Paper detail

New test of the FLRW metric using the distance sum rule

We present a new test of the validity of the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric, based on comparing the distance from redshift 0 to $z_1$ and from $z_1$ to $z_2$ to the distance from $0$ to $z_2$. If the universe is described by the FLRW metric, the comparison provides a model-independent measurement of spatial curvature. The test relies on geometrical optics, it is independent of the matter content of the universe and the applicability of the Einstein equation on cosmological scales. We apply the test to observations, using the Union2.1 compilation of supernova distances and Sloan Lens ACS Survey galaxy strong lensing data. The FLRW metric is consistent with the data, and the spatial curvature parameter is constrained to be $-1.22<Ω_{K0}<0.63$, or $-0.08<Ω_{K0}<0.97$ with a prior from the cosmic microwave background and the local Hubble constant, though modelling of the lenses is a source of significant systematic uncertainty.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 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.