Constraints on dark energy from H II starburst galaxy apparent magnitude versus redshift data

Abstract

In this paper we use H II starburst galaxy apparent magnitude versus redshift data from Siegel et al. (2005) to constrain dark energy cosmological model parameters. These constraints are generally consistent with those derived using other data sets, but are not as restrictive as the tightest currently available constraints. 1109275, and from the SNSF (SCOPES grant No 128040).

Cosmological constraints from large-scale structure growth rate measurements

“…In the ΛCDM model the growth factor data favor a higher best-fit value of a negative spatial curvature parameter Ω k0 ¼ 1 − Ω m0 − Ω Λ (which corresponds to a closed, spherical spatial geometry) along with a higher best-fit value of Ω m0 compared to what other cosmological tests favor, such as SNIa, Hubble parameter measurements, baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO), and cosmic microwave background (CMB) (see, for example, [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] and references therein). In the case of the XCDM parametrization the growth factor data favor a steeper time dependence of dark energy density and also a higher value of the ordinary matter energy density parameter (i.e., the equation of state parameter w X has a lower best-fit value and Ω m0 has a higher best-fit value) in comparison with constraints derived from the above-mentioned data sets.…”

“…To do so we assume a Gaussian prior for σ 0 8 determined from cluster observations by [33], for spatially flat ΛCDM, with mean σ [33] notes that this relation is also adequate in the nonflat ΛCDM model and for alternative background cosmologies. 4 Then the posterior probability density function that depends only on the cosmological parameters p is given by 1 See, e.g., [11][12][13][14][15][16][17], and [18]; also see [19]. For constraints on these and related models from near-future data see [20][21][22], and references therein.…”

Monotonic simplification of arc-presentations of some satellite knots

“…Siegel et al (2005) compiled a sample of 15 HII-like starburst galaxies with redshifts in the range 2.17-3.39 (by using the data available in the literature) in order to constrain Ω m . Mania & Ratra (2012) modified this sample by excluding two HII galaxies (Q1700-MD103 and SSA22a-MD41) that show signs of a considerable rotational velocity compo-1414 R. G. Vishwakarma Fig. 3 The HII-like starburst galaxy data (Mania & Ratra 2012) are compared with some best-fitting models.…”

A two-point diagnostic for the H ii galaxy Hubble diagram

“…The exact cause of the correlation between the luminosity L(Hβ) in Hβ and the ionized gas velocity dispersion σ is not yet fully understood, though an explanation may be found in the fact that the gas dynamics is almost certainly dominated by the gravitational potential of the ionizing star and its surrounding environment (Terlevich & Melnick 1981). These sources may therefore function as standard candles because the scatter in the L(Hβ) versus σ relation appears to be small enough for HIIGx and GEHRs to probe the cosmic distance scale independently of z (Melnick et al 1987 Melnick et al 2000;Bosch et al 2002;Telles 2003;Siegel et al 2005;Bordalo & Telles 2011;Plionis et al 2011;Mania & Ratra 2012;Chávez et al 2012Chávez et al , 2014Terlevich et al 2015).…”