text:
# Galaxy Clustering and Dark Energy

## 1 Introduction

It is generally believed that small perturbations in the matter density, generated by quantum effects during inflation, eventually grow due to gravitational instability, and finally collapse to produce luminous objects such as galaxies and clusters which can be observed today. The evolution of galaxy clustering can be used to constrain cosmological models and the dark matter scenarios. In particular, the evolution of clustering with redshift can put direct constraints on models for the evolution of density perturbations. In this paper we study how the equation of state of dark energy affects the observed clustering of luminous objects.

For many years the study of the spatial distribution of galaxies at high redshift has been rather sketchy and affected by various observational limitations. Early studies showed that galaxy clustering, when parameterised by the rms amplitude of fluctuations in the galaxy counts within a fixed comoving scale, typically decreases with redshift for moderately deep samples $`(0<z\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}1)`$. Recent progress in colour selection criteria has made empirical studies of the high redshift universe possible observationally. Colour selection such as the Lyman-break technique (Steidel et al. 1996, 1998; Madau et al. 1996; Lowenthal et al. 1997) or the photometric redshift technique (for example, see Wang, Bahcall, & Turner 1998, Budavari et al. 2000, Fernandez-Soto et al. 2001), allows one to efficiently identify classes of galaxies in a preassigned redshift range based on their spectral energy distribution. This has resulted in the compilation of large and well-controlled samples of galaxies at $`z>2`$ which are suitable for clustering studies (see e.g. Porciani & Giavalisco 2001 and references therein for details). These studies measured a very strong clustering amplitude, comparable to that of present-day galaxies. It is worth stressing, however, that Lyman-break galaxies (LBG hereafter) essentially consist of actively star-forming galaxies; in comparison, quiescent galaxies at high redshifts are much less efficiently identified with current instrumentation.

Although the detection of strong clustering seems to be quite robust at high redshift, the current samples still contain too few objects and cover too small an area on the sky to accurately measure the corresponding correlation functions. The signal-to-noise ratio of the current measurements is of order 3 for the 2-point statistics, and the dispersion among different measurements suggests the possibility of systematic errors (Porciani & Giavalisco 2002). Robust statistical techniques combined with next generation extensive surveys can greatly enhance our knowledge of clustering of high redshift galaxies, allowing to use it as a test for cosmological scenarios.

A number of clustering analyses is presently available for galaxies at $`z\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}5`$. Various factors, such as scale-dependence, type-selection and Malmquist bias, need, however, to be taken into account to compare the outcome of different studies (see e.g. Magliocchetti et al. 2000). In fact, the clustering properties of galaxies are scale-dependent and surveys sample a variety of different scales. Moreover, it is well known that galaxy clustering depends on a series of characteristics of the galaxy population under scrutiny (e.g. morphological type, colour, star-formation rate) and surveys generally use different criteria to select the objects they study. Finally, Malmquist bias is due to the fact that within a given survey more distant galaxies tend to have brighter absolute magnitude and will in general not have the same clustering amplitude. All these effects will have to be taken into account while we compare theoretical prediction from various cosmologies with observational data.

Weak lensing surveys have also started to make progress in mapping directly the three dimensional dark matter distribution in the universe. In the near future such surveys will not only study the statistical nature of clustering, but will measure the detailed features of the underlying mass distribution. Cross-correlating weak lensing maps with galaxy surveys will provide us with an unique way to probe gravitational clustering, and hence the nature of bias associated with the luminous objects. Therefore it is important to see how varying the equation of state in quintessence cosmologies can affect the nature of clustering of dark haloes and galaxies.

The main uncertainty in comparing theoretical predictions about growth of gravitational instability and observational data of galaxy clustering originates from the fact that galaxies might be biased tracers of the underlying mass distribution. In fact, it is well known that different galaxy populations (selected by morphological type, luminosity, star-formation rate) cluster differently, hence not all of them can trace the underlying mass distribution. A number of models (based on analytical reasoning or numerical simulations) are available to quantify the expected degree of biasing associated with galaxies and clusters (see e.g. Magliocchetti & Porciani 2003 and references therein). Most of them associate luminous objects to their hosting dark matter haloes. A general prediction is that the clustering amplitude of the most massive haloes at any given epoch is amplified with respect to that of the mass distribution, while very small haloes are nearly good tracers of the mass-density field (e.g. Mo & White 1996; Catelan et al. 1998; Porciani et al. 1998, Coles et al. 1999). Not surprisingly such models are too simplistic to encompass all the detailed information and the non-linear physics necessary to understand the formation and clustering of galaxies. In spite of this, they are able to make reliable predictions of the expected amplitude of galaxy clustering. In general, the strong clustering of high-redshift galaxies has been regarded as indication of the overall robustness of the theory and as evidence for the reality of galaxy biasing.

Recent cosmological observations favor an accelerating universe \[Garnavich et al. 1998a, Riess et al. 1998, Perlmutter et al. 1999\]. This implies the existence of energy of unknown nature (dark energy), which has negative pressure. Various observations are consistent with dark energy being a non-zero cosmological constant (see for example, Wang & Garnavich 2001; Bean & Melchiorri 2002). However, many other alternative dark energy candidates have been considered, and are consistent with data as well. For example, quintessence, k-essence, spintessence, etc. (Freese et al. 1987; Peebles & Ratra 1988; Frieman et al. 1995; Caldwell, Dave, & Steinhardt 1998; Garnavich et al. 1998b; White 1998; Efstathiou 1999; Steinhardt, Wang, & Zlatev 1999; Podariu & Ratra 2000; Sahni & Wang 2000; Sahni & Starobinsky 2000; Saini et al. 2000; Waga & Frieman 2000; Huterer & Turner 2001; Ng & Wiltshire 2001; Podariu, Nugent, & Ratra 2001; Sarbu, Rusin, & Ma 2001; Weller & Albrecht 2001)

Various dark energy models can be conveniently classified according to the equation of state of the dark energy component, $`w_X`$. For example, for quintessence models, $`dw_X/dz>0`$, while for k-essence models, $`dw_X/dz<0`$. However, it is extremely difficult to determine the time dependence of $`w_X(z)`$ \[Maor, Brustein, & Steinhardt 2001, Barger & Marfatia 2001, Maor et al. 2002\]. Wang and Garnavich (2001) have shown that it is more optimal to constrain the time dependence of the dark energy density $`\rho _X(z)`$, instead of $`w_X(z)`$. In this paper, we only consider toy models with $`w_X=`$ constant for simplicity and illustration. This is appropriate for our purposes, since current galaxy clustering data can not place useful constraints on the time dependence of $`w_X(z)`$. However, our method can readily be extended to models with time dependent equation of state. Our results will also have direct relevance for programs which focus on reconstructing the potential energy $`V(\varphi )`$ of the quintessence field from observed galaxy clustering data.

There are many other probes of dark energy. These include, the distance-redshift relations of cosmological standard candles, Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy, volume-redshift test using galaxy counts, the evolution of galaxy clustering, weak lensing, etc. These different methods to probe dark energy are complimentary to each other, and can provide important consistency checks, due to the different sources of systematics in each method (for example, see Kujat et al. 2002 and references within).

## 2 Evolution of Clustering in Quintessence Cosmologies

Hamilton et al. (1991) proposed a scaling ansatz for computing the non-linear matter power spectrum of a given cosmological model at any epoch. This method was later extended by various authors to reproduce the outcome of high-resolution numerical simulation in a cold dark matter scenario (see e.g. Peacock & Dodds 1996; Smith et al. 2003). In the version by Peacock & Dodds (1996) that we adopt here, this ansatz essentially consists of postulating that $`4\pi k^3P(k)=f[4\pi k_l^3P_l(k_l)]`$, where $`P(k)`$ is the nonlinear power spectrum and $`P_l`$ is the linear power spectrum, and the function $`f`$ in general will depend on the initial power spectra. The linear power spectrum is evaluated at a different wave number, $`k_l=[1+4\pi k^3P(k)]^{1/3}k`$, hence the mapping is non-local in nature. The form of the function $`f`$ is calibrated against $`N`$-body simulations, by assuming that it matches the predictions of linear theory on large scales, and of stable clustering on small scales (see Smith et al. 2003 for a critical discussion). Ma et al. (1999) showed that, at $`z=0`$, the Peacock & Dodds (1996) formula is accurate even in the presence of quintessence. However, at earlier epochs, it tends to underestimate the non-linear power on scales smaller than $`1h^1`$ Mpc by up to 30 per cent. Given that we are interested in galaxy clustering on mildly non-linear scales (and given the uncertainties on present-day determinations of galaxy clustering at high-$`z`$), the Peacock & Dodds formulation is good enough for our analysis.

The cosmological model enters the scaling ansatz primarily through the linear growth function $`D(z)`$111The matter transfer function has negligible dependence on dark energy models on the scales of interest to us \[Ma et al. 1999\]., so that $`P_l(k,z)=[D(z)/D(z=0)]^2P_l(k,z=0)`$. The linear growth function is evaluated directly from the equation:

$$\ddot{D}(z)+2H(z)\dot{D}(z)\frac{3}{2}H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z)^3D(z)=0,$$
(1)
where the dots denote derivatives with respect to $`t`$. For a constant dark energy equation of state $`w_X`$, the evolution of the Hubble parameter $`H(z)`$ can be written as:

$$H(z)=H_0[\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z)^3+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_m\mathrm{\Omega }_X)(1+z)^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_X(1+z)^{3(1+w_X)}]^{1/2},$$
(2)
In general, equation (1) must be solved numerically since the usual integral equation for $`D(z)`$ (Heath 1977) does not hold in the presence of quintessence (unless $`w=1`$ or $`w=1/3`$). However, when $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_X=1`$ and $`w=`$ constant, equation (1) can be solved analytically in terms of hypergeometric functions (Padmanabhan 2003). Useful approximations for the linear growth functions, can be found in Lahav et al. (1991) for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM and in Wang & Steinhardt (1998) for QCDM models. See Benabed & Bernardeau (2001) for more on power spectrum evolution in quintessence cosmologies.

In this paper, we assume that the matter density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, the dark energy density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X=0.7`$, the Hubble constant $`H_0=h\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}100}`$km/s Mpc-1 with $`h=0.7`$, and the rms density fluctuation within a top-hat sphere of radius 8 $`h^1`$ Mpc linearly extrapolated to today $`\sigma _8=0.8`$. The four quintessence models we have studied are $`w_X=1/3,2/3,1,1.9`$. The $`w_X=1.9`$ is taken as an example of the class of models which violate the weak energy condition (WEC) \[Wald 1984\] of recent theoretical interest \[Caldwell 2002, Frampton 2002, Onemli & Woodard 2002\].

To see how the evolution of clustering varies in quintessence models, we calculate the rms fluctuation $`\sigma _8(z)`$ as follows:

$$\sigma _8^2(z)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dk}{k}\mathrm{\Delta }_l^2(k,z)\left(\frac{3j_1(kr)}{kr}\right)^2,$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l^2(k,z)=4\pi k^3P_l(k,z)`$, and $`r=8h^1`$Mpc. We can similarly define the rms fluctuation in galaxy density as $`\sigma _8^{(g)}(z)`$. It is sometimes convenient to relate the mass and galaxy fluctuations on the $`8h^1`$Mpc scale by introducing the bias parameter $`b_8(z)=\sigma _8^{(g)}(z)/\sigma _8(z)`$.

Figure 1 shows analytical computations of $`\sigma _8`$ (and $`\sigma _8^{(g)}`$) as a function of redshift $`z`$ for various quintessence models, together with observational data. Except for four new data points for LBG galaxies at $`z=3`$ (Porciani & Giavalisco 2002; Adelberger et al. 2003), $`z=4`$ (Ouchi et al. 2001), and for Ly-$`\alpha `$ emitters at $`z=4.86`$ (Ouchi et al. 2003), the observational data for $`\sigma _8^{(g)}(z)`$ are from Magliocchetti et al. (2000), converted to each model as described in their paper (see Appendix A). The solid lines represent the linear growth rate $`D(z)`$ (normalized so that $`D(1+z)^1`$ when $`z\mathrm{}`$) for various cosmologies as a function of redshift. The short-dashed lines represent the theoretical $`\sigma _8(z)`$; the two dashed lines are normalized to APM and IRAS surveys at low redshift respectively. The general trend (masked by large error bars) is that $`\sigma _8^{(g)}`$ decreases between $`z=0`$ and $`z=2`$ while it either keeps constant or increases at higher redshifts. A similar behaviour is seen in numerical simulations for the clustering of dark matter haloes (see, e.g., Jenkins et al. 1998). Note that the most recent data sets correspond to substantially smaller error bars at high $`z`$. However, it is important to stress that Ouchi et al. (2001, 2003) assumed that the slope of the correlation function is $`\gamma =1.8`$, so that the corresponding error bars for $`\sigma _8^{(g)}(z)`$ are under-estimated (not including the uncertainty in $`\gamma `$).

It is clear that current clustering data are not very constraining on the dark energy equation of state $`w_X`$, mainly because the scatter of the data points is large in Fig.1. However, since different types of galaxies are expected to cluster differently, in the next section we will try to reduce this scatter by dividing the galaxies into subgroups.

## 3 Clustering of Galaxies and Dark Matter Haloes in Quintessence Cosmologies

In general, it is not clear how the spatial distribution of galaxies is related with the underlying mass distribution; this relationship it is likely to be non-linear, non-local, scale-dependent, type-dependent and even stochastic (Catelan et al. 1998; Dekel & Lahav 1999). However, due to the lack of the complete picture of how galaxies are formed, various analytical and semi-analytical models have been proposed which capture some basic flavors of galaxy clustering.

We parameterize the clustering properties of a population of cosmic objects through a bias parameter $`b`$ (a function of separation and redshift) defined by the ratio between the galaxy autocorrelation function, $`\xi _\mathrm{g}`$, and the corresponding quantity for the mass density distribution, $`\xi `$, as

$$b^2(r,z)=\xi _\mathrm{g}(r,z)/\xi (r,z).$$
(4)
In what follows the scale dependence will be neglected since we will either consider the large separation limit (for the models) or refer to a limited range of separations accessible to a given survey (for the data) over which only small variations of the bias parameter are possible.

### 3.1 No Merger or Galaxy Conserving Model

We first consider a simple biasing scheme which treats galaxies as test particles moving in the overall potential generated by the large-scale structure. It assumes that a galaxy population is generated at a given cosmic epoch with a density distribution which is linked to the mass density by a linear bias parameter. In other words, test particles representing galaxies are distributed throughout the Universe in such a way that their density contrast is directly proportional to the density contrast of the underlying mass distribution. This model also assumes that these test particles follow the cosmic flow. The conservation of galaxy number density then is used to compute the evolution of bias associated with these particles. It can be shown that the evolution of this test particle bias can be written as:

$$b(z)=1+[b(z_{})1]\frac{D(z_{})}{D(z)}=1+[b_01]\frac{D(z=0)}{D(z)},$$
(5)
where $`D(z)`$ is the linear growth rate for gravitational clustering which typically depends on the background dynamics of the Universe, $`z_{}`$ denotes the epoch of “galaxy formation”, and $`b_0`$ is the bias at the present epoch. This can be understood as follows. If we assume a certain class of galaxies is formed at a particular redshift due to a specific gas-dynamical formation mechanism, it will carry a specific bias tag, which one can argue is largely independent of the local environment and hence constant for a specific galaxy type. However, once formed, these galaxies will have to move due to the gravitational field. The final expression for the galaxy bias is derived by assuming constant comoving number density for these galaxies (Dekel 1986; Fry 1986; Dekel & Rees 1987; Nusser & Davis 1994). This model is also known as the galaxy conserving model (Matarrese et al. 1997). However, one should keep in mind that the basic assumption of inert indestructible nature of galaxies is not correct.

In figures (2-4) we plot the test-particle bias parameters (dashed lines) associated with various models with quintessence and compare them against survey results. Corresponding values for $`\sigma _8`$ are displayed in figure-1 (short-dashed lines). In figures (2-4) we have divided the observed galaxy population into 3 subsamples. It is known from earlier studies that various types of galaxies cluster differently. Comparing samples which are inherently similar such as red galaxies or galaxies with strong star-formation rates do tend to reduce the scatter found among the clustering properties extracted from different surveys.

Note that in figure 1 we have compared the observed results against the theoretical predictions by forcing the galaxy clustering predictions to match low redshift results from APM and IRAS surveys respectively; on the other hand, in figure 2-4, the theoretical bias predictions were normalized to different values extracted from various subsamples of the APM galaxies with similar characteristics.

All the observational data in Figs.2-4 are from Magliocchetti et al. (2000), except for the four new data points in Fig.4, which are for LBG galaxies at $`z=3`$ (Porciani & Giavalisco 2002; Adelberger et al. 2003), $`z=4`$ (Ouchi et al. 2001), and Ly-$`\alpha `$ emitters at $`z=4.86`$ (Ouchi et al. 2003). Once again we stress that these four new data points have substantially smaller error bars. However, Ouchi et al. 2001 and 2003 assumed $`\gamma =1.8`$, hence the error bars for $`b(\overline{r},z)`$ are under-estimated (not including the uncertainty in $`\gamma `$).

Note that the scatter of the data points in Fig.4 is much larger than in Figs.2-3, and there are two sets of dashed curves representing the test particle model in Fig.4. One set of dashed curves is anchored at low redshift to the Stromlo-APM survey (only starburst galaxies), while the other set of dashed curves is anchored to LBGs at $`z=3`$.

### 3.2 Press-Schechter and Halo Bias

In order to compute the evolution of galaxy clustering, it is often convenient to associate galaxies to their host dark matter haloes. This can be done in many different ways, see e.g. Cooray & Sheth (2002) for a recent review. In this paper, for simplicity, we will always assume that a given class of cosmic objects corresponds to a halo population with a mass that is above a given threshold value. The underlying idea is that, at large separations, the correlation function will be dominated by objects residing in different haloes and will be similar to the halo correlation function. The two-point correlation function of dark matter haloes has been the subject of many recent analytical as well as numerical studies. In particular, the use of the peak-background split method (Efstathiou et al. 1988; Cole & Kaiser 1989) and the extended Press-Schechter (see e.g. White 2002 for a recent review on Press-Secheter mass function and related issues) formalism have been combined to compute the correlation function of dark matter haloes in Lagrangian space and mapping from Lagrangian space to Eulerian space within the context of spherical collapse model (see Catelan et al. 1998 for a more general approach). Mo & White (1996) have derived an analytical expression (expected to be valid in the large separation limit) for the halo-halo correlation,

$$\xi _{hh}(r;M)=b^2(M)\xi _{mm}(r),$$
(6)
where the bias parameter $`b(M)`$ as computed from the Press-Schechter formalism can be written as:

$$b(M)=1+\frac{\delta _c}{\sigma ^2(M)}\frac{1}{\delta _c},$$
(7)
with $`\sigma (M)`$ the linearly evolved rms density fluctuation of top-hat spheres containing an average mass $`M`$. The parameter $`\delta _c`$ is derived from the dynamics of the spherical collapse in an expanding background. It was shown that the parameter $`\delta _c`$ is largely insensitive to background dynamics of the universe (Weinberg & Kamionkowski 2002). In our studies we have fixed $`\delta _c1.69`$ which is of sufficient accuracy for our purpose.

Many refinements of the Mo-White calculations can be found in the literature. Catelan et al. (1998) followed the non-linear evolution of the clustering of dark matter haloes using a stochastic approach to biasing. Jing (1998, 1999) and Porciani, Catelan & Lacey (1999) showed that an improved model for halo selection in Lagrangian space based on sounder theoretical grounds than the naive Press-Schechter approach is required to accurately reproduce the outcome of numerical simulations. Sheth, Mo & Torman (1999) have generalized the formalism by using anisotropic collapse scenarios instead of spherical collapse. This model has been calibrated against N-body simulations in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology.

It is also possible to construct bias models assuming the hierarchical nature of higher order correlation functions in gravitational clustering (Bernardeau & Schaeffer 1989). The general trend in such calculations is largely in agreement with halo models (Valageas, Silk & Schaeffer 1999). We plan to discuss such models and its relevance in weak lensing surveys or its cross correlations with galaxy surveys in future publications.

We have coupled the Press-Schechter formalism with the Mo & White (1996) model to compute the number densities (Fig. 5) and bias associated with various objects in quintessence cosmologies (Figs. 2-4). In order to compare theory and observations, we assume that a given galaxy population corresponds to observing all haloes beyond a certain threshold or cutoff mass $`M_{min}`$. The corresponding clustering properties are then computed by weighting the bias parameter of haloes of mass $`M`$ with the appropriate number density. Figures 2-4 show the bias parameter for objects heavier than $`10^910^{13}`$ M. The corresponding values for $`\sigma _8`$ are also plotted in figure 1 (dotted lines). Our results show a basic degeneracy between the dark energy equation of state and the way galaxies populate dark matter haloes. Typically we find that objects are more biased, and thus correspond to more massive haloes, in cosmologies with more negative values of $`w_X`$. Hopefully, future surveys will reduce the scatter and the uncertainties of the data-points. Connecting different populations at different redshifts and understanding the evolution of the corresponding bias parameters will be crucial to inferring constraints on dark energy. On the other hand, the degeneracy between cosmology and galaxy biasing means that pinning down the biasing scheme may not be easy until we better understand the properties of dark energy.

Figure 5 shows the number density of haloes as a function of redshift for various quintessence models versus data points converted to each model from the HDF analysis data of Magliocchetti & Maddox (1999). The different sets of curves correspond to haloes with masses greater than $`10^9`$, $`10^{10}`$, $`10^{11}`$, and $`10^{12}`$ M from top to bottom. Different linestyles correspond to different values of $`w_X`$. The solid line represents the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. For a given redshift, the data points correspond to decreasing $`w_X`$ from top to bottom. The shape of the theoretical curves is typical of any hierarchical scenario for structure formation deriving from primordially Gaussian fluctuations. At early epochs, the halo number density within a given mass interval ($`M>M_{\mathrm{min}}`$) increases with time as density peaks of lower and lower amplitude go non-linear on the mass scales $`M_{\mathrm{min}}`$. The number density then reaches a maximum at the epoch in which the characteristic mass of the existing haloes coincides with $`M_{\mathrm{min}}`$, and declines afterwords when objects in the interesting mass interval merge to form bigger haloes. Note that $`M_{min}`$ inferred from galaxy clustering is consistent with their abundance at high redshift, suggesting that our simple biasing scheme is accurate enough to describe the basic properties of galaxy clustering. In facts, it is not surprising that no analytic curve traces the evolution of HDF galaxies since selection effects will pick up totally different populations (probably residing in haloes with different masses) at low and high-$`z`$. Hopefully joint analyses of the evolution of the number density and bias parameter of different galaxy populations will help shed some light on the viable cosmological models and biasing schemes.

## 4 Abundance and spatial distribution of galaxy clusters

The abundance of rich clusters as a function of redshift is a promising tool to distinguish cosmological models (Wang & Steinhardt 1998; Mainini & Macciò 2002). The key idea is to constrain the amplitude of the power spectrum of density fluctuations at intermediate redshifts.

In figure 6 we plot the evolution of the number density of cluster mass haloes obtained through the Press-Schechter model. It is clear that measuring the cluster abundance at $`z\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}1`$ could potentially distinguish among different dark energy models. This can be done by combining cluster data with other observations which strongly constrain other cosmological parameters as, for instance, the matter density parameter and the shape of the linear power spectrum of density fluctuations. A simultaneous analysis of the large-scale clustering and the mean abundance of galaxy clusters would give tighter constraint on the cosmology (e.g. Schuecker et al. 2003). In figure 7 we show how the linear bias of galaxy clusters is expected to evolve with redshift in different dark energy models. As expected in bottom-up scenarios, rarer objects correspond to a stronger clustering amplitude. Clearly, the abundance and spatial distribution of galaxy clusters are a sensitive probe of dark energy at intermediate redshifts.

From the observational point of view, the quest for clusters at intermediate redshifts is becoming a mature field. Deep optical and near infrared surveys (which look for local galaxy density enhancements) allow the detection of the richest clusters at $`z1`$. Even though spurious detections and selection effects represent serious problems, these studies will start being suitable for clustering studies as they cover areas in excess of 100 square degrees (e.g. the Red-Sequence Cluster Survey, Gladders & Yee 2000, and the Las Campanas Distant Cluster Survey, Nelson et al. 2002).

Alternatively, clusters can be detected in X-rays through the thermal bremsstrahlung emission from the hot intracluster plasma. Selection effects in these samples are much easier to handle with respect to optical surveys. A number of ROSAT surveys easily detected galaxy clusters out to redshifts of $`z0.4`$ (Ebeling et al. 1996, 1998, 2000, De Grandi et al. 1999; Böhringer et al. 2000). The upcoming XMM Large Scale Structure Survey (Pierre 2000) will provide about 900 clusters out to a redshift of about 1. This can provide useful constraints on cosmological parameters (assuming a tight control on various systematics; see e.g. Refregier et al. 2002). Such surveys with uniform sensitivity will provide a very useful observational data base to constrain both the number density and the bias associated with galaxy clusters (see also Moscardini et al. 2000). Deep multi-colour follow-up programmes can identify and measure the redshift of clusters within the range of $`0<z<1`$, and near infrared observations can supplement distant cluster candidates at $`z>1`$. Cluster 2-point statistics can be used to lift the degeneracies involved with estimating the cosmological parameters by using cluster counts alone. Schuecker et al. (2003b) performed a detailed analysis of 452 X-ray brightest clusters mainly for $`z<0.3`$. Cosmological parameter estimation using the abundance of REFLEX clusters and SNe Ia data can produce powerful constraints on the equation of state. Such studies should be supplemented by observations of clustering of galaxy clusters to enhance their sensitivity to the equation of state.

The Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect (hereafter SZ), e.g. the upscattering of CMB photons by electrons in the hot intracluster medium, is another powerful method to detect high-redshift clusters. For instance the Massive Cluster Survey (MACS) already detected 8 clusters at $`z>0.5`$ (La Roque et al. 2003). A number of future surveys are expected to detect galaxy clusters exploiting the SZ effect (see e.g. Weller et al. 2002; Hu 2003). Such studies will conduct deep and narrow surveys using interferometric arrays as e.g. the Arc-Minute Micro-Kelvin Imager or AMI (Kneissl 2001), the SZ Array (SZA, Carlstrom et al. 2000) or the Array for Microwave Background Anisotropy (AMiBa, Lo et al. 2000). Shallower surveys as the One Centimeter Receiver Array (OCRA, Browne et al. 2000) will also be useful for their wider sky coverage. The shallow but nearly all-sky survey conducted by PLANCK (whose multi-frequency maps will be used for component analysis) will be released to the scientific community and can provide a wealth of information in this direction. For a detailed analysis of the clustering properties of galaxy clusters detectable by PLANCK see Moscardini et al. (2001). In addition deep and wide field surveys using 1000 element bolometric arrays mounted on a telescope at south pole represent other interesting options for cluster surveys. A more rigorous Fisher Matrix analysis of error associated with such surveys in estimating various cosmological parameters and their cross-correlations will be presented elsewhere.

## 5 Discussion

Today we have a concordance that the universe is accelerating, its energy dominated by dark energy with a strongly negative equation of state. But we know almost nothing of the dark energy — its equation of state $`w_X`$ or whether this evolves. These two quantities hold crucial clues to the underlying fundamental physics. Therefore by mapping the expansion history of the universe one can probe the new physics. Future distance-redshift observations of type Ia supernovae (Wang 2000, SNAP222http://snap.lbl.gov/) should place useful constraints on the dark energy density (Wang & Garnavich 2001; Wang & Lovelace 2001; Wang et al. 2003). If these constraints are consistent with a quintessence model, then one can hope to map the potential associated with the scalar field using complementary data, including that of galaxy clustering. Several new experiments are being carefully designed to probe the dark energy. Systematic uncertainties rather than merely paucity or imprecision of observations will be the key obstacle; this underscores the critical importance of using independent and complementary methods to probe dark energy.

In this paper we have concentrated on the effect of the equation state on galaxy clustering.

We find that galaxies are more biased (thus corresponding to more massive haloes) in models with more negative values of dark energy equation of state $`w_X`$. Results from various galaxy surveys are corrected of systematic biases and used to compare against quintessence models. We have shown that correcting the scale dependence of galaxy clustering does reduce the observed scatter in estimated bias among various data sets, at least for moderately high redshifts. In spite of this, current data from galaxy clustering do not place strong constraints on quintessence models (see Figs. 1-4), primarily due to the inhomogeneity of the data (consisting of many different surveys) and the small area covered by each survey. However, our results clearly show the potential of future homogeneous, deep, and wide-field surveys in constraining dark energy models. In particular, we have shown that the abundance and spatial distribution of galaxy clusters from such surveys are strongly dependent on the dark energy equation of state at intermediate redshifts (see Figs. 6-7). In future publications, we will study the quantitative constraints on dark energy that can be derived from future homogeneous, deep, and wide-field galaxy surveys.

The study of the dynamics of quintessence field directly from observations would provide an interesting new independent window to high energy physics. As proposed by Starobinsky (1998), luminosity distance measurements of SNe Ia provides such a possibility. Similarly, the observed evolution of clustering of galaxies at various redshifts can be used to construct the potential $`V(\varphi )`$ associated with the dark energy scalar field $`\varphi `$. In principle, one needs to relate the evolution of $`H(z)`$ from the observed evolution of the mass density contrast $`\delta `$ (Starobinsky 1998)

$$\frac{H^2(z)}{H^2(0)}=\frac{(1+z)^2\delta ^2(0)}{\delta ^2(z)}3\mathrm{\Omega }_m\frac{(1+z)^2}{\delta ^2(z)}_0^z\frac{\delta (z)|\delta ^{}(z)|}{1+z}𝑑z,$$
(8)
where primes denote derivative with respect to the redshift $`z`$. 333This applies to the linear regime, and corrections are required on smaller scales. On large scales, one expects that $`\delta `$ and fluctuations in the number density distribution of galaxies, $`\delta _g`$, are related by some bias factor as described above $`\delta _g(z)=b(z)\delta (z)`$. Once galaxy biasing has been specified, next one needs to relate the evolution of Hubble parameter $`H(z)`$ to the potential of the scalar field $`V(\varphi )`$ (Saini et al. 2000),

$`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G}{3H_0^2}}V(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{H^2(z)}{H_0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+z)}{6H_0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dH^2(z)}{dz}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z)^3`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G}{3H_0^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{dz}}\right)^2={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3H_0^2(1+z)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}H}{dz}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z)}{H^2}}.`$ (10)
As pointed out before, a simplistic linear-biasing picture may not be correct as we will need a more complete picture of the physics associated with the galaxy formation process. In this paper we have explored a number of analytical models of galaxy bias. Even though they look plausible when compared to present data, a cleaner methodology will probably be required to reconstruct the scalar field potential directly from galaxy clustering. Future weak lensing surveys will be very useful in this respect and cross correlating weak lensing surveys with redshift surveys will provide us with a direct handle on $`b(z)`$ which in turn will be used to reconstruct the scalar field potential $`V(\varphi )`$. However the toy models that we have studied in this paper can provide a valuable starting point.

In summary, at present it is not realistic to place strong constraints on dark energy from observed galaxy clustering. However, future generation surveys with much higher sky coverage, when complemented by detailed measurements of evolution of gravitational clustering from weak lensing measurements, will provide direct constraints on evolution of linear growth of density perturbations. These, combined with the constraints of the dark energy density from future supernova data (Wang & Garnavich 2001; Wang & Lovelace 2001; Wang et al. 2003), will make it possible not only to constrain but perhaps even to reconstruct the potential associated with the scalar field $`\varphi `$.

## Acknowledgments

DM acknowledges support from PPARC by grant RG28936. CP has been partially supported by the Zwicky Prize Fellowship program at ETH-Zürich and by the European Research and Training Network “The Physics of the Intergalactic Medium”. YW acknowledges support from NSF CAREER grant AST-0094335. We are grateful to Manuela Magliocchetti for sharing with us the published data points from various galaxy surveys, and for helpful discussions. It is a pleasure for DM to acknowledge many fruitful discussions with members of Cambridge Leverhulme Quantitative Cosmology Group.

## Appendix A Converting Observational data for Various Cosmologies

We assume a power-law form for the 2-point correlation function, $`\xi (r,z)=\left[r/r_0(z)\right]^\gamma `$. 444 A summary of some observational results for various surveys can be found in Magliocchetti et al.(1999). The transformation among various cosmological models can be derived by requiring that the angular correlation function for a given set of galaxies is the same in different cosmologies. This implies

$$r_{02}=\left[\frac{h_{01}}{h_{02}}\left(\frac{x_1(z)}{x_2(z)}\right)^{1\gamma }\frac{E_1(z)}{E_2(z)}\right]^{\frac{1}{\gamma }}r_{01}(z),$$
(11)
where $`E(z)`$ is given by:

$$E(z)\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_k(1+z)^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_Xf(z)}$$
(12)
and $`x(z)`$ is the comoving distance at redshift $`z`$. Note that our expression for the transformation of $`r_0`$ between different cosmological models is equivalent to, but greatly simplified from that of Magliocchetti et al. (2000, 1999).

We have used the expressions given in (Magliocchetti et al. 2000 see e.g. Eqs.(5),(6),(8),(17)) to compute $`\sigma _8`$ and $`b^2(r\overline{,}z)`$. We write

$$\sigma _8(\overline{z})=\left\{\left[\frac{r_0(\overline{z})}{8}\right]^\gamma c_\gamma \right\}^{1/2},c_\gamma =\frac{72}{(3\gamma )(4\gamma )(6\gamma )\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^\gamma }.$$
(13)
The errors on $`r_0`$ and $`\gamma `$ are propagated into the error of $`\sigma _8`$. The scale dependent bias is defined as

$$b^2(\overline{r},z)=\frac{\xi _g(\overline{r},z)}{\xi _m(\overline{r},z)},$$
(14)
where

$$\xi _g(\overline{r},z)=[\overline{r}/r_0(z)]^\gamma ,\xi _m(\overline{r},z)=\mathrm{\Delta }^2(k,z)\frac{\mathrm{sin}k\overline{r}}{k\overline{r}}\frac{\text{d}k}{k},$$
(15)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2(k,z)`$ denoting the non-linear power spectrum, calculated using the Peacock & Dodds 1996 fitting formulae (normalized to $`\sigma _8^{lin}=0.8`$ as described above).

For the four new data points we consider (LBG galaxies at $`z=3`$, and Ly-$`\alpha `$ emitters at $`z=4.86`$), we have followed Magliocchetti et al. (2000) in assigning characteristic scales to each survey. We used $`\overline{r}=5`$h-1Mpc for the $`z=3`$ data point from Adelberger et al. 2003. For the other three new data points, we set the scale $`\overline{r}=\theta _{max}x(z)`$, and used $`\theta _{max}`$ of $`100^{\prime \prime }`$, $`16.67^{}`$, and $`15^{}`$ for the data at $`z=3`$ (Porciani & Giavalisco 2002), 4 (Ouchi et al.2001), and 4.86 (Ouchi et al. 2003) respectively.


format: text

text:
# The Measurement of the Light Deflection from Jupiter: Theoretical Interpretation

## 1 Introduction

Einstein’s equations of general relativity have a hyperbolic character (Landau & Lifshitz, 1971; Wald, 1984). From mathematical point of view a hyperbolic wave equation allows in general two types of solutions described respectively by retarded and advanced potentials (Synge, 1960; Aharoni, 1985). It is often supposed that the advanced solution is unphysical because it violates the physical principle of causality. However, the theory of general relativity does not exclude the advanced solution per se. Making a choice between the retarded and advanced solutions is a matter of a boundary condition imposed on the Einstein equations. Although the causality-preserving boundary condition is reasonable from theoretical point of view, one does not know a priori what kind of condition is realized for the gravitational field in real world. For this reason, experimental study of the nature of the boundary condition for Einstein’s equations has a great importance for foundations of theoretical physics. Timing observations of binary pulsar PSR 1913+16 indicates that the retarded solution of the Einstein equations is the most appropriate for the description of orbital dynamics of the neutron stars (Weisberg & Taylor, 2002). Nevertheless, an independent experimental verification of the retarded nature of the gravity propagation is required.

In this paper we solve null geodesic equations for light propagating from a distant source (quasar) in time-dependent gravitational field of moving bodies (solar system) by making use of the mathematical technique invented by Kopeikin (1997) and further elaborated in (Kopeikin & Schäfer, 1999; Kopeikin & Mashhoon, 2002). We derive the relativistic delay in the time of propagation of light and analyze how it relates to the retarded and advanced solutions of the Einstein equations. This give us an unambiguous criterion for distinguishing the relativistic effects associated with the propagation of gravity from those related to the propagation of light – the question which was a matter of confusion for some researchers (Asada, 2002; Will, 2003).

In this paper we assume that the propagation of light from quasar towards observer always goes along the electromagnetic null-cone from the past to the future. On the other hand, we allow the wave solutions of the Einstein equations describing propagation of gravitational field to be both retarded and advanced. Difference between them is incorporated to the time variable $`s_ϵ`$ that (for each solution) is an implicit function of the coordinate time $`t`$ given by the gravity null-cone equation

$$s_ϵ=t+\frac{ϵ}{c}|𝒙𝒙_a(s_ϵ)|,$$
(1)
where $`𝒙`$ is a field point, $`𝒙_a(s_ϵ)`$ is position of $`a`$th gravitating body 111Notice that the variable $`s_ϵ`$ is different for each body as it depends on the body’s position $`𝒙_a`$ as well. ($`a=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$) depending on the time argument $`s_ϵ`$. Numerical parameter $`ϵc/c_g`$, where $`c`$ is the limiting speed of special relativity and $`c_g`$ is the ’speed-of-gravity’ parameter taking either positive or negative values such that in general relativity $`|c_g|=c`$.

In order to distinguish the gravity-propagation effects from those associated with light we shall operate separately with the advanced gravity null cone characterized formally by the condition $`c_g=c`$, and with the retarded gravity null cone singled out by the condition $`c_g=c`$. Thus, the parameter $`ϵ`$ in Eq. (1) takes two different numerical values

$$ϵ=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1:& \text{retarded time\hspace{0.17em},}\hfill \\ \hfill +1:& \text{advanced time\hspace{0.17em},}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
such that $`ϵ^2=1`$. The parameter $`ϵ`$ plays a supplementary role helping to track down the presence of the gravity propagation effects in the solutions of both Einstein’s and the light-ray-propagation equations. This tracking property of the parameter $`ϵ`$ is used for providing unique and unambiguous physical interpretation of the relativistic effect in the VLBI time delay predicted by Kopeikin (2001) and observed by Fomalont & Kopeikin (2003).

In what follows we rely upon the system of units such that $`G=c=1`$. Boldface italic letters denote spatial vectors, e.g, $`𝒂a^i=(a^1,a^2,a^3)`$. The dot between two spatial vectors is the Euclidean scalar product, $`𝒂\mathbf{}𝒃=a^1b^1+a^2b^2+a^3b^3`$. The cross between two spatial vectors denotes the Euclidean vector product, $`𝒂\times 𝒃\epsilon _{ijk}a^jb^k`$, where $`\epsilon _{ijk}`$ is the Levi-Civita symbol such that $`\epsilon _{123}=+1`$. Roman indices run from 1 to 3 while Greek indices run from 0 to 3. Repeated indices assume the Einstein summation rule. Greek indices are raised and lowered with the Minkowski metric $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }=\mathrm{diag}(1,+1,+1,+1)`$.

## 2 The Retarded and Advanced Solutions of the Einstein Equations

We assume that the gravitational field is weak everywhere so that the metric tensor $`g_{\alpha \beta }(t,𝒙)`$$`=\eta _{\alpha \beta }+h_{\alpha \beta }(t,𝒙)`$, where $`h_{\alpha \beta }(t,𝒙)`$ is the perturbation of the gravitational field, and $`t`$ and $`𝒙`$ are time and spatial coordinates.

Let gravitational field be generated by the stress-energy tensor of moving point-like massive particles (Landau & Lifshitz, 1971)

$`T^{\alpha \beta }(t,𝒙)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}M_a\mathrm{}_a^1(t)u_a^\alpha (t)u_a^\beta (t)\delta \left(𝒙𝒙_a(t)\right),`$ (3)
where $`a=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ enumerates gravitating bodies of the solar system, $`M_a`$ is the (constant) rest mass of the $`a`$th body, $`𝒙_a(t)`$ are time-dependent spatial coordinates of the $`a`$th body, $`𝒗_a(t)=d𝒙_a(t)/dt`$ is the orbital velocity of the $`a`$th body, $`u_a^\alpha =\mathrm{}_a(1,𝒗_a)`$ is the four-velocity of the $`a`$th body, $`\mathrm{}_a=\left(1v_a^2\right)^{1/2}`$, and $`\delta (𝒙)`$ is a 3-dimensional Dirac’s delta-function.

We shall work in the harmonic coordinates (Weinberg, 1972) with the origin at the barycenter of the solar system. Formal mathematical solution of the Einstein equations in the harmonic coordinates and in the linearized post-Minkowskian approximation (Bel at al., 1981; Damour, 1987) is given by the Liénard-Wiechert tensor potential

$`h_ϵ^{\alpha \beta }(t,𝒙)`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_a}{\mathrm{}_a(s_ϵ)}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_a^\alpha (s_ϵ)u_a^\beta (s_ϵ)+(1/2)\eta ^{\alpha \beta }}{r_a(s_ϵ)+ϵ𝒗_a(s_ϵ)𝒓_a(s_ϵ)}},`$ (4)
where $`𝒓_a(s_ϵ)=𝒙𝒙_a(s_ϵ)`$, $`r_a(s_ϵ)=|𝒓_a(s_ϵ)|`$, $`𝒗_a(s_ϵ)=d𝒙_a(s_ϵ)/ds_ϵ`$, and the time argument $`s_ϵ=s_ϵ(t,𝒙)`$ is determined as an implicit solution of the retarded ($`ϵ=1`$) or advanced ($`ϵ=+1`$) gravity null-cone Eq. (1). At this stage it is obvious that because we were solving the Einstein equations only gravity propagation with the speed $`c`$ is involved in Eq. (4) through the retarded (advanced) time argument $`s_ϵ`$.

Non-linear corrections to the linear solution (4) of the Einstein equations can be obtained by making use of the iterative post-Minkowskian approximations (Bel at al., 1981; Damour, 1987). This non-linear metric tensor should be substituted to the equations of motion of the bodies comprising the gravitating system under consideration. Solution of the equations of motion gives us the parametric trajectory $`𝒙_a(t)`$ of each body orbiting around the barycenter of the $`N`$-body system with the instantaneous velocity $`𝒗_a(t)=d𝒙_a(t)/dt`$, and the acceleration $`𝒂_a(t)=d𝒗_a(t)/dt`$. We shall assume that such solution of the body’s equations of motion has been found and used in the expression for the metric tensor perturbation given by Eq. (4). More involved discussion of this problem in the framework of the post-Minkowskian approximations is given by Bel at al. (1981) and Damour (1987).

## 3 Light-Ray Trajectory Parameterization

We consider motion of light in the non-stationary gravitational field described by the metric $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ and assume that light has no back action on the gravitational field. Hence, one can use equations of light geodesics. Let the motion of light be defined by the initial-boundary conditions

$$𝒙(t_0)=𝒙_0,\frac{d𝒙(\mathrm{})}{dt}=𝒌,$$
(5)
where $`𝒌^2=1`$. These conditions define the coordinates $`𝒙_0`$ of the photon at the instant of emission of light, $`t_0`$, and direction of its velocity at the past null infinity (Wald, 1984).

The original null geodesic equations of light propagation are rather complicated. These equations can be simplified and recast to the integrable form (Kopeikin & Schäfer, 1999; Kopeikin & Mashhoon, 2002). In the case of weak gravitational field the integration is performed by making use of iterations (Kopeikin, 1997). One starts from the unperturbed trajectory of the light ray that is a straight line

$`x^i(t)`$ $`=`$ $`x_N^i(t)=x_0^i+k^i\left(tt_0\right),`$ (6)
where the coordinate time $`t`$ is a running parameter along the light ray, and $`t_0`$, $`x_0^i`$, $`k^i=𝒌`$ have been defined in Eq. (5). In this approximation velocity of the photon is $`\dot{x}^i=k^i`$, and is considered as constant in the next iteration involving the metric tensor perturbation $`h_{\alpha \beta }`$.

It is convenient to introduce a new independent parameter $`\sigma `$ along the photon’s trajectory according to the rule

$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`𝒌𝒙_N(t)=tt_0+𝒌𝒙_0.`$ (7)
The time $`t_0`$ of the light emission corresponds to the numerical value of the parameter $`\sigma _0=𝒌𝒙_0`$, and the numerical value of the parameter $`\sigma =0`$ corresponds to the instant

$`t^{}`$ $`=`$ $`t_0𝒌𝒙_0,`$ (8)
that is the time of the closest approach of the unperturbed trajectory of light ray to the origin of the coordinate system. We emphasize that the numerical value of the moment $`t^{}`$ is constant for a chosen trajectory of light ray and depends only on the space-time coordinates of the point of emission of the photon and direction of its propagation. Thus, we find the relationship

$`t`$ $``$ $`t^{}+\sigma ,`$ (9)
which reveals that the variable $`\sigma `$ is negative from the point of emission up to the point of the closest approach, $`x^i(t^{})=\xi ^i`$, to the origin of the coordinate system, and is positive otherwise. The differential identity $`dt=d\sigma `$ is valid and, for this reason, the integration along the light ray’s path with respect to time $`t`$ can be replaced by the integration with respect to variable $`\sigma `$.

Making use of the parameter $`\sigma `$, the equation of the unperturbed trajectory of the light ray can be represented as

$`x^i(\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`x_N^i(\sigma )=k^i\sigma +\xi ^i,`$ (10)
and the distance, $`r(\sigma )=|𝒙_N(t)|`$, of the photon from the origin of the coordinate system reads

$`r(\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\sigma ^2+d^2}.`$ (11)
The constant vector $`\xi ^i=𝝃=𝒌\times (𝒙_0\times 𝒌)=𝒌\times \left(𝒙_N(t)\times 𝒌\right)`$ is called the impact parameter of the unperturbed trajectory of the light ray with respect to the origin of the coordinate system, $`d=|𝝃|`$ is the (Euclidean) length of the impact parameter. We notice that the vector $`𝝃`$ is transverse to the vector $`𝒌`$ in the Euclidean sense, that is $`𝒌\mathbf{}𝝃=0`$, where ”$`\mathbf{}`$” denotes the Euclidean dot product. Vector $`\xi ^i`$ is directed from the origin of the coordinate system towards the point of the closest approach of the unperturbed path of the light ray to this origin. This vector plays auxiliary role in our discussion and has no essential physical meaning as it can be changed by the shift of the origin of the coordinates. Time of the closest approach $`t^{}`$ is a convenient parameter being useful in the following calculations but it does not enter the final formula for the relativistic time delay as it should be expected on the general physical ground.

## 4 Relativistic Time Delay

Time of propagation of light from the point $`x_0^i`$ to $`x_1^ix^i(t_1)`$ is (Kopeikin, 2003)

$$t_1t_0=|𝒙_1𝒙_0|+\mathrm{\Delta }(t_1,t_0),$$
(12)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(t_1,t_0)=\frac{1}{2}k^\alpha k^\beta _{t_0}^{t_1}h_{\alpha \beta }(t,𝒙_N(t))𝑑t,$$
(13)
$`t_1`$ is the time of observation, and the (Minkowskian) null vector of the light propagation $`k^\alpha =(1,k^i)`$ is directed from the past to the future. For the sake of simplicity we shall work out the subsequent calculations only up to the linear terms with respect to the (non-constant) velocity $`v_a`$ of the moving bodies. This is presently enough for the purposes of the relativistic astrometry in the solar system.

Substitution of Eq. (4) to (13) and replacement of the variable $`t\sigma `$, yields

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(t_1,t_0)=2\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}M_a_{\sigma _0}^{\sigma _1}\frac{\left(1𝒌𝒗_a(s_ϵ)\right)^2}{r_a(s_ϵ)+ϵ𝒗_a(s_ϵ)𝒓_a(s_ϵ)}𝑑\sigma ,$$
(14)
where $`𝒓_a(s_ϵ)=𝝃+𝒌\sigma 𝒙_a(s_ϵ)`$, and the variable $`s_ϵ`$ relates to the coordinate time $`\sigma `$ via Eq. (1) of the gravity null cone taken on the unperturbed light ray trajectory (electromagnetic null cone) at the point at which the light particle is at the time $`\sigma `$

$$\sigma +t^{}=s_ϵϵ|𝝃+𝒌\sigma 𝒙_a(s_ϵ)|.$$
(15)
We remind once again that the parameter $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ indicates the presence of the gravity-propagation effects.

Differentiation of Eq. (15) yields an exact relationship between the differentials of the time variables $`\sigma `$ and $`s_ϵ`$

$$\frac{d\sigma }{r_a+ϵ𝒗_a𝒓_a}=\frac{ds_ϵ}{r_a+ϵ𝒌𝒓_a},$$
(16)
where $`𝒓_a=𝒙_N(t)𝒙_a(s_ϵ)`$, and the denominator in the left side of this equation coincides exactly with the denominator of the metric tensor perturbation in Eq. (4). Transformation (16) allows to replace integration with respect to coordinate time $`\sigma `$ to that with respect to the retarded (advanced) time $`s_ϵ`$ which is simpler and more informative.

In order to take integral (14) one introduces a new variable $`yr_a+ϵ𝒌𝒓_a`$ and calculates it on the gravity null cone Eq. (15).

$$y_ϵr_a+ϵ𝒌𝒓_a=ϵ\left(t^{}+𝒌𝒙_a(s_ϵ)s_ϵ\right).$$
(17)
We get

$`dy_ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ\left(1𝒌𝒗_a(s_ϵ)\right)ds_ϵ,`$ (18)
so that the above integral (14) is recast to

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(t_1,t_0)=2ϵ{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}M_a{\displaystyle _{y_{ϵ0}}^{y_{ϵ1}}}\left[1𝒌𝒗_a\left(s_ϵ(y_ϵ)\right)\right]d\mathrm{ln}y_ϵ.`$ (19)
Integration by parts yields

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(t_1,t_0)`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}M_a\left[\left(1𝒌𝒗_a(s_{ϵ1})\right)\mathrm{ln}y_{ϵ1}\left(1𝒌𝒗_a(s_{ϵ0})\right)\mathrm{ln}y_{ϵ0}\right],`$ (20)
where

$`y_{ϵ1}`$ $`=`$ $`r_{1a}+ϵ𝒌𝒓_{1a},`$ (21)
$`y_{ϵ0}`$ $`=`$ $`r_{0a}+ϵ𝒌𝒓_{0a},`$ (22)
with $`𝒓_{1a}=𝒙_1𝒙_a(s_{ϵ1})`$, $`𝒓_{0a}=𝒙_0𝒙_a(s_{ϵ0})`$, and the retarded (advanced) times $`s_{ϵ1}`$ and $`s_{ϵ0}`$ are connected to the time of observation, $`t_1`$, and emission of light, $`t_0`$, via the gravity null cone Eq. (1). Eq. (20) does not assume that the velocities of the gravitating bodies are constant. It only means that we have neglected accelerations when performing the integral.

## 5 Differential VLBI time delay

Let us assume now that there are two earth-based VLBI stations and the front of an electromagnetic wave from quasar propagates towards the earth. Quasars are almost at the edge of the visible universe and they do not reveal any annual parallax and/or proper motion (Walter & Sovers, 2000). For the array of the VLBI stations spread out across the earth one can assume that the wave front of quasar’s electromagnetic radiation is plane and characterized by a single wave vector $`k^\alpha =(1,𝒌)`$. Taking two rays from the wave front, directed from the quasar towards the first and second VLBI stations, and subtracting Eq. (20) for the first light ray from that for the second ray yields

$$t_2t_1=𝑲\mathbf{}𝑩+\mathrm{\Delta }(t_1,t_2),$$
(23)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t_1,t_2)\mathrm{\Delta }(t_2,t_0)\mathrm{\Delta }(t_1,t_0)`$, $`𝑲=𝒌`$ is the unit vector from the barycenter of the solar system to the quasar (quasar’s annual parallax is neglected), and $`𝑩=𝒙_2(t_1)𝒙_1(t_1)`$ is the barycentric baseline between the two VLBI stations. Here $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ are the barycentric coordinate times of arrival of the electromagnetic signal from the quasar to the first and second VLBI stations respectively, and $`𝒙_1`$ and $`𝒙_2`$ are spatial coordinates of the first and second VLBI stations with respect to the barycentric frame of the solar system that is chosen as the primary non-rotating reference frame (Walter & Sovers, 2000). We omitted in Eq. (23) the terms which are proportional to the velocity of motion of the second station as these terms are not crucial in discussion pertained to the interpretation of the relativistic VLBI experiment conducted on September 8, 2002 (Fomalont & Kopeikin, 2003). Further theoretical details of the relativistic algorithm of transformation of the barycentric to geocentric coordinates are contained in (McCarthy, 2000; Walter & Sovers, 2000). They are not so important in the discussion that follows, but are essential for understanding how VLBI works in general.

The difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t_1,t_2)`$ is obtained from Eqs. (20), (23) after long and tedious calculations accompanied by analysis of the residual terms similar to that done in (Kopeikin, 2001). We have proved that with accuracy better than 1 ps,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(t_1,t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}M_a\left[1+𝑲\mathbf{}𝒗_a(s_{ϵ1})\right]\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{r_{1a}(s_{ϵ1})ϵ𝑲\mathbf{}𝒓_{1a}(s_{ϵ1})}{r_{2a}(s_{ϵ2})ϵ𝑲\mathbf{}𝒓_{2a}(s_{ϵ2})}},`$ (24)
where $`𝒗_a(s_{ϵ1})`$ is the velocity of the $`a`$th gravitating body at the retarded (advanced) time $`s_{ϵ1}`$, $`r_{1a}=|𝒓_{1a}|`$, $`r_{2a}=|𝒓_{2a}|`$, $`𝒓_{1a}(s_{ϵ1})=𝒙_1(t_1)𝒙_a(s_{ϵ1})`$ and $`𝒓_{2a}(s_{ϵ2})=𝒙_2(t_2)𝒙_a(s_{ϵ2})`$; moreover, the retarded (advanced) times $`s_{ϵ1}`$ and $`s_{ϵ2}`$ are calculated according to Eq. (1)

$`s_{ϵ1}`$ $`=`$ $`t_1+ϵ|𝒙_1(t_1)𝒙_a(s_{ϵ1})|,`$ (25)
$`s_{ϵ2}`$ $`=`$ $`t_2+ϵ|𝒙_2(t_2)𝒙_a(s_{ϵ2})|,`$ (26)
where again we notice the presence of the gravity-propagation parameter $`ϵ=\pm 1`$. Thus, Eqs. (25), (26) reveal the true physical reason for the coordinates $`𝒙_a`$ of the bodies in Eq. (24) to be displaced from their present positions - the finite speed of propagation of gravity.

Measuring relativistic time delay of radio signal propagating from quasar through the gravitational field of moving body allows to evaluate position of the body in the sky at the time of observation and compare it with that one would observe if position of the body were measured directly in optics by receiving light emitted by the body itself (Seidelmann, 1992). In the case of the retarded solution of the Einstein equations ($`ϵ=1`$) position of the body measured directly in optics and that measured indirectly through the realtivistic time delay coincide precisely, that is both optical and gravitational ’images’ of the body experience the same aberration in complete agreement with general relativity. It is worth noting that for slowly-moving particles this effect can not be observed in the approximation under discussion because of a different structure of the perturbing gravitational force leading to the apparent cancellation of retarded effects in the solutions of the post-Newtonian equations of motion of the particles (Carlip, 2000). This cancellation does not happen for light and the retardation of gravity can be observed experimentally by making use of high-precision VLBI technique (Fomalont & Kopeikin, 2003).

## 6 Retarded versus Advanced Solutions of the Einstein Equations in the VLBI Time Delay

Let us elaborate Eq. (24) for two different cases corresponding to the retarded $`(ϵ=1)`$ and advanced $`(ϵ=+1)`$ solutions of the Einstein equations. This will help us to split the gravity-propagation effects from those associate with the propagation of light. The gravity propagation effects depend on the parameter $`ϵ`$ and changes sign when one uses retarded solution instead of advanced one and vice versa.

### 6.1 Retarded Solution

The retarded case of $`ϵ=1`$ has been already treated in the papers (Kopeikin, 2001, 2003) from various points of view. The effect of retardation of gravity appears in Eq. (24) as a displacement of the light-ray deflecting bodies from their present $`𝒙_a(t_i)`$ to retarded positions $`𝒙_a(s_i)`$ $`(i=1,2)`$. We notice that velocities of the gravitating bodies, $`𝒗_a`$, are small with respect to the fundamental constant $`c`$. Furthermore, the time taken by light ray to cross the solar system is much smaller than orbital periods of Sun and other planets around the barycenter of the solar system. Thus, one can expand the retarded positions $`𝒙_a(s_i)`$ of the bodies in the Taylor series around their present positions $`𝒙_a(t_i)`$ taken at the arrival times $`t_i`$ to the first or second VLBI stations. Moreover, we shall assume that only the impact parameter $`d_J`$ of the light ray with respect to Jupiter is small. Hence (Kopeikin, 2001),

$$𝑵_{1J}𝒓_{1J}/r_{1J}=\left(1\frac{\theta ^2}{2}\right)𝑲+\theta 𝒏+O(\theta ^3),$$
(27)
where hereafter the subscript $`J`$ refers to Jupiter, $`𝒏`$ is the unit vector of the impact parameter of the light ray with respect to Jupiter, and $`\theta `$ is a small angle in the sky between the directions towards the undisturbed geometric position of the quasar and that of Jupiter.

After expanding body’s retarded position $`𝒙_a(s_i)`$ around the instant $`t_i`$, neglecting all terms quadratic with respect to velocities of the gravitating bodies, proportional to their accelerations and the products of body’s velocities with the angle $`\theta `$, one gets

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(t_1,t_2)=2\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{GM_a}{c^3}\left(1+\frac{𝑲\mathbf{}𝒗_a}{c}\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{R_{1a}+𝑲\mathbf{}𝑹_{1a}}{R_{2a}+𝑲\mathbf{}𝑹_{2a}}\frac{2GM_J}{c^4}\frac{(𝒗_J\times 𝑲)\mathbf{}(𝑩\times 𝑲)}{R_{1J}+𝑲\mathbf{}𝑹_{1J}},$$
(28)
where we have restored the constants $`G`$ and $`c`$ for the sake of convenience, $`𝑹_{ia}=𝒙_i(t_i)𝒙_a(t_i)`$ is the difference between coordinates of the $`i`$th VLBI station and $`a`$th gravitating body taken at the time of arrival of radio signal to the $`i`$th station, $`𝒗_a𝒗_a(t_1)`$, and all quantities in the second term on the right side of Eq. (28) are also evaluated at time $`t_1`$.

The second term in Eq. (28) was obtained as a consequence of expansion of the retarded time $`s_{}`$ ($`ϵ=1`$) in the gravity null cone Eqs. (25), (26) which describe for this value of $`ϵ`$ the effect of retardation of gravity. We emphasize that light from the quasar does not propagate along the gravity null cone that connects the body (Jupiter, Sun, etc.) and the light particle. Light propagates along the null world line, connecting the quasar and observer, which is not a part of the gravity null cone 222This might be a reason for the misconceptions presented in (Asada, 2002; Will, 2003) and discussed by Kopeikin (2003) in more detail.. Consequently, the origin of the second term in Eq. (28) is due to the propagation of gravity as it was shown by Kopeikin (2001).

To confirm our interpretation from different prospect we shall study the differential VLBI time delay for the case of the advanced solution of the Einstein equations. If the second term in the right side of Eq. (28) is due to the propagation of gravity, it must change sign in the advanced solution. This indeed takes place.

### 6.2 Advanced Solution

Let us now take the advanced solution of Einstein equations, that is $`ϵ=+1`$, and calculate the impact of the advanced gravitational field on the VLBI time delay. We shall first have from Eq. (24)

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(t_1,t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}M_a\left(1+𝑲\mathbf{}𝒗_a(s_{+1})\right)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{r_{1a}(s_{+1})𝑲\mathbf{}𝒓_{1a}(s_{+1})}{r_{2a}(s_{+2})𝑲\mathbf{}𝒓_{2a}(s_{+2})}},`$ (29)
where the advanced times $`s_{+1}`$ and $`s_{+2}`$ are computed from Eqs. (25), (26) with $`ϵ=+1`$. We notice that the logarithmic function in Eq. (29) can be recast as follows

$`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{r_{1a}(s_{+1})𝑲\mathbf{}𝒓_{1a}(s_{+1})}{r_{2a}(s_{+2})𝑲\mathbf{}𝒓_{2a}(s_{+2})}}=\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{r_{1a}(s_{+1})+𝑲\mathbf{}𝒓_{1a}(s_{+1})}{r_{2a}(s_{+2})+𝑲\mathbf{}𝒓_{2a}(s_{+2})}}2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{|𝑲\times 𝒓_{1a}(s_{+1})|}{|𝑲\times 𝒓_{2a}(s_{+2})|}}.`$ (30)
By making use of the Taylor expansion of $`𝒙_a(s_{+2})`$ around the instant $`s_{+1}`$ one can get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{|𝑲\times 𝒓_{1a}(s_{+1})|}{|𝑲\times 𝒓_{2a}(s_{+2})|}}`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{(𝑲\times 𝒓_{1a})\mathbf{}(𝑲\times 𝒗_a)}{|𝑲\times 𝒓_{1a}(s_{+1})|^2}}\left(s_{+2}s_{+1}\right)+O(v_a^2),`$ (31)
where

$`s_{+2}s_{+1}`$ $`=`$ $`𝑲\mathbf{}𝑩+𝑵_{1a}\mathbf{}𝑩+O(v_a).`$ (32)
The second term in the right side of Eq. (31) is negligibly small for any body of the solar system but might be large enough to be measured in the field of Jupiter. For Jupiter, one has

$`2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{|𝑲\times 𝒓_{1J}(s_{+1})|}{|𝑲\times 𝒓_{2J}(s_{+2})|}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4(𝑲\mathbf{}𝑩)(𝒗_J\mathbf{}𝒏)}{r_{1J}\theta }},`$ (33)
where we put together two terms in Eq. (32) after making use of Eq. (27). One can see from Eq. (33) that the second term in the right side of Eq. (30) is by the factor $`\theta `$ smaller than the second term in the right side of Eq. (28). During the time of the VLBI experiment (Fomalont & Kopeikin, 2003) $`\theta 3.7`$ arcminutes and the second term in the right side of Eq. (28) was about 51 $`\mu `$as. Hence, the magnitude of the second term in the right side of Eq.(30) is much less than 1 $`\mu `$as and can be neglected because the precision of the VLBI experiment on September 8, 2002 was $``$ 10 $`\mu `$as (Fomalont & Kopeikin, 2003).

Thus, we obtain that in the case of the advanced solution of the Einstein equations the differential VLBI time delay in Eq. (29) is given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(t_1,t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}M_a\left(1+𝑲\mathbf{}𝒗_a(s_{+1})\right)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{r_{1a}(s_{+1})+𝑲\mathbf{}𝒓_{1a}(s_{+1})}{r_{2a}(s_{+2})+𝑲\mathbf{}𝒓_{2a}(s_{+2})}},`$ (34)
where $`s_{+1}`$ and $`s_{+2}`$ are advanced times related to the times of arrival $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ of radio signal to the first and second VLBI stations through the solutions of the advanced gravity cone Eqs. (25), (26) with $`ϵ=+1`$.

Taylor expansion of positions $`𝒙_a(s_{+i})`$ of the bodies around the coordinate times of arrival $`t_i`$ transforms Eq. (34) to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(t_1,t_2)=2\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{GM_a}{c^3}\left(1+\frac{𝑲\mathbf{}𝒗_a}{c}\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{R_{1a}+𝑲\mathbf{}𝑹_{1a}}{R_{2a}+𝑲\mathbf{}𝑹_{2a}}+\frac{2GM_J}{c^4}\frac{(𝒗_J\times 𝑲)\mathbf{}(𝑩\times 𝑲)}{(R_{1J}+𝑲\mathbf{}𝑹_{1J})}.$$
(35)
Comparison of Eq. (35) with Eq. (28) elucidates that the signs of the second terms in their right sides are opposite. Hence, these terms originates due to the effect of propagation of gravity and can be used to measure its speed. This interpretation has been given by Kopeikin (2001) and is confirmed by calculations given in the present paper. Interpretations given by Asada (2002) and Will (2003) are erroneous and originates from misleading ideas.

## 7 Experimental Verification of the Retarded Nature of the Einstein Equations

Let us recast Eqs. (28) and (35) to the following form (c.f. Eq. (12) from (Kopeikin, 2001))

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(t_1,t_2)=2\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{GM_a}{c^3}\left(1+\frac{𝑲\mathbf{}𝒗_a}{c}\right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{R_{1a}+𝑲\mathbf{}𝑹_{1a}}{R_{2a}+𝑲\mathbf{}𝑹_{2a}}(1+\delta )\frac{2GM_J}{c^4}\frac{(𝒗_J\times 𝑲)\mathbf{}(𝑩\times 𝑲)}{(R_{1J}+𝑲\mathbf{}𝑹_{1J})},$$
(36)
where the parameter $`\delta =(ϵ+1)c/c_g1`$ with the speed of gravity $`c_g=c`$, if we operate with the retarded ($`ϵ=1`$) branch of the gravity null cone Eq. (1), and $`c_g=c`$, if the advanced ($`ϵ=+1`$) branch of the gravity null cone Eq. (1) is used. Hence, $`\delta =0`$, if solutions of the Einstein gravitational field equations have a retarded nature, and $`\delta =2`$, if the nature of the solutions of the Einstein equations is advanced. Furthermore, one could use a half-retarded plus half-advanced solutions of the Einstein equations in order to calculate the differential VLBI time delay. We have fulfilled such calculation and proved that it corresponds to the case of $`c_g=\mathrm{}`$ in Eq. (36), that is $`\delta =1`$ ($`ϵ=0`$). Formally, it is equivalent to the case of the Newtonian theory in which the propagation of gravity is instantaneous with infinite speed (Kopeikin, 2003).

We have used the experimental data of the gravitational VLBI experiment on September 8, 2002 (Fomalont & Kopeikin, 2003) to distinguish between the three cases for the parameter $`\delta =0,1,2`$, and to measure the speed of gravity $`c_g`$. We found (Fomalont & Kopeikin, 2003) that $`\delta =0.02\pm 0.19`$ and the speed of gravity $`c_g=(1.06\pm 0.21)c`$. Two cases $`\delta =0`$ (red loop) and $`\delta =1`$ (green loop) are shown in Fig 1. Our experiment convincingly demonstrates that only retarded solution $`\delta =0`$ is consistent with the observations proving that the speed of gravity $`c_g`$ is equal to the speed of light $`c`$ within the experimental errors.

We are thankful to J. Harris for valuable comments. The Epply Foundation for Research Award 002672 and support of the University of Missouri-Columbia Research Council were essential for completing this work.


text:
# The CNO problem in magnetic CVs

## 1. Introduction

Magnetic Cataclysmic Variables (MCVs are close binary systems where a magnetic white dwarf accretes matter from a low-mass companion via an accretion column. The broad emission lines observed in the optical, mostly hydrogen and helium, are thought to arise from irradiation of this column by the X-ray flux emerging from a shock above the heated polar cap of the white dwarf. Ultraviolet observations with the IUE satellite have also revealed among MCVs the existence of strong resonance lines of silicium SiIV($`\lambda `$1397), nitrogen NV($`\lambda `$1240) and carbon CIV($`\lambda `$1549). Most sources were found to have line intensity ratios NV/CIV and SiIV/CIV similar to all other CVs (see Mauche et al. 1997, for a review).

A new situation arised however when the source BY Cam was observed with IUE, shortly after its discovery as a polar, on the basis of its optical polarisation by Remillard et al. (1986). It was shown to display an impressive NV($`\lambda `$1240) line with an intensity greater than CIV($`\lambda `$1549), an ”inverted ratio” with respect to other MCVs (Bonnet-Bidaud & Mouchet 1987, BM87)). It was noted at that time that this unusual feature could be due to non-solar abundances resulting from an unnoticed nova event or from a chemical evolution of the secondary (BM87, Mouchet et al. 1990). Shortly after, the discovery that BY Cam is slightly desynchronised (Silber et al. 1992) and the identification of a known historical nova, V1500 Cygni, as a polar which is also desynchronised (Schmidt & Stockman 1991), gave further arguments to the nova hypothesis. However HST observations of more recent MCVs have gradually changed this picture since at least two synchronous polars, V1309 Ori (Szkody & Silber 1996, Schmidt & Stockman 2001) and MN Hya (Schmidt & Stockman 2001), have now been found to also show a large NV/CIV ratio, though less extreme than in BY Cam. Figure 1 summarises the present situation. Most CVs nicely cluster around similar values, including MCVs (shown by typical values observed for AM Her), while an order magnitude difference is observed for BY Cam, V1309 Ori and MN Hya. Also noticeable are the extreme values observed for AE Aqr.

The number of anomalous sources now points to what can be called the ”CNO problem” among MCVs. The explanation of these discrepant line ratios is still pending. An abundance effect is an obvious possibility but as the lines are most probably formed by photoionisation, differences may also arise from specific ionisation conditions. We present here the results of line computations for BY Cam which show that only significant non-solar abundances can reproduce the observed line ratios.

## 2. Model of the accretion column

To compute the line flux, we adopt an approach similar to the work of Stockman & Schmidt (1996) by coupling a photoionized code with a simple description of the accretion column. Following Langer et al. (1982), we model the accretion column with a variable cross-section according to the dipole geometry and free-fall velocities along the column, yielding a density varying with the distance $`r`$ to the white dwarf, as $`nn_0(r/R_{wd})^{2.5}`$. The density, n0, at the basis of the column, is computed from the accretion luminosity LX as n0 =$`1.8\times 10^{16}`$ cm-3 (LX/$`10^{34}`$ erg s-1), assuming a typical value of 1016 cm2 for the polar cap surface, and a 0.8 M$`_{}`$ white dwarf. The accretion column was approximated by a succession of different slabs of constant densities with a maximum extension chosen so that the density drops by a factor 4 from one slab to the next, up to a maximum extension of 50 times the white dwarf radius, i.e. about 1/4 of the Roche lobe radius (Mouchet et al. 1997). The lateral extension of each region was assumed to follow the dipole geometry with a size varying as (r/Rwd)3/2.

Line intensities are computed using the photoionisation code CLOUDY (Ferland et al. 1998). Contribution from the different constant density slabs are added, considering only direct unobscured sideways illumination. Taking into account of the bending of the column, this is of course only strictly true for the highest parts of the column. It was verified however that, in all cases, the lowest slabs of higher densities do not contribute significantly to the total flux of the considered lines (see below). In the same way, it was checked that for a minimum height above the white dwarf $`h/R_{wd}5`$, the density and column density are respectively lower than $`10^{13}`$ cm-3 and $`10^{23}`$ cm-2, in the range of acceptable values for CLOUDY.

## 3. Line intensities of BY Cam

The luminosities of the three resonance lines CIV ($`\lambda `$1549), NV ($`\lambda `$1240) and OVI ($`\lambda `$1035) were computed for BY Cam with this model, for different ionizing spectra and element abundances. Figure 3 shows the result corresponding to the observed ”normal” spectrum (model M1), defined as the sum of a 20 keV bremsstrahlung, as observed in the RXTE observations (Mukai, private communication) and of a 50 eV blackbody with a bolometric luminosity of 0.1 times the hard X-ray luminosity (Ramsay et al. 1994) with solar abundances. The ionic fractions and line luminosities, after a sharp increase close to the white dwarf, are nearly constant in the upper part of the column, CIV being the dominant species over NV and OVI. This yields N/C and O/C line ratios of respectively 0.16 and 0.19, compared to the observed values of 5.70 and 1.14 (see Table 1). As the ionisation structure is particularly dependent on the soft part of the ionizing spectrum, we also investigate the possibility of an unseen ”soft component”. For a neutral H interstellar column density of $`2\times 10^{20}`$ cm-2, it is found that a 10 eV blackbody component with a luminosity similar to that of the bremsstrahlung component, could remain undetected and still be compatible with the flux upper limit at 100 Å of $`6\times 10^{15}`$ erg cm-2 s-1Å-1 derived from the EUVE observations (Howell, private communication). Corresponding results for this spectrum (model M2) are shown in Fig. 4 (top) and values listed in Table 1. The N contribution is increased and C decreased but even for this extreme spectrum, the predicted line ratios still fall short of the observed ones.

Assuming this simplified model of the accretion model to be valid, a way is provided to measure the elemental abundances. As the source is somewhat variable, no exact fit was attempted but the observed mean values can be reproduced by keeping the standard spectrum and significantly altering the abundances with an overabundance of N (x25), underabundance of C (:8) and nearly solar value for O (:2) (model M3, Fig. 4 (bottom) and Table 1). Note that these values are only indicative and that slightly different other combinations can be found which match the observed values.

## 4. Discussion

FUSE, HUT and Orfeus observations, combined to previous ultraviolet results, now provide a complete view of the CNO lithium-like lines produced in MCVs. Anomalous line ratios are found for at least three sources. Though some variability may be invoked, at least in the case of BY Cam, the overall feature is stable around values an order of magnitude different from other MCVs. Photoionisation models of the accretion column, such as presented here, fail to reproduce these ratios, even by strongly varying the ionisation conditions, inside the range compatible with the observed spectrum. Some care should be taken in interpreting the results since important simplifications have to be introduced, in particular by considering an homogeneous accretion column. The case of a clumpy flow with blob accretion have to be further considered with the possibility of a dominant collisional ionisation.

In view of the large variations in the line ratios, a change in the abundances as deduced in the present work is however strongly suggested. For BY Cam, the observed N/C and O/C ratios points toward a CNO redistribution in which carbon is depleted in favour of nitrogen while the oxygen only slightly varies. This is consistent with what expected from a typical CNO cycle (Clayton 1983). The nova hypothesis first proposed for BY Cam (BM87) does not seem to be confirmed by the determination of a relatively low white dwarf temperature (Sion, these proceedings) and the efficiency of re-accretion is also questionable (Stehle & Ritter 1999). However, the recent discovery of an unexpected high H2 column density in front of the source (Mouchet et al. 2003) may be an indication of a significant circumstellar material related to nova activity. The increasing number of sources now showing peculiar line ratios makes however this hypothesis not the unique explanation and alternate scenarios have to be found.

In a recent work, Schenker et al. (2002) have pointed out the importance of pre-evolution of CV systems to explain the characteristics of the propeller system AE Aqr which is suggested to descend from a supersoft X-ray binaries. It is also worth to note that different other close binary systems such as the intermediate-mass X-ray binary Her X-1 (Jimenez-Garate 2002) and the low-mass soft X-ray transient XTEJ1118+480 (Haswell et al. 2002) have now been found to show non-solar abundances with values N/C=14-20 and N/C$``$ 6 respectively. In all cases, an evolution effect of the companion is invoked as the most probable origin. This may therefore be an indication of a more general process at work in the evolution of binary systems which have been neglected up to now.

## References

Bonnet-Bidaud, J.M., Mouchet, M. 1987, A&A, 188, 89 (BM87)

Clayton, D. 1983, Principles of Stellar Evolution, Chicago Univ Press

Ferland, G.J., Korista, K.T., Verner, D.A., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 761

Haswell, C., Hynes, R., King, A. et al. 2002, MNRAS 332, 928

Jimenez-Garate, M., Hailey, C., den Herder, J. et al. 2002, ApJ 578, 391

Langer, S.H., Chanmugam, G., Shaviv, G. 1982, ApJ, 258, 289

Mauche, C.W., Lee, Y.P., & Kallman, T.R. 1997, ApJ, 477, 832

Mouchet, M., Bonnet-Bidaud, J.M., Hameury, J.M. 1990, in ”Accretion-Powered Compact Binaries”, ed C. Mauche (CUP), 247

Mouchet, M., Bonnet-Bidaud, J.M., Somov, N.N., Somova, T.A. 1997, A&A, 324, 109

Mouchet, M., Bonnet-Bidaud, J.M., Abada-Simon, M. et al. 2002, in ”Classical Novae Explosions”, AIP Conf Proc. 637, 67

Mouchet, M., Bonnet-Bidaud, J.M., Roueff, E. et al. 2003, A&A (in press)

Ramsay, G., Mason, K., Cropper, M., et al. 1994, MNRAS, 270, 692

Remillard, R.A., Bradt, H.V., McClintock, J.E., et al. 1986, ApJ, 302, L11

Schenker, K., King, A.R., Kolb, U., Wynn, G.A., Zhang, Z. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 1105

Schmidt, G.D., Stockman, H.S. 1991, ApJ, 371, 749

Stockman, H.S., Schmidt, G.D. 1996, ApJ, 468, 883

Schmidt, G.D., Stockman, H.S. 2001, ApJ, 548, 410

Silber, A., Bradt, H.V., Ishida, M., et al. 1992, ApJ, 389, 704

Stehle, R., Ritter, H. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 245

Szkody, P., Silber, A. 1996, AJ, 112, 239