1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \begin{document}
3: \title{CONSTRAINING THE DARK ENERGY EQUATION OF STATE WITH COSMIC VOIDS}
4: \author{Jounghun Lee and Daeseong Park}
5: \affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy, FPRD, Seoul National University,
6: Seoul 151-747, Korea}
7: \email{jounghun@snu.ac.kr}
8: \begin{abstract}
9: Our universe is observed to be accelerating due to the dominant dark energy
10: with negative pressure. The dark energy equation of state ($w$) holds a key
11: to understanding the ultimate fate of the universe. The cosmic voids behave
12: like bubbles in the universe so that their shapes must be quite sensitive to
13: the background cosmology. Assuming a flat universe and using the priors on
14: the matter density parameter ($\Omega_{m}$) and the dimensionless Hubble
15: parameter ($h$), we demonstrate analytically that the ellipticity evolution
16: of cosmic voids may be a sensitive probe of the dark energy equation of state.
17: We also discuss the parameter degeneracy between $w$ and $\Omega_{m}$.
18: \end{abstract}
19: \keywords{cosmology:theory --- large-scale structure of universe}
20:
21: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
22:
23: Recent observations have revealed that our universe is flat and in a phase of
24: acceleration \citep{rie-etal98,per-etal99,spe-etal03}. It implies that some
25: mysterious dark energy fills dominantly the universe at present epoch,
26: exerting anti-gravity. The nature of this mysterious dark energy which holds
27: a key to understanding the ultimate fate of the universe is often specified
28: by its equation of state, i.e., the ratio of its pressure to density:
29: $w\equiv P_{de}/\rho_{de}$. The anti-gravity of the dark energy corresponds
30: to the negative value of $w$. The simplest candidate for the dark energy is
31: the vacuum energy ($\Lambda$) with $w=-1$ that is constant at all times
32: \citep{ein17}. Although all current data are consistent with the vacuum
33: energy model \citep[e.g.,][]{wan-teg04,jas-etal04,per05,guz-etal08}, the
34: notorious failure of the theoretical estimate of the vacuum energy density
35: \citep[see][for a review]{car-etal92} has led a dynamic dark energy model to
36: emerge as an alternative. In this dynamic dark energy models which is
37: often collectively called quintessence, the dark energy is described as a
38: slowly rolling scalar field with time-varying equation of state in the
39: range of $-1<w<0$ \citep{cal-etal98}.
40:
41: The following observables have so far been suggested to discriminate the
42: dark energy models: the luminosity-distance measure of type Ia supernova
43: \citep{rie-etal04,rie-etal07,dav-etal07,kow-etal08}; the abundance of galaxy
44: clusters as a function of mass \citep{wan-ste98,hai-etal01,wel-etal02},
45: the baryonic acoustic oscillations in the galaxy power spectrum
46: \citep{bla-gla03,hu-hai03,coo04,seo-eis05}, and the weak gravitational
47: lensing effect \citep{hu99,hut01,tak-jai04,son-kno04}. True as it is that
48: these observables can constrain powerfully the value of $w$, it is still
49: quite necessary and important to find out as many different observables
50: as possible for consistency tests.
51:
52: Another possible observable as a dark energy constraint may be the shapes
53: of the cosmic voids. As the voids behave like bubbles due to their extremely
54: low densities, their shapes determined by the spatial distribution of the
55: void galaxies tend to change sensitively according to the competition between
56: the tidal distortion and the gravitational rarefaction effect. Therefore,
57: the shape evolution of the voids must depend sensitively on the
58: background cosmology. In this Letter we study the ellipticity evolution of
59: cosmic voids in the QCDM (quintessence + cold dark matter) model with the
60: help of the analytic formalism developed by \citet{par-lee07} and explore
61: the possibility of using it as a complimentary probe of the dark energy
62: equation of state.
63:
64: According to \citet{par-lee07}, the shape of a void region is related
65: to the eigenvalues of the local tidal shear tensor as
66: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
67: \begin{eqnarray}
68: \label{eqn:lamu1}
69: \lambda_{1}(\mu,\nu) &=& \frac{1 + (\delta_{v}- 2)\nu^{2} +
70: \mu^{2}}{(\mu^{2} + \nu^{2} + 1)},\\
71: \label{eqn:lamu2}
72: \lambda_{2}(\mu,\nu) &=& \frac{1 + (\delta_{v}- 2)\mu^{2} + \nu^{2}}
73: {(\mu^{2} + \nu^{2} + 1)},
74: \end{eqnarray}
75: where $\{\lambda_{i}\}_{i=1}^{3}$ (with $\lambda_{1}>\lambda_{2}>\lambda_{3}$)
76: are the three eigenvalues of the local tidal field smoothed on void scale,
77: $\delta_{\rm v}$ is the density contrast threshold for the formation
78: of a void: $\delta_{\rm v}=\sum_{i=1}^{3}\lambda_{i}$, and $\{\mu,\nu\}$
79: (with $\nu <\mu$) represents a set of the two parameters that quantify the
80: anisotropic distribution of the void galaxies. They defined the void
81: ellipticity as $\varepsilon\equiv 1 -\nu$ and evaluated its probability
82: density distribution as
83: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
84: \begin{eqnarray}
85: p(1-\varepsilon;z) &=& p(\nu;z,R_{L}) =
86: \int_{\nu}^{1} p[\mu,\nu|\delta =\delta_{\rm v};\sigma(z,R_{L})]d\mu \cr
87: &=&\frac{3375\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{10\pi}\sigma^{5}(z,R_{L})}
88: \exp\left[-\frac{5\delta^{2}_{\rm v}}{2\sigma^{2}(z,R_{L})} +
89: \frac{15\delta_{\rm v}(\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2})}{2\sigma^{2}(z,R_{L})}
90: \right]\cr &&\times\exp\left[-\frac{15(\lambda^{2}_{1}+\lambda_{1}
91: \lambda_{2}+\lambda^{2}_{2})}{2\sigma^{2}(z,R_{L})}\right]
92: (2\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2}-\delta_{\rm v})\cr
93: &&\times(\lambda_{1}-\lambda_{2})(\lambda_{1}+2\lambda_{2}-\delta_{\rm v})
94: \frac{4(\delta_{\rm v}-3)^2\mu\nu}{(\mu^{2}+\nu^{2}+1)^{3}}.
95: \label{eqn:con}
96: \end{eqnarray}
97: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
98: Here, $\sigma(z,R_{L}))\equiv D^{2}(z)\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\Delta^{2}(k)
99: W^{2}(kR_{L})d\ln k$ is the linear rms fluctuation of the matter density
100: field smoothed on a Lagrangian void scale of $R_{L}$ at redshift $z$ where
101: $D(z)$ is the linear growth factor, $W(kR_L)$ is a top-hat window function,
102: and $\Delta^{2}(k)$ is the dimensionless linear power spectrum. Throughout
103: this study, we adopt the linear power spectrum of the cold dark matter
104: cosmology (CDM) that does not depend explicitly on $w$ \citep{bar-etal86}.
105:
106: Equation (\ref{eqn:con}) was originally derived under the assumption of
107: a $\Lambda$CDM model ($w=-1$). We propose here that it also holds good
108: for the case of a QCDM (quintessence+CDM) model where the dark energy
109: equation of state changes with time as $w(z)=w_{0}+w_{a}z/(1+z)$
110: \citep{cp01,lin03} where $w_{0}$ is the value of $w$ at present epoch and
111: $w_{a}$ quantifies how the dark energy equation of state changes with time.
112: Then, we employ the following approximation formula for the linear growth
113: factor, $D(z)$, for a QCDM model \citep{bas03,per05}:
114: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
115: \begin{equation}
116: D(z)=\frac{5\Omega_{m}}{2(z+1)}
117: \left[\Omega^{\alpha}_{m}-\Omega_{Q} +
118: \left(1+\frac{\Omega_{m}}{2}\right)
119: \left(1+{\cal A}\Omega_{Q}\right)\right]^{-1}.
120: \label{eqn:D}
121: \end{equation}
122: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
123: where
124: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
125: \begin{eqnarray}
126: \label{eqn:e2}
127: E^{2}(z)&=&\Omega_{m}(1+z)^{3}+\Omega_{Q}(1+z)^{-f(z)},\\
128: \label{eqn:fz}
129: f(z) &=& -3(1+w_{0})-\frac{3w_{a}}{2\ln(1+z)},\\
130: \label{eqn:alp}
131: \alpha &=&\frac{3}{5-2/(1-w)}+\frac{3}{125}
132: \frac{(1-w)(1-3w/2)}{(1-6w/5)^{3}}[1-\Omega_{m}],\\
133: \label{eqn:cal}
134: {\cal A}&=&-\frac{0.28}{w+0.08}-0.3.
135: \end{eqnarray}
136: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
137: The CDM density parameter $\Omega_{m}$ and the dark energy density parameter
138: $\Omega_{Q}$ evolve with $z$ respectively as
139: \begin{equation}
140: \Omega_{m}(z)=\frac{\Omega_{m0}(1+z)^{3}}{E^{2}(z)}, \quad
141: \Omega_{Q}(z)=\frac{\Omega_{Q0}}{E^{2}(z)(1+z)^{f(z)}},
142: \label{eqn:ome}
143: \end{equation}
144: where $\Omega_{m0}$ and $\Omega_{Q0}$ represent the present values.
145: Equation (\ref{eqn:con}) implies that the mean ellipticity of voids
146: decreases with $z$. A key question is how the rate of the decrease changes
147: with the dark energy equation of state. Since most of the recent observations
148: indicate that the dark energy equation of state at present epoch is consistent
149: with $w=-1$ \citep[e.g., see][and references therein]{guz-etal08}
150: we focus on how the mean void ellipticity depends on the value of
151: $w_{a}$. Even in case that $w_{0}=-1$, if $w_{a}$ is found to deviate
152: from zero, it would imply the dynamic dark energy, disproving the
153: simple $\Lambda$CDM model.
154:
155: To explore how the void ellipticity evolution depends on $w_{a}$, we evaluate
156: the mean ellipticity of voids as
157: $\bar{\varepsilon}(z)=\int_{0}^{1}~\varepsilon~p(\varepsilon; R_{L},z)
158: d\epsilon$ for different values of $w_{a}$ through equations (\ref{eqn:con})-
159: (\ref{eqn:ome}). The other key cosmological parameters are set at
160: $\Omega_{m}=0.75$,$\Omega_{Q}=0.75$, $h=0.73$, $\sigma_{8}=0.9$ and
161: $w_{0}=-1$. When the abundance of evolution of galaxy clusters is used to
162: constrain the dark energy equation of state, the cluster mass is usually set
163: at a certain threshold, $M_{R}$, defined as the mass within a certain comoving
164: radius \citep{wan-ste98}. Likewise, we set the Lagrangian scale of a void,
165: $R_{L}$ at $4h^{-1}$Mpc, which is related to the mean effective radius of
166: a void as $\bar{R}_{E}=(1+\delta_{v})^{-1/3}\bar{R}_{L}/(1+z)$. The
167: Lagrangian scale $R_{L}=4h^{-1}$Mpc corresponds to the mean effective
168: size of a void at present epoch, $R_{E}\sim 8.5h^{-1}$Mpc.
169:
170: Figure \ref{fig:bare} plots $\bar{\varepsilon}(z)$ for the four
171: different cases: $w_{a}=-1/3,0,1/3$ and $2/3$ (long-dashed, solid, dashed,
172: and dotted line, respectively). As can be seen, the higher the value of
173: $w_{a}$ is, the more rapidly $\bar{\varepsilon}(z)$ decreases.
174: It also suggests that $\bar{\varepsilon}(z)$ is well approximated as a linear
175: function of $z$ in recent epochs ($0<z<0.2$).
176: Therefore, we fit $\varepsilon(z)$ to a straight line as
177: $\bar{\varepsilon}(z)\approx A_{v}z + B_{v}$. Varying the value of $w_{a}$
178: in the range of $[0,2/3]$, we compute the best-fit slope $A_{v}$. The range,
179: $0\le w_{a}\le 2/3$, corresponds to the dark energy equation of state range,
180: $-1\le w\le -0.9$. The result is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:slope}. As can be
181: seen, the void ellipticity evolves more rapidly as the value of $w_{a}$
182: increases. That is, the void ellipticity undergoes a stronger evolution when
183: the anti-gravitational effect is less strong in recent epochs. Note that
184: $A_{v}$ shows a noticeable $30\%$ difference as the dark energy equation of
185: state changes $w$ from $-1$ to $-0.9$.
186:
187: We have so far neglected the parameter degeneracy between $w$ and the other
188: key parameters. However, as the dependence of the void ellipticity
189: distribution on the dark energy equation of state comes from its dependence
190: on $\Delta^{2}(k;\Omega_{m0},\sigma_{8},h,w)$, it is naturally expected that
191: there should be a strong parameter degeneracy. Here, we focus on the
192: degeneracy between $\Omega_{m0}$ and $w$. First, we recompute $A_{v}$, varying
193: the values of $\Omega_{m0}$ and $w_{0}$ with setting $w_{a}=1/3$. The left
194: panel of Fig. \ref{fig:ow} plots a family of the degeneracy curves in the
195: $\Omega_{m0}$-$w_{0}$ plane for the three different values of $A_{v}$.
196: As can be seen, there is a strong degeneracy between the two parameters.
197: For a given value of $A_{v}$, the value of $w_{0}$ increases as the value
198: of $\Omega_{m0}$ decreases. A similar trend is also found in the
199: $\Omega_{m0}$-$w_{a}$ degeneracy curves that are plotted in the
200: right panel of Fig. \ref{fig:ow} for which the value of $w_{0}$ is set
201: at $-1$. It is worth noting that this degeneracy trend is orthogonal to
202: that found from the cluster abundance evolution (see Fig.3 in Wang \&
203: Steinhardt 1998). Thus, when combined with the cluster analysis, the void
204: ellipticity analysis may be useful to break the degeneracy between
205: $\Omega_{m0}$ and $w$.
206:
207: We have shown that the void ellipticity evolution is in principle a
208: useful constraint of the dark energy equation of state. We have also shown
209: that it provides a new degeneracy curve for $\Omega_{m0}$ and $w$. When
210: combined with the cluster abundance analysis, it should be useful to break
211: the degeneracy. Furthermore, unlike the mass measurement of high-$z$ clusters
212: which suffers from considerable scatters, the void ellipticities are
213: readily measured from the positions of the void galaxies without requiring
214: any additional information.
215:
216: To use our analytic tool in practice to constrain the dark energy equation of
217: state, however, it will require to account for the redshift distortion effect
218: since the positions of the void galaxies are measured in redshift space.
219: In our companion paper (Park \& Lee 2009 in preparation), we have analyzed
220: the Millennium Run Redshift-Space catalog \citep{spr-etal05} and determined
221: the ellipticity distribution of the galaxy voids. From this analysis, it is
222: somewhat unexpectedly found that the void ellipticity distribution measured in
223: redshift space is hardly changed from the one in real space. In fact,
224: this result is consistent with the recent claims of Hoyle \& Vogeley (2007)
225: and that of van de Weygaert (2008, private communication) who have already
226: pointed out that the redshift distortion effect has only negligible, if any,
227: effect on the shapes of voids. We hope to constrain the dark energy equation
228: of state by applying our theoretical tool to real observational data and
229: report the result elsewhere in the near future.
230:
231: \acknowledgments
232: We thank an anonymous referee for a constructive report.
233: J.L. am very grateful to S.Basilakos for very helpful discussion and comments.
234: This work is financially supported by the Korea Science and Engineering
235: Foundation (KOSEF) grant funded by the Korean Government
236: (MOST, NO. R01-2007-000-10246-0).
237:
238: \clearpage
239: \begin{thebibliography}{}
240: \bibitem[Bardeen et al.(1986)]{bar-etal86}
241: Bardeen, J. M., Bond, J. R., Kaiser, N., \& Szalay, A. S. 1986, \apj, 304, 15
242: \bibitem[Basilakos(2003)]{bas03}
243: Basilakos, S. 2003, \apj, 590, 636
244: \bibitem[Blake \& Glazebrook(2003)]{bla-gla03}
245: Blake, C., \& Glazebrook, K. 2003, \apj, 594, 665
246: \bibitem[Caldwell et al.(1998)]{cal-etal98}
247: Caldwell, R. R., Dave, R. \& Steinhardt, P.J. 1998, \prl, 80, 1582
248: \bibitem[Caroll et al.(1992)]{car-etal92}
249: Carroll, S., Press, W.H. \& Turner, E.C. 1992, Ann. Rev. , 30, 499
250: \bibitem[Chevallier \& Polarski(2001)]{cp01}
251: Chevallier, M. \& Polarski, D. 2001, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 10, 213
252: \bibitem[Cooray(2004)]{coo04}
253: Cooray, A. 2004, \mnras, 348, 250
254: \bibitem[Davis et al.(2007)]{dav-etal07}
255: Davis, T. M. 2007, \apj, 666, 716
256: \bibitem[Einstein(1917)]{ein17}
257: Einstein, A. 1917, Sitz. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., 142
258: \bibitem[Guzzo et al.(2008)]{guz-etal08}
259: Guzzo, L., et al. 2008, \nat, 451, 31
260: \bibitem[Haiman et al.(2001)]{hai-etal01}
261: Haiman, Z., Mohr, J.J. \& Holder, G.P. 2001, \apj, 553, 545
262: \bibitem[Hoyle \& Vogeley(2002)]{hoy-vog02}
263: Hoyle, F., \& Vogeley, M. S. 2002, \apj, 566, 641
264: \bibitem[Hu(1999)]{hu99}
265: Hu, W. 1999, \apj, 522, L21
266: \bibitem[Hu \& Haiman(2003)]{hu-hai03}
267: Hu, W. \& Haiman, Z. 2003, \prd, 68, 063004
268: \bibitem[Huterer(2001)]{hut01}
269: Huterer, D. 2001, \prd, 65, 63001
270: \bibitem[Jassal et al.(2004)]{jas-etal04}
271: Jassal, H.K., Bagla, J.S., \& Padmanabhan, T. 2004, \mnras, 356, L11
272: \bibitem[Kowalski et al.(2008)]{kow-etal08}
273: Kowalski, M. et al. 2008, \apj, 686, 749
274: \bibitem[Linder(2003)]{lin03}
275: Linder, E. 2003, \prl, 90, 091301
276: \bibitem[Park \& Lee(2007)]{par-lee07}
277: Park, D., \& Lee, J. 2007, \prl, 98, 081301
278: \bibitem[Perlmutter et al.(1999)]{per-etal99}
279: Perlmutter, S. et al. 1999, \apj, 517, 565
280: \bibitem[Percival(2005)]{per05}
281: Percival, W. J. 2005, \aap, 819, 830
282: \bibitem[Riess et al.(1998)]{rie-etal98}
283: Riess, A. G. et al. 1998, \apj, 116, 1009
284: \bibitem[Riess et al.(2004)]{rie-etal04}
285: Riess, A. G. et al. 2004, \apj, 607, 665
286: \bibitem[Riess et al.(2007)]{rie-etal07}
287: Riess, A. G. et al. 2007, \apj, 659, 98
288: \bibitem[Seo \& Eisentein(2005)]{seo-eis05}
289: Seo, H. \& Eisenstein, D. J. 2005, \apj, 633, 575
290: \bibitem[Song \& Knox(2004)]{son-kno04}
291: Song, Y. S. \& Knox, L. 20034 \prd, 70, 063510
292: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2003)]{spe-etal03}
293: Spergel, D. N. et al. 2003, \apjs, 148, 175
294: \bibitem[Springel et al.(2005)]{spr-etal05}
295: Springel, V. et al. 2005, \nat , 435, 629
296: \bibitem[Strauss et al.(2002)]{str-etal02}
297: Strauss, M. et al. 2002, \apj, 124, 1810
298: \bibitem[Takada \& Jain(2004)]{tak-jai04}
299: Takada, M. \& Jain, B. 2004, \mnras, 348, 897
300: \bibitem[Wang \& Steinhardt(1998)]{wan-ste98}
301: Wang, L. \& Steinhardt, P. J. 1998, \apj, 508, 483
302: \bibitem[Wang \& Tegmark(2004)]{wan-teg04}
303: Wang, Y. \& Tegmark, M. 2004, \prl, 92, 241302
304: \bibitem[Weller et al.(2002)]{wel-etal02}
305: Weller, J., Battye, R. A., \& Kneissl, R. 2002, \prl, 88, 231301
306: \end{thebibliography}
307:
308: \clearpage
309: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
310: \begin{figure}
311: \plotone{f1.eps}
312: \caption{Mean ellipticity of the voids with $R_{\rm L}=4h^{-1}$Mpc
313: as a function of $z$.}
314: \label{fig:bare}
315: \end{figure}
316: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
317: \clearpage
318: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
319: \begin{figure}
320: \plotone{f2.eps}
321: \caption{Slope of the void ellipticity as a function of $w_{a}$.}
322: \label{fig:slope}
323: \end{figure}
324: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
325: \clearpage
326: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
327: \begin{figure}
328: \plotone{f3.eps}
329: \caption{Contours of $A_{v}$ in the $\Omega_{m0}$-$w_{0}$ (left) and
330: in the $\Omega_{m}$-$w_{a}$ (right) plane.}
331: \label{fig:ow}
332: \end{figure}
333: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
334: \end{document}
335: