Is the cosmic acceleration slowing down? Tuo Zhongliang KITPC, CAS April 1st, 2011 Outline Eternal acceleration or escape eternal acceleration? Cosmographic approach Non-parametrization method Summary The accelerating expansion SNIa observations in 1998 find cosmic acceleration. Riess Perlmutter Concordance model (LCDM) WMAP7 Dark energy: 73.4% Dark matter: 22.2% Normal matter: 4.4% the big rip R.R.Caldwell, M.Kamionkowski and N.N.Weinberg, Phys.Rev.Lett.91(2003)071301 “Cosmic Doomsday” Can the universe escape eternal acceleration? J. D. Barrow, R. Bean and J. Magueijo, Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc.316:L41,2000 A difference of 120 orders of magnitude Cosmographic approach Redshift expansion y-redshift expansion, Thus to reduce the systematic error Hubble parameter For z<zcut or y<ycut, For zcut<z<1.0 or ycut<y<1.0, Data sets SNeIa: Union2 (R.Amanullah et al. e-Print: arXiv:1004.1711 ) Distance modulus Marginalization over μ0 Data sets Hubble parameter (D. Stern et al. e-Print: arXiv:0907.3149 ) Marginalization over H0 1-D marginalized probability distribution of q0 1.0 dL z 0.8 dL y 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.2 dLH z q0 dLH y 0.8 0.6 P q0 P q0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 q0 0.2 0.0 Evolution behavior of q(z) Evolution behaviors of q(z) 3 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 0.2 0.0 0.2 dL y CDM 2 q q 3 dL z CDM 0.4 0.6 0.8 3 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 z 3 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 z 1.0 0.6 0.8 1.0 H dL y CDM 2 q q 3 1 3 0.8 z dLH z CDM 2 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0 3 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 z Comparison with the Hubble data CDM dL z 2.5 dL y H H z H0 dL H dL 2.0 z y 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 z 0.8 1.0 Non-parametrization method Independent of the calibration Reconstructed deceleration parameters 6 CDM dL z dL y 4 H dL z dL y H qz 2 0 2 4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 z 0.8 1.0 Summary The universe transited from deceleration from acceleration at higher redshift than what the LCDM model predicts The universe is still in the stage of accelerating expansion SNIa data favor a transient acceleration, even with the Hubble parameter data added in. Thanks!