Local probes strongly favor ΛCDM against power-law andR_h=ctuniverse

Abstract

We constrain three cosmological models, i.e. the concordance cold dark matter plus a cosmological constant (ΛCDM) model, Power-law (PL) model, and R h = ct model using the available local probes, which includes the JLA compilation of type-Ia supernovae (SNe Ia), the direct measurement of Hubble constant (H(z)), and the baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO). For ΛCDM model, we consider two different cases, i.e. zero and non-zero spatial curvature. We find that by using the JLA alone, it is indistinguishable between ΛCDM and PL models, but the R h = ct model is strongly disfavored. If we combine JLA+H(z), the ΛCDM model is strongly favored against the other two models. The combination of all the three datasets also supports ΛCDM as the best model. We also use the low-redshift (z < 0.2) data to constrain the deceleration parameter using cosmography method, and find that only the ΛCDM model is consistent with cosmography. However, there is no strong evidence to distinguish between flat and non-flat ΛCDM models by using the local data alone.

Cosmological test using the Hubble diagram of high-z quasars

“…Thus, any use of BAO data, and measurements of H(z) derived from them, yields a biased outcome. Lin et al (2018) used all of the data and, not surprisingly, concluded that ΛCDM is favoured, because the standard model was assumed as the background in order to estimate the redshift space distortions. But when only the model-independent data are used (see, e.g., Melia & López-Corredoira 2017) one reaches the opposite conclusion.…”

Evidence for cosmic acceleration with next-generation surveys: a model-independent approach

“…Given the still unknown nature of the current accelerated expansion, it is essential to quantify how well we can detect this phenomenon, since it could rule out the standard model, and even the possibility of the existence of the dark energy paradigm as a whole. Within the context of the standard model, cosmological observations show that the Universe is currently accelerating at roughly 5σ level (Shapiro & Turner 2006;Ishida et al 2008;Giostri et al 2012;Vargas dos Santos et al 2016;Rubin & Hayden 2016;Harisadu et al 2017;Tutusaus et al 2017;Lin et al 2018;Rubin & Heitlauf 2019), E-mail: Carlos.Bengaly@unige.ch albeit this result was recently disputed using the Hubble diagram of Type ia Supernovae (Nielsen et al 2016;Ringermacher & Mead 2016;Dam et al 2017;Colin et al 2019a;Rameez 2019;Colin et al 2019b) and quasars (Lusso et al 2019;Yang et al 2019;Velten & Gomes 2019). Other works looked at model-independent probes of cosmic acceleration, thus independent of dark energy, and even General Relativity assumptions, such as kinematic analyses (Rapetti et al 2007;Cunha & Lima 2008;Carvalho et al 2011;Lu et al 2011;Nair et al 2012;Muthukrishna & Parkinson 2016;Jesus et al 2018;Heneka 2018), besides non-parametric approaches (Mortsell & Clarkson 2009;Velten et al 2018;Harisadu et al 2018;Tutusaus et al 2019;Gómez-Valent 2019;Jesus et al 2019;Arjona & Nesseris al.…”

Model comparison of $$\Lambda $$CDM vs $$R_h=ct$$ using cosmic chronometers

“…Besides the above two sets of papers, Ref. [39] showed using AIC and BIC that a combination of JLA type 1a SN sample and 30 H (z) measurements from chronometers and BAO strongly support the CDM model over R h = ct universe. They also found using AIC and BIC that the chronometer only measurements by themselves do not decisively favor any one model.…”

“…Although BS12 (and also Ref. [39]) has used H (z) measurements from BAO to rule out R h = ct model, we have only used the Hubble parameter data obtained from cosmic chronometers. This is due to various concerns regarding combining data from these two sources for parameter estimation within CDM and for testing R h = ct universe [2,74].…”

“…This model has been tested with a whole slew of cosmological observations by Melia and collaborators; such as cosmic chronometers [3], quasar core angular size measurements [31], quasar X-ray and UV fluxes [32], Type 1a SN [33], strong lensing [34], cluster gas mass fraction [35], etc and found to be in better agreement compared to CDM model. However, other researchers have reached opposite conclusions and have argued that this model is inconsistent with observations [1,[36][37][38][39][40][41][42]. Even before this model was introduced, there were severe observational constraints on power-law cosmologies, within which this model can be subsumed [43,44].…”