Exploring the 5%: What Makes Up the Universe?

[wolram]

It seems that only 5% of the mass in the universe is
us stuff, "baryonic", how does this percentage divide
into black holes, neutron stars ,gas ,stars etc.

 

[Janitor]

Off the top of my head, I would say that none of the mass of a black hole can be chalked up to baryonic matter (black holes being the one known violator of baryon-number conservation), whereas practically all of the mass of the other categories you listed can be attributed to its baryonic content. Maybe that's not the point of your question, though.

 

[jcsd]

Actually black holes fall under the catergory of baryonic matter. I'm not 100% sure why, but I think it's to do with the fact that they affect the relative abundance of elements.

 

[Janitor]

Jcsd, I had not heard that, but you may well be right for all I know.

What I had in mind was that a small black hole can evaporate due to Hawking radiation, and I am pretty sure that Hawking radiation puts out equal numbers of particles and antiparticles. That would mean that it is spraying out particles with net baryon number of zero, even though 99.9 percent of the matter that was used up to form the hole in the first place may have been baryonic, and 'ordinary' in the sense of not being antimatter made from antibaryons. It is hard for me to see how the Hawking black hole can be said to be made of baryons, by this reason. Am I somehow falling into a trap?

 

[jcsd]

Black holes are dfeunitely clawsifed as part of the baryonic mass of the universe of that I'm sure. I don' think it's necessarily to do with the fact that balck hole are formed mainly by the mass of baryons, but the fact that unlike non-baryonic mass they affect the relative abundances of different nuclei.

 

[marcus]

Black holes are dfeunitely clawsifed as part of the baryonic mass of the universe of that I'm sure...

I agree, and I think light contributes some of that 5 percent.
At least that is how I remember it.
Can anyone confirm this?


I think calling the 5 percent "baryonic" is just poor terminology.
What they mean is "the mass we already knew about and could detect or estimate."
And the roughly 20 percent they call "dark matter" is the part they decided they had to assume was there even tho they couldn't see it. They had to assume it to make things add up right and explain how clusters hold together
and so on.

This is makeshift temporary terminology. Someone will have to sort things out and label things better after more has been discovered about the 20 percent.
They will invent clearer categories.

For the time being "baryonic" works all right because the 5 percent *is*
mostly baryonic matter----the small amount that is starlight and CMB and black holes only make up a modest fraction of it---even tho it is not entirely baryonic it can be thought of as the "mainly baryonic 5 percent that we understand".

But this is what wolram is asking about!
How does that 5 percent divide up? How much of it, for example, do the photons of the CMB represent?
Is a breakdown on the web somewhere?

 

[Olias]

It seems that only 5% of the mass in the universe is
us stuff, "baryonic", how does this percentage divide
into black holes, neutron stars ,gas ,stars etc.

Wolram, one can define the Universe as a 100% mass quantity if one knows what Mass actually is?..for instance in a Universe where there is no Dark-Matter, then one can model along the lines of knowing all of the visable Universe, and as a consequence the Universe would appear to be just a high luminous spectrum where-ever we gaze our eyes, there would be no Darkness in which to define a luminous function.

Likewise, the ratio of 'Darkness to Lightness' is the backgound through which we gauge? all of the 'light' we see comes from Galaxies, which house the 100% of all positive matter in the Universe. What lies between Galaxies is the
the Stuff we cannot see, and is currentl 99.9% Dark.

The question of :does a Photon have mass? seems very relevant when we take the context into the question of "in-between-Galaxies" absorption and emissions?

The photon density of the Universe has decreased from a 100% value when there was(NO-DARK-MATTER) to one of about less that 5%, realistically it is the cosmic background radiation that is detected today. Now as the photon density as decreased with time, the aveage ENERGY of photons also decreased, the equations state(equation of state) that the Universe is in a Matter dominated phase, which leads us to the question you have posed:WHERE HAS ALL THE MATTER GONE?

Now we can ask of baryons, if all the baryons exist within Galaxies, what exists in space between Galaxies? Quarks are the structure that make up baryons, they are made into bundles of positive matter energy two 1/3 positive bits and one 1/3 negative bit, so allt eh energy residing in Galaxies is seen as a ratio of positive charged matter PROTONS, "2 to 1" over negative charged matter.

It is very likely that the structure that lay 'between' Galaxies is made from negative matter with a ratio of negative charged matter "2 to 1" over positive matter, ie 1/3, 1/3 negative bits and 1/3 positive bits.

The mass in question now can be seen as having 'existence' or a pre-existence?..back to the photon density?..do photon absorption rates througout the Universe contribute to the 'mass of space inside our Universe'?

Asked in another way, do photons add to the mass of the electron when atoms absorbs photons?

The answer is that the space between Galaxies is made from a 2-dimensional Quark substructure, namely E-M non visable anti-proton flux, or a Electro-Magnetic-Vacuum, which has a Negative value in all relative means of detection/observations.

The really interesting thing is that when the 'static' (electro-static) solutions are introduced to the E-M-V, they produce inertia, and this is where HIGGS force enters the arena.

One really does have to understand that in one frame we have a baryonic positive set of equations and in another we have a symetric solution to early Universe evolving data?

The trick is to do Relativity in a phase defined manner wherby the positive equations (Baryonic) all relate to Expansion, verified by observation, and the QCD solutions all reflect a Contracting of scalar Fields.

I could show how the Quark=Proton and Antiquark=antiproton are Phase dependant, but this is already known, thus the cosmological ratio needs no further explination, but what needs asking now is:Do photons scatter off a Free Electron Condensate?

 

[Olias]

For evolution of understanding of all, before you question my reasoning:http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Bose-Einstein condensate

 

[wolram]

http://www.ita.uni-heidelberg.de/~msb/Lectures/thrmHst1.pdf

approx one billion photons to one baryon
in the U today. baryonic content = 4%.

From the above url, lots of facts figures.

 

[wolram]

OOPSS sorry OLIAS i missed last two posts, i will
read them now.

 

[marcus]

http://www.ita.uni-heidelberg.de/~msb/Lectures/thrmHst1.pdf

approx one billion photons to one baryon
in the U today. baryonic content = 4%.

From the above url, lots of facts figures.

I looked at it. I seems like a good source.
I agree with that 4 percent. It is what I've seen consistently
except where people are just want to give a rough idea
and not "put too fine a point on it".

the heidelberg guy (Mr. msb) said that as far as photons go
there are 407 of them per cubic centimeter

indeed! don't you like when a fellow is that certain of his data---to three decimal places, no less. I guess almost all of those 407 photons are in the cosmic microwave background.

I think that is what he says on page 29 and also that's where he
says what you picked out, that there are roughly a billion photons for each baryon.

wolram congratulations on finding this, it doesn't completely answer your question but it is a step in the right direction and maybe more info will trickle in. I will keep an eye out for a breakdown on how that 4 percent is divided.

Basically I think that mass-wise it is almost all baryons (almost all protons and neutrons in fact)
because an electron weighs only 1/1836 of a proton IIRC
and those CMB photons average something on the order of 10^-4 eV
so even a billion of them is roughlyspeaking only 10⁵ eV

but one proton (in energy) is worth just under a billion eV----- 10⁹ eV

so (this is just an orderofmagnitude calculation) those billion CMB photons that the heidelberg man is talking about are energywise worth only a tenthousandth as much as a proton----well, maybe a thousandth.

I don't have anything precise handy about this but in a way they are right to call it "baryonic" because even tho it includes all familiar forms of mass-energy (protons, neutrons, electrons, photons...) by far the great mass of it is the atomic nuclei: the protons and neutrons.

over 99 percent, I'd guess, of the 4 percent we are talking about

maybe you'll find something that proves my guess is off

 

[Olias]

OOPSS sorry OLIAS i missed last two posts, i will
read them now.

If you missed them first time around why bother, you need an exercise in Photon Density understanding, which is lacking from your original post.

Read on and click next at the bottom of Baez pages:http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/photon/odd-ques.htm#SECTION00050000000000000000

This may help you focus a little

 

[wolram]

If you missed them first time around why bother, you need an exercise in Photon Density understanding, which is lacking from your original post.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
thanks for the url Olias, it takes me a while to assimilate some
things.

 

[wolram]

indeed! don't you like when a fellow is that certain of his data---to three decimal places, no less. I guess almost all of those 407 photons are in the cosmic microwave background.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
such accuracy is commendable, thanks for help Marcus.

 

[Olias]

If you missed them first time around why bother, you need an exercise in Photon Density understanding, which is lacking from your original post.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
thanks for the url Olias, it takes me a while to assimilate some
things.

No Problem, you have the right level of questioning and everything should fall into place?..but as with some of the really abstract and 'new' line of theoretical thinking sometimes its good to get an overall perspective. The Baez link will hopefully inspire you to continue your quest.

P.S the link follows the conversation of Baez and I believe a student of his(at that time?), keep hitting the next button after reading through each post(in your own time) there is a wealth of information in there.

Thanks for the pdf link, this is another great source of infomation covering a wide amount of relevant data.

 

[Olias]

Just Found A Great Recent Paper of interest:http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0210444

 

[wolram]

http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/LARGEsmall.html

The present scale of our Universe is about R(tnow) = 10^28 cm, so that its volume is now about 10^84 cm^3, and its baryon density is now about 10^77 protons / 10^84 cm^3 = 10^(-7) protons/cm^3 = 10^(-7-19-5) gm / cm^3 = 10^(-31) gm / cm^3 = roughly the baryonic mass density of our Universe.

 

[wolram]

origonaly posted by NERIED>
Alpha does not vary with time - new study's stringent limits

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Quasar Studies Keep Fundamental Constant Constant reports the work of a team of astronomers using the VLT in Chile.

"To explain the Universe and to represent it mathematically, scientists rely on so-called fundamental constants or fixed numbers. The fundamental laws of physics, as we presently understand them, depend on about 25 such constants. Well-known examples are the gravitational constant, which defines the strength of the force acting between two bodies, such as the Earth and the Moon, and the speed of light.

One of these constants is the so-called "fine structure constant", alpha = 1/137.03599958, a combination of electrical charge of the electron, the Planck constant and the speed of light. The fine structure constant describes how electromagnetic forces hold atoms together and the way light interacts with atoms."

In summary, results from the ancient Oklo natural reactor show alpha is constant to within ~2 parts per 100 million over the past ~2 billion years; the VLT results ~0.6 parts per million over ~10 billion years.

 

[wolram]

Now I am confused

 

[wolram]

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March03/Freedman/Freedman2_3.html

While we know more about the other one-third of the universe - the matter part - important questions remain. According to the current best census, the visible part of ordinary matter - that associated with stars - contributes only about 1% of the total. What we can see with telescopes is literally the tip of an enormous iceberg.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
now the us stuff is down to 1%

 

[marcus]

you link to "Measuring and understanding the universe" by
Wendy Freedman and Michael Turner

what they say about baryonic being 4% and only about a quarter
of that (namely the 1% you mention) being visible in stars
is admittedly frustrating but it is not inconsistent with
what other people say

on page 9 IIRC they talk about where the other 3% might be:

"...Our accounting of baryons at the present epoch, in the local universe, is not as complete. Baryons in stars account for only about one-quarter of all the baryons; the rest are optically dark. While a number of possibilities for the baryonic dark matter (from planets to black holes) have been considered, it now appears that the most plausible reservoir for most of the unseen baryons is warm and hot ionized gas surrounding galaxies within groups and clusters. In fact, in rich clusters the amount of matter in hot intercluster gas exceeds that in stars by a large factor. But since only a few percent of galaxies are found in these unusually rich clusters, the bulk of the dark baryons are still unaccounted for..."

the invisibility of most of the universe is a bit overwhelming
I don't know what to say
I respect both Freedman and Turner based on their outstanding
trackrecords of past work
I choose to accept what they say that only 1% of universe energy density
or only a quarter of baryon matter density
is directly visible as stars even tho this seems (in a commonsense way)
to be outrageous

 

[wolram]

by MARCUS.

the invisibility of most of the universe is a bit overwhelming
I don't know what to say
I respect both Freedman and Turner based on their outstanding
trackrecords of past work
I choose to accept what they say that only 1% of universe energy density
or only a quarter of baryon matter density
is directly visible as stars even tho this seems (in a commonsense way)
to be outrageous
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
and when some of that 1% is locked away for almost ever in BHs,
" i havnt found a reliable estimation of BH population", that 1%
takes another bashing, it seems almost incredible that we exist.