1: %%%%%%%%%%%latex file%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%%%%%%%%%%latex file%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3: \documentstyle[12pt,epsf,epsfig]{article}
4: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.1cm} %
5: \setlength{\textwidth}{16.5cm} \setlength{\topmargin}{-1.25 cm}
6: \setlength{\textheight}{22.5cm}%
7: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
8: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
9: \def\ba{\begin{eqnarray}}
10: \def\ea{\end{eqnarray}}
11: \def\bn{\bar{\nabla}}
12: \def\bdm{\begin{displaymath}}
13: \def\edm{\end{displaymath}}
14: \def\la{~\mbox{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{<}{\sim}$}}~}
15: \def\ga{~\mbox{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{>}{\sim}$}}~}
16: \def\bq{\begin{quote}}
17: \def\eq{\end{quote}}
18: \def\PL{{ \it Phys. Lett.} }
19: \def\PRL{{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} }
20: \def\NP{{\it Nucl. Phys.} }
21: \def\PR{{\it Phys. Rev.} }
22: \def\MPL{{\it Mod. Phys. Lett.} }
23: \def\IJMP{{\it Int. J. Mod .Phys.} }
24: \font\tinynk=cmr6 at 10truept
25: \newcommand{\bfx}{{\bf x}}
26: \newcommand{\bfy}{{\bf y}}
27: \newcommand{\bfr}{{\bf r}}
28: \newcommand{\bfk}{{\bf k}}
29: \newcommand{\bkp}{{\bf k'}}
30: \newcommand{\order}{{\cal O}}
31: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
32: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
33: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
34: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
35: \newcommand{\mpl}{M_{Pl}}
36: \newcommand{\lmk}{\left(}
37: \newcommand{\rmk}{\right)}
38: \newcommand{\lkk}{\left[}
39: \newcommand{\rkk}{\right]}
40: \newcommand{\lnk}{\left\{}
41: \newcommand{\rnk}{\right\}}
42: \newcommand{\Rbar}{\bar{R}}
43: \newcommand{\gbar}{\bar{g}}
44: \newcommand{\tP}{\tilde{\Phi}}
45: \newcommand{\labell}[1]{\label{#1}\qquad_{#1}} %{\label{#1}} %
46: \newcommand{\labels}[1]{\vskip-2ex$_{#1}$\label{#1}} %{\label{#1}} %
47: %\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
48: \def\la{~\mbox{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{<}{\sim}$}}~}
49: \def\ga{~\mbox{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{>}{\sim}$}}~}
50:
51: \def\ltap{\ \raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\ }
52: \def\gtap{\ \raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\ }
53: \def\gl{\ \raise.5ex\hbox{$>$}\kern-.8em\lower.5ex\hbox{$<$}\ }
54: \def\roughly#1{\raise.3ex\hbox{$#1$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
55: \newcommand{\onefigure}[2]{\begin{figure}[htb]
56: \begin{center}\leavevmode\epsfbox{#1.eps}\end{center}
57: \caption{#2\label{#1}}
58:
59: \end{figure}}
60:
61: \begin{document}
62:
63:
64: \thispagestyle{empty}
65: \begin{flushright}
66: arXiv:0706.1977 [astro-ph]\\
67: June 2007
68: \end{flushright}
69: \vspace*{1cm}
70: \begin{center}
71: {\Large \bf Challenging the Cosmological Constant}\\
72:
73: \vspace*{1.5cm} {\large Nemanja Kaloper\footnote{\tt
74: kaloper@physics.ucdavis.edu}}\\
75: \vspace{.5cm} {\em Department of Physics, University of
76: California, Davis,
77: CA 95616}\\
78: \vspace{.05cm} \vspace{1.3cm} ABSTRACT
79: \end{center}
80: We outline a dynamical dark energy scenario whose signatures may
81: be simultaneously tested by astronomical observations and
82: laboratory experiments. The dark energy is a field with slightly
83: sub-gravitational couplings to matter, a logarithmic
84: self-interaction potential with a scale tuned to $\sim 10^{-3} \,
85: {\rm eV}$, as is usual in quintessence models, and an effective
86: mass $m_\phi$ influenced by the environmental energy density. Its
87: forces may be suppressed just below the current bounds by the
88: chameleon-like mimicry, whereby only outer layers of mass
89: distributions, of thickness $1/m_\phi$, give off appreciable long
90: range forces. After inflation and reheating, the field is
91: relativistic, and attains a Planckian expectation value before
92: Hubble friction freezes it. This can make gravity in space
93: slightly stronger than on Earth. During the matter era, interactions
94: with nonrelativistic matter dig a minimum close to the Planck scale.
95: However, due to its sub-gravitational matter couplings the field
96: will linger away from this minimum until the matter energy density
97: dips below $\sim 10^{-12} \, {\rm eV}^4$. Then it starts to roll
98: to the minimum, driving a period of cosmic acceleration.
99: Among the signatures of this scenario may be dark energy equation
100: of state $w \ne -1$, stronger gravity in dilute mediums, that may
101: influence BBN and appear as an excess of dark matter, and
102: sub-millimeter corrections to Newton's law, close to the present
103: laboratory limits.
104:
105:
106:
107: \vfill \setcounter{page}{0} \setcounter{footnote}{0}
108: \newpage
109:
110: Understanding cosmic acceleration is the deepest problem of modern
111: cosmology. It has profound implications both for fundamental
112: physics and for the fate of the universe \cite{wein}. A range of
113: ideas have been pursued to explain the acceleration, and to date
114: in all of them, one is forced to fine tune some dimensional scales
115: to accommodate cosmic acceleration {\it now}. This yields the `Why
116: Now' problem, which may be taken as a clue that we are missing
117: something important in the formulation of the problem
118: \cite{whynow}. To compound the puzzle, to date we have noted other
119: curious coincidences, such as the near matches between the scale
120: of the cosmological constant, the dark matter density, the neutrino
121: mass, and the laboratory limits on gravitational force, which are
122: all controlled by a length scale of about a millimeter. While
123: these may simply be numerical accidents, it is interesting to
124: probe for deeper connections between them. We can pursue this by
125: formulating models where cosmic acceleration has other direct
126: observable consequences, as exemplified in \cite{beane}-\cite{lawrence}.
127:
128: The main problem in building such models is the range of mass
129: scales which one needs for nontrivial dynamics. For example, to
130: have a dynamical dark energy instead of the cosmological constant one
131: needs ultralight degrees of freedom, say scalars, with masses
132: $m_\phi \la H_0 \sim 10^{-33} {\rm eV}$. These must couple to
133: matter {\it significantly} more weakly than gravity to avoid
134: conflicts with Solar System tests \cite{quint}. On the other hand,
135: laboratory tests constrain new fields to be heavier than about
136: $10^{-3} {\rm eV}$, if they couple to matter gravitationally
137: \cite{laboratory}. So to make dark energy detectable in laboratory
138: searches and consistent with long range gravity, we need models
139: where its mass {\it changes} by at least {\it thirty} orders of
140: magnitude between the Earth and the extragalactic space. Indeed,
141: if the masses of dark fields are fixed by the current laboratory
142: bounds, we could integrate them out at scales below their masses
143: and end up with dark energy practically indistinguishable from the
144: pure cosmological constant, without a direct link to laboratory
145: phenomena.
146:
147: In this note we will outline a model of quintessence which may be
148: within reach of future terrestrial searches for sub-millimeter
149: corrections to Newton's law of gravity. It controls cosmology at
150: largest scales with a very weak potential, logarithmic in the
151: field value. Yet at shorter scales, due to large environmental
152: masses as in \cite{dano,dapol,khuwe}, this field could decouple at
153: the scales probed by current laboratory tests, but perhaps just barely, so that it
154: could be revealed by future probes. Its signatures, in addition to
155: possible sub-millimeter gravitational effects, would include an equation
156: of state $w\ne -1$, distinguishing it from the cosmological
157: constant, stronger gravity in less dense mediums, which can
158: influence BBN, and induce a weak spatio-temporal variation of
159: Newton's constant, affecting structure formation and possibly
160: simulating an excess of dark matter abundance over its actual
161: density. This model could therefore be a useful benchmark for
162: future observational explorations of the signatures of dark
163: energy.
