1: \chapter{The Back-Reaction Problem} \label{brset}

2: 

3: 

4: In this chapter, after setting the problem in the first section, we are going to explore the dual point of view sketched in Sect.~\ref{poview}.

5: 

6: The second section will suggest two possible approaches to the smoothing process.

7: The approach based on Buchert's equations will be carried out in Chapter \ref{pool}, while the one based on the light-cone fitting will be studied in Chapter \ref{s-c}.

8: 

9: The third section will be, instead, about the strictly observational point of view which will be worked out in Chapter \ref{s-c}.\\

10: 

11: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

12: \section{Foundations: the smoothing process}

13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

14: 

15: We will here set the smoothing process.

16: We think that this is a crucial step in understanding how General Relativity effectively works in a lumpy universe.

17: 

18: This section will lay the foundations of the problem without actually telling how to pragmatically search for a back-reaction effect.

19: The following two sections will be about finding out how to achieve the smoothing process.

20: To set the problem we will follow \cite{ellis-1984,ellis-1987}.

21: 

22: 

23: \clearpage

24: %

25: Let's look at fig. \ref{ellis84} as a starting point: it compares models of the same region of the universe on three scales showing different amounts of detail.

26: Scale 1 represents all details down to stars. Scale 3 represents all details down to galaxies. Scale 5 represents large scale features only.

27: The usual models of cosmology, like the concordance model, are shown at Scale 5.

28: It should be pointed out that these different matter tensors and metric tensors are intended to describe the same physical system and the same space-time, but at different scales of description.

29: Smoothing out inhomogeneities renormalizes the description of the universe.\\

30: 

31: 

32: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

33: \begin{figure}[htb]

34: \begin{center}

35: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{ellis84.eps}

36: \caption{\small \slshape Comparison of models of the same region of universe on three scales showing different amounts of detail.

37: Scale 1 represents all details down to stars. Scale 3 represents all details down to galaxies. Scale 5 represents only large scale features. From \cite{ellis-1984}.}

38: \label{ellis84}

39: \end{center}

40: \end{figure}

41: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

42: 

43: \clearpage

44: General relativity tests confirm that Einstein's equations hold on Scale 1 which is the starting point in the flow chart below.

45: 

46: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

47: \begin{figure}[htb]

48: \begin{center}

49: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{ellis84b.eps}

50: \label{ellis84b}

51: \end{center}

52: \end{figure}

53: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

54: %

55: The flow chart summarizes tensors correspondence from Scale 1 to Scale 3.

56: The two models are related by:

57: %

58: \begin{itemize}

59: 

60: \item Maps $S^{*}$, which determines which points in the different underlying manifolds are related to each other by the smoothing procedure.

61: 

62: \item Maps $S$, which determines the metric tensor of the smoothed-out representation from the more detailed one.

63: 

64: \item Maps $S'$, which determines the matter tensor.

65: 

66: \item Maps $S''$, which determines the Einstein tensor.

67: 

68: \end{itemize}

69: 

70: Because of the non-linear nature of the fields equations, in general, the operations of smoothing will not commute with going to the field equations, that is:

71: %

72: \begin{equation}

73: S'' \neq S'

74: \qquad \mbox{ or } \qquad

75: {\langle G_{\mu \nu}(g_{\alpha \beta}) \rangle} \neq G_{\mu \nu}({\langle g_{\alpha \beta} \rangle})

76: \end{equation}

77: %

78: We can better set the problem defining a tensor $P_{3}$ representing the difference between the Einstein tensor $G_{3}$ defined from the smoothed-out metric $g_{3}$, and the smoothed-out matter tensor $T_{3}$. This correction will take care of the change of scale of description.

79: %

80: \begin{equation}

81: G_{3 \, \alpha \beta} \equiv R_{3 \, \alpha \beta} - \half  \, g_{3 \, \alpha \beta} \, R_{3}= 8\pi T_{3 \, \alpha \beta}+ 8 \pi P_{3 \, \alpha \beta}

82: \end{equation}

83: %

84: The tensor $P_{3}$ represents the effects of small-scale inhomogeneities in the universe on the dynamic behavior at the smoothed-out scale.

85: 

86: 

87: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

88: \subsubsection{Comments}

89: 

90: The implicit assumption in the usual approach is that at Scale 5 the term $P_{5}$ vanishes. Clearly this may not be true.

91: Moreover, $P$ does not need to obey the usual energy conditions. It is indeed an effective term. There would be no conceptual problems in having $w_{P}<-1$, for example.

92: 

93: It is difficult to refrain from considering the possibility of a connection between the cosmological constant and this correction term:

94: %

95: \begin{equation} \label{coconge}

96: P_{\alpha \beta}

97: \stackrel{?}{=}

98: \rho_{\Lambda} \, g_{\alpha \beta}

99: \qquad \mbox{that is} \qquad

100: w_{P}=-1

101: \end{equation}

102: %

103: $\rho_{\Lambda}$ could be indeed a product of the back-reaction of inhomogeneities and have its freedom fixed by the smoothing process which, generally, is introduced by every measurements.

104: Inhomogeneities introduce a scale in the otherwise scale-free general relativity.

105: 

106: Even if equation (\ref{coconge}) does not exactly hold, it still suggests the idea that the correction term $P$ may be the source for an effective quintessence model. In the next section we will show a concrete example about this.

107: 

108: 

109: 

110: \clearpage

111: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

112: \section{Smoothing out inhomogeneities - theoretical side}

113: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

114: 

115: In the last section we set the foundation of the problem of the back-reaction. Now we will consider the theoretical approach in smoothing out inhomogeneities, that is, we will look for a phenomenological model that fits observations, that is, for a description by means of a mean field.

116: 

117: The two approaches we are going to describe will give two conceptually different $\rho_{\Lambda}$-like terms. The problem is really to set the back-reaction problem in a physically meaningful way.

118: 

119: 

120: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

121: \subsection{Averaging the traces of Einstein's equations}

122: \label{avese}

123: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

124: 

125: We will describe now a way to average Einstein's equations based 

126: on averaging their traces~\cite{Buchert:2002ht,Buchert:1999er}.

127: 

128: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

129: \subsubsection{Equations}

130: 

131: The matter content be made of irrotational dust with four-velocity $u^{\mu}=(1,0,0,0)$, that is, the local observer is comoving with the energy flow of the fluid. Hence $T_{\mu \nu}= \rho \: u_{\mu} u_{\nu}$ and the Einstein equations are:

132: %

133: \begin{equation}

134: R_{\mu \nu}- \half g_{\mu \nu} R = 8 \pi \rho \, u_{\mu} u_{\nu}

135: \end{equation}

136: %

137: where $\rho$ is the matter energy density and $R$ the Ricci scalar.

138: We can work in the synchronous and comoving gauge with line element:

139: %

140: \begin{equation}

141: \label{linea}

142: ds^2=-dt^2 + g_{ij} \, dx^i dx^j

143: \end{equation}

144: %

145: where $t$ is cosmic time.

146: Greek indices run through 0...3, while Latin indices run through 1...3.

147: 

148: We will introduce the expansion tensor\footnote{The extrinsic curvature is the opposite} $\Theta^i_{\ j}$:

149: %

150: \begin{equation}

151: \Theta_{i j} \equiv h^{\alpha}_{\ i} \, h^{\beta}_{\ j} \, u_{\alpha ; \beta}

152: =u_{i ; j}

153: \quad \textrm{where} \quad

154: h^{\alpha}_{\ \beta}=g^{\alpha}_{\ \beta} + u^{\alpha} \, u_{\beta}

155: %=

156: %\left( \begin{array}{cccc} 

157: %0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 

158: %0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 

159: %0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 

160: %0 & 0 & 0 & 1

161: %\end{array} \right)

162: \end{equation}

163: %

164: from which we can define the volume expansion scalar $\theta$ and the traceless tensor $\sigma^i_{\ j}$, called shear:

165: %

166: \begin{equation}

167: \Theta^i_{\ j} \equiv {\theta \over 3} \, \delta^i_{\ j} + \sigma^i_{\ j}

168: \end{equation}

169: 

170: Now let us define the averaging operation which for a scalar field ${\cal F}$

171: is a covariant operation, given a foliation of spacetime:

172: %

173: \begin{equation} \label{m1}

174: \langle {\cal F} \rangle_D = {1 \over V_{D}} \int_D {\cal F} dV=

175: \frac{\int_D {\cal F} \sqrt{g}\,d^3\!x} {\int_D 

176: \sqrt{g}\,d^3\!x}

177: \end{equation}

178: %

179: where the average depends on content, shape and position of the comoving spatial domain of averaging, which is considered given.\\

180: We will introduce a dimensionless effective scale factor via the volume:

181:  %

182: \begin{equation} \label{scala}

183: a_D(t) \equiv \left({V_D(t)\over V_{D_0}}\right)^{1/3}

184: \end{equation}

185: %

186: Thus, the averaged expansion rate may be written in terms of the scale factor\footnote{It follows from ${\dot J}= \theta J$ where $J=\sqrt{g}$}:

187: %

188: \begin{equation}

189: \langle\theta\rangle_D = {{\dot V}_D\over V_D} = 3 

190: {{\dot a}_D \over a_D} \equiv 3 H_{D}

191: \end{equation}

192: %

193: Dots denote derivatives with respect to cosmic time.

