Shrinking II -- The Distortion of the Area Distance-Redshift Relation in Inhomogeneous Isotropic Universes
Extracted source text ยท arXiv gr-qc/9708043
% Shrinking II --- The Distortion of the Area Distance-Redshift
% Relation in Inhomogeneous Isotropic Universes
% Nazeem Mustapha, B.A.C.C. Bassett, Charles Hellaby and
% G.F.R. Ellis
% University of Cape Town
% Submitted to Class. Q. Grav. March 1997
\documentstyle[aps,epsf]{revtex}
\begin{document}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\title{Shrinking II --- The Distortion of the Area Distance-Redshift
Relation in Inhomogeneous Isotropic Universes}
\author{ Nazeem Mustapha,\footnote
{email:~nazeem@maths.uct.ac.za}
B.A. Bassett,\footnote
{email:~bruce@stardust.sissa.it}
Charles Hellaby,\footnote
{email:~cwh@maths.uct.ac.za}
and G.F.R. Ellis\footnote
{email:~ellis@maths.uct.ac.za}}
\address{Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics,
University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, 7700, South Africa}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\maketitle
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{abstract}
{\bf Abstract.} This paper and the others in the series
\cite{bi:EBD96,bi:SEB96} challenge the standard model of the effects
of gravitational lensing on observations at large distances. We show
that due to the cumulative effect of lensing, areas corresponding to
an observed solid angle can be quite different than would be estimated
from the corresponding Friedmann-Lema\^{\i}tre model, even when
averaged over large angular scales. This paper concentrates on the
specific example of spherically symmetric but spatially inhomogeneous
dust universes, the Lema\^{\i}tre-Tolman-Bondi models, and shows that
radial lensing significantly distorts the area distance-redshift and
density-redshift relations in these exact solutions compared with the
standard ones for Friedmann-Lema\^{\i}tre models.
Thus inhomogeneity may introduce significant errors into distance
estimates based on the standard {\sc fl} relations, even after
all-sky averaging. In addition a useful new gauge choice is presented
for these models, solving the problem of locating the past null cone
exactly.
\end{abstract}
\draft
\pacs{04.20.Cv, 95.30.Sf, 98.60.Eg, 98.60.Gi, 98.80.Es}
\begin{center}
Short Title:~~~~Shrinking II \\[2mm]
Submitted to Class. Q. Grav.~~ March 1997
\end{center}
\section{Introduction and General Arguments}
Our aim in this series of papers is to show that when analyzing
observations at large redshift in the real universe, the assumption of
an area distance corresponding to that of a
best-fit
Friedmann-Lema\^{\i}tre ({\sc fl}) model\footnote
{We follow recent moves to use `Friedmann-Lema\^{\i}tre' to describe
the dynamics of and the application of the Einstein field equations to
the standard model, and `Robertson-Walker' to describe its metric and
geometry.}
--- that is, one with a matching averaged matter density
--- may not be a good approximation, even when averaging over
large angular scales. This claim is important because of the
ubiquitous use of {\sc fl} models in studies of number counts versus
redshift and area distance versus redshift.
The first paper in the series (paper I) \cite{bi:EBD96} gave general
arguments for this thesis. It was explained there that whilst the
Dyer-Roeder distance \cite{bi:DR72} is generally regarded as a good
approximation for ray bundles moving between high-density clusters of
matter, resulting in a de-focussing relative to the comparable {\sc
fl} model, matter moving near or through higher density regions is
more focused than in the {\sc fl} model, so resulting in a
compensating effect. It is commonly believed \cite{bi:W76,bi:SEF92}
that an exact cancellation between the two effects takes place when
one averages over large angular scales containing both high and low
density regions
--- so the {\sc fl} area distance is the correct one on these
scales. However, it was pointed out in \cite{bi:EBD96} that, after
caustics have formed through the focussing of light rays by the high
density regions, these light rays too are rapidly diverging so that
sufficiently far down the past light cone {\it all} light rays will be
diverging relative to the comparable {\sc fl} model.
Consequently there is good reason to question the general opinion in
this matter
--- we find that in fact `shrinking' takes place.\footnote
{The term shrinking \cite{bi:L88} describes the following. If at
some redshift the area distance is greater in the inhomogeneous
universe than in the best-fit or background {\sc fl} model, scales at
that redshift will be underestimated if the {\sc fl} area distance is
used to calculate the size of objects from their measured angular
size, and so will have `shrunk' relative to their actual scales in the
more realistic model. Put another way, if a sphere at given $z$ about
the observer has a larger total area in the inhomogeneous model, an
object of fixed size will subtend a smaller solid angle on the sky,
and so be shrunk. (See \cite{bi:EBD96} for more discussion.)}
It is often argued that photon conservation excludes this
possibility, but these arguments are based on incorrect assumptions
about the geometry.
Given this feature, even when there is only weak lensing,\footnote
{We refer to `lensing' when the light rays are different than they
would be in the background {\sc fl} model. Thus weak lensing implies a
change of apparent positions and alteration in the usual distance
relations, usually combined with image distortions, but not
necessarily multiple imaging.}
and caustics have not formed, it is not obvious that the {\sc fl}
area distance-redshift relation is an accurate description.
The aim of this paper is to construct an exact inhomogeneous model
and its {\sc fl} approximation, and compare the area distance-redshift
and density-redshift relations in the two. To do so we examine
Lema\^{\i}tre-Tolman-Bondi ({\sc ltb}) spherically symmetric dust
solutions \cite{bi:L33,bi:T34,bi:B47}, where exact integrations of the
field equations are available for the past light cone of observers at
the central position. Although the lensing that occurs for this
central observer is purely radial, we find the inhomogeneity has a
tangible effect on observational relations.\footnote
{Radial lensing is a spherically symmetric distortion of the null
cone compared with an {\sc fl} model, resulting in a uniform delay of
the wavefront. There is no image distortion, no dependence of
magnification or time delay on direction, and no multiple imaging, but
our results show its effects are observable.}
In the particular case examined, because of the spherical symmetry
about the observer, the effect in any specific direction will not be
compensated by an opposite effect in another direction
--- on the contrary, the effect is uniform because it is the same in
all directions, and will occur on large as well as small angular
scales. However unlike the previous paper \cite{bi:EBD96}, this will
not be associated with the formation of caustics.
The failure of the {\sc fl}-like area distance-redshift assumption
will thus have been shown to occur for observers at a very special
position in a family of high-symmetry space-times. Undoubtedly this is
not the kind of situation the authors of the papers mentioned above,
claiming the effect does not occur, had in mind. However the usual
statements of this effect contain no clauses that exclude this
situation: the result is supposed to hold in all cases when the
`lumpy' universe is reasonably close to an {\sc fl} model, and
observations are averaged over the sky; their arguments do not exclude
the situation envisaged here where the observer is at the centre of a
spherically symmetric inhomogeneity. Indeed, a spherically symmetric
model may be regarded as describing data that has been averaged over
the {\em whole} sky, but not over distance.
Our example thus confirms the claims of paper I, in the setting of
particular exact inhomogeneous solutions of the Einstein Field
Equations. It does not generically establish the magnitude of the
effect, precisely because the high-symmetry geometry considered here
precludes formation of caustics and the consequent fractal-like
structure of the real light cone. Paper III \cite{bi:SEB96} will
provide confirmation of the overall shrinking effect due to caustics,
and attempt more realistic estimates of its magnitude than those given
in paper I, which used simple analytic formulae for this purpose.
In developing the results of this paper, we solve one of the problems
that has made analysis of observations in Lema\^{\i}tre-Tolman-Bondi
solutions difficult, namely the problem of precisely locating the past
light cone of the chosen central event P, by use of a special choice
of radial coordinate that ensures a very simple form for the past
light cone of P in these inhomogeneous space-times. This technical
development has other uses in terms of analysing observational
relations in these models.\footnote
{For a slightly different analysis of {\sc ltb} spacetimes, based on
null cone coordinates, see \cite{bi:MHMS95}, and for a consideration
of observations away from the centre of symmetry see \cite{bi:HMM96}.}
Our approach is complementary to that of Kurki-Suonio and Liang
\cite{bi:K-SL92}, who did numerical calculations of observational
relations in a hyperbolic {\sc ltb} model derived from an $\Omega =
0.1$ {\sc fl} model plus some overdensities.
\section{Programme}
\label{sec:prog}
We select the simplest inhomogeneous fluid solution of the Einstein
Field Equations; the Lema\^{\i}tre-Tolman-Bondi ({\sc ltb}) model
which is spherically symmetric, but radially inhomogeneous, with a
dust equation of state.
The question we are raising is whether the area of an averaged
wavefront we receive at our observatory in an inhomogeneous universe
is the same as the area of a wavefront in a smoothed version of that
universe. To clarify this issue our strategy is to:
\\ $\bullet$ Select the most natural generalisation of the Einstein-
de Sitter models commonly used in studies of observations (i.e. a
parabolic {\sc ltb} model) and describe data on the null cone.
\\ $\bullet$ Find the {\sc fl} limit of this inhomogeneous universe
in an appropriate coordinate system.
\\ $\bullet$ Average the lumpy universe in a natural way and fit it
correctly to a {\sc fl} model.
\\ $\bullet$ Compare area distances in the lumpy universe and its
smoothed average.
\subsection{The Inhomogeneous Model}
\subsubsection{The Integrated Field Equations}
We choose the parabolic {\sc ltb} model which is the natural
generalisation of the $\Omega = 1$ dust {\sc fl} model. This model is
characterised by the mass within comoving radius $r$, $M(r)$, and the
`bang-time' function $t_B(r)$ describing the locus of the initial
spatial hypersurface (that is, the local time of the big bang). The
two arbitrary functions represent a physical freedom and a coordinate
freedom, e.g. $t_B(M)$ and $M(r)$, respectively.
In normalised comoving coordinates the metric after solving the
off-diagonal EFE is
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = -dt^2 + (R')^2 dr^2 + R^2(d\theta^2 + \sin^2 \theta d\Phi^2)
\label{eq:flatmet}
\end{equation}
where $R'(t,r) = \partial R(t,r)/\partial r$.
The time curves are irrotational and, for comoving dust ($p = 0)$, are
necessarily geodesics because of momentum conservation. The spatial
sections are flat because if we choose $r = R(t_0,r)$ then $R'(t_0,r)
= 1$ and we find that the 3-spaces have metric $d\sigma^2 = dr^2 + r^2
d\Omega^2$ and hence are flat.
The areal radius, $R = R(t,r)$ in the Lema\^{\i}tre-Tolman-Bondi
metric, {\it is} the area of the intersection of our past null cone
with past spacelike time surfaces (in this case spheres). In the
parabolic case $R$ is given explicitly by the solution to the equation
of motion
\begin{equation}
{\dot{R}(t,r)} = \sqrt{\frac{M(r)}{R(t,r)}}
\label{eq:Rdot}
\end{equation}
obtained from the {\small{11}}, {\small{22}} and {\small{33}}
components of the EFE, where $\dot{{}}$ denotes the derivative with
respect to $t$; i.e.
\begin{equation}
R(t,r) = \left[ \frac{9 M(r)}{2} (t - t_{B}(r))^2 \right]^{1/3}
\label{eq:R}
\end{equation}
where $t$ is cosmic time whilst $M$ and $t_B$ are both functions of
coordinate radius $r$ only. It follows immediately that
\begin{equation}
R'(t,r) = {3 \over 2 R^2(t,r)}
\left[ M'(r) (t - t_B(r))^2 - 2 M(r) (t - t_B(r)) t'_B(r) \right]
\label{eq:rprime}
\end{equation}
where $'$ denotes the derivative with respect to radial coordinate
$r$.
The {\small{00}} field equation gives
\begin{equation}
4\pi \rho(t,r) = \frac{M'(r)}{R^2(t,r) R'(t,r)}\,.
\label{eq:rho}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{The Solution on the Null Cone}
Since we are interested in observations on the null cone we must
project onto it by specifying the unique relationship between $r$ and
$t$. On radial null geodesics, $ds^2 = 0 = {d\theta}^2= {d\Phi}^2$, so
from (\ref{eq:flatmet}), if the past light cone of the event $(t =
t_0, r = 0)$ is given by $t = \hat{t}(r)$, then that light cone is
described by
\begin{equation}
dt = \pm R'(\hat{t}(r),r) dr\,.
\end{equation}
The coordinate freedom in the {\sc ltb} metric is a rescaling of the
radial coordinate $r \rightarrow \tilde{r} = \tilde{r}(r)$. If we
choose $r$ so that
\begin{equation}
R'(\hat{t}(r),r) = 1 \,,
\label{eq:ref1}
\end{equation}
then on the past light cone $dt = -dr$, so that the incoming light
rays at the event $(t = t_0, r = 0)$ are given by
\begin{equation}
\hat{t}(r) = t_0 - r \,.
\label{eq:ref3}
\end{equation}
So this gauge choice, in contrast to other work done on observations
in the {\sc ltb} model, locates the null cone of the observer at one
instant of time, in its simplest possible form, and makes our
programme analytically solvable. On this light cone, putting
(\ref{eq:ref3}) in (\ref{eq:rprime}) and using (\ref{eq:ref1}),
\begin{equation}
R'(\hat{t}(r),r) = {3 \over 2 R^2(\hat{t}(r),r)} [M'(r) \tau(r)^2 + 2
M(r) \tau(r) \tau'(r) + 2 M(r) \tau(r)] = 1
\label{eq:condn}
\end{equation}
where we have defined
\begin{equation}
\tau(r) = t_0 - r - t_B(r)\,.
