Paper detail

Revisiting Metastable Dark Energy and Tensions in the Estimation of Cosmological Parameters

We investigate constraints on some key cosmological parameters by confronting metastable dark energy models with different combinations of the most recent cosmological observations. Along with the standard $Λ$CDM model, two phenomenological metastable dark energy models are considered: (\romannumeral1) DE decays exponentially, (\romannumeral2) DE decays into dark matter. We find that: (1) when considering the most recent supernovae and BAO data, and assuming a fiducial $Λ$CDM model, the inconsistency in the estimated value of the $Ω_{\rm{m,0}}h^2$ parameter obtained by either including or excluding Planck CMB data becomes very much substantial and points to a clear tension~\citep{sahni2014model,zhao2017dynamical}; (2) although the two metastable dark energy models that we study provide greater flexibility in fitting the data, and they indeed fit the SNe Ia+BAO data substantially better than $Λ$CDM, they are not able to alleviate this tension significantly when CMB data are included; (3) while local measurements of the Hubble constant are significantly higher relative to the estimated value of $H_0$ in our models (obtained by fitting to SNe Ia and BAO data), the situation seems to be rather complicated with hints of inconsistency among different observational data sets (CMB, SNe Ia+BAO and local $H_0$ measurements). Our results indicate that we might not be able to remove the current tensions among different cosmological observations by considering simple modifications of the standard model or by introducing minimal dark energy models. A complicated form of expansion history, different systematics in different data and/or a non-conventional model of the early Universe might be responsible for these tensions.

preprint2019arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

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.