1:
2:
3: \documentclass[prd,aps,floats,tabularx,preprintnumbers,twocolumn]{revtex4}
4: \usepackage{graphicx, epsfig}
5:
6: \textwidth 170mm
7: \textheight240mm
8: \oddsidemargin -1.2mm
9: \evensidemargin 5mm
10: \topmargin -48pt
11:
12: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
13: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
14: \def\ba{\begin{eqnarray}}
15: \def\ea{\end{eqnarray}}
16: \def\barr{\overline{r}}
17:
18: \begin{document}
19:
20: \baselineskip 12 pt
21:
22: \title{Nontrivial Geometries:\\ Bounds on the Curvature of the Universe}
23:
24: \author{Laura Mersini-Houghton$^\ast$,
25: Yun Wang$^\dagger$,
26: Pia Mukherjee$^{a}$,
27: and Ervin Kafexhiu$^{b}$}
28:
29:
30: \affiliation
31: {$^\ast$ UNC-Chapel Hill, CB{\#}3255,
32: Phillips Hall,Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA,\\
33: $^\dagger$ Dept. of Physics \& Astronomy, Univ. of Oklahoma,
34: 440 W. Brooks St., Norman, OK 73019\\
35: $^{a}$ Department of Physics \& Astronomy, Univ. of Sussex,
36: Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9QH, UK\\
37: $^{b}$Department of Physics and Astronomy,\\ Physics Department, University of Tirana, Tirana, Albania}
38:
39: \begin{abstract}
40: {\small}
41: %%%%%%%
42: Probing the geometry of the universe is one of the most important endevours in cosmology.
43: Current observational data from the Cosmic Microwave Background
44: anisotropy (CMB), galaxy surveys and type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia)
45: strongly constrain the curvature of the universe to be close to zero
46: for a universe dominated by a cosmological constant
47: or dark energy with a constant equation of state.
48: Here we investigate the role of cosmic priors on deriving
49: these tight bounds on geometry, by considering a landscape motivated
50: scenario with an oscillating curvature term. We perform a
51: likelihood analysis of current data under such a model of
52: non-trivial geometry and find that the uncertainties on curvature,
53: and correspondingly on parameters of the matter and dark energy sectors,
54: are larger. Future dark energy experiments together with CMB data from
55: experiments like Planck could dramatically improve our ability to
56: constrain cosmic curvature under such models enabling us to probe
57: possible imprints of quantum gravity.
58:
59: \end{abstract}
60:
61:
62:
63: \maketitle
64:
65:
66:
67: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5555
68: \section{\bf Introduction}
69:
70: Exquisite measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)
71: spectra, Large Scale Structure (LSS) and of the expansion history of the universe, by various experiments including WMAP, SDSS, 2dF survey, and
72: SN1a surveys \cite{wmap, sdss, 2df, riess, perl}
73: have pinned down the spatial curvature of the universe to $\kappa
74: \le 0.01$ \cite{Spergel06, Tegmark06} in a universe with a
75: cosmological constant .
76:
77: Energy content and geometry both contribute to the Hubble expansion rate $H$. The
78: three are so closely intertwined that no independent measurement of $H$ versus
79: $\Omega_m$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}$, or $\kappa$ can yet be performed. In interpreting the data for any of these components, we have to be
80: aware of the prior assumptions in our models regarding the other components. That is to say that our interpretation of data is not model independent.
81:
82: What conclusion can be made about the geometry of the universe, on the basis
83: of current data? The answer to this question depends on the cosmological model and on the dependence of the constraints on the spatial geometry of
84: the universe on prior assumptions regarding other relevant energy components. Here we explore this issue by considering a model of nontrivial geometry,
85: where the curvature does not take a constant value, but rather is a
86: function of time. In our model the curvature is given by an oscillating function with a Hubble time period. Such models can be motivated by the dissipative dynamics of the wavefunction of the universe on its classical path
87: on the background of the landscape of string theory.
88:
89: %The motivation for the phenomenological scenario with a time-dependent
90: %curvature is twofold: first, we would like to inquire on the
91: %robustness of the evidence for a flat universe and a concordance
92: %cosmology from current data in the light of degeneracies with
93: %other cosmic priors; second, theoretically, models with nontrivial
94: %oscillating curvature can be motivated by the dissipative dynamics
95: %of the wavefunction of the universe on its classical path
96: %on the background of the landscape of string theory.
97:
98: \section{\bf Motivating the Class of Oscillating Curvature Models}
99:
100: The discovery of the acceleration of the universe has become one of the central
101: themes of current investigation in physics. Unfortunately due to the degeneracy
102: among cosmic parameters, determining its nature and equation of state from
103: astrophysical data depends crucially on our assumptions for
104: the matter content and curvature of the universe. Recent analysis of SDSS\cite{sdss}
105: and WMAP \cite{Spergel06} has been reported to indicate that the geometry of our universe
106: is extremely close to flat to within $1\%$ in an LCDM universe \cite{Tegmark06}.
107:
108: Here we would like to investigate the robustness of these conclusions about the
109: curvature of the universe by presenting a highly nontrivial model where the
110: {\it curvature term is not a constant but a function of time, oscillating
111: every Hubble time}. This model is inspired and motivated from the proposal
112: for a dynamic selection of the initial conditions for our universe from the
113: landscape phase space \cite{laurarich1,laurarich2} as summarized below.
114:
115: In \cite{laurarich1,laurarich2} we included the backreaction of superhorizon
116: massive perturbations on the initial wavepacket for our universe. Solving a
117: Master Equation we studied role of the backreaction term on the decoherence
118: of our initial patch from the other WKB branches
119: on the landscape. The time evolved nonlocal entanglement of our
120: patch with others outside the horizon at late times \cite{laurarrow,kiefer}
121: were then investigated in \cite{lauratomo} with the
122: conclusion that some of those traces imprinted on CMB and LSS are within
123: observational reach. Within this formalism, we now allow for an initial
124: curvature term in the Friedman equation,
125: $\kappa=1$ and consider the effect that the backreaction term has
126: on closed geometries. Backreaction shifts the energy of the wavepacket
127: therefore its classical trajectory on the landscape. The shifting of
128: the classical path for our wavefunction can be seen by integrating out the
129: Master Equation presented for this case as was described in
130: \cite{laurarich1,lauratomo,laurarrow}.
131:
132: \begin{equation}
133: H(a) + H_m =\sum_{n} H_n
134: \label{master}
135: \end{equation}
136:
137: where $-H(a)=a ( \dot{a}^2 +\kappa )$ is the hamiltonian corresponding
138: to gravitational degrees of freedom (obtained from the Einstein-Hilbert action), with $a$ the scale factor, and $\kappa$ is the initial
139: curvature for that classical trajectory. $H_m$ is the matter hamiltonian corresponding for example to
140: the inflaton energy and, $H_n$ is the backreaction energy corresponding
141: to the superhorizon matter perturbations labelled by the wavenumber $n$.
142:
143: To get a rough idea of the shifting of the trajectory, let us assume
144: that $\epsilon = a^3 [\dot{\phi}^2 + m^2 \phi^2]$ is a
145: constant of motion and thus integrate out Eqn.\ref{master}. When the
146: backreaction term is not included, Eqn.\ref{master} in the case of closed universes
147: $\kappa =1$,
148: gives a turning point when $\dot{a}=0$ at $a=a_n$ where $a_n \kappa=\epsilon$.
