A Is the CMBR interpretation for dark matter a fudge?

Click For Summary
The discussion highlights a diminishing likelihood for dark matter as recent detection experiments have failed to identify non-baryonic matter, leaving little parameter space for its existence. Alternatives proposed by researchers like J. Jalocha and F. Cooperstock suggest explanations for galaxy rotation curves without invoking dark matter. Despite these challenges, the Planck mission continues to assert a specific dark matter density based on cosmic microwave background (CMB) data, which some argue obscures significant details. The conversation also emphasizes the need for a clearer understanding of the two-point function Cl, which is crucial for interpreting CMB data and its implications for dark matter. Overall, the debate reflects ongoing questions about the validity of dark matter in light of alternative theories and observational evidence.
  • #31
EigenState137 said:
Why the belligerence towards both those who have attempted to be of assistance here and the scientific community in general?

WMAP publications

Planck publications
Apologies, if you think my response belligerent. It was not intended. I may have inadvertently stumbled on an answer to my question.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
Adrian59 said:
I would have thought it was obvious that I have studied and read some advanced cosmology from the references I have given in the thread.
Throwing references around is not the same as having reached a proper understanding of those references. So, no, it has definitely not been obvious from how you have generally expressed yourself in this thread that you have understood what you have studied and read. If you had, you would have known that the way to get the prediction for the power spectrum is essentially to consider the Fourier modes of the density perturbations and how these transfer to the surface of last scattering. You would also know that there are a large number of effects influencing the density perturbations in the early Universe and that not all of them can be easily put on a "concise form" as you seem to want.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50 and weirdoguy
  • #33
Adrian59 said:
If you can give some more mathematical pointers to the theoretical model rather than repeat the narrative, or even suggest a good reference paper, that would go some way towards settling the issue.
I can give you some references, but I won't be able to help you understand them. You can start here for an overview:
https://www.roe.ac.uk/ifa/postgrad/pedagogy/2006_tojeiro.pdf
Wayne Hu's PhD thesis goes into the gory details:
http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/Papers/thesis.pdf
Both Peeble's and Peacock's texts go over the physics, but they're extremely dense.
 
  • Like
Likes Orodruin
  • #34
Orodruin said:
Throwing references around is not the same as having reached a proper understanding of those references. So, no, it has definitely not been obvious from how you have generally expressed yourself in this thread that you have understood what you have studied and read. If you had, you would have known that the way to get the prediction for the power spectrum is essentially to consider the Fourier modes of the density perturbations and how these transfer to the surface of last scattering. You would also know that there are a large number of effects influencing the density perturbations in the early Universe and that not all of them can be easily put on a "concise form" as you seem to want.
At last I feel we are getting somewhere. Quickly dealing with your first sentence, I can reassure you that if I quote a reference it is one I have read and understood. I would like to add that until now only I have included any references. Moving to some physics, you mention density perturbations but which of these are you referring to?
However, it appears that another contributor to this thread has provided some references which I would like to check before making any further comment.
 
  • #36
Adrian59 said:
What appears obvious to you is because you have bought into this narrative
This attitude is not going to lead to a productive discussion. Thread closed.