Are We Living Inside A Blackhole?

[JarodRussell]

I have to wonder about all this dark matter talk... nobody ever thought that "black holes" could simply be a large mass of dark matter (since both are neither black or dark, we just can't see them), and not a highly concentrated mass of baryonic matter? Why's that?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

I have to wonder about all this dark matter talk... nobody ever thought that "black holes" could simply be a large mass of dark matter (since both are neither black or dark, we just can't see them), and not a highly concentrated mass of baryonic matter? Why's that?

Because massive stars (made of 'normal' matter) collapsing in on themselves explain black holes beautifully, with no need to appeal to conjectures.

 

[STR]

^It does make me wonder. While it's pretty obvious the majority of black holes are stellar in origin, I do wonder if you can collect enough dark matter in a small enough space (which you will if it isn't self-repulsive) for it to collapse into a singularity. So that you have stellar black holes, whatever the hell makes galactic super-massive black holes, both of which are made of baryonic matter, plus dark matter black holes. Perhaps you might even have composites, a stellar black hole that accreted dark matter.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

STR

You can take the ideea even further:

Normal matter interacts gravitatinally (which tends to put it together), but also electromagnetically (which tends to keep atoms apart).
Electromagnetism is why Earth has not turned into a black hole, why only supermassive suns turn into singularities when cooling.


However, dark matter is said to interact only gravitationally, NOT ectromagnetically - there is nothing to counteract gravity, keeping dark matter apart. Meaning dark matter should form into singularities quite easily.

And dark matter is said to have existed in a stable form, concentrated around the galaxies, since the big bang. This means that dark matter, in 13.7 billion years, should have coalesced into black holes under the influence of gravity (which had plenty of time to act).

So - how can dark matter still exist as a 'halo' around galaxies after so much time? There should exist no more 'free' dark matter, only dark matter singularities so late in the game.

 

[STR]

^Because, like I suggested (well, others far more educated than I suggested it, I just mentioned it) it may be self-repulsive. It attracts baryonic matter via gravity, but that's it since that's the only way it interacts with normal matter. It could be that under close proximity, there is an extremely repellent force that prevents dark matter from getting close enough to clump together with more dark matter.

Alternatively, Dark Matter, while abundant, is still so sparsely spread that you rarely have much of it in any given area. A possible exception being baryonic objects, like stars, planets and black holes, in which case you really wouldn't be able to tell whether the gravity is from the light or dark matter. The dark matter would accumulate in the core of the body, at the center of the gravity well, so you'd never be able to see it.

 

[Noname Given]

Dark matter/energy is only a cleaner sollution because they are constantly adjusting the amount to make their equations work; but it's still just a band aid until they can either prove the actual existence of Dark matter/energy; or somehow further quantify the force and effects atribuuted to dark matter/energy.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

^Because, like I suggested (well, others far more educated than I suggested it, I just mentioned it) it may be self-repulsive. It attracts baryonic matter via gravity, but that's it since that's the only way it interacts with normal matter. It could be that under close proximity, there is an extremely repellent force that prevents dark matter from getting close enough to clump together with more dark matter.

Self repulsive - how?

Not by elecromagnetic interaction, that's for sure.
What's the latest conjecture - does dark matter even interact with strong or weak nuclear forces? Not that these interactions are useful at repelling (plus, they're too short-ranged).

So - in order for dark matter to exist, one has to postulate an ENTIRELY NEW FUNDAMENTAL FORCE - which must be repulsive, stronger than gravity and long-ranged, in order to defeat gravity from pulling dark matter in one place.
All this is a REALLY large (and completely unproven) assumption.

Alternatively, Dark Matter, while abundant, is still so sparsely spread that you rarely have much of it in any given area. A possible exception being baryonic objects, like stars, planets and black holes, in which case you really wouldn't be able to tell whether the gravity is from the light or dark matter. The dark matter would accumulate in the core of the body, at the center of the gravity well, so you'd never be able to see it.

Dark matter, according to the latest conjectures, makes up most of the mass of the galaxies. It exists as a halo around galaxies. It existed in this state for ~13.7 billion years.

Baryonic matter also started as a difuse cloud of hydrogen atoms - with total mass far less than the dark matter's mass. This cloud was spread across an even larger volume than dark matter's. In ~13.7 billion years, gravity had no trouble modelling it into stars, etc.

The dark matter is "sparsely spread" excuse doesn't hold water - baryonic matter proved that, on these time scales, it does not matter how sparsely spread matter is.
Dark matter should have long ago accreted into black holes.

 

[STR]

I'm getting really ####ing tired of being dragged into the same ### damn "dark matter is a lie, physics is broke" argument here. No one on this board, at least no one who has brought this up, is even remotely qualified to make that kind of judgement. I only report what the consensus is, because that's what I am qualified to do, report it not analyze it. I'm not going to debate it. It would be stupid to. On one hand, you have thousands of smart, educated people saying one thing, and on the other you have random people on the internet. I know which corner I'm staying in, and won't be talked out of it. So just stop. It's not going to do a damn thing to drag it up again.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

I'm getting really ####ing tired of being dragged into the same ### damn "dark matter is a lie, physics is broke" argument here. No one on this board, at least no one who has brought this up, is even remotely qualified to make that kind of judgement. I only report what the consensus is, because that's what I am qualified to do, report it not analyze it. I'm not going to debate it. It would be stupid to. On one hand, you have thousands of smart, educated people saying one thing, and on the other you have random people on the internet. I know which corner I'm staying in, and won't be talked out of it. So just stop. It's not going to do a damn thing to drag it up again.

So, you can't explain the issues I raised with dark matter - nor can you quote explanations from those "smart, educated people" that do (explanations that don't involve a completely new fundamental interaction, in any case).

But, you won't even consider that dark matter is a poor explanation for observed facts (why galaxies stay together, for example).
Your entire post is a giant argument from authority - and it's a basic logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority), STR.

PS - You're welcome to explain the inconsistencies I pointed out anytime - or post the explanations of those "educated people", if there are any that don't rely on invented, entirely new fundamental interactions (REALLY?) to try to force new experimental results into what appears to be incomplete theories.

 

[JarodRussell]

Oh no, not again.

 

[STR]

So, you can't explain the issues I raised with dark matter

You can't either. Neither you, nor I, have done any actual research in this issue. Neither you, mor I, have the ability to apply any given theory to create a prediction, and if one is made by someone else, determine if it's valid. As such, neither you, nor I, have the ability to distinguish between what's a good source and what's a bad one. Therefore, there is no mechanism in which to actually settle the debate.

So I'm not going to play your little game. Your sniping at mainstream consensus does not prove an alternative. In fact, it proves nothing aside from the fact that human understanding is incomplete. Which given that no one has made a claim to the contrary, leaves you arguing with yourself.

Oh, and if you're even going to try and use the word "fallacy" you can at least understand what one is. An appeal to authority is only false if there is no reason to listen to a source other than he/she/they are in a position of importance. If you defer to an expert in a field, that's not a fallacy.

So deferring to what Stephen Hawking thinks about dark matter, is NOT a fallacy. Deferring to what Stephen Spielberg thinks about dark matter IS. That's basically why you don't cite Wikipedia (HINT) in anything academic. You could at least pass philosophy and composition 101 before arguing grad school physics and cosmology.

 

[Lindley]

Frankly ProtoAvatar's question about what this repulsive force might be is a good one. If there's any speculations out there by these experts you're so fond of citing, I'd be curious to see it.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Frankly ProtoAvatar's question about what this repulsive force might be is a good one. If there's any speculations out there by these experts you're so fond of citing, I'd be curious to see it.

I would also be interested in those experts' explanations.

STR

"You can't either."
Much like your experts seem unable to crete a coherent dark matter theory without appealing to 'out there' speculations - a new fundamental force(!).

You want your posts not to be a giant "argument from authority" logical fallacy?
Then post these experts' explanations about why this new fundamental force is not a wild, unsupported speculation (if there are any), NOT only some names.

Until you do, your posts consist of only rhetoric with no substance.
If there are no such explanations, your names mean nothing - and the inconsistency I found 2 posts above within dark matter theory remains very much valid.

If Einstein were to tell you 2+2=5, would you beleive him?

 

[JarodRussell]

Dark Matter is usually assumed to be Neutrinos and Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, and Weak Interaction is still stronger than Gravity.


ProtoAvatar, please don't turn this thread into yet another one of your argument black holes. Your argumentation in this thread is funny, given that you made "arguments from authority" in the Final Frontier thread, remember? You said stuff like (paraphrased) "It's a fact that Final Frontier is garbage because reviewers said so" and such.

And it seems that you (again) only have profound half knowledge about Dark Matter, yet you (again) act like you knew it all, and (again) start attacking other posters, who (rightfully) say that they can only repeat what the general consensus is and that everything else would be just fictional. Nobody is going to re-invent physics here, so what the hell do you want?


And yes, if Einstein says 2+2=5, I'd better believe him. Or did you make up your own Relativity Theory and compared it to his version before you started to "believe" it?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Dark Matter is usually assumed to be Neutrinos and Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, which are repulsive because of Weak Interaction (which is still stronger than gravity).

Weak interaction has a VERY short range (FAR FAR shorter than gravity's and electromagnetism's range).
It would only act when the dark matter particles are very close, forming, essentially, planets with the density of neutron stars.
Which means, by now (after ~13.7 billion years), there should be dark matter planets, etc, NOT dark matter diffuse halos.

Also - weak interaction, repulsive?

ProtoAvatar, please don't turn this thread into yet another one of your argument black holes.

Read the previous posts - STR is the one coming with logical fallacies, claiming they're valid, and reacting violently when I call him on that.

PS:

in the Final Frontier thread...

You actually acuse me of that particular argument? You were the one coming with ridiculous statements such as "there is no absolutely no objective value in art" - mostly because these were the only arguments you could come up with to support your fanatical devotion to star trek V.
And YES, JarodRussell, by any objective criterion worth mentioning, star trek V IS a substandard film (which is why all critics are always "harsh" with it - and they explain why they are so harsh).

And in this thread, also, I see you trying to start an off topic argument.

Nobody is going to re-invent physics here, so what the hell do you want?

Really, JarodRussel? In what forum and subforum are we?
We discuss physical theories here as a matter of couse.

And yes, if Einstein says 2+2=5, I'd better believe him.

2+2=5?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, assume you're still annoyed from that star trek V thread, and that you don't really mean this.

 

[JarodRussell]

You just can't stop, can you?

 

[STR]

Frankly ProtoAvatar's question about what this repulsive force might be is a good one. If there's any speculations out there by these experts you're so fond of citing, I'd be curious to see it.

Alternate forces that only interact with dark matter is just one of several explanations. Dark matter may also annihilate when it gets to close to another quanta of dark matter. In other words, dark matter is its own antimatter. What does it turn into? Nobody knows, because we don't know what dark matter is. We only have a decent idea of what it is not.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.3655v1.pdf

It's entirely possible that dark matter doesn't interact with dark matter, and is neither attracted or repulsed by itself. What does that mean? It's not affected by ANY of the other forces. Then why do galaxies have large amounts of dark matter in them? They don't, it's the other way around. Dark matter concentrations attract galaxies worth of normal matter, but the gravity that attracts baryons, does not collapse the cloud into a smaller shape because dark matter isn't affected by gravity itself. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6235751.stm

Another possibility is that dark matter does indeed form planets, black holes and everything else that gravity creates in normal matter. Why can't we see them? Because it's invisible. Hell, we can't see black holes either, only their accretion discs. How could we detect them? By seeing if they cause gravitational lensing of stars behind them. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960202.html

Finally, we don't even need to fudge with anything. There's a lot of neutrinos out there, but they don't form planets either. Their high energy overcomes their slight mass. The amount of dark matter moving at relatively slow speeds seems to be slight.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080915210506.htm

So after I wrote all this, what has been proven? Nothing. We're back where we were before this devolved into semantics, because the other guy wants me to explicitly prove the existence of dark matter to a degree cosmologists haven't yet. I cannot, obviously, do that. As such, I didn't even want to write this, but as a mod, I figure you've put enough work into this community to deserve a response. The other guy...I'm done with him for all the reasons I and JarodRussell stated.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

STR

So:

1 - a new fundamental force, repulsive and long range, exists only with dark matter.
Already analysed. And, seeing as you post alternative explanations without expanding on this one, I inferr no one (whose work you managed to find) managed to explain (make less 'out there') the wild speculation I pointed out exists within this explanation.

2 - dark matter annihilates when it encounters itself.
But it only turns into other forms of undetectable dark matter (!)
These new forms of dark matter: - have no mass/gravity or they would become planets, black holes, meaning dark matter is gradually losing its gravitational potency;
- or they have a gravitational field and they form planets, etc (see no 4).
Here's an ideea: perhaps, when dark matter annihilates with itself, the result is baryonic matter (meaning the dark matter is gradually being transformed into baryonic matter) and standard stars, planets, etc result - in this way, we don't even have to speculate, positing the existance of X forms of dark matter (as if 1 isn't enough!). But this still doesn't explain why there's still so much untransformed dark matter after ~13.7 billion years.

3 - dark matter does not interact with itself.
Dark matter generates a gravitational force. It not interacting with gravitational force means it has no mass.
And this means dark matter generates a gravitational force without having a mass? Wow - I thought dark matter was there in order to 'save' general relativity.
Plus, this does not explain the dark matter halo. How were these dark matter concentrations formed - if not due to their gravity or the gravity of baryonic matter? Another new fundamental physical interaction?

4 - dark matter planets, black holes, etc
If one does not posit new fundamental interactions, dark matter is much more ameanable to forming black holes, etc, than baryonic matter.
Why is such a large percentage of dark matter still existing as a cloud/halo after ~13.7 billion years when so much of the baryonic matter formed into stars, etc?

5 - neutrinos.
Their total mass is far less than dark matters. Indeed, the mass of neutrinos cannot hold the galaxies together, as per general relativity. Plus, they are travelling at high speeds. This means that their kinetic energy overcomes their gravity. It also means that the neutrinos do not form halos around galaxies; indeed, the neutrinos that were in our galaxy ~13.7 illion years ago have long ago left it.

"because the other guy wants me to explicitly prove the existence of dark matter to a degree cosmologists haven't yet."
So - you admit dark matter is not only NOT experimentally observed, but even its theoretical foundament is filled with wild speculations, inconsistencies, etc - in other words, that no one managed to create a consistent theory of dark matter just as no one managed to create a consistent theory of dark energy?

PS:
"The other guy...I'm done with him for all the reasons I and JarodRussell stated."
You should have put this at the beginning of your post. Apparently, I wasted a perfectly good post with you.
As for yourself, what I found out about you in this thread is that, far from being scientifically-minded, you're inclined towards dogmatism.

 

[FordSVT]

Avatar, you're poking holes in an incomplete theory and claiming that's enough proof for you that it's entirely unfounded. You know who else does that? Creationists. And you want to talk about dogma?

STR has clearly stated that he is merely conferring the scientific consensus on the subject and that he is not qualified to come up with new conclusions. Apparently, the only thing you're hear to argue is that "the scientists might be wrong and I want everyone to admit it". Then when people clearly do admit it (because no real scientist would ever say they are 100% right in perpetuity), you keep banging the same drum because you want others to validate YOUR opinion.

Do you have a doctorate in theoretical physics or cosmology?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

FordSVT

Accepting/supporting blindly an unproven theory because some authority figures support it - without bothering to critically examine the pro arguments - IS dogmatism/creationism (you confuse the concepts, FordSVT).

'Poking holes' at these theories, the sceptic approach, IS the scientific way of thinking.

STR stated 'that he is merely conferring the scientific consensus' only in his lasts post.
Until then, he ardently supported the 'dark matter' theory.