[Jiggerj]

I'm watching a documentary called, 'E=MC2'. with Hitoshi Murayama. In it he shows a pie chart displaying the mass deficit of the universe. What I don't understand is one piece of this pie chart shows how stars make up .5% of the universe, with no mention at all about the matter that makes up all of the planets.

Here is the list on the pie chart:

Stars 0.5%
Atoms 4.4%
Neutrinos 0.1%
Dark Matter 24%
Dark Energy 73%


Now, if the mass of the planets were included in this chart, wouldn't this inclusion balance things out a bit better? Believe me, I'm no Einstein so I'm probably going to sound like an idiot, but I'm still curious. So, this is what I did in my head: I added together the percentage of stars, atoms, and neutrinos. This came to 5%. Then, using our sloar system as a base I added 5% for the matter in each planet (pluto included). That is 9 x 5% = 45%, plus the 5% for our sun so it's now 50%. I could add another 5% for all the material in the Kuiper Belt, but the fifty percent is close enough.

Does my (admittedly uninformed) rationalization make any sense at all? I wonder if the 4.4% of atoms is referring to all of the non-star materials (just doesnt' seem right considering the universe is full of hydrogen atoms)?

Attached thumbnail(s)

• 

This post has been edited by Jiggerj: 5 February 2012 - 01:17 AM

[guenter]

Stars consist of atoms. I guess the .5% relate to their radiation, which gravitates attractive, like mass.
The planets contribute only negligible to the mass of star systems.

[ajb]

The 4.4% atoms refers to free hydrogen and helium.

Planets are light as compared to the stars they orbit. For our solar system the Sun makes up something like 99.8% of the mass.

It is now believed that a significant proportion of stars have planets. The detection methods favour large gas giants, and many of the exoplanets are heavier than Jupiter. That said, I still think that planets would not make up any significant mass. You might be able to find estimate here.

You can find data using the The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia.

[DrRocket]

Jiggerj, on 5 February 2012 - 01:10 AM, said:

I'm watching a documentary called, 'E=MC2'. with Hitoshi Murayama. In it he shows a pie chart displaying the mass deficit of the universe. What I don't understand is one piece of this pie chart shows how stars make up .5% of the universe, with no mention at all about the matter that makes up all of the planets.

Here is the list on the pie chart:

Stars 0.5%
Atoms 4.4%
Neutrinos 0.1%
Dark Matter 24%
Dark Energy 73%


Now, if the mass of the planets were included in this chart, wouldn't this inclusion balance things out a bit better? Believe me, I'm no Einstein so I'm probably going to sound like an idiot, but I'm still curious. So, this is what I did in my head: I added together the percentage of stars, atoms, and neutrinos. This came to 5%. Then, using our sloar system as a base I added 5% for the matter in each planet (pluto included). That is 9 x 5% = 45%, plus the 5% for our sun so it's now 50%. I could add another 5% for all the material in the Kuiper Belt, but the fifty percent is close enough.

Does my (admittedly uninformed) rationalization make any sense at all? I wonder if the 4.4% of atoms is referring to all of the non-star materials (just doesnt' seem right considering the universe is full of hydrogen atoms)?

Atoms 4.4%
Neutrinos 0.1%
Dark Matter 24%
Dark Energy 73%
-----------------------
Total 101.5%

Doesn't look like a deficit to me. Seems to be a surplus. Better check your data.

[Jiggerj]

DrRocket, on 11 February 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

Atoms 4.4%
Neutrinos 0.1%
Dark Matter 24%
Dark Energy 73%
-----------------------
Total 101.5%

Doesn't look like a deficit to me. Seems to be a surplus. Better check your data.

It's not my data.

Attached thumbnail(s)

• 

This post has been edited by Jiggerj: 11 February 2012 - 11:47 PM

[DrRocket]

Jiggerj, on 11 February 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

It's not my data.

You posted it. You called it a deficit. Now you own it.

[Jiggerj]

DrRocket, on 11 February 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:

You posted it. You called it a deficit. Now you own it.

But I don't want it! You buy it for only three easy payments of $79.99!

[J.C.MacSwell]

Jiggerj, on 12 February 2012 - 12:25 AM, said:

But I don't want it! You buy it for only three easy payments of $79.99!

If you look carefully, the green 24% and yellow 73% are referred to as "not accounted for".

I think that might be the deficit referred to. Just my $0.02. I'll let others come up with the rest of the money.

[JohnStu]

I have researched on this before, I estimate dark matter to be 99.69% in terms of mass. But this largely depends on what the definition of dark matter are. If I only consider the dark matters that matter close to human research then I guess it's anywhere from 5 percent to 25 percent for the region (space) covered by Milky Way galaxy.

[Moontanman]

JohnStu, on 29 February 2012 - 03:23 AM, said:

I have researched on this before, I estimate dark matter to be 99.69% in terms of mass. But this largely depends on what the definition of dark matter are. If I only consider the dark matters that matter close to human research then I guess it's anywhere from 5 percent to 25 percent for the region (space) covered by Milky Way galaxy.

Can you back up this assertion in anyway?