Paper detail

Do the cosmological observational data prefer phantom dark energy?

The dynamics of expansion and large scale structure formation of the Universe are analyzed for models with dark energy in the form of a phantom scalar field which initially mimics a $Λ$-term and evolves slowly to the Big Rip singularity. The discussed model of dark energy has three parameters -- the density and the equation of state parameter at the current epoch, $Ω_{de}$ and $w_0$, and the asymptotic value of the equation of state parameter at $a\rightarrow\infty$, $c_a^2$. Their best-fit values are determined jointly with all other cosmological parameters by the MCMC method using observational data on CMB anisotropies and polarization, SNe Ia luminosity distances, BAO measurements and more. Similar computations are carried out for $Λ$CDM and a quintessence scalar field model of dark energy. It is shown that the current data slightly prefer the phantom model, but the differences in the maximum likelihoods are not statistically significant. It is also shown that the phantom dark energy with monotonically increasing density in future will cause the decay of large scale linear matter density perturbations due to the gravitational domination of dark energy perturbations long before the Big Rip singularity.

preprint2012arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.