Could Dark Matter Possibly Be . . .

[TaubeArn]

The start-up of the new collider and the concept of creating atomic particle sized black holes suggest a possible explanation of dark matter. Could dark matter possibly be clouds of extremely small black holes?

Atomic particle sized black holes would not interact with normal matter except for gravity. Furthermore, the cloud should be invisible.

During the Big Bang, the majority of sub atomic particles would have crashed into each other, possibly with enough energy to cause most of the collisions to form the pico sized black holes with the remaining rare collisions resulting in the creation of visible matter.

This idea seems extremely simple and it may explain the existance and behavior of dark matter.

Are there any astronomical physics majors out there that can explain why this explanation can not define what dark matter is and where it comes from?

Curious,

Adler52

[Chris Peterson]

Could dark matter possibly be clouds of extremely small black holes?

Atomic particle sized black holes would not interact with normal matter except for gravity. Furthermore, the cloud should be invisible.

Why do you say this? Black holes interact normally with matter: they can have an electric charge, may have a magnetic field, and are certainly not invisible, even if we don't see what's inside their event horizon.

In any case, theory (not well tested, however) tells us that such small black holes are probably unstable, with lifetimes of only a fraction of a second.

IMO, the idea that dark matter should consist of clouds of black holes is far more exotic than the idea of non-baryonic matter.

[emc]

Could there be a common thread between Higgs boson and dark matter?

BTW - Welcome to APOD's Asterisk TaubeArn - your post may be moved by the moderator to the Asterisk Cafe or else where there is already a thread on the CERN APOD "When Particles Collide"... http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... hp?t=13200 (the subject tends to drift due to the nature of most of us posters)

[William Roeder]

Could dark matter possibly be clouds of extremely small black holes?

Atomic particle sized black holes would not interact with normal matter except for gravity. Furthermore, the cloud should be invisible.

Why do you say this? Black holes interact normally with matter: they can have an electric charge, may have a magnetic field, and are certainly not invisible, even if we don't see what's inside their event horizon.

Black holes are only visible when they're eating. The Super Massive Black Hole at the center of our galaxy is invisible. We've only been able to deduce it's existence from the rotation of stars near it. Active galaxies have currently eating SMBHs.

In any case, theory (not well tested, however) tells us that such small black holes are probably unstable, with lifetimes of only a fraction of a second.

The theory is that the smaller the BH the quicker it evaporates. wiki - Primordial_black_hole states 10E12 kg BH would still be around. By my calculation that's a rock cube 693 meters per side.

IMO, the idea that dark matter should consist of clouds of black holes is far more exotic than the idea of non-baryonic matter.

The above link states that Primordial black holes have been have been suggested as a solution include the dark matter problem and would be difficult to detect.
I find the idea of clouds of black holes (normal compressed matter) for more appealing than the exotic idea of non-baryonic matter or the 19th century ether.

[Chris Peterson]

Black holes are only visible when they're eating.

That's not really true. Black holes only produce photons when something falls into them, so if you limit "visible" to that, I'd agree. But they also have the same sort of properties that normal matter has, in that they can be charged or have a magnetic field. That is probably quite different from the non-baryonic matter that most people now believe constitutes dark matter. A cloud of tiny black holes would probably affect radiation passing through it in a way we could detect, but there's no evidence that dark matter affects radiation at all- it truly seems invisible.

If it should turn out that dark matter is made up of tiny black holes (which I think is unlikely), it will be much easier to detect and study than if it's made of non-baryonic particles of some sort.

[BMAONE23]

Could Dark matter be made of particles? Quarks and such, that didn't combine to form regular matter?

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

There are varies theories and forms of black holes.

The ultimate definition lies in the type of particles that are able to be compacted. The mechasim for such compaction is unknown.

We do know that Neutrons can be compacted to create a Neutron matrix and form Neutron stars.

The next phase of compaction is Neutron merging. In this phase light cannot escape and forms an event horizon.

Quarks make up Neutrons, and theoretically they are able to be compacted and form a nucleon. The energy required to this also wants to keep all the particles and energy in one spot and thefore creates an event horizon. This is the micro black hole that may be created by the LHC experiments.


The question is, What makes up Quarks, what is the basic preon particle and is this able to be compacted. Theorectically yes.

There is a golden rule, no two particle can occupy the same point at the same time. So this limits compaction. At what phase? Nobody knows.

You can google for Quark and Preon stars.

[harry]

G'day

I came across this link:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702671

Do Black Holes End up as Quark Stars ?

Authors: R.K.Thakur
(Submitted on 25 Feb 2007)

Abstract: The possibility of the existence of quark stars has been discussed by several authors since 1970. Recently, it has been pointed out that two putative neutron stars, RXJ 1856.5 - 3754 in Corona Australis and 3C58 in Cassiopeia are too small and too dense to be neutron stars; they show evidence of being quark stars. Apart from these two objects, there are several other compact objects which fit neither in the category of neutron stars nor in that of black holes. It has been suggested that they may be quark stars.In this paper it is shown that a black hole cannot collapse to a singularity, instead it may end up as a quark star. In this context it is shown that a gravitationally collapsing black hole acts as an ultrahigh energy particle accelerator, hitherto inconceivable in any terrestrial laboratory, that continually accelerates particles comprising the matter in the black hole. When the energy \textit{E} of the particles in the black hole is $\geq 10^{2}$GeV, or equivalently the temperature \textit{T} of the matter in the black holes is $\geq 10^{15}$K, the entire matter in the black hole will be converted into quark-gluon plasma permeated by leptons. Since quarks and leptons are spin 1/2 particles,they are governed by Pauli's exclusion principle. Consequently, one of the two possibilities will occur; either Pauli's exclusion principle would be violated and the black hole would collapse to a singularity, or the collapse of the black hole to a singularity would be inhibited by Pauli's exclusion principle, and the black hole would eventually explode with a mini bang of a sort. After explosion, the remnant core would stabilize as a quark star.

[apodman]

There is a golden rule, no two particle can occupy the same point at the same time. So this limits compaction. At what phase? Nobody knows.

I thought no two particles can occupy the same point and quantum state at the same time, and that there is a small but calculable probability that you can throw a baseball through the Great Wall of China. All of its particles just have to be in different quantum states from the particles they are passing "through" at the moments they are passing "through" them. The rule would still limit compaction of a collection of neutrons acting like neutrons, since their variety of states is limited. But does the same principle apply to a collection of neutrons acting like a neutron matrix or acting like a collection of quarks? Do these even have quantum states to which the principle could apply?

[Chris Peterson]

I came across this link:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702671

How to evaluate a paper like this:

It is self-published, with no peer review;
The author has no peer reviewed publication history;
The author self-published, in close succession, three papers covering nearly identical subject matter;
The author is a retired professor from a minor Indian university, without a publication history during his teaching career;
The article(s) are arguments against mainstream thinking in physics;
Almost all the references in the paper(s) are very old- decades in many cases;
None of the author's papers are cited in other publications.

When you see a list like this, it's a warning to take the publication with a huge grain of salt. Not all papers are of equal value, and recognizing the ones that are likely to be questionable is a useful skill.

[kovil]

"With further collapse one of the two possibilities will occur, either Pauli’s
exclusion principle would be violated and the black hole would eventually collapse to a singularity, or Pauli’s exclusion principle would hold good and would avert the collapse of the black hole to a singularity, and eventually the black hole would explode with a mini bang of a sort. Finally, the remnant core would stablize as a quark star."


Gee, I guess if someone has a good idea they have to give it to someone else to write-up, as they are excluded from being considered due to lack of membership within the clique of acceptable people.

No wonder mainstream science in the West is so far behind the curve of what's really happening in space astrophysics and the reality that truly exists.

[Chris Peterson]

Gee, I guess if someone has a good idea they have to give it to someone else to write-up, as they are excluded from being considered due to lack of membership within the clique of acceptable people.

Science is a process of consensus. Radical new ideas occasionally alter mainstream thinking, but for the most part consensus is a powerful indicator of scientific truth.

Note that I did not say that the author's ideas should be excluded from consideration, I only pointed out that there were many warning signs that the paper could be scientifically weak. It is folly to assume that every idea has equal weight.

No wonder mainstream science in the West is so far behind the curve of what's really happening in space astrophysics and the reality that truly exists.

An opinion, which, in my opinion, has no rational basis. Mainstream science (in the West and everywhere else) seems to be doing a fine job of teasing out the secrets of the Universe.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzzz

Hello Kovil

Smile,,,,,,,,,good to kind of see you.


=================================

Chris said

An opinion, which, in my opinion, has no rational basis. Mainstream science (in the West and everywhere else) seems to be doing a fine job of teasing out the secrets of the Universe.

Chris you maybe be right in many areas, so lets look at it point by point.

Do you agree with Neutron stars and the compaction of Neutrons?

also the link

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702671
Do Black Holes End up as Quark Stars ?

What part really is non scientific?

There are many papers on black holes, and after reading very many. Not one paper can explain in reality what the black hole is composed of. There are varies theories and models and each has something to give.
Its going to take a few more years of research to explain.

The LHC may give us some insight into the basic particles that make up quarks and so on. They have 10 years to do so, than the LHC will be replaced.

[Chris Peterson]

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702671
Do Black Holes End up as Quark Stars ?

What part really is non scientific?

My assessment of the paper is that the author is not a crackpot (quite a few self-published cosmologists are), but that the paper is weak. That's because some important arguments are based on very old work, that has subsequently undergone revision (as in the realms where GTR is valid, for instance). More importantly, however, the paper has little to offer scientifically. The basis of the argument depends on the assumption that physics as we understand it is similar inside a BH to what is seen outside. That is contrary to what most theorists believe. Pauli's principle need not be violated if a singularity is created, because that particular physical law does not need to be valid under those conditions. In essence, the author challenges existing theory (which has held up well to observation) because of a philosophical view of physics. Regrettably, he does not suggest any tests that could be applied to falsify his theory, which in itself makes the paper rather unscientific.

There are many papers on black holes, and after reading very many. Not one paper can explain in reality what the black hole is composed of. There are varies theories and models and each has something to give.
Its going to take a few more years of research to explain.

It may never be explained- the interior of a BH may be beyond analysis. In fact, most papers on black holes don't attempt to explain their interiors, because the authors can't produce test cases.

[harry]

G'day Chris

Since your hot on the trot, have a look at these links.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.4469
The Phase Diagram of Hadronic Matter

http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.0964
The Thermal Production of Strange and Non-Strange Hadrons in e+e- Collisions

http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.2328
Astrophysical constraints on the confining models : the Field Correlator Method


http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.2286
The Exact String Black-Hole behind the hadronic Rindler horizon?


http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.3712
Thermal Hadronization, Hawking-Unruh Radiation and Event Horizon in QCD

http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.5388
Hybrid neutron stars within the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model and confinement


I just want to know what you know.

[GOD]

Could Dark matter be made of particles? Quarks and such, that didn't combine to form regular matter?

BMAONE23> You are on the right track. Dark matter is simply very, very tiny matter. Not quarks (because there is no such thing), but rather much smaller particles -- smaller than humanity can currently detect. For example, an electron is made up of hundreds of smaller particles.

[harry]

G'day God

I think you need to reed up on quarks and Higgs Boson.

Google for the info.

LHC experiments
http://nationalacademies.org/headlines/20090916.html

[BMAONE23]

By Gods definition, Quarks don"t exist because they are made of much smaller particles. >>> So I guess man doesn"t exist because he is also made of much smaller particles.

[harry]

G'day BMAone23

I only exist in this cyber space.

I'm a chip off the old block.

[GOD]

G'day God

I think you need to reed up on quarks and Higgs Boson.

Google for the info.

LHC experiments
http://nationalacademies.org/headlines/20090916.html

By Gods definition, Quarks don"t exist because they are made of much smaller particles. >>> So I guess man doesn"t exist because he is also made of much smaller particles.

...and you both need to wait until those you will believe (the CERN team) declare that what I'm relating to you is true.

Pluto was once called a planet, and now not. Scientists knew more about Pluto than what they theorize is a quark. Pluto was re-classified. So will the quark be soon. Stayed tuned with CERN...

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Hello God,,,,,maybe your right.

But! What is your point?

If you are not going to call it quarks, what name do you want?

[bystander]

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... dark_stuff

ScienceNews
PAMELA may have spotted the dark stuff
By Ron Cowen
September 27th, 2008; Vol.174 #7

Data from an orbiting observatory record more positrons than standard model accounts for

Cosmologists are agog about the possibility that an orbiting observatory may have discovered particles of dark matter — the proposed, invisible material that researchers believe makes up most of the mass of the universe.

[GOD]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Hello God,,,,,maybe your right.

But! What is your point?

If you are not going to call it quarks, what name do you want?

Harry> Unlike Pluto that scientists had a reasonable view of it's size before it was re-classified, humanity has not seen any quark. It was invented by scientists to help balance their sub-atomic particle equations (that are in fact not yet half right).

The CERN team will discover that the quark theory is a myth -- that what humanity thought was a single quark, is actually an interaction of many different smaller particles.

The newly discovered particles will be given new names, while the definition of a quark will change.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

God said

The CERN team will discover that the quark theory is a myth -- that what humanity thought was a single quark, is actually an interaction of many different smaller particles.

The newly discovered particles will be given new names, while the definition of a quark will change.

You maybe right, that's what science is about.

==========================================

Bystander

PAMELA may have spotted the dark stuff
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... dark_stuff

At the International Conference on High Energy Physics, held in Philadelphia, PAMELA researcher Mirko Boezio of the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics in Trieste suggested that the surplus of positrons — the electron’s antiparticle, which is equal in mass but opposite in charge — could be accounted for by the annihilation of pairs of dark-matter particles. According to an existing theory, when dark-matter particles collide, they decay into a spray of ordinary, visible particles, including an abundance of positrons.

What does this mean? What is dark matter by their definition?
No one knows or defined dark matter.

[Chris Peterson]

What does this mean? What is dark matter by their definition?
No one knows or defined dark matter.

Dark matter is well defined, as the property or material responsible for a number of effects that are observable (so far) anomalous gravitational effects on visible matter.

There are various theories as to the physical nature of dark matter, with non-baryonic candidates being the most common. This paper proposes a particular non-baryonic candidate particle based on a particular observation by a space-borne positron detector. The particle characteristics are well defined in the paper.