1: \documentclass[%twocolumn,
2: showpacs,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{txfonts}
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \title{Exploring holographic dark energy model with Sandage-Loeb test}
8: \author{Hongbao Zhang\footnote{Current address is Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics,
9: 31 Caroline st. N., Waterloo, Ontario N2L 2Y5, Canada.}}
10: %\email{hbzhang@pkuaa.edu.cn}
11: \affiliation{Department of Astronomy,
12: Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China}
13: \author{Wuhan Zhong}
14: %\email{whzhong@mail.bnu.edu.cn}
15: \affiliation{Department of
16: Astronomy, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China}
17: \author{Zong-Hong Zhu}
18: \email{zhuzh@bnu.edu.cn}
19: \affiliation{Department of Astronomy,
20: Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China}
21: \author{Song He}
22: \affiliation{Institute of Theoretical Physics, School of Physics,
23: Peking University, Beijing, 100871, China}
24:
25: \date{\today}
26:
27: \begin{abstract}
28: Taking into account that Sandage-Loeb test is unique in its coverage
29: of the redshift desert and available in the near future, we explore
30: the cosmic time evolution behavior of the source redshift for
31: holographic dark energy model, an important competing cosmological
32: model. As a result, we find that Sandage-Loeb test can provide a
33: extremely strong bound on $\Omega^0_m$, while its constraint on
34: another dimensionless parameter $\lambda$ is weak. In addition, it
35: is proposed here for the first time that we can also constrain
36: various cosmological model by measuring the value of $z_{max}$ at
37: which the peak of redshift velocity occurs. Combining this new
38: proposed method with the traditional Sandage-Loeb test, we should be
39: able to provide a better constraint on $\lambda$, at least from the
40: theoretical perspective.
41: \end{abstract}
42:
43: \pacs{98.80.-k, 98.80.Es, 98.80.Cq, 95.35.+d} \maketitle
44: \section{Introduction}
45: The recent observations of type Ia Supernovae (SN Ia) indicate that
46: our universe is currently accelerating\cite{Riess1,Perlmutter}.
47: Besides the cosmological constant, there have been other various
48: dark energy models proposed to explain this exotic
49: phenomenon\cite{Padmanabhan,PR}. On the other hand, a renewed
50: interest has also been stimulated towards classic cosmological
51: tests, including the spacial geometry of our universe and the
52: kinematics of the expansion. For example, the position of acoustic
53: peaks in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) angular power
54: spectrum shows the spacial curvature of the
55: Friedmann-Lema\^{i}tre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric is nearly
56: flat\cite{Spergel}. A similar test is also carried out by the
57: detection of baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) in the power
58: spectrum of matter calculated from galaxy samples. In addition, the
59: luminosity distance of SN Ia and other standard candles allows to
60: provide a constraint on the value of the expansion rate at near
61: redshifts $z< 2$\cite{Riess2}.
62:
63: Until now, however, there are still a number of theoretical models
64: surviving such observational tests. Thus to check the internal
65: consistency of the underlying cosmological model and discriminate
66: various competing candidates, some new cosmological tools have been
67: proposed and performed, such as the lookback time to galaxy
68: clusters, the age of the universe, and the relative ages of
69: passively evolving galaxies\cite{Dalal,Rebolo,Capozziello,Simon}. In
70: particular, recently Corasaniti {\it et al.} employed Sandage-Loeb
71: test to constrain dark energy models with high significance within
72: the redshift desert $2<z<5$, where other dark energy probes are
73: unable to provide useful information about the expansion history of
74: our universe\cite{Corasaniti}. Later, Balbi and Quercellini extended
75: this analysis to more general dark energy models\cite{BQ}. But they
76: all neglected to investigate an important and popular competing
77: candidate, i.e., holographic dark energy model with Sandage-Loeb
78: test. Thus as a further step along this line, the purpose of this
79: paper is to explore the potential constraint on holographic dark
80: energy model with Sandage-Loeb test.
81:
82: In the subsequent section, we shall provide a brief review of
83: holographic dark energy model, including the latest observational
84: constraints on it. After Sandage-Loeb test is reviewed, we shall
85: extensively investigate its potential power in constraint on
86: holographic dark energy model, where we furthermore go beyond the
87: traditional Sandage-Loeb test within the redshift desert to propose
88: a new cosmological probe at low redshifts to constrain the model
89: better. Concluding remarks are presented in the last section. In
90: addition, as motivated by inflation, the flat FLRW universe is
91: assumed in the following discussions.
92: \section{Holographic Dark Energy Model with Its Available Observational Constraints}
93: Some time ago, taking into account the insightful viewpoint that the
94: UV cut-off in effective quantum field theory is connected with the
95: IR cut-off against the formation of black holes, Cohen {\it et al.}
96: argued that if $\rho_H$ is the zero-point energy density induced by
97: the UV cut-off, the total energy in a region of size $L$ should not
98: exceed the mass of black hole of the same size, i.e., $\rho_HL^3\leq
99: LM^2_p$ with the Planck mass $M_p=\frac{1}{\sqrt{8\pi
100: G}}$\cite{Cohen}. If we apply this to our universe, then the
101: zero-point energy can serve as dark energy, referred to as
102: holographic dark energy. As suggested by Li\cite{Li}, the
103: corresponding energy density can further be expressed as
104: \begin{equation}
105: \rho_H=\frac{3\lambda^2M^2_p}{L^2}.\label{H}
106: \end{equation}
107: Here $\lambda$ is a dimensionless parameter, to be determined by the
108: future complete quantum gravity theory, and $L$ takes the size of
109: the future event horizon of our universe, i.e.,
110: \begin{equation}
111: L[a(t)]=a(t)\int_t^\infty\frac{dt'}{a(t')}=a(t)\int_{a(t)}^\infty\frac{da'}{H'a'^2},\label{F}
112: \end{equation}
113: where $a$ is the scale factor of our universe, $t$ is the cosmic
114: time and $H$ is Hubble parameter.
115:
116: Next let us consider a flat FLRW universe with a matter component
117: $\rho_m$ (including both baryon matter and cold dark matter) and a
118: holographic dark energy $\rho_H$. Then Friedmann equation reads
119: \begin{equation}
120: 3M^2_pH^2=\rho_m+\rho_H,
121: \end{equation}
122: which can also be expressed equivalently as
123: \begin{equation}
124: \frac{H^2}{H^2_0}=\frac{\Omega^0_m}{a^3}+\Omega_H\frac{H^2}{H^2_0}.\label{Friedmann}
125: \end{equation}
126: Here $\Omega_m=\frac{\rho_m}{3M^2_pH^2}$ and
127: $\Omega_H=\frac{\rho_H}{3M^2_pH^2}$. In addition, the superscript
128: (subscript) $0$ denotes the value for the corresponding physical
129: quantity at the present time. Especially, for convenience but
130: without loss of generality, we have set the present scale factor
131: $a_0=1$ here. Later combining Eq.(\ref{H}) with Eq.(\ref{F}), we
132: have
133: \begin{equation}
134: \int_a^\infty\frac{d\ln
135: a'}{H'a'}=\frac{\lambda}{Ha\sqrt{\Omega_H}}.\label{X}
136: \end{equation}
137: On the other hand, Eq.(\ref{Friedmann}) gives
138: \begin{equation}
139: \frac{1}{Ha}=\frac{\sqrt{a(1-\Omega_H)}}{H_0\sqrt{\Omega^0_m}}.\label{Y}
140: \end{equation}
141: Substituting Eq.(\ref{Y}) into Eq.(\ref{X}) and taking derivative
142: with respect to $\ln a$ on both sides, we obtain
143: \begin{equation}
144: \frac{d\Omega_H}{d\ln
145: a}=\Omega_H(1-\Omega_H)(1+\frac{2}{\lambda}\sqrt{\Omega_H}),\label{D}
146: \end{equation}
147: which describes the dynamic evolution of holographic dark energy,
148: and can be formulated in terms of the redshift of our universe
149: $z=\frac{1}{a}-1$ as
150: \begin{equation}
151: \frac{d\Omega_H}{\Omega_H(1-\Omega_H)(1+\frac{2}{\lambda}\sqrt{\Omega_H})}=-\frac{dz}{1+z}.\label{Z1}
152: \end{equation}
153: It can further be integrated analytically as follows
154: \begin{equation}
155: F_\lambda(\Omega_H)\equiv\ln\Omega_H-\frac{\lambda}{2+\lambda}\ln(1-\sqrt{\Omega_H})+\frac{\lambda}{2-\lambda}\ln(1+\sqrt{\Omega_H})-\frac{8}{4-\lambda^2}
156: \ln(\lambda+2\sqrt{\Omega_H})=-\ln(1+z)+F_\lambda(1-\Omega^0_m).
157: \end{equation}
158: If we write the equation of state as $w_H=\frac{p_H}{\rho_H}$ for
159: holographic dark energy, then the conservation of energy momentum
160: gives
161: \begin{equation}
162: \dot{\rho}_H+3H(1+w_H)\rho_H=0,
163: \end{equation}
164: which implies
165: \begin{equation}
166: w_H=-1-\frac{1}{3}\frac{d\ln\rho_H}{d\ln
167: a}=-\frac{1}{3}(1+\frac{2}{\lambda}\sqrt{\Omega_H}),
168: \end{equation}
169: where we have employed
170: $\rho_H=\frac{\Omega_H\rho^0_m}{(1-\Omega_H)a^3}$ and Eq.(\ref{D})
171: in the second step.
172:
173: Note that there are only three free parameters in this holographic
174: dark energy model: One is the kinematic parameter $H_0$, whose value
175: is taken as $72\frac{km}{s\cdot Mpc}$ in the following calculations.
176: The others are the dynamic parameters $\Omega^0_m$ and $\lambda$,
177: which determine the large scale evolution of our universe, including
178: the final fate of our universe. Thus constraint of $\Omega^0_m$ and
179: $\lambda$ from observational data plays a fundamental role in
180: diagnosis of this model\cite{footnote}.
181:
182: Such a dynamical dark energy model has been constrained by various
183: astronomical observation data, such as the luminosity distance of SN
184: Ia\cite{HG}, X-ray gas mass fraction of galaxy clusters\cite{Chang},
185: the relative ages of galaxies\cite{YZ}. In addition, a joint
186: constraint from SN Ia, CMB and LSS observational data has also been
187: performed\cite{ZW1,ZW2}. In particular, combining the latest
188: observational data from SN Ia, and CMB plus LSS, Zhang and Wu
189: obtained $\Omega^0_m=0.29\pm0.03$ and the dimensionless parameter
190: $\lambda=0.91^{+0.26}_{-0.18}$ at the $1\sigma$ confidence
191: level\cite{ZW2}. In the next section, we shall focus ourselves on
192: constraining holographic dark energy model with Sandage-Loeb test.
193: \section{Sandage-Loeb Test and Its Potential Constraint on Holographic Dark Energy Model}
194: It is useful to firstly derive the redshift variation underlying
195: Sandage-Loeb test. Consider a given source without peculiar
196: velocity, which emitted its light at a time $t_s$, then the observed
197: redshift at time $t_0$ is
198: \begin{equation}
199: z(t_0)=\frac{a(t_0)}{a(t_s)}-1,
200: \end{equation}
201: which becomes after a time interval $\delta t_0$
202: \begin{equation}
203: z(t_0+\delta t_0)=\frac{a(t_0+\delta t_0)}{a(t_s+\delta t_s)}-1.
204: \end{equation}
205: Then in the linear approximation, the observed redshift variation of
206: the fixed source gives
207: \begin{eqnarray}
208: \delta z(t_0)&\equiv& z(t_0+\delta t_0)-z(t_0)=\frac{a(t_0+\delta
209: t_0)}{a(t_s+\delta t_s)}-\frac{a(t_0)}{a(t_s)}
210: \approx\frac{a(t_0)[1+H(t_0)\delta t_0]}{a(t_s)[1+H(t_s)\delta t_s]}-\frac{a(t_0)}{a(t_s)}\nonumber\\
211: &\approx&\frac{a(t_0)}{a(t_s)}[1+H(t_0)\delta t_0 -H(t_s)\delta
212: t_s]-\frac{a(t_0)}{a(t_s)}\approx H(t_0)\delta
213: t_0[1+z(t_0)-\frac{H(t_s)}{H(t_0)}],
214: \end{eqnarray}
215: where $\delta t_1\approx[1+z(t_1)]\delta t_s$ has been used in the
216: last step. This redshift variation can also be expressed in terms of
217: a spectroscopic velocity shift, i.e.,
218: \begin{equation}
219: \delta v=\frac{\delta z}{1+z}=H_0\delta
220: t_0[1-\frac{E(z)}{1+z}],\label{R}
221: \end{equation}
222: where $E(z)=\frac{H(z)}{H_0}$. Note that the redshift variation is
223: directly related to the expansion rate of our universe, which is the
224: most essential part of any model. For example, in holographic dark
225: energy model considered here, by Eq.(\ref{Y}) the expansion rate
226: reads
227: \begin{equation}
228: E(z)=\sqrt{\frac{\Omega^0_m(1+z)^3}{1-\Omega_H}},\label{Z2}
229: \end{equation}
230: which is obviously different from the $\Lambda$CDM model with
231: \begin{equation}
232: E(z)=\sqrt{\Omega^0_m(1+z)^3+1-\Omega^0_m}.\label{Z3}
233: \end{equation}
234: Therefore different from those classical cosmological probes, which
235: are almost exclusively sensitive to the cosmological parameters
236: through a time integral of Hubble parameter, the measurement of
237: velocity shift plays a critical role in investigating the physical
238: mechanism responsible for the acceleration and discriminating
239: various dark energy models.
240:
241: This kind of astronomical observation as a possible cosmological
242: tool, referred to as Sandage-Loeb test, was firstly put forward by
243: Sandage\cite{Sandage}, and revisited by Loeb more
244: recently\cite{Loeb}. With the foreseen development of very large
245: telescopes, and the availability of spectrographs of unprecedented
246: resolution, the quasar absorption lines typical of the
247: Lyman-$\alpha$ forest provide a powerful tool to measure the
248: velocity shift within the redshift desert\cite{Corasaniti,Loeb}.
249: Especially, invoking Monte Carlo simulations, Pasquini {\it et al.}
250: estimated the statistical error on $\delta v$ as measured by the
251: cosmic dynamics experiment (CODEX) spectrograph over a period of 10
252: years as
253: \begin{equation}
254: \sigma_{\delta
255: v}=1.4(\frac{2350}{s/n})\sqrt{\frac{30}{N}}(\frac{5}{1+z})^{1.8}\frac{cm}{s},\label{S}
256: \end{equation}
257: where $s/n$ denotes the signal to noise ratio per 0.0125A pixel, and
258: $N$ is the number of Lyman-$\alpha$ quasars\cite{Pasquini}. In what
259: follows, we assume that the future experimental configuration and
260: uncertainties is similar to those expected from CODEX. Namely, the
261: error bars are estimated from Eq.(\ref{S}), with the assumption that
262: a total of 240 quasars can be observed uniformly distributed in 6
263: equally spaced redshift bins within the redshift desert, with $s/n =
264: 3000$\cite{Corasaniti,BQ}.
265:
266: Now let us start to explore the behavior of redshift velocity in
267: holographic dark energy model. To proceed, we firstly plug
268: Eq.(\ref{Z2}) into Eq.(\ref{R}), and then perform a numerical
269: calculation for different values of $\Omega^0_m$ and $\lambda$. The
270: results obtained are plotted in FIG.\ref{f1} and FIG.\ref{f2}. We
271: also plot the redshift velocity curve for $\Lambda$CDM model with
272: $\Omega^0_m=0.27$ with the error bars from Eq.(\ref{S}) in the
273: figures, which is convenient for us to compare holographic dark
274: energy model with the fiducial concordance cosmological model.
275:
276: As shown in FIG.\ref{f1}, for fixed $\lambda$, the differences of
277: redshift velocity among different values of $\Omega^0_m$ become
278: bigger and bigger with the increase of the source redshift, which is
279: also explicitly supported by FIG.\ref{f3}. On the contrary, the
280: error bars from Eq.(\ref{S}) is a decreasing function of the
281: redshift. Thus it is advantageous to employ Sandage-Loeb test to
282: distinguish holographic dark energy models among different values of
283: $\Omega^0_m$ within the redshift desert. On the other hand,
284: FIG.\ref{f2} demonstrates that the differences of redshift velocity
285: decrease with the source redshift for fixed $\Omega^0_m$ but
286: different values of $\lambda$; furthermore the magnitude of
287: differences is also comparable to that of error bars. It means that
288: Sandage-Loeb test is not very sensitive to the dimensionless
289: parameter $\lambda$. That is, it is difficult to discriminate
290: holographic dark energy models with different $\lambda$s by
291: Sandage-Loeb test within the redshift desert.
292:
293: In addition, if we assume the the prediction of the fiducial
294: $\Lambda$CDM model with the error bars from Eq.(\ref{S}) represents
295: the future practical measurement result of the redshift velocity
296: within the redshift desert, FIG.\ref{f1} and FIG.\ref{f2} show that
297: Sandage-Loeb test seems to favor small $\Omega^0_m$s, such as
298: $(\Omega^0_m=0.25,\lambda=0.9,1.2,1.5)$ and
299: $(\Omega^0_m=0.27,\lambda=0.3,0.6,0.9)$. In order to check this
300: naive observation, next we would like to perform $\chi^2$ statistics
301: for the model parameters ($\Omega^0_m$,$\lambda$). With the
302: assumption considered above, we have
303: \begin{equation}
304: \chi^2_{SL}=\sum_{i=1}^{240}\frac{[\delta v_H(z_i)-\delta
305: v_L(z_i)]^2}{\sigma^2_{\delta v}(z_i)}.
306: \end{equation}
307: Here $\delta v_H(z_i)$ and $\delta v_L(z_i)$ represent the
308: prediction value from holographic dark energy model and the fiducial
309: concordance model, respectively. In addition, $\sigma_{\delta
310: v}(z_i)$ is estimated from Eq.(\ref{S}). Accordingly numerical
311: computation gives the contour diagrams as FIG.\ref{f4}. Especially,
312: the 1$\sigma$ fit value for the model
313: parameters:$\Omega^0_m=0.264^{+0.007}_{-0.006}$, and
314: $\lambda=0.611^{+0.215}_{-0.233}$ with $\chi^2_{min}=0.086$, which
315: also confirms the aforementioned observation that Sandage-Loeb test
316: is very sensitive to $\Omega^0_m$, while the constraint on $\lambda$
317: is weaker.
318:
319: Last
320: but definitely not least, if we do not restrict ourselves within the
321: redshift desert, it is noteworthy that there is something
322: interesting appearing in FIG.\ref{f1} and FIG.\ref{f2}: In either
323: $\Lambda$CDM model or holographic dark energy model, there always
324: exists some low redshift $z_{max}$ at which the redshift velocity
325: reaches its maximum\cite{notefoot}. Obviously $z_{max}$ can be
326: obtained by requiring the usual conditions satisfied, i.e.,
327: $\frac{d\delta v}{dz}|_{z_{max}}=0$.
328: %and $\frac{d^2\deltav}{dz^2}|_{z_{max}}<0$.
329: We have then from Eq.(\ref{R})
330: \begin{equation}
331: \frac{dE}{dz}|_{z_{max}}=\frac{E}{1+z}|_{z_{max}}.\label{P}
332: \end{equation}
333: Hereby we find
334: \begin{equation}
335: z_{max}=\sqrt[3]{\frac{2(1-\Omega^0_m)}{\Omega^0_m}}-1\label{new1}
336: \end{equation}
337: for $\Lambda$CDM model. Similarly, an implicit but analytic formula
338: can be obtained for $z_{max}$ in holographic dark energy model,
339: i.e.,
340: \begin{equation}
341: \Omega_H(1+\frac{2}{\lambda}\sqrt{\Omega_H})|_{z_{max}}=1.\label{new2}
342: \end{equation}
343: Note that $z_{max}$ is related to the dynamic cosmological
344: parameter(s) in such a direct way, but independent of $H_0$. For
345: example, if the fiducial concordance model is really correct, we
346: should find observationally $z_{max}=0.755$ by taking
347: $\Omega^0_m=0.27$ in Eq.(\ref{new1}). It is thus suggested that the
348: measurement of $z_{max}$ may provide another strong potential test
349: of various cosmological models, at least from the theoretical
350: perspective. Different from the traditional Sandage-Loeb test, where
351: precise measurement of amplitude of redshift velocity is needed
352: within the redshift desert, this new possible test need only to
353: determine $z_{max}$ by discerning a narrow low redshift region of
354: $z\leq1$ where the peak of redshift velocity occurs, regardless of
355: the specific value of amplitude of redshift velocity, including the
356: magnitude of peak. For holographic dark energy model considered
357: here, if the value of $z_{max}$ can be measured precisely, it is
358: obvious that we can employ Eq.(\ref{new2}) to provide a stronger
359: constraint on the dimensionless parameter $\lambda$, in combination
360: with the traditional Sandage-Loeb test.
361:
362:
363: \begin{figure}
364: \includegraphics[width=2.4inch]{0.3.eps}\\
365: \includegraphics[width=2.4inch]{0.6.eps}\\
366: \includegraphics[width=2.4inch]{0.9.eps}\\
367: \includegraphics[width=2.4inch]{1.2.eps}\\
368: \includegraphics[width=2.4inch]{1.5.eps}\\
369: \caption{The redshift velocity as function of the source redshift
370: for fixed $\lambda$ and different values of $\Omega^0_m$.}\label{f1}
371: \end{figure}
372: \begin{figure}
373: \includegraphics[width=2.4inch]{0.25.eps}\\
374: \includegraphics[width=2.4inch]{0.27.eps}\\
375: \includegraphics[width=2.4inch]{0.29.eps}\\
376: \includegraphics[width=2.4inch]{0.31.eps}\\
377: \includegraphics[width=2.4inch]{0.33.eps}\\
378: \caption{The redshift velocity as function of the source redshift
379: for fixed $\Omega^0_m$ and different values of $\lambda$.}\label{f2}
380: \end{figure}
381: \begin{figure}
382: \includegraphics[width=4.4inch]{partial.eps}\\
383: \caption{The derivative of redshift velocity with respect to
384: $\Omega^0_m$ as function of the source redshift
385: for fixed $\lambda=0.9$ and different values of $\Omega^0_m$.}\label{f3}
386: \end{figure}
387: \begin{figure}
388:
389: \begin{center}
390: \includegraphics[width=3inch]{contour.eps}
391: \caption{Sandage-Loeb test contours for $1\sigma$, $2\sigma$, and
392: $3\sigma$ respectively.}\label{f4}
393: \end{center}
394: \end{figure}
395:
396: \section{Concluding Remarks}
397: We have explored holographic dark energy model with Sandage-Loeb
398: test. The obtained result shows that Sandage-Loeb test from the
399: redshift desert can impose a strong bound on $\Omega^0_m$, while its
400: constraint on $\lambda$ is weaker. Especially, if we fit holographic
401: dark energy model to the fiducial $\Lambda$CDM model, which is
402: assumed to provide a prediction of future measurement value with the
403: error estimated from Monte Carlo stimulations, we find
404: $\Omega^0_m=0.264^{+0.007}_{-0.006}$, and
405: $\lambda=0.611^{+0.215}_{-0.233}$ with $\chi^2_{min}=0.086$ at
406: $1\sigma$ accuracy level. In addition, we notice an interesting and
407: significant behavior for the redshift velocity function, i.e., the
408: peak of redshift velocity seems to always occur at some low
409: redshift, which may be employed to provide another strong potential
410: test of various cosmological models. A more detailed analysis of
411: this new suggested cosmological tool, such as its prospects of
412: observational availability and feasible constraints on various
413: cosmological models is worthy of further investigation but beyond
414: the scope of this paper. We expect to report it elsewhere.
415:
416: \acknowledgments{We would like to give much gratitude to Dragan
417: Huterer for his helpful discussion on Sandage-Loeb test and related
418: issues. Valuable suggestions from Tongjie Zhang are also
419: appreciated. We also acknowledge Li Chen for her kind help with
420: numerical calculations. The work by HZ and ZZ was supported
421: by NSFC under Grant No.~10533010, 973 Program No.~2007CB815401, Program for New Century
422: Excellent Talents in University (NCET) of China and the Project-sponsored by SRF
423: for ROCS, SEM of China. WZ was supported in part by NSFC
424: under Grant Nos.~10173024 and ~10433030. SH was supported by NSFC
425: under Grant Nos.~10235040 and ~10421003.}
426: \begin{thebibliography}{xx}
427: \bibitem{Riess1}A. G. Riess {\it et al.}, Astron. J. 116: 1009(1998).
428: \bibitem{Perlmutter}S. Perlmutter {\it et al.}, Astrophys. J. 517: 565(1999).
429: \bibitem{Padmanabhan}T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rept. 380: 235(2003).
430: \bibitem{PR}P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75: 559(2003).
431: \bibitem{Spergel}D. N. Spergel {\it et al.}, astro-ph/0603449.
432: \bibitem{Riess2}A. G. Riess {\it et al.}, astro-ph/0611572.
433: \bibitem{Dalal}N. Dalal {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87:
434: 141302(2001).
435: \bibitem{Rebolo}R. Rebolo {\it et al.}, astro-ph/0402466.
436: \bibitem{Capozziello}S. Capozziello {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D70:
437: 123501(2004).
438: \bibitem{Simon}J. Simon {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D71: 123001(2005).
439: \bibitem{Corasaniti}P. S. Corasaniti {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D75:
440: 062001(2007).
441: \bibitem{BQ}A. Balbi and C. Quercellini, arXiv:0704.2350[astro-ph].
442: \bibitem{Cohen}A. Cohen {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82: 4971(1999).
443: \bibitem{Li}M. Li, Phys. Lett. B603: 1(2004).
444: \bibitem{HG}Q. G. Huang and Y. G. Gong, JCAP. 0408: 006(2004).
445: \bibitem{Chang}Z. Chang {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B633: 14(2006).
446: \bibitem{YZ}Z. L. Yi and T. J. Zhang, Mod. Phys. Lett. A22: 41(2007).
447: \bibitem{ZW1}X. Zhang and F. Q. Wu, Phys. Rev. D72: 043524(2005).
448: \bibitem{ZW2}X. Zhang and F. Q. Wu, astro-ph/0701405.
449: %\bibitem{Riess3}A. G. Riess {\it et al.}, Astrophys. J. 607: 665(2004).
450: \bibitem{footnote}Since holographic dark energy is
451: believed to originate from the quantum gravity effect, constraint of
452: the dimensionless parameter $\lambda$ should also acquire its
453: importance in the future complete quantum gravity.
454: %\bibitem{Etherington}I. M. H. Etherington, Phil. Mag. 15: 761(1933).
455: \bibitem{Sandage}A. Sandage, Astrophys. J. 139: 319(1962).
456: \bibitem{Loeb}A. Loeb, Astrophys. J. 499: L111(1998).
457: \bibitem{Pasquini}L. Pasquini {\it et al.}, Proc. Int. Astron. Union 1: 193(2005).
458: \bibitem{notefoot}In fact, all available candidate cosmological models seem to share this interesting
459: property. See the related figures in \cite{Corasaniti} and \cite{BQ}
460: for reference.
461: \end{thebibliography}
462: \end{document}
463: