Agreed!

They are the perfect opposition of lover and warrior energy.

it's finaly completed: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oLhlf5Bhl9HNdok.html

He's just doing the reading on the internet for you. You could do your own reading.

Yeah and they're not mean-spirited if you disagree with them (that I know of).

A silly prop poking fun at the scientific process helps set a more comfortable tone, I think I agree

I have a lot of respect for people who are quick to change their view if new information comes out. I dont understand how some perceive this as having no backbone, its good to question ones own view

@svenfuchs8446, they sometimes confusing scientific theory with football teams. This is also newest paradigm in politics.

Why not, but I think it might be mistaken for the Mondometer, which is of course for measuring the likelyhood of DuPlantis to set a new world record in the Pole Vault...

Now in addition to the ENSO meter I have MOND meter

While it is important to have solid principles, I have always found comfort in adjusting my perspectives on things huhuhu

I'm glad nothing is sacred because that's exactly what I worship. Nothing really does matter and I am a true know-nothing. _" Das Nichts als das Andere zum Seienden ist der Schleier des Seins."_

For science yes, but doing it every 2 seconds in politics is just scummy.

@@chazbertino6102 exactly

Could it be both? MOND and dark matter? (Just less?) Maybe modified MOND...MMOND if you will. Lol

I am also pretty sure that observations like the bullet cluster were quite convincing that there must be a considerable amount of dark matter in galaxy clusters. Nevertheless, these new findings are very interesting and I would really like to see a new theory, if DM and MOND were both falsified XD I hope for something like distortions of gravity as a sort of pollution, caused by FTL drives of galactic civilizations!

The age of stars will determine the mass distribution of atomic density. If that's even a sensible generalisation. This should help consideration that the mass distribution modality of individual galaxies may be heterogeneous. Throw me a cookie.

@@aarionsievohehe been reading a certain sci trilogy?

We do know some types of dark matter exist. In particular, black holes are a pretty obvious example. But there are plenty of types of matter that don't really emit light and could throw off the rotation curve. I wonder if this kind of thing could partially explain what is going on(along with mond).

Yes, and I am not sure if the paper featured in this video says if all the measured isolated galaxy show the same lensing effect far away from the galaxy, or this waa discovered only on few samples?

Be carefull what you ask for. The risk you run is having to be honest about a lot of things you don't even want to consider being honest about. I drop the occasional truth bomb to see how viewers respond, and the results are ugly.

It should be "We have a lot of evidence for dark matter, which may or may not be actually real matter." Dark matter is real. We call it matter even though we aren't sure. If it is not matter, then still dark matter is real. It just isn't matter.

@@Prometheus4096 There is something highly confusing about calling something matter that may not be matter. We're not just naming things here.

@@Berend-ov8of Of course it is confusing. But these are decade-old terms used by experts in the field to discuss their progress on science. Among themselves. Scientific terms often mean something else, because of historical reasons, than what they logically would mean. You might not know this. But Dr.Hossenfelder does. It was named 'dark matter' because it was expected to be a particle soon discovered. Then it never was. And all methods like MOND that try to fudge the math to match the observations also failed. So either it is a combination of wrong measurements, together with actual dark matter we didn't discover yet, together with an MOND-like adjustment to gravity. Or it is some ground-breaking idea or concept that we haven't even thought of. But we will call it 'dark matter' until we know what it is. Now maybe scientists should have changed the term. Like 'dark gravitation' would be a great term. But that's not what happened. We need a source of gravitation to solve the dark matter problem. And a source of gravitation by definition is called 'matter'. Either every galaxy needs their own version of MOND PLUS our measurements are wrong. Or there is actually a different amount of dark gravitation, caused by matter, in every galaxy.

@@Prometheus4096 Is that really the case? Maybe in some definition, but not in Wikipedias: "[D]ark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that appears not to interact with light or the electromagnetic field. Dark matter is implied by gravitational effects which cannot be explained by general relativity unless more matter is present than can be seen." By that definition, if MOND is correct, dark matter does not exist.

a "theorist"? that word doesnt mean anything. I can call myself a "theorist" cause i "theorize" about the size of my nutsack when its out of my views. So no, Theoretical Physics is right.

They are using pictures that already existed bruv

@@ProgenitorFoundry Within the physics community, "Theorist" is shorthand for "Theoretical Physicist". "Experimentalist" is shorthand for "Experimental Physicist".

@@ProgenitorFoundry May the size of your nutsack never have a flat rotation curve!

@@goodspellr1057 ; One could also say experimenter. I prefer 'experimentalist' because it is a combination of experimenter and mentalist. My boss is a theoretical physicist and I spend a lot of time to try to read his mind. Standard communication processes do not work.

The ball should be squarely in Plasma Cosmology's court, as they've had the answer to galactic rotation curves since Anthony Peratt's ground-breaking 1986 papers "Evolution of the Plasma Universe I & 2," which seem to have basically been ignored [but damn well shouldn't have been]... Rotation curves fall directly out of plasma physics interpretations and modelling / simulation, no dark matter required.

@@MGmirkin Didn't know about this one at all. I'm curious as to why it's being ignored then but guessing on 2 possibilities.

@@MGmirkin Get that pseudo-science out of sane discussions, please.

@@olibertosoto5470 The last time I compared the publication rate for MOND papers versus "Dark Matter" papers, there were about 70 DM papers for each MOND paper (51 vs 3429). Which suggests not that people are ignoring MOND, but that they're looking at it, and finding it un-useful.

Yes, I agree with that. But whatever the right answer is, it has to look a lot like MOND in galaxies (and around them)

I guess someone is investigating if multiple causes can explain the different behaviors that we see (bullet, rotational speed, etc). I know, the economy of explanation is important, but this back and forth makes me think that more than one factor is at play. Is there some papers on this topic?

Is it possible to have both?

I still suspect it has to do with changing of what we consider constants. When viewing data that is sometimes 10's of millions of years old, even into billions, if something like the speed of light or any other gravitational measurement we use as a baseline was not the same then it would impact our current observations and measurements in some ways.

​@@SabineHossenfelderI think the most logical Baseline system to represent dark matter is one-dimensional string membranes that have been destroyed by a singularity and ripped and this is all that can escape from the other side of the black hole singularity... this makes a matter in between zero dimensional and one-dimensional... this is the most fundamental stance of modern string theory(by Samoht Sirood)

Confirmation bias. It has nothing to do with conforming.

Not to judge but you sound like a flat earther, take a class. Or prove me wrong if you are an expert

​@@Zombie-lx3sh im sure conformation bias exists too haha

mondieu!

Being open-minded means being aware of the confirmation biases you're prone to. They are always there.

From here it looks like a classic slapstick

The fundamental phenomenon of dilation explains galaxy rotation curves. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". A 2 axis graph illustrates its squared nature, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. A time dilation graph illustrates the same phenomenon, it's not just time that gets dilated. Neil deGrasse Tyson recently spoke about this. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers. It can be inferred mathematically that the mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. More precisely, everywhere you point is equally valid. In other words that mass is all around us. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has been confirmed in 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 to have no dark matter, in other words they have normal rotation rates. All binary stars have normal rotation rates for the same reason.

you mean over the MOND? 🙃

​@@shawns0762are you saying that since dilation explains galaxy rotation curves, dark matter could still exist?

@@xNul I am saying dark matter is dilated mass. When more very low mass galaxies are confirmed to have normal rotation rates it will be clear

I used to get cheeky on the old Twitter about being a dark matter denier. I'm not an atheist but agnostic but they didn't know that. It infuriated big cosmology.

:D

Yeah, like some pain-in-the-ass encounters from when I played WoW. Damn you, vanilla Naxx.

Everytime it's beaten, it rises up but in a new form.

didn't anton petrov make a video where it was ruled out with some crazy 16 sigma confidence?

I thought that MOND was some guy who won the Tour de France a couple of times. I've heard that the French think the world of him.

Is it available on amazon? We could make a bulk order then.

Mon-D-o-M-eter or MonDoMeter Mond or DM and they share the D because it's physics and the scientists (apparently, especially the arm chair scientists of the Internet) need to be reminded that they should share with one another. (Have some damn courtesy to each other you Internet denizens!)

Wimpometer works as well

It should be right next to the dark energy Super Nova Versus cosmic background radiation age of the universe odometer.

MOND-o-Meter, but done as a punch-bag. Manipulating the local gravitational field so that the ball never comes back to rest in the same position twice, is left as an exercise for any theoretical physicist in the room. An experimentalist would fake it with magnets, but that's not a solution you need to think about.

you can in one less dimension, then it is inverse 1/r law. Or... as we live in three dimensions, take a cylindrical dark matter source. That achieves the dimensional reduction for you.

​@@GreatPhysicssimply extend the galaxy up and down to infinity, problem solved

Well if you're stacking universes in a higher dimensional plane, ya got your infinite cylinder right there 👍

are there any ideas on why the inverse square law would be wrong? I mean gravity is not the only inverse square law in physics is it

Inverse square law has a constant for all space and time. You answer how that may be possible. I'll say it could be otherwise.

axioncels seething

No reason to fan-boy any position. We're just trying to figure out what the hells going on, and I don't care what the explanation is, so long as it's true 😅

​@@AkaRyrye83 nah it's a game and we pick teams

Ah, yes. The famous MOND, and his brothers: MACHO (Massive Compact Halo Objects). WIMP (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) And LACODAM (lambda Cold Dark Matter) In their infinite war with TEVES (Tensor Vector Scalar Gravity). Someone should make a comic of that.

@@AkaRyrye83 no, we pick teams and whoever is right gets more internet points

@@HedonisticPuritan-mp6xv But I've just been assigned the Henderson Account! It's a nightmare!

You really should make the time. Modify gravity well enough and you'll feel as if a huge weight been lifted off your shoulders! (And, pushed onto the edges of galaxies...perhaps you could do the same with dishes, bills, and annoying house guests, too!)

@@HedonisticPuritan-mp6xv That's a really good idea!

@@Tletna Annoying house guests are the worst!

You have lots of paperwork at the Swiss Patent office, perhaps?

I like it.

That's the thing. We have two dark entities: dark matter and dark energy. There might be a third dark entity making the extended flat rotation curves possible. The real explanation is that there is definitely a problem with the dark entities that supposedly make up the majority of the universe. It needs to be revised.

@@greengoblin9567 Or tossed.

Unfortunately, according to "Gravitomagnetism and galaxy rotation curves: a cautionary tale", the effects of full GR without dark matter isn't enough to effect the predictions, given how slow compared to the speed of light the stars far away are moving.

The competing science is so good too. By researching both ends and everything in between, we’re bound to figure this out….eventually.

I know right? Just recently MOND's authors themselves published a paper ruling out MOND and now we have the opposite, really excited to see which model will win. Who knows, maybe a completely new model?

"Grasping at straws"

It's basically the aether of modern physics

or QI, Quantized Inertia - a third candidate that has advantages over the other two

Look up "emergent gravity" or "entropic gravity"

@@Barteks2x doesn't help with the neglect of magnetism.... And it is emergent... By an effect of particles moving in small random motions will find themselves in space that requires less energy... And the accumulation of those motions will produce an acceleration towards a deeper gravity well.... Where space is less dense; time dilation in a gravity well is the same as moving at the escape velocity from that place in the well... So just like clocks moving at a high speed have cover more space than they would at slower speeds, gravity also increases the amount of space the clock has to cover in a fixed.time. (this is actually a very small amount for something like the earth... But still not zero. Also since light is carried by the space any such curvature is imperceivable by organism or mechanism)

@@3zdayz Overlooking magnetism is only part; where there are magnetic fields there are electrical currents. Yet the vast filamentary web we see in photos running in flows even connecting galaxies are dismissed as "gas." Factor in electrical forces, millions of times more powerful than gravity....no need for "dark" stuff...or black holes to provide the missing element. And don't wait for Anton or Sabine to tell you...too much peer pressure to think outside of the box. Maybe try an electrical engineer...practical people.

Its even much more simple. A galaxy is NOT lika a solar system. There are many stars sharing the same orbit, more the further out. Now we have surely solved the three-body-problem. Then we can blame the 3-billion-body-anomaly on the DarkSide and shoot it onto MOND. 🚀🏴‍☠️🎸

@@ShamusWoosley Yes, true :) There's also ferromagnetic properties of stars - since they often have a lot of iron in them, which allows magnetic fields to be induced in them... Electric Universe I guess would be the other place to find such information - but they are just straight out because they don't believe in large massive objects that don't emit light... so it's more a desire to see someone mainstream support such things. (see also 'The Primer Fields' (esp. part 1, 19:42-ish) )

She pulled that joke out of no where, like a theoretical physicist explaining galactic rotational curves.

Well Freud invented the unconscious to account for the dark energy in humans…

Same experience, couldn´t have said it better.

A critical thinker. An intellectually honest person. A true scientist.

What happens of the real is neither of those but something different altogether?

@@Jono98806 Well if we believe the Many Worlds theory there's going to be a universe where any combination holds true. So its all good and correct!

@@Jono98806it’s theoretical physics … none of it really matters. They just get paid to research what they want and the results try to predict what we observe … whether or not it is reality doesn’t matter

@@fredrik241 That's not how the many worlds interpretation of QM works

Well yeah, because neutrinos exist.

MOND Day, MOND Day, can't trust that day.

She´s a real scientist.

Dyson spheres suck!

@@fredrik241 meaning they exhibit negative pressure?

@@charlievane Yes and they're expensive!

Dyson spheres wouldn't even be that massive. Besides, what's the point of a Dyson sphere that doesn't interact with light

or maybe it should be: F = (G * m1 * m2) / d^(2 - ((d * S)^n)) Where S and n are constants that adjust the falloff correction

That is pretty whack.

Particle accelerators do more than just try to find Dark Matter. So, it still wouldn't be a waste.

People don't only look for new particles in accelerators because of measurements of gravity, there are _lots_ of other reasons for that, too.

And the real scientists shout, "Yes, we were wrong!" Every error is new knowledge and possibilities.

That's kind of the point of science.

75 factorial

If I've learned one thing during the years that I've worked on astrophysics it's that it's a bad idea to draw any conclusion from one particular or a few objects, it can prove anything and everything. Look at surveys, large samples, good statistics. Look for the rule, and try to explain the rule, before worrying about the outliers.

@@SabineHossenfelder But surely, an actual law of nature cannot have outliers? Or, if it does, then the theory must either be abandoned or modified to explain the outlying data?

​@@Jono98806the point is that the law of nature of course doesnt have outliers BUT WE DONT KNOW THE LAW YET . If we can understand the majoraty of the cases we can better drawn a theory that explain all of them rather than try to explain all of them by the annoying different ones

@@Jono98806 it's better to have a "law" that explains 99.9% of what we see in the universe than to have no law and no explanation for what we see

@@Jono98806 I think the point is that in astrophysics, error curves are so large no one even bothers to write them

We're chickens.

There are a literal infinity of other options, we're just not smart enough to figure them out yet!

@@evangonzalez2245 I don't think that's true. Either our theory of gravity, general relativity, is correct or it is not (on astronomical / cosmological length scales). These are logically exclusive possibilities, and there are only two of them. If GR is right, then we need more matter in the universe. Due to observations, it needs to be cold and dark. If GR is wrong, we need a theory interpolating between 1/r^2 and 1/r potentials assuming there is only visible matter. Of course the details, like what dark matter would be made of or how the interpolation between potentials looks like mathematically, may vary. But I don't think that's what you meant with "there are infinite options, we're just too dumb". Hence why I asked whether or not something is wrong with this logic and there is a third option, because I can't think of one.

3:30 That won't give us flat rotation curves, as there are not that many stars that far away from the galaxy's center, essentially in intergalactic space. The stars in these regions are still rotating very fast.

A force behaving very differently at different scales is not new to physics. Most notably, the strong force is moddeled as electromagnetism-like (~1/r^2) at small scales but causes confinement (~r) at large scales. This is caused by the scale-dependence of the quantum theory. So what it really means is that the quantum gravity theorists can get excited about the renormalisation group flow of gravity. 😅

All forces are forces and you can just add them together or split them.

CMB?

@@AR15ORIGINAL Cosmic Microwave Background. The background radiation left over from the VERY early days of the universe.

A proper understanding of MOND will probably also explain CMB. CMB is currently thought to be the remnent of a Big Bang followed by an inflationary stage followed by a varying expansion rate; aliens are laughing at us! 🙃

Better tools are always a goal. Of course, people who think money is the most important thing on Earth don't agree. Their billionaire buds aren't getting some.

Why not? The mankind is producing more useless, stupid records every day. Building a bigger collider with more energy or higher energy resolution should be a goal for itself. We spend billions for fast cars, sport and other „useless nonsense“. I work in semiconductor company to build chips that idiots use to make photos of there cats and post it in the internet. At the of the day we have ask ourself what is our goal as mankind? Complete stupidity or scientific progress.

No, not no matter. But dark matter!

@@sharonreddy5557 actually I was trying for humor. Sabina rightfully criticizes those physicists who want larger super colliders to investigate almost any problem even though they don’t have a solid theory to test.

a little bird told me they're looking at what this means for superfluid dark matter...

@@SabineHossenfelder 😅👌

@@SabineHossenfelder Superfluid vortices?

@@GreatPhysics The switch from fluid to superfluid, guided by the temperature, would explain the discrepancies between DM and MOND. The superfluid phase creates a quantum field that works like gravity and explains the flat rotation curves, as far as I understood.

This topic is banned by the gatekeepers of astronomy I mean astrology.

@@esecallum don't insult astrology, those people have more integrity than astronomers/theoretical physicists

@@ada7180 well said. Astronomy has been turned into a pseudoscience.

I've ordered T-Shirts

It's all fake nonsense. Show me what this creep lady has produced, that doesn't help ruin society with this useless influencer economy.

It's okay you don't need to understand dark matter anymore, it's MOND time now.

Shes about to complain that she's going to get another spike on her video.

Dark matter is a problem. But MOND doesn't fix it.

This is because Angela Collier is an egotistical child. She's clearly very well educated when it comes to physics, but she has more than a little to learn about science communication.

How does a "problem" obviate a hypothesis, which DM clearly is?

just watched that exact video. dark matter problem itself is poorly named, it suggests there are masses unobserved that cause anomalies can't be explained

Agreed.

Yes. Mond means moon, earth or mouth, depending on where you are.

Reminds me of the old 'infinite bombardment' theories for forces. From all around us, infinitely far away, someone is shooting, many tiny balls of force at us. When you are above the Earth, the balls coming from above will hit you, but the balls from below are blocked by the Earth. Therefore, you are hit by more balls from above than below, so you are pushed towards the Earth. (The Earth is slightly pushed towards you, but your 'shadow' on the Earth is much smaller than the Earths 'shadow' on you.) If you call the number of those tiny force balls in a certain volume 'pressure' (because the pressure of a gas also consists of a lot of tiny balls bouncing against the walls), you get something similar to your idea. The obvious problem with this idea is that gravity depends on mass rather than volume. That problem might affect your idea as well, depending on how the mass rejects the pressure.

Don't need to explain Dark energy, it was nothing more then an error caused by ignoring that the local universe in a low density bubble which pulls away from us. It was all just an embarasment jump to conclusion by the scientific community that no one wants to admit to untill the folks that both awarded and recived the Nobel prize are all dead.

@@peperoni_pepino That why I suppose that the pressure is inversely proportionnate to the density of matter. But it also takes place inside the earth -after all, there is plenty of empty space between atoms. However, as matter gets more dense, there is less space between atoms, so there is less pressure from it. Until we get to a state where matter is so dense that there is no more space anymore between atoms (or whatever exotic particles matter devolved into at such a density), and so the internal pressure from space reaches a minimum. But in a sense it's not really different from this bombardement idea, if those tiny balls were shot from empty space itself, in all directions. And the more matter there is, the less of these balls can pass through. To me the obvious problem with this idea is where does the energy of these balls come from, and what happens to the kinetic energy when they are blocked by matter. It would be a constant source of heat coming from all around space, and quite a strong one if it would be able to accelerate an object as strongly as gravity can. And we know that in empty space, objects tend to radiate heat and cool down, they don't spontaneously heat without any apparent source of external energy. That's why I prefer to see it as some kind of "flow" of space in all directions, like if each part of space was a souce of water, and matter acts like some hole where the water can flow into -the more dense it is and the steeper the slope gets. Of course behind this there's the idea that the equations of General relativity could be reused and adapted to this new interpretation. The goal here is not to reject the previous theories, but propose a new perspective that would still be consistant with what we have today.

Well, it seems you've described the idea that's called "Entropic gravity" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity). Eric Verlinde is one of the main proponents of it and frankly it makes a lot of sense to me...

Wrong and gay.😮

Gravity is not a force in Einstein's theory for 100+ years, already.

You are surely not a fool, friend, being here and watching Sabine. And your thoughts are smart too.

@@Thomas-gk42 thank you kindly

We don't really understand how gravity actually comes about. I.e. how is it that gravity appears when there's mass? But at least it makes sense that it dissipates with r^-2 because we live in a three dimensional space. MOND would make sense in two dimensions, but maybe it's some holographic hocus-pocus taking place. WIMP seems to be an easier explanation though.

Is mond just one formule is it a class of them? I imagine one can modify Newtonian Dynamics in an infinite number of ways.

Relativity systems/equations are compatible with Newtonian physics (just more complex). Though I suspect both are not 100% correct but just the best we got currently for relativistic and non-relativistic scenarios. Neither does a good job addressing quantum physics though. There is no perfect model for the physics of our reality and we're ever improving what we got (or trying to at least).

It cannot be right because it's not quantum too, but the point is whether it gives better predictions than newtonian mechanics + dark matter with fewer free parameters

The good news is that both hypotheses seem to be wrong.

How can gravity decrease by r^-1 when we live in a three dimensional space and not 2? MOND would probably have greater consequences to our understanding of space and time.

MOND fails for binary stars, so it is already wrong in smaller systems

What kind of dumb reasoning is this?

@@michaelpieters1844 Didn't get ur point, what's the dump reasoning?

Dark matter isn’t exactly magically. It’s hypothesized that black holes cannot hawking decay past 1 Planck mass, and that dark matter is just gazillions of these little 1 Planck mass black holes floating around

' It's literally magical in its properties as it just happens to interact with gravitation while being intangible' That's not magical, neutrinos also do that. 'So either dark matter is everywhere where it happens to be *required*, ' Well yeah, that's one of the reasons people believe it's matter. The laws of physics are meant to be universal, but there's nothing stopping matter from being more common in one place than another.

It is literally “Deus ex machina”, only in this case it is “DM ex machina”!

@@Deathtobunny1 > Well yeah, that's one of the reasons people believe it's matter. Quite convenient, isn't it? It's also fascinating how it's all so determinant of the structure of galaxies (or even higher level structures) by being most of the existing mass while being invisible. > but there's nothing stopping matter from being more common in one place than another. Sure, but that doesn't relate to dark matter. Because it presumably always exists in the exact quantity required in the exact position required to make sense for the shape of galaxies. Oh and it has zero effect on solar systems, even though its relevancy is oh-so impactful. And there is never a discrepancy of what we observe and how dark matter interferes with what should be. When we look to other solar systems, dark matter has zero relevancy. It's the boogeyman which is to blame why the oh-so perfect knowledge of physics isn't working out.

​@@brianviktor8212 It's the best explanation we have got so far. If you've got a better one, please, be our guest. We're eagerly awaiting your peer-reviewed paper about an alternative solution to dark matter.