text:
# Gaussianity of Cosmic Velocity Fields and Linearity of the Velocity–Gravity Relation

## 1 Introduction

According to the gravitational instability paradigm, structures in the universe formed by the growth of small inhomogeneities present in the early Universe. Gravitational instability gives rise to a coupling between the density and peculiar velocity fields on scales larger than the size of clusters of galaxies, the largest bound objects in the Universe. On very large, linear scales, the relation between the density contrast $`\delta `$ and the peculiar velocity $`𝐯`$ in co-moving coordinates can be expressed in differential form,

$$\delta (𝐫)=(H_0f)^1𝐯(𝐫),$$
(1)
or in integral form,

$$𝐯(𝐫)=𝐠(𝐫).$$
(2)
Here,

$$𝐠(𝐫)H_0f\frac{\mathrm{d}^3𝐫^{}}{4\pi }\frac{\delta (𝐫^{})(𝐫^{}𝐫)}{|𝐫^{}𝐫|^3}$$
(3)
is a quantity proportional to the gravitational field,111The linear relation between the peculiar velocity and the gravity, $`\stackrel{~}{𝐠}`$, is (e.g., Peebles 1980) $`𝐯=2f/(3H\mathrm{\Omega }_m)\stackrel{~}{𝐠}`$. For simplicity, here we define the scaled gravity, $`𝐠2f/(3H\mathrm{\Omega }_m)\stackrel{~}{𝐠}`$. Then eq. (2) follows and $`𝐠`$ is given by eq. (3). expressed in units of km$``$s-1. The coupling constant, $`f`$, carries information about the underlying cosmological model, and is related to the cosmological matter density parameter, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, and cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, by

$$f(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{0.6}+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{70}\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{2}\right)$$
(4)
(Lahav et al. 1991). Hence, comparing the observed density and velocity fields of galaxies allows one to constrain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, or the degenerate combination $`\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_m^{0.6}/b`$ in the presence of galaxy biasing (e.g., Strauss & Willick 1995 for a review). This comparison is done by extracting the density field from full-sky redshift surveys (such as the PSCz; Saunders et al. 2000), and comparing it to the observed velocity field from peculiar velocity surveys. The methods for doing this fall into two broad categories. One can use equation (2) to calculate the predicted velocity field from a redshift survey, and compare the result with the measured peculiar velocity field; this is referred to as a velocity-velocity comparison. Alternatively, one can use the differential form, equation (1), and calculate the divergence of the observed velocity field to compare directly with the density field from a redshift survey; this is called a density-density comparison. Nonlinear extensions of equation (1) have been developed by a number of workers (Nusser et al. 1991, Bernardeau 1992, Gramann 1993, Mancinelli et al. 1994, Mancinelli & Yahil 1995, Chodorowski 1997, Chodorowski & Łokas 1997, Chodorowski et al. 1998, Bernardeau et al. 1999, Dekel et al. 1999, Kudlicki et al. 2000, hereafter KCPR; see also the discussion below). However, very little work has been done to test on what scales the integral relation, equation (2) holds, and how it might be extended into the mildly nonlinear regime; thus the motivation for this paper. Attempts have been made to carry out velocity–velocity comparisons with very large smoothing lengths (e.g., the inverse Tully-Fisher method of Davis, Nusser, & Willick 1996), and very small smoothing lengths (the VELMOD method of Willick et al. 1997; Willick & Strauss 1998). Davis et al. (1991), and more recently Berlind et al. (2000) discuss the systematic errors caused by mismatch of smoothing scales between the velocity and density fields. In this paper, we concentrate on the velocity–velocity comparison after smoothing on scales of 4 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ or larger: any smaller would be affected by strongly nonlinear effects, while larger smoothing would reduce the number of independent volumes over which the comparison could be made.

The amplitude of the velocity field smoothed on a given scale $`R`$ with the window $`W`$ depends on the density field power spectrum, $`P(k)`$, as

$$v^2𝑑kP(k)\stackrel{~}{W}^2(kR),$$
(5)
while for the density field the relation is as follows:

$$\delta ^2𝑑kk^2P(k)\stackrel{~}{W}^2(kR)$$
(6)
(see the discussion in chapter 2 of Strauss & Willick 1995). Here, $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ is the Fourier transform of the smoothing window. The absence of the $`k^2`$ term in equation (5) means that the velocity field is more heavily weighted by modes with low values of the wavenumber $`k`$, i.e., large scales which are fully in the linear regime. Therefore, we expect the relation between the velocity, $`𝐯`$, and the gravity, $`𝐠`$, to be closer to linear than that between the density and velocity divergence.

KCPR have shown that the relation between

$$\theta (H_0f)^1𝐯(𝐫),$$
(7)
(see equation 1) and $`\delta `$ (proportional to $`𝐠(𝐫)`$) is nonlinear on small scales, and have proposed a semi-empirical formula accurately describing the dependence of $`\theta _\delta \theta |\delta `$ on $`\delta `$:

$$\theta _\delta =\alpha \left[(1+\delta )^{1/\alpha }1\right]+ϵ.$$
(8)
Here, the constant $`ϵ`$ is introduced in order to keep $`\theta =0`$ as it must; it is approximately

$$ϵ=\frac{\alpha 1}{2\alpha }\sigma _\delta ^2+𝒪\left(\sigma _\delta ^4\right),$$
(9)
where $`\sigma _\delta ^2\delta ^2`$ denotes the variance of the density field. Thus, this approximation to $`ϵ`$ gets progressively worse as the fluctuations become more nonlinear and in the following we use the exact value of $`ϵ`$, obtained numerically. KCPR have found that $`\alpha =1.9`$ is a good fit over a large range of smoothing scales. Solving Equation 7 for $`𝐯`$ in the case of an irrotational flow gives:

$$𝐯(𝐫)=\frac{H_0f}{4\pi }\mathrm{d}^3𝐫^{}\frac{\theta _\delta (𝐫^{})(𝐫^{}𝐫)}{|𝐫^{}𝐫|^3},$$
(10)
where equation (8) gives an expression for $`\theta _\delta `$.

In this paper, we investigate the nonlinearities of the relationship between the velocity and gravity fields using a set of grid-based simulations. The simulations are described in §2. In §3, we ask how well the probability distribution functions (PDFs) of the Cartesian components of $`𝐯`$ and $`𝐠`$ are fitted with a Gaussian. Given that the source fields for the velocity and gravity fields (i.e. the velocity divergence and density contrast respectively) have mildly non-Gaussian distributions, it is not a priori obvious what the distribution of the integral quantities should be. In §4 we directly measure the relation between $`𝐯`$ and $`𝐠`$ on various scales, and test the extent to which linear theory, or non-linear extensions to it, may hold. This is important in determining whether the existing velocity–velocity comparisons which use linear theory give biased results. We present our conclusions in §5. Two appendices contain derivations of results used in the text.

## 2 The simulations

We performed our simulations using the CPPA (Cosmological Pressureless Parabolic Advection) code (see Kudlicki et al. 1996, KCPR). Matter in this code is represented as a non-relativistic pressureless fluid, and its equations of motion are solved on a uniform grid fixed in comoving coordinates. Periodic boundary conditions are applied. Parabolic interpolation of the hydrodynamical state (like in the Piecewise Parabolic Method scheme, see Colella & Woodward 1984) assures low internal diffusion of the code and accurate treatment of high density and velocity gradients.

We chose to use a grid-based code rather than an $`N`$-body code, because it produces a volume-weighted velocity field directly. This is important because equation (10) is a solution to equation (7) only when $`𝐯`$ is a potential (curl-free) field, and the mass-weighted velocity field exhibits curl even in the linear regime.222The mass-weighted velocity field is proportional to $`(1+\delta )𝐯`$. If its curl is to be zero, with $`\times 𝐯=0`$, one would require $`\delta \times 𝐯=0`$. There is no a priori reason for this even in the linear regime. The mean value of the cosine of the angle between $`\delta `$ and $`𝐯`$ measured on the 30 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ scale in our six high-resolution simulations (see Table 1) is $`0.81`$. The directions of these vectors are thus correlated, but not parallel. Moreover, the a priori unknown galaxy bias does not allow one to treat observational data as purely mass-weighted anyway.

All our simulations assume an Einstein-de Sitter universe. The relation between the velocity and the (scaled) gravity in the mildly nonlinear regime is insensitive to the Cosmological Density Parameter and Cosmological Constant, as demonstrated both analytically (Gramann 1993, Chodorowski 1997, Nusser & Colberg 1998; see also App. B.3 of Scoccimarro et al. 1998), and by means of N-body simulations (Bernardeau et al. 1999), thus our results should be valid for any cosmology.

Our simulations start from Gaussian density fluctuations with the linear APM power spectrum (Baugh & Efstathiou 1993, 1994, Baugh & Gaztañaga 1996). The initial velocity field is obtained from equation (2). The initial fields are evolved until the linear variance of the density in spheres of radius 8 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, $`\sigma _8`$, is unity. Then for subsequent analysis the output is selected for which nonlinear $`\sigma _8=0.87`$ (the cluster normalization in the currently preferred model $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$; Eke, Cole & Frenk 1996).

In order to test the dependence of the results on the spatial resolution and box size we have studied three numerical models with parameters given in Table 1. To improve the statistics, we have performed six realizations of each of the models, with different random phases of the initial density field. We have also performed a few additional simulations with the timestep reduced five times; the results did not change noticeably.

## 3 The marginal distributions of v and g

The typical correlation length of the density field is of the order of $`5`$ $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, while $`𝐠`$ is influenced by density fluctuations in a much larger region. For instance, the gravitational acceleration of the Local Group receives considerable contributions from shells up to at least 150 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ (see e.g. Rowan-Robinson et al. 2000). Thus, $`𝐠`$, and similarly $`𝐯`$, come from integration over an effective domain containing a large number of essentially independent regions. Hence, the Central Limit Theorem suggests that they should have close to Gaussian distributions.

We test the Gaussianity hypothesis with our simulations. We plot the measured distribution functions for individual Cartesian components of the peculiar velocity and gravity fields, which we label $`v`$ and $`g`$. It turns out that on mildly nonlinear scales, the distributions are well-fitted by Gaussians. Figures 1 and 2 show the distributions for 4 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ Gaussian smoothing. (As there is no preferred direction in space, the distributions must be even functions. Therefore, without the loss of information we plot them as functions of the absolute value of a Cartesian component.) The closeness to a Gaussian distribution is remarkable, especially for the velocity field.

A standard way of quantifying modest departures from Gaussianity is to decompose the PDF with an Edgeworth expansion: a leading Gaussian, plus correction terms with amplitudes proportional to the higher-order connected moments of the field (Longuet-Higgins 1963, Juszkiewicz et al. 1995, Bernardeau & Kofman 1995). As there is no preferred direction in space, the skewness of the PDF of the Cartesian coordinates of the velocity and gravity fields must equal zero. Thus the first non-vanishing connected moment of a Cartesian component of the velocity field is its kurtosis, $`𝒦_v=(v^43v^2^2)/v^2^2`$, and similarly for the gravity field. Therefore, the kurtosis measures the leading-order departure from Gaussianity of the fields (Kofman et al. 1994, Catelan & Moscardini 1994). Specifically, the Edgeworth expansion in our case reads:

$$P(\mu )=\varphi (\mu )\left[1+\frac{𝒮_4\sigma _\delta ^2}{24}H_4(\mu )+𝒪\left(\sigma _\delta ^4\right)\right].$$
(11)
Here, $`P(\mu )`$ is the PDF for the variable $`v/\sigma _v`$ or $`g/\sigma _g`$, where $`\sigma _v^2=v^2`$ and $`\sigma _g^2=g^2`$ are the variances of the velocity and gravity fields respectively, and $`\varphi (\mu )=(2\pi )^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(\mu ^2/2)`$ is the standardized normal distribution. The symbol $`H_4`$ denotes the fourth order Hermite polynomial. The quantity $`𝒮_4`$ is related to the velocity, or gravity, kurtosis and the variance of the density field in the following way:

$$𝒦_v=𝒮_{4v}\sigma _\delta ^2,\text{and}𝒦_g=𝒮_{4g}\sigma _\delta ^2.$$
(12)
The quantities $`𝒮_{4v}`$ and $`𝒮_{4g}`$ are called hierarchical amplitudes. For a given smoothing scale, during the weakly nonlinear evolution they are constant, independent of the normalization of the power spectrum.

We plot $`𝒦_v`$ and $`𝒦_g`$ as a function of the Gaussian smoothing radius, $`R`$, in Figure 3. We find that $`𝒦_v`$ is close to zero for smoothing between 3 and 15 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. In contrast, the gravity field develops a detectable kurtosis. Still, this is substantially less kurtosis than the kurtosis of the gravity’s source field, density. Measured from the high-resolution simulations (i.e., with the grid size $`128^3`$ and the box size of 200 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$), for the 4 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ smoothing the density kurtosis is $`𝒦_\delta =22.2\pm 5.0`$, thus more than an order of magnitude bigger than the gravity kurtosis. (For the same smoothing, the kurtosis of the velocity divergence is $`𝒦_\theta =4.1\pm 0.6`$). Therefore, qualitatively the picture is clear: our simulations reveal substantially less kurtosis of the velocity and gravity fields than those of the velocity divergence and density contrast respectively; consequently the distributions of $`𝐯`$ and $`𝐠`$ are much closer to Gaussian. Our findings are inconsistent with the results of perturbative calculations of Catelan & Moscardini (1994), and consistent with the results of N-body simulations of the velocity field of Kofman et al. (1994).333The kurtosis of the velocity field, computed perturbatively by Catelan & Moscardini (1994), is greater than unity already for a Gaussian smoothing scale as large as 10 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ for all cosmological models they have considered, and grows with decreasing smoothing scale approximately like $`\sigma _\delta ^2(R)`$. In contrast, Kofman et al. (1994) find that ‘the PDF of velocity (…) is almost indistinguishable from Gaussian in the simulations’.

Quantitatively, the agreement of the evolved velocity and gravity PDFs with the perturbatively motivated equation (11) is less than perfect. In the lower panel of Figure 2 we plot the difference between the measured distribution for a Cartesian component of the gravity field and the standardized Gaussian. As the thick solid line we plot the difference predicted from equation (11), with the value $`𝒦_g=0.83`$ (the mean value for all models). The predicted difference has somewhat too high amplitude.

Expansion (11) is an expansion in the density variance. In our simulations, for 4 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ smoothing $`\sigma _\delta ^2=0.65`$. For such a big variance, higher-order contributions to formula (11) may simply not be negligible. We have checked this conjecture by analyzing the gravity field at an earlier output time. In Figure (4), we plot the gravity PDF for $`\sigma _\delta ^2=0.25`$. Formula (11) fits the simulated distribution better.

We have also checked the perturbative scaling of the gravity (and velocity) kurtosis with the variance of the density field, i.e. equation (12). Although for a given smoothing scale, during weakly non-linear evolution the hierarchical amplitude $`𝒮_{4g}`$ remains constant, it depends moderately on the smoothing scale via an effective spectral index of the power spectrum at this scale. However, we have performed an additional simulation for a power-law initial spectrum ($`n=1`$), and found qualitatively similar results; a change of sign in the kurtosis at several megaparsecs.

Intrigued by this feature, we have studied the values of the kurtoses for even larger, apparently linear, scales. The results for the gravity kurtosis are shown in Figure 5. (The results for the velocity kurtosis are similar.) The values of the kurtosis clearly depend on the box size used in the simulations. For the box size equal to 200 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, they tend, instead to zero, to an asymptotic value $`1.5`$. We interpret this as a purely numerical effect. Namely, on large scales the velocity field of the simulation is dominated by a small number of Fourier waves, and thus the Central Limit Theorem does not force the distribution to be Gaussian, even in the initial conditions. Equations (5) and (6) show that this effect should be much stronger for $`g`$ than for $`\delta `$. On the largest scales, approaching the simulation box size, $`𝒦_g`$ converges to $`1.5`$, i.e. the value expected for a single mode, as shown in Appendix A.444As pointed out by Scherrer (private communication), it is straightforward to show that the kurtosis of a Cartesian component of an isotropic gravity field satisfies $`𝒦_g6/5`$, and similarly for the velocity kurtosis. Therefore, any observations which violate this bound indicate that one is in a regime in which the assumption of isotropy breaks down. This happens in our simulations with the box size of 200 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ for the smoothing scale of $`60`$ $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, at which $`𝒦_g<1.2`$ (see Fig. 5). This is consistent with our idea that for such a big smoothing scale, a single mode dominates. On scales shown in Figure 5, simulations with the 400 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ box size are much less affected by this effect, as expected.

Why is it that this seems to affect scales down to $`20`$ megaparsecs? Aren’t there enough modes with scales ranging from $`20`$ megaparsecs to the box size, to warrant Gaussianity? The answer to this question is provided by equation (5). To the variance of the velocity field on a given scale contribute all larger modes with amplitudes proportional to $`P(k)`$, the density power spectrum. The spectrum of the APM galaxies, employed by us, has a maximum at $`300`$ $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. This is larger than the 200 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ box size of some of our simulations; thus there are relatively few modes on the scale of the box size that dominate the velocity field on large scales.

To settle this issue definitely would require additional simulations with box size comparable to the Hubble radius (like the Hubble Volume simulations of the virgo consortium, Evrard et al. 2002).555We have performed an additional simulation with the grid size $`256^3`$ and the box size of 800 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. On scales shown in Figure 5, the gravity kurtosis tended asymptotically to zero, remaining positive. However, the ultimate goal of this paper is to study the relation between velocity and gravity for 4 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ smoothing. Figure 3 shows that on such a small scale the velocity and gravity kurtoses are positive, thus most likely induced by nonlinear dynamics rather than due to finite volume of our simulations. However, given the limitations of the Edgeworth expansion,666The Edgeworth expansion is an asymptotic expansion, not guaranteed to converge. It is not even guaranteed to be positive definite. we would like to have an alternative measure of non-Gaussianity. As such a measure we borrow the concept of negentropy from information theory (e.g. Cover & Thomas 1991, Papoulis 1991).

We define the entropy $`S[f]`$ of a probability distribution $`f`$:

$$S[f]=f(x)\mathrm{log}f(x)𝑑x.$$
(13)
It can be shown that, for a given variance, the entropy is maximal for Gaussian fields. Hence the difference between the entropy of a given field and the entropy of a Gaussian of the same variance, the negentropy $`𝒩[f]`$, can be used as a measure of departure from Gaussianity:

$$𝒩[f]=S[\mathrm{Gauss}]S[f].$$
(14)
The negentropy was calculated by numerically integrating the integral of equation (13), using a PDF binned over the range from $`5\sigma `$ to $`5\sigma `$. We have found that this technique applied to a Gaussian with the same range and binning yielded a negentropy of less than $`10^5`$, which assures us that our results are not affected by numerical effects.

We plot the results as a function of Gaussian smoothing scale in Figure 6. The negentropy of the density field is compared to the negentropy of the gravity in the upper panel. The values for velocity and its divergence are compared in the lower panel. The negentropy of the velocity field is practically zero. The negentropy of the gravity field, even on the smallest scales, is extremely small compared to the negentropy of the density. The contrast between the negentropy of the gravity and the negentropy of the density is even greater than between the corresponding kurtoses. It is so because the density field, unlike the gravity field, has significant skewness, also contributing to the value of the negentropy. In other words, the density field is more non-Gaussian than the gravity field not only because it has bigger kurtosis, but also because it has non-vanishing skewness.

We conclude that on mildly non-linear scales, the non-Gaussianity of $`v`$ and $`g`$ is completely negligible compared to the non-Gaussianity of $`\theta `$ and $`\delta `$. As stated earlier, this finding is consistent with the results of N-body simulations of the velocity field of Kofman et al. (1994). It is also consistent with the results of Gooding et al. (1992) and Scherrer (1992), where non-Gaussianity of the density field was (at least on large scales) due to initial conditions rather than nonlinear gravitational evolution.

## 4 The one-component v–g relation

In grid simulations, the shortest Fourier modes correspond to the Nyquist wavelength, of two cells. Smaller structures are not well resolved by the code. In low-resolution simulations (cell size $`3.13`$ $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, see Table 1), the Nyquist wavelength is larger than the scale at which we would like to study the velocity–gravity relation (4 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$). In high-resolution simulations (cell size $`1.56`$ $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$), it is smaller. Therefore, to model the velocity–gravity relation at 4 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ scale, we will use only high-resolution simulations.

On scales of a few $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, the relation between $`\delta `$ and $`\theta `$ is non-linear. Nevertheless, since the probability distributions of the Cartesian components of both $`𝐯`$ and $`𝐠`$ are nearly Gaussian, we hypothesize that their joint probability distribution is a (bivariate) Gaussian as well. In Figure 7 we present the simulated joint PDF for $`v`$ and $`g`$, measured on the 4 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ scale. It is indeed quite close to a bivariate Gaussian. The only substantial deviation is for the probability contour of 99%, along the gravity coordinate. There, positive kurtosis of the gravity field broadens the simulated isocontour with respect to the Gaussian one. Figure 7 also shows that $`v`$ and $`g`$ are strongly correlated. In App. B we show that in the bivariate Gaussian case, the relationship between $`v`$ and $`g`$ is purely linear; we now show that this is approximately the case in the simulations.

In the linear regime $`𝐯=𝐠`$ and thus each of the Cartesian components of these quantities, which we denote $`v`$ and $`g`$, respectively, are also equal. In practice, the relationship between these two quantities has some finite scatter (Fig. 7), thus we will characterize the relation between the mean $`v`$ at constant $`g`$, $`v|g`$, and the converse, $`g|v`$. Fitting a straight line to $`v|g`$ as a function of $`g`$ gives a slope of 0.94. Therefore assuming pure linear theory on this scale would give a systematic 6% error in $`\beta `$. We now consider going beyond linear theory.

The relationship between $`v|g`$ and $`g`$ should be invariant to coordinate inversions, thus it must be an odd function; similarly for the relationship between $`g|v`$ and $`v`$.

Hence, we shall adopt third-order polynomials

$$g|v=c_1v+c_3v^3/\sigma _v^2$$
(15)
$$v|g=d_1g+d_3g^3/\sigma _g^2$$
(16)
as the simplest odd non-linear model, and use the unitless parameters $`c_3`$ and $`d_3`$ as a measure of the non-linearity of the relation. As the deviations from linear theory are small, we expect $`c_1`$ and $`d_1`$ to be close to unity, and $`c_3`$ and $`d_3`$ to be small. Since in velocity–velocity comparisons one reconstructs velocities based on the gravity field, the quantity $`v|g`$ is more relevant, and we shall concentrate on it in this paper. Note however that relation (15) can be used to transform velocities in the first step of density–density comparisons such as POTENT (Dekel et al. 1999).

The parameters $`c_1`$ and $`c_3`$ as functions of the smoothing scale are shown in Figure 8, while Figure 9 shows $`d_1`$ and $`d_3`$. We have fitted them independently for the three coordinates in each of the six realizations of every numerical model; the lines are the averages over these 18 datasets and errorbars indicate their standard deviations. As expected, $`c_3`$ and $`d_3`$ are much smaller than unity. On large scales, $`c_1`$ and $`d_1`$ tend to the linear theory value with accuracy better than half per cent. Moreover, they remain close to unity even on small scales, which implies that the systematic bias in estimating $`\beta `$ based on the linear theory approximation (2) is small.

To quantify this bias, in Figure 10 we show the parameters $`c_1`$ and $`d_1`$ when $`c_3`$ and $`d_3`$ are set to zero. For $`R>20`$ $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, $`c_1`$ and $`d_1`$ deviate from unity by less than 2%. Therefore, at these scales one can apply linear theory with such good accuracy.

Note in Figures 8 and 9 that at small scales, high-resolution simulations yield the highest values of $`c_3`$ and $`1c_1`$ (similarly for $`|d_3|`$ and $`1d_1`$), but overall the effects of resolution and of the simulation box size are not large.

We plot the mean predicted velocity as a function of the true velocity for a 4 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ Gaussian filter in Figure 11. The velocity predicted with the linear-theory model (i.e., the gravity) is plotted as a dashed line. Combined data from six realizations of our high-resolution model (three components each) are binned with respect to the predicted velocity and averaged in the bins. All velocities are in kilometers per second (the one-dimensional rms true velocity $`\sigma _v=290`$ $`\text{km}\text{s}^1`$ on this scale). A long-dashed line shows the velocity predicted by the polynomial formula (16). We see that linear theory, $`v=g`$, is a good fit for velocities up to about $`2\sigma _v`$. The polynomial approximation works well up to about $`3\sigma _v`$, but fails in the tails too. Therefore, we decided to seek a better estimator of velocity from density than a simple function of gravity.

KCPR have found that formula (8) is a good description of the tails of the relation between the density and the velocity divergence, so it should also work well on the integral level (eq. 10). It turned out, however, that at small scales a small modification is needed. Formula (8) implies that the coefficient of the linear term in density in the density–velocity divergence relation is unity, $`\theta _\delta =\delta r_2(\delta ^2\sigma _\delta ^2)+\mathrm{}`$, where $`r_2=(\alpha 1)/2\alpha `$, regardless the value of $`\alpha `$, while we have found here that at small scales it is not strictly true. To cure this problem, we introduced an additional parameter, $`\gamma `$, so that

$$\theta _\delta =\alpha \gamma \left[(1+\delta )^{1/\alpha }1\right]+ϵ.$$
(17)
For given $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ the predicted velocity, $`v_{\mathrm{pred}}`$, was calculated from equation (10). The best values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ were found by minimizing the quantity $`X^2_i(v_{\mathrm{pred}}^{(i)}v_{\mathrm{true}}^{(i)})^2/(3N^3)`$, where $`v_{\mathrm{true}}`$ is the true velocity and the sum is over all grid points ($`N^3`$ in total) and all Cartesian components. The resulting values of the parameters, for the smoothing scale 4 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ and different values of $`\sigma _8`$ at different output times, are shown in Figure 12.

In the limit of linear theory, $`\alpha =\gamma =1`$. The offset $`ϵ`$, fully determined by $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$, is then equal to zero. In general, on the integral level the value of $`ϵ`$ is irrelevant, since its contribution to velocity in the integral in equation (10) averages out to zero. We see that for small $`\sigma _8`$ the parameter $`\gamma `$ tends to unity, while $`\alpha `$ decreases only weakly and remains well away from this value. This is consistent with the findings of KCPR, that $`\alpha `$-formula (eq. 8, or eq. 17 with $`\gamma =1`$) describes well the density–velocity relation in the weakly nonlinear regime (i.e., for $`\sigma _8`$ smaller than, say, 0.3). Though the best-fit value of $`\gamma `$ is close to unity even for large $`\sigma _8`$, its inclusion markedly decreases $`X^2`$.

In Figure 13 we plot the quantity $`\chi (v)\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }X^2/\mathrm{\Delta }N}`$, that is the square root of the contribution to $`X^2`$ from a given bin in velocity, divided by the number of points in that bin. ($`\chi `$ has units of $`\text{km}\text{s}^1`$.) We have $`X^2=\chi ^2(v)P(v)dv`$, where $`P(v)`$ is the probability distribution function of a Cartesian component of the velocity field. Thus, $`X^2`$ is a number-weighted average of $`\chi ^2`$. Dashed line shows $`\chi `$ for the velocity predicted according to the linear theory, long-dashed – for the velocity approximated by a polynomial in the gravity, and solid – for the velocity predicted by the $`\alpha \gamma `$-formula (inserting eq. 17 in 10). The linear-theory estimator of velocity yields the largest values of $`\chi `$. The polynomial formula results in smaller $`\chi `$ in the tails, but in equal $`\chi `$ for ‘typical’ values of velocity ($`\sigma _vv\sigma _v`$). The $`\alpha \gamma `$-formula yields the smallest $`\chi `$ in the whole range of velocity. For typical values of velocity, i.e. where most of the data comes from, $`\chi `$ is slightly smaller than for the previous estimators. Furthermore, it grows only moderately in the tails.

In Figure 11, a solid line shows the mean velocity predicted by the $`\alpha \gamma `$-formula as a function of the true velocity. The smoothing scale is that of velmod, i.e. 4 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, and $`\sigma _8=0.87`$. For this value of $`\sigma _8`$, the best-fitted values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ are $`\alpha =1.56`$ and $`\gamma =1.054`$. We see that the $`\alpha \gamma `$-formula yields a practically unbiased estimator of velocity. The difference between the predicted and true velocity in the tails is very small.

Figure 14 demonstrates that the estimator of velocity from density provided by the $`\alpha \gamma `$-formula is not only essentially unbiased but also has a small variance (as suggested already by Figure 13). The figure shows a joint PDF for the velocity predicted by the $`\alpha \gamma `$-formula and the true velocity, for 4 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ smoothing. It is instructive to compare it with Figure 7, where $`v_{\mathrm{pred}}=g`$. We have found that for larger values of the smoothing scale the correlation between the predicted and true velocity is even higher.

In Figure 15 we show the dependence of $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ on the smoothing scale, for $`\sigma _8=0.87`$. For large $`R`$ the parameter $`\gamma `$ tends to unity, as expected. The parameter $`\alpha `$ grows from the value around 1.55 for 3 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, to around 2.05 for 20 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. This is in contrast with the results of KCPR, where $`\alpha 1.9`$ was a good fit for a large range of scales. We can see at least three likely sources of this discrepancy. First, the power spectrum used by KCPR was a pure power law, $`P(k)k^1`$, while ours is not and the effective spectral index of our APM spectrum depends (slightly) on the smoothing scale. Secondly, KCPR studied the $`\alpha `$-formula, equation 8, which is equivalent to our $`\alpha \gamma `$-formula only when $`\gamma =1`$. Finally, KCPR’s fit was obtained for all bins in velocity having equal weight, while we weight the bins by the number of points. As a result, our fit is much less affected by the tails of the velocity distribution.

To summarize, we have tested various estimators of velocity from density. Nonlinear effects can be accounted for either at the integral level, employing equation (16), or at the differential level, employing equation (17). We have shown that the differential method works much better.

## 5 Summary and conclusions

In this paper we have studied the cosmic velocity–gravity relation. First, we have measured the non-Gaussianities of the cosmic velocity and gravity fields, evolved from Gaussian initial conditions, by computing their kurtoses and negentropies. We have shown that, on scales of a few $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, the non-Gaussianities of the cosmic velocity and gravity fields are small compared to the non-Gaussianities of velocity divergence and density. A similar finding for the velocity field was reported by Kofman et al. (1994). Guided by this result, we have shown that the relation between $`v`$ and $`g`$ is nearly linear. Moreover, its proportionality coefficient is close to that predicted by linear theory. Specifically, we have shown that the systematic errors in velocity–velocity comparisons due to assuming linear theory do not exceed 6% in $`\beta `$. (Strictly speaking, if $`\sigma _8<0.9`$ and the smoothing scale is not smaller than 4 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$). To correct for this small bias, we have tested various nonlinear estimators of velocity from density. We have shown that the $`\alpha \gamma `$-formula (a slight modification of the $`\alpha `$-formula proposed by KCPR) yields an estimator which is essentially unbiased and of small variance.

The smoothing of observed peculiar velocity data, with its sparse and noisy coverage of the velocity, is technically difficult. Thus velocity–velocity analyses like velmod compare unsmoothed peculiar velocities with minimally smoothed predicted velocity fields from redshift surveys. The finite resolution of a grid code does not allow us to test this effect; it would be worthwhile to repeat the calculations with a high resolution $`N`$-body code, or with CPPA enhanced with Adaptive Mesh Refinement. The former has been done by Berlind et al. (2000), but they did not separate the effects of non-linear evolution from the effects of different smoothing of the velocity and gravity fields.

An alternative method of estimating $`\beta `$ from cosmic velocities is by comparing the cosmic microwave background dipole with the density dipole inferred from a galaxy redshift survey. In maximum-likelihood approaches to this problem (Strauss et al. 1992, Schmoldt et al. 1999, Chodorowski & Cieciela̧g 2002) the relevant quantity is the joint distribution for the velocity and gravity, which is commonly approximated as a multivariate Gaussian. We have shown that this indeed holds to fairly good accuracy (Fig. 7). Small nonlinear effects can be corrected for by a more thorough modelling of the joint distribution. There is, however, a better approach: from a redshift survey, instead of calculating the acceleration on the Local Group (i.e., the density dipole, or gravity), one can calculate the predicted velocity from the $`\alpha \gamma `$-formula. The joint distribution for the predicted velocity and the true velocity is perfectly Gaussian (see Fig. 14). Moreover, the relation between these two variables is tighter than the relation between the velocity and the gravity. This implies that in the proposed method, the estimated value of $`\beta `$ will be unbiased and its inferred errors will be smaller.

## Acknowledgments

We thank Tomek Plewa for his contribution to the numerical code we use and Michał Różyczka for fruitful and animating discussions. This research has been supported in part by the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research grants No. 2.P03D.014.19 and 2.P03D.017.19, and NSF grant AST96-16901. The simulations were performed at the Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and Computational Modelling, Pawińskiego 5A, PL-02-106, Warsaw.

## Appendix A Calculation of the kurtosis of velocity for a single Fourier mode

Let us assume a single–mode distribution of the density field. All variables will depend on one dimension only. In the linear regime the density field is

$$\delta (x,y,z)=\delta (x)=\mathrm{sin}(x).$$
(18)
(The amplitude of the wave is irrelevant here, since it will cancel out in the calculation of the dimensionless kurtosis.) Then, in the linear regime,

$$\delta =\theta =v=\frac{\mathrm{d}v}{\mathrm{d}x}.$$
(19)
\[$`\theta `$ denotes the scaled velocity divergence, so in equation (19) there is no $`f(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ term.\] Hence,

$$v=\delta (x)𝑑x$$
(20)
and

$$v(x)=\mathrm{cos}(x).$$
(21)
Let $`P(v)`$ denote the volume-weighted probability distribution function of a single component of the velocity field:

$$P(v)|dv|=\frac{1}{\pi }|dx|.$$
(22)
Hence,

$$P(v)=\frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{sin}(x)}=\frac{1}{\pi \sqrt{1\mathrm{cos}^2(x)}},$$
(23)
and finally

$$P(v)=\pi ^1\left(1v^2\right)^{1/2}.$$
(24)
Now let us compute the four first moments of this distribution:

$$v=0$$
(25)
$$v^2=\frac{1}{\pi }_1^1\frac{v^2dv}{\sqrt{1v^2}}=\frac{1}{2}$$
(26)
$$v^3=0$$
(27)
$$v^4=\frac{1}{\pi }_1^1\frac{v^4dv}{\sqrt{1v^2}}=\frac{3}{8}.$$
(28)
We can calculate the kurtosis of this field now:

$$K_v=\frac{v^43v^2^2}{v^2^2}=\frac{3}{2}$$
(29)
## Appendix B The mean relation between two Gaussian variables

Consider two correlated Gaussian variables, $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$, with zero means and variances $`\sigma _1^2y_1^2`$ and $`\sigma _2^2y_2^2`$, respectively. Their correlation coefficient is

$$r\frac{y_1y_2}{\sigma _1\sigma _2}.$$
(30)
Let us introduce normalized variables, $`\mu y_1/\sigma _1`$ and $`\nu y_2/\sigma _2`$. We require that their joint probability distribution function (PDF) is a bivariate Gaussian,

$$p(\mu ,\nu )=\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{1r^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(\mu ^22r\mu \nu +\nu ^2)}{2(1r^2)}\right].$$
(31)
Were the fields uncorrelated ($`r=0`$), $`p(\mu ,\nu )`$ would be just a product of two Gaussian distributions of $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$.

Since the variables are assumed to be correlated but in general not identical, the relation between them will have a scatter. The mean relation between $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ is defined as mean $`\mu `$ given $`\nu `$, $`\mu |\nu `$. By definition, the conditional PDF of $`\mu `$ given $`\nu `$, $`p(\mu |\nu )`$, is $`p(\mu ,\nu )/p(\nu )`$. Equation (31) yields

$$p(\mu |\nu )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi (1r^2)}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(\mu r\nu )^2}{2(1r^2)}\right].$$
(32)
We see that the conditional PDF is a Gaussian with modified mean and variance. Specifically,

$$\mu |\nu =r\nu ,$$
(33)
and

$$\mu ^2|\nu \mu |\nu ^2=1r^2.$$
(34)
The relation between two correlated Gaussian variables is thus linear. If the variables are uncorrelated there is no relation whatsoever.777This is only the case for Gaussian variables. For a counterexample in the opposite case, consider $`y_1`$ and $`y_2=y_1^2`$, where $`y_1`$ is Gaussian. Therefore, the relation between two Gaussian variables, if it exists at all, is always linear.

One may define an ‘inverse’ relation to that specified in equation (33), i.e., $`\nu |\mu `$. From symmetry of the joint PDF,

$$\nu |\mu =r\mu .$$
(35)
The proportionality coefficient in the ‘inverse’ relation is thus not a simple reciprocal of the coefficient in the ‘forward’ relation, equation (33). The difference is equal to $`(1r^2)/r1r^2`$ for $`r`$ close to unity. In other words, the difference between the true and the ‘naive’ coefficient of the inverse relation is directly related to the scatter in the relation.


format: text

text:
# Known and unknown SCUBA sources

## 1 Introduction

The sub-mm waveband has opened up for cosmology, and through this window we can hope to glimpse some answers to a number of related puzzles: What are the brightest sub-mm galaxies? What sorts of galaxies make up the Far-IR Background (FIB)? When did the Universe form the bulk of its stars? How important is dust obscuration for obtaining a full star-formation census?

SCUBA has been instrumental in establishing this new field of sub-mm high redshift astronomy. This meeting has been dominated by SCUBA-based surveys, and stands as a testament to the instrument builders who produced the best camera of its kind at just the right time.

Many basic questions have already been answered by the SCUBA data which are in hand, and a coherent picture has developed – typical SCUBA sources are the $`z`$2–3 counterparts of locally well-studied Ultraluminous Infrared Galaxies, and these are considerably more common at an epoch which was perhaps important for the formation of elliptical galaxies. However, there are still a great many details to understand about the exact composition of the SCUBA-bright sources, including how they overlap with populations selected at other wavelengths, how the $``$mJy sources might differ from the brighter ones, what the clustering strength of the SCUBA sources might be, and what fraction could be at still higher redshifts. Here we will avoid reviewing all of the different studies (many of which are covered in other presentations), but will concentrate on projects carried out by our own group.

We have been undertaking a set of related studies, focussing on either blank fields to detect sub-mm sources, or on characterizing the sub-mm properties of objects selected at other wavelengths.

## 2 Known sources

### 2.1 FIRBACK

A summary of current information on extragalctic background radiation is presented in Fig. 1. In the far-IR region, the important detections are derived from DIRBE data at 240$`\mu `$m, 140$`\mu `$m, 100$`\mu `$m and 60$`\mu `$m and FIRAS data at longer wavelengths. Detections in the near-IR have also been derived from DIRBE data. Upper limits come from DIRBE, various rocket experiments, and indirectly from $`\gamma `$rays. Optical lower limits (which in some cases have probably converged to near the background values) come from galaxy counts. Lower limits throughout the IR come from source counts obtained by ISO, SCUBA and IRAS – some of these values are also model-dependent.

Now that a cosmic FIB is emerging from the data, and that it makes a substantial contribution to the energy budget, the obvious question is: what are the galaxies which make up the FIB? This is the main motivation behind the FIRBACK project, which made deep $`170\mu `$m images of the sky with ISO, to break up the background into the sources which comprise it. Data from the ISOPHOT instrument is the only currently available information for studying the composition of the FIB which comes directly from wavelengths where the background peaks. We have been studying the SCUBA properties of some of these already known FIRBACK-selected sources. Because of the large ISOPHOT beam, this is only really feasible for sources with reliable radio identifications. Photometry with SCUBA allows you to go deeper than mapping in the same integration time. We have also successfully been using ‘3-bolometer chopping’, by choosing the chop position to be approximately coincident with two bolometers in the inner ring of the array, so that those negative signals can be added in, to improve the signal-to-noise.

The combination of ISOPHOT + VLA + SCUBA selects galaxies covering a range of redshifts but peaking at $`z\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ (supported by the handful of objects for which redshifts have already been obtained). The study of FIRBACK galaxies at $`z\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ thus bridges the gap between the well-studied $`z\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ ULIRGs and the $`z\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$–3 SCUBA sources. At these somewhat more modest redshifts the SEDs can be realistically constructed over a wide range of wavelengths.

The total number of sources detected in the ELAIS ‘N1’ field is $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}120}`$ with $`S_{170}>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}120}`$mJy. They comprise about 10% of the cosmic Far-IR Background at this wavelength, and an entirely unknown fraction of the longer wavelength sub-mm background. Note that SCUBA ‘blank fields’ only tell you about the background at 850$`\mu `$m, where $`\nu I_\nu \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}30}`$ times lower than its peak value (see Fig. 1). Our first set of results from a sample of 10 objects in the N1 field was presented in Scott et al. (2000). There we firmly detected 4 sources at 850$`\mu `$m. Statistically the sample was detected at $`7.5\sigma `$ at 850$`\mu `$m and $`4\sigma `$ even at 450$`\mu `$m. Crude photometric redshifts can be obtained simply by comparing the 170$`\mu `$m and 850$`\mu `$m fluxes, as is shown in Fig. 2.

Joint fits to $`L_{\mathrm{FIR}}`$ and $`z`$ show that 3 of the galaxies are consistent with luminosities typical of Arp$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}220}`$, but at $`z\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$. The others seem more likely to be at redshifts intermediate between 0 and 1, and intrinsically fainter (but still representing a population that hardly exists locally). Multi-wavelength studies are underway (Lagache et al. in preparation), and the SCUBA work should continue, with a sample covering a wider range of ISO fluxes and properties at other wavelengths.

### 2.2 The Blob

Extensive spectroscopic surveys have shown strong clustering among the star-forming Lyman Break Galaxy population at $`z\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$ (which is discussed by Chapman et al. in these proceedings). A high contrast overdensity of LBGs at $`z=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.09}`$ in the SSA22 region was discovered by using deep narrow-band Ly$`\alpha `$ imaging to identify at least 160 members of the structure. This region appears to be about 6 times more overdense in LBGs than the general field, and the region centred on the most extended Ly$`\alpha `$ emission is overdense by roughly a further factor of 2. This is where we centred our SCUBA map. The brightest source in that map (Fig. 3) is $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}20}`$mJy, and centred precisely on the extended Ly$`\alpha `$ region referred to as ‘Blob 1’ in Steidel et al. (2000).

Such sub-mm emission is unexpected, since dust usually implies no Ly$`\alpha `$. The simplest explanation is an obscured AGN, which provides the excitation for the extended Ly$`\alpha `$, and whose nucleus is responsible for the sub-mm emission. It is also possible that some of the signal could be from the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich increment in a very overdense group, say, forming at $`z\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$, but conditions would have to be rather extreme for this to be the case. Nevertheless it is worth following up in detail at other wavelengths to check. This surprising result suggests that the combination of SCUBA and narrow-band Ly$`\alpha `$ studies could prove to be a fruitful one.

There are some additional sources in our SCUBA map, indicating an overdensity in sub-mm sources, matching that in the LBG population. It would be interesting to map this region more extensively to determine if it is a region of enhanced clustering of SCUBA sources.

## 3 Unknown sources

We have made reasonably large maps of the Hubble Deep Field Flanking Fields and part of the Groth Strip (see the contribution by Borys et al.) in order to find the brightest SCUBA sources in those well-studied regions. In addition we have a large amount of ‘blank sky’ data from the off-centre bolometers obtained during photometry observations of known sources. Although too under-sampled to be much use for mapping, these data can nevertheless be studied statistically.

### 3.1 Cluster survey

We have also looked at several rich cluster fields. Here the lensing amplification boosts the number counts (as pioneered by Blain, Ivison, Smail and collaborators). We have collected data on 9 separate clusters: Cl 0016+16, MS 0451-03, Abell 520, Zwicky 3146, MS 1054-03, MS 1455+22, Abell 2163, Abell 2219 and Abell 2261. The clusters were mapped to a variety of depths under different observing conditions. But the resulting maps typically contain a couple of convincing sources. Details are presented in Chapman et al. (2000).

Instead of running through each cluster field in detail, let us focus on only one, Abell 520. Fig. 4 shows our map (upper left), together with an almost overlapping map taken from the SCUBA archive. Each map appears to show 2 detections. There are no obvious near-IR or radio identifications for these sources, but the follow-up data are, as yet, not very deep. One of the sources we discovered (SMMJ$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}04543}+0257`$) appears to be $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}30}`$mJy, placing it among the brightest ‘blank sky’ sources.

## 4 Conclusions

Further clues to the nature of sub-mm sources and how they overlap with optical-, IR- and radio-selected galaxies will be found through the joint approach of investigating the sub-mm properties of already known objects, and finding identifications for possibly unknown objects which are bright in the sub-mm. Studies of the clustering of SCUBA sources are just in their infancy, but should provide further cosmological information. The crucial thing is to identify the SCUBA sources at other wavelengths – this has proved to be difficult in practice, and the sources for which is most difficult are potentially the most interesting!

## Acknowledgments

DS wishes thanks all his collaborators on these observational projects, which keep him away from his day job.


text:
# Anisotropic charge transfer mechanism in La2-xSrxCuO4 and Bi2Sr2Ca1-xYxCu2O8+δ

## Abstract

Raman spectra of La2-xSrxCuO4 are similar to those of Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ except for the split two-magnon peaks at the stripe phase and the stronger step-like decrease in the low energy $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ spectra. The suppressed $`B_{1\mathrm{g}}`$ spectral region below the two-magnon peak decreases as the carrier density increases, whereas the energy of the step-like suppression is little dependent on the carrier density. It suggests the anisotropic charge transfer mechanism coupled with magnetic excitations along the nearest neighbor Cu sites and the phononic excitations along the diagonal direction.

preprint: HEP/123-qed

Angle resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) disclosed the similarity and the difference in La2-xSrxCuO4 (LSCO) and Bi2Sr2Ca1Cu2O8+δ (BSCCO). In BSCCO the low energy spectra at $`(\pi ,0)`$ are suppressed at low carrier densities via the interaction with collective magnetic excitations at $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ . The energy region of the suppressed intensity decreases as the carrier density increases. The spectra at $`(\pi /2,\pi /2)`$ are not suppressed at all carrier densities. On the other hand, in the spectra at $`(\pi ,0)`$ of LSCO a new hump appears at the insulator-metal transition and the hump develops to a peak with decreasing the energy as the carrier density increases . The low energy region at $`(\pi /2,\pi /2)`$ is strongly depleted at $`x0.12`$ and suddenly increases at $`x=0.15`$. These anomalous features in LSCO were attributed to the stripe structure .

Wide-energy Raman scattering can observe electronic excitations at the selective $`k`$-space region along $`(0,0)(\pi ,0)`$, and $`(0,0)(\pi ,\pi )`$ correspondingly to ARPES . In Bi2Sr2Ca1-xYxCu2O8+δ (BSCYCO) the Raman spectra are consistent with the results of ARPES , but in LSCO they are rather different from ARPES . The 300 K spectra, in which the stripe structure almost disappears at all carrier densities in LSCO, are qualitatively same in both superconductors except for the enhanced step-like decrease below about 1100 cm-1 in the $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ spectra of LSCO. As temperature decreases, the spectra do not change so much except in the stripe phase of LSCO ($`0.035x0.06`$ and $`x=0.115`$).

The Raman spectroscopy is valuable as an alternative method to measure the electronic excitation spectra to ARPES, because Raman spectra can detect anisotropic superconducting gap at $`(\pi ,0)`$ and $`(\pi /2,\pi /2)`$ in consistent with other experiments  and the wide-energy Raman spectra in BSCYCO are consistent with the ARPES . The merit of Raman scattering is less sensitivity to the surface condition. The measurement of ARPES of LSCO is limited to low temperatures from the instability of the surface at high temperatures, while Raman scattering can measure up to about 500-600 K without disturbing the electronic states.

Raman scattering detects $`B_{1\mathrm{g}}`$ and $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ excitations separately by choosing the polarizations of incident and scattered light as $`(\widehat{𝑬_i},\widehat{𝑬_s})=(xy)`$ and $`(ab)`$, respectively . Here $`a=[1,0,0]`$ and $`b=[0,1,0]`$ are directions along the Cu-O-Cu bonds, and $`x=[1,1,0]`$ and $`y=[1,1,0]`$ are diagonal directions. The base function of $`B_{1\mathrm{g}}`$ is $`k_{x^2}k_{y^2}`$ and then it has a maximum at the $`(0,0)(\pi ,0)`$ direction. Thus the $`B_{1\mathrm{g}}`$ electronic Raman spectrum represents the excitation along the $`(0,0)(\pi ,0)`$. On the other hand the base function of $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ is $`k_xk_y`$ and has a maximum at $`(0,0)(\pi ,\pi )`$. The $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ spectrum represents the excitation along $`(0,0)(\pi ,\pi )`$.

The single crystals were synthesized by the TSFZ method utilizing an infrared radiation furnace with four elliptic mirrors (Crystal system, FZ-T-4000). The Néel temperature ($`T_\mathrm{N}`$) at $`x=0`$ is 293 K. The superconducting transition temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$’s determined from the middle point of the transition in the electric resistivity are 12 K $`(x=0.06)`$, 33 K $`(x=0.1)`$, 33 K $`(x=0.115)`$, 42 K $`(x=0.15)`$, 32 K $`(x=0.2)`$, and 13 K $`(x=0.25)`$. The details will be presented elsewhere .

Raman spectra were measured on fresh cleaved surfaces in a quasi-back scattering configuration utilizing a triple monochromator (JASCO, NR-1810), a liquid nitrogen cooled CCD detector (Princeton, 1100PB), and a 5145 Å Ar-ion laser (Spectra Physics, stabilite 2017). The cleaved surfaces give intrinsic spectra which are different from those on the surfaces prepared by mechanical polishing or chemical etching . The laser beam of 10 mW was focused on the area of 50 $`\mu `$m$`\times `$500 $`\mu `$m. The obtained Raman intensity was corrected by the spectroscopic efficiency of the optical system.

Figure 1 shows the $`B_{1\mathrm{g}}`$ and $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ Raman spectra at 100 K in the normal phases of optimally doped LSCO and BSCYCO. The solid curves indicate the expected ideal electronic Raman spectra in the strongly correlated metal. The $`B_{1\mathrm{g}}`$ Raman spectra in overdoped LSCO and BSCYCO show these ideal metallic spectra. As the carrier density decreases the suppressed region increases at low energies. On the other hand the $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ spectra are very different from $`B_{1\mathrm{g}}`$. The carrier density dependence is very small. The suppression in the low energy spectra is much larger in LSCO than in BSCYCO.

Figure 2 shows the carrier density dependence of the $`B_{1\mathrm{g}}`$ and the $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ spectra of LSCO at 5 K and 300 K. The intensity is normalized so that the total integrated intensity below 6000 cm-1 is the same. The sharp peaks below 700 cm-1 are due to one-phonon scattering and the peaks from 700 to 1400 cm-1 are due to two-phonon scattering. The two-phonon intensity is much larger in the $`A_{1\mathrm{g}}`$ spectrum than in the $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ spectrum. The 3117 cm-1 peak at 300 K in the $`B_{1\mathrm{g}}`$ spectra of the insulating phase $`(x=0)`$ is the two-magnon peak. This energy is near $`3J`$, where $`J`$ is the exchange interaction energy between the nearest neighbor spins at copper sites. As the carrier density increases, the peak energy at 300 K shifts monotonically to low energy via electron-magnon interactions. It is consistent with the experiments by Naeini et al. . The peak energies are shown in Fig. 3. The $`B_{1\mathrm{g}}`$ spectrum of overdoped sample $`(x=0.25)`$ is close to the ideal metallic spectrum in Fig. 1. The overall spectra at 5 K are similar to that at 300 K, unless stripe structure develops. However, in the stripe phase ($`0.035x0.06`$ and $`x=0.115`$) at 5 K, the two-magnon peak splits into double peaks near $`3J`$ and $`2J`$ . The clear split of the two-magnon peak is observed only at narrow carrier density region corresponding to the decrease of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ measured by electric resistivity. It is very different from the results of neutron scattering in which the incommensurate magnetic peaks have been observed at whole carrier densities . It is also different from ARPES in which the carrier density dependence for the stripe phase is not observed. In the stripe phase, the low energy spectra below about 1100 cm-1 are just like the metallic spectra . The threshold energy is exactly the same as one of the two-phonon energies in the $`A_{1\mathrm{g}}`$ spectra. This phonon is assigned to the zone boundary $`(\pi ,0,0)`$ longitudinal optical (LO) phonon mode with anomalous dispersion measured by neutron scattering . Oxygen atoms are vibrating in this mode.

The decrease of the two-magnon peak energy at 300 K, as the carrier density increases, can be considered as the decrease of the suppressed spectral region below the two-magnon peak. ARPES at $`(\pi ,0)`$ and 11 K showed the appearance of a new peak at about 0.1 eV at $`x=0.05`$. The binding energy decreases and the intensity increases, as the carrier density increases . The energy is lower than a half of the $`B_{1\mathrm{g}}`$ peak energy. The spectra do not change by the formation of the stripe structure at $`0.035x0.06`$ and $`x=0.115`$ contrary to the 5 K Raman spectra in Fig. 2. In the case of BSCYCO the carrier density dependence is consistent with the ARPES.

As for the $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ spectra at 300 K, the carrier density dependence is very different. The 4170 cm-1 peak at $`x=0`$ is due to the two-magnon scattering. In the $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ symmetry the two-magnon scattering is inactive, if only the nearest neighbor exchange interaction is considered . The diagonal next neighbor interaction and four spin cyclic exchange interaction can make it active . The peak energy 4170 cm-1 is just $`4J`$, that is, twice the zone boundary magnon energy. It suggests that the magnon-magnon interaction does not work. The two-magnon peak energy decreases from $`x=0`$ to 0.1 and becomes constant above it as shown in Fig. 3. In the stripe phase at $`0.035x0.06`$ and $`x=0.115`$, the spectra change into the similar structure to the $`B_{1\mathrm{g}}`$ spectra, as temperature decreases to 5 K, because the crystal symmetry relaxes by the stripe structure. The spectrum is composed of the split two-magnon peaks at about $`3J`$ and $`2J`$ above about 1100 cm-1 and the metallic spectrum below it. This metallic spectrum can be viewed as a step-like decrease of the scattering intensity below about 1100 cm-1. This step-like decrease is commonly observed at 5 K even in the compound in which the stripe structure does not develop. And also this step-like decrease is reserved even at 300 K at which the stripe structure almost disappears even at $`0.035x0.06`$ and $`x=0.115`$. The energies of the valleys at the steps are shown in Fig. 3. The energies are almost independent of the carrier density. This suggests that the step-like decrease does not result from the magnetic origin, because the collective magnetic excitation energy decreases clearly with the increase of the carrier density as shown in the $`B_{1\mathrm{g}}`$ two-magnon peak energy in Fig. 3. The origin is possibly the electron-phonon interaction with the zone boundary $`(\pi ,0,0)`$ LO phonon, because the energy is the same as discussed in the $`B_{1\mathrm{g}}`$ spectra of the stripe phase .

The $`(\pi /2,\pi /2)`$ ARPES spectra subtracted the (0, 0) spectra is very different from the $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ Raman spectra . The low-energy intensity is very weak at $`x0.12`$. The carrier density dependence relating to the stripe phase ($`0.035x0.06`$ and $`x=0.115`$) is not observed. The sudden increase of the low energy spectral intensity at $`x=0.15`$ in the ARPES spectrum is inconsistent with the Raman spectrum.

The step-like decrease below about 1100 cm-1 is also observed in lightly underdoped to overdoped BSCYCO . Figure 4 shows the $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ spectra at $`x=0.3`$ (underdoping $`T_\mathrm{c}`$=75 K), $`x=0.2`$ (underdoping $`T_\mathrm{c}`$=87 K), $`x=0.1`$ (optimal doping $`T_\mathrm{c}`$=95 K), and $`x=0`$ (overdoping, $`T_\mathrm{c}`$=84 K). The low energy peaks at 20 K are the superconducting peaks . The step-like decrease is not observed at $`x=0.3`$, but it increases as the carrier density increases and the temperature decreases from 300 K to 100 K. The stripe structure is probably limited to much narrower carrier density region than in LSCO, even if it exists . Therefore the suppression of the low energy $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ spectra at wide carrier density region indicates again that the suppression in the $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ spectra is not related to the stripe structure. The stronger suppression in LSCO than in BSCYCO results from the stronger electron-phonon interaction in LSCO. It is consistent with the stronger two-phonon Raman intensity in LSCO than in BSCYCO.

The phononic origin for the depletion in the $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ spectra can be confirmed by comparing the energy of the step between oxide and sulfide, because almost only chalcogen atoms are vibrating in the relevant LO phonon mode. In the metallic phase of BaCo1-xNixS2 (BCNS), the same small step-like decrease is observed below about 480 cm-1 . The energy difference, 1100 cm-1 in LSCO and 480 cm-1 in BCNS, indicates that the origin of the step-like decrease in $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ is the electron-phonon interaction.

The present Raman scattering experiment clearly shows the different origin of the spectral suppression in the $`B_{1\mathrm{g}}`$ spectra corresponding to the excitations along $`(0,0)(\pi ,0)`$ and the $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ spectra along $`(0,0)(\pi ,\pi )`$. That is, the electronic excitations along $`(0,0)(\pi ,0)`$ is affected by the electron-magnon interaction, whereas those along $`(0,0)(\pi ,\pi )`$ by the electron-phonon interaction. It can be interpreted in the real space that the charge transfer along the Cu-O-Cu direction is coupled with magnetic excitations, while the charge transfer along the diagonal direction is coupled with phonons. It is plausible, because the direction of spins are opposite at the nearest neighbor Cu sites but the same at the diagonal sites. The anomalous LO phonon with the carrier density dependent energy is observed at $`(\pi ,0)`$ . The breathing phonon mode clusters formed from the LO phonon modes at $`(\pi ,0)`$ and $`(0,\pi )`$ are located along the diagonal direction. It is consistent with the above interpretation.

In conclusion, the wide-energy $`B_{1\mathrm{g}}`$ and the $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ Raman spectra provide electronic excitation spectra corresponding to ARPES along $`(0,0)(\pi ,0)`$ and $`(0,0)(\pi ,\pi )`$, respectively. In the $`B_{1\mathrm{g}}`$ spectra the suppression below the two-magnon peak decreases as the carrier density increases, whereas in the $`B_{2\mathrm{g}}`$ spectra the step-like suppression is little dependent on the carrier density. The former can be attributed to the results of the electron-magnon interaction and the latter to the electron-phonon interaction. The above results suggest that the charge transfer mechanism is anisotropic in the real space, that is, electrons couple dominantly with magnetic excitations for the transfer along the Cu-O-Cu direction and with phonons along the diagonal direction. These anisotropic charge transfer mechanisms are probably related to the high $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ superconducting mechanism.

Acknowledgments - This work was supported by CREST of the Japan Science and Technology Corporation.


text:
# A generalized linear Hubble law for an inhomogeneous barotropic Universe

## 1 Introduction

Last year , I have considered a specific inhomogeneous cosmological model, which could explain, in an alternative way, by the presence of a kinematic acceleration generated by a negative gradient of pressure (or mass-energy), the present negative deceleration parameter, which appears to be a result of high redshift Supernovae data. These data were obtained by two different groups  and, if the SNe Ia are standard candles without evolution effects (although a recent work  suggests indicate that the SNe Ia are not standard candles), they show the existence of a cosmic acceleration, via the K-corrected redshift-luminosity distance relation. In the usual way, these data are explained, in the background of standard Friedmann models, by the presence of a positive cosmological constant or vacuum energy or quintessence.

This specific inhomogeneous spacetime, which I will also consider in this work, is a barotropic (B), spherically (S) symmetric (hereafter BS). The comoving matter congruence, in the vorticity-free BS inhomogeneous model, has expansion, kinematic acceleration and shear, at difference with the standard FLRW models, where it has expansion only.

At first sight, it seems that spherically symmetric inhomogeneous models are non generic among the totality of inhomogeneous ones, but note however that they can appear as a natural consequence of inflation (see ). Note also that the measured almost isotropy of the cosmic background radiation (CBR) temperature is in principle compatible with large shear  or nonzero kinematic acceleration , although these possibilities have yet to be tested against the full range of cosmological observations, including CBR polarization.

As the Cosmological Principle (CP) is not verified in the BS model and, as usually the expansion linear Hubble’s law is derived from the CP, one can ask how this law, which characterizes the matter flow, is generalized by the additional presence of acceleration and shear in the BS model. Fortunately, the general linear Hubble law, valid for any inhomogeneous Universe, is at our disposal. For instance, it was presented in  and its expression, to linear order in the angular diameter distance, is:

$$z=\left(\frac{\theta }{3}\dot{u}_ao^a+\sigma _{ab}o^ao^b\right)D$$
(1)
where $`z`$ is the measured redshift, $`D`$ is the angular diameter distance to the emitter (however, note that, at linear order, the Hubble law can be expressed in terms of any cosmological distance, see ), $`\theta `$ the expansion, $`\dot{u}_a`$ is the 4-kinematic acceleration of a comoving observer, $`\sigma _{ab}`$ is the shear tensor and $`o^a`$, is an unit vector defined in observer’s rest space, which points in the observed direction of a light ray and, hence, is opposite to the motion sense of the ray’s photons.

This formula directly shows the isotropic, direccional and fully anisotropic contributions to the redshift from the expansion, acceleration and shear, respectively. All the terms between parenthesis can be interpreted as a generalized Hubble function. The first term, due to the cosmological expansion, gives the usual expansion linear Hubble law of the FLRW models, which is sometimes reinterpreted at small distances as a radial Doppler effect. Although, we are opposed to a newtonian kinematic re-interpretation at large distances of the cosmological expansion redshift, however, it is clear that the expansion redshift can be modified by nearly constant Doppler and gravitational contributions, at both ends (and also in the light travel) of the emission-observation process.

## 2 The BS model

In order to specialize the general formula (1) to the BS model, we need to summarize its main characteristics. We assume from the beginning that the cosmological matter fluid is perfect and a mixture (radiation, baryonic matter, neutrinos, etc.) and hence is characterized by a non-dust perfect fluid congruence of unit 4-velocity $`u^a`$. In the BS model, the isotropy group is 1-dim, whereas the isometry group is a 3-dim $`G_3`$, which is acting multiply transitively on spacelike 2-dim surfaces orthogonal to a preferred direction (hereafter $`e_1`$). These 2-dim surfaces orbits, orthogonal both to the 4-velocity of the congruence and to $`e_1`$, have constant Gaussian curvature but, of course, they can be spheres, hyperboloids or planes. We consider, in the BS model, the case of spherical symmetry.

Also, in the BS model the vorticity is zero. This implies both the existence of a global cosmic time and of 3-dim global spacelike hypersurfaces orthogonal to the fluid congruence. In the BS model, the preferred spacelike direction $`e_1`$ is not only geodesic and shear free in the local rest spaces orthogonal to the 4-velocity $`u^a`$, moreover $`e_1`$ is geodesic along the matter flow lines.

Thus, the metric in comoving coordinates has the expression

$$ds^2=N^2(r,t)dt^2+B^2(r,t)dr^2+R^2(r,t)d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$
(2)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ is the spherical line element and the coefficient $`N(r,t)`$ is a lapse function which relates global cosmic and local proper times. So, we have adopted in the 1+3 threading approach the Lagrangian formalism, with the comoving identification, but the matter observers are Eulerian (due to the null vorticity) in the ADM 3+1 slicing formalism.

In the BS spacetime exists a preferred central worldline, i.e. the spacelike hypersurfaces have a centre at $`r=0`$, where the isotropy group is 3-dim, and a preferred radial direction $`e_1`$ at each point, associated with the direction of the only non-null component, $`A`$, of the kinematic acceleration of the matter fluid elements. This kinematic acceleration satisfies the spatially contracted equations of motion

$$p^{}+(\mu +p)A=0,$$
(3)
where a prime denotes the derivative along the preferred radial direction with unit vector field $`e_1`$. As we assume a barotropic equation of state, $`p(r,t)=p(\mu (r,t))`$, with $`\mu (r,t)`$ the mass-energy density, the last equation may also be written as:

$$c_s^2\mu ^{}+(\mu +p)A=0,$$
(4)
where $`c_s`$ is the sound velocity. We see from the last formulas that the kinematic acceleration, which opposes to the gravitational attraction towards the centre, is generated by a negative gradient of pressure or, equivalently, by a negative gradient of mass-energy density. Note (see ), that the presence in the metric of the coefficient $`N(r,t)`$, gives rise to a non null kinematic acceleration, defined in the next section, and also to a new term in the expression of the deceleration parameter $`q`$, which was called in , inhomogeneity parameter, and was defined there as

$$II=\frac{\alpha (t)}{(SH)^2},$$
(5)
where $`\alpha (t)`$ is the coefficient of the second order term in the radial expansion of the metric coefficient $`N(r,t)`$, and where $`S`$ and $`H`$, are the scale expansion factor and the usual expansion Hubble function of FLRW models, respectively.

Depending on the value of this additional inhomogeneity term, the deceleration parameter $`q`$ can be positive or negative at present cosmic time. In the last case, one has an alternative explanation for the Supernovae data, in the realm of the BS model, as it has been commented before.

## 3 Generalized Hubble law for the BS model

Now, we specialize the general Hubble law (1), for the BS model considered. Besides the null vorticity, the remaining kinematical quantities have the following characteristics: the scalar expansion $`\theta (r,t)`$ is a function of a radial comoving coordinate and cosmic time, the 4-acceleration of the non-geodesic comoving observers is $`\dot{u}_a=(0,A(r,t),0,0)`$, and the shear mixed tensor has the diagonal coordinate expression $`\sigma _a^b=\mathrm{diag}(0,\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}\sigma (r,t),\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\sigma (r,t),\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\sigma (r,t))`$, where $`\sigma ^2=\frac{1}{2}\sigma _a^b\sigma _b^a`$.

The temporal component of both acceleration and shear is zero by the choice of the comoving frame. On the other hand, the 4-acceleration has only one non-zero component in the sense of the preferred spatial direction $`e_1`$ away from the centre, and the shear mixed tensor the above diagonal form. Finally, due to spherical symmetry, their components are only functions of $`r`$ and cosmic time $`t`$. The expressions of the scalars $`\theta ,A`$ and $`\sigma `$, are

$$\theta (r,t)=\frac{\dot{B}}{B}+2\frac{\dot{R}}{R},$$
(6)
$$A(r,t)=\frac{N^{}}{N}$$
(7)
and

$$\sigma (r,t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\frac{\dot{B}}{B}\frac{\dot{R}}{R}\right),$$
(8)
where the point means the proper time derivative, $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}`$. So, the scalar shear $`\sigma `$ is, except by a constant factor, the difference between the radial and azimuthal expansion rates.

Now, performing a similar computation to that realized in  for a dust subcase (Tolman-Bondi) of the BS model, the final expression that adopts the linear Hubble’s law in the BS model, for off-centre observers $`P_0`$, is:

$$z=\left(\frac{\dot{R}}{R}A\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Psi }+\sqrt{3}\sigma \mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\Psi }\right)_0D$$
(9)
By spherical symmetry, just the telescopic angle $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is needed to describe off-centre observations in the rest space of the observer. $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the angle between the direction of observation of a light ray, $`o^a`$, and the vector $`e_1`$, pointing radially outward from the centre in the spacelike hypersurfaces of the BS model.

The generalized Hubble function has three terms which contribute to the cosmological redshift. The first is similar to the usual one of FLRW models due to the volume expansion, but in this model is due to the azimuthal expansion and depends not only on cosmic time but also on a radial comoving distance or position of the observer with respect to the centre. The azimuthal expansion comes from the expansion of the geometrical $`S^2`$ sphere centered at the observer ($`r=r_0`$) in the spacelike hipersurface ($`t=t_0`$). Thus, the azimuthal expansion implies a variation in cosmic time of the angle $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, under which a specific emitter is observed in the observational celestial sphere of the rest space of the observer. The second term in the generalized Hubble function is a dipolar one, due to the acceleration (which does not appear in the Tolman-Bondi subcase), and a third quadrupolar one, due to the shear.

The inhomogeneous BS model has a preferred central worldline (a spatial centre in the spacelike hypersurfaces) in which the mass-energy density and the pressure are global maxima at any cosmic time, and where the acceleration and the shear are zero. Hence, at the centre, the matter congruence and CBR are exactly isotropic, but for off-centre observers as us, additional terms appear due to the radial inhomogeneity of this spacetime.

The consequences of the generalized linear Hubble law are striking. For instance, when we are observing in the same sense that the acceleration away from the centre, that is $`\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$, then the acceleration term gives a maximum violetshift contribution, $`AD`$, due to the fact that we are expelled out from the centre by the kinematic acceleration. Of course, observing in the opposite sense to the acceleration, i.e., towards the centre, it gives an maximum dipole redshift, $`+AD`$. In both cases, if the emitters are at the same distance, the additional expansion and shear quadrupole terms have the same positive value. Hence, using the new Hubble law (9), the difference of redshifts of these kind of observations, is a pure dipole violetshift, which is only due to the kinematic acceleration $`A`$. Therefore, we consider this specific direction away from the centre, as the global direction of the matter dipole.

Moreover, as it have been stated before, the dipole term can also be modified by nearly constant dipole redshifts originated by Doppler and gravitational contributions in the process of emission-observation of light. By using the BS model, these additional redshifts must be calculated as deviations from the generalized Hubble law (9) valid for comoving non-geodesic observers. However, as it has been stated above, for isolating the pure dipole part, it is necessary to make the difference between redshift observations of emitters situated at the same distance, but in opposite senses from the observer.

Additional dipole voiletshifts are normally interpreted, by using Newton’s theory, as deviations from an isotropic linear Hubble expansion law due to peculiar velocity fields or a bulk flow towards a local ”Great Attractor”, (see ).

However, in the model considered, the centre of the spacelike 3-dim hypersurfaces is the ”global repulsor” and is the centre of the rest-frame of matter and also of the rest-frame of the CBR. Hence the matter dipole direction given by the generalized Hubble law must coincide with the CBR dipole direction. With respect to the CBR dipole, we refer to a recent work , where all the anisotropies including non-linear effects have been calculated, and where it was estimated, how the kinematic acceleration contributes to the dipole temperature anisotropy and the shear to the quadrupole one. I leave for future work the obtention of the CBR dipole and quadrupole temperatures in the BS model and the influence of the new form of the Hubble function on its deceleration parameter.

## 4 Final comments and conclusions

Other works which have tried to explain the matter or the CBR dipole as a cosmological effect (see for instance ), have considered a matter congruence of geodesic observers, because all use the dust Tolman-Bondi spacetime (except the recent work  on a special Stephani spacetime). Instead, in the BS model, the gradient of pressure is not zero, and hence, the congruence of matter observers is non-geodesic, except at the centre, in which it is supposed to be the origin of the matter flow. Note that, even in the late Universe, when the pressure is small (if the mean velocity of Galaxies is around $`300`$ Km/sec or $`10^3c`$, then the pressure is around $`10^6`$ of the mass-energy density), however, the gradient of pressure could not be necessarily small.

The main difference between the cosmological matter dipole of the new law (9) and the usual dipole, manifested as a deviation of the isotropic Hubble law of Friedmann models, is that the latter is interpreted as a constant Doppler effect, i.e. independent of the emitter’s distance. This Doppler dipole arises in the standard model from peculiar velocities, and it can be eliminated going to the ”correct” zero peculiar velocity frame. Whereas, the cosmological acceleration dipole, measured off the centre in the fundamental comoving frame of non-geodesic matter observers, is emitter’s distance dependent and cannot be eliminated for off-centre observers. The same happens for the quadrupole shear term.

However, we do not claim that all the observed matter dipole is cosmological. In our model, a peculiar velocity dipole induced by a local inhomogeneity, must be calculated as a local perturbation of the inhomogeneous background spacetime, i.e. as a local deviation of the new Hubble law (9).

Finally note, that the new Hubble function of this model is not only cosmic time dependent, as in FLRW models, but observer’s position and angular dependent too. Therefore, this may account for the difference between its inferred values from observations performed with different telescopic angles.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to A. San Miguel and F. Vicente for many discussions on this and (un)related subjects. Special thanks are due to a referee, for helping me to improve the presentation of the manuscript. This work is partially supported by the spanish research projects VA34/99 of Junta de Castilla y León and C.I.C.Y.T. PB97-0487.

REFERENCES

 Pascual-Sánchez, J.-F., Mod. Phys. Lett. A 14, 1539 (1999).
 Perlmutter, S., et al., Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999).
 Riess, A.G., et al., Astronomical J. 116, 1009 (1999).
 Riess, A. G., preprint astro-ph/9907038, (1999).
 Linde, A., Linde, D., and Mezhlumian, A., Phys. Lett. B 345, 203 (1995).
 Nilsson, U.S., Uggla, C., Wainwright, J., Lim, W.C., Astrophys. J. Lett.
521, L1 (1999).
 Ferrando, J.J., Morales, J.A., Portilla, M., Phys. Rev. D 46, 578 (1992).
 Ehlers, J., Gen. Rel. Grav. 25, 1225 (1993), english translation of
Akad. Wiss. Lit. Mainz, Abhandl Math.-Nat. Kl. 11, 793 (1961).
 Ellis, G.F.R., in ’General Relativity and Cosmology’, ed. R.K. Sachs (N.Y.:
Academic Press) (1971).
 Humphreys, N. P., Maartens, R., and Matravers, R., Astrophys. J. 477, 47 (1997).
 Hudson, M.J., preprint astro-ph/9908036, (1999).
 Maartens, R., Gebbie, T., Ellis, G.F.R., preprint astro-ph/9808163v2, (1999).
 Paczynski, B., Piran, T., Astrophys. J. 364, 341 (1990).
 Langlois, D., Piran, T., Phys. Rev. D 53, 2908 (1996).
 Clarkson, C.A., Barrett, R.K., Class. Quantum Grav. 16, 3781 (1999).
 Hasse, W., Perlick, V., Class. Quantum Grav. 16, 2559 (1999).


text:
# Hadronic Equipartition of Quark and Glue Momenta

## I Introduction

The quark model presently plays a role in the classification of hadronic particles similar to the role played by the periodic table of chemical elements in the nineteenth century. From a microscopic viewpoint, the interaction holding the quarks together is often taken to be described by the Yang-Mills glue of quantum chromo-dynamics (QCD). However, the QCD derivation of the quark confinement within the hadron is more than just a little obscure. In order to make contact with experiments, some effective model of confinement must be constructed. The models include bags or string fragmentation constructions. The word “glue”, within a given model, here denotes whatever the physical substance (perhaps Yang-Mills gauge gluons) that binds the quarks together.

Of the QCD inspired quark binding pictures, perhaps the most popular among experimentalists is the string fragmentation model  . This model can be partly understood as a consequence of the Wilson closed loop conjecture. Briefly, Wilson considered the action of sending a quark with QCD charge $`g`$ around a closed space-time path $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which bounds a space-time area $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$; i.e the vacuum Wilson action $`W`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{iW}{\mathrm{}}\right)=0\left|\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{ig}{\mathrm{}c}_\mathrm{\Sigma }(A_\mu ^c\lambda _c/2)𝑑x^\mu \right)\right|0_+$$
(1)
where the subscript $`+`$ denotes path ordering. The Wilson conjecture is that the action is proportional to the area for sufficiently large loops; i.e.

$$W=(\tau /c)\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$
(2)
In order to see the physical significance of the proportionality constant $`\tau `$, consider a rectangular space-time Wilson loop as shown in Fig. 1. The particle moves forward in time $`T`$ as a quark, space-like displacement $`R`$ as a string, backward in time $`T`$ as an anti-quark, and space-like displacement $`R`$ as a string. The area of the loop is

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=cRT,$$
(3)
where the negative sign comes from the factor $`(1)`$ in the Lorentz metric for time-like intervals. The Wilson loop action for this case is then given by

$$W=\tau RT.$$
(4)
For an observer of the loop, the physical situation is as follows: There exists a quark and an anti-quark at fixed points in space connected by a string of length $`R`$. The string energy $`E_{string}`$ for this situation is contained in the action $`W`$ via the quantum mechanical rule for the time translation amplitude,

$$\mathrm{exp}(iW/\mathrm{})=\mathrm{exp}(iE_{string}T/\mathrm{}).$$
(5)
The energy of the string of length $`R`$ is thereby

$$E_{string}=\tau R.$$
(6)
The parameter $`\tau `$ in the Wilson loop Eq.(2) is merely the string tension.

If the Wilson conjecture holds true, then a meson which consists of a quark (at position $`𝐫_1`$) and an anti-quark (at position $`𝐫_2`$) exhibits confinement from a “string potential energy”

$$U_{meson}(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=\tau |𝐫_1𝐫_2|.$$
(7)
More generally, if the action of Wilson loops scales as the area, then a potential energy for $`n`$ constituent quarks obeys the scaling law

$$U(\xi 𝐫_1,\mathrm{},\xi 𝐫_n)=\xi ^hU(𝐫_1,\mathrm{},𝐫_n),$$
(8)
where

$$h=1(\mathrm{Wilson}\mathrm{Strings}).$$
(9)
The purpose of this work is to examine the consequences of homogeneous scaling potentials for the partitioning of the hadron rest energy $`Mc^2`$ into quark energy and glue energy. If the hadron is made up of light quarks, then it turns out that Wilson scaling implies that the rest energy of the hadron is in equal parts quark energy and glue energy. This equipartitioning of hadron rest energy is in experimental agreement with strong interaction data, as will be discussed in Sec. IV. If the hadron contains heavy quarks, then Wilson scaling predicts deviations from the equipartition of energy rule.

In Sec. II, we consider the virial for an arbitrary number of quarks and derive a relativistic virial theorem which relates the total mean $`4`$-momentum of the quarks to that of the glue and an spatial integral over the trace of the quark energy-momentum tensor. In Sec. III, we show that for a hadron made of light quarks (i.e., in the limit of vanishing quark masses) obeying Wilson scaling, the mean energy carried by the quarks is equal to that carried by the glue. In Sec. IV, we review briefly the well known data on the “parton” distributions in the best studied case of the proton confirming our theoretical results obtained in Sec. III. We close the paper with some concluding remarks in Sec. V.

## II Relativistic Virial Theorem

If the positions and momenta of the quarks are denoted by $`(𝐫_1,\mathrm{}𝐫_n,𝐩_1,\mathrm{}𝐩_n)`$ and if, in the center of mass frame, the positions and momenta of the quarks are bounded, then the virial

$$𝒱=(1/2)\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(𝐫_j𝐩_j+𝐩_j𝐫_j)$$
(10)
is also bounded. The internal (center of mass frame) wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of a hadron having mass $`M`$ obeys

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=Mc^2\mathrm{\Psi };$$
(11)
Hence,

$$\mathrm{\Psi },\dot{𝒱}\mathrm{\Psi }=(i/\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Psi },[,𝒱]\mathrm{\Psi }=0.$$
(12)
The rate of change (in time) of the virial Eq.(10) obeys

$$\mathrm{\Psi },\dot{𝒱}\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi },\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(𝐯_j𝐩_j+𝐫_j𝐟_j)\mathrm{\Psi }=0,$$
(13)
where the velocity

$$𝐯_j=(i/\mathrm{})[,𝐫_j]=(H_j/𝐩_j)=c\alpha _j$$
(14)
is calculated from the Dirac Hamiltonian $`H_j`$ of the $`j^{th}`$ quark. If the quark mass is $`m_j`$, then

$$H_j=c\alpha _j𝐩_j+m_jc^2\beta _j.$$
(15)
The force on the $`j^{th}`$ quark

$$𝐟_j=\dot{𝐩}_j=(i/\mathrm{})[,𝐩_j]$$
(16)
is calculated from a potential of the binding glue

$$𝐟_j=\mathrm{𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝}_jU.$$
(17)
The potential obeys the Wilson scaling Eqs.(8) and (9).

From the nature of the Dirac Hamiltonian Eq.(15), it follows that

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}𝐩_j𝐯_j+\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}m_j(H_j/m_j)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}H_j,$$
(18)
while the Euler equation corresponding to Eq.(8) is well known to be

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}𝐫_j𝐟_j=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}𝐫_j\mathrm{𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝}_jU=hU.$$
(19)
The mean energy of the quarks,

$$\overline{E}_{quarks}=\mathrm{\Psi },\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}H_j\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(20)
and the mean energy of the glue,

$$\overline{E}_{glue}=\mathrm{\Psi },U\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(21)
are related via Eqs.(13) and (18-21) as in the following

Virial Theorem:

$$\overline{E}_{quarks}=h\overline{E}_{glue}+\mathrm{\Psi },\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}m_j(H_j/m_j)\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(22)
The second term on the right hand side of Eq.(22) is related to the trace of the quark contribution $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ to the mean local hadron stress-energy tensor; i.e.

$$_{hadron}T_\mu ^\mu (𝐫)d^3𝐫=\mathrm{\Psi },\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}m_j(H_j/m_j)\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(23)
The trace of the stress-energy tensor is simply expressed in terms of the local quark energy density $`\epsilon `$ and the local quark pressure $`P`$; i.e.

$$T_\mu ^\mu (𝐫)=\epsilon (𝐫)3P(𝐫).$$
(24)
Thus, the virial theorem follows from Eqs.(22-24) to read as

$$\overline{E}_{quarks}=h\overline{E}_{glue}+_{hadron}\left\{\epsilon (𝐫)3P(𝐫)\right\}d^3𝐫.$$
(25)
Finally, let us here relax the restriction of working in the hadron center of mass frame. In terms of the total four momentum of the hadron ($`P^\mu =\overline{P}_{quarks}^\mu +\overline{P}_{glue}^\mu `$),

$$\overline{P}_{quarks}^\mu =h\overline{P}_{glue}^\mu \left(\frac{1}{c}\right)_{hadron}T_\lambda ^\lambda (x)d^3\sigma ^\mu (x),$$
(26)
where the four vector “3-volume components” are defined via

$$d^3\sigma _\mu (x)=\left(\frac{1}{3!}\right)ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \beta }dx^\nu dx^\lambda dx^\beta .$$
(27)
The above manifestly Lorentz invariant form of the virial theorem Eq.(26) is the central result of this section.

## III Light Quark Equipartition of Hadron Energies

For hadrons made up of light quarks, one expects the “ultra-relativistic” quark gas result $`\epsilon 3P`$. The precise theorem is that in the limit of vanishing quark masses

$$\underset{m0}{lim}T_\mu ^\mu =\underset{m0}{lim}\left(ϵ3P\right)=0.$$
(28)
Eqs.(9), (25) and (28) imply the equipartition of the hadron rest energy $`Mc^2=\overline{E}_{quark}+\overline{E}_{glue}`$ in Wilson loop string models; i.e.

$$\overline{E}_{quark}=\overline{E}_{glue}(\mathrm{light}\mathrm{quarks}\mathrm{on}\mathrm{strings}).$$
(29)
To see simply how Eq.(29) arises, let us consider a simple model of mesons made up of a quark and an anti-quark and let us employ the string potential of Eq.(7); $`U_{meson}(R)=\tau R`$ where $`R`$ is the length of the string. The ultra-relativistic quark kinetic energy corresponding to a meson angular momentum $`J`$ is given by $`K_{meson}(R)=2c(J/R)`$. The mass of the meson may be estimated by the minimum energy principle

$$M_Jc^2=\underset{0<R<\mathrm{}}{inf}\left\{K_{meson}(R)+U_{meson}(R)\right\}.$$
(30)
The physical string length $`R_J`$ then obeys

$$R_J^2=(2cJ/\tau ),$$
(31)
while the mass squared determines a linear angular momentum trajectory

$$M_J^2=(8\tau J/c^3).$$
(32)
For the above (perhaps overly) simple model, note that $`\overline{E}_{quark}=K_{meson}(R_J)=U_{meson}(R_J)=\overline{E}_{glue}`$. Thus, Eq.(29) holds true.

However, the equipartition of energy in Eq.(29) is not a trivial physics result. Different models yield different partitions of the energy. For some “bag” models, $`U_{meson}(R;\mathrm{bag})(4\pi /3)BR^3`$, or more generally

$$h3(\mathrm{bag}\mathrm{models}).$$
(33)
Applying the virial theorem for this case yields

$$\overline{E}_{quark}3\overline{E}_{glue}(\mathrm{light}\mathrm{quarks}\mathrm{in}\mathrm{bags}).$$
(34)
On the basis of Eqs.(29) and (34) and the discussion in Sec. IV, it appears that string models are experimentally favored over bag models.

## IV “Parton” Distribution Data

Our results from Secs. II and III are that for light quark bound states such as the proton and the pion, we expect the $`50÷50`$ rule for the momenta carried by the quarks and the glue. Here we shall briefly discuss an experimental verification of this fact for the proton in the context of the parton model. As well known (see for example ), one defines a quark density $`q(x)`$, and antiquark density $`\overline{q}(x)`$ and a gluon density $`G(x)`$, where $`x`$ is the fraction of the proton momentum. What has been found experimentally is that

$$\underset{q}{}_o^1(dx)[q(x)+\overline{q}(x)]0.5.$$
(35)
To quote ref., “\[the above\] is an experimental result. It indicates that the quarks carry about $`50\%`$ of the proton’s momentum. The rest is attributed to gluon constituents.”

There are similar albeit less accurate data for the pion structure function as well showing the equipartition of the pion momenta into quarks and glue.

We expect sizeable deviations from the equipartition for large quark masses. Present data for heavy quarks are not sufficiently accurate to allow for a quantitative test.

## V Conclusions

In the preceding, we have derived a relativistic virial theorem valid for a generic hadron. For homogeneously scaling potentials, it connects the mean energy carried by the quarks, the glue and the trace of quark energy-momentum tensor integrated over the hadronic volume. For “ordinary” hadrons such as the pion and the nucleon, made of light quarks, it leads to the pleasing result that for the string model (which satisfies the Wilson area conjecture) the mean quark energy equals the mean energy carried by the glue. There is ample experimental evidence via the quark and gluon densities verifying this $`50÷50`$ rule for the case of the proton. (A less precise but positive confirmation is also found experimentally for the pion). The “bag models” generally fail in this respect.