1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\draft
3: %\input epsf
4: \newcommand\be{\begin{equation}}
5: \newcommand\ee{\end{equation}}
6: \newcommand\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
7: \newcommand\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
8: %\newcommand\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
9: %\raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}
10: %\newcommand\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
11: %\raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}
12: \begin{document}
13:
14: \title{Observational Constraints on Cardassian Expansion}
15:
16: \author{S.Sen}
17: \affil{Centro de Astronomia e Astrofisica da Universidade de Lisboa (CAAUL),
18: Departamento de F\'\i sica da FCUL, Campo Grande, 1749-016 Lisboa, Portugal.}
19: \email{somasri@cosmo.fis.fc.ul.pt}
20: \and
21: \author{A.A.Sen}
22: \affil{Centro Multidisciplinar de Astrof\'{\i}sica,
23: Departamento de F\'\i sica, Instituto Superior T\'ecnico \\
24: Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal}
25: \email{anjan@x9.ist.utl.pt}
26:
27: \begin{abstract}
28: In this work, we have studied the observational constraints on the Cardassian Model
29: for the dark energy. We have compared the model with existing Supernova data. The dependence
30: of the locations of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) peaks on the parameters
31: of the model have also been studied. We find, in particular, that observational data arising from
32: Archeops for the location of the first peak, BOOMERANG for the location of the third peak,
33: together with the Supernova data, constrain significantly the parameter space.
34: \end{abstract}
35: %\maketitle
36:
37: \keywords{Dark Energy, Cardassian Expansion, CMB, SNIa}
38: \vskip 5mm
39: \section{Introduction}
40: It is remarkable that number of current observations indicate that we are
41: living in a spatially flat, low matter density universe which is currently
42: undergoing an accelerating expansion \citep{cmb1,cmb2,cmb3,super1,super2,super3,super4}. The most simple
43: explanation of this current cosmological state of the universe requires two
44: dark components: one is in the form of non-relativistic dust (``dark matter'')
45: with vanishing pressure contributing one-third of the total energy density
46: of the universe and clustering gravitationally at small scales while the
47: second one is a smoothly distributed component having large negative
48: pressure (``dark energy'') and contributing around two-third of the total
49: energy density of the universe. Although the simplest candidate for this
50: dark energy is the vacuum energy or the cosmological constant $(\Lambda$),
51: alternative scenarios where the acceleration is driven by dynamical scalar
52: field both minimally \citep{cald,peeb,
53: fer,cope,stein,zlat,wett,rat,bar,sah,sen1,bento1} and non-minimally
54: \citep{bertl,bert,uzan,amend1,gas1,sen2,sen3,sen4} coupled with gravity
55: called ``quintessence'' have been widely investigated
56: in recent years \footnote{See also \citep{ban1,ban2,soma,amend2,chib,gas2,riaz,toc}}.
57:
58: As none of the two components (dark matter and dark energy) has laboratory
59: evidence both directly or indirectly, one has to invoke untested physics
60: twice to explain the current observations. That is why people in recent times
61: have proposed interesting scenarios where one describes both dark matter and
62: dark energy in a unified way through a single fluid component in the
63: Einstein's equation. Chaplygin gas model is one such interesting possibility
64: which has attracted lot of attentions in recent times
65: \citep{chap1,chap2,chap4,chap3}.
66: Padmanabhan and Roy Choudhury have also proposed an interesting unified
67: description based on a rolling tachyon arising in string theory \citep{paddy}.
68:
69: Recently Freese \& Lewis\citep{freese} proposed another interesting alternative to quintessence scenario
70: where the recent acceleration of the flat universe is driven solely by the
71: matter, instead of using any cosmological constant or vacuum energy term.
72: Since pure matter or radiation cannot alone take into account the
73: recent acceleration in the flat universe,
74: this goal is
75: accomplished by modifying the Friedman equation with an empirical
76: additional term named {\em Cardassian term}.
77: \be
78: H^2=A~\rho+B~\rho^n,
79: \ee
80: where $A={8\pi G\over{3}}$ and $B$ and $n$ are constants and are the
81: parameters of the model. Here the energy density $(\rho)$ contains only matter
82: $(\rho_m)$ and
83: radiation $(\rho_r)$, i.e, $\rho=\rho_m+\rho_r$. Since at present
84: $\rho_m>>\rho_r$, $\rho$ can be considered consisting of $\rho_m$ only.
85: The new term, dominates only recently at redshift $\sim 1$.
86: To provide the required acceleration of the universe
87: as the outcome of the dominance of this term, $n$ should be $<2/3$.\\
88:
89: There are several interpretations for the origin of this new ``cardassian term''
90: appearing in the Einstein's equation (1). As described in \citep{freese} and also
91: in \citep{chung}, this term can appear as a consequence of embedding our observable
92: universe as a $3+1$ dimensional brane in extra dimension. Although recently it has
93: been argued \citep{cline} that cardassian model based on this
94: higher dimensional interpretation violates the weak energy condition for the bulk
95: stress energy for $n<2/3$ which is necessary for accelerating universe in late times.
96: This extra term may also arise due to the matter self-interactions that contributes a
97: negative pressure, through a long-range confining force which may be of gravitational
98: origin or may be a fifth force \citep{gond}.
99: Also denoting the second term as $\rho_{x}$ one can recast equation (1) as,
100: \be
101: H^2=A~(\rho+\rho_x),
102: \ee
103: where one can consider $\rho_{x}$ as the dark energy with equation of state
104: \be
105: w_{x} = (n-1) + {n\over{3}}{\rho_{r0}a^{-4}\over{\rho_{r0}a^{-4}+\rho_{m0}a^{-3}}}
106: \ee
107: where $\rho_{r0}$ and $\rho_{mo}$ are the present energy density for radiation and
108: matter and we have assumed that present scale factor $a_{0}=1$. At late times,
109: when $ \rho_{r} << \rho_{m}$, one can approximate the above equation of state as
110: \be
111: w_{x}^{late} = (n-1) + {n\over{3}}{\rho_{r0}\over{\rho_{m0}}}(1+z)
112: \ee
113: which is very slowly varying function with redshift. This is the conventional first
114: order expansion to the equation of state for the dark energy and has been widely used
115: in literature\citep{omega,ast,lind}. Also as $\rho_{r0}<<\rho_{m0}$, at late times,
116: $w_{x}^{late}$ is almost constant
117: and it is identical to a dark energy component with a constant equation of state\citep{av}.
118: But in early times, as one can not ignore the radiation component, one has to take the
119: general equation of state $w_{x}$ which is not constant. This is important when one considers
120: the constraints on the model from the CMBR observations.
121:
122: In this work, we shall consider the observational constraints on the different
123: parameters of this cardassian model. We shall consider the constraints arising from
124: the positions of the peaks of the CMBR as well as those arising from Supernova observations.
125:
126: \section{Cardassian Model}
127: One can cast equation (1) in the following way
128: \be
129: H^2=A~\rho[1+(\frac{\rho}{\rho_{car}})^{n-1}]
130: \ee
131: where $\rho_{car}$ is the energy density at which the two terms are equal.
132: Once the energy density $\rho$ drops below $\rho_{car}$ the universe
133: starts accelerating. $\rho_{car}$ is given by
134: \bea
135: \rho_{car}&=&\left(\frac{A}{B}\right)^{\frac{1}{n-1}}\nonumber\\
136: &=&\rho_{m0}(1+z_{car})^{3}\{1+\frac{\Omega_{r0}}{\Omega_{m0}}(1+z_{car})\}
137: \eea
138: where $z_{car}$ is the redshift at which the second term, in equation (1),
139: starts dominating over the first term. The model
140: has two main parameters $B$ (or $\rho_{car}$ or $z_{car}$) and $n$.\\
141:
142: To fulfill the requirement of the CMBR observation of a flat universe
143: one can modify the critical energy density $\rho_c$ so that
144: the matter can be sufficient to provide a flat geometry. Evaluating equation (1) today,
145: \be
146: H_0^2=A~(\rho_{m0}+\rho_{r0})\{1+\frac{B}{A}~(\rho_{m0}+\rho_{r0})^{n-1}\}.
147: \ee
148: In the new picture, $\Omega_0$ is defined as $\frac{\rho_{m0}+\rho_{r0}}
149: {\rho_c}$ so that matter alone makes the geometry flat. Here the
150: expression for the critical energy density $\rho_c$ has been changed
151: from its usual one $\rho_{ca}(=\frac{3H_0^2}{8\pi G})$, as,
152: \be
153: \rho_c=\rho_{ca}\times F(n,z_{car})
154: \ee
155: where
156: \bea
157: F(n,z_{car})&=&[1+\frac{B}{A}\rho_{m0}^{n-1}(1+\frac{\Omega_{r0}}{\Omega_{m0}})^{n-1} ]^{-1}\nonumber\\
158: &=&[1+(1+z_{car})^{3(1-n)}\{1+\frac{\Omega_{r0}}{\Omega_{m0}}(1+z_{car})\}^{1-n}(1+
159: \frac{\Omega_{r0}}{\Omega_{m0}})^{n-1} ]^{-1}
160: \eea
161: $\Omega_{m0}$ and $\Omega_{r0}$ are two parameters defined as
162: $\Omega_{m0}=\frac{\rho_{mo}}{\rho_{ca}}$ and $\Omega_{r0}=\frac{\rho_{ro}}{\rho_{ca}}$
163: respectively.
164:
165: So the new critical density $\rho_c$ is expressed as a function of two
166: parameters $n$ and $B$ or $z_{car}$. This is similar to the expression given
167: in \citep{freese}.
168: As mentioned there, a point to note here is that the new
169: critical density $\rho_c$ is now the fraction of the original critical
170: density $\rho_{ca}$ which
171: has a standard value $1.88\times 10^{-29}~h_0^2~gm/cm^3$. Hence the new
172: critical density can be much lower
173: than the standard estimate. And also keeping in mind that we consider a
174: flat geometry $(\Omega_0=1)$, we have today's energy density
175: $\rho_{m0}+\rho_{r0}=\rho_c$
176: i.e,
177: \be
178: \Omega_{m0}+\Omega_{r0}=\frac{\rho_c}{\rho_{ca}}=~F
179: \ee
180: %Since todays radiation component is a constant $9.89 \times 10^{-5}$, the
181: %argument presented above allows us to take a much lower value
182: %for $\Omega_{m0}$ than the normal estimate.
183: In figure 1, we present the different combinations of $n$
184: and $z_{car}$ for certain values of $F$.However, gravitational cluster\citep{abha} and other data suggest\citep{turner} the total matter density to be 30\% of the usual critical density i.e, $\rho_c=.3~\rho_{ca}$. This sets a preferred value $.3$ for $F$.
185:
186: Now substituting the evolution of matter and radiation, we write equation (1) as the following,
187: \be
188: H^2=A~[\rho_{m0}a^{-3}(1+\frac{\Omega_{r0}}{\Omega_{m0}}a^{-1})+\frac{B}{A}
189: ~\rho_{m0}^n~a^{-3n}(1+\frac{\Omega_{r0}}{\Omega_{m0}}a^{-1})^n]
190: \ee
191: From equation (9) it is very straight forward to express B in terms of
192: $\Omega_{r0}$ and $\Omega_{m0}$
193:
194: \be
195: \frac{B}{A}\rho_{m0}^{n-1}=(\frac{1-\Omega_{r0}-\Omega_{m0}}{\Omega_{m0}})(1+\frac{\Omega_{r0}}{\Omega_{m0}})^{-n}.
196: \ee
197: Substituting this expression in equation (11), one can finally
198: recast equation (1) in the following fashion
199: \be
200: H^2=\Omega_{m0}H^2_0 a^{-4}~\left[(a+\frac{\Omega_{r0}}{\Omega_{m0}})+a^{-4n+4}
201: \left(\frac{1-\Omega_{r0}-\Omega_{m0}}{\Omega_{m0}}\right)
202: \left(\frac{a+\frac{\Omega_{r0}}{\Omega_{m0}}}{1+\frac{\Omega_{r0}}{\Omega_{m0}}}\right)^n\right]
203: \ee
204: In equation (13) $H^2$ is expressed
205: in terms of the two model parameters $n$ and $\Omega_{m0}$ which, in turn, is
206: related to the other form of this parameter ($F$ or $z_{car}$) through equation (9) and (10).
207: We are now in a position to constrain these
208: two parameters with different observations.
209: Once we constrain these two parameters from the
210: observation we can evaluate the corresponding value of $F$ or $z_{car}$ from eqn (10) and figure
211: \ref{fig1}.
212: There is an important point to note is that the value $n=0$ corresponds to a $\Lambda$CDM model
213: ($\Omega_{r}$ at present is negligible). This will be crucial when we shall talk later about the allowed
214: region of the parameter space.
215:
216: The prior assumptions in our subsequent calculations are as follows:
217: scale factor at present $a_{0} = 1$, scale factor at last scattering
218: $a_{ls} = 1100^{-1}$, $h = 0.65$, density parameter for radiation and baryons
219: at present $\Omega_{r0} = 9.89 \times 10^{-5}$,
220: $\Omega_{b0} = 0.05$,
221: and spectral index for the initial energy density perturbations,
222: $n = 1$.
223:
224: \section{Fitting with Supernova data}
225: First we check the consistency of the model with SNIa observations.
226: The data from different supernova observation is related to a quantity called luminosity
227: distance
228: $d_l$ defined by
229: \be
230: d_l=(1+z)r_1
231: \ee
232: for a source at $r=r_1$ at $t=t_1$. But basically the luminosity distance
233: in logarithmic units is what is observed by the astronomers.
234: \be
235: m_B(z)={\cal{M}}+5\log_{10}(D_l)
236: \ee
237: where ${\cal{M}}\equiv M-5\log_{10}H_0+25$ and $D_l=H_0 d_l$ is the
238: dimensionless luminosity distance. To measure ${\cal{M}}$, one can
239: show that for nearby sources (in low redshift limit) the above equation
240: can be approximated as
241: \be
242: m_B(z)={\cal{M}}+5\log_{10}(z).
243: \ee
244: The low redshift supernovae measurements can be used to calculate
245: ${\cal{M}}$. Using equation (14), we estimate the magnitudes of the
246: supernovae at different redshifts from
247: \be
248: m_B-{\cal{M}}=5\log_{10}\{\frac{(1+z)}{\sqrt
249: {\Omega_{m0}}}\int_0^z\frac{dz'}{(1+z)^2 X(z)}\}
250: \ee
251: where
252: $$
253: X(z)=\left[(\frac{1}{1+z}+\frac{\Omega_{r0}}{\Omega_{m0}})+(1+z)^{4n-4}
254: \left(\frac{1-\Omega_{r0}-\Omega_{m0}}{\Omega_{m0}}\right)\left(\frac{\frac{1}{1+z}+
255: \frac{\Omega_{r0}}{\Omega_{m0}}}{1+\frac{\Omega_{r0}}{\Omega_{m0}}}\right)^n\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}
256: $$
257:
258:
259: Using the above the relation to estimate $m_B$ at different redshifts
260: and the observed values of the effective magnitude $m_{B,i}^{eff}$
261: and the same
262: standard errors $\sigma_{z,i}$ and $\sigma_{m_{B,i}^{eff}}$ for a given redshift
263: as listed by Perlmutter et al from SCP\citep{super1}, we compute $\chi^2$ as
264: \be
265: \chi^2=\sum_{i=1}^{54}\frac{[m_{B,i}^{eff}-m_B(z_i)]^2}{\sigma_{z,i}^2+{\sigma^2_{m_{B,i}^{eff}}}}
266: \ee
267: We consider the data set of 54 supernovae comprising of 38 high redshift
268: supernovae from Supernova Cosmology Project together with 16 low
269: redshift supernovae from the Calan-Tololo project, as used by
270: \citep{super1} in their primary fit C (for details of
271: excluded data points see \citep{super1}). In figure \ref{fig2} we
272: present the permitted parameter space by the supernova constrains
273: at different confidence level.
274: We observe that
275: the model best fits the current supernova data at 80\% confidence level.
276:
277: \section{Constraints from CMBR}
278: Our second tool for constraining the parameters is CMBR anisotropy spectrum.
279: The CMBR peaks arise from oscillation of the primeval plasma just before
280: the universe becomes transparent. The oscillation of the tightly bound
281: photon-baryon fluid is a result of the balance between the gravitational
282: interaction and photon pressure and this oscillations gives rise to the
283: peaks and troughs in the temperature anisotropic spectrum. In an ideal
284: photon-baryon fluid model, there is an analytic relation for the location
285: of the m-th peak\citep{hu}:
286: \be
287: l_m=m~l_A
288: \ee
289: where $l_A$ is the acoustic scale which depends on both pre and post
290: recombination physics and also on the geometry of the universe. This has an
291: analytical expression given by $\frac{\pi D}{s_{ls}}$ where $D$ is
292: the angular diameter distance to the last scattering and $s_{ls}$
293: is the sound horizon at the last scattering. In terms of the conformal time
294: $\tau$, $l_A$ is given by\citep{doran2,doran4},
295: \be
296: l_A=\pi\frac{\tau_0-\tau_{ls}}{\bar{c_s}\tau_{ls}}.
297: \ee
298: where $\tau_0$ and $\tau_{ls}$ are the conformal time today and at
299: last scattering and $\bar{c_s}$ is the average sound speed before
300: last scattering. $\bar{c_s}$ is a constant for a particular
301: $\frac{\rho_b}{\rho_r}$. We take it as 0.52 as others\citep{doran2}. \\
302:
303: Now, to find $l_A$, we write equation (13)
304: in terms of conformal time
305: \be
306: (\frac{da}{d\tau})^2=
307: \Omega_{m0}H^2_0~\left[(a+\frac{\Omega_{r0}}{\Omega_{m0}})+a^{-4n+4}
308: \left(\frac{1-\Omega_{r0}-\Omega_{m0}}{\Omega_{m0}}\right)\left(\frac{a+
309: \frac{\Omega_{r0}}{\Omega_{m0}}}{1+\frac{\Omega_{r0}}{\Omega_{m0}}}\right)^n\right]
310: \ee
311: wherefrom it is quite easy to find
312: \be
313: \tau_{ls}=\int_0^{\tau_{ls}} d\tau=\frac{1}{\Omega_{m0}^{1/2}H_0}\int_0^{a_{ls}}\frac{da}{X(a)}
314: \ee
315: and
316: \be
317: \tau_{0}=\int_0^{\tau_{0}} d\tau=\frac{1}{\Omega_{m0}^{1/2}H_0}\int_0^1 \frac{da}{X(a)}
318: \ee
319: where $X(a)=\sqrt{(a+\frac{\Omega_{r0}}{\Omega_{m0}})+a^{-4n+4}
320: \left(\frac{1-\Omega_{r0}-\Omega_{m0}}{\Omega_{m0}}\right)
321: \left(\frac{a+\frac{\Omega_{r0}}{\Omega_{m0}}}{1+\frac{\Omega_{r0}}{\Omega_{m0}}}\right)^n}$.
322:
323: Substituting the above expression in equation (20), we have the analytical
324: expression for $l_A$ in case of this model
325: \be
326: l_A=\frac{\pi}{\bar{c_s}}\left[\frac{\int_0^1 \frac{da}{X(a)}}{\int_0^{a_{ls}} \frac{da}{X(a)}}-1\right]
327: \ee
328: where $a_{ls}=1100^{-1}$. Thus we can find the positions of the peaks in the
329: CMBR spectrum from equation (19). $l_A$ and consequently the positions
330: of the CMBR peaks here
331: depends only $n$ and $\Omega_{m0}$. So
332: once we calculate the positions of the peaks we can constrain the
333: parameters $n$ and $\Omega_{m0}$ by comparing the results from
334: different observations.
335:
336: Now the simple relation in (19) is modified by driving and dissipative
337: effects which introduces a phase shift to the oscillation such that\citep{hu}
338: \be
339: l_m\equiv l_A(m-\phi_m)
340: \ee
341: The phase shift of the peaks $\phi_m$ is predominantly determined by the
342: pre-recombination physics and is independent of the geometry of the
343: universe. It depends on parameters like, $\Omega_b h^2$, $n$, and $r_{ls}$,
344: the ratio of the energy density of radiation to matter at last scattering.
345: For $n=1$ and $\Omega_b h^2=0.02$ and $r_{ls}=\frac{\rho_r(z_{ls})}
346: {\rho_m(z_{ls})}$, $z_{ls}\sim 1100$ at last scattering,
347: the phase shift for the first peak\citep{hu}
348: \be
349: \phi_1= 0.267(\frac{r_{ls}}{0.3})^{.1}.
350: \ee
351: Now substituting for $r_{ls}$ at $z=1100$, we have
352: \be
353: \phi_1= 0.267(\frac{1100\Omega_{r0}}{0.3\Omega_{m0}})^{.1}.
354: \ee
355: Hence the position of the first peak $l_1$ is
356: \be
357: l_1=l_A(1-\phi_1)
358: \ee
359: Using equation (22)-(24) and (27) and (28) one can calculate $l_1$
360: as a function of $n$ and $\Omega_{m0}$. The observational bounds on
361: $l_1$ as predicted by BOOMERANG\citep{boom} and more recently by Archeops
362: \citep{arc} are $l_1=221\pm14$ and $l_1=220\pm6$ respectively.
363: As the bound coming from the Archeops data is more stringent, we shall take
364: this bound for first peak to constrain our parameters.
365:
366: The relative shift of the second peak is a very sensitive
367: quantity and depends on many parameters. Hence it is very
368: difficult to derive any constraint from the second peak.
369: So we disregard the second one.
370: As far the third peak
371: is concerned Doran et al\citep{doran3}
372: have shown it to be insensitive to different cosmological
373: parameters. They estimated $\phi_3$ to be $0.341$. Hence
374: \be
375: l_3=l_A(3-\phi_3)=l_A(3-0.341)=2.659~l_A
376: \ee
377: With this expression one can also calculate $l_3$ for different
378: values of $n$ and $\Omega_{m0}$. The observational bound on $l_3$ as suggested by
379: BOOMERANG : $l_3=845^{+12}_{-25}$. In figure \ref{fig3} we have shown the constraints on the parameter space
380: that are obtained from the observational bounds on the location of the first(dashed contour)
381: and third(full contour) CMBR peaks. Hence, from the CMBR point of view the allowed region of the
382: model parameters lies in the intersection between these two contours.
383:
384: \section{Conclusion}
385:
386: In conclusion, we have shown that the locations of the CMBR peaks, as determined
387: via Archeops and BOOMERANG, as well as the present Supernova Ia data, constrain a sizable portion of the parameter space of the Cardassian model.
388: We observe that the model best fit with the Supernova data at 80\% confidence
389: level. This, together with the allowed region from CMBR data restricts the parameters as
390: $0.31 \lesssim n \lesssim 0.44$ and $0.13 \lesssim \Omega_{m0} \lesssim 0.23$ (See figure \ref{fig4}). This clearly does not
391: include the $n=0$ which is the corresponding $\Lambda$CDM case in this model. This is the most
392: interesting result of this investigation. Also the joint analysis indicates a lower value of $\Omega_{m0}$.
393: This is consistent with that predicted by Zhu et.al \citep{zhu} by investigating the constraints on the
394: cardassian model from the recent measurements of the angular size of high-z compact radio sources.
395: Also our bound on $\Omega_{m0}$ is consistent with that
396: predicted by Melchiorri et.al
397: \citep{mel} from a combined CMB+HST+SNIa+2dF analysis. Clearly with future high precision measurements
398: of the
399: MAP and PLANCK mission, we expect that the positions of the CMBR peaks will be determined
400: with higher accuracy. This, together with the upcoming data from future SNAP mission will
401: further constrain the parameter space of this model.
402: \vskip 0.4cm
403: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
404: \acknowledgments
405: The authors are grateful to O. Bertolami, M.C. Bento and P. Crawford
406: for useful discussions. The authors also thank Zong-Hong Zhu to bring in our attention
407: one of their recent papers, and also for his comments.
408: The work of A.A.S. is fully
409: financed by Funda\c c\~ao para a Ci\^encia e a Tecnologia (Portugal)
410: under the grant POCTI/1999/FIS/36285. The work of S.S. is financed by
411: Funda\c c\~ao para a Ci\^encia e a Tecnologia (Portugal), through CAAUL.
412: %\end{acknowledgments}
413: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
414: \newpage
415: %\vskip 0.3cm
416: \begin{thebibliography}{}
417: \bibitem[Astier (2001)]{ast}Astier, P. 2001, Phys.Lett.B, {\bf 500}, 8
418: \bibitem[Amendola (2000)]{amend1}Amendola, L. 2000, \prd, {\bf 62}, 043511
419: \bibitem[Amendola (1999)]{amend2}Amendola, L. 1999, \prd, {\bf 60}, 043501
420: \bibitem[Avelino (2002)]{av}Avelino, P.P. et al. 2002, astro-ph/0208528
421: \bibitem[Balbi et al. (2000)]{cmb3} Balbi, A et al. 2000, astro-ph/0005124.
422: \bibitem[Banerjee et al.(2001a)]{ban1}Banerjee, N. and Pavon, D. 2001, \prd, {\bf 63}, 043504
423: \bibitem[Banerjee et al(2001b)]{ban2}Banerjee, N. and Pavon, D. 2001, Class.Quant.Grav, {\bf 18}, 593
424: \bibitem[Barreiro et al.(2001)]{bar}Barreiro, T., Copeland, E.J. and Nunes, N.J. 2001, \prd, {\bf 61}, 127301
425: \bibitem[Benoit et al.(2002)]{arc}Benoit, A. et al. 2002, astro-ph/0210305, astro-ph/0210306
426: \bibitem[Bento et al.(2001)]{bento1}Bento, M.C., Bertolami, O. and Santos,N.C. 2001, astro-ph/0106405
427: \bibitem[Bento et al.(2002a)]{chap2}Bento, M.C., Bertolami, O. and
428: Sen, A.A. 2002a, \prd, {\bf D66}, 043507
429: \bibitem[Bento et al.(2002b)]{chap4}Bento, M.C., Bertolami, O and Sen, A.A. 2002b, astro-ph/0210468
430: \bibitem[Bernadis et al.(2000)]{cmb1}Bernadis, P.De. et al. 2000, \nat, {\bf 404}, 955
431: \bibitem[Bernadis et al.(2002)]{boom}Bernardis, P.De. et al. 2002, \apj, {\bf 564}, 55
432: 9
433: \bibitem[Bertolami et al.(200O)]{bert}Bertolami, O. and Martins, P.J. 2000, \prd, {\bf 61}, 064007
434: \bibitem[Bertolo et al.(1999)]{bertl}Bertolo,N. and Pietroni, M. 1999, \prd, {\bf 61}, 023518
435: \bibitem[Bili\'c et al.(2002)]{chap3}Bili\'c, N., Tupper, G.B. and Viollier, R.D. 2002, Phys.Lett.B,
436: {\bf 535}, 17
437: \bibitem[Calberg et al.(1996)]{abha}Calberg, R.G. et al. 1996, \apj, {\bf 462}, 32
438: \bibitem[Caldwell et al (1998)]{cald}Caldwell, R.R., Dave, R., and Steinhardt, P.J. 1998, \prl, {\bf 80}, 1582
439: \bibitem[Chiba (1999)]{chib}Chiba, T. 1999, \prd, {\bf 60}, 083508
440: \bibitem[Chung et al.(2000)]{chung}Chung, D.J. and Freese, K. 2000, \prd, {\bf 61}, 023511
441: \bibitem[Cline et al.(2002)]{cline}Cline, J.M. and Vinet, J. 2002, hep-ph/0211284.
442: \bibitem[Copeland et al.(1988)]{cope}Copeland, E.J. Liddle, A.R., and
443: Wands, D. 1988, \prd, {\bf 57}, 4686
444: \bibitem[Doran et al.(2001)]{doran2}Doran, M., Lilley, M., Schwindt, J. and Wetterich, C. 2001, \apj,
445: {\bf 559}, 501
446: \bibitem[Doran et al.(2002a)]{doran4} Doran, M. and Lilley, M. 2002a, \mnras, {\bf 330}, 965
447: \bibitem[Doran et al.(2002b)]{doran3}Doran, M., Lilley, M. and Wetterich, C. 2002b, Phys.Lett.B, {\bf 528},
448: 175
449: \bibitem[Ferreira et al.(1987)]{fer}Ferreira, P.G and Joyce, M. 1987, \prl, {\bf
450: 79}, 4740
451: \bibitem[Freese et al.(2002)]{freese}Freese, K. and Lewis, M. 2002, Phys.Lett.B, {\bf 540}, 1
452: \bibitem[Garnavich et al.(1998)]{super3}Garnavich, P.M. et al. 1998, \apj, {\bf 493}, L53
453: \bibitem[Gasperini (2001a)]{gas1}Gasperini, M. 2001a, gr-qc/01050821
454: \bibitem[Gasperini (2001b)]{gas2}Gasperini, M., Piazza, F. and Veneziano, G. 2001b, gr-qc/0108016
455: \bibitem[Gondolo et al.(2002)]{gond}Gondolo, P and Freese, K. 2002, hep-ph/0209322, hep-ph/0211397
456: \bibitem[Hanany et al.(2000)]{cmb2}Hanany, S et al. 2000, astro-ph/0005123
457: \bibitem[Hu et al.(2001)]{hu}Hu, W., Fukugita, M., Zaldarriaga, M. and Tegmark, M. 2001, \apj,
458: {\bf 549}, 669
459: \bibitem[Kamenshchik et al.(2001)]{chap1}Kamenshchik, A. Moschella, U., and Pasquier, V. 2001,
460: Phys.Lett.B, {\bf 511}, 265
461: \bibitem[Linder(2002)]{lind}Linder, E.V. astro-ph/0208512
462: \bibitem[Melchiorri(2002)]{mel}Melchiorri, A., Mersini, L., Odmann, C.J. and Trodden, M. 2002, astro-ph/0211522
463: \bibitem[Padmanabhan et al.(2002)]{paddy}Padmanabhan, T and Roy Choudhury, T. 2002, \prd, {\bf 66}, 081301(R)
464: \bibitem[Peebles et al.(1988)]{peeb}Peebles, P.J.E and Ratra, B. 1988, \apjl, {\bf
465: 325}, L17
466: \bibitem[Perlmutter et al.(1998)]{super2}Perlmutter,S. et al. 1998, \nat, {\bf 391}, 51
467: \bibitem[Perlmutter et al.(1997)]{super1}Perlmutter, S. et al. 1997, \apj,
468: {\bf 483}, 565
469: \bibitem[Ratra et al.(1988)]{rat}Ratra, B. and Peebles, P.J.E. 1988, \prd, {\bf 37}, 3406
470: \bibitem[Riazuelo et al.(2001)]{riaz}Riazuelo, A. and Uzan, J. 2001, astro-ph/0107386
471: \bibitem[Riess et al.(1998)]{super4}Riess, A.G. 1998, \aj, {\bf 116}, 1009
472: \bibitem[Sahni et al.(2000)]{sah}Sahni, V. and Wang, L. 2000, \prd, {\bf 59}, 103517
473: \bibitem[Sen et al.(2002)]{sen1}Sen, A.A. and Sethi, S. 2002, Phys.Lett.B, {\bf 532}, 159
474: \bibitem[Sen et al. (2001)]{sen2}Sen, A.A., Sen, S. and Sethi, S. 2001, \prd, {\bf 63}, 107501
475: \bibitem[Sen and Sen(2001a)]{sen3}Sen, S. and Sen, A.A. 2001a, \prd, {\bf 63}, 124006
476: \bibitem[Sen and Sen(2001b)]{sen4}Sen, A.A. and Sen, S. 2001b, Mod.Phys.Lett.A, {\bf 16}, 1303
477: \bibitem[Sen and Seshadri(2000)]{soma}Sen, S. and Seshadri, T.R. 2000, gr-qc/0007079
478: \bibitem[Steinhardt et al.(1999)]{stein}Steinhardt, P.J., Wang, L., and Zlatev, I. 1999, \prl, {\bf 59}, 123504
479: \bibitem[Tocchini-Valentini et al.(2001)]{toc}Tocchini-Valentini, D and Amendola, L. 2001, astro-ph/0108143
480: \bibitem[Turner(2001)]{turner}Turner, M.S. 2001, astro-ph/0106035.
481: \bibitem[Uzan(1999)]{uzan}Uzan, J.P. 1999, \prd, {\bf 59}, 123510
482: \bibitem[Weller et al.(2001)]{omega}Weller, J and Albrecht, A. 2001, \prl, {\bf 86}, 1939
483: \bibitem[Wetterich(1988)]{wett}Wetterich, C. 1988, Nuclear Phys.B, {\bf 302}, 668,
484: \bibitem[Zhu(2002)]{zhu}Zhu, Z. and Fujimoto, M. 2002, \apj, {\bf 581}, 1.
485: \bibitem[Zlatev et al.(1999)]{zlat}Zlatev, I., Wang, L., and Steinhardt, P.J. 1999, \prl,
486: {\bf 82}, 896
487: \end{thebibliography}
488: \clearpage
489: \begin{figure}
490: %\centering
491: %\leavevmode
492: %\epsfysize=6cm \epsfbox{fnz.eps}
493: %\vskip 0.1cm
494: \plotone{f1.eps}
495: \caption{Contours of F in ($n, z_{car}$) plane. Contours corresponds
496: to value of F (0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4) from top to bottom.\label{fig1}}
497: %\label{fig1}
498: \end{figure}
499: \clearpage
500: \begin{figure}
501: %\centering
502: %\leavevmode \epsfysize=6cm \epsfbox{paramn.eps}\\
503: %\vskip 0.1cm
504: \plotone{f2.eps}
505: \caption{The best fit contours for the Supernova data
506: at different confidence levels.\label{fig2}}
507: %\label{fig2}
508: \end{figure}
509: \clearpage
510: \begin{figure}
511: %\centering
512: %\leavevmode
513: %\epsfysize=6cm \epsfbox{paramnc.eps}
514: %\vskip 0.1cm
515: \plotone{f3.eps}
516: \caption{Contours in the ($n,\Omega_{m0}$) plane arising from Archeops
517: constraints on $l_{1}$(dashed contour) and BOOMERANG constraints on $l_{3}$(full contour), and Supernova observations.
518: The allowed region of the model parameters lies in the intersection between these
519: regions.\label{fig3}}
520: \end{figure}
521: \clearpage
522: \begin{figure}
523: %\centering
524: %\leavevmode
525: %\epsfysize=6cm \epsfbox{paramnc.eps}
526: %\vskip 0.1cm
527: \plotone{f4.eps}
528: \caption{The allowed region in (n,$\Omega_{m}$) plane
529: arising from the joint analysis.\label{fig4}}
530: \end{figure}
531: \end{document}
532:
533:
534:
535:
536:
537:
538:
539:
540: