1: \chapter{Swiss Cheese}

2: \label{s-c}

3: 

4: In this chapter (see also  \cite{Marra:2007pm,Marra:2007gc}) we explore a cosmological toy model in order to attempt to

5: understand the role of large-scale non-linear cosmic inhomogeneities in the

6: interpretation of observable data. The model is based on a Swiss-cheese model,

7: where the cheese consists of the usual Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW)

8: solution and the holes are constructed out of a Lema\^{i}tre-Tolman-Bondi (LTB)

9: solution.

10: We are focusing on a Swiss-cheese model because, even if it is made of spherical symmetric holes, it is not a spherical symmetric model as a whole.

11: It is a first step to go beyond spherical symmetry which will turn out to be the main limitation of LTB solutions.

12: 

13: 

14: This model will turn out to be well-suited to study the dual point of view sketched in Sect.~\ref{poview}.

15: See \cite{Biswas:2007gi, Brouzakis:2006dj, Brouzakis:2007zi} for other works in this direction.

16: 

17: 

18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

19: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

20: \section{Our LTB model} \label{ourmodel}

21: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

22: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

23: 

24: We are going to study a Swiss-cheese model where the cheese consists of the usual

25: Friedmann--Robertson--Walker solution and the spherically symmetric holes

26: are constructed from a Lema\^{i}tre-Tolman-Bondi solution.  The

27: particular FRW solution we will choose is a matter-dominated, spatially-flat

28: solution, \textit{i.e.,} the Einstein--de Sitter (EdS) model.\\

29: In this section we will describe the LTB model parameters we have

30: chosen. We refer to Appendix~\ref{ltbm} for notation, units and an introduction to the LTB models.

31: 

32: 

33: First of all, for simplicity we will choose $\bar{t}(r)=\bar{t}$; \textit{i.e.,}

34: specifying the initial conditions for each shell at the same moment of time.

35: 

36: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

37: \begin{figure}[htb]

38: \begin{center}

39: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{apo.eps}

40: \caption{\small \slshape The Apollonian Gasket.}

41: \label{apo}

42: \end{center}

43: \end{figure}

44: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

45: 

46: We will now choose $\rho(r,\bar{t})$ and $W(r)$ in order to match the flat FRW model

47: at the boundary of the hole: \textit{i.e.,} at the boundary of the hole

48: $\bar{\rho}$ has to match the FRW density and $W(r)$ has to go to unity. 

49: A physical picture is that, given a FRW sphere, all the matter in the inner

50: region is pushed to the border of the sphere while the quantity of matter

51: inside the sphere does not change.

52: With the density chosen in this way, an observer outside the hole will not feel

53: the presence of the hole as far as \textit{local} physics is concerned (this

54: does not apply to global quantities, such the luminosity-distance--redshift

55: relation for example). So the

56: cheese is evolving as an FRW universe while the holes evolve differently.

57: In this way we can imagine putting in the cheese as many

58: holes as we want, even with different sizes and density profiles, and still have

59: an exact solution of the Einstein equations (as long as there is no

60: superposition among the holes and the correct matching is achieved).

61: The limiting picture of this procedure is

62: the Apollonian Gasket of Fig.\ \ref{apo}, where all the possible holes are

63: placed, and therefore the model has the strange property that it is FRW

64: nowhere, but it behaves as an FRW model on the average. This idea was first

65: proposed by Einstein and  Straus \cite{Einstein:1945id}.

66: 

67: To be specific, we choose $\rho(r,\bar{t})$

68: to be

69: \begin{equation}

70: \begin{array}{ll}

71: \rho(r,\bar{t}) = A \exp[-(r-r_M)^2/2\sigma^2] + \epsilon \quad & (r<r_h) \\

72: \rho(r,\bar{t}) = \rho_{FRW}(\bar{t}) & (r > r_h),

73: \end{array}

74: \end{equation}

75: where $\epsilon = 0.0025$, $r_h=0.42$, $\sigma=r_h/10$, $r_M=0.037$, $A=50.59$,

76: and $\rho_{FRW}(\bar{t})=25$.  In Fig.\ \ref{rho0} we plot this chosen Gaussian

77: density profile.  The hole ends at $r_{h}=0.042$ which is\footnote{To get this number from Table \ref{units} you need to multiply $r_{h}$ by $a(t_{0})\simeq 2.92$.} $350$ Mpc and roughly

78: $25$ times smaller than $r_{BB}$. Note that this is not a very big bubble. But

79: it is an almost empty region: in the interior the matter density is roughly

80: $10^4$ times smaller than in the cheese. Our model consists of a sequence of up

81: to five holes and the observer is looking through them. The idea, however, is

82: that the universe is completely filled with  these holes, which form a sort of

83: lattice as shown in Fig.\ \ref{imodel}. In this way an observer at rest  with

84: respect to a comoving cheese-FRW observer will see an isotropic  CMB along the

85: two directions of sight shown in Fig.\ \ref{imodel}.

86: 

87: 

88: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

89: \begin{figure}[htb]

90: \begin{center}

91: \includegraphics[width=11 cm]{rhotbar.eps}

92: \caption{\small \slshape The densities $\rho(r,\bar{t})$ (solid curve) and

93: $\bar{\rho}(r,\bar{t})$  (dashed curve). Here, $\bar{t}=-0.8$ (recall

94: $t_{BB}=-1$). The hole ends at $r_{h}=0.042$. The matching to the FRW solution

95: is achieved  as one can see from the plot of $\bar{\rho}(r,\bar{t})$.}

96: \label{rho0}

97: \end{center}

98: \end{figure}

99: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

100: 

101: 

102: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

103: \begin{figure}[htb]

104: \begin{center}

105: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{imodel.eps}

106: \caption{\small \slshape Sketch of our Swiss-cheese model. An observer at rest with 

107: respect to a comoving cheese-FRW observer will see an isotropic CMB 

108: along the two directions of sight marked with dotted red lines. 

109: Three possible positions for an observer are shown.}

110: \label{imodel}

111: \end{center}

112: \end{figure}

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

114: 

115: \newpage

116: 

117: It is useful to consider the velocity of a shell relative to 

118: the FRW background.  

119: We define

120: \begin{equation}

121: \Delta v_{sh}(r,t)= \dot{a}_{LTB}(r,t)-\dot{a}_{FRW}(t),

122: \end{equation}

123: where $a_{LTB}(r,t)= Y(r,t)/ r$.

124: To have a realistic evolution, we demand that there are no initial peculiar

125: velocities at time $\bar{t}$, that is, to have an initial expansion $H$

126: independent of $r$: $\Delta v_{sh}(r,\bar{t})=0$. From Eq.\ (\ref{cucu})

127: this implies

128: \begin{equation} 

129: \label{Er}

130: E(r)=\frac{1}{2} H_{FRW}^2(\bar{t}) \, r^{2}-\frac{1}{6\pi}\frac{M(r)}{r}.

131: \end{equation}

132: The graph of $E(r)$ chosen in this way is shown in Fig.\ \ref{E}. As seen from

133: the figure, the curvature $E(r)$ is small compared with unity. Indeed, in many

134: formulae $W=(1+ 2 E)^{1/2}\simeq 1+E$ appears, therefore one should compare $E$

135: with $1$. In spite of its smallness, the curvature will play a crucial role to

136: allow a realistic evolution of structures, as we will see in the next section.

137: 

138: Also in Fig.\ \ref{E} we graph $k(r)=-2 E(r)/r^{2}$, which is the

139: generalization of the factor $k$ in the usual FRW models. (It is not normalized

140: to unity.) As one can see, $k(r)$ is very nearly constant  in the empty region

141: inside the hole. This is another way to see the reason for our choice of the

142: curvature function: we want to have in the center an empty bubble dominated by

143: negative curvature.

144: 

145: It is important to note that the dynamics of the hole is scale-independent:

146: small holes will evolve in the same way as big holes. To show this, we just

147: have to express Eq.\ (\ref{motion}) with respect to a generic variable

148: $\tilde{r}=r/g$ where $g$ fixes the scale. If we change $g$, \textit{i.e.,}

149: if we scale the density profile, we will find the same scaled shape for $k(r)$ and

150: the same time evolution. This property is again due to spherical symmetry

151: which frees the inner shells from the influence of the outer ones: We can think

152: of a shell as an infinitesimal FRW solution and its behavior is 

153: scale independent because it is a homogeneous and isotropic solution.

154: 

155: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

156: \begin{figure}[htb]

157: \begin{center}

158: \includegraphics[width=13 cm]{curvature.eps}

159: \caption{\small \slshape Curvature $E(r)$ and $k(r)$ necessary for the initial conditions of no

160: peculiar velocities.}

161: \label{E}

162: \end{center}

163: \end{figure}

164: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

165: 

166: \clearpage

167: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

168: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

169: \section{The dynamics} \label{dynamics}

170: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

171: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

172: 

173: Now we explore the dynamics of this Swiss-cheese model.  As we have said, the

174: cheese evolves as in the standard FRW model. Of course, inside the holes the

175: evolution is different. This will become clear from the plots given below. 

176: 

177: We will discuss two illustrative cases: a flat case where $E(r)=0$, and a

178: curved case where $E(r)$ is given by Eq.\ (\ref{Er}). We are really interested

179: only in the second case because the first will turn out to be unrealistic.  But

180: the flat case is useful to understand the dynamics.

181: 

182: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

183: \subsection{The flat case}

184: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

185: 

186: In Fig.\ \ref{flat} we show the evolution of $Y(r,t)$ for the flat case,

187: $E(r)=0$.  In the figure $Y(r,t)$ is plotted for three times: $t=\bar{t}=-0.8$

188: (recall $t_{BB}=-1$), $t = -0.4$, and $t=0$ (corresponding to today).

189: 

190: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

191: \begin{figure}[p]

192: \begin{center}

193: \includegraphics[width= 15 cm]{flat.eps}

194: \caption{\small \slshape Behavior of $Y(r,t)$ with respect to $r$, the peculiar velocities $v(r,t)$ with respect to $r$, and the

195: density profiles $\rho(r,t)$ with respect to $r_{FRW}=Y(r,t)/a(t)$,

196: for the flat case at times $t=\bar{t}=-0.8$, 

197: $t=-0.4$ and $t=t_0=0$.

198: The straight lines for $Y(r,t)$ are the FRW solutions

199: while the dashed lines are the LTB solutions.  For the peculiar velocities,

200: matter is  escaping from high density regions. The center has no peculiar

201: velocity  because of spherical symmetry,  and the maximum of negative peculiar

202: velocity is before the peak in density.  Finally, the values of $\rho(\infty,t)$ are $1,\ 2.8,$ 

203: and $25$, for $t=0,\ -0.4,\ -0.8$,  respectively.}

204: \label{flat}

205: \end{center}

206: \end{figure}

207: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

208: 

209: {}From Fig.\ \ref{flat} it is clear that outside the hole, \textit{i.e.,} for

210: $r \geq r_{h}$, $Y(r,t)$ evolves as a FRW solution, $Y(r,t)\propto r$. However,

211: deep inside the hole  where it is almost empty, there is no time evolution to

212: $Y(r,t)$:  it is Minkowski space.   Indeed, thanks to spherical symmetry, the

213: outer shells do not influence the interior. If we place additional matter

214: inside the empty space, it will start expanding as an FRW universe, but at a

215: lower rate because of the lower density. It is interesting to point out that a

216: photon passing the empty region will undergo no redshift: again, it is just

217: Minkowski space.

218: 

219: This counterintuitive behavior (empty regions expanding slowly) is due to the

220: fact that the spatial curvature vanishes.  This corresponds to an unrealistic

221: choice of initial peculiar velocities. To see this we plot the peculiar

222: velocity that an observer following a shell $r$ has with respect to an FRW

223: observer passing through that same spatial point. The result is also shown in

224: Fig.\ \ref{flat} where it is seen that matter is escaping from the high density

225: regions. This causes the evolution to be reversed as one can see in Fig.\

226: \ref{flat} from the density profile at different times: structures are not

227: forming, but spreading out.

228: 

229: Remember that $r$ is only a label for the shell

230: whose Euclidean position at time $t$ is $Y(r,t)$. 

231: In the plots of the energy density we have

232: normalized $Y(r,t)$ using $r_{FRW}=Y(r,t)/a(t)$.

233: 

234: 

235: 

236: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

237: \subsection{The curved case}

238: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

239: 

240: Now we will move to a more interesting and relevant case. We are going to use the

241: $E(r)$ given by Eq.\ (\ref{Er}); the other parameters will stay the same.

242: Comparison with the flat case is useful to understand how the model behaves,

243: and in particular the role of the curvature.

244: In Fig.\ \ref{curved} the results for $Y(r,t)$ in the curved case are plotted.

245: Time goes from $t=\bar{t}=-0.8$ to $t=0$.

246: 

247: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

248: \begin{figure}[p]

249: \begin{center}

250: \includegraphics[width= 15 cm]{curved.eps}

251: \caption{\small \slshape Behavior of $Y(r,t)$ with respect to $r$, 

252: the peculiar velocities $v(r,t)$ with respect to $r$, and the

253: density profiles $\rho(r,t)$ with respect to $r_{FRW}=Y(r,t)/a(t)$,

254: for the curved case at times $t=\bar{t}=-0.8$, 

255: $t=-0.4$ and $t=t_0=0$. The straight lines for $Y(r,t)$ are the FRW solutions

256: while the dashed lines are the LTB solutions.  For the peculiar velocities,

257: the matter gradually starts to move toward high density regions. The solid

258: vertical line marks the position of the peak in the density with respect 

259: to $r$. For the

260: densities, note that the curve for $\rho(r,0)$ has been divided by $10$.  

261: Finally, the values of $\rho(\infty,t)$ are $1,\ 2.8,$ and $25$, for $t=0,\

262: -0.4,\ -0.8$,  respectively. }

263: \label{curved}

264: \end{center}

265: \end{figure}

266: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

267: 

268: As one can see, now the inner almost empty region is expanding faster than the

269: outer (cheese) region. This is shown clearly in Fig.\ \ref{outinc}, where also

270: the evolution of the inner and outer sizes is shown. Now the density ratio

271: between the cheese and the interior region of the hole increases by a factor of

272: $2$ between $t=\bar{t}$ and $t=0$. Initially the density ratio was $10^{4}$,

273: but the model is not sensitive to this number since the evolution in the

274: interior region is dominated by the curvature ($k(r)$ is much larger than the

275: matter density). We stress now the fact that the crucial ingredient is

276: to have a faster-than-cheese expanding void.

277: 

278: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

279: \begin{figure}[htb]

280: \begin{center}

281: \includegraphics[width= 13 cm]{innerouter.eps}

282: \caption{\small \slshape Evolution of the expansion rate and the size for the inner 

283: and outer regions. Here ``inner'' refers to a point deep inside the hole, and

284: ``outer'' refers to a point in the cheese.}

285: \label{outinc}

286: \end{center}

287: \end{figure}

288: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

289: 

290: The peculiar velocities are now natural: as can be seen from Fig.\

291: \ref{curved}, matter is falling towards the peak in the density. The evolution

292: is now realistic, as one can see from Fig.\ \ref{curved}, which shows the

293: density profile at different times. Overdense regions start contracting and

294: they become thin shells (mimicking structures), while underdense regions become

295: larger (mimicking voids), and eventually they occupy most of the volume.

296: 

297: Let us explain why the high density shell forms and the nature of the shell

298: crossing. Because of the distribution of matter, the inner part of the hole is

299: expanding faster than the cheese; between these two regions  there is the

300: initial overdensity. It is because of this that there is less matter in the

301: interior part. (Remember that we matched the FRW density at the end of the

302: hole.) Now we clearly see what is happening: the overdense region is squeezed

303: by the interior and exterior regions which act as a clamp. Shell crossing

304: eventually happens when more shells -- each labeled by its own $r$ -- are so

305: squeezed that they occupy the same position $Y$, i.e.~when $Y'=0$.

306: Nothing happens to the photons other than passing through more shells at the

307: same time: this is the meaning of the $g_{r r}$ metric coefficient going to

308: zero.

309: 

310: A remark is in order here: In the inner part of the hole there is almost no

311: matter, it is empty. Therefore it has only negative curvature, which is largely

312: dominant over the matter: it is close to a Milne universe.

313: 

314: \clearpage

315: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

316: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

317: \section{Photons} \label{photons}

318: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

319: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

320: 

321: We are mostly interested in observables associated with the  propagation of

322: photons in our Swiss-cheese model: indeed, our aim is to calculate the

323: luminosity-distance--redshift relation $d_{L}(z)$ in order to understand the

324: effects of inhomogeneities on observables. Our setup is illustrated in Fig.\

325: \ref{schizzo}, where there is a sketch of the model with only $3$ holes for the

326: sake of clarity. Notice that photons are propagating through the centers.

327: 

328: We will discuss two categories of cases: 1) when the observer is just outside

329: the last hole as in Fig.\ \ref{schizzo}, and 2) when the observer is inside the

330: hole. The observer in the hole will have two subcases: a) the observer located

331: on a high-density shell, and b) the observer in the center of the hole.  We are

332: mostly interested in the first case: the observer is still a usual FRW

333: observer, but looking through the holes in the Swiss cheese.

334: 

335: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

336: \begin{figure}[htb]

337: \begin{center}

338: \includegraphics[width= 15 cm]{cheese.eps}

339: \caption{\small \slshape Sketch of our model in comoving coordinates. The shading represents 

340: the initial density profile: darker shading implies larger densities. The uniform 

341: gray is the FRW cheese. The photons pass through the holes as shown by the 

342: arrow.}

343: \label{schizzo}

344: \end{center}

345: \end{figure}

346: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

347: 

348: \clearpage

349: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

350: \subsection{Finding the photon path: an observer in the cheese} \label{ciccio}

351: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

352: 

353: We will discuss now the equations we will use to find the path of a photon

354: through the Swiss cheese. The geodesic equations can be reduced to a set of

355: four first-order differential equations (we are in the plane $\theta=\pi /2$):

356: \begin{equation}

357: \begin{array}{lll}

358: \Frac{dz}{d\lambda} & = -\Frac{\dot{Y}'}{Y'}\left((z+1)^2-

359: \Frac{c_\phi^2 }{Y^{2}}\right)

360: - c_{\phi}^{2} \Frac{\dot{Y}}{Y^{3}} & \qquad \qquad z(0)=0 \\

361: \Frac{dt}{d\lambda} & = z+1 & \qquad \qquad t(0)=t_{0}=0 \\

362: \Frac{dr}{d\lambda} & = \Frac{W}{Y'}\sqrt{(z+1)^2-\Frac{c_{\phi}^{2}}{Y^{2}}} 

363:  & \qquad \qquad r(0)=r_{h} \label{rgeo} \\

364: \Frac{d\phi}{d\lambda} & = \Frac{c_{\phi}}{Y^{2}} &  \qquad \qquad \phi(0)= \pi

365: \end{array}

366: \end{equation}

367: where $\lambda$ is an affine parameter that grows with time. The third

368: equation is actually the null condition for the geodesic. Thanks to the initial

369: conditions chosen we have $z(0)=0$. These equations describe the general 

370: path of a photon. To solve the equations we need to specify the constant 

371: $c_{\phi}$, a sort of angular momentum density. A first observation is 

372: that setting

373: $c_{\phi}=0$ allows us to recover the equations that describe a photon passing

374: radially trough the centers: $dt/dr=Y'/ W$. 

375: 

376: We are interested in photons that hit the observer at an angle $\alpha$ and are

377: passing trough all the holes as shown in Fig.\ \ref{schizzo}. To do this we

378: must compute the inner product of $x^{i}$ and $y^{i}$, which are the normalized

379: spatial vectors tangent to the radial axis and the geodesic as shown in Fig.\

380: \ref{frecce}. A similar approach was used in Ref.\ \cite{Alnes:2006pf}.

381: 

382: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

383: \begin{figure}[htb]

384: \begin{center}

385: \includegraphics[width=9 cm]{photon1.eps}

386: \caption{\small \slshape A photon hitting the observer at an angle $\alpha$.}

387: \label{frecce}

388: \end{center}

389: \end{figure}

390: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

391: 

392: The inner product of $x^i$ and $y^i$ is expressed through

393: \begin{eqnarray}

394: x^{i} & = & -\frac{W}{Y'}\; (1,0,0)\vert_{\lambda=0} \\

395: y^{i} & = & \frac{1}{dt/d\lambda}\left. \left (\frac{d}{d\lambda},0,

396: \frac{d\phi}{d\lambda}\right) \right|_{\lambda=0} = \left. 

397: \left (\frac{dr}{d\lambda},0,\frac{d\phi}{d\lambda}\right) \right|_{\lambda=0} 

398: \\

399: x^{i}\, y^{i}\, g_{i \, j} & = & \left. \frac{Y'}{W} \; 

400: \frac{dr}{d\lambda}\right|_{\lambda=0}=\cos \alpha\\

401: c_{\phi} & = & \left. Y \sin \alpha \right| _{\lambda=0}  .

402: \end{eqnarray}

403: The vectors are anchored to the shell labeled by the value of the affine

404: parameter $\lambda=0$, that is, to the border of the hole. Therefore, they are

405: relative to the comoving observer located there. In the second equation we have

406: used the initial conditions given in the previous set of equations, while to

407: find the last equation we have used the null condition evaluated at

408: $\lambda=0$. 

409: 

410: The above calculations use coordinates relative to the center. However, the

411: angle $\alpha$ is a scalar in the hypersurface we have chosen: we are using the

412: synchronous and comoving gauge. Therefore, $\alpha$ is the same angle 

413: measured by a comoving observer of Fig.\ \ref{frecce} located on the shell 

414: $r=-r_{h}$: it is a coordinate transformation within the same hypersurface.

415: 

416: Given an angle $\alpha$ we can solve the equations. We have to change the sign

417: in Eq.\ (\ref{rgeo}) when the photon is approaching the center with respect to

418: the previous case where it is moving away. Also, we have to sew together the

419: solutions between one hole and another, giving not only the right initial 

420: conditions, but also the appropriate constants $c_{\phi}$  (see Appendix

421: \ref{sewing}).

422: 

423: Eventually we end up with the solution $t(\lambda)$, $r(\lambda)$,

424: $\phi(\lambda)$ and $z(\lambda)$ from which we can calculate the observables of

425: interest.

426: 

427: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

428: \subsection{Finding the photon path: an observer in the hole}

429: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

430: 

431: Finding the solution in this case is the same as in the previous case with the

432: only difference that in Eq.\ (\ref{rgeo}) the initial condition is now

433: $r(0)=r_{obs}$. But this observer has a peculiar velocity with respect to an

434: FRW observer passing by. This, for example, will make the observer see an

435: anisotropic cosmic microwave background as it is clear from Fig.\ \ref{imodel}.

436: This Doppler effect, however, is already corrected in the solution we are going

437: to find since we have chosen $z(0)=0$ as initial condition.

438: 

439: There is however also the effect of light aberration which changes the angle

440: $\alpha$ seen by the comoving observer with respect to the angle

441: $\alpha_{\scriptscriptstyle FRW}$ seen by an FRW observer. The photon can be

442: thought as coming from a source very close to the comoving observer: therefore

443: there is no peculiar motion between them.  The FRW observer is instead moving

444: with respect to this reference frame as pictured in Fig.\ \ref{doppler}. The

445: relation between $\alpha$ and $\alpha_{\scriptscriptstyle FRW}$ is given by the

446: relativistic aberration formula:

447: \begin{equation}

448: \cos \alpha_{\scriptscriptstyle FRW}=\frac{\cos \alpha+ v/c}{1+v/c 

449: \; \cos \alpha} .

450: \end{equation}

451: The angle changes because the hypersurface has been changed. The velocity will

452: be taken from the calculation (see Fig.\ \ref{curved} for the magnitude of the

453: effect).

454: 

455: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

456: \begin{figure}[htb]

457: \begin{center}

458: \includegraphics[width=9 cm]{photon2.eps}

459: \caption{\small \slshape A comoving observer and a FRW observer live in different frames, this

460: results in a relative velocity $v_{FRW}$ between observers.}

461: \label{doppler}

462: \end{center}

463: \end{figure}

464: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

465: 

466: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

467: \subsection{Distances}

468: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

469: 

470: The angular diameter distance is defined as:

471: \begin{equation}

472: d_{A}=\frac{D}{\alpha_{\scriptscriptstyle FRW}} ,

473: \end{equation}

474: where $D$ is the proper diameter of the source and $\alpha$ is the angle at

475: which the source is seen by the observer. Using this definition to find $d_{A}$

476: we have

477: \begin{equation}

478: d_A = \frac{2 \, Y(r(\lambda),t(\lambda)) \; \sin \phi(\lambda)}{2 \,  

479: \alpha_{\scriptscriptstyle FRW}}  .

480: \end{equation}

481: The luminosity distance will then be:

482: \begin{equation}

483: d_{L}=(1+z)^{2} d_{A} .

484: \end{equation}

485: The formula we are going to use for $d_{A}$ is exact in the limit of zero

486: curvature. However in our model $E(r)$ is on average less than $0.3\%$  and

487: never more than $0.4\%$, as it can be seen from Fig.\ \ref{E}:  therefore the

488: approximation is good. Moreover, we are interested mainly in the case when the

489: source is out of the last hole as pictured in Fig.\ \ref{schizzo}, and in this

490: case the curvature is exactly zero and the result is exact.

491: 

492: We have checked that the computation of $d_{A}$ is independent of $\alpha$ for

493: small angles and that the result using the usual FRW equation coincides with

494: theoretical prediction for $d_{A}$. We also checked that $d_{A}$ reduces to

495: $Y(r,t)$ when the observer is in the center.

496: 

497: Finally we checked our procedure in comparison with the formula ($E.31$) of

498: Ref.\ \cite{Biswas:2006ub}: this is a rather different way to find the angular

499: distance and therefore this agreement serves as a consistency check. We placed

500: the observer in the same way and we found the same results provided that we use

501: the angle $\alpha$ uncorrected for the light-aberration effect.

502: 

503: 

504: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

505: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

506: \section{Results: observer in the cheese} \label{cheese}

507: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

508: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

509: 

510: Now we will look through the Swiss cheese comparing the results with respect to

511: a FRW-EdS universe and a $\Lambda$CDM case.

512: 

513: We will first analyze in detail the model with five holes, which is the one 

514: which we are most interested in. 

515: For comparison, we will study models with one big

516: hole and one small hole. In the model with one big hole, the hole will be

517: five-times bigger in size than in the model with five holes: \textit{i.e.,}

518: they will cover the same piece of the universe.

519: 

520: The observables on which we will focus are the changes in redshift

521: $z(\lambda)$, angular-diameter distance $d_{A}(z)$, luminosity distance

522: $d_{L}(z)$, and the corresponding distance modulus $\Delta m(z)$.

523: 

524: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

525: \subsection{Redshift histories} \label{histories}

526: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

527: 

528: Now we will first compare the redshift undergone by photons that travel through

529: the model with either five holes or one hole to the FRW solution of the cheese.

530: In Fig.\ \ref{zorro} the results are shown for a photon passing through the

531: center with respect to the coordinate radius. As one can see, the effects 

532: of the inhomogeneities on the redshift are smaller in the five-hole case.

533: 

534: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

535: \begin{figure}[htb]

536: \begin{center}

537: \includegraphics[width= 15 cm]{zofr.eps}

538: \caption{\small \slshape Redshift histories for a photon that travels from one side of the 

539: one-hole chain (left) and five-hole chain (right) to the other where the 

540: observer will detect it at present time. The ``regular'' curve is for the FRW

541: model. The vertical lines mark the edges of the holes. The plots are with

542: respect to the coordinate radius $r$. Notice also that along the voids the

543: redshift is increasing  faster: indeed $z'(r)=H(z)$ and the voids are expanding

544: faster.}

545: \label{zorro}

546: \end{center}

547: \end{figure}

548: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

549: 

550: It is natural to expect a compensation, due to the spherical symmetry,

551: between the ingoing path and the outgoing one inside the same hole. This

552: compensation is evident in Fig.~\ref{zorro}.

553: 

554: However, there is a compensation already on the scale of half a hole as it is

555: clear from the plots. This mechanism is due to the density profile chosen, that

556: is one whose average matches the FRW density of the cheese: roughly speaking we

557: know that $z'=H \propto \rho = \rho_{\scriptscriptstyle FRW} + \delta \rho$. We

558: chose the density profile in order to have $\langle \delta \rho \rangle=0$, and

559: therefore in its journey from the center to the border of the hole the photon

560: will see a $\langle H\rangle \sim H_{\scriptscriptstyle FRW}$ and therefore

561: there will be compensation for $z'$.

562: It is somewhat similar to the screening among positive and negative 

563: charges.

564: 

565: Let us see this analytically. We are interested in computing a line average of

566: the expansion along the photon path in order to track what is going on.

567: Therefore, we shall not use the complete expansion scalar:

568: \begin{equation}

569: \theta=\Gamma_{0k}^{k}=2\frac{\dot{Y}}{Y}+\frac{\dot{Y}'}{Y'} ,

570: \end{equation}

571: but, instead, only the part of it pertinent to a radial line average:

572: \begin{equation} \label{dito}

573: \theta_r=\Gamma_{01}^{1}=\frac{\dot{Y}'}{Y'}\equiv H_{r} ,

574: \end{equation}

575: where $\Gamma_{0k}^{k}$ are the Christoffel symbols and $\theta$ is the trace

576: of the extrinsic curvature.

577: 

578: Using $H_r$, we obtain:

579: \begin{equation}

580: \langle H_r \rangle =

581: \frac{\int_{0}^{r_{h}}dr \; H_r \; Y' / W}

582: {\int_{0}^{r_{h}} dr \; Y' / W} \simeq \left. \frac{\dot{Y}}{Y}\right|_{r=r_{h}}

583: = H_{\scriptscriptstyle FRW} ,

584: \end{equation}

585: where the approximation comes from neglecting the (small) curvature and the

586: last equality holds thanks to the density profile chosen. This is exactly the

587: result we wanted to find. However, we have performed an average at constant time

588: and therefore we did not let the hole and its structures  evolve while the

589: photon is passing: this effect will partially break the compensation. This

590: sheds light on the fact that photon physics seems to be affected by the

591: evolution of inhomogeneities more than by inhomogeneities themselves.

592: We can argue that there should be perfect compensation if the hole will have a

593: static metric such as the Schwarzschild one. In the end, this is a limitation

594: of our assumption of spherical symmetry.

595: 

596: This compensation is almost perfect in the five-hole case, while it is not in

597: the one-hole case: in the latter case the evolution has more time to change the

598: hole while the photon is passing. Summarizing, the compensation is working on

599: the scale $r_{h}$ of half a hole. These results are in agreement  with Ref.\

600: \cite{Biswas:2007gi}.

601: 

602: From the plot of the redshift one can see that function $z(r)$ is not

603: monotonic. This happens at recent times when the high-density thin shell forms.

604: This blueshift is due to the peculiar movement of the matter that is forming

605: the shell. This feature is shown in Fig.\ \ref{blue} where the distance between

606: the observer located just out of the hole at $r=r_{h}$ and two different shells

607: is plotted. In the solid curve one can see the behavior with respect to a

608: normal redshifted shell, while in the dashed curve one can see the behavior with

609: respect to a shell that will be blueshifted: initially the distance increases

610: following the Hubble flow, but when the shell starts forming, the peculiar

611: motion prevails on the Hubble flow and the distance decreases during the

612: collapse.

613: 

614: It is finally interesting to interpret the redshift that a photon undergoes

615: passing the inner void. The small amount of matter is subdominant with respect

616: to the curvature which is governing the evolution, but still it is important to

617: define the space: in the limit of zero matter in the interior of the hole, we

618: recover a Milne universe, which is just (half of) Minkowski space in unusual

619: coordinates. Before this limit the redshift was conceptually due to the

620: expansion of the spacetime, after this limit it is instead due to the peculiar

621: motion of the shells which now carry no matter: it is a Doppler effect.

622: 

623: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

624: \begin{figure}[htb]

625: \begin{center}

626: \includegraphics[width= 13 cm]{bluered.eps}

627: \caption{\small \slshape Distance between the observer and two different shells. In the

628: solid curve $r=0.55 \, r_{h}$ will be redshifted, while in the dashed curve,

629: $r=0.8 \, r_{h}$ will be blueshifted. The latter indeed will start to collapse 

630: toward the observer. Time goes from $t=-0.8$ to $t=0$.

631: The observer is located just outside of the hole at $r=r_{h}$.}

632: \label{blue}

633: \end{center}

634: \end{figure}

635: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

636: 

637: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

638: \subsection{Luminosity and Angular-Diameter Distances}

639: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

640: 

641: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

642: \subsubsection{The five-hole model} \label{5holes}

643: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

644: 

645: In Fig.\ \ref{5incheese} the results for the luminosity distance and angular

646: distance are shown. The solution is compared to the one of the $\Lambda$CDM

647: model with $\Omega_{M}=0.6$ and $\Omega_{DE}=0.4$. Therefore, we have an

648: effective $q_{0}=\Omega_{M}/2-\Omega_{DE}=-0.1$. In all the plots we will

649: compare this $\Lambda$CDM solution to our Swiss-cheese solution. The strange

650: features which appear near the contact region of the holes at recent times are

651: due to the non-monotonic behavior of $z(r)$, which was explained in the

652: previous section.

653: 

654: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

655: \begin{figure}[p]

656: \begin{center}

657: \includegraphics[width= 15 cm]{fiveholeincheese.eps}

658: \caption{\small \slshape On the bottom the luminosity distance $d_L(z)$ in the  five-hole model

659: (jagged curve) and the $\Lambda$CDM solution with $\Omega_{M}=0.6$ and

660: $\Omega_{DE}=0.4$ (regular curve) are shown.  In the middle is the change in

661: the angular diameter distance, $\Delta d_A(z)$, compared to a $\Lambda$CDM

662: model with  $\Omega_{M}=0.6$ and $\Omega_{DE}=0.4$. The top panel shows the

663: distance modulus in various cosmological models. The jagged line is for the

664: five-hole LTB model. The regular curves, from top to bottom, are a $\Lambda$CDM

665: model with  $\Omega_{M}=0.3$ and $\Omega_{DE}=0.7$, a $\Lambda$CDM model with  

666: $\Omega_{M}=0.6$ and $\Omega_{DE}=0.4$, the best smooth fit to the LTB model,

667: and the EdS model.  The vertical lines mark the edges of the five holes.}

668: \label{5incheese}

669: \end{center}

670: \end{figure}

671: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

672: 

673: The distance modulus is plotted in the top panel of Fig.\ \ref{5incheese}. The

674: solution shows an oscillating behavior which is due to the simplification of

675: this toy model in which all the voids are concentrated inside the holes and all

676: the structures are in thin spherical shells. For this reason a fitting curve

677: was plotted: it is passing through the points of the photon path that are in

678: the cheese between the holes. Indeed, they are points of average behavior and well

679: represent the coarse graining of this oscillating curve. The

680: simplification of this model also tells us that the most interesting part of

681: the plot is farthest from the observer, let us say at $z>1$. In this region we

682: can see the effect of the holes clearly: they move the curve from the EdS

683: solution (in purple) to the $\Lambda$CDM one with $\Omega_{M}=0.6$ and

684: $\Omega_{DE}=0.4$ (in blue). Of course, the model in not realistic enough to

685: reach the ``concordance'' solution.

686: 

687: Here we are discussing a comparison of our results with those of Ref.\

688: \cite{Biswas:2007gi}. In that paper they do not find the big difference from FRW

689: results that we do.  First of all, we can notice that we are able to reproduce their

690: results using our techniques.  The difference between their results and ours is

691: that our model has very strong nonlinear evolution, in particular, close to

692: shell crossing where we have to stop our calculations.  Also, the authors of Ref.\

693: \cite{Biswas:2007gi} used smaller holes with a different 

694: density/initial-velocity profile.  This demonstrated that a big change in

695: observables may require either non-spherical inhomogeneities, or evolution very

696: close to shell crossing.  (We remind the reader that caustics are certainly

697: expected to form in cold dark matter models.)

698: 

699: Let us return now to the reason for our results. As we have seen previously,

700: due to spherical symmetry there are no significant redshift effects in the

701: five-hole case. Therefore, these effects must be due to changes in the

702: angular-diameter distance. Fig.\ \ref{bend} is useful to understand what is

703: going on: the angle from the observer is plotted. Through the inner void and

704: the cheese the photon is going straight: they are both $FRW$ solutions even if

705: with different parameters. This is shown in the plot by constancy of the slope.

706: The bending occurs near the peak in the density where the $g_{r \, r}$

707: coefficient of the metric goes toward zero. Indeed the coordinate velocity of

708: the photon can be split into an angular part: $v_{\phi}=d\phi/dt=1/\sqrt{g_{\phi

709: \, \phi}}$ and a radial part $v_{r}=dr/dt=1/\sqrt{g_{r \, r}}$. While

710: $v_{\phi}$ behaves well near the peak, $v_{r}$ goes to infinity in the limit

711: where shell crossing is reached: the photons are passing more and more

712: matter shells in a short interval of time as the evolution approaches the

713: shell-crossing point.  Although in our model we do not reach shell crossing,

714: this is the reason for the bending. We can, therefore, see that all the effects in

715: this model, redshift and angular effects, are due to the evolution of

716: inhomogeneities and this is primary due to the presence of a faster-than-cheese expanding void

717: which, we think, is a crucial ingredient.

718: 

719: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

720: \begin{figure}[htb]

721: \begin{center}

722: \includegraphics[width= 13 cm]{angle.eps}

723: \caption{\small \slshape The angle from the observer is plotted. The dashed vertical lines 

724: near the empty region mark the shell of maximum peculiar velocities of 

725: Fig.\ \ref{curved}. The shaded regions represent the inner FRW solution. The 

726: solid vertical lines mark the peak in density. The angle at which the photon 

727: hits the observer is $2.7\,^{\circ}$ on the left.}

728: \label{bend}

729: \end{center}

730: \end{figure}

731: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

732: 

733: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

734: \subsubsection{The one-hole model: the big hole case} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

735: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

736: 

737: Let us see now how the results change if instead of the five-hole model we use

738: the one-hole model.  We have already shown the redshift results in the previous

739: section. As one can see from Fig.\ \ref{1big} the results are more dramatic:

740: for high redshifts the Swiss-cheese curve can be fit by a $\Lambda$CDM model

741: with less dark energy than $\Omega_{DE}=0.6$ as in the five-hole model.

742: Nonetheless, the results have not changed so much compared to the change in the

743: redshift effects discussed in the previous section. Indeed the compensation

744: scale for angular effects is $2 r_{h}$ while the one for redshift effects is

745: $r_{h}$.

746: 

747: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

748: \begin{figure}[p]

749: \begin{center}

750: \includegraphics[width= 15 cm]{onebighole.eps}

751: \caption{\small \slshape On the bottom is shown the luminosity distance $d_L(z)$ in the one-hole

752: model (jagged curve) and the $\Lambda$CDM solution with $\Omega_{M}=0.6$ and

753: $\Omega_{DE}=0.4$ (regular curve).  In the middle is the change in the the

754: angular diameter distance, $\Delta d_A(z)$, compared to a $\Lambda$CDM model

755: with  $\Omega_{M}=0.6$ and $\Omega_{DE}=0.4$. On the top is shown the distance

756: modulus in various cosmological models. The jagged line is for the one-hole LTB

757: model.  The regular curves, from top to bottom are a $\Lambda$CDM model with 

758: $\Omega_{M}=0.3$ and $\Omega_{DE}=0.7$, a $\Lambda$CDM model with

759: $\Omega_{M}=0.6$ and $\Omega_{DE}=0.4$ and the EdS model.  The vertical lines

760: mark the edges of the hole.}

761: \label{1big}

762: \end{center}

763: \end{figure}

764: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

765: 

766: 

767: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

768: \subsubsection{The one-hole model: the small hole case}

769: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

770: 

771: Finally if we remove four holes from the five-hole model, we lose almost all

772: the effects. This is shown in Fig.\ \ref{1small}: now the model can be compared

773: to a $\Lambda$CDM model with $\Omega_{M}=0.95$ and $\Omega_{DE}=0.05$.

774: 

775: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

776: \begin{figure}[p]

777: \begin{center}

778: \includegraphics[width= 15 cm]{onesmallhole.eps}

779: \caption{\small \slshape On the bottom is shown the luminosity distance $d_L(z)$ in the 1-hole

780: model (jagged curve) and the $\Lambda$CDM solution with $\Omega_{M}=0.95$ and

781: $\Omega_{DE}=0.05$ (regular curve).  In the middle is the change in the the

782: angular diameter distance, $\Delta d_A(z)$, compared to a $\Lambda$CDM model

783: with  $\Omega_{M}=0.95$ and $\Omega_{DE}=0.05$. On the top is shown the distance

784: modulus in various cosmological models. The jagged line is for the one-hole LTB

785: model.  The regular curves, from top to bottom are a $\Lambda$CDM model with 

786: $\Omega_{M}=0.3$ and $\Omega_{DE}=0.7$, a $\Lambda$CDM model with

787: $\Omega_{M}=0.95$ and $\Omega_{DE}=0.05$ and the EdS model.  The vertical lines

788: mark the edges of the hole.}

789: \label{1small}

790: \end{center}

791: \end{figure}

792: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

793: 

794: \clearpage

795: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

796: \section{Results: observer in the hole} \label{hole}

797: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

798: 

799: Now we will examine the case in which the observer is inside the last hole in

800: the five-hole model. We will first put the observer on the high-density shell

801: and then place the observer in the center.

802: 

803: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

804: \subsection{Observer on the high density shell}

805: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

806: 

807: In the section we show the results for the observer on the high-density shell.

808: As one can see from Fig.\ \ref{zpik}, now the compensation in the redshift

809: effect is lost: the photon is not completing the entire last half of the last

810: hole. The results for the luminosity distance and the angular distance do not

811: change much as shown in Fig.\ \ref{shell}.

812: 

813: Remember that in this case the observer has a peculiar velocity compared to the

814: FRW observer passing through the same point. We correct the results taking into

815: account both the Doppler effect and the light aberration effect.

816: 

817: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

818: \begin{figure}[htb]

819: \begin{center}

820: \includegraphics[width= 11 cm]{zlambdashell.eps}

821: \caption{\small \slshape Redshift histories for a photon that travels through the 

822: five-hole-chain to the observer placed on the high density shell.

823: The ``regular'' line is for the FRW model. $\lambda$ is the affine 

824: parameter and it grows with the time which go from the left to the right. 

825: The vertical lines mark the end and the beginning of the holes.}

826: \label{zpik}

827: \end{center}

828: \end{figure}

829: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

830: 

831: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

832: \begin{figure}[p]

833: \begin{center}

834: \includegraphics[width= 15 cm]{fiveholeinshell.eps}

835: \caption{\small \slshape On the bottom is shown the luminosity distance $d_L(z)$ in the

836: five-hole model (jagged curve) and the $\Lambda$CDM solution with

837: $\Omega_{M}=0.6$ and $\Omega_{DE}=0.4$ (regular curve). In the middle is the

838: change in the angular diameter distance, $\Delta d_A(z)$, compared to a

839: $\Lambda$CDM model with  $\Omega_{M}=0.6$ and $\Omega_{DE}=0.4$. On the top is

840: shown the distance modulus in various cosmological models. The jagged line is

841: for the five-hole LTB model.  The regular curves, from top to bottom are  a

842: $\Lambda$CDM model with  $\Omega_{M}=0.3$ and $\Omega_{DE}=0.7$, a $\Lambda$CDM

843: model with   $\Omega_{M}=0.6$ and $\Omega_{DE}=0.4$, the best smooth fit to the

844: LTB model, and the EdS model.  The vertical lines mark the edges of the five

845: holes.}

846: \label{shell}

847: \end{center}

848: \end{figure}

849: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

850: 

851: \clearpage

852: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

853: \subsection{Observer in the center}

854: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

855: 

856: In this section we show the results for the observer in the center. As 

857: confirmed by Fig.\ \ref{zetacent}, the compensation in the redshift effect is

858: good: the photon is passing through an integer number of half holes.

859: 

860: The results for the luminosity distance and the angular distance look worse as

861: shown in Fig.\ \ref{void}, but this is mainly due to the fact that now the

862: photon crosses half a hole less than in the previous cases and therefore it

863: undergoes less bending.

864: 

865: In this case the observer has no peculiar velocity compared to the FRW one:

866: this is a result of spherical symmetry.

867: 

868: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

869: \begin{figure}[htb]

870: \begin{center}

871: \includegraphics[width= 13 cm]{zlambdahole.eps}

872: \caption{\small \slshape Redshift histories for a photon that travels through the 

873: five-hole-chain to the observer placed in the center. The ``regular'' line is

874: for the FRW model. $\lambda$ is the affine parameter  and it grows with the

875: time which go from the left to the right. The vertical  lines mark the end and

876: the beginning of the holes.}

877: \label{zetacent}

878: \end{center}

879: \end{figure}

880: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

881: 

882: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

883: \begin{figure}[p]

884: \begin{center}

885: \includegraphics[width= 15 cm]{fiveholeinvoid.eps}

886: \caption{\small \slshape The bottom panel shows the luminosity distance $d_L(z)$ in the

887: five-hole model (jagged curve) and the $\Lambda$CDM solution with

888: $\Omega_{M}=0.6$ and $\Omega_{DE}=0.4$ (regular curve). In the middle is the

889: change in the angular diameter distance, $\Delta d_A(z)$, compared to a

890: $\Lambda$CDM model with  $\Omega_{M}=0.6$ and $\Omega_{DE}=0.4$. On the top

891: panel the distance modulus in various cosmological models is shown.  The jagged

892: line is for the five-hole LTB model. The regular curves, from top to bottom are 

893: a $\Lambda$CDM model with  $\Omega_{M}=0.3$ and $\Omega_{DE}=0.7$, a

894: $\Lambda$CDM model with $\Omega_{M}=0.6$ and $\Omega_{DE}=0.4$, the best smooth

895: fit to the LTB model, and the EdS model.  The vertical lines mark the edges of

896: the five holes.}

897: \label{void}

898: \end{center}

899: \end{figure}

900: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

901: 

902: 

903: 

904: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

905: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

906: \section{The fitting problem} \label{fitti}

907: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

908: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

909: 

910: Now that we have seen how the luminosity-distance--redshift relation is 

911: affected by inhomogeneities, we want to study the same model from the  point of

912: view of light-cone averaging to see if we can gain insights into how 

913: inhomogeneities renormalize the matter Swiss-cheese model and mimic a

914: dark-energy component.

915: 

916: We are going to work out in this section the ideas introduced in Section~\ref{fritto}.

917: A remark is, however, in order here: in the previous section we did not fit 

918: the $d_L(z)$ with an FRW solution. We have simply compared the shape of 

919: the $d_L(z)$ for the Swiss-cheese model with the one of a $\Lambda$CDM model.

920: 

921: We intend now to fit a phenomenological FRW model to our Swiss-cheese model. The

922: FRW model we  have in mind is a spatially flat model with a matter component

923: with present fraction of the energy density $\Omega_M=0.25$, and with a

924: phenomenological dark-energy component with present fraction of the energy

925: density $\Omega_\Lambda=0.75$.  We will assume that the dark-energy component

926: has an equation of state

927: \begin{equation}

928: \label{fame}

929: w(a)=w_{0}+ w_{a}\left(1-\frac{a}{a_0}\right)=w_0+w_a \; \frac{z}{1+z} .

930: \end{equation}

931: Thus, the total energy density in the phenomenological model evolves as

932: \begin{equation} 

933: \label{linda}

934: \frac{\rho^\textrm{\scriptsize FIT}}{\rho_{0}} = \Omega_M(1+z)^3 + \Omega_\Lambda

935: (1+z)^{3(1+w_{0}+w_{a})}\; \exp\left(-3w_{a}\frac{z}{1+z}\right) .

936: \end{equation}

937: We will refer to this model as the {\it phenomenological model}.

938: 

939: Our Swiss-cheese model is a lattice of holes as sketched in Fig.\

940: \ref{schizzo}:  the scale of inhomogeneities is therefore simply the size of

941: a hole.  We are interested in understanding how the equation of state of

942: ``dark energy'' in the phenomenological model changes with respect to $r_{h}$,

943: and in  particular, why. Of course, in the limit $r_{h} \rightarrow 0$, we

944: expect to find  $w=0$, that is, the underlying EdS model out of which the cheese

945: is constructed.

946: 

947: \clearpage

948: 

949: The procedure developed by Ref.\ \cite{ellis-1987} is summarized by Fig.\

950: \ref{map}.  We refer the reader to that reference for a more thorough analysis

951: and to Ref.\ \cite{Celerier:2007tp} and references therein for recent

952: developments. We will focus now in using our Swiss-cheese model as a cosmological (toy)

953: model.

954: 

955: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

956: \begin{figure}[htb]

957: \begin{center}

958: \includegraphics[width=10 cm]{map.eps}

959: \caption{\small \slshape In the null data best fitting, one successively chooses maps  from the

960: real cosmological model $U$ to the FRW model $U'$ of the null  cone vertex

961: $p'$, the matter 4-velocity at $p'$, a two-sphere $S'$ on the  null cone of

962: $p'$ and a point $q'$ on the 2-sphere. This establishes the  correspondence

963: $\psi$ of points on the past null cone of $p'$, $C^-(p^\prime)$, to the past 

964: null cone of $p$, $C^-(p^\prime)$, and then compares initial data at $q'$ and

965: at $q$. From  Figure 2 of \cite{ellis-1987}.}

966: \label{map}

967: \end{center}

968: \end{figure}

969: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

970: 

971: 

972: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

973: \subsection{Choice of vertex points}

974: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

975: 

976: We start choosing the two observers to be compared. In the homogeneous FRW

977: model every observer is the same thanks to spatial  homogeneity. We choose an

978: observer in the cheese as the corresponding observer in our Swiss-cheese model,

979: in particular the one shown in Fig.\ \ref{schizzo}.

980: 

981: Our model allows us to choose also the time of observation, which, in general,

982: is a final product of the comparison. We now explain why.

983: 

984: The FRW model we will obtain from the fit will evolve differently from the 

985: Swiss cheese: the latter evolves as an EdS model, while the former will 

986: evolve as a quintessence-like model. They are really different models. 

987: They will agree only along the light cone, that is, on our observations.

988: 

989: Now, for consistency, when we make local measurements\footnote{Conceptually, 

990: it could not be possible with a realistic universe model to make 

991: local measurements that could be directly compared to the smoothed FRW 

992: model. We are allowed to do so thanks to our particular Swiss-cheese 

993: model in which the cheese well represents the average properties of the 

994: model.} the two models have to give us the same answer: local

995: measurements indeed can be seen as averaging measurements with a small enough 

996: scale of averaging, and the two models agree along the past light cone. 

997: 

998: Therefore, we choose the time in order that the two observers measure  the same

999: local density. This feature is already inherent in Eq.\ (\ref{linda}):  the

1000: phenomenological model and the Swiss-cheese model evolve in order to have the

1001: same local density, and therefore the same Hubble parameter, at the present

1002: time.

1003: 

1004: 

1005: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1006: \subsection{Fitting the 4-velocity}

1007: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1008: 

1009: The next step is to fit the four-velocities of the observers.  In the FRW model

1010: we will choose a comoving observer, the only one who experiences an isotropic

1011: CMB. In the Swiss-cheese model, we will choose, for the same reason, a 

1012: cheese-comoving observer. Again, our Swiss-cheese model considerably simplifies

1013: our work.

1014: 

1015: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1016: \subsection{Choice of comparison points on the null cones} \label{compa}

1017: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1018: 

1019: Now that the past null cones are uniquely determined, we have to choose a 

1020: measure of distance to compare points along each null cone.

1021: 

1022: First, let us point out that instead of the entire two-sphere along the null

1023: cone, we will examine, only a point on it. This is because of the simplified

1024: set-up of our Swiss-cheese model in which  the observer is observing only in

1025: two opposite directions, as  illustrated in Fig.\ \ref{schizzo}. This means

1026: that we can skip the step consisting in averaging our observable quantities

1027: over the surface of constant redshift,  which is generally necessary in order

1028: to be able to compare an  inhomogeneous model with the FRW model

1029: \cite{ellis-1987}.

1030: 

1031: Coming back to the main issue of this section,  we will use the observed

1032: redshift  $z$ to compare points along the null cones. Generally, the

1033: disadvantage of  using it is that it does not directly represent distances

1034: along the null  cone. Rather, the observed value $z$ is related to the

1035: cosmological redshift  $z_{C}$ by the relation:

1036: \begin{equation}

1037: 1+z=(1+z_{O})(1+z_{C})(1+z_{S})

1038: \end{equation}

1039: where $z_{O}$ is the redshift due to the peculiar velocity of the observer 

1040: $O$ and $z_{S}$ that due to the peculiar velocity of the source. The latter, 

1041: in particular, is a problem because local observations cannot distinguish 

1042: $z_{S}$ from $z_{C}$. 

1043: 

1044: However, our set up again simplifies this task. The chosen observers are, 

1045: indeed, both comoving (in the Swiss-cheese model because the observer is in the

1046: cheese, and in the phenomenological model by construction), and therefore

1047: $z_{O}=0$.  Regarding the sources,  we know exactly their behavior because we

1048: have a model to work with.

1049: 

1050: The sources are also comoving; however, there are structure-formation  effects

1051: that should be disentangled from the average evolution. For this  reason we

1052: will perform averages between points in the cheese (the  meaning of this will

1053: be clear in the next section) in order to  smooth out these structure-formation

1054: effects.

1055: 

1056: 

1057: \clearpage

1058: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1059: \subsection{Fitting the null data} \label{fitting}

1060: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1061: 

1062: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1063: \begin{figure}[htb]

1064: \begin{center}

1065: \includegraphics[width=16.2 cm]{shime.eps}

1066: \caption{\small \slshape An illustration of the points chosen for the averaging procedure.}

1067: \label{shime}

1068: \end{center}

1069: \end{figure}

1070: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1071: 

1072: Now we are ready to set up the fitting of our Swiss-cheese model. Ref.\

1073: \cite{Hellaby:1988zz} studied the approach based on volume averaging outlined

1074: in Ref.\ \cite{ellis-1987}. This approach, however, is appropriate for studies 

1075: concerning global dynamics, as in Refs.\ \cite{Buchert:2002ht, Buchert:2007ik}. As

1076: stressed previously, here we are instead interested in averages  {\it directly}

1077: related to observational quantities, and we constructed our  model following

1078: this idea: it is a model that is exactly solvable and  ``realistic'' (even if

1079: still a toy) at the price of no interesting volume-averaged dynamics.

1080: 

1081: Therefore, we will follow a slightly different approach from the ones outlined

1082: in Ref.\ \cite{ellis-1987}:  we are going to fit averages along the light cone.

1083: This method will be intermediate between the fitting approach and the

1084: averaging approach.

1085: 

1086: We will focus on the expansion scalar and the density. We will see that these

1087: two quantities behave differently under averaging. We denote by

1088: $Q^\textrm{\scriptsize SC}(r, t)$ a quantity in the Swiss-cheese model we want to average.

1089: We denote by $Q^\textrm{\scriptsize FIT}(t)$ the corresponding quantity we want to fit to

1090: the average of $Q^\textrm{\scriptsize SC}(r, t)$. Note that $Q^\textrm{\scriptsize FIT}(t)$ does not

1091: depend on $r$ because the phenomenological model we will employ to describe the

1092: Swiss-cheese model is homogeneous.

1093: 

1094: Again, the fit model is a phenomenological homogeneous model (just refereed to

1095: as the phenomenological model).  It need not be the model of the cheese.

1096: 

1097: The procedure is as follows. First we will average $Q^\textrm{\scriptsize SC}(r, t)$ for a

1098: photon that starts from the emission point $E$ of the five-hole chain and

1099: arrives at the locations of observers $O_{i}$ of Fig.\ \ref{shime}. We have

1100: chosen those points because they well represent the average dynamics of the

1101: model. Indeed, these points are not affected by structure evolution because they

1102: are in the cheese.  Then, we will compare this result with the average of

1103: $Q^\textrm{\scriptsize FIT}(t)$ for  the phenomenological and homogeneous source with

1104: density given by Eq.\ (\ref{linda}) with an equation of state $w$ given by Eq.\

1105: (\ref{fame}). 

1106: 

1107: The two quantities to be compared are therefore:

1108: \begin{eqnarray}

1109: \langle Q^\textrm{\scriptsize SC} \rangle_{\overline{\scriptscriptstyle EO}_{i}}

1110: & = & \left[  \int_{E}^{O_{i}} dr \; Y' / W \right]^{-1} 

1111: \int_{E}^{O_{i}} dr \ Q^\textrm{\scriptsize SC}(r,t(r)) \; Y'(r,t(r)) / W(r)  \nonumber \\

1112: \langle Q^\textrm{\scriptsize FIT} \rangle_{\overline{\scriptscriptstyle EO}_{i}} 

1113: \label{ququ1}

1114: & = & \left[  \int_{E}^{O_{i}} dr \;  a_{\scriptscriptstyle FIT} \right]^{-1}

1115: \int_{E}^{O_{i}} dr \ Q^\textrm{\scriptsize FIT}(t_{\scriptscriptstyle FIT}(r))\; 

1116: a_{\scriptscriptstyle FIT}(t_{\scriptscriptstyle FIT}(r))  ,

1117: \end{eqnarray}

1118: where $t(r)$ and $t_{\scriptscriptstyle FIT}(r)$ are the photon  geodesics in

1119: the Swiss-cheese model and in the phenomenological one, respectively. The

1120: functions $t_{\scriptscriptstyle FIT}(r)$, $a_{\scriptscriptstyle FIT}$  and

1121: other  quantities we will need are obtained solving the Friedman  equations

1122: with a source described by Eq.\ (\ref{linda}) with no curvature. The points

1123: $O_{i}$ in the Swiss-cheese model of Fig.\ \ref{shime}  are associated to

1124: points in the phenomenological model with the same redshift, as discussed in

1125: Sec.\ \ref{compa}.

1126: 

1127: We will then find the $w$ that gives the best fit between 

1128: $\langle Q^\textrm{\scriptsize FIT}\rangle$ and $\langle Q^\textrm{\scriptsize SC}\rangle$, that 

1129: is, the choice that minimizes:

1130: \begin{equation} \label{ququ2}

1131: \sum_{i} \left ( \langle Q^\textrm{\scriptsize FIT} 

1132: \rangle_{\overline{\scriptscriptstyle EO}_{i}}-

1133: \langle Q^\textrm{\scriptsize SC} 

1134: \rangle_{\overline{\scriptscriptstyle EO}_{i}} \right )^{2}  .

1135: \end{equation}

1136: Of course, in the absence of inhomogeneities, this method would give $w=0$.

1137: 

1138: %\clearpage

1139: 

1140: \ 

1141: 

1142: Let us summarize the approach:

1143: \begin{itemize}

1144: 

1145: \item We choose a phenomenological quintessence-like model that, at the

1146: present time, has the same density and Hubble parameter as the EdS-cheese

1147: model. 

1148: 

1149: \item We make this phenomenological model and the Swiss-cheese model

1150: correspond along the light cone via light-cone averages of $Q$.

1151: 

1152: \item We can substitute the Swiss-cheese model with the phenomenological 

1153: model as far as the averaged quantity $Q$ is concerned.

1154: 

1155: \end{itemize} 

1156: 

1157: The ultimate question is if it is observationally meaningful to consider $Q$,

1158: as opposed to the other choice of domain averaging at constant time, which is

1159: not directly  related to observations. We will come back to this issue after

1160: having obtained the results.

1161: 

1162: 

1163: \clearpage

1164: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1165: \subsubsection{Averaged expansion}

1166: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1167: 

1168: The first quantity in which we are interested is the expansion rate. To average

1169: the expansion rate we will follow the formalism developed in Sec.\

1170: \ref{histories}. We will therefore apply Eqs.\ (\ref{ququ1}-\ref{ququ2}) to 

1171: $Q^\textrm{\scriptsize SC}=H_{r}\equiv\dot{Y}' / Y'$, where we remember that $H_r$ is the

1172: radial expansion rate. The corresponding  quantity in the phenomenological

1173: model is $Q^\textrm{\scriptsize FIT}=\dot{a}_{\scriptscriptstyle 

1174: FIT}/a_{\scriptscriptstyle FIT}$.

1175: 

1176: For the same reason there is good compensation in redshift  effects (see Sec.\

1177: \ref{histories}), we expect $\langle H_{r} \rangle$ to behave very similarly to

1178: the FRW cheese solution. Indeed, as one can see in Fig.\ \ref{hfit}, the best

1179: fit of the  Swiss-cheese model is given by a phenomenological source with

1180: $w\simeq0$, that  is, the phenomenological model is the cheese-FRW solution

1181: itself as far as the  expansion rate is concerned.

1182: 

1183: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1184: \begin{figure}[htb]

1185: \begin{center}

1186: \includegraphics[width=13 cm]{hfit.eps}

1187: \caption{\small \slshape Average expansion rate. The yellow points are $\langle H^\textrm{\scriptsize SC} 

1188: \rangle_{\overline{\scriptscriptstyle EO}_{i}}$

1189:  while the crosses are $\langle H^\textrm{\scriptsize FIT} 

1190: \rangle_{\overline{\scriptscriptstyle EO}_{i}}$.

1191:  $\overline{EO}_{i}$ means that the average was performed from $E$

1192: and $O_{i}$ with respect to Fig.\ \ref{shime}. The best fit is 

1193: found for

1194: $w \simeq0$, that is, the phenomenological model is the cheese-FRW solution 

1195: itself as far as the expansion rate is concerned.}

1196: \label{hfit}

1197: \end{center}

1198: \end{figure}

1199: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1200: 

1201: \clearpage

1202: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1203: \subsubsection{Averaged density}

1204: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1205: 

1206: The situation for the density is very different. The photon is spending more and

1207: more time in the (large) voids than in the (thin) high density structures. We

1208: apply Eqs.\ (\ref{ququ1}-\ref{ququ2}) to $Q^\textrm{\scriptsize SC}=\rho^\textrm{\scriptsize SC}$. The

1209: corresponding quantity in the phenomenological model is 

1210: $Q^\textrm{\scriptsize FIT}=\rho^\textrm{\scriptsize FIT}$ where $\rho^\textrm{\scriptsize FIT}$ is given by Eq.\

1211: (\ref{linda}). The results are illustrated in Fig.\ \ref{qfit}: the best fit is

1212: for  $w_{0}=-1.95$ and $w_{a}=4.28$.

1213: 

1214: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1215: \begin{figure}[htb]

1216: \begin{center}

1217: \includegraphics[width=13 cm]{qfit.eps}

1218: \caption{\small \slshape Average density in $\rho_{C 0}$ units. The  yellow points

1219: are  $\langle \rho^\textrm{\scriptsize SC} \rangle_{\overline{\scriptscriptstyle EO}_{i}}$

1220: while the crosses are $\langle \rho^\textrm{\scriptsize FIT} 

1221: \rangle_{\overline{\scriptscriptstyle EO}_{i}}$. $\overline{EO}_{i}$ means that

1222: the average was performed from $E$ and $O_{i}$ with respect to Fig.\

1223: \ref{shime}. The parametrization of  $\rho^\textrm{\scriptsize FIT}$ is from Eq.\

1224: (\ref{linda}). The best fit is found for $w_{0}=-1.95$ and $w_{a}=4.28$.}

1225: \label{qfit}

1226: \end{center}

1227: \end{figure}

1228: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1229: 

1230: As we will see in Sec.\ \ref{dressing}, we can achieve a better fit to the

1231: concordance model with smaller holes than the ones of $350$ Mpc considered

1232: here. We anticipate that for a holes of radius $r_{h}=250$ Mpc, we have

1233: $w_{0}=-1.03$ and $w_{a}=2.19$.

1234: 

1235: We see, therefore, that this Swiss-cheese model could be interpreted, in the 

1236: FRW hypothesis, as a homogeneous model that is initially dominated by matter

1237: and subsequently by dark energy: this is what the concordance model suggests.

1238: We stress that this holds only for the light-cone averages of the density.

1239: 

1240: \clearpage

1241: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1242: \subsection{Explanation}

1243: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1244: 

1245: Let us first explore the basis for what we found. In  Fig.\ \ref{photorho} we

1246: show the density along the light cone for both the Swiss-cheese model and the

1247: EdS model for the cheese. It is clear that the  photon is spending more and more

1248: time in the (large) voids than in the (thin) high density structures.

1249: 

1250: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1251: \begin{figure}[htb]

1252: \begin{center}

1253: \includegraphics[width=12 cm]{photorho.eps}

1254: \caption{\small \slshape Density along the light-cone for the Swiss-cheese model (the spiky

1255: curve) and the EdS model of the cheese (the regular curve). The labeling of 

1256: the $x$-axis is the same one of Fig.\ \ref{shime}.}

1257: \label{photorho}

1258: \end{center}

1259: \end{figure}

1260: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1261: 

1262: To better show this, we plotted in Fig.\ \ref{opacity} the constant-time, 

1263: line-averaged density as a function of time. The formula used for 

1264: the Swiss-cheese model is

1265: \begin{equation} \label{opacityf}

1266: \int_{0}^{r_{h}} dr \ \rho(r,t) \; Y'(r,t) / W(r)  \left /  

1267: \int_{0}^{r_{h}}dr \; Y' / W \right.  ,

1268: \end{equation}

1269: while for the cheese, because of homogeneity we can just use $\rho(t)$ of the

1270: EdS model. As one can see, the photon is encountering less matter in the

1271: Swiss-cheese model than in the EdS cheese model. Moreover, this becomes

1272: increasingly true with the formation of high-density regions as illustrated in 

1273: Fig.\ \ref{opacity} by the evolution  of the ratio of the previously calculated

1274: average density: it  decreases by $17 \%$ from the starting to the ending time. 

1275: 

1276: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1277: \begin{figure}[htb]

1278: \begin{center}

1279: \includegraphics[width=10 cm]{opacity.eps}

1280: \caption{\small \slshape At the top is the evolution of the energy density for the  Eds cheese

1281: model (higher curve) and for the phenomenological model with  $w_{0}=-1.95$ and

1282: $w_{a}=4.28$. In the middle is the constant-time line averaged density as a

1283: function of  time for the Swiss-cheese model (lower curve) and the cheese-EdS

1284: model  (higher curve).  At the bottom is their ratio of the last two quantities

1285: as  a function of time.}

1286: \label{opacity}

1287: \end{center}

1288: \end{figure}

1289: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1290: 

1291: The calculation of Eq.\ (\ref{opacityf}) is actually, except for some factors 

1292: like the cross-section, the opacity of the Swiss-cheese model. Therefore, a

1293: photon propagating through the Swiss-cheese model has a different average

1294: absorption history; that is, the observer looking through the cheese will

1295: measure  a different flux compared to the case with only cheese and no holes.

1296: For the moment, in order to explore the physics, let us make the approximation

1297: that during the entire evolution of the universe, the matter is transparent to

1298: photons.

1299: 

1300: {}From the plots just shown we can now understand the reason for the best fit 

1301: values of $w_{0}=-1.95$ and $w_{a}=4.28$ found in the case of holes of

1302: $r_{h}=350$ Mpc. We are using a homogeneous phenomenological model, which has at

1303: the present time the  density of the cheese (see Fig.\ \ref{opacity}). We want

1304: to use it to fit the line-averaged density of the Swiss cheese, which is lower

1305: than the (volume) averaged one. Therefore, going backwards from the present

1306: time, the phenomenological model must keep its density low, that is, to have a

1307: small $w$. At some point, however, the density has to start to increase,

1308: otherwise it will not match the line-averaged value that keeps increasing:

1309: therefore  $w$ has to increase toward $0$. It is very interesting that this

1310: simple mechanism mimics the behavior of the concordance-model equation of state.

1311: We stress that this simple mechanism works thanks to the set-up and fitting

1312: procedure we have chosen; that is, the fact that we matched the cheese-EdS

1313: solution at the border of the hole, the position of the observer, and the

1314: observer looking through the holes. Moreover, we did not tune the model to

1315: achieve a best matching with the concordance model. The results shown are indeed

1316: quite natural.

1317: 

1318: 

1319: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1320: \subsection{Beyond spherical symmetry} \label{cosca}

1321: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1322: 

1323: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1324: \begin{figure}[h!]

1325: \begin{center}

1326: \includegraphics[width=15 cm]{schema.eps}

1327: \caption{\small \slshape Flow chart regarding relationships between the results obtained.}

1328: \label{schema}

1329: \end{center}

1330: \end{figure}

1331: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1332: 

1333: We have summarized the relationships between the results obtained in this chapter till now 

1334: in the flow chart of  Fig.\ \ref{schema}.

1335: 

1336: Regarding $d_{L}(z)$, we found no important effects from a change in the

1337: redshift:  the effects on $d_L(z)$ all came from $d_{A}$ driven by the evolution

1338: of the inhomogeneities.

1339: 

1340: Regarding light-cone averages, we found no important effects with respect 

1341: to the expansion: this negative result is due to the compensation in 

1342: redshift discussed in Sec.\ \ref{histories} and it is the same reason 

1343: why we did not find redshift effects with $d_{L}(z)$. This is the main 

1344: limitation of our model and it is due ultimately to the spherical

1345: symmetry of the model as explained in Sec.\ \ref{histories}.

1346: 

1347: We found important effects with respect to the density: however this is 

1348: not due to the effects driving the change in $d_{A}$. The latter is due to 

1349: structure evolution while the former to the presence of voids, so the 

1350: two causes are not directly connected. Indeed, it is possible to turn off 

1351: the latter and not the former.

1352: 

1353: We can therefore make the point that the expansion is not affected by 

1354: inhomogeneities because of the compensation due to the spherical symmetry.

1355: Density, on the other hand, is not affected by spherical symmetry, so there

1356: are no compensations, and the photon will systematically see more and more voids

1357: than  structures. We can therefore argue that the average of density is more

1358: relevant  than the average of expansion because it is less sensitive to the

1359: assumption of spherical symmetry,  which is one of the limitations of this

1360: model.

1361: 

1362: The next step is to define a Hubble parameter from this average density:  

1363: $H^{2}\propto \langle \rho \rangle_{\gamma}$. In this way we are moving  from a

1364: Swiss cheese made of spherically symmetric holes to a Swiss cheese  without

1365: exact spherical symmetry. The correspondence is through the light-cone averaged

1366: density which,  from this point of view, can be seen as a tool in performing

1367: this step. See Fig.~\ref{scns} for a sketch.

1368: 

1369: 

1370: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1371: \begin{figure}[h!]

1372: \begin{center}

1373: \includegraphics[width=14 cm]{scns.eps}

1374: \caption{\small \slshape Using $\langle \rho \rangle_{\gamma}$ as a tool to go from a Swiss-cheese model with 

1375: spherically symmetric holes to a Swiss-cheese model with non-spherically symmetric holes.

1376: The insensitivity of density to spherical symmetry makes us think that these two models would share the same light-cone averaged density.}

1377: \label{scns}

1378: \end{center}

1379: \end{figure}

1380: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1381: 

1382: \clearpage

1383: Summarizing again:

1384: 

1385: \begin{itemize}

1386: 

1387: \item We started out from a Swiss-cheese model containing spherically

1388: symmetric  holes only. A photon, during its journey through the Swiss cheese,

1389: undergoes a  redshift that is not affected by inhomogeneities. However the

1390: photon is  spending more and more time in the voids than in the structures. The

1391: lack of an effect is due to spherical symmetry. We focused on this because a

1392: photon spending most of its time in voids should have a different redshift

1393: history than a photon propagating in a homogeneous background.

1394: 

1395: \item Since density is a quantity that is not particularly sensitive to

1396: spherical symmetry, we tried to solve the mismatch  by focusing on 

1397: density alone, getting from it expansion (and therefore the redshift 

1398: history).

1399: 

1400: \item We ended up with a Swiss-cheese model with holes, which are  actually not

1401: spherically symmetric. In this model there is an effect on the redshift history

1402: of a photon due to the voids.

1403: 

1404: \item In practice this means that we will use the phenomenological best-fit

1405: model  found, that is, we will use a model that behaves similarly to the

1406: concordance  model.

1407: 

1408: \end{itemize}

1409: 

1410: 

1411: 

1412: 

1413: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1414: \subsection{Motivations}

1415: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1416: 

1417: Let us go back to the discussion of Sec. \ref{fitting}, that is, if it is 

1418: observationally meaningful to consider light-cone averages of $Q$  as the basis

1419: for the correspondence. For example, domain averages at constant time are not

1420: directly related  to observations.

1421: 

1422: Here, we are not claiming that light-cone averages are observationally 

1423: relevant\footnote{However, a density light-cone average is an indicator 

1424: of the opacity of the universe and, therefore, could be observationally 

1425: relevant, as explained in the discussion around Fig.\ \ref{opacity}.}. 

1426: Rather, we are using light-cone averages as tools to understand the model 

1427: at hand. The approach has been explained in the previous section.

1428: 

1429: \clearpage

1430: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1431: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1432: \section{Renormalization of the matter equation of state} \label{dressing}

1433: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1434: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1435: 

1436: In this section we will study how the parameters of the phenomenological  model

1437: depend on the size of inhomogeneities, that is, on the size  of the hole. We

1438: sketched in Fig.\ \ref{sdressing} our set-up: we keep the comoving position of

1439: the centers of the holes fixed. The observer is located in  the same piece of

1440: cheese.

1441: 

1442: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1443: \begin{figure}[htb]

1444: \begin{center}

1445: \includegraphics[width=14cm]{sdressing.eps}

1446: \caption{\small \slshape Sketch of how the size of the inhomogeneity is changed in our  model.

1447: The shading mimics  the initial density profile: darker shading implies larger

1448: denser. The  uniform  gray is the FRW cheese. The photons pass through the holes

1449: as shown by the  arrows and are revealed by the observer whose comoving position

1450: in the  cheese does not change.  The size of the holes correspond to $n=0,$

1451: $2$, $5$ of Eq.\ (\ref{scala}).}

1452: \label{sdressing}

1453: \end{center}

1454: \end{figure}

1455: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1456: 

1457: We changed the radius of the hole according to

1458: \begin{equation} \label{scala}

1459: r_h(n) = \frac{r_h}{1.4^{n}} ,

1460: \end{equation}

1461: where $r_{h}$ is the radius we have been using till now, the one that results in

1462: the holes touching. The choice of the $1.4$ in the scaling is only  for

1463: convenience. We let $n$ run from $0$ to $7$.

1464: 

1465: In this analysis we will use instead of the energy density in Eq.\

1466: (\ref{linda}), an  energy density in which only one effective source appears,

1467: and the effective source evolves as

1468: \begin{equation} 

1469: \label{linda2}

1470: \frac{\rho^\textrm{\scriptsize FIT}}{\rho_{0}} =

1471: (1+z)^{3(1+w^{R}_{0}+w^{R}_{a})}\; \exp\left(-3w^{R}_{a}\frac{z}{1+z}\right)

1472: \qquad \mbox{with} \qquad

1473: w^{R}(z)=w^{R}_0+w^{R}_a \; \frac{z}{1+z} .

1474: \end{equation}

1475: 

1476: We put $R$ as a superscript on the equation of state in order to differentiate

1477: the parametrization of Eq.\ (\ref{linda2}), which we are now using to study

1478: renormalization, from the parametrization of Eqs.\ (\ref{fame}-\ref{linda}),

1479: which we used to compare the phenomenological model to the concordance model.

1480: We are not disentangling different sources in Eq.\ (\ref{linda2}) because we

1481: are interested in the renormalization of the matter equation of state of the

1482: cheese,  that is, on the dependence of $w^{R}$ upon the size of the hole. To

1483: this purpose we need only one source in order to keep track of the changes.

1484: 

1485: As one can see from Fig.\ \ref{dress},  we have verified that $w^{R}=0$ for

1486: $r_{h} \rightarrow 0$, \textit{i.e.,} we recover the EdS model as the best-fit

1487: phenomenological model.

1488: 

1489: We are interested to see if the equation of state exhibits a  power-law behavior

1490: and, therefore, we use  the following functions to fit $w^{R}_{0}$ and

1491: $w^{R}_{a}$:

1492: \begin{eqnarray}

1493: \frac{w^{R}_{0}(n)}{w^{R}_{0}(0)} & = & q_{0} \left ( \frac{r_{h}(n)}{r_{h}(0)} 

1494: \right )^{p_{0}} \nonumber \\

1495: \frac{w^{R}_{a}(n)}{w^{R}_{a}(0)} & = & q_{a} \left ( \frac{r_{h}(n)}{r_{h}(0)} 

1496: \right )^{p_{a}} .

1497: \end{eqnarray}

1498: We performed a fit with respect to the logarithm of the above  quantities, the

1499: result is shown in Fig.\ \ref{dress}. We found:

1500: \begin{eqnarray}

1501: p_{0} & = & p_{a} \simeq 1.00 \nonumber \\

1502: q_{0} & = & q_{a} \simeq 0.88  .

1503: \end{eqnarray}

1504: 

1505: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1506: \begin{figure}[htb]

1507: \begin{center}

1508: \includegraphics[width=14.5 cm]{dress.eps}

1509: \caption{\small \slshape At the top, dependence of $w^{R}_{0}$ (lower points denoted by circles)

1510: and $w^{R}_{a}$  (upper points denoted by $\times$) with respect of the size of

1511: the hole. At the bottom, fit as explained in the text. Recall that $r_{h}$ is

1512: today $350$ Mpc.}

1513: \label{dress}

1514: \end{center}

1515: \end{figure}

1516: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1517: 

1518: \clearpage

1519: Summarizing, we found three important facts.

1520: \begin{itemize}

1521: 

1522: \item The parameters of the equation of state as a function of the 

1523: size of the hole exhibit a power-law behavior.

1524: 

1525: \item The power-laws of $w^{R}_{0}$ and $w^{R}_{a}$ have the same scaling

1526: exponent.  This is actually a check: once a physical quantity exhibits a

1527: power-law  behavior, we expect that all its parameters share the same scaling

1528: exponent.

1529: 

1530: \item The scale dependence is linear: the equation of state depends  linearly on

1531: the length of holes the photon propagates through.  We stress that the

1532: dependence we are talking about is not on the scale  of the universe, but on the

1533: size of the holes.

1534: 

1535: \end{itemize}

1536: 

1537: We can finally ask which size of the holes will give us a phenomenological

1538: model able to mimic the concordance model. We found that for $n=1$, that is for

1539: a holes of radius $r_{h}=250$ Mpc, we have $w^R_0=-1.4$ and $w^R_a=0.67$,

1540: which in terms of the energy density parametrization of Eq.\ (\ref{linda}),

1541: corresponds to  $w_{0}=-1.03$  and $w_{a}=2.19$.

1542: 

1543: 

1544: 

1545: