Thursday, May 9, 2019

Lambda CDM Still Doesn't Fit The Galaxy Scale Data

Here is yet another paper showing that it is very hard to explain galaxy level dynamics with a simple Lamda CDM model (a.k.a. the Standard Model of Cosmology).

Using large scale structure data and a halo model to constrain Generalised Dark Matter

Constraints on the properties of the cosmological dark matter have previously been obtained in a model-independent fashion using the Generalised Dark Matter (GDM) framework. Here we extend that work in several directions: We consider the inclusion of WiggleZ matter power spectrum data, and show that this improves the constraints on the two perturbative GDM parameters, c2s and c2vis, by a factor of 3, for a conservative choice of wavenumber range. A less conservative choice can yield an improvement of up to an order of magnitude compared to previous constraints. 
In order to examine the robustness of this result we develop a GDM halo model to explore how non-linear structure formation could proceed in this framework, since currently GDM has only been defined perturbatively and only linear theory has been used when generating constraints. We then examine how the halo model affects the constraints obtained from the matter power spectrum data. 
The less-conservative wavenumber range shows a significant difference between linear and non-linear modelling, with the latter favouring GDM parameters inconsistent with ΛCDM, underlining the importance of careful non-linear modelling when using this data. 
We also use this halo model to establish the robustness of previously obtained constraints, particularly those that involve weak gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave background. 
Additionally, we show how the inclusion of neutrino mass as a free parameter affects previous constraints on the GDM parameters.
Dark matter is not the only way that one can explain the cosmic background radiation signatures (which is what Lambda CDM does best). But, it is a paradigm that simply cannot be reasonably fit to very hard data from observations of galaxy dynamics. Sooner or later, the evidence is going to force the astronomy and physics community to recognize that gravity modification and not dark matter particle theories are what explains dark matter phenomena and probably also dark energy phenomena (which are described as a gravity modification, i.e. the cosmological constant, in the Lambda CDM cosmology model).

The introduction to this paper is also informative:
The ΛCDM cosmological model does a good job of reproducing the current cosmological observations. In this model, the standard model of particle physics is supplemented by a cosmological constant Λ and a dark matter particle. This dark matter particle is assumed to interact purely due to the influence of gravity and to have a negligible (initial) velocity dispersion, thus the name Cold Dark Matter (CDM). In perturbative calculations this is typically modelled as a pressure-less perfect fluid. As a result, many cosmological constraints on the dark matter density are, more correctly, constraints on the density of this pressure-less perfect fluid. More generally, CDM is evolved by solving the collision-less Boltzmann equation. This is done on large scales using cosmological perturbation theory (implemented in Boltzmann codes such as class and camb) and on smaller scales using N-body simulations and other non-linear methods.  
Since we are entering the era of so-called “precision cosmology,” in which many cosmological parameters have been measured with 1% accuracy or better, it is timely to consider whether such an idealised and simple dark matter model is sufficient when analysing the data. There are many physical dark matter models that do not yield precisely CDM, for example Warm Dark Matter (WDM) [1–3] or ultra light axions (one example of Fuzzy Dark Matter (FDM)) [4, 5]. In addition, recent work on the Effective Field Theory of Large Scale Structure (EFTofLSS) [6] shows that even an ideal CDM candidate develops a more complicated energy momentum tensor, even on linear scales, once the non-linearities that inevitably form on small scales back-react on the large scales. This causes an effective pressure and viscosity on large scales. 
From a non-cosmological perspective, despite a large number of direct and indirect detection experiments for dark matter, no convincing detections have been made, and many theoretically favoured regions of parameter space have been ruled out [7–12]. Thus, there are strong reasons to go beyond the simplest ways of modelling dark matter. 
In [13], the Generalised Dark Matter (GDM) model (first proposed in [14]) was examined in some detail, notably how it relates to particular physical models. GDM adds to the CDM energy momentum tensor a background pressure, pressure perturbation and anisotropic stress. Closure relations are then postulated to match qualitative properties of known models, like massive neutrinos, and in order to de-correlate background and perturbative properties. GDM encompasses WDM, FDM and the EFTofLSS effects as well as other physical models, so it is sufficiently versatile for examining dark matter properties in a model independent fashion. In [15], all GDM parameters were constrained using Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) data, supported by additional data on the cosmological expansion history (see section 4.3 in this paper and references therein for comparison to earlier works constraining partial or similar parameters to those we consider here, such as [16–18]). The results showed no evidence for any non-CDM properties of dark matter. This was expanded on in [19], where an improved freedom was given to one of the GDM parameters; this was used to demonstrate for the first time that there is no cosmological epoch where the data would favour a nonzero equation of state, and furthermore that there is no cosmological epoch where the data is consistent with zero dark matter density, thus showing the strength of the GDM approach to testing the CDM paradigm. An independent group subsequently [20] verified some of the results in [15], as well as using some late time matter clustering data; we will comment further on this later in the paper. Further work constraining the GDM parameters is now ongoing by other groups, see e.g. [21]. It was noted in [15] that matter power spectrum data could not only improve the constraints on the GDM parameters, but also has the potential to break a degeneracy between two of them (see section II). 
The robust use of such data requires a non-linear extension of the GDM model, which is not present in the literature. It was also noted in [15] that the inclusion of a non-linear extension to perturbation theory for ΛCDM makes a difference to the CMB lensing potential. This effect is of a similar magnitude, but opposite sign, to that of GDM with parameters saturating the constraints found in [15]. In this paper we develop a halo model for GDM which allows us first to test the robustness of the results in [15], and second to use matter power spectrum data from the WiggleZ survey [22] to improve the constraints on the GDM parameters. 
Self-interacting neutrino models also don't work:

Constraining the Self-Interacting Neutrino Interpretation of the Hubble Tension

Large, non-standard neutrino self-interactions have been shown to resolve the 4σ tension in Hubble constant measurements and a milder tension in the amplitude of matter fluctuations. 
We demonstrate that interactions of the necessary size imply the existence of a force-carrier with a large neutrino coupling (>104) and mass in the keV -- 100 MeV range. This mediator is subject to stringent cosmological and laboratory bounds, and we find that nearly all realizations of such a particle are excluded by existing data unless it carries spin 0 and couples almost exclusively to τ-flavored neutrinos. Furthermore, we find that the light neutrinos must be Majorana, and that a UV-complete model requires a non-minimal mechanism to simultaneously generate neutrino masses and appreciable self-interactions.
Comments:10 pages, 2 figures, 3 appendices
Subjects:Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO); High Energy Physics - Experiment (hep-ex); High Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph)
Report number:FERMILAB-PUB-19-175-A-T
Cite as:arXiv:1905.02727 [astro-ph.CO]
(or arXiv:1905.02727v1 [astro-ph.CO] for this version)


neo said...

to balance out this post,

Dark Matter Gets a Reprieve in New Analysis
Quanta Magazine-Apr 29, 2019
He suggested the anomaly could originate from a theoretical jumbling throng of dark matter particles in the galaxy's center. While dark matter ...

Dark matter exists: Observations disprove alternate explanations
Phys.Org-Apr 30, 2019
As fascinating as it is mysterious, dark matter is one of the greatest enigmas of astrophysics and cosmology. It is thought to account for 90 ...

these 2 news articles claim dark matter exists by disproving modified gravity

the author of paper examined 106 galaxies and found no radial acceleration relation, and only dark matter can explain it.

i wish stacy mcgaugh would comment on his blog.

andrew said...

McGaugh (and others) have commented on the paper where "the author of paper examined 106 galaxies and found no radial acceleration relation, and only dark matter can explain it." Simply put, it is garbage and refuted by many independent researchers. The Triton Station blog has a post on that paper (or at least discussion in the comments).

The Fermi and AMS data discussed in the Quanta article is also very weak because it doesn't effectively rule out alternative plausible astrophysical sources. They have made similar claims in the past that have been repeatedly discredited. Also if DM is really annihilating that strongly, then its mean lifetime is too short for it too still exist in large enough quantities now.

neo said...

certainly muddies the water.

another line of evidence for DM is gravitational lensing of galaxies, not clear to me if MOND can explain that unless black holes are the reason for that.

in the bullet cluster, there's also gravitational lensing which is inferred to be dark matter

andrew said...

Bulllet cluster is worse for DM than mod gravity. No reason why gravitational lensing of galaxies should be different in modified gravity than it is in DM.

neo said...

what I'm alluding to is weak gravitational lensing,

that there are instances of weak gravitational lensing that distort light from galaxies but no visible baryonic matter to explain it.

though i wonder if this could be black holes, the mainstream conclusion is it must be due to "dark matter" that also explains CMB and large scale structure and galaxy rotation curve, so it can't be black holes or MOND

i know that it was published primordial black holes cannot explain dark matter, i do wonder if every example of weak gravitational lensing could be explains by some sort of black holes. i have micro black holes in mind.

Ethan siegel talks about it.