[betty boop]

However, this idea of “gravitational microlensing” is a controversial suggestion, as it requires that there be enough black holes to account for all of the universe’s dark matter. As Hawkins explains, most physicists predict that dark matter consists of undiscovered subatomic particles rather than primordial black holes.

One supposes Hawkins would love to demonstrate a cosmology that obviates the idea of a beginning (notwithstanding that it was he and Roger Penrose who showed the high probability that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning, in rigorous mathematics.)

I'm very open to his efforts along these lines. It should make for some interesting science — to put it mildly! And some interesting scientific debates! All to the good!

Of course, I'm one of those who believes the universe did, in fact, have a beginning....

Thanks so much, Kevmo, for the ping to this fascinating article!

[Alamo-Girl]

I look forward to reading Hawkins' speculations as they develop. In the end, I expect the best theory to come from the geometric physicists' corner.

After all, physicists tend to look at dark matter (the most likely suspect) through the lens of their own discipline.

No doubt Hawkins will look at black holes up front.

Geometric physicists (Vafa, Randall, etc.) will consider dimensionality (e.g. the theory that gravity is inter-dimensional and dark matter is a region of negative gravity in 4D) up-front.

Particle physicists on the other hand would likely approach the issue with the presumption of four dimensions, e.g. subatomic particles.