AFAIK, the mass of a black hole is concentrated on a point called the singularity, this is the reason for its extreme gravitational pull. So for black holes to behave the way it does, it needs a singularity. Are you suggesting that this singularity is made of dark matter ?
How does this dark matter singularity become that foggy patches shown in the NASA Hubble map ? To me, this doesn't seem to solve dark matter but just complicates things even more, lol 😂
AFAIK, general theory of relatively is proven. I don't know if singularity makes space-time curvature infinitive, that's kinda confusing because infinity a theoretical. For example, we consider sun's rays as parallel even though its not at an infinite distance from earth, so the context matters.
Because I don't know the mathematics behind all this, I'm not sure which infinity they meant. Its possible that they meant the true theoretical infinity. I've heard the quote "black holes are where god divided by zero", so there's definitely some weird mathematics going on. I think Hawking radiation disproved that statement, IDK 🤔. Its been a while since I last heard about black holes, haha. Anyway, these things are weird AF, they're too dense for us to grasp ;)
> Why is my theory making things more confusing
Singularity is more like a point, so calling it a "ball" is kinda misleading. Also, there's a lot of unknowns about dark matter, you're just making a lot of assumptions here, that stars convert matter to dark matter when they explode, that black holes convert matter to dark matter when it swallows something, etc. There's no need to make it this complicated when you can explain everything using a singularity made of normal matter, not dark.
Its not actually a hole, you know that right. It just pulls everything in to the singularity, that's just an extremely powerful gravity. And for where does this matter go, there are theories saying its like wormhole, so it spews everything it swallows somewhere else. There's also Hawking radiation, which is more widely accepted I think. It solves this information paradox, because it shows that black holes radiate away.
"It just pulls everything in to the singularity" - so you're saying it pulls stuff into that "point"? Then why are these black holes bigger, smaller, have a shape, a mass?
I'm no expert, but from what I understand, what they mean by the size is the event horizon. The event horizon is a boundary inside which light can no longer escape. So intuitively, this event horizon should expand when the mass increases because gravity increases with mass.
BTW, from what I know about black holes, they don't have a shape. I've heard about spinning black holes, but never a cube/pyramid shaped one 😁
Those 2 videos are very good 👍
My confusion regarding this black balls theory is this:
1. Not even light can escape a black hole because its so dense that the gravity is in the extremes. But if it was a ball the same size (of event horizon), then it wouldn't be this dense and wouldn't have that much gravity
2. We don't even know if matter can become dark matter, let alone say that stars exploding will cause it. Its called dark matter cause we literally know nothing about it, lol 😂
Thank you for engaging as well, we could discuss these things for hours without getting bored, haha 😄
Not even light can escape a black hole because its so dense that the gravity is in the extremes. But if it was a ball the same size (of event horizon), then it wouldn't be this dense and wouldn't have that much gravityActually the one who first came up with this theory, a mathematician some 200 years ago, called it a dark/black star and proved mathematically you can have such a star where light can't escape it because it is so dense. And black holes are actually stars....same way a neutron star is still a star. They call it "hole" and make things confusing a lot :D.
We don't even know if matter can become dark matter, let alone say that stars exploding will cause it. Its called dark matter cause we literally know nothing about it, lolExactly. We don't even know if it is matter. But has similar properties with a black hole that's why they are thinking black matter can in fact be black holes. They both do not interact with light/matter so that we can't see them, and have a strong gravitational pull.
> Actually the one who first came up with this theory, a mathematician some 200 years ago, called it a dark/black star and proved mathematically you can have such a star
I didn't knew about that, interesting... 🤔
Also, keep in mind that this mathematician can be wrong, there has to be a reason we don't call it a star anymore. Einstein published general relativity in 1915, before that we didn't had a clear picture of how gravity worked.
Its possible for a star's gravity to bend light, this is actually how we proved general relativity. But a star's gravity is not strong enough that even light can't escape, if it were then it wouldn't be able to glow ;)
Also, when you call it a black ball, a dark planet comes to my mind. And I don't get how a planet can do what a black hole does. Even if your black ball was made of dark matter, the gravitational properties would be kinda the same as a normal ball.
As long as we're talking about the singularity, the name we give to it doesn't matter. In my mind, I see stars as something that radiates energy, so its hard to call black holes a star. I know about hawking radiation, but its very different thing. In hawking radiation, none of the energy/matter that's released comes from the black hole itself.
From wikipedia: "A star is an astronomical object consisting of a luminous spheroid of plasma held together by its own gravity"
Its also hard for me to call singularity a "ball" because now I have a better understanding of why they theorized it to be point sized. Even if it wasn't point sized, I still find it hard to call something so tiny a "ball". Would you call atoms a "ball" ? IDK, sounds weird to me.
About dark matter, there is still the question of where that normal matter went ? If you're saying that normal matter turned into dark matter, then it would work AFAIK. But my question is "why ?". You're just adding an extra step to the whole process, there's no need for matter to become darkmatter for black holes to exist, so why make it more complicated ? 🤷
If scientists are looking into such theories, then they're probably doing it for entirely different reasons than us 😂
You're just adding an extra step to the whole process, there's no need for matter to become darkmatter for black holes to exist, so why make it more complicated ?As explained in the article....it can solve 2 issues: 1. We understand what black balls are. And 2. It may explain how dark matter comes into existence.
> 2. It may explain how dark matter comes into existence.
I don't understand this point, that's why I asked this question:
> How does this dark matter singularity become that foggy patches shown in the NASA Hubble map ?
The gravity of a black hole is so strong that nothing can escape it, so how can dark matter escape it considering their gravitational properties are similar to normal matter ?
> To say that the blackness of a black hole is just stuff that we can't see because light can't escape the gravitational pull, is also an invention, isn't it?
I don't think its an invention, that's how we define black holes !
(AFAIK, We defined them even before finding one IRL)
From Wikipedia: "A black hole is a region of spacetime where gravity is so strong that nothing — no particles or even electromagnetic radiation such as light — can escape from it."
AFAIK, We defined them even before finding one IRLI was reading through the history of black holes and from what I got from it, at first it was theorized that there can be dark stars, as I said in other comments. So dense that light can't escape them.
If your theory proved to be right, they'll probably change the name from black holes to something like black balls (which you suggested) since it wouldn't fit the definition of a black hole. So instead of saying there's a black hole at the centre of every galaxy, they'll be saying there's a black ball there 😉
> in most cases you see it as a sort of "gas" that still has a decent gravitational pull from my understanding, but at times under tremendous pressures it coalesces in the form of a star.
Ofc, this is a possibility, I understand that. But my point here is that it can't go from a planet to a gas, only the other way around. So if you're saying all dark matter are created when black holes are born, be it a black ball/star, it'll never become that foggy patches shown in the NASA Hubble map.
> When a star becomes a neutron star it loses mass/energy in the process of collapsing, and those remains will transform into gas clouds of the normal matter that this star was made of.
Ok, this is actually what I wanted to hear, now your theory is making more sense to me, and I understand it better now 😀
I just couldn't think of any way its mass could spread out, haha 😂
So the answer is a supernova explosion that spreads out the mass of these black balls that are made of dark matter.
Yes, you'll find it hard to imagine a point sized object cause its vastly different from anything we've ever seen. I don't know how to explain this, but I'll try. You just have to think about why a point sized object can't exist in our day to day life. If you think about it from the perspective of atoms and particles, then you'll understand that its because of the repulsion between these particles. Black holes are born when stars collapse that are massive enough to overcome all repulsions.
> Ofc this can be true, but I find this one to be so wild.
Yes, and that's what makes black holes interesting, they are wild 😀
Black holes are born when stars collapse that are massive enough to overcome all repulsions.That's the theory. But we do not know for sure. Maybe there are all sorts of matter out there and forces. After all the normal physics and the quantum one are still not shaking hands from what I know. They had to invent a new kind of physics to explain those new particles.
A big factor for confusion here is that I'm not really sure how much of the stuff I've heard about black holes are just a theory vs how much is actually evidence based. Everytime I hear about black holes, I hear all of these same things, singularity, event horizon, etc.
One thing we both agree here is that our knowledge about the universe is limited. I'm not saying your theory can't be true, I'm just trying to explain why I find it confusing. Ofc, we have different POV about black holes 🙂
Its interesting you mentioned quantum mechanics, cause that's even crazier, haha
> They had to invent a new kind of physics to explain those new particles.
New physics ? Dude, quantum mechanics is literally MAGIC !
Did you know that they actually teleported data using quantum entanglement ? If this isn't magic, IDK what is......
Thanks, I'll take a loot at that. I like learning about quantum mechanics, its probably the most insane/craziest fields of science ever. It feels literally like magic to me, and I can't believe these things are REAL, I mean WTF ?
BTW, you can try doing the double slit experiment at home - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKdaRJ3vAmA
I'll do this one day when I buy a laser, a cheap one should be enough I think.
Atoms are spherical shaped and are made of even smaller sub particles, so its not that different from a star/planet (which is made of many small particles as well), atoms are just tiny.
I think of singularity as a point, its more exciting for me that way ;)
And considering how little we know about the universe, maybe the closest we can get to truth is to consider the latest science we know. Ofc, it can always be wrong, but that's just the best we can know from a scientific perspective 🙂
Yeah, I was just trying to say how I can't call something so tiny like singularity a ball. Ofc, it'd be different if your theory is right and is actually a star/planet, then we can call it a ball. This is why I said we have different POV when we think about a black hole, the singularity comes to my mind but maybe a ball made of dark matter comes to your mind 🙂
> Also, aren't moons same as planets?
This is actually an interesting question. I think technically they're kinda the same, but we gave them different names just to make communication easier for us.
That's interesting, I didn't know that. I only have a rough idea of what black holes are, I don't know anything about its academic background 😁
Of course I agree that scientists can be wrong. Coming from a scientific guy like you, it makes sense. You know very well where the limits of science are.
Funny story, I've heard this argument from a religious person, saying that science will say one thing today and another thing tomorrow, so its not reliable. I later said to him that where there's change there's progress, so science will keep correcting its mistakes and become better as time goes on, while religion is stuck in the past 🙂
Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.