The episode is airing a little early this week as I'm aware at a conference, so I might be a bit slow replying to comments today :) Here's the papers mentioned: Direct detection of primordial black hole relics as dark matter: arxiv.org/abs/1906.06348 Search for gamma-ray emission from p-wave dark matter annihilation in the Galactic Center: arxiv.org/abs/1904.06261
even a small black hole for it to exist has gravitational lensing and the lhc proved the smaller the black hole the quicker it actually evaporates ( hawking radiation) thus any black hole has to be sufficiently large that this gravitational lensing affect would be quite noticeable. THIS means they can scan sections of the sky and come up with reasonable amounts of it that are black holes and not and there just isn't enough that are black holes to do what dark matter is doing.
penrose hawkings buddy in physics says they actually have detected gravitational waves in the cosmic microwave background which might indicate that his idea of a BEFORE the big bang might in fact be correct. ALSO LHC proved that so far string theory doesnt work.
12:22 I was part of the MACHO Project in my youth in the early 90's. I worked at Mt Stromlo Observatory before it burned down, with Brian Schmidt before he won the Nobel Prize. This video brought back memories of some great times and work I'm proud to have been part of. :-)
The first proposal of a black hole was by a priest who theorized there may be a star large enough that its light wouldn't be able to escape. This was before general relativity. He didn't think about curvature of space or anything just if things that go up are pulled back down there must be a gravity at which light wouldn't be able to escape
Really excited for the next two episodes! The alien refugee idea reminds me of one of my favorite space games "Sins of a Solar Empire" in which one of the factions is expanding into human space while running from something that started at the heart of their own empire.
@@prasoongupta12 or the big rip. Space time may just rip itself to shreds well before the heat death... Then again, maybe each shred would have its own heat death as all fragments expand away from each other faster than any chance of a causal connection....
🤯👩🚀 19:20 Woah! Gaps in spacetime? Sounds like a GREAT TOPIC for an episode! And has anyone done the math on how much of dark matter could be explained by adding together all the possible explanations? 24:10 I wish I had a carboard cutout of you in that picture: *"AI IA humbly and smugly accepting the Galactic Best Beard Award"* Outstanding as always, Isaac, thanks!
Man I really want to thank Stellardrone for their awesome music they make. It really sets the theme for episodes like this and it just an amazing score by itself.
@@bradjordan4006 Stellardrone's music is phenomenally innovative; it is to me what would happen if someone made atmospheric synthwave music scores for TV or cinema.
God I love your videos. They bring me great joy and entertainment. They have great quality concepts content And have really good production value. I think your channel is somewhat underrated and I can't wait till it gets the recognition it deserves.
Isaac do black holes ever visibly eat dark matter? Is there a certain spectral signature we should look for in gamma x or radio wave observations or visible light?
Of course not. Black holes are fantasy creatures legitimised by the mathematical misconduct, and dark matter is a fudge factor in bad galactic models based on poor data (we don't even know much cold matter there is, or how it is distributed and can't see much of the hot matter either). Cold matter is everything other than bright stars.
I did rather like the macho concept a while back, but both MACHOs and WIMPs have had a bad couple decades of negative results despite some pretty intensive observation and experimentation. These days I lean towards MOND, particularly as versions of it seem to be becoming refined enough to predict galactic behavior rather than simply describing it - which is going to be tough for Dark Matter to do, given the wide array of possible behaviors that can be ascribed to them. MACHOs are at least a little more constrained, as we can make reasonable guesses as to how they should behave if they do exist, and can gradually eliminate various mass candidate ranges. WIMPs are harder to eliminate, because they don't show up in the standard model, and we really have no idea what they are or how they 'should' interact at all - which means there are almost limitless candidates that theorists can dream up that we could check for. Alas, that makes eliminating them almost impossible until we actually find one, or come up with some other valid answer for galactic spin rates.
The Standard Model is not infallible; when scientists were trying to figure out atomic structure, there were a number of 'close-but-no-cookie' ideas before someone thought of and tried the appropriate experiment. It may be that we're looking at the entire system from an unwieldly mental perspective. One thing that has always made me ponder is what happens to all those neutrinos emitted by stellar fusion? Do they escape their galactic localities and simply become lost to deep space? Do they accumulate in the interstellar or intergalactic medium and form a sort of 'gravitational fluid'? I become intensely curious about these things that we're convinced exist but cannot observe or experiment on to a satisfactory degree.
Every time i hear Quarks i think of ST:DS9 lol, also Joe Scott and his interview with you was how i found your channel, liked what i have seen so far so subbed and been binge watching your content, great work.
17:59 makes me wonder if such things are in fact separate entails or just the same one either in multi places at the same time or move very fast between them .. tho i suppose if they are all identical anyways its a relatively moot point as to is it is one or many as they are all the same
Great video! I heard there was a science team that was somehow using LIGO's sensitivity to look for Dark Matter. So the search for colliding Black Holes could lead to a DM discovery.
I like Douglas Adams explanation for the "missing matter "in the late seventies.. It was the packing peanuts from all the test equipment of trying to find the missing matter🤣
Happy Arthursday! Unless you are closely orbiting a black hole, and then happy Arthurs-week or happy Arthurs-year between now and when you finish the video!
I have had two questions on this topic for some time.... 1. The mass required for a black hole with a Schwartzchild radius of half of a planck length is small, but still significant, at around 10-20 micrograms. The wavelength of emitted Hawking radiation is proportional to the mass of a black hole, which is why smaller mass black holes emit more energy. Is it possible for a black hole with an event horizon diameter that is equal to the planck length to emit a photon? If not, then does that imply that a black hole at this scale is stable and extremely long lived? 2. A small black hole will evaporate very quickly, losing mass to Hawking radiation. What is the end state? Will all the mass be converted to radiation? Or will the evaporation become faster and more energetic only until the event horizon diameter becomes too small to effectively radiate, resulting in a stable remnant? Is it possible that, early in the big bang, matter began to condense, but the majority (maybe evenn all) of that matter started as small black holes, which then evaporated into stable remnants, becoming dark matter? Normal matter might have been formed at this point as well, due to density fluctuations, or might have been formed from the energy being given off by evaporating black holes...
I can't answer your questions, and im sure noone on this planet can. BUT. What if big bang does not exist, only opposite "body" to black hole?! Ours created our universe, black holes take mass and pumping it to different universe via white holes and folks there wondering why the hell is that happening.
'2 replies'? I only see one, TH-cam!! Anyways... Can a particle smaller than Planck Length be said to even exist? Or does it just 'probably' exist? #Schrodingerscat
An important related theorized class of matter is neg-mass particles. Its permitted within standard models, and enough research needs to be done to either confirm its existence, or rule it out. Mainly because if it does exist, it'll rip a giant hole in many theories as many things will need to be reassessed - how do the forces interact with it? - How does it interact with things like stars/black holes etc (IE massive gravity wells) - Can neg-mass molecules/compounds arise from the particles? What about radiation emitted by this? Is any of this directly observable or detectable with instruments fundmentally constructed of baryonic matter? - Is it native to this universe? Or is Baryonic matter foreign but the neg-mass particles the ones native? If so, how did it play a role in early states of universe.
are blackhole lifetimes effected by their velocity? I know some subatomic particles decays are modified based on their speed. Would a primordial blackhole (the freight truck sized one) travelling extremely fast (99.9999999999% Speed of Light) since the beginning of the universe have had time to decay?
It should. A more intuitive way to think of time dilation helps. The fastest any particle can travel is light speed, and it requires an infinite amount of energy to approach that limit. So, very little energy to go from 0 m/s to 1 m/s. But, a lot more energy to accelerate from 100,000,000 m/s to 100,000,001 m/s, and an infinite amount of energy to go from 299,792,457 m/s( c - 1) to 299,792,458 m/s( c ). So, things must therefore happen slower approaching light speed. All of the atomic, chemical, and kinetic forces of a chunk of matter have set and measurable amounts of energy. That energy can propagates and interact at normal speeds while not moving, but interact slower proportional to the fraction of light speed. If you are going fast enough that it takes 100 times more energy to accelerate faster, that means that all atomic forces move at one hundredth the speed. Throw a baseball normally at 100km/hrs, at that 99% c or wherever it requires 100 times more energy to accelerate, the baseball would only be thrown at 1km/hr relative to you with the same energy. Point is, even quantum events would necessarily have that same fractional speed of interation.
@@JB-ym4up there’s a limit to the angular momentum of black holes because the faster they rotate the smaller the event horizon becomes. Past a threshold speed the event horizon would disappear and reveal a naked singularity. We know this limit is respected (outside of the understanding that naked singularities violate our framework of physics) because we’ve observed numerous supermassive black holes spinning at precisely this limit and never exceeding it.
i wonder if there is some minimum size a very small blackhole can evaporate to, that hawking radiation reduces its size so small that the next emitted particle would be higher energy than the blackhole has mass or that the size is too small for the particles to interact with or that the energy of the emitted particle would be so high as to form it's own blackhole immediately.
I will never get over the idea that the reason why we will always be entranced by black holes is because our first image of one triggered a primal understanding that we really don't understand the real dimensions of the universe at all.
Shouldnt the bottom ring of your blackhole animations move the same direction as the top? You are looking at the underside of the disc behind the black hole right?
primordial black holes are such a cool concept. even though they don't last long, what if they are moving just below the speed of light and so are time dilatated. also, what if they are spinning so their event horizon, is again moving almost the speed of light. maybe they don't evaporate as fast.
I'm wondering about that scenario of a subatomic black hole the mass of a freight truck moving through your body--would it really produce no noticeable effect? With the radius being so tiny, tidal forces (proportional to the distance between two points being looked at and the inverse cube of their average distance from the massive object) *might* be strong enough to pull cells apart from each other. I haven't done the math yet, but I'm wondering what mass of black hole would be sufficient to cause a little line of tissue damage? (Vaguely remembering a Larry Niven short story I read many years ago, where said forces were strong enough to tear a tiny actual hole through one unlucky explorer.)
Thank goodness someone is finally talking about this I've been saying black holes are dark matter since I first heard of the subject of dark matter at the planetarium in first grade back in 1988 every physical science and physics teacher brushed me off all those years and now I may just be right
Hello sir, not sure how to say this, but I have two questions, as I understand this there are more than three dimensions, could dark matter be matter that exists outside the three that we can observe?next question, the three we can see are all ninety degrees from each other, my question is where the hell is the next ninety at?
Pretty sure that for all or most theories that suppose higher dimensions those dimensions are curled up to near the planck length so there's not really "space" for that matter. Also none of the multidimensional theories are actually proven. They're all just theoretical atm so we can't really explain these observations with currently unfalsifiable theories. As for what is a dimension 90° to, they're 90° to all other dimensions. When it comes to higher dimensions there really aren't that many intuitive ways to understand. Our brains just aren't wired for it & at somepoint you just have to switch to math. Idk fo4 sure but i'm pretty sure 3Blue1Brown had a vid on 10 dimensional something or other that had a decent visualization scheme for higher dimensional geometries, if memory serves.
@@stevebohrer6837 I think you are. Here's the thing: Matter itself might be (according to a few wonks like me) hyperdimensional, and we don't think of it that way because we can't conceive of what it might be like, because we have no experiences we call 'hyperdimensional' to refer to.
I enjoy these kind of topics, but i know little. please correct me bluntly. Regarding this missing matter, could it not be more concentrated further out than we can see in our expanding universe?
@@isaacarthurSFIA Here's a notion: Life Extension and practical immortality as an essential step to the stability and advancement of large-scale civilizations. Think of The Guardians of the _Green Lantern_ comic series.
That thought came to me having a smoke. My Marine Rifle Squad and I just took three insurgent occupied houses in Iraq. Unfortunately I'm still stupid. You jerks would leave me on Earth. You on sleeper ships. I'd still yell at you though. 1997-2006 Marine infantryman Sgt.100P.T. Seriously you are mind candy. A very enjoyable part of my life. Thank's, Josh
Q: How do we know all this about Black Holes since we can't see them and have never been to one? A: Math. Q: How do we know the math is right? A: It's the same math we've been using to make nuclear reactors, jet aircraft, and integrated circuits for decades. If it was wrong, we'd know it by now.
My previous post has triggered my inner linguist to wonder about the essential idea that collision and to a lesser degree (damn you entropy) is a part of every system in this universe.
I'm not smart enough to question physicists, BUT. Isn't it dumb of physicists to treat galactic rotation as a two body system? N-body, which computers struggle with even only having a few bodies, but with 200,000,000,000 bodies. The orbits of planetary bodies are predictable using two body math, because the sun is 99.9% of the gravitational force in the System. But, the galaxy is not heliocentric, the mass and gravity is dispersed across the entire disc. So, the sun is not just orbiting the galactic core, it is also being dragged along by the LaGrange points of lower stars, while also being uplifted by the further stars. The galactic disc is tidally and gravitationally locked. A galaxy has some similarities to a simple solar system, but also some similarities to something like a disc of matter, like a spinning CD. All of the stars are gravitationally bound together similar to the electromagnetically attracted atoms in a Compact Disc. If you are near the core, excluding immediate proximity to a supermassive black hole, there is no gravity in the core. 100% of the mass in the galaxy would be distributed evenly around you, so the orbital velocity would be zero. The farther out you go in the disc, the more mass there is below you. So, stars in the center are orbiting slower than a 2 body system, and stars on the outside are necessarily orbiting faster because they have more mass to orbit.
As for your first question. The accretion disk is too hot for any planets to form in them. As for your second question it is unknown, however I think that dark matter is simply the gravity from other stellar objects occupying other nearby dimensions. So in my opinion the answer to your second question is yes, it's very possible.
@@BurningDownUrHouse thank you ! I didn’t think about how hot the accretion disk would be , all though I should have seeing as they glow. I do know that they can have planets in orbit around them just like a star but that made me wonder if they might cause planets to form.
@@matthewsmith2506 I think planets could form outside the accretion disk. However the planet would need to be very far away from the accretion disk for life as we know it to arise on that planet because of the intense radiation.
When I was about 10 years old, I used to think space wasn't empty like they taught us in school, I felt like space was simular to water but made up of what I was calling, dead atoms, atoms that lost all there electrons causing it to have no attraction or repulsion, As I got older, we discovered smaller particles that make up the electrons,neutrons, and protrons, like wimps and stuff, after learning about dark matter and dark energy, I started feeling like this is the substance that makes up all the smaller particles and it is everywhere, maybe like three types of dark matter and when they collide, they release a really small amount of dark energy while either forming into these smaller particles like wimps and stuff or neutralizing each each other out breaking back down into dark matter, Basically, I think 4 different types of dark matter is the substance that makes up the quantum realm and when they collide they release and very tiny amount of dark energy, and can either create the smallest particles we know of or destroy each other, Part of the reason why it seems like some particles just pop in and out of existence and this substance is everywhere, Just my thoughts of dark matter and dark energy,
I understand some physics, and I think your notion is worth a paper, possibly a thesis. If Hawking radiation could happen, then what you're describing could happen also: Degeneration of matter into smaller, less-strongly-interacting particles until it's almost like a forceless 'inertial fluid' in space. If you believe it might be so, then stop. Stop reading, stop scrolling, and go make a plan to make your mark on the world.
I think we see primordial black holes ever time we look at galactic cores: it actually seems rather obvious: - There is no 'initial' period when looking in deep field images that shows ancient galaxies/proto-galaxies w/o galactic cores like modern galaxies. Since SMBHs order from 100s of 1000s to billions of sol masses: a royal crap-ton had to go into making them: There arent too many possible ways you could get that much matter in such a space. - The 'progenitors' of galactic cores are the primordial black holes aggregated: they probably rapidly merged in the high-temp/mass dense early years of the universe (maybe even before star formation, where too much matter aggregated and imploded into original BHs). Then in the early star burst era of the universe intermediate mass BHs likely arose due to (again) high density star clusters and those mostly extinct pop I stars not lasting long. THEN the primordial aggregated BHs would have merged w/ the intermediate mass ones to form the smaller-sized SMBHs. -->those merged over time to form the 50mil sol mass to bil sol mass SMBHs we see know (not 1 BH but possibly 1000s or millions of ancient BHs merged). - This timeline would explain quasars (and how newer data points to quasars being binary/trinary sets of rotating, active, SMBH: inactive galactic cores like our own are the result of quasar mergers...Eventually the merged galaxies like Milky Way are more stellar graveyards than areas of life: in reality giant galaxies could be the remnants of 100s or 1000s of magellanic cloud sized ones merging. So all the red/white dwarfs that are ancient are in fact just the mostly remnants of these long-gone small galaxies. -^^ newer images of Milky Way lend credence as well since we signs of what looks like small galactic clouds currently being dispersed (and already eaten) by our galaxy. Notes: Nothing explains why the Big Bang singularity ever existed as such, let alone how it could have become 'unstable' and popped....almost nothing that is. If we consider the universe as we see it being the result of 2 universes colliding...with some but not all particles/laws between them being similar. This could help to answer some serious issues in physics, like time, gravity, quantum tunneling and other quantum effects that prob shouldn't be possible. etc. It could also explain the generations of leptons, etc: why the Higg's even exists , etc.
Perhaps Hawking radiation does not occur past Planck mass. That would allow tiny primordial black holes be dark matter. Even Hawking radiation is uncertain at the smallest size.
Hopefully the JWST and other new telescopes let us locate more black holes, brown dwarfs, and anything else that might help fill in some of the gaps for all that missing matter!
Uploaded when my insomnia was acting up. Thank you for helping me fall asleep, it's always an ordeal. I'll be back in a few hours to watch this a couple more times, too
to e fair, while it wouldn't suck you in a 10 ton black hole coudl do significant structural damage a few nanometers around it's path, so while it's unlikely to actualyl suck in an atom and it's not gonna suck in the whole person it would significantly affect a few billion individual atoms, possibly causing some damage if hits dna
My own theory is that there is nothing inside a black hole. The explosion of a star that generates a black hole "flattens" gravity and leaves the "interior" of a black hole completely empty and with no distance whatever; to the point that the area of the actual black hole falls below the Planck limit. As well, I believe dark matter is remanents of previous universes.
What about Dark Matter being composed of Quantum Black Holes? Hawking said smaller-mass black holes are hotter, meaning their decay photons get more and more energetic as the mass decreases. With that in mind, and with Quantum Black Holes possibly being as small as 1 Planck mass, they could become unable to radiate away their last bit of mass-energy because it would require a photon more energetic than their remaining mass-energy. That would trap them at the tiny mass, unable to complete the evaporation process, while being so small they cannot interact with much of anything. Truly vast numbers of tiny black holes may have been formed shortly after the Big Bang, and if they ended up as these tiny Quantum Black Holes, their numbers and total mass could be really quite large... Reasonable candidates for Dark Matter. @Isaac Arthur
And how do they calculate the orbital rate of stars around a galctic core? Red shift? The same red shift that gives us other seeming paradoxes whcih is what the inflation theory attempts to patch?
Rather than figuring out what Dark Matter and thus Dark Energy is or is not... If we, as a species, had any hints... I personally hypothesize that said Dark Matter and thus further Dark Energy is more than likely... Dead matter. Now, by that I mean, matter which is functionally and vibrationally still. As in, the quantum vibration rates of all of this matter is now, at least somehow, only still. Thus the gravity confusion. Since dead matter does not emit anything, nor even can it, then this may be why it's so functionally hard to see something real which can't even say to any FTL "Hey, don't hit me," stuff there. If there's no emission source, photons of light would just equivalently "ground out" into said effectively invisible former "matter" in our normal sense and understanding. And I'm also still trying to figure out quite how said dead matter is not also simply ending the area around it. Nor should it. That's likely in currently unknown parts of the math which sets the rules of creation. While not the same exactly, a functional corpse, albeit even of matter and energy, is not likely by itself a threat to said area. Although, with all due respect to said dead matter... I am more than into the idea of figuring out how to re-speed back up said dead matter, and at least, hopefully then, formerly dead matter. However, speed alone might not be enough. As I don't know yet, I'm even thusly further into figuring out how and thus why clearing that second hurdle is also, without question, a need, to me.
well Lagrangian points replace dark matter , when you really think about how they work , Black Holes are Galaxian Lagrangian points... really strong lagrangian points can make a quasar that recycles and ejects matter .. but you cant get sucked into one , it just does all the other things.. gravitational lensing , dark matter etc . JNHM
I think the misconception of "dark matter" being some kind of single uniform invisible substance all around us that we haven't discovered the ability to detect, which is promoted by pop culture is harmful to real science discovering what the missing mass of our large-scale physics equations actually is. We just have to accept that we need to learn a lot more about how physics and the universe works on galactic-or-larger scales. It's okay to say "we don't know yet". We don't have to make a new kind of "matter" to explain an equation that doesn't work. Even Einstein was honest enough to call missing data his "fudge factor".
Also black holes once they come into existence need much less mass to stay black holes. Once the matter collapses, and the sum of gravity has to reach but a few kilometers away to grab all of the mass, it gets bound, and now needs a much smaller distance to keep the mass bound, if you can still call it that. It would be a very long time until that gravity would become so low that the black hole poofs out of existence, releasing it's final content being a minute fraction of what it was during it's birth. It takes like 4.4 stellar masses to create one, but a very minute amount of stellar mass to keep one in existence once there, which could be like 0.1 solar mass, uncertain, but very small. Ofc, once it's gravitational strength would be small enough, it wouldn't even bend light much, and at a certain distance for that size effectively become invisible for visual observation, but not for gravimetric observation, which would put it at the size of maybe something like 0.5 solar masses, but when the space it is in is observed through a telescope, it would find nothing, since there's hardly any light bending towards it, and thus invisible. I think basically you can calculate that 4.4 solar masses required for collapse, equates roughly to total sum of the gravitic energy, and condense that intoa very tiny ball or such, and then calculate the minimum gravity to keep it from expanding again, keeping in mind that gravity goes up when the distance is smaller, for each distance halving a factor 4. The means when it collapses to a size of lets say 1 kilometer from 1000 kilometer, (arbitrary numbers at this point), the surface gravity would be 1 million times higher, which then means that the minimum mass to sustain itself can be theoretically 1 millionth of the 4.4 solar masses, after which when evaporating further, it would expand in a small pewf, and then drift away.
Note that a black hole of very low sizes, may indicate an extreme old age, since it's below the 4.4 solar masses already, which can only have happened from an excess of 4.4 solar masses lifecycle, after which it radiated and ate virtually nothing or little, allowing it to shrink below the 4.4 solar masses limit. The reduction below the 4.4 solar masses can only have happened by radiation, which is a very slow process of losing energy, from a black hole perspective, since it's very hard to actually lose energy, if even light itself can be food.
Another reason to assume why dark matter does not exist, is that if dark matter is actually in such great quantities is available, like 6+ times the visible stars, each black would be overflowing and going up in solar masses, by the second. This does not happen. Observe any black hole, yes it may rise, but when it's fed with a star here or there over time, that star would be the average of 1/6th of the dark matter feed, which then means that it goes up in mass by 6 times the mass of that star.
Due to its current unknown status we don't know what figuring out dark matter could do for civilization, but I doubt it would be more influential than practical advancements in engineering using known physics, at least in the relatively short amount of time between now, and when we can feasibly hit a post scarcity civilization. Arguably some powerful nations, already produce more than enough to reach post scarcity status if they bothered to redistribute the resources a bit more evenly, and most of the world could reach a roughly equivalent status using current technology if we had enough of the right economic incentives. The main barrier to creating a post-scarcity civilization is more political than practical.
Something I don't understand is how big are these primordial black holes? If they surround the galaxy but can't be seen then they are probably very tiny, but if they are tiny doesn't that mean they shouldn't live very long and explode with a lot of energy or am I not understanding how a black hole dies? Because I thought you mentioned in a video that when a black hole dies it releases a ton of energy!
The amount of hydrogen in interstellar space a small primordial black hole touches is equivalent to a rounding error when it comes to the lifetime of the black hole, this is especially true for the especially small black holes that would have otherwise lost all their mass to hawking radiation.
@@garethbaus5471 I figured but since we cannot measure Hawking Radiation within dying, ot might explain why we cannot see them and it may be enough to sustain them.
Black holes consist of antimatter(yes, the missing one), dark matter and dark energy, the result of information passing through the black hole singularity (collapse of corpuscular function), scattered by quantum fields on probability, being dark, until the next wave function collapse, or alternative to our measurement collapse. Such a great circle of samsara. Happy Maitreya day 🌈🙏
What if dark matter it’s simply the fabric of space time itself. The reason it only shows up sound galaxies is because that’s where all the normal matter is and thus the fabric has to be stronger there for a lack of a better term? 🧐
Hey Isaac, you know that galaxy without dark matter called NGC 1052-DF2? Well, my question is; does anyone know if NGC 1052-DF2 has a super massive black hole? If not, would that be evidence of a correlation between dark matter and black holes? Hypothesis; Galaxies that have super massive black holes also have dark matter, and galaxies that don't have super massive black holes are lacking dark matter and appear diffuse such as NGC 1052-DF2.
Humm... I was just thinking... Maybe gravity just works differently at larger scales? For small human scales it's that inverse square, but over a galactic scale there's a bit of nuance. Unless we can see galaxies that spin properly....
It's been tried before under several models of MOND, but as I recall, for every problem it fixes, it creates 2 more, because now you end up predicting that we shouldn't observe several other things that we very much observe. There might be some more recent stuff I haven't seen that addresses those problems (because theorists gonna theorise), but so far as I know, noone has ever made a particularly convincing overall case for it
I still do not understand how something that does not interact with anything, even itself, how can it act like glue for galaxies. I'm rooting for dark matter, but the math is way over my head. It's like... I understand the EFFECTS of gravity and magnetism, the bowling ball on the trampoline gravity well helped, but trying to visualize a substance free of interaction with anything and being a stabilizer or a vortex or a welling effect. I just can not wrap my mind around it. Again, though, I get the just of the hadron collider and found it all fascinating, even though the math was way over my head, I could visualize it.
It's the idea of particles that do not strongly interact with each other, or anything else, but collectively exert a gravitational influence on large structures such as galaxies. "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going..." -The Account of St. John, Rabbi Yeshua to Rabbi Nicodemus
The trouble with dark matter is its technically science fiction (or at least just as much as FTL). If one starts to go down the rabbit hole as to what dark matter is, we literally can't rule anything out, and yes, that includes the supernatural (No, I'm not trolling here!) and other equally ridiculous candidates. This is why I tend to think that there's actually nothing there and gravity just doesn't work quite as we like to think it does.
It's interesting to read your comment days after reading that Newton did not pretend to understand the cause of gravity, and thought it might be the result of entities acting continuously on objects - almost like every (sub)atomic particle has a metaphysical component projecting a field out from itself that acts supernaturally on other objects or even distorts spacetime!
The obvious fact is that there is no measureable dark matter in our stellar neighborhood... Everything around here is operating like it should under Newtons laws... Therefore there is a force we still do not understand effecting galactic rotation... with no dark matter needed, or existing...
Should have waited for my Ritalin to kick in before watching this, all my brain did was make a joke about some people liking "Machos" and some not ... thanks for the video anyway Issac, I'll come back when the cats in my brain have slowed down and stopped knocking everything over
Dark matter always has a whiff of Vulcan about it. Not Mr. Spock's homeworld I mean, rather the hypothetical trans-Mercurian planet who's existence was proposed to explain oddities in Mercury's orbit. I couldn't offer any real proof, but I can't help thinking that it's less a real substance than it's an attempt to explain anomalous observations using existing physics when what's really needed is a better understanding of how gravity works on cosmic scales.
I always understood that Hawking radiation was the result of spontaneous matter creation or dimension walls rubbing. Then things smaller than photons and electrons but on a scale up to stellar mass could just sit under the fabric of space where known laws are a little less relevant. This model also takes care of what has happed to all the antimatter.
Well, it might provide an explanation for the missing antimatter, but it doesn't explain how we in this universe ended up with so much _more_ matter than antimatter; wouldn't a natural phenomenon capture both matter and antimatter indiscriminately?
So the main evidence for dark matter is blue shifting of the edges of distant galaxies, the distant galaxy edges seem to spin too fast, such that the edge stars should be flung out of the galaxy. So the
The episode is airing a little early this week as I'm aware at a conference, so I might be a bit slow replying to comments today :)
Here's the papers mentioned:
Direct detection of primordial black hole relics as dark matter: arxiv.org/abs/1906.06348
Search for gamma-ray emission from p-wave dark matter annihilation in the Galactic Center: arxiv.org/abs/1904.06261
I sure hope you're aware!
It was a nice surprise!
Dark Matter is one of my favorite subjects because it is a mystery that could possibly be solved in my lifetime.
m
even a small black hole for it to exist has gravitational lensing and the lhc proved the smaller the black hole the quicker it actually evaporates ( hawking radiation)
thus any black hole has to be sufficiently large that this gravitational lensing affect would be quite noticeable. THIS means they can scan sections of the sky and come up with reasonable amounts of it that are black holes and not and there just isn't enough that are black holes to do what dark matter is doing.
penrose hawkings buddy in physics says they actually have detected gravitational waves in the cosmic microwave background which might indicate that his idea of a BEFORE the big bang might in fact be correct. ALSO LHC proved that so far string theory doesnt work.
12:22 I was part of the MACHO Project in my youth in the early 90's. I worked at Mt Stromlo Observatory before it burned down, with Brian Schmidt before he won the Nobel Prize. This video brought back memories of some great times and work I'm proud to have been part of. :-)
The first proposal of a black hole was by a priest who theorized there may be a star large enough that its light wouldn't be able to escape. This was before general relativity. He didn't think about curvature of space or anything just if things that go up are pulled back down there must be a gravity at which light wouldn't be able to escape
I imagine things got real toasty real fast...
I call BS
John Michell theorized them in the 18th century.
@@ninizeldav7174 no, it’s true. do your research 🤦🏼
@@00Athus1
Why?
Really excited for the next two episodes! The alien refugee idea reminds me of one of my favorite space games "Sins of a Solar Empire" in which one of the factions is expanding into human space while running from something that started at the heart of their own empire.
YO🔥 th-cam.com/video/ae-7S-Jbgw0/w-d-xo.html
12:10 wait, am I wrong in assuming that all particles loose energy to expanding space?
You are correct and that is pretty much why Heat death of Universe seems inevitable.
Passive loss of energy to passive electromagnetic radiation.
yes
Radiation do be like that.
@@prasoongupta12 or the big rip. Space time may just rip itself to shreds well before the heat death... Then again, maybe each shred would have its own heat death as all fragments expand away from each other faster than any chance of a causal connection....
🤯👩🚀 19:20 Woah! Gaps in spacetime? Sounds like a GREAT TOPIC for an episode! And has anyone done the math on how much of dark matter could be explained by adding together all the possible explanations? 24:10 I wish I had a carboard cutout of you in that picture: *"AI IA humbly and smugly accepting the Galactic Best Beard Award"*
Outstanding as always, Isaac, thanks!
Imagine a future where we master space travel and have to install signs around blackholes like at the zoo that say "don't feed the blackholes"
Comment for channel support. Great work as always. Can't believe you do all this without playing any commercials!
Isaac Arthur! Thank you for giving us your knowledge! :) A HUG from brazil :)
Man I really want to thank Stellardrone for their awesome music they make. It really sets the theme for episodes like this and it just an amazing score by itself.
Wow... and I thought i was one of the few folks that knew what kinda gold and gems Stellardrone creates
@@bradjordan4006 Stellardrone's music is phenomenally innovative; it is to me what would happen if someone made atmospheric synthwave music scores for TV or cinema.
God I love your videos. They bring me great joy and entertainment. They have great quality concepts content And have really good production value. I think your channel is somewhat underrated and I can't wait till it gets the recognition it deserves.
I just got a drink and snack. Love this channel.
Isaac do black holes ever visibly eat dark matter? Is there a certain spectral signature we should look for in gamma x or radio wave observations or visible light?
Of course not. Black holes are fantasy creatures legitimised by the mathematical misconduct, and dark matter is a fudge factor in bad galactic models based on poor data (we don't even know much cold matter there is, or how it is distributed and can't see much of the hot matter either). Cold matter is everything other than bright stars.
I did rather like the macho concept a while back, but both MACHOs and WIMPs have had a bad couple decades of negative results despite some pretty intensive observation and experimentation. These days I lean towards MOND, particularly as versions of it seem to be becoming refined enough to predict galactic behavior rather than simply describing it - which is going to be tough for Dark Matter to do, given the wide array of possible behaviors that can be ascribed to them.
MACHOs are at least a little more constrained, as we can make reasonable guesses as to how they should behave if they do exist, and can gradually eliminate various mass candidate ranges.
WIMPs are harder to eliminate, because they don't show up in the standard model, and we really have no idea what they are or how they 'should' interact at all - which means there are almost limitless candidates that theorists can dream up that we could check for. Alas, that makes eliminating them almost impossible until we actually find one, or come up with some other valid answer for galactic spin rates.
Can those mond theories handle baryon acoustic oscillations though?
The Standard Model is not infallible; when scientists were trying to figure out atomic structure, there were a number of 'close-but-no-cookie' ideas before someone thought of and tried the appropriate experiment. It may be that we're looking at the entire system from an unwieldly mental perspective.
One thing that has always made me ponder is what happens to all those neutrinos emitted by stellar fusion? Do they escape their galactic localities and simply become lost to deep space? Do they accumulate in the interstellar or intergalactic medium and form a sort of 'gravitational fluid'? I become intensely curious about these things that we're convinced exist but cannot observe or experiment on to a satisfactory degree.
Every time i hear Quarks i think of ST:DS9 lol, also Joe Scott and his interview with you was how i found your channel, liked what i have seen so far so subbed and been binge watching your content, great work.
17:59 makes me wonder if such things are in fact separate entails or just the same one either in multi places at the same time or move very fast between them .. tho i suppose if they are all identical anyways its a relatively moot point as to is it is one or many as they are all the same
Great video! I heard there was a science team that was somehow using LIGO's sensitivity to look for Dark Matter. So the search for colliding Black Holes could lead to a DM discovery.
I love your shows, thank you for your hard work.
I like Douglas Adams explanation for the "missing matter "in the late seventies.. It was the packing peanuts from all the test equipment of trying to find the missing matter🤣
August looks like it's going to be awesome. Can't wait
Thank you Isaac Arthur, for the amazing Work!
Happy Arthursday! Unless you are closely orbiting a black hole, and then happy Arthurs-week or happy Arthurs-year between now and when you finish the video!
Wonderful! Of course, now I have to put my life on hold until I do my cosmological learning with Isaac Arthur, but that’s alright.
I have had two questions on this topic for some time....
1. The mass required for a black hole with a Schwartzchild radius of half of a planck length is small, but still significant, at around 10-20 micrograms. The wavelength of emitted Hawking radiation is proportional to the mass of a black hole, which is why smaller mass black holes emit more energy. Is it possible for a black hole with an event horizon diameter that is equal to the planck length to emit a photon? If not, then does that imply that a black hole at this scale is stable and extremely long lived?
2. A small black hole will evaporate very quickly, losing mass to Hawking radiation. What is the end state? Will all the mass be converted to radiation? Or will the evaporation become faster and more energetic only until the event horizon diameter becomes too small to effectively radiate, resulting in a stable remnant?
Is it possible that, early in the big bang, matter began to condense, but the majority (maybe evenn all) of that matter started as small black holes, which then evaporated into stable remnants, becoming dark matter? Normal matter might have been formed at this point as well, due to density fluctuations, or might have been formed from the energy being given off by evaporating black holes...
I can't answer your questions, and im sure noone on this planet can. BUT.
What if big bang does not exist, only opposite "body" to black hole?! Ours created our universe, black holes take mass and pumping it to different universe via white holes and folks there wondering why the hell is that happening.
Very interesting! I would love to hear a response from Isaac on this!👍🏽👍🏽
'2 replies'? I only see one, TH-cam!! Anyways...
Can a particle smaller than Planck Length be said to even exist? Or does it just 'probably' exist? #Schrodingerscat
An important related theorized class of matter is neg-mass particles. Its permitted within standard models, and enough research needs to be done to either confirm its existence, or rule it out. Mainly because if it does exist, it'll rip a giant hole in many theories as many things will need to be reassessed
- how do the forces interact with it?
- How does it interact with things like stars/black holes etc (IE massive gravity wells)
- Can neg-mass molecules/compounds arise from the particles? What about radiation emitted by this? Is any of this directly observable or detectable with instruments fundmentally constructed of baryonic matter?
- Is it native to this universe? Or is Baryonic matter foreign but the neg-mass particles the ones native? If so, how did it play a role in early states of universe.
About to hit 700k subscribers! Congrats my friend
Yet another informative video as always.
Informative about the imaginary relgion that is black holes. There is no evidence they exist or dark matter for that matter.
are blackhole lifetimes effected by their velocity? I know some subatomic particles decays are modified based on their speed. Would a primordial blackhole (the freight truck sized one) travelling extremely fast (99.9999999999% Speed of Light) since the beginning of the universe have had time to decay?
I don't think that would explain galactic rotation speed - if dark matter is that fast it would just zoom right by
@@cartermclaughlin2908 Yes. That would be an example of hot dark matter in that case. Far too fast for galaxies to hold on to them.
What if its spinning fast enough that the "surface" has time dilation? Then it could be slow enough to be contained in a galaxy.
It should. A more intuitive way to think of time dilation helps. The fastest any particle can travel is light speed, and it requires an infinite amount of energy to approach that limit. So, very little energy to go from 0 m/s to 1 m/s. But, a lot more energy to accelerate from 100,000,000 m/s to 100,000,001 m/s, and an infinite amount of energy to go from 299,792,457 m/s( c - 1) to 299,792,458 m/s( c ). So, things must therefore happen slower approaching light speed.
All of the atomic, chemical, and kinetic forces of a chunk of matter have set and measurable amounts of energy. That energy can propagates and interact at normal speeds while not moving, but interact slower proportional to the fraction of light speed. If you are going fast enough that it takes 100 times more energy to accelerate faster, that means that all atomic forces move at one hundredth the speed. Throw a baseball normally at 100km/hrs, at that 99% c or wherever it requires 100 times more energy to accelerate, the baseball would only be thrown at 1km/hr relative to you with the same energy.
Point is, even quantum events would necessarily have that same fractional speed of interation.
@@JB-ym4up there’s a limit to the angular momentum of black holes because the faster they rotate the smaller the event horizon becomes. Past a threshold speed the event horizon would disappear and reveal a naked singularity. We know this limit is respected (outside of the understanding that naked singularities violate our framework of physics) because we’ve observed numerous supermassive black holes spinning at precisely this limit and never exceeding it.
i wonder if there is some minimum size a very small blackhole can evaporate to, that hawking radiation reduces its size so small that the next emitted particle would be higher energy than the blackhole has mass or that the size is too small for the particles to interact with or that the energy of the emitted particle would be so high as to form it's own blackhole immediately.
I will never get over the idea that the reason why we will always be entranced by black holes is because our first image of one triggered a primal understanding that we really don't understand the real dimensions of the universe at all.
You absolutely nailed your R when you said Sagitarius.
This was highly interesting for me. Thanks, Isaac Arthur.
Just discovered your channel, very cool stuff! I’m definitely gonna subscribe!
What effect if any would be manifest if the whole universe had a preferred orientation or direction of travel or even if it was spinning.
Shouldnt the bottom ring of your blackhole animations move the same direction as the top? You are looking at the underside of the disc behind the black hole right?
Mostly unrelated, but now I can't get the song 'Black Hole Sun' or of my head.
Great video as always, though!
Brilliant as Always, Isaac!
When you talk about ruling out certain energy ranges you should add a plot about it so it’s easier to follow
That whole common mass thing with particles really makes me give points to the idea of there being one actual proton.
Loved listening to you on the Unraveling the Universe podcast!
primordial black holes are such a cool concept. even though they don't last long, what if they are moving just below the speed of light and so are time dilatated. also, what if they are spinning so their event horizon, is again moving almost the speed of light. maybe they don't evaporate as fast.
I'm wondering about that scenario of a subatomic black hole the mass of a freight truck moving through your body--would it really produce no noticeable effect? With the radius being so tiny, tidal forces (proportional to the distance between two points being looked at and the inverse cube of their average distance from the massive object) *might* be strong enough to pull cells apart from each other. I haven't done the math yet, but I'm wondering what mass of black hole would be sufficient to cause a little line of tissue damage? (Vaguely remembering a Larry Niven short story I read many years ago, where said forces were strong enough to tear a tiny actual hole through one unlucky explorer.)
Have you ever talked about the acoustic wave in the early universe?
Thank goodness someone is finally talking about this I've been saying black holes are dark matter since I first heard of the subject of dark matter at the planetarium in first grade back in 1988 every physical science and physics teacher brushed me off all those years and now I may just be right
Does that tell you how uncurious and unimaginative your teachers might actually be?
13:40 Sadly Stephen Hawking, one of the greatest minds in history, is no longer with us, since a few years already. Rest in Peace!
Hello sir, not sure how to say this, but I have two questions, as I understand this there are more than three dimensions, could dark matter be matter that exists outside the three that we can observe?next question, the three we can see are all ninety degrees from each other, my question is where the hell is the next ninety at?
Pretty sure that for all or most theories that suppose higher dimensions those dimensions are curled up to near the planck length so there's not really "space" for that matter. Also none of the multidimensional theories are actually proven. They're all just theoretical atm so we can't really explain these observations with currently unfalsifiable theories.
As for what is a dimension 90° to, they're 90° to all other dimensions. When it comes to higher dimensions there really aren't that many intuitive ways to understand. Our brains just aren't wired for it & at somepoint you just have to switch to math. Idk fo4 sure but i'm pretty sure 3Blue1Brown had a vid on 10 dimensional something or other that had a decent visualization scheme for higher dimensional geometries, if memory serves.
@@virutech32 thank you, you've given me a starting point, I'm not even sure I'm asking the right questions
@@stevebohrer6837 I think you are. Here's the thing: Matter itself might be (according to a few wonks like me) hyperdimensional, and we don't think of it that way because we can't conceive of what it might be like, because we have no experiences we call 'hyperdimensional' to refer to.
Awesome channel with awesome content and great quality as always say 🌍
Perfect Thursday with the space of Isaac Arthur for sure, Alongside being one of the first to watch it.
Can't wait for humans to harness dark matter and finally allow travel to the Immaterium
Just love this channel
brilliant content always puts my brain in thinking mode 🧠💭
I've seen some speculation that planet 9 is a PBH and that's why we see gravitational effects of it but haven't seen it.
I enjoy these kind of topics, but i know little. please correct me bluntly.
Regarding this missing matter, could it not be more concentrated further out than we can see in our expanding universe?
Hey Isaac can you do an updated episode on immortality?
I was actually thinking about that earlier today
@@isaacarthurSFIA Here's a notion: Life Extension and practical immortality as an essential step to the stability and advancement of large-scale civilizations. Think of The Guardians of the _Green Lantern_ comic series.
Super duper video. Very informative.
That thought came to me having a smoke. My Marine Rifle Squad and I just took three insurgent occupied houses in Iraq. Unfortunately I'm still stupid. You jerks would leave me on Earth. You on sleeper ships. I'd still yell at you though. 1997-2006 Marine infantryman Sgt.100P.T. Seriously you are mind candy. A very enjoyable part of my life. Thank's, Josh
Thanks Josh :)
@@isaacarthurSFIA The reply honors me. My goodness you are welcome. Keep them coming Sir.
Q:
How do we know all this about Black Holes since we can't see them and have never been to one?
A:
Math.
Q:
How do we know the math is right?
A:
It's the same math we've been using to make nuclear reactors, jet aircraft, and integrated circuits for decades. If it was wrong, we'd know it by now.
My previous post has triggered my inner linguist to wonder about the essential idea that collision and to a lesser degree (damn you entropy) is a part of every system in this universe.
I'm not smart enough to question physicists, BUT.
Isn't it dumb of physicists to treat galactic rotation as a two body system? N-body, which computers struggle with even only having a few bodies, but with 200,000,000,000 bodies. The orbits of planetary bodies are predictable using two body math, because the sun is 99.9% of the gravitational force in the System. But, the galaxy is not heliocentric, the mass and gravity is dispersed across the entire disc. So, the sun is not just orbiting the galactic core, it is also being dragged along by the LaGrange points of lower stars, while also being uplifted by the further stars. The galactic disc is tidally and gravitationally locked. A galaxy has some similarities to a simple solar system, but also some similarities to something like a disc of matter, like a spinning CD. All of the stars are gravitationally bound together similar to the electromagnetically attracted atoms in a Compact Disc.
If you are near the core, excluding immediate proximity to a supermassive black hole, there is no gravity in the core. 100% of the mass in the galaxy would be distributed evenly around you, so the orbital velocity would be zero. The farther out you go in the disc, the more mass there is below you. So, stars in the center are orbiting slower than a 2 body system, and stars on the outside are necessarily orbiting faster because they have more mass to orbit.
Here’s 2 questions sort of related to this . Do black holes form planets in they’re disk of matter? Could there be dark matter planets?
As for your first question. The accretion disk is too hot for any planets to form in them. As for your second question it is unknown, however I think that dark matter is simply the gravity from other stellar objects occupying other nearby dimensions. So in my opinion the answer to your second question is yes, it's very possible.
@@BurningDownUrHouse thank you ! I didn’t think about how hot the accretion disk would be , all though I should have seeing as they glow. I do know that they can have planets in orbit around them just like a star but that made me wonder if they might cause planets to form.
@@matthewsmith2506 I think planets could form outside the accretion disk. However the planet would need to be very far away from the accretion disk for life as we know it to arise on that planet because of the intense radiation.
When I was about 10 years old, I used to think space wasn't empty like they taught us in school, I felt like space was simular to water but made up of what I was calling, dead atoms, atoms that lost all there electrons causing it to have no attraction or repulsion, As I got older, we discovered smaller particles that make up the electrons,neutrons, and protrons, like wimps and stuff, after learning about dark matter and dark energy, I started feeling like this is the substance that makes up all the smaller particles and it is everywhere, maybe like three types of dark matter and when they collide, they release a really small amount of dark energy while either forming into these smaller particles like wimps and stuff or neutralizing each each other out breaking back down into dark matter, Basically, I think 4 different types of dark matter is the substance that makes up the quantum realm and when they collide they release and very tiny amount of dark energy, and can either create the smallest particles we know of or destroy each other, Part of the reason why it seems like some particles just pop in and out of existence and this substance is everywhere, Just my thoughts of dark matter and dark energy,
I understand some physics, and I think your notion is worth a paper, possibly a thesis. If Hawking radiation could happen, then what you're describing could happen also: Degeneration of matter into smaller, less-strongly-interacting particles until it's almost like a forceless 'inertial fluid' in space.
If you believe it might be so, then stop. Stop reading, stop scrolling, and go make a plan to make your mark on the world.
Surprising amount of these commenters think black holes are not real
I think we see primordial black holes ever time we look at galactic cores: it actually seems rather obvious:
- There is no 'initial' period when looking in deep field images that shows ancient galaxies/proto-galaxies w/o galactic cores like modern galaxies. Since SMBHs order from 100s of 1000s to billions of sol masses: a royal crap-ton had to go into making them: There arent too many possible ways you could get that much matter in such a space.
- The 'progenitors' of galactic cores are the primordial black holes aggregated: they probably rapidly merged in the high-temp/mass dense early years of the universe (maybe even before star formation, where too much matter aggregated and imploded into original BHs). Then in the early star burst era of the universe intermediate mass BHs likely arose due to (again) high density star clusters and those mostly extinct pop I stars not lasting long. THEN the primordial aggregated BHs would have merged w/ the intermediate mass ones to form the smaller-sized SMBHs. -->those merged over time to form the 50mil sol mass to bil sol mass SMBHs we see know (not 1 BH but possibly 1000s or millions of ancient BHs merged).
- This timeline would explain quasars (and how newer data points to quasars being binary/trinary sets of rotating, active, SMBH: inactive galactic cores like our own are the result of quasar mergers...Eventually the merged galaxies like Milky Way are more stellar graveyards than areas of life: in reality giant galaxies could be the remnants of 100s or 1000s of magellanic cloud sized ones merging. So all the red/white dwarfs that are ancient are in fact just the mostly remnants of these long-gone small galaxies.
-^^ newer images of Milky Way lend credence as well since we signs of what looks like small galactic clouds currently being dispersed (and already eaten) by our galaxy.
Notes: Nothing explains why the Big Bang singularity ever existed as such, let alone how it could have become 'unstable' and popped....almost nothing that is. If we consider the universe as we see it being the result of 2 universes colliding...with some but not all particles/laws between them being similar.
This could help to answer some serious issues in physics, like time, gravity, quantum tunneling and other quantum effects that prob shouldn't be possible. etc.
It could also explain the generations of leptons, etc: why the Higg's even exists , etc.
For a second I thought the title said Black Holes and Dank matter!! Lol! I need glasses!
Perhaps Hawking radiation does not occur past Planck mass. That would allow tiny primordial black holes be dark matter. Even Hawking radiation is uncertain at the smallest size.
Hopefully the JWST and other new telescopes let us locate more black holes, brown dwarfs, and anything else that might help fill in some of the gaps for all that missing matter!
Uploaded when my insomnia was acting up. Thank you for helping me fall asleep, it's always an ordeal. I'll be back in a few hours to watch this a couple more times, too
to e fair, while it wouldn't suck you in a 10 ton black hole coudl do significant structural damage a few nanometers around it's path, so while it's unlikely to actualyl suck in an atom and it's not gonna suck in the whole person it would significantly affect a few billion individual atoms, possibly causing some damage if hits dna
My own theory is that there is nothing inside a black hole. The explosion of a star that generates a black hole "flattens" gravity and leaves the "interior" of a black hole completely empty and with no distance whatever; to the point that the area of the actual black hole falls below the Planck limit. As well, I believe dark matter is remanents of previous universes.
What about Dark Matter being composed of Quantum Black Holes? Hawking said smaller-mass black holes are hotter, meaning their decay photons get more and more energetic as the mass decreases. With that in mind, and with Quantum Black Holes possibly being as small as 1 Planck mass, they could become unable to radiate away their last bit of mass-energy because it would require a photon more energetic than their remaining mass-energy. That would trap them at the tiny mass, unable to complete the evaporation process, while being so small they cannot interact with much of anything. Truly vast numbers of tiny black holes may have been formed shortly after the Big Bang, and if they ended up as these tiny Quantum Black Holes, their numbers and total mass could be really quite large... Reasonable candidates for Dark Matter. @Isaac Arthur
Viable concept. Support it with math and you have a paper.
Imagine encountering a 10ft diameter black hole, with an acretion disc.
That would be freaky, but awesome. It should be noted that an earth mass black hole would have an event horizon with a diameter of roughly .056 feet.
Happy Arthursday, everyone!
Maybe dark matter is actually huge Dyson spheres, big enough for the exterior to be the same temp as the CMB (like 90AU for a star like ours)
Isaac: Unfortunately there's no experimental evidence that black holes emit hawking radiation
Regular Channel Viewers: okay so lets just travel to one
And how do they calculate the orbital rate of stars around a galctic core? Red shift? The same red shift that gives us other seeming paradoxes whcih is what the inflation theory attempts to patch?
Rather than figuring out what Dark Matter and thus Dark Energy is or is not...
If we, as a species, had any hints...
I personally hypothesize that said Dark Matter and thus further Dark Energy is more than likely...
Dead matter.
Now, by that I mean, matter which is functionally and vibrationally still.
As in, the quantum vibration rates of all of this matter is now, at least somehow, only still.
Thus the gravity confusion. Since dead matter does not emit anything, nor even can it, then this may be why it's so functionally hard to see something real which can't even say to any FTL "Hey, don't hit me," stuff there. If there's no emission source, photons of light would just equivalently "ground out" into said effectively invisible former "matter" in our normal sense and understanding.
And I'm also still trying to figure out quite how said dead matter is not also simply ending the area around it. Nor should it. That's likely in currently unknown parts of the math which sets the rules of creation. While not the same exactly, a functional corpse, albeit even of matter and energy, is not likely by itself a threat to said area.
Although, with all due respect to said dead matter...
I am more than into the idea of figuring out how to re-speed back up said dead matter, and at least, hopefully then, formerly dead matter.
However, speed alone might not be enough.
As I don't know yet, I'm even thusly further into figuring out how and thus why clearing that second hurdle is also, without question, a need, to me.
well Lagrangian points replace dark matter , when you really think about how they work , Black Holes are Galaxian Lagrangian points... really strong lagrangian points can make a quasar that recycles and ejects matter .. but you cant get sucked into one , it just does all the other things.. gravitational lensing , dark matter etc .
JNHM
I think the misconception of "dark matter" being some kind of single uniform invisible substance all around us that we haven't discovered the ability to detect, which is promoted by pop culture is harmful to real science discovering what the missing mass of our large-scale physics equations actually is. We just have to accept that we need to learn a lot more about how physics and the universe works on galactic-or-larger scales. It's okay to say "we don't know yet". We don't have to make a new kind of "matter" to explain an equation that doesn't work. Even Einstein was honest enough to call missing data his "fudge factor".
Also black holes once they come into existence need much less mass
to stay black holes.
Once the matter collapses, and the sum of gravity has to reach but
a few kilometers away to grab all of the mass, it gets bound,
and now needs a much smaller distance to keep the mass bound,
if you can still call it that.
It would be a very long time until that gravity would become
so low that the black hole poofs out of existence, releasing it's final content
being a minute fraction of what it was during it's birth.
It takes like 4.4 stellar masses to create one, but a very minute
amount of stellar mass to keep one in existence once there,
which could be like 0.1 solar mass, uncertain, but very small.
Ofc, once it's gravitational strength would be small enough, it wouldn't
even bend light much, and at a certain distance for that size
effectively become invisible for visual observation, but not
for gravimetric observation, which would put it at the size
of maybe something like 0.5 solar masses, but when the space
it is in is observed through a telescope, it would find nothing,
since there's hardly any light bending towards it, and thus
invisible.
I think basically you can calculate that 4.4 solar masses required for collapse,
equates roughly to total sum of the gravitic energy, and condense
that intoa very tiny ball or such, and then calculate the minimum gravity
to keep it from expanding again, keeping in mind that gravity goes
up when the distance is smaller, for each distance halving a factor 4.
The means when it collapses to a size of lets say 1 kilometer
from 1000 kilometer, (arbitrary numbers at this point),
the surface gravity would be 1 million times higher, which then means
that the minimum mass to sustain itself can be theoretically
1 millionth of the 4.4 solar masses, after which when evaporating
further, it would expand in a small pewf, and then drift away.
Note that a black hole of very low sizes, may indicate
an extreme old age, since it's below the 4.4 solar masses
already, which can only have happened from an excess
of 4.4 solar masses lifecycle, after which it radiated
and ate virtually nothing or little, allowing it to shrink
below the 4.4 solar masses limit.
The reduction below the 4.4 solar masses can only have
happened by radiation, which is a very slow process
of losing energy, from a black hole perspective,
since it's very hard to actually lose energy,
if even light itself can be food.
Another reason to assume why dark matter does not exist,
is that if dark matter is actually in such great quantities
is available, like 6+ times the visible stars, each black
would be overflowing and going up in solar masses,
by the second. This does not happen.
Observe any black hole, yes it may rise, but when it's fed
with a star here or there over time, that star would be the average
of 1/6th of the dark matter feed, which then means that it goes
up in mass by 6 times the mass of that star.
Good content, maybe dark matter is the most controversial 'issue', solving this will send humanity on the path to self sufficiency, post scarcity
Due to its current unknown status we don't know what figuring out dark matter could do for civilization, but I doubt it would be more influential than practical advancements in engineering using known physics, at least in the relatively short amount of time between now, and when we can feasibly hit a post scarcity civilization. Arguably some powerful nations, already produce more than enough to reach post scarcity status if they bothered to redistribute the resources a bit more evenly, and most of the world could reach a roughly equivalent status using current technology if we had enough of the right economic incentives. The main barrier to creating a post-scarcity civilization is more political than practical.
Something I don't understand is how big are these primordial black holes? If they surround the galaxy but can't be seen then they are probably very tiny, but if they are tiny doesn't that mean they shouldn't live very long and explode with a lot of energy or am I not understanding how a black hole dies? Because I thought you mentioned in a video that when a black hole dies it releases a ton of energy!
Hello darkness my old friend, I've come to watch SFIA with you again
Hawking isnt alive anymore bruh
"MACHOSs"
"WIMPS"
"SIMPS"
Interesting acronyms
If primordial blackholes are emitting Hawking Radiation, could the minute amounts of hydrogen in interstellar space could survive on it?
The amount of hydrogen in interstellar space a small primordial black hole touches is equivalent to a rounding error when it comes to the lifetime of the black hole, this is especially true for the especially small black holes that would have otherwise lost all their mass to hawking radiation.
@@garethbaus5471 I figured but since we cannot measure Hawking Radiation within dying, ot might explain why we cannot see them and it may be enough to sustain them.
Great video
Black holes consist of antimatter(yes, the missing one), dark matter and dark energy, the result of information passing through the black hole singularity (collapse of corpuscular function), scattered by quantum fields on probability, being dark, until the next wave function collapse, or alternative to our measurement collapse. Such a great circle of samsara.
Happy Maitreya day 🌈🙏
*scattered by quantum field fluctuations
Jesse what are you talking about
A random thought: dark matter is where matter goes between black holes and white holes?
What if dark matter it’s simply the fabric of space time itself. The reason it only shows up sound galaxies is because that’s where all the normal matter is and thus the fabric has to be stronger there for a lack of a better term? 🧐
13:45 Hawking isn't alive
Hey Isaac, you know that galaxy without dark matter called NGC 1052-DF2? Well, my question is; does anyone know if NGC 1052-DF2 has a super massive black hole? If not, would that be evidence of a correlation between dark matter and black holes?
Hypothesis; Galaxies that have super massive black holes also have dark matter, and galaxies that don't have super massive black holes are lacking dark matter and appear diffuse such as NGC 1052-DF2.
Humm... I was just thinking... Maybe gravity just works differently at larger scales? For small human scales it's that inverse square, but over a galactic scale there's a bit of nuance.
Unless we can see galaxies that spin properly....
It's been tried before under several models of MOND, but as I recall, for every problem it fixes, it creates 2 more, because now you end up predicting that we shouldn't observe several other things that we very much observe. There might be some more recent stuff I haven't seen that addresses those problems (because theorists gonna theorise), but so far as I know, noone has ever made a particularly convincing overall case for it
I still do not understand how something that does not interact with anything, even itself, how can it act like glue for galaxies. I'm rooting for dark matter, but the math is way over my head. It's like... I understand the EFFECTS of gravity and magnetism, the bowling ball on the trampoline gravity well helped, but trying to visualize a substance free of interaction with anything and being a stabilizer or a vortex or a welling effect. I just can not wrap my mind around it. Again, though, I get the just of the hadron collider and found it all fascinating, even though the math was way over my head, I could visualize it.
It's the idea of particles that do not strongly interact with each other, or anything else, but collectively exert a gravitational influence on large structures such as galaxies.
"The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going..."
-The Account of St. John, Rabbi Yeshua to Rabbi Nicodemus
The trouble with dark matter is its technically science fiction (or at least just as much as FTL). If one starts to go down the rabbit hole as to what dark matter is, we literally can't rule anything out, and yes, that includes the supernatural (No, I'm not trolling here!) and other equally ridiculous candidates. This is why I tend to think that there's actually nothing there and gravity just doesn't work quite as we like to think it does.
It's interesting to read your comment days after reading that Newton did not pretend to understand the cause of gravity, and thought it might be the result of entities acting continuously on objects - almost like every (sub)atomic particle has a metaphysical component projecting a field out from itself that acts supernaturally on other objects or even distorts spacetime!
Univorse hahha 😁 nice vid
The obvious fact is that there is no measureable dark matter in our stellar neighborhood...
Everything around here is operating like it should under Newtons laws...
Therefore there is a force we still do not understand effecting galactic rotation... with no dark matter needed, or existing...
Should have waited for my Ritalin to kick in before watching this, all my brain did was make a joke about some people liking "Machos" and some not ... thanks for the video anyway Issac, I'll come back when the cats in my brain have slowed down and stopped knocking everything over
Dark matter always has a whiff of Vulcan about it. Not Mr. Spock's homeworld I mean, rather the hypothetical trans-Mercurian planet who's existence was proposed to explain oddities in Mercury's orbit. I couldn't offer any real proof, but I can't help thinking that it's less a real substance than it's an attempt to explain anomalous observations using existing physics when what's really needed is a better understanding of how gravity works on cosmic scales.
I always understood that Hawking radiation was the result of spontaneous matter creation or dimension walls rubbing. Then things smaller than photons and electrons but on a scale up to stellar mass could just sit under the fabric of space where known laws are a little less relevant. This model also takes care of what has happed to all the antimatter.
Well, it might provide an explanation for the missing antimatter, but it doesn't explain how we in this universe ended up with so much _more_ matter than antimatter; wouldn't a natural phenomenon capture both matter and antimatter indiscriminately?
The virgin WIMPs vs the chad MaCHOs
So the main evidence for dark matter is blue shifting of the edges of distant galaxies, the distant galaxy edges seem to spin too fast, such that the edge stars should be flung out of the galaxy. So the