Paper detail

Is backreaction really small within concordance cosmology?

Smoothing over structures in general relativity leads to a renormalisation of the background, and potentially many other effects which are poorly understood. Observables such as the distance-redshift relation when averaged on the sky do not necessarily yield the same smooth model which arises when performing spatial averages. These issues are thought to be of technical interest only in the standard model of cosmology, giving only tiny corrections. However, when we try to calculate observable quantities such as the all-sky average of the distance-redshift relation, we find that perturbation theory delivers divergent answers in the UV and corrections to the background of order unity. There are further problems. Second-order perturbations are the same size as first-order, and fourth-order at least the same as second, and possibly much larger, owing to the divergences. Much hinges on a coincidental balance of 2 numbers: the primordial power, and the ratio between the comoving Hubble scales at matter-radiation equality and today. Consequently, it is far from obvious that backreaction is irrelevant even in the concordance model, however natural it intuitively seems.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 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.