![]() |
Figure 1:
Schematic of confinement of matter to the brane, while gravity propagates in the bulk (from [75]). |
![]() |
Figure 2:
The RS 2-brane model. (Figure taken from [87].) |
![]() |
Figure 3:
Gravitational field of a small point particle on the brane in RS gauge. (Figure taken from [155].) |
![]() |
Figure 4:
The evolution of the dimensionless shear parameter ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Figure 5:
The relation between the inflaton mass ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Figure 6:
Constraints from WMAP data on inflation models with quadratic and quartic potentials, where R is the ratio of tensor to scalar amplitudes and n is the scalar spectral index. The high energy (H.E.) and low energy (L.E.) limits are shown, with intermediate energies in between, and the 1- ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Figure 7:
Brane-world instanton. (Figure taken from [154].) |
![]() |
Figure 8:
The evolution of the covariant variable ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Figure 9:
The evolution of ![]() |
![]() |
Figure 10:
Comparison between typical results of the PS and CI codes for various brane quantities (left); and the typical behaviour of the bulk master variable (right) as calculated by the CI method. Very good agreement between the two different numerical schemes is seen in the left panel, despite the fact that they use different initial conditions. Also note that on subhorizon scales, ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Figure 11:
The simulated behaviour of a mode on superhorizon scales. On the left we show how the ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Figure 12:
Density perturbation enhancement factors (left) and transfer functions (right) from simulations, effective theory, and general relativity. All of the ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Figure 13:
Graviton “volcano” potential around the dS4 brane, showing the mass gap. (Figure taken from [270].) |
![]() |
Figure 14:
The evolution of gravitational waves. We set the comoving wave number to ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Figure 15:
Squared amplitude of gravitational waves on the brane in the low-energy (left) and the high-energy (right) regimes. In both panels, solid lines represent the numerical solutions. The dashed lines are the amplitudes of reference gravitational waves ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Figure 16:
The energy spectrum of the stochastic background of gravitational wave around the critical frequency ![]() |
![]() |
Figure 17:
The CMB power spectrum with brane-world effects, encoded in the dark radiation fluctuation parameter ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Figure 18:
The CMB power spectrum with brane-world moduli effects from the field ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Figure 19:
Joint constraints [solid thick (blue)] from the SNLS data [solid thin (yellow)], the BAO peak at ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Figure 20:
The constraints from SNe and CMB/BAO on the parameters in the DGP model. The flat DGP model is indicated by the vertical dashed-dotted line; for the MLCS light curve fit, the flat model matches to the date very well. The SALT-II light curve fit to the SNe is again shown by the dotted contours. The combined constraints using the SALT-II SNe outlined by the dashed contours represent a poorer match to the CMB/BAO for the flat model. (From [401].) |
![]() |
Figure 21:
The difference in ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Figure 22:
The growth factor ![]() |
![]() |
Figure 23:
Left: Numerical solutions for DGP density and metric perturbations, showing also the quasi-static solution, which is an increasingly poor approximation as the scale is increased. (From [71].) Right: Constraints on DGP (the open model in Figure 21 that provides a best fit to geometric data) from CMB anisotropies (WMAP5). The DGP model is the solid curve, QCDM (short-dashed curve) is the GR quintessence model with the same background expansion history as the DGP model, and LCDM is the dashed curve (a slightly closed model that gives the best fit to WMAP5, HST and SNLS data). (From [142].) |
![]() |
Figure 24:
Left: The embedding of the self-accelerating and normal branches of the DGP brane in a Minkowski bulk. (From [81].) Right: Joint constraints on normal DGP (flat, ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Figure 25:
Left: Joint constraints on normal DGP from SNe Gold, CMB shift (WMAP3) and ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Figure 26:
Top: Measurement of the cross-correlation functions between six different galaxy data sets and the CMB, reproduced from [166]. The curves show the theoretical predictions for the ISW-galaxy correlations at each redshift for the LCDM model (black, dashed) and the three nDGP models, which describe the ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Figure 27:
Removing a wedge from a sphere and identifying opposite sides to obtain a rugby ball geometry. Two equal-tension branes with conical deficit angles are located at either pole; outside the branes there is constant spherical curvature. From [72]. |
http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2010-5 | ![]() This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Problems/comments to |