I'm not too critical of gravity theories, I just Let the chips fall where they may

You're a nano physicist? You so seem taller on camera. Seriously, thank you for going over this topic - I knew my skepticism wasn't unjustified. Thank you for your work!

Love your coverage of this, thanks for being so even handed.

Been trying to prove Einstein wrong for a century and always end up falling down.

Science is honest or it is not science. It doesn’t matter if Einstein was wrong. What matter’s is that Einstein was honest.

journalism in general - and now even science journalism - as we were taught to define it - hardly exists today due to - mainly - corporate greed / corrupted - influences - excellent - thanks

We have a big problem with sensationalism in science journalism. Videos with titles like "Have physicists proved that gravity is breaking down?" are part of the problem.

It's not gravity, it's magnetism holding things together. Or more accurately it's a combination of both. The gravity causes the orbits but the magnetism causes the accelerated speeds and holds things together against centrifugal forces. Black holes rotate and generate huge magnetic fields that extend beyond the galaxies they inhabit, affecting every star in them.

Newton and Einstein have been our go-to for gravity, but do these findings suggest their theories are starting to breakdown? What do you think?

Jwst has made us go from guessing to seeing realty as it is scientists are scratching there heads currently lol😂

16 Sigma!? That's so many sigmas!

I really appreciate the way you deal with these kinds of topics. Yu don't gatekeep "the truth" nor do you look for the sensational. On the topic at hand, dark matter is a fascinating thing, because it means there is something missing in our understanding, which is always fun!

Interestingly, Newton's formula for gravity works within the heliosphere, but where that formula breaks is outside the heliosphere. There was an alternate theory in cosmology called the Electric Universe theory, also known as Plasma Cosmology, which was very popular until its main proponent had some personal squabble with a higher-up at their university. Then the theory was considered taboo and the gravity-only theory took over. The idea was that plasma fields could also be involved in holding galaxies together. Since the realm in which Newton's formula breaks is outside the heliosphere, it would make sense that gravity perfectly explains the orbits of planets, but doesn't fully explain the interactions between star systems. So it may be that gravity isn't broken, but there's another force involved at that scale - without having to invent ghost matter! After all, we know that there's tremendous energy in deep space. If there were such a force holding star systems together, would that exert some force on the heliosphere boundary? Could that boundary pressure then exert a force upon the sun, similar to the pressure which the ground effect exerts on very low-flying objects? If so, could we detect this as either extra pressure within the solar wind on one side of the sun, or deviations in the bow shock?

Well done .. best explanation I've seen.

Just a simple question, what about the energy stored (as mass) in the angular momentum of the galaxy system? Has that been accounted for?

To quote a movie - "Baby steps Bob, baby steps".

Unfortunately, so many “science” web-sites, channels, and journalism tend towards “click bait”, and “rip n’ read” research to do their reports. Witness the recent summer of craziness over LK99. Seems like people want to jump on anything. Thanks for taking a sober, sane approach with a little doubt. Skepticism and challenge and opposing views helps to keep science sane.

This is fascinating information, as a back yard physicist I love new ideas, brain food. Thank you for sharing.

I honestly think the more we try to understand reality the more it will be beyond our grasp. Why reality exists at all is not understanding it but accepting and embracing it! As a species our collective human goals determines our future fate!🙂

Your nailing it on the wide binary orbit measurement.....and also therefore also galactic arms and galactic rotation since rotation that is also rotations

Is an inverse linear law of gravitation consistent with results of the Cavendish experiment? I had assumed those were sufficiently precise to eliminate any possibility other than an inverse square law. Could it be that the range of gravitational forces measured in Cavendish experiments are too small or too large for the difference between inverse linear and inverse square laws to be apparent?

I agree. That’s a big problem in the science journalism that unfortunately seems to be affecting the science world itself too!

I agree with you. Although GR IS incomplete, there is not enough evidence to dismiss dark matter. After all, we all like a story where the "Dark" is greater than the visible :)

We are thinking too 3 dimensionally. Dark matter could be normal matter that is hidden in higher spacial dimensions, relative to an observer. This would rectify the conundrum of missing mass & the spinning of the rim of galaxies being too fast. It also explains entanglement; entangled particles can use higher dimensions to stay connected. They're only at a distance from each other in the 1st three dimensions but are connected using higher spacial dimensional portals. Have you heard of the TARDIS?

Bad science journalism, love that phrase

When the conclusions are the only thing talked about then I am not going to believe the experiment.

According to my scale gravity is increasing.

If the meme "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" is valid then a corollary to that would be "If something can not be categorically proven wrong then you must concede that it is theoretically possible. However unlikely." Dark matter is the modern day equivalent of "Here be Dragons".

I wish somebody would give a concise view of the many things possible with the mastery and manipulation of gravity. When we finally figure out gravity, the Universe becomes wide open for exploration.

Very good deep dive into this part of astrophysics! Thank you!

How do they compensate for the tilt of the orbital plane relative to the line of sight? Using statistics, assuming random orbital inclinations etc, is going to be rifddled with pitfalls.

Well done. You've earned a new subscriber.

An excellent and timely cautionary presentation reminding us that the only quantity which matters is that of checkable and established results. Given that human lives are quite short and careers even shorter there is a scurry to make a mark and one of the laziest ways is to be a contrarian. It is a dangerous addiction which results in more talk but far less consistent research.

It is very appealing to say dark matter is a too easy solution for an equation that doesn't hold but is too consistent in too many ways which MOND still isn't as you pointed out. Maybe you can make a video about the Bullet cluster which is one of the strong examples against MOND and try to explain what it means to say that the predictions of dark matter are self consistent? Thanks for the great content you have. As a physicst I really appreciate it!

I first like your concern . Your bold presentation on developing front. If we consider Natural forces are themodynamics origine good data , good volume of data , high Sigma will take us statistical mechanics. MOND is a model of dynamic body when reference is acceleration is very very low. Einstein based model is zero weight I.e weight lessness . Key to equivalence. GR is molded on Newton's postulates. Can data mechanics isolate universal effects. Will Higgs field show up with variable constant. Thank you.

Interesting video. Clearly there is a gap in over understanding in the fundamentals of how gravity works. Finding a quantum theory of gravity may help, but like you I am more comfortable with the concept of "dark matter" over modified gravity, even if we have yet to find any dark matter, other than data that suggests it is there (including gravitational lensing) or somethings there that simulates mass (perhaps mass blead through from Everett's many-worlds theory). Modified gravity feels like curving fitting an equation to the data rather than materially expanding our understanding of how gravity works.

That makes sense since we need to include entanglement, which could include a quantum field....

If gravity is spacetime bending, why can't you measure the spacetime bending between the earth and an object that is falling towards the earth?

It seems we need a half dozen of Gaia satellites at the extremes of the orbit of the Neptune, so to build an interferometer at level of the Solar System. An astronomical observatory on the dark side of the Moon would be of great help, as the observation platform would be much more stable, use better cryogenics, and would be easily serviceable and scalable in the future. Thank you for the great explanation Prof. Miles...

I am thinking positif and negatif energy is distributed in the fabric of space. A galaxy is big and far enough to treat as a closed system. So in the galaxy positif energy is collected from center to the edge of the galaxy. So we can treat gravity is positive energy. Its effect decreases by distance while the negative energy or dark energy increases. So the galaxy will be kept together. However, I am not a physicist but I love it.

Doesn't change much as it will take centuries to ADD up!

The 16 sigma result data mostly measures stars that are too close to notice MOND effects

Physics law changes time to time . Science is evolving.

I love physics but despite my curiosity I often wonder if our pursuits in physics can be equated to teaching an ant how to build a rocket ship. The ant can never do it. The ant can never even understand it.

I really dont get how they can try to measure anything that is anywhere out in space and expect to be accurate when our entire solar system is flying through space extremely fast. Seems like it would make measuring exactly near impossible.

The issue I have with DM is if it is real then its distribution should be even because if it uneven and causes lensing it would become impossible to determine how many DM fields a ray of light has traversed thereby making all astronomical distance calculations non determinable. Because to determine the calculated distance would require knowing every single DM field that the light from a distant object travelled through and for each DM field calculating the effect on the travelled light. So Dm can only be accepted at the sacrifice of distance calculations which then renders all other observations uncertain!

Wasn't a paper with the exact opposite conclusion using the same Gaia data set (with more N) just a while ago? Yeah, yeah there was. The "wide binaries" selected for this paper also may have included triple star systems and more.

Nah gravity isn't broken, but uhm science maybe maybe..

I can’t believe you did quantum entanglement dirty like that. Science have shown that some particles are are still connected over vast distances and can even be used for instantaneous data transfer. That alone throws a monkey wrench into the theory of gravity, and add supporting evidence towards interconnectivity and time space torsion.

Great video!

Is there anything surrounding these galaxies that may be having an effect on the stars gravity..?

Gravity's breaking down? You mean I'm losing weight? Cool 😎!

A question: if a confidence of 5 Sigma already represents a 1 in 3 million chance that a result is wrong, how many degrees of certainty does 16 Sigma repesent? In my understanding a confidence level of 6 Sigma is as high as it gets. So? Where does this come from?

The desperate need for funding and prestige causes sensationalism, and objectivity soon falls by the wayside 😢 The media portrays science as if it were a game, where both sides must be equal, regardless of the weight of evidence. Just look at the climate coverage 🤬 Still, we should always be skeptical, as scientists are also subject to group-think and human frailty 🤔 Thank you for your objectivity and infotainment 👍🏻

That one A.I. Squidward meme is starting to make waaaay too much sense...

Just document what's happening, then theorize on what's going on & why.

Einstein knew that he was wrong. His theory was close, but no cigar.

I think this is a case of "More Data Needed." Fascinating stuff but too early to know if it's true - or not true.

Mass/matter dosn't create gravity Conciousness creates attraction/gravity wich creates mass/matter

Really interesting. More data required! Different experiments to verify the observations. Newton and Einstein are rarely wrong.

Descartes' (Cartesian) Physics solves this easily. Before Newtonian Physics, there was Cartesian Physics. Cartesian Physics says that there are 3 kinds of gravity: mass-vortex-based, star-vortex-based, and galaxy-vortex-based. Instead of particles being "excitations in a quantum field", Cartesian Physics calls them "vortices in the aether-ocean" Galaxy rotation and the expansion of spacetime are galaxy-vortex-based. Newton's inverse square law is mass-vortex-based, as the ratio of a mass-vortex to another mass-vortex. So the 'missing mass problem' is solved by the ratio of star-vortices to a galaxy-vortex. There is no need for AQUAL or MOND. The 5 sigma variation is accounted for by Cartesian Physics, as being caused by the ratio of a star-vortex to another star-vortex. The 16 sigma variation happens because some stars have a more solid material core than others. Not all stars are the same. Cartesian Physics also solves the Hubble Tension, dark matter, dark energy, nuclear fusion, and many other things. Cartesian Physics solves all.

Another way to analyze the data would be to assume classical reletivistic gravity is correct and estimate the error in the data.

There is already an interpretative problem with the Sun-Earth system: is the Earth attracted to the Sun from where it is now, or from where it was 8 minutes earlier? In other words, shouldn't the propagation-delay of gravity introduce a torque into the system?

4:44 There is an explanation, that matches something that I wanted to explore. It goes to the nature of space and physics. Not to state the answer, an multiplex of effects could lead to an affect that changes the rate of acceleration. I was hoping that new horizons would go further, faster and sooner, but seemed to be deliberately geared to never get further than the current furthest probe. There are plans to orbital test a fusion drive and warp engine in 2027. We need to be preparing a probe design to go out and map gravity and the ort cloud now, and fund accelerated development and use of the drive, to launch such a probe in 2027. Even then, unless a successful warp drive is had, it will take years to complete the minimal distance of such a mission. I see no evidence of an Ort cloud which technically too close to the Alpha Centauri system to orbit out system. So, it would be very helpful to find such. We have the ability to adapt a test bed into a robust probe system, and too launch using a current commercial provider, such as Space X, to nearly eliminate the rocket design stage and cost. Once in LEO, it can use conventional acceleration technique to move itself out of Earth orbit. We already know enough about probe design and flight planning to do this. What we do need though, is to make the system last for 10-20 years, if just a fusion design, and slingshot the sun, if needed. However, there are various magnetic sail proposals that are high speed, which could also be explored. We have been sitting on our hands long enough, as far as interstellar probes are concerned.

I love science, and have taken a couple of physics courses, but I'm not even close to educated enough on this subject to render an intelligent opinion. The dark matter thing, and _especially_ the dark energy thing has always seemed a little fishy to me. Anyway, I'm looking forward with great anticipation to the resolution of this question.

Are those supposed to be ellipses?

I think the closer we get to the solutions to our many problems the closer we will get to vibration and frequency being connected to the energy and mass equation

imagine quantum entanglement was physical. like an elastic band, and the yes the universe is expanding but, will reach its elastic limit and start travelling back. Like an elastic band. Could we argue that gravity is more a case of stuff being physically connected to what, for the purposes of this layman explanation is called “Quantum Elastic” Did I just make a new term up? This would then, if quantum elastic exists, would prove my belief that light is absolutely not, the fastest thing in the universe.

As I'm sure you have discovered, bold headlines and startling content, generate more views, then their subtle and nuanced counterparts.

How is MOND different from a Bran-Dicke metric ?

I'm very skeptical of dark matter-- it is reminiscent of the ether arguments of the 1800s-- and I'd love to see a better explanation out there. That being said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and we don't have that either way. Given a medium-sized statistical dataset and a free hand at selection criteria, a competent research can probably cook up however many sigmas you'd like.

Maybe we don”t understand very well the bending of space and is the Plank length not a constant 🤔

how does it break down ? if we got parallel universa close to us then theier gravity might cause vallies and mountains on or universa on that huge miniscule level

Red shift being used to determine acceleration of distant objects, when light could be red shifted also for other reasons (e.g when it passes through clouds of ionized gas), could explain some of this discrepancy without the need for Mond or dark matter

Pretty sure gravity is the result of matter's displacement of the underlying space-field or reality-field, and as a result of that displaced field attempting to return to its original universal coordinate, we find ourselves pushed inward toward the center of whichever mass is generating the gravity. Time then is a result of that displacement moving rapidly from one universal coordinate to the other. It was revealed to me in a dream, but in another 100 years this will be generally accepted.

Superman is a man. Can we get a video where no scientist is mentioned by name, only the science itself?

My favourite physicist's name is Vesto M Slipher. Just felt like sharing.

Wonder what Sabine says ?

Thank you very much! A very important topic for deep open global brainstorming. Theoretical physicists have proven that there is a big problem in physics with the metaphysical foundations of physics. Therefore, John A. Wheeler left the following philosophical testament to theoretical physicists: "We are no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself." Without answering this question, it is impossible to understand the nature of gravity. And this means that we need a new look at matter, its ontological structure. "Formulas" are always "clippings" from the existence of the Universe as a Whole. More than a quarter of a century ago, the mathematician and philosopher Vasily Nalimov set the super-task of building a "super-unified field theory that describes both physical and semantic manifestations of the World" - the creation of a model of the "Self -Aware Universe" (V.Nalimov, 1996). In the same direction, the ideas of the Nobel laureate in physics Brian Josephson (which are not very noticed by mainstream science), set out in the essay "On the Fundamentality of Meaning" (2018). The paradigm of the Universe as an eternal holistic generating process gives a new look at matter. MATTER is that from which all meanings, forms and structures are born. There are three and only three absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute states): absolute rest (linear state, absolute Continuum) + absolute motion (vortical, circular, absolute Discretuum) + absolute becoming (absolute wave, absolute DisContinuum). What is especially important: each absolute form of the existence of matter has its own ONTOLOGICAL PATH (bivector of the absolute state). Accordingly, SPACE (absolute, ontological, existential) has three ontological dimensions ( 9 gnoseological dimensions). It is necessary to “dig” deeper into ontology in order to “grasp” the metanoumenon - ONTOLOGICAL (structural, cosmic) MEMORY, “soul of matter”, its measure. Ontological (structural, cosmic) memory is that "nothing" that holds, preserves, develops and directs matter (enteleschia, nous, Aristotelian mind, prime mover). Therefore, we must write not "space-time", but "SPACE-MATTER/MEMORY-TIME". Fundamental science requires a Big Ontological revolution in the metaphysical / ontological basis of knowledge. Physics must move from the stage "Phenomenological physics" to the stage "Ontological physics". Any theory that claims to be called "fundamentally" must be ontologically justified (the ontological basification of the theory). The new physics is "Ontological physics". John Archibald Wheeler: "To my mind there must be, at the bottom of it all, not an equation, but an utterly simple idea. And to me that idea, when we discover it, will be so compelling, so inevitable, that we will say to one another, 'Oh, how beautiful. How could it have been otherwise?"... "Philosophy is too important to be left to philosophers." A.N. Whitehead: “A precise language must await a completed metaphysical knowledge.”

Gravity is not broken..just that the space we think as empty has an astral viscosity to it due to which the results are such. Without that viscosity the galaxies wont hold there spiral shape. Put some dust in the water and rotate it. Gravity alone will give the perfect results but gravity is not alone that is binding the celestial objects......

maybe, I have lost weight lately

Q: There is sth wrong with Newton’s universal gravity, because movements of planets around stars is also influenced by the rotation and rotationspeed of the stars? Persons like Einstein and Zwicky understood this, but didn’t become popular by explaining that this was a serious shortcoming in Newon’s universal gravity? While Zwicky assumed an invisible force (dark matter) as ‘source of gravity’ to explain puzzling movements of planets around stars, Einstein came up with warped spacetime with fourdimensional motions (including rotation), whereby Einstein realised he knew better than Newton. Or not?

10:15 In the Planck system F(G)/F(e)=Gm(pl)^2/e^2, that is, gravity~strong interaction*. This assumption follows from the Schwarzschild solution: the gravitational radius (or Schwarzschild radius) is a characteristic radius defined for any physical body with mass: r(G)=2GM/c^2. Consequently: 2E(0)/r(G)=F(pl)=c^4/G=ε(pl)/r(pl) : with indicating the mutual quantization of the mass (energy) and space-time: m(0)/m(pl)=r(G)/2r(pl)=n, where n=0,1,2,3..., number of quanta. Moreover, the parameter r(0)=r(G)-r(pl)=(2n-1)r(pl): defining the interval of the formation of the system, at n=0, when r=r(G)=0 (for example, the state of the "universe" before the Big Bang) turns out to be a quite definite quantity: r(0)=-r(pl). In the area [(-rpl) - 0 - (+rpl)] there is an implementation of external forces, "distance": (-rpl)+(+rpl)=0 (≠2rpl). That is, the frightening "true singularity" is actually a superconducting window between the proto-universe (the source) and physical bodies**. P.S. As a fundamental theory, GR has the ability with just one parameter: r(G)/r=k* to predict, explain new physical effects, and amend already known ones. Photon frequency shift in gravitational field Δw/w(0)=k*; the angle of deflection of a photon from a rectilinear propagation path =2k*, the Newtonian orbit of the planet shifts forward in its plane: during one revolution, a certain point of the orbit is shifted by an angle =3πk*, for a circular orbit (eccentricity е=0); in the case of an elliptical orbit - for example, for perihelion displacement, the last expression must be divided by (1-е^2). ------------------- *) - GR predicts a new physical effect: w/w(pl)=k*; expression for gravitational radiation from a test body. This is amenable to physical examination in laboratory conditions at present. **) - From this, generally, from Einstein's equations, where the constant c^4/G=F(pl), one can obtain a quantum expression (as vibration field) for the gravitational potential: ф(G)=(-1/2)[Għ/с]^1/2(w) = -[h/4πm(pl)]w. Final formula:ф(G)=-(w/wpl)c^2/2, where ф(G) - is Newtonian gravitational potential, w - the frequency of the quanta of the gravitational field (space-time); - can be tested experimentally in the laboratory at the moment.

Why did we get rid of Epicycles??? Wait a second… dark energy, dark matter, string theory, Modified gravity. We have a new name

HI , I am from india

Extraordinary claims require evidence, not extraordinary evidence. Just like any other claim.

4:25 - “As it orbits between us and the Sun…” Nope, that’s L1 (but you knew that of course! 😁) Great video otherwise!

We need vampires to study this for centuries. 😂

I find it hard to believe that any law of nature would follow an ideal mathematical function like 1/x^2.

If something cannot be found, its probably hiding in plain sight. What if light, that acts as a particle and a wave, is just that? A dark matter particle with a foton spinning around it? Is the light wave a 2D representation of a 3D orbit, seen from the side?

They seem to neglect variant collective action of massive bodies..

I hope they really stress in the reporting the statistical nature of these papers. Doubt they will.

It’s been known fir a long time Newtonian is just fine until velocity is very great, passing about 1/10 speed of light, or gravitation great enough to cause great velocity.

Geometry measurements are absolute and hard numbers. Multi body systems will never work out with prebutations, resonance changes, and random external bodies entering and leaving the systems, changing barycenters and resonances. Arcs and parabola changes, smbh centers will be replaced with black hole swarms,..... You just cannot get fixed orbits and conics and galactic arms or clusters from that.

Hello Ben and thanks for this video. -------- You´re referring to Newtons 16 sigma measurement, but in galactic orbital realms Newtons sigma is ZERO, hence the 5 sigma measurement of Kyu-Hyon Chae is the logical and correct one. ----------- And it so happens that the Solar System is a part of the orbital motion in our Milky Way galaxy, following the observed galactic rotation curve, so the laws of the Solar System cannot logically be separated from the laws of the Milky Way galaxy. ------------ I agree Newtons 16 sigma calculations to be correct for the planetary motions in our Solar System, but they are based on wrong astrophysical and cosmological assertations. ------- Newton simply inserted mathematical equations onto already known planetary orbital motions and built his celestial laws of motion which failed on the galactic scales. ---------- This more than indicate a Newtonian failure on his terrestrial based gravity ideas as well.

I wonder if given a black hole with of a specific degree of spin, and mass that it could interact with other matter seemingly far away by existing partially in a dimension of de sitter, or anti de sitter space. In a way that creates the same sort of unity across a whole system like liquid helium has. Gravitational-Bose-Einstein-condensates across paths of interconnected regions. Idk I’m not a physicist or anything. Just wondering what the reason could be that they have said some things the jwst sees, are galaxies with seemingly no dark matter/ energy.

Let’s face it, we will never truly know everything about everything ! So keep plugging away.

It does not go to zero.. it’s just decreases to be extremely small

I dont believe in dark matter . Could it not be the expansion of intergalactic space pushing back and keeping the galaxies in check?