text:
# Cosmological Uses of Gamma-Ray Bursts

## 1. Introduction: The Birth of the GRB Cosmology

Ever since the establishment of their cosmological nature (Metzger et al. 1997), and considering their increasingly probable relation to massive star formation (e.g., Paczyński 1998, Totani 1997, etc.), GRBs promised to become new probes of cosmology and galaxy evolution. As the numbers of GRB redshifts and detected hosts and afterglows grow, it becomes possible to use GRBs in new, systematic studies in cosmology. There are now (late 2002) plausible or certain host galaxies found for all but 1 or 2 of the bursts with optical, radio, or x-ray afterglows localised with arcsec precision, and over 30 redshifts measured for GRB hosts and/or afterglows, ranging from 0.25 (or perhaps 0.0085?) to 4.5, with the median $`z1.0`$. GRBs and their afterglows should be readly detectable at large redshifts (Lamb & Reichart 2000).

There are three basic ways of learning about the evolution of luminous matter and gas in the universe. First, a direct detection of sources (i.e., galaxies) in emission, either in the UV/optical/NIR (the unobscured component), or in the FIR/sub-mm/radio (the obscured component). Second, the detection of galaxies selected in absorption along the lines of sight to luminous background sources, traditionally QSOs. Third, diffuse extragalactic backgrounds, which bypass all of the flux or surface brightness selection effects plaguing all surveys of discrete sources found in emission, but at a price of losing the redshift information, and the ability to discriminate between the luminosity components powered by star formation and powered by AGN. Studies of GRB hosts and afterglows can contribute to all three of these methodological approaches, bringing in new, independent constraints for models of galaxy evolution and of the history of star formation in the universe.

In this review we focus on some of the cosmological aspects of GRBs and their host galaxies. Parts of the present text have also appeared in the reviews by Hurley, Sari & Djorgovski (2003), and Djorgovski et al. (2003). Some of the general issues regarding GRB redshifts and host galaxies have been reviewed previously, e.g., by Djorgovski et al. (2001b, 2002), and many others.

## 2. GRB Hosts and Galaxy Evolution

The median apparent magnitude of GRB hosts is $`R25`$ mag, with tentative detections or upper limits reaching down to $`R29`$ mag. The few missing cases are at least qualitatively consistent with being in the faint tail of the observed distribution of host galaxy magnitudes. Down to $`R25`$ mag, the observed distribution is consistent with deep field galaxy counts (Brunner, Connolly, & Szalay 1999), but fainter than that, complex selection effects may be playing a role. It can also be argued that the observed distribution should correspond roughly to luminosity-weighted field galaxy counts. The actual distribution would depend on many observational selection and physical (galaxy evolution) effects, and a full interpretation of the observed distribution of GRB host galaxy magnitudes requires a careful modeling (see, e.g., Krumholz, Thorsett, & Harrison 1998; Hogg & Fruchter 1999). The observed visible light (restframe UV) traces an indeterminate mix of recently formed stars and an older population, and cannot be unambiguously interpreted in terms of either the total baryonic mass, or the instantaneous SFR, and their relative importance is a function of redshift.

Spectroscopic measurements provide direct estimates of recent, massive SFR in GRB hosts, from the luminosity of star formation powered recombination lines, notably the \[O II\] 3727 doublet, Ly$`\alpha `$, and Balmer lines (Kennicut 1998), the UV continuum at $`\lambda _{rest}=1500`$ or 2800 Å (Madau, Pozzetti, & Dickinson 1998). All of these estimators are susceptible to the internal extinction and its geometry, and have an intrinsic scatter of at least 30%. The observed $`unobscured`$ SFR’s range from a few tenths to a few $`M_{}`$ yr-1. Applying the reddening corrections derived from the Balmer decrements of the hosts, or from the modeling of the broad-band colors of the OTs (and further assuming that they are representative of the mean extinction for the corresponding host galaxies) increases these numbers typically by a factor of a few. All this is entirely typical for the normal field galaxy population at comparable redshifts. However, such measurements are completely insensitive to any fully obscured SFR components, which could be considerably higher.

Equivalent widths of the \[O II\] 3727 doublet in GRB hosts, which may provide a crude measure of the SFR per unit luminosity (and a worse measure of the SFR per unit mass), are on average somewhat higher (Djorgovski et al. 2001b) than those observed in magnitude-limited field galaxy samples at comparable redshifts (Hogg et al. 1998). One intriguing hint comes from the flux ratios of \[Ne III\] 3869 to \[O II\] 3727 lines: they are on average a factor of 4 to 5 higher in GRB hosts than in star forming galaxies at low redshifts (Djorgovski et al. 2001b). Strong \[Ne III\] requires photoionization by massive stars in hot H II regions, and may represent indirect evidence linking GRBs with massive star formation.

The interpretation of the luminosities and observed star formation rates is vastly complicated by the unknown amount and geometry of extinction. Both observational windows, the optical/NIR (rest-frame UV) and the sub-mm (rest-frame FIR) suffer from some biases: the optical band is significantly affected by dust obscuration, while the sub-mm and radio bands lack sensitivity, and therefore uncover only the most prodigiously star-forming galaxies. As of late 2002, radio and/or sub-mm emission powered by obscured star formation has been detected from 4 GRB hosts (Berger, Kulkarni & Frail 2001; Berger et al. 2002b; Frail et al. 2002). The surveys to date are sensitive only to the ultra-luminous ($`L>10^{12}L_{}`$) hosts, with SFR of several hundred M yr-1, but suggest that about 20% of GRB hosts are ULIRGs.

Given the uncertainties of the geometry of optically thin and optically thick dust, optical colors of GRB hosts cannot be used to make any strong statements about their net star formation activity. The broad-band optical colors of GRB hosts are not distinguishable from those of normal field galaxies at comparable magnitudes and redshifts (Bloom, Djorgovski, & Kulkarni 2001; Sokolov et al. 2001; Chary, Becklin, & Armus 2002; Le Floc’h et al. 2003). It is notable that the optical/NIR colors of GRB hosts detected in the sub-mm are much bluer than typical sub-mm selected galaxies: the GRB selection may be revealing a previously unprobed population of dusty star-forming galaxies.

The magnitude and redshift distributions of GRB host galaxies are typical for the normal, faint field galaxies (e.g., Schaefer 2000), as are their morphologies (e.g., Odewahn et al. 1998, Bloom, Kulkarni & Djorgovski 2002): they are often compact, and sometimes suggestive of a merger (Djorgovski, Bloom & Kulkarni 2001, Hjorth et al. 2002), but that is not unusual for galaxies at comparable redshifts. The observed redshift distribution of GRBs is also at least qualitatively as expected for an evolving, normal field galaxy population (Mao & Mo 1998).

If GRB’s follow the luminous mass, then the expected distribution would be approximated by the luminosity-weighted galaxy luminosity function (GLF) for the appropriate redshifts. The hosts span a wide range of luminosities, with a characteristic absolute restframe B band magnitude $`M_{B,}20`$ mag, approximately half a magnitude fainter than in the GLF at $`z0`$, but comensurate with the late-type (i.e., star forming disk) galaxy population at $`z0`$ (Madgwick et al. 2002; Norberg et al. 2002). This is somewhat surprising, since one expects that the evolutionary effects would make the GRB host galaxies, with a typical $`z1`$, brighter than their descendants today. The GRB host GLF also has a somewhat steeper tail than the composite GLF at $`z0`$, but again similar to that of the star-forming, late-type galaxies. This is in a broad agreement with the results of deep redshift surveys which probe the evolution of field galaxy populations out to $`z1`$ (Lilly et al. 1995; Fried et al. 2001; Lin et al. 1999), although our understanding of the field galaxy evolution in the same redshift range is still very incomplete. While much remains to be done, it seems that GRB hosts provide a new, independent check on the traditional studies of galaxy evolution at moderate and high redshifts.

## 3. GRBs as Probes of the Obscured Star Formation

Already within months of the first detections of GRB afterglows, no OT’s were found associated with some well-localised bursts despite deep and rapid searches; the prototype “dark burst” was GRB 970828 (Djorgovski et al. 2001a). One explanation is that at least some of these “missing” afterglows are obscured by dust in their host galaxies, which is certainly plausible if GRBs are associated with massive star formation. This is supported by detections of RTs without OTs (e.g., Frail et al. 2000, Taylor et al. 2000). Dust reddening has been detected directly in some OTs (Ramaprakash et al. 1998, Bloom et al. 1998, Djorgovski et al. 1998, etc.); however, this only covers OTs seen through optically thin dust, and there must be others, hidden by optically thick dust. An especially dramatic case was the RT (Taylor et al. 1998) and IR transient (Larkin et al. 1998) associated with GRB 980329 (Yost et al. 2002). We thus know that at least some GRB OTs must be obscured by dust.

This offers a possibility of making a completely new and independent estimate of the mean obscured star formation fraction in the universe. The redshift distribution is not a critical factor here; GRBs are now detected out to $`z4.5`$ and that there is no correlation of the observed fluence with the redshift (Djorgovski et al. 2002), so GRBs are, at least to a first approximation, good probes of the star formation over the observable universe.

As of late 2002, there have been $`70`$ adequately deep and rapid searches for OTs from well-localised GRBs, reaching at least to $`R20`$ mag within less than a day from the burst, and/or to at least to $`R2324`$ mag within 2 or 3 days. In just over a half of such searches, OTs were found. Inevitably, some OTs may have been missed due to an intrinsically low flux, an unusually rapid decline rate (Fynbo et al. 2001; Berger et al. 2002a), or very high redshifts (so that the brightness in the commonly used $`BVR`$ bands would be affected by the intergalactic absorption). Thus the $`maximum`$ fraction of all OTs (and therefore massive star formation) hidden by the dust is $`50`$%.

This is a remarkable result. It broadly agrees with the estimates that there is roughly an equal amount of energy in the diffuse optical and FIR backgrounds (see, e.g., Madau 1999). This is contrary to some claims in the literature which suggest that the fraction of the obscured star formation was much higher at high redshifts. Recall also that the fractions of the obscured and unobscured star formation in the local universe are comparable.

There is one possible loophole in this argument: GRBs may be able to destroy the dust in their immediate vicinity (up to $`10`$ pc?) (Waxman & Draine 2000; Galama & Wijers 2000), and if the rest of the optical path through their hosts ($``$ kpc scale?) was dust-free, OTs would become visible. Such a geometrical arrangement may be unlikely in most cases, and our argument probably still applies. A more careful treatment of the dust evaporation geometry is needed, but it is probably safe to say that GRBs can provide a valuable new constraint on the history of star formation in the universe.

