4 ms·

Perhaps you could tell why?

vecter 10y ago
Almost every statement he makes is pure nonsense. > dark matter is likely a product of black holes what product, specifically, and through what mechanism? > and probably just an even distribution of black holes. That just contradicts the first half of the sentence, which says that dark matter is a product of black holes, but now he's saying that they are black holes themselves. We understand black hole behavior quite well. They can't be microscopic black holes because they would evaporate almost instantaneously due to Hawking radiation. So they must be bigger. But we know there's dark matter in our own galaxy, and there certainly isn't a uniform ubiquitous spread of black holes in our galaxy. And if they were so uniformly distributed, they would probably merge and become many fewer black holes. But we clearly don't see that either in our own galaxy or elsewhere. Then some ridiculous vague statement about "gravity leaking from other dimensions"? It's insane, it's like he used a random grammar generator with physics words. What he said was so crackpot that it would easily qualify as "not even wrong". [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
- astrobe_ 10y ago
  >> dark matter is likely a product of black holes > what product, specifically, and through what mechanism? The product is dark matter, it seems. The mechanism is the same as in the current theory on dark matter synthesis, I would say.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  I read it as meaning "the gravitational effects we attribute to dark matter may be a product of even more massive black holes at galactic cores". I once wondered this. Then I learned our studies of how star revolution rates taper off as a function of distance from the core were not explicable with a giant mass at the core; there needed to be a diffuse mass.
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    What I intended as the meaning was close, it was basically this (hopefully it makes more sense): the gravitational effects we attribute to an unknown source, dark matter, is likely the product of matter inside of black holes. In other words, there may be weird quirks of physics that are not yet discovered. what they are I don't know. Maybe mass density or gravitational density has an upper limit, and the universe conserves mass by redistributing it in some strange way. The point is also just this: fantastic explanations that explain what dark matter is (alternate universe's, leaking gravity) are probably the least likely to to be true. Instead, the most likely explanation is the one which uncovers the least fantastic possibilities -- it likely is explained using the least modifications to our current observations/understanding of the universe. I don't know how it didn't make any sense, but I'm sorry that it didn't - Can someone please enlighten me?
- wallace_f 10y ago
  You are right on many points, and I should have qualified my statement that it is more philosophy than science itself. I had little intention to have very much explanatory utility about the mechanisms dark matter. Also, I have no advanced degree in physics, I just have an interest in it. All I was trying to say, I explained below, in a response to @JumpCrissCross. I understand it's different to mainstream physics, that was the intention. Perhaps you can see the point I am trying to make. Edit: Here is an article that appears to discuss black holes as a possible candidate to explain what we call dark matter: http://hub.jhu.edu/2016/06/16/dark-matter-in-primordial-black-hole-collision/ http://hub.jhu.edu/2016/06/16/dark-matter-in-primordial-blac... I realize another hypothesis for dark matter is WIMPs but as I understand we have found no evidence for their existence. On the other hand, you're saying what I wrote is entirely crackpot despite academic publications and evidence that may support that alternate theory? I think you are being a bit harsh -- but you tell me, you're the apparent expert, and I'm a hobbyist, but there's a source, go read it yourself.

Almost every statement he makes is pure nonsense. > dark matter is likely a product of black holes what product, specifically, and through what mechanism? > and probably just an even distribution of black holes. That just contradicts the first half of the sentence, which says that dark matter is a product of black holes, but now he's saying that they are black holes themselves. We understand black hole behavior quite well. They can't be microscopic black holes because they would evaporate almost instantaneously due to Hawking radiation. So they must be bigger. But we know there's dark matter in our own galaxy, and there certainly isn't a uniform ubiquitous spread of black holes in our galaxy. And if they were so uniformly distributed, they would probably merge and become many fewer black holes. But we clearly don't see that either in our own galaxy or elsewhere. Then some ridiculous vague statement about "gravity leaking from other dimensions"? It's insane, it's like he used a random grammar generator with physics words. What he said was so crackpot that it would easily qualify as "not even wrong". [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

astrobe_ 10y ago
>> dark matter is likely a product of black holes > what product, specifically, and through what mechanism? The product is dark matter, it seems. The mechanism is the same as in the current theory on dark matter synthesis, I would say.
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
I read it as meaning "the gravitational effects we attribute to dark matter may be a product of even more massive black holes at galactic cores". I once wondered this. Then I learned our studies of how star revolution rates taper off as a function of distance from the core were not explicable with a giant mass at the core; there needed to be a diffuse mass.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  What I intended as the meaning was close, it was basically this (hopefully it makes more sense): the gravitational effects we attribute to an unknown source, dark matter, is likely the product of matter inside of black holes. In other words, there may be weird quirks of physics that are not yet discovered. what they are I don't know. Maybe mass density or gravitational density has an upper limit, and the universe conserves mass by redistributing it in some strange way. The point is also just this: fantastic explanations that explain what dark matter is (alternate universe's, leaking gravity) are probably the least likely to to be true. Instead, the most likely explanation is the one which uncovers the least fantastic possibilities -- it likely is explained using the least modifications to our current observations/understanding of the universe. I don't know how it didn't make any sense, but I'm sorry that it didn't - Can someone please enlighten me?
wallace_f 10y ago
You are right on many points, and I should have qualified my statement that it is more philosophy than science itself. I had little intention to have very much explanatory utility about the mechanisms dark matter. Also, I have no advanced degree in physics, I just have an interest in it. All I was trying to say, I explained below, in a response to @JumpCrissCross. I understand it's different to mainstream physics, that was the intention. Perhaps you can see the point I am trying to make. Edit: Here is an article that appears to discuss black holes as a possible candidate to explain what we call dark matter: http://hub.jhu.edu/2016/06/16/dark-matter-in-primordial-black-hole-collision/ http://hub.jhu.edu/2016/06/16/dark-matter-in-primordial-blac... I realize another hypothesis for dark matter is WIMPs but as I understand we have found no evidence for their existence. On the other hand, you're saying what I wrote is entirely crackpot despite academic publications and evidence that may support that alternate theory? I think you are being a bit harsh -- but you tell me, you're the apparent expert, and I'm a hobbyist, but there's a source, go read it yourself.