Observational constraints on non-flat dynamical dark energy cosmological models

Farooq, Omer; Mania, Data; Ratra, Bharat

doi:10.1007/s10509-015-2319-2

Cited by 66 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 94 publications

(134 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…H(z) data have previously been used to constrain other cosmological parameters (see, e.g., Samushia & Ratra 2006;Chen & Ratra 2011b;Farooq et al , 2015Capozziello et al 2014;Chen et al 2015;Meng et al 2015;Alam et al 2016;Guo & Zhang 2016;Mukherjee 2016;Solà et al 2016), including measuring the redshift of the cosmological deceleration-acceleration transition between the earlier nonrelativistic matter-dominated epoch and the current dark-energy-dominated epoch (see, e.g., Moresco et al 2016). See Verde et al (2014) for an early attempt at measuring H 0 from H(z) data.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determining the Hubble Constant From Hubble Parameter Measurements

Chen

Kumar

Ratra

2017

ApJ

Self Cite

142

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

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determining the Hubble Constant From Hubble Parameter Measurements

Chen

Kumar

Ratra

2017

ApJ

Self Cite

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When α=0 the fCDM model is reduced to the corresponding ΛCDM scenario. The fCDM model with this kind of V(f) has been extensively investigated, mostly in the spatially flat case (Podariu & Ratra 2000;Chae et al 2004;Samushia et al 2007;Samushia & Ratra 2010;Chen & Ratra 2011a, 2011bFarooq & Ratra 2013;Farooq et al 2013aFarooq et al , 2013bAvsajanishvili et al 2014;Pavlov et al 2014;Chen et al 2015;Lima et al 2015), and only limited attention has been paid to the non-flat scenario (Pavlov et al 2013;Farooq et al 2015;Gosenca & Coles 2015). However, the above-mentioned literature on the fCDM model did not consider massive neutrinos.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constraints on Non-Flat Cosmologies With Massive Neutrinos After Planck 2015

Chen

Ratra

Biesiada

et al. 2016

ApJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate two dark energy cosmological models (i.e., the ΛCDM and fCDM models) with massive neutrinos assuming two different neutrino mass hierarchies in both the spatially flat and non-flat scenarios, where in the fCDM model the scalar field possesses an inverse power-law potential, V(f)∝f − α (α>0). Cosmic microwave background data from Planck2015, baryon acoustic oscillation data from 6dFGS, SDSS-MGS, BOSS-LOWZ and BOSS CMASS-DR11, the joint light-curve analysis compilation of SNe Ia apparent magnitude observations, and the Hubble Space Telescope H 0 prior, are jointly employed to constrain the model parameters. We first determine constraints assuming three species of degenerate massive neutrinos. In the spatially flat (non-flat) ΛCDM model, the sum of neutrino masses is bounded as Σm ν <0.165(0.299) eV at 95% confidence level (CL). Correspondingly, in the flat (non-flat) fCDM model, we find Σm ν <0.164(0.301) eV at 95% CL. The inclusion of spatial curvature as a free parameter results in a significant broadening of confidence regions for Σm ν and other parameters. In the scenario where the total neutrino mass is dominated by the heaviest neutrino mass eigenstate, we obtain similar conclusions to those obtained in the degenerate neutrino mass scenario. In addition, the results show that the bounds on Σm ν based on two different neutrino mass hierarchies have insignificant differences in the spatially flat case for both the ΛCDM and fCDM models; however, the corresponding differences are larger in the nonflat case.

show abstract

“…constraint on Ω K of approximately 3.8 × 10 −2 , nearly eight times worse than the published Planck þ BAO constraint [1]. This is the result of a geometric degeneracy [60][61][62][63], which makes it difficult to disentangle the effects of curvature and a varying dark energy equation of state. Information from CMB lensing and low-redshift BAO helps to break the degeneracy, but the parameters remain strongly correlated; if w 0 and w a are fixed (see the "fixed w" column), the constraint is very similar to the published result (which also assumed fixed w).…”

Section: A Forecasts For Each Generation Of Surveysmentioning

confidence: 93%

Spatial curvature endgame: Reaching the limit of curvature determination

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current constraints on spatial curvature show that it is dynamically negligible: jΩ K j ≲ 5 × 10 −3 (95% C.L.). Neglecting it as a cosmological parameter would be premature however, as more stringent constraints on Ω K at around the 10 −4 level would offer valuable tests of eternal inflation models and probe novel large-scale structure phenomena. This precision also represents the "curvature floor," beyond which constraints cannot be meaningfully improved due to the cosmic variance of horizon-scale perturbations. In this paper, we discuss what future experiments will need to do in order to measure spatial curvature to this maximum accuracy. Our conservative forecasts show that the curvature floor is unreachable-by an order of magnitude-even with Stage IV experiments, unless strong assumptions are made about dark energy evolution and the ΛCDM parameter values. We also discuss some of the novel problems that arise when attempting to constrain a global cosmological parameter like Ω K with such high precision. Measuring curvature down to this level would be an important validation of systematics characterization in high-precision cosmological analyses.

show abstract

Observational constraints on non-flat dynamical dark energy cosmological models

Cited by 66 publications

References 94 publications

Determining the Hubble Constant From Hubble Parameter Measurements

Determining the Hubble Constant From Hubble Parameter Measurements

Constraints on Non-Flat Cosmologies With Massive Neutrinos After Planck 2015

Spatial curvature endgame: Reaching the limit of curvature determination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About