Black holes, dark matter

In article ,
Allan Adler writes:
Ordinary stars make certain atoms and supernova explosions make heavier
atoms. Presently no one know what dark matter is or where it comes from.
How do we know it doesn't come from black holes?

If you are thinking of Hawking radiation, it doesn't solve the
problem in any obvious way. First you have to create the black
holes, presumably during the Big Bang. That is not necessarily easier
than having the dark matter present from the beginning. The black
holes would have to be small enough to have decayed in the time
available, i.e. 14 Gyr. I've forgotten the mass that requires, but
it's much less than a solar mass. Finally, you have to explain why
most of the mass comes out in non-baryonic form.

I don't think anyone can rule out your idea, but it doesn't seem to
provide a straightforward explanation.

--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)

Steve Willner wrote:

I don't think anyone can rule out your idea, but it doesn't seem to
provide a straightforward explanation.


Here's one possible answer that does work. The dark matter is
stellar-mass Kerr-Newman black holes that are every bit as fundamental
and elementary as protons. Details of this hypothesis and a
quantitatively predicted dark matter mass spectrum can be found at
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw . See the most recent addition to the "New
Developments" section for a quick overview. See Paper #1 in the
"Selected Papers" section for a more detailed discussion.

Using an equation that relates the angular momentum and mass of a K-N
bh, I have recently derived the mass of the proton at the 98.3% level,
when you use 1/2 h(bar) and the correct "strong gravity" coupling
constant instead of the Newtonian G. A very sweet result!

Enjoy,
Rob

In article . com,
"Rob" wrote:

Here's one possible answer that does work. The dark matter is
stellar-mass Kerr-Newman black holes that are every bit as fundamental
and elementary as protons. Details of this hypothesis and a
quantitatively predicted dark matter mass spectrum can be found at
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw . See the most recent addition to the "New
Developments" section for a quick overview. See Paper #1 in the
"Selected Papers" section for a more detailed discussion.

What would be the source of these black holes - thats a shed load of
black holes to account for, and surely they would then be baryonic dark
matter - not non-baryonic?

--
You know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his
stupidity here!

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...76a3a4b?&hl=en

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article . com,
"Rob" wrote:

Here's one possible answer that does work. The dark matter is
stellar-mass Kerr-Newman black holes that are every bit as fundamental
and elementary as protons. Details of this hypothesis and a
quantitatively predicted dark matter mass spectrum can be found at
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw . See the most recent addition to the "New
Developments" section for a quick overview. See Paper #1 in the
"Selected Papers" section for a more detailed discussion.

What would be the source of these black holes - thats a shed load of
black holes to account for, and surely they would then be baryonic dark
matter - not non-baryonic?



Firstly, *primordial* black holes of the Kerr-Newman or Schwarschild
persuasion are not "baryonic", and do not run afoul of theoretical
constraints used to rule out some baryonic candidates.

Secondly, it is quite interesting that no one asks 'where do protons
come from' because they are assumed to be fundamental elementary
particles. The Discrete Fractal model says that their analogues on the
Stellar Scale (Kerr-Newman black holes with masses of 0.145 solar
masses) are every bit as fundamental and every bit as elementary as
protons. It takes a radical rethinking of cosmological paradigms to
grasp the concept that reductionism fails and that there are equally
fundamental particles on the Atomic, Stellar and Galactic Scales. It is
a new form of symmetry principle called discrete cosmological
self-similarity. When one finally 'gets it', it is a really beautiful
concept, if you like symmetry principles and unified models of nature.

Both protons and the Stellar Scale analogues can be created and
annihilated in E=mc^2 fashion, but they are both stable, ground state
"particles".

There should be boat-loads of the K-N bhs, so one might ask: "Where are
they?"

1. Gravitational microlensing experiments have tentative evidence for a
huge population of objects in the right mass range.

2. Very large numbers of neutron stars, pulsars, microquasars,
recurrent transient neutron stars, stellar mass bhs, etc. are members
of the more massive nucleus analogue class; they are in various states
of excitation and are in the process of returning to lower states.

3. In addition to this evidence that is already available, the GLAST
and AGILE satellites, scheduled for launch in 2007, will reveal that
the 1 GEV gamma ray excess in our Galaxy is due to the presence,
especially at mid and high latitudes, of a huge population of black
holes emitting faint but high-E gamma rays due to accretion of ISM.
That's my bet anyway.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to discuss these ideas. I welcome
any and all further questions, so long as they are in the spirit of
objective scientific inquiry.

Rob

In article . com,
"Rob" wrote:

Firstly, *primordial* black holes of the Kerr-Newman or Schwarschild
persuasion are not "baryonic", and do not run afoul of theoretical
constraints used to rule out some baryonic candidates.

Ah - you missed out primordial in that first post! However you now have
to explain for a significant population of these primordial black holes,
and give a possible creation mechanism...




Thanks for giving me the opportunity to discuss these ideas. I welcome
any and all further questions, so long as they are in the spirit of
objective scientific inquiry.

Rob

Im interested, but not convinced ... yet ;-)

--
You know you've arrived when you've annoyed the cranks! Crank Hater proves his
stupidity here!

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...76a3a4b?&hl=en

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

Ah - you missed out primordial in that first post! However you now have
to explain for a significant population of these primordial black holes,
and give a possible creation mechanism...

Im interested, but not convinced ... yet ;-)



According to the Discrete Fractal Paradigm (
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ), the Universe was not "created". It has
always existed and always will.

Likewise neither protons nor stellar-mass black holes were "created".
They are stable particles that have always existed and always will.

Fundamental particles on any Scale can be annihilated when they
interact with their antimatter counterparts, and if you have a high
enough energy-density you can spontaneously "create" the fundamental
particles at their discrete masses, since energy and mass are
inter-convertable.

However, the vast overwhelming majority of fundamental particles on the
...., Atomic, Stellar, Galactic, ... Scales are not undergoing
"creation"/annihilation at any given time. On each Scale that is a
local phenomenon, not a global one.

I admit that it takes some time to learn to think in terms of an
transfinite discrete self-similar paradigm for the Universe. The
frigging "origin of the Universe" concept has been so incessantly
drilled into our heads that it is hard to break free. But what a
glorious new vision of the Universe awaits those who can do so.

Robert L. Oldershaw

"Rob" writes:

2. Very large numbers of neutron stars, pulsars, microquasars,
recurrent transient neutron stars, stellar mass bhs, etc. are members
of the more massive nucleus analogue class; they are in various states
of excitation and are in the process of returning to lower states.

A while back, I participated in a discussion of neutron stars on this
newsgroup and on sci.chem because I was interested in the extent to which
one could treat a neutron star as a nucleus and to use the Schroedinger
equation to describe the energy levels of electrons in (gravitational) orbit
about it. In view of your remarks above, I have a couple of questions:
(a) What do you think of the exercise of trying to use the Schroedinger
equation in this way?
(b) Are you saying that one should disregard the fact that the neutron
star is made up of neutrons and instead regard it as made up of
Kerr-Neumann black holes? Or are you saying that it is made up of
both? In either case, how many black holes are there in one of these
neutron stars?
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.

"Rob" writes:

I admit that it takes some time to learn to think in terms of an
transfinite discrete self-similar paradigm for the Universe. The
frigging "origin of the Universe" concept has been so incessantly
drilled into our heads that it is hard to break free. But what a
glorious new vision of the Universe awaits those who can do so.

I think I would probably be a lot happier if you didn't use the word
"transfinite" in this connection. But I'm not sure since I'm not sure
how you are using the term. In mathematics, it is used, for example,
in connection with "transfinite induction", which is a generalization
of mathematical induction to induction over ordinals. If you are using
it in this sense, then I think I need to know something about the
cardinalities of the ordinals you have in mind. If the cardinalities
are too large, I don't think it makes sense to use them to describe
fractals in the sense that I'm used to seeing them.

If you're not using the term "transfinite" in the way that mathematicians
use it, it is probably better not to use it. If you just mean "infinite",
it is better to say "infinite".

If I've misunderstood your meaning, could you please clarify?
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.

Allan Adler wrote:

If you're not using the term "transfinite" in the way that mathematicians
use it, it is probably better not to use it. If you just mean "infinite",
it is better to say "infinite".

I definitely mean infinite, in the usual sense of the word. I like the
word "transfinite", meaning beyond finite, and often use it as a
synonym for infinite. Sometimes words have a very specific meaning in
a given field, as in the case you note. My feeling is that definitions
sometimes depend on context and one must be prepared for nuance.

Thanks for pointing out the possible confusion. I am inclined to go
with "infinite" and avoid misunderstandings.

Rob

Allan Adler wrote:

A while back, I participated in a discussion of neutron stars on this
newsgroup and on sci.chem because I was interested in the extent to which
one could treat a neutron star as a nucleus and to use the Schroedinger
equation to describe the energy levels of electrons in (gravitational) orbit
about it. In view of your remarks above, I have a couple of questions:
(a) What do you think of the exercise of trying to use the Schroedinger
equation in this way?
(b) Are you saying that one should disregard the fact that the neutron
star is made up of neutrons and instead regard it as made up of
Kerr-Neumann black holes? Or are you saying that it is made up of
both? In either case, how many black holes are there in one of these
neutron stars?

(a) You have the nucleus/neutron star analogy correct, but if you want
to talk about using the Schroedinger equation for the wavefunction of a
bound electron you need to consider a Main Sequence star with a shell
of plasma that surrounds the nuclear object and plays the role of an
electron. A Red Dwarf star is the the best analogue of a low-mass atom
with one or two electrons.

(b) I believe our current models of "neutron stars" is seriously wrong
in important ways. Most important is that 99% of the mass is contained
within a central singularity (probably a ring singularity). The
Discrete Fractal paradigm suggests that a neutron star is one massive
Kerr-Newman black hole. Most are in excited states and are losing
excess energy through rotation, gamma ray emission, etc., just like
excited Atomic Scale nuclei.

We really do not know all that much about "neutron stars" because we
cannot observe them in detail, and so our models are based on
theoretical assumptons (fantasies?). There might be sizeable numbers of
neutrons and other subatomic particles exterior to the event horzons of
the K-N bhs, but they would constitute 1% of the mass. By definition,
there can be no Stellar Scale electron analogue bound to a "neutron
star".

Rob