1:
2: \def\etal{{\frenchspacing\it et al.}}
3: \def\ie{{\frenchspacing\it i.e.}}
4: \def\eg{{\frenchspacing\it e.g.}}
5: \def\etc{{\frenchspacing\it etc.}}
6: \def\rms{{\frenchspacing r.m.s.}}
7: \def\ith{i^{\rm th}}
8: \def\bth{b^{\rm th}}
9:
10: %%%% EQUATION STUFF: %%%%
11: \def\beq#1{\begin{equation}\label{#1}}
12: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
13: \def\beqa#1{\begin{eqnarray}\label{#1}}
14: \def\eeqa{\end{eqnarray}}
15: \def\eq#1{equation~(\ref{#1})}
16: \def\Eq#1{Equation~(\ref{#1})}
17: \def\eqn#1{~(\ref{#1})}
18:
19: \def\la{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun <}}
20: \def\ga{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun >}}
21: \def\fun#1#2{\lower3.6pt\vbox{\baselineskip0pt\lineskip.9pt
22: \ialign{$\mathsurround=0pt#1\hfill##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}
23:
24: %%%% FIGURE STUFF: %%%%
25: \def\fig#1{Figure~\ref{#1}}
26: \def\Fig#1{Figure~\ref{#1}}
27: \def\figsize{11.5cm}
28:
29: \def\N{{\bf N}}
30: \def\e{{\bf e}}
31: \def\w{{\bf w}}
32: \def\x{{\bf x}}
33: \def\y{{\bf y}}
34:
35: \def\Ni{{{\bf N}_b}}
36: \def\wi{{{\bf w}^b}}
37: \def\wti{\tilde{\bf w}^b}
38: \def\wt{{\tilde w}}
39: \def\xi{{{\bf x}^b}}
40:
41: \def\expec#1{\langle#1\rangle}
42:
43: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
44: %\documentclass[twocolumn,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
45: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,showpacs,showkeys,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
46: \documentclass[twocolumn,aps,showpacs,showkeys,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
47: \usepackage{epsfig}
48:
49: %\documentclass{article}
50: %\usepackage{emulateapj5,pstricks,apjfonts}
51: %\usepackage{emulateapj5,pstricks}
52:
53: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
54: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
55: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
56: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
57:
58: %\shorttitle{}
59: %\shorttitle{}
60: %\shortauthors{}
61:
62: %\def\baselinestretch{2}
63: \begin{document}
64: \input{epsf.sty}
65:
66:
67: \title{Observational Constraints on Dark Energy and Cosmic Curvature}
68: \author{Yun~Wang$^{1}$, and Pia~Mukherjee$^{2}$}
69: \address{$^1$~Homer L. Dodge Department of Physics \& Astronomy, Univ. of Oklahoma,
70: 440 W Brooks St., Norman, OK 73019;
71: email: wang@nhn.ou.edu}
72: \address{$^2$~Department of Physics \& Astronomy, Univ. of Sussex,
73: Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9QH, UK;
74: email: p.mukherjee@sussex.ac.uk}
75: \today
76: %(3/29/2007)
77:
78:
79: \begin{abstract}
80: Current observational bounds on dark energy depend on
81: our assumptions about the curvature of the universe.
82: We present a simple and efficient method for incorporating constraints
83: from Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropy data, and
84: use it to derive constraints on cosmic curvature and dark energy
85: density as a free function of cosmic time using current
86: CMB, Type Ia supernova (SN Ia), and baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) data.
87:
88: We show that there are {\it two} CMB shift parameters,
89: $R\equiv \sqrt{\Omega_m H_0^2} \,r(z_{CMB})$
90: (the scaled distance to recombination)
91: and $l_a\equiv \pi r(z_{CMB})/r_s(z_{CMB})$
92: (the angular scale of the sound horizon at recombination),
93: with measured values that are nearly uncorrelated
94: with each other.
95: Allowing nonzero cosmic curvature,
96: the three-year WMAP data give
97: $R =1.71 \pm 0.03$, $l_a =302.5 \pm 1.2$, and
98: $\Omega_b h^2 = 0.02173 \pm 0.00082$,
99: independent of the dark energy model.
100: The corresponding bounds for a flat universe
101: are $R =1.70 \pm 0.03$, $l_a =302.2 \pm 1.2$, and
102: $\Omega_b h^2 = 0.022 \pm 0.00082$.
103: We give the covariance matrix of ($R$, $l_a$, $\Omega_b h^2$)
104: from the three-year WMAP data.
105: We find that ($R$, $l_a$, $\Omega_b h^2$)
106: provide an efficient and intuitive summary of CMB data
107: as far as dark energy constraints are concerned.
108:
109: Assuming the HST prior of $H_0=72\pm 8\,$(km/s)Mpc$^{-1}$,
110: using 182 SNe Ia (from the HST/GOODS program, the first year
111: Supernova Legacy Survey, and nearby SN Ia surveys),
112: ($R$, $l_a$, $\Omega_b h^2$) from WMAP three year data,
113: and SDSS measurement of the baryon acoustic oscillation scale,
114: we find that dark energy density is consistent with a
115: constant in cosmic time, with marginal deviations from a
116: cosmological constant that may reflect current systematic
117: uncertainties or true evolution in dark energy.
118: A flat universe is allowed by current data:
119: $\Omega_k=-0.006_{-0.012}^{+0.013}$$_{-0.025}^{+0.025}$
120: for assuming that the dark energy equation of state $w_X(z)$
121: is constant, and
122: $\Omega_k=-0.002_{-0.018}^{+0.018}$$_{-0.032}^{+0.041}$
123: for $w_X(z)=w_0+w_a(1-a)$ (68\% and 95\% confidence levels).
124: The bounds on cosmic curvature are
125: less stringent if dark energy density is allowed to be a free
126: function of cosmic time, and are also dependent on the assumption
127: about the early time property of dark energy. We demonstrate
128: this by studying two examples.
129: Significant improvement in dark energy and cosmic curvature constraints
130: is expected as a result of future dark energy and CMB experiments.
131:
132: \end{abstract}
133:
134:
135: \pacs{98.80.Es,98.80.-k,98.80.Jk}
136: %98.80.Es Observational cosmology (including Hubble constant,
137: %distance scale, cosmological constant, early Universe, etc)
138: %98.80.-k Cosmology
139: %98.80.Jk Mathematical and relativistic aspects of cosmology)
140:
141: \keywords{Cosmology}
142:
143: \maketitle
144:
145: %\end{document}
146:
147: \section{Introduction}
148:
149: The unknown cause for the observed cosmic acceleration \cite{Riess98,Perl99},
150: dubbed ``dark energy'',
151: remains the most compelling mystery in cosmology today.
152: Dark energy could be an unknown energy component
153: \cite{Freese87,Linde87,Peebles88,Wett88,Frieman95,Caldwell98},
154: or a modification of general relativity
155: \citep{SH98,Parker99,Boisseau00,DGP00,Mersini01,Freese02}.
156: \cite{Pad} and \cite{Peebles03} contain reviews of many models.
157: Dark energy model-building is a very active research area.
158: For recent dark energy models,
159: see for example, \cite{Carroll04,OW04,Cardone05,Kolb05,Caldwell06,KO06,DeFelice07,Koi07,Ng07}.
160: Current observational data continue to be consistent with dark energy being a cosmological
161: constant, but the evidence for a cosmological constant is not
162: conclusive and more exotic possibilities are still allowed (see, for example,
163: \cite{WangTegmark04,WangTegmark05,Alam05,Daly05,Jassal05a,Jassal05b,Barger06,Dick06,Huterer06,Jassal06,Liddle06,Nesseris06,Schimd06,Sumu06,Wilson06,Xia06,Alam07,Davis07,Wei07,Zhang07,Zun07}).
164:
165: While the universe is completely consistent with being flat under a $\Lambda$CDM
166: hypothesis, it is important to note that the observational bounds on dark energy
167: and the curvature of the universe are closely related.
168: Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropy data provide the most
169: stringent constraints on cosmic curvature $\Omega_k$.
170: Assuming that dark energy is a cosmological constant, the
171: three-year WMAP data give $\Omega_k = -0.15 \pm 0.11$, and this improves
172: dramatically to $\Omega_k = -0.005 \pm 0.006$ with the addition of galaxy
173: survey data from the SDSS \cite{sdss} (2dF data \cite{2df} also give
174: a similar improvement) \cite{Spergel06}.
175: The effect of allowing non-zero curvature on constraining some dark energy models
176: has been studied by \cite{Polar05,Franca06,IT06,Ichi06,Clarkson07,Gong07,Kazu07,Zhao07,Wright07}.
177:
178: In this paper, we present a simple and efficient method for incorporating
179: constraints from the CMB data into
180: an analysis with other cosmological data
181: in constraining dark energy without assuming a flat universe.
182: Uisng this method, we derive constraints on dark energy and cosmic curvature
183: using CMB, type Ia supernova (SN Ia) and galaxy
184: survey data.
185:
186: We describe our method in Sec.II, present our results in Sec.III,
187: and conclude in Sec.IV.
188:
189:
190: \section{Method}
191:
192: The comoving distance from the observer to redshift $z$ is given by
193: \ba
194: \label{eq:rz}
195: &&r(z)=cH_0^{-1}\, |\Omega_k|^{-1/2} {\rm sinn}[|\Omega_k|^{1/2}\, \Gamma(z)],\\
196: &&\Gamma(z)=\int_0^z\frac{dz'}{E(z')}, \hskip 1cm E(z)=H(z)/H_0 \nonumber
197: \ea
198: where $\Omega_k=-k/H_0^2$ with $k$ denoting the curvature constant,
199: and ${\rm sinn}(x)=\sin(x)$, $x$, $\sinh(x)$ for
200: $\Omega_k<0$, $\Omega_k=0$, and $\Omega_k>0$ respectively, and
201: \be
202: E(z)=\left[\Omega_m (1+z)^3+\Omega_{\rm rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_k(1+z)^2+
203: \Omega_X X(z)\right]^{1/2}
204: \ee
205: with $\Omega_X=1-\Omega_m-\Omega_{\rm rad}-\Omega_k$, and the dark energy density
206: function $X(z) \equiv \rho_X(z)/\rho_X(0)$.
207:
208:
209: CMB data give us the comoving distance to the recombination surface
210: $r(z_{CMB})$ with $z_{CMB}=1089$, and the comoving sound horizon
211: at recombination\cite{EisenHu98,Page03}
212: \ba
213: \label{eq:rs}
214: r_s(z_{CMB}) &=& \int_0^{t_{CMB}} \frac{c_s\, dt}{a}
215: =cH_0^{-1}\int_{z_{CMB}}^{\infty} dz\,
216: \frac{c_s}{E(z)}, \nonumber\\
217: &=& cH_0^{-1} \int_0^{a_{CMB}}
218: \frac{da}{\sqrt{ 3(1+ \overline{R_b}\,a)\, a^4 E^2(z)}},
219: \ea
220: where $a$ is the cosmic scale factor,
221: $a_{CMB} =1/(1+z_{CMB})$, and
222: $a^4 E^2(z)=\Omega_m (a+a_{\rm eq})+\Omega_k a^2 +\Omega_X X(z) a^4$,
223: with $a_{\rm eq}=\Omega_{\rm rad}/\Omega_m=1/(1+z_{\rm eq})$, and
224: $z_{\rm eq}=2.5\times 10^4 \Omega_m h^2 (T_{CMB}/2.7\,{\rm K})^{-4}$.
225: The sound speed is $c_s=1/\sqrt{3(1+\overline{R_b}\,a)}$,
226: with $\overline{R_b}\,a=3\rho_b/(4\rho_\gamma)$,
227: $\overline{R_b}=31500\Omega_bh^2(T_{CMB}/2.7\,{\rm K})^{-4}$.
228: COBE four year data give $T_{CMB}=2.728\,$K \cite{Fixsen96}.
229: The angular scale of the sound horizon at recombination is
230: defined as $l_a=\pi r(z_{CMB})/r_s(z_{CMB})$ \cite{Page03}.
231:
232: Note that it is important to use the full expression given
233: in Eq.(\ref{eq:rs}) in making predictions for $l_a$ for
234: dynamical dark energy models. Fig.{\ref{fig:xza3}}
235: shows how the dark energy density $X(z)\equiv \rho_X(z)/\rho_X(0)$
236: compares with the matter density $\rho_m(z)/\rho_m(0)=(1+z)^3$
237: for a two parameter dark energy model
238: with dark energy equation of state $w_X(z)=w_0+w_a(1-a)$ \cite{Chev01}
239: which corresponds to $X(z)= a^{-3(1+w_0+w_a)}e^{3w_a(a-1)}$.
240: For models with $w_0+w_a>0$, the dark energy contribution to
241: the expansion rate of the universe dominates over that of matter
242: at high $z$.
243: For models that allow significant early dark energy
244: (as in the $w_X(z)=w_0+w_a(1-a)$ model), $l_a$
245: can be underestimated by $20-40$\% if the dark energy
246: contribution to $r_s(z_{CMB})$ is ignored.\footnote{The
247: importance of including the dark energy contribution to $l_a$
248: is also pointed out by \cite{Wright07}.}
249: \begin{figure}
250: \psfig{file=xza3.eps,width=3.6in}
251: \vskip-1cm
252: \caption[2]{\label{fig:xza3}\footnotesize%
253: Ratio of the dark energy density $X(z)\equiv \rho_X(z)/\rho_X(0)$
254: and the matter density $\rho_m(z)/\rho_m(0)=(1+z)^3$
255: for dark energy models
256: with dark energy equation of state $w_X(z)=w_0+w_a(1-a)$.
257: }
258: \end{figure}
259:
260: We will show that the CMB shift parameters
261: \be
262: R \equiv \sqrt{\Omega_m H_0^2} \,r(z_{CMB}), \hskip 0.1in
263: l_a \equiv \pi r(z_{CMB})/r_s(z_{CMB}),
264: \ee
265: together with $\Omega_b h^2$, provide an efficient summary
266: of CMB data as far as dark energy constraints go
267: (see Sec.IIIA).
268:
269:
270: SN Ia data give the luminosity distance as a function of redshift,
271: $d_L(z)=(1+z)\, r(z)$.
272: We use 182 SNe Ia from the HST/GOODS program \cite{Riess07} and the first
273: year SNLS \cite{Astier05}, together with nearby SN Ia data,
274: as compiled by \cite{Riess07}.
275: We do not include the ESSENCE data \cite{Wood07}, as these are not yet derived using
276: the same method as thosed used in \cite{Riess07}.
277: Combining SN Ia data derived using different analysis techniques
278: leads to systematic effects in the estimated SN distance moduli
279: \cite{Wang00,Wood07}.
280: Appendix A describes in detail how we use SN Ia data (flux-averaged and
281: marginalized over $H_0$) in this paper.
282:
283:
284: We also use the SDSS baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO)
285: scale measurement by adding the following term to the
286: $\chi^2$ of a model:
287: \be
288: \chi^2_{BAO}=\left[\frac{(A-A_{BAO})}{\sigma_A}\right]^2,
289: \label{eq:chi2bao}
290: \ee
291: where $A$ is defined as
292: \be
293: \label{eq:A}
294: A = \left[ r^2(z_{BAO})\, \frac{cz_{BAO}}{H(z_{BAO})} \right]^{1/3} \,
295: \frac{\left(\Omega_m H_0^2\right)^{1/2}} {cz_{BAO} },
296: \ee
297: and $A_{BAO}=0.469\,(n_S/0.98)^{-0.35}$,
298: $\sigma_A= 0.017$, and $z_{BAO}=0.35$
299: (independent of a dark energy model) \cite{Eisen05}.
300: We take the scalar spectral index $n_S=0.95$ as measured by WMAP3
301: \citep{Spergel06}.\footnote{Note that the \cite{Eisen05}
302: constraint on $A$ depends on the
303: scalar spectral index $n_S$. Since the error on $n_S$ from WMAP data does not
304: increase the effective error on $A$, and the correlation of $n_S$ with
305: $R$ and $l_a$ is weak, we have ignored the
306: very weak correlation
307: of $A$ with $R$ and $l_a$ in our likelihood analysis.
308: We have derived $R$ and $l_a$ from WMAP data marginalized over
309: all relevant parameters.}
310:
311: For Gaussian distributed measurements, the likelihood function
312: $L\propto e^{-\chi^2/2}$, with
313: \be
314: \chi^2=\chi^2_{CMB}+\chi^2_{SNe}+\chi^2_{BAO},
315: \label{eq:chi2}
316: \ee
317: where $\chi^2_{CMB}$ is given in Eq.({\ref{eq:chi2CMB}}) in Sec.IIIA,
318: $\chi^2_{SNe}$ is given in Eq.({\ref{eq:chi2sn}}) in Appendix A, and
319: $\chi^2_{BAO}$ is given in Eq.({\ref{eq:chi2bao}}).
320:
321:
322: We derive constraints on the dark energy density function
323: $X(z) \equiv\rho_X(z)/\rho_X(0)$
324: as a free function at $z\leq z_{cut}$, with its value at redshifts
325: $z_i=z_{cut} (i/n)$ (i=1, 2, ..., $n$), $X(z_i)$, treated
326: as $n$ independent parameters estimated from data.
327: We use $n=3$ and $z_{\rm cut}=1.4$ in this paper.
328: We use cubic spline interpolation to obtain values of $X(z)$ at other
329: values of $z$ at $z<z_{cut}$ \citep{WangTegmark04}.
330: The number of currently published SNe Ia is very few
331: beyond $z_{\rm cut}=1.4$.
332: For $z>z_{\rm cut}$, we assume $X(z)$ to be
333: matched on to either a powerlaw \cite{WangTegmark04}:
334: \be
335: X(z)=X(z_{\rm cut}) \left( \frac{1+z}{1+z_{\rm cut}}\right)^{\alpha},
336: \label{eq:alpowerlaw}
337: \ee
338: or an exponential function:
339: \be
340: X(z)=X(z_{\rm cut})\, e^{\alpha(z-zcut)}.
341: \label{eq:alexp}
342: \ee
343: We impose a prior of $\alpha \geq -3$ as $\alpha$ is not bounded from below.
344: Our approach effectively decouples late time dark energy (which is responsible
345: for the observed recent cosmic acceleration and is probed directly
346: by SN Ia data) and early time dark energy (which is poorly constrained)
347: by parametrizing the latter with an additional parameter
348: estimated from data.
349:
350: For comparison with the results of others,
351: we also derive constraints for models
352: with dark energy equation of state $w_X(z)=w_0+w_a(1-a)$.
353: This parametrization has the advantage of not requiring a cutoff
354: to obtain a finite dark energy equation of state at high $z$
355: (which is not true for the $w_X(z)=w_0+w^{\prime} z $ parametrization),
356: but it does allow significant early dark energy (which can cause
357: problems for Big Bang Nucleosynthesis \cite{Steigman06} \footnote{The
358: current BBN constraints, $S=0.942\pm 0.030$
359: ($N_{\nu}=2.30^{+0.35}_{-0.34}$) rule out the standard model
360: of particle physics ($S=1$, $N_{\nu}=3$) at 1$\sigma$ \cite{Steigman06}.
361: Given the uncertainties involved in deriving the BBN constraints,
362: we relax the standard deviation of $S$ by a factor of two, so that the
363: standard model of particle physics is allowed at 1$\sigma$.
364: We find that the resultant BBN constraints do not have measurable effect
365: on our dark energy constraints.}
366: and cosmic structure formation \cite{Sandvik}),
367: unless a cutoff is imposed. This dilemma illustrates the limited
368: usefulness of simple parametrizations of dark energy.
369:
370: For all the dark energy constraints from combining the different
371: data sets presented in this paper,
372: we marginalize the SN Ia data over $H_0$ in
373: flux-averaging statistics (described in the next subsection), and
374: impose a prior of $H_0=72\pm 8\,$(km/s)Mpc$^{-1}$
375: from the HST Cepheid variable star observations \cite{HST_H0}.
376:
377: We run a Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) based on the MCMC engine
378: of \cite{Lewis02} to obtain ${\cal O}$($10^6$) samples for each set of
379: results presented in this paper.
380: %For the full CMB data analysis, we used the code
381: %CAMB \cite{Lewis00} (with perturbations
382: %in dark energy), and CMB temperature and polarization
383: %data;\footnote{The main contribution of CMB polarization data is
384: %the determination of the reionization optical depth.}
385: For the full CMB analysis we used the WMAP three year temperature and
386: polarization \footnote{The main contribution of CMB polarization data is
387: the determination of the reionization optical depth.}
388: power spectra \cite{Spergel06} with version 2 of their
389: likelihood code \cite{url} together with theoretical power spectra
390: generated by CAMB (with perturbations in dark energy) \cite{Lewis00};
391: the parameters used are ($\Omega_k$, $\Omega_b h^2$, $\Omega_m h^2$,
392: $h$, $A_s$, $\tau$, $n_s$, $\mbox{\bf p}_{DE}$).
393: For the combined data analysis using CMB shift parameters,
394: the parameters used are ($\Omega_k$, $\Omega_m$, $h$, $\Omega_b h^2$,
395: $\mbox{\bf p}_{DE}$). The dark energy parameter set
396: $\mbox{\bf p}_{DE}=w$ for a constant $w_X(z)$,
397: $\mbox{\bf p}_{DE}=(w_0,w_a)$ for $w_X(z)=w_0+w_a(1-a)$,
398: and $\mbox{\bf p}_{DE}=(X(z_1),X(z_2),X(z_3),\alpha)$ for the
399: general case.
400: We assumed flat priors for all the parameters, and allowed ranges
401: of the parameters wide enough such that further increasing the allowed
402: ranges has no impact on the results (with the exception of constraining
403: $w$ and $(w_0,w_a)$ using CMB data only where we have to impose fixed allowed
404: ranges for $w$ and $(w_0,w_a)$ since these are not well constrained).
405: The chains typically have worst e-values (the
406: variance(mean)/mean(variance) of 1/2 chains)
407: much smaller than 0.01, indicating convergence.
408: The chains are subsequently
409: appropriately thinned to ensure independent samples.
410:
411:
412: \section{Results}
413:
414: \subsection{A Simple and Efficient Method for Incorporating CMB data}
415:
416:
417:
418: \subsubsection{A roadmap of our method}
419:
420:
421: We propose a simple and efficient method for dark energy data analysis,
422: with $\chi^2 = -2\,\ln L=\chi^2_{CMB}+\chi^2_{SNe}+\chi^2_{BAO}$,
423: where $\chi^2_{CMB}$ is given by constraints on
424: $(R, l_a, \Omega_b h^2)$ (see Eq.[{\ref{eq:chi2CMB}}] in Sec.IIIA),
425: $\chi^2_{SNe}$ is given by SN Ia data flux-averaged and marginalized
426: over $H_0$ (see Eq.[{\ref{eq:chi2sn}}] in Appendix A), and
427: $\chi^2_{BAO}$ is given by \cite{Eisen05} (see Eq.[{\ref{eq:chi2bao}}]).
428: In our method, CMB data are incorporated by using constraints on
429: $(R, l_a, \Omega_b h^2)$, {\it instead} of using the full CMB power spectra.
430: In Sec.{\ref{sec:Rla} below, we will show that $(R, l_a, \Omega_b h^2)$
431: provide an efficient and intuitive summary of CMB data as far as
432: dark energy constraints are concerned.
433:
434:
435: \subsubsection{Justification of our method}
436: \label{sec:Rla}
437:
438:
439: %\subsubsection{Parameter Constraints from CMB data}
440:
441: We have performed MCMC calculations using {\it only}
442: the full CMB temperature and polarization
443: angular power spectra from WMAP three year observations,
444: without assuming spatial flatness, and without
445: imposing any priors on $H_0$. These calculations are quite time consuming.
446: We have used these to derived the results in
447: %Figs.{\ref{fig:omh2}}-
448: Fig.{\ref{fig:R}} and Tables I-II.
449:
450: Fig.{\ref{fig:R}} shows that allowing nonzero cosmic curvature,
451: the three-year WMAP data give measurements of ($R$, $l_a$, $\Omega_b h^2$)
452: that are independent of the dark energy model.\footnote{$R$
453: and $l_a$ are shifted slightly if
454: the running of $n_S$ or/and a nonzero tensor to scalar ratio
455: are considered, and shifted more notably if
456: a nonzero neutrino mass is considered\cite{Elgaroy}.
457: Current CMB data do not require these additional
458: parameters\cite{Spergel06}.}
459: The measurements of ($R$, $l_a$, $\Omega_b h^2$)
460: differ slightly in a flat universe
461: because of the correlation of curvature
462: with other cosmological parameters when spatial flatness
463: is not assumed.
464: Table I gives the parameters for the Gaussian fits to
465: the probability distribution functions of $(R, l_a, \Omega_b h^2, \Omega_m h^2,
466: r_s(z_{CMB}), r(z_{CMB}))$ from the three-year WMAP data.\footnote{Note
467: that CMB data do {\it not} constrain $H_0$ in models with nonzero
468: curvature due to parameter degeneracies. For example, the dimensionless
469: Hubble constant $h=0.50 \pm 0.14$ for a $\Lambda$CDM model with $\Omega_k\neq 0$.
470: It is the absolute scales of $r_s(z_{CMB})$ and $r(z_{CMB})$ that are well determined
471: by the CMB data.}
472: These fits are independent of the dark energy model assumed.
473: The constraints on ($\Omega_m h^2$, $r_s(z_{CMB})$, $r(z_{CMB})$)
474: are also independent of the assumption about cosmic curvature.
475:
476:
477: \begin{figure}
478: \psfig{file=R.eps,height=2.8in,width=2.8in}\\
479: \psfig{file=la.eps,height=2.8in,width=2.8in}\\
480: \psfig{file=obh2.eps,height=2.8in,width=2.8in}
481: \caption[2]{\label{fig:R}\footnotesize%
482: The scaled distance to recombination $R$, the angular scale of the sound
483: horizon at recombination $l_a$, and the baryon density
484: $\Omega_b h^2$ from the three-year WMAP data.
485: }
486: \end{figure}
487:
488:
489: Table II gives the normalized covariance matrices for
490: $(R, l_a, \Omega_b h^2, \Omega_m h^2, r_s(z_{CMB}), r(z_{CMB}))$
491: from the three-year WMAP data for a $\Lambda$CDM model
492: for models with and without curvature. These are appropriate
493: to use with Table I; models with non-constant dark energy density
494: give slightly smaller correlations between the parameters.
495: Note that we have included ($\Omega_m h^2, r_s(z_{CMB}), r(z_{CMB}))$
496: in Tables I-II to show that although these three parameters
497: are well constrained by CMB data, they are strongly correlated
498: with each other\footnote{This high degree of correlation arises
499: from how these three parameters are measured.
500: The sound horizon at recombination $r_s(z_{CMB})$
501: is derived primarily using the measurements of $\Omega_b h^2$
502: and $\Omega_m h^2$ \cite{Page03}, hence is strongly correlated with $\Omega_m h^2$.
503: The distance to the recombination surface $r(z_{CMB})$ is derived
504: using $r_s(z_{CMB})$ and the angular scale of the sound horizon
505: $l_a$ \cite{Page03}, hence is strongly correlated with $r_s(z_{CMB})$
506: \cite{Page03}},
507: in contrast to the parameters we have chosen,
508: $(R, l_a, \Omega_b h^2)$.
509:
510:
511:
512: \begin{table*}[htb]
513: \caption{The parameters for the Gaussian fits to
514: the probability distribution functions of $(R, l_a, \Omega_b h^2, \Omega_m h^2,
515: r_s(z_{CMB}), r(z_{CMB}))$ from the three-year WMAP data,
516: independent of the dark energy model assumed.}
517: \begin{center}
518: \begin{tabular}{lll}
519: \hline
520: Parameter & mean & rms variance \\
521: \hline
522: \hline
523: $\Omega_m h^2$ & 0.1284 & 0.0086 \\
524: $r_s(z_{CMB})$/Mpc & 148.55 & 2.60\\
525: $r(z_{CMB})$/Mpc & 14305 & 285\\
526: \hline
527: \hline
528: & $\Omega_k\neq 0$&\\
529: \hline
530: $R$ & 1.71 & 0.03\\
531: $l_a$ & 302.5 & 1.2 \\
532: $\Omega_b h^2$ & 0.02173 & 0.00082 \\
533: \hline
534: \hline
535: & $\Omega_k=0$&\\
536: \hline
537: $R$ & 1.70 & 0.03\\
538: $l_a$ & 302.2 & 1.2 \\
539: $\Omega_b h^2$ & 0.022 & 0.00082 \\
540: \hline
541: \hline
542: \end{tabular}
543: %\tablecomments{}
544: \end{center}
545: \end{table*}
546:
547:
548: \begin{table*}[htb]
549: \caption{Normalized covariance matrices for
550: $(R, l_a, \Omega_b h^2, \Omega_m h^2, r_s(z_{CMB}), r(z_{CMB}))$
551: fromthe WMAP three year data.}
552: \begin{center}
553: \begin{tabular}{lrrrrrr}
554: \hline
555: \hline
556: & $R$ & $l_a$ & $\Omega_b h^2$ & $\Omega_m h^2$ & $r_s(z_{CMB})$ & $r(z_{CMB})$\\
557: \hline
558: \hline
559: & & & $\Omega_k\neq 0$& & &\\
560: \hline
561: $R$ & 0.1000E+01 &$-$0.1237E+00 &0.6627E$-$01 &0.9332E+00 &$-$0.8805E+00 &$-$0.8023E+00\\
562: $l_a$ & $-$0.1237E+00 & 0.1000E+01& $-$0.6722E+00 &$-$0.4458E+00 & 0.5214E+00 & 0.6569E+00\\
563: $\Omega_b h^2$ & 0.6627E$-$01 &$-$0.6722E+00 & 0.1000E+01 & 0.3731E+00& $-$0.5047E+00& $-$0.5778E+00\\
564: $\Omega_m h^2$ & 0.9332E+00 &$-$0.4458E+00 & 0.3731E+00 & 0.1000E+01 &$-$0.9882E+00 &$-$0.9605E+00\\
565: $r_s(z_{CMB})$ & $-$0.8805E+00 & 0.5214E+00 & $-$0.5047E+00 & $-$0.9882E+00 & 0.1000E+01& 0.9859E+00\\
566: $r(z_{CMB})$ & $-$0.8023E+00 & 0.6569E+00 &$-$0.5778E+00 &$-$0.9605E+00 & 0.9859E+00 & 0.1000E+01\\
567: \hline
568: \hline
569: & & & $\Omega_k= 0$& & &\\
570: \hline
571: $R$ & 0.1000E+01& $-$0.9047E-01& $-$0.1970E-01& 0.9397E+00& $-$0.8864E+00 & $-$0.8096E+00\\
572: $l_a$ & $-$0.9047E$-$01& 0.1000E+01& $-$0.6283E+00& $-$0.3992E+00 & 0.4763E+00 & 0.6185E+00\\
573: $\Omega_b h^2$ & $-$0.1970E$-$01& $-$0.6283E+00& 0.1000E+01 & 0.2741E+00 & $-$0.4173E+00& $-$0.4942E+00\\
574: $\Omega_m h^2$ & 0.9397E+00& $-$0.3992E+00 & 0.2741E+00 & 0.1000E+01 & $-$0.9876E+00 & $-$0.9594E+00\\
575: $r_s(z_{CMB})$ & $-$0.8864E+00 & 0.4763E+00 &$-$0.4173E+00 &$-$0.9876E+00 & 0.1000E+01 & 0.9855E+00\\
576: $r(z_{CMB})$ & $-$0.8096E+00 & 0.6185E+00 &$-$0.4942E+00 &$-$0.9594E+00 & 0.9855E+00 & 0.1000E+01\\
577: \hline
578: \hline
579: \end{tabular}
580: %\tablecomments{}
581: \end{center}
582: \end{table*}
583:
584: %\subsubsection{Two CMB Shift Parameters: $R$ and $l_a$}
585:
586: %Note that although ($\Omega_m h^2$, $r_s(z_{CMB})$, $r(z_{CMB})$) are tightly
587: %constrained by CMB data, they are strongly correlated with each other
588: %(see Table 2),
589: %hence are not suitable for use in constraining dark energy models.
590: %This high degree of correlation arises from how these three parameters
591: %are measured. The sound horizon at recombination $r_s(z_{CMB})$
592: %is derived primarily using the measurements of $\Omega_b h^2$
593: %and $\Omega_m h^2$ \cite{Page03}, hence is strongly correlated with $\Omega_m h^2$.
594: %The distance to the recombination surface $r(z_{CMB})$ is derived
595: %using $r_s(z_{CMB})$ and the angular scale of the sound horizon
596: %$l_a$ \cite{Page03}, hence is strongly correlated with $r_s(z_{CMB})$.
597:
598: %Since $r_s(z_{CMB})$ and $r(z_{CMB})$ have different dependences on
599: %dark energy and curvature (see Eqs.({\ref{eq:rz}})-({\ref{eq:rs}})),
600: %it would be optimal to retain this
601: %sensitivity to dark energy and curvature from these two parameters.
602: %We find that the scaled distance to recombination,
603: %$R\equiv \sqrt{\Omega_m H_0^2} \,r(z_{CMB})$,
604: %and the angular scale of the sound horizon at recombination,
605: %$l_a\equiv \pi r(z_{CMB})/r_s(z_{CMB})$,
606: %are the scaled parameters (together with $\Omega_b h^2$)
607: %optimal for use in constraining dark energy models, as
608: %they retain the sensitivity to dark energy and curvature of
609: %$r(z_{CMB})$ and $r_s(z_{CMB})$, and their
610: %measured values are nearly uncorrelated (see Table II).
611:
612: We find that there are {\it two} CMB shift parameters,
613: $R$ and $l_a$ (with measured values that are nearly uncorrelated,
614: see Table II), that are optimal for use in constraining dark
615: energy models.\footnote{$R$ has been known as {\it the} CMB shift parameter
616: in the past \cite{Bond97,Odman03,WangPia04,WangPia06}.
617: \cite{Bond97} showed that in an open universe with a
618: cosmological constant, there is a degeneracy along the $\delta R=0$ lines,
619: i.e., models with different values of $\Omega_m$, $\Omega_\Lambda$,
620: and $h$ that give the same value of $R$ are not distinguishable
621: except at very low multiples (where cosmic variance dominates),
622: see Fig.1 of their paper.}
623: Fig.{\ref{fig:cl2}} shows that both
624: $R$ and $l_a$ must be used to describe the complex
625: degeneracies amongst the cosmological parameters that
626: determine the CMB angular power spectrum.
627:
628: Fig.{\ref{fig:cl2}} illustrates the relationship of $R$
629: and $l_a$ in determining the CMB angular power spectra
630: for simple models that give the same $R$ or $l_a$ values.
631: Fig.{\ref{fig:cl2}}(a) shows that models that correspond
632: to the same value of $R$ but different values of $l_a$
633: give rise to very different CMB angular power spectra
634: because $l_a$ determines the acoustic peak structure.
635: Fig.{\ref{fig:cl2}}(b) shows that models that correspond
636: to the same value of $l_a$ but different values of $R$
637: have the same acoustic peak structure in their CMB
638: angular power spectra, but the overall amplitude of
639: the acoustic peaks is different in each model because
640: of the difference in $R$.\footnote{$R$ is proportional to $\Omega_m h^2$,
641: which determines the overall height of the acoustic peaks.}
642: %Clearly, both $R$ and $l_a$ are needed to characterize
643: %the CMB angular power spectrum for a given model.
644: \begin{figure}
645: %\psfig{file=cl2.eps,width=3.6in}
646: \epsfxsize=\figsize\epsffile{cl2.eps}
647: %\vskip-1cm
648: \caption[2]{\label{fig:cl2}\footnotesize%
649: CMB angular power spectra for dark energy models
650: that give the same values of $R$ or $l_a$.
651: }
652: \end{figure}
653:
654:
655: Now we illustrate how using both $R$ and $l_a$
656: helps constrain models with a constant dark energy equation of
657: state, and zero or small curvature (the class of models
658: shown in Fig.{\ref{fig:cl2}}).
659: Fig.{\ref{fig:Rla3}} shows the expected $R$, $l_a$ and
660: $r_s(z_{CMB})$ as functions of $\Omega_m$ for five models.
661: For reference, the values for $h$ and $\Omega_b h^2$ have been
662: chosen such that the cosmological constant model
663: satisfies both the $R$ and $l_a$ constraints
664: from WMAP three year data at the same value of $\Omega_m$
665: (as in Fig.{\ref{fig:cl2}}).
666: Note that for the other four models, the $R$ and $l_a$ constraints
667: cannot be satisfied at the same $\Omega_m$ value.
668: This is because $R$ and $r_s(z_{CMB})$ have {\it different}
669: dependences on $\Omega_m$. Models that give the wrong
670: $R$ and $r_s(z_{CMB})$ values can give the right value
671: for $l_a$ because $l_a \propto R/r_s(z_{CMB})$.
672: Using both $R$ and $l_a$ constraints thus helps tighten the
673: constraint on $\Omega_m$, which leads to tightened constraints
674: on $w$ or $\Omega_k$.
675: \begin{figure}
676: %\vskip-4.4cm
677: \epsfxsize=\figsize\epsffile{Rla3.eps}
678: %\vskip-1cm
679: \caption[1]{\label{fig:Rla3}\footnotesize%
680: The expected $R$ and $l_a$ as functions of curvature
681: for five simple dark energy models (with the same line types
682: as in Fig.{\ref{fig:cl2}}).
683: }
684: \end{figure}
685:
686: When more complicated dark energy models and
687: nonzero cosmic curvature are considered,
688: there is a degeneracy between dark energy density
689: function $X(z)$ and curvature. The $R$ or $l_a$
690: constraints from CMB can always be satisfied
691: with a suitable choice of curvature, but satisfying
692: the $R$ and the $l_a$ constraints usually
693: require different values for curvature.
694: Thus using both $R$ and $l_a$ constraints
695: from CMB helps break the degeneracy between
696: dark energy parameters and curvature.
697: Fig.{\ref{fig:Rla3w0wa}} demonstrates this by
698: showing the expected $R$, $l_a$, and $r_s(z_{CMB})$ as
699: functions of curvature for the dark energy models from
700: Fig.{\ref{fig:xza3}} (with the same line types).
701: For reference, the values for $\Omega_m$ and $h$ have been
702: chosen such that the cosmological constant model
703: satisfies both the $R$ and $l_a$ constraints
704: from WMAP three year data.
705: Clearly, the $R$ constraint rules out
706: closed models with large curvature, while the
707: $l_a$ constraint rules out
708: open models with large curvature.
709: The vertical dotted lines indicate the 1~$\sigma$ range of $\Omega_k$
710: from $R$, $l_a$, and $\Omega_b h^2$ constraints from WMAP three year data,
711: combined with the data of 182 SNe Ia, and the SDSS BAO measurement.
712: \begin{figure}
713: %\vskip-4.4cm
714: \epsfxsize=\figsize\epsffile{Rla3w0wa.eps}
715: %\vskip-1cm
716: \caption[1]{\label{fig:Rla3w0wa}\footnotesize%
717: The expected $R$ and $l_a$ as functions of curvature
718: for the dark energy models from Fig.{\ref{fig:xza3}}
719: (with the same line types).
720: Both $R$ and $l_a$ are needed to
721: constrain cosmic curvature.
722: }
723: \end{figure}
724:
725: Note that the baryon density $\Omega_b h^2$ should be included
726: as an estimated parameter in the data analysis.
727: This is because the value of $\Omega_b h^2$ is required
728: in making a prediction for $l_a$ in a given dark energy model
729: (see Eq.[{\ref{eq:rs}}]),
730: and it is correlated with $l_a$ (see Table II).
731:
732:
733: To summarize, we recommend that the covariance matrix of
734: ($R$, $l_a$, $\Omega_b h^2$) given in Tables.I-II
735: be used in the data analysis. To implement this,
736: simply add the following term to the $\chi^2$ of a given model
737: with $p_1=R$, $p_2=l_a$, and $p_3=\Omega_b h^2$:
738: \be
739: \label{eq:chi2CMB}
740: \chi^2_{CMB}=\Delta p_i \left[ Cov^{-1}(p_i,p_j)\right]
741: \Delta p_j,
742: \hskip .5cm
743: \Delta p_i= p_i - p_i^{data},
744: \ee
745: where $p_i^{data}$ are the mean values given in Table I.
746: The covariance matrix $Cov(p_i,p_j)$ is obtained by
747: multiplying the normalized covariance matrix in Table II
748: with $[Var(p_i)\,Var(p_j)]^{1/2}$, with the rms variance
749: $[Var(p_i)]^{1/2}$ given in Table I.
750: Note that our constraints on ($R$, $l_a$, $\Omega_b h^2$)
751: have been marginalized over all other parameters including
752: the dark energy parameters.
753:
754: As a test for the effectiveness of our simple method for
755: incorporating CMB data, we derived the constraints on
756: $w_X(z)=w$ (constant) and $w_X(z)=w_0+w_a(1-a)$
757: using ($R$, $l_a$, $\Omega_b h^2$), and
758: compared with the results from using the full CMB code CAMB.
759: For both sets of calculations,
760: we assumed the same flat priors of $-2\leq w \leq 0$,
761: $-2\leq w_0 \leq 0$, and $ -6 \leq w_a \leq 3$,
762: since $w$ and ($w_0$,$w_a$) are {\it not}
763: well constrained by using CMB data alone.
764: The pdf's of $w$ and ($w_0$,$w_a$) span the entire allowed ranges,
765: and have similar shapes in the two methods.
766: We did {\it not} assume any priors on $H_0$ since
767: we want to study CMB data only.
768: For $w_X(z)=w$ (constant), using ($R$, $l_a$, $\Omega_b h^2$)
769: gives $w=-0.96\pm 0.57$, while
770: the full CMB code CAMB gives $w=-0.97\pm 0.53$.
771: Using ($R$, $l_a$, $\Omega_b h^2$)
772: $w_0=-1.0\pm 0.6$ and $w_a=-2.2\pm 2.1$, while
773: the full CMB code CAMB gives $w_0=-0.9\pm 0.6$ and
774: $w_a=-2.4 \pm 2.0$.
775: These comparisons indicate that our simple method of
776: incorporating CMB data by using Eq.(\ref{eq:chi2CMB})
777: is indeed efficient and appropriate as far
778: as dark energy constraints are concerned.
779: Since CMB data alone do {\it not} place tight constraints
780: on dark energy, it is not appropriate to do the comparison
781: of our method with the full CMB code for dark energy models
782: with more parameters.
783:
784: \subsection{Constraints on dark energy}
785:
786: Because of our ignorance of the nature of dark energy,
787: it is important to make model-independent constraints
788: by measuring the dark energy density $\rho_X(z)$ as a free function.
789: Measuring $\rho_X(z)$ has advantages over measuring dark energy
790: equation of state $w_X(z)$ as a free function; $\rho_X(z)$ is more
791: closely related to observables, hence is more tightly
792: constrained for the same number of redshift bins
793: used \cite{WangGarna,Tegmark02,WangFreese}.
794: More importantly,
795: measuring $w_X(z)$ implicitly assumes that $\rho_X(z)$ does not
796: change sign in cosmic time (as $\rho_X(z)$ is given by the exponential
797: of an integral over $1+w_X(z)$); this precludes whole classes of
798: dark energy models in which $\rho_X(z)$ becomes negative in the future
799: (``Big Crunch'' models, see \cite{Linde} for an example)\cite{WangTegmark04}.
800:
801: We have reconstructed the dark energy density function
802: $X(z)\equiv \rho_X(z)/\rho_X(0)$ by
803: measuring its value at $z_i=z_{cut}(i/3)$ (i=1, 2, 3) at $z\leq z_{cut}$,
804: and parametrized it by either a powerlaw
805: ($X(z) \propto (1+z)^{\alpha}$) or an exponential function
806: ($X(z) \propto e^{\alpha z}$)
807: at $z>z_{cut}$ (see Eqs.(\ref{eq:alpowerlaw})-(\ref{eq:alexp})).
808: We have chosen $z_{cut}=1.4$ as few SNe Ia have been observed
809: beyond this redshift.
810: We find that current data allow $\alpha>0$
811: for $X(z) \propto (1+z)^{\alpha}$ at $z>z_{cut}$,
812: and require $\alpha<0$ for $X(z) \propto e^{\alpha z}$
813: at $z>z_{cut}$. This means that assuming powerlaw dark energy
814: at early times allows significant amount of dark energy
815: at $z\gg 1$, while assuming exponential dark energy at
816: early times is equivalent to postulating dark energy
817: that disappears at $z\gg 1$. The latter is more
818: physically sensible since dark energy is introduced to
819: explain late time cosmic acceleration.
820: Introducing dark energy that is important
821: at early times could cause problems with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
822: \cite{Steigman06} and formation of cosmic large scale structure
823: \cite{Sandvik}.
824:
825: Fig.{\ref{fig:rhoxz}} shows the reconstructed dark energy density
826: function $X(z)$ using ($R$, $l_a$, $\Omega_b h^2$)
827: from the three-year WMAP data, together with 182 SNe Ia and SDSS
828: BAO measurement.
829: The apparent shrinking of the error
830: contours at $z>z_{cut}$ is due to the use of one parameter to
831: describe $X(z)$ at $z>z_{cut}$. Future theoretical
832: work and better data will allow better-motivated description
833: of dark energy at early times.\footnote{See for example, \cite{shaf06},
834: which assumed a flat universe.}
835: Fig.{\ref{fig:Hz}} shows the corresponding constraints on the cosmic
836: expansion history $H(z)$.
837: \begin{figure}
838: %\vskip-4.4cm
839: \epsfxsize=\figsize\epsffile{rhoX.eps}
840: %\vskip-1cm
841: \caption[1]{\label{fig:rhoxz}\footnotesize%
842: Constraints on dark energy density using $R$, $l_a$, and $\Omega_b h^2$
843: from the three-year WMAP data,
844: together with 182 SNe Ia and SDSS BAO measurement.
845: The shaded areas indicate the 68\% confidence regions, while
846: the outside contours bound the 95\% confidence regions.
847: }
848: \end{figure}
849: \begin{figure}
850: %\vskip-4.4cm
851: \epsfxsize=\figsize\epsffile{Hz.eps}
852: %\vskip-1cm
853: \caption[1]{\label{fig:Hz}\footnotesize%
854: Constraints on the expansion history of the universe $H(z)$
855: that corresponds to Fig.{\ref{fig:rhoxz}},
856: using $R$, $l_a$, and $\Omega_b h^2$ from the
857: three-year WMAP data, together with 182 SNe Ia and SDSS BAO measurement.
858: The error bars indicate the 68\% confidence intervals.
859: }
860: \end{figure}
861:
862: For a flat universe, the dark energy constraints at $z\leq 1$
863: are nearly independent of the early time assumption about dark energy,
864: while the dark energy constraint at $z \sim z_{cut}$
865: is more stringent if $X(z) \propto (1+z)^{\alpha}$
866: at $z>z_{cut}$. This is as expected.
867: Because of parameter correlations, stronger assumption about
868: early time dark energy (the powerlaw form) leads to more stringent
869: dark energy constraint at late times around $z\sim z_{cut}$.
870:
871:
872: Without assuming a flat universe,
873: in the $X(z) \propto (1+z)^{\alpha}$ at $z>z_{cut}$
874: case, there is a strong degeneracy between curvature and the
875: powerlaw index $\alpha$. This is as expected since
876: the curvature contribution to the total matter-energy density
877: is also a powerlaw, $(1+z)^2$. $X(z)$ is not well constrained in this case, and is
878: not shown in Fig.{\ref{fig:rhoxz}}.
879: When $X(z) \propto e^{\alpha z}$ is assumed at $z>z_{cut}$,
880: there is no degeneracy between the exponential index $\alpha$ and curvature.
881: $X(z)$ is well constrained in this case (see Fig.{\ref{fig:rhoxz}}).
882:
883:
884: For comparison with the work by others,
885: Fig.{\ref{fig:w0wa}} shows the constraints on $(w_0,w_a)$
886: for models with dark energy equation of state $w_X(z)=w_0+w_a(1-a)$,
887: using $R$, $l_a$, and $\Omega_b h^2$
888: from the three-year WMAP data, together with 182 SNe Ia and SDSS BAO measurement.
889: These are consistent with the results of \cite{Zhao07,Wright07}.
890: Note that using $w_X(z)=w_0+w_a(1-a)$ implies extrapolation of dark energy
891: to early times, which leads to artificially
892: strong constraints (compared to model-independent constraints)
893: on dark energy at both early and late
894: times. This was noted by \cite{Riess07} as well.
895: \begin{figure}
896: \psfig{file=w0wa.eps,width=6in}
897: %\vskip-4.4cm
898: \caption[2]{\label{fig:w0wa}\footnotesize%
899: Constraints on $(w_0,w_a)$ using $R$, $l_a$, and $\Omega_b h^2$ from
900: the three-year WMAP data, together with 182 SNe Ia and SDSS BAO measurement.
901: The 68\% and 95\% confidence contours are shown.
902: }
903: \end{figure}
904:
905:
906: Comparing Fig.{\ref{fig:rhoxz}}-{\ref{fig:w0wa}} with Figs.3-5 of
907: \cite{WangPia06} (for the case of assuming
908: $X(z) \propto (1+z)^{\alpha}$ at $z>z_{cut}$),
909: it is clear that the constraints on dark energy
910: have significantly tightened if a flat universe is assumed.
911:
912:
913: \subsection{Cosmic curvature and dark energy constraints}
914:
915:
916: Fig.{\ref{fig:ok}} shows the probability distribution function of
917: cosmic curvature for different assumptions about dark energy:
918: the model-independent dark energy density
919: $\rho_X(z)$ reconstructed in the last subsection,
920: the two parameter dark energy model $w_X(z)=w_0+w_a(1-a)$,
921: and a constant dark energy equation of state.
922: A flat universe is allowed at the 68\% confidence level
923: in all the cases when curvature is well constrained.
924: $\Omega_k=-0.006_{-0.012}^{+0.013}$$_{-0.025}^{+0.025}$
925: for assuming that $w_X(z)$ is constant, and
926: $\Omega_k=-0.002_{-0.018}^{+0.018}$$_{-0.032}^{+0.041}$
927: for $w_X(z)=w_0+w_a(1-a)$ (68\% and 95\% confidence levels).
928: Assuming a constant dark energy equation of state
929: gives the most stringent constraints on cosmic curvature.
930: The bounds on cosmic curvature are
931: less stringent if dark energy density is allowed to be a free
932: function of redshift,
933: and are dependent on the assumption
934: about the early time property of dark energy.
935: If dark energy is assumed to be an exponential function
936: at $z>z_{cut}$ ($z_{cut}=1.4$), it is well constrained
937: by current observational data (see Fig.{\ref{fig:rhoxz}}) and
938: negligible at early times. In this case, curvature is
939: well constrained as well.
940: If dark energy is assumed to be a powerlaw at early times,
941: its powerlaw index is strongly degenerate with curvature,
942: and neither is well constrained.
943: \begin{figure}
944: \psfig{file=ok.eps,width=3.6in}
945: \vskip-1cm
946: \caption[2]{\label{fig:ok}\footnotesize%
947: The probability distribution function of
948: cosmic curvature for different assumptions about dark energy:
949: the model-independent dark energy density
950: $\rho_X(z)$ reconstructed in the last subsection,
951: the two parameter dark energy model $w_X(z)=w_0+w_a(1-a)$,
952: and a constant dark energy equation of state.
953: }
954: \end{figure}
955:
956:
957: \section{Summary and Discussion}
958:
959: We have presented a simple and effective
960: method for incorporating constraints from CMB data into
961: an analysis of other cosmological data (for example,
962: SNe Ia and galaxy survey data), when
963: constraining dark energy without assuming a flat universe.
964:
965: We find that three-year WMAP data give constraints
966: on $(R, l_a, \Omega_b h^2, \Omega_m h^2, r_s(z_{CMB}), r(z_{CMB}))$
967: that are independent of the assumption about dark energy
968: (see Table I). The constraints on ($\Omega_m h^2, r_s(z_{CMB}), r(z_{CMB}))$)
969: are also independent of the assumption about cosmic curvature,
970: but they are strongly correlated with each other and
971: are not suitable for use in constraining dark energy (see Table II).
972:
973: We show that there are {\it two} CMB shift parameters,
974: $R\equiv \sqrt{\Omega_m H_0^2} \,r(z_{CMB})$
975: (the scaled distance to recombination)
976: and $l_a\equiv \pi r(z_{CMB})/r_s(z_{CMB})$
977: (the angular scale of the sound horizon at recombination);
978: these retain the sensitivity to dark energy and curvature of
979: $r(z_{CMB})$ and $r_s(z_{CMB})$, and have measured values that are
980: nearly uncorrelated with each other (see Table II).
981: We give the covariance matrix of ($R$, $l_a$, $\Omega_b h^2$)
982: from the WMAP three year data (see Tables I and II).
983:
984: We demonstrate that ($R$, $l_a$, $\Omega_b h^2$) provide
985: an efficient summary of CMB data as far as dark energy constraints
986: are concerned, and an intuitive way of understanding what the
987: CMB does in terms of parameter constraints (see
988: Figs.{\ref{fig:cl2}}-{\ref{fig:Rla3w0wa}}).
989:
990: While completing our paper (based on detailed calculations
991: that have taken several months), we became aware of Ref.\cite{Elgaroy}.
992: They also found that using both $R$ and $l_a$ tightens
993: dark energy constraints. However, their paper assumed
994: a flat universe, and used an approximation for $l_a$
995: that ignores both curvature and dark energy contributions.
996: We use the exact expression for $l_a$ and derived the covariance
997: matrix for ($R$, $l_a$, $\Omega_b h^2$) which are based
998: on the MCMC chains from our full CMB power spectrum calculations
999: without assuming spatial flatness.
1000:
1001: We have used ($R$, $l_a$, $\Omega_b h^2$) from WMAP three year data,
1002: together with 182 SNe Ia (from the HST/GOODS program, the first year
1003: Supernova Legacy Survey, and nearby SN Ia surveys),
1004: and SDSS measurement of the baryon acoustic oscillation scale
1005: in deriving constraints on dark energy.
1006: Assuming the HST prior of $H_0=72\pm 8\,$(km/s)Mpc$^{-1}$ \cite{HST_H0},
1007: we find that current observational data
1008: provide significantly tightened constraints on dark energy models
1009: in a flat universe, and less stringent constraints
1010: on dark energy without assuming spatial flatness
1011: (see Figs.{\ref{fig:rhoxz}}-{\ref{fig:w0wa}}).
1012: Dark energy density is consistent with a
1013: constant in cosmic time, with marginal deviations from a
1014: cosmological constant that may reflect current systematic
1015: uncertainties\footnote{Ref{\cite{Nesseris06}} studied
1016: the statistical consistency
1017: of subsets of SNe Ia that comprise the 182 SNe Ia.}
1018: or true evolution in dark energy
1019: (see Figs.{\ref{fig:rhoxz}}-{\ref{fig:Hz}}).
1020: Our findings are consistent with that of \cite{Riess07}
1021: and \cite{Davis07}.
1022:
1023: A flat universe is allowed by current data at the 68\% confidence level.
1024: As expected, the bounds on cosmic curvature are
1025: less stringent if dark energy density is allowed to be a free
1026: function of cosmic time, and are also dependent on
1027: assumption about dark energy properties at early times
1028: (see Fig.{\ref{fig:ok}}). The behavior of dark energy at
1029: late times (where it causes cosmic acceleration and is
1030: directly probed by SN Ia data) and at early times (where it
1031: is poorly constrained) should be separated in parameter
1032: estimation in order to place robust constraints on dark energy
1033: and cosmic curvature (see Sec.IIIB and C).
1034:
1035: Future dark energy experiments from both ground and space
1036: \cite{Wang00a,detf,ground,jedi}, together with CMB data from Planck \cite{planck},
1037: will dramatically improve our ability to probe dark energy,
1038: and eventually shed light on the nature of dark energy.
1039:
1040:
1041:
1042: \bigskip
1043:
1044: {\bf Acknowledgements}
1045: We thank Jan Michael Kratochvil for being a strong advocate of
1046: marginalizing SN Ia data over $H_0$;
1047: Savas Nesseris, Leandros Perivolaropoulos, and Andrew Liddle
1048: for useful discussions.
1049: We gratefully acknowledge the use of camb and cosmomc.
1050: This work was supported in part by
1051: NSF CAREER grants AST-0094335 (YW).
1052: PM is funded by PPARC (UK).
1053:
1054:
1055:
1056:
1057: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1058:
1059: \bibitem[Riess et al.~(1998)]{Riess98}
1060: Riess, A. G, {\etal}, 1998, Astron. J., 116, 1009
1061:
1062: \bibitem[Perlmutter et al.~(1999)]{Perl99}
1063: Perlmutter, S. {\etal}, 1999, ApJ, 517, 565
1064:
1065: \bibitem[Freese et al.(1987)]{Freese87}
1066: Freese, K., Adams, F.C., Frieman, J.A.,
1067: and Mottola, E.,
1068: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B287}, 797 (1987).
1069:
1070: \bibitem[Linde(1987)]{Linde87}
1071: Linde A D, ``Inflation And Quantum Cosmology,'' in
1072: {\it Three hundred years of gravitation}, (Eds.: Hawking, S.W. and Israel, W.,
1073: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987), 604-630.
1074:
1075: \bibitem[Peebles \& Ratra(1988)]{Peebles88}
1076: Peebles, P.J.E., and Ratra, B., 1988, ApJ, 325, L17
1077:
1078: \bibitem[Wetterich(1988)]{Wett88}
1079: Wetterich, C., 1988, Nucl.Phys., B302, 668
1080:
1081: \bibitem[Frieman et al.(1995)]{Frieman95}
1082: Frieman, J.A., Hill, C.T., Stebbins, A., and Waga, I., 1995, PRL, 75, 2077
1083:
1084: \bibitem[Caldwell, Dave \& Steinhardt(1998)]{Caldwell98}
1085: Caldwell, R., Dave, R., \& Steinhardt, P.J., 1998, PRL, 80, 1582
1086:
1087: \bibitem[Sahni \& Habib(1998)]{SH98}
1088: Sahni, V., \& Habib, S., 1998, PRL, 81, 1766
1089:
1090:
1091: \bibitem[Parker \& Raval(1999)]{Parker99}
1092: Parker, L., and Raval, A., 1999, PRD, 60, 063512
1093:
1094: \bibitem[Boisseau et al.(2000)]{Boisseau00}
1095: Boisseau, B., Esposito-Far\`ese, G.,
1096: Polarski, D. \& Starobinsky, A. A. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 2236
1097: % Cosmic acceleration from scalar-tensor gravity
1098:
1099: %\bibitem[Deffayet(2001)]{Deffayet01}
1100: %Deffayet, C., 2001, Phys. Lett. B, 502, 199
1101:
1102: \bibitem[Dvali, Gabadadze, \& Porrati(2000)]{DGP00}
1103: Dvali, G., Gabadadze, G., \& Porrati, M. 2000,
1104: Phys.Lett. B485, 208
1105:
1106: \bibitem[Mersini, Bastero-Gil, \& Kanti(2001)]{Mersini01}
1107: Mersini, L., Bastero-Gil, M., \& Kanti, P., 2001, PRD, 64, 043508
1108:
1109: \bibitem[Freese \& Lewis(2002)]{Freese02}
1110: Freese, K., \& Lewis, M., 2002, Phys. Lett. B, 540, 1
1111:
1112:
1113: \bibitem[Padmanabhan(2003)]{Pad}
1114: Padmanabhan, T., 2003, Phys. Rep., 380, 235
1115:
1116:
1117: \bibitem[Peebles \& Ratra(2003)]{Peebles03}
1118: Peebles, P.J.E., \& Ratra, B., 2003, Rev. Mod. Phys., 75, 559
1119:
1120: \bibitem[Carroll et al.(2004)]{Carroll04}
1121: Carroll, S M, de Felice, A, Duvvuri, V, Easson, D A, Trodden, M \& Turner, M S,
1122: Phys.Rev. D71 (2005) 063513
1123:
1124: \bibitem[Onemli \& Woodard(2004)]{OW04}
1125: Onemli, V. K., \& Woodard, R. P. 2004,
1126: Phys.Rev. D70, 107301
1127:
1128: \bibitem[Cardone et al.(2005)]{Cardone05}
1129: Cardone, V.F., Tortora, C., Troisi, A., \& Capozziello, S. 2005,
1130: astro-ph/0511528, Phys.Rev.D, in press
1131:
1132:
1133: \bibitem[Kolb, Matarrese, \& Riotto(2005)]{Kolb05}
1134: Kolb, E.W., Matarrese, S., \& Riotto, A. 2005, astro-ph/0506534
1135:
1136:
1137: \bibitem[Caldwell(2006)]{Caldwell06}
1138: Caldwell, R.R.; Komp, W.; Parker, L.; Vanzella, D.A.T.,
1139: Phys.Rev. D73 (2006) 023513
1140:
1141: \bibitem[Kahya \& Onemli(2006)]{KO06}
1142: E. O. Kahya and V. K. Onemli, gr-qc/0612026
1143:
1144: \bibitem[DeFelice(2007)]{DeFelice07}
1145: De Felice, A.; Mukherjee, P.; Wang, Y.,
1146: %Observational Bounds on Modified Gravity Models,
1147: PRD, submitted (2007),
1148: arXiv:0706.1197 [astro-ph]
1149:
1150:
1151: \bibitem[Koi(2007)]{Koi07}
1152: Koivisto, T.; Mota, D.F., hep-th/0609155, Phys.Rev. D75 (2007) 023518
1153:
1154: \bibitem[Ng(2007)]{Ng07}
1155: Ng, Y.J., gr-qc/0703096
1156:
1157:
1158: \bibitem[Wang \& Tegmark(2004)]{WangTegmark04}
1159: Wang, Y., \& Tegmark, M. 2004, Phys. Rev. Lett., 92, 241302
1160:
1161: \bibitem[Wang \& Tegmark(2005)]{WangTegmark05}
1162: Wang, Y., \& Tegmark, M. 2005, Phys. Rev. D 71, 103513
1163:
1164: \bibitem[Alam \& Sahni(2005)]{Alam05}
1165: Alam, U., \& Sahni, V. 2005, astro-ph/0511473
1166:
1167: \bibitem[Daly \& Djorgovski(2005)]{Daly05}
1168: Daly,R. A.,\& Djorgovski, S. G. 2005,
1169: astro-ph/0512576.
1170:
1171: \bibitem[Jassal, Bagla, \& Padmanabhan(2005a)]{Jassal05a}
1172: Jassal, H.K., Bagla, J.S., Padmanabhan, T. 2005,
1173: Phys.Rev.D 72, 103503
1174:
1175: \bibitem[Jassal, Bagla, \& Padmanabhan(2005b)]{Jassal05b}
1176: Jassal, H.K., Bagla, J.S., Padmanabhan, T. 2005,
1177: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc.Letters, 356, L11
1178:
1179: \bibitem[Barger(2006)]{Barger06}
1180: Barger, V.; Gao, Y.; Marfatia, D., astro-ph/0611775
1181:
1182: \bibitem[Dick, Knox, \& Chu(2006)]{Dick06}
1183: Dick, J., Knox, L., \& Chu, M. 2006,
1184: astro-ph/0603247
1185:
1186: \bibitem[Huterer(2006)]{Huterer06}
1187: Huterer, D.; Peiris, H.V., astro-ph/0610427
1188:
1189: \bibitem[Jassal, Bagla, \& Padmanabhan(2006)]{Jassal06}
1190: Jassal, H.K., Bagla, J.S., Padmanabhan, T. 2006,
1191: astro-ph/0601389
1192:
1193: \bibitem[Liddle(2006)]{Liddle06}
1194: Liddle, A.R.; Mukherjee, P.; Parkinson, D.; Wang, Y.,
1195: PRD, 74, 123506 (2006), astro-ph/0610126
1196:
1197: \bibitem[Nesseris \& Perivolaropoulos(2006)]{Nesseris06}
1198: Nesseris, S., \& Perivolaropoulos, L. 2006,
1199: astro-ph/0602053;
1200: Nesseris, S., \& Perivolaropoulos, L. 2006, astro-ph/0612653
1201:
1202: \bibitem[Schimd et al.(2006)]{Schimd06}
1203: Schimd, C. et al. 2006, astro-ph/0603158
1204:
1205: \bibitem[Sumu(2006)]{Sumu06}
1206: Samushia, L.; Ratra, B., Astrophys.J. 650 (2006) L5
1207:
1208: \bibitem[Wilson, Chen, \& Ratra(2006)]{Wilson06}
1209: Wilson, K.M., Chen, G., Ratra, B. 2006, astro-ph/0602321
1210:
1211: \bibitem[Xia(2006)]{Xia06}
1212: Xia, J.-Q.; Zhao, G.-B.; Li, H.; Feng, B.; Zhang, X.,
1213: Phys.Rev. D74 (2006) 083521
1214:
1215: %\bibitem[Zhao et al.(2006)]{Zhao06}
1216: %Zhao, G., Xia, J., Feng, B., \& Zhang, X. 2006, astro-ph/0603621
1217:
1218: \bibitem[Alam(2007)]{Alam07}
1219: Alam, U.; Sahni, V.; Starobinsky, A.A.,
1220: astro-ph/0612381, JCAP 0702 (2007) 011
1221:
1222: \bibitem[Davis(2007)]{Davis07}
1223: Davis, T. M., et al. 2007, astro-ph/0701510
1224:
1225: \bibitem[Wei(2007)]{Wei07}
1226: Wei, H.; Zhang, S.N., astro-ph/0609597, Phys.Lett. B644 (2007) 7
1227:
1228: \bibitem[Zhang(2007)]{Zhang07}
1229: Zhang, J.; Zhang, X.; Liu, H., astro-ph/0612642
1230:
1231: \bibitem[Zun(2007)]{Zun07}
1232: Zunckel, C.; Trotta, R., astro-ph/0702695
1233:
1234: \bibitem[sdss(2004)]{sdss}
1235: Tegmark, M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 606, 702
1236:
1237: \bibitem[2df(2006)]{2df}
1238: Verde, L., et al., 2002, MNRAS, 335, 432;
1239: Hawkins, E., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 78
1240:
1241: \bibitem[Polarski \& Ranquet(2005)]{Polar05}
1242: D. Polarski, and A. Ranquet,
1243: Phys. Lett. B627, 1 (2005)
1244: [astro-ph/0507290]
1245:
1246: \bibitem[Franca(2006)]{Franca06}
1247: U.~Franca,
1248: %``Dark energy, curvature and cosmic coincidence,''
1249: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 641}, 351 (2006)
1250: [arXiv:astro-ph/0509177]
1251:
1252: \bibitem[Ichikawa \& Takahashi(2006)]{IT06}
1253: K. Ichikawa and T. Takahashi,
1254: Phys. Rev. D73, 083526 (2006)
1255: [arXiv:astro-ph/0511821]
1256:
1257: \bibitem[Ichikawa et al.(2006)]{Ichi06}
1258: K. Ichikawa, M. Kawasaki, T. Sekiguchi and T. Takahashi,
1259: JCAP 0612, 005 (2006)
1260: [arXiv:astro-ph/0605481]
1261:
1262: \bibitem[Clarkson(2007)]{Clarkson07}
1263: Clarkson, C.; Cortes, M.; Bassett, B.A., astro-ph/0702670
1264:
1265: \bibitem[Gong(2007)]{Gong07}
1266: Gong, Y.; Wang, A., astro-ph/0612196, Phys.Rev. D75 (2007) 043520
1267:
1268:
1269:
1270:
1271: \bibitem[Ichikawa(2007)]{Kazu07}
1272: Ichikawa, K.; Takahashi, T.,
1273: stro-ph/0612739, JCAP 0702 (2007) 001
1274:
1275: \bibitem[Wright(2007)]{Wright07}
1276: Wright, E.L., astro-ph/0701584
1277:
1278: \bibitem[Zhao(2007)]{Zhao07}
1279: Zhao, G., et al., astro-ph/0612728
1280:
1281: \bibitem[Fixsen(1996)]{Fixsen96}
1282: Fixsen, D. J., 1996, ApJ, 473, 576
1283:
1284:
1285: \bibitem[Eisenstein \& Hu(1998)]{EisenHu98}
1286: Eisenstein, D. \& Hu, W. 1998, ApJ, 496, 605
1287:
1288: \bibitem[Page(2003)]{Page03}
1289: Page, L., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 233
1290:
1291: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2006)]{Spergel06}
1292: Spergel, D.N., et al. 2006, astro-ph/0603449, ApJ, in press
1293:
1294: \bibitem[Riess(2007)]{Riess07}
1295: Riess, A.G., et al., astro-ph/0611572
1296:
1297: \bibitem[Wood(2007)]{Wood07}
1298: Wood-Vasey, W. M., et al., astro-ph/0701041
1299:
1300: \bibitem[Wang(2000)]{Wang00}
1301: Wang, Y., ApJ 536, 531 (2000)
1302:
1303: \bibitem[Astier et al.(2005)]{Astier05}
1304: Astier, P., et al. 2005, astro-ph/0510447,
1305: Astron. Astrophys. 447 (2006) 31
1306:
1307: \bibitem[Eisenstein et al.(2005)]{Eisen05}
1308: Eisenstein, D., et al., ApJ, 633, 560
1309:
1310: \bibitem[Lewis02(2002)]{Lewis02}
1311: Lewis, A., \& Bridle, S. 2002, PRD, 66, 103511
1312:
1313: \bibitem[WMAP(2006)]{url}
1314: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/current/
1315:
1316:
1317: \bibitem[Lewis, Challinor, \& Lasenby(2000)]{Lewis00}
1318: Lewis, A., Challinor, A., and Lasenby, A.,
1319: Astrophys. J., 538, 473. See http://camb.info.
1320: %astro-ph/9911177
1321:
1322: \bibitem[Chev01(2001)]{Chev01}
1323: Chevallier, M., \& Polarski, D. 2001, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D10,
1324: 213
1325:
1326: \bibitem[HST_H0(2001)]{HST_H0}
1327: Freedman, W. L., et al. 2001, ApJ, 553, 47
1328:
1329: \bibitem[Bond(1997)]{Bond97}
1330: Bond, J. R., Efstathiou, G., \& Tegmark, M. 1997, MNRAS, 291, L33
1331:
1332: \bibitem[Odman et al.(2003)]{Odman03}
1333: Odman, C.J., Melchiorri, A., Hobson, M. P., \& Lasenby, A. N. 2003,
1334: Phys.Rev. D67, 083511
1335:
1336: \bibitem[Wang \& Mukherjee(2004)]{WangPia04}
1337: Wang, Y., \& Mukherjee, P. 2004, ApJ, 606, 654
1338:
1339: \bibitem[Wang \& Mukherjee(2006)]{WangPia06}
1340: Wang, Y., \& Mukherjee, P. 2006, ApJ, 650, 1
1341:
1342:
1343: \bibitem[Wang \& Garnavich(2001)]{WangGarna}
1344: Wang, Y., and Garnavich, P. 2001, ApJ, 552, 445
1345:
1346: \bibitem[Tegmark(2002)]{Tegmark02}
1347: Tegmark, M. 2002, Phys. Rev. D66, 103507
1348:
1349: \bibitem[Wang \& Freese(2006)]{WangFreese}
1350: Wang, Y., \& Freese, K. 2006, Phys.Lett. B632, 449
1351: (astro-ph/0402208)
1352:
1353: \bibitem[lensing(1998)]{lensing}
1354: Kantowski, R., Vaughan, T., \& Branch, D. 1995, ApJ, 447, 35;
1355: Frieman, J. A. 1997, Comments Astrophys., 18, 323;
1356: Wambsganss, J., Cen, R., Xu, G., \& Ostriker, J.P. 1997, ApJ, 475, L81;
1357: Holz, D.E. 1998, ApJ, 506, L1;
1358: Wang, Y. 1999, ApJ, 525, 651
1359:
1360: \bibitem[Press et al.(1994)]{Press94}
1361: Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A., Vettering, W.T.,
1362: \& Flannery, B.P. 1994, Numerical Recipes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
1363:
1364: \bibitem[Elgaroy(2007)]{Elgaroy}
1365: Elgaroy, O., and Multamaki, T., astro-ph/0702343.
1366:
1367:
1368: % SN pencil beam paper (astro-ph/9806185)
1369: \bibitem[Wang(2000a)]{Wang00a}
1370: Wang, Y. 2000, ApJ 531, 676
1371:
1372: \bibitem[deft(2006)]{detf}
1373: Albrecht, A.; Bernstein, G.; Cahn, R.; Freedman, W. L.; Hewitt, J.;
1374: Hu, W.; Huth, J.; Kamionkowski, M.; Kolb, E.W.; Knox, L.; Mather, J.C.;
1375: Staggs, S.; Suntzeff, N.B., Report of the Dark Energy Task Force,
1376: astro-ph/0609591
1377:
1378: \bibitem[ground(2007)]{ground}
1379: See for example, http://www.astro.ubc.ca/LMT/alpaca/;
1380: http://www.lsst.org/; http://www.as.utexas.edu/hetdex/.
1381: \cite{detf} contains a more complete list of future
1382: dark energy experiments.
1383:
1384:
1385: \bibitem[jedi(2006)]{jedi}
1386: Wang, Y., et al., BAAS, v36, n5, 1560 (2004);
1387: Crotts, A., et al. (2005), astro-ph/0507043;
1388: Cheng, E.; Wang, Y.; et al., Proc. of SPIE, Vol. 6265, 626529 (2006);
1389: http://jedi.nhn.ou.edu/
1390:
1391:
1392: \bibitem[planck(2007)]{planck}
1393: Planck Bluebook, \\
1394: http://www.rssd.esa.int/index.php?project=PLANCK
1395:
1396: \bibitem[Steigman(2006)]{Steigman06}
1397: Steigman, G. 2006, astro-ph/0611209
1398:
1399: \bibitem[Sandvik(2004)]{Sandvik}
1400: Sandvik, H.; Tegmark, M.; Zaldarriaga, M.; Waga, I. 2004,
1401: Phys.Rev. D69 (2004) 123524
1402:
1403: \bibitem[Linde(2004)]{Linde}
1404: Wang, Y.; Kratochvil,J.M.; Linde, A.; Shmakova, M. 2004,
1405: JCAP, 12, 006 (2004), astro-ph/0409264
1406:
1407: \bibitem[Shafieloo et al.(2006)]{shaf06}
1408: Shafieloo, A.; Alam, U.; Sahni, V.; and Starobinsky, A.A. 2005,
1409: MNRAS, 366, 1081
1410:
1411:
1412: \end{thebibliography}
1413:
1414: \appendix
1415:
1416: \section{Marginalization over $H_0$ in SN Ia flux statistics}
1417:
1418: Because of calibration uncertainties, SN Ia data need to be marginalized
1419: over $H_0$ if SN Ia data are combined with data that are sensitive to
1420: the value of $H_0$. This is the case here (see the next section). We use the angular
1421: scale of the sound horizon at recombination $l_a$ which depends
1422: on $\Omega_m h^2$, while the dimensionless Hubble parameter $E(z)=H(z)/H_0$
1423: (which appears in the derivation of all distance-redshift relations)
1424: depends on $\Omega_m$. Hence a dependence on $H_0$ is implied.
1425: We marginalize the SN Ia data over $H_0$ while
1426: imposing a prior of $H_0=72 \pm 8\,$(km/s)Mpc$^{-1}$ from
1427: HST Cepheid varibale star observations \cite{HST_H0}.
1428:
1429: The marginalization of SN Ia data over $H_0$ was derived in \cite{WangGarna}
1430: for the usual magnitude statistics (assuming that the intrinsic dispersion
1431: in SN Ia peak brightness is Gaussian in magnitudes).
1432: Here we present the formalism for marginalizing SN Ia data over $H_0$
1433: in the flux-averaging of SN Ia data using flux statistics (see Eq.[{\ref{eq:chi2flux}}]).
1434: The public software for implementing SN Ia flux averaging with
1435: marginalization over $H_0$ (compatible with cosmomc) is available at
1436: http://www.nhn.ou.edu/$\sim$wang/SNcode/.
1437:
1438: Flux-averaging of SN Ia data \cite{Wang00} is needed to minimize the
1439: systematic effect of weak lensing of SNe Ia \cite{lensing}.
1440: \cite{WangPia04} presented a consistent framework for flux-averaging
1441: SN Ia data using flux statistics.
1442: Normally distributed measurement errors are required
1443: if the $\chi^2$ parameter estimate is to be a
1444: maximum likelihood estimator \citep{Press94}.
1445: Hence, if the intrinsic dispersion in SN Ia peak brightness
1446: is Gaussian in {\it flux}, we have
1447: \be
1448: \label{eq:chi2flux}
1449: \chi^2_{N_{data}}(\mbox{\bf s}) = \sum_i \frac{ \left[F(z_i) -
1450: F^p(z_i|\mbox{\bf s})\right]^2}{\sigma_{F,i}^2}.
1451: \ee
1452: Since the peak brightness of SNe Ia have been given in magnitudes
1453: with symmetric error bars, $m_{peak}\pm \sigma_m$, we obtain
1454: equivalent errors in flux:
1455: \[
1456: \sigma_F \equiv \frac{F(m_{peak}+\sigma_m)-F(m_{peak}-\sigma_m)}{2}.
1457: \]
1458: After flux-averaging, we have
1459: \be
1460: %\label{eq:chi2}
1461: \chi^2 = \sum_i \frac{ \left[\overline{F}(\overline{z}_i) -
1462: F^p(\overline{z}_i|\mbox{\bf s}) \right]^2}{\sigma_{\overline{F},i}^2},
1463: \ee
1464: where $F^p(\overline{z}_i|\mbox{\bf s}_1)=
1465: \left( d_L(\overline{z}_i|\mbox{\bf s}) /\mbox{Mpc} \right)^{-2}$.
1466:
1467:
1468: The predicted SN Ia flux $F^p(z_i|\mbox{\bf s})
1469: =\left[d_L(z_i|\mbox{\bf s})/{\rm Mpc}\right]^{-2}
1470: \propto h^2$. Assuming that the dimensionless Hubble parameter $h$ is uniformly
1471: distributed in the range [0,1], it is straightforward to integrate over $h$
1472: in the probability distribution function to obtain
1473: \be
1474: \label{eq:chi2sn}
1475: p(\mbox{\bf s}|0\leq h \leq 1)= e^{-\chi^2/2}=
1476: \frac{\int_0^1dx \, e^{-g(x)} }{\int_0^1 dx\, e^{-g_0(x)} }
1477: \ee
1478: where
1479: \ba
1480: &&g(x) \equiv \sum_i \frac{ \left[\overline{F}(\overline{z}_i) - x^2
1481: F^p_*(\overline{z}_i|\mbox{\bf s})\right]^2}
1482: {2\sigma_{\overline{F},i}^2}, \nonumber\\
1483: &&g_0(x) \equiv (x^2-1)^2 \sum_i \frac{ \overline{F}(\overline{z}_i)^2}
1484: {2\sigma_{\overline{F},i}^2},
1485: \ea
1486: where $F^p_*(\overline{z}_i|\mbox{\bf s})=F^p(\overline{z}_i|\mbox{\bf s},h=1)$.
1487:
1488:
1489: \end{document}
1490: