5 ms·

The thing is that there's no conceivable mechanism we know of for a non-primordial black hole to form and be as small and common as would be required to explain

The thing is that there's no conceivable mechanism we know of for a non-primordial black hole to form and be as small and common as would be required to explain away dark matter.

didibus 8y ago
Yes, I understand that. So primordial black holes don't explain dark matter, but dark matter as a hypothesis came before it no? To explain something else no? The article wasn't very clear about all the links. Also, there's zero indication in the article that this invalidates the existence of black holes. And about dark matter, the last sentence says: "But the study does slim down the already thin chances that they are the source of dark matter's effects." Insinuating that primordial black hole were a hypothesis for the effects of dark matter. Not that dark matter theory is proven inconsistent by the lack of evidence for primordial black holes. I'm looking for someone who knows better I guess, to clarify. I'm only interpreting this using my reading skills from the article itself.
- SargeZT 8y ago
  I'm not positive, but I feel there might be a misunderstanding here. This article isn't trying to say dark matter and/or black holes don't exist, just that they aren't the same thing.
  - didibus 8y ago
    Okay, so that's what I'm saying as well. But the title of the article insinuates so: "One night of telescope time rules out black hole/dark matter". So I wasn't sure if I had misinterpreted the article, or if the title was just confusing. Edit: Maybe I wasn't clear. From the title, I got the impression that the observations ruled out both black holes and dark matter. But from the article, I only got the impression it ruled out the hypothesis that black holes were the force behind dark matter.
chopin 8y ago
Even more the article mentions that primordial dark matter is required to explain the signature of the CMB. Therefore, if black holes form the dark matter they must have been formed primordial.

The thing is that there's no conceivable mechanism we know of for a non-primordial black hole to form and be as small and common as would be required to explain away dark matter.

didibus 8y ago

Yes, I understand that. So primordial black holes don't explain dark matter, but dark matter as a hypothesis came before it no? To explain something else no? The article wasn't very clear about all the links. Also, there's zero indication in the article that this invalidates the existence of black holes. And about dark matter, the last sentence says: "But the study does slim down the already thin chances that they are the source of dark matter's effects." Insinuating that primordial black hole were a hypothesis for the effects of dark matter. Not that dark matter theory is proven inconsistent by the lack of evidence for primordial black holes. I'm looking for someone who knows better I guess, to clarify. I'm only interpreting this using my reading skills from the article itself.

SargeZT 8y ago
I'm not positive, but I feel there might be a misunderstanding here. This article isn't trying to say dark matter and/or black holes don't exist, just that they aren't the same thing.
- didibus 8y ago
  Okay, so that's what I'm saying as well. But the title of the article insinuates so: "One night of telescope time rules out black hole/dark matter". So I wasn't sure if I had misinterpreted the article, or if the title was just confusing. Edit: Maybe I wasn't clear. From the title, I got the impression that the observations ruled out both black holes and dark matter. But from the article, I only got the impression it ruled out the hypothesis that black holes were the force behind dark matter.

chopin 8y ago

Even more the article mentions that primordial dark matter is required to explain the signature of the CMB. Therefore, if black holes form the dark matter they must have been formed primordial.