Black holes the size of an atom that contain the mass of an asteroid may fly through the inner solar system about once a decade, scientists say. Theoretically created just after the big bang, these examples of so-called primordial black holes could explain the missing dark matter thought to dominate our universe. And if they sneak by the moon or Mars, scientists should be able to detect them, a new study shows.

  • superkret@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    If dark matter is fully explained by such black holes, their most likely mass, according to some theories, would range from 1017 to 1023 grams—or about that of a large asteroid.

    In case this doesn’t tell you a lot, 1017 grams is half the weight of Mount Everest, and 1023 grams is 4x the weight of the Antarctic ice shield.

    • remotelove@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      The earth is estimated to “weigh” 13,170,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 pounds. (That is weird when you think about it. The weight of the earth being based on what something weighs on earth, I mean.)

      Mt. Everest is only about 357,000,000,000,000 pounds and is just a tiny fraction of the mass of the earth.

      So. My point is that we need a better way to portray scale of things in the universe. AUs work to a point but then we have to quickly move to parsecs. Parsecs quickly give way to light years. (Or vice-versa, depending on how you visualize things better.) Light years kinda work, but only for between 14-26 billion years. Even after all of that, I can hardly still fathom the size of Mt. Everest. (This was a rant, but not an angry rant.)

      • floofloof@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        12 hours ago

        The earth is estimated to “weigh” 13,170,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 pounds.

        Mt. Everest is only 357,000,000,000,000 pounds

        My point is that we need a better way to portray scale of things in the universe.

        Well, for a start, God uses the metric system.

    • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      The main way you’d see that kind of microlensing is if they aggregated.

      But given the way gravity works, they should aggregate, otherwise why call them black holes?

        • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Yes, it would just be surprising because, gravity should make them not be evenly distributed.

          The whole thing with dark matter is that it’s this magic stuff that causes gravity but isn’t affected by it, which… is not how gravity normally works.

          Though there is still room for it, we just need a better framework other than “I added 3 and 5 and got 12, so obviously I must mean to add 3 and 5 and 4 too”.

          • MartianSands@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            You’re mistaken. Dark matter, whatever it is, isn’t affected by anything except gravity. It interacts with gravity just like “normal” matter.

            The evidence is also significantly better than you’re describing

            • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 hours ago

              Then it should also coelescce, particularly since it doesn’t have the em force to keep it repelled, the universe should be dominated by massive dark matter black holes.

              Yes, there’s math that explains part of the distribution, but also there is 0 force opposing any collapse we’d have a lot more neutron stars and other degenerate matter catalyzed by dark matter.

              We have hypotheses like this when our observations don’t make sense and we need to explain them, it’s definitely a possibility but we still have room to understand the large scale physics at play.

              • MartianSands@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 hours ago

                You don’t need a force to prevent collapse if there’s no drag force to slow things down. It would actually be almost impossible for a cloud of dark matter to collapse since any individual particle has momentum and no way to slow down, so they’ll all be in some sort of mutual orbit

                • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 hours ago

                  I’m guessing you’ve seen as many lorentz attractor simulations as I have, what always happens is something like tidal effects or angular momentum means 90% slow down while a few particles get shot out of hell at ludicrous speed.

                  The effect is similar to drag, and is basically how we get entropy even without em effects.

  • Gork@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    21 hours ago

    What would happen if one of these tiny black holes hit Earth? The article doesn’t really talk about it.

    • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Absolutely nothing.

      Also not sure why they wouldn’t evaporate nearly instantaneously. Sounds to me like more dark matter bunk.

    • deegeese
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Passing near the earth, we’d get some strange tides. Passing through the earth, it would eat earth.

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Nonsense. The event horizon on such things is incredibly small, as is the mass vs. that of Earth.

        • deegeese
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          You don’t need the event horizon, you just need local gravity around 1G. For the masses described in the article, that radius is from hundreds of meters to 10s of kilometers.

          • Rhaedas@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Which still wouldn’t do what you suggest. The mass is the same, so it has the same effect from a distance. Unless by “eat earth” you meant it would take in dirt until it suck to the core, still about the same mass.

  • onlinepersona@programming.devOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    Would a regular asteroid be able to wobble the earth as described in this article? Or is it just black holes that should do so?

    I seem to remember reading that primordial black holes weren’t yet a proven phenomenon and I have trouble imagining them myself. Wouldn’t they have hawking radiation too which we would be able to detect?

    Anti Commercial-AI license