4.7 Article

Simultaneous falsification of ΛCDM and quintessence with massive, distant clusters

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 83, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.023015

关键词

-

资金

  1. CCAPP at Ohio State
  2. KICP under NSF [PHY-0114422]
  3. DOE [DE-FG02-90ER-40560, DE-FG02-95ER40899]
  4. Packard Foundation
  5. NSF [AST-0807564]
  6. NASA [NNX09AC89G]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Observation of even a single massive cluster, especially at high redshift, can falsify the standard cosmological framework consisting of a cosmological constant and cold dark matter (Lambda CDM) with Gaussian initial conditions by exposing an inconsistency between the well-measured expansion history and the growth of structure it predicts. Through a likelihood analysis of current cosmological data that constrain the expansion history, we show that the Lambda CDM upper limits on the expected number of massive, distant clusters are nearly identical to limits predicted by all quintessence models where dark energy is a minimally coupled scalar field with a canonical kinetic term. We provide convenient fitting formulas for the confidence level at which the observation of a cluster of mass M at redshift z can falsify Lambda CDM and quintessence given cosmological parameter uncertainties and sample variance, as well as for the expected number of such clusters in the light cone and the Eddington bias factor that must be applied to observed masses. By our conservative confidence criteria, which equivalently require masses 3 times larger than typically expected in surveys of a few hundred square degrees, none of the presently known clusters falsify these models. Various systematic errors, including uncertainties in the form of the mass function and differences between supernova light curve fitters, typically shift the exclusion curves by less than 10% in mass, making current statistical and systematic uncertainties in cluster mass determination the most critical factor in assessing falsification of Lambda CDM and quintessence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据