1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% EXAMPLE FILE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FOR NESTEX 1.3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3:
4: %\documentclass[draft,published]{JHEP} % 10pt is ignored!
5: \documentclass[published]{JHEP}
6: \usepackage{epsfig}
7:
8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
9: %%%%%%%%%%%% Options: preprint* published, (no)hyper*, paper, draft, %%%%%%%
10: %%%%%%%%%%%% a4paper*, letterpaper, legalpaper, executivepaper,%%%%
11: %%%%%%%%%%%% 11pt, 12pt*, oneside*, twoside %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% *=default %%%%%%%%
13: %%%%%%%%%%%% \title{...} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14: %%%%%%%%%%%% \author{...\\...} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \email{...} %%%%%%%%
15: %%%%%%%%%%%% \author{...\thanks{...}\\...} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
16: %%%%%%%%%%%% \abstract{...} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
17: %%%%%%%%%%%% \keywords{...} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
18: %%%%%%%%%%%% \preprint{...} %% or \received{...} \accepted{...} \JHEP{...} %
19: %%%%%%%%%%%% \dedicated{...} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
20: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
21: %%%%%%%%%%%% \aknowledgments %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
22: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
23: %%%%%%%%%%%% -- No pagestyle formatting. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
24: %%%%%%%%%%%% -- No size formatting. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
25: %%%%%%%%%%%% Your definitions: %%%%%%%%%%% MINE :) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
26: % ... %
27: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134} % \backslash for \tt (Nucl.Phys. :)%
28: \newcommand\fverb{\setbox\pippobox=\hbox\bgroup\verb}
29: \newcommand\fverbdo{\egroup\medskip\noindent%
30: \fbox{\unhbox\pippobox}\ }
31: \newcommand\fverbit{\egroup\item[\fbox{\unhbox\pippobox}]}
32: \newbox\pippobox
33: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
34: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
35: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
36: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
37: {\newcommand{\gsim}{\mbox{\raisebox{-.6ex}{~$\stackrel{>}{\sim}$~}}}
38: {\newcommand{\lsim}{\mbox{\raisebox{-.6ex}{~$\stackrel{<}{\sim}$~}}}
39: \def\sfrac#1#2{{\textstyle{#1\over#2}}}
40: \def\diag{\rm diag}
41: \def\sss{\scriptscriptstyle}
42: \def\sQ{{\sss Q}}
43: \def\Oeff{\Omega_\Lambda^{\rm eff}}
44: %... %
45: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
46:
47: \title{Quintessence, Cosmological Horizons, and Self-Tuning}
48:
49: \author{by J.M. Cline\\
50: McGill University, 3600 University St., Montr\'eal, Qc H3A 2T8, Canada\\
51: E-mail: \email{jcline@physics.mcgill.ca}}
52: %\received{\today} %%
53: %\accepted{\today} %% These are for published papers.
54: %\JHEP{12(2001)999} %%
55:
56: \preprint{\hepth{9912999}} % OR: \preprint{Aaaa/Mm/Yy\\Aaa-aa/Nnnnnn}
57: % Use \hepth etc. also in bibliography.
58:
59: \abstract{We point out that quintessence with an exponential potential
60: $V_0 e^{-\beta Q/\sqrt{3}M_p}$ can account for the present observed
61: acceleration of the universe, without necessarily leading to eternal
62: acceleration. This occurs for $2.4 < \beta < 2.8$. Thus a cosmological
63: horizon, which is supposed to be problematic within the context of string
64: theory, can be avoided. We argue that this class of models is not
65: particularly fine-tuned. We further examine this question in the context
66: of a modified Friedmann equation, $H^2 \propto \rho + p$, which is
67: suggested by higher dimensional self-tuning approaches to the cosmological
68: constant problem. It is shown that the self-tuning case can also be
69: consistent with observations, if $1.8 < \beta < 2.4$. Future observations
70: of high-$z$ supernovae will be able to test whether $\beta$ lies in the
71: desired range.}
72:
73: %\keywords{TeX, LaTeX, NesTeX}
74:
75:
76:
77:
78: \begin{document}
79:
80: \maketitle %%%%%%%%%% THIS IS IGNORED %%%%%%%%%%%
81:
82:
83: \section{Introduction}
84:
85: There is convincing evidence that the universe is presently dominated by a
86: form of dark energy density which is decreasing significantly more slowly
87: with time than the energy density of ordinary matter. The first Doppler
88: peak in the cosmic microwave background fluctuations is strongly consistent
89: with a flat universe \cite{cmb}, whose density is the critical one
90: $\rho_c$, yet the matter energy density is known by other means to be no
91: more than $\Omega_m = \rho_m/\rho_c \sim 0.3$ \cite{Om}. Recent
92: observations of the higher peaks by the various CMB experiments give
93: $\Omega_m = 0.25$ \cite{smoot}. The Hubble diagram deduced from high
94: redshift type I supernovae provides independent evidence for an additional
95: component $\Omega_\Lambda$ of the energy density \cite{SN}. From an
96: empirical viewpoint, pure vacuum energy ($\Lambda$) is the simplest
97: explanation, but theoretically it is difficult to explain why $\Lambda$ is
98: some 124 orders of magnitude smaller than the natural scale set by the
99: Planck mass, $M_p^4$. If the dark energy is due to a rolling scalar field
100: $Q$, quintessence \cite{quint}, whose potential energy vanishes as
101: $Q\to\infty$, this might be a more natural explanation for why the dark
102: energy density is small.
103:
104: A further motivation for quintessence could be coming from string theory,
105: because of its apparent incompatibility with de Sitter space \cite{banks}.
106: An eternally accelerating universe, which would result from a positive
107: cosmological constant, seems to be at odds with string theory, because of
108: the impossibility of formulating the S-matrix. In de Sitter space the
109: presence of an event horizon, signifying causally disconnected regions of
110: space, implies the absence of asymptotic particle states which are needed
111: to define transition amplitudes. Quintessence, on the other hand, would
112: seem to offer the possibility of temporary acceleration to account for
113: current observations, without necessarily making the scale factor of the
114: universe accelerate forever.
115:
116: Recent papers have pointed out that, in fact, quintessence generically
117: does lead to eternal acceleration, if the universe is accelerating now
118: \cite{Paban,HKS} (see also \cite{He}). Therefore it is concluded that
119: string theory is equally at odds with quintessence or a positive
120: cosmological constant. The purpose of the present paper is to explore
121: some simple loopholes to this conclusion.\footnote{Ref.\ \cite{moffat}
122: has also addressed this question in the context of gravitiy with a
123: time-varying speed of light.}
124:
125: Our initial motivation was an interesting possibility coming from the
126: brane-world scenario, in particular, attempts to address the cosmological
127: constant problem through self-tuning solutions to the Einstein equations
128: \cite{st}. In this approach, it is assumed that our universe is a 3-brane
129: with arbitrary tension $\Lambda$, embedded in an extra dimension. A
130: scalar field living in the extra dimension adjusts itself so as to yield a
131: static solution to the Einstein equations, regardless of the value of
132: $\Lambda$, which otherwise would act like the 4-D cosmological constant
133: and lead to inflation of the brane. Although there are many problems with
134: this idea \cite{stp}, ref.\ \cite{CM} explored the question of how
135: cosmology would be affected for brane observers assuming an acceptable
136: model of self-tuning was found. If the scalar couples only to the volume
137: element $\sqrt{g}d^{\,4}x$ of the three-brane, \cite{CM} showed that it is
138: possible to obtain a modified Friedmann equation of the form
139: \beq
140: \label{MFE}
141: H^2 = \left({\dot a\over a}\right)^2 = 2\pi G(\rho + p)
142: \eeq
143: plus corrections of order $G(\rho+p)^2/$TeV$^4$ (assuming the 5-D quantum
144: gravity scale is of order TeV). This is a very interesting twist on
145: normal cosmology because (1) it leads to no expansion in the case of
146: vacuum energy, where $p=-\rho$; (2) it is indistinguishable from the
147: normal equation during the radiation dominated era, since $p=\rho/3$;
148: and (3) it gives a Hubble rate only $\sqrt{3/4} = 0.87$ times smaller
149: than normal during the matter dominated era, which would be difficult to
150: distinguish from the standard value given the uncertainties on $\Omega_m$
151: (the fraction of the critical density in matter) and $H_0$ (the present
152: value of the Hubble parameter). Since the modified Friedmann equation
153: eliminates conventional inflation, it would remove the obstacle to
154: defining an S-matrix in the 4-D universe when $\Lambda >0$. We might
155: also expect it to ameliorate the problem with eternal acceleration in
156: quintessence models.
157:
158: Moreover, if the equation of state for the dark energy, $w = p/\rho$, turns
159: out to be $w>-1$, as is still allowed by the supernova data, this could be
160: indirect evidence for a modified Friedmann equation. Taking the time
161: derivative of (\ref{MFE}), one can show that the acceleration is
162: \beq
163: \label{accel}
164: {\ddot a\over a} = -\pi G\rho (1+w)(1+3w)
165: \eeq
166: so that the condition for positive acceleration is $-1 < w < -1/3$. This is
167: to be contrasted to the standard result, ${\ddot a\over a} = -(4\pi
168: G/3)\rho (1+3w)$, requiring only that $w < -1/3$. In (\ref{accel}), as
169: $w$ approaches $-1$, the acceleration would disappear, coming into conflict
170: with the observations. It must be emphasized however that since the
171: connection between $w$ and acceleration is no longer the same when eq.\
172: (\ref{MFE}) is adopted, one should the modified expansion law.
173:
174: In the following we will present results for exponential quintessence
175: potentials, since these proved to be the most promising for overcoming the
176: horizon problem. As will be shown, the modified Friedmann equation
177: enlarges the range of potential parameters which avoid a future horizon,
178: but there is also an allowed range using the normal Friedmann equation.
179: In the penultimate section it will be argued that these solutions do not
180: require any more fine tuning than those arising from other models
181: of quintessence.
182:
183: \section{Quintessence evolution and event horizon}
184:
185: The quintessence field $Q$ with potential $V$ has the usual equation
186: of motion, $\ddot Q + 3H\dot Q + {dV\over dQ} = 0.$ Its pressure and
187: energy density are given by $\rho_\sQ = \sfrac12\dot Q^2 + V$ and
188: $p_\sQ = \sfrac12\dot Q^2 - V$.
189: To explore cosmology both in the usual case and with the modified
190: Friedmann equation (\ref{MFE}) we will introduce a parameter $x=0,1$
191: and write the Hubble rate as
192: \beq
193: H^2 = \kappa^2_x \left( (1 + \sfrac{x}{3})\rho_r + \rho_m +
194: \sfrac12 (1+x)\dot Q^2 + (1-x) V \right)
195: \eeq
196: where $\kappa^2_x = 8\pi G/(1+\sfrac{x}{3})$ and $\rho_r$ and $\rho_m$
197: are the radiation and matter energy densities, respectively. It thus
198: reduces to the standard equation when $x=0$ and the self-tuning one
199: (\ref{MFE}) when $x=1$. Guided by the CMB data, we assume the curvature
200: term in $H^2$ to be absent.
201:
202: Rather than integrating with respect to time $t$, it is convenient to
203: think in terms of redshift, $1+z = 1/a(t)$, where we take the
204: present scale factor $a(t_0)$ to be unity. Further defining $u = \ln(1+z)$,
205: and rescaling the fields and energy densities via
206: \beqa
207: \hat Q &=& \kappa_x Q, \qquad\qquad\!\! \hat\rho_i = \kappa_x^2
208: H_0^{-2}\rho_i,
209: \nonumber\\
210: \hat V &=& \kappa_x^2 H_0^{-2} V, \qquad\hat H = H/H_0,
211: \eeqa
212: the quintessence equation of motion and Friedmann equation can be
213: written in the dimensionless form
214: \beqa
215: \hat Q'' &=& \hat H^{-2}\left[ \left((1 + \sfrac{x}{3})\hat\rho_r +
216: \sfrac32\hat\rho_m + (1-x)\hat V\right)\hat Q'
217: - \left(1-x\hat Q'^2\right) {\partial\hat V\over \partial\hat Q}
218: \right]\\
219: \hat H^2 &=& {(1 + \sfrac{x}{3})\hat\rho_r + \hat\rho_m
220: + (1-x)\hat V\over 1 -\sfrac12(1+x)\hat Q'^2},
221: \eeqa
222: where primes denote ${d\over du}$. The matter and radiation densities
223: scale with $u$ like $\hat \rho_m =\hat\rho_{m,0} e^{3u}$ and $\hat \rho_r
224: =\hat\rho_{r,0} e^{4u}$ with respect to their present values at $u=0$.
225: These dimensionless equations are well-suited to numerical integration,
226: which is the main technique of our investigation. Notice that conventional
227: time $t$ has been eliminated, and $u=\ln(1+z)=-\ln(a)$ now plays the role of
228: the time variable.
229:
230: In comparing the properties of the quintessence field to observations,
231: we will refer to the fractions of the critical energy density, and the
232: equation of state. The former are defined as
233: \beqa
234: \label{Oieq}
235: \Omega_i &=& {\kappa_x^2 \rho_i\over H^2} = {\hat\rho_i\over \hat H^2};\\
236: \label{Oqeq}
237: \Omega_\sQ &=& {\kappa_x^2\over H^{2}}\left({1+x\over 2}\,
238: \dot Q^2 +(1-x)V\right) =
239: {1+x\over 2}\,\hat Q'^2 +{1\over \hat H^{2}}(1-x)\hat V,
240: \eeqa
241: which satisfy $\Omega_r + \Omega_m + \Omega_\sQ = 1.$
242: As for the quintessence equation of state, it is given by
243: \beq
244: \label{weq}
245: w = { \dot Q^2 - 2V \over \dot Q^2 + 2V } =
246: { \hat H^2 \hat Q'^2 - 2\hat V \over \hat H^2 \hat Q'^2 + 2\hat V }
247: \eeq
248: This follows from the fact that $\dot Q = - H Q'$.
249:
250: In standard cosmology, $w<-1/3$ is the criterion for acceleration. But as
251: noted in the introduction, the relation between $w$ and acceleration is
252: modified for the self-tuning scenario with $x=1$. It is therefore useful
253: to have another quantity indicative of acceleration, which can be more
254: directly related to the observations of high-$z$ supernovae. Let us first
255: review what is actually constrained \cite{white}:
256: it is the distance modulus ($m-M =$
257: apparent minus absolute magnitude) of the SN versus its redshift, where
258: $m-M = 5\log_{10}(d_L/\hbox{Mpc}) + 25$, and the luminosity distance
259: $d_L(z)$ is given by $(1+z)H_0\Delta(z)$, with
260: \beq
261: \Delta(z) = \int_{t(z)}^{t_0} {dt\over a(t)} =
262: \int_0^z {dz'\over\hat H(z')} = \int_0^{\ln(1+z)}
263: {e^u\over \hat H(u)}\, du
264: \eeq
265: In a flat universe with only matter and cosmological constant components,
266: $\Omega_m+\Omega_\Lambda = 1$,
267: one would have
268: \beq
269: \label{DLeq}
270: \Delta_\Lambda \equiv \int_1^{1+z}
271: {dx\over (x^3\Omega_m + \Omega_\Lambda)^{1/2}}
272: \eeq
273: The high-$z$ SN results essentially try to measure $\Delta(z)$ as a
274: function of $z$ in order to fit $\Omega_\Lambda$. We therefore define a
275: phenomenological parameter, $\Oeff$:
276: \beq
277: \label{Oeffeq}
278: \Oeff \equiv \Omega_\Lambda\hbox{\ such that\ } \Delta_\Lambda(3/4) =
279: \Delta(3/4),
280: \eeq
281: {\it i.e.,} $\Oeff$ is the amount of $\Omega_\Lambda$ for
282: pure cosmological constant that would be required to give the same value
283: of $\Delta(z)$ as is produced by the quintessence model. This is a
284: $z$-dependent definition, and we somewhat arbitrarily take the value
285: $z=0.75$ because this is roughly the redshift where the current SN data
286: are which are the most sensitive to $\Omega_\Lambda$.
287:
288: The function $\Delta$ is also relevant for determining whether an event
289: horizon appears in the spacetime, since the coordinate distance traveled
290: by a photon between the present and a future (negative) value of $z$
291: is precisely $\Delta(z)$. The criterion for an event horizon is that
292: $\lim_{z\to -1}\Delta(z) < \infty$. In this case the photon travels
293: a finite coordinate distance in an infinite time, and this determines the
294: position of the horizon for the observer that emitted the photon: no signals
295: originating from beyond that position will ever be able to reach him.
296: For ease of representation, we will define the following measure of
297: horizon formation:
298: \beq
299: \label{Deq}
300: D \equiv \lim_{a\to\infty} {\partial\ln\Delta\over\partial\ln a}
301: = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0, & \quad a(t) \sim e^{H t},\
302: \hbox{horizon exists} \\
303: {1\over q} - 1, & \quad a(t)\sim t^q,\ \hbox{no horizon if\ }q<1
304: \end{array}
305: \right.
306: \eeq
307: Here $q={2\over 3(1+w)}$ if the dominant component has equation of state
308: $p=w\rho$. For example, $D=1/2$ in a universe which behaves as though
309: it is matter dominated ($q=2/3$) at very late times. We will see below
310: that $D=1/2$ is the maximum value that arises in the quintessence
311: models which we consider.
312:
313: \section{Results}
314:
315: We have examined some of the popular choices of the quintessence
316: potential, $V(Q)$, including inverse powers, exponentials, and combinations
317: of the two. For avoiding the event horizon, the exponential potential
318: (first considered in \cite{PR}, and subsequently in \cite{wett}-\cite{clw})
319: seems most promising:
320: \beq
321: \hat V(\hat Q) = \hat V_0 e^{-\beta\hat Q}
322: \eeq
323: This potential has only a single free parameter, $\beta$,\footnote{in the
324: notation of ref.\ \cite{wett}, $\beta = \sqrt{6}a$, and in that of refs.\
325: \cite{FJ,clw}, $\beta=\sqrt{3}\lambda$, assuming the normal Friedmann
326: equation.} once the constraint that $\Omega_\sQ = 1 - \Omega_m$ is imposed
327: for the present epoch, for this determines $V_0$. The statement is
328: strictly true if one assumes that initially $\hat Q'=0$, since the initial
329: value of $\hat Q$ itself can be absorbed into the definition of $\hat
330: V_0$. However, even if $\hat Q'\neq 0$ initially, the quintessence field
331: converges to an attractor solution \cite{wett}--\cite{clw}, as shown in
332: figure \ref{fig1a}: the two solutions corresponding to different initial
333: conditions converge to the same functional form after some time. In this
334: example, we numerically integrated the equation of motion for the case
335: $\Omega_m = 0.25$ starting from initial conditions at $u=\ln(1+z) = 12$
336: ($z=1.6\times 10^{5}$), during the radiation dominated era with initial
337: conditions $\hat Q = 0$\footnote{The initial condition on $\hat Q$ is not
338: significant since it can be absorbed into $\hat V_0$.} and $\hat Q' = 0$ or
339: $1$. Although the early behavior of $\hat Q$ is clearly affected by the
340: difference in initial $\hat Q'$, both solutions join their common
341: trajectory well before quintessence starts to dominate in the present
342: era. Figure \ref{fig1b}\ shows the corresponding quintessence equation of
343: state, $w$, in the two cases. In this example it is clear that
344: quintessence can contribute to the acceleration during the period when
345: $w=-1$, whereas $w\to -0.25$ in the future, which is larger than $-1/3$ and
346: therefore cannot cause acceleration.
347:
348: \FIGURE{
349: \centerline{\epsfxsize=3.5in\epsfbox{O2a.eps}}
350: \vspace{-1.0cm}
351: \caption{$\Omega_r$, $\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_\sQ$ as a function of
352: $u = \ln(1+z)$ for the potential $\hat V = \hat V_0 e^{-2.6 \hat Q}$
353: ({\it i.e.,} $\beta=2.6$). The initial conditions at $u=12$ are
354: $\hat Q'=0$ and $\hat Q'=1$, respectively.}
355: \label{fig1a}}
356:
357: \FIGURE{
358: \centerline{\epsfxsize=3.5in\epsfbox{w2.eps}}
359: \vspace{-1.0cm}
360: \caption{The quintessence equation
361: of state, $w$, as a function of $u$, for the same two sets of
362: initial conditions as in figure \ref{fig1a}.}
363: \label{fig1b}}
364:
365: Now let us consider the fate of the universe at very late times, for the
366: interesting range of potential parameters. We find that a range of $\beta$
367: values exists such that the cosmological expansion is accelerating today
368: even though at late times it will revert to a power law, $a\sim t^q$, with
369: $q\le 2/3$. This is illustrated by the solid curves of figure \ref{fig2},
370: which again were made assuming that $\Omega_m=0.25$ and the initial
371: conditions $\hat Q=\hat Q'=0$ at $u=12$. From the middle curve, the horizon
372: formation parameter $D$ (eq.\ (\ref{Deq})), we see that an event horizon is
373: avoided if $\beta \gsim 2.4.$ It is interesting to note that for larger
374: values of $\beta$, $D\to 1/2$, just as it would for a matter-dominated
375: universe, even though quintessence is dominating at late times. This
376: happens because the solutions have the property that $\rho_\sQ \sim
377: a^{-3}$, just as though the universe was matter-dominated \cite{FJ}.
378:
379: However, very large values of $\beta$ do not yield sufficient
380: acceleration at present times to be consistent with observations. This
381: can be seen from the top and bottom curves, showing $\Oeff$ (defined in
382: eq.\ (\ref{Oeffeq})) and $w$ (eq.\ (\ref{weq})) respectively. The 99\%
383: confidence level SN limits are $w<-0.5$ for $\Omega_m=0.25$ and $\Oeff >
384: 0.5$ for a flat universe. It is difficult to apply the limit on $w$ in a
385: quantitative way in the present model because of the fact that $w$ is
386: changing very rapidly between the redshifts of $z=1/2$, where much of the
387: SN data is clustered, and the present, $z=0$. This rapid variation can be
388: seen in the example of figure \ref{fig1b}\ as well as by comparing the
389: bottom sets of curves in figure \ref{fig2}. On the other hand, the limit
390: on $\Oeff$ can be applied in a straightforward way to give $\beta \lsim
391: 2.8$.\footnote{Naively one might expect that $\Oeff =1-\Omega_m$ should be
392: satisfied, which would rule out all values of $\beta$ shown, but we remind
393: the reader that $\Oeff$ is defined as the amount of real $\Omega_\Lambda$
394: that would give the same amount of current acceleration as the given
395: quintessence model. Since quintessence is less efficient at causing
396: acceleration than is vacuum energy, it is not surprising that $\Oeff$ is
397: less than $\Omega_\sQ$.} Thus it is possible to satisfy the observational
398: constraints without getting an event horizon if $2.4 \lsim \beta \lsim
399: 2.8$.
400:
401: \FIGURE{
402: \centerline{\epsfxsize=5.5in\epsfbox{Bg8a.eps}$\phantom{AAAAAA}$}
403: \caption{From bottom to top: the quintessence equation of
404: state $w$, at redshifts $z=1/2$ and at $z=0$, the horizon formation
405: parameter $D$ (eq.\ (\ref{Deq})), and
406: the SN effective $\Omega_\Lambda$, $\Oeff$ (eq.\
407: (\ref{Oeffeq})),
408: as a function of the potential parameter $\beta$. Solid lines are for the
409: normal Friedmann equation ($x=0$), dashed are for the self-tuning one
410: ($x=1$).}
411: \label{fig2}}
412:
413: We have also done the same analysis using the self-tuning Friedmann
414: equation, shown by the dashed curves of figure \ref{fig2}. One sees that
415: the range of $\beta$ for which no horizon forms is enlarged to $\beta\gsim
416: 1.8$. This agrees with the intuitive expectation that acceleration is
417: reduced in this case, compared to the standard Friedmann equation. But at
418: the same time, $\Oeff$ and $|w|$ are decreased, making it more difficult
419: to obtain the observed acceleration. Since the connection between ${\ddot
420: a(t)\over a}$ and $w$ is no longer the same as assumed in the analysis of
421: the SN data, we again take advantage of the $\Oeff$ parameter. Demanding
422: that $\Oeff > 0.5$ gives $\beta < 2.4$. The allowed range consistent with
423: no horizon, $1.8 \lsim\beta\lsim 2.4$, is thus shifted and slightly
424: widened relative to the normal case.
425:
426: It is easy to elucidate the origin of our loophole to the horizon-formation
427: arguments put forward in references \cite{Paban}-\cite{He}. These analyses
428: assume that quintessence is dominating very strongly in the present, or
429: equivalently that its equation of state does not change from its present
430: value. However this approximation is not valid for the solutions we have
431: presented, such as in figure \ref{fig1a}. In the present epoch, $u=0$, the
432: equation of state $w$ for these solutions is always going through a
433: transition from $-1$ to some value greater than $-1/3$, so as to avoid the
434: horizon. In the case of solutions with small $\beta<2.4$, it is also true
435: that $w$ changes near $u=0$, but its final value at large times is
436: $w<-1/3$, leading to a horizon.
437:
438: \section{Naturalness}
439:
440: In this section we discuss the question of how much fine tuning is needed
441: to obtain the desired solutions. The exponential potential has been
442: somewhat disparaged because of the emphasis on solutions which reach the
443: scaling regime, where $w$ is constant, very early in the evolution. Such
444: solutions are uninteresting in light of the current data because they
445: maintain a constant value of $\Omega_\sQ$. Since $\Omega_\sQ$ must be less
446: than about 15\% at nucleosynthesis or during large scale structure
447: formation, this would render its contribution too small to account for the
448: present acceleration. But as pointed out in \cite{swz}, this negative
449: conclusion can be circumvented by assuming that quintessence is far from
450: the late-time attractor solution in the not-too-distant past, so that $w$
451: can evolve, which is exactly the situation for the solutions presented
452: here.
453:
454: Does the fact that these quintessence solutions start out far from the
455: late-time attractors make them less natural? We argue that this is not the
456: case. All quintessence models require one tuning in order to achieve
457: $\Omega_\sQ = 1 - \Omega_m$ today, and this is the only one which we
458: have invoked. The tuning is imposed as a particular
459: value of the combination
460: \beq
461: \tilde V_0 \equiv V_0 e^{-\beta\hat Q_i},
462: \eeq
463: where $\hat Q_i$ is the initial value of $\hat Q$. The value of
464: $\tilde V_0$
465: required to make $\Omega_\sQ = 1 - \Omega_m$ today depends on the
466: initial velocity, or equivalently $\hat Q'_i$. In the very early universe
467: the kinetic energy of quintessence typically dominates over its potential
468: energy unless $\hat Q'_i$ is exactly zero (see eq.\ (\ref{Oqeq})), so this
469: amounts to a choice for the initial value of $\Omega_{\sQ,i} \cong
470: (1+x)\hat Q_i'^2/2$. Figure \ref{fig1a} shows that whether $\Omega_{\sQ,i}
471: \cong 0 $ or $1$, the recent evolution of the quintessence is identical, so
472: long as $\tilde V_0$ takes the right value. In this sense, we can say that
473: the models under consideration are very insensitive to the initial
474: conditions. This conclusion in no way depends on our choice for the initial
475: time. Figure \ref{fig4} shows the evolution of $\Omega_i$ for the same
476: parameters as in fig.\ \ref{fig1a}, except now the initial redshift is
477: taken to be $10^{17}$, corresponding to an initial temperature of 100 TeV.
478: Not only is the late-time evolution unaffected, but the choice of $V_0$
479: is identical if $\hat Q'_i=0$, and $V_0$ only changes by a factor of
480: $5$ relative to the later initial condition if $\hat Q'_i\neq 0$.
481: \vspace{-0.25cm}
482: \FIGURE{
483: \centerline{\epsfxsize=3.5in\epsfbox{O2.eps}}
484: \vspace{-1.0cm}
485: \caption{Same as fig.\ \ref{fig1a}, except starting at redshift
486: $z=10^{17}$ instead of $z=10^5$ (and the additional initial condition
487: $\hat Q'_i=0.04$ is also shown, which corresponds to inflationary initial
488: conditions with equipartition of energy).
489: This demonstrates the insensitivity
490: of the solution to the choice of the initial time.}
491: \label{fig4}}
492:
493: Another aspect of naturalness is the value of $\tilde V_0$ required. If
494: $\hat Q'_i \ll 1$ (hence $\Omega_{\sQ,i}\ll 1$), as would be natural in
495: inflation if equipartition was realized \cite{FJ,swz}, then $\tilde V_0$
496: must be of order the present critical density, $\tilde V_0\sim (10^{-3}$
497: eV$)^4$. (The evolution with such an initial condition, with
498: $\Omega_{\sQ,i} = 10^{-3}$, hence $\hat Q'_i = 0.04$, is illustrated in
499: figure \ref{fig4}.) This looks unnaturally small in particle physics
500: units, but one advantage of the exponential potential is that the smallness
501: of $\tilde V_0$ can be explained by a moderately large value of $\hat
502: Q_i$. For example, if $V_0\sim$ (TeV)$^4$, then $Q_i$ should be of order
503: $50 M_p$, which is not such a disturbing hierarchy.
504:
505: The final aspect of naturalness is how sensitive the solution is to small
506: changes in $V_0$. Changing $V_0$ causes a shift in the time when the
507: quintessence and matter energy densities become comparable, which is related
508: to the so-called coincidence problem: why is it that quintessence is just
509: starting to dominate in the present epoch?
510: It can be shown that scaling the potential by a factor of
511: $V_{\rm new}/V_0$ leads to the following dependence in the redshift of
512: matter-quintessence equality, $z_{m-q}$:
513: \beq
514: z_{m-q} = 0.71 + \left(V_{\rm new}\over V_0\right)^{1/3}.
515: \eeq
516: The power $1/3$ is just coming from the fact that $V_0$ must be of
517: order the critical density at $z_{m-q}$, and density scales with redshift
518: like $(1+z)^3$. Therefore, in some sense the value of $z_{m-q}$ is rather
519: insensitive to the value of $V_0$; the coincidence problem would be much
520: worse if the dependence was through a higher power.
521:
522: \section{Conclusion}
523:
524: We have shown that it is possible to evade the cosmological event horizon
525: which might pose a difficulty for deriving quintessence from string
526: theory: for a range of $2.4 \lsim \beta \lsim 2.8$ with the conventional
527: Friedmann equation, or $1.8 \lsim\beta\lsim 2.4$ for the self-tuning
528: variant, the exponential potential $V(Q) = V_0 e^{-\beta\kappa_x Q}$
529: gives this outcome. We also tried other kinds of potentials, such
530: as inverse powers, $V\sim Q^{-p}$, but for these the development of
531: a future horizon was found to be inevitable.
532:
533: We began this work with the idea that a self-tuning Friedmann equation
534: might make it easier to avoid a cosmological horizon in a
535: quintessential universe. The outcome is that self-tuning does not really
536: make a big difference: eternal acceleration can be avoided with or without
537: self-tuning. Of course self-tuning is still very interesting, because
538: it allows us to work with a larger class of potentials,
539: \beq
540: V = V_1 + V_0 e^{-\beta\hat Q}
541: \eeq
542: since only in the self-tuning case is the evolution completely insensitive
543: to the value of $V_1$. It is likely that there are other problems with
544: self-tuning, since the strength of gravity on subgalactic scales is known
545: to be consistent with the normal Planck mass, whereas gravity looks
546: effectively weaker on cosmological scales in the self-tuning case. This is
547: suggestive of the presence of an extra scalar component like a massive
548: Brans-Dicke field, whose limited range accounts for the difference between
549: the effective Planck mass at large and small distance scales. However the
550: couplings of such a field to matter are very highly constrained by precision
551: tests of general relativity in the solar system, like the precession of the
552: perihelion of Mercury.\footnote{I thank Maxim Pospelov for discussions on
553: this point.}
554:
555: Regardless of self-tuning however, the class of solutions we have
556: discussed seem sufficiently natural to warrant consideration as a strong
557: candidate for the dark energy which is presently observed. It is expected
558: that progress in the observations of high-$z$ supernovae (the SNAP
559: experiment \cite{snap}) will soon be able to distinguish this kind of
560: model from others through an accurate determination of the time dependence
561: of the equation of state \cite{snap-theory}. The very large present
562: time-dependence of $w$ in the exponential models makes them particularly
563: interesting in this respect. Figure \ref{fig5} shows $dw/dz$ at redshift
564: $z=0.5$ for the relevant range of $\beta$. Thus if the SNAP experiment was
565: to measure that $dw/dz < -0.26$ at $z=0.5$, it would indicate that the
566: universe will stop accelerating in the future and thus avoid an event
567: horizon, in the context of the model discussed here.
568:
569: \vspace{-0.1cm}
570: \FIGURE{
571: \centerline{\epsfxsize=3.5in\epsfbox{dwdz.eps}
572: \label{fig5}}
573: \vspace{-1.25cm}
574: \caption{Rate of change of the quintessence equation of state,
575: $dw/dz$, at $z=1/2$ as a function of the potential parameter $\beta$.
576: In the region of $\beta=2.4$, $dw/dz \approx 0.23 - 0.2\beta$
577: for the normal Friedmann equation, and near $\beta = 1.8$,
578: $dw/dz \approx -0.07 - 0.16\beta$ for the self-tuning one.}}
579:
580:
581: \noindent {\bf Note added}: as this work was being finished, ref.\
582: \cite{halyo} appeared, which presents a different quintessence model that
583: also avoids the future horizon.
584:
585:
586: \acknowledgments
587:
588: I thank the theory group of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory for their
589: hospitality while this work was being finished.
590:
591:
592:
593: %\listoftables % ONLY DRAFT
594: %\listoffigures % ONLY DRAFT
595:
596: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
597:
598: \bibitem{cmb} S.~Dodelson and L.~Knox,
599: %``Dark Energy and the CMB,''
600: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84}, 3523 (2000)
601: [astro-ph/9909454];\\
602: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9909454;%%
603: L.~M.~Griffiths, A.~Melchiorri and J.~Silk,
604: %``CMB Constraints on a Baryonic Dark Matter-Dominated Universe,''
605: astro-ph/0101413.
606: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0101413;%%
607:
608: \bibitem{Om}
609: J.~R.~Primack,
610: %``Cosmological parameters,''
611: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 87}, 3 (2000);
612: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,87,3;%%
613: %``Cosmological Parameters 2000,''
614: astro-ph/0007187.
615: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0007187;%%
616:
617: \bibitem{smoot}
618: G.F.\ Smoot, talk given at DOE Program Review, LBL, 22 May 2001
619:
620: \bibitem{SN}
621: S.~Perlmutter {\it et al.} [Supernova Cosmology Project Collaboration],
622: %``Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae,''
623: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 517}, 565 (1999)
624: [astro-ph/9812133].
625:
626: \bibitem{quint}
627: R.~R.~Caldwell, R.~Dave and P.~J.~Steinhardt,
628: %``Cosmological Imprint of an Energy Component with General
629: % Equation-of-State,''
630: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 80}, 1582 (1998)
631: [astro-ph/9708069].
632: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9708069;%%
633:
634: \bibitem{banks}
635: T.~Banks,
636: %``Cosmological breaking of supersymmetry or little Lambda goes
637: % back to the future. II,''
638: hep-th/0007146;\\
639: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0007146;%%
640: T.~Banks and W.~Fischler,
641: %``M-theory observables for cosmological space-times,''
642: hep-th/0102077.
643: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0102077;%%
644:
645: \bibitem{Paban}
646: W.~Fischler, A.~Kashani-Poor, R.~McNees and S.~Paban,
647: %``The acceleration of the universe, a challenge for string theory,''
648: hep-th/0104181.
649:
650: \bibitem{HKS}
651: S.~Hellerman, N.~Kaloper and L.~Susskind,
652: %``String theory and quintessence,''
653: hep-th/0104180.
654: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0104180;%%
655:
656: \bibitem{He}
657: X.~He,
658: %``Accelerating Universe and Event Horizon,''
659: astro-ph/0105005.
660: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0105005;%%
661:
662: \bibitem{moffat}
663: J.~W.~Moffat,
664: %``Acceleration of the universe, string theory and a varying speed of light,''
665: hep-th/0105017.
666: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0105017;%%
667:
668:
669: \bibitem{st}
670: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
671: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos, N.~Kaloper and R.~Sundrum,
672: %``A small cosmological constant from a large extra dimension,''
673: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 480}, 193 (2000)
674: [hep-th/0001197];\\
675: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0001197;%%
676: S.~Kachru, M.~Schulz and E.~Silverstein,
677: %``Self-tuning flat domain walls in 5d gravity and string theory,''
678: %``Self-tuning flat domain walls in 5d gravity and string theory,''
679: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 045021 (2000)
680: [hep-th/0001206];\\
681: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0001206;%%
682: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
683: C.~Cs\'aki, J.~Erlich, C.~Grojean and T.~Hollowood,
684: %``General properties of the self-tuning domain wall approach to the
685: %cosmological constant problem,''
686: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 584}, 359 (2000)
687: [hep-th/0004133].
688: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0004133;%%
689:
690: \bibitem{stp}
691: S.~F\"orste, Z.~Lalak, S.~Lavignac and H.~P.~Nilles,
692: %``A comment on self-tuning and vanishing cosmological constant in the
693: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}\ {\bf B481}, 360 (2000)
694: {[hep-th/0002164]};\\
695: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0002164;%%
696: P.~Binetruy, J.~M.~Cline and C.~Grojean,
697: %``Dynamical instability of brane solutions with a self-tuning cosmological constant,''
698: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 489}, 403 (2000)
699: [hep-th/0007029].
700: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0007029;%%
701:
702: \bibitem{CM}
703: S.~M.~Carroll and L.~Mersini,
704: %``Can we live in a self-tuning universe?,''
705: hep-th/0105007.
706: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0105007;%%
707:
708: \bibitem{white}
709: M.~J.~White,
710: %``Complementary Measures of the Mass Density and Cosmological Constant,''
711: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 506}, 495 (1998)
712: [astro-ph/9802295].
713: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9802295;%%
714:
715: \bibitem{PR}
716: B.~Ratra and P.~J.~Peebles,
717: %``Cosmological Consequences Of A Rolling Homogeneous Scalar Field,''
718: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 37}, 3406 (1988).
719: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D37,3406;%%
720:
721: \bibitem{wett}
722: C. Wetterich, {\it Astron. Astrophys.} {\bf 301}, 32 1995
723: [hep-th/9408025].
724: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9408025;%%;
725:
726: \bibitem{FJ}
727: P.~G.~Ferreira and M.~Joyce,
728: %``Structure formation with a self-tuning scalar field,''
729: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 79}, 4740 (1997)
730: [astro-ph/9707286];\\
731: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9707286;%%
732: %``Cosmology with a Primordial Scaling Field,''
733: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 023503 (1998)
734: [astro-ph/9711102].
735: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9711102;%%
736:
737: \bibitem{clw}
738: E.J. Copeland, A.R. Liddle and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. {\bf D57}, 4686
739: (1998)
740: [gr-qc/9711068].
741: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9711068;%%
742:
743:
744: \bibitem{swz}
745: I.~Zlatev, L.~Wang and P.~J.~Steinhardt,
746: %``Quintessence, Cosmic Coincidence, and the Cosmological Constant,''
747: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82}, 896 (1999)
748: [astro-ph/9807002];\\
749: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9807002;%%
750: P.~J.~Steinhardt, L.~Wang and
751: I.~Zlatev,
752: %``Cosmological tracking solutions,''
753: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 123504 (1999)
754: [astro-ph/9812313].
755: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9812313;%%
756:
757: \bibitem{snap} P.~Nugent [SNAP Collaboration], ``SNAP: Supernova /
758: acceleration probe: An experiment to measure the properties of the
759: accelerating universe,''. presented at 2nd Tropical Workshop On Particle
760: Physics And Cosmology, 1-6 May 2000, San Juan, Puerto Rico; snap.lbl.gov.
761:
762: \bibitem{snap-theory}
763:
764: I.~Maor, R.~Brustein and P.~J.~Steinhardt,
765: %``Limitations in using luminosity distance to determine the equation-of-state of the universe,''
766: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86}, 6 (2001)
767: [astro-ph/0007297];\\
768: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0007297;%%
769: T.~Chiba and T.~Nakamura,
770: %``Feasibility of reconstructing the quintessential potential using SNIa data,''
771: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 121301 (2000)
772: [astro-ph/0008175];\\
773: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0008175;%%
774: J.~Weller and A.~Albrecht,
775: %``Opportunities for future supernova studies of cosmic acceleration,''
776: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86}, 1939 (2001)
777: [astro-ph/0008314];\\
778: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0008314;%%
779: V.~Barger and D.~Marfatia,
780: %``Supernova data may be unable to distinguish between quintessence and k-essence,''
781: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 498}, 67 (2001)
782: [astro-ph/0009256];\\
783: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0009256;%%
784: D.~Huterer and M.~S.~Turner,
785: %``Probing the dark energy: Methods and strategies,''
786: astro-ph/0012510
787: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0012510;%%
788:
789: \bibitem{halyo}
790: E.~Halyo,
791: %``Hybrid Quintessence with an End or Quintessence from Branes and Large Dimensions,''
792: hep-ph/0105216.
793: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105216;%%
794:
795: \end{thebibliography}
796:
797: \end{document}
798:
799:
800:
801: