Topsquark, please let people comment before locking.Why do we assume the big bang created matter/antimatter?What if pure energy doesn't create matter/antimatter pairs, but entangled matter/matter-wave pairs?Duality is then literally two separate entities. When something becomes observed, the matter-wave becomes one with the particle it "represents".I'd say that would give a galaxy the extra mass dark matter is claiming to give. And we could say this is why matter waves have mass.I'm not sure if it means everything is twice as heavy as it should be or not.There is the other idea that the matter wave partner is not connected in any way and just gets dumped in a sea of matter waves in the quantum realm (a fog of dark matter).What if Dark Matter is the most obvious answer of all ..it's matter that's been in an unobservable black hole?I'm saying it's matter that prevents the information paradox ..or it was matter in a black hole so big it exploded (super early in time)How about it's showing us we are in a higher dimensional black hole? Might explain why cosmic voids are expanding.The universe isn't expanding, cosmic voids are. I originally thought an extra dimension would need to be involved and it turns out it does.This is saying there is some kind of link from matter to more mass Physicists Claim They've Found Even More Evidence of a New Force of Nature I think this is showing that dark matter is quantum waves Physicists Have Finally Seen Traces of a Long-Sought Particle. Here's Why That's a Big Deal. this is no reason to say that the big bang or pure energy doesn't create matter/antimatter pairs. The 2 ideas wouldn't be mutually exclusive, and if they were, you wouldn't be adding matter into the equation, you'd just be moving it.You have no reason to say it does create them. I don't understand why anyone thought this was a good idea to begin with. Why would the default of pure energy be matter pairs that destroy each other? The main idea of the beginning of my post is to claim pure energy creates observed and unobserved pairs.Logically, if your hypothesis was correct, then when we observe a particle, it would have to have twice the mass expected in order to account for tge gravity caused by dark matter. However, experimentally it doesn't have twice the mass, it has the exact mass expected. The mass can't simply disappear upon observation, or we would see a sudden drop in gravity every time we look at something.The idea is that most matter isn't observedIf the extra matter is only there until observed, that matter would have to go somewhere upon observation, which not only leads to conservation of energy issues, but also conservation of information which is even more fundamental than conservation of energy.right, cause we all know the code of unobserved waves /sarcasmblack holes are localized sources of gravity, so they can't be the source of dispersed matter. They can evaporate through Hawking radiation, but that releases detectable energy. Also, if one were to explode, there is no reason to assume that the energy and matter released would be dark. Black holes are only dark because light can't escape. They do NOT fit the description of dark matter.Remember, mathematically 25% of the universe is dispersed dark matter. If it were hidden in black holes, the universe would be a very different place. Remember that dark matter doesn't interact with EM waves.Black holes do.Physicists have already considered and ruled out that notion of black holes being dark matter.meh, you aren't thinking big enough. Dark Matter is only gravity, I'm not saying they are black holes, I'm saying they were involved with one at some point. "Black holes are only dark because light can't escape." ..a convenient excuse. Matter that we can't interact with sure sounds like matter in a different dimension, that happens to be in the same area as us. You missed the part about a higher dimensional black hole explaining cosmic void expansion ..dark energy isn't a thing. I'm in love with the idea of only areas consumed by higher dimensional black holes have spacetime.It would be interesting to find out normal black holes don't pull in Dark Matter. Like matter that's already been through the wringer doesn't have to take the ride twice.How does your hypothesis predict the Cosmic microwave Background Radiation?that's the observed half of matter being bornWhy half? It is 100% based on the actual universe model.The other half is unobservableAre you talking about dark matter?Yes, the alternative being it was all the matter and dark matter didn't manifest until black holes were involved.