What Parts of the Big Bang Do Scientists Dispute?

[PdotdQ]

@swamidass

See all the bumps on the curve? They are defined by the equation and the parameters. There are a large number of six parameter equations that would not perfectly fit this data. The fact that this equation does, and is derived from theory, is notable. I’m not 100% sure on this, but it appears to perfectly fit 7 bumps in the observations, including their height, width, baseline, and position (at least 28 pseudo-observations), with just about six parameters. That means something. It is highly unlikely to happen if there was not some truth of a sort behind lambda-CDM.

Indeed, this is the big evidence that convinces most astrophysicists of LCDM.

This however, does not mean that LCDM is 100% correct! As I detailed in my previous post, there are issues with LCDM, enough that astrophysicists are convinced that while LCDM is correct in broad strokes, it might require some modifications to fit all the details.

Note that most of the issues with CDM that I raised in my previous post comes at smaller size scales, where Planck and other CMB experiments are effectively blind.

I am reminded of the following witticism by the astronomer Stacy McGaugh:

1. In matters of particle physics, do not bet against the Standard Model
2. In matters cosmological, do not bet against LCDM
3. In matters of galaxy dynamics, do not bet against MOND

Note that 1), 2), and 3) are incompatible with each other. If LCDM is right, then the Standard Model is wrong, if MOND is right, then LCDM is wrong, etc.