I like the part about how “we’re not sure how heavy dark matter is, but it’s somewhere between the smallest particle we can imagine and an unusually large black hole.”
@@ewetzlma It's probably not on the market anywhere... Why not request the same design from a local T-shirt store? (And wear it in your video... I'm sure Don will be pleased as well!)
The teams that come up with these experiments are brilliant. Not only is the physics mind-bending but then somebody actually builds an apparatus that does what it is supposed to do. Amazing people.
All cause exists relative to infinite effect. All effect exists relative to infinite cause. Before the Big Bang is a singularity. A singularity is infinite space and infinite time, therefore the past is infinite. Beyond the event horizon of a black hole is a singularity, again, infinite spacetime. Therefore the future is infinite. Think of it as two infinite ends of the spacetime candle. Matter changes forms across infinite time in accordance with the thermodynamic arrow of time. Every single particle exists in an eternal superimposed state, in which all realities exist in perpetuity. Finite observation forces the particle to make an asymmetrical deviation from its baseline, eternal superimposed state, giving us the opportunity to view a glimpse of one Universe that is completely beyond our grasp. The grasp of physics that you and everyone else seems to have, is grounded in a lesser reality, a sub-reality. We don't see the singularity. Ever. If you were to approach the event horizon of a black hole, you would never reach it. The event horizon is an illusion, and it will recede into the distance relative to your position and motion through spacetime. It will always appear to be there, it will always recede into the distance. Because the singularity is real. **That** is what spacetime **is**. If you follow light to the "beginning" of time, it will blueshift to infinity. If you follow light to the "end" of time, it will redshift to infinity. There are no real beginnings or ends, only relative ones. Nothing is truly improbable or probable, and every relative calculation is always infinitely inaccurate. Every proof ever written, every word ever spoken, is infinitely inaccurate in the eyes of God. You see, our own history is littered with tales of those who bore a Truth that could not be believed. Yet we still do not see what is right in front of us. This is not about science. Science is a **particular** knowledge, the infinite details of which are known to nobody, just like every other subject in existence. We know the Universe is infinite because our language and mathematical symbols are arbitrary and relative to our experience. I can make a 2 character language such as binary code, a 37 character language, or a 998,000 character language... All the way on to infinity. This is because all language exists as a tool for describing relative infinity. I can use our standard, base ten mathematics... Or I can create base 100 mathematics, or base trillion mathematics, using completely unique symbols that I can make up, all the way to infinity. This is because all math exists to describe relative infinity. The Mandatory Deviation Principle: Before we get to the Mandatory Deviation Principle, let's start with the Infinite Precision Principle. Both can be explained quite simply, using the basic geometric analogy of a square. The Infinite Precision Principle dictates this: take a square. You measure it with a ruler, you get exactly one inch per side. Great. Moving on, right? Not so fast. You decide to amp it up a bit and measure that square to the nearest 10,000th of an inch. You measure again, and this time you get 1.0001 inches. Your initial measurement appeared accurate, but a higher degree of precision found this to be untrue. The Infinite Precision Principle states this: no matter how accurate you think your measurement of the dimensions of an object are, there is always infinite room to improve upon your measurement. No matter how many times or to what degree of precision you magnify your measurements, a higher degree of precision will eventually prove your initial measurement inaccurate. The Mandatory Deviation Principle, when understood as it proceeds from the initially described principle, is as follows: take two sides of the square from the previous example. Let's say each side measured in initially at exactly 1 inch, then 1.0001 inches with the higher precision measurement. You amp it up again- this time the nearest billionth of an inch. This time, the measurements are as follows: A) 1.000100002 inches, B)1.000100003 inches. So at a higher level of precision, you realize you never had a perfect square to begin with, at all. The Mandatory Deviation Principle states this: if any given measurement of an object relative to observation, appears to be symmetrical, a higher degree of precision will eventually prove it is not. Key insight: there is no such thing as a perfect square, or a perfect hexagon, a perfect pyramid or a perfect sphere. Implications: every single object existing in our Infinite Universe is unique, and nothing can be measured perfectly, ever, by anyone-unless, of course, you are an eternal consciousness which experiences all of spacetime forever and always. For every object in the universe to be unique, the universe must be infinite. For the universe to be infinite, there must be an eternal entity that exists without beginnings or ends. For the universe itself to be infinite, the universe itself must exist fundamentally without beginning or end. You can't measure the speed of light any more than you can measure the sides of a square. Because the only thing that is real, is infinity. It is all tied together: wave-particle duality, the thermodynamic arrow of time, redshift, blueshift, dark energy, dark matter, and black holes, are actually all manifestations of relative infinity.
@@pedrinrj7251 Newton? Einstein? Capoernicas? Maxwell? Socrates? Sylvester Stallone? Meryl Streep? Neil Tyson? Hayden Christensen? Marco Rubio? Mark Melancon? David Ortiz? Pablo Escobar? Dwight Eisenhower? Edwin Schrödinger? So many sources, it is hard to keep track... Almost as if, in the beginning as in the end, all knowledge is drawn from the well of infinity.
@@ericfarina9609 why would you create base 100 or base one trillion mathematics when base 10 is more precise and literally covers the same functionality but in a more efficient manner? Then you go on to try to sound philosophical but realistically just describe the uncertainty principle. Sorry to break it to you, but you’re not adding anything new to the conversation here. Just more fluff and a worse noise to signal ratio.
#question: I understand why dark matter particles with the mass of the sun are ruled out by astronomy. But why massive subatomic particles are roled out by physics? Might at be that they are there, but they just don't interract with matter at all? So they are not toally ruled out? Or?
They are not totally ruled out, as they may interact only via gravity. But there have been theories that allow for weak interactions and many of those are ruled out.
I think the main problem with many subatomic particle sizes is pair generation, which should leave obvious statistical effects. (That's how the Higgs was found.)
The starting point here is there’s a missing particle out there. Since we’re really talking about “ dark gravity” , how about a comment on all the other theories to explain the observations ( MOND, quantum inertia, etc.)
The astonishing claim about this particle is the most bewildering thing to me. 2 decades and billions of dollars and entire careers spent looking for it, and still nothing. When do they stop? All we know so far is, whats not dark matter, and what not to look for conclusively by this point.
I agree with joy though, and it’s stated in the video even where it may not even be a particle or anything we’ve been looking for. Could possibly be another way matter interacts with itself or the space time continuum like gravity. Again, illustrating why we see evidence on a very large scale, but have no evidence even in our powerful particle accelerators/colliders.
@@brainkill7034 I personally think the search for dark matter is myopic. Just maybe Einstein didn't get everything quite right. Just maybe there is something fundamental about gravity that we don't understand. Something along the lines of gravity amplifies gravity when it is concentrated in a large mass (like a galaxy).
@@deeliciousplum Axions explain the dark matter cold in the universe . The question, how do you distinguish between axion and axions-like particles? The second question is about the predictions of superstring theory Did this theory predict the existence of axion-like particles or only the existence of axions? We ask experimental physicists to experiment with the quantum pressure and bandwidth of the axons at this link Please send the first question and second question as well as the link to physicists in experimental laboratories science.howstuffworks.com/dark-matter-quantum-technology.htm
Dark matter is all the matter between here and infinity that exerts a gravitational impact. The assumption that it exists within our sphere of observation is moronic. If a hypothetical supermassive black hole exists a trillion lightyears away, it still exerts a relative gravitational impact. Across infinite spacetime, this affect is relatively even, leading to the so-called smooth appearance of Dark Matter distribution. All you have to do is use your brain.
@@ericfarina9609 but I wonder how could the existence of such supermassive yet distant objects(or whatever just a mass) explain the faster than expected rotations of the galactic bodies & more.
Took me longer than I'd like to admit to figure out what was different with this picture lol. My dude looks 10 years younger.... now he just needs a mean and lean goatstach
I have a question about gravity. Consider an atom in a gravitational field. Time passes slower on the side of the atom facing the source of gravity, causing the electron orbital to deform. To counter this and restore the symmetry of the orbitals, virtual photons flow towards the source of gravity providing acceleration. Is this accurate and does it contribute to the gravitational pull? Does this explain why Newton's law of gravity and Coulomb's law are virtually identical? Does the EM-field contribute to the rotation of galaxies?
The gravity effect you mention is astonishingly small. It has no effect on the acceleration. Newton's gravity and Coulomb's law are identical because their effect is uniform in 3-D space. And no on the EM-field. I may make a video on the Electric Universe, debunking it thoroughly.
@@drdon5205 one video debunking the EU is from Professor Dave. Would be nice to have others, maybe in a "nicer" tone (lots of people over there crying how mean Dave was)
Nice presentation! OK, here's an admittedly far-fetched idea. 1) Neutrinos pour out of the Sun at rates of about 2 * 10^38/second and photons about 10^45/second. These numbers may be off, but the idea is, a huge number of neutrinos are emitted. Surely, with the number of stars in a galaxy (let alone the Universe), there is an enormous flood of neutrinos screaming silently and almost invisibly through spacetime. 2) Neutrinos are notoriously difficult to detect because they interact extremely weakly with ordinary matter. 3) The mass of a neutrino is incredibly small, about 1/500,000 that of an electron (again, the value may be off, but it gives a sense of their relative mass). 4) Neutrinos are continuously produced by stars so the net mass of neutrinos in a galaxy at any given moment should be fairly large and anything but 'insignificant,' and the local density would be, assuming no external forces influencing their flight path**, would be akin to an inverse distance-squared law. 5) BUT, WHAT IF something IS influencing the neutrinos during their flight? Perhaps some form of neutrino shock waves forming where the local density is far higher than in regions of spacetime where they travel more-or-less under no external influence? If neutrinos could undergo compression (not unlike a gas experiences in, say, a normal shock in a supersonic jet and, in this case, by causes unknown) to form regions of higher density during their flight, is the resulting mass of the standing shock wave region(s) and its potential location(s) sufficient to account for a non-negligible amount of the estimated mass of dark matter? Neutrinos are thought to oscillate between three different flavors. What if the number of oscillation cycles has some statistical limit at which time they decay into a different (presently unknown and more massive) form or an entirely different particle (that interacts strongly with gravity, but is otherwise 'invisible')? Yeah, I know, nothing but questions, conjecture and the vivid imagination of somebody that watches every episode of Dr. Don and Dr. Matt. ** I muse, a neutrino's path is in a straight line, but, spacetime is warped due to mass, with greater degrees of warping around more massive objects such as Sun-like stars up to behemoth black holes, so, like photons, they too follow curved paths through spacetime as a consequence and thus there should be pockets of lesser and greater neutrino densities just as there are for photons that show, for example, in gravitational lensing.
Thanks for another great video. Maybe you could explain also the hints of dark matter hidden in the cosmic microwave background which might cause the observed mass structures of the very early universe.
given how good humans are at making mistakes I'm beginning to tend towards dark matter isn't real and we're seeing a suite of flaws in our models, if there are real dark matter candidates out there it's hard to imagine that we've made so little progress towards identifying any versus only ruling out options
Correct! And furthermore, we have already ruled out a large number (arguably the most promising) of dark matter candidates. LHC was supposed to find it but instead further constrained it, along with some other xenon experiments. Yet the physics community continues to cling to it like gospel truth. Why? Because “dark matter” is nothing more or less than a fudge factor to save Einstein’s theory of gravity as it is. No one has thought of anything better, but instead of examining why and how it could be wrong, we’ve invested 50 years and tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars propping it up with a (probably) fake concept. This is epicycles all over again and Einstein would be dismayed.
Probably something simple like another universe beyond the visible horizon coming at us at a great rate of knots and causing a massive problem in a few billion years.
Could it be that we’re just in a region of space that has no dark matter to detect? I’ve seen maps that predict regions of dark matter between galaxies to account for specific observed lensing. If those results suggest dark matter is denser in some regions than others, maybe we’re just in a barren area?
That's a nice thought for density for dark matter over galaxies as density of mass over galaxies is not uniform . But we have no such technology to prove or consider any 'dense' or 'barren' space . But imagination is good .
It’s really great that we have methods for detecting dark matter in all those ranges of mass. It could be that we didn’t have any idea how to interact with it
if only there were methods of detecting it, then all those overpaid 'scientist' wouldn't look so dumb for not finding this fairy dust for so many years now...
@@ResurrectingJiriki Well, seeing you here, it is not the scientists who look dumb:D But tell me, what is YOUR wonderful idea to explain these observation?
@@w0tch okay overpaid maybe not, they make way more than I do and I provide something of substance (I'm a chef, or were, 'cos yeah Rona1984), but overspending you can't deny. As in, no results after all those billions.
@@juzoli Have we met? And you calling me dumb when you follow that insult by asking me for an answer, is what exactly. And if you want answers you can have a look in the comments to find my long rant. There are many more issues and I end with answers. Answers that actually brought and are bringing results. Unlike all that research for fairy dust.
It would be great if you made a video on renormalization! I told to my friend who is a PhD in physics about an idea that we may simply be small scale for something enormous, such as our scale is to the subatomic scale. He then told me about renormalization. There are so many great physics channels like this one, I watched hundreds of videos, but never saw one that explores the possibility that dark energy is simply a consequence of something pulling the fabric of space on an enormous scale much larger than ours. Is there a reason why this idea appears to be neglected when it comes to looking for possible explanations for dark energy?
It's a sacrifice that had to be made in order to built the mustachio-particle detector. Everything must be offered on the altar of science. No price is too big to pay for the detection of dark matter.
4:45 Why are there pictures of the little creatures from the anime movie Princess Mononoke (or Mononoke Hime) drawn on the device? It’s a LONG time ago since I watched that movie … is there any link with hard to detect dark matter?
I don't understand the significance of the leafless tree and the fully vegetated one. Do you happen to know or are there any links you can suggest? I won't watch the movie, but I've been asked about the image by a number of people and I don't understand the significance.
@@drdon5205 | !!!!Major plot spoilers, don’t read if you want to watch the movie!!!!!!! From what I remember from the plot, there is an ecological disaster in the forest when the humans killed the deer god. This caused both the trees and little creatures to die. I think there also was something about this deer god who is very difficult to find and only under certain circumstances. Is perhaps this the link? Dark matter = deer god & successfull detection = tree without leaves. I could be WAAAAY off though :) I’ll try to find a good link to a full plot synopsys and post it later (if I find it and remember to do so :p )
@@drdon5205 | Found a full plot in the link below but there I couldn’t find any relevant info regarding the significance of the drawing. Other info I found: The little white creatures are called Kodamas. Their presence is a sign of a healthy forest (the more the better) and when properly honored can bring good luck. … So perhaps the meaning is simply an artistic superstition with nerd cred :D ghibli.fandom.com/wiki/Princess_Mononoke
@@GapWim Thank you. From the comments, I gathered much of this information. But I don't understand the symbolic significance of the trees and the color change. I've asked three of the collaborators on SENSEI to elaborate, but I have not heard back from them. I know an author who is thinking about writing about the significance, when that significance can be determined. Thanks for your help. I've never heard of this movie or these creatures before today.
"Known laws of physics". I would think that if dark matter relied on a heretofore undiscovered physical law that would be even harder to find. As we wouldn't really have a clue as to were to look.
During the big bang due to such a big energy/matter density, does the time stand still?? Just like it do at the black hole singularity?? Later on with density easing out the time speeds up
#question the vacuum energy of free space has been estimated to be 10^−9 joules, or ~5 GeV per cubic meter.However, in quantum electrodynamics, consistency with the principle of Lorentz covariance and with the magnitude of the Planck constant suggest a much larger value of 10^113 joules per cubic meter. Where is the problem? Making a video on it will be helpful Sir
@@alphagt62 You do not need to. What matters is where the mass of a galaxy is concentrated. The further away a star is from the center of the mass of a galaxy the slower the velocity should be as long as gravity diminishes by the square of the distance. But the velocity of stars far away from the center does not diminish.
@@rainerherrmann7025 I recently saw a video about how galaxies do no rotate like we might think, a very interesting video. But I get what you mean, thanks for the explanation.
It's different. The luminiferous aether was always on shaky ground of "well every other wave we've studied propagates in a medium". It was further shaken by Maxwell's equations that showed that electromagnetic radiation is a self propagating wave of perpendicular electric and magnetic fields (aether not necessary)...and put to rest by Michelson and Morley experiment (no aether effect measured) and Einstein's Special Relativity (aether is irrelevent). Dark matter on the other hand IS measurable by it's affects on the motion of stars in the outer regions of galaxies. They are moving much faster than the visible mass suggests they SHOULD be moving so either there is ALOT of matter that doesn't emit, absorb or reflect light (dark matter) or our theory of gravity is not correct on the galactic scale. So far no one has come up with a dark matter candidate but neither have they come up with a decent alternate theory of gravity.
Dark Matter reminds me somewhat of the Planet Vulcan … no, not Mr Spock’s home planet … which astronomers in the 19th Century proposed in order to explain the orbital anomalies of Mercury. It wasn’t there (as we now know) and it took a grand revision of our understanding of gravity in order to explain the problem.
Indeed, the existance of dark matter is assumed by many physicists who presumably think that "general relativity is too beautiful to not be true". Not all physicists though, for example Erik Verlindes theory postulates that gravity is not fundamental but an emergent phenomenon. Moving quantum information comes with a "cost" which on medium scales manifests as Einsteinian gravity. So the particles come first, and gravity "magically" emerges from the interactions between these quantum particles. Sabine Hossenfelder has very interesting videos on the topic, if you're interested: th-cam.com/video/4_qJptwikRc/w-d-xo.html
Dark matter is all the matter between here and infinity that exerts a gravitational impact. The assumption that it exists within our sphere of observation is moronic. If a hypothetical supermassive black hole exists a trillion lightyears away, it still exerts a relative gravitational impact. Across infinite spacetime, this affect is relatively even, leading to the so-called smooth appearance of Dark Matter distribution. All you have to do is use your brain.
Or like the concept of 'Ether' a mysterious substance that acts as a medium for the light to propagate through vacuum, later explained by the electromagnetism .
It's like galilean time again. Modern science is full of BS. They don't know what the Sun is made of, what's powering it, let alone how it was formed. That's why nuclear fusion reactor, researched over 70 years, had produced absolutely nothing. Remember that in the 1800s, people thought the sun was powered by coal, because it was the most efficient form of energy at the time. Now they think it's powered by the fusion, which is currently the most efficient form of energy generation. See the pattern? They got no clue about the sun. The sun is emitting blackbody radiation. Cannot, if it is made of 99.9% hydrogen and helium. The sun's density is 1.4 g/cm3. Cannot, if it's made of hydrogen and helium plasma. Sun's core temperature and pressure is higher than that of fusion bomb they say... Cannot, all the hydrogen would have fused into something instantly long long time ago. So the sun is not gas or plasma. Then what? Black hole is impossible. It is impossible anyway, how does zero volume singularity generate mass, there cannot be any space for quarks to spin near light speed to begin with, or gluon be separately existing inside zero volume thing. Then big bang is a total farce too. There are stars older than the universe with some confidence they contradict themselves, and then quasars with huge red shift are connected to galaxies that have very little red shift. All BS. But they are giving away nobel prize to people researching black holes and big bang now.. In galilean times, people thought the earth was the center of the universe. And then the mars and jupiter has to orbit the earth, in addition, it has to orbit something invisible, to explain the bizarre movement across the night sky. DARK MATTER!!!!! Did I say we are like in galilean time again???
Dr. Lincoln, can you please make a video concerning why ordinary matter is so much favored, while equal amounts of antimatter should have been created in the early Universe?
Observational reality is always infinitely far away from a "singular point" of infinitely high energy/information density (the relative past), and infinitely far away from a "singular point" of infinitely low energy/information density (the relative future). This is what establishes a frame of reference for relative observation. You can never reach either "point" through the passage of time relative to observation. No matter WHAT you do, each is infinitely far away. What we call "dark energy" is the tension between these two ideal types, which jointly establish the frame of reference for observational reality.
@@ericfarina9609 Thank you for your explanation. I'm sure it is correct but being a simple man who has no training in physics I just hope to one day there will be an answer an average Joe will understand. Again, thank you for your effort.
@@scotty5775 I am also untrained in physics. Essentially light is being stretched from infinitely high energy to infinitely low energy and we are caught between.
@@diamondisgood4u Let's assume for the moment that the Universe is infinite. There are infinite Sun-like stars, and infinite M-Dwarf stars. Infinity is infinity, so there is the same number of both types of star... Right? Wrong. The reason is simple. In infinite spacetime, M-Dwarf stars are vastly more common. So even thought there are infinite Sun-like stars and infinite M-Dwarf stars, there are infinitely more M-Dwarf stars than sun-like stars. All cause exists relative to infinite effect. All effect exists relative to infinite cause. Before the Big Bang is a singularity. A singularity is infinite space and infinite time, therefore the past is infinite. Beyond the event horizon of a black hole is a singularity, again, infinite spacetime. Therefore the future is infinite. Think of it as two infinite ends of the spacetime candle. Matter changes forms across infinite time in accordance with the thermodynamic arrow of time. Every single particle exists in an eternal superimposed state, in which all realities exist in perpetuity. Finite observation forces the particle to make an asymmetrical deviation from its baseline, eternal superimposed state, giving us the opportunity to view a glimpse of one Universe that is completely beyond our grasp. The grasp of physics that you and everyone else seems to have, is grounded in a lesser reality, a sub-reality. We don't see the singularity. Ever. If you were to approach the event horizon of a black hole, you would never reach it. The event horizon is an illusion, and it will recede into the distance relative to your position and motion through spacetime. It will always appear to be there, it will always recede into the distance. Because the singularity is real. **That** is what spacetime **is**. If you follow light to the "beginning" of time, it will blueshift to infinity. If you follow light to the "end" of time, it will redshift to infinity. There are no real beginnings or ends, only relative ones. Nothing is truly improbable or probable, and every relative calculation is always infinitely inaccurate. Every proof ever written, every word ever spoken, is infinitely inaccurate in the eyes of God. You see, our own history is littered with tales of those who bore a Truth that could not be believed. Yet we still do not see what is right in front of us. This is not about science. Science is a **particular** knowledge, the infinite details of which are known to nobody, just like every other subject in existence. We know the Universe is infinite because our language and mathematical symbols are arbitrary and relative to our experience. I can make a 2 character language such as binary code, a 37 character language, or a 998,000 character language... All the way on to infinity. This is because all language exists as a tool for describing relative infinity. I can use our standard, base ten mathematics... Or I can create base 100 mathematics, or base trillion mathematics, using completely unique symbols that I can make up, all the way to infinity. This is because all math exists to describe relative infinity. The Mandatory Deviation Principle: Before we get to the Mandatory Deviation Principle, let's start with the Infinite Precision Principle. Both can be explained quite simply, using the basic geometric analogy of a square. The Infinite Precision Principle dictates this: take a square. You measure it with a ruler, you get exactly one inch per side. Great. Moving on, right? Not so fast. You decide to amp it up a bit and measure that square to the nearest 10,000th of an inch. You measure again, and this time you get 1.0001 inches. Your initial measurement appeared accurate, but a higher degree of precision found this to be untrue. The Infinite Precision Principle states this: no matter how accurate you think your measurement of the dimensions of an object are, there is always infinite room to improve upon your measurement. No matter how many times or to what degree of precision you magnify your measurements, a higher degree of precision will eventually prove your initial measurement inaccurate. The Mandatory Deviation Principle, when understood as it proceeds from the initially described principle, is as follows: take two sides of the square from the previous example. Let's say each side measured in initially at exactly 1 inch, then 1.0001 inches with the higher precision measurement. You amp it up again- this time the nearest billionth of an inch. This time, the measurements are as follows: A) 1.000100002 inches, B)1.000100003 inches. So at a higher level of precision, you realize you never had a perfect square to begin with, at all. The Mandatory Deviation Principle states this: if any given measurement of an object relative to observation, appears to be symmetrical, a higher degree of precision will eventually prove it is not. Key insight: there is no such thing as a perfect square, or a perfect hexagon, a perfect pyramid or a perfect sphere. Implications: every single object existing in our Infinite Universe is unique, and nothing can be measured perfectly, ever, by anyone-unless, of course, you are an eternal consciousness which experiences all of spacetime forever and always. For every object in the universe to be unique, the universe must be infinite. For the universe to be infinite, there must be an eternal entity that exists without beginnings or ends. For the universe itself to be infinite, the universe itself must exist fundamentally without beginning or end. You can't measure the speed of light any more than you can measure the sides of a square. Because the only thing that is real, is infinity. It is all tied together: wave-particle duality, the thermodynamic arrow of time, redshift, blueshift, dark energy, dark matter, and black holes, are actually all manifestations of relative infinity.
About our failure to detect dark matter particles in the lab: I assume we have already considered the possibility that most of it could be outside the galaxies and not uniformly distributed inside. IOW, maybe we can't detect it because it doesn't exist in appreciable concentrations inside our Galaxy, or our solar system. I doubt I'm the first one to suggest this; I'm an Engineer, not a Physicist, but it sounds like a reasonable question. What's the answer?
Dark matter is actually denser towards the centre of galaxies, due to gravity, but it is also true that most of the dark matter mass is beyond the luminous edge of the galactic disk. The main point is that dark matter extends well beyond the luminous disk of the galaxy, which is why the stars at the edge of a galaxy move with about the same speed as stars closer to the centre, (eg. our galaxy is roughly 200 to 300 thousand light years across, but the dark matter halo maybe extends out to a million or more light years) and is distributed roughly spherically around it. Galactic mergers distort the distribution of dark matter, and there is new evidence for a 'bridge' of dark matter between our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy.
Most people dont know that Einstein repeatedly said that something like a black hole (he died before the term was coined) can not exist and his reasoning is rock solid. At the center of high mass galaxies such as our own mass is traveling at or near the speed of light relative to an Earth bound observer therefore as per relativity that mass is dilated through spacetime. The mass that we think of as being at the center is all around us. This is the explanation for the higher than expected rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies. If this is so than low mass galaxies will have normal star rotation rates and that has been confirmed. If you pose the question "why cant we see light/heat radiating from the galactic center?" modern answer-because gravitational forces are so strong there that light can not escape (even though the mass of the photon is zero) Einstein's answer- because the mass there is partially or completely dilated through spacetime relative to an Earth bound observer. Einstein explained why a Schwarzchild singularity is not possible in the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics". It is crystal clear in my mind that this is so, there is no dark matter or black holes there is just relativity.
Hardest physics questions are: - What is dark matter? - What is dark energy? - Why do we detect different Hubble constant values? - What happened to Dr. Lincoln's mustache?
what about gravitons themselves ? Can they be missing dark matter particles? Or is that been ruled out cuz gravitation and gravitational waves seem to move at the speed of light?
Well, they haven't been ruled out as such, but if gravitons are responsible for the large error corrections necessary to general relativity, then the solution would be a quantum version of GR in of itself. Those new properties would be the same thing as a new version of general relativity.
@@irek1394 hahaha! oh the irony... 'cos that's some conclusion alright, based on one little joking sentence. You must be so mad they didn't give you one, right?
@@arunabhganodwale1022 - Explain it to me again, because I still don't get it, really. Do you even know that the speed of dark is exactly the same as the speed of light?
@@LuisAldamiz Well speed of dark could be greater than light. Take a flash light ,shine it on the moon, move your finger across in front of the flash light. Now your shadow, the dark, would travel across the surface of the moon faster than light. And if the dark thing is ,dark matter, than it's opposite would be Dark 'Doesn't' matter , b'cause the normal thing is dark does matter or just simply dark matter. so the opposite would be doesn't matter. And thus for that normal thingy Dark matter that is it is dark, so the opposite would be dark doesn't matter or light matter. :)
Maybe just small black holes. Small like size of protons. Every black hole doesnt interact with matter , except gravitational. We cant see black holes, so if they are small for sure we cant see them. They might be extra small with low mass, enough to survive Hawking radiation, but not enough to have huge impact even in quantum scale. They might be created by huge energy , universe is full of them. I mean why black holes should only be created with super novas, star collisions? Maybe also gravitational waves in quantum scale help to create little black holes. Also we dont know how quantum gravity works, so maybe its possible for small black holes to being created in all space? It sound logic for me.
Nonono, you Physicists don't get to blame astronomers for inventing some invisible stuff when you were so sure there have to to exist oodles of new particles that will resolve the gravitational anomalies problem and it will be seen when the LHC was online. We are ten years past that.
If dark matter interacts with matter via gravity how about looking for gravitational waves because of dark matter falling into black holes/neutron stars?
Question: How would vacuum decay affect black holes? Or would it'll be able to even affect those things? Question 2: How come scientists are so sure of dark energy? I know its due to red shifting of the farther galaxies but this could also mean that universe was expanding faster in the past and now as we look closer and closer it shows slowing down. Question 3: Would big rip be able to rip black holes apart? The space inside is always going towards singularity so would be possible for big rip to rip those things?
My favourite hard question: Would it be possible to find the masses of the three different flavours of neutrinos by measuring eventual changes in the ratio detection of such particles if a beam of them could be generated by a source at relativistic speed? Would the neutrinos generated by a source moving towards the observer/detector behave differently from those from a source moving away from us?
I'm writing a sci-fi novel where the WIMP I'm proposing doesn't interact with gravity, but that gravity is a byproduct. The theoretical particle only interacts with virtual particles, and the reason virtual particles' self-energy doesn't supply infinite mass to other real particles like electrons (a real scientific mystery) with their infinite energy range is because the theoretical particle absorbs most of said mass. They're massive, because they steal mass from a virtual interaction, and they're weakly interacting, because they only interact with virtual particles, which we can't even observe yet for debatable reasons. The mass from these particles keeps increasing unless there are no virtual particles to interact with, then release mass over time, psedo-explaining hawking radiation or fluctuations of non-zero energy in a vacuum. Thoughts?
Hi Dr. Lincoln! Loved this video about the current searches for dark matter. For future video ideas, I would always be interested in learning more about neutrinos. In particular, when neutrinos do interact by the weak force, what are the possible interactions and outcomes? Also, what are the various interactions that result in the different flavors of neutrinos. I find it fascinating that theorists can state that the processes within our sun only produce electron neutrinos, but those same neutrinos "cycle" through the three flavors before reaching Earth. I know you have several videos on neutrinos, but a video on the latest insights about how neutrinos behave would be really interesting. Thanks to you and your entire team for your consideration and for creating these fun and educational videos!
@@drdon5205 I've consumed every video and quite a few books on the subject. I guess I'm looking for the next level in difficulty (I don't know what that is) and always looking for the latest developments.
@@tedlis517 The problem is that you are caught in that gray zone between popularizations and professional stuff. That's not a good market - its not profitable - and hence few presses will take it up. I recommend Frank Close's book Neutrinos. And try his URL, although I warn you it's something you don't read without putting some brain sweat into it: cds.cern.ch/record/677618/files/p115.pdf
Does a black hole block a gravitational wave passing through it and absorb its energy? Or would it pass right through, possibly extracting information?
My favourite unsolved question is of course why there's something and not nothing, but that problem was already treated in the sphaleron video. Suspected asymmetries between matter and antimatter then. Otherwise the latest state of science regarding strange particles.
It is more philosophy than science. We have no ways to test any potential answers for that questions, and it is simply too far beyond our understanding. We should resolve the theory of everything, and what was before big bang questions first, maybe after them we can have a shot at this question as well.
It's disappointing that the too fast rotation of the galaxies was first spotted by Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky in 1932, yet this big problem has only recently received the attention it deserves.
Why are physicists so obsessed with particles? Our most accurate theory of gravity is based on curvature of spacetime, which for regular matter happens with mass/energy but couldn't dark matter just be some type of intrinsic topography of spacetime and galaxies end up clustering near those topographic features?
@@drdon5205 How would that be explored? Since our detection of gravity is based on how it interacts with electromagnetism, is there any way to detect gravity that doesn't rely on electromagnetism/light ?
Correct me if I'm wrong please, but anything larger that a molecule, including planetoid size dark matter object can be ruled in another way - by lack of thermal radiation. DM does neither reflect nor absorb any light, but anything that has at least 2 molecules, would have a temperature due to gravitational pressure of molecules and their movemetns, so it would have to emit any black body radiation. Hence, DM needs to be made of single particles that don't even bind into molecules.
I’d like to ask a question to Don: Can dark matter be sucked into a black hole? If I understand correctly, dark matter only interacts with regular matter through gravity. So I wonder whether it is affected by black holes…
I hope you answer my question What is gravitational wave ? Is it like mechanical or electromagnetic wave ? If it's not so what is the characteristic properties for it ? Please answer my question
Yes , you know Physics is everything Ever since I first heard this statement my interest in Physics has increased enormously and with information of this kind and that too from Don Lincoln-- it redoubled
When scientist see an abnormal speed rotation of the galaxy the reflex is to look for the extra mass but gravity is also created by the spacetime fabric, is there any research to study deeply the spacetime dynamic and geometry in the galaxy?
A square with side n has approx the same area (n^2) as a circle with radius (2+sqrt(2))n/6 i.e pi* ((2+sqrt(2))n/6)^2, and sum of (1/n^2) = pi/6 for n==1 to n== infinity. There has to be a simpler relationship.
I like the part about how “we’re not sure how heavy dark matter is, but it’s somewhere between the smallest particle we can imagine and an unusually large black hole.”
@super spade ?
@super spade lol
@super spade based
@super spade Light could also be darkness. Just ask Schrödinger.
Dark matter was invented by scientist to ensure their funding?
You finally made a "Physics is everything" T-shirt😁
I'm persuaded it reads "everthin", can you prove that the g (gravity) didn't fall off the text?
@@LuisAldamiz 9:24 Believe in how powerful physics is!
@@Grandunifiedcelery - OK, my whole amateur theory busted, who'd have thought it possible! ;p
Where can I buy your merchandise? 😁🙏
@@ewetzlma It's probably not on the market anywhere...
Why not request the same design from a local T-shirt store?
(And wear it in your video... I'm sure Don will be pleased as well!)
You're a fantastic educator, doc. Please keep up the great work. Thank you.
Always with a perfect script...very well done!!
Hey, Dr. Lincoln, you forgot to equip your moustache
His mustache is still there. It's made of dark matter, we just can't see it.
Nice, simple description for what Axions would be but an angle I hadn't heard before. Thanks!
The teams that come up with these experiments are brilliant. Not only is the physics mind-bending but then somebody actually builds an apparatus that does what it is supposed to do. Amazing people.
All cause exists relative to infinite effect.
All effect exists relative to infinite cause.
Before the Big Bang is a singularity. A singularity is infinite space and infinite time, therefore the past is infinite. Beyond the event horizon of a black hole is a singularity, again, infinite spacetime. Therefore the future is infinite. Think of it as two infinite ends of the spacetime candle.
Matter changes forms across infinite time in accordance with the thermodynamic arrow of time. Every single particle exists in an eternal superimposed state, in which all realities exist in perpetuity. Finite observation forces the particle to make an asymmetrical deviation from its baseline, eternal superimposed state, giving us the opportunity to view a glimpse of one Universe that is completely beyond our grasp.
The grasp of physics that you and everyone else seems to have, is grounded in a lesser reality, a sub-reality.
We don't see the singularity. Ever. If you were to approach the event horizon of a black hole, you would never reach it. The event horizon is an illusion, and it will recede into the distance relative to your position and motion through spacetime. It will always appear to be there, it will always recede into the distance. Because the singularity is real. **That** is what spacetime **is**. If you follow light to the "beginning" of time, it will blueshift to infinity. If you follow light to the "end" of time, it will redshift to infinity. There are no real beginnings or ends, only relative ones.
Nothing is truly improbable or probable, and every relative calculation is always infinitely inaccurate.
Every proof ever written, every word ever spoken, is infinitely inaccurate in the eyes of God.
You see, our own history is littered with tales of those who bore a Truth that could not be believed. Yet we still do not see what is right in front of us. This is not about science. Science is a **particular** knowledge, the infinite details of which are known to nobody, just like every other subject in existence.
We know the Universe is infinite because our language and mathematical symbols are arbitrary and relative to our experience. I can make a 2 character language such as binary code, a 37 character language, or a 998,000 character language... All the way on to infinity. This is because all language exists as a tool for describing relative infinity.
I can use our standard, base ten mathematics... Or I can create base 100 mathematics, or base trillion mathematics, using completely unique symbols that I can make up, all the way to infinity.
This is because all math exists to describe relative infinity.
The Mandatory Deviation Principle:
Before we get to the Mandatory Deviation Principle, let's start with the Infinite Precision Principle.
Both can be explained quite simply, using the basic geometric analogy of a square.
The Infinite Precision Principle dictates this: take a square. You measure it with a ruler, you get exactly one inch per side. Great.
Moving on, right?
Not so fast.
You decide to amp it up a bit and measure that square to the nearest 10,000th of an inch. You measure again, and this time you get 1.0001 inches. Your initial measurement appeared accurate, but a higher degree of precision found this to be untrue.
The Infinite Precision Principle states this: no matter how accurate you think your measurement of the dimensions of an object are, there is always infinite room to improve upon your measurement. No matter how many times or to what degree of precision you magnify your measurements, a higher degree of precision will eventually prove your initial measurement inaccurate.
The Mandatory Deviation Principle, when understood as it proceeds from the initially described principle, is as follows: take two sides of the square from the previous example. Let's say each side measured in initially at exactly 1 inch, then 1.0001 inches with the higher precision measurement.
You amp it up again- this time the nearest billionth of an inch.
This time, the measurements are as follows: A) 1.000100002 inches, B)1.000100003 inches.
So at a higher level of precision, you realize you never had a perfect square to begin with, at all.
The Mandatory Deviation Principle states this: if any given measurement of an object relative to observation, appears to be symmetrical, a higher degree of precision will eventually prove it is not.
Key insight: there is no such thing as a perfect square, or a perfect hexagon, a perfect pyramid or a perfect sphere.
Implications: every single object existing in our Infinite Universe is unique, and nothing can be measured perfectly, ever, by anyone-unless, of course, you are an eternal consciousness which experiences all of spacetime forever and always.
For every object in the universe to be unique, the universe must be infinite. For the universe to be infinite, there must be an eternal entity that exists without beginnings or ends.
For the universe itself to be infinite, the universe itself must exist fundamentally without beginning or end.
You can't measure the speed of light any more than you can measure the sides of a square. Because the only thing that is real, is infinity.
It is all tied together: wave-particle duality, the thermodynamic arrow of time, redshift, blueshift, dark energy, dark matter, and black holes, are actually all manifestations of relative infinity.
@@ericfarina9609 bollocks.
@@ericfarina9609 Nice text. Did you wrote it or got from another source?
@@pedrinrj7251 Newton? Einstein? Capoernicas? Maxwell? Socrates? Sylvester Stallone? Meryl Streep? Neil Tyson? Hayden Christensen? Marco Rubio? Mark Melancon? David Ortiz? Pablo Escobar? Dwight Eisenhower? Edwin Schrödinger? So many sources, it is hard to keep track...
Almost as if, in the beginning as in the end, all knowledge is drawn from the well of infinity.
@@ericfarina9609 why would you create base 100 or base one trillion mathematics when base 10 is more precise and literally covers the same functionality but in a more efficient manner?
Then you go on to try to sound philosophical but realistically just describe the uncertainty principle. Sorry to break it to you, but you’re not adding anything new to the conversation here. Just more fluff and a worse noise to signal ratio.
#question: I understand why dark matter particles with the mass of the sun are ruled out by astronomy. But why massive subatomic particles are roled out by physics? Might at be that they are there, but they just don't interract with matter at all? So they are not toally ruled out? Or?
They are not totally ruled out, as they may interact only via gravity. But there have been theories that allow for weak interactions and many of those are ruled out.
I think the main problem with many subatomic particle sizes is pair generation, which should leave obvious statistical effects. (That's how the Higgs was found.)
The starting point here is there’s a missing particle out there. Since we’re really talking about “ dark gravity” , how about a comment on all the other theories to explain the observations ( MOND, quantum inertia, etc.)
The astonishing claim about this particle is the most bewildering thing to me. 2 decades and billions of dollars and entire careers spent looking for it, and still nothing. When do they stop? All we know so far is, whats not dark matter, and what not to look for conclusively by this point.
@@joyoptimal6286 This subject started with Fritz Zwicky in 1933.
I agree with joy though, and it’s stated in the video even where it may not even be a particle or anything we’ve been looking for. Could possibly be another way matter interacts with itself or the space time continuum like gravity. Again, illustrating why we see evidence on a very large scale, but have no evidence even in our powerful particle accelerators/colliders.
@@brainkill7034 I personally think the search for dark matter is myopic. Just maybe Einstein didn't get everything quite right. Just maybe there is something fundamental about gravity that we don't understand. Something along the lines of gravity amplifies gravity when it is concentrated in a large mass (like a galaxy).
You guys have some genius ideas for doing particle research
Moustacheless Dr Lincoln. What parallel universe must I've been teleported to?!
OOH, now I see what was awkward about him in this video
Where is his beard.???? :-O
Dark matter is obviously made of shaven hairs.
Well now we know the answer to the question, "Which one's pink?"
Nice to have you back.
Thanks Don, you explained the search for Dark Matter in such an easy to understand way. Delightful video.
Very cool that Kodamas are helping us look for dark matter. I miss the mustache, but you look younger, thanks for the video!
4:44 I was just pressing pause on that glimpse of the circuit board with the Kodamas. A wonderful surprise.
@@deeliciousplum Axions explain the dark matter cold in the universe .
The question, how do you distinguish between axion and axions-like particles?
The second question is about the predictions of superstring theory
Did this theory predict the existence of axion-like particles or only the existence of axions?
We ask experimental physicists to experiment with the quantum pressure and bandwidth of the axons at this link
Please send the first question and second question as well as the link to physicists in experimental laboratories
science.howstuffworks.com/dark-matter-quantum-technology.htm
It isn't only dark matter we can't find... Dr. Lincoln mustache is gone too!
Lol
Dark matter mustache?
it's right there under his nose. it's just to dark to see.
Dark matter is all the matter between here and infinity that exerts a gravitational impact. The assumption that it exists within our sphere of observation is moronic. If a hypothetical supermassive black hole exists a trillion lightyears away, it still exerts a relative gravitational impact. Across infinite spacetime, this affect is relatively even, leading to the so-called smooth appearance of Dark Matter distribution. All you have to do is use your brain.
@@ericfarina9609 but I wonder how could the existence of such supermassive yet distant objects(or whatever just a mass) explain the faster than expected rotations of the galactic bodies & more.
Uh oh, is his mustache made of virtual particles popping into and out of existence?
Took me longer than I'd like to admit to figure out what was different with this picture lol. My dude looks 10 years younger.... now he just needs a mean and lean goatstach
Oh, that's what's missing....
I have a question about gravity. Consider an atom in a gravitational field. Time passes slower on the side of the atom facing the source of gravity, causing the electron orbital to deform. To counter this and restore the symmetry of the orbitals, virtual photons flow towards the source of gravity providing acceleration. Is this accurate and does it contribute to the gravitational pull? Does this explain why Newton's law of gravity and Coulomb's law are virtually identical?
Does the EM-field contribute to the rotation of galaxies?
The gravity effect you mention is astonishingly small. It has no effect on the acceleration.
Newton's gravity and Coulomb's law are identical because their effect is uniform in 3-D space.
And no on the EM-field. I may make a video on the Electric Universe, debunking it thoroughly.
This is quantum gravity, and we don’t have that as theory yet.
Try to watch videos about quantum gravity, or talk to experts who are working on it.
Most of the gravitational mass of an atom comes from the strong nuclear force interactions in the nucleus. Electrons contribute much less.
@@aaroncoffman7267 No it doesn't the mass is from quantum tunneling.
@@drdon5205 one video debunking the EU is from Professor Dave. Would be nice to have others, maybe in a "nicer" tone (lots of people over there crying how mean Dave was)
Nice presentation!
OK, here's an admittedly far-fetched idea.
1) Neutrinos pour out of the Sun at rates of about 2 * 10^38/second and photons about 10^45/second. These numbers may be off, but the idea is, a huge number of neutrinos are emitted. Surely, with the number of stars in a galaxy (let alone the Universe), there is an enormous flood of neutrinos screaming silently and almost invisibly through spacetime.
2) Neutrinos are notoriously difficult to detect because they interact extremely weakly with ordinary matter.
3) The mass of a neutrino is incredibly small, about 1/500,000 that of an electron (again, the value may be off, but it gives a sense of their relative mass).
4) Neutrinos are continuously produced by stars so the net mass of neutrinos in a galaxy at any given moment should be fairly large and anything but 'insignificant,' and the local density would be, assuming no external forces influencing their flight path**, would be akin to an inverse distance-squared law.
5) BUT, WHAT IF something IS influencing the neutrinos during their flight?
Perhaps some form of neutrino shock waves forming where the local density is far higher than in regions of spacetime where they travel more-or-less under no external influence?
If neutrinos could undergo compression (not unlike a gas experiences in, say, a normal shock in a supersonic jet and, in this case, by causes unknown) to form regions of higher density during their flight, is the resulting mass of the standing shock wave region(s) and its potential location(s) sufficient to account for a non-negligible amount of the estimated mass of dark matter?
Neutrinos are thought to oscillate between three different flavors. What if the number of oscillation cycles has some statistical limit at which time they decay into a different (presently unknown and more massive) form or an entirely different particle (that interacts strongly with gravity, but is otherwise 'invisible')?
Yeah, I know, nothing but questions, conjecture and the vivid imagination of somebody that watches every episode of Dr. Don and Dr. Matt.
** I muse, a neutrino's path is in a straight line, but, spacetime is warped due to mass, with greater degrees of warping around more massive objects such as Sun-like stars up to behemoth black holes, so, like photons, they too follow curved paths through spacetime as a consequence and thus there should be pockets of lesser and greater neutrino densities just as there are for photons that show, for example, in gravitational lensing.
yeah billions of neutrinos pass through our bodies every second so they say
Dr. Don has time travelled back to his younger self to produce this video.
why?
@@gusgebzz he looks younger than on previous videos
Bc he has no stache.
Is it possible that DM is the feedstock for all the other stuff in the standard model?
Looks like there's a bunch of Myazaki fans at the Sensei team. 😄
I was about to say xD
Thanks for another great video. Maybe you could explain also the hints of dark matter hidden in the cosmic microwave background which might cause the observed mass structures of the very early universe.
given how good humans are at making mistakes I'm beginning to tend towards dark matter isn't real and we're seeing a suite of flaws in our models, if there are real dark matter candidates out there it's hard to imagine that we've made so little progress towards identifying any versus only ruling out options
Correct! And furthermore, we have already ruled out a large number (arguably the most promising) of dark matter candidates. LHC was supposed to find it but instead further constrained it, along with some other xenon experiments. Yet the physics community continues to cling to it like gospel truth. Why? Because “dark matter” is nothing more or less than a fudge factor to save Einstein’s theory of gravity as it is. No one has thought of anything better, but instead of examining why and how it could be wrong, we’ve invested 50 years and tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars propping it up with a (probably) fake concept. This is epicycles all over again and Einstein would be dismayed.
Probably something simple like another universe beyond the visible horizon coming at us at a great rate of knots and causing a massive problem in a few billion years.
As weird as it is to see dr. Lincoln without a moustache, i gotta say your looking great doc!
Could it be that we’re just in a region of space that has no dark matter to detect?
I’ve seen maps that predict regions of dark matter between galaxies to account for specific observed lensing. If those results suggest dark matter is denser in some regions than others, maybe we’re just in a barren area?
That's a nice thought for density for dark matter over galaxies as density of mass over galaxies is not uniform .
But we have no such technology to prove or consider any 'dense' or 'barren' space .
But imagination is good .
4:49 'sensei' physicists know memes.
If we know what's good for us, we should all respect 'sensei'. :)
The forest spirits from Princess Mononoke are a nice touch. Most likely find them before dark matter.
It’s really great that we have methods for detecting dark matter in all those ranges of mass. It could be that we didn’t have any idea how to interact with it
if only there were methods of detecting it, then all those overpaid 'scientist' wouldn't look so dumb for not finding this fairy dust for so many years now...
@@ResurrectingJiriki overpaid lol
@@ResurrectingJiriki Well, seeing you here, it is not the scientists who look dumb:D
But tell me, what is YOUR wonderful idea to explain these observation?
@@w0tch okay overpaid maybe not, they make way more than I do and I provide something of substance (I'm a chef, or were, 'cos yeah Rona1984), but overspending you can't deny.
As in, no results after all those billions.
@@juzoli Have we met?
And you calling me dumb
when you follow that insult by asking me for an answer, is what exactly.
And if you want answers you can have a look in the comments to find my long rant. There are many more issues and I end with answers. Answers that actually brought and are bringing results. Unlike all that research for fairy dust.
It would be great if you made a video on renormalization! I told to my friend who is a PhD in physics about an idea that we may simply be small scale for something enormous, such as our scale is to the subatomic scale. He then told me about renormalization. There are so many great physics channels like this one, I watched hundreds of videos, but never saw one that explores the possibility that dark energy is simply a consequence of something pulling the fabric of space on an enormous scale much larger than ours. Is there a reason why this idea appears to be neglected when it comes to looking for possible explanations for dark energy?
I agree with your notion even i thought the same
I miss his mustache :(
Definitely throwin me off.
It's a sacrifice that had to be made in order to built the mustachio-particle detector. Everything must be offered on the altar of science. No price is too big to pay for the detection of dark matter.
Cut that off to make this matter even darker.
4:45 Why are there pictures of the little creatures from the anime movie Princess Mononoke (or Mononoke Hime) drawn on the device?
It’s a LONG time ago since I watched that movie … is there any link with hard to detect dark matter?
I don't actually know.
I don't understand the significance of the leafless tree and the fully vegetated one. Do you happen to know or are there any links you can suggest? I won't watch the movie, but I've been asked about the image by a number of people and I don't understand the significance.
@@drdon5205 | !!!!Major plot spoilers, don’t read if you want to watch the movie!!!!!!!
From what I remember from the plot, there is an ecological disaster in the forest when the humans killed the deer god. This caused both the trees and little creatures to die.
I think there also was something about this deer god who is very difficult to find and only under certain circumstances.
Is perhaps this the link? Dark matter = deer god & successfull detection = tree without leaves.
I could be WAAAAY off though :)
I’ll try to find a good link to a full plot synopsys and post it later (if I find it and remember to do so :p )
@@drdon5205 | Found a full plot in the link below but there I couldn’t find any relevant info regarding the significance of the drawing.
Other info I found: The little white creatures are called Kodamas. Their presence is a sign of a healthy forest (the more the better) and when properly honored can bring good luck.
… So perhaps the meaning is simply an artistic superstition with nerd cred :D
ghibli.fandom.com/wiki/Princess_Mononoke
@@GapWim Thank you. From the comments, I gathered much of this information. But I don't understand the symbolic significance of the trees and the color change. I've asked three of the collaborators on SENSEI to elaborate, but I have not heard back from them.
I know an author who is thinking about writing about the significance, when that significance can be determined.
Thanks for your help. I've never heard of this movie or these creatures before today.
Looks like Don lost some weight! Good for you man. Looking good!
It's hard to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if it is NOT there.
"Known laws of physics". I would think that if dark matter relied on a heretofore undiscovered physical law that would be even harder to find. As we wouldn't really have a clue as to were to look.
During the big bang due to such a big energy/matter density, does the time stand still?? Just like it do at the black hole singularity??
Later on with density easing out the time speeds up
couldn't resist typing, welcome back doc
#question the vacuum energy of free space has been estimated to be 10^−9 joules, or ~5 GeV per cubic meter.However, in quantum electrodynamics, consistency with the principle of Lorentz covariance and with the magnitude of the Planck constant suggest a much larger value of 10^113 joules per cubic meter. Where is the problem?
Making a video on it will be helpful Sir
i still think darkmater is the luminus ether of this century.
What I’d like to know, is how do you weigh a Galaxy in the first place?
@@alphagt62 You do not need to. What matters is where the mass of a galaxy is concentrated. The further away a star is from the center of the mass of a galaxy the slower the velocity should be as long as gravity diminishes by the square of the distance. But the velocity of stars far away from the center does not diminish.
@@rainerherrmann7025 I recently saw a video about how galaxies do no rotate like we might think, a very interesting video. But I get what you mean, thanks for the explanation.
Luminiferous aether
It's different. The luminiferous aether was always on shaky ground of "well every other wave we've studied propagates in a medium". It was further shaken by Maxwell's equations that showed that electromagnetic radiation is a self propagating wave of perpendicular electric and magnetic fields (aether not necessary)...and put to rest by Michelson and Morley experiment (no aether effect measured) and Einstein's Special Relativity (aether is irrelevent).
Dark matter on the other hand IS measurable by it's affects on the motion of stars in the outer regions of galaxies. They are moving much faster than the visible mass suggests they SHOULD be moving so either there is ALOT of matter that doesn't emit, absorb or reflect light (dark matter) or our theory of gravity is not correct on the galactic scale. So far no one has come up with a dark matter candidate but neither have they come up with a decent alternate theory of gravity.
Don, you're getting younger! Working with particle accelerators has hidden bonuses!
Dark Matter reminds me somewhat of the Planet Vulcan … no, not Mr Spock’s home planet … which astronomers in the 19th Century proposed in order to explain the orbital anomalies of Mercury. It wasn’t there (as we now know) and it took a grand revision of our understanding of gravity in order to explain the problem.
Indeed, the existance of dark matter is assumed by many physicists who presumably think that "general relativity is too beautiful to not be true". Not all physicists though, for example Erik Verlindes theory postulates that gravity is not fundamental but an emergent phenomenon. Moving quantum information comes with a "cost" which on medium scales manifests as Einsteinian gravity. So the particles come first, and gravity "magically" emerges from the interactions between these quantum particles. Sabine Hossenfelder has very interesting videos on the topic, if you're interested: th-cam.com/video/4_qJptwikRc/w-d-xo.html
Dark matter is all the matter between here and infinity that exerts a gravitational impact. The assumption that it exists within our sphere of observation is moronic. If a hypothetical supermassive black hole exists a trillion lightyears away, it still exerts a relative gravitational impact. Across infinite spacetime, this affect is relatively even, leading to the so-called smooth appearance of Dark Matter distribution. All you have to do is use your brain.
Scientists are looking in the direction, of adding/changing our theory of gravity, too. th-cam.com/video/2VNcDoLNJk8/w-d-xo.html
Or like the concept of 'Ether' a mysterious substance that acts as a medium for the light to propagate through vacuum, later explained by the electromagnetism .
It's like galilean time again. Modern science is full of BS. They don't know what the Sun is made of, what's powering it, let alone how it was formed. That's why nuclear fusion reactor, researched over 70 years, had produced absolutely nothing. Remember that in the 1800s, people thought the sun was powered by coal, because it was the most efficient form of energy at the time. Now they think it's powered by the fusion, which is currently the most efficient form of energy generation. See the pattern? They got no clue about the sun.
The sun is emitting blackbody radiation. Cannot, if it is made of 99.9% hydrogen and helium. The sun's density is 1.4 g/cm3. Cannot, if it's made of hydrogen and helium plasma. Sun's core temperature and pressure is higher than that of fusion bomb they say... Cannot, all the hydrogen would have fused into something instantly long long time ago.
So the sun is not gas or plasma. Then what? Black hole is impossible. It is impossible anyway, how does zero volume singularity generate mass, there cannot be any space for quarks to spin near light speed to begin with, or gluon be separately existing inside zero volume thing.
Then big bang is a total farce too. There are stars older than the universe with some confidence they contradict themselves, and then quasars with huge red shift are connected to galaxies that have very little red shift. All BS.
But they are giving away nobel prize to people researching black holes and big bang now.. In galilean times, people thought the earth was the center of the universe. And then the mars and jupiter has to orbit the earth, in addition, it has to orbit something invisible, to explain the bizarre movement across the night sky. DARK MATTER!!!!!
Did I say we are like in galilean time again???
Dr. Lincoln, can you please make a video concerning why ordinary matter is so much favored, while equal amounts of antimatter should have been created in the early Universe?
th-cam.com/video/qS7ueguKp14/w-d-xo.html
I'm almost certain he already discussed that, I'd suggest searching for "antimatter" in the channel.
@@LuisAldamiz Yeah, I found it following the link he posted!
I was hoping for some more insight in the CP violation though.
I'm a simple man with simple needs but I need to know all things about dark energy.
Observational reality is always infinitely far away from a "singular point" of infinitely high energy/information density (the relative past), and infinitely far away from a "singular point" of infinitely low energy/information density (the relative future).
This is what establishes a frame of reference for relative observation. You can never reach either "point" through the passage of time relative to observation. No matter WHAT you do, each is infinitely far away.
What we call "dark energy" is the tension between these two ideal types, which jointly establish the frame of reference for observational reality.
@@ericfarina9609 wow you put Simone Biles to shame with those gymnastics
@@ericfarina9609 Thank you for your explanation. I'm sure it is correct but being a simple man who has no training in physics I just hope to one day there will be an answer an average Joe will understand. Again, thank you for your effort.
@@scotty5775 I am also untrained in physics. Essentially light is being stretched from infinitely high energy to infinitely low energy and we are caught between.
@@diamondisgood4u Let's assume for the moment that the Universe is infinite. There are infinite Sun-like stars, and infinite M-Dwarf stars. Infinity is infinity, so there is the same number of both types of star... Right? Wrong. The reason is simple. In infinite spacetime, M-Dwarf stars are vastly more common. So even thought there are infinite Sun-like stars and infinite M-Dwarf stars, there are infinitely more M-Dwarf stars than sun-like stars.
All cause exists relative to infinite effect.
All effect exists relative to infinite cause.
Before the Big Bang is a singularity. A singularity is infinite space and infinite time, therefore the past is infinite. Beyond the event horizon of a black hole is a singularity, again, infinite spacetime. Therefore the future is infinite. Think of it as two infinite ends of the spacetime candle.
Matter changes forms across infinite time in accordance with the thermodynamic arrow of time. Every single particle exists in an eternal superimposed state, in which all realities exist in perpetuity. Finite observation forces the particle to make an asymmetrical deviation from its baseline, eternal superimposed state, giving us the opportunity to view a glimpse of one Universe that is completely beyond our grasp.
The grasp of physics that you and everyone else seems to have, is grounded in a lesser reality, a sub-reality.
We don't see the singularity. Ever. If you were to approach the event horizon of a black hole, you would never reach it. The event horizon is an illusion, and it will recede into the distance relative to your position and motion through spacetime. It will always appear to be there, it will always recede into the distance. Because the singularity is real. **That** is what spacetime **is**. If you follow light to the "beginning" of time, it will blueshift to infinity. If you follow light to the "end" of time, it will redshift to infinity. There are no real beginnings or ends, only relative ones.
Nothing is truly improbable or probable, and every relative calculation is always infinitely inaccurate.
Every proof ever written, every word ever spoken, is infinitely inaccurate in the eyes of God.
You see, our own history is littered with tales of those who bore a Truth that could not be believed. Yet we still do not see what is right in front of us. This is not about science. Science is a **particular** knowledge, the infinite details of which are known to nobody, just like every other subject in existence.
We know the Universe is infinite because our language and mathematical symbols are arbitrary and relative to our experience. I can make a 2 character language such as binary code, a 37 character language, or a 998,000 character language... All the way on to infinity. This is because all language exists as a tool for describing relative infinity.
I can use our standard, base ten mathematics... Or I can create base 100 mathematics, or base trillion mathematics, using completely unique symbols that I can make up, all the way to infinity.
This is because all math exists to describe relative infinity.
The Mandatory Deviation Principle:
Before we get to the Mandatory Deviation Principle, let's start with the Infinite Precision Principle.
Both can be explained quite simply, using the basic geometric analogy of a square.
The Infinite Precision Principle dictates this: take a square. You measure it with a ruler, you get exactly one inch per side. Great.
Moving on, right?
Not so fast.
You decide to amp it up a bit and measure that square to the nearest 10,000th of an inch. You measure again, and this time you get 1.0001 inches. Your initial measurement appeared accurate, but a higher degree of precision found this to be untrue.
The Infinite Precision Principle states this: no matter how accurate you think your measurement of the dimensions of an object are, there is always infinite room to improve upon your measurement. No matter how many times or to what degree of precision you magnify your measurements, a higher degree of precision will eventually prove your initial measurement inaccurate.
The Mandatory Deviation Principle, when understood as it proceeds from the initially described principle, is as follows: take two sides of the square from the previous example. Let's say each side measured in initially at exactly 1 inch, then 1.0001 inches with the higher precision measurement.
You amp it up again- this time the nearest billionth of an inch.
This time, the measurements are as follows: A) 1.000100002 inches, B)1.000100003 inches.
So at a higher level of precision, you realize you never had a perfect square to begin with, at all.
The Mandatory Deviation Principle states this: if any given measurement of an object relative to observation, appears to be symmetrical, a higher degree of precision will eventually prove it is not.
Key insight: there is no such thing as a perfect square, or a perfect hexagon, a perfect pyramid or a perfect sphere.
Implications: every single object existing in our Infinite Universe is unique, and nothing can be measured perfectly, ever, by anyone-unless, of course, you are an eternal consciousness which experiences all of spacetime forever and always.
For every object in the universe to be unique, the universe must be infinite. For the universe to be infinite, there must be an eternal entity that exists without beginnings or ends.
For the universe itself to be infinite, the universe itself must exist fundamentally without beginning or end.
You can't measure the speed of light any more than you can measure the sides of a square. Because the only thing that is real, is infinity.
It is all tied together: wave-particle duality, the thermodynamic arrow of time, redshift, blueshift, dark energy, dark matter, and black holes, are actually all manifestations of relative infinity.
I think that sometimes it can frustrating to look for somethings you can't be sure they exist, especially when you look for them for decades.
You’re looking great!
Thank you.
Thanks.
Axions have mass. So "convert to microwaves" implies full conversion of the mass to energy?
That's the axiom. 👍
Dr Lincoln: I look forward to your physics questions.
Commenters: Where did your mustache go?
🤣
It’s simple. Space is 4 dimensional, and it’s just regular matter along the 4th dimension.
About our failure to detect dark matter particles in the lab: I assume we have already considered the possibility that most of it could be outside the galaxies and not uniformly distributed inside. IOW, maybe we can't detect it because it doesn't exist in appreciable concentrations inside our Galaxy, or our solar system. I doubt I'm the first one to suggest this; I'm an Engineer, not a Physicist, but it sounds like a reasonable question. What's the answer?
Dark matter is actually denser towards the centre of galaxies, due to gravity, but it is also true that most of the dark matter mass is beyond the luminous edge of the galactic disk. The main point is that dark matter extends well beyond the luminous disk of the galaxy, which is why the stars at the edge of a galaxy move with about the same speed as stars closer to the centre, (eg. our galaxy is roughly 200 to 300 thousand light years across, but the dark matter halo maybe extends out to a million or more light years) and is distributed roughly spherically around it. Galactic mergers distort the distribution of dark matter, and there is new evidence for a 'bridge' of dark matter between our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy.
Most people dont know that Einstein repeatedly said that something like a black hole (he died before the term was coined) can not exist and his reasoning is rock solid. At the center of high mass galaxies such as our own mass is traveling at or near the speed of light relative to an Earth bound observer therefore as per relativity that mass is dilated through spacetime. The mass that we think of as being at the center is all around us. This is the explanation for the higher than expected rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies. If this is so than low mass galaxies will have normal star rotation rates and that has been confirmed.
If you pose the question "why cant we see light/heat radiating from the galactic center?" modern answer-because gravitational forces are so strong there that light can not escape (even though the mass of the photon is zero) Einstein's answer- because the mass there is partially or completely dilated through spacetime relative to an Earth bound observer.
Einstein explained why a Schwarzchild singularity is not possible in the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics". It is crystal clear in my mind that this is so, there is no dark matter or black holes there is just relativity.
@@shawns0762 Everything you wrote is nonsense.
@@tonywells6990 relativity is not nonsense
@@shawns0762 What you said about it is.
Love how still there is absolutely zero hard evidence for dark matter... Yet these guys still keep going.
Thank you. This is great info for general public
His 'stache has become dark matter! That is why I can't see it.
I can think of no other explanation.
Hardest physics questions are:
- What is dark matter?
- What is dark energy?
- Why do we detect different Hubble constant values?
- What happened to Dr. Lincoln's mustache?
Because Hubble Constant is constantly changing. The universe has always been and will always be. Refer to Hindu Cosmology.
what about gravitons themselves ? Can they be missing dark matter particles? Or is that been ruled out cuz gravitation and gravitational waves seem to move at the speed of light?
They have been ruled out for many reasons. In fact, the gravitational field (i.e. gravitons, probably) is already included in the calculation.
Well, they haven't been ruled out as such, but if gravitons are responsible for the large error corrections necessary to general relativity, then the solution would be a quantum version of GR in of itself. Those new properties would be the same thing as a new version of general relativity.
The best way to look for dark matter is to search. Give me my phd already!
And search again and again. That’s re-search.
the best way of looking for some elaborate fantasy is going to the bookstore
@@ResurrectingJiriki where is your Nobel prize? You seem to have all the answers already...
@@irek1394 hahaha! oh the irony... 'cos that's some conclusion alright, based on one little joking sentence. You must be so mad they didn't give you one, right?
@@ResurrectingJiriki Why would I be mad? I have no scientific accomplishments.
It is good to see you again!
We should look for it’s dark anti-particle, dark-doesn’t-matter….or it’s anti particle, light-doesn’t-matter
Well if there's also Dark-Doesn't-Matter, then that should be no dark.
Antiparticles interact with photons (light) exactly the same as regular particles, the photon is its own antiparticle. So nope.
@@LuisAldamiz That meant to be JOKE, BUDDY, B'cause it is dark then light Doesn't matter.
@@arunabhganodwale1022 - Explain it to me again, because I still don't get it, really. Do you even know that the speed of dark is exactly the same as the speed of light?
@@LuisAldamiz Well speed of dark could be greater than light. Take a flash light ,shine it on the moon, move your finger across in front of the flash light. Now your shadow, the dark, would travel across the surface of the moon faster than light.
And if the dark thing is ,dark matter, than it's opposite would be Dark 'Doesn't' matter , b'cause the normal thing is dark does matter or just simply dark matter. so the opposite would be doesn't matter. And thus for that normal thingy Dark matter that is it is dark, so the opposite would be dark doesn't matter or light matter. :)
Thanks for shedding light on the subject !
Nice Tshirt Don 😉
4:44 Love the Princess Mononoke reference!
The easiest way to find dark matter is to turn the lights off. Its literally everywhere.
Maybe just small black holes. Small like size of protons. Every black hole doesnt interact with matter , except gravitational. We cant see black holes, so if they are small for sure we cant see them. They might be extra small with low mass, enough to survive Hawking radiation, but not enough to have huge impact even in quantum scale. They might be created by huge energy , universe is full of them. I mean why black holes should only be created with super novas, star collisions? Maybe also gravitational waves in quantum scale help to create little black holes. Also we dont know how quantum gravity works, so maybe its possible for small black holes to being created in all space? It sound logic for me.
Nonono, you Physicists don't get to blame astronomers for inventing some invisible stuff when you were so sure there have to to exist oodles of new particles that will resolve the gravitational anomalies problem and it will be seen when the LHC was online. We are ten years past that.
Dr Lincoln video! Yay!
Ghosts can easily detect dark matter. So it's easy really. Just ask a ghost.
If dark matter interacts with matter via gravity how about looking for gravitational waves because of dark matter falling into black holes/neutron stars?
Really cool. Thank you for the comprehensible insights.
Question: How would vacuum decay affect black holes? Or would it'll be able to even affect those things?
Question 2: How come scientists are so sure of dark energy? I know its due to red shifting of the farther galaxies but this could also mean that universe was expanding faster in the past and now as we look closer and closer it shows slowing down.
Question 3: Would big rip be able to rip black holes apart? The space inside is always going towards singularity so would be possible for big rip to rip those things?
My favourite hard question:
Would it be possible to find the masses of the three different flavours of neutrinos by measuring eventual changes in the ratio detection of such particles if a beam of them could be generated by a source at relativistic speed? Would the neutrinos generated by a source moving towards the observer/detector behave differently from those from a source moving away from us?
If it interacts only via gravity, a black hole made of dark matter must be truly badass.
Right !
I'm writing a sci-fi novel where the WIMP I'm proposing doesn't interact with gravity, but that gravity is a byproduct. The theoretical particle only interacts with virtual particles, and the reason virtual particles' self-energy doesn't supply infinite mass to other real particles like electrons (a real scientific mystery) with their infinite energy range is because the theoretical particle absorbs most of said mass.
They're massive, because they steal mass from a virtual interaction, and they're weakly interacting, because they only interact with virtual particles, which we can't even observe yet for debatable reasons.
The mass from these particles keeps increasing unless there are no virtual particles to interact with, then release mass over time, psedo-explaining hawking radiation or fluctuations of non-zero energy in a vacuum.
Thoughts?
Hi Dr. Lincoln! Loved this video about the current searches for dark matter. For future video ideas, I would always be interested in learning more about neutrinos. In particular, when neutrinos do interact by the weak force, what are the possible interactions and outcomes? Also, what are the various interactions that result in the different flavors of neutrinos. I find it fascinating that theorists can state that the processes within our sun only produce electron neutrinos, but those same neutrinos "cycle" through the three flavors before reaching Earth. I know you have several videos on neutrinos, but a video on the latest insights about how neutrinos behave would be really interesting. Thanks to you and your entire team for your consideration and for creating these fun and educational videos!
Have you watched Dr. Kirsty Duffy's "Even bananas" series?
There's hardly any channel in the whole Internet that talks more about neutrinos, I'm baffled by your request.
@@LuisAldamiz Good for you.
@@drdon5205 I've consumed every video and quite a few books on the subject. I guess I'm looking for the next level in difficulty (I don't know what that is) and always looking for the latest developments.
@@tedlis517 The problem is that you are caught in that gray zone between popularizations and professional stuff. That's not a good market - its not profitable - and hence few presses will take it up.
I recommend Frank Close's book Neutrinos.
And try his URL, although I warn you it's something you don't read without putting some brain sweat into it: cds.cern.ch/record/677618/files/p115.pdf
i would loved if you make your video about measurement problem in quantum physics
The graphics were outstanding.
Does a black hole block a gravitational wave passing through it and absorb its energy?
Or would it pass right through, possibly extracting information?
My favourite unsolved question is of course why there's something and not nothing, but that problem was already treated in the sphaleron video. Suspected asymmetries between matter and antimatter then. Otherwise the latest state of science regarding strange particles.
It is more philosophy than science. We have no ways to test any potential answers for that questions, and it is simply too far beyond our understanding.
We should resolve the theory of everything, and what was before big bang questions first, maybe after them we can have a shot at this question as well.
It's disappointing that the too fast rotation of the galaxies was first spotted by Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky in 1932, yet this big problem has only recently received the attention it deserves.
What is in the centre of black hole according to the leading candidates for quantum gravity (string theory, loop quantum gravity)?
Did someone remove the green color channel from your video track? The color in this seems way off.
Why are physicists so obsessed with particles? Our most accurate theory of gravity is based on curvature of spacetime, which for regular matter happens with mass/energy but couldn't dark matter just be some type of intrinsic topography of spacetime and galaxies end up clustering near those topographic features?
Yes. Scientists look into that possibility.
@@drdon5205
How would that be explored? Since our detection of gravity is based on how it interacts with electromagnetism, is there any way to detect gravity that doesn't rely on electromagnetism/light ?
If your videos were available when I was choosing a major I probably wouldn't be an engineer. 😄. Great stuff, keep it up!
No better time than now.
Correct me if I'm wrong please, but anything larger that a molecule, including planetoid size dark matter object can be ruled in another way - by lack of thermal radiation. DM does neither reflect nor absorb any light, but anything that has at least 2 molecules, would have a temperature due to gravitational pressure of molecules and their movemetns, so it would have to emit any black body radiation. Hence, DM needs to be made of single particles that don't even bind into molecules.
Mr. Lincoln please make a video about what new understandings of gravity might look like if the dark matter does not exist.
@Fermilab Dark matter interacts with gravity and not light. Does it interact with strong or weak force?
So what is the distance from 2 colliding black holes you'd have to be to physically feel the gravity wave but not have it harm you?
So one cannot see the accretion disk of dark matter around black hole? It won't heat up?
I’d like to ask a question to Don: Can dark matter be sucked into a black hole? If I understand correctly, dark matter only interacts with regular matter through gravity. So I wonder whether it is affected by black holes…
Combine:
1. Nxy = number of superpositions per m^2= wave function frequency
2. Cosmological constant in Dxy stretching spacetime [m^-2] = lp^2/λ^4= lp^2 Nxy ^2 [m^2] [m^-4]
3. Schrodinger solution
4. Einstein E= m c^2
Result: dark matter = superpositions (recoherence) of the neutrino (Axion?) which gives the neutrino extra mass
Dxy = lp^2/λ^4= lp^2 Nxy^2
Nxy = sqrt(Dxy / lp^2)= (Dxy / lp^2) ^0.5
Nxy = sqrt ( 1.1056 10^-52 / 2.612 10^ -70) = 0.65 10^9
Schrodinger solution:
Nxy^2 h^2 / ( 8 m L^2) = m c^2
8 m L^2 m c^2= Nxy^2 h^2
m ^2= Nxy^2 h^2 /( 8 L^2 c^2)
m = + - (Nxy^2 h^2 0.125 L^-2 c^-2)^0.5
m= +-(0.42 10^18 43.9 10^-68 8.99 10^-16)^0.5
= 166 10^-33 kg
= 0.931 Mev/c^2 ( all superpositions).
1 particle = +-166 10^-33/ ( 0.65 10^9) = 255 10^-42 kg = 0.143 10^-3 eV/c^2 Axion?
dark matter = superpositions (recoherence) of the neutrino (Axion ?) which gives the neutrino extra mass
How fast do galaxies rotate? Is the rotation visible in a human lifetime? Or is it something we've measured using proxies? Thanks
Physic question/topic: Magnetic monopoles: Why are they theoretically appealing? How have we searched? Any new ideas/current searches?
Thank you!
Are there faster turning star system or only faster turning galaxies and faster turning galaxy heaps?
Where did you get the T SHIRT???
I hope you answer my question
What is gravitational wave ?
Is it like mechanical or electromagnetic wave ? If it's not so what is the characteristic properties for it ?
Please answer my question
@@goasthmago6354 Iam really thank u very much
Can I have your Google email or Facebook email to contact with you if you don't mind, please ?
I know looks should not matter, but Dr. Lincoln with mustache looked better. I already miss him.
A suggestion on a future topic. I’d like to know more about the potential existence of gravitons. Thanks for a great video!
Yes , you know Physics is everything
Ever since I first heard this statement my interest in Physics has increased enormously and with information of this kind and that too from Don Lincoln-- it redoubled
When scientist see an abnormal speed rotation of the galaxy the reflex is to look for the extra mass but gravity is also created by the spacetime fabric, is there any research to study deeply the spacetime dynamic and geometry in the galaxy?
What is your opinion about relational quantum physics?
Off topic question but… if you have matter twice as cool but twice as pressurized does it have the same entropy as it’s opposite… are they the “same”
What are some discoveries that could help strengthen the case for string theory?
Not going to happen.
Thank you very much for another great and informative video.
A square with side n has approx the same area (n^2) as a circle with radius (2+sqrt(2))n/6 i.e pi* ((2+sqrt(2))n/6)^2, and sum of (1/n^2) = pi/6 for n==1 to n== infinity. There has to be a simpler relationship.