1: \documentclass[]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass{article}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{latexsym}
5: \usepackage{amssymb}
6:
7: \textwidth 160mm \textheight 223mm \topmargin 0mm \oddsidemargin 2mm
8: %\usepackage{amsmath}
9:
10: \newcommand {\eq}{\begin{equation}}
11: \newcommand {\ee}{\end{equation}}
12:
13:
14:
15: \begin{document}
16:
17:
18: \title{Observational Constraints on Agegraphic Dark Energy}
19: %\date{}
20:
21:
22:
23: \author{ Xing Wu$^{1}\footnote{Email address: wxxwwxxw@mail.bnu.edu.cn},
24: $Yi Zhang$^{2},$ Hui Li$^{2}, $ Rong-Gen Cai$^{2},$ and Zong-Hong Zhu$^{1}$}
25: \address{$^{1}$Department of Astronomy, Beijing Normal University,
26: Beijing 100875, China}
27: \address{$^{2}$ Institute of Theoretical
28: Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 2735, Beijing 100080,
29: China}
30:
31:
32:
33: \begin{abstract}
34: In this paper, we use the Type Ia supernova data as well as the CMB
35: and LSS data to constrain the agegraphic dark energy model recently
36: proposed by Cai. Due to its peculiar nature, the parameter $n$ of
37: this model cannot be well constrained by the SNIa data, while the
38: other parameter $\Omega_{m0}$ can be constrained to be
39: $0.34\pm0.04$. When combined with CMB and LSS data, the range of
40: $1\sigma$ confidence level for $n$ is greatly narrowed, albeit still
41: very large. The best fit result is $\Omega_{m0}=0.28\pm0.02$, which
42: is consistent with most observations like WMAP and SDSS, and
43: $n=3.4$, of which a meaningful range of confidence level can not be
44: obtained due to the fact that the contours are not closed. Despite
45: of this result, we conclude that for $n>1$ this model is consistent
46: with SNIa, CMB and LSS observations. Furthermore, the fitting
47: results indicate a generalized definition for the agegraphic dark
48: energy.
49:
50:
51: \end{abstract}
52:
53: %\pacs{95.36.+x, 98.80.Es, 98.80.-k}
54:
55: \maketitle
56:
57: \section{Introduction}
58: The dark energy problem has become undoubtedly one of the most
59: challenging problems in modern physics ever since the discovery of
60: the accelerating expansion of the universe\cite{acc}. Various
61: theoretical models to explain the origin of the cosmic acceleration
62: have been proposed (for a recent review, see \cite{0603057} and the
63: references therein). Although the cosmological constant is the
64: simplest one among other models, it suffers from the so-called
65: coincidence problem and the parameter in this model has to be
66: fine-tuned in order to be consistent with observations\cite{cc}. One
67: of the reasons for this awkwardness is that it identifies the
68: cosmological constant with the vacuum energy of the quantum field
69: theory in Minkowski spacetime. At the cosmological scales, however,
70: the effect of gravity is significant and the above result may break
71: down. A complete solution to the cosmological problem is expected to
72: be given by a full theory of quantum gravity, which is unknown as
73: yet. Luckily, the so-called Holographic Principle \cite{holo.
74: principle} has shown some important features of quantum gravity.
75: Based on this principle, Cohen et. al.\cite{cohen} suggested a
76: relation between the IR cut-off and the UV cut-off in quantum field
77: theory. That is, in a box of size $L$, the quantum zero-point
78: energy, related to the UV cut-off, should not exceed the mass of a
79: black hole of the same size. This leads to the holographic vacuum
80: energy given by \eq \rho_{\Lambda}=\frac{3c^2M_p^2}{ L^2}~,\ee where
81: $M_p\equiv(8\pi G)^{-1/2}$ is the reduced Planck mass and $3c^2$ is
82: by convention a numerical factor. Although $L$ chosen as the Hubble
83: scale $H_0^{-1}$ or the particle horizon can lead to an energy
84: density consistent with current observation, the equation of state
85: for the vacuum energy in these two cases is always larger
86: than$-1/3$\cite{Hsu}\cite{Li}, therefore they cannot play the role
87: of dark energy. Li\cite{Li} proposed to choose $L$ as the future
88: event horizon leading to the model of holographic dark energy which
89: gives a correct equation of state. This model has been tested by
90: observational data\cite{holotest1}-\cite{holotest5} and is
91: consistent with them. However, it is plagued on the fundamental
92: level due to its assumption that the current properties of the dark
93: energy is determined by the future evolution of the universe, which
94: seems to violate causality. Moreover, it has been argued that this
95: model can be inconsistent with the age of the universe\cite{wh}.
96:
97: Recently, Cai\cite{cai} proposed a model, called 'agegraphic dark
98: energy', based on the K\'{a}rolyh\'{a}zy uncertainty relation\cite{K
99: uncertain} \eq \delta t=\beta t_p^{2/3}t^{1/3}~, \ee where $\beta$
100: is a numerical factor of order one and $t_p$ is the Planck time.
101: This relation arises from quantum mechanics combined with general
102: relativity, and it imposes an upper limit of accuracy in any
103: measurement of distance $t$ (with the speed of light $c=1$) in
104: Minkowski spacetime. Combined with the time-energy uncertainty
105: relation in quantum mechanics, the energy density of the metric
106: fluctuations in Minkowski spacetime is\cite{11,12} \eq \rho_q\sim
107: \frac{E_{\delta t^3}}{\delta
108: t^3}\sim\frac{1}{t_p^2t^2}\label{fluctuation}~,\ee where $E_{\delta
109: t^3}$ is the energy fluctuation within a cell of size $\delta t$.
110: Based on this relation, Cai proposed the agegraphic dark energy
111: as\cite{cai}
112: \eq \rho_q=\frac{3n^2M_p^2}{T^2}\label{rho}~, \ee where $T$ is
113: the age of the universe defined as \eq T=\int_0^t
114: dt'=\int_0^a\frac{da}{Ha}=\int_z^\infty \frac{dz}{(1+z)H}\label{T
115: def}~,\ee and $n$ is a parameter of order one representing some
116: uncertainties, such as the species of quantum fields in the universe
117: or the effect of curved spacetime (since equation
118: (\ref{fluctuation}) is derived for Minkowski spacetime). The form of
119: this model mimics a model of holographic dark energy with $L$ chosen
120: as the age of the universe. It is not surprising since, as is
121: mentioned in\cite{cai}, the K\'{a}rolyh\'{a}zy uncertainty relation
122: is also a reflection of the entanglement between UV and IR scale in
123: effective quantum field theory. Moreover, due to using the age of
124: the universe instead of the future event horizon, the new model is
125: free of the causality problem which undermines the holographic dark
126: energy model. The effect of the interaction between the agegraphic
127: dark energy and dark matter on the cosmological evolution has been
128: investigated in \cite{WeiCai1,WeiCai2}
129:
130:
131: This paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~II we introduce the
132: agegraphic dark energy model and compare its features with those of
133: the holographic dark energy model. In Sec.~III we use data from Type
134: Ia supernova as well as CMB and LSS observations to constrain the
135: parameters of the model. Sec.~IV is devoted to conclusions.
136:
137: \section{The dark energy model}
138: In this section we review the agegraphic dark energy model proposed
139: in \cite{cai}. Then we confront this model with the Type Ia
140: supernova observation as well as a joint analysis together with CMB
141: and large scale structure(LSS) data in the next section. Now we
142: assume a spatially flat FRW universe with matter component $\rho_m$
143: and the agegraphic dark energy $\rho_q$. The Friedmann equation is
144: \eq H^2=\frac{1}{3M_p^2}(\rho_q+\rho_m)\label{Friedmann}~,\ee where
145: $\rho_m=\rho_{m0}(1+z)^3$. We define $\Omega_q=\rho_q/3M_p^2H^2$ and
146: $\Omega_m=\rho_m/3M_p^2H_0^2=\Omega_{m0}(1+z)^3$ and recast equation
147: (\ref{Friedmann}) into \eq
148: E=H/H_0=\sqrt{\frac{\Omega_m}{1-\Omega_q}} \label{E}~.\ee Once the
149: evolution of $\Omega_q$ is known, $E$ is determined. To find out how
150: $\Omega_q$ evolves with time(redshift), we combine equation
151: (\ref{rho}) and (\ref{T def}) to get \eq
152: \int_z^{\infty}\frac{dz}{(1+z)H}=\frac{n}{H\sqrt{\Omega_q}}\label{T}~.\ee
153: Taking derivative with respect to $z$ in both sides of equation
154: (\ref{T}) leads to \eq
155: \Omega'_q=\frac{-1}{1+z}(3-\frac{2}{n}\sqrt{\Omega_q})\Omega_q(1-\Omega_q)
156: \label{domega_q}~,\ee where the prime denotes $d/dz$. With the
157: initial condition implied by setting $z=0$ in equation
158: (\ref{Friedmann})\eq \Omega_{q0}+\Omega_{m0}=1 \label{initial}~,\ee
159: we can solve this differential equation to obtain the evolution of
160: $\Omega_q$, and finally determine $E(z)$. Here one point is worth
161: particular mentioning. As mentioned in \cite{cai}, adding a
162: z-independent term $\delta_q$ to the LHS of equation (\ref{T}) leads
163: to the same differential equation (\ref{domega_q}), and moreover,
164: imposing the initial condition (\ref{initial}) cannot guarantee a
165: vanishing $\delta_q$\footnote{It is easy to see that the same
166: situation also exists in the holographic dark energy model.}. As a
167: result, the solution to equation (\ref{domega_q}) leads to a dark
168: energy density which should be written in a more general form as \eq
169: \rho_q=\frac{3n^2M_p^2}{(\delta_q+T)^2}\label{rho general}~, \ee
170: where $\delta_q$ may generally be a function of $n$ as well as
171: $\Omega_{m0}$ and $H_0$, which can be calculated by \eq
172: \delta_q={n\over{H(z)\sqrt{\Omega_q(z)}}}-
173: \int_z^{\infty}\frac{dz'}{(1+z')H(z')} \label{delta_q}.\ee Note that
174: although $z$ explicitly emerges in the RHS of the above expression,
175: $\delta_q$ is independent of $z$ due to the subtraction of the two
176: terms.
177:
178:
179: Then we consider the equation of state of the dark energy. From the
180: conservation equation \eq \dot{\rho_q}+3H(1+w_q)\rho_q=0~,\ee we
181: derive \eq w_q=-1-\frac{\dot{\rho_q}}{3H\rho_q}~, \ee which leads to
182: \eq w_q=-1+\frac{2}{3n}\sqrt{\Omega_q}~.\ee The quantum fluctuations
183: can serve as dark energy for $w_q<-1/3$, that is,
184: $n>\sqrt{\Omega_q}$. For example, if we take $\Omega_{q0}=0.73$, as
185: indicated by WMAP\cite{WMAP} for LCDM, $n_0$ should be larger than
186: $0.85$ to behave as the dark energy. In fact, in order to drive the
187: cosmic acceleration, $n_0$ should be even larger given the fact that
188: currently the matter component is not negligible and the total
189: effective equation of state should be taken into account. In
190: addition, it is shown in \cite{cai} that $\rho_q$ becomes dominant
191: in the future, namely $\Omega_q\rightarrow 1$. Therefore, the
192: universe will eternally accelerate if $n>1$; for $n<1$, current
193: cosmic acceleration would be a transient process and the expansion
194: would finally slow down in the future. We note that the same
195: phenomenon may appear in the branewrold scenario as discussed
196: in\cite{sahni}. The evolution of $w_q$ is shown in figure
197: \ref{fig:w}.
198: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
199: \begin{figure}[htbp]
200: \begin{center}
201:
202: \includegraphics[scale=0.50]{omega_q.eps} \quad
203: \includegraphics[scale=0.50]{omega_h.eps}
204: \caption{The evolution of $\Omega_q$ (left) and $\Omega_h$ (right)
205: with respect to redshift $z$ with varying parameters $n$ and $c$.
206: Here we assume $\Omega_{m0}=0.27$. For $\Omega_q$ the traces
207: asymptotically tend to a fixed curve (denoted by the red $+$'s) as a
208: lower bound when $n$ increases; for $\Omega_h$ the traces
209: asymptotically tend to a fixed curve (denoted by the red $+$'s) as
210: an upper bound when $c$ increases. Of course the values of the
211: parameter much lager than 1 is not physical, here we just use them
212: as an illustration for the asymptotic behavior of the corresponding
213: differential equations. } \label{fig:omega}
214: \end{center}
215: \end{figure}
216: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
217: It is interesting to compare this model with the holographic dark
218: energy, for which we use a subscript 'h' to denote its corresponding
219: quantities. For $\Omega_h$, its evolution is determined by \eq
220: \Omega'_h=\frac{-1}{1+z}\underline{(1+\frac{2}{c}\sqrt{\Omega_h})}\Omega_h(1-\Omega_h)
221: \label{domega_h}~,\ee with the same initial condition as
222: (\ref{initial}). It is the underlined part that indicates the
223: difference in the two models (if we identify $n$ with $c$). For
224: illustration, the evolution curves for both $\Omega_q$ and
225: $\Omega_h$ with respect to $z$ are plotted in figure
226: \ref{fig:omega}. Note that equation (\ref{domega_q}) and
227: (\ref{domega_h}) only depend on one parameter $n$ and $c$
228: respectively. The figure shows that for $\Omega_q$, the curve moves
229: downwards as $n$ increases and asymptotically tends to a fixed
230: position as a lower bound; for $\Omega_h$, the curve moves upward as
231: $c$ increases and ends up asymptotically at a fixed position as an
232: upper bound. The asymptotic behavior of the fractional energy
233: density for large $c$ or $n$ in the two models can easily be seen
234: from the corresponding differential equations: \eq
235: \Omega'_q=\frac{-1}{1+z}3\Omega_q(1-\Omega_q)\label{domega_limit}~,\ee
236: and
237: \eq
238: \Omega'_h=\frac{-1}{1+z}\Omega_h(1-\Omega_h)~.\ee
239:
240: As for the equation of state, for holographic dark energy \eq
241: w_h=-\frac{1}{3}-\frac{2}{3c}\sqrt{\Omega_h}~.\ee Considering its
242: future evolution, for $c\geq1$,$w_h>-1$ forever, while for $c<1$,
243: $w_h$ may cross the phantom divide and end up with $w_h<-1$. This is
244: a significant difference from the agegraphic dark energy, where
245: $w_q$ can never be less than $-1$. In addition, as $z$ grows,
246: $w_h\rightarrow -1/3$ whereas $w_q\rightarrow -1$ implying the
247: agegraphic dark energy behaves like a cosmological constant at early
248: time. This difference in high redshift region may exert different
249: influence on the evolution of the early universe, such as the matter
250: fluctuation and the formation of large scale structure. Further
251: analysis based on cosmological perturbation theory together with the
252: CMB observation may shed some light on distinguishing these two
253: models. The evolution of the equation of state for both models is
254: plotted in figure \ref{fig:w} for comparison.
255:
256: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
257: \begin{figure}[htbp]
258: \begin{center}
259: \includegraphics[scale=0.50]{w_q.eps} \quad
260: \includegraphics[scale=0.50]{w_h.eps}
261: \caption{The evolution of $w_q$ (left) and $w_h$ (right) with
262: respect to redshift $z$ with varying parameters $n$ and $c$. The red
263: dotted lines denote the asymptotic behavior as $c$ or $n$ increases.
264: } \label{fig:w}
265: \end{center}
266: \end{figure}
267:
268:
269: \section{Constraints from Type Ia SNe observation}
270: Now we perform the $\chi^2$ statistics to constrain the parameters
271: $(n,\Omega_{m0})$ of the model in question with the goldset of 182
272: SNIa data compiled by Riess et.al.\cite{gold}. The observations of
273: supernovae measure the apparent magnitude $m$, which is related to
274: the luminous distance $d_L$ of an object (SN) at redshift $z$ as \eq
275: m(z)=M+5\log d_L(z)+25~, \ee where $M$ is the absolute magnitude,
276: which can generally be considered to be the same for Type Ia
277: supernovae as the standard candles. In a flat universe \eq
278: d_L=H_0^{-1}(1+z)\int_0^z\frac{dz'}{E(z')}\label{dl}~,\ee where the
279: Hubble scale $H^{-1}_0=2997.9h^{-1}Mpc$. In order to constrain the
280: parameters, we compute the distance modulus $\mu=m-M$, and minimize
281: the quantity $\chi^2$ defined by \eq
282: \chi^2(n,\Omega_{m0})=\sum_i^{182}
283: \frac{[\mu_{obs}(z_i)-\mu_{th}(z_i;n,\Omega_{m0})]^2}{\sigma_i^2}~,\ee
284: where $\sigma_i$ is the observational uncertainty. Assuming that the
285: errors are Gaussian, the likelihood is $\mathcal{L}\propto
286: e^{-\chi^2/2}$. In figure \ref{fig:chi2_SN}, we plot the contours of
287: confidence level at $68.3\%$, $95.4\%$ and $99\%$ in the
288: $(n,\Omega_{m0})$ plane with $h$ marginalized. The best fit values
289: corresponding to the minimum of $\chi^2$ are $n=39$ and
290: $\Omega_{m0}=0.34$, which are denoted by a red star on the plot. As
291: we see, the parameter $\Omega_{m0}$ is well constrained, and the
292: range $n<1$ is outside the $3\sigma$ confidence level. This
293: indicates that an accelerated expansion in our model is compatible
294: with current observations. However, the contours are not closed from
295: above within the given range , and the point of the best fit value
296: is on the border of the upper limit of $1<n<39$. It seems that the
297: range of $n$ is not large enough to encompass the best fit value. We
298: point out that it is the particularity of this model that makes the
299: parameter $n$ cannot be well constrained by SN data. As an
300: illustration, we use equation (\ref{domega_limit}) to calculate the
301: $\chi^2_{min}$ for $n\rightarrow\infty$. The result is
302: $\chi^2_{min}|_{n=\infty}=158.7422$ with the best fit
303: $\Omega_{m0}=0.34$. Comparing this with $\chi^2_{min}=158.8526$
304: within the range $1<n<39$, the difference is negligible given the
305: fact that $n$ spans such a large range from $39$ to $\infty$. This
306: implies that the parameter $n$ within such a large range is always
307: consistent with SN data. We further illustrate this in figure
308: \ref{fig:Hubble}. As we see, in the low redshift region, the curves
309: corresponding to different values of $n$ are indistinguishable. For
310: high redshift, however, we see that for $n<1$ (e.g. $n=0.6$ in the
311: plot) the curve predicted by the model is remarkably not consistent
312: with the data points, whereas for $n>1$, all the curves, including
313: the curve for $n=\infty$(the green line), are confined within a very
314: narrow bunch which seems not significantly inconsistent with the
315: data. Therefore, this model cannot be well constrained by using SN
316: data alone.
317:
318: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
319:
320: \begin{figure}[htbp]
321: \begin{center}
322: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{chi2_SN.eps} \quad
323: \caption{$68.3\%$, $95.4\%$ and $99\%$ confidence contours for the
324: parameters $(n,\Omega_{m0})$. It is obvious that the range for $n<1$
325: is outside the $3\sigma$ confidence contour. } \label{fig:chi2_SN}
326: \end{center}
327: \end{figure}
328: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
329:
330: \begin{figure}[htbp]
331: \begin{center}
332:
333: \includegraphics[scale=.7]{Hubble.eps} \quad
334: \caption{Illustration for the weakness of using SN data to constrain
335: the agegraphic dark energy model. Here we assume $\Omega_{m0}=0.28$
336: and $h=0.62$} \label{fig:Hubble}
337: \end{center}
338: \end{figure}
339:
340: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
341:
342: This seems surprising since almost all models of dark energy can be
343: constrained significantly by SN data. There would be no surprise,
344: however, once we recall the asymptotic behavior of $\Omega_q$ with
345: increasing $n$. In figure \ref{fig:omega} it shows that the larger
346: $n$ is, the less difference it makes between two neighboring curves.
347: Therefore, as $n$ grows, changes in the quantity $\chi^2$ become
348: less significant. In fact there is also a similar asymptotic
349: behavior in the holographic dark energy, where the $\Omega_h$
350: becomes insensitive to the change of $n$ as $n$ grows large. In that
351: case, the best fit value $c=0.2 \sim 0.9$
352: \cite{holotest1}-\cite{holotest5} lies in the range where $\Omega_h$
353: is sensitive to varying $n$. Thus the holographic model can be well
354: constrained by SN data. Moreover, figure \ref{fig:omega} also shows
355: that the range where $\Omega_h$ is sensitive to $c$ is just that
356: where $\Omega_q$ is insensitive to $n$, and vice versa. Thus, if we
357: assume that the evolution of dark energy in both models should not
358: be different significantly in the same range, we find that
359: unfortunately the possible 'best fit' value for $n$ falls in the
360: range of insensitivity.
361:
362: In order to improve the situation, we combine the constraints from
363: CMB\cite{WMAP} and LSS\cite{SDSS} observations. The CMB shift
364: parameter is the most model-independent parameter we can extract
365: from the CMB data, which is given by\cite{R} \eq
366: R=\sqrt{\Omega_{m0}}\int^{z_{rec}}_0\frac{dz}{E(z)}\label{R}~, \ee
367: where $z_{rec}=1089$ represents the redshift of recombination. This
368: parameter relates the angular diameter distance to the last
369: scattering surface, the comoving size of the sound horizon at
370: $z_{rec}$ and the angular scale of the first acoustic peak in CMB
371: power spectrum of temperature fluctuations. Here we assume the value
372: $R=1.70\pm0.03$ given by Wang and Mukherjee\cite{R value}. The
373: $\chi^2$ value is \eq \chi^2_{CMB}=\frac{(R-1.70)^2}{0.03^2}~.\ee
374: For LSS data, we use the measurement of the baryon acoustic peak
375: (BAO) in the distribution of SDSS luminous red galaxies
376: (LRG's)\cite{SDSS}. This peak is the imprint left by the cosmic
377: perturbation in early universe on the late-time non-relativistic
378: matters, and it can provide an independent constraint on dark energy
379: models. We use here the parameter $A$ defined as \eq
380: A=\sqrt{\Omega_{m0}}E(z_1)^{-1/3}\left
381: (\frac{1}{z_1}\int_0^{z_1}\frac{dz}{E(z)}\right)^{2/3}\label{A}~,\ee
382: where $z_1=0.35$ is the typical LGR redshift. The observational
383: value is given by Eisenstein et al\cite{BAO} as $A=0.469\pm0.017$.
384: And the $\chi^2$ value is \eq
385: \chi^2_{BAO}=\frac{(A-0.469)^2}{0.017^2}~.\ee Now we perform a joint
386: analysis by minimizing the combined quantity
387: \eq\chi^2=\chi^2_{SN}+\chi^2_{CMB}+\chi^2_{BAO}~.\ee The result is
388: plotted in figure \ref{fig:contour_com}, with the red dotted line
389: for SN data, the blue dashed line for the shift parameter R, the
390: green dash dotted line for parameter A and the black solid line for
391: the combined contours. We can see the contour of $1\sigma$ is
392: closed, although the range is still large. The best fit values are
393: $\Omega_{m0}=0.28$ and $n=3.4$. Accordingly, the current equation of
394: state is $w_{q0}=-0.83$, which is consistent with the WMAP
395: observation\cite{WMAP}.
396:
397: The likelihood functions for $\Omega_{m0}$ and $n$ are shown in
398: figure \ref{fig:likelihood}. As we can see, the $\Omega_{m0}$
399: likelihood has a near-gaussian shape, therefore we can give the best
400: fit at $1\sigma$ by integrating to $68.3\%$ of the total area under
401: the curve. The results are $\Omega_{m0}=0.33\pm0.04$ for using SN
402: data alone and $\Omega_{m0}=0.28\pm0.02$ for the joint analysis. For
403: $n$, however, the likelihood curve is highly asymmetric and, what is
404: more, the total area is divergent. Thus we cannot extract a range
405: for the best fit $n=3.4$ with definite statistic meaning. As a
406: consequence, although we use the terms such as $68.3\%$, $95.4\%$
407: and $99\%$ confidence level, they are not valid in a strict sense.
408: Here we just use them by convention to denote the contours
409: corresponding to $\Delta\chi^2=\chi^2-\chi^2_{min}=2.30,6.17$ and
410: $9.21$ respectively.
411:
412:
413: \begin{figure}[tbhp]
414: \begin{center}
415: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{chi2_com.eps} \quad
416:
417: \caption{Confidence contour plot of $68.3\%$, $95.4\%$ and $99\%$
418: with the red dotted line for SN data, the blue dashed line for CMB,
419: the green dash dotted line for BAO, and the black line for the joint
420: analysis. We marginalized the nuisance parameter $h$. The best fit
421: values are $\Omega_{m0}=0.28$,$n=3.4$} \label{fig:contour_com}
422: \end{center}
423: \end{figure}
424: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
425:
426: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
427:
428: \begin{figure}[htbp]
429: \begin{center}
430: \includegraphics[scale=0.50]{likelihood_com_oM.eps} \quad
431: \includegraphics[scale=0.50]{likelihood_n_com.eps}
432: \caption{The likelihood for $\Omega_{m0}$ and $n$. The black line
433: corresponds to the joint analysis, and the blue dotted line
434: corresponds to using only SN data. Note that for the likelihood
435: function for $n$, the plot asymptotically tends to a horizontal line
436: as $n\rightarrow\infty$, which means the area under the plot is
437: divergent. This actually implies that $n$ cannot be well constrained
438: by these observations.} \label{fig:likelihood}
439: \end{center}
440: \end{figure}
441: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
442:
443: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
444:
445: \section{Conclusion and Discussion}
446: In this paper, we briefly reviewed the agegraphic dark energy model
447: based on the K\'{a}rolyh\'{a}zy uncertainty relation, and then
448: compared it with the holographic dark energy, which is motivated by
449: the holographic principle. In fact both models based on some
450: principles that relate the IR and UV cut-offs in effective quantum
451: field theory, therefore they have similar features. Apart from the
452: essential distinction in physical motivations, the apparent
453: difference lies in that for the agegraphic dark energy the IR
454: cut-off is chosen as the age of the universe and the equation of
455: state $w_q>-1$ forever, whereas for the holographic dark energy the
456: length measure is the future event horizon and $w_h$ can cross $-1$.
457: When using the Type Ia supernova data to constrain the model, we
458: find that although $\Omega_{m0}$ can be well constrained, the
459: parameter $n$ is unbounded from above. After a joint analysis
460: together with the CMB shift parameter $R$ and the BAO $A$ parameter,
461: $\Omega_{m0}$ is enhanced from $\Omega_{m0}=0.33\pm0.04$ to
462: $\Omega_{m0}=0.28\pm0.02$. The situation for $n$ is essentially
463: unchanged. As a result, this model can be consistent with current
464: SNIa data as well as the CMB and LSS data for $n>1$, which is just
465: the requirement of this model for an accelerated expansion, as is
466: mentioned in \cite{cai}.
467:
468: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
469:
470: \begin{figure}[htbp]
471: \begin{center}
472: \includegraphics[scale=0.50]{delta_q.eps} \quad
473:
474: \caption{For agegraphic dark energy, $\delta_q$ in unit of
475: $H_0^{-1}$ calculated with $z$ from the range $[0,1000]$.
476: $\Omega_{m0}=0.28$, $n=3.4$.} \label{fig:delta_q}
477: \end{center}
478: \end{figure}
479: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
480:
481: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
482:
483: \begin{figure}[htbp]
484: \begin{center}
485:
486: \includegraphics[scale=0.50]{delta_h.eps}
487: \caption{For holographic dark energy, $\delta_h$ in unit of
488: $H_0^{-1}$ calculated with $z$ from the range $[0,1000]$.
489: $\Omega_{m0}=0.29$, $c=0.91$.} \label{fig:delta_h}
490: \end{center}
491: \end{figure}
492: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
493: As we mentioned before, the solution to equation (\ref{domega_q})
494: corresponds to the general definition for the agegraphic dark energy
495: (\ref{rho general}). With the best fits from the joined analysis, we
496: calculate $\delta_q$ by equation (\ref{delta_q}). By definition,
497: $\delta_q$ is independent of $z$, therefore choosing arbitrarily any
498: $z$ will lead to the same result. Here we choose the value from a
499: large range $0\leq z\leq1000$. From figure \ref{fig:delta_q} we may
500: safely draw the conclusion that $\delta_q\simeq 3.0$ (in unit of
501: $H_0^{-1}$) and the variation of $\delta$ is due to the errors from
502: numerical method. For comparison, we also calculate the
503: corresponding quantity in the holographic dark energy model, where
504: \eq \delta_h={c\over{H(z)\sqrt{\Omega_h(z)}}}-
505: {1\over(1+z)}\int_{-1}^z\frac{dz'}{H(z')} \label{delta_h}.\ee We
506: assume the best fits $\Omega_{m0}=0.29$ and $c=0.91$ from
507: \cite{holotest5}. Figure \ref{fig:delta_h} shows $\delta_h\lesssim
508: 0.0007$. Such a tiny quantity may well be neglected in practical
509: consideration. But here, $\delta_q$ is of the same order as the
510: current age of the universe ($\sim {1\over H_0}$), and therefore has
511: to be taken into account. Such a term can be understood as a result
512: of generalizing the energy density of the quantum fluctuations in
513: Minkowski spacetime (\ref{fluctuation}) to the cosmological
514: scenario. More fundamental interpretation for $\delta_q$ and the
515: general definition of the agegraphic dark energy (\ref{rho general})
516: needs further studies.
517:
518:
519:
520: \section*{Acknowledgments}
521: We are grateful to Hao Wei for helpful discussions. XW would like
522: to thank Heng Yu for kind help. XW and ZHZ were supported by the
523: National Natural Science Foundation of China, under Grant
524: No.10533010, 973 Program No.2007CB815401 and Program for New Century
525: Excellent Talents in University (NCET) of China. YZ, HL and RGC were
526: supported in part by a grant from Chinese Academy of Sciences (No.
527: KJCX3-SYW-N2), and by NSFC under grants No.~10325525, No.~10525060
528: and No.~90403029.
529:
530:
531: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
532:
533: \bibitem{acc}
534: A.~G.~Riess {\it et al.} [Supernova Search Team Collaboration],
535: Astron.\ J.\ {\bf 116}, 1009 (1998)
536: [astro-ph/9805201];\\S.~Perlmutter {\it et al.} [Supernova Cosmology
537: ProjectCollaboration], Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 517}, 565 (1999)
538: [astro-ph/9812133]; \\J.~L.~Tonry {\it et al.} [Supernova Search
539: Team Collaboration],
540: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 594}, 1 (2003) [astro-ph/0305008];\\
541: R.~A.~Knop {\it et al.} [Supernova Cosmology Project
542: Collaboration], Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 598}, 102 (2003)
543: [astro-ph/0309368];\\
544: A.~G.~Riess {\it et al.} [Supernova Search Team Collaboration],
545: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 607}, 665 (2004) [astro-ph/0402512].
546:
547:
548:
549: \bibitem{0603057}
550: E.~J.~Copeland, M.~Sami and S.~Tsujikawa,
551:
552: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ D {\bf 15} (2006) 1753
553: [hep-th/0603057].
554:
555: \bibitem{cc}
556: P.~J.~E.~Peebles and B.~Ratra,
557: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 75}, 559 (2003) [astro-ph/0207347];\\
558: S.~M.~Carroll,
559: ``The cosmological constant,''
560: Living Rev.\ Rel.\ {\bf 4} (2001) 1
561: [astro-ph/0004075];\\
562: S.~Weinberg, Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 61}, 1 (1989);\\
563:
564:
565: \bibitem{holo. principle}
566: G.~'t Hooft, [gr-qc/9310026];\\ L.~ Susskind, J. Math. Phys. 36
567: (1995) 6377 [hep-th/9409089]
568:
569: \bibitem{cohen}
570: A.~G.~Cohen, D.~B.~Kaplan and A.~E.~Nelson, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf
571: 82}, 4971 (1999) [hep-th/9803132].
572:
573: \bibitem{Hsu}
574: S.~D.~H.~Hsu, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 594}, 13 (2004)
575: [hep-th/0403052].
576:
577: \bibitem{Li}
578: M.~Li, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 603}, 1 (2004) [hep-th/0403127].
579:
580: \bibitem{holotest1}
581: Q.~G.~Huang and Y.~G.~Gong,
582: JCAP {\bf 0408} (2004) 006
583: [astro-ph/0403590].
584:
585: \bibitem{holotest2}
586: X.~Zhang and F.~Q.~Wu,
587: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 043524
588: [astro-ph/0506310].
589:
590: \bibitem{holotest3}
591: Z.~Chang, F.~Q.~Wu and X.~Zhang,
592: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 633} (2006) 14
593: [astro-ph/0509531].
594:
595: \bibitem{holotest4}
596: Z.~L.~Yi and T.~J.~Zhang,
597: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 22} (2007) 41
598: [astro-ph/0605596]
599:
600: \bibitem{holotest5}
601: X.~Zhang and F-Q.~Wu, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 76}, 023502 (2007)
602: [astro-ph/0701405].
603:
604: \bibitem{wh}
605: H.~Wei and S.~N.~Zhang, arXiv:0707.2129 [astro-ph].
606:
607: \bibitem{cai}
608: R.~G.~Cai, arXiv:0707.4049.
609:
610: \bibitem{K uncertain}
611: F.~K\'{a}rolyh\'{a}zy, Nuovo Cim.\ A {\bf 42}, 390 (1966);\\
612: F.~K\'{a}rolyh\'{a}zy, A.~Frenkel and B.~Luk\'{a}cs, in {\it Physics
613: as Natural Philosophy}, edited by A.~Simony and H.~Feschbach, MIT
614: Press, Cambridge, MA (1982);\\ F.~K\'{a}rolyh\'{a}zy, A.~Frenkel and
615: B.~Luk\'{a}cs, in {\it Quantum Concepts in Space and Time}, edited
616: by R.~Penrose and C.~J.~Isham,Clarendon Press, Oxford (1986).
617:
618: \bibitem{11} M.~Maziashvili, [gr-qc/0612110].
619:
620: \bibitem{12} M.~Maziashvili, arXiv:0705.0924 [gr-qc].
621:
622: \bibitem{WeiCai1}H.~Wei and R.~G.~Cai,
623: %``Interacting Agegraphic Dark Energy,''
624: arXiv:0707.4052 [hep-th].
625: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0707.4052;\\%%
626:
627: \bibitem{WeiCai2}H.~Wei and R.~G.~Cai,
628: %``Statefinder Diagnostic and w-w' Analysis for the Agegraphic Dark Energy
629: %Models without and with Interaction,''
630: arXiv:0707.4526 [physics.gen-ph].
631: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0707.4526;\\%%
632:
633: \bibitem{WMAP}
634: D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.} [WMAP Collaboration], [astro-ph/0603449];\\
635: L.~Page {\it et al.} [WMAP Collaboration], [astro-ph/0603450];\\
636: G.~Hinshaw {\it et al.} [WMAP Collaboration], [astro-ph/0603451];\\
637: N.~Jarosik {\it et al.} [WMAP Collaboration], [astro-ph/0603452].
638:
639: \bibitem{sahni}
640: V.~Sahni and Y.~Shtanov, JCAP 0311, 014 (2003)
641:
642: \bibitem{gold}
643: A.~G.~Riess {\it et al.} [Supernova Search Team Collaboration],
644: [astro-ph/0611572].
645: The numerical data of the full sample are available at
646: http:$/\!/$braeburn.pha.jhu.edu/$^\sim$ariess/R06
647: or upon request to ariess@stsci.edu
648:
649:
650: \bibitem{R}
651: J.~R.~Bond, G.~Efstathiou and M.~Tegmark,
652: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 291} (1997) L33
653: [astro-ph/9702100].
654:
655: \bibitem{R value}
656: Y.~Wang and P.~Mukherjee, 2006,ApJ, 650, 1
657:
658: \bibitem{SDSS}
659: M.~Tegmark {\it et al.} [SDSS Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf
660: 69}, 103501 (2004) [astro-ph/0310723];\\ M.~Tegmark {\it et al.}
661: [SDSS Collaboration], Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 606}, 702 (2004)
662: [astro-ph/0310725];\\ U.~Seljak {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf
663: 71}, 103515 (2005) [astro-ph/0407372];\\ J.~K.~Adelman-McCarthy {\it
664: et al.} [SDSS Collaboration], Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 162},
665: 38 (2006) [astro-ph/0507711];\\ K.~Abazajian {\it et al.} [SDSS
666: Collaboration], [astro-ph/0410239]; [astro-ph/0403325];
667: [astro-ph/0305492]; \\
668: M.~Tegmark {\it et al.} [SDSS Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ D
669: {\bf74}, 123507 (2006) [astro-ph/0608632].
670:
671: \bibitem{BAO}
672: D.~J.~Eisenstein, et al. 2005, ApJ, 633, 560 [astro-ph/0501171]
673:
674:
675:
676:
677: \end{thebibliography}
678:
679: \end{document}
680: