text:
# Ginzburg - Landau equation from SU(2) gauge field theory

## I Introduction

In ref. dzhsin02a  it was shown that one could obtain London’s equation from SU(2) gauge theory using the ideas of Abelian projection. This supports the dual superconductor picture of a confining Yang-Mills gauge theory, since London’s equation gives a phenomenological description of the Meissner effect. The vacuum of the SU(3) Yang-Mills theory of the strong interaction is thought to exhibit a dual Meissner effect with respect to chromoelectric fields in analogy to a normal superconductor, which exhibits the Meissner effect with respect to the magnetic field. In dzhsin02a  the quantized SU(2) gauge fields split into two phases: an ordered and a disordered phase. The ordered phase was the gauge field belonging to the U(1) subgroup (the diagonal, Abelian component of the SU(2) gauge field) and the disordered phase was the coset SU(2)/SU(1) (the off-diagonal components of the SU(2) gauge field). The disordered phase played a role similar to the complex scalar field of the GL equation. In dzhsin02a  we simply set this scalar field to a constant vacuum expectation value i.e. we froze the equations of the SU(2)/U(1) fields making them nondynamical degrees of freedom. In this way we obtained London’s equation. In the present work we want to “unfreeze” the equations connected with the SU(2)/U(1) part, and show that it is possible to obtain a GL-like equation. This helps strengthen the dual superconductor picture of the confining Yang-Mills vacuum. As a reminder the Lagrangian density of Ginzburg-Landau is

$$=\frac{1}{4}f_{\mu \nu }f^{\mu \nu }+\left(D_\mu \phi ^{}\right)\left(D^\mu \phi \right)m^2\left|\phi \right|^2\lambda \left|\phi \right|^4$$
(1)
where $`\phi `$ is a complex scalar field, $`f_{\mu \nu }=_\mu a_\nu _\nu a_\mu `$, is the field strength tensor of the Abelian field, $`a_\mu `$, and $`D_\mu =_\mu iea_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative.

For the dual superconducting picture it is important that the potential for the scalar field in (1) be of the spontaneous symmetry breaking form, and have Nielsen-Olesen flux tube solutions no . This means that the mass term in (1) should be tachyonic (i.e. $`m^2<0`$). In this work the tachyonic mass term is generated via the condensation of ghosts as in ref. dudal  (see also ref. lemes ).

## II Ordered and disordered phases

In this section we review the Abelian projection decomposition of the SU(2) gauge field kondo  and necessary results from dzhsin02a . The SU(2) gauge fields $`𝒜_\mu =𝒜_\mu ^BT^B`$ and $`_{\mu \nu }^B`$ can be decomposed as

$`𝒜_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`𝒜_\mu ^BT^B=a_\mu T^a+A_\mu ^mT^m,`$ (2)
$`a_\mu `$ $``$ $`U(1)\text{and}A_\mu ^mSU(2)/U(1)`$ (3)
$`_{\mu \nu }^BT^B`$ $`=`$ $`_{\mu \nu }^3T^3+_{\mu \nu }^mT^m`$ (4)
where

$`_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu }U(1),`$ (5)
$`f_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu a_\nu _\nu a_\mu U(1),`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`gϵ^{3mn}A_\mu ^mA_\nu ^nU(1),`$ (7)
$`_{\mu \nu }^m`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\mu \nu }^m+G_{\mu \nu }^mSU(2)/U(1),`$ (8)
$`F_{\mu \nu }^m`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu A_\nu ^m_\nu A_\mu ^mSU(2)/U(1),`$ (9)
$`G_{\mu \nu }^m`$ $`=`$ $`gϵ^{3mn}\left(A_\mu ^na_\nu A_\nu ^na_\mu \right)SU(2)/U(1)`$ (10)
where $`ϵ^{ABC}`$ are the structural constants of SU(2), $`g`$ is the coupling constant, $`a=3`$ is the index of the Abelian subgroup, and $`m,n=1,2`$ are the indices of the coset. After obtaining the classical field equations in terms of this decomposition we applied a quantization technique of Heisenberg heisenberg  where the classical fields were replaced by operators ($`a_\mu \widehat{a}_\mu `$ and $`A_\mu ^m\widehat{A}_\mu ^m`$). The differential equations for the field operators are

$`_\nu \left(\widehat{f}^{\mu \nu }+\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{\mu \nu }\right)`$ $`=`$ $`gϵ^{3mn}\widehat{A}_\nu ^m\left(\widehat{F}^{n\mu \nu }+\widehat{G}^{n\mu \nu }\right),`$ (11)
$`D_\nu \left(\widehat{F}^{m\mu \nu }+\widehat{G}^{m\mu \nu }\right)`$ $`=`$ $`gϵ^{3mn}\left[\widehat{A}_\nu ^n\left(\widehat{f}^{\mu \nu }+\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{\mu \nu }\right)\widehat{a}_\nu \left(\widehat{F}^{n\mu \nu }+\widehat{G}^{n\mu \nu }\right)\right]`$ (12)
(We note that in ref. simonov  similar ideas were presented to obtain a set of self coupled equations for the field correlators). Equations (11) (12) can be used to determine the physically measurable expectation values for any field operators such as $`Q|\mathrm{}\widehat{a}_\mu (x)\mathrm{}\widehat{A}_\nu ^m(y)|Q`$, where $`|Q`$ is some quantum state. As an example, if we average equations (11) (12) we obtain equations for $`\widehat{A}_\nu ^m`$ and $`\widehat{a}_\nu `$. The problem is that the resulting differential equations for these expectation values contain additional terms like $`𝒢_{\mu \nu }^{mn}=A_\mu ^mA_\nu ^n`$ so the system is not closed. Going back to equations (11) (12) and differentiating one can obtain an operator equation for the product $`\widehat{A}_\mu ^m\widehat{A}_\nu ^n`$, which then contains new additional terms. Continuing in this way one obtains an infinite set of coupled, differential equations for the various expectation values of field operators of ever increasing powers. This process can be paralleled with the standard Feynman diagram procedure where one has an infinite set of loop diagrams that one must (in principle) calculate. This infinite system of coupled differential equations does not have an exact, analytical solution, so one must use some approximation.

In dzhsin02a  we used several assumptions that led to a simplification of this system of differential equations. The two main assumptions were

1. After quantization the components $`\widehat{A}_\mu ^m(x)`$ become stochastic. In mathematical terms this assumption means

$$A_\mu ^m(x)=0\text{and}A_\mu ^m(x)A_\nu ^n(x)0$$
(13)
Later we will give a specific form for the nonzero term.
2. The gauge potentials $`a_\mu `$ and $`A_\mu ^m`$ are not correlated, and $`a_\mu `$ behaves in a classical manner. Mathematically this means that

$$f(a_\mu )g(A_\nu ^m)=f(a_\mu )g(A_\mu ^m)=f(a_\mu )g(A_\mu ^m)$$
(14)
where $`f,g`$ are any functions of $`a_\mu `$ and $`A_\mu ^m`$ respectively. The classical behavior of $`a_\mu `$ results in $`f(a_\mu )f(a_\mu )`$.

One way in which the present work will deviate from the procedure of ref. dzhsin02a  is that rather than working in terms of the equations of motion of the SU(2) gauge theory, we will focus on the Lagrange density.

## III Ginzburg - Landau Lagrangian

We now want to show that an effective, complex, Higgs-like, scalar field can be obtained from the SU(2)/U(1) coset part of the SU(2) gauge theory. The self interaction of this effective scalar field is a consequence of nonlinear terms in the original Yang-Mills Lagrangian. The mass term for the scalar field is generated via the condensation of ghosts fields as discussed in the following section.

Making a connection between scalar and gauge fields is not a new idea. In ref. corr  it was shown that by setting a non-Abelian gauge field to some combination of a scalar field and its derivatives it was possible to obtain massless $`\lambda \phi ^4`$ theory. One could obtain a massive $`\lambda \phi ^4`$ theory by starting with Yang-Mills theory with a mass term inserted by hand actor . The final scalar field Lagrangian that we will arrive at is also a massless $`\lambda \phi ^4`$ theory with the addition of a coupling to a U(1) gauge field. This is (except for the U(1) gauge field coupling) similar to the result of corr . In the present paper we exchange the two gauge field of the SU(2)/U(1) coset with a complex scalar field, whereas in Refs. corr  actor  one gauge field is exchanged for a real scalar field. We begin by taking the expectation of the SU(2) Lagrangian (the gauge fixing and Faddeev-Popov terms are dealt with in the next section)

$$\frac{1}{4}Q\left|_{\mu \nu }^𝒜^{𝒜\mu \nu }\right|Q=\frac{1}{4}_{\mu \nu }^𝒜^{𝒜\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4}_{\mu \nu }^3_{\mu \nu }^3+_{\mu \nu }^m_{\mu \nu }^m$$
(15)
This contains many terms which we will now consider in order. First we consider the term

$$_{\mu \nu }^3_{𝒜\mu \nu }^3=\left(f_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu }\right)\left(f^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mu \nu }\right)$$
(16)
where the field $`f_{\mu \nu }`$ is in the ordered phase and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu }`$ is in the disordered phase. From the second assumption of the previous section $`a_\mu `$ and $`f_{\mu \nu }=_\mu a_\nu _\nu a_\mu `$, behave as classical fields so that

$`f_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mu \nu }`$ (17)
$`f_{\mu \nu }f^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\mu \nu }f^{\mu \nu }`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`gϵ^{3mn}A_\mu ^mA_\nu ^n`$ (19)
For the expectation of $`A_\mu ^m(y)A_\nu ^n(x)`$ we take the form

$$A_\mu ^m(y)A_\nu ^n(x)=\delta ^{mn}\eta _{\mu \nu }𝒢(y,x)$$
(20)
$`𝒢(y,x)`$ is an arbitrary function. This is a general form consistent with the color and Lorentz indices of the left hand side. One might think to add a term with an index structure like $`\eta _{\mu \nu }ϵ^{3mn}`$. However, this is antisymmetric under exchange of $`A_\mu ^m(y)A_\nu ^n(x)`$ (i.e. exchanging both Lorentz and group indices) which is not consistent with the bosonic statistics of the gauge fields. The quantity in (20) is a mass dimension 2 condensate. The role of such gauge non-invariant quantites in the Yang-Mills vacuum has been discussed by several authors kondo1  gubarev .

From (20) we find

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu }=0$$
(21)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mu \nu }=2A_\mu ^1A_\nu ^2A^{1\mu }A^{2\nu }2A_\mu ^2A_\nu ^1A^{1\mu }A^{2\nu }.$$
(22)
We now assume that

$$A_\mu ^m(x_1)A_\nu ^n(x_2)A^{p\mu }(x_3)A^{q\nu }(x_4)A_\mu ^m(x_1)A^{p\mu }(x_3)A_\nu ^n(x_2)A^{q\nu }(x_4)$$
(23)
which gives

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu }(x)\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mu \nu }(x)32g^2𝒢^2(x,x)$$
(24)
The next term is

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill _{\mu \nu }^m(y)^{m\mu \nu }(x)|_{y=x}=\left(\left[_{\mu y}A_\nu ^m(y)ga_\mu (y)ϵ^{3mn}A_\nu ^n(y)\right]\left[_{\nu y}A_\mu ^m(y)ga_\nu (y)ϵ^{3mn}A_\mu ^n(y)\right]\right)\\ \hfill \left(\left[_x^\mu A^{m\nu }(x)ga^\mu (x)ϵ^{3mp}A^{p\nu }(x)\right]\left[_x^\nu A^{m\mu }(x)ga^\nu (x)ϵ^{3mp}A^{p\mu }(x)\right]\right)|_{y=x}.\end{array}$$
(25)
We begin by expanding the first term of $`_{\mu \nu }^m(y)`$ in square brackets against the first term of $`^{m\mu \nu }(x)`$. This has four terms the first of which is

$$_{\mu y}A_\nu ^m(y)_x^\mu A^{m\nu }(x)|_{y=x}=_{\mu y}_x^\mu A_\nu ^m(y)A^{m\nu }(x)|_{y=x}=_{\mu y}_x^\mu \delta ^{mm}\eta _\nu ^\nu 𝒢(y,x)|_{y=x}=8_{\mu y}_x^\mu 𝒢(y,x)|_{y=x}$$
(26)
The next two terms are

$`g^2ϵ^{3mn}ϵ^{3mp}a_\mu (x)a^\mu (x)A_\nu ^n(x)A^{p\nu }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`8g^2a_\mu a^\mu (x)𝒢(x,x)`$ (27)
$`\left[_{\mu y}A_\nu ^m(y)\right]\left[gϵ^{3mn}a^\mu (x)A^{n\nu }(x)\right]|_{y=x}`$ $`=`$ $`gϵ^{3mn}a^\mu (x)\left[_{\mu y}A_\nu ^m(y)\right]A^{n\nu }(x)|_{y=x}`$ (28)
We want to consider this last term more closely. From eqs. (20), (26) and (27) it can be seen that there are quantum correlations only between fields with the same color ($`\delta ^{mn}`$) and coordinate ($`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$) indices. In the absence of some principle which forbids it, one would in general expect that there should physically be some interaction between gauge fields of different colors. In eq. (20) we excluded terms proportional to $`\eta _{\mu \nu }ϵ^{3mn}`$ because of the Bose symmetry of the gauge fields. In the present expression the gauge fields do not appear symmetrically (one is acted on by a derivative operator) so such a term can be included. Thus we take the expectation of (28) to have the general form

$$\left[_{\mu y}A_\alpha ^m(y)\right]A_\beta ^n=\delta ^{mn}\eta _{\alpha \beta }_{\mu y}𝒢(y,x)iϵ^{3mn}\eta _{\alpha \beta }_{\mu y}𝒫(y,x).$$
(29)
where $`𝒫(y,x)`$ is some general function. This new term will mix gauge bosons of different colors. Using this form eq. (28) becomes

$$\left[_{\mu y}A_\nu ^m(y)\right]\left[gϵ^{3mn}a^\mu (x)A^{n\nu }(x)\right]|_{y=x}=8iga^\mu (x)_{\mu y}𝒫(y,x)|_{y=x}.$$
(30)
Making the same assumption for the other cross term

$$A_\alpha ^n(y)\left[_{\mu x}A_\beta ^m(x)\right]=\delta ^{nm}\eta _{\alpha \beta }_{\mu x}𝒢(y,x)iϵ^{3nm}\eta _{\alpha \beta }_{\mu x}𝒫^{}(y,x).$$
(31)
yields

$$A_\nu ^n(y)\left[gϵ^{3mn}a_\mu (x)_x^\mu A^{m\nu }(x)\right]=8iga^\mu (x)_{\mu x}𝒫^{}(y,x)|_{y=x}$$
(32)
Next we expand the first term of $`_{\mu \nu }^m(y)`$ in square brackets against the second term of $`^{m\mu \nu }(x)`$. This also has four terms which are

$`\left[_{\mu y}A_\nu ^m(y)\right]\left[_x^\nu A^{m\mu }(x)\right]|_{y=x}`$ $`=`$ $`2_{\mu y}_x^\mu 𝒢(y,x)|_{y=x},`$ (33)
$`\left[_{\mu y}A_\nu ^m(y)\right]\left[ga^\nu (x)ϵ^{3mp}A^{p\mu }(x)\right]|_{y=x}`$ $`=`$ $`2iga^\nu (x)_{\nu y}𝒫(y,x)|_{y=x},`$ (34)
$`\left[ga_\mu (y)ϵ^{3mn}A_\nu ^n(y)\right]\left[_x^\nu A^{m\mu }(x)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`2iga^\mu (x)_{\mu x}𝒫^{}(y,x)|_{y=x},`$ (35)
$`\left[ga^\mu (y)ϵ^{3mn}A_\nu ^n(y)\right]\left[ga^\nu (x)ϵ^{3mp}A^{p\mu }(x)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`2g^2a_\mu (x)a^\mu (x)𝒢(x,x).`$ (36)
Finally we need to expand the second term of $`_{\mu \nu }^m(y)`$ against the second term of $`^{m\mu \nu }(x)`$, and also the second term of $`_{\mu \nu }^m(y)`$ against the first term of $`^{m\mu \nu }(x)`$. These yield, respectively, the same results as eqs. (26), (27), (30), and (32), and eqs. (33)-(36) . Collecting all these terms together gives

$$_{\mu \nu }^m^{m\mu \nu }=20\left[_{\mu y}_x^\mu 𝒢(y,x)+g^2a_\mu (x)a^\mu (x)𝒢(x,x)iga^\mu (x)_{\mu x}𝒫^{}(y,x)+iga^\mu (x)_{\mu x}𝒫(y,x)\right]|_{y=x}$$
(37)
We now make the approximation that both functions, $`𝒢(y,x)`$ and $`𝒫(y,x)`$, can be rewritten in terms of a single complex scalar function as

$$𝒢(y,x)=𝒫(y,x)=\frac{1}{5}\phi ^{}(y)\phi (x)$$
(38)
Setting both $`𝒢(y,x)`$ and $`𝒫(y,x)`$ equal to the same product of a complex scalar field is called the one function approximation or ansatz. The factor of $`1/5`$ is to ensure that the kinetic term of this scalar field will have a factor of $`1`$ in front of it. Taking eqs. (20), (29), (38) together, we want to note the similarity between this ansatz for the gauge fields, and the ansatz used in ref. corr . Both have similar forms for the indexed terms, and both involve some form of scalar field and its derivatives. This complex function, $`\phi `$, will act as the effective scalar field. In ref. dzhsin02a  we set $`\phi ^{}\phi =const.`$, making the degrees of freedom connected with the SU(2)/U(1) coset space nondynamical. (Note that in ref. dzhsin02a  we used a single scalar field. The scalar field of ref. dzhsin02a  is proportional to $`\phi ^{}(x)\phi (x)`$ in the present paper). By letting $`\phi `$ be a function of the coordinates we make these dynamical degrees of freedom. Using (38) in (37) we find

$$_{\mu \nu }^m^{m\mu \nu }=4\left[\left(^\mu \phi ^{}\right)\left(_\mu \phi \right)+g^2a_\mu ^2\phi ^{}\phi iga^\mu \left(_\mu \phi ^{}\right)\phi +iga^\mu \phi ^{}\left(^\mu \phi \right)\right]=4\left|_\mu \phi iga_\mu \phi \right|^2.$$
(39)
Thus the total Lagrangian density is

$$=\frac{1}{4}_{}^{𝒜}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}^{𝒜\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4}f_{\mu \nu }f^{\mu \nu }+\left(D_\mu \phi ^{}\right)\left(D^\mu \phi \right)\frac{8g^2}{25}\left|\phi \right|^4$$
(40)
where $`D_\mu =_\mu iga_\mu `$. This is the GL Lagrangian, with a massless, effective scalar field. This scalar field is connected with the off diagonal gauge fields by (20) (38). This lack of a mass term is a shortcoming for the effective Lagrangian of (40). Without it there is no spontaneous symmetry breaking and no Nielsen-Olesen flux tube solutions, both which are critical to make the connection to the dual superconducting picture of the QCD vacuum. In the next section we show how a condensation of ghosts fields can lead to a mass term for the effective scalar field $`\phi `$. This mass term is of the correct form (i.e. tachyonic) to give rise to spontaneous symmetry breaking and Nielsen-Olesen flux tube solutions.

## IV Tachyonic mass term via ghost condensation

In ref. dudal  (see also lemes ) it was shown that a tachyonic mass term is generated for the off-diagonal gauge fields of a pure SU(2) Yang-Mills via a condensation of ghost and anti-ghost fields. This result was taken to be somewhat of a problem since this would apparently give the off diagonal gluons a tachyonic mass. In the present work having a tachyonic mass for our effective scalar field (which is related to the off diagonal gauge fields via (20) (38)) is a desired result. We sketch the parts of ref. dudal  relevant to the present work. To take care of gauge fixing and integration over gauge equivalent field configurations one must add a gauge fixing ($`_{GF}`$) and Faddeev-Popov part ($`_{FP}`$) to the Yang-Mills Lagrangian in (40)

$$_{GF}+_{FP}=i\delta _B\overline{\delta }_B\left(\frac{1}{2}A_\mu ^mA^{\mu m}\frac{\alpha }{2}iC^m\overline{C}^m\right)$$
(41)
where $`\alpha `$ is a gauge parameter, $`C^m`$ and $`\overline{C}^m`$ are the off diagonal ghost and anti-ghost field, and $`\delta _B`$ and $`\overline{\delta }_B`$ are the BRST and anti-BRST transformations. These gauge fixing and Faddeev-Popov Lagrangians can be transformed into

$$_{GF}+_{FP}=\frac{1}{2\alpha }(D_\mu ^{mn}A^{\mu n})^2+i\overline{C}^mD_\mu ^{mp}D^{\mu pn}C^nig^2ϵ^{mq}ϵ^{pn}\overline{C}^mC^nA^{\mu p}A_\mu ^q+\frac{\alpha }{4}g^2ϵ^{mn}ϵ^{pq}\overline{C}^m\overline{C}^nC^pC^q$$
(42)
where $`ϵ^{mn}`$ is the antisymmetric symbol for the off-diagonal indices ($`ϵ^{12}=ϵ^{21}=1`$ and $`ϵ^{11}=ϵ^{22}=0`$), and $`D_\mu ^{mn}=_\mu \delta ^{mn}gϵ^{mn}a_\mu `$.

Next, the last term in (42) is a four ghost interaction term which can be replaced by dudal  lemes

$$\frac{\alpha }{4}g^2ϵ^{mn}ϵ^{pq}\overline{C}^m\overline{C}^nC^pC^q\frac{1}{2\alpha g^2}\psi ^2i\psi ϵ^{mn}\overline{C}^mC^n$$
(43)
with $`\psi `$ being an auxiliary field. Extracting the ghost kinetic energy term from the second term in (42) and adding it to (43) one arrives at a subset of the Lagrangian involving only the ghost and auxiliary field

$$_{ghost}=i\overline{C}^m_\mu ^\mu C^m\frac{1}{2\alpha g^2}\psi ^2i\psi ϵ^{mn}\overline{C}^mC^n$$
(44)
The Coleman-Weinberg mechnaism coleman  can be applied to $`_{ghost}`$ leading to a spontaneous symmetry breaking potential for $`\psi `$ of the form

$$V_{eff}(\psi )=\frac{\psi ^2}{2\alpha \overline{g}^2}+\frac{\psi ^2}{32\pi ^2}\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\psi ^2}{\overline{\mu }^4}3\right)$$
(45)
This potential has a non-zero minimum at $`\psi =\pm v=\pm \overline{\mu }^2\mathrm{exp}\left(1\frac{8\pi }{\alpha \overline{g}^2\overline{\mu }^2}\right)`$ (the bars over the quantities indicate that the $`\overline{MS}`$ dimensional regularization scheme is being employed). Investigating the ghost propagator in this non-zero vacuum it is found dudal  that a ghost condensation occurs

$$i\overline{C}^mC^m=\frac{v}{16\pi }<0$$
(46)
since $`v>0`$. The third term in the Lagrangian in (42) now becomes

$$ig^2ϵ^{mq}ϵ^{pn}\overline{C}^mC^nA^{\mu p}A_\mu ^q\frac{1}{2}g^2i\overline{C}^mC^mA_\mu ^nA^{\mu n}=\frac{1}{2}g^2\left(\frac{v}{16\pi }\right)\left(8𝒢\right)=\frac{vg^2}{20\pi }\phi ^{}\phi $$
(47)
where (20) and (38) have been used. Putting this term together with the quartic term from the effective GL Lagrangian in (40) we find that $`\phi `$ has developed an effective potential of the form

$$V_\phi =\frac{vg^2}{20\pi }|\phi |^2+\frac{8g^2}{25}|\phi |^4$$
(48)
A tachyonic mass term ($`m^2=(vg^2)/(20\pi )<0`$) has been generated for the effective scalar field, $`\phi `$, with the consequence that spontaneous symmetry breaking occurs. We have arrived at an effective massive GL-Lagrangian with the tachyonic mass term for the $`\phi `$ field being generated by ghost condensation. This effective GL-Lagrangian will also have Nielsen-Olesen flux tube solutions.

With this tachyonic mass term for $`\phi `$ spontaneous symmetry breaking occurs and the $`U(1)`$ field, $`a^\mu `$, will develop a mass of $`\sqrt{(5g^2v)/(32\pi )}`$. It might be thought that the ghost condensate would also contribute some to the mass for $`a^\mu `$, since the second term in the gauge fixing and Faddeev-Popov Lagrangian of (42) contains a term proportional to $`i\overline{C}^aC^aa_\mu a^\mu `$. However, in dudal  it was argued that this term is canceled by 1-loop contributions coming from other terms in (40) which are proportional to $`ϵ^{mn}\left(_\mu \overline{C}^m\right)C^na^\mu `$ and $`ϵ^{mn}\overline{C}^m\left(_\mu C^n\right)C^na^\mu `$. Thus the mass of $`a^\mu `$ is generated purely from the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the effective GL Lagrangian (40).

## V Conclusions

In this paper we have combined several ideas (Abelian projection, quantization methods originally proposed by Heisenberg, and some assumptions about the forms of various expectation values of the gauge fields) to show that one can construct an effective scalar field within a pure SU(2) gauge field theory. The system of effective scalar field plus the remaining Abelian field is essentially scalar electrodynamics or the relativisitic version of the GL Lagrangian. There is also a connection between the present work and Cho’s cho  “magnetic symmetry” study of the dual Meissner effect within Yang-Mills theory. In Refs. cho  a Lagrangian similar to our eq. (40) is obtained, with the complex scalar field being associated with a monopole coupled to a U(1) dual magnetic gauge boson. This may offer one possible physical interpretation of our scalar field of eq. (38): it may represent some effective monopole-like field which results from the SU(2)/U(1) coset fields. This is in accord with lattice QCD simulations which indicate that monopole condensation plays a role in color confinement kron .

The effective mass term for the Lagrangian in (38) comes from a condensation of ghost fields. This condensation is of the correct character (i.e. tachyonic) to give spontaneous symmetry breaking and the existence of Nielsen-Olesen flux tube solutions no . Both of these are thought to be important features in explaining confinement via the dual superconducting model of the QCD vacuum. The apparently problematic result (i.e. the tachyonic ghost condensate and resulting tachyonic nature for the off diagonal gauge field masses) of refs. dudal  lemes  is actually a desired result in the present work.In our model a tachyonic mass term is neccessary for the effective field, $`\phi `$ in order to have a GL-like Lagrangian that exhibits both spontaneous symmetry breaking and Nielsen-Olesen flux tube solutions. Note that $`\phi `$ is related to the condensate of the off-diagonal gauge fields via (20) and (38).

The essential physics here is that one has disordered fields (the gauge fields of the SU(2)/U(1) coset space or equivalently the effective, complex, scalar field) which “pushes out” (i.e. exhibits the Meissner effect) the ordered field (the Abelian, U(1) field) except in the interior of the flux tubes. This is a continuation of ref. dzhsin02a  which supports the dual superconducting picture of the Yang-Mills vacuum for a pure gauge field. The scalar field comes from some subset of the gauge fields rather than being put in by hand. An interesting and open question is if the procedure in this paper can be applied to the SU(3) gauge theory of the strong interaction. In ref. par  the SU(3) Lagrangian with quarks was studied, and using a procedure similar to the one in the present paper, it was found that the dual Meissner effect did occur.

The main assumptions used to arrive at the effective GL-like Lagrangian from a pure non-Abelian gauge theory are enumerated as follows

* SU(2) quantized gauge fields can be separated on two components : ordered (Abelian) and disordered (coset) phases;
* ordered and disordered fields are correlated according to eq. (14);
* Green’s functions for the disordered phase can be expressed via one function approximation as in eq. (38);

In concluding we would like to make the following remark: In this paper we have shown that in non-linear quantum systems one can have well-ordered objects (Nielsen - Olesen flux tube in our case). This can be compared with classical self-organizing systems like Benard cells ben , or Belousov-Zhabotinsky jab  reactions (and references therein). The most important difference is that in the classical case the self-organization arises from some external flux of energy, but in our quantum case the self-organization arises from inside the non-linear, quantum system without the need for any external sources.

## VI Acknowledgment

VD is grateful Prof. H. Kleinert for invitation for the research and discussion, Prof. V. Gurovich for the discussion, DAAD for the financial support and Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for the support of this work.


format: text

text:
# An explanation for the curious mass loss history of massive stars: from OB stars, through Luminous Blue Variables to Wolf-Rayet stars

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we present an explanation for the drastic changes in mass loss rate and wind velocity during the evolution of massive stars.

The stellar winds of massive stars show a large variation in mass-loss rates and terminal velocities during their evolution from O-star through the Luminous Blue Variable (LBV) phase to the Wolf-Rayet (WR) phase. O-stars have a relatively small mass-loss rate ($`\dot{M}10^6`$ to $`10^5`$ $`M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$) but high wind velocity ($`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ few $`10^3`$ km s-1), LBVs have a high mass-loss rate (few $`10^5`$ $`M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$) but a small wind velocity (few $`10^2`$ km s-1) and WR-stars have a high mass-loss rate (few $`10^5`$ $`M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$) and a high wind velocity (few $`10^3`$ km s-1). The luminosity remains approximately unchanged during these phases. The question is: what causes these changes in mass-loss rate and in wind velocity?

The mass-loss rates of OB-stars and LBVs during their quiescent phase have been explained in terms of radiation driven winds, where the driving is done by multitudes of spectral lines (Castor et al. cak75 (1975), Pauldrach et al. ppk86 (1986), Vink et al. vink00 (2000)). Line driven winds are optically thin in their continuum. Nugis & Lamers (nl02 (2002), hereafter NL) have shown that the mass-loss rates of Wolf-Rayet stars can in principle be explained by optically thick radiation driven winds. In this paper we explain the large changes in $`\dot{M}`$ and $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ in terms of transitions between four types of radiation driven wind models, due to changes mainly in the stellar parameters and to a smaller extent also in the surface abundance during the stellar evolution. We discuss the properties of two types of optically thin and two types of optically thick radiation driven wind models, which we then apply to nine characteristic massive stars with increasing evolution stages.

## 2 Evolutionary changes of the stellar parameters of massive stars

The evolution of stars initially more massive than about 50 $`M_{}`$ proceeds as follows (e.g. Maeder & Meynet maed87 (1987)). After the main sequence phase the star expands and becomes a blue supergiant with a radius of about $`10^2`$ $`R_{}`$ and with an enhanced He and N surface abundance. For a reason that is poorly understood the star becomes an unstable LBV with multiple outbursts (Humphreys & Davidson hd94 (1994); Leitherer leit97 (1997)). Even during quiesence the mass-loss rates of LBVs are significantly higher than during the main sequence phase but the wind velocity is much lower. After the LBV-phase the star contracts and becomes a WR star with a N-rich (WN-type) and later a C,O-rich (WC-type) surface. The hydrostatic radius of the star is only a few $`R_{}`$, but the high mass-loss rate produces an optically thick wind with a sonic point radii of about 15 to 30 $`R_{}`$ for hydrogen-rich WNL-phase and about 1.5 to 10 $`R_{}`$ for the H-poor WNE/WC phase (see NL). Very massive stars ($`M>60M_{}`$) may skip the LBV phase (Bohannan & Crowther 1999).

We adopt nine typical massive stars of about the same luminosity and initial mass to characterize the changes in the stellar and wind parameters during the evolution of a massive star. They represent different evolutionary phases. The stars are listed in Table 1 in order of increasing evolutionary stage: one Of-star ($`\zeta `$ Pup), one LBV (P Cyg), three stars with spectra in between those of Of and late-WN (HD151804, HD 152408, HD152386), three WN-stars (WR 105, WR 136 and WR 139) and one WC-star (WR 111). Notice the large changes in $`\dot{M}`$ and $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ and the general increase of the atmospheric He/H-ratio and of the momentum transfer efficiency, $`\eta =\dot{M}v_{\mathrm{}}/(L/c)`$, with evolution stage. The radii of the four genuine WN and WC-stars in this table are the radii of the sonic point, derived by NL, and the value of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is at that radius.

## 3 Radiation driven wind models

### 3.1 Optically thin line driven winds

For line driven wind models, which are optically thin in the continuum, the predicted terminal velocity $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ is

$$v_{\mathrm{}}C_{\mathrm{fd}}\sqrt{\alpha /(1\alpha )}v_{\mathrm{esc}}$$
(1)
(Castor et al. cak75 (1975); Kudritzki et al. kud89 (1989)), where $`\alpha `$ is a force multiplier parameter with $`\alpha 0.5`$ to 0.7 for hot massive stars of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}>8000`$ K and $`v_{\mathrm{esc}}`$ is the effective escape velocity, i.e. corrected for radiation pressure by electron scattering. Lamers et al. (lam95 (1995)) have shown that $`C_{\mathrm{fd}}\sqrt{\alpha /(1\alpha )}2.7`$ if $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}>\mathrm{21\; 000}`$ K and 1.3 if $`\mathrm{10\; 000}<T_{\mathrm{eff}}<\mathrm{21\; 000}`$ K. Observations and theory both show that the mass-loss rate of a line driven wind increases by about a factor 5 and the terminal velocity decreases by about a factor two when the effective temperature of the star drops below about 21 000 K (Lamers et al. lam95 (1995); Vink et al. vink99 (1999)). This is the bi-stability jump, which is due to the change in ionization in the lower wind layers near the sonic point (Vink et al. vink99 (1999)). Detailed calculations of line driven wind models with multiple scattering by Vink et al. (vink01 (2001)) have shown that the mass-loss rate of galactic OB-stars in $`M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ is

$`\mathrm{log}\dot{M}=6.86+2.194\mathrm{log}(L/10^5)1.313\mathrm{log}(M/30)`$
$`+0.933\mathrm{log}(T_{\mathrm{eff}}/\mathrm{40\hspace{0.17em}000})10.92\{\mathrm{log}(T_{\mathrm{eff}}/\mathrm{40\hspace{0.17em}000})\}^2`$ (2)
on the “hot side” of the jump, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}\mathrm{21\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ K, and

$`\mathrm{log}\dot{M}`$ $`=`$ $`6.39+2.210\mathrm{log}(L/10^5)1.339\mathrm{log}(M/30)`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`1.07\mathrm{log}(T_{\mathrm{eff}}/\mathrm{20\hspace{0.17em}000})`$
on the “cool side” of the jump, $`\mathrm{10\hspace{0.17em}000}T_{\mathrm{eff}}\mathrm{21\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ K, with $`M`$ and $`L`$ in solar units. We will use Eqs. 1, 3.1 and 3 to predict $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\dot{M}`$ for line driven winds.

### 3.2 Optically thick radiation driven winds

NL have shown that in optically thick radiation driven winds the opacity has to increase outwards at the sonic point. They showed that

$$\dot{M}C\frac{T_\mathrm{s}^4R_\mathrm{s}^3v_\mathrm{s}}{M}=4.66\times 10^{29}\frac{T_\mathrm{s}^{4.5}R_\mathrm{s}^3}{M}\sqrt{\frac{(1+\gamma )}{\mu }}$$
(4)
in $`M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$, where $`R_\mathrm{s}`$ (in $`R_{}`$) and $`T_\mathrm{s}`$ (in K) are the radius and temperature at the sonic point, $`M`$ is in $`M_{}`$, $`v_\mathrm{s}`$ is the isothermal sound speed, $`\gamma `$ is the mean number of free electrons per atom and $`\mu `$ is the mean atomic weight in atomic mass units. We see that $`\dot{M}`$ of an optically thick radiation driven wind is proportional to $`T_\mathrm{s}^{4.5}`$. At first sight this might suggest that an arbitrary high mass-loss rate can be reached by moving the sonic point deeper into the star where the optical depth and the temperature are higher. However, this is not the case, because the transition from subsonic to supersonic velocity at the sonic point sets requirements for the opacity and its gradient. The opacity and its gradient at the sonic point are (see NL)

$$\chi _\mathrm{s}\frac{4\pi cGM}{L},$$
(5)
$$\left(\frac{d\chi }{dr}\right)_\mathrm{s}\chi _\mathrm{s}\frac{3v_\mathrm{s}^2}{GM}=\chi _\mathrm{s}\frac{3a_1T_\mathrm{s}}{GM}=\frac{12\pi ca_1T_\mathrm{s}}{L}>0,$$
(6)
where $`a_1=k(\gamma +1)/(\mu m_\mathrm{u})`$. Eqs. 5 and 6 imply that the transonic transition can only occur in the layers where the opacity increases outwards and where it reaches a value set by the luminosity and mass of the star (Eq. 5). ¿From the OPAL-opacity tables (Iglesias & Rogers ir96 (1996)) we find that this occurs only in limited temperature regimes where $`\chi (T)`$ shows a bump. These regimes are in the ranges of $`\mathrm{156\hspace{0.17em}000}T_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{162\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ K, and $`\mathrm{37\hspace{0.17em}000}T_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{71\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ K, where respectively a large and a small Fe-opacity peak occur (see NL). We will use Eq. 4 to predict $`\dot{M}`$ for optically thick winds. For $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ we adopt the scaling predicted by the models. We derived from WR models of NL that

$$v_{\mathrm{}}(2\pm 0.5)v_{\mathrm{esc}}^\mathrm{s}$$
(7)
with $`v_{\mathrm{esc}}^\mathrm{s}`$ at the sonic point. We will use this scaling law to estimate $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ for optically thick radiation driven winds. Notice that $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ increases with decreasing sonic radius.

### 3.3 Four types of wind models

The description above has shown that radiation driven winds from hot stars come in four types:
(1) line driven winds which are optically thin in the continuum for stars with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}\mathrm{21\; 000}`$ K, i.e. on the hot side of the bi-stability jump: “line hot” models. For these winds we adopt Eqs. 1 and 3.1.
(2) line driven winds for stars with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}\mathrm{21\; 000}`$ K, i.e. on the cool side of the bi-stability jump: “line cool” models. We adopt the Eqs. 1 and 3 for these models.
(3) “thick cool” continuum driven winds, with the sonic point in the temperature range of $`\mathrm{38\; 000}<T_\mathrm{s}<\mathrm{71\; 000}`$ K, where the small opacity bump occurs (see NL). For these stars we adopt Eqs. 4 and 7 with $`T_\mathrm{s}=\mathrm{40\; 000}`$ and 70 000 K.
(4) “thick hot” continuum driven winds. For these stars we adopt Eqs. 4 and 7 with $`T_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{160\; 000}`$ K.

## 4 Predicted radiation driven mass-loss rates and velocities

We apply the predictions of the radiation driven wind models to the nine stars. The resulting values of $`\dot{M}`$ and $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ are listed in Table 2 for four models: “line cool” or “line hot”, “thick cool” with $`T_\mathrm{s}=\mathrm{40\; 000}`$ and $`\mathrm{70\; 000}`$ K, and “thick hot” with $`T_\mathrm{s}=\mathrm{160\; 000}`$ K. For the line driven wind model of P Cyg we adopt the predictions for the cool side of the bi-stability jump (“line cool”) whereas for the other stars we adopt the “line hot” models.

Comparing the predicted values of $`\dot{M}`$ and $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ of the four models with the observed values, we can determine which model fits best. In this comparison we have given more weight to the mass-loss rate than to the terminal velocity, because the predicted $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ of the line driven models depends on the mass of the star, which is not well known, and $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ of the optically thick winds is not well predicted by NL models. For the star $`\zeta `$ Pup the models “line hot” and “thick cool” with $`T_\mathrm{s}=40`$ kK predict almost the same mass-loss rates. We adopt the “line hot” model, because this star is considered to be the prototype of a line driven wind (e.g. Pauldrach et al. paul94 (1994)). In the case of the O8 Iaf star HD 151804 $`\dot{M}`$ is in between the predicted values of the “line hot” and “thick cool” (40 kK) models. The observed value of $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ agrees better with the “line hot” model. The wind of this star may be of intermediate type. For the other stars the choice of the best fitting model is quite obvious (last column of Table 2). Notice that for the “thick cool” models the observed values of $`\dot{M}`$ agree better with those predicted for $`T_\mathrm{s}40`$ kK than for $`T_\mathrm{s}70`$ kK.

## 5 Discussion and conclusions

¿From the comparison between the predicted and the observed values of $`\dot{M}`$ and $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$, we can explain the changes in mass-loss rate and wind velocities during the evolution of massive stars in terms of the four wind models.

1. O-stars on the main sequence and shortly thereafter have winds driven by lines on the hot side of the bi-stability jump.
2. The winds of LBVs are radiation driven by lines. The increase in $`\dot{M}`$ and the decrease in $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ from O-star to LBV is due to the crossing of the bi-stability jump. (However, not all LBVs become cool enough to reach the bi-stability jump: Leitherer leit97 (1997); Lamers lam97 (1997))
3. When the star has lost sufficient mass and the atmosphere has been He-enriched sufficiently to contract to the WNL-phase, the wind becomes optically thick and the sonic point moves into the region where the continuum opacity shows a small bump so that it can initiate an optically thick wind. This results in a (small) increase of $`\dot{M}`$ and a large increase in $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$. The characteristics of the star HD 151804 suggest that the transition from line driven winds to “thick cool” is gradual.
4. When the star looses more mass and the surface becomes H-poor its wind may either stay “thick cool” (at $`T_\mathrm{s}40`$ kK) or become “thick hot”. In the first case the star may appear as a H-poor WN7 or WN8-star (not studied here). In the latter case the star appears as a WNE-star, similar to WR 136 and WR 139. In both cases the star has a high $`\dot{M}`$ and a high $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$. The transition from a “thick cool” to “thick hot” wind is determined by the variation of $`\chi _\mathrm{s}`$ (see Eq. 5). During the WNE-phase the $`M/L`$-ratio increases (Schaerer & Maeder schaer92 (1992)). When $`\chi _\mathrm{s}`$ increases to values above $``$0.5 cm2g-1, the sonic point has to move to high temperature regime, because such a high value of $`\chi _\mathrm{s}`$ is reached only near the main iron opacity peak (NL). When the star evolves directly from Of to WNLh both the $`M/L`$-ratio and $`\chi _\mathrm{s}`$ decrease.
5. It is difficult to predict the dependence of $`\dot{M}`$ on $`L`$ for optically thick wind models accurately because $`R_\mathrm{s}`$ and hence also $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}(R_\mathrm{s})`$ is not well known. The wind models of NL for WNE/WCE stars predict that $`R_\mathrm{s}L^{0.7}`$ and because $`ML^{0.6}`$ (Schaerer & Maeder schaer92 (1992)), it follows that $`\dot{M}R_\mathrm{s}^3/ML^{1.5}`$ (Eq. 4). This dependence agrees well with the empirical relation derived by Nugis & Lamers (nl00 (2000)) for WN stars. For the WC stars Nugis & Lamers (2000) found empirically that $`\dot{M}L^{0.84}`$ but with strong dependence on chemical composition. On the other hand, in a recent study of LMC WC-stars Crowther et al. (A&A in press) found a strong dependence of $`\dot{M}`$ on $`L`$ ($`\dot{M}L^{1.38}`$) which agrees well with our predicted dependence for optically “thick hot” wind models.
6. We find that the changes in $`\dot{M}`$ and $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ during the evolution of massive stars are mainly due to changes in the stellar parameters and to a lesser degree to changes in the surface composition.

We have shown that the changes in $`\dot{M}`$ and $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ during the evolution of the massive stars from O-star to WN-star are due to the adjustment of the wind to the changing conditions, mainly the $`M`$, $`L`$, $`R`$ and surface composition. We have not explained “how” these changes occur. The transition from line driven winds to “thick cool” winds is most likely due to the formation of a bump in the opacity curve when the He/H ratio increases. This transition can occur gradually because the temperature of the sonic point of a “line hot” wind overlaps with the range for “thick cool” winds. The transition from “thick cool” to “thick hot” is probably due to the fact that the hydrostatic radius of a WR-star shrinks and the $`M/L`$-ratio increases when the luminosity of the star decreases (Schaerer & Maeder schaer92 (1992)). This transition cannot be gradual, because the sonic point temperature in these models is very different, so the wind must be restructured during this transition.

We point out that at present, the optically thick wind models do not provide accurate predictions for $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$, so we adopted an empirical scaling law. However, Schmutz (schmutz97 (1997)) has shown that there is sufficient driving in the supersonic part of the winds of WR-stars to explain the observed high values of $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank an unkown referee for positive and constructive comments. This work was supported by the Estonian Science Foundation grant No. 5003. T.N. is grateful to the Netherlands School of Astronomy (NOVA) for a travel grant.


text:
# Constraining dark energy from the abundance of weak gravitational lenses

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Observations of distant type Ia supernovae (SNIa) indicate that the universe is undergoing a phase of accelerated expansion (Perlmutter et al. 1999, Riess 1998). This, combined with the flat geometry favored by the cosmic microwave background (CMB) measurements (Miller et al. 1999, de Bernardis et al. 2002, Halverson et al. 2002, Sievers et al. 2002, Lee et al. 2001) and the evidence for a low matter-density with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_00.3`$ (Peacock 2001, Percival et al. 2001), suggests that the bulk of the total energy density of the universe is in the form of some exotic dark energy with a negative equation of state. One of the primary objectives of cosmology today is to uncover the origin and nature of this dark energy.

A possible candidate for the dark energy is a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, with an equation of state $`w=p/\rho `$ (where $`p`$ is the pressure and $`\rho `$ is the energy density of the dark energy) strictly equal to $`1`$. Another possibility, and one that may find favor from a particle-physics point of view, is a dynamical scalar field, termed quintessence, $`Q`$. Unlike the cosmological constant, the $`Q`$-component is both time-dependent and spatially inhomogeneous with an equation of state $`w>1`$ that is likely to be redshift dependent. Determining the value of $`w`$ and how it changes with time are key to constraining the nature of the dark energy.

While the accelerating expansion implies only that $`w<1/3`$, combinations of CMB data, SNIa data, and large-scale-structure data suggest that $`w`$ is most likely in the range $`1w<0.6`$ (Wang et al. 2000, Huterer & Turner 2001, Bean & Melchiorri 2002, Baccigalupi et al. 2002). Though combining these different data sets have provided some constraint on $`w`$, how $`w`$ should vary with redshift is largely unknown. Particle physics offer several possible functional forms for the quintessence field’s potential $`V(Q)`$ and hence possible scenarios for the time history of $`w`$. Nonetheless, determining $`w`$’s redshift evolution observationally is likely to be very challenging (Barger & Marfatia 2001, Maor et al. 2001, Weller & Albrecht 2001).

Strengthening the measured constraint on $`w`$ and perhaps excluding the cosmological constant as the source of the dark energy appear, however, to be attainable goals within the near future. Since the dark-energy dynamics influences both the evolution of the background cosmology and the growth of structure, it directly affects many observables. Its modification of the angular-diameter distance, the luminosity distance, and the amplitude of the matter power spectrum, are the primary sources of dark-energy constraint in measurements of CMB anisotropies, SNIa, and local cluster abundances, respectively.

In this paper we consider another possible means of constraining $`w`$: measurement of weak gravitational-lens abundances. Weak lensing—the weak distortion of background-galaxy images due to the deep gravitational potential of an intervening overdensity— provides a powerful technique for mapping the distribution of matter in the universe (see reviews by Bartelmann & Schneider 2001, Mellier 1999). Here we study the impact of the dark energy on the predicted redshift distribution and sky density of weak lenses. Dark energy affects the abundance of weak lenses by not only modifying the distance-redshift relation and the matter power spectrum but also by altering the rate of structure growth. In particular, the larger $`w`$ is the faster and earlier objects collapse. An interesting consequences of this is that if we separate weak lenses into the two observational classes—those that have collapsed and reached virial equilibrium and are therefore X-ray luminous and those that are non-virialized and hence X-ray underluminous (Weinberg & Kamionkowski 2002; hereafter WK02)—the abundance of one class evolves slightly differently from the other. Therefore the relative fraction of these two types of lenses varies with $`w`$. This observable is especially promising as compared to measurements of absolute abundances because it is less sensitive to uncertainties in both the cosmological parameters and the noise in the lensing map.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we briefly summarize the weak-lensing signal-to-noise estimator and discuss how we determine the mass- and redshift-dependent minimum overdensity required to produce a detectable weak-lensing signal. Section 3 is devoted to the spherical-collapse model in quintessence cosmologies. We provide fitting formulas for the non-linear overdensity at virialization and the linear-theory density at collapse and describe our approach to normalizing the matter power spectrum. In Section 4 we show the resulting effect the dark energy has on the weak-lens abundances and in Section 5 we present our conclusions.

Finally, we note that a similar analysis has recently been performed by Bartelmann, Perrotta & Baccigalupi (2002), although not for the case of non-virialized lenses. Although we agree with their general conclusion that the weak lens abundance is a potentially sensitive probe of the dark energy, our results differ from their results in important details. We discuss these differences in Section 4.2.

## 2 Minimum Overdensity Needed to Produce Detectable Lensing Signal

In order to compute the abundance of weak gravitational lenses for dark-energy cosmologies we must first determine the necessary conditions for a halo of a given density profile and redshift to produce a detectable weak-lensing signal. Of course the more overdense a halo is relative to the background density the more it coherently distorts the nearby background galaxies and hence the stronger its lensing signal. The detectability of this signal is hampered, however, by noise in the weak-lensing map, primary of which is the intrinsic ellipticity distribution of the background galaxies. The goal is therefore to determine the minimum overdensity a halo must have such that it produces a sufficiently large signal relative to the noise so as to be detectable. A convenient method for computing this minimum overdensity is provided by Schneider’s (1996) aperture-mass technique.

Consider a lens at redshift $`z_\mathrm{d}`$ of surface mass density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\vartheta )`$ within an angular radius $`\vartheta `$. For a source at redshift $`z_\mathrm{s}`$ the convergence $`\kappa `$ is given by,

$$\kappa (\vartheta )=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(\vartheta )}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{crit}}},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{crit}}=\frac{c^2}{4\pi G}\frac{D_s}{D_dD_{ds}},$$
(1)
where $`D_\mathrm{d}`$, $`D_\mathrm{s}`$ and $`D_{\mathrm{ds}}`$ are the angular-diameter distances between the lens and the observer, the source galaxy and the observer, and the lens and the source, respectively. Following Schneider (1996), define a spatially-filtered mass inside a circular aperture of angular radius $`\theta `$,

$$M_{\mathrm{ap}}(\theta )d^2\mathit{\vartheta }\kappa (\mathit{\vartheta })U(|\mathit{\vartheta }|),$$
(2)
where $`U(\vartheta )`$ is a continuous weight function that vanishes for $`\vartheta >\theta `$. If $`U(\vartheta )`$ is a compensated filter function,

$$_0^\theta 𝑑\theta \mathit{\vartheta }U(\mathit{\vartheta })=0,$$
(3)
then $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}`$ can be expressed in terms of the tangential component of the observable shear, $`\gamma _\mathrm{t}`$,

$$M_{\mathrm{ap}}(\theta )=d^2\vartheta \gamma _\mathrm{t}(\vartheta )Q(|\vartheta |),$$
(4)
where the function $`Q`$ is related to $`U`$ by

$$Q(\vartheta )=\frac{2}{\vartheta ^2}_0^\vartheta 𝑑\vartheta ^{}\vartheta ^{}U(\vartheta ^{})U(\vartheta ).$$
(5)
In this paper we use the $`l=1`$ radial filter function from the family given in Schneider et al. (1998):

$$U(\vartheta )=\frac{9}{\pi \theta ^2}(1x^2)(\frac{1}{3}x^2),Q(\vartheta )=\frac{6}{\pi \theta ^2}x^2(1x^2),$$
(6)
where $`x=\vartheta /\theta `$. Taking the expectation value over galaxy positions and taking into account the redshift distribution of source galaxies then gives,

$$M_{\mathrm{ap}}(\theta )=Zd^2\vartheta \gamma _\mathrm{t}(\vartheta )Q(|\vartheta |),$$
(7)
where $`\gamma _t(\vartheta )`$ is the mean tangential shear on a circle of angular radius $`\vartheta `$. The function $`Z`$, given by,

$$Z=𝑑z_sp_z(z_s)Z(z_s;z_d),$$
(8)
where $`p_z(z_s)`$ is the redshift distribution of source galaxies and (Seitz & Schneider 1997)

$$Z(z_s;z_d)\frac{lim_{z_s\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{crit}}(z_d;z_s)}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{crit}}(z_d;z_s)}=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{crit}_{\mathrm{}}}(z_d)}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{crit}}(z_d;z_s)},$$
(9)
allows a source with a known redshift distribution to be collapsed onto a single redshift $`z_s`$ satisfying $`Z(z_s)=Z`$ (Seitz & Schneider 1997; Bartelmann & Schneider 2001). The source-redshift distribution is taken to be,

$$p_z(z_s)=\frac{\beta z_s^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3/\beta )z_0^3}\mathrm{exp}\left[(z_s/z_0)^\beta \right],$$
(10)
with $`\beta =1.5`$ and mean redshift $`z_s1.5z_0=1.2`$ (cf., Smail et al. 1995; Brainerd et al. 1996; Cohen et al. 2000). Finally, assuming the ellipticities of different images are uncorrelated it can be shown (cf., Kruse & Schneider 1999) that the dispersion $`\sigma _\mathrm{M}(\theta )`$ of $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}`$ is

$$\sigma _\mathrm{M}^2(\theta )=\frac{\pi \sigma _ϵ^2}{n}_0^\theta 𝑑\vartheta \vartheta Q^2(\vartheta ),$$
(11)
where $`n`$ is the number density of galaxy images and $`\sigma _ϵ`$ is the dispersion in the galaxies’ intrinsic ellipticity. In this paper we assume $`n=30`$ arcmin<sup>-2</sup> and $`\sigma _ϵ=0.2`$. The signal-to-noise ratio $`S`$ within an aperture radius $`\theta `$ is then given by,

$$S=\frac{M_{\mathrm{ap}}}{\sigma _\mathrm{M}}=\frac{\mathit{2}Z\sqrt{\pi n}}{\sigma _ϵ}\frac{_\mathit{0}^\theta 𝑑\vartheta \vartheta \gamma _t(\vartheta )Q(\vartheta )}{\sqrt{_\mathit{0}^\theta 𝑑\vartheta \vartheta Q^\mathit{2}(\vartheta )}}.$$
(12)
The tangential shear at $`\vartheta `$, $`\gamma _t(\vartheta )`$, depends on the amplitude and shape of the lensing halo’s density profile. Bartelmann (1995) showed that $`\gamma _t(\vartheta )=\overline{\kappa }(\vartheta )\kappa (\vartheta )`$, where $`\kappa (\vartheta )`$ is the dimensionless mean surface mass density on a circle of radius $`\vartheta `$ and $`\overline{\kappa }(\vartheta )`$ is the dimensionless mean surface mass density within a circle of radius $`\vartheta `$. In this paper we describe the mass density of lensing halos with the universal density profile introduced by Navarro, Frenk & White (1996; 1997; hereafter NFW). Thus, for an NFW halo at a given redshift with a given mass and mean overdensity relative to the background ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{\mathrm{pert}}/\rho _\mathrm{b}`$), we can solve for the parameters of the profile (i.e., the scale radius and the scale density) and obtain an estimate of $`\gamma _t(\vartheta )`$. Details of how we solve for the NFW-profile parameters are given in the Appendix of WK02. With the density profile known we can determine, using equation (12), the expected value of $`S`$. The minimum mean overdensity, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{min}}`$, needed to produce a detectable lens is then given by that overdensity for which $`S>S_{\mathrm{min}}`$. In this paper we assume $`S_{\mathrm{min}}=\mathit{5}`$ and $`\theta =5^{}`$, unless stated otherwise.

## 3 Spherical Collapse in Dark Energy Cosmologies

According to the spherical model of gravitational collapse a density perturbation with a nonlinear overdensity $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ corresponds to a particular position along the linear-theory evolutionary cycle. Thus the minimum nonlinear overdensity $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{min}}`$ described above corresponds to a minimum linear-theory overdensity $`\delta _{\mathrm{min}}`$; if an object of mass $`M`$ at redshift $`z`$ has a linear-theory overdensity $`\delta >\delta _{\mathrm{min}}=\delta _{\mathrm{min}}(M,z)`$, then it is sufficiently overdense to produce a detectable weak-lensing signal. By determining $`\delta _{\mathrm{min}}`$ from the computed $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{min}}`$ we can apply the Press-Schechter (1974) theory to calculate the number of halos per unit mass and redshift with $`\delta >\delta _{\mathrm{min}}`$ and hence $`S>S_{\mathrm{min}}`$. We can then find the redshift distribution and sky density of weak lenses and how these observables vary with $`w`$. We will show that for a broad range of dark-energy cosmologies a substantial fraction of detectable weak gravitational lenses have $`\delta _{\mathrm{min}}<\delta _\mathrm{c}1.69`$, where $`\delta _\mathrm{c}`$ is the critical density threshold for collapse. Those objects with $`\delta <\delta _\mathrm{c}`$ are commonly thought to be density perturbations that have not yet reached virialization and are therefore expected to have observational properties that are very different from typical virialized lensing clusters.

In this Section, we present the approach used to map the minimum nonlinear overdensity $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{min}}`$ to a minimum linear-theory overdensity $`\delta _{\mathrm{min}}`$ for quintessence models (QCDM). We describe the dynamical equations of gravitational collapse in QCDM and give fitting formulas for the nonlinear overdensity at virialization, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{vir}}(z)`$, and the critical density $`\delta _\mathrm{c}`$. We then discuss how we calculate the abundances of weak gravitational lenses, both those with $`\delta <\delta _\mathrm{c}`$ and those with $`\delta >\delta _\mathrm{c}`$. Below we assume a flat cosmology with a Hubble parameter $`h=0.65`$, a spectral index $`n_\mathrm{s}=1`$, a baryon density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}h^2=0.02`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$, unless stated otherwise.

### 3.1 Dynamics

In quintessence the dark energy is a dynamical, time-dependent component, Q, with an equation of state parametrized by $`wp_\mathrm{Q}/\rho _\mathrm{Q}`$, the pressure divided by the energy density. The evolution of the energy density with the cosmological scale factor goes as $`\rho _\mathrm{Q}a^{3(1+w)}`$, so that for $`w=1`$ the standard cosmological-constant model, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM, is recovered. Current observational evidence cannot yet rule out a $`w`$ in the range $`1w0.5`$.

In order to relate a nonlinear overdensity to a linear-theory overdensity in QCDM we must first solve for the evolution of the overdensity’s radius, $`R`$, with time. For a spherical overdensity patch with uniform matter density $`\rho _{\mathrm{pert}}=3M/4\pi R^3`$ the evolution is described by the momentum component of the Einstein equations (Wang & Steinhardt 1998; hereafter WS98):

$$\frac{\ddot{R}}{R}=\frac{4\pi G}{3}\left[\rho _{\mathrm{pert}}+(1+3w)\rho _\mathrm{Q}\right].$$
(13)
As WS98 pointed out, for $`w1`$ the space curvature $`k_{\mathrm{pert}}`$ inside the overdensity patch is time dependent. Physically, this is because the evolution of the energy density in the $`Q`$ component is evolving independently of the change in radius of the overdensity patch. As a result, one cannot assume that within the collapsing overdensity the rate of change of the internal energy in the Q-component, $`u_\mathrm{Q}`$, equals the rate of work done by the Q-component. That is, because $`d\rho _\mathrm{Q}/dt`$ is nonzero unless the Q-component is the cosmological constant,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{du_\mathrm{Q}}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left(\rho _\mathrm{Q}V\right)`$ (14)
$``$ $`p_\mathrm{Q}{\displaystyle \frac{dV}{dt}},`$
where $`VR^3`$ is the volume of the overdensity patch. Therefore equation (13) cannot be cast in the form of a first order differential equation as is often done when going from an acceleration equation to a Friedman-like energy equation. Assuming a constant $`k_{\mathrm{pert}}`$, as was done in the version 1 preprint of Łokas & Hoffman (2001), yields significantly different solutions for the evolution of the radius, $`R(t)`$, and hence for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{vir}}(z)`$ and $`\delta _\mathrm{c}`$.

If we combine equation (13) with the Friedman equation for the background,

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\left(\rho _\mathrm{b}+\rho _\mathrm{Q}\right),$$
(15)
and impose the boundary conditions $`dR/da|_{a=a_{\mathrm{ta}}}=0`$ and $`R|_{a=0}=0`$, where $`a_{\mathrm{ta}}`$ is the scale factor at turn-around, then for a spherical density perturbation with a given $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and redshift $`z`$, the unique temporal evolution of the overdensity, from linearity to nonlinearity, can be solved (cf., Appendix A in WS98). We then have a one-to-one map from $`\mathrm{\Delta }(z)`$ to $`\delta (z)`$, as shown in Figure 1 for the cases $`w=1,2/3`$ and $`1/3`$. The map has a mild $`w`$ dependence, with a given $`\delta `$ corresponding to a slightly larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as $`w`$ increases. This is a consequence of the earlier formation of structure in QCDM models relative to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models; overdensities collapse faster and are therefore more concentrated for $`w>1`$. This point is well illustrated in Figure 2 where we show the growth of a spherical perturbation for the same quintessence models. As expected, the larger $`w`$ is, the earlier structures reach turnaround and collapse.

It can be shown that in the limit $`\delta \delta _\mathrm{c}`$ the spherical-collapse model predicts that the radius, $`R`$, of the overdensity goes to zero and hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}`$. Of course well before reaching the singular solution an actual overdensity will virialize, thereby halting its collapse. To account for this fact we invoke a simple smoothing scheme in which the radius of the matter perturbation is constant with time upon reaching the virialized overdensity (see Figure 2). We refer the reader to WK02 for details of the smoothing method.

As described in WS98, the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{vir}}(z)`$ for quintessence models, needed here in order to implement the smoothing scheme, can be obtained via the virial theorem, energy conservation, and solving equations (13) and (15) for the overdensity at turnaround. In Figure 3 we show the resulting numerical solution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{vir}}(z)`$. We find that an accurate fitting function to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{vir}}(z)`$ for $`1w0.3`$, modeled after the approximation given in Kitayama & Suto (1996) for a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology, is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{vir}}(z)=18\pi ^2\left[1+a\mathrm{\Theta }^b(z)\right],$$
(16)
where

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`0.3991.309(|w|^{0.426}1),`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`0.9410.205(|w|^{0.938}1),`$ (17)
and $`\mathrm{\Theta }(z)=1/\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(z)1=(1/\mathrm{\Omega }_01)(1+z)^{3w}`$. Since structures start to form earlier the larger $`w`$ is, the mean gas temperature in collapsing objects is higher in larger-$`w`$ models. As a result, a greater overdensity is required in order for such objects to become bound and virialized, explaining why $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ rises with increasing $`w`$. Note, however, that for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(z)<\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{vir}}(z)`$ the map from nonlinear to linear overdensity has a weak dependence on not only $`w`$ but on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and redshift as well. The critical threshold for collapse today $`\delta _\mathrm{c}(z=0)=\delta _\mathrm{c}(z)D(0,\mathrm{\Omega }_0,w)/D(z,\mathrm{\Omega }_0,w)`$, where $`D(z,\mathrm{\Omega }_0,w)`$ is the linear growth factor (see WS98), also has a weak dependence on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and $`w`$, as shown in Figure 4. For $`0.1\mathrm{\Omega }_01`$ and $`1w0.3`$, we find that an accurate fitting function to $`\delta _\mathrm{c}(z)`$, also modeled after the approximation given in Kitayama & Suto (1996) for a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology, is

$`\delta _\mathrm{c}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3(12\pi )^{2/3}}{20}}\left[1+\alpha \mathrm{log}_{10}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}(z)\right],`$
$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`0.353w^4+1.044w^3+1.128w^2`$ (18)
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.555}w+0.131.`$
Incorrectly assuming that $`k_{\mathrm{pert}}`$ is constant, however, yields a $`\delta _\mathrm{c}(z=0)`$ with a much stronger dependence on these parameters, with inferred values for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$ of $`\delta _\mathrm{c}(z=0)1.5`$ and $`1.0`$ for $`w=2/3`$ and $`w=1/3`$, respectively (Łokas & Hoffman 2001).

### 3.2 Abundances

Since we are interested in computing the abundances of both virialized weak lenses and non-virialized weak lenses we consider two ranges of overdensity in our lens-abundance calculations: (1) $`\delta _{\mathrm{min}}<\delta <\delta _\mathrm{c}`$, the non-virialized lenses, and, (2) $`\delta >\delta _\mathrm{c}\delta _{\mathrm{min}}`$, the virialized lenses. As we showed in WK02, both lens types are cluster-mass overdensities. However, while the virialized lenses are typically virialized clusters that form at rare (e.g., $`>3\sigma `$) high-density peaks of a Gaussian primordial distribution, the non-virialized lenses correspond to proto-clusters (e.g., $`2\sigma 3\sigma `$ peaks)—mass overdensities that have not yet undergone gravitational collapse and virialized, but which have begun to break away from the cosmological expansion. These proto-clusters should contain galaxies and perhaps a few groups that later merge to form the cluster (cf., White et al. 2002). The timescale for collapse of cluster-mass objects is large, and the overdensities can be very large even before they have virialized. It should therefore not be too surprising that proto-clusters produce a weak-lensing signal that resembles that from virialized clusters.

Though the lensing signals may be similar, the two lens types are expected to have different observational features. In particular, since the X-ray luminosity is a very rapidly varying function of the virialized mass, the summed X-ray emission from a non-virialized lens should be much smaller than that from a fully virialized lensing cluster of the same mass. In referring to these proto-clusters as “dark”, we thus mean that they should be X-ray underluminous. Although the mass-to-light ratio of these clusters should be comparable to those for ordinary clusters, since (1) high-redshift clusters may be difficult to pick out in galaxy surveys and, (2) proto-clusters will typically have a sky density a few times smaller than ordinary clusters, it would also not be surprising if these dark lenses had no readily apparent corresponding galaxy overdensity. Observational evidence of such dark lenses has been reported in detections by Erben et al. (2000), Umetsu & Futamase (2000), Miralles et al. (2002), Dahle et al. (2002), and Koopmans et al. (2000), the latter involving a detection through strong, rather than weak, lensing. A more detailed discussion of the features that may distinguish dark and virialized weak lenses is given in WK02.

In order to compute the abundances of virialized and dark lenses we need to know the probability that an object of a given mass at a given redshift is in one of the above mentioned ranges in overdensity. If we assume Gaussian statistics for the initial linear-theory density field, then the probability that an object’s overdensity is in the range $`\delta _1<\delta <\delta _2`$ is

$$P(\delta _1<\delta <\delta _2)=\text{erf}\left(\frac{\nu _2}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\text{erf}\left(\frac{\nu _1}{\sqrt{2}}\right),$$
(19)
where ‘erf’ is the error function, $`\nu =\delta /\sigma `$, and $`\sigma =\sigma (M,z)`$ is the rms density fluctuation of an object of mass $`M`$ at redshift $`z`$. From Press-Schechter theory, we know that the comoving number density of virialized objects (those with $`\delta >\delta _\mathrm{c}`$) of mass $`M=4\pi R^3\rho _0/3`$ in the interval $`dM`$ that are at redshift $`z`$ in a Universe with comoving background density $`\rho _0`$ is,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn}{dM}}(M,z)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0}{M^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _\mathrm{c}(z)}{\sigma (M,z)}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}\sigma (M,z)}{d\mathrm{ln}M}}\right|`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _\mathrm{c}(z)^2}{2\sigma ^2(M,z)}}\right].`$ (20)
We can therefore compute the abundance of objects in the overdensity range $`\delta _1<\delta <\delta _2`$ by convolving the above mass function of virialized objects with $`P(\delta _1<\delta <\delta _2)/P(\delta >\delta _\mathrm{c})`$. Specifically, the fraction of objects that can lens relative to those that are virialized is, for dark lenses,

$`f_{\mathrm{dark}}(M,z)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{P\left(\delta _{\mathrm{min}}<\delta <\delta _\mathrm{c}\right)}{P\left(\delta >\delta _\mathrm{c}\right)},\hfill & \delta _{\mathrm{min}}<\delta _\mathrm{c};\hfill \\ & \\ 0,\hfill & \text{otherwise},\hfill \end{array}`$ (24)
and for virialized lenses,

$`f_{\mathrm{vir}}(M,z)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{P\left(\delta >\delta _{\mathrm{min}}\right)}{P\left(\delta >\delta _\mathrm{c}\right)},\hfill & \delta _{\mathrm{min}}>\delta _\mathrm{c};\hfill \\ & \\ 1,\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (28)
As noted in WK02, the lower the mass of the object the larger the minimum overdensity needed to produce a detectable weak-lensing signal. For low enough masses the minimum overdensity becomes so large that both $`f_{\mathrm{dark}}`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ approach zero, thereby imposing an effective weak-lensing mass threshold. Given $`f`$ and equation (20) we can compute the total comoving number density of weak lenses of a particular type. Multiplying by the comoving volume element $`dV_\mathrm{c}/dzd\mathrm{\Omega }(w)`$ then gives the differential number count of lensing objects per steradian, per unit redshift interval:

$$\frac{dN}{dzd\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{dV_\mathrm{c}}{dzd\mathrm{\Omega }}_0^{\mathrm{}}f(M)\frac{dn}{dM}(M)𝑑M.$$
(29)
By integrating over redshift we can then compute the number of dark and virialized lenses we expect to see per unit area of sky for a given QCDM model.

### 3.3 Normalizing the power spectrum

In equation (23) the volume term and the two terms within the integrand are all functions of $`w`$. While the predicted abundance of weak lenses will therefore vary with $`w`$, the degree to which it will vary depends on the shape and normalization of the power spectrum of density fluctuations. In particular, to compute the abundance of weak-lenses we need to know $`\sigma (M,z)`$.

For the shape of the power spectrum we use the fitting formulas given in Ma et al. (1999) for QCDM models with the transfer function and shape parameter for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models given by Bardeen et al. (1986) and Hu & Sugiyama (1996, eqs. \[D-28\] and \[E-12\]), respectively. Since the Q-component does not cluster on scales less than $`100`$ Mpc (Caldwell, Dave & Steinhardt 1998), at the weak-lensing scales the shape of the spectrum does not differ significantly from the well studied $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM shape.

The normalization of the power spectrum, often expressed in terms of $`\sigma _8`$, the rms fluctuation today at a scale of 8 $`h^1`$ Mpc, is not as well constrained as its shape and will in general be a function of $`w`$. There are two different methods commonly used to obtain the normalization: to fix it by the observed X-ray cluster abundance or to fix it by the CMB large-scale anisotropies observed by the COBE satellite. Both approaches have comparable uncertainties; the cluster abundance constraint on $`\sigma _8`$ has a 20% uncertainty at the 2$`\sigma `$ level (WS98) while the COBE constraint has a 7% uncertainty at the 1$`\sigma `$ level (Bunn & White 1997). To obtain an estimate of how $`\sigma _8`$ varies with $`w`$ so that we may, in turn, determine how $`dN/dzd\mathrm{\Omega }`$ varies with $`w`$ for dark and virialized lenses, we will consider three possible approaches. The first two involve fixing the cosmological parameters (e.g., $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, $`h`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}`$, $`n_\mathrm{s}`$) and using either the cluster-abundance constrained $`\sigma _8(w)`$ or the COBE constrained $`\sigma _8(w)`$. For the former we will use the fit given in WS98 and for the latter the fit given by Ma et al. (1999); see Figure 5. The third approach is to allow the cosmological parameters to be free parameters and then jointly match the cluster-abundance constraint with the COBE constraint so that each gives the same $`\sigma _8(w)`$. Since measurements of $`\sigma _8`$ are most degenerate with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, we will let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ be the parameter that varies. In Figure 6 we show the region in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$$`w`$ plane where the X-ray cluster-abundance constraint, at the 95% confidence level, overlaps the COBE constraint. The solid curve shows where the central values match, with the resulting range in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ ($`0.3\mathrm{\Omega }_00.4`$ for $`1<w<0.4`$) within observational uncertainties (Wang et al. 2000). The corresponding $`\sigma _8(w)`$ curve is shown in Figure 5. As we will show, the predicted weak-lens abundances and how they vary with $`w`$ strongly depend on which $`\sigma _8(w)`$ normalization approach is chosen.

## 4 Results

We are interested in determining whether the number count and redshift distribution of both dark and virialized weak lenses have the potential to constrain $`w`$. Another possibly useful observable for this purpose is the number count of dark lenses relative to virialized lenses. Since dark lenses are at an earlier stage of their dynamical evolution as compared to virialized lenses, those cosmologies that favor a faster growth of structure (i.e., QCDM models with larger $`w`$) will, for a given $`\sigma _8`$, have fewer dark lenses and more virialized lenses. The ratio of the two is therefore expected to vary with $`w`$. A priori, this latter observable seems particularly promising. As discussed in WK02, the ratio of dark to virialized lenses is not very sensitive to observational noise in the weak lensing maps since observational noise equally affects the detectability of both types of lenses. Contrastingly, uncertainties in observational noise will make it difficult to constrain $`w`$ by simply comparing predicted weak-lens number counts with observed weak-lens number counts.

Before presenting how the above observables are modified by the dark energy we first discuss how each of the factors that determine the observed abundance are affected by changes in $`w`$. Doing so provides both physical insight into the results and illustrates the calculational procedure discussed in the previous Sections.

### 4.1 Preliminaries

As noted above, the predicted abundance of weak lenses will vary with $`w`$ on account of three factors: the comoving volume element, the Press-Schechter comoving number density of virialized objects, and the value of $`f_{\mathrm{dark}/\mathrm{vir}}`$ \[equations (21) and (22)\]. The degree to which each varies depends on the chosen $`\sigma _8(w)`$ normalization. As Figure 7 shows, $`dV_\mathrm{c}/dzd\mathrm{\Omega }`$ decreases monotonically with increasing $`w`$ for both fixed $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=\mathrm{\Omega }_0(w)`$ as given by jointly normalizing $`\sigma _8`$ to COBE and the cluster abundance. However, because the joint normalization yields a larger $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ with $`w`$ and a less significant decline in $`\sigma _8`$ for $`w>1`$ as compared to the COBE normalization with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ fixed, the former approach predicts a nearly constant virialized object number density with increasing $`w`$ while the latter predicts a significant decrease in the number density.

A similar trend is seen in the functions $`f_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{dark}}`$, as Figure 8 demonstrates. Here we plot the fraction of objects that have not yet reached turnaround ($`0<\mathrm{\Delta }<\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{ta}}`$) and the fraction of objects that are between turnaround and virialization ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{ta}}<\mathrm{\Delta }<\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{vir}}`$) relative to those objects that are virialized ($`\mathrm{\Delta }>\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{vir}}`$). The figure illustrates several key elements of structure formation according to the spherical-collapse model for dark-energy cosmologies. First, the fraction, $`\chi `$, of objects in both of these lower-overdensity ranges increases with mass in accordance with the hierarchical growth of structure. The fraction also increases with redshift since objects are collapsing and evolving toward virialization. It is also interesting to note that objects with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{ta}}<\mathrm{\Delta }<\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ evolve more rapidly as compared to objects with $`0<\mathrm{\Delta }<\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{ta}}`$. This is demonstrated by the fact that at $`z=1`$ the fraction of both types of objects is nearly the same though by $`z=0`$ there are more objects that have not reached turnaround. Furthermore, the larger $`w`$ is, the greater the difference between the rates of evolution. These effects are a consequence of the suppression of structure growth in cosmologies with dark energy; namely, growth slows down earlier for larger $`w`$ and those objects that are less overdense at a given redshift have greater difficulty overcoming the repulsive effects of the dark energy and collapsing. Finally, the plots show how strongly the fraction depends on the chosen $`\sigma _8`$ normalization, with a significant variation with $`w`$ for the COBE normalization and a fairly small variation for the cluster-abundance normalization. This, in turn, means that the degree to which the functions $`f_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{dark}}`$ vary with $`w`$ is highly dependent on the assumed normalization approach.

### 4.2 Weak lens abundances

In Figure 9 we show the predicted redshift distribution of virialized lenses and dark lenses for three constant $`w`$ models. For the COBE normalized $`\sigma _8`$ with fixed $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ the distributions show a fairly strong sensitivity to $`w`$. As $`w`$ increases from $`1`$ to $`1/3`$ the peak of the distributions shift toward lower redshifts. Although one might expect the trend to be in the opposite direction given that structures form faster for larger $`w`$ models, the effect is counteracted by the decrease in $`\sigma _8`$ with increasing $`w`$. That the decrease in $`\sigma _8`$ so overwhelms any tendency for structure to form faster for $`w>1`$ is not surprising given the weak $`w`$ dependence in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`\delta `$ map (Figure 1) and in the function $`\delta _\mathrm{c}(z)`$ (Figure 4). Note, however, that the shift in the distributions with $`w`$ becomes much less significant if a joint COBE – cluster abundance normalization is assumed. Finally, given that dark lenses are likely progenitors of virialized clusters, it is not surprising that both normalization approaches predict that the dark lenses have a larger mean redshift than the virialized lenses.

To determine how well the weak lens redshift distributions can constrain $`w`$ we generated mock redshift data and determined (using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test) the probability of differentiating two different constant-$`w`$ models as a function of the number of lenses detected. We found that to differentiate a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model from both a $`w=0.6`$ model and a $`w=0.9`$ model at the 3$`\sigma `$ level required, on average, approximately 200 weak lenses and 2000 weak lenses, respectively. As we show below, this corresponds to a survey coverage of $`15`$ and $`150`$ square degrees. Note, however, that for sufficiently wide surveys systematic uncertainties such as mass-redshift selection effects and lens density profiles might dominate the errors.

By integrating over the redshift distribution we obtain the total number of virialized and dark lenses expected per square degree on the sky. As Figure 10 shows, the COBE normalization with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$ shows a significant decline in the number count as $`w`$ increases. By $`w=2/3`$ the number count of both virialized and dark lenses has dropped by a factor of two from the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM value. The joint normalization, in which we allow $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ to vary with $`w`$, predicts a much more mild dependence on $`w`$ with the number count dropping by only $`20`$% from $`w=1`$ to $`w=2/3`$ for both lens types. Therefore, while the COBE-only normalization approach predicts that the sky coverage needed to distinguish the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model from a $`w=0.6`$ model to 3$`\sigma `$ is only $`2`$ degree<sup>2</sup>, the joint approach requires $``$ 15 degree<sup>2</sup>. Similarly, to distinguish the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model from $`w=0.9`$ requires $`40`$ degree<sup>2</sup> and $`100`$ degree<sup>2</sup>, respectively. The systematic uncertainties affecting absolute sky density measurements, such as noise in the lensing maps and uncertainties in the lens density profiles, are expected to add further complications. This suggests that it will be very difficult to constrain $`w`$ using just the number count of either virialized or dark lenses without, at the very least, a tighter constraint on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$.

We also note that our results do not agree with the results found by Bartelmann, Perrotta & Baccigalupi (2002; hereafter BPB). They found that from $`w=1`$ to $`w0.6`$, the number of virialized weak lenses per square degree increases by nearly a factor of two. The increase is roughly linear up to the maximum after which the number count declines steeply. In obtaining these results, however, they use the formulas for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ and $`\delta _\mathrm{c}`$ given in Łokas & Hoffman (2001) who assume that the space curvature within a collapsing overdensity patch is time-independent. As we showed in Section 3.1, this assumption is invalid for $`w1`$ and leads to incorrect values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ and $`\delta _\mathrm{c}`$. To confirm that this is the source of our differences, we recomputed the number count of weak lenses as a function of $`w`$ using the algorithm described in BPB (which differs somewhat from ours because we are interested in separating lenses into virialized and non-virialized types). When we assume the incorrect Łokas & Hoffman (2001) values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ and $`\delta _\mathrm{c}`$ we recover the results found by BPB; however, when we assume the values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ and $`\delta _\mathrm{c}`$ predicted by solving the spherical-collapse equations of Section 3.1, we obtain results very similar to those described in the preceding paragraphs.

### 4.3 Fraction of lenses that are dark

As mentioned above, the number-count ratio of dark to virialized lenses is an observable that is much less sensitive to observational noise than is the redshift distribution and number count of weak lenses. Unfortunately, for aperture sizes $`\theta `$ (defined in Section 2) less than 10 in radius the ratio is fairly constant over a broad range in $`w`$, as we show in Figure 11. The ratio varies more strongly if the aperture size is increased to 15. In particular, for $`\theta =15^{}`$ there is a $`20`$% difference between the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model and $`w=0.6`$, so that differentiating the two models to a 3$`\sigma `$ significance requires the detection of $`600`$ virialized lenses or equivalently a sky coverage of $`50`$ degree<sup>2</sup>. Although using the non-virialized lens fraction requires large survey coverage for modest constraints on $`w`$, its principal advantage (in addition to being relatively insensitive to observational noise) is that it is not very sensitive to the chosen method of normalization; for any aperture size both the joint normalization and the COBE normalization with fixed $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ yield similar dependences on $`w`$. Therefore, unlike the case for weak-lens sky-density or redshift distribution predictions, uncertainties in $`\sigma _8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ do not strongly affect the predicted ratio of dark to virialized lenses. Incidentally, although aperture sizes greater than $`15^{}`$ yield ratios with even stronger $`w`$ dependences, noise contributions from large-scale structure become significant at such large angular distances from the lens center (Hoesktra 2002). It is therefore not practical to make measurements at radii well beyond 15.

As an aside, while the ratio of dark to virialized lenses does not have a particularly strong $`w`$ dependence, it does have a strong $`\theta `$ dependence; only $`5`$% of lenses are dark when $`\theta =3^{}`$ but $`50`$% when $`\theta =15^{}`$. In Figure 12 we plot the number of virialized and dark lenses as a function of $`\theta `$ for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. As $`\theta `$ increases from 3 to 15 the sky density of dark lenses increases from zero to 5 per square degree while the sky density of virialized lenses peaks at $`\theta =5^{}`$ and gradually declines for larger aperture sizes. Figure 13 explains this trend. For an overdensity of mass $`M=5\times 10^{14}M_{}`$ we plot, as a function of redshift, $`\theta _{\mathrm{vir}}`$, the projected angular size of the virialization radius, and $`\theta _{\mathrm{max}}`$, the projected angular size of the maximum radius that produces a detectable lens (i.e., $`\theta _{\mathrm{max}}=R_{\mathrm{max}}(z)/D_\mathrm{d}(z)`$ where $`R_{\mathrm{max}}^3=3M/4\pi \mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{min}}(z)`$). For $`\theta _{\mathrm{max}}>\theta _{\mathrm{vir}}`$ an overdensity can be non-virialized and still produce a detectable lensing signal (i.e., a dark lens). However, since $`\theta `$ defines the maximum observable angular scale, for sufficiently small $`\theta `$ there is no range in redshift such that $`\theta >\theta _{\mathrm{max}}>\theta _{\mathrm{vir}}`$, in which case non-virialized overdensities cannot produce a detectable lens. In general we find that the minimum aperture size needed to detect dark lenses is $`3^{}`$. For larger $`\theta `$, the area below $`\theta _{\mathrm{max}}`$ and above $`\theta _{\mathrm{vir}}`$ has a substantial relative increase while the area below $`\theta _{\mathrm{vir}}`$ has just a mild relative increase. After taking into account the fact that the aperture mass $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}(\theta )`$ decreases with increased $`\theta `$, this translates to an increase in the sky density of dark lenses and a decrease in the sky density of virialized lenses for $`\theta >5^{}`$. The fraction of lenses that are dark therefore increases with aperture size.

## 5 Discussion and Conclusions

We have examined the possibility of using the measured abundance of weak gravitational lenses to constrain a principal property of the dark energy, its equation-of-state parameter $`w`$. Since dark energy modifies both the background cosmology of the universe and the growth of structure it will necessarily have an effect on the efficiency of weak lensing. The goal of this paper was to determine the nature and strength of the effect.

The change in the background cosmology with $`w`$ influences the predicted weak lens abundance in essentially three ways. First, the size of comoving volume elements shrink with increasing $`w`$. Second, the distance-redshift relation is modified, thereby shifting the location of the lensing-kernel maximum (i.e., where the combination of angular diameter distances $`D_{\mathrm{ds}}D_\mathrm{d}/D_\mathrm{s}`$ peaks). Third, since the evolution of the background matter density is modified by the dark energy, the density of a given halo relative to the background density changes with $`w`$. This, in turn, affects the strength of a halo’s lensing signal; the larger the overdensity the stronger the signal. While the volume term is explicitly factored into the expression for the weak-lens sky density \[equation (22)\], the latter two effects are incorporated into the signal-to-noise estimator for which we use the aperture-mass technique introduced by Schneider (1996).

The change in the growth of structure with $`w`$ is somewhat more subtle. The dark energy modifies both the rate of structure growth and the amplitude of the matter power spectrum. To determine the former we solved the spherical-collapse model with dark energy included. Though growth occurs more rapidly as $`w`$ increases, the overall effect on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`\delta `$ map, needed to relate the minimum overdensity required to produce a detectable lens, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{min}}`$, to a corresponding linear-theory overdensity $`\delta _{\mathrm{min}}`$, is fairly small. Similarly, the linear-theory overdensity at collapse $`\delta _\mathrm{c}`$ does not vary much with $`w`$. The effect on $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ is more significant, however. As $`w`$ increases, structures require substantially greater overdensities in order to reach virial equilibrium because they collapse sooner, when the universe was younger and hotter.

To determine how the power-spectrum amplitude, $`\sigma _8`$, varies with $`w`$ we considered three possible approaches. One was to normalize to the X-ray cluster abundance as was done in WS98. Another was to normalize to the COBE measurements of CMB anisotropies on large angular scales. These two approaches predict similar values of $`\sigma _8`$ for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. However, if all cosmological parameters are held fixed as $`w`$ varies, the values of $`\sigma _8`$ are no longer in accordance. This is because the cluster abundance approach is accounting for the earlier forming, and hence hotter, galaxy clusters in models with $`w>1`$. The COBE normalization, on the other hand, is accounting for the increase in the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect as $`w`$ increases (cf., BPB). Given these differing influences, the two approaches are not expected to yield the same $`\sigma _8`$ when all the cosmological parameters are held fixed to those of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model while $`w`$ is varied. This suggests a third approach to normalizing the power spectrum; namely, let the parameters vary with $`w`$ such that the cluster abundance normalization matches the COBE normalization. In practice we accomplished this by letting just $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ vary with $`w`$, as it is the parameter most degenerate with $`\sigma _8`$. The resulting range in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ for $`1<w0.4`$ was found to be $`0.3<\mathrm{\Omega }_0<0.4`$ and hence within observational uncertainties. Though all three normalization approaches predict that $`\sigma _8`$ decreases with $`w`$, the difference in the magnitude of the decrease between the approaches is significant. As a result, each predicts substantially different variations in the weak-lens abundance with $`w`$.

Having determined all the dark energy effects, we computed the redshift distribution and sky density of weak lenses as a function of $`w`$. As in WK02, we distinguished between two classes of lenses, those that have collapsed and virialized and those that have not. This distinction is based on the expectation that the virialized lenses, being in a relaxed state, are X-ray and/or optically luminous. The non-virialized lenses, being as at earlier stage in the overdensity evolutionary cycle, are expected to be X-ray underluminous because the observed X-ray luminosity function has a steep dependence on the total virialized mass within a halo. Furthermore, though the typical mass of both lens types is $`few\times 10^{14}M_{}`$, the sky density of galaxies within the non-virialized lenses is expected to be smaller than in the virialized lenses because they have not yet collapsed and hence have larger radii (see WK02 for more details).

We found that the variation in the redshift distribution and the sky density of both lens types with $`w`$ depends strongly on the power-spectrum-normalization approach. If $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ is fixed and $`\sigma _8`$ is normalized to the COBE measurements, there is a significant variation in the abundances with $`w`$. In particular, the sky density of both virialized lenses and non-virialized lenses drops by a factor of two from $`w=1`$ to $`w=2/3`$. This decline, a result of the significant decrease in $`\sigma _8`$ with $`w`$, occurs despite the faster formation of structure for $`w>1`$. If, on the other hand, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ is allowed to vary with $`w`$ such that the COBE normalization matches the cluster-abundance normalization, the redshift distributions and sky density change very little with $`w`$; between $`w=1`$ and $`w=2/3`$ the sky density of both lens types varies by just $`20`$%. This insubstantial variation is the result of an increase in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ with $`w`$ and a less significant drop in $`\sigma _8`$ with $`w`$ as compared to the COBE normalization with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ fixed. Obtaining a strong constraint on $`w`$ from the sky density or redshift distribution of weak lenses therefore appears to be contingent on improved measurements of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ from independent observations.

Perhaps more promising is the possibility of utilizing the observed ratio of dark lenses to virialized lenses. Unlike measurements of the absolute sky density of weak lenses, the ratio is not very sensitive to the amount of observational noise in the weak-lensing maps since the abundance of both dark lenses and virialized lenses are equally affected by noise. Similarly, the ratio does not vary significantly over a wide range in cosmological parameters so that uncertainties due to the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0w`$ degeneracy are minimized. We found that for aperture sizes of $`15^{}`$ the ratio varies by about 20%, dropping from $`0.5`$ to $`0.4`$, between the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model and $`w=0.6`$. We also showed that the ratio of dark to virialized lenses increases with aperture size, in effect because larger apertures enable the detection of the more extended radii of the non-virialized lenses.

Weak lensing has already been shown to be a powerful probe of the matter distribution in the universe (see e.g., Bartelmann & Schneider 2001). It also has the potential to help constrain the amount and nature of the dark energy. Huterer (2002) showed that given reasonable prior information on other cosmological parameters, the weak-lensing convergence power spectrum can impose constraints on the dark energy comparable to those of upcoming type Ia supernova and number-count surveys of galaxies and galaxy clusters. Constraining the dark energy from absolute measurements of weak-lens abundances will likely prove difficult, however. The variation in the weak lens sky density with $`w`$ is sufficiently small that modest uncertainties in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ (and observational noise) can mask the effect of the dark energy. More auspicious is the possibility of utilizing the relative abundance of dark lenses to virialized lenses to constrain $`w`$. Future weak-lensing projects such as the the VISTA survey, the SNAP mission, and LSST (see Tyson et al. 2002 for a discussion of its great promise as a probe of dark energy) are expected to provide the wide-field surveys needed for this technique to be viable.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank R. Caldwell for helpful suggestions. NNW acknowledges the support of an NSF Graduate Fellowship. This work was supported by NSF AST-0096023, NASA NAG5-9821, and DoE DE-FG03-92-ER40701.