Observational constraints on conformal time symmetry, missing matter and double dark energy

TL;DR

This paper investigates the possibility of a second dark-energy component called missing matter, constrained by cosmological observations, and finds that its presence cannot be ruled out and is consistent with standard cosmology.

Contribution

It introduces a missing matter component with specific properties to explore conformal time symmetry and constrains its density using observational data.

Findings

Missing matter density consistent with zero within uncertainties

Second dark energy component cannot be ruled out by current data

Model with missing matter has similar Bayesian evidence to standard ΛCDM

Abstract

The current concordance model of cosmology is dominated by two mysterious ingredients: dark matter and dark energy. In this paper, we explore the possibility that, in fact, there exist two dark-energy components: the cosmological constant $\Lambda$, with equation-of-state parameter $w_\Lambda=-1$, and a `missing matter' component $X$ with $w_X=-2/3$, which we introduce here to allow the evolution of the universal scale factor as a function of conformal time to exhibit a symmetry that relates the big bang to the future conformal singularity, such as in Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology. Using recent cosmological observations, we constrain the present-day energy density of missing matter to be $\Omega_{X,0}=-0.034 \pm 0.075$. This is consistent with the standard $\Lambda$CDM model, but constraints on the energy densities of all the components are considerably broadened by the introduction of missing matter; significant relative probability exists even for $\Omega_{X,0} \sim 0.1$, and so the presence of a missing matter component cannot be ruled out. As a result, a Bayesian model selection analysis only slightly disfavours its introduction by 1.1 log-units of evidence. Foregoing our symmetry requirement on the conformal time evolution of the universe, we extend our analysis by allowing $w_X$ to be a free parameter. For this more generic `double dark energy' model, we find $w_X = -1.01 \pm 0.16$ and $\Omega_{X,0} = -0.10 \pm 0.56$, which is again consistent with the standard $\Lambda$CDM model, although once more the posterior distributions are sufficiently broad that the existence of a second dark-energy component cannot be ruled out. The model including the second dark energy component also has an equivalent Bayesian evidence to $\Lambda$CDM, within the estimation error, and is indistinguishable according to the Jeffreys guideline.