All Dark Matter in the Universe Could Be Primordial Black Holes – Formed From the Collapse of Baby Universes Soon After the Big Bang

Baby Universes

Baby universes branching off of our universe shortly after the Big Bang appear to us as black holes. Credit: Kavli IPMU

The Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (Kavli IPMU) is home to many interdisciplinary projects which benefit from the synergy of a wide range of expertise available at the institute. One such project is the study of black holes that could have formed in the early universe, before stars and galaxies were born.  

Such primordial black holes (PBHs) could account for all or part of dark matter, be responsible for some of the observed gravitational waves signals, and seed supermassive black holes found in the center of our Galaxy and other galaxies. They could also play a role in the synthesis of heavy elements when they collide with neutron stars and destroy them, releasing neutron-rich material.

In particular, there is an exciting possibility that the mysterious dark matter, which accounts for most of the matter in the universe, is composed of primordial black holes. The 2020 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to a theorist, Roger Penrose, and two astronomers, Reinhard Genzel and Andrea Ghez, for their discoveries that confirmed the existence of black holes. Since black holes are known to exist in nature, they make a very appealing candidate for dark matter. 

The recent progress in fundamental theory, astrophysics, and astronomical observations in search of PBHs has been made by an international team of particle physicists, cosmologists and astronomers, including Kavli IPMU members Alexander Kusenko, Misao Sasaki, Sunao Sugiyama, Masahiro Takada and Volodymyr Takhistov.

To learn more about primordial black holes, the research team looked at the early universe for clues. The early universe was so dense that any positive density fluctuation of more than 50 percent would create a black hole. However, cosmological perturbations that seeded galaxies are known to be much smaller. Nevertheless, a number of processes in the early universe could have created the right conditions for the black holes to form.

Hyper Suprime Cam

Hyper Suprime-Cam (HSC) is a gigantic digital camera on the Subaru Telescope. Credit: HSC project / NAOJ

One exciting possibility is that primordial black holes could form from the “baby universes” created during inflation, a period of rapid expansion that is believed to be responsible for seeding the structures we observe today, such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies. During inflation, baby universes can branch off of our universe. A small baby (or “daughter”) universe would eventually collapse, but the large amount of energy released in the small volume causes a black hole to form.  

An even more peculiar fate awaits a bigger baby universe. If it is bigger than some critical size, Einstein’s theory of gravity allows the baby universe to exist in a state that appears different to an observer on the inside and the outside. An internal observer sees it as an expanding universe, while an outside observer (such as us) sees it as a black hole. In either case, the big and the small baby universes are seen by us as primordial black holes, which conceal the underlying structure of multiple universes behind their “event horizons.” The event horizon is a boundary below which everything, even light, is trapped and cannot escape the black hole.

Andromeda Galaxy Primordial Black Hole

A star in the Andromeda galaxy temporarily becomes brighter if a primordial black hole passes in front of the star, focusing its light in accordance with the theory of gravity. Credit: Kavli IPMU/HSC Collaboration

In their paper, the team described a novel scenario for PBH formation and showed that the black holes from the “multiverse” scenario can be found using the Hyper Suprime-Cam (HSC) of the 8.2m (27ft) Subaru Telescope, a gigantic digital camera — the management of which Kavli IPMU has played a crucial role — near the 4,200-meter (13,800-foot) summit of Mt. Mauna Kea in Hawaii. Their work is an exciting extension of the HSC search of PBH that Masahiro Takada, a Principal Investigator at the Kavli IPMU, and his team are pursuing. The HSC team has recently reported leading constraints on the existence of PBHs in Niikura, Takada et. al. Nature Astronomy 3, 524–534 (2019)

Why was the HSC indispensable in this research? The HSC has a unique capability to image the entire Andromeda galaxy every few minutes. If a black hole passes through the line of sight to one of the stars, the black hole’s gravity bends the light rays and makes the star appear brighter than before for a short period of time. The duration of the star’s brightening tells the astronomers the mass of the black hole. With HSC observations, one can simultaneously observe one hundred million stars, casting a wide net for primordial black holes that may be crossing one of the lines of sight.  

The first HSC observations have already reported a very intriguing candidate event consistent with a PBH from the “multiverse,” with a black hole mass comparable to the mass of the Moon. Encouraged by this first sign, and guided by the new theoretical understanding, the team is conducting a new round of observations to extend the search and to provide a definitive test of whether PBHs from the multiverse scenario can account for all dark matter.  

