Editing Talk:2643: Cosmologist Gift

Jump to: navigation, search
Ambox notice.png Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 25: Line 25:
  
 
I don't see how the box containing dark matter is at all consistent with the premise of dark matter being primordial black holes.  PBHs wouldn't be ubiquitously distributed through space such that any given volume contains a constant tiny number of them, would they?  Black holes that are ''that'' tiny would have evaporated long ago by Hawking radiation, by my understanding. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 17:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 
I don't see how the box containing dark matter is at all consistent with the premise of dark matter being primordial black holes.  PBHs wouldn't be ubiquitously distributed through space such that any given volume contains a constant tiny number of them, would they?  Black holes that are ''that'' tiny would have evaporated long ago by Hawking radiation, by my understanding. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 17:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
:If dark matter was 100% particles, then a volume on Earth containing 30,000 solar neutrinos would have 12 zeptograms of dark matter, not 4. Since the box is labeled with only a third as much dark matter, the implication is that Randall might think some is clustered in MACHOs. (I'm going to ignore modified gravity, which gets more attention than non-PBH MACHOs but way less than PBHs, and has some foundational issues along with zero successful simulations compared to very successful large-scale simulations using generalized DM.) In the past decade the only MACHO DM theory with more than a handful of papers per year is PBHs, which skyrocketed in popularity after LIGO/Virgo, but are still less popular among mainstream cosmologists than 100% WIMPs. The elephant in the room is that there's lots of evidence for intermediate mass black holes (LIGO/Virgo being the most compelling, but recent indirect observations exist too) but only one out of about thirty WIMP detector experiments have painfully meager positive results, which nobody else has been able to replicate. It's been a similar situation for almost four decades now. Back in the mid-1970s dark matter was assumed to be mostly 100,000 solar mass black holes. A couple generations of constraints assuming monochromatic mass suggested it was a particle instead. But all the constraints, including microlensing, which assume all black holes have even approximately similar masses had to be rejected after the LIGO/Virgo results.
+
:If dark matter was 100% particles, then a volume on Earth containing 30,000 solar neutrinos would have 12 zeptograms of dark matter, not 4. Since the box is labeled with only a third as much dark matter, the implication is that Randall might think some is clustered in MACHOs. (I'm going to ignore modified gravity, which gets more attention than non-PBH MACHOs but way less than PBHs, and has some foundational issues along with zero successful simulations compared to very successful large-scale simulations using generalized DM.) In the past decade the only MACHO DM theory with more than a handful of papers per year is PBHs, which skyrocketed in popularity after LIGO/Virgo, but are still less popular among mainstream cosmologists as 100% WIMPs. The elephant in the room is that there's lots of evidence for intermediate mass black holes (LIGO/Virgo being the most compelling, but recent indirect observations exist too) but only one out of about thirty WIMP detector experiments have painfully meager positive results, which nobody else has been able to replicate. It's been a similar situation for almost four decades now. Back in the mid-1970s dark matter was assumed to be mostly 100,000 solar mass black holes. A couple generations of constraints assuming monochromatic mass suggested it was a particle instead. But all the constraints, including microlensing, which assume all black holes have even approximately similar masses had to be rejected after the LIGO/Virgo results.
 
:To answer your question about the sizes, assuming [https://3iom3142cnb81rlnt6w4mtlr-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/08-GW190521-Mass-Plot-Graveyard.png LIGO/Virgo's 3-160 solar mass range] is representative of typical black holes and likely contains their median is kind of unavoidable at this point. If the median is 50 solar masses and all dark matter is black holes, that would work out to around one per star.
 
:To answer your question about the sizes, assuming [https://3iom3142cnb81rlnt6w4mtlr-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/08-GW190521-Mass-Plot-Graveyard.png LIGO/Virgo's 3-160 solar mass range] is representative of typical black holes and likely contains their median is kind of unavoidable at this point. If the median is 50 solar masses and all dark matter is black holes, that would work out to around one per star.
 
:The group to watch [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac332d/meta as JWST's first light comes in is Yale's,] who propose specific testable hypotheses for its deep IR source count distribution, and use a [https://twitter.com/SheerPriya/status/1472352431468003328 non-monochromatic (platycurtic) mass distribution] for black holes, which is the only correct choice for merging bodies. Specifically, NASA is releasing a [https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2022/nasa-shares-list-of-cosmic-targets-for-webb-telescope-s-first-images/ SMACS 0723 field] from JWST [https://www.nasa.gov/webbfirstimages tomorrow,] which should be able to test [https://twitter.com/SheerPriya/status/1546576050976870400 these predictions.] Another author to keep an eye on as JWST results roll in is [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6633/ac1e31 Bernard Carr] ([https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.12778.pdf paywall-free preprint]) known for his DM literature reviews over the years, and who has become an ardent PBH DM proponent post-LIGO/Virgo. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.235|162.158.166.235]] 20:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 
:The group to watch [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac332d/meta as JWST's first light comes in is Yale's,] who propose specific testable hypotheses for its deep IR source count distribution, and use a [https://twitter.com/SheerPriya/status/1472352431468003328 non-monochromatic (platycurtic) mass distribution] for black holes, which is the only correct choice for merging bodies. Specifically, NASA is releasing a [https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2022/nasa-shares-list-of-cosmic-targets-for-webb-telescope-s-first-images/ SMACS 0723 field] from JWST [https://www.nasa.gov/webbfirstimages tomorrow,] which should be able to test [https://twitter.com/SheerPriya/status/1546576050976870400 these predictions.] Another author to keep an eye on as JWST results roll in is [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6633/ac1e31 Bernard Carr] ([https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.12778.pdf paywall-free preprint]) known for his DM literature reviews over the years, and who has become an ardent PBH DM proponent post-LIGO/Virgo. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.235|162.158.166.235]] 20:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)