Talk:Structure formation

Comments
I've recently been trying to expand the page. I think I've put in a pretty good framework for what should eventually go here, but the following needs to be improved: I also intend to write something about the mathematical formalism behind this all, but I haven't decided whether to add it to cosmological perturbation theory and N-body simulation or to this page. Comments welcome. –Joke 13:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's too technical in places
 * It is completely unreferenced. I intend to address this soon, but I wrote it without bothering too much about references so that I could at least get something sensible up.
 * It needs illustrations, here are some ideas:
 * The CMB anisotropy spectrum
 * An illustration of the Hubble radius compared to the expansion of space during inflation
 * The large-scale structure power spectrum (preferably with SDSS or 2dF/GRS data)
 * A 2d slice of one of the big N-body simulations showing filaments

Which of the interactions (forces)?
This same article has a contradiction about the forces in one and the same section. First it cites that «It may be composed of particles that interact through the weak interaction, such as neutrinos...» (the weak interaction is also "allowed" in another article, Dark matter ); in the very next paragraph it suddenly occurs that «…it feels only the force of gravity: the gravitational Jeans instability which allows compact structures to form is not opposed by any force...»... What's the point and where's the accepted one? Josh, linguist (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"Baryonic/non-baryonic" — ?
Well, in this article, that same section tells us that it is a dichotomy with dark and baryonic matter: "Dark matter interacts through the force of gravity, but it is not composed of baryons and..."; and also twice indirectly: "Recent evidence suggests that there is about five times as much dark matter as baryonic matter..." and "At this stage, luminous, baryonic matter is expected to simply mirror the evolution of the dark matter...". While the Dark matter article has a whole section — the second there — named Baryonic and nonbaryonic dark matter, which begins with "There are three separate lines of evidence that the majority of dark matter is not made of baryons, ordinary matter...", which, applying some logic, means that baryonic/dark in not a dichotomy. So what do we do? Josh, linguist (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit pen
This article is missing key advances. It seems to have been written before Peeble's model became widely accepted. In any case the first step is to delete quite a lot of redundant and off topic content. Let me know if I start cutting into muscle ;-). Johnjbarton (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * We need as section on reionization:
 * The Epoch of reionization (EoR) is of immense importance in the study of structure formation since, on the one hand, it is a direct consequence of the formation of first structures and luminous sources while, on the other, it affects subsequent structure formation.
 * Ref:
 * Pratika Dayal, Andrea Ferrara, "Early galaxy formation and its large-scale effects", Physics Reports, Volumes 780–782, 2018, Pages 1-64, ISSN 0370-1573, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2018.10.002.
 * Johnjbarton (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)