REVIEW 1 cited by
Constraining string cosmology with the gravitational-wave background using the NANOGrav 15-year data set
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
The North American Nanohertz Observatory for Gravitational Waves (NANOGrav) collaboration has recently reported strong evidence for a signal at nanohertz, potentially the first detection of the stochastic gravitational-wave background (SGWB). We investigate whether the NANOGrav signal is consistent with the SGWB predicted by string cosmology models. By performing Bayesian parameter estimation on the NANOGrav 15-year data set, we constrain the key parameters of a string cosmology model: the frequency $f_s$ and the fractional energy density $\Omega_\mathrm{gw}^{s}$ of gravitational waves at the end of the dilaton-driven stage, and the Hubble parameter $H_r$ at the end of the string phase. Our analysis yields constraints of $f_s = 1.2^{+0.6}_{-0.6}\times 10^{-8} \mathrm{Hz}$ and $\Omega_\mathrm{gw}^{s} = 2.9^{+5.4}_{-2.3}\times 10^{-8}$, consistent with theoretical predictions from string cosmology. However, the current NANOGrav data is not sensitive to the $H_r$ parameter. We also compare the string cosmology model to a simple power-law model using Bayesian model selection, finding a Bayes factor of $2.2$ in favor of the string cosmology model. Our results demonstrate the potential of pulsar timing arrays to constrain cosmological models and study the early Universe.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Manifestation of Quantum Forces in Spacetime: Towards a General Theory of Quantum Forces
The paper defines a 'quantum force wave equation' and a modified Einstein equation, but these reduce to identities once the central operator is defined, and the motivating derivation is flawed.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.