Paper detail

GRB Hubble diagram and constraints on a Λ(t)CDM model

In previous papers, a cosmological model with constant-rate particle creation and vacuum term decaying linearly with the Hubble parameter was shown to lead to a good concordance when tested against precise observations: the position of the first peak in the spectrum of anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the Hubble diagram for supernovas of type Ia (SNe Ia), the distribution of large-scale structures (LSS) and the distance to the baryonic acoustic oscillations (BAO). That model has the same number of parameters as the spatially flat standard model and seems to alleviate some observational/theoretical tensions appearing in the later. In this letter we complement those tests with 109 gamma ray bursters (GRB), 59 of them with redshifts above $z=1.4$, which permits to extend the Hubble diagram to redshifts up to $z\approx 8$. For the calibration of the 50 GRBs with $z<1.4$ we use the 288 supernovas of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) project, calibrated with the MLCS2k2 fitter, less model-dependent than other samples like Union2. Our results show a good concordance with the previous tests and, again, less tensions between SNe Ia and GRB best fits as compared to the standard model.

preprint2013arXivOpen 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.