Dark Matter Not Caused By Tiny Black Holes

Big, yet simple ideas is what propels physics. Always has, always will.

27 per cent of the matter in the Universe is made up of Dark Matter. Its gravitational force prevents stars in our Milky Way from flying apart.

Some proposed that DM doesn’t exist, the 1/dd law of gravitation doesn’t work (MOND theories), General Relativity is thus false, etc… I don’t believe in MOND. One reason that I don’t believe in MOND is that my own Sub Quantum theory, SQPR, predicts Dark Matter.

Attempts to detect Dark Matter particles using underground experiments, or accelerator experiments including the world’s largest accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider, have failed so far.

That leaves me smirking, as my own SQPR doesn’t use particles….

Watch the entire Andromeda, and detect flickering…

***

The failure of the DM particle search has led some to consider Hawking’s 1974 theory of the existence of primordial black holes, born shortly after the Big Bang, and his speculation that they could make up a large fraction of the elusive Dark Matter.

An international team of researchers, led by Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe Principal Investigator Masahiro Takada, PhD candidate student Hiroko Niikura, Professor Naoki Yasuda, and including researchers from Japan, India and the US, have used gravitational lensing to look for primordial black holes between Earth and the Andromeda galaxy. Gravitational lensing is what happens when gravitation bends of light rays coming from a distant object such as a star due to the gravitational effect of an intervening massive object such as a primordial black hole. It is a prediction of Newton’s theory of light as particles, and is multiplied by a factor of two from the slowing down of local time next to a mass such as the Sun (Einstein’s prediction thereof).

In extreme cases, such light bending causes the background star to appear much brighter than it originally is.

Figure 2: As the Subaru Telescope on Earth looks at the Andromeda galaxy, a star in Andromeda will become significantly brighter if a primordial black hole passes in front of the star. As the primordial black hole continues to move out of alignment, the star will also turn dimmer (go back to its original brightness). Credit: Kavli IPMU

Gravitational lensing effects due to primordial black holes, if they existed, would be very rare events because it requires a star in the Andromeda galaxy, a primordial black hole acting as the gravitational lens, and an observer on Earth to be exactly in line with one another.

The one event which looked like a small Black Hole detection…

To maximize the chances of capturing an event, the researchers used the Hyper Suprime-Cam on the Subaru Telescope, which can capture the whole image of the Andromeda galaxy in one shot. Taking into account how fast primordial black holes are expected to move in interstellar space, the team took multiple images to be able to catch the flicker of a star as it brightens for a period of a few minutes to hours due to gravitational lensing.

Figure 3: Data from the star which showed characteristics of being magnified by a potential gravitational lens, possibly by a primordial black hole. About 4 hours after data taking on the Subaru Telescope began, one star began to shine brighter. Less than an hour later, the star reached peak brightness before becoming dimmer. Credit: Niikura et al.

From 190 consecutive images of the Andromeda galaxy taken over seven hours during one clear night, the team scoured the data for potential gravitational lensing events. If Dark Matter consists of primordial black holes of a given mass, in this case masses lighter than the moon, the researchers expected to find about 1000 events. But after careful analyses, they could only identify one case. The team’s results showed primordial black holes can contribute no more than 0.1 per cent of all Dark Matter mass. Therefore, it is unlikely that Hawking’s proposal is helps to solve the Dark Matter problem.

The more plausible conventional theories fail, the more SQPR looks good. I believe in SQPR, because it’s so simple, and in line with the sort of physics Buridan, Newton and Laplace approved of. It also makes sense of Quantum Mechanics by introducing the notion of Quantum Interaction, and then giving it a finite speed.[1]

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] Kepler is the first I know of who mention the planets been held to the sun by a force (1/d). Boulliau, aka Bullialdus, corrected that into 1/dd, by analogy with light. Newton was baffled by the absurdity of it all, but Laplace introduced the simple trick of making gravity go at a finite speed… and predicted black holes! Then Lorentz and Poincaré introduced local time. Anyway the SQPR interaction duplicates Kepler’s work, in a sense. Then DM becomes a prediction a bit similar to Laplace’s gravitational waves… (That is, energy consideration… with observable consequences. Then waves, for Laplace, now DM, with SQPR…)

Tags:

28 Responses to “Dark Matter Not Caused By Tiny Black Holes”

  1. brodix Says:

    Patrice,

    Here is an idea that might be in line with what you seem to be hinting at;
    https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Reiter_challenge2.pdf

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hmmm… Never heard of that. That seems to be like the Planck loading theory (or why he disagreed with Einstein).
      I have objections, some philosophical: why would emission differ from absorption? So I side with Einstein here.
      SQPR “loads” at speed TAU > 10^20 c….
      More later, pertaining to the 2 laser interference….

      Like

  2. ronaldscheckelhoff Says:

    “Then consider that what we are observing of the universe are not individual photons, some traveling billions of light years, but samplings of wave fronts, thus multi-spectrum light “packets,” as they are absorbed/received.”

    Is this what is implied by loop quantum gravity, quantum field, and tensor field theories? That there really is a sort of “ether” ? Sorry for being out of my league, clearly, but I am trying to relate various theories about which I’ve read.

    This one for Patrice:

    Would solar or stellar entanglement of photons be maximized in planes, due to the constant churn of the source? Yes, a little OT.

    Like

    • ronaldscheckelhoff Says:

      In addition to churn, energies in the sun would tend to be stratified, I’m thinking …

      Like

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Well, the core is thermonuclear at ten million degrees C, under enormous pressure… The flames are at millions of degrees, I don’t understand why….

        Like

        • ronaldscheckelhoff Says:

          “Well, the core is thermonuclear at ten million degrees C, under enormous pressure … ”

          The sun: it’s the most powerful force in our environment, but we only partly understand its internal machinations. It’s just intuitive to me that solar photons would be entangled with each other in planes, where the machinations of the sun’s internal physics would stratify outer layers, from which the ejected energy’s entanglements could be found to exist in planar maximums (relative to the perpendicular). I wonder if physicists have ever considered this idea? Maybe for reasons obvious to a physicist (which wouldn’t be me, since I’m not one) – this “intuition” is not true.

          With small multiples of zepto-second time slicing, using a very special detector, I wonder if it could be determined to be true (or not).

          Like

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            A photon takes one million years to get out of the Sun. I am a Quantum Entanglement fanatic… But would be surprised it has to do with thermonuclear fusion at the core of Sun. In the brain yes…. But that’s much cooler, especially mine… 😉

            Like

    • brodix Says:

      Ronald,
      I’m certainly not an expert either, but here is an interesting point of view;
      http://worrydream.com/refs/Mead%20-%20American%20Spectator%20Interview.html

      Like

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Very interesting, thanks a lot. That was below my radar.
        I had a quick look. It reminds me of SQPR (my theory), in some ways: same conclusions on some important points (pun), etc. What I called “Einstein Error” is the assumption that the photon is a particle when in flight. No proof of that, Albert! Einstein DID NOT need it to explain the photoelectric effect. A consequence is the Multiverse….
        https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/einsteins-error-the-multiverse/

        This being said, the SQPR wave is the LINEAR part of the De Broglie matter Wave. It’s not just an EM wave. Proof: how would they deal with, say, neutrinos? Or neutrons, for that matter? Also, even in case of the photon, the wave collapse occurs at TAU >>>> C. Proof? Simple geometry. If the photon is spread along the wavefront (as Mead and SQPR claim), when it localizes, it can’t get there at c (some paths are longer than what can be covered at c).

        The Mead theory: he is not the only one to have it, BTW; although he may have originated it? The idea goes back to Planck, I reckon…
        http://henrylindner.net/Photolelectric.pdf

        Mead theory is reminiscent, and rests, on Feynman path integral (SQPR EXPLAINS the Path Integral!)… BTW, I presented SQPR to Feynman. He was more than kind and encouraging:”This would change everything!” (Sic!)

        Like

        • brodix Says:

          I got into studying basic physics in an effort to understand society and what I found was that politics often ruled there, as well. So many of these ideas overlap and it allows some set ideas to outshine other points of view, which should be given more attention, but their proponents lack the political force.
          Since I do keep it simple, what I see being overlooked is the basic dichotomy of energy versus the information it expresses.
          Our bodies have the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems processing the energy, while the nervous system processes the information/form. So there is a strong intellectual tendency to see everything as information, all the way down, necessitating it being digital and distinct, while the energy is more analog and waves. Processes create patterns, not the other way around.
          On a political front, the question then becomes as to what is a big enough rock to break the glass. With the last thirty years obsession with string theory apparently leading nowhere and cosmology lost in the multiverse, the glass is starting to get brittle.
          I think it is the issue of time. That physics incorporates the past to future narrative, as measures of duration, rather than the extremely obvious cause of action turning future to past, potential to residual. Thus explaining why the physical state of the present is so omni-present. Yet that delves into the sacrilegious question of spacetime and Einstein’s proposal of it. So such a rock would not just break the upper windows, where the field thinks the problem lay, but down into some foundational pillars.
          Change happens one funeral at a time.

          Like

      • ronaldscheckelhoff Says:

        From Mead article you reference:

        … “Geiger counters may have provided both visual and auditory testimony that photons were point particles, but the particulate click coarsely concealed a measurable wave” …

        I never could conceive of a photon that was a “point”. For me, it was always intuitively natural to think of waves. I spent almost a decade in the semiconductor industry, but in those days had not yet taken interest in these kinds of debates, as has Mead.

        … “dismisses the photoelectric effect as an artifact of early twentieth century apparatus” …

        I think this is true of other experiments, as well. Also, I think simple semantics often messes with the reality picture. I’m not a physicists, but found the article to be very good from the historical perspective. Thanks for the link.

        Like

        • brodix Says:

          You are welcome.
          I think the math gets fetishized. It is the patterns, generated by the processes. Yet currently it seems math is assumed to be foundational to the processes, rather than abstracted from them.
          Not like this is a new problem though. Epicycles, as a modeling of our view of the cosmos, were brilliant math, but the crystalline spheres, proposed as a one to one physical correspondence, were lousy physics.
          Currently Relativity is brilliant math, but spacetime is lousy physics.

          Like

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Relativity is easy math. Gravitation theory is harder math… Most of it irrelevant for the big picture (useful, nay, CRUCIAL for GPS, though, and gravity assist next to a Black Hole…)
            “Spacetime” is just a slogan: it has no impact on computation… What does have an impact is IMAGINARY TIME, which is used all over Quantum Field Theory, within computations… It also changes the spacetime manifold from pseudo-Riemannian to really Riemannian…. All this just to be able to compute… But them the computations work… ;-(

            Like

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Please read Einstein within my essay:
          https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/einsteins-error-the-multiverse/

          I have proposed an experiment to detect whom between Albert or Patrice is right… Basically detecting the gravitational field of the photon. My claim: it will go down, the larger the 2-slit set-up…

          Like

          • brodix Says:

            It’s not so much that the computations work. Epicycles were very effective at predicting celestial configurations years in advance. It is that they are a distillation of the order in a system and certain/many factors are not included.
            A map would be next to useless if it tried to model every aspect of the territory, rather than what is required. Much like writing a book, when an essay or even a paragraph could communicate the same idea.
            The problem is when we go back and try to reconstruct a territory out of the map, based on our own presumptions.
            It would be like boiling a body down to the skeleton and assuming you have found the seed from which it sprang.
            Processes create patterns and math is patterns.
            It is that our minds recognize patterns and then we have to discover the processes creating them, such as first proposing gods, then developing science.
            By treating math as ideal forms, mathematicians are treating it as a god, rather than a mental tool.

            Which goes to your point about the waves being real, not the wave functions. They try to make the math the final word.

            Like

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Epicycles work, because it’s Fourier analysis (deep reason).
            Similarly Feynman diagrams/”amplitudology” work because virtual “particles” really happen during/as interactions.
            Wave functions also work… in SQPR, they are proportional to the linear, but guiding parts of the wave. They guide, because the describing equations are nonlinear (as all nonlinear equations are).

            Like

          • brodix Says:

            “because virtual “particles” really happen during/as interactions.
            Wave functions also work… in SQPR, they are proportional to the linear, but guiding parts of the wave.”

            It’s not that the form/information isn’t real. Think frequency, amplitude, time, temperature, pressure, even color, as expressions and interactions of the energy. There is no other way to describe the energy, other than the forms it expresses.
            The problem is, as I see it, that this information is considered cause, with the dynamics of the energy being emergent, or illusionary, because it can only be defined in terms of the form it effects. Definition/patterns are effect.
            It’s like two sides of the coin, can’t have one, without the other.
            Physics seems intent on finding the ultimate form/pattern, without accepting that definition is part of the process, not just some God-like objectivity. It is reductionist and therefore part of the condensation/distillation/coalescing side of the cycle/coin. Gravity is this consolidation on a material and galactic scale, so as one side of the entire cosmic convection cycle, it starts where light quantizes and continues all the way to the rim of black holes. The ‘dark matter’ is just this contraction outside of the range that is considered mass.
            It “curves” light as part of this contraction process, or rather light starts to curve and crest, as it starts to become defined and quantized, as photons.

            Like

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            “Physics seems intent on finding the ultimate form/pattern, without accepting that definition is part of the process”
            Actually an electron is what it does, and also a solution of Dirac equation (in spinor space). So the process is pretty much the definition.
            This is why most QFT theorists are reluctant to take “virtual particles” to be real (whatever a real particle is). They are just fundamentally only mathematical terms… To prove they are more than that, would be a triumph…

            Like

          • brodix Says:

            “an electron is what it does, and also a solution of Dirac equation (in spinor space). So the process is pretty much the definition.”

            Which goes to the question of time.
            Say two billiard balls bounce against one another, which creates an event, affecting both their directions. The billiard balls go onto other events, as that event fades into the past.
            So are the billiard balls the events, or the process of events? They go opposite directions of time.
            The patterns we see and measure fade into the past, while the process goes onto future possibilities, which we can’t measure, because they haven’t happened. We can’t define what hasn’t happened We can only define it, as it happens, but then it’s past.

            Like

          • brodix Says:

            Basically the energy goes past to future, as any definition we give it goes future to past.

            Like

          • brodix Says:

            Keep in mind as well, that determinism, that the future is pre-determined, is based on the inertia of this wave of energy, while multiworlds, that the past remains indeterminate, is based on the fact this wave doesn’t really collapse.
            Both are wrong. The future is not determined, because the act of determination is the computation occurring in the physical present. While the past is determined by these computations, the wave is simply fluctuating as the effect of this processing, not collapsing.

            Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Gigantic subject. I actively work on it. Einstein backtracked on the Ether in later years. Poincare had never subscribed (he was a top topologist).
      My own take is too complex to expose tonight. I believe in local time. I also believe there is a kind of absolute space-as-reference frame. There is also a sort of ether, or rather ethers (each particle in translation)… and they can interfere with each other, causing non linear blow-ups (particle localizations)…

      Wolfram, years ago, spoke of a new kind of science, he wanted to discretize everything… I seem to be far out on the opposite side of the explanatory spectrum… With my SQPR…

      Like

      • brodix Says:

        “I also believe there is a kind of absolute space-as-reference frame.”

        It seems there is an effort to dismiss space as an effect of measurement, that it is the three dimensions. These are a mapping device, the xyz coordinate system. They are no more foundational to space than longitude, latitude and altitude are foundational to the biosphere of the planet.
        If we do eliminate all physical properties from space, it leaves the non-physical qualities of infinity and equilibrium. Infinity because there is nothing to bound it and equilibrium is implicit in relativity, as the frame with the longest ruler and fastest clock is closest to the equilibrium of the vacuum; The unmoving absolute zero of the void.
        So space is the absolute and the infinite.

        Here is another essay I put up on medium, that was not accepted by the publication I submitted it, so it only comes up to those following me;
        View at Medium.com

        Like

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Medium is a mystery to me. There are trying to make a buck nowadays, a bit as if we had to pay for publishing a tweet…

          I should write down the basics of Relativity, my way. “Spacetime” is BS. Even Einstein didn’t like the idea. As I said he drifted back to Poincare’s mindset in later life. Poincare knew topology I don’t even know (130 years later!) Against “spacetime” is a theorem which says that a differential pseudo-Riemannian manifold can be embedded in a 2n+1 manifold which induces its metric (there are two versions, the strongest from Nash). So local “spacetime” brings global space and time, anyway (I never met a theoretical physicist who knew of these theorems… Although Nash embedding is one of his most famous works… Maybe it’s not nebulous enough…)

          Like

          • brodix Says:

            There is no advertising. It sort of suits me, in that it’s long form, without the larger commitment of a blog. Along with some community to bounce ideas off of. I tend to need others points of view, in order to focus an argument. As I do here.
            I never joined twitter. Ideas need some development, so it suits its name.

            My math is rudimentary, but then some of the assumptions that have grown up in the field do need some review, if even I can see their contradictions.

            Like

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            You can write 1,000 words on twitter. Just ask Trump how he does it, or observe… ;-)….
            Twitter is definitively better than Facebook for the intellectual… One can use links, etc… My math is far from rudimentary, to the point I can infuriate most mathematicians… My angle is that they barked up the wrong trees, those full of infinities… I have multilogical arguments why it’s nonsensical...

            Flattered you refine your arguments here, BTW, thanks… 😉

            Like

          • brodix Says:

            It still seems designed for shooting off at the mouth. I don’t really see much use for getting attention for ideas that don’t fit the moment. It will only be when the whole Tower of Babel collapses, that nature’s cyclicality will become clear. So I just live in my own present.
            I signed up for facebook when it was myspace’s little brother. My daughter rearranged my account about six or seven years ago, putting the picture which comes up on medium as the profile, with her and I, as I used it to sign into medium.
            It is now 2 in the morning and I’m off to the airport to pick her up and go to the horse show at Upperville for the day. Back to being a show Dad.

            Like

Leave a Reply to brodix Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: