Microscopic Black Hole As Dark Matter Ruled Out

[Dubbelosix]

https://www.sciencealert.com/we-know-what-dark-matter-isn-t-it-s-not-tiny-black-holes-a-new-test-has-confirmed?fbclid=IwAR2t7dU4WrHcmI6jl9PSMcoLH-KEer1vFvnMA26gDDf-zg_6Z5QK8c69Q-o

 

Ok ok... so Hawking may have been on the right track, but thinking about the wrong scales. There are thousands of black holes also that circle the supermassive black hole in and near the center of the host disk galaxy and some other galactic structures. We haven't ruled out black holes being responsible in totality, but we have been able to theoretically rule out a microscopic class, something my own investigations ruled out. 

[Dubbelosix]

A supermassive black hole contains exactly the same self-energy required to bind a typical disk galaxy like our own due to gravity. I have suspected for a while that supermassive black holes not only seeded the first galactic structures but as they became supermassive, a transition into Poincare's full group of space translations would explain dark matter as a polarization of spacetime.

[Dubbelosix]

Other evidence I accumulated during investigation included:

 

1. Even when a supermassive black hole has been ejected, does not mean dark matter effects vanish, a concoction of ordinary black hole activity and a polarization of space would still continue.

 

2. From there I made a prediction - the centrifugal force would eventually slowly rip the galaxy apart overcoming its gravitational binding energy (which is less now) in absence of the supermassive black hole.

 

3. From studying five disk galaxies that had lost their supermassive black hole, in the advanced stage of their evolution showed direct evidence of the disk becoming ''looser'' over time.

[Dubbelosix]

The final best evidence, points out a flaw in dark matter. It should have been present no matter what the age of the galaxy, however dark matter effects are not around during the first four billion years of the universe, supporting the idea that the supermassive black hole, was just not large enough during that small era.

[Dubbelosix]

Well, in a way I am saying it is not a matter... a dark matter. I am indeed saying it is a gravitational phenomenon but one that is dynamically explained from inside the galaxy itself.

 

A bit of evidence I had left out, was that there are no supermassive black holes that spin in the opposite direction to a typical galaxy: ie, no merger galaxies.

 

There are only two ways to explain why this happens:

 

1. There was a galactic cloud and collapsed into a spinning black hole

 

2. The black hole was already there and matter became polarized in the direction of its rotation

 

Which seems more appealing to you?

[Vmedvil2]

So you think that the Supermassive Black hole's gravitation is polarizing the matter into a certain spin around the SMBH thus making it seem as if Dark Matter is there which is just gravitationally moving matter, I will be interested to see what conclusions you come to about this. Personally, I think Dark Matter is likely W.I.M.P.S. that are constructed from a neutrino interaction that has been yet to be observed possibly happening even in the discs of Black holes. It does seem like the more Black holes that are presence the higher the presence of Dark Matter.

Edited April 9, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Vmedvil2]

Honestly, I think we can rule out Black holes as the cause of Dark Matter because wouldn't light still interact with matter spinning around even due to a black hole, it would either be consumed into the Black Hole or would interact with the surrounding materials, Either way you are face with an exotic type of matter that is Dark Matter unless you suggest that the light is being gravitationally bent, in which case, you would need a extremely large black hole gravitational field that is quite strong which would make sense but we are talking about at the edge of the galaxies is where the Dark Matter Halo is at. Would a Black Hole cause Gravitational bending of gravity on the scale that we see at that range, I don't think even a supermassive Black Hole can cause enough of a bend at 100,000 ly to make us mistake its gravitational field for Dark Matter. The Gravitational field would be far to weak at that range to bend the object more than a few Nanometers. Basically at that range the polarization effect would be unnoticeable at a closer range that might make sense.

Edited April 9, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Dubbelosix]

Please use your brain box when making statements about physics, for instance:

 

''Honestly, I think we can rule out Black holes as the cause of Dark Matter because wouldn't light still interact with matter spinning around even due to a black hole.''

 

Is vapid nonsense. Dark matter doesn't need to be dark, never has needed to be dark.

[Vmedvil2]

Please use your brain box when making statements about physics, for instance:

 

''Honestly, I think we can rule out Black holes as the cause of Dark Matter because wouldn't light still interact with matter spinning around even due to a black hole.''

 

Is vapid nonsense. Dark matter doesn't need to be dark, never has needed to be dark.

Isn't there evidence that Dark Matter doesn't interact with light, how do you explain the missing interaction. If it is nonsense.

Edited April 9, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Dubbelosix]

There is no missing interaction, dark matter was a desperate attempt to explain how there could be extra gravitational attraction - when really there was plenty of mass in the galaxy alone. Besides, dark matter does not need to be dark, neutrino's where expected for a while to be a class of dark matter, and we can see them just fine, as speedy as they are.

[Vmedvil2]

Yes, but if it is normal matter why would light not interact with it? Why would it pass through the object still bending with gravity but without any deflection? See that is what makes me consider that it is an exotic form of matter, you would instantly notice if it were normal matter by deflection of light. 

 

If it is gravitational in effect that would make sense as to why that there is no deflection of light being that a force is causing it but ya. It should not have Energy-Mass then but from what I understand there is still gravitational lensing that happens with Dark Matter thus it must have Energy-Mass.

Edited April 10, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Dubbelosix]

Yes, but if it is normal matter why would light not interact with it? Why would it pass through the object still bending with gravity but without any deflection? See that is what makes me consider that it is an exotic form of matter, you would instantly notice if it were normal matter by deflection of light. 

 

If it is gravitational in effect that would make sense as to why that there is no deflection of light being that a force is causing it but ya. It should not have Energy-Mass then but from what I understand there is still gravitational lensing that happens with Dark Matter thus it must have Energy-Mass.

 

 You are taking the idea that ''dark matter'' has to be ''dark'' far too seriously. It's not a priori that dark matter need be dark, As I explained, missing matter models, or correction models like neutrino's were attempts to explain dark matter from conventional physics.

 

Besides, black holes are kind of a type of dark matter, so long as we are not talking about quasars which are easily detected from their luminosity. A lone black hole, in the vast of space, will act like a near perfect black body and these stray black holes cannot be detected so easily, if at all. Secondly, not only are we talking about gravitational binding from the supermassive black hole but we are also talking about literally thousands of heavy black holes that are also orbiting very close to it, including the many other thousands scattered throughout the arms of the milky way. If you think for a moment that scientists have properly evaluated these effects to high precision, you would be wrong.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

If you think about CCC having multiple inflationary phases over multiple Aeons. When g > 0 as the universe expands, allowing another inflationary phase. g would not be zero around dead stars or galaxies, whose fuel long ago died out > Inflation would not happen around these galaxies. > any new matter in any new big bang phase would likely appear a long way away from dead galaxies. Would such galaxies be observable in empty sections of space, or would they just appear dark, perhaps causing light passing through them to be deflected like what dark matter might do. Could cold dead galaxies be evidence for Penroses CCC. ?

 

Well, let's entertain the idea for a second and say that it could lead to an evidence, it appears to me such measurements are not possible because we are bound by the event horizon, we are also bound with how far back in time we can view as a result.

 

But let me point out, I think your view of his model is slightly wrong... the way I understand it, is that a universe gets sufficiently old enough that there is no matter left in the universe - we are talking about the late secondary radiation phase which is expected to happen when all the black holes have evaporated... which is a very long time as you know. By this time, there are no relic galaxies to speak of.

[Dubbelosix]

Both are plausible. I understand some galaxies don't have supermassive black holes at their centre, and black holes do form from dying suns. From this point of view option 1 is the most likely, ie the sun came first forming from hot gas, before collapsing to a BH.

 

But all types of phases, systems and collections of matter can form a black hole if concentrated enough. This shouldn't be reserved specially for stars alone.

[Dubbelosix]

I did a check, I believe I am right. There are good youtube video's where Penrose dumbs his model down for the interviewer. If you cannot find anything, I'll get you something.

[Vmedvil2]

I did a check, I believe I am right. There are good youtube video's where Penrose dumbs his model down for the interviewer. If you cannot find anything, I'll get you something.

 

What if Dark Matter was Hawking Radiation that has collected in the edge of galaxies, how much hawking radiation do you think a SMBH puts out, Enough to shift the gravitational lensing from their Energy-mass?

Edited April 10, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Dubbelosix]

So basically, the matter transforms back into radiation. There are some crucial differences between this later radiation than the one we measure in the past which was much denser, so that can make one think that maybe this isn't a smooth process and may cast doubt on the nature of his model.

 

The idea is relatively simple though, all that will be left in the late universe will be supermassive black holes, which take aeons themselves to radiate the very last particles into the universe. This second radiation phase is when, as Penrose calls it, ''looses it's sense of time.'' He doesn't explain why, but it doesn't take a genius to know that clocks are measured using matter in relativity. When this happens, he says there could be a scale invariance in which the universe not only forgets its size, but forgets what time it is, and so a big bang happens all over again.

 

But the scale of the universe is much less dense in this proposed cyclic phase than what would be expected say, in the past cone of our own universe. How he proposes to explain this crucial difference is uncertain to me. I will find you a video, I just can't at the moment. Give me a few hours.