194: 

195: The smoothing procedure and the dynamical evolution does not commute as it is clear from this relation:

196: %

197: \begin{equation}

198: \label{commu}

199: {\langle {\cal F} \rangle}_D^{\bdot} - \langle \dot{{\cal F}} \rangle_D =

200: \langle {\cal F}\, \theta \rangle_D - \langle \theta\rangle_D\langle{\cal F}

201: \rangle_D

202: \end{equation}

203: %

204: Within this averaging scheme, this is the source of the backreaction effect.

205: Indeed, for ${\cal F}= \theta$ we will have:

206: %

207: \begin{equation}

208: {\langle \theta \rangle}_D^{\bdot} = {\langle \dot{\theta} \rangle}_D + {\langle \theta^{2} \rangle}_D - {\langle \theta\rangle}_D^{2} \geq {\langle \dot{\theta} \rangle}_D

209: \end{equation}

210: %

211: and therefore even if ${\langle \dot{\theta} \rangle}_D \leq 0$, it may happen that ${\langle \theta \rangle}_D^{\bdot} \geq 0$, that is the inhomogeneities allow the coarse-grained deceleration parameter

212: %

213: \begin{equation} \label{accece}

214: q_{D} \equiv - {3{\langle \theta \rangle}_D^{\bdot} +{\langle \theta\rangle}_D^{2} \over {\langle \theta\rangle}_D^{2}} \equiv - {\ddot{a}_{D} \over a_{D} H^{2}_{D}}

215: \end{equation}

216: %

217: to be negative in spite of its positive local value\footnote{It follows from the local Raychaudhuri's equation (\ref{ray}) that $q \equiv - ( 3 \dot{\theta} + \theta^2)/\theta^2= 6 (\sigma^2 + 2 \pi \rho)/ \theta^2 \geq 0$ and that ${\langle \dot{\theta} \rangle}_D \leq 0$}.

218: 

219: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

220: \subsubsection{Averaging} 

221: Now we can average the following local scalar equations:

222: %

223: \begin{eqnarray}

224: \label{cons}

225: {\bf II} + \half {\cal R} - 8 \pi \, \rho & = & 0 \qquad \textrm{energy constraint} \\

226: \label{ray}

227: \dot{{\bf I}} + {\bf I}^2 -2 \, {\bf II} + 4\pi \, \rho & = & 0 \qquad \textrm{Raychaudhuri's equation} \\

228: \dot\rho + {\bf I} \, \rho &= & 0 \qquad \textrm{continuity equation}

229: \end{eqnarray}

230: %

231: where two of the scalar invariants of the expansion tensor, namely its trace and the dispersion of its diagonal components, are:

232: %

233: \begin{eqnarray}

234: {\bf I} &\equiv& \Theta^{\ell}_{\,\;\ell} = \theta \cr

235: {\bf II} &\equiv& {1\over 2}\left(\theta^2 - \Theta^{\ell}_{\,\;k}\Theta^{k}_{\,\;\ell}\right)

236: = {1\over 3}\theta^2 - \sigma^2 \label{invari}

237: \end{eqnarray}

238: where $\sigma^2 \equiv \frac{1}{2}\sigma^i_{\ j} \sigma^j_{\ i}$. The ${\cal R}$ in (\ref{cons}), and in the following equations, is the trace of the spatial Ricci tensor\footnote{\  ${\cal R}_{i j}$ is the Ricci tensor of the metric $g_{ij}$ of the hypersurface and not $R_{i j}=h^{\alpha}_{\ i} \, h^{\beta}_{\ j} \, R_{\alpha \beta}$.} ${\cal R}_{i j}$.

239: Actually, the density is a scalar invariant as well, $T=g^{\mu \nu}T_{\mu \nu}= -\rho$.

240: %

241: The result of the averaging is:

242: %

243: \begin{eqnarray}

244: \label{mediate1}

245: \langle{\bf II}\rangle_D + \half {\langle {\cal R} \rangle}_D - 8\pi \langle \rho\rangle_D &=& 0\\

246: {\langle {\bf I} \rangle}_D^{\bdot} + {\langle {\bf I} \rangle}_D^2 - 2 \langle{\bf II}\rangle_D + 4\pi \langle\rho\rangle_D &=& 0\\

247: \label{mediate3}

248: \langle \rho \rangle^{\bdot}_D + {\langle {\bf I} \rangle}_D \langle\rho\rangle_D &=& 0

249: \end{eqnarray}

250: %

251: that is, provided we express the equations in terms of the invariants (\ref{invari}), the averaged quantities obey the same equations as the local ones in spite of the non-commutativity of the averaging procedure and the dynamical evolution, which is expressed by the commutation rule (\ref{commu}).\\

252: The reason for this nontrivial property is the special type of nonlinearities featured by the gravitational system, in particular the nonlinearity in $\theta$ contained in Raychaudhuri's equation.\\

253: Summarizing, the traces of Einstein's equations, expressed by means of the scalar invariants ${\bf I}$, ${\bf II}$ and $\rho$, are not  structurally affected by the averaging procedure: the corrections are in the renormalized invariants and not in their relations.

254: This result has some consonance with the idea of $\rho_{\Lambda}$ fixed by the smoothing process: not even in that case Einstein's equations are structurally changed.

255: 

256: The extra-terms produced by the averaging will appear if we rewrite the first two equations in a more familiar form:

257: %

258: \begin{eqnarray}

259: \label{cq1}

260: H^{2}_{D} &=& {8\pi \over 3} \langle \rho\rangle_D -{1 \over 6} {\langle {\cal R} \rangle}_D -{1 \over 6} Q_D\\

261: \label{cq2}

262: {{\ddot a}_D \over a_D} &=&  -{4\pi \over 3} \langle\rho\rangle_D + {1 \over 3} Q_{D}

263: \end{eqnarray}

264: %

265: where the (kinematical) back-reaction source term is:

266: %

267: \begin{equation}

268: Q_{D} \equiv 2 \langle{\bf II}\rangle_D - {2\over 3} \langle {\bf I}\rangle_D^2 \;=\;

269: {2\over 3} \left( \langle\theta^{2}\rangle_D - \langle\theta\rangle_D^{2} \right) - 2\langle\sigma^2\rangle_D

270: \end{equation}

271: %

272: The equations (\ref{cq1}-\ref{cq2}) can once more be rewritten in a dimensionless form:

273: %

274: \begin{eqnarray}

275: 1 &=& \Omega_{M}^{D}+\Omega_{{\cal R}}^{D}+\Omega_{Q}^{D} \label{terz} \\

276: \label{dece}

277: q_{D} &=& \half \Omega_{M}^{D}+2 \Omega_{Q}^{D}

278: \end{eqnarray}

279: %

280: where we have defined the density parameters $\Omega^{D}_{M}=8 \pi {\langle \rho\rangle}_D / 3 H^{2}_{D}$, $\Omega^{D}_{Q}={- Q_{D}/6 H^{2}_{D}}$ and $\Omega^{D}_{{\cal R}}={- {\langle {\cal R} \rangle}_D/6 H^{2}_{D}}$ in the usual way.

281: 

282: The consistency of equations (\ref{cq1}-\ref{cq2}) requires that $Q_{D}$ and ${\langle {\cal R} \rangle}_D$ satisfy the integrability condition:

283: %

284: \begin{equation}

285: \label{condi}

286: \left(a_D^6 Q_{D} \right)^{\bdot} + a_D^4 \left(a_D^2 \langle {\cal R} \rangle_D\right)^{\bdot} \;=\;0

287: \end{equation}

288: 

289: 

290: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

291: \subsubsection{Effective back-reaction source}

292: 

293: Finally we can rewrite again (\ref{cq1}-\ref{cq2}) in term of the effective backreaction source:

294: %

295: \begin{eqnarray}

296: \label{br1}

297: H^{2}_{D} &=& {8\pi \over 3} \left( {\langle \rho\rangle}_D + \rho_{BR} \right) \quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad \Omega^{D}_{M}+ \Omega^{D}_{BR}=1 \\

298: \label{br2}

299: {{\ddot a}_D \over a_D} &=&  -{4\pi \over 3} \sum_{i}(\rho_{i}+3 p_{i})

300: \end{eqnarray}

301: %

302: where the effective backreaction source energy density and pressure are:

303: %

304: \begin{equation} \label{effe1}

305: \rho_{BR}=-{Q_{D} \over 16 \pi}-{{\langle {\cal R} \rangle}_D \over 16 \pi}

306: \qquad \qquad

307: p_{BR}=-{Q_{D} \over 16 \pi}+{1 \over 3}{{\langle {\cal R} \rangle}_D \over 16 \pi}

308: \end{equation}

309: %

310: The equation of state will be:

311: %

312: \begin{equation} \label{effe2}

313: w_{BR}={p_{BR} \over \rho_{BR}}=\frac{-Q_{D} + {\langle {\cal R} \rangle}_{D}/3}{-Q_{D} - {\langle {\cal R} \rangle}_D}

314: \end{equation}

315: %

316: We have therefore the non trivial result that the standard Friedmann equations are modified only by an extra source beside their dependence on the scale of averaging. Unfortunately the system of the equations (\ref{br1}-\ref{br2}) is not closed, the smoothing procedure has washed out too many details. To close the system it will be sufficient to have the equation of state: we will come back to this point later in this section.

317: 

318: These last equations look like the corresponding ones for quintessence, (\ref{lphi}-\ref{rho-p}), with kinetic energy $T_{\phi} \sim - Q_{D}$ and potential $V_{\phi} \sim - {\langle {\cal R} \rangle}_D$. For example, with zero potential (i.e. ${\langle {\cal R} \rangle}_D=0$) we have from (\ref{condi}) $T_{\phi} \sim 1/a_{D}^{-6}$ which is the usual kination with $w=1$.

319: Indeed a topic of research could be to analyze the problem with the quintessence formalism, trying to find potentials coupling $\phi$ to the inhomogeneities

320: %(obtained for example from the N-body simulations)

321: or some other connected observables.

322: %(peculiar kinetic energy, entropy, etc)

323: Because $\phi$ is an effective field, it does not suffer of the problems examined in Sect. \ref{quiquoqua}. It will be possible also to have $w<-1$. See \cite{Buchert:2006ya} for a work in this direction. 

324: 

325: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

326: \subsubsection{Acceleration in a dust universe} \label{acce}

327: 

328: The condition to have acceleration follows from the acceleration equation (\ref{cq2}) and (\ref{dece}):

329: %

330: \begin{equation}

331: - \Omega_{Q}^{D} >{ \Omega_{M}^{D} \over 4}

332: \qquad \textrm{or} \qquad

333: Q_{D}>4 \pi \langle\rho\rangle_D

334: \end{equation}

335: %

336: However, having significant backreaction is not enough: it is necessary that $Q_{D}$ and ${\langle {\cal R} \rangle}_D$ are strongly coupled, otherwise $Q_{D}$ will fall in kination and will become quickly negligible.

337: Therefore ${\langle {\cal R} \rangle}_D$ will evolve in a different way with respect to the usual curvature $k$: only if $Q_{D}$ and ${\langle {\cal R} \rangle}_D$ are decoupled it will be ${\langle {\cal R} \rangle}_D \sim 1/a_{D}^{2}$. So the CMB tells us only that the part of ${\langle {\cal R} \rangle}_D$ which evolves as $1/a_{D}^{2}$ is negligible.

338: 

339: Assuming $\Omega_{M}^{D}=0.3$ we have plotted in fig. \ref{limitiq} the value of the main parameters as a function of $\Omega_{Q}^{D}$ to see if they are in contrast with the present day data.

340: From the plot we see that the following values:

341: %

342: \begin{equation}

343: -0.45 \lesssim \Omega_{Q}^{D} \lesssim -0.3

344: \qquad \textrm{and} \qquad

345: 1 \lesssim \Omega_{{\cal R}}^{D} \lesssim 1.2

346: \end{equation}

347: %

348: are in agreement with the data. We stressed again that the value we have found for $\Omega_{{\cal R}}^{D}$ is not ruled out by the CMB because the latter constrains only the part of $\Omega_{{\cal R}}^{D}$ which evolves as $1/a_{D}^{2}$. The volume $D$ refers to the scale at which the parameters are measured.

349: 

350: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

351: \begin{figure}[htb]

352: \begin{center}

353: \includegraphics[width=13cm]{limitiq.eps}

354: \caption{\small \slshape We have plotted for $\Omega_{M}^{D}=0.3$ the value of the principal parameters as a function of $\Omega_{Q}^{D}$. The dashed line is $\Omega_{{\cal R}}^{D}$, the dotted line is $q_{D}$ and the dot-dashed line is $w_{BR}$. The measured values \cite{Riess:2004nr} are marked in solid red, while in the gray area there is no acceleration.}

355: \label{limitiq}

356: \end{center}

357: \end{figure}

358: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

359: 

360: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

361: \subsubsection{A conjecture}

362: 

363: We can try to apply the conjecture that $P_{\alpha \beta}= \rho_{\Lambda} \, g_{\alpha \beta}$ to this formalism, that is:

364: %

365: \begin{equation} \label{congeq}

366: w_{BR}=-1

367: \end{equation}

368: %

369: We are now able to close the system (\ref{br1}-\ref{br2}):

370: %

371: \begin{equation} \label{conge2}

372: \Omega_{Q}^{D} =- {1 \over 3} \Omega_{{\cal R}}^{D} =\textrm{const}(a_{D})

373: \qquad \textrm{or} \qquad

374: Q_{D}=- {1 \over 3} {\langle {\cal R} \rangle}_D=\textrm{const}(a_{D})

375: \end{equation}

376: %

377: where the last equalities derive from the constance of $\rho_{BR}$ which is implied by (\ref{congeq}).

378: The solution (\ref{conge2}) satisfies the integrability condition (\ref{condi}).

379: 

380: It is possible to put a remedy to our ignorance about the dependence of the observable from $a_{D}$ expressing the scale as a function of the matter parameter: $a_{D}=a_{D}(\Omega_{M}^{D})$, so that to give $\Omega_{M}^{D}$ is as to give the domain of averaging.

381: We can then plot in fig. \ref{conge} this exact solution:

382: %

383: \begin{equation}

384: \Omega_{Q}^{D} = \half \Omega_{M}^{D} - \half

385: \qquad

386: \Omega_{{\cal R}}^{D}={3 \over 2}-{3 \over 2}\Omega_{M}^{D}

387: \qquad

388: q_{D}={3 \over 2}\Omega_{M}^{D}-1

389: \end{equation}

390: 

391: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

392: \begin{figure}[htb]

393: \begin{center}

394: \includegraphics[width=13cm]{conge.eps}

395: \caption{\small \slshape Assuming $w_{BR}=-1$, we have plotted the principal parameters as a function of $\Omega_{M}^{D}$. The dashed line is $\Omega_{{\cal R}}^{D}$, the solid line is $\Omega_{Q}^{D}$ and the dotted line is $q_{D}$.}

396: \label{conge}

397: \end{center}

398: \end{figure}

399: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

400: 

401: Summarizing:

402: %

403: \begin{eqnarray}

404: \Omega_{M}^{D}=0.3 \qquad &\Omega_{BR}^{D}&=0.7 \qquad w_{BR}=-1 \qquad q_{D}=-0.55 \nonumber \\

405: \textrm{where} \qquad &\Omega_{BR}^{D}&=\Omega_{Q}^{D}+\Omega_{{\cal R}}^{D} \\

406: \textrm{and} \qquad  &\Omega_{Q}^{D}&=-0.35 \qquad \Omega_{{\cal R}}^{D}=1.05 \nonumber

407: \end{eqnarray}

408: %

409: We are stressing again that the volume $D$ refers to the scale at which the parameters are measured.

410: 

411: 

412: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

413: \subsubsection{Bare and dressed cosmological parameters}

414: 

415: There is one more remark about the theoretical framework just described: the parameters of eq. (\ref{terz}), which is:

416: %

417: \begin{equation}

418: \Omega_{M}^{D}+\Omega_{{\cal R}}^{D}+\Omega_{Q}^{D}=1

419: \end{equation}

420: %

421: are not directly accessible to observations because the analogous FRW ones implicitly assume a constant curvature space \cite{Buchert:2002ht}.

422: 

423: Before making this comparison we need to average the inhomogeneous geometry into a constant curvature one.

424: The following sketch gives an idea of the process. It seems as if we have to correct only for volume effects when dressing the parameters.

425: 

426: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

427: \begin{figure}[htb]

428: \begin{center}

429: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{bare.eps}

430: \label{bare}

431: \end{center}

432: \end{figure}

433: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

434: 

435: However, averaging the curvature, we will find:

436: %

437: \begin{equation} \label{barec}

438: {\langle {\cal R} \rangle}_{\bar{D}}=\left ( {V_{\bar{D}} \over V_{D}} \right )^{-2/3} {\langle {\cal R} \rangle}_D  -  Q^{R}_{D}

439: \end{equation}

440: %

441: that is, beside volume effects, there is an extra correction named curvature back-reaction $Q^{R}_{D}$. Its analytical expression is similar to the kinematical back-reaction $Q_{D}$ but there are, instead of the scalar invariants of the extrinsic curvature, the ones of the intrinsic curvature.

442: 

443: From  eq. (\ref{barec}) we can understand the 

444: physical content of geometrical averaging. It makes transparent that, in the smoothed model, 

445: the averaged scalar curvature is `dressed' both by the volume effect 

446: and by the curvature backreaction effect itself. The volume effect is expected

447: precisely in the form occurring in (\ref{barec}), if we think of comparing two regions

448: of distinct volumes, but with the same matter content, in a constant

449: curvature space (remember that a constant curvature space 

450: is proportional to the inverse square of the radius of curvature, hence the volume-exponent 2/3).

451: Whereas the backreaction term encodes the deviation of

452: the averaged scalar curvature from a constant curvature model, e.g., a FLRW

453: space section.

454: 

455: Therefore the relation we have to use to compare results to experimental data is:

456: %

457: \begin{equation}

458: \bar{\Omega}_{M}^{\bar{D}}+\bar{\Omega}_{{\cal R}}^{\bar{D}}+\bar{\Omega}_{Q}^{\bar{D}}=1

459: \end{equation}

460: %

461: 

462: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

463: \subsection{The fitting problem} \label{fritto}

464: 

465: The other theoretical approach in smoothing out inhomogeneities we will consider is based on the fitting problem \cite{ellis-1987}.

466: 

467: There are broadly speaking, two distinct 

468: approaches, which have been applied to understand the large-scale structure 

469: of the universe.

470: 

471: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

472: \begin{figure}[h!]

473: \begin{center}

474: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{ellisstoeger.eps}

475: \caption{\small \slshape (a) An exactly uniform and spherically symmetrical FRW universe $U'$ mapped into the lumpy universe $U$ so as to give the best possible fit. (b) An exactly spherical sphere fitted to the lumpy world to give the best fit possible. From \cite{ellis-1987}.}

476: \label{ellisstoeger}

477: \end{center}

478: \end{figure}

479: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

480: 

481: The standard approach is to make the assumption of spatial homogeneity 

482: and isotropy on a large enough scale. Then it follows that the universe 

483: is represented by a FRW model.\\

484: The main problem of this approach is that it simplifies the way the real 

485: lumpy universe should be averaged.

486: It does not deal with the correction term $P$ introduced in the previous section.\\

487: The concordance model, however, fits experimental data very well: the direct

488: consequence of its success is, indeed, that the 

489: isotropic and homogeneous $\Lambda$CDM model is a good {\it observational} 

490: fit to the real inhomogeneous universe.

491: And this is, in some sense, a verification of the cosmological principle of of spatial homogeneity 

492: and isotropy on a large enough scale: 

493: the inhomogeneous universe can be described by means of a isotropic and 

494: homogeneous solution.

495: However this does not imply that a primary dark energy component really 

496: exists, but only that it exists effectively as far as the observational fit is concerned.\\

497: If dark energy does not primary exist, its evidence coming from the 

498: concordance model would tell us that the purely-matter inhomogeneous model 

499: has been renormalized, from the observational point of view (luminosity 

500: and redshift of photons), into a homogeneous $\Lambda$CDM model.\\

501: So, following this reasoning, it is not true, as stated in the discussion about the previous section, that the standard approach assumes $P$ to vanish.

502: The standard approach simply takes the $P$ correction term as a primary source in the energy-momentum tensor.

503: 

504: The other approach is to make no a priori assumptions of global symmetry

505: and build up our universe model only on the basis of astronomical 

506: observations. The main problem with such an approach is the practical 

507: difficulty in implementing it. 

508: 

509: 

510: An approach which is intermediate between the two outlined 

511: above is based on the fitting procedure. 

512: It asks the question about which is the FRW 

513: model which best fits our lumpy universe, Fig.~\ref{ellisstoeger} (a). This question will 

514: lead to a procedure that will make us better understand how to interpret the large-scale FRW solution.\\

515: The approach resembles that used in geodesy, where a perfect sphere is 

516: fitted to the ``pear-shaped'' earth; deviations of the real earth from the idealised model 

517: can then be measured and characterised, Fig.~\ref{ellisstoeger} (b).\\

518: The best-fit will be implemented along the past light cone. This because a 

519: meaningful fitting procedure should be related directly to astronomical 

520: observations.\\

521: The FRW model we have in mind to use in the fitting is a quintessence-like model with an effective source with varying 

522: equation of state. We will develop these ideas in Section~\ref{fitti}.

523: 

524: 

525: 

526: \clearpage

527: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

528: \subsection{Discussion}

529: 

530: Let's start discussing the approach about averaging the traces of Einstein's equations.

531: This scenario is theoretically consistent, but there are two main issues.

532: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

533: \subsubsection{Is $Q_{D}$ observationally relevant?}

534: We have to make it clear if this approach gives an observationally meaningful back-rection.

535: We have to understand how the $\rho_{\Lambda} \rightarrow \rho_{BR}$ that comes from this scenario is related to what we measure as $\rho_{DE}$.

536: 

537: A first important observation is that we should be mainly concerned about the luminosity-distance--redshift relation $d_{L}(z)$ and look at the effects inhomogeneities have on it. Therefore it seems approximate to average at constant cosmic time, we should instead average along the light cone.\\

538: To overcome this problem we will use the approach sketched in Sect. \ref{fritto}. As we will present in Chapter \ref{s-c}, we will use a fitting scheme based on light-cone averages.

539: 

540: The scenario developed by Buchert, beside giving precious hints toward the understanding of the back-reaction problem, can, however, be conceptually better understood if we regard the spatial average as an ensemble average \cite{Kolb:2005da}.\\

541: The inhomogeneities are seen as variables that take random values over different realizations of a volume D at a fixed location or over different locations of the volume D in a single realization (fair sample hypothesis).

542: In order to proper represent an observer in the probability ensemble or a randomly placed observer, we should average his measurements over the possible realizations.

543: Averaging at constant cosmic time over a volume of size comparable with present-day Hubble volume has, therefore, to be understood as averaging over the possible realization of the volume D inside the Hubble volume.

544: This averaging is necessary if there is a big variance, which is however not expected, in the cosmic realizations of the volume D and has to be intended from a statistical point of view.\\

545: However, this approach is not directly related to the averaged description the formalism developed by Buchert is about. It should be seen as a possible interpretation of the latter.

546: 

547: 

548: 

549: 

550: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

551: \subsubsection{Quantitative estimations}

552: 

553: Then, we have to check the strength and the properties of this effective $\rho_{BR}$ quantitatively in order to see if it can explain the concordance model and how far it is from the standard cosmological constant.

554: 

555: The following approaches have been mainly studied.

556: A first possibility is by means of the perturbation theory.

557: It has been found an instability in the perturbative expansion \cite{Kolb:2005da}.

558: Since the perturbation approach breaks down, it is not possible to predict on firm grounds that backreaction is responsible for the present-day acceleration of the universe. However, it is intriguing that such an instability shows up only recently in 

559: the evolution of the universe.

560: 

561: To overcome the problems coming from dealing perturbatively with non-linear perturbations, attention has been given to exact inhomogeneous solutions of Einstein's equations.\\

562: In particular the Lema\^itre-Tolman-Bondi (LTB) solution has been studied 

563: extensively in the literature  \cite{Alnes:2006pf, Biswas:2006ub, Apostolopoulos:2006eg, Alnes:2005rw, Celerier:1999hp,

564: Mansouri:2005rf, Vanderveld:2006rb, Rasanen:2004js, Tomita:2001gh, Chung:2006xh, Kai:2006ws}.

565: We will discuss this in Chapter~\ref{pool}.

566: 

567: Finally, numerical estimates were made in order to check quantitatively the importance of $Q_{D}$.

568: A plot of the absolute value of $Q_{D}$, normalized by the global 

569: mean density, against scale for a Standard--CDM is shown in Fig.~\ref{nunume}.

570: The absolute values are shown there because the calculations were done in the newtonian approximation with periodic boundary conditions and therefore $Q_{D}$  is, by assumption, zero: $Q_{D}$ can indeed be written as a  total divergence.

571: The absolute value is then an estimate of the expected ``backreaction'' on some scale.\\

572: From the plot we can see that the magnitude of the ``backreaction'' source term is of the same order 

573: as the mean density and higher on scales $\lambda < 100$Mpc/h for SCDM. It quickly drops to a $10\%$ effect

574: on scales of $\lambda \approx 200$Mpc/h.\\

575: This is however only a hint toward a proper general relativistic estimation. The newtonian approximation neglects indeed important effects like, for example, the coupling (\ref{condi}) between $Q_{D}$ and ${\langle {\cal R} \rangle}_D$ without which there cannnot be a sizeable back-reaction.

576: 

577: 

578: 

579: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

580: \begin{figure}[htb]

581: \begin{center}

582: \includegraphics[width=15.5cm]{nunume.eps}

583: \caption{\small \slshape The expected ``backreaction'' i.e., the 

584: quantity $|Q_{D}|/4 \pi \langle \rho\rangle_D$ 

585: against the scale $L \equiv a_{D} = V_{D}^{1/3}$

586: (measured in Mpc/h) in linear/linear (left panel) and log/log (right panel) 

587: format for a Standard--CDM model box of $1.8$Gpc/h in size.

588: This dimensionless quantity is still of the 

589: same order as the actual matter density on scales around $100$Mpc/h \cite{Buchert:1996tf}.} 

590: \label{nunume}

591: \end{center}

592: \end{figure}

593: 

594: \clearpage

595: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

596: \section{Smoothing out inhomogeneities - observational side}

597: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

598: 

599: The other possible approach focuses directly on the luminosity-distance--redshift relation $d_{L}(z)$ and looks at the effects inhomogeneities have on it. 

600: To carry out this analysis of the back-reaction it is necessary to have an inhomogeneous model to work with, in particular it is desirable to have an exact inhomogeneous solution of Einstein's equations.

601: 

602: We remark that the $d_{L}(z)$ is a about the luminosity and redshift of photons that travelled through inhomogeneities and have their effects ``integrated out''. In other words, even if we are not averaging explicitly the universe, the luminosity-distance--redshift relation has an implicit meaning of average in itself.\\

603: This is the reason why this approach can be regarded as a possible answer to the smoothing proceses as well as the approches of the previous section are.

604: 

605: 

606: It has been shown that the LTB solution can be

607: used to fit the observed $d_{L}(z)$  without the need for dark energy (for

608: example in \cite{Alnes:2005rw, Alexander:2007xx}).  To achieve this result, however, it is necessary

609: to place the observer at the center of a rather big underdensity.

610: This is in contrast with the experimental verifications of the cosmological principle.\\

611: To overcome this  fine-tuning problem, in Chapter \ref{s-c} a Swiss-cheese model will be used where the observer is in the cheese and looks through Swiss-cheese holes constructed out of an LTB solution.

612: 

613: It is of great interest to compare this physically meaningful approach with the light-cone average fitting we will use.

614: Both are indeed tied to observations.

615: 

616: 

617: 

618: 

619: 

620: 

621: 

622: 

623: 

624: 

625: 

626: 

627: 

628: 

629: 

630: 

631: 

632: 

633: