1: % mn2esample.tex
2: %a
3: % v2.1 released 22nd May 2002 (G. Hutton)
4: %
5: % The mnsample.tex file has been amended to highlight
6: % the proper use of LaTeX2e code with the class file
7: % and using natbib cross-referencing. These changes
8: % do not reflect the original paper by A. V. Raveendran.
9: %
10: % Previous versions of this sample document were
11: % compatible with the LaTeX 2.09 style file mn.sty
12: % v1.2 released 5th September 1994 (M. Reed)
13: % v1.1 released 18th July 1994
14: % v1.0 released 28th January 1994
15:
16: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}
17:
18: % If your system does not have the AMS fonts version 2.0 installed, then
19: % remove the useAMS option.
20: %
21: % useAMS allows you to obtain upright Greek characters.
22: % e.g. \umu, \upi etc. See the section on "Upright Greek characters" in
23: % this guide for further information.
24: %
25: % If you are using AMS 2.0 fonts, bold math letters/symbols are available
26: % at a larger range of sizes for NFSS release 1 and 2 (using \boldmath or
27: % preferably \bmath).
28: %
29: % The usenatbib command allows the use of Patrick Daly's natbib.sty for
30: % cross-referencing.
31: %
32: % If you wish to typeset the paper in Times font (if you do not have the
33: % PostScript Type 1 Computer Modern fonts you will need to do this to get
34: % smoother fonts in a PDF file) then uncomment the next line
35: % \usepackage{Times}
36:
37: %%%%% AUTHORS - PLACE YOUR OWN MACROS HERE %%%%%
38: \usepackage{verbatim}
39: \usepackage{graphicx}
40: \usepackage{amssymb}
41: \usepackage{amsmath}
42: \usepackage[figuresright]{rotating}
43: \newcommand{\mnras}{MNRAS}
44: \newcommand{\lam}{\Lambda}
45: \newcommand{\om}{\Omega_m}
46: \newcommand{\apjl}{ApJL}
47: \newcommand{\hovm}{h{\rm Mpc}^{-1}}
48: \newcommand{\lw}{L\&W }
49: \newcommand{\aap}{A\&A}
50: \newcommand{\prd}{PhRvD}
51: \newcommand{\apj}{ApJ}
52: \newcommand{\aj}{AJ}
53: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
54:
55: \title[Can Early Dark Energy be Detected in Non-Linear Structure?]{Can
56: Early Dark Energy be Detected in Non-Linear
57: Structure?\footnotemark[1]} \author[Francis, Lewis \& Linder] {Matthew
58: J. Francis$^{1}$\thanks{Email: mfrancis@physics.usyd.edu.au}, Geraint
59: F. Lewis$^{1}$ and Eric V. Linder$^{2}$ \\ $^{1}$ School of Physics,
60: University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia\\ $^{2}$ University of
61: California, Berkeley Lab, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA }
62:
63: \begin{document}
64:
65: \date{}
66:
67: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2007}
68:
69: \maketitle
70:
71: \label{firstpage}
72:
73: \begin{abstract}
74: We present the first study of early dark energy cosmologies using
75: N-body simulations to investigate the formation of non-linear
76: structure. In contrast to expectations from semi-analytic approaches,
77: we find that early dark energy does not imprint a unique signature on
78: the statistics of non-linear structures. Investigating the non-linear
79: power spectra and halo mass functions, we show that universal mass
80: functions hold for early dark energy, making its presence difficult to
81: distinguish from $\Lambda$CDM. Since early dark energy biases the
82: baryon acoustic oscillation scale, the lack of discriminating power is
83: problematic.
84: \end{abstract}
85:
86: \begin{keywords}
87: methods:N-body simulations --- methods: numerical --- dark matter ---
88: dark energy --- large-scale structure of Universe
89: \end{keywords}
90:
91: \long\def\symbolfootnote[#1]#2{\begingroup%
92: \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}\footnotetext[#1]{#2}\endgroup}
93:
94: \symbolfootnote[1]{Research
95: undertaken as part of the Commonwealth Cosmology Initiative (CCI:
96: www.thecci.org), an international collaboration supported by the
97: Australian Research Council}
98:
99: \section{Introduction}
100:
101: Uncovering the nature of the dominant energy component of the Universe
102: at the current epoch, dark energy, is a central goal of modern
103: precision cosmology. The evidence for the existence of dark energy is
104: strong (\citet{riess98}, \citet{perl99}, \citet{wmap5}), however on
105: the theoretical front there are no leading candidates despite a wealth
106: of suggestions (see \citet{review} for a review). As observational
107: data becomes more precise and extensive due to current and future
108: generations of large surveys and increasingly powerful instruments,
109: there remains a number of theoretical challenges to determine with
110: high accuracy the expected observational consequences of the myriad of
111: possible dark energy models.
112:
113: Dark energy affects the Universe primarily through the global
114: expansion rate. This can be measured directly through distance
115: measurements such as from Type Ia supernovae (\citet{riess98},
116: \citet{perl99}, \citet{kowalski08}) over the last 10 billion years.
117: However, some dark energy models predict a non-negligible contribution
118: to the early time expansion behavior, called early dark energy (EDE).
119: To probe EDE requires observations tied to the very high redshift
120: universe, such as the cosmic microwave background (CMB) or baryon
121: acoustic oscillations (BAO). However, as shown in
122: \cite{LinderRobbers}, early dark energy can be hidden in CMB
123: observations, even while shifting the intrinsic acoustic scale upon
124: which BAO measurements rely upon. Thus failure to detect EDE can bias
125: the cosmological model interpreted from CMB and BAO data.
126:
127: An alternative and complementary measure of dark energy is through the
128: observation of structure in the Universe. The change in the dynamical
129: evolution of expansion relative to the $\Lambda$CDM model, say, alters
130: the growth of structures in the inhomogeneous universe that we
131: inhabit. The statistics of structure therefore encodes information
132: about dark energy. Structure measures involve a different weighting of
133: cosmological parameters than distance measures, thus the combination
134: breaks degeneracies. Moreover, they can test the framework of
135: gravitational growth of inhomogeneities, important for distinguishing
136: between a physical dark energy and changes to the laws of gravity.
137: Finally, growth is a cumulative process, depending on the physical
138: conditions from early times through the epoch at which the structure
139: is observed. Thus, observations of structure are crucial to
140: understanding cosmology at all epochs. Because of the implications of
141: early dark energy for interpreting CMB and BAO measurements, and for
142: understanding the fundamental physics behind dark energy, the behavior
143: of structure formation and evolution is a key point.
144:
145: Early dark energy models address the coincidence problem by having the
146: dark energy evolve relatively slowly compared to the dominant matter
147: or radiation component; in some cases motivated by string theory they
148: scale exactly with the background component. Indeed, this was one of
149: the first dark energy models \citep{Wett88}. EDE is discussed in some
150: detail in \cite{DoranRobbers06} and references therein. Constraints
151: from CMB and primordial nucleosynthesis data restrict the energy
152: fraction in the early universe contributed by EDE to less than a few
153: percent \citep{DoranRW07} but this could have significant effects.
154: Some of the implications for linear growth were examined in
155: \cite{Linder06} and \citet{DoranRobbers06} and extended
156: semi-analytically to non-linear theory by \cite{bartDW06}. The main
157: result of previous studies of the non-linear growth in EDE cosmologies
158: (such as \citet{bartDW06} and \citet{FedeliBart07}) is that for a
159: fixed linear theory matter perturbation amplitude at $z=0$,
160: $\sigma_8$, there are more collapsed structure in EDE models than
161: $\Lambda$CDM. For higher redshifts this effect increases, for
162: instance \cite{bartDW06} found that at $z=1$, there are up to an order
163: of magnitude more dark matter halos for higher halo masses ($M_{halo}
164: \gtrsim 10^{15} M_{\odot}$). This can be simply interpreted as early
165: dark energy, which does not appreciably cluster, suppressing the
166: growth of structure at early times. Hence, to achieve the observed
167: level of current structure, the early amplitude of clustering must
168: have been greater. Other applications include the high
169: Sunyaev-Zel'dovich amplitude possibly seen at high multipoles in the
170: CMB \citep{SadehRephSilk,WaizmanBart} and the early formation of the
171: first stars \citep{SadehReph08}.
172:
173: A key aim of this paper is to use N-body simulations to calculate the
174: predicted number of dark matter halos in EDE cosmologies compared with
175: $\Lambda$CDM. In particular, the non-linear level of structure is
176: affected by the early growth in a way that can change predictions
177: based on the usual linear growth factor at a particular epoch. We
178: examine both the halo mass function giving the abundance of collapsed
179: objects and the non-linear matter power spectrum. N-body simulations
180: are a robust method of determining these statistics and this paper
181: critically examines predictions previously made analytically.
182:
183: In Section \ref{simdetail} we describe the N-body simulations we used
184: to probe the effects of EDE on non-linear structure formation. We
185: present the results for the abundance of dark matter halos in Section
186: \ref{halos} and the results for the non-linear matter power spectrum
187: in Section \ref{psresults}. We discuss the implication of our results
188: and make concluding remarks in Section \ref{conclude}.
189:
190: \section{Simulation Details}\label{simdetail}
191:
192: The simulations were performed using the cosmological N-body code
193: GADGET2 \citep{Gadget code} suitably modified in order to model the
194: expansion history for arbitrary dark energy models. The initial CDM
195: power spectrum was determined using the CMB code CMBEASY
196: \citep{2005JCAP...10..011D}. Initial realisations of the density
197: field were created using part of the COSMICS code \citep{COSMICS code
198: paper}, modified to allow an arbitrary initial power spectrum. Given
199: the real space displacement field, $\Psi_0(\textbf{x})$, generated
200: from the linear power spectrum $P(k)$ at redshift zero, the initial
201: grid of particles are perturbed using the Zel'dovich approximation
202: \citep{zed} resulting in the positions and velocities at the starting
203: scale factor $a_i$ of
204:
205: \begin{equation}
206: \textbf{x} = \textbf{q} + \frac{D(a_i)}{D(1)}\Psi_0(\textbf{q})
207: \end{equation}
208: \begin{equation}
209: \dot{\textbf{x}} = \frac{\dot{D}(a_i)}{D(1)}\Psi_0(\textbf{q})
210: \end{equation}
211: where $\textbf{q}$ are the real space grid co-ordinates and $D(a)$ is
212: the linear growth factor. The dots refer to derivatives with respect
213: to cosmic time $t$. The linear growth factor and its derivative were
214: calculated by numerically integrating the growth equation detailed in
215: \citet{LinderJenkins}. In all cases, the starting redshift was kept
216: consistent between the different physical models. In general the
217: linear power spectrum shape varies in the different models compared
218: and therefore we made initial conditions separately for each model,
219: always ensuring that the initial fluctuation amplitude returned the
220: desired $\sigma_{8}$ at $z=0$. The power spectra measured from
221: simulation outputs were compared to linear theory to ensure that the
222: large scale power evolved as expected. All simulations and numerical
223: analysis were performed on `The Green Machine' supercomputer located
224: at the Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, Swinburne
225: University.
226:
227: The early dark energy model is parametrised through its dimensionless
228: energy density as a function of redshift by \citep{DoranRobbers06}
229: \begin{equation}\label{edeparam}
230: \Omega_d(a) = \frac{\Omega_d^0 -
231: \Omega_e(1-a^{-3w_0})}{\Omega_d^0+\Omega_m^0a^{3w_0}} +
232: \Omega_e(1-a^{-3w_0})
233: \end{equation}
234: in which $\Omega_m^0$ and $\Omega_d^0$ are the density parameters of
235: matter and dark energy today ($\Omega_m^0=1-\Omega_d^0$ in a flat
236: universe as assumed here), $w_0$ is the equation of state of dark
237: energy today and $\Omega_e$ is the energy density fraction of dark
238: energy at early times, $a\ll 1$. Note that our $\Omega_e$ corresponds
239: to $\Omega_d^e$ from \cite{DoranRobbers06}. Strictly for the initial
240: comparison to \cite{bartDW06}, we also use the bending model of
241: \cite{Wetterich04}, defined as
242: \begin{equation}\label{wetEDE}
243: \ln\frac{\Omega_d(a)}{\Omega_m(a)}=\ln\frac{\Omega_d^0}{\Omega_m^0}-
244: \frac{3w_0\ln a}{1-b\ln a}.
245: \end{equation}
246: In both cases the dark energy equation of state is given by the
247: standard formula $w(a)=-(1/[3\Omega_d (1-\Omega_d)])d\Omega_d/d\ln a$.
248: Note that \cite{DoranRW07} find that the marginal distributions of the
249: likelihood for cosmological parameters other than dark energy are
250: insensitive to the specific parametrisation.
251:
252: In all the simulations using the EDE form of Eq. \ref{edeparam} the
253: cosmological model used was a flat universe with: $\Omega_m=0.3,$
254: $\Omega_b=0.048,$ $h=0.69,$ $n=0.98,$ $\sigma_8=0.76,$ and $w_0=-1$,
255: except where specified otherwise.
256:
257: Dark matter halos in our simulation outputs were determined using two
258: different methods. The first is the Friends of Friends (FOF) method
259: \citep{FOFmethod} using a constant linking length parameter of
260: $b=0.2$. An alternative approach to defining halos in simulation
261: outputs is the spherical overdensity method (SO) (see \citet{lukic}
262: for a detailed comparison of FOF and SO halo methods). To find the SO
263: defined halos, we employed the \textsc{MPI} version of the
264: \textsc{AMIGA} Halo Finder
265: \footnote{\textsc{AMIGA} is freely available for download at
266: http://www.aip.de/People/AKnebe/AMIGA/} (\textsc{AHF}), successor of
267: \textsc{MHF} introduced by \citet{MHF}. In order to use this for EDE
268: cosmologies, we made the appropriate modifications to the virial
269: overdensity calculation.
270:
271: The matter power spectrum was calculated utilising the `chaining the
272: power' method, as described in \citet{Halofit}, using the cloud in a
273: cell grid assignment scheme.
274:
275: The bulk of the simulations used $256^3$ particles in a $256$ Mpc/$h$
276: box starting at redshift $z=24$. For each model we performed eight
277: simulations using different realisations of the initial density
278: field. The power spectrum and halo mass functions were averaged over
279: all realisations. Additional simulations were performed halving and
280: doubling the box size as well as altering the starting redshift,
281: softening length and accuracy parameters to ensure convergence. We
282: also check that for $\Omega_e$ approaching zero, the power spectrum
283: and halo results converged to the results for constant $w=w_0$ as
284: expected. The results of these tests indicated that the power spectrum
285: ratio results are at most $\sim 1\%$ altered by different numerical
286: parameters, with the most important factor being box size which
287: affected the power spectrum ratios mainly at high $k$. Starting
288: redshift and softening length make little difference to the ratios.
289: The halo mass function results were somewhat affected by changing box
290: size, our results agreed with the analysis of \citet{PowerKnebe} for
291: the effect of box size on the mass function. The ratio results
292: fluctuated at the level of $\sim 10\%$ with varying box size. We do
293: not claim state of the art precision in our mass function results,
294: however they are sufficiently accurate and converged to support our
295: main thesis, as detailed in Section \ref{halos}.
296:
297: \section{Halo Mass Function}\label{halos}
298:
299: The halo mass function (hereafter HMF), defined simply as the number
300: of halos of a given mass expected per unit volume, $n(M,z)$, is an
301: important theoretical and observational statistic of the dark matter
302: density field. Indeed, the abundance is often claimed to be
303: exponentially sensitive to the cosmology. The pioneering work of
304: \citet{PressSch} related the expected mass function to the variance,
305: $\sigma(R)$ on some length scale $R$ of the linearly evolved density
306: field and the linear collapse parameter, $\delta_c$, which is derived
307: from spherical collapse arguments and for $\Lambda$CDM is only a weak
308: function of cosmology and redshift.
309:
310: The advent of larger N-body simulations allowed this mass function to
311: be tested rigorously, resulting in improvements that modified the
312: basic functional form to include ellipsoidal collapse with parameters
313: fit to simulation by \citet{ShethTormen}. This in turn was improved
314: upon by \citet{Jenkins01} and more recently by \citet{Warren} with an
315: alternative approach of fitting directly the multiplicity function
316: \begin{equation}\label{multipfunc}
317: f(\sigma)=\frac{M}{\rho}\frac{dn}{d\textrm{ln}\sigma^{-1}}
318: \end{equation}
319: by some function of $\sigma$ without reference to the collapse
320: parameter. Here $\rho$ is the background matter density. In both
321: \citet{Jenkins01} and \citet{Warren} universal formulas for the
322: multiplicity function, valid for a range of cosmologies, were found.
323: The effect of cosmology enters through the variance $\sigma$ as a
324: function of scale and redshift and the mean matter density. Writing
325: the Press-Schechter style mass functions in this form gives results
326: that are broadly in agreement with the Jenkins and Warren formulas
327: with the latter being more accurate fits to numerical data, but
328: qualitatively similar. Despite being formulated from $\Lambda$CDM,
329: matter dominated and open cosmologies only, the Jenkins formula has
330: been shown to be valid also for a large N-body simulation of a
331: dynamical dark energy cosmology \citep{LinderJenkins}.
332:
333: In previous work on EDE cosmologies relying on estimation of the HMF,
334: (such as \citet{bartDW06} and \citet{FedeliBart07}) the Sheth-Tormen
335: mass function has been used to predict the relative halo abundance of
336: EDE and $\Lambda$CDM cosmologies. This required determination of the
337: linear collapse parameter for EDE cosmologies, for the derivation see
338: \citet{bartDW06}. The analysis using this mass function suggested a
339: significant increase in the number of massive halos in EDE models
340: compared to $\Lambda$CDM models with the same $\sigma_8$ today. This
341: was particularly true at $z=1$. However, it is not clear that the
342: Press-Schechter style mass functions, relying on the collapse
343: parameter, is to be preferred for these cosmologies over the universal
344: mass function approach of Jenkins and of Warren. For $\Lambda$CDM,
345: the difference between the approaches is solely the degree of accuracy
346: across a range of halo masses, but the functions broadly agree.
347:
348: However, in this work we compare the two approaches for EDE and find a
349: marked qualitative difference in nonlinear structure predictions,
350: although they both use the same linear density behavior. We have
351: reproduced Fig. 5 of \citet{bartDW06} which showed the ratio of the
352: HMF to the $\Lambda$CDM case for two EDE models (both using the
353: bending parametrisation of \citet{Wetterich04}, see our
354: Eq. \ref{wetEDE}), at $z=0$ and $z=1$. However, in our reproduction
355: (see Fig. \ref{bartfig}) we have also included the prediction using
356: instead the Jenkins and Warren formulas (note that these curves
357: overlap and can barely be distinguished on the scale shown). The
358: Sheth-Tormen mass functions shown utilised the method for calculating
359: the linear density contrast at collapse time, $\delta_c$, for EDE
360: cosmologies from \citet{bartDW06}, which results in a quite different
361: value from $\Lambda$CDM. As can be seen, the predictions of the
362: Sheth-Tormen and the Jenkins-Warren approaches are very different, and
363: it is not clear {\it a priori} which approach should be used in the
364: absence of rigorous calculation via N-body simulations. In this work,
365: we fill the gap in the literature by performing these simulations and
366: halo analyses. Note that the difference in the halo abundance ratios
367: predicted by the Jenkins and Warren formulas is negligible for all
368: cosmologies studied in this work and in subsequent figures we plot a
369: single line that represents the prediction of both of these
370: approaches.
371:
372: \begin{figure}
373: \includegraphics[
374: scale=0.35,
375: angle=-90]{BartFig.ps}
376: \caption{Reproduction of Fig. 5 of \citet{bartDW06} with the
377: \citet{Jenkins01} and \citet{Warren} mass functions also
378: included. The Jenkins and Warren formulas are shown with dashed and
379: dot-dashed lines respectively, however they are indistinguishable on
380: this scale. They both clearly disagree with the Sheth-Tormen
381: prediction, shown with dotted lines, for both models. For the
382: Sheth-Tormen mass function, the upper curves are for $z=1$ and the
383: lower $z=0$, however for the Jenkins-Warren mass functions the
384: reverse is the case, the lower curves are for $z=1$.}\label{bartfig}
385: \end{figure}
386:
387: \subsection{Press-Schechter vs. \ Jenkins-Warren}\label{bartmods}
388:
389: As a direct comparison to the work of \citet{bartDW06}, we perform
390: simulations of the same two EDE and one $\Lambda$CDM models they
391: considered analytically. Model I has $\Omega_{m,0}h^2=0.146,$
392: $\Omega_bh^2=0.026,$ $h=0.67,$ $n=1.05,$ $w_0=-0.93$ and
393: $\sigma_8=0.82$; Model II has $\Omega_{m,0}h^2=0.140,$
394: $\Omega_bh^2=0.023,$ $h=0.62,$ $n=0.99,$ $w_0=-0.99,$ and
395: $\sigma_8=0.78$. Both models have an averaged value for the dark
396: energy density during the matter dominated era of $\Omega_{d,sf}=0.04$
397: (see \citet{omsf} for the precise definition).
398:
399:
400: \begin{figure}
401: \includegraphics[
402: scale=0.35,
403: angle=-90]{DMF_Ratio.231.0.ps}
404: \caption{Mass function ratios at $z=1$ between EDE and $\Lambda$CDM
405: for different methods of predicting the mass function. The solid
406: lines show the simulation data with halos found with the FOF
407: method. The dot-dashed lines show the SO method results for the same
408: data. The dashed lines show the Jenkins mass function (which gives
409: almost the same prediction as the Warren formula). Finally, the
410: dotted lines show the prediction of the Sheth-Tormen mass function.
411: The Jenkins-Warren formula is clearly preferred by the simulation
412: data.}\label{DMF2280}
413: \end{figure}
414:
415: \begin{figure}
416: \includegraphics[
417: scale=0.35,
418: angle=-90]{DMF_Ratio.231.1.ps}
419: \caption{Mass function ratios at $z=0$ for the models described in
420: Section \ref{bartmods}. The line styles are the same as Fig.
421: \ref{DMF2280}.}\label{DMF2281}
422: \end{figure}
423:
424: The simulation results for the mass function, overlaid with the
425: predictions from both the Sheth-Tormen and Jenkins-Warren mass
426: functions, are shown in Figs. \ref{DMF2280} and \ref{DMF2281}. The
427: simulations show a good agreement with the predictions of the Jenkins
428: formula and strong disagreement with the Sheth-Tormen function with
429: the appropriate EDE linear collapse parameter. This has two crucial
430: implications. The difference between $\Lambda$CDM and EDE in numbers
431: of collapsed objects is much less than previously thought. Secondly,
432: the abundance increase reverses at higher redshift, i.e. rather than
433: an order of magnitude {\it more} halos in EDE at $z=1$ as previously
434: predicted, we find {\it less} halos at the high mass end for one of
435: the models, and comparable number of halos at the low mass end.
436:
437: This result is important and troubling; instead of the number of halos
438: being exponentially sensitive and a crucial tool for detecting EDE, it
439: appears that it is quite insensitive to the existence of EDE at the
440: few percent energy density level, at or below the upper limit
441: satisfying current data. The implications are further discussed in
442: Section \ref{conclude}.
443:
444: \subsection{Early Dark Energy Mass Functions}\label{haloresults}
445:
446: Although we used the bending model of EDE for direct comparison to
447: \citet{bartDW06}, an improved model of EDE was formulated after that
448: paper. We treat the EDE model of \cite{DoranRobbers06}, given in Eq.
449: \ref{edeparam}, as the standard description of EDE in the remainder of
450: the paper. It is somewhat more closely related to the particle
451: physics models and automatically goes to a constant energy density
452: contribution $\Omega_e$ at early times in both the matter and
453: radiation eras.
454:
455: We compare the simulation results for this EDE model with the
456: predictions of the Jenkins-Warren formulas in Figs. \ref{DMF2171}
457: and \ref{DMF2172}. Note that we do not plot the Sheth-Tormen
458: predictions for the mass function, since we find that using the linear
459: collapse parameter derivation from \citet{bartDW06} with the
460: parametrisation of \citet{2005JCAP...10..011D} leads to a limit that
461: does not converge \footnote{If one assumes that the overdensity of a
462: spherical perturbation, $\Delta-1$, is proportional to $a$ (as in
463: \citet{bartDW06}), then since in the Doran-Robbers model $D_+(a) \sim
464: a^{1-(3\Omega_e)/5}$, then their ratio in Eq. 5 becomes
465: $a^{(3\Omega_e/5)}$ and so $\delta_c$ formally goes to zero in the
466: limit. To calculate the collapse parameter one actually needs the
467: full numerical calculation.} and hence we cannot determine an
468: appropriate $\delta_c$. In any case, the results of the previous
469: section indicated that this approach was not suitable for EDE
470: cosmologies.
471:
472: \begin{figure}
473: \includegraphics[
474: scale=0.35,
475: angle=-90]{DMF_Ratio.232.1.ps}
476: \caption{Mass function ratios relative to $\Lambda$CDM at $z=1$ for
477: two EDE models of the form in Eq. \ref{edeparam} with different
478: values of $\Omega_e$ but with the cosmology fixed otherwise. The
479: dashed lines show the Jenkins-Warren mass function prediction for
480: the ratios while the solid lines show the simulation results using
481: the FOF method and the dot-dashed line the results using the SO
482: method.}\label{DMF2171}
483: \end{figure}
484:
485: \begin{figure}
486: \includegraphics[
487: scale=0.35,
488: angle=-90]{DMF_Ratio.232.2.ps}
489: \caption{Mass function ratios at $z=0$. The line styles are the same
490: as Fig. \ref{DMF2171}.}\label{DMF2172}
491: \end{figure}
492:
493:
494: As in Section \ref{bartmods} there are two key points to note, the
495: first is that the difference between $\Lambda$CDM and EDE is
496: negligible at $z=0$ and at $z=1$ (see Figs. \ref{DMF2171} and
497: \ref{DMF2172}), and second that the Jenkins-Warren mass functions
498: correctly predict this result. Choosing to define the halos via the
499: FOF or the SO method makes little difference to the ratio results.
500:
501: The simulations used in this study are insufficient to make a
502: precision determination of the accuracy of the Jenkins-Warren formulas
503: for EDE cosmologies, however it is clear that they are at least
504: accurate to $\lesssim 10\%$ for predicting the {\it relative} mass
505: function of EDE and $\Lambda$CDM and future work on EDE should use
506: these rather than the linear theory collapse motivated mass functions.
507: If required in the future, larger simulations with a greater mass
508: resolution could be used to determine the mass function for EDE
509: cosmologies at percent level accuracy, however this is outside of the
510: scope of this work, and unnecessary at this stage due to the lack of
511: precision in the corresponding observations.
512:
513: \section{Power Spectrum}\label{psresults}
514:
515: The mass power spectrum is central to extracting cosmological
516: information from galaxy redshift and weak lensing surveys. An
517: important question is how does the addition of EDE change the
518: non-linear mass power spectrum? Ideally we would like to be able,
519: through simulations, to derive an understanding of the changes that
520: EDE makes to the power spectrum, in order that we can predict this
521: statistic for any EDE model without needing further lengthy
522: simulations. The section presents the results of a systematic
523: variation of cosmological parameters, in order to understand the
524: non-linear power spectrum in EDE cosmologies.
525:
526: The approach we take is to examine how the ratio of the non-linear EDE
527: power spectrum and $\Lambda$CDM compares to {\it linear} power
528: spectrum ratios. In order to turn this information into a prediction
529: of the EDE non-linear power spectrum in general requires accurate
530: prior knowledge of the absolute value of the non-linear power spectrum
531: for $\Lambda$CDM, for instance the simulation calibrated, halo model
532: motivated, formula from \citet{Halofit} (know as Halofit), or any more
533: accurate future method. In addition, EDE changes the shape of the
534: linear CDM power spectrum. We therefore must calculate the correct
535: linear power spectrum, using a package such as CMBEASY
536: \citep{2005JCAP...10..011D}, as used in this study. Armed with these
537: two methods, we could then predict the non-linear power spectrum for
538: EDE models {\it if we could relate the ratio between the EDE and
539: $\Lambda$CDM linear and non-linear power spectra}. These will not
540: generally be the same. This section addresses the ratio relation.
541:
542: Determining the absolute value of the power spectrum is a more
543: intensive numerical task, outside the scope of this work. However, as
544: argued in \citet{2006MNRAS.366..547M} and \citet{2007MNRAS.380.1079F},
545: many numerical errors will cancel in a ratio, and hence we can be
546: confident, as long as convergence is demonstrated (see Section
547: \ref{simdetail}) that the ratio results are robust. Another issue is
548: that the presence of EDE shifts the sound horizon and hence the
549: locations in $k$ space of the BAO peaks in the power spectrum
550: \citep{DST07,LinderRobbers}. However, our simulations concentrate on
551: the broad features of the power spectrum and do not have sufficient
552: volume or statistics to resolve the percent level shift. Furthermore,
553: the problem of how subtle non-linear effects alter the BAO peaks in
554: general is an ongoing area of research (see for instance
555: \citet{2008MNRAS.383..755A}). The focus of our current analysis is on
556: the comparison between cosmologies of the broad features and small
557: scales.
558:
559: A simple first step in predicting the non-linear power in EDE
560: cosmologies might be to use the Halofit formula with the EDE linear
561: power and growth factor. In the subsequent sections, we present the
562: predictions of this modified Halofit form along with our simulation
563: results to see how useful such an approach may be. In order to make
564: this calculation the effective spectral index $n_{\rm eff}$ and
565: curvature $C$ were determined from the EDE linear power spectrum. See
566: \citet{Halofit} for details and the Halofit formula.
567:
568: \subsection{Varying $\Omega_e$}\label{varyoe}
569:
570: We start with a standard concordance flat $\Lambda$CDM model with
571: parameters as given in Section \ref{simdetail}. We then consider two
572: EDE models with different amounts of dark energy in the early
573: universe, $\Omega_e$, while keeping the rest of the cosmology,
574: including the growth normalisation today, $\sigma_8$, unaltered. The
575: linear and non-linear mass power spectrum ratios at $z=0$ and $z=1$
576: are shown in Fig. \ref{s8matcha1} and \ref{s8matcha0.5}.
577:
578: As discussed in Section \ref{simdetail}, the numerical convergence of
579: the power spectrum ratios has been established at the $\sim 1\%$
580: level. The dependence of the ratio on numerical factors (primarily box
581: size and particle resolution) is generally greater at higher $k$
582: values. The results past $k\gtrsim3\,h$/Mpc should perhaps be treated
583: with more caution, but at lower $k$ values the simulations are well
584: converged.
585:
586: \begin{figure}
587: \includegraphics[
588: scale=0.35,
589: angle=-90]{LinNLRatio.900.0.2.ps}
590: \caption{Keeping $\sigma_{8}$ constant while adding early dark
591: energy results in a remarkably similar non-linear power for
592: $k\gtrsim0.2\,h$/Mpc. This is despite the ratios in the linear power
593: spectra, shown in the dashed lines, diverging. The modified Halofit
594: prediction is shown by the dot-dashed lines.}\label{s8matcha1}
595: \end{figure}
596:
597: \begin{figure}
598: \includegraphics[
599: scale=0.35,
600: angle=-90]{LinNLRatio.900.0.1.ps}
601: \caption{At $z=1$ models with early dark energy have slightly
602: increased non-linear power on small scales, however the shape of the
603: relative non linear power curve differs from the linear
604: power.}\label{s8matcha0.5}
605: \end{figure}
606:
607: Compared to $\Lambda$CDM, for a fixed primordial spectral index $n$,
608: the presence of dark energy in the early universe changes the higher
609: $k$ slope of the post recombination linear power spectrum, resulting
610: in more large scale, but less small scale, linear power for the same
611: overall normalisation $\sigma_8$. The growth amplitude in the early
612: universe must be higher in EDE models than $\Lambda$CDM to compensate
613: for the lower growth rate, in order to get the same $\sigma_8$ today.
614: The relative non-linear power between EDE and $\Lambda$CDM will
615: therefore depend on those two governing effects, i.e. the change in
616: the linear growth rate history and the change in the initial linear
617: power spectrum shape. Non-linear power on small scales is coupled to
618: the power on large scales and this non-linear amplification will be
619: enhanced in the EDE models relative to $\Lambda$CDM due to the greater
620: amplitude of large scale power (see Figs. \ref{s8matcha1} and
621: \ref{s8matcha0.5}). The Halofit formula prediction (dot-dashed line
622: in Figs. \ref{s8matcha1} and \ref{s8matcha0.5}) should be expected to
623: take into account at least some of the non-linear amplification
624: effects for the EDE linear power spectrum, since this formula was
625: calibrated based on a variety of spectral shapes. While the correct
626: linear growth factor at any given redshift can be calculated for EDE
627: and used in the Halofit formula for the power spectrum at that
628: redshift, the modified growth {\it history} of EDE models relative to
629: $\Lambda$CDM, will not be taken into account.
630: \citet{2007MNRAS.380.1079F} and \citet{2007ApJ...665..887M} found that
631: the linear growth history in the early universe is an important factor
632: in determining the non-linear growth at later epochs where the linear
633: growth are matched. Therefore the scales where Halofit breaks down
634: should grant an insight into the relative importance of the two
635: factors, non-linear amplification and the linear growth history, as a
636: function of scale.
637:
638: The results show that the prediction of the modified Halofit formula
639: reproduces the simulation results in the translinear regime, around
640: $k=0.3-1\,h$/Mpc. As expected, the greater amplitude of large scale
641: power in the EDE models leads to enhanced non-linear amplification and
642: hence the non-linear power ratio is greater than the linear. Beyond
643: $k\gtrsim1\,h$/Mpc, Halofit under-predicts the non-linear power, with
644: the difference between this and simulations increasing with $k$. This
645: can be understood from the ratio in linear growth history of the
646: models shown in Fig. \ref{gfac201}. The smallest scales are
647: remembering the conditions of expansion, and linear growth, of earlier
648: epochs, leading to a greater relative amount of non-linear growth at
649: those scales.
650:
651: \begin{figure}
652: \includegraphics[
653: scale=0.35,
654: angle=-90]{GrowthRatio.201.0.0.ps}
655: \caption{The linear growth factors $D(a)/D(1)$ of models
656: with early dark energy relative to $\Lambda$CDM. The linear
657: evolution of the growth is identical to within ~1\% after $z\simeq
658: 1$.}\label{gfac201}
659: \end{figure}
660:
661: In order to decouple the effects of the modified growth history and
662: spectral shape, we performed simulations simulations in which the EDE
663: models used the $\Lambda$CDM initial power spectrum while maintaining
664: their correct expansion history. The $z=0$ result for these
665: simulations are shown in Fig. \ref{commonPk}. In this case Halofit
666: predicts no difference between the models, due to the common linear
667: power spectrum shape and normalisation. Examining Figs.
668: \ref{s8matcha1} and \ref{commonPk} it can be seen that the difference
669: between the simulations and Halofit predictions in both figures are
670: comparable. This reinforces the idea that Halofit correctly predicts
671: much of the effects of the EDE spectral shape on intermediate scales
672: and the modified growth history increases the power at small scales.
673:
674: This comparison is not perfect and we should not expect to be able to
675: completely decompose the effects of spectral shape and linear growth
676: history into a linear sum. These results compare to those of
677: \citet{modGrav} (see their Fig. 8) for the effects of a modified
678: gravitational potential on the non-linear power spectrum. In that
679: case, the effects on the non-linear growth of modifying the
680: gravitational potential were found to be negligible compared with the
681: altered linear power spectrum shape.
682:
683: \begin{figure}
684: \includegraphics[
685: scale=0.35,
686: angle=-90]{LinNLRatio.229.0.2.ps}
687: \caption{The same background cosmologies as Fig. \ref{s8matcha1}
688: but using the $\Lambda$CDM initial power spectrum for all
689: models. The higher amplitude of growth in the early universe in the
690: EDE models leads to a greater non-linear power at small scales
691: today.}\label{commonPk}
692: \end{figure}
693:
694: Note however that this is essentially the expectation previously
695: proposed from analytic predictions of the halo mass function. The
696: higher amplitude of growth in the early Universe in EDE models was
697: expected to produce more collapsed structures at high redshift, with a
698: residual increase in collapsed structures at low redshift due to the
699: greater formation rate in the early Universe. Our power spectrum
700: results do indicate an enhanced amount of non-linear growth relative
701: to linear growth for the EDE models, however this enhancement is at
702: the percent level rather than the considerable increase that would be
703: seen if the relative halo abundance were an order of magnitude at high
704: redshift as previously predicted.
705:
706: Interestingly, the differences in the non-linear growth rates due to
707: the spectral shape and linear growth history appear to conspire to
708: wash out the early dark energy signal at $z=0$. That is to say, the
709: non-linear power in the EDE and $\Lambda$CDM models is matched to
710: within a percent for scales smaller than $k>0.2\,h$/Mpc. Even at
711: $z=1$ (Fig. \ref{s8matcha0.5}) the high $k$ power in the EDE models is
712: well matched, to about $(\Omega_e/0.05)$\%. Since we expect
713: $\Omega_e\lesssim 0.03$ from current observational constraints, this
714: is a remarkable match. This result accords with the mass function
715: results of Section \ref{haloresults} that found essentially
716: indistinguishable abundances of dark matter halos. Note that we are
717: holding the cosmology apart from $\Omega_e$ fixed between EDE and
718: $\Lambda$CDM. More generally we would not expect this match. For
719: instance, a steep primordial spectral index $n$ in an EDE model would
720: compensate for the later flattening of the linear power spectrum due
721: to the presence of EDE leading to a linear power spectrum after
722: recombination much more similar to $\Lambda$CDM. In this case, as
723: shown in Fig. \ref{commonPk}, we would expect a greater amount of
724: non-linear power in the EDE model.
725:
726: \subsection{Varying the Linear Growth History}
727:
728: We now examine in more detail the influence of the linear growth at
729: different epochs on the non-linear power. In bottom-up hierarchical
730: growth, the smallest scales reach the non-linear growth rate earlier
731: than larger scales. We therefore expect a relationship between the
732: relative non-linear growth at different scales imprinted on the low
733: redshift power spectrum and the alteration of the growth rate at high
734: redshifts. This relationship was found to be important for scales with
735: $k\gtrsim1\,h$/Mpc in Section \ref{varyoe}. To investigate this further,
736: we have employed the extended EDE parametrisation suggested in the
737: appendix of \citet{DoranRobbers06}
738:
739: \begin{equation}\label{extendedEDEparam}
740: \Omega_d(a) = \frac{\Omega_d^0 -
741: \Omega_e(1-a^{-3w_0})^\gamma}{\Omega_d^0+\Omega_m^0a^{3w_0}} +
742: \Omega_e(1-a^{-3w_0})^\gamma
743: \end{equation}
744: where $\gamma$ controls the importance of the early dark energy terms
745: at late times. Increasing $\gamma$ pushes to higher redshifts the
746: epoch when this model changes from dark energy with a with nearly
747: constant equation of state $w=w_0$ (i.e.\ $\Lambda$CDM when $w_0=-1$)
748: to one with appreciable early dark energy density (or $w$ approaching
749: 0). This extended parametrisation reduces to Eq. \ref{edeparam} when
750: $\gamma=1$. In \citet{DoranRobbers06} it was found that including the
751: extra parameter does not alter the constraints on the other
752: cosmological parameters when fitted to the data and hence this
753: additional parameter was not deemed necessary. However, this
754: parameter is useful in the current study as an aid to understanding
755: the dependence of the relative non-linear growth as a function of the
756: high redshift linear growth behaviour. The effect of varying the
757: $\gamma$ parameter on the linear growth factor is shown in Fig. \ref{vgammaGrowth}
758:
759: \begin{figure}
760: \includegraphics[
761: scale=0.35,
762: angle=-90]{GrowthRatio.219.0.0.ps}
763: \caption{The effect of varying the $\gamma$ parameter in Eq.
764: \ref{extendedEDEparam} on the linear growth factor. Increasing the
765: value shifts the departure from the fiducial $\Lambda$CDM to higher
766: redshifts.}\label{vgammaGrowth}
767: \end{figure}
768:
769: How does this altered linear growth behaviour change the non-linear
770: growth? The models shown in Fig. \ref{vgammaGrowth} were simulated,
771: with the measured non-linear power spectrum results shown in Figs.
772: \ref{vgammaNLa0.5} and \ref{vgammaNLa1}.
773:
774: \begin{figure}
775: \includegraphics[
776: scale=0.35,
777: angle=-90]{LinNLRatio.901.0.1.ps}
778: \caption{Power spectrum ratios with a varying $\gamma$ factor at
779: $z=1$. The solid lines show the non-linear power while the dashed
780: lines show the linear power, both as a ratio to the $\Lambda$CDM
781: model.}\label{vgammaNLa0.5}
782: \end{figure}
783:
784: \begin{figure}
785: \includegraphics[
786: scale=0.35,
787: angle=-90]{LinNLRatio.901.0.2.ps}
788: \caption{Power spectrum ratios with a varying $\gamma$ factor at
789: $z=0$. The solid lines show the non-linear power while the dashed
790: lines show the linear power, both as a ratio to the $\Lambda$CDM
791: model.}\label{vgammaNLa1}
792: \end{figure}
793:
794: At $z=0$ (Fig. \ref{vgammaNLa1}), models with a higher $\gamma$
795: parameter have less non-linear power at small scales than the model
796: with $\gamma=1$. This can be understood from the relative linear
797: growth histories of these models shown in
798: Fig. \ref{vgammaGrowth}. Since the high $\gamma$ models remain more
799: like the fiducial $w=-1$ to higher redshift, the accumulated non-linear
800: effects due to the linear growth history are smaller in this case than
801: for $\gamma=1$. This causes the non-linear power to more closely track
802: the Halofit prediction.
803:
804: At $z=1$ (Fig. \ref{vgammaNLa0.5}) Halofit matches the simulation
805: results well for the high $\gamma$ models. Note that for both high
806: $\gamma$ models, the linear growth factor evolution is essentially
807: identical to $\Lambda$CDM in the period between $z=1$ and $z=0$ (see
808: Fig. \ref{vgammaGrowth}). Despite this, the non-linear ratio of these
809: models to $\Lambda$CDM does change between these two epochs. This
810: increase is therefore due to the extra large scale power in the EDE
811: models, and is predicted by Halofit.
812:
813: Altering the linear growth history through the $\gamma$ parameter
814: demonstrates the relationship between the high redshift linear growth
815: history and the low redshift small scale power. As found in Section
816: \ref{varyoe}, this relationship, while important, is not strong enough
817: to cause a significant increase in small scale power in EDE models. The
818: small scale power at low and intermediate redshift is sensitive to the
819: high redshift linear growth history at only the percent level.
820:
821: \subsection{Varying the Equation of State}
822:
823: Until now we have compared EDE models to $\Lambda$CDM only. We will
824: now investigate the effects from a different fiducial dark energy
825: equation of state today, $w_0$. We ran a series of models with
826: $w_0=-0.8$, with the rest of the cosmology the same as the
827: $\Lambda$CDM model from Section \ref{varyoe}. The relative power
828: results showed very little dependence on $w_0$, with the $z=0$ results
829: almost indistinguishable from those with $w_0=-1$. At higher
830: redshifts there is a weak dependence on $w_0$ in the non-linear power
831: ratio, as seen by comparing the high $k$ plateaus of
832: Fig. \ref{vwaNLa0.5} for $w_0=-0.8$ vs.\ Fig. \ref{s8matcha0.5} for
833: $w_0=-1$.
834:
835: \begin{figure}
836: \includegraphics[
837: scale=0.35,
838: angle=-90]{LinNLRatio.902.0.0.ps}
839: \caption{Power spectrum ratios relative to a fiducial $w_0=-0.8$
840: constant equation of state model. The solid lines show the
841: non-linear power while the dashed lines show the linear
842: power. Compared to Fig. \ref{s8matcha0.5}, there is less
843: difference between the linear and non-linear power spectrum
844: ratios. }\label{vwaNLa0.5}
845: \end{figure}
846:
847: In Fig. \ref{vwaNLa0.5}, the ratios of the linear and non-linear power
848: spectra are more similar than in Fig. \ref{s8matcha0.5} where
849: $w_0=-1$. This can be understood from the linear growth history which,
850: compared to Fig. \ref{gfac201}, shows a reduced difference in the
851: linear growth history of the models at high redshift. This is simply
852: due to the $w_0=-0.8$ case dark energy acting more like matter in
853: general (due to the less negative equation of state) hence the
854: addition of the EDE component has less influence than in the
855: $\Lambda$CDM case.
856:
857: \subsection{Varying the Growth Amplitude}\label{varys8}
858:
859: The overall amplitude of structure is a major factor determining the
860: rate of non-linear growth. It is therefore important to understand how
861: sensitive the relative non-linear growth is to this. We have
862: performed a series of simulations varying the linear theory $\sigma_8$
863: defined at $z=0$. The result for $\sigma_8=0.96$ (remembering the
864: original model shown in Fig. \ref{s8matcha1} had $\sigma_8=0.76$) at
865: $z=0$ is shown in Fig. \ref{s8varya1}. As might be expected, while
866: $\sigma_8$ scales out in the linear power ratios (so the dashed lines
867: are the same as in Fig. \ref{s8matcha1}), the higher amplitude of
868: growth leads to enhanced non-linear effects. The difference in the
869: non-linear and linear power spectrum ratios is increased with
870: increasing $\sigma_8$. The results for $z=1$ have a similar increase
871: in the power spectrum ratio and are not shown for brevity.
872:
873: \begin{figure}
874: \includegraphics[
875: scale=0.35,
876: angle=-90]{LinNLRatio.903.0.1.ps}
877: \caption{Power spectrum ratios relative to $\Lambda$CDM with a
878: higher $\sigma_8$, 0.96, than that for Fig. \ref{s8matcha1} with
879: $\sigma_8=0.76$. With a greater amplitude of growth, non-linear
880: effects are enhanced and the non-linear power spectrum ratios
881: diverge more from the linear ratios.}\label{s8varya1}
882: \end{figure}
883:
884: Once again we can see that the modified Halofit formula matches the
885: simulation results well at intermediate scales but under predicts the
886: power in the EDE models on smaller scales. The scale where Halofit
887: begins to under predict the EDE power is pushed to a lower $k$ value,
888: again due to the increased non-linear effects from the higher growth
889: amplitude normalisation.
890:
891: To test our intuition about effects governing the power spectrum
892: results, we also ran simulations with fixed primordial power spectrum
893: amplitude $A_s$ rather than $\sigma_8$. The $z=0$ result is shown in
894: Fig. \ref{asfix}. For these simulations, one gets different linear
895: power today (and so different $\sigma_8$) but the early epochs of
896: collapse, showing up in the very nonlinear (higher $k$) regime today,
897: are more similar. This can be seen in the power for $k>1\,h$/Mpc in
898: the EDE models which increases with $k$, heading back towards the
899: $\Lambda$CDM power since the amplitude of power in the different
900: models was more similar when those scales collapsed than it is today.
901:
902: \begin{figure}
903: \includegraphics[
904: scale=0.35,
905: angle=-90]{LinNLRatio.904.0.1.ps}
906: \caption{Simulations with fixed primordial amplitude $A_s$ rather
907: than fixed $\sigma_8$ today.}\label{asfix}
908: \end{figure}
909:
910: Matching $\sigma_8$ appears to be sufficient to ensure that the small
911: scale non-linear power between $\Lambda$CDM and EDE models are matched
912: to within a few percent, regardless of the amount of early dark
913: energy, $\Omega_e$ (see Fig. \ref{s8matcha1}) or the redshift when
914: this EDE term turns on (see Fig. \ref{vgammaNLa1}). This match is
915: weakly dependent on $\sigma_8$; however varying $\sigma_8$ by 0.2, a
916: considerable amount, shifts the ratio in power by only a percent.
917:
918: These results leads to a useful tool for confronting EDE models with
919: power spectrum measurements, such as galaxy redshift surveys or weak
920: lensing. The Halofit formula, modified by using the EDE linear power
921: spectrum and growth factor, predicts the non-linear power ratio to
922: within a percent out to $k\sim1\,h$/Mpc. For smaller scales, using
923: the $\Lambda$CDM non-linear power matches the EDE result to within a
924: few percent or so, particularly at low and zero redshift. This
925: prescription is fairly loose but could be improved upon with a more
926: quantitative study of the variation in power with cosmological
927: parameters. The main point from this study is that the variations
928: between EDE and $\Lambda$CDM are at the few percent level only, rather
929: than there being a significant difference in non-linear power.
930:
931: \subsection{Growth vs.\ Geometry}
932:
933: The expansion history of an EDE model can be fit well out to $z=2$
934: with a time varying equation of state $w(a)=w_0+w_a(1-a)$ with
935: $w_a\approx 5\Omega_e$. Fig. \ref{EL1} shows the dark energy
936: density and equation of state for an EDE model and the matching
937: $(w_0,w_a)$ model. Distance measurements, such as from Type Ia
938: supernovae, will agree in the two models to 0.02\% out to $z=2$.
939: However, the early universe histories were very different. Does the
940: growth history distinguish between these two models? To investigate
941: this question, we simulated a pair of models, one using the
942: Eq. \ref{edeparam} form of EDE with $\Omega_e=0.03$ and $w_0=-0.95$
943: and one using the $(w_0,w_a)$ form of dark energy with $w_0=-0.95$ and
944: $w_a=0.15$ with the cosmology matched otherwise. The power spectrum
945: ratio results are shown in Figs. \ref{dmatcha1} and
946: \ref{dmatcha0.5}.
947:
948: \begin{figure}
949: \begin{center}
950: \includegraphics[
951: scale=0.35,
952: angle=0]{EL1.ps}
953: \caption{Dark energy density and equation of state comparison for an
954: EDE and $(w_0,w_a)$ model with distance history matched to 0.02\%
955: out to $z=2$.}\label{EL1}
956: \end{center}
957: \end{figure}
958:
959: \begin{figure}
960: \includegraphics[
961: scale=0.35,
962: angle=-90]{LinNLRatio.905.0.1.ps}
963: \caption{Ratio results at $z=0$ for the comparison between the two
964: parameterisations for dark energy given by $w(a)=w_0+w_a(1-a)$ and
965: Eq. \ref{edeparam}, where the parameter values are chosen match to
966: the distance history.}\label{dmatcha1}
967: \end{figure}
968:
969: \begin{figure}
970: \includegraphics[
971: scale=0.35,
972: angle=-90]{LinNLRatio.905.0.0.ps}
973: \caption{As Fig. \ref{dmatcha1} but at $z=1$.}\label{dmatcha0.5}
974: \end{figure}
975:
976: In this case the EDE model is taken as the fiducial, and we display
977: the ratio of the $(w_0,w_a)$ model to this. Once again, we see that
978: the non-linear power on small scales is well matched between the two
979: models, despite the linear power ratios not matching at these scales.
980: At $z=1$ the difference between the linear and non-linear ratios is
981: less, with more non-linear power at small scales in the $(w_0,w_a)$
982: model. Once again it is instructive to examine the linear growth
983: history, shown in Fig. \ref{dmatchG}.
984:
985: \begin{figure}
986: \includegraphics[
987: scale=0.35,
988: angle=-90]{GrowthRatio.213.0.0.ps}
989: \caption{The relative linear growth factor evolution for the EDE and
990: $(w_0,w_a)$ models with matching distance history.}\label{dmatchG}
991: \end{figure}
992:
993: This figure shows that the EDE model has a higher amplitude of growth
994: in the early universe than the $(w_0,w_a)$ model. This is due to the
995: greater amount of dark energy present at this time, leading to less
996: linear growth over the whole history of the universe, requiring the
997: EDE model to start at a higher growth amplitude in order to obtain the
998: same linear theory $\sigma_8$ today. The linear growth factor is very
999: well matched between the two models after $z\approx 2$ ($a\approx
1000: 0.33$), yet as can be seen, the non-linear growth between $z=1$ and
1001: $z=0$ is different in the two models, again due to the nonlinearity
1002: amplification effect.
1003:
1004: \section{Conclusions}\label{conclude}
1005:
1006: In this work we have examined the effects of early dark energy on the
1007: non-linear growth of structure through N-body simulations. The key
1008: result is that non-linear large scale structure, including the
1009: abundance of clusters, is relatively insensitive to the presence of
1010: EDE. This result is in contrast to previous analytic work which
1011: expected a substantial increase in non-linear structure compared to
1012: $\Lambda$CDM with the same $\sigma_8$.
1013:
1014: The implications of the results presented here are that EDE is much
1015: more difficult to detect than previously thought. This presents a
1016: problem for dark energy cosmology, not only for the sake of
1017: understanding dark energy but because, as shown in \citet{DST07} and
1018: \citet{LinderRobbers}, the presence of EDE can significantly bias
1019: distance measurements using baryon acoustic oscillations if the
1020: possibility of EDE is not considered. Fitting for EDE however
1021: significantly reduces the discriminating power of BAOs.
1022:
1023: Ideally it was hoped to detect the presence of EDE through cluster
1024: abundances (see \citet{FedeliBart07}), such as with future
1025: Sunyaev-Zel'dovich, weak lensing, X-ray, or optical surveys. This
1026: would provide an independent measure of EDE thus restoring the
1027: discriminating power of BAO measurements. However, this work
1028: demonstrates that this is not the case.
1029:
1030: As the amount of EDE increases, it becomes easier to distinguish in
1031: that the primordial amplitude of matter density perturbations must be
1032: increased to reach the same growth ($\sigma_8$) by today. Such
1033: effects in linear growth and the CMB anisotropy power spectra allow
1034: that EDE must contribute less than a few percent to the early energy
1035: density \citep{DoranRW07}. The acoustic sound horizon shifts by
1036: approximately half of this. However this article shows that
1037: observations of non-linear structure should not be expected to provide
1038: a substantial leap in our ability to detect EDE.
1039:
1040: This study has demonstrated that the halo mass function formulas of
1041: both \citet{Jenkins01} and \citet{Warren} are valid for predicting the
1042: EDE to $\Lambda$CDM results ratio to within $\sim 10\%$ or better in
1043: the mass range $\sim 10^{12} - 10^{15} M_\odot$. Future studies of
1044: EDE should use these formulas or N-body simulations when considering
1045: halo abundances, rather than spherical collapse motivated mass
1046: functions as have been used in the past.
1047:
1048: We have also demonstrated that the Halofit \citep{Halofit} formula for
1049: the non-linear power spectrum, when using the EDE linear matter power
1050: spectrum and growth factor, is accurate for EDE cosmologies for scales
1051: larger than around $k\sim1\,h$/Mpc. On smaller scales this formula
1052: under predicts the power. Further work would be needed to accurately
1053: re-calibrate this formula for EDE on these scales, perhaps along the
1054: lines of the way \citet{2006MNRAS.366..547M} corrected Halofit for
1055: constant $w$ dark energy cosmologies. Until such a study is performed
1056: we propose, as discussed in Section \ref{varys8}, that the results of
1057: this study suggest a simple prescription for predicting the non-linear
1058: power spectrum for EDE models to within an accuracy of a percent or so
1059: relative to the $\Lambda$CDM prediction.
1060:
1061: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1062:
1063: We thank the Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing at Swinburne
1064: University for access to the supercomputing facilities used in this
1065: project. Georg Robbers and Michael Doran are thanked for providing the
1066: early dark energy implementation for CMBEASY. Alexander Knebe is
1067: thanked for helpful discussions about AHF. GFL acknowledges support
1068: from ARC Discovery Project DP0665574. This work has been supported in
1069: part by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy
1070: Physics, of the U.S.\ Department of Energy under Contract No.\
1071: DE-AC02-05CH11231.
1072:
1073: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1074: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Angulo et al.}{2008}]{2008MNRAS.383..755A} Angulo, R.~E., Baugh,
1075: C.~M., Frenk, C.~S., \& Lacey, C.~G.\ 2008, \mnras, 383, 755
1076: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bartelmann, Doran \& Wetterich}{2006}]{bartDW06} Bartelmann, M.,
1077: Doran, M., \& Wetterich, C.\ 2006, \aap, 454, 27
1078: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Copeland, Sami \& Tsujikawa}{2006}]{review} Copeland, E., Sami, M. \& Tsujikawa, S. \ Int.J.Mod.Phys. D15 (2006) 1753-1936
1079: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Davis et al.}{1985}]{FOFmethod} Davis, M., Efstathiou,
1080: G., Frenk, C.~S., \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 1985, \apj, 292, 371
1081: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Doran}{2005}]{2005JCAP...10..011D} Doran, M.\ 2005, Journal of
1082: Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 10, 11
1083: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Doran et al.}{2001}]{omsf} Doran, M.,
1084: Schwindt, J.-M., \& Wetterich, C.\ 2001, \prd, 64, 123520
1085: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Doran \& Robbers}{2006}]{DoranRobbers06} Doran, M., \&
1086: Robbers, G.\ 2006, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 6, 26
1087: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Doran, Robbers \& Wetterich}{2007}]{DoranRW07} Doran, M., Robbers, G.,
1088: \& Wetterich, C.\ 2007, \prd, 75, 023003
1089: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Doran et al.}{2007}]{DST07} Doran, M., Stern, S.,
1090: \& Thommes, E.\ 2007, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 4, 15
1091: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Fedeli \& Bartelmann}{2007}]{FedeliBart07} Fedeli, C., \& Bartelmann, M.\ 2007, \aap, 461, 49
1092: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Francis, Lewis \& Linder}{2007}]{2007MNRAS.380.1079F} Francis, M.~J., Lewis,
1093: G.~F., \& Linder, E.~V.\ 2007, \mnras, 380, 1079
1094: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gill et al.}{2004}]{MHF} Gill, S.~P.~D., Knebe, A.,
1095: \& Gibson, B.~K.\ 2004, \mnras, 351, 399
1096: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Jenkins et al.}{2001}]{Jenkins01} Jenkins, A., Frenk,
1097: C.~S., White, S.~D.~M., Colberg, J.~M., Cole, S., Evrard, A.~E., Couchman,
1098: H.~M.~P., \& Yoshida, N.\ 2001, \mnras, 321, 372
1099: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Komatsu et al.}{2008}]{wmap5} Komatsu, E., et al.\
1100: 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 803, arXiv:0803.0547
1101: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kowalski et al.}{2008}]{kowalski08} Kowalski, M., et al.\
1102: 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 804, arXiv:0804.4142 (accepted by \apj
1103: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Linder}{2003}]{2003PhRvL..90i1301L} Linder, E.~V.\ 2003, Physical
1104: %Review Letters, 90, 091301
1105: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Linder}{2006}]{Linder06} Linder, E.~V.\ 2006,
1106: Astroparticle Physics, 26, 16
1107: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Linder \& Huterer}{2005}]{2005PhRvD..72d3509L} Linder, E.~V., \&
1108: %Huterer, D.\ 2005, \prd, 72, 043509
1109: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Linder \& Jenkins}{2003}]{LinderJenkins} Linder, E.~V., \& Jenkins, A.\ 2003, \mnras, 346, 573
1110: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Linder \& Robbers}{2008}]{LinderRobbers} Linder, E.~V., \& Robbers, G.\ 2008, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 6, 4
1111: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Luki{\'c} et al.}{2008}]{lukic} Luki{\'c}, Z., Reed,
1112: D., Habib, S., \& Heitmann, K.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 803, arXiv:0803.3624
1113: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ma}{2007}]{2007ApJ...665..887M} Ma, Z.\ 2007, \apj, 665, 887
1114: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ma \& Bertschinger}{1995}]{COSMICS code paper} Ma C. \& Bertschinger E., 1995, ApJ, 455, 7
1115: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{McDonald et al.}{2006}]{2006MNRAS.366..547M} McDonald, P., Trac,
1116: H., \& Contaldi, C.\ 2006, \mnras, 366, 547
1117: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Perlmutter et al.}{1999}]{perl99} Perlmutter, S., et
1118: al.\ 1999, \apj, 517, 565
1119: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Power \& Knebe}{2006}]{PowerKnebe} Power, C., \& Knebe, A.\ 2006, \mnras, 370, 691
1120: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Press \& Schechter}{1974}]{PressSch} Press, W.~H., \& Schechter, P.\ 1974, \apj, 187, 425
1121: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Riess et al.}{1998}]{riess98} Riess, A.~G., et al.\
1122: 1998, \aj, 116, 1009
1123: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sadeh et al.}{2007}]{SadehRephSilk} Sadeh, S., Rephaeli, Y.,
1124: \& Silk, J.\ 2007, \mnras, 380, 637
1125: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sadeh \& Rephaeli}{2008}]{SadehReph08} Sadeh, S., \& Rephaeli, Y.\ 2008, \mnras, 388, 1759
1126: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sheth \& Tormen}{1999}]{ShethTormen} Sheth, R.~K., \& Tormen, G.\ 1999, \mnras, 308, 119
1127: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Smith et al.}{2003}]{Halofit} Smith, R.~E., et al.\
1128: 2003, \mnras, 341, 1311
1129: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Springel}{2005}] {Gadget code} Springel V., 2005, MNRAS, 364, 110
1130: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sullivan, Sarkar, Joudaki, Amblard, Holz \& Cooray}{2007}]{2007arXiv0709.1150S} Sullivan, S., Sarkar, D., Joudaki, S., Amblard, A., Holz, D., \& Cooray, A.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 709, arXiv:0709.1150
1131: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Stabenau \& Jain}{2006}]{modGrav} Stabenau, H.~F., \& Jain, B.\ 2006, \prd, 74, 084007
1132: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Waizmann \& Bartelmann}{2008}]{WaizmanBart} Waizmann, J.-C., \& Bartelmann, M.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 804, arXiv:0804.2815
1133: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Warren et al.}{2006}]{Warren} Warren, M.~S.,
1134: Abazajian, K., Holz, D.~E., \& Teodoro, L.\ 2006, \apj, 646, 881
1135: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wetterich}{1988}]{Wett88} Wetterich,
1136: C. 1988, Nucl. Phys. B 302, 668
1137: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wetterich}{2004}]{Wetterich04} Wetterich, C.\ 2004, Physics
1138: Letters B, 594, 17
1139: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zel'dovich}{1970}]{zed} Zel'dovich, Y.~B.\ 1970, \aap, 5, 84
1140: \end{thebibliography}
1141:
1142: \bsp
1143:
1144: \label{lastpage}
1145:
1146: \end{document}
1147:
1148: