REVIEW 4 cited by
Can the Chaplygin gas be a plausible model for dark energy?
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
Signed reviews
abstract
In this note two cosmological models representing the flat Friedmann Universe filled with a Chaplygin fluid, with or without dust, are analyzed in terms of the recently proposed "statefinder" parameters. Trajectories of both models in the parameter plane are shown to be significantly different w.r.t. "quiessence" and "tracker" models. The generalized Chaplygin gas model with an equation of state of the form $p = -A/\rho^{\alpha}$ is also analyzed in terms of the statefinder parameters.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
Cosmological and lunar laser ranging constraints on evolving dark energy in a nonminimally coupled curvature-matter gravity model
Nonminimal curvature-matter coupling produces dynamical dark energy consistent with DESI observations and lunar laser ranging equivalence principle constraints.
-
Probing the independence within the dark sector in the fluid approximation
Current cosmological data show no statistically significant sign of an interaction between cold dark matter and dark energy, with LambdaCDM preferred, and future LSST and DESI data could constrain such a coupling at 2...
-
An overview of what current data can (and cannot yet) say about evolving dark energy
The apparent preference for evolving dark energy depends strongly on which supernova catalog and which BAO survey are used, and is not robust across all independent data combinations.
-
Modified Gravity Theories on a Nutshell: Inflation, Bounce and Late-time Evolution
Modified gravity theories supply viable mathematical frameworks for inflation, bounces, and dark energy eras that match observational data.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.