4.7 Article

Cosmological implications of ns ≈ 1 in light of the Hubble tension

期刊

PHYSICS LETTERS B
卷 830, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137143

关键词

-

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [17H02878, 20H01894, 20H05851, 21K20364, 22K14029, 22H01215]
  2. JSPS Core-to-Core Program [JPJSCCA20200002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recent report emphasizes the presence of Hubble tension and explores the impact of various cosmological models on this issue. Some models may have a scalar spectral index greater than the predicted value by ACDM, and even allow for a scale-invariant scenario. Therefore, studying special early Universe models is crucial for understanding this unusual n(s).
Recently, a low-z measurement of the Hubble constant, H-0 = 73.04 +/- 1.04 km/s/Mpc, was reported by the SHOES Team. The long-standing Hubble tension, i.e. the difference between the Hubble constant from the local measurements and that inferred from the cosmic microwave background data based on the ACDM model, was further strengthened. There are many cosmological models modifying the cosmology after and around the recombination era to alleviate this tension. Some of the models alter the small-scale fluctuation amplitude relative to larger scales, and thus require a significant modification of the primordial density perturbation, especially the scalar spectral index, n(s). In certain promising models, n(s) is favored to be larger than the ACDM prediction, and even the scale-invariant one, n(s) = 1, is allowed. In this Letter, we focus on the very early Universe models to study the implication of such unusual n(s). In particular, we find that an axiverse with axions in the equilibrium distribution during inflation can be easily consistent with n(s) = 1. This is because the axion behaves as a curvaton with mass much smaller than the inflationary Hubble parameter. We also discuss other explanations of n(s) different from that obtained based on the ACDM. (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.

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