1:
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %\documentstyle[12pt,aasms4]{article}
4: %\documentstyle[11pt,aaspp4]{article}
5: %\documentstyle[aas2pp4]{article}
6:
7: \newcommand{\myemail}{zong-hong.zhu@nao.ac.jp}
8:
9: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
10:
11: \shorttitle{
12: Accelerating universe from gravitational leakage into extra dimensions:
13: confrontation with SNeIa
14: }
15: \shortauthors{Zhu, Z.-H. \& Alcaniz, J. S.}
16:
17:
18:
19:
20: \begin{document}
21:
22:
23:
24:
25: \title{
26: Accelerating universe from gravitational leakage into extra dimensions:
27: confrontation with SNeIa
28: }
29:
30: \author{Zong-Hong Zhu}
31: \affil{Department of Astronomy, Beijing Normal University,
32: Beijing 100875, China}
33: \email{zhuzh@bnu.edu.cn}
34:
35: \and
36:
37: \author{Jailson S. Alcaniz}
38: \affil{Departamento de Astronomia, Observat\'orio Nacional,
39: 20921-400 Rio de Janeiro - RJ, Brasil}
40: \email{alcaniz@on.br}
41:
42:
43: \begin{abstract}
44: There is mounting observational evidence that the expansion of our universe
45: is undergoing an acceleration.
46: A dark energy component has usually been invoked as the most feasible
47: mechanism for the acceleration.
48: However, it is desirable to explore alternative possibilities motivated by
49: particle physics before adopting such an untested entity.
50: In this work, we focus our attention on an acceleration mechanism:
51: one arising from gravitational leakage into extra dimensions.
52: We confront this scenario with high-$z$ type Ia supernovae compiled by
53: Tonry et al. (2003) and recent measurements of the X-ray gas mass
54: fractions in clusters of galaxies published by Allen et al. (2002,2003).
55: A combination of the two databases gives at a 99\% confidence level that
56: $\Omega_m=0.29^{+0.04}_{-0.02}$, $\Omega_{rc}=0.21^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$, and
57: $\Omega_k=-0.36^{+0.31}_{-0.35}$, indicating a closed universe.
58: We then constrain the model using the test of the turnaround redshift,
59: $z_{q=0}$, at which the universe switches from deceleration to acceleration.
60: We show that, in order to explain that acceleration happened earlier than
61: $z_{q=0} = 0.6$
62: within the
63: framework of gravitational leakage into extra dimensions, a low matter
64: density, $\Omega_m < 0.27$, or a closed universe is necessary.
65: \end{abstract}
66:
67:
68: \keywords{cosmological parameters ---
69: cosmology: theory ---
70: distance scale ---
71: supernovae: general ---
72: X-ray: galaxies:clusters
73: }
74:
75: %
76: %________________________________________________________________
77:
78: \section{Introduction}
79:
80: The recent well known distance measurements of distant type Ia supernovae
81: (SNeIa) suggest an accelerating universe at large scales
82: (Riess et al. 1998, Perlmutter et al. 1999, Tonry et al. 2003,
83: Barris et al. 2004, Knop et al. 2003, Riess et al. 2004).
84: The cosmic acceleration has also been confirmed, independently of the SNeIa
85: magnitude-redshift relation, by the observations of the cosmic microwave
86: background anisotropies (WMAP: Bennett et al. 2003)
87: and the large scale structure in the distribution of galaxies (SDSS:
88: Tegmark et al. 2003a,b).
89: It is well known that all known types of matter with positive pressure
90: generate attractive forces and decelerate the expansion of the universe.
91: Given this, a dark energy component with negative pressure was generally
92: suggested
93: to be the invisible fuel that drives the current acceleration of the
94: universe. There are a huge number of candidates for the dark energy
95: component in the literature, such as
96: %%%
97: a cosmological constant $\Lambda$
98: (Carroll et al. 1992;
99: Krauss and Turner 1995;
100: Ostriker and Steinhardt 1995;
101: Chiba and Yoshii 1999),
102: %%%
103: a decaying vacuum energy density or a time varying $\Lambda$-term
104: (Ozer and Taha 1987; Vishwakarma 2001),
105: %%%
106: an evolving scalar field
107: (referred to by some as quintessence:
108: Ratra and Peebles 1988;
109: Caldwell et al. 1998;
110: Wang and Lovelace 2001;
111: Weller and Albrech 2002;
112: Gong 2002;
113: Li et al. 2002a,b;
114: Chen and Ratra 2003;
115: Mukherjee et al. 2003;
116: Gong 2004),
117: %%%
118: the phantom energy, in which the sum of the pressure and energy
119: density is negative
120: (Caldwell 2002;
121: Dabrowski et al. 2003;
122: Wang, Gong and Su 2004),
123: %%%
124: the so-called ``X-matter"
125: (Turner and White 1997;
126: Zhu 1998;
127: Podariu and Ratra 2001;
128: Zhu, Fujimoto and Tatsumi 2001;
129: Alcaniz, Lima and Cunha 2003;
130: Lima, Cunha and Alcaniz 2003;
131: Feng, Wang and Zhang 2004;
132: Dai, Liang and Xu 2004),
133: %%%
134: the Chaplygin gas
135: (Kamenshchik et al. 2001;
136: Bento et al. 2002;
137: Alam et al. 2003;
138: Alcaniz, Jain and Dev 2003;
139: Dev, Alcaniz and Jain 2003;
140: Silva and Bertolami 2003;
141: Makler et al. 2003),
142: and the Cardassion model
143: (Freese and Lewis 2002;
144: Zhu and Fujimoto 2002, 2003;
145: Sen and Sen 2003;
146: Wang et al. 2003;
147: Frith 2004;
148: Gong and Duan 2004a,b).
149:
150: However, the dark energy has so far no convincing direct laboratory evidence for
151: its existence, so it is desirable to explore alternative
152: possibilities motivated by particle physics before adopting such a component.
153: In this respect the models that make use of the very ideas of
154: branes and extra dimensions to obtain an accelerating universe
155: are particularly interesting
156: (Randall and Sundrum 1999a,b).
157: Within the framework of these braneworld cosmologies, our observable universe
158: is assumed to be a surface or a brane embedded in a higher dimensional bulk
159: spacetime in which gravity could spread, and the bulk gravity sees its own
160: curvature term on the brane which accelerates the universe without dark
161: energy (Randall 2002).
162: Recently, based on the model of Dvali et al. (2000) of brane-induced gravity,
163: Deffayet and coworkers (Deffayet 2001, Deffayet, Dvali and Gabadadze 2002)
164: proposed a
165: scenario in which the observed late time acceleration of the expansion of
166: the universe is caused by gravitational leakage into an extra dimension
167: and the Friedmann equation is modified as follows
168: %
169: \begin{equation}
170: \label{eq:ansatz}
171: H^2 = H_0^2 \left[
172: \Omega_k(1+z)^2+\left(\sqrt{\Omega_{rc}}+
173: \sqrt{\Omega_{rc}+\Omega_m (1+z)^3}\right)^2
174: \right]
175: \end{equation}
176: %
177: where $H$ is the Hubble parameter as a function of redshift $z$ ($H_0$ is its
178: value at the present), $\Omega_k$, $\Omega_{rc}$ and $\Omega_m$ represent
179: the fractional contribution of curvature, the bulk-induced term and the
180: matter (both baryonic and nonbaryonic), respectively.
181: $\Omega_{rc}$ is defined as $\Omega_{rc} \equiv 1/4r_c^2H_0^2$, where $r_c$
182: is the crossover scale beyond which the gravitational force follows the
183: 5-dimensional $1/r^3$ behavior.
184: From a phenomenological standpoint, it is a testable scenario with the same
185: number of parameters as a cosmological constant model, contrasting with
186: models of quintessence that have an additional free function, the equation
187: of state, to be determined (Deffayet et al. 2002).
188: Such a possible mechanism for cosmic acceleration has triggered investigations
189: aiming to constrain this scenario using various cosmological observations,
190: such as
191: %
192: SNeIa (Avelino and Martins 2002; Deffayet, Dvali and Gabadadze 2002;
193: Deffayet et al. 2002; Dabrowski et al. 2004),
194: angular size of compact radio sources (Alcaniz 2002),
195: the age measurements of high-$z$ objects (Alcaniz, Jain and Dev 2002),
196: the optical gravitational lensing surveys (Jain et al. 2002) and
197: the large scale structures (Multam\"aki et al. 2003).
198: %
199: But the results are disperse and somewhat controversial, with most of them
200: claiming good agreement between data and the model while some of them ruling
201: out gravitational leakage into an extra dimension as a feasible mechanism
202: for cosmic acceleration.
203:
204: The purpose of this work is to quantitatively confront the scenario with
205: the updated SNeIa sample compiled by Tonry et al. (2003) and to try to
206: constrain the model parameters more accurately.
207: It is shown that, although the two parameters, $\Omega_{rc}$ and $\Omega_m$,
208: are degenerate and there is a range on the parameter plane to be consistent
209: with the SNeIa data, a closed universe is prefered by this scenario.
210: As is well known, the measurement of the X-ray gas mass fraction in galaxy
211: clusters is an efficient way to determine the matter density, $\Omega_m$,
212: and hence can be used for breaking the degeneracy between
213: $\Omega_{rc}$ and $\Omega_m$.
214: When we combine the X-ray database published by Allen et al. (2002, 2003) for
215: analyzing, we obtained a closed universe
216: at a 99\% confidence level, i.e., for the scenario of gravitational
217: leakage into an extra dimension, a universe with curvature is favored by
218: the combination of the two databases.
219: We also analyze the turnaround redshift, $z_{q=0}$, at
220: which the universe switches from deceleration to acceleration within the
221: framework of the scenario.
222: It is shown that, if the turnaround redshift happened earlier than
223: $z_{q=0} = 0.6$, only a low matter density, $\Omega_m < 0.27$, or a closed
224: universe can explain this transition epoch.
225: If, however, we consider the recent estimate by Riess et al. (2004), i.e.,
226: $z_{q=0} = 0.46 \pm 0.13$, then a spatially flat scenario with $\Omega_m =0.3$
227: (as suggested by clustering estimates) predicts $z_{q=0} = 0.48$, which is
228: surprisingly close to the central value given by Riess et al. (2004).
229: The paper is organized as follows.
230: In the next section, we consider the observational constraints on the parameter
231: space of the scenario arising from the updated SNeIa sample compiled by
232: Tonry et al. (2003), as well as the combination with the X-ray gas mass
233: fractions in galaxy clusters published by Allen et al. (2002, 2003).
234: In section~3 we discuss the bounds on the model from the turnaround redshift,
235: $z_{q=0}$.
236: Finally, we present our conclusion and discussion in section~4.
237:
238:
239: %__________________________________________________________________
240:
241: \section{Constraints from SNeIa and galaxy cluster data}
242:
243: Recently, Tonry et al. (2003) compiled a large database of SNeIa
244: from the literature and eight new SNeIa from the High-$z$ Supernova
245: Search Team.
246: Since the techniques for data analysis vary between individual SNeIa samples,
247: the authors have attempted to recompute the extinction estimates and the
248: distance determination through the MLCS fitting (Riess et al. 1998),
249: the $\Delta m_{15}$ method of Phillips et al. (1999), the modified dm15
250: fitting (Germany 2001) and the BATM method (Tonry 2003).
251: Zero-point differences between each method were computed by comparing common
252: SN measurements, and distances were placed on a Hubble flow zeropoint
253: ($dH_0$), and the median selected as the best distance estimate (for more
254: details of this procedure, see Tonry et al. 2003; Barris et al. 2004).
255: Tonry et al. (2003) present redshift and distance for 230 SNeIa, which
256: includes many objects unsuitable for cosmological analysis, such as the SNeIa
257: being heavily extinguished or nearby enough for velocity uncertainties to be
258: a major problem.
259: To determine cosmological parameters, the authors used a redshift cut of
260: $z > 0.01$ and an extinction cut of $A_V < 0.5$ mag.
261: The resulting sample of 172 SNeIa is illustrated on a residual Hubble Diagram
262: with respect to an empty universe ($\Omega_m = 0$, $\Omega_{rc} = 0$)
263: in Figure~1.
264: We will use this sample to give an observational constraint on the
265: model parameters, $\Omega_{rc}$ and $\Omega_m$.
266:
267: %
268: %\placefigure{fig:fig1.eps}
269: %
270:
271: For the ansatz (1), we are required to calculate $\chi^2$ as a function of the
272: model parameters ($\Omega_m$, $\Omega_{rc}$) and the Hubble constant $H_0$.
273: Following Tonry et al. (2003), we added 500 km s$^{-1}$ divided by the redshift
274: in quadrature to the distance error given in their Table~15 for calculating
275: $\chi^2$.
276: In order to concentrate solely on the density parameters, we need to
277: marginalize over the Hubble constant $H_0$.
278: Since $H_0$ appears as a quadratic term in $\chi^2$, it appears as a separable
279: Gaussian factor in the probability to be marginalized over.
280: Thus marginalizing over $H_0$ is equivalent to evaluating $\chi^2$ at its
281: minimum with respect to $H_0$ (Barris et al. 2004).
282: This procedure allows us to determine contours of constant probability density
283: for the model parameters ($\Omega_m$, $\Omega_{rc}$) corresponding to 68\%,
284: 95\%, and 99\% confidence levels, which is shown in Figure~2.
285: The best fit happens at $\Omega_m = 0.43$ and $\Omega_{rc} = 0.26$.
286: As is shown in Figure~2, although there is a range on the parameter plane to
287: be consistent with the SNeIa data, a closed universe is favored.
288: Furthmore, the two density parameters, $\Omega_{rc}$ and $\Omega_m$, are
289: highly degenerate, which is very similar to the degeneracy between
290: $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ and $\Omega_m$ found by Tonry et al. (2003).
291: In order to determine $\Omega_{rc}$ and $\Omega_m$ respectively, an independent
292: measurement of $\Omega_{rc}$ or $\Omega_m$ is needed.
293: As shown below, the X-ray gas mass fraction data of galaxy clusters are
294: appropriate for this purpose, because the data are only sensitive to
295: $\Omega_m$ (Allen et al. 2002, 2003).
296:
297: %
298: %\placefigure{fig:fig2.eps}
299: %
300:
301: Since clusters of galaxies are the largest virialized systems in the universe,
302: their matter content should provide a fair sample of the matter content of
303: the universe as a whole, and a comparison of their gas mass fractions,
304: $f_{\rm gas} = M_{\rm gas} / M_{\rm tot}$,
305: as inferred from X-ray observations, with the cosmic
306: baryon fraction can provide a direct constraint on the density parameter
307: of the universe $\Omega_m$ (White et. al. 1993).
308: Moreover, assuming the gas mass fraction is constant in cosmic time,
309: Sasaki (1996) shows that the $f_{\rm gas}$ measurements of clusters of
310: galaxies at different redshifts also provide a way to constrain other
311: cosmological parameters describing the geometry of the universe.
312: Recently, Allen et al. (2002; 2003) published the $f_{\rm gas}$ profiles for
313: the 10 relaxed clusters observed by the {\it Chandra} satellite.
314: Except for Abell 963, the $f_{\rm gas}$ profiles of the other 9 clusters
315: appear to have converged or be close to converging with $r_{2500}$,
316: the radius within which the mean mass density is 2500 times the critical
317: density of the universe at the redshift of the cluster.
318: The gas mass fraction values of these 9 clusters were shown in Figure~5
319: of Allen et al. (2003).
320: This database can be used to break the degeneracy between $\Omega_{rc}$ and
321: $\Omega_m$ mentioned above, since it has been shown that the X-ray gas
322: mass fraction is mostly sensitive to $\Omega_m$ no matter what the
323: cosmological model is (Allen et al. 2002; Lima et al. 2003).
324: The probability density over the model parameters, $\Omega_{rc}$ and
325: $\Omega_m$, for the 9 galaxy clusters is calculated using the method
326: described in Allen et al. (2002).
327: Following Allen et al. (2003), we include Gaussian priors
328: on the bias factor, $b = 0.93 \pm 0.05$, a value appropriate for hot
329: ($kT > 5$ KeV) clusters from the simulations of Bialek et al. (2001),
330: on the Hubble constant, $h = 0.72 \pm 0.08$, the final result from the
331: Hubble Key Project by Freedman et al. (2001),
332: and on $\Omega_m h^{2} = 0.0205 \pm 0.0018$ (O'Meara et al. 2001), from
333: cosmic nucleosynthesis calculations constrained by the observed abundances
334: of light elements at high redshifts.
335: We then multiply the probability densities from the 172 SNeIa and the 9
336: galaxy clusters, and obtain our final results on $\Omega_{rc}$ and
337: $\Omega_m$, which are shown in Figure~3.
338:
339: Figure~3 illustrates the 68\%, 95\% and 99\% confidence levels in the
340: ($\Omega_m$,$\Omega_{rc}$) plane using the red, green and yellow shaded
341: areas, respectively.
342: Our fits give at a 99\% confidence level that
343: $\Omega_m=0.29^{+0.04}_{-0.02}$, $\Omega_{rc}=0.21^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$, and
344: $\Omega_k=-0.36^{+0.31}_{-0.35}$.
345: Although there is a range on the parameter plane being consistent with both
346: the SNeIa and galaxy clusters data, and the resulting matter density
347: $\Omega_m$ is reasonable, a closed universe is obtained at a 99\%
348: confidence level, which is inconsistent with the result,
349: $\Omega_k=-0.02^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$, found by the
350: WMAP (Bennett et al. 2003).
351: Avelino and Martins (2002) analyzed the same model with the 92
352: SNeIa from Riess et al. (1998) and Perlmutter et al. (1999).
353: Assuming a flat universe, the authors obtained a very low matter
354: density and claimed the model was disfavorable.
355: In additional to including new SNeIa data from Tonry et al. (2003),
356: and combining the X-ray data of 9 galaxy clusters,
357: we relax the flat universe constraint in their analysis.
358: We obtained a reasonable matter density, but a closed universe.
359: In some sense, i.e., if we assume that our Universe is spatially flat,
360: as indicated by WMAP results, the accelerating scenario from
361: gravitational leakage into extra dimension does not seem to be favored
362: by observational data.
363: However, two points should be emphasized here.
364: First, that the same conclusion happens by performing a similar analysis
365: with our current standard model, i.e., a $\Lambda$CDM universe. Second,
366: that we have made heavy use of the X-ray gas mass fraction in
367: clusters to determine the matter density.
368: This kind of analysis depends on the assumption that $f_{\rm gas}$ values
369: should be invariant with redshift, which has been criticised by a minority
370: of works in the field.
371: For example, a recent comparison of distant clusters observed by XMM-Newton
372: and Chandra satellites with available local cluster samples indicate a
373: possible evolution of the $M$--$T$ relation with redshift, i.e., the standard
374: paradigm on cluster gas physics need to be revised (Vauclair et al. 2003).
375: We should keep this point in mind when we make the conclusion that the
376: gravitational leakage scenario is disfavored by the databases.
377:
378: %
379: %\placefigure{fig:fig3.ps}
380: %
381:
382: %_________________________________________________________________________
383:
384: \section{Constraints from the turnaround redshift from deceleration
385: to acceleration}
386:
387:
388: Since the scenario of gravitational leakage into extra dimensions is
389: proposed as a possible mechanism for the cosmic acceleration,
390: the turnaround redshift from deceleration to acceleration is expected
391: to provide an efficient way for verifying the model.
392: It can be shown that the deceleration parameter as a function of redshift as
393: well as the model parameters takes the form (Zhu and Fujimoto 2004)
394: %
395: \begin{equation}
396: \label{eq:deceleration}
397: q(z) \equiv -{\ddot{R}R\over {\dot{R}}^2}
398: = -1 + {1 \over 2}{{\rm d}\ln E^2 \over {\rm d}\ln (1+z)}
399: \end{equation}
400: %
401: where $E^2(z; \Omega_{rc}, \Omega_m) = H^2(z; \Omega_{rc}, \Omega_m) / H_0$.
402: From Eq.(1), we could derive the turnaround redshift at which
403: the universe switches from deceleration to acceleration, or in other words
404: the redshift at which the deceleration parameter vanishes, which is as
405: follows
406: %
407: \begin{equation}
408: \label{eq:zq=0}
409: (1+z)_{q=0} = 2\left( {\Omega_{rc} \over \Omega_m} \right)^{1/3}
410: \end{equation}
411: %
412: We have shown that Eq. (3) is generally valid no matter what the curvature of
413: the universe is, though it was first obtained by Avelino and Martins (2002)
414: for a flat universe.
415: According to Turner and Riess (2002), the value for the turnaround redshift
416: lies in the $1\sigma$ interval $0.6 < z_{q=0} <1.7$.
417: In Fig.4, the two dashed lines represent $z_{q=0} = 0.6$ and
418: $z_{q=0} = 1.7$, respectively, while the hatched region at lower right
419: corresponds to $z_{q=0} \le 0$, which means a decelerating universe.
420: The thick solid line is the flat universe.
421: The vertical strip with cross-hatching is the matter density
422: $\Omega_m=0.330\pm 0.035$ found by Turner (2002), and the
423: vertical dot-dashed lines are $\Omega_m=0.2, 0.4$, a wider range.
424: As is shown, in order to explain that cosmic acceleration
425: started earlier than $z_{q=0} = 0.6$, either a low matter density,
426: $\Omega_m < 0.27$, is needed on the assumption of a flat universe,
427: or a closed universe is necessary for a higher matter density.
428: If, however, we consider the recent estimate by Riess et al. (2004), i.e.,
429: $z_{q=0} = 0.46 \pm 0.13$, then a spatially flat scenario with $\Omega_m=0.3$ (as suggested by clustering estimates) predicts $z_{q=0} = 0.48$, which is
430: surprisingly close to the central value given by Riess et al. (2004).
431:
432: %\placefigure{fig:fig4.eps}
433:
434:
435: %__________________________________________________________________
436:
437: \section{Conclusion and discussion}
438:
439: The mounting observational evidences for an accelerating universe have
440: stimulated renewed interest for alternative cosmologies.
441: Generally, a dark energy component with negative pressure is invoked to explain
442: the SNeIa results and to reconcile the inflationary flatness prediction
443: ($\Omega_T = 1$) with the dynamical estimates of the quantity of matter
444: in the universe ($\Omega_m \sim 0.3$).
445: In this paper we have focused our attention on another possible acceleration
446: mechanism, one arising from gravitational leakage into extra dimensions.
447: In order to be consistent with the current SNeIa and the X-ray clusters data,
448: one would need a closed universe.
449:
450: Recently Lue et al. (2004) derived dynamical equations for spherical
451: perturbations at subhorizon scales and computed the growth of large-scale
452: structure in the framework of this scenario.
453: A suppression of the growth of density and velocity perturbations was
454: found, e.g., for $\Omega_m=0.3$, a perturbation of
455: $\delta_i=3\times 10^{-3}$ at $z_i=1000$ collapse in the $\Lambda$CDM
456: case at $z\approx 0.66$ when its linearly extrapolated density contrast
457: is $\delta_c=1.689$, while for the model being considered the collapse
458: happens much later at $z\approx 0.35$ when its $\delta_c=1.656$.
459: Furthermore, the authors showed that this scenario for cosmic acceleration
460: gave rise to a present day fluctuation power spectrum normalization
461: $\sigma_8 \leq 0.8$ at a 2$\sigma$ level, lower than observed value
462: (Lue et al. 2004).
463:
464: As is shown in Figure~2 of Deffayet, Dvali and Gabadadze (2002), on the
465: assumption of a flat universe, luminosity distance for $\Lambda$CDM increases
466: with redshift faster than that for the model being considered does (for the
467: same $\Omega_m$).
468: Therefore it is natural that, if the $\Lambda$CDM model with
469: ($\Omega_m=0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, $\Omega_k=0$) is consistent with
470: the SNeIa data, the gravitational leakage model with
471: ($\Omega_m=0.3$, $\Omega_{rc}=0.1225$, $\Omega_k=0$) will not be as the data
472: are becoming enough to determine the cosmological parameters more precisely.
473: While Deffayet et al. (2002) showed that the gravitational leakage scenario
474: was consistent with the 54 SNeIa of the sample C from Perlmutter et al.
475: (1999) -- see also Alcaniz \& Pires (2004) -- Avelino and Martins (2002)
476: claimed that this proposal was disfavored by the dataset of 92 SNeIa from
477: Riess et al (1998) and Perlmutter et al. (1999) [combining them via the
478: procedure described in Wang (2000) and Wang \& Garnavich (2001)].
479: We, however, think that only with a more general analysis, a joint
480: investigation involving different classes of cosmological tests, it will be
481: possible to delimit the $\Omega_{\rm{m}} - \Omega_{r_c}$ plane more precisely,
482: as well as to test more properly the consistency of these senarios.
483: Such an analysis will appear in a forthcoming communication
484: (Alcaniz \& Zhu 2004).
485:
486:
487: %__________________________________________________________________
488: \acknowledgements
489:
490: %%%
491: We would like to thank
492: John. L. Tonry for important clarifications in marginalizing over the Hubble
493: constant,
494: S. Allen for sending me their compilation of the X-ray mass fraction data and
495: W. Li for helpful discussions.
496: %%%
497: Our thanks go to the anonymouse referee and the editor, Prof. Ethan Vishniac,
498: for valuable comments and useful
499: suggestions, which improved this work very much.
500: %%%
501: Z.-H. Zhu acknowledges support from the National Natural Science Foundation
502: of China
503: and
504: the National Major Basic Research Project of China (G2000077602).
505: J. S. Alcaniz is partially supported by CNPq (305205/02-1) and CNPq
506: (62.0053/01-1-PADCT III/Milenio).
507:
508: \clearpage
509:
510: \begin{thebibliography}{}
511: \bibitem[Alam et al. 2003]{ala03}
512: Alam, U., Sahni, V., Saini, T. D. and Starobinsky, A. A.
513: 2003, \mnras, 334, 1057
514:
515: \bibitem[Alcaniz]{alc02}
516: Alcaniz, J. S. 2002, \prd, 65, 123514 %brane world
517:
518: \bibitem[Alcaniz et al. 2002]{ajd02}
519: Alcaniz, J. S., Jain, D. and Dev, A. 2002, \prd, 66, 067301 %brane world
520:
521: \bibitem[Alcaniz et al. 2003]{ajd03}
522: Alcaniz, J. S., Jain, D. and Dev, A. 2003, \prd, 67, 043514 %Chaplygin
523:
524: \bibitem[Alcaniz et al. 2003]{alc03a}
525: Alcaniz, J. S., Lima, J. A. S. and Cunha, J. V. 2003, \mnras, 340, L39
526: %x-matter
527: \bibitem[]{alc04}
528: Alcaniz, J. S. and Pires, N. \prd, 70, 047303
529:
530: \bibitem[2002]{}Allen S.W., Schmidt R.W., Fabian A.C., 2002a, MNRAS, 334, L11
531:
532: \bibitem[2003]{all03}Allen S.W., Schmidt R.W., Fabian A.C., Ebeling, H. 2003,
533: MNRAS, 342, 287
534:
535: \bibitem[Avelino and Martins 2002]{ave02}
536: Avelino, P. P. and Martins, C. J. A. P. 2002, \apj, 565, 661
537:
538: \bibitem[Barris et al. 2004]{bar04}
539: Barris, B. J. 2004, \apj, 602, 571
540:
541: \bibitem[Bennett et al. 2003]{ben03}
542: Bennett, C. L. et al. 2003 \apjs, 148, 1
543:
544: \bibitem[Bento et al. 2002]{ben02}
545: Bento, M. C., Bertolami, O and Sen, A. A. 2002, \prd, 66, 043507
546:
547: \bibitem{} Bialek J.J., Evrard A.E., Mohr J.J., 2001, ApJ, 555, 597
548:
549: \bibitem[Caldwell 2002]{cal02}
550: Caldwell, R. 2002, Phys.Lett.B, 545, 23
551: \bibitem[Caldwell et al. 1988]{cal98}
552: Caldwell, R., Dave, R., and Steinhardt, P. J. 1998, \prl, 80, 1582
553:
554: \bibitem[Carroll et al. 1992]{car92}
555: Carroll, S., Press, W. H. and Turner, E. L. 1992, \araa, 30, 499
556:
557: \bibitem[Chen and Ratra 2003]{che03}
558: Chen, G. and Ratra, B. 2003, \apj, 582, 586
559:
560: \bibitem[Chiba and Yoshii 1999]{chi99}
561: Chiba, M. and Yoshii, Y. 1999, \apj, 510, 42
562:
563: \bibitem[]{}
564: Dabrowski, M. P., Godlowski, W. and Szydlowski, M. 2004,
565: Gen. Rel. Grav. 36, 767
566:
567: \bibitem[Dabrowski et al. 2003]{dab03}
568: Dabrowski, M. P., Stochowiak, T., and Szydlowski, M. 2003,
569: \prd, 68, 103519
570:
571: \bibitem{} Dai, Z., Liang, E. W. and Xu, D. 2004, \apj, in press,
572: astro-ph/0407497
573:
574: \bibitem{} Deffayet, C. 2001, Phys.Lett.B, 502, 199
575:
576: \bibitem{} Deffayet, C., Dvali, G. and Gabadadze, G. 2002, \prd, 65, 044023
577:
578: \bibitem{} Deffayet, C., Landau, S. J., Raux, J., Zaldarriaga, M. and Astier, P.
579: 2002, \prd, 66, 024019
580:
581: \bibitem[Dev et al. 2003a]{dev03a}
582: Dev, A., Jain, D. and Alcaniz, J. S. 2003, \prd, 67, 023515 %Chaplygin
583:
584: \bibitem[Dvali et al. 2000]{dva00}
585: Dvali, G., Gabadadze, G. and Porrati, M. 2000, Phys.Lett.B, 485, 208
586:
587: \bibitem{} Freedman W. et al., 2001, ApJ, 553, 47
588:
589: \bibitem[Freese and Lewis 2002]{fre02}
590: Freese, K. and Lewis, M. 2002, Phys.Lett.B, 540, 1
591:
592: \bibitem{} Feng, B., Wang, X. and Zhang, X. 2004, astro-ph/0404224
593:
594: \bibitem{} Frith, W. J. 2004, \mnras, 348, 916
595:
596: \bibitem{} Germany, L. M. 2001, Ph.D. Thesis, Australian National University
597:
598: \bibitem{} Gong, Y. 2002, Class.Quan.Grav. 19, 4537
599:
600: \bibitem{} Gong, Y. 2004, astro-ph/0401207
601:
602: \bibitem{} Gong, Y. \& Duan, C.-K. 2004a, Class.Quan.Grav. 21, 3655
603:
604: \bibitem{} Gong, Y. \& Duan, C.-K. 2004b, \mnras, 352, 847
605:
606: \bibitem[Jain et al. 2002]{jai02}
607: Jain, D., Dev, A. and Alcaniz, J. S. 2002, \prd, 66, 083511 %brane world
608:
609: \bibitem[Kamenshchik et al. 2001]{kam01}
610: Kamenshchik, A., Moschella, U. and Pasquier, V. 2001,
611: Phys.Lett.B, 511, 265
612:
613: \bibitem[]{}
614: Knop, R. A. et al. 2003, \apj, accepted (astro-ph/0309368)
615:
616: \bibitem[Krauss and Turner 1995]{kra95}
617: Krauss, L. M. and Turner, M. S. 1995, Gen. Rel. Grav., 27, 1137
618:
619: \bibitem[Li et al. 2002a]{li02a}
620: Li, M., Lin, W., Zhang, X. and Brandenberger, R. 2002a, \prd, 65, 023519
621:
622: \bibitem[Li et al. 2002b]{li02b}
623: Li, M., Wang, X., Feng, B. and Zhang, X. 2002b, \prd, 65, 103511
624:
625: \bibitem[Lima et al. 2003]{lim03}
626: Lima, J. A. S., Cunha, J. V. and Alcaniz, J. S. 2003, \prd, 68, 023510
627:
628: \bibitem[]{}
629: Lue, A., Scoccimarro, R. and Starkman, G. D. 2004, astro-ph/0401515
630:
631: \bibitem[Makler et al. 2003b]{mak03}
632: Makler, M., Oliveira, S. Q., \& Waga, I. 2003, \prd, 68, 123521
633: % astro-ph/0306507 %gCg
634:
635: \bibitem[Mukherjee et al. 2003]{muk03}
636: Mukherjee, P., Banday, A. J., Riazuelo, A., Gorski, K. M., Ratra, B.
637: 2003, ApJ, 598, 767
638: % accepted (astro-ph/0306147)
639:
640: \bibitem[Multamaki et al. 2003]{mul03}
641: Multam\"aki, T., Gaztanaga, E. and Manera, M. 2003, \mnras, 344, 761
642: % submitted (astro-ph/0303526)
643:
644: \bibitem{} O'Meara, J. M., Tytler, D., Kirkman, D., Suzuki, N.,
645: Prochaska, J. X., Lubin, D., Wolfe, A. M., 2001, ApJ, 552, 718
646:
647: \bibitem[Ostriker and Steinhardt 1995]{ost95}
648: Ostriker, J. P. and Steinhardt, P. J. 1995, \nat, 377, 600
649:
650: \bibitem[Ozer and Taha 1987]{oze87}
651: Ozer, M. and Taha, O. 1987, Nucl. Phys. {\bf{B287}}, 776
652:
653: \bibitem[Perlmutter et al. 1999]{per99}
654: Perlmutter, S. et al. 1999, \apj, 517, 565
655:
656: \bibitem{} Phillips, M. M., Lira, P., Suntzeff, N. B., Schommer, R. A.,
657: Hamuy, M. and Maza, J. 1999, \aj, 118, 1766
658:
659: \bibitem{} Podariu, S. and Ratra, B. 2001, \apj, 563, 28
660:
661: \bibitem[Ratra and Peebles 1988]{rat88}
662: Ratra, B. and P.J.E. Peebles, P. J. E. 1988, \prd, 37, 3406
663:
664: \bibitem[Randall 2002]{ran02} Randall, L. 2002, Science, 296, 1422.
665:
666: \bibitem[Randall 1999]{} Randall, L. and Sundrum, R. 1999a, \prl, 83, 3370
667:
668: \bibitem[Randall 1999]{} Randall, L. and Sundrum, R. 1999b, \prl, 83, 4690
669:
670: \bibitem[Riess et al. 1998]{rie98}
671: Riess, A. G. et al. 1998, \aj, 116, 1009
672:
673: \bibitem[Riess et al. 2001]{rie01}
674: Riess, A. G. et al. 2001, \apj, 560, 49
675:
676: \bibitem[Riess et al. 2004]{rie04}
677: Riess, A. G. et al. 2004, \apj, 607, 665
678:
679: \bibitem[]{} Sasaki, S. 1996, PASJ, 48, L119
680:
681: \bibitem[Sen and Sen 2003a]{sen03a}
682: Sen, A. A. and Sen, S. 2003a, \apj, 588, 1
683: % ``Observational Constraints on Cardassian Expansion''
684:
685: \bibitem[Silva and Bertolami 2003]{sil03}
686: Silva, P. T. and Bertolami, O. 2003, \apj, 599, 829
687: % submitted (astro-ph/0303353)
688:
689: \bibitem[]{}Tegmark, M. et al. 2003a, \prd, accepted, astro-ph/0310723
690:
691: \bibitem[]{}Tegmark, M. et al. 2003b, \apj, accepted, astro-ph/0310725
692:
693: \bibitem[]{}Tonry, J. L. 2003, preprint
694:
695: \bibitem[]{}Tonry, J. L. et al. 2003, \apj, 594, 1
696:
697: \bibitem[]{}Turner, M. S. 2002, \apj, 576, L101
698:
699: \bibitem[]{}Turner, M. S. and Riess, A. G. 2002, \apj, 569, 18
700:
701: \bibitem[Turner and White 1997]{tur97}
702: Turner, M. S. and White, M. 1997, \prd, 56, R4439 %x-matter
703:
704: \bibitem[Vauclair et al. 2003]{vau03}
705: Vauclair, S. C. et al. 2003, \aap, 412, L37
706:
707: \bibitem[Vishwakarma 2001]{vis01}
708: Vishwakarma, R. G. 2001, Class.Quan.Grav. 18, 1159 %decay lambda
709:
710: \bibitem[]{}
711: Wang, B., Gong, Y. and Su, R.-K. 2004, hep-th/0408032
712:
713: \bibitem[]{}
714: Wang, Y. 2000, \apj, 536, 531
715:
716: \bibitem[Wang et al. 2003]{wan03}
717: Wang, Y., Freese, K., Gondolo,P. and Lewis, M. 2003, \apj, 594, 25
718:
719: \bibitem[]{}
720: Wang, Y. and Garnavich, P. 2001, \apj, 552, 445
721:
722: \bibitem[Wang and Lovelace]{wan01b}
723: Wang, Y. and Lovelace, G. 2001, \apj, 562, L115
724:
725: \bibitem{}
726: Weller, J. and Albrecht, A. 2002, \prd, 65, 103512
727:
728: \bibitem{}
729: White S.D.M., Navarro J.F., Evrard A.E., Frenk C.S., 1993,
730: Nature, 366, 429
731:
732: \bibitem[Zhu 1998]{zhu98}
733: Zhu, Z. -H. 1998 \aap, 338, 777
734:
735: \bibitem[Zhu and Fujimoto 2002]{zhu02}
736: Zhu, Z. -H. and Fujimoto, M. -K. 2002, \apj, 581, 1
737:
738: \bibitem[Zhu and Fujimoto 2003]{zhu03}
739: Zhu, Z. -H. and Fujimoto, M. -K. 2003, \apj, 585, 52
740:
741: \bibitem[Zhu and Fujimoto 2004]{zhu04}
742: Zhu, Z. -H. and Fujimoto, M. -K. 2004, \apj, 602, 12
743: % (astro-ph/0312022).
744:
745: \bibitem[Zhu, Fujimoto and Tatsumi 2001]{zhu01}
746: Zhu, Z. -H., Fujimoto, M. -K. and Tatsumi, D. 2001, \aap, 372, 377
747:
748: \end{thebibliography}
749:
750:
751:
752:
753: \clearpage
754:
755: \begin{figure}
756: \plotone{f1.eps}
757: \figcaption{The 172 SNeIa data points, obtained by imposing constraints
758: $A_V < 0.5$ and $z > 0.01$ on the 230 SNeIa sample of
759: Tonry et al. (2003), are shown in a residual Hubble diagram
760: with respect to an empty universe.
761: The dashed and dot-dashed lines show
762: ($\Omega_m$, $\Omega_{r_c}$) = (0.43, 0.26), our best fit, and
763: ($\Omega_m$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}$) = (0.3, 0.7), the standard
764: $\Lambda$CDM model, respectively.
765: \label{Fig_data}
766: }
767: \end{figure}
768:
769:
770: \clearpage
771:
772: \begin{figure}
773: \plotone{f2.eps}
774: \figcaption{Probability contours for $\Omega_{r_c}$ and $\Omega_m$ in the
775: model of gravitational leakage into an extra dimension, for the
776: 172 SNeIa taken from Tonry et al. (2003) -- see the text for a
777: detailed description of the method.
778: The 68\%, 95\% and 99\% confidence levels in the $\Omega_{r_c}$ -
779: $\Omega_m$ plane are shown in red, green, and yellow shaded areas,
780: respectively.
781: The cross-hatched region at the upper left represents the
782: ``no-big-bang'' region, while the thick solid line corresponds to
783: the flat universe.
784: The best fit happens at $\Omega_m=0.43$ and $\Omega_{r_c}=0.26$.
785: \label{Fig_cont1}
786: }
787: \end{figure}
788:
789:
790: \clearpage
791:
792: \begin{figure}
793: \plotone{f3.eps}
794: \figcaption{Probability contours over $\Omega_{r_c}$ and $\Omega_m$ for the
795: combination of the 172 SNeIa taken from Tonry et al. (2003) and
796: the 9 X-ray clusters from Allen et al. (2002, 2003).
797: The 68\%, 95\% and 99\% confidence levels in the $\Omega_{r_c}$ -
798: $\Omega_m$ plane are shown in red, green, and yellow shaded areas,
799: respectively.
800: The cross-hatched region at the upper left represents the
801: ``no-big-bang'' region, while the thick solid line corresponds to
802: the flat universe.
803: The best fit happens at $\Omega_m=0.29$ and $\Omega_{r_c}=0.21$,
804: hence giving a closed universe with $\Omega_k = -0.36$.
805: However, the results depends on the X-ray gas mass fraction data
806: from Allen et al. (2002, 2003), in which the errorbars might be
807: on the optimistic side.
808: \label{Fig_cont12}
809: }
810: \end{figure}
811:
812:
813: \clearpage
814:
815: \begin{figure}
816: \plotone{f4.eps}
817: \figcaption{Constraints on the parameter space ($\Omega_{r_c}$, $\Omega_m$)
818: of the model of gravitational leakage into an extra dimension
819: from the turnaround redshift of acceleration.
820: The hatched region at the lower right is the decelerating model,
821: and the cross-hatched region at the upper left is the closed
822: cosmological model without big bang.
823: The right and left dashed lines are $z_{q=0}=0.6, 1.7$,
824: respectively, while the thick solid line is the flat universe.
825: Thus, in order to explain that acceleration happened earlier than
826: $z_{q=0}=0.6$, the gravitational leakage model needs a low
827: matter density, $\Omega_m < 0.27$, if the universe is flat.
828: The vertical strip with cross-hatching corresponds to the matter
829: density $\Omega_m=0.330\pm 0.035$ found by Turner (2002), which
830: clearly asks for a closed universe to explain $z_{q=0}>0.6$.
831: For convenience, we also draw two dot-dashed lines for
832: $\Omega_m = 0.2, 0.4$, for which there are some ranges to be
833: compatible with a flat universe.
834: We note that a matter density of $\Omega_m < 0.27$ is also
835: permitted by the WMAP data (Bennett et al. 2003).
836: \label{Fig_turnaround}
837: }
838: \end{figure}
839:
840:
841:
842:
843:
844: \end{document}
845:
846:
847:
848:
849:
850:
851: