1: \documentclass[preprint]{revtex4}
2:
3:
4:
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6:
7: \draft
8:
9: \begin{document}
10: \titlepage
11: \title{Palatini Formulation of Modified Gravity with $\ln R$ Terms}
12:
13: \author{Xin-He Meng$^{1,2,3}$ \footnote{mengxh@phys.nankai.edu.cn}
14: \ \ Peng Wang$^1$ \footnote{pwang234@sohu.com}
15: } \affiliation{1. Department of Physics, Nankai University,
16: Tianjin 300071, P.R.China \\2. Institute of Theoretical Physics,
17: CAS, Beijing 100080, P.R.China \\3. Department of Physics,
18: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721}
19:
20: \begin{abstract}
21: Recently, corrections to the standard Einstein-Hilbert action are
22: proposed to explain the current cosmic acceleration in stead of
23: introducing dark energy. We discuss the Palatini formulation of
24: the modified gravity with a $\ln R$ term suggested by Nojiri and
25: Odintsov. We show that in the Palatini formulation, the $\ln R$
26: gravity can drive a current exponential accelerated expansion and
27: it reduces to the standard Friedmann evolution for high redshift
28: region. We also discuss the equivalent scalar-tensor formulation
29: of the theory. We indicate that the $\ln R$ gravity may still have
30: a conflict with electron-electron scattering experiment which
31: stimulates us to pursue a more fundamental theory which can give
32: the $\ln R$ gravity as an effective theory. Finally, we discuss a
33: problem faced with the extension of the $\ln R$ gravity by adding
34: $R^m$ terms.
35: \end{abstract}
36:
37:
38: \maketitle
39:
40: \textbf{1. Introduction}
41:
42: That our universe expansion is currently in an accelerating phase
43: now seems well-established. The most direct evidence for this is
44: from the measurement of type Ia supernova \cite{Perlmutter}. Other
45: indirect evidences such as the observations of CMB by the WMAP
46: satellite \cite{Spergel}, large-scale galaxy surveys by 2dF and
47: SDSS also seem supporting this.
48:
49: But now the mechanism responsible for this acceleration is not
50: very clear. Many authors introduce a mysterious cosmic fluid
51: called dark energy to explain this (see Ref.\cite{Peebles,
52: Carroll-de, Padmanabhan} for a review). On the other hand, some
53: authors suggest that maybe there does not exist such mysterious
54: dark energy, but the observed cosmic acceleration is a signal of
55: our first real lack of understanding of gravitational physics
56: \cite{Lue}. An example is the braneworld theory of Dvali et al.
57: \cite{Dvali}.
58:
59: Recently, some authors proposed to add a $R^{-1}$ term in the
60: Einstein-Hilbert action to modify the General Relativity (GR)
61: \cite{Carroll, Capozziello}. It is interesting that such terms may
62: be predicted by string/M-theory \cite{Odintsov3}. It was shown in
63: their work that this additional term can give accelerating
64: solutions of the field equations without dark energy. Based on
65: this modified action, Vollick \cite{Vollick} used Palatini
66: variational principle to derive the field equations. In the
67: Palatini formalism, instead of varying the action only with
68: respect to the metric, one views the metric and connection as
69: independent field variables and vary the action with respect to
70: them independently. This would give second order field equations.
71: In the original Einstein-Hilbert action, this approach gives the
72: same field equations as the metric variation. For a more general
73: action, those two formalism are inequivalent, they will lead to
74: different field equations and thus describe different physics
75: \cite{Volovich}. Flanagan \cite{Flanagan} derived the equivalent
76: scalar-tensor theory of the Palatini formulation. Furthermore, in
77: Ref.\cite{Flanagan2}, Flanagan derived the equivalent
78: scalar-tensor theory of a more general modified gravity framework.
79: Those results are very important and fundamental for the Palatini
80: formalism. We will apply his framework in Sec.3 to discuss the
81: $\ln R$ gravity. In Ref.\cite{Dolgov}, Dolgov and Kawasaki argued
82: that the fourth order field equations following from the metric
83: variation suffer serious instability problem. If this is indeed
84: the case, the Palatini approach appears even more appealing,
85: because the second order field equations following from Palatini
86: variation are free of this sort of instability \cite{Wang1}.
87: However, the most convincing motivation to take the Palatini
88: formalism seriously is that the field equations following from it
89: fit the SN Ia data at an acceptable level \cite{Wang1}. An
90: extension of the $1/R$ theory, the $R+1/R+R^2$ theory has been
91: discussed in metric formation by Nojiri and Odintsov
92: \cite{Odintsov2}. It is shown that such an extension may explain
93: both the current acceleration and early inflation and it may
94: resolve the instability of the original $1/R$ gravity. Its
95: Palatini formation is discussed in Ref.\cite{Wang2}.
96: Interestingly, in the Palatini formation, while it can still drive
97: a current acceleration, adding a $R^2$ term can not drive a early
98: inflation. The difference of metric formation and Palatini
99: formation is thus quite obvious. But now we still can not tell
100: which one is physical.
101:
102: In Ref.\cite{Odintsov}, Nojiri and Odintsov presented another
103: effort in this direction to modify gravity theory. They added a
104: $\ln R$ term to the Einstein-Hilbert action. They considered the
105: metric formation of this theory and concluded that such a theory
106: can derive an accelerated expansion. By the above considerations,
107: we think it is worth further investigating of the Palatini
108: formulation of this $\ln R$ theory.
109:
110: This paper is arranged as follows: in Sec.2 we derive the Modified
111: Friedmann (MF) equation in Palatini formulation of the $\ln R$
112: theory and discuss several of its features; in Sec.3 we discuss
113: the equivalent scalar-tensor formulation of the $\ln R$ theory and
114: an extension of the $\ln R$ theory also suggested by Nojiri and
115: Odintsov \cite{Odintsov}; Sec.4 is devoted to conclusions and
116: discussions.
117:
118: \textbf{2. The model and the Modified Friedmann equation}
119:
120: Firstly, we briefly review deriving field equations from a
121: generalized Einstein-Hilbert action by using Palatini variational
122: principle. See Refs. \cite{Vollick, Wang1, Wang2, Volovich} for
123: details. We will follow the sign conventions of
124: Ref.\cite{Weinberg} in this paper.
125:
126: The field equations follow from the variation in Palatini approach
127: of the generalized Einstein-Hilbert action
128: \begin{equation}
129: S=-\frac{1}{2\kappa}\int{d^4x\sqrt{-g}L(R)}+\int{d^4x\sqrt{-g}L_M}\label{action}
130: \end{equation}
131: where $\kappa =8\pi G$, $L$ is a function of the scalar curvature
132: $R$ and $L_M$ is the Lagrangian density for matter.
133:
134: Varying with respect to $g_{\mu\nu}$ gives
135: \begin{equation}
136: L'(R)R_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}L(R)g_{\mu\nu}=-\kappa
137: T_{\mu\nu}\label{2.2}
138: \end{equation}
139: where a prime denotes differentiation with respect to $R$ and
140: $T_{\mu\nu}$ is the energy-momentum tensor given by
141: \begin{equation}
142: T_{\mu\nu}=-\frac{2}{\sqrt{-g}}\frac{\delta S_M}{\delta
143: g^{\mu\nu}}\label{2.3}
144: \end{equation}
145: We assume the universe contains dust and radiation, denoting their
146: energy densities as $\rho_m$ and $\rho_r$ respectively, thus
147: $T^{\mu}_{\nu}=\{-\rho_m-\rho_r,p_r,p_r,p_r\}$ and
148: $T=g^{\mu\nu}T_{\mu\nu}=-\rho_m$ because of the relation
149: $p_r=\rho_r/3$.
150:
151: In the Palatini formulation, the connection is not associated with
152: $g_{\mu\nu}$, but with $h_{\mu\nu}\equiv L'(R)g_{\mu\nu}$, which
153: is known from varying the action with respect to $\Gamma
154: ^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu}$. Thus the Christoffel symbol with respect to
155: $h_{\mu\nu}$ is given by
156: \begin{equation}
157: \Gamma
158: ^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu}=\{^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu}\}_g+\frac{1}{2L'}[2\delta
159: ^{\lambda}_{(\mu}\partial
160: _{\nu)}L'-g_{\mu\nu}g^{\lambda\sigma}\partial
161: _{\sigma}L']\label{Christoffel}
162: \end{equation}
163: where the subscript $g$ signifies that this is the Christoffel
164: symbol with respect to the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$.
165:
166: The Ricci curvature tensor is given by
167: \begin{eqnarray}
168: R_{\mu\nu}=R_{\mu\nu}(g)-\frac{3}{2}(L')^{-2}\nabla _{\mu}L'\nabla
169: _{\nu}L' +(L')^{-1}\nabla _{\mu}\nabla
170: _{\nu}L'+\frac{1}{2}(L')^{-1}g_{\mu\nu}\nabla _{\sigma}\nabla
171: ^{\sigma}L'\label{Ricci}
172: \end{eqnarray}
173: and
174: \begin{equation}
175: R=R(g)+3(L')^{-1}\nabla _{\mu}\nabla ^{\mu}
176: L'-\frac{3}{2}(L')^{-2}\nabla_{\mu}L'\nabla^{\mu}L'\label{scalar}
177: \end{equation}
178: where $R_{\mu\nu}(g)$ is the Ricci tensor with respect to
179: $g_{\mu\nu}$ and $R=g^{\mu\nu}R_{\mu\nu}$. Note by contracting
180: (\ref{2.2}), we get:
181: \begin{equation}
182: L'(R)R-2L(R)=-\kappa T\label{R(T)}
183: \end{equation}
184: Assume we can solve $R$ as a function of $T$ from (\ref{R(T)}).
185: Thus (\ref{Ricci}), (\ref{scalar}) do define the Ricci tensor with
186: respect to $h_{\mu\nu}$.
187:
188: Then we review the general framework of deriving modified
189: Friedmann equation in Palatini formulation \cite{Wang1}. Consider
190: the Robertson-Walker metric describing the cosmological evolution,
191: \begin{equation}
192: ds^2=-dt^2+a(t)^2(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)\label{metric}
193: \end{equation}
194: We only consider a flat metric, which is favored by present
195: observations \cite{Spergel}.
196:
197: From Eqs.(\ref{metric}) and (\ref{Ricci}), we can get the
198: non-vanishing components of the Ricci tensor:
199: \begin{equation}
200: R_{00}=3\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}-\frac{3}{2}(L')^{-2}(\partial_0{L'})^2+\frac{3}{2}(L')^{-1}\nabla_0\nabla_0L'\label{R00}
201: \end{equation}
202: \begin{eqnarray}
203: R_{ij}=-[a\ddot{a}+2\dot{a}^2+(L')^{-1}\Gamma^0_{ij}\partial_0L'
204: +\frac{a^2}{2}(L')^{-1}\nabla_0\nabla_0L']\delta_{ij}\label{ij}
205: \end{eqnarray}
206:
207: Substituting equations (\ref{R00}) and (\ref{ij}) into the field
208: equations (\ref{2.2}), we can get
209: \begin{equation}
210: 6H^2+3H(L')^{-1}\partial_0L'+\frac{3}{2}(L')^{-2}(\partial_0L')^2=\frac{\kappa
211: (\rho+3p)-L}{L'}\label{aa}
212: \end{equation}
213: where $H\equiv \dot{a}/a$ is the Hubble parameter, $\rho$ and $p$
214: is the total energy density and total pressure respectively..
215: Assume we can solve $R$ in term of $T$ from Eq.(\ref{R(T)}),
216: substituting it to the expression for $L'$ and $\partial_0L'$, we
217: can get the MF equation.
218:
219: Now we turn to the consideration of the following modified
220: Einstein-Hilbert action suggested by Nojiri and Odintsov
221: \cite{Odintsov}
222: \begin{equation}
223: L(R)=R-\beta\ln \frac{R}{-\alpha}\label{lagrangian}
224: \end{equation}
225: Since our interest is to explain cosmic acceleration, we will
226: assume $R<0$ in this paper, i.e. de Sitter space. Thus $\alpha>0$.
227:
228: The contracted field equation (\ref{R(T)}) now reads:
229: \begin{equation}
230: f(R)\equiv \frac{R}{-\beta}+2\ln\frac{R}{-\alpha}-1=-\kappa
231: T/\beta=\frac{\kappa\rho_m}{\beta}\label{contract}
232: \end{equation}
233: If $\beta>0$, $f(R)$ is a monotonically decreasing function and we
234: have $\lim_{R\rightarrow 0}f(R)\rightarrow -\infty$ and
235: $\lim_{R\rightarrow -\infty}f(R)\rightarrow +\infty$. Thus $R$ is
236: uniquely determined for any value of $\kappa\rho_m/\beta\equiv x$
237: through Eq.(\ref{contract}). Let us denote it simply as
238: $R=R(\kappa\rho_m/\beta)=R(x)$. Note that irrespective of the
239: precise form of the relation $R(x)$, this is just an algebraic
240: relation. Thus for a given $T$, there is no instabilities present
241: in the metric formulation of the $1/R$ theory indicated by Dolgov
242: and Kawasaki \cite{Dolgov}, whose origin is due to the fact that
243: $R$ is determined by a differential equation for a given $T$. To
244: simply discussion, we will assume $\beta>0$ from now on. Note that
245: when $\alpha=\beta$, the vacuum solution $R_0\equiv R(0)$ can be
246: solved exactly as $R_0=-\alpha$.
247:
248: From the conservation equation $\dot{\rho_m}+3H\rho_m=0$ we can
249: get
250: \begin{equation}
251: \partial_0L'=\frac{3}{(R(x)/\beta)^2-2R(x)/\beta}(\frac{\kappa\rho_m}{\beta})H\equiv F(x)H\label{L'}
252: \end{equation}
253: Substituting this to Eq.(\ref{aa}) we can get the Modified
254: Friedmann equation:
255: \begin{equation}
256: H^2=\frac{\kappa\rho_m+2\kappa\rho_r-\beta(\frac{R}{\beta}-\ln\frac{R}{-\alpha})}
257: {(1-\frac{\beta}{R})(6+3F(x)(1+\frac{1}{2}F(x)))} \label{MF}
258: \end{equation}
259:
260: It can be seen from equations (\ref{contract}), (\ref{L'}) and
261: (\ref{MF}) that when $\beta\rightarrow 0$, the MF equation will
262: reduce continuously to the standard Friedmann equation. Thus, the
263: $\ln R$ modification is a smooth and continuous modification.
264:
265: Let us first discuss the cosmological evolution without matter and
266: radiation. Define the parameter $n$ as $R_0=-\alpha e^{-n}$.
267: Substitute this to the vacuum field equation $f(R)=0$, we can get
268: $\alpha=e^n(2n+1)\beta$ and $R_0=-(2n+1)\beta$. Substitute those
269: to the vacuum MF equation and set $t=0$, we have
270: \begin{equation}
271: H_0^2=\frac{\beta(n+1)}{6(1+\frac{1}{2n+1})}\label{}
272: \end{equation}
273: Thus when $\beta\sim H_0^2\sim(10^{-33}eV)^2$ and $n>-1/2$, the
274: $\ln R$ modified gravity can indeed drive a current exponential
275: acceleration compatible with the observation. The role of the
276: parameter $\beta$ is similar to a cosmological constant or the
277: coefficient of the $1/R$ term in the $1/R$ gravity \cite{Wang1}.
278:
279: When the energy density of dust can not be neglected, i.e.
280: $\kappa\rho_m/\beta\gg 1$, $F(x)\sim0$ and if $\alpha$ satisfies
281: $|\ln(\kappa\rho_m/\alpha)|\ll\kappa\rho_m/\beta$, i.e.
282: $\exp(-\kappa\rho_m/\beta)\ll\alpha/\beta\ll\exp(\kappa\rho_m/\beta)$,
283: from Eq.(\ref{contract}), $R\sim\ - \kappa\rho_m$. Then the MF
284: equation (\ref{MF}) reduces to the standard Friedmann equation
285: \begin{equation}
286: H^2=\frac{\kappa}{3}(\rho_m+\rho_r)\label{}
287: \end{equation}
288: Thus if
289: $\exp(-\kappa\rho_{m,BBN}/\beta)\ll\alpha/\beta\ll\exp(\kappa\rho_{m,BBN}/\beta)$,
290: where $\rho_{m,BBN}$ is the energy density of dust in the epoch of
291: BBN, the $\ln R$ gravity can be consistent with the BBN
292: constraints on the form of Friedmann equation \cite{Carroll-BBN}.
293: One possible choice is $\alpha=\beta$, for which the vacuum
294: solution can be solved exactly $R_0=-\alpha$. Since $\beta\sim
295: H_0^2$, the condition $\kappa\rho_m/\beta\gg 1$ breaks down only
296: in recent cosmological time. Thus the universe evolves in the
297: standard way until recently, when $\ln R$ term begins to dominate
298: and drives the observed cosmic acceleration.
299:
300: \textbf{3. Scalar-tensor formulation of the model}
301:
302: \begin{figure}
303: % Requires \usepackage{graphicx}
304: \includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{1.eps}
305: \caption{The scalar potential given by Eq.(\ref{poten}) for $\alpha=\beta$. $\Phi_{norm}\equiv\sqrt{2\kappa/3}\Phi$ and $V_{norm}\equiv
306: (2\kappa/\beta)V$.}\label{1}
307: \end{figure}
308:
309: \begin{figure}
310: % Requires \usepackage{graphicx}
311: \includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{2.eps}
312: \caption{Derivative of the potential for $\alpha=\beta$, from which combined with the field equation (\ref{3.7}) we can
313: determine the evolution of $\Phi$. $\Phi_{norm}\equiv\sqrt{2\kappa/3}\Phi$ and $V_{norm}\equiv
314: (2\kappa/\beta)V$.}\label{1}
315: \end{figure}
316:
317: Recently, Flanagan \cite{Flanagan} derived the equivalent
318: scalar-tensor theory of the Palatini form of modified gravity
319: theory. We adopt his formalism and apply it to the $\ln R$ theory.
320:
321: Following Flanagan, the $\ln R$ theory is equivalent to the
322: theory:
323: \begin{equation}
324: \tilde{S}[\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}, \Phi, \psi_m]=\int
325: d^4x\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}[-\frac{\tilde{R}}{2\kappa}-V(\Phi)]+S_m[\exp(-\sqrt{\frac{2\kappa}{3}}\Phi)\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu},
326: \psi_m]\label{}
327: \end{equation}
328: where
329: $\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}=\exp(\sqrt{\frac{2\kappa}{3}}\Phi)g_{\mu\nu}$
330: is the metric in Einstein-frame \cite{Magnano}, $\tilde{R}$ is the
331: scalar curvature associated with $\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}$, $\psi_m$ is
332: the matter field and $\Phi$ is a fictitious scalar field that can
333: be deleted from the field equations.
334:
335:
336:
337: The potential $V$ can be obtained by the standard procedure
338: \cite{Flanagan, Odintsov2}
339: \begin{equation}
340: V(\Phi)=\frac{\beta}{2\kappa}[-1+\ln\frac{\beta}{\alpha}-\ln(\exp(\sqrt{\frac{2\kappa}{3}}\Phi)-1)]
341: \exp(-2\sqrt{\frac{2\kappa}{3}}\Phi)\label{poten}
342: \end{equation}
343: See Fig.1 for the case of $\alpha=\beta$. Since the $\alpha$
344: appears in the expression of $V$ only as the constant term $\ln
345: (\beta/\alpha)$, other cases would not differ from it essentially.
346:
347: The field equations are
348: \begin{equation}
349: \tilde{G}_{\mu\nu}=-\kappa[V(\Phi)\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}+\exp(\sqrt{\frac{2\kappa}{3}}\Phi)T_{\mu\nu}]\label{3.6}
350: \end{equation}
351: and
352: \begin{equation}
353: V'(\Phi)=-\sqrt{\frac{\kappa}{6}}\exp(-2\sqrt{\frac{2\kappa}{3}}\Phi)T=
354: \sqrt{\frac{\kappa}{6}}\exp(-2\sqrt{\frac{2\kappa}{3}}\Phi)\rho_m\label{3.7}
355: \end{equation}
356: where $T_{\mu\nu}$ is the Jordan-frame energy-momentum tensor
357: defined by Eq.(\ref{2.3}) and $T=g^{\mu\nu}T_{\mu\nu}$.
358:
359:
360:
361: We can read off the evolution of $\Phi$ from Eq.(\ref{3.7}) (see
362: Fig.2). In early universe, when $\rho_m$ is large, $\Phi$ locates
363: at large value; then as the universe evolves, while $\rho_m$
364: dilutes to smaller and smaller value, correspondingly, $\Phi$
365: rolls down to the absolute minimum point of the potential at
366: roughly $\sqrt{2\kappa/3}\Phi\sim 0.7$, at which it can drive an
367: exponential acceleration expansion.
368:
369: From Fig.1, we can see that the energy scale of the absolute
370: minimum of $V$ is of order $\beta/\kappa$ and as shown in Sec.2,
371: $\beta\sim (10^{-33}eV)^2$. Thus if we assume that the $\ln R$
372: theory is applicable in small scales such as the electron-electron
373: scattering scale, there will be a severe conflict with particle
374: experiment as shown explicitly by Flanagan \cite{Flanagan} for the
375: $1/R$ gravity. However, those modified gravity theory can not be
376: fundamental. They are effective theories. If it can be shown that
377: their cut-off scale is much larger than the electron-electron
378: scattering scale, the conflict will be fixed. This stimulates us
379: to pursue their origin from more fundamental theory (see
380: Ref.\cite{Odintsov3} for such an effort for the $1/R$ gravity). A
381: large cut-off scale (or a small cut-off energy) is possible for
382: modified gravity, e.g. for the effective field theory of massive
383: gravity, Nima Arkani-Hamed et al. \cite{Arkani-Hamed} showed that
384: the cut-off energy is $(m_g^4M_{Pl})^{1/5}$, where $m_g$ is the
385: mass of the graviton. This is much lower than the Plank scale, and
386: correspondingly, its cut-off length scale is much larger than the
387: Plank length.
388:
389: In Ref.\cite{Odintsov}, Nojiri and Odintsov also suggested an
390: extension of the $\ln R$ theory, for which the modified
391: Einstein-Hilbert action reads as:
392: \begin{equation}
393: L(R)=R-\beta\ln \frac{R}{-\alpha}+\gamma R^m\label{3.8}
394: \end{equation}
395: We would not discuss this model in detail in this paper. We just
396: note one thing about it. It would correspond to an unique
397: equivalent scalar-tensor formulation if the following equation for
398: $\phi$ has an unique solution for any value of $\Phi$, see
399: Ref.\cite{Flanagan, Odintsov2}:
400: \begin{equation}
401: m\gamma\phi^m-(\exp(\sqrt{\frac{2\kappa}{3}}\Phi)-1)\phi-\beta=0\label{}
402: \end{equation}
403: Obviously for $m>1$, this is generally not the case. Thus,
404: generally, the model (\ref{3.8}) would not have a well-defined
405: equivalent scalar-tensor theory. What does this imply? According
406: to the analysis of Magnano and Sokolowski \cite{Magnano}, this is
407: a strong indication that the original theory is unphysical. Also,
408: for the $R+1/R+R^2$ theory, for which the same phenomena appears,
409: \'{E}anna Flanagan \cite{private2} showed that this may imply that
410: the theory has not a well-behaved initial-value formulation. But
411: as indicated by Sergei Odintsov \cite{private}, this maybe not
412: completely the case. The reason is that it is still unclear which
413: of Einstein or Jordan frame is physical one. For instance, on the
414: classical level the results obtained in these frames (when
415: transformation to equivalent theory exists) are identical even for
416: braneworlds \cite{Odintsov4}. Of course, on quantum level it is
417: well-known (see explicit examples for quantum dilatonic gravity
418: \cite{Odintsov5, Buchbinder, Grumiller}) that even classically
419: equivalent theories are not equivalent on quantum level. Hence,
420: the fact that metric theory does not have equivalent classical
421: representation as scalar- tensor theory does not mean that it is
422: ruled out as physical theory.
423:
424: \textbf{4. Conclusions and Discussions}
425:
426: In this paper we discussed the Palatini formation of the modified
427: gravity with a $\ln R$ term suggested by Nojiri and Odintsov
428: \cite{Odintsov}. We showed that in the Palatini form, the $\ln R$
429: gravity can drive a current exponential accelerated expansion and
430: it reduces to the standard Friedmann evolution for high redshift
431: region. We discussed the equivalent scalar-tensor formation. We
432: indicated that the $\ln R$ gravity may still have a conflict with
433: electron-electron scattering experiment which stimulates us to
434: pursue a more fundamental theory which can give the $\ln R$
435: gravity as an effective theory. Finally, we discussed a problem
436: faced with the extension of the $\ln R$ gravity by adding $R^m$
437: terms. It is clear that many works still need to be done to see
438: whether the idea of modifying gravity to achieve cosmic
439: acceleration in stead of dark energy is viable.
440:
441: On gravity theory itself, especially the reasonable form of a
442: quantum gravity is also challenging. With many discussions for
443: extended gravity models \cite{Odintsov, Wang1, Wang2, Carroll,
444: Lue, Dvali}, we expect the two tales originate from one truth
445: to be discovered.
446:
447: \textbf{Acknowledgements}
448:
449: We would especially like to thank Sergei Odintsov for stimulating
450: this work and many helpful suggestions. We would also like to
451: thank \'{E}anna Flanagan, Nadeem Haque, Shin'ichi Nojiri for
452: helpful discussions. This work is partly supported by China NSF,
453: Doctoral Foundation of National Education Ministry and ICSC-World
454: lab. scholarship.
455:
456: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
457: \bibitem{Perlmutter} S. Perlmutter el al. Nature \textbf{404} (2000) 955;
458: Astroph. J. \textbf{517} (1999) 565; A. Riess et al. Astroph. J.
459: \textbf{116} (1998) 1009; ibid. \textbf{560} (2001) 49; Y. Wang,
460: Astroph. J. \textbf{536} (2000) 531;
461: \bibitem{Spergel} D.N.Spergel, et al., astro-ph/0302207; L.Page et
462: al. astro-ph/0302220; M.Nolta, et al, astro-ph/0305097; C.Bennett,
463: et al, astro-ph/0302209;
464: \bibitem{Peebles} P. J. E. Peebles, B. Ratra, astro-ph/0207347;
465: \bibitem{Carroll-de} S.M.Carroll, Living Rev. Rel. \textbf{4} (2001) 1 [astro-ph/0004075];
466: \bibitem{Padmanabhan} T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rept. \textbf{380} (2003) 235
467: [hep-th/0212290];
468:
469: \bibitem{Lue} A. Lue, R. Scoccimarro and G. Starkman,
470: astro-ph/0307034;
471: \bibitem{Dvali} G. Dvali, G. Gabadadze and M. Porrati, Phys. Lett.
472: \textbf{B485} (2000) 208;
473: \bibitem{Carroll} S.M.Carroll, V.Duvvuri, M.Trodden and M.
474: Turner, astro-ph/0306438;
475: \bibitem{Capozziello} S. Capozziello, S. Carloni and A. Troisi,
476: astro-ph/0303041;
477: \bibitem{Odintsov3} S.Nojiri and S.D.Odintsov, Phys.Lett. \textbf{B576} (2003) 5
478: [hep-th/0307071];
479: \bibitem{Vollick} D. N. Vollick, Phys.Rev. \textbf{D68} (2003) 063510 [astro-ph/0306630];
480: \bibitem{Volovich} M.Ferraris, M.Francaviglia and I.Volovich,
481: Nouvo Cim. \textbf{B108} (1993) 1313 [gr-qc/9303007]; ibid, Class.
482: Quant. Grav. \textbf{11} (1994) 1505;
483: \bibitem{Flanagan} \'{E}.\'{E}.Flanagan, astro-ph/0308111;
484: \bibitem{Flanagan2} \'{E}.\'{E}.Flanagan, Class.Quant.Grav. \textbf{21} (2003) 417
485: [gr-qc/0309015];
486: \bibitem{Dolgov} A. D. Dolgov and M. Kawasaki, astro-ph/0307285;
487: \bibitem{Wang1} X.H.Meng and P.Wang, Class.Quant.Grav. \textbf{20} (2003) 4949
488: [astro-ph/0307354]; ibid, Class.Quant.Grav. \textbf{21} (2004) 951
489: [astro-ph/0308031];
490: \bibitem{Odintsov2} S.Nojiri and S.D.Odintsov, Phys.Rev. \textbf{D68} (2003) 123512 [hep-th/0307288];
491: \bibitem{Wang2} X.H.Meng and P.Wang, astro-ph/0308284;
492: \bibitem{Odintsov} S.Nojiri and S.D.Odintsov, hep-th/0308176;
493: \bibitem{Weinberg} S.Weinberg, \emph{Gravitation and Cosmology} (Wiley,
494: Chichester 1972);
495: \bibitem{Carroll-BBN} S.M.Carroll and M.Kaplinghat, Phys.Rev. \textbf{D65} (2002) 063507
496: [astro-ph/0108002]; K.A.Olive, G.Steigman and T.P.Walker,
497: Phys.Rept. \textbf{333-334} (2000) 389 [astro-ph/9905320];
498: S.Burles, K.M.Nollett, J.N.Truran and M.S.Turner, Phys.Rev.Lett.
499: \textbf{82} (1999) 4176 [astro-ph/9901157]; D.Tytler, J.M.O'Meara,
500: N.Suzuki and D.Lubin, astro-ph/0001318;
501:
502: \bibitem{Magnano} G.Magnano and L.M.Sokolowski, Phys.Rev.
503: \textbf{D50}
504: (1994) 5039 [gr-qc/9312008];
505: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed} Nima Arkani-Hamed, Howard Georgi and
506: Matthew D. Schwartz, Annals Phys. \textbf{305} (2003) 96
507: [hep-th/0210184];
508: \bibitem{private2} \'{E}.\'{E}.Flanagan, private communications;
509: \bibitem{private} S.D.Odintsov, private communications;
510: \bibitem{Odintsov4} S.Nojiri,, O.Obregon, S.D.Odintsov and V.I.Tkach, Phys. Rev. \textbf{D64}
511: (2001) 043505 [hep-th/0101003];
512: \bibitem{Odintsov5} S.Nojiri and S.D.Odintsov, Int.J.Mod.Phys. \textbf{A16} (2001) 1015
513: [hep-th/0009202];
514: \bibitem{Buchbinder} I.L.Buchbinder, S.D.Odintsov and I.L.Shapiro,
515: Effective Action in Quantum Gravity, IOP Publishing, 1992;
516: \bibitem{Grumiller} D. Grumiller, W. Kummer and D.V. Vassilevich, Phys.Rept. \textbf{369}
517: (2002) 327 [hep-th/0204253];
518:
519: \end{thebibliography}
520:
521: \end{document}
522: