Speaker 1: Welcome to Bedtime Astronomy. Explore the wonders of the cosmos
Speaker 1: with our soothing Bedtime Astronomi podcast. Each episode offers a
Speaker 1: gentle journey through the stars, planets, and beyond, perfect for
Speaker 1: unwinding after a long day. Let's travel through the mysteries
Speaker 1: of the universe as you drift off into a peaceful
Speaker 1: slumber under the night sky.
Speaker 2: I want you to just imagine for a second, you know,
Speaker 2: looking up at the night sky, yeah, and realizing that
Speaker 2: the vast, vast majority of what actually dictates the movement
Speaker 2: of all those stars it's completely invisible to us. It's
Speaker 2: a wild thought, it really is. I mean, for over
Speaker 2: fifty years, the absolute brightest minds in theoretical physics have
Speaker 2: basically been hunting for ghosts.
Speaker 3: Literal ghosts in the math.
Speaker 2: Yeah right. They've built these multi billion dollar subterranean detectors,
Speaker 2: you know, burying them deep inside abandoned gold mines just
Speaker 2: to shield them from cosmic rays.
Speaker 3: Smashing protons together at the Large Hadron Collider.
Speaker 2: Exactly smashing things at nearly the speed of light, and
Speaker 2: all of this, this unprecedented global scientific effort is just
Speaker 2: to find these invisible particles that supposedly make up what
Speaker 2: eighty five percent of the mass in the universe eighty
Speaker 2: five percent? Yes, And what have they actually found after
Speaker 2: all this time, absolutely several zero particles, not a single one.
Speaker 2: For decades, our entire understanding of the cosmos has just
Speaker 2: leaned on these two colossal phantoms, right, dark matter to
Speaker 2: explain why galaxies don't just fly apart when they spin,
Speaker 2: and dark energy to explain why the expansion of the
Speaker 2: universe is accelerating.
Speaker 3: And while the standard model of cosmology is brilliant in
Speaker 3: a lot of ways, I don't want to dismiss it,
Speaker 3: but it does place us in this deeply uncomfortable position.
Speaker 2: Of not knowing what our universe is actually made out right.
Speaker 3: We're basically admitting that we have zero idea what ninety
Speaker 3: five percent of reality actually.
Speaker 2: Is, which is terrifying it is.
Speaker 3: I mean, we observe the gravitational shadows of these entities,
Speaker 3: we see the effects they supposedly have on the matter
Speaker 3: we can actually see.
Speaker 2: Like stars and gas clouds.
Speaker 3: Exactly, but the dark entities themselves entirely theoretical. We've built
Speaker 3: our most advanced models on the assumption that the universe
Speaker 3: is just full of stuff we can't see, touch, or
Speaker 3: interact with.
Speaker 2: But what if, and this is the core of what
Speaker 2: we're getting into today. What if the reason we haven't
Speaker 2: found dark matter isn't because our detectors are bad. What
Speaker 2: if the problem isn't the universe at all, but the
Speaker 2: actual mathematical lens we're using to view it. That is
Speaker 2: the million dollar question, because today we are exploring this
Speaker 2: truly radical new mathematical approach. It was recently published in
Speaker 2: the journal PHYSICASCRIPTA.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a fascinating piece of work.
Speaker 2: And it proposes something profoundly disruptive. The premise is, basically,
Speaker 2: we haven't been failing to find dark matter, We've just
Speaker 2: been doing the math wrong.
Speaker 3: We've been taking shortcuts right.
Speaker 2: So this framework is called the Aleena tensor and it
Speaker 2: was developed by a Polish researcher, Pyotr Oganowski. Yes, and
Speaker 2: it offers this unified, rigorous method to describe physical systems
Speaker 2: across everything I mean, curved space time, slat space time,
Speaker 2: classical mechanics, even quantum theory.
Speaker 3: It is an incredibly sweeping proposition. I mean, to really
Speaker 3: grasp the sheer magnitude of what the Elena tenser is
Speaker 3: attempting to do. Here, we really have to dissect how
Speaker 3: physics models the universe, right.
Speaker 2: Now, Okay, lay it out for us.
Speaker 3: Well, we have to talk about why the current model
Speaker 3: historically requires so many approximations. Specifically, there's this glaring oversimplification
Speaker 3: in modern cosmology that we call the dust problem.
Speaker 2: The dust problem. Okay, let's unpack this because I know
Speaker 2: that when physicists sit down to solve Einstein's field equations
Speaker 2: they have to make some serious compromises they do.
Speaker 3: The math is notoriously nonlinear.
Speaker 2: Right, it's punishingly complex. Yeah, but when you say cosmologists
Speaker 2: rely on an approximation called dust, what exactly are we
Speaker 2: talking about? Because obviously we know the universe isn't filled
Speaker 2: with actual household dust, buddies.
Speaker 3: No, No, definitely not household dust in cosmology, specifically in
Speaker 3: models like the Freedman Lamitra, Robertson Walker metric. Oh right,
Speaker 3: FLRW for short, it's the absolute foundation of Big Bang cosmology,
Speaker 3: and in that model, dust is a very specific mathematical term.
Speaker 2: Okay, what does it mean? Mathematically?
Speaker 3: It means treating all the matter in the universe, stars,
Speaker 3: gas clouds, even entire galaxies as idealized non interacting point masses.
Speaker 2: Wait, non interacting yep.
Speaker 3: It assumes these points of mass exert gravity. Sure, but
Speaker 3: they have zero internal pressure, really zero zero. They don't
Speaker 3: push against each other, they have absolutely no internal friction.
Speaker 2: That seems I mean, that seems crazy.
Speaker 3: It's a massive mathematical convenience. Their complex internal rotational dynamics,
Speaker 3: the sheer stresses inside their structures. All of that is
Speaker 3: basically just smoothed over or totally ignored on a macroscopic scale.
Speaker 2: Wait, I'm struggling to visualize why anyone would do that.
Speaker 2: If we know that galaxies are these violent, swirling storms
Speaker 2: of plasma and billions of stars, why would physicists ever
Speaker 2: agree to model them as static, non interacting points.
Speaker 3: Because Einstein's equations are practically impossible to solve otherwise. Oh icy, Yeah,
Speaker 3: And to be fair, standard physics does account for rotation
Speaker 3: in a localized way.
Speaker 2: Right, because we've known galaxies spin since what the nineteen twenties.
Speaker 3: I'll will figure that out exactly, but they usually calculate
Speaker 3: it using perturbations. So when astrophysicists look at a spinning galaxy,
Speaker 3: they calculate the mass of the visible stars in gas,
Speaker 3: they measure how fast it's rotating, and then.
Speaker 2: Bam they hit a massive discrepancy, a huge one.
Speaker 3: The visible mass just does not generate enough gravitational pull
Speaker 3: to keep those really fast moving outer stars from just
Speaker 3: flying off into deep space.
Speaker 2: Right, they should just be slung off like mud off
Speaker 2: a tire exactly.
Speaker 3: So the traditional fix, the band aid is to inject
Speaker 3: this massive, invisible spherical halo of dark matter around the
Speaker 3: galaxy to provide extra gravitational.
Speaker 2: Glue, just to make the math work.
Speaker 3: Basically, Yes, But the Alena tensor looks at this and
Speaker 3: forcefully argues that you cannot just model the universe as
Speaker 3: static dust and then patch your errors with invisible particles.
Speaker 2: Okay, so what does the Alena tensor do Differently?
Speaker 3: It extends the mathematical solutions to general matter.
Speaker 2: Distributions meaning what exactly?
Speaker 3: Meaning it forces the Einstein field equations to explicitly account
Speaker 3: for how matter flows, how it rotates, how it exerts
Speaker 3: pressure against itself, and how it generates internal friction and
Speaker 3: shear stresses.
Speaker 2: Okay, I have an analogy for this. It sounds like
Speaker 2: we've been trying to understand ocean currents all the complex
Speaker 2: global dynamics of the ocean by only looking at a
Speaker 2: single drop of water suspended in a vacuum, that.
Speaker 3: Is a perfect analogy.
Speaker 2: Like the dust model, just completely ignores the friction and
Speaker 2: the flow. If you only look at that isolated drop,
Speaker 2: you completely miss the tidal forces, right, you miss the temperature.
Speaker 3: Gradient, you miss the massive kinetic energy of the ocean
Speaker 3: acting as an entire unified moving system exactly.
Speaker 2: Real physical systems in our universe are not made of
Speaker 2: idealized point masses.
Speaker 3: Galaxies are essentially fluids.
Speaker 2: Yes, they are massive, interconnected fluid like structures. Matter flows
Speaker 2: in them, Energy transports dynamically from that super dense inner
Speaker 2: core all the way out to the diffuse outer arms.
Speaker 3: So there's constant movement in stress.
Speaker 2: Constant internal stresses, vertical swirling motions. They appear naturally all
Speaker 2: the time. And the Aleena tensor actually proves mathematically that
Speaker 2: when you incorporate all these fluid effects, the friction, the momentum,
Speaker 2: the geometry of space time warps in wigs that dust
Speaker 2: models fundamentally miss.
Speaker 3: So what you're saying is that the geometry of space
Speaker 3: time isn't just reacting to the sheer weight of the
Speaker 3: stars it's actually reacting to the complex architecture of how
Speaker 3: those stars are moving together. Precisely, in general relativity gravity
Speaker 3: isn't just caused by mass alone. It's caused by something
Speaker 3: called the stress energy tensor, which is what It's a
Speaker 3: mathematical matrix. It describes the density and flux of energy
Speaker 3: and momentum in space time. Mass is just one single
Speaker 3: component of that matrix.
Speaker 2: Oh wow, what are the other.
Speaker 3: Components momentum, pressure and sheer stress.
Speaker 2: But because of the dust approximation, cosmologists just ignored those.
Speaker 3: They vastly undercalculated them. They heavily weighted the mass component
Speaker 3: and basically ignored the complex kinetic components, the off diagonal
Speaker 3: terms of the.
Speaker 2: Matrix and the alien the tenser brings them back.
Speaker 3: It restores them to their rightful dominant place in the equations.
Speaker 3: And here's the kicker. When you actually account for the
Speaker 3: gravitational weight of this dynamic flow, the need for a dark,
Speaker 3: invisible glue holding the galaxies together, it suddenly vanishes.
Speaker 2: Are you serious?
Speaker 3: It just disappears poof the structure of the movement itself
Speaker 3: creates the necessary gravitational effects to hold the galaxy together.
Speaker 2: I mean think about the philosophical implications.
Speaker 3: Of that they're massive.
Speaker 2: If this holds true, we literally invented an invisible substance
Speaker 2: that makes up over a quarter of the entire higher
Speaker 2: universe just to balance our mathematical checkbook. Yeah, all because
Speaker 2: we were using a simplified equation that treated a violent,
Speaker 2: swirling galaxy like a bag of static marbles.
Speaker 3: It's a profound paradigm shift. We go from a universe
Speaker 3: dominated by unseen, untouchable entities to a universe where the
Speaker 3: visible dynamics contain all the information we need.
Speaker 2: It changes our entire relationship with reality. We aren't floating
Speaker 2: in this dark void filled with ghost particles. We're part
Speaker 2: of this incredibly intricate dance of kinetic energy beautifully put.
