The Sorry State of Dark Matter Alternatives

Share this video on

What's Hot

What's New

Top Grossing

Top of the Chart


The Exoplanets Channel : Dark matter.. *matters*

Nohrian Octorok : Alright, so we know there's stuff out there that we can't see. But what are telescopes made with? Mirrors. What can't you see in mirrors? Vampires. *Space is full of vampires*

Gravijta : I guess dark matter is just another state of regular matter. The Sorry State.

jrpipik : SciShow 1887 is still putting all their money on luminiferous aether to explain the motion of light through the cosmos.

z beeblebrox : 4:33 I can't believe you passed up an opportunity to say Sextillion

Aspect Science : “Dark matter. Each pound of it weighs 1000 pounds” Is my math right?

SweatyShivers : ""Along with 'dark matter' and 'anti-matter' we've recently discovered the existence of 'doesn't matter', which appears to have no effect on the universe whatsoever"---Richtennant.

ThatGuy : I wonder if there's anti dark matter? (Edit: This brought a much larger debate than expected)

Ryukachoo : Mond totally glosses over gravitational lensing too, which is..... definitely a thing

Eric Taylor : If dark matter outnumbers "regular/normal" matter, then the matter that interacts with light is neither regular or normal. It's like if you have a room where one person in 5 is less than 5 feet tall, but if for some reason you can only see people who are less then 5 feet tall, and saying the average height of the people in this room is 4'6" when the average height might be closer to 5'8".

Pranav Ghandade : What about dank matter?

J C : As a layman, I just don't like the theory of dark matter because it seems too deus ex machina. "There is something we can't figure out: well, there is this dark matter at the ratio of 5:1". "Over here, the ratio of 5:1 doesn't work: well, there is MORE dark matter over there." Basically, it's a catch all answer to everything. Of course, every equation works because it's a variable that you can create to fit the solution. In an equation x + y + z = 10, I know x to be 1 and I want y to be 2, then I will make z to be 7. If I know x to be 2 and I still want y to be 2, then I will make z to be 6. Dark Matter is a solution to every question because we can vary it to be whatever you want it to be. Please, someone, enlighten me. I haven't taken a real physics class since college (I did Electrical Engineering so I did enough physics but never the astrophysics.) I would like to learn. If there are other videos that I should watch to be convinced, please link them here. Thank you.

New Message : Meat alternatives... sugar alternatives.. we've gone too far with Dark Matter alternatives..

derklempner : In Hawking's book, "The Universe in a Nutshell", he posits that dark matter may be nothing more than the gravitational effect of a nearby brane or multiple branes containing their own universes. The matter in those universes could gravitationally affect our universe, causing the effects we see and describe as "dark matter".

jimlovesgina : It seems like we are taking a leap in claiming how galaxies should be moving based on nothing more than our very distant observations and math, which could be wrong. We have been wrong many many times and we think we have the right of it now? We are making these claims thinking we have all the data. I am guessing we don't have all the data.

Jynxedlove : I spent the entire video wanting to fix his collar and didn't hear what he said, so I had to rewatch it without the video.

thom1218 : "Dark Matter" isn't an option - it's a knowledge gap with a label. The "alternatives" are genuine attempts to explain what's going on, while continuing to throw around the "dark matter" label advances nothing.

MrSerrrg88 : You could name this episode "why dark matter matters" ;)

TrayCity7 : I dont see how something we cant prove exists "succeeds" in any way shape or form. We just made up something to account for the things we cant account for with actual proof

Bert Nijhof : You completely ignored the quantum physics based approach, that states that gravity is an emergent force as proposed by eg the brothers Verlinde from the universities of Princeton and Amsterdam both pupils of Gerard 't Hooft. The theory is amongst others supported by Gerard 't Hooft, the Nobel laureate and by Robbert Dijkgraaf, director and Leon Levy professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. A team led by astronomer Margot Brouwer (Leiden Observatory, The Netherlands) has proved this new theory of theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde (University of Amsterdam) for the first time through the lensing effect of gravity using many different galaxies. Dark matter is an lazy theory, you just assume a different amount of dark matter for each galaxy and you can correctly explain and "proof" its effects. The theory of Verlinden does not require these lazy galaxy specific assumptions as measured by Margot Brouwer.

Robert Pruitt : Another big problem with MOND is those 2 galaxies(forget the name) that passed through each other and had almost all of their gases ripped out and the gas from both galaxies is now sitting together in the space between the galaxies. Both of the galaxies have less mass escht than the gas cloud, but the smaller galaxies show affects of dark matter while the more massive gas cloud shows absolutely no affects from dark matter. That pretty much destroys MOND.

Belial : If Climate Change taught me anything, its that Dark Matter is the correct one because it has consensus of the majority of scientists ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Don Wald : What's the difference between arbitrary fundamental scale and arbitrary amount of dark matter?

Sebry : All it takes for dark matter to be a thing is for there to be a form of matter that simply does not interact with photons but still has mass/ Perhaps, dark matter will even interact with other things that normal matter doesn't interact with so much, like neutrinos.

Steve Trueblue : LOL Its so gross to see "rational scientists" having such strong faith in Dark Matter which has God-like qualities everywhere but nowhere, immeasurable omnipotent and invisible and always comes to the rescue when its needed. And Christians are ridiculed for believing in the "invisible Sky Daddy". LMAO Dark Matter is science's God of the Gaps. Big Bang Cosmology is a pseudoscientific religion. Scientism. All they want is another trillion dollars.The mindset that needs dark energy and dark matter wizards is a problem in the heads of the cosmologists. Am surprised Dark Energy Dark Matter hasnt been employed to explain gaps in the fossil record because the Evolution theory needs all the help it can get. LMAO. Keep the faith brothers.One day in the Promised Land.......

Robert Garvey : NDT once suggested we refer to it as "dark gravity" because calling it "dark matter" presumes we know more about what it is than we do. I like that. And ... does MOND explain lensing effects attributed to dark matter?

Ranger Ruby : So basically, there has to be dark matter because gravity won't work without it? I guess there are going to be some things we will never know. But that's science. Thanks for this video. It helps me grasp what dark matter is and why we need it. DFTBA!

The Sapien : How much dark matter and dark energy does it take to bust a theory? We're literally looking at plasma by its EM radiation when viewing a galaxy's structure, yet gravity is your dominant force to explain that structure? What about plasma physics? Call me crazy, but it's really remarkable how plasma experiments are now giving us new models for cosmology that fit all of the recent findings, like HELLO, maybe we should be applying new plasma science to, you know, the natural plasma of the universe.

Neilis : I think part of the problem is that General Relativity and Quantum Theory both have to be wrong on some level. Given that they break down at certain scales, we know that both are fundamentally flawed. With that in mind, when we look at really, really large scales (eg, galaxies and such), then they don't behave the way our known flawed equations predict, we make up a placeholder to "force" the equation to work. Assuming you're correct without evidence and then declaring something completely unobservable as real simply because it must be for you to remain correct doesn't seem like good science.

PDT Mark : so now we havenormal matter,anti matter and now dark matter whats next light matter ?

Charles Ginzel : doesn't dark matter "work" because we put in the amount necessary to make our gravitational equations work on an observation by observation basis? you keep saying that dark matter works on each of the observations, but the quantity and location of the dark matter is not constant, we "balance" the equations to make them work with an amount of dark matter of our own choosing. isn't this like fudging our own equations just to make the work? granted, correct equations can predict certain things to be true before we know them to be so... myself, i like to think gravity from real matter is leaking between parallel universes :)

mian fazle razik : Mond isn't Gona make it most probably

Robert T : An ignorant internet commenters hypothesis: Maybe dark matter is the residual of universal scale anti-matter/matter collisions at the beginning of the universe? On such large scales maybe they don't annihilate each other and that there is some weird left over that isn't quite matter but can affect it.

Guillermo Escobar : They are keeping us in the dark about dark matter! #illuminati #reptiles

Juanfra Valero : This dark matter reminds me of the Ptolemaic system, that created the epicycles to make the planets movement fit with the Geocentric model. It fit the math of the time, and it worked pretty well then. I think we are at the same point. We don't know enough, and you are trying to patch our system with dark matter, while we still don't have a unified physics theory (if you think string theory is there, well, read the Trouble with physics my Lee Smolin.

RUSapache : 0:50 NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN ...

Jon Bain : Get back to basics. Gravitational lensing showed that estimates of mass in galaxies was more than expected when assuming the amount of mass based on the amount of light. So all that means is that inbetween stars are cold dark planetary objects that do not give off light. That is all it is. Bodies like Jupiter floating in the dark. Any other speculation is just pseudoscience and skat.

Efstathios Dimopoulos : Dark matter can be indirectly observed and mapped with telescopes... Gravitational lensing shows us the DM areas in the universe. The fact we are not smart enough to observe it shouldn't prohibit us from searching. We may get lucky. Also it is good that there are people against DM because it gives you better incentive to work better and smarter to refute non DM. It's like hearing a mosquito in the night. You now that there is something circling around you even when you haven't seen it. You hear the effect ot the mosquito on the air and not the mosquito.

Joshua Sweetman : MOND. Dark Matter. Just admit that both or neither could be right. Like Heisenberg.

melanieenmats : Not a very convincing report imo. If the theory of dark matter turns out wrong it will be because one of the forgotten assumptions is wrong, as happened over and over in history in all disciplines. Computermodels exacerbate this validity problem. To me the theories of dark matter and dark energy seem like artifacts of a validity problem. If for example there was a problem with the way redshift is used to calculate distance, all those elaborate computermodels and probability calculations for dark matter and energy are instantly going in the bin. I fid it pretentious to have this much faith in the assumptions, as history has shown us the ASSUMPTIONS ARE ALWAYS wrong. E.g. whereas Newtons laws seemed 100 percent correct for a very long time, they were than proven to be totally wrong by Einstein, but not in a way that is easy to notice on earth. This bc Newton ASSUMED time and space were separate.

Hoigwai : Given how much we didn't know or thought we knew that has been found and disproven over the last 200 years it doesn't feel like that much of a stretch to say we have a theory that so far keeps matching up with all available data that can't detect yet.

Evan Fields : #darklivesmatter

Jes Ewers : I'm enjoying the video but I gotta just mention something about a comment around 1:37. I'm sorry, but saying they were 'forced into their ideas by a century of data' strikes me as a combination of argument from final consequences and false dichotomy. I would have been fine with you asserting that it is the most commonly agreed upon solution based on observations, but the data didn't force them to where they are. That doesn't even really make sense. How can they be forced into an unknown by data? That's not a consistent thought. Anyways. I am a huge fan of science communicators - but with people so incredibly skeptical of science and scientists in our country right now, making these bold and final sounding assertions about things we don't actually understand is a HUGE part of the reason the general public has a hard time trusting science. I know, and I get, that it isn't as flashy, or that its harder to get the point sold without it. But it is also what people remember. And they say well you were wrong about this and that. Yes, those who are fans of the scientific process understand that is kinda how science is done, but that isn't the message being given. The message the public gets is 'we know this to be true' is always followed up by a 'well, we were wrong.' It can be hard to imagine that just a few words can matter so much, but they do. Just a thought.

Everything : One best test was observed by two cluster of galaxies collided with each other leaving mostly all of the two clusters of galaxies stars gas in between. And should have left stars gravities pulling on each other, leaving them all over the place...but all the stars in all the galaxies were all still together, making dark matter even more a real thing.

Zom Bee Nature : Dark matter seems like sleight of hand stuff. Presto! The matter is floating with no visible means of support!

Derek Peevey : The only reason dark matter works is because you can adjust how much you put into the system to make it work.

YouCanScienceIt : It was really reading the papers about the bullet cluster that convinced me. Most of the ways that Dark Matter is popularly discussed feels like some kind of MOND could work. However, ultimately the case of the bullet cluster simply doesn't work without some kind of space-time distorting gravitational effect that isn't associated with the visible matter - e.g dark matter. What dark matter actually is, is still hard to say but it's not compatible with modifying gravity on large scales.

TF Sheahan : So what about Eric Verlinde of the Perimeter Institute? How does data support or refute his hypothesis? My understanding is that includes the probability that gravity is not a fundamental force at all, but an emergent one that is influenced, if not created, by entropy. Why not do a video refuting or supporting his hypothesis/theory?

GIANT INTERNET NAME : Could the extra gravity be explained by whats on the other side of a black hole? If a black hole was like a wormhole and had an exit, or multiple exits, the gravitational forces on the other side of the hole could be impacting both sides, adding an exponential increase in the gravitational forces.

Jon Wiebold : Can we be serious for one paragraph? Edwin Hubble saw galaxies with a z>1.4, which means those galaxies were moving away from us at more than the speed of light. I guarantee they have no linear or rotational frames of reference in common with the Milky Way. It is just as true for all other galaxies that we do not have any information about the local definition of stationary. The speed of light is strictly defined, but stationary is not defined according to the Michelson-Morely Experiment. As long as we have no answer to the question: Relative to What?, we cannot know how to measure the rotational speeds of other galaxies. There is no Dark Matter. And there is no Aether Bunny.