[astroph/0409574] Constraining Dark Energy with Xray Galaxy Clusters, Supernovae and the Cosmic Microwave Background
Authors:  David Rapetti, Steven W. Allen, Jochen Weller 
Abstract:  We present new constraints on the evolution of dark energy from an analysis of Cosmic Microwave Background, supernova and Xray galaxy cluster data. Our analysis employs a minimum of priors and exploits the complementary nature of these data sets. We examine a series of dark energy models with up to three free parameters: the current dark energy equation of state w_0, the early time equation of state w_et and the scale factor at transition, a_t. From a combined analysis of all three data sets, assuming a constant equation of state and that the Universe is flat, we measure w_0=1.05+0.100.12. Including w_et as a free parameter and allowing the transition scale factor to vary over the range 0.5 < a_t < 0.95 where the data sets have discriminating power, we measure w_0=1.27+0.330.39 and w_et=0.66+0.440.62. We find no significant evidence for evolution in the dark energy equation of state parameter with redshift. Marginal hints of evolution in the supernovae data become less significant when the cluster constraints are also included in the analysis. The complementary nature of the data sets leads to a tight constraint on the mean matter density, Omega_m and alleviates a number of other parameter degeneracies, including that between the scalar spectral index n_s, the physical baryon density Omega_bh^2 and the optical depth tau. This complementary nature also allows us to examine models in which we drop the prior on the curvature. For nonflat models with a constant equation of state, we measure w_0=1.09+0.120.15 and obtain a tight constraint on the current dark energy density, Omega_de=0.70+0.03. 
[PDF] [PS] [BibTex] [Bookmark] 

 Posts: 19
 Joined: September 25 2004
 Affiliation: Simon Fraser University
 Contact:
[astroph/0409574] Constraining Dark Energy with Xray Galax
Normally, I would just write an email to Jochen, but this could be a good topic for cosmocoffee.
I am sure whoever reads this nice paper is likely to have the same question. When dealing with models with w<1, and especially those which cross from w>1 to w<1, one doesn't really know what to do with the fluctuations. One could flip the sign of the kinetic term when w<1, which is probably what the authors have done (or maybe not?), but does this solve the problem? How do these constraint change if the fluctuations in dark energy are turned off? If the changes are large then wouldn't that imply that the results are only valid for a class of models of measure zero?
Maybe one of the authors, or anybody, could comment on why we should believe their constraints.
Levon
I am sure whoever reads this nice paper is likely to have the same question. When dealing with models with w<1, and especially those which cross from w>1 to w<1, one doesn't really know what to do with the fluctuations. One could flip the sign of the kinetic term when w<1, which is probably what the authors have done (or maybe not?), but does this solve the problem? How do these constraint change if the fluctuations in dark energy are turned off? If the changes are large then wouldn't that imply that the results are only valid for a class of models of measure zero?
Maybe one of the authors, or anybody, could comment on why we should believe their constraints.
Levon

 Posts: 183
 Joined: September 24 2004
 Affiliation: Brookhaven National Laboratory
 Contact:

 Posts: 45
 Joined: September 24 2004
 Affiliation: LudwigMaximiliansUniversity Munich
 Contact:
w<1 to w>1
Hi guys
nice that you discuss our paper here. If you read Weller and Lewis careful, there is
a method where you do not need to resort to a scalar field to do perturbations in
the dark energy, so no sign flip trick ! We just look at a fluid with sound speed c_s^2 = 1.
This allows one to go over the transition. There will be a paper by Rapetti and Weller
which will discuss this in detail :)
Yours
Jochen
nice that you discuss our paper here. If you read Weller and Lewis careful, there is
a method where you do not need to resort to a scalar field to do perturbations in
the dark energy, so no sign flip trick ! We just look at a fluid with sound speed c_s^2 = 1.
This allows one to go over the transition. There will be a paper by Rapetti and Weller
which will discuss this in detail :)
Yours
Jochen

 Posts: 19
 Joined: September 25 2004
 Affiliation: Simon Fraser University
 Contact:
w<1 to w>1
Hi guys, nice to see the cosmocoffee brewing.
Jochen, I will look forward to your next paper. But still, what about my original question  does your way of doing the pertrubations make a big difference when it comes to the final DE constraints. You must have tried to do it with fluctuations turned off and/or with the flip of sign. I would think they would be compatible to those due to different sound speeds, something you have discussed in that same paper with Antony.
I like your parametrization of w(z) and just want to get a feel for what your constraints on it would become if you ``marginalizes'' over different
ways of doing the DE perturbations.
Levon
Jochen, I will look forward to your next paper. But still, what about my original question  does your way of doing the pertrubations make a big difference when it comes to the final DE constraints. You must have tried to do it with fluctuations turned off and/or with the flip of sign. I would think they would be compatible to those due to different sound speeds, something you have discussed in that same paper with Antony.
I like your parametrization of w(z) and just want to get a feel for what your constraints on it would become if you ``marginalizes'' over different
ways of doing the DE perturbations.
Levon

 Posts: 45
 Joined: September 24 2004
 Affiliation: LudwigMaximiliansUniversity Munich
 Contact:
DE perturbations
Hi Levon
in Weller and Lewis (2003) we showed that our way of doing perturbations is equivalent
in the case of standard scalar field dark energy models where you can show the sound speed is one. Of course when it comes to models with w<1 you open up a 'can of worms'.
In the present analysis we assume that the sound speed is constant one also in this case.
In the case of constant w<1 this corresponds to 'sticking in a "" sign in front of the kinetic
term'. However as pointed out above there is no, as far as I am aware, scalar field dark energy model with a transition from w<1 to w>1.
No in Weller and Lewis we showed that it is important to include perturbations, but I suppose it is not important how you include them. Of course there is the issue that 'kessence' models can have different sound speeds which also vary with time
Yours
Jochen
in Weller and Lewis (2003) we showed that our way of doing perturbations is equivalent
in the case of standard scalar field dark energy models where you can show the sound speed is one. Of course when it comes to models with w<1 you open up a 'can of worms'.
In the present analysis we assume that the sound speed is constant one also in this case.
In the case of constant w<1 this corresponds to 'sticking in a "" sign in front of the kinetic
term'. However as pointed out above there is no, as far as I am aware, scalar field dark energy model with a transition from w<1 to w>1.
No in Weller and Lewis we showed that it is important to include perturbations, but I suppose it is not important how you include them. Of course there is the issue that 'kessence' models can have different sound speeds which also vary with time
Yours
Jochen

 Posts: 19
 Joined: September 25 2004
 Affiliation: Simon Fraser University
 Contact:
Post subject: w<1 to w>1
Thanks, Jochen.
So you're saying that the way in which you include the perturbation for w<1 in your type of set up is not that important, as long as you include it. That's probably because when w approaches 1 the perturbation goes to zero (if you prevent it from diverging by fixing c_s^2=1). Fair enough. This is probably as good as one can do.
Levon
So you're saying that the way in which you include the perturbation for w<1 in your type of set up is not that important, as long as you include it. That's probably because when w approaches 1 the perturbation goes to zero (if you prevent it from diverging by fixing c_s^2=1). Fair enough. This is probably as good as one can do.
Levon

 Posts: 45
 Joined: September 24 2004
 Affiliation: LudwigMaximiliansUniversity Munich
 Contact:
reply
sort of, yes