Little Black Holes: Dark Matter And Ball Lightning

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the hypothesis that "little black holes" could explain phenomena like ball lightning, suggesting they do not evaporate quickly and involve gravitational tunneling to account for missing mass. The concept challenges existing theories and proposes that ball lightning could serve as a test for this model. While the ideas presented are intriguing, they are seen as needing more rigorous formulation and justification, particularly regarding gravitational tunneling. The potential implications of this hypothesis could extend to explanations for UFO sightings and other unexplained phenomena. Overall, the conversation highlights a blend of skepticism and fascination with the proposed theories in astrophysics.
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,213
Reaction score
2,657
"Thus one may observe the decay [Hawking radiation] only if one makes an infinite succession of measurements. So in a sense one may never be able to observe the Hawking effect." The radiation described in the present paper differs substantially from Hawking's, and a case is made here that it has already been observed indirectly in ball lightning [continued]
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0212/0212251.pdf
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
WOW Ivan, that was interesting!

So if what Rabinowitz is suggesting is correct, in order to explain "ball lightening" we have to accept the hypothesis that "little black holes" exist, that they do not vaporize super quickly, and that "gravitational tunneling" must happen and accounts for all the missing mass that current theories suggest. WOW, I might say it was bit specious but then again I am not that formally acquainted with Hawking work nor the suggestions relating to quantum gravity. It would be interesting though and would certainly turn heads in the astrophysics world. Most interesting of all is the hypothesis that "ball lightening" can be a test of his model. One more time, WOW!

Wait and see, apparently it made it pass the reviewers at the archives. Of course he would have a lot more to do in order to robustly formulate his conjectures. His justification for gravitational tunneling was certainly a back of the bar room napkin kind of derivation. He does seem to do some good accounting for the energies involved with ball lightning though. Then again, what the heck do I know?

Hey, if he is correct, this would explain a lot of those ufo's and opens the door for some other wild speculations.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
6K