Thanks for tuning in to AI Mutual. We have breaking news and information on Hurricane In as it has made landfall. According to West Channel 2, Hurricane In has made landfall in Florida as a dangerous category four hurricane Wednesday afternoon, a shore near Kayo Costa, Florida, with winds of 150 miles per hour. And again, that would be considered a category four, which is a very dangerous and catastrophic hurricane. As of the 8 p.m. advisory, Hurricane In was moving north, northeast at eight miles per hour, and winds had slowed to 115 miles per hour. It was located 30 miles northeast of Punta Gorda, Florida, and 95 miles southwest of Orlando. The storm is expected to cause life-threatening storm surge, catastrophic winds, and flooding in the Florida Peninsula, the National Weather Service warned, conditions will deteriorate tonight. The threat of significant to catastrophic flooding is expected to develop tonight and into Thursday for areas from North Ossacola and North Brevard, including Metro Orlando. Flooding can be extremely dangerous at night. So everyone needs to be careful. But please know there are shelters available. FEMA is doing a really great job just to kind of let you know what's going on. Volunteer agencies are in the area, for example, American Red Cross, Florida Baptist, Salvation Army, Feeding Florida, Farm Share, and more, okay? So FEMA has partnered with them and others to make sure that they can deliver tens of thousands of meals per day. The USDA and Nutrition Service has approved Florida's request to issue October SNAP benefits on September 28th. So that happens this week. So everybody check online when you're able to to make sure that those funds were uploaded to your SNAP benefit card. More than 90 shelters are open, so that's really great. The American Red Cross is prepared to open 60 post disaster, which can accommodate 30,000 individuals. So in case you were unable to evacuate prior to the storm, please know that 90 shelters are available and others will be opening up. For a list of open general and special needs shelters in the state of Florida, Visit Shelter Information, posted on AMUCH 1-800-342-3557. Again, 1-800-342-3557. The state of Florida is deploying several hundred shelter support staff to address staffing needs. Just know that the state of Florida is doing everything that they can to make sure that residents have the adequate shelter that they need, that they have the food that they need, and also just to stay up to date with information as long as you have energy to supply it to your cell phone. And I hope everybody does and hopefully everybody was able to download this app prior to the storm. But if not, definitely download the FEMA app for real-time weather alerts from the National Weather Service. And it will provide you with directions to open shelters. So that's really great. You can see what's in your area. This app also includes a customizable checklist of emergency supplies and disaster survival tips. Please also go to AI Mutual's Facebook page because there will be information on how to file claims, giving you tips and things of that nature because you're definitely gonna need it once all the flooding subsides, once all the water subsides, and then you're able to capture the actual damage to your property. You want to be able to make sure that you're able to take those photos and know the questions to ask your field adjuster. So definitely look on our page for that information. But in the meantime, we do pray that everybody is staying safe, that everybody is healthy, that everybody is alive, that everybody is fed. You guys, this is a great time to just get together with your family and then just pray and then just know that we're here and we're waiting for everything to clear out so that way we can get those field adjusters out there to help you to get restored back to normal. Thanks so much, have a good one.


Alright, so we're going to pick up where we left off yesterday, so you'll recall that yesterday we spent the first part of the talk on reviewing the evidence for dark matter, in particular the various epochs that constraints on the nature of the dark matter sector come from, and we'll return to that either later today or tomorrow, in tomorrow's lecture, and then we spent the rest of the talk going through the various dominant paradigms for setting the density of dark matter, which we said the reason that that was important is that it relates a macroscopic quantity, the observable density of dark matter in the universe, to a microscopic quantity, the cross-section, or the chemical potential, or the general interaction rate with the standard model. So we spent quite a bit of time going through this thermal freeze out paradigm as the dominant one. We talked about using a chemical potential, this is known as asymmetric dark matter, to set the relic density in a similar way to which the baryon density is set, and then we spent a little bit of time going through freeze out and decay and freeze in, and so just to remind you to make a little bit of continuity with what we did yesterday. So if you were to take freeze out versus freeze in, it can be pretty well summarized in these two plots. So in the freeze out paradigm, so you have on the y-axis here the ratio of the number density to the entropy, and early on this is constant, which just means that the number density of dark matter scales with the volume, so as the universe expands it just dilutes with the entire volume, then once this ratio of the mass on temperature becomes larger than one, that's where the dark matter is becoming non-relativistic. What happens in that regime? How does it scale? Once x becomes bigger than one. The exponential suppression, it goes like e to the minus m on t, or in this variable x, e to the minus x. So that's where you start seeing this exponential suppression, and you follow this Boltzmann equilibrium distribution until the dark matter becomes so rare that it has trouble finding another dark matter particle, and when that happens, annihilation stops, and then you re-enter the regime where the dark matter just starts diluting with the volume, and that's this regime here. So you have these three separate regimes, one diluting with the volume, two exponential decay in the number density, it's not to cave the particles due to annihilations, and then you exit that regime and you re-enter the regime where you just dilute with the volume. And the place at which you exit this curve just depends on what that annihilation rate is. The larger the annihilation rate, the easier it is to annihilate, the further down you follow this curve until you exit, and that is the freeze-out paradigm in about 30 seconds. Okay. Yes, question? Can you repeat your question? Yeah, sorry. What makes it start colliding? I mean, initially it's just diluting, I mean it's expanding, the universe is expanding. Right, so that's a good question, and the point is that up here, the annihilations are happening, but the inverse annihilations are happening at the same rate. This is what equilibrium means. I have dark matter, dark matter goes to two standard model particles, and then it happens in the equal rate coming back. What's happening as the dark matter becomes unrelativistic is it becomes kinematically disfavored to have standard model annihilating back into dark matter because the temperature is dropping below the dark matter mass. And that's the reason why you're getting this exponential suppression in terms of the microscopic. Good question. Okay, so this is the picture of the standard freeze-out picture, and I wanted to put this other plot here for freeze-in to emphasize the point that freeze-in happens in the opposite way. So unlike this case, where I start out with the thermal number density initially, I imagine that I start with the dark matter not being populated at all, or almost at all. So it's not in thermal equilibrium with the standard model. It doesn't have strong interactions with the standard model, and so it's just not populated. On the other hand, the standard model sector is just thermally populated with some temperature the way it usually is. And what's happening as the temperature drops, so here again is the same axis. Time is going this way. As the temperature drops, you have an occasional process that produces the dark matter particle. Okay, so for example, you might have the occasional decay or superpartner plus standard model particle produces a dark matter particle. That's one process where that coupling constant is imagined to be very small. If that's the case, that process is very rare, but it becomes more important actually as the universe cools. And the reason that is is you just have more time. You can afford to sit there and wait for the occasional dark matter particle to appear. And so what happens is that once I produce a dark matter particle, it's not in equilibrium with the standard model. So it doesn't come back. You just produce it and it's there. And so now what happens is you as you occasionally produce these dark matter particles, you get a buildup. And that's what's shown at these curves. Now going up here, this is larger coupling. So the more often you produce them, obviously the more dark matter particle you're going to have in the end. Okay, so these are sort of two opposite regimes of dark matter production freeze out and freeze in. Are there other questions about that? Yes. So eventually, okay, and I don't want to confuse language, you can say that this process freezes out in the sense that eventually, so we went through these scalings last time and we found that the cross section went like one on T squared. And so this protection went like one on T. So that's this regime. Eventually though, you expect the temperature to drop below some mass scale. Okay, and once that happens, it goes, it stops going like one on temperature and it starts going like one on V. So once the temperature drops below whatever this mass scale is, then the process asymptotes and you're no longer having this production process happen. So an analog for this would be, suppose I had super partner plus standard model particle going to dark matter particle. Once the temperature drops below the mass of the super partner, that process isn't going to happen anymore. And so at that point, the process just saturates. Yeah, in that case, it would be like that. So you pass a mass threshold and passing that mass threshold tells you that the process is going to stop. The other process that we focused on last time was to use a particle, anti-particle asymmetry to set the number density. And this goes by the name of asymmetric dark matter and we went through a mechanism by which you could use a particle, anti-particle asymmetry to set the density. So we gave the example of UDD, a neutron interacting with the dark matter. So if I have a baryony asymmetry, that interaction will give me an asymmetry for the dark matter as well. And so that was what we saw. We could relate this particle, anti-particle asymmetry and you guys remember how much more anti-matter than matter I have, what that ratio was. It's one part in 10 to the 10, which I can't obviously show here, but it's a tiny, tiny asymmetry. It's a very small chemical potential. And the idea was that you could relate the chemical potentials in these two sectors. And then what happens as the universe cools, I have dark matter, anti-dark matter, annihilating. And so at the end of it, I'm only left with dark matter and baryons in the standard model. So that was the third paradigm for setting the dark matter density. And then simply because I didn't spend any time on it, and I have one slide here, Sergeet will go into a lot more detail I imagine, you have the fact that dark matter can actually be a coherent field. This is what the axion is. So it's a completely different idea than thermal dark matter. So where the dark matter acts as a particle, the idea is that if you take a particle and a potential and you just leave it oscillate, its energy density is just the kinetic term plus the potential term. And the pressure is the kinetic term minus the potential term. And then a particle oscillating in here, as Sergeet said yesterday, just has a cosine, just oscillates. And now I take the time average of this guy, and if I take the time average of that, cosine squared averaged over time is a half. So I plug that in here, and that just gives me a half m squared a squared for the energy density, but lo and behold, the pressure is zero. If the pressure is zero, what is that the equation of state for? Cold dark matter. So that's the entire idea behind any type of particle that's oscillating at a potential. It's just that a coherent field configuration that oscillates has zero pressure and some energy density, and it's just going to dilute with the volume. So he said wouldn't it lose coherence just like everything else that we know? So in the early universe, it retains its coherence. Now as structure forms in the universe, you would expect some winding of this phase space sheet, and I'm going to let Sergeet spend more time talking about that. So why don't you hold those questions for the axion, because these are exactly pertinent for that. So that's the only thing I'm going to say about coherent field configurations, okay? One slide. And I'm going to spend the remainder of these lectures talking about the case where dark matter behaves as a particle and not as a coherent field configuration. So we went through freeze out, freeze in, asymmetric dark matter, freeze out and decay, misalignment. I didn't actually talk about compact object formation. So for example, cue balls. I'm sure many of you have heard of cue balls. These are examples of oscillating scalar fields, where you have these coherent field configurations setting the dark matter density. So there are hybrids of these things. So you guys have heard about semi-annihilation, but if you look a little bit closer at them, you'll see that all of them have elements of these basic mechanisms built into them. And so that's why I want to sort of emphasize these kind of overarching paradigms for ways that you can set the dark matter density. Now I want to spend sort of the larger chunk of this lecture on going through the classic case, the one that has received by far the most attention in literature, and that is supersymmetric dark matter. And I want to talk in particular about how direct and indirect detection experiments have been designed to look for these experiments. And then I'm going to say that what's happening now is that the standard supersymmetric dark matter candidate, in particular the minimal one, is being squeezed. And so I want to talk about other types of dark matter candidate and the types of constraints that we can put on them from cosmology and astrophysics. But let's go back up and talk about the standard Susie dark matter because this is the most studied case and there are several nice reviews and literature on this. So supersymmetric dark matter is a classic. Okay, so I guess I'm betraying my nationality here when I think of a classic, somehow I think of a classic car. Okay, and the thing that's nice about it is that it has all the all the right ingredients that we need for dark matter, and they're there for other reasons. So in particular there's a neutral particle there that has all the properties that we need to make a nice dark matter candidate and it's stabilized by a symmetry which is there for other reasons besides just making a dark matter candidate. And so there's some sense in which you get dark matter out of this theory for free. And I think one of the reasons why this paradigm of a really simple dark matter sector has had sway for so long, namely that the dark matter is a single stable weakly interacting massive particle that we can go and look for at the LHC in indirect detection experiments is precisely because that is exactly what this paradigm predicts. Dark matter sector is actually very boring within supersymmetry. You have a dark matter particle, it freezes out, and once it freezes out it doesn't really do much until the occasional perhaps interaction in one of our direct detection experiments, or maybe you get the occasional annihilation in the galactic center, but nothing else really happens. You're not going to see any deviations from ordinary cold dark matter structure formation. You're not going to see other types of dynamics happening in the dark matter sector. It's actually very boring. And I think this is one of the reasons why we as a dark matter community have gotten so focused on this very simple paradigm is because it's what Susie predicts, at least the minimal Susie. So let's back up and go through the very basic things that I think you already know at some level. In order to make a dark matter particle absolutely stable, you need some type of a symmetry in the theory. Now in the standard model, these are global symmetries. Global symmetries plus electric charge that stabilize things. So we actually have three stable particles. So we have the proton, the electron, and the neutrino. So the proton is stable by baryon number. The electron is stable by electric charge and then the neutrinos are stable by lepton number. So those are what we have in the standard model. In supersymmetry, the symmetry that does this for you, as many of you know, is our parity. So you've already had lectures on supersymmetry, but bear with me for two slides. So every particle has a super partner that differs with its spin by a half. And so this seems extremely minimal and nice until you start to look at it just slightly more closely. And you find that when you look at it slightly more closely, the fact that you have not just the fermions, but their super partners, which are scalars, means that you can write down some interactions consistent with all the gauge symmetries that do bad things to the standard model. And that is these interactions here. And actually, we used these interactions yesterday. We had, for example, an up and two down chords. This is a neutron. We had actually all of these interactions, but we had them talking to the dark matter. If I don't have them talking to the dark matter, what happens? Well, now each one of these particles has not just the fermion, but also the scalar super partner. So if I have a scalar super partner, so if I have only fermions, I can't write down three fermions as an interaction. On the other hand, I can't write down three scalars as an interaction. So this type of interaction would not be allowed when left alone within the standard model. But if I take its super symmetric analog, I can write down an interaction that has three scalars. Or I can write down an interaction that has two fermions and one scalar from each of these in the super potential. And what do those additional interactions do for you? Well, they wreak havoc. And the reason why they wreak havoc observationally is, for example, I can take two quarks and their scalars super partner. So the super partner of the strange quark in this instance. And then I can take another one of these interactions. In this case, it's with a lepton and two quarks. So this is coming from this term. And then I can just have the up quark come along for the ride. And this induces proton decay. Proton goes to positron plus pi zero. Now, if you're comfortable just forbidding these to be order one, then you can suppress that sufficiently that you wouldn't see the proton decay. But an experiment like super k puts very strong constraints on this kind of process. And our belief is that in general, if you generate these, some of these couplings are going to end up being order one. And so it's sort of a mystery why it is that that these terms appear to be small.  That's what asymmetric dark matter does. But the other thing you can do is just to write down a symmetry to forbid those terms. This is what particle physicists do. If you don't like something, you make it, you rationalize the result by putting in a symmetry. And this symmetry is not so bad in the sense that it does come from some UV complete theories. And so you might imagine that when we understand better, the way to UV complete the low energy supersymmetric standard model, that we would understand why the symmetry is there. But for the moment, we can just pause its existence and see what happens. So let's pause at the existence of this r parity. It's defined to be minus one. So the r parity of some particle is defined to be minus one to the three bearing on minus lepton plus twice the spin. So let's plug this in. Any and all standard model particles carry r parity one. So you have the lepton, the quarks, and the gauge bosons. You can just plug in their spins. The lepton or bearing on number. And you find that the r parity is one. Whereas all the super partners carry r parity minus one. And that's simply from the fact that they have the same bearing on a lepton number, but they differ by spin a half. So that just flips the sign of the r parity. And so the consequence of this is if r parity is conserved, that means the lightest particle has to be stable. It's just the analog of bearing on a lepton number in the standard model that stabilizes the proton and the neutrino. I just have this new symmetry. So there you go. It forbids those terms, l le, for example, because that has one super partner, the slepton or the squark, and two standard model particles, which are the fermions. So those interactions that we wrote down on the previous slide, these all have r parity of minus one. And therefore, those interactions are forbidden. So problem solved. And the result of this is that the lightest supersymmetric particle, the LSP, is now stable. So if we further assume that the lightest one is neutral, then we have a good dark matter candidate. Now, these particles, you don't just have one, you actually have four that mix with each other. So you know within the standard model that the gauge bosons mix. And the way that we describe that is the Weinberg mixing angle. For the super partners of these guys, so we have the bino, the neutral part of the W gauge bosons, the wino, and the neutral part of the up and the down type Higgs zenos. Now in supersymmetry, you need two types of Higgs's. And I'm sure you guys know why. Yes, the potential must be holomorphic. Yep. And so therefore, in the standard model, which you normally do to write down mass terms, for example, for both the up and the down type quarks is you write down the Higgs and the Higgs star. And Susie, you're not allowed to write down phi and phi star in the super potential. And so therefore, your solution is just to write down two Higgs's. They're both SU2 doublets, but they carry opposite hypercharge. And that means that as a result, you don't just have one type of super partner to the Higgs, but you have two types. Okay. So each of these are two component fermions. Okay. They're not four component fermions. They're two component fermions. And they have a mixing matrix now that is set by some soft parameters, by a mu parameter, and then some parameters that are set by the standard model. And then lastly, this tan beta parameter, which is a ratio of up to down type, VEVs of these Higgs's, subject to the constraint that the sum of the squares is 246. Okay. So I would have met, yes. Why are the zeros there? So you're wondering why they don't mix in the same way as the standard model gauge bosons. So the mixing of the standard model gauge bosons, you can write down from the kinetic terms. And the kinetic terms for scalars are different than the kinetic terms for fermions. And so the kinetic terms for the scalars allow you to write down mixing terms there, whereas the kinetic terms for the fermions do not. That's the reason. Any other questions? Well, you also needed just to be able to write down mass terms for both up and the down type quirks. It also cancels the anomalies for the fermions. Other questions? All right. So I've said that these really is the mass matrix now for things that are potentially a dark matter candidate. What's the thing that I left out as a potential dark matter candidate? Gravitino, yes. That's not the one I was thinking of. But yes, absolutely. It's neutrino. So you expect in general that this neutrino would be the most amazing dark matter candidate. And our priority it is. However, the fact that you have the supersymmetric transformation turns a neutrino into a neutrino. And therefore, since we have a neutrino Z boson interaction, we also have a neutrino gauge boson interaction. And this interaction here is actually fixed by the gauge couplings. So this interaction rate is actually completely fixed for the neutrino for it's for this neutrino through the fact that neutrinos have weak interactions. Now what happens in that case? Well, I can have either a neutrino or a neutrino scattering off the Z to off of quarks. And this potentially you could see in a direct detection experiment. So let me spend some time going through direct detection basics. And I'll be able to tell you then why it is that the act of neutrino is no longer a good dark matter candidate. So in dark matter direct detection, there are two basic types of interactions spin dependent and spin independent. The spin independent is distinguished by the fact that it's coherent in the sense that you couple to the entire charge of the nucleus. So the best example of this is the Higgs boson. So if I have a dark matter particle interacting with the nucleus through the Higgs, you'll end up coupling to the entire charge of the of the nucleus. And so spin independent experiments now are I think in many ways coming into their prime. And the reason why I'm showing this plot is solid lines. This is even now slightly outdated because it doesn't show the latest looks results shows the constraint on the scattering cross section off of a nucleon. Note it's not the nucleus. It's an individual nucleon as a function of the dark matter mass. It starts up here at 10 to the minus 39 centimeters squared. Keep that number in your mind goes all the way down here this neutrino floor. I shouldn't call it a floor. It's a background. Life becomes much more difficult once we reach this background that the cross sections around 10 to the minus 48 centimeters squared and what the experiments are currently probing is on the order of 10 to the minus 45 centimeters squared. And you can see that planned experiment so LZ is an experiment that is funded and currently being being built. And you can see that they're going to push through almost down to the level of where this coherent neutrino background is. And we're going to talk about what this orange blob is right here. This is actually a prediction. I say prediction in quotes because it's a target. Let's say it that way. And you can see that these experiments also lose their sensitivity right around 10 GeV. So those are the couple of things I'd like you to pay attention to on this plot. Why is it that they lose their sensitivity around 10 GeV? Well the reason why they lose their sensitivity at 10 GeV is just kinematics. So this is really trivial, non-relativistic scattering. I quite literally have a dark matter particle which is represented as one sphere here and a nucleus which remains coherent. I don't ever pull it apart. So this is completely elastic scattering in the standard picture. So I just write down the fact that the nucleus is imagined to be sitting still in the standard picture. Dark matter particle comes in. There's some final momenta for the nucleus and the dark matter. I just impose energy and momentum conservation. And when I do that just plugging things in, what you find is that the reduced mass of the dark matter with the nucleus, not the nucleon, the nucleus, times the velocity of the dark matter. So the velocity of the dark matter in our Milky Way galaxy is typically on the order of 300 kilometers per second, which is about 10 to the minus 3 times the speed of light. So it's highly non-relativistic but still moving around at a pretty good speed. So now if I just plug in for a 50 GeV target, plug this in, imagine that this reduced mass then is dominated by the nucleus mass. What I get is an energy that's deposited in one of these interactions which is on the order of 100 K GeV. So what you can imagine just by scaling this not very far from here is that if instead I have 10 GeV dark matter coming in and interacting with the nucleus, this recoil energy becomes more like 10 K GeV. And so the effect that you're seeing here at low masses is just the fact that these experiments as they're currently designed and built have energy thresholds around 10 K GeV. And that's the reason why they don't have sensitivity to dark matter lighter than about 10 GeV. Now why is it that they designed the experiments that way? So I've heard people saying for a long time that it's hard to build experiments with lower thresholds than that. Well the reason why they're looking for dark matter there is because that's where we fear is told them to look for dark matter. And so this is the reason if you have a dark matter candidate that's below 10 GeV at the moment it's tough luck. We'll come back to talking about that later because the the panorama is changing right now in terms of what they're building for experiments. Now let's apply this to scattering through the Z boson because we want to find out what happens to this neutrino dark matter. So if you compute the scattering cross section through a Z boson off of a nucleus so this is the coherent object. As promised you get the coherence so the scattering goes like Z off of the coupling to the proton plus A minus Z. This is the neutron number coupling to the neutron coupling you take that quantity squared. That's not what's reported on the y axis of that plot. What's reported is sigma p okay which gets weighted you basically divide through by this factor in order to get out sigma p. Then you put in a velocity distribution for the dark matter. You take this cross section which is a differential cross section with respect to the recoil energy. I weight it with this Maxwell Boltzmann velocity distribution then I do an integral over phase space. I have a factor of v which is just for the flux and then I weight it by my number of targets in my experiment and the number density of dark matter. When you do that you get a result that depends on the dark matter mass. You get some rates as a function of the energy. Here this is just something that's called electron equivalent energy. For our purposes it doesn't really matter. The point is you tend to get recoil energies which are 10 keV depending on what the mass of the dark matter is. Now let's just plug in and compare. So let's take a typical scattering cross section through the Z boson off of a nucleon because that's what's on the vertical axis. So you just put in back of the envelope g weak to the fourth reduce mass of the dark matter with the nucleon squared over 4 pi mz to the fourth. Pretty simple. Plug that in. What do you get? 10 to the minus 39 centimeter squared. You can just check that number for your own edification and the point that I want to make here is that 10 to the minus 39 centimeter squared is way up here. So if your expectation is for weak scale dark matter which is usually what we expect within supersymmetry. So if dark matter is 10 keV or heavier for this neutrino this is excluded by something like six orders of magnitude. So the thing I want to emphasize is that strictly speaking the weakly interacting massive particle has been dead for a long time. If you scatter through the Z boson unsuppressed you are dead by six orders of magnitude. That is not actually what we are going after in direct detection experiments right now. What we're going after in direct detection experiments is this blob here and that's what we're going to talk about next. Now people still talk about neutrino dark matter but when they talk about neutrino dark matter what they generally do is to mix this active neutrino with another particle that's been extended from the MSSM. So you add a sterile neutrino, you put in its super partner, you mix with that super partner and if you make that mixing if you make the dark matter predominantly sterile neutrino with a little part active neutrino then you suppress that scattering cross-section by that mixing angle squared. And so then you can push that scattering cross-section from this 10 to the minus 39 as far down really as you please. So just keep that in mind when people talk about sterile neutrino or sterile neutrino dark matter they're not talking about the active one. They have to do this substantial suppression in order to make it consistent with direct detection experiments. So questions about that? Yes. So in general, it would depend on your UV completion. So there are a couple of things. One thing that you do run into with a neutrino is the fact that it couples to the Z and the Z will go to a sterile, sorry, an active neutrino. And that invisible width of the Z is pretty strongly constrained. And so you can't just make the and so you can't just make the neutrino, the active neutrino arbitrarily light. So that's what's preventing you here from just dialing the thing arbitrarily low purely from a phenomenological point of view. There's also the other point that, you know, if you want to write it down from UV complete point of view, you might wonder, well, okay, all the other super partners are pretty heavy. Why is it that this one just happens to be designer low? But okay, I'm pretty sure you can write down a model without working too hard where that happens. But the phenomenological constraint is just the invisible width of the Z. Between 10 and 100 GeV, sorry, what was your question between a 10 and 100? Yeah, we're focused on this region up here. And that reason, the reason that we're focused on that region is really because theorists have said this is where you should look for dark matter. I mean, we've been focused on the weak scale. We're finally starting to pull ourselves away from that. But well, well, so I think the reason, so this blob should not be taken too literally. As a matter of fact, I will go through qualitatively where that blog comes from. But I think the fact is that these experiments have been focused from 10 GeV on up. So in my mind, there's sort of a dividing line in terms of what the experimental constraints below 10 GeV and above 10 GeV. Wait, wait, so later. All these plots assume that we have a density of dark matter that is like IRH. If we leave like in a bubble with very small amount of dark matter, then is there any other constraints or neutrinos on direct dark matter? So let's say that the local density of dark matter for some reason is very small, and all those cores just move up. You can't make the local density, well, unless you happen to live in a void. It's very hard. We do have local constraints on the density of the dark matter, just because we do know some things about the gravitational potential locally. You can't just send it to zero. But you can definitely have, you know, at least in order of magnitude variation in the local density of dark matter, from what we take to be the smooth background of dark matter in our galaxy. But in the very wicked case that we're in a local very dark matter. Yeah, but just look at how many orders of magnitude spans here. This is a log plot with many orders of magnitude. Log plot with many orders of magnitude. But certainly people do play that game, certainly. So you should always keep the caveats in the back of your mind about what are the theoretical assumptions that are going into making this plot, and how hard can I push on them to try to evade these constraints? Those are definitely amongst the rights questions to be asking. Okay, so this is the reason why active neutrino dark matter doesn't make a good dark matter candidate, even though mixing in sterile neutrino can can improve the situation. So what about the neutrino? The neutrino, as we said, also couples to the Z boson. So why isn't the neutrino dead by this same constraint? Well, it's a it's a technical reason, really. So the components are two component fermions, two component myron of fermions. And so you can write down all the interactions with the Z boson, which are consistent with the symmetries. So scattering through Z boson, you have the pure vector interaction of the dark matter. And that turns out to be identically zero, you can show. There is the interaction, which is the pure axial vector part of this. And this interaction is purely spin dependent, doesn't couple to the charge of the nucleus that couples to the spin. And that's just what a gamma mu gamma five interaction does. And then you can mix the vector with the axial vector. And if you mix the vector with the axial vector, you'll find that this interaction goes like V squared. So V, because it's 10 to the minus three, that means that this interaction gets suppressed by that 10 to the minus six factor. So, so the one that you would be worried about vanishes identically, and the others are suppressed. And this turns out to save neutralino dark matter from already being dead. Yeah, so there are cases where people have tried to construct direct neutralino dark matter by adding in an additional component to marry up with the two component guy. So you can construct direct neutralino dark matter. If you do that, then you have to worry about these constraints again. Other questions about this. In general though, you expect that when you diagonalize that mass matrix, that you're going to end up with four different states with four different masses. Okay, if you want to actually make a pair degenerate, you have to do a little bit of model building work to make the dark matter direct. You can do it, but it's not what happens in the minimal case. Other questions. So for the neutralino, the thing other type of interaction that's there generically is scattering through the Higgs boson. So if you look at scattering through the Higgs boson, so generically, you get an order one coupling or not too small coupling of the neutralino to the Higgs boson. It looks like the lower part of the quarks got cut off here. But the coupling of the Higgs boson to the quarks is suppressed by the fact that the Yuccao coupling for the light quarks, which predominantly make up the nucleus in terms of the quark content is small. So the dominant coupling of the Higgs and the nucleus is actually coming through a loop of heavy quarks coupling to the gluon component of the dark matter. So you actually compute the anomaly diagram to extract with the effective coupling of the Higgs to the nucleon is, and there's some formula that describes it, and I would actually recommend that you go and read this classic paper. It's a really nice paper. And so the end point is that you can just plug in this coupling of the Higgs to the nucleons. Now it's going to depend on tan beta, this ratio of up to down quark vevs. And the larger you make tan beta, then the lower the down quark vev, which means the larger coupling you get to bottom quarks and that tends to boost the coupling to the nucleon. So when you do that, you plug in these things and the cross-section that you get out depends like the tan beta squared because the coupling to the nucleon is proportional to tan beta. You get something that's going to depend on the mass of the Higgs, and then this is just the size of the coupling of the neutrilino, in this case the what's imagined to be dominantly a down type Higgs. So you put that all together, you plug it in, and the numbers that you get coming out are typically on the order of 10 to the minus 42 centimeters squared for a large tan beta. So if you imagine for a standard model Higgs, tan beta of 1, you put in 125 GeV, you leave this about where it is, you tend to get more down to the 10 to the minus 45 centimeters squared number. So the thing that the experiments, the direct detection experiments are probing right now, is actually the neutrilino coupling to the nucleon through a sort of standard model like Higgs with a tan beta which is not too large. That's what the direct detection experiments are getting right now. So if you just put this on a plot with tan beta of 1 and 125 GeV Higgs, you get somewhere down right around here, which is what the experiments are probing. Now you might say, well why haven't they discovered anything? Or does this mean that they're necessarily going to discover something? What about all this blob that's leaking all the way down here to the 10 to the minus 48 to 10 to the minus 49 centimeters squared? Well that's because I haven't put in yet all the gory details of all the ways that the neutrilino can couple to the Higgs. In fact, the fact that again, the Higgs is, all of these couplings are constrained by supersymmetry. So every time I write down a coupling of the Higgs to a standard model particle, that interaction is constrained. Then that tells me about the interaction of the super partners which can occur. So for the case that we're interested in, what that means in particular is that the neutrilino has a mixture we said before of bino, lino, and an up and down type Higgs-ino. Now I take the standard model interactions, I supersymmetrize them, and then I look at what kinds of interactions can occur. Well, what happens is if I want to look at the interaction of the neutrilino with the Higgs, either the up or the down type Higgs, then what needs to happen is the lino goes to an up type Higgs-ino, talks to the Higgs, or the lino talks to a down type Higgs-ino, which goes through a down type Higgs, or a bino talks to a Higgs-ino to the up type Higgs, bino talks to a down type Higgs-ino, goes through a Higgs. The point that I want to make there is if I have a pure bino, a pure lino, or a pure Higgs-ino, it does not couple to the Higgs at tree level. At tree level, the coupling to the Higgs vanishes identically. And so in that case, I will actually not get a direct detection observation through the tree level scattering process. Now people have started computing one loop cross sections for these pure states, and in some cases you can generate one loop cross sections which are on the 10 to the minus 48 to 10 to the minus 49 centimeters squared. Those are awfully small, but the point that I want to make is that even though generically you would expect the neutrilino to scatter through the Higgs at tree level, it does not always happen. You can tune away those couplings. Now, so what if the coupling to the Higgs does vanish at tree level? Are we just sunk? The point that I'm making with these graphs that are shown here is that even if the neutrilino does not scatter off of a nucleon through the Higgs boson, you can have annihilation processes that happen. And you can look for these rare annihilations of dark matter particles. So you can have, for example, a neutrilino annihilate through a super-partner of one of the fermions to pairs of the fermions, or you can go through the Z boson or through the pseudo-scalar Higgs. Or these bottom processes tend to dominate for the case of a piruino or Higgs-ino dark matter, you can have dark matter annihilating to w plus w minus or to zz. And so if these bottom processes are dominating, then what do you see? Well, where's a place that I should look for dark matter annihilating? Where's a particularly opportune place to look for dark matter annihilating? Anyone? What? Yeah, galactic center, because there's a particularly large amount of it there. What's the disadvantage of looking towards the galactic center? It's the galactic center. Galactic center is a complicated place. There's a black hole there. There's a lot of baryons, big backgrounds, in other words, which we often don't understand very well. Where else might we look for dark matter? What? Dwarf spheroidals. So if I look in our galactic halo, there are subhalos, the most massive of which are dwarf spheroidal galaxies. I can look for dark matter there. Those are nice because they tend not to have much of a background, tend to be pretty baryon poor. And so from that point of view, I don't have to understand my background so well in order to be able to get a constraint on them. So what happens when I have dark matter particles annihilating to W or Z gauge bosons? Well, the bottom line is that at the end of it, I end up with, so I get a basically hadronic mess. So imagine what happens at the LHC when you produce a pair of W or Z bosons. You end up with a mess of pions and nucleons and photons and leptons. You get these jets of stuff. And the same thing happens when dark matter annihilates in the galactic center or in a dwarf spheroidal galaxy. I produce W and Z bosons. And at the end of the decay chain, I end up with photons from the pion decay with protons and then also with photons which are radiated off charged leptons. And so these are all things that I can look for. And so you can, in principle, put very strong indirect detection constraints. And in fact, we have pretty good data on this. So this is the annihilation cross section. So this is for a line in particular. So I have dark matter annihilating in this case through a loop of charged particles to a photon line. And so you can put constraints on this annihilation cross section. Do you remember what we said yesterday, the thermal annihilation cross section was? Just to sort of normalize your sense of how good these constraints are. Three times 10 to the minus 26 centimeter cube per second. That's one benchmark you should always keep in your mind. That's the thermal annihilation cross section. It's a three times 10 to the minus 26 centimeter cube per second is all the way up here. So does this kill thermal dark matter? The answer is no. There's a loophole. What is the loophole? It's not really a loophole. It's a giant archway that you can walk through. So this process here is specifically for a line. So this is a subdominant annihilation process. This is not the one that's setting the relic density. So in this case, this in particular is a line process. And it tends to be a small fraction of the total annihilation branching fraction. But nevertheless, pure Wino and pure Hixino still have a substantial annihilation rate through this process. And in fact, you can go and calculate it, which people have done. Turns out that you need to use some, you need to resum large blogs. We're not going to go through what that is. Okay. Theoretically, dark matter is becoming a more and more interesting subject just in calculationally what you can do. The thing I want to point out to you here, this blue area here is corresponds. Now look at the dark matter mass. We're zooming in on the one TV sort of mass range. And so you can look at the one TV. So this data here in red, that's the Hess data is being shaded in here with blue. So everything above here now is ruled out. And what they've done is to take the pure Wino case and to put in the corrections to it. And the answer that they get is this dashed line here. And the other piece of information that I want to give you is that the thermal Wino has a preferred mass that sits right around here. So if you just take where that's at, you can see that it's intention with the data, with the constraint. Now what might be my way around this constraint? Or what is the theoretical uncertainty that I should keep in my mind? So this is data taken from the galactic center. It depends on the dark matter profile in the galactic center. So people simulate these things. And the profile is highly peaked towards the galactic center. But because those simulations are dark matter only simulations, we're not exactly sure what the profile is very near the galactic center. And so there's some uncertainty and the overall normalization of this dashed line, which you can argue about how much that uncertainty is, it could be from anywhere of a factor of a few up to an order of magnitude or more. However, you can see that with this line here, this is going to cover this line by an order of magnitude. So at that point, this starts to look increasingly disfavored. So this is actually what CTA, the Shrunkov Telescope Array, will be able to do in the future in the next several years, in terms of constraining a line. So we'll be able to actually put a fairly substantial constraint on Wino dark matter. Xeno annihilation cross sections are smaller and aren't going to be harder to constrain. Yes. I didn't understand what you said. How much this data is reliable? How is this data available?  In our LSE, we know there are so many dedicated detectors to detect them. Right. So this constraint is coming from photons. So it's dark matter annihilating to gamma gamma plus z gamma. And photons have the fortunate property that they point. So if we look towards the galactic center, those photons are coming from the galactic center. And so we can put a constraint just by pointing our telescope or looking towards the galactic center on the flux of dark matter annihilating there in the galactic center. Now, the thing you have to contend with is the fact that the density profile dark matter is uncertain there. And the fact that there are huge backgrounds from disordinary baryonic processes that produce photons. So this is a challenging region to look. But nevertheless, if all you're interested in doing is putting an upper bound and furthermore, this is a line. It's a line process and it's harder for ordinary baryonic processes to produce something that looks like a peak. So none of these things are without some caveats. You have to think about what it is exactly you're constraining and how strong that constraint actually is for the fundamental physics process, not unlike what happens at the LHC, even though there you can get a little bit better handle in your systematics. So that was dark matter annihilation to photon line. As I said before, annihilation to Ws or Zs. This, if you compute this, as I indicated before, you get this three times 10 to the minus 26 centimeter cube per second parametrically for dark matter, which is around the two to three TV range. Now it depends on whether it's Wino or Higgsino, because I get different factors that enter in those vertices. But parametrically, that's what enters. Now the result is that pure Wino and pure Higgsino, because of their interactions with the W and Z boson, the fact that they annihilate to Ws and Zs, the fact that they annihilate to pairs of photons. And the other thing that it didn't actually go through, they actually have one loop scattering cross sections with nucleons, even though the tree level process disappears. On the other hand, a pure Bino, at least at tree level, escapes. Because it does not have the annihilation process to the W and the Z. And it doesn't have the same annihilation to photons. And so pure Bino is harder to constrain for this reason. On the other hand, this does not come for free either. And the reason why this does not come for free is that it has a Higgsino component set by mu. And so if you require this mu parameter to be large, in order, so you decouple the Higgsino component by making the mu parameter large in comparison to the mass parameter, which is setting the Bino mass. And that's M1. So if I make mu much larger than M1, which if you take this thought beyond the order of the weak scale, in order to get weak scale dark matter, you can do that. But you should be aware of the fact that the same mu parameter enters into the Z boson mass. So this is the formula for the Z boson mass in the MSSM. And you can see that it depends on the mu parameter as well as the soft masses for the up and the down type Higgs. So what that means is if I push mu well above the weak scale in order to decrease the Higgsino component of the Bino, then that means that I pay simultaneously a fine tuning price in the Z boson mass. So you can do it, but it's theoretically maybe not that pleasant. Questions about this argument? Yes. Sorry, what? In the Neutralino annihilation process, like also neutrinos are originated, right? So it would be like highly energetic neutrinos. Yes. That's right. So you can also use Neutralino telescopes. So if the annihilation cross-section is large enough, you can actually use a Neutralino telescope. Like for example, people talked about Pingu, for example, being able to put a constraint on when back when people were talking about dark matter annihilating leptonically with cross-sections, which were on the order of 10 to the minus 24 centimeter cubed. What they were saying was that Neutralino telescopes in the future would actually be able to put a constraint on that process. So you're absolutely right that you do get leptons, that you do get neutrinos out of these very energetic neutrinos. The constraints, because these are invisible particles and neutrinos are hard to detect, are not as strong as what you can get out of photons. But there are models for which it's relevant. So how does this look at the end of all this? Well, I didn't actually talk about the fact that not only does pure bino, wino, or hexino escape, at least at tree level, but there's also the fact that I can tune the amount of wino, bino, and hexino component of the Neutralino and get a cancellation in the coupling to the Higgs. These are called blind spots. And I don't want to go through this plot in detail. But the point I want to make here is this is tan beta versus the mu parameter. So this is for mixed bino, hexino, dark matter. And the shaded regions is what they expect the xenon one-ton experiment to be able to do. And this is the region where that would escape, essentially because you're tuning away the coupling to the Higgs boson. So what I want you to take away from this is that detecting neutralino dark matter with direct and indirect detection experiments is not a home run. You don't kill all the parameter space. Even if you get all the way to the neutrino background, you still have parameter space. You still have ways that you're going to be able to escape. On the other hand, this paradigm is becoming increasingly tuned. And we as a community are going to have to make a decision about how far and how long we're going to put our focus almost solely on neutralino dark matter as the candidate in direct detection experiments. And also in indirect detection experiments. So at what point do you stop just saying, okay, I'm going to build bigger and bigger experiments? And instead you start saying, maybe I'm going to start looking elsewhere at alternative models. And tomorrow we're going to spend the majority of the lecture on alternative models. And Susie is not the only model by far. It is very nice from the point of view that it's highly predictive and that it tells us where to look. It sets the relic abundance in the right ballpark of what we need in order to get the observations. And you have a symmetry that's already there to prevent proton decay that stabilizes the dark matter. There are other weak-scale dark matter candidates out there. I'm not going to spend time on them simply because I had to make choices on what to talk about. And supersymmetry by far is the one that's most talked about. People have spent some time getting dark matter out of using occluzocline symmetry. They, you can also have sterile neutrinos where you just put in a phi LH, chi-phi LH, where the chi and the phi are charged under a z2 symmetry. And that stabilizes the dark matter. Okay, so L and H would both have charged plus one under this z2 and chi and phi would carry charge minus one. So that z2 symmetry by itself can stabilize the dark matter. Really, I think that this is a time when you should just feel free to invent your own model. I don't think that we should feel too constrained by the theoretical confines of a minimal model. And really what we need to be doing is to be writing down thinking about different types of dark matter candidates that give qualitatively different types of signatures. So one other constraint that I wanted to mention before I may stop, or at least I'll take a few questions, is what do we mean by massive dark matter? Well, massive dark matter, at least for the case that the dark matter is thermalized and behaves like a particle, typically means that the dark matter particle has to be heavier than about a KEV. And the reason why it has to be heavier than a KEV is essentially because relativistic and non relativistic matter behave differently when they form structure. So relativistic matter, like neutrinos, freestreams. It's hard to make it clump because if you try to drag it into gravitational potential well, its natural tendency is just to flow right back out of it. And in order to get structure that forms the way that we see it in the universe, we actually need dark matter to clump, which is to say we need it to be pretty highly non relativistic. And so you can make that statement quantitative, which people have done quite a lot of and looked at what is the clumpiness of dark matter. So you remember yesterday, we looked at the power spectrum. It was normalized a little bit differently than this one is, but it was the clumpiness of dark matter and we said if machos were heavier than about a thousand solar mass, you would be able to see them in terms of their clumpiness. Well, this is sort of the exact opposite. Instead of causing the dark matter to clump more, the hotter, which is to say the lighter the dark matter, the more you tend to suppress the clumpiness of the dark matter on small scales. So here again is the weight number. This is going towards smaller scales. This is the way the power spectrum of cold dark matter behaves from the limon alpha for us. We have measurements of this power spectrum out to about 10 inverse megaparsec. And so you can see that you get this suppression and you get more of a suppression on larger scales the lighter the dark matter particle is, which is to say the lighter and the lighter the dark matter is, the harder and harder it is for it to clump. And so this tells us that in general dark matter that behaves like a particle needs to be heavier than about a KeV. Now, why do axioms escape? Or why does really light scalars escape? Well, they're not individual particles, thermalized particles in the way these are. Those are coherent field configurations. And those coherent field configurations mean that they're much colder than than what you get just for an ordinary particle dark matter candidate. So that is, I think, where I'm going to stop for right now and maybe have a few more questions.


In this paper, we explore the potential of using pre-trained convolutional neural networks, CNNs, for high-resolution remote sensing, HRS, scene classification. We propose two scenarios for generating image features from these CNNs, one involving extracting activations from fully connected layers and another involving dense features from the last convolutional layer at multiple scales. Experiments show that both scenarios outperform traditional low and mid-level features and that combining features from different CNNs leads to further improvement. This suggests that pre-trained CNNs can be used to generate effective image features for HRS scene classification. This article was authored by Fan Hu, Guesong Xia, Jingwen Hu, and others.


Today we need to talk about how Nintendo might be teasing the next great remake for the Zelda series. Now, we've already had a couple of videos go up over the last week or so here, talking about the potential of Zelda remakes. We had the Dr. Circon Toto ZR 2023 tease that he did, and then you can take that and sort of infer some things from that that he's talking about a Zelda remake or a potential Zelda remaster being revealed this year. This is just because of a tweet he made back in 2021, referencing what Nintendo was about to announce as the release timing for Breath of the Wild 2. But I don't really want to dive too deep into that because we already went over it, but it's just a piece of evidence to bring up why this has been coming up lately. But then there's also this kind of out there rumor by Zippo and again, we talked about this already where he talked about Ocarina of Time and I don't really want to dive too deep into that because again I already made a video on that if you want to go watch it. But it is something to note that Nintendo themselves might have already hinted at the next great Zelda remake and there's a reason that we should believe this Zelda remake is coming. Now I'm not saying it's coming this year, I'm not even going to say it's coming next year, but it's going to be coming a lot sooner than you think and we'll know about it fairly soon as well. Now before I get into this I just want to remind you that hey if you're enjoying the video I'd appreciate if you would drop a like, subscribe to the channel and maybe hit that bell icon to be notified of all future uploads. Now we need to dive further in this because our dear friend Andres Restart has actually been all over the Zelda remake train. He's been covering a lot of stuff about this for a long time including some things that I overlooked. One of those in a video he posted yesterday where he recapped a whole bunch of stuff and I really encourage you go watch his video because if you can't tell but after watching his video might be a little inspiration for this one is that there was a trademark for Ocarina of Time filed all the way back in 2020. Now normally I wouldn't actually think a trademark being filed is that noteworthy. You know trademarks are renewed literally all the time by Nintendo and it doesn't always mean a game's coming out could have just been the NSO release of Ocarina of Time right? Didn't necessarily have to be anything that matters but it's notable because this wasn't a trademark renewal it was actually a brand new trademark for Ocarina of Time. Now we don't know what this trademark applies to and this was back in 2020 and we haven't seen anything necessarily happen with this trademark yet but it's notable because the original Ocarina of Time trademark is still active but so is this one. So what is this one for? I don't know but if you can't tell we're going to be getting to the idea of this Ocarina of Time remake here in a moment. Now if that's really all I had to talk about today was just something I missed from back in 2020. Look it's noteworthy but it's kind of old news and we've already talked about the Zelda remake happening as I mentioned in two prior videos over the last week but there's actually more reasons beyond those rumors and the trademark to talk about Ocarina of Time in particular being the game getting a remake or possibly a remaster and it's happening sooner than later. So I'll just restart in his excellent video yesterday and again I can't implore you enough go watch it because he's going to bring up some stuff in there that I don't even mention specifically with Tears of the Kingdom and some connections there again. He's a great Zelda theorizer so you really should pay attention to what he says if that's the content you're into but he mentioned a peculiar thing Nintendo has done with Zelda. So when they close a generation with a new Zelda game especially lately a new remake slash remaster enters very early on the next system's radar. Spirit Tracks was one of the final big games on the Nintendo DS before 3DS came out and in the first year of 3DS they launched Ocarina of Time 3D. The Nintendo Wii one of its last major releases was Skyward Sword and in the first year of Wii U we got the Wind Waker HD. Now we didn't see this repeat with Switch but we all know that Breath of the Wild became a cross generation title for going the need for a super early Zelda remaster or remake. So now that Tears of the Kingdom happened at the end of Switch the first year of Switch 2 has what exactly? Again I wasn't really even paying attention to this so go ahead and check out our just restart video he brings up a lot of good points. Now something we brought up briefly in our video with in our video talking about the Zippo rumor and because it's tied to a Zippo rumor I think it's really easy to ignore I wanted to separate this out anyways was an interview that Fujiwayashi and Aonuma did with Nintendo Dream. Now in the interview with Nintendo Dream they were asked about Raul who it's an interesting translation thing. Raul means Raaru they you know didn't they doesn't translate properly in the English it's almost like they renamed him in English but anyways moving on they asked how familiar that name was and you know they were just kind of curious like why you know why is this person called Raaru in Tears of the Kingdom and Fujiwayashi said his name comes from his role for the Zelda series Raaru is in the position of being a guiding figure in this work as Princess Zelda's further growth is depicted she is guided by the king and queen of the country's founding era in the past world when we wondered what kind of person would be suitable for such a role we decided to select someone by the name of Raaru then Aonuma chimes in and here's some interesting words and we're going to get to why we need to pay attention to what Aonuma says very carefully when I first heard that he would be called Raaru I thought it was a very natural progression but I wondered how many of the people currently playing Tears of the Kingdom actually know about the character Raaru and then he laughs now Raaru first appeared as the name of a town slash village in Zelda to the adventure of Link but it's he noted specifically about the character Raaru and as a character not a town he first appeared in Ocarina of Time he is suggesting many people playing Tears of the Kingdom today may not know who Raaru actually is anymore now this could be a throwaway comment and could likely mean nothing but Aonuma has a history especially one lately of teasing future game releases with remasters and remakes he did so with Skyward Sword back in 2018 when at a Zelda concert he uh this was a Zelda concert in Osaka in Japan by the way he went on stage to say I know what you're thinking Skyward Sword on Switch right keep in mind Skyward Sword was not announced for Nintendo Switch and did not come out for till years later but in researching this video I found out that's not even the first time Aonuma did this sort of teasing he actually teased Link's Awakening remake for Switch back in 2016 before Nintendo Switch was even announced in an interview with Edge Magazine back in 2016 he said the following actually Nintendo has been telling me to create a new IP but then they're also telling me to make more Zelda games I can't really share much I'm not sure I'm allowed to say anything but I really like the idea of a game where you can live as a thief that's all I'll say well we all know the Link's Awakening remake did come out on Switch but you might not understand this reference so let me explain why this is a reference to Link's Awakening if you aren't aware in Link's Awakening you can optionally steal goods from the town tool shop you can walk out with any item if you distract the owner and just go right out the front door however if you do that Link will be called a thief by everyone in the game going forward in other words he teased twice new remakes and remasters one in a more direct way you know Skyward Sword for Switch right another in a very very subtle hint now he's questioning if people even remember who Raaru is anymore in other words when Alnuma is making references to past games it's not necessarily something we should just dismiss outright he has a history of teasing future Zelda remakes and remasters and obviously if you go back to those comments in 2016 what's one of the things that he said Nintendo told him he needs to make more Zelda games and they're not talking about the one big game that comes out every five years Nintendo wants to have Zelda games coming out more often and to fill the gap is obviously to do so with you know remakes and remasters and the interesting thing is every single 3d you know Zelda game the ones that sell the most have already had like remakes or remaster type releases right the HDs of the Wind Waker Twilight Princess and obviously Occurring Time 3d Majora's Mask 3d so Skyward Sword HD that he's already sort of ran the gambit of bringing those games back and it's entirely possible we could be getting a Grezzo remake right Grezzo's probably working something they're the ones that did Link's Awakening they could maybe be doing another top-down Zelda remake but the interesting part is here is that Alnuma specifically brings up Raaru as a character again this sounds dumb because he didn't mention Occurring Time specifically but he mentions the character Raaru and how people might not know who he is again a subtle hint hey you know I really like the idea of a game with a thief again subtle hint he has a history of dropping subtle hints and when it comes to trying to drive a player base to a new platform like Nintendo Switch 2 in general you want to do so with a bang and well it's sure entirely possible we're going to get Tears of the Kingdom and Breath of the Wild 4k ports I mean you know reports have it that Nintendo had a Breath of the Wild 4k demo behind the scenes is that really going to drive people to a new platform who already have the game and already put thousands of hours in on Switch especially if there's backwards compatibility I'm not so sure that well they'll probably sell well I don't think that they're a selling point to buy a new system for many Zelda fans then you also have the Zelda fans out there that obviously maybe aren't as into the style of Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom and you have to convince some of them as well so what better way to do that than take one of the greatest games ever made and bring it back with a remake slash remaster and I think that this is something that not only El Numen is hinting that here and we have the rumors out there I think it is something that should happen and is highly likely to happen even if it's not announced this year even if it's not announced next year it could be a first year of Switch 2 title imagine that when they unveil Switch 2 this game is teased in that reveal trailer can you imagine the height that will be going on and here's the thing I know that El Numen in particular does pay attention to what's going on around him and he must be well aware of the Final Fantasy 7 remake and whether he's played it or not I don't know but he has to be aware of how popular and how well received it is as that's a game that came out back during the same era as Ocarina of Time and is also viewed as one of the greatest games of all time it just feels like things are lining up where now is the right time to bring it back with its first HD edition its first from the ground full on remake and we can go on and on over how they might do it you know could they do the Wii U tech demo style which was more like Twilight Princess but then people feel like Twilight Princess was a natural progression of the art direction in Ocarina of Time do they lean more heavily into the way Ocarina of Time 3D did it go a bit more cartoony with things do they try an all new art style do they go in the direction of Breath of the Wild Tears of the Kingdom and remake Ocarina of Time in that style maybe even using a similar engine obviously with some cutback features like hey you can't climb everything right because we couldn't do that in Ocarina of Time I don't know but it is interesting that one of the widely considered greatest games of all time is something that could be happening really soon and I think there is at least some semi realistic reasons to think it will I personally am on record of saying like Ocarina of Time doesn't make my top 10 Zelda games but it doesn't mean it doesn't make my top 10 most important games in my life Ocarina of Time is quite literally why I'm a content creator to this very day that game drove me and inspired me to start making fan websites and all the work I did there over decades and helping with weekies ultimately led to me having this YouTube career that we have today making this video I'm making for you right now so look people always get mad at me when I mentioned it's not a top 10 Zelda game for me I just love the Zelda series that much I've seen you know so many games do things better but it's an important game and it could be an important launch game or first year game anyways for Switch 2 and help really grab that Zelda fanbase the most hardcore of it especially to hop onto the Switch 2 hype train right away long before they can tease what the next major new Zelda game is because again we're probably three years away maybe from being teased on the next big Zelda game anyways guys let me know what you think about this down in the comments below and I will catch you guys in the next video


The crews of the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group and French Navy Task Force 473 finished five weeks of combined carrier strike group operations in the U.S. Fifth Fleet Area Sunday. Five U.S. and four French Navy ships participated in the exercise in the Arabian Sea and Arabian Gulf. The two navies teamed up for live fire, visit board search and seizure procedures, and air defense training. They worked together in air defense, training in both fighter jet and helicopter platforms, a war at sea exercise, and operational and training scenarios. The U.S. Navy and French aircraft launched and recovered on each other's aircraft carrier flight decks. Sailors visited their French counterparts to share experiences and learn from each other. Exercises like this one improve the relationships between allies and help stabilize the region's links to the global economy. From the Defense Media Activity, I'm Petty Officer Stuart Phillips.


What's good Josh the boros back again with another video, so I was going to react to some of the wrestling content creators that I've reacted to in the past on the channel like WrestleMania and and Cultaholic and all these other wrestling content creators, you know and see their takes on AEW and the moves they've been making lately, but I wanted to actually switch it up and Give my own thoughts and opinions on my own video You know with no reaction needed So if you guys would be interested in me giving my own personal takes I still will be reacting to other wrestling content creators that you want me to check out So basically I still will be checking them out But I also want to give my own feedback because this channel is also about Me and you know things that I like as well So I wanted to give my personal take on WWE versus AEW Who is the better company as of right now? Now I'm not trying to start no war in the comment section So I want to make this disclaimer if you like WWE over AEW cool You like AEW over WWE cool if you like them equally both cool If you don't even like them at all you like New Japan pro wrestling better cool doesn't matter As long as you enjoy wrestling and you have your the company you like to watch Preferably over any others. That's fine. I'm not trying to start a debate This is just my opinion on the state of wrestling right now and Who is the better company? When it comes to professional wrestling If you guys missed my stream, I finally watched AEW Dynamite on stream Yesterday so definitely go check it out and I enjoyed myself I definitely enjoyed myself for the few hours I watched and it was it was cool I didn't know everybody but it was it was it was cool to just see fans enjoying the product and We enjoying the product in the chat and just having a good time. So I enjoy that thoroughly and I hope to Do more videos like that But the reason why I bring that up and the reason why I brought up how the fans were enjoying it You can see that in AEW not to say that WWE fans don't enjoy it. It's just more of the casual side, but in AEW you can tell that the fans enjoy wrestling and The wrestlers look like they're enjoying themselves as well being there So ultimately I get a better vibe when I'm watching an AEW show compared to when I'm watching a WWE show now Let's take out Smackdown cuz Smackdown does feel like it What is the a show in the company in my opinion and I do feel like people are definitely enjoying themselves on Smackdown when I'm watching it especially obviously because of Roman Reigns is on the show on a card But I want to say like when we're talking about Monday Night Raw I don't even have to watch that to know that it's dreadful and even in certain situations Like when we get to those B level pay-per-views like extreme rules is coming up I'm not so sure if I'm gonna get that that rowdy crowd like you would in AEW from there Latest show granted here's the thing where I feel like AEW is is really winning in is the fact that AEW doesn't have that many pay-per-views They may have special events throughout the week, but they don't have that many pay-per-view shows So every time there is a pay-per-view show it feels important. It feels big Extreme rules. I remember when extreme rules first came out. It was something that was Basically about all the extreme matches on that one night So people got excited about it even though you could say it was like a B level Tier pay-per-view people were excited about it back then because you knew you were going to see stipulations that you don't normally see Now it's it doesn't have the same luster. It doesn't have the same flair So I can say as of right now AEW when it comes to their fan base Watching the show they enjoy it seems like they enjoy it more than wwe fan base. So they're definitely winning in that department Now on the opposite side. I can still give wwe a I guess you can say Praise on the fact that their production is still top-notch There's no denying it even if you are an AEW fan. You can't deny wwe has the better Production when it comes to camera like camera movements When it comes to like the appearance of it when it comes to their promo packages, I feel like a wwe is They're leading it but not to say that AEW hasn't gotten better from when they originally started I think they are getting better and I do feel like at some point You know as more revenue comes into the company they will be able to you know, compete when it comes to The presentations even though I will give it to them a AEW they start off the show with pyro You don't really get that too much with raw except with the entrances. So I will give them that AEW still holds down the tradition of starting off a weekly show with pyro But outside of that I do feel like wwe has the better production when it comes to Creating their content and when like presenting their content Also, I'll give it to wwe right now because in in another category of They're I guess you can say they're streaming service even though p cock is Is not as good as the wwe network You still can go back and check out older matches. You can still check out like previous You know like previous paper views and stuff And I know AEW is trying to get some stuff situated with fight tv and other places but I feel like Once AEW gets like a centralized Place where they can put all their content on I think that'll be also cool Because now it'll you know, it'll create that streaming service And you know, it'll it'll allow people to if they want to check out some of the older matches They can go straight to the aw app or whatever. So I'm pretty sure that's gonna come in due time But wwe still has that sold up as well And I think overall what I'm getting out here is wwe on the business side of things It seems like they're doing pretty well financially It's just the entertainment wrestling side of things has really been lackluster Business wise, they got it wrestling wise. It's not what it used to be at all And the same with AEW was not the same in aw's Instance, they're they're growing. This is a growing company only a few years old And they've already gotten so much buzz and hype They've had the buzz and hype for a little bit and then it's constantly growing And now we're starting to see some of our favorites from wwe Head to aw because you know, this is where they want to be work to wrestle And I think that is where The the the dynamic is starting to shift because At the end of the day wwe vents is only care about money And the entertainment value as in aw they care about wrestling Because you're there to watch wrestling. So by proxy you will be entertained So in my personal opinion as of right now On the business side, of course, wwe still holding it strong as the number one wrestling company in the world but Overall on the wrestling side of things AEW is the better company On the scale that they're at They're the better company in my personal opinion Because I like wrestling I like good storytelling and there's only a handful of things on wwe television right now that i'm invested in And it sucks because it should be more than that But with aw there's they've opened up so many possibilities with the people they've acquired I'm interested to see where these feuds go Because it's not just one feud i'm interested in there. I'm interested in multiple feuds multiple situations now Because some of my favorite wrestlers are there and I want to see how they're gonna let them wrestle in the ring compared to wwe Now for a long time NXT was the place to go for your wrestling fix in wwe NXT was the place to go and I like that more a lot of times in the main roster. That's why the nxt takeovers they felt like crowds that we used to See back in the back in the ruthless aggression and the attitude era days because People were enjoying the wrestling side of it You know i'm saying they were putting on fantastic matches Now since a uh nxt is not the same like it used to be has been taken over by vents um I think they're gonna go for the entertainment side of things and once again aw They're the alternative. Well, they're not even an alternative no more. They are the golden standard for wrestling So if you want to see some good wrestlers and hey, oh shit, I remember this guy from nxt I remember this guy from wwe. He's an aw. Let me see what that's about. Oh, man This is giving me some some nxt vibes, but you know, it's they're giving them the main roster feel here Let me start tuning in more to aw I'll check clips of wwe every now and then I may check their pay-per-view to see what roman reigns does How many of us are like that? at this point, so My personal opinion right now the better company In my personal opinion, you may disagree I think aw is killing it as of this moment right now for the past few weeks They've been killing it with the people that they've acquired and they've been killing it in the sense of How They are showing that wrestling is the forefront of what they got going on everything else Comes after In ring wrestling ability and skills. That's what they care about and the fans enjoy it the fans are getting what they want and wwe outside of roman outside of the edge maybe randy orton bobby lashley everything else is It's kind of mid tier right now So I would definitely give the edge in my opinion right now to aw Hopefully this promotes wwe to put on better television and I hope it does I hope if They starting to see more people gravitate towards aw in the long run Maybe they're about maybe vent wools. Like, you know what? Maybe I need to switch up my focus here Maybe we do need to start putting on better television but Who knows I can I can only speculate so comment down below Let me know if you guys agree with me or if you guys disagree with me and why Which company do you feel like is better right now? Do you feel like wwe is still the better company to watch for your wrestling needs? Or do you feel like aw is holding it down and you prefer to watch aw For your wrestling needs like your wrestling Fix if you want to say so comment down below Let me know which company you feel like is better at this present moment Does not have no beef in the comment section. We're all wrestling fans here So I just want to get your opinions. You're gonna agree it to disagree Give your opinions why you like this company better than the other. Let me know That's all I care to Engaging conversations down in the comments down below, but I appreciate all the love and support Let me know if you would like me to do more videos like this to get my personal takes on certain things Give me some uh Some questions I'll you know, give me some questions that you want me to answer I may make a video to it on my personal channel give my thoughts and opinions on it I still will be doing reactions to wrestling uh content. Don't get it twisted Definitely will be checking those out later on this week But just wanted to switch it up because I wanted to give my personal thought and be you know Kind of give y'all a one-on-one on how I feel about the state of aw and wwe right now But I appreciate all the love and support road 260k appreciate y'all kicking it with me and I'll see y'all on the next one. Peace