Even if I take nothing else from this video, the notion that *neutrinos are dark matter so we have proof some of it exists* is mind-blowing. Mostly mind-blowing because it's the first time I've heard this, I still thought dark matter was only hypothesized, while I very well knew about neutrino-detecting labs.
Yes, it baffles me how rare that is for someone to say that simply and clearly, because it is the only thing precluding more fundamental questions like "isn't it possible that your models are just wrong?" that many people naturally have upon hearing everything else commonly said about Dark Matter and Energy.
Well neutrinos are more like dark-matter’s less shy relative. Even if neutrinos rarely interact with the other matter - they still do interact. The “true” dark matter doesn’t interact yet has a large gravitational impact on the normal matter - that’s what makes it a lot more strange than neutrinos!
I'm grateful for y'all's contagious excitement. Personally, this vid is an important and beautiful reminder that we're all starstuff, figuring things out one mystery at a time. It made me proud of humans, and not many things have done that lately. I appreciate your time and knowledge! 🙏🌌
This guy can literally wake me up in the middle of the night and lecture me about this stuff and I would not mind it at all. Such a pleasant way of teaching
The presenter ruled out the modified gravity explanation at the beginning. However, I remember Sabine Hossenfelder talking about it in this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4_qJptwikRc.html . It might answer this question for you (or give more questions to ask).
I've always wondered: what happens to dark matter when it hits a black hole? Since black holes are just extremely curved spacetime this should affect dark matter as well...
Thanks, other dimensions with different laws of physics seems likely because our universe has certain values tied to the laws of physics (stong force, weak force, etc) that make our universe with it's stars and planets possible. Now that could be because of intelligent design (sounds nice, but unlikely), or there are multiple universes and we happen to be in the one where these values make everything we know possible.
Strictly speaking, at 8:02 it'd not be "proving one of these hypotheses right", it would be "eliminating many of these hypotheses". I always understood scientific theory to mean that a hypothesis can be proven wrong, but it can't be proven right
making a repeatable experiment with observable and replicable results most certainly proves a theory to be correct or incorrect or at least correct to our level of measurement and understanding. think about something simple like theorizing how gases change volume at different temperatures. do a bunch of experiments, plot the data, and you'll see the relationship is PV=nRT. before Boyle conducted experiments to prove his ideal gas law, it was a theory as to how the items functioned.
A hypothesis will be shown to either hold or not hold, i.e. be correct or incorrect. If it is shown to be incorrect, a new hypothesis is formed. Once you gather enough understanding of a phenomenon, you can formulate a theory - a logical/mathematical model of how that phenomenon behaves. The theory should be able to explain observed behavior and accurately predict future behavior as the parameters change. If behavior is observed that does not fit with an established theory that's worked reliably up until that observation is made, a lot more investigation, measuring and examination needs to take place to make sure the observed results are accurate. At that point, the theory will need to be adjusted (maybe it was missing a parameter that had very little contribution up until now?) or a new, better theory needs to be formed. Even theories that don't work in extreme scales can be useful for normal needs, as they are usually simpler than a more correct theory that works over a greater value range - such as Newtonian mechanics and general relativity. If you go very large (planetary/stellar scale), Newtonian mechanics will give incorrect results, whereas general relativity will match reality better. Newtonian mechanics will still be accurate enough if you need to figure out the mechanics of a car on a hill, or the trajectory of a cannonball. The third term in this group is "law" - and a law of mathematics or physics is usually a (relatively) simple observation that has never been shown to be false. For example, energy in a closed system will remain constant - it can be moved around and it can change form, but no new energy can be created and no energy can be destroyed. There's a multitude of international physics prizes you can win if you can demonstrate a law of physics being incorrect.
Wow! Amazing episode. Great overview of DM and the efforts to find it. Also, fantastic production qualities but one small comment - lose the overhead camera. I heard from another presenter you probably know (Dr. Gay) that in addition to the lack of mass neutrinos are too hot to be a candidate for DM. Is there some theory that says massive neutrinos would be colder and a better candidate? One last question: Do you lecture at your university and are your lectures on-line?
Seriously, it is hard for me to understand what they said in this video. But i am just fascinated by the name dark matter. Recently got interested in the science stuff. Got a google many of the things they have mentioned in the video.
we don't believe it interacts with light in a way we can observe. neutrinos don't interact with light and we can detect them, and are dark matter. we're looking for more or different types of dark matter to explain the excess or remainder. we haven't found out how to detect it yet. those statements weren't made abundantly clear.
dark matter does not interact electromagnetically, so it cannot collide with other matter and does not affect light, but it does interact gravitationally which is why we can detect it in the first place (the example of galaxies spinning faster than expected). Gravity is by far the weakest force so this makes it very hard to detect dark matter particles but easy to see their combined effects on galaxy scales.
The earth is Flat. Dark matter is the aether and waters above. Space is not an infinite vacuum. Earth is the center of the cosmic universe which rotates around Polaris
I have many questions mainly to do with observable phenomena that we should see more of that we don't, or so I believe. 1. If dark matter interracts with gravity, should it or why does it not attract itself to create dark matter bodies like planets or stars? If it does, shouldn't we possibly see galaxies with invisible cores or with significantly less stars for their size than they should? 2. If it doesn't react with its own gravitational field, then why would they interact with gravitational fields from visible matter. Would that then make dark matter a universal filler like aether? If so, why would galaxies stay connected since the force of gravity would be diffused throughout the universe and galaxies are only traveling through clusters that make them stable but then they're annihilated once they leave the higher concentrated areas? 3. Assuming that dark matter cannot react to the gravity fields of itself but can react with with those made by visible matter, then wouldn't we see different concentrations in planetary cores? Why wouldn't we see celestial bodies with significantly more gravitational force than others of a similar or exact same mass? Would it even be possible to calculate a universal gravitational constant associated with visible matter? On that note, if it makes up 80%-90% of the universe, wouldn't we also be able to detect more black holes and even black holes that don't have enough mass to sustain the gravitational force necessary to sustain one to begin with? Even if they're small enough that the Hawkin's Radiation, then shouldn't we be able to detect smaller spontaneous black holes being created all the time? 4. Assuming dark matter has the properties of the 3rd point, then we could assume that in the creation of the solar system that there would be a ring of it orbiting around the Earth or any of the other planets or even sun (or a sphere if it can't collide with itself) creating a gravitational field that would be easiest to detect with a sensor on a satellite? On that note, if it can't collide with itself, wouldn't there be a similar sphere around the galaxy that would have the mass necessary to rip stars and systems out of their current orbits around all galaxies, in different vectors so that disc-shaped galaxies would be rare? 5. How do we explain the existance of galaxies without dark matter, ones where their mass is sufficient to sustain orbit? Theories persist that their dark matter was stripped by nearby galaxies, but- considering the abundance of it-why would it leave any of the visible matter behind instead of the galaxies merging? Please help me understand the theoretical properties of dark matter since I've had a ridiculously hard time finding any information on the subject, instead, just the evidence we've seen that leads us to assume its existence.
It reminds me during undergrad astronomy class, professor basically said we know a lot about the baryonic matter, only a little about dark matter and almost nothing about dark energy...
All matter and energy hold the potentiality for spawning life which leads to variables whose actions can be altered based on their observation of the universe. Dark matter cannot form in such a way that it’s byproduct (life) can become affected by observation of the universe. If we break all life down as nothing more than matter and energy with varying degrees of behavioral predictability, we find that reacting to the universe is itself the missing variable in the equations.
I'm sorry, but no, we don't know that dark matter exists. We can only infer it's presence. What we do know is that there is too much gravity given the amount of visible matter in galaxies we've studied. The theory that I think is far more likely is that this unexplained gravity is relativistic mass generated by the flow of spacetime past these large structures of galaxies, galaxy clusters, and the cosmic web. Incidentally this would also explain dark energy by inferring that as spacetime curves around these structures that a miniscule amount of kinetic energy is transferred to these structures thus powering the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Such a model would also make it very clear as to why there is such a large disparity between the measurements of normal matter as compared to our calculations of dark matter(dark gravity) and dark energy.
I like this theory. The whole dark matter idea reminds me of how astronomers, ages ago, came up with wildly complicated "epicycles" theories to try to explain the motion of Earth relative to the Sun, all because they refused to believe in Heliocentrism. It seems much more likely that "dark matter" is really just exposing a gap in our physics knowledge, rather than some actual particle that exists.
@@joshuagorecki4743 Okay, that's really funny given the fact that the Vulcans from Star Trek, were modeled after those, such as myself, with the personality type of INTJ. I'll take it as a compliment. Thank you.
We can only detect it INDIRECTLY, which is like knowing someone threw something into a pool because of the waves even if you didn't see the person or the object landing in the water. We know the object exists but we don't know what it was. But we can guess at it's mass because of the waves, splash sound, etc. We can detect it's effects, we just can't detect it itself.
@@dillanwhite6667 Waves do not prove that someone threw something into the pool. It only appears that way because you assume it must have been caused by an object thrown. But there are other ways to see the same effect, perhaps by some external force acting on the entire pool. This is like the question of gravity: does it exist at all? Or is it a side effect of the curvature of spacetime?
Dr. Thomas Charles Van Flandern, an expert in celestial mechanics, but apparently politically constrained in what he could say, indicated different frequencies are due to different light speeds, and at the time it made no sense to me as I took it to mean he was saying there were multiple light speeds at the same point in space. Eventually it became apparent to me that lightspeed could be gravity sensitive, that it gravitationally speeds up to gravitationally blueshift. After that, what Van Flandern said made perfect sense to me, he was talking about the same photon under different gravities. The only argument against variable light speed might as well be attributed to a revolutionary flatworm creation of bent-spacetime groomers, a theoretical decay effect of light bending, as if light and gravity fields cannot exchange energies directly.
I encourage people to check out Pavel Kroupa's latest interview on how the dark matter community is now more cultlike than ever (see Axioms on Trial for the video)
If space time twist like galaxies, it will be more dense towards the center, or dark matter is another space time structure, same particles, but different structure.
So the reason why the neutrinos isn't the dark matter is that there isn't enough of it? Could it be that there isn't a single dark matter particle but a whole group of dark matter particles? If so then the neutrinos could be one of them.
Has to be something like this. Similar to how we have paired particles with (let’s say for fun) “the positive scale” of protons, neaturons, etc. it stands to reason that dark matter will have a multiple particles. Truly we may never be able to understand it.
There is an "elephant in the room" explanation for those abnormally high star rotation rates. Einstein explained it in the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics". Wherever you have an astronomical quantity of mass "dilation" (sometimes called gamma or y) will occur. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. General relativity does not predict singularities when you factor in dilation. Einstein repeatedly spoke about this that's why nobody believed in black holes when he was alive. There is no place in the universe where mass is more concentrated than at the center of a galaxy. 99.8% of the mass in our solar system is in the sun. 99.9% of the mass in an atom is in the nucleus. If these norms are true for galaxies than we can infer that there is 100's of trillions of solar masses at the center of high mass galaxies. There is no way to know through observation, there is far too much interference, dilation and gravitational lensing. High mass means high momentum. If we attribute a radius to these numbers than we can calculate that relativistic velocities exist in these regions. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated, in some sublime way that mass is all around us, there is no direction you can point your finger that you are not pointing to it. There is no "mystery" mass, there is just mass at differing degrees of dilation. Low mass galaxies have normal star rotation rates. This is what relativity would predict because there is an insufficient quantity of mass for relativistic velocities to be achieved. This is proof that Einstein is correct, there can be no other explanation for this fact. Einstein formulated relativity before the existence of galaxies was known. It is clear that the mass is dilated through the galaxy and not the universe as a whole. It exists everywhere and every when the galaxy has been. It is the cosmic backround radiation. There is no black holes or dark matter, there is just relativity.
Assuming the assumptions made in interpreting the measurements are correct, which implies there is a lot of "extra invisible mass" in the universe, then that "dark matter" is simply ordinary matter which is too dark to observe by current instruments! For example, comparing old photographs of galaxies, with modern deep imaging, reveals far more faint material in the outer parts of all of the galaxies. This explains that the "discrepant" galaxy rotation curve rates found by Vera Rubin are due to faint ordinary matter, not some elusive exotic "dark matter" which extensive search has failed to identify.
It’s a math “fudge” we’re pretending is real until we figure out a better understanding of what gravity is. Like claiming you just sailed over an edge and vanished if you sailed in a straight line long enough before we learned the Earth was round.
The apparent effect of Dark Matter might 'just' as well be our complete lack of understanding of some key aspect of the Universe. Like that story some time ago with the Michelson-Morley experiment. Mind you ,I will never doubt the knowledge and education of a professional astrophysicist, but it's not like Dark Matter hasn't been searched for!
If regular matter equals energy then antimatter also equals anti-energy. What if this anti-energy state doesn't interact with the regular matter/energy, the way anti'matter' does, but it behaves like dark energy instead? What if dark energy is anti-energy form of antimatter?
Antimatter is “regular matter” in this sense and still “equals” energy. It’s just normal matter with opposite electric charge to what we are mostly surrounded by and made up of.
Is dark matter so diffuse that its spread across the solar system in even density? Or does it interact with gravitational waves in such a way that it can orbit bodies or even sink inside of them? Am I made entirely of baryonic matter, or is there a certain amount of dark matter clinging to my mass? Are there experiments we can do with things like testing angular momentum/ launching a projectile in a vacuum to see expected arcs and movement if we only accounted for baryonic matter? I got so many questions
Here's My Hypothesis: We may be looking through a gravitational lens caused by our supermassive black hole at the center of the milky way galaxy. Perhaps this is warping the light from galaxies outside of our own, making them appear to be moving faster than they should, given their apparent masses. This local gravitational lensing may explain why only far distance reveals this speed discrepancy.
You have an interesting idea here. However gravitational lensing distorts the shape of the images we see, not the speed at which we see it unfold. You can see a similar effect by looking through the bottom of an empty coke bottle, through the bottle opening, at a light source. You'll see the image warp and stretch in strange ways. As to your idea here the way in which we know that this is not the case is via how well we can focus upon the light coming to us from these galaxies. The sharper and clearer the image, the more we know that we've properly corrected for the lensing effect of objects between us and the target object. Another way in which we measure the speed of stars within distant galaxies is via how extreme the red shift manifests itself. We know for instance that within the same galaxy that stars moving away from us with have a higher red shift value versus those that are moving towards us. A local instance of gravitational distortion simply would not account for all of these variables while still allowing us to see the image clearly.
9:34 “[…] and wait, a really long time […]” Why would we whale to wait a really long time if dark matter is all around us all the time? Wouldn’t it make sense that we would see its effects immediately?
Magnetism… is not visible yet has affects on our world. What if the universe itself had “magnetic poles”? What if the mysterious force is simply us living inside of a huge magnetic field that affects other forces like gravity?
Why do stars form like pearls on a necklace? Can you measure the fields located between the stars from this string of pearls? This incredibly powerful Birkeland Current is missing from your equation.
We are beginning from the assumption that Relativity is correct. But if it can't explain the existence of 85% of matter of the universe, is it possible that the theory is fundamentally wrong? Instead of looking at the mystery of the 'dark matter', could it be that our glasses with which we were looking at them was faulty in the first place?
What are the products of fusion? Do they produce something that when they travel to deep space where temperature goes down they form dark matter and dark energy?
Combine: 1. cosmological constant 2. schrodinger solution 3. Planck E= h f= h n 4. n = number of superpositions And you get dark matter n^2 h^2 / ( 8 m L^2) = h n m = 0.3313 10^18 10^-34 = 0.3313 10^-16 kg ( all superpositions). 1 particle = 0.331 10^-16 / ( 0.4 10^18) = 0.828 10^-34 kg = 46 eV
Combine: 1. cosmological constant in Dx = lp^2/λ = lp^2 n. Then n = ( 10^-52 / 10^ 70) = 10^18 2. schrodinger solution 3. Planck E= h f= h n 4. n = number of superpositions per m^2 And you get dark matter = WIMP n^2 h^2 / ( 8 m L^2) = h n m = 0.3313 10^18 10^-34 = 0.3313 10^-16 kg ( all superpositions). 1 particle = 0.331 10^-16 / ( 0.4 10^18) = 0.828 10^-34 kg = 46 eV If you count only the positive wave function amplitudes: n = 10^9 then dark matter = WIMP m = 46 GeV
theory doesn't make it automatically untrue. In fact quite the opposite. People say "evolution is just a theory" like it's some kind of gotcha, when in reality, they don't understand what the word theory actually means and just look even more foolish.
“we just haven’t seen any yet!!” What do you meannnnn you just said it was everywhere!!! So waiting a really long time for the flash of heat to be detected doesn’t make any sense, because dark matter should be EVERYWHERE (according to what you’re saying)
For me it looks more in favor to a mond theory. It seems like the gravity force as we know doesnt fit for distances for far beyond 10k light years. Everything actually and simply fails after that, therefore the anomalies with all galaxy rotation curves, clusters and deep universe - therefore dark matter, therefore dark energy. Additionally, we still cant combine gravitational force with other fundamental forces of nature. Thats very obvious for me that our thought of gravity is simply wrong. I am very sure of that. I think gravity as we understand so far with all its calculations is just simply a side effect caused by something else that we havent discovered yet, but requires to extend. The gravitational lense must be caused by some other effects, if you compare it in the bullet cluster, the fields at that scale must be influenced differently than the gravity field of Xray smooth distribution, and the momentum could also work differently, also the expansion of universe could cause some anomalies in between them. Sticking on dark matter and dark energy is like sticking on a geocentric view. I think the accelerated expansion of the universe is a normal thing, just our understanding of gravity is simply wrong. As there was no ether either, same also no dark matter
I thought dark matter was completely invisible, cold, and collision-less because it was an atom(s) that was at the temperature 0 kelvin, so it didn’t have any energy to give off in the form of movement or light or anything that can be measured.
All the evidence says "dark matter" is obviously not matter. There is unexplained energy in the Universe that has a force similar to the gravity associated with matter. The inflationary force of space drives the behavior of solids, gases, liquids, and plasma in our Universe, and telling ourselves that there must be invisible matter driving their behavior is magical thinking. The answer lies in understanding the force of space and how it works throughout our Universe.
Given what I've learned about dark matter over the years none of the detection methods make sense anymore, we're trying to detect a matter type we cant see or interact with by looking for it and seeing if it interacts with normal matter. We know it interacts with gravity and therefore time because spacetime but we dont see it interacting with much else. Unless it interacts electromagnetically, say by causing chaotic perturbations in electromagnetic fields then gravitational detection may be the only way. My personal theory is that it's either just a new form of matter created by black holes and replacing normal matter as a new study suggests, a form of matter which sits in a higher dimension therefore it only interacts with certain fields such as gravity or it is a form of matter which isnt even in our universe, that we see actual matter but only the gravitational shadow of it from another universe overlapping with ours in a weird almost metaphysical way Also what if there are many different types of dark matter akin to our normal matters periodic table
We can't see because it doesn't interact with light but the particles of gravity called gravitons.. see gravitons and you one step closer to seeing dark matter. Thank you
Its amazing how we strive to understand things beyond our comprehension yet we haven't solved our own interplanetary issues. We strive to understand forces way beyond us that we would never even be able to understand let alone manipulate but we still have full blown racial issues going on. Lol Humans. We truly are the biggest enigma of all.
We can master the natural world: splitting atoms, studying neutrinos & dark matter, understanding the origin of the universe. Yet, we still can't master our own nature - almost poetic when you think about it.
When we were first starting to look at the quantum world. One of the 1st questions we asked were thing discreet ( like peas ) or was it continuous ( like mashed potatoes). Should we be asking the same questions when looking at dark matter or dark energy? Just a thought 🤔
I feel like it's more like a state between solid and liquid with property of a blanket if you stretch it out it when you put a object in the middle then it will have a equal amount of mass to hold it
Newsweek website says: _""Because we can detect dark matter only indirectly through its gravity, it has been difficult to determine what it is." JWST will be particularly useful in studying the dark halos-shells of this mysterious substance that surround most galaxies-around early galaxies. "Such early galaxies form in the first dark matter halos so by clarifying the nature of these early-forming gravitationally bound lumps of dark matter, JWST will constrain some theories on the nature of dark matter," said Primack. He continued by explaining that this could help determine between competing models of dark matter, "warm" dark matter models that say this substance is made up of small rapidly moving particles, & cold dark matter models which put forward larger, slower moving particles. So observing the abundance of these galaxies could help determine which set of models is accurate, & while not solving the dark matter mystery, setting researchers on a path that may lead to that solution."_
Probably not since it's focused on detecting IR light and has a sun shield to protect the detectors from the sun's light/radiation, but who knows, they might detect gravitational lensing, which is a physical effect of light bending around gravity wells or massive objects
Maybe dark matter is where all the antimatter went. There was a 50:50 split and at first, both matter and antimatter started to decay into dark matter. Matter became neutrinos Anti matter became heavy dark matter But, due to a slight bit of decay asymmetry, more antimatter decayed that matter, which in turn accelerated that rate until all the antimatter was dark matter and matter stopped becoming neutrinos.
I feel that, talking about dark matter and Scientists saying it exists but dont completely know what it is and still haven't found an explanation for it but they do think that it exists. All this just resembles a common question that almost every person has asked them selves "Does God exist?" . We can all feel that God exists and there's a lot of evidence that explain that God exists but most people just ignore that feeling because they feel there's no true way to prove that He exists. There are People that actually believe he exists but find it hard to explain his existence but they do have a gut feeling he exists. These two subjects are completely different but you can compare the similarities.
They aren't really comparable. Dark matter is an unknown concept. God is an *unknowable* concept. It's entirely possible within our understanding of science that we could one day observe and experiment with dark matter, it's just really difficult, and we've been unsuccessful so far. We know this because we have measurable boundaries for what dark matter could be, and a reason to suggest that our data isn't wrong and there is a measurable phenomenon happening. One day we could find a way to observe things withing these criteria, we could theoretically find dark matter. With God, *all you have* are feelings to go off of. God is a nebulous concept as-is. Even the people who believe in God can't agree which God it is, or what he is. It's safe to assume that even if God exists, we can't really consider him in the field of science, because God is unstudyable by nature of what God is. Which is someone or something who is *beyond* the rules of nature. You can't measure by the rules of nature, if that thing is not part of nature. And if God is indeed part of nature, why has no evidence whatsoever surfaced yet? Well, maybe he's real we just haven't found him yet, right? Well, there's a logical fallacy in that. A hunch isn't enough to go on to develop a theory, so until some kind of repeatable, measurable, experimentable evidence surfaces of God's existence, we can't consider him as real.
What if dark matter was simply a manifestation of ''time''. So everything that can possibly move matter will have dark matter around. Which explain there presence around galaxy, is lack of interaction with mater and light, our impossibility to measure it... Maybe physicist just looking too far and forget the ''time'' in space-time.
Perhaps, if you account that Matter and Antimatter werent the only ones in the beginning of the universe, you may know why it wasnt annihilated. In the beginning there was 5 types of matter: 1. Very Heavy-Matter ( Interacts with Strong Force / Magnetism ) / 50% 2. Heavy-Matter ( Interacts with Weak Force / Gravity ) / 30 % 3. Common Matter ( Projects Magnetism / Gravity ) / 20 % 4. Very-Light Matter ( Dont interact with Matter/Antimatter ) 5. Antimatter ( Rarely interact with Matter, due to Heavy Matter forces, and does not have forces property. ) You know that you cannot destroy matter, so you are missing that when an Anti-Particle hits its Particle, It unleashes energy which decays to Very-Heavy Matter / Dark Matter. This can be proved with the expansion of the universe itself.
*Speaking of thought experiments,* The speed of light is merely a mathematical construct. In reality gravity drops off exponentially outside of a galaxy allowing for time to speed up and the other thing that happens, which people seem to forget, is that less gravity also allows for distance to be expanded, which results in less distance compared to our contracted distance inside of a galaxy. So less gravity allows for our observation of the light to travel 186,000 miles at a faster rate of time over an inflated measure of distance relative to where we are inside of the galaxy causing the speed of light to be greatly increased relative to where we are in a more contracted measure of distance and a slower rate of time if GR is true and GR is now more of an observation than a theory. No dark matter and no dark energy required.
liked subscribed and belled.....this guy is really fun and entertaining in his delivery, and that helps complex information go down much more easily 👏 👍 super cool video and lesson!!!! 🤩
Can it be imagined if all the money that has been spent on creating weapons to destroy one another and the planet, and for conducting wars and to create political negativity were instead invested in scientific research and exploration what could be achieved, how many amazing advancements here on earth and out there among the stars could be made?
of all the matter + energy in the universe it makes up 27%. But if you're looking at just the MATTER in the universe, it takes up approx 84% of that (there's a lot more energy in the universe than mass)
Dark matter is made of Space; this is why we can't see it. Our understanding of Space is wrong, because we depict particles and events existing or occurring in Space, while in reality events doesn't occur in Space, but Space is part of each event. This is coherent with the face that Time is a fiction, as exists only in our perceptions...
