<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Constructing Your Own Universe</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/07/21/constructing-your-own-universe/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/07/21/constructing-your-own-universe/</link>
	<description>Random samplings from a universe of ideas.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:00:03 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Warm Dark Matter? &#124; Cosmic Variance</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/07/21/constructing-your-own-universe/comment-page-1/#comment-360</link>
		<dc:creator>Warm Dark Matter? &#124; Cosmic Variance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2006 02:42:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/07/21/constructing-your-own-universe/#comment-360</guid>
		<description>[...] If true (I suspect that it is still preliminary&#8230;I don&#8217;t think there&#8217;s a paper yet), it will be very interesting to see how it fits with everything else we&#8217;ve come to expect from other studies of darm matter, including, for example, the rather intricate simulation work that various groups do (see e.g. a post I did here), including work by our very own Risa (see links to various talks here). [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] If true (I suspect that it is still preliminary&#8230;I don&#8217;t think there&#8217;s a paper yet), it will be very interesting to see how it fits with everything else we&#8217;ve come to expect from other studies of darm matter, including, for example, the rather intricate simulation work that various groups do (see e.g. a post I did here), including work by our very own Risa (see links to various talks here). [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clifford</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/07/21/constructing-your-own-universe/comment-page-1/#comment-359</link>
		<dc:creator>Clifford</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:37:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/07/21/constructing-your-own-universe/#comment-359</guid>
		<description>Hi, Arun, Levi. I don&#039;t know enough about how &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tully-Fisher_relation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Tully, Fisher, or any of their relations &lt;/a&gt; ;-) might emerge in this context, and so I hope one of my colleages might answer you. Sorry I can&#039;t help.  -cvj</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, Arun, Levi. I don&#8217;t know enough about how <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tully-Fisher_relation" rel="nofollow">Tully, Fisher, or any of their relations </a> <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' />  might emerge in this context, and so I hope one of my colleages might answer you. Sorry I can&#8217;t help.  -cvj</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Levi</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/07/21/constructing-your-own-universe/comment-page-1/#comment-358</link>
		<dc:creator>Levi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:23:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/07/21/constructing-your-own-universe/#comment-358</guid>
		<description>I 2nd Arun&#039;s question. It is my impression from bits of reading that at least some CDM simulations give the Tully-Fisher relation. Is this true? I would love to see a post or discussion about this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I 2nd Arun&#8217;s question. It is my impression from bits of reading that at least some CDM simulations give the Tully-Fisher relation. Is this true? I would love to see a post or discussion about this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arun</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/07/21/constructing-your-own-universe/comment-page-1/#comment-357</link>
		<dc:creator>Arun</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:44:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/07/21/constructing-your-own-universe/#comment-357</guid>
		<description>Does the Tully-Fisher Relation pop out of such simulations? Thanks in advance!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does the Tully-Fisher Relation pop out of such simulations? Thanks in advance!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Risa</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/07/21/constructing-your-own-universe/comment-page-1/#comment-356</link>
		<dc:creator>Risa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:20:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/07/21/constructing-your-own-universe/#comment-356</guid>
		<description>Arun, this is pretty typical.  The most massive halos in this simulation have something like a million particles, but of course the most numerous halos will have as few particles as you allow.  In a big cosmological simulation when one is looking at the statistical properties of halos, it&#039;s pretty typical to use halos with as few as 10-100 particles.  For some studies one will only be able to study the more massive, better resolved halos -- but the limit really depends on the questions one is studying.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Arun, this is pretty typical.  The most massive halos in this simulation have something like a million particles, but of course the most numerous halos will have as few particles as you allow.  In a big cosmological simulation when one is looking at the statistical properties of halos, it&#8217;s pretty typical to use halos with as few as 10-100 particles.  For some studies one will only be able to study the more massive, better resolved halos &#8212; but the limit really depends on the questions one is studying.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arun</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/07/21/constructing-your-own-universe/comment-page-1/#comment-355</link>
		<dc:creator>Arun</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:48:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/07/21/constructing-your-own-universe/#comment-355</guid>
		<description>A dark matter halo consists of 29 particles or more in this simulation?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A dark matter halo consists of 29 particles or more in this simulation?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clifford</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/07/21/constructing-your-own-universe/comment-page-1/#comment-354</link>
		<dc:creator>Clifford</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:27:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/07/21/constructing-your-own-universe/#comment-354</guid>
		<description>Thanks raj! -cvj</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks raj! -cvj</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: raj</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/07/21/constructing-your-own-universe/comment-page-1/#comment-353</link>
		<dc:creator>raj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:49:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/07/21/constructing-your-own-universe/#comment-353</guid>
		<description>Just to let you know, I came over here from Sean Carroll&#039;s blog.  I&#039;m not a big fan of group blogs, but from what I have read here this blog is fantastic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just to let you know, I came over here from Sean Carroll&#8217;s blog.  I&#8217;m not a big fan of group blogs, but from what I have read here this blog is fantastic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Risa</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/07/21/constructing-your-own-universe/comment-page-1/#comment-352</link>
		<dc:creator>Risa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2005 02:22:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/07/21/constructing-your-own-universe/#comment-352</guid>
		<description>For people who are interested, you can check out more links to &lt;a href=&quot;http://kicp.uchicago.edu/~risa/resources.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;movies&lt;/a&gt; and my &lt;a href=&quot;http://kicp.uchicago.edu/~risa/compton/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;lecture notes&lt;/a&gt; on this topic, from a series of public lectures I gave this spring at the University of Chicago.

Aaron, Sean said some of this above, but I&#039;ll put in my two cents (as someone who has worked on this topic).  There has indeed been a lot of hubbub about whether there are problems with CDM on small scales.  In my own opinion, while it&#039;s not clear that everything is peachy keen, the problems have been somewhat overstated.  As Sean mentioned, most of the issues come on small scales:  do the dark matter halos have too much density in their centers, or are they just too dense overall?  do they have too many small satellites?  And most of the initial claims of there being huge problems were based on the initial somewhat naive comparison of dark matter simulations to  i&gt;observable&lt;/i&gt; galaxies, in regions where the baryons are expected to dominate.  The satellite problem in particular, has a lot of natural solutions that do not involve new particle physics or new kinds of dark matter (the most plausible basic idea is that small galaxies that form after the universe is reionized are destroyed by ionizing photons; under reasonable assumptions, this would predict almost exactly the discrepancy that is seen between the number of small halos and small galaxies).  It is still unclear whether the central densities and concentrations of dark matter halos are in agreement with the data, but determining this requires really understanding the connection between dark matter and galaxies, which are extremely difficult to simulate from first principles.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For people who are interested, you can check out more links to <a href="http://kicp.uchicago.edu/~risa/resources.php" rel="nofollow">movies</a> and my <a href="http://kicp.uchicago.edu/~risa/compton/" rel="nofollow">lecture notes</a> on this topic, from a series of public lectures I gave this spring at the University of Chicago.</p>
<p>Aaron, Sean said some of this above, but I&#8217;ll put in my two cents (as someone who has worked on this topic).  There has indeed been a lot of hubbub about whether there are problems with CDM on small scales.  In my own opinion, while it&#8217;s not clear that everything is peachy keen, the problems have been somewhat overstated.  As Sean mentioned, most of the issues come on small scales:  do the dark matter halos have too much density in their centers, or are they just too dense overall?  do they have too many small satellites?  And most of the initial claims of there being huge problems were based on the initial somewhat naive comparison of dark matter simulations to  i&gt;observable galaxies, in regions where the baryons are expected to dominate.  The satellite problem in particular, has a lot of natural solutions that do not involve new particle physics or new kinds of dark matter (the most plausible basic idea is that small galaxies that form after the universe is reionized are destroyed by ionizing photons; under reasonable assumptions, this would predict almost exactly the discrepancy that is seen between the number of small halos and small galaxies).  It is still unclear whether the central densities and concentrations of dark matter halos are in agreement with the data, but determining this requires really understanding the connection between dark matter and galaxies, which are extremely difficult to simulate from first principles.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/07/21/constructing-your-own-universe/comment-page-1/#comment-351</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2005 01:32:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2005/07/21/constructing-your-own-universe/#comment-351</guid>
		<description>Clifford!  Slumming, are we?  Nice post.

Aaron--  Yes, there are some issues with CDM on small scales.  Dark matter seems to be less centrally concentrated in the real world, and the number of small satellite galaxies seems to be smaller, than simulations would lead you to predict.  However, these issues arise at precisely the point where neither the observations nor the theoretical predictions are very good.  At these scales, the messy baryons (with all their unfortunate dissipative tendencies) become dynamically important.  Recent work seems to be indicating that the satellite problem, at least, may simply require better observations and simulations to be explained away. (Risa may chime in here.)

People have tried to play with dark-matter properties to see if the situation might be improved.  My non-expert impression is that the models don&#039;t really seem to improve things.  Probably the whole thing will just go away, but it hasn&#039;t quite yet, so there is still some hope that what we&#039;re seeing is somehow related to new physics.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Clifford!  Slumming, are we?  Nice post.</p>
<p>Aaron&#8211;  Yes, there are some issues with CDM on small scales.  Dark matter seems to be less centrally concentrated in the real world, and the number of small satellite galaxies seems to be smaller, than simulations would lead you to predict.  However, these issues arise at precisely the point where neither the observations nor the theoretical predictions are very good.  At these scales, the messy baryons (with all their unfortunate dissipative tendencies) become dynamically important.  Recent work seems to be indicating that the satellite problem, at least, may simply require better observations and simulations to be explained away. (Risa may chime in here.)</p>
<p>People have tried to play with dark-matter properties to see if the situation might be improved.  My non-expert impression is that the models don&#8217;t really seem to improve things.  Probably the whole thing will just go away, but it hasn&#8217;t quite yet, so there is still some hope that what we&#8217;re seeing is somehow related to new physics.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
