English

Accelerating expansion or inhomogeneity? A comparison of the $\Lambda$CDM and Lema\^{\i}tre - Tolman models

General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology 2014-03-20 v2 Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics

Abstract

It is shown how certain observations interpreted in the background of the Friedmann model with Λ<0=k\Lambda < 0 = k (the Λ\LambdaCDM model) can be re-interpreted using the Λ=0\Lambda = 0 Lema\^{\i}tre - Tolman (L-T) model so as to do away with the "dark energy". The purpose of the paper is to clarify the underlying geometrical relations by doing the calculations as much as possible analytically or by very simple numerical programs. In the first part of the paper (fictitious) observations of the distribution of expansion velocity along the past light cone of the observer are considered. It is shown that the whole past light cone of the Λ\LambdaCDM observer can be reproduced in the L-T model with Λ=0=E\Lambda = 0 = E. This is a geometric exercise that has the advantage of being free of numerical complications. In the second part, the luminosity distance - redshift relation of the Λ\LambdaCDM model is duplicated using the L-T model with k=2E/r2=-k = 2E/r^2 = constant >0> 0. The value of kk and the function tB(r)t_B(r) are determined by the Λ\LambdaCDM parameters. General properties of this L-T model are described. Difficulties of carrying the numerical calculations through the apparent horizon are presented in detail and mostly solved. The second model is a counterexample to the claim that an L-T model mimicking Λ\LambdaCDM must contain a void around the center - it has a peak of density at R=0R = 0.

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.1309.4368,
  title  = {Accelerating expansion or inhomogeneity? A comparison of the $\Lambda$CDM and Lema\^{\i}tre - Tolman models},
  author = {Andrzej Krasiński},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:1309.4368},
  year   = {2014}
}

Comments

LaTex, 21 pages, 17 figures. Includes small corrections suggested by the referee. This version matches the published text, except for the caption to Fig. 7, which is corrected here