REVIEW 2 cited by
Dark Energy and Dark Matter from an additional adiabatic fluid
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
The Dark Sector is described by an additional barotropic fluid which evolves adiabatically during the universe's history and whose adiabatic exponent $\gamma$ is derived from the standard definitions of specific heats. Although in general $\gamma$ is a function of the redshift, the Hubble parameter and its derivatives, we find that our assumptions lead necessarily to solutions with $\gamma = $ constant in a FLRW universe. The adiabatic fluid acts effectively as the sum of two distinct components, one evolving like non-relativistic matter and the other depending on the value of the adiabatic index. This makes the model particularly interesting as a way of simultaneously explaining the nature of both Dark Energy and Dark Matter, at least at the level of the background cosmology. The $\Lambda$CDM model is included in this family of theories when $\gamma = 0$. We fit our model to SNIa, $H(z)$ and BAO data, discussing the model selection criteria. The implications for the early-universe and the growth of small perturbations in this model are also discussed.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Do we really need alternatives to the $\omega_0\omega_a$CDM parameterization after the DESI DR2?
In a common physically motivated pivot basis, the standard CPL parameterization is mildly preferred over the fafbCDM density expansion and reproduces quintessence backgrounds at least as well.
-
Bondi accretion disk luminosity around neutral and charged Simpson-Visser spacetimes
Bondi accretion is computed in Simpson-Visser and charged Simpson-Visser spacetimes, but the reported critical (sonic) radii are not supported by the paper's own equations.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.