On recent claims concerning the Rh = ct Universe

Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/615103
Title:
On recent claims concerning the Rh = ct Universe
Author:
Melia, F.
Affiliation:
The University of Arizona
Issue Date:
2014-11-18
Publisher:
OXFORD UNIV PRESS
Citation:
On recent claims concerning the Rh = ct Universe 2014, 446 (2):1191 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Journal:
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Rights:
© 2014 The Author Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Royal Astronomical Society
Collection Information:
This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.
Abstract:
The $R_{\rm h}=ct$ Universe is a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) cosmology which, like $\Lambda$CDM, assumes the presence of dark energy in addition to (baryonic and non-luminous) matter and radiation. Unlike $\Lambda$CDM, however, it is also constrained by the equation of state (EOS) $p=-\rho/3$, in terms of the total pressure $p$ and energy density $\rho$. One-on-one comparative tests between $R_{\rm h}=ct$ and $\Lambda$CDM have been carried out using over 14 different cosmological measurements and observations. In every case, the data have favoured $R_{\rm h}=ct$ over the standard model, with model selection tools yielding a likelihood $\sim$$90- 95\%$ that the former is correct, versus only $\sim$$5-10\%$ for the latter. In other words, the standard model without the EOS $p=-\rho/3$ does not appear to be the optimal description of nature. Yet in spite of these successes---or perhaps because of them---several concerns have been published recently regarding the fundamental basis of the theory itself. The latest paper on this subject even claims---quite remarkably---that $R_{\rm h}=ct$ is a vacuum solution, though quite evidently $\rho\not=0$. Here, we address these concerns and demonstrate that all criticisms leveled {\it thus far} against $R_{\rm h}=ct$, including the supposed vacuum condition, are unwarranted. They all appear to be based on incorrect assumptions or basic theoretical errors. Nevertheless, continued scrutiny such as this will be critical to establishing $R_{\rm h}=ct$ as the correct description of nature.
ISSN:
0035-8711; 1365-2966
DOI:
10.1093/mnras/stu2181
Version:
Final accepted manuscript
Additional Links:
http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/mnras/stu2181

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorMelia, F.en
dc.date.accessioned2016-06-30T00:26:35Z-
dc.date.available2016-06-30T00:26:35Z-
dc.date.issued2014-11-18-
dc.identifier.citationOn recent claims concerning the Rh = ct Universe 2014, 446 (2):1191 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Societyen
dc.identifier.issn0035-8711-
dc.identifier.issn1365-2966-
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/mnras/stu2181-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/615103-
dc.description.abstractThe $R_{\rm h}=ct$ Universe is a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) cosmology which, like $\Lambda$CDM, assumes the presence of dark energy in addition to (baryonic and non-luminous) matter and radiation. Unlike $\Lambda$CDM, however, it is also constrained by the equation of state (EOS) $p=-\rho/3$, in terms of the total pressure $p$ and energy density $\rho$. One-on-one comparative tests between $R_{\rm h}=ct$ and $\Lambda$CDM have been carried out using over 14 different cosmological measurements and observations. In every case, the data have favoured $R_{\rm h}=ct$ over the standard model, with model selection tools yielding a likelihood $\sim$$90- 95\%$ that the former is correct, versus only $\sim$$5-10\%$ for the latter. In other words, the standard model without the EOS $p=-\rho/3$ does not appear to be the optimal description of nature. Yet in spite of these successes---or perhaps because of them---several concerns have been published recently regarding the fundamental basis of the theory itself. The latest paper on this subject even claims---quite remarkably---that $R_{\rm h}=ct$ is a vacuum solution, though quite evidently $\rho\not=0$. Here, we address these concerns and demonstrate that all criticisms leveled {\it thus far} against $R_{\rm h}=ct$, including the supposed vacuum condition, are unwarranted. They all appear to be based on incorrect assumptions or basic theoretical errors. Nevertheless, continued scrutiny such as this will be critical to establishing $R_{\rm h}=ct$ as the correct description of nature.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherOXFORD UNIV PRESSen
dc.relation.urlhttp://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/mnras/stu2181en
dc.rights© 2014 The Author Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Royal Astronomical Societyen
dc.titleOn recent claims concerning the Rh = ct Universeen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentThe University of Arizonaen
dc.identifier.journalMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Societyen
dc.description.collectioninformationThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.en
dc.eprint.versionFinal accepted manuscripten
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.