Do black holes contain dark matter?

[Catastrophe]

Not just early black holes, or supermassive black holes. Do black holes in general, contain dark matter?
Google gives this:

While black holes themselves are not considered to be dark matter, a popular theory suggests that tiny, primordial black holes formed shortly after the Big Bang could potentially make up a significant portion of dark matter; however, this is still a highly debated and unconfirmed idea, and the exact nature of dark matter remains unknown.

Wiki states:

In astronomy, dark matter is an invisible and hypothetical form of matter that does not interact with light or other electromagnetic radiation. Dark matter is implied by gravitational effects which cannot be explained by general relativity unless more matter is present than can be observed.

So is dark matter just a guess to fill a hole?

and:

AI Overview
Learn more


While scientists haven't directly detected dark matter, theoretical models often categorize it based on its "state" primarily by its velocity, with the most common classifications being "cold dark matter" (CDM), "warm dark matter" (WDM), and "hot dark matter" (HDM), where "cold" indicates a slower moving, more clumped distribution and "hot" signifies faster moving, more diffuse particles; the exact nature of the particles composing dark matter remains unknown, but the current leading theory is that it's made up of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs).

Not solid, liquid and gas, which have their own constraints of hot and cold (melting point, boiling point, et cetera).

I am not intending any criticism of cosmology (which is more metaphysics, than science, isn't it?), but more a question about whether dark matter is "real" matter, or is this subject just "playing around with words"? Pretending to know what is real about invented words.

True science does recognise that it grows and improves over time, and does not claim truth "out of the box".

Google gives:

The development of science is the process by which people use the scientific method to make discoveries and build knowledge. Science has evolved over thousands of years, and is the result of global interactions, conflicts, and exchanges.

Cat

 

[stanwaterman]

Not just early black holes, or supermassive black holes. Do black holes in general, contain dark matter?
Google gives this:


Wiki states:



So is dark matter just a guess to fill a hole?

and:



Not solid, liquid and gas, which have their own constraints of hot and cold (melting point, boiling point, et cetera).

I am not intending any criticism of cosmology (which is more metaphysics, than science, isn't it?), but more a question about whether dark matter is "real" matter, or is this subject just "playing around with words"? Pretending to know what is real about invented words.

True science does recognise that it grows and improves over time, and does not claim truth "out of the box".

Google gives:



Cat

No, cosmology is not more metaphysics than science, it is a very extensive and researched area of astronomical science.

 

[Gibsense]

There are some things known regarding the nature of Dark Matter. It shapes space.
Or perhaps the shape of space causes gravity without mass; just a shape of space causes unknown.

Speculation: This may look to be a statement of the obvious but maybe the shape has been caused by things other than mass. An adjacent universe? Or simply matching the hills and valleys formed in our universe - an intrinsic roughness related to our mass but with curvature opposite to gravity wells perhaps due to anti-mass. Anti and ordinary mass are still mass.

Maybe

 

[Jzz]

“In astronomy, dark matter is an invisible and hypothetical form of matter that does not interact with light or other electromagnetic radiation. Dark matter is implied by gravitational effects which cannot be explained by general relativity unless more matter is present than can be observed.”

The above passage is probably the most accurate description of dark matter that can be gained from the accumulated data. However, the statement is also misleading, since the phrase: ”unless there is more matter than can be observed.” Says nothing about the proportion of dark matter to matter that must be present to account for the discrepancy in galactic sizes and rotational speeds. For instance, Vera Rubin, based on her study of galaxy rotation curves, found that for many spiral galaxies (like our Milky Way), the amount of dark matter required to explain the flat rotation curves was much higher than the visible mass. With regard to the Milky Way galaxy her estimates typically suggested that dark matter makes up approximately 90% of the mass. What does this circumstance mean to our concepts of gravity? Neither Newtonian dynamics nor Einsteinian general relativity can account for such huge discrepancies.

Another significant omission is that dark matter does not interact with any wavelengths or frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. If one thinks about it, this is a very important consideration in the determination of what dark matter might be. Although the Universe for the most part is composed of empty space, even an insignificant interference with electromagnetic radiation would throw off measurements, leading to unacceptably large errors. The same would hold true if only selective radiation were allowed to pass through dark matter.

A possible solution to this problem that addresses both the gravitational and electromagnetic aspects that receives little to no recognition is that dark matter might be the medium through which light and electromagnetic radiation propagate. If this is the case, and gravity and electromagnetism are indeed related, the same explanation could also account for the observed gravitational effects. This would be especially true if dark matter represented a dynamic gravitational force rather than a purely static one, since such a description would also account for the apparent presence of greater percentages of matter in galaxies than in other parts of the Universe.