Black holes ruled out as universe’s missing dark matter

Doesnt E=mc^2 form an equivalence? I would expect energy to warp space-time just as mass does.

Let's change this a little bit.

We have observed specific phenomena but not that which created such phenomena.

As far as "Black Holes" as per theoretical descriptions are concerned, they cannot exist in a finite time universe as far as we (the observers) are concerned. The theoretical models used all have as a basic assumption that increasing gravity (whatever that may be) will cause a slow down in time as observed at distances away from such increase. As such, all phenomena involved in the creation of such entities will slow to a complete stop as far as we are concerned.

Hence, if the universe is of any finite duration, we will not have seen the creation of even 1 black hole of any kind. On the other hand, if the universe has existed eternally, it is still likely that these entities are still in the process of formation and not yet in existence.

I don't doubt we are seeing some interesting phenomena, but not the entities called "Black Holes". The argument for the creation involves changing perspective to some observer who is falling into or through the event horizon (choose which one of these you want, as there are apparently a couple of choices here in the theoretical models). Since we are not such observers, that perspective is actually irrelevant to us. What is relevant is what we observe in the universe at large.

The basic problems (irrespective of mathematical assumptions) with the processes of "Black Hole" generation relate to non-uniformity of compression, time dilation and other basic assumptions for the "Black Hole" models.

I find the reasoning used for the existence of "Black Holes" in our universe to be lacking in logical rigour and appears to have a lot of hand-waviness to it.

I am currently reading the documentation for the Metamath system and there are some quite enlightening comments in that about mathematics and those who study it. Especially as it relates to us who are not mathematicians as our career. One of these relates to the amount of "faith" we have to exhibit when trusting that specific "proofs" are in point of fact true. Even mathematicians who are not in that specific speciality do not have the necessary background to verify any proof outside of their own mathematical area.

Mathematics is a profoundly useful tool but as we have seen in the past and we will see in the future, it has problems (like all areas).

I don't know the technical/methematical explanation for this, or if one is really needed (though it seems like a valid question to pose), but it is noteworthy that black holes and the big bang are the original "singularity", and that there are several related theories in which they are directly related, notably Big Bounce[1] and my favorite (which I learned of from Lee Smolin's amazing Life of The Cosmos[3]) Cosmological Natural Selection[2]. There's also a variant of Cosmological Natural Selectionm CNS-I[4], but that one possibles borders on religious, though it's possible it could be falsifiable/supportable some day by modeling.

I suppose it's even somewhat plausible that the answer to your question, in combinations with the other theories, are "all true", and that for various reasons or models the first N big bangs did result in immediate/fast collapse back to another big crunch/black hole, and that each subsequent crunch/black hole created another universe, until there was a universe that survived long enough to create several black holes, and so on and so on...

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce [2]http://evodevouniverse.com/wiki/Cosmological_natural_selecti... [3]https://www.amazon.com/Life-Cosmos-Lee-Smolin-ebook/dp/B004T... [4]http://evodevouniverse.com/wiki/Cosmological_natural_selecti...

You assume it didn't. Perhaps the universe as we know it is the inside of a black-hole.

This is an important question with a slightly surprising answer.

First you need to understand that the Big Bang was not an explosion of matter into space, it was an explosion of matter and space (technically space-time). This might be hard to wrap your head around, it might be easier to think about space-time as non-infinite, say curving back on itself like the surface of a balloon (though as far as we can tell it is infinite).

Second, during the early Universe just after the Big Bang when the energy density of the Universe was incredibly high the density was nevertheless incredibly uniform. So, let's say you are inside a soup of matter and energy with a density as high or higher than the core of a star, but there is matter in every direction, what way is gravity pulling you? This is the other non-intuitive bit, gravity isn't pulling you in any direction. Pick a volume of matter in space around you and consider how its gravity affects you, for every single volume there is a corresponding volume on the opposite side of you that has exactly the same mass and is exactly as far away from you, cancelling out the gravity from the first chunk. And this is true for every single bit of volume around you, there's a 1:1 mapping of bits of stuff around you with other bits of stuff on the opposite side of you which exactly counterbalances the gravitational force from the first bit. The gravitational field is uniform, so nothing collapses, no black holes form, no stars or planets form either.

It's only after the Universe continues to expand and minute variations in local density are gradually amplified (over millions of years) into denser and denser clumps that it becomes possible to form galaxies and galaxy clusters/super-clusters (and thus black holes).

Now, we don't know for sure whether or not there were isolated little "super clumps" of extra density in the early Universe which allowed for the formation of black holes prior to the formation of galaxies (so-called primordial black holes). That's one theory for explaining the existence of supermassive and especially ultramassive black holes, but it's unconfirmed. However, now it seems as though we have enough evidence to show that primordial black holes can't be the explanation for the evidence for dark matter.