Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userTaxonomy of Dark Energy Models
238
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Miguel Angel Garc\\'ia-Aspeitia
Publication date
2021
fields
Physics
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
The accelerated expansion of the Universe is one of the main discoveries of the past decades, indicating the presence of an unknown component: the dark energy. Evidence of its presence is being gathered by a succession of observational experiments with increasing precision in its measurements. However, the most accepted model for explaining the dynamic of our Universe, the so-called Lambda cold dark matter, face several problems related to the nature of such energy component. This has lead to a growing exploration of alternative models attempting to solve those drawbacks. In this review, we briefly summarize the characteristics of a (non-exhaustive) list of dark energy models as well as some of the most used cosmological samples. Next, we discuss how to constrain each models parameters using observational data. Finally, we summarize the status of dark energy modeling.
rate research
Read More
K-essence is a minimally-coupled scalar field whose Lagrangian density $mathcal{L}$ is a function of the field value $phi$ and the kinetic energy $X=frac{1}{2}partial_muphipartial^muphi$. In the thawing scenario, the scalar field is frozen by the large Hubble friction in the early universe, and therefore initial conditions are specified. We construct thawing k-essence models by generating Taylor expansion coefficients of $mathcal{L}(phi, X)$ from random matrices. From the ensemble of randomly generated thawing k-essence models, we select dark energy candidates by assuming negative pressure and non-growth of sub-horizon inhomogeneities. For each candidate model the dark energy equation of state function is fit to the Chevallier-Polarski-Linder parameterization $w(a) approx w_0+w_a(1-a)$, where $a$ is the scale factor. The thawing k-essence dark models distribute very non-uniformly in the $(w_0, w_a)$ space. About 90% models cluster in a narrow band in the proximity of a slow-roll line $w_aapprox -1.42 left(frac{Omega_m}{0.3}right)^{0.64}(1+w_0)$, where $Omega_m$ is the present matter density fraction. This work is a proof of concept that for a certain class of models very non-uniform theoretical prior on $(w_0, w_a)$ can be obtained to improve the statistics of model selection.
We study the dynamical properties of tracker quintessence models using a general parametrization of their corresponding potentials, and show that there is a general condition for the appearance of a tracker behavior at early times. Likewise, we determine the conditions under which the quintessence tracker models can also provide an accelerating expansion of the universe with an equation of state closer to $-1$. Apart from the analysis of the background dynamics, we also include linear density perturbations of the quintessence field in a consistent manner and using the same parametrization of the potential, with which we show the influence they have on some cosmological observables. The generalized tracker models are compared to observations, and we discuss their appropriateness to ameliorate the fine-tuning of initial conditions and their consistency with the accelerated expansion of the Universe at late times.
The differential age data of astrophysical objects that have evolved passivelly during the history of the universe (e.g. red galaxies) allows to test theoretical cosmological models through the predicted Hubble function expressed in terms of the redshift $z$, $H(z)$. We use the observational data for $H(z)$ to test unified scenarios for dark matter and dark energy. Specifically, we focus our analysis on the Generalized Chaplygin Gas (GCG) and the viscous fluid (VF) models. For the GCG model, it is shown that the unified scenario for dark energy and dark matter requires some priors. For the VF model we obtain estimations for the free parameters that may be compared with further analysis mainly at perturbative level.
Current observational evidence does not yet exclude the possibility that dark energy could be in the form of phantom energy. A universe consisting of a phantom constituent will be driven toward a drastic end known as the `Big Rip singularity where all the matter in the universe will be destroyed. Motivated by this possibility, other evolutionary scenarios have been explored by Barrow, including the phenomena which he called Sudden Future Singularities (SFS). In such a model it is possible to have a blow up of the pressure occurring at sometime in the future evolution of the universe while the energy density would remain unaffected. The particular evolution of the scale factor of the universe in this model that results in a singular behaviour of the pressure also admits acceleration in the current era. In this paper we will present the results of our confrontation of one example class of SFS models with the available cosmological data from high redshift supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) and the cosmic microwave background (CMB). We then discuss the viability of the model in question as an alternative to dark energy.
We determine constraints on spatially-flat tilted dynamical dark energy XCDM and $phi$CDM inflation models by analyzing Planck 2015 cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy data and baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) distance measurements. XCDM is a simple and widely used but physically inconsistent parameterization of dynamical dark energy, while the $phi$CDM model is a physically consistent one in which a scalar field $phi$ with an inverse power-law potential energy density powers the currently accelerating cosmological expansion. Both these models have one additional parameter compared to standard $Lambda$CDM and both better fit the TT + lowP + lensing + BAO data than does the standard tilted flat-$Lambda$CDM model, with $Delta chi^2 = -1.26 (-1.60)$ for the XCDM ($phi$CDM) model relative to the $Lambda$CDM model. While this is a 1.1$sigma$ (1.3$sigma$) improvement over standard $Lambda$CDM and so not significant, dynamical dark energy models cannot be ruled out. In addition, both dynamical dark energy models reduce the tension between the Planck 2015 CMB anisotropy and the weak lensing $sigma_8$ constraints.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
