1: \documentclass[preprint,12pt]{aastex}
2: %\usepackage{graphicx}
3: %\usepackage{natbib}
4: \begin{document}
5: \title{Flat Cosmology with Coupled Matter and Dark Energies}
6: \author{A.-M.M. Abdel-Rahman$^1$ and Ihab F. Riad$^2$}
7: \affil{$^1$Division of Basic Sciences,Faculty of Engineering,
8: University of Khartoum, P.O.Box 321 , Khartoum 11115,
9: Sudan\email{abdelmalik@yahoo.com} $^2$Department of Physics, Faculty
10: of Science, University of Khartoum, P.O.Box 321, Khartoum, 11115,
11: Sudan, and Department of Astronomy,Faculty of Science,University of
12: Cape Town,Cape Town,South
13: Africa\email{ifriad@circinus.ast.uct.ac.za}}
14:
15: \begin{abstract}
16:
17: Three models of a flat universe of coupled matter and dark
18: energies with different low-redshift parameterizations of the dark
19: energy equation of state are considered. The dark energy is
20: assumed to vary with time like the trace of the energy-momentum
21: tensor of cosmic matter. In the radiation-dominated era the
22: models reduce to standard cosmology. In the matter-dominated era
23: they are, for modern values of the cosmological parameters,
24: consistent with data from SNe Ia searches and with the data of
25: \citet{GUR1999} for angular sizes of ultra compact radio sources.
26: We find that the angular size-redshift tests for our models offer
27: a higher statistical confidence than that based on SNe Ia data. A
28: comparison of our results with a recent revised analysis of
29: angular size-redshift legacy data is made,and the implications of
30: our models with optimized relativistic beaming in the radio
31: sources is discussed. In particular we find that relativistic
32: beaming implies a Lorentz factor less than 6,in agreement with its
33: values for powerful Active Galactic Nuclei.
34: \end{abstract}
35: \keywords{Cosmology:theory,dark energy,SNe Ia,angular
36: size-redshift relation,critical redshift,relativistic beaming}
37: %\newpage
38: \section{INTRODUCTION}
39:
40: There is now substantial observational evidence\citep{PERA2003}
41: that favors the existence of a smooth exotic cosmic component of
42: energy of negative pressure. Going at times under the name of a
43: cosmological constant or quintessence or,at other times,dark
44: energy,which we will adopt here,its true nature remains obscure.
45:
46: The unexpected faintness of high redshift type Ia supernovae (SNe
47: Ia)suggests that the universe is accelerating
48: today\citep{RIE1998,PERL1999},relentlessly driven by dark energy.
49: When the SNe Ia results are combined with observations of the
50: amplitudes of primordial fluctuations in the cosmic microwave
51: background radiation the overall picture seems to be one of an
52: accelerating flat universe. Since the standard flat universe,
53: despite its well-known shortcomings,has long been favored on
54: aesthetic and theoretical grounds\citep{KT1990},the hope has
55: arisen that the injection of dark energy will cure its ills,
56: particularly in regards of its age of the universe problem. Thus
57: a major industry of investigating the constraints imposed by
58: continuously updated astrophysical observations on the dark energy
59: in refined versions of the standard model has flourished in recent
60: times. The present paper is one more contribution in this
61: direction.
62:
63: When it is assumed that the dark energy,viewed in general to be
64: time-dependent,does not interact with matter,the energy equations
65: for nonrelativistic pressureless matter and dark energy decouple
66: leading to conservation of matter and to the dark energy equation
67: $d\rho_{de}/dz = 3(1+z)^{-1}(1+p_{de}/\rho_{de})\rho_{de}$,where
68: $\rho_{de}(z)$ and $p_{de}(z)$ are the dark energy density and
69: pressure respectively and $z$ is the redshift. In this case a
70: solvable cosmological model is obtained if a specific variation of
71: $\rho_{de}$ is invoked\citep{MOZ1999,AMMR2002,ARMOH2005}or a
72: definite parameterization for the equation of state $w(z)\equiv
73: p_{de}/\rho_{de}$ is suggested
74: \citep{CPOL2001,BACCI2003,ALAMSA2003,DR2004,PADMAN2003,CORAS2004,ALAM2004,JOHR2004,JOHR2005}.
75:
76: Alternatively if one assumes that the dark energy interacts with
77: matter\citep{MOZ1999},the energy equations for both are coupled
78: and one needs a definite variation for $\rho_{de}$,in addition to
79: specifying its equation of state. In this case the conservation of
80: the energy-momentum tensor of the field equations,which holds when
81: matter and the dark energy are noninteracting,is replaced by the
82: conservation of the sum of this tensor and an extra appended
83: tensorial piece representing the time-dependent dark energy. Here
84: we follow this line: Specifically we assume (a) $\rho_{de} \sim
85: T$,where $T = \rho -3p$ is the trace of the energy-momentum tensor
86: of cosmic matter of density $\rho$ and pressure $p$,and (b) a one
87: parameter form for $w(z)$.
88:
89: A variation $\Lambda\sim T$ was introduced by \citet{M2001,M2003}
90: for the cosmological constant $\Lambda$,the motivation being to
91: identify the cosmological constant with a Lorentz-invariant scalar
92: representing a form of quintessence. This cosmology is reminiscent
93: of similar earlier attempts at identifying $\Lambda$ with the
94: Ricci scalar\citep{ALMOT1996a,ALMOT1996b,AMMR1997}. The postulate
95: $\Lambda \sim T$ is interesting because it implies that the
96: cosmological constant vanishes in the radiation-dominated cosmic
97: era of flat cosmology so that the successful standard primordial
98: nucleosynthesis predictions are unaltered. In the matter-dominated
99: era the postulate reduces to $\Lambda \propto H^2$ where $H$ is
100: Hubble's parameter. The cosmological constant variation $\Lambda
101: \propto H^2$ itself was widely discussed in the literature
102: \citep{F1987,CLW1992,LC1994,AW1994,WE1995,AR1997,OC1998,V2001}. In
103: particular \citet{CLW1992} have pointed out that it follows from
104: dimensional arguments consistent with quantum gravity. Since such
105: arguments do not depend on the cosmological constant equation of
106: state $ p_\Lambda = -\rho_\Lambda$ it is legitimate to regard them
107: as equally valid for dark energy with $w(z) \neq -1 $.
108:
109: Extending this postulate to a dark energy with an equation of
110: state of negative pressure we take $\rho_{de} = \kappa T$ where
111: $\kappa$ is a dimensionless constant. A consequence of this is
112: that the matter density parameter $\Omega_m$ is constant in the
113: model. We take it to be $ 1/3$. This is because a matter density
114: parameter around 0.30 seems to be favored by observations
115: indicating that the dark energy accounts for 2/3 of cosmic matter
116: \citep{Turner2002a,Turner2002b}. In fact \citet{Turner2002c} has
117: strongly argued a case for $\Omega_m = 0.33 \pm 0.035 $ from
118: measurements of the physical properties of clusters,CMB
119: anisotropies and the power spectrum of mass inhomogeneities.
120:
121: For the dark energy equation of state we consider 3 models with
122: the one-parameter forms: (1)$w_{de}=w\equiv const$,(2)$ w_{de}=
123: -1+ wz$,and (3)$w_{de}= -1 + w\frac{z}{1+z}$, where $w$ is
124: constant.
125:
126: Model (1), \emph{viz}, $w_{de} \equiv w=const <0$,is a
127: generalization of the cosmological constant case $w_{de} =-1$.
128: Strictly speaking a constant $w_{de}$ is valid for the
129: cosmological constant only. Yet models of cosmic evolution driven
130: by nonrelativistic matter and a quintessence component $X$,an
131: exotic fluid with an arbitrary equation of state $ p_X = w_X\rho_X
132: $ ($w_X \geq -1 $), have been widely studied
133: \citep{RAP1988,CHIB1997,TUW1997,SPER1997,FRIEM1998,CALDW1998,EFST1999,Turner2002d}.
134: In a number of these models (particularly those with tracking
135: solutions),both the dark energy density parameter
136: $\Omega_{de}(\equiv 8\pi G\rho_{de}/3H^2)$ and $w_{de}$ vary so
137: slowly with redshift \citep{ZLAT1999,STE1999,EFST1999} as to
138: justify the approximate use of an effective equation of state
139: parameter
140: $w_{eff}\sim\frac{\int{w_{de}(z)\Omega_{de}(z)dz}}{\int{\Omega_{de}(z)dz}}$
141: \citep{WAN2000,ZHU2004}. More generally,the absence of robust
142: fundamental physics-based dark energy models and the difficulty to
143: observe a time dependence of $w_{de}$ from CMBR\citep{AUS2003}or
144: from fits to luminosity distances \citep{PICL2003},admits the
145: possibility of a $w_{de}$ which is constant in some specified
146: range,and which arises as a model-independent approximation to the
147: dark energy equation of state \citep{KNST2003,CEP2004}.(The
148: cosmology with a dark energy $ \sim a^{-2}$ and decoupled from
149: ordinary matter so that $w_{de} = -1/3$ has been recently
150: discussed by one of us \citep{AMMR2002} and by \citet{ARMOH2005}).
151:
152: On the other hand parameterizations (2) and (3) are special cases
153: of the two-parameter forms: $w_{de} = w_{de}(0) + wz$,and $w_{de}
154: = w_{de}(0)+ w\frac{z}{1+z}$ which were proposed by
155: \citet{HUTU2001} and \citet{WEAL2002}, and by
156: \citet{LIN2003}respectively, and recently studied,together with
157: the case $w_{de}=w\equiv const$, by\citet{DR2004}. The form
158: $w_{de} = w_{de}(0)+wz$ diverges at very high redshifts whereas
159: this difficulty is avoided in the model $w_{de} = w_{de}(0)+
160: w\frac{z}{1+z}$, where $w_{de} \rightarrow w_{de}(0)+w$ as
161: $z\rightarrow \infty$. But, as argued by \citet{Riess2004},a safer
162: strategy, which we follow here,is to regard these
163: parameterizations as only valid for low-z ($z\ll$ decoupling
164: redshift $z_{dec}$) and describing the late behavior of dark
165: energy. This was done by \citet{DR2004} who studied these
166: parameterizations and found,on taking as prior $\Omega_m = 0.3$ in
167: a flat universe,that a constant $w_{de} \equiv w_{de}(0) = -1$ is
168: preferred by the fit to the gold data for type Ia supernovae
169: \citep{Riess2004,TON2003,BARR2004}. Also it is already known that
170: the cosmological constant scenario remains consistent with tight
171: constraints from new cosmic microwave background and galaxy
172: clustering data\citep{ALESS2004}. Quite generally observations
173: seem to require dark energy with present values $w_{de} \sim -1 $
174: and $ \Omega_{de} \sim 0.7$ \citep{PERA2003}. With this in mind,
175: and noting that recent SNeIa observations from HST do not indicate
176: a rapid variation of $w_{de}(z)$ away from its cosmological
177: constant value,we pursue,for simplicity,the following approach: we
178: consider the preceding three $w_{de}(z)$ parameterizations and
179: set in them,$\tilde{a}b\ initio$, $w_{de}(0)= -1$. Then we
180: investigate the constraints on the dark energy equation of state
181: from recent supernova data and observations of the angular sizes
182: of ultra compact radio sources.
183:
184: In section 2 we present the basic equations of the models. In
185: sections 3 and 4 we examine the constraints on them from supernova
186: and angular sizes data respectively. In discussing angular sizes
187: we compare our results with those from a recent work by
188: \citet{JJ2006},and also consider the implications of our angular
189: size-redshift relations in the presence of relativistic beaming of
190: the radio sources. Section 5 winds up the paper with a discussion
191: of the results and some concluding remarks.
192:
193:
194: \section{THE MODEL}
195: We consider a spatially flat FRW universe ($a$ is the RW scale
196: factor)
197: \begin{equation}\label{e1}
198: ds^2 = dt^2 - a^2\left(dr^2 + r^2d\theta^2 + r^2\sin^2\theta
199: d\phi^2\right)
200: \end{equation}
201: with cold matter of zero pressure and energy density $\rho_m$ and
202: dark energy of density $\rho_{de}$ and pressure $p_{de} =
203: w_{de}\rho_{de}$. Denoting the scale factor today by
204: $a_0$,(subscript $"0"$ denotes present-day quantities),and
205: defining $a/a_0 = (1+z)^{-1}$,where $z$ is the red-shift,
206: Einstein's gravitational field equations can,in this case,be
207: written as ($\alpha\equiv3/8\pi G$)
208: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e2}
209: \alpha^{-1}\left(\rho_m + \rho_{de} \right)& = &H^2 \equiv H_0^2E^2(z),\\
210: \frac{3\alpha^{-1}w_{de}\rho_m}{(1+3w_{de})} &=& H^2
211: -\frac{2qH^2}{(1+3w_{de})},
212: \end{eqnarray}
213: where $q=-\frac{a\ddot{a}}{\dot{a}^2}=
214: \frac{\ddot{z}(1+z)}{\dot{z}^2} -2$ is the deceleration parameter
215: and $H=\dot{a}/a = -\frac{\dot{z}}{(1+z)}$ Hubble's constant (an
216: over-dot denotes time differentiation),with $H_0 \equiv100h \quad
217: kms^{-1}Mpc^{-1} = 2.16h\times 10^{-42} GeV$ being its present-day
218: value ($h$ is the normalized Hubble constant). Defining the
219: density parameters
220: \begin{equation}\label{e4}
221: \Omega_m\equiv\frac{\alpha^{-1}\rho_m}{H^2}, \qquad
222: \Omega_{de}\equiv\frac{\alpha^{-1}\rho_{de}}{H^2},
223: \end{equation}
224: we deduce from equation(\ref{e2}) that $\Omega_m + \Omega_{de}
225: =1$,valid at all times including $t =t_0$.
226:
227: Combining equations (\ref{e2})-(\ref{e4})we obtain
228: \begin{equation}\label{e5}
229: q \equiv -1+\frac{(1+z)}{2H^2}\frac{dH^2}{dz} = \frac{1}{2} +
230: \frac{3w_{de}}{2}\left(1-\Omega_m\right) = \frac{1}{2} +
231: \frac{3\alpha^{-1}w_{de}\rho_{de}}{2H^2}.
232: \end{equation}
233:
234: In the Einstein-de Sitter(EdeS)standard model $\Omega_m = 1$ or
235: $\rho_{de} = 0$ so that $ q = 1/2$. For the cosmological constant
236: $\Lambda$ case $ w_{de} = -1$ so that $q=\frac{3}{2}\Omega_m -1$
237: which admits an accelerating universe scenario provided $ \Omega_m
238: < 2/3$.
239:
240: In this paper we assume that $\rho_{de} = \kappa T$ where $T =
241: \rho -3p$ is the trace of the matter energy-momentum tensor and
242: $\kappa$ a dimensionless constant \citep{M2001,M2003}. Then in the
243: matter-dominated epoch of flat cosmology we have from equations
244: (\ref{e2}) and (\ref{e4}) that $\rho_{de} = \kappa \rho_{m} =
245: \frac{\alpha\kappa}{1+\kappa}H^2$ and $\Omega_m
246: =\frac{1}{1+\kappa} \equiv const$ \citep{M2001,M2003}. We further
247: set,as was done by \citet{M2001,M2003} and argued in the
248: introduction, $\Omega_m = 1/3 $. We then obtain from
249: equation(\ref{e5}),
250: \begin{equation}\label{e6}
251: q = -1 + \frac{(1+z)}{2H^2}\frac{dH^2}{dz} = \frac{1}{2}+ w_{de}.
252: \end{equation}
253: The rest of the paper investigates the consequences of this model
254: for $q$ using the different dark energy parameterizations
255: discussed in the introduction.
256: \subsection{Parameterizations of $w_{de}$}
257: \subsubsection{Model 1: $w_{de} \equiv w = const \leq 0$.}
258:
259: Inserting $w_{de} \equiv w = const \leq 0$ in
260: equation(\ref{e6})yields
261: \begin{equation}\label{e7}
262: E^2(z) = (1+z)^{(3+2w)}.
263: \end{equation}
264: \subsubsection{Model 2: $w_{de} = -1 + wz,\quad w \equiv constant > 0$}
265:
266: Here equation(\ref{e6})shows that $ q
267: > 0, (q < 0),$ for $ z > \frac{1}{2w}, (z < \frac{1}{2w})$,implying
268: a cosmic deceleration - acceleration transition at redshift $z_T
269: = \frac{1}{2w}$. In this case the solution of equation
270: (\ref{e6})for $H^2$ is ($z\ll{z_{dec}}$):
271: \begin{equation}\label{e8}
272: E^2(z) = (1+z)^{1-2w}\exp{(2wz)}.
273: \end{equation}
274: \subsubsection{Model 3: $w_{de} = -1 + w \frac{z}{(1+z)},\quad w \equiv
275: const > 0 $}
276:
277: The deceleration-acceleration cosmic transition occurs in this
278: model at $z_T = \frac{1}{(2w-1)}$ so that we must have $w >
279: \frac{1}{2}$. In this case the solution of equation(\ref{e6}) for
280: $H^2$ is($z\ll{z_{dec}}$):
281: \begin{equation}\label{e9}
282: E^2(z) = (1+z)^{(1+2w)}\exp{[-\frac{2wz}{(1+z)}]}.
283: \end{equation}
284: \section{TYPE Ia SUPERNOVAE}
285: \subsection{The Distance Modulus}
286:
287: For a flat universe the luminosity distance in units of
288: Megaparsecs may be defined by
289: \begin{equation}\label{e10}
290: d_L = cH_0^{-1}(1+z)\int_{0}^{z}\frac{dz}{E(z)} \equiv
291: c(1+z)^2d(0,z),
292: \end{equation}
293: where
294: \begin{equation}\label{e11}
295: d(z_1,z_2) = H_0^{-1}(1+z_2)^{-1}\int_{z_1}^{z_2}\frac{dz}{E(z)} .
296: \end{equation}
297: In terms of $d_L$ the predicted distance modulus is
298: \begin{equation}\label{e12}
299: \mu_p = 5\log{d_L} + 25 .
300: \end{equation}
301: We next obtain expressions for $d_L$ and $\mu_p$ in our models. In
302: calculating $\mu_p$ we use the widely accepted value for the
303: Hubble constant $H_{0} = 72kms^{-1}Mpc^{-1}$
304: \citep{FREE2001,FREE2003}.
305: \subsubsection{Model 1}
306:
307: From equations(\ref{e7}) and (\ref{e10})
308: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e13}
309: d_L& \equiv& c(1+z)^2d(0,z)= \frac{2cH_0^{-1}(1+z)}{1+2w}\left[1 -
310: (1+z)^{-w-\frac{1}{2}}\right], \qquad w\neq -1/2,\nonumber\\
311: d_L&\equiv& c(1+z)^2d(0,z) = cH_0^{-1}(1+z)ln(1+z), \qquad w=-1/2.
312: \end{eqnarray}
313: Hence by equation(\ref{e12}),
314: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e14}
315: \mu_{p} &=& 43.10 + 5\log \left\{\frac{2(1+z)}{1+2w}\left[1 -
316: (1+z)^{-w -\frac{1}{2}}\right]\right\}, \qquad w \neq
317: -1/2,\nonumber\\
318: \mu_{p} &=& 43.10 + 5\log\left[(1+z)\ln(1+z)\right], \qquad w =
319: -1/2.
320: \end{eqnarray}
321: \subsubsection{Model 2}
322:
323: From equations(\ref{e8})and(\ref{e10},
324: \begin{equation}\label{e15}
325: d_L \equiv c(1+z)^2d(0,z) =
326: cH_0^{-1}w^{-w-\frac{1}{2}}\exp(w)(1+z)\left[\gamma\left(w+\frac{1}{2},w(1+z)\right)-\gamma\left(w+\frac{1}{2},w\right)\right]
327: \end{equation}
328: where
329: \begin{equation}\label{e16}
330: \gamma(u,\alpha) = \int^{\alpha}_{0}t^{u-1}\exp(-t)dt ,\qquad
331: Reu>0,\quad |arg \alpha|<\pi .
332: \end{equation}
333: is the incomplete gamma function \citep{ABRAM1964}. Then
334: \begin{equation}\label{e17}
335: d_L = cH_0^{-1}\exp(w)(1+z)\int_{1}^{1+z}u^{w-\frac{1}{2}}\exp(-wu)du
336: \end{equation}
337: so that
338: \begin{equation}\label{e18}
339: \mu_p(z) = 43.10 +
340: 5\log\left(\exp(w)(1+z)\int_{1}^{1+z}u^{w-\frac{1}{2}}\exp(-wu)du\right).
341: \end{equation}
342: \subsubsection{Model 3}
343:
344: Equations(\ref{e9}) and(\ref{e10}) give $(w>1/2)$
345: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e19}
346: d_L \equiv c(1+z)^2d(0,z)
347: &=&cH_0^{-1}w^{\frac{1}{2}-w}\exp(w)(1+z)\left[\gamma\left(w-\frac{1}{2},w\right)-\gamma\left(w-\frac{1}{2},\frac{w}{1+z}\right)\right]\nonumber\\
348: &=&cH_0^{-1}\exp(w)(1+z)\int_{\frac{1}{1+z}}^{1}u^{w-\frac{3}{2}}\exp(-wu)du.
349: \end{eqnarray}
350: Hence
351: \begin{equation}\label{e20}
352: \mu_p(z)= 43.10 +
353: 5\log\left(\exp(w)(1+z)\int_{\frac{1}{1+z}}^{1}u^{w-\frac{3}{2}}\exp(-wu)du\right).
354: \end{equation}
355: \subsection{Supernova model predictions and observations}
356: \subsubsection{Supernova observations}
357:
358: Several astrophysics groups\citep{TON2003,BARR2004,Riess2004}have
359: recently updated the original supernova data of \citet{RIE1998}
360: and \citet{PERL1999} that provided the first glimpse into an
361: apparently accelerating universe. In particular
362: \citet{BARR2004}have published photometric and spectroscopic
363: observations of 23 supernovae in the redshift range $0.3396 \leq z
364: \leq 1.031 $. Confronting our predictions for $\mu_p$ with their
365: data as analyzed by the BATM (Bayesian Adapted Template Match)
366: method \citep{TON2003},and calculated using $H_0 =
367: 72kms^{-1}Mpc^{-1}$, we have minimized with respect to the
368: parameter $w$ the $\chi^2$ statistic:
369: \begin{equation}\label{e21}
370: \chi^2(w) =
371: \sum_{i=1}^{23}\frac{[\mu_{p,i}(z_i;w)-\mu_{observed,i}]^2}{\sigma_i^2},
372: \end{equation}
373: where the summation is over all 23 data points in Table 11 of
374: \citet{BARR2004} and $\sigma_i$ the corresponding uncertainties in
375: the observed distance moduli. We discuss the application of this
376: procedure to our 3 models.
377: \subsubsection{Model 1}
378:
379: Using the first of equations (\ref{e14})we calculated with the aid
380: of equation (\ref{e21}) $\chi^2(w)$. For $w\neq -1/2$ Figure 1
381: shows that the resulting curve has a minimum $\chi^2_{min} = 15.4$
382: at $ w = -0.7$, with upper limits $w = -0.41$ and $w = - 0.28 $ at
383: the 68$\%$ and 95$\%$ confidence levels (c.l.) respectively (with
384: 22 degrees of freedom- d.o.f.). For $w=-1/2$ corresponding to
385: $q=0$ (coasting universe) we obtain,using the second equation
386: in(\ref{e14}), $ \chi^2_{min}= 19.67$.
387:
388: To discuss the implications of the value $w = -0.7$ for the age
389: of the universe in this model we first note the following. For a
390: flat universe with a Hubble constant $H_0 = 72kms^{-1}Mpc^{-1}$
391: and contributions to the mass-energy density today of 1/3 and 2/3
392: of its total value from non-relativistic matter and dark energy
393: respectively,it is observed that the age of the universe is $13
394: Gyr$ with uncertainty of about $ \pm 1.5 Gyr$
395: \citep{FREE2003}. A consistent age $t_0 = 14\pm0.5 Gyr$ is also
396: determined from CMB anisotropy,independently of $H_0$
397: \citep{KNOX2001}. Moreover,computer simulations of
398: Globular-cluster stars evolution produce ages of $12.5\pm1.5 Gyr$
399: \citep{KRCH2002}. These estimates agree with values of $t_0$
400: obtained by a variety of other methods, e.g. from rates of cooling
401: of old white dwarf stars or from radioactive chronology
402: \citep{OSW1996}. Finally,assuming $w_{de} = -1$ \citet{TON2003}
403: deduce the constraint $H_0t_0 = 0.96\pm0.04$,in agreement with the
404: product \citep{FREE2003}
405: \begin{equation}\label{e22}
406: \left(H_0 = 72\pm 8 kms^{-1}Mpc^{-1}\right)\times \left(t_0 = 13
407: \pm 1.5 Gyr \right) = 0.96\pm 0.16 .
408: \end{equation}
409: The observed ages of the universe are therefore consistent with a
410: consensus age of about $13\pm 1.5 Gyr$ \citep{FREE2003}.
411:
412: In the present model we have,from equation(\ref{e7}),
413: \begin{equation}\label{e23}
414: H_0t_0 = \int^{\infty}_{0}\frac{dz}{(1+z)E(z)} = \frac{2}{3+2w} .
415: \end{equation}
416: Then $w= -0.7$ gives $H_0t_0 = 1.25 $. At the 68$\%$ c.l. $w =
417: -0.41$ corresponding to $H_0t_0 = 0.91$, an estimate accommodated
418: by equation(\ref{e22}). The coasting cosmology ($w=-1/2$)
419: corresponds,as is well known,to $H_0t_0 =1$.
420: \subsubsection{Model 2}
421:
422: In this model we have evaluated equation(\ref{e21})in the range $0
423: \leq w \leq 1 $ using equation(\ref{e18}) for the calculated
424: distance modulus and plotted the results in Figure 2. We note that
425: $\chi^2$ decreases monotonically as $w$ increases from $0$ but
426: reaches a minimum $\chi^2_{min} = 16.5$ at $w = 1.1$,
427: corresponding to the transition redshift $z_T = \frac{1}{2w} =
428: 0.45$. The value $w = 2.55$ corresponds to the 68$\%$ c.l. limit.
429: \subsubsection{Model 3}
430:
431: Here we used equation(\ref{e20})in equation(\ref{e21})and plotted
432: $\chi^2$ versus $w: 0.55\leq w \leq 2$ in Figure 3. The curve has
433: a minimum $\chi^2_{min} = 16.35$ at $w = 1.7$,corresponding to the
434: transition redshift $z_T = \frac{1}{2w-1} = 0.42$.
435:
436: \section{ANGULAR SIZE-REDSHIFT RELATION}
437: \subsection{General formulae}
438:
439: The angular size distance of a light source is
440: \begin{equation}\label{e24}
441: d_A(z) \equiv d(0,z) = H_0^{-1}(1+z)^{-1}\int_0^z\frac{dz}{E(z)}
442: \equiv (1+z)^{-1}d(z) ,
443: \end{equation}
444: where $d(z)$ is the proper distance of the source. In a flat
445: universe $d(z)=a_0r(z)$, where $r(z)$ is the source's radial
446: coordinate.
447:
448: The angular size-redshift relation $\theta = \ell/d_A(z)$ where
449: $\theta $ is the source's angular size,and $\ell$ its intrinsic
450: length,measured in \emph{p}arse\emph{c}s (1\emph{pc} =
451: $1.542\times 10^{32} GeV^{-1}$)and assumed to be
452: redshift-independent,is one of observational cosmology's important
453: tests of cosmological models. Like other classical kinematic tests
454: it does not,generally,distinguish between cosmological models at
455: low redshifts $z\ll 1$ where the models are expected to converge.
456: In fact for models with constant $q$,one has,for $z\ll 1$,
457: \begin{equation}\label{e25}
458: \theta \equiv \frac{\ell}{d_A(z)} = \frac{\ell H_0}{z}\left[1 +
459: \frac{1}{2}(3+q)z + ...\right],
460: \end{equation}
461: which is formally the FRW result for small redshifts
462: \citep{SAN1988}. But for $z\geq 1$ there is less confidence in the
463: measurements because of possible influences of poorly understood
464: galactic evolutionary effects. However \citet{KELL1993} has argued
465: that ultra-compact radio sources with angular sizes (measured
466: using VLBI: Very Long Baseline Interferometry) in the
467: milliarcsecond (\emph{mas}= $10^{-3}\times 1^{\acute{''}} = 4.8481
468: \times 10^{-9}$ \emph{radians}) range (typically less than a
469: hundred parsecs in extent) are deeply embedded in active galactic
470: nuclei(AGN)\citep{BMP1997,JHK1998} and thus sheltered from
471: extra-galactic evolutionary effects. Objects of this type have a
472: fleeting existence ($\sim 100 \emph{years}$),so it is reasonable
473: to assume that characteristic parameters of their population (e.g.
474: linear sizes)do not change on a cosmological time scale.
475:
476: \citet{KELL1993} showed that the angular size-redshift test for
477: ultra-compact sources favors the Einstein-deSitter $\Omega_m = 1$
478: canonical model. But subsequently \citet{JD1996,JD1997}
479: demonstrated that the data is compatible with low-density
480: constant-$\Lambda$ models,indicating that the best choice of
481: cosmological parameters for spatially flat universes was $\Omega_m
482: = 0.2$ and $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.8$. In their latter work
483: \citet{JD1997},utilized a data set of 337 ultra-compact sources
484: selected by \citet{GUR1994} from a 2.29 GHz survey by
485: \citet{PRES1985}comprising 917 sources with a correlated flux
486: limit of approximately 0.1 Jy (1 Jy $\equiv$ Jansky $=
487: 10^{-26}Wm^{-2}Hz^{-1}$). From their study of this compilation
488: they conclude that the canonical model is ruled out by the
489: observed angular diameter-redshift relation. Later on
490: \citet{JACK2004} refined the analysis of Gurvits original data set
491: \citep{GUR1994} and found for flat universes that $\Omega_m = 0.24
492: + 0.09/-0.07$. Building on \citet{GUR1994} earlier work
493: \citet{GUR1999}compiled a new data set of 330 compact radio
494: sources which has,subsequently,been used by several authors in
495: order to constrain the parameters of different quintessence
496: cosmological models \citep{V2001, LALCAN2002, ALCAN2002, ZHU2002,
497: CHEN2003, JDAL2003}.
498:
499: We next give general formulae for the $\theta -z$ relations in the
500: present models. We write $\theta = \frac{D}{d_AH_0}$ where $ D =
501: 6.87\times 10^{-2}\ell h$ is the source's characteristic angular
502: scale (in mas). These expressions are (in mas):
503:
504: Model 1:
505: \begin{equation}\label{e26}
506: \theta = \frac{D(w+\frac{1}{2})(1+z)}{1-(1+z)^{-w-\frac{1}{2}}},
507: \qquad w\neq -1/2.
508: \end{equation}
509: \begin{equation}\label{e27}
510: \theta = \frac{D(1+z)}{\ln(1+z)}, \qquad w = -1/2.
511: \end{equation}
512:
513: Model 2:
514: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e28}
515: \theta &=& \frac{Dw^{w+\frac{1}{2}}\exp(-w)(1+z)}{\gamma
516: \left(w+\frac{1}{2},w(1+z)\right) - \gamma \left(w+\frac{1}{2},w
517: \right)}\nonumber\\
518: &=&
519: \frac{D\exp(-w)(1+z)}{\int_{1}^{1+z}u^{w-\frac{1}{2}}\exp(-wu)du}.
520: \end{eqnarray}
521:
522: Model 3:
523: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e29}
524: \theta &=& \frac{Dw^{w-\frac{1}{2}}\exp(-w)(1+z)}{\gamma
525: \left(w-\frac{1}{2},w \right)- \gamma
526: \left(w-\frac{1}{2},\frac{w}{1+z} \right)}\nonumber\\
527: &=&
528: \frac{D\exp(-w)(1+z)}{\int_{\frac{1}{1+z}}^{1}u^{w-\frac{3}{2}}\exp(-wu)du}.
529: \end{eqnarray}
530: Using $\partial\gamma(u,\alpha)/\partial\alpha =
531: \alpha^{u-1}\exp(-\alpha)$ we find the small$-z$ expansions of
532: these equations:
533:
534: Model 1:
535: \begin{equation}\label{e30}
536: \theta = \frac{D}{z}\left(1 +\frac{1}{2}(3+q)z+...\right),\qquad
537: w\neq -1/2,
538: \end{equation}
539: \begin{equation}\label{e31}
540: \theta = \frac{D}{z}\left(1+\frac{3}{2}z+...\right), \qquad w=
541: -1/2,
542: \end{equation}
543: where from equation(\ref{e6}) $q= \frac{1}{2}+w$. Thus both these
544: equations
545: formally coincide with equation(\ref{e25}).
546:
547: Models 2 and 3:
548: \begin{equation}\label{e32}
549: \theta = \frac{D}{z}\left[1+\frac{5}{4}z +
550: (9+8w)\frac{z^2}{48}+...\right],
551: \end{equation}
552: where $q = -\frac{1}{2} +wz$ in model 2 and $q = -\frac{1}{2} +
553: w\frac{z}{1+z}$ for model 3. In both cases the small-$z$ expansion
554: of $\theta$ agrees with equation(\ref{e25}) on retaining only the
555: $w$-independent part of $q$.
556:
557: \subsection{Critical redshift}
558:
559: The existence of a critical redshift $z_m$ corresponding to a
560: minimum angular size can be qualitatively understood as follows.
561: The reason for it is not just because,in the context of cosmic
562: expansion,was the light received today from a source emitted when
563: the source was closer,but also,more importantly,because at a
564: larger $z$ the source of a standard linear size occupies a larger
565: fraction of a large circle. From equations (\ref{e26})-(\ref{e29})
566: the redshift $ z_m$ satisfies the equations:
567:
568: Model 1:
569: \begin{equation}\label{e33}
570: z_m = \left(w+ \frac{3}{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{w+\frac{1}{2}}} -
571: 1,\qquad w\neq -1/2,
572: \end{equation}
573: \begin{equation}\label{e34}
574: z_m = e -1 \simeq 1.72, \qquad w = -1/2.
575: \end{equation}
576:
577: Model 2:
578: \begin{equation}\label{e35}
579: \left(1+z_m\right)^{w+\frac{1}{2}} =
580: \exp\left[w\left(1+z_m\right)\right]\int_1^{1+z_m}u^{w-\frac{1}{2}}\exp(-wu)du.
581: \end{equation}
582:
583: Model 3:
584: \begin{equation}\label{e36}
585: (1+z_m)^{-w+\frac{1}{2}}=
586: \exp\left[\frac{w}{1+z_m}\right]\int_{\frac{1}{1+z_m}}^1u^{w-\frac{3}{2}}\exp(-wu)du.
587: \end{equation}
588:
589: Several authors \citep{KRAU1993, LIMA2000a, LIMA2000b, JDAL2003}
590: studied critical redshifts in different models to find out how
591: sensitive $z_m$ is to variation of parameters like $w$. We address
592: this question in \S4.3.2.
593: \subsection{Constraints from angular size measurements}
594: \subsubsection{$\chi^2$ analysis}
595:
596: Our object now is to investigate constraints on the parameters $w$
597: and $D$ using the data compilation of \citet{GUR1999} for the
598: angular size measurements of milliarcsecond radio sources,observed
599: at frequency $\nu = 5 GHz$, in the redshift range $0.011\leq z
600: \leq 4.72.$ The number of sources, originally 330, was reduced to
601: those with a spectral index $\alpha$ in the range $-0.38\leq
602: \alpha \leq 0.18$ and total luminosity $ L \geq 10^{26} W/Hz$ so
603: as to minimize any possible dependence of angular size on $\alpha$
604: and also restrict the intrinsic size of the sources. These
605: criteria were met by 145 sources which were then grouped into 12
606: bins of 12-13 sources per bin. This binned data was used in Figure
607: 10 of the paper by \citet{GUR1999}.
608:
609: We attempted the determination of the best values of the models
610: parameters $ D$ and $w$ through a simultaneous minimization with
611: respect to $D$ and $w$ of the $\chi^2$ statistic
612: \begin{equation}\label{e37}
613: \chi^2(w,D)=
614: \sum_{i=1}^{12}\frac{\left[\theta_{p,i}(z_i;w;D)-\theta_{measured}(z_i)\right]^2}{\sigma_i^2},
615: \end{equation}
616: where $\theta_{p,i}$ denote the predicted angular sizes given by
617: equations (\ref{e26})-(\ref{e29}),$\theta_{measured}(z_i)$ the
618: corresponding observed values of \citet{GUR1999},and $\sigma_i$
619: the observation's error of the sample's $ith$ bin. We have chosen
620: the range of $D$ to span the interval $[0.10,2.20] \emph{mas}$
621: and $w$ in intervals appropriate to each model. We adopt a
622: minimization procedure,for 10 d.o.f,that produces minimum $\chi^2$
623: values for $w$ values corresponding to different values of $D$ in
624: its range of variation. The least value among these $\chi^2$
625: minima,denoted $\chi^2_{min}$,corresponds to a minimization of
626: $\chi^2$ with respect to both $D$ and $w$. The results are
627: displayed in Tables 1, 2, and 3, and in Figure 5. The values of
628: $w$ and $D$ corresponding to $\chi^2_{min}$ are as follows.
629:
630: \textbf{Model} \textbf{1}
631:
632: \emph{Case} $w\neq -1/2$:
633:
634: Using equation (\ref{e26}) in equation(\ref{e37})with $w$ in the
635: range $[-1,0]$ we obtain (Table 1) $\chi_{min}^2=4.72$ corresponding to $w = -0.45$ and
636: $D= 1.25 \emph{mas}$. Figure 4 shows, for $-1\leq w \leq 0$, the $68\%$ and $95\%$ confidence contours in the $w-D$
637: plane.
638:
639:
640: \textbf{Model} \textbf{1}
641:
642: \emph{Case} $w = -1/2$ (\emph{Coasting cosmology}):
643:
644: From equations (\ref{e27}) and (\ref{e37}) we deduce (see Figure 5 ) that
645: $\chi^2_{min} = 4.75 $ at $ D = 1.3^{+0.27}_{-0.29}$ \emph{mas} and $D=
646: 1.3^{+0.40}_{-0.43}$ \emph{mas}, where the errors produce the $68\%$ and
647: $95\%$ confidence limits respectively.
648:
649:
650: \textbf{Model 2}
651:
652: Using equations (\ref{e28}) and (\ref{e37}) and taking $w$ in
653: the range [0,3] we note,in this case,that $\chi^2$ decreases
654: monotonically from $\chi^2 = 104.29$ at $D = 0.10 \emph{mas}$ and
655: $w = 3$ to the minimum value $\chi^2_{min} = 4.47$ at $D = 1.45
656: \emph{mas}$ and $w= 0.50$ ( Table 2). The value $w = 0.50 $
657: corresponds to $z_T = 1.00$. The $68\%$ and $95\%$ confidence
658: contours in the $w-D$ plane,for $0 \leq w \leq 3$, are displayed
659: in Figure 6 .
660:
661: \textbf{Model 3}
662:
663: In this model equations (\ref{e29}) and (\ref{e37}) reveal,for $w$
664: in the range $[0.55,3]$, that $\chi^2$ descends from $\chi^2 =
665: 108.87$ at $D= 0.10 \emph{mas}$ and $w = 3$ to a minimum
666: $\chi^2_{min} = 4.58$ at $D = 1.40 \emph{mas} $ and $w = 1.15$ (
667: Table 3). This value of $w$ corresponds to $z_T = 0.77$. For $
668: 0.55 \leq w \leq 3$, the $68\%$ and $95\%$ confidence contours are
669: shown in Figure 7.
670: \subsubsection{Calculation of the critical redshifts}
671:
672: Equations (\ref{e33})-(\ref{e36}) can be solved for $z_m$
673: corresponding to specific values of $w$. The results are plotted
674: in Figures 8-10 for models 1-3 respectively. The redshifts $z_m$
675: for the best-fit $w$ values are shown on the diagrams. We note
676: that in both models 1 and 3 the best-fit $w$ value corresponds to
677: $z_m = 1.65$. This reiterates the point made by \citet{JDAL2003}
678: that the minimum redshift test "cannot by itself differentiate
679: between different cosmological models" because different scenarios
680: might correspond to the same $z_m$. The first and third models in
681: this paper are generically quite distinct, yet they have the same
682: $z_m$. In fact for all three models the values of $z_m$ are quite
683: close. In particular in model 2 the best-fit $w$ gives $z_m =
684: 1.71$ which almost coincides with $z_m = 1.72$ for coasting
685: cosmology. Expectedly for $w =0$ in model 1 we recover (Figure 8)
686: the standard model result $z_m = 5/4 $.
687:
688: \subsubsection{Comparison with \citet{GUR1999}data}
689:
690: The predictions of the $\theta -z$ relations (\ref{e26})-
691: (\ref{e29}) for $D$ and $w$ corresponding to $\chi^2_{min}$ in
692: each model are plotted,alongside the data of \citet{GUR1999},in
693: Figure 11. ( Table 4 gives $\log z$ and the corresponding
694: $\log\theta$ values for \citet{GUR1999} data points and the end
695: points $ \log\theta_\pm$ of their error bars). The inset magnifies
696: the neighborhood of the minima of the curves. The curves,drawn for
697: the best-fit values of $w$ and $D$,cluster within a narrow spread
698: of $\log\theta$ and appear to be reasonably consistent with
699: \citet{GUR1999} data. None of the four models appears to be
700: particularly favored over the others by this data.
701:
702: Lastly in the work of \citet{GUR1999} a multi-parameter regression
703: analysis of the data with $\ell h$ a free parameter yields $\ell h
704: = 23.8\pm 17.0 \emph{pc}$. This corresponds to $D=1.64\pm 1.17
705: mas$, a range within which fall all the $D$ values in Table 5.
706:
707: \subsection{Credibility of ultra compact radio sources as
708: standard measuring rods}
709:
710: In his 1993 analysis of compact radio sources
711: \citet{KELL1993}found the angular sizes to be essentially
712: independent of redhift in the interval $0.5 <z<3$. In the latter
713: work of \citet{GUR1999}this feature appeared to persist for median
714: angular sizes of sources with $z>0.5$. Although according to
715: \citet{KELL1993},and as mentioned earlier on,it is reasonable to
716: assume that milliarcsecond ultra-compact radio sources are not
717: affected by evolutionary effects,it is still important to treat
718: \citet{GUR1999} data ,as emphasized by them, with caution. A
719: widely-accepted model of an ultra compact radio source is one in
720: which a central low luminosity object is straddled by a pair of
721: radio-bright lobes emitting synchrotron radiation. The lobes are
722: sustained by two hot gas jets\citep{PEAC1999,BMP1997,JHK1998}. In
723: such a picture differences in the spectral index between the
724: core,the central engine, and its jet components may introduce a
725: "linear size-redshift " dependence even in the absence of
726: evolution. \citet{FRE1997}have however argued that such a
727: dependence is likely to be weak. Nevertheless more data at various
728: frequencies going beyond limited source samples can,in
729: particular,help verify the importance of such a dependence and
730: also,more generally,enhance further the credibility of
731: milliarcsecond radio-sources as standard measuring rods. With this
732: goal in mind \citet{JJ2006}have recently studied the implications
733: of an updated sample of sources in the \citet{PRES1985}catalogue.
734: We shall shortly discuss their work and compare their results to
735: ours. Another aspect of interest is relativistic
736: beaming\citep{PEAC1999,BMP1997,JHK1998},the process by which the
737: D\"{o}ppler effect modifies the appearance of a radio source with
738: lobes. For a lobe whose jet axis is oriented close to the line of
739: sight from the source to the earth relativistic beaming generally
740: increases the apparent radio power of the source and decreases its
741: angular size. The implications of this orientation bias on the FRW
742: $\theta -z$ relation\citep{SAN1988}have been studied by
743: \citet{DAB1995}with the aim of evaluating the statistical
744: confidence in the observational data,particularly in relation to
745: estimates of the value of $q_0$. A similar study was also
746: undertaken by \citet{STEP1995}. We shall consider a simple
747: variation of the \citet{DAB1995}approach in order to assess the
748: impact of this orientation bias on our calculations.
749:
750: \subsubsection{Comparison with the work of \citet{JJ2006}}
751:
752: \citet{JJ2006}reexamined the \citet{PRES1985} catalogue of ultra
753: compact radio sources,updating it with respect to both red shift
754: and radio information and replacing the original choice of 337
755: sources by \citet{GUR1994}with a sample of 613 objects in the red
756: shift range $z = 0.0035$ to $z = 3.787$.
757:
758: Over its red shift range of $0.003\leq z\leq 3.8$ \citet{GUR1994}
759: 337 objects sample contains sources of luminosity that varies over
760: three orders of magnitude,from 0.01 to 1 Jy (see Fig 3 in
761: \citep{GUR1994}). Moreover the sources in the high red shift range
762: $z> 0.5$ exhibit a smaller dispersion in luminosity as compared to
763: sources with $z<0.5$. This suggests that the higher red shift
764: objects have similar linear sizes. This is why \citet{GUR1994},
765: and also \citet{JJ2006},ignore objects with $z < 0.5$.
766:
767: This mismatch between the luminosity of higher and lower z sources
768: is also apparent in the 330 sources sample of \citet{GUR1999}(see
769: Fig 3 in \citet{GUR1999}). This is why that we also limit
770: ourselves in this paper to \citet{GUR1999} data with $ z > 0.5$
771: (see Fig 10 in \citet{GUR1999} and Table 4 in the present paper).
772:
773: Of the 613 sources in the sample of \citet{JJ2006} 468 have $z >
774: 0.5 $. These were placed in 6 bins with 78 objects in each bin.
775: But \citet{JJ2006} show that the cosmological parameters which
776: best fit the $\theta-z $ data in this case,including a
777: best-fitting value $\ell = 7.75h^{-1}kpc$ for the source's
778: intrinsic length,are not very sensitive to the choice of binning.
779: Rather than relying too heavily on a particular binning
780: \citet{JJ2006} produce data points corresponding to bin sizes of
781: 76, 77 and 78 objects and take for their $(z, \theta)$ points
782: values that are a composite of these three cases. Their resulting
783: data points are: $(z, \theta (mas)) \equiv (0.6153,1.4624),
784: (0.8580, 1.2801),(1.1527, 1.1599),(1.4200, 1.1448),$
785: $(1.8288,1.1760),$ and $ (2.5923,1.2374)$,with standard deviation
786: $\sigma = 0.00603$. Using this data,and marginalizing over the
787: sources intrinsic length,\citet{JJ2006} obtain the best-fit
788: parameter values $\Omega_m = 0.25 + 0.04/-0.03, \Omega_\Lambda =
789: 0.97 + 0.09/- 0.13$ and the curvature parameter $k = 0.22 +
790: 0.07/-0.10$,where the error bars are $68\%$ confidence limits.
791: These results do not agree with our models. In fact the
792: $\log\theta-\log z$ curve for\citet{JJ2006} results would lie well
793: below the base of Figure 11. We have confirmed this disagreement
794: by doing a $\chi^2$ analysis of the predictions of our models
795: against \citet{JJ2006} angular size results. We will comment on
796: this matter in the summary and conclusions section.
797:
798: \subsubsection{Effect of orientation of lobe jet axis on $q_0$:Method of \citet{DAB1995}}
799:
800: \citet{DAB1995} gave qualitative and quantitative discussions of
801: the effect of relativistic beaming on the FRW $\theta -z$
802: relation. They consider a simulation sample of compact radio
803: sources,with each source composed of two identical but oppositely
804: directed jets having an angle $\phi$ to the line of sight,where
805: $0<\phi\leq \pi$. Each source emits an isotropic power-law
806: spectrum with flux density
807: \begin{equation}\label{e38}
808: S =
809: \frac{L}{d_L^2}\left[\frac{1}{\gamma(1-\beta\cos\phi)}\right]^{3+\alpha},
810: \end{equation}
811: where $L$ is the source's luminosity, $d_L$ is the luminosity
812: distance, $\alpha$ is the spectral index, $\beta$ is the jet
813: speed/c,and $\gamma = (1-\beta^2)^{-1/2}$ is the Lorentz factor of
814: the jets. For a quasi-continuous jet formed out of finite-lifetime
815: blobs the appropriate power index above is reduced to $(2+\alpha)$
816: \citep{PEAC1999}.
817:
818: The inclusion of the source's lobe orientation in the FRW $\theta
819: -z$ relation
820: \begin{equation}\label{e39}
821: \theta = \frac{\ell H_0q_0^2(1+z)^2}{q_0z +
822: (q_0-1)\left((2q_0z+1)^{1/2}-1\right)}
823: \end{equation}
824: replaces the source's intrinsic length $\ell$ by
825: $\ell_{\perp}=\ell\sin\phi$ where $\ell_{\perp}$ is the projection
826: of $\ell$ in the plane of the sky ($\ell_{\perp}(\phi
827: =\frac{\pi}{2})=\ell,$ for a source whose jet axis lies along the
828: plane of the sky)
829:
830: It follows from equation (\ref{e38})that the maximum allowed angle
831: in the sample is given by \citep{DAB1995}:
832: \begin{equation}\label{e40}
833: \phi_{max}(z) =
834: \arccos\left(\frac{1}{\beta}-\frac{1}{\gamma\beta}\left[\frac{L}{S_{lim}d_L^2}\right]^{\frac{-1}{3+\alpha}}\right),
835: \end{equation}
836: where $S_{lim}$ denotes the sources flux density limit.
837:
838: \citet{DAB1995}define the average lobe orientation angle by
839: \begin{equation}\label{e41}
840: \overline{\phi(z)}= \frac{\int_0^{\phi_{max}}\phi\sin\phi
841: d\phi}{\int_0^{\phi_{max}}\sin\phi d\phi}.
842: \end{equation}
843: Since $\phi$ is small one can assume $\overline{\ell_\perp(z)} =
844: \ell\sin(\overline{\phi(z)})$ and insert
845: $\overline{\ell_\perp(z)}$ into the $\theta -z$ relations. The
846: essence of the \citet{DAB1995} quantitative method is to
847: investigate the effect of this modification on the predictions of
848: equation (\ref{e39}).
849:
850: \subsubsection{Optimized relativistic beaming: an alternative
851: approach to \citet{DAB1995} calculation}
852:
853: The twin-jet model of \citet{DAB1995} assumes that the measured
854: angular size of the source corresponds to the separation of the
855: jets projected onto the plane of the sky. \citet{JACK2004}
856: considers this feature to be unrealistic because the flux of the
857: receding (away from us) jet is very much smaller than that of the
858: advancing(towards us)jet,for example by a factor of up to $10^6$
859: for a jet Lorentz factor $\gamma$ of 5, and may therefore be
860: neglected \citep{LB1985}.
861:
862: The relativistic beaming hypothesis is primarily based on two
863: parameters: the Lorentz factor $\gamma$ (or equivalently the
864: parameter $\beta \equiv$ the jet velocity/c ) and the viewing
865: angle $\phi$. In a study of 25 quasars with $z$ between 0.1 and
866: 2.5 (some quasars with their nonstellar radiation spectrum and
867: evidence of jets and extended emission features also display
868: relativistic beaming effects)\citet{VERC1994} find that $\gamma$
869: increases with $z$ if $q_0 = 0.05$ but remains constant at $\gamma
870: \approx 10$ if $q_0 = 0.5$. With this in mind \citet{DAB1995}
871: take, in their analysis of a simulation data, $\gamma = 10$,
872: although they point out that this choice does not qualitatively
873: affect their results.
874:
875: However a choice of $\gamma$ linked to a positive $q_0$,as in the
876: 1995 paper by \citet{DAB1995},is hard to justify in these days
877: where $q_0 < 0$ (accelerating universe) is very probable. Moreover
878: there are other reasons that might render an arbitrary choice of
879: $\gamma$ fraught with uncertainties\citep{UBCH2002}. In addition,
880: geometric projection effects of components of jets of galaxies or
881: quasars can lead to dramatically misleading values of $\gamma$.
882: For example the transverse motion of blobs of gas across the sky
883: in a well-studied jet in the galaxy $M87$ ( at about $18Mpc$ away
884: from us)appears to be \emph{superluminal}, corresponding to a
885: velocity nearly 6 times the speed of light!\citep{CHAM2002}. This
886: cosmic illusion of faster-than-light velocities is simply a
887: projection effect, produced by the blobs of gas moving at a very
888: small angle $\phi$ at a near-velocity-of-light speed
889: \citep{CHAM2002}. It is worthy of mention that Doppler boosting
890: was first discussed by \citet{SHK1964a,SHK1964b}to explain the
891: apparently one-side jet in$M87$.
892:
893: In this paper we choose to relate $\gamma$ to $\phi$ by
894: optimizing the relativistic beaming effect. This technique was
895: used by \citet{VERC1994},\citet{UBA1999},and \citet{UBCH2002}.
896:
897: Define the Doppler factor which fundamentally characterizes
898: relativistic beaming by (see equation (\ref{e38})):
899: \begin{equation}\label{e42}
900: \delta = [\gamma(1-\beta\cos\phi)]^{-1}
901: \end{equation}
902: Optimization of relativistic beaming is obtained by requiring
903: $\frac{d\delta}{d\beta} =0$. This yields
904: \citep{VERC1994,UBA1999,UBCH2002} $\phi=\arccos\beta$, or
905: $\phi=\arcsin\frac{1}{\gamma}$. Since the lobe orientation bias
906: replaces $\ell$ by $\ell\sin\phi$ in the $\theta -z$ relation,
907: $D=6.87\times10^{-2}\ell h$ in equations (\ref{e26})-(\ref{e29})is
908: replaced by $\frac{D}{\gamma}$. In what follows we discuss the
909: constraints of the observational data on $\frac{D}{\gamma}$.
910:
911: Clearly application of the $\chi^2$procedure of \S (4.3.1.) to the
912: modified $\theta -z$ relations using the binned \citet{GUR1999}
913: data assigns now the best-fit values of $D$ to $\frac{D}{\gamma}$
914: and leaves those of $w$ (and hence of $q_0$)undisturbed. Taken
915: together the three models imply (see Table 5) $1.25 \leq
916: \frac{D}{\gamma} \leq 1.45 $ mas, or, equivalently,
917: $18h^{-1}\gamma \leq \ell \leq 21h^{-1}\gamma$ pc. Since
918: milliarcsecond ultra-compact radio sources are typically less than
919: a hundred parsec in extent the last inequality would imply that
920: $18h^{-1}\gamma \leq \ell < 100 pc$, or $\gamma < \frac{100}{18}h
921: \leq \frac{100}{18} < 6$. (If we use $h=0.72$ we get $\gamma <
922: 4$). It is known \citep{AEL1990,PEAC1999}that the most powerful
923: AGN jets seem to have Lorentz factors of the order of these upper
924: bounds.
925:
926: \section{SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS}
927:
928: We have studied in this paper supernova and compact radio sources
929: angular sizes constraints on three cosmological models whose
930: dynamics is driven by non-relativistic matter of density parameter
931: $\Omega_m = \frac{1}{3}$ and a smooth time-dependent dark energy
932: component with density $\rho_{de} \propto T = \rho - 3p $ ($T$ is
933: the matter energy-momentum tensor) and equation of state $w_{de} =
934: \frac{p_{de}}{\rho_{de}}, w_{de}$ being either constant or
935: redshift-dependent, with $w_{de}(z=0) = -1 $ in the latter case.
936: The variation $\rho_{de} \sim T$ implies that the dark energy
937: vanishes in the early universe leaving the standard model's
938: primordial nucleosynthesis predictions intact. This is somewhat
939: reminiscent of the modified general relativity model of
940: \citet{ALMOT1996a,ALMOT1996b} which can be cast in the form of a
941: variable-$\Lambda$ cosmology with $\Lambda \propto R$, $R$ being
942: the Ricci tensor. There the radiation density $\rho_r \sim a^{-4}
943: \sim t^{-2}$ in the early universe, as in standard flat cosmology.
944: However the Friedmann equation is modified so that the standard
945: cosmic expansion rate is altered by the factor
946: $\frac{1}{3}(1+(2/\eta))$ where $\eta$, a constant, satisfies $
947: 0\leq \eta \leq 1, \eta = 1$ in general relativity. Here the
948: postulated dark energy ansatz does not affect the standard cosmic
949: expansion rate of the early universe. It reduces in the
950: matter-dominated phase to $\rho_{de} \sim H^2$,a variation that
951: was extensively studied for the cosmological constant
952: \citep{OC1998}. Our main results are summarized in Table 5.
953:
954: For the first model with $w_{de}$ constant ( implying by equation
955: (\ref{e6}) that $q \equiv q_0 = constant$) the supernova data of
956: \citet{BARR2004} admits an accelerating universe with $w_{de} =
957: -o.7 $ and $q_0 = -0.2$ ($\chi_{min}^2 = 15.4$) and a coasting
958: universe with $w_{de} = -0.5$($\chi_{min}^2 = 19.67$). On the
959: other hand \citet{GUR1999} angular sizes data allows a mildly
960: decelerating universe with $w_{de} =-0.45$,$q_0 = 0.05$ and
961: characteristic angular scale $ D = 1.25 \emph{mas}$ ($\chi_{min}^2
962: = 4.72$) and also a coasting cosmology with $w_{de} = - 0.50$ and
963: $D= 1.30 \emph{mas}$ ($\chi_{min}^2 = 4.75$). The value $D=1.3
964: \emph{mas}$ corresponding to a source's intrinsic length $\ell =
965: 18.92h^{-1} \emph{pc}$ is very close to $D=1.28$ obtained as the
966: best-fit value in an earlier model by \citet{JDAL2003} where the
967: scale factor is essentially linear in $t$,\emph{viz},$ a\sim
968: t^{1.006}$.
969:
970: The results of the constant-$w_{de}$ model (and also those of the
971: other models in this paper) do not extrapolate to the radiation
972: dominated universe since there,as we have pointed out in the
973: introduction, $\rho_{de}$ vanishes. Nevertheless an accelerated
974: expansion in model 1 may pose problems for structure condensation
975: after matter dominance: structure tends not to form in the
976: presence of cosmic acceleration. However the modest
977: acceleration ($q = q_{0} = - 0.2$) in model 1 corresponds to
978: $w_{de} = -0.7$ with upper limits $w_{de} = -0.41$ and $w_{de} =
979: - 0.28$ at the $68\%$ and $95\%$ confidence levels respectively.
980: These values of $w_{de}$ correspond from equation (\ref{e6}) to $
981: q = 0.09$ and $ q = 0.22$ respectively so that within the limits
982: of the quoted confidence levels a decelerating universe is not
983: excluded. In fact it has been argued \citep{VISH2003} that absorption
984: by intergalactic dust of light travelling over immensely long
985: distances might explain the faintness of extragalactic SNe Ia
986: obviating the need for a cosmic acceleration
987: based explanation. Yet we are inclined to believe that our supernova
988: results for the coasting universe scenario are more robust
989: because of their concordance with those of \citet{JDAL2003} which
990: are obtained by a different approach. A flat cosmology with
991: dark energy of constant $w_{de}$ and matter density
992: parameter $\Omega_m$ held at $\Omega_m = 0.3$ was also considered
993: by \citet{DR2004} who however assumed noninteracting dark energy
994: and used the larger set of the supernova "gold" data. They find
995: in this case the preferred (cosmological) constant value $ w_{de}
996: = -1$.
997:
998: Models 2 and 3,which by construction describe a present-day
999: accelerating universe with $q_0 = -0.5$,are consistent with the
1000: data for universes that undergo deceleration-acceleration
1001: transitions at redshifts in the range $ 0.42 \leq z_T \leq 1$. In
1002: the standard $\Lambda CDM$ cosmological model $ z_T = 0.67$ for
1003: $\Omega_m \sim 0.30$, in contrast with the observational value
1004: $z_T = 0.46\pm 0.13$ from the SNeIa analysis of \citet{Riess2004}.
1005: Predictions of $z_T$ in seven popular quintessence models inspired
1006: by supergravity or M1 string theory have recently been studied by
1007: \citet{GARD2005} who noted that all of them can, in the low-$z$
1008: approximation $w_{de} \approx w_0 +w_1z$,($0\leq z\leq 5$),mimic
1009: the $\Lambda CDM$ model. Here in models 2 and 3 the SNeIa data
1010: give $z_t = 0.45$ and $z_T = 0.42$,both values being very close to
1011: the observational result $z_T = 0.46$ of \citet{Riess2004}. On the
1012: other hand consistency of the models with the angular size data
1013: \citep{GUR1999} yield $z_T =1$ and $z_T = 0.77$, to be compared
1014: with $z_T = 0.67 $ from the $\Lambda CDM$. Inspection of Figure
1015: 11 and Table 5 leads to an important conclusion:The model's
1016: angular size-redshift curves drawn in Figure 11 fit
1017: \citet{GUR1999} data equally well. This is a reflection of the
1018: small values and span of $\chi_{min}^2$ as seen in Table 5 for the
1019: results : for the four models $\chi_{min}^2$ varies only from 4.47
1020: to 4.75. By comparison in the supernova test the $\chi_{min}^2$
1021: values are considerably larger and lie in the range 15.4 to 19.67
1022: so that one has more faith in the agreement of the models with the
1023: angular size data.
1024:
1025: The predictions of the models for the critical minimum redshift in
1026: the angular size-redshift relation give $z_m$ values in the narrow
1027: interval [1.65,1.72] compared to the standard model result $z_m =
1028: 1.25$. The constant-$w_{de} \neq -1/2$ and the third models have
1029: the same $z_m = 1.65$ whereas the coasting universe and model 2
1030: have $z_m 1.72$ (the same as that of \citet{JDAL2003})and $z_m =
1031: 1.71$ respectively. Thus the minimal redshift cannot,by
1032: itself,effectively discriminate between these models.
1033:
1034: We have also compared the predictions of our models with those of
1035: the recent work of \citet{JJ2006}in which they revisit the old
1036: \citet{PRES1985}catalogue of ultra compact radio sources and
1037: reconsider an angular size-redshift data set in the light of
1038: modern preferences of the cosmological parameters. We find that
1039: their results do not agree with our models. In a sense this is not
1040: surprising since the underlying premises of the two works are
1041: different:\citet{JJ2006}approach is based on using one simple
1042: potential to test the hypothesis that vacuum energy is constant.
1043: The present models are phenomenological and based on a
1044: time-dependent dark energy coupled to matter. Hence there is no
1045: overlap between the two approaches\citep{JJ2007}.
1046:
1047: Finally,we tested our angular size-redshift relations in the
1048: presence of relativistic beaming. Relativistic beaming in the FRW
1049: $\theta -z$ relation was investigated by \citet{DAB1995}. Here we
1050: used a simple variation of their method in a two-jet model of
1051: radio sources with the advancing (towards us)jet axis close to the
1052: line of sight. In this picture consistency of the models with
1053: \citet{GUR1999} data is found for a beaming Lorentz factor $\gamma
1054: < 6$. Such an upper bound is consistent with values of the Lorentz
1055: factor for powerful AGN jets \citep{AEL1990,PEAC1999}.
1056:
1057: To conclude, we have presented dark energy models that are in
1058: reasonable agreement with the supernova data of
1059: \citet{BARR2004}and in good agreement with the \citet{GUR1999}
1060: compact radio source angular size versus redshift binned data. The
1061: three models that we have studied are simplified versions of ones
1062: recently considered by \citet{DR2004} in a different context. But
1063: as remarked by these authors comparing models for the equation of
1064: state of dark energy will remain something of a mug's game until
1065: there exists substantially more data at higher redshifts.
1066:
1067: We thank R.G. Vishwakarma for sending \citet{GUR1999} complete
1068: data sets on angular sizes of compact radio sources,and
1069: J.C.Jackson for a useful correspondence. We also acknowledge the
1070: financial support of the Directorate of Scientific Research of the
1071: University of Khartoum. One of us (AMMAR) thanks Professor K.R.
1072: Sreenivasan for hospitality at the Abdus Salam International
1073: Center for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy, where part of this
1074: work was done , and the Swedish Agency for International
1075: Development (Sida) for financial support. AMMAR also thanks Dr.
1076: Abu Bakr Mustafa for his hospitality at ComputerMan College for
1077: Computer Studies, Khartoum, where also part of this work was done.
1078: %\newpage
1079: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1080: \bibitem[Abdel-Rahman(1997)]{AMMR1997}Abdel-Rahman, A.-M.M. 1997,
1081: Gen. Rel. Grav., 29, 1329
1082: \bibitem[Abdel-Rahman(2002)]{AMMR2002}Abdel-Rahman,A.-M.M.2002,Nuovo Cim.,B117,311
1083: \bibitem[Abdel-Rahman \& Hashim(2005)]{ARMOH2005}Abdel-Rahman, A.-M.M., \&
1084: Hashim, M.H.A. 2005, \apss, 298, 519
1085: \bibitem[Abramowicz et al.(1990)]{AEL1990}Abramowicz, M.A.,Ellis,
1086: G.F.R.,\& Lanza, A. 1990,\apj, 361, 470
1087: \bibitem[Abramowitz \& Stegun(1964)]{ABRAM1964}Abramowitz, M., \&
1088: Stegun, I.A. 1964, Handbook of Mathematical Functions, Dover
1089: Publications, Inc., N.Y.
1090: \bibitem[Alam et al.(2003)]{ALAMSA2003}Alam, U., Sahni, V., Saini,
1091: T.D., \& Starobinsky, A.A. 2003, \mnras, 344, 1057
1092: \bibitem[Alam et al.(2004)]{ALAM2004}Alam, U., Sahni, V., \&
1093: Starobinsky, A.A. 2004, JCAP, 0406, 008
1094: \bibitem[Alcaniz(2002)]{ALCAN2002}Alcaniz, J.S. 2002, \prd, 65,
1095: 123514
1096: \bibitem[Al-Rawaf \& Taha(1996a)]{ALMOT1996a}Al-Rawaf, A.S., \&
1097: Taha, M. O. 1996a, Phys. Lett. B, 366, 69
1098: \bibitem[Al-Rawaf \& Taha(1996b)]{ALMOT1996b}Al-Rawaf, A.S., \&
1099: Taha, M. O. 1996b, Gen. Rel. Grav., 28, 935
1100: \bibitem[Arbab(1997)]{AR1997}Arbab,A.I.1997, Gen.Rel.Grav.,29,61
1101: \bibitem[Arbab(2003)]{AR2003}Arbab,A.I.2003,JCAP, 0305,008
1102: \bibitem[Arcuri \& Waga(1994)]{AW1994}Arcuri, R.C., \& Waga,I.
1103: 1994, \prd , 50, 2928
1104: \bibitem[Aurich \& Steiner(2003)]{AUS2003}Aurich, R., \& Steiner,
1105: F. 2003, \prd , 67, 123511
1106: \bibitem[Baccigalupi(2003)]{BACCI2003}Baccigalupi, C. 2003, Mem.
1107: S. A. It. Suppl.(Memorie della Supplementi Societa Astronomica
1108: Italiana), 3, 192
1109: \bibitem[Barris et al.(2004)]{BARR2004}Barris, B.J., et al.
1110: 2004,\apj, 602, 571
1111: \bibitem[Caldwell et al.(1998)]{CALDW1998}Caldwell, R.R., Dave,
1112: R., \& Steinhardt, P.J. 1998, \prl, 80, 1582
1113: \bibitem[Carvalho et al.(1992)]{CLW1992}Carvalho, J.C., Lima,
1114: J.A.S., \& Waga, I. 1992, \prd, 46, 2404
1115: \bibitem[Cepa(2004)]{CEP2004}Cepa, J.2004, \aap, 422, 831
1116: \bibitem[Chaisson \& McMillan(2002)]{CHAM2002}Chaisson, E., \& McMillan,S.
1117: 2002, \emph{Astronomy Today}, (Prentice Hall)
1118: \bibitem[Chen \& Ratra(2003)]{CHEN2003}Chen, G. \& Ratra, B. 2003,
1119: \apj, 582, 586
1120: \bibitem[Chevallier \& Polarski(2001)]{CPOL2001}Chevallier, M., \&
1121: Polarski, D. 2001, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 10, 213
1122: \bibitem[Chiba et al.(1997)]{CHIB1997}Chiba, T., Sugiyama, N., \&
1123: Nakamura, T. 1997, \mnras, 289, L5
1124: \bibitem[Corasaniti et al.(2004)]{CORAS2004}Corasaniti, P.S.,
1125: Kunz, M., Parkinson, D., Copeland, E.J., \& Bassett, B.A. 2004,
1126: \prd, 70, 083006
1127: \bibitem[Dabrowski et
1128: al.(1995)]{DAB1995}Dabrowski,Y., Lasenby,A.,\& Saunders,R. 1995,
1129: \mnras, 277, 753
1130: \bibitem[Di Pietro \& Claeskens(2003)]{PICL2003}Di Pietro, E., \&
1131: Claeskens, J.-F. 2003, \mnras , 341, 1299.
1132: \bibitem[Dicus \& Repko(2004)]{DR2004}Dicus, D.A., \& Repko, W.W.
1133: 2004, \prd , 70, 083527
1134: \bibitem[Efstathiou(1999)]{EFST1999}Efstathiou, G.1999, \mnras,
1135: 310, 842
1136: \bibitem[Freedman et al.(2001)]{FREE2001}Freedman, W.L., et al.
1137: 2001, \apj, 553, 47
1138: \bibitem[Freedman \& Turner(2003)]{FREE2003}Freedman, W.L., \& Turner, M.S.
1139: 2003, Rev. Mod. Phys., 75, 1433
1140: \bibitem[Freese et al.(1987)]{F1987}Freese,K., Adams,F.C.,Frieman,
1141: J.A., \&Mottola,E. 1987, Nucl.Phys.B,287,797
1142: \bibitem[Frey et
1143: al.(1997)]{FRE1997}Frey,S.,Gurvits,L.I.,Kellermann,K.I.,Schilizzi,R.T.,\&
1144: Pauliny-Toth,I.I.K.1997,\aap,325,511
1145: \bibitem[Frieman et al.(1988)]{FRIEM1998}Frieman, J.A., Hill,
1146: C.T., Stebbins, A., Waga, I. 1998, \prl, 75, 2077
1147: \bibitem[Gardner(2005)]{GARD2005}Gardner, C. L. 2005, Nucl. Phys. B,
1148: 707, 278
1149: \bibitem[Gurvits(1994)]{GUR1994}Gurvits, L.I. 1994, \apj, 425, 442
1150: \bibitem[Gurvits et al.(1999)]{GUR1999}Gurvits, L.I. , Kellermann,
1151: K.I., \& Frey, S. 1999, \aap, 342, 378
1152: \bibitem[Huterer \& Turner(2001)]{HUTU2001}Huterer, D., \& Turner,
1153: M.S. 2001, \prd ,64, 123527
1154: \bibitem[Jackson \& Dodgson(1996)]{JD1996}Jackson, J.C., \&
1155: Dodgson, M. 1996, \mnras, 278, 603
1156: \bibitem[Jackson \& Dodgson(1997)]{JD1997}Jackson, J.C., \&
1157: Dodgson, M. 1997, \mnras, 285, 806
1158: \bibitem[Jackson(2004)]{JACK2004}Jackson, J.C. 2004, JCAP, 0411,
1159: 007
1160: \bibitem[Jackson \& Jannetta(2006)]{JJ2006}Jackson, J.C.,\&
1161: Jannetta, A.L. 2006,JCAP, 0611, 002
1162: \bibitem[Jackson(2007)]{JJ2007}Jackson, J.C. 2007,(Private
1163: communication).
1164: \bibitem[Jain et al.(2003)]{JDAL2003}Jain, D., Dev, A., \&
1165: Alcaniz, J.S. 2003, Class. Quant. Grav., 20, 4485
1166: \bibitem[Johri(2004)]{JOHR2004}Johri, V.B. 2004, astro-ph/0409161
1167: \bibitem[Johri \& Rath(200)]{JOHR2005}Johri, V.B., \& Rath, P.K.
1168: 2005, astro-ph/051007
1169: \bibitem[Kellerman(1993)]{KELL1993}Kellerman, K.I. 1993, \nat,
1170: 361, 134
1171: \bibitem[Kneller \& Strigari(2003)]{KNST2003}Kneller, J.P., \&
1172: Strigari, L.E. 2003, \prd , 68, 083517
1173: \bibitem[Knox et al.(2001)]{KNOX2001}Knox, L., Christensen, N., \&
1174: Skordis, C. 2001, \apj, 563, L95
1175: \bibitem[Kolb \& Turner(1990)]{KT1990}Kolb, E.W., \& Turner, M.S.
1176: 1990, \emph{The Early Universe}, (Addison Wesley)
1177: \bibitem[Krauss \& Schramm(1993)]{KRAU1993}Krauss, L.M., \&
1178: Schramm, D.N. 1993, \apjl, 405, L43
1179: \bibitem[Krauss \& Chaboyer(2001)]{KRCH2002}Krauss, L.M., \&
1180: Chaboyer, B. 2001, astro-ph/0111597
1181: \bibitem[Krolik(1998)]{JHK1998}Krolik, J.H.1998, Active Galactic
1182: Nuclei, (Princeton Univ. Press)
1183: \bibitem[Lima \& Carvalho(1994)]{LC1994}Lima, J.A.S.,\& Carvalho,
1184: J.C. 1994, Gen.Rel.Grav.,26,909
1185: \bibitem[Lima \& Alcaniz(2000a)]{LIMA2000a}Lima, J.A.S., \&
1186: Alcaniz, J.S. 2000a, \aap, 357, 393
1187: \bibitem[Lima \& Alcaniz(2000b)]{LIMA2000b}Lima, J.A.S., \&
1188: Alcaniz, J.S. 2000b, Gen. Rel. Grav., 32, 1851
1189: \bibitem[Lima \& Alcaniz(2002)]{LALCAN2002}Lima, J.A.S., \&
1190: Alcaniz, J.S. 2002, \apj, 566, 15
1191: \bibitem[Lind \& Blandford (1985)]{LB1985}Lind, K.R., \&
1192: Blandford, R.D. 1985, \apj, 295, 358
1193: \bibitem[Linder(2003)]{LIN2003}Linder, E.V. 2003, \prl, 90, 91301
1194: \bibitem[Majernik(2001)]{M2001}Majernik, V.2001,Phys.Lett.A,282,362
1195: \bibitem[Majernik(2003)]{M2003}Majernik,V.2003,Gen.Rel.Grav.,35,1007
1196: \bibitem[Melchiorri(2004)]{ALESS2004}Melchiorri, A. 2004,
1197: astro-ph/0406652
1198: \bibitem[Ostriker \& Souradeep(2004)]{OST2004}Ostriker, J.P., \&
1199: Souradeep, T. 2004, Pramana, 63, 817
1200: \bibitem[Oswald et al.(1996)]{OSW1996}Oswald,T.D.,et al. 1996,
1201: \nat, 382, 692
1202: \bibitem[Overduin \& Cooperstock(1998)]{OC1998}Overduin,J.M., \&
1203: Cooperstock, F.I. 1998, \prd, 58, 043506
1204: \bibitem[Ozer(1999)]{MOZ1999}Ozer, M. 1999, \apj, 520, 45
1205: \bibitem[Padmanabhan \& Choudhury(2003)]{PADMAN2003}Padmanabhan,
1206: T., \& Choudhury, T.R. 2003, \mnras, 344, 823
1207: \bibitem[Peacock(1999)]{PEAC1999}Peacock,J.A.1999,Cosmological
1208: Physics,(C.U.P.)
1209: \bibitem[Peebles \& Ratra(2003)]{PERA2003}Peebles, P.J.E., \&
1210: Ratra, B. 2003, Rev. Mod. Phys., 75, 559
1211: \bibitem[Perlmutter et al.(1999)]{PERL1999}Perlmutter, S., et al.
1212: 1999, \apj, 517, 565
1213: \bibitem[Peterson(1997)]{BMP1997}Peterson, B.M.1997, An
1214: Introduction to Active Galactic Nuclei, (C.U.P.)
1215: \bibitem[Preston et al.(1985)]{PRES1985}Preston,R.A.,et
1216: al.1985,\aj,90,1599
1217: \bibitem[Ratra \& Peebles(1988)]{RAP1988}Ratra B., \& Peebles,
1218: P.J.E. 1988, \prd, 37, 3406
1219: \bibitem[Riess et al.(1998)]{RIE1998}Riess, A.G., et al. 1998,
1220: \aj, 116, 1009
1221: \bibitem[Riess et al.(2004)]{Riess2004}Riess, A.G. ,et al.
1222: 2004,\apj, 607, 665
1223: \bibitem[Sandage(1988)]{SAN1988}Sandage,A. 1988, \araa, 26, 561
1224: \bibitem[Shklovsky(1964a,b)]{SHK1964a}Shklovsky,I.S.1964a,\sovast-AJ,7,748
1225: \bibitem[Shklovsky(1964a,b)]{SHK1964b}Shklovsky,I.S.1964b,\sovast-AJ,7,972
1226: \bibitem[Spergel \& Pen(1997)]{SPER1997}Spergel, D., \& Pen, U.
1227: 1997, \apj, 491, L67
1228: \bibitem[Steinhardt et al.(1999)]{STE1999}Steinhardt, P.J., Wang,
1229: L., \& Zlatev, I. 1999, \prd, 59, 123504
1230: \bibitem[Stepanas \& Saha(1995)]{STEP1995}Stepanas, P.G.,\&
1231: Saha,P.1995, \mnras,272,L13
1232: \bibitem[Tonry et al.(2003)]{TON2003}Tonry, J.L., et al.2003,
1233: \apj, 594, 1
1234: \bibitem[Turner \& White(1997)]{TUW1997}Turner, M.S., \& White, M.
1235: 1997, \prd, 56, 4439
1236: \bibitem[Turner(2002a)]{Turner2002a}Turner, M.S. 2002a,
1237: Int.J.Mod.Phys.A,17S1,180
1238: \bibitem[Turner(2002b)]{Turner2002b}Turner, M.S.
1239: 2002b,Int.J.Mod.Phys.A,17,3446
1240: \bibitem[Turner(2002c)]{Turner2002c}Turner, M.S. 2002c, \apjl,
1241: 576,L101
1242: \bibitem[Turner(2002d)]{Turner2002d}Turner, M.S. 2002d,
1243: astro-ph/0207297
1244: \bibitem [Ubachukwu(1999)]{UBA1999}Ubachukwu, A.A.1999, Publ.
1245: Astron. Soc. Aust., 16, 130
1246: \bibitem[Ubachukwu \& Chukwude(2002)]{UBCH2002}Ubachukwu, A.A.\&
1247: Chukwude, A.E.2002, J.Astrophys. Astr.,23,235
1248: \bibitem[Vermeulen \& Cohen(1994)]{VERC1994}Vermeulen, R.C.\&
1249: Cohen, M.H.1994, \apj, 430,467
1250: \bibitem[Vishwakarma(2001)]{V2001}Vishwakarma, R.G. 2001, Class.
1251: Quant. Grav., 18, 1159
1252: \bibitem[Vishwakarma(2003)]{VISH2003}Vishwakarma, R.G. 2003,
1253: \mnras, 345, 545
1254: \bibitem[Wang et al.(2000)]{WAN2000}Wang, L., Caldwell, R.R.,
1255: Ostriker, J.P., \& Steinhardt, P.J. 2000, \apj, 530, 17
1256: \bibitem[Weller \& Albrecht(2002)]{WEAL2002}Weller, J. \&
1257: Albrecht, A. 2002, \prd, 65, 103512
1258: \bibitem[Wetterich(1995)]{WE1995}Wetterich,C. 1995, \aap ,301, 321
1259: \bibitem[Zhu \& Fujimoto(2002)]{ZHU2002}Zhu, Z., \& Fujimoto, M.
1260: 2002, \apj, 581, 1
1261: \bibitem[Zhu et al.(2004)]{ZHU2004}Zhu, Zong-Hong, Fujimoto,
1262: Masa-Katsu,\& He, Xiang-Tao 2004, \aap, 417, 833
1263: \bibitem[Zlatev et al.(1999)]{ZLAT1999}Zlatev, I., Wang, L., \&
1264: Steinhardt, P.J. 1999, \prl, 82, 896
1265: \end{thebibliography}
1266: \clearpage
1267: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc||cc||ccc} \tablewidth{0pt}
1268: \tablecaption{$\chi^2 - w- D$ values for Model 1}
1269: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1270: \tablehead{\colhead{D}&\colhead{$w$}&\colhead{$\chi^2$}&\colhead{}&\colhead{}&\colhead{D}&\colhead{$w$}&\colhead{$\chi^2$}}
1271: \startdata
1272: 0.1 &0&106&&& 1.25&-0.45&4.72\\
1273: 0.2 &0&85.44&&&1.30&-0.55&4.74\\
1274: 0.3&0&66.53&&&1.35&-0.60&4.75\\
1275: 0.4&0&50.16&&&1.40&-0.65&4.80\\
1276: 0.5&0&36.33&&&1.45&-0.70&4.88\\
1277: 0.6&0&25.03&&&1.50&-0.80&4.97\\
1278: 0.7&0&16.27&&&1.55&-0.85&5.08\\
1279: 0.8&0&10.04&&&1.60&-0.90&5.20\\
1280: 0.9&0&6.36&&&1.65&-0.95&5.35\\
1281: 0.95&0&5.47 &&&1.70&-1&5.51\\
1282: 1.00&-0.05&5.17&&&1.80&-1&6.28\\
1283: 1.05&-0.15&5.02&&&1.90&-1&7.96\\
1284: 1.10&-0.20&4.90&&&2.00&-1&10.54\\
1285: 1.15&-0.30&4.80&&&2.10&-1&14.02\\
1286: 1.20&-0.40&4.76&&&2.20&-1&18.41\\
1287: \enddata
1288: \end{deluxetable}
1289: %\newpage
1290: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc||cc||ccc}
1291: \tablewidth{0pt} \tablecaption{$\chi^2 - w- D$ values for Model
1292: 2}
1293: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1294: \tablehead{\colhead{D}&\colhead{$w$}&\colhead{$\chi^2$}&\colhead{}&\colhead{}&\colhead{D}&\colhead{$w$}&\colhead{$\chi^2$}}
1295: \startdata
1296: 0.1&3&104.29&&&1.25&1.00&5.00\\
1297: 0.2&3&80.97 &&&1.30&0.90&4.78\\
1298: 0.3&3&60.91&&& 1.35&0.70&4.61\\
1299: 0.4&3&44.12&&& 1.40&0.60&4.50\\
1300: 0.5&3&30.59&&&1.45&0.50&4.47\\
1301: 0.6&3&20.33 &&&1.50&0.40&4.52\\
1302: 0.7&3&13.32 &&&1.55&0.30&4.64\\
1303: 0.8&3&9.58 &&&1.60&0.20&4.84\\
1304: 0.85&2.80&8.85 &&&1.65&0.15&5.07\\
1305: 0.9&2.50&8.24 &&&1.70&0.10&5.39\\
1306: 0.95&2.20&7.65 &&&1.75&0&5.78\\
1307: 1.00&1.90&7.08 &&&1.80&0&6.28\\
1308: 1.05&1.70&6.56 &&&1.90&0&7.96\\
1309: 1.10&1.50&6.09&&&2.00&0&10.54\\
1310: 1.15&1.30&5.66&&&2.10&0&14.02\\
1311: 1.20&1.10&5.30&&&2.20&0&18.41
1312: \enddata
1313: \end{deluxetable}
1314: %\newpage
1315: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc||cc||ccc} \tablewidth{0pt}
1316: \tablecaption{$\chi^2 - w- D$ values for Model 3}
1317: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1318: \tablehead{\colhead{D}&\colhead{$w$}&\colhead{$\chi^2$}&\colhead{}&\colhead{}&\colhead{D}&\colhead{$w$}&\colhead{$\chi^2$}}
1319: \startdata
1320: 0.1&3&108.87&&&1.25&1.85&4.83\\
1321: 0.2&3&89.00&&&1.30&1.55&4.70\\
1322: 0.3&3&71.25&&&1.35&1.35&4.61\\
1323: 0.4&3&55.63 &&&1.40&1.15&4.58\\
1324: 0.5&3&42.13&&&1.45&0.95&4.61\\
1325: 0.6&3&30.77&&&1.50&0.75&4.69\\
1326: 0.7&3&21.53 &&&1.55&0.65&4.82\\
1327: 0.8&3&14.42 &&&1.60&0.55&5.04\\
1328: 0.9&3&9.43 &&&1.70&0.55&6.28\\
1329: 1.00&3&6.57 &&&1.80&0.55&8.59\\
1330: 1.05&3&5.94 &&&1.90&0.55&11.97\\
1331: 1.10&2.65&5.80 &&&2.00&0.55&16.43\\
1332: 1.15&2.35&5.28 &&&2.10&0.55&21.95\\
1333: 1.20&2.05&5.03 &&&2.20&0.55&28.55\\
1334: \enddata
1335: \end{deluxetable}
1336: %\newpage
1337: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc} \tablewidth{0pt}
1338: \tablecaption{Angular size-redshift data \citep{GUR1999}}
1339: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1340: \tablehead{\colhead{}&\colhead{$log z$}&\colhead{$log
1341: \theta$}&\colhead{$\sigma$}&\colhead{$log \theta_+$}&\colhead{$log
1342: \theta_-$}} \startdata
1343: 1&-0.29&0.785&3.216&0.961&0.461\\
1344: 2&-0.20&0.703&2.346&0.840&0.420\\
1345: 3&-0.12&0.585&1.504&0.722&0.374\\
1346: 4&-0.05&0.550&3.170&0.823&-0.427\\
1347: 5&0.04&0.597&1.277&0.704&0.411\\
1348: 6&0.10&0.550&2.683&0.765&-0.075\\
1349: 7&0.15&0.562&0.634&0.621&0.482\\
1350: 8&0.19&0.332&1.354&0.537&-0.107\\
1351: 9&0.29&0.389&0.895&0.508&0.196\\
1352: 10&0.34&0.690&1.078&0.768&0.573\\
1353: 11&0.41&0.525&0.734&0.623&0.433\\
1354: 12&0.55&0.633&0.990&0.731&0.535
1355: \enddata
1356: \end{deluxetable}
1357: %\newpage
1358: \begin{deluxetable}{c|ccccc|ccccccc|c} \tablewidth{0pt}
1359: \tablecaption{Summary of the results}
1360: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1361: \tablehead{\colhead{Model}&\colhead{}&\multicolumn{4}{c}{SNeIa}&\colhead{}&\multicolumn{5}{c}{Angular
1362: size}&\colhead{}&\colhead{Critical redshift}\\
1363: \tableline
1364: \colhead{}&\colhead{}&\colhead{$w$}&\colhead{$\chi^2_{min}$}&\colhead{$z_T$}&\colhead{$q_o$}&\colhead{}&\colhead{$w$}&
1365: \colhead{D}&\colhead{$\chi^2_{min}$}
1366: &\colhead{$z_T$}&\colhead{$q_o$}&\colhead{}&\colhead{$z_m$}\\
1367: \colhead{}&\colhead{}&\colhead{}&\colhead{}&\colhead{}&\colhead{}&\colhead{}&\colhead{}&
1368: \colhead{(mas)}&\colhead{}&\colhead{}&\colhead{}&\colhead{}&\colhead{}} \startdata
1369: 1&&-0.7&15.4&-&-0.2&\phm{ih}&-0.45&1.25&4.72&-&0.05&&1.65\\
1370: &&-0.5&19.67&-&0&&-0.50&1.30&4.75&-&0&&1.72\\
1371: 2&&1.1&16.5&0.45&-0.5&&0.50&1.45&4.47&1&-0.50&&1.71\\
1372: 3&&1.7&16.35&0.42&-0.5&&1.15&1.40&4.58&0.77&-0.50&&1.65
1373: \enddata
1374: \end{deluxetable}
1375:
1376: \clearpage
1377:
1378: \begin{figure}[t]
1379: \begin{center}
1380: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{fig1}
1381: \figcaption{Model 1 ($q \neq 0$): Plot of equation
1382: (\ref{e21}), $\chi^2 $ versus $w$.}
1383: \end{center}
1384: \end{figure}
1385: \clearpage
1386: \begin{figure}[t]
1387: \begin{center}
1388: \includegraphics[scale=0.9]{fig2}
1389: \figcaption{Model 2: Plot of equation
1390: (\ref{e21}),$\chi^2 $ versus $w$.}
1391: \end{center}
1392: \end{figure}
1393: \clearpage
1394: \begin{figure}[h]
1395: \begin{center}
1396: \includegraphics[scale=0.9]{fig3}
1397: \figcaption{Model 3:Plot of equation (\ref{e21}),$\chi^2 $
1398: versus $w$.}
1399: \end{center}
1400: \end{figure}
1401: \clearpage
1402: \begin{figure}[h]
1403: \begin{center}
1404: \includegraphics[scale=0.9]{fig4}
1405: \figcaption{Model 1 ($q \neq 0$) : Confidence contours in the
1406: $ w - D $ plane.}
1407: \end{center}
1408: \end{figure}
1409: \clearpage
1410: \begin{figure}[h]
1411: \begin{center}
1412: \includegraphics[scale=1]{fig5}
1413: \figcaption{Model 1 ($ q = 0$): Plot of equation (\ref{e37}),
1414: $\chi^2 $ versus $D$.}
1415: \end{center}
1416: \end{figure}
1417: \clearpage
1418: \begin{figure}[h]
1419: \begin{center}
1420: \includegraphics[scale=0.9]{fig6}
1421: \figcaption{Model 2: Confidence contours in the $w-D$
1422: plane.}
1423: \end{center}
1424: \end{figure}
1425: \clearpage
1426: \begin{figure}[h]
1427: \begin{center}
1428: \includegraphics[scale=0.9]{fig7}
1429: \figcaption{Model 3: Confidence contours in the $w-D$
1430: plane.}
1431: \end{center}
1432: \end{figure}
1433: \clearpage
1434: \begin{figure}[h]
1435: \begin{center}
1436: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{fig8}
1437: \figcaption{Model 1 ($q \neq 0$) : Critical redshift versus
1438: $w$.
1439: Also shown is the value $z_m = 1.72$ for the critical redshift in
1440: coasting cosmology (CC).}
1441: \end{center}
1442: \end{figure}
1443: \clearpage
1444: \begin{figure}[h]
1445: \begin{center}
1446: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{fig9}
1447: \figcaption{Model 2: Critical redshift versus $w$.}
1448: \end{center}
1449: \end{figure}
1450: \clearpage
1451: \begin{figure}[h]
1452: \begin{center}
1453: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{fig10}
1454: \figcaption{Model 3: Critical redshift versus $w$.}
1455: \end{center}
1456: \end{figure}
1457: \clearpage
1458: \begin{figure}[h]
1459: \begin{center}
1460: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{fig11}
1461: \figcaption{Predicted $\theta - z $ curves for the models.
1462: Also
1463: shown are the data points and error bars from
1464: \citet{GUR1999}.}
1465: \end{center}
1466: \end{figure}
1467: \end{document}
1468: