AG-2024.07-006·astro-ph.CO·cross-listed: gr-qchep-phhep-th
Combining pre- and post-recombination new physics to address cosmological tensions: case study with varying electron mass and sign-switching cosmological constant
Authors
- Yo Toda
- William Giarè
- Emre Özülker
- Eleonora Di Valentino
- Sunny Vagnozzi
Abstract
It has recently been argued that the Hubble tension may call for a combination of both pre- and post-recombination new physics. Motivated by these considerations, we provide one of the first concrete case studies aimed at constructing such a viable combination. We consider models that have individually worked best on either end of recombination so far: a spatially uniform time-varying electron mass leading to earlier recombination (also adding non-zero spatial curvature), and a sign-switching cosmological constant inducing an AdS-to-dS transition within the $Λ_{\rm s}$CDM model. When confronted against Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, and Type Ia Supernovae data, we show that no combination of these ingredients can successfully solve the Hubble tension. We find that the matter density parameter $Ω_m$ plays a critical role, driving important physical scales in opposite directions: the AdS-to-dS transition requires a larger $Ω_m$ to maintain the CMB acoustic scale fixed, whereas the varying electron mass requires a smaller $Ω_m$ to maintain the redshift of matter-radiation equality fixed. Despite the overall failure, we use our results to draw general model-building lessons, highlighting the importance of assessing tension-solving directions in the parameter space of new physics parameters and how these correlate with shifts in other standard parameters, while underscoring the crucial role of $Ω_m$ in this sense.
Submitted
1 July 20241 year ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2407.01173
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.