Explore
Click here to view CMI's position on climate change.

Feedback archiveFeedback 2021

Missing Matter found?

Has the Big Bang’s missing matter been found?

https://www.flickr.com/Fast-radio-burst
Artist’s impression of a fast radio burst traveling through space and reaching Earth
Published: 1 May 2021 (GMT+10)

Jacob R, asks for a response to a recent study claiming to have found the ‘missing’ baryonic matter. Baryons are the heavy normal matter particles that include protons and neutrons. Baryons make up us, the food we eat, the earth, planets, moons, stars, black holes, intergalactic gas etc. 

The Big bang model predicts1 that the universe is made up of 71% dark energy, 24% dark matter and 5% baryonic matter. Curiously, less than half of the expected baryonic matter is actually observed.

It is this ‘missing’ baryonic matter that the recent study is claiming to have found. The search for dark matter and dark energy are separate issues.

Jacob R. from Australia wrote:

‘As of a few days ago there was a video posted about scientists ‘finding’ the (predicted) hidden baryonic matter of the universe (using the big bang to make this prediction). I usually take these claims very skeptically and like to wait until a response from CMI is made. The study cited by this video is fairly recent (May 2020) and I am unable to find a response on your website (I know you do not allow rebuttals of websites, I figured since I am citing a claim that you would appreciate a source). If you could give a creationist explanation/or point me in the direction of one I would greatly appreciate it.’

Scot Devlin, CMI, responds:

Good question. I am not aware of a creationist response to this particular study. It will be interesting to see if there is a secular response as using the dispersion of fast radio bursts (FRBs) to estimate baryonic matter is a very new technique. FRBs were discovered in 2007 and an accurate way of locating their source only came in 2019.2 Therefore, this study is hot off the press and uses only 5 good data points. There will likely be a bigger variety of detected (and located) FRBs in the near future.3 It will be interesting to see if the forthcoming data agree on the cosmic baryon density as calculated by this study.

Also note that this is not the first claim to the finding of the missing baryons!4 One study in 20185 and two studies in 20176,7 have claimed to have solved the missing baryon problem. We commented on an earlier ‘find’, in 2011.

The 2018 study detects ionised oxygen (and therefore calculates the interstellar hydrogen by inference) by identifying oxygen isotope absorption lines in distant quasar spectra. The 2017 studies both identify an increase in temperature at the assumed cosmic web filament locations (compared to the rest of intergalactic space). This is proposed to be a result of inverse-Compton scattering of CMB photons off the free electrons in the cosmic web filaments, otherwise known as the thermal Sunyaev—Zeldovich effect: The CMB photons gain energy as they are scattered off the free electrons. This is a small effect, and for it to be identifiable, the studies had to add together the signals from many different cosmic web filament sections (260,000 and 1 million respectively). They were then able to calculate the number of free electrons and therefore (assuming overall neutrality of the plasma) the number of baryons in intergalactic filaments.

In comparison, the 2020 study uses the dispersion measure of FRBs to calculate all baryonic matter. This seems like a better technique, as the signal is not from such a faint source, so stacking hundreds of thousands of separate signals is not required. But as I mentioned, it is a new technique, so let’s wait to see some more measurements, as well as potential rebuttals to the technique’s accuracy.

In conclusion, the reasons to be cautious about this missing baryon ‘find’ are:

  1. Multiple earlier claims show that each earlier claim did not find the missing matter. Otherwise, why keep searching!
  2. From a biblical perspective, we will not be surprised if it turns out that the relative abundance of baryons in the universe is more or less than 5% because this figure is calculated using the Big Bang model along with its naturalistic assumptions.
  3. The small number of data points used.

If more FRB’s can better establish this result, and other novel methods agree, it could then be asked, have we found 5% because 5% is what was expected? I.e., If the target were 9% would a continued search reveal an additional 4%?

Keep in mind that the bigger baryon problem for the big bang is the missing anti-baryons or the ‘baryon asymmetry problem’: an equal number of anti-electrons should have formed with the condensation of normal matter particles near the beginning of the Big Bang. However, they are not observed!

Jacob R, continues:

If you have any general advice on how to navigate secular cosmology it would be greatly appreciated.

Good question, it is an ever expanding and diverging field (excuse the pun). All of our articles relating to Cosmology can be found on the Q&A page.

If you would like to start with a book, try ‘Dismantling the Big Bang’ by Williams and Hartnett.

Kind regards
Scot Devlin

References and notes

  1. In the late 1990s, a team of cosmologists used the observed ratios of the light elements in the universe (hydrogen, helium, deuterium) with the Big bang model to make this prediction. A study in 2001 used temp fluctuations in the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background radiation) along with the big bang model to predict a similar relative abundance of baryons. Return to text.
  2. Prochaska, J.X. et al., Probing Galactic Halos with Fast Radio Bursts, arxiv.org, 1 Feb 2019. Return to text.
  3. There are currently only 40 known sources of FRBs (ie. 40 points in the sky) But a new telescope is listening for more: It is hoped that the CHIME telescope in Canada will be able to listen to a dozen a day: https://globalnews.ca/news/4370531/chime-frb-outside-our-galaxy/. Return to text.
  4. Half of the universe’s missing matter has just been finally found, newscientist.com, accessed 29 Apr 2021. Return to text.
  5. Nicastro, F., Kaastra, J., Krongold, Y. et al. Observations of the missing baryons in the warm–hot intergalactic medium. Nature 558, 406–409, 2018. Return to text.
  6. Tanimura, H. et al., A search for warm/hot gas filaments between pairs of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 483(1):223–234, Feb 2019. Return to text.
  7. De Graaff, A. et al., Missing baryons in the cosmic web revealed by the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect, arxiv.org, 29 Sep 2017. Return to text.

Helpful Resources

Dismantling the Big Bang
by Alex Williams, John Hartnett
US $12.00
Soft Cover

Readers’ comments

Norman W.
Of course we know the only reason scientists are looking for "Dark Matter" is because it would be necessary to have held the galaxies together over the presumed billions of years they have supposedly been around. The speed with which galaxies spin would have, otherwise, caused them to fly apart. The fact they have not yet flown apart cannot, in their minds, be because the universe is only 6000 or so years old, and therefore have not had time to fly apart. It is imperative they find some reason to explain how the galaxies have held together for so many billions of years. The alternative, in their minds, is unacceptable. I am always fascinated by how incredibly motivated they are to disprove God and the Bible. The same is true of the costly and incredible lengths they go to in order to prove life on other planets, even to the point of finding exoplanets they arrogantly claim are even more suited to life evolving than earth.

The problem they face is, every hypothesis they come up with ends up dissolving into pure fantasy. I truly feel sorry for them, both because they will never be successful in their attempts to prove God was not necessary for all we see, but also because they are condemning themselves to eternal separation from God.
Scot Devlin
See, has the dark matter mystery been solved? for a theory that would allow Galaxies to stay together without dark matter. For more on the mainstream media’s exaggeration of the habitability of exoplanets see: Will the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) find extra-terrestrial life? and Have astrobiologists really found a super-Earth?
Brenton S.
There has been some great work done by Alexander Unzicker on how the matter in the universe and gravity relates to Mach’s principle. It’s detailed in his book ‘Einstein’s Lost Key’. Unzicker gives some solid reasons for not accepting BIg Bang cosmology and how modern science has lost its way with Dark energy and dark matter.
I would love to see a creation scientists’ review of this work!
Thanks in advance!
Scot Devlin
Hi Brenton, thanks for your comment. I looked up ‘Einstein’s lost key.’ It sounds like an interesting book, although it does seem to suggest some nonstandard physics. We have not reviewed it yet, but I will put it to our journal editors for consideration.
David G.
Helpful response, but why do so many speakers particularly, but here, an author feel the impulse to tell us it's a 'good question'. That implies that the questions that don't get this gong are not 'good' (whatever that would mean) and it potentially demeans a genuine but perhaps less informed questioner.
Let's just say 'thanks for the question'. Or, as a speaker, if you are confronted by the question, or given pause to think, say, 'I'm confronted by that question' or, 'Give me a moment to ponder that, please...'
Enough of the patronising 'that's a good question', please.
Scot Devlin
The intention in the comment ‘good question,’ was not to show extra respect to Jacob, much less demean anyone else who has previously written into CMI. The question was good because it highlighted a claimed ‘win’ for the big bang.
Tim L.
Am I understanding correctly that we have only observed half of the supposed 5 percent of the universe that is baryonic matter? In other words, would it be correct that a secular scientist would say we can confirm that we can see only ~2.5% of the universe currently?
Scot Devlin
If they take the dispersion of FRB’s as a true measure of Baryonic matter, they may claim that we see 100% of the predicted energy density of the universe. Because they could point to the observed effects attributed to dark matter and dark energy.

And yes, it could also be said that the number of Baryons that are seen (excepting the newer methods discussed in this article) is equal to only 2.5% of the predicted energy density of the universe (as predicted by the Big Bang).

Have something to add?

Important: This is not a Q&A forum. If you have unresolved questions, please search our comprehensive Q&A pages or contact us directly.

Remaining characters: 1800/1800

Please use your real name. If your comment is published, your name will be displayed as "John D." Privacy Policy

Privacy & Guidelines