CHASING LAMBDA Aleksandra Kurek *, Marek Szyd owski * * - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

chasing lambda
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

CHASING LAMBDA Aleksandra Kurek *, Marek Szyd owski * * - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

CHASING LAMBDA Aleksandra Kurek *, Marek Szyd owski * * Astronomical Observatory, Jagiellonian University, Poland Complex System Research Centre, Jagiellonian University, Poland MODELS WITH DARK ENERGY (Weinberg 1989) (Caldwell 2002)


slide-1
SLIDE 1

CHASING LAMBDA

Aleksandra Kurek *, Marek Szydowski * ° * Astronomical Observatory, Jagiellonian University, Poland °Complex System Research Centre, Jagiellonian University, Poland

slide-2
SLIDE 2

MODELS WITH DARK ENERGY

  • mean of the coefficient of the EQS

in the log scale factor

(Weinberg 1989) (Caldwell 2002) (Chevallier & Polarski 2001) (Peebles & Ratra 1988) (Rahvar & Movahed 2007)

slide-3
SLIDE 3

MODELS WITH MODIFIED THEORY OF GRAVITY

(Dvali et al. 2000) (Singh & Vandersloot 2005) (Szydlowski et al. 2006) ; (Freese & Lewis 2002) (Shtanov 2000)

slide-4
SLIDE 4

BAYESIAN FRAMEWORK OF MODEL SELECTION

slide-5
SLIDE 5

BAYESIAN FRAMEWORK OF MODEL SELECTION

vector of model parameters likelihood of the model prior probability for model parameters

approximation to -2 ln E

maximum likelihood number of model parameters number

  • f data points

assumptions 1.prior for model parameters 0 in the neighborhood

  • f the maximum likelihood
  • 2. prior is bound in the whole parameter space

3.sample size large with respect to the number

  • f model parameters

1. iid

  • 3. prior for model parameters 0 in the

maximum likelihood 4.sample size large with respect to the number

  • f model parameters

2.

Schwarz 1978

Cavanough & Neath 1999

slide-6
SLIDE 6

BAYESIAN FRAMEWORK OF MODEL SELECTION

POSTERIOR ODDS BAYES FACTOR - B 2 ln B

12 12

evidence in favor model 1 <0,2) not worth than a bare mention <2,6) positive <6,10) strong >10 very strong

(Kass & Raftery 1995)

slide-7
SLIDE 7

APPLICATION TO COSMOLOGICAL MODELS COMPARISON

(Riess et al. 2007; Wood-Vasey et al. 2007; Davis et al. 2007) (Spergel et al. 2006; Wang & Mukherjee 2006)

SN R

slide-8
SLIDE 8

APPLICATION TO COSMOLOGICAL MODELS COMPARISON

L Lsn L R L A LH

A

(Eisenstein et al. 2005) (Simon et al. 2005)

H

N=192+1+1+9

(differential ages of the passively evolving galaxies)

slide-9
SLIDE 9

POSTERIOR PROBABILITIES FOR MODELS WITH DARK ENERGY

0.84 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.04

slide-10
SLIDE 10

POSTERIOR PROBABILITIES FOR MODELS WITH MODIFIED GRAVITY

0.07 0.03 0.13 0.74 0.03

slide-11
SLIDE 11

POSTERIOR PROBABILITIES FOR ALL MODELS

0.74 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.005 0.01 0.09 0.005

slide-12
SLIDE 12

CONCLUSIONS

In the light of data used in analysis:

  • CDM model is the best one from the set of models with

dark energy as well as the best one from the set of all models considered

  • Cardassian model is the best one from the set of models

with modified gravity