Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Lambda-CDM model
View on WikipediaThis article needs additional citations for verification. (February 2024) |
| Part of a series on |
| Physical cosmology |
|---|
The Lambda-CDM, Lambda cold dark matter, or ΛCDM model is a mathematical model of the Big Bang theory with three major components:
- a cosmological constant, denoted by lambda (Λ), associated with dark energy;
- the postulated cold dark matter, denoted by CDM;
- ordinary matter.
It is the current standard model of Big Bang cosmology,[1] as it is the simplest model that provides a reasonably good account of:
- the existence and structure of the cosmic microwave background;
- the large-scale structure in the distribution of galaxies;
- the observed abundances of hydrogen (including deuterium), helium, and lithium;
- the accelerating expansion of the universe observed in the light from distant galaxies and supernovae.
The model assumes that general relativity is the correct theory of gravity on cosmological scales. It emerged in the late 1990s as a concordance cosmology, after a period when disparate observed properties of the universe appeared mutually inconsistent, and there was no consensus on the makeup of the energy density of the universe.
The ΛCDM model has been successful in modeling a broad collection of astronomical observations over decades. Remaining issues challenge the assumptions of the ΛCDM model and have led to many alternative models.[2]
Overview
[edit]The ΛCDM model is based on three postulates on the structure of spacetime:[3]: 227
- The cosmological principle, that the universe is the same everywhere and in all directions, and that it is expanding,
- A postulate by Hermann Weyl that the lines of spacetime (geodesics) intersect at only one point, where time along each line can be synchronized; the behavior resembles an expanding perfect fluid,[3]: 175
- general relativity that relates the geometry of spacetime to the distribution of matter and energy.
This combination greatly simplifies the equations of general relativity into a form called the Friedmann equations. These equations specify the evolution of the scale factor of the universe in terms of the pressure and density of a perfect fluid. The evolving density is composed of different kinds of energy and matter, each with its own role in affecting the scale factor.[4]: 7 For example, a model might include baryons, photons, neutrinos, and dark matter.[5]: 25.1.1 These component densities become parameters extracted when the model is constrained to match astrophysical observations. The model aims to describe the observable universe from approximately 0.1 s to the present.[1]: 605
The most accurate observations which are sensitive to the component densities are consequences of statistical inhomogeneity called "perturbations" in the early universe. Since the Friedmann equations assume homogeneity, additional theory must be added before comparison to experiments. Inflation is a simple model producing perturbations by postulating an extremely rapid expansion early in the universe that separates quantum fluctuations before they can equilibrate. The perturbations are characterized by additional parameters also determined by matching observations.[5]: 25.1.2
Finally, the light which will become astronomical observations must pass through the universe. The latter part of that journey will pass through ionized space, where the electrons can scatter the light, altering the anisotropies. This effect is characterized by one additional parameter.[5]: 25.1.3
The ΛCDM model includes an expansion of the spatial metric that is well documented, both as the redshift of prominent spectral absorption or emission lines in the light from distant galaxies, and as the time dilation in the light decay of supernova luminosity curves. Both effects are attributed to a Doppler shift in electromagnetic radiation as it travels across expanding space. Although this expansion increases the distance between objects that are not under shared gravitational influence, it does not increase the size of the objects (e.g. galaxies) in space. Also, since it originates from ordinary general relativity, it, like general relativity, allows for distant galaxies to recede from each other at speeds greater than the speed of light; local expansion is less than the speed of light, but expansion summed across great distances can collectively exceed the speed of light.[6]
The letter Λ (lambda) represents the cosmological constant, which is associated with a vacuum energy or dark energy in empty space that is used to explain the contemporary accelerating expansion of space against the attractive effects of gravity. A cosmological constant has negative pressure, , which contributes to the stress–energy tensor that, according to the general theory of relativity, causes accelerating expansion. The fraction of the total energy density of our (flat or almost flat) universe that is dark energy, , is estimated to be 0.669 ± 0.038 based on the 2018 Dark Energy Survey results using Type Ia supernovae[7] or 0.6847±0.0073 based on the 2018 release of Planck satellite data, or more than 68.3% (2018 estimate) of the mass–energy density of the universe.[8]
Dark matter is postulated in order to account for gravitational effects observed in very large-scale structures (the "non-keplerian" rotation curves of galaxies;[9] the gravitational lensing of light by galaxy clusters; and the enhanced clustering of galaxies) that cannot be accounted for by the quantity of observed matter.[10] The ΛCDM model proposes specifically cold dark matter, hypothesized as:
- Non-baryonic: Consists of matter other than protons and neutrons (and electrons, by convention, although electrons are not baryons)
- Cold: Its velocity is far less than the speed of light at the epoch of radiation–matter equality (thus neutrinos are excluded, being non-baryonic but not cold)
- Dissipationless: Cannot cool by radiating photons
- Collisionless: Dark matter particles interact with each other and other particles only through gravity and possibly the weak force
Dark matter constitutes about 26.5%[11] of the mass–energy density of the universe. The remaining 4.9%[11] comprises all ordinary matter observed as atoms, chemical elements, gas and plasma, the stuff of which visible planets, stars and galaxies are made. The great majority of ordinary matter in the universe is unseen, since visible stars and gas inside galaxies and clusters account for less than 10% of the ordinary matter contribution to the mass–energy density of the universe.[12]
The model includes a single originating event, the "Big Bang", which was not an explosion but the abrupt appearance of expanding spacetime containing radiation at temperatures of around 1015 K. This was immediately (within 10−29 seconds) followed by an exponential expansion of space by a scale multiplier of 1027 or more, known as cosmic inflation. The early universe remained hot (above 10,000 K) for several hundred thousand years, a state that is detectable as a residual cosmic microwave background, or CMB, a very low-energy radiation emanating from all parts of the sky. The "Big Bang" scenario, with cosmic inflation and standard particle physics, is the only cosmological model consistent with the observed continuing expansion of space, the observed distribution of lighter elements in the universe (hydrogen, helium, and lithium), and the spatial texture of minute irregularities (anisotropies) in the CMB radiation. Cosmic inflation also addresses the "horizon problem" in the CMB; indeed, it seems likely that the universe is larger than the observable particle horizon.[13]
Cosmic expansion history
[edit]The expansion of the universe is parameterized by a dimensionless scale factor (with time counted from the birth of the universe), defined relative to the present time, so ; the usual convention in cosmology is that subscript 0 denotes present-day values, so denotes the age of the universe. The scale factor is related to the observed redshift[14] of the light emitted at time by
The expansion rate is described by the time-dependent Hubble parameter, , defined as
where is the time-derivative of the scale factor. The first Friedmann equation gives the expansion rate in terms of the matter+radiation density , the curvature , and the cosmological constant ,[14]
where, as usual is the speed of light and is the gravitational constant. A critical density is the present-day density, which gives zero curvature , assuming the cosmological constant is zero, regardless of its actual value. Substituting these conditions to the Friedmann equation gives[15]
where is the reduced Hubble constant. If the cosmological constant were actually zero, the critical density would also mark the dividing line between eventual recollapse of the universe to a Big Crunch, or unlimited expansion. For the Lambda-CDM model with a positive cosmological constant (as observed), the universe is predicted to expand forever regardless of whether the total density is slightly above or below the critical density; though other outcomes are possible in extended models where the dark energy is not constant but actually time-dependent.[citation needed]
The present-day density parameter for various species is defined as the dimensionless ratio[16]: 74
where the subscript is one of for baryons, for cold dark matter, for radiation (photons plus relativistic neutrinos), and for dark energy.[citation needed]
Since the densities of various species scale as different powers of , e.g. for matter etc., the Friedmann equation can be conveniently rewritten in terms of the various density parameters as
where is the equation of state parameter of dark energy, and assuming negligible neutrino mass (significant neutrino mass requires a more complex equation). The various parameters add up to by construction. In the general case this is integrated by computer to give the expansion history and also observable distance–redshift relations for any chosen values of the cosmological parameters, which can then be compared with observations such as supernovae and baryon acoustic oscillations.[citation needed]
In the minimal 6-parameter Lambda-CDM model, it is assumed that curvature is zero and , so this simplifies to
Observations show that the radiation density is very small today, ; if this term is neglected the above has an analytic solution[17]
where
this is fairly accurate for or million years. Solving for gives the present age of the universe in terms of the other parameters.[citation needed]
It follows that the transition from decelerating to accelerating expansion (the second derivative crossing zero) occurred when
which evaluates to or for the best-fit parameters estimated from the Planck spacecraft.[citation needed]
Parameters
[edit]Multiple variants of the ΛCDM model are used with some differences in parameters.[5]: 25.1 One such set is outlined in the table below.
| Description[18] | Symbol | Value-2018[19] | |
|---|---|---|---|
Independent parameters
|
Baryon density today[a] | Ωb h2 | 0.0224±0.0001 |
| Cold dark matter density today[a] | Ωc h2 | 0.120±0.001 | |
| 100 × approximation to r∗/DA (CosmoMC) | 100 | 1.04089±0.00031 | |
| Reionization optical depth | τ | 0.054±0.007 | |
| Log power of the primordial curvature perturbations | 3.043±0.014 | ||
| Scalar spectrum power-law index | ns | 0.965±0.004 | |
Fixed parameters
|
Total matter density today (inc. massive neutrinos | Ωm h2 | 0.1428 ± 0.0011 |
| Equation of state of dark energy | w | w0 = −1 | |
| Tensor/scalar ratio | r | r0.002 < 0.06 | |
| Running of spectral index | 0 | ||
| Sum of three neutrino masses | 0.06 eV/c2 | ||
| Effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom | Neff | 2.99±0.17 | |
Calculated Values
|
Hubble constant | H0 | 67.4±0.5 km⋅s−1⋅Mpc−1 |
| Age of the universe | t0 | (13.787±0.020)×109 years[22] | |
| Dark energy density parameter[b] | ΩΛ | 0.6847±0.0073 | |
| The present root-mean-square matter fluctuation, averaged over a sphere of radius 8h−1 Mpc |
σ8 | 0.811±0.006 | |
| Redshift of reionization (with uniform prior) | zre | 7.68±0.79 |
The Planck collaboration version of the ΛCDM model is based on six parameters: baryon density parameter; dark matter density parameter; scalar spectral index; two parameters related to curvature fluctuation amplitude; and the probability that photons from the early universe will be scattered once on route (called reionization optical depth).[18] Six is the smallest number of parameters needed to give an acceptable fit to the observations; other possible parameters are fixed at "natural" values, e.g. total density parameter = 1.00, dark energy equation of state = −1.
The parameter values, and uncertainties, are estimated using computer searches to locate the region of parameter space providing an acceptable match to cosmological observations. From these six parameters, the other model values, such as the Hubble constant and the dark energy density, can be calculated.
- ^ a b The "physical baryon density parameter" Ωb h2 is the "baryon density parameter" Ωb multiplied by the square of the reduced Hubble constant h = H0 / (100 km⋅s−1⋅Mpc−1).[20][21] Likewise for the difference between "physical dark matter density parameter" and "dark matter density parameter".
- ^ Density parameters are expressed relative to a critical density ρcrit, which is the total density of matter/energy needed for the universe to be spatially flat: Ωx = ρx / ρcrit.[16]: 74
Historical development
[edit]The discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) in 1964 confirmed a key prediction of the Big Bang cosmology. From that point on, it was generally accepted that the universe started in a hot, dense state and has been expanding over time. The rate of expansion depends on the types of matter and energy present in the universe, and in particular, whether the total density is above or below the so-called critical density.[citation needed]
During the 1970s, most attention focused on pure-baryonic models, but there were serious challenges explaining the formation of galaxies, given the small anisotropies in the CMB (upper limits at that time). In the early 1980s, it was realized that this could be resolved if cold dark matter dominated over the baryons, and the theory of cosmic inflation motivated models with critical density.[citation needed]
During the 1980s, most research focused on cold dark matter with critical density in matter, around 95% CDM and 5% baryons: these showed success at forming galaxies and clusters of galaxies, but problems remained; notably, the model required a Hubble constant lower than preferred by observations, and observations around 1988–1990 showed more large-scale galaxy clustering than predicted.[citation needed]
These difficulties sharpened with the discovery of CMB anisotropy by the Cosmic Background Explorer in 1992, and several modified CDM models, including ΛCDM and mixed cold and hot dark matter, came under active consideration through the mid-1990s. The ΛCDM model then became the leading model following the observations of accelerating expansion in 1998, and was quickly supported by other observations: in 2000, the BOOMERanG microwave background experiment measured the total (matter–energy) density to be close to 100% of critical, whereas in 2001 the 2dFGRS galaxy redshift survey measured the matter density to be near 25%; the large difference between these values supports a positive Λ or dark energy. Much more precise spacecraft measurements of the microwave background from WMAP in 2003–2010 and Planck in 2013–2015 have continued to support the model and pin down the parameter values, most of which are constrained below 1 percent uncertainty.[citation needed]
Successes
[edit]Among all cosmological models, the ΛCDM model has been the most successful; it describes a wide range of astronomical observations with remarkable accuracy.[2]: 58 The notable successes include:
- Accurate modeling the high-precision CMB angular distribution measure by the Planck mission[23] and Atacama Cosmology Telescope.[24][2]
- Accurate description of the linear E-mode polarization of the CMB radiation due to fluctuations on the surface of last scattering events.[25][2]
- Prediction of the observed B-mode polarization of the CMB light due to primordial gravitational waves.[26][2]
- Observations of H2O emission spectra from a galaxy 12.8 billion light years away consistent with molecules excited by cosmic background radiation much more energetic – 16-20K – than the CMB we observe now, 3K.[27][2]
- Predictions of the primordial abundance of deuterium as a result of Big Bang nucleosynthesis.[28] The observed abundance matches the one derived from the nucleosynthesis model with the value for baryon density derived from CMB measurements.[29]: 4.1.2
In addition to explaining many pre-2000 observations, the model has made a number of successful predictions: notably the existence of the baryon acoustic oscillation feature, discovered in 2005 in the predicted location; and the statistics of weak gravitational lensing, first observed in 2000 by several teams. The polarization of the CMB, discovered in 2002 by DASI,[30] has been successfully predicted by the model: in the 2015 Planck data release,[31] there are seven observed peaks in the temperature (TT) power spectrum, six peaks in the temperature–polarization (TE) cross spectrum, and five peaks in the polarization (EE) spectrum. The six free parameters can be well constrained by the TT spectrum alone, and then the TE and EE spectra can be predicted theoretically to few-percent precision with no further adjustments allowed.[citation needed]
Challenges
[edit]Despite the widespread success of ΛCDM in matching observations of our universe, cosmologists believe that the model may be an approximation of a more fundamental model.[2][32][29]
Lack of detection
[edit]Extensive searches for dark matter particles have so far shown no well-agreed detection, while dark energy may be almost impossible to detect in a laboratory, and its value is extremely small compared to vacuum energy theoretical predictions.[citation needed]
Violations of the cosmological principle
[edit]The ΛCDM model, like all models built on the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric, assume that the universe looks the same in all directions (isotropy) and from every location (homogeneity) on a large enough scale: "the universe looks the same whoever and wherever you are."[33] This cosmological principle allows a metric, Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric, to be derived and developed into a theory to compare to experiments. Without the principle, a metric would need to be extracted from astronomical data, which may not be possible.[34]: 408 The assumptions were carried over into the ΛCDM model.[35] However, some findings suggested violations of the cosmological principle.[2][36]
Violations of isotropy
[edit]Evidence from galaxy clusters,[37][38] quasars,[39] and type Ia supernovae[40] suggest that isotropy is violated on large scales.[citation needed]
Data from the Planck Mission shows hemispheric bias in the cosmic microwave background in two respects: one with respect to average temperature (i.e. temperature fluctuations), the second with respect to larger variations in the degree of perturbations (i.e. densities). The European Space Agency (the governing body of the Planck Mission) has concluded that these anisotropies in the CMB are, in fact, statistically significant and can no longer be ignored.[41]
Already in 1967, Dennis Sciama predicted that the cosmic microwave background has a significant dipole anisotropy.[42][43] In recent years, the CMB dipole has been tested, and the results suggest our motion with respect to distant radio galaxies[44] and quasars[45] differs from our motion with respect to the cosmic microwave background. The same conclusion has been reached in recent studies of the Hubble diagram of Type Ia supernovae[46] and quasars.[47] This contradicts the cosmological principle.[citation needed]
The CMB dipole is hinted at through a number of other observations. First, even within the cosmic microwave background, there are curious directional alignments[48] and an anomalous parity asymmetry[49] that may have an origin in the CMB dipole.[50] Separately, the CMB dipole direction has emerged as a preferred direction in studies of alignments in quasar polarizations,[51] scaling relations in galaxy clusters,[52][53] strong lensing time delay,[36] Type Ia supernovae,[54] and quasars and gamma-ray bursts as standard candles.[55] The fact that all these independent observables, based on different physics, are tracking the CMB dipole direction suggests that the Universe is anisotropic in the direction of the CMB dipole.[citation needed]
Nevertheless, some authors have stated that the universe around Earth is isotropic at high significance by studies of the combined cosmic microwave background temperature and polarization maps.[56]
Violations of homogeneity
[edit]The homogeneity of the universe needed for the ΛCDM applies to very large volumes of space. N-body simulations in ΛCDM show that the spatial distribution of galaxies is statistically homogeneous if averaged over scales 260/h Mpc or more.[57] Numerous claims of large-scale structures reported to be in conflict with the predicted scale of homogeneity for ΛCDM do not withstand statistical analysis.[58][2]: 7.8
Hubble tension
[edit]Statistically significant differences remain in values of the Hubble constant derived by matching the ΛCDM model to data from the "early universe", like the cosmic background radiation, compared to values derived from stellar distance measurements, called the "late universe". While systematic error in the measurements remains a possibility, many different kinds of observations agree with one of these two values of the constant. This difference, called the Hubble tension,[59] widely acknowledged to be a major problem for the ΛCDM model.[32][60][2][29]
Dozens of proposals for modifications of ΛCDM or completely new models have been published to explain the Hubble tension. Among these models are many that modify the properties of dark energy or of dark matter over time, interactions between dark energy and dark matter, unified dark energy and matter, other forms of dark radiation like sterile neutrinos, modifications to the properties of gravity, or the modification of the effects of inflation, changes to the properties of elementary particles in the early universe, among others. None of these models can simultaneously explain the breadth of other cosmological data as well as ΛCDM.[59]
S8 tension
[edit]The " tension" is a name for another question mark for the ΛCDM model.[2] The parameter in the ΛCDM model quantifies the amplitude of matter fluctuations in the late universe and is defined as Early- (e.g. from CMB data) and late-time (e.g. measuring weak gravitational lensing) measurements facilitate increasingly precise values of . Results from initial weak lensing measurements found a lower value of , compared to the value estimated from Planck[61][62]. In recent years much larger surveys have been carried out, some of the preliminarily results also showed evidence of the same tension[63][64][65]. However, other projects found that with increasing precision there was no significant tension, finding consistency with the Planck results[66][67][68].
Axis of evil
[edit]The "axis of evil" is a purported correlation between the plane of the Solar System and aspects of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Such a correlation would give the plane of the Solar System and hence the location of Earth a greater significance than might be expected by chance, a result which has been claimed to be evidence of a departure from the Copernican principle.[69] However, a 2016 study compared isotropic and anisotropic cosmological models against WMAP and Planck data and found no evidence for anisotropy.[70]
Cosmological lithium problem
[edit]The actual observable amount of lithium in the universe is less than the calculated amount from the ΛCDM model by a factor of 3–4.[71][2]: 141 If every calculation is correct, then solutions beyond the existing ΛCDM model might be needed.[71]
Shape of the universe
[edit]The ΛCDM model assumes that the shape of the universe is of zero curvature (is flat) and has an undetermined topology. In 2019, interpretation of Planck data suggested that the curvature of the universe might be positive (often called "closed"), which would contradict the ΛCDM model.[72][2] Some authors have suggested that the Planck data detecting a positive curvature could be evidence of a local inhomogeneity in the curvature of the universe rather than the universe actually being globally a 3-manifold of positive curvature.[73][2]
Cold dark matter discrepancies
[edit]Several discrepancies between the predictions of cold dark matter in the ΛCDM model and observations of galaxies and their clustering have arisen. Some of these problems have proposed solutions, but it remains unclear whether they can be solved without abandoning the ΛCDM model.[74]
Milgrom, McGaugh, and Kroupa have criticized the dark matter portions of the theory from the perspective of galaxy formation models and supporting the alternative modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) theory, which requires a modification of the Einstein field equations and the Friedmann equations as seen in proposals such as modified gravity theory (MOG theory) or tensor–vector–scalar gravity theory (TeVeS theory).[citation needed] Other proposals by theoretical astrophysicists of cosmological alternatives to Einstein's general relativity that attempt to account for dark energy or dark matter include f(R) gravity, scalar–tensor theories such as galileon theories (see Galilean invariance), brane cosmologies, the DGP model, and massive gravity and its extensions such as bimetric gravity.[citation needed]
Cuspy halo problem
[edit]The density distributions of dark matter halos in cold dark matter simulations (at least those that do not include the impact of baryonic feedback) are much more peaked than what is observed in galaxies by investigating their rotation curves.[75]
Dwarf galaxy problem
[edit]Cold dark matter simulations predict large numbers of small dark matter halos, more numerous than the number of small dwarf galaxies that are observed around galaxies like the Milky Way.[76]
Satellite disk problem
[edit]Dwarf galaxies around the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are observed to be orbiting in thin, planar structures whereas the simulations predict that they should be distributed randomly about their parent galaxies.[77] However, latest research suggests this seemingly bizarre alignment is just a quirk which will dissolve over time.[78]
High redshift galaxies
[edit]There has been debate on whether early massive galaxies and supermassive black holes are in conflict with LCDM[79]. To make such a comparison, one must model the complex physics of galaxy formation, as well as the underlying LCDM cosmology.[80] Tests using galaxies are therefore less direct, as they require assumptions about how galaxies form.
Using some of the first data from the James Webb Space Telescope, a team of astronomers selected candidate massive galaxies in the early universe.[81] The existence of such massive galaxies in the early universe would challenge standard cosmology.[82] Follow up spectroscopy revealed that most of these objects have Active Galactic Nuclei, which boosts the galaxies brightness and caused the masses to be overestimated.[83][84] The high redshift galaxies which have been spectroscopically confirmed, such as JADES-GS-z13-0, are much less massive and are consistent with the predictions from LCDM simulations run before JWST[85]. As a population, the confirmed high redshift galaxies are brighter than expected from simulations, but not to the extent that they violate cosmological limits.[86][87] Theorists are studying many possible explanations, including modifying cosmology, more efficient star formation and different stellar populations.[88][89]
Missing baryon problem
[edit]Massimo Persic and Paolo Salucci[90] first estimated the baryonic density today present in ellipticals, spirals, groups and clusters of galaxies. They performed an integration of the baryonic mass-to-light ratio over luminosity (in the following ), weighted with the luminosity function over the previously mentioned classes of astrophysical objects:
The result was:
where .
Note that this value is much lower than the prediction of standard cosmic nucleosynthesis , so that stars and gas in galaxies and in galaxy groups and clusters account for less than 10% of the primordially synthesized baryons. This issue is known as the problem of the "missing baryons".
The missing baryon problem is claimed to be resolved. Using observations of the kinematic Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect spanning more than 90% of the lifetime of the Universe, in 2021 astrophysicists found that approximately 50% of all baryonic matter is outside dark matter haloes, filling the space between galaxies.[91] Together with the amount of baryons inside galaxies and surrounding them, the total amount of baryons in the late time Universe is compatible with early Universe measurements.
Conventionalism
[edit]It has been argued that the ΛCDM model has adopted conventionalist stratagems, rendering it unfalsifiable in the sense defined by Karl Popper. When faced with new data not in accord with a prevailing model, the conventionalist will find ways to adapt the theory rather than declare it false. Thus dark matter was added after the observations of anomalous galaxy rotation rates. Thomas Kuhn viewed the process differently, as "problem solving" within the existing paradigm.[92]
Extended models
[edit]| Description | Symbol | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Total density parameter | 0.9993±0.0019[94] | |
| Equation of state of dark energy | −0.980±0.053 | |
| Tensor-to-scalar ratio | < 0.11, k0 = 0.002 Mpc−1 () | |
| Running of the spectral index | −0.022±0.020, k0 = 0.002 Mpc−1 | |
| Sum of three neutrino masses | < 0.58 eV/c2 () | |
| Physical neutrino density parameter | < 0.0062 |
Extended models allow one or more of the "fixed" parameters above to vary, in addition to the basic six; so these models join smoothly to the basic six-parameter model in the limit that the additional parameter(s) approach the default values. For example, possible extensions of the simplest ΛCDM model allow for spatial curvature ( may be different from 1); or quintessence rather than a cosmological constant where the equation of state of dark energy is allowed to differ from −1. Cosmic inflation predicts tensor fluctuations (gravitational waves). Their amplitude is parameterized by the tensor-to-scalar ratio (denoted ), which is determined by the unknown energy scale of inflation. Other modifications allow hot dark matter in the form of neutrinos more massive than the minimal value, or a running spectral index; the latter is generally not favoured by simple cosmic inflation models.
Allowing additional variable parameter(s) will generally increase the uncertainties in the standard six parameters quoted above, and may also shift the central values slightly. The table above shows results for each of the possible "6+1" scenarios with one additional variable parameter; this indicates that, as of 2015, there is no convincing evidence that any additional parameter is different from its default value.
Some researchers have suggested that there is a running spectral index, but no statistically significant study has revealed one. Theoretical expectations suggest that the tensor-to-scalar ratio should be between 0 and 0.3, and the latest results are within those limits.
See also
[edit]- Bolshoi cosmological simulation
- Galaxy formation and evolution
- Illustris project
- List of cosmological computation software
- Millennium Run
- Weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs)
- The ΛCDM model is also known as the standard model of cosmology, but is not related to the Standard Model of particle physics.
- Inhomogeneous cosmology
References
[edit]- ^ a b Deruelle, Nathalie; Uzan, Jean-Philippe (2018-08-30). de Forcrand-Millard, Patricia (ed.). Relativity in Modern Physics (1 ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198786399.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-878639-9.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Elcio Abdalla; Guillermo Franco Abellán; et al. (11 Mar 2022). "Cosmology Intertwined: A Review of the Particle Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology Associated with the Cosmological Tensions and Anomalies". Journal of High Energy Astrophysics. 34: 49. arXiv:2203.06142v1. Bibcode:2022JHEAp..34...49A. doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002. S2CID 247411131.
- ^ a b Malcolm S. Longair (2008). Galaxy Formation. Astronomy and Astrophysics Library. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73478-9. ISBN 978-3-540-73477-2.
- ^ White, Simon (1990). "Physical Cosmology". Physics of the Early Universe: Proceedings of the Thirty Sixth Scottish Universities Summer School in Physics, Edinburgh, July 24 - August 11 1989. Scottish Graduate Series (1 ed.). Milton: Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 978-1-040-29413-0.
- ^ a b c d Navas, S.; Amsler, C.; Gutsche, T.; Hanhart, C.; Hernández-Rey, J. J.; Lourenço, C.; Masoni, A.; Mikhasenko, M.; Mitchell, R. E.; Patrignani, C.; Schwanda, C.; Spanier, S.; Venanzoni, G.; Yuan, C. Z.; Agashe, K. (2024-08-01). "Review of Particle Physics". Physical Review D. 110 (3) 030001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001. hdl:11384/149923. ISSN 2470-0010.
- ^ Davis, Tamara M.; Lineweaver, Charles H. (2004). "Expanding Confusion: Common Misconceptions of Cosmological Horizons and the Superluminal Expansion of the Universe". Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia. 21 (1): 97–109. arXiv:astro-ph/0310808. Bibcode:2004PASA...21...97D. doi:10.1071/AS03040. ISSN 1323-3580.
- ^ DES Collaboration (2018). "First Cosmology Results using Type Ia Supernovae from the Dark Energy Survey: Constraints on Cosmological Parameters". The Astrophysical Journal. 872 (2): L30. arXiv:1811.02374. Bibcode:2019ApJ...872L..30A. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab04fa. S2CID 84833144.
- ^ Planck Collaboration (2020). "Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 641: A6. arXiv:1807.06209. Bibcode:2020A&A...641A...6P. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910. S2CID 119335614.
- ^ Persic, M.; et al. (1996). "The universal rotation curve of spiral galaxies — I. The dark matter connection". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 281 (1): 27–47. arXiv:astro-ph/9506004. Bibcode:1996MNRAS.281...27P. doi:10.1093/mnras/278.1.27.
- ^ Bertone, Gianfranco; Hooper, Dan (2018-10-15). "History of dark matter". Reviews of Modern Physics. 90 (4) 045002. arXiv:1605.04909. Bibcode:2018RvMP...90d5002B. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.90.045002. ISSN 0034-6861.
- ^ a b Tanabashi, M.; et al. (Particle Data Group) (2019). "Astrophysical Constants and Parameters" (PDF). Physical Review D. 98 (3) 030001. Particle Data Group. Bibcode:2018PhRvD..98c0001T. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001. hdl:11384/78286. Retrieved 2020-03-08.
- ^ Persic, Massimo; Salucci, Paolo (1992-09-01). "The baryon content of the Universe". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 258 (1): 14P – 18P. arXiv:astro-ph/0502178. Bibcode:1992MNRAS.258P..14P. doi:10.1093/mnras/258.1.14P. ISSN 0035-8711. S2CID 17945298.
- ^ Davis, Tamara M.; Lineweaver, Charles H. (January 2004). "Expanding Confusion: Common Misconceptions of Cosmological Horizons and the Superluminal Expansion of the Universe". Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia. 21 (1): 97–109. arXiv:astro-ph/0310808. Bibcode:2004PASA...21...97D. doi:10.1071/AS03040. ISSN 1323-3580.
- ^ a b Dodelson, Scott (2008). Modern cosmology (4 ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-219141-1.
- ^ K.A. Olive; et al. (Particle Data Group) (2015). "The Review of Particle Physics. 2. Astrophysical constants and parameters" (PDF). Particle Data Group: Berkeley Lab. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 December 2015. Retrieved 10 January 2016.
- ^ a b Peacock, J. A. (1998-12-28). Cosmological Physics (1 ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511804533. ISBN 978-0-521-41072-4.
- ^ Frieman, Joshua A.; Turner, Michael S.; Huterer, Dragan (2008). "Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe". Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics. 46 (1): 385–432. arXiv:0803.0982. Bibcode:2008ARA&A..46..385F. doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145243. S2CID 15117520.
- ^ a b The parameters used in the Planck series of papers are described in Table 1 of Ade, P. a. R.; Aghanim, N.; Armitage-Caplan, C.; Arnaud, M.; Ashdown, M.; Atrio-Barandela, F.; Aumont, J.; Baccigalupi, C.; Banday, A. J.; Barreiro, R. B.; Bartlett, J. G.; Battaner, E.; Benabed, K.; Benoît, A.; Benoit-Lévy, A. (2014-11-01). "Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 571: A16. arXiv:1303.5076. Bibcode:2014A&A...571A..16P. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321591. ISSN 0004-6361.
- ^ Planck Collaboration (2020). "Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 641. page A6 (see PDF page 15, Table 2: "Age/Gyr", last column). arXiv:1807.06209. Bibcode:2020A&A...641A...6P. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910. S2CID 119335614.
- ^ Appendix A of the LSST Science Book Version 2.0 Archived 2013-02-26 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ p. 7 of Findings of the Joint Dark Energy Mission Figure of Merit Science Working Group
- ^ Planck Collaboration (2020). "Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 641. page A6 (see PDF page 15, Table 2: "Age/Gyr", last column). arXiv:1807.06209. Bibcode:2020A&A...641A...6P. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910. S2CID 119335614.
- ^ Aghanim, N.; Akrami, Y.; Arroja, F.; Ashdown, M.; Aumont, J.; Baccigalupi, C.; Ballardini, M.; Banday, A. J.; Barreiro, R. B.; Bartolo, N.; Basak, S.; Battye, R.; Benabed, K.; Bernard, J.-P.; Bersanelli, M. (2020-09-01). "Planck 2018 results - I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 641: A1. arXiv:1807.06205. Bibcode:2020A&A...641A...1P. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833880. hdl:11392/2425138. ISSN 0004-6361.
- ^ Aiola, Simone; Calabrese, Erminia; Maurin, Loïc; Naess, Sigurd; Schmitt, Benjamin L.; Abitbol, Maximilian H.; Addison, Graeme E.; Ade, Peter A. R.; Alonso, David; Amiri, Mandana; Amodeo, Stefania; Angile, Elio; Austermann, Jason E.; Baildon, Taylor; Battaglia, Nick (2020-12-01). "The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR4 maps and cosmological parameters". Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics. 2020 (12): 047. arXiv:2007.07288. Bibcode:2020JCAP...12..047A. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/12/047. ISSN 1475-7516.
- ^ Dutcher, D.; Balkenhol, L.; Ade, P. A. R.; Ahmed, Z.; Anderes, E.; Anderson, A. J.; Archipley, M.; Avva, J. S.; Aylor, K.; Barry, P. S.; Basu Thakur, R.; Benabed, K.; Bender, A. N.; Benson, B. A.; Bianchini, F. (2021-07-13). "Measurements of the E -mode polarization and temperature- E -mode correlation of the CMB from SPT-3G 2018 data". Physical Review D. 104 (2) 022003. arXiv:2101.01684. Bibcode:2021PhRvD.104b2003D. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.022003. ISSN 2470-0010.
- ^ Ade, P. A. R.; Ahmed, Z.; Amiri, M.; Barkats, D.; Thakur, R. Basu; Bischoff, C. A.; Beck, D.; Bock, J. J.; Boenish, H.; Bullock, E.; Buza, V.; Cheshire, J. R.; Connors, J.; Cornelison, J.; Crumrine, M. (2021-10-04). "Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck , WMAP, and BICEP/ Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season". Physical Review Letters. 127 (15) 151301. arXiv:2110.00483. Bibcode:2021PhRvL.127o1301A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.151301. ISSN 0031-9007. PMID 34678017.
- ^ Riechers, Dominik A.; Weiss, Axel; Walter, Fabian; Carilli, Christopher L.; Cox, Pierre; Decarli, Roberto; Neri, Roberto (February 2022). "Microwave background temperature at a redshift of 6.34 from H2O absorption". Nature. 602 (7895): 58–62. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04294-5. ISSN 1476-4687. PMC 8810383. PMID 35110755.
- ^ Cooke, Ryan J.; Pettini, Max; Jorgenson, Regina A.; Murphy, Michael T.; Steidel, Charles C. (2014-01-03). "Precision Measures of the Primordial Abundance of Deuterium". The Astrophysical Journal. 781 (1): 31. arXiv:1308.3240. Bibcode:2014ApJ...781...31C. doi:10.1088/0004-637x/781/1/31. ISSN 0004-637X.
- ^ a b c Michael Turner (12 Jan 2022). "The Road to Precision Cosmology". Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science. 32: 1–35. arXiv:2201.04741. Bibcode:2022ARNPS..72....1T. doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-111119-041046. S2CID 245906450.
- ^ Kovac, J. M.; Leitch, E. M.; Pryke, C.; Carlstrom, J. E.; Halverson, N. W.; Holzapfel, W. L. (2002). "Detection of polarization in the cosmic microwave background using DASI". Nature. 420 (6917): 772–787. arXiv:astro-ph/0209478. Bibcode:2002Natur.420..772K. doi:10.1038/nature01269. PMID 12490941. S2CID 4359884.
- ^ Planck Collaboration (2016). "Planck 2015 Results. XIII. Cosmological Parameters". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 594 (13): A13. arXiv:1502.01589. Bibcode:2016A&A...594A..13P. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830. S2CID 119262962.
- ^ a b Matthew Chalmers (2 July 2021). "Exploring the Hubble tension". CERN Courier. Retrieved 25 March 2022.
- ^ Andrew Liddle. An Introduction to Modern Cosmology (2nd ed.). London: Wiley, 2003.
- ^ Steven Weinberg (1972). Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-0-471-92567-5.
- ^ Jacques Colin; Roya Mohayaee; Mohamed Rameez; Subir Sarkar (20 November 2019). "Evidence for anisotropy of cosmic acceleration". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 631: L13. arXiv:1808.04597. Bibcode:2019A&A...631L..13C. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936373. S2CID 208175643. Retrieved 25 March 2022.
- ^ a b Krishnan, Chethan; Mohayaee, Roya; Colgáin, Eoin Ó; Sheikh-Jabbari, M. M.; Yin, Lu (16 September 2021). "Does Hubble Tension Signal a Breakdown in FLRW Cosmology?". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 38 (18): 184001. arXiv:2105.09790. Bibcode:2021CQGra..38r4001K. doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac1a81. ISSN 0264-9381. S2CID 234790314.
- ^ Lee Billings (April 15, 2020). "Do We Live in a Lopsided Universe?". Scientific American. Retrieved March 24, 2022.
- ^ Migkas, K.; Schellenberger, G.; Reiprich, T. H.; Pacaud, F.; Ramos-Ceja, M. E.; Lovisari, L. (8 April 2020). "Probing cosmic isotropy with a new X-ray galaxy cluster sample through the LX-T scaling relation". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 636 (April 2020): 42. arXiv:2004.03305. Bibcode:2020A&A...636A..15M. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936602. S2CID 215238834. Retrieved 24 March 2022.
- ^ Nathan J. Secrest; Sebastian von Hausegger; Mohamed Rameez; Roya Mohayaee; Subir Sarkar; Jacques Colin (February 25, 2021). "A Test of the Cosmological Principle with Quasars". The Astrophysical Journal Letters. 908 (2): L51. arXiv:2009.14826. Bibcode:2021ApJ...908L..51S. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abdd40. S2CID 222066749.
- ^ B. Javanmardi; C. Porciani; P. Kroupa; J. Pflamm-Altenburg (August 27, 2015). "Probing the Isotropy of Cosmic Acceleration Traced By Type Ia Supernovae". The Astrophysical Journal Letters. 810 (1): 47. arXiv:1507.07560. Bibcode:2015ApJ...810...47J. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/47. S2CID 54958680. Retrieved March 24, 2022.
- ^ "Simple but challenging: the Universe according to Planck". ESA Science & Technology. October 5, 2016 [March 21, 2013]. Retrieved October 29, 2016.
- ^ Dennis Sciama (12 June 1967). "Peculiar Velocity of the Sun and the Cosmic Microwave Background". Physical Review Letters. 18 (24): 1065–1067. Bibcode:1967PhRvL..18.1065S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.18.1065. Retrieved 25 March 2022.
- ^ G. F. R. Ellis; J. E. Baldwin (1 January 1984). "On the expected anisotropy of radio source counts". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 206 (2): 377–381. doi:10.1093/mnras/206.2.377. Retrieved 25 March 2022.
- ^ Siewert, Thilo M.; Schmidt-Rubart, Matthias; Schwarz, Dominik J. (2021). "Cosmic radio dipole: Estimators and frequency dependence". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 653: A9. arXiv:2010.08366. Bibcode:2021A&A...653A...9S. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039840. S2CID 223953708.
- ^ Secrest, Nathan; von Hausegger, Sebastian; Rameez, Mohamed; Mohayaee, Roya; Sarkar, Subir; Colin, Jacques (25 February 2021). "A Test of the Cosmological Principle with Quasars". The Astrophysical Journal. 908 (2): L51. arXiv:2009.14826. Bibcode:2021ApJ...908L..51S. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abdd40. ISSN 2041-8213. S2CID 222066749.
- ^ Singal, Ashok K. (2022). "Peculiar motion of Solar system from the Hubble diagram of supernovae Ia and its implications for cosmology". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 515 (4): 5969–5980. arXiv:2106.11968. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1986.
- ^ Singal, Ashok K. (2022). "Solar system peculiar motion from the Hubble diagram of quasars and testing the cosmological principle". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 511 (2): 1819–1829. arXiv:2107.09390. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac144.
- ^ de Oliveira-Costa, Angelica; Tegmark, Max; Zaldarriaga, Matias; Hamilton, Andrew (25 March 2004). "The significance of the largest scale CMB fluctuations in WMAP". Physical Review D. 69 (6) 063516. arXiv:astro-ph/0307282. Bibcode:2004PhRvD..69f3516D. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.063516. ISSN 1550-7998. S2CID 119463060.
- ^ Land, Kate; Magueijo, Joao (28 November 2005). "Is the Universe odd?". Physical Review D. 72 (10) 101302. arXiv:astro-ph/0507289. Bibcode:2005PhRvD..72j1302L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.101302. ISSN 1550-7998. S2CID 119333704.
- ^ Kim, Jaiseung; Naselsky, Pavel (10 May 2010). "Anomalous parity asymmetry of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe power spectrum data at low multipoles". The Astrophysical Journal. 714 (2): L265 – L267. arXiv:1001.4613. Bibcode:2010ApJ...714L.265K. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/714/2/L265. ISSN 2041-8205. S2CID 24389919.
- ^ Hutsemekers, D.; Cabanac, R.; Lamy, H.; Sluse, D. (October 2005). "Mapping extreme-scale alignments of quasar polarization vectors". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 441 (3): 915–930. arXiv:astro-ph/0507274. Bibcode:2005A&A...441..915H. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053337. ISSN 0004-6361. S2CID 14626666.
- ^ Migkas, K.; Schellenberger, G.; Reiprich, T. H.; Pacaud, F.; Ramos-Ceja, M. E.; Lovisari, L. (April 2020). "Probing cosmic isotropy with a new X-ray galaxy cluster sample through the scaling relation". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 636: A15. arXiv:2004.03305. Bibcode:2020A&A...636A..15M. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936602. ISSN 0004-6361. S2CID 215238834.
- ^ Migkas, K.; Pacaud, F.; Schellenberger, G.; Erler, J.; Nguyen-Dang, N. T.; Reiprich, T. H.; Ramos-Ceja, M. E.; Lovisari, L. (May 2021). "Cosmological implications of the anisotropy of ten galaxy cluster scaling relations". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 649: A151. arXiv:2103.13904. Bibcode:2021A&A...649A.151M. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140296. ISSN 0004-6361. S2CID 232352604.
- ^ Krishnan, Chethan; Mohayaee, Roya; Colgáin, Eoin Ó; Sheikh-Jabbari, M. M.; Yin, Lu (2022). "Hints of FLRW breakdown from supernovae". Physical Review D. 105 (6) 063514. arXiv:2106.02532. Bibcode:2022PhRvD.105f3514K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.063514. S2CID 235352881.
- ^ Luongo, Orlando; Muccino, Marco; Colgáin, Eoin Ó; Sheikh-Jabbari, M. M.; Yin, Lu (2022). "Larger H0 values in the CMB dipole direction". Physical Review D. 105 (10) 103510. arXiv:2108.13228. Bibcode:2022PhRvD.105j3510L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.103510. S2CID 248713777.
- ^ Saadeh D, Feeney SM, Pontzen A, Peiris HV, McEwen, JD (2016). "How Isotropic is the Universe?". Physical Review Letters. 117 (13) 131302. arXiv:1605.07178. Bibcode:2016PhRvL.117m1302S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.131302. PMID 27715088. S2CID 453412.
- ^ Yadav, Jaswant; J. S. Bagla; Nishikanta Khandai (25 February 2010). "Fractal dimension as a measure of the scale of homogeneity". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 405 (3): 2009–2015. arXiv:1001.0617. Bibcode:2010MNRAS.405.2009Y. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16612.x. S2CID 118603499.
- ^ Nadathur, Seshadri (2013). "Seeing patterns in noise: gigaparsec-scale 'structures' that do not violate homogeneity". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 434 (1): 398–406. arXiv:1306.1700. Bibcode:2013MNRAS.434..398N. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1028. S2CID 119220579.
- ^ a b di Valentino, Eleonora; Mena, Olga; Pan, Supriya; et al. (2021). "In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 38 (15): 153001. arXiv:2103.01183. Bibcode:2021CQGra..38o3001D. doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d. S2CID 232092525.
- ^ Mann, Adam (26 August 2019). "One Number Shows Something Is Fundamentally Wrong with Our Conception of the Universe – This fight has universal implications". Live Science. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
- ^ Fu, L.; Kilbinger, M.; Erben, T.; Heymans, C.; Hildebrandt, H.; Hoekstra, H.; Kitching, T. D.; Mellier, Y.; Miller, L.; Semboloni, E.; Simon, P.; Van Waerbeke, L.; Coupon, J.; Harnois-Deraps, J.; Hudson, M. J. (2014-05-26). "CFHTLenS: cosmological constraints from a combination of cosmic shear two-point and three-point correlations". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 441 (3): 2725–2743. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu754. ISSN 0035-8711.
- ^ Abdalla, Elcio; Abellán, Guillermo Franco; Aboubrahim, Amin; Agnello, Adriano; Akarsu, Özgür; Akrami, Yashar; Alestas, George; Aloni, Daniel; Amendola, Luca; Anchordoqui, Luis A.; Anderson, Richard I.; Arendse, Nikki; Asgari, Marika; Ballardini, Mario; Barger, Vernon (June 2022). "Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies". Journal of High Energy Astrophysics. 34: 49–211. arXiv:2203.06142. Bibcode:2022JHEAp..34...49A. doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002.
- ^ Heymans, Catherine; Tröster, Tilman; Asgari, Marika; Blake, Chris; Hildebrandt, Hendrik; Joachimi, Benjamin; Kuijken, Konrad; Lin, Chieh-An; Sánchez, Ariel G.; van den Busch, Jan Luca; Wright, Angus H.; Amon, Alexandra; Bilicki, Maciej; de Jong, Jelte; Crocce, Martin (February 2021). "KiDS-1000 Cosmology: Multi-probe weak gravitational lensing and spectroscopic galaxy clustering constraints". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 646: A140. arXiv:2007.15632. Bibcode:2021A&A...646A.140H. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039063. ISSN 0004-6361.
- ^ Abbott, T. M. C.; Aguena, M.; Alarcon, A.; Allam, S.; Alves, O.; Amon, A.; Andrade-Oliveira, F.; Annis, J.; Avila, S.; Bacon, D.; Baxter, E.; Bechtol, K.; Becker, M. R.; Bernstein, G. M.; Bhargava, S. (2022-01-13). "Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing". Physical Review D. 105 (2) 023520. arXiv:2105.13549. Bibcode:2022PhRvD.105b3520A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023520. hdl:11368/3013060. ISSN 2470-0010.
- ^ Li, Xiangchong; Zhang, Tianqing; Sugiyama, Sunao; Dalal, Roohi; Terasawa, Ryo; Rau, Markus M.; Mandelbaum, Rachel; Takada, Masahiro; More, Surhud; Strauss, Michael A.; Miyatake, Hironao; Shirasaki, Masato; Hamana, Takashi; Oguri, Masamune; Luo, Wentao (2023-12-11). "Hyper Suprime-Cam Year 3 results: Cosmology from cosmic shear two-point correlation functions". Physical Review D. 108 (12) 123518. arXiv:2304.00702. Bibcode:2023PhRvD.108l3518L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123518. ISSN 2470-0010.
- ^ Wright, Angus H.; Stölzner, Benjamin; Asgari, Marika; Bilicki, Maciej; Giblin, Benjamin; Heymans, Catherine; Hildebrandt, Hendrik; Hoekstra, Henk; Joachimi, Benjamin (2025), KiDS-Legacy: Cosmological constraints from cosmic shear with the complete Kilo-Degree Survey, arXiv:2503.19441
- ^ Kruesi, Liz (4 March 2024). "Fresh X-Rays Reveal a Universe as Clumpy as Cosmology Predicts". Quanta Magazine.
- ^ "eROSITA relaxes cosmological tension". www.mpg.de. Retrieved 2025-07-24.
- ^ Land, Kate; João Magueijo, João (2005). "Examination of Evidence for a Preferred Axis in the Cosmic Radiation Anisotropy". Physical Review Letters. 95 (7) 071301. arXiv:astro-ph/0502237. Bibcode:2005PhRvL..95g1301L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.071301. PMID 16196772. S2CID 119473590.
- ^ Saadeh, Daniela; Feeney, Stephen M.; Pontzen, Andrew; Peiris, Hiranya V.; McEwen, Jason D. (2016-09-21). "How isotropic is the Universe?". Physical Review Letters. 117 (13) 131302. arXiv:1605.07178. Bibcode:2016PhRvL.117m1302S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.131302. ISSN 0031-9007. PMID 27715088. S2CID 453412.
- ^ a b Fields, B. D. (2011). "The primordial lithium problem". Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science. 61 (1): 47–68. arXiv:1203.3551. Bibcode:2011ARNPS..61...47F. doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102010-130445.
- ^ Eleonora Di Valentino; Alessandro Melchiorri; Joseph Silk (4 November 2019). "Planck evidence for a closed Universe and a possible crisis for cosmology". Nature Astronomy. 4 (2): 196–203. arXiv:1911.02087. doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0906-9. S2CID 207880880. Retrieved 24 March 2022.
- ^ Philip Bull; Marc Kamionkowski (15 April 2013). "What if Planck's Universe isn't flat?". Physical Review D. 87 (3) 081301. arXiv:1302.1617. Bibcode:2013PhRvD..87h1301B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.081301. S2CID 118437535. Retrieved 24 March 2022.
- ^ Kroupa, P.; Famaey, B.; de Boer, Klaas S.; Dabringhausen, Joerg; Pawlowski, Marcel; Boily, Christian; Jerjen, Helmut; Forbes, Duncan; Hensler, Gerhard (2010). "Local-Group tests of dark-matter Concordance Cosmology: Towards a new paradigm for structure formation". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 523: 32–54. arXiv:1006.1647. Bibcode:2010A&A...523A..32K. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014892. S2CID 11711780.
- ^ Gentile, G.; Salucci, P. (2004). "The cored distribution of dark matter in spiral galaxies". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 351 (3): 903–922. arXiv:astro-ph/0403154. Bibcode:2004MNRAS.351..903G. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07836.x. S2CID 14308775.
- ^ Klypin, Anatoly; Kravtsov, Andrey V.; Valenzuela, Octavio; Prada, Francisco (1999). "Where are the missing galactic satellites?". Astrophysical Journal. 522 (1): 82–92. arXiv:astro-ph/9901240. Bibcode:1999ApJ...522...82K. doi:10.1086/307643. S2CID 12983798.
- ^ Pawlowski, Marcel; et al. (2014). "Co-orbiting satellite galaxy structures are still in conflict with the distribution of primordial dwarf galaxies". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 442 (3): 2362–2380. arXiv:1406.1799. Bibcode:2014MNRAS.442.2362P. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1005.
- ^ Sawala, Till; Cautun, Marius; Frenk, Carlos; et al. (2022). "The Milky Way's plane of satellites: consistent with ΛCDM". Nature Astronomy. 7 (4): 481–491. arXiv:2205.02860. Bibcode:2023NatAs...7..481S. doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01856-z. S2CID 254920916.
- ^ Steinhardt, Charles. L.; Capak, Peter; Masters, Dan; Speagle, Josh S. (2016-06-10). "The Impossibly Early Galaxy Problem". The Astrophysical Journal. 824 (1): 21. arXiv:1506.01377. Bibcode:2016ApJ...824...21S. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/21. ISSN 0004-637X.
- ^ Behroozi, Peter; Silk, Joseph (2018-07-11). "The most massive galaxies and black holes allowed by ΛCDM". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 477 (4): 5382–5387. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty945. ISSN 0035-8711.
- ^ Labbé, Ivo; van Dokkum, Pieter; Nelson, Erica; Bezanson, Rachel; Suess, Katherine A.; Leja, Joel; Brammer, Gabriel; Whitaker, Katherine; Mathews, Elijah; Stefanon, Mauro; Wang, Bingjie (April 2023). "A population of red candidate massive galaxies ~600 Myr after the Big Bang". Nature. 616 (7956): 266–269. arXiv:2207.12446. Bibcode:2023Natur.616..266L. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 36812940.
- ^ Boylan-Kolchin, Michael (2023). "Stress testing ΛCDM with high-redshift galaxy candidates". Nature Astronomy. 7 (6): 731–735. arXiv:2208.01611. Bibcode:2023NatAs...7..731B. doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01937-7. PMC 10281863. PMID 37351007. S2CID 251252960.
- ^ "JWST's early galaxies didn't break the Universe. They revealed it". Big Think. 2025-07-01. Retrieved 2025-07-24.
- ^ Kocevski, Dale D.; Finkelstein, Steven L.; Barro, Guillermo; Taylor, Anthony J.; Calabrò, Antonello; Laloux, Brivael; Buchner, Johannes; Trump, Jonathan R.; Leung, Gene C. K.; Yang, Guang; Dickinson, Mark; Pérez-González, Pablo G.; Pacucci, Fabio; Inayoshi, Kohei; Somerville, Rachel S. (June 2025). "The Rise of Faint, Red Active Galactic Nuclei at z > 4: A Sample of Little Red Dots in the JWST Extragalactic Legacy Fields". The Astrophysical Journal. 986 (2): 126. arXiv:2404.03576. Bibcode:2025ApJ...986..126K. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbc7d. ISSN 0004-637X.
- ^ McCaffrey, Joe; Hardin, Samantha; Wise, John H.; Regan, John A. (2023-09-27). "No Tension: JWST Galaxies at \(z > 10\) Consistent with Cosmological Simulations". The Open Journal of Astrophysics. 6: 47. arXiv:2304.13755. Bibcode:2023OJAp....6E..47M. doi:10.21105/astro.2304.13755.
- ^ Xiao, Mengyuan; Oesch, Pascal A.; Elbaz, David; Bing, Longji; Nelson, Erica J.; Weibel, Andrea; Illingworth, Garth D.; van Dokkum, Pieter; Naidu, Rohan P.; Daddi, Emanuele; Bouwens, Rychard J.; Matthee, Jorryt; Wuyts, Stijn; Chisholm, John; Brammer, Gabriel (November 2024). "Accelerated formation of ultra-massive galaxies in the first billion years". Nature. 635 (8038): 311–315. arXiv:2309.02492. Bibcode:2024Natur.635..311X. doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08094-5. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 39537883.
- ^ Yung, L. Y. Aaron; Somerville, Rachel S.; Iyer, Kartheik G. (2025), $Λ$CDM is still not broken: empirical constraints on the star formation efficiency at $z \sim 12-30$, arXiv:2504.18618
- ^ Sun, Guochao; Faucher-Giguère, Claude-André; Hayward, Christopher C.; Shen, Xuejian; Wetzel, Andrew; Cochrane, Rachel K. (2023-10-01). "Bursty Star Formation Naturally Explains the Abundance of Bright Galaxies at Cosmic Dawn". The Astrophysical Journal Letters. 955 (2): L35. arXiv:2307.15305. Bibcode:2023ApJ...955L..35S. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf85a. ISSN 2041-8205.
- ^ Dekel, Avishai; Sarkar, Kartick C; Birnboim, Yuval; Mandelker, Nir; Li, Zhaozhou (2023-06-08). "Efficient formation of massive galaxies at cosmic dawn by feedback-free starbursts". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 523 (3): 3201–3218. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1557. ISSN 0035-8711.
- ^ Persic, M.; Salucci, P. (1992-09-01). "The baryon content of the Universe". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 258 (1): 14P – 18P. arXiv:astro-ph/0502178. Bibcode:1992MNRAS.258P..14P. doi:10.1093/mnras/258.1.14P. ISSN 0035-8711.
- ^ Chaves-Montero, Jonás; Hernández-Monteagudo, Carlos; Angulo, Raúl E; Emberson, J D (2021-03-25). "Measuring the evolution of intergalactic gas from z = 0 to 5 using the kinematic Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 503 (2): 1798–1814. arXiv:1911.10690. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3782. ISSN 0035-8711.
- ^ Merritt, David (2017). "Cosmology and convention". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 57: 41–52. arXiv:1703.02389. Bibcode:2017SHPMP..57...41M. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2016.12.002. S2CID 119401938.
- ^ Table 8 on p. 39 of Jarosik, N. et al. (WMAP Collaboration) (2011). "Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Sky Maps, Systematic Errors, and Basic Results" (PDF). The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series. 192 (2): 14. arXiv:1001.4744. Bibcode:2011ApJS..192...14J. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/14. hdl:2152/43001. S2CID 46171526. Retrieved 2010-12-04. (from NASA's WMAP Documents page)
- ^ Zyla, P.A.; et al. (Particle Data Group) (2020). "Cosmological Parameters" (PDF). Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 083C01.
Further reading
[edit]- Ostriker, J. P.; Steinhardt, P. J. (1995). "Cosmic Concordance". arXiv:astro-ph/9505066.
- Ostriker, Jeremiah P.; Mitton, Simon (2013). Heart of Darkness: Unraveling the mysteries of the invisible universe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13430-7.
- Rebolo, R.; et al. (2004). "Cosmological parameter estimation using Very Small Array data out to ℓ= 1500". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 353 (3): 747–759. arXiv:astro-ph/0402466. Bibcode:2004MNRAS.353..747R. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08102.x. S2CID 13971059.
External links
[edit]Lambda-CDM model
View on GrokipediaModel Fundamentals
Definition and Assumptions
The Lambda-CDM model, also known as the concordance model of cosmology, provides a theoretical framework for understanding the origin, composition, and evolution of the universe. It posits a universe that began with a hot Big Bang and expands according to general relativity, described by the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric. This metric assumes a spatially flat geometry and incorporates four primary components: cold dark matter (CDM), which dominates gravitational clustering; baryonic matter, the ordinary matter forming stars and galaxies; radiation, relevant in the early universe; and a cosmological constant Λ, interpreted as dark energy driving the current accelerated expansion.[6][7] The model rests on several foundational assumptions. Central to it is the cosmological principle, which states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales, allowing the use of a single scale factor to describe its overall expansion.[8] It further assumes general relativity as the correct theory of gravity on cosmological scales, a flat spatial curvature (k = 0) consistent with observations, a hot Big Bang as the initial condition, and a brief period of cosmic inflation in the very early universe to generate the nearly scale-invariant primordial density perturbations observed today.[6][7] The Lambda-CDM framework is specified by a minimal set of six free parameters, which fully determine its predictions for observables like the cosmic microwave background and large-scale structure: the physical baryon density Ω_b h², the physical cold dark matter density Ω_c h², the angular scale of the sound horizon at recombination θ_*, the optical depth to reionization τ, the amplitude of the primordial scalar power spectrum A_s, and the scalar spectral index n_s.[6] The evolution of the universe in this model is governed by the first Friedmann equation, derived from general relativity: where H is the Hubble parameter, a(t) is the scale factor, ρ is the total energy density (sum of matter, radiation, and other contributions), G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light, and k = 0 for flatness. In the early matter-dominated era, expansion decelerates under the influence of CDM and baryons, while the present Λ-dominated phase leads to acceleration as dark energy comes to dominate.[6][7]Key Components
The Lambda-CDM model posits that the universe is composed of four primary energy components: cold dark matter, baryonic matter, dark energy, and radiation, each contributing distinct physical roles to the cosmic evolution.[6] These constituents interact primarily through gravity, with their relative influences varying across cosmic time due to differing equations of state.[6] Cold dark matter (CDM) consists of non-baryonic, collisionless particles that behave as pressureless dust, possessing non-relativistic velocities at the time of structure formation.[9] These particles cluster efficiently under gravity to form extended gravitational halos around galaxies and larger structures, without significant electromagnetic interactions that would dissipate their energy.[10] In the present epoch, CDM accounts for approximately 27% of the total energy density, facilitating hierarchical structure formation through gravitational instability where small density perturbations amplify into galaxies and clusters over time.[6][11] Baryonic matter, often termed ordinary matter, comprises protons, neutrons, electrons, and their bound states such as atoms, stars, and interstellar gas.[6] Unlike CDM, it interacts strongly via the electromagnetic force, leading to radiative processes like star formation and galactic disks, though its gravitational role is subordinate to CDM on large scales.[6] Dark energy, denoted by the cosmological constant Λ, is modeled as a uniform component with constant energy density that permeates space and exerts negative pressure, driving the observed accelerated expansion of the universe.[6] In the framework of quantum field theory, it is interpreted as arising from the vacuum energy of quantum fields, providing a repulsive gravitational effect that dominates the late-time dynamics.[12] Radiation includes relativistic species such as photons from the cosmic microwave background and neutrinos, which were the dominant energy form in the very early universe due to their high velocities and scaling as the inverse fourth power of the scale factor.[2] Today, their contribution is negligible compared to matter and dark energy, but they influenced the initial conditions for structure growth.[6] The model's flat geometry is encapsulated in the total energy density parameter relation where combines the matter densities from baryons () and CDM (), is the dark energy density parameter, and accounts for radiation.[6] This composition governs the transition from matter-dominated expansion in the past to dark energy domination today.[6]Cosmological Parameters
Parameter Values
The standard six parameters of the Lambda-CDM model, as determined from the Planck 2018 cosmic microwave background (CMB) analysis using temperature, polarization, and lensing data combined with baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurements, are as follows: the baryon density parameter , the cold dark matter density parameter , the angular scale of the sound horizon at recombination , the scalar spectral index , the amplitude of the scalar perturbations (corresponding to ), and the optical depth to reionization . These imply a derived Hubble constant km s Mpc (or ).[6] These parameters imply a total matter density , comprising approximately 5% baryonic matter () and 25% cold dark matter (), with the remainder dominated by dark energy at ; the radiation density is negligible in the present epoch.[6] Baryon acoustic oscillation measurements from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) Year 1 data release in 2024 and Data Release 2 in 2025, when analyzed alone, yield a consistent but slightly lower matter density with similar precision for the flat Lambda-CDM model, indicating broad agreement with Planck results but with a mild ~1.8σ tension in .[13][14] When combined with CMB data, DESI results maintain overall consistency with the Planck parameters but introduce mild tensions of 2.3σ in CDM, such as a slight shift in the Hubble constant toward --0.685, and a preference for dynamical dark energy models at ~3.1σ, without significantly altering the core model fit.[13][14] These parameter values predict a universe age of approximately 13.8 Gyr and a critical density , setting the scale for the total energy density.[6]| Parameter | Symbol | Best-Fit Value (Planck 2018) | Uncertainty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baryon density | 0.02236 | ||
| Cold dark matter density | 0.120 | ||
| Scalar spectral index | 0.9649 | ||
| Scalar amplitude | (at Mpc) | Derived from | |
| Hubble constant | (km s Mpc) | 67.4 | |
| Matter density | 0.315 | ||
| Dark energy density | 0.685 |
Measurement Methods
The primary methods for measuring cosmological parameters in the Lambda-CDM model rely on analyzing large-scale observational datasets from various cosmic probes, employing statistical techniques to fit theoretical predictions to the data. These approaches extract constraints on parameters such as the matter density, dark energy density, and primordial fluctuation amplitude by comparing observed patterns in the universe's structure and evolution against model expectations.[6] Cosmic microwave background (CMB) analysis provides one of the most precise probes through measurements of temperature and polarization anisotropies, observed by satellites such as Planck. These anisotropies encode information about the early universe's plasma oscillations and gravitational potentials, allowing parameter estimation via the computation of angular power spectra. Likelihood maximization techniques are applied to fit these spectra to theoretical templates generated by Boltzmann codes like CLASS or CAMB, incorporating foreground subtraction and instrumental noise modeling to isolate the primary CMB signal.[6] Baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) serve as a standard ruler, originating from sound waves in the early universe's photon-baryon fluid that imprint a characteristic scale of approximately 150 Mpc on the distribution of galaxies today. This scale is measured through correlation functions or power spectra from large galaxy surveys such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), which map millions of galaxies across cosmic volumes. Reconstruction algorithms correct for redshift-space distortions and nonlinear evolution to sharpen the BAO feature, enabling distance measurements at various redshifts that constrain the expansion history.[15] Type Ia supernovae act as standardized candles for probing the universe's expansion rate, with their peak luminosities calibrated via the Phillips relation and further anchored using Cepheid variable stars in the distance ladder. Observations from surveys like the Supernova Legacy Survey and the Dark Energy Survey compile light curves to infer distances and redshifts, constructing a Hubble diagram that tests the deceleration parameter and dark energy equation of state. Photometric and spectroscopic corrections account for host galaxy properties and dust extinction to ensure uniformity in intrinsic brightness.[16][17] Gravitational lensing and galaxy clustering measurements constrain the matter power spectrum by probing the distribution of dark matter on large scales. Weak lensing shear quantifies the coherent distortion of background galaxy shapes due to foreground mass concentrations, analyzed through two-point correlation functions or shear power spectra from surveys like the Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS) and the Dark Energy Survey (DES). Complementarily, galaxy clustering via redshift-space distortions—elongations in the observed galaxy distribution due to peculiar velocities—traces the growth rate of structure, with modeling incorporating bias parameters and Alcock-Paczynski effects to fit the observed power spectrum.[18][19] Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods are widely used to explore the posterior distributions of cosmological parameters, sampling the likelihood surface efficiently to account for degeneracies and uncertainties across datasets. These algorithms, such as the Metropolis-Hastings sampler implemented in tools like CosmoMC, generate chains that converge to the Bayesian posterior, enabling joint analyses of multiple probes to resolve tensions and tighten constraints.[20] A key aspect of parameter fitting involves the primordial power spectrum of scalar fluctuations, parameterized as , where is the wavenumber and is the scalar spectral index, which is matched to observed spectra from CMB and large-scale structure data.Historical Development
Early Foundations
The foundations of the Lambda-CDM model trace back to early 20th-century efforts to reconcile general relativity with observations of the universe on large scales. In 1917, Albert Einstein introduced the cosmological constant term into his field equations to construct a static, finite universe model, countering the attractive force of gravity that would otherwise cause collapse.[21] This addition allowed for a closed universe in equilibrium, with positive spatial curvature and uniform matter distribution, though Einstein later regarded it as a theoretical expedient after observational evidence emerged for expansion.[22] Theoretical advancements soon challenged the static paradigm. In 1922, Alexander Friedmann derived solutions to Einstein's equations assuming a homogeneous and isotropic universe, demonstrating that it could expand or contract dynamically depending on the matter density and curvature.[23] Independently, in 1927, Georges Lemaître proposed an expanding universe model, interpreting it as originating from a "primeval atom" that fragmented into galaxies, and he estimated the expansion rate from available redshift data.[24] These solutions revived the idea of a dynamic cosmos, setting the stage for the Big Bang framework. Observational confirmation followed in 1929, when Edwin Hubble established a linear relation between the distance and recession velocity of extragalactic nebulae, providing empirical evidence for universal expansion with a constant of proportionality later known as the Hubble constant.[25] Building on this, George Gamow and collaborators in the 1940s developed the hot Big Bang model, predicting primordial nucleosynthesis of light elements like helium during the early universe's high-temperature phase, when nuclear reactions froze out as expansion cooled the plasma. The need for non-baryonic matter arose from dynamical studies of galaxies and clusters. In 1933, Fritz Zwicky analyzed the Coma cluster using the virial theorem and found that the observed velocities of galaxies required far more mass than visible stars accounted for, inferring "missing mass" to bind the system gravitationally.[26] This hypothesis gained support in the 1970s through spectroscopic observations by Vera Rubin and W. Kent Ford, who measured flat rotation curves in spiral galaxies like Andromeda, indicating that orbital speeds remained constant at large radii rather than declining as expected from Keplerian dynamics, implying an extended dark matter halo.[27] By the early 1980s, the evidence for dark matter led to the development of the cold dark matter (CDM) model, which posited that the missing mass consists of non-baryonic, non-relativistic (cold) particles that interact primarily through gravity. Proposed initially by James Peebles in 1982 and formalized by Joel Primack, George Blumenthal, and others in 1984, the CDM paradigm explained the formation of large-scale structure through gravitational instability amplifying primordial density fluctuations, enabling hierarchical merging of dark matter halos to build galaxies and clusters. This framework resolved issues in earlier models with hot dark matter or baryons alone, which failed to produce the observed distribution of structures.[28] Theoretical refinements addressed fine-tuning issues in the Big Bang model. In 1981, Alan Guth proposed cosmic inflation, a brief phase of exponential expansion driven by a scalar field, which resolved the horizon problem by allowing causally disconnected regions to thermalize and the flatness problem by diluting initial curvature irregularities.[29] Key observational validation came from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite, launched in 1989; its Far Infrared Absolute Spectrophotometer confirmed the cosmic microwave background's blackbody spectrum at 2.735 K in 1990, matching Big Bang predictions for relic radiation from recombination.[30] COBE's Differential Microwave Radiometers then detected intrinsic anisotropies in 1992 at the 10^{-5} level, providing initial evidence for primordial density fluctuations seeding large-scale structure.Modern Formulation
The modern formulation of the Lambda-CDM model emerged in the late 1990s and early 2000s through the convergence of key astronomical observations that provided compelling evidence for a flat universe dominated by cold dark matter and a cosmological constant. In 1998, two independent teams reported observations of Type Ia supernovae at high redshifts, revealing that the universe's expansion is accelerating rather than decelerating as previously expected. The High-Z Supernova Search Team, led by Adam Riess, analyzed 16 distant supernovae and found that the data favored a universe with a positive cosmological constant, implying Ω_Λ > 0 and a total density parameter Ω_total ≈ 0.8–1.0 when combined with other constraints. Concurrently, the Supernova Cosmology Project, led by Saul Perlmutter, examined 42 high-redshift supernovae and reached similar conclusions, estimating Ω_Λ ≈ 0.7 and providing the first direct evidence for dark energy driving the acceleration.[31] These results, published back-to-back, marked a pivotal shift, necessitating the inclusion of a Lambda component in cosmological models. Subsequent measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) further solidified the framework by confirming a flat geometry. The BOOMERanG experiment, a balloon-borne telescope that observed the CMB in 1998–1999, produced high-resolution maps in 2000 showing the first two acoustic peaks in the angular power spectrum, which indicated a flat universe with Ω_total ≈ 1 within 10% uncertainty. Similarly, the MAXIMA experiment's 1998–1999 flight yielded CMB maps in 2000 that supported flatness through the positions of the first acoustic peak, constraining the curvature parameter to near zero and aligning with inflation-inspired predictions. These ground-breaking balloon observations provided the first direct evidence for the spatial flatness required by the Lambda-CDM model. The launch of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite in 2001 revolutionized the field by delivering all-sky, high-precision CMB maps from 2001 to 2010, enabling fits to a six-parameter Lambda-CDM model including baryon density, dark matter density, Hubble constant, amplitude of fluctuations, spectral index, and optical depth to reionization. The 2003 first-year data release confirmed the model's predictions with unprecedented accuracy, measuring Ω_Λ ≈ 0.7 and establishing the "concordance cosmology" era where multiple datasets aligned on a flat universe with ~70% dark energy, ~25% dark matter, and ~5% baryons. Parallel efforts by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) in the 2000s mapped millions of galaxies, validating the cold dark matter component through measurements of large-scale structure that matched hierarchical clustering simulations, with correlation functions and power spectra consistent with ΛCDM predictions on scales up to hundreds of megaparsecs. The synthesis of these observations—supernovae, CMB, and large-scale structure—into a cohesive model relied on fitting the Friedmann equation to combined datasets, including early baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) detections from SDSS in 2005, which provided a standard ruler for expansion history and reinforced Ω_total = 1. This multi-probe approach in the early 2000s cemented Lambda-CDM as the standard cosmological paradigm, with parameter uncertainties reduced to a few percent.Predictive Framework
Expansion History
The expansion history in the Lambda-CDM model describes the evolution of the universe's scale factor over cosmic time, governed by the Friedmann equation derived from general relativity under the assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy. This evolution transitions through phases dominated by radiation, matter, and dark energy, each characterized by distinct scaling laws for the Hubble parameter . The redshift-dependent form of the Friedmann equation is where is the present-day Hubble constant, is the redshift, and , , are the density parameters for radiation, non-relativistic matter (baryons plus cold dark matter), and the cosmological constant (representing dark energy), respectively, with for a flat universe.[32] In the initial radiation-dominated era, lasting until approximately years after the Big Bang, the energy density is dominated by relativistic particles, leading to and a decelerating expansion. This phase ends at the matter-radiation equality redshift , where the matter density catches up to the rapidly diluting radiation density. The subsequent matter-dominated era, spanning from years to about 10 Gyr after the Big Bang, features as gravitational attraction from matter slows the expansion. Matter domination gives way to dark energy at the matter- equality redshift .[6] The current -dominated era, beginning around 10 Gyr after the Big Bang (approximately 3.8 Gyr ago), is marked by exponential growth due to the constant dark energy density, resulting in accelerated expansion that commenced approximately 6 Gyr ago. This phase implies eternal expansion without recollapse.[6] The lookback time to redshift , representing the time light has traveled from an object at that redshift, is computed as where (neglecting the subdominant term at low ). The precise timelines and transition redshifts depend on the measured cosmological parameters, such as those from the Planck mission.[6][32]Structure Formation
In the Lambda-CDM model, the seeds for cosmic structure formation are primordial density fluctuations arising from quantum vacuum perturbations during the epoch of cosmic inflation. These nearly scale-invariant, Gaussian fluctuations are amplified by gravitational instability following the Big Bang, particularly after recombination when baryonic matter decouples from photons and falls into the deeper potential wells of cold dark matter (CDM) overdensities. The initial conditions are set by the power spectrum imprinted in the cosmic microwave background, providing a nearly Harrison-Zel'dovich spectrum with spectral index .[3] Once the universe enters the matter-dominated era, these perturbations grow via gravitational collapse. In the linear regime, the density contrast evolves according to the growth factor , normalized such that . During matter domination, the solution to the perturbation equation yields , or equivalently at high redshifts where the cosmological constant is negligible. As begins to dominate at late times (), the growth transitions to a slower rate, approximately in flat Lambda-CDM cosmologies, suppressing further amplification of structures compared to a pure matter-dominated universe.[33] This linear growth directly governs the evolution of the matter power spectrum , which quantifies the amplitude of fluctuations on comoving scales . In the linear regime, the redshift dependence is , where is the present-day spectrum shaped by the primordial power and the transfer function accounting for early-universe physics. The transfer function in Lambda-CDM introduces suppression of power on small scales () due to the Meszaros effect during the radiation-matter transition and Silk damping from baryon-photon diffusion before recombination, rather than significant CDM free-streaming, as CDM particles are non-relativistic with negligible velocity dispersion. This spectral shape, combined with the hierarchical nature of collapse, predicts the emergence of a filamentary cosmic web characterized by vast voids, thin walls, and dense filaments. Structure formation proceeds hierarchically in CDM cosmologies, with small-mass dark matter halos collapsing first from moderate overdensities in the early universe, subsequently merging to assemble larger halos that host galaxies, groups, and clusters. This bottom-up process contrasts with top-down scenarios and arises because the power spectrum increases toward smaller scales (smaller masses), favoring early formation of low-mass objects. The statistical distribution of halo masses is described by the Press-Schechter formalism, which posits that the probability of a region collapsing into a halo of mass follows from the excursion set theory of Gaussian fields, yielding a mass function , where is the mean density, is the critical linear overdensity for spherical collapse, and is the rms fluctuation smoothed on scale . This predicts a steep decline in the number of massive halos and an abundance of small ones, consistent with the merging hierarchy.[34]Observational Successes
Cosmic Microwave Background
The cosmic microwave background (CMB) provides one of the strongest confirmations of the Lambda-CDM model, as its temperature and polarization anisotropies are direct relics of quantum density fluctuations amplified during cosmic inflation and evolving through the early universe. In this framework, primordial scalar perturbations seed gravitational potentials that imprint on the CMB at the epoch of recombination, when the universe cooled sufficiently (at redshift ) for electrons and protons to form neutral hydrogen, decoupling photons from baryons and allowing the plasma to become transparent to electromagnetic radiation.[1] These anisotropies, observed today as tiny temperature fluctuations of order relative to the mean CMB temperature of 2.725 K, encode the initial conditions and dynamics of structure formation, with the Lambda-CDM predictions matching observations across angular scales from degrees to arcminutes. On large angular scales (low multipoles ), the dominant contribution to CMB temperature anisotropies arises from the Sachs-Wolfe effect, where photons experience a gravitational redshift as they climb out of potential wells formed by overdensities at recombination. This ordinary Sachs-Wolfe term, arising from the intrinsic temperature difference and the gravitational potential shift, produces a plateau in the angular power spectrum , reflecting the nearly scale-invariant primordial power spectrum of curvature perturbations.[35] The effect is particularly pronounced for super-horizon modes that enter the horizon after recombination, providing a clean probe of the potential depth set by dark matter and baryons in Lambda-CDM. At intermediate scales (), the CMB power spectrum exhibits a series of acoustic peaks due to baryon-photon oscillations in the tightly coupled plasma before recombination. These oscillations, driven by gravitational instability and opposed by photon pressure acting as a restoring force, compress and rarefy the photon-baryon fluid, imprinting scale-dependent enhancements in the temperature fluctuations; the first peak, corresponding to the sound horizon at recombination, appears at an angular scale of (multipole ), a hallmark of spatial flatness in Lambda-CDM as dictated by the total energy density parameter . Higher-order peaks reflect the phase of these oscillations, with baryon loading suppressing odd peaks relative to even ones. On the smallest observed scales (high ), the power spectrum transitions to a damping tail caused by Silk damping, where random photon scattering during the final stages of recombination diffuses anisotropies on scales below the mean free path, exponentially suppressing fluctuations. The CMB polarization, generated by Thomson scattering of quadrupole temperature anisotropies off free electrons near recombination, further validates Lambda-CDM through its distinct patterns. Scalar perturbations primarily produce E-mode polarization, which correlates with the temperature gradient and peaks at slightly smaller scales than the temperature acoustic features, while tensor perturbations from inflationary gravitational waves generate both E- and B-mode patterns, with the latter exhibiting a curl-like signature immune to scalar contamination. The full angular power spectrum for temperature (and analogously for polarization) is computed via line-of-sight integration as where is the primordial power spectrum of curvature perturbations and are the transfer functions incorporating recombination physics, Silk damping, and projection effects from the last-scattering surface. High-precision measurements from the Planck satellite in 2018 demonstrate that Lambda-CDM predictions match the observed temperature power spectrum to within 1% across the full range of multipoles, underscoring the model's success in describing early-universe acoustics and initial conditions.[1] This agreement also tightly constrains cosmological parameters, such as the baryon and dark matter densities, from the peak positions and amplitudes alone.Baryon Acoustic Oscillations
Baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) originate from pressure waves in the primordial baryon-photon plasma, which propagate at the sound speed until recombination at redshift , defining a characteristic comoving sound horizon scale Mpc. This scale freezes into the matter distribution as baryons decouple from photons shortly after recombination, imprinting a preferred separation in the large-scale structure of the universe. In the CDM model, this frozen scale serves as a standard ruler, calibrated precisely by cosmic microwave background (CMB) measurements of the sound horizon at recombination. In the late universe, the BAO signature manifests as an excess in galaxy clustering at scales around 150 Mpc, providing a direct probe of the cosmological expansion history. By measuring the apparent position of this feature in galaxy surveys, astronomers infer the angular diameter distance and the Hubble parameter at various redshifts, testing the CDM predictions for dark energy-driven acceleration. The BAO feature appears prominently in the two-point galaxy correlation function , where is the comoving separation, peaking at . To account for distortions due to redshift-space effects and the assumed fiducial cosmology, the observed scale is rescaled by dilation parameters, including the isotropic dilation parameter , where and , with and denoting the sound horizon at the baryon drag epoch, slightly larger than due to Silk damping. As of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) DR2 results in 2025, the BAO scale has been confirmed to sub-percent precision (e.g., 1.1% parallel and 1.3% transverse to the line of sight) across redshifts up to , aligning closely with the CDM expansion history and reinforcing the model's validity.[36] The Alcock-Paczyński effect further tests the isotropy of BAO measurements by comparing clustering along and across the line of sight; any distortion in the observed aspect ratio of the BAO feature would signal deviations from a homogeneous, isotropic universe, but current data show consistency with CDM expectations.Galaxy Clustering
Galaxy clustering refers to the observed tendency of galaxies to aggregate into patterns on large scales, a phenomenon central to testing the Lambda-CDM model. In this framework, the distribution of galaxies traces the underlying matter density field, modulated by gravitational instability from primordial quantum fluctuations amplified during inflation. The model's predictions for clustering are derived from linear perturbation theory and N-body simulations, capturing both the amplitude and anisotropy of the galaxy distribution function.[37] The matter power spectrum , which quantifies the amplitude of density fluctuations as a function of wavenumber , exhibits a characteristic shape in Lambda-CDM due to cold dark matter dominance. On small scales (large ), , reflecting the suppression from the transfer function, with spectral index leading to an effective slope of approximately -3, transitioning to suppression on large scales (small ) with a turnover at , set by the scale of matter-radiation equality when free-streaming radiation prevented efficient gravitational collapse. This turnover arises from the transfer function that filters the primordial spectrum, ensuring acoustic oscillations from the baryon-photon fluid imprint subtle wiggles before damping.[37][37] Observations of galaxy clustering, particularly through redshift surveys, confirm these predictions with high fidelity. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) and the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dFGRS), conducted in the early 2000s, measured the power spectrum and derived the clustering amplitude parameter —the root-mean-square density fluctuation in spheres of 8 Mpc radius—to values consistent with Lambda-CDM expectations within approximately 5%. These surveys, covering hundreds of thousands of galaxies out to redshifts , demonstrate that the observed shape and normalization align closely with theoretical templates assuming and . Redshift-space distortions further probe the model's dynamics, as peculiar velocities induced by gravity distort the apparent positions of galaxies along the line of sight. The Kaiser effect, arising in the linear regime, boosts the power spectrum along this direction by a factor of , where with bias and growth rate . This anisotropy, predicted analytically, is evident in survey data and allows measurement of the growth rate , an approximation valid for flat Lambda-CDM cosmologies across a wide redshift range. Combining with via redshift-space distortions yields , providing a direct test of structure growth that matches Lambda-CDM to percent-level precision in large-scale surveys.[38] On larger scales, Lambda-CDM predicts the topology of the cosmic web through hierarchical structure formation, where initial Gaussian fluctuations evolve into filaments, walls, and voids via gravitational collapse. N-body simulations like the Millennium Simulation reproduce this filamentary network, with galaxies preferentially tracing dense ridges while voids occupy underdense regions spanning tens of megaparsecs. These simulations, run with particles in a volume, confirm that the observed void and filament distributions from surveys align with Lambda-CDM, underscoring the model's success in describing the large-scale galaxy environment.Current Challenges
Measurement Tensions
One of the most prominent challenges to the Lambda-CDM model is the Hubble tension, which arises from a significant discrepancy between measurements of the Hubble constant derived from the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and those from local distance ladder methods. The Planck satellite collaboration, analyzing CMB data, infers km/s/Mpc under the standard model assumptions.[6] In contrast, the SH0ES team, using Cepheid variables and Type Ia supernovae with observations from the Hubble Space Telescope and James Webb Space Telescope, reports a higher value of km/s/Mpc as of 2025.[39] This difference corresponds to a tension of approximately 5σ, indicating that the probability of such a discrepancy occurring by chance is exceedingly low within the Lambda-CDM framework. A related issue is the tension, which concerns the amplitude of matter density fluctuations on scales of 8 Mpc, parameterized as , where is the root-mean-square fluctuation amplitude and is the present-day matter density fraction. CMB data from Planck yield .[40] However, weak gravitational lensing surveys such as the Dark Energy Survey (DES) Year 3 and the Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS-1000) measure lower values, around for DES and for KiDS, indicating a ~3σ discrepancy with CMB results. These late-universe probes suggest suppressed structure growth compared to early-universe predictions, challenging the consistency of Lambda-CDM parameters. Recent 2025 analyses from KiDS-Legacy continue to highlight this tension but suggest it may be less severe with refined modeling.[41] Recent baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurements from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) Data Release 2 further highlight these issues. The DESI BAO data, spanning redshifts from 0.4 to 3.5 using over 14 million galaxies and quasars, prefer parameters in mild 2.3σ tension with Planck CMB constraints under Lambda-CDM.[14] Specifically, these results exacerbate the Hubble tension by favoring a lower aligned more closely with CMB inferences, while partially alleviating the tension through better agreement in matter clustering amplitude.[14] Proposed resolutions include early dark energy models, which introduce a transient component in the early universe to adjust expansion history and reconcile discrepancies. Another measurement tension involves the primordial abundance of lithium-7 (Li), predicted by big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) within Lambda-CDM. BBN calculations, informed by CMB-derived baryon density , forecast a primordial Li abundance about 3-4 times higher than observed in metal-poor halo stars, where the Spite plateau indicates an underabundance at the 4-5σ level.[42][6] This "cosmological lithium problem" persists despite refinements in nuclear reaction rates and stellar depletion models, suggesting potential gaps in BBN physics or observation interpretation, as confirmed in 2025 analyses.[43][44] The "axis of evil" refers to an apparent alignment of low- (quadrupole and octupole) multipoles in the CMB power spectrum, where the preferred axes point toward the ecliptic plane with a probability of ~1% under statistical isotropy. Detected in Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and confirmed in Planck data, this feature may indicate a violation of cosmic homogeneity on large scales, though analyses suggest it could be a statistical fluke amplified by foregrounds or look-elsewhere effects. Ongoing studies with polarization data continue to assess its significance.[45]Dark Matter Discrepancies
The standard cosmological model (ΛCDM) explains large-scale structure formation through the gravitational growth of primordial density fluctuations produced during inflation. However, it faces several well-documented challenges, particularly on small scales (galaxy and dwarf galaxy scales):[6][46]- Missing Satellites Problem: High-resolution simulations predict hundreds to thousands of low-mass dark matter subhalos (dwarf satellites) around Milky Way-like galaxies, but far fewer are observed (only ~50-100 known satellites).
- Cusp-Core Problem: CDM predicts cuspy (steeply rising) central density profiles in dark matter halos, while many dwarf galaxy rotation curves suggest flatter, cored profiles.
- Too Big to Fail Problem: Simulations predict massive, dense subhalos that should host bright dwarf galaxies, yet no such luminous satellites are observed in the Milky Way or similar systems.