4.7 Article

Cosmological data favor Galileon ghost condensate over ΛCDM

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
Volume 100, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.063540

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NWO
  2. Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW)
  3. D-ITP consortium, a program of the NWO - OCW
  4. Fondazione Ing. Aldo Gini
  5. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT) [UID/FIS/04434/2013]
  6. FEDER through COMPETE2020 [POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007672]
  7. FCT project DarkRipple-Spacetime ripples in the dark gravitational Universe [PTDC/FIS-OUT/29048/2017]
  8. COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) [CANTATA/CA15117]
  9. JSPS [19K03854]
  10. MEXT KAKENHI [15H05890]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We place observational constraints on the Galileon ghost condensate model, a dark energy proposal in cubic-order Horndeski theories consistent with the gravitational-wave event GW170817. The model extends the covariant Galileon by taking an additional higher-order field derivative X-2 into account. This allows for the dark energy equation of state w(DE) to access the region -2 < w(DE) < -1 without ghosts. Indeed, this peculiar evolution of w(DE) is favored over that of the cosmological constant Lambda from the joint data analysis of cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, baryonic acoustic oscillations (BAOs), supernovae type Ia (SNIa), and redshift-space distortions (RSDs). Furthermore, our model exhibits a better compatibility with the CMB data over the Lambda-cold-dark-matter (Lambda CDM) model by suppressing large-scale temperature anisotropies. The CMB temperature and polarization data lead to an estimation for today's Hubble parameter H-0 consistent with its direct measurements at 2 sigma. We perform a model selection analysis by using several methods and find a statistically significant preference of the Galileon ghost condensate model over Lambda CDM.

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