3 ms·
the probabilities and number of clusters imply we'd expect a bullet cluster Not according to the references in that article, which put the probability of se
by Confusion 10y ago
the probabilities and number of clusters imply we'd expect
a bullet cluster
Not according to the references in that article, which put the probability of seeing such a cluster at 10E-4 to 10E-6. And Sabine isn't one to conveniently forget to multiply that probability with the number of clusters: that's already factored in.
- xioxox 10y agoThe Thompson et al paper linked is precisely a probability for pairs of clusters, so needs to be scaled (see comments on article). There's a nice comment in the article by Peter Erwin giving an overview of a list of recent papers: Hayashi & White 2006 -- BC is apparently consistent with LCDM. Farrar & Rosen 2007 -- BC is apparently not consistent with LCDM. Nusser 2008 -- BC possibly not consistent with LCDM. Angus & McGaugh 2008 -- BC is more consistent with MOND cosmology than LCDM. Llinares et al. 2009 -- BC is more consistent with MOND cosmology than LCDM. Lee & Komatsu 2010 -- BC is apparently not consistent with LCDM. Forero-Romano et al. 2010 -- BC is apparently consistent with LCDM. Thompson & Nagamine 2012 -- BC is apparently not consistent with LCDM. Watson et al. 2014 -- BC is apparently consistent with LCDM. Krajlic & Sarkar 2015 -- BC is apparently consistent with LCDM. Bouillot et al. 2015 -- BC is apparently consistent with LCDM. Thompson et al. 2015 -- BC is apparently consistent with LCDM. LCDM is Lambda CDM, the prevailing cosmological model. BC = Bullet Cluster. The blog post is very selective in the papers discussed.