1: \documentstyle[12pt]{article}

2: \textheight 23cm

3: \textwidth 15.5cm

4: \topmargin -2cm

5: \oddsidemargin 0.5cm

6: \evensidemargin 0.5cm

7: \input epsf

8: %\begin(document)

9: \title{Tests for Cosmological Evolution of a Brane Universe Model

10: %\footnote{The project is supported by the grant from Ministry of

11: %Science and Technology of China under contract No. NK-BRSF

12: %G19990753\\mengxh@public.tpt.tj.cn }

13: %\footnote{ Foundation item: No. NK-BRSF G19990753  from Ministry of Science and Technology of China. }

14: }

15: 

16: \author{Xinhe MENG (1,2,3) \footnote{

17: mengxh@public.tpt.tj.cn}
,

18:  \ \ Jingmin HOU (1), Kaiyi LU (1) and Wenyao ZHAO (1)

19: \\ 1  Department of Physics, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, P.R.China\\

20: %\small{Institute of Physics, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300071, P.R.China\\

21: 2 Institute of Theoretical Physics, CAS, Beijing 100080, P.R.China\\

22: 3 Department of Physics, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima 739-8521, Japan}

23: \begin{document}

24: 

25: \maketitle

26: 

27: \begin{abstract}

28: The relativistic Friedmann Lemaitre cosmology model (FLCM) is very

29: sucessful to describe the evolution history of the Universe from

30: the " First three Minutes". Any alternative model should be

31: consistent with  the FLCM explanations to the later stage

32: evolutions of the Universe at certain points. An noncompact extra

33: dimension model was recently proposed by Randall and Sundrum.

34: Binetruy et al. obtained the modified Friedmann equation, in

35: which the energy density of the brane appears quadratically in

36: contrast with the linear behavior of the standard Friedmann

37: equation.  We investigate kinds of classical cosmological effects of

38: the new models and get a general solution of the cosmic evolution

39: for this extended model, with more detail discussions of the brane

40: tension parameter on these cosmological tests.

41: 

42: %PACS numbers:

43: 

44: 

45: 

46: 

47: 

48: \end{abstract}

49: 

50: \section{Introduction}

51: Brane world cosmology seems to provide an alternative explanation

52: for the present accelerating stage of the Universe\cite{pr} without

53: introducing either a cosmological constant or an evolutional

54: quintessence-like component. The basic idea in these scenarios is

55: the existence of a higher dimensional bulk in which our Universe

56: is sitting as a hypersurface, named 3-brane. The particle physics standard

57: model matter fields are located in the brane while gravity

58: propogates in all dimensions, namely bulk. The large extra

59: dimensions also can solve the mass hierarchy problem of the

60: standard particle physics model. Previously it has been assumed

61: that the extra dimensions are compact to be unobservable small, as

62: the  so-called Kaluza-Klein model\cite{kaluza,klein}. Recently

63: Randall and Sundrum relaxed the constraints of Kaluza-Klein model

64: and proposed a new idea \cite{rs1,rs2} that

65:  the extra dimension is noncompact, which was also proposed earlier by Wesson\cite{wes} (and for the equivalence between them see for example, J.Leon,Mod.Phys.Lett.A16 (2001) 2291), i.e., the extra dimension  is large and

66: conceivable.

67: 

68: 

69: 

70: The relativistic Friedmann Lemaitre cosmology model (FLCM) is very

71: successful to describe the evolution history of the Universe from

72: the " First three Minutes". Any alternative models should match

73: the FLCM explanations to the later stage evolutions of the

74: Universe at certain points. How to test the  Randall-Sundrum

75: model? The best way is to investigate its cosmological effects,

76: which can provide constraints on these type of models. Binetruy et

77: al. have researched the cosmological evolution of the Universe and

78: shown that the equations governing the cosmological evolution of

79: the brane will be different from the analogous Friedmann equations

80: of standard cosmology \cite{binetruy}, i.e., the

81:  energy density

82: of the brane Cosmology appears quadratically in the new Friedmann

83: equation in contrast with the linear behavior of the usual

84: equation. To reconcile brane cosmology with the standard

85: cosmological scenario, they put a cosmological constant in the

86: bulk and introduce in the brane, in addition to ordinary matter

87: fields, a constant tension that exactly compensates the bulk

88: cosmological constant, so that the quadratic term would be

89: cancelled, to leave the linear term dominated in low energy

90: evolution stages as argued. In this paper we mainly discuss the

91: additional quadratic brane density term of the brane cosmology

92: model  which is obviously different from  the standard Friedmann

93: one, trying to give more qualitative relations to see the effects

94: from the unconstrained tension parameter, with the hope to give

95: more physics limits to the parameter.

96: 

97: First, we briefly review the solutions presented by Binetruy et

98: al\cite{binetruy},  from their generalized Friedmann equation,

99: \begin{equation}

100: \frac{\dot{a}^2_0}{a^2_0}=\frac{\kappa^4}{36}\rho^2_b+\frac{C}{a^4_0}-\frac{k}{a^2_0}+\frac{\kappa^2}{6}\rho_B

101: \label{aa}

102: \end{equation}

103: where $a_0$   is scale factor in brane when the coordinate of the

104: fifth dimension $y=0$. The constant $\kappa$  is related to the

105: five-dimensional Newton's constant $G_{(5)}$   and the

106: five-dimensional reduced Planck mass $M_{(5)}$  by the relations

107: $\kappa^2=8\pi G_{(5)}=M^{-3}_{(5)}$. The $\rho_B$ and $\rho_b$

108: are the energy density in bulk and in brane respectively. The $C$

109: is an integral constant that may be interpreted as a dark

110: radiation term for the sake of radiation dominated behavior form,

111: and $k$ is the spatial curvature. From Eq.(\ref{aa}), we know that

112: square of Hubble parameter $H^2=\dot{a}^2_0/a^2_0$ is quadric of

113: the energy density in brane $\rho_b$ , while it is linear to

114: $\rho_b$ in the

115:  standard cosmology.

116: So it must be able to be reduced to the standard theory, i.e. linear to $\rho_b$,

117: if it is reasonable.

118: Binetruy, et al. assumed that the energy density

119:  in the brane could be decomposed in two parts,

120: \begin{equation}

121: \rho_b=\rho_\Lambda+\rho

122: \label{ab}

123: \end{equation}

124: where $\rho_\Lambda$  is a constant that represents an intrinsic

125: tension of the brane and $\rho$ stands for the ordinary energy

126: density in cosmology. Substituting in Eq.(\ref{aa}) one gets

127: \begin{equation}

128: \frac{\dot{a}^2_0}{a^2_0}=\frac{\kappa^2}{6}\rho_B+\frac{\kappa^4}{36}\rho^2_\Lambda

129: +\frac{\kappa^4}{18}\rho_\Lambda\rho_b+\frac{\kappa^4}{36}\rho^2_b

130: +\frac{C}{a^4_0}-\frac{k}{a^2_0} \label{ac}

131: \end{equation}

132: Following Randall and Sundrum\cite{rs2}, Binetruy, et al. by

133: choosing $\rho_\Lambda$   such that

134: \begin{equation}

135: \frac{\kappa^2}{6}\rho_B+\frac{\kappa^4}{36}\rho^2_\Lambda=0

136: \label{ad}

137: \end{equation}

138: and we then get

139: \begin{equation}

140: \frac{\dot{a}^2_0}{a^2_0}=\frac{8\pi

141: G}{3}(\rho+\frac{\rho^2}{2\lambda})

142: +\frac{C}{a^4_0}-\frac{k}{a^2_0}

143: \label{ae}

144: \end{equation}

145: where it is assumed that $8\pi G=\frac{\kappa^4\rho_\Lambda}{6}$

146: and $\lambda=1/\rho_\Lambda$. If the brane tension parameter

147: $\lambda\rightarrow\infty$ and the integral constant

148: $C=0$,Eq.(\ref{ae}) will be reduced to the standard Friedmann

149: equation

150: \begin{equation}

151: \frac{\dot{a}^2_0}{a^2_0}=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho-\frac{k}{a^2_0}

152: \label{af}

153: \end{equation}

154: Throughout this paper we neglect the possibility of the existence of a cosmological constant on the brane for the early universe evolution and for simplicity\cite{se}, to focus on the brane tension effects. For the inclusion of a cosmological constant or a quintessence-like scalar field with negative equation of state is now under our consideration in another work to appear. 

155: 

156: We have in addition the usual equation of conservation for the energy-momentum

157: tensor of the cosmic fluid given by

158: \begin{equation}

159: \dot{\rho}+3H(p+\rho)=0

160: \label{ag}

161: \end{equation}

162: 

163: In this paper, we assume that the integral constant $C$ in

164: Eq.(\ref{ae}) is equal to zero for simplicity, or for the later

165: evolutions of the Universe the dark radiation term negligible, and

166: $k=0$ as the recent observational data suggest that the Universe

167: is flat\cite{pryke, netterfield, stompor}. In this framework we

168: mainly discuss several classical observational tests for this

169: enlarged brane cosmology model to see the effects of the

170: additional term.

171: 

172: \section{The critical density}

173: It is convenient to discuss dimensionless quantity as we often do

174: in physics investigation. In the standard cosmology, for

175: convenience, the density fraction of the world models is expressed

176: in terms of a critical density, which is defined to be the density

177: when the curvature $k=0$, i.e.,  $\rho^{standard}_c=3H^2/8\pi G$.It

178: is similar  that we can define the critical density in the brane

179: Universe models. By choosing the integral constant $C=0$ in

180: Eq.(\ref{ae}), we get

181: \begin{equation}

182: H^2=\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}=\frac{8\pi

183: G}{3}(\rho+\frac{\rho^2}{2\lambda})-\frac{k}{a^2}

184: \label{ba}

185: \end{equation}

186: where, for convenience, we have omitted the subscript of the scale

187: factor, which would not lead to confusion in this paper. By

188: assuming the curvature $k=0$ in Eq.(\ref{af}), we deduced the

189: critical density

190: \begin{equation}

191: \rho_c=\sqrt{\lambda^2+\frac{3H^2\lambda}{4\pi G}}-\lambda

192: \label{bb}

193: \end{equation}

194: 

195: \begin{figure}[ht]

196: \epsfxsize=14cm

197: \epsfbox{fig1.eps}

198: \caption{\small The critical density in the brane Universe as a function

199: of brane tension parameter. The brane tension parameter and the

200: critical density are both in units of

201: $\rho^{standard}_c=3H^2/8\pi G$}

202: \label{density}

203: \end{figure}

204: For convenience, we define the dimensionless brane tension

205: parameter $\lambda '=8\pi G\lambda /3H^2_0$. Note that the

206: critical $\rho_c$ is  a monotone increasing function of brane

207: tension parameter $\lambda '$, and that when

208: $\lambda\rightarrow\infty$, $\rho_c$ reduces to

209: $\rho_c^{standard}$, as we expect. More details of the

210: relationship between the critical density $\rho_c$ and brane

211: tension parameter are shown in Figure \ref{density}. The critical

212: density sharply  increases with $\lambda$ in the lower values of

213: $\lambda '$, and the curve becomes flat when $\lambda '>2$. When

214: $\lambda '$ is in larger values,in the Eq.(\ref{ba}), the linear

215: term is the leading term, and the quadratic term gives small

216: correction to the standard Friedmann equation; when $\lambda$ is

217: in smaller values, the quadratic term becomes dominated, which

218: indicates that the brane tension plays an important role in the

219: energy density of the brane cosmology model.

220: 

221: \section{A general evolution solution of the brane Universe}

222: In the standard cosmology, one usually uses the comoving

223: coordinates to describe the dynamical evolution states, in which

224: the coordinates of any place don't vary with time, and the

225: evolution of the Universe is described by a scale factor that is a

226: function of cosmic time. If one knows the relationship between the

227: scale factor and the cosmic time, then the global dynamical

228: behavior about the evolution of the Universe is clear. For

229: example, one can directly deduce the Hubble parameter and the

230: deceleration parameters as functions of time, and the dependence

231: relation of the luminosity distance on redshift, and so on. So for

232: a cosmological model to get its dynamical evolution solution, we

233: will be able to obtain kinds of observable quantities to be

234: compared with the experimental data for the model testings.

235: 

236:  In this section we will consider a general case, where the state equation

237: of matter and energy is

238: \begin{equation}

239: p=w\rho

240: \label{ea}

241: \end{equation}

242: and $w$ is assumed to be a constant for simplicity in this paper.

243: From Eqs.(\ref{ag}) and (\ref{ea}) ,  one gets

244: \begin{equation}

245: \rho=\rho_0a^{-n}

246: \label{eb}

247: \end{equation}

248: where $\rho_0$  is a constant standing for the energy density of

249: the Universe today, $n$ is a parameter related to the equation of

250: state parameter w by $n=3(1+w)$. For recent observational data

251: strongly suggest that the Universe is flat, i.e. $k=0$, so we only

252: investigate the case when $k=0$ . Substituting Eq.(\ref{eb}) in Eq.

253: (8) and taking $k=0$, we get

254: \begin{equation}

255: H^2=H^2_0\Omega_0a^{-n}+\frac{H^2_0\Omega^2_0}{2\lambda '}a^{-2n}

256: \label{ec}

257: \end{equation}

258: where $H_0$  is the Hubble parameter today, $\Omega_0$  and $\lambda '$ are defined

259: by $\Omega_0=3H^2_0\rho_0/8\pi G$  and $\lambda '=8\pi G\lambda /3H^2_0$  respectively.

260: Assuming the initial condition $a(t)|_{t=0}=0$, we get a general

261: solution of Eq.(\ref{ec})

262: \begin{equation}

263: \begin{array}{ll}

264: a(t)=\left [\left (

265: \frac{\sqrt{n^2H^2_0\Omega_0}}{2}t+\sqrt{\frac{\Omega_0}{2\lambda

266: '}}\right)^2-\frac{\Omega_0}{2\lambda '}\right]^{1/n} & n>0\\

267: a(t)\propto \exp \left(\sqrt{\frac{2\lambda

268: 'H^2_0\Omega_0}{2\lambda '+\Omega_0}}t \right) & n=0

269: \end{array}

270: \label{ee}

271: \end{equation}

272: The last solution is consistent with the inflation explanation if

273: the energy scale is very high or we may use it to describe the

274: Universe later accelerating expanding stage without a cosmological constant when the energy scale

275: is very low, as observed today. Assuming $\Omega_0=1$, we get the

276: relationship between the scale factor and the cosmic time with

277: different parameters respectively, which are shown in Figure

278: \ref{scale}. Comparing the two curves about $n=2$, we find that

279: for the brane tension parameter smaller, the scale factor $a$ will

280: increase faster, and for the case of $n=3$ we get the same

281: conclusion. In another way, the curves with larger state equation

282: parameter $n$ grow faster in one Hubble time scale

283:  in contrast to ones with smaller parameter $n$ when we fix the value of $\lambda '$, for example 10.

284: \begin{figure}[ht]

285: \epsfxsize=14cm

286: \epsfbox{fig2.eps}

287: \caption{\small The scale factor as a function of cosmic time}

288: \label{scale}

289: \end{figure}

290: \section{The deceleration parameter}

291: Following the fact that our Universe is expanding, one may ask a

292: question that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating or

293: decelerating, or how fast it expands. So, besides the Hubble

294: parameter, the deceleration parameter is another important

295: parameter describing the evolution of the Universe to measure the

296: rate of slowing of the expansion , which is defined by

297: \begin{equation}

298: q=-\frac{a\ddot{a}}{\dot{a}^2}

299: \label{fa}

300: \end{equation}

301: where $q$ is dimensionless. Substituting Eq.(\ref{ec})and its

302: derivative in Eq.(\ref{fa}), one gets

303: \begin{equation}

304: q=\frac{(n-2)\lambda 'a^n+(n-1)\Omega_0}{2\lambda 'a^n+\Omega_0}

305: \label{fb}

306: \end{equation}

307: 

308: In the standard cosmology, the deceleration parameter $q$ is a

309: function of the present density parameter $\Omega_0$ and the state

310: equation parameter $n$. It is here also a function of the brane

311: tension parameter $\lambda '$ in the brane cosmology, which we can

312: see from the above equation. In the present epoch the scale factor

313: can be set $a=1$, so we can get the deceleration parameter today,

314: \begin{equation}

315: q_0=\frac{(n-2)\lambda '+(n-1)\Omega_0}{2\lambda '+\Omega_0}

316: \label{fc}

317: \end{equation}

318: 

319: Figure \ref{dec1} shows that the relationship between the present

320: deceleration parameter and the  brane tension parameter $\lambda

321: '$ for $n=2,3,4,$ respectively. The present deceleration parameter

322: is a monotone function of the brane tension parameter.The present

323: deceleration parameter sharply falls for lower values of the brane

324: tension parameter, and the curves become flat when $\lambda '>2$.

325: 

326: \begin{figure}[ht]

327: \epsfxsize=14cm \epsfbox{fig31.eps} \caption{\small The present

328: deceleration parameter as a function of brane tension parameter

329: $\lambda$} \label{dec1}

330: \end{figure}

331: 

332: From mainly the recent SN Ia and Cosmic Microwave Background observations\cite{pr} a cosmological constant-like dark energy may exist today which powers the Universe expansion accelerating with the decelerating parameter -1< q <0. Therefore this observational constraint is not satisfied in the present model without a cosmological constant-like term. Certainly we need more SN Ia observational data to confirm the important constraint that is just the main mission of the near future SNAP project. When the brane parameter approches infinite large, as in the low energy scale case in our present discussion, the decelerating parameter goes to the standard cosmological one without the dark energy existence. The brane world cosmology model with a cosmological constant-like term for a possible negative decelerating parameter is under our investigation in the paper to appear\cite{mx}, but the analytic relations are more complicated than the present ones

333: . 

334: \section{The cosmic time-redshift relation and the age of brane

335: Universe}

336: 

337: An important result for many of cosmology models is the relation

338: between cosmic time $t$ and redshift $z$, from which one can

339: calculate the age of the Universe. So one can compare the

340: calculated age of the Universe and the age of the oldest stars in

341: globular clusters to give constraints on the cosmological models.

342: Because $a=(1+z)^{-1}$, it follows immediately from Eq.(\ref{ec})

343: that

344: \begin{equation}

345: \frac{dz}{dt}=-(1+z)\left

346: [H^2_0\Omega_0(1+z)^n+\frac{H^4_0\Omega^2_0}{2\lambda

347: '}(1+z)^{2n}\right ]^{1/2}

348: \label{ga}

349: \end{equation}

350: Cosmic time $t$ measured from the Big Bang following by the

351: integration

352: \begin{equation}

353: t(z)=\int_0^t

354: dt=-\frac{1}{H_0}\int_\infty^z\frac{dx}{(1+x)\left[\Omega_0(1+x)^n+

355: \displaystyle\frac{\Omega^2_0}{2\lambda

356: '}(1+x)^{2n}\right ]^{1/2}}

357: \label{gb}

358: \end{equation}

359: This integral is difficult to evaluate, so we only work out the

360: numerical solutions for different values of the brane tension

361: parameter, which are shown in Figure \ref{age}. The cosmic time

362: $t$ is a decreasing function of the redshift $z$. From the curves

363: for $\lambda '=10$, we can see that larger state equation

364: parameter implies larger age of the Universe; from the two curves

365: for fixed $n=3, \lambda '=10$ and 100 respectively, we know that

366: larger brane tension parameter also implies larger age of the

367: Universe.

368: 

369: \begin{figure}[ht]

370: \epsfxsize=14cm

371: \epsfbox{fig4.eps}

372: \caption{\small The age of Universe as a function of  redshift

373: $z$}

374: \label{age}

375: \end{figure}

376: \section{The dependence of luminosity distance on redshift }

377:  Hubble parameter is one of the best parameters describing the

378:  evolution of Universe, to express the expanding rate, but it can't be measured directly.  We

379:  have to measure it indirectly, i.e., to deduce it from other parameters

380:  which can be measured. In the standard cosmology, one gets its value from Hubble's

381:  law, which

382:  is the linear relationship between the ``distance'' to a galaxy and its observed

383:  redshift. So if we know the relationship between the ``distance''

384:  and the redshift, we will know the value of the Hubble parameter.

385:  Usually, one uses the luminosity distance as the ``distance'' to

386:  a galaxy, which is defined by $d^2_L\equiv {\cal L} / 4 \pi

387: \cal F$, where $\cal L$ is the absolute luminosity of a galaxy and $\cal F$ is

388:  the measured energy flux, i.e., the energy per time per area

389:  measured by a detector.

390: 

391: \begin{figure}[ht]

392: \epsfxsize=14cm \epsfbox{fig5.eps} \caption{\small The luminosity

393: distance as a function  of redshift $z$} \label{distance}

394: \end{figure}

395: 

396:  In order to compare the results of the model with 

397:  cosmological tests we must deduce the relationship between the

398:  luminosity  distance and the redshift from other relations, see Refs

399:  \cite{dis, dist}. The deduced relationship between the

400:  luminosity distance and the redshift from the relationship between Hubble

401:  parameter and the redshift,  as follows

402: \begin{equation}

403:  d_L=(1+z)\left \{

404:     \begin{array}{ll}

405:     \sin (\sqrt{|\Omega_k|}d_C)/\sqrt{|\Omega_k|} & k=1\\

406:     d_C &  k=0\\

407:     \sinh (\sqrt{|\Omega_k|}d_C)/\sqrt{|\Omega_k|} & k=-1

408:     \end{array}

409:     \right.

410: \label{ha}

411: \end{equation}

412: where $d_C$ is defined by

413: \begin{equation}

414: d_C=\int_0^z H_0\frac{dx}{H(x)}

415: \label{hb}

416: \end{equation}

417: Substituting $a=(1+z)^{-1}$ in Eq.(\ref{ec}), we get

418: \begin{equation}

419: H(z)=H_0\left [\Omega_0 (1+z)^n+\frac{\Omega_0^2}{2\lambda

420: '}(1+z)^{2n}\right ]^{1/2}

421: \label{hc}

422: \end{equation}

423: 

424: Figure \ref{distance} shows the relationship between the

425: luminosity  distance and the redshift when brane tension parameter

426: $\lambda '$ and state equation parameter $n$ are taken to various

427: values respectively. The curves about $\lambda '=10$ show that the

428: luminosity distance increases faster as the redshift increases

429: when the state equation parameter $n$ is smaller. From the two

430: curves when $n=3$ and $\lambda '$ is equal to $10, 100$

431: respectively, we know how the brane tension parameter affects

432: the dependence of luminosity distance on the redshift,i.e., when

433: $\lambda '$ is larger the luminosity increases faster as the

434: redshift increases.

435: 

436: \section{Conclusions}

437: In this paper, following the framework of Binetruy et

438: al.\cite{binetruy}, we investigated kinds of cosmological effects

439: of the brane Universe without the explicit a cosmological constant-like term. First, 

440: we deduced the critical density in

441: the brane Universe, which is different from that in the standard

442: cosmology and is a function of brane tension parameter. Then we

443: found a general solution of the brane Universe and discussed the

444: dependence of the scale factor on the brane tension parameter as

445: well as the state equation parameter. We discussed the

446: relationship between the deceleration parameter and the brane

447: tension parameter, and found that the deceleration is a monotone

448: decreasing function of the brane tension parameter $\lambda '$. We

449: also discussed the cosmic time -redshift relation and the

450: dependence of the age of the brane Universe on the brane tension

451: parameter. Finally, we discussed the dependence of luminosity

452: distance on the redshift for different values of the brane tension

453: parameter $\lambda '$ and the state equation parameter.

454: 

455: 
 

456: 

457: We illustrate that when the brane parameter goes infinite large all the results 

458: approach the standard Friedmann cosmology ones without a cosmological constant-like term.  

459: The dark energy can be accomodated in the standard Friedmann cosmology based on the 

460: relativistic gravitational theory, G.R. with a cosmological constant-like term that may 

461: accelerate our deep understanding to the implying physical world as well as the fundamental

462:  theories describing it,  and it can also be possiblly interpreted in the extended gravity 

463: scenarios and cosmological models, which attract our further continnuous research work. 

464: 

465: 

466: So far brane cosmology is still under frequent discussions with

467: many theoretical speculations, like the interesting one by using

468: it trying to describe the Universe accelerating observations.

469: Surely, we can argue that for the low energy limit the brane

470: cosmology model can be returned the standard cosmology model. But

471:  for trying to explore the matching conditions we need more detail

472:  analysis to the universe classical tests with the brane tension

473: parameter.

474: 

475: Acknowledgements

476: 
The paper has been improved greatly with the comments from communication with Dr. T.Harko, who has provided many instructive advice. The final writtings of this paper is finished in X.H.Meng's academic visit at Hiroshima University supported from JSPS Fellowship. He is very grateful to the theoretical physics group for their extended hospitality to him, especially  Dr.T.Inagaki who provides him lots of helps and makes his stay convenience and enjoyable.

477: The author has also benefited a lot from discussions with many

478: people, especially, Profs. X.P.Wu, Y.Q.Yu, D.H.Zhang, X.M.Zhang, Y.Z.Zhang,

479:  and Y.Zhang. This work is supported by grant of No.

480: NK-BRSF G19990753  from Ministry of Science and Technology of

481: China

482: 

483: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

484: \bibitem{pr}Perlmutter S, et al, Nature 404, 955(2000); Astrophys.J. 517, 565 (1999); Riess A, et al, Astrophys.J. 116, 1009(1998); ibid, 560, 49(2001); Peebles P, astro-ph/0208037; astro-ph/0207347 and references therein

485: \bibitem{kaluza} Kaluza T, Preus. Acad. Wiss. K1, 966(1921)

486: \bibitem{klein} Klein O, Zeit. Phys. 37, 895(1926)

487: \bibitem{rs1} Randall L, Sundrum R, Large mass hierarchy from a

488: small extra dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83(17),3370(1999)

489: \bibitem{rs2} Randall L, Sundrum R, An alternative to

490: compactification, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83(23), 4690(1999)

491: \bibitem{se}see for example, Bento M, Bertolami O and Sen A, hep-th/0208124

492: \bibitem{wes}Wesson P, Gen.Rel.Grav.16,139(1984); Space-Time Matter, World Scientific Publishing Co, 1999

493: \bibitem{binetruy} Binetruy P, Deffayet C, Ellwanger U, Langlois

494: D, Brane cosmological evolution in a bulk with cosmological

495: constant, hep-th/9910219

496: \bibitem{pryke} Pryke C, astro-ph/0104490

497: \bibitem{netterfield} Netterfield C B, astro-ph/0104460

498: \bibitem{stompor} Stompor R, astro-ph/0105062

499: \bibitem{mx}Meng X, in preparation

500: \bibitem{dis} Hogg D W, Distance measures in cosmology,

501: astro-ph/9905116

502: \bibitem{dist} Deffayet C, Dvali G, Gabadadze G, Accelerated Universe from gravity

503: leaking to extra dimensions, Phys.Rev. D65 (2002) 044023

504: \end{thebibliography}

505: 

506: \end{document}

507: