A Interpretation of an anticorrelation between đ»0 and log10(đœ”đ”đ·)

  • Thread starter Thread starter fab13
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Correlation
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the observed anticorrelation between H0 and log10(ωBD), which initially suggests a correlation instead. A derived equation expresses H0 as a function of ωBD, leading to confusion about the expected relationship. The correct derivation indicates that as ωBD increases, H0 actually decreases, confirming the anticorrelation. This resolution clarifies the mathematical relationship and supports the validity of the anticorrelation observed. The conclusion emphasizes that the initial derivation was incorrect, and the corrected formula aligns with the observed data.
fab13
Messages
300
Reaction score
7
TL;DR
I get below the following contours of a MCMC run with the main cosmological parameters for Brans-Dickce's theory without introducing a cosmological constant (##\Lambda=0##) and considering only baryonic matter component.
triplot_TCL_HDF5_REFERENCE.png


Could you justify the anticorrelation that I get between ##H_0## and ##\omega_{BD}## (actually ##\log10(\omega_{BD}##) ?

If we take the relation :

##\Omega_{B D}=\frac{\omega_{B D}}{6}\left(\frac{F_0}{H_0}\right)^2-\frac{F_0}{H_0} ##, then I can express ##H_0## as a function of ##\omega_{BD}## :

##H_0=\frac{-F_0+\sqrt{F_0^2+\frac{2 \Omega_{B D \omega_{B D} F_0^2}}{3}}}{2 \Omega_{B D}} .##

From this relation, we are expected to have a correlation instead of an anti-correlation since if ##\omega_{BD}## increases, then, ##H_0## will increase.

If someone could help me to justify my result (if it is true), this would be great.
 
Space news on Phys.org
Solution : the derivation of ##H_0## is wrong and the valide one is :

##\begin{aligned}
& \Omega=\frac{\omega}{6}\left(\frac{F}{H}\right)^2-\frac{F}{H} \\
& \frac{E}{H}=A \\
& \Omega=\frac{\omega}{6} A^2-A \\
& \frac{\omega}{6} A^2-A-\Omega=0 \\
& A_{1 / 2}=\frac{1 \pm \sqrt{1+\frac{4 \omega \Omega}{6}}}{2}, A>0 \\
& \frac{F}{H}=\frac{1+\sqrt{1+\frac{4 \omega \Omega}{6}}}{2}=\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{4+\frac{\omega \Omega}{6}} \\
& H=\frac{F}{\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{4+\frac{\omega \Omega}{6}}}
\end{aligned}
##

So there is an anticorrelation between ##H_0## and ##\omega_{BD}##
 
How did you find PF?: Searching for answers about redshift I have a friend who is a skeptic of the "expanding Universe". Neither of us are physicists, but he is an engineer. He claims that red shift is due to "tired light" not the "doppler"-like effect of light coming from stars moving away. He believes that light tires either due to collision with particles or by the effect of gravity. II have looked on this forum enough to debunk the collision explanation, so enough said about that. I...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K