In this study we investigate the growth index <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><a:msub><a:mi>γ</a:mi><a:mi>L</a:mi></a:msub></a:math>, which characterizes the growth of linear matter perturbations, while analysing different cosmological datasets. We compare the approaches implemented by two different patches of the cosmological solver : and __. In our analysis we uncover a deviation of the growth index from its expected <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><c:mi mathvariant="normal">Λ</c:mi><c:mi>CDM</c:mi></c:math> value of 0.55 when utilizing the Planck dataset, both in the case and in the __ case, but in opposite directions. This deviation is accompanied by a change in the direction of correlations with derived cosmological parameters. However, the incorporation of cosmic microwave background lensing data helps reconcile <f:math xmlns:f="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><f:msub><f:mi>γ</f:mi><f:mi>L</f:mi></f:msub></f:math> with its <h:math xmlns:h="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><h:mi mathvariant="normal">Λ</h:mi></h:math>-cold dark matter value in both cases. Conversely, the alternative ground-based telescopes Atacama Cosmology Telescope and South Pole Telescope consistently yield growth index values in agreement with <k:math xmlns:k="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><k:msub><k:mi>γ</k:mi><k:mi>L</k:mi></k:msub><k:mo>=</k:mo><k:mn>0.55</k:mn></k:math>. We conclude that the presence of the <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><m:msub><m:mrow><m:mi mathvariant="normal">A</m:mi></m:mrow><m:mrow><m:mi>lens</m:mi></m:mrow></m:msub></m:math> problem in the Planck dataset contributes to the observed deviations, underscoring the importance of additional datasets in resolving these discrepancies. Published by the American Physical Society 2024
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Specogna et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: