The Black Hole / Dark Matter / Vacuum Space Theory.

I tend to do a lot of associative analyses between the wonders of the universe and the complexity of physics on a more human level, sometimes even more in depth towards the quantum level. That being said I recently developed this theory that a black hole, as is typically conveyed being very massive and destructive, can also exist on a micro level. The blackness of Space and/or Dark Matter is largely unknown due to its mysteriousness. It is, for lack of a better word, immeasurable with our current technology and ignorance when it comes to the true spectrum/parameters of reality. I want to ask myself 2 questions for the sake of structuring this thread in a way you all can read it.

~ Can there be a logical correlation between black holes and this ever-so-mysterious space/dark matter?

Assume it's possible for a black hole to be so small that it can go undetected by the human eye and even under a microscope because light that exists on our scale overwhelms it to the point that we cannot see it (though on a micro level is still being absorbed by the black hole). This suggests that our understanding of black holes needs to be revisited.

The black holes we know of are so dense that their gravity is amplified to the point where nothing can escape. It is portrayed as the ultimate destroyer and can suck up whole galaxies. But what about a black hole that is microscopic in size? Surely it doesn't have insane density/gravity like the black holes we are used to thinking about, otherwise a black hole the size of an atom could still wipe out the Earth right? Well what if the destructive power of a black hole is relative to the spacial availability of energy in respect to its size? To reiterate on that; maybe it is possible for a micro black hole to be created as a result of quantum chaos and as long as there is energy around it to feed on, it will not need mass, density or gravity to truly fulfill its purpose.

You might be wondering how this applies to space/dark matter, and you're right in wondering that. All I can suggest as of now is that, if these micro black holes do exist, there is plenty of renewable energy being radiated from everything in our universe that they could have no problem existing right under our noses without needing large amounts of gravity. We know the existence of "real" black holes because we can accurately examine the life/death cycles of stars, they are huge compared to us and we have no choice. At that point we still cannot truly see them, we need special equipment to determine a black holes existence even though they are so powerful. I think it's only fair to consider that the same applies to energy on a micro/quantum level, the rules just happen to be slightly different given their size.

~ What in-depth hypothetical conclusions or determinations can one draw from this theory?

I think the biggest thing is that the universe at large is actually very similar to the universe on a quantum level, in fact one exists within the other so it's not ridiculous to theorize the way I have. I mean it is kind of hard not to think that way when all animations of an atom look like mini solar systems with chaotic orbital patterns. On top of that, this "blackness" that we see in space and on a quantum level, acts as a vacuum. That's why they call it vacuum space, all measurable energy gets sucked into it until there is nothing left but the larger sources of energy around it.

Consider the atom like I mentioned, there is vacuum space between the protons/neutrons and electrons. Why don't those particles get sucked up by the vacuum space/dark matter/mini black holes? Because, relative to their size, the protons/neutrons and electrons are far more powerful than that space. So instead of sucking it all up completely, the mini black holes settle for existing between the energy sources constantly feeding off of them.

Before you dismiss the possibility of black holes being small consider this. The human pupil, yes the pupil of your eye, is pitch black (like a black hole) and literally feeds off of the light and energy that the world around us has to offer. They even expand and contract based on how much light energy they are exposed to. On top of that, not unlike black holes, our eyes give off bursts of energy (mini gamma ray bursts?) directly in our line of sight. That's why you can almost always tell when someone is watching you even if you cannot see them, you feel the energy from their pupils reaching you.

I'm not going to go vacuum space, I only have a five horse shopvac.

Another theory.....Oh well guess I have to see if this is promising.

Wouldn't the black hole grow if it started gobbling things up?

Originally posted by rickymouse
I'm not going to go vacuum space, I only have a five horse shopvac.

Another theory.....Oh well guess I have to see if this is promising.

Wouldn't the black hole grow if it started gobbling things up?

edit on 5-8-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

That's a great question, and one I can only speculate to. Known black holes, scientists have claimed, exist at the center of galaxies. This is a fairly new concept as well but it is widely accepted, and for good reasons I might add. Aside from that there is no factual evidence that a black hole can grow or even "fill up" eventually. Sure it is logical to say that a black hole can combine with another and grow or that they get bigger over time by collecting matter, but it's only accurate theories. Those types of things have never been observed or measured, sadly.

Even if it is 100% true, which it likely is, I mentioned in the OP that the rules of physics may not even be the same on a micro level for Dark Matter, Black Holes and Space. At this point it is immeasurable, so until we can develop ways to more accurately study these things I can only say it is fair to consider that physics as we know it may be in for a surprise.

reply to post by ExjKae


Interesting hypothesis, I actually think that quantum evaporation would annihilate (or more accurately expel it) at that size and range however a small enough worm hole may be possible and natural split photons may exist in nature so what happens when one synchronised photon enters a black hole to the synchronised partner, does it cease to exist as well or is it possible that for the smallest fraction of an instant that it could conduct some of the quantum environment and state of the consumed one so acting in such a fashion - probably not but?.
Personally though I believe there is far less dark matter than they hypothesise and believe there are several other equally plausible theory's, just because something is popular does not make it right,

Nice to see a thinker though.
S+F and worthy of them.

When you say miniature black hole all I can think is a wormhole.

mkaku.org...

"one might be sucked down a tunnel (called the “Einstein-Rosen bridge”) and shot out a “white hole” in a parallel universe! Kerr showed that a spinning black hole would collapse not into a point, but to a “ring of fire.” Because the ring was spinning rapidly, centrifugal forces would keep it from collapsing. Remarkably, a space probe fired directly through the ring would not be crushed into oblivion, but might actually emerge unscratched on the other side of the Einstein-Rosen bridge, in a parallel universe. This “wormhole” may connect two parallel universes, or even distant parts of the same universe."


The only white hole I know of is what we call the big bang.

Originally posted by LABTECH767

Interesting hypothesis, I actually think that quantum evaporation would annihilate (or more accurately expel it) at that size and range however a small enough worm hole may be possible and natural split photons may exist in nature so what happens when one synchronised photon enters a black hole to the synchronised partner, does it cease to exist as well or is it possible that for the smallest fraction of an instant that it could conduct some of the quantum environment and state of the consumed one so acting in such a fashion - probably not but?.
Personally though I believe there is far less dark matter than they hypothesise and believe there are several other equally plausible theory's, just because something is popular does not make it right,

Nice to see a thinker though.
S+F and worthy of them.

Thank you for the S+F!

Trust me though I only consider the existence of Dark Matter as a probable theory, I don't receive it as fact. However I think it so far has given scientists enough motivation to pursue an answer. Motivation that is desperately needed if we are to make any real progression in the near future. We've settled for telescopes, probes and robots on Mars for long enough. =\

I came up with this theory randomly and have tried to build on it for the sake of not ignoring the possibility. It may very well have no basis in reality, but it can't hurt to continue expanding on it until enough evidence stacks against it. I think that's the real reason I was compelled to post it here, to give you all on ATS the opportunity to challenge my thoughts.

Originally posted by Knives4eyes
When you say miniature black hole all I can think is a wormhole.

mkaku.org...

"one might be sucked down a tunnel (called the “Einstein-Rosen bridge”) and shot out a “white hole” in a parallel universe! Kerr showed that a spinning black hole would collapse not into a point, but to a “ring of fire.” Because the ring was spinning rapidly, centrifugal forces would keep it from collapsing. Remarkably, a space probe fired directly through the ring would not be crushed into oblivion, but might actually emerge unscratched on the other side of the Einstein-Rosen bridge, in a parallel universe. This “wormhole” may connect two parallel universes, or even distant parts of the same universe."


The only white hole I know of is what we call the big bang.

Wormholes, or Einstein-Rosen Bridge as you mentioned, sure do act a lot like black holes. I would argue though that black holes do not have a "white hole" end to them. I perceive them as pure black, very small (relative to the star they formed out of) and very dense spheres of malleable matter and energy. Malleable in the sense that, like stars, are very chaotic in nature and have active surfaces. Contrary to their own name, I do not think they are holes that have an exit side. They just warp the fabric of space and time so much that the word "hole" is used to metaphorically describe the nature of their function.

That being said, I won't dismiss the possibility that a "black hole" can be so massive and so dense that it actually tears the fabric of space to create a very massive Einstein-Rosen Bridge...but I don't think they start out like that.

I have always wondered if maybe our universe is contained inside a wormhole. With the black hole at its center being both the entrance and exit depending on ones perspective. The rest of our space, time, matter, dark matter, dark energy and what ever else is out there making up the retaining wall/structure of the wormhole.

Just a thought.

Originally posted by andy06shake
I have always wondered if maybe our universe is contained inside a wormhole. With the black hole at its center being both the entrance and exit depending on ones perspective.

Just a thought.

edit on 5-8-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

I have also explored this thought! I forget where I read/heard it (I watch/read a lot of random things) but it is definitely an interesting theory. It also suggests that we live in a multiverse of infinite potential which is fun to think about.

The way I see it, if a point of singularity can exist in super massive black holes, then it is reasonable to think a form of universe can also exist. "Universe" is a relative term in the sense that only those within said universe will perceive it as the grand total of all of space in their reality. If it's possible for a universe to exist within a super massive black hole, then indeed by design, our known universe can also simply exist in a very large black hole.

It's funny when you consider the size of things. That's why I am so interested in associating the wonders of our universe with the complexity of quantum physics and physics in general. What we perceive as being very big, might be very small compared to something else that we simply cannot ever wish to be aware of. Alternatively, what we perceive as very small, might be very big to something or someone else who could only ever wish to be aware of.

I could sit here for hours pondering different topics and theories to touch on related to that idea, but I will save it for another time.

Originally posted by ExjKae

~ What in-depth hypothetical conclusions or determinations can one draw from this theory?

I think the biggest thing is that the universe at large is actually very similar to the universe on a quantum level, in fact one exists within the other so it's not ridiculous to theorize the way I have. I mean it is kind of hard not to think that way when all animations of an atom look like mini solar systems with chaotic orbital patterns. On top of that, this "blackness" that we see in space and on a quantum level, acts as a vacuum. That's why they call it vacuum space, all measurable energy gets sucked into it until there is nothing left but the larger sources of energy around it.

I want to add here that time is also relative to the effects of the universe around it. On a planetary or galactic scale, time will be effected enough to almost if not fully reach its infinite state where time and space itself would seem to stand still. On a micro or quantum scale however, time is less effected and is in fact rapidly increased compared to any human standard.

But this idea that a black hole could be small enough to make up 100% of the empty space between atoms and beyond, begs the question of whether or not we can say energy's most basic form has the potential to collapse on itself during its point of death and produce the same "black hole" phenomena as stars do in our universe.

~ If we can say say it's true, what does that imply for us or intelligence as a whole?

It's truly the ultimate question at this point of the theory. I am not an established scientist so these thoughts can only continue to build in my mind when I apply it to something relevant, and I am limited to the resources I have making it difficult to determine anything based on facts. Off the top of my head I will speculate that we could utilize this collection of infinite sources of solar, biological and chemical energies the world has to offer. At the very least on a microscopic/cellular level.

Imagine focusing general computer hardware, architectural and aviation manufacturing resources to developing the smallest, pixel/black hole-like pieces of hardware that collect the solar energy around them and digitally transfer it to storage cells. Think solar panel plates, made in pixel size, and then built as massive panels that are used..everywhere. We can layer the tops of mountains, the outsides of buildings, tops of skyscrapers, commercial airplanes and I mean literally anything we can. All of that potential solar energy at the very least could be harvested into cells that could range in many sizes and shapes. Imagine server rooms everywhere that were 100% dedicated to storing solar energy, the frame of planes could house light weight cells that held all of the energy and we'd salvage them after a days flight.

Imagine the amount of jobs that could be created because of this, instead of being the electrician who fixes your crappy cable service that propagates trashy advertising and unnecessary entertainment programs...you were the electrician who regularly stops by to collect all of that precious energy that would otherwise have been wasted on your crappy roof, painted walls and dirty rusting garage door. It became as regular as paying taxes, the government collected a portion of your energy storage based on what percentage you agreed to give the ISS (Internal Solar Service lol) when you signed the papers after buying your house or business. The rest would be left for sustaining power you use in your home. By developing the grid side by side with solar energy use, companies would easily still make profits because everyone would buy the new system upgrades and the government would charge you less money for electrical power because the revenue is being traded for what they get in solar taxes.

All it takes is for the big companies out there to man up and facilitate the change. Spend several billions of dollars to start redesigning the system...we could sure use the jobs...and literally everyone benefits very very quickly. What's spending 50 billion now to generate 300 billion after 10 years time?

The potential benefits of utilizing energy on this scale is important because it's more practical than building giant panels that float in "outer space". There is plenty of space right here on earth if we think small. Once we start harnessing the vastness of microscopic raw energy as well as biological and chemical energies...the possibilities of reorganizing our civilization to maximize the benefits is virtually endless.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Also as a P.S..

It doesn't mean the use of fossil fuels will no longer be valuable, it just means we would use less because all of the collected energy can be redirected in ways that share the burden of fossil fuels. For example, engineers could redesign the commercial car engine to use solar/electrical energies at lower speeds and then transition to gasoline when you get to higher speeds. Even if it cuts off gasoline use from the initial start of the car which was sitting in the parking lot all day soaking sun anyway, till it runs out after continual use...we would save how many gallons a year?...

There needs to be a balance of energies used to power our society, this is no longer the industrial age...it's the digital age...let's get to it!

reply to post by ExjKae


No. A black hole would do one of two things. It would be too small to sustain itself and collapse, or would suck matter in and engulf the Earth. It can not stay microscopic.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by ExjKae

 

No. A black hole would do one of two things. It would be too small to sustain itself and collapse, or would suck matter in and engulf the Earth. It can not stay microscopic.

You have to consider a shift in perspective, otherwise this is the conclusion anyone would draw.

A normal black hole, being massive and powerful, has a very long life span. Especially because they can basically make time stand still. Now the smaller we get, things speed up (as I mentioned at the beginning of my previous post). A black hole being the size of an electron for example, in terms of human time, could last only seconds before disappearing. This is largely due to their lack of density, mass and gravity which by default would cause them to effect time significantly less. Simultaneously, the nature of these "micro black holes" and charges particles, would also happen more frequently than what we see in the universe at large.

Despite the possibility of their existence, them happening so often and so fast that we have trouble even observing/measuring them; I think we can look for logical evidence from other angles to make accurate determinations of whether they truly exist or not.

~ Cause / Effect

This principle applies to every aspect of our reality, more than we may even tend to recognize. Specifically to the topic, imagine the starting point as a charged particle.

Cause = charged particle (life) / Effect = mini black hole (death) - This is the typical viewpoint because we naturally look at life as the positive, whereas, we think of death as the negative. But let's consider the opposite for a moment.

Cause = mini black hole (collection of energy to 1 point) / Effect = charged particle (expulsion of collected energy into sustainable energy) - This perspective starts to make sense the more you consider it because, being that black holes consume energy down to a singularity point (relative to size like always), MUST have an effect. What is that effect you ask? Mini "big bang", point of singularity expanding so rapidly and releasing all of that stored energy to become a sustainable particle again (mini universe).

Suddenly a natural cycle starts to appear in our minds. Do the laws of physics in the universe at large also apply to the universe on a smaller scale? My answer is yes, calling the negative space between life a "vacuum" or "dark matter" is simply not enough. Even calling it a mini black hole is not enough because it is more than that. It is the effect that is caused by the death of a charged particle which stores consumed energy to a point of singularity only to then cause the expulsion of said energy effectively birthing a new charged particle where the cycle starts over again.

I encourage any of you who read this to challenge my logic, in fact, it's very important to my research. I (charged particle) need you (black hole) you to receive (consume) the information I am feeding to you (energy) and store it in your mind (point of singularity) so that you can provide a unique perspective (expelled energy) which helps me draw better ideas and conclusions (new charged particle).

reply to post by ExjKae


On this post was an idea that I think fit's many criteria but a theory is just that and as our understanding expands into the structure underlying reality at the very smallest level we are faced with the constant need to reassess the idea's we have concerning time and space - for instance as was posted earlier the theory that a black hole does not totally collapse but and what if the mass was sufficient to allow it to do so or there was a fraction of the smallest instant were a kind of over flux in the forming gravity well allowed it to actually really tear space time but it then rebounded and sealed leaving the gravity well as a standing black hole.
My post concerning my theory can be found here on this post by AnarchoCapatalist called, "Experimental Confirmation That The Universe Is Not Expanding", My theory was outlined in basic detail on page 3 and is currently the last three posts though only the first of those is legible.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
If it is of any interest at all feel free to use it for any use as it is only an idea that somebody probably thought of before me anyway.

Originally posted by LABTECH767
reply to post by ExjKae

 

On this post was an idea that I think fit's many criteria but a theory is just that and as our understanding expands into the structure underlying reality at the very smallest level we are faced with the constant need to reassess the idea's we have concerning time and space - for instance as was posted earlier the theory that a black hole does not totally collapse but and what if the mass was sufficient to allow it to do so or there was a fraction of the smallest instant were a kind of over flux in the forming gravity well allowed it to actually really tear space time but it then rebounded and sealed leaving the gravity well as a standing black hole.
My post concerning my theory can be found here on this post by AnarchoCapatalist called, "Experimental Confirmation That The Universe Is Not Expanding", My theory was outlined in basic detail on page 3 and is currently the last three posts though only the first of those is legible.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
If it is of any interest at all feel free to use it for any use as it is only an idea that somebody probably thought of before me anyway.

I read through it and PM'd for clarification. Will post information about your theory and my thoughts here for everyone as soon as I get a response.

Interesting theory, however if there were these micro black holes they wouldn't cause any damage, imo, for two reasons:
1) You said to consider a black hole the size of an electron. It's Schwarzschild radius(the distance from the signularity to the event horizon of a black hole) would be about 2.69*10^(-26) meters. So it would be too small too be able to cause a "disaster". ( I calculated the Schwarzschild radius assuming it was an uncharged non rotating black hole, otherwise the computations can get a little more complex)
2) Even if there existed micro black holes, the laws of physics would apply to them. Importantly, Hawking Radiation. This causes black holes to slowly radiate their mass away . Also, the smaller your black hole is, the faster it evaporates. And, as i said, before, it would be a tiny black hole. So, it would evaporate pretty quickly.

Originally posted by Zapper3

Interesting theory, however if there were these micro black holes they wouldn't cause any damage, imo, for two reasons:

1) You said to consider a black hole the size of an electron. It's Schwarzschild radius(the distance from the signularity to the event horizon of a black hole) would be about 2.69*10^(-26) meters. So it would be too small too be able to cause a "disaster". ( I calculated the Schwarzschild radius assuming it was an uncharged non rotating black hole, otherwise the computations can get a little more complex)

2) Even if there existed micro black holes, the laws of physics would apply to them. Importantly, Hawking Radiation. This causes black holes to slowly radiate their mass away . Also, the smaller your black hole is, the faster it evaporates. And, as i said, before, it would be a tiny black hole. So, it would evaporate pretty quickly.

Yes I am very glad you brought up these points. Thank you for taking the time to comment! =)

1) You're right, it would be too small to cause any damage to the extent that a human would perceive it as harmful to the human condition. People typically associate the term "black hole" with super massive forces of gravity that destroy everything, which is true for black holes on a planetary or galactic scale. In order to fully understand my theory, one must rid their current understanding of black holes and allow for the possibility that they can also be so small that we would never notice them even if they passed right through us.

My theory actually claims that the entirety of "empty" or "vacuum" space is comprised of these miniature black hole phenomena. Which brings me to the next important point.

2) I mentioned this in my previous posts but I am glad you brought it up again. Black holes on a large scale seem to last very long due to how severely their gravity affects the flow of time. Black holes on a very small scale would work quite the opposite in that respect. They would last fractions of seconds due to their lack of gravity and affect on time, however, would appear more frequently than black holes that are larger. This has been stated a couple of times but it rings of truth every time. The laws of physics apply just as much to the universe at large as it does to the universe on a quantum level.

That's why my theory is sound even though it may be hard to grasp at times. I think the most difficult part for people is not associating the term "Black Hole" with "Mass amounts of gravity/destruction/can suck up galaxies". Once you can get pass that and start thinking smaller, faster, more frequent and less harmful to humans (due to lack of gravity) then I believe it is easier to accept.

Thanks for having replied to me. However I have a few points to make:
"My theory actually claims that the entirety of "empty" or "vacuum" space is comprised of these miniature black hole phenomena."
These mini black holes would then collide, to form a "larger" and this process would continue on, thus forming even larger black holes.
Also, regarding dark matter, scientists are actually thinking that dark matter may be made out of particles that possess an unusual, donut-shaped electromagnetic field called an anapole. This would then mean that mini black holes have something to do with Dark Matter.

One more thing, no troll, but if something is black, then no light can escape and thus it absoorbs all light and is "invisible" to the naked eye. So pupils are pitch black, maybe a shade of grey

Originally posted by Zapper3
Thanks for having replied to me. However I have a few points to make:
"My theory actually claims that the entirety of "empty" or "vacuum" space is comprised of these miniature black hole phenomena."
These mini black holes would then collide, to form a "larger" and this process would continue on, thus forming even larger black holes.
Also, regarding dark matter, scientists are actually thinking that dark matter may be made out of particles that possess an unusual, donut-shaped electromagnetic field called an anapole. This would then mean that mini black holes have something to do with Dark Matter.

One more thing, no troll, but if something is black, then no light can escape and thus it absoorbs all light and is "invisible" to the naked eye. So pupils are pitch black, maybe a shade of grey

Hehe. =)

I'll admit that claim is a long shot, one that may very well be far from accurate. I stated it that way to plainly express my ultimate vision of what this theory could produce (an explanation for the nature of "vacuum/empty" space).

As far as them colliding and growing larger, sure, but even at that point they would only last fractions of a second before being overwhelmed by the amount of energy around them. See my sub-theory is that, if enough energy is present, a black hole can essentially get "full". It gets to a breaking point and then either collapses again or expels energy back outward (forming it's own miniverse so to speak). Things like that are unknown to us right now because we have no evidence of what happens at the end of a black holes lifespan, as far as we know they can last forever. So since we can't use that as a model for hypothesizing a better understanding for "mini black holes", all we can do is speculate and theorize more.

I really should do some more research on "Dark Matter", I haven't looked into it too much since the theory first became public. Like you mentioned, it may very well be something that simply co-exists with my theory of mini black holes. Until a for sure answer is brought to light, I will continue to make ridiculous theories.

Funny you bring up the pupil thing. I have actually thought about it a bit and I am still unsure of what else to think of it beyond what I said in the OP. I used the brightest flashlight app I could get on my phone and shined it in my eye to test how much light is absorbed, and it stayed completely pitch black. I did actually see my reflection in the absolute center of my pupil when I did this, but that's because of the shiny film on my cornea haha. Also, a black hole is only invisible because there is nothing visible around it that actually gives us the opportunity to properly visualize it. In the case of our pupils for example, there is plenty of visible matter surrounding it that we can effectively see the "black hole" just as well.

Thanks for the time you took to reply to me however, there's something which still doesn't seem right. If it were mini black holes, then they would have all disappeared due to their short lifespan and ,imo, they wouldn't be created that frequently. Also, if these mini black holes do exist (and are that frequent/common), we would have detected hawking radiation coming from them; however, i seem to haven't found anythnig about that.
Also, in previous post i meant that if dark matter was made of anapoles, they black holes would have nothing/little to do with it.
Thank you for your time.

Originally posted by Zapper3
Thanks for the time you took to reply to me however, there's something which still doesn't seem right. If it were mini black holes, then they would have all disappeared due to their short lifespan and ,imo, they wouldn't be created that frequently. Also, if these mini black holes do exist (and are that frequent/common), we would have detected hawking radiation coming from them; however, i seem to haven't found anythnig about that.
Also, in previous post i meant that if dark matter was made of anapoles, they black holes would have nothing/little to do with it.
Thank you for your time.

I did a bit of quick research right now and it seems that the idea of "micro black holes" have been theorized before, and some very non-extensive research has been done in light of that. Just as has been touched on in this thread, their lifespan is said to be very short. Also that they would evaporate so fast that hardly if any energy could be detected, "Hawking Radiation" included. It is also said that they would play an important role in quantum mechanics.

All of that is still just theory of course, even today there is hardly enough technology to really research it. The particle accelerator was mentioned as a possible tool to experiment with these theories, though no tests have really been done.

I guess we won't know anything for sure, but I get the feeling that the next 5-10 years look very promising for the scientific community.

physicsworld.com/micro-black-ho les-could-form-at-lower-than-expected-energies

wiki/Micro_black_hole

Actually i thought about your theory and i thought it may be right(I'm not a physicist or anything so, most of the time i'll be wrong). I thought to use the idea of entropy. It turns out physicist Paul Frampton of University of North Carolina has actually done the calculations! What you do is you calculate the maximum entropy that there could be in the universe if the universe were a giant supermassive black hole. That turns out to be 10^123, according to Frampton. Now that's the upper limit of what the entropy can. Next, Frampton (and his team) work out the lower limit by adding all of the entropy in all of the known black holes. This is is done assuming that there is a giant black hole in the center of every galxy. This number turns out to be 10^103.
“Each supermassive black hole is about the size of our solar system or smaller and it is intuitively unlikely that essentially all of the entropy is so concentrated,” Frampton says. So something else must be generating entropy somewhere. It can't be visible matter, as that adds up to only 10^88. What is left is the entropy of the missing "dark mass".
It turns out that any black hole bigger than 10^6 solar masses would cause nearby matter to spiral into it, preventing galaxies from forming. Anything smaller than 10^-8 solar masses would have evaporated.
So the conclusion is that dark matter is made up of black holes with a mass of between 10^6 and 10^-8 solar masses, based on the calculations made by Frampton and his team.
However, there is one more problem. How could have so many black holes formed during the early stages of the universe? Something must have caused matter to get together at this scale to form the black holes. But there is nothing to show how this might have happened in the present theory of inflation. Frampton has his reasons for this: "There must have been two periods of inflation. The first led to the large scale structure of the Universe that we see and has been measured by spacecraft such as WMAP. The second led to the clumping that created large numbers of medium-sized primordial black holes"
This idea is pretty interesting. I had actually thought of calculating entropy, however it would've been too complex for me. Lucky that there was someone who has actually done it.
Here are the links for the aricle on Frampton and a link to understand what entropy is if you don't already know:
Frampton : www.technologyreview.com...
Entropy : au.answers.yahoo.com...
Entropy in a Black Hole : www.universetoday.com...