|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Dark Matter Paradox / Black Hole Runaway
On 3/25/2013 8:27 PM, David Spain wrote:
However, my main issue is how does DM respond in the vicinity of a BH? If it's really there, Swartzchild's calculations would have or should have been way off. I'd be a lot happier with the CDM hypothesis if it were re-framed somewhat. Rather than think of it terms of discrete "matter", I'd prefer to think of it in terms of a space-time "contour". Seen this way CDM only presents at very, very large scales. As you continually reduce the scale (volume) of the Universe under observation, essentially CDM fades away. This would eliminate the issue I have with CDM "falling" into a BH. The contours are essentially "straight". But at the scale of a galaxy or esp. at a universe space-time exhibits the popular bands and strands. I'd call this a "course-structure" model, but that'd probably confuse the issue. What's still missing is a QM explanation for why a CDM contour would exist. If we can ever incorporate Gravitation into QM maybe we can start to understand why. Dave |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Dark Matter Paradox / Black Hole Runaway
In article ,
David Spain writes: If a BH can form an accretion disk of ordinary matter why is dark matter so selectively able to 'stay away'? Because dark matter isn't affected by anything except gravity. A DM particle comes in, and unless its orbit intersects the event horizon, the particle goes right back out again, regardless of what other particles may be nearby. (I'm over-simplifying a bit: the relevant distance is a little larger than the event horizon but not much.) A baryon, on the other hand, may hit another baryon, and orbits of both get changed. In particular, motion parallel to the angular momentum vector is damped out, forming a disk. Once a disk forms, viscosity (baryon-baryon interaction) causes matter to flow inward, eventually into the black hole. If baryons were collisionless, they wouldn't form a disk or be accreted either. An analogy for DM particles around a black hole is globular cluster stars. Many GCs probably have black holes in the middle, but the stars don't magically get sucked in. The stars just continue orbiting unless (very rarely) one of the orbits is perturbed enough to bring the star very close to the black hole. -- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Dark Matter Paradox / Black Hole Runaway
Thanks for the reply Steve, your explanation helps a great deal.
A few comments tho... On 3/26/2013 4:57 PM, Steve Willner wrote: In article , David Spain writes: If a BH can form an accretion disk of ordinary matter why is dark matter so selectively able to 'stay away'? Because dark matter isn't affected by anything except gravity. A DM particle comes in, and unless its orbit intersects the event horizon, the particle goes right back out again, regardless of what other particles may be nearby. (I'm over-simplifying a bit: the relevant distance is a little larger than the event horizon but not much.) A baryon, on the other hand, may hit another baryon, and orbits of both get changed. In particular, motion parallel to the angular momentum vector is damped out, forming a disk. Parallel? If you are referring to angular momentum relative to the BH, don't you mean perpendicular? Once a disk forms, viscosity (baryon-baryon interaction) causes matter to flow inward, eventually into the black hole. If baryons were collisionless, they wouldn't form a disk or be accreted either. An analogy for DM particles around a black hole is globular cluster stars. Many GCs probably have black holes in the middle, but the stars don't magically get sucked in. The stars just continue orbiting unless (very rarely) one of the orbits is perturbed enough to bring the star very close to the black hole. I'm still stuck on the visualization of DM as 'particles'. I think the problem is that DM is so 'extremely massive' it's hard to think of it in terms of ordinary matter. I get your GC analogy (and thanks for that as well it really helps!) however, there are several real problems that remain. Sure DM can whiz past a BH in a non-intersecting orbit, but there are many possible orbits. For example, stellar pairings of stars and BH's trapped in their own mutual gravitation are not uncommon. So why wouldn't BH's attract halo's of DM? Especially If DM is far more common than matter? Would not this cause measurable gravitational anomalies in the vicinity of a BH that we should be able to observe? I'm less unhappy if I think of DM not as 'particles' but as contours. Contours that play out only along very very very large distances. Since BH geometry is quite compact, it would help explain (to me anyway) why we don't see strange BH/DM interactions. To get a feel for what I'm talking about let's consider the problem from a purely spacial perspective and "re-normalize". Think of the circumference of a 'typical' BH event horizon being about the size of a hand-held shot-put. Think of the circumference of a DM 'particle' being the circumference of the Earth. From the BH perspective the DM 'particle' presents as a flat surface. From the Moon I can see the DM 'particle' as a discrete object and it would take mighty powerful optics to see the shot-put at all. Ignoring all the other differences, am I getting closer to a better analogy? Dave |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Dark Matter Paradox / Black Hole Runaway
In article ,
David Spain writes: Parallel? If you are referring to angular momentum relative to the BH, don't you mean perpendicular? The angular momentum _vector_ points toward the pole of rotation. For a disk to form, the relevant angular momentum is that of the baryons that make up the disk. Depending on the formation mechanism, that might be close in direction to the black hole angular momentum, but it doesn't always have to be. I'm still stuck on the visualization of DM as 'particles'. Can't help you with that; it works fine for me. It might help to think about comets approaching the Sun. They come in from all directions and at varying speeds, but very few hit the Sun. Mostly they just go back out where they came from. If the Sun were replaced by a black hole of the same mass, nothing much would change except that the cross section for "hitting" would be a lot smaller. Is that clear? As you say later, having multiple bodies complicates things. Some comets are perturbed by Jupiter or other planets into Sun- intersecting orbits. However, some that would have intersected the Sun are perturbed into orbits that miss. I doubt there's a substantial net effect one way or the other, but it's beyond me to do a detailed calculation. Dark matter particles should behave the same way (except that radiation pressure and other non-gravitational forces are zero). The basic point is that a black hole isn't some kind of "cosmic vacuum cleaner" that goes around sucking in everything in the vicinity. It's just a gravitating body like any other except very near the event horizon. Depending on how sensitively you can measure and how close the orbit comes to the event horizon, there may be measureable differences, but the overall appearance of orbits is the same whether the central mass is a black hole or any other body. -- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Dark Matter Paradox / Black Hole Runaway
On 3/13/2013 6:25 AM, Steve Willner wrote:
There's a nice movie at http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/millennium/ Thanks for posting this, I've been looking over this entire website whenever I get a chance. Some scholia: 1) Units of Gpc/h, Mpc/h and kpc/h not explained. For those of us not steeped in this for a living I did a little research. Gpc == Giga-parsecs, Mpc == Mega-parsecs kpc == kilo-parsecs. The /h is a scalar correction in the range [0.5, 0.75] reflecting the uncertainty in the value of the Hubble constant H for the rate of expansion of the Universe. See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsec To give you a feel for the 'size' of a Mega-parsec, according to the cited Wikipedia page, the Andromeda Galaxy is about 0.78 Mpc away from the Earth. 2) Units of Gyr assumed to be Giga-years, i.e. 10**9 or as we say in the US one billion years (thank your Dr. Sagan). As opposed to Phoenix Goodyear Airports... See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyr 3) For the series of images which are taken as zoomed slices through the density field, I'm presuming the redshift taken for each series can also be presumed as how it would appear for various ages of the universe. For example at a z=0 t=13.6 Gyr we are essentially looking through density fields for the universe at its current age. At z=18.3 t=0.21Gyr we are looking at density fields for a universe that is 'only' 210 million years old. Steve correct where needed. Dave |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lack of runaway black holes hints at dark matter density | Yousuf Khan | Astronomy Misc | 14 | April 3rd 10 06:01 AM |
[Fwd: Dark Matter: black hole frame drag?] | Double-A[_3_] | Solar | 1 | March 7th 10 10:23 PM |
Dark matter swirling into a black hole? | Yousuf Khan | Astronomy Misc | 21 | January 15th 07 01:10 PM |