![Arxiv:1301.2737V1 [Gr-Qc] 13 Jan 2013](http://data.docslib.org/img/62c883d64681cf4dd270643d26750de9-1.webp)
arXiv:1301.2737v1 [gr-qc] 13 Jan 2013 noe ytescale the by encoded ihntecsooia otx mle httedr en- universe dark the of the density that ergy implies context cosmological the within e eainetbihsaln ewe h lrvoe cut- through ultraviolet define the between off, link a establishes relation ter aumenergy, vacuum eopiteeg est 5 and [5] density energy zero-point edtems fabakhl ihtesm ie thus size, same the with hole black a of L mass the ceed auaigteaoeieult,i un u ob the be by to given out is turns energy it dark inequality, holographic above the saturating eopiteeg fasse ihsize Using with the system that [4]. be a shown was [3], of should it energy [2], volume theory zero-point [1], field a quantum area effective in surface the freedom the to of proportional degrees of number where eiso h edo xliigtecretaccelerated current the explaining HDE of a need as such the amongst within energy on [15] working dark relies [14], in dynamical reasons [13], of main framework [12], the the generalized of [11] One or [10], others. [7] [9], many horizon horizon [8], Hubble event cutoff universe, horizon, IR the particle of 7], scale [6, large the as taken c b a lcrncades [email protected] address: Electronic lcrncades [email protected] address: Electronic lcrncades monicaforte@fibertel.com.ar address: Electronic 3 h oorpi rnil ttsta h maximum the that states principle holographic The ρ Λ ≤ c oie oorpi ic akeeg ope ointeracti to coupled energy dark Ricci holographic Modified sanmrclfco.TeI uo a been has cutoff IR The factor. numerical a is LM ewrs ieritrcin oie oorpi ic d Ricci holographic modified interaction, linear Keywords: numbers: PACS r osntdsubteosre eimaudnei h uni the in abundance Helium observed the disturb Ω not does era ntecs fHD uo.Frtefre oe,w loobtain also we 0 model, former from fav the varies For more energy are cutoff. dark HRDE experiments of of CMBPol case and the Planck in of forecast the by ie ytkn noacuttesvr onsfuda recom at b found baryon the interacting bounds study non at severe also a energy We t of the inclusion constrain account data. The We into Hubble nucleosynthesis. taking the case. by with contrast (HRDE) times and energy set dark data Ricci holographic to htteMREi refo h omcaepolma o reds low at problem cosmic-age the from free is MHRDE the that h omcprmtr ihHbl aala oa g fteun the of age an to lead data Hubble bary with decoupled parameters a and cosmic (MHRDE), the energy dark Ricci holographic nvria eBeo ie,Cua nvriai,Pabell Universitaria, Ciudad Aires, Buenos de Universidad P 2 x where , eeaieaFidanRbrsnWle nvrefildwi filled universe Friedmann-Robertson-Walker a examine We ( z .INTRODUCTION I. ρ Λ ≃ = ρ 10 Λ ρ 10 z n h nrrdctffwihis which cutoff infrared the and , L t x ρ ) pligti oe principle novel this Applying . usP Chimento, P. Luis sn h largest the Using . O ∼ Λ < 1 2 iddUiestra aelo ,12,Beo ie Arg , Aires Buenos 1428, Pabell´on I, Universitaria, Ciudad eatmnod ´sc,Fcla eCeca xca Nat y Exactas Ciencias de F´ısica, Facultad de Departamento eatmnod ´sc,Fcla ececa xca Nat y Exactas ciencias de F´ısica, Facultad de Departamento orsod otequantum the to corresponds 0 ρ 1 hne butyipyn htΩ that implying abruptly changes (1) . x 1i hold. is 21 n o neatn aynccomponent baryonic interacting non a and ae h aefr fthe of form same the takes nvria eBeo ie n FB,CONICET, IFIBA, and Aires Buenos de Universidad M P − 2 ρ x . 8 = 0 o0 to 006 L 3 = hudn ex- no should ,a 1, πG L c Dtd aur 5 2013) 15, January (Dated: steone the as 2 h lat- The . M´onica Forte, M . 0,te h muto Ω of amount the then 002, 2 P L − 2 , opsdo akmte n akeeg aeindicated have energy dark sector and dark matter the dark behind of physics composed at- the Presents understand [27]. to Universe tempts the for in responsible formation to being structure component density, the scales substantial matter total a cosmological universe’s is the the matter to dark ob- that astrophysical galactic indicate the clus- the Moreover, of from spectrum [28]. servations power [27], or as- matter distribution tered from gravitational mass comes galaxies, of component the colliding lensing energy Universe, of matter the evidences dark dark in trophysical Nevertheless a element of mysterious [26]. only necessity one the ver- not latter generalized is or the [25] of [15], dark [14], sions Ricci [24], obtain [23], holographic to model the devoted energy been on have constraints works cosmological this Several within discarded [9]. also context is avoided problem is coincidence problem the fine-tuning space and the high on or scale, based Planck energy is a physical density problem, involving energy without fine-tuning curvature, dark scalar the the time to to important due refers An is, model [10]. that cutoff this version scalar of extended Ricci feature an known on well attention dynamically. the our evolve of focus will time will cosmic energy we the dark Here, infrared of holographic function the the a model, as so energy considered dark be will dynamical cutoff a play of to role order the candles In microwave standard anisotropies[20–22]. cosmic (CMB) as of background supernovae measurements accurate Ia and type [16–19] a Hub- of by redshift diagram high confirmed as been ble such has tests observational fact of this plethora Universe; the of phase ,b 2, r nry akmte,erydr energy dark early matter, dark energy, ark x ( n atı .Richarte Mart´ın G. and z cmte ocsta h muto dark of amount the that forces matter ic ≃ o ,12,Beo ie Argentina. , Aires Buenos 1428, ´on I, 10 0 = 1100) hitrcigdr atr modified matter, dark interacting th nccmoetTeetmtosof estimations component.The onic x rdfrteMREmdlthan model MHRDE the for ored iaineaado tbgbang big at and/or era bination hta ihrdhf h fraction the redshift high at that eprmtr ihteUnion2 the with parameters he es rvddta h bound the that provided verse ttebgbn nucleosynthesis bang big the at hvo fdr nrya early at energy dark of ehavior vreo 13 of iverse it(0 hift . 3 otebud reported bounds the so 03, ≤ entina. urales, urales, z . 7Gradshow and Gyr 17 ≤ gdr matter dark ng ,c 1, )i contrast in 2) 2 that there is an unavoidable degeneracy between dark eras such as recombination or BBN. Not too long ago it matter and dark energy within Einstein’s gravity, namely, was examined the current and future data for constrain- there could be a hidden non-gravitational coupling be- ing the amount of EDE, the cosmological data analyzed tween them without violating current observational con- has led to an upper bound of Ωx(z 1100) < 0.043 straints and thus it would be interesting to develop ways with 95% confidence level (C.L.) in case≃ of relativistic of testing exchange of energy in the dark sector. More EDE while for a quintessence type of EDE has given precisely, if dark energy interacts with dark matter, there Ωx(z 1100) < 0.024 although the EDE component is a change in the background evolution of the Universe is not≃ preferred, it is also not excluded from the current that allows us to constrain a phenomenological type of data [32]. Another appealing forecast for the bounds of interaction. Therefore, an holographic scenario becomes the EDE taking into account Planck and CMBPol ex- a physically viable model when one takes into account a periments can be found in [33]. More precisely, assum- −3 possible interaction between the dark matter and dark ing a Ωx(a 10 ) 0.03 among other priors, it was energy. It entails that the dark matter feels the presence checked the≃ stability≃ of these values, interesting enough of the dark energy through the gravitational expansion of was the 1σ error coming from Planck experiment giving P lanck the universe plus the exchange of energy between them. as result σx 0.004 whereas the CMBPol improved ≃ CMBPol −3 In fact, we will follow a phenomenological approach by this bound by a factor 4 σx 10 [33]. Besides, studying the properties hidden in a particular kind of in- some new limits on EDE from the≃ CMB using the data teraction and then one confronts the theoretical model from the WMAP satellite on large angular scale and the with the available observational data. Recently several South Pole Telescope (SPT) on small angular scale were known linear and nonlinear interactions in the dark sector obtained in [34]. Considering the CMB data alone it got have been generalized[29] . It was introduced an effective a bound of Ωx(z 1100) < 0.0018 very similar to the one one-fluid description of the dark components and shown reported in [33].≃ In addition, the constraints on the vari- that interacting and unified models are related to each ation in the fine structure constant [35] in the presence other. It should be stressed that interacting dark energy of EDE gave an upper bound of Ωx(z 1100) < 0.06 at scenarios have been studied by many authors [29], [30]. 95% C.L. which is weaker than the bounds≃ reported in [32]-[33]. It is well known that some new physics may be show- The present article is outlined as follows. We inves- ing up at high redshift taking into account strict limits tigate a universe composed of interacting dark matter, coming from big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) data. More modified holographic Ricci dark energy(MHRDE), where precisely, the 4He abundance has often been used as a the exchange of energy in the dark side is proportional to sensitive probe of new physics. This is essentially due to derivative of total dark sector energy density, and a de- the fact that nearly all available neutrons at the time of coupled component that could behave as baryonic matter BBN, in a scale of 1Mev of temperature, at the time of at early times. We use the Hubble data and the Union2 BBN end up in 4He and the neutron-to-proton ratio is compilation of SNe Ia for constraining the cosmological very sensitive to the competition between the weak inter- parameters, thus we compare phenomenological aspects action rate and the expansion rate. For example, a bound of MHRDE and HRDE holographic dark energy models. on the number of relativistic degrees of freedom (d.o.f), We also make a kinematic analysis for studying the be- g∗, at the time of BBN commonly known as the limit on havior of decelerating parameter, equations of state and neutrino flavors, Nν , is derived through its effect on the the ratio dark matter to dark energy. Using the best fit expansion rate, H g∗T 2 where g∗ =2+7/2+7N /4 √ ν values, we estimate the age of the universe and explore counts the relativistic∝ dof in photons, e± pairs, and N ν the cosmic age-problem. As a complementary tool for neutrino species; having assumed a Universe dominated getting more accurate constraints on both models, we by radiation so that ρ g∗T 4[31]. Moreover, the pres- examine the behavior of dark energy at early times. ence of vacuum energy∝ during BBN is well motivated both by considerations of dark energy as well as infla- tion, giving as stringent bound Ωx(1Mev) < 0.21 [31]. II. THE MODEL Besides, the physics at recombination era gives also some constraints in the amount of dark energy at such primor- We assume a flat FRW universe filled with three dif- dial era which also has to be consistent with the severe ferent components, an interacting dark sector composed bounds provided by BBN data mentioned above. In par- of a nearly pressureless dark matter, MHRDE, and a de- ticular, stringent signal could arise from the early dark coupled baryonic contribution with energy densities ρ , energy (EDE) models, that is, uncovering the nature of c ρ , and ρ , respectively. We adopt as equations of state dark energy as well as their properties to high redshift x b ω = p /ρ for dark matter, ω = p /ρ for dark energy, along with their effects imprinted on the universe could c c c x x x and ω = p /ρ for radiation, thus the Einstein equations provide invaluable guide to the physics behind the re- b b b read cent speed up of the universe [32]. Therefore, any serious 2 dark energy model used for constraining the present-day 3H = ρc + ρx + ρb, (1) value of Ωx(z = 0) also has to be consistent with the early bounds on the fraction of dark energy at primordial ρ˙c +ρ ˙x +3H[(ωc + 1)ρc + (ωx + 1)ρx]=0, (2) 3
ρ˙b +3H(ωb + 1)ρb =0, (3) of two interacting fluids with “constant equations of state”. where a is the scale factor, H =a/a ˙ stands for the Hub- Using Eqs. (5-6) the total pressure is p = pc + px and ble expansion rate. Here, we will use the holographic the effective equation of state of the dark sector (EOS), principle within the cosmological context by associating ω = p/ρ can be rewritten as the infrared cutoff L with the dark energy density, thus −2 ˙ ω r + ω we take L in the form of a linear combination of H and p = ρ ρ′, ω = c x , (10) H2 [10]: − − 1+ r
2 3α At this point, we introduce an interaction 3HQ be- ρ = H˙ + H2 , (4) x α β 2 tween the dark components by splitting the MCE (7) in − the following way being α and β two free constants. In particular, we obtain ′ ′ ˙ 2 ρ + αρc = Q, ρ + βρx = Q. (11) ρx R for α = 4/3 [13], where R = 6(H +2H ) is the c − x Ricci∝ scalar curvature for a spatially flat FRW space- time. Now, we assume a pressureless dark matter (ωc = 0), 3 hence the equation of state of dark energy (9) becomes The use of the variable η = ln(a/a0) , where a0 is set as the value of the scale factor at present, allows us to linear in r rewrite Eqs. (2)-(4) as ω = (α 1)r + β 1. (12) x − − ρ = ρ + ρ , (5) c x The next step is to introduce a phenomenological inter- action between the dark components in order to extract ′ some physics information about the behavior of them. ρ = (ωc + 1)ρc (ωx + 1)ρx, (6) − − We are going to study an interacting scenario where the exchange of energy between dark matter and dark en- ′ ′ ρ = αρc βρx, (7) ergy is proportional to ρ . We will employ the method − − developed by one of the authors [29] based on the source equation for obtaining the total energy density of the ρ′ = (ω + 1)ρ , (8) b − b b dark sector once the interaction is given, then we will be able to reconstruct the partial energy densities. The new where the prime stands for derivatives with respect to kind of interaction was introduced in [29] and reads as the new variable ′ d/dη and the condition 0 <β<α ≡ is imposed to avoid a phantom scenario. From Eq. (8) (ωs +1 α)(ωs +1 β) ′ is clear that the radiation component is decoupled from Q = − − ρ , (13) − (ωs + 1)∆ interacting dark sector, so the exchange of energy only takes place between the dark matter and dark energy, where ω is a constant that varies between α 1 and − s 3(ωb+1) − thus ρb = ρb0a and its density parameter is Ωb = β 1, ∆ = α β, and Q < 0. Taking into account − 3(ωb+1) 2 − − ρb0a /(3H ). that the partial energy densities ρc and ρx appears as a MHRDE (4), with a term proportional to H˙ leads linear combination in the conservation equation(7), the to Eq. (7), which looks like a “conservation equation” interaction (13) can be expressed as a linear combination ′ ′ for the two dark components with constant coefficients. of ρc and ρx also. In what follows we will employ the We will refer to the Eq. (7) as the modified conser- method of the “source equation” developed in [29] for vation equation (MCE). Comparing the whole conser- obtaining the total energy density as vation equation (WCE) (6) and the MCE (7), namely − αβ − 3 ω 3(ωs+1) (ωc + 1)ρc + (ωx + 1)ρx = αρc + βρx, we obtain the com- ρ = b1a ( s+1) + b2a , (14) patibility relation where b1, b2 are integration constants. At early times ωx = (α ωc 1)r + β 1, (9) the effective energy density of the dark sector takes the − − − −3αβ/(ωs+1) −3 form ρ b1a , in order to have a term a in between the equation of state of both components and ≃ the dark sector we need to take αβ = ωs +1. In latter its ratio r = ρc/ρx. In what follows, we will use the case, the dark matter and dark density parameters take MCE (7) with constant coefficients α and β instead of the forms the WCE (6) with non-constant coefficients. In some −3ωs sense, the WCE (6) and the MCE (7) give rise to different (1 β)b1 + (ωs β + 1)b2a Ωc = − −−3ω , (15) representations of the mixture of two interacting dark (b1 + b2a s )∆ fluids and clearly these descriptions are related between them by the compatibility relation (9). Therefore, the −3ωs MHRDE conveniently links a model of two interacting (α 1)b1 + (α ωs 1)b2a Ωx = − −−3ω− . (16) fluids having variable equations of state with a model (b1 + b2a s )∆ 4
2 Dark matter and dark energy densities behave as a−3 = e−χ /2 where is a normalization factor. P W W with a constant ratio re (1 β)/(α 1) at early times. The χ2–function will be minimized for obtaining the However, at late times the≃ dark− components− behave as best-fit values of the random variables θc that correspond a−3αβ so the parameter densities (15) and (16) give Ω c ≃ to a maximum of . The best fit parameters θc are those [ωs β + 1]/[α β] and Ωx [α 1 ωs]/[α β], hence values where χ2 P(θ ) leads to a local minimum of the − − ≃ − − −2 min c rl β(α 1)/α(1 β) and ωx [β(α 1) α(β 2 2 2 χ (θ)–distribution. If χ = χmin(θc)/(N n) 1 the 1)2≃]/α(1 −β). − ≃ − − − d.o.f − ≤ − fit is good and the data are consistent with the considered model H(z; θ)[39], where N indicates the number of ob- servational data whereas n counts the number of param- III. COSMOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS eters so χ2–function has N n degrees of freedom. To better understand the cosmological− constraints coming In what follows, we will place some constraints on the from χ2–statistical method employed here, we are going model, mentioned in the last section, using the observa- to place constraints over all paremeters, taken in pairs, tional Hubble H(z) data and the constraints imposed by while the others are taken as priors, namely, we con- the Union 2 compilation of SNe Ia. The function H(z) sider one pair of unknown parameters and obtain their plays a crucial role to understand the properties of the mean value, then we choose another pair of parameters dark energy since its value is directly obtained from astro- and repeat the process until all the set of θ–parameters physical observations. More precisely, the differential age have been properly estimated. From the latter analysis, data of astrophysical objects that have evolved passiv- we are going to obtain the 68.3% and 95.4% confidence elly during the history of the universe (e.g. red galaxies) level (C.L.) of probabibility that in the case of two inde- allows to test theoretical cosmological models through pendent parameters corresponds to the random data sets − the predicted Hubble function H(z) = (1 + z) 1dz/dt which satisfy the inequality ∆χ2 = χ2(θ) χ2 (θ ) − min c expressed in terms of the redshift z. Hence, we obtain 2.30 and ∆χ2 6.17 respectively, these contours− are usu-≤ the function H(z) by direct determination of dz/dt [36]. ally closed ellipses.≤ Here, N = 12, n = 2, the string of This can be achieved by identifying some “clock” galax- parameters is θ = (H0, α, β, Ωc0, Ωx0, Ωb0), and the the- ies that exhibit a uniform distribution of star population oretical Hubble function in terms of redshift z is given [36]. The 12 observational H(z) data is listed in [37]. by There, Hobs(zi) and Hobs(zk) are uncorrelated because they are obtained from the observations of galaxies at dif- H(z)= H [ (1 + z)3 + (1 + z)3(ωs+1) +Ω (1 + z)3α]1/2 ferent redshifts, where z varies over the interval [0, 1.75]. 0 b0 A B (18) The statistical analysis is based on the χ2–function of the where the constants and are written in term of pa- Hubble data which is constructed as (e.g.[39]) rameters as A B 12 [H(θ,z ) H (z )]2 2 k obs k (ω +1 α)Ω + (ω +1 β)Ω χ (θ)= − 2 , (17) s c0 s x0 σ(zk) = − − (19) Xk=1 A ωs (α 1)Ω + (β 1)Ω where the θ symbol refers to the set of cosmological pa- = − c0 − x0 (20) rameters, Hobs(zk) is the observational H(z) data at B ωs the redshift zk, σ(zk) is the corresponding 1σ uncer- tainty, and the summation is over the 12 observational having used the standard definition of the density param- H(z) data listed in [37], [38]. From this quantity, the eters Ω = ρ /3H2 with i = x,c,b and the flatness i0 i0 0 { } probability distribution function (PDF) is constructed as condition Ωc0 +Ωx0 +Ωb0 = 1 is hold.
Applying χ2-method to the theoretical Hubble (18) gives us the confidence level associated with the 1σ and 2σ probability for all the possible pairs (see Fig. 1), the best-fit value for each pair is represented by a dot and the dashed zones exclude places (in the parameter space ) where the conditions Ω 0 fail to be guaranteed, the range of i0 ≥ the parameters α and β lead to a phantom scenario or the parameter densities Ωi0 take values that are not consistent with the literature (see Fig.1). The best-fit values for each pair of parameters and the corresponding values of 2 χd.o.f per degree of freedom are gathered together in Table I. Up to this point, talking in broad terms, we found that +0.44 −1 −1 +0.015 the values of θ show a small variation around their mean values: H0 = 73.89−0.94km s Mpc , α = 1.055−0.038, +0.044 +0.01 +0.002 +0.002 β =0.126−0.096, Ωc0 =0.18−0.01, Ωx0 =0.768−0.008 and Ωb0 =0.038−0.008. The value of H0 obtained is close to the −1 −1 one reported by Riess et al [40], H0 = 74.2 3.6kms Mpc at 68% C.L., being the measurement of H0 obtained from the magnitude-redshift relation of 240 low-±z Type Ia supernovae at z < 0.1; the absolute magnitudes of supernovae are calibrated using new observations from Hubble Space Telescope (HST) of 240 Cepheid variables in six local Type Ia supernovae host galaxies and the maser galaxy NGC 4258. Further, a 7-year WMAP analysis prefers, but does not directly measure, H = 71.0 2.5kms−1Mpc−1 [43]. The value of the Hubble constant was evaluated over a range of 0 ± 5
FIG. 1: The 68.3% and 95.4% confidence level contours for all pairs of θ = (H0,α,β, Ωc, Ωx, Ωb) is depicted. In each figure, the dot indicates the best fit observational value obtained with the H(z) function, and the dashed bands denote the forbidden regions for the parameters.
Best fit values
(θ1, θ2) (H0, α) (H0, β) (H0, Ωc0) (H0, Ωx0) (H0, Ωb0) (α, β) (α, Ωc0) (α, Ωx0) (α, Ωb0) (β, Ωc0) (β, Ωx0) (β, Ωb0) (Ωc0, Ωx0) (Ωc0, Ωb0) (Ωx0, Ωb0)
(θ1c, θ2c) (72.95, 1.07) (73.68, 0.03) (74.29, 0.19) (74.21, 0.76) (74.33, 0.04) (1.017, 0.11) (1.07, 0.18) (1.07, 0.77) (1.05, 0.04) (0.16, 0.17) (0.17, 0.77) (0.16, 0.04) (0.17, 0.77) (0.19, 0.03) (0.77, 0.04) 2 χd.o.f 0.779 0.769 0.767 0.767 0.767 0.765 0.763 0.763 0.762 0.762 0.762 0.762 0.762 0.762 0.762
2 TABLE I: The best-fit values for each pair of parameters and the corresponding values of χd.o.f per degree of freedom are indicated. The average values obtained from these partial adjustments are H0 = 73.89, α = 1.05, β = 0.12, Ωc0 = 0.18, Ωx0 = 0.768 and Ωb0 = 0.038 6 redshifts 0.03 2D Confidence level associated to 1σ and 2σ error (see Fig. (2)). Thus, Priors Best fits we obtain the best fit values for nine cases and calcu- +0.089 +0.005 (Ωm0, Ωx0, β)=(0.21, 0.75, 0.005) (α, h)=(1.089−0.134 , 0.835−0.002 ) late the corresponding marginal 1σ error bars [42] as +0.065 +0.005 0, 0, α . , . , . β, h . , . (Ωm Ωx )=(0 21 0 75 1 0887) ( )=(0 005−0.111 0 835−0.002 ) it can be seen in Table (II). The dashed zones are ex- +0.40 +0.003 (Ωx0, α, β) =(0.75, 1.0887, 0.005) (Ωm0, h) =(0.21−0.35, 0.835−0.002 ) +0.03 +0.004 cluded from the analysis due to different reasons such (Ωm0, α, β)=(0.21, 1.0887, 0.005) (Ωx0, h) =(0.75−0.02 , 0.835−0.002 ) +0.08 +0.188 as it can be that the range of the parameters α and β (Ωm0, α, h)=(0.21, 1.0887, 0.835) (Ωx0, β) =(0.75−0.06 , 0.005−0.181 ) +0.52 +0.076 lead to a phantom scenario, the parameter densities Ωi0 (Ωx0, α, h) =(0.75, 1.0887, 0.835) (Ωm0, β) =(0.21−0.52, 0.005−0.077 ) +0.06 +0.551 become negative or take values that are not consistent (Ωm0,β,h)=(0.21, 0.005, 0.835) (Ωx0, α) =(0.75−0.32 , 1.089−0.589 ) +0.04 +0.76 with the literature. More precisely, we found that the (α, β, h)=(1.0887, 0.005, 0.835) (Ωx0, Ωm0)=(0.75−0.04 , 0.21−0.86 ) +0.186 +0.440 values of α vary over the interval [1.08, 1.64] within 1σ (Ωm0, Ωx0, h)=(0.21, 0.75, 0.835) (α, β)=(1.089−1 549 , 0.005−1 139 ) . . zone whereas β [0.005;0.445]. At 1σ C.L. the dark ∈ TABLE II: Observational bounds for the 2D C.L. obtained in Fig. (2) energy density parameter at z = 0 goes from 0.34 to by varying two cosmological parameters. It is reported the best fit val- 0.816, Ωm0 [0.21, 0.975], and h [0.832;0.8350] (see ues of the cosmological parameters with theirs corresponding marginal ∈ ∈ 1σ error-bars. Table(II)). The difference between the forecast made with the Hubble data and Union2 set is most sharpest in the case of β parameter, it exhibits a disagree of 0.9%. For h and Ωm0 the discrepancy between both set does not reach 0.14% whereas the values of α and Ωx0 obtained with As is well known, distance indicators can be used for Hubble data disagree with the ones of Union2 by 0.03%. confronting distance measurements to the corresponding In order to corroborate our previous analysis, we also per- model predictions. One of the most useful ones are those formed a global statistical analysis with the Union2 data objects of known intrinsic luminosity such as standard set by taking into account a global minimization of the candles, so that the corresponding comoving distance can five parameters. The latter procedure leads to the best be determined. That way, it is possible to reconstruct the fit values (h, α, β, Ωc, Ωx) = (0.83, 1.08, 0.005, 0.21, 0.75) Hubble expansion rate by searching this sort of object at 2 along with χd.o.f = 0.98 < 1, indicating that our esti- different redshifts. The most important class of such in- mations of the cosmological parameters are trustworthy. dicators is type Ia supernovae. Then, we would like to The statistical estimations performed with the Union2 compare the Hubble data with the Union2 compilation data set are also consistent with the ones obtained from of 557 SNe Ia [41]. In order to do that, we note that the the Hubble data set. apparent magnitude of a supernova placed at a given red- The density parameters Ωc, Ωx, Ωb, and the ratio r = shift z is related to the expansion history of the Universe Ωc/Ωx in term of the redshift z are given by through the distance modulus 3(αβ−1) d (z) 1 (1 β) + β(α 1) (1 + z) L Ωc = − A −− B − , µ m M = 5 log + µ0, (21) ∆ 3(αβ 1) 3(α 1) ≡ − h + (1 + z) +Ωb0(1 + z) A B (24) where m and M are the apparent and absolute magni- −1 −1 3(α−1) tudes, respectively, µ0 = 42.38, h = H0/100km s , Ωb0(1 + z) Ωb = 3(αβ−1) 3(α−1) , (25) and dL(z)= H0(1 + z)r(z), being r(z) the comoving dis- + (1 + z) +Ωb0(1 + z) tance, given for a FRW metric by A B z ′ dz 1 (α 1) + α(1 β) (1 + z)3(αβ−1) r(z)= ′ . (22) H(z ) Ωx = − A 3(αβ−−1) B 3(α−1) , Z0 ∆ + (1 + z) +Ωb0(1 + z) A B (26) To confront the model with supernovae data set we con- 2 struct the corresponding χ estimator − (1 β) + β(α 1) (1 + z)3(αβ 1) r = − A 3(αβ−−1) B 3(α−1) (27) N 2 + (1 + z) +Ωb0(1 + z) 2 [µ(θ,zk) µ(zk)] A B χ (θ)= − 2 , (23) σ(zk) Xk=1 The aforesaid model (18) exhibits dark matter and where N = 557 and the cosmological parameters are dark energy components with energy densities of simi- θ = (H0, α, β, Ωc, Ωx, Ωb). Using the Union2 data set, lar order of magnitude at redshifts z 2 including the we will obtain nine two-dimensional confidence contours present-day scenario (see Fig.3). Now,≤ we are interested 7 0.8322 0.8403 0.8322 0.8403 1.0 WcHzL 1.178 Α=1.0887 0.07 WxHzL W =0.21 Β=0.005 m0 W =0.75 1.089 W =0.21 x0 WbHzL m0 0.005 Β 0 Α W =0.75 x0 H L 1 0.8 r z 0.955 -0.106 0.835 0.835 h h 0.6 0.8326 0.8392 0.833 0.8382 0.7826 0.4 0.61 Α=1.0887 Β=0.005 x0 Α=1.0887 W Wm0=0.21 0.75 m0 Β= W 0.21 0.005 Wx0=0.75 0.2 0 0.7273 -0.145 0.835 0.835 h h 0.0 -1 0 1 2 3 4 z FIG. 3: The density parameters Ωc, Ωx, and Ωb as a function of the redshift are depicted. Also the ratio Ωc/Ωx is shown. It seems like the model experiences a dust-like behavior around z =7.3 and the transition towards the accelerated regime takes place at z =0.87 so it is retarded when the nonintercating baryonic matter is added. Besides, the ac- tual values of all equations of states and the deceleration parameter are ω = 0.63, ω = 0, ω = 0.82, ω = 0 − c0 x0 − b0 0.06, and q0 = 0.45, respectively. These values are con- sistent with the− high-z supernova data which provide the most stringent limit on ωx0. Using WMAP+BAO+SN, it was obtained ωx0 = 0.980 0.053 (68% C.L.). The error does not include− systematic± errors in supernovae, which are comparable to the statistical error, thus, the error in ωx0 from WMAP+BAO+SN is about a half of that from WMAP+BAO+H0 [43]. The model does not cross phantom divide line at any stage of its evolution, moreover in the remote future decreases monotonically reaching a value of ωx0 0.82, in the same way as happens for a quintessence≃ dark − energy model, so it does not exhibit a quintom behavior [45]. The cosmic age-redshift relation for our model reads ∞ FIG. 2: Two-dimensional C.L. associated with 1σ and 2σ for different dx θ planes obtained to the Union 2 compilation of SNe Ia. H0t(z)= , (30) Zz (1 + x)(H(z)/H0) where the time origin is set at z = and the time is ∞ in studying the behavior of kinematic quantities such as measured in units of H0. For the best fit parameters, we deceleration parameter and the equations of state. In- found that the age of universe is 13.31 Gyr without the deed, we readily get to obtain ω(z), ωc = 0, ωx(z), third fluid whereas its inclusion leads to 13.17 Gyr. Both ω = α 1, and q(z) = [1 + 3ω(z)]/2 in term of the b − values are very close to the one reported by WMAP-7year redshift project, thus it found a 13.75 0.13 Gyr with W MAP 3(αβ−1) 3(α−1) only and 13.75 0.11 Gyr with± W MAP + BAO + H + αβ (1 + z) + αΩb0(1 + z) ± 0 ω = 1+ A B 3(αβ−1) 3(α−1) , [46]. Because the cosmological constraints with the Hub- − + (1 + z) +Ωb0(1 + z) A B (28) ble data only cover redshifts over the range 0 z < 2, the comparison with cosmic milestones will be≤ trustworthy 3 1 (α 1)Ωb0(1 + z) in this range only, for the latter reason we consider two ωx = ω − 2 . (29) Ωx − (H/H0) old stellar sources such as the 4 Gyr old galaxy LBDS 8 0.4 q>0 1.0 0.2 Ωb=0.05 0.8 0.0 Ωc=0 -0.2 -1<Ω<0 0.6 H0 * t MHRDEHzL -0.4 0.4 LBDS53W069 * LBDS53W091 ΩHzL H0 t HRDEHzL -0.6 q<0 ΩxHzL ΩcHzL -1<Ωx<0 0.2 -0.8 ΩbHzL qHzL -1 0 1 2 3 4 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 z z FIG. 4: It shows ω(z), ωc(z), ωx(z), ωb(z), and q(z) in term of the redshift z. FIG. 5: It shows the cosmic age-redshift relation for the 53W069 at redshift z = 1.43 [47] and the 3.5 Gyr old MHRDE with and without the noninteraction baryonic mat- galaxy LBDS 53W091 at redshift z =1.55 [48] [see Fig.5]. ter ( dashed green lines), HRDE (dashed black curve). We depict the age-redshift relations at the best-fit value corresponding to the two models mentioned before (see Fig.5). We find that the Ricci-like holographic dark en- ergy model cannot be accomodated well under the age- within the interval 0.1 fills the aforesaid constraint (see Fig.6). It should be IV. CONCLUSIONS also stressed that the most importants changes are pro- duced near the transition era when the universe entered We have examined a FRW universe filled with dark in the accelerated regime (Fig.6). In addition, we find matter, a MHRDE with a cutoff given by L−2 = (H˙ + that within the framework of holographic Ricci dark en- 3α 2 2 H )/(α β) that includes Ricci ansatz for α = 4/3, ergy model the bound at recombination era is not sat- and a baryonic− non interacting component decoupled isfied with the baryonic component or without it. In a from the dynamics of dark sector. We have studied the future research, we will explore this kind of interaction case in which the interaction in the dark sector is pro- by taking a radiation or baryonic term coupled to the portional to its energy density derivative, namely, Q ρ′ dark sector; we will examine the changes introduced in and found that the total pressure of both dark compo-∝ the behavior of dark energy at early times [49]. nents becomes strongly negative, violating the strong en- ergy condition in the present epoch. Finally, notice that the value of the cosmological pa- We have performed a χ2-analysis using the Hub- rameters used here are not arbitrary because these pa- ble data and built the corresponding 1σ and 2σ C.L. rameters turned to be consistent with three important (see Fig.1) for each pair of parameters (see Table I). data set: i the present-day scenario constrained with − The mean values of θc = (H0, α, β, Ωx0, Ωc0, Ωb0) are the Hubble data and SNe Ia data set, ii the recombina- +0.44 −1 −1 +0.015 − H0 = 73.89−0.94km s Mpc , α = 1.055−0.038, β = tion bounds for EDE, and iii the BBN data. Another +0.044 +0.01 +0.002 − 0.126−0.096, Ωc0 = 0.18−0.01, Ωx0 = 0.768−0.008 and useful observational constraints can be found in the last +0.002 2 scattering surface (LSS), namely, during the galaxy for- Ωb0 = 0.038−0.008 along with a χd.o.f < 1. Taking into mation era (1 [1] G. ’t Hooft, [arXiv:gr-qc/9310026]. et al., ApJ 687, 959 (2008). [2] L. Susskind, J. Math. Phys. 36 (1995) 6377. [28] R. W. Schnee, [arXiv:1101.5205]. [3] W. Fischler, L. Susskind, arXiv:hep-th/9806039. [29] L.P.Chimento, Phys.Rev.D81 043525 (2010). [4] R. Bousso, Rev.Mod.Phys.74 825-874 (2002). [30] L. P. Chimento, M. Forte and G. M. Kremer, Gen. [5] A. Cohen, D. Kaplan, A. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 Rel. Grav. 41, 1125 (2009), L. Zhang, J. Cui, J. Zhang (1999) 4971. and X. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 19, 21 (2010), [6] S. D. H. Hsu, Phys. Lett. B 594 13 (2004). arXiv:0911.2838[astro-ph.CO]; H. Wei and R. G. Cai, [7] M. Li, Phys. Lett. B 603, 1 (2004). Phys. Lett. B 655, 1 (2007), arXiv:0707.4526[gr-qc]; M. [8] E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, P.Wang, Quartin, M. O. Calvao, S. E. Joras, R. R. R. Reis and I. Phys.Rev.D 71 103504 (2005). Waga, JCAP 0805, 007 (2008); K. Karwan,JCAP 0805 [9] Gao, F. Q. Wu, X. Chen and Y. G. Shen, Phys. Rev. D 011 (2008). 79, 043511 (2009). [31] R.H. Cyburt, B.D. Fields, K. A. Olive and E. Skillman, [10] L.N. Granda, A. Oliveros, Phys.Lett.B 671 199-202 Astropart. Phys. 23, 313 (2005). (2009) [32] E. Calabrese, D. Huterer, E. V. Linder, A. Melchiorri and [11] R. G. Cai, B. Hu and Y. Zhang, Commun. Theor. Phys. L.Pagano, Phys.Rev.D 83 123504 (2011). 51, 954 (2009). [33] E. Calabrese, R. de Putter, D. Huterer, E. V. Linder, A. [12] S.del Campo, J.C. Fabris, R. Herrera, W. Zimdahl, Melchiorri, Phys.Rev.D 83 023011 (2011). arXiv:1103.3441v2. [34] C. L. Reichardt, R. de Putter, O. Zahn, Z. Hou; [13] I. Dur´an and D. Pav´on, Phys.Rev.D 83 023504 (2011); arXiv:1110.5328. [14] L. P. Chimento, M. G. Richarte, Phys.Rev. D 84 123507 [35] E. Calabrese, E. Menegoni, C. J. A. P. Martins, A. Mel- (2011). chiorri1, and G. Rocha; Phys. Rev. D 84, 023518 (2011). [15] L. P. Chimento, M. G. Richarte, Phys.Rev. D 85 127301 [36] J. Simon, L. Verde and R. Jimenez, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2012). 123001 (2005) [astro-ph/0412269]. [16] A. G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team), Astronomi- [37] D. Stern et al., [arXiv:0907.3149]. cal Journal 116, 100938, (1998). [38] L. Samushia and B. Ratra, Astrophys.J. 650 (2006) L5- [17] A. G. Riess et. al., Astrophysical Journal 607 665 (2004). L8; O. Farooq, D. Mania, B. Ratra, [arXiv:1211.4253]. [18] S. Perlmutter et al. (The Supernova Cosmology Project), [39] Press, W.H., et al., Numerical Recipes in C. Cambridge Astrophysical J. 517 56586, (1999); University Press, Cambridge (1997) [19] S. Perlmutter et. al., Nature 391 51 (1998) . [40] A. G. Riess et al., Astrophys. J. 699 (2009) 539 [20] D. N. Spergel et. al. [astroph/0603449]. [arXiv:0905.0695 ]. [21] D. N. Spergel, et al Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148 (2003) 175. [41] R. Amanullah et al., Astrophys. J. 716, 712 (2010). [22] E. Komatsu et al. [WMAP Collaboration], [42] D. S. Sivia and J. Skilling, Data Analysis: A Bayesian [arXiv:0803.0547]. Tutorial, Oxford University Press Inc., 2006. [23] Xin Zhang, Phys.Rev.D 79 103509 (2009). [43] E. Komatsu, et al., arXiv:1001.4538 [astro-ph.CO]. [24] Lixin Xu, Yuting Wang, JCAP06 (2010) 002; M. Suwa, [44] Helene M. Courtois and R. Brent Tully T. Nihei, Phys.Rev.D 81 023519 ( 2010). [arXiv:1202.3832v1]. [25] L. P. Chimento, M. Forte and M. G. Richarte, [45] L. P. Chimento, M. Forte, R. Lazkoz and M. G. Richarte, [arXiv:1106.0781 ]; M´onica I. Forte, Mart´ın G. Richarte, Phys.Rev.D 79 043502 (2009). [arXiv:1206.1073]; Luis P. Chimento, M´onica I. Forte, [46] N. Jarosik, C. L. Bennett, J. Dunkley, B. Gold, Mart´ın G. Richarte, [arXiv:1206.0179]. M. R. Greason, M. Halpern, R. S. Hill and G. Hinshaw et [26] Yuting Wang, Lixin Xu, Phys. Rev. D 81, 083523 (2010). al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. 192, 14 (2011) [arXiv:1001.4744 [27] D. Clowe et al., ApJ Letters 648, L109 (2006); M. Bradac [astro-ph.CO]]. 11 [47] J. Dunlop, in The Most Distant Radio Galaxies, edited D. Stern and R. Windhorst, Nature 381, 581 (1996). by J.J.A.Rottgering, P.Best and M.D.Lehnert, Kluwer, [49] Luis P. Chimento and Mart´ın G. Richarte, Phys. Rev. D Dordrecht(1999), page 71. 86 103501 (2012). [48] J. Dunlop, J. Peacock, H. Spinrad, A. Dey, R. Jimenez,