1: \documentstyle[epsfig,rotating,float,aps,preprint,local]{revtex}
2: \tightenlines
3: \begin{document}
4: \setcounter{figure}{0}
5:
6: \title{\bf Dark Energy in Light of the Cosmic Horizon}
7: \author{\bf Fulvio Melia\footnote{Sir Thomas Lyle Fellow and Miegunyah Fellow.}}
8: \address{Department of Physics and Steward Observatory, \\
9: The University of Arizona,\
10: Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA\ }
11: \maketitle
12: \def\ref{\par\vskip 12pt \noindent \hangafter=1 \hangindent=22.76pt}
13: \begin{abstract}
14: Based on dramatic observations of the cosmic microwave background
15: radiation with WMAP and of Type Ia supernovae with the Hubble
16: Space Telescope and ground-based facilities, it is now generally
17: believed that the Universe's expansion is accelerating. Within
18: the context of standard cosmology, this type of evolution leads
19: to the supposition that the Universe must contain a third `dark'
20: component of energy, beyond matter and radiation. However, the
21: current data are still deemed insufficient to distinguish between
22: an evolving dark energy component and the simplest model of a
23: time-independent cosmological constant. In this paper, we examine
24: the role played by our cosmic horizon $R_0$ in our interrogation of
25: the data, and reach the rather firm conclusion that the existence
26: of a cosmological constant is untenable. The observations are
27: telling us that $R_0\approx ct_0$, where $t_0$ is the perceived
28: current age of the Universe, yet a cosmological constant would
29: drive $R_0$ towards $ct$ (where $t$ is the cosmic time) only once,
30: and that would have to occur right now. In contrast, scaling
31: solutions simultaneously eliminate several conundrums in the
32: standard model, including the `coincidence' and `flatness'
33: problems, and account very well for the fact that $R_0\approx
34: ct_0$. We show in this paper that for such dynamical dark
35: energy models, either $R_0=ct$ for all time (thus eliminating
36: the apparent coincidence altogether), or that what we believe
37: to be the current age of the universe is actually the horizon
38: time $t_h\equiv R_0/c$, which is always shorter than $t_0$.
39: Our best fit to the Type Ia supernova data indicates that
40: $t_0$ would then have to be $\approx 16.9$ billion years.
41: Though surprising at first, an older universe such as this
42: would actually eliminate several other long-standing problems
43: in cosmology, including the (too) early appearance of supermassive
44: black holes (at a redshift $>6$) and the glaring deficit of dwarf
45: halos in the local group.
46: \end{abstract}
47: \vskip 0.3in
48:
49: \noindent Keywords: {cosmic microwave background, cosmological parameters, cosmology: observations,
50: cosmology: theory, distance scale, cosmology: dark energy}
51: \newpage
52: \section{Introduction}
53: Over the past decade, Type Ia supernovae have been used successfully as standard
54: candles to facilitate the acquisition of several important cosmological parameters.
55: On the basis of this work, it is now widely believed that the Universe's expansion
56: is accelerating (Riess et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al. 1999). In standard cosmology,
57: built on the assumption of spatial homogeneity and isotropy, such an expansion
58: requires the existence of a third form of energy, beyond the basic admixture of
59: (visible and dark) matter and radiation.
60:
61: One may see this directly from the (cosmological) Friedman-Robertson-Walker (FRW)
62: differential equations of motion, usually written as
63: \begin{equation}
64: H^2\equiv\left(\frac{\dot a}{a}\right)^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3c^2}\rho-\frac{kc^2}{a^2}\;,
65: \end{equation}
66: \begin{equation}
67: \frac{\ddot a}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G}{3c^2}(\rho+3p)\;,
68: \end{equation}
69: \begin{equation}
70: \dot\rho=-3H(\rho+p)\;,
71: \end{equation}
72: in which an overdot denotes a derivative with respect to cosmic time $t$, and $\rho$
73: and $p$ represent, respectively, the total energy density and total pressure.
74: In these expressions, $a(t)$ is the expansion factor, and $(r,\theta,\phi)$ are
75: the coordinates in the comoving frame. The constant $k$ is $+1$ for a closed
76: universe, $0$ for a flat (or open) universe, and $-1$ for an open universe.
77:
78: Following convention, we write the equation of state as $p=\omega\rho$.
79: A quick inspection of equation (2) shows that an accelerated expansion
80: ($\ddot a>0$) requires $\omega<-1/3$. Thus, neither radiation ($\rho_r$, with
81: $\omega_r=1/3$), nor (visible and dark) matter ($\rho_m$, with $\omega_m\approx 0$)
82: can satisfy this condition, leading to the supposition that a third `dark'
83: component $\rho_d$ (with $\omega_d<-1/3$) of the energy density $\rho$ must
84: be present. In principle, each of these contributions to $\rho$ may evolve
85: according to its own dependence on $a(t)$.
86:
87: Over the past few years, complementary measurements (Spergel et al. 2003) of the
88: cosmic microwave background (CMB)
89: radiation have indicated that the Universe is flat (i.e., $k=0$), so $\rho$ is at
90: (or very near) the ``critical" density $\rho_c\equiv 3c^2H^2/8\pi G$. But among the
91: many peculiarities of the standard model is the inference, based on current
92: observations, that $\rho_d$ must
93: itself be of order $\rho_c$. Dark energy is often thought to be the manifestation
94: of a cosmological constant, $\Lambda$, though no reasonable explanation has yet been
95: offered as to why such a fixed, universal density ought to exist at this scale. It is
96: well known that if $\Lambda$ is associated with the energy of the vacuum in quantum
97: theory, it should have a scale representative of phase transitions in the early
98: Universe---many, many orders of magnitude larger than $\rho_c$.
99:
100: Many authors have attempted to circumvent these difficulties by proposing
101: alternative forms of dark energy, including Quintessence (Wetterich 1988;
102: Ratra and Peebles 1988), which represents an evolving canonical scalar
103: field with an inflation-inducing potential, a Chameleon field (Khoury and
104: Weltman 2004; Brax et al. 2004) in which the scalar field couples to the
105: baryon energy density and varies from solar system to cosmological scales,
106: and modified gravity, arising out of both string motivated (Davli
107: et al. 2000), or General Relativity modified (Capozziello et al. 2003;
108: Carroll et al. 2004) actions, which introduce large length scale corrections
109: modifying the late time evolution of the Universe. The actual number of
110: suggested remedies is far greater than this small, illustrative sample.
111:
112: Nonetheless, though many in the cosmology community suspect that some sort
113: of dynamics is responsible for the appearance of dark energy, until now the
114: sensitivity of current observations has been deemed insufficient to distinguish
115: between an evolving dark energy component and the simplest model of a
116: time-independent cosmological constant $\Lambda$ (see, e.g., Corasaniti et al.
117: 2004). This conclusion, however, appears to be premature, given that the
118: role of our cosmic horizon has not yet been fully folded into the
119: interrogation of current observations.
120:
121: The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that a closer scrutiny of the
122: available data, if proven to be reliable, can in fact already delineate
123: between evolving and constant dark energy theories, and that a simple
124: cosmological constant $\Lambda$, characterized by a fixed $\omega_d=
125: \omega_\Lambda=-1$, is almost certainly ruled out. In \S~2 of this paper, we will
126: introduce the cosmic horizon and discuss its evolution in time, demonstrating
127: how measurements of the Hubble constant $H$ may be used to provide strict
128: constraints on $\omega$, independent of Type Ia supernova data. We will
129: compare these results with predictions of the various classes of dark
130: energy models in \S\S~3 and 4, and conclude with a discussion of the consequences
131: of these comparisons in \S~5.
132:
133: \section{The Cosmic Horizon}
134: The Hubble Space Telescope Key Project on the extragalactic distance
135: scale has measured the Hubble constant $H$ with unprecedented accuracy (Mould et
136: al. 2000), yielding a current value $H_0\equiv H(t_0)=71\pm6$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.
137: (For $H$ and $t$, we will use subscript ``0" to denote cosmological values pertaining
138: to the current epoch.) With this $H_0$, we infer that $\rho(t_0)=\rho_c\approx
139: 9\times 10^{-9}$ ergs cm$^{-3}$.
140:
141: Given such precision, it is now possible to accurately calculate the
142: radius of our cosmic horizon, $R_0$, defined by the condition
143: \begin{equation}
144: \frac{2GM(R_0)}{c^2}=R_0\;,
145: \end{equation}
146: where $M(R_0)=(4\pi/3) R_0^3\rho/c^2$. In terms of $\rho$,
147: $R_0=({3c^4/8\pi G\rho})^{1/2}$ or, more simply, $R_0=c/H_0$ in a flat universe.
148: This is the radius at which a sphere encloses sufficient mass-energy to turn it
149: into a Schwarzschild surface for an observer at the origin of the coordinates
150: $(cT,R,\theta,\phi)$, where $R=a(t)r$, and $T$ is the time corresponding to
151: $R$ (Melia 2007).
152:
153: When the Robertson-Walker metric is written in terms of these observer-dependent
154: coordinates, the role of $R_0$ is to alter the intervals of time we measure
155: (using the clocks fixed to our origin), in response to the increasing
156: spacetime curvature induced by the mass-energy enclosed by a sphere with
157: radius $R$ as $R\rightarrow R_0$. The time $t$ is identical to
158: $T(R)$ only at the origin ($R=0$). For all other radii, our measurement of a
159: time interval $dT$ necessarily comes with a gravitational time dilation which
160: diverges when $R\rightarrow R_0$. It is therefore physically impossible for
161: us to see any process occurring beyond $R_0$, and this is why the recent
162: observations have a profound impact on our view of the cosmos. For example,
163: from the Hubble measurement of $\rho(t_0)$, we infer that $R_0\approx 13.5$ billion
164: light-years; this is the maximum distance out to which measurements of
165: the cosmic parameters may be made at the present time.
166:
167: Let us now consider how this radius evolves with the universal expansion.
168: Clearly, in a de Sitter universe with a constant $\rho$, $R_0$ is fixed
169: forever. But for any universe with $\omega\not=-1$, $R_0$ must be a function
170: of time. From the definition of $R_0$ and equation (3), we see that
171: \begin{equation}
172: {\dot R}_0=\frac{3}{2}(1+\omega)c\;,
173: \end{equation}
174: a remarkably simple expression that nonetheless leads to several important
175: conclusions regarding our cosmological measurements (Melia 2008).
176: We will use it here to distinguish between constant and evolving dark
177: energy theories.
178:
179: Take $t$ to be some time in the distant past (so that $t\ll t_0$). Then,
180: integrating equation (5) from $t$ to $t_0$, we find that
181: \begin{equation}
182: R_0(t_0)-R_0(t)=\frac{3}{2}(1+\langle\omega\rangle)ct_0\;,
183: \end{equation}
184: where
185: \begin{equation}
186: \langle\omega\rangle\equiv \frac{1}{t_0}\int_{t}^{t_0}\omega\,dt
187: \end{equation}
188: is the time-averaged value of $\omega$ from $t$ to the present time.
189:
190: Now, for any $\langle\omega\rangle>-1$, $\rho$ drops as the universe
191: expands (i.e., as $a(t)$ increases with time), and since
192: $R_0\sim\rho^{-1/2}$, clearly $R_0(t)\ll R_0(t_0)$. Therefore,
193: \begin{equation}
194: R(t_0)\approx\frac{3}{2}(1+\langle\omega\rangle)ct_0\;.
195: \end{equation}
196: The reason we can use the behavior of $R_0$ as the universe expands
197: to probe the nature of dark energy is that the latter directly impacts
198: the value of $\langle\omega\rangle$. A consideration of how the cosmic
199: horizon $R_0$ evolves with time can therefore reveal whether or not
200: dark energy is dynamically generated. Indeed, we shall see in the next
201: section that the current observations, together with equation (8), are
202: already quite sufficient for us to differentiate between the various models.
203:
204: Before we do that, however, we can already see from this expression
205: why the standard model of cosmology contains a glaring inconsistency
206: (Melia 2008). From WMAP observations (Spergel et al. 2003), we infer that
207: the age $t_0$ of the universe is $\approx 13.7$ billion years. Since
208: $R_0\approx 13.5$ billion light-years, this can only occur if
209: $\langle\omega\rangle\le -1/3$. Of course, this means that the existence
210: of dark energy (with such an equation of state) is required by the
211: WMAP and Hubble observations alone, independently of the Type Ia
212: supernova data. But an analysis of the latter (see below) reveals that
213: the value $\langle\omega\rangle=-1/3$ is ruled out, so in fact
214: $\langle\omega\rangle<-1/3$. That means that $R_0\not=ct_0$; in fact,
215: $R_0$ must be less than $ct_0$, which in turns suggests that the
216: universe is older than we think. What we infer to be the time
217: since the Big Bang, is instead the ``horizon" time $t_h\equiv
218: R_0/c$, which must be shorter than $t_0$. As discussed in Melia
219: (2008), this has some important consequences that may resolve
220: several long-standing conflicts in cosmology. Through our analysis
221: in the next section, we will gain a better understanding of this
222: phenomenon, which will permit us to calculate $t_0$ more precisely.
223:
224: \begin{figure}
225: \center{\includegraphics[scale=0.5,angle=-90]{fig1}
226: \caption{Plot of the horizon radius $R_0$ in units of $ct$, and
227: $\langle\omega\rangle$, the equation of state parameter $\omega\equiv p/\rho$
228: averaged over time from $t$ to $t_0$. The asymptotic value of $\langle\omega
229: \rangle$ for $t\rightarrow 0$ is approximately $-0.31$. These results are from
230: a calculation of the universe's expansion in a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, with
231: matter energy density $\rho_m(t_0)=0.3\rho_c(t_0)$ and a cosmological constant
232: $\rho_d=\rho_\Lambda=0.7\rho_c(t_0)$, with $\omega_d\equiv\omega_\Lambda=-1$.}}
233: \end{figure}
234:
235: \section{The Cosmological Constant}
236: The standard model of cosmology contains a mixture of cold dark matter
237: and a cosmological constant with an energy density fixed at the
238: current value, $\rho_d(t)\equiv\rho_\Lambda(t)\approx 0.7\,\rho_c(t_0)$,
239: and an equation of state with $\omega_d\equiv\omega_\Lambda=-1$. Known
240: as $\Lambda$CDM, this model has been reasonably successful in
241: accounting for large scale structure, the cosmic microwave background
242: fluctuations, and several other observed cosmological properties (see,
243: e.g., Ostriker and Steinhardt 1995; Spergel et al. 2003; Melchiorri
244: et al. 2003).
245:
246: But let us now see whether $\Lambda$CDM is also consistent with
247: our understanding of $R_0$. Putting $\rho=\rho_m(t)+\rho_\Lambda$,
248: where $\rho_m$ is the time-dependent matter energy density, we may
249: integrate equation (5) for a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, starting at the
250: present time $t_0$, and going backwards towards the era when radiation
251: dominated $\rho$ (somewhere around 100,000 years after the Big
252: Bang). Figure~1 shows the run of $R_0/ct$ as a function of time, along
253: with the time-averaged $\omega$ given in equation (7). The present epoch
254: is indicated by a vertical dotted line. The calculation begins at the
255: present time $t_0$, with the initial value $R_0=(3/2)(1+
256: \langle\omega\rangle_\infty)ct_0$, where $\langle\omega\rangle_\infty$
257: ($\approx -0.31$) is the equation-of-state parameter $\omega$
258: averaged over the entire universal expansion, obtained by an
259: iterative convergence of the solution to equation (5). In $\Lambda$CDM,
260: the matter density increases towards the Big Bang, but $\rho_\Lambda$
261: is constant, so the impact of $\omega_d$ on the solution vanishes as
262: $t\rightarrow 0$ (see the dashed curve in figure~1). Thus, as expected,
263: $R_0/ct\rightarrow 3/2$ early in the Universe's development.
264:
265: What is rather striking about this result is that in $\Lambda$CDM,
266: $R_0(t)$ approaches $ct$ only once in the entire history of the
267: Universe---and this is only because we have imposed this requirement
268: as an initial condition on our solution. There are many peculiarities
269: in the standard model, some of which we will encounter shortly, but the
270: unrealistic coincidence that $R_0$ should approach $ct_0$ only at the
271: present moment must certainly rank at---or near---the top of this list.
272:
273: \vskip -0.1in
274: \begin{figure}
275: \center{\includegraphics[scale=0.5,angle=-90]{fig2}
276: \caption{Plot of the matter energy density parameter
277: $\Omega_m\equiv\rho_m(t)/\rho_c(t)$, the cosmological constant energy
278: density parameter $\Omega_\Lambda\equiv\rho_\Lambda(t)/\rho_c(t)$,
279: and the expansion factor $a(t)$, as functions of cosmic time $t$ for
280: the same $\Lambda$CDM cosmology as that shown in figure~1. Since the
281: energy density associated with $\Lambda$ is constant, $\Omega_m
282: \rightarrow 1$ as $t\rightarrow 0$. A notable (and well-known) peculiarity of
283: this cosmology is the co-called ``coincidence problem," so dubbed because
284: $\Omega_\Lambda$ is approximately equal to $\Omega_m$ only in the current
285: epoch.}}
286: \end{figure}
287: \vskip 0.1in
288:
289: Though it may not be immediately obvious, this seemingly contrived
290: scenario is actually related to the so-called ``coincidence problem" in
291: $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, arising from the peculiar near-simultaneous
292: convergence of $\rho_m$ and $\rho_\Lambda$ towards $\rho_c$ in the
293: present epoch. Just as $R_0/ct\rightarrow 1$ only at $t_0$ (see
294: figure~1), so too $\rho_\Lambda/\rho_m\sim 1$ just now (see figure~2).
295: Even so, it is one thing to suppose that $\rho_m\sim\rho_\Lambda$
296: only near the present epoch; it takes quite a leap of faith to
297: go one step further and believe that $R_0\rightarrow ct_0$ only now.
298: This odd behavior must certainly cast serious doubt on the viability
299: of $\Lambda$CDM cosmology as the correct description of the Universe.
300:
301: A confirmation that the basic $\Lambda$CDM model is simply not viable
302: is provided by attempts (figure~3) to fit the Type Ia supernova data
303: with the evolutionary profiles shown in figures~1 and 2. The comoving
304: coordinate distance from some time $t$ in the past to the present is
305: $\Delta r=\int_t^{t_0} c\,dt/a(t)$. With $k=0$, the luminosity distance
306: $d_L$ is $(1+z)\Delta r$, where the redshift $z$ is given by $(1+z)=1/a$,
307: in terms of the expansion factor $a(t)$ plotted in figure~2.
308:
309: \vskip -0.1in
310: \begin{figure}
311: \center{\includegraphics[scale=0.5,angle=-90]{fig3}
312: \caption{Plot of the observed distance modulus versus redshift for
313: well-measured distant Type Ia supernovae (Riess et al. 2004). The dashed curve
314: shows the theoretical distribution of magnitude versus redshift for the $\Lambda$CDM
315: cosmology described in the text and presented in figures~1 and 2. Within the
316: context of this model, the best fit corresponds to $\Delta=26.57$ and a reduced
317: $\chi^2\approx 3.13$, with $180-1=179$ d.o.f.}}
318: \end{figure}
319: \vskip 0.1in
320:
321: The data in figure~3 are taken from the ``gold" sample of Riess
322: et al. (2004), with coverage in redshift from $0$ to $\sim 1.8$.
323: The distance modulus is $5\log d_L(z)+\Delta$, where $\Delta\approx
324: 25$. The dashed curve in this plot represents the fit based on the
325: $\Lambda$CDM profile shown in figures~1 and 2, with a Hubble
326: constant $H_0=71$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ ($\Delta$ is used as
327: a free optimization parameter in each of figures~3, 6, and 9). The
328: ``best" match corresponds to $\Delta=26.57$, for which the reduced
329: $\chi^2$ is an unacceptable $3.13$ with $180-1=179$ d.o.f.
330:
331: Attempts to fix this failure have generally been based on the idea
332: that there must have been a transition point, at a redshift $\sim
333: 0.5$, from past deceleration to present acceleration (Riess et al.
334: 2004). One can easily see from figure~3 that the 16 high-redshift
335: Type Ia supernovae, detected at $z>1.25$ with the Hubble Space Telescope,
336: fall well below the distance expected for them in basic $\Lambda$CDM.
337: But even if these modifications can somehow be made consistent with
338: the supernova data, in the end they must still comply with the unyielding
339: constraints imposed on us by the measured values of $R_0$ and $ct_0$.
340: No such relief patch can remove the inexplicable (and simply unacceptable)
341: coincidence implied by the required evolution of $R_0/ct$ towards 1 only
342: at the present time (figure~1). It is difficult avoiding the conclusion
343: that $\Lambda$CDM is simply not consistent with the inferred properties
344: of dark energy in light of the cosmic horizon.
345:
346: \vskip -0.1in
347: \begin{figure}
348: \center{\includegraphics[scale=0.5,angle=-90]{fig4}
349: \caption{Same as figure~1, except for a ``scaling solution"
350: in which $\rho_d\propto\rho_m$ and $\langle\omega\rangle=-1/3$. The
351: corresponding dark-energy equation-of-state parameter is $\omega_d\approx
352: -0.48$. This is sufficiently close to $-0.5$, that it may actually correspond
353: to this value within the errors associated with the measurement
354: of $\rho_m(t_0)/\rho_c(t_0)$ and $\rho_d(t_0)/\rho_c(t_0)$. Note that for this
355: cosmology, $R_0/ct$ is always exactly one. A universe such as this would
356: do away with the otherwise inexplicable coincidence that $R_0(t_0)=ct_0$
357: (since it has this value for all $t$), but as we shall see in figure~6, it does
358: not appear to be consistent with Type Ia supernova data.}}
359: \end{figure}
360:
361: \section{Dynamical Dark Energy}
362: Given the broad range of alternative theories of dark energy that
363: are still considered to be viable, it is beyond the scope of this paper
364: to exhaustively study all dynamical scenarios. Instead, we
365: shall focus on a class of solutions with particular importance to
366: cosmology---those in which the energy density of the scalar field mimics
367: the background fluid energy density. Cosmological models in this category
368: are known as ``scaling solutions," characterized by the relation
369: \begin{equation}
370: \frac{\rho_d(t)}{\rho_m(t)}=\frac{\rho_d(t_0)}{\rho_m(t_0)}\approx 2.33
371: \end{equation}
372: (some of the early papers on this topic
373: include the following: Copeland et al. 1998; Liddle and Scherrer 1999;
374: van den Hoogen et al. 1999; Uzan 1999; de la Macorra and Piccinelli 2000;
375: Nunes and Mimoso 2000; Ng et al. 2001; Rubano and Barrow 2001).
376:
377: By far the simplest cosmology we can imagine in this class is that
378: for which $\omega=-1/3$, corresponding to $\omega_d\approx -1/2$ (within
379: the errors). This model is so attractive that it almost begs to be
380: correct. Unfortunately, it is not fully consistent with Type Ia
381: supernova data, so either our interpretation of current observations
382: is wrong or the Universe just doesn't work this way. But it's worth
383: our while spending some time with it because of the shear elegance it
384: brings to the table.
385:
386: \vskip -0.1in
387: \begin{figure}
388: \center{\includegraphics[scale=0.5,angle=-90]{fig5}
389: \caption{Same as figure~2, except for a ``scaling solution"
390: in which $\rho_d\propto\rho_m$ and $\langle\omega\rangle=-1/3$. The
391: corresponding dark-energy equation-of-state parameter is $\omega_d\approx
392: -0.48$.}}
393: \end{figure}
394: \vskip 0.1in
395:
396: To begin with, we see immediately from equation (5) (and illustrated in
397: figures~4 and 5) that when $\omega=-1/3$, we have $R_0(t)=ct$. Instantly,
398: this solves three of the major problems in standard cosmology: first, it
399: explains why $R_0(t_0)$ should be equal to $ct_0$ (because these quantities
400: are always equal). Second, it completely removes the inexplicable
401: coincidence that $\rho_d$ and $\rho_m$ should be comparable to each
402: other only in the present epoch (since they are always comparable to
403: each other). Third, it does away with the so-called flatness problem
404: (Melia 2008). To see this, let us return momentarily to equation (1)
405: and rewrite it as follows:
406: \begin{equation}
407: H^2=\left(\frac{c}{R_0}\right)^2\left(1-\frac{kR_0^2}{a^2}\right)\;.
408: \end{equation}
409: Whether or not the Universe is asymptotically flat hinges on the
410: behavior of $R_0/a$ as $t\rightarrow\infty$. But from the definition
411: of $R_0$ (equation 4), we infer that
412: \begin{equation}
413: \frac{d}{dt}\ln R_0=\frac{3}{2}(1+\omega)\frac{d}{dt}\ln a\;.
414: \end{equation}
415: Thus, if $\omega=-1/3$,
416: \begin{equation}
417: \frac{d}{dt}\ln R_0=\frac{d}{dt}\ln a\;,
418: \end{equation}
419: and so
420: \begin{equation}
421: H={\rm constant}\times \left(\frac{c}{R_0}\right)\;.
422: \end{equation}
423: We also learn from equation (2) that in this universe, $\ddot{a}=0$.
424: The Universe is coasting, but not because it is empty, as in the Milne
425: cosmology (Milne 1940), but rather because the change in pressure as it
426: expands is just right to balance the change in its energy density.
427:
428: \vskip -0.1in
429: \begin{figure}
430: \center{\includegraphics[scale=0.5,angle=-90]{fig6}
431: \caption{Same as figure~3, except for a ``scaling solution"
432: in which $\rho_d\propto\rho_m$ and $\langle\omega\rangle=-1/3$. The
433: corresponding dark-energy equation-of-state parameter is $\omega_d\approx
434: -0.48$. This fit is much better than that corresponding to a $\Lambda$CDM
435: cosmology (figure~3) but, with a reduced $\chi^2\approx 1.11$ for
436: $180-1=179$ d.o.f., is still not an adequate representation of
437: the Type Ia supernova data (Riess et al. 2004).}}
438: \end{figure}
439: \vskip 0.1in
440:
441: All told, these are quite impressive accomplishments for such a simple
442: model, and yet, it doesn't appear to be fully consistent with Type Ia
443: supernova data. Repeating the calculation that produced figure~3,
444: only now for our scaling solution with $\omega=-1/3$, we obtain the
445: best fit shown in figure~6. This is a significant improvement over
446: $\Lambda$CDM, but the resultant $\chi^2$ ($\approx 1.11$) is still
447: unacceptable. Interestingly, if we were to find a slight systematic
448: error in the distance modulus for the events at $z>1$, which for some
449: reason has led to a fractional over-estimation in their distance (or,
450: conversely, a systematic error that has lead to an under-estimation
451: of the distance modulus for the nearby explosions), the fit would
452: improve significantly. So our tentative conclusion right now must
453: be that, although an elegant scaling solution with $\omega=-1/3$
454: provides a much better description than $\Lambda$CDM of the Universe's
455: expansion, it is nonetheless still not fully consistent with the
456: supernova data.
457:
458: Fortunately, many of the attractive features of an $\omega=-1/3$
459: cosmology are preserved in the case where $\omega_d=-2/3$,
460: corresponding to a scaling solution with $\omega\approx-1/2$.
461: This model fits the supernova data quite strikingly, but it comes
462: at an additional cost---we would have to accept the fact that
463: the universe is somewhat older (by a few billion years) than we
464: now believe. Actually, this situation is unavoidable for any cosmology
465: with $\omega<-1/3$ because of the relation between $R_0$ and
466: $ct_0$ in equation (8).
467:
468: \vskip -0.1in
469: \begin{figure}
470: \center{\includegraphics[scale=0.5,angle=-90]{fig7}
471: \caption{Same as figure~1, except for a ``scaling solution"
472: in which $\rho_d\propto\rho_m$ and $\omega_d=-2/3$. The time-averaged equation-of-state
473: parameter is $\langle\omega\rangle\approx -0.47$. Thus, $R_0\not= ct_0$. Instead,
474: $t_0\approx 16.9$ billion years, approximately $3.4$ billion years longer than the
475: ``horizon" time, $t_h\equiv R_0/c$ ($\approx 13.5$ billion years). This type of
476: universe is not subject to the ``coincidence" problem since $R_0/ct$ is constant.
477: It provides the best fit to the Type Ia supernova data (see figure~9).}}
478: \end{figure}
479: \vskip 0.1in
480:
481: We see in figure~7 that $R_0/ct$ is constant, but at a value
482: $(3/2)(1+\langle\omega\rangle)$, where the time-averaged $\omega$
483: is now $\approx -0.47$. Thus, if $R_0$ is 13.5 billion light-years,
484: $t_0$ must be approximately 16.9 billion years. The explanation for
485: this (Melia 2008) is that what we believe to be the Universe's age
486: is actually the horizon time $t_h\equiv R_0/c$, which is shorter
487: than its actual age $t_0$. In figure~7, the distinction between
488: $t_h$ and $t_0$ is manifested primarily through the termination
489: points of the $R_0$ and $\langle\omega\rangle$ curves, which
490: extend past the vertical dotted line at $t=t_h$.
491:
492: Ironically, this unexpected result has several important consequences,
493: such as offering an explanation for the early appearance of supermassive
494: black holes (at a redshift $>6$; see Fan et al. 2003), and the glaring
495: deficit of dwarf halos in the local group (see Klypin et al. 1999).
496: Both of these long-standing problems in cosmology would be resolved if
497: the Universe were older. Supermassive black holes would have had much
498: more time ($4-5$ billion years) to form than current thinking allows
499: (i.e., only $\sim 800$ million years), and dwarf halos would
500: correspondingly have had more time to merge hierarchically, depleting
501: the lower mass end of the distribution.
502:
503: \vskip -0.1in
504: \begin{figure}
505: \center{\includegraphics[scale=0.5,angle=-90]{fig8}
506: \caption{Same as figure~2, except for a ``scaling solution"
507: in which $\rho_d\propto\rho_m$ and $\omega_d=-2/3$.}}
508: \end{figure}
509: \vskip 0.1in
510:
511: The matter and dark energy densities corresponding to the $\omega_d=-2/3$
512: scaling solution are shown as functions of cosmic time in figure~8, along
513: with the evolution of the scale factor $a(t)$. Here too, the ``coincidence
514: problem" does not exist, and the flatness problem is resolved since
515: $kR_0^2/a^2\rightarrow 0$ as $t\rightarrow\infty$ in equation (10), so
516: the constant in equation (13) should be $\approx 1$ at late times,
517: regardless of the value of $k$. Very importantly, this model fits the
518: Type Ia supernova data very well, as shown in figure~9. The best fit
519: corresponds to $\Delta=25.26$, with a reduced $\chi^2=1.001$ for
520: $180-1=179$ d.o.f.
521:
522: \begin{figure}
523: \center{\includegraphics[scale=0.5,angle=-90]{fig9}
524: \caption{Same as figure~3, except for a ``scaling solution"
525: in which $\rho_d\propto\rho_m$ and $\omega_d=-2/3$. This type of universe
526: provides the best fit to the Type Ia supernova data (Riess et al. 2004),
527: with a reduced $\chi^2\approx 1.001$ for $180-1=179$ d.o.f. The best fit
528: corresponds to $\Delta=25.26$.}}
529: \end{figure}
530:
531: \section{Concluding Remarks}
532: Our main goal in this study has been to examine what we can learn
533: about the nature of dark energy from a consideration of the cosmic
534: horizon $R_0$ and its evolution with cosmic time. A principal
535: outcome of this work is the realization that the so-called
536: ``coincidence" problem in the standard model is actually more
537: severe than previously thought. We have found that in a
538: $\Lambda$CDM universe, $R_0\rightarrow ct_0$ only once, and
539: according to the observations, this must be happening right now.
540: Coupled to the fact that the basic $\Lambda$CDM model does not
541: adequately account for the Type Ia supernova data without
542: introducing new parameters and patching together phases of
543: deceleration and acceleration that must somehow blend together
544: only in the current epoch, this is a strong indication that dark
545: energy almost certainly is not due to a cosmological constant.
546: Other issues that have already been discussed extensively in
547: the literature, such as the fact that the vacuum energy in
548: quantum theory should greatly exceed the required value of
549: $\Lambda$, only make this argument even more compelling. Of
550: course, this rejection of the cosmological-constant hypothesis
551: then intensifies interest into the question of why we don't
552: see any vacuum energy at all, but this is beyond the scope
553: of the present paper.
554:
555: Many alternatives to a cosmological constant have been
556: proposed over the past decade but, for the sake of simplicity,
557: we have chosen in this paper to focus our attention on scaling
558: solutions. The existence of such cosmologies has been discussed
559: extensively in the literature, within the context of standard
560: General Relativity, braneworlds (Randall-Sundrum and Gauss-Bonnett),
561: and Cardassian scenarios, among others (see, e.g., Maeda 2001;
562: Freese and Lewis 2002; and Fujimoto and He 2004).
563:
564: Our study has shown that scaling solutions not only fit the
565: Type Ia supernova data much better than the basic $\Lambda$CDM
566: cosmology, but they apparently simultaneously solve several
567: conundrums with the standard model. As long as the time-averaged
568: value of $\omega$ is less than $-1/3$, they eliminate both the
569: coincidence and flatness problems, possibly even obviating the
570: need for a period of rapid inflation in the early universe
571: (see, e.g., Guth 1981; Linde 1982).
572:
573: But most importantly, as far as this study is concerned, scaling
574: solutions account very well for the observed fact that $R_0\approx
575: ct_0$. If $\langle\omega\rangle=-1/3$ exactly, then $R_0(t)=ct$
576: for all cosmic time, and therefore the fact that we see this
577: condition in the present Universe is no coincidence at all.
578: On the other hand, if $\langle\omega\rangle<-1/3$, scaling
579: solutions fit the Type Ia supernova data even better, but
580: then we have to accept the conclusion that the Universe is
581: older than the horizon time $t_h\equiv R_0/c$. According to
582: our calculations, which produce a best fit to the supernova
583: data for $\langle\omega\rangle=-0.47$ (corresponding to a
584: dark energy equation of state with $\omega_d=-2/3$), the age
585: of the Universe should then be $t_0\approx 16.9$ billion years.
586: This may be surprising at first, perhaps even unbelievable to
587: some, but the fact of the matter is that such an age actually
588: solves other major problems in cosmology, including the (too)
589: early appearance of supermassive black holes, and the glaring
590: deficit of dwarf halos in the local group of galaxies.
591:
592: When thinking about a dynamical dark energy, it is worth recalling
593: that scalar fields arise frequently in particle physics, including
594: string theory, and any of these may be appropriate candidates for
595: this mysterious new component of $\rho$. Actually, though we have
596: restricted our discussion to equations of state with $\omega_d\ge -1$,
597: it may even turn out that a dark energy with $\omega_d<-1$ is
598: providing the Universe's acceleration. Such a field is usually
599: referred to as a Phantom or a ghost. The simplest explanation
600: for this form of dark energy would be a scalar field with a
601: negative kinetic energy (Caldwell 2002). However, Phantom
602: fields are plagued by severe quantum instabilities, since
603: their energy density is unbounded from below and the vacuum
604: may acquire normal, positive energy fields (Carroll et al.
605: 2003). We have therefore not included theories with $\omega_d<-1$
606: in our analysis here, though a further consideration of their
607: viability may be warranted as the data continue to improve.
608:
609: On the observational front, the prospects for confirming or
610: rejecting some of the ideas presented in this paper look
611: very promising indeed. An eagerly anticipated mission, SNAP
612: (Rhodes et al. 2004), will constrain the nature of dark energy
613: in two ways. First, it will observe deeper Type Ia supernovae.
614: Second, it will attempt to use weak gravitational lensing
615: to probe foreground mass structures. If selected, SNAP should
616: be launched by 2020. An already funded mission, the Planck
617: CMB satellite, probably won't have the sensitivity to measure
618: any evolution in $\omega_d$, but it may be able to tell us
619: whether or not $\omega_d=-1$. An ESA mission, Planck is
620: scheduled for launch in mid-2008.
621:
622: Finally, we may be on the verge of uncovering a class
623: of sources other than Type Ia supernovae to use for
624: dark-energy exploration. Type Ia supernovae have greatly
625: enhanced our ability to study the Universe's expansion out
626: to a redshift $\sim 2$. But this new class of sources may
627: possibly extend this range to values as high as $5-10$.
628: According to Hooper and Dodelson (2007), Gamma Ray Bursts
629: (GRBs) have the potential to detect dark energy with a
630: reasonable significance, particularly if there was an
631: appreciable amount of it at early times, as suggested by
632: scaling solutions. It is still too early to tell if GRBs
633: are good standard candles, but since differences between
634: $\Lambda$CDM and dynamical dark energy scenarios are more
635: pronounced at early times (see figures~3, 6, and 9),
636: GRBs may in the long run turn out to be even more important
637: than Type Ia supernovae in helping us learn about the true
638: nature of this unexpected ``third" form of energy.
639:
640: \section*{Acknowledgments}
641:
642: This research was partially supported by NSF grant 0402502 at the
643: University of Arizona. Many inspirational discussions with Roy Kerr
644: are greatly appreciated. Part of this work was carried out at
645: Melbourne University and at the Center for Particle Astrophysics
646: and Cosmology in Paris.
647:
648: \vspace*{-0.3cm}
649:
650: \begin{references}
651:
652: \bibitem[] {one} Brax,
653: P., van de Bruck, C., Davis, A.-C., Khoury, J., and Weltman, A. 2004, Phys.
654: Rev. D., 70, 123518
655:
656: \bibitem[] {two}
657: Caldwell, R. R. 2002, Phys. Lett. B, 545, 23
658:
659: \bibitem[] {three}
660: Capozziello, S., Cardone, V. F., Carloni, S., and Troisi, A. 2003, Int. J. Mod.
661: Phys. D, 12, 1969
662:
663: \bibitem[] {four}
664: Carroll, S. M., Duvvuri, V., Trodden, M., and Turner, M. S. 2004, Phys.
665: Rev. D, 70, 043528
666:
667: \bibitem[] {five}
668: Carroll, S. M., Hoffman, M., and Trodden, M. 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 68, 023509
669:
670: \bibitem[] {six}
671: Copeland, E. J., Liddle, A. R., and Wands, D. 1998, Phys. Rev. D, 57, 4686
672:
673: \bibitem[] {seven}
674: Corasaniti, P. S., Kunz, M., Parkinson, D., Copeland, E. J., and Bassett,
675: B. A. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 083006
676:
677: \bibitem[] {eight} de la Macorra, A. and Piccinelli, G. 2000,
678: Phys. Rev. D, 61, 123503
679:
680: \bibitem[] {nine} de Sitter,
681: W. 1917, Proc. Akad. Weteusch. Amsterdam, 19, 1217
682:
683: \bibitem[] {nine.a} Fan,
684: X. et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 1649
685:
686: \bibitem[] {nine.b}
687: Freese, K. and Lewis, M. 2002, Phys. Lett. B, 540, 1
688:
689: \bibitem[] {nine.c}
690: Fujimoto, M. K. and He, X. T. 2004, ApJ, 603, 365
691:
692: \bibitem[]{nine.d} Guth,
693: A. H. 1981, Phys. Rev. D, 23, 347
694:
695: \bibitem[] {ten}
696: Hooper, D. and Dodelson, S. 2007, Astroparticle Physics, 27, 113
697:
698: \bibitem[] {eleven}
699: Khoury, J. and Weltman, A. 2004, PRL, 93, 171104
700:
701: \bibitem[] {eleven.a}
702: Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A.V., and Valenzuela, O. 1999, ApJ, 522, 82
703:
704: \bibitem[] {twelve}
705: Liddle, A. R. and Scherrer, R. J. 1999, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 023509
706:
707: \bibitem[] {twelve.a}
708: Linde, A. 1982, Phys. Lett. B, 109, 389
709:
710: \bibitem[] {twelve.b}
711: Maeda, K. I. 2001, Phys. Rev. D, 64 123525
712:
713: \bibitem[] {thirteen}
714: Melchiorri, A., Mersini, L., Odman, C. J., and Trodden, M. 2003, Phys. Rev. D,
715: 68, 043509
716:
717: \bibitem[] {fourteen} Melia, F. 2007, MNRAS, in press (arXiv:0711.4181)
718:
719: \bibitem[] {fifteen} Melia, F. 2008, MNRAS Letters, submitted
720:
721: \bibitem[] {sixteen} Milne, E. A. 1940, ApJ, 91, 129
722:
723: \bibitem[] {seventeen} Mould, J. R.
724: et al. 2000, ApJ, 529, 786
725:
726: \bibitem[] {eighteen}
727: Ng, S.C.C., Nunes, N. J., and Rosati, F. 2001, Phys. Rev. D, 64, 083510
728:
729: \bibitem[] {nineteen}
730: Nunes, A. and Mimoso, J. P. 2000, Phys. Lett. B, 488, 423
731:
732: \bibitem[] {twenty}
733: Ostriker, J. P. and Steinhardt, P. J. 1995, Nature, 377, 600
734:
735: \bibitem[] {twentyone}
736: Perlmutter, S. et al. 1999, ApJ, 517, 565
737:
738: \bibitem[] {twentytwo}
739: Ratra, B. and Peebles, J. 1988, Phys. Rev. D, 37, 321
740:
741: \bibitem[] {twentythree} Riess,
742: A. G. et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1009
743:
744: \bibitem[] {twentyfour} Riess,
745: A. G. et al. 2004, ApJ, 607, 665
746:
747: \bibitem[] {twentyfour.a}
748: Rhodes, J. et al. 2004, Astroparticle Physics, 20, 377
749:
750: \bibitem[] {twentyfive}
751: Rubano, C. and Barrow, J. D. 2001, Phys. Rev. D, 64, 127301
752:
753: \bibitem[] {twentysix} Spergel,
754: D. N. et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175
755:
756: \bibitem[] {twentyseven}
757: Uzan, J. P. 1999, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 123510
758:
759: \bibitem[] {twentyeight}
760: van den Hoogen, R. J., Coley, A. A., and Wands, D. 1999, Class. Quant. Grav., 16, 1843
761:
762: \bibitem[] {twentynine} Wetterich,
763: C. 1988, Nucl. Phys. B, 302, 668
764:
765: \end{references}
766:
767: \end{document}
768:
769: