Re: Reworked strong lens section

From: Megan Donahue (donahue@pa.msu.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 26 2006 - 16:56:22 PST

  • Next message: Eric Linder: "Re: Reworked strong lens section"

    These may be really stupid question(s), but I was under the impression
    that
    the frequency of lensing is higher than one would predict for LCDM +
    halos
    for any redshift, and that to get a better prediction from LCDM or any
    model requires realistic simulation of halos (which are ellipsoidal and
    filamentary and what have you). Even then, I didn't know the calculation
    predicts what we see (at least not without tuning the shapes of the
    potentials
    to get the right answer, which isn't the same thing as testing LCDM.)

    And I didn't know that had been done -- illuminate me - (forgive me,
    Joseph, I
    haven't read your 2006 paper).

    Also there are lots of cluster - lensed arcs at lower redshift in other
    samples, including wimpy samples like my snapshot survey, and they are
    wildly numerous
    in samples like Ebeling's MACS sample, so why isn't the RCS result
    of no lensing clusters with z<0.7 just a statistical anomaly?

    (again, if this is quite obvious, sorry to be so opaque.)
    - Megan

    On Jan 26, 2006, at 6:08 PM, Joseph Hennawi wrote:

    > a) There is suggestive evidence for disagreement with LCDM at high
    > redshift
    > b) It is probing the nature of dark matter which is the kind of
    > 'fundamental physics' the TAC will like



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jan 26 2006 - 16:56:52 PST