4 ms·
So if, hypothetically, dark matter had some detrimental effect in those parts of the universe where it appears in overly high concentrations (making the univers
by kafkaesq 9y ago
So if, hypothetically, dark matter had some detrimental effect in those parts of the universe where it appears in overly high concentrations (making the universe less "interesting" in those parts... less able to produce life-bearing planets, say) --
-- then black holes would, in effect, be (our) universe's GC mechanism. Or at least, its "janitors" in some form.
Pretty cool.
- qubex 9y agoExcept they don't relinquish what they gobble up, so they're not making a finite resource (memory) available for re-use, they're a total resource sink. Whether that's ’cool’ or not is a matter of persona preference.
- tdb7893 9y agoDon't black holes emit radiation or something?
- bitshiffed 9y agoHawking radiation, yes. They eventually evaporate.
- _FKS_ 9y agoHawking radiation is speculation AFAIK, there's no observation to back it up.
- KGIII 9y agoSome light reading on it: https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/first-observation-of-hawking-radiation-9d77fa8c8055 https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/first-observation-...
- macspoofing 9y agoOP isn't wrong. That we haven't proven the existence of Hawking Radiation is the only reason why Hawking hasn't won a Nobel.
- KGIII 9y agoNo, just some light reading where we have reason to believe it has been observed and may be able to devise further methods to observe it.
- macspoofing 9y agoI don't dispute that. I think the consensus has accepted Hawking radiation as real ... but we haven't seen evidence yet (and we may never, your link notwithstanding, given how tiny the effect is).
- kalms 9y agoYou're leaving out quasars.
- Neeek 9y agoI thought quasars still aren't relinquishing anything, the jets are matter that never made it past the event horizon.