Does Dark Matter BREAK Physics? | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Reddit Comments

Talks slower AND gestures more with his hands/body. He's like a Super Gabe!

๐Ÿ‘๏ธŽ︎ 6 ๐Ÿ‘ค๏ธŽ︎ u/RobKhonsu ๐Ÿ“…๏ธŽ︎ Sep 24 2015 ๐Ÿ—ซ︎ replies

Great work Matt! Looking forward to new episodes.

๐Ÿ‘๏ธŽ︎ 2 ๐Ÿ‘ค๏ธŽ︎ u/Methuen ๐Ÿ“…๏ธŽ︎ Sep 24 2015 ๐Ÿ—ซ︎ replies

Yaaay! They're back! Can't wait for more!

๐Ÿ‘๏ธŽ︎ 2 ๐Ÿ‘ค๏ธŽ︎ u/ishmu07 ๐Ÿ“…๏ธŽ︎ Sep 24 2015 ๐Ÿ—ซ︎ replies
Captions
[MUSIC PLAYING] Dark matter literally binds the galaxy together. But there's a problem. Nobody knows what dark matter is. My name is Matt and this is "SpaceTime." Physics has a problem. The Milky Way galaxy is spinning so fast that it should be scattering its stars into the void. Based on the amount of binding gravity that we calculate from everything we can see, we can only account for 10% of the mass needed to hold its stars in orbit. So what's wrong? Either we're missing and frankly don't understand at least 80% of all the matter in the universe or our current understanding of gravity is wrong. This is the mystery of dark matter. Now, before we get into figuring out exactly what dark matter is or isn't, I want to give you completely independent evidence for its existence, gravitational lensing. Thanks to general relativity, we know that light fall is the curved geodesics of a gravitational field. Place a strong gravitational field on an axis between a light source and an observer and voila, you basically have a lens. And galaxy clusters do this all the time, turning the background universe into a funhouse mirror of stretched out and duplicated galaxies. From this, we can figure out exactly how much mass is needed to cause the observed lensing. But again, we find the clusters appear to have way more mass than we see in the stars alone, that is if we understand gravity. So knowing this, let's summarize the actual possibilities for dark matter. One, best case scenario, it comes from particles that we've already discovered, just in a form that's very difficult to detect. Two, not so great, dark matter is a type of particle that's beyond our current understanding of particle physics. Or three, even worse, we're actually not missing any mass. Gravity just behaves differently on the vast scales of galaxies and clusters. So general relativity, wrong. OK, let's start with the first possibility. The standard model of particle physics is basically the periodic table of known fundamental particles and fields. It underpins everything we know about the subatomic universe. If dark matter exists in this model, its mass probably needs to come from protons and neutrons. But they can't be interacting with light. If this is dark matter, the galaxy would need to be swarming with baryonic things as massive as stars, but that are so compacted that they're basically invisible. Is this even possible? Actually, it is. They're called MACHOs, massive compact halo objects. And they're basically crunched down, compact, dead or failed stars, black holes, neutron stars, brown dwarfs, Macaulay Culkin, et cetera. And they are very hard to see. But we can see these guys, at least sort of, with gravitational lensing. The alignment has to be perfect. But when, say, a black hole passes between us and a more distant star, we sometimes see a brightening of that star. Astronomers spent years counting MACHOs this way. And they found plenty. But not nearly enough to account for all of the dark matter. So option one is out, which means we're left with two bad choices. Either particle physics is wrong, or at least horribly incomplete, in that we're missing 80% to 90% of the mass in the universe, or Einstein is wrong. Sacrilege, right? Remember when I said that the Milky Way spinning too fast? Well, the problem is that the stars on the edge of the galaxy are moving just as fast as the stars near the center. But they should be moving slower because the gravity out there should be weaker. According to Newton, gravity weakens proportional to distance from its source squared. This relationship is definitely true on the scale of the solar system. But what about the entire galaxy? Could it be that what we see as dark matter just comes from gravity behaving differently on truly gigantic scales? Well, it turns out that if you make a simple change to Newton's gravity, things work out. Give gravity a bit more staying power, make it drop off proportional to distance instead of distance squared, and then you don't even need dark matter. The stars alone give you plenty of gravity. The original modified Newtonian dynamics hypothesis, and its general relativity extensions, tries to give us this basic relationship for gravity. 1 over R squared at small scales, 1 over R at large. But you can't just break general relativity and start over. Any replacement theory has to reproduce all, and I mean all, of the verified predictions of Einstein's theory and be able to explain dark matter. Modified versions of GR can actually do pretty well, especially predicting orbits within galaxies. But they ultimately have a hard time getting all of the observed effects. They either need some serious fine-tuning or you have to add back in some actual dark matter particles, which kind of defeats the purpose. But there's an even bigger nail in the coffin of modified gravity. Say hello to the Bullet Cluster. It's actually two clusters that smashed right through each other. The gas was ripped away from the stars and now lives between the clusters. In the Bullet Cluster, most of the mass actually is in the gas. So if dark matter really comes from weirdly behaving gravity, then the cluster's gravity should stay concentrated on the gas. But if dark matter is an unseen particle, and it's the type of particle we think it might be, then that dark matter should pass right on through, just like the stars. How do we test this? Again, gravitational lensing. Map the mass based on the warping of light from more distant galaxies. And we see that in the Bullet Cluster, the dark matter is with the stars. This tells us that matter is a real particle, not just broken gravity. Once again, Einstein prevails. Dark matter exists and it represents, if not broken, at least incomplete particle physics. But what do we know about it? Well, it's slow and it's heavy. And those two go together. It has to be pretty slow moving, or cold, because we know that dark matter clumps together gravitationally to build galaxies and clusters. Remember the hot, smooth plasma way back in the early universe that produced the CMB? And the last guy talks about it here. Well, in order to go from that highly smooth ocean of orange plasma to today's highly structured universe of clusters and galaxies, something had to act with enough gravity to pull stuff together. There's no way there's enough regular matter to do that. Dark matter, as well as binding the galaxy together, is also the main force in forming galaxies in the first place. No dark matter, no galaxies. And even then, galaxies could only have formed if dark matter particles are cold, massive, and weakly interacting. Weakly interacting massive particles, WIMPs, actually refers to a specific and popular contender for dark matter. WIMPs are a family of particles that may arise out of supersymmetry. This is a funky extension to the standard model of particle physics. Now, there's a lot to supersymmetry. But, in short, versions of this theory predict the existence of a set of counterparts to the familiar standard model particles, but that are hundreds of times more massive. Some of them fit the bill for dark matter. Sinking down into the depths of quantum field and string theory, you can find all sorts of strange fish, WIMPs, axions, neutralinos. Some of which may actually exist and some of them may be dark matter. But it's all mathematical fantasy until we detect the particle. We have detectors here on Earth designed to catch the fall-out between the unthinkably rare collisions between a dark matter particle and an atomic nucleus. We also watch the heavens for the equally elusive gamma radiation produced when dark matter particles annihilate each other out in space. There's a big fat Nobel Prize waiting for the scientists who figure this one out. So get cracking in the comments below. And I'll report any previously undiscovered dark matter particles on the next episode of "SpaceTime." Last time on "SpaceTime," we talked about black holes. And you guys asked some seriously challenging questions. Let's see what you had to say. SafetySkull and others asked whether a monkey falling through a black hole's event horizon should see the entire future history of the universe happen in the instant before it crosses over? The answer, no. But it would see some of it. If the monkey were to calculate the clock time of an external observer as it fell, then that calculated time would approach infinity as the monkey drew extremely close to the event horizon. That lasts an infinitesimal fraction of a second before it crosses. It would encompass all future time. But would the monkey witness it? No. The time interval that encompasses all future everything approaches zero, or at least the Planck time. So it's not really happening over a meaningful portion of the monkey's in-fall. And anyway, the photons from the future universe will never catch up to the monkey because that light has to contend with the same crazy-curved space-time that the monkey does. Although signals from the monkey to the outside universe can be received at arbitrarily distance times in the future, only signals within its past light cone can catch up to it. The monkey may see some time dilation effects from the local part of its universe. But it's limited. Agen0000, and others, pointed out that Hawking radiation will eventually cause a black hole to evaporate. Given that a free-falling monkey is eternally frozen on the event horizon with respect to a distant observer, shouldn't the black hole evaporate beneath it? And would this save the monkey;s life or fry it in an eternity of Hawking radiation? Again, the answer is no. The simple and unsatisfying way to put this is that the free-falling monkey doesn't see anything weird about space at the moment it crosses the event horizon. The space itself is in free fall with the monkey. And so in its reference frame, the rate of Hawking radiation is not time dilated. The idea of the event horizon as this boiling hot sea of Hawking radiation isn't right. In fact, in the vicinity of the black hole, this radiation is poorly localized, having a wavelength of order of the Schwarzschild radius. So at the instant of crossing the event horizon, the monkey is not actually bathing in this stuff. But is the monkey saved at the last moment as the black hole evaporates way beneath it? Sorry, no. By falling through the event horizon, the monkey's clock, its universe, now contains events that happen at the horizon, including the horizon's existence. The monkey's horizon crossing corresponds to a time when the black hole exists. The distant observer does witness the instance that the black hole evaporates, with a huge burst of Hawking radiation. And with that radiation comes all of the remaining photons that the monkey emitted before crossing the horizon. But the moment of horizon crossing is never seen. It never even happens in the distant observer's universe, either before or after the black hole's evaporation. These were really good questions. Keep them coming. And I'll see you next time. [MUSIC PLAYING]
Info
Channel: PBS Space Time
Views: 1,012,168
Rating: 4.9214888 out of 5
Keywords: dark matter, dark energy, dark matter physics, astrophysics, dark matter astrophysics, astronomy, black holes, supersymmetry, neutralinos, axions, wimps, machos, modified newtonian dynamics, modified gravity, einstein
Id: z3rgl-_a5C0
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 10min 41sec (641 seconds)
Published: Wed Sep 23 2015
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.