Dark Matter: A Baseless Hypothesis? | Pavel Kroupa, Francesca Chadha-Day, Bjorn Ekeberg

Summary

このスクリプトは、量子重力の理解への道を開く新しい重力理論の議論を展開しています。Einsteinの理論とは異なる解釈で、重力は空間の情報を内容によって生じる現象や、粒子の波動性と真空の屈折指数の変化から生じる可能性があると示唆しています。重力波の検出は、重力の理解を狭め、Milgramian Dynamics（修正された重力の法則）がこれに応える方法を提供していると主張しています。ダークマターの存在が検証されていないことから、宇宙モデル全体が疑わしくなる可能性があることを指摘しています。

Takeaways

• ✨ 重力の量子論的理解に向けた道を開く可能性があるため、コミュニティはこの点を無視している。
• 🌌 重力は、空間の異なる領域の情報内容が異なるために生じる発現力である可能性がある。
• 💡 重力波の検出により、重力の理解に関する可能性が狭まった。
• 🔬 ミルグロムの定数により、非常に平坦な時空での加速度が大きくなることが説明される。
• 🌠 ミルグロムの理論は、量子真空が原因で加速度が変わると提案している。
• 🌌 ダークマターは存在しない可能性が高く、エインシュタインの重力理論がギャラクシー規模では無効であることを示唆している。
• 🔍 科学者は、ダークマターの存在をテストして無効とされた場合、その仮説を放棄しなければならない。
• 🌀 ミルグロムの予測はすべて実証されており、ダークマター仮説に対する強力な対抗仮説となっている。
• 🔭 天文学者たちは、ダークマターが存在しないという観察結果を無視していると批判されている。
• 🌌 現在の宇宙モデルは正しくない可能性が高く、新しい理論の開発が必要である。

Q & A

量子重力の理解を開く道は何ですか？

量子重力の理解を開く道は、空間の情報を異なる地域で異なると見なす重力の概念です。これは、重力が空間の情報をエンコードするため、空間の情報が異なる地域では異なる力として現れる可能性があります。

重力の変更された理論とは何であり、どのように異なるですか？

変更された重力の理論は、空間時間の変形だけでなく、重力が現れる他の可能性を考慮します。例えば、情報内容の違いや粒子の波動性、または真空の屈折指数の変化による重力の誘導などが挙げられます。

重力波はどのようにして重力の理解を狭めていますか？

重力波は、重力の理解を狭めるために、特定の速度（光速）で伝搬する必要があることを示しています。これは、重力波が異なる速度で伝搬する理論を排除する理由です。

Milgramの理論とは何であり、どのように重力を説明していますか？

Milgramの理論は、重力が空間の量子真空のエネルギー密度の変動によって変化するという考え方です。この理論では、空間の曲率が非常に小さくなると、物体の加速度は異なると見なされます。

Milgramの理論が成功したとされる観測とは何ですか？

Milgramの理論が成功したとされる観測は、1983年に彼が発表した3つの研究目的に基づいて行われ、その理論が正しいとされる銀河の動きに関する予測が、驚くべき精度で検証されたことです。

ダークマターモデルとMilgramの理論の主な相違点は何ですか？

ダークマターモデルは、見えない物質を postu late して宇宙の動きを説明する一方で、Milgramの理論は重力の法則自体を変えることで、ダークマターの存在を必要としません。

ダークマターが存在しないという仮定はどのようにして宇宙モデルに影響を与えますか？

ダークマターが存在しないという仮定は、Einsteinの重力理論の有効性を銀河やそれ以上の規模で否定し、宇宙モデル全体が間違っている可能性があることを示します。

宇宙学者がダークマターモデルを維持する理由は何ですか？

宇宙学者はダークマターモデルを維持する理由は、他の観測を説明する成功と、銀河の動きに関する計算が非常に複雑であるため、ダークマターモデルの不整合を完全に理解することは困難だからです。

Milgramの理論が示す宇宙の空洞とは何ですか？

Milgramの理論が示す宇宙の空洞は、宇宙の特定の領域でダークマターの密度が低いため、銀河や銀河クラスターの数が少ないことを指しています。これは、Lambda CDMモデルと矛盾しています。

宇宙学者が理論を検証する方法は何ですか？

宇宙学者は、異なるデータセット間で一貫性のあるパターンを検出することで理論を検証します。これは、他の科学分野では一般的ではない独自の証明基準です。

ダークマターの存在を示す観測的な証拠は何ですか？

ダークマターの存在を示す観測的な証拠の1つは、重力透鏡効果です。これは、ダークマターが光を曲折させる能力があることを示しており、実際に観測されています。

Outlines

00:00

🧬 修正された重力理論について

修正された重力理論は、従来のアインシュタインの時空の湾曲という概念を超え、重力が情報の内容や粒子の波動性に基づく可能性を示唆しています。重力波の検出により、理論が制約されることがあり、新しい理論が必要とされています。ダークマターの存在が否定されることで、アインシュタインの重力理論が否定され、新しい宇宙モデルの必要性が高まっています。

05:01

💡 モンド理論の概要とその影響

モンド理論（修正ニュートン力学）は、銀河の速度場の観測に基づき、重力が量子真空のエネルギー密度の変動に影響を受けるという仮説を提案しています。この理論は、重力が異なる宇宙空間で変化するという新しい視点を提供し、ダークマターの存在を否定する証拠として機能します。モンド理論の検証は、多くの観測結果と一致しています。

10:01

🌌 宇宙論とダークマターの議論

ダークマター理論は多くの観測を説明できるとされていますが、一部の科学者はそれに異議を唱えています。例えば、私たちが住むKBCボイドと呼ばれる巨大な低密度領域は、ダークマター理論と矛盾しています。一方、モンド理論はこの観測結果と一致しており、科学的証拠の評価基準が変わりつつある中で、どちらの理論が正しいかを見極めるための実験と観測が重要です。

15:03

🔭 宇宙観測と理論の検証

宇宙論では、唯一の宇宙を観測することしかできないため、他の科学とは異なる証拠の基準が必要です。例えば、ダークマターの存在を仮定した重力レンズ効果の観測などがありますが、計算には多くの前提条件が必要で、理論の予測と整合性の区別が難しいことがあります。このような背景の中で、モンド理論とダークマター理論のどちらが正しいかを判断するためには、さらなる研究と議論が求められます。

Keywords

💡量子重力

量子重力とは、量子力学と重力の理論を統合しようとする物理学の分野です。ビデオでは、量子重力の理解が自然現象を理解するための新しい道を開く可能性があると示唆しています。これは、物理学コミュニティがこれまで無視してきた分野であり、ビデオの主題である重力の理解に密接に関係しています。

💡修正された重力の理論

これは、従来の重力の理解を変更または改善しようとする理論です。ビデオでは、空間の情報を考慮に入れた重力の概念や、粒子の波動性と重力の関係性に基づく異なる重力の解釈が議論されています。このキーワードは、ビデオの中心的なテーマである重力の異なる見方に対する理解を深めるために使用されています。

💡暗物質

暗物質は、可視光やその他の电磁波を放出しないと考えられる物質であり、重力の影響を通じてのみ観察できます。ビデオでは、暗物質の存在がEinsteinの重力理論の有効性を疑問視し、重力の異なる理論を探求するきっかけとなっています。

💡重力波

重力波は、重力場の変動が空間を伝播する際に生じる波形現象です。ビデオでは、重力波が最近検出されたことと、それが重力の理解にどのように影響を与えるかが議論されています。重力波は、重力の理論を検証するための重要な観測手段となっています。

💡Milgramの理論

Milgramの理論、またはMilgramian Dynamicsは、重力が空間の量子真空の性質によって変動するというアイデアに基づく重力の理論です。ビデオでは、この理論が星系の動力学を説明する際に従来の重力理論とは異なる方法を提供していると述べています。

💡量子真空

量子真空は、量子力学において粒子が生成され消滅する空の空間を指します。ビデオでは、量子真空がエネルギー密度の変動を持ち、それが重力に影響を与えるとされるMilgramの理論において重要な役割を果たしています。

💡5シグマ検出閾

5シグマ検出閾は、物理学において、観測された現象が単なる統計的なノイズではなく、本物の効果であると認められる基準です。ビデオでは、Higgs粒子がこの閾値を超え、存在が認められた例として提唱されています。

💡宇宙のモデル

宇宙のモデルとは、宇宙の構造、進化、そして物理法則を数学的に記述したものです。ビデオでは、暗物質の存在が示されていないことから、現在の宇宙モデルが正しいか疑問にされる場面があります。

💡KBC空洞

KBC空洞は、宇宙の特定の領域で星系や星系団の密度が低くなる場所です。ビデオでは、この空洞がLambda CDMモデル（暗物質を含む標準の宇宙モデル）と一致しないことを指摘しています。

💡宇宙の微細構造

宇宙の微細構造は、宇宙の大きさや形状を定義するパラメーターの集合です。ビデオでは、これらのパラメーターが暗物質モデルの正しさを検証する役割を果たしていると述べていますが、それらのモデルが実際には観察されたデータと一致しないことが示されています。

Highlights

探索量子引力理论，以理解自然界，这是科学界一直忽视的领域。

修改引力理论，提出引力可能是一个从信息内容差异中涌现的力。

提出引力可能是由于粒子的波动性质和介质中的折射率变化而产生的。

引力波的发现限制了对引力的理解，排除了某些理论。

Milgramian Dynamics（Milgram动力学）作为牛顿动力学的等效理论提出。

Milgram注意到在星系中，当空间时间几乎平坦时，物体的加速度似乎更大。

Milgram提出量子真空可能是改变引力的因素。

量子场理论中，真空具有不断波动的能量密度，这可能影响引力。

Milgram提出真空中粒子的加速可能由于真空的量子波动而受到阻碍。

Milgram的理论预测了尚未发现的星系的行为，这些预测已被验证。

科学界对暗物质的信念可能导致对Milgram理论的忽视。

Milgram理论提供了一种不同的理解重力的方式，与爱因斯坦的相对论不同。

Milgram理论认为在宇宙的不同部分，重力可能会以不同的方式表现。

科学界需要对暗物质和Milgram理论进行同等的测试和验证。

Milgram理论预测了星系的运动速度，这些预测与观测结果一致。

当前的宇宙模型可能不完全正确，需要探索新的理论来解释宇宙的构造。

科学界对于证据的定义可能需要重新评估，特别是在宇宙学领域。

Milgram理论提供了一种新的视角来理解宇宙的大尺度结构。

Transcripts

because it opens the pathway towards a

Quantum gravitational understanding of

nature which the community has been

entirely ignoring

[Music]

can you tell us more about the modified

theory of gravity how is it modified and

how does it make the theory different

from how we've understood it it was

already weird bending space time that's

already pretty darn weird from from

Einstein what else do you need to

account for dark matter

well I am the idea with spending

space-time is brilliant and that

formulation is disciple thesis so it's

one way to hopefully understand what

gravitation is but it doesn't mean that

that theory is correct there are other

ideas what gravitation could be and that

is where Linda's concept that

it's gravitation is an emergent Force

because the information content

different regions of space is different

another possibility is that you get

gravitation because particles have wave

nature and gravitation just comes about

because of changes in refractive index

which their parties themselves because

they are oscillating in a

vacuum that Medium coated ether and that

changes refractive index and that

induces gravitational forces so they are

very different in the interpretation of

what gravitation could be we don't know

what is that um gravity waves which

recently have been detected well the

gravitational waves

um collapse the possibilities of how we

understand gravitation so if any

gravitational Theory does not

accommodate gravitational waves or it

doesn't accumulate accommodate them

traveling with a speed of light that

theory is ruled out yeah and this for

example has narrowed

the possibilities in mind so the

original version of a relativistic

formulation of Mont had gravitational

waves

propagating with a different speed and

that has been now of course falsified

but now there are other theories which

accommodate it but that's still

interpreting gravitation as a

geometrical effect which again itself

might not be correct I'm very

pragmatical what I rather rather than

spending much of my time thinking about

what gravitation could be in terms of

its deepest origin

I want to put into the computer a law of

gravitation with which we can study the

law of gravitation by looking at what we

observe out there and I know now and

that is a uh in physics we call that a

five Sigma detection threshold that's

how the Higgs boson was finally accepted

to be uh to be valid to be there is by

reaching the five Sigma detection limit

as the dark matter doesn't exist this

falsifies the validity of einsteinian

gravitation on the scales of gravity of

galaxies and Beyond this means that the

whole model of the universe is probably

not correct and that's where we are at

this very moment to investigate which

new theories could one develop just to

try to help explain how it is ismon

something the first time I came across

the description of it it was something

that seemed to have with have to do with

very distant phenomena in the universe

but in fact I've come to understand that

Monde is very much closer to home if

it's correct yeah right so say something

about it so where does Mont kick in you

would say right so in the solar system

can you encapsulate what Monday if I

understand it's kind of gravity varies

yes okay so tell us a little bit about

mom so

um um as

um Francisco said before Einstein and

gravity has been tested and verified

extremely well in the strong field

regime which means around within the

solar system and stronger fields around

black holes it seems to be working very

well it's an excellent mathematical

description and that uh so any other

Theory would have to accommodate that

but that is always one of the working

principles now now Mont

originally uh um as a description of um

as an acronym for modified internal

Dynamics I prefer to call it milgramian

Dynamics in equivalence to Newtonian

Dynamics so megromian Dynamics comes

about because Milgram noticed where the

measurements of the this galaxies came

in in the early 1980s when for the first

time the velocity field in galaxies were

mapped out to distances of

thousands of light years

that gravity changes and how does it

change well he he noticed that there

seems to be an acceleration scale which

means that in Einstein's view or

description when the when the curvature

of space

becomes very very small that's the

milgram's constant which describes this

curvature a critical curvature beyond

that once we go to nearly flat space

time the um accelerations of objects

appear to be larger

in 1999 Milgram wrote a very interesting

research paper which was more like a

conjecture we suggested that this change

comes about because of the quantum

vacuum the way we under the sustainable

of particle physics is today based on

Quantum field Theory and in there the

ideas the ideas that particles are as

we've heard before excitations in the

fields and there are many fields which

are constantly fluctuating of quantum

mechanical

property of the vacuum and so the vacuum

is constantly has an energy density

which is fluctuating another problem

with that is that the what the energy

density what the astronomers need is 120

orders of magnitude below what the

quantum field theoretists would like the

if I'm if I'm correct then even empty

space is full of energy it's full of

energy and particles pop out of it so

exactly and then disappear exactly

perfectly empty space it's still got

stuff and this is what's modifying and

gravity in this well exactly so the idea

of Milgram was that when you move

through this vacuum you have a larger

pressure

because of the bubbling in front of you

being a little more energetic because of

the blue shift and be rather than behind

and this exerts a force against you and

that's basically why acceleration is not

quite as big this Pro this effect is

more pronounced in a gradient so when

the space time is curved so you over

here you've got squash space time over

the last squash space and then this

effect is simply what we describe as

Newtonian gravitation if you're in the

regime where you're basically a symmetry

so you have the particle which is

accelerating and the vacuum here is as

unsquatched as over there then you

effectively have a large acceleration

because the effect largely disappears

yeah that's a point and so this paper is

a very remarkable research paper because

it opens the pathway towards a Quantum

gravitational understanding of nature

which the community has been entirely

ignoring because everybody knows there

is dark matter for effect essentially

the colleagues are completely convinced

while believing in dark matter and uh

and uh where they ignore the

falsifications of Dark Matter entirely

because it's become a question of belief

in the scientific system so we've got

two theories now which will account for

the same observations one postulates

stuff we can't see

and the other one postulates a shift in

the way we understand gravity that goes

back to Weinstein and says that gravity

will change in different parts of space

so what do you think how do you think

you could distinguish between these two

things it's completely simple uh so you

have to be pragmatic you have to do your

job as a scientist properly

falsification is the key words

you test the one Theory Dark Matter

exists tested is falsified with more

than five Sigma it doesn't exist you

drop it you don't even touch it anymore

ever in Armada search group group you do

not touch dark matter anymore the and

then you look at the other hypothesis it

has to be then a modification of gravity

or not a modification it's just a

different form of gravity I do not like

the to modification because nature does

not modify it right it's just a

different law and then we work with that

loan we try to falsify that equally so

far every single prediction made in 1983

you look at the three research purposes

Milgram has published he puts on a

number of predictions what galaxy should

behave like if that formulation of

gravitation is through every one of them

has been verified to an incredible

amount even galaxies which were not

known to exist at that time

come in and try to explain why we

haven't all stopped working on dark

matter

so the the main kind of disagreement

with the the Dark Matter model that

Pablo's describing is

that there are galaxies that are are

moving faster than we think that they

should be

when you have two galaxies that merge in

particular if they're all full of dark

matter the kind of gravity of this dark

matter should slow them down

and we see galaxies moving

faster than some of our modeling

suggests that they should be

now within the Dark Matter model

and indeed also within modify gravity

I would say we don't actually have a

theory that predicts exactly how fast

all these galaxies should be moving

there's a lot of inputs into that so one

of them is indeed slowing down through

dark matter but you would also need to

really know the the cosmological history

of all of these galaxies the effect of

all of the very complicated physics of

the stars and other kind of regular

matter Within These galaxies should come

into play

so I think within the Dark Matter model

the reason we haven't just all said well

okay this is just inconsistent we're

going to stop working on it

is that it's really quite a complicated

question how fast Galaxy should be

moving and the Dark Matter model has

been so successful at explaining other

observations that I really think we

should just be working on both

well I might interject here because I

hear the statement many times that the

Dark Matter models of course the

cosmological Dark Matter models have

been successful in accounting of a large

variety of observations it is wrong

I don't know any single observation

which has actually been successfully

reproduced by by the Dark Matter models

one case

if you look at the count the number of

galaxies within our surroundings you go

out to hundreds of millions of light

years you can count the number of

galaxies per unit space you have right

and we see that the density of meta

increases out to

um about

um

1500 million light years so that's

already a large distance

um and um which means we live in a

gigantic under density this is called

the KBC void which was discovered by

Keenan bag and koi in 2012 and has been

verified by subsequent studies also

looking at the number of Galaxy clusters

we live in a region of cosmological

space which has a lower mass density a

smaller number of Galaxy clusters

smaller number of galaxies than further

out now that huge and void is completely

inconsistent with the Lambda CDM model

that lumbarcity model by the Assumption

of how does that mean the Dark Matter

yeah I don't think that's synonymous so

the uh because it assumes homogeneity

and isotropy which is reasonable but it

cannot allow such large discrepancies in

okay so Pavel you're saying that the

current data is inconsistent with

Dartmouth I I thought that modern Dark

Matter were kind of equivalent in that

they're arguing for the same but you're

saying no the data out there is

currently inconsistent with with dark

matter and is consistently modern

absolutely because well the remarkable

thing about this is you can you can test

whether this under density can account

occur in the stock meta model it cannot

Beyond it can okay can you uh Enlighten

us when we've got two a conflicting

accounts of where the dark matter is

still a viable Theory or not it's a note

in the context here about whether a

theory is successful or not or whether

there's evidence of it cosmology uh is

in a very unique uh position as a

science has also develop its own

Criterion for evidence so the goal posts

for what counts the scientific evidence

has also shifted in the 20th century at

the same time there are arguments of

course that if you are looking at very

large scales or in micro like in physics

at the you know theoretical physics

Eugene do need sort of other criteria to

access things but this is a very this is

a very questionable thing I mean uh

Lambda CDM model or the standard model

is sometimes called a concordance model

because this is the principle that was

invented it's something called

concordance is considered evidence in

cosmology no other Sciences has this and

so what it means to for something to be

proven in cosmology is if you can infer

consistent patterns across multiple data

sets that is inferred as evidence that

the theory you used to create it is

correct okay and that means you can you

can claim uh that you have really solid

evidence for dark matter but yet you

have no observational evidence for any

single parameter so Francesca have you

been Shifting the goal posts

I think what Beyond saying is basically

correct in terms of

what is considered evidence within

cosmology is to do with often

consistency within the current model but

there's a very good reason for that

which is that in cosmology are the thing

we're studying is the whole universe so

all we can do is look at the sky with

telescopes we cannot do experiments

because we only have one universe and we

didn't get to choose the starting

conditions if I'm doing an experiment in

biology

I can you know try design the exact

setup that I want in an Laboratory

cosmology and astrophysics are more like

archeology all we can do is look at

what's happened

so in that way we have had to

develop different ways of doing things

now I would say that

there have been you know some things

that are predictions in the more normal

sense

um so for example if Dark Matter exists

and Einstein's theory of general

relativity is broadly speaking correct

even at large scales then we would

expect to observe

um the bending of light around dark

matter this is called gravitational

lensing and then you know indeed we have

observed that

so there are some things where you can

kind of make predictions and see them

but with a lot of science these days and

particularly a lot of fundamental

physics there's so much input that needs

to go into every calculation you have to

make so many assumptions and everyone

has to do that we have to do it you have

to do it if you're calculating and

modify gravity you have to do that to

calculate anything that it can be quite

hard to disentangle exactly what's the

prediction and what's just consistency

within the theory I think there's no

clear-cut line between those two well in

fact that leads us to continue watching

this video click the link in the top

left or in the description below or

visit iai.tv for more debates and talks

from the world's leading thinkers on

today's biggest ideas