Model comparison of $$\Lambda $$ Λ CDM vs $$R_h=ct$$ Rh=ct using cosmic chronometers
Abstract In 2012, Bilicki and Seikel (Mon Not R Astron Soc 425:1664, 2012) showed that H(z) data reconstructed using Gaussian Process Regression from cosmic chronometers and baryon acoustic oscillations, conclusively rules out the $$R_h=ct$$ Rh=ct model. These results were disputed by Melia and coll...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SpringerOpen
2020-08-01
|
| Series: | European Physical Journal C: Particles and Fields |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8289-8 |
| _version_ | 1818296226037104640 |
|---|---|
| author | Haveesh Singirikonda Shantanu Desai |
| author_facet | Haveesh Singirikonda Shantanu Desai |
| author_sort | Haveesh Singirikonda |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract In 2012, Bilicki and Seikel (Mon Not R Astron Soc 425:1664, 2012) showed that H(z) data reconstructed using Gaussian Process Regression from cosmic chronometers and baryon acoustic oscillations, conclusively rules out the $$R_h=ct$$ Rh=ct model. These results were disputed by Melia and collaborators in two different works (Melia and Maier in Mon Not R Astron Soc 432:2669, 2013; Melia and Yennapureddy in JCAP 2018:034, 2018), who showed using both an unbinned analysis and Gaussian Process reconstructed H(z) data from chronometers, that $$R_h=ct$$ Rh=ct is favored over $$\Lambda $$ Λ CDM model. To resolve this imbroglio, we carry out model comparison of $$\Lambda $$ Λ CDM versus $$R_h=ct$$ Rh=ct by independently reproducing the above claims using the latest chronometer data. We perform model selection between these two models using Bayesian model comparison. We find that no one model between $$\Lambda $$ Λ CDM and $$R_h=ct$$ Rh=ct is decisively favored when uniform priors on $$\Lambda $$ Λ CDM parameters are used. However, if we use priors centered around the Planck best-fit values, then $$\Lambda $$ Λ CDM is very strongly preferred over $$R_h=ct$$ Rh=ct . |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-13T04:00:10Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-8134ad453bc045d0b26b517ad4f72b1c |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1434-6044 1434-6052 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-13T04:00:10Z |
| publishDate | 2020-08-01 |
| publisher | SpringerOpen |
| record_format | Article |
| series | European Physical Journal C: Particles and Fields |
| spelling | doaj.art-8134ad453bc045d0b26b517ad4f72b1c2022-12-22T00:00:30ZengSpringerOpenEuropean Physical Journal C: Particles and Fields1434-60441434-60522020-08-018081910.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8289-8Model comparison of $$\Lambda $$ Λ CDM vs $$R_h=ct$$ Rh=ct using cosmic chronometersHaveesh Singirikonda0Shantanu Desai1Department of Physics, Indian Institute of TechnologyDepartment of Physics, Indian Institute of TechnologyAbstract In 2012, Bilicki and Seikel (Mon Not R Astron Soc 425:1664, 2012) showed that H(z) data reconstructed using Gaussian Process Regression from cosmic chronometers and baryon acoustic oscillations, conclusively rules out the $$R_h=ct$$ Rh=ct model. These results were disputed by Melia and collaborators in two different works (Melia and Maier in Mon Not R Astron Soc 432:2669, 2013; Melia and Yennapureddy in JCAP 2018:034, 2018), who showed using both an unbinned analysis and Gaussian Process reconstructed H(z) data from chronometers, that $$R_h=ct$$ Rh=ct is favored over $$\Lambda $$ Λ CDM model. To resolve this imbroglio, we carry out model comparison of $$\Lambda $$ Λ CDM versus $$R_h=ct$$ Rh=ct by independently reproducing the above claims using the latest chronometer data. We perform model selection between these two models using Bayesian model comparison. We find that no one model between $$\Lambda $$ Λ CDM and $$R_h=ct$$ Rh=ct is decisively favored when uniform priors on $$\Lambda $$ Λ CDM parameters are used. However, if we use priors centered around the Planck best-fit values, then $$\Lambda $$ Λ CDM is very strongly preferred over $$R_h=ct$$ Rh=ct .http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8289-8 |
| spellingShingle | Haveesh Singirikonda Shantanu Desai Model comparison of $$\Lambda $$ Λ CDM vs $$R_h=ct$$ Rh=ct using cosmic chronometers European Physical Journal C: Particles and Fields |
| title | Model comparison of $$\Lambda $$ Λ CDM vs $$R_h=ct$$ Rh=ct using cosmic chronometers |
| title_full | Model comparison of $$\Lambda $$ Λ CDM vs $$R_h=ct$$ Rh=ct using cosmic chronometers |
| title_fullStr | Model comparison of $$\Lambda $$ Λ CDM vs $$R_h=ct$$ Rh=ct using cosmic chronometers |
| title_full_unstemmed | Model comparison of $$\Lambda $$ Λ CDM vs $$R_h=ct$$ Rh=ct using cosmic chronometers |
| title_short | Model comparison of $$\Lambda $$ Λ CDM vs $$R_h=ct$$ Rh=ct using cosmic chronometers |
| title_sort | model comparison of lambda λ cdm vs r h ct rh ct using cosmic chronometers |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8289-8 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT haveeshsingirikonda modelcomparisonoflambdalcdmvsrhctrhctusingcosmicchronometers AT shantanudesai modelcomparisonoflambdalcdmvsrhctrhctusingcosmicchronometers |