1:
2:
3: %\documentstyle[aps,12pt]{revtex}
4:
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6: %TCIDATA{TCIstyle=Article/art2.lat,aps,revtex}
7:
8: %\documentclass[12pt]{article}
9: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
10: \usepackage{graphicx}
11: \begin{document}
12:
13: \title{{\bf Testing theories that predict time variation of fundamental
14: constants}}
15:
16: \author{Susana J. Landau \altaffilmark{1}}
17:
18: %\affil{Facultad de Ciencias Astron\'{o}micas y Geof\'{\i}sicas. Universidad Nacional de La Plata }
19: %\affil{Paseo del Bosque S/N 1900 La Plata, Argentina}
20: \email{slandau@natura.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar}
21: \and
22:
23: \author{Hector Vucetich \altaffilmark{1}}
24: %\affil{Facultad de Ciencias Astron\'{o}micas y Geof\'{\i}sicas.Universidad Nacional de La Plata }
25: %\affil{Paseo del Bosque S/N 1900 La Plata, Argentina}
26: \email{pipi@natura.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar}
27:
28:
29: \altaffiltext{1}{Facultad de Ciencias Astron\'{o}micas y Geof\'{\i}sicas. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Paseo del
30: Bosque S/N 1900 La Plata, Argentina}
31:
32:
33: \begin{abstract}
34:
35: We consider astronomical and local bounds on time variation of
36: fundamental constants to test some generic Kaluza-Klein-like models
37: and some particular cases of Beckenstein theory. Bounds on the free
38: parameters of the different theories are obtained. Furthermore, we
39: find that none of the proposed models, is able to explain recent
40: results \citep{Webb99,Webb00} claiming an observed variation of the
41: fine structure constant from quasar absorption systems at redshifts $0.5<z<3$.
42:
43: \end{abstract}
44:
45: %\pacs{3.27}
46: \section{Introduction}
47:
48: Time variation of fundamental constants has plenty of
49: theoretical and experimental research since the large number
50: hypothesis (LNH) proposed by \citet{Dirac}. The great
51: predictive power of the LNH, induced a large number of research papers
52: and suggested new sources of variation. Among them, the attempt to
53: unify all fundamental interactions resulted in the development of
54: multidimensional theories like Kaluza-Klein
55: \citep{Kaluza,Klein,ChodosDetweiler,Marciano} and superstring ones
56: \citep{DamouryPolyakov} which predict not only energy dependence of the
57: fundamental constants but also dependence of their low-energy limits
58: on cosmological time. In such theories, the temporal variation of
59: fundamental constants is related with the variation of the extra
60: compact dimensions.
61:
62: Following a different path of research, \citet{Beckenstein}
63: proposed a theoretical framework to study the fine structure constant
64: variability based on very general assumptions: covariance, gauge
65: invariance, causality and time-reversal invariance of electromagnetism
66: , as well as the idea that the Planck-Wheeler length $\left(
67: 10^{-33}cm\right)$ is the shortest scale allowable in any theory.
68:
69: Different versions of the theories mentioned above predict different
70: time behaviours for the fundamental constants. Thus, experimental bounds on
71: the variation of fundamental constants are an important tool to check
72: the validity of such theories
73: \citep{Marciano,ChodosDetweiler,Beckenstein}.
74:
75: The experimental research can be grouped into astronomical and local
76: methods. The latter ones include geophysical methods such as the
77: natural nuclear reactor that operated about $1.8\ 10^9$ in Oklo, Gabon
78: \citep{Oklo}, the analysis of natural long-lived $\beta$ decayers in
79: geological minerals and meteorites \citep{Vucetich} and laboratory
80: measurements such as comparisons of rates between clocks with
81: different atomic number \citep{Prestage}. The astronomical methods are
82: based mainly in the analysis of spectra form high-redshift quasar
83: absorption systems \citep{Drinkwater98,Webb99,Webb00,Murphy00,CyS,Bahcall}. Besides, other
84: constraints can be derived from primordial nucleosynthesis
85: \citep{nucleosintesis} and the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)
86: fluctuation spectrum \citep{Battye00,Avelino00,landau00}.
87:
88: Although, most of the previous mentioned experimental data gave null
89: results, \citep{Webb99}, reported a significantly different
90: measurement of the time variation of the fine structure constant,
91: which was confirmed recently \citep{Webb00,Murphy00}. This suggests an
92: examination of the available experimental results in the context of
93: typical theories predicting time variation of fundamental constants.
94:
95: Thus, in this work, we consider several astronomical and local bounds
96: on time variation of fundamental constants in the framework of two
97: Kaluza-Klein-like late time solutions \citep{Marciano,Bailin87} and
98: some particular cases of Beckenstein theory \citep{Beckenstein}. In
99: particular we put bounds on the free parameters of the different
100: models, the size of the extra dimensions in the first case, and the
101: parameters $l$ and $\gamma $ of Beckenstein's theory. Besides, the
102: consistency of experimental data with a given family of theories can be
103: checked.
104:
105: The paper is organized as follows:\ In section II we describe briefly
106: the models we want to test, in section III we describe the
107: experimental constraints, we will use to check our models, in section
108: IV we present our results and briefly discuss our
109: conclusions.
110:
111: \section{Theoretical models predicting time variation of fundamental
112: constants}
113:
114: \subsection{Kaluza-Klein-like models}
115:
116: The basic idea of Kaluza-Klein theories is to enlarge space-time to
117: $4+D$ dimensions in such a way that the D extra spatial dimensions
118: form a very small compact manifold with mean radius $R_{KK}$.
119:
120: So, the metric in $4+D$ dimensions can be written :
121: \begin{equation}
122: dS^2=dt^2-r^2\left( t\right) \ g_{mn}-R_{KK}^2\left( t\right) \ g_{uv}
123: \label{2}
124: \end{equation}
125: where $g_{mn}$ is the metric of an $S^3$of unit radius , $r\left(
126: t\right) $ is the scale factor of the ordinary space, $g_{uv}$ is the
127: metric of an $S^D$ of unit radius and $R_{KK}\left( t\right) $ is the
128: scale factor of the internal space.
129:
130: In Kaluza-Klein theories, gauge fields of the Standard Model of
131: Fundamental Interactions are related to the $g_{\mu \nu }$ elements
132: that connect the internal dimensions with the usual $3+1$
133: space-time. The gauge coupling constants are related to the
134: ``internal'' scale of the extra dimensions through one or more scalar
135: fields \citep{Weinberg}.
136:
137: In some models, the ``internal'' dimensions are small compared to the
138: large ``ordinary'' dimensions. However, at the Planck time, the
139: characteristic size of both internal and external dimensions are
140: likely to be the same. The cosmological evolution which determines the
141: way in which the extra dimensions are compactified depends on how many
142: extra dimensions are taken and on the energy-momentum tensor
143: considered: radiation, monopoles, cosmological constant, etc.
144:
145: The generalized Einstein equations can be written as follows
146: \citep{KolbyTurner}:
147: \begin{equation}
148: R_{MN}=8\pi \tilde{G}\left[ T_{MN}-\frac 1{D+2}g_{MN}T_P^P-\frac
149: 1{D+2}\frac{ \tilde{\Lambda}}{8\pi \tilde{G}}g_{MN}\right]
150: \label{Einstein}
151: \end{equation}
152: where $\tilde{G}$ is the gravitational constant in $4+D$ dimensions and
153: $\tilde{\Lambda}$ is a cosmological constant in $4+D$ dimensions.
154:
155: The evolution of the extra dimensions with cosmological time is
156: related with the time variation of fundamental constants through the
157: equation \citep{Kaluza,Klein,Marciano,Weinberg}:
158: \begin{equation}
159: \alpha _i\left( M_{KK}\right) =\frac{K_iG}{R_{KK}^2}=K_iG\,M_{KK}^2
160: \label{alfa}
161: \end{equation}
162: where $\alpha _i\left( M_{KK}\right) $,i=1,2,3 are the coupling
163: constants of $U(1)$, $SU(2)$ and $SU(3)$ for a typical energy
164: $R_{KK}=\frac 1{M_{KK}}$. We assume as usual, the existence of a GUT
165: energy scale $\Lambda_{GUT}$ beyond which all these constants merge in
166: only one $\alpha_i$. The $K_i$ are numbers that depend on the $D$ dimensional topology.
167:
168: The expressions for the gauge coupling constants at different energies
169: are related through the group renormalization equation
170: \citep{Marciano}:
171: \begin{equation}
172: \alpha _i^{-1}\left( E_1\right) =\alpha _i^{-1}\left( E_2\right) -\frac 1\pi
173: \sum_jC_{ij}\left[\ln \left( \frac{E_2}{m_j}\right) +\theta \left(
174: E_1-m_j\right) \ln \left( \frac{m_j}{E_1}\right) \right] \label{renorm}
175: \end{equation}
176:
177: So, we can find the low-energy limit for the gauge coupling constants
178: using eq.(\ref{renorm}) twice:
179: \begin{eqnarray}
180: E_1 &=&\Lambda _{GUT}\;\qquad E_2=M_{KK} \\
181: E_1 &=&M_W\qquad E_2=\Lambda _{GUT} \nonumber
182: \end{eqnarray}
183:
184: Inserting eq.(\ref{alfa}) we obtain:
185: \begin{equation}
186: \alpha _1^{-1}\left( M_W\right) =\frac{K\,G}{R_{KK}^2}-\frac{76}{6\,\pi }\
187: \ln \left( \frac{R_{KK}^{-1}}{\Lambda _{GUT}}\right) +\frac 2\pi \ \ln
188: \left( \frac{\Lambda _{GUT}}{M_W}\right) \label{a1}
189: \end{equation}
190:
191: \begin{equation}
192: \alpha _2^{-1}\left( M_W\right) =\frac{K\,G}{R_{KK}^2}-\frac{76}{6\,\pi }\
193: \ln \left( \frac{R_{KK}^{-1}}{\Lambda _{GUT}}\right) -\frac 5{3\,\pi }\ \ln
194: \left( \frac{\Lambda _{GUT}}{M_W}\right) \label{a2}
195: \end{equation}
196:
197: \begin{equation}
198: \alpha _3^{-1}\left( M_W\right) =\frac{K\,G}{R_{KK}^2}-\frac{76}{6\,\pi }\
199: \ln \left( \frac{R_{KK}^{-1}}{\Lambda _{GUT}}\right) -\frac 7{2\,\pi }\ \ln
200: \left( \frac{\Lambda _{GUT}}{M_W}\right) \label{a3}
201: \end{equation}
202:
203: In this way we get expressions for the gauge coupling constants
204: depending on $R_{KK}$ and $\Lambda _{GUT}$. In order to compare
205: equations (\ref{a1}), (\ref{a2}) and (\ref{a3}) with experimental and
206: observational values, we still should calculate the adjustment for
207: energies $ \sim 1$ GeV. However, since this adjustment is very small,
208: we will not consider it.
209:
210: The gauge coupling constants are related with the fine structure
211: constant $ \alpha $, the QCD energy scale $\Lambda _{QCD}$ and the
212: Fermi coupling constant $G_F$ through the following equations:
213: \begin{equation}
214: \alpha ^{-1}\left( E\right) =\frac 52\alpha _1^{-1}\left( E\right) +\alpha
215: _2^{-1}\left( E\right)
216: \end{equation}
217:
218: \begin{equation}
219: \Lambda _{QCD} =E\exp \left[ -\frac{2\pi }7\alpha
220: _3^{-1}\left( E\right) \right]
221: \end{equation}
222:
223: \begin{equation}
224: G_F=\frac{\pi \ \alpha _2\left( M_W\right) }{\sqrt{2}M_W^2}
225: \end{equation}
226:
227:
228: It has been shown that Kaluza-Klein equation are either
229: non-integrable, or their solutions lack of physical interest
230: \citep{Amina}. However, several non-exact solutions of
231: eq.(\ref{Einstein}) have been analized in the literature (see
232: \citet{Bailin87,KolbyTurner} and references therein).
233:
234: For the purposes of this paper, though, we are interested in typical late time
235: solutions since the data we work with belong to times not earlier than
236: nucleosynthesis.
237: Thus, we consider models where the scale factor of the Universe
238: behaves as in a flat Robertson-Walker space-time with and without
239: cosmological constant and the radius of the internal dimensions
240: behaves as the following schematic solutions motivated in
241: \citet{Marciano,Bailin87}:
242: \begin{equation}
243: R_{KK}\left( t\right) \sim R_0+\Delta R\,\ \left(1 - \cos \left[ \omega \left(
244: t-t_0\right) \right]\right) \label{rkk}
245: \end{equation}
246: %
247: \begin{equation}
248: R_{KK}\left( t\right) \sim R_0+\Delta R\,\ \ {\left[\frac{t_0}{t}\right]}^{3/4} \label{rkk2}
249: \end{equation}
250: where $R_0=R_{KK}\left( t_{Planck}\right) \simeq R_{Planck}$. We
251: expect that typical solutions of Kaluza-Klein cosmologies behave
252: asymptotically like eqs.(\ref{rkk}) and (\ref{rkk2}) with $\Delta
253: R<<R_0$ and $\omega$ depending on the details of the model. We will
254: refer to solution \ref{rkk} as generic model 1 and to solution
255: \ref{rkk2} as generic model 2.
256: Generic model 1 is similar in shape to the variation in $\alpha$ reported by \citet{Webb00}. Indeed, it predicts a null variation of the fine structure constant today and a greater variation in the past.
257:
258: %Besides, since the common value of the running coupling constants at
259: %the GUT scale is related to the size of the internal dimensions, it is
260: %reasonable to consider $ \Lambda _{GUT}$ with a similar expression as
261: %$R_{KK}\left( t\right) $.
262: %Thus, we consider two generic models :
263: %\begin{enumerate}
264: %\item $R_{KK}\left( t\right) $ as in eq.\ref{rkk} and $\Lambda _{GUT}$ as
265: %follows:
266: %\begin{equation}
267: %\Lambda _{GUT}=\Lambda _0\left( 1+\frac{\Delta \Lambda }{\Lambda _0}\ \sin
268: %\left[ \omega \left( t-t_0\right) +\varphi \right] \right)
269: %\end{equation}
270:
271: %\item $R_{KK}\left( t\right) $ as in eq.\ref{rkk2} and $\Lambda _{GUT}$ as
272: %follows:
273: %\begin{equation}
274: %\Lambda _{GUT}=\Lambda _0\left( 1+\frac{\Delta \Lambda }{\Lambda _0}\ \exp
275: %\left[ -\omega \left( t-t_0\right) \right] \right)
276: %\end{equation}
277: %where $\Lambda _0$ is the usual value for $\Lambda _{GUT}.$
278: %\end{enumerate}
279:
280: Thus, the free parameter in all Kaluza-Klein-like models will be :
281: $\frac{\Delta R}{R_0}\ $ and we will take as usual $\Lambda_{GUT}=10^{16} GeV$.
282: %Thus, we still need to specify the
283: %cosmological parameters $\left(\Omega_m,\Omega_{\Lambda} ,H_0 \right)$
284: %and the values of the free parameters of the theory taken as constant
285: %in this work for each particular model.
286: Table \ref{tabla3} shows the
287: cosmological model and the values of $\omega $
288: considered for each particular model.
289:
290:
291:
292: \subsection{Beckenstein models}
293:
294: As we have mentioned above, \citet{Beckenstein} proposed a
295: framework for the fine structure constant $\alpha $ variability based
296: on very general assumptions such us: covariance, gauge invariance,
297: causality and time-reversal invariance of electromagnetism , as well
298: as the idea that the Planck-Wheeler length $\left( 10^{-33}cm\right) $
299: is the shortest scale allowable in any theory.
300:
301: He obtained the following equation for the temporal variation of
302: $\alpha $:
303: \begin{equation}
304: \left( \frac{a^3\dot{\varepsilon}}\varepsilon \right) ^{.}=-a\left( t\right)
305: ^3\varsigma \left( \frac{l^2}{\hbar \ c}\right) \rho _mc^4
306: \end{equation}
307: where $\varepsilon =\left( \frac \alpha {\alpha _{today}}\right)
308: ^{\frac 12}$, $l$ is a length scale of the theory, $\rho _m$ is the
309: total rest mass density of matter, $a\left( t\right) $ is the
310: expansion scale factor and $ \varsigma $ is a dimensionless parameter
311: which measures the fraction of mass in the form of Coulomb energy of
312: an average nucleon, compared to the free proton mass
313: (\citet{Beckenstein} assumed that $\varsigma $ is constant
314: and equal to $1.3\times 10^{-2}$).
315:
316: In an expanding Universe where $\rho _m=\frac{3H_0^2}{8\pi G}\left[
317: \frac{ a\left( t_0\right) }{a\left( t\right) }\right] ^3$, we obtain:
318: \begin{equation}
319: \frac{\dot{\varepsilon}}{\varepsilon} =-\varsigma \left(
320: \frac{l^2 c^3}\hbar \right) \rho _m\left( t-t_c\right) \label{beck}
321: \end{equation}
322: where $t_c$ is an integration constant. We consider a flat model with
323: cosmological constant where the scale factor varies as:
324: \begin{equation}
325: a\left( t\right) =a\left( t_0\right) \left( \frac{\Omega _m}{\Omega _\Lambda
326: }\right) ^{\frac 13}\left[ \sinh \left( \frac 32\Omega _\Lambda
327: ^{1/2}H_0t\right) \right] ^{\frac 23}
328: \end{equation}
329:
330: Integrating eq.(\ref{beck}), we obtain the time variation of the
331: fine structure constant as follows:
332: \begin{equation}
333: \frac{\Delta \alpha }\alpha =-\frac{3\ \varsigma }{8\ \pi }\left(
334: H_0t_0^{-1}\right) ^2\;\left( \frac l{L_p}\right) ^2\left[
335: \begin{array}{c}
336: \beta \coth \beta -%
337: %TCIMACRO{\dfrac t{t_0} }
338: %BeginExpansion
339: {\displaystyle {t \over t_0}}
340: %EndExpansion
341: \beta \coth \left( \beta \frac{t}{t_0}\right) +\ln \left( \frac{\sinh \left(
342: \beta \frac{t}{t_0}\right) }{\sinh \left( \beta \right) }\right) \\
343: +\gamma \left( \beta \coth \left( \beta \frac{t}{t_0}\right) -\beta \coth
344: \beta \right)
345: \end{array}
346: \right]
347: \end{equation}
348: with
349: \[
350: \coth \beta =\Omega _\Lambda ^{-\frac 12}
351: \]
352: where $L_p=\left( \frac{G\hbar }{c^3}\right)
353: ^{\frac 12}.$
354: In all cases the integration constant is such that $\varepsilon \left(
355: t_0\right) =1$ and $\Omega _m+\Omega _\Lambda =1$
356:
357: Table \ref{tabla4} shows the cosmological parameters for the models we use
358: to test this theory.
359: The free parameters in this models are $L=\frac l{L_p}$ and $\gamma
360: $.
361:
362: \section{Bounds from astronomical and geophysical data}
363:
364: In this section, we make a critical discussion of the rather heterogeneous
365: data set we use to test our models.
366:
367: \subsection{The Oklo Phenomenon}
368:
369: One of the most stringent limits on time variation of fundamental
370: constants follows from an analysis of isotope ratios of
371: $^{149}\rm{Sm}/^{147}\rm{Sm}$ in the natural uranium fission reactor
372: that operated $1.8\times 10^9$ yr ago at the present day site of the Oklo mine
373: in Gabon, Africa \citep{oklo2,Oklo}. From an analysis of nuclear and
374: geochemical data, the operating conditions of the reactor could be
375: reconstructed and the thermal neutron capture cross sections of
376: several nuclear species measured. In particular, a shift in the lowest
377: lying resonance level in $^{149}{\rm Sm}: \Delta = E_r^{149{\rm(Oklo)}} -
378: E_r^{149{\rm(now)}}$ can be derived from a shift in the neutron capture
379: cross section of the same nucleus \citep{oklo2,Oklo}.
380: We know that we can translate the shift in $\Delta $ into a bound on a
381: possible difference between the values of $\alpha $ and $G_F$ during
382: the Oklo phenomenon and their value now. \citet{Oklo} derived
383: bounds on $ \alpha $ and $G_F$ separately; here we
384: consider both variations at the same time as follows:
385: \begin{equation}
386: \Delta =\alpha \frac{\partial E_r}{\partial \alpha }\frac{\Delta \alpha }
387: \alpha +G_F\frac{\partial E_r}{\partial G_F}\frac{\Delta G_F}{G_F}
388: \end{equation}
389: where $\Delta \alpha = \alpha ^{Oklo}-\alpha ^{now}$ and $\Delta
390: G_F=G_F^{Oklo}-G_F^{now}$. The value of $\Delta $ is shown in Table
391: \ref{tabla1}. Finally, using the values of $\Delta, \alpha \frac{
392: \partial E_r}{\partial \alpha },G_F\frac{\partial E_r}{\partial G_F}$
393: from \citet{Oklo}, we can relate $\Delta$ with $\frac{\Delta
394: \alpha}{\alpha}$ and $\frac{\Delta G_F}{G_F}$ (see first entry in
395: Table \ref{tabla2}).
396:
397: \subsection{Long-lived $\beta $ decayers}
398:
399: The half-life of long-lived $\beta $ decayers such $^{187}\rm{Re}, ^{40}\rm{K}, ^{87}\rm{Rb}$
400: has been determined either in laboratory measurements or by comparison with
401: the age of meteorites, as found from $\alpha $ decay radioactivity analysis.
402: \citet{Vucetich} have derived a relation between the
403: shift in the half-life of three long lived $\beta $ decayers and a possible
404: variation between the values of the fundamental constants $\alpha ,\Lambda
405: _{QCD}$ and $G_F$ at the age of the meteorites and their value now (see
406: entries 2,3 and 4 of Table \ref{tabla2}).
407:
408: The values of $\frac{\Delta \lambda }\lambda $ for $^{187}\rm{Re}$ ,
409: $^{40}\rm{K}$, $^{87}\rm{Rb}$ are respectively shown in entries 2, 3, and 4 in
410: Table \ref {tabla1} where $\Delta =\frac{\Delta \lambda }\lambda $ and
411: $\Delta \lambda =\lambda (t=5.535\times 10^9)-\lambda \left(
412: t=t_0=1.0035\times 10^{10}\right) .$
413:
414: \subsection{Laboratory experiments}
415:
416: The best limit on $\alpha $ variation, comes from a laboratory
417: experiment \citep{Prestage}; it is a limit on a present day variation
418: of $\alpha $.
419: The experiment is based on a comparison of rates between clocks based
420: on hyperfine transitions in atoms with different atomic number
421: . H-maser and Hg+ clocks have a different dependence on $\alpha $
422: since their relativistic contributions are of order $\left( \alpha
423: Z\right) ^2$. The result of a 140 day clock day comparison between an
424: ultrastable frequency standard based on Hg+ ions confined to a linear
425: ion trap and a cavity tuned H maser \citep{Prestage} is shown in Table \ref{tabla1} where $\Delta =\frac{ \Delta \alpha
426: }\alpha $.
427:
428: \subsection{Quasar absorption systems}
429:
430: Quasar absorption systems present ideal laboratories to
431: search for any temporal variation in the fundamental constants. The
432: continuum spectrum of a quasar was formed at an epoch corresponding to
433: the redshift $z$ of main emission details specified by the
434: relationship $ \lambda _{obs}=\lambda _{lab}\left( 1+z\right) $.
435: Quasar spectra of high redshift show the absorption resonance lines of
436: the alkaline ions like CIV, MgII, FeII, SiIV and others, corresponding
437: to the $ S_{1/2}\rightarrow P_{3/2}\left( \lambda _1\right) $ and
438: $S_{1/2}\rightarrow P_{1/2}\left( \lambda _2\right) $ transitions. The
439: relative magnitude of the fine splitting of the corresponding
440: resonance lines is proportional to the square of the fine structure
441: constant $\alpha $ to lowest order in $\alpha $.
442: \begin{equation}
443: \frac{\Delta \lambda }\lambda =\frac{\lambda _1-\lambda _2}\lambda \sim
444: \alpha ^2
445: \end{equation}
446:
447: Therefore, any change in $\alpha $ will result in a corresponding
448: change in $ \Delta \lambda $ in the separation of the doublets of the
449: quasar as follows:
450: \[
451: \frac{\Delta \alpha }\alpha =%
452: %TCIMACRO{\tfrac 12}
453: %BeginExpansion
454: {\textstyle {1 \over 2}}
455: %EndExpansion
456: \left[ \frac{\left( \frac{\Delta \lambda }\lambda \right) _z}{\left( \frac{%
457: \Delta \lambda }\lambda \right) _{now}}-1\right]
458: \]
459:
460:
461: \citet{CyS}, \citet{Varshalovich} and \citet{Murphy01} have applied
462: this method to SiIV
463: doublet absorption lines systems at different redshifts ($2.5 < z < 3.33$)
464: to find the values shown in entries 6 to 10 of table \ref{tabla1}
465: where $\Delta =\frac{ \Delta \alpha }\alpha .$
466:
467: \citet{Webb99} have improved this method comparing
468: transitions of different species, with widely differing atomic masses. As
469: mentioned before, this is the only data consistent with a time varying
470: fine structure constant. In turn, recent work \citep{Webb00,Murphy00}
471: including new optical data
472: confirms their previous results. The values of
473: $\frac{\Delta \alpha } \alpha $ at redshift $z=1.2$, $z=2.7$ and $z=2.5$ are
474: respectively shown in entries 11, 12 and 13 of Table \ref{tabla1}.
475:
476: Moreover, the ratio of frequencies of the hyperfine 21 cm absorption
477: transition of neutral hydrogen $\nu _a$ to an optical resonance
478: transition $ \nu _b$ is proportional to $x=\alpha ^2g_p\frac{me}{mp}$
479: where $g_p$ is the proton $g$ factor. Thus, a
480: change of this quantity will result in a difference in the redshift
481: measured from 21 cm and optical absorption lines as follows:
482: \begin{equation}
483: \frac{\Delta x}x=\frac{z_{opt}-z_{21}}{\left( 1+z\right) }
484: \end{equation}
485: So, combining the measurements of optical and radio redshift, a bound on $x$
486: can be obtained.
487:
488: The upper bounds on $x$ obtained by \citet{CyS} at redshift $z=1.776$
489: are shown in Table \ref{tabla1} where $\Delta = \frac{\Delta x}x$. The
490: relationship between $\frac{\Delta x}x$ and the variation of $\alpha
491: $, $G_F$ and $ \Lambda _{QCD}$ is shown in table \ref{tabla2}. Other
492: bounds on $x$ were obtained by \citet{WolfeyDavis} at redshift $
493: z=0.69$ (entry 15 of Table \ref{tabla1}) and \citet{WolfeyBrown} at
494: redshift $z=0.52$ (entry 16 of Table \ref{tabla1})
495:
496:
497: On the other hand, the ratio of the rotational transition frequencies of
498: diatomic molecules such as CO to the 21 cm hyperfine transition in
499: hydrogen is proportional to $y=g_p\alpha ^2$. Thus, any variation in
500: $y$ would be observed as a difference in the
501: redshifts measured from 21 cm and molecular transition lines:
502: \begin{equation}
503: \frac{\Delta y}y=\frac{z_{mol}-z_{21}}{\left( 1+z\right) }
504: \end{equation}
505:
506: \citet{Murphy02} have placed upper limit on $y$ at
507: redshift $ z=0.25$ and at redshift $z=0.68$. The observed values are
508: shown in entries 17 and 18 of Table \ref{tabla1}, where $\Delta
509: =\frac{\Delta y}y$. Entries 17 and 18 of Table \ref{tabla2} relate
510: $\frac{\Delta y}y$ with the variation of $\alpha $.
511:
512: Finally, observations of molecular hydrogen in
513: quasar absorption systems can be used to set bounds on the evolution
514: of $\mu=\frac{m_e}{m_p}$.
515: The most stringent bounds established by \citet{pothekin98} are shown in entry 19 of Table \ref{tabla2}.
516:
517:
518:
519: \subsection{Nucleosynthesis}
520:
521: Primordial nucleosynthesis also provides a bound on the variation of
522: fundamental constants. A didactical analysis of $^4$He production can be
523: found in \citet{nucleosintesis}. At the conclusion of the big-bang
524: nucleosynthesis the $^4$He mass fraction of the total baryonic mass is
525: given by \citep{nucleosintesis}:
526: \begin{equation}
527: Y=2\exp [-\frac{t_c}\tau ]\ X\left( t_F\right) \label{helio}
528: \end{equation}
529: where $t_c$ is the neutron capture time, $\tau $ is the neutron mean life
530: and $X\left( t_F\right) $ is ratio of the neutron to total baryon number at
531: the time where the baryons become uncoupled from the leptons (freeze-out
532: time).
533:
534: In appendix I, we derive the following expression for the change in the
535: helium abundance $\Delta Y$ brought about by changes in the fundamental
536: constants:
537: \begin{equation}
538: \frac{\Delta Y}Y=0.74\frac{\Delta R_{KK}}{R_{KK}}+0.64\frac{\Delta
539: G_F}{G_F}+1.76\frac{\Delta \alpha }\alpha -0.3\frac{\Delta \Lambda
540: _{QCD}}{\Lambda _{QCD}}
541: \end{equation}
542:
543: \subsection{Cosmic Microwave Background}
544:
545:
546: Any variation of the fine structure constant $\alpha$ alters the
547: physical conditions at recombination and therefore changes the cosmic
548: microwave background (CMB) fluctuation spectrum. Moreover, the
549: fluctuacion spectrum of CMB is sensitive to many cosmological
550: parameters such as the density of barionic and dark matter, the Hubble
551: constant and the index of primordial spectral fluctuations. Recently,
552: different independent analysis \citep{Battye00,Avelino00,landau00}
553: showed that the recent published data of Boomerang and Maxima are
554: better fitted with a varying fine structure constant and a density of
555: baryonic matter closer to nucleosynthesis bounds. The same authors established a bound on
556: $\alpha $ variation at the epoch at which neutral hydrogen formed (see entry 21 in Table \ref{tabla1}).
557:
558: \section{Results and Discussion}
559:
560: From the data rewiewed in the last section, we have performed a statistical
561: analysis working on $\chi ^2$ function with MINUIT to compute the
562: best-fit parameter values and uncertainties including correlations
563: between parameters.
564:
565: %\placetable{tabla3}
566: %\placetable{tabla4}
567:
568: For the Kaluza-Klein like models, results within $99\%$ of confidence
569: level $\left( 3\sigma \right) $ are shown in table \ref{tabla3}. For
570: the models derived from Beckenstein's proposal we obtain results with
571: $ 90\%$ of confidence level (see table \ref{tabla4}). The contours of
572: the likelihood functions for Beckenstein's models in regions of 90 \%
573: and 70 \% of confidence level are shown in figures 1 and 2.
574:
575: The values of the free parameters obtained are coincident within
576: uncertainties for the Kaluza-Klein like models (table\ref{tabla3}) and
577: for Beckenstein's models (table \ref{tabla4}). Besides, the values
578: obtained are consistent with theoretical supposition $\Delta R<<R_0$
579: for Kaluza-Klein like models, but they disagree with the supposition
580: $l>L_p$ implied in Beckenstein's framework.
581:
582: Thus, the present available data set, considered within Bekenstein's
583: framework, is capable to rule out $\alpha$ variability, while the
584: original paper had to recourse to E\"otv\"os-like experiments to
585: achieve the same result. \citet{LyS} have also analyzed
586: $\alpha$ variation in the context of Bekenstein's theory. Our results
587: are in agreement with their analysis, even though they didn't allow
588: both free parameters of the theory: $\frac{l}{L_p}$ and $\gamma$ to
589: vary independently.
590:
591: However, it should be noted that Beckenstein's framework is very
592: similar to the dilatonic sector of string theory, and it has been
593: pointed out that in the context of string theories
594: \citep{strings1,strings2} there is no need for an universal relation
595: between the Planck and the string scale.
596:
597:
598:
599: Finally, our results are consistent with no time variation of
600: fundamental constants over cosmological time in agreement most of the
601: experimental results. Indeed, excluding the Webb et al. data points
602: from our fits does not change significantly the values of the adjusted
603: constants. Thus, this rather large class of theories cannot explain
604: this discrepant result.
605:
606:
607: %\section*{Acknowledgements}
608: \acknowledgements
609: The authors whishes to thank Professor D. Harari for many interesting
610: discussions. H. V. acknowledges economic support from grant G035-UNLP.
611:
612:
613: \appendix
614: \section{Appendix I}
615:
616: Following \citep{nucleosintesis} and eq. \ref{helio}, the change in the
617: helium abundance is given by:
618: \begin{equation}
619: \frac{\Delta Y}Y=\frac{t_c}\tau \left( \frac{\Delta \tau }\tau -\frac{\Delta
620: t_c}{t_c}\right) +\frac{\Delta X\left( t_F\right) }{X\left( t_F\right) }
621: \label{1}
622: \end{equation}
623: where
624: \begin{equation}
625: \frac{\Delta X\left( t_F\right) }{X\left( t_F\right) }=-0.52\frac{\Delta b}b
626: \end{equation}
627: and
628: \begin{equation}
629: b=255\left( \frac{45}{4\pi N}\right) ^{1/2}\frac{M_{pl}}{\tau \ Q^2}
630: \end{equation}
631:
632: \begin{equation}
633: Q=\Delta m=m_n-m_p
634: \end{equation}
635: where $N$ is the number of neutrino types.
636:
637: Since $\tau =Q^5G_F^2$, we find for the ratio of neutron to total baryon
638: number at the freeze-out time:
639: \begin{equation}
640: \frac{\Delta X\left( t_F\right) }{X\left( t_F\right) }=-0.52\left[
641: \frac{ \Delta M_{pl}}{M_{pl}}-2\frac{\Delta G_F}{G_F}-7\frac{\Delta
642: Q}Q\right]
643: \label{2bis}
644: \end{equation}
645:
646: Next, also from \citep{nucleosintesis} we take the following expression
647: for the neutron time capture:
648: \begin{equation}
649: t_c=\left( \frac{45}{16\pi N}\right) ^{1/2}\left( \frac{11}4\right)
650: ^{2/3} \frac{M_{pl}}{T_{\gamma ,c}^2}+t_0
651: \end{equation}
652: where $t_0$ is an integration constant, $T_{\gamma ,c}$ is the temperature
653: of the photon at the neutron capture time. Thus, the last equation yields:
654: \begin{equation}
655: \frac{\Delta t_c}{t_c}=\frac{\Delta M_{pl}}{M_{pl}}-2\frac{\Delta T_{\gamma
656: ,c}}{T_{\gamma ,c}} \label{3}
657: \end{equation}
658:
659: Writing $T_{\gamma ,c}=\frac{\varepsilon _D}{z_c}$ with $\varepsilon _D=m_n+m_p-m_D$ and $z_c=\frac{\varepsilon _D}{T_{\gamma ,c}}$ we obtain:
660:
661: \begin{equation}
662: \frac{\Delta T_{\gamma ,c}}{T_{\gamma ,c}}=\frac{\Delta \varepsilon
663: _D}{ \varepsilon _D}-\frac{\Delta z_c}{z_c}=\frac{\Delta \Lambda_{QCD}}{\Lambda _{QCD}}-\frac{\Delta z_c}{z_c} \label{4}
664: \end{equation}
665:
666: Since at the neutron capture time, the neutrons are essentially all
667: converted into helium, we may identify the temperature $T_{\gamma ,c}$
668: at which neutrons are captured, or equivalently the redshift
669: $z_c=\frac{ \varepsilon _D}{T_{\gamma ,c}}$ , by the condition:
670: \begin{equation}
671: \left( \frac{dX_D}{dz}\right) _{z=z_c}=0
672: \end{equation}
673: where $X_D$ is the ratio of deuterons to total baryon number.
674:
675: From \citep{nucleosintesis} it is easy to see that the last equation is
676: equivalent to the following:
677: \begin{equation}
678: f\left( z_c\right) =\ln \left( C_0\right) +%
679: %TCIMACRO{\tfrac 43 }
680: %BeginExpansion
681: {\textstyle {4 \over 3}}
682: %EndExpansion
683: \ln \left( \frac{\varepsilon _D}{m_p}\right) +\ln \left( \frac{M_{pl}}{m_p}%
684: \right) ^{}+%
685: %TCIMACRO{\tfrac 43 }
686: %BeginExpansion
687: {\textstyle {4 \over 3}}
688: %EndExpansion
689: \ln \left( \alpha \right) -%
690: %TCIMACRO{\tfrac{17}6 }
691: %BeginExpansion
692: {\textstyle {17 \over 6}}
693: %EndExpansion
694: \ln \left( z_c\right) +z_c-5.11\frac{\alpha ^{\frac 12}z^{\frac 13}}{\left(
695: \frac{\varepsilon _D}{m_p}\right) ^{\frac 13}}=0
696: \end{equation}
697: where $C_0$ is a constant and $z_c=26$.
698:
699: Assuming:
700: \begin{equation}
701: \delta f=\left( \frac{\partial f}{\partial z}\right) _{z=z_c}^{\alpha
702: _i=\alpha _{io}}\delta z+\left( \frac{\partial f}{\partial \alpha
703: }\right) _{z=z_c}^{\alpha _i=\alpha _{io}}\delta \alpha +\left(
704: \frac{\partial f}{ \partial M_{pl}}\right) _{z=z_c}^{\alpha _i=\alpha
705: _{io}}\delta M_{pl}+\left( \frac{\partial f}{\partial \varepsilon
706: _D}\right) _{z=z_c}^{\alpha _i=\alpha _{io}}\delta \varepsilon _D=0
707: \end{equation}
708: where $\alpha _i=\alpha _{io}$ means $\alpha =\alpha _{today}$ and
709: $\Lambda _{QCD}=\Lambda _{QCDtoday}$ we obtain the following
710: expression:
711: \begin{equation}
712: \frac{\Delta z_c}{z_c}=-\left[ \left( \frac{\partial f}{\partial
713: \alpha } \frac \alpha z\right) _{z=z_c}^{\alpha _i=\alpha
714: _{io}}\frac{\Delta \alpha } \alpha +\left( \frac{\partial f}{\partial
715: M_{pl}}\frac{M_{pl}}z\right) _{z=z_c}^{\alpha _i=\alpha
716: _{io}}\frac{\Delta M_{pl}}{M_{pl}}+\left( \frac{ \partial f}{\partial
717: \varepsilon _D}\frac{\varepsilon _D}z\right) _{z=z_c}^{\alpha
718: _i=\alpha _{io}}\frac{\Delta \varepsilon _D}{\varepsilon _D} \right]
719: \left( \frac{\partial f}{\partial z}\right) ^{-1} \label{zeta}
720: \end{equation}
721:
722: Evaluating eq.(\ref{zeta}) yields:
723: \begin{equation}
724: \frac{\Delta z_c}{z_c}=-0.13\frac{\Delta \alpha }\alpha +0.046\frac{\Delta
725: M_{pl}}{M_{pl}}+0.26\frac{\Delta \Lambda _{QCD}}{\Lambda _{QCD}} \label{5}
726: \end{equation}
727:
728: Thus, from eqs. (\ref{1}), (\ref{2bis}), (\ref{3}), (\ref{4}),
729: (\ref{5}) and as $\frac{ \Delta Q}Q=\frac{\Delta \alpha }\alpha $, the
730: final expression yields:
731: \begin{equation}
732: \frac{\Delta Y}Y=0.74\frac{\Delta R_{KK}}{R_{KK}}+0.64\frac{\Delta
733: G_F}{G_F} +1.76\;\frac{\Delta \alpha }\alpha -0.3\frac{\Delta \Lambda
734: _{QCD}}{\Lambda _{QCD}}
735: \end{equation}
736: where we have used the equality $R_{KK}\left( t_{pl}\right) \simeq
737: R_{pl}= \frac 1{M_{pl}}$
738:
739: %\begin{references}
740:
741: \begin{thebibliography}{}
742:
743: \bibitem[Antoniadis and Pioline(1999)]{strings2} Antoniadis, I. and
744: Pioline B. 1999, Nucl.Phys. B, 550, 41
745:
746: \bibitem[Avelino et al (2000)]{Avelino00}Avelino,P.P., Martins,C.J.A.,
747: Rocha.G and Viana,P. 2000, \prd, 62, 123508
748:
749: \bibitem[Bachas(2000)]{strings1}Bachas C.P. 2000, Class. Quant. Grav.,
750: 17, 951
751:
752:
753: \bibitem[Bahcall, Sargent and Schmidt(1967)]{Bahcall} Bahcall J.,
754: Sargent W.L.W, and Schmidt M. 1967, \apjl, 149, L11
755:
756: \bibitem[Bailin and Love(1987)]{Bailin87} Bailin,D and Love,A. 1987,
757: Rep. Prog. Phys, 50, 1087
758:
759: \bibitem[Battye, Crittenden and Weller (2001)]{Battye00}Battye, R.A.,
760: Crittenden, R. and Weller J. 2001, \prd, 63, 043505
761:
762: \bibitem[Beckenstein(1982)]{Beckenstein} Beckenstein, J.D. 1982, \prd,
763: 25, 1527
764:
765: \bibitem[Bernstein, Brown and Feinberg(1988)]{nucleosintesis}
766: Bernstein, J., Brown, L.S. and Feinberg G. 1988, Rev. Mod. Phys., 61,
767: 25
768:
769: \bibitem[Chodos and Detweiler(1980)]{ChodosDetweiler} Chodos, A. and
770: Detweiler, S., \prd, 21, 2167
771:
772:
773: \bibitem[Cowie and Songaila(1995)]{CyS} Cowie, L.L. and Songaila
774: A. 1995, \apj 453, 596
775:
776:
777:
778: \bibitem[Damour and Dyson(1996)]{Oklo} Damour, T. and Dyson, E. 1996,
779: Nucl. Phys. B, 480, 37
780:
781: \bibitem[Damour and Polyakov(1994)]{DamouryPolyakov} Damour, T. and
782: Polyakov, A. M.1994, Nucl. Phys. B, 423, 532
783:
784:
785: \bibitem[Dirac(1937)]{Dirac} Dirac, P. A. M. 1937, \nat, 139, 323
786:
787: \bibitem[Drinkwater et al.(1998)]{Drinkwater98} Drinkwater, M.J.,
788: Webb, J.K., Barrow, J.D. and Flambaum, V.V. 1998, \mnras, 295, 452
789:
790: \bibitem[Helmi and Vucetich(1995)]{Amina} Helmi A. and Vucetich
791: H. 1995, Phys. Lett. A, 209, 150
792:
793: \bibitem[Kaluza (1921)]{Kaluza} Kaluza, Th. (1921),
794: Sitzungber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Kl., 966
795:
796: \bibitem[Klein (1926)]{Klein} Klein, O. 1926, Z. Phys. 1926, 37, 895
797:
798: \bibitem[Kolb and Turner(1990)]{KolbyTurner} Kolb, E.W.and Turner,
799: M.S. 1990, The Early Universe, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company,
800: Reading, Massachusetts.
801:
802: \bibitem[Landau, Harari and Zaldarriaga(2001)]{landau00} Landau,S.J.,
803: Harari D.D. and Zaldarriaga, M. 2001, \prd, 63, 083505
804:
805: \bibitem[Livio and Stiavelli (1998)]{LyS} Livio, M. and Stiavelli,
806: M. 1998, \apjl 507, L13
807:
808: \bibitem[Marciano (1984)]{Marciano} Marciano, W.J. 1984, \prl, 52, 489
809:
810: \bibitem[Murphy et al.(2001a)]{Murphy00} Murphy, M.T., Webb, J.K.,
811: Flambaum V.V., Drinkwater, M.J., Combes F. and Wiklind T 2001a \mnras
812: 327, 1208
813:
814: \bibitem[Murphy et al.(2001b)]{Murphy01} Murphy, M.T., Webb, J.K.,
815: Flambaum V.V., Prochaska, J.X. and Wolfe A.M. 2001b, \mnras 327, 1237
816:
817: \bibitem[Murphy et al.(2001c)]{Murphy02} Murphy, M.T., Webb, J.K.,
818: Flambaum V.V., Drinkwater, M.J., Combes F. and Wiklind T 2001c \mnras
819: 327, 1244
820:
821: \bibitem[Okada(1985)]{Okada} Okada Y. 1985, Phys. Lett. B, 150, 103
822:
823: \bibitem[Prestage, Toelker and Maleki (1995)]{Prestage} Prestage, D.,
824: Toelker, R.L., and Maleki L. 1995,\prl, 74, 3511
825:
826: \bibitem[Schlyakter(1976)]{oklo2} Schlyakter, A.I. 1976, \nat, 25, 340
827:
828: \bibitem[Sisterna and Vucetich(1990)]{Vucetich} Sisterna, P. and
829: Vucetich, H. \prd, 41, 1034
830:
831: \bibitem[Pothekin et al(1998)]{pothekin98} Pothekin A.Y.et al. 1998,
832: \apj 505, 523
833:
834: \bibitem[Varshalovich, Panchuk and Ivanchik(1996)]{Varshalovich}
835: Varshalovich,D.A., Panchuk,V.E. and Ivanchik A.V.1996, Astron. Lett.,
836: 22, 6
837:
838: \bibitem[Webb et al (1999)]{Webb99} Webb,J.K., Flambaum V.V.,
839: Churchill, C.W. Drinkwater,M. and Barrow J.D. 1999, \prl, 82, 884
840:
841: \bibitem[Webb et al (2001)]{Webb00} Webb,J.K., Murphy, M.T.,
842: Flambaum,V.V., Dzuba,V.A., Barrow,J.D., Churchill C.W., Prochaska
843: J.X. and Wolfe A.M. 2001,\prl 87, 091301
844:
845: \bibitem[Weinberg (1983)]{Weinberg} Weinberg,S.1983, Phys. Lett.B,
846: 125, 265
847:
848: \bibitem[Wolfe, Brown and Roberts(1976)]{WolfeyBrown} Wolfe,A.M.,
849: Brown R. and Roberts, M. 1976, \prl, 37, 179
850:
851: \bibitem[Wolfe and Davis(1979)]{WolfeyDavis} Wolfe A.M. and Davis
852: M.M.1979, \aj, 84, 699
853:
854:
855:
856: \end{thebibliography}
857: %\end{references}
858:
859: \clearpage
860:
861: \begin{table}[tbp]
862: \caption{Observational Data. The columns show the data number
863: (correlated with the respective equation in Table \ref{tabla2}), the
864: method considered, the time
865: interval for which the variation was measured in units of $10^9$ yr,
866: computed for models with and without cosmological constant, the observed
867: value, the standart deviation and the corresponding reference}
868: \label{tabla1}
869:
870: \begin{center}
871: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
872: \hline
873: \hline
874: & Method & $t-t_0$ & $t-t_0$ & $\Delta $ & $\sigma \left( \Delta \right) $ & Ref. \\
875: & & $ \Omega_{\Lambda}=0$ & $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.75$ & $\times 10^{-6}$ & $\times 10^{-6}$ & \\
876: \hline
877:
878: 1 & Oklo reactor & $1.8$ & $1.8$ & $-15000$ & $1050000$ & 1\\
879: 2 & Long lived $\beta$ decayers & $4.5$ & $4.5$ & $0$ & $6700$ & 2 \\
880: 3 & Long lived $\beta$ decayers& $4.5$ & $4.5$ & $0$ & $13000$ & 2 \\
881: 4 & Long lived $\beta$ decayers & $4.5$ & $4.5$ & $0$ & $13000$ & 2\\
882: 5 & Laboratory bounds & $3.8\times 10^{-10}$ & $3.8\times 10^{-10}$ & $0$ &
883: $10^{-8}$ & 3 \\
884: 6 & Quasar absorption systems & $8.7$ & $13$ & $0$ & $350$ & 4 \\
885: 7 & Quasar absorption systems& $8.9$ & $13$ & $0$ & $350$ & 4 \\
886: 8 & Quasar absorption systems& $8.7$ & $12.8$& $0$ & $83$ &5 \\
887: 9 & Quasar absorption systems& $8.68$ & $12.5$ & $0$ & $80$ & 5 \\
888: 10& Quasar absorption systems& $8.51$ & $12.24$ & $-5$ & $13$ & 6 \\
889: 11 & Quasar absorption systems& $6.8$ & $9.17$ & $-7$ & $2.3$ & 7 \\
890: 12 & Quasar absorption systems& $8.6$ & $$12.4 & $-7.6$ & $2.8 $& 7 \\
891: 13 & Quasar absorption systems& $6.5$ & $$8.5& $-5$ & $1.3 $& 7 \\
892: 15 & Quasar absorption systems& $7.8$ & $11$ & $7$ & $11$ & 4\\
893: 15 & Quasar absorption systems& $5.5$ & $6.9$ & $0$ & $120$ & 8\\
894: 16 & Quasar absorption systems& $4.7$ & $5.7$ & $0$ & $280$ & 9\\
895: 17 & Quasar absorption systems &$2.9$ & $3.2$ & $-2$ & $4.4$ & 10\\
896: 18 & Quasar absorption systems & $5.4$ & $6.8$ & $-1.6 $ & $5.4$ & 10\\
897: 19 & Quasar absorption systems & $ 8.65$ & $12.6$ & $0 $ & $20$ & 11 \\
898: 20 & Nucleosynthesis & $10$ & $15 $ & $0$ & $43000$ & 12\\
899: 21 & CMB & $10 $ & $15 $ & $ 0 $ & $ 10000$ & 13,14,15 \\
900: \hline
901: \hline
902: \end{tabular}
903: \end{center}
904: \tablerefs{
905: (1) Damour and Dyson 1996;(2) Sisterna and Vucetich 1990; (3) Prestage, Toelker and Maleki 1995; (4) Cowie and Songaila
906: 1995; (5) Varshalovich, Panchuk and Invanchik 1996; (6) Murphy et al 2001b ;Webb et al. 2000; (8) Wolfe and Davis 1979, (9) Wolfe, Brown and Roberts 1976; (10) Murphy et al 2001c ;(11) Pothekhin et al. 1998 ;(12)
907: Bernstein, Brown and Feinberg 1988;(13)Battye, Crittenden and Weller 2001;(15) Avelino et al. 2000;(15) Landau, Harari
908: and Zaldarriaga 2001}
909: \end{table}
910:
911: \clearpage
912:
913: \begin{table}[tbp]
914: \caption{The equation: $\Delta = a\frac{\Delta \alpha }\alpha +b\frac{\Delta G_F}{G_F}+c\frac{\Delta \Lambda_{QCD}}{\Lambda _{QCD}}$ relates the observed value ($\Delta$ of table \ref{tabla1}) with the relative variation of fundamental constants. In this table we show the coefficients of this equation for each data considered in table \ref{tabla1}}
915: \label{tabla2}
916: \begin{center}
917: \begin{tabular}{lllllll}
918: \hline
919: \hline
920: & & $ a $ & & $ b $ & & $ c $ \\ \hline
921: 1 & & $10^6$ & & $5.6$ & & $0$ \\
922: 2 & & $2.16 \times 10^4$ & & $2$ & & $5.62 \times 10^3$ \\
923: 3 & & $4.6 \times 10$ & & $2$ & & $1.7 \times 10$ \\
924: 4 & & $1.07 \times 10^3$ & & $2$ & & $2.71$ \\
925: 5 & & $1$ & & $0$ & & $0$ \\
926: 6 & & $1$ & & $0$ & & $0$ \\
927: 7 & & $1$ & & $0$ & & $0$ \\
928: 8 & & $1$ & & $0$ & & $0$ \\
929: 9 & & $1$ & & $0$ & & $0$ \\
930: 10& & $1$ & & $0$ & & $0$ \\
931: 11 & & $1$ & & $0$ & & $0$ \\
932: 12 & & $1$ & & $0$ & & $0$ \\
933: 13 & & $1$ & & $0$ & & $0$ \\
934: 14 & & $2$ & & $0$ & & $-1$ \\
935: 15 & & $2$ & & $0$ & & $-1$ \\
936: 16 & & $2$ & & $0$ & & $-1$ \\
937: 17 & & $2$ & & $0$ & & $0$ \\
938: 18 & & $2$ & & $0$ & &$0$ \\
939: 19 & & $0$ & & $0$ & &$-1$ \\
940: 20 & & $1.76$ & & $ 0.64 $ & & $ -0.3$ \\
941: 21 & & $1$ & & $0$ & & $0$ \\
942: \hline
943: \hline
944: \end{tabular}
945: \end{center}
946: \end{table}
947:
948: \clearpage
949:
950: \begin{table}[tbp]
951: \caption{Results for the Kaluza-Klein like models. The columns show the
952: number of particular model considered
953: , the number of generic model, the cosmological
954: parameters and the free parameters of the theory taken as constant in
955: this work, the best fit parameter value and standart deviation in
956: units of $10^{-14}$ . $t_{01}=1.0\times 10^{10}\ $ yr is the age of the
957: universe for models without cosmological constant; $t_{02}=1.5\times
958: 10^{10}\ $yr is the age of the universe for models with cosmological
959: constant. For all models$\ H_0=65$ $km\times seg^{-1}\times
960: Mpc^{-1}$}
961: \label{tabla3}
962: \begin{center}
963: \par
964: \begin{tabular}{lllllll}
965: \hline
966: \hline
967: & & $\Omega_m $ & $\Omega_\Lambda$ & $\omega $ & $\frac{\Delta R_{KK}}{R_{KK}}$ \\
968: \hline
969: 1 & 1 & $1 $ & $0 $ & $\frac{2\pi }{t_{01}}$ & $(1.0 \pm 6.0) \times 10^{-8} $ \\ 2 & 1
970: & $0.25 $ & $0.75 $ & $\frac{2\pi }{t_{02}}$ & $(2.1 \pm 8.4) \times 10^{-8}$ \\ 3 & 2
971: & $1 $ & $0 $ & $ - -$ & $3 \times 10^{-19} \pm 2 \times 10^{-16} $
972: \\ 4 & 2 & $0.25$ & $0.75 $ & $ - - $ & $2.5 \times 10^{-18} \pm 9
973: \times 10^{-15}$ \\
974: \hline
975: \hline
976: \end{tabular}
977: \end{center}
978: \end{table}
979:
980: \begin{table}[tbp]
981: \caption{Results for the Beckenstein's type models. The columns show
982: the number of particular model, the cosmological
983: parameters, the value and standard deviation of the best fit
984: parameters and the correlation coefficient. For
985: all models $H_0=65$ $km\times seg^{-1}\times Mpc^{-1}$}
986:
987: \label{tabla4}
988: \begin{center}
989: \par
990: \begin{tabular}{llllllll}
991: \hline
992: \hline
993: & $\Omega _m $ & $\Omega _\Lambda$ & $L$ & $\gamma $ &
994: $\rho\left(L,\gamma\right)$\\
995: \hline
996: $1$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0.0021^{+0.018}_{-0.0011}$ & $252^{+110}_{-90}$ &
997: $-0.001$ \\
998: $2$ & $0.25$ & $0.75$ & $ {10^{-5}}^{+0.0003}_{-0.8 \times 10^{-5}}$ &
999: $77^{+36}_{-24}$ & $-0.024$ \\
1000: \hline
1001: \hline
1002: \end{tabular}
1003: \end{center}
1004: \end{table}
1005:
1006: \clearpage
1007:
1008: \begin{figure}
1009: \begin{center}
1010: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{f1.ps}
1011: \hspace{1cm}
1012: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{f2.ps}
1013: \end{center}
1014: \caption{ Contours for Beckenstein's models }
1015: \end{figure}
1016:
1017:
1018:
1019:
1020:
1021:
1022: \end{document}
1023:
1024:
1025:
1026:
1027:
1028:
1029:
1030:
1031:
1032:
1033:
1034:
1035:
1036:
1037:
1038:
1039:
1040:
1041:
1042:
1043:
1044:
1045:
1046:
1047:
1048:
1049:
1050:
1051:
1052:
1053:
1054:
1055: