What's wrong with physics?

[ChristineM]

Not true. Photons did form earlier and were a dominant component of the energy density. They simply interacted with the matter that was also there. Only later did things cool enough that the photons interacted with matter less and so the universe became transparent. But photon energy density was higher than that of matter for the very early universe. In fact, photon energy dominated for the first 60,000 years or so.

The difference is that photon energy density falls faster than matter energy density upon expansion (inverse fourth power instead of inverse cube). So, at some point, the energy density from photons fell below that of matter. Now, it is considerably less than that of matter.

Yes my bad, i was discussing light, photons slipped in wrongly

 

[Polymath257]

How is this consistent according to the conservation law of energy?

In curved spacetime, conservation of energy is a local, not a global thing. Alternatively, the curvature itself contributes to the energy budget.

 

[Polymath257]

The fact that some Galaxies are missing Dark Matter is evidence for it existing. Initially I wasn't a fan of the Dark Matter hypothesis. MoND would have been so much more elegant a solution. And then astronomers measured the Dark Matter distribution in the Bullet Cluster. At that point MoND was no longer compatible with the observations.
Btw: how does the EM model explain the Bullet Cluster?

An interesting possibility: evidently the fully non-linear aspect of GR wasn't taken fully into account. It *may* be the case that going beyond the linearized theory can explain the observed motions without dark matter. In essence, there is a feedback which makes it look like there is more matter.

Jury still very much out on this one. But maybe GR is sufficient in and of itself.

 

[Native]

The fact that some Galaxies are missing Dark Matter is evidence for it existing.

Is it really? Or is it just an evidence of different rotational velocities and formations in galaxies?

MoND would have been so much more elegant a solution.

Yes MoND was a nice attempt to adjust the gravitational effects and IMO they shall continue with the work.

And then astronomers measured the Dark Matter distribution in the Bullet Cluster. At that point MoND was no longer compatible with the observations.

Why should MoND be stated incompatibel with the assumption of *dark matter*? It could very well be the other way around IMO.

Btw: how does the EM model explain the Bullet Cluster?

Quote from your link Bullet Cluster - Wikipedia
"The third component, the dark matter, was detected indirectly by the gravitational lensing of background objects".

I don´t think any E&M model would accept the concept of *gravitational lensing* as this speculative idea is ordinary bending of light through gas and dust. They´re simply taking the normal and natural bending of light to count for *dark matter*.

Watch this video:
In Memoriam: Dr. Edward Dowdye Jr. - YouTube

 

[Native]

In curved spacetime, conservation of energy is a local, not a global thing. Alternatively, the curvature itself contributes to the energy budget.

I don´t get it. You were initially referring to the entire (light) expansion of the Universe and now you state it all to be local and not global/universal?

 

[Heyo]

I don´t think any E&M model would accept the concept of *gravitational lensing* as this speculative idea is ordinary bending of light through gas and dust.

So EM does not include General Relativity?

 

[Native]

So EM does not include General Relativity?

Only where and IF it contains plausible explanations where the E&M forces are included.

 

[night912]

And the very REASON for the invention of "dark matter" was that the standard theories of celestial motion was directly contradicted in galaxies. And instead of discarding the theory and looked at the problem from other fundamental forces but the weak gravity, scientists just added "some stuff" which could save their over 350 years old theories.

Did you even watch the whole? What you said here, is the complete opposite of what she is saying. She is saying that the problem with the foundation of physics is to not use the theories that have worked in the past in the specific areas should only be used for those areas and not do what you are doing, using those theories where they were not intended to be used. Newton's theory on gravity should not be use where general relativity should be used and general relativity should not be use where quantum gravity should be used. She made it clear that what had worked in the past should be kept and emphasized physicists should not try to come up with new theories in an attempt to "fix" and replace what older theories in areas where they don't apply to.

A thing that she mentioned as being one of the cause slowing the advancement of physics is, what you said above. Too many physicists are wasting time in coming up with new ideas and trying to find the solution for a problem while at the same time tries to make it into a replacement for past theories, only to end up being wrong. An example would be the EU Theory, which attempts to solve the current problems while also attempt at replacing the current working gravitational theories. Instead she is suggesting that physicists should keep the current working gravitational theories and move to things such as quantum gravity, an area where current gravitational theories are not applicable.

PS
To save on time, here's my response to the potential things that you probably will say in response to this post.

1. Saying that I need to watch the whole video, does nothing to show that you understood what she was talking about.

2. Saying that I didn't understand what she said, does nothing to show that you understood what she was talking about.

3. Avoid to address my points that I made above, does nothing to show that you understood what she was talking about.

4. Making a statement about "Dark Matter," because you heard her mentioning it, does nothing to show that you understood what she was talking about since it was directly followed by a statement that contradicts what she said.

Just wanted to see if any and/or all of my 4 nonscientific theories above, is going to turn out being true.

 

[Polymath257]

I don´t get it. You were initially referring to the entire (light) expansion of the Universe and now you state it all to be local and not global/universal?

I am saying that the law of conservation of energy is a *local*, not a global thing. This is a technical aspect of energy and curvature. Energy is one component of the energy-momentum four-vector. So to 'add up energy' requires moving this four-vector from one location to another (since energy is distributed in space and time). But, in a curved spacetime, different paths for that movement lead to different end results.

TLDR: conservation of energy in a curved spacetime only makes sense locally, not globally.

The *expansion* is universal (and hence global).

 

[Native]

Did you even watch the whole?

The OP here is: "What is wrong in physics" and as the OP holder, I of course am allowed to comment from my own points of views which do or don´t compute with others views, included the contents of Sabine Hossenfelder.

A thing that she mentioned as being one of the cause slowing the advancement of physics is, what you said above. Too many physicists are wasting time in coming up with new ideas and trying to find the solution for a problem while at the same time tries to make it into a replacement for past theories, only to end up being wrong.

Agreed in this.

An example would be the EU Theory, which attempts to solve the current problems while also attempt at replacing the current working gravitational theories.

Where excactly did she mention the EU theory? Give me the timestamp please.

Instead she is suggesting that physicists should keep the current working gravitational theories and move to things such as quantum gravity, an area where current gravitational theories are not applicable.

This will never happen.

PS
To save on time, here's my response to the potential things that you probably will say in response to this post.

I don´t care what you´re thinking of how I may think and respond at all.

 

[Polymath257]

I don´t think any E&M model would accept the concept of *gravitational lensing* as this speculative idea is ordinary bending of light through gas and dust. They´re simply taking the normal and natural bending of light to count for *dark matter*.

Except that the observed lensing *isn't* due to gas and dust. Otherwise, we would see the spectral lines for that gas and dust in the bent light.

You are inventing an answer that is easily discarded based on the actual evidence.

 

[Native]

Except that the observed lensing *isn't* due to gas and dust. Otherwise, we would see the spectral lines for that gas and dust in the bent light.

You are inventing an answer that is easily discarded based on the actual evidence.

Of course not. I´m just using the natural laws of light refraction to count everywhere. Besides this, light can be bend by E&M forces too.

 

[exchemist]

Not true. Photons did form earlier and were a dominant component of the energy density. They simply interacted with the matter that was also there. Only later did things cool enough that the photons interacted with matter less and so the universe became transparent. But photon energy density was higher than that of matter for the very early universe. In fact, photon energy dominated for the first 60,000 years or so.

The difference is that photon energy density falls faster than matter energy density upon expansion (inverse fourth power instead of inverse cube). So, at some point, the energy density from photons fell below that of matter. Now, it is considerably less than that of matter.

Something that has bothered for a while me about this picture of the early universe is what this energy density is the energy of. We know that energy has always to be a property of some system, and can't just exist as an entity in its own right. i.e. you can't have a jug of energy.

So what is the system that possesses this energy, in the very early universe, before the particles of matter have appeared? I had always taken it to be EM radiation, i.e. photons, but from what you say this may not be correct.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course not. I´m just using the natural laws of light refraction to count everywhere. Besides this, light can be bend by E&M forces too.

But that is the point, you are NOT using the known laws of refraction. Those laws only apply when there is *matter* to do the refraction. And if matter is there, we would see a spectral signature in the light that passes through.

And no, light is NOT bent by E&M forces. Maybe you are confused by the fact that magnetic fields can rotate the polarization of light passing through, but that is NOT the same as refraction and does NOT change the direction the light is moving.

 

[Polymath257]

Something that has bothered for a while me about this picture of the early universe is what this energy density is the energy of. We know that energy has always to be a property of some system, and can't just exist as an entity in its own right. i.e. you can't have a jug of energy.

So what is the system that possesses this energy, in the very early universe, before the particles of matter have appeared? I had always taken it to be EM radiation, i.e. photons, but from what you say this may not be correct.

In the very early universe, the vast majority of energy was in the photons. But there were also other particles around: neutrinos, for example, were abundant. Depending on exactly when you are discussing, there would have been a quark plasma together with electrons, neutrinos, and photons (later, the quarks condensed into neutrons which decayed into protons).

Anything before the quark plasma is beyond what we have even theoretical understanding of at this point.

 

[exchemist]

In the very early universe, the vast majority of energy was in the photons. But there were also other particles around: neutrinos, for example, were abundant. Depending on exactly when you are discussing, there would have been a quark plasma together with electrons, neutrinos, and photons (later, the quarks condensed into neutrons which decayed into protons).

Anything before the quark plasma is beyond what we have even theoretical understanding of at this point.

Ah OK so I'm not wrong to think there were photons as far back as we can model.

By the way, do you know anything about this hypothesised sexaquark (uuddss, charge zero, spin zero), that some people think may have formed during the condensation process and could account for dark matter? I only came across it the other day and I thought it rather interesting.

 

[Native]

But that is the point, you are NOT using the known laws of refraction. Those laws only apply when there is *matter* to do the refraction. And if matter is there, we would see a spectral signature in the light that passes through.

I bet the scientists didn´t even look for the *spectral matter refractions* in the Bullit Cluster at all.

 

[Native]

In the very early universe, the vast majority of energy was in the photons. But there were also other particles around: neutrinos, for example, were abundant. Depending on exactly when you are discussing, there would have been a quark plasma together with electrons, neutrinos, and photons (later, the quarks condensed into neutrons which decayed into protons).

It always amuses me when debaters speaks of a *Big Bang* as if it really happend

 

[Inquire of God]

Sabine Hossenfelder asks this much needed OP question here:

(Continues here: https://iai.tv/assets/videos/linked/HTLGI2020_What's wrong with physics.HD.mp4

If the physicists counts on the apple><apple theory only to govern the Universe, they´ll logically need both energy and alternate explanations for everything which regards the 3 more stronger and real fundamental forces and their qualities.

View attachment 47754
It´s not only the definition of "gravity" which is the weakest of all fundamental forces - all its attached arguments are the weakest too.

View attachment 47759

The obvious solution: Let the E&M light into to numerous dark cracks of modern cosmological physics.

There is nothing wrong with physics, I know, my youngest daughter has her degrees in it.

 

[Clara Tea]

So how did jesus walk on water? How did god part the sea? And how did he make everything from nothing?

A nun's uniform is called a "habit."

The flying nun flew by "force of habit."

This might be the same force that kept Jesus afloat. Either that, or it was some kind of magician's trick (boards floating just under the surface, or platforms to the bottom of the water, or mirage (not standing on water at all)).

In either case, it was very difficult for Jesus's mother (Mary) to bath him. Likely she had to stand on top of him and stomp him into the water.

Lets not exclude the possibility that Jesus had the power to walk on water (but not power to get off the cross). Jesus had the power to cure blindness and lameness, but not the power to get off the cross. Jesus had knowledge of future events (you'd think he'd refuse to carry his own cross).