Tangent: if press releases like this are where most popular science news descends from, I guess I see where many of the awful misconceptions about dark matter originate from. (The original sin, of course, is the treatment of dark matter and energy as settled, final features of reality. In actuality, the only thing settled about them is that they are a puzzle worth resolving!)

I hate press release science. It's one of the reasons I left research.

I believe phys.org is particularly sensationalist and untrustworthy in this regard, to the extent that I decided to stop wasting my time and avoid clicking on any phys.org link on HN. In fact, I often wonder why it wasn't banned from here.

One good feature of their articles that other such sites do not always have: you can just scroll to the bottom and click the link to the research paper.

This is a dumb question, but that breakdown of energy types we normally see is really just a recipe, right?

- 5% foamy stuff like us

- 25% something that causes lensing and galaxy rotation curves; maybe not like us

- 70% that we need twice as much energy in embiggening the universe to get the right curve

But all we really know is we see 6x as much bending as explained by the stuff like us and growth at double that total energy?

Wouldn’t a body of matter of any kind need to be considered as single object across all time of its existence and never be considered without the context of its past and all potential future states? (as time and space are relative to the observer) we really haven’t ruled out that there is some sort of temporal version of entanglement that we will run across that allows for entanglement of two objects separated entirely by time. Something like this if true, might help explain why randomness appears to be a thing.

I spent my early phd years working on the missing baryons, and it's a really interest topic. Theoretically the problem is solved, and hopefully in the next few years newer X-ray telescopes and local FRB detections will confirm the these predictions which are - the baryon's aren't missing, they are just residing at temperatures and densities which are currently hard to detect. I think the research problem should probably be termed "the unobserved baryons", since nobody believes they are missing, but unfortunately academia loves sensationalism as it leads to funding and citations.