Future Type Ia Supernova Data as Tests of
Dark Energy from Modified Friedmann Equations
Yun Wang1, Katherine Freese2, Paolo Gondolo3, and Matthew Lewis4
arXiv:astro-ph/0302064v2 9 Jun 2003
ABSTRACT
In the Cardassian model, dark energy density arises from modifications to the
Friedmann equation, which becomes H 2 = g(ρM ), where g(ρM ) is a new function
of the energy density. The universe is flat, matter dominated, and accelerating.
The distance redshift relation predictions of generalized Cardassian models can
be very different from generic quintessence models, and can be differentiated with
data from upcoming pencil beam surveys of Type Ia Supernovae such as SNAP.
We have found the interesting result that, once Ωm is known to 10% accuracy,
SNAP will be able to determine the sign of the time dependence of the dark energy
density. Knowledge of this sign (which is related to the weak energy condition)
will provide a first discrimination between various cosmological models that fit
the current observational data (cosmological constant, quintessence, Cardassian
expansion). Further, we have performed Monte Carlo simulations to illustrate
how well one can reproduce the form of the dark energy density with SNAP.
To be concrete we study a class of two parameter (n,q) generalized Cardassian
models that includes the original Cardassian model (parametrized by n only) as
a special case. Examples are given of MP Cardassian models that fit current
supernovae and CMB data, and prospects for differentiating between MP Cardassian and other models in future data are discussed. We also note that some
Cardassian models can satisfy the weak energy condition w > −1 even with a
dark energy component that has an effective equation of state wX < −1.
1
Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019
2
Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics, Physics Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
48109, USA, and Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
3
4
Department of Physics, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44106-7079
Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics, Physics Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
48109, USA
–2–
1.
Introduction
Recent observations of Type Ia Supernovae (Riess et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al. 1999)
as well as concordance with other observations (including the microwave background and
galaxy power spectra) indicate that the universe is accelerating. Many authors have explored
a cosmological constant, a decaying vacuum energy (Freese et al. 1987; Peebles & Ratra 1988;
Frieman et al 1995), quintessence (Wang & Steinhardt 1998; Caldwell, Dave, & Steinhardt
1998; Huey et al. 1999), and gravitational leakage into extra dimensions (Deffayet 2001) as
possible explanations for such an acceleration. Recently Freese & Lewis (2002) proposed
Cardassian expansion as an explanation for acceleration which invokes no vacuum energy
whatsoever.5 In this model the universe is flat and accelerating, and yet consists only of
matter and radiation.
In Cardassian models, the Friedmann equation is modified from H 2 = 8πρ/(3m2pl ) to
H 2 = g(ρM ),
(1)
where g(ρM ) is a different function of the energy density, ρM contains only matter and
radiation (no vacuum), H = ȧ/a is the Hubble constant (as a function of time), and a is the
scale factor of the universe. Models with gravitational leakage into extra dimensions also
give a modified Friedmann equation that can be cast into the form of Eq. (1), but with a
vacuum component.
The function g(ρM ) returns to the usual 8πρM /(3m2pl ) during the early history of the
universe, but takes a different form that drives an accelerated expansion after a redshift
z ∼ 1. Such modifications to the Friedmann equation may arise, e.g., as a consequence
of our observable universe living as a 3-dimensional brane in a higher dimensional universe
(Chung & Freese 2000). Alternatively, such a Friedmann equation may arise if there is dark
matter with self-interactions characterized by negative pressure (Gondolo & Freese 2002).
We wish to study the detectability of the altered Friedmann equations by upcoming
observations of Type Ia Supernova such as SNAP. As discussed in Freese (2002), the redshift
distance relationship predictions for generalized Cardassian models can be quite different
from generalized quintessence models. It is the goal of this paper to see how well we can
reproduce the correct form of this dark energy density in upcoming experiments.
For concreteness, we investigate a particular version of generalized Cardassian cosmology. However, our results are intended to generalize to any Cardassian cosmology, i.e., to
5
The name Cardassian refers to a humanoid race in Star Trek whose goal is to accelerate expansion of
their evil empire. This race looks alien to us and yet is made entirely of matter.
–3–
any function g(ρM ). The particular model we study is meant to illustrate that, generically,
modified Friedmann equations can lead to specific detectable predictions in experiments like
SNAP.
In this paper we study the following generalization of the original Cardassian model:
"
q(1−n) #1/q
8πGρ
ρ
M
Card
H2 =
1+
.
(2)
3
ρM
We call this model “Modified Polytropic Cardassian” (MP Cardassian)6 (Gondolo & Freese
2002), where G = 1/m2pl is Newton’s universal gravitation constant, ρCard is a characteristic
constant energy density, and where we take n < 2/3 and q > 0. The original power law
Cardassian model corresponds to q = 1.
For comparison, we remind the reader of the original power law Cardassian model that
was proposed in Freese & Lewis (2002), which had the following specific form of g(ρM ):
H2 =
8π
ρ + BρnM
2 M
3mpl
with
n < 2/3.
(3)
This is equivalent to writing
"
1−n #
8πG
ρ
Card
H2 =
,
ρM 1 +
3
ρM
(4)
The first term inside the bracket of Eq.(2) and Eq.(4) dominates initially, so that ordinary Friedmann Robertson Walker (FRW) behavior takes place throughout the early universe. At a redshift zCard ∼ 1, the two terms inside the bracket become equal, and henceforth
the second term dominates. Once the second term dominates, it drives the universe to accelerate. The energy density at which the two terms become equal is ρCard = ρ0 (1 + zCard )3 ,
where ρ0 is the matter density today. The MP Cardassian model of Eq.(2) depends on three
parameters: the numbers n and q and the density ρCard . The latter can be traded for the
observed matter mass density Ωobs
m (see Eq. [12] below).
The original power law Cardassian model gave the same distance-redshift relation as
a quintessence model with constant equation of state parameter wq = n − 1. Generalized
Cardassian models, on the other hand, give predictions for the distance-redshift relation
that can be very different from generic quintessence models. For example, some Cardassian
6
The name “Modified Polytropic” arises in the context of treating this model as a fluid; then the relationship between energy density and pressure is roughly polytropic (see Gondolo & Freese (2002)).
–4–
models can satisfy the weak energy condition w > −1 even with a dark energy component
that has an effective equation of state wX = pX /ρX < −1. Note that an effective wX < −1 is
consistent with recent CMB and large scale structure data (Schuecker et al. 2002; Melchiorri
et al. 2002). In this paper we explore these differences and their testability for the MP
Cardassian model.
The Cardassian model also has the attractive feature that matter alone is sufficient to
provide a flat geometry. Because of the extra term on the right hand side of the Friedmann
equation, the critical mass density necessary to have a flat universe can be modified, e.g. to
0.3 of the usual value. Hence the matter mass density can have exactly this new critical value
and satisfy all the observational constraints such as given by the baryon cluster fraction and
the galaxy power spectrum.
General Notation:
In a flat universe, the total energy density of the universe can be written as
3
ρtotal (z) = ρc,old Ωobs
m (1 + z) + ΩX fX (z) .
(5)
obs
Here, Ωobs
m is the observed matter density of the universe; we will take Ωm = 0.3 as our
fiducial value. The critical density of the universe (for the ordinary Friedmann equation)
is ρc,old = 2 × 10−29 h20 gm/cm3 , where h0 is the Hubble constant today in units of 100
km/s/Mpc. We take
ΩX = 1 − Ωobs
(6)
m
(for a flat universe with total energy density Ωtot = 1), and fX (z = 0) = 1. The subscript
X refers to any component of the universe that provides an additional term in Einstein’s
equation; generically it is called “dark energy”, but in the Cardassian case it is an additional
matter term. The dark energy density is
ρX (z) = ρX (0)fX (z) = ρc,old ΩX fX (z).
(7)
If the dark energy density corresponds to a cosmological constant, then one finds that fX (z) =
1 at all redshifts z.
Note that for generalized Cardassian models, both terms in Eq. (5) come from matter;
obs
Ωtot
m = Ωm + ΩX = 1.
(8)
For the MP generalized Cardassian models of Eq. (2), the dimensionless dark energy density
fX (z) is given by
(
)
1/q
obs −q
3
ρX (z)
(Ω
)
−
1
Ωobs
(1
+
z)
m
fX (z) =
1+
= m
−1 .
(9)
ρX (0)
1 − Ωobs
(1
+
z)3(1−n)q
m
–5–
For fixed Ωobs
m , it depends on the two dimensionless parameters n and q.
In Cardassian models, the observed matter mass density fraction today is given by the
ratio of the critical mass density of the Cardassian universe, ρc,Card = ρ0 , and that of the
standard universe, ρc,old ≡ 3H02/(8πG). So the observed matter mass fraction today in the
MP Cardassian model is (Freese & Lewis 2002)
Ωobs
m =
ρ0
ρc,old
=
1
1/q
[1 + (1 + zCard )3q(1−n) ]
.
Inversely, we can express zCard , and ρCard , in terms of Ωobs
m as
1
q
3q(1−n)
1
−1
1 + zCard =
,
Ωobs
m
and
ρCard =
ρc,oldΩobs
m
1
Ωobs
m
q
−1
1
q(1−n)
(10)
(11)
.
(12)
Outline: First, we will compare the Modified Polytropic Cardassian model of Eq.(2)
with existing data from supernovae and cosmic microwave background data.
Next, we explore how plausible future SNe Ia data can be optimally used to constrain
dark energy models, and whether generalized Cardassian models can be differentiated from
generic models of quintessence and models with a cosmological constant.
Most of this work was performed in September 2002 when all the authors were at the
Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara. Subsequent dispersal of all the
authors to different parts of the country caused the conclusion of the paper to take a long
time.
2.
Comparison of MP Cardassian with Current Data
In this section, we compare the Modified Polytropic Cardassian Model of Eq. (2) with
current supernovae and cosmic microwave background (CMB) data. We will see that the
existing data can be well fit for several choices of the parameters n and q.
In a smooth Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe, the metric is given by ds2 =
dt2 − a2 (t)[dr 2 /(1 − kr 2 ) + r 2 (dθ2 + sin2 θ dφ2 )], where a(t) is the cosmic scale factor, and k
is the global curvature parameter. The comoving distance r is given by (Weinberg 1972)
r(z) = cH0−1
S(κΓ)
,
κ
κ ≡ |Ωk |1/2 ,
(13)
–6–
Γ(z; Ωobs
m , ΩX , F )
=
Z
0
z
dz ′
1
,
E(z ′ )
′ 3
′
′ 2 1/2
E(z ′ ) ≡ Ωobs
,
m (1 + z ) + ΩX fX (z ) + Ωk (1 + z )
(14)
(15)
where Ωk = 1 − Ωobs
m − ΩX , and
S(x) = sinh(x),
Ωk > 0
= x,
Ωk = 0
= sin(x),
Ωk < 0.
(16)
The angular diameter distance is given by dA (z) = r(z)/(1 + z), and the luminosity distance
is given by dL (z) = (1 + z)r(z).
The distance modulus for a standard candle at redshift z is
dL(z)
µp (z) ≡ m − M = 5 log
+ 25,
Mpc
(17)
where m and M are the apparent and absolute magnitudes of the standard candle, and dL(z)
is its luminosity distance.
Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) are our best candidates for cosmological standard candles,
because they can be calibrated to have small scatters in their peak luminosity (Phillips 1993;
Riess, Press, & Kirshner 1995).
Fig.
modulus
ΩΛ = 0)
1999) as
7
1 shows the measured distance modulus (actually the deviation of the distant
with respect to the expected values for an open universe with Ωobs
m = 0.3 and
7
for flux-averaged (Wang 2000b) SNe Ia data (Riess et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al.
a function of redshift. For comparison, superposed on the data points are the
Here we briefly describe flux-averaging. Due to the inhomogeneous distribution of matter in our universe,
the light from perfect standard candles (which all have exactly the same peak luminosity) at a given redshift
z will experience different amounts of bending (due to matter inhomogeneity along different lines of sight)
before reaching the observer. Hence even perfect standard candles will be observed to have a non-Gaussian
spread in peak luminosity due to gravitational lensing (Frieman 1997; Wambsganss et al. 1997; Holz & Wald
1998; Metcalf & Silk 1999; Wang 1999; Wang, Holz, & Munshi 2002; Munshi & Wang 2003). If this effect
is not properly taken into account, the estimated cosmological parameters will be biased, i.e., the estimated
mean of the parameters will deviate from the true value of the parameters. Fortunately, the total number of
photons from all the standard candles at redshift z should remain unchanged in the presence of gravitational
lensing (which only redistributes the photons by bending the light from each standard candle); therefore the
average peak luminosity of all the standard candles at z should be the same as the peak luminosity of a
standard candle at z without gravitational lensing. This is the basic idea behind flux-averaging of type Ia
supernova data. For details, see Wang (2000b).
–7–
predictions for several familiar cosmological models (dotted curves, from top to bottom):
(Ωobs
m , ΩΛ ) = (0.3, 0.7); (0.3, 0); and (1, 0). In addition, three examples of modified polytropic
Cardassian models from Eq. (2) are shown, all with Ωobs
m = 0.3. The three models have
parameters n = 0.2, q = 1 (solid curve); n = 0.2, q = 2 (short-dashed curve); and n = 0.2,
q = 3 (long-dashed curve). Note that the solid curve is equivalent to a quintessence model
with wq = −0.8. Also shown in Fig.1 is a quintessence model with wq (z) = −1 + 0.5z
for comparison (dot-dashed line). All three generalized Cardassian models shown satisfy
current constraints from SNe Ia. So we conclude that MP Cardassian models fit the existing
supernovae data very well.
Fig. 2 shows the (n, q) parameter space with constraints from current observational
data from both supernovae and the cosmic microwave background (CMB), at a fixed value
Ωm = 0.3. The MP Cardassian model with parameters (n, q) is compared with a fiducial
ΛCDM (cold dark matter) model Ωm = 0.3, Ωb = 0.05, ΩΛ = 0.7, and h = 0.65. The
constraints are derived by requiring that the MP Cardassian models agree with the fiducial
ΛCDM model to within 1σ of the measurement uncertainties of the Wilkinson Microwave
Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) CMB data (Bennett et al. 2003) and the current SN Ia data
[(Riess et al. 1998; Perlmutter et al. 1999), flux-averaged with ∆z = 0.05 (Wang 2000b)].
The region between the thick solid lines in Fig. 2 corresponds to (n, q) values of the
MP Cardassian models that satisfy the current SN Ia data [flux-averaged with ∆z = 0.05]
within one sigma of the fiducial ΛCDM model, i.e., ∆χ2 = χ2M P C − χ2ΛCDM = 1. Note that
the fiducial ΛCDM model (Ωm = 0.3, ΩΛ = 0.7, h = 0.65) corresponds to n = 0, q = 1.
Complementary plots showing constraints from the power law Cardassian model with fixed
q = 1 and varying n and Ωm are given in Sen & Sen (2002); Zhu & Fujimoto (2002, 2003).
The dashed line in Fig. 2 indicates the constraints from WMAP CMB data. When
the cosmological parameters are varied, the shift in the whole CMB angular spectrum is
determined by the shift parameter (Bond, Efstathiou, & Tegmark 1997; Melchiorri et al.
2002; Ödman at el. 2002)
p
R = Ωm H0 r(zdec )
(18)
where r(zdec ) denotes the comoving distance to the decoupling surface in a flat universe. The
+0.193
results from WMAP data require H0 r(zdec ) = 3.330 −0.158
and hence give the allowed range
in the shift parameter. The corresponding constraints on MP Cardassian model parameters
(n, q) are represented by the dashed line in Fig.2. All models in Figure 2 below the dashed
line lie within this allowed range for the shift parameter. We conclude that the Modified
Polytropic Cardassian models of Eq.(2) are compatible with current supernova and CMB
data.
–8–
3.
Comparison of Models Using Simulated Future Data
In this section, we will construct simulated type Ia supernova (SN Ia) data for three dark
energy models: a Modified Polytropic Cardassian model, a cosmological constant model, and
a quintessence model. We then investigate if we can recover the original theory from the
simulated data. In particular we want to see if Cardassian cosmology can be differentiated
from generic quintessence models or a cosmological constant by analysis of upcoming SN Ia
data. We will begin with a modified polytropic Cardassian model of Eq.(2), choose specific
values of the parameters q and n, and see how many SNe Ia we would expect.
The measured distance modulus for a SN Ia (labeled “l”) is
(l)
µ0 = µp(l) + ǫ(l)
(19)
(l)
where µp is the theoretical prediction [see Eq.(17)], and ǫ(l) is the uncertainty in the measurement, including observational errors and intrinsic scatters in the SN Ia absolute magnitudes. In the simulated data set, we take the dispersion in SN Ia peak luminosity to be
∆mint = 0.16 mag (this is the rms variance of ǫ(l) ).
Many (but not all) models of dark energy can be characterized by an equation of state
wX (z) = pX (z)/ρX (z), where pX (z) is the pressure. Most authors have concentrated on
constraining the equation of state wX of the dark energy from SN data. However, it was
shown by Maor, Brustein, & Steinhardt (2001); Barger & Marfatia (2001) that it is extremely
hard to constrain wX using SN data. Instead, Wang & Garnavich (2001) emphasized that
it is easier to extract information on the dark energy density ρX (z), instead of wX (z), from
the data. This is because there are multiple integrals relating wX (z) to the luminosity
distance dL (z) of SN, which results in a “smearing” that obscures the difference between
different wX (z). It is better to use ρX (z) directly, as it is related to the time derivative of
the comoving distance to SN Ia, r ′ (z); hence it is less affected by the smearing effect. The
advantage of measuring ρX (z) over measuring wX (z) was confirmed by Tegmark (2002). In
their work, Wang & Garnavich (2001) assumed that ρ′X (z) > 0, a condition equivalent to
the weak energy condition for those cases in which the ordinary Friedmann equation applies.
Here, on the other hand, we make no such assumption. In fact, we will show that it is
possible to determine the sign of ρ′X (z).
–9–
3.1.
Determining the sign of the time dependence of dark energy density,
with prior on Ωm
We simulate data for three models (see Table 1): (1) a cosmological constant model; (2)
a MP Cardassian model with n = 0.2 and q = 2, which has ρ′X (z) ≤ 0; (3) a quintessence
model with wX (z) = −1 + 0.5z, which has ρ′X (z) ≥ 0.
Table 1
Dark Energy Models
Model
ΛCDM
MP Cardassian model
quintessence model
model parameters
Ωm = 0.3, ΩΛ = 0.7
Ωobs
m = 0.3, n = 0.2, q = 2
Ωm = 0.3, wq (z) = −1 + 0.5 z
ρ′X (z)
ρ′X (z) = 0
ρ′X (z) < 0
ρ′X (z) ≥ 0
Note that MP Cardassian models can have either ρ′X (z) ≥ 0 or ρ′X (z) < 0. On the
other hand, popular quintessence models in which the quintessence field tracks the matter
field have ρ′X (z) ≥ 0 (Barger & Marfatia 2001). Fig. 3 shows the sign of ρ′X (z) in the (n, q)
parameter space at fixed Ωm = 0.3 for MP Cardassian models [see Eq.(2)] with Ωobs
m = 0.3.
′
′
The arrows indicate the regions in which ρX (z) ≥ 0 and ρX (z) < 0 respectively. The region
in between indicates models with dark energy densities that are not monotonic functions of
time.
Note that the weak energy condition requires that the total equation of state w ≥ −1.
In the context of treating Cardassian models as a fluid (Gondolo & Freese 2002), this is
obs −q
(Ωm ) − 1 (1 − n)
pX
w=
=−
,
(20)
−q − 1
ρm + ρX
(1 + z)3(1−n)q + (Ωobs
m )
which satisfies w ≥ −1 for the parameter choices we are interested in: Ωobs
m < 1, n < 1, and
q > 1. Therefore, all viable MP Cardassian models satisfy the weak energy condition but
can have wX < −1. Note an effective wX < −1 is consistent with recent CMB and large
scale structure data (Schuecker et al. 2002; Melchiorri et al. 2002).
Some scalar field dark energy models with wX < −1 have been studied previously
(Caldwell 1999); models which are stable despite violating variants of the weak energy conditions have been found to be difficult to construct (Carroll, Hoffman, & Trodden 2003).
Our proposal here is a different alternative to the models previously studied.
– 10 –
We will now assume that the data set is given, either from the simulated data sets
described above, or, in the future from SNAP8 . We will show that investigation of the data
set can reproduce the sign of the time-dependence of the dark energy density, assuming one
knows the matter density to an accuracy of 10%.
Given our data set, we now proceed as though we have no information on where it comes
from; i.e., we proceed as though we did not know which model it came from. We parametrize
the dark energy density in order to allow us to compare it to the data set. We take ρX (z)
to be an arbitrary function. To approximate the function, we parametrize it by its value at
nbin equally spaced redshift values, zi , i = 1,2,...,nbin , znbin = zmax . The value of ρX (z) at
other redshifts are given by linear interpolation, i.e.,
zi − z
z − zi−1
ρX (z) =
ρi−1 +
ρi ,
zi−1 < z ≤ zi ,
zi − zi−1
zi − zi−1
z0 = 0, znbin = zmax .
(21)
The values of the dark energy density ρi (i = 1, 2, ..., nbin ) are the independent variables to
be estimated from data; note that the number of independent variables is nbin . Again, we
proceed as though we had absolutely no information on the function ρX (z), and treat it as
a completely arbitrary function.
The complete set of parameters, then, is
s ≡ (Ωobs
m , ρi , and nbin ),
(22)
where i = 1, ..., nbin as described above. Hence our number of parameters is N = nbin + 2.
We will vary the number of bins nbin between 1 and 10, and look for the optimal fit to the
data. To illustrate, an arbitrary function may become a good approximation to the data for
4 bins whereas it is a miserable fit for 3 bins.
We expand the adaptive iteration method developed in Wang & Garnavich (2001) and
Wang & Lovelace (2001); unlike what is done in those papers, we do not restrict ourselves
to cases where ρ′X (z) > 0.
We can now determine a best fit to the set of parameters s by using a χ2 statistic, with
(Riess et al. 1998)
h
i2
(l)
(l)
X µp (zl |s) − µ0 (zl )
χ2 (s) =
,
(23)
2
σ
l
l
8
Note that the current SNAP design is sustantially improved than before (Tarle et al. 2002). Here we
assume that SNAP will obtain all SNe Ia in its survey fields up to z = 1.7, similar to a supernova pencil
beam survey (Wang 2000a; Wang & Lovelace 2001).
– 11 –
(l)
where µp (zl |s) is the prediction for the distance modulus at redshift zl , given the set of
parameters s. Here σl is the dispersion of the measured distance modulus due to intrinsic
and observational uncertainties in SN Ia peak luminosity.
To reduce the computation time, we can integrate over the Hubble constant H0 analytically, and define a modified χ2 statistic, with
C1
2
2
2
χ̃ ≡ χ∗ −
C1 + ln 10 − 2 ln h∗ ,
(24)
C2
5
where h∗ is a fiducial value of the dimensionless Hubble constant h,
µ∗p ≡ µp (h = h∗ ) = 42.384 − 5 log h∗ + 5 log [H0 r(1 + z)] ,
(25)
and
2
X 1
(l)
∗(l)
µ
−
µ
,
0
p
2
σ
l
l
X 1
(l)
∗(l)
µ
−
µ
,
≡
p
0
2
σ
l
l
X 1
≡
.
2
σ
l
l
χ2∗ ≡
C1
C2
(26)
It is straightforward to check that the derivative of χ̃2 with respect to h∗ is zero; hence our
results are independent of the choice of h∗ . We take h∗ = 0.65.
For a given choice of nbin , we can minimize the modified χ2 statistic of Eq.(24) to find
the best fit Ωobs
m and ρX (z) (parametrized by ρi , i = 1, 2, ..., nbin ). We can find one sigma
error bars by finding values with (∆χ)2 = 1 from the minimum.
For each model in Table 1, we obtain four sets of best fit parameters. We apply four
different constraints to the arbitrary function ρX (z) in order to discover which one allows a
good fit. The four constraints are:
(i) ρX (z) = ρX (0) = constant; i.e., a cosmological constant model;
(ii) ρ′X (z) ≥ 0;
(iii) ρ′X (z) < 0;
and (iv) completely unconstrained ρX (z).
For each of these constraints, we find the best fit parameters.
Figure 4 shows our results: panels (a) and (b) correspond to the MP Cardassian and
quintessence models described in Table 1 respectively. For simulated data of Model 1 of Table
1, a cosmological constant model, we find that Ωobs
m is estimated correctly to 1% accuracy,
– 12 –
regardless of the assumption made about ρ′X (z). For Model 2 (MP Cardassian) and Model
3 (quintessence), Fig.4(a) and (b) show the best fit Ωobs
m , under all of the four constraints
above, for nbin values ranging from 1 to 10. We find that assuming the wrong sign for ρ′X (z)
leads to an estimated Ωm that differs from the assumed Ωobs
m by more than 10%. The different
′
constraints on the sign of ρX (z) are represented by different point types. The solid horizontal
line is our fiducial value of Ωm = 0.3 (i.e., we are assuming that that this is the true value of
the matter density), and the dot-dashed horizontal lines indicate 10% error bars about his
fiducial value. We are assuming that Ωm is known to within 10% from other data sets.
These plots are not intended to emphasize the dependence of Ωobs
m on nbin . Indeed, as
discussed above, the reason that we have found the best fit Ωm for a variety of nbin values is
simply that the parametrization of the arbitrary function ρX (z) may be poor for one value
of nbin but excellent for another; we take a given model to be a good one if it lies within the
10% range on Ωm for several values of nbin .
Fig.4(a) and (b) show estimated Ωobs
m as function of nbin for Model 2 (MP Cardassian
model) and Model 3 (a quintessence model). In Fig.4(a), only the Ωobs
m values estimated
′
assuming that ρX (z) ≤ 0 consistently (i.e., for most values of nbin ) lie within 10% of the true
value of Ωobs
m = 0.3. Hence, we have indeed recovered the correct general time-dependence of
the model underlying this set of simulated data. In Fig.4(b), only the Ωobs
m values estimated
′
assuming that ρX (z) ≥ 0 deviate by less than 10% from the true value of Ωobs
m = 0.3. Again,
we have recovered the correct general time-dependence of the model underlying this set of
simulated data. For all three models, we have been able to correctly ascertain the sign of
ρ′X (z) with this technique.
This indicates that the estimated Ωobs
m (for a variety of values of nbin ), together with a
obs
10% accurate prior on Ωm , can be used to determine the general time-dependence of the
dimensionless dark energy density; i.e., the sign of ρ′X (z).
3.2.
Estimating dark energy density from data
In this section we create a large number of Monte Carlo samples to see how well we can
reconstruct the entire function ρX (z). To create these samples, we need first to identify the
best-fit model as follows.
For a given data set, we choose the best-fit model with nbin [the number of parameters
used to parametrize the dimensionless dark energy density ρX (z)] that satisfies three conditions:
(1) it corresponds to an estimated Ωm value that deviates less than 10% from the true value;
– 13 –
(2) as we decrease nbin from a large value, say, nbin = 10, it minimizes the χ2 per degree
of freedom, χ2pdf = χ2 /(Ndata − ν), without significantly shifting the estimated value of Ωm
(Wang & Lovelace 2001). Ndata is the number of SNe Ia, and ν is the number of parameters
estimated from data. Long dashed lines in Fig.4 show χ2pdf as function of nbin on an arbitrary
scale9 ;
(3) if ρ′X (z) 6= 0, then nbin > 1.
Now we apply the above conditions to Fig.4(a) and (b). In Fig.4(a), as we decrease
nbin from nbin = 10, the significant shifting in the estimated Ωm occurs at nbin = 6, which
also has the smallest χ2pdf for 6 ≤ nbin ≤ 10. We find that for the MP Cardassian model,
SNAP data yield an optimal nbin = 6. In Fig.4(b), as we decrease nbin from nbin = 10, the
significant shifting in the estimated Ωm occurs at nbin = 3, which also has the smallest χ2pdf
for 3 ≤ nbin ≤ 10. Hence for the quintessence model, SNAP data yield an optimal nbin = 3.
To derive the error distribution of estimated parameters Ωobs
m and ρi (i = 1, 2, ..., nbin ,
4
see Eq.(21)), we create 10 Monte Carlo samples by adding dispersion in peak luminosity
of ∆mint = 0.16 mag to the distance modulus µp (z) [see Eq.(17)] predicted by the bestfit model (i.e., assuming that the best-fit model is the true model). This is equivalent to
making 104 new “observations”, each similar to the original data set (Press et al. 1992). The
same analysis used to obtain the best-fit model from the data is performed on each Monte
Carlo sample. We use the distribution of the resultant estimates of the parameters (Ωobs
m
and ρi ) to derive the mean and 68.3% and 99.73% confidence level intervals of the estimated
parameters. Wang & Lovelace (2001) showed that such a Monte Carlo analysis gives less
biased estimates of parameters than a maximum likelihood analysis, i.e., the Monte Carlo
mean of estimated parameters deviate less from the true values of the parameters.
Fig. 5 shows the estimated dimensionless dark energy density ρX (z) for a generalized
Cardassian model with n = 0.2 and q = 2 from simulated SN data from SNAP assuming
that we know Ωm to 10% accuracy. The solid line indicates the underlying true model for
ρX (z). The horizontal dashed line near the top of the figure indicates ρX (z) = ρX (0) =
constant, a cosmological constant model. The horizontal dotted line near the bottom of
the figure indicates ρX (z) = 0. We impose ρX (z) ≥ 0. The estimated Ωm values (obtained
by reconstructing the model from the Monte Carlo samples) are listed at the bottom of
the plot with 68.3% confidence level intervals. Where the actual value of Ωm for the fake
data set was Ωm = 0.3, we see that the reproduced Ωm from our Monte Carlo study is
Ωm = 0.298(−0.023, +0.024). Indeed this reproduced value lies within 10% of the correct
Ωm .
9
The scale is adjusted for the curve to fit in the figure.
– 14 –
The error bars of the reproduced estimates of ρX (z) have been computed using 104
Monte Carlo random samples derived from the simulated data. The solid error bars and
the dotted error bars indicate the 68.3% and 99.73% confidence level intervals respectively.
Hence, from Fig. 5, we see that a MP Cardassian model with a set of parameters that fit
the current observational data, Ωobs
m = 0.3, n = 0.2, q = 2 , can be differentiated from a
cosmological constant model at 99.73% confidence level. We have shown the accuracy with
which one can reconstruct the form of the dark energy density. We see that SNAP can
indeed differentiate between different models.
4.
Discussion and Conclusion
We have compared a particular form of Cardassian model, the Modified Polytropic
Cardassian model of Eq. (2), with existing data from supernovae and cosmic microwave
background measurements. We have found that current data constrain the parameter space
of the MP Cardassian model.
We have shown that future type Ia supernova (SN Ia) data from SNAP can differentiate
various dark energy models (cosmological constant, quintessence, and generalized Cardassian
expansion), assuming that Ωm is known to 10% accuracy. We have found the interesting
result that the sign of the time dependence of the dark energy density can be determined by
SNAP.
Further, we have performed Monte Carlo samples to illustrate how well one can reproduce the form of the dark energy density with SNAP. For example, a MP Cardassian model
with a set of parameters that fit the current observational data, Ωobs
m = 0.3, n = 0.2, q = 2 ,
can be differentiated from a cosmological constant model at 99.73% confidence level.
We wish to remark on another test of generalized Cardassian models. There are two
independent motivations for these models: 1) they may arise as a consequence of imbedding
our observable universe as a 3-brane in higher dimensions (see, e.g., Chung & Freese (2000)),
and 2) these models may be described in terms of a fluid interpretation, in which the dark
energy density may be due to self-interaction of dark matter particles (Gondolo & Freese
2002). In this second interpretation, we have developed a fully relativistic treatment of the
resultant modified Euler’s equations, Poisson equations, and energy conservation. Then we
analyzed (Gondolo & Freese 2002) the linear growth of density fluctuations in the fluid interpretation. A more complete study of perturbation growth is in progress. Of particular
interest is the study of the Integrated Sachs Wolfe effect in the Cosmic Microwave Background. It is possible that the deficit of power on large angular scales (low order multipoles)
– 15 –
may be explained in generalized Cardassian models.
We thank the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California,
Santa Barbara, for hospitality. Most of this work was performed in September 2002 when
all the authors were at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara. Subsequent
dispersal of all the authors to different parts of the country caused a delay in the publication
of this paper.
It is a pleasure for us to thank Arlin Crotts, Greg Tarle, the referee, and especially Josh
Frieman for helpful comments. This research was supported in part by the National Science
Foundation under Grant No. PHY99-07949, NSF CAREER grant AST-0094335 (Y.W.), the
Department of Energy grant at the University of Michigan (K.F. and M.L.), the Michigan
Center for Theoretical Physics (K.F. and M.L.). K.F. thanks the Aspen Center for Physics,
where part of this research was conducted, for hospitality during her stay.
REFERENCES
Akerlof, C., et al. Resource Book on Dark Energy; Contributions from the Snowmass 2001
Workshop on the Future of Particle Physics, 2001.
Alcock, C., and Paczynski, B., Nature B281, 358 (1979).
Bond,J.R.; Efstathiou, G.; & Tegmark, M. 1997, MNRAS, 291, L33
Barger, V., and Marfatia, D., Phys. Lett. B498, 67-73 (2001)
Bean, R., Hansen, S., and Melchiorri, A., astro-ph/0201127
Bennett, C.L., et al. 2003, astro-ph/0302207
Binetruy, P., Deffayet, C., and Langlois, D., Nucl. Phys. B565, 269 (2000).
Caldwell, R., astro-ph/9908168.
Caldwell, R., Dave, R., Steinhardt, P., Phys. Rev. Lett.80 1582 (1998)
Carroll, S.M.; Hoffman, M.; & Trodden, M. 2003, astro-ph/0301273
Chung, D.J., and Freese, K., Phys. Rev. D61, 023511 (2000)
Davis, M., and Newman, J. 1999, ApJ, 513, L95.
– 16 –
Deffayet, C., Phys. Lett. B502, 199 (2001)
Evrard, A.E., MNRAS 2921997289.
Freese, K., Adams, F.C., Frieman, J.A., and Mottola, E., Nucl. Phys. B287, 797 (1987).
Freese, K., and Lewis, M., astro-ph/0201229, Phys.Lett. B540, 1 (2002).
Freese, K., Conference Proceeding for Meeting on Sources and Detection of Dark Matter and
Dark Energy in the Universe, Marina del Rey, CA (2002).
Frieman, J., Hill, J., Stebbins, A., and Waga, I., Phys. Rev. Lett.75 2077 (1995).
Frieman, J. A. 1997, Comments Astrophys., 18, 323
Gondolo, P., and Freese, K., hep-ph/0209322, hep-ph/0211397.
Hannestad, S., and Mortsell, E., astro-ph/0205096
Holz, D.E. & Wald, R.M. 1998, Phys. Rev. D, 58, 063501
Huey, G., Wang, L., Dave, R., Caldwell, R., and Steinhardt, P., Phys. Rev. D59 063005
(1999)
Hui, L., Stebbins, A., and Burles, S. 1999, ApJ, 511, L5.
Huterer, D., and Turner, M., Phys. Rev. D64, 123527 (2001);
Krauss, L.M., and Chaboyer, B., astro-ph/0111597
Maor, I., Brustein, R., Steinhardt, P.J., Phys. Rev. Lett., 86, 6 (2001); Erratum-ibid. 87
(2001) 049901
McDonald, P., and Miralda-Escude, J. 1999, ApJ, 518, 24.
Melchiorri, A.; Mersini, L.; Ödman, C.J.; & Trodden, M. 2002, astro-ph/0211522
Metcalf, R. B., & Silk, J. 1999, ApJ, 519, L1
Multamaki, T.; Gaztanaga, E.; & Manera, M. 2003, astro-ph/0303526
Munshi, D., and Wang, Y. 2003, ApJ, 583, 566
Netterfield, C.B., et al, astro-ph/0104460
Ödman, C.J.; Melchiorri, A.; Hobson, M.P.; & Lasenby, A.N. 2002, astro-ph/0207286
– 17 –
Peebles, P. J. E.; Ratra, B. 1988, ApJ, 325L, 17
Peebles, P.J.E., “Principles of Physical Cosmology” (Princeton University Press, Princeton,
NJ, 1993).
Perlmutter, S., et al. [Supernova Cosmology Project Collaboration], Astrophys. J. 517, 565
(1999) [arXiv:astro-ph/9812133].
Phillips, M.M., ApJ, 413, L105 (1993)
Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., Flannery, B.P., “Numerical Recipes in
Fortran 77 (The Art of Scientific Computing)” (Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed.,
1992)
Pryke, C. ,et al 2002, ApJ, 568, 46
Riess, A.G., Press, W.H., and Kirshner, R.P., ApJ, 438, L17 (1995)
Riess, A. G., et al. [Supernova Search Team Collaboration], Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998)
[arXiv:astro-ph/9805201].
Schuecker, P. et al. 2002, astro-ph/0211480
Sen, S., and Sen, A. A., astro-ph/0211634.
Spergel, D.N., et al. 2003, astro-ph/0302209
Tarle, G., (for the SNAP Collaboration), astro-ph/0210041
Tegmark, M., Phys. Rev. D66, 103507 (2002)
Wambsganss, J., Cen, R., Xu, G., & Ostriker, J.P. 1997,
ApJ, 475, L81
Wang, L., and Steinhardt, P. 1998, ApJ, 508, 483.
Wang, Y. 1999, ApJ, 525, 651
Wang, Y. 2000a, ApJ, 531, 676
Wang, Y. 2000b, ApJ, 536, 531
Wang, Y., and Garnavich, P. 2001, ApJ, 552, 445
Wang, Y., and Lovelace, G. 2001, ApJ, 562, L115
– 18 –
Wang, Y., Holz, D.E., and Munshi, D. 2002, ApJ, 572, L15 (2002)
Weinberg, S., “Gravitation and Cosmology” (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1972)
White, S.D.M., Navarro, J.F., Evrard, A.E., and Frenk, C.S., Nature B366, 429 (1993).
Zhu, Z., & Fujimoto, M. 2002, ApJ, 581, 1
Zhu, Z., & Fujimoto, M. 2003, ApJ submitted
This preprint was prepared with the AAS LATEX macros v5.0.
– 19 –
Fig. 1.— Examples of MP Cardassian models [see Eq.(2)] that satisfy current observational
constraints from type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) data. Three MP Cardassian models are shown,
all with Ωobs
m = 0.3: n = 0.2, q = 1 (solid curve); n = 0.2, q = 2 (short-dashed curve); and
n = 0.2, q = 3 (long-dashed curve). Note that the solid curve is equivalent to a quintessence
model with wq = −0.8. The dot-dashed curve is a quintessence model with wq = −1 + 0.5z.
The dotted curves show several familiar cosmological models for comparison (from top to
bottom): (Ωm , ΩΛ ) = (0.3, 0.7); (0.3, 0); and (1, 0).
Fig. 2.— The parameter space of (n, q) showing constraints from SNe Ia and CMB at fixed
Ωm = 0.3. All models below the dashed line are in agreement with the shift parameter R as
measured by WMAP. All models between the solid lines are in agreement with the Type Ia
SN data.
Fig. 3.— The parameter space of (n,q) for MP Cardassian models [see Eq.(2)] with Ωobs
m =
′
′
0.3. The arrows indicate the regions in which ρX (z) ≥ 0 and ρX (z) < 0 respectively.
The region in between indicates models with dark energy densities that are not monotonic
functions of time.
Fig. 4.— This figure shows that we can indeed determine the sign of the dependence of the
dark energy density ρ′X (z); i.e., we can determine if it is increasing, decreasing, or constant
in time. The axes show estimated Ωest
m as function of nbin from the simulated data for SNAP
for (a) a MP Cardassian model with n = 0.2 and q = 2 so that ρ′X (z) < 0 and (b) a
quintessence model with wX (z) = −1 + 0.5z so that ρ′X (z) > 0. The horizontal dot-dashed
lines correspond to a 10% uncertainty on Ωobs
m = 0.3 ± 0.03. The different curves show the
results obtained assuming a variety of constraints on the time dependence ρ′X (z) as labeled.
The long-dashed curve shows χ2pdf on an arbitrary scale. By requiring the results to lie within
the dot-dashed lines, we recover the sign of the time-dependence of ρX (z).
Fig. 5.— Estimated dimensionless dark energy density ρX (z) for simulated SN data from
SNAP, assuming that we know Ωm to ∼10% accuracy [and the correct general time dependence of the dark energy density, see discussion in Section 3.A]. The error bars of the
estimated ρX (z) have been computed from 104 Monte Carlo random samples derived from
the simulated data. The solid error bars and the dotted error bars indicate the 68.3% and
99.73% confidence level intervals respectively. The reproduced estimates of Ωm values are
listed at the bottom of the plot with 68.3% confidence level intervals.
– 20 –
Fig. 1.— Examples of MP Cardassian models [see Eq.(2)] that satisfy current observational
constraints from type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) data. Three MP Cardassian models are shown,
all with Ωobs
m = 0.3: n = 0.2, q = 1 (solid curve); n = 0.2, q = 2 (short-dashed curve); and
n = 0.2, q = 3 (long-dashed curve). Note that the solid curve is equivalent to a quintessence
model with wq = −0.8. The dot-dashed curve is a quintessence model with wq = −1 + 0.5z.
The dotted curves show several familiar cosmological models for comparison (from top to
bottom): (Ωm , ΩΛ ) = (0.3, 0.7); (0.3, 0); and (1, 0).
– 21 –
allowed by SNe Ia
allowed by CMB
Fig. 2.— The parameter space of (n, q) showing constraints from SNe Ia and CMB at fixed
Ωm = 0.3. All models below the dashed line are in agreement with the shift parameter R as
measured by WMAP. All models between the solid lines are in agreement with the Type Ia
SN data.
– 22 –
Fig. 3.— The parameter space of (n,q) for MP Cardassian models [see Eq.(2)] with Ωobs
m =
′
′
0.3. The arrows indicate the regions in which ρX (z) ≥ 0 and ρX (z) < 0 respectively.
The region in between indicates models with dark energy densities that are not monotonic
functions of time.
– 23 –
Fig. 4.— This figure shows that we can indeed determine the sign of the dependence of the
dark energy density ρ′X (z); i.e., we can determine if it is increasing, decreasing, or constant
in time. The axes show estimated Ωest
m as function of nbin from the simulated data for SNAP
for (a) a MP Cardassian model with n = 0.2 and q = 2 so that ρ′X (z) < 0 and (b) a
quintessence model with wX (z) = −1 + 0.5z so that ρ′X (z) > 0. The horizontal dot-dashed
lines correspond to a 10% uncertainty on Ωobs
m = 0.3 ± 0.03. The different curves show the
results obtained assuming a variety of constraints on the time dependence ρ′X (z) as labeled.
The long-dashed curve shows χ2pdf on an arbitrary scale. By requiring the results to lie within
the dot-dashed lines, we recover the sign of the time-dependence of ρX (z).
– 24 –
Fig. 5.— Estimated dimensionless dark energy density ρX (z) for simulated SN data from
SNAP, assuming that we know Ωm to ∼10% accuracy [and the correct general time dependence of the dark energy density, see discussion in Section 3.A]. The error bars of the
estimated ρX (z) have been computed from 104 Monte Carlo random samples derived from
the simulated data. The solid error bars and the dotted error bars indicate the 68.3% and
99.73% confidence level intervals respectively. The reproduced estimates of Ωm values are
listed at the bottom of the plot with 68.3% confidence level intervals.