Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Fundamental Nature and Evolution of Dynamic Dark Energy

Altmetrics

Downloads

106

Views

33

Comments

0

This version is not peer-reviewed

Submitted:

01 January 2024

Posted:

03 January 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
This paper addresses the Hubble tension in cosmology by exploring dynamic dark energy models, specifically focusing on quintessence scalar fields. We develop a comprehensive theoretical framework for these models, examining various potential forms and their implications for the universe's evolution. We elaborate on the effects of dynamic dark energy on cosmological perturbations, analyzing its influence on the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropies and the formation of large-scale structures. By integrating the theoretical models with observational data, including Type Ia supernovae, CMB observations, and large-scale structure surveys, we investigate the potential of dynamic dark energy to resolve the discrepancies in measurements of the Hubble constant. Our findings suggest that dynamic dark energy models resolve the Hubble tension and have broader implications for our understanding of cosmic evolution and the universe's fate. This study aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse in cosmology, providing a new perspective on dark energy and its role in the expanding cosmos.
Keywords: 
Subject: Physical Sciences  -   Astronomy and Astrophysics

1. Introduction

The discovery of the universe’s accelerated expansion at the end of the 20th century fundamentally changed our understanding of cosmology [1,2]. The Lambda Cold Dark Matter (Lambda-CDM) model, which includes the cosmological constant ( Λ ) and cold dark matter, has been the cornerstone of modern cosmology, providing a framework that explains a wide range of astronomical and cosmological observations, from the cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies to the large-scale structure of the universe [3,4].

1.1. Dark Energy and the Cosmological Constant

Dark energy, represented in the Lambda-CDM model by the cosmological constant Λ , is postulated to drive the universe’s accelerated expansion. In its simplest form, dark energy is characterized by a constant energy density filling space homogeneously. With its equation of state parameter w = − 1 , where w is the ratio of pressure to energy density, the cosmological constant fits well with a wide array of observational data [5,6]. However, this simplicity comes with its own set of theoretical challenges, such as the ’fine-tuning’ and ’cosmic coincidence’ problems [7,8].

1.2. The Hubble Tension

One of the most significant contemporary challenges in cosmology is the ’Hubble tension’ - a discrepancy in measurements of the universe’s expansion rate, known as the Hubble constant ( H 0 ) [9,10]. Local measurements of H 0 , such as those using Cepheid variables and Type Ia supernovae, suggest a faster expansion rate than the rate inferred from observations of the early universe, like the CMB data obtained by the Planck satellite [11,12]. This tension suggests potential gaps in our understanding of the universe’s composition and expansion history, prompting questions about the nature of dark energy.

1.3. Motivation for Dynamic Dark Energy Models

Pursuing a dynamic dark energy model arises from the need to reconcile these observational inconsistencies and address the theoretical challenges posed by a constant cosmological constant [4,13]. Dynamic dark energy, as opposed to a constant energy density, offers a framework where the energy density of dark energy can change over time. This allows for a richer cosmological model, potentially resolving the Hubble tension and providing a more nuanced understanding of the universe’s evolution. Models like quintessence, which posit a scalar field with an evolving potential, represent one of the leading candidates for such a dynamic form of dark energy [8,14].
This paper explores dynamic dark energy’s theoretical foundations, potential models, and implications. Section 2 provides a detailed theoretical framework for dynamic dark energy models, focusing on quintessence and field-theoretic approaches. Section 3 explores the evolution of the dark energy field, examining different potential models and their impact on cosmic expansion. Finally, we discuss the implications of these models and their alignment with current observational data, setting the stage for future research directions in the field of cosmology [15,16].
In undertaking this exploration, we aim to contribute to the ongoing discourse in cosmology, addressing one of its most pressing puzzles and paving the way for a deeper understanding of the universe’s most dominant and mysterious component - dark energy.

2. Theoretical Framework of Dynamic Dark Energy

Dynamic dark energy models represent a paradigm shift from the traditional cosmological constant concept, introducing a range of complexities and possibilities into the standard cosmological model [15,16]. These models often revolve around the concept of a scalar field that evolves, impacting the universe’s expansion rate [13,14].

2.1. Quintessence Models

Quintessence is a scalar field theory proposed as an alternative to the cosmological constant [8,17]. The quintessence field, denoted as ϕ , is a dynamic field that evolves, differing from the static nature of the cosmological constant. The energy density and pressure associated with the quintessence field are given by the field’s kinetic and potential energy:
ρ ϕ = 1 2 ϕ ˙ 2 + V ( ϕ )
p ϕ = 1 2 ϕ ˙ 2 − V ( ϕ )
where V ( ϕ ) is the field’s potential energy. The dynamics of the field are governed by the Klein-Gordon equation in a cosmological setting:
ϕ ¨ + 3 H ϕ ˙ + d V d ϕ = 0
where H is the Hubble parameter. This equation describes how the field evolves, influenced by the universe’s expansion and its potential [18,19].

2.2. Potential Forms and Their Implications

The nature of the quintessence field is largely determined by the form of its potential V ( ϕ ) . Several potential forms have been proposed, each leading to different cosmological consequences [5,20]:

2.2.1. Exponential Potential

The exponential potential is a widely studied form, given by:
V ( ϕ ) = V 0 e − λ ϕ
where V 0 and λ are constants. This form can lead to solutions where the quintessence field mimics a cosmological constant at late times, potentially resolving the Hubble tension [21,22].

2.2.2. Inverse Power-Law Potential

Another form is the inverse power-law potential:
V ( ϕ ) = M 4 + α ϕ α
where M and α are constants, and α > 0 . This potential leads to a slowly evolving field, which can have significant implications for the late-time acceleration of the universe [18,23].

2.2.3. SUGRA-inspired Potential

Inspired by supersymmetric theories, the SUGRA (Supergravity) potential modifies the exponential potential:
V ( ϕ ) = V 0 e − λ ϕ 2
This form allows for a richer evolution of the dark energy field, with implications for both early and late-universe dynamics [24,25].

2.3. Challenges and Observational Constraints

While quintessence models offer an attractive solution to the Hubble tension, they face several theoretical and observational challenges [7,8]. One of the primary challenges is to construct a potential V ( ϕ ) that is consistent with current observational constraints, such as supernova data, CMB observations, and large-scale structure surveys [2,11]. Additionally, these models must contend with issues related to naturalness and fine-tuning, ensuring that the model’s parameters do not require unnatural adjustments to fit the data [6,26].
In conclusion, the theoretical framework of dynamic dark energy, particularly quintessence models, offers a promising avenue to address some key challenges in modern cosmology. The next section, Section 3, will detail the evolution of the dark energy field and its impact on the universe’s expansion history.

3. Evolution of the Dark Energy Field

The evolution of the dark energy field, particularly in the context of quintessence models, plays a crucial role in determining the universe’s expansion history [16,20]. The behavior of these fields is primarily governed by their potential V ( ϕ ) , which dictates how the field’s energy density changes over time [14,18].

3.1. Analysis of Quintessence Potentials

Different forms of the quintessence potential lead to various cosmological scenarios [8,15]. This subsection will examine some of the most widely discussed potentials and their cosmological implications.

3.1.1. Exponential Potential

The exponential potential, as described in Equation 4, is a simple yet intriguing model [21,22]. Its significance lies in its ability to provide solutions where the quintessence field mimics the behavior of dark matter at early times and then acts as a cosmological constant at later times [27,28]. This dual behavior can alleviate the Hubble tension by allowing a higher expansion rate in the early universe, gradually transitioning to the observed accelerated expansion.

3.1.2. Inverse Power-Law Potential

The inverse power-law potential, given in Equation 5, suggests a slow evolution of the quintessence field [18,23]. This slow-roll behavior is particularly interesting as it can lead to late accelerated expansion, consistent with observations [14,18]. The potential’s form also introduces a natural scaling behavior, where the field’s energy density decreases more slowly than the matter and radiation components, making it dominant in the late universe.

3.1.3. SUGRA-inspired Potential

The SUGRA-inspired potential, as per Equation 6, offers a more complex evolution due to its non-linear form [24,25]. This potential can lead to a dynamic interplay between the quintessence field and the fabric of spacetime, impacting the rate of cosmic expansion at different epochs [22,25]. Notably, this model can produce an early rapid expansion followed by a more gradual acceleration, aligning with current observations of the universe’s expansion history [5,16].

3.2. Cosmological Implications of Quintessence Evolution

The evolution of the quintessence field has profound implications for cosmology [20,29]. It influences the rate of cosmic expansion, the formation of structures, and even the universe’s fate [16,30]. In particular, understanding the dynamics of the field can provide insights into the transition from decelerated to accelerated expansion, the nature of dark energy domination, and potential resolutions to the fine-tuning problems associated with a constant cosmological constant [8,18].

3.2.1. Impact on Cosmic Microwave Background

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) offers a window into the early universe, and the evolution of the quintessence field can leave imprints on the CMB [20,31]. Variations in the quintessence field can affect the CMB temperature anisotropies and polarization, providing a testable prediction for these models [32,33].

3.2.2. Influence on Large-Scale Structure

The universe’s large-scale structure is sensitive to the dynamics of dark energy [34,35]. A time-varying quintessence field can influence the growth rate of cosmic structures, potentially leading to observable differences in the distribution of galaxies and the cosmic web compared to a universe with a constant cosmological constant [36,37].

3.3. Future Directions and Observational Tests

Future observations will be crucial to refine further and test quintessence models [38,39]. Upcoming surveys and missions, such as the James Webb Space Telescope, Euclid, and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory, will provide high-precision data that can constrain the evolution of the dark energy field [40,41]. Additionally, theoretical developments in understanding the origins and nature of the quintessence field will be essential in developing a more complete picture of cosmic expansion and the nature of dark energy [16,42].
In conclusion, the evolution of the dark energy field in quintessence models presents a rich area of study with the potential to impact our understanding of cosmology profoundly [15,30]. The next section will discuss these implications in detail and explore how they align with current and future observational data [39,43].

4. Effects on Cosmological Perturbations

The introduction of dynamic dark energy as a quintessence field has profound implications for cosmological perturbations [16,20]. These perturbations, small deviations from the universe’s average density and temperature, play a crucial role in the formation of structures in the universe and leave observable imprints in the CMB and large-scale structures [33,44].

4.1. Theoretical Framework of Cosmological Perturbations

To understand the impact of dynamic dark energy on cosmological perturbations, we must first consider the perturbed Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric, which allows us to study the evolution of perturbations in a homogeneous and isotropic background [45,46]. The perturbed metric in the Newtonian gauge, considering only scalar perturbations, is given by:
d s 2 = − ( 1 + 2 Ψ ) d t 2 + a 2 ( t ) ( 1 − 2 Φ ) δ i j d x i d x j
where Ψ and Φ are the gravitational potentials, a ( t ) is the scale factor, and δ i j is the Kronecker delta. The potentials Ψ and Φ are linked to density and pressure perturbations in the universe [47,48].

4.2. Quintessence Field and Perturbation Evolution

The quintessence field, ϕ , introduces additional energy density and pressure perturbations [49,50]. The perturbed energy-momentum tensor for the quintessence field can be expressed as:
δ T 0 0 = − δ ρ ϕ , δ T i 0 = − ( ρ ϕ + p ϕ ) ∂ i δ u , δ T j i = δ p ϕ δ j i
where δ ρ ϕ and δ p ϕ are the perturbations in the energy density and pressure of the quintessence field, respectively, and δ u is the perturbation in the velocity potential.
The evolution of these perturbations is governed by the perturbed Klein-Gordon equation, which in the linear regime and assuming a flat universe, is given by:
δ ϕ ¨ + 3 H δ ϕ ˙ + k 2 a 2 + d 2 V d ϕ 2 δ ϕ = 4 ϕ ˙ Φ ˙ − 2 d V d ϕ Ψ
where k is the wave number of the perturbation [51,52].

4.3. Implications for the Cosmic Microwave Background

The quintessence field perturbations influence the CMB temperature anisotropies and polarization patterns [20,31]. One key effect is modifying the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect, which occurs when CMB photons traverse time-evolving gravitational potentials [32,53]. Dynamic dark energy alters the evolution of these potentials, leading to distinct imprints in the CMB power spectrum, particularly at large angular scales [54,55].

4.4. Impact on Large-Scale Structure Formation

The evolution of large-scale structures is sensitive to the behavior of dark energy [34,36]. In a universe with dynamic dark energy, the growth rate of cosmic structures can be altered [35,56]. This affects galaxies’ clustering and matter distribution on large scales [57,58]. Observations of baryon acoustic oscillations, galaxy clustering, and weak gravitational lensing provide avenues to test these predictions and constrain the properties of the quintessence field [59,60].

4.5. Resolving the Hubble Tension within Lambda-CDM

By incorporating a dynamic dark energy component, represented by the quintessence field, we can address the Hubble tension while preserving the successful predictions of the Lambda-CDM model [9,12]. The quintessence field’s impact on the early universe’s expansion rate and its influence on cosmological perturbations offer a potential resolution to the discrepancy in measurements of the Hubble constant [61,62]. This approach allows us to maintain the foundational aspects of Lambda-CDM, such as the existence of cold dark matter and the general form of the early universe’s evolution while providing a more nuanced and dynamic model of dark energy [4,7].

4.6. Conclusion and Future Directions

Exploring the effects of dynamic dark energy on cosmological perturbations opens new avenues for understanding the universe’s expansion history and structure formation. Future observational data, particularly from next-generation CMB experiments and large-scale structure surveys, will be crucial in testing these models and further refining our understanding of dark energy. Theoretical developments in this field also promise to enrich our comprehension of fundamental physics and the cosmos.

5. Implications and Observational Consequences of Dynamic Dark Energy Models

Introducing dynamic dark energy models into cosmology offers a theoretical resolution to the Hubble tension and has broader implications for our understanding of the universe. This section explores these implications and discusses how these models can be confronted with observational data.

5.1. Revisiting the Cosmological Parameters

Dynamic dark energy models necessitate a re-examination of the standard cosmological parameters. Parameters such as the matter density ( Ω m ), dark energy density ( Ω ϕ ), and the equation of state parameter of dark energy (w) may exhibit different values or relationships in these models. Upcoming surveys and observations will provide tighter constraints on these parameters, offering insights into the nature of dark energy and its role in cosmic evolution.

5.2. Testing Models Against Observational Data

Observational tests of dynamic dark energy models are crucial for their validation. Key datasets include:

5.2.1. Type Ia Supernovae

Type Ia supernovae serve as standard candles for measuring cosmic distances. Observations of these supernovae can be used to construct the Hubble diagram, providing insights into the universe’s expansion history and constraints on the dynamics of dark energy.

5.2.2. Cosmic Microwave Background

The CMB is a powerful probe of the early universe. Measurements of its temperature and polarization anisotropies can shed light on the influence of dynamic dark energy on the early universe’s expansion and structure formation.

5.2.3. Large-Scale Structure

The distribution and evolution of large-scale structures, such as galaxy clusters and cosmic filaments, are sensitive to the nature of dark energy. Surveys mapping the large-scale structure can provide constraints on how dynamic dark energy influences the growth of structures.

5.2.4. Baryon Acoustic Oscillations

Baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) are imprints left from sound waves in the early universe. Measurements of BAO in galaxy distributions serve as a ’standard ruler’ and offer an independent method to measure the universe’s expansion history.

5.3. Broader Implications for Cosmology

Dynamic dark energy models not only address the Hubble tension but also have broader implications for cosmology:

5.3.1. The Fate of the Universe

The nature of dark energy significantly influences predictions about the universe’s ultimate fate. A dynamic dark energy model could lead to scenarios ranging from continued acceleration to potential future phase transitions in the universe’s expansion.

5.3.2. Interplay with Fundamental Physics

Dynamic dark energy models, particularly those involving scalar fields, have intriguing connections to fundamental physics, including particle physics and quantum field theory. These connections could provide new pathways to understanding the interface between cosmology and high-energy physics.

5.4. Conclusion and Future Perspectives

Dynamic dark energy models represent a significant step in understanding the cosmos. Future observational campaigns and theoretical advancements will be pivotal in testing these models and exploring their implications. As we gather more data from the cosmos, our understanding of the universe’s expansion and the nature of dark energy will continue to evolve, potentially leading to new paradigms in cosmology.
In summary, dynamic dark energy models offer a promising avenue to address current cosmological challenges while opening new frontiers for exploration in both observational and theoretical cosmology.

6. Conclusion

This paper has presented a detailed investigation into dynamic dark energy models, exploring their theoretical foundations, implications for cosmological perturbations, and potential resolutions to the Hubble tension within the Lambda-CDM framework. Our analysis demonstrates that dynamic dark energy, particularly in a quintessence scalar field, offers a promising avenue to reconcile discrepancies in the universe’s expansion rate measurements. We have shown that different potential models for the quintessence field lead to varied cosmological consequences, affecting the universe’s evolution from the early stages of the cosmic microwave background to the large-scale structure observed today. These models have the potential not only to explain the current observational data but also to predict novel effects that could be observed with future astronomical surveys and experiments. Moreover, exploring dynamic dark energy models sheds light on the interplay between cosmology and fundamental physics, opening new pathways for understanding the universe’s underlying physical laws. As we continue to refine these models and confront them with increasingly precise observational data, we anticipate that our understanding of dark energy and its role in cosmic evolution will evolve significantly, potentially leading to new paradigms in cosmology. In conclusion, dynamic dark energy models represent a significant step forward in our quest to unravel the mysteries of the cosmos. They offer a viable solution to the Hubble tension while preserving the successful predictions of the Lambda-CDM model and provide a fertile ground for future research in both theoretical and observational cosmology.

References

  1. Adam, G.; Riess, E.A. Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant. The Astronomical Journal 1998, 116, 1009–1038. [Google Scholar]
  2. S. Perlmutter, e.a. Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae. The Astrophysical Journal 1999, 517, 565–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Collaboration, P. Planck 2020 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astronomy & Astrophysics 2020, 641, A6. [Google Scholar]
  4. Peebles, P.J.E. Physical Cosmology; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  5. Sahni, V.; Starobinsky, A. The Case for a Positive Cosmological Λ-term. International Journal of Modern Physics D 2000, 9, 373–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Carroll, S.M. The Cosmological Constant. Living Reviews in Relativity 2001, 4, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Weinberg, S. The Cosmological Constant Problem. Reviews of Modern Physics 1989, 61, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ivaylo Zlatev, L.W.; Steinhardt, P.J. Quintessence, Cosmic Coincidence, and the Cosmological Constant. Physical Review Letters 1999, 82, 896–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wendy, L. Freedman, e.a. The Carnegie-Chicago Hubble Program. VIII. An Independent Determination of the Hubble Constant Based on the Tip of the Red Giant Branch. The Astrophysical Journal 2019, 882, 34. [Google Scholar]
  10. Adam, G. Riess, e.a. Cosmic Distances Calibrated to 1% Precision with Gaia EDR3 Parallaxes and Hubble Space Telescope Photometry of 75 Milky Way Cepheids Confirm Tension with ΛCDM. The Astrophysical Journal Letters 2021, 908, L6. [Google Scholar]
  11. Collaboration, P. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astronomy & Astrophysics 2018, 641, A6. [Google Scholar]
  12. Adam, G. Riess, e.a. Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics beyond ΛCDM. The Astrophysical Journal 2019, 876, 85. [Google Scholar]
  13. Caldwell, R.R.; Kamionkowski, M. The Physics of Cosmic Acceleration. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 2009, 59, 397–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ratra, B.; Peebles, P.J.E. Cosmological Consequences of a Rolling Homogeneous Scalar Field. Physical Review D 1988, 37, 3406–3427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Edmund, J. Copeland, M.S.; Tsujikawa, S. Dynamics of Dark Energy. International Journal of Modern Physics D 2006, 15, 1753–1936. [Google Scholar]
  16. Tsujikawa, S. Quintessence: A Review. Classical and Quantum Gravity 2013, 30, 214003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wetterich, C. Cosmology and the Fate of Dilatation Symmetry. Nuclear Physics B 1988, 302, 668–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Paul, J. Steinhardt, L.W.; Zlatev, I. Cosmological Tracking Solutions. Physical Review D 1999, 59, 123504. [Google Scholar]
  19. Liddle, A.R.; Scherrer, R.J. A Classification of Scalar Field Potentials with Cosmological Scaling Solutions. Physical Review D 2000, 59, 023509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Robert, R. Caldwell, R.D.; Steinhardt, P.J. Cosmological Imprint of an Energy Component with General Equation of State. Physical Review Letters 1998, 80, 1582–1585. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ferreira, P.G.; Joyce, M. Cosmology with a Primordial Scaling Field. Physical Review D 1997, 58, 023503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. T. Barreiro, E.J.C.; Nunes, N.J. Quintessence arising from exponential potentials. Physical Review D 2000, 61, 127301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Peebles, P.J.E.; Ratra, B. Cosmology with a Time-Variable Cosmological Constant. The Astrophysical Journal 1988, 325, L17–L20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Brax, P.; Martin, J. Quintessence and Supergravity. Physics Letters B 1999, 468, 40–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. E.J. Copeland, N.J.N.; Rosati, F. Quintessence Models in Supergravity. Physical Review D 2000, 62, 123503. [CrossRef]
  26. Steinhardt, P.J. A Quintessential Introduction to Dark Energy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 2003, 361, 2497–2513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Edmund, J. Copeland, A.R.L.; Wands, D. Exponential potentials and cosmological scaling solutions. Physical Review D 1998, 57, 4686–4690. [Google Scholar]
  28. Liddle, A.R.; Scherrer, R.J. A Classification of Scalar Field Potentials with Cosmological Scaling Solutions. Physical Review D 1998, 59, 023509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Linder, E.V. The Dynamics of Quintessence, The Quintessence of Dynamics. General Relativity and Gravitation 2008, 40, 329–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Joshua, A. Frieman, M.S.T.; Huterer, D. Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 2008, 46, 385–432. [Google Scholar]
  31. Doran, M.; Lilley, M. The Quintessence Field in a Brane World Universe. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 2002, 330, 965–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Corasaniti, P.S.; Copeland, E.J. Constraining the Quintessence Equation of State with SnIa Data and CMB Peaks. Physical Review D 2003, 67, 063521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rachel Bean, S.C.; Trodden, M. Insights into Dark Energy: Interplay Between Theory and Observation. The Astrophysical Journal 2001, 596, L1–L4. [Google Scholar]
  34. Wang, L.; Steinhardt, P.J. Cluster Abundance Constraints on Quintessence Models. The Astrophysical Journal 1998, 508, 483–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Linder, E.V. Cosmic Growth History and Expansion History. Physical Review D 2005, 72, 043529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Linder, E.V. Mapping the Dark Energy Equation of State. General Relativity and Gravitation 2007, 40, 329–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Andreas Albrecht, e.a. Report of the Dark Energy Task Force. arXiv 2006, [astro-ph/0609591].
  38. Luca Amendola, e.a. Cosmology and Fundamental Physics with the Euclid Satellite. Living Reviews in Relativity 2013, 16, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Austin Joyce, L.L.; Schmidt, F. Dark Energy Versus Modified Gravity. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 2016, 66, 95–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. David Spergel, e.a. Wide-Field InfrarRed Survey Telescope-Astrophysics Focused Telescope Assets WFIRST-AFTA 2015 Report. arXiv 2015, [1503.03757].
  41. R. Laureijs, e.a. Euclid Definition Study Report. arXiv 2011, [1110.3193].
  42. Kazuharu Bamba, e.a. Dark energy cosmology: the equivalent description via different theoretical models and cosmography tests. Astrophysics and Space Science 2012, 342, 155–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. David, H. Weinberg, e.a. Observational Probes of Cosmic Acceleration. Physics Reports 2013, 530, 87–255. [Google Scholar]
  44. Max Tegmark, e.a. Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP. Physical Review D 2004, 69, 103501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ma, C.P.; Bertschinger, E. Cosmological Perturbation Theory in the Synchronous and Conformal Newtonian Gauges. The Astrophysical Journal 1995, 455, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bertschinger, E. Cosmology and Astrophysics: A Review. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 2006, 36, 599–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dodelson, S. Modern Cosmology; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  48. Mukhanov, V. Physical Foundations of Cosmology; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  49. Wetterich, C. An Asymptotically Vanishing Time-Dependent Cosmological ’Constant’. Astronomy and Astrophysics 1995, 301, 321–328. [Google Scholar]
  50. Caldwell, R.R.; Linder, E.V. The Limits of Quintessence. Physical Review Letters 2005, 95, 141301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Nicola Bartolo, S.M.; Riotto, A. Non-Gaussianity from Inflation: Theory and Observations. Physics Reports 2004, 402, 103–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Francesca Perrotta, C.B.; Matarrese, S. Extended Quintessence. Physical Review D 2002, 61, 023507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hu, W.; Sugiyama, N. Small-Scale Cosmological Perturbations: An Analytic Approach. The Astrophysical Journal 1996, 471, 542–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hu, W.; Dodelson, S. Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 2002, 40, 171–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Crittenden, R.G.; Turok, N. Looking for Λ with the Rees-Sciama Effect. Physical Review Letters 1996, 76, 575–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Amendola, L. Linear and Nonlinear Perturbations in Dark Energy Models. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 2003, 342, 221–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. John, A.; Peacock, e.a. A Measurement of the Cosmological Mass Density from Clustering in the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey. Nature 2001, 410, 169–173. [Google Scholar]
  58. Luigi Guzzo, e.a. A Test of the Nature of Cosmic Acceleration Using Galaxy Redshift Distortions. Nature 2008, 451, 541–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Daniel, J.; Eisenstein, e.a. Eisenstein, e.a. Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large-Scale Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies. The Astrophysical Journal 2005, 633, 560–574. [Google Scholar]
  60. Jain, B.; Taylor, A. Cross-Correlation Tomography: Measuring Dark Energy Evolution with Weak Lensing. Physical Review Letters 2003, 91, 141302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Licia Verde, T.T.; Riess, A.G. Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe. Nature Astronomy 2019, 3, 891–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Eleonora Di Valentino, e.a. In the Realm of the Hubble Tension—a Review of Solutions. Classical and Quantum Gravity 2021, 38, 153001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated