A 'primordial' black hole may zoom through our solar system every decade

[Admin]

If microscopic black holes born a fraction of a second after the Big Bang exist, then at least one may fly through the solar system per decade, generating tiny gravitational distortions that scientists can detect.

A 'primordial' black hole may zoom through our solar system every decade : Read more

 

[Unclear Engineer]

This article seems to have some quantitative analysis deficits.

If there are enough primordial black holes around to account for "dark matter" I have already posted in another thread how many would be in a given volume, and what that means for how many would be in our solar system, planet, even our individual bodies, depending on the size/mass postulated for the black holes.

If there are enough black holes with the mass of an average asteroid to be about 6 times more mass than everything we can see in our solar system, then there must be a lot of them here all of the time - more than 6 times the mass of the Sun' worth of "dark matter".

So, the idea that they are not likely to hit anything seems absurd, considering that we are seeing comets and asteroids hitting things. Dark matter black holes would hit things more often. So, why no inexplicable explosions or implosions?

Or, if the "primordial black holes" were fewer but much more massive than the average asteroid, say the mass of the Moon, Earth, Jupiter, etc., with enough of them to total 6 times the mass of the Sun, we should be seeing all sorts of inexplicable changes to the orbits of planets.

I don't have a problem with people looking for things like black holes in the local area. But, a proposal like this would not get a funding vote from me, because it seems to have not had the homework done that is necessary to even know how to look in a realistic manner.

 

[Classical Motion]

I don’t think space has volume, area or dimension. Only mass and field have such. For some reason man can not concept emptiness. So we give it properties it doesn’t have. And the first thing we do is size it. But emptiness can not be sized.

There is some kind of want and need for it. And they prove it by measuring it.

But how do you measure emptiness? And what do you compare it to? Does emptiness have a scale? Temperature perhaps? Space doesn’t have a temperature.

Only matter and field are relevant. Are in existence. Have temperature. The space between objects does not exist. Only the distance does.

But man can not concept this. Existence within non-existence. The concept of empty distance. Non connected distance. The distance between objects becomes a thing. An entity, instead of just distance. And even worse, now, the character of distance can change. This is how bad it has become.

The energy of space is not from space. It’s just field motion thru space. The energy measure is just a superposition and time and location. A false superposition. Of orphan field motion. A non interactive superposition.

I stand at the center. There is a person in the north. There is a speaker in the west and in the east.

1000Hz from the west and the north hears it. If I put 1000Hz from the east and in phase, the north hears twice the intensity. If I put east out of phase, the north hears nothing. And measures nothing.

Now change speakers for lasers. Or flashlights. If I put them out of phase, will the north feel or see anything? You bet he will. OUCH.

Wave superposition is much different from light superposition. Because light is not a wave.

And it interacts differently than waves do. It has duty cycle, not wave frequency.

Using duty cycle requires no spacetime to explain our measurements. With solid constants.

I don’t believe in space. Just distance. Nothing can wave in it. Can’t wave distance.

 

[Atlan0001]

A black hole is likely only a half or less of the circular evolutionary game. The rest of the story being a black hole evolving a transparency of white hole matter-energy, like a galaxy maybe, or star matter dusts and more, from primordial shadow matter, aetheral-like dark matter, that was a black hole, a lot of black holes, in the background of its existence:
==========================

Electromagnetism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

==========================
Something like this as a rounding constant in and of time.

 

[Dav_Daddy]

This article seems to have some quantitative analysis deficits.

If there are enough primordial black holes around to account for "dark matter" I have already posted in another thread how many would be in a given volume, and what that means for how many would be in our solar system, planet, even our individual bodies, depending on the size/mass postulated for the black holes.

If there are enough black holes with the mass of an average asteroid to be about 6 times more mass than everything we can see in our solar system, then there must be a lot of them here all of the time - more than 6 times the mass of the Sun' worth of "dark matter".

So, the idea that they are not likely to hit anything seems absurd, considering that we are seeing comets and asteroids hitting things. Dark matter black holes would hit things more often. So, why no inexplicable explosions or implosions?

Or, if the "primordial black holes" were fewer but much more massive than the average asteroid, say the mass of the Moon, Earth, Jupiter, etc., with enough of them to total 6 times the mass of the Sun, we should be seeing all sorts of inexplicable changes to the orbits of planets.

I don't have a problem with people looking for things like black holes in the local area. But, a proposal like this would not get a funding vote from me, because it seems to have not had the homework done that is necessary to even know how to look in a realistic manner.

I think you fail to take into account how compact a black hole is. An Earth mass black hole for instance would be smaller than a ping-pong ball. Now take something the size of 6 ping-pong balls and calculate the odds of it hitting anything in the vastness of space.

Being so compact and depending on how fast they are moving in relation to the solar system the odds of one gravitationally interacting with and/or colliding with the Earth or any other planet in the inner solar system are infinitesimally small.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I think you fail to take into account how compact a black hole is. An Earth mass black hole for instance would be smaller than a ping-pong ball. Now take something the size of 6 ping-pong balls and calculate the odds of it hitting anything in the vastness of space.

Being so compact and depending on how fast they are moving in relation to the solar system the odds of one gravitationally interacting with and/or colliding with the Earth or any other planet in the inner solar system are infinitesimally small.

No, I did take into account how small they are, and used it to calculate how numerous they would have to be to make up all of the "missing mass" in the volume of our solar system.

As for not hitting anything, the smaller sizes would be so numerous that there would be some inside the Earth at all times, assuming roughly uniform distribution in space.

And, the larger ones would either be slow and therefore here all of the time, interacting gravitationally, or there would need to be a large number of them passing through at the very high speeds you suggest.

There is just no way to have 6 times as much mass as we can see somehow existing as black holes in our solar system without expecting interactions of some type with the matter we can see. And nowhere near as rarely as this article suggests.

Maybe somebody can come up with an hypothesis that the "primordial black holes about the size of a hydrogen atom" would not interact with regular atoms at all. But, that is hard to believe. It sounds like another version of WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) that nobody has been able to find, so far. And, such tiny black holes are hypothesized to have evaporated by emitting "Hawking Radiation" billions of years ago, anyway.

Now, if you give up on the idea that these postulated black holes account for all of the missing mass, then you can imagine whatever you want to imagine about how many there are, how fast they are moving, etc. If you have no observable constraints in your "theory", then you can theorize anything.

As I said, in my first post, I have no objection to looking for black holes, just don't try to gaslight me with unsupported statements about physics or probability. If you want to argue, you are going to have to show your math.

 

[magnoflux]

M,
Now change speakers for lasers. Or flashlights. If I put them out of phase, will the north feel or see anything? You bet he will. OUCH.
No, if you polarize the lazar beam 50% ordinary rays disappear and if you 90 degree a second sheet of polaroid sheet then all disappears because EM light consists of spinning magnoflux which needs 2 cycles spinning in one direction to balance the inertia and a voltage or push focus to drive it energessly forward.

 

[billslugg]

The missing mass, the "six times the Solar System mass", is not all located inside the Solar System planet zone. The unseen DM also has the spherical volume with a radius half way to the nearest star, or 125,000 AU. The total volume of this zone is 8E15 cubic AU. The total volume inside Uranus' 20 AU radius orbit is 3E4 cubic AU. The proportion of the DM excess mass inside our planetary zone is but six times 4E-12 of the total Solar System mass of 2E30 kg, or 5E19 kg. This would be the mass of a single rocky asteroid of 280 km diameter. Located arbitrarily in the total 125,000 radius of the Solar System, we would not be able to image it. If it were in the form of Black Holes or small asteroids, same problem. Any local orbital gravitational inconsistencies would be in the noise.

 

[Questioner]

If there is undetected mass of any kind it must be remarkably uniformly distributed,
otherwise we would have already detected it.

[personal tangent]
If BHs are singularities [my current hypothesis] then they don't/wouldn't respond gravitationally to visible matter & that lack of response is one of my gripes about other DM proposals.

The uniform distribution is also less of a problem because of that lack of response means when a BH is positioned it would tend to stay there, with only nudges from matter infalling/colliding to/with it.

I wonder if we should be seeing vortices of infalling matter in the Oort cloud or somewhere.
I would think that would heat the matter & make it more discernable.

 

[billslugg]

If the DM inside the orbit of Pluto was one giant 280 km diameter chunk, we might have seen it by now. We would not know it was "excess mass". It is too small a percentage of the mass dense Solar System to be able to detect it.

 

[Questioner]

The problem with BH singularities is getting them to move in the first place.

Since a singularity has no extent in space-time it can't respond gravitationally which means it can't orbit anything.

I think the only way to get a singularity moving is by dropping a stream of matter from a single direction.
Hammering it with infalling acceleration energy,

but if one does get it moving there's nothing to stop or slow it except a new stream of matter infalling from the opposite direction.

Metaphorically singularities are 'lead sleds',
unstoppable.

If a halo is going to follow a galaxy as it orbits or curves around another galaxy the singularities are going to continue vector straight instead of curving.

Stars may chase or be influenced by a singularity halo(s),
but the singularity halos are largely oblivious to everything else including stars & other halos.

That recent graphic had two galactic halos accelerating ahead of the actual stellar collision.
Not sure how to make sense of that.

 

[George²]

Since a singularity has no extent in space-time it can't respond gravitationally which means it can't orbit anything.

In real world there is no such thing as space that is free of gravitational forces.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Billslugg, When I did the calculation in the previous thread, I used half the distance to the nearest star as the radius for distributing the "dark matter" associated with our solar system in a quantified volume, and then looked at what that would mean for the density of various sizes of black holes and what those densities would mean for some of the black holes to be inside the Earth, or even a person. For the extremely small black holes, my math told me they would be effectively everywhere.

SO, I am not sure how you got the idea that the density of black holes with the mass of an asteroid would only have one somewhere in our inner solar system. I will have to check my math, but I won't have time to do that for a while.

Meanwhile, what is the diameter of the event horizon for a 5E19 kg mass?

 

[Catastrophe]

Schwarzschild Radius Calculator

Calculate the gravitational acceleration at the event horizon of a black hole of a given mass using the Schwarzschild radius calculator.

www.omnicalculator.com

Cat

 

[Unclear Engineer]

That calculator gives me a radius of 0.00007426 millimeter for Bill's asteroid mass black hole.

So, Bill's postulate would be that something that weighs as much as a very large asteroid would be essentially non-detectable because it is so tiny, and doesn't emit or reflect light, anyway.

So, how exactly would it be detected by it "generating tiny gravitational distortions"?

And, what if there are 4 of them at 1/4 the mass? 10 at 10th the mass? With so many other objects in the solar system, what type of measurements are the article author's thinking they could use to distinguish a black hole's effects from the effects of everything else that is also out there?

I also wonder about Bill's assumption that such heavy objects would be uniformly distributed in space between and within planetary systems. We would no longer be talking about some strange form of matter that doesn't self-interact and stays diffuse. Black holes would follow the same gravitational interaction processes are regular matter. So, I would think they would more likely be attracted to stars and planets. And, there would be 250 billion of them within a couple of light years, if they were all the size Bill calculated. If they were distributed in the same manner as the visible mass, then most of them would be inside the orbit of Neptune.

And, again, what happens to a mass or regular matter that gets hit by a black hole that is only 0.00015 mm in diameter? If one struck Earth, presumably coming in at at Earth's 35,000 mph escape velocity, what would happen? If it was a regular asteroid 280 km in diameter, it would already be a "planet killer", at least for everything alive on the planet. But, would the whole planet get sucked into the black hole - or would most of the planet get obliterated and blown away by the energy release of the first parts being sucked into the black hole? For that matter, what would happen if one entered the Sun?

With something like 250 billion of these things per star system in our region of the galaxy, and having the gravitationally attracted to planets and stars, are the odds really that low there would be some sort of collision and interaction? We do see regular matter hitting other regular matter, so if there is six times as much dark matter, why would we not see the effects of some of it hitting the regular matter that we can see?

Or, is there some way that such tiny black holes can pass through dense regular matter without gravitationally pulling any of it inside their event horizons? If somebody thinks that is the case, please explain how.

The "gravitational field" produced by that calculator shows only 6 g, which I guess is the value at the event horizon? Seems odd, but I have not tried to check that integrating that out to infinity with 1/R^2 gives the speed of light. If somebody wanted to calculate how a single atom interacted gravitationally with a 0.00015 mm diameter black hole event horizon, that might be interesting.

(I still need to go back and check my math in the other thread.)

 

[Questioner]

In real world there is no such thing as space that is free of gravitational forces.

Per my thinking gravity is not a force.

It's a mechanical process of vibrating mass bearing objects in an external mass field.

The vibrations that go towards the center of an external mass field linger there just a little longer due to dilated/slowed time there which overall shifts the object's center of mass in that direction.

Shifting of mass is ['new'] movement/acceleration.

Where exactly that acceleration energy is derived from I don't know, but I'd look at thermal energy.

Gravity is Largely a Conversion of Molecular & Atomic Vibrations into Vector Acceleration

Gravity is Largely a Conversion of Molecular & Atomic Vibrations into Vector Acceleration Reduced Space in Mass Fields There is space contraction exactly proportional (i believe) to time dilation as evidenced by the Sun's internal rotation speed being faster than its external rotation...

forums.space.com

 

[George²]

It's a mechanical process of vibrating mass bearing objects in an external mass field.

Oh, I understand you partially. I was work as a moving service for a while and I was carrying large loads on my back or on hand. They really have mass and sometimes made my muscles tremble.

 

[magnoflux]

No dark matter/energy has been found in space as more powerful dark massless electro-magnetic forces that are needed to balance the WMAP 4.6% result
1. The dark mass attraction force G is the weakest in deep space volume x,y,z.
2 Electromagnetic dark matter magnoflux3D spin x,y inertia force of about 6.28G rotates galactic stars around a magnetic black hole hub
3. Electro-static repel about 25G dark energy force in z direction is responsible for expanding the universe as stars are huge+charges which push each other away thus expanding the universe but which find planetary electron matter attracts their EM light energy easily causing stars to age.
NOTE Star/sun light is electrically attracted targeted magnoflux momentum and lossless when travelling through empty space. However, over exited hot temperature explosions of EM light energy can be emitted in all directions and unless laser focused will loss energy by the cubic law of dilution as they travel outwards. To measure energy in MKS units relies on knowing its mass which is zero so very confusing to physicists who cannot understand we live in an electro-magnetic universe.
Only spinning magnoflux inertia can move at the speed of light effortlessly but it must have an electric reason for moving at right angles to the spin or a quantum Cosine reduction in power will occur as its 3D volume has been squeezed up.