Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains Modified Newtonian Dynamics

A fan asks if Modified Newtonian Dynamics, a theory that attempts to explain the missing mass in the Universe without resorting to the existence of dark matter, is credible, or is it pseudoscience? To answer this Cosmic Query, Neil deGrasse Tyson explains MOND, as astrophysicists call it, to co-host Chuck Nice, touching on dark matter, dark gravity, and Newton’s Laws. But is it pseudoscience? No spoilers here: watch and learn for yourself.

Follow StarTalk:

About StarTalk:
Science meets pop culture on StarTalk! Astrophysicist & Hayden Planetarium director Neil deGrasse Tyson, his comic co-hosts, guest celebrities & scientists discuss astronomy, physics, and everything else about life in the universe. Keep Looking Up!

#StarTalk #NeildeGrasseTyson

[AstroooooX]

I particularly prefer MOND rather than dark matter as the explanation for the "dark gravity".

[TheRealSkeletor]

I'm definitely of the school that it's more likely an error in our understanding of current (Newtonian, Einsteinian) physics than some mysterious non-matter which is generating a clear gravitational field. 

Which is more likely, that we don't fully understand how gravity works at the scale of intergalactic space, and that's causing numbers not to add up, or there's several times more "stuff" out there than all the matter in the universe, and that "stuff" is made of something which can not be seen nor detected in any way other than its gravitational effects on matter?

[StarTalk]

*New Video: Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains Modified Newtonian Dynamics*
Watch Neil deGrasse Tyson explain MOND to co-host Chuck Nice, touching on dark matter, dark gravity and Newton’s Laws.

[havenbastion]

Dark matter is just a name for the leftover math, it doesn't mean matter or dark in any literal sense.

[louis_am]

"MOND is on the edge of science", sure, but so is "dark matter"!

[R_SENAL]

I had to look this up to see if you ever spoke on this. MOND seems 1000K times more feasible to me than inventing something we can't see nor detect.
There have been new developments in MOND theory lately, previous things it could not account for, certain problems with it, have been Solved!
I'm hoping more learned people will conclude that Dark Matter does not fit the facts as well and start working on something with real promise now.
It has always confused and disappointed me that people of rational thinking could just suddenly believe in the unseen, the unmeasurable, the completely undetected - instead of being scientific and trying to find an Actual solution to the gravitic riddle of the universe. Dark Matter is a fairy tale and how many more times must we try and fail to find it before we give up the ghost?

[anchor]

Startalk is an incredible radio show.. and I love to listen to it whenever I get the chance. But I really feel I can follow along much better in the short clips here on Youtube than the more classical podcast format on i-tunes. 

I know it is because I lack the visual aid that is body-language etc in the podcast version. Would it be possible for Startalk to start publishing whole programs with video here on youtube (or other place like i-tunes), or is that beyond the programs budget? 

I know I can't be alone in this though... 

Anyway, thanks for your great work, it's so damn relaxing after a day of reading myself cross eyed. =)

[metinkartop]

To my understanding, Einstein's general theory of relativity explains everything Newtonian mechanics could explain plus a lot more. Dark matter is a moniker for things we cannot explain yet, that's another debate.

But if MOND cannot explain something that was already explained by general relativity, doesn't it mean it's wrong from the start?

[_Nosferatu_]

chuck nice is your best host! don't change him

[NexusEden]

Why can't we have the entire podcast? Just this 5 minute excerpt. Not even enough. 

[NWOslave]

"Frontier science". excellent description.

[Jason-gtkx]

Novel Dark Matter Hypothesis: Dark Matter is simply unaccounted for gravity. GR states that gravity is the consequence of the curvature of space-time. Is it possible that the structure of space-time itself could be warped without the presence of mass? Space-time has been shown to react like a fabric by warping, twisting, and propagating independently of mass, and all have been proven with observations from gravitational lensing, frame dragging, and now gravitational waves! Fabrics can be stretched, pressured, and/or heated to the point of causing a formation. All of these conditions were extreme during inflation, so it is plausible that the “fabric” of space-time analog could extend having its elastic property have hit a yield point.




Therefore, if gravity is the consequence of the warping of space-time, and fabrics can be permanently overstretched, then those empty warped geodesics would create gravitational wells independent of mass. My hypothesis of DM is subatomic black hole imprints of quantum fluctuations that popped in at the moment of inflation. These would be clouds of quantum sized floating fixed geodesics, so they couldn’t expand or evaporate. Perhaps nothing has been detected because there is nothing to detect, and GR wouldn’t require modification of mass nteractions because DM would just be an extension of how space-time behaves at extreme conditions. No WIMPS, no MOND, no parallel universes, just empty space-time imprints that produce gravity
to help jump start the galaxy accretion process.

[jderrickunger]

A Newtonian variation? Does this help?

GRAVITY BETWEEN TWO BODIES OF MASS
F = (m1 x m2) / (d^2)
MA = (kg^2) / (m^2)
kg x (m / (s^2)) = (kg^2) / (m^2)
m / (s^2) = kg / (m^2)
(m^3) / (s^2) = kg

GRAVITY OF ONE BODY OF MASS
kg = (m^3) / (s^2)

THEORY
M = A V, where
M is Mass, A is Acceleration, and V is Volume;
Mass is inwardly Accelerated Volume of spacetime;
creating for each massive body an extra physical "dimension, "
where an extra designation of measurement for location of a subject in spacetime
becomes necessary to differentiate position.

Completely solves the problem "spooky action at a distance" by making gravity a perspective illusion of the warping of spacetime that Einstein thought would be the
effect of an attractive force rather than the force that causes the effect.
But it would've been solved a century ago if it were that simple... Right?

[TFWKnightconvoy]

Could an actual "subspace" be responsible for the extra gravity? In relation to the theoretical "M layer." IF there was a multiverse, wouldn't the matter of the various "realities" have to exist in tandem with ours just in their own quantum/string resonance state? Couldn't the "extra" gravity be just a side effect of "realities" that exist nearest our quantum/string resonance state held together by the M layer? Couldn't the M layer be considered a type of subspace itself?

Or setting aside M theory for a moment, back to a more simple existence of a subspace layer of some sort of different energy state? Or maybe slightly out of temporal phase.. Heh.. M theory does tie it up a lot cleaner.. But at the very least another "layer" of "space" that exists we can't measure just yet.

[Mini_Squatch]

"you dont know that it's matter so shut the hell up" not gonna lie i cracked up when i heard that

[chrisc]

An object vast in size could account for this is well.

[jake-qwor]

CHECK THIS OUT NEIL : A new study of the orbital motions of long-period, widely separated, binary stars (referred to as wide binaries) provides conclusive evidence that standard Newtonian gravity breaks down at extremely low acceleration. The study carried out by Kyu-Hyun Chae, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Sejong University in Seoul, used data collected from 26, 500 wide binary star systems within 650 light years, as observed by the European Space Agency (ESA) Gaia Space Telescope. Why study wide binaries? Because galactic disks and wide binaries share some similarities in their orbits, though wide binaries follow highly elongated orbits while hydrogen gas particles in a galactic disk follow nearly circular orbits. The clincher, however, is this -- Unlike galactic rotation curves, which can in principle be attributed to either dark matter or modified gravity, wide binary dynamics cannot be affected by dark matter, even if it existed. All the observed effects can only be explained by modified gravity. If these results can be confirmed as a breakdown of Newtonian Dynamics by independent analyses, and in time with even better and more precise data, then indeed we will be able to conclude that gravitation is Milgromian rather than Newtonian and there will be no further need for the fabricated concept of dark matter. The implications for astrophysics, cosmology, and for fundamental physics will be

[stevewhitt]

Superfluid Modified Newtonian Gravity took hold of me, after all that chocolate I ate :)

[ryanforgo]

@startalk and everyone else. i've always wondered personally. Could there be a force strong enough to affect the whole universe coming from outside our observable universe? It sounds like a silly question but the universe can be that mysterical i guess?

Can a force coming from far outside of our observable universe explain either dark matter/energy or both " in theory"?

[JuliusUnique]

what is that term they added to newton's formula?