Armchair physics - What's the point of questioning the reality of Time?

Science and Technology
21

@citizenschallengev3

I would think there must be some object out there with no rotation, or nearly enough to be none. I can’t think of anything which would make it impossible, and the universe is so vast that if it’s possible, it probably exists. But it really doesn’t matter for the purpose of what I’m saying. Simply changing the viewing angle so that you have no approaching and receding sides, but instead a clockwise or counterclockwise motion from your perspective is functionally equivalent, although the images being magnified should be shifted slightly in the opposite direction of rotation if I’m correct.

I have not gotten to “absolutely positive” about anything. If all the “stuff” that makes up all the stuff that makes up all the stuff…on down the line is always traveling at a constant speed somewhat higher than the speed of light than increasing the speed in a single direction, by necessity, decreases the speed of its angular momentum. This, in turn, decreases the rate at which this “stuff” interacts with each other, becoming the real cause of what we view as time dilation. In this scenario time is not a dimension, as we currently believe.

Think of it like this. Space is a real thing. We know this as we can measure it. But “distance” is not a “thing”. Distance is a measurement of the separation between two points. You can’t manipulate “distance”. What you can potentially manipulate (and the universe certainly does) is the space which is being measured by distance. Likewise, time is also not “a thing”, it’s a measurement of rate of change, which is dictated by the speed of the angular momentum of the base stuff of the universe and all the other stuff made up of that base stuff. As I said, if you increase the directional speed the speed of the angular momentum is decreased accordingly so that actual speed this base stuff is traveling at remains constant. Decreasing the speed of the angular momentum decreases the speed of the interactions, giving the impression of time slowing down. BUT, because of relativity your equipment has to travel with the thing being measured and suffers the exact same effect. So as long as two objects are traveling at the same speed you will always get the same measurements between them because they have the same decrease in angular momentum speed. This is the “time frame” observed in relativity. Hopefully that clears it up for you. Let me know if it doesn’t.

@3point14rat

I agree this is very tough, especially since we are talking about the “stuff” at least 2 levels below “subatomic particles”, IF our current understanding is correct. And while technically yes the ball would only arrive at the “exact” same moment whether in the seat beside you are actively being bounced, the foot or two the ball will travel inside the car is statistically insignificant over a hundred miles.

As for motion equaling speed, it’s not quite that simple. When we think about orbiting electrons and cars driving around the block we are thinking of, usually, a fixed point from which we are measuring. We don’t, for example, take into account the rotation of the Earth, its orbit around the Sun, it’s orbit around the galactic center or the galaxy’s movement through space, whatever that may be. We are thinking only of the car. Try to think of a photon instead. It always travels at the speed of light in, and this is the important part, a single direction. You can change the direction it is traveling, but you’re not changing its speed when you do. The ball in this example is only going back and forth relative to the car. It’s actually traveling forward at a much higher velocity than we observe all the time. It’s never traveling backward as it appears to be. Instead its forward momentum is actually slightly decreased when it’s traveling back and slightly increased when it’s traveling forward. But overall, on average it is still traveling forward at the speed of the car.

In physics it is often impossible to know the exact speed and direction of a thing. In fact, there’s a law to that effect, that you cannot know both the speed and direction of, I think, an electron orbiting an atom (don’t quote me on the electron part, but the rest is absolutely correct). So instead you take the net result, the totality of its travel, and average it out. You can’t be concerned with exact multiples of the frequency here because you can’t measure it. In fact, this is how particles can pop in and out of existence all the time and still not violate the conservation of mass and energy law. Because it’s a net zero effect between particles popping into existence and particles popping out of existence. The universe still has the exact same amount of matter/energy at any given moment, so conservation of energy, which states that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, is not violated by the constant creation and destruction of matter because it’s a net zero effect.

@mriana

There’s coffee in that nebula!
Unfortunately there wasn't. Just an alien baby.
22

Keep in mind that I am not actually proposing any new science here (mostly). This is just a different possible explanation for current observation and data. Functionally it is exactly the same as current relativity. It is only when you get into theoretical science, born of math instead of observation, where things start to change. For everything we “know” to be true nothing really changes whether you look at it this way or in the traditional way. It’s only when you get into “time as a dimension” and other such theoretical things where the math starts to change. This changes nothing which has actually been observed and is “known”. It only changes theories for which there is currently no supporting evidence, only mathematical equations which says “this must be”. Then the math does change a bit. Or a lot, in some cases. Current understanding has time as a dimension, so any formula utilizing that would have to be reworked, ultimately coming to different theoretical conclusions. And, combined with the rest of my…let’s call it my “proposition”, it actually simplifies the universe quite a bit, explaining much of what we don’t understand right now and eliminating things which we haven’t observed, such as wormholes, white holes and time travel.

