🚀 go-pugleaf

In <swarner.02ur@bbs1984.chi.il.us> swarner@bbs1984.chi.il.us (Steve Warner) writes:

>         Good morning all...
>    Some friends and I have a running interest in matter physics, and 
>we are in the process of gathering information on current gravity 
>theory. We are intrigued by the notion of "Dark Matter" and the role 
>it plays in both Cosmology and Physics. 
>    In a recent article written by Corey S. Powell, entitled, "Machos 
>or Wimps; Astronomers stalk the invisible cosmic majority" (Scientific 
>American, January 1993, pg 27)....John A Bahcall of the Institute for 
>Advanced Study in Princeton, writes; "the dark matter problem may be a 
>sign that some fundamental aspect of physics, such as the theory of 
>gravity, demands revision." 
>    A statement such as this, tends to heighten ones interest and 
>thirst for follow-up information....which of course, I'm hoping someone 
>"out there" can supply reference to. Has anyone seen published information on 
> current trends in gravity theory, from books, periodicals, journals or 
>letters? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>Thanks in advance....
> 
>Steve Warner    Swarner.@bbs1984.chi.il.us
>------------------------------------------
>Get your facts ft, and then you can distort 
>them as much as you please.       -Mark Twain-  

Dark matter is now a very hot field, so you're not likely to find any correct
books out there. The COBE measurement announced last year sent all the
theorists back to the drawing board. The latest theory people are playing
with is a mixture of cold, hot and baryonic dark matter, with contributions
of around 60%, 30%, and 10%, respectively. Much of the research is still
underway, so it won't be published for several months. Watch for Ma &
Bertschinger, and Klypin, Holzmann, Primack, & Regos, both in the
Astrophysical Journal (KHPR is further along now).

The competing theory is called "Tilted CDM," and it comes from mucking around
with the inflation potential. The COBE group likes this one (though I'm not
sure offhand if Smoot et al talks about this).

You might wish to get started by looking for a review article in Annual
Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics. That should give you background, and
then you can attack the Citation Index. Good places to look for other
references are Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society and Physical
Review D. Be *very* careful to take statements about why CDM is better than
HDM with a grain of salt. You can find the original minimal CDM theory in
books -- my favorites are Kolb & Turner and Linde -- but be wary of old
information.

There was a lot of talk on this topic in the Texas/PASCOS meeting in Berkeley
last week, so the meeting proceedings might be useful. However, it takes lots
of months for these things to get published.

Good luck.

Mike Gross
Physics Board
Univ of California                    GO SLUGS!!!!!!
Santa Cruz, CA 95064
gross@lick.ucsc.edu