164:
165: We start our discussion with a review of the mechanisms that make
166: the masses of fields dependent on the medium in which they
167: propagate \cite{dano}-\cite{gukhu}. They may provide a way around
168: the usual decoupling argument, and are most simply formulated for
169: models where the scalar couples to matter
170: universally\footnote{Wider classes of models where the coupling
171: changes from species to species were studied in \cite{dapol}.}, by
172: interaction Lagrangians ${\cal L}_{matter}(g^{\mu\nu} e^{-2 \alpha
173: \phi/M_4}, \Psi)$ like a Brans-Dicke field. In these cases, the
174: effective potential controlling the propagation of a field in a
175: medium is given by
176: %
177: \be
178: V_{eff}(\phi) = V(\phi) - T^\mu{}_\mu \, e^{\alpha_w \phi/M_4} \, ,
179: \label{effpot}
180: \ee
181: %
182: where $V(\phi)$ is the potential in the vacuum and $T^\mu{}_\mu
183: \propto - \rho$ is the trace of the stress energy of the
184: environment\footnote{Our conventions are $M_4^2 G_{\mu\nu} =
185: T_{\mu\nu}$ for the Einstein's equations and $\delta S_{matter} =
186: \frac12 \int d^4x \sqrt{\bar g_4} \, \bar T^{\mu\nu} \,\delta \bar
187: g_{\mu\nu}$ for the stress energy tensor in the Brans-Dicke frame.
188: We will define Einstein frame components of $\bar T_{\mu\nu}$ by
189: $\rho, p = e^{3(1+w) \alpha \phi/M_4} \bar \rho, \bar p$,
190: respectively, for reasons of simplicity, to be noted shortly.}.
191: The Planck mass $M_4$ and the dimensionless quantity $\alpha_w =
192: (1-3w) \alpha$ parameterize the couplings of the scalar to matter.
193: Thus in stationary matter distributions, the minimum of the field
194: $\phi$ is at $\phi_*$, where $\partial_\phi V_{eff}(\phi_*) = 0$.
195: The effective mass governing the dynamics of the field
196: fluctuations about this environmental minimum $\phi_*$ is
197: $m^2_\phi = \partial_\phi{}^2 \, V_{eff}(\phi_*)$. In
198: distributions of matter with energy density $\rho$ and pressure
199: $p$, $T^\mu{}_\mu = - (\rho - 3 p)$, setting how $\phi_*$ and
200: $m^2_\phi$ will depend on the energy density of the environment.
201: As the energy density changes, so will the location of the minimum
202: $\phi_*$. Over cosmological time scales, the evolution of the zero
203: mode is governed by
204: %
205: \ba &&3M_4^2 H^2 = \frac{\dot \phi^2}{2} + V + \rho \, e^{\alpha_w
206: \phi/M_4} \, ,
207: \label{hubble} \\
208: &&\dot \rho + 3(1+w) H\rho = 0 \label{gas} \, , \\
209: &&\ddot \phi + 3H \dot \phi + \frac{\partial V_{eff}}{\partial
210: \phi} = 0 \label{fieldeq} \, , \ea
211: %
212: which come from the Einstein's equations and the $\phi$ field
213: equation in homogeneous and isotropic, spatially flat FRW
214: universes, that are a good approximation for our universe from just
215: after the beginning of inflation onwards. The simplicity of the source
216: terms is ensured by our conventions. Clearly, $\phi_*$ is not an
217: exact solution to these equations, but will be a good
218: approximation over time scales $t \ll 1/H$, if $m_\phi > H$. From these equations,
219: we can immediately find the condition when $\phi$ can yield cosmic
220: acceleration. Acceleration is {\it not} automatic: even if $\rho$
221: is propping $\phi$ up on a slope of $V$, it changes due to
222: cosmic expansion, and the field $\phi$ may slide down $V$ too
223: fast to support cosmic acceleration over a Hubble time. Indeed, we
224: can check immediately that for the example of nonrelativistic matter,
225: if $\phi$ sits in the minimum
226: of $V_{eff}$ the total energy density changes according to $ \dot
227: H = - \frac{\dot \phi^2}{2M_4^2} - \frac{\rho}{2M_4^2} e^{\alpha
228: \phi/M_4} \simeq - \frac32 H^2$, which is clearly too fast to
229: support acceleration.
230:
231: The criteria for acceleration can be formulated by generalizing
232: inflationary slow roll parameters to arbitrary fluids. Using
233: critical energy density $\rho_{cr} = 3M^2_4 H^2$ we see that the
234: universe will accelerate if
235: %
236: \be \epsilon = |\frac{\dot \rho_{cr}}{H\rho_{cr}}| < 1 \, .
237: \label{epcrit} \ee
238: %
239: Acceleration will last an e-fold or more if
240: %
241: \be
242: \eta = |\frac{\dot \epsilon}{3H\epsilon} | < 1 \, ,
243: \label{etacrit}
244: \ee
245: %
246: sustaining potential dominance for at least a Hubble time. We can
247: now find the conditions for acceleration as follows. Suppose first
248: that $m_\phi > H$. Then Eq. (\ref{fieldeq}) tells that $\phi$ will
249: rapidly settle into the environmental minimum $\phi_*$, during a
250: time scale $1/m_\phi$ over which the Hubble friction is
251: negligible. The direct evaluation of the $\epsilon$ parameter then
252: shows that $\epsilon = [\dot \phi^2 + (1+w) \rho e^{\alpha_w
253: \phi/M_4}]/{V}$. Then approximating $\phi \sim \phi_*$,
254: differentiating $\frac{\partial V_{eff}}{\partial \phi_*}$ with
255: respect to time and squaring it yields $\dot \phi^2 \simeq
256: 9(1-3w)^2 \alpha^2_w \frac{H^2 \rho e^{\alpha_w \phi/M_4}}{M_4^2
257: m_\phi^4} \rho e^{\alpha_w \phi/M_4}$. Further using $\epsilon \la
258: 1$ and $m_\phi > H$ yields $\dot \phi^2 < 9(1-3w)^2 \alpha^2_w
259: \rho e^{\alpha_w \phi/M_4}$. Thus generically we can neglect $\sim
260: \dot \phi^2$ terms in $\epsilon$, yielding $\epsilon \simeq (1+w)
261: \rho e^{\alpha \phi/M_4}/{V}$. Using this to evaluate $\eta$ in
262: the limit $m_\phi > H$, we find that $\eta \simeq (1+w)^2$. So
263: when $m_\phi > H$, cosmic acceleration won't last longer than only a
264: fraction of an e-fold unless the environment obeys $|w+1| < 1$.
265: But that means that an agent other than $\phi$ plays the role of
266: dark energy, and $\phi$ is merely a spectator. Hence if $\phi$ is
267: to be dark energy at any time, we must have
268: %
269: \be
270: m_\phi \la H \, ,
271: \label{mdark}
272: \ee
273: %
274: over the relevant scales. In particular, for our $\phi$ to explain
275: cosmic acceleration now we need $m_\phi \la H_0$ at horizon
276: scales, unless we introduce some other dark energy by hand.
277:
278: Now, the vacuum potential $V$ must satisfy some conditions in
279: order to allow for a dynamical setup which won't violate
280: experimental bounds on deviations from General Relativity, while
281: still yielding something non-trivial. The allure of the chameleon
282: mechanism is the environmental screening of the long range forces
283: from matter interior to the mass distributions \cite{khuwe}.
284: Namely, inside masses the environmental mass of the field $m_\phi$
285: is shifted up to a value much larger than in the vacuum, and so
286: the chameleon forces of particles inside the distributions acquire
287: efficient Yukawa suppressions, by the exponent of the depth
288: of the source particle inside the mass distribution, in the units of $1/m_\phi$.
289: The suppressions die out for
290: particles in the outer layer of the mass, of thickness roughly
291: $\sim 1/m_\phi(\phi)$ (which may have to be evaluated at some interpolating value
292: of $\phi$ nearer to the boundary of the matter distribution,
293: rather that its value $\phi_*$ in the core, to account
294: for the variation of the homogeneous field
295: mode through the matter distribution).
296: This yields the net scalar force suppression
297: relative to gravity by a factor of roughly $\sim m_\phi^{-1}/{\cal
298: R}$, where ${\cal R}$ is the size of the source, even if the
299: scalar is ultralight outside of the masses \cite{khuwe}. Clearly,
300: the smaller the source, the less the suppression, and this is why
301: for laboratory experiments, which work at a millimeter scale,
302: this still translates to roughly $m_\phi \ga 10^{-3} \, {\rm eV}$, for couplings of the order of
303: ${\cal O}(1) \times M^{-1}_4$. Another important phenomenon
304: concerns the effective gravitational coupling of matter. One sees
305: immediately that environmental minima must obey $| \alpha \Delta
306: \phi_*| < M_4$ over a wide range of scales, where $\Delta \phi_*$
307: is the shift of $\phi_*$ with the change of $\rho$. Otherwise, the
308: effective gravitational coupling $G_{N \, eff} \sim
309: \frac{1}{M_4^2} \exp(\alpha_w \phi_*/M_4)$ would change too much
310: between the laboratory and, say, the atmosphere \cite{khuwe}. We should mention that
311: the bounds from astrophysical gravitational fields may be weaker because
312: of various model-dependent issues and systematics, such as the type, distribution and
313: amount of dark matter et cetera.
