Do we really know how much baryonic matter galaxies contain?

[tusenfem]

H I is a spectral line (21 cm wavelength) used to detect atomic hydrogen so it actually cannot shield anything.

Sorry but that is incorrect. HI is atomic (neutral) hydrogen it is not a spectral line. It happens to have the 21 cm spin flip line. Ah, I saw you got that below.
Astrophysics may be a bit strange here. It calls the neutral atom A as AI and the once ionized atom A as AII.
So be careful if you see HII and H2, they are not the same.

If the conditions are right at some point this atomic H will become dense enough to recombine (most easily with the help of dust particles) and reform H2.

That is not "recombine" that is used for ionized atoms getting an electron back. You may call it condensation though. Unfortunately, I cannot find how cold and dense a HI cloud needs to be to start this process. You seem to make nice claims here, it would be nice if you would put some references in your postings.

[tusenfem]

OK, here are some papers that focus on the subject:
snip list of arxiv papers

Well you might take the effort to put at least the title in the message.

[TooMany]

Sorry but that is incorrect. HI is atomic (neutral) hydrogen it is not a spectral line. It happens to have the 21 cm spin flip line. Ah, I saw you got that below.
Astrophysics may be a bit strange here. It calls the neutral atom A as AI and the once ionized atom A as AII.
So be careful if you see HII and H2, they are not the same.

It is confusing the way people use HI and also H I in the literature. From the wiki, I got this:

"The hydrogen line, 21 centimeter line or HI line refers to the electromagnetic radiation spectral line that is created by a change in the energy state of neutral hydrogen atoms."

I also found this in the wiki:

"In astronomy , non-ionised atomic hydrogen is often known as "HI", and ionised hydrogen as "HII". "

I think you are certainly right that if you just say HI, you mean the atom H but if you say HI emission or HI line, it usually refers to the 21cm line. We all know that there are many lines, but in astronomy isn't this a common phrase?

That is not "recombine" that is used for ionized atoms getting an electron back. You may call it condensation though. Unfortunately, I cannot find how cold and dense a HI cloud needs to be to start this process. You seem to make nice claims here, it would be nice if you would put some references in your postings.

Isn't the term "recombine" overloaded? Either that or these folks are misusing it:

Molecular Hydrogen Formation on Astrophysically Relevant Surfaces

...the efficiency of hydrogen recombination on olivine and amorphous carbon surfaces is obtained for a range of hydrogen flux and surface temperature pertinent to a wide range of interstellar conditions

I think it's OK to use the word "recombine". At atmospheric pressures and room temperature, recombination of H into H2 is explosive. "Condensation" may be inappropriate as it usually refers to a phase change and not a chemical change.

From the same paper:

The recombination efficiency as a function of T and F is shown in Fig. 5 for olivine and in Fig. 6 for amorphous carbon.
The main conclusion from these figures is that the recombination efficiency is highly temperature dependent. There is an efficiency window along the temperature axis which shifts to higher temperatures as the flux is increased. It is found that under astrophysically relevant irradiation rates the efficiency for olivine drops off at approximately 7 ∼ 8K, while
for amorphous carbon it drops off only at 13 ∼ 14K.

Checkout figures 5 and 6.

[TooMany]

Well you might take the effort to put at least the title in the message.

Sorry, I got lazy since there were so many papers. I stopped at an arbitrary number; there are plenty more. At least I made links. On my computer it takes about one second to display the title/abstract after I click.

[Tensor]

OK, here are some papers that focus on the subject:

...snip

is that enough hydrogen to explain such a furious star burst?

It would be nice if you would follow your own request. To use YOUR quote from the "Galactic Rotation... no need for dark matter" thread in the Astronomy forum:

... Is there some particular finding that is relevant to this thread. When you just throw out a paper, it's hard to know what your point is.

So what exactly is your point for each of the papers? In your list, you can't even use all the papers. For instance, many of the papers contradict each other, as far as why, where, and how much. Some support that there is missing baryons, as you claim. Others state there are no missing baryons, explaining where they are. Others don't even really belong in the list, as they don't have anything to do with baryons. Karachentsev 2012 speaks more of missing dark matter, than of missing baryons(which is what you were requested to provide citations for). Nieuwenhuizen et al, 2010 takes the position that all of the missing baryons are not missing, they are tied up in brown dwarfs. Comero ́n et al, 2011, maintain that much of the missing baryons can be found in the thick disks. Shull et al, 2012, while maintaining there is still 30% of the baryons missing, claims to find much of the missing baryons in the Intergalactic medium.

Your original claim:

For example some of the theoretically required baryonic matter is still "missing" (undetected).

Can you please be more specific on "some". Exactly how much do you claim is still missing. And what specific papers support the exact amount you claim is missing. Where, specifically, in the papers you claim support your contentions, does the paper explain the specific amount of missing baryons

I don't want a shotgun approach, putting up a bunch of papers, forcing us to wade through a bunch of papers, many of which contradict each other or don't even apply. This is your contention, what specific amount of baryons is missing according to you, what specific papers support that and where in those specific papers is the support you claim is in those papers.

[TooMany]

It would be nice if you would follow your own request.

The question (about references for missing matter) was asked by Reality Check as if he never heard of a "missing matter" (missing baryonic matter) problem, so I provided a quick selection of papers that discuss it. OK by you?

Yes there are a few papers that claim that there is no problem, but most of them admit that a satisfactory solution is not yet commonly accepted. That's my point.

So what exactly is your point for each of the papers? In your list, you can't even use all the papers. For instance, many of the papers contradict each other, as far as why, where, and how much. Some support that there is missing baryons, as you claim. Others state there are no missing baryons, explaining where they are. Others don't even really belong in the list, as they don't have anything to do with baryons. Karachentsev 2012 speaks more of missing dark matter, than of missing baryons(which is what you were requested to provide citations for). Nieuwenhuizen et al, 2010 takes the position that all of the missing baryons are not missing, they are tied up in brown dwarfs. Comero ́n et al, 2011, maintain that much of the missing baryons can be found in the thick disks. Shull et al, 2012, while maintaining there is still 30% of the baryons missing, claims to find much of the missing baryons in the Intergalactic medium.

This sort of variety of opinions is common in the field of cosmology. We only know about what we can "see", the unseen is up for speculation.

Let me make a simple statement out of it. In both galaxies and clusters, the amount of baryonic matter required by theory LCDM) has not been reliably detected. According to some the discrepancy is quite large. This raises the question where is it. Whatever form it has must be difficult to detect; otherwise the issue would not exist.

Can you please be more specific on "some". Exactly how much do you claim is still missing. And what specific papers support the exact amount you claim is missing. Where, specifically, in the papers you claim support your contentions, does the paper explain the specific amount of missing baryons

The first paper (April 2012) says that the total mass density (baryons + CDM) is off by a factor 3. It's worse for the baryons according to this paper:

Another puzzle is that the theory of formation of chemical elements in the hot expanding Universe gives the value of cosmic baryon abundance of Ωb = 0.045 ± 0.005 [30]. However, the current observational data reveal only 1/10 of these baryons, existing in the form of stars and gas in the galaxies. It is assumed that the bulk of the baryons may be distributed between the galaxies alike the warm (T ∼ 10 - 5 K), non-virialized “broth” [59]. There have been reports in the literature on the likely observational detection of “missing baryons” [60, 61]. Nevertheless, this problem can neither be considered definitively resolved.

So according to them 90% are missing.

Here's a quote from the third paper:

On the basis of our new results, we estimate that disk stellar masses are between 10% and 50% higher than previously thought and we suggest that thick disks are a reservoir of "local missing baryons".

They think there are more stars than estimated to help explain the problem for galaxies.

From the fourth paper:

...about 90% of the cosmic baryons remain missing in the local universe (redshift z~0).

From the fifth paper:

Observations of clusters of galaxies suggest that they contain significantly fewer baryons (gas plus stars) than the cosmic baryon fraction. This `missing baryon' puzzle is especially surprising for the most massive clusters which are expected to be representative of the cosmic matter content of the universe (baryons and dark matter).

No specific quantity.

The seventh paper:

Galaxies are missing most of their baryons, and many models predict these baryons lie in a hot halo around galaxies.
...
We also show that AGN and supernovae at low to moderate redshift - the theoretical sources of winds responsible for driving out the missing baryons - do not produce the expected correlations with the baryonic Tully-Fisher relationship and so are insufficient to explain the missing baryons from galaxies. We conclude that most of missing baryons from galaxies do not lie in hot haloes around the galaxies, and that the missing baryons never fell into the potential wells of protogalaxies in the first place. They may have been expelled from the galaxies as part of the process of galaxy formation.

They don't say what form they are hiding in, but suggest they never ended up in galaxies in the first place.

Note that these are recent papers. They should give you the flavor of the situation. About 90% of baryonic matter is missing overall. The figures seem to be less defined for galaxies, but "galaxies are missing most of their baryons" is a typical comment.

So the question is, where are 90% of the missing baryons? If we could easily detect them there would be no issue, right? They must be in some very difficult to detect form (my conclusion) or not exist.

I don't want a shotgun approach, putting up a bunch of papers, forcing us to wade through a bunch of papers, many of which contradict each other or don't even apply. This is your contention, what specific amount of baryons is missing according to you, what specific papers support that and where in those specific papers is the support you claim is in those papers.

Well maybe you know which papers are correct and which are not. I think you will find that the majority (do your own search) agree that most baryons have not be detected (as much as 90%). That's my summary. The issue it raises is obvious. If these baryons exist, they are in some form we cannot yet detect. This clearly begs this question: are there even more baryons in galaxies than we expected since we cannot detect them?

BTW, you don't have to shout. I can hear you.

[Nereid]

Of the papers you have read, how many conclude that there are, essentially, no "missing baryons"?

What efforts have you made to find, and read, recent papers which report essentially no "missing baryons"?

What I'm getting at here is, in case it's not obvious, some idea of the bias (intentional or not) in either the papers you have cited, and/or the process by which you selected papers to cite (if any).

In any case, given that there are 'differences of opinion' (to make a shorthand), how do you intend to go about addressing those?

[TooMany]

Of the papers you have read, how many conclude that there are, essentially, no "missing baryons"?

What efforts have you made to find, and read, recent papers which report essentially no "missing baryons"?

What I'm getting at here is, in case it's not obvious, some idea of the bias (intentional or not) in either the papers you have cited, and/or the process by which you selected papers to cite (if any).

In any case, given that there are 'differences of opinion' (to make a shorthand), how do you intend to go about addressing those?

I think there is general agreement that the missing baryons problem is not yet considered solved. There are some that have offered solutions. I've seen a few papers attributing the galactic missing matter to hot gas.

Since you are fishing for solutions I may have ignored, here's a very recent paper claiming to find the missing hydrogen:

A huge reservoir of ionized gas around the Milky Way: Accounting for the Missing Mass?

They observe x-ray lines from oxygen and use it as a tracer for very hot ionized H which apparently they cannot directly detect.

For reasonable values of parameters and with reasonable assumptions, the Chandra observations of O vii and O viii absorption lines at z = 0 imply that there is a huge reservoir of ionized gas [10^10 M_solar] around the Milky Way. It may be in the halo of of the Milky Way or in the surrounding Local Group. Either way, its mass appears to be very large.

They believe the gas temperature is about 10^6 K. It's an interesting idea that raises many questions. How much baryonic matter is there in this halo? They only measure metal lines, so you need to know the correct metallicity to come up with the mass of hydrogen. Does it rotate with the galaxy? Could this be a baryonic halo that is massive enough to replace the CDM halo, depending on the exact mass and distribution? Why is it so darn hot? It reminds me of the solar corona that has a similar temperature, still without a generally accepted explanation.

Papers that come up with an explanation have to find some previously undetected reservoir of hydrogen. Is this paper the correct solution? I don't think the authors are even sure since they put a ? in the title.
I think we need to wait and see, but it makes my point which is that we don't really know how much baryonic matter galaxies contain, nor it's precise distribution.

It's not necessary to comment on each and every one of these papers. Do you feel that the problem is solved? Do you think the prediction of so much baryonic matter is incorrect?

[Reality Check]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.3377...

I see - you are talking about the baryonic matter is that is missing from the ~4% of the universe that is calculated to be baryonic matter.

You do know that if all of it is found then the universe will still be only ~4% baryonic matter!

[Reality Check]

There are a lot of issues with MACHO studies. Please see post #33 where I already discussed this issue. I am not expecting to find the bulk of the MACHOs in the halo and that's all that's been ruled out as a sufficient source of DM (albeit at Jupiter mass and above).

You have not cited any problems with MACHO studies. But we agree that they are ruled out as a sufficient source of DM (albeit at Jupiter mass and above).

Halo estimates vary widely. While one group (in 2000) thought the halo might contain 20% of DM in the form of MACHOs, a more recent paper suggests 8% of DM.

That is the thing with the MACHO studies - more data = more accurate results. So it is that more recent paper that is more accurate.

Davies paper on baryonic ...

The Davies paper is not evidence - it is speculation (A Heavy Baryonic Galactic Disc)
The gas idea has been brought up by you. You need to support it with evidence.
You need to cite recent observations that there is enough H2 in galaxies with the correct distribution to account for thier rotation curves.

Well as we know, "rocks" is a silly idea.

Yes we all know that "rocks" or "sub-stellar objects" is a silly idea.

ben m's calculation is based on an absurd assumption, as already explained.

No it has not been explained.
ben m's calculations are based on the assumptions that he stated.
If you disagree with an assumption then you can do the calculation for yourself without that assumption. You cannot say that he comes to an incorrect result until you do this.

Why would they have to pass through the solar system?

Question: What is your mechanism that restricts these "sub-stellar objects" to the "outer galaxy"?

The answer to the question in the OP title ("Do we really know how much baryonic matter galaxies contain? ") is yes we really do.
Prove that you can accurately detect Neptune size or smaller gas planets in the outer galaxy and show me the studies. Prove that you can accurately detect nearly pure cold H2 in the outer parts of galaxies and show me the studies. Then I will believe you.

ATM thread so this is a question for you: Prove that you cannot accurately detect Neptune size or smaller gas planets in the outer galaxy and show me the studies.

Prove that you can accurately detect nearly pure cold H2 in the outer parts of galaxies and show me the studies.

I do not need to but I have (read my posts).
And why are you moving the goal posts by adding "pure" (and maybe "cold")?

[Astonomers can measure the usual suspects of stars, dust and gas quite easily.
So?

So they can measure the usual suspects of stars, dust and gas quite easily. Duh!

But they cannot detect planetoids nor any sub-stellar objects in the outer disk.

Citations plaease.

They cannot detect cold H2 in the outer disk.

Sorry but that is ignorant, TooMany. Astronomers can detect cold H2 in the outer disk as in the citation I have already given you.

Astronomers can measure molecular H2, e.g. Warm Molecular Gas in M51: Mapping the Excitation Temperature and Mass of H2 with the Spitzer Infrared Spectrograph (2008). This is a direct measurement rather then the indirect measurement of CO and then extrapolating to H2.
That's right as AFAIK. The keyword here is warm as already mentioned.

Wrong: The keyword here is H2 unless you are asking for the impossible - detection of H2 that is at zero K!.
Of course the old method of CO to H2 correlation still applies.

But this raises anouther question: TooMany, how cold is your "cold" H2?

[
If the mainstream can find no such mechanism, I suggest they need to give it some more thought.

Question: What is your mechanism that that converts the mainstream ratio of stellar mass to "sub-stellar object" mass from ~1% to ~500%?

[Reality Check]

If you want "cold gas" then here you go
COLD GASS, an IRAM legacy survey of molecular gas in massive galaxies - I. Relations between H2, H I, stellar content and structural properties

[TooMany]

You have not cited any problems with MACHO studies.

You are blatantly denying that I pointed out important problems with MACHO studies in post #33. I will not answer your questions if you choose to misrepresent my posts.

Also your questions are repetitive and tedious. I have explained about 5 times that "warm H2" is at least 100 K. Cold H2 at about 10 K cannot yet be directly detected. Nobody but you said anything about zero K.

[Tensor]

The question (about references for missing matter) was asked by Reality Check as if he never heard of a "missing matter" (missing baryonic matter) problem, so I provided a quick selection of papers that discuss it. OK by you?

Yes there are a few papers that claim that there is no problem, but most of them admit that a satisfactory solution is not yet commonly accepted. That's my point.

But you didn't make that point in that list originally, did you? You just put out a list of papers, without providing any kind of point about each of the papers. Even though some of the papers don't support your point and other can't support it, if you use others to support your point.

This sort of variety of opinions is common in the field of cosmology. We only know about what we can "see", the unseen is up for speculation.

Why not speculate about invisible pink unicorns then? We can't "see" those. The problem here is that you have said, for instance, that we can't determine the amounts of H₂, using the technique of using CO as a tracer of H₂ . But, you haven't shown that the technique used is wrong. Indeed, you have shown a complete lack of knowledge of the basics of the technique, repeatedly saying that the straight H₂/CO ratio is used, asking questions that indicate you don't understand the meaning of velocity integration in the technique, asking other questions indicating you don't know how the technique uses separate channels to verify column depth, etc. It's quite obvious that your speculation is wrong, based on the technique you don't appear to understand.

Let me make a simple statement out of it. In both galaxies and clusters, the amount of baryonic matter required by theory LCDM) has not been reliably detected. According to some the discrepancy is quite large. This raises the question where is it. Whatever form it has must be difficult to detect; otherwise the issue would not exist.

According to some, relativity is wrong. This is because the aether is difficult to detect. This raises the question of where is it otherwise the issue would not exist.

The first paper (April 2012) says that the total mass density (baryons + CDM) is off by a factor 3. It's worse for the baryons according to this paper:

So according to them 90% are missing.

Here's a quote from the third paper:

They think there are more stars than estimated to help explain the problem for galaxies.

From the fourth paper:


From the fifth paper:

No specific quantity.

The seventh paper:


They don't say what form they are hiding in, but suggest they never ended up in galaxies in the first place.

Note that these are recent papers. They should give you the flavor of the situation. About 90% of baryonic matter is missing overall.

No, only two of the five paper you quote from say that. And one of those two give references to other papers that explain a significant potion of the "missing" 90% you claim. So, the flavor of the situation is that you've been able to provide only one reference that supports your contention that 90% of the baryons are missing.

The figures seem to be less defined for galaxies, but "galaxies are missing most of their baryons" is a typical comment.

Another claim, without support. Simply because you haven't shown this, you simply claim it.

The problem I have with this, is that each of those papers contradict each other, as far as solutions. So, you can't use the first, the third, the fourth, the fifth, and the seventh, without showing how they don't contradict each other. I notice that you didn't refute my points from the papers, where I point out the contradictions. Does that mean you agree with those points? If not, why is there no refutations? And why didn't you use the second, the sixth, the eighth, ninth and tenth as examples? They must not support your contentions, which means they shouldn't be on your list. More papers that don't support your contentions.

So the question is, where are 90% of the missing baryons? If we could easily detect them there would be no issue, right? They must be in some very difficult to detect form (my conclusion) or not exist.

Well, since you can only show that one out of five papers can fully support your claim that 90% of the baryons are missing, basing your conclusion on that one paper is a pretty tenuous conclusion.

Well maybe you know which papers are correct and which are not.

No, I don't. Which is why I asked you. You presented them as if they are all correct. But they all can't be as they reach their conclusions using contradictory assumptions. So you need to show which papers you are using, and show how they are not contradictory, and how they support your claim. You haven't done that yet.

I think you will find that the majority (do your own search) agree that most baryons have not be detected (as much as 90%). That's my summary.

I didn't ask for a summary, I asked specific questions. Please provide the answers to those specific questions.

BTW, you don't have to shout. I can hear you.

Bolding of questions has been used here for years and is not considered shouting. It's been done, as many ATM proponents claim they don't see the questions as a way of ignoring specific questions. Not saying you are doing it, just explaining why you'll see it here in ATM.

[tusenfem]

Molecular Hydrogen Formation on Astrophysically Relevant Surfaces

But that is a reaction on dust grains, and not "cooling and forming H2" as you suggested. Figs. 5 and 6 are for an olivine slab in the laboratory, I have no idea how this can be scaled to the universe or an HI region.
But I think there has to be a lot of dust then, is that reasonable? I don't think so, otherwise we would see that. Also what is the temperature of an HI clould? Is that anywhere near 7 - 15 K?

At atmospheric pressures and room temperature, recombination of H into H2 is explosive.

Are you sure here and not confusing "oxyhydrogen" which indeed will explode as anybody probably has seen in school at electrolysis of water.

[Amber Robot]

If the conditions are right at some point this atomic H will become dense enough to recombine (most easily with the help of dust particles) and reform H2. So in this sense atomic H can shield H2 from complete dissociation.

In the regions where H2 is not shielding itself, the molecular fraction is typically about 10^-5 (give or take an order of magnitude), so unless you're talking about molecular clouds, H2 is not contributing a significant amount of mass to the neutral hydrogen component.

[TooMany]

But that is a reaction on dust grains, and not "cooling and forming H2" as you suggested. Figs. 5 and 6 are for an olivine slab in the laboratory, I have no idea how this can be scaled to the universe or an HI region.
But I think there has to be a lot of dust then, is that reasonable? I don't think so, otherwise we would see that. Also what is the temperature of an HI clould? Is that anywhere near 7 - 15 K?

Sure, dust helps in the formation of H2 when pressures and temperatures are very low. Read the paper if you want to understand the relevance. How much is needed? Not very much, once there is something to recombine on, recombination can continue. Check out the extent of dust as demonstrated in some back-lit galaxies. Don't forget that we are talking about very long time frames in the billions of years.

This may help with questions about HI regions from Introduction to the Interstellar Medium:

Cold Neutral Medium (CNM): HI absorption Cold neutral hydrogen (HI) gas is distributed in sheets and filaments occupying ~1-4% of the ISM with temperatures of ~80-100K and densities of ~50 cm -3. The main tracers are UV and optical absorption lines seen towards bright stars or quasars. The CNM is approximately in pressure equilibrium with its surroundings.

This may be seriously dated (1984) because HI is mainly detected by the 21 cm line these days. These emissions are now known to be extensive in galaxies and are used to measure rotation curves where there is insufficient startlight. Typical temperatures of cold HI are about 80 K. Also see hydrogen cloud. HI at higher temperatures is believed to be warmed by intense UV radiation absorbed by dust particles. I don't know whether HI colder than about 80 is detectable in galaxies.

Are you sure here and not confusing "oxyhydrogen" which indeed will explode as anybody probably has seen in school at electrolysis of water.

No I'm not. An experiment with H at atmospheric pressure and room temperature would be difficult (impossible?) to perform because of the very high temperatures required to prevent if from reforming. If you did have a bottle of H at atmospheric pressure and you were able to suddenly cool it to room temperature, the recombination would be explosive.

Thermal dissociation occurs at high temperatures. For example, hydrogen molecules (H2) dissociate into atoms (H) at very high temperatures; at 5,000K about 95% of the molecules in a sample of hydrogen are dissociated into atoms.

That's about 10% less than the surface temperature of the sun.

[TooMany]

But you didn't make that point in that list originally, did you? You just put out a list of papers, without providing any kind of point about each of the papers. Even though some of the papers don't support your point and other can't support it, if you use others to support your point.

Sneaky huh.

Why not speculate about invisible pink unicorns then? We can't "see" those. The problem here is that you have said, for instance, that we can't determine the amounts of H₂, using the technique of using CO as a tracer of H₂ . But, you haven't shown that the technique used is wrong. Indeed, you have shown a complete lack of knowledge of the basics of the technique, repeatedly saying that the straight H₂/CO ratio is used, asking questions that indicate you don't understand the meaning of velocity integration in the technique, asking other questions indicating you don't know how the technique uses separate channels to verify column depth, etc. It's quite obvious that your speculation is wrong, based on the technique you don't appear to understand.

The pinkest unicorn around right now is CDM, not molecular hydrogen.
All I said is that CO is used as a tracer under the assumption that the ratio to H2 is relatively constant. If you think there is a lot more to it that I'm missing, please fill in some details and show how it is relevant.

No, only two of the five paper you quote from say that. And one of those two give references to other papers that explain a significant potion of the "missing" 90% you claim. So, the flavor of the situation is that you've been able to provide only one reference that supports your contention that 90% of the baryons are missing.

I know. Apparently a lot of papers are ashamed to list a quantity so the just say things like "significant amounts" or "most". One? I showed you at least two that quote that figure.
This is tedious, but here are some more sources:

From Two Missing Baryon Problems

Ellipticals may be more baryon poor than spirals (weak lensing). “Average” spiral (like M33) is missing 90% of baryons.
...
Galaxies are missing 70-95% of their baryons.

From Where are the missing baryons?

>80% of baryons are invisible at z~0

From Have the missing cosmic baryons been found?

about 90% of the cosmic baryons remain missing in the local universe (redshift z~0)

Here's a very comprehensive thesis (20211): Search for Missing Baryons through Scintillation.

Although the baryons approach their cosmic value at cluster scales, but there are missing mass at galactic scales.
The mass deficit is more than 99% for dwarf galaxies.
...
About 60% of baryons of our Galaxy are hidden.

From The Thermal Sunyaev Zel'dovich Effect: A Powerful Probe for Missing Baryons

About 90% of baryons in the universe have thus far escaped direct observation. This is known as the {\it missing baryon problem}.

Another claim, without support. Simply because you haven't shown this, you simply claim it.

That's baloney Tensor and if you were up to date with research at all you would know it. How many papers, articles and thesis does it take? Have you bothered to read any of them?
I am done establishing that there has been and is an issue here in trying to detect all the baryons expected in LCDM.
Current trends seem to point to a very hot plasma surround galaxies as the solution.

The problem I have with this, is that each of those papers contradict each other, as far as solutions. So, you can't use the first, the third, the fourth, the fifth, and the seventh, without showing how they don't contradict each other. I notice that you didn't refute my points from the papers, where I point out the contradictions. Does that mean you agree with those points? If not, why is there no refutations? And why didn't you use the second, the sixth, the eighth, ninth and tenth as examples? They must not support your contentions, which means they shouldn't be on your list. More papers that don't support your contentions.

Well, since you can only show that one out of five papers can fully support your claim that 90% of the baryons are missing, basing your conclusion on that one paper is a pretty tenuous conclusion.

No, I don't. Which is why I asked you. You presented them as if they are all correct. But they all can't be as they reach their conclusions using contradictory assumptions. So you need to show which papers you are using, and show how they are not contradictory, and how they support your claim. You haven't done that yet.

You complain too much and read too little. If you think there is something wrong with my selections, go find it and present it. All papers on the subject admit an issue. Some more recent papers claim to resolve the problem with very hot gas (x-ray studies of metals as tracers, without direct detection of hydrogen). There is not yet a general agreement that this is the solution but it could be.

My point is that we still have an awful lot to learn, even about our own Galaxy. Some things are very difficult to detect and it may be decades more before we actually know what is out there from direct observations rather than relying on theoretical estimates of pink unicorns.

[captain swoop]

All I have seen so far is assertions and cherry picking from any paper from the last 25 years that includes the words 'Missing Baryons'.

Thread closed.

TooMany

Consider the subject of Missing Baryons closed as far as future threads by yourself goes.

If anyone has any good reason why they think this thread should be re-opened then report this post.