See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268689738

The Cosmic Equation of State

Article  in  Astrophysics and Space Science · November 2014

DOI: 10.1007/s10509-014-2211-5 · Source: arXiv

CITATIONS READS
19 491

1 author:

Fulvio Melia
The University of Arizona
413 PUBLICATIONS   7,162 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Probing the Cosmic Spacetime with a full Complement of Cosmological Measurements View project

Imaging the Shadow of a Supermassive Black Hole View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fulvio Melia on 05 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Cosmic Equation of State
F. Melia1
arXiv:1411.5771v1 [astro-ph.CO] 21 Nov 2014

Abstract The cosmic spacetime is often described in appears to be a direct consequence of trying to fit the
terms of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) met- data with the equation of state w = (ρr /3 − ρde )/ρ in a
ric, though the adoption of this elegant and convenient Universe whose principal constraint is instead Rh = ct
solution to Einstein’s equations does not tell us much or, equivalently, w = −1/3.
about the equation of state, p = wρ, in terms of the to-
tal energy density ρ and pressure p of the cosmic fluid. Keywords cosmic microwave background; cosmolog-
ΛCDM and the Rh = ct Universe are both FRW cos- ical parameters; cosmology: observations; cosmology:
mologies that partition ρ into (at least) three compo- redshift; cosmology: theory; cosmology: dark matter;
nents, matter ρm , radiation ρr , and a poorly understood gravitation
dark energy ρde , though the latter goes one step further
by also invoking the constraint w = −1/3. This condi-
tion is apparently required by the simultaneous appli- 1 Introduction
cation of the Cosmological principle and Weyl’s postu-
late. Model selection tools in one-on-one comparisons The Cosmological principle and Weyl’s postulate ap-
between these two cosmologies favor Rh = ct, indicat- pear to be essential ingredients in any physically re-
ing that its likelihood of being correct is ∼ 90% versus alistic cosmological theory. Together, they posit that
only ∼ 10% for ΛCDM. Nonetheless, the predictions of the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic (at least on
ΛCDM often come quite close to those of Rh = ct, sug- large, i.e., > 100 Mpc, spatial scales), and that this
gesting that its parameters are optimized to mimic the
high degree of symmetry is maintained from one time
w = −1/3 equation-of-state. In this paper, we explore
slice to the next. The appropriate spacetime to use
this hypothesis quantitatively and demonstrate that the
is conveniently and elegantly written in terms of the
equation of state in Rh = ct helps us to understand why
Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric though
the optimized fraction Ωm ≡ ρm /ρ in ΛCDM must be
this, in and of itself, does not tell us much about the
∼ 0.27, an otherwise seemingly random variable. We
cosmic equation of state, relating the total energy den-
show that when one forces ΛCDM to satisfy the equa-
sity ρ to its total pressure p.
tion of state w = (ρr /3 − ρde )/ρ, the value of the Hub-
ble radius today, c/H0 , can equal its measured value In principle, if we knew these quantities precisely,
ct0 only with Ωm ∼ 0.27 when the equation-of-state for we could then solve the dynamical equations governing
dark energy is wde = −1. (We also show, however, that the Universal expansion and understand its large-scale
the inferred values of Ωm and wde change in a correlated structure and how it evolved to its current state. One
fashion if dark energy is not a cosmological constant, so could then also unambiguously interpret many of the
that wde 6= −1.) This peculiar value of Ωm therefore observations, including the redshift-dependent luminos-
ity distance to Type Ia SNe and the spectrum of fluc-
tuations in the cosmic microwave background (CMB).
F. Melia
Unfortunately, we must rely on measurements and in-
Department of Physics, the Applied Math Program, and Depart-
ment of Astronomy, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
tuition to pick ρ and p. The best we can do today is to
E-mail: fmelia@email.arizona.edu assume that ρ must contain matter ρm and radiation ρr ,
1 John Woodruff Simpson Fellow. which we see directly, and an as yet poorly understand
‘dark’ energy ρde , whose presence is required by a broad
2

range of data including, and especially, the aforemen- but is subject to the additional constraint that w =
tioned Type Ia SNe (Riess et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al. (ρr /3+wde ρde )/ρ = −1/3 at all times. One might come
1999). But instead of refining the cosmic equation of away with the impression that these two prescriptions
state, p = wρ, the ever-improving measurements of for the equation of state cannot be consistent. But in
the redshift-distance and redshift-age relations seem to fact if we ignore the constraint w = −1/3 and instead
be creating more tension between theory and observa- proceed to optimize the parameters in ΛCDM by fit-
tions, rather than providing us with a better indication ting the data, the resultant value of w averaged over a
of the dark-energy component, pde = wde ρde . For the Hubble time is actually −1/3 within the measurement
other two constituents, one simply uses the prescription errors (Melia 2007; Melia & Shevchuk 2012). In other
pr = ρr /3 and pm ≈ 0, consistent with a fully relativistic words, though w = (ρr /3 − ρΛ )/ρ in ΛCDM cannot be
fluid (radiation) on the one hand, and a non-relativistic equal to −1/3 from one moment to the next, its value
fluid (matter) on the other. averaged over the age of the Universe is equal to what
One of the most basic FRW models, ΛCDM, as- it would have been in Rh = ct anyway.
sumes that dark energy is a cosmological constant Λ This result does not necessarily prove that ΛCDM is
with wde ≡ wΛ = −1, and therefore w = (ρr /3 − ρΛ )/ρ. an incomplete version of Rh = ct, but it does seem
This model does quite well explaining many of the to suggest that the inclusion of the additional con-
observations, but growing empirical evidence suggests straint w = −1/3 might render its predictions closer
that it is inadequate to explain all of the nuances seen to the data. By now, comparative analyses of ΛCDM
in cosmic evolution and the growth of structure. For and Rh = ct have been carried out for a broad range
example, ΛCDM cannot account for the general uni- of observations, from the CMB (Melia 2014a), high-z
formity of the CMB across the sky without invok- quasars (Melia 2013a, 2014b) and the ages of high-z ob-
ing an early period of inflated expansion (Guth 1981; jects (Melia 2014b; Yu & Wang 2014) in the early Uni-
Linde 1982), yet the latest observations with Planck verse, to gamma-ray bursts (Wei et al. 2013a) and cos-
(Ade et al. 2013) suggest that the inflationary model mic chronometers (Melia & Maier 2013) at intermedi-
may be in trouble at a fundamental level (Ijjas et al. ate redshifts and, most recently, to the relatively nearby
2013, 2014; Guth et al. 2013). Insofar as the CMB fluc- Type Ia SNe (Wei et al. 2013b). In every case, model
tuations measured with both WMAP (Bennett et al. selection tools indicate that the likelihood of Rh = ct
2003) and Planck are concerned, there appears to be being correct is typically ∼ 90% compared with only
unresolvable tension between the predicted and mea- ∼ 10% for ΛCDM. And perhaps the most important
sured angular correlation function (Copi et al. 2009, distinguishing feature between these two cosmologies is
2013; Melia 2014a; Bennett et al. 2013). And there is that, whereas ΛCDM cannot survive without inflation,
also an emerging conflict between the observed mat- the Rh = ct Universe does not need it in order to avoid
ter distribution function, which is apparently scale-free, the well-known horizon problem (Melia 2014c). Thus,
and that expected in ΛCDM, which has a different form an eventual abandonment of inflation should it fail to
on different spatial scales. The fine tuning required to work self-consistently would completely tip the scale in
resolve this difference led Watson et al. (Watson et al. favor of Rh = ct.
2011) to characterize the matter distribution function The purpose of this paper is to further develop the
as a ‘cosmic coincidence.’ Such difficulties are com- Rh = ct Universe by addressing a rather obvious ques-
pounded by ΛCDM’s predicted redshift-age relation, tion that comes to mind. Since ΛCDM lacks the in-
which does not appear to be consistent with the growth gredient w = −1/3 that would turn it into Rh = ct,
of quasars at high redshift (Melia 2013a), nor the very why does it in fact do quite well in accounting for
early appearance of galaxies at z & 10 (Melia 2014b). many of the data? And are there any other obvi-
It is therefore important to refine the basic ΛCDM ous observational consequences of the prescription w =
model, or perhaps to eventually replace it if necessary, (ρr /3−ρΛ )/ρ for its equation of state? Here, we demon-
to improve the comparison between theory and observa- strate that the inclusion of the condition w = −1/3
tions. Over the past several years, we have been devel- in ΛCDM actually helps to explain why the fraction
oping another FRW cosmology, known as the Rh = ct Ωm ≡ ρm (t0 )/ρ(t0 ) of its energy density in the form
Universe, that has much in common with ΛCDM, but of (visible and dark) matter today must be ≈ 0.27
includes an additional ingredient motivated by several in order for it to adequately fit the data. In other
theoretical and observational arguments (Melia 2007; words, we will show that the inferred value of Ωm in
Melia & Abdelqader 2009; Melia & Shevchuk 2012). ΛCDM is not random at all, but is instead uniquely
Like ΛCDM, it also adopts the equation of state p = wρ, required when one attempts to account for the obser-
with p = pm + pr + pde and ρ = ρm + ρr + ρde , vations using the equation of state w = (ρr /3 − ρΛ )/ρ
3

in a Universe that is in reality evolving according to In the Rh = ct Universe, the ‘active mass’ is zero,
the constraint w = (ρr /3 + wde ρde )/ρ = −1/3. We will meaning that ρ + 3p = 0 (Melia 2014d). There-
demonstrate this interesting and important connection fore, from the definition of the gravitational radius
between ΛCDM and Rh = ct in §§ 2 and 3, and discuss Rh = 2GM/c2 , in terms of the Misner-Sharp mass
the results in § 4. M = (4π/3)Rh3 (ρ/c2 ) (Misner & Sharp 1964), it is easy
to show that Ṙh = (3/2)(1 + w)c, where w = p/ρ
(Melia & Shevchuk 2012), which yields Rh = ct (the
2 The Cosmic Spacetime eponymous constraint of this model). And since the
gravitational radius Rh is a proper distance in this
The basic ΛCDM model avoids having to deal with spacetime, one must also have H = 1/t (see, e.g., Melia
uncertainties in the particle physics by relying on
& Shevchuk 2012) which, together with Equation (2),
transitions, starting with an early radiation-dominated
then shows that k = 0.
phase, followed by a Universe dominated by matter af-
Interestingly the CMB strongly constrains the to-
ter recombination, and then transitioning into a pe-
tal energy density to be near its critical value, ρc ≡
riod dominated by dark energy. But in order to make
3c2 H02 /8πG, where H0 ≡ H(t0 ) (Bennett et al. 2003;
testable predictions, we have to assume values for Ωm ,
Spergel et al. 2003), so the observations appear to be
Ωr and ΩΛ , and then integrate backwards to the big
consistent with zero spatial curvature. Though this em-
bang by solving the dynamics equations using the equa-
pirical result emerges from the optimization of model
tion of state w = (ρr /3 − ρΛ )/ρ. If the Universe is truly
parameters in ΛCDM, the fact that the standard model
subject to the constraint w = −1/3 at all times, how-
is often a good approximation to Rh = ct lends some
ever, how does this affect the observable signatures and
observational support for this theoretical prediction of
inferred parameters of the standard model? This is the
the Rh = ct cosmology. For these reasons, it will be
question we will now attempt to answer.
sensible for us to assume a perfectly flat universe, and
The Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric may be
written we will here always assume that k = 0. This also means
that Ω ≡ Ωr + Ωm + Ωde = 1. Our analysis in this paper
ds2 = c2 dt2 − a2 (t)[dr2 (1 − kr2 )−1 + will be based entirely on this premise. It is therefore
r2 (dθ2 + sin2 θdφ2 )] , (1) straightforward to integrate Equation (2), yielding
1
u du
Z
in terms of the cosmic time t in the comoving frame, ct0 = Rh (t0 ) √ . (4)
and the corresponding radial (r) and angular (θ and φ) 0 Ωr + Ωm u + Ωde u1−3wde
coordinates. The expansion factor a(t) is a function of
To obtain this expression, we have allowed for the pos-
t only, whereas the spatial coordinates (r, θ, φ) in this
sibility that dark energy is not a cosmological constant
frame remain “fixed” for all particles in the cosmos.
The constant k is +1 for a closed universe, 0 for a flat, (i.e., that wde may be different from −1, in which case
open universe, or −1 for an open universe. we would refer to this model as wCDM, rather than
The source of spacetime curvature in a Universe that ΛCDM), and we have used the derived value of the
satisfies the Cosmological Principle is a perfect fluid gravitational horizon to write Rh = c/H (Melia 2007;
Weinberg (1972) which, together with the metric co- Melia & Shevchuk 2012). This expression also assumes
efficients appearing in Equation (1), allows us to sim- that a → 0 at t = 0.
plify Einstein’s equations and derive the key dynamical Equation (4) must be satisfied by every flat FRW
expressions governing the smoothed-out expansion at cosmology, though the explicit dependence of the inte-
large scales. These include, respectively, the Friedmann grand on Ωm , Ωr , and Ωde shown here applies specif-
and energy-conservation equations, ically to ΛCDM (or wCDM if wde 6= −1). However,
if in fact the Cosmological Principle and Weyl’s pos-
 2
2 ȧ 8πG kc2 tulate require the equation of state w = −1/3, then
H ≡ = ρ − , (2)
a 3c2 a2 Rh (t0 ) = ct0 (Melia 2007; Melia & Shevchuk 2012), so
ΛCDM (or wCDM) would have no choice but to satisfy
and the condition
ρ̇ = −3H(ρ + p) , (3) Z 1
u du
I≡ √ =1. (5)
both written in terms of the total energy density ρ and 0 Ωr + Ωm u + Ωde u1−3wde
total pressure p. H is the time-dependent Hubble ‘con- Let us now see what the consequences of this constraint
stant’ and an overdot denotes a derivative with respect are for ΛCDM. Figure 1 shows the calculated value of
to time t.
4

this integral I as a function of Ωm , for various dark-

energy equations of state, wde . The radiation energy 3.0
. wde = −1 wde = −1.2
density is evaluated on the basis of the CMB’s current
temperature, T = 2.7 K. Not surprisingly, I can have .
2.5
a broad range of values, but for any given wde , there
is only one unique determination of Ωm that satisfies
the condition I = 1. And for the special case of a
2.0 wde = −0.7
cosmological constant (wde = −1), that value is 0.27.

I
1.5
3 Observational Constraints wde = −0.5

Over the past decade, both Ωm and wde have been 1.0 . .
measured with relatively high precision, combining con-
straints from a variety of observational data sets. For
example, Melchiorri et al. (2003) combined data from 0.5
−5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0
six CMB experiments (Spergel et al. 2003), from the log10 Ω m
power spectrum of large-scale structure in the 2dF 100k
galaxy redshift survey (Tegmark et al. 2002), from lu- Fig. 1 The ratio I ≡ ct0 /Rh (t0 ), calculated as a function
minosity measurements of Type Ia SNe (Riess et al. of Ωm , according to ΛCDM (or wCDM when wde 6= −1).
1998; Perlmutter et al. 1999), and from the Hubble The label wde indicates the corresponding equation of state
space telescope measurements of the Hubble parameter for dark energy, i.e., pde = wde ρde , in terms of its pressure
H0 . More recent analyses have refined the quantitative pde and density ρde . When Rh (t0 ) = ct0 and wde = −1,
Ωm must have the unique value 0.27 (indicated by the black
results from this extensive survey, though not altering
dot).
the basic conclusions. It is therefore rather straight-
forward for us to compare our theoretical predictions
directly with the observations. As we shall see shortly, from Suzuki et al. 2012, shown as gray swaths), and
the story emerging from this exercise is quite revealing. the corresponding regions inferred from the analysis of
None of the individual observations results in fits CMB, HST, and 2dF data (indicated by the lighter-
that are so precise as to produce unique values for colored island regions to the upper left of this diagram).
the parameters (wde , Ωm ). The reason for this is Insofar as the values of wde and Ωm are concerned, the
that, other than the Sachs-Wolfe effect (Sachs & Wolfe supernova data are not as constraining as the other sets,
1967), which is responsible for the largest angular fluc- but there is clearly a satisfying consistency among all
tuations in the CMB, none of the other mechanisms of the observations.
producing structure of one kind or another depends Also shown in figure 2 is one of the more interest-
sensitively on the expansion history of the Universe. ing results of this paper, indicated here as a thick black
As such, some degeneracy exists among the possible curve to the left of this diagram. This feature shows the
choices of cosmological parameters pertaining to the loci of (wde , Ωm ) points permitted by the requirement
CMB (Kosowsky et al. 2002). that the integral I be equal to 1 (see also figure 1).
At lower redshifts, the cosmological measurements That is, while the constraints shown in figure 2 are
are heavily influenced by the observation of Type Ia based on the interpretation of the data using ΛCDM,
SNe. But here also, both the luminosities and angu- this theoretical curve goes one step further, by illus-
lar distances (the fundamental observables) depend on trating what values of wde and Ωm are actually permit-
wde through multiple integrals, and are therefore not ted theoretically when we impose the additional con-
particularly sensitive to variations in wde with redshift straint Rh (t0 ) = ct0 (or, equivalently, the equation of
(Maor et al. 2001). state w = −1/3). Notice, for example, where the latest
Nonetheless, all of the constraints derived from the measurement of Ωm and wde with Planck fall on this
various data sets do produce a well-defined region in diagram (the star in figure 2). Whereas Ωm = 0.27
wde − Ωm phase space where the most likely values of is linked to a dark-energy equation of state wde = −1,
these parameters are expected to be found. The con- the Planck measurement of Ωm ≈ 0.3 is associated with
fidence regions shown in figure 2 are adapted from a wde = 1.13+0.13
−0.10 (Ade et al. 2013).
corresponding figure in Melchiorri et al. (2003). These On its own, ΛCDM has no explanation for why the
show the 68%, 95%, and 99% confidence regions cor- most preferred region of allowed values is limited to
responding to the Type Ia SNe observations (adapted −1.38 < wde < −0.82 and 0.22 < Ωm < 0.35, and why
5

this oblong region is slanted in such a way as to couple Universe, and it would have to be happening right now,
the higher values of wde to the smaller values of Ωm . when we just happen to be looking. But in addition, the
But in the context of Rh = ct, this is precisely the re- region of wde − Ωm phase space permitted by the data
gion permitted by the requirement that I be equal to shows a clear trend exactly matching the behavior one
1, as evidenced by the fact that our theoretical curve would expect if I must always be equal to 1. In other
passes directly through the middle of the observation- words, even if Ωm ∼ 0.3 were somehow a coincidence,
ally permitted region and, even more impressively, pre- there is no reason why the allowed region of wde − Ωm
cisely tracks the orientation of this region. The point phase space should be slanted from upper left to bottom
of this is that while the data are not sufficiently precise right, instead of from upper right to bottom left.
to tell us the exact value of Ωm , the range of allowed It is therefore difficult to argue against the conclu-
values of wde trends with Ωm in such a way as to always sion that ΛCDM is merely mimicking the expansion
preserve the condition I = 1. history we would have obtained with Rh = ct all along,
and that the observed value of Ωm (which happens to
0.5 be 0.27 if wde = −1) is required in order to make the
99% assumed density ρ = ρr + ρm + ρde comply with the
95% equation of state p = −ρ/3 found in the R = ct Uni-
68%
verse.

1.0 .
* 4 Discussion and Conclusion
wde

The results we have just presented do not exist in iso-

Supe

1.5 lation, of course. They add weight to the other one-

on-one comparisons between Rh = ct and ΛCDM that
rnova

uniformly show the superiority of the former over the

e

68% 95% 99% latter in accounting for the data. But the analysis we
have carried out in this paper is important specifically
2.0 because it starts to probe the fundamental reasons why
0.2 0.4 0.6 ΛCDM can sometimes function as an approximation to
Ωm Rh = ct, and why it does reasonably well accounting
for some of the data, e.g., the Type Ia SNe. For ex-
Fig. 2 The solid black curve indicates the value wde must ample, even though the empirically motivated choice of
have in ΛCDM (or wCDM if wde 6= −1) as a function of density ρ = ρr + ρm + ρde is not entirely consistent with
Ωm , when the condition Rh (t0 ) = ct0 is imposed. This the equation of state p = −ρ/3, it can nonetheless lead
curve is shown against the constraints (adapted from fig- to an expansion history that mimics Rh = ct over a
ure 4 in Melchiorri et al. 2003) on the dark-energy equation- Hubble time—but only so long as Ωm ∼ 0.27.
of-state, assuming a flat universe. The Type Ia SN limits Recently, we studied in detail how the Type Ia SNe
have been updated from the more recent results in Suzuki et
ought to be interpreted in the context of ΛCDM and
al. (2012). These limits and confidence levels include results
from CMB anisotropies, measurements of the Hubble con- Rh = ct (Melia 2012a; Wei et al. 2013b). The best-fit
stant, and large-scale structure. The empirically derived, distance moduli calculated from these two theories are
concordance values of wde versus Ωm track those imposed so close to each other all the way out to z ∼ 6, that it
on ΛCDM by the Rh (t0 ) = ct0 condition exceptionally well. is difficult to determine on the basis of a χ2 comparison
Note, for example, the location (black dot) of the WMAP alone which of these two cosmologies is favored. This
measurements (Bennett et al. 2013), versus (star) the lat- is due in part to the strong dependence of the data re-
est measurements by Planck (Ade et al. 2013), which re-
duction itself on the pre-assumed cosmology, since at
sulted in the values Ωm ≈ 0.3 and wde ≈ −1.13. The value
Ωm = 0.27 is realized only when wde = −1. least 4 ‘nuisance’ parameters defining the SN luminos-
ity must be optimized along with the free parameters
of the model. The inferred SN luminosities and their
These results clearly argue against any suggestion
‘measured’ distance moduli are therefore strongly com-
that Ωm ∼ 0.3 (or, more specifically, Ωm = 0.27 when
pliant to the pre-assumed model, greatly weakening this
wde = −1) could be a coincidence in ΛCDM. First, not
particular comparative test. Indeed, a similar analysis
only would it be highly improbable for Ωm to have the
of the most up-do-date Gamma-ray Burst Hubble Di-
value required to guarantee Rh (t0 ) = ct0 which, by the
agram (HD) (Wei et al. 2013a) reinforces this point by
way, could only happen once in the entire history of the
6

demonstrating that when the data are re-calibrated cor- ΛCDM predicts a very rapid deceleration. Additional
rectly for each individual cosmology, the Rh = ct Uni- inconsistencies between the predicted age-redshift re-
verse fits the observed HD better than ΛCDM does. lationship in ΛCDM and that observed for the oldest
A quick inspection of figure 3 allows us to better ap- objects in the Universe have recently been pointed out
preciate why ΛCDM fits the Type Ia SNe and Gamma- by Yu & Wang (2014).
ray Burst data as well as it does. This figure shows the And lest the reader come away with the sense that
h =ct
ratio of luminosity distances dΛCDM
L /dR
L as a func- ΛCDM and Rh = ct overlap so much that one should
tion of redshift for different values of Ωm , in a Universe not worry about their differences, we close this discus-
with wde = −1. What emerges from this diagram is sion by again pointing out the most profound conse-
that the value of Ωm that comes closest to satisfying quence of their disparity. As shown in Melia (2014c),
the condition Rh (t0 ) = ct0 in Equation (4), also corre- the horizon problem does not exist in Rh = ct. So
sponds to the ΛCDM universe in which the luminosity whereas ΛCDM could not survive without inflation, the
distance dΛCDM
L most closely tracks its counterpart in real universe may have done without it, and the cos-
Rh = ct. One should not be surprised therefore, to see mological data—particularly at high redshift—may be
that the best fit ΛCDM cosmology fits the Type Ia SNe pointing in that direction.
and Gamma-ray Burst data as well as it does.
Acknowledgements I am grateful to the anonymous
4 referee for suggestions that have led to improvements
in the manuscript. I am also grateful to Amherst Col-
0.0
lege for its support through a John Woodruff Simpson
3 Lectureship, and to Purple Mountain Observatory in
Nanjing, China, for its hospitality while part of this
. work was being carried out. This work was partially
R =ct

.
d LΛCDM / d L h

supported by grant 2012T1J0011 from The Chinese

2 Academy of Sciences Visiting Professorships for Senior
.

. 0.1
International Scientists, and grant GDJ20120491013
. .
from the Chinese State Administration of Foreign Ex-
. 0.27
1 . perts Affairs.
.
.
. 1.0
.

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
z

Fig. 3 Ratio of luminosity distance in ΛCDM over that

in Rh = ct, as a function of redshift, for various values
of Ωm , assuming wde = −1. The ΛCDM cosmology with
Ωm = 0.27, which comes closest to satisfying the condi-
tion Rh (t0 ) = ct0 , also best approximates the condition
Rh =ct
dΛCDM
L = dL over a large range in z.

Unfortunately, ΛCDM does not do as well account-

ing for the high-z universe, having difficulty explain-
ing why the CMB fluctuations show no correlation at
angles greater than ∼ 60◦ , and failing to explain how
∼ 109 M⊙ supermassive black holes could have formed
so quickly after the big bang. The issue is that even
though the differences between ΛCDM and Rh = ct
may be smoothed out over a Hubble time through the
careful choice of Ωm ∼ 0.27, the expansion history of
the Universe at z > 6 is so different between these two
cosmologies that it is simply not possible to mimic the
equation of state p = −ρ/3 with ρ = ρr + ρm + ρde ,
given that Rh = ct predicts a constant expansion, while
7

References

Ade, P.A.R. et al. (Planck Collaboration) 2013, A&A, in

press (arXiv:1303.5062)
Bennett, C. L. et al. 2003, ApJ, 583, 1
Bennett, C. L. et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 20
Copi, C. J., Huterer, D., Schwarz, D. J. & Starkman, G. D.
2009, MNRAS, 399, 295
Copi, C. J., Huterer, D., Schwarz, D. J. & Starkman, G. D.
2013, MNRAS in press (arXiv:1310.3831)
Guth, A. H. 1981, PRD, 23, 347
Guth, A. H., Kaiser, D. I. & Nomura, I. 2013, eprint
arXiv:1312.7619
Ijjas, A., Steinhardt, P. J. & Loeb, A. 2013, PLB, 723, 261
Ijjas, A., Steinhardt, P. J. & Loeb, A. 2013, eprint
arXiv:1402.6980
Kosowsky, A., Milosavljevic, M. & Jimenez, R. 2002, PRD,
66, 063007
Linde, A. 1982, PLB, 108, 389
Maor, I., Brustein, R. & Steinhardt, P. J. 2001, PRL, 86, 6
Melchiorri, A., Mersini, L., Ödman, C. J. Trodden, M. 2003,
PRD, 68, 043509
Melia, F. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 1917
Melia, F. 2012a, AJ, 144, id. 110
Melia, F. 2012b, JCAP, 09, 029
Melia, F. 2013, ApJ, 764, 72
Melia, F. 2013b, CQG, 30, 155007
Melia, F. 2014a, A&A, 561, id A80
Melia, F. 2014b, AJ, 147, id 120
Melia, F. 2014c, A&A, 553, id A76
Melia, F. 2014d, A&A, 553, id A76
Melia, F. & Abdelqader, M. 2009, IJMP-D, 18, 1889
Melia, F. & Maier, R. S. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2669
Melia, F. & Shevchuk, A.S.H. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 2579
Misner, C. W. & Sharp, D. H. 1964, Phys Rev, 136, 571
Perlmutter, S. et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565
Riess, A. G. et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1009
Sachs, R. K. & Wolfe, A. M. 1967, ApJ, 147, 73
Spergel, D. N. et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175
Suzuki, N., Rubin, D., Lidman, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746,
85
Tegmark, M., Hamilton, A.J.S. & Xu, Y. 2002, MNRAS,
335, 887
Watson, D. F., Berlind, A. A. & Zentner, A. R. 2011, ApJ,
738, id. 22
Wei, J.-J., Wu, X.-F. & Melia, F. 2013a, ApJ, 772, 43
Wei, J.-J., Wu, X.-F., Melia, F. & Maier, R. S. 2013b, AJ,
in press
Weinberg, S. 1972, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles
and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity (Wi-
ley, New York)
Yu, H. & Wang, F. Y. 2014, EPJ-C, 74, id. 3090

This manuscript was prepared with the AAS LATEX macros v5.2.

View publication stats