text:
# 1 𝐿' vs Ω_𝑚 for both models, using the apparent magnitude-redshift data for Type Ia supernova. The curves 𝑀₁ and 𝑀₂ correspond to the marginal likelihoods for Ω_𝑚 for the standard Ω_Λ≠0 model and the new model, respectively (apart from some multiplicative constants, which cancel on taking ratios).

Comparison of cosmological models using Bayesian theory

Moncy V. John

Department of Physics, St. Thomas College, Kozhencherri, 689641, India.

J. V. Narlikar

Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Post Bag 4, Ganeshkhind, Pune, 411007, India.

Abstract

Using the Bayesian theory of model comparison, a new cosmological model due to John and Joseph \[M. V. John and K. Babu Joseph, Phys. Rev. D 61 87304 (2000)\] is compared with the standard $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ cosmological model. Their analysis based on the recent apparent magnitude-redshift data of Type Ia supernovas found evidence against the new model; our more careful analysis finds instead that this evidence is not strong. On the other hand, we find that the angular size-redshift data from compact (milliarcsecond) radio sources do not discriminate between the two models. Our analysis serves as an example of how to compare the relative merits of cosmological models in general, using the Bayesian approach.

PACS No(s): 98.80.Es, 02.50.-r

I. INTRODUCTION

In a recent publication , it was argued, by modifying an earlier ansatz by Chen and Wu , that the total energy density $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ for the universe should vary as $`a^2`$ where $`a`$ is the scale factor of its expansion. If the total pressure is $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$, then this argument leads to $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }+3\stackrel{~}{p}=0`$ for the universe. This deduction was made possible by the use of some dimensional considerations in line with quantum cosmology. The reasoning is as follows: Taking the comoving coordinate grid as dimensionless, we attribute a distance dimension to the scale factor $`a`$. Since there is no other fundamental energy scale available, one can always write $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ as Planck density ($`\rho _{pl}=c^5/\mathrm{}G^2=5.158\times 10^{93}`$ g cm-3) times a dimensionless product of quantities. The variation of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ with $`a`$ can now be written as

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }\rho _{pl}\left[\frac{l_{pl}}{a}\right]^n,$$

where $`l_{pl}=(\mathrm{}G/c^3)^{1/2}=1.616\times 10^{33}`$ cm is the Planck length. It is easy to see that $`n<2`$ ($`n>2`$) will lead to a negative (positive) power of $`\mathrm{}`$ appearing explicitly on the right hand side of the above equation. It was pointed out that such an $`\mathrm{}`$-dependent total energy density would be quite unnatural in the classical Einstein equation for cosmology, much later than the Planck time. However, the case $`n=2`$ is just right to survive the semi classical limit $`\mathrm{}0`$. Thus it was argued that if we take quantum cosmology seriously, then $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }a^2`$ or equivalently $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }+3\stackrel{~}{p}=0`$, for a conserved $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$. Solving the Friedmann equations gives a coasting evolution for the universe; i.e.,

$$a=mt,$$

where $`m=\sqrt{k/(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}1)}`$ is a proportionality constant; $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is the total density parameter and $`k=0,\pm 1`$ is the spatial curvature constant.

It shall be noted that $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }+3\stackrel{~}{p}=0`$ is an equation of state appropriate for strings or textures and that it is unrealistic to consider the present universe as string-dominated. But in , it was shown that this ansatz will lead to a realistic cosmology if we consider that $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ comprises of more than one component, say, ordinary matter (relativistic or nonrelativistic) with equation of state $`p_m=w\rho _m`$ and a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which is time-varying. Let $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ denote the energy density arising from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be the corresponding pressure. With

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }=\rho _m+\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda },\stackrel{~}{p}=p_m+p_\mathrm{\Lambda },$$

the condition $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }+3\stackrel{~}{p}=0`$ will give

$$\frac{\rho _m}{\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{2}{1+3w},$$

and this gives a realistic model for the universe. It was also shown that this simplest cosmological model is devoid of the problems like the horizon, flatness, monopole, cosmological constant, size, age of the universe and the generation of density perturbations on scales well above the present Hubble radius in the pure classical epoch. The solution of the cosmological constant, age and density perturbation problems deserve special mention since these are not solvable in an inflationary scenario. Moreover, the evolution of temperature in the model is nearly the same as that in the standard big bang model and if we assume the values $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=4/3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=2/3`$, then there is no variation in the freezing temperature with the latter model, and this will enable nucleosynthesis to proceed in an almost identical manner. It also may be noted that an almost similar model which predicts the above values for the density parameters was proposed earlier , from some more fundamental assumptions based on entirely different grounds.

However, it should be remarked that the argument given above, which leads to this cosmology, is heuristic and not based on formal reasoning. It should be taken only as a guiding principle. Also we note that it has some unusual consequences like the necessity of continuous creation of matter from vacuum energy, though it was argued in  that such creation will be too inaccessible to observation.

But it was mentioned in  that, in spite of the those successes in predicting observed values, the recent observations of the magnitudes of 42 high-redshift Type Ia supernovas  is a set back for the model. A statement was explicitly made to the effect that the predictions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for the present model are outside the error ellipses given in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ plot in  and it was claimed that this discrepancy is a serious problem. In this paper, we study this issue in detail to see how strong is the evidence against this model when compared with the standard model with a constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, discussed in . Jackson and Dodgson  have examined the latter model in the light of Kellerman’s  and Gurvits’  compilations of angular size-redshift data for ultracompact (milliarcsecond) radio sources. Gurvits’ compilation of such data, which are measured by very long-baseline interferometry (VLBI), is claimed to have no evolution with cosmic epoch. Several authors (for e.g., ) have made use of these data to test their cosmological models. In the present paper, we also analyze the Gurvits’ data to test the new model. Using the Bayesian theory of statistics, we compare the new model discussed above with the standard model with a non-zero cosmological constant, using both the apparent magnitude-redshift data and the angular size-redshift data. It is found that there is no strong evidence against the new model when the apparent magnitude-redshift data are considered. This is contradictory to the statement made in . The angular size-redshift data, on the other hand, are found to provide equal preference to the standard model and the new one.

The remainder of this paper takes the new theory as given and compares it with other standard cosmological models. The analysis shall be viewed as an example of using Bayesian theory to test the relative merits of cosmological models, a method which is claimed to have many positive features when compared to indirect arguments using parameter estimates. As such, the technique described here has wider applicability than just to the comparison of two cosmological models.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we discuss the Bayesian theory of model comparison for the general case. Section III discusses comparison of the two models using apparent magnitude-redshift data and in Section IV, we compare the models with the angular size-redshift data. Section V comprises discussion of the results.

II. BAYESIAN THEORY OF MODEL COMPARISON

The Bayesian theory of statistics  is historically the original approach to statistics, developed by great mathematicians like Gauss, Bayes, Laplace, Bernoulli etc., and has several advantages over the currently used long-run relative frequency (frequentist) approach to statistics, especially in problems like those in astrophysics, where the notion of a statistical ensemble is highly contrived. The frequentist definition of probability can only describe the probability of a true random variable, which can take on various values throughout an ensemble or a series of repeated experiments. In astrophysical and similar problems, ensembles and repeated experiments are rarely possible and we speak about the probability of a hypothesis, which can only be either true or false, and hence is not a random variable. The Bayesian theory will help assign probabilities for such hypotheses by considering the (often incomplete) data available with us. For example, Laplace used Bayesian theory to estimate the masses of planets from astronomical data, and to quantify the uncertainty of the masses due to observational errors . In fact, this theory finds application in all those problems where one can only have a numerical encoding of one’s state of knowledge.

In the Bayesian theory of model comparison, it is common to report model probabilities via odds, the ratios of probabilities of the models. The posterior (i.e., after consideration of the data) odds for the model $`M_i`$ over $`M_j`$ are

$$O_{ij}=\frac{p(M_i|D,I)}{p(M_j|D,I)},$$

where $`p(M_i|D,I)`$ refers to the posterior probability for the model $`M_i`$, given the data $`D`$ and assuming that any other information $`I`$ regarding the models under consideration is true. Using Bayes’s theorem, one can write the above equation as

$$O_{ij}=\frac{p(M_i|I)(M_i)}{p(M_j|I)(M_j)},$$
(1)
where $`p(M_i|I)`$ is called the prior probability; i.e., any probability assigned to the model $`M_i`$ before consideration of the data, but assuming the information $`I`$ to be true. When $`I`$ does not give any preference to one model over the other, these prior probabilities are equal so that

$$O_{ij}=\frac{(M_i)}{(M_j)}B_{ij}.$$
(2)
$`B_{ij}`$ is called the Bayes factor. $`(M_i)`$ denotes the probability $`p(D|M_i)`$ to obtain the data $`D`$ if the model $`M_i`$ is the true one and is referred to as the likelihood for the model $`M_i`$. The models under consideration will usually have one or more free parameters (like the density parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ etc. in the case of cosmological models), which we denote as $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, .. . $`(M_i)`$ can be evaluated for models with one parameter as

$$(M_i)p(D|M_i)=𝑑\alpha p(\alpha |M_i)_i(\alpha ),$$
(3)
where $`p(\alpha |M_i)`$ is the prior probability for the parameter $`\alpha `$, assuming the model $`M_i`$ to be true. $`_i(\alpha )`$ is the likelihood for $`\alpha `$ in the model and is usually taken to have the form

$$_i(\alpha )\mathrm{exp}[\chi ^2(\alpha )/2].$$
(4)
where

$$\chi ^2=\underset{k}{}\left(\frac{\widehat{A}_kA_k(\alpha )}{\sigma _k}\right)^2$$
(5)
is the $`\chi ^2`$ statistic. Here $`\widehat{A}_k`$ are the measured values of the observable $`A`$, $`A_k(\alpha )`$ are its expected values (from theory) and $`\sigma _k`$ are the uncertainties in the measurements of the observable.

Generalization to the case of more than one parameter is straight forward. As a specific case, consider a model $`M_i`$ with two parameters, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, having flat prior probabilities; i.e., we assume to have no prior information regarding $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ except that they lie in some range \[$`\alpha `$, $`\alpha +\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$\] and \[$`\beta `$, $`\beta +\mathrm{\Delta }\beta `$\], respectively. Then $`p(\alpha |M_i)=1/\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$, $`p(\beta |M_i)=1/\mathrm{\Delta }\beta `$ and hence

$$(M_i)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }\beta }_\alpha ^{\alpha +\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }𝑑\alpha _\beta ^{\beta +\mathrm{\Delta }\beta }𝑑\beta \mathrm{exp}[\chi ^2(\alpha ,\beta )/2].$$
(6)
It is instructive to rewrite this equation as

$$(M_i)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }_\alpha ^{\alpha +\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }𝑑\alpha _i(\alpha ).$$

In this case,

$$_i(\alpha )=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }\beta }_\beta ^{\beta +\mathrm{\Delta }\beta }𝑑\beta \mathrm{exp}[\chi ^2(\alpha ,\beta )/2]$$

is called the marginal likelihood for the parameter $`\alpha `$.

A. Interpretation of the Bayes factor

The interpretation of the Bayes factor $`B_{ij}`$, which is given by (2) and which evaluates the relative merits of model $`M_i`$ over model $`M_j`$, is as follows : If $`1<B_{ij}<3`$, there is an evidence against $`M_j`$ when compared with $`M_i`$, but it is not worth more than a bare mention. If $`3<B_{ij}<20`$, the evidence against $`M_j`$ is definite but not strong. For $`20<B_{ij}<150`$, this evidence is strong and for $`B_{ij}>150`$, it is very strong.

III. COMPARISON USING REDSHIFT-MAGNITUDE DATA

For an FRW model which contains matter and a cosmological constant, the likelihood for these parameters, i.e., $`_i(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ can be assigned using the redshift-apparent magnitude data in the following manner . Before consideration of the data, let us agree that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ lies somewhere in the range $`0<\mathrm{\Omega }_m<3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the range $`3<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }<3`$ and accept this as the only prior information $`I`$. Let $`\widehat{\mu }_k`$ be the observed best-fit distance modulus for the supernova number $`k`$, $`s_k`$ its uncertainty and $`\widehat{z}_k`$ is the cosmological redshift, with $`w_k`$ its uncertainty. We can write the expression for $`\chi ^2`$ as

$$\chi ^2=\underset{k}{}\left(\frac{\widehat{\mu }_k\mu _k}{\sigma _k}\right)^2.$$
(7)
Here,

$$\widehat{\mu }_k=\mu _k+n_k=g_k\eta +n_k,$$
(8)
with

$$\mu _kg_k\eta =5\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{D_L(z;\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },H_0)}{1\text{Mpc}}\right]+25$$

being the redshift-apparent magnitude relation. The luminosity distance is $`D_L(z;\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },H_0)=cH_0^1d_L(z;\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, where $`c`$ is the velocity of light, $`H_0`$ is the Hubble constant at the present epoch and $`d_L`$ is the dimensionless luminosity distance. $`g_k=g(\widehat{z}_k)`$ is the part of $`\mu _k`$ which depends implicitly on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\eta `$ is its $`H_0`$-dependent part. The latter quantity can be written as $`\eta 5\mathrm{log}(h/c_2)25`$ where $`H_0=h\times 100`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 and $`c_2`$ is the speed of light in units of 100 km s-1. The probability distribution for the value $`n_k`$ in Equation (8) is assumed to be a zero-mean Gaussian with standard deviation $`\sigma _k`$, where $`\sigma _k^2=s_k^2+[\mu ^{}(\widehat{z}_k)]^2w_k^2`$, in the absence of systematic or evolutionary effects.

One can evaluate $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },\eta )`$ in a manner similar to that in (4), where $`\chi ^2`$ now is a function of the three parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\eta `$. The likelihood for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, denoted as $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ can be obtained by the technique of marginalising over $`\eta `$, if one assumes a flat prior probability for $`\eta `$ in some appropriate range.

To do this, we define $`s^1=\sqrt{_k(1/\sigma _k^2)}`$ where $`s`$ is the posterior uncertainty for $`\eta `$ and let $`1/\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$ a flat prior probability be assigned to $`\eta `$. (These being the same for all models, will get canceled when evaluating probability ratios.) Using these definitions, the marginal likelihood (defined at the end of Sec. II) for the density parameters is

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }\eta }𝑑\eta e^{\chi ^2/2}.$$
(9)
Evaluating this integral analytically , one assigns a likelihood for the parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in any one model as

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })=\frac{s\sqrt{2\pi }}{\mathrm{\Delta }\eta }e^{q/2},$$
(10)
where

$$q(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{k}{}\frac{(\widehat{\mu }_kg_k+\widehat{\eta })^2}{\sigma _k^2},$$
(11)
is of the form of a $`\chi ^2`$-statistic, with $`\widehat{\eta }`$ the best fit (most probable) value of $`\eta `$, given $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The latter can be computed as

$$\widehat{\eta }(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })=s^2\underset{k}{}\frac{(g_k\widehat{\mu }_k)^2}{\sigma _k^2}.$$
(12)
Now, we compare the model in  (model $`M_1`$, having parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\eta `$) with the new model discussed in Sec. I (model $`M_2`$, having only the parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\eta `$). The Bayes factor $`B_{12}`$ can be written with the help of Eq. (2) and Eq. (3) as

$$B_{12}=\frac{(M_1)}{(M_2)}=\frac{𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_m𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }p(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }|M_1)_1(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })}{𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_mp(\mathrm{\Omega }_m|M_2)_2(\mathrm{\Omega }_m)}.$$
(13)
With the information $`I`$ at hand, one can assign flat prior probabilities $`p(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }|M_1)=1/18`$ and $`p(\mathrm{\Omega }_m|M_2)=1/3`$ . Using Eqs. (6) and (10) we can write the above as

$$B_{12}=\frac{_3^3𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^3𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_m\mathrm{exp}[q_1(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })/2]}{6_0^3𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_m\mathrm{exp}[q_2(\mathrm{\Omega }_m)/2]}.$$
(14)
Our first step in the evaluation of $`B_{12}`$ is to find $`q`$ given in Eq. (11), for both the models. For Model 1, we have to use

$$g(z)=5\mathrm{log}\{(1+z)|\mathrm{\Omega }_k|^{1/2}\text{sinn}[|\mathrm{\Omega }_k|^{1/2}I(z)]\},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=1\mathrm{\Omega }_m\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\text{sinn}(x)=\mathrm{sin}x`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }>1`$, $`\text{sinn}(x)=\mathrm{sinh}x`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }<1`$ and $`\text{sinn}(x)=x`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$. Also

$$I(z)=_0^z[(1+z^{})^2(1+\mathrm{\Omega }_mz^{})z^{}(2+z^{})(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })]^{1/2}𝑑z^{}.$$

For Model 2, the function $`g(z)`$ can be written as

$$g(z)=5\mathrm{log}\{m(1+z)\text{sinn}[\frac{1}{m}\mathrm{ln}(1+z)]\},$$

where $`m=\sqrt{2k/(3\mathrm{\Omega }_m2)}`$ for the nonrelativistic era and $`\text{sinn}(x)=\mathrm{sin}x`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m>2/3`$, $`\text{sinn}(x)=\mathrm{sinh}x`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m<2/3`$ and $`\text{sinn}(x)=x`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=2/3`$.

Using these expressions, Eq. (14) is numerically evaluated to obtain $`B_{12}=3.1`$. (In this calculation, we have used the data corresponding to the Fit C in , which involve 54 supernovas.) As per the interpretation of $`B_{ij}`$ given in Sec. II.A, the above is an evidence against Model 2, but it is only barely definite; the discrepancy is not a "serious problem" as had been stated in .

IV. COMPARISON USING ANGULAR SIZE-REDSHIFT DATA

For this purpose, we use the Gurvits’ data and divide the sample which contains 256 sources into 16 redshift bins, as done by Jackson and Dodgson and shown in their Fig. 1 . For Model 1, we use the expression for angular size

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{d}{d_A}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{(1+z)^1\left(k/\mathrm{\Omega }_k\right)^{1/2}\frac{c}{H_0}\text{sinn}[|\mathrm{\Omega }_k|^{1/2}I^{}(z)]}}`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dH_0}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+z)}{\left(k/\mathrm{\Omega }_k\right)^{1/2}\text{sinn}[|\mathrm{\Omega }_k|^{1/2}I^{}(z)]}},`$
where

$$I^{}(z)=_1^{1+z}\frac{dx}{x\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_k+\mathrm{\Omega }_mx+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{x^2}\right)^{1/2}}.$$
(16)
Here $`d`$ is the linear dimension of an object, $`d_A`$ is the angular size distance and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ and $`\text{sinn}(x)`$ are defined as in the case of Model 1 in the last section. Similarly for Model 2, we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =\frac{d}{d_A}=\frac{dH_0}{c}\frac{(1+z)}{m\text{sinn}[\frac{1}{m}\mathrm{ln}(1+z)]},$$
(17)
where $`m`$ and $`\text{sinn}(x)`$ are defined as in the earlier case of Model 2. For the purpose of comparison, we only need to combine the unknown parameters $`d`$ and $`H_0`$ to form a single parameter $`pdH_0/c`$. Thus Model 1 has three parameters $`p`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ whereas Model 2 has only the parameters $`p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$. As in the previous case, we accept $`0<\mathrm{\Omega }_m<3`$ and $`3<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }<3`$ as the prior information $`I`$. With these ranges of values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`p`$ is found to give significantly low values of $`\chi ^2`$ only for the range $`0.1<p<1`$ in both the models, $`p`$ being given in units of milliarcseconds. The formal expressions to be used are

$$\chi ^2=\underset{k}{}\left(\frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }\theta }_k\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _k}{\sigma _k}\right)^2$$
(18)
and

$`B_{12}={\displaystyle \frac{(M_1)}{(M_2)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }p}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_m}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝑑p𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_m𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{exp}[\chi _1^2(p,\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })]}{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }p}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_m}𝑑p𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_m\mathrm{exp}[\chi _2^2(p,\mathrm{\Omega }_m)]}}`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_{0.1}^1𝑑p_0^3𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_m_3^3𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda \mathrm{exp}[\chi _1^2/2]}{6_{0.1}^1𝑑p_0^3𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_m\mathrm{exp}[\chi _2^2/2]}}.`$
The result obtained is $`B_{12}1`$. This may be interpreted as providing equal preference to both models.

V. DISCUSSION

While evaluating the Bayes factors using both kinds of data, we have assumed that our prior information $`I`$ regarding the density parameters is $`0<\mathrm{\Omega }_m<3`$ and $`3<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }<3`$. The range of values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ considered in  is $`1.5<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }<3`$ and in  it is $`4<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }<1`$. Even if we modify the range of this parameter in our analysis to some reasonable extent, the main conclusions of the paper will remain unaltered. For example, if we accept $`0<\mathrm{\Omega }_m<3`$ and $`1.5<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }<1.5`$ as some prior information $`I^{}`$, the Bayes factors in each case become 3.8 and 0.8, in place of 3.1 and 1, respectively. Instead, if we choose $`I^{}`$ as $`0<\mathrm{\Omega }_m<3`$ and $`6<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }<6`$, the corresponding values are 1.55 and 1.4, respectively. These do not change our conclusions very much in the light of the discriminatory inequalities mentioned in Sec. II.A.

In order to get an intuitive feeling why the standard ($`M_1`$) and new ($`M_2`$) models have comparable likelihoods, consider Figs. 1 and 2. Fig. 1 is for the apparent magnitude-redshift data and plots the quantities $`L^{}=\frac{1}{6}_3^3𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{exp}[q_1(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })/2]`$ (curve labeled $`M_1`$) and $`L^{}=\mathrm{exp}[q_2(\mathrm{\Omega }_m)/2]`$ (curve labeled $`M_2`$) against $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$. From the definition of marginal likelihood given at the end of Sec. II and from Eqs. (9)-(14), it can be seen that these two curves correspond to the marginal likelihoods for the parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ in models $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, respectively (apart from some multiplicative constants, which cancel on taking ratios). Similarly, Fig. 2, which is for the angular size-redshift data, plots $`=\frac{1}{6\times 0.9}_{0.1}^1𝑑p_3^3𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{exp}[\chi _1^2/2]`$ (curve $`M_1`$) and $`=\frac{1}{0.9}_{0.1}^1𝑑p\mathrm{exp}[\chi _2^2/2]`$ (curve $`M_2`$) against $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$. Eq. (19) allows us to interpret these terms as the marginal likelihoods for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ in models $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, respectively. In fact, these curves rigorously show the integrands one must integrate over $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ to get the Bayes factors. Using the apparent magnitude-redshift data, a lower value of value of $`q`$ (which is a modified $`\chi ^2`$ statistic) is obtained for model $`M_1`$ whereas for angular size-red shift data, lower $`\chi ^2`$ is claimed by model $`M_2`$. However, the areas under the curves are comparable in both cases and this shows why the Bayes factors are also comparable. This is one of the strong points of the Bayesian method, in contrast to frequentist goodness of fit tests, which consider only the best fit parameter values for comparing models .

These figures, however, show some feature that is disturbing for the new model. Figs. 1 and 2 indicate best fit values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.42`$, respectively, for this model. In both cases it appears to rule out the value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=4/3`$ that is needed to meet the constraints on nucleosynthesis, a condition which had been stated in the introduction. Though, as mentioned above, Bayesian model comparison does not hinge upon the best fit values in evaluating relative merits of models, one would desire to have an agreement between predicted and observed parameter values. A natural option in such cases would be to compare the models by adjusting the prior regarding the parameters so that any additional information is accounted for. But we have not attempted this in our analysis.

The constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ model we considered has one parameter in excess of the new model in both cases. It should be kept in mind that in the Bayesian method, simpler models with less number of parameters are often favored unless the data are truly difficult to account for with such models. Bayes’s factors thus implement a kind of automatic and objective Occam’s razor. In this context, it is interesting to check how the new model fares when compared with flat (inflationary) models where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$, by which condition the number of parameters of model $`M_1`$ are reduced by one. This makes the two models at par with each other, with regard to the number of parameters. We have calculated the Bayes factor between this flat model $`M_1`$ and the new model $`M_2`$, using the apparent magnitude-redshift data and the result is $`B_{12}=5.0`$. This appears to be a slightly more definite evidence against the new model than the corresponding result obtained in Sec. III ($`B_{12}=3.1`$). (However, inflationary models with a constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term suffer from the ‘graceful exit problem’ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; i.e., in order to explain how $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ manages to change from its GUT magnitude to $`10^{126}`$ of its initial value, some extreme fine tuning would be required ). On the other hand, a comparison of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ model with the new model using angular size-redshift data gives a value for the Bayes factor $`B_{21}=15`$, which shows that this data is difficult to account with the flat inflationary models than with the new one. The results we obtained, while using the information $`I`$, are summarized in Table I.

When compared to the frequentist goodness of fit test of models, which judges the relative merits of the models using the lowest value of $`\chi ^2`$ (even when it is obtained by some fine tuning or by having more parameters), the present approach has the advantage that it evaluates the overall performance of the models under consideration. The Bayesian method is thus a very powerful tool of model comparison and it is high time that the method is used to evaluate the plausibility of cosmological models cropping up in the literature. It is true that since we have only one universe, one can only resort to model making and then to comparing their predictions with observations. Again, since we cannot experiment with the universe, it is not meaningful to use the frequentist approach. We believe that the only meaningful way is to use the Bayesian approach in such cases. Here we have made a comparison between the model in  with the new model in . It deserves to be stressed that the recent apparent magnitude-redshift observations on Type Ia supernovas do not pose a "serious problem" to the new model, as had been claimed in . The angular size-redshift data, on the other hand, do not discriminate between the general $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ model and the new model and they provide definite but not strong evidence against standard flat ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$) model when compared to the new one.

Here it is essential to point out that Bayesian inference summaries the weight of evidence by the full posterior odds and not just by the Bayes factor. Throughout our analysis above, we have assumed that the only prior information with us is either $`I`$ (stated in the beginning of Sec. III) or $`I^{}`$ (stated in the beginning of Sec. V), which helps to make the posterior odds equal to the Bayes factor. However, when the Bayes factor is near unity, the prior odds $`p(M_iI)/p(M_jI)`$ in Eq. (1) become very important. The standard $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ model and the standard flat (inflationary) models are plagued by the large number of cosmological problems (as mentioned in Sec. I) and the new model has the heuristic nature of its derivation and the problem with nucleosynthesis, setting (subjective) prior odds against each of them. In the context of having obtained comparable values for the Bayes factor, the Bayesian model comparison forces us to conclude, in a similar tone as in , that the existing apparent magnitude or angular size-redshift data alone are not very discriminating about these cosmological models. It is also worth remarking here that the Bayesian theory tells us how to adjust our plausibility assessments when our state of knowledge regarding an hypothesis changes through the acquisition of new data . Concerning future observations, one would have to say that if the supernova test is extended to higher redshifts and if the astronomers are sure about the standard candle hypothesis, then the theories can be tested for such new data using Bayesian model comparison, using what we have now obtained as the prior odds. In this context, it also deserves serious consideration to extend the analysis made here to other cosmological data, like that of cosmic microwave background radiation and primordial nucleosynthesis. Hopefully, further analysis and future observations may help to give more decisive answers on these questions.

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to Professor K. Babu Joseph, Ninan Sajith Philip and Dr. R. G. Vishwakarma for valuable discussions. Also the help in performing the computations rendered by Ninan Sajith Philip and Mathew V. Samuel are acknowledged with thanks.

Table I.

| Data | Model $`M_1`$ | Model $`M_2`$ | Bayes factor | Interpretation |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`mz`$ | Standard | New model | $`B_{12}=3.1`$ | Slightly definite but |
|  | $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ model |  |  | not strong evidence |
|  |  |  |  | against the new model |
| $`mz`$ | Standard flat | New model | $`B_{12}=5`$ | Definite but |
|  | $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ model |  |  | not strong evidence |
|  |  |  |  | against the new model |
| $`\theta z`$ | Standard | New model | $`B_{12}=1`$ | Both models are |
|  | $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ model |  |  | equally favored |
| $`\theta z`$ | Standard flat | New model | $`B_{21}=15`$ | Definite but |
|  | $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ model |  |  | not strong evidence |
|  |  |  |  | against the flat model |


format: text

text:
# Tilted CDM versus WDM in the Subgalactic Scuffle

## 1 The Matchup

Inflation-generated cold dark matter (CDM) models provide an elegant and well-motivated class of theories for the origin of structure in the universe. A diverse set of large-scale observational measurements, both at high and low redshifts, are well-accounted for within the CDM picture, and most point to a single model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.3`$, $`h0.7`$, and with space made flat by a significant cosmological constant component (LCDM) .

On the scales of galaxies and smaller, the situation is much more uncomfortable. High-resolution, dissipationless N-body simulations have have led to robust predictions for the distribution of dark matter in and around (L)CDM galactic halos . The predictions have allowed detailed comparisons with observations on subgalactic scales and have lead to two major discrepancies. First, the number of predicted subhalos with circular velocities $`1030\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ within the virialized extent of Milky Way-type halos is roughly an order of magnitude higher than the observed abundance similarly-sized satellites . Perhaps the biggest problem concerns the central densities of galaxies. Rotation curves of low-mass, dark-matter dominated galaxies seem to indicate lower central densities than would be expected  in the standard LCDM model. A similar problem may be present in bright galaxies , including our own Milky Way  (although see ).

These discrepancies have motivated the exploration of alternative scenarios. By stripping either the collisionless or cold properties of traditional CDM, or by considering additional exotic possibilities, many authors have sought to preserve the success of CDM on large scales while modifying the manifestations of CDM on small scales . Among these possibilities, a popular choice is to replace CDM with warm dark mattter (WDM), thereby suppressing power below the free-streeming scale of the warm particle111$`R_f0.1[m_w/\mathrm{KeV}]^{4/3}`$Mpc, for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_w=0.3,h=0.7`$, where $`m_w`$ is the mass of the WDM particle. . A less radical, and perhaps more naturally motivated mechanism for suppressing the small scale power is to tilt the initial inflationary power spectrum to favor large scales (TLCDM, n=0.9) . In what follows, I pit LWDM against TLCDM in a bout to determine which model can best match the subgalactic data. The TLCDM model parameters are those favored by recent Ly$`\alpha `$ forest measurements : $`n=0.9`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.4`$, $`h=0.65`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{L}=0.6`$, and $`\sigma _8=0.66`$. The LWDM model has $`n=1.0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, $`h=0.7`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{L}=0.7`$, and $`\sigma _8=1.0`$, with a $`1`$ KeV WDM particle.

## 2 Round 1: Central Densities

Halo central densities are often characterized by a concentration parameter defined as the ratio of an outer halo radius to an inner radius where the log-slope of the density profile is $`2`$: $`c_\mathrm{v}R_\mathrm{v}/R_2`$. The outer radius $`R_\mathrm{v}`$ is defined as the radius within which the mean density of the halo is a constant multiple of the critical density (in this case 100 at $`z=0`$, see, e.g. for details). A halo’s central density (or concentration) is set by the density of the universe at the time when the halo’s mass accretion rate was high , so halos that form early are more concentrated. LWDM has significantly reduced power on small scales, therefore low-mass WDM halos form later than their CDM counterparts, and end up with lower $`c_\mathrm{v}`$ values .

A similar reduction in halo concentrations occurs in the TLCDM model because the tilt in the power spectrum reduces small scale power relative to large. Figure 1a shows concentrations of LCDM and TLCDM halos simulated using the Adaptive Refinement Tree Code . The two simulations consisted of boxes of $`15h^1`$Mpc on a side with $`128^3`$ particles of mass $`m_p4\times 10^8h^1`$M, and they each had an effective force resultion of $`4h^1`$kpc. Solid points represent TLCDM halos, open points represent LCDM halos, and the lines show predictions from the model of Bullock et al.  (hereafter B) for each of the cosmologies. At a fixed mass, the TLCDM halos are roughly half as concentrated as their LCDM counterparts.

Figure 1b illustrates how predicted TLCDM central densities compare to those of several dark matter dominated Low Surface Brightness (LSB) and dwarf galaxies (see  for a description of the data). Central densities are characterized by the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{V}/2}\rho (r_{V/2})/\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}`$. Here, $`r_{V/2}`$ is the radius where the the rotation velocity falls to one half its maximum value $`V_{\mathrm{max}}`$, $`\rho (r_{V/2})`$ is the average density within that radius, and $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}`$ is the critical density. The line labeled TLCDM shows the B model prediction for TLCDM halos as a function of $`V_{\mathrm{max}}`$. For comparison, the lines labeled LWDM show two different analytic model predictions for LWDM halos. The first line (ENS)  follows from a model developed to match N-body simulation results. Unfortunately, the ENS analytic model has not been tested against N-body simulations over the $`V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ range that is most relevant for the data shown in Figure 1b. One may conservatively expect the properties of WDM halos to lie within the range given by the lines labeled ENS and B.

## 3 Round 2: Dwarf Satellites

One likely solution to the substructure crisis involves the expected supression of low-mass galaxy formation in the presence of a strong ionizing background . In  (BKW) we pointed out that the observed satellite abundance is well-accounted for if the dwarf galaxy host halos correspond only to those that had a significant fraction of their mass, $`f`$, in place before the epoch of reionization, $`z_{\mathrm{re}}`$. Subsequently, this idea has been made more convincing by detailed semi-analytic and hydrodynamic modeling . Not only does this effect provide a reasonable solution, it seems to be an inevitable consequence of having an ionized universe. The implication is that any model that makes predictions involving dwarf-sized systems must include photoionization suppression.

Figure 2 illustrates the expected number of subhalos as a function of circular velocity for a typical TLCDM Milky-Way halo. The calculations here were done following the techniques outlined in BKW. For reasonable values of $`z_{re}`$ and $`f`$, the expected number of observable dwarf galaxies (shaded region) is in good agreement with the observed dwarf population (points with error bars). There is similar agreement for a range of viable parameter choices. For example, the choice $`z_{re}=6`$ and $`f=0.25`$ works, as does $`z_{re}=8`$ and $`f=0.15`$. The LWDM model, on the other hand, is unable to produce any observable dwarfs, even if the reionization epoch occurs at an unrealistically low redshift $`z_{re}=5.5`$. Structure forms much later in the LWDM model, so fewer objects collapse early. This, coupled with the already reduced number of subhalos compared to LCDM, makes the abundance of dwarfs hard to match with a WDM model. One way out might be if dwarfs are produced via the fragmentation of larger objects, although this seems unlikely because mass-to-light ratios of dwarfs suggest a high dark matter content .

## 4 The Decision

WDM helps the central density issue by suppressing power below the free streaming scale of the warm particle. Halos less massive than a multiple of the free streaming mass will form later than their LCDM counterparts, and therefore have reduced central densities. For example, a $`1`$KeV WDM particle will reduce concentrations in halos with circular velocities smaller than $`200`$km s-1. Figure 1b illustrates how an LWDM model of this kind provides a reasonable match to the average central densities of low-mass dark matter dominated systems. Note that the densities of bright, Milky-Way-type galaxies will not be affected unless the particle mass is made smaller than the $`1`$ KeV bound set by the Lyman-alpha forest .

A TLCDM model normalized to COBE on large scales and with parameters motivated by recent Ly$`\alpha `$ forest data provides a similar remedy. Instead of a sharp cutoff at a free streaming scale, the power is reduced gradually via a long tilted “lever arm” ($`n=0.9`$ rather than $`n=1.0`$ in the primordial spectrum). Because the reduction in power is continuous, all mass scales collapse later than they would in standard LCDM, and the central densities in galaxy-mass halos are reduced by roughly a factor of $`4`$. As illustrated in Figure 1b, TLCDM does as well as LWDM in matching the central densities of a sample dark-matter dominated dwarf and LSB galaxies. In the arena of density comparisons, the matchup between TLCDM and LWDM must be declared a draw. Neither of the models solves the problem decidedly, but they both certainly help relative to LCDM. TLCDM may be more desirable because it is expected to reduce densities in bright galaxies as well less massive objects.

Compared to the central density issue, the Galactic satellite abundance is much less troublesome for LCDM. It has long been expected that photoionization (if not super nova explosions ) should play a significant role in this mass regime . If reionization is taken into consideration, TLCDM can account for the observed number of dwarfs. LWDM, on the other hand, faces severe problems. Without an ionizing background the number of expected subhalos is roughly consistent with the observed dwarf abundance, but when the background is included, the number of satellites is vastly under-predicted in LWDM.

Based on two rounds of evidence, TLCDM is the clear winner over LWDM. Indeed, the seriousness of the small-scale density crisis makes TLCDM a viable contender for our cosmology of choice, a title held now by standard LCDM. The tilt required falls naturally within the range expected in standard inflation models, so TLCDM is just as attractive as LCDM in the “naturalness” category. Forthcoming observational constraints derived from CMB studies, Ly$`\alpha `$ forest measurements, large scale clustering analyses, and cluster counts will provide useful tests for TLCDM.

Acknowledgements.  Thanks to Khairul Alam, Andrey Kravtsov, and David Weinberg for allowing me to present our results here, and to Jeremy Tinker for comments on a draft. I am grateful to NASA LTSA grant NAG5-3525 and NSF grant AST-9802568; without their unwavering support the writing of this manuscript would have not been possible.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The so-called “holographic principle”  has had considerable influence on recent and current gravitational physics. The premise of this principle, roughly speaking, is that the maximal entropy in any given volume will be determined by the largest black hole that fits inside of that volume. On this basis, it has been argued that all relevant degrees of freedom of any given system must, in some sense, “live” on the boundary of the system.

One of the more prolific manifestations of the holographic principle has been the AdS/CFT correspondence . More specifically, it has been convincingly argued that the thermodynamics at the horizon of a $`n`$+2-dimensional anti de-Sitter (AdS) black hole can be identified with a certain $`n`$+1-dimensional conformal field theory (CFT). This dual CFT is assumed to be a strongly-coupled one and to live on a timelike surface that can be identified as an asymptotic boundary of the AdS spacetime.

In a breakthrough paper , Verlinde directly applied the above ideas to an $`n`$+1-dimensional, radiation-dominated, closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe.111For earlier studies on holography in a cosmological context, see Refs.\- . This paper covered much ground, but the following two discoveries are of particular interest. (i) The AdS/CFT correspondence leads to an entropy that can be expressed in terms of a generalized Cardy formula ; with the Cardy central charge being directly related to the Casimir energy.222In this context, the Casimir energy refers specifically to the sub-extensive contribution to the thermal energy. Furthemore, we will refer to the corresponding entropy as the “Casimir entropy”. (ii) When the “Casimir entropy” saturates a certain bound (identifiable with the holographic Bekenstein-Hawking entropy  of a universal-size black hole), then the Friedmann equations coincide precisely with the generalized Cardy formula. To express this more elegantly, the CFT and FRW equations remarkably merge at a holographic saturation point; thus implying that both sets of equations arise from some fundamental, underlying theory.

In Ref., Savonije and Verlinde have extended these notions to the case of a Randall-Sundrum brane world  in the background of an AdS-Schwarzschild (black hole) geometry. In this scenario, the $`n`$+1-dimensional CFT is regarded as living on the brane, which serves as a boundary for the $`n`$+2-dimensional AdS bulk spacetime. Given a suitable choice of boundary conditions, Savonije and Verlinde have shown that the brane world corresponds to a FRW universe, with the brane dynamics being described by the Friedmann equations for radiative matter. Moreover, they demonstrated that the CFT thermodynamic relations coincide with the Friedmann equations at the point when the brane crosses the black hole (outermost) horizon.

Let us note that the Verlinde-Savonije treatment has since been extended and generalized in a large array of studies -.

In analogy to the highly successful AdS/CFT duality, a dS/CFT correspondence has also been hypothesized .333For earlier works in this regard, see Refs.-. Naively, any de Sitter (dS) spacetime can be related to an AdS space via a simple sign change in the cosmological constant (negative for AdS and positive for dS). However, there are dire implications that make the proposed dS/CFT duality a significantly more challenging prospect. For instance, dS spacetime lacks a globally timelike Killing vector and a spatial infinity, while the black hole horizon (and related properties) have an ambiguous observer dependence. (For a comprehensive discussion on dS spacetimes, see Ref..) On a more fundamental level, dS solutions are conspicuously absent in string theories (and other forms of quantum gravity); thus inhibiting any rigorous test of the proposed duality.

In spite of the inherent complications, there has still been substantial progress towards a holographic understanding of dS space -. With respect to the proposed dS/CFT correspondence, the higher-dimensional horizon is taken to be the dS cosmological horizon, while the dual CFT is regarded as a Euclidean one that lives on a spacelike asymptotic boundary. Essential to this construction is the existence of a certain duality: time evolution in the dS bulk with the reverse of a renormalization group (RG) flow. Significantly, this RG flow occurs between Euclidean CFTs at past and future infinity .

Very recently, work has begun on adapting the Verlinde-Savonije program  to a dS holographic picture -. Given that recent observational evidence points to us living in a dS universe , the importance of such studies probably cannot be overstated. On this note, the purpose of the current paper is to see if the outcomes of Ref. hold up for a yet-to-be-considered scenario. Namely, a brane universe in a Reissner-Nordstrom-de Sitter (RNdS) background.444By incorporating charge into the model, we are following the work of Refs. and (in particular) Ref.; all of which considered a charged AdS background.

The rest of the paper proceeds as follows. In Section 2, we identify the thermodynamics properties of the RNdS cosmological horizon. This is followed by a formulation of the brane dynamics, which leads to Friedmann-like cosmological equations. In Section 3, we apply the dS/CFT correspondence to obtain the thermodynamics of a Euclidean CFT that lives on the brane. Also, the (generalized) Friedmann equations are rewritten in a form for which their connection with CFT thermodynamics is manifest. In Section 4, we consider when the brane crosses the cosmological horizon and consequently demonstrate that the CFT thermodynamic properties and Friedmann equations coincide at precisely this point. Furthermore, the CFT entropy is shown to be expressible in a generalized Cardy-Verlinde  form. Section 5 considers the implications of the prior analysis with regard to holographic entropy bounds. Finally, Section 6 closes with a summary and brief discussion.

## 2 Bulk Thermodynamics and Brane Cosmology

Let us begin by considering an $`n`$+1-dimensional brane of constant tension in an $`n`$+2-dimensional Reissner-Nordstrom-de Sitter (RNdS) background. In a suitably static gauge, the bulk solution can be written as follows :

$$ds_{n+2}^2=h(a)dt^2+\frac{1}{h(a)}da^2+a^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2,$$
(1)
$$h(a)=1\frac{a^2}{L^2}\frac{\omega _{n+1}M}{a^{n1}}+\frac{n\omega _{n+1}^2Q^2}{8(n1)a^{2n2}},$$
(2)
$$\omega _{n+1}=\frac{16\pi G_{n+2}}{nV_n},$$
(3)
$$\varphi _{dS}(a)=\frac{n}{4(n1)}\frac{\omega _{n+1}Q}{a^{n1}}.$$
(4)
Here, $`L`$ is the curvature radius of the dS background, $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2`$ is a unit $`n`$-sphere with volume $`V_n`$, $`G_{n+2}`$ is the $`n`$+2-dimensional Newton constant, $`M`$ and $`Q`$ represent the conserved quantities of black hole mass and charge, and $`\varphi _{dS}(a)`$ is a measure of the electrostatic potential at $`a`$.555Since there is no spatial infinity in RNdS space to use as a reference point, $`\varphi _{dS}`$ should not be interpreted as a literal electrostatic potential, as it was in analogous AdS studies .

In any dS space, there is a well-defined cosmological horizon having similar thermodynamic properties to that of a black hole horizon . In our case, this cosmological horizon ($`a=a_H`$) corresponds to the largest root of $`h(a)=0`$. Thus, the following useful relation can be obtained:

$$1\frac{a_H^2}{L^2}\frac{\omega _{n+1}M}{a_H^{n1}}+\frac{n\omega _{n+1}^2Q^2}{8(n1)a_H^{2n2}}=0.$$
(5)
In analogy with black hole thermodynamics , the cosmological horizon has an associated temperature, entropy and chemical potential that are respectively given as follows:666In particular, the inverse temperature can be identified with the periodicity of Euclidean time and the entropy with one quarter of the horizon surface area . The chemical potential has been defined in analogy to the RN-AdS case .

$$T_{dS}=\frac{(n+1)a_H^2(n1)L^2}{4\pi L^2a_H}+\frac{n\omega _{n+1}^2Q^2}{32\pi a_H^{2n1}},$$
(6)
$$S_{dS}=\frac{a_H^nV_n}{4G_{n+2}},$$
(7)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{dS}=\varphi _{dS}(a_H)=\frac{n}{4(n1)}\frac{\omega _{n+1}Q}{a_H^{n1}}.$$
(8)
The premise of the dS/CFT correspondence is that the above thermodynamics can be identified, in some appropriate manner, with a Euclidean CFT that resides (in the RNdS space) on a spacelike boundary at temporal infinity. We will have more to say on this later.

Let us now consider the brane, which can be regarded as a dynamical boundary of the RNdS geometry. The brane dynamics are to be described here via the following boundary action:

$$_b=\frac{1}{8\pi G_{n+2}}_{}\sqrt{\left|g^{ind}\right|}𝒦+\frac{\sigma }{8\pi G_{n+2}}_{}\sqrt{\left|g^{ind}\right|},$$
(9)
where $`g_{ij}^{ind}`$ is the induced metric on the boundary ($``$), $`𝒦𝒦_i^i`$ is the trace of the extrinsic curvature and $`\sigma `$ is a parameter measuring the brane tension. Varying this action with respect to the induced metric, one obtains (assuming a single-sided brane scenario) the following equation of motion:

$$𝒦_{ij}=\frac{\sigma }{n}g_{ij}^{ind}.$$
(10)
Following Ref., we can clarify the brane dynamics by introducing a new (Euclidean) time parameter, $`\tau `$; whereby $`a=a(\tau )`$, $`t=t(\tau )`$ and:

$$\frac{1}{h(a)}\left(\frac{da}{d\tau }\right)^2h(a)\left(\frac{dt}{d\tau }\right)^2=1.$$
(11)
Unlike in the original analysis , we have chosen $`\tau `$ so that the resulting line element is spacelike. This choice naturally reflects the (presumed) duality of a dS spacetime with a Euclidean CFT .

Substituting the above condition into Eq.(1), we see that the induced brane metric takes on a Euclidean FRW form. That is:

$$ds_{n+1}^2=d\tau ^2+a^2(\tau )d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2.$$
(12)
With this formulation, it is clear that the radial distance, $`a=a(\tau )`$, measures the size of the $`n`$+1-dimensional brane universe.

Let us now return considerations to the equation of motion (10). The extrinsic curvature can readily be calculated (see, for instance, Ref.) and then expressed in terms of the functions $`a(\tau )`$ and $`t(\tau )`$. For any of the angular components of the induced metric, this process yields:

$$\frac{dt}{d\tau }=\frac{\sigma a}{nh(a)}.$$
(13)
Next, we define the Hubble parameter in the usual way: $`H\dot{a}/a`$.777Dots will always denote differentiation with respect to the cosmological time parameter, $`\tau `$. Then Eq.(11) can be re-expressed as follows:

$$H^2=\frac{1}{a^2}\frac{1}{L^2}\frac{\omega _{n+1}M}{a^{n+1}}+\frac{n\omega _{n+1}^2Q^2}{8(n1)a^{2n}}+\frac{\sigma ^2}{n^2},$$
(14)
where Eqs.(2,13) have also been incorporated. We are free to set $`\sigma ^2=n^2/L^2`$ and conveniently cancel off the $`a`$-independent terms. This choice yields a generalized (first) Friedmann equation:

$$H^2=\frac{1}{a^2}\frac{\omega _{n+1}M}{a^{n+1}}+\frac{n\omega _{n+1}^2Q^2}{8(n1)a^{2n}}.$$
(15)
Furthermore, we can take the $`\tau `$ derivative of the above equation to obtain the corresponding second Friedmann equation:

$$\dot{H}=\frac{1}{a^2}+\frac{(n+1)\omega _{n+1}M}{2a^{n+1}}\frac{n^2\omega _{n+1}^2Q^2}{8(n1)a^{2n}}.$$
(16)
Note that the bulk RNdS background effectively induces both radiative matter ($`M/a^{n+1}`$) and stiff matter ($`Q^2/a^{2n}`$) in the brane universe .

## 3 Euclidean CFT on the Brane

Let us re-establish the premise of the dS/CFT correspondence as it applies to our model. The thermodynamic properties of the cosmological horizon can presumably be identified with the thermodynamics of a dual CFT that is Euclidean and living on the brane. In analogy to the AdS analysis of Savonije and Verlinde , we will use this proposed duality in defining the brane (CFT) thermodynamics. Although the process is not so well defined for dS spacetimes, we can proceed (at least naively) by making some conjectural identifications.

We begin here by applying the knowledge that the metric for a boundary CFT can only be determined up to a conformal factor . With this in mind, let us consider the asymptotic form of the Euclidean RNdS metric:

$$\underset{a\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[\frac{L^2}{a^2}ds_{n+2}^2\right]=dt_E^2+L^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2,$$
(17)
which can also be identified with the line element for the relevant Euclidean CFT. Evidently, the Euclidean CFT time ($`t_E`$) must be scaled by a factor of $`a/L`$ if the radius of the spatial sphere is to be set equal to $`a`$. Proceeding on this basis, we deduce that the same factor $`a/L`$ will appear in the various expressions which relate the thermodynamic properties of the dual spacetimes. (With one notable exception being the entropy .)

Given the above consideration, we can appropriately identify the thermodynamic properties of the CFT as follows :

$$EE_{CFT}=\frac{LM}{a},$$
(18)
$`TT_{CFT}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{a}}T_{dS}`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi a}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(n+1)a_H}{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)L}{a_H}}+{\displaystyle \frac{nL\omega _{n+1}^2Q^2}{8a_H^{2n1}}}\right],`$
$`SS_{CFT}`$ $`=`$ $`S_{dS}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_H^nV_n}{4G_{n+2}}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{CFT}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{a}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{dS}`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{nL}{4(n1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{n+1}Q}{aa_H^{n1}}}.`$
A commentary regarding the negative sign in Eq.(18) (as well as Eq.(21)) is in order. It has recently been demonstrated that a dS black hole represents an excitation of negative energy . This counter-intuitive result can be attributed to the unusual binding interaction that arises between a positive-mass object and a dS gravitational field . With this observation in mind, we have followed prior works  and identified the gravitational energy with the negative of the mass observable.888Note that, in Eq.(18), we have omitted the energy associated with the pure (i.e., $`M=0`$) dS background. This is consistent with the convention initiated in Refs..

In similar fashion to the energy, we have reversed the sign of the CFT chemical potential (21). This choice can be further justified by noting that a rotation to the Euclidean sector typically requires an accompanying complexification of charge . Hence, we are inclined to transform $`Q^2Q^2`$, which is effectively the same as introducing a negative sign in Eq.(21).

Let us now suitably define an energy density ($`\rho E/V`$), pressure ($`p\rho /n`$)999Note that $`p=\rho /n`$ is the standard equation of state for radiative matter., electrostatic potential ($`\varphi L\varphi _{dS}/a`$) and charge density ($`\rho _QQ/V`$); where $`V=a^nV_n`$. With these definitions, the first and second (generalized) Friedmann equations (15,16) can now be written as follows:

$$H^2=\frac{16\pi G}{n(n1)}\left[\rho \frac{1}{2}\varphi \rho _Q\right]+\frac{1}{a^2},$$
(22)
$$\dot{H}=\frac{8\pi G}{(n1)}\left[\rho +p\varphi \rho _Q\right]\frac{1}{a^2},$$
(23)
where $`G=(n1)G_{n+2}/L`$ is the effective Newton constant on the brane.101010This relation between bulk and brane gravitational constants is the usual one for a Randall-Sundrum brane world (generalized to arbitrary dimensionality) . Notably, the cosmological evolution has been directly related to the energy density and pressure of radiative matter, along with an electrostatic energy density. The latter can be interpreted as a stiff-matter contribution from a brane perspective .

It is interesting (and useful later on) to note that the Friedmann equations can also be expressed in following suggestive forms:

$$S_H=\frac{2\pi a}{n}\sqrt{E_{BH}\left[2(E\frac{1}{2}\varphi Q)E_{BH}\right]},$$
(24)
$$E_{BH}=n\left[E+pV\varphi QT_HS_H\right],$$
(25)
where we have defined:

$$S_H(n1)\frac{HV}{4G},$$
(26)
$$E_{BH}n(n1)\frac{V}{8\pi Ga^2},$$
(27)
$$T_H\frac{\dot{H}}{2\pi H}.$$
(28)
The first Friedmann equation (Eq.(22) or (24)) can further be expressed in the following intriguing manner:

$$S_H^2=2(S_BS_Q)S_{BH}+S_{BH}^2,$$
(29)
where:

$$S_B\frac{2\pi a}{n}E,$$
(30)
$$S_{BH}\frac{(n1)}{4Ga}V,$$
(31)
$$S_Q\frac{2\pi a}{n}\frac{1}{2}\varphi Q.$$
(32)
The parameters of Eqs.(26-28,30-31) are identically defined (up to a sign when appropriate) to those found in Ref..111111We also point out that $`S_Q`$ of Eq.(32) is identically defined (up to the sign) with the parameter found in Ref.. For an AdS bulk, each of these parameters significantly plays a role with regard to holographic bounds. (See Refs. for a complete discussion.) Here, we have introduced the parameters for illustrative convenience and point out that their respective roles do not necessarily persist in a dS holographic theory. We consider this further in Section 5.

It should be kept in mind that $`S_H^2`$, $`S_B`$, $`S_{BH}`$ and $`S_Q`$ are all strictly non-negative. Hence, given the unorthodox form of Eq.(29), one might anticipate that severe cosmological constraints must be imposed on the brane dynamics for a dS bulk spacetime. Again, we defer this discussion until Section 5.

## 4 Thermodynamics at the Horizon and the Cardy-Verlinde Entropy

As was remarkably demonstrated in Ref. for a bulk AdS spacetime, the CFT thermodynamic relations coincide with the Friedmann equations when the brane crosses the black hole horizon. We will now endeavor to see if the same behavior occurs at the cosmological horizon of a bulk RNdS spacetime.

First, let us compare Eq.(15) for $`H^2`$ with the equation that defines the cosmological horizon (5). A brief inspection reveals that the Hubble constant must obey:

$$H=\pm \frac{1}{L}ata=a_H.$$
(33)
The $`+`$ sign indicates an expanding brane universe, while the $``$ sign describes a brane universe that is contracting. For the sake of simplicity, we will focus on the expanding ($`H=+L^1`$) case.

Next, let us reconsider the CFT entropy (20). Evidently (and as expected via the second law of thermodynamics), this total entropy remains constant as time varies. However, this is not the case for the entropy density:

$$s\frac{S}{V}=\frac{(n1)a_H^n}{4GLa^n},$$
(34)
which clearly evolves along with the brane radius. When the brane crosses the horizon, this entropy density takes on the form:

$$s=\frac{(n1)H}{4G}ata=a_H,$$
(35)
from which it follows that (cf. Eq.(26)):

$$S=S_Hata=a_H.$$
(36)
It is also instructive to consider the CFT temperature (19) at the horizon-brane coincidence point. Using Eq.(23) for $`\dot{H}`$, as well as Eqs.(5,28,33), we obtain the following:

$$T=\frac{\dot{H}}{2\pi H}=T_Hata=a_H.$$
(37)
Hence, when the brane crosses the horizon, the CFT entropy and temperature take on forms that are simply expressed in terms of the Hubble parameter (and its derivative). These expressions are universal inasmuch as they do not depend explicitly on the mass ($`M`$) and charge ($`Q`$) of the RNdS solution.

Let us now introduce a quantity that can be readily identified with the Casimir energy :

$$E_Cn\left[E+pV\mathrm{\Phi }QTS\right].$$
(38)
Given that $`T=T_H`$, $`S=S_H`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi `$ at the coincidence point, it follows that (cf. Eq.(25)):

$$E_C=n\left[E+pV\varphi QT_HS_H\right]=E_{BH}ata=a_H.$$
(39)
We elaborate on the significance of this Casimir energy below.

Let us now return to the case of a general brane radius. It can readily be verified that the CFT thermodynamic properties satisfy the usual first law of thermodynamics. That is:

$$TdS=dE\mathrm{\Phi }dQ+PdV.$$
(40)
Much can be revealed if we re-express the first law in terms of densities. In this case:

$$Tds=d\rho \mathrm{\Phi }d\rho _Q+n\left[\rho +p\mathrm{\Phi }\rho _QTs\right]\frac{da}{a},$$
(41)
where we have applied the equation of state ($`p=\rho /n`$) and $`dV=nVda/a`$ (since $`Va^n`$).

The combination in the square brackets effectively measures the sub-extensive contribution to the thermodynamic system. With this observation, one can see that the Casimir energy (38) has indeed been appropriately defined. Next, we will derive a more explicit expression for this Casimir contribution.

As a first step in this derivation, it is useful to express the CFT energy density (by way of Eqs.(5,18)) as follows:

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ML}{a^{n+1}V_n}}`$ (42)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{na_H^n}{16\pi G_{n+2}a^{n+1}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a_H}{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{L}{a_H}}{\displaystyle \frac{nL\omega _{n+1}^2Q^2}{8(n1)a_H^{2n1}}}\right].`$
Next, we incorporate $`p=\rho /n`$, Eq.(34) for $`s`$, Eq.(19) for $`T`$ and Eq.(21) for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ into the above. This procedure ultimately yields:

$$n\left[\rho +p\mathrm{\Phi }\rho _QTs\right]=\frac{2\gamma }{a^2},$$
(43)
where:

$$\gamma \frac{n(n1)a_H^{n1}}{16\pi Ga^{n1}}.$$
(44)
Recalling the definition of the Casimir energy (38), we have:

$$E_C=\frac{2V\gamma }{a^2}=\frac{n(n1)V_na_H^{n1}}{8\pi Ga}.$$
(45)
Notably, this expression does not depend explicitly on the parameters that describe the RNdS geometry.

With the above formalism, the entropy density (34) can be directly related to the “Casimir quantity” (i.e., $`\gamma `$). After some tedious manipulations, we find:

$$s^2=\left(\frac{4\pi }{n}\right)^2\gamma \left[\rho \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }\rho _Q+\frac{\gamma }{a^2}\right].$$
(46)
Significantly, this entropy formula has a Cardy-like form , with $`\gamma `$ playing the role of a “central charge”.121212In Cardy’s formalism , the central charge describes the multiplicity of massless particle species. It is clear that such a quantity should be directly related to the Casimir energy density, as we have found.

Let us now reconsider the special moment when the brane crosses the cosmological horizon. At this coincidence point, the first Friedmann-like equation (22) can be shown to follow directly from Eq.(46). Furthermore, the second Friedmann-like equation (23) can be obtained when $`a=a_H`$ is imposed on Eq.(43). Hence, we have extended the key results of Ref. for the case of a bulk RNdS spacetime.

## 5 Cosmological Considerations

Before concluding, let us examine some of the cosmological implications of the prior results. First, it is useful if our generalized Cardy-Verlinde formula (46) is re-expressed in the following form:

$$S=\sqrt{\frac{2\pi a}{n}S_C\left[2\left(E\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }Q\right)E_C\right]},$$
(47)
where we have suitably defined the following Casimir entropy (in analogy with Ref.):

$`S_C`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi a}{n}}E_C`$ (48)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)V_na_H^{n1}}{4G}}.`$
Note that $`S_C`$ is strictly non-negative and depends implicitly (but not explicitly) on $`M`$ and $`Q`$ by virtue of its dependence on $`a_H`$ (cf. Eq.(5)).

With regard to the Casimir entropy, it is particularly significant that:

$$S_C=S_{BH}ata=a_H,$$
(49)
where $`S_{BH}`$ is the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of Eq.(31). Recall that the same coincidental behavior was found between the Casimir energy and the “Bekenstein-Hawking energy” ($`E_{BH}`$); cf. Eq.(39).

It is not difficult to show that, when $`a=a_H`$, the above relation (47) for $`S`$ coincides with Eq.(24) for the “Hubble entropy” ($`S_H`$). To illustrate this, let us first consider the following equivalent form of Eq.(47):

$$S^2=2\left(S_B𝐒_Q\right)S_C+S_C^2.$$
(50)
Here, $`S_B`$ is the “Bekenstein entropy” of Eq.(30) and we have further defined (in analogy to Eq.(32)):

$$𝐒_Q\frac{2\pi a}{n}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }Q.$$
(51)
Comparing Eq.(50) for $`S`$ with Eq.(29) for $`S_H`$, we clearly observe the equivalence of these two entropies when the brane crosses the horizon.

Given the outcomes of the seminal studies , one might wonder if such enthropic coincidences (at $`a=a_H`$) actually represent the saturation points of holographic bounds. Before considering this, we point out a significant difference between dS-bulk scenarios and their AdS analogues. As it so happens, the quantity $`H^2a^2`$ must always be less than unity in the dS-bulk case. One can see this in a number of ways; for instance, an inspection of Eq.(22), keeping in mind that the CFT energy density is always negative in dS spacetimes.131313We are assuming here that $`|\rho |>\frac{1}{2}|\varphi \rho _Q|`$. This is equivalent to saying that the radiative energy dominates over the electrostatic energy, which seems a reasonable viewpoint. Hence, in accordance with Verlinde’s classification scheme , a dS bulk can only induce a weakly self-gravitating brane universe.

It is interesting to note that Verlinde’s “litmus test” for a weakly self-gravitating system, $`H^2a^21`$ when $`S_BS_{BH}`$ , translates to our RNdS model as:

$$S_BS_Q\frac{1}{2}S_{BH}always.$$
(52)
This constraint can readily be obtained from Eq.(29), keeping in mind that $`S_H^2`$, $`S_B`$, $`S_{BH}`$ are strictly non-negative (and we have implicitly assumed that $`S_B>S_Q`$ 13).

In Ref., Verlinde conjectured a universal bound that is based on a holographic upper limit on the degrees of freedom of the CFT as measured by the Casimir energy. That is, $`|E_C||E_{BH}|`$141414We have included absolute-value bars to account for the negative brane energy that is induced by the RNdS bulk. or equivalently:

$$S_CS_{BH}.$$
(53)
We will assume that this intuitive bound continues to hold for the RNdS-bulk scenario without modification. The justification being: (i) the equivalence of these entropies when the brane crosses the horizon and (ii) the Casimir energy and entropy have no explicit dependence on either $`M`$ or $`Q`$. However, even with this conjecture, $`SS_H`$ does not necessarily hold up, except for the case of vanishing charge; cf. Eqs.(29,50). (Note that $`𝐒_Q>S_Q`$ when $`a_H<a`$.)

We can still obtain a universal bound for the “total” entropy by way of the following argument. Again assuming that the radiative matter dominates over the electrostatic contribution so that $`S_B>𝐒_Q`$, we have from Eqs.(50,53):

$$S<S_CS_{BH}.$$
(54)
Not only does a dS black hole excite negative energy, it effectively lowers the entropy from that of a pure (i.e., $`M=0`$) dS state. This result seems to be a counter-intuitive outcome. This does, however, agree with Bousso’s observation : the entropy of a pure de Sitter space serves as an upper bound for the entropy of any asymptotically dS space. Also note that a similar result has been obtained in Refs..

## 6 Conclusion

In the preceding paper, we have considered a brane universe in a Reissner-Nordstrom-de Sitter background spacetime. The analysis began with the identification of thermodynamics of the RNdS cosmological horizon. We then considered brane dynamics and demonstrated that (with a suitable choice of brane tension) the evolution equations take on a Friedmann-like form.

Next, we applied the dS/CFT correspondence to obtain the thermodynamic properties of a Euclidean CFT that lives on the brane. After which, it was explicitly shown that the CFT thermodynamics coincides with the (generalized) Friedmann equations at the point when the brane crosses the cosmological horizon. Moreover, we were able to derive an expression for the entropy that is readily identifiable as a generalized Cardy-Verlinde formula . In this context, the Casimir energy (i.e., the sub-extensive energy contribution) adopts the role of the Cardy central charge.

Finally, we have considered some of the cosmological implications of our analysis. We found that the “Casimir entropy” coincides with the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy when the brane crosses the horizon. On the basis of this result, we conjectured an upper bound for the Casimir entropy. That is to say, the equivalence of entropies (when the brane and horizon coincide) is really just a saturation of this conjectured upper bound. We again point out that such a bound was previously suggested by Verlinde  as a universal consequence of the holographic principle .

Although our results came out clearly in support of the proposed dS/CFT correspondence, we have encountered some troubling issues along the way. These include: (i) the total entropy of the CFT being bounded (from above) by the Casimir contribution and (ii) the inaccessibility of dS-induced brane universes to a strongly self-gravitating regime. Such “exotic” behavior (in comparison with analogous AdS scenarios) can seemingly be attributed to the negative energy density that arises on the brane. This unusual brane property can, in turn, be linked (via the dS/CFT duality) to dS black holes describing an excitation of negative energy . This strange effect should probably be better understood before the dS/CFT correspondence can be put on equal footing with its AdS analogue. Furthermore, there remains the open issue of how to incorporate the thermodynamics of the dS black hole horizon into the proposed duality.

Suffice it to say, the dS/CFT correspondence requires further investigation; although considerable progress has definitely been made.

## 7 Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank V.P. Frolov for helpful conversations. The author would also like to thank G. Ellis for getting him interested in the topic of holography (way back when).


text:
# Probing the pc- and kpc-scale environment of the powerful radio galaxy Hercules A.

## 1 Introduction

Hercules A is an extended source at a low redshift of z = 0.154 with total radio luminosity $`3.8\times 10^{37}`$ W between 10 MHz and 100 GHz. Its power density at 5 GHz is P$`_{5GHz}`$ = 6.9$`\times 10^{25}`$ WHz-1sr-1 (assuming H=65 kms-1 Mpc-1 and q=0). It is classified as intermediate between the two FR classes (Dreher & Feigelson, 1984). With a linear size of 540 kpc and no compact hotspots, Hercules A posesses almost symmetrically extended lobes and two jets which are quite different in appearance (see Figure 1). The western jet shows partial or full ring-like features that form a linear sequence heading from the core to the lobes. The eastern jet has the highest luminosity found so far in a radio galaxy associated with an elliptical galaxy (Dreher & Feigelson, 1984).

Hercules A is identified with a very elongated cD galaxy (e.g. Sadun et al., 1993, Baum et al., 1996), with absolute magnitude $`23.75`$ at the R-band. The HST observations (Baum et al., 1996) have shown that the radio source is associated with the diffuse low surface brightness elliptical galaxy and not with the smaller and brighter companion. The cluster in which the host galaxy is embedded is of a typical Abell richness 0 to 1 (Abell 1958).

## 2 The kpc-scale environment

Gizani (1997) has made extensive radio total intensity and polarization multiband, multiconfiguration observations of Hercules A (Gizani & Leahy, 2001a, see also Gizani & Leahy, 1999) using the VLA, and also ROSAT X-ray observations. The observations were at 1665, 1435, 1365 and 1295 MHz, in the A-, B-, C-configurations, at 8465 and 8415 MHz in the B-, C- and D- configurations and we have retrieved and reanalysed the 4873 MHz data (B-, C-, D-configurations). The purpose of these multifrequency observations was to map the Faraday rotation field at high resolution, 1.4 arcsec, combined with the X-ray data on the gas distribution in order to map the magnetic field of the cluster.

The analysis has shown that Hercules A exhibits a strong Laing-Garrington effect (Laing, 1988; Garrington et al., 1988), i.e. the western side of the radio emission is more depolarized than the eastern side. The projected magnetic field closely follows the edge of the source, the jets, and the ring structures in the lobes and the field pattern in the two lobes is broadly similar.

Using all 7 frequencies of our radio observations, we have found that Hercules A is a steep spectrum radio source with spectral index $`\alpha 1.6`$ (we assume that the flux density vary as $`S_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$, $`\alpha <0`$). Also the more depolarized western side has a steeper spectrum than the less depolarized eastern side. The core is optically thin, with $`\alpha 1.20`$. The jets and the ring-like features have spectral index $`1.1`$, while the surrounding lobes are much steeper, $`1.6`$, which is some evidence for spectral curvature.

The X-ray emission of the intracluster gas surrounding Hercules A was observed with the ROSAT PSPC and HRI detectors. These observations have revealed an extended emission elongated along the radio galaxy axis. The estimated central electron density of $`n_07.8\times 10^3`$ cm-3 reveals a dense environment in which the radio source is situated. Our spectral fitting with hydrogen column density of $`N_H=6.2\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2 gives a temperature estimate of kT = 2.45 keV. The unabsorbed luminosity of the cluster is $`3.16\times 10^{37}`$ W. The 0.1–2.4 keV luminosity of the core is $`2.0\times 10^{36}`$ W.

From the combined radio and X-ray analysis, by model fitting the Faraday dispersion profile from the radio data and the surface brightness profile from the X-ray data, we have found that the depolarization is mainly caused by a centrally condensed medium in which Hercules A is embedded at $``$ 50 to the line of sight (Gizani & Leahy 1999). Most probably this medium is the ‘X-ray’ hot gas. According to Unified Schemes the relativistic beaming is causing the depolarization asymmetry seen between the two sides of the radio emission: The western weak jet and associated lobe is behind the bulk of the gas while the bright eastern jet and lobe are in front. As the radio emission from the lobes travels through this material it is affected by Faraday rotation which causes the depolarization. Hence the further lobe, on the counter-jet side, is more depolarized.

The external magnetic field is decreasing with radius and Gizani (1997) has estimated a central value of 3 $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ B( $`\mu `$G) $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ 9 (see also Gizani & Leahy 1999).

## 3 The pc-scale environment

The VLA data provide us with a good understanding of the kpc-scale radio structure of Hercules A. There seems to be a symmetry between the ring-like features of the western jet and the bright helical-like structures of the eastern jet. The features form a sequence which suggests successive ejections from the active nucleus. On the whole the observed wiggles in the large scale jets and the overall symmetry of the envelope of the radio structure may suggest precession or wobbling of the radio axis. The flux of the core is 41 mJy at 18 cm at 1.4 arcsec resolution. The inner jets of Hercules A together with its optically thin, steep spectrum core, were unresolved with the VLA.

Taking the above into account we have tried to study the pc-scale environment of this powerful radio source using the EVN+MERLIN interferometer at 18 cm. The main goal of the EVN and joint MERLIN observations (Gizani, Garrett & Leahy, 2000, and 2001) was to try and detect any pc-scale jet emission on both sides of the central engine, to map the transition region between them and the kpc-scale jets with the highest possible resolution and to resolve the inner jets in detail. We have observed Hercules A for 11 hours employing phase referencing since the emission from the area of the core was so weak.

There were problems with the MERLIN observations, due to the diffuse, extended structure of this bright source. We have therefore combined our VLA data with the MERLIN data at 18 cm, in order to obtain information of the inner region of the radio source. This work is in progress. Figure 2 shows the EVN detection of the core region.

A compact core is detected with the EVN at 18 mas resolution. Using a model with one gaussian component we have found the size of the core to be $`18\times 7`$ mas at position angle $`139^{}`$. The error estimate based on rms is 3.6$`\times 10^4`$ Jy/beam. The flux density is $``$ 15 mJy, which implies a radio power of 3.6 $`\times 10^{22}`$ W Hz-1sr-1. The implied brightness temperature of the compact core is $`2\times 10^7`$ K. The core is still not resolved out at 18 mas and very weak. There is an indication of a real emission from the core region in the NW/SE direction (see Figure 2). If this is true then it could be interpreted as the emission from the core and one-sided jet: According to Doppler beaming the mas scale jet is always on the same side as the brighter kpc-scale jet (eastern jet in our case). Therefore the core should be located at NW of the observed emission while the SE emission is from the eastern pc-scale jet. If this is indeed the case, then there is a misalignment between the direction of the eastern pc-scale jet, at least, with the larger scale jets of $`35^{}`$. This misalignment angle which is relatively high compared to the ones found in other powerful radio galaxies (Cyg A, Krichbaum et al., 1998, 3C 109, Giovannini et al., 1994 for example), is characteristic of quasars in the CSS class with steep spectrum cores (Fejes et al., 1992 for example for the OVV quasars 3C 216 and 3C 446 with ’superluminal behaviour’, and references therein). This result could be consistent with the suggestion that powerful radio galaxies are the unbeamed counterparts of quasars (Saripalli et al., 1997).

## 4 Conclusions and Future Work

In kpc-scales we have found that Hercules A exhibits a strong Laing-Garrington effect. The depolarization asymmetry between the two sides can be explained by Hercules A being embedded in a centrally condensed medium at a substantial angle to the line of sight. This medium should be the X-ray emitting gas. The more depolarized western side has a steeper spectrum than the less depolarized eastern side; also the jets and rings in the western lobe have a much less steep spectrum than the lobe material, suggesting that we are witnessing a renewed outburst from the active nucleus. Our X-ray observations of the intracluster gas in the Hercules A cluster have revealed an extended X-ray emission and a possible weak nuclear component. The cluster exhibits a significant concentration of gas towards the centre; It is hot and dense. We estimated the central value of the external magnetic field strength by model fitting the radio and X-ray data. We found that the magnetic field is decreasing with radius and its estimated central value is 3 $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ $`B_{}`$( $`\mu `$G) $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ 9.

In pc-scales the results came from the EVN detection at 18 cm. About 30% of the VLA flux from the core area at 18 mas is detected with angular size 18$`\times `$7 mas, position angle $`139^{}`$ and error estimate based on rms 3.6$`\times 10^4`$ Jy/beam. Its brightness temperature is 2$`\times 10^7`$ K. The core is still not resolved out and very weak. There is evidence for emission extended in the SE direction. This emission is probably from the eastern pc-scale jet, due to Doppler boosting. Then one can conclude that there is a misalignment between the pc- and kpc-scale jet (at least the eastern one) of $`35^{}`$. Not much is known about the curvature of the pc-, kpc- scale jets for steep spectrum sources versus redhift. This study is within our scientific interest.

For the future, since there is a possibility the counter jet is being obscured by a forground absorption and a possible toroidal or circum-nuclear disk, we are planning optical and infrared observations as well as HI absorption measurements. The latter could prove the presence of a foreground absorption with the galactic column density assumed in our analysis. UV observations, to use together with other wavelength observations, as diagnostic of the ISM around the central region together with the study the UV emission from nuclear region, are also within our plans. High sensitivity VLBI observations at lower frequencies could determine the extent of the eastern pc-scale jet and could search for the presence of a western counterjet. Simultaneous multifrequency VLBI observations could be the method of probing the parsec-scale environment of Her A.

It could also be interesting to see whether the VLBI core of Her A is variable, like Cygnus A (Krichbaum et al., 1998) and 3C 338 (Feretti et al., 1993) for example.

## Acknowledgments

NG is grateful to the LOC of this very interesting workshop for giving her most of the financial support without which, her participation to the workshop would have been impossible. NG acknowledges the European Commission’s TMR ”Access to Large-Scale Facilities” programme, under contract ERBGCHT950012 in order to reduce the EVN+MERLIN data on Hercules A. NG would also like to acnowledge her postdoc grant PRAXIS XXI/BPD/18860/98 from the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Portugal, which covered the rest of the expenses her participation to this workshop and supports her work. The European VLBI Network is a joint facility of European and Chinese radio astronomy institutes funded by their national research councils.

## References

Abell, G.O., ApJSupp, 1958, 3, 211

Baum, S. A., O’Dea, C. P., De Koff, S., Sparks, W., Hayes, J. J. E., Livio, M. & Golombek, D. ApJL., 1996, 465, 5

Dreher, J. W. & Feigelson, E. D. Nat., 1984, 308, 43

Fejes, I., Porcas, R. W. & Akujor, Chidi. E., 1992, A.A., 257, 459

Feretti, L., Comoretto, G., Giovannini, G., Venturi, T. & Wehrle, A.E., ApJ, 1993, 408, 446

Garrington, S. T., Leahy, J. P., Conway, R. G. & Laing, R. A., Nat., 1988, 331, 147

Giovannini, G., Feretti, L., Venturi, T., Lara, L., Marcaide, J., Rioja, M., Spangler, S. R. & Wehrle, A. E., 1994, ApJ, 435, 116

Gizani, N. A. B. 1997, ’Environments of Double Radio Sources associated with Active Galactic Nuclei’, PhD thesis, Jodrell Bank Observatories, University of Manchester, UK.

Gizani, N. A. B. & Leahy, J. P. 1999, In EVN/JIVE. Symp. No. 4 (ed. Garrett, M. A., Campbell, R. M. & L. I. Gurvits). NewAR, Elsevier Science Ltd publishers, vol. 43, p. 639

Gizani, N.A.B., Garrett, M. & Leahy, J.P., 2000, “The Behaviour of the central engine of the powerful extragalactic radio source Hercules A”, in ’Proceedings of the 5th European VLBI Network Symposium’, J.E. Conway, A.G. Polatidis, R.S. Booth and Y.M. Pihlström, (eds.), Onsala Space Observatory Publications ISBN 91-631-0548-9, p. 19

Gizani, Nectaria A. B. & Leahy, J. P. MNRAS, 2001a, in prep.

Gizani, Nectaria A. B. & Leahy, J. P. MNRAS, 2001b, in prep.

Gizani, Nectaria A. B., Garrett, M. A. & Leahy, J. P., MNRAS, 2001, in prep.

Krichbaum, T.P. et al., A.A., 1998, 329, 873

Laing, R. A. Nat., 1988, 331, 149

Sadun, A.C. & Hayes, J.J.E., PASP, 1993, 105, 379

Saripalli, L. et al., 1997, A.A., 328, 78


text:
# Two extra-solar planets from the Anglo-Australian Planet SearchBased on observations obtained at the Anglo–Australian Telescope, Siding Spring, Australia.

## 1 The Anglo-Australian Planet Search

The Anglo-Australian Planet Search (AAPS) is a long-term planet detection program which aims to perform extra-solar planet detection and measurement at the highest possible precision. Together with programmes using similar techniques on the Lick 3 m and Keck I 10 m telescopes (Fischer et al., 2001; Vogt et al., 2000), it provides all-sky planet search coverage for inactive F,G,K and M dwarfs down to a magnitude limit of V=7.5. Initial results from this programme demonstrate that AAPS acheives long-term, systematic velocity precisions of 3 m s-1 or better (Tinney et al., 2001; Butler et al., 2001).

AAPS is being carried out on the 3.92 m Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT), using the University College of London Echelle Spectrograph (UCLES) and an I2 absorption cell. UCLES is operated in its 31 lines mm-1 mode. Prior to 2001 September, it was used with a MIT/LL 2048$`\times `$4096 15$`\mu `$m pixel CCD, and since then has been used with an EEV 2048$`\times `$4096 13.5$`\mu `$m pixel CCD. Our target sample includes 178 FGK stars with $`\delta <20`$° and V$`<`$7.5, and a further 23 M and metal enriched stars with V$`<`$11.5. Where age/activity information is available from R$`{}_{HK}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ indices (see e.g., Henry et al. (1996); Tinney et al. (2002)) we require target stars to have R$`{}_{HK}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$$`<`$ $`4.5`$ (corresponding to ages greater than 3 Gyr). The observing and data processing procedure follows that described in Butler et al. (1996) and Butler et al. (2001).

## 2 Characteristics of HD 142 & HD 23079

HD 142 (HR 6, HIP 522, GJ 4.2A, LHS 1020) is a chromospherically inactive (R$`{}_{HK}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$=$`4.92`$) G1IV star (Houck, 1978; Tinney et al., 2002). Its Hipparcos parallax of 39.0$`\pm `$0.6 mas implies absolute magnitudes of MV=3.66$`\pm `$0.03 (ESA, 1997) and Mbol=5.55$`\pm `$0.05 (Alonso, Arribas & Martínez-Roger, 1995) . The fundamental parameters of HD 142 have been examined via spectroscopy (Favata et al., 1997) and Strömgren $`ubvy`$ photometry (see the compilation of Eggen (1998)). Spectroscopy derives \[Fe/H\]=$`+0.04\pm 0.15`$ and Teff=6025 K, while the photometry suggests \[Fe/H\]=$`0.04`$, which is in agreement with the spectroscopy to within uncertainties. Based on interpolation between the evolutionary tracks of Fuhrmann et al. (1998, 1997), the mass of HD 142 is estimated to be 1.15$`\pm `$0.1M. Figure 1 shows the Ca II H line region for HD 142, together with the quiet Sun and HD 23079. The absence of significant emission confirms that this star is chromospherically inactive.

HD 23079 (HIP 17096, LTT 1739) is an inactive dwarf with a R$`{}_{HK}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$=$`4.96`$ (Tinney et al., 2002; Henry et al., 1996). Houck & Cowley (1975) classify it as F8/G0V (i.e. intermediate between F8 and G0). Its Hipparcos parallax is 28.9$`\pm `$0.6 mas, giving it MV=4.42$`\pm `$0.05 and Mbol=4.25$`\pm `$0.05 (ESA, 1997; Lang, 1992). No metallicity information is available for this star, so mass estimation will be less precise. At \[Fe/H\]=+0.25, 0.0 and $`0.25`$, the models of Fuhrmann et al. (1998, 1997) would indicate M=1.25, 1.10 and 1.0 M (respectively). For the most likely metallicity range of this F/G-dwarf, its mass lies in the range 1.0-1.25 M, and we therefore adopt M=1.10$`\pm `$0.15 M. Both HD 142 and HD 23079 were seen to be photometrically stable over the life of the Hipparcos mission at a 95% confidence level of $`<`$0.018 magnitudes (ESA, 1997).

## 3 Radial Velocity Observations and Orbital Solutions

Twenty-seven observations of HD 142 are listed in Table 1. The column labelled “Uncertainty” is the velocity uncertainty produced by our least-squares fitting. This fit simultaneously determines the Doppler shift and the spectrograph point-spread function (PSF) for each observation made though the iodine cell, given an iodine absorption spectrum and an “iodine free” template spectrum of the object (Butler et al., 1996). The uncertainty is derived from the ensemble of velocities from each of four hundred useful spectral regions (each 2 Å long) in every exposure. This uncertainty includes the effects of photon-counting uncertainties, residual errors in the spectrograph PSF model, and variation in the underlying spectrum between the template and “iodine” epochs. All velocities are measured relative to the zero-point defined by the template observation. Only observations where the uncertainty is less than twice the median uncertainty are listed. These data are shown in Figure 2. The figure shows the best-fit Keplerian model for the data, with the resultant orbital parameters listed in Table 2.

The residuals about the fit are slightly higher than the 3-4 m s-1 average level of “jitter” expected in a G1 star with HD 142’s level of activity (Saar et al., 1998), but is within the typical range seen in even inactive stars111“Jitter” here is used to refer to the scatter in the observed velocity about a mean value in systems observed over the long-term to have no Keplerian Doppler shifts, or about a fitted Keplerian in systems known to have a planetary mass companion. It is thought to be due to the combined effects of surface inhomogeneties, stellar activity and stellar rotation..

The thirteen observations of HD 23079 are listed in Table 3, and they are shown in Figure 3 along with a Keplerian fit to the data with the orbital parameters listed in Table 2. The rms scatter about this fit of only 3.08 m s-1 demonstrates the extra-ordinary control over long term systematics which the iodine cell technique can deliver for stars with suitable intrinsic velocity stability. It also demonstrates the suitability of the UCLES spectograph at the AAT for radial velocities at the highest precisions – even for a V=7.1 star near our V=7.5 current survey limit.

## 4 Discussion

The resultant minimum companion mass for HD 142 is M $`\mathrm{sin}i`$ = 1.03$`\pm `$0.19 MJUP, with an orbital semi-major axis $`a`$ = 1.0$`\pm `$0.1 au at an eccentricity of $`e`$ = 0.37$`\pm `$0.1 – a roughly Jupiter-mass giant planet in an Earth-like, but eccentric, orbit. An interesting feature of HD 142 is that its metallicity is only marginally enriched over solar. This planet, at least, has not formed in a metal-enriched system, as has been suggested for many of the extra-solar planets (e.g. see Gonzalez et al. (2001) and references therein).

The minimum companion mass and orbital parameters derived for HD 23079 (M $`\mathrm{sin}i`$=2.5$`\pm `$1.1 MJUP, $`a`$=1.5$`\pm `$0.2 au, $`e`$=0.04$`\pm `$0.18) indicate the presence of a planet with significantly larger mass than Jupiter, in a Mars-like orbit with eccentricity consistent with zero. Together with the extra-solar planetary companions to $`ϵ`$ Ret (Butler et al., 2001), HD 4208 (Vogt et al., 2002), 47 UMa b & c (Fischer et al., 2002), and possibly the companions to HD 114783 and HD 10697 (Vogt et al., 2002, 2000), HD 23079 forms a new class of extra-solar planets, which we name after the prototype object $`ϵ`$ Ret. The region of the Log($`e`$) versus Log($`a_{maj}`$) diagram these “$`ϵ`$ Ret-like” planets occupy is highlighted in Fig. 4. It is worth remembering that prior to about 12 months ago the highlighted region of this plot was empty – though many extra-solar planets had been discovered, none shared orbital properties with the planets of our own Solar System. The “$`ϵ`$ Ret-like” planets, therefore, join with the “51 Peg-like” and eccentric giant planets in filling out the bestiary of extra-solar planets. Prior to their detection, it was unclear whether giant planets in circular, or near-circular, orbits outside 0.1 a.u. would be found at all outside the Solar System. Their discovery points the way to the detection of Solar System analogs (in the form of Jupiter-like-planets in Jupiter-like-orbits) once data sequences at better than 2-3 m s-1 span the necessary 10-12 year periods.

## 5 Conclusions

We present results for the detection and characterisation for two new extra-solar planets with orbital periods of one year or greater around the stars HD 142 and HD 23079. The planet around HD 23079 is particularly interesting – it represents the detection of a new member of the class of “$`ϵ`$ Ret-like” giant planets in near-circular orbits outside 0.1 a.u.. The continued detection by high precision Doppler searches of these gas giants, in Solar System-like orbits, gives added impetus that the continuation of these searches to the 10-12 year periods where analogs of the gas giants in our own Solar System may become detectable around other stars.

The Anglo-Australian Planet Search team would like to gratefully acknowledge the support of Dr Brian Boyle, Director of the AAO, and the superb technical support which has been received throughout the programme from AAT staff - in particular E.Penny, R.Patterson, D.Stafford, F.Freeman, S.Lee, J.Pogson and G.Schafer. We further acknowledge support by; the partners of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement (CGT,HRAJ,AJP); NASA grant NAG5-8299 & NSF grant AST95-20443 (GWM); NSF grant AST-9988087 (RPB); and Sun Microsystems. NSO/Kitt Peak FTS data used here were produced by NSF/NOAO.