|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"LCDM Paradigm Is Consistent With All Observations"? - Not So!
In article , Nicolaas Vroom
writes: The fact that 85% of all the matter in universe is Darm Matter (non-baryonic) is that a precition of the LCDM theory ? No. LCDM is not a theory in the classical sense. Dark matter is something which is observed (or, rather, not observed, but the existence of which is inferred from observations). LCDM is a theory which is based on the empirical conclusion that dark matter exists. I would assume that the LCDM predicts that spiral galaxies have a large halo with Dark Matter. The specific mathematical equations that describe this halo i.e. the Hernquist profile or the NFW profile are they also predicted by LCDM ? The NFW profile grew out of simulations within the context of LCDM, so I would say yes. LCDM, again, though, is not a theory like Newtonian mechanics; rather, there is much give and take between theory and observation. A slightly different issue is: if the coincidence argument is still valid? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrop...c_coincidences The reason why I ask this question is, because the book "Galactic Dynamics" 1994 edition in paragraph about "The cosmological constant" page 637, contains the following text: "Thus if Omega0=0.2 we have lambda = 2.5 * 10^-35 h^2 It appears that a model Universe with this value of lambda is consistent with all available observations (Peebles 1984) as well with inflation. All of the mass can be in baryons and there is no need for any exotic particles to comprise most of the mass of the Universe. True with the very inexact observations in 1984; no longer true today. However, these models are subject to the same "coincidence" objection that was made to models with Omega0 1 in $10.3.6 etc" There are people who think that this is a problem and people who think that it is not. The first issue is whether or not there is a coincidence at all. There is no consensus on this. Even if it is a coincidence, does it tell us something useful? Something deep? What about the coincidence of the apparent size of the Sun and Moon (which, because the Moon is receding from the Earth, only holds around our time)? Does it tell us something useful? Something deep? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"LCDM Paradigm Is Consistent With All Observations"? - Not So!
In article ,
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply writes: LCDM is not a theory in the classical sense. That took me aback. I think what you mean is that the exact constituents of the Universe aren't predictions of any theory. That's correct: the various densities and a few other things are free parameters. If you put specific values for these parameters into GR and known baryon physics, you can predict lots of observables. Many people use "LCDM theory" to refer to GR+baryon physics+a specific set of free parameters. That last doesn't mean specific values, only the list of parameters. The era of "precision cosmology" means that each of the parameters is now measured with multiple observations. Dark matter is something which is observed (or, rather, not observed, but the existence of which is inferred from observations). In particular, a non-zero density for non-baryonic dark matter is inconsistent with observations. One set of such observations is the CMB fluctuations. Another is the cluster velocity dispersions combined with the nucleosynthesis upper limit on baryon density. -- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"LCDM Paradigm Is Consistent With All Observations"? - Not So!
In article , Steve Willner
writes: In article , Phillip Helbig---undress to reply writes: LCDM is not a theory in the classical sense. That took me aback. I think what you mean is that the exact constituents of the Universe aren't predictions of any theory. Right. That's correct: the various densities and a few other things are free parameters. If you put specific values for these parameters into GR and known baryon physics, you can predict lots of observables. Many people use "LCDM theory" to refer to GR+baryon physics+a specific set of free parameters. That last doesn't mean specific values, only the list of parameters. The era of "precision cosmology" means that each of the parameters is now measured with multiple observations. Right. Dark matter is something which is observed (or, rather, not observed, but the existence of which is inferred from observations). In particular, a non-zero density for non-baryonic dark matter is inconsistent with observations. One set of such observations is the CMB fluctuations. Another is the cluster velocity dispersions combined with the nucleosynthesis upper limit on baryon density. Right. To be more precise, LCDM is not a theory derived from first principles like, say, Newtonian physics or GR. Rather, it is strongly motivated by what is observed, in the same way that particle physics is. That doesn't mean that it is not a theory at all; it is, and can make further predictions which don't depend on observational input and some of these have been confirmed. In particular, LCDM does not "predict non-baryonic matter" because the idea of non-baryonic matter is an observational input. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
just THREE YEARS AFTER my "CREWLESS Space Shuttle" article, theNSF """experts""" discover the idea of an unmanned Shuttle to fill the2010-2016 cargo-to-ISS (six+ years) GAP | gaetanomarano | Policy | 3 | September 15th 08 04:47 PM |
and now, Ladies and Gentlemen, the NSF "slow motion experts" have(finally) "invented" MY "Multipurpose Orbital Rescue Vehicle"... just 20 | gaetanomarano | Policy | 9 | August 30th 08 12:05 AM |
First Announcement of Opportunity (AO-1) for Observations with "Suzaku" and Publication of Test Observation Data | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | December 5th 05 04:07 PM |