4.7 Article

Standardizing Platinum Dainotti-correlated gamma-ray bursts, and using them with standardized Amati-correlated gamma-ray bursts to constrain cosmological model parameters

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 512, Issue 1, Pages 439-454

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stac517

Keywords

cosmological parameters; cosmology: observations; dark energy; gamma-ray bursts

Funding

  1. DOE [DE-SC0011840]
  2. NSF [CNS-1006860, EPS-1006860, EPS-0919443, ACI-1440548, CHE-1726332]
  3. NIH [P20GM113109]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study shows that the Platinum gamma-ray burst (GRB) data compilation follows a cosmological-model-independent correlation and can be standardized. Combining the data with others can improve the precision of cosmological constraints based on GRBs. By excluding common GRBs and jointly analyzing the data, more restrictive GRB-only cosmological constraints can be obtained.
We show that the Platinum gamma-ray burst (GRB) data compilation, probing the redshift range 0.553 <= z <= 5.0, obeys a cosmological-model-independent three-parameter Fundamental Plane (Dainotti) correlation and so is standardizable. While they probe the largely unexplored z similar to 2.3-5 part of cosmological redshift space, the GRB cosmological parameter constraints are consistent with, but less precise than, those from a combination of baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) and Hubble parameter [H(z)] data. In order to increase the precision of GRB-only cosmological constraints, we exclude common GRBs from the larger Amati-correlated A118 data set composed of 118 GRBs and jointly analyse the remaining 101 Amati-correlated GRBs with the 50 Platinum GRBs. This joint 151 GRB data set probes the largely unexplored z similar to 2.3-8.2 region; the resulting GRB-only cosmological constraints are more restrictive, and consistent with, but less precise than, those from H(z) + BAO data.

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