Observational constraints on dark energy cosmological model parameters

Farooq, Muhammad Omer

doi:10.48550/arxiv.1309.3710

Cited by 9 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 122 publications

(270 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the prior H 0 = 73.24±1.74 km/s/Mpc from Riess et al [36], favors Phantom behavior (w < −1). The conclusion is that fits are very sensitive to the value of H 0 , which is consistent with findings of Farooq [35]. When we use H(z) measurements from BAO and DA techniques separately, the results are different: H(z) data from DA favor quintessence(w > −1) while H(z) data from BAO favor phantom (w < −1) fields.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 85%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Statistical analysis with cosmic-expansion-rate measurements and two-point diagnostics

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Direct measurements of Hubble parameters H (z)are very useful for cosmological model parameters inference. Based on them, Sahni, Shafieloo and Starobinski introduced a two-point diagnostic Omh 2 (z i , z j ) as an interesting tool for testing the validity of the CDM model. Applying this test they found a tension between observations and predictions of the CDM model. We use the most comprehensive compilation H (z) data from baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) and differential ages (DA) of passively evolving galaxies to study cosmological models using the Hubble parameters itself and to distinguish whether CDM model is consistent with the observational data with statistical analysis of the corresponding Omh 2 (z i , z j ) two-point diagnostics. Our results show that presently available H (z) data significantly improve the constraints on cosmological parameters. The corresponding statistical Omh 2 (z i , z j ) two-point diagnostics seems to prefer the quintessence with w > −1 over the CDM model. Better and more accurate prior knowledge of the Hubble constant, will considerably improve the performance of the statistical Omh 2 (z i , z j ) method.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Another approach is to take an informative prior for H 0 . Following Farooq [35], we will assume that the prior distribution of H 0 is Gaussian with the mean H0 and the standard deviation σ H0 :…”

Section: Empirical H(z) Data and Constraints Based Directly On Themmentioning

confidence: 99%

Statistical analysis with cosmic-expansion-rate measurements and two-point diagnostics

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…and the three cosmological parameters are p = (Ω m0 , α, Ω K0 ). Solving the coupled differential equations of motion allows for a numerical computation of the Hubble parameter H(z; H 0 , p) Samushia 2009;Farooq 2013;Pavlov et al 2013). 4 In Sec.…”

Section: Cosmological Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hubble Parameter Measurement Constraints on the Redshift of the Deceleration–acceleration Transition, Dynamical Dark Energy, and Space Curvature

Farooq

Madiyar

Crandall

2017

ApJ

387

270

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compile an updated list of 38 measurements of the Hubble parameter H(z) between redshifts 0.07z2.36 and use them to place constraints on model parameters of constant and time-varying dark energy cosmological models, both spatially flat and curved. We use five models to measure the redshift of the cosmological deceleration-acceleration transition, z da , from these H(z) data. Within the error bars, the measured z da are insensitive to the model used, depending only on the value assumed for the Hubble constant H 0 . The weighted mean of our measurements is z da =0.72±0.05 (0.84±0.03) for H 0 =68±2.8 (73.24±1.74) km sand should provide a reasonably model-independent estimate of this cosmological parameter. The H(z) data are consistent with the standard spatially flat ΛCDM cosmological model but do not rule out nonflat models or dynamical dark energy models.

show abstract

“…where a is the scale factor. These equations are numerically integrated to provide H(z) in the φCDM model Samushia 2009;Farooq 2013).…”

Section: λCdm ωCdm and φCdmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determining the Hubble Constant From Hubble Parameter Measurements

Chen

Kumar

Ratra

2017

ApJ

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT1 Mpc −1 (1σ errors) in the ΛCDM (spatially flat and non-flat), ωCDM, and fCDM models, respectively. These measured H 0 values are more consistent with the lower values determined from recent data on the cosmic microwave background and baryon acoustic oscillations, as well as with the value found from a median statistical analysis of Huchra's compilation of H 0 measurements, but include the higher local measurements of H 0 within the 2σ confidence limits.

show abstract

Observational constraints on dark energy cosmological model parameters

Cited by 9 publications

References 122 publications

Statistical analysis with cosmic-expansion-rate measurements and two-point diagnostics

Statistical analysis with cosmic-expansion-rate measurements and two-point diagnostics

Hubble Parameter Measurement Constraints on the Redshift of the Deceleration–acceleration Transition, Dynamical Dark Energy, and Space Curvature

Determining the Hubble Constant From Hubble Parameter Measurements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About