1: \documentclass[twocolumn,aps,prd,amssymb,eqsecnum,nofootinbib,superscriptaddress,showpacs,floatfix]{revtex4}

2: \newlength{\picwidth}

3: \setlength{\picwidth}{8cm}

4: \usepackage{epsfig}

5: \usepackage{amsmath}

6: \usepackage{dcolumn}

7: \usepackage{amssymb}

8: \usepackage{amsfonts}

9: \usepackage{enumerate}

10: \usepackage{bm}

11: \begin{document}

12: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

13: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

14: \def\ba{\begin{eqnarray}}

15: \def\ea{\end{eqnarray}}

16: 

17: \title{Luminosity distance in ``Swiss cheese" cosmology with randomized voids:\\ I. Single void size}

18: 

19: \author{R. Ali Vanderveld}

20: \affiliation{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA}

21: \author{\'{E}anna \'{E}. Flanagan}

22: \affiliation{Center for Radiophysics and Space Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA}

23: \affiliation{Laboratory for Elementary Particle Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA}

24: \author{Ira Wasserman}

25: \affiliation{Center for Radiophysics and Space Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA}

26: \affiliation{Laboratory for Elementary Particle Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA}

27: \date{\today}

28: \begin{abstract}

29: 

30: Recently there have been suggestions that the Type Ia supernova data can

31: be explained using only general relativity and cold dark matter with

32: no dark energy.

33: In ``Swiss cheese'' models of the

34: Universe, the standard Friedmann-Robertson-Walker picture is

35: modified by the introduction of mass-compensating spherical

36: inhomogeneities, typically described by the

37: Lema\^{i}tre-Tolman-Bondi metric.  If these inhomogeneities correspond

38: to underdense cores surrounded by mass-compensating overdense shells,

39: then they can modify the luminosity distance-redshift relation in a way

40: that can mimic accelerated expansion.  It has been argued that this

41: effect could be large enough to explain the supernova data without

42: introducing dark energy or modified gravity.

43: We show that the large

44: apparent acceleration seen in some models

45: can be explained in terms of standard weak field gravitational

46: lensing together with insufficient randomization of void locations.

47: The underdense regions focus the light less than

48: the homogeneous background, thus dimming supernovae in a

49: way that can mimic the effects of acceleration.

50: With insufficient randomization of the spatial location of the voids

51: and of the lines of sight,

52: coherent defocusing can lead to anomalously large demagnification effects.

53: We show that a proper randomization of the voids and lines of sight

54: reduces the effect to the point that it can no longer explain the

55: supernova data.

56: 

57: \end{abstract}

58: \pacs{ 98.80.-k, 98.80.Es, 98.62.Py}

59: \maketitle

60: 

61: \section{Introduction}

62: 

63: Supernova cosmology \cite{Riess, Perlmutter} has taught us that the

64: Universe is not well described by a homogeneous and flat matter

65: dominated model, with gravity governed by general relativity.  Type Ia

66: supernovae at a given redshift appear dimmer

67: than expected based on this simple model.  Many additions

68: to the model have been developed to explain this discrepancy,

69: including dark energy and modifications of general relativity on

70: cosmological length scales.  Another suggestion is that the

71: discrepancy results from large scale cosmological

72: inhomogeneities, and arises from an unjustified fitting of supernova

73: data to homogeneous models.

74: It is well known that inhomogeneity in

75: the cosmological matter distribution affects the redshifts and

76: apparent magnitudes of supernovae \cite{HG, CC, Lensing, V}, but could

77: such effects be large enough to trick us into thinking that the

78: Universe is accelerating when it is actually not?

79: This issue has been vigorously debated in the literature; see Ref.\

80: \cite{Celerier} for a review.

81: 

82: One way to address the inhomogeneity issue in a fully nonlinear and relativistic

83: fashion is with so-called ``Swiss cheese'' models \cite{HW, Sugiura, CMY1, LTB}.  In

84: these models, the homogeneous Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW)

85: metric is modified by the introduction of

86: spherical regions of the spherically symmetric

87: Lema\^{i}tre-Tolman-Bondi (LTB) dust spacetime.

88: In this paper we will restrict attention to such models where

89: the FRW background is flat and matter dominated.

90: The spherical inhomogeneities must be mass

91: compensating and comoving in order to obtain a self consistent

92: solution with the LTB and FRW regions evolving independently.

93: The LTB regions can be of any size and can be located anywhere, so long as they

94: do not overlap.  However, for a realistic model of the Universe, the sphere locations should be randomized,

95: i.e.~they should not

96: placed on a lattice of any sort.  In this paper, we show that the

97: randomization issue is important and can have a dramatic

98: effect on the model's predictions.

99: 

100: Marra, Kolb, and Matarrese (hereafter MKM) \cite{MKM1, MKM2, Marra} use a Swiss cheese

101: model where the LTB spheres correspond to underdense voids surrounded

102: by overdense shells of matter.  They place these spheres on a regular

103: lattice, and compute numerically the luminosity distance-redshift

104: relation along a line passing through the spheres' centers.

105: They show that

106: the relation is modified enough to mimic a significant dark

107: energy density.

108: 

109: We show that the results of MKM can be explained to $\sim 10\%$ accuracy with the

110: formalism of standard weak field gravitational lensing.  The special

111: line of sight that they consider leads to a large dimming

112: because this is the line of sight with the lowest mean

113: density, corresponding to less focusing.  We also show that if the

114: void locations and lines of sight are properly randomized, then

115: the mean effect is very small,

116: in accordance with previous lensing

117: studies \cite{HW, Weinberg, Sereno2, KL}.

118: Using a Monte Carlo simulation, we compute the

119: statistical distribution of distance modulus shifts

120: at fixed redshift in the more realistic randomized scenario.

121: 

122: This paper is organized as follows.  Section II reviews

123: Swiss cheese models, focusing on the specific model constructed by

124: MKM.  Section III shows that the apparent acceleration found by MKM

125: is predominantly the result of gravitational lensing and of

126: insufficient randomization of the void locations.

127: In Sec. IV, we show that

128: randomizing the void locations reduces the effect significantly, to

129: the point that this model cannot explain the apparent acceleration

130: seen in the supernova data.  In Sec. V, we provide our concluding

131: remarks.

132: 

133: \section{Swiss cheese models}

134: 

135: The MKM model consists of a flat, matter dominated FRW background

136: with metric

137: \be

138: ds^2=-dt^2+a^2(t)\left(dr^2+r^2d\Omega^2\right)

139: \ee

140: and density $\rho_{\rm FRW}(t) \propto 1/a^3$.  From this FRW

141: background, spheres of constant comoving radius $R$ are removed and

142: replaced with spherically symmetric LTB dust solutions.  For simplicity we

143: describe this construction for a sphere centered at the origin, and for $r

144: \le R$.  The LTB metric in $r \le R$ is \cite{Bondi}

145: \be

146: ds^2=-dt^2+\frac{Y'^2(r,t)}{1+2E(r)}dr^2+Y^2(r,t)d\Omega^2~,

147: \ee

148: where $E(r)$ is the so-called energy function,

149: primes denote partial derivatives with respect to $r$ and

150: overdots denote partial derivatives with respect to $t$.

151: For the case $E(r)>0$ considered by MKM, the angular diameter distance

152: $Y(r,t)$ is given parametrically by

153: \be

154: Y(r,t)=\frac{M(r)}{12\pi E(r)}\left(\cosh u-1\right)~,

155: \label{Y1}

156: \ee

157: \be

158: t-t_b(r)=\frac{M(r)}{6\pi\left[2E(r)\right]^{3/2}}\left(\sinh u-u\right)~,

159: \label{Y2}

160: \ee

161: where the mass function $M(r)$ and the bang time function $t_b(r)$,

162: as well as the energy function $E(r)$, are freely specifiable functions.

163: Following MKM, we use units with $6 \pi G =1$.

164: The density of the dust is given by

165: \be

166: \rho(r,t) = \frac{M'(r)}{4 \pi Y'(r,t) Y(r,t)^2}~.

167: \label{density}

168: \ee

169: 

170: There are three conditions necessary for a consistent matching of the

171: LTB region with the surrounding flat FRW spacetime, satisfying the Israel

172: \cite{Israel} junction conditions \cite{Mansouri}.  The first is that the energy function

173: goes to zero at the boundary

174: \be

175: E(R)=0~.

176: \label{match1}

177: \ee

178: The second is that the bang time function goes to zero at the boundary

179: (assuming that the big bang occurs at $t=0$ in the FRW background)

180: \be

181: t_b(R)=0~.

182: \label{match2}

183: \ee

184: The third is that the LTB region be mass compensating, meaning that the enclosed mass

185: has to equal the mass originally excised from the FRW background.

186: This requirement is that

187: \be

188: M(R) = \frac{4 \pi}{3} \rho_{{\rm FRW},0} R^3

189: \label{match3}

190: \ee

191: where the constant $\rho_{{\rm FRW},0}$ is defined by $\rho_{\rm FRW}(t)

192: = \rho_{{\rm FRW},0} / a(t)^3$.  We also choose the scale factor $a(t)$ to equal $1$ today.

193: 

194: In addition to satisfying the Israel junction conditions, it is convenient to

195: specialize to models for which the coordinates $(t,r)$ match up in a

196: $C^1$ manner across the boundary $r=R$.  This guarantees that the

197: basis vectors $\partial/\partial t$ and $\partial / \partial r$ will

198: be continuous across $r=R$, and justifies our use of the same notation

199: $(t,r)$ for the coordinates outside and inside the sphere.

200: It can be shown that the necessary and sufficient conditions for this

201: continuity are

202: \be

203: M'(R) = 3 M(R)/R~,\ \ \ \ t_b'(R) = 0~, \ \ \ \ \ E'(R) = 0~.

204: \label{constraints1}

205: \ee

206: 

207: MKM specialize to a subclass of LTB models defined by imposing, at

208: some initial time $t=t_i$, the two conditions

209: \be

210: Y(r,t_i) = a(t_i) r~, \ \ \ \ {\dot Y}(r,t_i) = {\dot a}(t_i) r~.

211: \ee

212: These conditions fix two of the three functional degrees of freedom of

213: the LTB model, one of which is gauge.  MKM parameterize the remaining,

214: nongauge, functional degree of freedom in terms of the density

215: profile at the initial time $\rho_0(r) = \rho(r,t_i)$.

216: The mass inside radius $r$ is given in terms of this density profile by

217: \be

218: M(r)=4\pi a(t_i)^3 \int^r_0\rho_0({\bar r}) {\bar r}^2d{\bar r}~.

219: \label{mass}

220: \ee

221: It is convenient to parameterize this as

222: \be

223: M(r)=M_{\rm FRW}(r)\left[1+\delta(r)\right]~,

224: \label{delta0}

225: \ee

226: where

227: \be

228: M_{\rm FRW}(r)=\frac{4\pi}{3}r^3 a(t_i)^3 \rho_{\rm FRW}(t_i)

229: \label{MFRW}

230: \ee

231: is the mass enclosed that would apply in the FRW background, and

232: $\delta(r)$ is the fractional mass excess.

233: The energy function $E(r)$ and bang time function $t_b(r)$ can be

234: written in terms of the fractional mass excess as

235: \be

236: E(r) = - \left[ \frac{ M_{\rm FRW}(r) }{6 \pi a(t_i) r} \right]

237: \delta(r),

238: \label{energy}

239: \ee

240: and %(see Appendix \ref{bangtimeformula})

241: \be

242: t_b(r)=t_i\left\{1+\frac{3}{2\delta(r)}-\frac{3\left[1+\delta(r)\right]}

243: {2\delta(r)}\frac{\tanh^{-1}\left[\sqrt{-\delta(r)}\right]}{\sqrt{-\delta(r)}}\right\}~.

244: \label{bangtime}

245: \ee

246: The last formula is valid only for $\delta <0$, the case considered by MKM.

247: From the results (\ref{mass}), (\ref{delta0}), and (\ref{bangtime}), it

248: follows that all of the matching and continuity conditions (\ref{match1}) --

249: (\ref{constraints1}) will be satisfied if we choose the fractional mass excess

250: $\delta(r)$ to satisfy

251: \be

252: \delta(R) = 0~, \ \ \ \ \delta'(R) = 0~.

253: \ee

254: The first of these conditions is the mass compensation condition,

255: while the second is a requirement that the density be continuous

256: across $r=R$.

257: 

258: In the next section, we will

259: we make the approximation of using the relativistic LTB density

260: profile $\rho(r,t)$ as an input to the standard weak field lensing

261: formalism.  To summarize the discussion above, the procedure for

262: computing the density $\rho(r,t)$ from a specified initial density

263: profile $\rho_0(r)$ is as follows.  (i) Compute the mass enclosed $M(r)$ using

264: Eq.\ (\ref{mass}) and the fractional mass excess $\delta(r)$ using Eqs.\ (\ref{delta0})

265: and (\ref{MFRW}).  (ii) Use the fractional mass excess to compute the

266: energy function (\ref{energy}) and bang time function (\ref{bangtime}).

267: (iii) Then compute the angular diameter distance $Y(r,t)$ from Eqs.\

268: (\ref{Y1}) -- (\ref{Y2}), and finally insert this into the expression

269: (\ref{density}) for the density $\rho(r,t)$.

270: 

271: For the initial density profile for the LTB patches, MKM choose the Gaussian profile

272: \be

273: \rho_0(r)=A\rho_{\rm FRW}(t_i)\left\{\exp\left[-B\left(r-r_0\right)^2\right]+C\right\}

274: \ee

275: with constants $A\approx 2$, $B\approx 4\times 10^{-4}~{\rm

276:   Mpc}^{-2}$, $r_0\approx 308~{\rm Mpc}$, and $C\approx 5\times 10^{-5}$. This

277: is the density at the initial time $t_i=0.2$, where units are chosen

278: such that the big bang occurred at $t=0$ and today is at $t=1$, implying that the scale factor is $a(t)=t^{2/3}$.  

279: Here, $r$ is in Mpc and

280: the present-day radius of an LTB patch is $R=350~{\rm Mpc}$.  We will use an

281: initial density profile that

282: is very similar to that of MKM for all of

283: our analyses below, except that we slightly

284: modify these constants to accurately enforce mass conservation, while setting $C=0$ for simplicity.  Such small changes affect our results only negligibly.

285: We plot the resulting density contrast

286: $\Delta(r,t)=[\rho(r,t)-\rho_{\rm FRW}(t)]/\rho_{\rm FRW}(t)$ in

287: Fig.~\ref{delta} for $t=0.2$, $0.6$, and $1$.

288: \begin{figure}

289: \begin{center}

290: \epsfig{file=delta.eps,width=\picwidth,height =6.5cm}

291: \caption{The density contrast $\Delta(r,t)=[\rho(r,t)-\rho_{\rm

292:     FRW}(t)]/\rho_{\rm FRW}(t)$ as a function of LTB coordinate

293:   $r$ in the model of MKM at the times $t=0.2$

294:   (blue, bottom curve), $0.6$ (pink, middle curve), and $1$ (yellow, top curve).}

295: \label{delta}

296: \end{center}

297: \end{figure}

298: 

299: \section{The results of Marra, Kolb, and Matarrese}

300: 

301: In the MKM model, the void regions are placed on a regular cubic

302: lattice wherein the voids are just touching.  The chosen line of

303: sight is through the center of a sequence of voids;

304: see Fig.~2 of Ref.~\cite{MKM2}

305: for a sketch of their setup.  The void size is such that the distance

306: through 5 voids corresponds to $z\approx 1.8$.  After numerically

307: integrating the fully relativistic equations for light rays, MKM

308: display results for the change in the redshift and

309: distance modulus, both as a function of source redshift, in Figs.~4

310: and 5 of \cite{MKM2}.  They find that there is a negligible effect on

311: the redshift and there is a significant effect on the distance

312: modulus, with supernovae systematically becoming demagnified.  This

313: demagnification increases with the number of void crossings.

314: The effect is large enough that supernovae that are 5 voids away

315: suffer a distance modulus shift of about $0.34$ mag, and this suffices

316: to move them to the Hubble diagram of a $\Omega_M=0.6$,

317: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.4$ universe.

318: 

319: We now argue that this result is predominantly due to

320: gravitational lensing.  Although the inhomogeneities are mass

321: compensating, light beams passing through the spheres' centers

322: encounter less mass than beams that intersect the spheres with larger

323: impact parameters.  Therefore, centered beams are focused less than

324: they would be in the FRW background.

325: 

326: In weak lensing theory, the net magnification $\mu$ produced by a density

327: perturbation $\Delta \rho({\bf x},\eta)$ is $\mu = (1 - \kappa)^{-2}$.

328: Note that we are neglecting shear, which gives a contribution to $\mu$ of the same order as the $\kappa^2$ corrections.

329: The lensing convergence $\kappa$ is given by the integral along

330: the line of sight \cite{Durrer}

331: \be

332: \kappa = 4 \pi G \int_{\eta_S}^{\eta_O} d \eta \, \frac{ (\eta - \eta_S)

333:   (\eta_O - \eta)}{\eta_O - \eta_S} a(\eta)^2 \Delta \rho[{\bf x}(\eta),\eta]~.

334: \ee

335: Here the integral is with respect to conformal time $\eta$

336: and is along the unperturbed ray ${\bf x}(\eta)$, and

337: $\eta_S$ and $\eta_O$ are the values of conformal time at the source

338: and at the observer.  Rewriting this integral in terms of the comoving

339: distance $x = \eta_O -\eta$, expressing it in terms of the density

340: contrast $\Delta({\bf x},\eta) = \Delta \rho / \rho_{\rm FRW}$,

341: and eliminating $\rho_{\rm FRW}$ using the Friedmann equation gives

342: \be

343: \kappa = \frac{3}{2} H_0^2 \int_0^{x_S} dx \, \frac{ x(x_S -

344:   x)}{x_S a(\eta_0 - x)} \, \Delta( {\bf x}(x), \eta_0 - x)~,

345: \ee

346: where $x_S = \eta_S - \eta_O$.  Next, since the individual spheres are small compared

347: with the horizon scale, we can treat the first factor in the integrand

348: as constant across each sphere, and we can also neglect the time

349: dependence of $\Delta$ within each sphere to leading order.  This

350: gives

351: \be

352: \kappa = \frac{3}{2} H_0^2 \sum_j \, \frac{ x_j(x_S - x_j)}{x_S

353:   a(\eta_j)}\, {\cal I}_j~,

354: \label{kappaf}

355: \ee

356: with

357: \be

358: {\cal I}_j = \int_{{\cal S}_j} dx \,

359: \, \Delta( {\bf x}(x), \eta_j)~,

360: \label{kappaf1}

361: \ee

362: where $x_j$ is the

363: value of $x$ at the

364: point of closest approach of the ray to the center of sphere $j$, and

365: $\eta_j = \eta_0 - x_j$ is the conformal time at that point of closest approach.

366: The interval ${\cal S}_j$ is the

367: intersection of the ray with the $j$th sphere, given by $|x - x_j|

368: \le \sqrt{R^2 - b_j^2}$, where $b_j$ is an impact parameter.

369: Rewriting the integral (\ref{kappaf1}) in terms of the comoving radial

370: coordinate ${\bar r} = \sqrt{b_j^2 + (x-x_j)^2}$ gives

371: \be

372: {\cal I}_j = 2 \int_{b_j}^R d{\bar r} \, \frac{{\bar r}}{\sqrt{{\bar

373:       r}^2 - b_j^2}} \, \Delta({\bar r},\eta_j)~.

374: \ee

375: To evaluate this integral, we use the relation ${\bar r} =

376: Y(r,t_j)/a(t_j)$ between the comoving radial coordinate ${\bar r}$ and

377: the LTB radial coordinate $r$, where $t_j = t(\eta_j)$.

378: Finally the distance modulus shift $\Delta m$ is related to the lensing

379: convergence $\kappa$ by

380: \be

381: \Delta m=5\log_{10}\left(1-\kappa\right)~.

382: \label{deltam}

383: \ee

384: 

385: We have computed the distance modulus shifts $\Delta m$ using

386: Eqs.\ (\ref{kappaf}) and (\ref{deltam}) for the model of MKM, with our aforementioned slight modifications. We also use $H_0=70$ km/s/Mpc. These results are summarized in Table~\ref{dms}.  Comparing with

387: Fig.~5 of Ref.\ \cite{MKM2}, we see that our weak field results reproduce

388: their fully relativistic results to $\sim 10\%$ accuracy.  This is consistent with what one would
expect given the approximations that we have made, since $R H_0 \sim 0.1$ for $R = 350$ Mpc and $H_0=70$ km/s/Mpc.  We conclude that gravitational lensing produced by the coherent

389: arrangement of voids provides a simple physical explanation for the

390: phenomenon seen in their analysis.

391: \begin{table}[h]

392: \caption{Supernova distance, in terms of the number of voids in

393:   between source and observer, and our result for the distance modulus

394:   shift $\Delta m$ if the voids are in a lattice.  The void radius is

395:   $R = 350$ Mpc.}

396: \begin{ruledtabular}

397: \begin{tabular}{cc}

398: Distance (in voids) & $\Delta m$ \\

399: \hline

400: 1 & 0.015 \\

401: 2 & 0.047 \\

402: 3 & 0.11  \\

403: 4 & 0.20  \\

404: 5 & 0.33

405: \end{tabular}

406: \end{ruledtabular}

407: \label{dms}

408: \end{table}

409: 

410: We can get a good estimate the coherent MKM effect by using the Dyer and Roeder \cite{DR, Sereno1} formalism.  This is based the work of Zel'dovich \cite{Zeldovich}, wherein he considered cosmological observations in a flat matter dominated universe where there was no matter inside any observed light beams, and hence no gravitational focusing.  Ignoring the effects of shear, the observed flux from a source at redshift $z$

411: in such a model is $F_{empty}$, where

412: \be

413: {F_{empty}\over F_{filled}}={25[1-(1+z)^{-1/2}]^2\over

414: (1+z)^2[1-(1+z)^{-5/2}]^2}~,

415: \ee

416: with $F_{filled}$ being the flux for a filled beam. Thus, high redshift sources would be dimmed.

417: The corresponding magnitude shift is

418: \be

419: \Delta m_{empty}=5\log_{10}\left\{{(1+z)[1-(1+z)^{-5/2}]\over

420: 5[1-(1+z)^{-1/2}]}\right\}~,

421: \ee

422: and for a model in which we observe through a complex of voids,

423: this must be an upper bound to the magnitude shifts possible.

424: For $z=1.8$, we find $\Delta m_{empty}=0.546$.  In the absence of shear, no arrangement of matter along the line of sight can produce a magnitude shift larger than this.

425: 

426: Dyer and Roeder generalized this analysis to 

427: partially filled beams. They found

428: \be 

429: \Delta m_\alpha=5\log_{10}\left\{{(1+z)^{(\beta-1)/4}

430: [1-(1+z)^{-\beta/2}]\over\beta[1-(1+z)^{-1/2}]}\right\}~,

431: \ee

432: where $\beta=\sqrt{25-24\alpha}$ and $\alpha$ is the filling

433: factor of the beam: $\alpha=1$ corresponds to a flat dark matter

434: dominated model and $\alpha=0$ corresponds to empty beams.

435: 

436: The limiting case is $\alpha=0$ for empty beams, but what is the

437: limiting case for passage through a mass compensated void? 

438: Consider an extreme example in which the void has all of its mass

439: concentrated in a shell at its boundary. Then if the mass is $M$ and the radius is

440: $R$, the integrated column density through the sphere is

441: $M/2\pi R^2={2\over 3}\rho R$, i.e.~this is zero except for the shell,

442: which is pierced twice. This is $1/3$ of the value for a smooth

443: sphere, and hence for this model $\alpha=1/3$ would be appropriate.

444: Using this value we get $\beta=\sqrt{17}$ and 

445: \be

446: \Delta m_{1/3}=5\log_{10}\left\{{(1+z)^{(\sqrt{17}-1)/4}

447: [1-(1+z)^{-\sqrt{17}/2}]\over\sqrt{17}[1-(1+z)^{-1/2}]}\right\}~.

448: \ee

449: For $z=1.8$, this gives $\Delta m_{1/3}=0.369$.  This just slightly overestimates the MKM result of $\Delta m\approx 0.34$.

450: 

451: \section{Void randomization}

452: 

453: As we have argued, the coherent arrangement of the voids on a lattice

454: in the model of MKM artificially boosts the demagnification effect.  In

455: this section, we show that the net effect of the voids is small if the

456: void locations relative to the line of sight are sufficiently

457: randomized.

458: 

459: As is well known, the mean magnification due to gravitational lensing

460: should be negligible on average in models such as ours with small,

461: mass-compensating inhomogenities that are randomly distributed \cite{Weinberg, HW, KL}.  

462: We can

463: understand this result in a different way with a simple argument.

464: First, consider a spherically-symmetric matter distribution with a

465: total radius $R$, a total mass $M$, and a radius-dependent density

466: $\rho(r)$.  Let us further assume that a small beam comes in from

467: the $z$ direction and then encounters the sphere with an impact parameter

468: $b$, which will then be in the $x-y$ plane. The magnification of the

469: beam is proportional to the integrated column density along the beam's

470: unperturbed path, which is defined to be

471: \be

472: \Sigma \equiv \int_{path} \rho\left[r(\lambda)\right] d\lambda~,

473: \ee

474: where the path depends on $b$, and $\lambda$ is the affine parameter

475: of a central ray.  Since we are using the unperturbed path for this,

476: it is clear that we do the above integral along a straight line,

477: parallel to the $z$ axis.  Then the total mass of the spherical

478: distribution comes from integrating $\Sigma$ over the remaining two

479: spatial axes, the $x$ and the $y$:

480: \ba

481: M&=&\int_{all~space}\rho(r) dV = \int_{all~space}\rho(r) dx dy dz\nonumber\\

482: &=& \int_{x-y~plane}\Sigma\left[b(x,y)\right] dx dy \nonumber\\

483: &=& \int^R_0 \Sigma(r) 2\pi r dr~.

484: \ea

485: The average focusing resulting from a spherical mass distribution is

486: proportional to the average over impact parameters of the integrated

487: column density,

488: \ba

489: \langle \Sigma \rangle &=& \frac{1}{R^2}\int_0^R \Sigma(b)\times 2b db = \frac{1}{R^2}\int_0^R \Sigma(r) 2r dr\nonumber\\

490: &=&\frac{1}{R^2}\left(\frac{M}{\pi}\right) = \frac{M}{\pi R^2}

491: \ea

492: which only depends on total mass and size of the spherical region, and

493: not on how the mass is distributed.  Thus, we see that removing a

494: sphere of FRW spacetime and replacing it with a mass-compensating LTB

495: patch, as we did in the model discussed above, will not affect the

496: magnification on average.  This is true within the domain of validity

497: of weak lensing theory.

498: The distance modulus shift depends on the

499: logarithm of the magnification and thus it is not necessarily going to

500: have a vanishing mean, but we nonetheless find that it is small in the

501: model considered here.

502: 

503: To find the statistical distribution of the distance modulus shifts

504: that one would expect after passage through 5 voids in a randomized

505: version of this Swiss cheese model, we do a Monte Carlo analysis.  In

506: this analysis, we pick random impact parameters for each of the $5$

507: void passages, with $b^2$ being uniformly distributed between $0$ and

508: $R^2$.  We find that the statistical distribution of distance modulus

509: shifts has a mean of $-0.003$ mag and a standard deviation of $0.11$

510: mag.  

511: Note that we have neglected shear, which might
change the mean magnitude shift by a factor of order $2$.

512: Figure~\ref{histogram} shows the distribution of these shifts

513: found for $10,000$ realizations of voids with random impact parameters

514: relative to the line of sight to the light source.

515: \begin{figure}

516: \begin{center}

517: \epsfig{file=histogram.eps,width=\picwidth,height =6.5cm}

518: \caption{A histogram of the distance modulus shifts $\Delta m$ found for $10,000$ realizations of our randomized void scenario}

519: \label{histogram}

520: \end{center}

521: \end{figure}

522: 

523: \section{Discussion}

524: 

525: MKM found significant changes to

526: the distance modulus of distant supernovae in a particular Swiss cheese

527: model.  We have argued that the large size of their effect stems from the fact

528: that their voids are on a regular lattice,

529: with the line connecting observer and source passing straight through

530: the void centers.

531: Their result can be reproduced with $\sim 10\%$ accuracy using weak

532: field gravitational lensing, and can be explained by noting that the

533: integrated column density is lowest

534: along lines of sight that pass through the centers of the voids.

535: The lower column density leads to less focusing and thus dimmer supernovae.

536: 

537: We also showed that in a more

538: realistic Swiss cheese model, the mean magnification due to

539: gravitational lensing is very small.

540: We simulated the distribution of distance modulus shifts obtained from

541: a model where the light rays no longer pass only through the centers

542: of the voids, but instead encounter them with random impact parameters.  For $N=5$ voids

543: out to $z=1.8$, MKM obtained a coherent distance modulus shift of $0.34$

544: mag, whereas our randomized model gives a mean of $-0.003$ mag

545: and a standard deviation of $0.11$ mag.  This mean is small and

546: this standard deviation is comparable to the intrinsic scatter of Type

547: Ia supernovae, and thus this particular model cannot explain the supernova data.  An analysis of the luminosity distance-redshift relation in a scenario with randomly-sized voids is the subject of future work.

548: 

549: While our results clarify the significance of the special setup underlying
the specific model of MKM, they do not exclude the possibility that
inhomogeneties may account for some of the apparent acceleration of the
Universe. However, our work does suggest that coherent underdense structures
on scales of order the horizon size
generally are needed to obtain large apparent accelerations.

550: Examples of models with such very large-scale structures are the spherical void models of
Refs.\ \cite{Tomita, Alnes, VFW, Garfinkle, CMY2}.
A general argument against such models is fine tuning: one would generically expect
large anisotropies in the luminosity distance at a given redshift in any model
with a large apparent acceleration, and the observational limits on anisotropy are small.
Going beyond fine tuning, there are limits on large spherical void models from current observations of the cosmic microwave background spectrum \cite{CMB} and low redshift Type Ia supernovae \cite{Ia},
and further constraints could come from future observations of baryon acoustic oscillations \cite{BAO} and time drifts of cosmological redshifts \cite{zdot1, zdot2}.

551: 

552: We also note that in spherical void models, fitting luminosity distance data to spatially flat cosmological models would
generally suggest the presence of dark energy.  If we allow more general fits to non flat models,
then we will get a fit with non zero curvature and non zero dark energy, with the relative proportion depending on the details of the model. In linear theory, the shrinking mode of an LTB model is the same as the mode parameterized by the bang time function,
and the growing mode is the mode parameterized by the energy function, which parameterizes
curvature.  Therefore in a model with no important shrinking mode component, it is likely that
the best fit will be have a higher proportion of curvature than dark energy.

553: 

554: \begin{acknowledgments}

555: The work of RAV was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California

556: Institute of Technology, under a contract with NASA. We also

557: acknowledge the support of NSF Grant Nos. PHY-0457200 and

558: PHY-0555216, and NASA Grant No. NNX08AH27G.

559: \end{acknowledgments}

560: 

561: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

562: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}

563: 

564: \bibitem{Riess} A. G Riess {\it et al.}, Astron. J. {\bf 116}, 1009 (1998).

565: 

566: \bibitem{Perlmutter} S. Perlmutter {\it et al.}, Astrophys. J. {\bf 517}, 565 (1999).

567: 

568: \bibitem{HG} L. Hui and P. B. Greene, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73}, 123526 (2006).

569: 

570: \bibitem{CC} A. Cooray and R. R. Caldwell, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73}, 103002 (2006).

571: 

572: \bibitem{Lensing} D. Sarkar, A. Amblard, D. E. Holz, and A. Cooray, Astrophys. J. {\bf 678}, 1 (2008).

573: 

574: \bibitem{V} R. A. Vanderveld, arXiv:0801.4041v1 [astro-ph] (2008).

575: 

576: \bibitem{Celerier} M.-N. C\'{e}l\'{e}rier, New Adv. Phys. {\bf 1}, 29 (2007).

577: 

578: \bibitem{HW} D. E. Holz and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58}, 063501 (1998).

579: 

580: \bibitem{Sugiura} N. Sugiura, K. Nakao, D. Ida, N. Sakai, and H. Ishihara, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 103}, 73 (2000).

581: 

582: \bibitem{CMY1} T. Kai, H. Kozaki, K. Nakao, Y. Nambu, and C.-M. Yoo, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 117}, 229 (2007).

583: 

584: \bibitem{LTB} N. Brouzakis, N. Tetradis, and E. Tzavara, JCAP {\bf 0702}, 013 (2007).

585: 

586: \bibitem{MKM1} V. Marra, E. W. Kolb, S. Matarrese, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 76}, 123004 (2007).

587: 

588: \bibitem{MKM2} V. Marra, E. W. Kolb, and S. Matarrese, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 77}, 023003 (2008).

589: 

590: \bibitem{Marra} V. Marra, arXiv:0803.3152v3 [astro-ph] (2008).

591: 

592: \bibitem{Weinberg} S. Weinberg, Astrophys. J. {\bf 208}, L1 (1976).

593: 

594: \bibitem{Sereno2} M. Sereno, E. Piedipalumbo, and M. V. Sazhin, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. {\bf 335}, 1061 (2002).

595: 

596: \bibitem{KL} T. W. B. Kibble and R. Lieu, Astrophys. J. {\bf 632}, 718 (2005).

597: 

598: \bibitem{Bondi} H. Bondi, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. {\bf 107}, 410 (1947).

599: 

600: \bibitem{Israel} W. Israel, Nuovo Cimento B {\bf 44}, 1 (1966).

601: 

602: \bibitem{Mansouri} R. Mansouri, arXiv:astro-ph/0512605 (2005).

603: 

604: \bibitem{Durrer} C. Bonvin, R. Durrer, and M. A. Gasparini, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73}, 023523 (2006).

605: 

606: \bibitem{DR} C. C. Dyer and R. C. Roeder, Astrophys. J. {\bf 180}, L31 (1974).

607: 

608: \bibitem{Sereno1} M. Sereno, G. Covone, E. Piedipalumbo, and R. de Ritis, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. {\bf 327}, 517 (2001).

609: 

610: \bibitem{Zeldovich} Ya. B. Zel'dovich, Sov. Astron. {\bf 8}, 13 (1964).

611: 

612: \bibitem{Tomita} K. Tomita, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 106}, 929 (2001).

613: 

614: \bibitem{Alnes} H. Alnes, M. Amarzguioui, and {\O}. Gr{\o}n, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73}, 083519 (2006).

615: 

616: \bibitem{VFW} R. A. Vanderveld, \'{E}. \'{E}. Flanagan, and I. Wasserman, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 74}, 023506 (2006).

617: 

618: \bibitem{Garfinkle} D. Garfinkle, Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 23}, 4811 (2006).

619: 

620: \bibitem{CMY2} C.-M. Yoo, T. Kai, and K. Nakao, arXiv:0807.0932v1 [astro-ph] (2008).

621: 

622: \bibitem{CMB} R. R. Caldwell and A. Stebbins, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 100}, 191302 (2008).

623: 

624: \bibitem{Ia} T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, and K. Land, arXiv:0807.1443v1 [astro-ph] (2008).

625: 

626: \bibitem{BAO} K. Bolejko and J. S. B. Wyithe, arXiv:0807.2891v1 [astro-ph] (2008).

627: 

628: \bibitem{zdot1} C. Clarkson, B. A. Bassett, and T. H.-C. Lu, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 101}, 011301 (2008).

629: 

630: \bibitem{zdot2} J.-P. Uzan, C. Clarkson, and G. F. R. Ellis, arXiv:0801.0068v1 [astro-ph] (2007).

631: 

632: \end{thebibliography}

633: 

634: \end{document}

635: