Paper detail

Cosmic opacity: cosmological-model-independent tests and their impacts on cosmic acceleration

With assumptions that the violation of the distance-duality (DD) relation entirely arises from non-conservation of the photon number and the absorption is frequency independent in the observed frequency range, we perform cosmological-model-independent tests for the cosmic opacity. The observational data include the largest Union2.1 SN Ia sample, which is taken for observed $D_\mathrm{L}$, and galaxy cluster samples compiled by De Filippis {\it et al.} and Bonamente {\it et al.}, which are responsible for providing observed $D_\mathrm{A}$. Two parameterizations, $τ(z)=2εz$ and $τ(z)=(1+z)^{2ε}-1$ are adopted for the optical depth associated to the cosmic absorption. We find that, an almost transparent universe is favored by Filippis {\it et al.} sample but it is only marginally accommodated by Bonomente {\it et al.} samples at 95.4% confidence level (C. L.) (even at 99.7% C. L. when the $r<100 \mathrm{kpc}$-cut spherical $β$ model is considered). Taking the possible cosmic absorption (in 68.3% C. L. range) constrained from the model-independent tests into consideration, we correct the distance modulus of SNe Ia and then use them to study their cosmological implications. The constraints on the $Λ$CDM show that a decelerating expanding universe with $Ω_Λ=0$ is only allowed at 99.7% C. L. by observations when the Bonamente {\it et al.} sample is considered. Therefore, our analysis suggests that an accelerated cosmic expansion is still needed to account for the dimming of SNe and the standard cosmological scenario remains to be supported by current observations.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.