Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Blazerblaster t1_iv3mxxd wrote

That probably means there are a lot more black holes out there in just our Galaxy.

32

wthulhu t1_iv4ocg3 wrote

This is, imo, the most likely explanation for dark matter. The creation and destruction of black holes on scales that are, in comparison to our current modeling, extremely close, frequent, and microscopic.

19

Warpine t1_iv5stev wrote

Signs are pointing to this being a very unlikely candidate for dark matter

They’re a lot of things Cold Dark Matter theories can explain than stellar mass black hole models can’t

CDM explains baryonic acoustic oscillations, why some galaxies are missing DM while most have a halo of it, the evolution of the structure of the universe, etc

This discounts the mounting evidence against swarms of stellar mass black holes. Dark matter outweighs luminous matter approximately 6 to 1. That means for every star in the sky, there should be a black hole ~6x as massive (on average). That’s a lot of huge black holes!!

We’ve surveyed the night sky for thousands of hours, looking for any signs of stellar mass gravitational lensing, but we just don’t find it in sufficient quantity that could suggest any number of any size black hole can even come close to the mass required to be dark matter

tl;dr: there’s a lot of evidence that suggests DM isn’t black holes

15

Nidungr t1_iv601jo wrote

But if dark matter is affected by gravity and does not undergo nuclear reactions, wouldn't much of it form black holes anyway?

Dark matter would attract other dark matter and cluster together, but instead of forming stars, just collapse in on itself?

2

sticklebat t1_iv6mmtt wrote

No. Clumping together requires dissipative forces (like friction) — there needs to be some way of removing kinetic energy from a system for it to clump together. The leading theory explaining dark matter is that it is made of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). They interact through gravity and the weak force, but nothing else. Gravity is a conservative force and cannot cause clumping on its own, and the weak force is too weak to cause it to any significant extent, either.

That also explains why dark matter forms roughly spherical halos around galaxies that extend farther out than the regular matter. It also explains observations like the mass distribution of the bullet cluster. Two galaxy clusters collided, and all the ordinary matter slowed down as all the gas and dust collided, but the dark matter just passed right through unimpeded, separating out the regular and dark matter of the clusters.

TLDR: gravity doesn’t cause clustering. It needs help from dissipative forces that dark matter doesn’t really experience.

4

Warpine t1_iv7s0fh wrote

I suppose that, technically, gravity isn’t conservative. Energy is lose to gravitational waves as WIMPs pass one another and they eventually COULD collapse into black holes, given sufficient (spitballing number here, no math done) quintillions of years

1

sticklebat t1_iv8q5yd wrote

That’s true; GR is not conservative. Your estimate of time is by probably too small by tens, if not hundreds, of orders of magnitude, though. For example, the Earth’s orbit is decaying due to gravitational wave emissions, to the tune of about 200 Watts. Assuming everything else magically stayed the same, it would take about 10^23 years (100,000 quintillion years) for Earth to hit the sun. The rate at which gravitational waves would extract energy from a cloud of dark matter would be unimaginably smaller than that.

Also, if WIMPs actually do interact via the weak force, that would probably stop - or at least further delay - black hole formation as they become more densely packed.

2

Warpine t1_iv8vj6q wrote

I figured it would be some absurdly long time scale. I didn't know about the timescale of earth losing energy to gravitational waves & crashing into the sun though; thanks :)

1

elk33dp t1_iv5nre5 wrote

Yea I heard about the theory of lots of extremely small but dense black holes littered around enpty space impacting gravity, and it made a lot more sense than dark matter to me.

You'd never find these things normally unless they hit something and were looking in that spot at the exact time. Even this one is a miracle to spot.

The only question would be how they all came to be since extremely small black holes shouldn't exist.

2

Warpine t1_iv7t7ou wrote

We can observe these black holes, if they existed, via their lensing effect on light passing near it

If you watch the night sky very carefully (with telescopes of course) and train it on a faraway galaxy, you will be able to observe the mass of anything that passes between you and that galaxy. Any massive object would bend the light eeeever so slightly, and you would see the galaxy wiggle in the background

Extremely small black holes would need to exist in such density that they’d need to permeate everywhere. Excuse for a moment that they’d need to be passing through our solar system regularly (this is fine, but we’d detect them no problem), their effects on viewing distant objects in the cosmos would be unmistakable

Also, we can rule a HUGE range of masses for black holes because anything less massive than ~200 million metric tons would’ve evaporated by now. Black holes of this mass would be the trickiest to spot, but fortunately, Hawking has proven they literally can’t exist if they formed in the big bang

edit: another problem with small black holes is that they’d have charge and they’d rotate, both of which make them MUCH “clumpier”. We’d end up with swathes of intermediate and supermassive black holes (MANY more than what we currently see), and these would be trivial to observe

1

silent519 t1_ivnvnck wrote

>This is, imo, the most likely explanation for dark matter.

well it's not. we already know this.

0