various physicists"? It's a massive critical failure that you remove credit constantly. It makes your videos at best questionable and at worst... Disrespectful.
The weird thing I see when many people talk about the search for dark matter is this assumption that there's only one kind of dark matter particle, but what if there's an entire "standard model" of different dark matter particles of different mass? Like here we're talking about an either or situation, where it's /either/ a WIMP /or/ an axion, but what if there are multiple particles? Wouldn't that make it basically impossible to, like, pin down the mass of any given dark particle, if it doesn't interact with any other forces?
My god, the theories tottering on top of data simulation /modelling constructs balanced on theoretical, unproven, or not found yet, particles. Not one new fact or observation to be found in any of this inverted pyramid of conjecture. Great summation of what we don't know and cant yet prove. None of which subtracts from a very good video covering this fundamental puzzle. Well done Anton.
what if dark matter is quite literally the fabric of space time? the very fabric of reality seen as threads drawn across the universe the invisible connections of string theory? "the strings." random thought.
I've wondered whether photons travel on the fabric of space & it is this fabric that creates the waves & not photons; that photons are only particles & the variance of colours of light is due to a stretching & contracting of that fabric, & that it isn't the photons themselves that are a wave. If so, they would still be affected by gravity. I also wonder if dark matter is normal matter, hidden in higher dimensions, relative to an observer. & I believe entangled particles are connected by the same principle so that relative to photons, they appear next to each other but relative to an observer, they're however many feet, miles or lightyears apart. What or whom hides certain objects in space is anyone's guess but it could be why we've found no signs of life. In any case, it's nice for everyone to theorise what may be true.
@Alexis Omnis relating to time and space as fabric seems very common place and both are more or less the effects of the big bangs left over momentum and I like the way Feynman spoke science into a simple narrative so im gonna try that cuz you given me a thought. If dark matter is the spun thread, the process of spinning it is like big bang, the thread spun and woven into a fabric that stretches out infinitely, but no tapestry is uniform, knots and folds spill over and tangle with loose threads. Gravity being where the threads knot and twist and along the threads are electrons that when pressed and combined together create everything. A mass of knots pulled so tight they tear and fall through would be a black hole. I wanted share the idea before I forgot. Much thanks.
Thank you for a wonderful site, Anton. You explain things so well for everyone to understand. Could you do something about the LHD in future. This cost a lot of money but we hear very little about what is going on there since the Higgs discovery. Thank you.
The fact that paricles can be linked , the fact that certain particles can act as a partocle or a wave depending on if there is an observer or not all point to the fact that we have 0 understanding of the universe. I often wonder what other "senses" there might be. Like maybe there are things beside smell touch sight and sound. Maybe those are just the senses we evolved here on earth but there are many more we will never know about because we have no way of sensing them.
I still feel some form of MOND will be the explanation, but at least this model finally gives something that can be used to test the dark matter theory indirectly. If all the observed Einstein rings match this model it would certainly strengthen the dark matter hypothesis.
Additionally, he could say the name of the teams or lead scientists on studies rather than just using "the scientists" over and over again without introducing who they are
The fibers connecting dark matter of different galaxies sort of remind me of gluons. It's almost like dark matter interacts with itself with another force besides gravity, but not any of the forces we have yet discovered. Something like strong nuclear force but acting over large distances. Like a more "magnetic" form of gravity - something that uses a cross product rather than a dor product and can act over large distances.
Anton - would like a video on understanding dark matter. Why we need it to explain observations in universe? What are the different theories (alternate)? Is it possible that warp space affects the mass of objects(yes conservation of mass) ? Within their relative gravity well or wells? Maybe mass is relative as “well”! 😂
Between the idea of a one giant particle of a mass of the whole universe and an infinity of small axioms I suddenly feel strange with my dimensions - in a Pascalian sort of way ;)
Good video Anton, great visuals with vivid colour. Why don't you have any classical music in your videos? I think analysing the Einstein rings is an obvious deduction and a correct technique. I also think this video involves the idea of the "Inflaton Field" which relates to the idea of expansion of the universe and what existed before the "Big Bang". In other words, hypothesis: Axions existed before (singularity/big bang), since Axions are dark matter (Inflaton field).
Hi Anton, long time viewer here! love your channel! I had and idea, a very rudimentar one, on a cosmology topic, and i was wondering who might show me what is wrong with it. see, i'm not trying to prove anything, i just realized that i might learn VERY MUCH from someone who could tell me where and how my theory is wrong! if you could spare some minutes to direct me to someone, with basic knowledge in cosmology, i would be very thankful! once again: love your work! cheers!!!
🫂 Hello wonderful person. What type of theory are you looking to validate? I might be able to help. Is it a theory, an equation, a solution, or a hypothesis? Best to you and your ambitions.
@@andrewfarrar741 Hi!! First of all, thank you very much! Second: I'm SORRY for my poor english and my non existent knowledge on physics. Actually I'm not sure what to call this idea; it might as well be a question, after all: how do we know (if we do) that the cosmological inflation was exponential and happened only ONCE? I had this... I don't quite know how to say it... this vision or notion that, maybe, in the same manner as a star can get some novae before the supernova, the cosmic inflation could had happen in more than one single stage. Instead of the common "funnel" drawings of this era, it would look something like a screw shell or... I don't know, a venturi valve, perhaps? Expanded, then collapsed a bit, then exploded, and this "wobble" could (??????????) explain the asymmetries and differences in density and heat and such. I'm afraid this might be a very easy (or non existent) question for some, but anyway, here you go. Thanks again! Cheers!
@@ousiavazia Ok, great, I can come back to this once I am confident I have processed it in full faith. For now, please accept my words as a token of warning that *it is not impossible* for someone to try to pry those bits of information from _your mind without your informed_ consent. Keep a journal or paper records of some sort but keep it just for yourself. For added benefit, I suggest stashing some stuff in it that only makes sense to you. The only sanctuary in The Universe™ is the human mind. I would wager you have a lot that you could prove if you could accept a challenge designed to enable you to share it, provided that challenge _validated_ what you have perfectly and _invalidated_ what you have off. The common enemy is ```doubt``` itself. Know that even doubt is not insurmountable. You can think of fruitless doubt as needless space in between two 🧲 magnets that exist [dynamically] inside the 🧠. "Fruitless doubt" would be something like me refuting your vision *without offering* anything better to try and prove you wrong. 🤔 Language is fake. Gender is fake. Imaginary social credit systems are fake. Conversely, feelings count. What you shared makes a whole lot more sense than you might even be ready to realize. 🖖
@@andrewfarrar741 duly noted! thanks for the advice. i work with screen writing and literature, mostly, and have all my work copyrighted in my country's national library, but was not aware of risks like that in the science world, although my wife, which is an academic, time and again complain about this sort of problem.
@@ousiavazia after pondering 🤔 on what you described for a moment, I can make a lot more sense of the those six smaller bangs by thinking about what you are describing as like another way of thinking of that type of imagery like peering in through a 🕳️ at something that is gyrating, warbling, pulsating, throbbing and _spinning._ Almost if you can imagine, like aiming a 📸 at one fixed place on 🎡 and filming everything that is observable from that fixed position.
thanks for the information anton i love discussions of dark matter and the ancient structures of the early universe. we know so little about it it would be wild if it's remains of older universes covered by the recycling from multiple big bangs and maybe different physical laws dark energy? magic
Jean Pierre Petit is slowly actually gaining recognition. If you're interested his theory is quite interesting and does offer an actual mathematical solution so: The existence of what we call dark matter, a "runaway effect" in both universes of the pair which would correspond to the acceleration against gravity at very big scales, and the lack of antimatter... All that. I saw a searcher called Salvador Robles-Perez (from university Carlos III of Madrid) published a similar paper some time ago called "time reversal symmetry in cosmology and the creation of universe-antiunivse pair. It's fascinating. Can't even copy paste a link of the published paper or the almighty algorithm will just erase my message, I know I tested this already.
It's really interesting that dark matter exists and might be detected through gravitational lensing or Einstein rings. This is really important as we know so little about dark matter, but it has a phenomenal mass-energy budget of at least 85% total mass-energy of the universe, so it's dominant over radiating matter (either thermally or non-thermally). An "Axion" dark matter particle is like finding a black cat in a large darkened room without windows (at least i'm continuing the cat meme on quantum mechanics that Schroedinger started). At least you can much more easily measure radiating matter.
Regular matter centralizes due to electromagnetic scattering….stuff hits stuff and loses energy. Dm passes through dm, so it doesn’t aggregate like that
From Anaximander to Aristotle, philosophers have proposed their theory of how the universe came into being. Modern cosmologists have accepted the theory of the Big Bang. It is possible that a singularity can explode quaquaversally (in all directions at once) BUT WHAT IS IT MOVING INTO? What is space and why was it empty before the expansion? No one has answered that question for me. I have been pondering this question since the 70s. What is the container that holds the universe? Is that DARK MATTER?
Coming from someone with no formal education on the subject but always interested. Are they accounting for all the energy in transit. Gama x rays all light coming from all these objects in space.
Electricity has mass but science won't consider it in space which is why they are so baffled. Its electricity and with it comes magnetism. Thank you Anton
5:40 confuses me: "Light was emitted when the universe was 380,000 years old". I must be missing a lot of information to properly understand this. My understanding of the Big Bang is that everything expanded from a single source/location. This means that light and particles would have both been emitted from that big bang explosion. Since light travels much faster than particles (aka nothing travels faster than the speed of light) then that light would have traveled beyond where our planet (which took a loooonnng time to congeal from particles) is currently located so we should not be able to detect it. On the other hand, if Earth travelled "left" and another star travelled "right" then it would make sense to see the light emitted from that star.
I question myself - if there is a particle, that only ! ONLY ! interacts via gravitation, how could there be anything like friction? And if there's no friction, i question myself - how could those particles agglomerate to halos or even "planets"?
