I'm not smart enough to prove my hypothesis, nor am I smart enough to understand any proof that I am wrong, but I'm not entirely 100% convinced that dark matter exists as an attractive phenomenon inside galaxies the way it is often described.
The way I see it, it might as well be a repulsive force between galaxies. This way it could also help explain Dark Energy.
While there may be a part of it being "different gravity", dark matter cannot 100% be explained by modified gravity of any kind.
Why do we know this? Well there are observable galaxies that survived collisions and have been stripped of their dark matter, and the reverse is also true (galaxy-sized dark matter blobs without baryonic matter in it).
I can refer you to this wonderful PBS Spacetime video about it: https://youtu.be/5t0jaE--l0Y
We have never detected dark matter. Dunno what you're talking about. It's existence was posited because of differences in observed velocities at the edge of galaxies vs what we expected to see.
What is your definition of "detected"? If only direct interaction using the EM field is required, then we have never detected anything...
There are lots of gravitational lensing images of dark matter, we can even see some structures in its shape and distribution.
Check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster
Dark matter can be detected through gravitational lensing. Rotation curves was just the first way we detected it.
If I look at a glass and I see that it is half empty by looking at the empty part, does that mean I didn't detect anything?
I'm not entirely 100% dark matter exists in galaxies the way often described. ... The way I see it, it might as well be a repulsive force between galaxies opposed to the current understanding of it being am attractive force. Plus, if it were a phenomenon that pushed things apart, it could also explain Dark Energy.
And to me, that's a perfectly valid theory. Like other proposed explanations for dark matter or dark energy or "whatever the hell it is we can detect the effect of but can't identify", it's difficult to test.
That's why I enjoy science. It's like a big puzzle, and sometimes you get halfway done and realize you put it together wrong and have to start over.
I would like to emphasize the first part of my previous comment. As I am a hillbilly occasionally cosplaying as a smart and educated person, I am incapable of exploring my statement further than just making the claim. And for that I must insist on referring to it as an hypothesis, unless someone shows me some math that it could actually work. And I hope anyone showing me said math brings the necessary crayons and puppets to explain it in a manner that I can understand.
I am a hillbilly occasionally cosplaying as a smart and educated person
Same. Which explains why I (twice, lol) incorrectly used the terms "theory" and "hypothesis" interchangeably when those are totally different things in sciences.
Unfortunately of course such hypotheses are extraordinarily difficult to actually test. However intuitively I do kind of like where you're coming from. I've always been fascinated by how everything that we conceptually are aware of has a sorta polar opposite that we kind of define it by.
We know that's not the case because we can see different galaxies with different levels of dark matter.
Dark matter doesn't interact with anything else except by gravity, we don't know why, but we can detect that behavior by seeing the way it clumps together.
We can also see that galaxies that collide with each other have different levels of dark matter than galaxies that haven't recently done so. The dark matter appears to just pass through each other and continue on while the regular matter hits each other and stays generally together in one group.
It's pretty interesting when you work through the details of what we do and don't know.
non luminous matter is a better term, but it doesn't sound as cool and mysterious.
No we can't see that, we can see most galaxies spin faster than our models say they should and some galaxies spin a lot faster.
https://www.universetoday.com/...
You don't appear to be up to date on the latest research.
Plausible!
I had a bachelor's in physics a decade ago.
But here's how my memory describes how we discovered, or at least how we did it in my computational physics class.
You have stars of known size, and there for light output as its directly proportional to size. You also have a known distance.
You can then calculate how bright the star should be. But its wrong.
Meaning there's things in the way thats blocking light.
So we call it dark matter because it hasn't been directly observed and its clearly there. It could be our fundamentals are wrong, but that's unlikely.
It could very well follow gravitational fields, and then attracted to galaxies with large masses.
But it could also be something in the vacuum. We just have no evidence to suggest either way.
That's a popular hypothesis, that "dark matter" is actually an envelope surrounding galaxies rather inside of them.
I guess on a similar note, my own wacky theory is that our dimension can be affected at any given time by up to 13 other dimensions, but which 13 can change amongst a potentially infinite number. I imagine certain dimensions would more likely be co-terminus (I term I believe I'm borrowing from a Dungeons and Dragons type source) with ours than others but who knows.
One of the biggest harms sci fi and fantays did to public scientific literacy is the abuse of the word "dimension"
D&D's astral and ethereral planes are not seperate dimenions so much as they are four-dimensional planes seperated from the really mortals live along a axis of reality.
The "11 dimensional reality" idea is an attempt to explain the asymmetry of the four fundamental forces by postulating that there are additional axis straught line axis that those forces propagate through.
Oh, I hear ya. And although obviously inspired by RPGs, I do conceptualize my wacky theory more in the context of string theory and related ideas.
The primary thing we have detected is an attractive force within galaxies. Whether that's otherwise-undetectable particles or a mistake in how we calculate gravity or something else, we definitely know it's that there is more attractive force holding galaxies together than there should be based on detectable matter and general relativity.
Simply put: galaxies rotate too fast. Much, much too fast. That can't be caused by repulsion between galaxies. Only by the stars within a galaxy being pulled towards the centre of that galaxy my than we would expect. Similar to how you have to spin faster to hold a big bucket of water horizontal without spilling than to hold a small bucket of water.
Yeah, I like to think of it this way:
Dark matter is not a theory or even a hypothesis. It is a collection of observations.
Having "matter" in the name is kind of a presumptive thing, like "our observations act like there's too much gravity, and matter creates gravity, and we can't see any extra shit, so..."
As I understand it, the "matter" part is a hold over from physicists trying to fix their faulty calculations.
Looking for "matter" that only interacts with gravity is a bit like looking for the perfectly smooth frictionless plane. I mean, somethings gotta account for the sums being off, but the real world explanation is anybody's guess.
It's not even "we dont know what the hell it is" because we don't even know that there's an it.
It's more like "our numbers dont add up but wouldn't it be cool if there was something invisible that explained it?"
I thought this guy was a legit scientist, but I read his recent book Quantum Supremacy and it was all shit like "with quantum computing, in the future you will be able to solve athlete's foot". Literally everything you can think of is going to be quantummaxxed by cubits, according to him. Need your car serviced but the garage isn't open on Sundays? Quantum computing. Need your mother-in-law to dial down the snarky comments about your new house? QUANTUM COMPUTING. Frequently walk into a room, forget why you went in there, leave, then immediately remember why you went in the second you cross the threshold? MOTHERFUCKING QUANTUM COMPUTING!
I'm sure he is a legit scientist, of course, but as a science communicator and terminal book-hawker, he's no better than Joe Rogan.
he's 80. he's just old and losing it and trying to stay relevant.
he is legit and was dope in the 90s/2000s, he has just started losing his mind due to being old.
sort of like trump and tariffs. those were suppose to solve my athlete's foot too.
Shit, he's 80? I guess I haven't seen him in a while. Back when the cable stations with educational names actually had educational programming, and not just reality trash, he was pretty dope.
dude has been a public figure for over 40 years.
A young woman from Washington state university has already proven classical computers can solve just as well as quantum if you give them equal advantages. Everything saying quantum computing is faster is operating on the unspoken principle of having the entire data grid already preloaded and comparing it to classical computers who do not have the entire data grid preloaded but when you give them both the magic preload pill quantum computers aren’t any better than classical
if you give them equal advantages
I think this is key. Top Supercomputers can currently simulate up to 50 cubits. Quantum computing is already at 98 cubits
Ah Neil "in the mirror you can only kiss yourself on the lips" Tyson
parallel dimension
Aren't dimensions by definition orthogonal?
Got'em
That is true for space dimensions, but there is also a time dimension, and would another dimension, that is 'orthogonal' to a time dimension not be some kind of dimension that offers alternative time lines?
Mathematically we know a lot about dimensions. Usually it's just adding an extra variable.
I know a thing or two about the first three, thank you.
3rd “Lionel” Dimension
So we have six primary orthogonal directions (up/down, left/right, back/forth),
These are 3 dimensions, not 6.
Left is not orthogonal to right.
any being can möbiate beyond
Surely you can only möbiate by twisting back on yourself.
I think i saw karmic fetters and the existence-illusion complex at Glastonbury.
I see nothing wrong with suggesting that, so long as it is made clear he is discussing one of many theoretical possibilities.
Is he a kook? He does kinda look like one, but so do a lot of legit scientists, so that's not a good measure.
Not a kook. Legit scientist. He has a PhD in theoretical physics, not a theoretical PhD in physics. While he spends a lot of time as a science communicator, he has his bona fides.
Yes, it's all just theories and intuition like all nascent science.
I read a book of his once about theoretical ways to make sci-fi technology a reality. It was interesting in a hard sci-fi kind of way, but what really annoyed me was that he kept presenting his ideas as how they would work rather than how they could work.
Just looking at what people 100 years ago thought life would be like today should be a good indication that while theorizing about the future is interesting and a good way to get ideas moving, future technology is never going to be exactly what you think it will. If we knew exactly how this stuff would work, we wouldn't be imagining it, we'd just make it.
well thats disappointing, I just bought one of his books in an attempt to understand quantum better
String theory is a dead theory. Don't waste your time on it.
How so?
He has been on Coast to Coast AM he has been on Joe Rogan and other scientists in his and other fields are often not happy with his outreach.
For example
Can be? Sure. But is he? No.
He has a PhD in theoretical physics, not a theoretical PhD in physics.
lol, I just rolled through HELIOS One on this current play through of F:NV
That's a tad vague. Who said the quote?
"Never shall two scientists of the same trade meet, but the conversation ends in a fight over semantics and one-upmanship."
It was probably me, but I'm paraphrasing here.
There are plenty of crazies who have their PhD in some branch of physics/math. One of the reasons I stopped at a bachelor's in physics.
Its almost a prerequisite. But from what I've read of him in the past, he's pretty far out there.
He's a heavily published professor of theoretical physics that has been working on string theory, and working as a science communicator, for decades. I have one of his books from the 90s. Globally well-respected smart dude.
By comparison, you kind of seem like a kook because you can't search a name before making assumptions about someone based on physicality alone.
Scientific method and all that. Any conjecture is okay.
Now, what's the hypothesis that you can make out of it? We've plenty of observations that don't match theory, which we believe to be on account of dark matter - galaxy rotation speeds, what happens in the core of a type 2 supernova, and so on. Does this hypothesis explain those problems better than what we have?
If it does, keep it. If it doesn't, discard it. Repeat, until we've solved all the mysteries of the universe by banging our heads against them.
This strikes me as the kind of conjecture that has no predictive power, and therefore must be discarded, but I'm no PhD-level theoretical physicist.
This strikes me as the kind of conjecture that has no predictive power, and therefore must be discarded
Maybe it doesn't provide much in itself, but can help with providing an alternate framework for thinking about observational anomalies in the future.
Heliocentrism didn't actually improve the predictions of planet movement over geocentric models with epicycles, at least until Kepler swapped out circles for ellipses. So heliocentrism didn't give an immediate advantage, but laid the groundwork for later improvements that could surpass the limits of geocentrism.
What he's probably saying is not that far out.
Dark matter was proposed initially because at galaxy scales the gravity force doesn't seem to match the one created by the visible matter in that galaxy, while others tried to propose modified laws of gravity at that scale. He is probably defending the later via compactified dimensions, so at some scales gravity stops transmitting at one over the distance squared, as those extra dimensions start to make an effect somehow.
In case someone thinks I'm saying something crazy imagine a universe that is an infinite straw. When you zoom a lot in the surface you see two flat dimensions, so gravity would propagate at one over the distance. When you zoom out you stop seeing the dimension that loops over itself and only see one, so gravity gets constant at that scale.
You could get the same with a lot more complex manifolds, that look like 3+1 dimensions at some scales.
Yeah, this guy is so full of shit.
Edit: Whoever doesn't like it, go watch his discussion with Roger Penrose, etc. He's so obviously out of his depth when he's not talking about speculative pop science bullshit.
Angela Collier's video about this: https://youtu.be/wBBnfu8N_J0?t=2213 (Kaku part starts at 36:50).
A TLDW on the rest of the video: "Gell-Mann Amnesia" is a term Michael Crichton coined. It refers to how people read articles in a newspaper about a topic they are experts in, realize it's all horribly written trash, then turn the page and happily read the next article about an unfamiliar topic forgetting they just learned the newspaper is trash.
Collier expands on the idea to include the Gell-Mann Complement and Gell-Mann Recollection. The Recollection is what Kaku does, where he doesn't know anything about a topic but presents a simple explanation on it anyway just because he's an expert in something different. This frequently gets him into completely bonkers territory, like Deepak Chopra level bonkers.
It's not like Penrose doesn't get out of his depth pretty rapidly. I read The Emporer's New Mind and my first reaction was has the guy never heard of a heuristic? Brains aren't perfect Turing machines but sloppy approximaters that make "eh, good enough" decisions.
Kaku is very good in physics, he just decided to make money instead of doing proper physics.
Penrose is also considered somewhat wacky in the field, mostly because of conformal cyclic cosmology, but does proper physics
Penrose is also a legend
He's literally just the Ancient Aliens guy but with a PhD
To be fair, this is the level of physics where if they discover things right out of fantasy book (teleportation, mind reading, transmutation etc) I wouldn't be even surprised.
There are a few that have had tea with Cthulu. Not many, but a few. Physics at this level is sometimes about taking a good hit from a pipe and going, "What if" and "What might happen if"
Then they let real mathematicians and engineers figure it out to see if they hit on a lucky guess, Oh and Grad students. Can't forget the all important Grad students.
A hypothesis is only valid if it has any basis in reality AND a way to falsify it.
You can't just say "it's cause god got bored" that's not valid.
You can say "it's another dimension leaking, here's something we can check and if we observe this, then it's not true."
Just throwing out random ideas isn't a hypothesis, it's fiction.
That is the point, you can't even check it. You can't check if Dark Matter is caused by an paralel dimension or not. Ous science is still very basic, we know the phenomens, we even can calculate and use it (eg.gravity lenses), but we don't know what it is, we don't even really know what is light.
any hypothesis is valid
I suspect dark matter is actually just the gravitational pull of OPs mother slipping in from a parallel dimension.
What if dark matter is a time artifact of gravitational waves over time/space as particles with mass travel through time/space? (I am not a physicist and I don't understand jack shit.)
don't talk about my mom like that.
how can time be real if we don't even know how magnets work?
and how can magnets the whole thing if our eyes aren't real?
while we're at it, if our eyes aren't real how can we dream that you, um, you had, your, you- you could, you’ll do, you- you wants, you, you could do so, you- you’ll do, you could- you, you want, you want him to do you so much you could do anything?
they dont think it be like it is but it do 🤔
Oh shit, reverse the flow to the warp coils! Dump all energy from life support into forward shields and laser missiles, our only chance to defeat the psychic alien is to reverse and restart time for .00001 second, creating a terminal in the psychic time loop. Once free, we can concentrate our dark matter on the psychic alien, stunning him for just long enough to get him to buy a sketchy timeshare on Mars.
Thank you science word rearranger celebrity with NGL pretty good hair
/c/pseudoscience_memes
You do know that he's heavily published professor of theoretical physics, right?
Or did you not understand the words and throw shade at a physicist simply because you don't know much about theoreticial physics?
He is a really interesting case. He is a real, actual, published theoretical physicist. But his popular science persona made him a bit weird. For example, in this video, alongside Roger Penrose and Sabine Hossenfelder, he looks like a sci-fi hype-man.
Sabine Hossenfelder isn't really a good foil for someone that likes to portray that they are an expert on topics that are actually outside their expertise. Here's a good video on why she is more similar to him than you would think: Youtube.
From my perspective, her takes on anything outside of undergrad physics are pretty shit, so forgive me if I don't see having her involved as a good thing.
Yeah, I remember him on Art Bell back in the 90s and early 2000s. He's never shied away from trying to inject real science into the pseudoscience crowd. Just because he's willing to be brave enough to keep a discussion grounded in reality doesn't mean other guests invited to some event he didn't organize necessarily color his character. It's the risk of being a science communicator - you want to communicate real science to people that normally don't want to hear about it.
To be fair to a counterpoint, string theory hasn't panned out mathematically as he probably expected, so he has a bit more time to get into all sorts of things these days. I'm more so surprised he hasn't retired yet.
theoretical physics is is a lot of pseudo science.
most of it is pure mathematics.
it's only science strictly, when it's hypothesis are verified by experimental evidence.
there are still particles in the standard model that are purely theoretical.
yes. it's not a science anymore than painting is.
you can certainly make mathematical models and paint pictures of theoretical concepts though.
science is the method of empirical verification. math is about as empirical as metaphysics is.
What's a parallel dimension?
He maybe means a parallel universe. Or a higher order dimension like in string theory. This guy is a string theorist so probably the latter.
I mean ... We all KNEW but we're afraid to speak up.
(If it turns out that this theory is crap I want you to forget this comment and I'll simply delete and repost it when the next theory comes around. )
quick, get the xkcd
All we need to do is reverse the impulsors and route weapons systems into the storage matrix.
cool theory, Probably impossible to test let alone prove. but fun theory anyways.
Would it be OK if I pat myself in the back because I wondered if that was a possibility when I learned about dark matter? I'm not a physicist, but I was thinking about parallel dimensions fiction and asked that question.
Except for the ones that intersect.
The "chicken attack" guy is a physicist?
I've been insisting this for years:
it eradicates the bullshit of hyperinflation being required to smooth the CMB,
it explains why gravity's sooo weak, compared with the contained-within-this-3d-space forces, like electromagnitism,
it explains why there exist galaxies of dark-matter which don't have any conventional-matter,
it explains why there exist galaxies of conventional-matter which don't have any dark-matter.
The gravity's diffusing through MANY 3D-spaces, not just ours.
the other forces are contained-within-this-3D-space.
Therefore OUR gravity is "dark matter" in other 3D-spaces, too.
The smoothing-of-the-CMB is simple: instead of 1x 3D-space having hyperinflation, there are thousands of 3D-spaces ( or zillions: whatever the math says matches ), & EACH of them inflated at speed-of-light or less, not at zillions-of-times-c.
The painting-method called "glazing" is essentially the same idea:
da Vince used many many thin layers of paint, to make ultra-smooth tones..
the many-many-many-3D-spaces all "underlying" each-other smoothes-out the gravity among them all, so local-lumpiness simply isn't a significant part of the equation, as it would appear.
Part of this is on the E = speed-of-gravity * mass * speed-of-light, though, so it's arithmetically identical to the conventional E=mc^2 rendition,
but would gravity & light both be traveling at the same mps speed through say a 100km of quartz?
XOR would the refractive-index be different for gravity & light?
That structural difference is what the speed-of-gravity * mass * speed-of-light variant was trying to show.
_ /\ _
@mander.xyz
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
go to feed...
@mander.xyz
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
go to feed...
The thing with dark matter is it's just a placeholder term for "we don't know what the hell it is", and aren't most hypotheses pulled out of the ass before experimentation to prove them?
Plus, Dr. Kaku is a string theorist so wacky is pretty much par for the course in that field. Granted, I consider him more of a TV personality these days and grew up watching him as a speaker on [insert any number of Discovery Channel shows here].
Maybe I'm just biased and enjoy the wacky theories because I'm more interested in seeing them proven right or wrong and thinking about the implications if they happen to prove correct.
save