It also explains the weirdness with entering orbit I mentioned earlier, gravity (eliminating the graviton as well as eliminating gravity as a “field”, the 13th “straggler field” which doesn’t fit into any of the neat little groups all other fields fit into), the expansion of the universe, the apparent increase in the rate of expansion, gravitational lensing, time dilation, the reason for the speed of light…a whole ton of things. It even explains the ultimate fate of the universe (my proposition says that the universe will eventually be all empty space with no matter or energy in it). If I win the lottery I’ll get a PhD or two in physics and test it out myself. Until then I’ll continue to speculate and marvel at the universe.

23

@widdershins

Unfortunately there wasn’t. Just an alien baby.

lol You got me there, but maybe if we go warp, we can get into the slip stream and do some time traveling, Or do we need to slingshot around the sun? Do some quantum physics? What do you think?

24

Sorry didn’t help me much.

To begin with – jumping from the quantum realm (uncertainty of measurement) to the macroscope – where there is virtually no uncertainty in measurements – (I can say this because that freakin CERN LHC functions as planned – try doing that in a world where we can’t trust our measurements to excruciatingly minute detail.).

In fact, this is how particles can pop in and out of existence all the time and still not violate the conservation of mass and energy law.
That would be down at the tiniest of tiny. Does not correlate with our macro realm. Nor to the best of my limited understanding to anything in the galactic realm. Perhaps inside a black hole, but that again is taking us to the lalaland of physics. Pure formulas all the way down, sans reliable knowledge.
Space is a real thing.
How that can be without time? I can’t imagine.
If all the “stuff” that makes up all the stuff that makes up all the stuff…on down the line is always traveling at a constant speed somewhat higher than the speed of light than increasing the speed in a single direction, by necessity, decreases the speed of its angular momentum.
Don’t the conservation of angular momentum mean that on a universal scale, there is no increase or decrease angular moment?
But it really doesn’t matter for the purpose of what I’m saying. Simply changing the viewing angle so that you have no approaching and receding sides, but instead a clockwise or counterclockwise motion from your perspective is functionally equivalent,
Hmmm.
I would think there must be some object out there with no rotation, or nearly enough to be none.
Did some dissatisfying googling on that. Near as I can make out, it’s possible through collision for an object to lose it’s spin, but that would only be a temporary state because other gravitational forces within the fabric of our universe in motion, would nudge it back into rotating.
I can’t think of anything which would make it impossible
I’m kinda stuck in this sort of conventional mindset: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-and-how-do-planets-ro/
George Spagna, chair of the physics department at Randolph-Macon College, explains. Stars and planets form in the collapse of huge clouds of interstellar gas and dust. The material in these clouds is in constant motion, and the clouds themselves are in motion, orbiting in the aggregate gravity of the galaxy. As a result of this movement, the cloud will most likely have some slight rotation as seen from a point near its center. This rotation can be described as angular momentum, a conserved measure of its motion that cannot change.

…

As an interstellar cloud collapses, it fragments into smaller pieces, each collapsing independently and each carrying part of the original angular momentum. The rotating clouds flatten into protostellar disks, out of which individual stars and their planets form. By a mechanism not fully understood, but believed to be associated with the strong magnetic fields associated with a young star, most of the angular momentum is transferred into the remnant accretion disk. Planets form from material in this disk, through accretion of smaller particles. …

and so on and so forth

25
Widdershins: "my proposition says that the universe will eventually be all empty space with no matter or energy in it"
What!?!? You can't say something like that and not explain further! Of all the mind-bending ideas being thrown around, that's easily the most mind-bending of all.

So… what happens to it?

 

26

@mriana

That brought back memories of the Time Warp from Rocky Horror Picture Show instead of Star Trek.

@citizenschallengev3

There’s a lot there and I don’t fully understand everything you are saying, but I think I can sum up a response for most of it pretty succinctly. On the matter of the quantum verses the macro realm, it is the interactions at the quantum level which dictate how the macro level works. Things work very differently at the quantum level, obviously, but logically they would have to. The macro level is the sum total of everything going on at the quantum level combined. So it stands to reason that a change at the macro level would influence a large percentage of the interactions at a quantum level. That is essentially what I am suggesting. The stuff at the quantum level moves at the universal speed and can move at no other speed. Thus as a mass, made of that quantum stuff at its basest level, is propelled faster through space the movement at the quantum level would appear to slow to an outside observer (without considering relativity). Since this movement drives how everything bigger works, everything bigger slows accordingly (again, without considering relativity). This makes chemical reactions slow, the spring of a clock unwind slower and radioactive material decay slower. The more the movement of the total mass, the slower the individual movements of all the quantum stuff. BUT, if you travel along side it to watch, you, too, slow accordingly. So from your relative perspective, nothing has changed. Thus, relativity.

And the angular momentum I was talking about was on the subatomic and quantum levels, not on the macro level. But that was really just a “what if” side thought of what might happen at that level as the speed of the mass composed of that stuff increases. I grew up with electrons in simple orbits instead of clouds, so it’s important to realize that to know what I was saying there. Looking at it from the perspective of a cloud makes the explanation a little different, but says the same thing, essentially. First we must realize that it’s not really a cloud. The electron is in a single spot traveling a given direction at any moment. That movement is just so fast that “cloud” is the best we can observe it as. So rather than the angular momentum changing (the electron orbit aligning to be perpendicular to direction of travel of the mass through space) the could would narrow to a “cloud band”. This is because the electron slows as it moves in the direction of travel and speeds up as it moves against, which may act like a force exerted. Again, this was just a “what if”, not an actual “this is the way it is” part of my proposition. I haven’t given it a whole lot of thought.

@3point14rat

You might have noticed that I have more than a passing interest in physics. I have spent literal years thinking about the nature of the universe. We’re not even past the first crazy thing I’m claiming to be moving on to the rest of it, at least in any detail. I’ll spell out the gist of the entire proposition for you.

First, the crazy part and the meat of my proposition. There is no such thing as time or gravity. There are only 3 dimensions and they aren’t that exciting. Not only are matter and energy the same thing, matter, energy and space are all the same thing in different forms.

Time, I’ve explained in detail already, so I’m not going to get into that part as it’s essentially the part we’re talking about right now.

So on to gravity, which is closely tied to space being a state of matter/energy. Current theory suggests gravity is caused by a graviton, which has yet to be detected. We know that space is expanding and we have detected theoretical gravitational waves. In the beginning of the universe there was no matter or space or time, only energy, condensed in an infinitely small point. Then space began to expand for some reason. When it had expanded enough the universe cooled to the point where matter could form. Where did the matter come from? It “condensed” from the energy floating around. Energy and matter can never be created or destroyed, but it can be converted. Since then the expansion of space has been increasing. This is what science says right now.

What I propose to change is that space is another state of matter/energy. In those early moments matter could not be formed without being annihilated by the energy. Space began to expand because a small amount of then energy converted directly into space. But matter is the intermediate step between energy and space. Some of the matter formed, a very, very small amount, converted to space before it could be annihilated. Thus the universe began expanding very slowly. But then as it expanded enough for the energy to spread out, allowing the universe to “cool”, matter could form and remain matter. The more matter there was, the more of it converted into space. Jump forward to present day.

Gravity is nothing more than the effect of a mass converting into space, which happens very, very slowly, but in a large mass has a discernible effect. There is a point of equilibrium where space is neither stretched nor compressed. And space will simply spread until that equilibrium is reached. So, as a mass “throws off” space, that space expands. It starts off compressed because it’s new space where there is already space. So it flows outward away from the mass as it decompresses. So how does this relate to gravity? That’s not really that complicated.

