4.7 Article

Constraining minimally extended varying speed of light by cosmological chronometers

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stad1190

关键词

cosmology: theory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For the varying speed of light (VSL) models to be phenomenologically feasible, at least one dimensionless physical constant must change. Adiabaticity and the dependence of physical constants and quantities on cosmic time are also important. The minimally extended VSL (meVSL) model satisfies these conditions and the redshift-drift formula is the same as the standard model. However, the meVSL cannot be verified experimentally but can be tested using cosmological chronometers (CC).
At least one dimensionless physical constant (i.e. a physically observable) must change for the cosmic time to make the varying speed of light (VSL) models phenomenologically feasible. Various physical constants and quantities also should be functions of cosmic time to satisfy all known local laws of physics, including special relativity, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism. Adiabaticity is another necessary condition to keep the homogeneity and isotropy of three-dimensional space. To be a self-consistent theory, one should consider cosmic evolutions of physical constants and quantities when one derives Einstein's field equations and their solutions. All these conditions are well-satisfied in the so-called minimally extended varying speed of light (meVSL) model. Unlike other VSL models, we show that the redshift-drift formula of the meVSL model is the same as a standard model. Therefore, we cannot use this as an experimental tool to verify the meVSL. Instead, one can still use the cosmological chronometers (CC) as a model-independent test of the meVSL. The current CC data cannot distinguish meVSL from the standard model (SM) when we adopt the best-fitting values (or Gaussian prior) of H-0 and omega(m0) from the Planck mission. However, the CC data prefer the meVSL when we choose Pantheon22 data.

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