Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Dark Matter May Be Trapped in All the Black Holes (nautil.us)
123 points by dnetesn 101 days ago | hide | past | web | 105 comments | favorite



Meanwhile, the evidence for unbound WIMPS is sorta growing: http://earthsky.org/space/waterloo-image-dark-matter-cosmic-...


And the X-Ray axion evidence from a few years ago looks OK too.

But honestly: my money would have to go on this one. Black holes are by far the most boring and conventional of the existing theories, and the easiest to refute. aLIGO will tell us if it's right or not within years.


> Black holes are by far the most boring and conventional of the existing theories

I was ready to start arguing, but then I realized you were speaking in the context of dark matter theories. :)

I feel there's gonna be a few interesting years or couple decades ahead. Maybe not as big as the early 1900s. Maybe as big. Maybe even bigger.


That's all options :)


Well, uncertainty is exciting. :)


May you live in uncertain times.


May all your predictions be either jointly exhaustive or not jointly exhaustive.


Threads like this are what keep me coming back to orange website. They are rare & touchingly innocent flowers amongst a field of awash with metaphorical blood.

Thank you.


Thats really exciting. It would be amazing if we could get clear observable confirmation like Einsteins eclipse.


At the top of the article, is that real imagery or some sort of mock-up?


Of course it's a mock-up. Black holes have never been imaged from up-close. Maybe the background is an actual photo, but not the thing in the middle.

But it does seem to be a more or less realistic simulation of light ray distortion in the gravitational field of a black hole.


I thought NASA usually described these sorts of things as "artist depictions", and that maybe I had not been paying attention and some wonderful imagery had arisen.


Oh, I see. You were looking at the attribution notice next to the photo in the article. It certainly refers to the background only. They should have explicitly said that. BHs are just too far away, and our instruments are not powerful enough (yet?) to image them at this kind of scale.

If you watch Interstellar, the imagery in the movie (the giant black hole, and even the wormhole the characters use to travel far away) is actually a physically-realistic simulation of the behavior of light in black-hole-like gravity fields. Kip Thorne, one of the top scientists in the field of general relativity, has collaborated with the movie makers to ensure the special effects were as close as possible to what science tells us right now about these objects.


Article which talks about the black hole simulation in Interstellar: https://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophysics-interstellar-blac...


Basically non of the images you ever see from anything in outer space are real. It's always composite images or colored in or spectrum-shifted into our visible light range.


I am actually active in the field of astrophotography. What you're describing is a common-enough opinion, but it's inaccurate to the point of being misleading.

When imaging outside of the visible spectrum, you have no choice. You must translate it into visible light, or else you could not see it. So, yes, there are many false-color images out there, and for a good reason - they show us the invisible part of the EM spectrum.

Of those taken with visible light, there are several categories.

Some of them are indeed false color. Examples: imaging the Sun with a narrow monochromatic filter such as hydrogen alpha, or some "magic" wavelengths like 540 nm. These should be displayed in their respective colors (red for hydrogen alpha, green for 540 nm, etc), but often arbitrary color choices are made, because the original image is monochromatic anyway, so it should not matter what color is displayed in as long as its nature is understood by the viewer.

And then there's a very broad slice of the pie where the colors are basically real, they're just not perceived that way by the human eye, or even by the camera - and yet they do represent the original spectral content of the incoming EM radiation.

For example, when observing a galaxy or a nebula, all the human eye can see is a black-and-white smudge. Even in a telescope, you almost never see color with your own eyes when looking at these objects. Why is that? Because we have two kinds of light receptors in our eyes, and the ones that actually see color do not work in low light conditions - we are all colorblind there.

But attach a camera to a telescope, have the instrument track the nebula for a long time, open the shutter and let the sensor collect photons for a while. Then look at the result. Suddenly, you see colors. Why is that? Because with long exposure, the camera can actually see colors. That's something that our eyes cannot do.

But are those images "enhanced" somehow in post-processing in ways that make those colors unnatural? It depends. For objects like the Orion nebula, or the Horsehead, the colors are strong enough to not need much post-processing. In other cases, you may have to apply fairly strong contrast and saturation boosts.

So there's a whole continuum of images taken in visible light, where the amount of post-processing varies from quite lightweight to pretty heavy. With some experience, you can tell which is which. I've taken images of the Moon in high resolution and I've left it alone in post - you can tell because the colors are drab, it looks like the surface of an asphalt road. I've also taken moonshots where I've applied very heavy saturation boosting - you can tell because you can start seeing colors in an otherwise gray landscape. This allows you to detect surface, terrain, and mineral features that would not be apparent otherwise, things like ejecta from impacts and so on.

http://i.imgur.com/le5vrzh.jpg

And finally there are many, many images of planets such as Jupiter or Saturn, where the colors basically match the imagery taken by space probes hovering nearby, and would match what people would see with their own eyes if they were in actual orbit there.

---

TLDR: The real answer is "it depends". Some colors are totally fake. Some are real, but boosted. Some are real, it's just that the human eye could not see them due to our scotopic vision characteristics. And others are actually quite realistic in every way. It's a broad continuum. You learn to tell them apart by being involved in actually making them.


That doesn't make them not real, it makes them color shifted to a visible spectrum so we can see them with our very limited human vision which sees only a tiny band of the EM range.


Photograph by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center / Flickr


But a black hole has literally never been imaged.


You are correct, after doing some digging I found this caption: "An illustration of the supermassive black hole located in the middle of the very dense galaxy M60-UCD1. It weighs as much as 21 million times the mass of our Sun. Credit: NASA, ESA, D. Coe, G. Bacon (STScI)"

leading to:

https://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic1419a/


but this could be an image of the lack of image. there are a couple ways to take what you said, since "light isn't escaping"

how about the event horizon then


No. There is literally no high-res image in existence of the lack of light effected by a black hole's event horizon. Any cool-looking picture of light apparently warping around some unseen object, gas jets shooting out of a black ball, or any other depiction of any fidelity is an artist's impression at this point.

Currently, there is a project underway (http://eventhorizontelescope.org/) coordinating the efforts of many different researchers with the goal of resolving the event horizon of a black hole. This project would only produce an image that most people would still call extremely blurry. But it would be the first legitimate image of the characteristic visual features of a black hole.


What semi accessible books are available on the subject?


A universe peppered with black holes may also explain the Fermi paradox. A terrifying but logical thought.


Black holes do not vacuum everything around them - the law of gravity is a function of distance. That does not explain the Fermi paradox at all.


Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, but on average they'll be lightyears apart. I think the chance of them hitting each other is astronomically small.

Even when Andromeda and the Milky way collide, almost nothing will hit each other, because there is no much empty space.


This being said there was a paper recently studying the frequency of meteor impacts with the frequency of the solar system passing by arms of the Milky Way, and it did suggest there were more meteor impacts when the solar system passed in slightly more dense zones.


Do they? These black holes would have masses of some multiple of ten times the mass of the sun, which doesn't seem terribly heavy (relatively). How does this explain the Fermi paradox?


Could black holes also be masking an infinite number of stars?

Stephen Hawking notes in his book "A Brief History of Time" that we know that there aren't infinite stars because otherwise the night sky would have no patches of darkness since an infinite number of stars would imply that you could shoot out an arbitrary ray from earth and it would always reach a star.

However, black holes (lots of them!) could trap light and obscure line-of-sight stars.


This line of reasoning works only in a static universe. In a expanding universe, stars can move apart faster than the speed of light. Thus there might be a lot beyond the observable universe that can never be detected.


I mean... isn't it still technically correct though? We have an opaque horizon of light, it's just all in the microwave spectrum.


This is Olbers' paradox, and I don't think you need black holes to explain it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox


I've always wondered about the CBM in this instance. Isn't that technically an opaque horizon of light? I understand that it's not stars per se, and that there is technically stuff "beyond" that, but doesn't that count as a "bright" night sky? Just not in the visible spectrum.


nonsense context makes science very hard to understand.


So the way I understand it dark matter doesn't even have any physical interaction with matter. But it must be affected by gravity, or else it wouldn't end up trapped in black holes right?


Well, the very reason for conceiving of dark matter is because there is evidence of gravitational effects from mass we cannot observe. So dark matter by definition must at minimum interact gravitationally, and be hard to observe by other means (electromagnetically, maybe even intent to the nuclear forces).

Black holes sans accretion disk clearly satisfy these criteria.


Dark matter does interaction with matter via gravity. It just doesn't interact via electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, or the strong nuclear force. Our usual observation techniques with electromagnetism can't detect it.


