-
Constraints on cosmic curvature from cosmic chronometer and quasar observations
Authors:
Bikash R. Dinda,
Haveesh Singirikonda,
Subhabrata Majumdar
Abstract:
We consider cosmic chronometer (CC) data for the Hubble parameter, quasar (QSO) luminosities data of X-rays and ultraviolet rays emission, and the latest measurements of the present value of the Hubble parameter from 2018 Planck mission (PL18), and SH0ES observations (SHOES) to constrain the present value of cosmic curvature density parameter. We consider three kinds of dark energy models: the…
▽ More
We consider cosmic chronometer (CC) data for the Hubble parameter, quasar (QSO) luminosities data of X-rays and ultraviolet rays emission, and the latest measurements of the present value of the Hubble parameter from 2018 Planck mission (PL18), and SH0ES observations (SHOES) to constrain the present value of cosmic curvature density parameter. We consider three kinds of dark energy models: the $Λ$CDM model, the wCDM model, and the CPL parametrization. In all these three models, we find higher values of the matter-energy density parameter, $Ω_{\rm m0}$ compared to the one obtained from the Planck 2018 mission of CMB observation. Also, we find evidence for a nonflat and closed Universe at 0.5$σ$ to 3$σ$ confidence levels. The flat Universe is almost 2 to 3$σ$, 1 to 1.5$σ$, and 0.5 to 1$σ$ away from the corresponding mean values, obtained in $Λ$CDM model, wCDM model, and CPL parametrization respectively obtained from different combinations of datasets. The evidence for nonzero cosmic curvature is lesser in dynamical dark energy models compared to the $Λ$CDM model. That means the evidence of nonzero cosmic curvature depends on the behavior of the equation of state of the dark energy. Since the values of the cosmic curvature are degenerate to the equation of state of the dark energy, we also consider a model independent analysis to constrain the cosmic curvature using the combination of Gaussian process regression analysis and artificial neural networks analysis. In the model independent analysis, we also find evidence for a closed Universe, and the flat Universe is almost 1$σ$ away. So, both the model dependent and independent analyses favor a closed Universe from the combinations of CC, QSO, and $H_0$ observations.
△ Less
Submitted 28 March, 2023; v1 submitted 27 March, 2023;
originally announced March 2023.
-
Search for Lorentz Invariance Violation using Bayesian model comparison applied to Xiao et al. GRB spectral lag catalog
Authors:
Shantanu Desai,
Rajdeep Agrawal,
Haveesh Singirikonda
Abstract:
We use the spectral lag catalog of 46 short GRBs aggregated by Xiao et al (2022), to carry out an independent search for Lorentz Invariance violation (LIV). For this purpose, we use a power-law model as a function of energy for the intrinsic astrophysical induced spectral lags. The expansion history of the universe needed for constraining LIV was obtained in a non-parametric method using cosmic ch…
▽ More
We use the spectral lag catalog of 46 short GRBs aggregated by Xiao et al (2022), to carry out an independent search for Lorentz Invariance violation (LIV). For this purpose, we use a power-law model as a function of energy for the intrinsic astrophysical induced spectral lags. The expansion history of the universe needed for constraining LIV was obtained in a non-parametric method using cosmic chronometers. We use Bayesian model comparison to determine if the aforementioned spectral lags show evidence for LIV as compared to only astrophysically induced lags. We do not find any evidence for LIV, and obtain 95\% c.l. lower limits on the corresponding energy scale to be $4 \times 10^{15}$ GeV and $6.8 \times 10^{9}$ GeV for the linear and quadratic LIV models respectively. Our results obtained by using the flat $Λ$CDM model for characterizing the cosmic expansion history are consistent with those obtained using chronometers.
△ Less
Submitted 17 January, 2023; v1 submitted 25 May, 2022;
originally announced May 2022.
-
Search for Lorentz Invariance Violation from stacked Gamma-Ray Burst spectral lag data
Authors:
Rajdeep Agrawal,
Haveesh Singirikonda,
Shantanu Desai
Abstract:
A number of works have claimed detections of a turn-over in the spectral lag data for individual Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs), caused by an energy-dependent speed of light, which could be a possible manifestation of Lorentz invariance violation (LIV). Here, we stack the spectral lag data from a total of 37 GRBs (with a total of 91 measurements), to verify if the combined data is consistent with a unifi…
▽ More
A number of works have claimed detections of a turn-over in the spectral lag data for individual Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs), caused by an energy-dependent speed of light, which could be a possible manifestation of Lorentz invariance violation (LIV). Here, we stack the spectral lag data from a total of 37 GRBs (with a total of 91 measurements), to verify if the combined data is consistent with a unified model consisting of intrinsic astrophysical emission, along with another contribution due to LIV. We then carry out Bayesian model comparison to ascertain if this combined spectral lag data shows a preference for an energy-dependent speed of light, as compared to only an intrinsic astrophysical emission mechanism. We do not find a decisive evidence for such an energy-dependent speed of light for two different models of LIV. When we assume a constant intrinsic lag coupled with an unknown intrinsic scatter, we do not find any evidence for LIV. However, when we use GRB-dependent parameters to model the intrinsic emission, we get decisive evidence for LIV violation. We then carry out a search for LIV Standard Model Extension using this dataset as well as an independent search using a separate dataset consisting of rest-frame spectral lags. Finally, none of the models considered here with any of the aforementioned assumptions provide a good fit to the stacked spectral lag data, indicating that there is still missing Physics in the model for intrinsic spectral lags.
△ Less
Submitted 27 April, 2021; v1 submitted 22 February, 2021;
originally announced February 2021.
-
Model Comparison of $Λ$CDM vs $R_h=ct$ using Cosmic Chronometers
Authors:
Haveesh Singirikonda,
Shantanu Desai
Abstract:
In 2012, Bilicki and Seikel (arXiv:1206.5130) showed that $H(z)$ data reconstructed using Gaussian Process Regression from cosmic chronometers and BAO, conclusively rules out the $R_h=ct$ model. These results were disputed by Melia and collaborators in two different works (arXiv:1304.1802 and arXiv:1802.02255), who showed using both an unbinned analysis and Gaussian Process reconstructed $H(z)$ da…
▽ More
In 2012, Bilicki and Seikel (arXiv:1206.5130) showed that $H(z)$ data reconstructed using Gaussian Process Regression from cosmic chronometers and BAO, conclusively rules out the $R_h=ct$ model. These results were disputed by Melia and collaborators in two different works (arXiv:1304.1802 and arXiv:1802.02255), who showed using both an unbinned analysis and Gaussian Process reconstructed $H(z)$ data from chronometers, that $R_h=ct$ is favored over $Λ$CDM model. To resolve this imbroglio, we carry out model comparison of $Λ$CDM versus $R_h=ct$ by independently reproducing the above claims using latest chronometer data. We perform model selection between these two models using Bayesian model comparison. We find that no one model between $Λ$CDM and $R_h=ct$ is decisively favored when uniform priors on $Λ$CDM parameters are used. However, if we use priors centered around the Planck best-fit values, then $Λ$CDM is very strongly preferred over $R_h=ct$.
△ Less
Submitted 25 July, 2020; v1 submitted 1 March, 2020;
originally announced March 2020.
