Beta function quintessence cosmological parameters and fundamental constants – II. Exponential and logarithmic dark energy potentials
Author
Thompson, Rodger IAffiliation
Univ Arizona, Steward ObservIssue Date
2019-03
Metadata
Show full item recordPublisher
OXFORD UNIV PRESSCitation
Rodger I Thompson, Beta function quintessence cosmological parameters and fundamental constants – II. Exponential and logarithmic dark energy potentials, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 482, Issue 4, February 2019, Pages 5448–5458, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty2973Rights
© 2018 The Author(s) Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Royal Astronomical Society.Collection Information
This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.Abstract
This paper uses the beta function formalism to extend the analysis of quintessence cosmological parameters to the logarithmic and exponential dark energy potentials. The previous paper demonstrated the formalism using power and inverse power potentials. The essentially identical evolution of the Hubble parameter for all of the quintessence cases and Lambda CDM is attributed to the flatness of the quintessence dark energy potentials in the dark energy dominated era. The Hubble parameter is therefore incapable of discriminating between static and dynamic dark energy. Unlike the other three potentials considered in the two papers the logarithmic dark energy potential requires a numerical integration in the formula for the superpotential rather than being an analytic function. The dark energy equation of state and the fundamental constants continue to be good discriminators between static and dynamical dark energy. A new analysis of quintessence with all four of the potentials relative the swampland conjectures indicates that the conjecture on the change in the scalar field is satisfied but that the conjecture on the change of the potential is not.ISSN
0035-8711Version
Final published versionae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1093/mnras/sty2973