Reference: “Exploring Primordial Black Holes from the Multiverse with Optical Telescopes” by Alexander Kusenko, Misao Sasaki, Sunao Sugiyama, Masahiro Takada, Volodymyr Takhistov and Edoardo Vitagliano, 30 October 2020, Physical Review Letters.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.181304

60 Comments on "All Dark Matter in the Universe Could Be Primordial Black Holes – Formed From the Collapse of Baby Universes Soon After the Big Bang"

  1. If there are trillions and trillions of them out there, they could easily contain the dark matter we suspect exists. Using the Andromeda Galaxy and gravitational lensing to spot them is a brilliant idea.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 29, 2020 at 2:48 pm | Reply

      I’m not sure that using gravitational lensing to hunt for primordial black holes is new. But the main advance of the paper is to show that they can rapidly test their proposal that way.

  2. The writer says that a “bigger” baby universe is seen by an internal observer as an expanding universe, but from the outside as a black hole. So…does that mean that our universe, which we see as expanding, could also be a black hole in another universe?

    • We could have an infinite ‘onion’ of a black hole inside a baby universe inside a black hole…. This is mind boggling.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 29, 2020 at 2:54 pm | Reply

      Good old question!

      The response you get if you study the question is that black holes have an outside, while the universe in its entirety hasn’t [ ].

      “People sometimes ask, “Is the universe a black hole?” Or worse, they claim: “The universe is a black hole!” No, it’s not, and it’s worth getting this one straight.”

      “But a black hole is not “a place where a lot of mass has been squeezed inside its own Schwarzschild radius.” It is, as Wikipedia is happy to tell you, “a region of space from which nothing, including light, can escape.” The implication being that there is a region outside the black hole from which things could at least imagine escaping to. For the universe, there is no such outside region. So at a pretty trivial level, the universe is not a black hole.

      You might say that this is picking nits, and the existence of an outside region is beside the point if the inside of our universe resembles a black hole. That’s fine, except: it doesn’t. You may have noticed that the universe is actually expanding, rather than contracting as you might expect the interior of a black hole to be.”

      The false vacuum bubbles proposed in the paper have a so called domain wall boundary which is different from black holes. “They undergo rapid expansion until the energy density inside the bubble exceeds the energy density in the exterior, which happens at some point before the end of inflation at time t_i . After that, the bubble contracts and collapses to a black hole.” So at the time they look like black holes they would no longer look like a universe for inside observers I think – they would be spaghettified and squashed [technical terms].

      The paper do discuss wormhole connections as support for how the dynamics work. Those connections would be impossible in our flat space. But I’m not sure how that changes the “[doesn’t] look like a universe” aspect.

  3. … kicking the can, once again…

  4. Interesting, though I’d like to know more detail on the physics of the internal versus external state of a “universe-containing” black hole.

    Also an obvious question: what observable effect does matter falling into such a black hole have which an observer inside could detect, and is it one we could look for to see if we’re inside one? (I wouldn’t be surprised if it just ends up as part of the Big Bang though.)

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 29, 2020 at 2:56 pm | Reply

      Good points! See my response to D. Hughs for some of that (which comes out as that they likely are waxing a tad poetic with what they find in their paper).

  5. The big bang itself was the the first formation of a black hole.

    Good morning to you

    • It sounds like You are saying “We are the Centre of the Universe “ , could there have been other Big Bangs and Black Holes ?

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 29, 2020 at 2:59 pm | Reply

      “Or worse, they claim: “The universe is a black hole!” No, it’s not, and it’s worth getting this one straight.”

      [ ].

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 29, 2020 at 3:03 pm | Reply

      Also, the Big Bang as a singularity or similar is cosmology 40 years out of date. See :

      “Among most people who study the early Universe, inflation is accepted as the new consensus theory. We might not know everything there is to know about inflation, but either it — or something so similar to it that we don’t have an observation to tell them apart — must have happened.

      With all that said, what does that mean for our cosmic origins? From a timeline perspective, what comes first: the Big Bang or inflation?”

      ” An inflating Universe doesn’t begin in a singularity like a matter-dominated or radiation-dominated Universe does. All we can state with certainty is that the state we call the hot Big Bang only came about after the end of inflation. It says nothing about inflation’s origins.”

      “There are a lot of people who mean “the initial singularity” when they say “the Big Bang,” and to those people, I say it’s long past due for you to get with the times. The hot Big Bang cannot be extrapolated back to a singularity, but only to the end of an inflationary state that preceded it. We cannot state with any confidence, because there are no signatures of it even in principle, what preceded the very end-stages of inflation. Was there a singularity? Maybe, but even if so, it doesn’t have anything to do with the Big Bang.

      Inflation came first, and its end heralded the arrival of the Big Bang. There are still those who disagree, but they’re now nearly a full 40 years out of date.”

  6. The big picture is this, in a nutshell. We, are in a black hole. Everything that we are looking at, is outside the black hole. That is why there are so many strange things like the expansion of the universe, quantum entanglement, everything is because of our perspective. Looking from the inside out if a black hole.

  7. I don’t understand why a black hole isn’t really a worm hole?

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 29, 2020 at 3:07 pm | Reply

      They are different solutions to general relativity.

      Black holes are straightforward (well) results of collapse when a sufficiently massive star runs out of fuel and its fusion core radiation pressure vane. We have images of black hole shadows, and their discovery gave the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics.

      Wormholes are putative, extradimensional solutions which needs a lot of exotic conditions and, IMO, breaks the simple 3D space that recent cosmology has observed we live in.

  8. Spyroe theory claims that all energy in the universe can be understood by measuring it as if it were winding and unwinding based on a common shape, the shape that would define all humans. Organizing vortices on the xyz axis. View the shape you will agree that it can solve paradoxical questions. Spyroe theory suggests we live in one of the six sections which limits how much of the universe we can observe. Half of the universe is winding in and half is winding out. There is a centre. Two of the three axis combine at the centre to change energy direction with no loss.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 29, 2020 at 3:09 pm | Reply

      Pseudoscience mumbo jumbo – and what is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

      • It is true that you do need evidence, math and experimental data but who will perform such a task? The scientific establishment? Not a chance. They work for their sponsors. The problem is the scientific establishment is the only ones who have the credibility and knowledge to verify a radical new idea. So we as humans are stuck waiting for a small group of people to decide what we all should believe is real. Not fair. What about the people who are possibly gifted and have a great way of describing our surroundings. They get ignored or criticized for giving suggestions. Remember particles and forces only exist because we choose to use and believe in them, not because they are there otherwise.

        • Torbjörn Larsson | December 30, 2020 at 2:59 am | Reply

          Science provides evidence. And scientists are the experts – there is no ‘gift’ in that but hard work. Facts can be accepted or not, but we can’t ‘believe’ in them – you can have your own opinion (“belief”) but not your own facts. And of course facts are robust – the universe has been out there for 14 billion years – claiming else is just more pseudoscience.

          You have as little evidence for your conspiracy theory as you have for your pseudoscience.

          • Careful when you use the word “fact”. What is fact? Remember we are talking about theories. Theories are used to understand something that is a mystery to us. Everything we know and believe in of science can all change with one new idea. Particle and forces are used by humans to describe the universe but are they real? A fact? Of course NOT. We use experiments to ask the universe a question based on our theories. The universe responds, reveals itself with particles, “look it’s an electron”. But you know the electron is as much of a representation of the universe as it is a representation of ourselves. What we observe has a lot to do with what we believe in. You talk about pseudoscience, but you don’t mention that theoretical physics is based on observation proof not just math, but what about string theory. Humans can not see strings yet string theory is the leading approach to quantum gravity. Is that fair? The outsider cannot say a thing without proof but the insides can follow a personal believe without proof? Not fair. The biggest fear of the insiders is an outsider coming along with an idea that proves everything they know to be useless. This is why they ignore all ideas from the outsiders. Actually even if you are an insider you cannot go off and start a new idea on your own. There are rules. The insiders follow direction from their supervisors. Don’t believe me? Go to a lecture and try to talk to a scientist about your new idea. See what happens don’t be surprised if they walk away from you immediately. Not because you are wasting their time, because they need to make advancements completely by their own results. Last thing they want to do is mistakenly prove your idea correct.

          • forever a STUDENT | December 30, 2020 at 10:02 am |

            I laugh at the evolutionist/creationist arguments, as if either side can actually KNOW the truth.

            As a student (once a student, always a student) of cognitive psychology, “religion”/”philosophy”, and metaphysics, it is clear to me that we simply can not “know” (are incapable of knowing) “the truth”. The Bible says it, the older Vedic texts say it, the Buddhists say it, the Taoists say it, AND the modern scientists say it. One will ALWAYS be a student of these ultimately unknowable subjects…

            The Cognitive Science of the Embodied Mind, though the work of linguistics and other sub-branches, makes it clear that all that we CAN know, comprehend, understand, imagine, is metaphorical, and those metaphors are based on less than a dozen or so basic concepts: in-out, up-down, left-right, front-back, etc. (I forget the rest at the moment). Those basic concepts combine to produce higher and higher (more complex) levels of metaphors that give rise to all other concepts/ideas/words that our awareness/consciousness produces.

            Furthermore, it is =impossible= to =know= if there is more to “reality” than we can imagine or perceive. MAYBE we can account for all of existence using our embodied mind, but MAYBE not.

            Mathematics is a human invention. MAYBE it describes the universe completely (and as such is the “language of ‘GOD'” as the Gnostics say), MAYBE not; but ===there is no way for us to know===. However, all “good thinkers” can realize that math is NOT a “perfect” representation of reality. Math is linear, where the reality we “experience” is circular/spiral/curved. Find a strait line in the universe: I challenge you. Not even light travels in a “perfectly” strait line. Now try to describe a curve mathematically: you can’t “exactly”. Those pesky π (pi), ϕ (phi), ∞ (infinity) numbers (to name but a few) keep getting in the way. Math “works” for us because the level of “precision” is “good enough” for our level of “perception”.

            How about a simple photon: is it a wave or particle? Is “electricity” in a wire a wave of energy or a stream of electrons? We rely on our “math” to answer questions about processes we can not ===directly perceive===, trying to fit a round peg into the square holes of perception of the conscious awareness of our embodied mind. Yet the math leaves us with an ambiguous answer to these very simple basic questions about “reality”; and then we “kick the can” down the hall, mathematically, further trying to understand, in terms of our embodied mind’s metaphors, what it means to be BOTH a wave and particle. But no thought is given, mathematically, to the concept that we can not actually CONCEIVE the reality of what a photon IS or what electricity IS; because mathematics IS an embodied concept.

            The Tao that can be spoken of is not the Tao.
            Simple as that.

            “Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About The Mind” – George Lakoff – 1987 – University Of Chicago Press

            “Metaphors We Live By” – George Lakoff & Mark Johnson

            “Where Mathematics Comes From” – George Lakoff & Rafael E. Núñez

          • Forever a student. Talking about spirals? That’s how this conversation started.

            Spyroe theory is a concept that uses organized spirals.
            Look it up. It’s the common shape of nature. It’s the human logo.

          • Torbjörn Larsson | December 31, 2020 at 2:12 pm |

            Pseudoscience is still pseudoscience hwoevre dressed in postrmodern philosophy and religious superstition – or conspiracy theory.

            Science is really simple, it is the only known method to arrive at knowledge. It uses math as a tool – but famously isn’t founded on it, c.f. how quantum physics cannot be axiomatized but needs observation to establish useful parameters at every scale [ ] – as well as observed, robust facts and theories predicting facts. Theories builds on observation and predict them, like images they comprise “a thousand facts” and are best seen as superfacts as soon as they are well tested and robust as other facts.

            [After bioinformatics study, I maintain that anyone can go to free genome databases such as NCBI and test evolution by aligning and treeing a protein gene, on their own in 30 minutes after doing the tutorials, and that it is just laziness to demand further tests before looking for yourself that evolution is an observable fact. It is “a killer app”.]

            String theory has pretty much been rejected by the Large Hadron Collider failing to see its natural supersymmetric dark matter candidate. “Because supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model of particle physics readily predict a new particle with these properties, this apparent coincidence is known as the “WIMP miracle”, and a stable supersymmetric partner has long been a prime WIMP candidate.[1] However, recent null results from direct-detection experiments along with the failure to produce evidence of supersymmetry in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiment[2][3] has cast doubt on the simplest WIMP hypothesis.” [“Weakly interacting massive particles” @ Wikpedia] There is also the related problems that string theory needs anti-de Sitter space or a “lift” to de Sitter space – but space looks flat and string theory in de Sitter space looks unphysical [cd. “Dark Energy May Be Incompatible With String Theory” @ Quanta Magazine], and that ultimately it clashes with observed inflation [“The zoo plot meets the swampland: mutual (in)consistency of single-field inflation, string conjectures, and cosmological data” @ arxiv].

            No, scientists don’t walk away from useful ideas, it’s because you are wasting their time of course. “The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from people’s inability to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their level of competence.” [“Dunning–Kruger effect” @ Wikipedia] That’s why the test of the competence of ideas is not to harass scientists, but to peer review publish (which on the other hand is a topic one may well ask for help in).

          • Torbjörn Larsson | December 31, 2020 at 2:14 pm |

            “hwoevre” – however.

          • Not true. Physicists walk away from you if you are talking about your ideas because they don not want to one glossy manny years later think they came up with it. No different than film producers do not to take someone’s script and read it without a release. Trust me on that. I used to think like you. I thought the scientific establishment was working for everyone, discovering “what the universe is” but not true at all. They work for their sponsors to make useful technology. What they say is the universe is only one version of the universe. The universe is a mystery! No way we will ever know “what it is”. We can only describe it the way we are able to describe it. Sure particle and forces can describe the mysterious field but it isn’t what it is. Spyroe theory hasn’t been fully developed but it is based on Rene Descartes idea of a vortex universe. Here it is. Imagine the whole volume of the universe being winding and unwinding vortices. When you move matter it is unwinding from where it is and winding up the volume of space it enters. It’s that simple. Type spyroe theory up on google you will see the shape that represents one quantum of energy. The concept can explain the paradoxes like entanglement and double slit. The shape has been used for a design of a spherical propeller. The propeller uses hundreds of magnets in a specific order within the propeller blades which are identical to the shape of DNA. When in motion the magnetic field matches the planetary movements- Thus the shape of the magnetic field produced follows the shape of the natural magnetic field of the universe. And FYI I know this concept is just art until it is tested. And FYI I have studied theoretical physics for 30 years and have to say that the only way man can move on into a new paradigm is to discard all we know and start over. Modern physics is useless without a different concept of time.

  9. Thank you, D. Hughes for pointing out what was obvious to an amateur like me. If a peer reviewed, published article actually discussed “baby universes,” I’d enjoy reading it. I wouldn’t necessarily pay to read it.

    I am beginning to imagine, however, that our perception of the origins and composition of the universe, past and present, could very well require the idea of multiple universes.

    That’s because our idea of the “universe” is a mythological construct. Space and time are ever changing. Who the heck knows what happens from time to time in various places beyond the typically reliable observations obtained from the perspective of our own little ant hill?

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 29, 2020 at 3:13 pm | Reply

      Our observations covers 14 billion years of time and a 100 billion lightyear diameter volume, and presumably an observer on Andromeda would say much the same and so on.

      I don’t see the need to insert uncertainty after the last few decades have replaced earlier uncertain cosmology (where cosmic and star ages differed with a factor 2) with precision cosmology at 1 % uncertainty and decreasing.

      We know this, There is a lot we don’t know, but e.g. that space is 3D flat is unlikely to go away.

  10. A beautiful , reasonable teoric view, to probe that we need to visit one of them,(black hole)unfortunate is not back tickets.

  11. Perhaps some primordial black holes are the shrapnel of the big bang, rather than objects which coalesce from a purely energy and particle domain. Most explosions spray seeds of their original structure; their disintegration is incomplete. The early universe, and our own, may sparkle darkly with that from which it emerged.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 29, 2020 at 3:15 pm | Reply

      See the article – very few such black holes due to our homogeneous (and isotropic) universe and its likewise expansion.

  12. The sudden gigantic expansion of our very early universe could be accounted for by the intrusion into our space of matter and energy from another universe’s debris ? The inflation has to have been done by something.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 29, 2020 at 3:23 pm | Reply

      The inflation process looks to be caused by a scalar, Higgs like quantum field that has inflationary volumes “slow roll” down its potential [Planck collaboration 2018 cosmological summary paper @ Planck legacy Archive].

      With space near enough flat [flat (as was also seen at the time and has been independently confirmed in, say, eBOSS collaboration 20 year summary cosmological paper @ arxiv] one can arguably make sense of total energy and so thermodynamics of Einstein’s equations for the universe in approximate form. During inflation the process is approximately one of an adiabatic free expansion, which is a spontaneous process.

      If the process ever started – a dubious proposal of a non-expansion – it would start at a drop of a cosmic hat.

      But that’s my 2c of course.

  13. Makes a lot more sense than dark matter.

  14. They are so stupid. Their little mind is a dark matter.

  15. The truth is I think this is the most likely form of dark matter. Physicist.

  16. Torbjörn Larsson | December 29, 2020 at 2:39 pm | Reply

    “The early universe was so dense that any positive density fluctuation of more than 50 percent would create a black hole. However, cosmological perturbations that seeded galaxies are known to be much smaller.”

    At least it wasn’t one of those annoying “let’s forget that observed perturbations are at 10^-5 relative energy density”. In another sign of progress they do accept that it is a slow roll, Higgs like, potential we have observed for the inflation field.

    That said, I’m not sure this has much better likelihood to be viable. Like some axion papers they ad hoc on more field dimensions – and also then particle types – than needed to get a false vacuum dynamics. To get that they have to do fine-tuning of the tilt of their “Mexican hat” potential to recover slow roll dynamics as the main dynamics. (This also gives them an independent set of parameters to adjust false vacuum tunneling rate to match putative observations.)

    They do have to make some additional assumptions for various black hole masses, which adds to the finetuning and at times seems in conflict with what we have seem. (Such as having net matter only at temperatures well below what is seen in the Large Hadron Collider.)

    In general, a false vacuum dynamics would be a less likely, finetuned result. And it makes away with the natural – wide parameter range – slow roll dynamics of a simplest 1D quantum scalar inflation field.

    The main take home is that they show how Hyper Suprime-Cam will test these types of scenarios quite rapidly. Their one candidate is weak [“Microlensing constraints on primordial black holes with the Subaru/HSC Andromeda observation” @ arxiv]: “we cannot conclusively infer the nature of this candidate.” And there is nothing that says it isn’t a more likely free floating “nomad” planet.

  17. Poppycock. What is all this talk about falling into a black hole and what it would look like? Sounds like everyone has abandoned steven Hawkins opera singer stuck in a moment theory. Every one says a black hole is a collapsed star who’s gravity is such that light cant escape. Well if Steven Hawkins singularity theory is correct then what is light doing in a black hole to begin with? I think the can’t escape nothing up my sleeve act should be replaced with light cant exsist in a black hole because it can’t reach the speed of light in an intense field .there for no light and definitly no opera singer. But if you want some new insight into the big bang then you have to watch this one minute youtube video and I guarrente you will be absolutly blown away.

  18. Torbjörn Larsson | December 30, 2020 at 2:54 am | Reply

    “All Dark Matter in the Universe Could Be Primordial Black Holes”

    Here is a response that points out this claim has problems:

    “It’s an old idea that’s been kicked around for a while, to the extent that it’s looking increasingly unlikely as a candidate. If a population of these itty-bitty black holes does behave like dark matter, it’ll probably only account for a proportion of it.”

    [ ]

    The paper it refers to claims:

    “Current SNe data sets constrain compact objects to represent less than 35.2% (Joint Lightcurve Analysis) and 37.2% (Union 2.1) of the total matter content in the Universe, at 95% confidence level. The results are valid for masses larger than ∼ 0.01 M_⊙ (solar masses), limited by the size SNe relative to the lens Einstein radius.”

  19. My theory has always been that black holes contain a dimension that overlaps our universe. I believe that there are two universes overlayed on top one another. The one we reside in is the physical dimension where things appear mainly as matter and solid objects, however all the energy generated by this physical plane resonates into the other dimension where everything is composed in its raw form and appear as vibrating atoms and energy. Some may refer to it as the astral plane. If I may give an example, if a wifi device were to represent our universe, the other dimension would be a place where you could visually perceive the wifi signal travelling through the air. So the two universes aren’t entirely seperate and exist simultaneously with one another and although we can only perceive one of the Universes with our senses, I believe we are slowly learning more about the other side and bridging the gap with the development in technology and Quantum physics.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 31, 2020 at 1:07 pm | Reply

      Space has been found to be cosmologically (large scale) 3D and flat. That means black holes do not have extra “dimensions” since they inhabit that space.

  20. lol, still pretending the big bang happened? Time to just admit astronomers etc made that story up so you could pretend you knew the answer to where it all started.
    And the fact so many of you quote a fictional character, Sherlock Holmes, as a way to justify your lie proves me correct.

  21. Babu G. Ranganathan | December 30, 2020 at 7:34 am | Reply

    Babu G. Ranganathan*
    (B.A. Bible/Biology)

    JUST BECAUSE SCIENCE CAN EXPLAIN how an airplane works doesn’t mean that no one designed or made the airplane. And just because science can explain how life or the universe works doesn’t mean there was no Designer and Maker behind them.

    Natural laws may explain how the order in the universe works and operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells from raw materials such as amino acids and other chemicals, but how could life or the cell have naturally originated when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.

    WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No human observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports.

    SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE CANNOT BE ETERNAL because it could not have sustained itself eternally due to the law of entropy (increasing and irreversible net energy decay, even in an open system). Even a hypothetical oscillating universe could not continue to oscillate eternally! Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity shows that space, matter, and time all are physical and all had a beginning. Space even produces particles because it’s actually something, not nothing. What about the Higgs boson (the so-called “God Particle”)? The Higgs boson, even if it existed, would not have created mass from nothing, but rather it would have converted energy into mass. Einstein showed that all matter is some form of energy. Even time had a beginning! Time is not eternal.

    The law of entropy doesn’t allow the universe to be eternal. If the universe were eternal, everything, including time (which modern science has shown is as physical as mass and space), would have become totally entropied by now and the entire universe would have ended in a uniform heat death a long, long time ago. The fact that this hasn’t happened already is powerful evidence for a beginning to the universe.

    Popular atheistic scientist Stephen Hawking admits that the universe had a beginning and came from nothing but he believes that nothing became something by a natural process yet to be discovered. That’s not rational thinking at all, and it also would be making the effect greater than its cause to say that nothing created something. The beginning had to be of supernatural origin because science teaches us from the First Law of Thermodynamics that natural laws and processes do not have the ability to bring something into existence from nothing.

    The supernatural origin of the universe cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence and power for the origin and order of the universe. Where did God come from? Obviously, unlike the universe, God’s nature doesn’t require a beginning.

    The disorder in the universe can be explained because of chance and random processes, but the order can be explained only because of intelligence and design.

    Gravity may explain how the order found in the precise and orderly courses of thousands of billions of stars is maintained, but gravity cannot explain the origin of that order.

    Some evolutionary astronomers believe that trillions of stars crashed into each other leaving surviving stars to find precise orderly orbits in space. Not only is this irrational, but if there was such a mass collision of stars then there would be a super mass residue of gas clouds in space to support this hypothesis. The present level of residue of gas clouds in space doesn’t support the magnitude of star deaths required for such a hypothesis. And, as already stated, the origin of stars cannot be explained by the Big Bang because of the reasons mentioned above. It’s one thing to say that stars may decay and die into random gas clouds, but it is totally different to say that gas clouds form into stars.

    Even the father of Chaos theory admitted that the “mechanisms” existing in the non-living world allow for only very rudimentary levels of order to arise spontaneously (by chance), but not the kind or level of order we find in the structures of DNA, RNA, and proteins. Yes, individual amino acids have been shown to come into existence by chance but not protein molecules which require that the various amino acids be in a precise sequence just like the letters found in a sentence.

    Some things don’t need experiment or scientific proof. In law there is a dictum called prima facie evidence. It means “evidence that speaks for itself.”

    An example of a true prima facie would be if you discovered an elaborate sand castle on the beach. You don’t have to experiment to know that it came by design and not by the chance forces of wind and water.

    If you discovered a romantic letter or message written in the sand, you don’t have to experiment to know that it was by design and not because a stick randomly carried by wind put it there. You naturally assume that an intelligent and rational being was responsible.

    It’s interesting that Carl Sagan would have acknowledged sequential radio signals in space as evidence of intelligent life sending them, but he wouldn’t acknowledge the sequential structure of molecules in DNA (the genetic code) as evidence of an intelligent Cause. Read my popular Internet article, HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME.

    I encourage all to read my popular Internet articles:


    Visit my latest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (This site answers many arguments, both old and new, that have been used by evolutionists to support their theory)


    *I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I’ve been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis “Who’s Who in The East” for my writings on religion and science.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 31, 2020 at 1:10 pm | Reply

      Superstition and pseudoscience links.

      Do you really think anyone reads that word soup after the first taste!?

  22. I don’t believe anything ever goes into a blacksphere to start with not even light. I believe blacksphere’s are so dense and pure and spin at such tremendous velocity that the event horizon it creates is impenetrable and light simple gets bent around it.

  23. Howard Jeffrey Bender | December 30, 2020 at 9:35 am | Reply

    Looks like you have some bias against my science posts, although you certainly like that nasty guy. That being the case, I won’t bother to reply to others.

  24. God came from a lot of scared people with no hope according to your bible. I don’t believe in a god and I don’t raise my right hand when I need to tell the truth lol. Listen anybody can have faith and that’s a personal thing and I can respect that. But who thought of the big bang theory what was his day job? People say the big bang happened everywhere all at once. I think bangs are localized events where the primordial gases pooled and collapsed to form the very first blacksphere’s and in doing so created extremely large magnetic bubbles around the sphere’s and I think this happened all across the universe at different points and at different times. We know blacksphere’s collect all they discarded and all the gases they created back to themselves and that’s how galaxies are created. There is no size limit to blackspheres it simply depends on how much gas was there when they formed. That would explain the voids we see in space. Flatness could be explained from down force like the rings around planets just on a bigger scale. Scale is very important. Sometimes the easiest explanation is best. Everywhere you are is the center of the universe it’s all perspective and experiments should be carried as such. It’s very cool stuff space but when someone says dark anything it means it just a thought. Expansion could be explained several ways a dead universe leaking it’s spent gases into a bubble creating a new uni. Or maybe it’s not expanding it’s just vibrating and in turn moving that’s my best theory.

  25. So let’s speculate a little dark matter? Matter that isn’t there? So space is made of what that’s the right question. Dark energy? Vibrating space maybe that drives the motion of the universe or should I say drives the matter in space in the universe sounds really good kinda like the universe is humming. There really doesn’t have to be dark matter when u think about it does there. Love all the comments interesting reads love the article.

  26. I published this paper back in 2006

    “The Primordial Black Hole Criticality of the Universe”
    JBIS, 59, 146-152
    We consider the speculative suggestion that copious primordial black holes may have formed in over dense regions at early epochs with the final singularities tunnelling to big bang initial singularities. A critical parameter is introduced as a boundary between those primordial black holes that result in a baby universe contributing towards the nth generation and those that fail to produce such a progeny.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 31, 2020 at 1:30 pm | Reply

      Congratulations! JBIS is an old peer reviewed journal.

      The problem may be that since 2006 it was observed that inflation resulted in a 10^-5 energy density fluctuation scale as observed in the cosmic background starting with WMAP 2003ish, so not O(1) but O(10^-5). The formation rates of black hole collapse from overdensities is small, and the new paper instead suggest false vacuum bubbles from additional (i.e. low likelihood) quantum fields. They also admit that “PBHs with
      larger masses have been constrained [away] with astrophysical observations.” In fact, dark matter is unlikely to be majorly PBHs anyway from lensing observations [ ].

      But else I would think your paper could have some interesting perspective on the general false vacuum physics.

  27. I may not know what I’m talking about, but isn’t the universe composed mostly of “dark energy,” and not dark matter? Below is an excerpt from the opening paragraphs:

    “the mysterious dark matter, which accounts for most of the matter in the universe”

    If we (our scientists) still believe that the known universe consists mostly from dark energy and not dark matter, the reader of this article could be confused.

    If I’ve missed something please disregard my comment!



    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 31, 2020 at 1:32 pm | Reply

      Good point! It is correct as stated (most of matter) but is pity and may be confusing (not most of energy, as in relativistic “matter-energy”).

  28. Robert R Hussey | December 30, 2020 at 3:19 pm | Reply

    The speed at which the universe has been expanding since the big bang is increasing right? Something has to fuel that expansion. This is what I think. So when a star collapses and creates a black hole, it sucks in quadrillions of tonnes of matter.. that just disappears? I think that matter is excreted or ejected as “dark matter” and as more and more stars collapse, more dark matter is created causing the universe to expand.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 31, 2020 at 1:43 pm | Reply

      It is correct that the expansion follows a trend that currently goes asymptotically to an exponential function since vacuum (“dark”) energy dominates more and more, but the rate of the trend – “the Hubble parameter” – is actually slightly diminishing as it approaches the asymptote [ ].

      “Current evidence suggests that the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating, which means that the second derivative of the scale factor {\displaystyle a(t) is positive, or equivalently that the first derivative a_dot(t) is increasing over time.[5] This also implies that any given galaxy recedes from us with increasing speed over time, i.e. for that galaxy d_dot(t) is increasing with time. In contrast, the Hubble parameter seems to be decreasing with time, meaning that if we were to look at some fixed distance d and watch a series of different galaxies pass that distance, later galaxies would pass that distance at a smaller velocity than earlier ones.”

      “The cosmological constant is given the symbol Λ, and, considered as a source term in the Einstein field equation, can be viewed as equivalent to a “mass” of empty space, or dark energy. Since this increases with the volume of the universe, the expansion pressure is effectively constant, independent of the scale of the universe, while the other terms decrease with time. Thus, as the density of other forms of matter – dust and radiation – drops to very low concentrations, the cosmological constant (or “dark energy”) term will eventually dominate the energy density of the Universe. Recent measurements of the change in Hubble constant with time, based on observations of distant supernovae, show this acceleration in expansion rate,[14] indicating the presence of such dark energy.”

      Black holes can’t eject matter. But they can slightly radiate thermally, so they will eventually evaporate [“Black hole” @ Wikipedia].

  29. … Yeah, I am just so glad that this, great scientists have explained it all, …
    … THX, for explaining what is not possible too, that helps, …

  30. … The brave scientists, have taken into account, that light from the edges of observable universe travels a long time till it reaches us, and that during that travel the space time was bit different, … The Universe is not a static one, that was a great calculation to perform, hope AA didn’t do it…

Leave a comment

Email address is optional. If provided, your email will not be published or shared.