If perfect blackness violates the Uncertainty Principle, how isn't dark matter a violation?












17














In a recent tweet, Dr. Michio Kaku stated that perfect blackness would violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, i.e. every object must emit some radiation. I have two questions regarding this statement.




  1. Could someone please elaborate on how exactly perfect blackness violates the uncertainty principle? I am somewhat familiar with this principle, so a detailed answer would be appreciated.


  2. Apparently, dark matter doesn't emit any radiation. How isn't this a direct contradiction to Kaku's statement and a violation of the uncertainty Principle?











share|cite|improve this question




















  • 4




    Dark matter is already breaking (apparently ) a few physical laws, and a violation of one more, if true, may not be a huge surprise.
    – user214814
    yesterday






  • 1




    I don't see how this should be true for Dark Matter. Apparently DM could not even be coupled to normal matter in any other way than by gravitation so how should it emit photons in that case?
    – Katermickie
    yesterday






  • 1




    it most likely emits thermal gravitational radiation, barely detectable of course. Plus dark matter is not black, it is transparent, which is quite different, meaning it does not absorb EM radiation, but just "ignores" it
    – Wolphram jonny
    yesterday








  • 3




    @StudyStudy What physical laws does the dark matter break?
    – safesphere
    yesterday






  • 2




    @StudyStudy The absence of dark matter would indeed violate the reverse square law of gravity: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics
    – safesphere
    yesterday
















17














In a recent tweet, Dr. Michio Kaku stated that perfect blackness would violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, i.e. every object must emit some radiation. I have two questions regarding this statement.




  1. Could someone please elaborate on how exactly perfect blackness violates the uncertainty principle? I am somewhat familiar with this principle, so a detailed answer would be appreciated.


  2. Apparently, dark matter doesn't emit any radiation. How isn't this a direct contradiction to Kaku's statement and a violation of the uncertainty Principle?











share|cite|improve this question




















  • 4




    Dark matter is already breaking (apparently ) a few physical laws, and a violation of one more, if true, may not be a huge surprise.
    – user214814
    yesterday






  • 1




    I don't see how this should be true for Dark Matter. Apparently DM could not even be coupled to normal matter in any other way than by gravitation so how should it emit photons in that case?
    – Katermickie
    yesterday






  • 1




    it most likely emits thermal gravitational radiation, barely detectable of course. Plus dark matter is not black, it is transparent, which is quite different, meaning it does not absorb EM radiation, but just "ignores" it
    – Wolphram jonny
    yesterday








  • 3




    @StudyStudy What physical laws does the dark matter break?
    – safesphere
    yesterday






  • 2




    @StudyStudy The absence of dark matter would indeed violate the reverse square law of gravity: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics
    – safesphere
    yesterday














17












17








17


2





In a recent tweet, Dr. Michio Kaku stated that perfect blackness would violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, i.e. every object must emit some radiation. I have two questions regarding this statement.




  1. Could someone please elaborate on how exactly perfect blackness violates the uncertainty principle? I am somewhat familiar with this principle, so a detailed answer would be appreciated.


  2. Apparently, dark matter doesn't emit any radiation. How isn't this a direct contradiction to Kaku's statement and a violation of the uncertainty Principle?











share|cite|improve this question















In a recent tweet, Dr. Michio Kaku stated that perfect blackness would violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, i.e. every object must emit some radiation. I have two questions regarding this statement.




  1. Could someone please elaborate on how exactly perfect blackness violates the uncertainty principle? I am somewhat familiar with this principle, so a detailed answer would be appreciated.


  2. Apparently, dark matter doesn't emit any radiation. How isn't this a direct contradiction to Kaku's statement and a violation of the uncertainty Principle?








thermodynamics visible-light heisenberg-uncertainty-principle thermal-radiation dark-matter






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited yesterday









Qmechanic

102k121831157




102k121831157










asked yesterday









playdisplaydis

10115




10115








  • 4




    Dark matter is already breaking (apparently ) a few physical laws, and a violation of one more, if true, may not be a huge surprise.
    – user214814
    yesterday






  • 1




    I don't see how this should be true for Dark Matter. Apparently DM could not even be coupled to normal matter in any other way than by gravitation so how should it emit photons in that case?
    – Katermickie
    yesterday






  • 1




    it most likely emits thermal gravitational radiation, barely detectable of course. Plus dark matter is not black, it is transparent, which is quite different, meaning it does not absorb EM radiation, but just "ignores" it
    – Wolphram jonny
    yesterday








  • 3




    @StudyStudy What physical laws does the dark matter break?
    – safesphere
    yesterday






  • 2




    @StudyStudy The absence of dark matter would indeed violate the reverse square law of gravity: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics
    – safesphere
    yesterday














  • 4




    Dark matter is already breaking (apparently ) a few physical laws, and a violation of one more, if true, may not be a huge surprise.
    – user214814
    yesterday






  • 1




    I don't see how this should be true for Dark Matter. Apparently DM could not even be coupled to normal matter in any other way than by gravitation so how should it emit photons in that case?
    – Katermickie
    yesterday






  • 1




    it most likely emits thermal gravitational radiation, barely detectable of course. Plus dark matter is not black, it is transparent, which is quite different, meaning it does not absorb EM radiation, but just "ignores" it
    – Wolphram jonny
    yesterday








  • 3




    @StudyStudy What physical laws does the dark matter break?
    – safesphere
    yesterday






  • 2




    @StudyStudy The absence of dark matter would indeed violate the reverse square law of gravity: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics
    – safesphere
    yesterday








4




4




Dark matter is already breaking (apparently ) a few physical laws, and a violation of one more, if true, may not be a huge surprise.
– user214814
yesterday




Dark matter is already breaking (apparently ) a few physical laws, and a violation of one more, if true, may not be a huge surprise.
– user214814
yesterday




1




1




I don't see how this should be true for Dark Matter. Apparently DM could not even be coupled to normal matter in any other way than by gravitation so how should it emit photons in that case?
– Katermickie
yesterday




I don't see how this should be true for Dark Matter. Apparently DM could not even be coupled to normal matter in any other way than by gravitation so how should it emit photons in that case?
– Katermickie
yesterday




1




1




it most likely emits thermal gravitational radiation, barely detectable of course. Plus dark matter is not black, it is transparent, which is quite different, meaning it does not absorb EM radiation, but just "ignores" it
– Wolphram jonny
yesterday






it most likely emits thermal gravitational radiation, barely detectable of course. Plus dark matter is not black, it is transparent, which is quite different, meaning it does not absorb EM radiation, but just "ignores" it
– Wolphram jonny
yesterday






3




3




@StudyStudy What physical laws does the dark matter break?
– safesphere
yesterday




@StudyStudy What physical laws does the dark matter break?
– safesphere
yesterday




2




2




@StudyStudy The absence of dark matter would indeed violate the reverse square law of gravity: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics
– safesphere
yesterday




@StudyStudy The absence of dark matter would indeed violate the reverse square law of gravity: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics
– safesphere
yesterday










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















18














There's no contradiction, but Kaku is being pretty cavalier.



In both classical and quantum physics, an uncharged point particle can never emit or absorb any light. Nothing about this violates the uncertainty principle. The electromagnetic field is just one of many quantum fields in the universe, and there's no law saying you have to interact with it.



Kaku is talking about something different: black holes, which classically can absorb light but never emit it. This is very different from an uncharged particle, which doesn't interact with light at all. It's true that in the quantum theory, black holes can emit light by Hawking radiation.



However, this is only tenuously related to the uncertainty principle. I assume the relation Kaku had in mind was something like "the uncertainty principle means that particles can spontaneously pop out of thin air. A quantum black hole can radiate because a particle can spontaneously appear right outside its event horizon and leave." This is the standard popsci explanation, but it's rather misleading, in the sense that nothing about Hawking's actual calculation looks anything like this.



Again, Hawking radiation is a statement about event horizons. It has no strict relation with dark matter. Furthermore, dark matter doesn't even have to be perfectly dark. For example, there are theories of millicharged DM where dark matter does have a tiny charge and hence can radiate. Dark matter could also be due to primordial black holes, which do radiate by Hawking radiation. In both cases the radiation is too little to see.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • "This is very different from an uncharged object, which doesn't interact with light at all" First you say particle, then you say object. Certainly, objects with no net charge still interact with light. And uncharged object can cause gravitational lensing.
    – Acccumulation
    7 hours ago










  • @Acccumulation Indeed, I edited, that was inconsistent usage. As for the lensing, I am not counting indirect interactions with light like that, because otherwise everything technically interacts with everything else. Which is true, but beside the point.
    – knzhou
    6 hours ago










  • The popular explanation I've always heard for Hawking radiation is slightly more sophisticated, even if it's still an extreme simplification or only slightly related to the technical theory: Even in vacuum, virtual particle pairs can spontaneously form. These usually cancel out again extremely quickly - but if one half the pair goes into a black hole but the other escapes the horizon, the black hole is radiating energy (and slightly "evaporating").
    – aschepler
    4 hours ago










  • @aschepler I know about that one, but it’s equally unrelated to the truth. Any explanation involving anything randomly popping out of thin air is, from the standpoint of the actual physics, totally unsalvagable. But if one accepts it then there are millions of stories one can tell.
    – knzhou
    4 hours ago










  • @knzhou Hmm, I've also heard about closed Feynman diagrams being related to a "vacuum energy problem". Is there any merit to that explanation? Or maybe that's just not much related to the Hawking radiation topic?
    – aschepler
    3 hours ago



















15














Every charged object, when accelerated, will emit electromagnetic radiation. This means that as long as atoms are jostling about on the surface of a solid due to random thermal motion, they will emit radiation that we then can detect. But if we cool an object down so its atoms vibrate less, this means that it will emit less radiation- by which means we would conclude that once an object is cooled to absolute zero, its atoms stop moving and therefore they stop radiating.



Now we note that the uncertainty principle tells us that the more certain we are of a particle's position, the less certain its momentum becomes. If the atoms of an object are so cold that they aren't moving about, then we can accurately locate them- but this means that their momenta are very uncertain, and this in turn guarantees that they must remain in motion- and emit some radiation in the process.



In this way, the uncertainty principle requires that all objects radiate.



Dark matter is postulated to not experience the electromagnetic force. This means that it does not emit radiation when accelerated, and this in turn means that it can't be seen with optical or radio telescopes.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • The atoms not at the surface also emit radiation--it just doesn't escape. I'm pretty sure the inside of the Earth is, contrary to "common sense", a very, very, bright place.
    – JEB
    yesterday










  • answer edited. -NN
    – niels nielsen
    yesterday










  • The uncertainty principle tells us that when we measure a particles position; we must impart energy into it; making us less sure of its momentum... If you don't measure it; it could get to 0K and stop radiating.... This would mean that you would know the momentum; but could no longer know if the particle was in the room or not.
    – UKMonkey
    14 hours ago






  • 3




    @UKMonkey : The uncertainty principle is not "disturbance through measurement". See physics.stackexchange.com/a/87903/50480 for one of many, many explanations. The uncertainty principle is automatically imposed on any two quantities related by a Fourier transform, entirely independently of any measurement.
    – Eric Towers
    9 hours ago










  • @erictowers, this is cool, where can I learn more about that fourier connection?
    – niels nielsen
    8 hours ago



















9














The answer to question (2) is just: dark matter is transparent, not black. Perfect blackness, if I understand Kaku correctly, would be something that absorbs radiation but does not emit radiation. Dark matter neither absorbs nor emits (at least not enough to be measurable), it is not 'perfect blackness' because it does not absorb.



An aside: since dark matter interacts with ordinary matter through gravity (which is how it was discovered in the first place), it is expected to emit and absorb gravitational radiation. Which is too weak to be measurable though.



As for question (1), I think Kaku is just wrong. In addition to knzhou's remarks I argue: A system in a stable state (for example a hydrogen atom in an otherwise empty region of space) has quantized energy levels, and there is a lowest of these levels, the ground state. If the system is in that ground state, it will not radiate, even if there is motion (in this example the motion of the electron in the atom). This may be an idealization (a real object is never completely stable, and in a macroscopic object there are always some constituent parts that are not in their ground state) but it is compatible with basic physics.






share|cite|improve this answer








New contributor




Menno is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.


















  • You have a good point. A better name would be "transparent matter". We don't call window glass "dark matter" even though it ideally is pretty hard to observe, at right angles.
    – my2cts
    10 hours ago










  • @my2cents I understand your point, but I think "dark" is good terminology, as long as "dark" is not mistaken for "black".
    – Menno
    5 hours ago



















3














Alternative simple answer:



Dark matter is dark because it simply has no interaction whatsoever (as far as we know) with photons.



That doesn't mean it can't gain or lose energy or interact in other ways (for example by definition it interacts with gravity). We don't yet understand dark matter well enough to know what else it can do, state-wise and energy-wise.



But it does mean that when we call it "dark", we don't mean that it is "black" in the sense that ordinary black (or black body) objects usually are - low or near-zero energy, photons emitted at low frequencies below the visible spectrum, etc.



Dark matter could be capable of many kinds of high energy or low energy states and fundamental interactions, for all we know. (For example, if other unidentified fields/interactions also existed, which weakly interacted with the known fields and their particles). But it wouldn't affect photons, and without a photon interaction, it won't have any visual or electromagnetic presence at all. It won't be black. It will be transparent, as photons will go straight "through" it in blissful ignorance (so to speak).






share|cite|improve this answer





























    1














    I think the premise of question 2 is wrong. Where have you seen it stated that dark matter must be perfectly black? It's called "dark matter" because it doesn't appear to emit detectable amounts of electromagnetic radiation. Currently, there is no universally accepted explanation of what dark matter is and some of the candidates might weakly emit radiation.



    There is a big difference between "perfectly black" and "doesn't emit detectable amounts of radiation".






    share|cite|improve this answer





















      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "151"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f452452%2fif-perfect-blackness-violates-the-uncertainty-principle-how-isnt-dark-matter-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes








      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      18














      There's no contradiction, but Kaku is being pretty cavalier.



      In both classical and quantum physics, an uncharged point particle can never emit or absorb any light. Nothing about this violates the uncertainty principle. The electromagnetic field is just one of many quantum fields in the universe, and there's no law saying you have to interact with it.



      Kaku is talking about something different: black holes, which classically can absorb light but never emit it. This is very different from an uncharged particle, which doesn't interact with light at all. It's true that in the quantum theory, black holes can emit light by Hawking radiation.



      However, this is only tenuously related to the uncertainty principle. I assume the relation Kaku had in mind was something like "the uncertainty principle means that particles can spontaneously pop out of thin air. A quantum black hole can radiate because a particle can spontaneously appear right outside its event horizon and leave." This is the standard popsci explanation, but it's rather misleading, in the sense that nothing about Hawking's actual calculation looks anything like this.



      Again, Hawking radiation is a statement about event horizons. It has no strict relation with dark matter. Furthermore, dark matter doesn't even have to be perfectly dark. For example, there are theories of millicharged DM where dark matter does have a tiny charge and hence can radiate. Dark matter could also be due to primordial black holes, which do radiate by Hawking radiation. In both cases the radiation is too little to see.






      share|cite|improve this answer























      • "This is very different from an uncharged object, which doesn't interact with light at all" First you say particle, then you say object. Certainly, objects with no net charge still interact with light. And uncharged object can cause gravitational lensing.
        – Acccumulation
        7 hours ago










      • @Acccumulation Indeed, I edited, that was inconsistent usage. As for the lensing, I am not counting indirect interactions with light like that, because otherwise everything technically interacts with everything else. Which is true, but beside the point.
        – knzhou
        6 hours ago










      • The popular explanation I've always heard for Hawking radiation is slightly more sophisticated, even if it's still an extreme simplification or only slightly related to the technical theory: Even in vacuum, virtual particle pairs can spontaneously form. These usually cancel out again extremely quickly - but if one half the pair goes into a black hole but the other escapes the horizon, the black hole is radiating energy (and slightly "evaporating").
        – aschepler
        4 hours ago










      • @aschepler I know about that one, but it’s equally unrelated to the truth. Any explanation involving anything randomly popping out of thin air is, from the standpoint of the actual physics, totally unsalvagable. But if one accepts it then there are millions of stories one can tell.
        – knzhou
        4 hours ago










      • @knzhou Hmm, I've also heard about closed Feynman diagrams being related to a "vacuum energy problem". Is there any merit to that explanation? Or maybe that's just not much related to the Hawking radiation topic?
        – aschepler
        3 hours ago
















      18














      There's no contradiction, but Kaku is being pretty cavalier.



      In both classical and quantum physics, an uncharged point particle can never emit or absorb any light. Nothing about this violates the uncertainty principle. The electromagnetic field is just one of many quantum fields in the universe, and there's no law saying you have to interact with it.



      Kaku is talking about something different: black holes, which classically can absorb light but never emit it. This is very different from an uncharged particle, which doesn't interact with light at all. It's true that in the quantum theory, black holes can emit light by Hawking radiation.



      However, this is only tenuously related to the uncertainty principle. I assume the relation Kaku had in mind was something like "the uncertainty principle means that particles can spontaneously pop out of thin air. A quantum black hole can radiate because a particle can spontaneously appear right outside its event horizon and leave." This is the standard popsci explanation, but it's rather misleading, in the sense that nothing about Hawking's actual calculation looks anything like this.



      Again, Hawking radiation is a statement about event horizons. It has no strict relation with dark matter. Furthermore, dark matter doesn't even have to be perfectly dark. For example, there are theories of millicharged DM where dark matter does have a tiny charge and hence can radiate. Dark matter could also be due to primordial black holes, which do radiate by Hawking radiation. In both cases the radiation is too little to see.






      share|cite|improve this answer























      • "This is very different from an uncharged object, which doesn't interact with light at all" First you say particle, then you say object. Certainly, objects with no net charge still interact with light. And uncharged object can cause gravitational lensing.
        – Acccumulation
        7 hours ago










      • @Acccumulation Indeed, I edited, that was inconsistent usage. As for the lensing, I am not counting indirect interactions with light like that, because otherwise everything technically interacts with everything else. Which is true, but beside the point.
        – knzhou
        6 hours ago










      • The popular explanation I've always heard for Hawking radiation is slightly more sophisticated, even if it's still an extreme simplification or only slightly related to the technical theory: Even in vacuum, virtual particle pairs can spontaneously form. These usually cancel out again extremely quickly - but if one half the pair goes into a black hole but the other escapes the horizon, the black hole is radiating energy (and slightly "evaporating").
        – aschepler
        4 hours ago










      • @aschepler I know about that one, but it’s equally unrelated to the truth. Any explanation involving anything randomly popping out of thin air is, from the standpoint of the actual physics, totally unsalvagable. But if one accepts it then there are millions of stories one can tell.
        – knzhou
        4 hours ago










      • @knzhou Hmm, I've also heard about closed Feynman diagrams being related to a "vacuum energy problem". Is there any merit to that explanation? Or maybe that's just not much related to the Hawking radiation topic?
        – aschepler
        3 hours ago














      18












      18








      18






      There's no contradiction, but Kaku is being pretty cavalier.



      In both classical and quantum physics, an uncharged point particle can never emit or absorb any light. Nothing about this violates the uncertainty principle. The electromagnetic field is just one of many quantum fields in the universe, and there's no law saying you have to interact with it.



      Kaku is talking about something different: black holes, which classically can absorb light but never emit it. This is very different from an uncharged particle, which doesn't interact with light at all. It's true that in the quantum theory, black holes can emit light by Hawking radiation.



      However, this is only tenuously related to the uncertainty principle. I assume the relation Kaku had in mind was something like "the uncertainty principle means that particles can spontaneously pop out of thin air. A quantum black hole can radiate because a particle can spontaneously appear right outside its event horizon and leave." This is the standard popsci explanation, but it's rather misleading, in the sense that nothing about Hawking's actual calculation looks anything like this.



      Again, Hawking radiation is a statement about event horizons. It has no strict relation with dark matter. Furthermore, dark matter doesn't even have to be perfectly dark. For example, there are theories of millicharged DM where dark matter does have a tiny charge and hence can radiate. Dark matter could also be due to primordial black holes, which do radiate by Hawking radiation. In both cases the radiation is too little to see.






      share|cite|improve this answer














      There's no contradiction, but Kaku is being pretty cavalier.



      In both classical and quantum physics, an uncharged point particle can never emit or absorb any light. Nothing about this violates the uncertainty principle. The electromagnetic field is just one of many quantum fields in the universe, and there's no law saying you have to interact with it.



      Kaku is talking about something different: black holes, which classically can absorb light but never emit it. This is very different from an uncharged particle, which doesn't interact with light at all. It's true that in the quantum theory, black holes can emit light by Hawking radiation.



      However, this is only tenuously related to the uncertainty principle. I assume the relation Kaku had in mind was something like "the uncertainty principle means that particles can spontaneously pop out of thin air. A quantum black hole can radiate because a particle can spontaneously appear right outside its event horizon and leave." This is the standard popsci explanation, but it's rather misleading, in the sense that nothing about Hawking's actual calculation looks anything like this.



      Again, Hawking radiation is a statement about event horizons. It has no strict relation with dark matter. Furthermore, dark matter doesn't even have to be perfectly dark. For example, there are theories of millicharged DM where dark matter does have a tiny charge and hence can radiate. Dark matter could also be due to primordial black holes, which do radiate by Hawking radiation. In both cases the radiation is too little to see.







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited 6 hours ago

























      answered yesterday









      knzhouknzhou

      42.5k11117203




      42.5k11117203












      • "This is very different from an uncharged object, which doesn't interact with light at all" First you say particle, then you say object. Certainly, objects with no net charge still interact with light. And uncharged object can cause gravitational lensing.
        – Acccumulation
        7 hours ago










      • @Acccumulation Indeed, I edited, that was inconsistent usage. As for the lensing, I am not counting indirect interactions with light like that, because otherwise everything technically interacts with everything else. Which is true, but beside the point.
        – knzhou
        6 hours ago










      • The popular explanation I've always heard for Hawking radiation is slightly more sophisticated, even if it's still an extreme simplification or only slightly related to the technical theory: Even in vacuum, virtual particle pairs can spontaneously form. These usually cancel out again extremely quickly - but if one half the pair goes into a black hole but the other escapes the horizon, the black hole is radiating energy (and slightly "evaporating").
        – aschepler
        4 hours ago










      • @aschepler I know about that one, but it’s equally unrelated to the truth. Any explanation involving anything randomly popping out of thin air is, from the standpoint of the actual physics, totally unsalvagable. But if one accepts it then there are millions of stories one can tell.
        – knzhou
        4 hours ago










      • @knzhou Hmm, I've also heard about closed Feynman diagrams being related to a "vacuum energy problem". Is there any merit to that explanation? Or maybe that's just not much related to the Hawking radiation topic?
        – aschepler
        3 hours ago


















      • "This is very different from an uncharged object, which doesn't interact with light at all" First you say particle, then you say object. Certainly, objects with no net charge still interact with light. And uncharged object can cause gravitational lensing.
        – Acccumulation
        7 hours ago










      • @Acccumulation Indeed, I edited, that was inconsistent usage. As for the lensing, I am not counting indirect interactions with light like that, because otherwise everything technically interacts with everything else. Which is true, but beside the point.
        – knzhou
        6 hours ago










      • The popular explanation I've always heard for Hawking radiation is slightly more sophisticated, even if it's still an extreme simplification or only slightly related to the technical theory: Even in vacuum, virtual particle pairs can spontaneously form. These usually cancel out again extremely quickly - but if one half the pair goes into a black hole but the other escapes the horizon, the black hole is radiating energy (and slightly "evaporating").
        – aschepler
        4 hours ago










      • @aschepler I know about that one, but it’s equally unrelated to the truth. Any explanation involving anything randomly popping out of thin air is, from the standpoint of the actual physics, totally unsalvagable. But if one accepts it then there are millions of stories one can tell.
        – knzhou
        4 hours ago










      • @knzhou Hmm, I've also heard about closed Feynman diagrams being related to a "vacuum energy problem". Is there any merit to that explanation? Or maybe that's just not much related to the Hawking radiation topic?
        – aschepler
        3 hours ago
















      "This is very different from an uncharged object, which doesn't interact with light at all" First you say particle, then you say object. Certainly, objects with no net charge still interact with light. And uncharged object can cause gravitational lensing.
      – Acccumulation
      7 hours ago




      "This is very different from an uncharged object, which doesn't interact with light at all" First you say particle, then you say object. Certainly, objects with no net charge still interact with light. And uncharged object can cause gravitational lensing.
      – Acccumulation
      7 hours ago












      @Acccumulation Indeed, I edited, that was inconsistent usage. As for the lensing, I am not counting indirect interactions with light like that, because otherwise everything technically interacts with everything else. Which is true, but beside the point.
      – knzhou
      6 hours ago




      @Acccumulation Indeed, I edited, that was inconsistent usage. As for the lensing, I am not counting indirect interactions with light like that, because otherwise everything technically interacts with everything else. Which is true, but beside the point.
      – knzhou
      6 hours ago












      The popular explanation I've always heard for Hawking radiation is slightly more sophisticated, even if it's still an extreme simplification or only slightly related to the technical theory: Even in vacuum, virtual particle pairs can spontaneously form. These usually cancel out again extremely quickly - but if one half the pair goes into a black hole but the other escapes the horizon, the black hole is radiating energy (and slightly "evaporating").
      – aschepler
      4 hours ago




      The popular explanation I've always heard for Hawking radiation is slightly more sophisticated, even if it's still an extreme simplification or only slightly related to the technical theory: Even in vacuum, virtual particle pairs can spontaneously form. These usually cancel out again extremely quickly - but if one half the pair goes into a black hole but the other escapes the horizon, the black hole is radiating energy (and slightly "evaporating").
      – aschepler
      4 hours ago












      @aschepler I know about that one, but it’s equally unrelated to the truth. Any explanation involving anything randomly popping out of thin air is, from the standpoint of the actual physics, totally unsalvagable. But if one accepts it then there are millions of stories one can tell.
      – knzhou
      4 hours ago




      @aschepler I know about that one, but it’s equally unrelated to the truth. Any explanation involving anything randomly popping out of thin air is, from the standpoint of the actual physics, totally unsalvagable. But if one accepts it then there are millions of stories one can tell.
      – knzhou
      4 hours ago












      @knzhou Hmm, I've also heard about closed Feynman diagrams being related to a "vacuum energy problem". Is there any merit to that explanation? Or maybe that's just not much related to the Hawking radiation topic?
      – aschepler
      3 hours ago




      @knzhou Hmm, I've also heard about closed Feynman diagrams being related to a "vacuum energy problem". Is there any merit to that explanation? Or maybe that's just not much related to the Hawking radiation topic?
      – aschepler
      3 hours ago











      15














      Every charged object, when accelerated, will emit electromagnetic radiation. This means that as long as atoms are jostling about on the surface of a solid due to random thermal motion, they will emit radiation that we then can detect. But if we cool an object down so its atoms vibrate less, this means that it will emit less radiation- by which means we would conclude that once an object is cooled to absolute zero, its atoms stop moving and therefore they stop radiating.



      Now we note that the uncertainty principle tells us that the more certain we are of a particle's position, the less certain its momentum becomes. If the atoms of an object are so cold that they aren't moving about, then we can accurately locate them- but this means that their momenta are very uncertain, and this in turn guarantees that they must remain in motion- and emit some radiation in the process.



      In this way, the uncertainty principle requires that all objects radiate.



      Dark matter is postulated to not experience the electromagnetic force. This means that it does not emit radiation when accelerated, and this in turn means that it can't be seen with optical or radio telescopes.






      share|cite|improve this answer























      • The atoms not at the surface also emit radiation--it just doesn't escape. I'm pretty sure the inside of the Earth is, contrary to "common sense", a very, very, bright place.
        – JEB
        yesterday










      • answer edited. -NN
        – niels nielsen
        yesterday










      • The uncertainty principle tells us that when we measure a particles position; we must impart energy into it; making us less sure of its momentum... If you don't measure it; it could get to 0K and stop radiating.... This would mean that you would know the momentum; but could no longer know if the particle was in the room or not.
        – UKMonkey
        14 hours ago






      • 3




        @UKMonkey : The uncertainty principle is not "disturbance through measurement". See physics.stackexchange.com/a/87903/50480 for one of many, many explanations. The uncertainty principle is automatically imposed on any two quantities related by a Fourier transform, entirely independently of any measurement.
        – Eric Towers
        9 hours ago










      • @erictowers, this is cool, where can I learn more about that fourier connection?
        – niels nielsen
        8 hours ago
















      15














      Every charged object, when accelerated, will emit electromagnetic radiation. This means that as long as atoms are jostling about on the surface of a solid due to random thermal motion, they will emit radiation that we then can detect. But if we cool an object down so its atoms vibrate less, this means that it will emit less radiation- by which means we would conclude that once an object is cooled to absolute zero, its atoms stop moving and therefore they stop radiating.



      Now we note that the uncertainty principle tells us that the more certain we are of a particle's position, the less certain its momentum becomes. If the atoms of an object are so cold that they aren't moving about, then we can accurately locate them- but this means that their momenta are very uncertain, and this in turn guarantees that they must remain in motion- and emit some radiation in the process.



      In this way, the uncertainty principle requires that all objects radiate.



      Dark matter is postulated to not experience the electromagnetic force. This means that it does not emit radiation when accelerated, and this in turn means that it can't be seen with optical or radio telescopes.






      share|cite|improve this answer























      • The atoms not at the surface also emit radiation--it just doesn't escape. I'm pretty sure the inside of the Earth is, contrary to "common sense", a very, very, bright place.
        – JEB
        yesterday










      • answer edited. -NN
        – niels nielsen
        yesterday










      • The uncertainty principle tells us that when we measure a particles position; we must impart energy into it; making us less sure of its momentum... If you don't measure it; it could get to 0K and stop radiating.... This would mean that you would know the momentum; but could no longer know if the particle was in the room or not.
        – UKMonkey
        14 hours ago






      • 3




        @UKMonkey : The uncertainty principle is not "disturbance through measurement". See physics.stackexchange.com/a/87903/50480 for one of many, many explanations. The uncertainty principle is automatically imposed on any two quantities related by a Fourier transform, entirely independently of any measurement.
        – Eric Towers
        9 hours ago










      • @erictowers, this is cool, where can I learn more about that fourier connection?
        – niels nielsen
        8 hours ago














      15












      15








      15






      Every charged object, when accelerated, will emit electromagnetic radiation. This means that as long as atoms are jostling about on the surface of a solid due to random thermal motion, they will emit radiation that we then can detect. But if we cool an object down so its atoms vibrate less, this means that it will emit less radiation- by which means we would conclude that once an object is cooled to absolute zero, its atoms stop moving and therefore they stop radiating.



      Now we note that the uncertainty principle tells us that the more certain we are of a particle's position, the less certain its momentum becomes. If the atoms of an object are so cold that they aren't moving about, then we can accurately locate them- but this means that their momenta are very uncertain, and this in turn guarantees that they must remain in motion- and emit some radiation in the process.



      In this way, the uncertainty principle requires that all objects radiate.



      Dark matter is postulated to not experience the electromagnetic force. This means that it does not emit radiation when accelerated, and this in turn means that it can't be seen with optical or radio telescopes.






      share|cite|improve this answer














      Every charged object, when accelerated, will emit electromagnetic radiation. This means that as long as atoms are jostling about on the surface of a solid due to random thermal motion, they will emit radiation that we then can detect. But if we cool an object down so its atoms vibrate less, this means that it will emit less radiation- by which means we would conclude that once an object is cooled to absolute zero, its atoms stop moving and therefore they stop radiating.



      Now we note that the uncertainty principle tells us that the more certain we are of a particle's position, the less certain its momentum becomes. If the atoms of an object are so cold that they aren't moving about, then we can accurately locate them- but this means that their momenta are very uncertain, and this in turn guarantees that they must remain in motion- and emit some radiation in the process.



      In this way, the uncertainty principle requires that all objects radiate.



      Dark matter is postulated to not experience the electromagnetic force. This means that it does not emit radiation when accelerated, and this in turn means that it can't be seen with optical or radio telescopes.







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited yesterday

























      answered yesterday









      niels nielsenniels nielsen

      16.5k42755




      16.5k42755












      • The atoms not at the surface also emit radiation--it just doesn't escape. I'm pretty sure the inside of the Earth is, contrary to "common sense", a very, very, bright place.
        – JEB
        yesterday










      • answer edited. -NN
        – niels nielsen
        yesterday










      • The uncertainty principle tells us that when we measure a particles position; we must impart energy into it; making us less sure of its momentum... If you don't measure it; it could get to 0K and stop radiating.... This would mean that you would know the momentum; but could no longer know if the particle was in the room or not.
        – UKMonkey
        14 hours ago






      • 3




        @UKMonkey : The uncertainty principle is not "disturbance through measurement". See physics.stackexchange.com/a/87903/50480 for one of many, many explanations. The uncertainty principle is automatically imposed on any two quantities related by a Fourier transform, entirely independently of any measurement.
        – Eric Towers
        9 hours ago










      • @erictowers, this is cool, where can I learn more about that fourier connection?
        – niels nielsen
        8 hours ago


















      • The atoms not at the surface also emit radiation--it just doesn't escape. I'm pretty sure the inside of the Earth is, contrary to "common sense", a very, very, bright place.
        – JEB
        yesterday










      • answer edited. -NN
        – niels nielsen
        yesterday










      • The uncertainty principle tells us that when we measure a particles position; we must impart energy into it; making us less sure of its momentum... If you don't measure it; it could get to 0K and stop radiating.... This would mean that you would know the momentum; but could no longer know if the particle was in the room or not.
        – UKMonkey
        14 hours ago






      • 3




        @UKMonkey : The uncertainty principle is not "disturbance through measurement". See physics.stackexchange.com/a/87903/50480 for one of many, many explanations. The uncertainty principle is automatically imposed on any two quantities related by a Fourier transform, entirely independently of any measurement.
        – Eric Towers
        9 hours ago










      • @erictowers, this is cool, where can I learn more about that fourier connection?
        – niels nielsen
        8 hours ago
















      The atoms not at the surface also emit radiation--it just doesn't escape. I'm pretty sure the inside of the Earth is, contrary to "common sense", a very, very, bright place.
      – JEB
      yesterday




      The atoms not at the surface also emit radiation--it just doesn't escape. I'm pretty sure the inside of the Earth is, contrary to "common sense", a very, very, bright place.
      – JEB
      yesterday












      answer edited. -NN
      – niels nielsen
      yesterday




      answer edited. -NN
      – niels nielsen
      yesterday












      The uncertainty principle tells us that when we measure a particles position; we must impart energy into it; making us less sure of its momentum... If you don't measure it; it could get to 0K and stop radiating.... This would mean that you would know the momentum; but could no longer know if the particle was in the room or not.
      – UKMonkey
      14 hours ago




      The uncertainty principle tells us that when we measure a particles position; we must impart energy into it; making us less sure of its momentum... If you don't measure it; it could get to 0K and stop radiating.... This would mean that you would know the momentum; but could no longer know if the particle was in the room or not.
      – UKMonkey
      14 hours ago




      3




      3




      @UKMonkey : The uncertainty principle is not "disturbance through measurement". See physics.stackexchange.com/a/87903/50480 for one of many, many explanations. The uncertainty principle is automatically imposed on any two quantities related by a Fourier transform, entirely independently of any measurement.
      – Eric Towers
      9 hours ago




      @UKMonkey : The uncertainty principle is not "disturbance through measurement". See physics.stackexchange.com/a/87903/50480 for one of many, many explanations. The uncertainty principle is automatically imposed on any two quantities related by a Fourier transform, entirely independently of any measurement.
      – Eric Towers
      9 hours ago












      @erictowers, this is cool, where can I learn more about that fourier connection?
      – niels nielsen
      8 hours ago




      @erictowers, this is cool, where can I learn more about that fourier connection?
      – niels nielsen
      8 hours ago











      9














      The answer to question (2) is just: dark matter is transparent, not black. Perfect blackness, if I understand Kaku correctly, would be something that absorbs radiation but does not emit radiation. Dark matter neither absorbs nor emits (at least not enough to be measurable), it is not 'perfect blackness' because it does not absorb.



      An aside: since dark matter interacts with ordinary matter through gravity (which is how it was discovered in the first place), it is expected to emit and absorb gravitational radiation. Which is too weak to be measurable though.



      As for question (1), I think Kaku is just wrong. In addition to knzhou's remarks I argue: A system in a stable state (for example a hydrogen atom in an otherwise empty region of space) has quantized energy levels, and there is a lowest of these levels, the ground state. If the system is in that ground state, it will not radiate, even if there is motion (in this example the motion of the electron in the atom). This may be an idealization (a real object is never completely stable, and in a macroscopic object there are always some constituent parts that are not in their ground state) but it is compatible with basic physics.






      share|cite|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Menno is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.


















      • You have a good point. A better name would be "transparent matter". We don't call window glass "dark matter" even though it ideally is pretty hard to observe, at right angles.
        – my2cts
        10 hours ago










      • @my2cents I understand your point, but I think "dark" is good terminology, as long as "dark" is not mistaken for "black".
        – Menno
        5 hours ago
















      9














      The answer to question (2) is just: dark matter is transparent, not black. Perfect blackness, if I understand Kaku correctly, would be something that absorbs radiation but does not emit radiation. Dark matter neither absorbs nor emits (at least not enough to be measurable), it is not 'perfect blackness' because it does not absorb.



      An aside: since dark matter interacts with ordinary matter through gravity (which is how it was discovered in the first place), it is expected to emit and absorb gravitational radiation. Which is too weak to be measurable though.



      As for question (1), I think Kaku is just wrong. In addition to knzhou's remarks I argue: A system in a stable state (for example a hydrogen atom in an otherwise empty region of space) has quantized energy levels, and there is a lowest of these levels, the ground state. If the system is in that ground state, it will not radiate, even if there is motion (in this example the motion of the electron in the atom). This may be an idealization (a real object is never completely stable, and in a macroscopic object there are always some constituent parts that are not in their ground state) but it is compatible with basic physics.






      share|cite|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Menno is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.


















      • You have a good point. A better name would be "transparent matter". We don't call window glass "dark matter" even though it ideally is pretty hard to observe, at right angles.
        – my2cts
        10 hours ago










      • @my2cents I understand your point, but I think "dark" is good terminology, as long as "dark" is not mistaken for "black".
        – Menno
        5 hours ago














      9












      9








      9






      The answer to question (2) is just: dark matter is transparent, not black. Perfect blackness, if I understand Kaku correctly, would be something that absorbs radiation but does not emit radiation. Dark matter neither absorbs nor emits (at least not enough to be measurable), it is not 'perfect blackness' because it does not absorb.



      An aside: since dark matter interacts with ordinary matter through gravity (which is how it was discovered in the first place), it is expected to emit and absorb gravitational radiation. Which is too weak to be measurable though.



      As for question (1), I think Kaku is just wrong. In addition to knzhou's remarks I argue: A system in a stable state (for example a hydrogen atom in an otherwise empty region of space) has quantized energy levels, and there is a lowest of these levels, the ground state. If the system is in that ground state, it will not radiate, even if there is motion (in this example the motion of the electron in the atom). This may be an idealization (a real object is never completely stable, and in a macroscopic object there are always some constituent parts that are not in their ground state) but it is compatible with basic physics.






      share|cite|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Menno is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      The answer to question (2) is just: dark matter is transparent, not black. Perfect blackness, if I understand Kaku correctly, would be something that absorbs radiation but does not emit radiation. Dark matter neither absorbs nor emits (at least not enough to be measurable), it is not 'perfect blackness' because it does not absorb.



      An aside: since dark matter interacts with ordinary matter through gravity (which is how it was discovered in the first place), it is expected to emit and absorb gravitational radiation. Which is too weak to be measurable though.



      As for question (1), I think Kaku is just wrong. In addition to knzhou's remarks I argue: A system in a stable state (for example a hydrogen atom in an otherwise empty region of space) has quantized energy levels, and there is a lowest of these levels, the ground state. If the system is in that ground state, it will not radiate, even if there is motion (in this example the motion of the electron in the atom). This may be an idealization (a real object is never completely stable, and in a macroscopic object there are always some constituent parts that are not in their ground state) but it is compatible with basic physics.







      share|cite|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Menno is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer






      New contributor




      Menno is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      answered yesterday









      MennoMenno

      912




      912




      New contributor




      Menno is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Menno is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Menno is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      • You have a good point. A better name would be "transparent matter". We don't call window glass "dark matter" even though it ideally is pretty hard to observe, at right angles.
        – my2cts
        10 hours ago










      • @my2cents I understand your point, but I think "dark" is good terminology, as long as "dark" is not mistaken for "black".
        – Menno
        5 hours ago


















      • You have a good point. A better name would be "transparent matter". We don't call window glass "dark matter" even though it ideally is pretty hard to observe, at right angles.
        – my2cts
        10 hours ago










      • @my2cents I understand your point, but I think "dark" is good terminology, as long as "dark" is not mistaken for "black".
        – Menno
        5 hours ago
















      You have a good point. A better name would be "transparent matter". We don't call window glass "dark matter" even though it ideally is pretty hard to observe, at right angles.
      – my2cts
      10 hours ago




      You have a good point. A better name would be "transparent matter". We don't call window glass "dark matter" even though it ideally is pretty hard to observe, at right angles.
      – my2cts
      10 hours ago












      @my2cents I understand your point, but I think "dark" is good terminology, as long as "dark" is not mistaken for "black".
      – Menno
      5 hours ago




      @my2cents I understand your point, but I think "dark" is good terminology, as long as "dark" is not mistaken for "black".
      – Menno
      5 hours ago











      3














      Alternative simple answer:



      Dark matter is dark because it simply has no interaction whatsoever (as far as we know) with photons.



      That doesn't mean it can't gain or lose energy or interact in other ways (for example by definition it interacts with gravity). We don't yet understand dark matter well enough to know what else it can do, state-wise and energy-wise.



      But it does mean that when we call it "dark", we don't mean that it is "black" in the sense that ordinary black (or black body) objects usually are - low or near-zero energy, photons emitted at low frequencies below the visible spectrum, etc.



      Dark matter could be capable of many kinds of high energy or low energy states and fundamental interactions, for all we know. (For example, if other unidentified fields/interactions also existed, which weakly interacted with the known fields and their particles). But it wouldn't affect photons, and without a photon interaction, it won't have any visual or electromagnetic presence at all. It won't be black. It will be transparent, as photons will go straight "through" it in blissful ignorance (so to speak).






      share|cite|improve this answer


























        3














        Alternative simple answer:



        Dark matter is dark because it simply has no interaction whatsoever (as far as we know) with photons.



        That doesn't mean it can't gain or lose energy or interact in other ways (for example by definition it interacts with gravity). We don't yet understand dark matter well enough to know what else it can do, state-wise and energy-wise.



        But it does mean that when we call it "dark", we don't mean that it is "black" in the sense that ordinary black (or black body) objects usually are - low or near-zero energy, photons emitted at low frequencies below the visible spectrum, etc.



        Dark matter could be capable of many kinds of high energy or low energy states and fundamental interactions, for all we know. (For example, if other unidentified fields/interactions also existed, which weakly interacted with the known fields and their particles). But it wouldn't affect photons, and without a photon interaction, it won't have any visual or electromagnetic presence at all. It won't be black. It will be transparent, as photons will go straight "through" it in blissful ignorance (so to speak).






        share|cite|improve this answer
























          3












          3








          3






          Alternative simple answer:



          Dark matter is dark because it simply has no interaction whatsoever (as far as we know) with photons.



          That doesn't mean it can't gain or lose energy or interact in other ways (for example by definition it interacts with gravity). We don't yet understand dark matter well enough to know what else it can do, state-wise and energy-wise.



          But it does mean that when we call it "dark", we don't mean that it is "black" in the sense that ordinary black (or black body) objects usually are - low or near-zero energy, photons emitted at low frequencies below the visible spectrum, etc.



          Dark matter could be capable of many kinds of high energy or low energy states and fundamental interactions, for all we know. (For example, if other unidentified fields/interactions also existed, which weakly interacted with the known fields and their particles). But it wouldn't affect photons, and without a photon interaction, it won't have any visual or electromagnetic presence at all. It won't be black. It will be transparent, as photons will go straight "through" it in blissful ignorance (so to speak).






          share|cite|improve this answer












          Alternative simple answer:



          Dark matter is dark because it simply has no interaction whatsoever (as far as we know) with photons.



          That doesn't mean it can't gain or lose energy or interact in other ways (for example by definition it interacts with gravity). We don't yet understand dark matter well enough to know what else it can do, state-wise and energy-wise.



          But it does mean that when we call it "dark", we don't mean that it is "black" in the sense that ordinary black (or black body) objects usually are - low or near-zero energy, photons emitted at low frequencies below the visible spectrum, etc.



          Dark matter could be capable of many kinds of high energy or low energy states and fundamental interactions, for all we know. (For example, if other unidentified fields/interactions also existed, which weakly interacted with the known fields and their particles). But it wouldn't affect photons, and without a photon interaction, it won't have any visual or electromagnetic presence at all. It won't be black. It will be transparent, as photons will go straight "through" it in blissful ignorance (so to speak).







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 15 hours ago









          StilezStilez

          1,356413




          1,356413























              1














              I think the premise of question 2 is wrong. Where have you seen it stated that dark matter must be perfectly black? It's called "dark matter" because it doesn't appear to emit detectable amounts of electromagnetic radiation. Currently, there is no universally accepted explanation of what dark matter is and some of the candidates might weakly emit radiation.



              There is a big difference between "perfectly black" and "doesn't emit detectable amounts of radiation".






              share|cite|improve this answer


























                1














                I think the premise of question 2 is wrong. Where have you seen it stated that dark matter must be perfectly black? It's called "dark matter" because it doesn't appear to emit detectable amounts of electromagnetic radiation. Currently, there is no universally accepted explanation of what dark matter is and some of the candidates might weakly emit radiation.



                There is a big difference between "perfectly black" and "doesn't emit detectable amounts of radiation".






                share|cite|improve this answer
























                  1












                  1








                  1






                  I think the premise of question 2 is wrong. Where have you seen it stated that dark matter must be perfectly black? It's called "dark matter" because it doesn't appear to emit detectable amounts of electromagnetic radiation. Currently, there is no universally accepted explanation of what dark matter is and some of the candidates might weakly emit radiation.



                  There is a big difference between "perfectly black" and "doesn't emit detectable amounts of radiation".






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  I think the premise of question 2 is wrong. Where have you seen it stated that dark matter must be perfectly black? It's called "dark matter" because it doesn't appear to emit detectable amounts of electromagnetic radiation. Currently, there is no universally accepted explanation of what dark matter is and some of the candidates might weakly emit radiation.



                  There is a big difference between "perfectly black" and "doesn't emit detectable amounts of radiation".







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 8 hours ago









                  WaterMoleculeWaterMolecule

                  1263




                  1263






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f452452%2fif-perfect-blackness-violates-the-uncertainty-principle-how-isnt-dark-matter-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      1300-talet

                      1300-talet

                      Display a custom attribute below product name in the front-end Magento 1.9.3.8