1: %\documentclass[prd,aps,epsfig,floats,superscriptaddress,showpacs]{revtex4}  

2: %\documentclass[prd,aps,epsfig,graphics,floats,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

3: %\documentstyle[prd,aps,epsfig,floats]{revtex4} 

4: %\input psfig 

5: %\psfull 

6: %\psdraft

7: %\draft  

8: \documentclass[aps,twocolumn,nofootinbib,showpacs,floatfix]{revtex4}

9: %above is Thierry's documentclass

10: \usepackage{graphics} 

11: \usepackage{amssymb,amsmath}

12: %Thierry's macros added below

13: \usepackage{amsmath}

14: \usepackage{graphicx}

15: \tighten 

16: \newcommand{\ve}[1]{\boldsymbol{#1}}

17: %%% end of Thierry's commands

18: \newcommand{\lan}{\langle}

19: \newcommand{\av}[1]{\ensuremath{\langle#1\rangle}}

20: \newcommand{\ran}{\rangle}

21: \newcommand{\ti}{\tilde} 

22: \newcommand{\h}{\bar{h}} 

23: \newcommand{\T}{\hat{T}} 

24: \newcommand{\FF}{{\cal F}}

25: \newcommand{\ip}{\int_0^{2\pi}} 

26: \newcommand{\al}{\alpha} 

27: \renewcommand{\b}{\beta} 

28: \newcommand{\de}{\delta} 

29: \newcommand{\De}{\Delta} 

30: \newcommand{\ep}{\epsilon}

31: \newcommand{\ga}{\gamma}  

32: \newcommand{\Ga}{\Gamma} 

33: \newcommand{\ka}{\kappa} 

34: \newcommand{\io}{\iota}  

35: \newcommand{\La}{\Lambda}

36: \newcommand{\la}{\lambda}

37: \newcommand{\Om}{\Omega}\newcommand{\om}{\omega} 

38: \newcommand{\si}{\sigma}

39: \newcommand{\Si}{\Sigma} 

40: \newcommand{\te}{\theta} 

41: \newcommand{\Th}{\Theta} 

42: \newcommand{\vth}{\vartheta} 

43: \newcommand{\vph}{\varphi}  

44: \newcommand{\ra}{\rightarrow}

45: \newcommand{\mm}{\mbox{$\cal M$}}  

46: \newcommand{\tr}{\mbox{tr}} 

47: \newcommand{\hor}{\mbox{hor}} 

48: \newcommand{\grad}{\mbox{grad}}

49: \newcommand{\lap}{\triangle}    

50: \newcommand{\arctg}{\mbox{arctg}} 

51: \newcommand{\bm}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}} 

52: \newcommand{\omm}{<\!\om_2\!>} 

53: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}} 

54: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}} 

55: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}} 

56: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}  

57: \newcommand{\bean}{\begin{eqnarray*}} 

58: \newcommand{\eean}{\end{eqnarray*}} 

59: \newcommand{\dd}{\partial}  

60: \newcommand{\pa}{\parallel} 

61: \def\lsim{\raise 0.4ex\hbox{$<$}\kern -0.8em\lower 0.62ex\hbox{$\sim$}} 

62: \def\gsim{\raise 0.4ex\hbox{$>$}\kern -0.7em\lower 0.62ex\hbox{$\sim$}} 

63: \newcommand{\bk}{{\bf k}}  

64: \newcommand{\bx}{{\bf x}}  

65: \newcommand{\bv}{{\bf v}}

66: \newcommand{\br}{{\bf r}}  

67: \newcommand{\ba}{{\bf a}} 

68: \newcommand{\bde}{{\mathbf\delta}} 

69: \newcommand{\bFo}{{\bf F}} 

70: \newcommand{\bfo}{{\bf f}} 

71: \newcommand{\bh}{{\bf h}} 

72: \newcommand{\bn}{{\bf n}} 

73: \newcommand{\bu}{{\bf u}}

74: \newcommand{\bR}{{\bf R}}

75: \newcommand{\mD}{{\mathcal D}}

76: \newcommand{\nd}{{\Delta\mathbf \delta}}

77: \newcommand{\bM}{{\bf M}}

78: \newcommand{\bH}{{\bf H}}

79: \newcommand{\bb}{{\bf b}}

80: \newcommand{\bK}{{\bf K}}

81: \newcommand{\bP}{{\bf P}}

82: \newcommand{\by}{{\bf y}}

83: \newcommand{\bz}{{\bf z}}

84: \newcommand{\bS}{{\bf S}}

85: \newcommand{\hbu}{{\bf \hat\bu}}

86: \newcommand{\bg}{{\mathbf g}}

87: \newcommand{\tbg}{{\tilde\bg}}

88: \newcommand{\tmD}{{\tilde\mD}}

89: \newcommand{\tbu}{{\tilde\bu}}

90: 

