1: \documentclass{kapproc} % Computer Modern font calls
2:
3:
4: \usepackage{procps}
5:
6:
7: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
8:
9: \upperandlowercase
10:
11:
12: \setcounter{secnumdepth}{1}
13: \setcounter{tocdepth}{1}
14:
15: %%%
16: \kluwerbib % will produce this kind of bibliography entry:
17: \begin{document}
18:
19: \articletitle[Structure Formation in dynamical Dark Energy models]
20: {Structure Formation in\\
21: dynamical Dark Energy models}
22:
23: \author{A.V. Maccio'$^{1}$, S.A. Bonometto$^{1}$, R, Mainini$^{1}$
24: \& A. Klypin$^{2}$}
25:
26: %% affil, email, and abstract are optional
27: \affil{(1) Physics Dep. G. Occhialini, Univ. of Milano--Bicocca \& I.N.F.N., Sezione di Milano\\
28: Piazza della Scienza 2, 20126 Milano, Italy\\
29: (2) New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA
30: }
31: \email{maccio@mib.infn.it, bonometto@mib.infn.it, mainini@mib.infn.it,
32: aklypin@nmsu.edu}
33:
34: \anxx{Dynamical Dark Energy}
35:
36: \begin{abstract}
37: We perform n--body simulations for models with a DE component.
38: Besides of DE with constant negative $w = p/\rho
39: \geq -1$, we consider DE due to scalar fields, self--interacting
40: through RP or SUGRA potentials. According to our post--linear analysis,
41: at $z=0$, DM power spectra and halo mass functions do not depend on DE
42: nature. This is welcome, as $\Lambda$CDM fits observations.
43: Halo profiles, instead, are denser than $\Lambda$CDM.
44: For example, the density at 10$\, h^{-1}$kpc of a DE
45: $\sim 10^{13}M_\odot$ halo exceeds $\Lambda$CDM by $\sim 40\, \%$.
46: Differences, therefore, are small but, however, DE does not ease
47: the problem with cuspy DM profiles. On the contrary
48: it could ease the discrepancy between $\Lambda$CDM and
49: strong lensing data (Bertelmann 1998, 2002).
50: We study also subhalos and find
51: that, at $z=0$, the number of satellites coincides in all DE models.
52: At higher $z$, DE models show increasing differences from
53: $\Lambda$CDM and among themselves; this is the obvious pattern to
54: distinguish between different DE state equations.
55:
56: \end{abstract}
57:
58: \begin{keywords}
59: Audio quality measurements, perceptual measurement techniques
60: \end{keywords}
61:
62: \section{Introduction}
63: Deep survey and CBR data confirm that $\sim 70\, \%$ of the world is
64: Dark Energy (see, e.g., {Efstathiou et al 2002,
65: Percival et al 2002, Spergel et al 2003, Tegmark et al 2001, Netterfield
66: et al 2002, Pogosian et al 2003, Kogut et al 2003}), as needed to
67: have the accelerated expansion shown by SNIa data ({Riess et al 1998,
68: Perlmutter et al 1999}). The nature of Dark Energy (DE) is a puzzle.
69: $\Lambda$CDM needs a severe fine--tuning of vacuum energy.
70: DE with constant negative $w = p/\rho >-1 $ has
71: even less physical motivation. Apparently, the only viable
72: alternative is dynamical
73: DE, a {\it classical} self--interacting scalar field $\phi$
74: (Wetterich 1985).
75: Among potentials $V(\phi)$ with a tracker solution, limiting
76: the impact of initial conditions,
77: Ratra--Peebles (1988, RP hereafter) and SUGRA (Brax \& Martin
78: 1999, 2000) potentials bear a particle physics motivation.
79:
80: Studying a dynamical DE model requires:
81: (i) a linear treatment, to yield
82: CBR spectra and transfer function; (ii) a post--linear treatment,
83: to yield halo virial density contrasts and mass functions;
84: (iii) a non--linear treatment.
85: Here we report results on (ii) and (iii).
86: We use the n--body program ART, modified
87: to deal with any dependence of $\Omega_m$ (matter density parameter)
88: on $a$ (scale factor). Mainini et al (2003b) give analytical fitting
89: formulae for such dependence. Further details
90: are in Mainini, Maccio' \& Bonometto (2003a) and Klypin et al (2003).
91: RP and SUGRA are parametrized by the energy scale $\Lambda/{\rm GeV}$.
92:
93: \section{Non--linear results}
94: Fig.~1 shows the evolution of the spectrum, as
95: obtained from simulations of $\Lambda$CDM and RP models
96: ($\Lambda$/GeV$=10^3$), the most distant models treated.
97: Models were normalized so to obtain the same number of halos
98: at $z=0$.
99:
100: \begin{figure}[t]
101: \sidebyside
102: {\centerline{\includegraphics[width=2in,height=1.6in]{F1.ps}}
103: \caption{Spectrum evolution for $\Lambda$CDM (solid line) and RP (long
104: dashed); the dot--dashed line is the linear prediction for $\Lambda$CDM.}}
105: {\centerline{\includegraphics[width=2in,height=1.7in]{F2.ps}}
106: \caption{ The virial density contrast $\Delta_c$ vs. $\Omega_m$ at $z=0$.
107: Models are indicated in the frame }}
108: \end{figure}
109:
110: Halos were extracted from simulations using the virial density contrasts
111: $\Delta_c$ obtained by Mainini et al (2003b), where one can find
112: plots for the dependence $\Delta_c(a)$; here we show $\Delta_c$ dependence
113: on $\Omega_m$ at $z=0$ (Fig.~2)
114: Figs. 3 \& 4 show the mass function and its evolution in a number of models.
115:
116: \begin{figure}[t]
117: \sidebyside
118: {\centerline{\includegraphics[width=2in,height=1.8in]{F3.ps}}
119: \caption{ Mass function at $z=0$ and $z=2$ for the same models of Fig.~1.
120: Evolution is faster for $\Lambda$CDM than for RP }}
121: {\centerline{\includegraphics[width=2in,height=1.8in]{F4.ps}}
122: \caption{ Halo number evolution in various models.
123: Unlabeled curves refer to SUGRA and constant $w=-0.8$
124: }}
125: \end{figure}
126:
127:
128:
129: \begin{figure}[t]
130: \sidebyside
131: {\centerline{\includegraphics[width=2in,height=1.8in]{F5.ps}}
132: \caption{ Density profile for a single magnified halo.
133: Solid, short dashed, long dashed lines refer to $\Lambda$CDM,
134: SUGRA, RP. }}
135: {\centerline{\includegraphics[width=2in,height=1.8in]{F6.ps}}
136: \caption{Concentration distribution in various models }}
137: \end{figure}
138:
139:
140:
141: Using ART facilities, a particular halo was magnified in all
142: simulations. Fig.~5 shows that its profile is NFW with a concentration
143: depending on DE nature. Concentration can also be considered
144: on a statistical basis. Fig. 6 shows how halo concentrations depend on
145: the model. Here concentrations are defined as the ratio between
146: the radius $r_c$ at which the density contrast is 110 and the radius
147: $r_s$ in the NFW expression of the radial density.
148:
149:
150: \begin{figure}[t]
151: {\centerline{\includegraphics[width=2in,height=1.8in]{F7.ps}}
152: \caption{ Number of halo satellites }}
153: \end{figure}
154:
155: We also studied how the number of satellites of a halo
156: depends on DE nature. In Fig.~7 we report such dependence.
157: However, also in this case, once
158: care is payed to properly normalize numbers to the same central halo
159: velocity, no appreciable dependence on DE nature can be found.
160:
161:
162: \section{Conclusions }
163: In this paper we showed how a simple modification of the program ART
164: permits to perform a wide
165: analysis of dynamical DE models. This task is simplified by the very
166: structure of the program, which uses the scale factor $a$ as
167: {\it time}--variable and requires only
168: $$
169: dt/da = H_o^{-1} \sqrt{a \, \Omega_m(a)/\Omega_{m}(a_o)}
170: $$
171: ($H_o$: today's Hubble parameter), to detail the action of forces.
172: Once $\Omega_m(a)$ (the dependence of the matter density
173: parameter on the scale factor) is assigned, the dynamical problem is then
174: properly defined.
175: Most of the preliminary work was then performed at the post--linear
176: level. This provided us suitable expressions for the virial density contrast,
177: so that halos can be selected in the correct way in all models, and also the
178: required fitting expressions for $\Omega_m(a)$.
179:
180: Discriminating DE models from $\Lambda$CDM essentially requires
181: good data at high redshift. A discrimination at $z=0$ can be
182: made only using an observable sensitive to the concentration distribution.
183: In principle, such an observable exists and is related to strong
184: lensing (giant halo statistic). Further work in this direction is in progress.
185:
186:
187:
188: \begin{chapthebibliography}{1}
189:
190:
191:
192: \bibitem{Bart98}
193: Bartelmann M., Huss A., Carlberg J., Jenkins A. \& Pearce F.\
194: 1998, A\&A 330, 1
195: \bibitem{Bart02}
196: Bartelmann M., Perrotta F. \& Baccigalupi C.
197: 2002, A\&A 396, 21
198: \bibitem{BraxMartin99}
199: Brax, P. \& Martin, J., 1999, Phys.Lett., B468, 40
200: and 2000, Phys.Rev. D, 61, 103502
201: \bibitem{Efstathiou2}
202: Efstathiou, G. et al., 2002, MNRAS, 330, 29
203: \bibitem{kl0}
204: Klypin, A., Maccio' A.V., Mainini R. \& Bonometto S.A.,
205: 2003, ApJ in press, astro--ph/0303304
206: \bibitem{kogut2003}
207: Kogut et al., 2003, astro--ph/0302213
208: \bibitem{Mainini03a}
209: Mainini R., Maccio' A.V. \& Bonometto S.A.,
210: 2003a, NewA 8, 172
211: \bibitem{Mainini03b}
212: Mainini R., Maccio' A.V., Bonometto S.A., \& Klypin, A., 2003b,
213: ApJ in press, astro--ph/0303303
214: \bibitem{Netterfield}
215: Netterfield, C.~B.~et al.\ 2002, ApJ, 571, 604
216: \bibitem{Percival}
217: Percival W.J. et al., 2002, astro-ph/0206256, MNRAS (in press)
218: \bibitem{Perlmutter}
219: Perlmutter S. et al., 1999, ApJ, 517, 565
220: \bibitem{Pogosian03}
221: Pogosian, D., Bond, J.R., \& Contaldi, C. 2003, astro-ph/0301310
222: \bibitem{RP}
223: Ratra B., Peebles P.J.E., 1988, Phys.Rev.D, 37, 3406
224: \bibitem{Riess}
225: Riess, A.G. et al., 1998, AJ, 116, 1009
226: \bibitem{spergel2003}
227: Spergel et al.\ 2003, astro--ph/0302209
228: \bibitem{Tegmark01}
229: Tegmark, M., Zaldarriaga, M., \& Hamilton, AJ\ 2001, Phys.R., D63, 43007
230: \bibitem{wett1}
231: Wetterich C., 1985, Nucl.Phys.B, 302, 668
232:
233: \end{chapthebibliography}
234:
235:
236:
237:
238:
239: \end{document}
240:
241: