1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \oddsidemargin=0pt \topmargin=0pt \textwidth=16 cm
4: \textheight=22 cm
5:
6: \def\gW{W}
7: \begin{document}
8:
9:
10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% To switch off trimmarks %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
11: %%
12: %
13: %\def\nocropmarks{\vskip5pt\phantom{cropmarks}}
14: %
15: %%\let\trimmarks\nocropmarks %%% Pls. remove the comment sign (%) to switch off the trimmarks
16: %
17: %\markboth{V.Gurovich and I.Tokareva}{}
18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Publisher's Area please ignore %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19: %%
20: %\catchline{}{}{}
21: %%
22: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
23:
24:
25:
26:
27: \title{On One Model of the Geometrical Quintessence}
28:
29:
30: \author{\footnotesize V.GUROVICH\footnote{ Physics Institute of NAS, Chui av. 265a,
31: Bishkek, 720071, Kyrgyzstan; e-mail:astra@freenet.kg}\quad and
32: I.TOKAREVA\footnote{Physics
33: Department, Technion, Technion-city, Haifa 32000, Israel; e-mail:
34: iya@tx.technion.ac.il}}
35: \date{}
36: \maketitle
37:
38: %\pub{Received (received date)}{Revised (revised date)}
39:
40:
41:
42: %\begin{keyword}
43: %% keywords here, in the form: keyword \sep keyword
44: %Neutron stars \sep dense matter\sep combustion
45: %% PACS codes here, in the form: \PACS code \sep code
46: %\PACS 97.60.Jd \sep 95.30.Lz \sep 26.60.+c \sep 12.39.Ba
47: %\end{keyword}
48: %\end{frontmatter}
49: %\pub{Received (received date)}{Revised (revised date)}
50:
51:
52: %\begin{document}
53: \begin{abstract}
54: A cosmological model with modification of the Einstein-Hilbert
55: action by the correction $f(R)\propto \beta R^n$ is considered.
56: Such way of the description of the ``geometrical'' dark energy has
57: been introduced repeatedly and the coefficients of the model were
58: chosen to be fit against some observational data. In this paper
59: the unambiguous choice of parameters $n$ and $\beta$ is proposed
60: from the follow reasons: the exponent $n$ close to $1.2953$
61: follows from the request for the evolution of the Universe after
62: recombination to be close to the evolution of the flat FRW model
63: with cold dark matter and the reasonable age of the Universe
64: defines the magnitude of the coefficient $\beta$. Such a model
65: corresponding to the evolution of the Universe with the dynamical
66: $\Lambda$-term describes well enough the observational data.
67: \end{abstract}
68:
69: \section{Introduction}
70: The discovery of accelerated expansion of the
71: Universe \cite{Riess,Perlmutter,Tegmark} has stimulated the quest
72: for mechanism of the modern inflation.
73: The most famous theoretical model of dark energy (DE) is the
74: cosmological constant $\Lambda$. The corresponding FRW
75: solution for flat Universe with the present densities ratio for
76: cold matter and dark energy ($\Omega_{m}/\Omega_{\Lambda0}
77: \sim 0.3/0.7$) describes satisfactorily the evolution of the Universe
78: at
79: low redshifts~\cite{Tegmark,Linde,sahni}. However, the nature of
80: the
81: constant $\Lambda$- term has been remaining to be inexplicable
82: during many years.
83:
84: It is well-known, the application of the constant $\Lambda$- term
85: for modeling of the early Universe was initially confronted with
86: principal difficulties. Solving the problems of the very early
87: Universe, this term has to be reducing by several order of
88: magnitude during following evolution of the Universe. This
89: problem was solved by rejection of $\Lambda$- term,
90: and corresponding inflationary behavior was determined by models
91: of `` effective $\Lambda$- term''- quasi-classical scalar fields
92: in the one way. The progress of these
93: models is well-known.
94: Another way to describe the inflationary behavior
95: is to take into account the polarization of
96: vacuum of quantum fields in the early Universe. Taking into
97: account of the effects of the polarization leads to the
98: appearance of the terms non-linear on curvature in the
99: Einstein-Hilbert
100: action. In such models the inflation appears
101: self-consistently. Let us note two issues\\
102: - a correction to the Einstein -Hilbert action with the
103: arbitrary function of scalar curvature $R$
104: is equivalent mathematically to the
105: introduction of scalar field into the classical Friedman
106: cosmology\cite{Barrow,Baib,Star};\\
107: - the terms of the form $R^n$ were investigated in
108: the early works done on the problem of singularity before
109: obtaining of exact corrections to Einstein action following
110: from the one loop approximation
111: \cite{gur1}. The part
112: of such solutions approaches asymptotically to Friedman solutions
113: with $\Lambda$-term, however physical results of the solutions
114: have not been explained at that time.
115:
116:
117: For the purpose to explain
118: the accelerated expansion of the Universe today, it is
119: naturally to use
120: the experience
121: cumulative in investigations of early Universe. Thus, one of
122: the tendencies is concerned with the hypothesis of existence
123: some scalar fields that determine the density of dark energy
124: (DE) (e.g. \cite{Ratra,Zlatev,Starobinsky}). The another tendency models an effective
125: quasi-hydrodynamical tensor of momentum-energy
126: describing the observational data \cite{kamen}. And third tendency
127: is to
128: generalize the Einstein-Hilbert equation by inclusion of
129: curvature invariants
130: \cite{Turner,Capozziello,fol} analogously to the more early works
131: mentioned above.
132: The last approach one can consider to be
133: either an independent approach to the describing of DE or an
134: analogue of inclusion of scalar fields (in the case $f(R)$)
135: as stated above.
136:
137: In the works on the higher order gravity theories (HOGT)
138: the models with power corrections were investigated, however they
139: have never been fitted to whole set of the observational data.
140:
141: In this paper, the model with correction $f(R)\propto R^n$ with
142: $n>0$ is considered in detail for the purpose to correlate it with
143: the observational data. In the other words, we would like to
144: obtain the model that does not conflict with the scenario of
145: the large scale structure formation (in past) and describes
146: satisfactorily the Universe undergoing an accelerated expansion
147: at present. Therefore, at the minimum,
148: in the framework of the $f(R)$-theories,
149: we will obtain
150: solutions remind $\Lambda$CMD model describing well enough by
151: set of the observational data \cite{Tegmark,Linde}.
152: However, as it has been mentioned by various authors (see
153: \cite{sahni} and references therein) the observational data indicates
154: the models of the dynamical DE. Hence, our second aim is to search out
155: such dynamical solutions in the framework of the
156: HOGT and to find out whether these solutions are
157: preferable.
158:
159:
160: This paper is built as follows. In the section II the basic
161: equations of the HOGT are presented. In the section III for the
162: corrections of the form $f(R)\propto \beta R^n$ we find the exponent
163: $n_1=1.2953$
164: which allows the generalized Einstein equation for the scale factor
165: $a$ to have a particular solution corresponding to the flat
166: FRW solution for cold matter.
167: We show that instability of the
168: solutions that are close to this particular solution at $z>>1$
169: may lead to the accelerated behavior of
170: the model at present and the following asymptotic
171: approach of the solution to
172: the solution with the constant $\Lambda$- term.
173: In the section IV we discuss our results and compare them to
174: observations. In the model there are only two free parameters of the
175: model - the coefficient $\beta$ and a slight deviation of the parameter
176: $n$ from $n_1=1.2953$ mentioned above.
177: Fixed from one set of the observational
178: data they allows to obtain the rest of the set
179: of the observational data.
180:
181:
182: \section{Basic equations}
183: We will work in the matter frame with a spatially flat FRW
184: metric
185: \begin{equation}
186: \label{metric}
187: ds^2=d\tau^2-a^2(\tau)(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2),
188: \end{equation}
189: with $a(\tau)$ being a scale factor. The non-dimensional
190: components of Ricci scalar and Ricci tensor are,
191: \begin{eqnarray}
192: \label{Ricci}
193: R=-6\left(\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+
194: \left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2\right),\quad
195: R_0^0=-3\left(\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}\right),\quad
196: \dot{a}=\frac{1}{H_0}\frac{da}{d\tau}.
197: \end{eqnarray}
198: Here the present Hubble parameter $H_0$ has been introduced to
199: turn to non-dimensional values. The equations that can be derived
200: by variation of the action
201: \begin{equation}
202: \label{action} S=\frac{M_P^2}{2}\int d^4x
203: \sqrt{-g}\left(R+f(R)\right)+\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\,L_m
204: \end{equation}
205: are well-known for a long time \cite{Gur70}. It is useful to reduce
206: its $0-0$ component , that is the third
207: order equation in $a$, to the second order
208: equation by introduction of a new function
209: \begin{equation}
210: \label{yR} y(a)=(\dot{a}{a})^2.
211: \end{equation}
212: Thus, Eqs.(\ref{Ricci}) are determined as
213: \begin{equation}
214: \label{Riccy}
215: R=-3y'/a^2,\quad R_0^0=3(y-a\,y')/2,
216: \quad y'=dy/da,
217: \end{equation}
218: and the observable parameters - the Hubble parameter $h$ and the
219: deceleration parameter $q$ - are determined by formulae
220: \begin{equation}
221: \label{obpar} h(a)=\sqrt{\frac{y}{a^4}},\quad
222: q=-\frac{\ddot{a}a}{(\dot{a})^2}=\left(1-\frac{d\ln(y)}
223: {d\ln(a^2)}\right).
224: \end{equation}
225: Further, the $0-0$ component of Einstein equation can be
226: represented in the form
227: \begin{equation}
228: \label{eqY}
229: y+\left[\frac{df}{dR}\left(y-\frac{a}{2}\frac{dy}{da}\right)
230: -\frac{a^4}{6}\, f+a\,y\frac{d}{da}\left(\frac{df}{dR}
231: \right)\right]=\Omega_{m}\,a.
232: \end{equation}
233:
234: The solution for the classical Friedman model with cold matter is
235: defined by $f(R)=0$ whereas for the model with the constant
236: $\Lambda$-term it is defined by $f(R)=const$. Taken together they
237: describe $\Lambda$CDM model, so, according to
238: Eqs.(\ref{Riccy}),(\ref{eqY}) we have
239: \begin{equation}
240: \label{LCDM}
241: y=\Omega_{m}\,a+\Omega_{\Lambda}\, a^4,\quad
242: \Omega_m=\rho_m/\rho_{c}, \quad
243: \Omega_{\Lambda}=\rho_{\Lambda}/\rho_{c},
244: \end{equation}
245: where $\rho_m$, $\rho_{\Lambda}$, and $\rho_{c}=3 H_0^2/8\pi\,G$
246: are the cold matter density, the dark energy density, and the
247: critical density of FRW Universe at present, respectively. For
248: $4$-interval (\ref{metric}) $\Omega_m+\Omega_{\Lambda}=1$. The
249: present-day observational values are close to
250: $\Omega_{m}=0.3,\quad\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$.
251:
252: Notice that the important property of Eq.(\ref{eqY})
253: is a possible asymptotic
254: exit of solutions to regime of an exponential expansion.
255: Indeed, according to definition (\ref{LCDM}) this solution is
256: $y=\Omega\, a^4$. In this case, the scalar curvature
257: approaches to constant $R_{\infty}\rightarrow-12 \Omega$. In the
258: case of a negligible effect of matter this solution is a
259: particular solution of Eq.(\ref{eqY}) at execution of
260: the following condition
261: \begin{equation}
262: \label{rav}
263: \Omega=\frac{f(R_{\infty})}{6(1-(df/dR)|_{\infty})}=const>0.
264: \end{equation}
265:
266: \section{Model with Power Corrections in Einstein -Hilbert
267: Action }
268:
269: In this section we will investigate corrections to the
270: Einstein-Hilbert action of the form
271: \begin{equation}
272: \label{fr}
273: f(R)=-\alpha \,R^n.
274: \end{equation}
275:
276: In such a case, Eq. (\ref{yR}) can be
277: presented in the form
278: \begin{eqnarray}
279: \label{y}
280: \beta\left[n(n-1)y''y+\frac{(1-n)}{2}(y')^2+n(4-3n)\frac{y'y}{a}
281: \right]=\frac{(y')^{2-n}}{a^{4-3n}}(y-\Omega_{m}\,a),\nonumber\\
282: \beta=(-3)^{n-1}\alpha.\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
283: \end{eqnarray}
284: A general approach to investigation of the last equation is given
285: in paper\cite{Gur79}.
286:
287: There are two parameters in the model, $\beta$ and $n$,
288: determined by observational data. In a number of papers these
289: parameters were chosen according to different
290: requirements~\cite{Capozziello,fol}. In the present paper we will
291: choose parameter $n$ from requirement of closeness of evolution
292: of the our model to the classical solution for the flat FRW
293: Universe with cold matter in the past. This fact allows this
294: scenario to be close to the scenario of the large scale structure
295: formation. This requirement can be realized on condition the
296: classical Friedman solution
297: \begin{equation}
298: \label{dust}
299: y=\Omega_{m}\,a
300: \end{equation}
301: presents a particular solution of Eq.(\ref{y}). It is easy to see
302: from Eq.(\ref{y}), the last condition is equivalent to the choice
303: of $n$ to be satisfying the equation
304: \begin{equation}
305: \label{eqn} n-1=2n(4-3n) \quad {\textrm{with roots}}\quad
306: n_1=1.295,\quad n_2=-0.129.
307: \end{equation}
308: The first of the roots leads to the type of models of
309: papers~\cite{Capozziello,fol}, while the second root corresponds
310: the models with correction of the form $\propto \mu/R^{|n_2|}$
311: investigated in the paper~\cite{Turner1}. As it will be shown
312: below, such a choice of $n$ approaches the model to the set of
313: the observational data in the best way.
314:
315: \subsection{Behavior of the dust solution in
316: the $f(R)$-model in past}
317:
318: After recombination, the evolution of the Universe has to be
319: described by the Friedman model with the cold matter. The
320: dynamics of expansion is determined by stability of the
321: dust solution in the model (\ref{y}). If the solution is stable,
322: then the model evolves in the way very close to classical one.
323: However, the observational data at $z<1$ does not correspond to
324: such a scenario, i.e. we are interested in dust-like solutions
325: which are not stable in the model (\ref{y}) but the perturbations
326: do not grow catastrophically fast. Otherwise, the model does not
327: provides a sufficiently long period with $q\simeq0.5$ at $z\gg1$
328: required for the large structure formation.
329:
330: For investigation of behavior of the solution (\ref{dust}) we will
331: search a perturbed solution in the form
332: \begin{equation}
333: \label{pert1} y=\Omega\, a(1+\psi),\quad \psi\ll1.
334: \end{equation}
335: In this linear approximation and close to the recombination time
336: ($a\ll1$) Eq. (\ref{y}) yields,
337: \begin{eqnarray}
338: \label{psi0}
339: n\,a^2\,\psi''+a\,\psi'(2n-0.5)=0,
340: \end{eqnarray}
341: with the damping solution $\psi=C_1+C_2\,a^{(\frac{1}{2n}-1)}$.
342: Hence the solution (\ref{dust}) for $f(R)$-theory (\ref{fr}) with
343: $n=n_1$ satisfying Eq.(\ref{eqn}) asymptotically approaches to to
344: the flat FRW solution, i.e. it is stable and does not satisfies
345: the requirement stated above\footnote{\footnotesize It is
346: interesting to note that the mentioned exponents (\ref{eqn}) are
347: obtained in the recent paper~\cite{Multamaki} for the equation
348: equivalent to Eq.(\ref{y}). In $f(R)$ theory, the given exponents
349: allow obtaining of the solutions for cold dark matter coinciding
350: with ones in the classical Friedman model of the universe. Also,
351: it has been shown in the paper~\cite{Multamaki} that these
352: solutions are stable in the framework of HOGT. Let us notice
353: we slightly change exponent $n$ in the preset work to obtain
354: weakly unstable solutions adequate to the observational data.
355: Authors are grateful to authors of paper~\cite{Multamaki} kindly
356: attracting our attention to their results.}
357:
358: As the next step on the path of the choice of $n$, we will look
359: for solutions of the $f(R)$ -theories (\ref{fr}) with $n$ which is
360: a little different from $n_1$,
361: \begin{equation}
362: \label{dn1}
363: n=n_1+\delta n,\qquad \delta n\ll 1.
364: \end{equation}
365: It is efficient to rewrite the condition (\ref{eqn}) in the form
366: \begin{equation}
367: \label{eqnd} \delta\,(n-1)=2n(4-3n),\quad \delta=1+\epsilon,\quad
368: \epsilon\ll1.
369: \end{equation}
370: \begin{figure}[pt]
371: \begin{center}
372: \includegraphics[width=140 mm,height=6.5 cm]{hy29.eps}
373: \caption{{\footnotesize The evolution of the variable $y$ (a left
374: panel) and the Hubble parameter $h$ (a right panel) with the scale
375: factor $a$ are represented by the solid line. The $\Lambda$CDM
376: solution and the cold matter solution are presented by dashed and
377: dotted line, respectively. Both graphs correspond to the case
378: $\Omega_{m}=0.29.$ \label{hy29}}}
379: \end{center}
380: \end{figure}
381: We will look for the perturbed dust-like solution in the form
382: (\ref{pert1}) near to recombination. The Eq.(\ref{y}) for such a
383: case yields
384: \begin{eqnarray}
385: \label{psi1}
386: n\,a^2\,\psi''+2a\,\psi'\left(n-0.5+\delta/4\right)
387: +\left(\delta-1\right)=0.
388: \end{eqnarray}
389: Then after the change of variable $\xi=\ln (a/a_{\ast})$ the Eq.
390: (\ref{psi1}) yields
391: \begin{equation}
392: \label{psi1dot}
393: n\ddot{\psi}+\left(n-1/2+\epsilon/2\right)
394: \dot{\psi}+\epsilon=0,\,{\bf \dot{}}=d/d\xi.
395: \end{equation}
396:
397: The last equation has a solution
398: \begin{equation}
399: \label{pert}
400: \psi=\left(C_1+\frac{2\,\epsilon}{1-2n}
401: \ln\left(\frac{a}{a_{\ast}}\right)\right)+C_2\,a^{(\frac{1}{2n}-1)}.
402: \end{equation}
403: The analysis of (\ref{pert}) has shown that the requirement
404: stated above is realized only for $\epsilon< 0$.
405:
406: In this case, the modification of the exponent (\ref{eqnd}) is
407: determined by a small positive correction
408: \begin{equation}
409: \label{dn}
410: \delta n \simeq -2\,\epsilon\, n_1(n_1-1)/(12n_1-1).
411: \end{equation}
412: The numerical analysis has shown that behavior of solutions is
413: sensitive to small changes of $\epsilon$ at $a\rightarrow1$. The
414: last fact together with a choice of parameter $\beta$ allows us
415: to obtain a good enough correspondence with the observational
416: data.
417:
418: As an illustration we give the results for the set of parameters
419: $n=1.296,\; \beta=0.467$ fixed according to $\Omega_{m}=0.29, h_0=68$
420: (the best fit to the CMB+SNe data presented in the paper~\cite{sahni}).
421: In a left panel of Fig.~\ref{hy29}, a solid line represents
422: the evolution of
423: the variable $y$ with a scale factor $a$. At the beginning,
424: it coincides with the evolution of the dust model
425: which is represented by a
426: dotted line but further it deviates to the $\Lambda$CMD model
427: represented by
428: a dashed line. In a right panel,
429: one can see evolution of the Hubble parameter with the scale factor $a$ for the mentioned
430: three models.
431:
432: \subsection{The behavior of the solution in future}
433: %\begin{figure}[pb]
434: %\centerline{\psfig{file=future291.eps,width=13cm,height=6.5 cm}}
435: %\vspace*{8pt}
436: %\caption{
437: \begin{figure}[pt]
438: \begin{center}
439: \includegraphics[width=130 mm,height=6.5 cm]{future291.eps}
440: \caption{{\footnotesize The evolution of the Hubble parameter $h$
441: and the deceleration parameter $q$ with a scale factor $a$. The
442: thick solid lines represent graphs related to the $f(R)$-model
443: while the dashed lines represent the evolution of the parameters
444: of $\Lambda$CDM model. In the left panel the asymptotic solution
445: for $f(R)$ model is shown by the dash-doted line.
446: \label{future}}}
447: \end{center}
448: \end{figure}
449: The further expansion of the Universe at $a>>1$ according to the
450: Eq. (\ref{y}) leads to the negligible effect of cold matter on the
451: solution behavior. In this case, De Sitter
452: solution $y=\Omega\, a^4$ is an asymptotic solution
453: of Eq.(\ref{y}). This solution corresponds to the
454: constant Hubble parameter
455: \begin{equation}
456: \label{hOmega}
457: h(a_{\longrightarrow\infty})=\sqrt{\Omega}
458: \end{equation}
459: with $\Omega$ defined from equality
460: \begin{equation}
461: \label{Omega}
462: 3\beta(2n-1)(n-1)/2=(4\Omega)^{(1-n)}/4
463: \end{equation}
464:
465: The inflationary solution
466: is stable in the
467: process of evolution of the model. To show it,
468: we shall look for the solution with perturbation in the form\\
469: $y=\Omega a^4(1+\Phi),\quad \Phi<<1$. This ansatz yields
470: \begin{equation}
471: \label{latepert}
472: n_1a^2\Phi''+[(n_1-1)/2+3n_1^2]a\Phi' +6(2n_1^2-3n_1+1)\Phi=0
473: \end{equation}
474: The change of variable $a$ to variable $\xi$ (see Eq.(\ref{pert}))
475: yields
476: \begin{equation}
477: \label{latepert2} \ddot{\Phi}+A\dot{\Phi} +B\Phi=0,\quad
478: \dot{}=d/d\xi.
479: \end{equation}
480: where coefficients are $A=[3n_1-(1/n_1+1)/2]=2.99$,
481: $B=6(2n_1-3+1/n_1)=2.18$. This equation for perturbations have a
482: damped solution indicating De Sitter solution to be
483: stable. The numerical analysis has shown that De Sitter solution is an
484: attractive solution.
485:
486: The evolution of the Hubble parameter is represented by the thick
487: solid line in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{future} for the case
488: $\Omega_m=0.29$. In contrast to
489: the Hubble parameter of $\Lambda$CDM
490: model (the dashed line) monotonically decreasing down to constant
491: $\sqrt{\Omega_{\Lambda}}$, it reaches a minimum $h_m \approx
492: 0.978$ at $a\approx 1.15$ and after that increases up to the
493: asymptotic solution (\ref{hOmega}) which is represented in the
494: figure by the dash-doted line. It is interesting to note that the
495: formula for dimensionless parameter Hubble $h(z)=h(a)$
496: obtained from observational data in the paper~\cite{sahni} allows
497: it's extrapolation
498: in future $(a>1)$. At the parameters mentioned in this paper,
499: the formula for $h(a)$ also predicts minimum of the Hubble
500: parameter at $a\approx 1.45$ which is equal to $0.951$.
501: This best fit of the paper~\cite{sahni} is
502: shown in Fig.\ref{future} by the thin solid line.
503: The deceleration parameter $q$
504: represented in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{future} also passes a
505: minimum and approaches to $-1$ with the growth of $a$. Therefore,
506: we live in a transitional epoch between the classical Friedman
507: cosmology and the De Sitter cosmology.
508:
509:
510:
511: \section{Results}
512: Hereafter we will present the comparison of results of
513: our model and the observational data.
514:
515: As a set of observational
516: data,
517: the analysis of SNe+CMB data done in the paper~\cite{sahni}
518: have been used. In that paper authors have reconstructed
519: the resent history of the Universe on the base of SNe and CMB
520: data in the model-independent way, only modelling DE
521: by the hydrodynamical equation of state
522: \begin{equation}
523: \label{w} p=w\rho, \quad w=(2q-1)/(3-\Omega_{m}/h^2).
524: \end{equation}
525: The cited paper presents two conceptions of the analysis of
526: observational data: the first of them is the best fit to the data
527: which uses only the hydrodynamical describing of DE and does not
528: impose restrictions on the values of $\Omega_{m}$
529: and $h_0$, while the second conception follows
530: the priority of the concordance
531: $\Lambda$CDM model, so authors of~\cite{sahni}
532: put $\Omega_{m}=0.27\pm0.04$ and $h_0=0.71\pm0.06$.
533: \begin{figure}[ph]
534: \begin{center}
535: \includegraphics[width=140 mm,height=6.5 cm]{wq385.eps}
536: \caption{{\footnotesize The comparison of results of the $f(R)\propto \beta R^n$ model
537: to the analysis of the
538: observational data quoted from the paper~\cite{sahni} by
539: approbation of the authors. The evolution of the deceleration
540: parameter with redshift is shown in a right panel and the
541: variation of the parameter $w$ of equation of state of DE is shown
542: in a left panel. The best fit of SNe+CMB data with
543: $\Omega_{m}=0.385,\, h_0=0.60$ is represented by the thin solid
544: line, the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ confidence levels are
545: represented by the light and dark grey contours, respectively, and
546: $\Lambda$CDM is represented by the dashed line. For given
547: $\Omega_{m}$ and $h$ the $f(R)$-model is defined by parameters
548: $n=1.2955 $ and $\beta=0.273$ and represented here by the thick
549: solid line. \label{qw385}}}
550: \end{center}
551: \end{figure}
552:
553: We will give the comparison of our results with both of them.
554: Also we notice that the analogy of the ``hydrodynamical'' DE
555: (\ref{w}) is not so proper to the higher order gravity theories,
556: hence one can expect the comparison over the values $h$ and $q$
557: to be more informative than over the value $w$.
558:
559: It have been found in the paper~\cite{sahni} the best fit values
560: are: $\Omega_{m}=0.385, h_0=60$. In the model
561: DE evolves in time
562: strongly enough. In Fig. \ref{qw385} one can see results (the
563: evolution of the deceleration parameter and DE equation of state
564: parameter with redshift) for analysis of paper~\cite{sahni}: the
565: best fit is represented by the thin solid line, the $1\sigma$
566: and $2\sigma$ confidence levels are represented by the light and
567: dark grey contours, respectively, and $\Lambda$CDM is represented
568: by the dashed line. Also for given $\Omega_{m}$ and $h_0$ the
569: results of the $f(R)$-model with $ n= 1.2955 \,(\delta n=0.0002)$
570: and $\beta=0.273$ for the ``geometrical equation of state''
571: parameter $w=(y-ay')/3(y-\Omega_{m}\,a)$ and deceleration
572: parameter $q$ are presented by the thick solid lines. In given
573: $f(R)$-model the age of the Universe is $14.9$ Hyr, the
574: deceleration parameter is $q_0=-0.91$ at present and the
575: transition to acceleration occurs at $z=0.38$. Similarly to
576: results of~\cite{sahni}, the $w_{DE} <1$ at lower redshifts
577: ($w_{DE0}= -1.53$), however , the evolution of equation of state
578: of ``geometrical DE'' is more weak contrary to the results
579: of~\cite{sahni}.
580:
581: \begin{figure}[pt]
582: \begin{center}
583: \includegraphics[width=140 mm,height=6.5 cm]{star29.eps}
584: \caption{{\footnotesize The comparison of results of $f(R)\propto
585: R^n$ model with $n=1.296$ and $\beta=0.467$ (the thick solid line)
586: to results of analysis of SNe+CMB data with $\Omega_{m}=0.29$ done
587: in~\cite{sahni}. The evolution of the deceleration parameter with
588: redshift is shown in a right panel and variation of equation of
589: state of DE is shown in a left panel. The best fit of SNe+CMB data
590: in such case is represented by the thin solid line, the $1\sigma$
591: and $2\sigma$ confidence levels are represented by the light and
592: dark grey contours, respectively, and $\Lambda$CDM is represented
593: by the dashed line.
594: \label{star29}}}
595: \end{center}
596: \end{figure}
597: However, if strong priors have been
598: imposed on $\Omega_{m}$ and $h_0$ (i.e. the $\Lambda$CDM model
599: priors: $\Omega_{m}=0.27\pm0.04$ and $h_0=0.71\pm0.06$), the
600: evolution of DE is extremely weak and in good agreement with the
601: $\Lambda$CDM model. The best fit in the case is
602: $\Omega_{m}=0.29$. One can see good enough coincidence of our
603: model and their analysis for parameters of the model $ n=
604: 1.296\,(\delta
605: n=0.001)$
606: and $\beta=0.467$ in figure \ref{star29}. The deceleration
607: parameter $q_0=-0.683$ at present and the deceleration was
608: changed by the acceleration at $z=0.51$, ($q_0=-0.63\pm0.12$ and
609: $z=0.57\pm0.07$ in the paper~\cite{sahni}). The age of the
610: Universe in this case is 13.6 Hyr.
611:
612: In Fig. \ref{h385_29} the comparison of the evolution of the
613: Hubble parameter for $f(R)$-model to $\Lambda$CDM model and the
614: best fit of the observational data analysis is presented. One can
615: see the results for the cases with $\Omega_{m}=0.385$ and
616: $\Omega_{m}=0.29$ in a left and a right panel, respectively.
617:
618: Thus, the $f(R)\propto \beta R^n$-model with parameters $\beta$
619: and $n$ chosen according to the principles mentioned in
620: Introduction describes the evolution of the Universe
621: quite corresponding to the SNe+CMB data.
622:
623: \begin{figure}[ph]
624: \begin{center}
625: \includegraphics[width=140 mm,height=6.5 cm]{h385_29.eps}
626: \caption{{\footnotesize
627: The evolution of the Hubble parameter with
628: redshift. The $f(R)$-model and the $\Lambda$CDM model are shown by
629: the thick solid and the dashed lines, while the best fit of the
630: observational data according to~\cite{sahni} is represented by the
631: thin solid line. The case for $\Omega_{m}=0.385,\; h_0=0.6$ is
632: shown in the left panel, and the case $\Omega_{m}=0.29,\;
633: h_0=0.68$ is shown in the right panel. \label{h385_29}}}
634: \end{center}
635: \end{figure}
636:
637:
638:
639: \section{Acknowledgements}
640: V.G is grateful to A. Starobinsky for constructive criticism of
641: the paper \cite{fol} which has stimulated the given investigation.
642: Authors also thank A. Nusser, H. Kleinert, and V. Folomeev for helpful
643: discussions.
644: \begin{thebibliography}{00}
645: \bibitem{Riess}A.Riess et al., Astron. J. (1998) 116 1009 [astro-ph/9805201] .
646: \bibitem{Perlmutter}S. J. Perlmutter et al., Astroph. J. 517 (1999) 565 [arXiv:astro-ph/9812133].
647: \bibitem{Tegmark}M.Tegmark et al., Astroph. J. 606 (2004) 702,
648: [astro-ph/0310725].
649: \bibitem{Linde}J. Kratochvil, A. Linde,E.V.Linder, M.Shmakova,[astro-ph/0312183]
650: \bibitem{sahni}U. Alam, V. Sahni, A. A. Starobinsky, JCAP 0406 (2004)
651: 008.
652: \bibitem{Barrow} J.D. Barrow, S. Cotsakis, Phys.Lett.B 214 (1988) 515.
653: \bibitem{Baib} M.B. Baibosunov, V.Ts.
654: Gurovich, U.M. Imanaliev.
655: Sov.Phys. JETP 71(1990) 636.
656: \bibitem{Star}S. Gottl\"ober, H.-J. Schmidt,A.A. Starobinsky,
657: Clas. Quant. Grav., 7 (1990) 893.
658: \bibitem{gur1}V.Ts.Gurovich, Soviet phys. - Doklady,195 (1970) 1300.
659: \bibitem{Ratra}B.Ratra and P.J.E. Peebels, Phys. Rev. D 37 (1988) 3406.
660: \bibitem{Zlatev}I.Zlatev, L. Wang, P.J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 896 .
661: \bibitem{Starobinsky}V.Sahni and A.A.Starobinsky, IJMP D 9 (2000) 373.
662: \bibitem{kamen} A.Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, and V. Pasquier, Phys. Lett. B 511 (2001)265.
663: \bibitem{Turner}S.M.Carroll, A. De Felice, V.Duvvuri, D. A. Easson, M.Trodden,
664: M.S. Turner, Phys.Rev. D71 (2005) 063513.
665: \bibitem{Capozziello}S. Capozziello, V.F.
666: Cardone, S. Carloni, A. Troisi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D12 (2003)
667: 1969.
668: \bibitem{fol}V. Folomeev, V. Gurovich and H. Kleinert,
669: preprint [astro-ph/0501209]
670: \bibitem{Gur70}B.N.Breizman, V.Ts.Gurovich, V.P.Sokolov,
671: Soviet phys. Zh.Eksp.Teor.Fiz.59 (1970) 288.
672: \bibitem{Gur79}V.Ts. Gurovich, A.A.Starobinsky,
673: Sov. Phys. - JETP 50 (1979) 844.
674: \bibitem{Multamaki}T.~Multamaki and I.~Vilja, preprint [astro-ph/0506692].
675: \bibitem{Turner1}S. M. Carroll, V. Duvvuri, M. Trodden and M. S. Turner,
676: Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 043528
677: \end{thebibliography}
678: \end{document}
679: