A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

More Trouble For LCDM



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 6th 15, 11:28 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default More Trouble For LCDM

"The Impossibly Early Galaxy Problem"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.01377

Tension mounts, indeed!
  #2  
Old June 6th 15, 07:07 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 273
Default More Trouble For LCDM

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

"The Impossibly Early Galaxy Problem"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.01377

Tension mounts, indeed!


This indicates that galaxy formation is not completely understood. If
it were, of course, no-one would work on it.

Remember, galaxy formation is not computed/simulated from first
principles, but models and algorithms are developed in association with
observations. (This does not mean, though, that they have no predictive
power.) So, we can learn something from new observations! Great!
  #3  
Old June 10th 15, 07:22 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Richard D. Saam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 240
Default More Trouble For LCDM

On 6/6/15 1:07 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

"The Impossibly Early Galaxy Problem"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.01377

Tension mounts, indeed!


This indicates that galaxy formation is not completely understood. If
it were, of course, no-one would work on it.

Remember, galaxy formation is not computed/simulated from first
principles, but models and algorithms are developed in association with
observations. (This does not mean, though, that they have no predictive
power.) So, we can learn something from new observations! Great!

In as much as there appears to be less mass
than required by law of Mass Action for observed galactic formation,
perhaps one should look at the actual mass formation mechanism at BBN.
The Star Collaboration is finding new particle formation mechanisms
in the plasma gluon plasma.
https://www.star.bnl.gov/

Richard D Saam
  #4  
Old June 12th 15, 05:44 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Richard D. Saam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 240
Default More Trouble For LCDM

On 6/6/15 1:07 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

"The Impossibly Early Galaxy Problem"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.01377

Tension mounts, indeed!


This indicates that galaxy formation is not completely understood. If
it were, of course, no-one would work on it.

Remember, galaxy formation is not computed/simulated from first
principles, but models and algorithms are developed in association with
observations. (This does not mean, though, that they have no predictive
power.) So, we can learn something from new observations! Great!

In as much as there appears to be less mass
than required by law of Mass Action for observed galactic formation,
perhaps one should look at the actual mass formation mechanism at BBN.
The Star Collaboration is finding new particle formation mechanisms
in the plasma gluon plasma.
https://www.star.bnl.gov/

Richard D Saam
  #5  
Old June 12th 15, 05:45 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Steve Willner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,172
Default More Trouble For LCDM

In article ,
"Robert L. Oldershaw" writes:
"The Impossibly Early Galaxy Problem"
http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.01377


Key quote from the Abstract: "if halo mass to stellar mass ratios
estimated at lower-redshift continue to $z \sim 6-8$..."

A rather different interpretation of basically the same observational
data is at:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1504.00005
"An Increasing Stellar Baryon Fraction in Bright Galaxies at High
Redshift"

As the moderator wrote, galaxy formation, especially at high
redshift, is a very active topic of current research.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
  #6  
Old June 15th 15, 09:30 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default More Trouble For LCDM

On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 12:45:10 PM UTC-4, Steve Willner wrote:
In article ,
"Robert L. Oldershaw" writes:
"The Impossibly Early Galaxy Problem"
http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.01377



Very interesting reading:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7812

RLO
Fractal Cosmology
  #7  
Old July 2nd 15, 09:23 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default More Trouble For LCDM

On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 4:30:41 PM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

Some more interesting reading in the form of a new preprint on arxiv.org.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.09143

This paper (an Oxford group) analyzes the testability of the
Inflationary Scenario and concludes that "cosmic inflation is
currently difficult to falsify and thus to be construed as a
scientific theory, ...".

Since inflation offers possible explanations for several fundamental
cosmological problems, its shaky status has important consequences
for the field of cosmology.

RLO
Fractal Cosmology
  #8  
Old July 3rd 15, 07:20 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 273
Default More Trouble For LCDM

In article ,
"Robert L. Oldershaw" writes:

Some more interesting reading in the form of a new preprint on arxiv.org.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.09143

This paper (an Oxford group) analyzes the testability of the
Inflationary Scenario and concludes that "cosmic inflation is
currently difficult to falsify and thus to be construed as a
scientific theory, ...".


This is nothing new in many respects. The literature is full of such
claims.

On the other hand, I could easily cite several papers where the authors
claim that essentially all is well with inflation.

Yes, it's fair to say that there is not yet a consensus on the finer
points, but the preprint above is nothing revolutionary.

Since inflation offers possible explanations for several fundamental
cosmological problems, its shaky status has important consequences
for the field of cosmology.


Not really. The problems are there with or without inflation.

Any alternative paradigm would have to explain things such as the
isotropy problem which inflation can explain.

Inflation, of course, is not a single theory but more of a, shall I say,
paradigm. Nevertheless, it did make a robust prediction, long before
there was any hint of the observational value, and this has been
confirmed. (I'm referring to the spectral index n; the confirmed
prediction was n approximately but slightly less than 1.)

In some sense, inflation today is like the theory of evolution before
genetics. The idea was correct, but was difficult to understand in the
light of the knowledge of biology at the time.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LCDM and rotation of DM Jos Bergervoet Research 28 September 8th 14 09:12 AM
"LCDM Paradigm Is Consistent With All Observations"? - Not So! Robert L. Oldershaw Research 22 September 7th 14 12:11 PM
Boltzmann Brains and the LCDM Model Robert L. Oldershaw Research 0 August 23rd 13 07:06 PM
Major New Problem For LCDM? Robert L. Oldershaw Research 0 June 14th 10 06:11 PM
Web Trouble Starlord Amateur Astronomy 13 September 27th 03 07:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.