Skip to main content
Log in

On distinguishing different models of a class of emergent Universe solutions

  • Published:
Pramana Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A specific class of singularity-free cosmological model has recently been considered in light of different observational data such as observed Hubble data, BAO data from luminous red galaxy survey by Slowan digital sky survey (SDSS) and CMB data from WMAP. However, it is observed that only 12–14 data points are used to study the viability of the model in late time. In this paper, we discuss the viability of all the models belonging to the same class of EU in light of union compilation data (SNIa) which consists of over a hundred data points, thus getting a more robust test for viability. More importantly, it is crucial that we can distinguish between the various models proposed in the class of solution obtained. We discuss here why with the present observational data it is difficult to distinguish between all of them. We show that the late-time behaviour of the model is typical to any asymptotically de Sitter model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Riess et al, Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998)

  2. S Perlmutter et al, Nature 51, 391 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  3. S Perlmutter et al, Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. S Perlmutter et al, Astrophys. J. 598, 102 (2003)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. E R Harrison, Mont. Not. R. Aston. Soc. 69, 137 (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  6. G F R Ellis and R Maartens, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 223 (2004)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. S Mukherjee et al, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 6927 (2006)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. J C Fabris et al, Phys. Lett. A 367, 423 (2007)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. A Banerjee, T Bandyopadhyay and S Chakraborty, Gen. Rel. Grav. 40, 1603 (2008)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. U Debnath, Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 205019 (2008)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  11. B C Paul and S Ghose, Gen. Rel. Grav. 42, 795 (2010)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. S del Campo, R Herrera and P Labrana, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 30, 0711 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  13. B C Paul, P Thakur and S Ghose, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 407, 415 (2010)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. B C Paul, S Ghose and P Thakur, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 13, 686 (2011)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. S Ghose, P Thakur and B C Paul, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 20, 421 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  16. P Thakur, Pramana – J. Phys. 89, 27 (2017)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. P Thakur, Pramana – J. Phys. 88, 51 (2017)

  18. R Amanullah et al, Astrophys. J. 716, 712 (2010)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  19. S Nesseris and L Perivolaropoulos, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 0701, 018 (2007)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

SG is thankful to SIEM, Siliguri and IRC, University of North Bengal for providing research support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Souvik Ghose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ghose, S. On distinguishing different models of a class of emergent Universe solutions. Pramana - J Phys 90, 43 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12043-018-1535-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12043-018-1535-z

Keyword

PACS Nos

Navigation