1:
2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3: % Copyright (c) 2001 The American Physical Society.
4: %
5: % See the REVTeX 4 README file for restrictions and more information.
6: %
7: % TeX'ing this file requires that you have AMS-LaTeX 2.0 installed
8: % as well as the rest of the prerequisites for REVTeX 4.0
9: %
10: % See the REVTeX 4 README file
11: % It also requires running BibTeX. The commands are as follows:
12: %
13: % 1) latex apssamp.tex
14: % 2) bibtex apssamp
15: % 3) latex apssamp.tex
16: % 4) latex apssamp.tex
17: %
18: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
19: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
20: \setlength{\topmargin}{-1.5cm}
21: %
22: %\setlength{\topmargin}{0mm}
23: \input psfig.sty
24: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities
25: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
26: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}
27: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
28: \def \be {\begin{equation}}
29:
30: \def \ee {\end{equation}}
31: \def \bea {\begin{eqnarray}}
32: \def \eea {\end{eqnarray}}
33:
34: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
35: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
36: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
37:
38: \begin{document}
39:
40:
41: \title{Clustering, Angular Size and Dark Energy}
42:
43: \author{R. C. Santos} \email{cliviars@astro.iag.usp.br}
44:
45: \author{J. A. S. Lima} \email{limajas@astro.iag.usp.br}
46: \vskip 0.5cm
47: \affiliation{Departamento de Astronomia, Universidade de S\~ao Paulo, 05508-900 S\~ao
48: Paulo, SP, Brasil}
49:
50:
51: \pacs{Dark energy, cosmic distance, angular size, inhomogeneities}
52: %\keywords{Dark energy, cosmic distance, Inhomogeneity Parameter}
53: \begin{abstract}
54: The influence of dark matter inhomogeneities on the angular size-redshift
55: test is investigated for a large class of flat cosmological models
56: driven by dark energy plus a cold dark matter component (XCDM). The results
57: are presented in two steps. First, the mass inhomogeneities are
58: modeled by a generalized Zeldovich-Kantowski-Dyer-Roeder (ZKDR)
59: distance which is characterized by a smoothness parameter
60: $\alpha(z)$ and a power index $\gamma$, and, second, we provide a
61: statistical analysis to angular size data for a large sample of
62: milliarcsecond compact radio sources.
63: As a general result, we have
64: found that the $\alpha$ parameter is totally unconstrained
65: by this sample of angular diameter data.
66: \end{abstract}
67: \pacs{98.80.-k; 95.36.+x; 95.35.+d}
68: %\keywords{Dark energy, angular diameter distance, inhomogeneity parameter}
69:
70: \maketitle
71:
72: \section{Introduction}
73: \hspace{0.5cm}An impressive convergence of recent astronomical
74: observations are suggesting that our world behaves like a spatially
75: flat scenario dominated by cold dark matter (CDM) plus an exotic
76: component endowed with large negative pressure, usually named dark
77: energy \cite{perm98,Riess,Ef02}. In the framework of general
78: relativity, besides the cosmological constant, there are several
79: candidates for dark energy, among them: a vacuum decaying energy
80: density, or a time varying $\Lambda(t)$ \cite{OzTa87}, the so-called
81: ``X-matter" \cite{turner97}, a relic scalar field \cite{PR03}, and a
82: Chaplygin Gas \cite{kamen}. Some recent review articles discussing
83: the history, interpretations, as well as, the major difficulties of
84: such candidates have also been published in the last few years
85: \cite{review}.
86:
87: In the case of X-matter, for instance, the dark energy component is
88: simply described by an equation of state $p_x = \omega\rho_x$. The
89: case $\omega = -1$ reduces to the cosmological constant, and
90: together the CDM defines the scenario usually referred to as
91: ``cosmic concordance model" ($\Lambda$CDM). The imposition $\omega
92: \geq -1$ is physically motivated by the classical fluid description
93: \cite{HElis82}. However, as discussed by several authors, such an
94: imposition introduces a strong bias in the parameter determination
95: from observational data. In order to take into account this
96: difficulty, superquintessence or phantom dark energy cosmologies
97: have been recently considered where such a condition is relaxed
98: \cite{faraoni02}. In contrast to the usual quintessence model, a
99: decoupled phantom component presents an anomalous evolutionary
100: behavior. For instance, the existence of future curvature
101: singularities, a growth of the energy density with the expansion, or
102: even the possibility of a rip-off of the structure of matter at all
103: scales are theoretically expected (\cite{GonFrei} for a
104: thermodynamic discussion). Although possessing such strange
105: features, the phantom behavior is theoretically allowed by some
106: kinetically scalar field driven cosmology \cite{chi00}, as well as,
107: by brane world models \cite{Shani03}, and, perhaps, more important
108: to the present work, a PhantomCDM cosmology provides a better fit to
109: type Ia Supernovae observations than does the $\Lambda$CDM model
110: \cite{ChouPadm}. Many others observational and theoretical
111: properties phantom driven cosmologies (more generally, of XCDM scenarios)
112: have been successfully
113: confronted to standard results (see, for instance
114: \cite{Alc04,estatist,Kasai,L88,Schneider}).
115:
116: In this context, one of the most important tasks for cosmologists
117: nowadays is to confront different cosmological scenarios driven by
118: cold dark matter (CDM) plus a given dark energy candidate with the
119: available observational data. As widely known, a key quantity for
120: some cosmological tests is the angular distance-redshift relation,
121: $D_{A}(z)$, which for a homogeneous and isotropic background, can
122: readily be derived by using the Einstein field equations for the
123: Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) geometry. From $D_{A}(z)$ one
124: obtains the expression for the angular diameter $\theta (z)$ which can be
125: compared with the available data for
126: different samples of astronomical objects \cite{G2004}.
127:
128: Nevertheless, the real Universe is not perfectly homogeneous, with
129: light beams experiencing mass inhomogeneities along their way.
130: Actually, from small to intermediate scales ($\leq 100$Mpc), there
131: is a lot of structure in form of voids, clumps and clusters which is
132: probed by the propagating light \cite{Ogu07}. Since the perturbed
133: metric is unknown, an interesting possibility to account for such an
134: effect is to introduce the smoothness parameter $\alpha$ which is a
135: phenomenological representation of the magnification effects
136: experienced by the light beam. From general grounds, one expects a
137: redshift dependence of $\alpha$ since the degree of smoothness for
138: the pressureless matter is supposed to be a time varying quantity
139: \cite{Kasai,L88}. When $\alpha = 1$ (filled beam), the homogeneous FRW
140: case is fully recovered; $\alpha < 1$ stands for a defocusing effect
141: while $\alpha = 0$ represents a totally clumped universe (empty
142: beam). The distance relation that takes these mass inhomogeneities
143: into account was discussed by Zeldovich \cite{Zeld} followed by
144: Kantowski \cite{Kant}, although a clear-cut application for
145: cosmology was given only in 1972 by Dyer and Roeder \cite{Dyer}.
146: Later on, by considering a perturbed Friedmannian model
147: Tomita \cite{tomita98} performed N-body simulations with
148: the CDM spectrum in order to determine the distribution for $\alpha$
149: (see also Ref. \cite{tomita99} for a more general analysis involving distances in perturbed models). Many
150: references may also be found in the textbook by Schneider, Ehlers and
151: Falco, \cite{SEF}, as well as, in Kantowski \cite{K98,K00,K03}.
152:
153: Many studies involving
154: the ZKDR distances in dark energy models have been published in the
155: literature.
156: Analytical expressions for a general background in the
157: empty beam approximation ($\alpha = 0$) were derived by Sereno {\it
158: et al.} \cite{SPS01}. By assuming that both dominant components may
159: be clustered they also discussed how the critical redshift, i.e., the
160: value of $z$ for which $D_{A}(z)$ is a maximum (or $\Theta(z)$
161: minimum), and compared to the homogeneous background results as
162: given by Lima and Alcaniz \cite{ALDA00}, and, further discussed by
163: Lewis and Ibata \cite{Lew02}, and Ara\'ujo and Stoeger \cite{Ara07}.
164: More recently, Demianski {\it et al.} \cite{Dem03}, derived an
165: useful analytical approximate solution for a clumped concordance
166: model ($\Lambda$CDM) valid on the interval $0 \leq z \leq 10$.
167: Additional studies on this subject involving time delay
168: (Lewis and Ibata \cite{Lew02}; Giovi and Amendola \cite{Gio01}), gravitational
169: lensing (Kochanek; Kochanek and Schechter \cite{koc02}) or even
170: accelerated models driven by particle creation have also been
171: considered \cite{CdS04,campo}.
172:
173: Although carefully investigated in many of their theoretical and
174: observational aspects, an overview in the literature shows that a
175: quantitative analysis on the influence of dark energy in connection
176: with inhomogeneities present in the observed universe still remains
177: to be studied. Analytical expression for a general applied for the
178: $\theta(z)$ statistics with basis on a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with
179: constant $\alpha$ \cite{AL041}. It was concluded that the best fit
180: model occurs at $\Omega_M = 0.2$ and $\alpha = 0.8$ whether the
181: characteristic angular size $\l$ of the compact radio sources is
182: marginalized. More recently, the smoothness $\alpha$ parameter
183: was constrained through a statistical
184: analysis involving Supernovae Ia data \cite{SLC07}. A $\chi^{2}$-analysis based on the
185: 182 SNe Ia data of Riess {\it et al.} \cite{Riess} constrained the pair of parameters
186: ($\Omega_M,\alpha$) to be $\Omega_M= 0.33^{+0.09}_{-0.07}$ and $\alpha\geq 0.42$ ($2\sigma$).
187: Such an analysis has also been carried out in the framework of a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology.
188:
189: In this paper, we focus our attention on X-matter cosmologies with
190: special emphasis to phantom models ($\omega < -1$) by taking into
191: account the presence of a clustered cold dark matter. The mass
192: inhomogeneities will be described by the ZKDR distance characterized
193: by a smoothness parameter $\alpha (z)$ which depends on a positive
194: power index $\gamma$. The main objective is to provide a statistical
195: analysis to angular size data from a large sample of milliarcsecond
196: compact radio sources \cite{G99} distributed over a wide range of redshifts
197: ($0.011 \leq z \leq 4.72$) whose distance is defined by the ZKDR
198: equation. As an extra bonus, it will be shown that a pure CDM model
199: ($\Omega_M = 1$) is not compatible with these data even for the
200: empty beam approximation ($\alpha = 0$).
201:
202: The manuscript is organized
203: as follows. In section 2 we outline the derivation of the
204: ZKDR equation for a X-CDM cosmology. We also
205: provide some arguments (see Appendix) for a locally
206: nonhomogeneous Universe where
207: the homogeneous contribution of the dark matter obeys
208: the relation $\rho_h = \alpha \rho_{o}(\rho_M/\rho_{o})^{\gamma}$ where $\gamma$
209: is a positive number, $\rho_M$ is the average matter density and $\rho_o$ its
210: present value. In section 3 we analyze the constraints on the
211: free parameters $\alpha$ and $\Omega_M$ from angular size data.
212: We end the paper
213: by summarizing the main results in section 4.
214:
215: \section{The Extended ZKDR Equation}
216: %\subsection{General considerations}
217:
218: Let us now consider a flat FRW geometry ($c=1$)
219: \begin{equation}
220: ds^2 \ = \ dt^2 \ - \ R^2(t)\left(dr^2 + r^2d\theta^{2} +
221: r^{2}\sin^{2}\theta\,d\phi^{2}\right),
222: \end{equation}
223: where $R(t)$ is the scale factor. Such a spacetime is supported by
224: the pressureless CDM fluid plus a X-matter component of densities
225: $\rho_M$ and $\rho_x$, respectively. Hence, the total energy
226: momentum tensor, $T^{\mu\nu} = {T^{\mu\nu}}_{({M})} +
227: {T^{\mu\nu}}_{({x})}$, can be written as
228: \begin{equation}\label{EMT}
229: T^{\mu\nu} = [\rho_{M} + (1 + \omega)\rho_{x}] U^{\mu}U^{\nu} -
230: \omega\rho_{x} g^{\mu\nu},
231: \end{equation}
232: where $U^{\mu}=\delta^{\mu}_o$ is the hydrodynamics 4-velocity of
233: the comoving volume elements. In this framework, the independent components of the Einstein Field Equations (EFE)
234: \begin{equation}\label{EFE}
235: G^{\mu\nu}\equiv R^{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}R = 8\pi
236: GT^{\mu\nu},
237: \end{equation}
238: take the following forms:
239: \begin{equation}\label{FRW1}
240: ({\dot{R} \over R})^{2} = H_{o}^{2}\left[\Omega_{\rm{M}}({R_{o}
241: \over R})^{3} + \Omega_x({R_{o} \over R})^{3(1 + \omega)}\right] ,
242: \end{equation}
243: \begin{equation}\label{FRW2}
244: {\ddot{R} \over R} = -{1 \over
245: 2}H_{o}^{2}\left[\Omega_{\rm{M}}({R_{o} \over R})^{3} + (3\omega +
246: 1)\Omega_x({R_{o} \over R})^{3(1 + \omega)}\right] ,
247: \end{equation}
248: where an overdot denotes derivative with respect to time and $H_{o}
249: = 100h {\rm{Kms^{-1}Mpc^{-1}}}$ is the Hubble parameter. By the
250: flat condition, $\Omega_x = 1-\Omega_{\rm{M}}$, is the present day
251: dark energy density parameter. As one may check from (2)-(5), the
252: case $\omega = - 1$ describes effectively the favored ``cosmic
253: concordance model" ($\Lambda$CDM).
254:
255: On the other hand, in the framework of a comformally flat FRW
256: metric, the optical scalar equation in the geometric optics
257: approximation reads (Optical shear neglected) \cite{Sachs61}
258:
259: \begin{eqnarray}\label{sachs}
260: {\sqrt{A}}'' +\frac{1}{2}R_{\mu \nu}k^{\mu}k^{\nu} \sqrt{A}=0,
261: \end{eqnarray}
262: where $A$ is the beam cross sectional area, plicas means derivative
263: with respect to the affine parameter describing the null geodesics,
264: and $k^{\mu}$ is a 4-vector tangent to the photon trajectory whose
265: divergence determines the optical scalar expansion
266: \cite{Kasai,Gio01,SPS01}. The circular frequency of the light ray as
267: seen by the observer with 4-velocity $U^{\alpha}$ is $\omega=
268: U^{\alpha}k_{\alpha}$, while the angular diameter distance, $D_A$,
269: is proportional to $\sqrt A$ \cite{SEF}.
270:
271:
272: As widely known, there is no an acceptable averaging procedure for
273: smoothing out local inhomogeneities. After Dyer and Roeder
274: \cite{Dyer}, it is usual to introduce a phenomenological parameter,
275: $\alpha (z)=1-{\rho_{cl}\over <\rho_M>}$, called the ``smoothness"
276: parameter. For each value of $z$, such a parameter quantifies the
277: portion of matter in clumps ($\rho_{cl}$) relative to the amount of
278: background matter which is uniformly distributed ($\rho_M$). As a
279: matter of fact, such authors examined only the case for constant
280: $\alpha$, however, the basic consequence of the structure formation
281: process is that it must be a function of the redshift. Combining
282: equations (2), (3) and (6), after a straightforward but lengthy
283: algebra one finds that the angular diameter distance, $D_{A}(z)$,
284: obeys the following differential equation
285: \begin{equation}\label{angdiamalpha}
286: %\begin{array}{c}
287: \left( 1+z\right) ^{2}{\cal{F}}
288: \frac{d^{2}D_A}{dz^{2}} + \left( 1+z\right) {\cal{G}}
289: \frac{dD_A}{dz} + {\cal{H}} D_A=0,
290: %\end{array}
291: \end{equation}
292: which satisfies the boundary conditions:
293: \begin{equation}
294: \left\{
295: \begin{array}{c}
296: D_A\left( 0\right) =0, \\
297: \\
298: \frac{dD_A}{dz}|_{0}=1.
299: \end{array}
300: \right.
301: \end{equation}
302: The functions ${\cal{F}}$, ${\cal{G}}$ and ${\cal{H}}$ in equation
303: (7) read
304: \begin{eqnarray}
305: {\cal{F}}& =& \Omega_M (1+z)^3 + (1-\Omega_M)(1+z)^{3(\omega +1
306: )}\nonumber \\ \nonumber \\ {\cal{G}} &=& \frac{7}{2}\Omega_M
307: (1+z)^3 +\frac{3\omega +7}{2} (1-\Omega_M )(1+z)^{3(\omega
308: +1)}\nonumber \\ \nonumber
309: \\ {\cal{H}} &=& \frac{3\alpha(z)}{2}\Omega_M (1+z)^{3} +
310: \nonumber\\ && +\frac{3(\omega+1)}{2} (1-\Omega_M)(1+z)^{3(\omega +
311: 1)}.
312: \end{eqnarray}
313: The smoothness parameter $\alpha(z)$, appearing in the expression of
314: ${\cal{H}}$, assumes the form below (see Appendix A for a detailed
315: discussion)
316: \begin{equation}\label{alpha}
317: \alpha (z) = \frac{\beta_o(1+z)^{3\gamma}}{1 +
318: \beta_o(1+z)^{3\gamma}},
319: \end{equation}
320: where $\beta_o$ and $\gamma$ are constants. Note that the fraction
321: $\alpha_o = \beta_o/(1 + \beta_o)$ is the present day value of
322: $\alpha (z)$. In Fig. 1 we show the general behavior of $\alpha(z)$
323: for some selected values of $\beta_o$ and $\gamma$.
324:
325: \begin{figure}[t]
326: \vspace{.2in}
327: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f1.eps,width=3.2truein,height=3.2truein}
328: \hskip 0.1in} \caption{The smoothness parameter as a function of the
329: redshift for some selected values of $\beta_o$ and $\gamma$. All
330: curves approach the filled beam result ($\alpha = 1$) at high
331: redshifts regardless of the values of $\beta_o$ and $\gamma$. Note
332: that $\beta_o$ determines $\alpha_o = \alpha(z=0)$. For a given
333: $\beta_o$ the curves starts at the same point but the rate
334: approaching unit (filled beam) depends on the $\gamma$ parameter.}
335: \end{figure}
336:
337:
338: At this point, it is interesting to compare Eq. (7) together the
339: subsidiary definitions (8)-(10) with other treatments appearing in
340: the literature. For $\gamma = 0$ (constant $\alpha$) and $\omega =
341: -1$ ($\Lambda$CDM) it reduces to Eq. (2) as given by Alcaniz {\it et
342: al.} \cite{AL041}. In fact, for $\omega = -1$ the function
343: ${\cal{H}}$ is given by ${\cal{H}} = \frac{3\alpha}{2}\Omega_M
344: (1+z)^{3}$. Further, recalling the existence of a simple
345: relation between the luminosity distance, and the
346: angular-diameter distance (from Etherington principle \cite{ETHER33},
347: $D_L = (1+z)^2 D_A$), it is easy to see that Eq. (3) of Santos {\it et al}. \cite{SLC07} is recovered. A more general expression for $\Lambda$CDM model (by
348: including the curvature term) has been derived by Demianski {\it et
349: al.} \cite{Dem03}. As one may check, for $\alpha$ constant, by identifying $\omega \equiv
350: m/3 -1$, our Eq. (7) is exactly Eq.(10) as presented by Giovi and
351: Amendola \cite{Gio01} in their time delay studies (see also Eq. (2)
352: of Sereno {\it et al.} \cite{SPS02}). Different from other approaches appearing in the literature (see for instance, Refs. \cite{tomita98,tomita99}), we stress that in this paper the $\alpha$ parameter is always smaller than unity. In addition, the $\alpha$ parameter
353: may also depend on the direction along the line of sight (for a
354: discussion of such effects see Linder \cite{L88}, Sereno {\it et al.} \cite{SPS02},
355: Wang \cite{wan99}).
356:
357:
358: Let us now discuss the integration of the ZKDR equation with
359: emphasis in the so-called phantom dark energy model ($\omega < -1$).
360: In what follows, assuming that $\omega$ is a constant, we have
361: applied for all graphics a simple Runge-Kutta scheme (see, for
362: instance, the rksuite package from www.netlib.org).
363:
364: In Figure 2 one can see how the equation of state parameter,
365: $\omega$, affects the angular diameter distance. For fixed values
366: of $\Omega_M = 0.3$, $\beta_o = 0.5$ and $\gamma = 0$, all the
367: distances increase with the redshift when $\omega$ diminishes and
368: enters in the phantom regime ($\omega<-1$). For comparison we have
369: also plotted the case for $\Lambda$CDM cosmology ($\omega=-1$).
370:
371: \begin{figure}[t]
372: \vspace{.2in}
373: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f2.eps,width=3.2truein,height=3.2truein}
374: \hskip 0.1in}\caption{Angular diameter distance for a flat FRW
375: phantom cosmology. The curves display the effect of the equation of
376: state parameter for $\beta_o=0.5$ and $\gamma = 0$. The thick curve
377: corresponds to the $\Lambda$CDM model. Note that for a given
378: redshift, the distances always increase for $\omega$ beyond the
379: phantom divide line ($\omega < -1$).}
380: \end{figure}
381:
382: In Fig. 3 we show the effect of the $\gamma$ parameter on the
383: angular diameter distance for a specific phantom cosmology with
384: $\omega = -1.3$, as requested by some recent analyzes of Supernovae
385: data \cite{Riess}. For this plot we have considered $\beta_o=0.5$.
386: As shown in Appendix A, $\beta_o = (\rho_h/\rho_{cl})_{z=0}$, is the
387: present ratio between the homogeneous ($\rho_h$) and the clumped
388: ($\rho_{cl}$) fractions. It was fixed in such a way that $\alpha_o$
389: assumes the value $0.33$. Until redshifts of the order of 2, the
390: distance grows for smaller values of $\gamma$, and after that, it
391: decreases following nearly the same behavior.
392:
393: In Fig. 4 we display the influence of the $\beta_o$ parameter on the
394: angular diameter distance for two distinct sets of $\gamma$ values.
395: The cosmological framework is defined $\Omega_{M} = 0.3$ and the
396: same equation of state parameter $\omega = -1.3$ (phantom
397: cosmology). For each branch (a subset of 3 curves with fixed
398: $\gamma$) the distance increases for smaller values of $\beta_o$, as
399: should be expected.
400:
401: \section{ZKDR distance and Angular Size Statistics}
402:
403: As we have seen, in order to apply the angular diameter distance to
404: a more realistic description of the universe it is necessary to take
405: into account local inhomogeneities in the distribution of matter.
406: Similarly, such a statement remains true for any cosmological test
407: involving angular diameter distances, as for instance, measurements
408: of angular size, $\theta(z)$, of distant objects. Thus, instead of
409: the standard FRW homogeneous diameter distance one must consider the
410: solutions of the ZKDR equation.
411:
412:
413: \begin{figure}[t]
414: \vspace{.2in}
415: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f3.eps,width=3.2truein,height=3.2truein}
416: \hskip 0.1in} \caption{Effects of the $\gamma$ parameter on the
417: angular diameter distance. For all curves we fixed $\omega=-1.3$,
418: $\beta_o = 0.5$ and $\Omega_M=0.3$. Note that the distances increase
419: for smaller values of $\gamma$.}
420: \end{figure}
421:
422: \begin{figure}[t]
423: \vspace{.2in}
424: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f4.eps,width=3.2truein,height=3.2truein}
425: \hskip 0.1in} \caption{Influence of the $\beta_o$ parameter on the
426: angular diameter distance for $\Omega_M=0.3$ and $\omega=-1.3$. The
427: curves are separated in two sets corresponding to the values of
428: $\gamma=0.5, 0.9$ as indicated in the box. As expected, both sets
429: present the same behavior at low redshifts.}
430: \end{figure}
431: Here we are concerned with angular diameters of light sources
432: described as rigid rods and not isophotal diameters. In the FRW
433: metric, the angular size of a light source of proper length ${\l}$
434: (assumed free of evolutionary effects) and located at redshift $z$
435: can be written as
436: \begin{equation}
437: \theta(z)= \frac{\ell}{{D_{A}}(z)},
438: \end{equation}
439: where $\ell = 100{\l}$h is the angular size scale expressed in
440: milliarcsecond (mas) while ${\l}$ is measured in parsecs for compact
441: radio sources (see below).
442:
443: Let us now discuss the constraints from angular size measurements
444: of high $z$ objects on the cosmological parameters. The present
445: analysis is based on the angular size data for milliarcsecond
446: compact radio sources compiled by Gurvits {\it et al.} \cite{G99} (see also \cite{G2004} for applications to the unclustered FRW case).
447: This sample is composed by 145 sources at low and high redshifts
448: ($0.011 \leq z \leq 4.72$) distributed into 12 bins with 12-13
449: sources per bin (for more details see Gurvits {\it et al.}
450: \cite{G99}). In Figure 5 we show the binned data of the median
451: angular size plotted as a function of redshift $z$ to the case with
452: $\gamma=0$ and some selected values of $\Omega_M$ and $\alpha_o =
453: \beta_o/(1 - \beta_o)$ = constant. As can be seen there, for a given
454: value of $\Omega_M$ the corresponding curve is slightly modified for
455: different values of the smoothness parameter $\alpha$.
456:
457: Now, in order to constrain the cosmic parameters, we first fix the
458: central value of the Hubble parameter obtained by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) key
459: project $H_o = 72 \pm 8$ ${\rm{km.s^{-1}.Mpc^{-1}}}$ (Freedman {\it
460: et al.} \cite{F01}). Nowadays, this HST result has been confirmed by many different classes of
461: estimators like the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect and the ages of old high redshifts galaxies \cite{CML}. This value is also in accordance
462: with the 3 years release of the WMAP team \cite{Ef02}, however, it is greater than the recent
463: determination by Sandage and collaborators \cite{San06}. Following
464: standard lines, the confidence regions are constructed through a
465: $\chi^{2}$ minimization
466: \begin{equation}
467: \chi^{2}(l, \omega, \alpha) =
468: \sum_{i=1}^{12}{\frac{\left[\theta(z_{i}, \l, \omega, \alpha) -
469: \theta_{oi}\right]^{2}}{\sigma_{i}^{2}}},
470: \end{equation}
471: where $\theta(z_{i}$, $\l$, $\omega$, $\alpha)$ is defined from Eq.
472: (7) and $\theta_{oi}$ are the observed values of the angular size
473: with errors $\sigma_{i}$ of the $i$th bin in the sample. The
474: confidence regions are defined by the conventional two-parameters
475: $\chi^{2}$ levels. In this analysis, the intrinsic length $\l$, is
476: considered a kind of ``nuisance" parameter, and, as such, we have
477: also marginalized over it.
478: \begin{figure}[t]
479: \vspace{.2in}
480: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f5.eps,width=3.2truein,height=3.2truein}
481: \hskip 0.1in} \caption{Angular size versus redshift according to the
482: ZKDR distance. Curves for $\Omega_M=0.3$, $\gamma=0$ and different
483: values of $\omega$ are shown. The data points correspond to 145
484: compact radio sources binned into 12 bins (Gurvits {\it et al.}
485: \cite{G99}). For comparison the filled beam $\Lambda$CDM has been
486: included.}
487: \end{figure}
488:
489:
490: \begin{figure}[t]
491: \vspace{.2in}
492: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f6.eps,width=3.2truein,height=3.2truein}
493: \hskip 0.1in} \caption{Confidence regions in the $\omega - \alpha$
494: plane according to the sample of angular size data by Gurvits {\it
495: et al.} \cite{G99} and fixed $\Omega_M = 0.263$ as shown in panel.
496: The confidence levels of the contours are indicated. The point ``x"
497: marks the best fit values, $\omega = -1.03$ and $\alpha = 0.90$.}
498: \end{figure}
499:
500:
501:
502: \begin{figure}[t]
503: \vspace{.2in}
504: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f7.eps,width=3.2truein,height=3.2truein}
505: \hskip 0.1in} \caption{Confidence regions in the $\Omega_M-\alpha$
506: plane according to the sample of angular size data by Gurvits {\it
507: et al.} \cite{G99}. For a phantom cosmology with $\omega=-1.023$,
508: the confidence levels of the contours are indicated. As in Fig. 6,
509: the ``x" also points to the best fit values shown in the panel.}
510: \end{figure}
511: In Fig. 6 we show confidence regions in the $\omega - \alpha$ plane
512: fixing $\Omega_{M} = 0.263$, and assuming a Gaussian prior on the
513: $\omega$ parameter, i.e., $\omega = -1 \pm 0.3$ (in order to
514: accelerate the universe). The ``$\times$" indicates the best fit
515: model that occurs at $\omega = -1.03 $ and $\alpha \simeq 0.9$.
516:
517: In Fig. 7 the confidence regions are shown in the $\Omega_M-\alpha$
518: plane. We have now assumed a Gaussian prior on $\Omega_{M}$, i.e.,
519: $\Omega_{M} = 0.3 \pm 0.1$ from the large scale structure. From
520: Figs. 6 and 7, it is also perceptible that while the parameters
521: $\omega$ and $\Omega_M$ are strongly restricted, the entire interval
522: of $\alpha$ is still allowed. This shows the impossibility of
523: tightly constraining the smoothness parameter $\alpha$ with the
524: current angular size data. This result is in good agreement with the
525: one found by Lima and Alcaniz \cite{OzTa87} where the same data set
526: were used to investigate constraints on quintessence scenarios in
527: homogeneous background, and is also in line with the one obtained by
528: Barber et al. \cite{Barb00} who argued in favor of $\alpha_o =
529: \alpha(z=0)$ near unity (see also Alcaniz, Lima and Silva
530: \cite{AL041} for constraints on a clustered $\Lambda$CDM model).
531:
532: \section{Summary and Concluding Remarks}
533:
534: All cosmological distances must be notably modified whether the
535: space-time is filled by a smooth dark energy component with negative
536: pressure plus a clustered dark matter. Here we have addressed the
537: question of how the angular diameter distance of extragalactic
538: objects are modified by assuming a slightly inhomogeneous universe.
539: The present study complements our previous results \cite{G2004} by considering that the
540: inhomogeneities can be described by the
541: Zeldovich-Kantowski-Dyer-Roeder distance (in this connection see
542: also, Giovi and Amendola \cite{Gio01}; Lewis and Ibata \cite{Lew02};
543: Sereno {\it et al.} \cite{SPS02}; Demianski {\it et al.}
544: \cite{Dem03}). The dark energy component was described by the
545: equation of state $p_x = \omega \rho_x$. A special emphasis was
546: given to the case of phantom cosmology ($\omega < -1$) when the
547: dominant energy condition is violated. The effects of the local
548: clustered distribution of dark matter have been described by the
549: ``smoothness" phenomenological parameter $\alpha (z)$, and a simple
550: argument for its functional redshift dependence was given in the
551: Appendix A (see also Figure 1).
552:
553: The influence of the dark energy component was quantified by
554: considering the angular diameters for sample of milliarcsecond radio
555: sources (Fig. 5) as described by Gurvits {\it et al.} \cite{G99}.
556: By marginalizing over the characteristic angular size $l$, fixing $\Omega_M=0.263$, and
557: assuming a Gaussian prior on the EOS parameter, i.e.,
558: $\omega = -1 \pm 0.3$, the best fit
559: model occurs at $\omega =-1.03$ and $\alpha = 0.9$. This phantom
560: model coincides with the central value recently determined by the
561: Supernova Legacy Survey (Astier {\it et. al.} \cite{Ef02}). On the
562: other hand, fixing $\omega = -1.023$ and assuming a Gaussian prior for
563: $\Omega_{M}$, that is, $\Omega_{M} = 0.3 \pm 0.1$, we obtained the
564: best fit values ($ \Omega_{M} = 0.29$, $\alpha = 0.9$).
565:
566: Finally, in order to improve the present
567: results, a statistical study is necessary for determining the intrinsic length
568: of the compact radio sources. Further, unlike to what happens with SNe data \cite{SLC07},
569: the angular diameter sample of compact radio sources of Gurvits et al.
570: \cite{G99} does not provide useful constraints on the $\alpha$ parameter (see Figs. 6 e 7).
571: Naturally, these results reinforce the interest for measurements of angular size from
572: compact radio sources at intermediary and high redshifts in order to constrain the $\alpha$
573: parameter with basis on the ZKDR distance.
574: \appendix
575: \section{On the redshift dependence of $\alpha(z)$}
576:
577: In this Appendix we discuss the functional redshift dependence of
578: the smoothness parameter, $\alpha(z)$, adopted in this work. By
579: definition
580: \begin{equation}
581: \alpha(z) = 1 - \frac{\rho_{cl}(z)}{\rho_M(z)},
582: \end{equation}
583: where $\rho_{cl}$ denotes the clumped fraction of the total matter
584: density, $\rho_M$, present in the considered FRW type Universe. This
585: means that the ratio between the homogeneous ($\rho_h$) and the
586: clumped fraction can be written as $\rho_h/\rho_{cl} = \alpha(z)/[1-
587: \alpha(z)]$. How this ratio depends on the redshift? In this concern,
588: we first remember that $\alpha(z)$ lies on the interval [0,1].
589: Secondly, in virtue of the structure formation process, one expects
590: that the degree of homogeneity must increase for higher redshifts,
591: or equivalently, the clumped fraction should be asymptotically
592: vanishing at early times, say, for $z \geq 100$. This means that
593: $\alpha (z) \rightarrow 1$ at high z. On the other hand, $\alpha$ must be zero
594: for a completely clustered matter which is disproved at low redshifts by the
595: data of galaxy clusters \cite{Ef02}. It thus follows that at present ($z=0$), the related
596: fraction assume an intermediate value, say, $\beta_o$. In
597: addition, it is also natural to suppose that the redshift dependence
598: of the total matter density, $\rho_M$, must play an important role
599: in the evolution of their fractions. In this way, for the sake of
600: generality, we will assume a power law
601: \begin{equation}
602: \frac{ \rho_h}{\rho_{cl}} \equiv \frac{\alpha(z)}{1- \alpha(z)} =
603: \beta_o (\frac{\rho_M}{\rho_o})^{\gamma}.
604: \end{equation}
605: where $\beta_o = (\rho_h/\rho_{cl})_{z=0}$ and $\gamma$ are
606: dimensionless numbers. Finally, inserting $\rho_M (z)$, and solving
607: for $\alpha(z)$ we obtain:
608: \begin{equation}
609: \alpha(z) = \frac{\beta_o(1 + z)^{3\gamma}}{1 + \beta_o(1 +
610: z)^{3\gamma}},
611: \end{equation}
612: which is the expression adopted in this work (see Eq. (\ref{alpha})).
613:
614: As one may check, for positive values of $\gamma$, the smoothness
615: function (A3) has all the physically desirable properties above
616: discussed. In particular, the limit for high values of $z$ does not
617: depend on the values of $\beta_o$ and $\gamma$ (both of the order of
618: unity). Note also that if the clumped and homogeneous portions are
619: contributing equally at present ($\beta_o=1$), we see that
620: $\alpha(z=0) = 1/2$ regardless of the value of $\gamma$. Figure 1
621: display the general behavior of $\alpha(z)$ with the redshift for
622: different choices of $\beta_o$ and $\gamma$. The above functional
623: dependence should be compared with the other ones discussed in the
624: literature (see, for instance, \cite{Kasai,L88,campo} and Refs. therein).
625: One of the most interesting features of (A3) is
626: that its validity is not restricted to a given redshift interval.
627:
628:
629:
630: \begin{acknowledgements}
631: The authors would like to thank A. Guimar\~aes and J. V. Cunha for
632: helpful discussions. RCS thanks CNPq No. 15.0293/2007-0 and JASL
633: thanks CNPq and FAPESP grant No. 04/13668.
634: \end{acknowledgements}
635:
636: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
637:
638: \bibitem{perm98} S. Perlmutter {\it et al.}, Nature {\bf{ 391}}, 51 (1998); S. Perlmutter {\it et al.}, Astrophys. J. {\bf{517}}, 565 (1999).
639:
640: \bibitem{Riess} A. G. Riess {\it et al.}, Astron. J. {\bf{116}}, 1009
641: (1998); A. G. Riess {\it et al.}, ApJ {\bf{659}}, 98 (2007).
642:
643: \bibitem{Ef02} G. Efstathiou {\it et. al.}, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. {\bf 330}, L29 (2002); S. W. Allen {\it et al.}, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. {\bf 353},
644: 457 (2004); P. Astier {\it et al.}, Astron. and Astrophys.
645: {\bf 447}, 31 (2006); D. N. Spergel et al. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. {\bf 170}, 377
646: (2007).
647:
648: \bibitem{OzTa87} M. \"{O}zer and M. O. Taha, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 171}, 363 (1986); {\bf ibdem}, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 287},
649: 776 (1987); K. Freese, F. C. Adams, J. A. Frieman and E. Mottola, Nucl. Phys. B
650: {\bf 287}, 797 {1987}; W. Chen and Y-S. Wu, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 41}, 695 (1990); D. Pav\'{o}n, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 43}, 375 (1991); J. C. Carvalho, J. A. S. Lima and I.
651: Waga, Phys. Rev. D {\bf{46}}, 2404 (1992); I. Waga, Astrophys. J. {\bf
652: 414}, 436 (1993); J. A. S. Lima and J. C. Carvalho, Gen. Rel. Grav. {\bf 26}, 909 (1994); J. A. S. Lima and J. M. F. Maia, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 49}, 5597 (1994); A. I. Arbab and A. M. M. Abdel-Rahman, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 50}, 7725 (1994); J. A. S. Lima and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 53},
653: 4280 (1996), [astro-ph/9508049]; J. A. S. Lima, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 54}, 2571 (1996), [gr-qc/9605055]; L. F. B. Torres and I. Waga, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. {\bf 279}, 712 (1996); J. M. Overduin and F. I. Cooperstock, Phys. Rev. D {\bf
654: 58}, 043506 (1998); J. M. F. Maia and J. A. S. Lima, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60}, 101301(R) (1999); A. S. Al-Rawaf, Mod. Phys. Lett. A {\bf 14},
655: 633 (2001); R. G. Vishwakarma, Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 18}, 1159 (2001); ,
656: [astro-ph/9910568]; J. M. F. Maia and J. A. S. Lima, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 083513 (2002), [astro-ph/0112091]; J. V. Cunha, J. S. Alcaniz and J. A. S. Lima, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66}, 023520 (2002), [astro-ph/0202260]; M. K. Mak, J.A. Belinchon, and T. Harko, IJMPD {\bf 11}, 1265 (2002); M. R. Mbonye, IJMPA {\bf 18}, 811 (2003); J. V. Cunha and R. C. Santos, IJMP D {\bf 13}, 1321 (2004),[astro-ph/0402169]; S. Carneiro and J. A. S. Lima, IJMPA {\bf 20} 2465 (2005), [gr-qc/0405141]; I. L. Shapiro, J. Sola and H. Stefancic, JCAP {\bf{0501}}, 012 (2005); E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov and P. Wang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf{71}}, 103504 (2005); J. S. Alcaniz and J. A. S. Lima, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 72}, 063516 (2005), [astro-ph/0507372]; A. Friaca, J. S. Alcaniz and J. A. S. Lima, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. {\bf 362}, 1295 (2005), [astro-ph/0504031]; F. E. M. Costa, J. S.
657: Alcaniz and J. M. F. Maia, [arXiv:0708.3800] (2007).
658:
659: \bibitem{turner97} M. S. Turner and M. White, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, R4439 (1997); T. Chiba, N. Sugiyama and T. Nakamura, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.
660: {\bf 289}, L5 (1997); J. S. Alcaniz and J. A. S. Lima, Astrophys.
661: J. {\bf 521}, L87 (1999),[astro-ph/9902298]; {\bf ibdem} Astrophys. J. {\bf 550},
662: L133 (2001), [astro-ph/0101544]; J. A. S. Lima and J. S. Alcaniz, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. {\bf 317}, 893 (2000), [astro-ph/0005441];
663: J. A. S. Lima, J. V. Cunha and J. S. Alcaniz, Phys.
664: Rev. D {\bf 68}, 023510 (2003), [astro-ph/0303388]; M. P. D\c{a}browski, [arXiv:gr-qc/0701057] (2007).
665: \bibitem{PR03} P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 75},
666: 559 (2003); J. S. Alcaniz, J. A. S. Lima and J. V. Cunha, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. {\bf 340}, L39 (2003); R. R. Caldwell and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. D {\bf
667: 57}, 6057 (1998); A. Alam, V. Sahni and A. A. Starobinsky, JCAP
668: {\bf 0406}, 008 (2004); F. C. Carvalho, J. S. Alcaniz, J. A. S. Lima and R. Silva, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97}, 081301 (2006), [astro-ph/0608439]; {\bf ibdem}, [arXiv:0704.3043] (2007); J. V. Cunha, L. Marassi and R. C. Santos, IJMP D {\bf 16}, 403 (2007), [astro-ph/0608686].
669:
670: \bibitem{kamen} A. Kamenshchik, U. Moschell and V. Pasquier, Phys.
671: Lett. B {\bf 511}, 265 (2001); M. C. Bento, O. Bertolami and A. A. Sen,
672: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66}, 043507 (2002); N. Bil\'{\i}c, G. B. Tupper and R. D. Viollier, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 535}, 17 (2002); J. V. Cunha, J. S.
673: Alcaniz and J. A. S. Lima, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 083501 (2004), [astro-ph/0306319]; J.
674: S. Alcaniz and J. A. S. Lima, Astrophys. J. {\bf 618}, 16 (2005), [astro-ph/0308465]; J. A. S. Lima, J.V. Cunha and J.S. Alcaniz, [astro-ph/0608469] (2006); {\bf ibdem}, [astro-ph/0611007] (2006); P. Wu and H. Yu Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 24}, 4661 (2007).
675:
676: \bibitem{review} T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rept. {\bf 380}, 235 (2003); P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 75}, 559 (2003);
677: J. A. S. Lima, Braz. Jour. Phys. {\bf 34}, 194 (2004),
678: [astro-ph/0402109]; V. Sahni and A. Starobinsky, IJMPD {\bf 15},
679: 2105 (2006).
680:
681: \bibitem{HElis82} S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The large
682: scale structure of space-time, Cambridge UP, Cambridge (1973).
683:
684: \bibitem{faraoni02} V. Faraoni, IJMP D {\bf 11}, 471 (2002); R. R. Caldwell, M. Kamionkowski, N. N. Weinberg, PRL {\bf 91},
685: 071301 (2003); J. Santos and J. S. Alcaniz, Phys. Lett. B 619, 11
686: (2005); E. V. Linder, [arXiv:0704.2064] (2007).
687:
688: \bibitem{GonFrei} J. A. S. Lima and A. Maia Jr., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 52 }, 5628 (1995), [gr-qc/9505052]; {\bf ibdem}, Int. J. Theor. Phys. {\bf 34}, 1835 (1995); Int. J. Theor. Phys. {\bf 35}, 2013, (1996), [hep-th/9906016];
689: J. A. S. Lima and J. Santos, Int. J. Theor. Phys. {\bf 34}, 127 (1995); J. A. S. Lima and J. S. Alcaniz, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 600}, 191 (2004), [astro-ph/0402265]; P. F. Gonz\'alez-Diaz and C. L. Siguenza, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 697}, 363 (2004); J. A. de Freitas Pacheco, J. Hovarth, Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 24}, 5427 (2007).
690:
691: \bibitem{chi00} T. Chiba, T. Okabe, M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62},
692: 023511 (2000).
693:
694: \bibitem{Shani03} V. Shani and Y. Shtanov, IJMPA {\bf 11}, 1 (2002); V. Shani and Y. Shtanov, JCAP {\bf 0311}, 014 (2003), [astro-ph/0202346]; S.-F. Wu, A. Chatrabhuti, G.-H. Yang and P-M Zhang, [arXiv:0708.1038] (2007).
695:
696: \bibitem{ChouPadm} T. R. Choudhury and T. Padmanabhan,
697: Phys. Rev. D 69, 064033 (2004).
698:
699: \bibitem{Alc04} Y-S Piao and Y-Z Zhang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70},
700: 063513 (2004); T. R. Choudhury and T. Padmanabhan, ASP Conference
701: Series {\bf 342}, 497 (2005); Astron. and Astrophys. {\bf 429},
702: 807 (2005); L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 71, 063503 (2005); S.
703: Nesseris and L. Perivolaropoulos, JCAP 0701, 018 (2007).
704:
705: \bibitem{estatist} M. Fukugita, T. Futamase and M. Kasai,
706: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. {\bf 246}, 24 (1990); M. Fukugita and E. L. Turner, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. {\bf 253}, 99
707: (1991); E. L. Turner Astrophys. J. {\bf 365}, L43 (1990); L. M.
708: Krauss and M. White, Astrophys. J. {\bf 394}, 385 (1992); D. Maoz
709: and H. W. Rix, Astrophys. J. {\bf 416}, 425 (1993); C. S. Kochanek,
710: Astrophys. J. {\bf 466}, 638 (1996); E. E. Falco, C. S. Kochanek
711: and J. A. Mu\~noz, Astrophys. J. {\bf 494}, 47 (1998); D. Rusin
712: and C. S. Kochanek, Astrophys. J. {\bf 623}, 666 (2005); A. R.
713: Cooray and D. Huterer, Astrophys. J. {\bf 513}, L95 (1999); I.
714: Waga and Ana Paula M. R. Miceli, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}, 103507 (1999);
715: I. Waga and J. A. Frieman, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 043521 (2000);
716: Q.-J. Zhang, L.-M. Cheng, Y.-L. Wu, [arXiv:0708.2164] (2007).
717:
718: \bibitem{Kasai} M. Kasai, T. Futamase and F. Takahara, Phys. Lett. A {\bf 147},
719: 97 (1990).
720:
721: \bibitem{L88} E. V. Linder, Astron. and Astrophys. {\bf 206}, 190
722: (1988); {\bf ibdem}, Astrophys. J. {\bf 497}, 28 (1998).
723:
724: \bibitem{Schneider} P. Schneider and A. Weiss, Astrophys. J. {\bf 327},
725: 526 (1988a); P. Schneider and A. Weiss, Astrophys. J. {\bf 330}, 1 (1988b);
726: M. Bartelmann and P. Schneider, Astron. Astrop. {\bf 248}, 349 (1991); K. Watanabe, M. Sasaki and K. Tomita, Astrophys. J. {\bf 394}, 38 (1992).
727:
728: \bibitem{G2004} J. A. S. Lima and J. S. Alcaniz, Astron. Astrophys. {\bf 357}, 393 (2000),
729: [astro-ph/0003189]; {\bf ibdem} Gen. Relativ. Gravit. {\bf 32}, 1851 (2000), [astro-ph/9904182]; J. A. S. Lima
730: and J. S. Alcaniz, Astrophys. J. {\bf 566}, 15 (2002), [astro-ph/0109047]; L. I.
731: Gurvits, New Astron. Rev. {\bf 48}, 1511 (2004); J. C. Jackson, JCAP 0411, 007 (2004),
732: [astro-ph/0309390]; J. C. Jackson and A. L. Jannetta, JCAP 0611, 007 (2006), [astro-ph/0605065].
733:
734: \bibitem{Ogu07} C. S. Kochanek, B. Mochejska, N. D. Morgan and K. Z. Stanek, Astrophys. J. {\bf 637}, L73 (2006); M. Oguri {\it et al.} [arXiv:0708.0825] (2007).
735:
736: \bibitem{Zeld} Ya. B. Zeldovich, Sov. Astron. {\bf 8}, 13 (1964).
737:
738: \bibitem{Kant} R. Kantowski, Astrophys. J. {\bf 155}, 89 (1969).
739:
740: \bibitem{Dyer} C. C. Dyer and R. C. Roeder, Astrophys. J. {\bf 174}, L115 (1972); Astrophys. J. 180, L31 (1972).
741:
742: \bibitem{SEF} P. Schneider, J. Ehlers and E. E. Falco, {\it Gravitational
743: lenses}, Springer\,-\,Verlag, Berlin (1992).
744:
745: \bibitem{K98}R. Kantowski, Astrophys. J. {\bf 507}, 483 (1998).
746:
747: \bibitem {K00} R. Kantowski, J. K. Kao, R. C. Thomas, Astrophys. J. {\bf 545} 549 (2000).
748:
749: \bibitem{K03} R. Kantowski, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68}, 123516, (2003).
750:
751: \bibitem{tomita98} K. Tomita, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 100}, 79 (1998).
752:
753: \bibitem{tomita99} K. Tomita, H. Asada and T. Hamana, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. {\bf 133}, 155 (1999).
754:
755: \bibitem{SPS01} M. Sereno, G. Covone, E. Piedipalumbo and R. de Ritis, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. {\bf 327}, 517 (2001).
756:
757: \bibitem{ALDA00} J. A. S. Lima and J. S. Alcaniz, Astron. and Astrophys. {\bf 357}, 393 (2000), [astro-ph/0003189]; {\bf ibdem} Gen. Relativ. Gravit. {\bf 32}, 1851 (2000), [astro-ph/9904182].
758:
759: \bibitem{Lew02}G. F. Lewis and R. A. Ibata, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 337,
760: 26 (2002).
761:
762: \bibitem{Ara07}M. E. Ara\'ujo and W. R. Stoeger, [arXiv:0705.1846] (2007).
763:
764: \bibitem{Dem03} M. Demianski, R. de
765: Ritis, A. A. Marino, E. Piedipalumbo, Astron. and Astrophys. {\bf
766: 411}, 33 (2003).
767:
768: \bibitem{Gio01} F. Giovi and L. Amendola, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. {\bf 325}, 1097
769: (2001).
770:
771: \bibitem{koc02} C. S. Kochanek, Astrophys. J. {\bf 578}, 25 (2002); C. S. Kochanek, and P. L. Schechter, [astro-ph/0306040] (2003).
772:
773: \bibitem{CdS04} M. O. Calvao, Lima, J. A. S. and Waga, Phys. Lett. A {\bf 162}, 233 (1992); J. A. S. Lima and A. S. Germano, Phys. Lett. A {\bf 170}, 373 (1992); J. A. S. Lima, A. S. M. Germano and L. R. W. Abramo, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 53}, 4287 (1996), [gr-qc/9511006]; J. A. S. Lima and L. R. W. Abramo, Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 13}, 2953 (1996), [gr-qc/9606067]; J. A. S. Lima, Gen. Rel. Grav. {\bf 29}, 805 (1997), [gr-qc/9605056]; J. S. Alcaniz and J. A. S. Lima, Astron. and Astrophys. {\bf 349}, 729 (1999), [astro-ph/9906410]; W. Zimdahl, D. J. Schwarz, A. B. Balakin and D. Pavon, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64} 063501 (2001), [astro-ph/0009353]; P. Gopakumar and G. V. Vijayagovindan, IJMPD {\bf 15}, 321 (2006); Y. Quinang, T-J. Zhang and Z-L Yi, Astrop. Spac. Sci. {\bf 311}, 407 (2007).
774:
775: \bibitem{campo} M. Campos and J. A. de Souza, Astron. and Astrophys. {\bf 422}, 401 (2004).
776:
777: \bibitem{AL041} J. S. Alcaniz, J. A. S. Lima and R. Silva, IJMPD {\bf 13},
778: 1309 (2004).
779:
780: \bibitem{SLC07} R. C. Santos, J. V. Cunha, J. A. S.
781: Lima, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 77}, 023519 (2008), [arXiv:0709.3679].
782:
783: \bibitem{G99} L. I. Gurvits, K. I. Kellermann and S. Frey, Astron. and Astrophys. {\bf 342}, 378 (1999).
784:
785: \bibitem{Sachs61} P. R. K. Sachs, Proc. R. Soc. London A {\bf 264}, 309 (1961); P. Jordan, J. Ehlers and R. K. Sachs, Akad. Wiss. Mainz {\bf 1}, 1 (1961).
786:
787: \bibitem{ETHER33} I. M. H. Etherington, Phil. Mag. {\bf 15}, 761 (1933).
788:
789: \bibitem{SPS02} M. Sereno, E. Piedipalumbo and M. V. Sazhin, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. {\bf 335},
790: 1061 (2002).
791:
792: \bibitem{wan99} Y. Wang, Astrophys. J. {\bf 525}, 651 (1999).
793:
794: \bibitem{F01} W. Freedman {\it et al.}, Astrophys. J. {\bf 553}, 47
795: (2001).
796:
797: \bibitem{CML} J. V. Cunha, L. Marassi and J. A. S. Lima, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. Lett. {\bf 379}, L1 (2007), [astro-ph/0611934]; J. A. S. Lima, J. F. Jesus and J. V. Cunha, [arXiv:0709.2195] (2007).
798:
799: \bibitem{San06} A. Sandage {\it et al.}, Astrophys. J. {\bf 653}, 843-860 (2006);
800: M. S. Turner and D. Huterer, [arXiv:0706.2186] (2007).
801:
802: \bibitem{Barb00} A. J. Barber {\it et al.}, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. {\bf 319},
803: 267 (2000).
804:
805:
806: \end{thebibliography}
807:
808: \end{document}
809: