We still don’t know what dark matter is, but we can strike a line through one option. It is not, as per a theory proposed by the brilliant Stephen Hawking, a bunch of teeny-tiny microscopic black holes.
more…
Tau.Neutrino said:
We still don’t know what dark matter is, but we can strike a line through one option. It is not, as per a theory proposed by the brilliant Stephen Hawking, a bunch of teeny-tiny microscopic black holes.
more…
Link not working.
Surely it was more a hypothesis than a theory?
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
We still don’t know what dark matter is, but we can strike a line through one option. It is not, as per a theory proposed by the brilliant Stephen Hawking, a bunch of teeny-tiny microscopic black holes.
more…
Link not working.
Surely it was more a hypothesis than a theory?
How would that work would they all have the same mass or would it vary and if so would that make dark matter lumpy (not smooth)
Smoking too much pot, need to smoke less I think.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Link
My understanding is that this had already been ruled out, in three different ways,
1. Microscopic black holes count as MACHOs, Massive Astronomical Compact Halo Objects. A MACHO search for objects between us and one of the Magellanic Clouds found just two MACHOs, nowhere near enough to account for dark matter.
2. Primordial black holes would accumulate in the centre of massive objects like our Sun, changing the core temperature by a measurable amount. This has been ruled out.
3. Primordial black holes as dark matter would have to be so common that some would pass through the solar system, changing the orbits of the outer planets, Uranus in particular. No such change has occurred.
So it’s nice to see it ruled out in a fourth way.