A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Missing matter found in the cosmic web



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 12th 18, 09:01 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Nicolaas Vroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 212
Default Missing matter found in the cosmic web

The article "Missing matter found in the cosmic web" in Nature of 21
June 2018 (See https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05432-2)
Starts with the following sentence: "We live in a dark Universe: just 5%
of it consists of ordinary matter such as that found in atoms, whereas
the rest is `dark' matter and energy that cannot currently be detected
directly" The word dark is written within '' indicating doubt.

Accordingly to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter: "In the
standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, the total mass-energy of the
universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter and energy, 26.8% dark matter and
68.3% of an unknown form of energy known as dark energy. Thus, dark
matter constitutes 84.5% of total mass, while dark energy plus dark
matter constitute 95.1% of total mass-energy content."

Next we read in the nature article: "However, observations of the nearby
Universe suggest that up to 40% of this ordinary matter---which is made
up primarily of particles known as baryons---is missing" This is a
strange twist. What we observe/measure are 1) galaxy rotation curves and
2) an expanding universe. What we also observe is 3) stars and baryonic
matter throughout the universe. However the amount found as #3 is not
enough to explain #1 and #2. To solve this issue we introduced the
concepts of dark (missing) matter and dark energy. And this missing
matter is supposed to be nonbaryonic.

However accoringly to Wikipedia there is also a Missing baryon problem.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_baryon_problem. That means
there are two problems: 1) A dark matter problem and 2) a Missing baryon
problem. (In reality there are more issues: CMBR and BB
nucleosynthesis)

What this article indicates is that there is much more baryonic matter
in the cosmic web (Universe) as original thought. To me this seems
logical because more and more ordinary matter becomes visible because
technology improves.

My question is why is newly found matter 'clasified' as a solution for
problem #2 (and not #1) Different question: Why are there two problems
in the first place?

Maybe Fig 4 at page 408 shows the answer. They mention the word Local
Universe which makes everything much more complex.

Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/

Ads
  #2  
Old July 13th 18, 12:46 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 227
Default Missing matter found in the cosmic web

In article ,
Nicolaas Vroom writes:

The article "Missing matter found in the cosmic web" in Nature of 21
June 2018 (See https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05432-2)
Starts with the following sentence: "We live in a dark Universe: just 5%
of it consists of ordinary matter such as that found in atoms, whereas
the rest is `dark' matter and energy that cannot currently be detected
directly" The word dark is written within '' indicating doubt.


Not really doubt, but probably to indicate that it is not to be taken
too literally. First, "transparent" might be a better term. Yes, it's
dark, since it doesn't emit electromagnetic radiation, but neither does
it interact with electromagnetic radiation at all.

"Dark energy" is really a stupid term, modelled on "dark matter" (which
does make at least some kind of sense). Substitute "cosmological
constant" as there is no evidence at all against the idea, and much for
it, that "dark energy" is just the good old cosmological constant.

Accordingly to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter: "In the
standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, the total mass-energy of the
universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter and energy, 26.8% dark matter and
68.3% of an unknown form of energy known as dark energy. Thus, dark
matter constitutes 84.5% of total mass, while dark energy plus dark
matter constitute 95.1% of total mass-energy content."


Right.

Next we read in the nature article: "However, observations of the nearby
Universe suggest that up to 40% of this ordinary matter---which is made
up primarily of particles known as baryons---is missing" This is a
strange twist. What we observe/measure are 1) galaxy rotation curves and
2) an expanding universe. What we also observe is 3) stars and baryonic
matter throughout the universe. However the amount found as #3 is not
enough to explain #1 and #2. To solve this issue we introduced the
concepts of dark (missing) matter and dark energy.


Right so far.

And this missing
matter is supposed to be nonbaryonic.


Not all of it. Big-bang nucleosynthesis tells us rather precisely how
many baryons there are. The difference between this and what is
observed in baryons are the missing baryons. The rest of the missing
matter is the dark matter, thus most of it is non-baryonic. Often "dark
matter" is used as a synonym for "unknown non-baryonice matter".
(Neutrinos, and electrons, for that matter, are known baryonic matter,
but their contribution to the mass budget is much smaller than that of
baryons.) Until recently, the uncertainty in the total mass density was
greater than that of the mass of baryons, so, at least as far as the
numbers go, saying that all dark matter is unknown non-baryonic matter,
or vice versa, was an acceptable approximation.

However accoringly to Wikipedia there is also a Missing baryon problem.


See above.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_baryon_problem. That means
there are two problems: 1) A dark matter problem and 2) a Missing baryon
problem.


Right.

(In reality there are more issues: CMBR and BB
nucleosynthesis)


They aren't issues, but observations, and both tell us how many baryons
there are.

What this article indicates is that there is much more baryonic matter
in the cosmic web (Universe) as original thought. To me this seems
logical because more and more ordinary matter becomes visible because
technology improves.


Right; no surprise here. (While I am sympathetic to MOND, and think
that most critics don't really understand it, one of my main objections
to "MOND philosophy" is the assumption, explicitly stated or otherwise,
that there is something strange about matter that we cannot see. This
doesn't challenge standard physics any more than the discovery of
gorillas challenged Linnaeus's binomial classification system.)

My question is why is newly found matter 'clasified' as a solution for
problem #2 (and not #1)


Because there is much too little to solve problem #1.

Different question: Why are there two problems
in the first place?


Problem 2: We don't see all the baryons (but might be seeing more now).
No surprise there. Problem 1: the difference between what is deduced
from BBN and CMB (which is more than directly observed---the difference
is the missing baryons) and what we need to explain rotation curves of
galaxies as well as cosmological observations. It is conceivable (in my
view, even likely) that something like conventional dark matter is
needed for the latter and something MOND-like for the former. Perhaps,
as Khoury (who has done some of the most interesting work in
astrophysics in the last few years) suggests, these are two sides of the
same coin.
  #3  
Old July 13th 18, 12:49 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Steve Willner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,133
Default Missing matter found in the cosmic web

In article ,
Nicolaas Vroom writes:
The article "Missing matter found in the cosmic web" in Nature of 21
June 2018 (See https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05432-2)


The above is a useful summary of the article. The actual paper is at
http://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0204-1
but behind a paywall. There is a free preprint at
https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.08395

Accordingly to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter: "In the
standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, the total mass-energy of the
universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter and energy, 26.8% dark matter and
68.3% of an unknown form of energy known as dark energy.


That looks like a fair summary. The evidence for this census is
diverse and has been discussed here and elsewhere. I haven't read
the Wikipedia article and can't vouch for it, but it describes the
evidence.

Next we read in the nature article: "However, observations of the nearby
Universe suggest that up to 40% of this ordinary matter


"Ordinary matter" refers to the 4.9% (which I'll round off to 5%).

---which is made up primarily of particles known as baryons---is
missing"


See Table 1 of the paper. There are large uncertainties, especially
in the hot gas components. The "primarily" is because electrons
count in this portion even though they aren't baryons, but they
contribute a trivial amount of mass.

What we observe/measure are 1) galaxy rotation curves and


and many more things than that, all of which add up to about 3% of
the total density, not 5% as they should.

However accoringly to Wikipedia there is also a Missing baryon problem.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_baryon_problem.


Which is what is described above: 3% 5%.

there are two problems: 1) A dark matter problem and 2) a Missing baryon
problem.


I'm not sure what you mean by "problems," but missing baryons have
nothing to do with non-baryonic matter.

more and more ordinary matter becomes visible because technology
improves.


Indeed. The observations reported were from a heroic effort using a
premier space observatory.

My question is why is newly found matter 'clasified' as a solution for
problem #2 (and not #1)


What they have found is oxygen, which they extrapolate to give a mass
of hydrogen associated with the oxygen. These elements are, of
course, baryonic, and they add something like 2% to the 3% already
known, potentially making up the 5% that baryons constitute.

There are large uncertainties and possible systematic errors in the
observations, and there have been other papers along these same
lines. Many have been discussed in this newsgroup. The upshot is
that the missing baryons are almost certainly hot gas, but the
distribution of this hot gas is far from clear.

Different question: Why are there two problems in the first place?


I am not sure I understand the question. There are two forms of
matter in the universe. Baryonic matter makes up 5% of the total
density, but only 60% of this (3% of the total) has been accounted
for. It would be nice to know what the rest is, and this paper
provides evidence towards an answer.

Non-baryonic matter makes up 27% of the total energy density, and we
have little evidence of what it is. Some hypotheses are ruled out by
existing observations, but others are still possible. Non-baryonic
matter may be a mix of different things, and some or all may be
something we haven't thought of yet. This has nothing to do with
accounting for the baryons.

Dark energy, the remaining 68%, is something different still. There
is little evidence for what it is, but all the evidence I'm aware of
is consistent with its being a cosmological constant. I personally
have no problem with that. The cosmological constant has to have
_some_ value, and there's no reason that value must be zero.

Maybe Fig 4 at page 408 shows the answer.


You mean Fig 4 of the article? That shows the new baryon census
based on the results of the paper. It is far from the final word but
is plausible.

They mention the word Local Universe which makes everything much
more complex.


Why more complex? Measurements such as the one reported can only
address the local universe. Presumably the census changes over time,
for example as gas is converted to stars, but the baryon fraction
should not change.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
  #4  
Old July 13th 18, 07:42 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Bruce D. Scott[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Missing matter found in the cosmic web

"Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)" wrote:

| "Dark energy" is really a stupid term, modelled on "dark matter" (which
| does make at least some kind of sense). Substitute "cosmological
| constant" as there is no evidence at all against the idea, and much for
| it, that "dark energy" is just the good old cosmological constant.
[...]

Yes, but can't they simply call it "vacuum energy" as in "vacuum"
displacement or polarisation when talking about eps_0 in EM?

(I confess to be a little motivated by Carlo Ovelli "Reality Is Not
What It Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity")

--
ciao,
Bruce

drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/

[[Mod. note --
Calling it "vacuum energy" would be making an implicit statement
that it has something to do with vacuum energy/polarization in the
sense you're using it. I don't think we know that.

(On the other hand... calling it "cosmological constant" is also
making an implicit statement that it's trully *constant*, i.e., that
it enters into the Einstein equations in a certain way, with NO terms
involving the spacetime derivatives of the "cosmological constant".
We don't know that, either. About all we know today is its average
value over the past 10^10-or-so years. We probably won't know much
about its time variation or lack thereof for another decade.)
-- jt]]
  #5  
Old July 15th 18, 10:04 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 227
Default Missing matter found in the cosmic web

In article , "Bruce D. Scott"
writes:

| "Dark energy" is really a stupid term, modelled on "dark matter" (which
| does make at least some kind of sense). Substitute "cosmological
| constant" as there is no evidence at all against the idea, and much for
| it, that "dark energy" is just the good old cosmological constant.
[...]

Yes, but can't they simply call it "vacuum energy" as in "vacuum"
displacement or polarisation when talking about eps_0 in EM?


As Jonathan noted, this makes an assumption about its origin.

(I confess to be a little motivated by Carlo Ovelli "Reality Is Not
What It Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity")


I'm reading that myself at the moment. :-)

[[Mod. note -- To clarify, the following 7 quoted lines were written
by me (Jonathan Thornburg), not Bruce D Scott. -- jt]]
(On the other hand... calling it "cosmological constant" is also
making an implicit statement that it's trully *constant*, i.e., that
it enters into the Einstein equations in a certain way, with NO terms
involving the spacetime derivatives of the "cosmological constant".
We don't know that, either. About all we know today is its average
value over the past 10^10-or-so years. We probably won't know much
about its time variation or lack thereof for another decade.)


True. On the other hand, there is no evidence that it is not constant,
and people have looked for such a deviation. Obviously, one can put
only upper limits on such deviations. The traditional cosmological
constant was there long before observations made it clear that it or
something like it actually exists. As long as a constant value fits the
data, there is no reason to assume otherwise, unless someone has a
really convincing theory (which should predict variation at some level
which could, at least in principle, be confirmed). However, one should
be open to a more complicated form, not repeating the mistakes of
assuming it is zero until forced otherwise by the data, as happened 30
or so year ago.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Missing baryonic matter around Milky Way found Yousuf Khan[_2_] Astronomy Misc 7 September 26th 12 06:40 PM
Dark Horse Challenges Dark Matter to Explain Missing Matter Yousuf Khan[_2_] Astronomy Misc 15 November 14th 09 09:47 PM
oldest star in the Milky Way discovered to date Cosmic Missing Mass Problem; Wikipedia editor learns where the missing mass is a_plutonium[_1_] Astronomy Misc 1 May 15th 07 04:34 AM
Nasa.... I have found your missing satellite Sirius Amateur Astronomy 1 May 15th 05 05:49 PM
A Forwarded Poem For Our Missing Cosmic Darla nightbat Misc 3 November 12th 04 06:34 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.