Paper detail

Power law cosmology model comparison with CMB scale information

Despite the ability of the cosmological concordance model ($Λ$CDM) to describe the cosmological observations exceedingly well, power law expansion of the Universe scale radius, $R(t)\propto t^n$, has been proposed as an alternative framework. We examine here these models, analyzing their ability to fit cosmological data using robust model comparison criteria. Type Ia supernovae (SNIa), baryonic acoustic oscillations (BAO) and acoustic scale information from the cosmic microwave background (CMB) have been used. We find that SNIa data either alone or combined with BAO can be well reproduced by both $Λ$CDM and power law expansion models with $n\sim 1.5$, while the constant expansion rate model $(n=1)$ is clearly disfavored. Allowing for some redshift evolution in the SNIa luminosity essentially removes any clear preference for a specific model. The CMB data are well known to provide the most stringent constraints on standard cosmological models, in particular, through the position of the first peak of the temperature angular power spectrum, corresponding to the sound horizon at recombination, a scale physically related to the BAO scale. Models with $n\geq 1$ lead to a divergence of the sound horizon and do not naturally provide the relevant scales for the BAO and the CMB. We retain an empirical footing to overcome this issue: we let the data choose the preferred values for these scales, while we recompute the ionization history in power law models, to obtain the distance to the CMB. In doing so, we find that the scale coming from the BAO data is not consistent with the observed position of the first peak of the CMB temperature angular power spectrum for any power law cosmology. Therefore, we conclude that when the three standard probes are combined, the $Λ$CDM model is very strongly favored over any of these alternative models, which are then essentially ruled out.

preprint2016arXivOpen 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.

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.