4.6 Article

Early cosmology constrained

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/04/023

关键词

cosmological parameters from CMBR; cosmological parameters from LSS

资金

  1. Spanish MINECO of ICCUB (Unidad de Excelencia Maria de Maeztu) [AYA2014-58747-P, MDM-2014-0369]
  2. Royal Society grant [IE140357]
  3. CNPq (Brazil)
  4. Imperial College through the CosmoCLASSIC collaboration
  5. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/N000838/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. STFC [ST/N000838/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigate our knowledge of early universe cosmology by exploring how much additional energy density can be placed in different components beyond those in the Lambda CDM model. To do this we use a method to separate early- and late-universe information enclosed in observational data, thus markedly reducing the model-dependency of the conclusions. We find that the 95% credibility regions for extra energy components of the early universe at recombination are: non-accelerating additional fluid density parameter Omega(MR) < 0.006 and extra radiation parameterised as extra effective neutrino species 2.3 < N-eff < 3.2 when imposing flatness. Our constraints thus show that even when analyzing the data in this largely model-independent way, the possibility of hiding extra energy components beyond Lambda CDM in the early universe is seriously constrained by current observations. We also find that the standard ruler, the sound horizon at radiation drag, can be well determined in a way that does not depend on late-time Universe assumptions, but depends strongly on early- time physics and in particular on additional components that behave like radiation. We find that the standard ruler length determined in this way is r(s) = 147.4 +/- 0.7 Mpc if the radiation and neutrino components are standard, but the uncertainty increases by an order of magnitude when non-standard dark radiation components are allowed, to r(s) = 150 +/- 5Mpc.

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

4.6
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