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)?

Edited February 5, 201213 yr by Jiggerj

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.

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.

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.

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.

Edited February 11, 201213 yr by Jiggerj

It's not my data.

 

 

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

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!

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.

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.

 

 

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?