The search is over

How so?
The astrophysics community is on board.

I won't believe it until black science guy confirms this dark matter theory.

I've always figured it was black holes.

What else would it be.

Seems glaringly obvious to me.

>there's a shitload of mass out there that we can't directly observe, weird
>we can't directly observe black holes because event horizon
Wonder if those are related....nawww no sense in pursuing that logic

It's even weirder that we can't find any of them in our own galaxy if they're 5 times more than ordinary matter. But somehow they're all over the galaxy.

I'll take the black hole theory.

It's interesting, you'd think we'd just see the universe absolutely screaming in xray and microwave photographs if there were long spindles of black holes linking superclusters.

meme modelers can suck my standard dick.

ITS OVER
T
S

O
V
E
R

What's next?

that is a man, right?

AYO HOL UP
SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT
ALL THAT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED EMPTY VOID BETWEEN GALAXIES
IS ACTUALLY COMPOSED OF A METRIC FUCK TON OF BLACK HOLES?

How dare you fucking cis fuck.
desu I'd tap his ass (only when he's in trap mode, it would be gay otherwise)

No-no. Its empty voids INSIDE galaxies. SO its more scary.

Actually, yes.
They are outside of the galaxies.
What you described are simply the supermassive black holes insight galaxies.

This theory talks about the black holes that are in between galaxies, we couldn't see them with gravitational lensing because they aren't near any galaxy, we could see them through gravitational waves detection.

So yeah, primordial black holes are black holes created in the beginning of big bang, they weren't form from collapsing stars.

>Its empty voids INSIDE galaxies
supermassive BHs aren't empty voids though, no black hole is.

Nice metaphysics, faggot

fucking commieshit

Wait isnt dark matter is magic thing that makes galaxies spin like they spin? Why would primordial black holes outside galaxies explain it?

did that chick make the discovery?

The less we can observe, the more we are pretending to know about something. This is what makes science and religion familiar.

>>we can't directly observe black holes because event horizon
Sure you can, through gravitational lensing. There were a lot of microlensing surveys done since the 90s looking for primordial black holes, and they have shown that they must be really quite rare. These two papers pretty much rule out primordial black holes as dark matter:
arxiv.org/abs/1401.3025
arxiv.org/abs/1307.5176
The first shows that, in some scenario, primordial black holes would kill neutron stars, and the second shows that in another scenario they would screw up the CMB. Basically between the two papers you can see that no amount of tweaking the parameters and assumption will lead to black hole dark matter that doesn't contradict experiment one wya or another.
Dark matter interacts very weakly with normal matter. Trillions of solar neutrinos fly through your body every second, but they were discovered much much later than sunlight, all because neutrinos interact through the weak force. Dark matter would interact even less with normal matter, possibly only gravitationally. This can be seen, for example in the Bullet Cluster, by looking at how the normal matter seems to slow down in the collision, but the dark matter halos (detected by gravitational lensing) keep moving.

It wouldn't; he's wrong.
Their theory is actually that 90% of the mass in the galaxy is black holes.

We're all told that black holes form when gravity acts on matter of a certain density usually only reached during the death of exceptionally large stars.

Immediately after the big bang, wasn't that required gravitational force happening basically everywhere? If anything we could be lucky that any matter made it through to end up producing us.

Is it possible that these initial black holes could be shaped differently than their contemporary counterparts? After all they were created in a much different environment. Maybe looking for signs of contemporary black holes in the CMB is a misleading pursuit.

who is this semen demon?

Dark matter is made of neutralinos or axions

I would bet my house on it

free house

Arxiv or GTFO

arxiv.org/abs/1603.00464

And Dark Energy is Hawking Radiation from these Black Holes, everything is boring

This has been discussed, there is no chance it is, infinitely too weak to account for any of the dark energy.

But what is there is ALOT of black holes. Still impossible?

they did the math, it can't keep up, at all.

Plus, it's not the same kind of energy.
Dark energy is accelerating the universe, it has nothing to do with typical energy, like hawking radiation.
It's weirder.
I'd even go as far to say that dark energy is some kind of intrinsic property of space.

Particle-antiparticle pairs (involved in Hawking radiation), borrowing energy from zero-point/vacuum energy, which is a candidate for dark energy.

They 'borrow', still conservation works 100%, you simply can't account for the whole fucking universe to expand, tear away galaxies and eventually even fucking atoms.

Even if you magically try to superimpose that theory in expansion, the energy is terribly small.

So the vast majority of the universe actually consists of black holes?

That is absolutely horrifying.

What if we solve it and it's boring? Will HEP die?

Why horrifying? Black holes are cool.

so what about vacuum energy?

>Alternatively, black holes play a role in cosmological natural selection by reshuffling only some matter affecting the distribution of elementary quark universes. The resulting population of universes can be represented as a distribution of a landscape of parameters where the height of the landscape is proportional to the numbers of black holes that a universe with those parameters will have. Applying reasoning borrowed from the study of fitness landscapes in population biology, one can conclude that the population is dominated by universes whose parameters drive the production of black holes to a local peak in the landscape. This was the first use of the notion of a landscape of parameters in physics.
>...
>In a critical review of The Life of the Cosmos, astrophysicist Joe Silk suggested that our universe falls short by about four orders of magnitude from being maximal for the production of black holes.

Joe Silk btfo
Get hype for Smolin vs the world

this is all well and good until you remember that black holes dont actually exist

So this means that 85% of all matter in the universe is fucking black holes.

That's horror film tier revelation.

Christ this board is retarded. Are there any other communities out there that are decent for me to go to?

>Fucking transparent unicorns?

I think it's the same everywhere where normies get to post. You're probably just spoiled because this board used to actually have good discussions.

>futurity.org/dark-matter-gravitational-wave-1189062-2/
Only if they were accreting, right? And presumably super-old black holes would be mostly not accreting anymore, right?