91: 

92: \newcommand{\na}{{\nabla}}

93: \newcommand{\nax}{{\na_x}}

94: \newcommand{\naq}{{\na_q}}

95: \newcommand{\bp}{{\mathbf p}}

96: \newcommand{\bq}{{\mathbf q}}

97: \newcommand{\bse}{\begin{subequations}}

98: \newcommand{\ese}{\end{subequations}}

99: \DeclareMathOperator{\dif}{d}

100: \newcommand{\bJ}{{\mathbf J}}

101: \newcommand{\nar}{{\na_r}}

102: \newcommand{\da}{{\dot a}}

103: \newcommand{\dda}{{\ddot a}}

104: \newcommand{\bs}{{\mathbf s}}

105: \newcommand{\bX}{{\mathbf X}}

106: \newcommand{\bF}{{\mathbf F}}

107: \DeclareMathOperator{\FT}{FT}

108: \newcommand{\bfe}{{\mathbf e}}

109: \newcommand{\bV}{{\mathbf V}}

110: \newcommand{\bU}{{\mathbf U}}

111: \newcommand{\mN}{{\mathcal N}}

112: \newcommand{\cd}{{\langle n(r) \rangle_p}}

113: 

114: 

115: 

116: \def\spose#1{\hbox to 0pt{#1\hss}}      

117: \def\ltapprox{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}      

118: \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}}      

119: \def\gtapprox{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}      

120: \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13E$}}}      

121: \def\inapprox{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}      

122: \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"232$}}}      

123:    

124: \def\mP{\mathcal{P}}

125: \def\mQ{\mathcal{Q}}

126: 

127: \def\double{\baselineskip 24pt \lineskip 10pt}  

128: %\superscriptaddress  

129: \begin{document} 

130: %\draft 

131: %\twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname@twocolumnfalse\endcsname

132: \title{Gravitational  Structure Formation, the Cosmological Problem and Statistical Physics}

133: \author{Luciano Pietronero}   

134: \affiliation{Dipartimento di Fisica, 

135: Universit\`a ``La Sapienza'', P.le A. Moro 2, I-00185 Rome, Italy and ISC-CNR Via dei Taurini, 19 00185 Rome Italy}

136: \author{Francesco Sylos Labini}   

137: \affiliation{ ``E. Fermi'' Center, Via Panisperna 89 A, Compendio del 

138: Viminale, 00184 - Rome, Italy and ISC-CNR Via dei Taurini, 19 00185

139: Rome Italy}

140: \begin{abstract}   

141: \begin{center}    

142: {\large\bf Abstract}   

143: \end{center}    

144: Models of structure formation in the universe postulate that matter

145: distributions observed today in galaxy catalogs arise, through a

146: complex non-linear dynamics, by gravitational evolution from a very

147: uniform initial state. Dark matter plays the central role of providing

148: the primordial density seeds which will govern the dynamics of

149: structure formation. We critically examine the role of cosmological

150: dark matter by considering three different and related issues: Basic

151: statistical properties of theoretical initial density fields, several

152: elements of the gravitational many-body dynamics and key correlation

153: features of the observed galaxy distributions are discussed, stressing

154: some useful analogies with known systems in modern statistical

155: physics. 

156: \end{abstract}    

157: \pacs{98.80.-k, 05.70.-a, 02.50.-r, 05.40.-a}    

158: \maketitle   

159: \date{today}  

160: 

161: \twocolumngrid   

162: 

163: \section{Introduction}

164: 

165: The large distribution of matter in the universe as traced by galaxy

166: structures shows a complex irregular pattern, characterized by

167: clusters of galaxies which are organized in filaments around large

168: voids. In the framework of standard cosmological models these

169: structures arise from non-linear dynamical evolutions in which

170: Newtonian gravity plays the essential role

171: (e.g., \cite{pee_80}). The topic of structure formation in the

172: expanding universe is clearly extremely large and we focus here on

173: three different and related issues, where the methods and concepts of

174: statistical physics find a fruitful applications

175: \cite{book}. 

176: 

177: 

178: \section{Primordial density fields} 

179: 

180: The first issue we consider concerns the statistical properties of

181: initial matter density fields in standard cosmological models: as we

182: discuss below, in the framework of Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW)

183: \cite{pee_80} models of cosmological expansion, there are important

184: constraints which have to be satisfied by primordial matter

185: fluctuation fields and which are common to all models independently 

186: on the nature of dark matter \cite{glass}. Some very interesting

187: analogies with glassy systems (e.g. one component plasma) will be

188: outlined and the crucial observational tests of standard models of

189: cosmological structure formation will be discussed.

190: 

191: 

192: Dark matter plays the major role in the problem of structure formation

193: in standard cosmological models: large-scale structures we observe

194: today must have formed from the effects of gravity acting on small

195: amplitude seed fluctuations in the original distribution of dark

196: matter from the Big Bang. The problem of structure formation in the

197: universe is approximately Newtonian but embedded in an expanding

198: universe, whose dynamics is described by General Relativity.  The role

199: and amount of dark matter is determined to make compatible different

200: types of astronomical observations with the FRW models.  Without

201: entering into the details of the various reasons why dark matter is

202: fundamental in the cosmological context it is worth noticing here that

203: the most ``popular'' model, which nowadays is the so-called

204: $\Lambda$-Cold Dark Matter (or $\Lambda$CDM), postulates the structure

205: of mass and energy in a Universe as $5\%$ ordinary baryonic matter,

206: $25\%$ CDM of non-baryonic form (which has not been yet detected in

207: laboratories on Earth), and $70\%$ dark energy, which would be a

208: uniform component of energy repelling to gravity and pushing the

209: Universe apart faster.  While this latter energy component is

210: essentially relevant only for the rate of expansion in FRW models, the

211: CDM would be important for structure formation and ordinary baryonic

212: matter does not make any relevant dynamical effect and it just follows

213: the distribution of CDM. 

214: 

215: 

216: 

217: Primordial density fluctuations have imprinted themselves on the

218: patterns of radiation also, and those variations should be detectable

219: in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).  Three decades of

220: observations have revealed fluctuations in the CMBR of amplitude of

221: order $10^{-5}$ \cite{wmap}. It is in fact to make these measurements

222: compatible with observed structures that it is necessary to introduce

223: non-baryonic dark matter which interact with photons only

224: gravitationally, and thus in a much weaker manner than ordinary

225: baryonic matter.  Thus in these models dark matter plays the dominant

226: role of providing density fluctuation seeds which, from the one hand

227: are compatible with observations of the CMBR and from the other hand

228: they are large enough to allow the formation, through a complex non

229: linear dynamics, of galaxy structures we observe today.

230: 

231: A simple calculation may give the order of magnitude of the initial

232: amplitude of fluctuations. In the linear regime small amplitude

233: fluctuations grow inversely proportional to the redshift $z$ in the

234: expanding universe.  Thus given that the CMBR is at $z=10^3$

235: (i.e. early cosmological times), in order to have density fluctuations

236: $\delta\rho/\rho$ of order one today (i.e. $z=0$) on a certain scale

237: (and larger than the average on smaller scales to make non-linear

238: structures) one should have $\delta\rho/\rho

239: \approx 10^{-3}$ at $z=10^3$ at the corresponding scale. However there

240: is a factor $10^2$ of difference given that $\delta T / T

241: \approx 10^{-5}$ and $\delta\rho/\rho \approx \delta T / T$ 

242: for ordinary baryonic matter. As mentioned, CDM interacts weakly with

243: radiation making possible to have $\delta\rho/\rho \approx 10^{-3}$ at

244: $z=10^3$ and in the same time $\delta T / T \approx 10^{-5}$. This

245: would not be possible with ordinary baryonic matter.  Therefore

246: properties of dark matter in this cosmological context are defined to

247: allow structure formation today.

248: 

249: 

250: From the above discussion it seems that much freedom is left for the

251: choice of dark matter, its physical properties and its statistical

252: distribution, unless it will once be directly observed. However there

253: is an important constraint which must be valid for any kind of initial

254: matter density fluctuation field in the framework of FRW models.  This

255: must be imprinted in the CMBR, a relict of the high energy process

256: occurred in the early universe according to standard models. 

257: 

258: 

259: The most prominent feature of theoretical models of the initial

260: conditions derived from inflationary mechanisms is that matter density

261: field presents on large scale super-homogeneous features~\cite{glass}.

262: This means the following. If one considers the paradigm of uniform

263: distributions, the Poisson process where particles are placed

264: completely randomly in space, the mass fluctuations in a sphere of

265: radius $R$ growths as $R^3$, i.e. like the volume of the sphere. A

266: super-homogeneous distribution is a system where the average density

267: is well defined (i.e. it is uniform) and where fluctuations in a

268: sphere grow slower than in the Poisson case, e.g. like $R^2$: in this

269: case there are the so-called surface fluctuations to differentiate

270: them from Poisson-like volume fluctuations.  (Note that a uniform

271: system with positive correlations present fluctuations which grow

272: faster than Poisson.)  For example a perfect cubic lattice of particle

273: is a super-homogeneous system. An example of a well known system in

274: statistical physics systems of this kind is the one component

275: plasma~\cite{lebo} which is characterized by a dynamics which at

276: thermal equilibrium gives rise to such configurations.  In the

277: cosmological context inflationary models predict a spectrum of

278: fluctuations of this type.

279: 

280: 

281: 

282: The reason for this peculiar behavior of primordial density

283: fluctuations is the following.  In a FRW cosmology there is a

284: fundamental characteristic length scale, the horizon scale

285: $R_H(t)$. It is simply the distance light can travel from the Big Bang

286: singularity $t=0$ until any given time $t$ in the evolution of the

287: Universe, and it grows linearly with time.  The Harrison-Zeldovich

288: (H-Z) criterion states that the normalized mass variance at the

289: horizon scale is constant: this can be expressed more conveniently in

290: terms of the power spectrum (PS) of density fluctuations

291: \cite{glass}

292: $P(\vec{k})=\left<|\delta_\rho(\vec{k})|^2\right>$ 

293: where $\delta_\rho(\vec{k})$ is the Fourier Transform of the

294: normalized fluctuation field $(\rho(\vec{r})-\rho_0)/\rho_0$, being

295: $\rho_0$ the average density. It is possible to show that

296: the H-Z-criterion is equivalent to assume $P(k) \sim k$: in this

297: situation matter distribution present surface fluctuations 

298: \cite{glass}.

299: 

300: 

301: In order to illustrate more clearly the physical implications of this

302: condition, one may consider gravitational potential fluctuations

303: $\delta\phi(\vec{r})$ which are linked to the density fluctuations

304: $\delta\rho(\vec{r})$ via the gravitational Poisson equation:

305: %

306: %\begin{equation} 

307: $\nabla^2\delta\phi(\vec{r})=-4\pi G \delta\rho(\vec{r})\,. 

308: $

309: %\label{poii} 

310: %\end{equation} 

311: %

312: From this, transformed to Fourier space, it follows that the PS of the

313: potential $P_{\phi}(k)=\left<|\delta\hat\phi(\vec{k})|^2\right>$ is

314: related to the density PS $P(k)$ as: $P_{\phi}(k)\sim

315: \frac{P(k)}{k^4}\,$. The H-Z condition corresponds therefore to

316: $P_{\phi}(k) \propto k^{-3}$ so that gravitational potential

317: fluctuations become constant as a function of scale.

318: 

319: 

320: 

321: The H-Z condition is a consistency constraint in the framework of FRW

322: cosmology. In fact the FRW is a cosmological solution for a

323: homogeneous Universe, about which fluctuations represent an

324: inhomogeneous perturbation: if density fluctuations obey to a

325: different condition than the H-Z criterion, then the FRW

326: description will always break down in the past or future, as the

327: amplitude of the perturbations become arbitrarily large or small.  

328: For

329: this reason the super-homogeneous nature of primordial density field

330: is a fundamental property independently on the nature of dark

331: matter. We note that this is a very strong condition to impose, and it

332: excludes even Poisson processes ($P(k)=$const. for small $k$)

333: \cite{glass}.

334: 

335: 

336: This is the behavior that one would like to detect in the data in

337: order to confirm inflationary models. Up to now this search has been

338: done through the analysis of the galaxy PS which has to go

339: correspondingly as $P(k) \sim k$ at small $k$ (large scales). No

340: observational test of this behavior has been provided yet.  

341: 

342: 

343: 

344: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5

345: 

346: 

347: \section{The gravitational many-body problem} 

348: 

349: 

350: 

351: As mentioned, the standard model of the formation of large scale

352: structure of the universe is based on the gravitational growth of

353: small initial density fluctuations in a homogeneous and isotropic

354: medium (e.g., \cite{pee_80}). In the CDM model particles interact only

355: gravitationally and they are cold, i.e. with very small initial

356: velocity dispersion. This situation allows to model this system with a

357: collision-less Boltzmann equation and, for sufficiently large scales,

358: pressure-less fluid equations. Then it is possible to solve in a

359: perturbative way, for small density fluctuations, these fluid

360: equations (for a review see e.g. \cite{pee_80}). However

361: this treatment is inapplicable in the strong non-linear regime. Then,

362: the most widely used tool to study gravitational clustering in the

363: various regimes is by means of N-body simulations (NBS) which are

364: based on the computation of particle gravitational dynamics in an

365: expanding universe.

366: 

367: 

368: One may consider an infinite periodic system, i.e. a finite system

369: with periodic boundary condition. Despite the simplicity of the

370: system, in which dynamics is Newtonian at all but the smallest scales,

371: the analytic understanding of this crucial problem is limited to the

372: regime of very small fluctuations where a linear analysis can be

373: performed. As mentioned, the problem is Newtonian but the equations of

374: motion are modified because of the expanding background. It is

375: possible to consider some simplified cases where the expansion is not

376: included and then study the differences introduced by space expansion.

377: 

378: 

379: An additional important point should be stressed: for numerical

380: reasons, the cosmological density field must be discretized into

381: ``macro-particles'' interacting gravitationally which are tens of

382: order of magnitudes heavier than the (elementary) CDM particles due to

383: computer limitations. This procedure introduces discreteness at a much

384: larger scale than the discreteness inherent to the CDM particles. By

385: discreteness we mean statistical and dynamical effects which are not

386: described by the self-gravitating fluid approximation. The

387: discreteness has different manifestations in the evolution of the

388: system (see e.g. \cite{grav1} and references therein).  In this

389: context it is necessary to consider the issue of the physical role of

390: discrete fluctuations in the dynamics, which go beyond a description

391: where particles play the role of collision-less fluid elements and the

392: evolution can be understood in terms of a self-gravitating fluid.  

393: 

394: In order to study the full gravitational many-body problem, we have

395: considered a very simple initial particle distribution represented by

396: a slightly perturbed simple cubic lattice with zero initial velocities

397: \cite{letterlinear}. A perfect cubic lattice is an unstable

398: equilibrium configuration for gravitational dynamics, being the force

399: on each particle equal to zero. A slightly perturbed lattice

400: represents instead a situation where the force on each particle is

401: small, and linearly proportional to the average root mean square

402: displacement of any particle from its lattice position. When the

403: system is evolved for long enough times it creates complex non-linear

404: structures. While the full understanding of this clustering dynamics

405: is not currently available, some steps have been done for what

406: concerns the early times evolution of the system

407: \cite{letterlinear,bsl04}.

408: 

409: In this context an analogy with the dynamics of the Coulomb lattice

410: (or Wigner crystal) helps to develop an analytical approach to the

411: early time evolution of a gravitational infinite lattice of point mass

412: particles, slightly perturbed about the equilibrium configuration.

413: Apart a change in the sign of the force (in the Coulomb lattice case

414: it is repulsive) the equation of motion is identical in the

415: gravitational and Coulomb cases \cite{letterlinear}.  This allows to

416: quantitatively characterize and understand, in the same approximation,

417: the deviation of a finite number of particle system from the evolution

418: of a self-gravitating fluid. This is relevant for the problem of

419: cosmological structure formations, where the fluid approximation is

420: usually used to model a system of large number of elementary dark

421: matter particles while the simulations used to study numerically the

422: problem employ a relative small number of particles

423: \cite{letterlinear,bsl04}. 

424: 

425: This analogy is extremely useful to treat the particular problem of

426: the evolution of a shuffled lattice at early times, i.e. before

427: nearest particles collide. In this case one may show that there is a

428: rich structure of non-fluid modes, including some modes which grow

429: faster than the fluid one \cite{letterlinear}.  Then a study of the

430: Poisson distribution \cite{bsl04} is very useful to treat the

431: formation of the first power-law correlated structures. It is then

432: surprising that the early-times power-law correlation function remains

433: invariant during the subsequent time evolution, when structures are

434: formed by many particles. A study of the late times dynamics is

435: currently under consideration.

436: 

437: 

438: 

439: \section{Large Scale Structures of the universe} 

440: 

441: 

442: The third topic we will briefly discuss is represented by the

443: statistical properties of the matter distribution observed today

444: through the study of three-dimensional galaxy catalogs \cite{sdss}.

445: Galaxy correlation properties seem to be similar to those of a fractal

446: object \cite{joyceetal2005}.  This distribution represents the

447: observational test for any theory of cosmological structure formation.

448: 

449: 

450: 

451: In the past twenty years observations have provided several three

452: dimensional maps of galaxy distribution, from which there is a growing

453: evidence of large scale structures.  This important discovery has been

454: possible thanks to the advent of large redshift surveys: angular

455: galaxy catalogs, considered in the past, are in fact essentially smooth and

456: structure-less. Figure \ref{sdss} shows a slice of the Center for

457: Astrophysics galaxy catalog (CfA2), which was completed in the early

458: nineties \cite{delapp}, and a slice derived from the recent

459: observations of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)

460: project~\cite{sdss}.  In the CfA2 catalog, which was one of the first

461: maps surveying the local universe, it has been discovered the giant

462: ``Great Wall'' a filament linking several groups and clusters of

463: galaxies of extension of about $200$ Mpc/h

464: \footnote{The typical mean separation between nearest galaxies is of

465: about 0.1 Mpc. By local universe one means scales in the range

466: $[1,100]$ Mpc/h, where space geometry is basically Euclidean and

467: dynamics is Newtonian, i.e. effects of General Relativity are

468: negligible. On larger scales instead, one has to consider that

469: relativistic corrections start play a role for the determination of

470: the space geometry and dynamics.  The size of the universe, according

471: to standard cosmological models is about 5000 Mpc/h, where 1 Mpc

472: $\simeq 3 \times 10^{22}$ m; distances are given in units of h, a

473: parameter which is in the range [0.5,0.75] reflecting the incertitude

474: in the value of the Hubble constant ($H$=100 h km/sec/Mpc) used to

475: convert redshift $z$ into distances $d\approx c/H z$ (where $c$ is the

476: velocity of light).} and whose size is limited by the sample

477: boundaries.  Recently the SDSS project has reveled the existence of

478: structures larger than the Great Wall, and in particular in

479: Fig.\ref{sdss} one may notice the so-called ``Sloan Great Wall'' which

480: is almost double longer than the Great Wall. Nowadays this is the most

481: extended structure ever observed, covering about 400 Mpc/h, and whose

482: size is again limited by the boundaries of the sample~\cite{gott}.

483: %

484: \begin{figure}

485: \includegraphics*[width=0.5\textwidth]{FIG1.ps}

486: \caption{ 

487: Progress in redshift surveys: it is reported the ``slice of the

488: universe'' from the CfA2 redshift survey \cite{delapp} (lower part)

489: and the new SDSS data \cite{gott} (upper part).  This cone diagram

490: represents the reconstruction of a thin slice observed from the Earth

491: which is in the bottom.  The CfA2 slice has an depth of 150 Mpc/h,

492: while the SDSS slice has a depth of 300 Mpc/h.  The ``Great Wall'' in

493: the CfA2 slice and the new ``Sloan Great Wall'' in the SDSS slice are

494: the dominant structures in these maps and they are clearly

495: recognizable.  For comparison we also show a small circle of size of 5

496: Mpc/h (bottom of the figure), the typical clustering length separating

497: the regime of large and small fluctuations according to the standard

498: analysis. (Elaboration from

499: \cite{book}.)

500: \label{sdss}}

501: \end{figure}

502: %

503: 

504: 

505: The search for the ``maximum'' size of galaxy structures and voids,

506: beyond which the distribution becomes essentially smooth, is still an

507: open problem. Instead the fact that galaxy structures are strongly

508: irregular and form complex patterns has become a well-established

509: fact.  From the theoretical point of view the understating of the

510: statistical characterization of these structures represents the key

511: element to be considered by a physical theory dealing with their

512: formation.  The primary questions that such a situation rises are

513: therefore: (i) which is the nature of galaxy structures and (ii) which

514: is the maximum size of structures ?  A number of statistical concepts

515: can be used to answer to these questions: in general one wants to

516: characterize $n$-point correlation properties which are able to capture

517: the main elements of points distributions~\cite{book}.

518: 

519: 

520: Recently a team of the SDSS collaboration~\cite{hoggetal2004} has

521: measured the conditional density $\cd$ (which gives the average

522: density at distance $r$ from an occupied point) as a function of scale

523: in a sample of the SDSS survey which covers, to date, the largest

524: volume of space ever considered for such an analysis with a very

525: robust statistics and precise photometric calibration

526: (Fig.\ref{sdss}).  They found that: (i) There is clearly a ``fractal

527: regime'' where $\cd \sim r^{D-3}$ with a dimension $D

528: \approx 2$, which appears to terminate at somewhere between 20 and 30

529: Mpc/h --- this behavior agrees very well with what we found at the

530: scales we could probe properly (i.e. by making the full volume

531: average) with the samples at our disposal a few years

532: ago~\cite{slmp98} and recently with the new 2dF sample \cite{niko}

533: (see discussion in \cite{joyceetal2005}). (ii) The data show then a

534: slow transition to homogeneity in the range $30 < r < 70$ Mpc/h, where

535: a flattening of the conditional density seems to occur for scales

536: larger than $\lambda_0 \approx 70$ Mpc/h, a scale comparable with the

537: sample size precisely where its statistical validity becomes weaker.

538: Note that often in the past, samples have shown finite size effects

539: which produced this type of behavior, which was then eliminated by

540: deeper samples (see e.g. \cite{bt05}).  For example such a high value

541: of $\lambda_0$ implies that {\it all} previous determinations of the

542: characteristic clustering length $r_0$ are biased by finite size

543: effects ~\cite{joyceetal2005}.  In fact the estimated $r_0$ has grown

544: of about a factor 3 from $5$ Mpc/h to about $13$ Mpc/h in the most

545: recent data~\cite{zehavi,joyceetal2005}.

546: 

547: Whether the latest measurements will remain stable in future larger

548: samples is a key issue to be determined, and this is directly related

549: to the reality of the flattening at 70 Mpc/h: This will be clarified

550: soon, as the volume surveyed by the SDSS will increase rapidly in the

551: near future. 

552:  

553: 

554: 

555: 

556: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

557: 

558: 

559: 

560: \section{Conclusions} 

561: 

562: Statistical properties of primordial density fields show interesting

563: analogies with systems in statistical physics, like the one-component

564: plasma, whose main characteristic is the ordered, or

565: super-homogeneous, nature.  In the FRW models the super-homogeneous

566: (or Harrison-Zeldovich) condition arises as a kind of consistency

567: constraint: other, more inhomogeneous, stochastic fluctuations, like

568: the uncorrelated Poisson case, will always break down in the FRW

569: models in the past or future as the amplitude of perturbations in the

570: gravitational potential may become arbitrarily large.  We discussed

571: that the observational detection of the super-homogeneous character of

572: the matter density field, through the observation of galaxy

573: distribution or of the CMBR anisotropies, is still lacking.  On the

574: other hand the main feature of galaxy two-point correlation function

575: is represented by its power-law character in the strongly non-linear

576: region. We stressed that a clear crossover to homogeneity is also not

577: well established in the data, and thus the transition from the highly

578: clustered phase to the highly uniform (super-homogeneous) one is the

579: main observational tests for theories of the early universe.  For

580: galaxies this should be evidenced as a negative correlation function

581: behaving as $-r^{-4}$ (corresponding to $P(k) \sim k$) at large

582: scales. In this way one may have some constraints on the large number

583: of free parameters which characterize cosmological dark matter, the

584: main source for the seeds of structure formation in the universe

585: according to standard models.

586: 

587: 

588: The theoretical understating of non-linear structure formation of a

589: self-gravitating infinite particle distribution is a fascinating

590: problem and many questions are still open.  We discussed the fact that

591: at early times, starting from an instable equilibrium configuration as

592: a simple cubic lattice of point mass particles, it is possible to

593: develop a stringent analogy with the Coulomb lattice dynamics. In this

594: way it is possible to characterize and understand the deviation of a

595: finite number of particle system from the evolution of a

596: self-gravitating fluid. That is, it is possible to quantify the

597: effects of discreteness and their role in the formation of non-linear

598: structures. In this respect the main problem of cosmological

599: simulations is that, because of the discretization used for numerical

600: limitations, they could be affected by discrete effects, as a particle

601: in the simulations has a mass which is many orders of magnitude larger

602: than the elementary dark matter particles one would like to

603: simulate. The understanding of the full time evolution, and of the

604: creation of non-linear structures made by many particles is still the

605: main open problem in this context.

606: 

607: 

608: 

609: 

610: \begin{acknowledgments}

611: We thank T. Baertschiger, A. Gabrielli, M. Joyce and B. Marcos for

612: fruitful collaborations.

613: \end{acknowledgments} 

614: 

615: 

616: 

617: \onecolumngrid   

618: 

619: 

620: \begin{thebibliography}{99}   

621:  

622: \bibitem{pee_80}

623:  Peebles,  P. J. E.

624: {\it The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe} 

625: Princeton University Press  (1980) 

626: 

627: 

628: \bibitem{book}

629: Gabrielli A., Sylos Labini F., Joyce M., Pietronero L., {\it

630: ``Statistical Physics For Cosmic Structures''} (Springer Verlag  2004)

631: 

632: 

633: 

634: 

635: \bibitem{glass}

636: Gabrielli, A., Joyce M. \& Sylos Labini, 2002, Phys. Rev. {\bf D65},  083523

637: 

638: \bibitem{wmap} 

639: Bennett, C.L., et al., 

640: Astrophys.J.Suppl., {\bf 148},  1, (2003)

641: 

642: \bibitem{lebo} Gabrielli, A., Jancovici,

643: B., Joyce, M., Lebowitz,J., Pietronero L. and Sylos Labini,F., 2003

644: Phys. Rev., {\bf D67} 043506

645: 

646: \bibitem{grav1}

647: Baertschiger, T., Joyce M., and Sylos Labini, F., Ap. J. Lett. {\bf

648: 581}, L63-L66 (2002).

649: 

650: 

651: \bibitem{letterlinear}

652:  Joyce, M., Marcos, B., Gabrielli, A., Baertschiger, T., Sylos Labini,

653:  F., Physical Review Letters {\bf 95}, 011304 (2005)

654: 

655: 

656: \bibitem{bsl04}

657: Baertschiger T. \& Sylos Labini F., 2004, Phys.Rev. {\bf D 69}, 123001-1

658: 

659: 

660: \bibitem{sdss} York, D., et al., Astron.J., {\bf 120}, 1579 (2000)

661: 

662: \bibitem{joyceetal2005} Joyce, M., Sylos Labini, F., Gabrielli, A.,

663: Montuori, M., Pietronero, L., Astron.Astrophys.  in print   (2005) 

664: 

665: 

666: 

667: \bibitem{delapp} 

668: De Lapparent, V., Geller, M. \& Huchra, J.,   

669: Astrophys.J.,  

670: {\bf 302}, L1, (1986)    

671: 

672: 

673: \bibitem{gott} Gott, J.R. III et al.,  ApJ, {\bf 624},

674: 463 (2005)

675: 

676: \bibitem{hoggetal2004} Hogg, D.W.,  et al.

677: ApJ, {\bf 624}, 

678: 54 (2005)

679: 

680: 

681: 

682: \bibitem{jmsl99} Joyce, M., Montuori, M., Sylos Labini, F.,

683: Astrophys.J., {\bf 514}, L5, (1999)

684: 

685: \bibitem{niko}  Vasilyev, N.L.,

686: Baryshev, Yu. V., Sylos Labini, F., Astron.Astrophys. in print

687:   (2005) {\tt astro-ph/0510210} 

688: 

689: 

690:   

691: \bibitem{dp83}  Davis, M. \&   Peebles, P.J.E.,  

692: Astrophys. J., 

693: {\bf 267},  46, (1983) 

694: 

695: 

696: \bibitem{zehavi} Zehavi, I. et al.  ApJ, {\bf 621},  22 (2004)

697: 

698: \bibitem{slmp98} Sylos Labini, F., Montuori, M. \& Pietronero, L.,

699: Phys.Rep., {\bf 293}, 66, (1998)

700: 

701: \bibitem{bt05}

702: Baryshev, Yu., Teerikorpi P., 2005, Bull. Special Astrophys. Obs. 

703: in print (2005)  {\tt astro-ph/0505185}   

704: 

705: \end{thebibliography}{}

706: 

707: 

708: \end{document} 

709: