TestingΛCDMwith the growth functionδ(a): Current constraints

2007/10/31 by S. Nesseris, Savvas Nesseris, Leandros Perivolaropoulos +1 · 7 citations
Mathematics · Physics and Astronomy · #Algorithm #Astrophysics #Black Holes and Theoretical Physics #Combinatorics #Cosmology and Gravitation Theories #Lambda #Mathematics #Omega #Particle physics theoretical and experimental studies #Physics #Quantum mechanics #Redshift #astro-ph #gr-qc #hep-ph

paper · pdf · doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.023504

published as Phys.Rev.D77:023504,2008 · 7 pages, 4 figures. Added comments on the data of Table I (after eq. (2.16)). Corrected a typo on eq. (2.15). The mathematica files with the numerical analysis of this study may be found at http://nesseris.physics.uoi.gr/growth/growth.htm

arxiv created 2007/10/31 · openalex publication_date 2008/01/07 · arxiv updated 2009/12/01 · openalex created_date 2016/06/24 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/05

Abstract

We have compiled a data set consisting of 22 data points at a redshift range (0.15, 3.8) which can be used to constrain the linear perturbation growth rate f=\fracdln\ensuremathδdlna. Five of these data points constrain directly the growth rate f through either redshift distortions or change of the power spectrum with redshift. The rest of the data points constrain f indirectly through the rms mass fluctuation \ensuremathσ₈(z) inferred from L_y\mathrm\text\ensuremath-\ensuremathα at various redshifts. Our analysis tests the consistency of the \ensuremathΛCDM model and leads to a constraint of the Wang-Steinhardt growth index \ensuremathγ [defined from f=\ensuremathΩ_m(a)^\ensuremathγ] as \ensuremathγ=0.67_\ensuremath-0.17^+0.20. This result is clearly consistent at 1\ensuremathσ with the value \ensuremathγ=(6)/(11)=0.545 predicted by \ensuremathΛCDM. We also apply our analysis on a new null test of \ensuremathΛCDM which is similar to the one recently proposed by Chiba and Nakamura (arXiv:0708.3877) but does not involve derivatives of the expansion rate H(z). This also leads to the fact that \ensuremathΛCDM provides an excellent fit to the current linear growth data.

Citations

• A Null Test of the Cosmological Constant
• Tracking dark energy with the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect: Short and long-term predictions
• On the Growth of Perturbations as a Test of Dark Energy and Gravity
• Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High‐Redshift Supernovae
• How to determine an effective potential for a variable cosmological term
• Probing Dark Energy with Baryonic Acoustic Oscillations from Future Large Galaxy Redshift Surveys
• Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant
• The Linear Theory Power Spectrum from the Lyα Forest in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
• Accelerating Universes with Scaling Dark Matter
• First‐Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe ( WMAP ) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters
• First Cosmic Shear Results from the Canada‐France‐Hawaii Telescope Wide Synoptic Legacy Survey
• The Supernova Legacy Survey: measurement of Ω_M, Ω_Λ andwfrom the first year data set
• Cosmological constraints from the SDSS luminous red galaxies
• Three‐YearWilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe(WMAP) Observations: Implications for Cosmology

Cited by

• Reconstruction of the null-test for the matter density perturbations
• Consistency of ΛCDM with geometric and dynamical probes
• Cosmological equivalence between the Finsler-Randers space-time and the DGP gravity model
• Matter density perturbations in modified gravity models with arbitrary coupling between matter and geometry
• Characterizing the linear growth rate of cosmological density perturbations in anf(R)model
• Model-independent cosmological constraints from growth and expansion
• The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: the growth rate of cosmic structure since redshift z=0.9
• Cosmological implications and structure formation from a time varying vacuum