Towards realistic $f(T)$ models with nonminimal torsion-matter coupling extension

TL;DR

This paper develops two $f(T)$ gravity models with nonminimal torsion-matter coupling, successfully fitting observational data and addressing the cosmological constant problem while describing the Universe's evolution.

Contribution

The paper introduces new $f(T)$ models with nonminimal coupling that fit observational data and avoid the cosmological constant problem, extending previous $f(T)$ theories.

Findings

Models fit observational data within error margins.

Models describe Universe's evolution including acceleration.

Predicted Universe ages are consistent with globular clusters.

Abstract

Using the observation data of SNeIa, CMB and BAO, we establish two concrete $f(T)$ models with nonminimal torsion-matter coupling extension. We study in detail the cosmological implication of our models and find they are successful in describing the observation of the Universe, its large scale structure and evolution. In other words, these models do not change the successful aspects of $\Lambda$CDM scenario under the error band of fitting values as describing the evolution history of the Universe including radiation-dominated era, matter-dominated era and the present accelerating expansion. Meanwhile, the significant advantage of these models is that they could avoid the cosmological constant problem of $\Lambda$CDM. A joint analysis is performed by using the data of CMB+BAO+JLA, which leads to $\Omega_{m0}=0.255\pm 0.010, \Omega_{b0}h^2=0.0221\pm 0.0003$ and $H_0=68.54\pm 1.27$ for model I and $\Omega_{m0}=0.306\pm 0.010, \Omega_{b0}h^2=0.0225\pm 0.0003$ and $H_0=60.97\pm 0.44$ for model II at 1$\sigma$ confidence level. The evolution of the decelaration parameter $q(a)$ and the effective equation of state $w_{DE}(a)$ are displayed. Furthermore, The resulted age of the Universe from our models is consistent with the ages of the oldest globular clusters. As for the fate of the Universe, model I results in a de Sitter accelerating phase while model II appears a power-law one, even though $w_{DE0}< -1$ makes model I look like a phantom at present time.