4.7 Article

A comparison of the Rh = ct and ΛCDM cosmologies using the cosmic distance duality relation

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 481, Issue 4, Pages 4855-4862

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/sty2596

Keywords

galaxies: active; cosmological parameters; distance scale; cosmology: observations; cosmology: theory

Funding

  1. Chinese Academy of Sciences Visiting Professorships for Senior International Scientists [2012T1J0011]
  2. Chinese State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs [GDJ20120491013]
  3. Amherst College

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The cosmic distance duality (CDD) relation (based on the Etherington reciprocity theorem) plays a crucial role in a wide assortment of cosmological measurements. Attempts at confirming it observationally have met with mixed results, though the general consensus appears to be that the data do support its existence in nature. A common limitation with past approaches has been their reliance on a specific cosmological model, or on measurements of the luminosity distance to Type Ia SNe, which introduces a dependence on the presumed cosmology in spite of beliefs to the contrary. Confirming that the CDD is actually realized in nature is crucial because its violation would require exotic new physics. In this paper, we study the CDD using the observed angular size of compact quasar cores and a Gaussian Process reconstruction of the H II galaxy Hubble diagram - without pre-assuming any particular background cosmology. In so doing, we confirm at a very high level of confidence that the angular-diameter and luminosity distances do indeed satisfy the CDD. We then demonstrate the potential power of this result by utilizing it in a comparative test of two competing cosmological models - the R-h = ct universe and Lambda CDM - and show that R-h = ct is favoured by the CDD data with a likelihood similar to 82.3 per cent compared with similar to 17.7 per cent for the standard model.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available