Tiny black holes left over from the Big Bang may be prime dark matter suspects

[Admin]

Don't rule out primordial black holes as dark matter suspects just yet! Particle-sized black holes may resist evaporation, surviving long enough to account for the universe's most mysterious stuff.

Tiny black holes left over from the Big Bang may be prime dark matter suspects : Read more

 

[Questioner]

Gravity would come into play and small or microscopic black holes would be strongly inclined to merge (clump).
If they all had the same electric polarity (or something akin to it) they might avoid merging with one another,
but it wouldn't stop regular matter from falling into (merging with) them.

DM is a hypothesis for mass with an as yet unidentified source.

I say it is a secondary/additional mass curve coming from identifiable BHs. It is a thin, flat mass curve that extends extremely far the source BH.
That's why it hasn't already been connected to BHs.
That would explain why there is a tight correlation between the size of galactic central black holes and the hypothesized quantity of DM in their respective galaxies.

I think anywhere there is a clump/cloud/halo attributed to DM a BH will be found at its center.

 

[danR]

...the black hole has to 'rewrite' its information, or something else. This rewriting process takes time," Fernandes Alexandre explained. "It is called 'memory burden' because of this memory that now has to be passed along to something else, and that just kind of slows down the evaporation process overall. So it's a kind of stabilization."

That is kind of the worst 'explanation' of any theoretical attribute I have ever kind of seen in a scientific exposition, or something else. Normally when I see something like that, I'm expecting it is a loose sketch for a more rigorous elaboration. Nothing followed. When a theoretician is essentially claiming that Hawking was dead wrong about the tail process of BH evaporation, he better be good, or the popular-article writer better extract it from him.

'You don't know your own stuff unless you can explain it to a bartender", to paraphrase the old physics saying.

 

[billslugg]

I interpreted it as: The BH contains information, which cannot go away, thus towards the end it has all this information condensed into such a tiny volume it has to stop evaporating.

 

[orsobubu]

When i want to put me in a good mood and have a laugh, i often find nothing better than reading some bizarre theory on dark matter and the standard model; after reading this article I am really satisfied, it is really fun to watch the intellectual somersaults that certain scientists are capable of doing in order to publish something, get fundings, get interviewed and keep their job, manipulating a mathematical model as disastrous as hilbert's false interpretation of the already problematic schwarzschild and droste field equations

 

[Questioner]

Information is insight based on an organization of some select/filtered data. The rest of infinite data is irrelevant and easily understood as noise or anti-information.
Insight is a tool of a mind. Insight is not existential.
Information/insight is of necessity local/finite.

Further Godel proved the universe can not be closed because it has a self referencing element,
namely us.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I have 2 problems with this hypothesis.

The first is that I do not accept as fact that "information" has physical presence and cannot be destroyed. So I doubt the idea that "information" would stop the "evaporation" of black holes in order to be preserved. I am not even convinced that Hawkings got the evaporation thing right in the first place. I have never heard a "bartender level" explanation that didn't seem to have severe conceptual flaws. So, I am willing to believe that black holes might not evaporate at all and tiny primordial ones might still exist.

But, if they do exist in such hugely large numbers that they can make up 5.7 times the amount of mass that we can detect, why aren't these tiny black holes colliding with larger, visible pieces of baryonic matter like asteroids, planets. stars, etc? and sucking in their mass, presumably with some emission of light from outside their event horizons as the matter gets compressed, heated and ionized on the way in? It seems like that should be happening in an observable way with an observable frequency, considering the current level of telescopic astronomy observations currently being conducted.

 

[billslugg]

The amount of matter in the universe is very small. The vast majority of Black Holes might simply have nothing to draw inward.
If the Sun was a golf ball, the nearest star would be another golf ball 600 miles away. The chances of them ever colliding are very small.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Bill, That example is only 2 golf balls. Try it with enough black hole particles to make 5.7 times the mass we can see out of particles that are each "smaller than a proton". Those tiny back holes should be practically everywhere. And, they would be attracted to the visible matter, so it would not even be just a random encounter for one to collide with a star or smaller body.

Looking at the number of impacts on the Moon evidenced by the craters, and the fact that we have even seen impacts occur while we were watching with telescopes, it is hard to believe that there could be 5.7 times as much matter in the form of tiny black holes flying around and none of them hit the moon over the last 4.6 billion years.

So, unless this theory includes some (unreported) mechanism that prevents these tiny black holes from sucking in visible matter, I think it is still a non-starter for being the "dark matter" we need to make astronomy observations fit known physics.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Ok, let's look at it this way:

The radius of a black hole's event horizon depends on its mass, so we can calculate the mass of a black hole the diameter of a proton. The diameter of the proton is estimated at about 10^-15 meters.

The Schwarzschild radius is given as r = 2GM/c^2.

So, solving for the mass of a black hole with a proton diameter event horizon gives:
(10^-15m) x (3 x 10^8 m/s)^2 / (2 x 6.67 x10^-11 m^3/(kg x s^2) = 0.675 x 10^-10 kg

The mass of our solar system is about 10^30 Kg. So, the mass of the black holes making up (85% /15% =) 5.67 times that amount of mass would be 5.67 x 10^30 kg / 0.675 x 10^-10 kg = 8.4 x 10^40 tiny black holes.

Assuming the solar system accounts for all of the mass within something like 3 light years, that volume would be 4/3 x 3.1416 x (3 x 9.46 x 10^15 meters)^3 = 1.06 x 10^49 cubic meters.

So, for a rough average, I think of 1.06 x 10^49 / 8.4 x 10^40 = 1.26 x 10^8 cubic meters of space per tiny black hole.

Considering that the Sun's volume is about 1.4 x 10^27 cubic meters, there should be something like 1.4 x 10^27 / 8.4 x 10^8 = 1.7 x 10^20 of these tiny black holes already in our Sun.

Even the Moon, with a volume of 2.2 x 10^19 cubic meters, should have roughly 2.2 x 10^19 / 1.26 x 10^8 = 1.75 x 10^11 of these tiny black holes already inside of it.

People can check my math, but, unless I have made a colossal math error, it seems like there would need to be some high frequency of these tiny black holes hitting observable objects if they were numerous enough to account for the amount of "dark matter" that the theory needs.

Or, there needs to be some physical mechanism that makes it impossible for such tiny black holes to be capable of sucking in baryonic matter.

 

[billslugg]

But then the question becomes: What happens when a proton sized BH hits the Earth? Would we expect an explosion? Maybe it just passes right through. I'll look it up.

EDIT: The question has been answered on quora. It depends on the size of the black hole and how fast it is going. Primordial black holes are less than an atom in size and would transit the Earth leaving a trail of radiation damage in the rock and depositing a stick of dynamite worth of energy, but along the entire path. One paper estimates two primordial black holes pass through Earth every day.

What would happen if a miniature black hole (or a PBH) would pass through Earth at relativistic speed?

There are a lot of questions about a small BH and the Earth, none of these answer my question specifically. And there are contradictory answers. Some of them state that the effects would be negligi...

physics.stackexchange.com

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I don't think you can "look up" the answer to what happens if a proton sized black hole hits macro sized piece of matter. That falls into the gap between quantum mechanics and General Relativity gravity theory. Oil and water.

I am sure there are a lot of speculative hypotheses, but frankly, those seem pretty "imaginative" rather than like sound physical principles. I don't give them much more credibility than the idea that the Klingons have taken over 85% of the universe and cloaked it so that we barbaric Earthlings can't see their holdings.

 

[billslugg]

The question has been answered on quora. It depends on the size of the black hole and how fast it is going. Primordial black holes are less than an atom in size and would transit the Earth leaving a trail of radiation damage in the rock and depositing a stick of dynamite worth of energy, but along the entire path. One paper estimates two primordial black holes pass through Earth every day.

What would happen if a miniature black hole (or a PBH) would pass through Earth at relativistic speed?

There are a lot of questions about a small BH and the Earth, none of these answer my question specifically. And there are contradictory answers. Some of them state that the effects would be negligi...

physics.stackexchange.com

 

[Jonathon Moseley]

I have 2 problems with this hypothesis.

The first is that I do not accept as fact that "information" has physical presence and cannot be destroyed. So I doubt the idea that "information" would stop the "evaporation" of black holes in order to be preserved. I am not even convinced that Hawkings got the evaporation thing right in the first place. I have never heard a "bartender level" explanation that didn't seem to have severe conceptual flaws. So, I am willing to believe that black holes might not evaporate at all and tiny primordial ones might still exist.

But, if they do exist in such hugely large numbers that they can make up 5.7 times the amount of mass that we can detect, why aren't these tiny black holes colliding with larger, visible pieces of baryonic matter like asteroids, planets. stars, etc? and sucking in their mass, presumably with some emission of light from outside their event horizons as the matter gets compressed, heated and ionized on the way in? It seems like that should be happening in an observable way with an observable frequency, considering the current level of telescopic astronomy observations currently being conducted.

Because your analysis is based on facts, logic, common sense, scientific analysis, and truth.

And therefore it is boring.

What can an over-priced public relations agent do with that?

Now, argue that the unproven dark matter is poop left over from the ancient space aliens who seeded the Earth with ape / space alien hybrids,

and you're golden. You're good for several dozen TV interviews and several awards.

While proving absolutely nothing.

 

[Jonathon Moseley]

I have 2 problems with this hypothesis.

The first is that I do not accept as fact that "information" has physical presence and cannot be destroyed. So I doubt the idea that "information" would stop the "evaporation" of black holes in order to be preserved. I am not even convinced that Hawkings got the evaporation thing right in the first place. I have never heard a "bartender level" explanation that didn't seem to have severe conceptual flaws. So, I am willing to believe that black holes might not evaporate at all and tiny primordial ones might still exist.

But, if they do exist in such hugely large numbers that they can make up 5.7 times the amount of mass that we can detect, why aren't these tiny black holes colliding with larger, visible pieces of baryonic matter like asteroids, planets. stars, etc? and sucking in their mass, presumably with some emission of light from outside their event horizons as the matter gets compressed, heated and ionized on the way in? It seems like that should be happening in an observable way with an observable frequency, considering the current level of telescopic astronomy observations currently being conducted.

Now, why does no one consider the possibility that our equations for the motion of galaxies throughout the universe are simply wrong?

The issue is that our stinky equations fail to predict the motion of galaxies and stars.

Maybe the equations fail because the equations are simply wrong?

Naaahhh.. Can't consider that.

It has to be some exotic, unproven, highly improbable "fudge factor" which appears to fix the problems with the equations

but inevitably keeps serving up new problems that make the situation worse.

Never go back to the beginning to examine the original assumptions.

That's no fun.

 

[Jonathon Moseley]

The amount of matter in the universe is very small. The vast majority of Black Holes might simply have nothing to draw inward.
If the Sun was a golf ball, the nearest star would be another golf ball 600 miles away. The chances of them ever colliding are very small.

Well as long as we are thinking about it this way, the vast distances across essentially almost-empty space,

the tiniest error in our unproven, untested equations for the motions of stars and galaxies

would produce the "errors" that alchemists are trying to fix by hypothesizing a fudge factor of dark matter.

Perhaps our equations are simply wrong.

 

[Jonathon Moseley]

Bill, That example is only 2 golf balls. Try it with enough black hole particles to make 5.7 times the mass we can see out of particles that are each "smaller than a proton". Those tiny back holes should be practically everywhere. And, they would be attracted to the visible matter, so it would not even be just a random encounter for one to collide with a star or smaller body.

Looking at the number of impacts on the Moon evidenced by the craters, and the fact that we have even seen impacts occur while we were watching with telescopes, it is hard to believe that there could be 5.7 times as much matter in the form of tiny black holes flying around and none of them hit the moon over the last 4.6 billion years.

So, unless this theory includes some (unreported) mechanism that prevents these tiny black holes from sucking in visible matter, I think it is still a non-starter for being the "dark matter" we need to make astronomy observations fit known physics.

"And, they would be attracted to the visible matter, "

BY DEFINITION. The whole concept of dark matter is that the stars and galaxies do not move through the universe as predicted.

The solution proposed is NOT to -- HORRORS! -- correct our defective equations.

The solution is to imagine that dark matter is

PULLING ON the visible matter perturbing the galactic orbits and paths of visible matter.

Therefore, unless the dark matter / super-convenient / equation fixing black holes are gravitationally attracted to normal visible matter,

they could not fix the holes in the defective equations.

They could not change the orbits of path or orbits of normal matter unless they were gravitationally attracted to it.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

BIll,
That "answer" on Quora is inconsistent with the math I presented for the number of black holes required. "Two passing through the Earth every day" is just far too small a number compared to something like 10^12 of them within Earth. So, we are conflating 2 different hypotheses, not examining one hypothesis - a usual way of avoiding logical conclusions.

And, that other hypothesis assumes some large velocities for ALL of these black holes relative to Earth. No more credible than my Klingon hypothesis - hereinafter simply referred to as the "KH" to put in on par with the jargon used by other speculators for their own imaginative "solutions" and "answers".

I will note that the mass of a proton is 1.67 x 10-27 kg. So compared to the mass of a hypothetical black hole with an event horizon of the same radius, which I calculated above as 0.675 x 10^-10 kg, the tiny black hole would be far more massive - about 2.5 x 10^7 times as massive.

So, it seems to me that we would need to determine how a black hole with only mass and spin behaves in the proximity of a proton or a neutron at quantum distances, under the influence of the strong and weak nuclear forces, not electro-magnetic forces. Or, do we also need to include electro-magnetic interactions with photons, but only in one direction (i.e., from other matter into the black hole)? That could allow the baryons to "lose energy" relative to their interactions with the black holes with respect to whatever orbitals are involved.

And, why wouldn't tiny black holes interact with each other, if they occasionally get close enough to each other?

These speculators in the quantum world have "a lot of 'splanin' to do" to our proverbial bartender.

 

[skynr13]

I interpreted it as: The BH contains information, which cannot go away, thus towards the end it has all this information condensed into such a tiny volume it has to stop evaporating.

But I'm wondering what kind of info. BH's have, besides, 'we're a bunch of atoms and we're squishing so tight!'.

 

[skynr13]

I really think MPI scientists should have something better to do than make up a bunch of theoretical nonsense such as this ! ! !

 

[billslugg]

I would suggest a strongly worded letter to their department heads.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

The only "information" we seem to be able to get on black holes is there mass, and spin rates if the spin, and maybe net electrical charge, if they have a net charge.

That is entirely different than the "information" about what went into the black hole when, not to mention what happened to it after it disappeared inside the event horizon. Even "after" seems to be a problem, given that GRT says that outside observers would not see time passage for something as it reaches the event horizon.

But, theorists who think that all physical events must be, at least in theory, reversible in time, think that what has happened in the past is "information" that cannot be lost, because if it is lost, then there is no way to "know" how to reverse it.

But, there are people like me who don't believe that everything that happens must be reversible in theory. I am fully willing to believe that information can be destroyed. Others insist that it can't even be "hidden" from us, even inside a black hole.

They can theorize whatever they want, but they really cannot prove it is a physical law. Unless their theory proves useful in predicting something we actually find useful to measure, it is not really important to me.

 

[Classical Motion]

I think information is a product of life. And only used for life. And only used here.

A language only used between life.

No life......no info. And nothing for math to do.

 

[skynr13]

The only "information" we seem to be able to get on black holes is there mass, and spin rates if the spin, and maybe net electrical charge, if they have a net charge.

That is entirely different than the "information" about what went into the black hole when, not to mention what happened to it after it disappeared inside the event horizon. Even "after" seems to be a problem, given that GRT says that outside observers would not see time passage for something as it reaches the event horizon.

But, theorists who think that all physical events must be, at least in theory, reversible in time, think that what has happened in the past is "information" that cannot be lost, because if it is lost, then there is no way to "know" how to reverse it.

But, there are people like me who don't believe that everything that happens must be reversible in theory. I am fully willing to believe that information can be destroyed. Others insist that it can't even be "hidden" from us, even inside a black hole.

They can theorize whatever they want, but they really cannot prove it is a physical law. Unless their theory proves useful in predicting something we actually find useful to measure, it is not really important to me.

I guess I was a bit confused on this whole memory thing, I don't know why they don't call it a 'pre-state' then instead of memory, it makes it seem like the BH is a brain!

 

[skynr13]

I would suggest a strongly worded letter to their department heads.

I think that would only add to their angst for confusing everyone.