Any papers out that show the observed z vs. t?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BillSaltLake
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Observed Papers
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the ΛCDM model's predictions for the expansion factor a and its relationship to redshift z, particularly in light of supernova data. It highlights the current observed value of a, which is estimated to be 1.12 to 1.18 times higher than it would be if Λ were zero, with the ΛCDM model leaning towards the upper end of this range. The conversation notes that cosmologists typically prefer direct density estimations over analytical approximations. A referenced analysis from the Supernova Legacy Survey provides insights into these measurements, including a plot that suggests a cosmological constant is consistent with the data despite significant error margins. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the ongoing research and analysis surrounding cosmic expansion and the implications of supernova observations.
BillSaltLake
Gold Member
Messages
183
Reaction score
0
I know the constant ΛCDM model predicts the expansion factor a (= 1/[1+z] providing we impose the condition a = 1 now) to be of the form (sinh bt)2/3 for recent times. Are there any papers that determine either a(t) or z(t) from the supernova data, showing error bars? I think that the present observed value of a is presently higher by factor 1.12 - 1.18 than it would be if Λ = 0, and that the ΛCDM model favors the upper end (~1.18).
 
Space news on Phys.org
BillSaltLake said:
I know the constant ΛCDM model predicts the expansion factor a (= 1/[1+z] providing we impose the condition a = 1 now) to be of the form (sinh bt)2/3 for recent times. Are there any papers that determine either a(t) or z(t) from the supernova data, showing error bars? I think that the present observed value of a is presently higher by factor 1.12 - 1.18 than it would be if Λ = 0, and that the ΛCDM model favors the upper end (~1.18).
Cosmologists generally don't bother with such analytical approximations, and instead go for direct estimation of the densities.

Anyway, one of the most detailed current analyses of these issues can be found here:
http://supernova.lbl.gov/Union/

Of particular interest is this plot:
http://supernova.lbl.gov/Union/figures/Union2_w0-wa_slide.pdf

If w_0=-1 and w_a=0, then we have a cosmological constant. As you can see, though the errors are pretty big so far, a cosmological constant is very close to the center of the allowed region.
 
I always thought it was odd that we know dark energy expands our universe, and that we know it has been increasing over time, yet no one ever expressed a "true" size of the universe (not "observable" universe, the ENTIRE universe) by just reversing the process of expansion based on our understanding of its rate through history, to the point where everything would've been in an extremely small region. The more I've looked into it recently, I've come to find that it is due to that "inflation"...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K