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