Yes. In fact, this is how we detect DM, by measuring the speeds of the galaxies, rotating around the galactic core. Our calculations point to a slower speed than observed, thus implying some mass of "matter" which we cannot see.


As far as I understand it: All kinds of stuff is happening in the universe that can only happen if there's much more gravity than we can explain with the matter we can actually observe. So there has to be something more than the observable matter. But we can't find it, so the assumption was that it didn't physically interact like normal matter (except for gravity), otherwise it would give at least some indication that it's there. Like infrared or something, I dunno.

But if it turns out it's black holes, I'm guessing it would have physical interaction with other matter but still be hard to detect and not interact in the usual way we expect of normal matter.

All this is speculation though, and I don't really know what I'm talking about.


Ignorant "ELI5" question from a non-astrophysics major: Couldn't all this unobservable matter be just normal but so-far unobservable matter? Little planets and rocks all over the place that we just can't see yet because our telescopes aren't good enough? Why do we think it has to be some other "exotic" form of matter?


Well, I'm really not qualified to answer, but I think it's because regardless of how small each individual piece of "debris" would be, together it should still form a huge amount of matter. All matter gives of electromagnetic radiation. If there was normal matter there, we'd see the electromagnetic radiation, but we don't. So it has to be something else. It's kinda like how we can see those epic cloud nebula formations. Those clouds are basically just dust and gas and other tiny stuff. And it's not as clumped together as you'd think, but we can still detect it lightyears away.


There are other more complicated reasons but this is a pretty good answer. Basically that matter at some point must have been at the Big Bang and with all the heat generated around that time some of it must have interacted with the debris that GP is talking about. We don’t see evidence of that. It’s important to remember that though we as humans lose things all the time. The universe cannot. We got what we got.


No, we've tested for that repeatedly. That was, of course, the first thing scientists thought of to explain this excess non-luminous mass.

Could it be large transparent gas clouds? No, it turns out that gas clouds aren't completely transparent, and can be measured in various ways. We looked, we checked, such clouds don't contribute enough mass.

Could it be dust clouds? Dust clouds are not luminous but they do block visible light, so they'd be obvious. We looked, we checked. It wasn't dust clouds.

Could it be rogue planets or brown dwarfs? No, such objects would cause gravitational micro-lensing effects, which can be observed in dedicated campaigns. We looked, we checked. It wasn't planets or brown dwarfs.

The only theory that has withstood the last several decades of experimental observation and simulation has been the dark matter theory (weakly interacting massive particles at sub-relativistic speeds). It's the only thing that explains all the evidence across the board.


Could it be that our traditional models of motion and light propagation in extremely distant, never visited places are extrapolations in error?

It seems most astronomy theoreticians will rather not rock the boat, they will rather keep believing in invisible stuff permeating space everywhere with variable but exactly right density so it is consistent with star motions and images observed. I guess it's because stuff with infinity of degrees of freedom is traditionally much more secure paradigm to base a career on than to question the established beliefs in applicability of Newtonian mechanics/General relativity.

> "The only theory that has withstood the last several decades of experimental observation and simulation"

Which competing theories were put to stand the test of observation? What made them not stand well in light of observations?

> "It's the only thing that explains all the evidence"

There is little example to such a thing as scientific theory explaining all the evidence. But even if dark matter paradigm did do such a feat, it would not be a good sign for the truthfulness of it. Theories that explain everything are suspicious - they may be exercises in fitting and may not be so scientific or useful as competing theories that explain less, but better.


This is extremely ignorant. You are demonstrating you have absolutely no familiarity with the subject matter, with the nature of the theory, with the nature of the experimentation that has been done to eliminate other theories, or with even the most rudimentary basics of cosmology.

As such there's no value in actually debating you on these points.


I would never ask you to debate here. If my points are wrong, show the HN community why. Please exclude any ad-hominem rhetorical maneuvers that are useful to no one. EDIT: re the first sentence: I do not participate here to get value via winning a speaking contest.


This is intellectually dishonest. You're pushing all the work and rigor on others while accepting none for yourself. You're saying "I don't understand this subject, but I still have an opinion, it's your job to also explain the subject to me in addition to explaining why I'm wrong". This is unacceptable in an age where access to the internet (Wikipedia, etc.) makes educating yourself easy. Do better.


I am not sure why you are putting words in my mouth, I never said anything about me not understanding the subject or demanding that you should explain the subject to me.

Please read my post again and if you can, address the points made there.

EDIT: those points, slightly expanded, are:

1) Could it be that Newtonian/Einsteinian models of motion in extremely distant, never visited places are extrapolations in error? If not, how do we know that, since we cannot experiment there, with massive objects on astronomical scales?

2) Is working in line of a popular paradigm much more preferable to most researchers than proposing a radical new theory that is inconsistent with it?

3) Searching for different model / theory is hard work but if it successfuly explains something and provides directions to continue, is preferable to fitting massive quanta of data to a model with infinity degrees of freedom (density of dark matter in space).

4) It is hard to find an example of scientific theory fitting all the evidence. Fitting all the evidence suggests we are doing a fitting exercise, not a scientific theory.


>If my points are wrong

It's your job to not be wrong about knowable things. Read a summary of the literature if you are actually interested instead of just proposing that a well accepted theory is wrong because "theoreticians" are biased.


> It's your job to not be wrong about knowable things.

I was requesting the parent to point out which of my points and why they are wrong. I think reply of such kind would be far more useful to many people here sharing similar views to mine on the idea of dark matter or usefulness of academic work in this direction.

> 'Read a summary of the literature if you are actually interested'

I am actually interested in what people here, including you, think of my points; I was hoping for substantive replies to them. Your suggestion to 'read up and shut up' comes out as arrogant and uncalled for.


> Could it be that our traditional models of motion and light propagation in extremely distant, never visited places are extrapolations in error?

Or whoever programmed our reality couldn't build a consistent macro-physics engine so they hacked something together while hoping biological evolution wouldn't lead to anything that would notice it. Everything was going smoothly with the natural-selection add-on until the platypus and hominids showed up.


No, because of the Bullet Cluster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster).

Dark matter seems to interact weekly even with itself, contrary to regular matter. So it really is completely different stuff, not just matter that's hidden from us.


Because the gravitational pull from these unobservable matter is so huge that little planets, rocks, and dusts cannot account for it.


Sure they can - if there's enough of them. The problem is, "enough of them" should be optically visible too...


All that stuff would emit blackbody radiation if it were regular matter, and we'd be able to see it.


"Dark matter" is a term that means there is a discrepancy between the observed mass in the universe and how much theory says there should be. One possible explanation, and the leading hypothesis, is that there is some form of matter that only interacts gravitionally. Another possibility is that there is something wrong with our current theories. The last one is discussed in the article which is that undetected black holes contain the missing mass.


Yes.

There are four fundamental forces that govern the universe: gravity, electromagnetism, and strong and weak nuclear forces.

Dark matter interacts with gravity, but not electromagnetism. Electromagnetism is the force that we are acting upon when we touch things, or things bump into or collide with one another. Also, it's what makes light and magnetism.

So dark matter would never hit or bump into anything, but it can, say, orbit something.


I am sceptical about dark matter. It feels like it was invented because the theories we have do not match our observations.


Neptune was invented when the orbit of Uranus didn't match our theory of gravity.


Vulcan was 'invented' when the orbit of Mercury didn't match our theory of [non-relativistic] gravity.

Then recanted when we improved our knowledge of gravitation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_(hypothetical_planet)


What's the moral of the story?


Sometimes proposed invisible body of mass turns out to really exist, sometimes it is discarded as no longer necessary.


Exactly the point I wanted to make to OP - who was skeptical of dark matter because we didn't throw out General Relatively, one of the most tested and successful theories of all time, when some aberrations were noticed.


The thing is that we're pretty sure our theories are right, but we're still missing a bunch of stuff. We've named that stuff "dark matter". There's really not much to be skeptical about as far as I know.

I have always been a bit skeptical about it being some elusive magical new particle or somesuch though.


    we're pretty sure our theories are right
People are always so sure.

They didn't say "Well, the geocentric model is probably wrong but we'll use it for now" either.


But so far we don't have experiments proving it's wrong, I think that's the crux of the argument ?

I'm certainly not a physicist.


I stopped my physics at a BS. But if I understand correctly, we do have observations that don't match our theory. They would match if there was matter that we can't see. "Dark matter" is the hypothesized missing matter. This lets us keep our theories as they are.