314:
315: This renders potentials dominated by $V \sim m^2 \phi^2$
316: unsuitable for chameleonic dark energy model building, as follows.
317: For a quadratic potential, the environmental minimum generated by
318: couplings to nonrelativistic matter lies at $\frac{\alpha
319: \phi_*}{M_4} \, e^{-\alpha \phi_*/M_4} \sim \frac{\alpha^2
320: \rho}{M_4^2 m^2}$, and the scalar mass is $m^2_\phi = m^2 +
321: \frac{\alpha^2 \rho}{M_4^2} e^{\alpha \phi_*/M_4}$. If this field
322: were quintessence, at cosmological scales where $\rho \sim M^2_4
323: H_0^2$ its mass $m^2_\phi = m^2 + \alpha^2 H^2_0 e^{\alpha
324: \phi_*/M_4}$ must be smaller than $H_0^2$, as explained above,
325: implying the same for the vacuum mass, $m^2 < H_0^2$. But then,
326: the environmental minimum would be at $\frac{\alpha \phi_*}{M_4}
327: \, e^{-\alpha \phi_*/M_4} > \frac{\alpha^2 \rho}{M^2_4 H^2_0} \gg
328: 1$ for relevant environments, implying that $\alpha \phi_*/M_4$
329: and therefore $G_{N \, eff}$ change too much with variations of
330: $\rho$. Conversely, one could suppress variations of the effective
331: Newton's constant either by taking $m^2 \gg H_0^2$, or by taking
332: $\alpha \rightarrow 0$, but then either the field $\phi$ should be
333: integrated out at scales below $m$ and cannot be quintessence, or
334: it would altogether decouple from matter and cease to behave as a
335: chameleon.
336:
337: Hence other potentials must be considered. Various specific examples
338: were discussed in \cite{khuwe}-\cite{fuz}. The works \cite{khuwe}-\cite{brawe}
339: employed vacuum potentials
340: that can be approximated as powers $V \sim \frac{\lambda}{n}
341: \phi^n$ for $n \ne 2$ (positive or negative!), yielding
342: $V_{eff}(\phi) = \frac{\lambda}{n} \phi^n + \frac12 \rho e^{\alpha
343: \phi/M_4}$. After adjusting the coupling $\lambda$ to satisfy
344: $\alpha \phi_* \ll M_4$ at the minimum, that prevents large
345: variations of $G_{N \, eff}$, the effective minimum is at $\phi_*
346: \simeq (\frac{\alpha}{2M_4 \lambda})^{1/(n-1)} \rho^{1/(n-1)}$.
347: Around it, the scalar mass is dominated by $\partial_\phi^2 V$ at
348: the minimum, for $n \ge 2$, and is
349: %
350: \be m^2_\phi \simeq (n-1) \lambda^{1/(n-1)} \Bigl(
351: \frac{\alpha}{M_4} \Bigr)^{\frac{n-2}{n-1}} \,
352: \rho^{\frac{n-2}{n-1}} \, . \label{envmass} \ee
353: %
354: This formula breaks down for linear potentials with $n=1$, where
355: the correct derivation yields $\gamma = 1/2$. Indeed, for the
356: linear potential $V = V_0 - q \phi$, $\partial^2 V = 0$ and so the
357: scalar mass is entirely an environmental effect: $m^2_\phi \simeq
358: \frac{\alpha^2 \rho}{M_4^2} e^{\alpha \phi/M_4} \sim \rho$. Thus
359: generically
360: %
361: \be
362: m_\phi \propto \rho^{\gamma} \, ,
363: \label{massscaling}
364: \ee
365: %
366: where $\gamma = \frac{n-2}{2(n-1)}$, or $\gamma = 1/2$ for $n=1$.
367: When the matter couplings of $\phi$ are of the gravitational
368: strength, $\alpha \sim 1$, this means that for all reasonable
369: power law potentials, with integer powers, once the environmental
370: mass $m_\phi$ is fixed by the laboratory bounds on Earth, $m_\phi
371: \ga 10^{-3} \, {\rm eV}$, for $\rho_{Earth} \sim {\rm g}/{\rm
372: cm}^3 \sim 10^{21} \, {\rm eV}^4$, it can decrease at most by a
373: factor of
374: %
375: \be \Bigl( \frac{M^2_4 H_0^2}{\rho_{Earth}} \Bigr)^{\gamma} \simeq
376: 10^{-33 \gamma} \, , \label{rescaling} \ee
377: %
378: as the energy density changes to the cosmological background
379: density. Having started at $m_\phi \ga 10^{-3} \, {\rm eV}$, the
380: effective environmental mass can therefore decrease down only to
381: $m_\phi \ga 10^{-3 - 33 \gamma} \, {\rm eV}$. For $\phi$ to be
382: quintessence, suspended in slow roll on a potential slope at very
383: large distance scales, this must be smaller than $H_0 \sim
384: 10^{-33} \, {\rm eV}$, which therefore requires $\gamma \ge 1$.
385: Otherwise, the field $\phi$ will be too heavy to have any
386: significant dynamics at the horizon scale, and dark energy must
387: come from other quarters, if at all\footnote{One can check that
388: similar arguments also apply to, for example, exponential
389: potentials. In that case, one also finds that the quintessence
390: mass scales as (\ref{massscaling}) with $\gamma < 1$ and that
391: generically it is impossible to keep $|\alpha \phi_*| < M_4$ over
392: a wide range of density variations.}, which is what happens with all
393: integer powers.
394:
395: The exception to this conclusion is the logarithmic potential $V
396: \sim \ln \phi$. To see that it evades the arguments above, we note
397: that to get the mass of $\phi$ for this case, we can take the
398: limit of Eq. (\ref{envmass}) when $n \rightarrow 0^-$. Then,
399: $\gamma \rightarrow 1$, and so $m_\phi \sim \rho$. In this case,
400: the effective mass will change by the full range of density ratio
401: between the cosmological and terrestrial scales, spanning over
402: thirty orders of magnitude. Hence, the logarithmic potential {\it
403: can} give us a chameleonic, or changeling quintessence which could
404: have evaded the laboratory searches for deviations from Newton's
405: law at the current level of sensitivity, but may remain close to
406: the bounds, within the reach of the future tests.
407:
408: %
409: \begin{figure}[thb]
410: %\vskip.3cm
411: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=9.5cm, height=7cm,
412: angle=0]{effpot.eps}} \caption{{Environmental effective
413: potential.} \label{fig1}}
414: \end{figure}
415: %
416: To explore the physics of our logarithmic dark energy changeling,
417: we now turn to a specific model. Suppose that the vacuum potential
418: of the scalar is $V = - \mu^4 \ln\Bigl(\phi/M\Bigr)$,
419: where\footnote{We will work with $M$ not much greater than the
420: Planck scale, to comply with the arguments about absence of
421: ultraweak forces and trans-Planckian cutoffs in plausible UV
422: completions of gravity \cite{tomnima}. } $M \ga M_4$. Potentials
423: like this may arise in theories with two conical extra dimensions,
424: after their stabilization \cite{conepots}, or by integrating out
425: some heavy fields which couple to the scalar $\phi$, such as in
426: the {\it MaVaNs} models of \cite{mavans} which also employ
427: logarithmic potentials. However in contrast to {\it MaVaNs}, our
428: $\phi$ couples universally to all `light' matter, and dwells in a
429: different regime, as exemplified by the sign and our choice of the
430: scale $M$. As we will see later, we will need $\mu \sim 10^{-3} \,
431: {\rm eV}$, which is usual for quintessence models that can fit the
432: data. We won't commit to any particular mechanism explaining how
433: such scales may arise (and in particular why there aren't larger
434: corrections to $V$, which of course is the full cosmological
435: constant problem that we can't solve yet \cite{wein}), instead
436: focusing on their implications for observations. Nevertheless, we note that
437: obtaining such potentials may only require tunings in the gravitational sector,
438: if the scalar $\phi$ is a Brans-Dicke-like field, obeying weak equivalence principle,
439: since there exists a Brans-Dicke frame to which matter couples universally.
440: Then, the
441: effective potential including the environmental correction from a
442: medium obeying equation of state $p/\rho = w$ is
443: %
444: \be V_{eff}(\phi) = - \mu^4 \ln\Bigl(\frac{\phi}{M}\Bigr) + (1-3w)
445: \rho \, e^{\alpha_w \phi/M_4} \, . \label{logpot} \ee
446: %
447: It is given in Figure (\ref{fig1}) for a fixed value of $\rho$,
448: and for $w<-1/3$. For $w=-1/3$ the environmental term is absent,
449: whereas for $w>1/3$ it changes sign and convexity (since $\alpha_w
450: = (1-3w) \alpha$).
451:
452: Let's examine cosmological history of such a theory, and see what
453: are its predictions. We will work with the assumption that our
454: universe was shaped by inflation, at some high scale $\Lambda \gg
455: \mu^4$ and with $w \simeq -1$. Then, during inflation, the scalar
456: field $\phi$ is controlled by $V_{eff}(\phi) = - \mu^4
457: \ln\Bigl(\frac{\phi}{M}\Bigr) + 4 \Lambda \, e^{4\alpha \phi/M_4}
458: $. The minimum of this potential is at $\frac{\alpha \phi_*}{M_4}
459: \simeq \frac{\mu^4}{16 \Lambda} \ll 1$, and the effective scalar
460: mass there is $m_\phi^2 \simeq \frac{256 \alpha^2 \Lambda^2}{M_4^2
461: \mu^4} \gg H^2_{inflation}$. In fact this is generically so large
462: that the field $\phi$ is completely non-dynamical during
463: inflation. It is frozen out extremely efficiently.
464:
465: At the end of inflation, the energy in the inflaton potential
466: $\Lambda$ will be converted into radiation. During this stage, the
467: universe will rapidly become radiation-dominated, with
468: $\rho_{radiation} \gg \rho_{matter}$. Ignoring the possibility of
469: massive matter decays, we can place a bound on the ratio of
470: $\rho_{radiation}/\rho_{matter}$ by scaling it up from
471: matter-raditation equality to the reheating temperature:
472: $\rho_{radiation}/\rho_{matter} \ga T_{reheating}/{\rm eV}$, which
473: can be as high as $10^{20}$ or so. In reality this ratio will be
474: even higher because many of the nonrelativistic species today will
475: have behaved as relativistic particles in the early universe. Now,
476: the presence of massive particle species may generate a different
477: effective potential for $\phi$, shifting the location of the
478: environmental minimum. The environmental potential coming from
479: nonrelativistic species is $V_{eff}(\phi) = - \mu^4
480: \ln\Bigl(\frac{\phi}{M}\Bigr) + \rho_{matter} \, e^{\alpha
481: \phi/M_4} $, with a minimum at $\frac{\alpha \phi_*}{M_4} \simeq
482: \frac{\mu^4}{\rho_{matter}}$, and a mass around it $m^2_\phi
483: \simeq \frac{\alpha^2 \rho_{matter}^2}{M_4^2 \mu^4} \simeq
484: \frac{\alpha^2
485: \rho_{matter}}{\mu^4}\frac{\rho_{matter}}{\rho_{radiation}}
486: H^2_{radiation}$. During the radiation phase $\rho_{radiation} \gg
487: \rho_{matter}$, and so $m^2_{\phi} \ll H^2_{radiation}$. This
488: minimum, if at all present, will be too shallow to affect
489: cosmological dynamics of $\phi$.
490:
491: Thus we can ignore $\rho_{matter}$ during the radiation epoch. The
492: effective potential for $\phi$ changes to the pure logarithmic
493: term, where the field is massless and initially close to the
494: origin, where inflation left it: $\phi_{inflation} \simeq
495: \frac{\mu^4 M_4}{16 \Lambda \alpha}$. However generically the
496: field will have a lot of kinetic energy after being released from
497: its inflationary state. To see that, introduce $\tilde \rho =
498: \Lambda e^{4 \alpha \phi/M_4}$ as the total energy density during
499: inflation. Just before the end of inflation, where $\Lambda$
500: starts to decay, the time variation of $\Lambda$ will pull along
501: $\phi$, $ \dot {\tilde \rho} \ga \frac{4 \alpha \dot \phi}{M_4}
502: \tilde \rho$, whence $\dot \phi \la \frac{\dot
503: {\tilde\rho}}{4\alpha \tilde \rho} M_4$. With efficient reheating
504: we can estimate $\frac{\dot {\tilde \rho}}{\tilde \rho} \simeq
505: H_{inflation}$, so that $\dot \phi \la \frac{M_4
506: H_{inflation}}{4\alpha}$, or $\dot \phi^2 \la \frac{\Lambda}{48
507: \alpha^2}$. While by no means precise, this argument at least shows that at
508: the end of inflation, the field $\phi$ will generically convert a
509: significant fraction of vacuum energy into its kinetic energy, by
510: the universality of its couplings to all types of matter and
511: equipartition of energy. The precise amount would depend on the
512: model of inflation and reheating. Having so much kinetic energy
513: after inflation is not dangerous for cosmology because it will
514: dissipate quickly due to Hubble friction/redshift. Since we can
515: neglect nonrelativistic matter at this stage, and because the
516: potential energy density at this time is $V \sim \mu^4 \ll
517: \Lambda$, we can in fact ignore the effective potential
518: altogether. As a result the field will evolve as a pure massless
519: mode in a radiation-dominated universe, where it will stop more or
520: less after a Hubble time, travelling a distance $\Delta \phi \sim
521: \dot \phi_{initial}/H_{inflation} \la \frac{M_4}{4\alpha} \gg
522: \phi_{initial}$ before it stops \cite{freezing}. At that point, it
523: will have an expectation value $\phi \la \frac{M_4}{4\alpha}$, a
524: tiny potential energy, $V \la \mu^4 \ln\bigl(\frac{4\alpha M}{M_4}
525: \bigr)$, and a tiny mass\footnote{For as long as $\rho_{matter} >
526: \mu^4$.} $m^2_\phi \simeq \frac{\alpha^2 \rho_{matter}}{M_4^2} \ll
527: H^2_{radiation}$, giving a slightly stronger effective
528: gravitational coupling $G_{N \, eff}$ to matter than to radiation,
529: by at most a factor of about $\la e^{1/4} \sim 1.28$ or so. For
530: the rest of the radiation era, the field will simply just wait
531: there.
532:
533: We should comment here on the implications of the enhancement of
534: $G_{N \, eff}$ for Big Bang nucleosynthesis. A difference between
535: the value of Newton's constant in the early universe, and
536: specifically at the time of BBN and its value measured presently
537: in terrestrial experiments would affect relic abundances, and so
538: BBN gives us strong limits on the variation of $G_N$
539: \cite{garyold}. However, our calculated maximal value of $G_{N \,
540: eff}$ above, is the value of Newton's constant at nucleosynthesis
541: as seen by nonrelativistic particles, with masses $m \gg {\rm
542: MeV}$ at that time. Indeed, we recall that -- as illustrated in
543: e.g. Eq. (\ref{effpot}) -- the effective Newton's constant which a
544: species sees is $G_{N \, eff} \sim \frac{1}{M_4^2} e^{\alpha_w
545: \phi/M_4}$, where $\alpha_w = (1-3w) \alpha$. Thus the
546: relativistic particles, which are controlling the expansion rate
547: of the universe at that time, would feel an effective Newton's
548: constant much closer to its terrestrial value. Even the maximal
549: value which we estimated above, felt by heavy particles, may be
550: consistent with the new BBN bounds on $\Delta G_N/G_{N \, 0}$ that
551: allow it to be $\sim 20 \%$ \cite{krauss,keith}, although
552: stronger bounds may be inferred from different data \cite{garys}.
553: Hence BBN data may probe this
554: aspect of our model, similarly to what happens in
555: general scalar-tensor theories \cite{dano}.
556: This should be explored in more detail. We
557: need to also stress that the bounds from Oklo are easy to comply
558: with. By the time the Oklo reactor started, the field would have settled
559: into its terrestrial minimum, pulling $G_{N \, eff}$ down to its
560: familiar value.
561:
562: After radiation-matter transition, $\propto \rho_{matter}$ term in the
563: effective potential will be of the order of $M_4^2 H^2$. The
564: environmental minimum for $\phi$ at the largest scales will become
565: more prominent, and its location, as previously calculated, will
566: be at $\frac{\alpha \phi_*}{M_4} \simeq
567: \frac{\mu^4}{\rho_{matter}}$. Now, in dilute universe before
568: structure formation, but after radiation-matter transition,
569: $\rho_{matter}$ will be below ${\rm eV}^4$, approaching $\mu^4$
570: from above. This means, that the minimum has been shifting towards
571: the Planckian values, where the field has been laying in wait.
572: Yet, as long as $\alpha < 1$, the field will not shift from where
573: it went during the radiation epoch. The reason is that as long as
574: $\rho_{matter} > \mu^4$, it's mass is still given by $m^2_\phi
575: \simeq \frac{\alpha^2\rho_{matter}}{M^2_4}$. So by arranging
576: $\alpha < 1/\sqrt{3}$, we can still keep $m^2_\phi <
577: \frac{\rho_{matter}}{3M_4^2} = H^2_{matter}$, holding the field up
578: on the logarithmic slope by Hubble friction.
579:
580: On the other hand, at shorter scales structure will begin to form
581: around the primordial gravitational wells generated during inflation, where
582: matter will agglomerate and the local matter density will increase
583: manyfold over the uniform background value. In these regions, the
584: environmental minima for $\phi$ will be closer to the origin and
585: deeper, with $m_\phi^2 \gg H^2_{matter}$. Hence
586: where collapse began the field $\phi$ will fall back to the
587: environmental minimum, oscillating around it instead of sticking to its
588: post-inflationary value. In these regions, therefore, the field will behave as a component
589: of cold dark matter, and its uniform energy density inside the region
590: will begin to redshift as $\sim 1/a^3$, yielding
591: the scaling of $\phi \sim 1/a^{3/2}$, similarly
592: to unified dark matter models \cite{udm,fuz}. This stage of evolution
593: can reduce the field value by as much as $\sim 10^7$ inside large scale overdensities.
594: Moreover, at shorter scales gravitational cooling of the field \cite{gravcool} will lead
595: to the collapse of the field energy to the core of the
596: distribution, as in scalar field dark matter models, and to virialization
597: with collapsing matter \cite{matos}.
598: This will further reduce the value of the scalar field around the central overdensity
599: to $\phi \ll M_4$, sweeping it into the center. Finally, where the matter
600: overdensity reaches the scales of $\rho \sim 10^{6} \, {\rm eV}^4$ and beyond,
601: the field mass will be $m_\phi \ga 10^{-16} \, {\rm eV}$, so that the leftover field
602: oscillations in time will occur at frequencies $\ga {\rm sec}^{-1}$ about the minimum,
603: so that we may replace it with its time average, $\phi_*$.
604: So the long range effects of fields in these regions should be suppressed
605: by the conspiracy between its environmental mass and
606: the thin shell effect. Overall however one must be careful about
607: picking the field boundary conditions in determining the long range forces
608: as these depend sensitively on the evolution of matter and field distributions.
609: To set up the long range fields, in general
610: one therefore needs to look at the full history of the system.
611: It is also possible that the field may leave some imprint in the
612: large scale structure, since it will be more active in the
613: beginning of the collapse. The precise description of these
614: imprints is beyond the scope of this work, but we expect that
615: because the imprints arise due to stronger gravity, they may
616: affect our determination of dark matter abundance, leading us to
617: overestimate the abundance of dark matter in structures which are
618: at an early stage of their formation. Presumably this may lead to the possibility of
619: direct astronomical tests and it would be interesting to develop
620: further.
621:
622: Back at cosmological scales, the evolution will eventually dilute
623: $\rho_{matter}$ to below $\mu^4$. At this time, the universe will
624: become dominated by the small residual potential energy in the
625: field, $V \la \mu^4 \ln(\frac{4\alpha M}{M_4}) \sim \mu^4$. The
626: environmental minimum will shift to $\frac{\alpha \phi_*}{M_4} >
627: 1$. However, the effective field mass at the largest scales will
628: change to $m_\phi^2 \simeq \frac{\mu^4}{\phi^2}$, which is
629: initially $m^2_\phi \simeq 16 \frac{\alpha^2 \mu^4}{M_4^2}$. So
630: the field will remain away from the minimum, and will start to
631: slowly roll towards it as $\rho_{matter}$ dips below $\mu^4$. To
632: ensure that the universe accelerates right away, we need to
633: enforce Eq. (\ref{mdark}). At this time, Eq. (\ref{mdark})
634: translates to
635: %
636: \be
637: \alpha \la \frac{1}{4\sqrt{3}} \, .
638: \label{alpha}
639: \ee
640: %
641: Similarly, we must also demand that $V>0$, which implies $4\alpha
642: M > M_4$, and that the period of acceleration lasts at least an
643: e-fold or so, $\Delta t \ga 1/H_0$. A stronger bound on $M$ comes
644: about as follows. As time goes on and $\phi$ rolls down the
645: logarithmic slope, the slow roll will improve, as $m^2_\phi$ is
646: {\it decreasing} with the increase of $\phi$, as $m^2_\phi \simeq
647: \frac{\mu^4}{\phi^2}$. Thus solving the field equations
648: (\ref{hubble})-(\ref{fieldeq}) in the slow roll regime, we find
649: that
650: %
651: \be \frac{\mu^2 M_4}{\sqrt{3}} \Delta t \simeq
652: \int^{\phi}_{\phi_0} d\phi \phi \,
653: \ln^{1/2}\bigl(\frac{M}{\phi}\bigr) \, , \label{phievol} \ee
654: %
655: where $\phi_0$ is the value of $\phi$ at the beginning of
656: acceleration, $\phi_0 \la \frac{M_4}{4\alpha}$. The integral is
657: extremized by taking $\phi_0 = \frac{M_4}{4\alpha}$, and $\phi =
658: M$, because the log potential will vanish there, and so if there
659: are no higher order corrections that can prevent the potential
660: from going negative, acceleration will only last until $\phi$
661: reaches $M$. Beyond that, acceleration will cease, and in fact the
662: universe may even collapse, as has been recently studied in
663: \cite{andreiren}. So substituting $\phi = M e^{-x/2}$, the
664: integral reduces to $\frac{M^2}{2^{3/2}} \int^{2\ln(\frac{4\alpha
665: M}{M_4})}_0 dx \sqrt{x} \, e^{-x}$. By using $4\alpha M > M_4$
666: and Eq. (\ref{alpha}), we can maximize it with an Euler gamma
667: function $\Gamma(\frac32)$. The error is tolerable, as one can
668: verify by using the saddle point approximation. Thus, the total
669: duration of the late accelerating phase cannot be longer than
670: $\Delta t \simeq \sqrt{\frac{3\pi}{32}} \frac{M^2}{\mu^2 M_4}$.
671: The logarithmic plateau needs to be wide enough to accommodate at
672: least an e-fold of inflation during this time, which, after
673: setting $H_0 \simeq \frac{\mu^2}{\sqrt{3} M_4}$ and requiring $H_0
674: \Delta t \ga 1$, implies that
675: %
676: \be
677: M \ga \bigl( \frac{32}{\pi} \bigr)^{1/4} \, M_4 \simeq 1.78 \, M_4 \, .
678: \label{mass}
679: \ee
680: %
681: This will suffice to explain the observed cosmic acceleration. We
682: note that the criticisms of the {\it MaVaNs} model \cite{zalda} (see also \cite{reex})
683: are easily circumvented here, since $\phi$ is in the slow roll
684: regime, independently of the matter terms from the onset of
685: acceleration.
686:
687: Now if we don't take $M$ too large, avoiding UV cutoffs much
688: higher than the Planck scale \cite{tomnima}, the scalar may have
689: matter couplings to within an order of magnitude of the
690: gravitational couplings. To see it we can combine (\ref{alpha})
691: and inequality $4\alpha M > M_4$ into
692: %
693: \be
694: \frac{M_4}{4M} < \alpha \la \frac{1}{4\sqrt{3}} \, .
695: \label{coupin}
696: \ee
697: %
698: Since the scalar coupling to matter is governed by
699: %
700: \be
701: g_{\phi} \sim \frac{\alpha}{M_4} \, ,
702: \label{gphi}
703: \ee
704: %
705: and its mass in terrestrial environments, where $\rho_{matter} \gg \mu^4$, is
706: %
707: \be
708: m_\phi \sim \frac{\alpha \rho_{matter}}{M_4 \mu^2} \sim \frac{\alpha}{10} \, {\rm eV} \, ,
709: \label{massphiter}
710: \ee
711: %
712: when $M$ is not too large there remains a chance that $\phi$ could
713: be within the reach of the future
714: laboratory searches, after further improvements in sensitivity.
715: Moreover, in this case $\phi$ will be rolling noticeably after an
716: e-fold or so. Hence it would behave as $w\ne -1$ dark energy.
717:
718: To summarize, we have delineated a dark energy model which, while
719: tuned as it stands now, can be tested at several different
720: observational fronts. It is based on a light scalar, with slightly
721: sub-gravitational couplings to matter and a mass which depends on
722: the environmental energy density. Outside of dense matter
723: distributions this field will be light, and may yield significant
724: long range effects. In particular, if it has logarithmic
725: self-interaction potential, like those that can arise in theories
726: with conical extra dimensions \cite{conepots,sliver}, or is
727: generated radiatively \cite{mavans}, it can be quintessence, with
728: mass $m_\phi \la H_0$. At the largest scales however, this field
729: will couple to matter in contrast to typical quintessence models,
730: albeit slightly more weakly than gravity. In the early universe it
731: will have an expectation value that is larger than in the
732: terrestrial minima, which would make gravity slightly stronger.
733: This can have consequences for BBN. During structure formation,
734: before the field decouples in deeper potential wells around denser
735: matter distributions, it may have affected cosmic structures. We
736: have not analyzed this in detail here, and it would be very
737: interesting to determine precisely what kind of signatures can
738: arise. They may imitate an excess in the amount of dark matter.
739: Finally, at the scales governing terrestrial physics, this field
740: will become sufficiently massive so that its long range force may be
741: suppressed by the thin shell effect discussed in the context of
742: chameleons.
743: Hence it may have avoided detection to date. However,
744: its effects may be probed by future searches for sub-millimeter
745: corrections to gravity. We believe that this represents an
746: interesting framework for testing gravity and dark energy in a
747: correlated manner. Testing models which involve correlations
748: between modifications of gravity at short and long scales will
749: probe the robustness of General Relativity and its greatest
750: failure, the cosmological constant. It is therefore important to
751: scrutinize such ideas further. Perhaps, ultimately, we might even
752: end up getting surprised!
753:
754: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
755: \vskip2.5cm
756: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
757:
758: {\bf \noindent Acknowledgements}
759:
760: \smallskip
761:
762: We thank A. Albrecht, L. Knox, K. Olive, L. Sorbo, G. Steigman, S. Watson and
763: especially J. Khoury and J. A. Tyson for interesting conversations. This work
764: was supported in part by the DOE Grant DE-FG03-91ER40674 and in
765: part by a Research Innovation Award from the Research Corporation.
766:
767: %\pagebreak
768:
769: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
770:
771: %\cite{Weinberg:1988cp}
772: \bibitem{wein}
773: S.~Weinberg,
774: %``The cosmological constant problem,''
775: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 61}, 1 (1989).
776: %%CITATION = RMPHA,61,1;%%
777:
778: %\cite{Bahcall:1999xn}
779: \bibitem{whynow}
780: N.~A.~Bahcall, J.~P.~Ostriker, S.~Perlmutter and P.~J.~Steinhardt,
781: %``The Cosmic Triangle: Revealing the State of the Universe,''
782: Science {\bf 284}, 1481 (1999);
783: % [arXiv:astro-ph/9906463].
784: %%CITATION = SCIEA,284,1481;%%
785: %
786: %\cite{Zlatev:1998tr}
787: %\bibitem{Zlatev:1998tr}
788: I.~Zlatev, L.~M.~Wang and P.~J.~Steinhardt,
789: %``Quintessence, Cosmic Coincidence, and the Cosmological Constant,''
790: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82}, 896 (1999);
791: %[arXiv:astro-ph/9807002].
792: %%CITATION = PRLTA,82,896;%%
793: %
794: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2000tc}
795: %\bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2000tc}
796: N.~Arkani-Hamed, L.~J.~Hall, C.~F.~Kolda and H.~Murayama,
797: %``A New Perspective on Cosmic Coincidence Problems,''
798: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 85}, 4434 (2000).
799: % [arXiv:astro-ph/0005111].
800: %%CITATION = PRLTA,85,4434;%%
801:
802: %\cite{Beane:1997it}
803: \bibitem{beane}
804: S.~R.~Beane,
805: %``On the importance of testing gravity at distances less than 1-cm,''
806: Gen.\ Rel.\ Grav.\ {\bf 29}, 945 (1997).
807: % [arXiv:hep-ph/9702419].
808: %%CITATION = GRGVA,29,945;%%
809:
810: \bibitem{dapive}
811: %\cite{Damour:2002nv}
812: T.~Damour, F.~Piazza and G.~Veneziano,
813: %``Violations of the equivalence principle in a dilaton-runaway scenario,''
814: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 046007 (2002);
815: %[arXiv:hep-th/0205111].
816: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,046007;%%
817: % \cite{Damour:2002mi}
818: %\bibitem{Damour:2002mi}
819: % T.~Damour, F.~Piazza and G.~Veneziano,
820: %``Runaway dilaton and equivalence principle violations,''
821: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89}, 081601 (2002).
822: % [arXiv:gr-qc/0204094].
823: %%CITATION = PRLTA,89,081601;%%
824:
825: %\cite{Fardon:2003eh}
826: \bibitem{mavans}
827: R.~Fardon, A.~E.~Nelson and N.~Weiner,
828: %``Dark energy from mass varying neutrinos,''
829: JCAP {\bf 0410}, 005 (2004);
830: % [arXiv:astro-ph/0309800].
831: %%CITATION = JCAPA,0410,005;%%
832: % R.~Fardon, A.~E.~Nelson and N.~Weiner,
833: %``Supersymmetric theories of neutrino dark energy,''
834: JHEP {\bf 0603}, 042 (2006);
835: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0507235].
836: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0603,042;%%
837: %\cite{Kaplan:2004dq}
838: %\bibitem{Kaplan:2004dq}
839: D.~B.~Kaplan, A.~E.~Nelson and N.~Weiner,
840: %``Neutrino oscillations as a probe of dark energy,''
841: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 091801 (2004).
842: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0401099].
843: %%CITATION = PRLTA,93,091801;%%
844:
845: %\cite{Gu:2003er}
846: \bibitem{gwz}
847: P.~Gu, X.~Wang and X.~Zhang,
848: %``Dark energy and neutrino mass limits from baryogenesis,''
849: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 087301 (2003);
850: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0307148].
851: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D68,087301;%%
852: %\cite{Bi:2004ns}
853: %\bibitem{Bi:2004ns}
854: X.~J.~Bi, B.~Feng, H.~Li and X.~m.~Zhang,
855: %``Cosmological evolution of interacting dark energy models with mass varying
856: %neutrinos,''
857: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 123523 (2005).
858: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0412002].
859: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D72,123523;%%
860:
861: \bibitem{lawrence}
862: %\cite{Hall:2005xb}
863: %\bibitem{Hall:2005xb}
864: L.~J.~Hall, Y.~Nomura and S.~J.~Oliver,
865: %``Evolving dark energy with w not equal -1,''
866: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95}, 141302 (2005);
867: % [arXiv:astro-ph/0503706].
868: %%CITATION = PRLTA,95,141302;%%
869: %\cite{Barbieri:2005gj}
870: %\bibitem{Barbieri:2005gj}
871: R.~Barbieri, L.~J.~Hall, S.~J.~Oliver and A.~Strumia,
872: %``Dark energy and right-handed neutrinos,''
873: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 625}, 189 (2005).
874: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0505124].
875: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B625,189;%%
876:
877: \bibitem{quint}
878: S.~M.~Carroll,
879: %``Quintessence and the rest of the world,''
880: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 81}, 3067 (1998);
881: %[arXiv:astro-ph/9806099].
882: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9806099;%%
883: C.~F.~Kolda and D.~H.~Lyth,
884: %``Quintessential difficulties,''
885: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 458}, 197 (1999);
886: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9811375].
887: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811375;%%
888: T.~Chiba,
889: %``Quintessence, the gravitational constant, and gravity,''
890: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 083508 (1999).
891: %[arXiv:gr-qc/9903094].
892: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9903094;%%
893:
894: \bibitem{laboratory}
895: %\cite{Adelberger:2006dh}
896: %\bibitem{Adelberger:2006dh}
897: E.~G.~Adelberger, B.~R.~Heckel, S.~Hoedl, C.~D.~Hoyle, D.~J.~Kapner and A.~Upadhye,
898: %``Constraints on exotic interactions from a recent test of the gravitational
899: %inverse sqaure law,''
900: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 98}, 131104 (2007);
901: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0611223].
902: %%CITATION = PRLTA,98,131104;%%
903: %\cite{Kapner:2006si}
904: %\bibitem{Kapner:2006si}
905: D.~J.~Kapner, T.~S.~Cook, E.~G.~Adelberger, J.~H.~Gundlach, B.~R.~Heckel, C.~D.~Hoyle and H.~E.~Swanson,
906: %``Tests of the gravitational inverse-square law below the dark-energy length
907: %scale,''
908: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 98}, 021101 (2007);
909: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0611184].
910: %%CITATION = PRLTA,98,021101;%%
911: %\cite{Adelberger:2003zx}
912: %\bibitem{Adelberger:2003zx}
913: see also E.~G.~Adelberger, B.~R.~Heckel and A.~E.~Nelson,
914: %``Tests of the gravitational inverse-square law,''
915: Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf 53}, 77 (2003).
916: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0307284].
917: %%CITATION = ARNUA,53,77;%%
918:
919: \bibitem{dano}
920: %\cite{Damour:1992kf}
921: %\bibitem{Damour:1992kf}
922: T.~Damour and K.~Nordtvedt,
923: %``General relativity as a cosmological attractor of tensor scalar theories,''
924: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 70}, 2217 (1993);
925: %%CITATION = PRLTA,70,2217;%%
926: %\cite{Damour:1993id}
927: %\bibitem{Damour:1993id}
928: % T.~Damour and K.~Nordtvedt,
929: %``Tensor - scalar cosmological models and their relaxation toward general
930: %relativity,''
931: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48}, 3436 (1993).
932: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D48,3436;%%
933:
934: \bibitem{dapol}
935: %\cite{Damour:1994zq}
936: %\bibitem{Damour:1994zq}
937: T.~Damour and A.~M.~Polyakov,
938: %``The String Dilaton And A Least Coupling Principle,''
939: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 423}, 532 (1994);
940: % [arXiv:hep-th/9401069].
941: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B423,532;%%
942: %\cite{Damour:1994ya}
943: %\bibitem{Damour:1994ya}
944: %T.~Damour and A.~M.~Polyakov,
945: %``String theory and gravity,''
946: Gen.\ Rel.\ Grav.\ {\bf 26}, 1171 (1994).
947: % [arXiv:gr-qc/9411069].
948: %%CITATION = GRGVA,26,1171;%%
949:
950: \bibitem{khuwe}
951: %\cite{Khoury:2003aq}
952: %\bibitem{Khoury:2003aq}
953: J.~Khoury and A.~Weltman,
954: %``Chameleon fields: Awaiting surprises for tests of gravity in space,''
955: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 171104 (2004);
956: %[arXiv:astro-ph/0309300].
957: %%CITATION = PRLTA,93,171104;%%
958: %\cite{Khoury:2003rn}
959: %\bibitem{Khoury:2003rn}
960: %J.~Khoury and A.~Weltman,
961: %``Chameleon cosmology,''
962: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 044026 (2004).
963: %[arXiv:astro-ph/0309411].
964: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D69,044026;%%
965:
966: %\cite{Dvali:2001pt}
967: \bibitem{dgs}
968: G.~R.~Dvali, G.~Gabadadze and M.~A.~Shifman,
969: %``Ultralight scalars and spiral galaxies,''
970: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 16}, 513 (2001).
971: %[arXiv:astro-ph/0102422].
972: %%CITATION = MPLAE,A16,513;%%
973:
974: % \cite{Gubser:2004uf}
975: \bibitem{gukhu}
976: S.~S.~Gubser and J.~Khoury,
977: %``Scalar self-interactions loosen constraints from fifth force searches,''
978: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 104001 (2004).
979: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0405231].
980: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D70,104001;%%
981:
982: %\cite{Brax:2004qh}
983: \bibitem{brawe}
984: P.~Brax, C.~van de Bruck, A.~C.~Davis, J.~Khoury and A.~Weltman,
985: %``Detecting dark energy in orbit: The cosmological chameleon,''
986: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 123518 (2004).
987: %[arXiv:astro-ph/0408415].
988: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D70,123518;%%
989:
990: %\cite{Wei:2004rw}
991: \bibitem{weicai}
992: H.~Wei and R.~G.~Cai,
993: %``K-chameleon and the coincidence problem,''
994: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 043504 (2005);
995: % [arXiv:hep-th/0412045].
996: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D71,043504;%%
997: %\cite{Biswas:2005wy}
998: %\bibitem{Biswas:2005wy}
999: T.~Biswas, R.~Brandenberger, A.~Mazumdar and T.~Multamaki,
1000: %``Current acceleration from dilaton and stringy cold dark matter,''
1001: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 063501 (2006).
1002: % [arXiv:hep-th/0507199].
1003: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D74,063501;%%
1004:
1005: %\cite{Kamenshchik:2001cp}
1006: \bibitem{udm}
1007: A.~Y.~Kamenshchik, U.~Moschella and V.~Pasquier,
1008: %``An alternative to quintessence,''
1009: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 511}, 265 (2001).
1010: %[arXiv:gr-qc/0103004].
1011: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B511,265;%%
1012:
1013: \bibitem{fuz}
1014: %\cite{Fuzfa:2006pn}
1015: %\bibitem{Fuzfa:2006pn}
1016: A.~Fuzfa and J.~M.~Alimi,
1017: %``Dark energy as a Born-Infeld gauge interaction violating the equivalence
1018: %principle,''
1019: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 97}, 061301 (2006);
1020: %[arXiv:astro-ph/0604517].
1021: %%CITATION = PRLTA,97,061301;%%
1022: %\cite{Fuzfa:2005qn}
1023: %\bibitem{Fuzfa:2005qn}
1024: % A.~Fuzfa and J.~M.~Alimi,
1025: %``Non-Abelian Einstein-Born-Infeld dilaton cosmology,''
1026: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 023520 (2006);
1027: %[arXiv:gr-qc/0511090].
1028: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D73,023520;%%
1029: %\cite{Fuzfa:2007sv}
1030: %\bibitem{Fuzfa:2007sv}
1031: %A.~Fuzfa and J.~M.~Alimi,
1032: %``Toward a Unified Description of Dark Energy and Dark Matter from the
1033: %Abnormally Weighting Energy Hypothesis,''
1034: arXiv:astro-ph/0702478.
1035: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH/0702478;%%
1036:
1037: \bibitem{tomnima}
1038: %\cite{Dine:2001xh}
1039: %\bibitem{Dine:2001xh}
1040: M.~Dine,
1041: %``Dark matter and dark energy: A physicist's perspective,''
1042: arXiv:hep-th/0107259;
1043: %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0107259;%%
1044: %\cite{Banks:2003sx}
1045: %\bibitem{Banks:2003sx}
1046: T.~Banks, M.~Dine, P.~J.~Fox and E.~Gorbatov,
1047: %``On the possibility of large axion decay constants,''
1048: JCAP {\bf 0306}, 001 (2003);
1049: % [arXiv:hep-th/0303252].
1050: %%CITATION = JCAPA,0306,001;%%
1051: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2006dz}
1052: %\bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2006dz}
1053: N.~Arkani-Hamed, L.~Motl, A.~Nicolis and C.~Vafa,
1054: %``The string landscape, black holes and gravity as the weakest force,''
1055: arXiv:hep-th/0601001.
1056: %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0601001;%%
1057:
1058: \bibitem{conepots}
1059: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1999dz}
1060: %\bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1999dz}
1061: N.~Arkani-Hamed, L.~J.~Hall, D.~R.~Smith and N.~Weiner,
1062: %``Solving the hierarchy problem with exponentially large dimensions,''
1063: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 105002 (2000);
1064: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9912453].
1065: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D62,105002;%%%\cite{May:2003hg}
1066: %\bibitem{May:2003hg}
1067: M.~J.~May and R.~Sundrum,
1068: %``Local Lagrangian for exponentially large extra dimensions,''
1069: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 104010 (2004).
1070: % [arXiv:hep-th/0310222].
1071: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D69,104010;%%
1072:
1073: \bibitem{freezing}
1074: %\cite{Kaloper:1991mq}
1075: %\bibitem{Kaloper:1991mq}
1076: N.~Kaloper and K.~A.~Olive,
1077: %``Dilatons in string cosmology,''
1078: Astropart.\ Phys.\ {\bf 1}, 185 (1993);
1079: %%CITATION = APHYE,1,185;%%
1080: %\cite{Tseytlin:1991xk}
1081: %\bibitem{Tseytlin:1991xk}
1082: A.~A.~Tseytlin and C.~Vafa,
1083: %``Elements Of String Cosmology,''
1084: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 372}, 443 (1992);
1085: % [arXiv:hep-th/9109048].
1086: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B372,443;%%
1087: %\cite{Barreiro:1998aj}
1088: %\bibitem{Barreiro:1998aj}
1089: T.~Barreiro, B.~de Carlos and E.~J.~Copeland,
1090: %``Stabilizing the dilaton in superstring cosmology,''
1091: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 083513 (1998);
1092: %[arXiv:hep-th/9805005].
1093: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D58,083513;%%
1094: %\bibitem{Kofman:2004yc}
1095: L.~Kofman, A.~Linde, X.~Liu, A.~Maloney, L.~McAllister and
1096: E.~Silverstein,
1097: % ``Beauty is attractive: Moduli trapping at enhanced symmetry points,''
1098: JHEP {\bf 0405}, 030 (2004);
1099: %[arXiv:hep-th/0403001].
1100: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0403001;%%
1101: %\bibitem{Watson:2004aq}
1102: S.~Watson,
1103: %``Moduli stabilization with the string Higgs effect,''
1104: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 066005 (2004);
1105: %[arXiv:hep-th/0404177].
1106: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0404177;%%
1107: %\cite{Brustein:2004jp}
1108: %\bibitem{Brustein:2004jp}
1109: R.~Brustein, S.~P.~de Alwis and P.~Martens,
1110: %``Cosmological stabilization of moduli with steep potentials,''
1111: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 126012 (2004);
1112: % [arXiv:hep-th/0408160].
1113: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D70,126012;%%
1114: %\cite{Kaloper:2004yj}
1115: %\bibitem{Kaloper:2004yj}
1116: N.~Kaloper, J.~Rahmfeld and L.~Sorbo,
1117: %``Moduli entrapment with primordial black holes,''
1118: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 606}, 234 (2005);
1119: % [arXiv:hep-th/0409226].
1120: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B606,234;%%
1121: % \cite{Barreiro:2005ua}
1122: %\bibitem{Barreiro:2005ua}
1123: T.~Barreiro, B.~de Carlos, E.~Copeland and N.~J.~Nunes,
1124: %``Moduli evolution in the presence of flux compactifications,''
1125: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 106004 (2005);
1126: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0506045].
1127: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D72,106004;%%
1128: %\bibitem{Cremonini:2006sx}
1129: S.~Cremonini and S.~Watson,
1130: %``Dilaton dynamics from production of
1131: %tensionless membranes,''
1132: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 086007 (2006);
1133: %[arXiv:hep-th/0601082].
1134: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0601082;%%
1135: %%\cite{Greene:2007sa}
1136: %\bibitem{Greene:2007sa}
1137: B.~Greene, S.~Judes, J.~Levin, S.~Watson and A.~Weltman,
1138: %``Cosmological Moduli Dynamics,''
1139: arXiv:hep-th/0702220.
1140: %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0702220;%%
1141:
1142: \bibitem{garyold}
1143: G.~Steigman, Nature {\bf 261}, 479 (1976);
1144: %\cite{Boesgaard:1985km}
1145: %\bibitem{Boesgaard:1985km}
1146: A.~M.~Boesgaard and G.~Steigman,
1147: %``Big Bang Nucleosynthesis: Theories And Observations,''
1148: Ann.\ Rev.\ Astron.\ Astrophys.\ {\bf 23}, 319 (1985).
1149: %%CITATION = ARAAA,23,319;%%
1150:
1151: %\cite{Copi:2003xd}
1152: \bibitem{krauss}
1153: C.~J.~Copi, A.~N.~Davis and L.~M.~Krauss,
1154: %``A New Nucleosynthesis Constraint on the Variation of G,''
1155: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92}, 171301 (2004).
1156: %[arXiv:astro-ph/0311334].
1157: %%CITATION = PRLTA,92,171301;%%
1158:
1159: %\cite{Cyburt:2004yc}
1160: \bibitem{keith}
1161: R.~H.~Cyburt, B.~D.~Fields, K.~A.~Olive and E.~Skillman,
1162: %``New BBN limits on physics beyond the standard model from He-4,''
1163: Astropart.\ Phys.\ {\bf 23}, 313 (2005).
1164: % [arXiv:astro-ph/0408033].
1165: %%CITATION = APHYE,23,313;%%
1166:
1167: \bibitem{garys}
1168: %\cite{Steigman:2005uz}
1169: %\bibitem{Steigman:2005uz}
1170: G.~Steigman,
1171: %``Primordial nucleosynthesis: Successes and challenges,''
1172: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ E {\bf 15}, 1 (2006).
1173: %[arXiv:astro-ph/0511534].
1174: %%CITATION = IMPAE,E15,1;%%
1175:
1176: \bibitem{gravcool}
1177: %\cite{Seidel:1991zh}
1178: %\bibitem{Seidel:1991zh}
1179: E.~Seidel and W.~M.~Suen,
1180: %``Oscillating soliton stars,''
1181: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 66}, 1659 (1991);
1182: %%CITATION = PRLTA,66,1659;%%
1183: %\cite{Seidel:1993zk}
1184: %\bibitem{Seidel:1993zk}
1185: %E.~Seidel and W.~M.~Suen,
1186: %``Formation of solitonic stars through gravitational cooling,''
1187: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 72}, 2516 (1994).
1188: %[arXiv:gr-qc/9309015].
1189: %%CITATION = PRLTA,72,2516;%%
1190:
1191: \bibitem{matos}
1192: %\cite{Matos:2000ng}
1193: %\bibitem{Matos:2000ng}
1194: T.~Matos and L.~A.~Urena-Lopez,
1195: %``Quintessence and scalar dark matter in the universe,''
1196: Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\ {\bf 17}, L75 (2000);
1197: % [arXiv:astro-ph/0004332].
1198: %%CITATION = CQGRD,17,L75;%%
1199: %\cite{Matos:2000ss}
1200: %\bibitem{Matos:2000ss}
1201: T.~Matos and L.~A.~Urena-Lopez,
1202: %``A further analysis of a cosmological model of quintessence and scalar dark
1203: %matter,''
1204: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 063506 (2001);
1205: %[arXiv:astro-ph/0006024].
1206: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D63,063506;%%
1207: %\cite{Alcubierre:2001ea}
1208: %\bibitem{Alcubierre:2001ea}
1209: M.~Alcubierre, F.~S.~Guzman, T.~Matos, D.~Nunez, L.~A.~Urena-Lopez and P.~Wiederhold,
1210: %``Galactic collapse of scalar field dark matter,''
1211: Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\ {\bf 19}, 5017 (2002);
1212: % [arXiv:gr-qc/0110102].
1213: %%CITATION = CQGRD,19,5017;%%
1214: %\cite{Guzman:2004wj}
1215: %\bibitem{Guzman:2004wj}
1216: F.~S.~Guzman and L.~A.~Urena-Lopez,
1217: %``Evolution of the Schroedinger-Newton system for a self-gravitating scalar
1218: %field,''
1219: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 124033 (2004).
1220: %[arXiv:gr-qc/0404014].
1221: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D69,124033;%%
1222:
1223:
1224: \bibitem{andreiren}
1225: %\cite{Kallosh:2003bq}
1226: %\bibitem{Kallosh:2003bq}
1227: R.~Kallosh, J.~Kratochvil, A.~Linde, E.~V.~Linder and M.~Shmakova,
1228: %``Observational Bounds on Cosmic Doomsday,''
1229: JCAP {\bf 0310}, 015 (2003).
1230: %[arXiv:astro-ph/0307185].
1231: %%CITATION = JCAPA,0310,015;%%
1232:
1233: %\cite{Afshordi:2005ym}
1234: \bibitem{zalda}
1235: N.~Afshordi, M.~Zaldarriaga and K.~Kohri,
1236: %``On the stability of dark energy with mass-varying neutrinos,''
1237: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 065024 (2005).
1238: % [arXiv:astro-ph/0506663].
1239: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D72,065024;%%
1240:
1241: \bibitem{reex}
1242: %\cite{Bjaelde:2007ki}
1243: %\bibitem{Bjaelde:2007ki}
1244: O.~E.~Bjaelde, A.~W.~Brookfield, C.~van de Bruck, S.~Hannestad, D.~F.~Mota, L.~Schrempp and D.~Tocchini-Valentini,
1245: %``Neutrino Dark Energy -- Revisiting the Stability Issue,''
1246: arXiv:0705.2018 [astro-ph].
1247: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0705.2018;%%
1248:
1249: \bibitem{sliver}
1250: %\cite{Kaloper:2007my}
1251: %\bibitem{Kaloper:2007my}
1252: N.~Kaloper,
1253: %``A new dimension hidden in the shadow of a wall,''
1254: arXiv:hep-th/0702206.
1255: %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0702206;%%
1256:
1257: \end{thebibliography}
1258:
1259: \end{document}
1260:
1261: %\cite{Kalara:1990ar}
1262: \bibitem{first}
1263: S.~Kalara, N.~Kaloper and K.~A.~Olive,
1264: %``THEORIES OF INFLATION AND CONFORMAL TRANSFORMATIONS,''
1265: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 341}, 252 (1990).
1266: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B341,252;%%
1267:
1268:
1269: