Slashdot Mirror
Can Primordial Black Holes Alone Account For Dark Matter?
thomst writes: Slashdot stories have reported extensively on the LIGO experiments' initial detection of gravity waves emanating from collisions of primordial black holes, beginning, on February 11, 2016, with the first (and most widely-reported) such detection. Other Slashdot articles have chronicled the second LIGO detection event and the third one. There's even been a Slashdot report on the Synthetic Universe supercomputer model that provided support for the conclusion that the first detection event was, indeed, of a collision between two primordial black holes, rather than the more familiar stellar remnant kind that result from more recent supernovae of large-mass stars.
What interests me is the possibility that black holes of all kinds -- and particularly primordial black holes -- are so commonplace that they may be all that's required to explain the effects of "dark matter." Dark matter, which, according to current models, makes up some 26% of the mass of our Universe, has been firmly established as real, both by calculation of the gravity necessary to hold spiral galaxies like our own together, and by direct observation of gravitational lensing effects produced by the "empty" space between recently-collided galaxies. There's no question that it exists. What is unknown, at this point, is what exactly it consists of.
The leading candidate has, for decades, been something called WIMPs (Weakly-Interacting Massive Particles), a theoretical notion that there are atomic-scale particles that interact with "normal" baryonic matter only via gravity. The problem with WIMPs is that, thus far, not a single one has been detected, despite years of searching for evidence that they exist via multiple, multi-billion-dollar detectors.
With the recent publication of a study of black hole populations in our galaxy (article paywalled, more layman-friendly press release at Phys.org) that indicates there may be as many as 100 million stellar-remnant-type black holes in the Milky Way alone, the question arises, "Is the number of primordial and stellar-remnant black holes in our Universe sufficient to account for the calculated mass of dark matter, without having to invoke WIMPs at all?"
I don't personally have the mathematical knowledge to even begin to answer that question, but I'm curious to find out what the professional cosmologists here think of the idea.
What interests me is the possibility that black holes of all kinds -- and particularly primordial black holes -- are so commonplace that they may be all that's required to explain the effects of "dark matter." Dark matter, which, according to current models, makes up some 26% of the mass of our Universe, has been firmly established as real, both by calculation of the gravity necessary to hold spiral galaxies like our own together, and by direct observation of gravitational lensing effects produced by the "empty" space between recently-collided galaxies. There's no question that it exists. What is unknown, at this point, is what exactly it consists of.
The leading candidate has, for decades, been something called WIMPs (Weakly-Interacting Massive Particles), a theoretical notion that there are atomic-scale particles that interact with "normal" baryonic matter only via gravity. The problem with WIMPs is that, thus far, not a single one has been detected, despite years of searching for evidence that they exist via multiple, multi-billion-dollar detectors.
With the recent publication of a study of black hole populations in our galaxy (article paywalled, more layman-friendly press release at Phys.org) that indicates there may be as many as 100 million stellar-remnant-type black holes in the Milky Way alone, the question arises, "Is the number of primordial and stellar-remnant black holes in our Universe sufficient to account for the calculated mass of dark matter, without having to invoke WIMPs at all?"
I don't personally have the mathematical knowledge to even begin to answer that question, but I'm curious to find out what the professional cosmologists here think of the idea.
ok so this is what happening,
... anywayz So she came over like an hour ago, and i really want to lose my virginity, so i ask her to have sex "no, no i cant, its not right" she said, but i told her "dont worry i know what im doing, ill be done in like 10 seconds, pluss ill give you 2 ps4 games if you say yes" So I gave her lovers in a dangerous space time & GTA5 and then she goes to my room. Shes a bit confused and scarred. Then i think to myself - yo I need lube right? Cuz i read on scarletteen saying you need to lube up her clit otherwise it wont fit in properly. Ok so i have no lube, but i really want to lose my viginity - so i grab some butter from the fridge, but its cold, it wont melt - so I microwaved it for 8 minutes, and then i put it in a glass and poured it on her cooter, now shes saying i burned it. I dont know what to do, my parents are going to be back any minute and shes crying in the bathroom plz help you guyz are relly smrat and please help me.
my parents are out with family friends, and theyll be back any minute so i need your help
Heres some background:
see, i volunteer on my sisters softball team (im 20, the girls are 15) and whatever yea i met this girl, her name is Alison, and were going out for a while. We have alot in common, sometimes i help her with homework. I hepled her on her english essay and she still got a D. This is because the teacher is a doosh
Any idea how to shut her up? Should i give her another ps4 game?
-Beau-