Paper detail

Cosmological test with the QSO Hubble diagram

A Hubble diagram (HD) has recently been constructed in the redshift range 0<z<6.5 using a non-linear relation between the ultraviolet and X-ray luminosities of QSOs. The Type Ia SN HD has already provided a high-precision test of cosmological models, but the fact that the QSO distribution extends well beyond the supernova range (z<1.8), in principle provides us with an important complementary diagnostic whose significantly greater leverage in z can impose tighter constraints on the distance versus redshift relationship. In this paper, we therefore perform an independent test of nine different cosmological models, among which six are expanding, while three are static. Many of these are disfavoured by other kinds of observations (including the aforementioned Type Ia SNe). We wish to examine whether the QSO HD confirms or rejects these earlier conclusions. We find that four of these models (Einstein-de Sitter, the Milne universe, the Static Universe with simple tired light and the Static universe with plasma tired light) are excluded at the >99% C.L. The Quasi-Steady State Model is excluded at >95% C.L. The remaining four models (Lambda-CDM/wCDM, the R_h=ct Universe, the Friedmann open universe and a Static universe with a linear Hubble law) all pass the test. However, only Lambda-CDM/wCDM and $R_{\rm h}=ct$ also pass the Alcock-Paczynski (AP) test. The optimized parameters in Lambda-CDM/wCDM are Omega_m=0.20^{+0.24}_{-0.20} and w_{de}=-1.2^{+1.6}_{-infinity} (the dark-energy equation-of-state). Combined with the AP test, these values become Omega_m=0.38^{+0.20}_{-0.19} and w_{de}=-0.28^{+0.52}_{-0.40}. But whereas this optimization of parameters in Lambda-CDM/wCDM creates some tension with their concordance values, the $R_{\rm h}=ct$ Universe has the advantage of fitting the QSO and AP data without any free parameters.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

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.