text:
# Quasi-stationary Stefan problem and computer simulation of interface dynamics.

## 1. Model

Let us consider crystallization of an undercooled melt located in infinite container, with initial temperature $`T<T_c`$, where $`T_c`$ is the temperature of crystallization . It is supposed that growth of the interface of the solid and liquid phases $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is controlled by the extract of heat generated in the process of crystallization inside the melt (Fig. 1). Then the velocity $`v_n`$ of the motion of the crystallization front along the normal vector $`𝐧`$to the interface $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is given by the expression:

(1.1)
$$v_n=\frac{\varkappa }{\rho L}(T|_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝐧).$$

In the melt the distribution of temperature $`T`$ is determined by the heat equation:

(1.2)
$$c_\rho \rho \frac{T}{t}=\varkappa \mathrm{}T.$$

Here $`c_\rho `$ and $`\rho `$ are the specific heat and density of the liquid phase; $`\varkappa `$ is thermal conductivity; $`L`$ is the latent heat of crystallization. The temperature $`T_s`$ at the crystallization front usually satisfies the Gibbs-Thomson condition:

(1.3)
$$T_s=T_c(1Kd_0),$$

where $`K`$ is the local curvature of the surface; $`d_0`$ is the capillary length proportional to the surface energy.

It is known that in systems described by equations (1.1) – (1.3) regular dynamics of the interface is unstable. The basic issues for understanding the processes of dissipative structures formation during crystallization are presented in , clarifying the reason of formation of these structures for instance the morphological instability. In case of the undercooled melt the mechanism of this instability is stipulated by magnification of the motion velocity of convex segments of the surface penetrating into the undercooled region. The latter stimulates their faster propagating into depth of the melt.

The realization of instability of the homogeneous state of an interface for crystallization of the undercooled melt, within a wide interval of wave numbers and the essential instability of the whole process of shaping, reduces itself to large varieties of possible structures and next to the reproduction of the self-similar forms of the interface in smaller scales. It also indicates the fractal character of their formation. In spite of apparent simplicity of the problem statement, even in two-dimensional domains it is often senseless to perform direct numerical calculations for solving the problem.

In same cases the microscopic temporal scales of the parameters specifying the problem changes can appear to be considerably smaller than the temporal scales of dissipation and distribution of an appropriate unlocal field. As a result the distribution of the unlocal field can be considered quasistationary subject to the location of the boundary. In this case one can construct the equations of surface motion containing only undefined fields specified on the considered surface. It is the basic methodology for this approach.

The essence of the method devised in  implies replacement of a consistent system of equations of motion by means of more simple ones, while keeping all the properties of the origin problem. As the velocity in the obtained equations is defined locally at each point, we obtain a set of equations of local dynamics. Some simplifications, however, restricted application of the approach proposed. We can see that the equations obtained in  are satisfied for undercooling, when the characteristic scale of an unlocal field (for example temperature) $`l_t=\varkappa \left(c\rho v\right)^1`$ is much smaller than the radius of surface curvature, $`r`$ i.e.$`:l_tr`$. Although in this case one can not obtain solutions without numerical simulation making use of appropriate approximations allows to find new solutions, for example those in the form similar to snowflake.

If $`l_tr`$ , then in the field of spatial changes of the temperature it is possible to allocate two characteristic subregions. The first one, with characteristic scale, comparable to $`l_t`$, corresponds to the change of the temperature, due to the effect of thermal conduction, when the curvature of the boundary element can be neglected. The second subregion lies in proximity to the boundary element, and its thickness is equal to the average curvature radius $`r`$. The change of the temperature and its gradient in this subregion depends on curvature of the boundary. The modulation of the surface temperature and its spatial distribution, as the first approximation in the parameter $`r/l_t`$, corresponds to the Laplace equation. Since harmonic functions as the solution of Laplace equation describing the distribution of temperature, methods of complex analysis appear to be very effective. This book presents methods of conformal mappings for analysis of motion of boundary surface at least in two-dimensional case. Thus, if $`l_tr`$ the problem of crystallization of undercooled melt (1.1) – (1.3) and the problems considered above are formally equivalent and are typical representatives of the quasistationary Stefan problem. Making use of methods of complex variables allows us to reduce the problem discussed to a system of ordinary differential equations .

In this case problem (1.1) – (1.3) becomes one of the simplest among the ones considered above and is a kind of aquasistationary Stefan problem. However, even in this simple case, determination of the boundary is a rather complicated mathematical problem.

Reformulate now the problem (1.1) – (1.3) in terms of Laplacian growth problem. We investigate the growth of the two-dimensional region $`Q`$ and suppose that its boundary is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which represents the physical interface (Fig. 1). The field $`\phi `$ outside the region $`Q`$, satisfies the Laplace equation

(1.4)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =0.$$

The boundary $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ grows at a rate, that is proportional to the normal gradient of the field of the interface. Therefore the evolution of the interface is governed by the following equation

(1.5)
$$\upsilon _n=_𝐧\phi |_\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$

The potential field $`\phi `$ satisfies the following boundary condition on the interface

(1.6)
$$\phi |_\mathrm{\Gamma }=d_0k|_\mathrm{\Gamma },$$

where $`k`$ is the curvature of the interface $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and $`d_0`$ is the dimensionless surface tension parameter.

For this type of system the utilization of the theory of function of complex variable is very fruitful. Theoretical methods of the functions of complex variable appear to be rather useful in the construction of the effective surface dynamics of the interface at least in the two-dimensional problem. In this case the central issue of this problem belongs to the conformal mappings of the physical regions of the space onto some special kind of regions. A large number of models for interfacial dynamics had been proposed up to now. Reviews of these problems can be found in . The most famous equation was introduced by Shraiman and Bensimon . It is widely known as the conformal mapping equation and is still under investigation.

In examples of the quasistationary Stefan problem, the main point of its solution lies in construction of an appropriate potential specified by its boundary value. Physically it is possible to do only when the boundary of the domain of the potential is rather simple. The simplest examples of such region is a disk. If we know a conformal mapping of a disk on some region, the solution to the posed boundary problem reduces to change of variables in the solution for the disk. Thus, solution of the quasistationary Stefan problem for the two-dimensional region is practically reduced to determination of an appropriate conformal mapping or its equation of motion. It is possible to compare the non-stationary Stefan problem with an equivalent quasistationary Stefan problem. It allows us to solve a wider class of problems in framework of the equations of motion of the appropriate conformal mappings.

Let us consider the approach developed by Shraiman and Bensimon . This approach is based on the Riemann mapping principle. This principle states the existence of a conformal map from the exterior of domain $`Q`$ onto the standard domain, for example, the exterior of unit disk, with the boundary $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ corresponding to unit circle. In the outline under regard one can parametrize evolution of the interface in $`z`$ plane by means of time-dependent conformal map $`F(w,t)`$ which takes the exterior of the unit disk at each moment of time, $`\left|w\right|1`$, onto the exterior of $`Q`$. Therefore the evolution of the interface can be presented as follows:

(1.7)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t)=\underset{we^{i\theta }}{lim}F(w,t),\text{ }0\theta <2\pi .$$

As it is shown by Shraiman and Bensimon , in the case of free surface tension $`\left(d_0=0\right)`$ the boundary map satisfies the following equation of motion

(1.8)
$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t)}{t}=i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t)}{\theta }S\left[\left|\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t)}{\theta }\right|^2\right]|_{w=e^{i\theta }},$$

where $`S[]`$ means the Schwartz operator . For the exterior of a unit circle with some boundary condition $`f\left(\theta \right)`$ the Schwartz operator can be presented as follows:

(1.9)
$$S\left[f\left(\theta \right)\right]=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}𝑑\theta ^{}\frac{e^{i\theta ^{}}+w}{e^{i\theta ^{}}w}f\left(\theta ^{}\right)+iC,$$

where $`C`$ is an arbitrary constant.

It was shown that equation (1.8) is equivalent to equation of motion of certain field $`\eta (\theta ,t)=\left|\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t)}{\theta }\right|:`$

$$\frac{\eta (\theta ,t)}{t}=\frac{1}{R(t)}\frac{\eta (\theta ,t)}{\theta }\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}𝑑\theta ^{}v_n(\theta ^{},t)\eta (\theta ^{},t)\mathrm{cot}\frac{\theta ^{}\theta }{2}$$

$$\frac{\eta (\theta ,t)}{R(t)}\left[\eta (\theta ,t)v_n(\theta ,t)\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}\eta (\theta ^{},t)v_n(\theta ^{},t)𝑑\theta ^{}\right]+$$

$$+\frac{\eta ^2(\theta ,t)v_n(\theta ,t)}{R(t)}\frac{}{\theta }\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}𝑑\theta ^{}\mathrm{ln}\eta (\theta ^{},t)\mathrm{cot}\frac{\theta ^{}\theta }{2}$$

(1.10)
$$\frac{\eta (\theta ,t)}{R(t)}\frac{}{\theta }\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}𝑑\theta ^{}v_n(\theta ^{},t)\eta (\theta ^{},t)\mathrm{cot}\frac{\theta ^{}\theta }{2}$$

considered in . Here the radius $`R`$and normal velocity $`v_n`$satisfy to the next equations:

(1.11)
$$\frac{dR}{dt}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}𝑑\theta ^{}\eta (\theta ^{},t)v_n(\theta ^{},t).$$

$$v_n(\theta ,\eta ,t)=\beta (\theta )\frac{\eta (\theta ,t)}{R(t)}\{\phi _0\frac{\psi _s}{R(t)}\frac{}{\theta }\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}d\theta ^{}\mathrm{cot}\times $$

$$\times \frac{\theta ^{}\theta }{2}\eta (\theta ^{},t)d_0(\theta ^{},\eta )\frac{}{\theta ^{}}\left[\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}𝑑\theta ^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{cot}\frac{\theta ^{\prime \prime }\theta ^{}}{2}\mathrm{ln}\eta (\theta ^{\prime \prime },t)\right]+$$

(1.12)
$$+\frac{\phi _s}{R(t)}\frac{}{\theta }\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}d\theta ^{}\mathrm{cot}\frac{\theta ^{}\theta }{2}\eta (\theta ^{},t)d_0(\theta ^{},\eta )\}.$$

In local approximation last relationship has the form :

(1.13)
$$v_n(\theta ,\eta ,t)=\frac{\eta (\theta ,t)}{R(t)}\left(1\frac{1}{R(t)}\frac{^2\eta }{\theta ^2}\right).$$

The equations (1.10),(1.11),(1.13) are one-dimensional equations determined on the interval $`[0,2\pi ]`$.

Now let us consider the linear stage of stability of a cylindrical boundary. In this case it is natural to put $`d_0(\theta ,\eta )=d_0=const,\beta (\theta ,\eta )=\beta _0=const`$ . Linearizing equations (1.10), (1.11), (1.13) with respect to perturbations $`\delta \eta =\delta \eta _0\mathrm{exp}(\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}\gamma \left(t^{}\right)𝑑t^{}+ik\theta )`$ at $`k=\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$ and taking into account the relation

$$\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}𝑑\theta ^{}\mathrm{cot}\frac{\theta ^{}\theta }{2}e^{ik\theta ^{}}=ie^{ik\theta }\text{sign}k$$

we obtain the following characteristic equation

(1.14)
$$\gamma =\frac{\beta }{R}\left[k2+\frac{d_0}{R}k^2(1k)\right].$$

It can be seen from equation (1.14) that the instability is realized for rather short-wave fluctuations with $`k>2`$ . At $`d_00`$ the fluctuations with wave number

(1.15)
$$k_0=\frac{1}{3}\left(\sqrt{1+3\left(\frac{d_0\phi _s}{R\phi _0}\right)^1}1\right)$$

have the maximum increment of increase. The instability as $`d_00`$ is observed within a wide spectrum of wave vectors, which causes complicated fractal structure of dendritic formations. The surface energy damps the instability subject to chosen wave vectors and gives rise to the minimum radius of curvature of a dendrite.

## 2. Numerical simulation of the interface dynamics

In the present section numerical simulation of the surface dynamics is given. We consider the properties of the interface dynamics from the viewpoint of singular integral equations.

### 2.1. Properties of the interface dynamics

Equations (1.10) and (1.11) are not directly related to the physical mechanism determining motion of the interface in real space. They determine the variation law governing the mapping of a circle into the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ under the given normal velocity $`v_n.`$ In framework of this approach we consider properties of equations (1.10), (1.11).

We will investigate the periodical structure formation, supposing that the structure will have period $`2\pi /k,`$ where $`k`$ is an integer. This make it possible to consider the solution only on the interval $`[0,2\pi /k]`$. In fact, we shall consider some integrable periodic function

(2.1)
$$\stackrel{~}{f}(\theta +n2\pi /k)=\stackrel{~}{f}(\theta )$$

In this case the any singular integrals $`J`$ in the equation (1.10) will look like:

(2.2) $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}𝑑\theta ^{}\stackrel{~}{f}(\theta ^{})\mathrm{cot}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^{}\theta }{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{k1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi /k}{}}}𝑑\theta ^{}\stackrel{~}{f}(\theta ^{})\left(\mathrm{cot}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^{}+n2\pi /k\theta }{2}}\right)=`$
(2.3) $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi /k}{}}}𝑑\theta ^{}\stackrel{~}{f}(\theta ^{})\mathrm{}(\theta ^{}\theta )𝑑u^{}`$
where

$$\mathrm{}(u^{}u)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{k1}{}}\mathrm{cot}\frac{\theta ^{}+n2\pi /k\theta }{2}.$$

So, we can use for computer simulation the interval \[0,$`2\pi /k`$\].

### 2.2. Numerical solution of the interface dynamics

The derived systems of nonlinear integro-differential equations were investigated numerically. The numeric simulation was based on approximation of unknown functions by trigonometrical polynomials. Expansions of this type make it possible to use well-known quadrature formulae to evaluate singular integrals. As a result, the system of equations (1.10), (1.11) and (1.13) reduces to a system of ordinary non-linear differential equations with filled Jacobian.

During computing experiments the approach based on approximations of searched functions by trigonometrical polynomials

(2.4)
$$\stackrel{~}{f}_n(u)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{j=0}{\overset{2n1}{}}\stackrel{~}{f}(u_j)\mathrm{sin}[n(uu_j)]\mathrm{cot}\frac{uu_j}{2}$$

with the given nodes set

(2.5)
$$u_j=\frac{\pi j}{n},j=0,1,\mathrm{},2n1.$$

was used. The representation of the function $`\stackrel{~}{f}\left(u\right)`$ in form (2.4) makes it possible to apply the obtained analytical expressions practically for all derivatives of the function $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ during calculations.

Besides, expansion of the function $`\stackrel{~}{f}\left(u\right)`$ into a trigonometrical polynomial makes it possible to use quadrature formulae  for calculation of singular integrals with Hilbert kernels, that is

(2.6)
$$J(u_m^0)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{2n1}{}}\frac{1}{2n}\stackrel{~}{f}(u_j)\mathrm{cot}\frac{u_ju_m^0}{2}$$

being defined on the system of nodes

(2.7)
$$u_m^0=\frac{2\pi m+1}{2\pi },m=0,1,\mathrm{},2n1.$$

Taking now into account that all integrand functions on the right hand side of equations (1.10), (1.12) are of the same kind it is possible to present them in the form of (2.6) making the following assignments

(2.8)
$$\eta _m(t,u)=\eta (t,u_m^0),m=0,1,\mathrm{},2n1.$$

As a result from the equations of interface dynamics we obtain the system of ordinary differential equations:

(2.9)
$$\frac{d\eta _m}{dt}=\widehat{F}_m\{\{\eta _m,\underset{j=0}{\overset{2n1}{}}f_j\mathrm{cot}\frac{u_ju_m^0}{2}\},$$

where $`\widehat{F_m}`$ is a nonlinear operator being determined by the right hand side of equations (1.10), (1.11) (1.12), $`f_j`$ can take values $`v_n(u_j)\eta (u_j),\mathrm{ln}\eta (u_j),\eta (u_j)`$ and etc.

Numerical integration of specified systems was carried by means of discrete calculation of the Jacobian when realizing implicit methods of Girr and Adams . Choice of the value of discretization and the local error of integration was made so that the necessary accuracy of the searched solution and the stability of calculations were ensured. Making use of variable $`\eta \left(u_m^0\right)`$ changing in time, subject to the transformations

$`dy`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R(t)d\theta }{\eta (\theta ,t)}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\theta +\psi (\theta )+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right),`$
(2.10) $`dx`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R(t)d\theta }{\eta (\theta ,t)}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\theta +\psi (\theta )+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right)`$
for the system of equations (1.10), (1.11) and (1.13) it is possible to reproduce geometrically defined interfaces in parametric form.

In this text we evidently do not claim the complete investigation of pattern formation in free boundary problems. Our goal is to show that developed approach can be applied to investigation of interface evolution. Results of computer simulation presented below give rise only to some sketch of the structures realizing in the systems under consideration.

During numerical simulation evolution of the interface was investigated. The product term $`\beta `$ affect only on time scale of the process. Therefore, in the analysis under regard $`\beta =1`$ is taken. It was found out that the surface energy influences the behavior of the field $`\eta (\theta ,t)`$ and interfaces too much. At small values of the surface energy rather small-sized structures can be formed. As $`d_0`$ increases the structures take a more smooth form.

Figure 2 illustrates the characteristic form of non-uniform distributions of the field $`\eta `$ (plot $`a`$) and the corresponding interfaces (plot $`b`$).

It is possible to observe that relatively smooth variations of the interface correspond to rather great variations in the field $`\eta `$ as well as in the angle $`\psi .`$ Thus, relatively small errors in determining $`\eta `$ do not cause great changes in the interface geometry. In addition, as is seen from Figures 2 relatively even long sections of the interface shrink when mapped onto the interval $`[0,2\pi ]`$, whereas sharp changes in the contour $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, conversely, are stretched out. In this sense such mappings are “adaptive” with respect to the information about the detailed geometric structure of the interface.

The characteristic geometry of the structures obtained as a result of computer simulation of a small perturbation is presented on Figures 3, and 4. The smaller capillary length is the more diverse structure arises. Figures 3, and 4 are different from each other due to periodicity of the initial perturbation.

If the system is influenced by an uncorrelated noise with the normal law of distribution unregular structures arise. During simulation it was taken that on each step of integration the velocity at point $`i`$ of the interval $`[0,2\pi ]`$ equal to $`v_n\left(\theta _i\right)+\left(\eta /R\right)^{1/2}\delta v_n\left(\theta _i\right)`$, within $`\delta v_n\left(\theta _i\right)`$ being chosen in the correspondence with the normal law of distribution in limits $`(10^5,10^5)`$ (Fig. 5).

For simulation of anisotropic growth of crystals the following expression (similar as in ) was used:

$$d_0(\theta )=(115\gamma _4\mathrm{cos}4\gamma )d_0=$$

(2.11)
$$=\left[115\gamma _4\mathrm{cos}4\left(\theta \frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}𝑑\theta ^{}\mathrm{ln}\eta (\theta ^{})\mathrm{cot}\frac{\theta ^{}\theta }{2}\right)\right]d_0.$$

The interfaces corresponding to the capillary length (2.11), subject to the anisotropy of surface energy have the form of truly looking cross (Fig. 6, and 7), despite that at the initial moment the boundary surface presents a circle (up to $`\delta v_n|_{t=0}10^5)`$. According to the value of $`\gamma _4`$ such an anisotropy is exhibited at small or large values of $`R`$ and $`t.`$ The realized distributions little depend on initial perturbations and reduce frequently to rather complicated and exotic surfaces. A more developed structure in the case of anisotropy is presented by Fig. 8. An example of structures arising from nonhomogeneous initial conditions is illustrated by Fig. 9, $`a)`$. In the same time Fig. 9, $`b)`$ illustrates an example of structures developing from a flat boundary.

It should be noted that at $`d_0=0`$ the results concerning smooth boundary under stochastic excitation of short-wave perturbations, caused for example by errors of calculations do not lead the developed structures due to instabilities of computation.


format: text

text:
# Braneworld models of dark energy

## I Introduction

One of the most sensational discoveries of the past decade is that our universe is currently accelerating. This observation finds support in the luminosity measurements of high-redshift supernovae , measurements of degree-scale anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background  and, indirectly, in the observations of gravitational clustering . Although a cosmological constant appears to satisfy all current observations, the formidable fine-tuning difficulties which accompany a non-evolving $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term have prompted theorists to investigate alternative, evolving forms of dark energy. Theoretical models of dark energy usually involve matter fields possessing unusual properties such as a negative equation of state. Popular dark-energy models include scalar-field-based ‘quintessence’ models, models based on quantum particle production, Chaplygin gas etc. (see  for recent reviews). In this paper, we examine a radically different mechanism for the late time acceleration of the universe in which dark energy effectively emerges from the gravity sector and not the matter sector of the theory.

We study a higher-dimensional cosmology in which the observable universe is a four-dimensional ‘brane’ embedded in a five-dimensional bulk. Models of this kind appeared after the seminal paper by Randall & Sundrum (RS) . Subsequent intensive investigation showed that cosmology based on the RS model exhibits departure from standard general-relativistic behaviour only at very early cosmological times . The model which we study in this paper generalizes the RS model in that, besides the brane and bulk cosmological constants, it also includes the scalar curvature term in the action for the brane. In an interesting recent development, Deffayet, Dvali, and Gabadadze (DDG)  demonstrated that the presence of the scalar curvature term in the action for the brane can lead to a late-time acceleration of the universe even in the absence of any material form of dark energy . The main difference between our model and the DDG model is that, in addition to the scalar curvature term in the action for the brane, we also include the brane and bulk cosmological constants. (The bulk and brane cosmological constants were set equal to zero in the DDG model.)

The presence of bulk and brane cosmological constants in our braneworld (in addition to the brane curvature term) leads to several qualitatively new features that distinguish our model from the DDG model as well as from the scalar-field-based ‘quintessence’ models. An important property of our braneworld universe is that the (effective) equation of state of dark energy can be $`w<1`$. (The DDG braneworld model and quintessence models have $`w>1`$.) In addition, the acceleration of the universe in our braneworld scenario can be a transient phenomenon. We find that a class of braneworld models accelerate during the present epoch but revert back to matter-dominated expansion at late times. A transiently accelerating braneworld does not possess an event horizon and could reconcile a currently accelerating universe with the demands of string/M-theory.

Our paper is organised as follows. After describing the braneworld model in the next section, in Sec. III we proceed to the case of vacuum braneworlds, that is, solutions with zero stress-energy tensor of matter. We derive a general expression for the effective cosmological constant in such models and describe some classes of its symmetric solutions, including empty static homogeneous and isotropic universes. We also present simple expressions for a static universe filled with matter. In Sec. IV we study the cosmological evolution of the braneworld. We shall show that braneworld models have properties similar to the observed (accelerating) universe for a large region of parameter space. For instance, the model under consideration can mimic the evolution of a FRW universe in which dark energy has pressure–to–energy-density ratio $`p/\rho `$ both larger as well as smaller than the critical value of $`1`$. For a subclass of parameter values, braneworld dark energy and the acceleration of the universe are transient phenomena so that the universe, after the current period of acceleration, re-enters the matter-dominated regime. In Sec. V we formulate our conclusions.

## II Basic equations

In this paper, we consider the case where a braneworld is the timelike boundary of a five-dimensional purely gravitational Lorentzian space (bulk), which is equivalent to the case of a brane embedded in the bulk with $`Z_2`$ symmetry of reflection with respect to the brane. The theory is described by the action

$$S=ϵM^3\left[_{\mathrm{bulk}}\left(2\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}\right)2_{\mathrm{brane}}K\right]+_{\mathrm{brane}}\left(m^2R2\sigma \right)+_{\mathrm{brane}}L(h_{ab},\varphi ).$$
(1)
Here, $``$ is the scalar curvature of the metric $`g_{ab}`$ in the five-dimensional bulk, and $`R`$ is the scalar curvature of the induced metric $`h_{ab}=g_{ab}n_an_b`$ on the brane, where $`n^a`$ is the vector field of the inner unit normal to the brane, and the notation and conventions of  are used. The quantity $`K=K_{ab}h^{ab}`$ is the trace of the symmetric tensor of extrinsic curvature $`K_{ab}=h^c{}_{a}{}^{}_{c}^{}n_b`$ of the brane. The symbol $`L(h_{ab},\varphi )`$ denotes the Lagrangian density of the four-dimensional matter fields $`\varphi `$ whose dynamics is restricted to the brane so that they interact only with the induced metric $`h_{ab}`$. All integrations over the bulk and brane are taken with the natural volume elements $`\sqrt{g}d^5x`$ and $`\sqrt{h}d^4x`$, respectively, where $`g`$ and $`h`$ are the determinants of the matrices of components of the corresponding metrics in a coordinate basis. The symbols $`M`$ and $`m`$ denote, respectively, the five-dimensional and four-dimensional Planck masses, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}`$ is the bulk cosmological constant, and $`\sigma `$ is the brane cosmological constant, also called the brane tension.

The parameter $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ in the first term of action (1) reflects the possibility of different relative signs between the bulk and brane terms in the action. In the context of homogeneous Friedmann cosmology that will be subject of this paper, the differential equations on the brane will not depend on the sign of $`ϵ`$. However, different signs of $`ϵ`$ result in different ways of embedding of a brane with one and the same induced metric in the bulk space, which may be important for studying perturbations of the theory.

The term containing the scalar curvature of the induced metric on the brane with the coupling $`m^2`$ in action (1) is often neglected in the literature. However, this term is qualitatively essential for describing the braneworld dynamics since it is inevitably generated as a quantum correction to the matter action in (1) — in the spirit of an idea that goes back to Sakharov  (see also ). Note that the effective action for the brane typically involves an infinite number of terms of higher order in curvature (this was pointed out in  for the case of braneworld theory; a similar situation in the context of the AdS/CFT correspondence is described in ). In this paper, we retain only the terms linear in curvature. The linear effects of the curvature term on the brane were studied in , where it was shown that it leads to four-dimensional law of gravity on sufficiently small scales. For some recent reviews of the results connected with the induced-gravity term in the brane action, one may look into .

Action (1) leads to the bulk being described by the usual Einstein equation with cosmological constant:

$$𝒢_{ab}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}g_{ab}=0,$$
(2)
while the field equation on the brane is

$$m^2G_{ab}+\sigma h_{ab}=\tau _{ab}+\underset{¯}{ϵM^3\left(K_{ab}h_{ab}K\right)}.$$
(3)
Here, $`\tau _{ab}`$ is the stress-energy tensor on the brane, and it stems from the last term in action (1). In Eq. (3) we have underlined the term whose presence makes braneworld theory different from general relativity. (It should perhaps be mentioned that the variation of action (1) which includes the Gibbons–Hawking surface term $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{brane}}}K`$ leads to the Israel junction conditions  on the brane, as demonstrated in .) From (3) one can show that there exists a scale whose value determines the domain in which general relativity is approximately valid . Indeed, we can write

$$G_{ab}r_1^2,K_{ab}r_2^1,$$
(4)
where $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ are the characteristic curvature radii of solution of Eq. (3). Then the ratio of the last term on the right-hand side of Eq. (3) to the first term on its left-hand side is of the order $`r_1^2/r_2\mathrm{}`$, where $`\mathrm{}=2m^2/M^3`$ is a convenient definition to be used later. Thus, for $`r_1^2r_2\mathrm{}`$, the last term on the left-hand side of Eq. (3) can be neglected, and general relativity is recovered. In typical situations, e.g., in cosmology, we often have $`r_1r_2r`$, and general relativity becomes valid for $`r\mathrm{}`$. This fact was used in , where the cosmological model with $`\sigma =0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}=0`$ was considered. Therefore, an important distinguishing feature of the braneworld models which we consider, is that they can show departure from standard FRW behaviour at late times and on large scales. This property should be contrasted with the braneworld cosmology based on the Randall–Sundrum model  (with $`m=0`$), in which nonstandard behaviour is encountered at very early times .

By contracting the Gauss identity

$$R_{abc}{}_{}{}^{d}=h_a{}_{}{}^{f}h_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{g}h_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}h_{}^{d}{}_{j}{}^{}_{fgk}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}+K_{ac}K_b{}_{}{}^{d}K_{bc}K_a^d$$
(5)
on the brane and using Eq. (2), one obtains the ‘constraint’ equation

$$R2\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}+K_{ab}K^{ab}K^2=0,$$
(6)
which, together with (3), implies the following closed scalar equation on the brane:

$$M^6\left(R2\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}\right)+\left(m^2G_{ab}+\sigma h_{ab}\tau _{ab}\right)\left(m^2G^{ab}+\sigma h^{ab}\tau ^{ab}\right)\frac{1}{3}\left(m^2R4\sigma +\tau \right)^2=0,$$
(7)
where $`\tau =h^{ab}\tau _{ab}`$. One method for obtaining solutions of the theory consists in first solving the scalar equation (7) on the brane together with the stress-energy conservation equation, and then integrating the Einstein equations in the bulk with the given data on the brane .

We note that Eq. (7) describes the evolution on the brane in terms of its intrinsic quantities, and that all homogeneous and isotropic cosmological solutions for the brane can be obtained from this equation , as will also be done below. All such solutions are embeddable in the Schwarzschild-AdS five-dimensional bulk. However, one cannot confine oneself to this single equation in the general case, e.g., in studying perturbations of the cosmological solution, where one must also solve equations in the bulk imposing certain boundary and/or regularity conditions. From this general viewpoint, Eq. (7) cannot be regarded as complete: only those of its solutions are admissible which can be developed to regular solutions in the bulk. This illustrates the importance of the precise specification of boundary and/or regularity conditions in the bulk for a complete formulation of the brane-world theory .

The gravitational equations in the bulk can be integrated by using, for example, Gaussian normal coordinates, as described, e.g., in . Specifically, in the Gaussian normal coordinates $`(x,y)`$, where $`x=\{x^\alpha \}`$ are the coordinates on the brane and $`y`$ is the fifth coordinate in the bulk, the metric in the bulk is written as

$$ds_5^2=dy^2+h_{\alpha \beta }(x,y)dx^\alpha dx^\beta .$$
(8)
Introducing also the tensor of extrinsic curvature $`K_{ab}`$ of every hypersurface $`y=\mathrm{const}`$ in the bulk, one can obtain the following system of differential equations for the components $`h_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`K^\alpha _\beta `$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{K^\alpha _\beta }{y}\hfill & =& R^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}KK^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}\frac{1}{6}\delta ^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}(R+2\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}+K^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}K_{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}K^2)\hfill \\ & =& R^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}KK^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}\frac{2}{3}\delta ^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{b}}^{},\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
$$\frac{h_{\alpha \beta }}{y}=2h_{\alpha \gamma }K^\gamma {}_{\beta }{}^{},$$
(10)
where $`R^\alpha _\beta `$ are the components of the Ricci tensor of the metric $`h_{\alpha \beta }`$ induced on the hypersurface $`y=\mathrm{const}`$, $`R=R^\alpha _\alpha `$ is its scalar curvature, and $`K=K^\alpha _\alpha `$ is the trace of the tensor of extrinsic curvature. The second equality in (9) is true by virtue of the ‘constraint’ equation (6). Equations (9) and (10) together with the ‘constraint’ equation (6) represent the $`4+1`$ splitting of the Einstein equations in the Gaussian normal coordinates. The initial conditions for these equations are defined on the brane through Eq. (3). We emphasise once again that, to obtain a complete braneworld theory in the general case (including a stability analysis), one must also specify additional conditions in the bulk such as the presence of other branes or certain regularity conditions. In our paper, we deal only with the homogeneous and isotropic cosmology on the brane, so this issue does not arise. In this sense, we are studying here the cosmological features common to the whole class of braneworld models described by action (1) with arbitrary boundary conditions in the bulk.

## III Vacuum branes and static branes

We proceed to the cosmological implications of the braneworld theory under consideration. In this section, we discuss the situation pertaining to a vacuum brane, i.e., when the matter stress-energy tensor $`\tau _{ab}=0`$. It is interesting that the brane approaches this condition during the course of cosmological evolution provided it expands forever and its matter density asymptotically declines to zero. In this case, Eq. (7) takes the form

$$\left(M^6+\frac{2}{3}\sigma m^2\right)R+m^4\left(R_{ab}R^{ab}\frac{1}{3}R^2\right)4M^6\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{RS}}=0,$$
(11)
where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{RS}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}{2}+\frac{\sigma ^2}{3M^6}.$$
(12)
It is important to note that the second term in Eq. (11) has precisely the form of one of the terms in the expression for the conformal anomaly, which describes the vacuum polarization at the one-loop level in curved space-time (see, e.g., ).***It is interesting that, while the conformal anomaly term $`R_{ab}R^{ab}\frac{1}{3}R^2`$ cannot be obtained by the variation of a local four-dimensional Lagrangian, the very same term is obtained via the variation of a local Lagrangian in the five-dimensional braneworld theory under investigation. It therefore immediately follows that all symmetric spaces are solutions of Eq. (11) with appropriate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{RS}}`$, just as they are solutions of the Einstein equations with one-loop quantum-gravitational corrections . Symmetric spaces satisfy the condition $`_aR_{bcde}=0`$, which implies that geometrical invariants such as $`R_{abcd}R^{abcd},R_{ab}R^{ab}`$, and $`R`$ are constants so that Eq. (11) becomes an algebraic equation. Prominent members of this family include:

(i) The homogeneous and isotropic de Sitter space-time

$$ds^2=dt^2+\frac{1}{H^2}\mathrm{cosh}^2Ht\left[d\chi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\chi \left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right],$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{}<t<\mathrm{}`$, $`0\chi ,\theta \pi `$, $`0\varphi 2\pi `$. The four dimensional metric (13) has the property $`R^a{}_{b}{}^{}=3H^2h^a_b`$, and formed the basis for Starobinsky’s first inflationary model sustained by the quantum conformal anomaly .

(ii) The homogeneous and anisotropic Nariai metric

$$ds^2=k^2\left(dt^2+\mathrm{cosh}^2tdr^2+d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right),$$
(14)
where $`k`$ = constant, $`\mathrm{}<t<\mathrm{}`$, $`0\theta \pi `$, $`0\varphi 2\pi `$ and for which $`R^a{}_{b}{}^{}=h^a{}_{b}{}^{}/k^2`$. In fact, it is easy to show that any metric for which $`R`$ and $`R_{ab}R^{ab}`$ are constants will automatically be a solution to Eq. (11) with an appropriate choice of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{RS}}`$.

Both de Sitter space and the Nariai metric belong to the class of space-times which satisfy the vacuum Einstein equations with a cosmological constant

$$R_{ab}=\mathrm{\Lambda }h_{ab}.$$
(15)
Such space-times also satisfy Eq. (11) if

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{m^2}\left[\left(\frac{3M^6}{2m^2}+\sigma \right)\pm \sqrt{\left(\frac{3M^6}{2m^2}+\sigma \right)^23M^6\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{RS}}}\right].$$
(16)
Equation (16) expresses the resulting cosmological constant on the brane in terms of the coupling constants of the theory. For the frequently discussed special case $`m=0`$, one obtains $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{RS}}`$. The two signs in (16) correspond to the two different ways in which the lower-dimensional brane can form the boundary of the higher-dimensional bulk . In the case of a spherically symmetrical bulk, the ‘$``$’ sign corresponds to a brane as a boundary for which the inner normal to the brane points in the direction of decreasing bulk radial coordinate.

The condition $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{RS}}=0`$ is the well-known fine-tuning condition of Randall and Sundrum  and leads to the vanishing of the cosmological constant on an empty brane if we set $`m=0`$ in (1). Note that, under the Randall–Sundrum condition, expression (16) with the sign opposite to the sign of the quantity $`3M^6/2m^2+\sigma `$ also gives a zero value for the resulting cosmological constant on the brane, but the other sign usually leads to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$.

We would like to draw the reader’s attention to the fact that Eq. (16) is meaningful only when the expression under the square root is nonnegative. When it is negative, solutions describing the corresponding empty universe simply do not exist. This leads to the following important conclusion: a universe which contains matter and satisfies

$$\frac{3M^6\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{RS}}}{\left(3M^6/2m^2+\sigma \right)^2}>1,$$
(17)
cannot expand forever.

For the special case $`3M^6/2m^2+\sigma =0`$, the expression for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\pm \frac{M^3}{m^2}\sqrt{3\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{RS}}}.$$
(18)
In this case, both $`\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{RS}}`$ must be negative in order that the corresponding empty universe exist, but the resulting cosmological constant on the brane can be of any sign.

Another interesting example is that of a static empty universe. The radius (scale factor) $`a`$ of such a universe is easily determined from (11) to be

$$a^2=\frac{\kappa }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{RS}}}\left(\frac{3}{2}+\frac{\sigma m^2}{M^6}\right),$$
(19)
where $`\kappa =\pm 1`$ is the sign of the spatial curvature. One can see that the radius of the universe can be arbitrarily large. In the general case, the development of this solution to the five-dimensional bulk leads to a Schwarzschild–anti-de Sitter metric. It was shown in  that, for $`\kappa =1`$, this metric is purely anti-de Sitter (with zero Schwarzschild mass) if the constants of the theory satisfy the condition

$$\frac{\sigma }{m^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}{2}+\frac{3M^6}{4m^4}=0,$$
(20)
which implies negative brane tension $`\sigma `$. It should be pointed out that the static and empty braneworld solution described by (19) does not possess a general-relativistic analog, since, in general relativity, a static cosmological model (the ‘static Einstein universe’) cannot be empty (see, for instance, ). Furthermore, from (19) we find that the static empty universe can be spatially open ($`\kappa =1`$) — for example, in the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{RS}}<0`$ and $`\sigma >3M^6/2m^2`$, — again a situation without an analog in general relativity.

For static homogeneous and isotropic braneworlds filled with matter, Eq. (7) gives the following relation:

$$a^2\left[\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}(\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}+3p_{\mathrm{tot}})3\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}M^6\right]=3\kappa \left[m^2(\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}+3p_{\mathrm{tot}})3M^6\right],$$
(21)
where the total energy density $`\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}`$ and pressure $`p_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ include the contribution from the brane tension, i.e.,

$$\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}=\rho +\sigma ,p_{\mathrm{tot}}=p\sigma ,$$
(22)
and $`\kappa =0,\pm 1`$ corresponds to the sign of the spatial curvature. This relation reduces to (19) for $`\rho =p=0`$.

Having obtained all these solutions on the brane, one can find the corresponding solutions in the bulk by integrating Eqs. (9) and (10) with the initial conditions on the brane given by Eq. (3), as described in Sec. II. In doing this, one can consider various additional conditions in the bulk, for example, existence of other branes, or one can impose certain regularity conditions. It is worth noting that one and the same cosmological solution on the given brane can correspond to different global solutions in the bulk, for example, other branes may be present or absent, be static or evolving, close or far away from our brane, etc. In the most general case (for instance in the absence of special symmetries on the brane) integration on the brane needs to be performed in conjunction with dynamical integration in the bulk. All such situations must be separately studied and issues such as their stability to linearized perturbations must be examined on a case-by-case basis.

## IV Cosmological Consequences of Braneworld Dark Energy

### A Cosmological evolution

In the homogeneous and isotropic cosmological setting, Eq. (7) can be integrated with respect to time with the result

$$m^4\left(H^2+\frac{\kappa }{a^2}\frac{\rho +\sigma }{3m^2}\right)^2=M^6\left(H^2+\frac{\kappa }{a^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}{6}\frac{C}{a^4}\right),$$
(23)
where $`C`$ is the integration constant that corresponds to the black-hole mass of the Schwarzschild–(anti)-de Sitter solution in the bulk, $`H\dot{a}/a`$ is the Hubble parameter on the brane, and $`\kappa =0,\pm 1`$ corresponds to the sign of the spatial curvature on the brane. A generalization of this equation to the case of absence of $`Z_2`$ symmetry was obtained in . For the frequently considered special case $`m=0`$, this equation reduces to the familiar one

$$H^2+\frac{\kappa }{a^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}{6}+\frac{C}{a^4}+\frac{(\rho +\sigma )^2}{9M^6}.$$
(24)
Equation (23) can be solved with respect to the Hubble parameter with the result :

$$H^2+\frac{\kappa }{a^2}=\frac{\rho +\sigma }{3m^2}+\frac{2}{\mathrm{}^2}\left[1\pm \sqrt{1+\mathrm{}^2\left(\frac{\rho +\sigma }{3m^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}{6}\frac{C}{a^4}\right)}\right],$$
(25)
or, equivalently,

$$H^2+\frac{\kappa }{a^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}{6}+\frac{C}{a^4}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}\left[\sqrt{1+\mathrm{}^2\left(\frac{\rho +\sigma }{3m^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}{6}\frac{C}{a^4}\right)}\pm 1\right]^2,$$
(26)
where the length scale

$$\mathrm{}=\frac{2m^2}{M^3}$$
(27)
was introduced earlier in Sec. II. Again, the ‘$`\pm `$’signs in (25) and (26) correspond to two different ways of bounding the Schwarzschild–(anti)-de Sitter bulk space by the brane : the lower sign corresponds to the case where the inner normal to the brane (which bounds the bulk) points in the direction of decreasing bulk radial coordinate. Alternatively, the two different signs in (25) and (26) could correspond to the two possible signs of the five-dimensional Planck mass $`M`$. Henceforth we shall refer to models with the lower ‘$``$’ sign as BRANE1 and models with the upper ‘$`+`$’ sign as BRANE2.

In the ensuing discussion, we shall neglect the decaying term $`C/a^4`$ in Eq. (25) (called dark radiation), assuming it to be negligibly small at present. Similarly to , we also introduce the dimensionless cosmological parameters

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=\frac{\rho _0}{3m^2H_0^2},\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa =\frac{\kappa }{a_0^2H_0^2},\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma =\frac{\sigma }{3m^2H_0^2},\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2H_0^2},\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}{6H_0^2},$$
(28)
where the subscript ‘0’ refers to current values of cosmological quantities. The system of cosmological equations with the energy density $`\rho `$ dominated by dust-like matter can now be written in the transparent form using Eq. (25):

* BRANE1

$$\frac{H^2(z)}{H_0^2}=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa (1+z)^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +\underset{¯}{2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}},$$
(29)
* BRANE2

$$\frac{H^2(z)}{H_0^2}=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa (1+z)^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +\underset{¯}{2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}+2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}},$$
(30)

where $`z`$ is the cosmological redshift. We have underlined the terms which cause our equations to differ from their general-relativistic counterparts. The constraint equations for the cosmological parameters are most conveniently derived using Eq. (26). We obtain

$$1\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}=\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}\pm \sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}\right)^2.$$
(31)
This equation can be transformed to a more convenient form. In doing this, we note that the theory makes sense only in the case $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}>0`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}>0`$, when taking the square root of both sides of this equation, we must consider two possibilities for the sign of the quantity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}`$ under the square root in (31).

In the case

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}0,$$
(32)
taking the square root of both sides of (31) and rearranging terms, we get

$$\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}.$$
(33)
Now taking the square of both sides of the last equation, we finally obtain the constraint:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa +\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma \pm 2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}=1.$$
(34)
In the opposite case

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}<0,$$
(35)
taking the square root of both sides of (31) and rearranging terms, we get

$$\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}=\pm \sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}.$$
(36)
Taking the square of both sides of the last equation, we finally obtain the constraint:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa +\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}=1.$$
(37)
To summarise, in the case $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}0`$, the constraint equations in the BRANE1 and BRANE2 models read:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa +\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma \underset{¯}{2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}}=1(\mathrm{BRANE1}),$$
(38)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa +\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +\underset{¯}{2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}}=1.(\mathrm{BRANE2})$$
(39)
In the opposite case $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}<0`$, both constraint equations for BRANE1 and BRANE2 are given by Eq. (39). Again, we have underlined the terms which cause our equations to differ from their general-relativistic counterparts. It is easy to see that the general-relativistic limit of this theory is reached as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}0`$ (i.e., $`M0`$). In this case, setting $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa =0,\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we find that (29) & (30) give the expression for the Hubble parameter in the LCDM model:

$$H_{\mathrm{LCDM}}^2(z)=H_0^2\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right].$$
(40)
An example of the behaviour of the Hubble parameter in the braneworld models is illustrated in Fig. 1.

It is convenient to rewrite Eq. (12) in terms of the dimensionless cosmological parameters

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{RS}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{RS}}}{3H_0^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma ^2}{4\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}},$$
(41)
from where it follows that the Randall–Sundrum constraint $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{RS}}=0`$ has the simple form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma ^24\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}=0.$$
(42)
This constraint implies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}0`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}0`$) and ensures the vanishing of the effective cosmological constant in the future for the braneworld embedding described by the BRANE1 model for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma 0`$ or for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma <0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}>\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}`$, and by the BRANE2 model for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma <0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}`$. The case where the Randall–Sundrum constraint is imposed will be discussed in detail in Sec. IV C below. It will be shown that, in the case of BRANE1 model, for the case $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa =0`$, Eq. (38) would imply that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}>1`$, which apparently contradicts current observations of the large-scale distribution of matter. This is an important result since it suggests that for reasonable values of the matter density ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}1`$) and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa =0`$, the BRANE1 model demands the presence of a nonvanishing effective cosmological constant. The value of the cosmological constant is given by Eq. (16) and can be determined by using observational data to fix the constants of the theory. On the other hand, the BRANE2 model is in principle observationally compatible with the Randall–Sundrum constraint, which can result in vanishing effective cosmological constant in the future thus making the current acceleration of the universe a transient phenomenon.

Typical values of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ parameters (28) that we consider in this paper are of order $`\mathrm{\Omega }1`$. For such values, the fundamental constants of the theory have the following orders of magnitude:

$$m^2M_\mathrm{P}^210^{19}\text{GeV},M100\text{MeV},\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}\frac{\sigma }{m^2}H_0^210^{56}\text{cm}^2.$$
(43)
The smallness of the bare cosmological constants in the bulk and on the brane represents a fine-tuning similar to what is the case for the cosmological constant in the standard LCDM model. However, even with such small values of the bare cosmological constants in action (1), the braneworld evolution exhibits some qualitatively new properties (discussed in the following subsections) when compared to the case where these constants are set to zero. This is the reason why we find it important to keep open the possibility of nonzero, albeit small, values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}`$ and $`\sigma `$.

A possible procedure for testing the braneworld model against observations is presented in the appendix.

### B Cosmological tests of braneworld models

Observations of high-redshift type Ia supernovae indicate that these objects are fainter than they would be in a standard cold dark matter cosmology (SCDM) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=1`$ . This observation is taken as support for a universe which is accelerating, fuelled by a form of energy with negative pressure (dark energy). In standard FRW cosmology the acceleration of the universe is described by the equation

$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=\frac{4\pi G}{3}\underset{i}{}(\rho _i+3p_i),$$
(44)
where the summation is over all matter fields contributing to the dynamics of the universe. It is easy to show that a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for acceleration ($`\ddot{a}>0`$) is that the strong energy condition is violated for at least one of the matter fields in (44), so that $`\rho +3p<0`$. In the case of the popular $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model this requirement is clearly satisfied since $`p_m=0`$ in pressureless (cold) matter, while $`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }/8\pi G`$ in the cosmological constant. The situation with respect to braneworld models is different since, as we have demonstrated in the previous section, braneworld evolution is distinct from FRW evolution at late times. However it is easy to show that braneworld models can accelerate. We demonstrate this by noting that a completely general expression for the deceleration parameter $`q=\ddot{a}/aH^2`$ is provided by

$$q(z)=\frac{H^{}(z)}{H(z)}(1+z)1,$$
(45)
where $`H(z)`$ is given by (29)–(39) and the derivative is with respect to $`z`$. The current value of the deceleration parameter is easily calculated to be

$$q_0=\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}\left(1\pm \sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}}\right)1,$$
(46)
where the lower and upper signs correspond to BRANE1 and BRANE2 models, respectively. Thus the present universe will accelerate ($`q_0<0`$) for brane parameter values which satisfy

$$\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}\left(1\pm \sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}}\right)<1.$$
(47)
It should be pointed out that the proposition to use the induced curvature term on a braneworld to account for the accelerated phase of our universe was first made in  in the context of the braneworld model of , which is the special case of our BRANE2 model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma =\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}=0`$. It was subsequently discussed and tested in . In the present paper, we allow both $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma 0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}0`$, and the presence of these two free parameters makes the braneworld model more flexible and allows for qualitatively new behaviour which shall be discussed in detail in this section. The connection between large extra dimensions and dark energy has also been investigated in .

Observationally, a pivotal role in the case for an accelerating universe is played by the luminosity distance $`d_L(z)`$, since the flux of light received from a distant source varies inversely to the square of the luminosity distance, $`d_L^2`$. This effect is quantitatively described by the magnitude–luminosity relation: $`m_B=M_0+25+5\mathrm{log}_{10}d_L`$, where $`m_B`$ is the corrected apparent peak $`B`$ magnitude and $`M_0`$ is the absolute peak luminosity of the supernova. A supernova will therefore appear fainter in a universe which possesses a larger value of the luminosity distance to a given redshift.

In a FRW universe, the luminosity distance is determined by the Hubble parameter and three-dimensional spatial curvature :

$$d_L(z)=\frac{1+z}{H_0\sqrt{\left|\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{total}}1\right|}}S\left(\eta _0\eta \right),$$
(48)
where

$$\eta _0\eta =H_0\sqrt{\left|\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{total}}1\right|}_0^z\frac{dz^{}}{H(z^{})},$$
(49)
and $`S(x)`$ is defined as follows: $`S(x)=\mathrm{sin}x`$ if $`\kappa =1`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{total}}>1`$), $`S(x)=\mathrm{sinh}x`$ if $`\kappa =1`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{total}}<1`$), and $`S(x)=x`$ if $`\kappa =0`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{total}}=1`$).

Inflationary models suggest that the universe is nearly flat with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa 0`$ and we shall work under this assumption in the rest of this paper (see also ). In this case, Eq. (48) simplifies to

$$\frac{d_L(z)}{1+z}=_0^z\frac{dz^{}}{H(z^{})},$$
(50)
where $`H(z)`$ is determined by (29) for BRANE1, and by (30) for BRANE2. In Fig. 2 we show the luminosity distances for the BRANE1 & BRANE2 models. Also shown for comparison is the value of $`d_L(z)`$ in a spatially-flat two-component FRW universe with the Hubble parameter

$$H(z)=H_0\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_X(1+z)^{3(1+w)}\right]^{1/2},$$
(51)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$ describes dark energy with equation of state $`w=p_X/\rho _X`$. Three cosmological models will be of interest to us in connection with (51):

(i) SCDM: The standard cold dark matter universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X=0`$.

(ii) LCDM: Cold dark matter $`+`$ a cosmological constant with $`w=1`$.

(iii) Phantom models: Cold dark matter $`+`$ ‘phantom energy’ satisfying $`w<1`$ .

We find from Fig. 2 that the luminosity distance in both braneworld models exceeds that in SCDM. In fact, BRANE1 models have the unusual feature that their luminosity distance can even exceed that in LCDM (for a fixed value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$) ! In fact it can easily be shown that

$$d_L^{\mathrm{dS}}(z)d_L^{\mathrm{BRANE1}}(z)d_L^{\mathrm{LCDM}}(z),$$
(52)
where $`d_L^{\mathrm{dS}}(z)`$ refers to the luminosity distance in the spatially flat coordinatization of de Sitter space (equivalently, the steady state universe). The second inequality presumes a fixed value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$. BRANE2 models show complementary behaviour

$$d_L^{\mathrm{LCDM}}(z)d_L^{\mathrm{BRANE2}}(z)d_L^{\mathrm{SCDM}}(z),$$
(53)
where the first inequality is valid for a fixed value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$. In the case $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}=0`$, the equations of the braneworld theory formally reduce to those of general relativity, and we have $`d_L^{\mathrm{BRANE1}}(z)=d_L^{\mathrm{BRANE2}}(z)=d_L^{\mathrm{LCDM}}(z)`$.

One might add that the behaviour of BRANE1 is mimicked by FRW models with $`w1`$, whereas BRANE2 resembles dark energy with $`1w0`$ . In fact, from Fig. 2 we see that the luminosity distance in the BRANE1 model is quite close to what one gets from ‘phantom energy’ described by (51) with $`w=1.5`$. (The parameters for this BRANE1 model are $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}=0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma =1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}1.8`$.) It should be pointed out that phantom energy models were introduced by Caldwell , who made the important observation that dark-energy with $`w<1`$ appears to give a better fit to supernova observations than LCDM (which has $`w=1`$). Unfortunately, phantom models have several bizarre properties, which may be the reason why cosmologists have been reluctant to take these models seriously despite their seemingly better agreement with observations (see however ). Some strange properties of phantom energy with a very negative equation of state ($`w<1`$) are summarised below (see also ):

(i) A negative equation of state suggests that the effective velocity of sound in the medium $`v=\sqrt{|dp/d\rho |}`$ can become larger than the velocity of light.

(ii) The expansion factor of a universe dominated by phantom energy grows as

$$a(t)a\left(t_{\mathrm{eq}}\right)\left[(1+w)\frac{t}{t_{\mathrm{eq}}}w\right]^{2/3(1+w)},w<1,$$
(54)
where $`t_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ marks the epoch when the densities in matter and phantom energy are equal: $`\rho _m(t_{\mathrm{eq}})\rho _X(t_{\mathrm{eq}})`$. It immediately follows that the scale factor diverges in a finite amount of cosmic time

$$a(t)\mathrm{}\text{as}tt_{}=\left(\frac{w}{1+w}\right)t_{\mathrm{eq}}.$$
(55)
Substitution of $`z1`$ and $`w<1`$ in (51) shows that the Hubble parameter also diverges as $`tt_{}`$, implying that an infinitely rapid expansion rate for the universe has been reached in the finite future.

As the universe expands, the density of phantom energy ($`w<1`$) grows instead of decreasing ($`w>1`$) or remaining constant ($`w=1`$),

$$\rho (t)\left[(1+w)\frac{t}{t_{\mathrm{eq}}}w\right]^2,$$
(56)
reaching a singular value in a finite interval of time $`\rho (t)\mathrm{}`$, $`tt_{}`$. This behaviour should be contrasted with the density of ordinary matter which drops to zero: $`\rho _m0`$ as $`tt_{}`$. A universe dominated by phantom energy is thus doomed to expand towards a physical singularity which is reached in a finite amount of proper time. (An exact expression for the time of occupance of the phantom singularity is given in , which also contains an interesting discussion of related issues.)

At this stage one must emphasize that, although the BRANE1 model has several features in common with phantom energy, (which makes us believe that, like the latter, it too is likely to provide a good fit to supernova data), it is not necessarily afflicted with phantom’s pathologies. Indeed, in a broad range of parameters, both BRANE1 and BRANE2 are physically well motivated and remain well behaved during all times. The present paper therefore adds an important new dimension to the current debate about the acceleration of the universe by showing that cosmological models with $`d_L(z)>d_L^{\mathrm{LCDM}}(z)`$ are possible to construct within the framework of the braneworld scenario and should be taken seriously. Future studies will address the important quantitative issue of whether braneworld models of dark energy provide as good (or better) fit to high-$`z`$ supernova observations as LCDM (see Fig. 3 as an illustration). (It is appropriate to mention here that the weak energy condition $`\rho +p0`$ can also be violated in a class of scalar-tensor theories of gravity, as discussed in .)

We should add that the ‘angular-size distance’ $`d_A`$ is related to the luminosity distance $`d_L`$ through $`d_A=d_L(1+z)^2`$, therefore much of the above analysis carries over when one discusses properties of the angular-size distance within the framework of braneworld models. Some cosmological features of braneworld models are shown in Figs. 46. In Fig. 4, the age of the universe at a given cosmological redshift

$$t(z)=_z^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dz^{}}{(1+z^{})H(z^{})},$$
(57)
is shown for the two braneworld models and for LCDM & SCDM. We find that the age of the universe in BRANE1 (BRANE2) is larger (smaller) than in LCDM for identical values of the cosmological density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$. This is a direct consequence of the fact that the Hubble parameter in BRANE1 (BRANE2) is smaller (larger) than in LCDM. Both braneworld models are significantly older than SCDM.

Considerable insight into the dynamics of the universe is provided by the cosmological deceleration parameter (45). Our results, shown in Fig. 5, indicate that at late times the BRANE1 (BRANE2) universe accelerates at a faster (slower) rate than LCDM (with identical $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$). Curiously, the BRANE1 universe shows an earlier transition from deceleration to acceleration than any of the other models. (For the given choice of parameters this transition takes place at $`z1`$ for BRANE1 and at $`z0.7`$ for LCDM. The BRANE2 model begins accelerating near the present epoch at $`z0`$.) A related point of interest is that at z>

 2𝑧>

2z\ \lower-1.5pt\vbox{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{$>$\hss}\lower 5.3pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}}}}\ 2 the deceleration parameter in BRANE1 marginally exceeds that in SCDM indicating that the BRANE1 model is decelerating at a faster rate than SCDM ($`q=0.5`$). In conventional models of dark matter this behaviour can occur only if the equation of state of the dark component is stiffer than dust, implying $`w>0`$ in (51), or if the universe is spatially closed. On the other hand, the current acceleration rate of BRANE1 in our example ($`q_00.7`$) significantly exceeds that of LCDM ($`q_00.55`$) with an identical value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.3`$ in both models. Within the framework of four-dimensional Einstein gravity, this situation can only arise if the equation of state of dark energy is strongly negative: $`w<1`$ in (51).

The unusual high-$`z`$ behaviour of the deceleration parameter in BRANE1 can be better understood if we consider the cosmological density parameter

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(z)=\left[\frac{H_0}{H(z)}\right]^2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(0)(1+z)^3,$$
(58)
where $`H(z)`$ is given by (29)–(39) for braneworld models. From Fig. 6 we notice that, for z>

 1𝑧>

1z\ \lower-1.5pt\vbox{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{$>$\hss}\lower 5.3pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}}}}\ 1, the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(z)`$ in BRANE1 exceeds its value in SCDM ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=1`$). This is precisely the redshift range during which $`q(z)_{\mathrm{BRANE1}}>q(z)_{\mathrm{SCDM}}`$. Thus, the rapid deceleration of BRANE1 at high redshifts can be partly attributed to the larger value of the matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(z)`$ at those redshifts, relative to SCDM.

Having established partial similarity of BRANE1 with phantom models at low redshifts, we can investigate the analogy further and calculate the effective equation of state of dark energy

$$w(z)=\frac{2q(z)1}{3\left[1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(z)\right]},$$
(59)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(z)`$ is given by (58). One notes that $`w(z)`$ has a pole-like singularity at $`z1`$ for BRANE1, which arises because $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(z)`$ crosses the value of unity at $`z1`$ (see Fig. 6). This demonstrates that the notion of ‘effective equation of state’ is of limited utility for this model. Equations (29), (30), (45), and (59) also illustrate the important fact that dark energy in braneworld models, though similar to phantom energy in some respects, differ from it in others. For instance, in both braneworld models, $`w(z)0.5`$ at $`z1`$ and $`w(z)1`$ as $`z1`$, whereas phantom energy has $`w(z)<1`$ at all times.

A useful quantity is the current value of the effective equation of state of dark energy in braneworld theories:

$$w_0=\frac{2q_01}{3\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}\right)}=1\pm \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}}{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}},$$
(60)
where the lower and upper signs, as usual, correspond to BRANE1 and BRANE2 models, respectively. We easily see that $`w_0<1`$ for BRANE1, whereas $`w_0>1`$ for BRANE2.

### C Disappearing Dark Energy

The braneworld models under consideration also admit the intriguing possibility that the current acceleration of the universe may not be a lasting feature. It may be recalled that most models of dark energy including the cosmological constant have the property that, once the universe begins to accelerate, it accelerates forever. As shown in a number of recent papers, an eternally accelerating universe is endowed with a cosmological event horizon which prevents the construction of a conventional S-matrix describing particle interactions within the framework of string or M-theory . In this section we show that, provided the Randall–Sundrum constraint relation (42) is satisfied, the acceleration of the universe can be a transient phenomenon in braneworld models. An anisotropic solution of Bianchi V class with the same feature was described in .

From Eqs. (29) and (30) we obtain the following asymptotic expressions for the Hubble parameter $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$ as $`z1`$, assuming that the universe expands forever:

$$\left(\frac{H_{\mathrm{}}}{H_0}\right)^2=\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}\pm 2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}},$$
(61)
where the lower and upper signs correspond to BRANE1 and BRANE2 models, respectively. In applying the Randall–Sundrum constraint (42), we first consider the case where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma >0`$. Then

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma =2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}$$
(62)
and

$$\left(\frac{H_{\mathrm{}}}{H_0}\right)^2=2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}\left[\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}\pm \left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}\right)\right].$$
(63)
One can see that this expression vanishes for the lower sign. Thus, for positive $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma `$, it is the BRANE1 model that leads to vanishing effective cosmological constant in the future. However, in this case, the constraint equation (38) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa =0`$ becomes

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}\left(\sqrt{1+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}\right)=1$$
(64)
and implies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}>1`$, which is hardly compatible with the observations.

In the case of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma <0`$, we have

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma =2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}$$
(65)
and

$$\left(\frac{H_{\mathrm{}}}{H_0}\right)^2=2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}\pm \left|\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}\right|\right).$$
(66)
If $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}>\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}`$, then this expression vanishes for the lower sign, which brings us back to the nonphysical BRANE1 models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}>1`$. The case $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}>1+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}`$ is compatible with the condition $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}<0`$, which corresponds to BRANE1 (29) with the constraint equation (39). However, it can be shown that these conditions imply $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}<0`$, which is also physically unacceptable.

There remains the case of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma <0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}`$. In this case, expression (66) vanishes for the upper sign, which corresponds to BRANE2 models. The constraint equation (39) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa =0`$ now reads

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}\left(\sqrt{1+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}\right)=1$$
(67)
and implies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}<1`$.

Therefore, BRANE2 with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma <0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}`$, provides us with an interesting example of a physically meaningful cosmological model in which the current acceleration of the universe is a transient phenomenon. An example of this behaviour as probed by the deceleration parameter is shown in Fig. 7, which demonstrates that the current period of cosmic acceleration takes place between two matter-dominated epochs. We emphasize that these models require negative brane tension $`\sigma `$. Since an observer in this model resides on a negative-tension brane one must ponder over the issue of whether such a braneworld will be perturbatively stable and hence physically viable. We consider this to be an open question for future investigations. Remarks made at the end of Sec. III are relevant, however, since one and the same cosmological solution on the ‘visible’ (negative tension) brane can correspond to many different global conditions in the bulk, for instance, other (‘hidden’) branes may be present or absent, static or evolving, close to or far away from our brane, etc. Moreover, here the sign of the parameter $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ in action (1) is expected to be of crucial importance, since, in particular, the bulk gravity will be localised around the negative tension (visible) brane in the case of $`ϵ=1`$. Issues of perturbative stability involve the examination of all such distinct global solutions on a case-by-case basis. Such a study, though interesting and important, clearly lies beyond the scope of the present paper.

Useful insight into the BRANE2 model is also provided by the effective equation of state of dark energy (59). Our results shown in Fig. 8 indicate that the past and future behaviour of dark energy in the braneworld universe can be very different. The past behaviour $`w(z)0.5`$ for $`z1`$ arises because, in a spatially flat braneworld, the second most important contribution to braneworld expansion at high redshifts is caused by the $`(1+z)^{3/2}`$ term in (30); see also . The future behaviour $`w(z)0`$ as $`z1`$, on the other hand, reflects the decreasing importance of dark energy as the universe expands. The acceleration of the universe is therefore a transient phenomenon which ends once the universe settles back into the matter-dominated regime.

Finally, we should mention that a transiently accelerating regime also arises in a class of BRANE2 models which do not satisfy the Randall-Sundrum constraint (42). In these models the current epoch of acceleration is succeeded by an epoch during which the deceleration parameter grows without bound. This unusual ‘future singularity’ is reached in a finite interval of expansion time and is characterised by the fact that both the matter density and the Hubble parameter remain finite, while $`\ddot{a}\mathrm{}`$ (a feature that distinguishes it from the phantom singularities discussed in Sec. IV B). A detailed discussion of the ‘new’ singularities which occur in braneworld models can be found in .

## V Conclusions

In this paper, we have considered cosmological implications of a braneworld model described by action (1), which contains both bulk and brane curvature terms and cosmological constants. The curvature term for the brane arises naturally, as a quantum correction from the matter part of the brane action, and significantly changes the behaviour of the braneworld theory. For example, as is well known, braneworld cosmology without this term deviates from general relativity at large matter densities, i.e., at early cosmological times; see Eq. (24). In the model that we considered, on the other hand, early cosmological evolution remains virtually unaffected for a broad range of parameters, significant deviations from standard cosmology appearing only during later times.

We restrict our attention to the important case where the brane forms the boundary of the five-dimensional bulk space. This is equivalent to endowing the bulk with the $`Z_2`$ reflection isometry with respect to the brane. The presence of the curvature term in the action leads to two families of braneworld models. These two families (called BRANE1 & BRANE2) differ in the manner in which the brane forms the boundary of the five-dimensional bulk. For example, if a spatially three-spherical brane is embedded into the three-spherically symmetric bulk, then one can discard either the interior part of the bulk, or its exterior (asymptotically flat) part. In this example, the models which discard the exterior part leaving the interior were classified as BRANE1 models, while the complementary models were called BRANE2. Similar classification arises in the case of spatially flat and open braneworld models. Alternatively, the two different families of braneworld models can be regarded as corresponding to the two possible signs of the five-dimensional Planck mass $`M`$.

Braneworld models of dark energy considered in this paper have the interesting and unusual property that their luminosity distance $`d_L`$ can exceed that in LCDM. This is unusual since, within the general-relativistic framework, the luminosity distance has this property only if the equation of state of dark energy is strongly negative ($`w<1`$). Caldwell  has shown that dark energy with $`w<1`$ (phantom energy) may in fact fit supernova observations better than LCDM. However, phantom energy is beset with a host of undesirable properties which makes this model of dark energy unattractive. We show that braneworld models have all the advantages and none of the disadvantages of phantom models and therefore endow dark energy with exciting new possibilities. A recent analysis of braneworld models in  has demonstrated that BRANE1 models (which generically have $`w1`$) provide an excellent fit to supernovae observations for higher values of the matter density ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m\text{ }\stackrel{>}{}0.3`$), whereas lower values ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m\text{ }\stackrel{<}{}0.25`$) are preferred by BRANE2 models (which generically have $`w1`$).

A distinctive feature of the braneworld scenario discussed in this paper is that it allows for a universe which is transiently accelerating. Recent investigations indicate that an eternally accelerating universe, which possesses a cosmological event horizon, prevents the construction of a conventional S-matrix describing particle interactions within the framework of string or M-theory . We have demonstrated that braneworld models can enter into a regime of accelerated expansion at late times even if the brane tension and the bulk cosmological constant are tuned to satisfy the Randall–Sundrum constraint on the brane. In this case, braneworld dark energy and the acceleration of the universe are transient phenomena. In this class of models, the universe, after the current period of acceleration, re-enters the matter-dominated regime. We have shown that viable models realising this behaviour are those of BRANE2 type. (Since these braneworlds have a negative brane tension the question of their stability is important and needs to be examined in detail. We shall return to this issue in a companion paper.) Thus braneworld models can give rise to a transiently accelerating phase thereby reconciling a dark energy dominated universe with the requirements of string/M-theory. (A similar observation was previously made in  in the context of an anisotropic cosmological solution of Bianchi V class.)

## Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge support from the Indo-Ukrainian program of cooperation in science and technology. We also thank Tarun Deep Saini for several useful discussions and for producing Figure 3.

## Testing the model

In this appendix, we present a possible procedure for testing the braneworld model against observations.

There are the following four possibilities to be considered:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}0`$ \[Eq. (32)\].

$`\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}>0`$ $``$ {(29), (38)} and {(30), (39)} are possible.

$`\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}<0`$ $``$ only {(29), (38)} is possible.

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}<0`$ \[Eq. (35)\].

$`\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}>0`$ $``$ only {(30), (39)} is possible.

$`\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}<0`$ $``$ only {(29), (39)} is possible.

To see these possibilities, one must consider Eqs. (33) and (36).

Let us introduce the quantity $`F\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}`$ that enters the above conditions (a) and (b). Now we note that, when using (38) for determining $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma `$, we have

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}=1\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}+2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}},$$
(68)
so that condition (i) is satisfied automatically for any sign of $`F`$. Similarly, when using (39) for determining $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma `$, we have

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}=1\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}},$$
(69)
so that condition (ii) is satisfied automatically for $`F<0`$. This means that conditions (i) and (ii) need not be checked in the procedure.

The case of the Randall–Sundrum constraint with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa =0`$ is much simpler, since it allows only BRANE2 model. Note that the condition $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}`$ must be satisfied in this case. \[See the explanations above Eq. (67).\] The value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}`$ can be obtained from (67):

$$2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}}=\frac{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}}{\sqrt{1+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}}.$$
(70)
So that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}\sqrt{1+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}}.$$
(71)
This inequality can be simplified by taking the square of both sides:

$$\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}+2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}\right)^24\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}\left(1+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}\right)\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}\right)^24\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}0.$$
(72)
Finally, we get the inequality

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}\frac{\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}\right)^2}{4\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}}.$$
(73)
Summarizing these results, one can suggest the following procedure for testing the braneworld models:

Specify the values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa `$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ (initial $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$’s). In doing this, note that always $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}>0`$ by definition, $`0<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}<1`$ from observations, and $`1\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}0`$ by physical consistency \[see Eq. (31)\]. In addition, one can assume the universe to be spatially flat: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa =0`$.

To study the BRANE1 model (29) with constraint (38):

Use (38) to calculate $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma `$, and (29) to calculate $`d_L(z)`$.

To study the BRANE1 model (29) with constraint (39):

In specifying the values for the initial $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$’s, always choose $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}>1\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}`$. Use (39) to calculate $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma `$, and (29) to calculate $`d_L(z)`$.

To study the BRANE2 model (30) with constraint (39):

In specifying the values for the initial $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$’s, always choose $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}<1\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa +\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}`$. Use (39) to calculate $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma `$, and (30) to calculate $`d_L(z)`$.

The case of disappearing dark energy discussed in Sec. IV C and described by BRANE2 model is studied separately as follows:

Set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\kappa =0`$, specify the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}`$ in the range $`0<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}<1`$, and choose $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathrm{b}}`$ in the range given by (73). Now use (67) to find $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}`$, and then (65) to find $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma `$.

Finally, use (30) to calculate $`d_L(z)`$.


text:
# Percolation Critical Exponents in Scale-Free Networks

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the National Science Foundation for support, under grant PHY-9820569 (D.b.-A.).