- #36
wabbit
Gold Member
- 1,284
- 208
Garth said:Absolutely wabbit, there is acceleration from the vanilla pre-1998 totally non DE, decelerating, model, but the question is it it sufficient to produce the standard [itex]\Lambda[/itex]CDM model or less thus producing a linear or near-linearly expanding one?
The way I read the text and Fig 3 is that it seems they are saying it is more consistent with the Milne model (which has less acceleration but hyperbolic space to give nearly the same luminosity distance for any z), but I need to understand the statistical analysis of the probability densities better to make a statistical comparison of the two models.
Garth
Just to.clarify, I wasn't comparing to non-DE but to their non accelerating model - I have been referring exclusively to the content of the article.
To me, fig. 3 is by far the least informative - given the large noise, I cannot discern a best fit by visual inspection there. So I was basing my reading mainly on figure 2 showing the no-acceleration line lying at the edge of the likely ellipsoid, and table I giving the log-likelihoods of various models including unaccelerated model, compared to a best fit, and close behind best flat fit which is LCDM-ish - they do not list the LCDM with reference parameters in that table though, not sure why.
I can't say I find their exposition particularly clear, and I don't know all these models well, so maybe I misunderstood the nature of that table or what they claim.