Can primoridal black holes completely explain dark matter

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the hypothesis that primordial black holes (PBHs) could account for dark matter, exploring implications for various theoretical frameworks in physics. Participants examine the viability of this idea in light of existing observational constraints and theoretical considerations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that dark matter could be entirely explained by primordial black holes, questioning the relevance of WIMPs, axions, and other supersymmetric candidates.
  • Others argue that strong observational constraints, such as the non-observation of Hawking radiation and limits from femtolensing and microlensing, suggest that the contribution of black holes to dark matter is minimal, estimated at under 0.1 to 1%.
  • A participant raises the possibility of low mass black holes, such as those with asteroid mass, and questions their existence given the universe's age and evaporation rates.
  • There is mention of stable quantum mechanical Planckian mass black holes as a potential candidate, though this is contested by others who assert that tiny black holes would quickly evaporate.
  • Some participants reference specific studies and papers that challenge the viability of low mass PBHs as dark matter candidates based on gamma-ray background measurements.
  • There is confusion regarding terminology, with participants seeking clarification on what constitutes "primordial black holes" and related concepts like "Planckian interacting dark matter."

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the feasibility of primordial black holes as a complete explanation for dark matter. Multiple competing views are presented, with some supporting the PBH hypothesis and others highlighting significant observational constraints that challenge it.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved assumptions about the nature and characteristics of primordial black holes, the dependence on observational data, and the implications for existing theoretical frameworks in particle physics.

kodama
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
144
widely reported in the news is a second observation of 2 black holes gravitational waves. also reported are its implications


Science World Report-Jun 15, 2016
Astronomers have reportedly started to think that dark matter could be made up of primordial black holes. According to Alexander Kashlinsky,

according to this, dark matter is real, but it is not a WIMP, Axion, or any SUSY-extension of the SM. Dark matter can be wholly explained by primordial black holes.

what are the ramifications to string theory, susy, BSM and other heP if there are no particles that make up dark matter, instead dark matter is 100% explained by primordial black holes

dark matt
er is not a particle physics issue but a black hole explanation, it is gravitational in origin. how would it effect the scientific credibility of SUSY and strings if there are no neutralinos or any SUSY dark matter candidate in this scenario?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Despite the hoopla in the popular press, the idea doesn't work - there are strong constraints from non-observation of hawking radiation, femtolensing, microlensing, the CMB, and so forth limits the amount of dark matter in black holes to be under about 0.1 to 1%.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: QuantumQuest
Vanadium 50 said:
Despite the hoopla in the popular press, the idea doesn't work - there are strong constraints from non-observation of hawking radiation, femtolensing, microlensing, the CMB, and so forth limits the amount of dark matter in black holes to be under about 0.1 to 1%.

what about low mass bh like asteroid mass
 
kodama said:
what about low mass bh like asteroid mass

Despite the hoopla in the popular press, the idea doesn't work - there are strong constraints from non-observation of hawking radiation, femtolensing, microlensing, the CMB, and so forth limits the amount of dark matter in black holes to be under about 0.1 to 1%.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
Despite the hoopla in the popular press, the idea doesn't work - there are strong constraints from non-observation of hawking radiation, femtolensing, microlensing, the CMB, and so forth limits the amount of dark matter in black holes to be under about 0.1 to 1%.

stable quantum mechanical Planckian mass bh are still possible
 
But tiny black holes quickly evaporate.
 
kodama said:
stable quantum mechanical Planckian mass bh are still possible
As Khashishi just pointed out, that is not true. Did you read it somewhere?
 
Perhaps he was referring to this idea?

From what I read, asteroid mass black holes should not exist. There has been enough time in the universe for any black holes smaller than the moon to have evaporated.
 
@kodama how about you TELL us what you are talking about instead of our having to guess. Personally, I'm assuming that since what you said was "primordial black holes" that what you actually MEANT was "primordial black holes".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Fervent Freyja
  • #10
Low mass PBH have been repeatedly ruled out as DM candidates based on the measured gamma ray background flux as discussed, for example, in this paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.05349, Constraints on primordial black holes from Galactic gamma-ray background.
 
  • #11
phinds said:
@kodama how about you TELL us what you are talking about instead of our having to guess. Personally, I'm assuming that since what you said was "primordial black holes" that what you actually MEANT was "primordial black holes".
Planckian interacting dark matter
 
  • #12
kodama said:
Planckian interacting dark matter
I have no idea what that means. Also, you have not responded to post #7 where I asked you a specific question.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
9K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K