But instead, you could regard the observations as "experiments proving our theories wrong".


There has been work done toward re-working our current laws to fit observation without dark matter, but I think it just breaks way more stuff than it solves. The new model ends up being a worse fit for pretty much everything else but the galaxy rotation thing.

We already have weakly interacting particles like the neutrino, which don't interact with matter outside of the weak force, making them rather difficult to detect, it's not really that far out of the realm of possibility to have other particles that only interact via the gravitational force.


> "I think it just breaks way more stuff than it solves. The new model ends up being a worse fit for pretty much everything else but the galaxy rotation thing."

This is often mentioned as a reason not to spend time with alternative models. However, breaking stuff is sometimes necessary if we are to get out of the local maximum of theory usefulness. The Kopernik model was much worse fit for the observations of planet motion that the Ptolemy's model, but it did have other virtues, like simplicity. The broken parts got fixed later with development of mechanics and perturbation theory.


That is a given. Dark matter isn't really that clean either, it breaks what we know about the standard model and known particles, something that the folks at CERN keep confirming as they break in to new and uncharted areas of what we can observe experiment. Your statement is less enlightening as it is simply stating the inaccurate nature of a model.


You're not wrong. "Dark Matter" is just a name we've given to whatever it is that causes these things we can't otherwise explain.

It does have some properties that we've managed to figure out, and they do look matter-ish.


You should give the book "We Have No Idea"[0] a try. It's the author of PhD Comics. It's first chapter explains pretty well why we know dark matter exists.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0735211515/


What's different about it compared to other scientific theories?


They usually do not just fill a hole in a theory but make a ton of new predictions that then can be verified.

Conjecting that the earth is round did not just explain why ships disappear behind the horizon. It also predicted that you can get back to point A by always moving away from it and many other phenomena.


Since it was first used to explain galactic rotation curves, predictions of seeing the signature of dark matter, in the CMB, in gravitational lensing observations, in the structure of galactic clusters, the expansion of the universe, etc have all held up.

And these not only are consistent with the existence of dark matter, but roughly indicate the same amount of it as a fraction of mass in the universe.

So I disagree strongly that the existence of dark matter hasn't led to other predictions. Indeed, the number of different phenomena that lead to it is one of those things that have made alternative theories so difficult. There are a ton of alternative gravitational theories that can explain one or two of the above phenomena, but trying to match them all (and not contradict other observations), seems to be somewhere between difficult and impossible.


That sounds interesting. Do you have links to some of those predictions and how measurements held up?


There are lots of verifiable dark matter predictions, just none of them have been verified yet. The article mentions some of the predictions around WIMPs. It's not like string theory where there's no way to disprove it.


I like to repeat myself on this, but proposing "invisible" matter has historically been a very successful strategy in fundamental physics. Simple laws have a tendency to stay simple.


Good to see that the classic "middlebrow dismissal" is still alive and well here on HN.

The fact is that dark matter isn't just some half-baked theory that astrophysicists pulled out of their ass. Nor does it represent some lame attempt to just sweep complexity under the rug as if astronomers said "I dunno, probably magic", shrugged, and moved on.

Dark matter is a very specific and constrained theory that has withstood the test of decades of observational tests where all other theories have fallen by the wayside. Astrophysicists and cosmologists did not set out trying to force the theory of dark matter on the world, they have tried repeatedly to prove that other explanations could account for observational evidence, but none did. Instead they've had the reality of dark matter thrust upon them.

And it's not such a crazy theory either. We know that there are other kinds of weakly interacting massive particles such as neutrinos that exist in the Universe. And we know that our understanding of particle physics, the standard model, is incomplete. It is not a great leap to posit that potentially there are other types of weakly interacting massive particles that we have yet to discover. We know that neutrinos and "hot dark matter" does not make up the majority of the mass of dark matter in our Universe through several lines of observations. We know that baryonic (atomic) matter is also not dark matter as well. Only "cold" (sub-relativistic speeds) WIMPs fit the evidence for dark matter. The evidence gathered from galactic motion studies, gravitational lensing observations, simulations of the evolution of the large scale structure of the Universe, measurements of the cosmic microwave background, and many other experiments. Nothing fits all the data except the cold dark matter theory. That's why scientists believe it.

The fact that you are skeptical about it is irrelevant. Educate yourself on the evidence and science of it first, and then you can talk.


That is kinda the hole point.


I see what you did there.


I'm missing it...


Exactly.

Scientists: Listen people! We have created models that explain why stuff does what it does! They are so complicated almost nobody can understand them. They involve 4 dimensions, a zoo of particles, randomness in everything and no reality independent of the observer. And they conflict. But at least they explain why stuff does what it does!

World: But they make the wrong predictions. Stuff does not behave like that.

Scientist: Oh, no problem. Just imagine there is an invisible force out there that moves stuff around. Imagine most of our universe is made of that invisible stuff. Now back to our awesome models!


This doesn't strike me as an especially powerful critique, in spite of your provocative language.

We have well understood mathematical models which correctly and accurately predict all physical behavior relevant to our everyday lives, and, further, correctly and accurately predict the majority of our observations of the universe around us, period. As tools for understanding our world, they are incredible achievements.

In spite of us knowing these models to be fundamentally incomplete, we have yet (to my understanding) to perform an experiment on Earth which contradicts them. More to the point, the theory which supersedes them will, by virtue of needing to replicate all experimental results so far, will likely be even more esoteric, complicated, wild, baffling, and impenetrable (and--with any luck--elegant, inspiring, and beautiful).


He didn't say it very well, but I think he was getting at the Occams' Razor argument - this seems like an unnecessarily complex set of theories to explain the observed phenomena. (Not that I agree, but I think you missed his point)


IMO, Occam's Razor is only meaningful when there are two competing hypothesis, one of which is markedly simpler than the other. Mentioning it in a context of "surely it can't be this complicated" without pointing towards a simpler alternative doesn't strike me as very useful. I know you're not the person who made the original argument, just chiming in on the discussion.


    accurately predict all physical behavior
Now you made me curious. What is the non-physical (metaphysical?) behaviour that we cannot predict?


We cannot, as an example, currently predict the zeroes of the Riemann zeta function.


What if we make a robot that dances those zeroes. Then we have unpredictable physical behavior.


The robot would have to predict those zeroes to 'dance them'.


Richard Feynman on observations not matching strong theories:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9F8Wn4vf5Y&t=4m44s


I like Quantised Inertia[1] as an alternative to Dark Matter or MOND. The theory makes some testable predictions, matches existing data (for instance the flyby anomalies, EM drive)[2] and requires no tweaking or "fudging factors".

It's still fairly immature, so still needs work - it violates the equivalence principle and relies on Unruh radiation which hasn't conclusively been observed.

[1] http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/mihsc-101.h... [2] http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/mihscqi-vs-...


I feel like a better reference would be one or two of the journal articles the guy published...not having a physics background to judge the science on its own merit, I'd rather not read some guy's blog post.


Yes I concur. I thought about admitting that i'm only referencing the author's blog posts was a bit "narrow", but it's also probably the best source for authoritative information on the subject. Literally "from the horses mouth".

There are the arxiv papers and some other reports (that all tend to link back to either the blog or arxiv) as well. Like you, I don't have a strong physics background, so find the published papers a challenging read.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03449v1.pdf


So if, hypothetically, dark matter had some detrimental effect in those parts of the universe where it appears in overly high concentrations (making the universe less "interesting" in those parts... less able to produce life-bearing planets, say) --

-- then black holes would, in effect, be (our) universe's GC mechanism. Or at least, its "janitors" in some form.

Pretty cool.


Except they don't relinquish what they gobble up, so they're not making a finite resource (memory) available for re-use, they're a total resource sink.

Whether that's ’cool’ or not is a matter of persona preference.


Don't black holes emit radiation or something?


Hawking radiation, yes. They eventually evaporate.


Hawking radiation is speculation AFAIK, there's no observation to back it up.



OP isn't wrong. That we haven't proven the existence of Hawking Radiation is the only reason why Hawking hasn't won a Nobel.


No, just some light reading where we have reason to believe it has been observed and may be able to devise further methods to observe it.


I don't dispute that. I think the consensus has accepted Hawking radiation as real ... but we haven't seen evidence yet (and we may never, your link notwithstanding, given how tiny the effect is).


You're leaving out quasars.


I thought quasars still aren't relinquishing anything, the jets are matter that never made it past the event horizon.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: