- ...data
- There is a significant zero-point offset between
and MAXIMA-1. To rectify this, one must choose an arbitrary scaling
factor (Hanany et al. 2000maxima).
I have therefore refrained from combining the two data sets.
It is the shape of the power spectrum, and not its normalization, which
is important here. The two data sets are consistent in this respect.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

- ...peak
- In McGaugh (1999mypred) I described the baryonic
models as having the second peak completely suppressed, with the third
peak appearing to be the second. This is not correct. Such a situation can
occur, but only for baryon-to-photon ratios greater than allowed by big bang
nucleosynthesis. The second peak discussed there and here is indeed the
second (rarefaction) peak. The difference between and purely
baryonic models is in the amplitude of this peak.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

- ...which
- A small neutrino
mass eV is also admissible.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

- ...effects
- Assuming
*a*_{0} is
constant.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.