2012/09/30 by Abraham R. Neben, Michael S. Turner
Mathematics · Physics and Astronomy · #Astrophysics #Computer science #Cosmology #Cosmology and Gravitation Theories #Flatness (cosmology) #Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena #Galaxy #Gamma-ray bursts and supernovae #Mathematics #Monte Carlo method #Observational error #Offset (computer science) #Omega #Physics #Quantum mechanics #Redshift #Statistical physics #Statistics #Supernova #astro-ph.CO
paper · pdf · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/2/133
published as ApJ, 769, 133 (2013) · 9 pages, 10 figures. Replaced with accepted version (includes 2 new figures showing more quantitative analysis/comparison of redshift drift surveys and distance indicator surveys, as well as some minor reorganization)
openalex publication_date 2013/05/14 · arxiv created 2013/05/15 · arxiv updated 2015/06/11 · openalex created_date 2019/06/27 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/05
For decades, H 0 and q 0 were the quest of cosmology, as they promised to characterize our "world model" without reference to a specific cosmological framework. Using Monte Carlo simulations, we show that q 0 cannot be directly measured using distance indicators with both accuracy (without offset away from its true value) and precision (small error bar). While H 0 can be measured with accuracy and precision, to avoid a small bias in its direct measurement (of order 5%) we demonstrate that the pair H 0 and Ω M (assuming flatness and w = −1) is a better choice of two parameters, even if our world model is not precisely ΛCDM. We illustrate this with analysis of the Constitution set of supernovae and indirectly infer q 0 = −0.57 ± −0.04. Finally, we show that it may be possible to directly determine q 0 with both accuracy and precision using the time dependence of redshifts ("redshift drift").