1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \slugcomment{Preprint DAMTP-2001-55; July 12th, 2001}
4: \shorttitle{A Supernova Brane Scan}
5: \shortauthors{P.P. Avelino and C.J.A.P. Martins}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \title{A Supernova Brane Scan}
10:
11: \author{P.P. Avelino\altaffilmark{1} and C.J.A.P. Martins\altaffilmark{2,3}}
12: \affil{Centro de Astrof\'{\i}sica da Universidade do Porto,\\
13: Rua das Estrelas s/n, 4150-762 Porto, Portugal}
14:
15: \altaffiltext{1}{Dep. de F{\' \i}sica da Faculdade de Ci\^encias da
16: Univ. do Porto, Rua do Campo Alegre 687, 4169-007 Porto, Portugal.
17: Email: pedro\,@\,astro.up.pt}
18: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics,
19: Centre for Mathematical Sciences, University of Cambridge,
20: Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, United Kingdom.
21: Email: C.J.A.P.Martins\,@\,damtp.cam.ac.uk}
22: \altaffiltext{3}{Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris,
23: 98 bis Boulevard Arago, 75014 Paris, France}
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26: We consider a `brane-world scenario' recently introduced by Dvali,
27: Gabadadze and Porrati, and subsequently proposed as an alternative
28: to a cosmological constant in explaining the current acceleration of
29: the universe. We show that, contrary to these claims, this particular
30: proposal is already strongly disfavoured by the available Type Ia
31: Supernovae, Cosmic Microwave Background and cluster data.
32: \end{abstract}
33:
34: \keywords{Cosmological parameters---cosmology: theory---methods: data
35: analysis---supernovae: general}
36:
37: \section{Introduction}
38:
39: At a time when observational cosmologists are finally pinning down some
40: crucial cosmological parameters
41: \citep{perl1,perl2,riess,boom1,boom2,boom3,maxi1,maxi2,maxi3,dasi1,dasi2,tdf},
42: theoretical cosmologists have increased and diversified their efforts
43: to try to provide some more solid connections between particle
44: physics and cosmology.
45:
46: In this context, a topic of much recent interest has been that of the
47: so-called `brane-world scenarios' \citep{orig1,orig2,orig3,review1,review2}.
48: The general principle behind such models is that
49: the ordinary particles live on a three-dimensional surface (commonly called
50: a 3-brane, or simply `the brane'), which is embedded in a larger space
51: (`the bulk', which may or may not be compact and might even have an
52: infinite volume) on which gravity can propagate. An observer on the brane
53: will measure four-dimensional gravity up to some corrections which,
54: given the weakness of gravity, can in general be made small enough not to
55: conflict with observations without tweaking with model parameters too much.
56:
57: At present the topic is young enough that the main drive is still to
58: try to explore all remotely viable model-building possibilities without
59: worrying too much about the consequences. However, some of the proposed
60: models are already developed enough that they can start to be put
61: through the sieve of specific cosmological observations. In this paper
62: we will provide what we believe to be the first detailed analysis of
63: this kind for a brane world scenario.
64:
65: We will consider a particular solution of a brane world scenario
66: originally introduced by \citet{dgp},
67: and further studied in \citep{def,ddg}---we shall refer to it as the
68: DGP model for simplicity. It's a five-dimensional brane-world model
69: with a non-compact, infinite-volume extra dimension. The usual
70: four-dimensional gravity is recovered on the brane for scales
71: below a `characteristic radius' $r_c$, due to a four-dimensional Ricci
72: scalar being induced on the brane. However, at larger scales this
73: becomes sub-dominant, and one will effectively see five-dimensional
74: Einstein-Hilbert gravity.
75:
76: The above effect can obviously have dramatic cosmological implications.
77: A particularly interesting solution was first found
78: by \citet{def}---and then generalized by \citet{rdick}---and
79: then further studied in \citep{ddg}. It describes a universe which
80: at late times is accelerated on scales larger than $r_c$. This is an effect
81: of the bulk gravity, in the sense that
82: observers on the brane will see no cosmological
83: constant. Hence this is another interesting alternative way to explain the
84: current acceleration of the universe, which is strongly indicated by
85: Type Ia supernova observations \citep{perl1,perl2,riess}, without
86: resorting to a cosmological constant---for earlier alternative explanations,
87: see \citep{dev,behnke,mann}. Note that, unlike most other known
88: brane worlds scenarios, here the early evolution of the universe is
89: the standard one while the late evolution is different. Also, unlike other
90: alternative theories of gravity (introduced in other contexts) here
91: gravity will become {\em weaker} on large enough scales. These two
92: points will be important in what follows.
93:
94: In \citep{ddg} the authors argue that this is an intrinsically
95: higher-dimensional effect, at least in the sense that one can not mimic
96: it with arbitrary high-derivative terms in ordinary four-dimensional
97: gravity. This turns out to be both a blessing and a
98: curse, for on one hand it means that one can extract quite distinctive
99: observational predictions, but on the other hand it
100: also implies that it's
101: quite easy to rule it out. In \citep{ddg} the authors claim that the model's
102: alternative explanation for the current acceleration of the universe
103: agrees with all existing cosmological observations (or, more accurately, that
104: it is currently indistinguishable from the standard scenario). In what
105: follows we shall show that this is not the case. Indeed, currently
106: existing data is already sufficient to make this alternative
107: explanation for acceleration strongly
108: disfavoured when compared to the standard one.
109:
110: The plan of the paper is as follows. In Sect. 2 we provide
111: a brief summary of the features of the DGP model which are relevant for
112: our discussion. We then proceed to analyse the accelerating
113: solution in the light of
114: the Type Ia supernovae data in Sect. 3. In Sect. 4
115: we cross-check the results of this analysis with other cosmological
116: datasets, and finally we present our conclusions in Sect. 5.
117:
118: \section{The Model}
119:
120: Here we briefly describe the brane-world scenario
121: introduced by \citet{dgp},
122: and further studied in \citep{def,ddg}---we shall henceforth
123: refer to it as the DGP model. Our discussion will be somewhat
124: simplified, as we will only focus on the features that are relevant for
125: our subsequent analysis---the reader is encouraged to consult the
126: original references for a more detailed discussion.
127:
128: Our three-brane is embedded in a five-dimensional spacetime
129: with a non-compact, infinite-volume extra dimension. Particles in
130: the standard model are confined to the brane, and brane fluctuations are
131: neglected. There is essentially one free parameter in the model,
132: which is the `five-dimensional Planck mass', denoted $M_5$. Note
133: that one {\em must} assume that the standard model cut-off doesn't
134: coincide with $M_5$---in fact, it must be much larger, so that the
135: physical interpretation of $M_5$ is not quite trivial.
136:
137: The four-dimensional Planck mass will be denoted $M_4$, and is related
138: to the usual gravitational constant through $8\pi G_4=M_4^{-2}$. Unlike
139: in other brane world scenarios, here the two masses $M_4$ and $M_5$
140: need not be related. We note that there is a somewhat technical problem
141: with the model \citep{def} which implies that if one defines Newton's
142: constant via a standard Cavendish-like experiment, then the so-defined
143: $G_N$ doesn't necessarily coincide with $G_4$. This would obviously
144: contradict standard tests of General Relativity, as was already
145: pointed out in \citep{def}. Possible ways to circumvent this problem have
146: been claimed \citep{dgp,ddg}. In any case,
147: we shall neglect this aspect in what follows, since our present purpose
148: is to discuss `cosmological' (as opposed to `local') tests of the model.
149:
150: The usual four-dimensional gravity is recovered on the brane for scales
151: below a `characteristic radius' $r_c$, which is given by
152: \begin{equation}
153: \label{defrc}
154: r_c\equiv\frac{M_4^2}{2M_5^3}\,.
155: \end{equation}
156: This is due to a four-dimensional Ricci
157: scalar being induced on the brane. However, at larger scales this
158: term becomes sub-dominant, and one will effectively see five-dimensional
159: Einstein-Hilbert gravity. Therefore gravity becomes {\em weaker} on large
160: enough scales. This is to be contrasted with models where one modifies gravity
161: on large scales in order to solve, for example, the dark matter problem: in
162: that context, one requires stronger gravity on large scales.
163: From this it immediately follows that one can impose
164: a simple constraint on $M_5$, since the characteristic radius must at
165: least be as large as the present Hubble radius.
166:
167: Cosmological solutions in this model were first studied
168: in \citep{def}---but see also \citep{rdick}.
169: One finds that the Friedmann equation on the brane has the following form
170: \begin{equation}
171: \label{friedmann}
172: H^2+\frac{k}{a^2}=\left(\left[\frac{8\pi}{3}G_4\rho+
173: \frac{1}{4r_c^2}\right]^{1/2}+\frac{\epsilon}{2r_c}\right)^2\,,
174: \end{equation}
175: where $k=0,\pm1$ is the spatial curvature and $\epsilon=\pm1$ corresponds
176: to two different brane embeddings in the bulk spacetime.
177: On the other hand, the energy conservation equation has the standard form,
178: \begin{equation}
179: \label{energycons}
180: \frac{d\rho}{dt}+3H(\rho+p)=0\,.
181: \end{equation}
182:
183: At early enough times the density term dominates the Friedmann equation,
184: and hence one obtains (at least to first order) the standard cosmological
185: evolution, namely $3H^2=8\pi G_4\rho$.
186: The additional bulk-induced term will become important when
187: $H^{-1}\sim r_c$. Then the subsequent evolution depends on the sign of
188: the parameter $\epsilon$. In the $\epsilon=-1$ branch the universe
189: switches into a full five-dimensional gravity regime, where the
190: Friedmann equation looks like $H\propto\rho$---something that is typical
191: of many brane world scenarios. On the other hand, in the
192: $\epsilon=+1$ branch something rather more interesting happens. There is
193: a `self-inflationary' solution with $H\sim r_c^{-1}$. What happens is
194: that the additional curvature term on the brane appears as a source for bulk
195: gravity, and thus can cause acceleration on the brane. In other words,
196: an observer on the brane will see the universe being
197: accelerated on scales larger than $r_c$.
198:
199: Note, however, that this solution does not require any other energy source
200: on the brane---so in this sense this is indeed a higher-dimensional effect.
201: In particular, no cosmological constant is needed on the brane, so this is
202: an interesting alternative way to explain the
203: current acceleration of the universe, which is strongly indicated by
204: Type Ia supernova observations \citep{perl1,perl2,riess}, without
205: resorting to a cosmological constant. A simple, `back-of-the-envelope'
206: constraint comes from the fact that we want the universe to be at this
207: crossover stage at about the present epoch if the alternative proposal
208: for the acceleration of the universe is to be viable,
209: hence $H_0^{-1}\sim r_c$. This then naively
210: implies that the five-dimensional Planck mass should be of the order of
211: \begin{equation}
212: \label{gconstaccel}
213: M_5\sim10-100MeV\,.
214: \end{equation}
215:
216: We finally note that high-energy processes place almost no constraints on
217: this mass scale $M_5$, basically because up to about the present epoch the
218: universe evolves as normal. Indeed the only constraint comes from the
219: measurement of the Newtonian force, which only implies the very
220: mild
221: \begin{equation}
222: \label{gconst}
223: M_5>10^{-3}eV\,.
224: \end{equation}
225: As we shall see in the following section, much more stringent constraints
226: can be derived using cosmological observations, if one assumes that the
227: accelerating solution is valid. We will start by an analysis
228: of the Type Ia supernovae data, which is described below. We will
229: then contrast the results of this analysis with other cosmological
230: constraints.
231:
232: \section{Supernovae Data Analysis}
233:
234: We begin by evaluating the luminosity distance as a function of
235: the cosmological parameters for our model. The Friedmann equation
236: (\ref{friedmann}) can be rewritten as a function of
237: the red-shift $1+z \equiv a_0/a$ to give:
238: \begin{equation}
239: \label{omegas}
240: \frac{H^2(z)}{H_0^2}=\Omega_k(1+z)^2+\left(\sqrt{\Omega_{rc}}+
241: \sqrt{\Omega_{rc}+\sum_\alpha\Omega_\alpha(1+z)^{3(1+w_\alpha)}}\right)^2\,,
242: \end{equation}
243: where
244: \begin{equation}
245: \label{omegacurv}
246: \Omega_k=\frac{-k}{H_0^2a_0^2}, \qquad \qquad \Omega_{rc}=
247: \frac{1}{4r_c^2H_0^2}, \qquad \qquad \Omega_\alpha=
248: \frac{8\pi G_4\rho_{\alpha0}} {3H_0^2a_0^{3(1+w_\alpha)}},\,
249: \end{equation}
250: respectively represent the fractional contribution of curvature,
251: the bulk-induced term and the other components in the
252: Friedmann equation. In equation (\ref{omegas}) the sum is over
253: all the components of the cosmic fluid with an equation of state
254: $p_\alpha = w_\alpha \rho_\alpha$. From
255: now on we will consider only one component of non-relativistic particles
256: together with the bulk-induced term,
257: in which case equation (\ref{omegas}) becomes
258: \begin{equation}
259: \label{omegas1}
260: \frac{H^2(z)}{H_0^2}=\Omega_k(1+z)^2+\left(\sqrt{\Omega_{rc}}+
261: \sqrt{\Omega_{rc}+\Omega_m (1+z)^3}\right)^2\,;
262: \end{equation}
263: in particular, at the present day one must have
264: \begin{equation}
265: \label{normaliztoday}
266: \Omega_k+\left(\sqrt{\Omega_{rc}}+\sqrt{\Omega_{rc}+\Omega_m}\right)^2=1\,.
267: \end{equation}
268: For a flat universe $\Omega_k=0$ and so in this case the two
269: cosmological parameters are related by
270: (\ref{normaliztoday})
271: \begin{equation}
272: \label{flatcase}
273: \Omega_{rc}=\left(\frac{1-\Omega_m}{2}\right)^2\,.
274: \end{equation}
275:
276: It is also possible to show that closed universes with
277: \begin{equation}
278: \label{bouncing}
279: |\Omega_k|^{3/2} > 8 \Omega_m \Omega_{rc}^{1/2}\,
280: \end{equation}
281: do not have a big bang. These universes avoid the big bang singularity
282: by bouncing in the past. We shall disregard such universes in most of
283: what follows.
284: Another useful benchmark is the redshift at which the universe
285: switches from deceleration to acceleration, or in other words the
286: redshift for which the deceleration parameter vanishes.
287: For a flat universe $\Omega_k=0$ it's easy to show that the following
288: exact result holds
289: \begin{equation}
290: \label{qvanishes}
291: \left(1+z\right)_{q=0}=2\left(\frac{\Omega_{rc}}{\Omega_m}\right)^{1/3}\,;
292: \end{equation}
293: note that in this (flat) case $\Omega_{rc}$ and $\Omega_m$ are not
294: independent parameters---they are related by (\ref{flatcase}). For comparison,
295: the result in the standard case, again taking a flat model ($\Omega_m
296: +\Omega_\Lambda=1$) is
297: \begin{equation}
298: \label{usualqvanishes}
299: \left(1+z\right)_{q=0}=\left(\frac{2\Omega_\Lambda}{\Omega_m}\right)^{1/3}\,;
300: \end{equation}
301: we shall return to these quantities in the following section.
302:
303: It is also straightforward to show that in a Friedmann-Robertson Walker (FRW)
304: universe the luminosity distance is given by:
305: \begin{equation}
306: \label{ldistance}
307: d_L=H_0^{-1}(1+z)|\Omega_k|^{-1/2} S_k(|\Omega_k|^{1/2} d_C)\,,
308: \end{equation}
309: where
310: \begin{equation}
311: \label{cdistance}
312: d_C=H_0\int_0^z \frac{dx}{H(x)}\,,
313: \end{equation}
314: and $S_k$ is $\sinh$ if $\Omega_k \ge 0$ and $\sin$ if $\Omega_k < 0$.
315: Note that the assumption of a FRW universe is the only one
316: needed to derive (\ref{ldistance}). Specifically, we {\em do not} need to
317: assume the validity of General Relativity or to specify {\it a
318: priori} the detailed contents of the universe. This is
319: of course crucial in our case.
320:
321: We estimated the cosmological parameters using the combined data of two
322: independent teams---thus making up a dataset of 92 different
323: supernovae---using the procedure described in \citep{wang,garn}.
324: The measured distance modulus for a SN Ia is
325: \begin{equation}
326: \mu_0^{(l)}= \mu_p^{(l)}+\epsilon^{(l)}
327: \end{equation}
328: where $\mu_p^{(l)}$ is the theoretical prediction
329: \begin{equation}
330: \label{eq:mu0p}
331: \mu_p^{(l)}= 5\,\log\left( \frac{ d_L(z_l)}{\mbox{Mpc}} \right)+25,
332: \end{equation}
333: and $\epsilon^{(l)}$ is the uncertainty in the measurement, including
334: observational errors and intrinsic scatters in the SN Ia absolute
335: magnitudes.
336:
337: We denote the parameters to be fitted as {\bf s} and
338: estimate them using a $\chi^2$ statistic, with \citep{riess}
339: \begin{equation}
340: \chi^2(\mbox{\bf s})=
341: \sum_l \frac{ \left[ \mu^{(l)}_p(z_l| \mbox{\bf s})-
342: \mu_0^{(l)} \right]^2 }{\sigma_{\mu_0,l}^2 +\sigma_{mz,l}^2}
343: \equiv \sum_l \frac{ \left[ \mu^{(l)}_p(z_l| \mbox{\bf s})-
344: \mu_0^{(l)} \right]^2 }{\sigma_l^2 },
345: \end{equation}
346: where $\sigma_{\mu_0}$ is the estimated measurement error of the distance
347: modulus, and $\sigma_{mz}$ is the dispersion in the distance modulus
348: due to the dispersion in galaxy redshift, $\sigma_z$, due to
349: peculiar velocities and uncertainty in the galaxy redshift.
350: The probability density function (PDF) for the parameters {\bf s} is
351: \begin{equation}
352: \label{pppp}
353: p(\mbox{\bf s}) \propto \exp\left( - \frac{\chi^2}{2} \right)\,.
354: \end{equation}
355: The normalized PDF is obtained by dividing the above expression
356: by its sum over all possible values of the parameters {\bf s}.
357: In the particular case of our model the cosmological parameters are
358: $H_0$, $\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_{rc}$. The probability distribution function
359: for the parameters $\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_{rc}$ is obtained by integrating
360: over all possible values of $H_0$, and the results are displayed
361: in Fig. \ref{fig1}.
362:
363: We have also studied the improvements in the parameter estimation using
364: supernovae which are expected from future studies of cosmic acceleration.
365: Following \citep{weller} we assumed a future dataset similar to one
366: proposed for the SNAP satellite\footnote{SNAP home page at
367: \url{http://snap.lbl.gov}}.
368: This has the magnitudes of 50, 1800, 50
369: and 15 supernovae in the red-shift ranges from $z=0-0.2$, $z=0.2-1.2$,
370: $z=1.2-1.4$ and $z=1.4-1.7$ respectively. The statistical error in
371: magnitude is assumed to be $\sigma=0.15$ including both the estimated
372: measurement error of the distance modulus and the dispersion in the
373: distance modulus due to the dispersion in galaxy redshift. The supernovae
374: dataset was generated assuming that we live in
375: a standard FRW universe with cosmological parameters
376: $\Omega_m=0.3$ and $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$. Fig. \ref{fig2} shows
377: the corresponding results.
378:
379: \section{Results and Discussion}
380:
381: A number of interesting features are apparent from Fig. \ref{fig1}.
382: Firstly, the likelihood analysis of the supernovae data is degenerate
383: in the $\Omega_{rc}-\Omega_m$ plane, approximately following a line
384: of the form
385: \begin{equation}
386: \label{ourdegeneracy}
387: \Omega_{rc}\sim \frac{2}{5}\Omega_m+\frac{1}{10}\,.
388: \end{equation}
389: This is to be compared with the standard cosmological scenario, where
390: the degeneracy is approximately along
391: \begin{equation}
392: \label{usualdegeneracy}
393: \Omega_{\Lambda}\sim \frac{4}{3}\Omega_m+\frac{1}{3}\,.
394: \end{equation}
395: Hence one can say that for any given value of $\Omega_m$,
396: the value of $\Omega_{rc}$ which provides the best-fit to the supernova
397: data is always lower than the corresponding value of $\Omega_{\Lambda}$.
398: Reversing the argument, one could also say that
399: for a given value of the density of the accelerating component
400: (a cosmological constant in the standard case or the bulk-induced
401: term in the DGP model) the DGP model requires a higher matter
402: density in order to fit the supernova data. Note that the two and
403: three sigma likelihood contours are quite close to each other, and
404: relatively distant from the one sigma contour. This indicates that
405: with the currently available data there is an elongated `degenerate
406: best-fit plateau', and beyond this plateau the likelihood drops
407: quite abruptly.
408:
409: In any case, just by looking at Fig. \ref{fig1} one might think that
410: there is a rather comfortable range of matter densities which would
411: give models in agreement with observation. However this is not the case
412: as there are other cosmological constraints that must be met.
413: In particular, the most recent CMB
414: data \citep{boom1,boom2,boom3,maxi1,maxi2,maxi3,dasi1,dasi2} gives
415: a strong indication that the universe is spatially flat or very
416: nearly so. The current constraint is
417: \begin{equation}
418: \label{cmbfix}
419: \Omega_{tot}=1.00\pm0.05\,;
420: \end{equation}
421: note that only fairly weak priors are needed to derive this constraint
422: (refer to the original CMB papers for the analysis details).
423: Combining this with the supernova analysis this leaves a much smaller
424: range of allowed models. At the $68\%$ confidence
425: level, the allowed range of matter densities is approximately
426: \begin{equation}
427: \label{dens1sigma}
428: \Omega_m=0.20\pm0.05\,,
429: \end{equation}
430: while at the $99\%$ confidence
431: level it is
432: \begin{equation}
433: \label{dens3sigma}
434: \Omega_m=0.2\pm0.1\,.
435: \end{equation}
436: Note that this result is quite robust---for example, we have checked that
437: it is unchanged if the likelihood analysis is restricted {\em ab
438: initio} to flat universes.
439:
440: The final piece of observational evidence that we shall use are
441: dynamical measurements of the total mass density---see \citet{turner1,turner2}
442: for a discussion of the state-of-the-art. In particular the ratio of
443: baryons to the total mass in clusters has been determined using both
444: X-ray measurements \citep{mohr} and Sunyaev-Zel'dovich
445: measurements \citep{carlstrom}. One respectively obtains
446: \begin{equation}
447: \label{fraction1}
448: f_x=(0.075\pm0.007)h^{-3/2}\,
449: \end{equation}
450: from X-ray measurements, and
451: \begin{equation}
452: \label{fraction2}
453: f_{sz}=(0.079\pm0.010)h^{-1}\,
454: \end{equation}
455: from the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect. In both cases, various dozens of
456: sources have been used in the analysis.
457: If one assumes that clusters are a fair sample of the matter content
458: of the universe (which is very reasonable given their large
459: size) and uses the latest value of the baryon density at
460: nucleosynthesis \citep{bbn}
461: \begin{equation}
462: \label{baryon0}
463: \Omega_b=(0.020\pm0.002)h^{-2}\,,
464: \end{equation}
465: together with the value of the (re-scaled) Hubble constant $h$
466: obtained by the HST Key Project \citep{hst},
467: \begin{equation}
468: \label{littleh1}
469: h=0.72\pm0.08\,,
470: \end{equation}
471: one finally obtains the (rather conservative) estimate
472: \begin{equation}
473: \label{baryonfinal}
474: \Omega_m=0.35\pm0.07\,.
475: \end{equation}
476: More recently, there have been claims of an even narrower (though
477: perhaps slightly optimistic) range \citep{newomega} at the one sigma
478: level
479: \begin{equation}
480: \label{baryonfinalnew}
481: \Omega_m=0.330\pm0.035\,.
482: \end{equation}
483: Note also that there are various other sources of supporting evidence
484: that are consistent with the above value, including studies
485: of the evolution of cluster abundances with redshift, measurements of the
486: power spectrum of large-scale structure (such as the recent preliminary
487: 2dF results \citep{tdf}), analyses of measured peculiar
488: velocities as they relate to the observed matter distribution,
489: and observations of the
490: outflow of material from voids. A discussion of the assumptions and
491: techniques of each method can be found in \citet{turner1,turner2}.
492:
493: Hence the DGP model's proposal for the acceleration of the universe
494: requires a value of the matter density that is inconsistent, at least at
495: the two sigma level, with the observationally estimated
496: matter density of the universe. Together with the fact that
497: gravity becomes weaker on large enough scales,
498: this presents a serious problem. Note that
499: if the required mass was larger than the standard case, one could perhaps
500: argue that there was some matter in an yet undetected form. Indeed,
501: the fact that in the DGP model gravity becomes weaker on large enough
502: scales could then be used to obtain a relatively simple explanation.
503: However, since the observationally acceptable range of masses is lower
504: than the standard model, no explanation of this kind is possible.
505: In any case, one should recall that the evolution of the universe
506: should be as standard in the DGP model up to very recent times, eg in
507: what concerns the Friedmann equation for example---which also places
508: strong constraints on any attempts to `get rid of' some of the matter.
509:
510: And finally, there is yet another hurdle for this model to overcome.
511: In (\ref{qvanishes}) we derived the redshift at which the universe
512: switches from deceleration to acceleration, for the case of a flat
513: universe. We plot this redshift, for the range of matter densities
514: given by (\ref{dens3sigma}), in Fig. \ref{fig3}, together with
515: the analogous curve for the standard model. The problem is now
516: apparent: for the specified range of matter densities, the redshift
517: of turnaround {\em decreases as the matter density increases}. On the
518: other hand, for a given value of the turnaround redshift, the required
519: matter density is always lower with a bulk-induced
520: term replacing a cosmological constant (the solid curve in
521: Fig. \ref{fig3}) than in the standard model with a cosmological
522: constant (the dashed curve). Now,
523: the latest supernova data \citep{perl1,perl2,riess,newq1,newq2,our}
524: indicates that the universe switched from deceleration to acceleration
525: at a redshift in the interval (at one-sigma level)
526: \begin{equation}
527: \label{switchz}
528: 0.6<z_{q=0}<1.7\,.
529: \end{equation}
530: Note that for values of the matter density close to the upper limit
531: $\Omega_m\sim0.3$ the predicted redshift of turnaround is already smaller
532: than this range.
533:
534: This, therefore, is the dilemma of these models. On
535: the assumption of a flat universe, a very low matter density is needed
536: so that acceleration starts early enough. This is in fact confirmed
537: by the simulation of the supernova analysis for a SNAP-class
538: dataset, which is shown in Fig. \ref{fig2}: closed models are still
539: favoured, though flat ones are still possible at around the two sigma
540: level. However the range of possible matter densities is significantly
541: reduced. Note that in generating the SNAP dataset we have assumed a
542: standard FRW universe with $\Omega_m=0.3$ and $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$.
543: Hence, according
544: to our discussion above, if we fit that dataset to the
545: accelerating DGP model then
546: the preferred value of the matter density will come out lower. This is
547: a trivial consequence of the fact that the type Ia supernova analysis
548: method is basically a cosmological `accelerometer'.
549: The point is that, even with the data available today,
550: such low values are already strongly disfavoured by dynamical measurements of
551: the total mass density in the universe.
552:
553: On the other hand, even if one would be willing to admit that such
554: values were allowed on the grounds of dynamical measurements alone
555: (implying a much smaller value of dark matter than in the standard
556: model), they are expected to run into serious difficulties when it comes to
557: density fluctuation growth and the evolution of large-scale structures
558: (which can now be probed much beyond Mpc scales both by direct surveys
559: and through gravitational lensing), again because of the
560: weaker gravity on large enough scales. For the DGP scenario to be
561: viable the characteristic scale would be of order
562: $r_c\sim H_0^{-1}$, but obviously the effects of weaker gravity
563: would be felt on smaller scales than this.
564: Indeed this point has already
565: been made on rather general grounds (though only for the case
566: of sub-horizon modes) by \citet{uzan}, and we shall return to it
567: in more detail elsewhere.
568:
569: \section{Conclusions}
570:
571: In this paper we have considered the cosmological consequences of the
572: brane world model of \citet{dgp}, and its proposed alternative
573: explanation for the current acceleration of the universe. We have
574: shown that, contrary to recent claims \citep{ddg}, this proposal
575: is already strongly disfavoured by existing cosmological datasets,
576: at least at the two sigma level.
577: In order to be consistent with CMB and supernova data one would
578: need a very low matter density $\Omega_m\sim0.2$. Even if this
579: was allowed by dynamical measurements (such as cluster data),
580: such a low density ( and hence such a small amount of dark
581: matter) together with the fact that gravity is weaker on large
582: enough scales would make it difficult to produce
583: a consistent structure formation scenario.
584:
585: The lesson to be learned from this exercise is twofold. Firstly, no matter
586: how interesting or mathematically clever one's favourite particle physics
587: model of the universe might be, the first hurdle towards credibility
588: consists in deriving falsifiable cosmological predictions from it.
589: And secondly, the currently available cosmological observations are
590: already powerful enough to impose tight constraints on a wide
591: range of possible models, especially when various cosmological datasets
592: are combined---which is a sign that the era of precision cosmology
593: has indeed started. We hope that other brane world scenarios can be brought
594: into the realm of cosmological testability in the near future.
595:
596: \acknowledgments
597:
598: C. M. is grateful to the organizers and participants of the Extra
599: Dimensions Workshop at Coll\`ege de France, Paris, for many enlightening
600: seminars and discussions.
601: C.\ M.\ is funded by FCT under ``Programa PRAXIS XXI'' (grant no.\
602: FMRH/BPD/1600/2000). We thank `Centro de Astrof{\' \i}sica da Universidade
603: do Porto' (CAUP) for the facilities provided.
604:
605: \begin{thebibliography}{}
606: \bibitem[Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos \& Dvali(1998)]{orig1}
607: Arkani-Hamed, N., Dimopoulos, S., and Dvali, G. 1998, Phys. Lett. B429, 263
608: \bibitem[Avelino, de Carvalho \& Martins(2001)]{our}
609: Avelino, P.P., de Carvalho, J.P.M., and Martins, C.J.A.P. 2001,
610: Phys. Rev. D, in press (see astro-ph/0103075)
611: \bibitem[Balbi et al.(2000)]{maxi2}
612: Balbi, A. {\em et al.} 2001, \apjl 545, 5
613: \bibitem[Behnke et al.(2001)]{behnke}
614: Behnke, D., Blaschke, D., Pervushin, V.N., and Proskurin, D. 2001,
615: gr-qc/0102039
616: \bibitem[Bin\'etruy et al.(2000)]{orig3}
617: Bin\'etruy, P., Deffayet, C., Ellwanger, U., and Langlois, D. 2000,
618: Phys. Lett. B477, 285
619: \bibitem[Burles, Nollett \& Turner(2000)]{bbn}
620: Burles, S., Nollett, K.M., and Turner, M.S. 2000, astro-ph/0010171
621: \bibitem[Carlstrom et al.(1999)]{carlstrom}
622: Carlstrom, J. {\it et al.} 1999, astro-ph/9905255
623: \bibitem[de Bernardis et al.(2000)]{boom1}
624: de Bernardis, P. {\em et al.} 2000, Nature 404, 955
625: \bibitem[Deffayet(2001)]{def}
626: Deffayet, C. 2001, Phys. Lett. B502, 199
627: \bibitem[Deffayet, Dvali \& Gabadadze(2001)]{ddg}
628: Deffayet, C., Dvali, G., and Gabadadze, G. 2001, astro-ph/0105068
629: \bibitem[Dev, Sethi \& Lohiya(2000)]{dev}
630: Dev, A., Sethi, M., and Lohiya, D. 2000, astro-ph/0008193
631: \bibitem[Dick(2001)]{rdick}
632: Dick, R. 2001, hep-th/0105320
633: \bibitem[Dvali, Gabadadze \& Porrati(2000)]{dgp}
634: Dvali, G., Gabadadze, G., and M. Porrati, M. 2000, Phys. Lett. B485, 208
635: \bibitem[Freedman et al.(2000)]{hst}
636: Freedman, W.L. {\it et al.} 2000, astro-ph/0012376
637: \bibitem[Halverson et al.(2001)]{dasi1}
638: Halverson, N.W. {\em et al.} 2001, astro-ph/0104489
639: \bibitem[Hanany et al.(2000)]{maxi1}
640: Hanany, S. {\em et al.} 2001, \apjl 545, 1
641: \bibitem[Lange et al.(2001)]{boom2}
642: Lange, A.E. {\em et al.} 2001, Phys. Rev. D63, 042001
643: \bibitem[Maartens(2001)]{review1}
644: Maartens, R. 2001, gr-qc/0101059
645: \bibitem[Mannheim(2001)]{mann}
646: Mannheim, P. 2001, astro-ph/0104022
647: \bibitem[Mohr et al.(1999)]{mohr}
648: Mohr, J. {\it et al.} 1999, \apj 517, 627
649: \bibitem[Netterfield et al.(2001)]{boom3}
650: Netterfield, C.B. {\em et al.} 2001, astro-ph/0104460
651: \bibitem[Percival et al.(2001)]{tdf}
652: Percival, W.J. {\em et al.} 20001, astro-ph/0105232
653: \bibitem[Perlmutter et al.(1997)]{perl1}
654: Perlmutter, S. {\em et al.} 1997, \apj 483, 565
655: \bibitem[Perlmutter et al.(1999)]{perl2}
656: Perlmutter, S. {\em et al.} 1999, \apj 517, 565
657: \bibitem[Pryke et al.(2001)]{dasi2}
658: Pryke, C. {\em et al.} 2001, astro-ph/0104490
659: \bibitem[Randall \& Sundrum(1999)]{orig2}
660: Randall, L., and Sundrum, R. 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370
661: \bibitem[Riess et al.(1998)]{riess}
662: Riess, A. {\em et al.} 1998, \aj 116, 1009
663: \bibitem[Riess et al.(2001)]{newq1}
664: Riess, A.G. {\it et al.} 2001, astro-ph/0104455
665: \bibitem[Rubakov(2001)]{review2}
666: Rubakov, V. 2001, hep-ph/0104152
667: \bibitem[Stompor et al.(2001)]{maxi3}
668: Stompor, R. {\em et al.} 2001, astro-ph/0105062
669: \bibitem[Turner(2000a)]{turner1}
670: Turner, M.S. 2000, Physica Scripta T85, 210
671: \bibitem[Turner(2000b)]{turner2}
672: Turner, M.S. 2000, Physics Reports 333, 619
673: \bibitem[Turner(2001)]{newomega}
674: Turner, M.S. 2001, astro-ph/0106035
675: \bibitem[Turner \& Riess(2001)]{newq2}
676: Turner, M.S., and Riess, A.G. 2001, astro-ph/0106051
677: \bibitem[Uzan \& Bernardeau(2000)]{uzan}
678: Uzan, J.-P., and Bernardeau, F. 2000, hep-th/0012011
679: \bibitem[Wang \& Garnavich(2001)]{garn}
680: Wang, Y., and Garnavich, P. 2001, \apj 552, 445
681: \bibitem[Wang et al.(2000)]{wang}
682: Wang, Y. {\em et al.} 2000, \apj 536, 531
683: \bibitem[Weller \& Albrecht(2001)]{weller}
684: Weller, J., and Albrecht, A. 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1939
685: \end{thebibliography}
686:
687:
688: \clearpage
689: \begin{figure}
690: \plotone{f1.eps}
691: \caption{The probability distribution function for the parameters
692: $\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_{rc}$ in the DGP model, for the presently
693: available dataset of 92 Type Ia supernovae---see the text for
694: detailed description of the method. The $68 \%$, $95 \%$ and $99 \%$
695: confidence contours in the $\Omega_{rc}-\Omega_m$ plane are shown,
696: as well as the line separating closed universes with big bang
697: from no-big-bang `bouncing' ones and the one separating closed and
698: open universes (ie, denoting the flat ones). \label{fig1}}
699: \end{figure}
700:
701: \clearpage
702: \begin{figure}
703: \plotone{f2.eps}
704: \caption{A simulation of the analysis with a SNAP-class dataset
705: generated assuming that we live in a standard FRW universe with
706: cosmological parameters $\Omega_m=0.3$ and $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$---see
707: the text for the other assumptions involved. Contours and boundary lines
708: are as in Fig. 1. \label{fig2}}
709: \end{figure}
710:
711: \clearpage
712: \begin{figure}
713: \plotone{f3.eps}
714: \caption{The redshift of `turnaround' for which the deceleration
715: parameter vanishes, as a function of the matter density in the DGP
716: models, for the values of the matter density that are consistent
717: (up to $99 \%$ confidence level) with type Ia supernova and CMB data
718: (solid line), and the analogous quantity in the standard cosmological
719: model (dashed line). In both cases $\Omega_{tot}=1$. \label{fig3}}
720: \end{figure}
721:
722: \end{document}
723: