1: %% preprint produces a one-column, single-spaced document.
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3:
4: %% preprint produces a one-column, single-spaced document.
5: %\documentclass[preprint,twoside]{aastex}
6:
7: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document.
8: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
9:
10: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document.
11: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
12:
13: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the title
14: %% page in preprint2 mode.
15: %\documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
16:
17: %\documentstyle[12pt,aasms4]{article}
18: %\documentstyle[11pt,aaspp4]{article}
19: %\documentstyle[aas2pp4]{article}
20:
21: %\newcommand{\myemail}{guozk@itp.ac.cn}
22:
23: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
24:
25: \shorttitle{Constraints on the DGP Model from Recent Supernova
26: Observations and Baryon Acoustic Oscillations}
27: \shortauthors{Guo, Z.-K., Zhu, Z.-H., Alcaniz, J.S. \& Zhang, Y.-Z.}
28:
29: \begin{document}
30:
31: \title{Constraints on the DGP Model from Recent Supernova
32: Observations and Baryon Acoustic Oscillations}
33: \slugcomment{\today}
34: \author{
35: Zong-Kuan Guo \altaffilmark{1},
36: Zong-Hong Zhu \altaffilmark{2},
37: J.S. Alcaniz \altaffilmark{3},
38: Yuan-Zhong Zhang \altaffilmark{4,1}
39: }
40: \altaffiltext{1}{Institute of Theoretical Physics,
41: Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 2735, Beijing 100080, China}
42: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy,
43: Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China}
44: \altaffiltext{3}{Departamento de Astronomia,
45: Observat\'orio Nacional, 20921-400 Rio de Janeiro, Brasil}
46: \altaffiltext{4}{CCAST (World Lab.), P.O. Box 8730, Beijing 100080, China}
47:
48: %\email{guozk@itp.ac.cn}
49: %\email{zhuzh@bnu.edu.cn}
50: %\email{alcaniz@on.br}
51: %\email{yzhang@itp.ac.cn}
52:
53: \begin{abstract}
54: Although there is mounting observational evidence that the expansion of our universe is undergoing a late-time acceleration,
55: the mechanism for this acceleration is yet unknown. In the so-called Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati (DGP) model this phenomena is attributed
56: to gravitational \emph{leakage} into extra dimensions. In this work, we mainly focus our attention to the constraints on the model from
57: the \emph{gold} sample of type Ia supernovae (SNeIa), the first year data from the Supernova Legacy Survey (SNLS) and the baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) peak found in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS).
58: At 99.73\% confidence level, the combination of the three databases provides
59: $\Omega_m=0.270^{+0.018}_{-0.017}$ and $\Omega_{r_c}=0.216^{+0.012}_{-0.013}$
60: (hence a spatially closed universe with $\Omega_k=-0.350^{+0.080}_{-0.083}$),
61: which seems to be in contradiction with the most recent WMAP results indicating a flat universe.
62: Based on this result, we also estimated the transition redshift (at which the universe switches from deceleration
63: to acceleration) to be $0.70 < z_{q=0} < 1.01$, at $2\sigma$ confidence level.
64: \end{abstract}
65:
66:
67: \keywords{cosmological parameters ---
68: cosmology: theory ---
69: distance scale ---
70: supernovae: general ---
71: galaxies:general
72: }
73:
74: %
75: %________________________________________________________________
76:
77: \section{Introduction}
78:
79: Recent observations of type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) suggest that the expansion of the universe is accelerating
80: (Riess et al. 1998, Perlmutter et al. 1999, Tonry et al. 2003, Barris et al. 2004, Knop et al. 2003, Riess et al. 2004).
81: As is well known all usual types of matter with positive pressure generate attractive forces, which decelerate the expansion
82: of the universe. Given this, a dark energy component with negative pressure was suggested to account for the invisible fuel that drives
83: the current acceleration of the universe.
84: %The two favorite candidate for the dark energy are a tiny cosmological constant $\Lambda$ and the
85: %quintessence, usually associated with a slowly evolving and spatially inhomogeneous scalar field $\phi$ (see, e.g., Sahni and Starobinsky 2000;
86: %Peebles and Ratra 2003; Padmanabhan 2003; Lima 2004 for recent reviews).
87: There are a huge number of candidates for the dark energy
88: component in the literature (see, e.g., Sahni and Starobinsky 2000;
89: Peebles and Ratra 2003; Padmanabhan 2003; Lima 2004;
90: Copeland et al. 2006 for recent reviews),
91: such as
92: %%%
93: a cosmological constant $\Lambda$ (Carroll et al. 1992),
94: %%%
95: an evolving scalar field
96: (referred to by some as quintessence:
97: Ratra and Peebles 1988;
98: Caldwell et al. 1998;
99: Weller and Albrech 2002;
100: Guo, Ohta and Zhang 2005),
101: %%%
102: the phantom energy, in which the sum of the pressure and energy
103: density is negative
104: (Caldwell 2002;
105: Dabrowski et al. 2003;
106: Wu and Yu 2005a),
107: %%%
108: the quintom model
109: (Feng, Wang and Zhang 2005;
110: Guo et al. 2005;
111: Zhao et al. 2005;
112: Wu and Yu 2005b),
113: %%%
114: the holographic dark energy
115: (Li 2004;
116: Gong 2004;
117: Wang, Gong and Abdalla 2005;
118: Myung 2005;
119: Zhang and Wu 2005;
120: Pavon and Zimdahl 2005;
121: Chang, Wu and Zhang 2006),
122: %%%
123: the Chaplygin gas
124: (Kamenshchik et al. 2001;
125: Bento et al. 2002;
126: Dev, Alcaniz and Jain 2003;
127: Silva and Bertolami 2003;
128: Makler et al. 2003;
129: Zhu 2004;
130: Gong 2005;
131: Zhang and Zhu 2006),
132: %%%
133: and the Cardassion model
134: (Freese and Lewis 2002;
135: Zhu and Fujimoto 2002, 2003;
136: Godlowski, Szydlowski and Krawiec 2004;
137: Amarzguioui, Elgaroy and Multamaki 2005;
138: Koivisto, Kurki-Suonio and Ravndal 2005;
139: Lazkoz and Leon 2005;
140: Szydlowski and Godlowski 2006).
141:
142:
143: Another possible explanation for the accelerating expansion of the universe could be the infrared modification of gravity expected from
144: extra dimensional physics, which would lead to a modification of the effective Friedmann equation at late times. An interesting model
145: incorporating modification of gravitational laws at large distances was proposed by Dvali, Gabadadze and Porrati (2000), the so-called DGP model.
146: It describes our four-dimensional world as a brane embedded into flat five-dimensional bulk. While ordinary matter fields are supposed to be localized
147: on the brane gravity can propagate into the bulk. Unlike popular braneworld theories at the time, the extra dimension featured in this theory is
148: astrophysically large and flat (for a recent review of the DGP phenomenology, see Lue 2005). A crucial ingredient of the model is the induced
149: Einstein-Hilbert action on the brane. In this model, gravitational leakage into the bulk leads to the observed
150: late-time accelerated expansion of the universe.
151: Such a possible mechanism for cosmic acceleration has been tested in many
152: of its observational predictions, ranging from local gravity
153: (Lue 2003; Lue and Starkman 2003; Lue, Scoccimarro and Starkman 2004)
154: to cosmological observations,
155: such as SNe Ia (Deffayet, Dvali and Gabadadze 2002;
156: Deffayet et al. 2002; Avelino and Martins 2002;
157: Dabrowski et al. 2004;
158: Alam and Sahni 2005;
159: Maartens and Majerotto 2006),
160: angular size of compact ratio sources (Alcaniz 2002),
161: the age measurements of high redshift objects
162: (Alcaniz, Jain and Dev 2002),
163: the optical gravitational lensing surveys (Jain, Dev and Alcaniz 2002),
164: the large scale structures (Multam\"aki et al. 2003),
165: and the X-ray gas mass fraction in galaxy clusters
166: (Zhu and Alcaniz 2005; Alcaniz and Zhu 2005).
167:
168: This paper aims at placing new observational constrains on the DGP model by
169: using the gold sample of 157 SNe Ia compiled by Riess et al. (2004), the
170: 71 new SNe Ia released recently by the Supernova Legacy Survey (SNLS)
171: (Astier et al. 2005), and the baryon acoustic oscillations detected in the
172: large-scale correlation function of Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)
173: luminous red galaxies (Eisenstein et al. 2005).
174: It is shown that, if only the SNe Ia databases are used, $\Omega_{r_c}$
175: and $\Omega_m$ are highly degenerated.
176: However when we combine the baryon acoustic oscillations found by
177: Eisenstein et al. (2005) from the SDSS data for analyzing, the degeneracy
178: between $\Omega_{r_c}$ and $\Omega_m$ is broken and the two parameters are
179: accurately determined.
180:
181: We stuctured this paper as follows. Section~2 discusses the basic expressions of the DGP model. In Section~3, we present our
182: analysis of the model using the updated SNe Ia data and the baryon acoustic oscillations found in the SDSS data. We end the paper by
183: discussing its main results in Section~4.
184:
185:
186: %__________________________________________________________________
187:
188: \section{Basic expressions of the DGP model}
189:
190: In the DGP model the modified Friedmann equation due to the
191: presence of an infinite-volume extra dimension reads
192: (Deffayet, Dvali and Gabadadze 2002; Deffayet et al. 2002)
193: %
194: \begin{equation}
195: \label{eq:ansatz}
196: H^2 = H_0^2 \left[
197: \Omega_k(1+z)^2+\left(\sqrt{\Omega_{r_c}}+
198: \sqrt{\Omega_{r_c}+\Omega_m (1+z)^3}\right)^2
199: \right]
200: \end{equation}
201: %
202: where $H$ is the Hubble parameter ($H_0$ is its current value), $\Omega_k$ and $\Omega_m$ represent the fractional contribution of curvature
203: and of the matter (both baryonic and nonbaryonic), respectively, and $\Omega_{r_c}$, the bulk-induced term, is defined as
204: %
205: \begin{equation}
206: \label{eq:omegarc}
207: \Omega_{r_c} \equiv 1/4r_c^2H_0^2.
208: \end{equation}
209: %
210: In the above equatios, $r_c$ is the crossover scale beyond which the gravitational force follows the 5-dimensional $1/r^3$ behavior. Note that
211: on short length scales $r \ll r_c$ (at early times) the
212: gravitational force follows the usual four-dimensional
213: $1/r^2$ behavior, i.e., the standard cosmological models
214: are recovered. It has been shown that by
215: setting the crossover scale $r_c$ close to the horizon size,
216: this extra contribution to the Friedmann equation leads to
217: acceleration which can in principle explain the supernova
218: data (Deffayet, Dvali and Gabadadze 2002; Deffayet et al. 2002).
219: From Eq.~1 we find that the normalization condition is given by $\Omega_k + (\sqrt{\Omega_{r_c}}+ \sqrt{\Omega_{r_c} + \Omega_m}\,)^2 = 1$,
220: while for a spatially flat scenario it reduces to $\Omega_{r_c}=(1-\Omega_m)^2/4$.
221:
222: The current value of the deceleration parameter, defined
223: $q \equiv -a\ddot{a}/\dot{a}^2$, takes the form (Zhu and Fujimoto 2003, 2004)
224: %
225: \begin{equation}
226: q_0 = \frac{3}{2}\Omega_m\left(1
227: +\frac{\sqrt{\Omega_{r_c}}}{\sqrt{\Omega_{r_c}+\Omega_m}}\right)
228: -\left(\sqrt{\Omega_{r_c}}+\sqrt{\Omega_{r_c}+\Omega_m}\right)^2.
229: \end{equation}
230: %
231: The transition redshift $z_{q=0}$ at which the universe
232: switches from deceleration to acceleration, can be expressed
233: in the following analytic form (Zhu and Alcaniz 2005)
234: %
235: \begin{equation}
236: z_{q=0} = -1 + 2\left(\frac{\Omega_{r_c}}{\Omega_m}\right)^{1/3}.
237: \end{equation}
238: %
239:
240: Note that from a phenomenological standpoint, the DGP model is a testable scenario with the same number of parameters as the $\Lambda$CDM
241: scenario, contrasting with models of quintessence that have additional free parameters to be determined
242: (Deffayet et al. 2002).
243:
244:
245: %__________________________________________________________________
246:
247: \section{Constraints from SNeIa and SDSS data}
248:
249: In this section we analyze the DGP model by using two
250: recently released supernova data sets, the Gold supernova
251: data set (Riess et al. 2004) and the SNLS data set (Astier et al. 2005).
252: We also use these data sets in conjunction with the recent
253: discovery of the baryon acoustic oscillation peak in the
254: SDSS (Eisenstein 2005) to place constrains on the cosmological parameters.
255:
256:
257: Recently, Riess et al. (2004) compiled a large database
258: of 170 previously reported SNe Ia and 16 new high redshift
259: SNe Ia observed by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST).
260: The total sample span a wide range of redshift ($0.01 < z < 1.7$).
261: To reflect the difference in the quality of the spectroscopic
262: and photometric record for individual supernovae, they
263: divided the total sample into ``high-confidence" (gold) and
264: ``likely but not certain" (silver) subsets. Here, we consider
265: only the gold sample of 157 SNe Ia (for recent usages of the sample,
266: see, e.g., Padmanabhan and Choudhury 2003;
267: Nesseris and Perivolaropoulos 2004; Alcaniz 2004; Choudhury and Padmanabhan 2005;
268: Gong 2005;
269: Feng, Wang and Zhang 2005;
270: Zhang and Wu 2005;
271: Guo and Zhang 2005a,b;
272: Cai, Gong and Wang 2006;
273: Ichikawa and Takahashi 2005).
274:
275: More recently, the SNLS collaboration released the first year data of its planned five-year Supernova Legacy Survey (Astier et al. 2005).
276: An important aspect to be emphasized on the SNLS data is that they seem to be in a better agreement with WMAP results than the gold sample
277: (see, e.g., Jassal, Bagla and Padmanabhan 2006). The two samples are illustrated on a residual Hubble Diagram
278: with respect to our best fit universe
279: ($\Omega_m = 0.270$, $\Omega_{r_c} = 0.216$)
280: in Figure~1.
281:
282: It is well know that the acoustic peaks in the cosmic microwave background
283: (CMB) anisotropy power spectrum can be used to determine the properties of
284: the cosmic perturbations, to measure the contents and curvature of the
285: universe, as well as many other cosmological parameters
286: (see, e.g., Spergel et al. 2003).
287: Because the acoustic oscillations in the relativistic plasma of the early
288: universe will also be imprinted on to the late-time power spectrum of the
289: non-relativistic matter (Peebles and Yu 1970; Eisenstein and Hu 1998),
290: the acoustic signatures in the large-scale clustering of galaxies yield
291: additional tests for cosmology.
292: In particular, the characteristic and reasonably sharp length scale measured
293: at a wide range of redshifts provides distance-redshift relation, which is
294: a geometric complement to the usual luminosity-distance from type Ia
295: supernove (Eisenstein et al. 2005).
296: Although the acoustic features in the matter correlations are weak and on
297: large scales, Eisenstein et al. (2005) have successfully found the peaks
298: using a large spectroscopic sample of luminous, red galaxies (LRGs) from
299: the Sloan Digital Sky Sruvey (SDSS, York et al. 2000).
300: This sample contains 46,748 galaxies covering 3816 square degrees out to a
301: redshift of z=0.47.
302: They found a parameter A, which is independent of dark energy models
303: (Eisenstein et al. 2005).
304: From their Eq.~2 and 4, we write it as follows,
305: %
306: \begin{equation}
307: A = \frac{\sqrt{\Omega_{m}}}{z_1}
308: \left[\frac{z_1}{E(z_1)}\frac{1}{|\Omega_k|} {\rm sinn}^2
309: \left(\sqrt{|\Omega_k|}\int_0^{z_1}\frac{dz}{E(z)}\right)\right]^{1/3},
310: \end{equation}
311: %
312: where $E(z) \equiv H(z)/H_0$, $z_1 = 0.35$, $A$ is measured
313: to be $A = 0.469 \pm 0.017$, and the function ${\rm sinn}(x)$
314: is defined as ${\rm sinn}(x) = \sin(x)$ for a closed
315: universe, ${\rm sinn}(x) = \sinh(x)$ for an open universe
316: and ${\rm sinn}(x) = x$ for a flat universe.
317: In our analysis, we will comebine these measuremets.
318:
319: %
320: %\placefigure{fig:fig1.eps}
321: %
322:
323: In order to place limits on our Eq. (1), we perform a $\chi^2$-statistics for the model parameters ($\Omega_m$, $\Omega_{r_c}$) and
324: the Hubble constant $H_0$. Since we want to concentrate solely on the density parameters, we need to marginalize over the Hubble parameter
325: $H_0$. However, $H_0$ appears as a quadratic term in $\chi^2$ or, equivalently, appears as a separable
326: Gaussian factor in the probability to be marginalized over.
327: Thus marginalizing over $H_0$ is equivalent to evaluating $\chi^2$ at its
328: minimum with respect to $H_0$ (Barris et al. 2004).
329: Here, we marginalize over the Hubble parameter by using the
330: analytical method of Wang et al. (2004).
331: Figure~2 shows the joint confidence contour at 68.3\%, 95.4\% and 99.7\%
332: confidence levels in the parametric space $\Omega_m-\Omega_{r_c}$ arising from the gold sample of SN Ia data and the
333: SDSS baryon acoustic oscillations.
334: The best-fit parameters for this analysis are $\Omega_m = 0.272$ and $\Omega_{r_c} = 0.211$.
335: Note that the best-fit value for $\Omega_{r_c}$ leads to an
336: estimate of the crossover scale $r_c$ in terms of the Hubble
337: radius $H^{-1}_0$, i.e., $r_c = 1.089H^{-1}_0$.
338: Compared to Figure 2 of Alcaniz and Pires (2004), the model
339: parameters are more tightly
340: constrained by using the prior from the baryon oscillation
341: results than by assuming a Gaussian prior on the matter
342: density parameter, $\Omega_m = 0.27 \pm 0.04$, as
343: provided by WMAP team (Spergel et al. 2003).
344:
345: %
346: %\placefigure{fig:fig2.eps}
347: %
348:
349: Figure~3 illustrates the allowed regions in the $\Omega_m-\Omega_{r_c}$ plane by using the first year SNLS data in conjunction with the SDSS
350: baryon acoustic oscillations (see also Fairbairn and Goobar (2005) for a similar analysis\footnote{During the writing of this work we bacame
351: aware of the results of Fairbairn and Goobar (2005). In their analysis, however, they paid particularly more attention to a generalized verison of
352: DGP model.}). Our best-fit for this joint SNLS plus BAO analysis happens at $\Omega_m = 0.265$ and $\Omega_{r_c} = 0.216$. The parameter space is
353: considerably reduced relative to Figure~2 since the SNLS data set is more sensitive to the value of $\Omega_{r_c}$ than the gold sample.
354:
355: %
356: %\placefigure{fig:fig3.eps}
357: %
358:
359: In Figure~4 we show the joint confidence contours from the gold sample of SN Ia data and the first year SNLS data. In this case, the best-fit
360: model happens for $\Omega_m = 0.31$ and $\Omega_{r_c} = 0.23$.
361: We find that the degeneracies between these parameters are broken by
362: combining these two data sets in the joint statistical analysis.
363: With the prior from the SDSS baryon acoustic oscillations, our fits provide
364: $\Omega_m = 0.270$ and $\Omega_{r_c} = 0.216$.
365: Compared to Figure~4, the allowed confidence regions are slightly reduced.
366:
367: %
368: %\placefigure{fig:fig4.eps}
369: %
370:
371: Note that a closed universe is obtained at $3\sigma$ confidence level
372: in the above analyses, which confirms the previous results obtained
373: using the SNe Ia and the X-ray mass fraction data of galaxy clusters
374: (Zhu and Alcaniz 2005; Alcaniz and Zhu 2005).
375: Although there is a range on the parameter plane being consistent with both the SNeIa and the SDSS data, and the resulting matter density $\Omega_m$
376: is reasonable, a closed universe is obtained at a 99\% confidence level, which seems to be inconsistent with the result,
377: $\Omega_k=-0.02^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$, found by the WMAP team (Bennett et al. 2003, Spergel et al. 2003) and $\Omega_k=0$ predicted by the
378: simplest inflationary scenarios. Avelino and Martins (2002) analyzed the same model with the 92 SNe Ia from Riess et al. (1998) and
379: Perlmutter et al. (1999). Assuming a flat universe, the authors obtained a low matter density and claimed the model was disfavorable.
380: {\bf{In additional to including new SN Ia data from, and combining the
381: SDSS data, we relax the flat universe constraint in our analysis.}}
382: We obtained a reasonable matter density, but a closed universe.
383: This means that, in light of WMAP results -- a nearly flat universe with $\Omega_k=-0.02^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ -- the accelerating universe
384: from gravitational leakage into an extra dimension seems not to be favored by the current observational data.
385: Note also that the best fit values of $\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_{r_c}$
386: lead to an estimate of the transition redshift
387: $z_{q=0} = 0.86^{+0.07}_{-0.08}$, which is larger than the
388: one estimated from the gold sample, i.e.,
389: $z_{q=0} = 0.46 \pm 0.13$ (Riess et al. 2004).
390: It means that acceleration in the DGP model happens earlier.
391: Figure~5 shows the deceleration parameter as a function of redshift
392: $z$ for our best-fit values in DGP model.
393: For comparison, we have also plot the curve for the standard $\Lambda$CDM
394: model.
395: In Table~1 we summarize the main results of the paper.
396: %
397: %\placefigure{fig:fig5.ps}
398: %
399: \begin{table}[t]
400: \begin{center}
401: Table 1: Constrains on $\Omega_m$, $\Omega_{r_c}$, $r_c$ and $z_{q=0}$
402: {\footnotesize
403: \begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \hline\hline
404: Test & $\Omega_m$ & $\Omega_{r_c}$ & $r_c\,(H^{-1}_0)$ & $z_{q=0}$ \\ \hline
405: Gold Sample & $0.34^{+0.07}_{-0.08}$ & $0.24^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$
406: & $1.02^{+0.09}_{-0.09}$ & $0.78^{+0.24}_{-0.22}$ \\
407: Gold+BAO & $0.272^{+0.021}_{-0.019}$ & $0.211^{+0.023}_{-0.027}$
408: & $1.089^{+0.070}_{-0.059}$ & $0.84^{+0.11}_{-0.13}$\\
409: SNLS & $0.23^{+0.14}_{-0.17}$ & $0.20^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$
410: & $1.12^{+0.20}_{-0.17}$ & $0.91^{+0.66}_{-0.61}$ \\
411: SNLS+BAO & $0.265^{+0.019}_{-0.018}$ & $0.216^{+0.013}_{-0.014}$
412: & $1.076^{+0.035}_{-0.032}$ & $0.87^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$ \\
413: Gold+SNLS & $0.31^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$ & $0.23^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$
414: & $1.04^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ & $0.81^{+0.20}_{-0.22}$\\
415: Gold+SNLS+BAO & $0.270^{+0.018}_{-0.017}$ & $0.216^{+0.012}_{-0.013}$
416: & $1.076^{+0.032}_{-0.030}$ & $0.86^{+0.07}_{-0.08}$\\
417: \hline
418: \end{tabular}
419: }
420: \end{center}
421: \end{table}
422:
423: %
424: %\placetable{tab:table1}
425: %
426:
427: %_________________________________________________________________________
428:
429: \section{Conclusion and discussion}
430:
431: Observations of SNe Ia indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.
432: What drives the acceleration, however, is still acompletely open question.
433: From the observational viewpoint, it is of fundamental importance to differentiate between the two major possibilities, namely, the existence
434: of new fields in high energy physics (dark energy) or modifications of gravitation theory on large scales.
435: In this paper, we have focused our attention on one of the leading contender in modified-gravity explanation of acceleration, the so-called
436: DGP model. We have analyzed the DGP model by using the gold SN Ia sample,
437: the recent SNLS data and the SDSS baryon acoustic oscillations.
438: Since SN Ia data are sensitive to the value of $\Omega_{r_c}$
439: while the baryon acoustic oscillations are sensitive to the
440: value of $\Omega_m$, the combination of these data sets breaks the
441: degeneracies between the model parameters and leads to strong
442: constraints on them, as shown in Figures~2,3,4.
443: The joint analysis strongly indicates a spatially closed universe,
444: which was already obtained by fitting the combination of
445: SN Ia data and the X-ray gas mass fraction in galaxy
446: clusters (Zhu and Alcaniz 2005; Alcaniz and Zhu 2005).
447: We also estimate the transition redshift $z_{q=0} \ge 0.70$ at $2\sigma$
448: confidence level.
449:
450: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
451: %Recently, Lue et al. (2004) derived the DGP gravitational force law in a cosmological setting for spherical perturbations at
452: %subhorizon scales and computed the growth of large-scale structure. A suppression of the growth of density and velocity
453: %perturbations leads to a present-day fluctuation power spectrum normalization $\sigma_8 \le 0.8$ at $2\sigma$ confidence %level, lower than the observed value (Lue et al. 2004)
454: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
455:
456: In summary, we have discussed the gravitational leakage into extra dimensions as an alternative mechanism for the late-time acceleration
457: of the universe (and an alternative route to the dark energy problem). In agreement with other recent analysis, we have shown that a spatially
458: closed DGP scenario with a crossover scale $r_c\, \sim H^{-1}_0$ is largely favored by most of the current observational data.
459:
460:
461: %__________________________________________________________________
462:
463: \acknowledgements
464:
465: %%%
466: This work was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, under Grant No. 10533010 and 90403032,
467: National Basic Research Program of China under Grant No. 2003CB716300, and by SRF, ROCS, SEM of China. JSA is supported by
468: CNPq (Brazilian Agency) under Grants No. 307860/2004-3 and 475835/2004-2 and by Funda\c{c}\~ao de Amparo \`a Pesquisa do
469: Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) No. E-26/171.251/2004.
470:
471:
472: \begin{thebibliography}{}
473:
474: \bibitem{Alam et al. 2005}
475: Alam, U. and Sahni, V. 2005, astro-ph/0511473
476:
477: %\bibitem[Alam et al. 2003]{ala03}
478: % Alam, U., Sahni, V., Saini, T. D. and Starobinsky, A. A.
479: % 2003, \mnras, 334, 1057
480:
481: \bibitem[Alcaniz]{al02a}
482: Alcaniz, J. S. 2002, \prd, 65, 123514 %brane world
483:
484: \bibitem[Alcaniz et al. 2002]{al02b}
485: Alcaniz, J. S., Jain, D. and Dev, A. 2002, \prd, 66, 067301 %brane world
486:
487: \bibitem[Alcaniz et al. 2003]{al03}
488: Alcaniz, J. S. 2004, \prd, 69, 083521 %phantom
489:
490: %\bibitem[Alcaniz et al. 2003]{alc03a}
491: % Alcaniz, J. S., Lima, J. A. S. and Cunha, J. V. 2003, \mnras, 340, L39
492: % %x-matter
493:
494: \bibitem[Alcaniz et al. 2004]{al04}
495: Alcaniz, J. S. and Pires, N. 2004 \prd, 70, 047303
496:
497: \bibitem[Alcaniz et al. 2005]{al05}
498: Alcaniz, J. S. and Zhu, Z. -H. 2005, \prd, 71, 083513
499:
500: %\bibitem[2002]{548}Allen S.W., Schmidt R.W., Fabian A.C., 2002a, MNRAS, 334, L11
501:
502: %\bibitem[2003]{all03}Allen S.W., Schmidt R.W., Fabian A.C., Ebeling, H. 2003,
503: % MNRAS, 342, 287
504:
505: \bibitem[]{am05}
506: Amarzguioui, M., Elgaroy, O. and Multamaki, T. 2005, JCAP, 0501, 008
507: % Cardassian
508:
509: \bibitem[]{as05}
510: Astier, P. et al. 2005, astro-ph/0510447
511:
512: \bibitem[Avelino and Martins 2002]{av02}
513: Avelino, P. P. and Martins, C. J. A. P. 2002, \apj, 565, 661
514:
515: \bibitem[Barris et al. 2004]{ba04}
516: Barris, B. J. et al. 2004, \apj, 602, 571
517:
518: \bibitem[Bennett et al. 2003]{be03}
519: Bennett, C. L. et al. 2003 \apjs, 148, 1
520:
521: \bibitem[Bento et al. 2002]{be02}
522: Bento, M. C., Bertolami, O and Sen, A. A. 2002, \prd, 66, 043507
523:
524: \bibitem[Cai et al. 2006]{cai06}
525: Cai, R. G., Gong, Y. and Wang, B. 2006, JCAP, 0603, 006, hep-th/0511301
526:
527: \bibitem[Caldwell 2002]{cal02}
528: Caldwell, R. 2002, Phys.Lett.B, 545, 23
529:
530: \bibitem[Caldwell et al. 1988]{cal98}
531: Caldwell, R., Dave, R., and Steinhardt, P. J. 1998, \prl, 80, 1582
532:
533: \bibitem[Carroll et al. 1992]{car92}
534: Carroll, S., Press, W. H. and Turner, E. L. 1992, \araa, 30, 499
535:
536: \bibitem[]{cha06}
537: Chang, Z., Wu, F. -Q. and Zhang, X. 2006, Phys.Lett.B, 633, 14
538: % Holographic
539:
540: \bibitem[choudhury and Padmanabhan]{cho05}
541: Choudhury, T. R. and Padmanabhan, T. 2005 \aap, 429, 807
542:
543: \bibitem[Copeland et al. 2006]{cop06}
544: Copeland, E. J., Sami, M. and Tsujikawa, S. 2006, hep-th/0603057
545:
546: %\bibitem[]{568} Bialek J.J., Evrard A.E., Mohr J.J., 2001, ApJ, 555, 597
547:
548: %\bibitem[Chen and Ratra 2003]{che03}
549: % Chen, G. and Ratra, B. 2003, \apj, 582, 586
550:
551: %\bibitem[Chiba and Yoshii 1999]{chi99}
552: % Chiba, M. and Yoshii, Y. 1999, \apj, 510, 42
553:
554: \bibitem[]{da04}
555: Dabrowski, M. P., Godlowski, W. and Szydlowski, M. 2004,
556: Gen. Rel. Grav. 36, 767
557:
558: \bibitem[Dabrowski et al. 2003]{da03}
559: Dabrowski, M. P., Stochowiak, T., and Szydlowski, M. 2003,
560: \prd, 68, 103519
561:
562: %\bibitem[]{596} Dai, Z., Liang, E. W. and Xu, D. 2004, \apj, in press,
563: % astro-ph/0407497
564:
565: %\bibitem[]{599} Deffayet, C. 2001, Phys.Lett.B, 502, 199
566:
567: \bibitem[]{def02a}
568: Deffayet, C., Dvali, G. and Gabadadze, G. 2002, \prd, 65, 044023
569:
570: %\bibitem[]{603} Deffayet, C., Landau, S. J., Raux, J., Zaldarriaga, M. and Astier, P.
571: % 2002, \prd, 66, 024019
572:
573: \bibitem[]{def02b}
574: Deffayet, C. et al. 2002, \prd, 66, 024019
575:
576: \bibitem[Dev et al. 2003a]{dev03}
577: Dev, A., Jain, D. and Alcaniz, J. S. 2003, \prd, 67, 023515 %Chaplygin
578:
579: \bibitem[Dvali et al. 2000]{dv00}
580: Dvali, G., Gabadadze, G. and Porrati, M. 2000, Phys.Lett.B, 485, 208
581:
582: \bibitem[]{ei05}
583: Eisenstein, D. J. et al. 2005, \apj, 633, 560 %astro-ph/0501171
584:
585: \bibitem[]{616}
586: Eisenstein, D. J. and Hu, W. 1998, \apj, 496, 605
587:
588: \bibitem[]{fa05}
589: Fairbairn, M. and Goobar, A. 2005, astro-ph/0511029
590:
591: %\bibitem[]{622} Freedman W. et al., 2001, ApJ, 553, 47
592:
593: \bibitem[Freese and Lewis 2002]{fr02}
594: Freese, K. and Lewis, M. 2002, Phys.Lett.B, 540, 1
595:
596: \bibitem[]{fe05}
597: Feng, B., Wang, X. and Zhang, X. 2005, Phys.Lett.B, 607, 35
598:
599: %\bibitem[]{631} Frith, W. J. 2004, \mnras, 348, 916
600:
601: %\bibitem[]{633} Germany, L. M. 2001, Ph.D. Thesis, Australian National University
602:
603: \bibitem[]{god04}
604: Godlowski, W., Szydlowski, M. and Krawiec, A. 2004, \apj, 605, 599
605:
606: \bibitem[]{gon04}
607: Gong, Y. 2004, \prd, 70, 064029
608:
609: \bibitem[]{gon05}
610: Gong, Y. 2005, JCAP, 0503, 007 % Chaplygin gas
611:
612: %\bibitem[]{635} Gong, Y. 2002, Class.Quan.Grav. 19, 4537
613:
614: %\bibitem[]{637} Gong, Y. 2004, astro-ph/0401207
615:
616: %\bibitem[]{639} Gong, Y. 2005, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D14, 599
617:
618: %\bibitem[]{641} Gong, Y. \& Duan, C.-K. 2004a, Class.Quan.Grav. 21, 3655
619:
620: %\bibitem[]{643} Gong, Y. \& Duan, C.-K. 2004b, \mnras, 352, 847
621:
622: \bibitem[]{guo05a}
623: Guo, Z. -K., Ohta, N. and Zhang, Y. -Z. 2005, \prd, 72, 023504
624:
625: \bibitem[]{guo05b}
626: Guo, Z. -K. et al. 2005, Phys.Lett.B, 608, 177, astro-ph/0410654
627:
628: \bibitem[]{guo05c}
629: Guo, Z. -K. and Zhang, Y. -Z. 2005a, astro-ph/0506091
630:
631: \bibitem[]{guo05d}
632: Guo, Z. -K. and Zhang, Y. -Z. 2005b, astro-ph/0509790
633:
634: %\bibitem[Hao and Li 2003a]{hao03a}
635: % Hao, J. -G. and Li, X. -Z. 2003a, \prd, 67, 107303
636:
637: %\bibitem[Hao and Li 2003b]{hao03b}
638: % Hao, J. -G. and Li, X. -Z. 2003b, \prd, 68, 043501
639:
640: \bibitem[]{ich05}
641: Ichikawa, K. and Takahashi, T. 2005, astro-ph/0511821
642:
643: \bibitem[Jain et al. 2002]{ja02}
644: Jain, D., Dev, A. and Alcaniz, J. S. 2002, \prd, 66, 083511 %brane world
645:
646: \bibitem[2006]{jas06}
647: Jassal H. K, Bagla J. S., Padmanabhan T., astro-ph/0601389.
648:
649: \bibitem[Kamenshchik et al. 2001]{ka01}
650: Kamenshchik, A., Moschella, U. and Pasquier, V. 2001,
651: Phys.Lett.B, 511, 265
652:
653: \bibitem[]{kir01}
654: Kiritsis, E., Tetradis, N. and Tomaras, T.N. 2001, JHEP, 0108, 012
655:
656: \bibitem[]{}
657: Kiritsis, E., Tetradis, N. and Tomaras, T.N. 2002, JHEP, 0203, 019
658:
659: \bibitem[]{ko05}
660: Koivisto, T., Kurki-Suonio, H. and Ravndal, F. 2005, \prd, 71, 064027
661: % Cardassian
662:
663: \bibitem[]{kn03}
664: Knop, R. A. et al. 2003, \apj, 598, 102 %(astro-ph/0309368)
665:
666: %\bibitem[Krauss and Turner 1995]{kra95}
667: % Krauss, L. M. and Turner, M. S. 1995, Gen. Rel. Grav., 27, 1137
668:
669: \bibitem[]{la05}
670: Lazkoz, R. and Leon, G. 2005, \prd, 71, 123516
671:
672: \bibitem[]{li04}
673: Li, M. 2004, Phys.Lett.B, 603, 1
674: % holographic
675:
676: %\bibitem[Li et al. 2002a]{li02a}
677: % Li, M., Lin, W., Zhang, X. and Brandenberger, R. 2002a, \prd, 65, 023519
678:
679: %\bibitem[Li et al. 2002b]{li02b}
680: % Li, M., Wang, X., Feng, B. and Zhang, X. 2002b, \prd, 65, 103511
681:
682: %\bibitem[Li et al. 2002]{li02}
683: % Li, X. -Z., Hao, J. -G. and Liu, D. -J. 2002, Class.Quan.Grav. 19, 6049
684:
685: %\bibitem[Lima et al. 2003]{lim03}
686: % Lima, J. A. S., Cunha, J. V. and Alcaniz, J. S. 2003, \prd, 68, 023510
687:
688: \bibitem[Lima]{lim04}
689: Lima, J. A. S. 2004, Braz. J. Phys. 34, 194 %astro-ph/0402109
690:
691: \bibitem[]{lu03a}
692: Lue, A. 2003, \prd, 67, 064004
693:
694: \bibitem[]{lu05}
695: Lue, A. 2005, astro-ph/0510068
696:
697: \bibitem[]{lu04}
698: Lue, A., Scoccimarro, R. and Starkman, G. D. 2004, \prd, 69, 124015
699: %astro-ph/0401515
700:
701: \bibitem[]{lu03b}
702: Lue, A. and Starkman, G. D. 2003, \prd, 67, 064002
703:
704: \bibitem[]{maa06}
705: Maartens, R. and Majerotto, E. 2006, astro-ph/0603353
706:
707: \bibitem[Makler et al. 2003b]{ma03}
708: Makler, M., Oliveira, S. Q., \& Waga, I. 2003, \prd, 68, 123521
709: % astro-ph/0306507 %gCg
710:
711: %\bibitem[Mukherjee et al. 2003]{muk03}
712: % Mukherjee, P., Banday, A. J., Riazuelo, A., Gorski, K. M., Ratra, B.
713: % 2003, ApJ, 598, 767
714: %% accepted (astro-ph/0306147)
715:
716: \bibitem[Multamaki et al. 2003]{mu03}
717: Multam\"aki, T., Gaztanaga, E. and Manera, M. 2003, \mnras, 344, 761
718: % submitted (astro-ph/0303526)
719:
720: \bibitem[]{my05}
721: Myung, Y. S. 2005, Phys.Lett.B, 626, 1
722: %Holographic dark energy
723:
724: \bibitem[]{ne04}
725: Nesseris, S. and Perivolaropoulos, L. 2004, \prd, 70, 043531
726:
727: %\bibitem[]{711} O'Meara, J. M., Tytler, D., Kirkman, D., Suzuki, N.,
728: % Prochaska, J. X., Lubin, D., Wolfe, A. M., 2001, ApJ, 552, 718
729:
730: %\bibitem[Ostriker and Steinhardt 1995]{ost95}
731: % Ostriker, J. P. and Steinhardt, P. J. 1995, \nat, 377, 600
732:
733: %\bibitem[Ozer and Taha 1987]{oze87}
734: % Ozer, M. and Taha, O. 1987, Nucl. Phys. {\bf{B287}}, 776
735:
736: \bibitem[]{pa03a}
737: Padmanabhan, T. 2003, Phys. Rept. 380, 235
738:
739: \bibitem[]{pa03b}
740: Padmanabhan, T. and Choudhury, T. R. 2003, \mnras, 344, 823
741:
742: \bibitem[]{pa05}
743: Pavon, D. and Zimdahl, W. 2005, Phys.Lett.B, 628, 206
744: %Holographic
745:
746: \bibitem[]{pe03}
747: Peebles, P. J. E. and Ratra, B. 2003, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559
748:
749: \bibitem[]{pe70}
750: Peebles, P. J. E. and Yu, J. T. 1970, \apj, 162, 815
751:
752: \bibitem[Perlmutter et al. 1999]{per99}
753: Perlmutter, S. et al. 1999, \apj, 517, 565
754:
755: %\bibitem[]{731} Phillips, M. M., Lira, P., Suntzeff, N. B., Schommer, R. A.,
756: % Hamuy, M. and Maza, J. 1999, \aj, 118, 1766
757:
758: %\bibitem[]{734} Podariu, S. and Ratra, B. 2001, \apj, 563, 28
759:
760: \bibitem[Ratra and Peebles 1988]{ra88}
761: Ratra, B. and Peebles, P. J. E. 1988, \prd, 37, 3406
762:
763: %\bibitem[Randall 2002]{ran02} Randall, L. 2002, Science, 296, 1422.
764:
765: %\bibitem[Randall 1999]{741} Randall, L. and Sundrum, R. 1999a, \prl, 83, 3370
766:
767: %\bibitem[Randall 1999]{743} Randall, L. and Sundrum, R. 1999b, \prl, 83, 4690
768:
769: \bibitem[Riess et al. 1998]{ri98}
770: Riess, A. G. et al. 1998, \aj, 116, 1009
771:
772: %\bibitem[Riess et al. 2001]{rie01}
773: % Riess, A. G. et al. 2001, \apj, 560, 49
774:
775: \bibitem[Riess et al. 2004]{ri04}
776: Riess, A. G. et al. 2004, \apj, 607, 665
777:
778: %\bibitem[]{754} Sasaki, S. 1996, PASJ, 48, L119
779:
780: \bibitem[]{sa03}
781: Sahni,V. and Shtanov, Y. 2003, JCAP, 0311, 014
782:
783: \bibitem[]{sa05}
784: Sahni,V. and Shtanov, Y. 2005, \prd, 71, 084018
785:
786: \bibitem[]{sa00}
787: Sahni,V. and Starobinsky, A. 2000, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D9, 373
788:
789: %\bibitem[Sen and Sen 2003a]{sen03a}
790: % Sen, A. A. and Sen, S. 2003a, \apj, 588, 1
791: %% ``Observational Constraints on Cardassian Expansion''
792:
793: \bibitem[Silva and Bertolami 2003]{si03}
794: Silva, P. T. and Bertolami, O. 2003, \apj, 599, 829
795: % submitted (astro-ph/0303353)
796:
797: \bibitem[]{sp03}
798: Spergel, D. N. et al. 2003, \apjs, 148, 175
799:
800: \bibitem[]{sz06}
801: Szydlowski, M. and Godlowski, W. 2006, Phys.Lett.B, 633, 427
802:
803: %\bibitem[]{775}Tegmark, M. et al. 2003a, \prd, accepted, astro-ph/0310723
804:
805: %\bibitem[]{777}Tegmark, M. et al. 2003b, \apj, accepted, astro-ph/0310725
806:
807: %\bibitem[]{779}Tonry, J. L. 2003, preprint
808:
809: \bibitem[]{to03}
810: Tonry, J. L. et al. 2003, \apj, 594, 1
811:
812: %\bibitem[]{783}Turner, M. S. 2002, \apj, 576, L101
813:
814: %\bibitem[]{785}Turner, M. S. and Riess, A. G. 2002, \apj, 569, 18
815:
816: %\bibitem[Turner and White 1997]{tur97}
817: % Turner, M. S. and White, M. 1997, \prd, 56, R4439 %x-matter
818:
819: %\bibitem[Vauclair et al. 2003]{vau03}
820: % Vauclair, S. C. et al. 2003, \aap, 412, L37
821:
822: %\bibitem[Vishwakarma 2001]{vis01}
823: % Vishwakarma, R. G. 2001, Class.Quan.Grav. 18, 1159 %decay lambda
824:
825: %\bibitem[]{796}
826: % Wang, B., Gong, Y. and Su, R.-K. 2004, hep-th/0408032
827:
828: \bibitem[]{wa05}
829: Wang, B., Gong, Y. and Abdalla, E. 2005, Phys.Lett. B624, 141
830: %holographic dark energy
831:
832: %\bibitem[]{799}
833: % Wang, Y. 2000, \apj, 536, 531
834:
835: %\bibitem[Wang et al. 2003]{wan03}
836: % Wang, Y., Freese, K., Gondolo,P. and Lewis, M. 2003, \apj, 594, 25
837: %% accepted (astro-ph/0302064)
838:
839: %\bibitem[]{806}
840: % Wang, Y. and Garnavich, P. 2001, \apj, 552, 445
841:
842: %\bibitem[Wang and Lovelace]{wan01b}
843: % Wang, Y. and Lovelace, G. 2001, \apj, 562, L115
844:
845: \bibitem[]{wa04}
846: Wang, Y. et al. 2004, JCAP, 0412, 003
847:
848: \bibitem[]{we02}
849: Weller, J. and Albrecht, A. 2002, \prd, 65, 103512
850:
851: %\bibitem[]{818}
852: % White S.D.M., Navarro J.F., Evrard A.E., Frenk C.S., 1993,
853: % Nature, 366, 429
854:
855: \bibitem[]{wu05a}
856: Wu, P. and Yu, H. 2005a, Nucl.Phys.B727, 355
857:
858: \bibitem[]{wu05b}
859: Wu, P. and Yu, H. 2005b, Int.J.Mod.Phys. D14, 1873
860:
861: \bibitem[]{yo00}
862: York, D. G. et al. 2000, \aj, 120, 1579
863:
864: \bibitem[]{zha06}
865: Zhang, H. and Zhu, Z.-H. 2006, \prd, 73, 043518
866: % Chaplygin gas
867:
868: \bibitem[]{zha05}
869: Zhang, X. and Wu, F. Q. 2005, \prd, 72, 043524
870:
871: %\bibitem[Zhu 1998]{zhu98}
872: % Zhu, Z. -H. 1998 \aap, 338, 777
873:
874: \bibitem[Zhu 2004]{zhu04a}
875: Zhu, Z. -H. 2004, \aap, 423, 421
876:
877: \bibitem[Zhu and Alcaniz 2005]{zhu05}
878: Zhu, Z. -H. and Alcaniz, J. S. 2005, \apj, 620, 7
879:
880: \bibitem[Zhu and Fujimoto 2002]{zhu02}
881: Zhu, Z. -H. and Fujimoto, M. -K. 2002, \apj, 581, 1
882:
883: \bibitem[Zhu and Fujimoto 2003]{zhu03}
884: Zhu, Z. -H. and Fujimoto, M. -K. 2003, \apj, 585, 52
885:
886: \bibitem[Zhu and Fujimoto 2004]{zhu04b}
887: Zhu, Z. -H. and Fujimoto, M. -K. 2004, \apj, 602, 12
888: % (astro-ph/0312022).
889:
890: %\bibitem[Zhu, Fujimoto and Tatsumi 2001]{zhu01}
891: % Zhu, Z. -H., Fujimoto, M. -K. and Tatsumi, D. 2001, \aap, 372, 377
892:
893: \end{thebibliography}
894:
895: \clearpage
896:
897: \begin{figure}
898: \includegraphics[angle=-90, width=16cm]{f1.eps}
899: \figcaption{The gold sample and the SNLS sample are shown in a residual
900: Hubble diagram with respect to the DGP model with the best-fit
901: parameters, ($\Omega_m$, $\Omega_{r_c}$) = (0.270, 0.216).
902: \label{Fig_data}
903: }
904: \end{figure}
905:
906:
907: \clearpage
908:
909: \begin{figure}
910: \includegraphics[width=16cm]{f2.eps}
911: \figcaption{Probability contours at 68.3\%, 95.4\% and 99.7\% confidence
912: levels for $\Omega_m$ versus $\Omega_{r_c}$ in the DGP model
913: from the gold sample of SNeIa data (solid contours), from the
914: baryon acoustic oscillations found in the SDSS data (dotted lines)
915: and from the combination of the two databases (coloured contours)
916: -- see the text for a detailed description of the method.
917: The upper-left shaded region represents the ``no-big-bang"
918: region, the thick solid line represents the flat universe
919: and accelerated models of the universe are above the the
920: dashed line.
921: The best fit happens at $\Omega_m=0.272$ and $\Omega_{r_c}=0.211$.
922: \label{Fig_cont13}
923: }
924: \end{figure}
925:
926:
927: \clearpage
928:
929: \begin{figure}
930: \includegraphics[width=16cm]{f3.eps}
931: \figcaption{Probability contours at 68.3\%, 95.4\% and 99.7\% confidence
932: levels for $\Omega_m$ versus $\Omega_{r_c}$ in the DGP model
933: from the first year SNLS data (solid contours), from the
934: baryon acoustic oscillations found in the SDSS data (dotted lines)
935: and from the combination of the two databases (coloured contours).
936: The upper-left shaded region represents the ``no-big-bang"
937: region, the thick solid line represents the flat universe
938: and accelerated models of the universe are above the the
939: dashed line.
940: The best fit happens at $\Omega_m=0.265$ and $\Omega_{r_c}=0.216$.
941: \label{Fig_cont23}
942: }
943: \end{figure}
944:
945: \clearpage
946:
947: \begin{figure}
948: \includegraphics[width=16cm]{f4.eps}
949: \figcaption{Probability contours at 68.3\%, 95.4\% and 99.7\% confidence
950: levels for $\Omega_m$ versus $\Omega_{r_c}$ in the DGP model
951: from the combination of both the gold sample of SN Ia data and
952: the first year SNLS data (solid contours), from the
953: baryon acoustic oscillations found in the SDSS data (dotted lines)
954: and from the conjunction of the three databases (coloured contours).
955: The upper-left shaded region represents the ``no-big-bang"
956: region, the thick solid line represents the flat universe
957: and accelerated models of the universe are above the the
958: dashed line.
959: The best fit happens at $\Omega_m=0.270$ and $\Omega_{r_c}=0.216$.
960: \label{Fig_cont123}
961: }
962: \end{figure}
963:
964: \clearpage
965:
966: \begin{figure}
967: \includegraphics[width=16cm]{f5.eps}
968: \figcaption{The deceleration parameter as a function of redshift $z$ for
969: some best-fit values in DGP model and the standard $\Lambda$CDM.
970: \label{Fig_turnaround}
971: }
972: \end{figure}
973: \end{document}
974:
975:
976: