Baryon acoustic oscillations acoustic peaks in cosmic microwave background anisotropies
provides evidence for cold dark matter
True
but is there any sort of prediction as to the specific properties of this dark matter?
predictions as to the mass of this dark matter, total mass, and mass of the individual particle, i.e 100 gev.
prediction as to the lifetime? do they have to continue to persist in the universe?
The total amount of dark matter is an experimentally parameter in the lambdaCDM standard model of cosmology, rather than a parameter which is predicted. The amount of DM parameter is set (in concert with the setting of several other lamdaCDM parameters) based upon observations such as CMB and BAO observations.
The observations themselves, of course, are not models and therefore do not make predictions. Only models, such as the lambdaCDM model which is used to explain CMB and BAO observations, can make predictions, and the total amount of dark matter is something that it determines based upon observations, not something that it predicts in advance. It has formulas for converting observations into a total amount of dark matter that would be consistent with those observations, but it says too little about the nature of dark matter to provide any way to independently test the accuracy of that conversion.
For example, based upon CMB and BAO observations, and upon observations of the rotational dynamics of the Milky Way, we can predict how much dark matter should pass through the Earth in any given period of time at (at least) an order of magnitude level. And, given that knowledge, we can predict how much of a signal a dark matter detector should generate for any given cross-section of interaction with ordinary matter. But, if that cross-section of interaction is zero (which would be perfectly consistent with the lambda CDM model and all other observations of dark matter phenomena), then dark matter detectors shouldn't see anything. All the lambdaCDM model assumes is that the cross-section of interaction of dark matter should be no stronger than that of neutrinos, and indeed, if dark matter exists at all, we know from direct dark matter detectors and collider experiments, that its cross-section of interaction with ordinary matter must be much smaller than a neutrino's weak force coupling.
The lambdaCDM model assumes that dark matter is at least very nearly stable, almost collisionless, lacks interactions via the strong or EM forces, and is not relativistic in velocity. The model makes no other assumptions about the properties of dark matter.
Astronomy observations have recently confirmed what the lambdaCDM model only assumes. Any dark matter candidate must have a mean lifetime for each particle, at least, on the order of the lifetime of the universe in most kind of dark matter models.
People who look at dark matter phenomena at the galaxy level distinguish between "warm dark matter" (which has a bit higher average velocity) and "cold dark matter" (which has a bit lower average velocity). Both both WDM and CDM count as cold dark matter for the purposes of definition of dark matter used in the lambdaCDM standard model of cosmology and are indistinguishable from each other for those purposes.
In most (but not all) dark matter models, there is a functional relationship between dark matter particle mass and dark matter particle average velocity. In such models, dark matter particles must be much more than 1 eV in mass, but that is pretty much the only mass constraint on dark matter and the mass constraint can be overcome, for example, in all models, such as the axion dark matter model, where the often assumed functional relationship between dark matter particle mass and dark matter particle average velocity does not hold.
could something like neutrons, clusters of neutrons like dineutrons or tetra neutrons, or even neutron stars, create these acoustic peaks, but decay? or neutrinos perhaps forming a condensate that existed in these energies and densities, but then decay shortly
No. The lamda CDM model considers baryonic matter and neutrinos separately from dark matter and they have different properties in the model. Neutrinos are "hot dark matter" which is inconsistent with observation, because it is mostly relativistic in velocity which would lead the universe to be much less clumpy than it is in reality (also we can directly measure how many neutrinos are flowing through space and the amount doesn't come close to matching the necessary quantity of DM). Baryonic matter is nearly collisionless so it doesn't behave in the manner required.
do the standard candidates cold dark matter WIMPS, Axions, sterile neutrinos all satisfy these constraints?
Yes. There are many, many dark matter candidates that can satisfy the lambda CDM requirements to produce observed CDM and BAO observations. These candidates fail for other reasons. The main reasons are:
1. Any particle that interacts via the weak force should have been detectable in direct dark matter detection experiments and colliders, but has not been detected.
2. Most cold dark matter candidates are "too cold" (i.e. have too low average velocities) to reproduce the galaxy scale structure we see in the universe. For example, dark matter that cold would produce more small satellite galaxies and would have different shaped dark matter halos than what is observed.
In the most popular dark matter models, there is a functional relationship between dark matter particle mass and average dark matter particle velocity. In those models, dark matter simulations tend to prefer a dark matter particle mass on the order of 1-10 keV.
Other general problems with dark matter particle models are the excessive of observed clusters colliding with each other at high velocities,
http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-bullet-cluster-as-support-for.html and the excess number of bulgeless disc galaxies that are observed.
But, the functional relationship does not apply in all dark matter models and another way which might possibly overcome the problems associated dark matter candidates being "too cold" is that dark matter may have a fifth force interaction with other dark matter via a massive boson with a strength roughly on the order of magnitude of the electromagnetic force (this massive force carrier boson usually in the 100s of MeV mass scale is often called a "dark photon").
is it possible that either known SM particles like neutrons, neutron stars, neutrinos, or even something like strangelets can satisfy this dark matter and create acoustic peaks in CMB, or something like quantum mechanical black holes, primordial black holes,
No. These possibilities have been basically ruled out. (There is a tiny bit of parameter space left where primordial black holes can't be completely ruled out if you view the evidence in a very generous way, but this is a very disfavored possibility given current evidence.)
or gravity in theories like MOND or Verlinde, create these oscillations?
There are modified gravity theories that can create these oscillations. MOND itself is a toy model that doesn't generalize to relativistic applications, and I don't know if the cosmological implications of its relativistic extension has been worked out in terms of CMB and BAO predictions, and Verlinde's model hasn't been operationalized at all. But, there are modified gravity theories, such as Moffat's MOG theory for which cosmological implications for CMB and BAO have been worked out that do create these oscillations.
asymptotic safety in gravity scenarios, and Verlinde and MOND, suggest there's only modification of gravity to explain galaxy rotation curves, not dark matter. there's only the SM, or some minimal extension of the SM.
Correct.
the most common objection is acoustic peaks in CMB.
This is not an accurate statement. Many modified gravity theories simply haven't been evaluated one way or the other from a cosmology and CBM perspective. I do not recall seeing a single paper out of hundreds that I have briefly looked at, that has ruled out a modified gravity theory based upon its failure to produce acoustic peaks in CMB, although I can't rule out the possibility that there are some such papers somewhere.
Usually, objections to modified gravity theories are based on Occam's Razor, on the grounds that they have internal theoretical inconsistencies, or on the grounds that they do not accurately predict dark matter phenomena other than galactic rotation curves.
For example, while MOND and its relativistic generalizations accurately describe galactic rotation curves, it requires additional dark matter or non-luminous ordinary matter of the type you discuss in your initial post, to explain phenomena at the scale of galactic clusters. But, there are other modified gravity theories that do not have this defect.
if a tetraneutron is stable, long enough during CMB oscillations, could tetraneutrons cause acoustic peaks, so that there's no reason to modify SM, then invoke Verlinde/MOND to explain galaxy rotation
No. A gravity modification that would explain galaxy rotation would also dramatically impact CMB and BAO observables. And, a tetraneutron is not a viable possible source of the observed features of CMB and BAO observables. Among other reasons, tetraneutrons aren't a viable possibility because the total baryon budget in the universe is known as there aren't enough baryons in the universe to produce the effects observed.
