text:
# Redshift distribution of Ly-𝛼 lines and metal systems

## 1 Introduction

During the last years an essential progress has been achieved both in the observations and interpretations of absorption spectra of quasars. Now a representative set of absorption lines with measured redshifts, column densities, and Doppler parameters is available and the main characteristics of absorbers and their evolution are, in general, established (see, e.g., Carswell 1995; Cristiani et al. 1995, 1996; Hu et al. 1995; Fernandez-Soto et al. 1996; Ulmer 1996; Cooke et al 1997; Dinshaw et al. 1995; Bahcall et al. 1993, 1996; Kim et al. 1997). The available information suggests various descriptions of absorbers ranging from pressure-confined gaseous clouds to associations with halos of galaxies (see discussions in Rees 1995; Charltone 1995; Fernandes-Soto et al. 1996; Miralda-Escude et al. 1996; Petitjean 1997). If at low redshifts a significant number of stronger Ly-$`\alpha `$ lines and metal systems are certainly associated with galaxies (Bergeron et al. 1992; Lanzetta et al. 1995; Cowie et al. 1995; Tytler et al. 1995; Le Brune et al. 1996) than the population of weaker absorbers, dominating at higher redshifts, has practically disappeared by the redshift $`z`$ 2 and only some weak Ly-$`\alpha `$ lines are observed far from galaxies even at small redshifts (Morris et al. 1993; Shull 1997).

Now the origin and evolution of absorbers are linked to the process of formation and evolution of high density structure elements (Petitjean et al. 1995; Miralda-Escude et al. 1996; Hernquist et al. 1996; Zhang et al. 1997, 1998; Theuns et al. 1998, 1999; Bryan et al. 1999; Davè et al. 1999; Weinberg et al. 1998; Machacek et al. 2000). The numerical simulations of dynamical and thermal evolution of gaseous component use the same spectrum of initial perturbations that is responsible for the formation of DM and observed galaxy spatial distributions, and they successfully reproduce the main observed properties of absorbers. This allows us to consider the evolution of absorbers in a context of a more general process of nonlinear evolution of small initial perturbations of DM component and formation of observed galaxy distribution and to compare theoretical conclusions with observations.

This approach links the properties of absorbers, at high redshifts, with the spatial galaxy distribution at small redshifts and allows to trace some observational characteristics of nonlinear evolution of matter distribution up to redshifts $`z`$3.

The analysis of large modern redshift surveys such as the Durham/UKST Galaxy Redshift Survey (Ratcliffe et al., 1996) and the Las Campanas Redshift Survey (Shectman et al., 1996) demonstrates that the galaxy distribution in the universe can be roughly described as a joint network composed of galaxy filaments and walls. The analysis of both surveys shows that about 50% of galaxies are concentrated in wall-like elements surrounding huge underdense regions with a typical size of 50 – 100$`h^1`$ Mpc ($`h=H_0/100`$ km/s/Mpc is the dimensionless Hubble parameter) (Doroshkevich et al. 1996, hereafter LCRS1; Doroshkevich et al. 2000). In many respects such elements are similar to the Great Wall (de Lapparent, Geller & Huchra 1988; Ramella, Geller, & Huchra 1992). Galaxy filaments appear between walls and intertwine them into a joint structure. The hierarchy of poorer and sparser filaments – including single galaxies – can be considered as a bridge between the richer and poorer structure elements formed by the non luminous baryonic and dark matter (DM). Such poorer elements contain some fraction of hot gas and could be seen as Ly-$`\alpha `$ absorbers away from galaxies. Observations of weak Ly-$`\alpha `$ absorbers in voids, mentioned above, can be attributed to those poorer DM structure elements.

The evolution of structure elements formed by dark matter was investigated both theoretically, using the Zel’dovich theory (e.g., Zel’dovich 1970; Zel’dovich & Novikov 1983; Shandarin & Zel’dovich 1989), and numerically (e.g., Shandarin et al. 1995; Cole et al. 1997, 1998; Jenkins et al. 1998; Doroshkevich et al. 1999, hereafter DMRT; Demiański et al. 2000, hereafter DDMT). The statistical description of DM structure evolution for the CDM-like power spectra was given in Demiański & Doroshkevich (1999 hereafter DD99) and in DDMT. The main simulated characteristics of walls are found to be consistent with theoretical expectations.

Some progress in the theoretical interpretation of properties of absorbers has been recently achieved by Hui et al. (1997) and Nath (1997), who used the Zel’dovich approximation for a semi analytical description of some of the absorbers characteristics. Another considered theoretical approaches were based on the ’minihalo’ model (Meiksin 1994), ’Cosmic Webb’ theory (Bond & Wadsley 1997) and Press-Schechter method (Valageas et al. 1999).

In this paper we examine the observed redshift distribution of absorbers using the available information about the structure parameters at small redshifts (LCRS1; Doroshkevich et al. 2000; DMRT) and statistical description of DM structure evolution (DD99, DDMT) in models with CDM-like power spectra. We assume that the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ clouds trace the potential wells formed by DM pancakes, filaments and walls. This assumption was widely discussed earlier (Rees 1986; Ikeuchi & Ostriker 1986; Bond, Szalay & Silk 1988; Miralda-Escude & Rees 1993; Meiksin 1994; Hui et al. 1997; Nath 1997; Bond & Wadsley 1997; Valageas et al. 1999), and it is qualitatively consistent with results of numerical simulations (Petitjean et al. 1995; Hernquist et al. 1996; Petitjean 1997; Theuns et al. 1997; Davè et al. 1999; Weinberg et al. 1998).

The potential of this approach is limited due to the small number of observed absorbers and because the characteristics of structure derived from observations are not sufficiently accurately known. The theoretical description of DM structure evolution is also not complete. In particular, it cannot yet describe adequately the important process of disruption of structure elements and their transformation into a system of high density clumps. This process depends on many factors (Doroshkevich 1980; Vishniac 1983; Valinia et al. 1997) and strongly influences the observed properties of absorbers both at large and small redshifts (Miralda-Escude et al. 1996; DMRT; DDMT). Moreover, the evolution of DM structure elements and observed absorbers is not identical.

Nonetheless, even so limited information allows us to obtain a reasonable description and interpretation of some of the observed characteristics of absorbers. In this paper we consider the statistical description of redshift distribution of absorbers and metal systems which is more detailed, in some respects, then that usually used. The comparison of measured redshift distributions with approximate theoretical expectations (DD99) allows us to discriminate statistically the contributions of high density filamentary and lower density sheet-like structure elements formed by DM and gaseous components of matter, and to trace their evolution. These two components of structure elements can be roughly identified with two subpopulations of absorbers discussed, for example, in Bahcall et al. (1996) and Weymann et al. (1998).

This division of structure elements into filaments and more sheet-like walls and pancakes is inevitably statistical only. The more detailed analysis of DM and galaxy distribution, at small redshifts (DMRT, DDMT), demonstrates limitations of such description and shows that usually the morphology of structure elements can be more accurately characterized in terms of degree of filamentarity and/or sheetness only. The investigation of morphology and spatial distribution of DM and gaseous structure elements in simulations at high redshifts with the new powerful techniques (such as the Minimal Spanning Tree or Minkowski Functional), as well as direct comparison of morphological and other characteristics of the structure elements with their redshift distribution is required to clarify this problem and to obtain more detailed comparison of observed and simulated matter distributions.

This paper is organized as follows. The theoretical model of structure evolution and the technique necessary for the analysis are briefly described in Sec. 2. Sec. 3 contains information about the used observational databases. The results of statistical analysis are presented in Sec. 4. Discussion and conclusion can be found in Sec. 5.

## 2  Redshift distribution of absorbers

### 2.1 Pancakes, filaments and walls associated with absorbers

The redshift distribution of absorbers can be characterized by the mean comoving free path between absorbers $`<l>`$ (Sargent et al. 1980) as

$$dN(z)=<l>^1c(1+z)dt=<l>^1\frac{c|dz|}{H(z)}$$
$`(2.1)`$
$$H(z)=H_0\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z)^3+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_m\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })(1+z)^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}$$

where $`dN(z)`$ is the number of absorbers between $`z`$ and $`z+dz`$, $`<l>^1`$ is the mean comoving linear number density of absorbers, $`c`$ is the speed of light, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are correspondingly the dimensionless matter density and cosmological constant. The redshift dependence of the mean comoving linear number density of absorbers can be written as:

$$n_{abs}=\frac{c}{H_0}<l>^1=n_w(z)+n_f(z)+n_{pan}(z),$$
$`(2.2)`$
$$dN(z)=n_{abs}\frac{H_0dz}{H(z)},$$

where the three terms in (2.2) correspond to three main types of structure elements observed at small redshifts: the rich walls ($`n_w`$), filaments ($`n_f`$), formed by galaxies, and poor pancakes ($`n_{pan}`$), situated far from observed galaxies.

Such division of structure elements into three different subpopulations is made for the sake of simplicity only. In particular, there is an anisotropic sheet-like low density halo around all filaments, which in turn are later strongly disrupted into a system of high density clumps. The higher density ridges cross often the low mass pancakes. Walls are also often formed by a system of high density clumps and filaments connected by lower density bridges. This means that in nature, there is really only one population of structure elements with a broad variety of continually distributed properties, and these elements can be considered as the more typical and conspicuous ones. Nonetheless, the considered classification makes this analysis simpler and more transparent, as the rate of structure evolution depends upon the degree of filamentarity or sheetness.

### 2.2 Evolution of DM structure elements

In the DM dominated universe the basic characteristics of matter distribution are determined by the process of formation and evolution of DM structure elements. The observed characteristics of absorbers and parameters of DM structure elements are not identical but they are closely connected and relations between these parameters can emerge from suitable investigations.

For the CDM-like transfer function (Bardeen et al. 1986) and the Harrison–Zel’dovich initial power spectrum the approximate statistical description of the formation and evolution of DM structure elements based on the statistics of initial perturbations was obtained in DD99. The random formation and merging of Zel’dovich pancakes with ’mass’ (column density of a pancake) $`m`$ and their evolution, due to the transversal expansion or compression, are described by approximate expressions similar to the Press-Schechter relations. Similar approximate relations can be also written for the filamentary component of the structure. Here we will apply some of these results to describe the observed evolution of absorbers.

As is usual in the Zel’dovich theory the redshift dependence of all characteristics of structure is expressed through a function $`B(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,z)`$, which describes the growth of perturbations in the linear theory. For the flat universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1,\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.1`$, the function $`B(z)`$ can be approximated (DD99) with a precision better then 10% by the expression

$$B(z)^3\frac{1\mathrm{\Omega }_m+2.2\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z)^3}{1+1.2\mathrm{\Omega }_m},$$
$`(2.3a)`$
and for an open universe with $`0.1\mathrm{\Omega }_m1,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ as

$$B(z)^11+\frac{2.5\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{1+1.5\mathrm{\Omega }_m}z$$
$`(2.3b)`$
(Zel’dovich & Novikov 1983). For $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ both expressions give $`B^1(z)=1+z`$.

#### 2.2.1 Formation and evolution of DM structure

The evolution of DM structure can be outlined as a progressive matter concentration within more and more massive structure elements which can be roughly discriminated into pancakes, filaments and walls. The structure elements are primarily formed as Zel’dovich pancakes (Shandarin et al. 1995), but later are successively transformed into filaments and/or (elliptical) clouds. At high redshifts $`z`$ 5 – 7 a significant fraction of matter ($``$80%) can be compressed into low mass pancakes with $`M_{cl}10^7`$$`10^9M_{}`$. Later some of such clouds can evolve into dwarf galaxies, some could disperse, but the main fraction will be accumulated by more massive structure elements. Properties of the surviving and relaxed clouds can be similar to those discussed in the ’minihalo’ model (Rees 1986, 1995; Miralda-Escude & Rees 1993; Meiksin 1994)

The filamentary component of structure also forms at high redshifts due to the compression of some part of pancakes, and, at $`z`$ 1 – 3, it is, probably, the most conspicuous population of high overdensity structure elements accumulating 40 – 50% of DM particles (see., e.g., Governato et al. 1998, Jenkins et al. 1998). Further evolution of structure can be described as a successive merging of lower mass pancakes and filaments into more and more massive wall-like structure elements. The largest observed wall-like elements, similar to the Great Wall, are formed at redshifts $`z`$1 due to the infall and intermixture of smaller pancakes and filaments.

In observations, at $`z`$ 1, galaxy filaments are usually situated within extended under dense regions surrounded by higher density walls, and they form an irregular broken network. This network can be described as a trunk, that is the longest filament of the complex, and a set of shorter branches. This means that the spatial distribution of filaments can be conveniently characterized by the mean 2D surface number density, $`\sigma _f(z)`$, that is the mean number of filaments intersecting a unit area of arbitrary orientation. For observed galaxy filaments it is estimated as $`\sigma _f(0)(10.7)10^2h^2\mathrm{Mpc}^2`$ (LCRS1). The spatial distribution of observed walls can be characterized by their mean separation $`D_w`$ and by their linear density, $`\sigma _w`$, that is the mean number of walls intersecting a unit length of a random straight line. For the observed galaxy walls it is estimated as $`D_w`$40 – 60$`h^1`$Mpc that corresponds to $`\sigma _w`$2.5 – 1.6$`10^2h`$Mpc<sup>-1</sup>. The low mass pancakes can be considered as isolated objects and characterized by the mean 3D number density $`\nu _{pan}(z)`$.

Simulations show that rich pancakes and filaments are relaxed (at least along shorter axes) and are surrounded by an extended DM (and gaseous) halo. Central parts of dense elements are gravitationally confined and are unstable with respect to the small scale disruption (DDMT). Some of the high density clumps are usually embedded in filaments and walls what essentially accelerates the relaxation of compressed matter. In observations, effects of such disruptions are seen as groups and clusters of galaxies.

The basic properties of DM structure elements vary in a broad range, but it can be expected that galaxies are formed mainly within richer high density filaments and pancakes. The essential fraction of poor pancakes and, perhaps, filaments, can be invisible, as it does not contain sufficiently bright galaxies. Such structure elements can be observed as weak Ly-$`\alpha `$ absorbers situated far from any galaxy. Some number of such absorbers situated at a distance of up to 5$`h^1`$Mpc from the closest galaxy was found by Morris et al. (1993) and Shull (1997).

This description agrees well with results of numerical simulations at small redshifts (DDMT). The validity of this description, when it is applied to structure at high redshifts, is not yet reliably verified with available simulations due to a small density contrast of poor structure elements. The first tests show, however, the existence of three kinds of structure elements, namely, high density filaments and clumps, and low density pancakes in DM spatial distribution at $`z=`$3. The theoretical description (DD99) confirms also the self-similar character of structure evolution (at least when the Zel’dovich approximation can be applied). This picture is also qualitatively consistent with other simulations of structure evolution (Miralda-Escude et al. 1996; Governato et al. 1998; Jenkins et al. 1998; Meiksin 1998; DMRT; Davè et al. 1999; Weinberg et al. 1998).

#### 2.2.2 Main factors of structure evolution

The four main factors characterizing the structure evolution are

1. successive formation of structure elements with larger and larger masses,
2. merging of earlier formed, more numerous, low mass filaments and pancakes
3. expansion or compression of matter along filaments and pancakes
4. small scale clustering of compressed matter and disruption of structure elements.

The action of these factors was discussed in DD99 (Secs. 4.1, 4.2 & 5.2) and it was shown that for the CDM-like initial power spectrum and Gaussian initial perturbations it can be approximately described by simple analytical expressions. Some of these relations were tested and confirmed through the direct comparison with DM simulations (DDMT). Here we will briefly summarize these results.

The distribution function of Zel’dovich pancakes with mass (surface density) $`m_p`$, $`N_p(m_p)`$, can be written as follows:

$$N_p(m_p)\frac{1}{\sqrt{m_pm_p}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{m_p}{m_p}\right)\mathrm{erf}\left[\sqrt{\frac{m_p}{m_p}}\right],$$
$`(2.4)`$
$$m_pB^2,$$

where the successive merging of low mass pancakes in the course of formation of richer pancakes is described by the $`erf`$-function. The process of merging decreases the number density of numerous low mass structure elements – both filaments and pancakes – with $`m_pm_p`$, but its influence becomes negligible for rare, massive, wall-like structure elements, with $`m_pm_p`$, and rare rich filaments. For the fraction of pancakes with $`m_{min}m_pm_{max}`$ from (2.4) we have:

$$f_perf^2\left[\sqrt{\frac{m_{max}}{m_p}}\right]erf^2\left[\sqrt{\frac{m_{min}}{m_p}}\right].$$
$`(2.5)`$
For rich walls formed presumably at $`z`$ 1 – 1.5 with $`m_{max}\mathrm{}`$ and $`m_{min}m_wm_p`$ this relation is simplified and approximately we have

$$f_w1erf^2\left[\sqrt{\frac{m_w}{m_p}}\right]erfc\left[\sqrt{\frac{m_w}{m_p}}\right],$$
$`(2.6)`$
what constrains the population of massive pancakes. For the subpopulation of poor pancakes similar relation

$$f_w1erf^2\left[\sqrt{\frac{m_{min}}{m_p}}\right]exp\left[\frac{m_{min}}{m_p}\right],$$

is valid only at higher redshifts $`z`$ 3.5 – 4, when $`m_{max}m_{min}m_p`$, whereas during the most interesting period, $`z`$ 3.5, when $`m_{min}m_p`$, the second term in (2.5) can be omitted.

The discrimination of rich walls and poor pancakes seems to be artificial, in some respects, but it allows us to provide a closer connection with observed galaxy and simulated DM distributions at smaller redshifts. Moreover, rich walls are certainly strongly nonhomogeneous and disrupted into high density clumps and filaments, what essentially decreases their covering factor. Due to these peculiarities such walls can form a special class of objects.

The distribution function of filaments with mass (linear density) $`m_f`$ is found to be proportional to

$$N_f\frac{1}{m_f}K_0^2\left(\sqrt{\frac{m_f}{4m_f}}\right),m_fB^4,$$
$`(2.7)`$
where $`K_0(x)`$ is the modified Bessel function (DD99) and the fraction of rich filaments, with $`m_fm_f`$, is

$$f_f\mathrm{exp}\left(\sqrt{\frac{m_f}{m_f}}\right).$$
$`(2.8)`$
As before, the infall of filaments into rich walls decreases the fraction of filaments associated with the network $`erf[\sqrt{m_p/m_p}]B^1`$.

Furthermore, the properties of structure are essentially changed due to matter expansion and/or compression in transversal directions. Compression results in transformation of pancakes into filaments and high density clouds, what decreases their effective surface and, also, the probability to see such a structure element as an absorber. Strong expansion increases the surface of pancakes and the length of filaments and correspondingly decreases their density. In the limiting case, low mass pancakes and filaments can be transformed into a system of high density clumps or they can even completely disperse. The expansion decreases also the column density of HI below the observational threshold, $`N_{HI}^{(thr)}10^{12}cm^2`$, what makes such elements invisible as absorbers. Therefore, the population of structure elements identified with absorbers is restricted by the condition of their relatively slow expansion or compression in transversal directions. Fraction of such low mass pancakes decreases with time $`erf^2[\sqrt{m_p/m_p}]`$, and fraction of such low mass filaments decreases $`erf[\sqrt{m_p/m_p}]B^1`$. The influence of these factors is less important for rare rich walls and filaments.

Due to gravitational instability of compressed matter both pancakes and filaments are usually disrupted into a system of high density clouds linked by low density bridges. Such disruption occurs more rapidly in the central high density parts of structure elements, but, probably, its impact is not so important for the extended lower density halo. When these processes are taken into account the final relations become very cumbersome and therefore such more detailed treatment is not really justified for when only limited set of observed absorbers is available.

When these factors are taken into account we can only approximately describe the expected evolution of walls, filaments, and low mass pancakes associated with the absorbers. The comoving linear number density of massive walls, $`\sigma _w(m)`$ with $`mm_w`$, the comoving surface number density of filaments, $`\sigma _f(m)`$, and the comoving number density of pancakes, $`\nu _{pan}(m)`$, can be approximated by simple expressions:

$$\sigma _w\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{b_w(m)}{B^2}\right),$$
$`(2.9)`$
$$\sigma _fB^2\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{b_f(m)}{B^2}\right),$$
$`(2.10)`$
$$\nu _{pan}erf^2\left(\frac{b_1}{B}\right)\left[erf^2\left(\frac{b_2}{B}\right)erf^2\left(\frac{b_3}{B}\right)\right],$$
$`(2.11)`$
where the parameters $`b_w,b_f\&b_3(m)`$ and the exponential terms in (2.9) and (2.10) restrict formation of structure elements with masses $`>m`$, the term $`B^2`$ in (2.10) describes successive infall of filaments into richer walls and the decrease, due to expansion or compression, of number of filaments observed as absorbers with $`N_{HI}N_{HI}^{(thr)}`$. The decrease of the number density of pancakes is described by the factor $`b_1`$ in (2.10).

For restricted redshift interval $`z`$ 3.5 the three parameter expression for $`\nu _{pan}`$ can be approximated by a simpler one parameter expression

$$\nu _{pan}B^3\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{b_{pan}(m)}{B^2}\right),$$
$`(2.12)`$
which correctly describes the asymptotical behavior of $`\nu _{pan}`$ at small and large redshifts. In the intermediate region it provides a reasonable precision $``$ 10 – 15%, for $`z`$ 3.5. The more complicated relation (2.11) provides better description of absorbers evolution especially at higher redshifts $`z`$ 3 – 3.5 and can be used for more refined fits.

High density clouds and galaxies are usually embedded in filaments and pancakes and cannot be distinguished as a special class of absorbers. These problems were discussed with more details in our other publications DD99, DMRT and DDMT.

### 2.3 Model of absorbers evolution

The relations (2.3), (2.9) - (2.12) cannot give the full description of observed redshift distribution of absorbers, but they suggest possible redshift evolution of various types of absorbers and introduce the function $`B(z,\mathrm{\Omega }_m)`$ as an important characteristic of such evolution. It is important that the redshift evolution of free-path between walls, filaments, and low mass pancakes is expected to be different, and therefore, it might be possible to single out statistically these three subpopulations of absorbers, and to establish correlations between the evolutionary rates and other observational characteristics of absorbers.

The DM structure is quite complicated in itself as it is composed of several types of structure elements with different evolutionary histories. Furthermore, properties and evolution of the observed gaseous and DM structure elements are not identical, because of the influence of additional factors on the evolution of gaseous component of DM confined structure elements and, therefore, even more complicated evolution of absorbers can be expected. The action of these factors usually decelerates the evolution of gaseous component but, due to very small density of this component, its impact on the evolution of DM component is negligible. Thus, the formation of weak absorbers within ”minivoids” does not accompanied by the formation any DM structure elements (Bi & Davidsen 1997; Zhang et al. 1998; Davé et al. 1999).

The observational restrictions such as the condition $`N_{HI}N_{HI}^{(thr)}`$ constrain also the population of absorbers and the observed evolution of absorbers. Thus, for example, the exponential growth of fraction of massive high temperature pancakes (in the limiting case, walls similar to the Great Wall) is not found in the observed distribution of absorbers (Sec. 4). Moreover, the mean measured $`b`$ – parameter of absorbers, related to the gas temperature, remains constant for the observed redshifts 2.5 $`z`$3.3. This means that, possibly, some rich DM structure elements are not yet identified in the absorption spectra of quasars.

The redshift dependence of $`n_{abs}`$ is driven both by the evolution of spatial characteristics of DM structure elements, discussed above, and by evolution of their covering factor, which characterizes the probability of formation of absorption line at the intersection of line of sight and a structure element. The covering factor depends on local conditions such as, for example, variations of the UV background and activity of nearest galaxies. Now it can be also described phenomenologically.

The important role of UV background is well established after the discussion in Sargent et al. (1980), but the UV intensity and its possible variation with redshift is known only with large uncertainty (see, e.g., Haardt & Madau 1996; Cook, Espey & Carswell 1997). The influence of systematic variations of UV radiation is more important at small ($`z`$ 2) and higher ($`z`$ 3 – 3.5) redshifts where the statistic of absorbers is strongly limited. At intermediate redshifts 2.5 $`z`$ 3.5 where the main fraction of observed absorbers is situated the systematic variations of UV radiation are not so strong, but this radiation is probably responsible for the significant irregular variations of absorbers density.

The redshift distribution of observed absorbers can be distorted by the formation of artificial caustics in the redshift space (McGill 1990; Levshakov & Kegel 1996, 1997). As was shown in DDMT the impact of this effect is certainly small at small redshifts. At intermediate redshifts and for the usually used CDM-like power spectra the formation of artificial caustics is partly suppressed due to strong matter concentration within low mass structure elements discussed in DD99 and Zhang et al. (1998). This factor transforms the continuous matter infall into pancakes to discontinuous one, increases the density gradient near pancake boundaries and partly prevents the formation of artificial caustics. Moreover, such an artificial caustic is actually the preliminary stage of formation of a real caustic, and, so, it is rapidly transformed into a real one. This factor can moderately change the discussed redshift dependence of absorbers.

The contribution of artificial caustics and absorbers within ”minivoids” as well as of short-lived rapidly expanding or contracting pancakes is more important at higher redshifts, when weak absorbers dominate. These factors generate an essential noise what is usually typical for the period preceding the epoch of regular evolution. At such redshifts, the available statistics of observed absorbers is very poor, and our analysis becomes unreliable. Perhaps, more detailed and careful investigations based upon the simulations will allow to discriminate observationally between this noise and long-lived structure elements (see, e.g., discussion in Zhang et al. 1998) that will essentially improve and simplify the comparison with theoretical expectations.

The more detailed description of structure evolution significantly increases the number of fit parameters for limited available statistics of observed absorbers, and more detailed description accompanied by a further growth of number of fit parameters does not seem to be justified. Hence, as the first step, we will fit the observed redshift distribution of absorbers to relations similar to theoretically expected expressions (2.9)–(2.12), but instead of the functions $`b(m)`$, arbitrary fitting parameters will be used. The difference between the observed and expected redshift distributions can be attributed to the influence of omitted factors. Similar analysis can be repeated with richer data base and/or with available numerical simulations.

#### 2.3.1 Absorption in wall-like elements

The first term in (2.2), $`n_w`$, describes absorption associated with wall-like elements. Now these elements accumulate $``$ 50% of galaxies and their possible contribution cannot be rejected a priori. The observed mean separation of walls is about 40 – 60$`h^1`$Mpc and the comoving linear number density of such elements is $`\sigma _w(0)`$2.5 – 1.5$`10^2h`$Mpc<sup>-1</sup> (LCRS1). These elements are formed during late evolutionary stages and can be observed, primarily, at small redshifts, $`z`$1 – 1.5.

Taking into account expressions (2.3) & (2.9) we will approximate the mean dimensionless linear number density of absorbers associated with such elements by the two parameter function

$$n_w(z)\kappa _wE(c_w,z),$$
$`(2.13)`$
$$\kappa _w=\frac{c\sigma _w(0)\alpha _w}{H_0},E(c_w,z)=\mathrm{exp}[c_w(B^2(z)1)],$$

where the covering factor $`\alpha _w<1`$, and the parameter $`c_w`$ characterize probability of formation of an absorption line in a wall and the period of wall formation, respectively. The observed wall-like structure elements are strongly disrupted (see, e.g., Fig 5 in Ramella et al. 1992) and therefore we can expect that $`\alpha _w`$1, $`n_w(0)=\kappa _w60\alpha _w`$.

#### 2.3.2 Absorption in filamentary elements

The second term in (2.2), $`n_f`$, describes absorption in filaments formed by DM, galaxies and intergalactic gas. The filamentary component of the structure accumulates $``$ 50% of DM and galaxies and forms a joint network of structure between wall-like elements. As was noted above, the mean observed 2D surface density of galaxy filaments is estimated as $`\sigma _f(0)0.01h^2`$Mpc<sup>-2</sup>.

The mean free-path between filaments depends on their surface density, $`\sigma _f`$, and their diameters. To find it we consider the intersection of cylindrical filaments with typical radius of gaseous halo $`R_f`$ and a random cylindrical core with radius $`r`$ and length $`L`$. The mean number of such intersections can be found with standard methods (Kendall & Moran 1963, Buryak et al. 1994) as follows:

$$N_{int}=\pi \sigma _fL(r+R_f).$$

The mean free-path between such cylindrical filaments along a line of sight can be approximated by

$$l_fL/N_{int}|_{r=0}=(\pi \sigma _fR_f)^1,$$
$`(2.14)`$
while the mean length of a line of sight within a filament is $`2R_f`$.

Taking into account expressions (2.10) we will approximate the mean dimensionless linear number density of absorbers associated with filaments by a two parameter function

$$n_f(z)\kappa _f(1+z)B^2(z)E(c_f,z)$$
$`(2.15)`$
$$\kappa _f=\frac{c}{H_0}\pi R_{eff}\sigma _f(0),E(c_f,z)=\mathrm{exp}[c_f(B^2(z)1)],$$

$$R_{eff}=\alpha _fR_f=\frac{\kappa _fH_0}{\pi c\sigma _f}10.6\kappa _f\left(\frac{\sigma _f}{0.01h^2\mathrm{Mpc}^2}\right)h^1\mathrm{kpc}.$$

Here $`R_f`$ is the mean radius of gaseous halo of a filament, the covering factor $`\alpha _f(z)<1`$ characterizes the probability of formation of an absorption line within a separate filament, and the factors $`1+z`$, and $`B^2(z)`$, describe the expected variation of surface density of absorbers associated with filaments due to the general expansion of the universe, merging, and expansion or compression of filaments. The parameter $`c_f`$ characterizes the period of formation of the main fraction of observed filaments.

The mean radius of gaseous halo of filaments, $`R_f`$, can vary with the redshift and along the filament, because the observed galactic density varies along the filament as well. This means that our statistical estimate of averaged $`R_f`$ is weighted by the matter distribution along filaments at different redshifts.

More detailed models of absorbers associated with DM filaments can be developed. They depend however on many parameters which cannot be adequately determined from the available database. Hence, in this paper we will restrict our consideration to the two parametric model discussed above.

#### 2.3.3 Absorption in low mass structure elements

The third term in (2.2), $`n_{pan}`$, describes absorption by low mass structure elements. The available information about properties of this population at small redshifts is very limited and we can estimate only the mean linear number density of such pancakes $`n_{pan}(0)=\kappa _{pan}`$. Taking into account expressions (2.12), we will approximate the mean dimensionless linear density of such absorbers, as

$$n_{pan}(z)\kappa _{pan}(1+z)^2B^3(z)E(c_{pan},z),$$
$`(2.16)`$
$$E(c_{pan},z)=\mathrm{exp}[c_{pan}(B^2(z)1)].$$

Here the factors $`(1+z)^2`$, and $`B^3(z)`$, describe the expected variation of the density $`n_{pan}(z)`$, caused by the general expansion, merging of pancakes, and their compression, and/or expansion in transversal directions. The parameter $`\kappa _{pan}`$ is the effective dimensionless free-path between such absorbers at $`z=0`$, and $`c_{pan}`$ characterizes the period of formation of the main fraction of observed pancakes with $`N_{HI}N_{HI}^{(thr)}`$.

The expressions (2.13), (2.15) & (2.16) give probable fitting relations to the observed evolution of absorbers associated with various types of structure elements. They allow us to estimate, in principle, the effective radius of gaseous component of filaments and the parameters of cosmological model $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. All fitting parameters have clear interpretation.

Here we do not consider the possible contribution of any high density clouds, because they are usually embedded in DM filaments and pancakes. This contribution is small, at least at redshifts $`z`$ 3, and cannot be reliably singled out with available database, but it probably is more important at higher redshifts.

### 2.4 Observed linear number density of structure elements

The small scale clustering of absorption lines has been reported in many papers (see, e.g., Cristiani et al. 1995, 1996; Ulmer 1996), and it is especially important for metal systems. It implies that a complex of nearby lines can be generated in the same structure element. As we are interested in statistics of structure elements this factor must be taken into account. To do this we will use a technique developed earlier for the core-sampling method (Buryak et al. 1994; LCRS1), which allows us to select a Poison-like subsample of points from a general sample. The redshift dependence of the mean number density of the subsample characterizes the redshift evolution of uncorrelated absorbers, which can be identified with separate structure elements.

This method uses separation of neighboring lines rather than the lines redshift itself, what attenuates somewhat the influence of selection effects inherent in individual spectra. If the number of lines in a sample is $``$ 30 – 50 we can estimate the parameters of Poisson distribution with a reasonable precision $``$ 10 – 20%. Hence, we can use the available catalogues, what is important for the metal systems, as number of such systems in individual absorption spectra is usually small.

The major points of the method can be summarized as follows:

1. Separation between lines is characterized by the dimensionless comoving distance

$$\mathrm{\Delta }l=H_0\mathrm{\Delta }z/H(z).$$
$`(2.17)`$
2. A subsample of lines, in an interval $`zdz<z<z+dz`$, taken from all spectra under investigation is organized into an ‘equivalent single field’ by combining the line separations $`\mathrm{\Delta }l`$ one after the other along a line.
3. Distribution of absorbers obtained in that way is assumed to be Poissonian for larger separations. 1D cluster analysis is used to discriminate the Poisson-like subsample among the sample of points, and to find the number, and the mean linear number density of such points. The theoretical groundwork for such an approach was developed by Buryak, Demiański, & Doroshkevich (1991).

Using the standard 1D clustering analysis, the mean number of Poisson points in the sample, $`N_P`$, and their mean linear number density, $`n_P`$, are found by the maximum likelihood fit to the relation

$$\mathrm{ln}(N_l)=\mathrm{ln}(N_P)n_PR_l,$$
$`(2.18)`$
where $`R_l`$ and $`N_l`$ are the variable linking length and the related number of clusters, respectively. Note that for a truly Poisson sample parameters $`N_P\&n_P`$ are related to the length of the ‘equivalent single field’, $`D_0`$, defined by the first and the farthest point by

$$D_0/N_P=n_P.$$
$`(2.19)`$
Thus, the difference between the values $`N_P`$ and $`n_p`$ obtained from equation (2.18) and from equation (2.19), and variations of the actual number of clusters along a straight line (2.18) give us a measure of error made due to the difference of the actual from the assumed (Poisson) distribution for absorbers along the line of sight. To decrease this error we use an automatic procedure, which finds the optimal range of $`R_l`$ for the fit to equation (2.18). Both upper and lower limits of $`R_l`$ were varied to obtain the best fit for the linear number density of absorbers $`n_{abs}(z)`$.

As a rule, the precision of this method increases with the number of lines, $`N_{line}(z)`$, in the interval $`zdz<z<z+dz`$. For $`N_{line}(z)>50`$, any random variation does not exceed 10%, and the real error is defined by the systematic variations of the sample under investigation. For smaller $`N_{line}(z)`$, random variations become essential. This condition restricts the choice of optimal interval to $`dz`$ 0.2 – 0.25.

## 3  The database

The present analysis is based on spectra available in the literature. The list of such objects is given in Table 1.

The distribution of lines over redshift is nonhomogeneous and majority of lines are concentrated at $`z`$ 3. Using the technique described above, we can obtain the linear density of Poisson subsample of absorbers, at $`z3.2`$, with a reasonable precision of about of 10 – 20%. Distribution of absorbers, at $`z3.2`$, is based primarily on the 430 lines of QSO 0000-260 (Lu et al. 1996), and here the statistics of lines is rather poor. Inclusion of the spectrum of QSO 1033-033 extends the redshift interval up to $`z`$ 4.4, but it cannot improve inadequate representativity of the sample at $`z`$ 3.2. Samples of poorer lines, with $`\mathrm{log}N_{HI}`$ 13, are incomplete at all redshifts.

A few samples of observed metal systems were analyzed. Here we present results obtained for the richest recent sample (Vanden Berk et al. 1999). This catalogue contains 901 separations between lines of neighboring metal systems from 237 spectra of quasars at redshifts $`0z3.5`$.

The published Ly-$`\alpha `$ lines with different $`N_{HI}`$ were organized into six samples listed in Table 2. All samples were supplemented by the HST data (Bahcall et al. 1993, 1996; Jannuzi et al. 1998). The samples with $`N_{HI}13.8`$, are associated mainly with the filamentary component of the structure, whereas samples with $`N_{HI}13`$, and $`N_{HI}12`$, are associated predominantly with the poor pancakes.

## 4 Statistical analysis of structure evolution

In this section the main results are presented for the redshift distribution of both Ly-$`\alpha `$ lines and metal systems. They confirm that the redshift distribution of Ly-$`\alpha `$ lines is a superposition of several populations, with different evolutionary histories (Bahcall et al. 1996). Using the method and the fitting relations discussed in Sec. 2 for the analysis of samples with different $`N_{HI}`$, we can roughly discriminate two populations of absorbers, and describe their evolution. Our estimates use essentially the HST data for $`z`$ 1.5.

For three cosmological models the distribution of absorbers was fitted to the expression

$$n_{abs}=\frac{\kappa _f(1+z)}{B^2(z)}E(c_f,z)+\frac{\kappa _{pan}(1+z)^2}{B^3(z)}E(c_{pan},z)$$
$`(4.1)`$
$$E(c,z)=\mathrm{exp}[c(B^2(z)1)].$$

The function $`B(z)`$ was introduced in (2.3). The main results are plotted in Figs. 1 – 5, and the best fit parameters, $`\kappa _f,c_f,\kappa _{pan}`$, and

$$R_{eff}=\frac{\kappa _fH_0}{\pi c\sigma _f}10.6\kappa _f\left(\frac{\sigma _f}{0.01h^2\mathrm{Mpc}^2}\right)h^1\mathrm{kpc},$$
$`(4.2)`$
are listed in Tables 3 – 5. For samples of richer absorbers $`c_{pan}`$=0, whereas for samples of poorer absorbers $`c_{pan}0.05\pm 0.05`$ was found with large errors and, so, it is omitted in Table 4.

### 4.1 The redshift distribution of metal system and stronger HI lines

It can be expected that the redshift distribution of metal systems and stronger Ly-$`\alpha `$ lines is connected with the evolution of richer structure elements, which are seen in galaxy surveys as filaments and walls. To examine this hypothesis the function $`n_{abs}(z)`$ was found for the sample of metal systems, and the samples of strongest Ly-$`\alpha `$ lines $`Q_{14}^{14}`$, and $`Q_{14}^{138}`$. The analysis shows that in all cases no more than 10 – 15% of all lines can be attributed to the massive wall-like elements, what is consistent with the large separation of walls ($`50h^1`$Mpc) and their strong disruption into a system of high density clouds, what decreases their covering factor.

For all considered cosmological models the redshift distributions of Ly-$`\alpha `$ absorbers, for samples $`Q_{14}^{14}`$, and $`Q_{14}^{138}`$, are well fitted, at $`z`$ 3, to the one parameter function (4.1) with $`c_f=0`$, and $`\kappa _{pan}=0`$. The redshift distribution of metal systems is well fitted to the two parameter function (4.1) with $`\kappa _{pan}=0`$. The best parameters of these fits are listed in Table 3. They show that metal systems are predominantly formed within inner regions of gaseous halos of filaments, whose size, $`R_{eff}^{met}`$, is about half the size of hydrogen halos, $`R_{eff}^{HI}`$. Both sizes are consistent with those observed directly at small $`z`$: $`R_{HI}`$ 100 – 150$`h^1`$kpc (Lanzetta et al. 1995), and $`R_{met}`$ 40 – 50$`h^1`$kpc (see, e.g., Le Brune et al. 1996), and to the expected size of DM halo (Bahcall et al. 1996). The precision of estimates of $`R_{eff}`$ depends on the representativity of the sample used.

These results suggest that the redshift distribution, and the column density of absorbers are strongly correlated, and corroborate the identification of strong HI absorbers, and metal systems, with the filamentary component of the structure of the universe. They show that such filaments were probably formed at redshifts $`z`$ 2, but their enrichment by metals could occur later, at redshifts $`z`$ 2 and smaller.

At redshifts $`z`$ 3, the situation becomes more complicated, and the observed absorber distribution is no longer described by the one parameter fit plotted in Fig. 2 by dotted lines. To obtain a reasonable description, even for the redshift distribution of stronger absorbers, at $`z`$ 3, the three parameter fit (4.1) with $`c_{pan}=0`$ must be used. This indicates that at $`z`$ 3 progressively increasing part of stronger absorbers must be assigned to pancakes.

The best parameters of these fits are listed in Table 4, and fitting functions $`n_{abs}(z)`$ are plotted in Fig. 2 by solid and long dashed lines. These estimates of $`c_f`$ and $`R_{eff}`$ crucially depend on the region of redshifts 2.5 $`z`$ 3.3, and could be sensitive to the possible evolution of filaments. They show that the formation of such filaments described by the exponential term in (4.1) could occur at redshifts $`z`$ 1, while later the surface density of filaments progressively decreases. The effective radii listed in Table 4 exceed by about 2 – 3 times those listed in Table 3 for smaller redshifts. This fact can be attributed to the progressive compression, small scale disruption, and relaxation of dark matter within and around filaments, which is accompanied by the progressive dissipation of gaseous halo of filaments. The observed evolution can also be partly assigned to the variations of background UV radiation with redshift.

At redshifts $`z`$ 2 – 2.5, more and more essential fraction of strong absorbers is associated with rich pancakes, and, at $`z`$ 3.5, the pancakes become dominant, even for this population. This fact probably indicates the period of more rapid transformation of rich pancakes into filaments.

This conclusion is based on poor statistics of absorbers, at $`z`$ 3, and should be tested with more representative sample of absorbers and with simulations.

For our samples the parameters of standard fit to

$$dN/dz=N_0(1+z)^{\gamma _z},$$
$`(4.3)`$
are:

$$N_0^{met}=6.8\pm 0.5,\gamma _z^{met}=0.35\pm 0.25,$$

$$N_0^{HI}=12.7\pm 2,\gamma _z^{HI}=1.5\pm 0.3,$$
$`(4.4)`$
with a weak dependence on the considered cosmological models.

### 4.2 Redshift distribution of weaker Ly-$`\alpha `$ lines

The samples of weaker absorbers are rich enough but, even so, the main fraction of observed absorbers is concentrated near $`z`$ 2.5 – 3.3. In Figs. 3 & 4 the functions $`n_{abs}(z)`$ are plotted, for the samples $`Q_{14}^{13}`$, $`Q_{12}^{13}`$, and $`Q_{14}^{12}`$, $`Q_{12}^{12}`$, together with the four parameters fit (4.1). Both samples of poor absorbers with $`\mathrm{log}N_{HI}13`$ are incomplete. The best fit parameters $`\kappa _f`$, $`c_f`$, $`\kappa _{pan}`$, and $`c_{pan}`$ listed in Table 4 are weakly sensitive to the used cosmological models.

These results show that, at redshifts $`z`$ 1.5 – 2, an essential fraction of weaker absorbers can be associated with the periphery of filaments and/or with possible membranes and bridges between branches of filaments, what is consistent with the expectations of Fernandes-Soto et al. (1996). But at high redshifts, the main fraction of poorer absorbers is certainly identified with the population of low mass pancakes and, for $`N_{HI}10^{13}cm^2`$, with absorbers formed within expanded regions. The small value of $`c_{pan}`$ 0.03 – 0.05 suggests that these absorbers were formed at $`z`$ 4 – 5. These estimates are sensitive to the distribution of absorbers at $`z`$ 3, where the observed samples are not sufficiently representative. For these populations the random overlapping of poor absorbers in the redshift space, discussed by McGill (1990) and Levshakov & Kegel (1998), formation of absorbers within ”minivoids” (Zhang et al. 1998; Davé et al. 1999) as well as the variations of UV background can distort the observed mass and temperature distribution of absorbers. As was noted in Sec. 2.1.2, at these redshifts, the more complicated three parameters function (2.11) provides better fit of observed distribution of absorbers.

The essential variations of measured linear density, $`n_{abs}`$, with respect to the smooth fitting functions are seen in Figs. 3 & 4 at $`z`$ 2.5 – 3. They can be caused, in part, by the poor statistics of absorbers, at $`z`$ 2.5, and $`z`$ 3.5. If the variations seen at $`z`$ 3 are real they can be connected with similar results obtained for the population of stronger absorbers and, thus, can indicate the period of fast transformation of pancakes into filaments. They can also be caused by influence of local factors and, first of all, by variations of background UV radiation.

The parameters of standard fit (4.3) are:

$$N_0^{pan}=13.8\pm 0.6,\gamma _z^{pan}=2.4\pm 0.2,\mathrm{for}Q_{12}^{13},$$
$`(4.5)`$
$$N_0^{pan}=11.8\pm 0.6,\gamma _z^{pan}=2.75\pm 0.2,\mathrm{for}Q_{12}^{12},$$
$`(4.6)`$
with a weak dependence on the parameters of considered cosmological models. The power index $`\gamma _z^{pan}`$ is close to the value found earlier (see, e.g., Carswell 1995; Cristiani et al. 1996).

### 4.3 Redshift distribution of Ly-$`\alpha `$ lines with $`b`$ 40km/s and $`b`$ 20km/s

The same technique can be applied to single out other subpopulations of absorbers such as subpopulations with lower Doppler parameter $`b`$, $`b`$ 20km/s, and larger, $`b`$ 40km/s. The main results of this analysis are plotted in Fig. 5, and the best fitting parameters are listed in Table 5. Unfortunately, they cannot be complemented by HST data at smaller redshifts.

These subpopulations are not so representative and at $`z`$ 4 they contain only 640 lines with $`b`$ 20km/s and 727 lines with $`b`$ 40km/s. This is the main source of the large errors of fitting parameters listed in Table 5. Nonetheless, these results demonstrate that, if the subpopulation of hot absorbers with $`b`$ 40km/s can be associated with pancakes, then the redshift distribution of cold absorbers with $`b`$ 20km/s is similar to that found for filamentary component of the structure.

## 5 Summary and Discussion.

In this paper the observed redshift distributions of Ly-$`\alpha `$ lines and metal systems are analyzed and interpreted in the framework of theoretical model of DM structure evolution (DD99). The observed evolution of absorbers depends on several random factors and does not trace directly the evolution of the DM component. Our results show however that the observed redshift distributions of absorbers can be reasonably described even by the discussed model.

The main results of our analysis can be summarized as follows:

1. The different redshift distributions of stronger and weaker absorbers favor the existence of two distinct subpopulations of Ly-$`\alpha `$ absorbers: a rapidly evolving subpopulation of weaker absorbers, that dominates at high redshifts, and more slowly evolving subpopulation of stronger absorbers, that dominates at low redshifts (Bahcall et al. 1996). This result coincides with theoretical expectations.
2. The expected evolution of filamentary component of structure describes adequately the redshift distribution of metal systems, and stronger Ly-$`\alpha `$ lines, at $`z`$ 3. This strong correlation of evolutionary rate and the column density of absorbers suggests possible identification of stronger absorbers with the filamentary component of observed galaxy distribution.
3. The subpopulation of colder absorbers, with $`b`$ 20km/s, can be probably related with the filamentary component of the structure.
4. The rapid evolution of the linear number density of weaker absorbers, $`n_{abs}`$, can be naturally explained by the model of separate DM confined pancakes that are merging and expand or contract in transversal direction, as it is described by the theoretical model discussed above. At $`z`$ 2 – 2.5, disruption of the compressed matter can essentially accelerate the evolution of this subpopulation.
5. The observed redshift distribution of absorbers depends on the influence of irregular local factors, such as variations of background UV radiation, and shock heating of gas produced by activity of galaxies. This impact is seen as irregular variations of the observed linear number density of absorbers around the smooth fitting curves.
6. The obtained estimates of $`c_f`$ can be interpreted as a probable pick of the rate of formation of filaments at $`z`$ 2 – 2.5 whereas their enrichment by the metals can occur at $`z`$ 2 and smaller. The small values of $`c_{pan}`$, found for all subpopulations under investigation, show that the main fraction of observed poor absorbers can be associated with DM structure elements formed at redshifts $`z`$ 5.

The main quantitative characteristics of redshift distribution of absorbers, discussed above, admit natural interpretation and coincide with published estimates (see, e.g., Hu et al. 1995; Lanzetta et al. 1995; Cristiani 1995, 1996; Le Brune 1996; Bahcall 1996). They are roughly consistent with the expected evolution of DM structure and can be, in principle, used to test and to discriminate different cosmological models. Now the best fit is obtained for the model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$= 0.3, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$=0.7, but the more representative database at redshifts $`z`$ 2 – 2.5 and $`z`$ 3 is required for more reliable discrimination of cosmological models.

On the other hand, the discussed rough model of structure evolution ignores many details, such as, for example, the continual variation of morphological characteristics of structure elements, and does not describe the disruption of structure. This model could be improved, but then it is inevitable to increase the number of fit parameters and, so, it will be justified only when richer sets of observed absorbers, especially at smaller and higher redshifts become available. This comment applies also to the more detailed description of expected variations of UV radiation and possible contribution of artificial caustics. Application of this approach to available simulations could test and improve it as well.

The wall-like structure elements and large under dense regions found in distribution of galaxies at small redshifts cannot yet be reliably identified with the available database. The large scale modulation of redshift distribution of Ly-$`\alpha `$ lines found by Cristiani et al. (1997) and strong nonhomogeneities, found recently at $`z`$ 2, by Williger et al. (1996), Quashnock et al. (1996, 1998), and Connolly et al. (1997) could be probably attributed to such rare extremely rich structure elements. Appearance of such elements is not forbidden at any redshifts, but it can be expected that their number will rapidly decreases for larger redshifts.

### Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Dan Vanden Berk for providing the new list of observed metal systems. This paper was supported in part by Denmark’s Grundforskningsfond through its support for an establishment of Theoretical Astrophysics Center, by the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research grant Nr. 2-P03D-014-17, and the grant INTAS-93-68. AGD and VIT also wish to acknowledge support from the Center of Cosmo-Particle Physics in Moscow. Furthermore, we wish to thank the anonymous referee for many useful comments.


format: text

text:
# Toward a Symmetrization of Gravity I. Classical Formulation: Results and Predictions; Dark Matter With a Difference

## 1 Introduction

For well over 50 years astrophysicists have been struggling with the apparent mass discrepancies that seem to exist in large scale structures throughout the universe (Zwicky 1937). The discovery of asymptotically flat galactic rotation curves at large distances from the core (Bosma 1978) started an avalanche of “dark” matter (DM) ideas in an effort to explain the growing body of data. Interestingly, it seems that many current versions of DM run into serious difficulties when compared with observed properties of galaxies (Sellwood 2000). Moreover, with the discovery of the likelihood of a global acceleration to the Hubble flow (Perlmutter et al. 1999; Riess et al. 1998), it would seem that the time is ripe for a fundamentally new approach, one which might have the possibility of explaining many disparate observational problems. To this end, we postulate an additional mode for gravitational interaction in which the field associated with a hypothetical particle is everywhere repelling. For simplicity, we call the mass associated with this field $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, to distinguish it from “ordinary” matter, M. If the repelling field is inverse-square in nature, the combined gravitational and anti-gravitational force between the M and $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ will be independent of separation, and thus merely implies a change in the magnitude of G.

However, a potential of the form $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\stackrel{~}{M}}\frac{1}{r^2}`$ has several interesting aspects that we will investigate here:

A) Although repelling by nature, it can substantially enhance the gravitational acceleration in the limit of large distances from the center of the potential, as well as yield standard Newtonian dynamics as r $``$ 0.

B) It suggests a force acting over a 4 dimensional, real spatial manifold.

An obvious characteristic of the superposition of an inverse-cube repelling force with an inverse-square attracting force is that it establishes and requires a length scale to be invoked. Only at one particular separation of an $`M\stackrel{~}{M}`$ pair will the magnitudes of the field strengths be equal. Thus, if this separation of an isolated M-$`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ pair is given as $`R_0`$, any perturbation of either particle tends toward equilibrium. (By equilibrium, we mean here that the absolute value of the two fields are equal). If the separation is increased, the inverse-square attractive term dominates (thereby decreasing the separation ), while if the separation is decreased, the inverse-cube repelling term dominates (thereby sending the system back toward larger values of the separation).

At equilibrium, we have:

$$\stackrel{~}{g}\left|\frac{\stackrel{~}{G}\stackrel{~}{M}}{R_0^3}\right|=\left|\frac{GM}{R_0^2}\right|g$$
(1)
So, for the case of M=$`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, it follows that $`\frac{\stackrel{~}{G}}{G}=R_0`$. Since we invoke “equilibrium” (M=$`\stackrel{~}{M}`$) at the limit of large R, it seems natural to choose $`R_o100`$ Mpc, which is the putative lower bound of true global homogeneity (Tucker, Lin & Shectman 1999). With this value,

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{G}}{G}310^{26}cm\text{and thus}\stackrel{~}{G}210^{19}cgs\text{units}$$
(2)
Note that this distance scale is merely a currently observed quantity, and as such, does not *in principle* depend on the time history of the Universe. If the Universe is flat or open, this scale length can exist at all epochs. Thus, we don’t necessarily need to invoke time variability of fundamental constants. If the Universe is closed, there will be an epoch where the scale factor implies global distances smaller than 100 Mpc, but this still does not rule out anything that follows here. In any event, we bear in mind that this value is just a working hypothesis, and has no real effect on our conclusions for dynamics, since the *product* of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is all that appears in every calculation. However, we shall see in section 3 that our “guess” is apparently quite close to a value that redefines the Planck scales in a strikingly reasonable way, and also (in section 4) that this provides a natural value of the density of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ to explain the apparent acceleration of the Hubble flow. In this regard, it is useful to point out, that as a repelling field, it will will be smooth over large distances, being characterized as a fluid with some density $`\tau `$. We consider this idea below.

## 2 Dynamics in the Fourth Dimension

To postulate a force that varies as $`\frac{1}{r^3}`$ suggests that it operates in four spatial dimensions. In a universe devoid of any clustering of ordinary matter, such a repelling system would be modelled as a uniform, continuous fluid, obeying Birkhoff’s theorem for four dimensions. When the ordinary matter, M, begins to cluster, it attracts the $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. If the $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is compressible, we can easily envision an equilibrium configuration whereby gravity is completely neutralized by density gradients set up by the $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. However, if the $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ fluid has a maximum allowable density (or is incompressible), it can now yield localized regions that can augment the gravitational field due to the M alaone. For example, it is possible for a localized region of self-repelling $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ to form a shell surrounding the real M, attracted toward the center of the potential well by the Newtonian field, and repelled by the bulk of the $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ in the shell. The problem with this picture is that it is difficult to see how, in a 4-dimensional manifold, one can have an inverse cube law for one interaction, and an inverse square law for another. We point out the recent finding by Randall and Sundrum (2000), which claims that the standard experimental results for gravity (such as obedience to a 3 dimensional Poisson equation) is consistent with even an *infinite* 4th spatial dimension, if the component of the metric in the new dimension depends on the coordinates in that dimension. Without going into detail here, we merely accept this as a possibility and explore the phenomenological consequences of our postulated interaction.

Returning to the simple configuration of a shell of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ material as outlined above, we can evaluate the potential at any point P in the shelll’s interior: $`\varphi _{\stackrel{~}{M}}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{G}d\stackrel{~}{M}}{u^2}`$, where $`u`$ is the distance from a point on the shell with mass element $`d\stackrel{~}{M}`$ to to the point P. The integration is straightforward and we find:

$$\varphi _{\stackrel{~}{M}}=2\pi \stackrel{~}{G}\sigma \frac{R}{r}ln\frac{R+r}{Rr}$$
(3)
where R is the radius of the $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ shell, $`\sigma `$ is its surface density on the 3-sphere, and r is the radial displacement of P from the center of the shell. We immediately find the field:

$$|\stackrel{~}{g}(r)|=\frac{2\pi \stackrel{~}{G}\sigma R}{r}\left[\frac{1}{r}ln\frac{R+r}{Rr}\frac{2R}{R^2r^2}\right]$$
(4)
directed radially inward.

For r$``$R, expanding the logarithm yields the following result for the acceleration:

$$\stackrel{~}{g}(r)=\frac{8\pi }{3R^2}\stackrel{~}{G}\sigma \stackrel{}{r}+O(r^2)$$
(5)
The $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ on the surface of the sphere thus pushes inward differentially near M, effectively augmenting the gravitational potential due to the real mass alone. Of course, the configuration surrounding a flattened system will be different, but the above should be sufficient to demonstrate that this idea holds the possibility of solving the dark matter problem. For a required velocity of $`100km/sec`$ at r=10 kpc, for example, we could have R=30 kpc with a total $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ $`10^{42}`$ gm in the shell. It is clear that the $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ will not be confined to a shell, and ought to fill space between the galaxies, but the dominant portion of interaction will be from the regions closest to the galactic center, since the $`\frac{1}{r^3}`$ interaction will fall off rapidly as R gets larger. Moreover, as r $`0,\stackrel{~}{g}(r)0`$ , thus recovering a purely Newtonian field.

## 3 The Interaction Strength and Implications For Microphysics

Since $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ has a different dimensionality than G, we can now use it instead of G, to form the standard units of m, r, and t by combining $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ with h and c. So doing yields:

$`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{h^2}{\stackrel{~}{G}}})^{1/3}=1.410^{24}g`$
$`\stackrel{~}{r}`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{G}h}{C^3}})^{1/3}=1.810^{13}cm`$
$`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{G}h}{c^6}})^{1/3}=610^{24}s`$ (6)
Note that although *both* $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$ agree quite well with the classical definition of the nuclear mass and radius, the two are coupled together; any value of G (or $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$) that yields the correct m will perforce yield the corresponding r. Nonetheless, the similarity of $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ to the observed nuclear mass is remarkable.

Another interesting result is obtained when the classical electrostatic force is equated with the $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ interaction at the distance $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$, using $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ as one of the masses, and solving for the other mass. We get:

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{G}\stackrel{~}{m}m_x}{\stackrel{~}{r}^3}=\frac{q_1q_2}{\stackrel{~}{r}^2}$$
(7)
so

$$m_x=\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}q_1q_2}{\stackrel{~}{G}\stackrel{~}{m}}=\frac{1.810^{13}(4.810^{10})^2}{210^{19}1.410^{24}}110^{27}g$$
(8)
This, of course, is very close to the value for the electron’s rest mass. Thus, we apparently have a way to uniquely determine both the proton and electron rest masses. While these results could be considered as merely chance numerical coincidences, it is possible that this result could point toward some sort of exchange interaction, whereby quantum mechanical operators allow interchanges between fundamental M and $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ “particles”.

## 4 The Hubble Flow and Cosmological Considerations

A repelling force has obvious applicability toward observational cosmology. If we consider a dust filled universe, with no density gradients in $`M`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, we ought to be able to approximate the observed Hubble flow in a simple fashion. The repelling field on a shell of material, due to the presence of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ interior to the shell, will be:

$$\stackrel{~}{g}(r)=\frac{\pi ^2}{2}\stackrel{~}{G}\tau \stackrel{}{r},$$
(9)
where $`\tau `$ is the 4-dimensional volume density of the $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. (This result follows from the fact that the hyper-volume of the sphere of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is: $`\frac{\pi ^2}{2}r^4`$). Thus, our interaction superficially has the same effect as the cosmological constant, whereby:

$$\frac{\pi ^2}{2}\stackrel{~}{G}\tau =\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(10)
Using the results of Perlmutter et al. (1999) and Riess et al. (1998), we set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }/3H_0^2=0.7`$, and therefore find (with $`H_0=70km/s/Mpc`$) : $`\tau 10^{57}g/cm^4`$. We are now afforded another consistency check with regard to our original assumption of equal mass distributions of M and $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ over 100 Mpc. Using the 4 dimensional volume for $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, we find that $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ $`10^{50}`$ g. If we assume that the average 3-D density of real matter is given by $`\rho 310^{31}g/cm^3`$ for the M (i.e. there is no “dark” matter), we get $`M310^{49}`$ g. However, since the cosmological principle implies that expansion proceeds in the same way for all shells, we see that $`\tau /\rho 1/a`$, where $`a`$ is the scale factor for the expansion. Thus, the repulsive stress is diluted over time (unlike the stress due to a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ term), and therefore the acceleration may end at some time in the future, thereby avoiding the problems that a vacuum dominated, eternally accelerating universe faces (see Barrow, Bean and Magueijo, 2000).

We would like to thank Tad Pryor, Jerry Sellwood, Jim Peebles, John Conway, Arthur Kosowsky, Tina Kahniashvili and Stacy McGaugh for stimulating discussions, and Patty Gulyas for help in the manuscript preparation.


text:
# 1 (a) The isoscalar parts of the distribution functions 𝑔₁(𝑥) and 𝑔_𝑇(𝑥). (b) The isovector parts of 𝑔₁(𝑥) and 𝑔_𝑇(𝑥).

hep-ph/0006212

June, 2000

OU-HEP-352

Polarized Structure Functions $`g_2(x)`$ in the Chiral Quark Soliton Model

M. Wakamatsu111Email : wakamatu@miho.rcnp.osaka-u.ac.jp

Department of Physics, Faculty of Science,

Osaka University,

Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, JAPAN

PACS numbers : 12.39.Fe, 12.39.Ki, 12.38.Lg, 13.60.Hb, 14.20.Dh

Abstract

The spin-dependent structure functions $`g_2(x,Q^2)`$ are investigated within the framework of the chiral quark soliton model. It turns out that the twist-3 part of $`g_2(x,Q^2)`$ gives nonnegligible contributions to the total distributions at the energy scale of $`Q^2=5\text{GeV}^2`$ but mainly in the smaller $`x`$ region only, so that the corresponding third moments $`_0^1x^2\overline{g}_2(x,Q^2)𝑑x`$ are pretty small for both of the proton and neutron in conformity with the recent E155 data.

In our opinion, the unexpectedly small quark spin fraction of the nucleon indicated by the EMC experiment  and the light flavor sea-quark asymmetry revealed by the NMC measurement  are two remarkable discoveries in the field of nucleon structure function physics. Undoubtedly, both are manifestation of nonperturbative QCD dynamics imbedded in the physics of high-energy deep-inelastic scatterings. An outstanding feature of the chiral quark soliton model (CQSM) is that it can explain both of these observations without recourse to any fine-tuning. (This potentiality of the CQSM was already noticed in .) In fact, we have already shown that it reproduces all the qualitatively noticeable features of the recent high-energy measurements, including the NMC data for $`F_2^p(x)F_2^n(x)`$, $`F_2^n(x)/F_2^p(x)`$ , the Hermes and E866 data for $`\overline{d}(x)\overline{u}(x)`$ , the EMC and SMC data for $`g_1^p(x)`$, $`g_1^n(x)`$ and $`g_1^d(x)`$ , in no need of adjustable parameters except for the starting energy scale of the renormalization-group evolution equation .

Encouraged by this success, we now push on with our analyses to the twist-3 parton distributions in the nucleon. It is well known that, altogether, there are three twist-3 distribution functions – chiral odd, $`e(x,Q^2)`$ and $`h_L(x,Q^2)`$, and chiral-even, $`g_2(x,Q^2)`$. They are generally believed to provide us with valuable information on quark-gluon correlations in hadrons. In the present investigation, we shall focus our attention on $`g_2(x,Q^2)`$. There already exist several theoretical investigations of the polarized structure functions $`g_2(x,Q^2)`$. The most of those are based on various modifications of the MIT bag model as well as its original version . There also exists an investigation based on the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio soliton model , which is essentially equivalent to the CQSM. Confining to the lower moments of $`g_2(x,Q^2)`$, also available are theoretical predictions based on the QCD sum rule  as well as the quenched lattice QCD , etc.

Although based on essentially the same model as , the present investigation goes far beyond the previous one in many respects. First, the polarization effects of the negative-energy Dirac-sea quarks in the hedgehog mean-field are fully taken into account. This is very important for offering any reliable predictions for antiquark distributions. Secondly, we also include the novel $`1/N_c`$ correction (or the first order rotational correction in the collective angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) to the isovector distribution functions. Without inclusion of it, some fundamental isovector observables like the nucleon isovector axial coupling constant would be largely underestimated, thereby being led to the so-called “$`g_A`$ problem” in the hedgehog soliton model . Thirdly, the nonlocality effects (in time) inherent in the theoretical definition of parton distributions are treated in a consistent way .

We start with the following definition of the distribution functions :

$`g_1^{(I=0/I=1)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}e^{i\lambda x}PS|\psi ^{}(0)(1+\gamma ^0\gamma ^3)\gamma _5\left\{\begin{array}{c}1\\ \tau _3\end{array}\right\}\psi (\lambda n)|PS,`$ (3)
$`g_T^{(I=0/I=1)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}e^{i\lambda x}PS_{}|\psi ^{}(0)\gamma ^0\gamma _{}\gamma _5\left\{\begin{array}{c}1\\ \tau _3\end{array}\right\}\psi (\lambda n)|PS_{},`$ (6)
which is just standard except for the isospin dependence explained below. Here the parts containing $`1`$ and $`\tau _3`$ respectively give isoscalar ($`I=0`$) and isovector ($`I=1`$) combinations of the relevant distributions. They are normalized such that the corresponding quark distributions $`g_T^{(q)}(x)`$ with $`q=u,d`$ are given as

$$g_T^{(u/d)}(x)=\frac{1}{2}[g_T^{(I=0)}(x)\pm g_T^{(I=1)}(x)](0<x<1),$$
(7)
and similarly for $`g_1(x)`$. The distribution functions (1) and (2) are formally defined in the region $`1<x<1`$. The functions with negative $`x`$ are to be interpreted as giving antiquark distributions $`g_T^{(q)}(x)`$ with $`q=\overline{u},\overline{d}`$ according to the rule :

$$g_T^{(\overline{u}/\overline{d})}(x)=\frac{1}{2}[g_T^{(I=0)}(x)\pm g_T^{(I=1)}(x)](0<x<1),$$
(8)
and similarly for $`g_1(x)`$. The corresponding structure functions for the proton and the neutron at the model energy scale are then constructed as

$$g_T^{(p/n)}(x)=\frac{5}{36}[g_T^{(I=0)}(x)+g_T^{(I=0)}(x)]\pm \frac{1}{18}[g_T^{(I=1)}(x)+g_T^{(I=1)}(x)].$$
(9)
The twist-2 distribution functions $`g_1(x)`$ were already evaluated in . The distribution functions $`g_T^{(I=0)}(x)`$ and $`g_T^{(I=1)}(x)`$ can be evaluated within the same theoretical framework. Skipping the detail, here we only recall the fact that the isoscalar and isovector parts have totally different dependences on the collective angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the rotating hedgehog mean field, which itself scales as $`1/N_c`$  :

$`g_T^{(I=0)}(x)`$ $``$ $`N_cO(\mathrm{\Omega }^1)O(N_c^0),`$ (10)
$`g_T^{(I=0)}(x)`$ $``$ $`N_c[O(\mathrm{\Omega }^0)+O(\mathrm{\Omega }^1)]O(N_c^1)+O(N_c^0).`$ (11)
Shown in Fig.1 are the results for $`g_T^{(I=0)}(x)`$ and $`g_T^{(I=1)}(x)`$ in comparison with the twist-2 distributions $`g_1^{(I=0)}(x)`$ and $`g_1^{(I=1)}(x)`$. We first point out that the isoscalar and isovector distributions have totally dissimilar shapes reflecting quite different $`N_c`$-dependence given in (6) and (7). Next, comparing $`g_T^{(I=0)}(x)`$ and $`g_1^{(I=0)}(x)`$, one finds that the $`g_T^{(I=0)}(x)`$ has a peak at smaller value of $`x`$ than $`g_1^{(I=0)}(x)`$ and damps faster as $`x`$ increases. The same tendency is also observed for the isovector distributions, but in this case the concentration of the distribution $`g_T^{(I=1)}(x)`$ into the smaller $`x`$ region is even more profound. This is due to more significant effect of vacuum polarization, which is peaked around $`x0`$. It means that the “valence-quark-only” approximation adopted in  cannot be justified at least for $`g_T^{(I=1)}(x)`$ and to a lesser extent also for $`g_1^{(I=1)}(x)`$. Note, however, that the vacuum polarization contributions, which are dominant in the smaller $`x`$ region, are partially canceled in the corresponding spin structure function $`g_2^{(I=1)}(x)`$ defined as a difference of $`g_T^{(I=1)}(x)`$ and $`g_1^{(I=1)}(x)`$. In any case, we emphasize the following. The CQSM gives fairly different predictions for the shapes of $`g_1(x)`$ and $`g_T(x)`$. Moreover, the shapes of both distributions are strongly dependent on the isospin (or more generally flavor) combinations. Furthermore, both distributions $`g_1^{(I=1)}(x)`$ and $`g_T^{(I=1)}(x)`$ have large support in the negative $`x`$ region, which implies sizable flavor asymmetry of the spin-dependent sea-quark (antiquark) distributions .

To compare these predictions of the CQSM with the existing high-energy data for $`g_2^p(x,Q^2)`$ and $`g_2^d(x,Q^2)`$, we must take account of the scale dependence of the distribution functions. We have done it as follows. Remember first that the spin structure function $`g_2(x,Q^2)`$ is defined as a difference of $`g_T(x,Q^2)`$ and $`g_1(x,Q^2)`$, i.e. $`g_2(x,Q^2)=g_T(x,Q^2)g_1(x,Q^2)`$. (In the following discussion on the scale dependence, we omit the isospin indices for the structure functions, for notational simplicity.) The Burkhardt-Cottingham sum rule  holds exactly, i.e.

$$_0^1g_2(x,Q^2)𝑑x=0,$$
(12)
if the charges (or the first moments) of $`g_1(x,Q^2)`$ and $`g_T(x,Q^2)`$ are equal, which in turn follows from the rotational invariance of the whole theoretical scheme. This property is automatically satisfied in usual low energy models like the MIT bag model  or the CQSM . The $`g_2(x,Q^2)`$ is further decomposed into the twist-2 (Wandzura-Wilczek) part and the genuine twist-3 part as

$`g_2^{WW}(x,Q^2)`$ $``$ $`g_1(x,Q^2)+{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}g_1(y,Q^2)`$ (13)
$`\overline{g}_2(x,Q^2)`$ $``$ $`g_2(x,Q^2)g_2^{WW}(x,Q^2).`$ (14)
For the QCD evolution of the structure function $`g_1(x,Q^2)`$ and twist-2 piece of $`g_2(x,Q^2)`$, the ordinary Dokshitzer-Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi (DGLAP) equation can be used. Here, we use the leading-order Fortran code provided by Saga group . The flavor non-singlet and singlet channels are treated separately, since the mixing with the gluon distribution occurs in the latter. On the other hand, the $`Q^2`$-evolution of twist-3 distributions is known to be quite complicated due to mixing with quark-antiquark-gluon operators, the number of which increases rapidly with spin or the moment of the distributions. However, Ali, Braun and Hiller found that, in the large $`N_c`$ limit, the $`Q^2`$-evolution of the chiral-even twist-3 flavor-nonsinglet distribution $`\overline{g}_2(x,Q^2)`$ is described by simple DGLAP type equation with slightly different forms for the anomalous dimensions from the twist-2 distributions . Accordingly, the moments of $`\overline{g}_2(x,Q^2)`$ obey the following simple equation :

$$_n[\overline{g}_2(Q^2)]=L^{\gamma _n^g/b_0}_n[\overline{g}_2(Q_{ini}^2)],$$
(15)
where $`_n[g(Q^2)]_0^1𝑑xx^{n1}g(x,Q^2)`$, $`L\alpha _S(Q^2)/\alpha _S(Q_{ini}^2)`$, $`b_0=\frac{11}{3}N_c\frac{2}{3}N_f`$, and

$$\gamma _n^g=2N_c\left(S_{n1}\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{2n}\right),$$
(16)
with $`S_n=_{j=1}^n\frac{1}{j}`$. The $`Q^2`$-evolution of the corresponding distribution functions can be handled by the method described in . In principle, the flavor-singlet part of $`\overline{g}_2(x,Q^2)`$ mixes with the gluon distribution, and the $`Q^2`$-evolution of it is not given by a simple equation as above even in the large $`N_c`$ limit. In the following study, we shall neglect this mixing effect with gluons in the twist-3 flavor-singlet distributions, for simplicity. Finally, the total $`g_2(x,Q^2)`$ at the desired energy scale is obtained after combining the twist-2 and twist-3 pieces of $`g_2(x,Q^2)`$, which are evolved separately.

We show in Fig.2 the theoretical structure functions $`g_2(x,Q^2)`$ at $`Q^2=5\text{GeV}^2`$ for the proton (a) and the deuteron (b) in comparison with the corresponding experimental data. Here, the crosses and the filled circles respectively stand for the E143  and E155 data . The final theoretical predictions for $`g_2(x,Q^2)`$ are represented by the solid curves, while their twist-2 part $`g_2^{WW}(x,Q^2)`$ are shown by the dash-dotted ones. The predictions of the center-of-mass MIT bag model by Song are also shown for the sake of comparison . We point out that the predictions of the CQSM for both of $`g_2^p(x,Q^2)`$ and $`g_2^d(x,Q^2)`$ are relatively close to those of another version of MIT bag model given by Strattmann shown in  and sizably larger than those of Song’s results. We also find that, according to the predictions of the CQSM, the differences between the full $`g_2(x,Q^2)`$ and their twist-2 parts are relatively small except for the smaller $`x`$ region, although it is not clear from Fig.2 in which $`x^2`$ times $`g_2(x,Q^2)`$ are plotted. This tendency is also close to Stratmann’s results rather than Song’s results.

To see it more clearly, we show in Fig.3 our results for the twist-3 part of $`g_2^p(x,Q^2)`$ and $`g_2^d(x,Q^2)`$ in comparison with Song’s predictions. Here, the solid curves are the predictions of the CQSM, while the dashed curves are those of the center-of-mass bag model by Song. The experimental data in this figure are from . One clearly sees that the twist-3 parts of $`g_2(x,Q^2)`$ are much smaller in the CQSM than in Song’s bag model calculation. Because of the large uncertainties of the available experimental data, it is difficult to say at the present moment which theoretical prediction is favored. Nonetheless, small twist-3 contributions to the spin structure functions $`g_2(x,Q^2)`$ appears to be favored by the recent E155 analysis of the twist-3 matrix element :

$`d_2(Q^2)=3{\displaystyle _0^1}x^2\overline{g}_2(x,Q^2)𝑑x=2{\displaystyle _0^1}x^2[g_1(x,Q^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}g_2(x,Q^2)]𝑑x.`$ (17)
(Also interesting to notice here would be the fact that the instanton-liquid model of the QCD vacuum offers a qualitative explanation of the suppression of the twist-3 matrix element of $`g_2(x,Q^2)`$ relative to the twist-2 one .) We compare in Fig.4 the predictions of various theoretical calculations with the recent E155 data. As already shown in , the predictions of some models are apparently incompatible with the E155 analysis, although we must be cautious about difficulties in obtaining reliable and precise experimental information for these quantities. For instance, large and negative $`d_2`$ for the neutron predicted by the QCD sum rules  apparently contradicts the E155 data. Similarly, large and negative $`d_2`$ for the proton predicted by the lattice QCD  seems incompatible with the E155 data.

On the other hand, the predictions of the CQSM as well as those of the MIT bag models seems consistent with the E155 data at least qualitatively. We see that the prediction of the naive MIT bag model for $`d_2^p`$ is accidentally close to that of the CQSM. Its prediction $`d_2^n=0`$ also seems to lie within the experimental error bars. Note however that the predictions of the naive MIT bag model must be taken with care, since the SU(6) structure of the bag wave function (this is the cause of the result $`d_2^n=0`$ ) apparently contradicts large and negative behavior of the twist-2 neutron structure functions $`g_1^n(x,Q^2)`$ confirmed in several previous experiments . This shortcoming of the original MIT bag model is remedied in Song’s modified one, in which sizable SU(6) symmetry breaking effects are incorporated by hand, so that it reproduces both of $`g_1^p(x,Q^2)`$ and $`g_1^n(x,Q^2)`$ . However, now we sees that the MIT bag model so refined gives a prediction for $`d_2^p`$, which is about two times larger than that of the CQSM and lies outside the errorbars of the E155 data. More precise experimental data are absolutely awaited for drawing more decisive conclusion about the twist-3 contributions to the nucleon spin structure functions, thereby selecting various models of nucleon internal structure.

To sum up, it has been shown in a series of paper  that the CQSM reproduces all the qualitatively noticeable features of the recent high-energy data for the twist-2 structure functions of the proton, the neutron and the deuteron, with no adjustable parameter except for the ititial energy scale of the DGLAP evolution equation. In the present investigation, we have extended this parameter-free analyses to the twist-3 spin structure function $`g_2(x,Q^2)`$. The theoretical predictions are shown to be consistent with the E143 and E155 measurements for $`g_2^p(x,Q^2)`$ and $`g_2^d(x,Q^2)`$ at $`Q^2=5\text{GeV}`$, although the uncertainties of the existing experimental data are still too large to draw a decisive conclusion. We have also shown that the CQSM predicts very small twist-3 matrix elements $`d_2`$ for the proton and the neutron in conformity with the recent E155 analysis. The accumulation of more precise experimental data for $`g_2(x,Q^2)`$ as well as $`g_1(x,Q^2)`$ is absolutely necessary for more complete understanding of the nucleon spin structure.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to express his sincere thanks to Y. Koike for many helpful discussions concerning the scale dependence of the twist-3 distributions.