Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userA response to Rubin & Heitlauf: Is the expansion of the universe accelerating? All signs still point to yes
72
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
We have shown (Colin et al., 2019) that the acceleration of the Hubble expansion rate inferred from Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) is, at $3.9sigma$ significance, a dipole approximately aligned with the CMB dipole, while its monopole component, which can be interpreted as due to a Cosmological Constant or dark energy, is consistent with zero at $1.4sigma$. This has been challenged by Rubin & Heitlauf (2019) who assert that the dipole arises because we made an incorrect assumption about the SNe Ia light-curve parameters (viz. took them to be sample- and redshift independent), and did not allow for the motion of the Solar system (w.r.t. the CMB frame in which the CMB dipole supposedly vanishes). In fact what has an even larger impact on our finding is that we reversed the inconsistent corrections made for the peculiar velocities of the SNe Ia host galaxies w.r.t the CMB frame, which in fact serve to bias the lever arm of the Hubble diagram towards higher inferred values of the monopole. We demonstrate that even if all such corrections are made consistently and both sample- and redshift-dependence is allowed for in the standardisation of supernova light curves, the evidence for isotropic acceleration rises to just $2.8,sigma$. Thus the criticism of Rubin & Heitlauf serves only to highlight that corrections must be made to the SNe Ia data assuming the standard $Lambda$CDM model, in order to recover it from the data.
rate research
Read More
It is commonly assumed that the energy density of the Universe was dominated by radiation between reheating after inflation and the onset of matter domination 54,000 years later. While the abundance of light elements indicates that the Universe was radiation dominated during Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), there is scant evidence that the Universe was radiation dominated prior to BBN. It is therefore possible that the cosmological history was more complicated, with deviations from the standard radiation domination during the earliest epochs. Indeed, several interesting proposals regarding various topics such as the generation of dark matter, matter-antimatter asymmetry, gravitational waves, primordial black holes, or microhalos during a nonstandard expansion phase have been recently made. In this paper, we review various possible causes and consequences of deviations from radiation domination in the early Universe - taking place either before or after BBN - and the constraints on them, as they have been discussed in the literature during the recent years.
In the late 1990s, observations of 93 Type Ia supernovae were analysed in the framework of the FLRW cosmology assuming these to be `standard(isable) candles. It was thus inferred that the Hubble expansion rate is accelerating as if driven by a positive Cosmological Constant $Lambda$. This is still the only direct evidence for the `dark energy that is the dominant component of the standard $Lambda$CDM cosmological model. Other data such as BAO, CMB anisotropies, stellar ages, the rate of structure growth, etc are all `concordant with this model but do not provide independent evidence for accelerated expansion. Analysis of a larger sample of 740 SNe Ia shows that these are not quite standard candles, and highlights the corrections applied to analyse the data in the FLRW framework. The latter holds in the reference frame in which the CMB is isotropic, whereas observations are made in our heliocentric frame in which the CMB has a large dipole anisotropy. This is assumed to be of kinematic origin i.e. due to our non-Hubble motion driven by local inhomogeneity in the matter distribution. The $Lambda$CDM model predicts how this peculiar velocity should fall off as the averaging scale is raised and the universe becomes sensibly homogeneous. However observations of the local `bulk flow are inconsistent with this expectation and convergence to the CMB frame is not seen. Moreover the kinematic interpretation implies a corresponding dipole in the sky distribution of high redshift quasars, which is rejected by observations at 4.9$sigma$. The acceleration of the Hubble expansion rate is also anisotropic at 3.9$sigma$ and aligned with the bulk flow. Thus dark energy may be an artefact of analysing data assuming that we are idealised observers in an FLRW universe, when in fact the real universe is inhomogeneous and anisotropic out to distances large enough to impact on cosmological analyses.
The standard model of cosmology is based on the existence of homogeneous surfaces as the background arena for structure formation. Homogeneity underpins both general relativistic and modified gravity models and is central to the way in which we interpret observations of the CMB and the galaxy distribution. However, homogeneity cannot be directly observed in the galaxy distribution or CMB, even with perfect observations, since we observe on the past lightcone and not on spatial surfaces. We can directly observe and test for isotropy, but to link this to homogeneity, we need to assume the Copernican Principle. First, we discuss the link between isotropic observations on the past lightcone and isotropic spacetime geometry: what observations do we need to be isotropic in order to deduce spacetime isotropy? Second, we discuss what we can say with the Copernican assumption. The most powerful result is based on the CMB: the vanishing of the dipole, quadrupole and octupole of the CMB is sufficient to impose homogeneity. Real observations lead to near-isotropy on large scales - does this lead to near-homogeneity? There are important partial results, and we discuss why this remains a difficult open question. Thus we are currently unable to prove homogeneity of the Universe on large-scales, even with the Copernican Principle. However we can use observations of the CMB, galaxies and clusters to test homogeneity itself.
The discovery ten years ago that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating put in place the last major building block of the present cosmological model, in which the Universe is composed of 4% baryons, 20% dark matter, and 76% dark energy. At the same time, it posed one of the most profound mysteries in all of science, with deep connections to both astrophysics and particle physics. Cosmic acceleration could arise from the repulsive gravity of dark energy -- for example, the quantum energy of the vacuum -- or it may signal that General Relativity breaks down on cosmological scales and must be replaced. We review the present observational evidence for cosmic acceleration and what it has revealed about dark energy, discuss the various theoretical ideas that have been proposed to explain acceleration, and describe the key observational probes that will shed light on this enigma in the coming years.
Marginal likelihoods for the cosmic expansion rates are evaluated using the `Constitution data of 397 supernovas, thereby updating the results in some previous works. Even when beginning with a very strong prior probability that favors an accelerated expansion, we obtain a marginal likelihood for the deceleration parameter $q_0$ peaked around zero in the spatially flat case. It is also found that the new data significantly constrains the cosmographic expansion rates, when compared to the previous analyses. These results may strongly depend on the Gaussian prior probability distribution chosen for the Hubble parameter represented by $h$, with $h=0.68pm 0.06$. This and similar priors for other expansion rates were deduced from previous data. Here again we perform the Bayesian model-independent analysis in which the scale factor is expanded into a Taylor series in time about the present epoch. Unlike such Taylor expansions in terms of redshift, this approach has no convergence problem.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
