https://www.quantamagazine.org/jwst-spots-giant-black-holes-all-over-the-early-universe-20230814/
The article linked to above indicates that the James Webb Space Telescope has uncovered anywhere from 10 to 100 times more quasars in the early universe than models have predicted. Quasars are identified with supermassive black holes in the nuclei of young galaxies. It's not been considered likely that, only half a billion years after the Big Bang, there would be so many black holes that are already so massive.
Some astronomers are theorizing that many black holes may have formed early on directly out of massive collapsing gas clouds, without stellar formation occurring.
It may be that there are many more black holes in the universe than previously hypothesized.
This older article addresses the possibility head-on:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/black-holes-from-the-big-bang-could-be-the-dark-matter-20200923/
It was an old idea of Stephen Hawking’s: Unseen “primordial” black holes might be the hidden dark matter. It fell out of favor for decades, but a new series of studies has shown how the theory can work.
So, newer findings are not contravening this possibility. Quite the opposite.
And then there are JuMBOs (Jupiter Mass Binary Objects). An article here discusses recent findings in the Orion nebula:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/02/science/orion-nebula-webb-planets.html
The New York Times has a paywall but I think one gets 5 free articles per month. Here's another place without a paywall that talks about the findings:
James Webb Space Telescope spots dozens of physics-breaking rogue objects floating through space in pairs
https://www.livescience.com/space/astronomy/james-webb-space-telescope-spots-dozens-of-physics-breaking-rogue-objects-floating-through-space-in-pairs
Pairs of Jupiter-sized objects are apparently swarming the nebula. To me, this increases the chances of there being many, many more rogue objects not associated with nebulae, floating under the radar in open space, up to and including perhaps brown dwarfs. Brown dwarfs are another type of heavenly beast that had been mooted back in the day (the 1980s) as being the source of dark matter.
Is ordinary matter finally making a comeback? Back when I was a teenager I found it highly puzzling that we were so damned sure that ordinary matter only comprised something like 5% of the mass of the universe. It would be wonderful to see the dark matter phantom dispelled by plain old ordinary matter, after all, and not by some magically invisible exotic particle that exists nowhere outside the imaginations of mathematical physicists.
Of course, not long ago neutrinos were thought to be massless.
@Soothfast
"It may be that there are many more black holes in the universe than previously hypothesized."
I suggested that on this forum a long time ago. I suggested that black holes are the dark matter and that the number and size of them had been underestimated. I was met by resistance for it. I feel vindicated now. Thanks.
@metal-brain saidSo you feel "vindicated" by a forty year old idea that science has since moved on from?
@Soothfast
"It may be that there are many more black holes in the universe than previously hypothesized."
I suggested that on this forum a long time ago. I suggested that black holes are the dark matter and that the number and size of them had been underestimated. I was met by resistance for it. I feel vindicated now. Thanks.
Crack a book once in a while.
@soothfast saidInteresting post, thanks.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/jwst-spots-giant-black-holes-all-over-the-early-universe-20230814/
The article linked to above indicates that the James Webb Space Telescope has uncovered anywhere from 10 to 100 times more quasars in the early universe than models have predicted. Quasars are identified with supermassive black holes in the nuclei of young galaxies. It's n ...[text shortened]... tions of mathematical physicists.
Of course, not long ago neutrinos were thought to be massless.
Even as a lay observer I agree with your sentiment about dark matter. Smacks of “the math doesn’t make sense so let’s think of something exotic to make it work”.
It seems far more plausible that matter also coalesced into bodies which aren’t part of the usual rotational structures and are just meandering around.
@suzianne saidDark matter as a different kind of matter is the outdated idea. Non-Baryonic Matter was a fad and I am glad Modified Newtonian dynamics is finally starting to get the attention it deserves.
So you feel "vindicated" by a forty year old idea that science has since moved on from?
Crack a book once in a while.
@sonhouse saidShow us your work on dark matter. Remind us of your rotating plate analogy.
@Metal-Brain
Show us your work on modified gravity.
@Metal-Brain
So you have done no original work on dark matter. So noted.
My original work was on gravitational lensing but that is another subject.
@Metal-Brain
We know from analyzing gravitational lensing there is more mass then can be accounted for by what we see so that is why it is called dark matter, whether it is tiny black holed by the billions or what.
@sonhouse saidThere is no evidence proving dark matter (non baryonic matter) exists. It is purely theoretical like fairy dust.
@Metal-Brain
We know from analyzing gravitational lensing there is more mass then can be accounted for by what we see so that is why it is called dark matter, whether it is tiny black holed by the billions or what.
This whole thread is based on the underestimation of the number of black holes in the galaxies. That means you thought you knew from analyzing gravitational lensing how many black holes there were and you were wrong.
There is more matter than we see, but it is regular matter. Still, that alone cannot explain why stars rotate in a galaxy like a rotating plate. Stars near the center should be making a full rotation much faster than stars in the outermost part of the galaxy. Dark matter alone cannot explain that, or any matter and it does not matter how much matter it is. That is why MoND theory is a serious field of study. It is an attempt to address the failure of dark matter theory and dark matter theory has failed so miserably it should be call dork matter theory. Only a dork would still be hung up on it.
The presently accepted laws of gravity do not accept stars rotate around a galaxy like a rotating plate. Either the speed measured is inaccurate or the laws of gravity are incomplete. Which is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics
@Metal-Brain
Here is one telling analysis of MOND,
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/modifying-gravity/#:~:text=Modifications%20to%20gravity%20cannot%20predict,modified%20General%20theory%20of%20Relativity.
@sonhouse saidSerious question:
@Metal-Brain
Here is one telling analysis of MOND,
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/modifying-gravity/#:~:text=Modifications%20to%20gravity%20cannot%20predict,modified%20General%20theory%20of%20Relativity.
Is it possible for dark matter alone to explain the odd rotation curve of galaxies?
I say no. All the matter you can imagine cannot explain that no matter how much it is.
That is why MoND never went away.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29601
@metal-brain saidThe answer is 'yes'. (Spherical halos of dark matter, massive in size, encompass each galaxy, confining gases and speeding up the outer rotation).
Serious question:
Is it possible for dark matter alone to explain the odd rotation curve of galaxies?
I say no. All the matter you can imagine cannot explain that no matter how much it is.
That is why MoND never went away.
