1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: %\usepackage{mathrsfs}

3: 

4: %\usepackage{amssymb,amsmath,float}

5: %\input{RLmacros.tex}

6: 

7: % Richard Lieu's Latex macros

8: %

9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

10: 

11: 

12: %%% Greek letters

13: \newcommand\al{\alpha}

14: % \be used below

15: %\newcommand\ga{\gamma}

16: \newcommand\de{\delta}

17: \newcommand\ep{\epsilon}

18: \newcommand\ze{\zeta}

19: \newcommand\et{\eta}

20: \renewcommand\th{\theta}

21: \newcommand\vt{\vartheta}

22: \newcommand\io{\iota}

23: \newcommand\ka{\kappa}

24: %\newcommand\la{\lambda}

25: \newcommand\rh{\rho}

26: \newcommand\si{\sigma}

27: \newcommand\ta{\tau}

28: \newcommand\up{\upsilon}

29: \newcommand\ph{\Phi}

30: \newcommand\vp{\varphi}

31: \newcommand\ch{\chi}

32: \newcommand\ps{\psi}

33: \newcommand\om{\omega}

34: \newcommand\Ga{\Gamma}

35: \newcommand\De{\Delta}

36: \newcommand\Th{\Theta}

37: \newcommand\La{\Lambda}

38: \newcommand\Si{\Sigma}

39: \newcommand\Up{\Upsilon}

40: \newcommand\Ph{\Phi}

41: \newcommand\Ch{\Chi}

42: \newcommand\Ps{\Psi}

43: \newcommand\Om{\Omega}

44: 

45: %%% Symbols

46: \newcommand\pa{\partial}

47: %\newcommand\na{\nabla}

48: \newcommand\bna{\bold{\nabla}}

49: \newcommand\hb{\hbar}

50: \newcommand\<{\langle}

51: \renewcommand\>{\rangle}

52: 

53: %%% Abbreviations

54: \newcommand\ie{\emph{i.e.}}

55: \newcommand\eg{\emph{e.g.}}

56: 

57: %%% Equations

58: \newcommand\beq{\begin{equation}}

59: \newcommand\eeq{\end{equation}}

60: \newcommand\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

61: \newcommand\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

62: \newcommand\bal{\begin{align}}

63: \newcommand\eal{\end{align}}

64: \newcommand\ul{\underline}

65: \newcommand\X{\times}

66: \newcommand\fr{\frac}

67: \newcommand\tha{\theta}

68: 

69: %% Mathematical symbols

70: \newcommand\rms[1]{_{\mathrm{#1}}}

71: \newcommand\tr{\mathrm{tr}}

72: \newcommand\dg{^{\dagger}}

73: \newcommand\half{{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}}

74: \newcommand\ap{\approx}

75: \newcommand\cd{\cdot}

76: \renewcommand\d{\mathrm{d}}

77: \newcommand\e{\mathrm{e}}

78: \renewcommand\i{\mathrm{i}}

79: \renewcommand\Re{\mathrm{Re}}

80: \renewcommand\Im{\mathrm{Im}}

81: \newcommand\R{\mathbb{R}}

82: \newcommand\C{\mathbb{C}}

83: \newcommand\Z{\mathbb{Z}}

84: 

85: %% Bold letters

86: \newcommand\ba{\bold{a}}

87: \newcommand\bb{\bold{b}}

88: \newcommand\bc{\bold{c}}

89: \newcommand\bd{\bold{d}}

90: \newcommand\be{\bold{e}}

91: %\bf not redefined

92: \newcommand\bg{\bold{g}}

93: \newcommand\bh{\bold{h}}

94: \newcommand\bi{\bold{i}}

95: \newcommand\bj{\bold{j}}

96: \newcommand\bk{\bold{k}}

97: \newcommand\bl{\bold{l}}

98: \newcommand\bm{\bold{m}}

99: \newcommand\bn{\bold{n}}

100: %\bo not redefined

101: \newcommand\bp{\bold{p}}

102: \newcommand\bq{\bold{q}}

103: \newcommand\br{\bold{r}}

104: \newcommand\bs{\bold{s}}

105: \newcommand\bt{\bold{t}}

106: \newcommand\bu{\bold{u}}

107: %\newcommand\bv{\bold{v}}

108: \newcommand\bw{\bold{w}}

109: \newcommand\bx{\bold{x}}

110: \newcommand\by{\bold{y}}

111: \newcommand\bz{\bold{z}}

112: \newcommand\bA{\bold{A}}

113: \newcommand\bB{\bold{B}}

114: \newcommand\bC{\bold{C}}

115: \newcommand\bD{\bold{D}}

116: \newcommand\bE{\bold{E}}

117: \newcommand\bF{\bold{F}}

118: \newcommand\bG{\bold{G}}

119: \newcommand\bH{\bold{H}}

120: \newcommand\bI{\bold{I}}

121: \newcommand\bJ{\bold{J}}

122: \newcommand\bK{\bold{K}}

123: \newcommand\bL{\bold{L}}

124: \newcommand\bM{\bold{M}}

125: \newcommand\bN{\bold{N}}

126: \newcommand\bO{\bold{O}}

127: \newcommand\bP{\bold{P}}

128: \newcommand\bQ{\bold{Q}}

129: \newcommand\bR{\bold{R}}

130: \newcommand\bS{\bold{S}}

131: \newcommand\bT{\bold{T}}

132: \newcommand\bU{\bold{U}}

133: \newcommand\bV{\bold{V}}

134: \newcommand\bW{\bold{W}}

135: \newcommand\bX{\bold{X}}

136: \newcommand\bY{\bold{Y}}

137: \newcommand\bZ{\bold{Z}}

138: \newcommand\bzero{\bold{0}}

139: \newcommand\bone{\bold{1}}

140: 

141: %%% bold Greek letters

142: \renewcommand\bal{\mbox{\boldmath$\alpha$}}

143: \newcommand\bbe{\bold{\beta}}

144: \newcommand\bga{\bold{\gamma}}

145: \newcommand\bde{\bold{\delta}}

146: \newcommand\bep{\bold{\epsilon}}

147: \newcommand\bze{\bold{\zeta}}

148: \newcommand\bet{\bold{\eta}}

149: \newcommand\bth{\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}}

150: \newcommand\bvt{\bold{\vartheta}}

151: \newcommand\bio{\bold{\iota}}

152: \newcommand\bka{\bold{\kappa}}

153: \newcommand\bla{\bold{\lambda}}

154: \newcommand\brh{\bold{\rho}}

155: \newcommand\bsi{\bold{\sigma}}

156: \newcommand\bta{\bold{\tau}}

157: \newcommand\bup{\bold{\upsilon}}

158: \newcommand\bph{\bold{\phi}}

159: \newcommand\bvp{\bold{\varphi}}

160: \newcommand\bch{\bold{\chi}}

161: \newcommand\bps{\bold{\psi}}

162: \newcommand\bom{\bold{\omega}}

163: \newcommand\bGa{\bold{\Gamma}}

164: \newcommand\bDe{\bold{\Delta}}

165: \newcommand\bTh{\bold{\Theta}}

166: \newcommand\bLa{\bold{\Lambda}}

167: \newcommand\bSi{\bold{\Sigma}}

168: \newcommand\bUp{\bold{\Upsilon}}

169: \newcommand\bPh{\bold{\Phi}}

170: \newcommand\bCh{\bold{\Chi}}

171: \newcommand\bPs{\bold{\Psi}}

172: \newcommand\bOm{\bold{\Omega}}

173: 

174: \newcommand\tens[1]{{\sffamily\bfseries{#1}}}

175: 

176: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

177: 

178: 

179: 

180: 

181: \begin{document}

182: 

183: \title{On the absence of shear from perfect Einstein rings

184: and the stability of geometry}

185: 

186: \author{Richard Lieu}

187: \affil{Department of Physics, University of Alabama, Huntsville, AL 35899.}

188: 

189: \begin{abstract}

190: 

191: Concordance cosmology points to a Universe of zero mean curvature,

192: due to the inflation mechanism which occurred soon after the Big

193: Bang, while along a relatively small number of lower redshift light

194: paths where lensing events are observed, space is positively curved.

195: How do we know that global geometry and topology are robust rather

196: than in a state of chaos?  The phenomenon of cosmic shear provides

197: an effective way of mapping curvature fluctuations, because it

198: affects {\it any} light rays whether they intercept mass clumps or

199: not.  We discuss a range of astrophysical applications of the

200: principal manifestation of shear - the distortion of images.  It

201: will be shown that the quickest way of testing the existence of

202: shear in the near Universe is to look at the shape of Einstein

203: rings.  The fact that most of these rings are circular to a large

204: extent means, statistically speaking, shear occurs at a much lower

205: level than the expectation based upon our current understanding of

206: the inhomogeneous Universe.   While inflation may account for the

207: mean geometry, it offers no means of stabilizing it against the

208: fluctuations caused by non-linear matter clumping at low redshift.

209: Either this clumping is actually much less severe, or the physical

210: mechanism responsible for shaping the large scale curvature has been

211: active not only during the very early epochs, but also at all

212: subsequent times.  Might it be the vital `interface' between

213: expansion on Hubble distances and gravity on cluster scales and

214: beneath?

215: 

216: 

217: \end{abstract}

218: 

219: \keywords{ }

220: 

221: \section{Introduction}

222: 

223: In the prevailing $\Lambda CDM$ cosmological model the observational

224: evidence for departures from the standard theory of gravity (General

225: Relativity) at large distance scales, be they in the form of flat

226: rotation curves for galaxies or accelerated expansion between

227: galaxies, is explained in terms of an `extension' of the theory to

228: postulate two foreign ingredients: dark matter and dark energy.

229: Apart from the lack of direct detection of a single molecule or

230: quantum from either `dark' components, and especially despite

231: decades of large investments in the search for dark matter, the

232: delicate balance of proportions between the two components that

233: manifests itself in the observed global flatness of space

234: necessitates yet another postulate, viz. that the early Universe

235: underwent a brief period of extremely rapid expansion called the

236: inflation epoch.

237: 

238: None of the three new postulates (nor for that matter even the

239: expansion of space itself) have at all been verified in the everyday

240: laboratory, and one should also add the expansion of space to the

241: list, as this has recently been deemed {\it unverifiable}  by any

242: terrestrial apparatus (Chodorowski 2007).  Since astronomers did not

243: enjoy their status as pioneers of modern science through Newton's

244: habit of invoking unknowns to explain unknowns, it seems reasonable

245: to ask whether the surprises presented to us by the cosmological

246: data are due in fact to a breakdown in our understanding of the

247: nature of the fundamental forces at work over very long ranges.

248: Indeed, while General Relativity was comparatively well tested over

249: stellar distances scales, the evidence for its validity over

250: galactic scales and beyond are scarce and highly indirect.  It would

251: be very important, e.g., to be able to test if there really is the

252: expected statistical effect on the propagation of light by the

253: gravity of `embedded' mass clumps and the expansion of space in

254: between clumps.

255: 

256: Let us examine more closely this last point, as it is the subject of

257: the present paper.  What is the conventional understanding?  The

258: gravitational effect of a mass structure on light may be quantified

259: in terms of the impact parameter $\vec b$ between a bundle of light

260: rays and the center-of-mass of the distribution. If this point of

261: closest approach was reached during redshift $z$ and at a comoving

262: distance $x$ from the observer, the average fractional magnification

263: $\eta$ of a light source at distance $x_s > x$ away, to which the

264: rays look back, is given by the standard formula

265: \begin{eqnarray}

266: \eta = \frac{(x_s -x)x}{2(1+z)x_s} \left(\frac{\psi}{b} +

267: \frac{d\psi}{db}\right), \nonumber

268: \end{eqnarray}

269: where $\psi$ is the deflection angle.  The two terms on the right

270: side correspond respectively to half the fractional increase in the

271: linear size of the image (in angular space and relative to the image

272: in the absence of the mass $m$) along the directions perpendicular

273: and parallel to $\vec b$.

274: 

275: If, under what we classify here as phenomenon (a),  the light rays

276: pass {\it through} a mass clump, in general we will have $\eta >$ 0,

277: i.e. the source will be magnified. These are the lensing events.

278: They tend to be observationally dramatic, though their occurrence

279: frequency is comparatively low. If the light passes in between

280: clumps, two phenomena are at play: (b) the shear effect of all the

281: non-intercepting clumps, and (c) demagnification in the underdense

282: (or void) regions.  Although the effect of (c) is small, it occurs

283: often because the voids are large: void passages are inevitable.

284: Thus as a statistical average (c) cancels (a), so that the mean

285: angular size distance of the source is still determined only by the

286: overall density $\Omega$ of the Universe (Kibble \& Lieu 2005).

287: 

288: The scenario of particular interest to us in this paper is, however,

289: (b).  When our small bundle of light rays pass {\it by} (or skirts)

290: the clump, then $\psi= 4Gm/(c^2 b)$, so that $\psi/b$ is positive

291: while $d\psi/db = -\psi/b$ is negative, i.e. the resulting zero

292: magnification ($\eta =$ 0) is due to squeezing of the source along

293: the $\vec b$ direction and stretching of it in the perpendicular

294: direction.  This is known as shear, or weak lensing, and because in

295: principle any clump, no matter how far, can affect the light signal

296: in question, it means the shearing of a distant source is a

297: cumulative (hence large) effect of numerous clumps, and can occur no

298: matter in which direction the source lies.  Thus in (b) one is

299: dealing with both a significant and frequent phenomenon, which is

300: why weak lensing survey of many background quasars (e.g. Dodelson et

301: al 2006) represents a powerful technique of probing global geometry.

302: We shall therefore focus on the phenomenon of shear for the rest of

303: the paper by investigating its principal manifestation of direct

304: image distortion.

305: 

306: %\vspace{2mm}

307: 

308: 

309: 

310: \section{The statistical effect of shear: how foreground galaxies can affect the appearance of distant sources}

311: 

312: 

313: At low redshifts any passing light can be sheared by the large scale

314: inhomogeneity of primordial matter {\it and} and the distribution of

315: non-linear virialized structures over smaller distances.  We first

316: examine the former.  Denote the gravitational perturbation of an

317: otherwise zero curvature Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Universe (as

318: inferred from WMAP1 and WMAP3, viz.  Bennett et all 2003 and Spergel

319: et al 2007) by $\Phi (x, {\bf y})$, where the $x$-axis is aligned

320: with the light path and ${\bf y}$ is a vector along some direction

321: transverse to ${\bf x}$. The correlation function between the

322: deflection angles $\delta {\bf y}({\bf \theta'})/x$ and $\delta {\bf

323: y} ({\bf \theta''})/x$ of two light rays making small angles ${\bf

324: \theta'}$ and ${\bf \theta''}$ w.r.t. the x-axis may be written (see

325: Lieu \& Mittaz 2007 for details) as

326:  \begin{eqnarray}

327:  C_{ij}(|\bth'-\bth''|)&\equiv&\fr{1}{x^2}

328:  \<\de y_i(\bth')\de y_j(\bth'')\>\nonumber\\

329:  &=&\fr{4}{c^4 x^2}\int_0^xdx'(x-x')\int_0^xdx''(x-x'')

330:  \<\nabla'_i\ph(x',\bth'x')\nabla''_j\ph(x'',\bth''x'')\>.

331:  \end{eqnarray}

332: We can calculate the integrals by expressing the integrand in terms

333: of the matter power spectrum $P(k)$,

334: \begin{equation}

335: \<\nabla'_i\ph(\br')\nabla''_j\ph(\br'')\> =

336:  \fr{9\Omega_m^2 H_0^4}{32\pi^3}

337:  \int \fr{d^3\bk}{k^3}k_ik_je^{i\bk\cd\br} P(k)

338: \end{equation}

339: where $\br = \br' - \br''$ and

340: \begin{equation}

341: P(k) = \frac{8\pi^2}{9\Omega_m^2 H_0^4}\frac{d}{d\ln

342: k}(\delta\Phi_k)^2,

343: \end{equation}

344: with $\delta\Phi_k$ being the standard deviation of the potential

345: over length scales $2\pi/k$.  The ensuing functional form of

346: $C(\bth) = C_{ii}(\bth) \equiv \<\de y_i(\half \bth) \de y_i(-\half

347: \bth)\>/x^2$ (where the repeated $i$ index implies summation over

348: the two ${\bf y}$ directions $(0,1,0)$ and $(0,0,1)$,  transverse to

349: the light path vector $(1,0,0) = \hat {\bf x}$) is

350: \begin{equation}

351: C(\bth)=C_0+\half C_2\tha^2+\mathcal{O}(\tha^4),

352: \end{equation}

353: when expanded as a Taylor series in $\theta$.

354: 

355: The random {\it relative} deflection between the two rays is then

356: given by

357: $$

358: (\delta\bth)^2 = \fr{1}{x^2}\<[\de\by(\half \bth)-\de\by(-\half

359: \bth)]^2\>

360:  =2[C(0)-C(\bth)] = C_2 \theta^2 +\mathcal{O}(\tha^4),

361: $$

362: and has the $C_2$ coefficient as its leading term, viz. $\delta

363: \theta \approx \sqrt{C_2} \theta \sim \theta$, clearly indicating

364: that the $C_0$ (constant) term relates only to {\it absolute}

365: deflection of the two rays.  The calculation of $C_2$, and hence

366: $\delta\theta$, was done in Lieu \& Mittaz (2007).  The result

367: points to a small shear effect, $\delta\theta/\theta = \sqrt{C_2}

368: \lesssim$ 1 \%, for a primordial spectrum $P(k)$ derived from

369: WMAP1/2dFGRS.  This is also consistent with previous conclusions

370: reached by Seljak (1996) and Lewis \& Challinor (2006).

371: 

372: Obviously, the above treatment does not take into account the role

373: of non-linear matter clumping; in particular galaxies in the near

374: Universe.  We therefore proceed to calculate the same lowest order

375: effect of relative deflection, i.e. $\delta\theta \sim \theta$, due

376: to a random ensemble of nearby galaxies.  The validity criterion of

377: using a Poisson clump distribution were already enumerated in detail

378: in section 3 of Lieu (2007); in short, the two rays must always be

379: separated by lengths small compared with the typical value of the

380: minimum impact parameter $y_{{\rm min}}$ at which each ray skirts

381: the galaxies.  The test for this form of shear that we shall make,

382: generally involves rays that satisfy this requirement.

383: 

384: Let us first work out carefully the effect of one mass clump.

385: Referring to Figure 1, the deflection angles of two neighboring

386: light rays with the mass clump $m$ positioned at $\by$ and $\by +

387: \delta\by$ relative to the points of closest approach of the rays,

388: are given by

389:  \beq

390:  \bal=\frac{4Gm}{c^2\by^2} \by;~~\bal' =

391:  \frac{4Gm}{c^2(\by + \delta\by)^2} (\by + \delta\by).

392:  \eeq

393: Denoting the angle between $\by$ and $\delta \by$ as $\vartheta$,

394: the differential deflection may be written as

395:  \beq

396:  \delta\bal = \frac{4Gm\delta y (\delta {\hat \by} - 2\cos

397:  \vartheta {\hat \by})}{c^2 \by^2}.

398:  \eeq

399: The variance in $\delta\bal$ may now be calculated.  It is

400:  \beq

401:   (\delta\bal)^2 = \left(\frac{4Gm \delta\by}{c^2

402:  \by^2}\right)^2,

403:  \eeq

404: and is independent of $\vartheta$.  If the rays originated from two

405: points that subtend the angle $\bth$ at the observer O, then Eq. (7)

406: will once again give the value of $\delta y$ for a mass clump at

407: comoving distance $x$ from O.   Moreover, we may also write

408: $(\delta\bth)^2 = (\delta\bal)^2$ as the variance of the random

409: excursion of the angular separation $\theta$ between the actual

410: images of these two sources.  Thus we arrive at the equation

411:  \beq

412:  (\delta\bth)^2 = \left(\frac{4Gm x\bth}{c^2 \by^2}\right)^2

413:  \eeq

414: for the shear distortion of the shape of extended sources, if $\bth$

415: is the angle subtented at O by two boundary points of the source.

416: 

417: Our final step is to derive the total variance by integrating

418: $(\delta\bth)^2 \times 2\pi n y~dy~dx$, where $n$ is the non-evolving

419: number density of clumps (for the effect of evolution see the end

420: of this section), down the light path $y$ and over all

421: impact parameters $y$ from $y=y_{{\rm min}}$ updwards.  Care should be

422: taken here, however, because for deflections at finite $z$ the

423: impact parameter scales as $y/(1+z)$ where $y$ is the comoving

424: distance of closest approach, which means $(\delta\bal)^2 \sim

425: (1+z)^2$.  If the two light rays originated from points of the same

426: comoving distance $D$ from O, one obtains in this way

427: \beq

428: (\delta\bth)^2 = \frac{16\pi G^2 m^2}{c^4}

429: \frac{n \mathfrak{D}^3  \theta^2}{y_{{\rm min}}^2},

430: \eeq

431: where $n$ is the number density of clumps, and

432:  \beq

433:  \mathfrak{D}^3 = \int_0^D  x^2 [1+z(x)]^2 dx =

434:  \left(\frac{c}{H_0}\right)^3 \int_0^z \frac{dz' (1+z')^2}{E(z')}

435:  \left[\int_0^{z'} \frac{dz''}{E(z'')}\right]^2,

436:  \eeq

437: with the function $E(z)$ being defined as

438:  \beq

439:  E(z) = [\Omega_m (1+z)^3 + \Omega_{\Lambda}]^{\frac{1}{2}}.

440:  \eeq

441: We see in Eq. (9) the phenomenon of random walk, viz.

442: $\delta\bth \sim \sqrt{n}$, due to the accumulation of

443: relative deflections along the light path from our statistical

444: ensemble of clumps.  There is however a divergence w.r.t.

445: $y_{{\rm min}}$, in the sense that the theoretical lower

446: limit of $y$ is zero.  In practice we conservative set

447: $y_{{\rm min}}$ at the value where, throughout the entire light

448: path, the expected number of uniformly and

449: randomly distributed clumps having this impact parameter is on

450: average equal to one.  Thus we find that for a typical direction to

451: some source,

452:  \beq

453:  y_{{\rm min}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi n D}}.

454:  \eeq

455: It follows that the percentage variation in the angular separation

456: $\theta$ between the images of the two points can be expressed as

457:  \beq

458:  \frac{\delta\theta}{\theta} = \frac{3 H_0^2}{2c^2} \Omega_{{\rm cl}}

459:  D^{\frac{1}{2}} \mathfrak{D}^{\frac{3}{2}},

460:  \eeq

461: after employing the definition that $Gnm \approx G \langle nm \rangle =

462: \sum_i Gn_i m_i$ (since there is in reality a

463: spread in the mass and number density of galaxies), equals

464: $3H_0^2\Omega_{{\rm cl}}/(8\pi)$, with $\Omega_{{\rm cl}}$ being the

465: {\it total} mass density of clumps as a fraction of the critical density.

466: The implication of this last step is that our final answer

467: is not too sensitive to the details of the mass function of 

468: the clumps, but depends primarily on the

469: total fraction of the mass density

470: $\Omega_{{\rm cl}}$ of matter belonging to all these clumps.

471: 

472: For application to strong lensing observations the calculation has

473: to be divided into two parts.  The contribution to $(\delta\bth)^2$

474: from galaxies in the foreground region between O and the lensing

475: plane is obtained from Eq. (9) with $D$ replaced by $D_l$, as

476:  \beq

477:  (\delta\bth)^2 = \frac{

478:  (4\pi Gm)^2}{c^4} n^2 D_l \mathfrak{D}_l^3 \theta^2.

479:  \eeq

480: where $\mathfrak{D}_l$ is as in Eq. (10) with $D_l$ (or $z_l$) as

481: the upper integration limit.  Next, the contribution from galaxies

482: lying behind the lens and in front of the source is calculated in a

483: likewise manner; in particular $y_{{\rm min}}$ is again from Eq.

484: (12) with the substitution  $D \rightarrow D_{ls}$. The total

485: variance is then given by

486:  \beq

487:  \frac{\delta\theta}{\theta} = \frac{3H_0^2}{2c^2} \Omega_{{\rm

488:  cl}} D_l^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathfrak{D}_l^3 +\frac{D_l}{D_{ls}}

489:  \mathfrak{D}_{ls}^3 \right)^{\frac{1}{2}},

490:  \eeq

491: with

492:  \beq

493:  \mathfrak{D}_{ls}^3 = \int_{D_l}^{D_s} (D_s - x)^2 (1+z)^2 dx =

494:  \frac{c}{H_0} \int_{z_l}^{z_s} \frac{dz (1+z)^2}{E(z)}

495:  \left[D_s - \frac{c}{H_0} \int_0^{z}

496:  \frac{dz'}{E(z')}\right]^2,

497:  \eeq

498: when this variance is also cast as a fractional  deviation.

499: 

500: \clearpage

501: \begin{figure}

502: \begin{center}

503: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=7in]{f1.eps}

504: \end{center}

505: \caption{Two closely spaced light rays skirting a mass

506: clump $m$ with impact parameters $\vec y$ and $\vec y + \delta\vec

507: y$, (taking into account directions).  The rays are deflected at

508: distance $x$ from the observer.}

509: \end{figure}

510: \clearpage

511: 

512: An important (and tacit) assumption underlying Eq. (15) is that

513: $y_{{\rm min}}$ should always remain greater than the size of a

514: galaxy plus its halo before we can defend our neglect of clump

515: evolution along the light path. Between $z=0$ and $z \sim$ 3 where

516: strongly lensed sources are found, evolution causes the halo of a

517: galaxy that is virialized at $z=$ 0 to become less compact at higher

518: $z$, but most of the matter in the present day halo of this galaxy

519: would still have `turned around' (see Eke et al 1996)

520: by\footnote{Thus e.g. in an Einstein-de-Sitter Universe a galaxy

521: just virializing today at $t=t_0$ would have turned around at

522: $t=t_0/2$, or $z \approx$ 0.7, when the (turnaround) radius was

523: $\approx$ 3.3 times larger than the $z=0$ virial radius, i.e. the

524: $t=t_0/2$ sphere that contains one virial mass at $t=t_0$ was a

525: factor of 3.3 greater in radius then, and all the matter within it

526: already belonged to the clump. Most galaxies that exist today would

527: have virialized at $z >$ 0, hence their turnaround epochs were at $z

528: >$ 0.7.  If dark energy is invoked to accelerate the expansion, this

529: would push the turnaround epoch to even higher $z$, because it would

530: take longer for the clump to collapse and virialize. Thus it is

531: reasonable to assume that when one looks back to $z \lesssim$ 3 most

532: galaxies were equally massive, just a few times bigger in size.} $z

533: \sim$ 3. Thus, the light path near the source may legitimately be

534: considered as being affected by the same population of random clumps

535: as that in $z=0$, unless the comoving scale height of the mass

536: distribution of the $z>$ 0 galaxies exceeds $y_{{\rm min}}$.

537: 

538: To be more quantitative, one may start with the observed density of

539: galaxies $n=$ 0.17$h^{-1} =$ 0.06 Mpc$^{-3}$ for $h =$ 0.7 (Ramella

540: et al 1999), to estimate that throughout the 3 Gpc comoving distance

541: between $z =$ 0 and $z =$ 1 a typical light ray is within $y_{{\rm

542: min}} \approx$ 40 kpc from a galaxy, which may be taken as an

543: isothermal sphere of circular velocity $\sim$ 250 km~s$^{-1}$, i.e.

544: the cutoff radius is then 20 kpc (this is actually a `worst case

545: scenario', because most galaxies are dwarfs and have radii smaller

546: than 20 kpc).  Even taking into account the fact that at higher $z$

547: a virialized system was effectively larger by the factor $1+z$, at

548: $z =$ 1 the average comoving galaxy radius then becomes 40 kpc,

549: which is barely equal to $y_{{\rm min}}$.  Thus as mentioned before

550: the passing light generally misses all the galaxies.  If, however,

551: evolution causes the galactic halo to lie beyond the 20$(1+z)$ kpc

552: virial radius in the past, so that $y_{{\rm min}}$ falls within the

553: halo scale height back then, the light rays would have been weakly

554: lensed at that part of their journey, and all shear effects will be

555: reduced from the level calculated above because the mass $m$ that

556: affected the light falls short of the galaxy's total mass.  Such a

557: violation of our present assumption could take place on the far side

558: of the strong lensing plane where $z \gtrsim$ 1, thereby lowering

559: $\delta\theta/\theta$ to a value given only by the first term of Eq.

560: (15).  On the near side of the strong lensing plane evolution is

561: less important because, galaxies generally virialize well ahead of

562: the $z =$ 0 epoch. This theoretical (modeling) result is also

563: corroborated by observations, which indicate that galaxies indeed

564: exhibit no evidence for evolution at least up to redshifts $z

565: \approx$ 1 (Ofek et al 2003).

566: 

567: We close this section with a point of fundamental physics.  Whether

568: the cause be primordial matter or non-linear clumping, the relative

569: deflection between two neighboring rays as calculated above

570: originates from the first order ($C_2$) term in the Taylor expansion

571: of Eq. (16), and is the same order effect as the incoherent time

572: delay of Lieu (2007).  In fact, by means of the light reciprocity

573: theorem it was shown (Lieu \& Mittaz 2007) that the formulae for

574: relative deflection and incoherent delay are inter-convertible, and

575: that the same statement applies to absolute deflection and coherent

576: delay. Although the latter pair are both zeroth order effects they

577: are much harder to observe, as already explained in Lieu (2007).

578: 

579: 

580: 

581: 

582: \section{The shape of distant galaxies; superluminal motion in quasars}

583: 

584: 

585: Here we discuss two astrophysical applications of section 2 in the

586: context of $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, where

587:  \beq

588:  \Omega_m = 0.3,~\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7,~h=0.7,~{\rm

589:  and}~\Omega_{{\rm cl}} = 0.15.

590:  \eeq

591: The setting of $\Omega_{{\rm cl}} =$ 0.15 is fully consistent with

592: the expectation of the standard model, which assumes that half the

593: baryons, hence approximately the same fraction for dark matter also,

594: of the low $z$ Universe resides in galaxies and their halos - mass

595: clumps that may completely be distributed as field galaxies or

596: partly congregated into groups, see Fukugita (2004) and Fukugita et

597: al (1998). In fact, the observed properties of galaxies given in the

598: last section do indeed yield $\Omega_{{\rm cl}} =$ 0.15.

599: 

600: In the first application we consider the appearance of resolved

601: sources at $z \gtrsim$ 1.  According to Eqs. (15) and (17)

602: $\delta\theta/\theta \geq$ 13 \% at $z \geq$ 1.  Since this is

603: caused by shear, viz. the light rays in question have not directly

604: been lensed, there is no magnification (section 1), Hence, if the

605: percentage change in the angular size of the image along one

606: direction has the typical value of +13 \%, the same for the

607: orthogonal direction must be -13 \% (i.e. between the two axes

608: $\delta\theta/\theta$ are correlated) to conserve total solid angle

609: subtended by the image at us.  This means the aspect ratio of the

610: resulting distorted image reaches 26 \% at $z =$ 1, and larger at $z

611: >$ 1. Now most $z \gtrsim$ 1 sources we detect are quasars, i.e.

612: elliptical galaxies to `begin with'.  One could ask if the

613: ellipticity is completely due to shear.  Nevertheless, an aspect

614: ratio $\gtrsim$ 26 \% is quite large, so that even ahead of a

615: statistical analysis at high resolution one could already query if

616: such a level of shear really exists.  Thus, apart from time delay

617: observations, this represents another potential challenge to all the

618: cosmological models, with $\Lambda$CDM in particular.

619: 

620: Next we turn to the problem of quasar superluminal motion, which is

621: inferred from the angular speed at which blobs of ejected material

622: move away from the central AGN engine: by means of the distance to

623: the quasar as derived from its redshift, this angular speed is often

624: converted to a physical speed that exceeds $c$.  When the redshift

625: of the quasar is high, however, caution is needed in the conversion,

626: because if in Eq. (15) $\delta\theta/\theta$ is no longer $\ll 1$,

627: the true angular speed could be substantially larger or smaller than

628: the observed value, depending on which way the apparent motion of

629: the blob is being sheared by the foreground matter.  In fact,

630: $\delta\theta/\theta$ is the percentage error in the superluminal

631: speed (note that because superluminal motion typically involves

632: $\theta \sim$ milli-arcseconds, i.e. the light rays being sheared

633: are very close to each other, the assumptions underlying the

634: validity of Eq. (15) holds exceptionally well).  Thus, the point

635: raised here starts to be relevant for quasars of $z \gtrsim$ 1,

636: where $\delta\theta/\theta \gtrsim$ 13 \% as before.

637: 

638: 

639: As the improvement of sensitivity and resolution may lead to the

640: discovery of quasar superluminal motion at higher redshifts and

641: (likely) with ever increasing jet speeds, examples being Bouchy et

642: al 1998 on 1338+381 at ($z =$ 3.1, $v_{\perp}/c \approx 27/h$) and

643: Frey et al 2002 on 1351-018 at ($z=$ 3.7, $v_{\perp}/c \approx

644: 9.2/h$), it is {\it an expectation, based upon the cosmological

645: effect of shear, that not all of the apparent largeness of

646: $v_{\perp}/c$ is due to relativistic distortions at the source.}  An

647: interesting future pursuit worthy of consideration is to correlate

648: $v_{\perp}/c$ with $z$ to see if there is more scatter at high

649: redshifts.  If so, this could be indicative of the presence of

650: shear.

651: 

652: \section{Why are perfect Einstein rings a challenge to cosmological models?}

653: 

654: Finally, the third application of section 3.  We return to the

655: question raised in section 1, on whether existing data can already

656: be used to {\it clinch} cosmological models on the problem of global

657: geometry.  We hold the view that the most effective test {\it

658: currently} available is still the weak lensing distortion of images

659: of distant sources mentioned in section 1. The new point to be made

660: in this work, however, is that unlike the primordial matter

661: distribution the shear effect of foreground galaxies is severe for

662: $z \gtrsim$ 1 sources, i.e. one should not need such a large sample

663: of background emitters to detect it. Nevertheless, the usual

664: difficulty is in finding circularly symmetric patterns  to start

665: with, so that one knows that any apparent elongation is not an

666: intrinsic property of the object being looked at.

667: 

668: For the above reasons the Einstein rings of well-aligned strong

669: lensing configurations, play a unique role in satisfying our

670: requirement, because the intrinsic shape of such a pattern is

671: circular, or quite nearly so.  While the zeroth order `$C_0$' term,

672: or absolute deflection at constant $\delta\theta =$ by mass

673: inhomogeneities can affect the {\it existence} of an Einstein ring

674: by bringing misaligned source-lens-observer arrangements into

675: alignment (i.e. in a smooth Universe the same Einstein ring seen

676: somewhere in the sky would not even have been observable as the

677: optical components involved are intrinsically non-collinear), the

678: higher order effect of relative deflection ($\delta\theta \sim

679: \theta$) between two neighboring rays calculated in section 2 plays

680: the role of {\it distorting} the ring via cosmic shear, as

681: illustrated in Figure 2.

682: 

683: We therefore focus our attention upon a very recent set of well

684: observed Einstein ring images, starting with the best candidate,

685: J0332-3357, where $z_l =$ 0.986, $z_s =$ 3.773 (Cabanac et al 2005),

686: or $D_l =$ 3.271 Gpc,  $D_s =$ 7.012 Gpc, $D_{ls} = D_s - D_l$ in

687: the flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmology of Eq. (17).  Substituting these

688: numbers into Eq. (15), one obtains $\delta\theta/\theta =$ 25 \% or

689: aspect ratio 50 \%.  It is evident without any further analysis

690: necessary that the J0332-3357 Einstein ring is much too circular to

691: accomodate such a significant ellipticity.

692: 

693: Could the J0332-3357 observation simply be a statistical anomaly?

694: There has recently been a wave\footnote{See the images on

695: \texttt{http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2005/32/image/a/}.}

696: of Einstein ring detections, such as J073728.45+321618.5,

697: J232120.93-093910.2, and J163028.15+452036.2. Together with the more

698: historical B1938+666 (King et al 1997), all these lensing systems

699: have characteristic parameters values $D_l \approx D_{ls} \approx$

700: 3.3 Gpc ($z_l \approx$ 1, $z_s \approx$ in the cosmology of Eq.

701: (17)), i.e. the resulting $\delta\theta/\theta$ of shear is at a

702: comparable level as that for J0332-3357, and can be cast in a

703: convenient form as

704:  \beq

705:  \frac{\delta\theta}{\theta} = 0.23 \left(\frac{h}{0.7}\right)^2

706:  \left(\frac{\Omega_{{\rm cl}}}{0.15}\right)

707:  \left[\left(\frac{D_l}{3.3~{\rm Gpc}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}

708:  \left(\frac{\mathfrak{D}_l^3}{35.7~{\rm Gpc}^3}\right) +

709:  \left(\frac{D_l}{D_{ls}}\right) \left(\frac{\mathfrak{D}_{ls}^3}

710:  {71.3~{\rm Gpc}^3}\right)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}

711:  \eeq

712: (noting that the $D$'s and $\mathfrak{D}$'s are related to each

713: other once a cosmology is chosen).  Thus these images should also be

714: sheared with an aspect ratio similar to that of J0332-3357, yet none

715: of them are observed to exhibit this behavior. As a guide to the

716: eyes, we show in Figure 3 an ellipse with 50 \% aspect ratio. It is

717: fair to say that no continuous and nearly-complete Einstein rings

718: have been found to suffer from so much distortion.

719: 

720: Since our prediction on shear, Eq. (15), lies with the fact that it

721: depends simply on the mean mass density of clumped matter

722: $\Omega_{{\rm cl}}$ (which cannot differ too greatly from

723: $\Omega_{{\rm cl}} \approx \Omega_m/2$ or else structure formation

724: will be in jeopardy, see sections 2 and 3) regardless of e.g. the

725: number density of clumps or the mass distribution of individual

726: clumps, this goes to highlight just how robust the prediction is.

727: Nevertheless,  Eq. (15) has caveats and these were stated in section

728: 2, where we contended that the details on clumping are irrelevant

729: provided the Universe did not have too high a degree of homogeneity

730: at any time during the light propagation.  Specifically a milder

731: shear prediction can be reached by appealing to the increased size

732: of galaxies and groups at higher redshifts as the Universe turned

733: too smooth (section 2).  In a revised prediction which is probably

734: over conservative, one could take into account the shear

735: contribution, in the manner calculated in this and the last section,

736: only from those clumps lying within the foreground Universe between

737: the (strong) lensing plane at $z \approx$ 1 and the observer, i.e.

738: considering the Universe behind the lensing plane as completely

739: homogeneous. According to section 3, the expected aspect ratio of an

740: Einstein ring would then be $\sim$ 26 \%.  Such a distortion is also

741: depicted in Figure 3, to demonstrate that it is still too large to

742: reflect reality - among the aforementioned Einstein rings only

743: J140228.21+632133.5 exhibit a commensurate ellipticity.

744: 

745: \vspace{3mm}

746: 

747: \section{Conclusion: the question of global geometry}

748: 

749: When light propagates through an inhomogeneous Universe there are

750: three possible outcomes: (a) if the rays intercept mass clumps there

751: will be magnification, (b) if they only skirt a clump there there

752: will be shear, (c) if they intercept underdense voids there will be

753: demagnification.  When the mean density is critical, the effects of

754: (a) and (c) cancel statistically, and in this sense one can say that

755: the `mean' global geometry of space is determined solely by

756: $\Omega$. In terms of occurence rate, however, class (a) events are

757: relatively rare, and although (c) are more frequent each event

758: brings about a small change which is hard to measure.  On the other

759: hand, for any bundle of light rays(b) applies to {\it all} clumps

760: with impact parameters less than a Hubble radius, and the sum total

761: of their contributions is a rather large shear which has observable

762: consequences, such as the appearance of high redshift quasars and

763: systems with superluminal motion.

764: 

765: But perhaps most important manifestation of shear is to be found in

766: the apparent shape of the (intrinsically circular) Einstein rings,

767: as these should be stretched into randomly oriented ellipses with an

768: aspect ratio $\gtrsim$ 25 \%.  Observed rings are, however, usually

769: much less affected, so unless the near Universe is much more

770: homogeneous than expected this poses a formidable challenge to

771: cosmological models, viz. if geometry is shaped solely by inflation

772: rather than some physical mechanism that operates at all epochs, why

773: such fluctuation as shear are not seen in the Einstein rings?

774: 

775: 

776: It is therefore not entirely inconceivable that the puzzles of

777: cosmology in general and global geometry in particular lie

778: hand-in-hand. If the latter is solved, we will be much closer to

779: developing the correct model of the former. Current distinction

780: between the concepts of `dark energy' and `dark matter' merely

781: represents our on-going effort in seeking a complete understanding

782: of the missing physical mechanism(s) that bridge the gap between

783: gravity on smaller scales, and expansion of space on Hubble scales.

784: Though at present an improbable scenario, the stability of a certain

785: prescribed geometry might have been enforced by an ongoing tension

786: between two opposing mechanisms, i.e. the gravitational fields of

787: mass clumps are not simply `embedded' phenomena in an otherwise

788: decoupled `ether' of uniform and accelerated expansion.

789: 

790: The author is grateful to Prof. S. -N. Zhang at Tsinghua University,

791: Beijing, for his hospitality during a very pleasant two-month visit in the

792: summer of 2007 when most of the thoughts in this paper were conceived

793: and written.  He 

794: is also indebted to Zhang's PhD student

795: Ally Jiang for her preparation of

796: all three figures.

797: 

798: 

799: \clearpage

800: \begin{figure}

801: \begin{center}

802: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=.6\textwidth]{f2.eps}

803: \end{center}

804: \caption{Two strong lensing images (which could be part

805: of an Einstein ring) are displaced {\it relatively} to each other as

806: their associated light paths are perturbed by external mass clumps

807: lying at distances far larger than the separation between the paths.

808: This relative displacement is also accompanied by an incoherent

809: (random) difference in the arrival times of two photons emitted

810: simultaneously and propagating down the two paths.  In fact, both

811: the relative deflection and incoherent delay are first order

812: effects.  Moreover, they are manifestations of the {\it same}

813: underlying phenomenon, viz. shear.}

814: \end{figure}

815: 

816: \begin{figure}

817: \begin{center}

818: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=7in]{f3.eps}

819: \end{center}

820: \caption{The distortion of a perfect Einstein ring

821: (leftmost circle) by shear.  Clumps lying in the foreground, i.e.

822: between us and the lensing plane, could deform the ring's appearance

823: to become like the first ellipse.  If background clumps are also

824: taken into account and their evolution is neglected, the ring will

825: be stretched into the shape of the second ellipse.  In reality the

826: orientation of the two ellipses is, of course, random.}

827: \end{figure}

828: \clearpage

829: 

830: 

831: \begin{references}

832: 

833: \reference{}

834: Bennett, C.L. et al 2003, ApJ, 148, 1.

835: 

836: \reference{}

837: Bouchy, F., Lestrade, J.-F., Ransom, R.R., Bartel, N., Ratner, M.I., \& Shapiro, I.I. 1998, A \& A, 335, 145.

838: 

839: \reference{}

840: Cabanac, R.A., Valls-Gabaud, D., Lidman, C., Jergen, H. 2005, A \& A, 436, L21.

841: 

842: %\reference{} Cole, S. et al 2005, MNRAS, 362, 505.

843: 

844: \reference{}

845: Chodorowski, M. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 239.

846: 

847: \reference{}

848: Dodelson, S., Shapiro, C., \& White, M. 2006, PRD, 73, 023009.

849: 

850: \reference{}

851: Eke, V.R., Cole, S., \& Frenk, C.S. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 263.

852: 

853: %\reference{}

854: %Fassnacht, C.D., Gal, R.R., Lubin, L.M., McKean, J.P., Squires, G.K.,

855: %Readhead, A.C.S. \\

856: %\indent 2006, ApJ, 642, 30.

857: 

858: \reference{}

859: Frey, S.,  Gurvits, L.I., Lobanov, A.P., Schilizzi, R.T., Kawaguchi, N., \& Gabanyi, K. 2002, Proc. 6th Euorpean VLBI Network Symposium, Bonn, Germany, Eds. Ros, E., Porcas, R.W., Lobanov, A.P., \& Zensus, J.A., p89. (published by MPIfR Bonn).

860: 

861: 

862: %\reference{} Fohlmeister, J. et al 2006, ApJ, submitted

863: %(astro-ph/0607513).

864: 

865: \reference{}

866: Fukugita, M. 2004, in IAU Symp. 220, Dark Matter in Galaxies, ed. S.D. Ryder et al (San Francisco: ASP), 227.

867: 

868: \reference{}

869: Fukugita, M., Hogan, C.J., \& Peebles, P.J.E. 1998, ApJ,503, 518.

870: 

871: %\reference{}

872: %Grogin, N.A. \& Narayan, R. 1996, ApJ, 464, 92.

873: 

874: %\reference{}

875: %Gunn, J.E. 1967a, ApJ, 147, 61.

876: 

877: %\reference{}

878: %Gunn, J.E. 1967b, ApJ, 150, 737.

879: 

880: %\reference{}

881: %Hamana, T., Bartelmann, M., Yoshida, N., Pfrommer, C., 2005,

882: %MNRAS 356, 829.

883: 

884: %\reference{}

885: %Holz, D.E., \& Wald, R.M. 1998, PRD, 58, 3501.

886: 

887: \reference{}

888: Kibble, T.W.B., \& Lieu, R., 2005, ApJ, 632, 718.

889: 

890: \reference{}

891: King, L.J. et al 1998, MNRAS, 295, 411.

892: 

893: %\reference{}

894: %Kochanek, C.S., Morgan, N.D., Falco, E.E., McLeod, B.A., Winn, J.N.\\

895: %\indent Dembicky, J., \& Ketzeback, B. 2006, ApJ, 640, 47.

896: 

897: \reference{}

898: Lewis, A., \& Challinor, A. 2006, PhR, 429, 1.

899: 

900: 

901: \reference{}

902: Lieu, R. \& Mittaz, J.P.D. 2007, ApJ in press (astro-ph/0608587).

903: 

904: \reference{}

905: Lieu, R. 2007, ApJ submitted (astro-ph/0701659).

906: 

907: \reference{}

908: Ofek, E.O., Rix, H. -W., \& Moaz, D. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 639.

909: 

910: %\reference{}

911: %Peacock, J.P. \& Dodds, S.J. 1994,

912: %MNRAS, 267, 1020.

913: 

914: %\reference{}

915: %Peebles, P.J.E. 1974, A \& A, 32, 197.

916: 

917: \reference{}

918: Ramella, M. et al 1999, A \& A, 342, 1.

919: 

920: %\reference{}

921: %Refsdal, S. 1964, MNRAS, 128. 307.

922: 

923: %\reference{}

924: %Saha, P., Coles, J., Maccio', A.V., \&

925: %Williams, L.L.R., 2006, ApJ, 650, L17.

926: 

927: \reference{}

928: Seljak, U. 1996, ApJ, 463, 1.

929: 

930: %\reference{}

931: %Seljak, U. 1994, ApJ, 436, 509.

932: 

933: 

934: %\reference{}

935: %Smith, R.E., Peacock, J. A., Jenkins, A., White, S. D. M., Frenk, C. S.,\\

936: %\indent 2003, MNRAS 341, 1311.

937: 

938: \reference{}

939: Spergel, D. et al 2007, ApJ in press (astro-ph/0603449).

940: 

941: %\reference{}

942: %Surpi, G.C., Harari, D.D., Frieman, J.A. 1996, ApJ, 464, 54.

943: 

944: %\reference{} Yamazaki, R., Ioka, K., Nakamura, T., \& Toma, K. 2005,

945: %Nuovo Cimento C, 28, 463 (astro-ph/0502474).

946: \end{references}

947: 

948: 

949: \end{document}

950: