- Research article
- Open Access

# The luminosity-redshift relation in brane-worlds: I. Analytical results

- Zoltán Keresztes
^{1}, - László Á Gergely
^{1}, - Botond Nagy
^{1}and - Gyula M Szabó
^{1}

**Received:**26 June 2007**Accepted:**2 October 2007**Published:**2 October 2007

## Abstract

The luminosity distance – redshift relation is analytically given for generalized Randall-Sundrum type II brane-world models containing Weyl fluid either as dark radiation or as a radiation field from the brane. The derived expressions contain both elementary functions and elliptic integrals of the first and second kind. First we derive the relation for models with the Randall-Sundrum fine-tuning. Then we generalize the method for models with cosmological constant. The most interesting models contain small amounts of Weyl fluid, expected to be in good accordance with supernova data. The derived analytical results are suitable for testing brane-world models with Weyl fluid when future supernova data at higher redshifts will be available.

**PACS Codes:** 98.62.Py, 98.80.Jk, 11.25.-w

## Keywords

- Dark Energy
- Cosmological Constant
- Luminosity Distance
- Brane Tension
- Dark Radiation

## 1 Introduction

At present the Universe is considered a general relativistic Friedmann space-time with flat spatial sections, containing more than 70% dark energy and at about 25% of dark matter. Dark energy could be simply a cosmological constant Λ, or quintessence or something entirely different. There is no widely accepted explanations for the nature of any of the dark matter or dark energy (even the existence of the cosmological constant remains unexplained).

An alternative to introducing dark matter would be to modify the law of gravitation, like in MOND [1–3] and its relativistic generalization [4, 5]. These theories are compatible with the Large scale structure of the Universe [6–8]. However in spite of the successes, certain problems were signaled on smaller scales [9–13].

Quite remarkably, supernova data, which in the traditional interpretation yield to the existence of dark energy, can be explained by certain f(R) [14, 15] or inverse curvature gravity models [16]. However the parameter range, in which the latter is in goood agrement with the supernova data, also presents stability problems [17, 18].

Modifications of the gravitational interaction could also occur by enriching the space-time with extra dimensions. Originally pioneered by Kaluza and Klein, such theories contained compact extra dimensions. The so-called brane-world models, motivated by string/M-theory, containing our observable 4-dimensional universe (the brane) as a hypersurface, were introduced in [19–21] and [22], the latter model allowing for a non-compact extra dimension.

*λ*and gravitational dynamics is governed by the 5-dimensional Einstein equation. Its projections to our observable 4-dimensional universe (the brane) are the twice contracted Gauss equation, the Codazzi equation and an effective Einstein equation, the latter being obtained by employing the junction conditions across the brane [23]. The effective Einstein equation (for the case of symmetric embedding and no other contribution to the bulk-energy-momentum than a bulk cosmological constant) was first given in a covariant form in [24]. Supplementing this by the pull-back to the brane of the bulk energy momentum tensor ${\tilde{\Pi}}_{ab}$, which is

*g*

_{ ab }the induced metric on the brane) the effective Einstein equation reads [23]:

*κ*

^{2}is the brane coupling constant, related to the bulk coupling constant and the brane tension

*λ*as 6

*κ*

^{2}= ${\tilde{\kappa}}^{4}$

*λ*, and

*S*

_{ ab }is quadratic in the brane energy-momentum tensor

*T*

_{ ab }:

In a cosmological context and suppressing any energy exchange between the brane and the bulk, this latter term generates the so-called dark radiation. Otherwise it can be called a Weyl fluid.

A review of many aspects related to the theories described by the effective Einstein equation (2) can be found in [25]. Both early cosmology [26] and gravitational collapse [27–32] are essentially modified in these theories. There is also possible to replace dark matter with geometric effects in the interpretation of galactic rotation curves, weak lensing and galaxy cluster dynamics [33–36].

*G*

_{ ab }. This implies that in certain sense the degree of nonlinearity of the theory is squared. In a cosmological setup the square root of this equation can be taken, leading to a set of modified Friedmann and Raychaudhuri equations, which however contain a sign ambiguity

*ε*= ±1 due to the involved square root. These are called the BRANE1 [DGP(-)] branch for

*ε*= -1 and BRANE2 [DGP(+)] for

*ε*= 1 in the terminology of [42] [or [45], respectively]. Both the original Randall-Sundrum type II model and the DGP model are contained as special subcases. Notably, the BRANE2 branch contains cosmological models which self-accelerate at late-times. We give in Fig 1 a diagram containing a classification of these theories and how they emerge as different limits from each other.

In this paper we discuss analytically the luminosity distance – redshift relation in various generalized Randall-Sundrum type II brane-world models described by Eq. (2). Our analytical approach can enhance the confrontation of these models with current and most notably, with future supernova observations. We note that recently analytical results have been given in Ref. [46] for a wide class of phantom Friedmann cosmologies too, in terms of elementary and Weierstrass elliptic functions.

In section 2 we review the notion of luminosity distance, its relation with the redshift and how these can be measured independently. This section was included mainly for didactical purposes.

In section 3 we review the modification of this relation in the Randall-Sundrum type II brane-world scenario. These include the introduction of the parameters Ω_{
λ
}and Ω_{
d
}which can be traced back to the source terms *S*_{
ab
}and ${\mathcal{E}}_{ab}$ of the modified Einstein equation (2). The other cosmological parameters are Ω_{
ρ
}, representing (baryonic and dark) matter and Ω_{Λ}. We do not include bulk sources in the analysis, with the notable exception of a bulk cosmological constant.

Section 4 contains the derivation of the analytic expression for the luminosity distance – redshift relation for the brane-worlds which are closest to the original Randall-Sundrum scenario [22], thus with no cosmological constant (Randall-Sundrum fine-tuning). The generic expression (35) of the luminosity distance derived here is given in terms of elementary functions and elliptic integrals of the first and second kind. From this most generic case we take the subsequent limits: Ω_{
d
}= 0 (subsection 4.2), Ω_{
λ
}= 0 (subsection 4.3); and both Ω_{
d
}= Ω_{
λ
}= 0, this being the general relativistic Einstein-de Sitter case (subsection 4.4).

Such models however could not allow for late-time acceleration, therefore in section 5 we discuss the luminosity distance – redshift relation for brane-worlds with Λ. First we present in subsection 5.1 a class of models, for which the luminosity distance can be given in terms of elementary functions alone. These models are characterized by an extremely low value of the brane tension, thus are in conflict with various constraints on brane-world models.

Next, in subsection 5.2 we discuss brane-worlds for which the brane-characteristic contributions Ω_{
λ
}and Ω_{
d
}represent small perturbations. This is a good assumption as observational evidences suggest that general relativity is a sufficiently accurate theory of the universe, and as such the deviations from it could not be very high, at least at late-times. We give analytical expressions in terms of both elementary functions and elliptic integrals of the first and second kind for the luminosity distance, to first order accuracy in the chosen small parameters of the model. Some of the most lengthy computations needed in order to achieve the result are presented in the Appendix.

Section 6 contains the concluding remarks.

Throughout the paper *c* = 1 was employed.

## 2 The luminosity-redshift relation

*τ*is cosmological time, (

*r*,

*θ*,

*ϕ*) are comoving coordinates,

*a*is the scale factor and

*k*= 0, ±1 the curvature index. The

*proper radial distance*is defined as

*ar*. A useful alternative form of the FLRW metric is

*χ* being an other comoving radial coordinate.

*dN*

_{ γ }from a comoving elementary volume of the 6-dimensional phase space ($\overrightarrow{x}$, $\overrightarrow{p}$) is conserved [47]. Thus the phase space density

*ω*denotes the frequency of the photons,

*dA*and

*d*Ω stand for the elementary area normal to the direction of propagation and for the elementary solid angle around the direction of propagation, respectively (see Fig 2). Eq. (9) holds true for any kind of cosmological evolution, provided

*d*

^{3}$\overrightarrow{x}$ ∝

*dτdA*and

*d*

^{3}$\overrightarrow{p}$ ∝

*ω*

^{2}

*dωd*Ω are valid for the photons [47]. The

*luminosity*of the source is =

*dE*

_{ em }/

*dt*

_{ em }(total energy produced in unit time; the suffix

*em*refers to emission).

A telescope detects the *photon flux* $\mathcal{F}$ = *dE*_{
rec
}/*dτ*_{
rec
}/*A*_{
M
}(the suffix *rec* refers to reception). This is the energy detected during unit time on the telescope mirror surface *A*_{
M
}. (The surface *A*_{
M
}is understood to be perpendicular to the incident light stream.)

*dE*=

*ħω dN*, from Eq. (9) we find

Here we have used that from the isotropy of the FLRW universe *d*Ω_{
rec
}= *d*Ω_{
em
}and we integrate the first to the solid angle encompassing the mirror surface, the second to the whole solid angle (cf. the definitions of *E*_{
rec
}, *E*_{
em
}). In Eq. (11) *A*_{
tot
}represents the *proper* area of a sphere centered in the light source and containing the reception point on its surface, at the time of reception.

*dA*changes as

*a*

^{2}and the frequency of the light is redshifted during cosmic expansion,

*ω*∝ 1/

*a*[47]. In the cosmological evolution of the comoving elementary phase space volume element

*dω*changes accordingly:

*dω*∝ 1/

*a*. Therefore

*a*

_{0}is the present value of the scale factor, and

*a*is understood to be the scale factor at emission time. In the FLRW universe the proper area of a sphere with comoving radius

*r*

_{ em }is ${A}_{tot}=4\pi {a}_{0}^{2}{r}_{em}^{2},$ and the redshift

*z*is defined as

*luminosity distance d*

_{ L }is defined as in Euclidean geometry:

This definition is rigorous as long as we are dealing with the (homogeneous and isotropic) FLRW universe (irrespective of the value of the curvature index *k*) and the radius of a sphere is measured in the proper distance *ra* (the FLRW metric (6) guarantees that the surface of a sphere with radius *ra* is 4*πa*^{2}*r*^{2}).

*r*

_{ em }can be written in terms of an other radial comoving coordinate

*χ*

_{ em }(representing the location of the source):

*d*

_{ L }(

*z*) ≡

*a*

_{0}(1 +

*z*) (

*χ*

_{ em };

*k*).

*dχ*=

*dτ*/

*a*(

*τ*) =

*da*/

*a*

^{2}

*H*. Here

*H*= $\dot{a}$/

*a*is the Hubble parameter. Then

*χ*can also be expressed in terms of an integral over the redshift as

which completes the definition (15) of the luminosity distance *d*_{
L
}in terms of the redshift *z*.

*χ*given by Eq. (17) with respect to

*z*gives

therefore if independent measurements of *d*_{
L
}and *z* are available for a set of light sources, the Hubble-parameter *H*(*z*) and in consequence the cosmological dynamics can be determined.

*k*= 0. Then the luminosity distance-redshift relation becomes

In practice, the function *d*_{
L
}(*z*) is conveniently measured with distant supernovae of type Ia. The luminosity is evaluated by photometry, while the redshift from spectroscopic analysis of the host galaxy.

Each cosmological model has its own prediction for the shape of the function *d*_{
L
}(*z*) [see Eq. (15) with *χ* given by Eq. (17) for generic *k*, or Eq. (19) for *k* = 0]. This is how the measured *d*_{
L
}(*z*) data turn into a cosmological test.

## 3 The luminosity-redshift relation in Randall-Sundrum type II brane-worlds

*k*= 0 and brane cosmological constant Λ, embedded symmetrically. The bulk is the Vaidya-anti de Sitter space-time with cosmological constant $\tilde{\Lambda}$, and it contains bulk black holes with masses

*m*on both sides of the brane. The black hole masses can change if the brane radiates into the bulk. An ansatz comparable with structure formation has been advanced in [51] for the Weyl fluid

*m*/

*a*

^{4}for the case when the brane radiates,

*m*=

*m*

_{0}

*a*

^{ α }, where

*m*

_{0}is a constant and

*α*= 2, 3. For

*α*= 0 the Weyl fluid is known as dark radiation and then the bulk space-time becomes Schwarzschild-anti de Sitter. The brane tension and the two cosmological constants are inter-related as

*m*, the scale factor

*a*and the matter energy density

*ρ*on the brane:

which gives *ρ* ~ *a*^{-3}. We introduce the following dimensionless quantities:

Ω_{
tot
}= Ω_{Λ} + Ω_{
ρ
}+ Ω_{
λ
}+ Ω_{
d
},

_{ tot }= 1. Then the radial coordinate (16) becomes

This is a complicated integral, which cannot be computed analytically in the majority of cases. In what follows we will analyze various specific cases of the above integral, when an analytic solution is possible. The cases *α* = 2, 3 represent the Weyl fluid compatible with structure formation, while *α* = 0 represents the dark radiation.

## 4 Branes with Randall-Sundrum fine-tuning

In the original Randall-Sundrum scenario the bulk cosmological constant $\tilde{\Lambda}$ is fine-tuned with the brane tension *λ* such that cf. Eq. (20) the brane cosmological constant vanishes. For simplicity we also assume throughout this section *α* = 0. By imposing a vanishing cosmological constant on the brane, Ω_{Λ} = 0 such that the polynomial of rank 6 in the denominator of the integrand in Eq. (27) shrinks to a polynomial of rank 3. Therefore its roots can be found analytically. Following general procedures, the luminosity distance – redshift relation can be then given analytically in terms of elliptic functions. This is done in the following subsection. In the second and third subsections of this chapter we discuss the limits Ω_{
d
}→ 0 (when the bulk is anti de Sitter) and the late-time universe limit ρ/*λ* → 0. The general relativistic (Einstein-deSitter) limit is found in the fourth subsection, when further Ω_{
λ
}→ 0 is taken.

### 4.1 Schwarzschild-AdS bulk

*β**. The auxiliary quantity Ψ is defined as

*real*combinations of the complex roots

*F*(

*ϕ*,

*ε*) is the elliptic integral of the first kind;

*E*(

*ϕ*,

*ε*) is the elliptic integral of the second kind (with variable

*ϕ*and argument

*ε*); and we have introduced the following standard notations, cf. Ref. [53]:

*ϕ*runs in the range 0..

*π*/2. In computing for other values of

*ϕ*, we can use the following addition rules for the elliptic integrals:

where *K* and *E* are the complete elliptic integrals of the first and second kind. Eqs. (30) and (35)–(37) represent the analytical expression of the luminosity distance-redshift relation for FLRW branes with Randall-Sundrum fine-tuning. They are given in terms of the well-known elliptic integrals of first and second kind, and the cosmological parameters Ω_{
ρ
}, Ω_{
λ
}and Ω_{
d
}.

### 4.2 Limit of no black hole in the bulk

_{ d }= 0. The derivation follows closely the steps of the previous subsection, however the formulae are simpler. The auxiliary expression (30) for Ψ is well defined only for Ω

_{ d }≠ 0 and we have to address the question how to obtain suitable limits of the results derived for Ω

_{ d }≠ 0. For any Ω

_{ d }≪ 1

Again, *ϕ*for this case emerges in the limit Ω_{
d
}→ 0 from the generic expression Eq. (37), by employing Eq. (41) as in the limiting process expressions of the type ∞ × 0 appear.

### 4.3 Late-time universe limit

*ρ*≪

*λ*and in consequence Ω

_{ λ }= 0 can be safely assumed. We keep however the dark radiation in the model. Eq. (27) simplifies considerably, and a straightforward integration gives the luminosity distance – redshift relation

_{ λ }→ 0 limit from the generic results, Eqs. (30) and (35)–(37). When Ω

_{ λ }→ 0 Eq. (30) gives Ψ → 0. Then Eqs. (37) and (36) give

*B*_{2} = 1 = -*B*_{1}.

*E*(

*ϕ*, 1) = sin

*ϕ*, we obtain from Eq. (35):

By inserting the values *ϕ*_{
em
}= *ϕ*(*z*) and *ϕ*_{0} = *ϕ*(0), we recover the luminosity distance – redshift relation (44).

### 4.4 General relativistic (Einstein-de Sitter) limit

*k*= 0 = Λ (Einstein-de Sitter model) can be obtained by direct integration of Eq. (27):

It is straightforward to check that the above result stems out from Eq. (44) by simply switching off the dark radiation.

_{ λ }→ 0 of Eq. (42). To see this, we note that when Ω

_{ λ }→ 0, both

*ϕ*→

*π*and

*ϕ*

_{0}→

*π*. Therefore the elliptic integrals of the first and second kind both tend to finite values, thus the differences evaluated at

*ϕ*and

*ϕ*

_{0}vanish. Then the only terms which should be carefully investigated are the last two terms of Eq. (42), which are of the type 0/0. By employing Eq. (43), for the last term we obtain:

Adding everything together, we recover the general relativistic result (48).

## 5 Branes with Λ

In this section we discuss certain cases of Randall-Sundrum type brane-worlds with cosmological constant, for which analytical expressions for the luminosity-redshift relation can be found.

### 5.1 A brane with analytically integrable luminosity distance-redshift relation

with *h* = (Ω_{
ρ
}/2Ω_{Λ})^{1/3}.

The first condition (51) merely simplifies the bulk to an anti de Sitter space-time. The second condition (51) by contrast, yields to a much more serious constraint:

*κ*^{2}*λ* = 2Λ (53)

The second condition (51), together with the constraint (23) leads to a quadratic equation for Ω_{
λ
}. For Ω_{
ρ
}= 0.27 this has two solutions [54]:

Ω_{Λ} = 0.704, Ω_{
λ
}= 0.026 (54)

corresponding to the brane tension‡ *λ*_{1} = 38.375 × 10^{-60}TeV^{4} and

Ω_{Λ} = 0.026, Ω_{
λ
}= 0.704. (55)

corresponding to the brane tension *λ*_{2} = 1.4173 × 10^{-60}TeV^{4}.

It is interesting to note that while solution (55) is ruled out by the recent supernova data, solution (54) is quite close to the present observational value of Ω_{Λ} [55]. From a brane point of view, however the value of the brane tension in the model (54) is far too small, thus it does not describe our physical world. Indeed, all lower limits set for *λ* are much higher than *λ*_{2}.

In the two-brane model of Ref. [21] the minimal brane tension depends on the value of the Planck mass *M*_{
P
}and on the characteristic curvature scale of the bulk *l* as ${\lambda}_{\mathrm{min}\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}}=3{M}_{P}^{2}/4\pi {l}^{2}$[21]. Table-top experiments [56–58] on possible deviations from Newton's law currently probe gravity at sub-millimeter scales. As a result they constrain the characteristic curvature scale of the bulk to *l* ≤ 44 *μm*. The brane tension therefore (in units *c* = 1 = *ħ*) is constrained as *λ* > 715.887 TeV^{4}. (For a detailed discussion see section 6 of [59], where a slightly lower bound for the brane tension was derived, based on the previously available estimate *l* ≤ 0.1 mm for the characteristic curvature scale of the bulk.) Big Bang Nucleosynthesis constraints give a much milder lower limit, *λ* $\gtrsim $1 MeV^{4} [60]. An astrophysical limit *λ* > 5 × 10^{8} MeV^{4} (depending on the equation of state of a neutron star) has also been derived [61]. This latter value of *λ*_{min} is in between the two previous lower limits.

The interpretation of the model (54) is the following. The condition (53) on the models with small brane tension implies $\tilde{\Lambda}$ = 0, thus the bulk becomes flat. As such, it has no effect on dynamics and the fifth dimension becomes superfluous. In fact what we face here is a GR model with stiff fluid scaling as *a*^{-6}.

### 5.2 Branes with Ω_{
d
}≪ 1 and Ω_{
λ
}≪ 1

_{ λ }and Ω

_{ d }are small, however we allow for arbitrary values of Ω

_{Λ}. These assumptions are motivated by observational evidence that at present our universe is extremely close to a ΛCDM model. A Taylor series expansion of Eq. (27) gives, to leading order in the small parameters:

The first expression is the general relativistic luminosity distance – redshift relation in the presence of a cosmological constant (in the ΛCDM model). The next two integrals represent the correction functions scaling the small coefficients Ω_{
λ
}and Ω_{
d
}.

*β**. Then ${d}_{L}^{\Lambda \text{CDM}}$ can be rewritten as:

*ϕ*and argument

*ε*of the elliptic integral of the first kind

*F*(

*ϕ*,

*ε*) given by

(Note that *ε*^{2} is the same as in the case Ω_{Λ} = 0 = Ω_{
d
}, while *ϕ*is different. Here 0 ≤ *ϕ*≤ *π*/2 while for other values of *ϕ*, we use Eqs. (38).)

_{ λ }in terms of the variable

*t*=

*a*

^{3/4}. After a partial integration meant to reduce the powers in the denominator we employ

with the variable *ϕ* and argument *ε* given in Eq. (61).

*α*= 1 and 4 the source term Ω

_{ d }merely contribute to Ω

_{ ρ }and Ω

_{Λ}, respectively. The more interesting cases are for

*α*= 0, 2, 3. The last term of Eq. (55) for

*α*= 2 consits of elementary functions:

*z*instead of

*a*, we obtain:

Thus, the analytic expression of the generic luminosity distance – redshift relation on branes with cosmological constant and small values of Ω_{
λ
}and Ω_{
d
}is given to first order accuracy in these small parameters by Eqs. (56), (60), (63)–(67).

## 6 Concluding remarks

The main purpose of this paper was to present the analytical formulation of the luminosity distance – redshift relation in the generalized Randall-Sundrum type II brane-world models containing a Weyl fluid either in the form of dark radiation or as radiation leaving the brane and feeding the bulk black holes. We have given the luminosity distance in terms of elementary functions and elliptical integrals of first and second type and we have also shown how the different limits arise from the generic result. Our results hold for:

(a) Models with Randall-Sundrum fine-tuning (Λ = 0), with or without dark radiation from the bulk and with or without considerable contribution from the energy-momentum squared source terms, discussed in section 4.

(b) The models discussed in subsection 5.1, obeying Λ = *κ*^{2}/2, integrable in terms of elementary functions and

(c) Models with a brane cosmological constant, discussed to first order accuracy in both the Weyl fluid and energy-momentum squared sources.

This last class of models, presented in subsection 5.2 in the latest times of the cosmological evolution are only slightly different from the Λ CDM model, as they have Ω_{
d
}≪ 1 and Ω_{
λ
}≪ 1. The derived modifications in the luminosity distance – redshift formula then represent corrections to the corresponding formula of the ΛCDM model.

While the focus of the present paper is the integrability of the luminosity distance – redshift relation in various brane-world models, in a forthcoming paper [62] we will discuss how well the presently available supernova data support the brane-world models with a small amount of Weyl fluid.

## Appendix A. The evaluation of the integral *I*_{
d
}

*α*= 0, 3, as follows. First we pass to the variable

*t*=

*a*

^{3/2}and we perform a partial integration in order to reduce the powers in the denominator of the integrand

Here *I*_{
d
}(*ϕ*, *ε*) is given by Eqs. (67).

## Note

‡ All values of the brane tension given in this subsection are in units *c* = 1 = *ħ*.

## Declarations

### Acknowledgements

This work was supported by OTKA grants no. T046939, 69036 and T042509. L ÁG and GyMSz were further supported by the János Bolyai Grant of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and GyMSz by the Magyary Zoltán Higher Educational Public Foundation.

## Authors’ Affiliations

## References

- Milgrom M: A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis. Astrophys J. 1983, 270: 365-10.1086/161130.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Milgrom M: A modification of the Newtonian dynamics – Implications for galaxies. Astrophys J. 1983, 270: 371-10.1086/161131.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Milgrom M: A Modification of the Newtonian Dynamics – Implications for Galaxy Systems. Astrophys J. 1983, 270: 384-10.1086/161132.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Bekenstein JD: Relativistic gravitation theory for the MOND paradigm. Phys Rev. 2004, D70: 083509-Erratum – 2005 ibid. D 71 069901ADSGoogle Scholar
- Mannheim PD: Alternatives to Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Prog Part Nucl Phys. 2006, 56: 340-10.1016/j.ppnp.2005.08.001.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Skordis C, Mota DF, Ferreira PG, Boehm C: Large Scale Structure in Bekenstein's theory of relativistic Modified Newtonian Dynamics. Phys Rev Lett. 2006, 96: 011301-10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.011301.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Slosar A, Melchiorri A, Silk J: Did Boomerang hit MOND?. Phys Rev. 2005, D72: 101301-ADSGoogle Scholar
- McGaugh S: Confrontation of MOND Predictions with WMAP First Year Data. Astrophys J. 2004, 611: 26-10.1086/421895.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Corbelli E, Salucci P: Testing MOND with Local Group spiral galaxies. 2006, astro-ph/0610618Google Scholar
- Lokas EL, Mamon GA, Prada F: The Draco dwarf in CDM and MOND. EAS Publ Ser. 2006, 20: 113-118. 10.1051/eas:2006056. astro-ph/0508668View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zhao HS: A review on success and problem of MOND on globular cluster scale. Edited by: Jerjen H, Binggeli B. 2005, 198: astro-ph/0508635, to appear in IAU ColGoogle Scholar
- Nusser A, Pointecouteau E: Modeling the formation of galaxy clusters in MOND. Mon Not Roy Astron Soc. 2006, 366: 969-976.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Aguirre A, Schaye J, Quataert E: Problems for MOND in Clusters and the Ly-alpha Forest. Astrophys J. 2001, 561: 550-10.1086/323376.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Amarzguioui M, Elgaroy O, Mota DF, Multamaki T: Cosmological constraints on f(R) gravity theories within the Palatini approach. Astron Astrophys. 2006, 454: 707-10.1051/0004-6361:20064994.View ArticleADSMATHGoogle Scholar
- Borowiec A, Godlowski W, Szydlowski M: Accelerated Cosmological Models in Modified Gravity tested by distant Supernovae SNIa data. Phys Rev. 2006, D74: 043502-ADSGoogle Scholar
- Mena O, Santiago J, Weller J: Constraining Inverse Curvature Gravity with Supernovae. Phys Rev Lett. 2006, 96: 041103-10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.041103.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- De Felice A, Hindmarsh M, Trodden M: Ghosts, Instabilities, and Superluminal Propagation in Modified Gravity Models. JCAP. 2006, 06 (08): 005-View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- De Felice A, Mukherjee P, Wang Y: Observational Bounds on Modified Gravity Models. 2007, arxiv:0706.1197Google Scholar
- Arkani-Hamed N, Dimopoulos S, Dvali G: The Hierarchy Problem and New Dimensions at a Millimeter. Phys Lett B. 1998, 429: 263-10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00466-3.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Arkani-Hamed N, Dimopoulos S, Dvali G: Phenomenology, Astrophysics and Cosmology of Theories with Sub-Millimeter Dimensions and TeV Scale Quantum Gravity. Phys Rev. 1999, D59: 086004-ADSGoogle Scholar
- Randall L, Sundrum R: Large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension. Phys Rev Lett. 1999, 83: 3370-10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3370.View ArticleADSMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- Randall L, Sundrum R: An Alternative to Compactification. Phys Rev Lett. 1999, 83: 4690-10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.4690.View ArticleADSMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- Gergely LÁ: Generalized Friedmann branes. Phys Rev. 2003, D68: 124011-ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Shiromizu T, Maeda K, Sasaki M: The Einstein Equations on the 3-Brane World. Phys Rev. 2000, D62: 024012-ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Maartens R: Brane-world Gravity. Living Rev Rel. 2004, 7: 1-Google Scholar
- Binétruy P, Deffayet C, Ellwanger U, Langlois D: Brane cosmological evolution in a bulk with cosmological constant. Phys Lett B. 2000, 477: 285-10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00204-5.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Bruni M, Germani C, Maartens R: Gravitational Collapse on the Brane: A No-Go Theorem. Phys Rev Lett. 2001, 87: 231302-10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.231302.View ArticleADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Dadhich N, Ghosh SG: Gravitational collapse of null fluid on the brane. Phys Lett B. 2001, 518: 1-10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01057-7.View ArticleADSMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- Dadhich N, Ghost SG: Collapsing sphere on the brane radiates. Phys Lett B. 2002, 538: 233-10.1016/S0370-2693(02)01996-2.View ArticleADSMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- Casadio R, Germani C: Gravitational collapse and black hole evolution: do holographic black holes eventually "anti-evaporate"?. Prog Theor Phys. 2005, 114: 23-10.1143/PTP.114.23.View ArticleADSMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- Gergely LÁ: Black holes and dark energy from gravitational collapse on the brane. 2006, hep-th/0603254Google Scholar
- Pal S: Braneworld gravitational collapse from a radiative bulk. Phys Rev. 2006, D74: 124019-ADSGoogle Scholar
- Mak MK, Harko T: Can the galactic rotation curves be explained in brane world models?. Phys Rev. 2004, D70: 024010-ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Pal S, Bharadway S, Kar S: Can extra dimensional effects replace dark matter?. Phys Lett B. 2005, 609: 194-10.1016/j.physletb.2005.01.043.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Harko T, Cheng KS: Galactic metric, dark radiation, dark pressure and gravitational lensing in brane world models. Astrophys J. 2006, 636: 8-10.1086/498141.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Harko T, Cheng KS: The virial theorem and the dynamics of clusters of galaxies in the brane world models. Phys Rev. 2007, D76: 044013-ADSGoogle Scholar
- Dvali G, Gabadadze G, Porrati M: 4D Gravity on a Brane in 5D Minkowski Space. Phys Lett B. 2000, 485: 208-10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00669-9.View ArticleADSMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
- Koyama K: Are there ghosts in the self-accelerating brane universe?. Phys Rev. 2005, D72: 123511-ADSGoogle Scholar
- Gorbunov D, Koyama K, Sibiryakov S: More on ghosts in DGP model. Phys Rev. 2006, D73: 044016-ADSGoogle Scholar
- Charmousis C, Gregory R, Kaloper N, Padilla A: DGP Specteroscopy. 2006, hep-th/0604086Google Scholar
- Izumi K, Koyama K, Tanaka T: Unexorcized ghost in DGP brane world. 2006, hep-th/0610282Google Scholar
- Sahni V, Shtanov Y: Braneworld models of dark energy. JCAP. 2003, 03 (11): 014-View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Maeda K, Mizuno S, Torii T: Effective Gravitational Equations on Brane World with Induced Gravity. Phys Rev. 2003, D68: 024033-ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Gergely LÁ, Maartens R: Asymmetric brane-worlds with induced gravity. Phys Rev. 2005, D71: 024032-ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Lazkoz R, Maartens R, Majerotto E: Observational constraints on phantom-like braneworld cosmologies. Phys Rev. 2006, D74: 083510-ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Dabrowski MP, Stachowiak T: Phantom Friedmann cosmologies and higher-order characteristics of expansion. Annals of Physics. 2006, 321: 771-10.1016/j.aop.2005.10.006.View ArticleADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Padmanabhan T: Theoretical Astrophysics. 2002, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge UK, 3: 168-171.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Doroshkevich A, Tucker DL, Allam S, Way MJ: Large scale structure in the SDSS galaxy survey. Astronomy and Astrophysics. 2004, 418: 7-10.1051/0004-6361:20031780.View ArticleADSMATHGoogle Scholar
- Eisenstein DJ, Zehavi I, Hogg DW, et al: Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large-Scale Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies. Astrophys J. 2005, 633: 560-10.1086/466512.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Tegmark M, Strauss MA, Blanton MR, et al: Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP. Phys Rev. 2004, D69: 103501-ADSGoogle Scholar
- Pal S: Structure formation on the brane: A mimicry. Phys Rev. 2006, D74: 024005-ADSGoogle Scholar
- Bronstein IN, Semendyayev KA, Musiol G, Mühlig H: Handbook of Mathematics. 2004, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York, 4View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Byrd PF, Friedman MD: Handbook of Elliptic Integrals for Engineers and Scientists. 1971, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New YorkView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Nagy B, Keresztes Z: On the luminosity-redshift relation in brane-worlds with cosmological constant. 2006, Publications of the Astronomy Department of the Eötvös University (PADEU), 17: 221-227. astro-ph/0606662Google Scholar
- Liddle A: An Introduction to Modern Cosmology. 2003, John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
- Long JC, et al: New experimental limits on macroscopic forces below 100 microns. Nature. 2003, 421: 922-10.1038/nature01432.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Gundlach JH, Schlamminger S, Spitzer CD, et al: Laboratory Test of Newton's Second Law for Small Acceleration. Phys Rev Lett. 2007, 98: 150801-10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.150801.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Kapner DJ, Cook TS, Adelberger EG: Tests of the Gravitational Inverse-Square Law below the Dark-Energy Lenght Scale. Phys Rev Lett. 2007, 98: 021101-10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.021101.View ArticleADSGoogle Scholar
- Gergely LÁ, Keresztes Z: Irradiated asymmetric Friedmann branes. JCAP. 2006, 06 (01): 022-View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Maartens R, Wands D, Bassett BA, Heard IPC: Chaotic Inflation on the brane. Phys Rev. 2000, D62: 041301 (R)-ADSGoogle Scholar
- Germani C, Maartens R: Stars in the braneworld. Phys Rev. 2001, D64: 124010-ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Szabó Gy M, Gergely LÁ, Keresztes Z: The luminosity-redshift relation in brane-worlds: II. Confrontation with experimental data. 2007, astro-ph/0702610Google Scholar

## Copyright

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.