We've found Galaxies without Dark Matter, where the existing Math predicts their rotation behaviour and it matches up. Thus, in my understanding, Dark Matter cannot be Heat / a property of space, unless we abandon the notion that space is isotropic.

@craigo8598

Ай бұрын

Great point.

@edwardjenner1381

Ай бұрын

Yea. It's not like the people actually working on this stuff are not weighing ALL the evidence. Any other explanation seems to only take part of the evidence and then postulate something. This is why no explanations have actually 'ruffled any feathers'.

@joeyrufo

Ай бұрын

Nice "unless" you got there

@ncironjohn4336

Ай бұрын

Wait, when did we agree Space was isotropic? 😮

@craigo8598

Ай бұрын

And the evidence for dark matter is consistently being observed from; gravitational lensing, galaxy rotation curves, the CMB, and the observations by Hubble that dark matter forms much smaller clumps than originally thought, and this observation is a central prediction of the theory of 'Cold Dark Matter'.

I’m pretty sure Dark Matter is made up of all the lost socks from the dryer.

@gagestandingready1472

Ай бұрын

Lmfao

@Novalarke

Ай бұрын

Yeah. And all my paper clips and rubber bands.

@busybillyb33

Ай бұрын

What you didn't know is that it isn't the dryer that ate the socks, but the actual washer. I found it was the culprit when I looked into the washer and saw a tiny shrunken thing stuck to the side of the drum.

@paulmichaelfreedman8334

29 күн бұрын

reading glasses

@johnmanderson2060

19 күн бұрын

😂👍🏻

I enjoy how he literally says he doesn't know what it is, and the title says the exact opposite.😂

@webpilot71

Ай бұрын

That's a next level click bait title! He said over and over again that he doesn't know what it is.

@meorsoithought

Ай бұрын

@@webpilot71 ...and they wonder why people are losing faith/trust in scientists/science. Every little bit of cheaply expended trust matters

@atheistbushman

Ай бұрын

I find the title criminally unscientific

@markdavis7397

Ай бұрын

Your first time on KZread?

@meorsoithought

Ай бұрын

@@markdavis7397 First time being a prick for no reason?

I'm a layman, but I understood (through the heat analogy) Dr Wolfram's postulation that what people postulate as dark matter might just be a feature of space. This might not be so, but it doesn't require math... so I understand it! Well done.

@RWin-fp5jn

Ай бұрын

Well. He kind of gets it. Sure, gravity is all about speed and vibrations of subatomic particles making up so called ‘restmass’ as per Einstein’s SR which teaches us speed contracts frontal spacetime. SR thus explaines why all these unaligned mini ST contractions inside restmass combined give the appearance of radial ST contraction around restmass. In stark contrast; Dark matter however is not a real phenomenon at all. It is a hypothetical solution to a problem that doesnt exist in the first place. Stars at the outer spiral arms stay put not due to some extra gravity we cant see, but because they are less distant then we think they are, due to voids in the areas between galactic arms. So they arent orbiting that fast at all! It is a lack of spacetime inside the galactic plane, not a lack of mass that explains what we see. It is fairly basic. I would love for Brian to discuss this obvious alternative. After 10.000 podcast on dark nonsense, why not have just 1 on the obvious and superior alternative to dark matter?

@evanplante

Ай бұрын

@@RWin-fp5jn I can read the room. This reply is for Brian, not me... me being the guy who owns his ignorance, lay status, and aversion to math. So, you two have at it.

Wolfram is not the first to think about dimensions explaining some properties of gravity, but his model incorporates it quite naturally indeed.

How can it be part of the structure of space time if some galaxies seem to have dark matter and others don’t

@drgetwrekt869

Ай бұрын

to my knowledge basically every measured galaxy has flat rotation curves more or less.

@ooo-vc4xl

Ай бұрын

@@drgetwrekt869 what I was thinking of was the imaging that has been done and shown in some studies that supposedly shows areas of potential dark matter in some galaxies while the same couldn’t be found in all. If I remember correctly the work that was done related to galaxy collisions.

@drgetwrekt869

Ай бұрын

@@ooo-vc4xl ok I dont know about that, could be. I am not an astrophysicist anyway, I am following this debate as an external (physicist)

Dr. Keating please! A long talk with Wolfram. You can push back for 2,3 hours I won't mind. His theory is mind blowing

@kentbetts

Ай бұрын

Wolfram says ten times he doesn't know what dark matter is or if his idea works.

That spacetime heat probably explains why my AC has been working overtime lately. My electric bills are killing me.

To say it's a property of spacetime is the same as saying it's a modification of the formulation of gravity, or MOND. So, stop handwaving. If you have a theory that works, let's see your calculations and results.

@WillyoDee

Ай бұрын

Wolfram is good at publishing his theories. Keep an eye on his website and I'm sure something will be out on there in good time

@MarkS61

Ай бұрын

He comes on Brian's channel to talk about his theory. He should have brought at least some basic results that match observations. If not, he's just blowing hot air. Anyone can play mind games, just look at the comments. There are lots of handwaving theories out there without any validation.

@jefflittle8913

Ай бұрын

... or the relativistic descendent of MOND.

@NightmareCourtPictures

Ай бұрын

Uh no. not like mond at all. It’s not a modification…wolfram model is almost completely novel. it doesn’t even start with physical notion of space…and time is a distinctly different thing from space. Gravity emerges from the result of the models underlying dynamics and how observers imbedded in it interact with those dynamics. It is analogous to a CA. Again…It’s NOTHING like Mond. This comment is just irritating to read

Apologies for the long long comment, but it has to be said: I think this is a good time to talk about the foundations, in this case: dimensions. We tend to think of dimensions as unlimited. That we see 3 of space but there "can be more". I don't think this is the correct way to think about it. Dimensions seem to me, to be unique entities. They cannot be rotated for example. You could say you're rotating the X dimension to become the Y dimension, but what frame of reference do we use to describe the rotation? On a chart you can simply create it out of thin air. This type of manipulation can lead us to think these mathematical tools are interchangeable, non unique descriptors and that we could theoretically simply add more, in any way we choose. However, this cannot occur, as there is no reference frame. We are rotating what appear to be dimensions but are actually just lines on a piece of paper and we do so with the frame of reference of our actual dimensions which cannot be rotated. The reference frame IS the 3 dimensional tool. Meaning these dimensions are perfectly unique concepts that work **relative to one another** . As such I could create any amount of "dimensions" as I liked, but they would not be extrapolations on the 3 unique, verifiable dimensions of space, that by definition are all at 90 degree angles from one another. For example, I can create a dimension of scale. Which is perfectly observable. Or a dimension of granularity / clumpiness. I can create the dimensions of speed. In fact all the tools we use to keep track of any quantity whatsoever, and any property, is a dimension. That's why we can create phase spaces, using any metric as a dimension on a chart. These phase spaces are accurate descriptions of reality, and they are verifiable in reality. What many people have done so far however is mistakenly extrapolate the 3 dimensions of space, mathematically, to add more dimensions of space, that are somehow invisible and non verifiable, curled up, very small, and this is not a good way to think about it. There are only 3 dimensions of space, because a description of what is evidentially, observably labelled "space" has 3 dimensions by definition. Just as a phase space measuring multiple quantities against one another, would have those measurable quantities as its dimensions. There may be many other dimensions, but they will all, by definition be defining features of verifiable, visible reality. They will never be hidden abstract realities. You should not expect 3.01 dimensions of space for example. Space is defined as 3 dimensional. That's it. There's no room left to increase dimensions for what is labelled "space". Just like there is no room for another whole number between 1 and 2. The definition of "whole" forbids it. This is where math leads us in error, and we need to stick to the evidence, in my opinion. Math is a language after all. I can make up words, just like I can make up math. It doesn't mean any of them mean anything. Ghuyegh! Abordgh sley drovabl! See what I mean? Love your videos! Hope someone reads this!

If DM is a feature of space how do you explain its clumpiness and irregular distribution both throughout space and even in relation to the quantity of local matter?

@mikel4879

Ай бұрын

b.griffin3 • Very easily. The continuous, infinite, unfolding of the natural universal dynamic is evidently uneven. The so-called "DM" is not something in itself, separated from the "rest". It is everything evolving naturally at once, in a universal natural causal direction, all in its own natural, free and universal manifestation. It is all there is to be, manifesting itself in interaction with itself, because there's nothing else there but itself and the natural CAUSAL opportunity.

@craigo8598

Ай бұрын

Correct

Wolfram is correct in his intuition of a caloric origin for dark matter in my opinion. Radiation has momentum and behaves like a gas/fluid, and has energy. When particles absorb radiation they gain its momentum and accelerate. They lose radiation and loose speed. This is similar to how a caloric fluid works. Because radiation obeys momentum conservation, it gains energy going down a gravity well and becomes blue shifted and redshifted when it climbs up. It also bends like a projectile near a massive body. The radiation content of matter- the caloric fluid, bends/arcs around round distant masses and acquires a deflection/push away from distant masses causing matter to clump together and this is gravity. For more see this; “A Novel Distant Masses Centrifugal Origin for Gravity”

'We know that neutrinos are dark matter because they interact weekly'? Does this mean we may actually know more about dark matter if they were to interact daily, or better still, hourly? Asking for a friend.

@rokko_hates_japan

29 күн бұрын

Weekly is their quantum state. Daily or hourly would require quite the quantum leap.

@johnmanderson2060

19 күн бұрын

😂

So "dark matter = phlogiston"; just as I thought.

@craigsimpson9561

Ай бұрын

Wasn't the lesson learned from phlogiston that if you have negative mass, maybe try flipping the term over to the other side of the equation? That's how Priestly discovered the role of oxygen in combustion, wasn't it? Regardless, the ultimate lesson of phlogiston should be of the importance of empirical evidence and the role of falsification in the scientific method, it would seem...

@smlanka4u

Ай бұрын

Spectrum of charge contains Dark Matter according to some analysis.

@marcv2648

Ай бұрын

phlogiston is actually oxygen.

@pixelpatter01

Ай бұрын

@@marcv2648 I was making fun of the "dark matter theory" that doesn't fit the scientific method described by Karl Popper; The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper, is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false. What we have now is an amorphous blob of a theory that is continually changing and can't be disproved.

@craigsimpson9561

Ай бұрын

@@marcv2648 Well, technically it is "anti-oxygen" as phlogiston was identified to have negative mass in proportion to the mass which oxygen was later discovered to have...

Too many theoretical particle and astrophysicists follow the current trends like string theory which inevitably lead in similar directions. I like that Wolfram dares to be different and explore what initially seem like crazy ideas. Didn’t everyone think Einstein was crazy until his hypothesis turned out to be more accurate than Isaac Newton’s? The truth is, there’s so much we don’t know and too many academic egos that are too short sighted or too conservative to ‘think outside the box’. 🤔

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

@craigsimpson9561

Ай бұрын

Fascinating. Would you be so kind as to link to your paper, please? I would very much enjoy reviewing your maths such that I might better comprehend how you reached your conclusion. Presumably, your modelling must be quite rigorous in order for you to state this with such confidence.

@rokko_hates_japan

29 күн бұрын

One correction: I can indeed point my finger at the sun.

Reference to "space-time heat" as a candidate for Dark Matter is a kind but subtle endorsement for CIG Theory. Thank you so much. CIG redefines Matter and Space as per the below post. CIG introduces motion as the manifesting means between space-time curvatures and various densities of Matter. And motion is heat. Temperature. So, the greater the motion, the less curvature of the conglomerate manifold of allstuff, allstuff being time (motion), Matter, and various curvatures of the fields, space-time curvatures, space-time heat. So the reference to "space-time heat" is so CIG in nature. It is the MTS equation. Again, thank you for your subtle support. If you don't mind, I will use your "space-time heat" verbiage in future writings. I like it. Heat things up even more, and get Dark Energy. Ooooohhhhhh.

Tbf, heat is photons, so it is still sort of like a fluid (we might say 'photon fluid field') that seeps into matter and causes matter to oscillate. I developed a model wherein gravitational fields could be explained as a electron densities, or electron 'clouds' surrounding massive objects; these of course trap a huge amount of heat (photons). So to say that dark matter is spacetime trapping heat is really on the money, and more or less exactly what I predicted. Strictly, I predicted that electron densities around massive objects trap particles of light and that the mutual resistance between the electron clouds of objects is responsible for the effects of dark matter. This mutual resistance manifests as the exchange of photons between background electrons, and hence as radiation pressure. It's therefore very accurate to say that trapped heat (i.e. radiation pressure) is causing the effects attributed to dark matter.

@CircoVega

Ай бұрын

That's a decent thought. But you have to remember that the universe existed before electrons. Electrons didn't exist until some time after the big bang, when the universe was cooled down enough to form atomic nuclei. So, you have to realize that it's pure energy that creates the positive energy density of space and makes it curve. What that energy morphs into is an emergent feature of space and cooling, not heat. As the universe cools the amount of dark energy grows. So, it stands to reason that DE is the "heat death" of the universe. Which, I shouldn't call it a "heat death". That's got a bad ring to it and I don't think that's actually going to happen, but anyway.. I hope that makes sense.

@randomfarmer

Ай бұрын

@@CircoVega It makes sense, but I think we'd perhaps have to hypothesise that electrons did exist at the Big Bang and before it. Or, some prodrome of what we call electrons existed that later emerged when the universe cooled and nucleosynthesis began. I guess everything prior to nucleosynthesis was compactified together into some sort of fluctuating quantum fluid field, or something like that. It might not describe the universe in its hottest, densest state, but I'm fairly certain gravitational electron densities would describe the low energy universe that we see around us. Thanks for the comment.

@CircoVega

Ай бұрын

​@@randomfarmerAnd might I add, contrary to the consensus so hopefully it makes sense, but electrons are properties of atomic nuclei and don't exist in flight or in the very beginning of the universe. They are a property of the electromagnetic field. Nuclei had to form before the atoms pulled energy out of the electromagnetic field to create electrons. They say electrons were created shortly after the big bang though, I think it was actually much later even.

@randomfarmer

Ай бұрын

@@CircoVega It's far from consensus, but my personal opinion on the Big Bang is that the universe collapsed prior to the Big Bang into a singularity (or many singularities) and then expanded again. Hence, I believe that the same electrons that exist in our universe now existed prior to the Big Bang, and have existed forever. If we dispense with any notion of things being 'created' at the Big Bang, then we have a universe that makes more sense in terms of energy conservation. I also don't believe in anything like the creation and annihilation of particle-antiparticle pairs (it just seems unphysical to me), but that's just me.

Not even mad at clipping a segment of an interview I've already seen because that episode with Wolfram was one of the most interesting I've heard. Though he did explicitly say he didn't know for sure for like a minute straight near the end despite the title.

@Existidor.Serial137

Ай бұрын

Well, to be honest, nobody knows what DM is!

@Ruktiet

Ай бұрын

I mean how else would you clickbait people in a sensationalized world where people using nuanced titles lose the game

@yoseidman4166

Ай бұрын

Clickbait is infuriating and stupid but it gets clicks. What could be an incentive system to get us out of the clickbait trap?

@stevelenores5637

Ай бұрын

This is just the theory of the week on dark matter. No way to really test it. However it might get a research grant anyways even though it's likely to be futile.

I think dark matter is some kind of particles locked up within spacetime itself. If you could generate gravitational waves with enough energy, these dark matter particles would radiate out of the vacuum the way photons can radiate from high frequency electromagnetic fields.

Rudolph Steiner also calls it heat but describes what the heat is. Hint it has something to do with the flower of life. 😮

@jenpsakiscousin4589

Ай бұрын

Your probably one of about 10 who even know who Steiner is who watches KZread videos

@ThatBoomerDude56

Ай бұрын

Except Rudolph Steiner had no clue specifically about "dark matter" which is an observed gravitational effect.

Jonathan Oppenheim et al have a proposal for non-quantized gravity that involves a stochasticity of gravitational fields. Might this "stochasticity" be the "heat" that Wolfram proposes?

I will bet anyone anything .that they will never find dark matter. because it dosent exist

@stevedickson5853

Ай бұрын

It's caused by god burping

He does make a valid point, perhaps the many (all) failed experiments in looking for dark matter could indicate that we just might try to look for a more simple alternative. And Wolfram is not alone in his view that the structure of space is more important than traditional physics give it

Doesn't heat have something to do with photons in the frequency range between high frequency microwaves and low frequency infrared.

The concept of space-time described in terms of potential and kinetic energy primarily comes from the analogy to physical systems in classical mechanics. To understand this, we need to delve into how energy is utilized and conserved within the framework of general relativity and quantum field theory. Here’s how we can think about the efficiency of space-time structure in these terms: Gravitational Potential Energy: In general relativity, the gravitational field can be seen as a curvature of space-time caused by mass and energy. This curvature can be thought of as storing potential energy. In a way, mass-energy tells space-time how to curve, and this curvature dictates how mass and energy move. Efficient use of gravitational potential energy can be observed in the way celestial bodies orbit each other. For instance, the stable orbits of planets around the sun are a manifestation of an efficient balance between kinetic and potential energy. Kinetic Energy of Matter and Radiation: Matter and radiation moving through space-time have kinetic energy. The geodesic paths that objects follow in space-time (the paths of least action or extremal paths) can be seen as the most energy-efficient routes through space-time, minimizing the overall action, which is a quantity that incorporates both kinetic and potential energy. In cosmology, the expansion of the universe can be described in terms of the kinetic and potential energy of the cosmic components, such as dark energy, dark matter, and ordinary matter. The Friedmann equations governing the expansion relate the kinetic energy of expansion to the potential energy of gravitational attraction. Energy Conservation in Space-Time: The Einstein field equations Gμν=8πTμνGμν​=8πTμν​ relate the geometry of space-time (expressed through the Einstein tensor GμνGμν​) to the distribution of matter and energy (expressed through the stress-energy tensor TμνTμν​). This equation can be seen as a statement of how energy is conserved and distributed in space-time. In this context, the conservation of energy in space-time involves a delicate balance where the energy-momentum tensor must be divergence-free (∇μTμν=0∇μ​Tμν=0), ensuring that energy is not lost but merely transformed between different forms. Quantum Field Theory in Curved Space-Time: In quantum field theory, particles and fields in curved space-time can be described in terms of their energy states. The potential and kinetic energies of these fields contribute to the overall dynamics of the space-time structure. For example, Hawking radiation can be understood as a quantum field theoretical effect where particles gain kinetic energy as they escape from the potential well of a black hole’s event horizon. Energy Efficiency and Thermodynamics: The second law of thermodynamics, when applied to the universe, suggests that systems evolve towards states of maximum entropy. In cosmology, this can relate to how energy is distributed in space-time, with processes like black hole formation and eventual Hawking radiation representing energy-efficient transitions towards higher entropy states. The overall thermodynamic efficiency of space-time can be considered in terms of how well it facilitates these transitions and transformations of energy.

I was thinking spacetime is empty as Einstein postulated, suddenly has structure, suddenly has fabric, now even heat. Maybe Eistein is not right after all?

@lobohez7222

Ай бұрын

Mainstream physics has more miracles than bible lol

@paulmichaelfreedman8334

29 күн бұрын

@@lobohez7222 I hope you're joking

Sooo - "spacetime heat" - perhaps as induced by the shearing stress of frame dragging on the aether / quantum fields, thus explaining halos of 'dark matter' around galaxies and maybe to a smaller degree around all other moving or spinning bodies within...? 🤔

This clickbait title misrepresents what he's saying. He's talked about this hypothesis before and no new evidence (even on the theoretical side) has surfaced since the last time.

Space-time heat that gravitates but doesn't radiate? Strange explanation.

If Space-Time can be curved then it has to be a type of substance which could be "heated up".

XI. DEFINITIONS MATTER: That which has mass, consists of the curvature of space-time and has an element of motion. While the current definition of space in its simplest form customarily is: "a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction" As can be seen, since we have redefined Matter in the context of the curvature of space-time, we must also redefine "Space" as well, herein and as best I can, as follows: SPACE: That three dimensional extent in which objects and their events occur, wherein those objects of Matter are they themselves curved space-time, wherein the aforementioned space consists of and emerges via the unfolding of that Matter into various volumes and densities of Space by way of opportunistic rates of motion of Matter. In it's simpler form: SPACE: Unfolded Matter, emergent from rates of motion. That's it and if I come up with a better definition or if someone else would like a try in the context of CIG Theory, please have a go at it. In this manner, a particle can become spatial and go through both slits in the double slit experiment. CIG has redefined Matter and Space This Addendum will now define TIME: TIME: I'm not telling!

I am so glad that you are having this conversation though big respect for that

some people hypothesize that gravity is a phenomenon of the microstructure of space rather than fundamental. so i would have liked to see wolfram comment on whether his claim about dark matter is closely or distantly related to that idea

For me (& likely me alone) heat (friction) between the gravitational boundary of the galaxy and the subsequent intergalactic space seems to be a good idea; however in looking for another analogy I’d say it’s akin to electromagnetism giving rise to chemistry, perhaps…

Dark matter is bad theory with bad arithmetic.

Perhaps Neutrinos moving through Space generates the "heat" Wolfram mentioned as what Dark Matter might be.

@craigsimpson9561

Ай бұрын

How does that explain a flat galactic rotation curve which consistently extends out beyond millions of light-years from the centre of mass? That was the OG observation (the "Zwicky Moment") which started all of this, wasn't it? A cloud of neutrinos would presumably disperse by an inverse square, much like light does, wouldn't it?

@picksalot1

Ай бұрын

@@craigsimpson9561 I'm looking at the Dark Matter mystery from a logic perspective. The most abundant thing in the Universe is Space, the most abundant Particle is the Neutrino, and the most abundant matter is thought to be Dark Matter. I would not be surprised if they have even more in common.

@craigsimpson9561

Ай бұрын

@@picksalot1 Logically, any conclusion must be consistent with observation. Otherwise, it's merely an opinion. Physics should not be confused with philosophy, after all.

@picksalot1

Ай бұрын

@@craigsimpson9561 Sometimes observations can be misleading. For instance, the Sun and the Moon appear to be approximately the same size as viewed with the naked eye from the Earth, but their actual sizes are significantly different. Like Logic, Observation is a tool, but both must be used carefully. Observations are often "relative," as Einstein pointed out.

@craigsimpson9561

28 күн бұрын

@@picksalot1 Are you perhaps conflating "perception" with "observation"? In the context of science, observation is the act of intentionally and systematically noticing, perceiving, and recording information from a primary source, employing both senses and scientific instruments. Repeated measurements from multiple observers reduce the potential for inaccurate measurements until such time as a consensus is achieved. Also, misquoting Einstein does less to validate your position than you might imagine. Science aims for a degree of precision which removes ambiguity to achieve certainty.

Does that imply polarization (non randomness) of the space property (dark matter) you are describing thus emerging gravitationally from spacetime? A kind of brownian motion/heat of spacetime?

@NightmareCourtPictures

Ай бұрын

ehh...yes, but also it's a bit more subtle then that. Take for instance the atmosphere as a system with molecular movement. everything in the atmosphere is just a bunch of molecules bouncing around. Some of the features of that movement, look like cumulus clouds to us, others look like stratus clouds, supercells, tornados...then you have eddies, flows, and all kinds of other features that these molecules moving around randomly produce. you can imagine particles like hurricanes...persistent features of this system of molecules, that we humans notice. But there are other less obvious features like you know...wind gusts, wind shear, cold fronts and warm fronts...which are way less obvious for us to "see" as features of the molecules moving around. So these features arise from the same basic mechanism (molecules moving around) but might not have properties that you could just catagorize as "being a cloud" like "being a particle." He suspects that Dark Matter is a feature of this kind. Brownian Motion is not a robust enough concept to describe something as esoteric as the visual relationship of wind shear is to a cloud. We can kinda say that it is going to be some kind of brownian motion, but its not because of "smaller clouds" like how in brownian motion there are "smaller particles" that kick around the big particles. Hope this comment was helpful.

My hypothesis about dark matter and dark energy. Two generally accepted principles: 1) Quantum fluctuations generate gravitational waves (Axion monodromy and inflation by Albion Lawrence, Brandeis/NYU) 2) Gravitational waves can be absorbed (Numerically generated black hole spacetimes: Interaction with gravitational waves by Andrew Abrahams et al.) So these two principles raise the following questions.. 1) Since these gravitational waves are generated in vast space between galaxies, could these gravitational waves push the galaxies apart in accelerating manner? (dark energy) 2) Could these same gravitational waves, when pushing a single galaxy from all sides towards the center of the galaxy, have a similar effect as dark matter, making it possible for outer regions of a galaxy to spin faster than expected? (dark matter) 3) Also, since these gravitational waves would be gradually absorbed by the outer regions of the galaxy, the gravitational waves would not affect the center regions of spinning galaxy. This slower spinning of center regions is also shown by measurements. So the source for dark energy and dark matter would be the same, gravitational waves created by quantum fluctuations.

@Existidor.Serial137

Ай бұрын

I had a similar thought, what if gravity and dark energy are actually the same thing. They manifest in "opposite" ways depending on the scale.

@EinsteinsHair

Ай бұрын

Why would gravitational waves "push?" If you are talking about the same thing as detected by LIGO, then my understanding is that they alternately expand and contract space, at right angles to the direction of travel.

@villeturjanmaa373

Ай бұрын

Freeman Dyson estimates that Earth absorbs about 10^−21 of the energy of a 1-Hz gravitational wave. (Publication: "Seismic Response of the Earth to a Gravitational Wave in the 1-Hz Band")

@craigsimpson9561

Ай бұрын

Fascinating. Do you have any maths which supports your hypothesis? Please link to your paper, as I would enjoy reviewing your maths in order to better comprehend your hypothesis.

@villeturjanmaa373

Ай бұрын

I havnt done the math. It is my first time writing about this thought publicly.

Not a particle, but a field.

Where does gravitational potential energy come into play? Seems like the escape velocity from a black hole is the speed of light, so any object in orbit around one has a mass of (a bit less than since has not escaped) 1.5 it's rest mass [from E=mc^2 and E=1/2mv^2]. That would explain faster orbital velocity but may not be enough. Another thought is that the added 'virtual' mass affects gravity but not inertia. This would further increase the orbital velocity. Or am I an ignorant layperson, which I admit I am. Oh, and the mass would be more distributed so cannot simplify to point masses.

Smolin wrote a paper recently in which he demonstrated that something like MOND is derivable from dimensional analysis and macroscopic limits of quantum gravity with only the most general assumptions about the latter.

I have thought that something like this might be the explanation for dark matter for a long time. It was a nice surprise this evening to hear an expert provide support the idea. I read through some of the comments. It seems like several people argued that variations in apparent gravitational strength argues for a particle explanation because they imagine that if it was a property of space then gravitational effects should be the same all over. I am unqualified to argue for any theory that is not consistent with the general scientific consensus, but my thought on this is that the nature of the vacuum is not the same every place.

Saw a report on a recent simulation which includes galactic magnetic fields... Using FIRE physics and STARFORGE physics... Though it will take time still to find that this makes for more massive galaxies than gravity alone could... And more that the rotation rate of inner stars is slower than expected, allowing for a flatter rotation curve, but not by the outside rotating faster, but the inside rotating slower... Being more massive in general covers gravitational lensing

There is no dark matter. It’s a changing rate of causation due to the amount of gravity that makes some things appear to be moving faster than where we are.

I love Wolfram. So creative. So clever.

@ChromisPasqueflowerBowerbird

Ай бұрын

unlike you💀

@NOYFB982

Ай бұрын

@@ChromisPasqueflowerBowerbird OK by me.

Novel Dark Matter Hypothesis Dark Matter is simply unaccounted for gravity. GR states that gravity is the consequence of the curvature of spacetime. Is it possible that the structure of spacetime itself could be warped without the presence of matter? Spacetime has been shown to react like a fabric by warping, twisting, and propagating independently of mass, and all have been proven with observations from gravitational lensing, frame dragging, and now gravitational waves! Fabrics can also be stretched, pressured, and/or heated to the point of causing a deformation and losing its elastic nature. All of these conditions were extreme during inflation, so it is plausible that the “fabric” of spacetime analog could extend having its elastic property have hit a yield point leaving pockets of inelastic spacetime geodesic that cause gravity without the presence of matter? Therefore, if gravity is strictly the consequence of the warped of spacetime, and fabrics can be permanently overstretched, then those empty warped geodesics would create gravitational wells independent of mass. My hypothesis of DM is subatomic black hole imprints of the quantum fluctuations that popped in at the moment of inflation. The CMB shows where the hot dense regions were they created the galaxies. They would have been the initial cause and location of the warping. These imprints would be clouds of quantum sized floating fixed geodesics, so they couldn’t expand or evaporate. Perhaps nothing has been detected because there is nothing to detect. GR wouldn’t require modification because DM would just be an extension of how spacetime behaves at extreme conditions. No MOND, no WIMPs, and no parallel universes, just empty spacetime deformations that produce gravitational wells to help jump start galaxy accretion processes. Zwicky may have named is Missing Mass correctly since he detected some gravity without mass present to cause it…

@WillyoDee

Ай бұрын

I believe though, that the universe has been experimentally shown to be flat. I.e. no residual curvature

I think it makes sense. Feynman diagramed interactions as exchanges of virtual particles. Even if temporary, it makes sense to think they would have some mass. More interactions, more mass, so of course dark matter is going to “clump” around galaxies and be distributed throughout them rather than concentrated like black holes. The extra mass is where the mass is. And like, yeah, of course neutrinos, too, but isn’t it already calculated there couldn’t be enough neutrinos?

Dark matter is a hypothesis. So is MOND. The problem is that there are a lot of scientists that discuss it as fact.

Quantitative Prediction: Dark Energy Equation of State In our model, dark energy emerges from the cosmic information content. We can predict its equation of state w_DE: w_DE = -1 + ε(z) = -1 + ε_0(1+z)^n Where ε_0 is a small constant and n is determined by the information dynamics. This predicts a slight deviation from ΛCDM that could be detectable.

I'm quite happy this clip came up👍 Although I had previously listened to the full podcast, I re-learned from this clip and had novel ideas spark because of time passed, different state of mind while listening etc. Kudos!

I see 2 copies of Mathematica and at least 5 copies of _A new kind of Science_ (incl. one in French) on the shelf. Does Stephen read anything by anyone else?...

He is always saying stuff like that but the details are always missing and the thumbnail creators always buy the line. He is a brilliant man etc.

My guess: Dark matter is a math error. The math error is based on a misunderstanding of what that math means. The math is always correct, the application and assumptions is the error. Or not.

Dark Energy is from the Leptron Giant in a different dimension that is defecating into our universe... and you thought you had gas :P

what speed does ruliad dark matter space time heat flux move at? how does that match up with dynamics of DM like seen in the say coma cluster?

What creates force in a fundamental sense i.e. what causes two masses to attract each other? What’s the evidence to support an idea of an absolute creation of materia? “Singularity” in the “beginning” of BB?

Very interesting idea! It is a different approach and after decades of chasing around that could go off in a new direction. Dimensional fluctuationsof space time. Hmm. Sounds intriguing. I am looking forward to hear more about it as the story unfolds. Please keep us posted. Thank you for sharing

It is the remnant of every interaction, of every measurement. Dark matter is consciousness, and consciousness is a fundamental, if not the most fundamental, attribute of our universe.

I think there would have been some type of detection of a dark matter particle by now, Wolfram has a plausible hypothesis that’s worth more investigation. Plus then we can get these particle physicists to go out and actually do something productive for humanity.

Yes, dark matter is a clue to a bigger phenomenon. The invisible immaterial aspect of all that is. It is Astral matter. The bit that gives life its animation. It is the intermediary between physical matter and spiritual matter. It has a vibratory value that exceeds our own and is of extremely fine nature - probably below that of the Planck length. There are an infinity of frequencies that matter may vibrate at if they are not of physical, and so need infinite energy. There are an infinity of realms out there that comprise this matter and inform physical matter to give our spiritual source an experience in consciousness.

Big G (and maybe the fine structure constant) need to vary with mass on (inter)galactic scales. I could just about imagine a black hole density curve that evolves with the galaxy as more black holes join the central black hole the close they are. Imagine they were evenly spread out in the elliptical galaxy stage before it turned into a spiral... I don't do new forms of matter.

Actually, we are all 4 dimensional beings. The problem is we can only *see* in 3 dimensions while we are alive.

How do we test the conjecture?

Fix the link in the description.

@primi22

Ай бұрын

And fix the description to match the content

Stephen is brighter then most. But he remains glued to the groupthink that the erratic galactic rotation curves indicate we have unaccounted gravity. That’s one option. The other option is that we have a lack of spacetime between the outer stars and the galactic cores. I.e. what we perceive as the area between the galactic arms are actually spatial voids, where energy as the grid dominates, not spacetime. In which case the spatial distance of outer stars is far less then we perceive it to be in spatial terms solving all. We have the analogy of the atom, where outer electrons stay put because they move in discrete energy orbits expressed in eV’s. We refrain from expressing these orbits in spatial distance. So we have a know analogy of missing spacetime, just on a larger scale. Havent our voyagers crafts detected strong eV potentials even barely leaving the heliosphere. It amazes me we cant bring ourselves to use known physics to explain galactic rotation curves but instead keep invoking the nonsense of dark matter even after decades of failure to find it. Anybody home?

@craigsimpson9561

Ай бұрын

Fascinating. How do you reconcile "lack of space-time" with a flat galactic rotation curve (i.e. 1/r as opposed to Newtonian 1/r^2) which extends for millions of light-years around the centre of mass? You do realise that observations of galactic rotation do not resemble electron orbits (or even Keplerian orbits, for that matter) in any way whatsoever, right? Theories are nice, but theories which explain actual observations are nicer!

@commentarytalk1446

Ай бұрын

This was the sort of alternative but intuitive thinking I think holds more useful conjecture than "dark matter" ie mass that we cannot see to make the equations balance... which seems like circular reasoning fallacy more than anything else. Could the "energy field" be an "information field" alternatively?

@craigsimpson9561

Ай бұрын

@@commentarytalk1446 Just to clarify, my question remains this: how does that explain the observed flat galactic rotation curve? If we cannot explain observations, then how have we improved the situation? We can swap one conjecture for another all day long, but where does that leave us if we can't explain anything which we observe?

I know i am the one who figured out how to identically match the data energy points. Dark Matter evolves into dark energy and back to dark matter its like its alive

Have you calculated the space-time heated to be equal to what the dark matter quantity is in a particular region or in Milky Way galaxy?

The link to the full interview is not correct.

Everything in space is moving constantly (galaxies etc) & maybe if we could measure the energy being consumed by their movement within the universe then we could find the missing pieces of the puzzle. We don't try to measure centrifugal force as if it was some of energetic particles.

That dark matter is supposed to have mass, that supposed to have all those gravitational effects... if DM is just a structural property of the same conventional matter, where does this extra mass come from? 🤔

Big fan of wolfram’s theory, very coherent. Brian rebuts this at one point saying we know black holes are “particulate”. This seems very contradictory as the defining characteristic of back holes is the breakdown of standard model (i.e. particulate) theories. Not convinced this claim disproves Wolfram at all. Seems Brian is exhibiting exactly what Wolfram goes on to talk about re inheritance of conventional concepts in physics. Clearly there are gaps which call for new theories.

Some thing is there at least that's why Dr Stephan is talked. To me a constant is a result of subtraction. And I am also curious why speed of light is constant as light gets bend when it passes from upper atmosphere . How can we measure the correct speed of some thing that is already deflected . And how could be it constant. A deflected light is in gradient when we measure it on earth. Thanks.

We've searched for dark matter candidates for decades and none of the ones we have found so far explain what we are seeing. Supersymmetry particles are increasing unlikely as the Large Hadron Collider finds nothing at the most likely energy levels. Axions are still our best bet but it's hard to imagine even these dark matter particles would fill in the gap on their own, even if it turns out these really do exist. So we are forced to contemplate ideas such as the one touch upon this short clip.

so tired of these unlabeled click farming clips. every time i have to talk myself out of unsubscribing

@canonaler

Ай бұрын

@@ldlework then just unsubscribe

@ldlework

Ай бұрын

@@canonaler it's called feedback

@cordatusscire344

Ай бұрын

Yep. His clips are awful to the point of almost scummy. But his content is a good source of information. I would fire whomever is doing his edits and clip titles though. Fire them twice.

@sgs138

Ай бұрын

It seems like the discussion in the clip is much in line with the title of the clip. I agree it’s frustrating when that happens (for any channel), but I’m not seeing it here.

@vvtente

Ай бұрын

Ok ill unsub too

He gets most into what this "heat" is at 2:55 and 8:05 but still not very clearly. All of the crackpots can say, "My theory also says dark matter is a kind of heat!" So your theory says space has a fluctuating number of dimensions? "No, my theory is completely different."

Heeey🎉🎉 that's nice ,the last time i checked out i saw the universe from outside,if the white hole is a vortex,the vortex is a bit taller than hills in heaven but relativistic in distance ,the light on the other side of hill is only stopped by rainbow colors, distant objects in heaven carry a different meaning than what we do , say and think about, simple experiment rolling out soon, would you represent that in your channel like a video?

Wolfram: i know that i dont know

How one can disregard an option, that the speed of information travels through some underlying structure of the universe is so great, that our experiments doesn’t register it, but seems instantaneous? I mean, Wolfram makes sense, there is an underlying structure & it very well might cause the effect.

Galactic scale magnetic fields are vastly undervalued.

Wow Bryan 2:08 this person was a mentor and turned into a tool. You will fail if your barricade are also put on new ideas. It sucks you are not as smart. You are potential energy in my theory as a human but I think you took a path that surpasses your degree. You are still welcome into reality.

What would Positron & Anti-matter effects have on this Universe? Anti -field.

Wolfram can't understand Hoffman he sure doesn't understand Dark Matter.

The most likely candidate for dark matter is interstellar and intergalactic neutral hydrogen atoms. An extensive article about this was published in Cosmology 2020 by Eugene Tatum entitled "Dark Matter as Cold Atomic Hydrogen in Its Lower Ground State". These hydrogen atoms meet all the observed conditions for "dark matter". There really is no need to invent exotic particles such as axions or machos. Yet I suspect this contrived controversy will continue as a means to attract grant money.

I know this is clickbait but I came here to be amused. I don't know what dark matter is either but it's cross section to matter measured in barns is nearly zero. We may never know what it actually is.

It's fine to propose a different model of dark matter and run simulation to see if it will fit data. But until you have some solid results that match real data, don't say stuff like "Dark matter is just spacetime heat". It comes across as though you know for sure when you're just testing out ideas.

looking fit Brian ;) ty for all this amazing info

It's abundantly clear that it's a product of space time.

If spacetime is the unicorn in modern physics, dark matter is the sweat on the unicorn.

@morphixnm

Ай бұрын

And black holes are swirls in its fur.

Symmetrical particles are there according to CERN data

I know what dark matter is. It's mankind's largest and most financially successful grift.

I suppose the same postulate could cover dark energy as well. Both could just be emergent properties of space-time.

I wonder if dark matter is actually a holographic projection from distant denser regions of space. The Holographic principle suggests any 3-D region of space can be described by its 2-D boundary. In a black hole that boundary is an event horizon. But with galaxies and galactic clusters maybe the Holographic Principle causes a distant area to exhibit something dollar to gravitational effects. The deal is if this is so there is no way to find dark matter, it’s not stuff. It only emerges at large distances. There may be a way to check this by calculating the effects of the Holographic principle from dense regions projected out to less dense regions.

@BM-rm7vr

Ай бұрын

Also, if my idea has any merit then dwarf galaxies can have larger farm matter fields projected from neighboring large galaxies.

Sooooo, quantum gravity?…

Dark matter is just the effects of very long wavelength and high amplitude gravitational waves.

Dark matter is the by product of all the stuff that isn't real but we figured out the math for anyway! For example Jurassic Park dinosaurs, black holes, unicorns, the big bang, space time. . .you know, math that quantifies fantasy.

@marcv2648

Ай бұрын

This is how I see it. A lot of fictional stuff created so that the math can balance out. Which would mean a much simpler math and reality will be closer to the truth. Epicycles were made to match empirical data. And they did match empirical data.

So your title is not a direct quote of something Wolfram said.

Dude you're on a roll Brian!!

All this talk of the heat and no talk of the vapor smh

If space is pixilated at the planck length, could be that dark matter is what holds those pixels together like the strong force holds quarks together.

@Existidor.Serial137

Ай бұрын

It is now believed that what holds spacetime together are quantum wormholes created by quantum entanglement.

@lennysinner15

Ай бұрын

Interesting, who has proposed this? Would those quantum wormholes consist of two quantum black holes with quantum E-R bridge between them? Thus the universe/spacetime would be "blanketed" with these miniature black holes... Or Planck holes?😁

@Existidor.Serial137

Ай бұрын

@@lennysinner15 exactly. ERP=EP. I cant remember who developed this idea but Brian Green talks a lot about it. The have even "cut" these wormholes and find out that reality itself dissapears, mathematically speaking.