4.5 Article

Revisiting a Negative Cosmological Constant from Low-Redshift Data

期刊

SYMMETRY-BASEL
卷 11, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/sym11081035

关键词

negative cosmological constant; H-0 tension; dark energy; low-redshift data; extended cosmological models

资金

  1. Vetenskapsradet (Swedish Research Council) [638-2013-8993, 2015-04814]
  2. Oskar Klein Centre for Cosmoparticle Physics
  3. Isaac Newton Trust
  4. Kavli Foundation through a Newton-Kavli fellowship
  5. Vinnova [2015-04814] Funding Source: Vinnova
  6. Swedish Research Council [2015-04814] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Persisting tensions between high-redshift and low-redshift cosmological observations suggest the dark energy sector of the Universe might be more complex than the positive cosmological constant of the ?CDM model. Motivated by string theory, wherein symmetry considerations make consistent AdS backgrounds (i.e., maximally-symmetric spacetimes with a negative cosmological constant) ubiquitous, we explore a scenario where the dark energy sector consists of two components: a negative cosmological constant, with a dark energy component with equation of state w phi on top. We test the consistency of the model against low-redshift baryon acoustic oscillation and Type Ia supernovae distance measurements, assessing two alternative choices of distance anchors: the sound horizon at baryon drag determined by the Planck collaboration and the Hubble constant determined by the SH0ES program. We find no evidence for a negative cosmological constant and mild indications for an effective phantom dark energy component on top. A model comparison analysis reveals that the ?CDM model is favoured over our negative cosmological constant model. While our results are inconclusive, should low-redshift tensions persist with future data, it would be worth reconsidering and further refining our toy negative cosmological constant model by considering realistic string constructions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据