Imagine that everything I said is true, but you could turn off that conversion. Now you put two bodies, one very large and one very small, right next to each other. Since there is no space being created they would just sit there, undisturbed forever. Now switch the universe back to normal. Suddenly both masses are converting very slowly into space, which is decompressing as it moves outward from that masses. What happens? We know that space does not exert a force on matter or energy, so it wouldn’t push the objects away from each other. It would just flow right past them, right through them, even, as it decompresses. What’s the difference between you moving through space at, say, 10m/s and space moving through you at 10m/s? Absolutely nothing. As the space flows past these masses that means these masses are traveling through space. The larger mass, producing far more space, would have a much greater effect. So now space is moving past the smaller mass away from the direction of the larger mass, which is exactly the same thing as the smaller mass moving through space toward the larger mass, giving the appearance of an attractive force when actually there is no force at all.

That’s the gist of it. Eventually it all becomes space. Originally I had considered that time was a real thing and that space converts into time, which was absolutely beautiful as it meant that all energy would become matter would become space would become time until there was nothing left but time itself. You probably didn’t pick up right away why that was so beautiful. No matter, no energy, no space. All the “stuff” in the universe would be contained in an infinitely small point, just like at the beginning, and the whole process would start over again. But the purpose of thinking about this in the first place was because I believe that physicists look for the most complicated possible answer to things and I wanted a simpler answer which would still account for all the observation. Time as a dimension was complicated.

27

@widdershins

That brought back memories of the Time Warp from Rocky Horror Picture Show instead of Star Trek.

lol I did have Star Trek in my head, but now you just put this song in my head:

28

Widders, I understand the words and some of the ideas, but not all the ideas.

Are you saying matter ‘evaporates’ into space at a constant rate, which creates what we call gravity? Obviously the conversion rate must be insanely economical so that matter can ‘evaporate’ for billions of years with no measurable loss of mass (or the physics of astronomy would become more and more out to lunch as time frames got longer.)

And what does your hypothesis mean that Fg = G(m1)(m2)/r2 is really calculating? (I am not a mathy person so if this is a question without an answer that means anything, let me know.)

29

How does matter evaporate, for that matter?

30

@3point14rat

Are you saying matter ‘evaporates’ into space at a constant rate, which creates what we call gravity? Obviously the conversion rate must be insanely economical so that matter can ‘evaporate’ for billions of years with no measurable loss of mass (or the physics of astronomy would become more and more out to lunch as time frames got longer.)
@mriana
How does matter evaporate, for that matter?
Actually, that matter evaporates is scientific fact. Scientists are racing to create a new, unchanging standard kilogram because the official standard kilogram, a platinum cylinder forged over 100 years ago, is not only known to be losing mass, they know approximately how much mass it has lost. And a few years before his death Hawking released a ground-breaking paper on the evaporation of black holes, which solved a previously unsolved problem about how black holes can lose mass without losing "information". Here are links to both subjects:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070921110735.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

As for the formula, nothing changes except the explanation. Instead of calculating an attractive force between two masses it is calculating the expansion of space between and away from two masses.

I would like to point out that absolutely no part of my proposition was just pulled out of my ass. Everything about this proposition seeks to explain actual observation. So when I say that matter evaporates into space, which we observe as gravity, I literally mean that we know matter evaporates and we know gravity exists, here’s an explanation which links those two things. Every part of this has been vetted and tested to the best of my ability. I did not simply “make up” any single part. If it’s not known physics I didn’t consider it in this proposition. This is nothing more than an alternate, simpler explanation of known observation.

And, in fact, this proposition fits so well with current physics that back when gravitational waves were still just theoretical and had not been detected yet, I was actually doubting this proposition because the experiment they had set up seemed like it absolutely should detect gravitational waves, but it had not yet. My proposition absolutely fails if gravitational waves are not detected. So when I had seen that their experiment had been set up for some time and had not yet detected gravitational waves (which are explained by my proposition as expanding space, but very much detectable the same way) I was not so sure of this. With no gravitational waves detected this entire proposition gets thrown out. But then they were detected. Which leads to an important note. Both current physics and my proposition essentially predict mostly the same things because I’m not proposing any brand new physics, just an alternate, simpler explanation to current observation. So literally all the math works the same until you get into the crazy stuff like wormholes, time travel, dimensional travel, etc.

31

I would also like to point out that such conversions in physics often seem to be on shockingly different scales. Take a nuclear reactor, for example. This is an incredibly inefficient power conversion. Though advocates tend to tout between 92% and 93.5% efficiency they are not actually talking about how much matter is converted into energy, they are talking about how much energy they are able to produce verses other ways of producing power. Nuclear power is actually an incredibly inefficient matter to energy conversion.

When the nucleus decays a particle and heat is released. The particle is not used, just the heat. Then there’s an energy transfer where that heat is used to heat water, which becomes steam. Then there’s another power conversion where that steam is used to turn a turbine. Then there’s yet another power conversion where the motion of that turbine is used to produce the final product, electricity. There are losses at every stage of this process. The particle released is just lost as only the heat released with it is used. There are losses when using that to heat the water. There are losses when the water evaporates into steam. There are losses when the steam is converted into motion. And finally there are losses when the motion is converted into electricity.

Yet even with all of these losses the difference in the weight of the nuclear material after a year of powering a large city like Los Angeles is something along the lines of just 6 ounces. The material loses just 6 ounces in weight after powering Los Angeles for a year and most of that weight can be accounted for in the particles shed but not used (as I understand the process. I am not a nuclear physicist and cannot find actual conversion efficiency numbers. The weight loss and city powered for a year are taken from my memory of a documentary or a show with Neil deGrasse Tyson…something I saw from a trusted source years ago, as I remember it).

We all know the formula E=MC2. E is Energy (in joules), M is mass (in kilograms) and C is the speed of light (in meters per second).

So let’s look at the energy potential of a typical grain of sand, which weights about 50 micrograms or 0.00000005 kilograms.

0.00000005 * 299,792,458 * 299,792,458 = 4,493,775,893.6840882 joules of energy.

So what does that mean in terms we can understand? 1 watt of power is defined as 1 joule per second. The typical home uses 11,000kwh of electricity a year. So we take 11,000 * 365.25 (1 year) * 24 (days per year) * 60 (hours in a day) * 60 (seconds in an hour) and we get 347,133,600,000 joules that the typical home uses in a year. Divide that number the the number of joules we got above and the typical grain of sand can be converted to enough energy to power the typical household for 77.25 days, more than 2 months. It would take just 5 typical grains of sand to power your house for a year with a little left over for emergencies.

So as you can see a lot of one thing can be converted into a little of another thing and vise versa (if all of my math is correct. I actually thought the conversion would be more impressive than that). It takes a lot of energy to produce a little matter. So it’s not that unusual that a little matter would be converted into a lot of space, if that is, in fact, what is happening. Though matter and energy are the same thing, what we think of as “a little” or “a lot” is relative to our understanding of two things which, to us, are very different things.

32

@widdershins I think I remember Hawking’s paper on evaporating black holes. Thanks for sharing the info. Is there any newer info on this matter? No pun intended.

33
Widders: "It would take just 5 typical grains of sand to power your house for a year with a little left over for emergencies."

Widders: “I actually thought the conversion would be more impressive than that.”


I’m plenty impressed with those numbers.

What part of matter is being converted to space? Is it a half-life thing where each subatomic particle has a statistical chance of ‘evaporating’? And what happens to the larger atomic subunit when one of it’s components decides it’s time to become space (for example, would a proton break-up causing the atom to become some other element?)

I feel bad peppering you with all these questions, but your answers are so great I want to hear more.

I also remember reading about black holes evaporating. That was at least a few decades ago. All I remember was that they were thought to lose energy in some way that didn’t allow the information in them to be recovered and it would take an almost meaninglessly large amount of time to do it.

34

@mriana Lol, I don’t have a Ouija board, so I don’t think Hawking has anything more current to say on black holes. As for the standard kilogram evaporating, the new standard was adopted in May 2019.

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/11/14/18072368/kilogram-kibble-redefine-weight-science

@3point14rat, You’re really getting down to some specifics I just don’t have. As I said, it’s a proposition, not a theory. As such I just don’t have the education necessary to get to the “under the hood” stuff you’re asking about, but I will give it a go. Keep in mind that at this point it’s more speculation than anything else. Everything to this point has had what I know and looked about physics applied to it. But at this point you’re at the limit of my knowledge.

The conversion almost certainly wouldn’t be entire subatomic particles at a time. You wouldn’t have, for instance, a proton instantly converting into space. It’s more like you’d have parts of the parts of the parts of a proton converting. There is one thought that has been in my head since the beginning concerning waves, but I’ve never actually let myself “think it” because it’s really pure speculation I have no way of confirming or testing. That thought is that space is the zero-frequency result of the waves of the base fields of the universe canceling each other out. Space is what you get when these waves “flatline” and have a frequency of zero. TOTAL speculation there. It’s nothing which should even be taken seriously at this point until someone with more knowledge than me says otherwise. BUT, before I forget, yes, I do assume it would be a half-life type thing because gravity follows very precise rules. Some type of half-life rule would account for the certainty in gravity the same way it does for the certainty of atomic timing.

It is safe to assume that matter either has to be in a certain state to decay or a certain state of matter decays much more quickly (although still very slowly). We’ve all heard of the “god particle”, the particle which gives matter mass. That’s a fact. It exists. Mass is directly and proportionally tied to gravity. More mass, more gravity, always. So the Higgs boson particle would play a big part in this idea. That is the configuration of matter which is able to decay at a detectable rate. Or which causes the matter around it to decay at a detectable rate. Or which causes the energy around it to decay into space at a detectable rate. That last one is much less likely because of the nature of the early moments of the universe, when no Higgs boson could yet exist. But, that suggests that energy, too, could decay into space, just much more slowly. Just because the natural progression seems to be energy>matter>space doesn’t mean that’s the only way it can go.

I really don’t like talking about it down to this level because it’s getting a whole lot less “this fits with known physics as I understand them” and a whole lot more “wild speculation”, which I think is a pointless waste of time (even more so than any time a non-physicist comes up with a proposition in physics) that really serves no purpose. It’s possible the whole proposition falls apart at this level. Hell, it’s possible the whole proposition falls apart long before this. I don’t know what I don’t know about physics. But do keep in mind, this is not a scientific theory at all. I am not a physicist. I don’t even know how to follow all the rules to properly present an argument. The actual likelihood of me being right is probably pretty damned tiny. But I’ll keep contemplating it and researching it and testing it until it does fall apart.

35

@widdershin lol No that’s not what I meant. I meant, has anyone taken up the topic since Hawking’s death and brought new info to the discussion about it.

36

Not that I’m aware of (and I knew what you meant). At least, nothing has made the news which has hit my radar since then. It did generate a lot of excitement at the time. NASA’s Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope is currently looking for evidence from micro-black holes and a team did claim to have found evidence for it in 2010, but that claim is as yet unconfirmed.

37

Someone needs to pick up this study and research it more.

38

They’re definitely working on it. But it can take decades to sort through the data.

39

It’s so much fun, having fun with science and words:

As for the standard kilogram evaporating,
 
The world just redefined the kilogram It involves complex science and beautifully simple philosophy.

By Brian Resnick @ vox - com/science-and-health/2018/11/14/18072368/kilogram-kibble-redefine-weight-science

… Take a good look at it. Because very soon, this 129-year-old standard for the kilogram will change.

On Friday, scientists from around the world met at the General Conference on Weights and Measures in Versailles, France, and voted to change the definition of a kilogram, tying it to a universal constant in nature. The change will go into effect on May 20, 2019.

One important reason for the change is that Big K is not constant. It has lost around 50 micrograms (about the mass of an eyelash) since it was created. But, frustratingly, when Big K loses mass, it’s still exactly one kilogram, per the current definition. …


Besides isn’t it more like sublimation than evaporation?

40
[Submitted on 12 Nov 2018] Micro black holes formed in the early Universe and their cosmological implications Tomohiro Nakama, Jun'ichi Yokoyama

High energy collisions of particles may have created tiny black holes in the early Universe, which might leave stable remnants instead of fully evaporating as a result of Hawking radiation. If the reheating temperature was sufficiently close to the fundamental gravity scale, which can be different from the usual Planck scale depending of the presence and properties of spatial extra-dimensions, the formation rate could have been sufficiently high and hence such remnants could account for the entire cold dark matter of the Universe.

https _ //arxiv _ org/abs/1811.05049


Not so fast . . .

Dark matter is not made up of tiny black holes April 2, 2019 Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe

Summary:
An international team of researchers has put a theory speculated by the late Stephen Hawking to its most rigorous test to date, and their results have ruled out the possibility that primordial black holes smaller than a tenth of a millimeter make up most of dark matter.

Dark matter is not made up of tiny black holes | ScienceDaily