149: The first term in the backreaction energy $H_n \simeq n^2 / a^2$ has the same
150: dependence on the scale factor $a$ as the curvature. Including the backreaction
151: term when integrating out Eqn.\ref{master} results in a lower energy since
152: $H(a) \rightarrow H(a)-\sum H_n$, thereby shifting the classical trajectory
153: of the wavepacket of our universe. This result of the shifting of the classical
154: trajectory of our universe's wavepacket by interaction with a field, (in this
155: case the entanglement of gravitational and matter degrees of freedom through
156: the term $\sum H_n$), is well known in particle physics where the energy of a
157: quantum particle gets shifted by interaction with a classical field which
158: results in a shifts of the particle's trajectory and momenta.
159: The details of the calculations for the strength of this interaction in the
160: case of quantum cosmology can be found for example in \cite{kiefer} or when
161: applied to the landscape of string theory in \cite{lauratomo}. The result
162: is that everytime a closed universe goes through its turning point given by
163: Eqn.\ref{master} by putting $\dot a =0$, that is every Hubble time, then it
164: will emerge through a shifted trajectory, due to the correction of $H(a)$
165: by the backreaction term $\sum H_n$ described here. The modification in
166: energy corresponding to this shift can be absorbed into the curvature term
167: since the time dependence of $H_n$ is similar to that of the $\kappa$ term.
168: Therefore, to local observers bound to our visible universe, the effect of
169: the shifting of the classical trajectory for our universe in the phase space,
170: appears as an induced oscillating curvature with a period of Hubble time.
171: Of course no observers would survive the emergence through the turning point
172: in the cycles of the trajectory. However the reduced oscillation of the
173: curvature in the previous cycle may leave its imprints on astrophysical
174: observables of the current cycle, which we aim to study here.
175: Based on the integration of Eqn.\ref{master}, we expect
176: the curvature term motivated by this scenario, to be a function of the
177: total energy content of the universe $H_m$ and oscillate, in each cycle between the
178: two turning points in the trajectory, with a Hubble period.
179: %We present such an oscillating function for the curvature below, Eq.\ref{oscicurv}.
180: %The Hubblee dependence in the oscillating function has been replaced by an equivalent
181: %expression given in terms of the redshift $z$. The latter replacement is simply meant
182: %to simplify the technical details of the likelihood analysis but otherwise carries
183: %the same functional dependence.
184:
185: While there are different ways of phenomenologically implementing
186: the oscillating curvature model described above, there
187: are constraints based on the considerations of observables
188: in the model.
189: In order to make predictions that can be compared with data,
190: we need to compute the coordinate distance $r(z)$ and the
191: age of the universe $t(z)$ as functions of redshift.
192:
193: These functions, $r(z)$ and $t(z)$, are found by considering
194: the radial, null geodesic of the Robertson-Walker metric.
195: But now the curvature constant $\kappa$ is replaced by a function
196: $-x(a)$ that oscillates with cosmic time:
197: \begin{equation}
198: ds^2=dt^2 - a^2(t)\, \frac{dr^2}{1+ x(a) \,{\barr}^2 } = 0,
199: \end{equation}
200: where $a(t)$ is the cosmic scale factor, and
201: the scaled coordinate distance $\barr \equiv H_0 r/c$.
202: Hence we have
203: \begin{equation}
204: \left( \barr^\prime \right)^2 = \frac{1+ x(a)\,{\barr}^2 }{a^4 E^2(a)},
205: \label{eq:drda}
206: \ee
207: where $\prime$ denotes differentiation with respect to $a$, and
208: \be
209: E^2(a) \equiv \left(\frac{H(z)}{H_0}\right)^2 =
210: \frac{\Omega_r}{a^4} + \frac{\Omega_m}{a^3} +\Omega_\Lambda+
211: \frac{x(a)}{a^2}.
212: \ee
213: For closed universes, $r(z)$ is not a monotonic function of
214: $a$. Differentiating Eq.(\ref{eq:drda}) with respect
215: to $a$ gives
216: \be
217: \barr^{\prime\prime}=\frac{x^\prime \barr^2 + \barr^\prime
218: \left[2\barr x-\barr^\prime \left( \Omega_m+4a^3 \Omega_\Lambda+
219: x^\prime a^2 +2 a x\right)\right]}{2 a^4 E^2(a) \,\barr^\prime }.
220: \label{eq:r(z)eq}
221: \ee
222: In a closed universe, the coordinate distance $r$ reaches
223: its maximum value at $\barr^\prime=0$.
224: Note that $\barr^{\prime\prime}$ is only finite at
225: $\barr^\prime=0$ if and only if $x^\prime=0$ at $\barr^\prime=0$.
226: This can only be satisfied if $x=$constant (the usual constant
227: curvature case), or $x=x(r)$.
228:
229: Based on the dissipative dynamics of the shifted cycles of the universe
230: described above, we consider the following heuristic model that captures
231: the desired features and satisfies the above constraint
232: \be
233: x(a) \equiv \frac{\Omega_k(z)}{(1+z)^2} =\Omega_k-A\sin(B\barr),
234: \label{oscicurv}
235: \ee
236: where $\Omega_k\equiv \Omega_k(0)=1-\Omega_r-\Omega_m-\Omega_\Lambda$,
237: $\Omega_r$, $\Omega_m$, $\Omega_\Lambda$ denote
238: the present day density fractions of radiation, matter, and vacuum energy,
239: and $r$ denotes the coordinate distance from the observer at $z=0$
240: to redshift $z$. $A$ and $B$ are dimensionless constants.
241: Note that the conventional model with constant curvature is recovered for $A=0$,
242: $x(a)=\Omega_k(z)/(1+z)^2=\Omega_k=-\kappa/H_0^2$, where $\kappa$ is the curvature
243: constant.
244:
245: Except for the special case of constant curvature ($A=0$),
246: $r(z)$ is found by numerically solving the second order
247: differential equation in Eq.(\ref{eq:r(z)eq}),
248: with the initial condition that at $a=1$, $\barr=0$, $\barr^\prime=-1$.
249:
250:
251: Fig.1 shows models with $B=0.5$, 1, and 2 respectively.
252: Fig.2 shows $r(z)$ for the models in Fig.1,
253: with the same line types.
254: \begin{figure}
255: \psfig{file=ok2.ps,width=3.6in}
256: \caption{Oscillating curvature models with $B=0.5$, 1, and 2.}
257: \end{figure}
258: \begin{figure}
259: \psfig{file=r2.ps,width=3.6in}
260: \caption{The coordinate distance $r(z)$ for oscillating curvature models
261: in Fig.1, with the same line types.}
262: \end{figure}
263:
264: The age of the universe is given by
265: \be
266: t(a)= H_0^{-1} \int_0^a \frac{da}{a\, E(a)},
267: \ee
268: once $\Omega_k(z)$, which now depends on $z$ through $r(z)$, has been found numerically.
269:
270: \section{Observational constraints on oscillating curvature and the energy content}
271:
272: We use current observational data to constrain
273: the oscillating curvature model given by Eq.(\ref{oscicurv}).
274: Following the approach of \cite{WangPia07},
275: we assume the HST prior of $H_0=72\pm 8\,$(km/s)Mpc$^{-1}$ \cite{HST},
276: use 182 SNe Ia (from the HST/GOODS program \cite{Riess07},
277: the first year Supernova Legacy Survey \cite{Astier05},
278: and nearby SN Ia surveys) \cite{Riess07},
279: CMB data \cite{Spergel06}, and the SDSS measurement of the baryon
280: acoustic oscillation scale \cite{Eisen05}.
281: We use the CMB data in the form of the
282: CMB shift parameters $R\equiv \sqrt{\Omega_m H_0^2} \,r(z_{CMB})$
283: and $l_a\equiv \pi r(z_{CMB})/r_s(z_{CMB})$ derived from WMAP three year
284: data by \cite{WangPia07}.
285:
286: We run a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) \cite{Lewis02} to obtain ${\cal O}$($10^6$) samples for each set of
287: results presented in this paper. The chains are subsequently
288: appropriately thinned.
289:
290: Due to the degeneracies between $A$, $B$, and $\Omega_k$,
291: ($A$, $B$, $\Omega_k$) are not well constrained when they
292: are all allowed to vary. To illustrate the effect of
293: oscillating curvature, let us study
294: the class of models given by Eq.(\ref{oscicurv}) for fixed representative values of $B$,
295: while allowing $A$ and $\Omega_k$ to vary, along with $\Omega_m$,
296: $\Omega_b h^2$, and $h$ (see \cite{WangPia07}).
297: The parameters estimated from data are ($\Omega_m$,
298: $\Omega_b h^2$, $h$, $\Omega_k$, $A$). It should be noted that $A$ affects the
299: overall amplitude of the curvature term, while $B$ plays the role of its oscillating
300: frequency. The case $B=1$ would correspond to $\Omega_k$ oscillating every Hubble time.
301:
302:
303: Figs.{\ref{fig:Bd5_omokA}}-{\ref{fig:B5_omokA}} show the joint
304: confidence contours in the plane ($\Omega_m$, $\Omega_k$)
305: and ($\Omega_k$, $A$) for $B=0.5$, 1, 2, and 5 respectively.
306: The inner and outer contours correspond to 68\% and 95\%
307: confidence levels respectively.
308:
309: \begin{figure}
310: \psfig{file=Bd5_omokA.ps,width=2.8in}
311: \caption{Joint confidence contour plots for ($\Omega_m$, $\Omega_k$)
312: and ($\Omega_k$, $A$) for $B=0.5$.
313: The inner and outer contours correspond to 68\% and 95\%
314: confidence levels respectively.}
315: \label{fig:Bd5_omokA}
316: \end{figure}
317:
318: \begin{figure}
319: \psfig{file=B1_omokA.ps,width=2.8in}
320: \caption{Joint confidence contour plots for ($\Omega_m$, $\Omega_k$)
321: and ($\Omega_k$, $A$) for $B=1$.
322: The inner and outer contours correspond to 68\% and 95\%
323: confidence levels respectively.}
324: \label{fig:B1_omokA}
325: \end{figure}
326:
327: \begin{figure}
328: \psfig{file=B2_omokA.ps,width=2.8in}
329: \caption{Joint confidence contour plots for ($\Omega_m$, $\Omega_k$)
330: and ($\Omega_k$, $A$) for $B=2$.
331: The inner and outer contours correspond to 68\% and 95\%
332: confidence levels respectively.}
333: \label{fig:B2_omokA}
334: \end{figure}
335:
336: \begin{figure}
337: \psfig{file=B5_omokA.ps,width=2.8in}
338: \caption{Joint confidence contour plots for ($\Omega_m$, $\Omega_k$)
339: and ($\Omega_k$, $A$) for $B=5$.
340: The inner and outer contours correspond to 68\% and 95\%
341: confidence levels respectively.}
342: \label{fig:B5_omokA}
343: \end{figure}
344:
345: As can be seen from the plots given in
346: Figs.{\ref{fig:Bd5_omokA}}-{\ref{fig:B5_omokA}},
347: current data allow models in which the curvature of the
348: universe oscillates with cosmic time.
349: The allowed range of the current curvature density ratio $\Omega_k$
350: is significantly increased compared to the case of
351: constant curvature.
352:
353:
354: The bounds derived from the WMAP three year data and galaxy survey data from
355: the SDSS \cite{sdss} give for the case of constant curvature,
356: $\Omega_k = -0.005 \pm 0.006$, (2dF data \cite{2df} also give similar results)
357: \cite{Spergel06}.
358: Comparing these bounds to the case of oscillating curvature models, we find
359: that the constraints on the geometry of the universe change significantly,
360: now we have $\Omega_k = 0.097\pm 0.210$ for $B=0.5$,
361: $\Omega_k = -0.037\pm 0.092$ for $B=1$,
362: $\Omega_k = 0.014\pm 0.035$ for $B=2$,
363: and $\Omega_k = 0.000\pm 0.017$ for $B=5$.
364: The constraints on the $\Omega_k$ and $A$ become more
365: stringent as $B$ increases. This is as expected,
366: since $B$ is the curvature oscillation frequency.
367: For large $B$, the cumulative effect of the oscillating
368: curvature decreases. It is very interesting that when the period of the
369: curvature oscillation $B^{-1}$ becomes larger than a Hubble time,
370: the range of the allowed values for $\Omega_k$ and $\Omega_m$,
371: at $95\%$ confidence level in agreement with data, shows a drastic
372: increase. An oscillation in the curvature with a period larger than the
373: age of the universe, a case which locally would appear as nearly a
374: constant while being globally notrivial, the time dependence of which
375: would otherwise not be captured by data, does in fact contain a significant
376: deviation from the priors of a simple $LCDM$ model with constant or zero curvature.
377: This is one of our important results: a highly nontrivial geometry on
378: scales larger than the horizon can lead to a very different interpretation of data.
379:
380: Let us now investigate the implications of the oscillating curvature
381: for the dark energy equation of state $w$.
382: This is done by conducting a likelihood analysis using MCMC of the
383: oscillating curvature model, Eq.(\ref{oscicurv}),
384: assuming a constant dark energy equation of state $w_X(z)=w$.
385: The parameters estimated from data are ($\Omega_m$,
386: $\Omega_b h^2$, $h$, $\Omega_k$, $A$, $w$).
387: Fig.{\ref{fig:B5_w_omokA}} shows the
388: joint confidence contours of ($\Omega_m$, $\Omega_k$)
389: and ($\Omega_k$, $A$), and Fig.{\ref{fig:B5_w_okw}}
390: shows the joint confidence contour of
391: ($\Omega_k$, $w$), for $B=5$.
392: As expected, adding $w$ as an additional parameter
393: to be estimated from data notably increase the uncertainties
394: on estimated parameters, especially ($\Omega_k$, $A$, $w$).
395: For example, for $B=5$, $\Omega_k =0.074\pm 0.068$ when $w$
396: is included as an estimated parameter, compared
397: with $\Omega_k = 0.000\pm 0.017$ for setting $w=-1$
398: (a cosmological constant).
399: For larger values of the period $B^{-1}$, the uncertainties on
400: ($\Omega_k$, $A$, $w$) increase significantly. Notice that the bounds on $w$,
401: as shown in Fig.8 for the case $B=5$ can be as large as
402: $-1.04 \le w \le -0.71$ at $95\%$ confidence level.
403: These bounds on $w$ should be contrasted to the constraints derived
404: in \cite{melchiorri} where a prior of $\Omega_k =0$ was assumed.
405: Clearly, current precision cosmology data is not sufficient in
406: pinning down the equation of state for dark energy when the
407: geometry of the universe is nontrivial.
408:
409: \begin{figure}
410: \psfig{file=B5_w_omokA.ps,width=2.8in}
411: \caption{Joint confidence contour plots for ($\Omega_m$, $\Omega_k$)
412: and ($\Omega_k$, $A$) for $B=5$.
413: The inner and outer contours correspond to 68\% and 95\%
414: confidence levels respectively.}
415: \label{fig:B5_w_omokA}
416: \end{figure}
417:
418: \begin{figure}
419: \psfig{file=B5_w_okw.ps,width=2.8in}
420: \caption{Joint confidence contour plots for ($\Omega_k$, $w$)
421: for $B=5$.
422: The inner and outer contours correspond to 68\% and 95\%
423: confidence levels respectively.}
424: \label{fig:B5_w_okw}
425: \end{figure}
426:
427:
428: \section{Discussion}
429: We have studied constraints on the parameters of a
430: landscape motivated cosmological model in which the
431: curvature of the universe oscillates with cosmic time
432: (see Eq.(\ref{oscicurv})). Such a model is motivated from the proposal
433: for a dynamic selection of the initial conditions for our universe from
434: the landscape phase space. Thus an analysis of the kind performed here
435: could lead to the implicit detection of quantum gravity effects.
436:
437: We have used CMB data in the form
438: of the shift parameters $R$ and $l_a$ extracted from WMAP three year data
439: by \cite{WangPia07}, together with the SDSS measurement of baryon acoustic
440: oscillation scale \cite{Eisen05}, and SN Ia data from HST and ground-based
441: observations \cite{Riess07,Astier05}. From the bounds derived on the
442: parameters of this model we find that currently a
443: simple flat model, which is a special case of the above model, remains
444: a good bet; such a conclusion will be supported further by model selection
445: arguments \cite{Pia06}.
446: Allowing for nontrivial geometry leads to greater
447: uncertainties in our knowledge of the present
448: day curvature and matter density ratios $\Omega_k$ and $\Omega_m$, as can
449: be seen in Figs.{\ref{fig:Bd5_omokA}}-{\ref{fig:B5_w_okw}}).
450: An oscillating curvature term also significantly
451: changes the bounds on the dark energy equation of state
452: $w$, as seen in Fig.{\ref{fig:B5_w_okw}}.
453:
454: It would be interesting to look for the imprints of such a model as data get
455: better. Future dark energy experiments from both ground and space
456: \cite{Wang00a,detf,ground,jedi}, together with CMB data from
457: Planck \cite{planck},
458: should dramatically improve our ability to constrain cosmic curvature,
459: and probe possible imprints of quantum gravity.
460:
461: {\it Acknowledgements} L.M.H is supported in part by DOE grant
462: DE-FG02-06ER41418 and NSF grant PHY-0553312. Y.W is supported
463: in part by NSF CAREER grant AST-0094335 (YW).
464: PM is supported by PPARC, UK.
465:
466: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
467:
468: \bibitem{wmap}
469: C.L.Bennett {\it et al.}, ``First Year Wilkinson Microwave
470: Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Preliminary Maps and Basic
471: Results,'' Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 148}, 1 (2003),[arXiv:astro-ph/0302207]
472:
473: \bibitem{sdss}
474: Tegmark, M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 606, 702
475:
476: \bibitem{2df} Percival, W., et al., MNRAS, 327, 1297 (2001);
477: Verde, L., et al., 2002, MNRAS, 335, 432;
478: Hawkins, E., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 78
479:
480: \bibitem{riess}
481: Riess, A.G., et al., astro-ph/0611572; A.~G.~Riess {\it et al.} [Supernova Search Team Collaboration], Astron.\ J.\ {\bf 116}, 1009 (1998) [arXiv:astro-ph/9805201]
482:
483: \bibitem{perl} S.~Perlmutter {\it et al.} [Supernova Cosmology Project Collaboration], Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 517}, 565 (1999) [arXiv:astro-ph/9812133]
484:
485: \bibitem{Spergel06}
486: D.N. Spergel, et al. 2006, astro-ph/0603449, ApJ, in press
487:
488: \bibitem{Tegmark06}
489: M. Tegmark, et al., Phys.Rev. D74 (2006) 123507
490:
491: \bibitem{laurarich1}
492: R.~Holman and L.~ Mersini-Houghton,
493: arXiv/hep-th 0511102, in press, Phys.\ Rev.\ D (2006).
494:
495: \bibitem{laurarich2}
496: R.~Holman and L.~ Mersini-Houghton,
497: arXiv/hep-th 0512070, submitted to Class.\ Quantum\ Gravity (2006);
498: L.~Mersini-Houghton, ``Einstein's Jury: The Race to Test Relativity'',
499: Princeton. \ Univ..\ Press, [arXiv:hep-th/0512304], [arXiv:hep-ph/0609157].
500:
501: %\bibitem{landscape} L.~Mersini-Houghton, Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.{\bf 22},
502: %3481 (2005), [arXiv:hep-th/0504026]
503: %\bibitem{landscape2} A.~Kobakhidze and L.~Mersini-Houghton, EPJC {\bf 74},
504: %[arXiv: hep-th/0410213].
505:
506: \bibitem{laurarrow} L. Mersini- Houghton, [arXiv: gr-qc/0609006]
507:
508: \bibitem{kiefer} C.~Kiefer, Clas.\ Quant. \ Grav. {\bf 4} (1987) 1369;
509: J.~J.~Halliwell and S.~W.~Hawking, Phys. \ Rev. \ D. {bf 31} (1985) 8
510:
511: \bibitem{lauratomo}R.~Holman, L.~Mersini-Houghton and T.~Takahashi,
512: %``Cosmological Avatars of the Landscape I: Bracketing the SUSY Breaking
513: %Scale,''
514: arXiv:hep-th/0611223,(2006);R.~Holman, L.~Mersini-Houghton and T.~Takahashi,
515: %``Cosmological Avatars of the Landscape II: CMB and LSS Signatures
516: %Scale,''
517: arXiv:hep-th/0612142, (2006)
518:
519: \bibitem{WangPia07}
520: Y. Wang and P. Mukherjee,
521: %``Observational Constraints on Dark Energy and Cosmic Curvature''
522: [arXiv:astro-ph/0703780]
523:
524: \bibitem{HST}
525: W. L. Freedman, et al. 2001, ApJ, 553, 47
526:
527: \bibitem{Riess07}
528: A.G. Riess, et al., astro-ph/0611572
529:
530: \bibitem{Astier05}
531: Astier, P., et al. 2005, astro-ph/0510447,
532: Astron. Astrophys. 447 (2006) 31
533:
534: \bibitem{Eisen05}
535: D. Eisenstein, et al., ApJ, 633, 560
536:
537: \bibitem{Lewis02}
538: A. Lewis and S. Bridle, 2002, PRD, 66, 103511
539:
540: \bibitem{melchiorri}
541: Melchiorri,A.,Mersini,L.,Odman,C.,Trodden,M. (2003),
542: Phys.Rev.D68,43509, [arXiv:astro-ph/0211522]
543:
544: \bibitem{planck}
545: Planck Bluebook,
546: http://www.rssd.esa.int/index.php?project=PLANCK
547:
548: \bibitem{Wang00a}
549: Wang, Y. 2000, ApJ 531, 676
550:
551: \bibitem{detf}
552: Albrecht, A.; Bernstein, G.; Cahn, R.; Freedman, W. L.; Hewitt, J.;
553: Hu, W.; Huth, J.; Kamionkowski, M.; Kolb, E.W.; Knox, L.; Mather, J.C.;
554: Staggs, S.; Suntzeff, N.B., Report of the Dark Energy Task Force,
555: astro-ph/0609591
556:
557: \bibitem{ground}
558: See for example, http://www.astro.ubc.ca/LMT/alpaca/;
559: http://www.lsst.org/; http://www.as.utexas.edu/hetdex/.
560: \cite{detf} contains a more complete list of future
561: dark energy experiments.
562:
563:
564: \bibitem{jedi}
565: Wang, Y., et al., BAAS, v36, n5, 1560 (2004);
566: Crotts, A., et al. (2005), astro-ph/0507043;
567: Cheng, E.; Wang, Y.; et al., Proc. of SPIE, Vol. 6265, 626529 (2006);
568: http://jedi.nhn.ou.edu/
569:
570: \bibitem{Pia06}
571: P. Mukherjee, D. Parkinson and A.R. Liddle, ApJ, 638, 51 (2006); D. Parkinson, P. Mukherjee and A.R. Liddle, Phys.Rev. D73 (2006) 123523
572:
573: \end{thebibliography}
574:
575:
576: \end{document}
577:
578: