1: \documentclass[12pt,psfig,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
4: %\documentstyle{article}
5:
6: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
7:
8: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
9:
10:
11: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
12: \newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
13:
14: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
15:
16: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
17:
18:
19: \shorttitle{Dark energy and the angular size - redshift diagram}
20: \shortauthors{Lima \& Alcaniz}
21:
22:
23: \begin{document}
24:
25:
26: \title{Dark energy and the angular size - redshift diagram for milliarcsecond
27: radio-sources}
28:
29:
30: \author{J. A. S. Lima\altaffilmark{1} and J. S. Alcaniz\altaffilmark{2}}
31: \affil{Departamento de F\'{\i}sica, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do
32: Norte,
33: \\
34: C.P. 1641, 59072-970, Natal, Brasil}
35:
36:
37: \altaffiltext{1}{limajas@dfte.ufrn.br}
38: \altaffiltext{2}{alcaniz@dfte.ufrn.br}
39:
40:
41:
42:
43: \begin{abstract}
44: We investigate observational constraints on the cosmic equation
45: of state from measurements of angular size for a large sample of
46: milliarcsecond compact radio-sources. The results are based on a flat
47: Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) type models driven by non-relativistic matter
48: plus a smooth dark energy component parametrized by its equation of state $p_x
49: = \omega \rho_x$ ($-1 \leq \omega < 0$). The allowed intervals for $\omega$ and
50: $\Omega_{\rm{m}}$ are heavily dependent on the value of the mean projected
51: linear size $l$. For $l \simeq 20h^{-1} - 30h^{-1}$ pc, we find
52: $\Omega_{\rm{m}} \leq 0.62$, $\omega \leq -0.2$ and $\Omega_{\rm{m}} \leq
53: 0.17$, $\omega \leq -0.65$ (68$\%$ c.l.), respectively. As a general
54: result, this analysis shows that if one minimizes $\chi^{2}$ for the
55: parameters $l$, $\Omega_{\rm{m}}$ and $\omega$, the conventional
56: flat $\Lambda$CDM model ($\omega = -1$) with $\Omega_{\rm{m}} = 0.2$ and $l
57: = 22.6 h^{-1}$pc is the best fit for these angular size data.
58: \end{abstract}
59:
60:
61: \keywords{cosmology: theory -- dark matter -- distance scale}
62:
63: A large number of recent observational evidences strongly suggest that we live
64: in a flat, accelerating Universe composed by $\sim$ 1/3 of matter (barionic
65: + dark) and $\sim$ 2/3 of an exotic component with large negative pressure,
66: usually named dark energy or ``quintessence". The basic set of experiments
67: includes: observations from SNe Ia (Perlmutter {\it et al.} 1998; 1999; Riess
68: et al. 1998), CMB anisotropies (de Bernardis {\it et al.} 2000), large scale
69: structure (Bahcall 2000), age estimates of globular clusters (Carretta {\it et
70: al.} 2000; Krauss 2000; Rengel {\it et al.} 20001) and old high redshift
71: galaxies (OHRG's) (Dunlop 1996; Krauss 1997; Alcaniz \& Lima 1999; Alcaniz \&
72: Lima 2001). It is now believed that such results provide the remaining piece
73: of information connecting the inflationary flatness prediction
74: ($\Omega_{\rm{T}} = 1$) with astronomical observations, and, perhaps more
75: important from a theoretical viewpoint, they have stimulated the current
76: interest for more general models containing an extra component describing this
77: unknown dark energy, and simultaneously accounting for the present accelerated
78: stage of the Universe.
79:
80: The absence of a convincing evidence concerning the nature of
81: this dark component gave origin to an intense debate and mainly to many
82: theoretical speculations in the last few years. Some possible candidates for
83: ``quintessence" are: a vacuum decaying energy density, or a time varying
84: $\Lambda$-term (Ozer \& Taha 1987; Freese 1987; Carvalho {\it et al} 1992,
85: Lima and Maia 1994), a relic scalar field (Peebles \& Ratra 1988; Frieman
86: {\it et al} 1995; Caldwell {\it et al} 1998; Saini {\it et al} 2000) or still
87: an extra component, the so-called ``X-matter", which is simply characterized
88: by an equation of state $p_x=\omega\rho_{x}$, where $\omega \geq -1$ (Turner
89: \& White 1997; Chiba {\it et al} 1997) and includes, as a particular case,
90: models with a cosmological constant ($\Lambda$CDM) (Peebles 1984). For
91: ``X-matter" models, several results suggest $\Omega_x \simeq 0.7$ and $\omega
92: \leq -0.6$. For example, studies from gravitational lensing + SNe Ia provide
93: $\omega \leq -0.7$ at 68$\%$ c.l. (Waga \& Miceli 1999; see also Dev {\it et al.}
94: 2001). Limits from age estimates of old galaxies at high redshifts require
95: $\omega < -0.27$ for $\Omega_{\rm{m}} \simeq 0.3$ (Lima \& Alcaniz 2000a).
96: In addition, constraints from large scale structure (LSS) and cosmic microwave
97: background anisotropies (CMB) complemented by the SN Ia data, require $0.6
98: \leq \Omega_x \leq 0.7$ and $\omega < -0.6$ ($95\%$ c.l.) for a flat universe
99: (Garnavich {\it et al} 1998; Perlmutter {\it et al} 1999; Efstathiou 1999),
100: while for universes with arbitrary spatial curvature these data provide
101: $\omega < -0.4$ (Efstathiou 1999).
102:
103: On the other hand, although carefully investigated in many of their
104: theoretical and observational aspects, an overview on the literature shows
105: that a quantitative analysis on the influence of a ``quintessence" component
106: ($\omega ={p_x}/{\rho_x}$) in some kinematic tests like angular size-redshift
107: relation still remains to be analysed. Recently, Lima \& Alcaniz (2000b)
108: studied some qualitative aspects of this test in the context of such models,
109: with particular emphasis for the critical redshift $z_m$ at which the angular
110: size takes its minimal value. As a general conclusion, it was shown that this
111: critical redshift cannot discriminate between world models since different
112: scenarios can provide similar values of $z_m$ (see also Krauss \& Schramm
113: 1993). This situation is not improved even if evolutionary effects are taken
114: into account. In particular, for the observationally favoured open universe
115: ($\Omega_{\rm{m}} = 0.3$) we found $z_m=1.89$, a value that can also be
116: obtained for quintessence models having $0.85 \leq \Omega_x \leq 0.93$ and
117: $-1 \leq \omega_x \leq -0.5$. Qualitatively, it was also argued that if the
118: predicted $z_m$ is combinated with other tests, some interesting cosmological
119: constraints can be obtained.
120:
121:
122: In this letter, we focus our attention on a more quantitative analysis. We
123: consider the $\theta - z$ data of compact radio sources recently updated and
124: extended by Gurvits {\it et al.} (1999) to constrain the cosmic equation of
125: state. We show that a good agreement between theory and observation is
126: possible if $\Omega_{\rm{m}} \leq 0.62$, $\omega \leq -0.2$ and
127: $\Omega_{\rm{m}} \leq 0.17$, $\omega \leq -0.65$ (68$\%$ c.l.) for values of
128: the mean projected linear size between $l \simeq 20h^{-1} - 30h^{-1}$ pc,
129: respectively. In particular we find that a conventional cosmological constant
130: model ($\omega = -1$) with $\Omega_{\rm{m}} = 0.2$ and $l = 22.64h^{-1}$ pc
131: is the best fit model for these data with $\chi^{2} = 4.51$ for 9 degrees of
132: freedom.
133:
134:
135:
136: For spatially flat, homogeneous,
137: and isotropic cosmologies driven by nonrelativistic matter plus an exotic
138: component with equation of state, $p_{x} = \omega\rho_{x}$, the Einstein field
139: equations take the following form:
140: \begin{equation}
141: ({\dot{R} \over R})^{2} = H_{o}^{2}\left[\Omega_{\rm{m}}({R_{o} \over R})^{3} +
142: \Omega_x({R_{o} \over R})^{3(1 + \omega)}\right] ,
143: \end{equation}
144: \begin{equation}
145: {\ddot{R} \over R} = -{1 \over 2}H_{o}^{2}\left[\Omega_{\rm{m}}({R_{o} \over
146: R})^{3} +
147: (3\omega + 1)\Omega_x({R_{o} \over R})^{3(1 + \omega)}\right] ,
148: \end{equation}
149: where an overdot denotes derivative with respect to time, $H_{o} = 100h
150: {\rm{Kms^{-1}Mpc^{-1}}}$ is the present value of the Hubble parameter, and
151: $\Omega_{\rm{m}}$ and $\Omega_x$ are the present day matter and quintessence
152: density parameters. As one may check from (1) and (2), the case $\omega= - 1$
153: corresponds effectively to a cosmological constant.
154:
155:
156: In such a background, the angular size-redshift relation for a rod of
157: intrinsic length $l$ can be written as (Sandage 1988)
158: \begin{equation}
159: \theta(z) = {D (1 + z) \over \xi(z)} \quad.
160: \end{equation}
161: In the above expression $D$ is the angular-size scale expressed in
162: milliarcseconds (marcs)
163: \begin{equation}
164: D = {100 lh \over c} ,
165: \end{equation}
166: where $l$ is measured in parsecs (for compact radio-sources), and the
167: dimensionless coordinate $\xi$ is given by (Lima \& Alcaniz 2000b)
168: \begin{equation}
169: \xi(z) = \int_{(1 + z)^{-1}}^{1} {dx \over x \left[\Omega_{\rm{m}}x^{-1} +
170: (1 - \Omega_{\rm{m}}) x^{-(1 + 3\omega)}\right]^{{1}\over{2}}}.
171: \end{equation}
172:
173: The above equations imply that for given values of $l$,
174: $\Omega_{\rm{m}}$ and $\omega$, the predicted value of $\theta(z)$ is
175: completely determined. Two points, however, should be stressed before
176: discussing the resulting diagrams. First of all, the determination of $\Omega_{\rm{m}}$
177: and $\omega$ are strongly dependent on the adopted value of $l$.
178: In this case, instead of assuming a especific value for the mean projected
179: linear size, we have worked on the interval $l \simeq 20h^{-1} - 30h^{-1}$
180: pc, i.e., $l \sim O(40)$ pc for $h = 0.65$, or equivalently, $D = 1.4 - 2.0$
181: marcs. Second, following Kellermann (1993), we assume that possible
182: evolutionary effects can be removed out from this sample because compact radio
183: jets are (i) typically less than a hundred parsecs in extent, and, therefore,
184: their morphology and kinematics do not depend considerably on the
185: intergalactic medium and (ii) they have typical ages of some tens of years,
186: i.e., they are very young compared to the age of the Universe.
187:
188:
189: In our analysis we consider the angular size data for
190: milliarcsecond radio-sources recently compiled by Gurvits {\it et al.} (1999). This
191: data set, originally composed by 330 sources distributed over a wide range of redshifts
192: ($0.011 \leq z \leq 4.72$), was reduced to 145 sources with spectral index
193: $-0.38 \leq \alpha \leq 0.18$ and total luminosity $Lh^{2} \geq 10^{26}$ W/Hz
194: in order to minimize any possible dependence of angular size on spectral index
195: and/or linear size on luminosity. This new sample was distributed into 12
196: bins with 12-13 sources per bin (see Fig. 1). In order to determine the
197: cosmological parameters $\Omega_{\rm{m}}$ and $\omega$, we use a $\chi^{2}$
198: minimization neglecting the unphysical region $\Omega_{\rm{m}} < 0$,
199: \begin{equation}
200: \chi^{2}(l, \Omega_{\rm{m}}, \omega) =
201: \sum_{i=1}^{12}{\frac{\left[\theta(z_{i}, l, \Omega_{\rm{m}}, \omega) -
202: \theta_{oi}\right]^{2}}{\sigma_{i}^{2}}},
203: \end{equation}
204: where $\theta(z_{i}, l, \Omega_{\rm{m}}, \omega)$ is given by Eqs. (3)
205: and (5) and $\theta_{oi}$ is the observed values of the angular size
206: with errors $\sigma_{i}$ of the $i$th bin in the sample.
207:
208:
209:
210:
211: Figure 1 displays the binned data of the median angular size plotted against
212: redshift. The curves represent flat quintessence models with $\Omega_{\rm{m}}
213: = 0.3$ and some selected values of $\omega$. As discussed in Lima \& Alcaniz
214: (2000b), the standard open model (thick line) may be interpreted as an
215: intermediary case between $\Lambda$CDM ($\omega = -1$) and quintessence models
216: with $\omega \leq -0.5$. In Fig. 2 we show contours of constant likelihood
217: (95$\%$ and 68$\%$) in the plane $\omega - \Omega_{\rm{m}}$ for the interval
218: $l \simeq 20h^{-1} - 30h^{-1}$ pc. For $l = 20.58h^{-1}$ pc ($D = 1.4$
219: marcs), the best fit occurs for $\Omega_{\rm{m}} = 0.26$ and $\omega =
220: -0.86$. As can be seen there, this assumption provides $\Omega_{\rm{m}} \leq
221: 0.48$ and $\omega = -0.3$ at 1$\sigma$. In the subsequent panels of the same
222: figure similar analyses are displayed for $l \simeq 22.05h^{-1}$ pc ($D =
223: 1.5$ marcs), $l \simeq 23.53h^{-1}$ pc ($D = 1.6$ marcs) and $l \simeq
224: 29.41h^{-1}$ pc ($D = 2.0$ marcs), respectively. As should be physically
225: expected, the limits are now much more restrictive than in the previous case
226: because for the same values of $\theta_{oi}$ it is needed larger $\xi(z)$ (for
227: larger $l$) and, therefore, smaller values of $\omega$. For $l \simeq
228: 29.41h^{-1}$ pc, we find $\Omega_{\rm{m}} = 0.04$ and $\omega = -1$ as the
229: best fit model. For intermediate values of $l$, namely, $l = 22.0h^{-1}$ pc
230: ($D = 1.5$ marcs) and $l = 23.5h^{-1}$ pc ($D = 1.6$ marcs), we have
231: $\Omega_{\rm{m}} = 0.22$, $\omega = -0.98$ and $\Omega_{\rm{m}} = 0.16$ and
232: $\omega = -1$, respectively. In particular, for smaller values of $l$, e.g.,
233: $l \simeq 14.70h^{-1}$ pc ($D = 1.0$ marcs) we find $\Omega_{\rm{m}} = 0.36$,
234: $\omega = -0.04$. As a general result (independent of the choice of $l$), if
235: we minimize $\chi^{2}$ for $l$, $\Omega_{\rm{m}}$ and $\omega$, we obtain $l
236: = 22.64h^{-1}$ pc ($D = 1.54$ marcs), $\Omega_{\rm{m}} = 0.2$ and $\omega =
237: -1$ with $\chi^{2} = 4.51$ for 9 degrees of freedom (see Table 1). It is worth
238: notice that our results are rather different from those presented by Jackson
239: \& Dodgson (1996) based on the original Kellermann's data (Kellermann 1993).
240: They argued that the Kellermann's compilation favours open and highly
241: decelerating models with negative cosmological constant. Later on, they
242: considered a bigger sample of 256 sources selected from the compilation of
243: Gurvits (1994) and concluded that the standard flat CDM model is ruled out at
244: $98.5\%$ confidence level whereas low-density models with a cosmological
245: constant of either sign are favoured (Jackson \& Dodgson 1997). More recently,
246: Vishwakarma (2001) used the updated data of Gurvits {\it et al.} (1999) to
247: compare varying and constant $\Lambda$CDM models. He concluded that flat
248: $\Lambda$CDM models with $\Omega_{\rm{m}} = 0.2$ are favoured.
249:
250:
251: At this point it is also interesting to compare our results with some recent
252: determinations of $\omega$ derived from independent methods. Recently,
253: Garnavich {\it et al.} (1998) using the SNe Ia data from the High-Z Supernova
254: Search Team found $\omega < -0.55$ ($95\%$ c.l.) for flat models whatever
255: the value of $\Omega_{\rm{m}}$ whereas for arbitrary geometry they obtained
256: $\omega < -0.6$ ($95\%$ c.l.). As commented there, these values are
257: inconsistent with an unknown component like topological defects (domain walls,
258: string, and textures) for which $\omega = -\frac{n}{3}$, being $n$ the
259: dimension of the defect. The results by Garnavich {\it et al.} (1998) agree
260: with the constraints obtained from a wide variety of different phenomena
261: (Wang {\it et al.} 1999), using the ``concordance cosmic" method. Their
262: combined maximum likelihood analysis suggests $\omega \leq -0.6$, which is
263: less stringent than the upper limits derived here for values of $l \geq
264: 20h^{-1}$ pc. More recently, Balbi {\it et al.} (2001) investigated CMB
265: anisotropies in quintessence models by using the MAXIMA-1 and BOOMERANG-98
266: published bandpowers in combination with the COBE/DMR results (see also
267: Corasaniti \& Copeland 2001). Their analysis sugests $\Omega_x > 0.7$ and $-1
268: \leq \omega \leq -0.5$ whereas Jain {\it et al} (2001) found, by using image
269: separation distribution function of lensed quasars, $-0.75 \leq \omega \leq
270: -0.42$, for the observed range of $\Omega_m \sim 0.2 - 0.4$ (Dekel {\it et
271: al.} 1997). These and other recents results are summarized in Table 2.
272:
273:
274:
275: Let us now discuss briefly these angular size constraints whether the
276: adopted X-matter model is replaced by a scalar field motivated cosmology, as
277: for instance, that one proposed by Peebles and Ratra (1988). These models are
278: defined by power law potentials, $V(\phi) \sim \phi^{- \alpha}$, in such a way
279: that the parameter of the effective equation of state ($w_\phi = p_\phi /
280: \rho_\phi$) may become constant at late times (or for a given era). In this
281: case, as shown elsewhere (Lima \& Alcaniz 2000c), the dimensionless quantity
282: $\xi$ defining the angular size reads
283: \begin{equation}
284: \xi(z) = \int_{(1 + z)^{-1}}^{1} {dx \over x [\Omega_{\rm{m}}x^{-1} + (1 -
285: \Omega_{\rm{m}}) x^{{{4-\alpha} \over {2 + \alpha}}}]^{{1}\over{2}}}.
286: \end{equation}
287: Comparing the above expression with (5) we see that if $\omega = -{2/(2 +
288: \alpha)}$ this class of models may reproduce faithfully the X-matter
289: constraints based on the angular size observations presented here. However, as
290: happens with the Supernovae type Ia data (Podariu \& Ratra 2000), the two sets
291: of confidence contours may differ significantly if one goes beyond the time
292: independent equation of state approximation. Naturally, a similar behavior is
293: expected if generic scalar field potentials are considered.
294:
295: Finally, we stress that measurements of angular size from distant sources
296: provide an important test for world models. However, in order to improve the
297: results a statistical study describing the intrinsic lenght distribution of
298: the sources seems to be of fundamental importance. On the other hand, in the
299: absence of such analysis but living in the era of {\it precision cosmology},
300: one may argue that reasonable values for astrophysical quantities (like the
301: characteristic linear size $l$) can be infered from the best cosmological
302: model. As observed by Gurvits (1994), such an estimative could be useful for
303: any kind of study envolving physical parameters of active galactic nuclei
304: (AGN). In principle, by knowing $l$ and assuming a physical model for AGN,
305: a new method to estimate the Hubble parameter could be established.
306:
307: %\acknowledgments
308: \section*{Acknowledgments}
309:
310: The authors are grateful to L. I. Gurvits for sending his compilation of the data as well as for
311: helpful discussions. We would like to thank Gang Chen for useful discussions. This
312: work was partially suported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento
313: Cient\'{\i}fico e Tecnol\'{o}gico - CNPq, Pronex/FINEP (no. 41.96.0908.00)
314: and FAPESP (00/06695-0).
315:
316:
317: \begin{thebibliography}{}
318:
319: \bibitem{alcaniz} Alcaniz J. S. \& Lima J. A. S. 1999, ApJ, 521, L87
320: \bibitem{alcaniz1} Alcaniz J. S. \& Lima J. A. S. 2001, ApJ, 550, L133
321: \bibitem{balbi} Balbi A., Baccigalupi C., Matarrese S., Perrotta F., Vittorio
322: N. 2001, ApJ 547 L89
323: \bibitem{cald} Caldwell R. R., Dave R. \& Steinhardt P. J. 1998, Phys. Rev.
324: Lett. 80, 1582
325: \bibitem{carr} Carretta E. {\it et al.} 2000, ApJ, 533, 215
326: \bibitem{Carv} Carvalho J. C., Lima J. A. S. \& Waga I. 1992, Phys. Rev.
327: D46, 2404
328: \bibitem{chiba}Chiba T., Sugiyama N. \& Nakamura T. 1997, MNRAS,
329: 289, L5
330: \bibitem{Cora} Corasaniti P. S. \& Copeland E. J. 2001,
331: preprint (astro-ph/0107378)
332: \bibitem{bern} de Bernardis P. {\it et al.} 2000, Nature, 404, 955
333: \bibitem{dekel} Dekel A., Burstein D. \& White S., In Critical Dialogues in
334: Cosmology, edited by N. Turok World Scientific, Singapore (1997)
335: \bibitem{Dev} Dev A., Jain D., Panchapakesan N., Mahajan M. \&
336: Bhatia V. 2001, preprint (astro-ph/0104076)
337: \bibitem{dunlop96} Dunlop J. S. {\it et al.} 1996, Nature, 381, 581
338: \bibitem{efs} Efstathiou G. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 842
339: \bibitem{freese}Freese K., Adams F. C., Frieman J. A. \& Mottola E. 1987,
340: Nucl. Phys. B287, 797
341: \bibitem{frieman}Frieman J. A. , Hill C. T., Stebbins A. \& Waga I. 1995, Phys.
342: Rev. Lett. 75, 2077
343: \bibitem{garn} Garnavich P. M. {\it{et al.}} 1998, ApJ, 509, 74
344: \bibitem[1994]{gurvi94} Gurvits L. I. 1994, Ap. J. 425, 442
345: \bibitem[1994]{gurvi99} Gurvits L. I., Kellermann K. I. \& Frey S. 1999,
346: A\&A 342, 378
347: \bibitem[1996]{jackson} Jackson J. C. \& Dodgson M. 1997, MNRAS 278, 603
348: \bibitem[1997]{jackson1} Jackson J. C. \& Dodgson M. 1997, MNRAS 285, 806
349: \bibitem[2001]{deepak} Jain D., Dev A., Panchapakesan N., Mahajan M. \&
350: Bhatia V. 2001, preprint (astro-ph/0105551)
351: \bibitem[1993]{kell93} Kellermann K. I. 1993, Nature 361, 134
352: \bibitem{krauss} Krauss L. M. \& Schramm D. N. 1993, ApJ 405, L43
353: \bibitem{krauss1} Krauss L. M. 1997, ApJ, 480, 466
354: \bibitem{krauss2} Krauss L. M. 2000, Phys. Rep. 333, 33
355: \bibitem{limam} Lima J. A. S. \& Maia J. M. F. 1994, Phys. Rev D49, 5597
356: \bibitem{lima} Lima J. A. S. \& Alcaniz J. S. 2000a, MNRAS, 317, 893
357: \bibitem{lima1} Lima J. A. S. \& Alcaniz J. S. 2000b, A\&A, 357, 393
358: \bibitem{limaGRG} Lima J. A. S. \& Alcaniz J. S. 2000c, Gen. Rel. Grav. 32,
359: 1851
360: \bibitem{ozer} Ozer M. \& Taha O. 1987, Nucl. Phys., B287, 776
361: \bibitem{Peebles}Peebles P. J. E. 1984, ApJ 284, 439
362: \bibitem{pr} Peebles P. J. E. \& Ratra B. 1988, ApJ 325, L17
363: \bibitem{por} Podariu S. \& Ratra B. 2000, ApJ 532, 109
364: \bibitem{prlm98} Perlmutter S., {\it et al.} 1998, Nature, 391, 51
365: \bibitem{prlm99} Perlmutter S., {\it et al.} 1999, ApJ, 517, 565
366: \bibitem{perl} Perlmutter S., Turner M. S. \& White M. 1999, Phys. Rev.
367: Lett., 83, 670
368: \bibitem{ratra} Ratra B. \& Peebles P. J. E. 1988, Phys. Rev. D37,
369: 3406
370: \bibitem{rengel} Rengel M., Mateu J. \& Bruzual G. 2001, IAU Symp. 207,
371: {\it Extragalactic Star Clusters}, Eds. E. Grebel, D. Geisler, D. Minniti (in
372: press), preprint (astro-ph/0106211)
373: \bibitem{riess} Riess A. {\it et al.} 1998, AJ, 116, 1009
374: \bibitem{Sahni} Saini T. D., Raychaudhury S., Sahni V. \& Starobinsky A. A.
375: 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1162
376: \bibitem{turner2} Turner M. S. \& White M. 1997, Phys. Rev. D56, R4439
377: \bibitem[1988]{sand88} Sandage A. 1988, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 26, 561
378: \bibitem{Vish} Vishwakarma R. G. 2001, Class. Quant. Grav. 18, 1159
379: \bibitem{Waga} Waga I. \& Miceli A. P. M. R. 1999, Phys. Rev D59, 103507
380: \bibitem{Wang} Wang L., Caldwell R. R., Ostriker J. P., \& Steinhardt P. J.
381: 2000, ApJ 530, 17
382: \end{thebibliography}
383:
384:
385: %\end{document}
386:
387: \clearpage
388:
389:
390: \begin{figure}
391: \plotone{f1.eps}
392: \caption{Angular size versus redshift for 145 sources binned
393: into 12 bins (Gurvits {\it et al.} 1999). The curves correspond to the
394: characteristic linear size $l = 22.64 h^{-1}$ pc. Thick solid curve is the
395: prediction of the standard open model ($\Omega_{\rm{m}} = 0.3$).}
396: \end{figure}
397:
398: \clearpage
399:
400: \begin{figure}
401: \plotone{f2.eps}
402: \caption{Confidence regions in the $\omega - \Omega_m$ plane according to the
403: updated sample of angular size data (Gurvits {\it et al.} 1999). The solid
404: lines in each panel show the 95$\%$ and 68$\%$ likelihood
405: contours for flat quintessence models.}
406: \end{figure}
407:
408:
409: \clearpage
410:
411: \begin{table}
412: \begin{center}
413: \begin{tabular}{rrrlll}
414: \hline \hline \\
415: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$D$ (mas)}&
416: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$lh$ (pc)}&
417: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\Omega_{\rm{m}}$}&
418: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\omega$}&
419: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\chi^{2}$}\\
420: \\ \hline \hline
421: 1.4& 20.58& 0.26& -0.86& 4.56\\
422: \\
423: 1.5& 22.05& 0.22& -0.98& 4.52\\
424: \\
425: 1.6& 23.53& 0.16& -1& 4.54\\
426: \\
427: 2.0& 29.41& 0.04& -1& 5.57\\
428: \\
429: Best fit: 1.54& 22.64& 0.2& -1& 4.51\\
430: \hline \hline
431: \\
432: \end{tabular}
433: \begin{center}
434: \caption{Limits on $\omega$ from $\theta - z$ relation}
435: \end{center}
436: \end{center}
437: \end{table}
438:
439:
440:
441: \begin{table}
442: \begin{center}
443: \begin{tabular}{rlll}
444: \hline \hline
445: \\
446: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Method}&
447: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Author}&
448: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\Omega_{\rm{m}}$}&
449: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\omega$}\\
450: \\
451: \hline \hline
452: CMB+SNe Ia..& Turner \& White (1997)& $\simeq 0.3$& $\simeq
453: -0.6$\\
454: & Efstathiou (1999)& $\sim$& $< -0.6$\\
455: SNe Ia............& Garnavich {\it et al.} (1998)&
456: $\sim$& $< -0.55$\\
457: SGL+SNe Ia..& Waga \& Miceli (1999)&
458: $0.24$& $< -0.7$\\
459: SNe Ia+LSS...& Perlmutter {\it et al.} (1999)& $\sim$ & $< -0.6$\\
460: Various............& Wang {\it et al.} (1999)& $0.2 - 0.5$& $ < -0.6$\\
461: OHRG`s..........& Lima \& Alcaniz (2000a)&
462: $0.3$& $\leq -0.27$\\
463: CMB...............& Balbi {\it et al.} (2001)&
464: $0.3$& $\leq -0.5$\\
465: & Corasaniti \& Copeland (2001)&
466: $\sim$& $\leq -0.96$\\
467: SGL................& Jain {\it et al.} (2001)& $0.2 - 0.4$& $\geq
468: -0.75$, $\leq -0.55$\\
469: \hline
470: \hline
471: \end{tabular}
472: \begin{center}
473: \caption{Limits to $\omega$ for a given $\Omega_{\rm{m}}$}
474: \end{center}
475: \end{center}
476: \end{table}
477:
478:
479:
480: \end{document}
481:
482: %%
483: %% End of file `sample.tex'.
484:
485:
486: