Advances in Astrophysics

Download PDF (2997.8 KB) PP. 18 - 36 Pub. Date: February 1, 2020

DOI: 10.22606/adap.2020.51003

• Abraham P. Mahtessian^*
  NAS RA V. Ambartsumian Byurakan Astrophysical Observatory (BAO), Armenia
• Garen S. Karapetian
  NAS RA V. Ambartsumian Byurakan Astrophysical Observatory (BAO), Armenia
• Vardan H. Movsisyan
  NAS RA V. Ambartsumian Byurakan Astrophysical Observatory (BAO), Armenia
• Lazar A. Mahtessian
  NAS RA V. Ambartsumian Byurakan Astrophysical Observatory (BAO), Armenia

In the present work, on the basis of compilations of supernovae Sne Ia Union and Union2, two cosmological models describing the Universe are considered. One of them (a model with a cosmological constant of zero) was widespread until 1998 when a study of type Ia supernovae showed that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. After that, a model for the case of a flat universe, which is also discussed in this paper, received great recognition. To accept or reject any cosmological model, it is proposed to carry out a test based on the statement that the absolute magnitude of type Ia supernovae should not depend on the redshift (MSNeIa 6= MSNeIa(z)), i.e. these supernovae are distance indicators. (This test is especially important when own software is used to analyze the Hubble diagram, as was done for example by Kowalski et al. 2008 and Amanullah et al. 2010.) It turns out that the values of the model parameters obtained according to this principle are also confirmed by the Hubble diagram. It is with these data that the best approximation of the observed data is obtained. Mathematical analysis of the Hubble diagram speaks in favor of a model with a cosmological constant of zero. This model also has one important advantage: it does not need to accept the idea of such a hypothetical substance as “Dark Energy”. Thus, it turns out that we are in open space, filled to about 30% of the critical density of matter, which participates in gravitational interaction and expands with deceleration. This value coincides with the accepted amount of visible and dark matter. If all the same to accept the model of flat universe, then we must abandon the superiority of energy over mass (  < 0.5).

Cosmological models, supernovae, absolute magnitude test, dark energy, dark matter: general.

[1] R. Amanullah et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 375

[2] R. Amanullah et al. 2010, ApJ, 716, 712

[3] P. Astier et al. 2006, A&A, 447, 31

[4] B. Barris et al. 2004, ApJ, 602, 571

[5] S. M. Carroll, W. H. Press & E. L. Turner 1992, ARA&A, 30, 499

[6] W. A. Fowler & F. Hoyle 1960, ApJ, 132, 565

[7] P. Garnavich et al. 1998, ApJ, 509, 74

[8] J. Guillochon, J. Parrent, L. Z. Kelley & R. Margutti 2017, ApJ, 835, 1. https://sne.space/

[9] M. Hamuy et al. 1996a, AJ, 112, 2398

[10] M. Hamuy et al. 1996b, AJ, 112, 2408

[11] M. Hicken et al. 2009a, ApJ, 700, 331

[12] M. Hicken et al. 2009b, ApJ, 700, 1097

[13] J. A. Holtzman et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2306

[14] E. P. Hubble, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 1929, 15, 168

[15] S. Jha et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 527

[16] R. Knop et al. 2003, ApJ, 598, 102

[17] M. Kowalski et al. 2008, ApJ, 686, 749

[18] K. Krisciunas et al. 2004a, AJ, 127, 1664

[19] K. Krisciunas et al. 2004b, AJ, 128, 3034

[20] K. Krisciunas et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 2453

[21] W. Mattig 1958, Astron. Nachr. 284, 109

[22] G. Miknaitis et al. 2007, ApJ, 666, 674

[23] S. Perlmutter et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565

[24] A. Riess et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1009

[25] A. Riess et al. 1999, AJ, 117, 707

[26] A. Riess et al. 2007, ApJ, 659, 98

[27] A. Sandage & G.Tammann 1982, ApJ, 256, 339

[28] B. Schmidt et al. 1998, ApJ, 507, 46

[29] V. M. Slipher, table prepared for book of A. S. Eddington, The Mathematical Theory of Relativity, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, London, 1924): 162.

[30] J. Tonry et al. 2003, ApJ, 594, 1

[31] S. Weinberg, Cosmology, Oxford University Press, 2008