Speaker 3: But to really cement how this physically works, we need
Speaker 3: to move from that abstract idea of flow to the
Speaker 3: concrete mechanics of rotation. We need to look at the
Speaker 3: observable behavior of spiral galaxies.
Speaker 2: Right because standard cosmology puts every single galaxy inside a
Speaker 2: massive dark matter halo.
Speaker 3: Yes, to explain the flat rotation.
Speaker 2: Curves, Okay, for you listening, just a quick refresher in
Speaker 2: a standard orbital system like our Solar system. The planet's
Speaker 2: closest to the Sun move the fastest, like Mercury, and
Speaker 2: the ones furthest away, like Neptune, move the slowest because
Speaker 2: the gravitational grip gets weaker the further out you go.
Speaker 2: The galaxies, they don't do that at all.
Speaker 3: They absolutely do not. When astronomer's most notably Via Reubin,
Speaker 3: back in the nineteen seventies, actually measured the rotational speeds
Speaker 3: of stars and spiral galaxies, they found something shocking the
Speaker 3: flat curve right The stars at the very outer edges
Speaker 3: of the galaxy were orbiting almost exactly as fast as
Speaker 3: the stars near the dense bright center. The curve was totally.
Speaker 2: Flat, which breaks Newton's laws if you only look at visible.
Speaker 3: Masks completely According to strict Newtonian dynamics, those outer stars
Speaker 3: are moving so fast that the galaxy's visible gravity shouldn't
Speaker 3: be able to hold them.
Speaker 2: They should just fly away.
Speaker 3: So the dark matter halo was proposed as this massive
Speaker 3: invisible net of extra gravity.
Speaker 2: But if the Alina tenser takes away that invisible net,
Speaker 2: what's tethering those stars? What is the alternative mechanism here?
Speaker 3: The mechanism is the organized rotational transport of angular momentum.
Speaker 2: Okay, break that down for me.
Speaker 3: Under the Alena tensor framework, you don't look at an
Speaker 3: outer star as some isolated object trying to escape the center.
Speaker 2: You look at the whole thing.
Speaker 3: Right, You view the entire galactic disc as a continuous
Speaker 3: coupled system. As the galaxy spins, angular momentum isn't just
Speaker 3: held statically by individual stars. It's continuously transported outward through
Speaker 3: the disc through the.
Speaker 2: Fluid like interactions of the gas and plasma.
Speaker 3: Exactly.
Speaker 2: Okay, but transport of angular momentum. I want to make
Speaker 2: sure I'm really grasping a physical mechanism here, because standard
Speaker 2: physics always uses that ice skater analogy, right.
Speaker 3: Right, the skater pulling your arms into spin faster.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but a galaxy isn't a solid object like an
Speaker 2: ice skater. It doesn't have literal arms to pull in.
Speaker 2: It's mostly empty space. So how exactly is this momentum
Speaker 2: flowing outward?
Speaker 3: It's transported through internal sheer stresses and gravitational.
Speaker 2: Coupling, even across empty space.
Speaker 3: Well, it's not truly empty. Those points of starlight are
Speaker 3: embedded in a massive medium of interstellar gas. Plasma magnetic
Speaker 3: fields plus the stars gravitationally interact with each other in
Speaker 3: this continuous chain.
Speaker 2: Oh I see like a relay race of gravity sort of.
Speaker 3: When the dense inner region rotates, it exerts a gravitational
Speaker 3: drag on the region just outside it, and that region
Speaker 3: drags the next one all the way to the edge.
Speaker 3: This continuous transfer of kinetic energy is a massive, organized flow.
Speaker 2: Okay, here's where it gets really interesting. Yeah, you mentioned
Speaker 2: the stress energy tensor earlier. If mass creates gravity and
Speaker 2: energy creates gravity, are we saying that this literal flow
Speaker 2: of momentum, this invisible river of kinetic energy pushing outward,
Speaker 2: actually possesses its own gravitational weight.
Speaker 3: That is precisely what general relativity dictates. Wait, yes, and
Speaker 3: it's exactly what the Alina tensor rigorously quantifies. The actual
Speaker 3: flux of angular momentum contributes significantly to the local gravitational
Speaker 3: feel mind blown. The framework proves mathematically that the faster
Speaker 3: and more organized the rotation is, the stronger this self
Speaker 3: generated gravity becomes at the outer edges.
Speaker 2: So movement literally mimics mass perfectly.
Speaker 3: It mimics mass so well that it creates the exact
Speaker 3: flat rotation curve. We observe no invisible halo required. The
Speaker 3: kinetic architecture of the spin itself is generating that extra pull.
Speaker 2: Okay, let me push back on this though, go for it.
Speaker 2: If movement mimics mass and angular momentum generates extra gravity,
Speaker 2: why don't we see this effect in our own solar system.
Speaker 2: Jupiter is huge, it has a tremendous amount of angular momentum.
Speaker 2: Why do we only need the Olana tensor when we
Speaker 2: look at an entire galaxy.
Speaker 3: That is a fantastic question, and it comes down to
Speaker 3: the distribution.
Speaker 2: Of mass distribution. How So, in our.
Speaker 3: Solar system, ninety nine point eight percent the total mass
Speaker 3: is concentrated in one incredibly dense point, the Sun. Right,
Speaker 3: the planets are just tiny specks orbiting that massive center.
Speaker 3: When a system is heavily dominated by a single central
Speaker 3: point mass, classical Newtonian approximations.
Speaker 2: Work perfectly, so the flow doesn't matter as much.
Speaker 3: Right, the kinetic off diagonal components are negligible. But a
Speaker 3: galaxy is fundamentally different. A galaxy does not have ninety
Speaker 3: nine percent of its mass sitting in the central black hole.
Speaker 2: It's spread out over tens of thousands of light years exactly.
Speaker 3: The mass is distributed continuously across a massive disk, and
Speaker 3: because it's distributed, those fluid like internal interactions and sheer
Speaker 3: stresses become the dominant gravitational factors. The Alena tensor accounts
Speaker 3: for that exact scale dependent transition from.
Speaker 2: Point mass to continuous fluid. That is staggering. It completely
Speaker 2: flips the script. We thought we were looking at the
Speaker 2: gravity of invisible stuff, but we were actually looking at
Speaker 2: the gravitational weight of movement itself.
Speaker 3: It's a profound realization.
Speaker 2: It's like we couldn't see the winds, so we assume
Speaker 2: the trees were bending because invisible giants were pushing them.
Speaker 2: I love that, Yes, but you know math is just
Speaker 2: math until it hits reality. We have decades of high
Speaker 2: precision telescope data on galaxy. How does the Aleena tensor
Speaker 2: actually hold up against real observational data.
Speaker 3: This is exactly where it steps out of the theoretical
Speaker 3: realm and into the brutal arena of empirical data. Because
Speaker 3: you're right, a theory is useless if it can't match reality.
Speaker 2: So has it been tested?
Speaker 3: Yes, the framework has been directly tested against the rotation
Speaker 3: curves of more than one hundred.
Speaker 2: Galaxies, wow, one hundred over one.
Speaker 3: Hundred, And crucially, it wasn't just tested in a vacuum.
Speaker 3: It was put head to head against another very famous
Speaker 3: alternative to dark matter, oh Mond exactly, Mond modified Newtonian dynamics.
Speaker 2: We should definitely explain M and D for the listener,
Speaker 2: because it's kind of been the raining underdog in astrophysics
Speaker 2: since the eighties.
Speaker 3: It has. So M and D was proposed by Mordeheim
Speaker 3: Milgram in nineteen eighty three, and it basically suggests that
Speaker 3: we don't need dark matter at all if we just
Speaker 3: accept that Isaac Newton's laws of gravity break down at
Speaker 3: extremely low accelerations.
Speaker 2: Okay, so like at the very edges of galaxies right.
Speaker 3: In our Solar system is strong, Newton works perfectly. But
Speaker 3: at the extreme outer edges of a galaxy, where acceleration
Speaker 3: drops below this tiny specific threshold, which Milgrim called a zero,
Speaker 3: Mond proposes that gravity stops weakening as fast.
Speaker 2: So M and D is essentially a mathematical tweak. Yes,
Speaker 2: it injects a new universal constant to force the mass
Speaker 2: to match with the telescope c.
Speaker 3: It's a phenomenological theory It was literally reverse engineered to
Speaker 3: fit the rotation curves. And you know, to its credit,
Speaker 3: MOND is incredibly successful at predicting individual galaxy curves.
Speaker 2: That it struggles elsewhere massively.
Speaker 3: It fails when you look at larger scales like massive
Speaker 3: galaxy clusters or the cosmic microwave background radiation. But the
Speaker 3: Aleena tensor is not a tweak like MOND.
Speaker 2: Because it uses standard general relativity exactly.
Speaker 3: It doesn't introduce any arbitrary constants like a zero, It
Speaker 3: doesn't modify Newton or Einstein. It just applies the generalized
Speaker 3: field equations without the dust approximation.
Speaker 2: So how did the duel play out? When you pit
Speaker 2: M against the purely kinetic framework of the Alena tensor
Speaker 2: on over one hundred real galaxies. What do the data say?
Speaker 3: The results are highly compelling, especially for a theory this new.
Speaker 3: In preliminary approximations, the Alena tensor produces better or at
Speaker 3: least comparable fits to the curves compared to M and
Speaker 3: and D in eighty percent of the testing.
Speaker 2: Cases, wait eighty percent, eighty percent without inventing a new
Speaker 2: universal constant.
Speaker 3: Zero new constants, and that is using preliminary mathematical approximations,
Speaker 3: meaning there is still vast room for it to get
Speaker 3: even more accurate as the math is developed further.
Speaker 2: That is insane. It achieves what Mond achieves, but from
Speaker 2: first principles, without tweaking gravity or inventing dark matter particle exactly.
Speaker 2: This rais is a really important question, though. What happens
Speaker 2: to the physics community if a three year old mathematical
Speaker 2: tool just starts consistently outperforming models that people have spent
Speaker 2: their entire careers building.
Speaker 3: It's a painful process.
Speaker 2: I mean, billions of dollars have gone into dark matter
Speaker 2: MND has been debated since nineteen eighty three. How does
Speaker 2: scientific consensus even begin to shift when a new competitor
Speaker 2: steps in and immediately scores an eighty percent win rate?
Speaker 3: Well, Historically, consensus shifts incredibly slowly, and usually with massive
Speaker 3: institutional resistance. Thomas Kuhn wrote about this in the Structure
Speaker 3: of Scientific Revolutions. You don't just abandon a prevailing paradigm
Speaker 3: because a new elegant equation shows up. The old guard
Speaker 3: will defend the standard model fiercely.
Speaker 2: And they kind of have to right.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, the dark matter paradigm hasn't survived this long by
Speaker 3: being useless. It solves a lot of complex problems, especially
Speaker 3: regarding how galaxies formed right after the Big Bang.
Speaker 2: So to dethrown it, you need more than just a
Speaker 2: good fit on a graph. You need undeniable proof, right
Speaker 2: because fitting a curve isn't enough to overthrow fifty years
Speaker 2: of physics. If a theorist works hard enough, they can
Speaker 2: force fit math to match an observation. What is the
Speaker 2: undeniable proof we're looking for? What's the smoke?
Speaker 3: Well, you've hit on exactly how science advances. Theories are
Speaker 3: only scientifically valuable if they risk being totally wrong. Yes,
Speaker 3: a theory has to make a unique prediction something that
Speaker 3: competing theories say is absolutely impossible. And the Aleena tensor
Speaker 3: makes a very bold, highly specific prediction about gravitational lensing.
Speaker 2: Okay, the litmus test of lensing. This is crucial. Let's
Speaker 2: establish how lensing works in the standard dark matter model
Speaker 2: first so we can see the difference.
Speaker 3: Sure, so, gravitational lensing is one of the most spectacular
Speaker 3: consequences of Einstein's relativity. Massive objects like a galaxy have
Speaker 3: so much mass they literally warp the fabric of space
Speaker 3: time around them.
Speaker 2: Like a bowling ball on a trampoline exactly.
Speaker 3: So when light from something further away, like a quasar
Speaker 3: far behind the galaxy travels past, the light follows that curve.
Speaker 3: The foreground galaxy acts like a giant cosmic magnifying glass,
Speaker 3: bending and distorting the background light.
Speaker 2: Which is why when we look at those amazing James
Speaker 2: Webb deep field images we see those crazy smeared, stretched
Speaker 2: out arcs of light.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's distant light being bent through a funhouse mirror
Speaker 3: of gravity. Now, in the standard dark matter model, that
Speaker 3: visible spiral galaxy is sitting dead center inside a massive
Speaker 3: spherical halo of dark matter.
Speaker 2: A giant invisible sphere, right.
Speaker 3: And because it's spherical, its gravitational pole is pretty uniform
Speaker 3: in all directions, So the way it bends the background
Speaker 3: light should be largely symmetric.
Speaker 2: Regardless of the angle we're looking at it from Earth.
Speaker 3: Exactly, it shouldn't matter, But the Aleena tensor throws the
Speaker 3: spherical halo out completely.
Speaker 2: It relies entirely on the rotational spin and the flat
Speaker 2: pancake like structure of the galaxy disc itself.
Speaker 3: Precisely, the Aleena tensor generates that pole based on the
Speaker 3: rotational dynamics and how momentum is transported along the plane
Speaker 3: of the disk. And because a disc is highly directional,
Speaker 3: it's flat. The space time warping isn't spherical, so it.
Speaker 2: Predicts an inclination dependent lensing signature exactly to make this
Speaker 2: incredibly tangible for every ever, if we point our telescope
Speaker 2: at a galaxy and we're looking at it perfectly face on,
Speaker 2: like looking down at a spinning dinner plate, the background
Speaker 2: light will bend fundamentally differently than if we look at
Speaker 2: it edge on, like the thin side of a frisbee.
Speaker 3: That is exactly the prediction. The gravitational lensing will vary
Speaker 3: based on the inclination angle. Standard dark matter wouldn't care.
Speaker 3: A sphere is a sphere from.
Speaker 2: Any angle, but the lane of tensor completely relies on
Speaker 2: that angle.
Speaker 3: Because the extra gravity is borne directly from the directional
Speaker 3: geometry of the spin.
Speaker 2: That is a brilliant test. It's totally binary. It either
Speaker 2: happens or it doesn't. Exactly if it happens, dark matter
Speaker 2: halos are in serious trouble. How soon can we actually
Speaker 2: test this?
Speaker 3: We are actually entering the perfect era for it with
Speaker 3: next generation telescopes like the ESA's EUCLID mission and NASA's
Speaker 3: Nancy Grace Romans space telescope. We'll be able to map
Speaker 3: the lensing effects of millions of.
Speaker 2: Galaxies with crazy precision.
Speaker 3: Yes, we can categorize hundreds of thousands of galaxies by
Speaker 3: their inclination angle and analyze the signatures. If we see
Speaker 3: that distinct inclination dependence signature, it would be a fatal
Speaker 3: distinction from the halo models.
Speaker 2: It would be the exact smoking gun we need.
Speaker 3: It would prove gravity is tied to the kinetic orientation
Speaker 3: of the galaxy.
Speaker 2: Okay, so we have a mathematical framework that solves dark
Speaker 2: matter at the galactic scale, and it offers a testable prediction.
Speaker 2: But we can't talk about the dark sector without talking
Speaker 2: about the massive elephant in.
Speaker 3: The room dark energy.
Speaker 2: Exactly, if dark matter is the invisible gravity pulling things together,
Speaker 2: dark energy is the invisible anti gravity ripping the universe apart.
Speaker 2: Can the Alena tensor handle dark energy?
Speaker 3: It handles it by doing what it does best, rejecting
Speaker 3: arbitrary patches.
Speaker 2: I love that.
Speaker 3: How So to understand it, we have to look back
Speaker 3: at Einstein's original field equations, specifically the cosmological.
Speaker 2: Constant, Einstein's famous blunder. Let's walk through that because it's
Speaker 2: such a great example of physics forcing an answer right.
Speaker 3: When Einstein first formulated relativity in nineteen fifteen, the math
Speaker 3: predicted a dynamic universe. It had to be expanding or collapsing.
Speaker 2: But the scientific dogma at the time was that the
Speaker 2: universe was static.
Speaker 3: Eternal, and unchanging, so Einstein essentially invented a fudge factor
Speaker 3: to stop his universe from moving. He added a term
Speaker 3: denoted by the Greek letter Lambda, the cosmological constant.
Speaker 2: It acted like a repulsive force to perfectly balance gravity.
Speaker 3: Yes, but then a decade later Edwin Hubble proved the
Speaker 3: universe was actually expanding, so Einstein called it his greatest
Speaker 3: blunder and took Lambda out.
Speaker 2: But the story doesn't end there, because in the late nineties,
Speaker 2: astronomers measuring supernovae discovered the expansion wasn't just happening, it
Speaker 2: was accelerating.
Speaker 3: Something was actively pushing spacetime outward faster and faster.
Speaker 2: So suddenly the cosmological constant comes back from the dead.
Speaker 3: They resurrected Lambda and plugged it back in to represent
Speaker 3: dark energy. The constant energy density of empty space vacuum energy.
Speaker 2: Well, wait, when quantum physicists try to calculate how much
Speaker 2: energy is actually in the vacuum of space is well,
Speaker 2: it's completely wrong. Right.
Speaker 3: Wrong is an understatement. It's widely considered the worst theoretical
Speaker 3: prediction in the history of physics. The quantum calculation for
Speaker 3: vacuum energy is roughly one hundred and twenty orders of
Speaker 3: magnitude larger than the observed value of dark energy.
Speaker 2: That is absurd.
Speaker 3: It's an absurd discrepancy. Even today, treating dark energy as
Speaker 3: a cosmological constant feels like a poorly understood patch.
Speaker 2: It's just added to make the math work exactly.
Speaker 3: But the Elena tensor takes a totally different route. Instead
Speaker 3: of an unexplained patch, dark energy emerges spontaneously from the
Speaker 3: Alena field equations as something called a field invariant.
Speaker 2: Okay, so what does this all mean? What does a
Speaker 2: field invariant and how does it act like dark energy?
Speaker 3: In math, an invariant is a fundamental property of a
Speaker 3: system that remains totally unchanged regardless of your perspective or
Speaker 3: coordinate system like the speed of light exactly, or the
Speaker 3: rest mass of an electron Yeah. By showing that this
Speaker 3: behavior we call dark energy emerges naturally as a field invariant,
Speaker 3: the Alna tensor is making a profound statement, which is
Speaker 3: that this outward push isn't some new mysterious substance filling
Speaker 3: the void. It is a fundamental, inescapable, built in property
Speaker 3: of the geometrical structure of space time itself.
Speaker 2: Okay, I have an analogy for this too, let's hearer it.
Speaker 2: It's the difference between patching a leaky roof with duct
Speaker 2: tape because you have no idea why water is on
Speaker 2: your ceiling. That's the Scanderd cosmological concept, versus getting the
Speaker 2: architectural blueprints, looking at the structure and realizing the leak
Speaker 2: isn't a flaw at all. It's actually a built in,
Speaker 2: highly engineered irrigation system for a roof garden. I like
Speaker 2: that it's supposed to be there. The water is the
Speaker 2: field invariant, and the complex piping is the geometry of
Speaker 2: the Aleena tensor. It's a feature, not.
Speaker 3: A bug exactly. If we connect this to the bigger picture,
Speaker 3: it gives dark energy a profoundly deeper geometric meaning it's
Speaker 3: not an arbitrary push anymore. It's a structural consequence of
Speaker 3: how space time and energy fields are woven together. The
Speaker 3: geometry demands an outward pressure.
Speaker 2: That is so elegant. But does this field invariant actually
Speaker 2: match the exact rate of acceleration we measure with our telescopes.
Speaker 3: That is the open, rigorous question right now. The framework
Speaker 3: establishes the geometric basis, but physicists still need to see
Speaker 3: if it fully reproduces the exact rates of cosmic expansion
Speaker 3: over billions of years.
Speaker 2: And the perturbations in the cosmic microwave background.
Speaker 3: Right the claim isn't that all of cosmology is suddenly
Speaker 3: flawlessly solved. The claim is that it offers a new
Speaker 3: geometric interpretation that changes the questions we're asking. We start
Speaker 3: asking what invisible particle is pushing the universe apart, and
Speaker 3: start asking how does the invariant geometry of space time
Speaker 3: necessitate expansion.
Speaker 2: It's just mind blowing to apply this kind of dynamic
Speaker 2: math the macro universe. But the ambition of this tensor
Speaker 2: doesn't stop at the edges of the universe, does No.
Speaker 2: It does not, because to truly unify physics, a framework
Speaker 2: can't just work on the bigot things. It has to
Speaker 2: work on the abs smallest. It has to bridge the
Speaker 2: divide that has stumped everyone for a century. General relativity
Speaker 2: and quantum mechanics.
Speaker 3: The holy grail of physics.
Speaker 2: What happens if we take this exact same Molena tensor
Speaker 2: framework and shrink it down to the quantum realm.
Speaker 3: This is where it transitions from a fascinating cosmological tool
Speaker 3: to a potentially revolutionary unifying theory, because the exact same
Speaker 3: equations used to describe the spinning kinetic structure of a
Speaker 3: galaxy can be applied directly to the quantum realm to
Speaker 3: describe quantum vortices.
Speaker 2: Wait, wait, you mean the mathematical equations governing a spiral
Speaker 2: galaxy fifty thousand light years across are the exact same
Speaker 2: equations governing a subatomic.
Speaker 3: Particle under this generalized framework, Yes, the scale changes, but
Speaker 3: the fundamental geometric principles remain exactly the same.
Speaker 2: That is incredible.
Speaker 3: Specifically, in the quantum regime, the tensor highlights a profound
Speaker 3: coupling between spin and vorticity.
Speaker 2: Let's dessign those terms. Just be clear, when we say
Speaker 2: spinning quantum mechanics, we aren't talking about a tiny particle
Speaker 2: physically spinning like a basketball.
Speaker 3: Right correct, spin in the quantum realm is an intrinsic
Speaker 3: mathematical property of a particle, representing angular.
Speaker 2: Momentum and vorticity.
Speaker 3: Verticity is a measure of the local rotation or swirl
Speaker 3: within a fluid like quantum field. Think of swirling eddies
Speaker 3: in a flowing river, but made of quantum probability amplitudes.
Speaker 2: Okay, so the Alina tensor rigidly links this intrinsic spin
Speaker 2: with the swirl of the field. What is the physical
Speaker 2: result of that?
Speaker 3: The result is a potential answer to arguably the most
Speaker 3: fundamental question in particle physics, the generation of mass.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 3: The math demonstrates that mass can emerge spontaneously as a
Speaker 3: direct result of the balance between the system's phase structure
Speaker 3: and this spin vorticity coupling spontaneously.
Speaker 2: I want to make sure I grasp the how here,
Speaker 2: because mass doesn't just appear out of nowhere. How do
Speaker 2: spin and swirl physically create the property of mass?
Speaker 3: Think of it like this. Imagine trying to walk in
Speaker 3: a straight line across an m town square. You walk effortlessly, right,
Speaker 3: no resistance right. Now, imagine the square is filled with
Speaker 3: a dense crowd of people, and they are all moving
Speaker 3: together in a highly synchronized complex circular dance. That's your
Speaker 3: quantum vortex.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 3: As you try to push your way through that swirling crowd,
Speaker 3: you encounter immense resistance. You have to constantly interact with
Speaker 3: the flow. In quantum field theory, the resistance of particle
Speaker 3: feels as it interacts with the fields around it is
Speaker 3: literally what we measure as mass.
Speaker 2: Oh Man, That is an incredible visual.
Speaker 3: The Alina tensor mathematically maps how the specific geometry of
Speaker 3: that spin vorticity coupling creates that exact resistance. The mass
Speaker 3: emerges spontaneously from the geometry of the flow.
Speaker 2: What makes is so astonishing is the parallel to this
Speaker 2: standard model. We are literally talking about the Higgs mechanism here,
Speaker 2: precisely the Higgs boson, the god particle that we spend
Speaker 2: billions define at the large Adrin collider. The standard model
Speaker 2: says particles get mass by wading through the invisible molasses
Speaker 2: of the Higgs field, and.
Speaker 3: The Aleena tensor arrives at the exact same destination predicting
Speaker 3: how mass is generated, but takes a totally different road.
Speaker 2: It doesn't necessarily need a separate arbitrary field of molasses.
Speaker 2: It suggests mass could be generated by the internal architecture
Speaker 2: of the particle's own quantum field.
Speaker 3: That's the profound implication. This spontaneous emergence yields direct mathematical
Speaker 3: analogs to the equations we already know from the Higgs
Speaker 3: mechanism and the Ukaba couplings that describe how the Higgs
Speaker 3: interacts with fermions.
Speaker 2: It naturally reproduces it, yes, and.
Speaker 3: It also naturally reproduces a known phenomenon called the Mashoon.
Speaker 2: Effect the Masshune effect. Let's break that down.
Speaker 3: It's a fascinating phenomenon where the macroscopic rotation of a
Speaker 3: system like physically spinning a device directly and measurably alters
Speaker 3: the phase of a quantum wave function.
Speaker 2: So it links macro rotation to quantum behavior explicitly.
Speaker 3: By reproducing this from first principles, the Alena tensor shows
Speaker 3: that rotation and quantum mechanics are deeply geometrically intertwined.
Speaker 2: It's almost too perfect. Let's recap what we've covered a
Speaker 2: single mathematical framework that solves the dark matter missing mass problem.
Speaker 2: By looking at kinetic angular momentum. It solves the dark
Speaker 2: energy expansion problem by making it a geometric field invariant,
Speaker 2: and it solves quantum mass generation through spin vorticity coupling.
Speaker 3: All under one umbrella.
Speaker 2: It's basically suggesting the macro and the micro, the swirling galaxy,
Speaker 2: and the subatomic particle are fractal reflections of each other,
Speaker 2: operating on the exact same geometric truths. It is a
Speaker 2: stunningly beautiful idea. It is very elegant, But I have
Speaker 2: to force a reality check here. I have to play
Speaker 2: the skeptic. Please do If this equation is so perfect
Speaker 2: and so unifying, why isn't it on the front page
Speaker 2: of every newspaper. Why hasn't the standard model been completely
Speaker 2: thrown out today?
Speaker 3: Because science does not and must not advance based on
Speaker 3: elegance alone. Science advances by brutal, relentless.
Speaker 2: Replication and intense criticism.
Speaker 3: Exactly fail to tell to break the model complex empirical comparisons.
Speaker 3: We have to recognize the absolute youth of this theory.
Speaker 3: The Alena tensor right now is only a three year
Speaker 3: old research.
Speaker 2: Direction, which is nothing in physics time.
Speaker 3: Connecting general relativity continuum mechanics and quantum phases is a
Speaker 3: massive achievement. But compare it to string theory right.
Speaker 2: String theory has been the darling of theoretical physics for
Speaker 2: over fifty years, tens of thousands of papers, hundreds of
Speaker 2: brilliant minds.
Speaker 3: And even string theory still struggles to produce testable predictions.
Speaker 3: The Alena tensor is in its absolute infancy. It's the
Speaker 3: work of a single mind proposing a new path.
Speaker 2: So there are massive hurdles.
Speaker 3: Ahead, daunting ones. It handles galactic rotation well, but can
Speaker 3: it explain the vastly more complex chaotic gravitational lensing we
Speaker 3: see in massive galaxy clusters like the Bullet cluster.
Speaker 2: Because clusters are incredibly messy, not neat spinning discs exactly.
Speaker 2: And what about the early universe? Dark matter is essential
Speaker 2: for explaining how matter clumped together quickly after or the
Speaker 2: Big Bang. If you remove it, does the tensor provide
Speaker 2: a mechanism for early structure formation?
Speaker 3: That's another critical test. Does it correctly predict the acoustic
Speaker 3: peaks and the cosmic microwave background? Can the quantum sector
Speaker 3: be developed into something truly predictive for the entire zoo
Speaker 3: of elementary particles. These questions will require years of work
Speaker 3: by independent teams.
Speaker 2: It's a massive mountain to climb, and that actually brings
Speaker 2: up the architect of this mountain, Pyotr Oganowski. I was
Speaker 2: looking into his background and it is fascinating, precisely because
Speaker 2: it's so unconventional.
Speaker 3: He's not your typical cosmologist, not at all.
Speaker 2: He's not just some guy cloistered in an observatory. He's
Speaker 2: a lecturer at Kasminski University in Warsaw. He's authored peer
Speaker 2: reviewed papers and physics, yes, but also extensively in management
Speaker 2: and economics.
Speaker 3: Yes. His background is highly applied.
Speaker 2: He was selected as an expert to consult on changes
Speaker 2: for co financing complex projects from EU funds in Poland,
Speaker 2: and even served in an expert group for the Chancellery
Speaker 2: of the Prime Minister of Poland.
Speaker 3: A remarkably diverse resume.
Speaker 2: Which makes me wander. A researcher who bridges physics and
Speaker 2: complex management systems, someone who advised a government on how
Speaker 2: to allocate funds and manage logistical bottlenecks.
Speaker 3: You're seeing the connection, right.
Speaker 2: Is it possible that his deep background in complex systems
Speaker 2: management in analyzing supply chains and dynamic flow is exactly
Speaker 2: what allowed him to look at the universe's dust model
Speaker 2: and realize it was a terrible static approximation.
Speaker 3: It's highly likely.
Speaker 2: Did you look at a spiral galaxy and see a
Speaker 2: dynamic supply chain of energy transport while traditional physicists were
Speaker 2: just looking for a missing pile of heavy rocks.
Speaker 3: What's fascinating here is that the history of science repeatedly
Speaker 3: shows us that interdisciplinary thinking catalyzes paradigm shifts. So a
Speaker 3: physicist trained entirely in standard cosmology might spend their whole
Speaker 3: career trying to invent a new exotic particle to fit
Speaker 3: the anomaly, because that's what their training dictates. But an outsider,
Speaker 3: someone who spends half their life thinking about how energy
Speaker 3: and resources flow through interconnected organizational systems, might naturally look
Speaker 3: at a galaxy and say, you aren't accounting for the
Speaker 3: systemic transport of energy. The system is dynamic, not static.
Speaker 2: It's the ultimate outsider advantage. Just apply that the highest
Speaker 2: levels of tensor mathematics. It is.
Speaker 3: However, we must continuously return to the foundational rule of
Speaker 3: the scientific method Skepticism is a scientific duty always, Ooganovsky
Speaker 3: acknowledges this himself until independent researchers, people with no stake
Speaker 3: in the theory, reproduces fits, extend the tensor to galaxy clusters,
Speaker 3: and definitively test it against that inclination dependent lensing we
Speaker 3: talked about.
Speaker 2: It remains unproven.
Speaker 3: It is a highly promising, mathematically beautiful, but unproven research tool,
Speaker 3: not yet a verified theory of everything, but it is.
Speaker 2: A massive structural crack in the foundation of the dark sector. Unquestionably,
Speaker 2: we've spent this hour pulling apart a truly dense, profound journey,
Speaker 2: starting with a universe dominated by untouchable phantoms.
Speaker 3: Dark mast and dark energy.
Speaker 2: And exploring how relying on that simplified dust model might
Speaker 2: have inadvertently forced us to invent those phantoms just to
Speaker 2: balance the equations.
Speaker 3: And we've seen how the Alena tensor offers a rigorous alternative,
Speaker 3: a universe where fluid light, kinetic flow, and continuous transport
Speaker 3: generate the extra gravity we see.
Speaker 2: Where dark energy isn't a hack but a necessary geometric
Speaker 2: property of space time, and.
Speaker 3: Where quantum mass beautifully mirrors the swirling mechanics of macro galaxies.
Speaker 2: It replaces the dark empty voids of the cosmos with
Speaker 2: his elegant mathematics of structure and spin. It demands we
Speaker 2: stop looking for missing puzzle pieces in the dark and
Speaker 2: realize the puzzle itself might be a completely different shape.
Speaker 3: The physics community has spent decades searching the darkness. The
Speaker 3: Alna tensor points us firmly back to the light, suggesting
Speaker 3: the visible structure and motion already hold the answers, if
Speaker 3: only we calculate the dynamics correctly.
Speaker 2: Which leaves you with the listener with a final lingering
Speaker 2: thought to mull over. If the rigorous mathematics of the
Speaker 2: Alena tenser ultimately prove true, it means the universe hasn't
Speaker 2: been maliciously hiding invisible particles from us in the dark
Speaker 2: spaces between the stars. Instead, it means the most profound
Speaker 2: secrets of reality have been hiding in plain sight all along,
Speaker 2: written loudly in the beautiful swirling movement of everything around us.
Speaker 2: They were just waiting for us to invent the right
Speaker 2: language to read them.
Speaker 3: It's a powerful thought.
Speaker 2: It really makes you wonder, outside of theoretical physics, how
Speaker 2: many other seemingly unsolvable problems in our lives or in
Speaker 2: our world are entirely of our own making, just waiting
Speaker 2: for a fundamental change of perspective to suddenly make perfect sense.