## 4. GRBs as Probes of the ISM in Evolving Galaxies

Absorption spectroscopy of GRB afterglows is now becoming a powerful new probe of the ISM in evolving galaxies, complementary to the traditional studies of QSO absorption line systems. The key point is that the GRBs almost by definition (that is, if they are closely related to the sites of ongoing or recent massive star formation, as the data seem to indicate) probe the lines of sight to dense, central regions of their host galaxies ($`110`$ kpc scale). On the other hand, the QSO absorption systems are selected by the gas cross section, and favor large impact parameters ($`10100`$ kpc scale), mostly probing the gaseous halos of field galaxies, where the physical conditions are very different.

The associated GRB absorption systems show exceptionally high column densities of gas, when compared to the typical QSO absorption systems; only the highest column density DLA systems come close (Savaglio, Fall & Fiore 2002, Castro et al. 2003, Mirabal et al. 2002). Lower redshift, intervening absorbers are also frequently seen, and their properties appear to be no different from those of the QSO absorbers. This opens the interesting prospect of using GRB absorbers as a new probe of the chemical enrichment history in galaxies in a more direct fashion than what is possible with the QSO absorbers, where there may be a very complex dynamics of gas ejection, infall, and mixing at play.

Properties of the GRB absorbers are presumably, but not necessarily (depending on the unknown geometry of the gas along the line of sight) reflecting the ISM of the circum-burst region. Studies of their chemical composition do not yet reveal any clear anomalies, or the degree of depletion of the dust, but the samples in hand are still too small to be really conclusive. Also, there have been a few searches for the variability of the column density of the gas on scales of hours to days after the burst, with no clear detections so far. Such an effect may be expected if the burst afterglow modifies the physical state of the gas and dust along the line of sight by the evaporation of the dust grains, additional photoionization of the gas, etc. However, it is possible that all such changes are observable only on very short time scales, seconds to minutes after the burst. A clear detection of a variable absorption against a GRB afterglow would be an important result, providing new insight into the circumstances of GRB origins.

## 5. High-Redshift GRBs: A Unique Probe of the Primordial Star Formation and Reionization

Possibly the most interesting use of GRBs in cosmology is as probes of the early phases of star and galaxy formation, and the resulting reionization of the universe at $`z620`$. If GRBs reflect deaths of massive stars, their very existence and statistics would provide a superb probe of the primordial massive star formation and the initial mass function (IMF). They would be by far the most luminous sources in existence at such redshifts (much brighter than SNe, and most AGN), and they may exist at redshifts where there were $`no`$ luminous AGN. As such, they would provide unique new insights into the physics and evolution of the primordial IGM during the reionization era (see, e.g., Lamb & Reichart 2001; Loeb 2002a,b).

There are two lines of argument in support of the existence of copious numbers of GRBs at $`z>5`$ or even 10. First, a number of studies using photometric redshift indicators for GRBs suggests that a substantial fraction (ranging from $`10`$% to $`50`$%) of all bursts detectable by past, current, or forthcoming missions may be originating at such high redshifts, even after folding in the appropriate spacecraft/instrument selection functions (Fenimore & Ramirez-Ruiz 2002; Reichart et al. 2001; Lloyd-Ronning, Fryer, & Ramirez-Ruiz 2002).

Second, a number of modern theoretical studies suggest that the very first generation of stars, formed through hydrogen cooling alone, were very massive, with $`M1001000M_{}`$ (Bromm, Coppi & Larson 1999; Abel, Bryan, & Norman 2000; Bromm, Kudritzki, & Loeb 2001; Bromm, Coppi & Larson 2002; Abel, Bryan & Norman 2002). While it is not yet absolutely clear that some as-yet unforseen effect would lead to a substantial fragmentation of a protostellar object of such a mass, a top-heavy primordial IMF is at least plausible. It is also not yet completely clear that the (probably spectacular) end of such an object would generate a GRB, but that too is at least plausible (Fryer, Woosley & Heger 2001). Thus, there is some real hope that significant numbers of GRBs and their afterglows would be detectable in the redshift range $`z520`$, spanning the era of the first star formation and cosmic reionization (Bromm & Loeb 2002).

Spectroscopy of GRB aftergows at such redshifts would provide a crucial, unique information about the physical state and evolution of the primordial ISM during the reionization era. The end stages of the cosmic reionization have been detected by spectroscopy of QSOs at $`z6`$ (Djorgovski et al. 2001c; Fan et al. 2001; Becker et al. 2001). GRBs are more useful in this context than the QSOs, for several reasons. First, they may exist at high redshifts where there were no comparably luminous AGN yet. Second, their spectra are highly predictable power-laws, without complications caused by the broad Ly$`\alpha `$ lines of QSOs, and can reliably be extrapolated blueward of the Ly$`\alpha `$ line. Finally, they would provide a genuine snapshot of the intervening ISM, without an appreciable proximity effect which would inevitably complicate the interpretation of any high-$`z`$ QSO spectrum: luminous QSOs excavate their Stromgren spheres in the surrounding neutral ISM out to radii of at least a few Mpc, whereas the primordial GRB hosts would have a negligible effect of that type.

### Acknowledgments.

We wish to thank numerous collaborators, and the staff of Palomar and W.M. Keck Observatories for their expert help during our observing runs. Our work was supported by grants from the NSF, NASA, and private donors.

## References

Abel, T., Bryan, G., & Norman, M. 2000, ApJ, 540, 39

Abel, T., Bryan, G., & Norman, M. 2002, Science, 295, 93

Becker, R., et al. (the SDSS collaboration) 2001, AJ, 122, 2850

Berger, E., Kulkarni, S.R., & Frail, D.A. 2001, ApJ, 560, 652

Berger, E., et al. 2002a, submitted to ApJ \[astro-ph/0207320\]

Berger, E., et al. 2002b, submitted to ApJ \[astro-ph/0210645\]

Bloom, J.S., Djorgovski, S.G. & Kulkarni, S.R. 2001, ApJ, 554, 678

Bloom, J.S., Kulkarni, S.R., & Djorgovski, S.G. 2002, AJ, 123, 1111

Bloom, J.S., et al. 1998, ApJ, 508, L21

Bromm, V., Coppi, P., & Larson, R. 1999, ApJ, 527, L5

Bromm, V., Coppi, P., & Larson, R. 2002, ApJ, 564, 23

Bromm, V., Kudritzki, R., & Loeb, A. 2001, ApJ, 552, 464

Bromm, V., & Loeb, A. 2002, ApJ, 575, 111

Brunner, R., Connolly, A., & Szalay, A. 1999, ApJ, 516, 563

Castro, S., et al. 2003, ApJ, in press \[astro-ph/0110566\]

Chary, R., Becklin, E., & Armus, L. 2002, ApJ, 566, 229

Djorgovski, S.G., Bloom, J.S., & Kulkarni, S.R. 2002, ApJ, in press \[astro-ph/0008029\]

Djorgovski, S.G., et al. 1998, ApJ, 508, L17

Djorgovski, S.G., et al. 2001a, ApJ, 562, 654

Djorgovski, S.G., et al. 2001b, in Gamma-Ray Bursts in the Afterglow Era: 2nd Workshop, eds. E. Costa et al., Berlin: Springer Verlag, p. 218

Djorgovski, S.G., et al. 2001c, ApJ, 560, L5

Djorgovski, S.G., et al. 2002, in Proc. IX Marcel Grossmann Meeting, eds. V. Gurzadyan et al. Singapore: World Scientific, in press \[astro-ph/0106574\]

Djorgovski, S.G., et al. 2003, Proc. SPIE, 4834, in press \[astro-ph/0301342\]

Fan, X., et al. (the SDSS collaboration) 2001, AJ, 122, 2833

Fenimore, E., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2002, ApJ, in press \[astro-ph/0004176\]

Frail, D.A., et al. 2000, ApJ, 538, L129

Frail, D.A., et al. 2002, ApJ, 565, 829

Fried, J., et al. 2001, A&A, 367, 788

Fryer, C., Woosley, S., & Heger, A. 2001, ApJ, 550, 372

Fynbo, J., et al. 2001, A&A, 369, 373

Galama, T.J., & Wijers, R. 2000, ApJ, 549, L209

Hjorth, J., et al. 2002, ApJ, 576, 113

Hogg, D., & Fruchter, A. 1999, ApJ, 520, 54

Hogg, D., et al. 1998, ApJ, 504, 622

Hurley, K., Sari, R., & Djorgovski, S.G. 2003, in Compact Stellar X-Ray Sources, eds. W. Lewin & M. van der Klis, Cambridge Univ. Press \[astro-ph/0211620\]

Kennicut, R. 1998, ARAA, 36, 131

Krumholtz, M., Thorsett, S., & Harrison, F. 1998, ApJ, 506, L81

Lamb, D., & Reichart, D. 2000, ApJ, 536, 1

Lamb, D., & Reichart, D. 2001, in Gamma-Ray Bursts in the Afterglow Era: 2nd Workshop, eds. E. Costa et al., Berlin: Springer Verlag, p. 226

Larkin, J., et al. 1998, GCN Circ. 44

Le Floc’h, E., et al. 2003, A&A, in press \[astro-ph/0301149\]

Lilly, S., et al. 1995, ApJ, 455, 108

Lin, H., et al. 1999, ApJ, 518, 533

Lloyd-Ronning, N., Fryer, C., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2002, ApJ, 574, 554

Loeb, A. 2002a, in Lighthouses of the Universe, eds. M. Gilfanov et al., Berlin: Springer Verlag, p.137

Loeb, A. 2002b, in Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursters, ed. K. Weiler, Berlin: Springer Verlag, in press \[astro-ph/0106455\]

Madau, P. 1999, ASPCS, 193, 475

Madau, P., Pozzetti, L.,& Dickinson, M. 1998, ApJ, 498, 106

Madgwick, D., et al. (the 2dF team) 2002, MNRAS, 333, 133

Mao, S., & Mo, H.J. 1998, A&A, 339, L1

Metzger, M.R., et al. 1997, Nature 387, 879

Mirabal, M., et al. 2002, ApJ, 578, 818

Norberg, P., et al. (the 2dF team) 2002, MNRAS, 336, 907

Odewahn, S.C., et al. 1998, ApJ, 509, L5

Paczyński, B. 1998, ApJ, 494, L45

Ramaprakash, A., et al. 1998, Nature, 393, 43

Reichart, D., et al. 2001, ApJ, 552, 57

Savaglio, S., Fall, S.M., & Fiore, F. 2002, ApJ, in press

Schaefer, B. 2000, ApJ, 532, L21

Sokolov, V.V., et al. 2001, A&A, 372, 428

Taylor, G.B., et al. 1998, ApJ, 502, L115

Taylor, G.B., et al. 2000, ApJ, 537, L17

Totani, T. 1997, ApJ, 486, L71

Waxman, E., & Draine, B. 2000, ApJ, 537, 796

Yost, S., et al. 2002, ApJ, 577, 155


format: text

text:
# Shattering Transitions in Collision-Induced Fragmentation

## I Introduction

Fragmentation occurs in numerous physical phenomena and industrial processes har ; shr ; hab ; red ; ms . Examples include breakup of liquid droplets liq  and atomic nuclei nuc , polymer degradation ziff , shattering of solid objects im ; odb , meteor impacts, and mineral grinding. Idealized models of such physical phenomena are also useful conceptual tools for describing complex systems such as fluid turbulence, spin glasses sg , genetic populations h ; djm , and random Boolean networks kauf ; flyv .

In some cases, for example in polymer degradation, the evolution of a fragment depends only on its size. Therefore, fragments do not interact and such processes are inherently linear. In other cases including grinding processes, explosions in an enclosed volume, and breakup of eddies in a turbulent flow pietro , interactions between fragments are essential. Such fragmentation processes are intrinsically nonlinear sri ; sid ; kk ; laur . In this study, we show that the nature of the mass distribution changes qualitatively due to nonlinearities.

We investigate a basic class of nonlinear fragmentation processes where binary collisions are the cause of breakage. We show that such processes exhibit a shattering transition where infinitesimal fragments (dust) carry a finite fraction of the mass in the system. We consider the simplest realization where one of the two colliding fragments breaks into two pieces. Generically, the number of fragments diverges in a finite time, indicating shattering into dust.

The nature of the shattering transition depends sensitively upon the details of the fragmentation process, in particular, which of the two colliding particles splits. We investigate three possibilities: (A) either, (B) the larger, and (C) the smaller of the two particles breaks into two fragments upon collision. In the first two models, as the transition occurs the entire mass is instantly transformed into dust. In the third model, the dust mass gradually increases once the shattering transition occurred.

In contrast with linear fragmentation processes, explicit solutions of the nonlinear and non-local rate equations are generally not possible. Nevertheless, the most important physical characteristics can still be obtained analytically. Interestingly, the fragment mass distribution attains a travelling wave form as the transition is approached. Of the spectrum of possible propagation velocities, the extremal one is selected and it characterizes typical and extremal behaviors of the mass distribution. In the case of model C, at the shattering transition, the mass distribution is algebraic for small masses, with a transcendental exponent. Past the transition, the fragment mass distribution approaches a universal form.

We first consider the number density that manifests the shattering transition (section II). Then, we analyze the fragment mass distribution using rate equations for a deterministic version (section III) and a stochastic version (section IV) of the fragmentation process. Finally, we summarize our results and outline a few suggestions for future work (section V).

## II The number density

Consider a fragmentation process where at each (binary) collision event, one particle splits into two pieces while the second particle remains intact. Without loss of generality, the collision rate is set to unity. Analogous to the kinetic theory description of collisions in molecular gases, we assume perfect mixing, namely, absence of spatial correlations between fragments. The total fragment density, $`N(t)`$, evolves according to the rate equation

$$\frac{d}{dt}N(t)=N^2(t).$$
(1)
Without loss of generality, the initial density is set to unity, $`N(0)=1`$, and therefore, the total density is

$$N(t)=\frac{1}{1t}.$$
(2)
In a finite time, the number of fragments diverges and the average fragment mass vanishes. This divergence indicates that the system undergoes a shattering transition at $`t_c=1`$.

Let $`\tau =_0^t𝑑t^{}N(t^{})`$ be the average number of collisions experienced by a fragment up to time $`t`$. This quantity diverges logarithmically

$$\tau =\mathrm{ln}N(t)=\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{1t}.$$
(3)
This “collision counter” provides a convenient alternative measure of time.

## III Deterministic Fragmentation

To complete the model definition we have to specify which of the fragments splits, and how it splits. Following Cheng and Redner sid , we consider three possibilities: (A) a randomly chosen, (B) the larger, and (C) the smaller fragment splits upon collision. In this section, we consider a deterministic rule where fragments split into two equal pieces. In the next section, we show that stochastic rules result in qualitatively similar behaviors.

### III.1 Random particle splits

We start with the case where a randomly selected particle splits upon collision (this is equivalent to having both particles split). For simplicity, we focus on monodisperse initial conditions where all particles have unit mass, $`m=1`$. Then, a fragment produced by $`n`$ collision events has mass $`m=2^n`$. Let $`c_n(t)`$ be the density of such fragments at time $`t`$. This density evolves according to

$$\frac{d}{dt}c_n(t)=N(t)\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}c_{n1}(t)c_n(t)\right],$$
(4)
with the total density $`N(t)=_{j=0}^{\mathrm{}}c_j(t)`$. Summing up Eqs. (4) we indeed recover Eq. (1). Also, the total mass, $`M(t)=_{j=0}^{\mathrm{}}2^jc_j(t)`$, is conserved, $`M(t)=1`$.

In terms of the collision counter, the process is linear, $`\frac{d}{d\tau }c_n=2c_{n1}c_n`$, and subject to the monodisperse initial conditions $`c_n(0)=\delta _{n,0}`$, the exact solution is the Poissonian density sid

$$c_n(\tau )=e^\tau \frac{(2\tau )^n}{n!}.$$
(5)
At the shattering time $`t_c=1`$ (corresponding to $`\tau =\mathrm{}`$), the densities vanish: $`c_n(t=1)=0`$ for all $`n`$. Therefore, the fragment mass density undergoes a first-order (discontinuous) transition, $`M(t)=\mathrm{\Theta }(t_ct)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ the Heaviside step function. In other words, the entire mass is shattered into dust and there are no particles with positive mass F ; ziff ; sid .

Near the shattering transition, i.e., as $`\tau \mathrm{}`$, the mass distribution approaches

$$c_n(\tau )\frac{N}{\sqrt{v\tau }}G\left(\frac{nv\tau }{\sqrt{v\tau }}\right),$$
(6)
where $`v=2`$ and $`G(x)=(2\pi )^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(x^2/2\right)`$ is the Gaussian distribution. Since $`n=\mathrm{log}_2(1/m)`$, the mass distribution becomes log-normal, a behavior typical to fragmentation and cascade processes shr ; F ; ziff ; sid .

### III.2 Larger particle splits

Now in a collision the larger particle splits into two equal pieces. If the colliding particles have the same mass, a randomly chosen particle splits. The fragment mass density, $`c_n(t)`$, satisfies the rate equation

$$\frac{d}{dt}c_n=4c_{n1}A_n2c_nA_{n+1}+2c_{n1}^2c_n^2,$$
(7)
where $`A_n`$ is the cumulative density of fragments of mass $`2^n`$ and smaller, $`A_n(t)=_{j=n}^{\mathrm{}}c_j(t)`$. The initial conditions are $`c_n(0)=\delta _{n,0}`$. One can verify that the mass is conserved, $`M(t)=1`$, and that the total density is given by Eq. (2).

The density $`c_0(t)`$ of unit mass particles satisfies the Bernoulli equation, $`\frac{d}{dt}c_0=c_0^22c_0N`$. Using Eq. (2) and the initial condition $`c_0(0)=1`$ gives

$$c_0(t)=\frac{3(1t)^2}{2+(1t)^3}.$$
(8)
For sufficiently small $`n`$, one can obtain the leading asymptotic behavior near the shattering transition. Since $`A_nN`$ as $`t1`$ and the last two terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (7) are asymptotically negligible, the rate equations simplify to $`\frac{d}{dt}c_n=2N(2c_{n1}c_n)`$ which are identical (up to the factor 2) to Eqs. (4). Therefore,

$$c_n(\tau )e^{2\tau }\frac{(4\tau )^n}{n!}.$$
(9)
Apart from logarithmic corrections, the densities vanish quadratically: $`c_n(t)(1t)^2`$. We conclude that the shattering transition remains discontinuous (see Fig. 1). Figure 1 suggests studying the normalized distribution $`N^1c_n(t)`$. Below, we show that as a function of $`\tau `$, the normalized fragment mass distribution follows a universal behavior in the large-$`n`$ limit.

The rate equations (7) simplify in terms of the cumulative densities:

$$\frac{d}{dt}A_n=2A_{n1}^2A_n^2.$$
(10)
This equation holds for $`A_0=N`$ if we set $`A_1A_0`$. The initial conditions are $`A_n(0)=\delta _{n,0}`$. We characterize time by the collision counter (3) and normalize the size density by the total number density, $`F_n(\tau )=N^1A_n(t)`$. These transformations yield

$$\frac{d}{d\tau }F_n=2F_{n1}^2F_n^2F_n.$$
(11)
Asymptotically, this equation admits a travelling wave solution $`F_n(\tau )f(nv\tau )`$ as shown in Fig. 2. The wave form $`f(x)`$ satisfies the difference-differential equation

$$v\frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f(x)+f^2(x)2f^2(x1),$$
(12)
and is subject to the boundary conditions $`f(\mathrm{})=1`$ and $`f(\mathrm{})=0`$. Remarkably, the velocity $`v`$ can be determined without solving the nonlinear and non-local differential equation (12) exactly. It follows from the exponential behavior attained by $`f(x)`$ far behind the front: $`1f(x)e^{\lambda x}`$ as $`x\mathrm{}`$. Together with Eq. (12) it yields a “dispersion” relation between the velocity $`v`$ and the decay coefficient $`\lambda `$,

$$v=\frac{34e^\lambda }{\lambda }.$$
(13)
Out of the spectra of possible velocities $`v(\mathrm{},v_{\mathrm{max}}]`$, the maximal value is selected. At the maximum, we have $`3e^\lambda =4(1+\lambda )`$, from which $`\lambda 0.961279`$ and $`v1.52961`$. Alternatively, the velocity is the smaller root of $`v\mathrm{ln}(4e/v)=3`$.

Velocity selection underlies numerous situations, yet it has been rigorously established only for a few non-linear parabolic partial differential equations, typically occurring in reaction-diffusion problems bar ; jdm ; mb ; vs ; bd ; evs . Recently, velocity selection has been also applied to a host of difference and difference-differential equations bbdk ; mk ; km ; mk1 ; bkm  including a linear fragmentation process km . Typically, the selected velocity gives key physical characteristics such as the growth velocity of a surface in deposition processes bbdk  or the extremal heights of random trees bkm .

The typical behavior of the fragment mass density follows from the travelling wave form

$$c_nNg(nv\tau ),$$
(14)
with $`g(x)=f(x)f(x+1)`$. The front location $`n_{}v\tau `$ characterizes typical fragments and the typical mass $`m_{}=2^n_{}`$ shrinks as

$$m_{}(1t)^\sigma $$
(15)
with $`\sigma =v\mathrm{ln}21.06024`$ as $`t1`$. The typical mass decays slower than in model A where $`\sigma =2\mathrm{ln}21.38629`$. Another difference between models A and B is manifested by the width: In contrast with the diffusive broadening in model A the width saturates at a finite value in model B. Yet, fundamentally the shattering transitions are the same in both models — the entire system is instantly transformed into dust at the transition point.

The extremal behavior of the fragment mass density follows from the tails of $`f(x)`$. The behavior far ahead of the wave front ($`x\mathrm{}`$) is a sharp double exponential decay, as implied by the leading terms in Eq. (12), $`v\frac{d}{dx}f(x)=2f^2(x1)`$. In summary, the extremal behaviors are

$$f(x)\{\begin{array}{cc}1C_1e^{\lambda x}\hfill & x\mathrm{},\hfill \\ 2^x\mathrm{exp}(C_2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^x)\hfill & x+\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
We now re-express the mass distribution in terms of the ordinary mass variable $`m=2^n`$. The two distributions are related via $`c(m)dm=c_ndn`$. Near the shattering transition, the mass distribution attains the scaling form $`c(m)\frac{N}{m_{}}\left(\frac{m}{m_{}}\right)`$. Equation (16) leads to the following extremal behaviors of the scaling function:

$$(z)\{\begin{array}{cc}z^\alpha \hfill & z1\text{,}\hfill \\ z^2\mathrm{exp}\left(C_2z^1\right)\hfill & z1\text{;}\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
with $`\alpha =1+\lambda /\mathrm{ln}22.38683`$. Hence, large masses (relative to the typical mass) are suppressed algebraically, while small masses are suppressed exponentially.

Generally, in fragmentation processes the mass distribution has a scaling form and this is indeed the case for collision-induced fragmentation. However, the nonlinear nature of the process results in qualitative changes to the scaling behavior. The similarity solutions have two scales characterizing the front location and fluctuations around it in the linear case (model A). In contrast, only a single scale underlies similarity solutions in the nonlinear case (model B).

### III.3 Smaller particle splits

When the smaller particle splits upon collision the fragment size densities satisfy the rate equations

$$\frac{d}{dt}c_n=4c_{n1}B_{n1}2c_nB_n+2c_{n1}^2c_n^2,$$
(18)
where $`B_n=_{j=0}^{n1}c_j`$ is the cumulative density of particles with mass larger than $`2^n`$.

The density of unit mass particles is readily found by solving $`\dot{c}_0=c_0^2`$. The next density can be found as well

$`c_0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+t}},`$ (19)
$`c_1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+t}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+t)^31}{2(1+t)^3+1}}.`$
These explicit results already demonstrate that densities are positive at all times. Hence, the total mass density $`M(t)`$ also remains positive after the shattering transition.

The kinetics just below and at the shattering transition can be determined using the travelling wave behavior. The cumulative distribution obeys $`\frac{d}{dt}B_n=2B_{n1}^2B_n^2`$ which is identical to Eq. (10); the initial conditions, however, are different: $`B_n(0)=1\delta _{n,0}`$. The transformed distribution $`F_n(\tau )=N^1B_n`$ again evolves according to Eq. (11). Asymptotically, it admits a travelling wave solution, $`F_n(\tau )f(nv\tau )`$, with the wave form $`f(x)`$ satisfying Eq. (12). However, the boundary conditions are reversed, $`F(\mathrm{})=0`$ and $`F(\mathrm{})=1`$, leading to different quantitative and qualitative results.

Both extremal behaviors are now exponential

$$f(x)\{\begin{array}{cc}e^{x/v}\hfill & x\mathrm{}\text{,}\hfill \\ 1e^{\lambda x}\hfill & x+\mathrm{}\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
The behavior far ahead of the front is used to determine the velocity. The dispersion relation is

$$v=\frac{4e^\lambda 3}{\lambda },$$
(21)
and the extremum selection principle gives $`\lambda 0.58013`$ and $`v7.14509`$. Numerically, we confirmed this velocity to within 0.01%. Interestingly, $`v`$ is the larger root of the same (as in model B) equation $`v\mathrm{ln}(4e/v)=3`$. We note that the velocities satisfy $`v_B<v_A<v_C`$.

The fragment size distribution follows the travelling wave form (14) with $`g(x)=f(x+1)f(x)`$. The typical mass shrinks according to (15) with $`\sigma =v\mathrm{ln}24.9526`$ near the shattering point. The exponential tails of the wave form imply algebraic tails for the scaling function underlying the mass distribution

$$(z)\{\begin{array}{cc}z^\alpha \hfill & z1\text{,}\hfill \\ z^\beta \hfill & z1\text{;}\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
with $`\alpha =1+(v\mathrm{ln}2)^11.20191`$ and $`\beta =1\lambda /\mathrm{ln}20.163049`$.

Our major result is that the mass distribution diverges algebraically at the transition time note1 :

$$c(m,1)m^\alpha ,$$
(23)
for $`m0`$ with the transcendental exponent $`\alpha =1.20191`$ (Fig. 3). This behavior can be obtained from the large-$`z`$ behavior of $`(z)`$. Although in general the travelling wave form implies time-dependent densities, when $`z\mathrm{}`$, the mass densities become stationary.

Model C exhibits a rich post-transition behavior. The explicit solutions (19) suggest that $`c_n\gamma _nt^1`$ when $`t\mathrm{}`$. Indeed, this behavior is compatible with Eqs. (18) and the cumulative amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=_{j=0}^n\gamma _j`$ satisfy the recursion relation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1}^2`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=1`$. The amplitudes grow exponentially, $`\gamma _n\mathrm{\Gamma }_n2^{n/2}`$. Summing over densities, the total fragment mass decays as

$$M(t)Ct^1\mathrm{as}t\mathrm{},$$
(24)
with $`C=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}2^n\gamma _n2.66084`$. Thus, the total fragment mass remains positive at all times. The dust mass, $`\mu (t)=1M(t)`$, vanishes at the shattering time, $`\mu (1)=0`$, and it gradually increases for $`t>1`$ (Fig. 4). Only in the long time limit it accounts for the entire mass in the system. We conclude that in model C, the shattering transition is continuous.

Numerically, we observe that for sufficiently large $`n`$, the densities follow a universal behavior (Fig. 5)

$$c_n(t)2^{n/2}u(t).$$
(25)
While this ansatz is asymptotic with respect to $`n`$, it holds for all times. The function $`u(t)`$ vanishes below the shattering time and grows linearly afterwords, $`u(t)(t1)`$ for $`t10`$. Hence, this function plays the role of an order parameter. Note also that $`u(t)t^1`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$.

The order parameter and the total dust mass are intimately related. Consider the total mass density of fragments of mass $`2^k`$ or larger: $`M^{(k)}(t)=_{n=0}^k2^nc_n(t)`$. From the rate equations (18), this mass density decreases according to

$$\frac{d}{dt}M^{(k)}(t)=2^kc_k\left(2B_k+c_k\right).$$
(26)
The flux of mass from fragments into dust is simply $`\frac{d}{dt}\mu =lim_k\mathrm{}\frac{d}{dt}M^{(k)}`$. Using Eq. (25), the right-hand side of Eq. (26) approaches $`\left(3+2\sqrt{2}\right)u^2(t)`$ in the limit $`k\mathrm{}`$ and therefore,

$$\frac{d}{dt}\mu (t)=\left(3+2\sqrt{2}\right)u^2(t).$$
(27)
This in turn shows that the dust mass grows according to $`\mu (t)(t1)^3`$ past the transition.

## IV Stochastic Fragmentation

We now briefly describe a generalized collision-induced fragmentation process where splitting is stochastic. Specifically, a particle of mass $`m`$ splits into two fragments of mass $`m^{}`$ and $`mm^{}`$ with $`m^{}`$ chosen stochastically from the interval $`0<m^{}<m`$ according to some fixed distribution. We focus on the simplest case of uniform splitting, i.e., $`m^{}`$ is chosen uniformly in $`[0,m]`$.

### IV.1 Model A

When a randomly selected particle splits, the mass density $`c(m,\tau )`$ satisfies

$$\frac{}{\tau }c(m,\tau )=c(m,\tau )+2_m^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dm^{}}{m^{}}c(m^{},\tau ).$$
(28)
The kernel $`1/m^{}`$ reflects the uniform splitting probability and the collision rate $`N`$ is absorbed by the collision counter $`\tau `$. This equation is solved using the Mellin transform and for the monodisperse initial condition, $`c(m,0)=\delta (m1)`$, one finds

$`c(m,\tau )=e^\tau \delta (m1)+e^\tau \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\tau }{\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{m}}}}I_1\left[\sqrt{8\tau \mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}}\right]`$
with $`I_1`$ the modified Bessel function. The first term on the right-hand side simply describes the density of particles that have yet to collide. The second term simplifies asymptotically. Making the transformation $`m=e^n`$ leads to a normal distribution as in (6) with the propagation velocity $`v=\frac{32}{9}`$. Thus, the qualitative behavior is independent of the splitting rule.

### IV.2 Model B

When the larger of the two fragments splits, the rate equations for the mass density are

$$\frac{}{t}c(m)=4_m^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dm^{}}{m^{}}c(m^{})A(m^{})2c(m)A(m),$$
(29)
with the cumulative density $`A(m)=_0^m𝑑m^{}c(m^{})`$. We employ the same transformations used in the deterministic case. Characterizing the mass $`m`$ by “index” $`n`$ via $`m=e^n`$, the fragment size density, $`c(n)`$, evolves according to

$$\frac{}{t}c(n)=4_0^n𝑑n^{}e^{n^{}n}c(n^{})A(n^{})2c(n)A(n)$$
(30)
with $`A(n)=_n^{\mathrm{}}𝑑n^{}c(n^{})`$. This cumulative distribution satisfies

$$\frac{}{t}A(n)=A^2(n)2_0^n𝑑n^{}e^{n^{}n}\frac{}{n^{}}A^2(n^{}).$$
(31)
Expressing time in units of the collision counter and normalizing by the total density, $`F(n,\tau )=N^1A(n)`$, we transform Eq. (31) into

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}F(n)=F^2(n)F(n)2{\displaystyle _0^n}𝑑n^{}e^{n^{}n}{\displaystyle \frac{}{n^{}}}F^2(n^{}).`$
Seeking a travelling wave solution $`F(n,\tau )f(nv\tau )`$ yields the non-linear integro-differential equation

$$v\frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f(x)f^2(x)+2_{\mathrm{}}^x𝑑ye^{yx}\frac{d}{dy}f^2(y),$$
(32)
subject to the boundary conditions $`f(\mathrm{})=0`$ and $`f(\mathrm{})=1`$. The exponential decay $`1f(x)\mathrm{exp}(\lambda x)`$ as $`x\mathrm{}`$ gives the dispersion relation $`v=4(1+\lambda )^1\lambda ^1`$ and the extremum selection principle yields $`\lambda =v=1`$. Close to the shattering transition, the typical mass is proportional to the average mass, $`m_{}(1t)`$ note . The mass densities behave as in the deterministic case and the extremal behaviors (17) are recovered with $`\alpha =2`$. The nature of the transition is discontinuous, as in the deterministic case.

### IV.3 Model C

When the smaller particle splits upon collision, the rate equations for the mass density are

$$\frac{}{t}c(m)=4_m^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dm^{}}{m^{}}c(m^{})B(m^{})2c(m^{})B(m^{})$$
(33)
with $`B(m,t)=_m^{\mathrm{}}𝑑m^{}c(m^{},t)`$. In terms of the index $`n`$, the cumulative density $`B(n,t)=_0^n𝑑n^{}c(n^{})`$ obeys Eq. (31). The normalized cumulative density again admits the travelling wave form. The velocity and decay rate are $`v=9`$ and $`\lambda =\frac{1}{3}`$. At the shattering time, the (finite) mass distribution diverges algebraically: $`c(m,1)m^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha =10/9`$. Past the shattering transition, the asymptotic ansatz $`c(m,t)m^{3/2}u(t)`$ holds for small masses and the dust mass is related to the order parameter via $`\frac{d}{dt}\mu =2u^2`$. We conclude that qualitatively, the shattering transition is similar to the deterministic case.

## V Discussion

We investigated kinetic properties of collision-induced fragmentation processes. Generally, the mass is transferred from finite fragments into infinitesimal dust in a finite time. The nature of the shattering transition depends on the fragmentation process. When the larger of the colliding particles splits or when a randomly selected one splits, the transition is discontinuous and the entire mass is transformed into dust instantaneously. When the smaller particle splits, the transition is continuous, with the dust accumulating gradually past the shattering transition. In this case, finite fragments always carry a non-zero fraction of the mass.

Model A is essentially linear and thus solvable. For models B and C the nonlinear and non-local governing equations can not be solved in a closed form. Nevertheless, in the vicinity of the shattering transition we were able to obtain the most important characteristics analytically by utilizing the traveling wave form of the fragment mass density. The mass distribution follows a scaling behavior with a single characteristic scale, in contrast with the two scales found for linear processes.

For model C, the post-shattering behavior is nontrivial. At the transition point, the mass distribution decays algebraically, $`c(m)m^\alpha `$, with a transcendental exponent $`\alpha =1.20191\mathrm{}`$ in deterministic fragmentation and a rational exponent $`\alpha =10/9`$ in stochastic fragmentation. We have also demonstrated that the mass densities exhibit universal asymptotic behavior (25) in the post-shattering region.

A challenging open problem is the complete post-shattering behavior in model C, for example, the time dependent dust mass. This is largely a mathematical problem since physically, the breakage of sufficiently small fragments is impossible. For instance, micro-cracks on the surface of the fragment are often precursors for breakage. The number of such surface defects is proportional to the surface area, so sufficiently small fragments are effectively unbreakable.

We focused on the leading asymptotic behavior. There are however corrections to the linear front propagation mb ; vs ; bd ; evs . The traveling wave solution is actually a function of $`x=nX(\tau )`$ with the position of the front $`X(\tau )`$ given by $`X(\tau )=v\tau \pm \frac{3}{2\lambda }\mathrm{ln}\tau +𝒪(1)`$. The plus and minus signs correspond to model B and C, respectively. This translates to a logarithmic correction to the typical mass (15).

We treated the problem using a mean-field rate equation approach. Thus we ignored correlations between the colliding particles. In principle, spatial correlations may be important up to some critical dimension beyond which they can indeed be ignored. The analysis of this possibility requires a more complete description of the process. Particularly, one must specify the transport mechanism.

Collision-induced fragmentation arises most naturally in processes where particles moves ballistically between collisions. Using dimensional analysis we argue that the shattering transition always occur in ballistic fragmentation. The typical mean free time $`T`$, velocity $`v`$, particle cross section $`s`$, and number density $`N`$ are related via $`NvTs1`$. Mass conservation implies $`mN^1`$ (here $`m`$ is the typical mass), while energy conservation gives $`v1`$. Finally $`ms^{d/(d1)}`$ yields $`sN^{1+1/d}`$. In particular, $`TN^{1/d}`$. The particle density evolves according to $`\frac{d}{dt}N=N/T`$, or $`\frac{d}{dt}NN^{1+1/d}`$ from which $`N(t_ct)^d`$. This suggests that in ballistic fragmentation, the shattering transition occurs in arbitrary dimension $`d`$. Using effective $`d`$-dimensional collision rates ($`N^{1/d}`$) one can convert the “one-dimensional” results in this study into a general mean-field theory.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to K. Kornev for very fruitful remarks. This research was supported by DOE (W-7405-ENG-36).


text:
# Inverse Power Law Quintessence with Non-Tracking Initial Conditions

## I Introduction

Modern observations favor a dark component of the cosmological energy density responsible for the present accelerating expansion rate of the Universe SAG99 . Quintessence is a proposed model for this component in which a scalar field slowly evolves towards the minimum of its potential RP88 ; W88 ; CDS98 . As the quintessence field, $`Q`$, nears this minimum and the density of matter, $`\rho _M`$, simultaneously decreases, the expansion rate will naturally start to accelerate. Making $`Q`$ dynamic alleviates the large discrepancy between the energy densities of radiation, matter and dark energy, most evident during the early Universe. The evolution of such a scalar field depends entirely on its potential $`V(Q)`$. Several potentials have been proposed and investigated, two in particular have gained interest because of their simplicity: the inverse-power law (IPL), $`V(Q)=V_0Q^\gamma `$ SWZ99 ; ZWS99 ; BR01 ; MG02 ; FW98 , and the exponential, $`V(Q)=e^{\lambda Q}`$, FJ98 ; CLW98 . Both of these potentials possess attractor-like solutions such that a broad range of initial conditions converge to a unique solution at late times RP88 ; LS99 ; J01 . Typically, during its evolution the ratio of the energy density in $`Q`$ to the critical density of the universe, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$, at a fixed redshift is larger than the energy density of the pure cosmological constant it hopes to replace, regardless of the potential used. In some cases, for example the exponential potential, the energy density during the early Universe may be large to affect Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) CLW98 ; FJ98 ; KS03 . But in other models, such as the IPL, $`\rho _Q`$ is a small and slowly increasing contributor of the energy density until close to the present time when $`\rho _Q\rho _M`$.

Probes like BBN, the Cosmic-Microwave Background (CMB), Type Ia Supernovae (SN Ia), and Large Scale Structure (LSS) place restrictions on the parameters appearing in a potential. By combining CMB, SN Ia, and LSS data, Bean & Melchiorri obtained a limit on the current equation of state of the field, $`w_Q`$, of $`0.85w_Q1`$ (at $`1\sigma `$) BM01 . In the IPL model these results led to the conclusion that the exponent for the power law, $`\gamma `$, must be $`2`$ at 95% confidence ML02 . Similar results were found in Corasaniti and Copeland CC02 , leading these authors to all but rule out IPL models. Doran, Lilley, and Wetterich D02  combined CMB and LSS data and found that IPL models with $`\gamma 1`$ were favored while Yahiro *et al* YMIKO02  determined that BBN can constrain tracker models with a conservative bound on the equation of state, $`w_Q0.2`$, and a more stringent bound on the initial energy density, $`\rho _Q/\rho _B0.01`$. Yahiro *et al* note that BBN provides a better constraint for models in which $`Q`$ does not track at this epoch, limiting larger $`\rho _Q`$ in these models.

All these previous limits are derived from the assumption that $`Q`$ has reached its tracker solution before the cosmological test is applied. In this paper we examine the range of initial conditions of the IPL potential that lead to an evolution for $`Q`$ that *does not* converge to the tracker solution by the present epoch. We begin by discussing the IPL model for Quintessence and its tracker solution in section II, with emphasis on the initial conditions of this solution. In section §III we proceed to examine non-tracker solutions and the behavior of $`Q`$ when the initial conditions vary significantly from the tracker solution. Finally, in section IV we re-derive the constraints on the parameters in the potential by using the CMB and SN Ia observations when the tracker initial conditions are used, then we will examine how the constraints on the potential parameters are altered when the initial conditions are altered.

Throughout this paper we will assume a flat geometry for the Universe based on the location of the first peak in the CMB angular power spectrum Netal02 ; Petal02  and work in reduced Planck units, $`M_{PL}=1/\sqrt{8\pi G}=\mathrm{}=c=1`$. Whenever we require numerical values for the cosmological parameters we choose $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$ T02  and $`H_0=72\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{Mpc}`$ Fetal01 .

## II Tracker Quintessence

Our focus in this paper is initial conditions and how they affect of Quintessence at late times. Since we will frequently make comparisons of the solution calculated from arbitrary initial conditions with the ‘tracker’ solutions we begin with a derivation of the properties of the latter.

As with all the non-interacting fluid components in the Universe, the rate of change of the quintessence energy density, $`\rho _Q`$, obeys

$$\dot{\rho }_Q=3H(\rho _Q+P_Q)$$
(1)
where $`P_Q`$ is the pressure of $`Q`$, the dot represents differentiation with respect to cosmic time $`t`$, $`H`$ is the Hubble parameter,

$$H^2=\left(\frac{1}{a}\frac{da}{dt}\right)^2=\frac{\rho _Q+\rho _f}{3},$$
(2)
$`a`$ is the scale factor and $`\rho _f`$ is energy density of all the other fluid components. From this equation, and the definition of the energy density and pressure as

$`\rho _Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{Q}^2}{2}}+V(Q)`$ (3)
$`P_Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{Q}^2}{2}}V(Q),`$ (4)
the equation of motion for $`Q`$ is simply

$$\ddot{Q}+3H\dot{Q}+V^{}=0,$$
(5)
where $`V^{}`$ is the derivative of the potential with respect to $`Q`$. From these general equations there are many different paths that would allow us to advance, each emphasizing different properties of the field, the solution or the potentials (see, for example, SWZ99 ; ZWS99 ; LS99 ). With a general potential they are all equivalent of course. For us the direction we take is to introduce the equation of state $`w_Q=P_Q/\rho _Q`$ as the ratio of the quintessence pressure to its energy density and $`\alpha =\rho _Q/\rho _f`$ as the ratio of the quintessence and remaining fluid energy densities. For these two quantities we can derive from equations (1) through (5) two first order, coupled, equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha }{da}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha (w_fw_Q)}{a}}`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dw_Q}{da}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3(1+w_Q)(w_Qv_Q^2)}{a}}`$ (7)
where $`w_f=P_f/\rho _f`$ is the equation of state for the remaining fluid components, $`a`$ is the scale factor, and $`v_Q^2`$ is simply $`v_Q^2=\dot{P}_Q/\dot{\rho }_Q`$. The density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$, the ratio of the quintessence total energy density to the critical density, is related to $`\alpha `$ in our flat Universe by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_Q=\frac{\alpha }{1+\alpha }$$
(8)
These equations are valid for any potential $`V(Q)`$.

For radiation and non-relativistic matter, $`w`$ and $`v^2`$ are constants, but for the field this is not the case, and some remarkable properties of quintessence can be attributed to this fact. If we now adopt the inverse power law form for V

$$V=\frac{V_0}{Q^\gamma }$$
(9)
then the speed $`v_Q^2`$ in equation (7) is the rather complicated

$$v_Q^2=1\frac{\gamma (1w_Q)}{\sqrt{1+w_Q}}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_Q}{3}}\left[\frac{3\mathrm{\Omega }_QH^2(1w_Q)}{2V_0}\right]^{1/\gamma }.$$
(10)
Obtaining a solution for the evolution of the field is then a simple case of integrating equations (6) and (7), with specified values for $`\gamma `$ and $`V_0`$ and initial values for $`\alpha `$ and $`w_Q`$. These four parameters are not, however, independent because the present state of the Universe is implicit in $`H`$ and $`w_f`$. To calculate $`H`$ we need to specify the energy densities of the fluid components at all epochs: for the quintessence we can simply construct this quantity according to equation (3), while for radiation and matter this can be done by their simple scaling with $`a`$ along with knowledge of their present energy densities. The contributions to the current radiation density include the measured temperature of the CMB, and the calculated energy density for three, non-degenerate neutrino flavors. This leaves only the present matter density, which is usually expressed as the product of its density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and the present critical density $`3H_0^2`$. If we impose the requirement of flatness then we must have $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q=1\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ at the present time. We have thus specified the value that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ must reach at the end of our integration thereby introducing a constraint and eliminating one degree of freedom. If we regard the initial values for $`\alpha `$ and $`w_Q`$ as inputs, and take $`\gamma `$ ($`V_0`$) as the remaining free variable, then we must adjust $`V_0`$ ($`\gamma `$) to produce a self-consistent cosmology.

The equations (6) and (7) for $`\alpha `$ and $`w_Q`$ are clearly non-linear but certain cases are open to analysis. In particular, we can look at the situations when either derivative is zero and then examine whether these conditions are stationary. From equation (6) we find that trivially $`d\alpha /da=0`$ when $`\alpha =0`$ and obviously this is stationary since all higher derivatives of $`\alpha `$ with respect to the scale factor vanish. There is also a second solution that occurs when $`w_f=w_Q`$ independent of the value of $`\alpha `$. If $`w_f`$ is a constant then to be stationary we require $`w_Q`$ to be also independent of the scale factor but, as we will show below, this only occurs in the limit $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$.

For equation (7), $`dw_Q/da=0`$ occurs when $`w_Q=\pm 1`$; the $`w_Q=1`$ case is clear from equation (7), while the $`w_Q=+1`$ solution arises because $`v_Q^2=+1`$ in such circumstances. These extrema for the equation of state are only stationary for certain potentials because they require either constant zero kinetic energy ($`w_Q=1`$) or potential energy ($`w_Q=+1`$). For the IPL they are impossible to achieve exactly but $`w_Q=\pm 1`$ can be approached in the limit when $`\rho _Q`$ is dominated by either $`\dot{Q}^2/2`$ or $`V`$. There is also a third solution that occurs when $`w_Q=v_Q^2`$, and neither has unity magnitude. The equality only occurs for specific values of $`\alpha `$ and $`w_Q`$ and to be stationary this third solution requires a balance between the scale factor dependence of the $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}_Q`$ and $`[\mathrm{\Omega }_QH^2]^{1/\gamma }`$ terms in equation (10), i.e.

$$\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_Q}\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_QH^2\right]^{1/\gamma }=constant.$$
(11)
This result is equivalent to equation (5) of SWZ99 . Inserting the definition for $`\alpha `$ this transforms into

$$\frac{\alpha ^{1+2/\gamma }}{1+\alpha }=\frac{\alpha _I^{1+2/\gamma }}{1+\alpha _I}\left(\frac{a}{a_I}\right)^{6(1+w_f)/\gamma }$$
(12)
with the subscript $`I`$ denoting initial values. But if $`w_Q`$ and $`w_f`$ are constant then from equation (6) we also have

$$\alpha =\alpha _I\left(\frac{a}{a_I}\right)^{3(w_fw_Q)}.$$
(13)
Thus we have two equations involving $`\alpha `$, (12) and (13), which must be self consistent in their scaling with $`a`$. Taking the limit $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$ in equation (12) leads to $`\alpha `$ varying very slowly with the scale factor, and therefore from equation (13), $`w_Qw_f`$. This result validates our previous statement regarding the stability of $`d\alpha /da=0`$. Alternatively, taking the limit $`\alpha ,\alpha _I1`$ in equation (12) and equating it with equation (13) produces the requirement that

$$w_Q=\frac{\gamma w_f2}{\gamma +2}.$$
(14)
for this case. As noted by Steinhardt, Wang and Zlatev SWZ99 , $`w_Qw_f`$ so that from equation (13) we see that $`\alpha `$ increases with the evolution of the Universe. These solutions where $`dw/da=0`$ and $`\alpha 1`$ are the ‘tracker’ solutions originally named by Steinhardt, Wang and Zlatev SWZ99  and Zlatev, Wang and Steinhardt ZWS99 . As shown in RP88 ; LS99 , these solutions are stable attractors for all positive values of $`\gamma `$ in that perturbations away from this solution are damped. As we stated explicitly, this epoch of constant $`w_Q`$ only occurs when $`w_f`$ is also constant so if we allow more than one component for the background fluid then whenever the Universe transits from domination by one component to another there will be a period during which $`dw_Q/da0`$. Finally, if $`w_Q`$ is constant during an epoch, the energy density of $`Q`$ scales as $`\rho _Qa^{3(w_Q+1)}`$ from which, after using the definition of the equation of state, equation (14) and the scale factor-time relation, we can obtain

$$Q=Q_I\left(\frac{t}{t_I}\right)^{2/(\gamma +2)}$$
(15)
where $`Q_I`$ is the value of the field at the initial time $`t_I`$. This is the result obtained by Liddle and Scherrer LS99 .

For quintessence to be a viable explanation for the current epoch of acceleration, it must have recently come to dominate the energy density of the Universe, i.e. the Universe is transiting between matter domination to dark energy domination. In such circumstances the analytic solution in equation (15) is no longer valid and the equation of state is no longer a constant. But there is still a solution to which all others converge and we shall continue to refer to this solution as the ‘tracker’ even if the evolution of $`Q`$ is no longer given by equation (15) and the name no longer justified in its original sense. The appeal of IPL models of quintessence is not that the analytic equation for the tracker is always valid or that $`dw_Q/da`$ is always zero but rather that a wide range of initial conditions converge to a common solution thereby avoiding any fine tuning of the initial values of $`\alpha `$ and $`w_Q`$. We shall discuss further how the tracker is approached in the next section, for now we will assume that the initial conditions are exactly those of the tracker solution.

The tracker solutions correspond to specific initial values of $`\alpha `$ and $`w_Q`$, the latter stems from equation (14) while the former can be derived from the requirement $`w_Q=v_Q^2`$ and equation (10). Since the initial conditions are fixed the tracker solution is a function of only one parameter, $`\gamma `$. We start integrating the equations at an initial scale factor $`a_I`$ of $`a_I=10^{30}`$: this initial value for the scale factor is, of course, arbitrary and we have checked that our results are not sensitive to its value.

Figure (1) shows the initial tracker value of $`\alpha `$ at our choice for the initial scale of $`a_I=10^{30}`$ as a function of $`\gamma `$ The figure shows that $`\alpha _I`$ grows rapidly as $`\gamma `$ increases so that even modest values of $`\gamma `$ raise the initial dark energy density by many orders of magnitude above the cosmological constant value. In figure (2) we have plotted the equation of state at the present time as a function of $`\gamma `$, together with the value during both matter and radiation domination as given by equation (14). This figure can be used to derive an upper limit of $`\gamma `$ based simply on the requirement that the Universe be accelerating at the present time. To accelerate in a flat Universe we must satisfy $`w_Q\mathrm{\Omega }_Q1/3`$ so with our adopted value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q=0.7`$ we find $`\gamma 5`$. If we use the Bean & Melchiorri $`3\sigma `$ limit of $`w_Q0.55`$ (though this was obtained by assuming $`w_Q`$ is constant) then the limit drops to $`\gamma 3`$. The equation of state of the tracker at the present time is somewhat sensitive to the adopted energy density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$. Larger $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ leads to slightly smaller $`w_Q`$ for a given exponent so that enforcing $`w_Q\mathrm{\Omega }_Q1/3`$ leads to a limit on $`\gamma `$ that rises slightly more quickly with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ than figure (2) would seem to indicate.

## III Non-Tracking Quintessence

### Initial Conditions for the Q-field

Most previous studies of cosmological constraints on the IPL model potential have assumed that $`Q`$ reached the tracker long before the epoch at which the tests are applied. This is justified since the appeal of the IPL model is the fact that $`Q`$ reaches this solution for many initial conditions. Since the initial conditions for $`Q`$ are the focus of this paper, it seems reasonable to ask what are the ‘natural’ initial conditions for $`Q`$.

Malquarti & Liddle ML02  followed a quintessence field with an IPL potential during inflation and determined that due to quantum fluctuations $`Q`$ will diffuse to a very low energy density compared to the background fluid at the end of inflation. In this scenario $`Q`$ is decoupled from all other fluid components, including the inflaton. During inflation, the small scale set by $`V_0`$ in the $`Q`$ potential implies that the inflaton field dominated the dynamics of the universe. Only for small values of $`Q`$ could the dynamics of the universe be affected by quintessence. However, these authors found that at the end of inflation, $`\rho _Q`$ is initially so small that the field does not reach the tracker until the relatively late stages of cosmic evolution.

Alternatively we have initial conditions for $`Q`$ motivated from inflation where the scalar inflaton field, $`\varphi `$, transits through a period of kinetic energy domination after inflation. The epoch in which the kinetic energy of the scalar field dominates the expansion rate has been called ‘kination’J97 . Previous authors have attempted to connect the scalar field in quintessence to the field responsible for inflation, by transiting the field through a kinetic energy dominated regime PV99 ; PR99 ; KR99 ; DV01 . If the scalar field, here responsible for both inflation and quintessence (i.e. $`\varphi =Q`$), does go through a period of kination, this period must end by BBN so that the universe is radiation dominated at this stage Ketal99 . This allows us to constrain the energy in $`Q`$ after inflation. Starting from the scaling relation for temperature, $`Ta^1`$, as well as the scaling relations $`\rho _ra^4`$ and $`\rho _\varphi a^6`$ during kination, and expressing the relativistic energy as $`\rho _r=\pi ^2g_{}T^4/30`$, where $`g_{}`$ counts the total number of relativistic degrees of freedom, we obtain

$$\rho _{\varphi ,i}=\frac{\pi ^2g_{}}{30}\frac{T_i^6}{T_{}^2}$$
(16)
for the energy in $`\varphi `$ at the end of inflation. Here $`T_i`$ and $`T_{}`$ are the temperatures at the end of inflation and at the end of kination, respectively, and $`g_{}100`$. As noted in S93 , in order to satisfy the nucleosynthesis bound, the temperature of particles created during kination just after thermal equilibrium is achieved is $`T_{eq}10^6`$ GeV. Since $`T_{eq}<T_i`$, we can take $`10^6`$ GeV to be a very generous lower bound for $`T_i`$, which in (16) gives $`\rho _{\varphi ,i}>10^{42}\mathrm{GeV}^4`$. Thus it seems prudent to consider initial conditions on $`Q`$ such that $`\rho _Q\rho _r`$ in the early universe.

### Approaching the Tracker

In has long been known that the tracker solution in IPL models (by which we mean the solution given by equation (15) when $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ is small or what this solution becomes when $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ is large) is an attractor but that under certain initial conditions the time required to reach the tracker solution will be longer than the present age of the universe WF00 ; SWZ99 . Several authors have derived limits on $`\gamma `$ based on the argument that the tracker must be reached at some point before the present epoch. For example: Steinhardt, Wang & Zlatev SWZ99  bounded $`\gamma 5`$ by demanding that the field reaches its tracker solution by matter-radiation equality when initially the energy density of the Universe at the inflationary scale was equipartitioned between the Quintessence and the remaining fluid components. Similarly, Frieman and Waga FW98  obtained the bound $`\gamma 3.6`$ using SN Ia data for currently acceptable values of the matter density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M0.20.4`$. We shall not impose these restrictions and consider in this section all solutions that are able to satisfy the boundary condition whether they reach the tracker by the present epoch or not. Since we shall frequently compare a solution calculated from arbitrary initial conditions to the tracker we will denote any quantity associated with the latter by the subscript $`T`$.

We introduce the quantity $`u`$, as in LS99 , defined to be the ratio of the solution $`Q(a)`$ given arbitrary initial conditions to the tracker solution $`Q_T(a)`$ for some fixed value of the IPL exponent $`\gamma `$ i.e.

$$u(a)=\frac{Q(a)}{Q_T(a)}.$$
(17)
With this definition of $`u(a)`$ a solution reaches the tracker solution when $`u=1,du/da=0`$. When $`\mathrm{\Omega }_T1`$ we can derive an equation of motion LS99  from equation (5) after using equation (15)

$`t^2\ddot{u}`$ $`+`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\gamma +2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{w_f+1}}\right]t\dot{u}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\gamma +2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\gamma +2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{w_f+1}}\right]\left(u{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u^{\gamma +1}}}\right)=0.`$
In figure (3) we plot $`u(a)`$ for the case $`\gamma =4`$ for four values of $`\alpha _I`$, the value of $`\alpha `$ at the beginning of the integration, from $`\alpha =1,10^{25},10^{75},10^{100}`$. In all cases we start the field from rest and at an initial scale factor of $`a_I=10^{30}`$. From figure (1) we see that the tracker solution for $`\gamma =4`$ corresponds to a value of $`\alpha _T10^{40}`$ at $`a_I=10^{30}`$ so our demonstration values span a large range around the tracker. Despite this large range for $`\alpha _I`$, both above and below $`\alpha _T`$, the figure shows that the solutions for all are remarkably similar in their general shape and in every case we have the remarkable result that the tracker solution is always approached from above. The oscillations around $`Q_T`$ seen in Liddle & Scherrer LS99  are too small to be seen with the scale of the figure because they occur when $`u1`$. For the two cases where $`\alpha _I\alpha _T`$ the initial value of $`Q`$ is much larger than the tracker $`Q_T`$ thus the initial $`u`$ is much greater than unity. As the Universe evolves $`u`$ falls as a power law with $`a`$ and the two solutions join the tracker at approximately a scale factor of $`a10^{16}`$ for $`\alpha _I=10^{75}`$, $`a10^7`$ for $`\alpha _I=10^{100}`$. In contrast, when $`\alpha _I\alpha _T`$ the initial value of $`u`$ is smaller than unity. As we integrate the equations we see a very rapid and immediate increase as $`u`$ rushes up to a peak value after which $`u`$ turns over and again falls as a power law. For the two cases here the solution joins the tracker at $`a10^{20}`$ for $`\alpha _I=10^{25}`$, $`a1`$ for $`\alpha _I=1`$. From these four cases it is apparent that a value of $`\alpha _I`$ in relative proximity to the tracker solution $`\alpha _T`$ joins the tracker very quickly but as $`\alpha _I`$ strays from $`\alpha _T`$ the time required to reach the tracker grows rapidly. The figure clearly shows that the epoch at which the tracker is joined can easily be after the epoch of BBN, of recombination, or indeed it may still not have happened.

In figure (4) we plot $`w_Q`$ versus scale factor for $`\gamma =4`$ and the same four values of $`\alpha _I`$. The behavior of $`w_Q`$ in non-tracker phases for $`Q`$ within the IPL model was also discussed by Zlatev, Wang and Steinhardt ZWS99 . This figure helps explain the results in figure (3). Every case is initially set at $`w_Q=1`$ and for $`\alpha _I\alpha _T`$ the equation of state remains at this value until the tracker is joined at $`a10^{16}`$ and $`a10^7`$ seen previously. Note that in this figure the oscillations of the field around the tracker are seen as the small wiggles in $`w_Q`$ immediately prior to the joining of the tracker solution. During this phase of $`w_Q=1`$ the field behaves as a cosmological constant. The figure indicates that the larger the discrepancy between $`\alpha _I`$ and $`\alpha _T`$ for $`\alpha _I\alpha _T`$ the longer this pseudo-cosmological constant phase and eventually we would expect that at some sufficiently small $`\alpha _I`$ the solution never joins the tracker. However, such a small value of $`\alpha _I`$ circumvents the main appeal of Quintessence and we will not pursue this possibility further. In contrast, for those cases where $`\alpha \alpha _T`$ the equation of state jumps from $`w_Q=1`$ to $`w_Q=+1`$ very rapidly and remains there for some time before promptly plummeting to $`w_Q=1`$. This period of kinetic energy domination is much longer than the rise and turnover seen in figure (3) and its duration grows as the difference between $`\alpha _I`$ and $`\alpha _T`$ increases. Once again, during the phase of $`w_Q=1`$ the field behaves as a cosmological constant and from there the solution joins the tracker in the same fashion as the two cases where $`\alpha \alpha _T`$. Eventually we expect that at some sufficiently large $`\alpha _I`$ the equation of state never falls to $`w_Q=1`$ and so the limits on $`w_Q`$ exclude values of $`\alpha _I`$ larger than this. From our numerical simulations we find that $`w_Q0`$ at the present time for $`\alpha _I10^{83}`$ when $`\gamma =4`$.

The solution for $`u`$ in the limit $`u1`$ is very different from that of Liddle & Scherrer LS99 . When $`u1`$ the $`1/u^{\gamma +1}`$ term in equation (III) is negligibly small and can be dropped. The solution of the equation is then the sum of two power laws

$$u=u_+\left(\frac{t}{t_I}\right)^{\lambda _+}+u_{}\left(\frac{t}{t_I}\right)^\lambda _{}$$
(19)
where the exponents are

$$\lambda _\pm =\left(\frac{w_f1}{2(w_f+1)}\frac{2}{\gamma +2}\right)\left(\frac{w_f1}{2(w_f+1)}\right).$$
(20)
Since $`w_f1`$ the two exponents are both negative and $`\lambda _+>\lambda _{}`$. In terms of the initial conditions the two constants, $`u_+`$ and $`u_{}`$, are given by

$`u_+`$ $`=`$ $`u_Iu_{}`$ (21)
$`u_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{w_f+1}{w_f1}}\right)\left[\dot{u_I}t_I+{\displaystyle \frac{2u_I}{\gamma +2}}\right]`$ (22)
$`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{w_f+1}{w_f1}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{Q_I}t_I}{Q_I}}u_I`$
From the second result in equation (22) we see $`u_{}<0`$. At late times only the first term in (19) is important and, after referring to equation (15), we see that its time dependence is that of the tracker. The field $`Q`$ is fixed. If we start the field from rest then $`u_{}=0`$ and so $`u_+=u_I`$. This is the behavior see in the bottom panel of figure (3).

From examining the top panel of figure (3) we see that empirically this same formula also applies to the cases when $`\alpha _I>\alpha _T`$. Thus we are led to conclude that $`Q`$ is essentially stationary even though the field may be dominated by its kinetic energy. Such behavior is expected since nothing in the derivation of equation (19) depended upon $`w_Q`$, the only requirement was that $`u1`$. However, in these cases the initial value of $`u`$ is much smaller than unity so strictly equation (19) does not apply exactly at $`t_I`$ and $`u_+`$ and $`u_{}`$ are therefore not given by equations (21) and (22). But this limit is reached very quickly and, furthermore, the peak value of $`u`$ is approximately the same as $`u_+`$, the normalization of the late time evolution. By locating the time $`t_{}`$ where the derivative of $`u`$ vanishes we find that

$$u_+u_{}=\left(\frac{\gamma +2}{2}\right)\frac{\dot{Q_{}}t_{}}{Q_T}.$$
(23)
where the subscript $``$ indicates all quantities are evaluated at $`t_{}`$. First, we can obtain an estimate for $`\dot{Q_{}}`$ by assuming the Quintessence energy density at the end of the initial ascent is approximately equal to the initial Quintessence energy, $`\rho _I`$, and, furthermore, that it is dominated by its kinetic component. Under these approximations $`\dot{Q_{}}\sqrt{2\rho _I}`$. Second, the peak is located so close to the beginning of the integration that $`t_{}t_I`$ and $`Q_TQ_{TI}`$ so if we make use of $`t_I1/H_I`$ and the definition of $`H`$ the result is that

$$u_+u_{}\left(\frac{\gamma +2}{2}\right)\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_I}}{Q_I}u_I\frac{Q_{}}{Q_I}u_I$$
(24)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_I`$ is the initial Quintessence density parameter and we have introduced the quantity $`Q_{}`$.

Before proceeding to further investigate the implications of the non-tracker solutions we temporarily digress to examine the importance of the initial scale factor upon our results. So far we have begun all our integrations of $`\alpha `$ and $`w_Q`$ from an initial scale factor of $`a_I=10^{30}`$. We already know the tracker value of $`\alpha `$ increases with the scale factor from equation (13) and as we showed in figures (3) and (4) the closer the value of $`\alpha _I`$ to $`\alpha _T`$ the shorter the non-tracker phase. From these considerations it is therefore natural to expect solutions with an arbitrary value of $`\alpha _I`$ to reach the tracker more rapidly as $`a_I`$ increases. Figure (5), a plot of $`u`$ versus $`a`$ when $`\alpha _I=1`$ and for different $`a_I`$, shows that this is exactly the case. As $`a_I`$ increases the duration of the non-tracker phase and the height of the peak value of $`u`$ decrease. But the figure also shows that the scale factor at which a solution reaches the tracker is independent of $`a_I`$. This is not totally unexpected: our estimate of $`Q_{}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_I}`$ doesn’t change with $`a_I`$ if we use the same value of $`\alpha _I`$ so the change in $`u_{}`$ as $`a_I`$ increases simply reflects the evolution of the tracker solution. From this result we see that the evolution of the field as we approach the current epoch is robust and the necessity of specifying the initial scale factor for non-tracker solutions has disappeared.

When $`\gamma =4`$ the two cases $`\alpha _I=10^{25}`$ and $`\alpha _I=10^{75}`$ are sufficiently close to $`\alpha _T`$ that the tracker is reached during the radiation dominated era, while the $`\alpha _I=10^{100}`$ curve reaches the tracker at the beginning of the transition to the matter dominated era. The $`\alpha _I=1`$ curve does not reach the tracker at all, and were it not for the initial climb to $`w_Q=+1`$, this case would be identical to a cosmological constant. This is consistent with our expectations if $`Q_{}`$ were approximately the same as the present value of $`Q_T`$. From Malquarti & Liddle ML02  $`V_010^{120}`$ (in reduced Plank mass units) for $`\gamma =4`$ so together with $`w_T1`$ for the current equation of state of the tracker and our concordance values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ and $`H_0`$ then $`Q_T𝒪(1)`$. Thus, $`Q_{}`$ must also be of this order implying that $`\alpha _I1`$ in order for the solution to avoid joining the tracker by the present epoch.

Identifying $`\alpha _I1`$ as dividing the cases where the tracker was joined from those where it has not is confirmed (and is much more obvious) in figure (6) where we plot the equation of state at the current epoch as a function of $`\alpha _I`$ for different values of $`\gamma `$. This figure clearly shows the change at $`\alpha _I1`$ where the equation of state of $`Q`$ drops to $`w_Q=1`$ as $`\alpha _I`$ passes through the equipartition value. There is a slight movement of the transition point with $`\gamma `$ but it is not large.

In figure (7) we summarize our discussion of non-tracker Quintessence with a contour plot of the final value of $`w_Q`$ as a function of $`\gamma `$ and $`\alpha _I`$. For values of $`\alpha _I1`$, the final value of $`w_Q`$ is only a function of $`\gamma `$ while for $`\alpha _I1`$ we have the situation where the equation of state at the present time is close to $`1`$ for a large range in $`\gamma `$. The slight dip in the contours of $`w_Q=0.5,0.6,0.7`$ are a result of $`Q`$ just reaching the tracker at the present epoch. Just before $`Q`$ ‘hooks’ the tracker it oscillates around that solution LS99  and these oscillations are seen as dips in the contours. The figure shows essentially a dichotomy of acceptable solutions in the IPL model. In order to obtain an equation of state within the current observationally favored limits $`0.85w_Q1`$ we are forced to small values of $`\gamma `$ if $`\alpha _I1`$ *but* if the initial conditions are such that the quintessence energy density is comparable to, or larger than, the radiation component virtually any value of $`\gamma `$ is permitted. A Universe initially dominated by a quintessence field evolves to one that effectively possesses a cosmological constant, independent of the value of $`\gamma `$.

## IV Quintessence, The CMB, and SN Ia

We have already derived an upper limit to $`\gamma `$ just from the requirement that the Universe accelerate. We can improve upon this result by using observations of the CMB and SN Ia, which provide powerful probes of cosmology from a redshift of $`1000`$ and lower.

The significant changes introduced into the CMB angular power spectrum by replacing a vacuum energy with an IPL Quintessence field have been discussed by many authors including Ratra & Peebles RP88  and Kneller & Steigman KS03 . The position of the peaks in the angular power spectrum are proportional to the ratio of the sound horizon at recombination to the angular diameter distance at that redshift, while the height of the peaks is set by their variance relative to the variance at the largest angular scales as measured by COBE. For a given redshift and matter density, Quintessence increases the dark energy density, leading to a swifter expansion rate. For the IPL tracker solution, the contribution from $`\rho _Q`$ is small until the recent epoch, thus its influence only becomes significant at low redshifts. The swifter expansion results in a reduction of the angular diameter distance,

$$d_A(z)=(1+z)^1_0^z,dz^{}/H(z^{})$$
(25)
while leaving the sound horizon at recombination unaltered. An increase in $`H(z)`$ therefore moves the peak positions to larger angular scales and they become more tightly bunched. This effect increases with $`\gamma `$ because for tracker solutions the energy density is correlated with the exponent: smaller $`\gamma `$ corresponding to smaller $`\rho _Q`$ at any fixed redshift. At the same time models with Quintessence always pass through the matter-dark energy transition at a higher redshift even if they typically begin to accelerate at a lower redshift. The earlier dominance of the dark energy will result in a more significant decay of the gravitational potentials so that any photon traversing a potential well will emerge with a larger blueshift relative to the background expansion. The increased blueshifting (and the increased redshifting from potential hills) leads to an enhancement in the variance of the CMB temperature. This integrated Sachs Wolfe (ISW) effect is most effective at scales above the causal horizon at the time of the matter-dark energy transition i.e. the largest angular scales. But the COBE normalization of the CMB power spectrum is exactly at these scales so the net result is that it is the variance at the smallest scales that is reduced. Once again, this effect increases with $`\gamma `$ for exactly the same reason.

The recent evidence for the current acceleration of the universe comes from the use of SN Ia as ‘standard candles’ at high-redshifts, $`z0.30.8`$ SAG99 . SN Ia are good standard candles because of the strong correlation between the peak in the absolute magnitude and the decline in brightness 15 days after the peak P94 ; H95 ; RPK96 . A measurement of the apparent magnitude is all that is needed to determine the luminosity distance $`d_l`$. This same quantity can be computed for a given cosmology through

$$d_l=(1+z)_0^z\frac{dz^{}}{H(z^{})}.$$
(26)
From this equation it is immediately obvious that an increase in the Hubble parameter results in a smaller luminosity distance and hence a brighter SN Ia for a given redshift. For tracker solutions, as $`\gamma `$ increases the luminosity distance decreases and so the same SN Ia will appear brighter still.

In figure (8) we compare the IPL model predictions using tracker initial conditions with the CMB and SN Ia data by plotting $`\chi _\nu ^2`$, the $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom $`\nu `$ as a function of $`\gamma `$. For the CMB data we use the 41 points of BOOMERANG BOOMERANG , DASI DASI  and MAXIMA MAXIMA  together with RADPACK RADPACK  to calculate the $`\chi ^2`$. We optimize over the scalar tilt and the baryon-to-photon ratio but, in order to make the calculation computationally feasible, we have not marginalized over the present Hubble parameter or the matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$. For SN Ia, we use the 54 data points from ‘fit C’ of SAG99 . For the CMB data the 99% goodness-of-fit limit is $`\chi _\nu ^2=1.60`$ while the equivalent limit when using the SN Ia data is $`\chi _\nu ^2=1.50`$. The figure clearly shows that smaller values of $`\gamma `$ are favored and we can extract an upper limit to $`\gamma `$ of $`\gamma 1.6`$ at 99% from the SN Ia data, $`\gamma 2.2`$ at 99% from the CMB data. This limit is a somewhat stringent because we have not marginalized over all the remaining parameters but the result is not very much different from other studies of IPL Quintessence such as Malquarti & Liddle ML02  who derived $`\gamma 2`$ at 99%. Figure (8) clearly demonstrates that if we use tracker initial conditions then the field must be very similar to the cosmological constant. Although we make this statement after considering only the IPL model this result is in qualitative agreement with other analysis of quintessence using the CMB and SN Ia which used a constant equation of state $`w_Q`$ BHM01 ; CC02 ; HM02 ; E99 ; B01 .

### CMB, SN Ia without the tracker

As we have seen from figure (7), $`\alpha _I>1`$ widens the allowed parameter space in $`\gamma `$ when fitting $`w_Q`$ to present observed bounds. Larger values of $`\alpha _I`$ behave more like a cosmological constant, $`w_Q=1`$, except for the caveat of an initial period when $`w_Q=+1`$. Thus, since larger values of $`\alpha _I`$ push the current value of $`w_Q1`$, we might expect that these solutions would provide a very good fit to the CMB and SN Ia data.

In figure (9) we plot the contours of constant $`\chi _\nu ^2=1.34`$ and $`1.50`$, that correspond to 95% and 99% goodness-of-fit to the SN Ia, and $`\chi _\nu ^2=1.40`$ and $`1.60`$, the 95% and 99% goodness-of-fit to the CMB data, again in the $`\gamma \alpha `$ plane. For $`\alpha _I1`$ the exponent $`\gamma `$ is very tightly bound by the CMB and SN Ia because in this region the field joined the tracker solution before the present epoch. The limits on $`\gamma `$ are exactly the same as found for tracker initial conditions derived from figure (8). But when $`\alpha _I1`$ the field has not joined the tracker and we find the range of acceptable values of $`\gamma `$ increases significantly such that much of the region $`\alpha _I1`$ is compatible with SN Ia and CMB constraints. Thus the frequently stated limits on the exponent of power-law potential only apply when the initial value of $`\alpha _I`$ falls within the range that will converge to the tracker solution by the present day for a given value of $`\gamma `$.

## V Conclusions

We have examined the IPL quintessence model focusing on the influence of the initial conditions upon the behavior of the solutions and in particular those cases where the field has not converged to the tracker solution by the present day. We have re-analyzed the previously derived bounds on the exponent $`\gamma `$ in the potential and find initial conditions that lead to solutions where the field reached the tracker before the present day limits the exponent to $`\gamma 2`$. However, after we looked at initial conditions where the field does not reach the tracker we found much larger values of $`\gamma `$ are permissible. The dividing line between the two types of solution occurs at the point of equipartition between the initial Quintessence and radiation energy densities and this is independent of the initial scale factor. IPL models of Quintessence give rise to values of the equations of state at the present time that are close to $`1`$ either by the exponent being small, $`\gamma 2`$, with small initial energy densities relative to the radiation *or* very large initial energy densities relative to the radiation content and arbitrary exponents.

###### Acknowledgements.

We wish to thank Bob Scherrer, Gary Steigman, Terry Walker, and Andrew Zentner for useful discussions. We are grateful to Uros Seljak and Matias Zaldarriaga for the use of the publicly available code CMBfast. This work was supported in part by the DOE (DE-FG02-91ER40690), and by the Ohio State University Department of Physics .