Observational constraints on conformal time symmetry, missing matter and double dark energy
Abstract
The current concordance model of cosmology is dominated by two mysterious ingredients: dark matter and dark energy. In this paper, we explore the possibility that, in fact, there exist two dark-energy components: the cosmological constant , with equation-of-state parameter , and a `missing matter' component with , which we introduce here to allow the evolution of the universal scale factor as a function of conformal time to exhibit a symmetry that relates the big bang to the future conformal singularity, such as in Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology. Using recent cosmological observations, we constrain the present-day energy density of missing matter to be . This is consistent with the standard CDM model, but constraints on the energy densities of all the components are considerably broadened by the introduction of missing matter; significant relative probability exists even for , and so the presence of a missing matter component cannot be ruled out. As a result, a Bayesian model selection analysis only slightly disfavours its introduction by 1.1 log-units of evidence. Foregoing our symmetry requirement on the conformal time evolution of the universe, we extend our analysis by allowing to be a free parameter. For this more generic `double dark energy' model, we find and , which is again consistent with the standard CDM model, although once more the posterior distributions are sufficiently broad that the existence of a second dark-energy component cannot be ruled out. The model including the second dark energy component also has an equivalent Bayesian evidence to CDM, within the estimation error, and is indistinguishable according to the Jeffreys guideline.
Keywords
Cite
@article{arxiv.1208.2542,
title = {Observational constraints on conformal time symmetry, missing matter and double dark energy},
author = {J. Alberto Vazquez and S. Hee and M. P. Hobson and A. N. Lasenby and M. Ibison and M. Bridges},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:1208.2542},
year = {2019}
}
Comments
Revised version emphasising a different version of the underlying symmetry, as published in JCAP