dark matter is not a theory
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 มิ.ย. 2023
- dark matter is not a theory.
I tried to increase the sound on this---let me know how it went? I keep getting comments that my sound is too low but it always sounds fine on my devices.
Professor David Weinberg dark matter rap:
www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/...
Professor Adam Hincks visualization link:
adh-sj.info/bao_cmb.php
Job Geheniau’s dark matter measurement:
www.rtl-sdr.com/wp-content/up... - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Someone in the comments unironically just said "Thank you Physics Mommy"
Definitely wasn't you, right?
Thank You Physics Mommy
That kind of sounds like an unwanted sexual comment. Hopefully it doesn't make her feel uncomfortable.
Everyone don't forget to Thank our Physics Mommy
Thank you Physics Mommy!
I hate this hellhole website
as a retired engineer who's good at math but doesn't really understand this, you must be wrong.
As somebody who's moderately handy but barely understands engineering, I really have to question whether you're wrong about them being wrong
@@quinnocent Original comment was likely a joke. It's a play on crackpots, mentioned in a previous video.
@@rayli.08 As someone whose friends tell him he's funny but tried and failed to be a comedy writer, I have to tell you that your evaluation of the comment you replied to as serious is 1000% wrong.
@@rayli.08 I've told a joke before. In my expert-ish-esque opinion, I have to wonder if you're wrong about me being wrong about them being wrong about her being wrong
Yeah, thats like French. I dont understand it but I can speak it pretty well.
"I'd rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned"
Richard Feynman
this.
And I'd rather us all stop quoting and glorifying a certified creep and serial abuser who coerced and manipulated women into unsafe situations. Richard Feynman was the Harvey Weinstein of the science world and it is time we start acknowledging this reality.
answers that can't be questioned? Try religion.
@@ModernStupidity-qm3rj I've known many highly religious people who love to engage in debating everything within their religion. If you don't, you need to associate with smarter people, religious and otherwise.
that's a definition of Philosophical thinking
The fossil analogy was actually perfect! Fossils aren't the actual organisms anymore (ignoring stuff trapped in amber etc), but give us a detailed picture of what the bones (and sometimes skin and feathers/hair) looked like.
how many light years does is the distance from center of galaxy to edge..
-> There is no dark matter.. its a illusion of time..
And in some cases, what the internal structures look like at a cellular level. An example being dinosaur marrow, whose structure was preserved down to the cellular level, despite the loss of the majority of proteins and DNA.
@@astemetit's "an"...not "a".
The Big Bang was not a theory...oh, wait!
@@spvillano I'm still salty that the DNA has decomposed. I would punch myself in the face no more than 3 times to see a real dinosaur! I was such a huge dinosaur nerd as a kid. Okay, well, no, that's not accurate; I'm still a huge dinosaur nerd.
Dark matter:
Do we need it?
What is it?
Where is it?
How much?
Do we need it?
Do we need it?
Do we need it?
Do we need it?
I was hoping every comment would be this.
we don't need it, but general relativity does
come up with a better theory and we can drop dark matter
@@DevinDTV Rip SG553
This is going to be stuck in my head all day
whyt r u scribbling senseless numbers with letters on yer papyrus hamilton that just imaginary numbers? Do we need it?
Dr Weinberg was my professor for cosmology, and he gave us a flawless performance of the dark matter rap during lecture. He got a standing ovation. It was effervescent and hearing that at the beginning of this video made my day
that's so fkn cool 😀
I'm so jealous you saw a live performance of my favorite song.
Steven Weinberg was a bigot, got to sit through him bringing a female Iranian graduate student to tears during a lecture q&a by berating her and then implying his supremacist stance by pointing out how the Muslim countries have never won a Nobel prize and probably never will while his people have a plethora. Look at his quotes on the Palestinians if you have any doubts about his supremacist views. Also saying Dark Matter has been observed and only a 'crackpot' would protest since all physicists agree on dark matter being observed is just completely wrong. You can find quotes of counterexamples everywhere from top physicists who will tell you its not been observed. Once you can prove you've measured a signal of dark matter then it will be observed. The currently fruitless search for measuring dark matter on the particle physics side doesn't look good though. Playing word games with 'directly' and 'observed' just misinforms the public and applying the repetition over and over in the video on your stance is not the best approach to such a controversial subject.
There’s a reason Eminem has yet to diss Dr Weinberg’s flow.
I thought you meant Steven Weinberg for a sec
"so this is when we- well not us, we werenyt there...this was before stars..."
Something about this line is just hauntingly beautiful and terrifying to me
I love finding new educational channels with personality. Love the casual vlog style and your vibe, subscribed
I'm not a student, engineer, chemist, or scholar; I'm a truck driver with a high school education. I just want to say I love your content. Your ability to communicate is wonderful and make the topics more interesting.
no one should ever let their job title keep them from learning about something they find interesting. good shit, homie.
I love her definition at the end. We can all be into science for the love of it
Hello fellow trucker
@FollowSmoke, I agree! I have heard the spiral galaxy explanation for dark matter but couldn't understand why it wasn't just a bunch of rocks. If we can't find Planet X in our solar system, despite gravitational evidence, why do we need "magic matter" for galaxies. The WMAP explanation finally offered an answer for how we know that a 'weird' form of matter exists and has since the Big Bang.
i agree, i think she can just re-explain physics concepts, that stuff has potential.
It's funny: some creators use these powerful engines and elaborate animations to try and convey complicated topics more intuitively. You simply talk to us like we're in a conversation, using your hands and the occasional picture, and I always end up with a clear and manageable (even if not totally complete) understanding. You are an amazing communicator! Thank you for your content
Good communicators are good. Shows both a deep understanding of/comfort with the subject matter and great awareness of the audience.
@@Nvenom8. exactly
Anyone can make a video just talking to the camera. People put so much effort into animations and editing because it's the only way to stand out. It's lucky the algo picked up a channel like this over a thousand others
New Existential Dread Just Dropped ROFL
@@Houshalter that’s literally the point
I was just trying to explain this to my son earlier (who's 6) and told him that while we haven't figured out what dark matter or dark energy is, we can observe the effects of it. He had far too many questions though. I study computer science, not astrophysics, so I had to basically tell him I just don't know enough or understand enough to give him better answers. I think admitting "idk" is unfortunately lacking in society. Anyway, maybe one day he'll be able to explain it to me!
My dad and I have had so many debates about this stuff and it usually ends with him getting hung up on something, then me trying to explain why it works in that way, and then him not listening even when I give him a source. Good times.
fortunately scientist say 'we just dont know" often enough. Too often too my liking because it does not explain what i want to understand. But this is good for science as it keeps it honest and we know where need to focus attention.
It’s just a record player bro, Diamond tip on a vinyl blank pits and valleys and highs, dark matter, Liquid Metal, come on man. We know this stuff
We do know what dark energy is… don’t tell him we don’t. Dark energy is the energy of the the vacuum state.
@@L2p2 That's not true at all. The majority of scientists simply submit to whatever the consensus of their high priests is. It's a top down authoritative structure that has a lot to do in common with religions. If you question things, or apply critical thinking or alternative explanations for data, you are mocked, ridiculed, suppressed, and thrown to the fringes as a quack. If they were more honest most of the current theories wouldn't even exist.
11:35
"The new existential dread just dropped"
Not much to say, just enjoyed that quote. In fact, I kinda love how sometimes it feels like it's from like 10 years ago and yet never really date it. Great stuff, worth a sub even. 👍🏾
This got unexpectedly very emotional for me at the end. Today was the funeral of an aunt of mine, who was one of the best hobby gardener I know. And as a matter of fact I told the people who were there how honoured I feel to have all her gardening books now here at my place to take care of them. And it was also a rough day because we couldn't take my dad with us who is at very poor health both physically and mentally. And coincidentally to how you ended your video my dad has been a ham radio enthusiast for 30 years. So very strangely I feel like somehow if I have been hugged by this video and it somehow makes me want to hug it back. This must sound strange... but I feel very strange after watching the end of your video, but actually a lot better. Just had to have you know that.
I like that you included the point about the systematic error.
That the expectation vs measurement does not have the same discrepancy in every galaxy.
Very important addition.
That single clarification actually totally changed my view on dark matter. I very much tend to lean towards systematic errors and underlying misconceptions as explanations for things, but that can't be the case here.
I don't get it. Why can't it just be that our understanding is wrong?
In general when our observation doesn't fit understanding, how can you *ever* conclude it must be observation that's missing purely based on *how* they don't fit?
damn hello Binyamin. fancy seeing you here.
@@randomnobody660 Our understanding being wrong is one of the theories. Modified Newtonian dynamics is a set of theories relating to us just not understanding how gravity works on large scales as an explanation to dark matter observations. So far, many of the proposed MOND theories fall short on adequately explaining the variety of different observed dark matter amounts just like the systematic error theory.
@@jamesbyrd3740 and yet there were tides. Saying there are no tides because you did not believe in Posidon did not make the tides go away. Dark matter is a tide you can't explain.
Love your crusade against the use of plots/graphics that are incomprehensible or given no explanation.
i took YOUR advice and listened to the song. so now thats gonna be in my head for at least half way into the week and im sure will pop up randomly and frequently for a long time. so thank you for that
As a mathematician I really wanted to interact, but then I was specifically requested not to. So now instead of a compliment about how that's a perfectly reasonable handwave-y concept of why fourier is the greatest analysis tool of all time, I will be like Dark Matter and not interact with anything. PS I love your work, these are great
@@DowJonesDave copy pasting your response just shows that you need someone to validate your stupid fucking view
@@DowJonesDave 50%? I think you missed a few orders of magnitude there.
@@dinobotpwnz And, well, the entire video... or any other not completely-made-up argument for dark matter.
Second that, as an applied mathematician specializing in harmonic analysis.
@@philosoraptor3 Nerd!
I don't hate when you repeat stuff. You are (a) making a stylistic choice which is fun and (b) making things easier to understand. I get it, and please keep doing it
100%
There's a lot to take in, so the repetition helps. The one take home message I got from this is that the dark matter is just a theory, not an observation.
@@tuomasronnberg5244 absolutely true. It is widely understood. I bet it would be boring if you were a teacher, like she is effectively being; I'm sure my high school algebra teacher was so sick of the quadratic formula she probably had dreams about murdering it with a fork. But we learned it because she kept repeating it over and over
I do hate it, because it feels like talking to an idiot..
@@georgelionon9050 I know how you feel, I grew up in a culture which associated repetition with idiocy, but found this culture to be very bad for me because in several ways it arrogantly opposes things which are good for the human brain. I had a lot of challenges to my mental health, and my culture was an obstacle to my recovery. I don't want to get into all the details, but repetition in particular is good for learning. When you hear something again, your brain refreshes the original memory and associates a new one, and may make connections with things you're thinking about at the time of the repetition but perhaps weren't when you first heard it.
Despite what I thought was a really rambling energy/tone this was actually structured in a very coherent way and like... honestly? So impressive.
But honestly I'm still processing the vibes. How in the hell did you manage to make the simultaneous experience of "you're at a friends house and the power went out but its daytime so its fine but we are pleasantly reminded of the pleasure of hearing what other people enjoy" AND "I have received a long lecture on a topic I deeply enjoy but would like nothing more than to lightly tip my brain into a teacup and not think for two days now" AAANND "the social confusion of having made consistent eye contact with a person in unclear context for long periods of times in which you absorbed an alarming amount of small insignificant non-verbal behaviors and have no idea how to process it" (the latter is a vibe, its a parasocial reflex, but also its just the daily monkey brain jiggle of the 'tism)
cool, unexpected, video to stumble on. Thank you.
Thank you. I just discovered your channel. You explain so well a lot of topics in pop science from physics that I'd always thought were sus but was never smart enough or diligent enough or not physicist-y enough to say or know for sure. 🤯
8 questions to ask yourself about dark matter:
1. Do we need it?
2. What is it?
3. Where is it?
4. How much?
5. Do we need it?
6. Do we need it?
7. Do we need it?
8. Do we need it?
@@Fritz_Schlunder
1. the us government is most likely lying about aliens as they have shown absolutely no proof of their existence despite their claims.
2. unless you can explain why all matter in the universe are not moving towards each other at rapid speed due to gravity, then please do not throw the expansion of the universe out the window like that.
3. that's not how quantum fluctuation works. virtual particles aren't technically real and only arise in mathematical calculations of the quantum world. even if they did really exist they would disappear so quickly that they would have absolutely no effect on any real particles.
4. if physical components of gps satellites are being affected by low gravity then scientists would've noticed that way before they had to include time dilation in their equations.
also, science is all about building and improving on what we've already known. scientists don't come up with completely new ideas when observations proves their current models wrong because it is a much safer bet to just reconstruct their current models so that it matches up with the observations. unless some truly radical observation is made that their current models cannot explain no matter how much they try to change it, or some new model is created that explains everything the old model can and the new observations as well, then it is unlikely that the current models are going to be just thrown away like nothing.
6,7 & 8 make me think you are a hardcore MOND defender. 😂
i had no interest in physics before finding your videos. you’re such a good storyteller, you’ve opened my eyes to the interesting world of physics!!!
Welcome to the real world of magic and stuff, but real, it's not just in movies.
exactly the same here
love your pfp
@@dragon67849why did you feel the need to put this exceptionally creepy comment out there? Jeez dude, maybe read your comments before you post them and if that isn't working then my guy you gotta think about developing some kind of filter - it should be obvious why that comment is rank, and if it's not you have some introspection to do.
@@dragon67849 weird freak
Thank you for this!! To distill a lot, I feel... better? Like, i already feel better having watched so far (I haven't finished the runtime yet), so, thank you.
My uncle has an incredible large knowledge of plants and biology of Costa Rica. I have always have the feeling -as a physicist- that he is very “scientific” but in “handcrafted way”. Now I have a term for him. He is an amateur biologist.
I love his retirement farm… is so full of trees, fruits and veggies all working together in such a beautiful way. He worked all his life in construction btw.
Maybe amateur botanist? Either way, l love the idea of a retirement farm. I work in horticulture and that's my dream as well! Thanks for sharing your story.
Takeaways from this video:
1. Dark Matter is not a theory
2. Dark Matter is an observation
3. You can't just throw away Dark Matter
4. 1980's Casio keyboard midi drum tracks still slap in 2023
It's true. 4 is true.
Number 3 sounds like a hoarding problem. Next time on hoarders: cosmic being can't let go of dark matter
" *1. Dark Matter is not a theory* "
True. It's a hypothesis.
" *2. Dark Matter is an observation* "
False. People were searching for Dark Matter for decades and found nothing so far.
What she shows as the "evidence for dark matter" is circular reasoning at its worst.
"Gee, the Galaxies move too fast for their masses!"
"Hmm, maybe they are way heavier than we thought? Due to some dark matter, you know?"
"Dark Matter exists! Q.E D."
" *3. You can't just throw away Dark Matter* "
True. Just throwing it out won't work. The trouble is we simply can't find it, so some people start digging very deep into our actual theories.
Okay, I've found a better summary, I think:
1. Luminoferous aether is not a theory.
2. Luminoferous aether is an observation (not true, obviously).
3. You can't just throw away luminoferous aether.
4. 1860 Brahms still grooves.
She is right and wrong at the same time.
"A theory explains a natural phenomenon that is validated through observation and experimentation. A hypothesis is an educated guess based on certain data that acts as a foundation for further investigation."
Correct. Dark matter is not even a theory its a hypophesis.
A measurement which is in conflict with the given model doesn't spawn anything. We observe the conflict and automatically make up hypophesis.
The correct sentence is: "There is a conflict between the model and our observation" Thats it. Nothing more can be said. Everything beyond is already interpretation and hypophesis. Of course there are very good arguments for the Dark Matter hypophesis....but again its not even a theory.
"Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe." - wiki
(Edit: There is a discussion bellow about the correct definition of a theory in physics. This doesn't change the fact that Dark Matter is not an observation, as acollierastro said in the video, but an hypothesis. The observation is a model versus reality conflict. I just wanted to add this here)
I'm a 16 years old science-lover from Brazil, and TH-cam just recommended me this amazing video out of nowhere. I've loved it. Please, continue posting stuff like this!
Esse canal é bom pra caramba pra coisa de fisica! Feliz de achar mais um BR aqui
I'm 16 as well! Looking to go into astrophysics and finding gems like this is really helpful when you're trying to surmount the seemingly endless cliff of knowledge to understand what you're actually reading. One of the reasons I love science communication is because it bridges that gap, and I want to be good at it someday as well so that I can help people understand the concept itself instead of reading a headline with the word "breakthrough" and assuming something beneficial is going to come out of that. I think a lot of that is whats lacking right now in the field as a whole.
III EU TBM VCS FIZERAM A OBA?
Have you tried more of her videos? She's one of the best science communicators to follow for the average layman imo. Very chill communication style. This channel has really been helping me get motivated to do deep dives into physics and cosmology.
The part at the end about amateurs was really nice!(as was the rest of the video) Amateurism in the way you described it is basically hobbyists with a big passion for the subject and that is just a beautiful part of life
Fun fact about Vera Rubin? Her husband would drive her to class, eat dinner in the car, then drive her home. They were both pretty busy brilliant people but found a way to spend time together every day.
I just find that incredibly adorable.
I'll tell you something about the 60's and 70' as personally experienced by a particle physicist. The mystery of the rotation curves that was being occasionally mentioned at the time - departmental colloquia, reading "Sky and Telescope" (remember that?), etc. - seemed like an oddity that could wait. No one in my group of colleagues talked about it for more than 5 minutes after some interdepartmental colloqium. We - really my smarter colleagues - were busy with the "heroic" period of standard model building and accelerators. As also a lifelong amateur astronomer, I recall it also being NOT a big deal outside a university astronomy department.
Only on those occasions, especially recently, when particle physicists become piqued by "bright , shiny" new things in other people's playgrounds, or, being like Oppnheimer are as true renaissance men, did attention turn back to the cosmic aspect of physics.
Having faced the humiliation of a bad, oversold prospective theory (strings), theoretical physics has in the past decade basically turned to hints from the sky to make up for running off the end of the Standard Model.
A little oversimplified, but clearly to me a big shift in attitude. regards DKB
This is me, reading along to your comment and pretending I’m following along with all the details:
🧐🧐🧐 yes, yes indeed.
Dark matter wasn't a common term until the mid 2010s, although anomalous rotation problems were noticed as far back as Vera Rubin. Now, every kid thinks it's a fact that solves everything, but it's really something that can be placed anywhere, any time, in any amount, to make some equations work. There is a theory, it is not well understood at all except perhaps by a few, and dark matter is a requirement of the theory for it to kind of, but not really fit observations.
Is this a mock? Because if it is it marks more clearly than any example I can offer what a dumb generation we are now raising.
@@onehitpick9758just curious are you also a physicist or astronomer?
Thats what I gather from physics communicators of today. I got back into this field after college and its refreshing now.
A certified collierastro banger
Dark matter is *not* an observation of missing mass. The observation is that objects don't orbit as expected, and a *proposed explanation* for that observation is that there is mass we can't see. Dark matter is a *hypothesis* put forth to explain an observation about orbits.
The problem here is like my elderly parents thing; it's like Christians things; it's like all things centered on some beliefs or others (including the "scientific" beliefs & theories): ------ blaming it on or crediting it to one thing, one entity, one force, or another....
And that "it" could be ANY THING: God, Evil Spirits, Planet Vulcan, Dark Matter...
My parents, for example, blame evil spirits or angry ancestors for both infectious and genetic diseases... or body ailment from poison or other contaminants.
Christians & religious people blame Satan or his brothers, Lucifer and the Devil, or evil forces or former beautiful/handsome archangels who rebelled against Jesus or his Dad (himself in the sky). Some supposedly incurable cancer, for example, is "miraculously cured" ("medical doctors told us, there's no cure for it and that I would die within a year. Here, I am, 5 years later... no cancer... ONLY JESUS or HIS HOLY VIRGIN MOTHER, upon prayers, could have done it...")
My parents, the Pope, & religious people are comedians: they all take their beliefs, faiths, and super natural thinking, beliefs, and practices very seriously, as grown up people.
And neither are scientists... comedian-wanna-be's, that is.
But Mercury's precession could never have been dealt with, or explained away, using PLANET VULCAN "or other entities like it"... despite the MAJORITY of "the best and brightest" from the 1700 to the early 1900s... thinking that THAT could be done... Just a larger telescope, among other "promising" ideas & apparatuses.
"Dark Matter" ---- to me, someone who only took two years of undergraduate calculus but also someone who has kept an eye on the general development of fundamental sciences ... on major human undertakings from the Genome Project, from the time the US government started it to the time CELERA/Craig Venter of my own alma mater joining forces with it... to the European ITER, on fusion... to the Hubble, LIGO, JWST, etc ---- is another one of these Planet Vulcans.
"It must be DARK MATTER or something like it... otherwise, everything would be flying into the darkness of space, with no possibility for the formation of large structures like galaxies, local clusters, super clusters, sheets/walls of galactic structures, etc."
How the hell do you know that?
It doesn't matter if you had 5 PhDs from Caltech, MIT, Oxford, Harvard, etc., you don't know how LARGE STRUCTURES of the cosmos truly behave.
If you don't even know how or why ONE PARTICLE like Neutrino behaves the way it does, how the hell do you know how the LARGER STRUCTURES OF REALITY works?
How the hell do you know there are just 3 major components to COSMOLOGY? Baryonic matter (5%), Dark Matter (25%), and Dark Energy (70%), etc. ad nauseam.
Reminds me of the Greeks Earth, Fire, Water, and Air approach to cosmology.... although this "Dark Matter" thing is a much more clever story/theory, with post-graduate mathematics and $10B astronomical apparatuses, "all pointing in that direction"...
Anyway, I think it behooves us to remember what the late Freeman Dyson said:
In one of his last interviews, Dyson recalled one event --- early on in his mathetical life --- that shaped his life, on science and in human pursuits, he said.
And that event, Dyson said, was his one meeting with Fermi, his boss, during the Manhattan Project, 1940s, when Dyson was a very young researcher working with the likes of Feynman, Hans Bethe, Oppenheimer, Fermi et al.
Dyson recalled Fermi saying to him ---- WITHOUT EVER LOOKING AT DYSON & HIS TEAM'S MATHEMATICAL CALCULATION, which Dyson thought he & his team did an impeccable job ---- if you used enough degrees of freedom, you could do anything with your calculations. (... With 4 degrees of freedom, I could conjure up an elephant; with 5 degrees of freedom, I could make an elephant dance on a stool, Dyson phrased Fermi as having told him, brusquely, in that brief office meeting, in Chicago...)
Anyway, the Universe ---- its terrains and the forces it operates with ---- doesn't have to conform to our ideas.
The reason Planet Vulcan wasn't needed, for the "strange precession of Mercury," MAY BE a similar reason as to why DARK MATTER ("or something like it") may not be needed in order for large structures of Baryonic matter to remain as they are, to spin as "fast" as they are spinning...
Before the launch of the JWST, for example, almost all astronomers said very large (e.g., Milky Way size) structures COULD NOT have formed only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.
We know they DID, now.
So, again, the Cosmos doesn't always have to conform to OUR view, beliefs, and theories.
Perhaps in the larger structures of the Cosmos, the much larger DISTORTION OF SPACE-TIME ----by those very large structures themselves, in the first place ---- are ENOUGH to "keep" Baryonic matter from "flying every which way into the blackness."
It just is not true, for example, that space itself is being expanded at all time, in all directions. That is factually not true.
BLACK HOLES (& other phenomena like "the Great Attractor"), for example, are actively, physically collapsing not just Baryonic matter but space-time itself into singularities. These phenomena happen across the Cosmos; and they have been happening from the very beginning of the Universe to the present time. Nor are they just tiny or incidental events and processes.
The gravitational lensing shows that there's missing mass we can't observe. This has nothing to do with "objects don't orbit as expected".
@@theSafetyCar It has everything to do with orbits, you dolt. The orbits of stars in galaxies was literally the first observation it was proposed to explain. Gravitational lensing is another. The point is that the observation is not matter, it's the behavior of stars and/or light that is not correctly predicted by applying our current understanding of gravity to our current understanding of the matter present. The existence of unseen matter is one hypothesis to explain the observations. There are other hypotheses, such as revising how gravity behaves on large scales, for explaining the same observations that don't involve invisible matter.
@@ReductioAdAbsurdum I would like to upvote your comment, but the unnecessary insult has dissuaded me.
Other than that, you do a good job of pointing out how observations and hypotheses (such as the existence of unseen matter) relate to each other.
Dark matter is aether 2.0
It's used to conform observation to our theories, not otherwise
There's also new "types" of dark matter for when regular dark matter doesn't work. It's ludicrous, and smells of a castle of cards, and when the flaw in our theories is found, it will be dumped and ridiculed as aether was. The problem is that we are stacking theories upon theories on top of it as if it was real.
Please keep doing this for fun. We absolutely love this hobby of yours.
binged your channel after getting recommended the string theory video . big fan of this style of content, keep it up 😁
i was casually interested in astronomy and physics when i was younger , but i chose to study electrical engineering instead. the way you present science has reinvigorated my interest in these topics.
I binged the channel as well! It's dope, eh? I love this type of content as well. Yet when people tell me to make something similar about art, I say "ahhh who is going to listen to me talk for an hour?" Lol. And yet here I am, watching long videos with pleasure.
@@XxyGoddam Same, I came from the String Theory vid and have binged every video. It's like having someone talk to you about physics haha
same. I'm pretty sure the channel is in the process of blowing up and becoming popular.
@@izzyonyt yeah, exactly. It's like your buddy, who has amazing stories, who you can listen to nonstop. Which is rare to me because usually I'm that buddy to everyone and rarely I encounter people with such cool storytelling on interesting to me subjects. I'm so happy to find this channel!
@@szaszm_ I feel that as well. Like, I believe that very soon she's gonna become insanely popular on TH-cam. Because there is everything: good storytelling, relatability, comprehensive explanations and genuine, funny, authentic lady who is just amazing by herself with a strong values system. It's destined to blow up.
"I don't wanna be a professor" - Quite literally starts a TH-cam channel to teach basic HS physics to the masses.
No need to grade the viewers 👌.
Wow, your videos are super high quality. I'm impressed and I learned a lot today. Thank you!
thanks for making these videos. you've made me think abt astronomy a lot more, which in turn made my Intro to Astronomy elective super easy. you made my semester measurably 25% easier
It took 27 minutes of this video for me to fully comprehend what was meant by the title, but when it clicked that 'dark matter'is *only* the phenomena amd evidence, without any explanation implied, it was a pretty cool realization. These are the observations, and the theory comes in when we start trying to explain what the dark matter actually *is*, or why it behaves the way it does.
@quark-soup that overly literal interpretation of the phrase 'dark matter' is like... the whole thing this video is refuting. We don't know for certain whether or not a form of matter is responsible for those observed inconsistencies, but the collection of inconsistencies exists, and regardless of what hypothesis you propose to explain them, it's still purely descriptive to say they resemble the behavior that would be expected if there was matter in places where we don't see matter. Explaining why galaxies exist like there is some matter near them that we can't otherwise see is the question, not the answer.
@@quark-soup that's a lot of ad hominem for a conversation about science, friend. I think you are maybe missing the point here, and that's okay, but it's not my job to explain it better than the doctor of the field who made the video in the first place lol
@quark-soup and *my* point is that you've come into the comments section of a video about a topic you clearly don't understand, and decided it was worth your time to insult a random stranger while also being wrong yourself. Maybe stop, it's just kinda sad at this point.
@@crashstarr6531 Your theoretical physics religion is one big logical fallacy word salad.
@justlolatthisworld7917 the fact that you think any of this has anything to do with 'religion', or belief of any kind just proves that you are thinking about this thing like a dogma yourself, and thereby completely missing the point lol
The properties of Dark Matter sound like Dineutronium. That is, two neutrons bound together by electron exchange between the two of them. It would be invisible, it would pass through regular matter, it would have a mass of ~ 2 Atomic Units and it wouldn't even react with nuclei like individual neutrons do. Experimentally one could try to find Dineutronium by cooling free neutrons down and trying to detect missing neutrons, while measuring the neutron decays.
“New existential dread just dropped” has been in my head for the past five months.
After finishing my MSc in theoretical physics I felt a burnout and been working in finance for 1.5 years barely looking at science.
Finding your channel like a week ago brought back my enthusiasm and I started once again studying multiple fields by myself and I'm loving it.
So thank you and keep up the amazing work
I’m glad it’s not just me. After my Bachelor’s, I wasn’t sure I wanted to do a PhD, so I’ve been in telecom. After discovering her content, I’m giving a PhD a serious rethink. She is reminding me why physics is so special
Yea I've been thinking about giving PhD a chance too.
I was about to drop out from physics major because of the burnout, but i found this channel and now i'm thinking deeply about leaving the university. xd
@@AnderStibSkatexD you can do it, man
Audio was loud enough, but I think your audio is occasionally peaking, (also called clipping) which gives you static and noise. On any volume monitor this is represented when the bars go into red. There's a lot of filters and techniques to deal with that depending on what software you use to edit.
It’s all for the sake of driving home the value of Fourier transforms haha jk
you should have performed windowed Fourier analysis to back up your claims 😅
@@lattice737 They're not mistakes, they're learning opportunities. _Educational immersion._ 🥳
Yes, good observation.
(as a semi-pro / hobbiest mix engineer) Software can certainly help but it depends where the clipping is happening in the processing chain.
If the mic pre-amp is just too hot, the recorded audio is forever clipped. Software can only smooth out the harshness but it will still be a lost of dynamics and fidelity.
If the mic is hooked up directly to the recording software via a built-in pre-gain or on a mobile phone with the direct mic, then a software setting shoudl be able to prevent the clipping, as already ironically mentioned, a DSP probably doing some FFTs to predict a peak as soon as it’s about to happen and auto-duck the analog gain into the DAC.
Finally, you can also just use more headroom if using an outboard mixer or some software with a fixed gain level if you don’t want to be monitoring while recording, and then later use a software compressorlimiter combination to reboost and normalise the volume. This will also boost the now lowered noise floor though, and her room already sounds pretty echoey so I wouldn’t recommend relying on too much software gain later. -12db tops I would guess. Always leave -3db headroom on the final product. TH-cam will re-compress the dynamics a bit anyway as will most operating systems on playback from mobile video / yt.
tldr;
lower your gain a bit on your mic settings or hardware mixer pre-gain
use a software limiter/compressor on the exported audio after editing
leave ~ -3b to -1.5db headroom on master stereo output limiter. (sometimes this is a setting while exporting the video in the audio transcoding section)
possible get closer to the mic to reduce need for gain which willl amplify the room echos and A/C noise etc.
Finally someone heard my "I'm in the dark, does it matter?" plea and took the time to help explain it. Thank You, Angela.
Eight months later, I really enjoyed it. Enough to subscribe. The one thing I wish you had said is that “dark matter” is an unfortunate label. We observe and measure something, but labeling it dark matter is itself a theory.
an 18 hour video on fourier analysis sounds like a sick one million subscriber special
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
Dark matter is made out of math, and the tears of physicists.
Oh my. The Fourier explanation...you started simpler than I expected with the swing...and then a miracle happened and then psd...when I have to handwave through an explanation of FT and what they mean I usually use the example of a band or orchestra at a given moment in time with the decomposition allowing one to see what notes each section is playing...I can empathize with not wanting to go into details and getting stuck in the infinite recursion of having to explain an equally complex but dependent concept...keep being awesome, am a differently focused physicist and I enjoy your explanations!
I am LOVING this channel! I have a little bit of a background in Engineering, but my degrees are in Political Science. But I find Physics and science fascinating. I’ve actually started taking a math class with a tutor to better understand and maybe one day get to do research. But this channel has helped a LOT!!! Thank you so much!!!
Heads up, the audio is clipping sporadically throughout the video. Dunno if its a microphone issue or because as you said in the description you may have increased the gain too much. I recommend looking into using compressors for increasing average loudness over just boosting gain (assuming thats what you did)
Great topic and great video
A compressor to normalize your volume is always good, and the resonance from your walls can be toned down a bit with a little eq tweaking, even.
Came here to say the oldest audio trick in the book is to compress all vocals. I actually recommend doing two compressions one with a short attack and release and another much longer to act as a intermediate length normalizer, and then finally normalize the entire piece. The short compression is to take out the spiky staccato of hard constants and mic pops. The next one is for acting like a normalizer and mitigating things like bad mic usage (varying distance/direction) and overly dynamic speech patterns. Then in the final edit, normalize the entire piece.
It sounds like a lot of effects, but it really isn't and is a fairly standard practice that goes back to reel to reel days.
@@krisspkriss Yeah, I didn't even notice anything was wrong since I run all podcasts and videos of people talking through a compressor (Thimeo's Stereo Tool).
it's a little vocal butt wiggle causing an unexpected spike in the auditory y axis
Agreed! Apply compression instead of just gain, EQ some body into the vocals, better mic setup, pop filter, maybe a little room padding to avoid echoes.
"The electromagnetic force is having a party and you just have this oopy-goopy plasma" is my new favorite sentence.
oopy-goopy plasma was my favorite part too.
I actually love how you repeat stuff. It's damn good science communication because of how intentionally you do it. It's one of the things that caught my interest with your channel. Specifically in the first video of yours I saw which was the "string theory lied to us and now science communication is hard" video.
11:25 ...and the heat-death or the cold- death or the crunch and just fun fact, you know, new existential dread just dropped
Chef's kiss, pure gold
You are a phenomenal science communicator- I learn so much from your videos. Keep it up!
Dark matter is a theory, because a theory is an idea validated by evidence.
Dark matter is not a hypothesis.
Prefacing this with: I have a bachelor's in astrophysics. Most of my family and friends aren't scientists, so I get asked to explain a lot of science questions. When I try to explain dark matter to people, I usually say something like:
"We know how a galaxy (for example) should look/behave based on our current understanding of physics. When we take measurements of a galaxy, we see something different. The galaxy behaves the way it would if there was extra matter (mass); we can do the calculations again with extra matter and show the results match what we measured. We refer to the discrepancy as 'dark matter.' 'Dark' because we don't 'see' the material like we would regular objects; and 'matter', because it has a gravitational affect on the surroundings in a way similar to regular matter. We aren't necessarily saying 'it is a new exotic material', though it very well could be; the name is more of a descriptor there's something that acts like 'matter' but that doesn't give off light (sometimes I explain ElectroMagnetic Radiation), so this matter is 'dark'."
Which is basically what you said throughout the video. :D
This a preposterous way of adjusting reality to ( a completely flawed) theory. This is scandalous and a sign of the sad corruption of the science of physics. But: egos, pride, missing theoretical alternative, ‚back to aquare one‘ - horror, really. Therefore we will soon see the „detection“ of Dark Matter ( the fraudulent excuse) and a little later the „detection“ of „Gravitons“. You know why and I spare the effort here to explain it.
So dark matter is a place holder till we figure out what the hell is causing the mass discrepancy, yes?
Also the assumption that the same physics laws apply in every part of the universe (not including the event horizon stuff) it is just an extrapolation of the geocentric philosophy that plagued us painfully for a long time. Unless we go and actually measure inside say m31 we won’t really be able to confirm our assumptions. I am not trolling. Just a curious nobody.
@@GiriGagan Correct. In fact, the only way scientists can infer the presence of dark matter is via its gravitational influence which literally holds together most galaxies, preventing their constituent stars from flying apart as they spin. No dark matter particles have currently been directly detected, but the physical observations we make are real.
It is possible dark matter is something else, like multiple states of unknown matter of forces caused by unknown phenomena. Most believe that because dark matter ask so much like normal matter and not like anything else in the universe, that its even less likely its something else.
@@oAv3ng3dB055o thank you for sharing your perspective.
@@GiriGagan no. "Dark matter" is a term astrophysicists use to refer to a collection of observations that share one thing in common: they all deviate from what we expect to see in a way that looks like there's extra matter that doesn't interact with light. They're not referring to an explanation of those observations. They're not saying the deviations ARE caused by excess matter that doesn't interact with light. It's just a sort-of misleading *short-hand* for the collection of observations themselves. Those observations definitely exist.
This video gives off 90’s or beginning of the 00’s vibes
You’re doing a great job at translating subjects that have been out of my reach for many years. Thank you.
There are plenty of other videos that present the same failed bs.
@@FFGG22ELower left quadrant
Hey, I just wanted to give a big thanks to you for making these videos. Seeing someone being so passionate about research or also just nerding out about an interesting topic is really encouraging me to take steps towards eventually getting into research myself. I think I really needed that at the moment.
You and me both, brotha 🙏
There was a lecture done by David Tong several years ago at Ri where he explained that the fluctuations of the CMB was due to the vacuum field fluctuations. You presented an idea that the fluctuations of the CMB are due acoustic barions that vibrate between dark energy and photons. Are these two ideas the same idea?
Second time watching this video. Just wanted to say as a big fan of Fourier analysis, I think there is much people could benefit from developing intuitions on seeing the world in the frequency domain. It is certainly not an easy perspective to translate to the general public and I think any attempt at all is worthwhile even without the math.
My dad's position on dark matter -- and he was very much an amateur science appreciator, a category of person you've mentioned in other videos -- was always that it seems like a systemic error to have to invent a whole category of matter you can't directly observe in explain a bunch of measurement discrepancies, but that was in the 80s and 90s before a lot of the measurements you've shown off here were made. I think you've firmly moved me from there into "Okay, it's real and it's something, even if we don't know what."
Same, I was unconvinced, then it all added up. There are 2 rooms in a house we can see, but looking at math and measurements, we know there's like 40. No idea what's in them, what kind of "rooms" they are, or what their dimensions are, if they have doors or windows, any furniture, but we can concretely measure that there SHOULD be about 40.
I agree with your dad.
@@cookechris28 It's like the universe is committing a gravitational/mass tax evasion. It reports X, then we look at it's prior history and current spending and we find it should be at least 10X.
Yep, I also held your dad’s position and came into this video fully expecting to be validated. Instead, I learned something new and changed my mind
This might help: dark matter is not a category of matter. She kinda zoomed by it, but didn't really explain what it meant: we *don't know* what "dark matter" is. The reason it's called dark matter is because it's the *cosmological definition* of matter. It's not a new particle. It's cosmological weirdness that we've observed. There's a reason it shows up on the pie chart next to "matter" and "dark energy".
"Dark matter is a particle" is a hypothesis. It's the one you think you're hearing when scientists say "dark matter", because you think matter must be made of particles. But we have not observed particles. There is no evidence for particles yet. It is entirely possible that it is particles, but I don't swing that way. I'm not sure we even have a prediction yet.
"Dark matter is a consequence of our equations being incomplete" is another hypothesis, which is the one I'm partial to. This one is basically that general relativity isn't perfect and it's missing some piece that we haven't found yet. You know, like how Einstein basically said Newton's laws of motion were incomplete. This is googleable as "MOND" which stands for Modified Newtonian dynamics. The problem with this one is that no one's come up with better equations yet.
Those aren't the only two hypotheses, but they're the biggest ones, and there are lots of internal variations (since obviously, the simple version of both has yet to be confirmed). Also note that I'm not an expert in this subject; I just watch a bunch of science TH-cams.
Dr. Collier, You have managed to address these topics in a manner that is simultaneously (1) precise, and technical and (2) delightful and fun. I really hope you continue to produce content, because you are exceptionally good at it. Also - your extensions to standard English are hilarious and self explanatory. I hope you continue to keep your edit mode set to ‘artistically scientific’.
Sometimes I wish we could at least give 2 thumbs up. 👍 👍
Mr Moessinger, you have managed to write this comment in a manner that is simultaniously (1) showing how incredibly seriously you take your own mediocre writing style (honestly, dont try so hard, its kinda strange and makes you seem unsincere, just like, talk like a human) and (2) i dont really have a 2
the alignment chart is extremely entertaining thank u for creating it
Y'know that meme where the guy is ranting about Skyrim and the girl has no idea what he's talking about but is biting her lip?
I’m about to get my PhD in wavelike dark matter (axions if you’ve heard of them) and I’ve been looking for good explanations of dark matter to send my undergrads. Thank you so much for making this - it’s exactly what I needed! Especially your explanation of Fourier analysis.
@@DowJonesDave Arms in spiral galaxies are observed to rotate at the same speed regardless of distance from the center of the galaxy. However luminous mass decreases as you go further from the center of the galaxy. Therefore how is it this happens because of time dilation? Why do the arms rotate at the same speed even when they have less luminous mass?
If time dilation is behind dark matter then why can we observe less stars, but they still have the same rotational speed. "Because time dilation makes them release less photons" ok but this still doesn't explain anything. Less photons overall still means we can see less mass further out from the center right? So why do the arms move at the same speed regardless of distance when we can observe them containing less stars. I'm so confused why time dilation matters at all when we can see with certainty mass decreases the further out you go. By your logic the arms aren't affected by time dilation as much as the center so they appear heavier due to the center having photons be emitted over a longer period?
@@DowJonesDave After googling things to get a better understanding of this I think I can refute this better.
1. We measure a galaxies mass in a variety of ways. Measuring light to get mass isn't the most favorable. Gravitational lensing seems to be the best method. So I must ask, have you looked into there being a dark matter curve for a galaxy we have calculated the mass through gravitational lensing? If so then how would they not have simply gone "uh guys this mass is weird from the observations, the middle is way more than it seems" and thus forming new ideas about your time dilation hypothesis.
2. Time dilation barely matters, as it'll be very small. GM/Rc^2 shows just how massive that galactic center has to be to even get near time dilation you're claiming. I'm talking egregious amounts of mass for that time dilation factor to take place to the point it explains away dark matter. Also why would this even happen? And wouldn't we see the redshifting of light as a result?
3. You don't fully understand time dilation. Time dilation is a result of a change in gravity. You're assuming the center of the galaxy must be so massive (again insanely large) that it's strong enough to cause alterations felt throughout the ENTIRE galaxy and VERY noticeably in the center. Does it exist? Yes. But to such a small extent it's negligible. It's not some linear thing that neatly ends at the tips of the arms and causes the galaxy to rotate uniformly, it is a negligible thing to an observer on Earth.
@@DowJonesDave ' if time is dilated by 50% by the galactic mass' then we'd see much stronger gravitational lensing than we actually observe.
I was so happy when understand fourier analysis as analog of linear combination in vector space but for functions before it actually was compared in a textbook long time ago.
PhD in dark matter ? ...Axions (which don't exist ) ??
Dude , I would seriously give that career more thought.
Depending on what you used to edit videos, there will be tools within the software to make audio sound acceptable. Right now, the audio is clipping. You don't want to increase overall gain, because that means the peaks cross the threhold of Max output for a device (0dB) and distorts into a noise. Instead you want to 'compress' the sound signal into a narrow-er range of amplitudes. E.g. in Adobe Premier, there is an effect called Multi-band Compressor in the audio effects section. There are a number of presets once you open up the options of this effect, you can try them out to see which sounds best. But it does send you down a black hole of audio engineering stuff, so be forewarned.
It's great that people help out beginning TH-camrs to figure the technical parts
Using a compressor could cause distortion in the audio (depending how how much gain reduction you put in it). I think a better method for clearer audio is record the audio at a lower level so that there is no clipping on the input and you still have some headroom to raise the level while keeping the clarity.
@@Bamdd5 true. And what do you say about those ai audio enhancing tools?
@@Bamdd5 the recording level is usually automatic on devices, e.g. iphone. So setting a lower level is either not possible or not a good idea. The automatic gain control is fine while recording. She specifically mentions that she increased the volume in post, so a compressor is the best approach. It gets you most of the way there, just chaining it in series after a noise gate and/or noise removal and limiting the compressor output to peak at -6dB is what will deliver the best output.
@@XxyGoddam it depends on which one you mean. Nvidia broadcast does a good job at removing noise but it makes audio sound like a zoom call. Adobe Podcast does the best job at taking a recording and making it sound like studio output, but it does the same stuff I just described above. I think it's basically running Adobe audition on the back end and the AI part is what tunes the effects instead of working directly on the audio, based on the output I got putting an audio file through both. I don't know of any other notable AI audio clean up tools.
Books on shelf. Home Improvements 1-2-3. Black Holes and Time Warps. I have no idea what kind of home improvement mods you have planned for your house, but I can't wait to see them. :D
This was one of the best presentations I've ever seen! I'm an amateur astronomer/astrophotographer and greatly appreciated your recognition at the end. I've been a science nut all my life. Today, as an IT geek, I still love to think about these topics and stay up on the latest developments. The way you explain things is genuinely amazing. This video helped me understand the "theory of dark matter" as an observation and terminology. I think the terminology is what confuses people. I've long had questions around this topic that I've never been able to truly find good answers. For instance, I've read a lot about MOND and that seems to be a better alternative to address the observations. Do you consider this as a potential solution? My biggest issue with the DE/DM theories is that we are unable to observe anything at the micro level to explain the observations at the macro level. But again, maybe the terminology doesn't properly translate.
Now for my "crackpot" theory, lol. I've thought a lot about this and have read articles on things like "Warp Drive", etc. which talk about bending space on either side of a starship. This made me think that we really don't understand how to interact with space. We understand that spacetime is a thing, and can see how the presence of matter can "bend" it to explain gravitational attraction. At least, that's the assumption of how it works. I've also read about quantum theories on particles like gravitons that do this interaction, yet, no evidence has been found to support this. I've read about string theory, etc., which tries to explain some of this. However, what if we simply don't fully understand the nature of space itself? Is it possible that it's just a property of space that it has to expand much like a balloon in a vaccum where the fact that there's no barrier at the edge of our universe to stop it and it simply must grow to fill the void? Is there a difference between space and a void where spacetime doesn't exist? What if we treated space as a separate physical construct that doesn't require particles to explain? I've noticed that they are always searching for a physical particle to explain such theories but never seem to contemplate the notion that spacetime has more properties that are yet to be defined?
Can the equations that use the values for DE/DM be used in such a way to explain these properties? The thing that makes this make sense to me is the variance in red shift for more distant objects and explains the observation that the universe seems to be expanding in all directions away from us while accelerating. Perhaps this rate of expansion can be quantified and used in these equations. So when you're calculating the spin of a galaxy, are you also allowing for this expansion of space within the galaxies? Have we measured the rate of expansion between objects within the Milky Way? It has to happen everywhere if it's true. We wouldn't see it within very close proximity of a gravity field such as us walking on the earth or even between here and the moon. It would be only very slight between objects closer to the center, but more noticeable on the outer rim where things are much farther apart. We should see stars in the outer parts of our galaxy sort of pushing each other away very slightly because of the distance of space between them expanding if this were true.
Ok, I've probably outdone myself on the crackpot scale, but would appreciate any further discussion to better understand these ideas. If I'm totally off base, I'd appreciate that feedback as well. These are just questions I have that keep me up at night. Thank you!
I love your channel. You make it look easy to make these videos but I know it must take many many hours. I am one of the people out in the public that reads a lot about science. I have an undergrad degree in Engineering Physics and your channel really takes me back. Oh and I also own a vintage oscilloscope. Mine is a BK Precision probably from the 80s. It still works. I repair vintage stereos and other audio gear as a hobby so I do use it occasionally to troubleshoot.
Two things: you repeating the same phrases, bits, jokes, whatever, throughout your videos is literally one of my favorite things. Please never stop!
Second, your explanation of BAO and dark matter's role in the early universe is the first time I felt like i at least got an understanding that i could hold onto more than 5 minutes after the video was over
What a smart, fascinating, appealing person! One of the best physics explainers I've encountered on the net, too. BTW Angela, your apologetic summary of fourier transform was actually very good for the scant time it needed. You deserve to be very happy.
I only discovered you yesterday, but you are now my favourite scientist simply based on your style. Now multiply that by this was the first time I have found an attempt to explain this (also your string theory video) on a level (perhaps two) beyond the normal popular scence "its accelerating! The end" that I sort of understood even if I can't say I totally follow all you said, because I'm some blend of ignorant and thick, but actually I trust you, which is something don't normally do. I'm not American but please run for president. The world needs someone simultaneously as smart, humble relatable and trustable as you running the place. And frankly I haven't seen any other candidates
"Not a theory" sticker getting closer😂
Gonna make a t-shirt.
Dark matter: not a theory.
String theory: not even wrong.
I love the way you explain things. Tv talks about dark matter like it's this mysterious, invisible stuff, and you do swiftly demistified it. I love this. And the actual science is so much more mind blowing and cool than mystifying it.
I appreciate your videos so much. Please keep being awesome and producing videos.
Really great job.
I must confess, I'd been lured towards a degree of skepticism regarding dark matter over the past few years. You've cured me.
Skepticism is important to the scientific process.
But we should be more Skeptical of proposed explanations than of observations.
So to give an analogy, Dark Matter is sorta like how in the 1400s people around the world were perfectly aware of roughly how big the Earth was because they could observe it's curvature and make calculations based on that, but they didn't know what was on the parts they had yet to see themselves, they just knew something must be there.
You can not observe curvature. Where do you guys get your science information from?
@@perrystuart8035Watching ships disappear on the horizon is an example of observing curvature no?
@@perrystuart8035 They call it a horizon.
@@TheArtiKle thought they were being eaten by sea monsters :P
@perrystuart8035 Another dumb FE'er that doesn't understand math, science and denies all the evidence and technology that proves a spherical earth.
I really enjoy the conversational way you teach. It feels like I'm sitting with someone who learned something really cool, researched it, internalized it, and is sharing that passion and it makes me personally excited about it. I also really enjoy physics and science more broadly.
As a lifelong lover of science, thank you for making vids and extra thank you for part 2
It's the fact that Dark Matter is not uniformly distributed that makes it real for me, especially that there are some Galaxies with almost no Dark Matter. That shows that it's not an artifact or mismeasurement.
as an undergrad studying physics/astronomy i love how these videos combine great educational content with a fun conversational style that feels like a friend telling you all about something they're excited about. i'd also never heard a good explanation of the WMAP plot before, so thank you for that!
also, thank you for introducing me to my new favourite song, the dark matter rap.
P.S. the sound on this video sounded very good to me, definitely louder than before.
I love your crackpot compass and your genuine appreciation of the amateur science quadrant!
A rare occurrence of YT's algorithm suggesting an actual informative video, produced by a knowledgeable, competent, and kind individual 😊
Just diacovered your videos. I absolutely love them! Good work!
Then there are Fans of Subjects ... Like myself. I love following the different theories, developments and ideas of physics. I studied the math enough to see how it works. I stopped there deliberately because I had no desire to become a physicist. I do not "research" or pretend I can decipher the madness of it all ... I'm a Fan of Physics.
Love the video, and a couple more from her so far. Almost like she built these videos not just for students, but fans as well. And for this, I thank you. ❤️💯
I wish TH-cam had more "amateur" content creators like you. Dang your video are pleasant to watch. Thank you very much Dr Collier.
"The argument degenerates; it's soon a bar room brawl."
Thank for for introducing us to this glorious rap. I love the snark present throughout
Awesome video! And perfectly explained. You talk about physics the way I like to talk about physics. VIBING electrons. Not sure if TH-cam recommended this vid to me because astrophysics, or the Maine sweater, but I'm glad it did hah. Also whaddyamean you don't want to do an 18 hour video about Fourier analysis? 🤣 Also, I love those visualizations from Dr. Hincke! Very neat. Also you're in myn hometown! Woot, Boston! This video made my night, thank you. Now, back to reading this paper that's hurting my head... (ps. as an aside to the end of your video, that is such an important message and one I think people need to hear more often, that having passion for science even if you don't do it as a 100% full time profession....is still valid. And it's especially affirming for someone like myself who decided to return to my science education later in life).
hi! would it be possible to upload these as audio to spotify. I would love to listen to these as podcasts :)
This is the best video of dark matter I’ve ever watched. Or, I’m still completely clueless, but now I’ve gained more respect about the subject.
But I will now walk around confidently telling people that dark matter is not a theory but a set of observations, but not to ask me about dark energy because I don't want to get into it.
In science, theories are the most advanced and reliable explanations, but they can still be subject to revision based on new evidence or insights.
lol, that's what confused me about this title and opening lines of the video
Yeah, dark matter is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory!
@@michaels4340 I think the point of her video is that dark matter is a thing like matter so it's not a theory.
@@tractordude234 yeah it's a difference in terms between how scientists and the public use "theory"
Except the theory of gravity consists of empirical evidence, while dark matter isn't much more than a mathematical construct.
Absolutely fantastic video! I started watching just out of curiosity even though I knew "dark is not a theory, it is a list of observations", learned lot about something I thought I already knew a bit :), and of course you are hilarious :D
Your sound is fine for most applications, but not everyone has the same playback capabilities and so many people are too lazy to actually use the volume controller. This is where one must differentiate between loudness and volume. You do currently have some clipping distortion, you can't just push up the volume to increase loudness.
Think of it as a math problem if digital audio is max modulated at full scale increasing amplitude above full scale only chops off the top of those waves when they are saved.
What you need is compression and increased loudness not increased volume. You are so intelligent that I am certain you will figure it out on your own. I just wanted to point you in the right direction. Keep on keeping on.
Hey! I am a relatively new fan of your channel. I really enjoy listening to science coming from you!
However, I noticed in this video in particular that your microphone was clipping. Clipping means that the audio levels of your signal were maxing out, and because nowadays we use digital software to process audio, this means that if the audio levels max out you get these really egregious and unwanted distortions.
Probably a lot of people don't notice these clippings. It really depends on the system through which you are listening to the video, but it also really related to experience in being "tuned" to look out for this kind of unwanted noises. Everybody can hear them, but not everybody pays attention to them.
The solution to this is to set up your microphone's gain so that it never reaches the top on the audio level indicator. And then on post-production you can raise the volume of the recording if you feel it is too quiet. Raising the volume can also lead to clipping, but if the clipping was already there in the original recording because the gain was too high, there is no simple way to remove them.
Anyways, just as a heads up because I really couldn't keep listening to the video because of this clippings. That might sound a little extreme, but I was listening to you through my high-end headphones, and after years of music production I cannot really ignore these sounds and it makes it really uncomfortable for me.
Anyways, love your videos!
As a second year chemist in uni, your videos are always fascinating. Thank you for illuminating other areas of science to the world!
The scientific use of the word "theory" and the layman use of "theory" are two VERY different things. "Dark matter is not a hypothesis" would be a more scientifically appropriate title. Gravity is a scientific theory, electromagnetism is a scientific theory. String theory, ironically, for example, is a hypothesis.
no. I think a theoretical physist understands the definition of theory. The whole point of the video is that "dark matter" is neither. that within the context of the standard model with our current systems of relativity and fields, we observe that there must be matter we can not see.
Imagine in any other field calling a measurement a theory "The theory of there being 20 more fish in this tank than last year"; "the theory of this being 50ml of ethanol."
now the structure, behaviour, creation, and distribution of dark matter those could constitute hypothesis/theories.
alternative models of physics that removes or invalidates those observations would also be a theory.
Love your channel and your style!
Just remember the maps not the territory. 🖖
I need an 18 hour Fourier Analysis video. But more seriously you're so good at science communication. Please keep it up.
Thank you Physics Mommy
Damn I feel old now
I wish you covered how the original observations and mass estimates are actually made and how reliable they are. Because the ball of confusion that is "dark matter" is mostly from people wondering "well maybe they just observed it wrong?".
I keep waiting for the news that someone has explained dark matter in a way that makes it our century's "luminiferous aether." The people who constructed the luminiferous aether concept weren't idiots or liars, either; they were people trying to make sense of the observations at hand. People like Lorentz, Fitzgerald, and Poincaré developed concepts that were eventually incorporated into special relativity because they explained the observations. At some point, someone will come up with a theory explaining dark matter observations, and then 100 years from now, folks will be snickering at dark matter the way people now snicker at the luminiferous aether. (Or not; this analogy could be completely wrong.) In any case, thank you for giving us a clearer way of thinking about the problem.
Also been binging your videos. I'm one of those left for industry right after undergrad physicists - but after finding your channel i've been inspired to crack open some of my old textbooks and engage with some of the math and theory again which I've really enjoyed. Glad i stumbled across you!
Thank you for a wonderful presentation. The baryon acoustic oscillations associated with galaxy formation would be consistent with the initial formation of supermassive black holes if they were formed by naturally occurring kugleblitz driven by the excessive energy released initially by the white hole event we call the Big Bang.