Could Dark Matter form black hole? http://physics.stackexchange.

com/questions/90908/could-dark-matter-form-black-hole/
1 | P a g e
Dark Matter has not been detected within the vicinity of Earth by even extremely sensitive detectors such as the LUX (Large Underground
Xenon) detector. Yet scientists believe that the halos surrounding galaxies are replete with Dark Matter.
It seems more likely that the LUX detectors could not detect Dark Matter simply because there isn't any in the vicinity of our Earth. That
would essentially mean that Dark Matter distribution is perhaps non uniform across our galaxy. Since it seems to be localized in galactic
halos, and perhaps such regions that are beyond the gravitational field of massive bodies (such as planets/stars/galaxies). Therefore it
appears that Dark Matter could be gravitationally repulsive with respect to normal matter.
In that case, it makes perfect sense why Dark Matter cannot form Black Holes since they simply cannot be packed close enough (due to
their 'soft' mutual repulsion), to form Black Holes. That also would explain why they are found mostly in the outer reaches of galaxies, within
their halos.
For more details please see http://urbanyogi2012.blogspot.ca/2014/06/on-dark-matter.html
edited Jun
20 at 1:14
answered Jun 20 at 1:06
harismind
112
"It seems more likely that the LUX detectors could not detect Dark Matter simply because there isn't any in the vicinity of our Earth." - I disagree. The
ability of LUX and other experiments to detect DM depends on how stongly DM interacts/decays etc. There is no strong reason to conclude that there are
no DM close to Earth - just that it does not interact/decay stong enough to allow for a detection. Winther Jun 20 at 1:31
"Therefore it appears that Dark Matter could be gravitationally repulsive with respect to normal matter." - This would be very hard to recogncile with our
very successful models of structure formation - which treats DM as a purely collisionless fluid - and which interacts with gravity just as normal
matter. Winther Jun 20 at 1:34
The 'strong reason' is they haven't been detected despite such powerful detectors! Dark Matter is supposed to be more than 5 times as abundant as normal
matter, yet not a trace has been detected in the vicinity of Earth. Simple logic dictates that they have not been detected simply because DM is not present
on Earth. harismind Jun 20 at 1:52
Your 'successful models' don't explain anything about DM. If it gravitationally attracts and is 5 times more abundant than normal matter then you should
be seeing DM everywhere. You don't. You only see it in Galactic halos far removed from the gravitational ambit large bodies. Ask yourself why this
pattern is observed consistently from galaxy to galaxy. harismind Jun 20 at 1:59
Could Dark Matter form black hole? http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90908/could-dark-matter-form-black-hole/
2 | P a g e
Firstly, we cannot "see" things that don't emmit light. The effect we "see" is though its gravitational effect. Right, such models do not explain what DM
really is, but they tell us a lot on how it must act and we can say with great certainty that DM is not replusive as you suggest. That would have huge
observable consequences on many observables such as 1) the cosmic microwave background 2) clustering statistics of galaxies and 3) galaxy rotation
curves to mention some for which we have high quality observations of. Winther Jun 20 at 2:20
I did not mean "see" in a literal sense. If DM were uniformly distributed, we would be observing gravitational anomalies even locally (the motions of our
own planets) that can be accounted only by factoring in the effects of DM. No such anomalies have been detected and all the motions of our planets and
moon can be perfectly explained by the amount of normal matter they contain. Thus it is clearly not uniformly distributed. I don't see how a repulsive DM
would be inconsistent with CMB. I have also explained in my website how it perfectly explains galactic clustering and rotation curves. harismind Jun
20 at 2:36
Nobody claims that DM is uniformly distibuted. For a halo or a galaxy we expect a density profile that falls off with distance from the center - as found
from simulations and observationally from, say, rotation curves. "I don't see how a repulsive DM would be inconsistent with CMB" Scientist don't just
speculate about this: we calculate and compare with observations. The CMB predictions for our standard DM models are in perfect agreement with the
data. Repulsive DM is very much not! Also its not enough to say "it perfectly fits data" without having done the computations. Winther Jun 20 at 2:57
It's surprising that you base your conclusions on some simplistic computer models. One can model things that look like trees with fractal equations, that
doesn't mean trees grow according to these equations. There are a whole series of complex processes. Remember, the computer is not the
universe. harismind Jun 20 at 10:42
You say "Repulsive DM is very much not!"-what exactly do you know about repulsive DM other than what I have said here? You make such sweeping
statement without any knowledge of what you're talking about. Scientists don't do that. You have not answered the glaring logical inconsistencies of your
ridiculous model, by hiding behind some computer model that may have several random parameters, that can be selectively chosen to fit any
observation. harismind Jun 20 at 10:48
Have you even thought that if DM was attractive in nature, as our planets move around our sun, they would be like snowballs sweeping up the DM along
the way and growing in mass. And the effects of this additional mass could be clearly observed in the planetary motions. Yet there is nothing. After I
pointed out the fallacy in your model, you are saying "Nobody claims that DM is uniformly distibuted." Actually, that is exactly what scientists are
saying. harismind Jun 20 at 11:00
"what exactly do you know about repulsive DM" - from your outline, enough to say I have strong doubts it can ever work. Anyway, the burden of proof is
on you. "simplistic computer models" - Not at all. "that can be selectively chosen to fit any observation" - Nope. Most parameters are constrained to 1%
accuracy. "they would be like snowballs sweeping up the DM" - To a very small extent. Too large velocities and avg. density too low to ever change mass
of planets. "Actually, that is exactly what scientists are saying" - Nope. You must be confusing it with dark energy. Winther Jun 20 at 11:38
Could Dark Matter form black hole? http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90908/could-dark-matter-form-black-hole/
3 | P a g e
"- from your outline, enough to say I have strong doubts it can ever work."-nope. you know next to nothing about DM, let alone repulsive DM. "Most
parameters are constrained to 1% accuracy"-you have less than a keyhole view of the universe and then make these grand models that you think explains
it. It's like looking out though your kitchen window and making a map of the city. harismind Jun 20 at 11:50
"To a very small extent"?? That's a laugh. You have DM 5 times as much as normal matter. It's like having 5 DM suns, 5 earths, 5 jupiters etc. in our solar
system. And you are saying only to a very small extent. Do you even know how gravity works?. No I am not confusing DM with DE. The LUX detectors
were built with the specific purpose of finding DM not DE. If they didn't think they could find DM on earth, why else would they have looked for it
here? harismind Jun 20 at 11:55
"You have DM 5 times as much" Yes, on average in the universe! At the scale of the solar system DM is spread out fairly evenly with density
roughly 106 of the avg. DM density in the universe. A planet has a density 1030 times the avg. matter density in the universe. "why else would they have
looked here" Experiments look for DM interacting/decying into matter - not via mass-increase of planets. DM can affect planet orbits to some extent and
this could be detected, but this is not because planets absorb DM - its due to all the mass within the orbit giving a larger gravitaitional
force. Winther Jun 20 at 12:40
If DM is gravitationally attractive, over time (13.8 billion years) and with the continuous motion of the stars, planets & galaxies, DM would have to be
accumulating pretty tightly around these massive bodies. Why is that not happening? Remember DM is 5 times as abundant as normal matter. "DM can
affect planet orbits to some extent and this could be detected"-- then why is that not detected? Please don't cite some computer simulation to back up your
argument. Give observational evidence. harismind Jun 20 at 12:58
"would have to be accumulating pretty tightly" No. DM has no pressure, i.e. nothing to slow it down, so large velocities prevent this from happening (to a
large extent). "then why is that not detected?" DM density in solar-system is just tiny. Some works have tried to estimate how much the solarsystem has
accumulated - and this seems to indicate that less than around 0.002% of the mass of the Earth has been accum. so far (arxiv.org/abs/0806.3767). This is
tiny! Winther Jun 20 at 13:29
"DM has no pressure"-On what do you base this on? You don't even know what DM is, yet you make these wild assumptions about what it should be.
Agreed that it says, as per its model (which is based on many questionable assumptions) that the DM capture is around 0.002% (1.78x10^-5) of Earth
mass. It also concludes by saying "we find that dark matter in our Solar System is far more important than previously thought". In any case these are just
models about something scientists have very little knowledge about. It is hard to take this seriously. harismind Jun 20 at 16:58
Repulsive gravity as a result of Dark Energy has been proposed before by a theoretical physicist, Massimo Villata. I have mentioned that in my write-up.
However, he has proposed antimatter as causing this repulsive gravity, to which I don't quite agree. I think it is extradimensional matter trapped in closed
2d M-branes (something like tiny bubbles, not of this universe, though within), whose positive curvature on our space-time would cause repulsive gravity.
For Villata's paper, see arxiv.org/abs/1201.3810 harismind Jun 20 at 16:59
Could Dark Matter form black hole? http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/90908/could-dark-matter-form-black-hole/
4 | P a g e
I don't think I want to prolong this discussion any more, since it is taking too much of my valuable time. Hence I will not be responding to any further
posts. harismind Jun 20 at 17:01