info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
More Trouble For LCDM
78 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jun 6, 2015, 6:29:07 AM6/6/15
to
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Jun 6, 2015, 2:08:12 PM6/6/15
to
In article <mt2.0-25127...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
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!
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!
Richard D. Saam
Jun 10, 2015, 2:22:27 AM6/10/15
to
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
Richard D. Saam
Jun 12, 2015, 12:44:51 PM6/12/15
to
On 6/6/15 1:07 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
Steve Willner
Jun 12, 2015, 12:45:10 PM6/12/15
to
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 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
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 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jun 15, 2015, 4:30:41 PM6/15/15
to
On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 12:45:10 PM UTC-4, Steve Willner wrote:
> In article <mt2.0-25127...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
> In article <mt2.0-25127...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
> "Robert L. Oldershaw" <> writes:
> > "The Impossibly Early Galaxy Problem"
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.01377
>
Very interesting reading:
> > "The Impossibly Early Galaxy Problem"
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.01377
>
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7812
RLO
Fractal Cosmology
Robert L. Oldershaw
Jul 2, 2015, 4:23:40 PM7/2/15
to
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
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
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Jul 3, 2015, 2:20:41 AM7/3/15
to
In article <89d6b11f-dbe1-4e9c...@googlegroups.com>,
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.
> 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
>
> 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, ...".
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.
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.
0 new messages