\end{equation}
The function $\tau(r)$ can be interpreted as proper time from the
bang surface to our past null cone along the particle worldlines. We
can set $t_0$ to be the time since the bang at the observer ($r = 0$)
by choosing $t_B(0) = 0$ (so $\tau(0) = t_0$).
It is important to realise that evaluating $R'(t,r)$ on the null cone
$t =\hat{t}(r)$ is not the same as differentiating $\hat{R}(r) =
R(\hat{t}(r),r)$ with respect to $r$. In fact, by evaluating
(\ref{eq:R}) on the null cone, $\hat{R}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\hat{R} = R(\hat{t}(r),r) = \left[{9 M(r) \over 2} \tau(r)^2
\right]^{1/3}
\label{eq:Rhat}
\end{equation}
which means that its derivative is given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{d \hat{R}}{dr} = \frac{d}{dr} [R(\hat{t}(r),r)] = {3 \over 2
R^2(\hat{t}(r),r)} [M'(r) \tau(r)^2 + 2 M(r)\tau(r) \tau'(r)]\,.
\end{equation}
Combining the above equation with the constraint (\ref{eq:condn})
gives a first order differential equation for $\hat{R}$.
\begin{equation}
\frac{d \hat{R}(r)}{d r} + {3 M(r) \tau(r) \over {\hat{R}(r)}^2} = 1
\,. \label{eq:ode}
\end{equation}
In summary, with our choice of coordinates we have recast the flat
{\sc ltb} model in a form that allows us to locate the past null cone
with ease. This has left us with one physical freedom to choose an
arbitrary function of $r$. We could choose $\tau$ (or $M$) and
substitute (\ref{eq:Rhat}) into (\ref{eq:ode}). Solution of this
differential equation would determine $\hat{R}$ and thus any other
quantity. If we instead decide to choose $\hat{R}$, that is, the area
of the wavefront, then the model is trivially and fully specified by
(\ref{eq:Rhat}) and (\ref{eq:ode}). It follows that
\begin{equation}
\tau(r) = {2 \hat{R}(r) \over 3} / \left(1 - \frac{d \hat{R}(r)}{d r}
\right)
\label{eq:tau2}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
M(r) = { \hat{R}(r) \over 2} \left(1 - \frac{d \hat{R}(r)}{d r}
\right)^2~~~~~(M(0) = 0) \,.
\label{eq:M2}
\end{equation}
To obtain the results of the next section, we will fix the geometry
by choosing $\hat{R}$. This will then determine $\tau(r)$
(equivalently $t_B(r)$) and $M(r)$ by the above two equations. The
flat {\sc ltb} model will thus be fully specified in these coordinates
and one could then propagate the data off the null cone by the
comoving assumption.\\ The density on the null cone $\hat{\rho}(r)$ is
found by evaluating (\ref{eq:rho}) on the null cone:
\begin{equation}
4 \pi \hat{\rho}(r) =
\frac{M'(r)}{{\hat{R}(r)}^2}
\label{eq:rhohat}
\end{equation}
and its value at the origin depends on the time as characterised by
the Hubble constant;\footnote
{Since measurements of the Hubble constant are taken at about $z <
1$, we can take this to determine the age of the universe, $t_0$, at
the central observer.}
\begin{equation}
\Omega = {4\pi \rho \over H^2} = 1 ~~\Rightarrow ~~
\rho_0 = {H_0^2 \over 4\pi}, ~~t_0 = {2 \over 3 H_0}\,.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Redshifts}
It is of some importance that we state the relevant quantities in
terms of redshifts. To do this, we use the fact that in the geometric
optics limit, for two light rays emitted on the worldline at $r_{em}$
with time interval $\delta t_{em} = t^{+}(r_{em}) - t^{-}(r_{em})$
and observed on the central worldline with time interval $\delta
t_{ob} = t^{+}(0) - t^{-}(0)$
\begin{equation}
1 + z = \frac{\delta t_{ob}}{\delta t_{em}}\,.
\label{eq:tint}
\end{equation}
The past radial null geodesics are given by
\[dt = - R'(t,r) dr \,,\]
so for an observer on a nearby worldline, the time interval changes
by
\[d (\delta t) ~~=~~ dt^{+}-dt^{-} ~~=~~ \left[R'(t^{-},r) -
R'(t^{+},r)\right] dr ~~=~~ - \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left[
R'(t,r)
\right] \delta t dr \,. \]
Thus
\[d \ln \delta t = - \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left[ R'(t,r)
\right] dr \]
which means that the redshift, given by (\ref{eq:tint}), is
\begin{equation}
\ln (1 + z) = \int_{0}^{r_{em}} \dot{R}'(\hat{t},{r}) d {r}
\label{eq:lnz}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{t}(r)$ is the equation of the null cone.\footnote
{The standard formula $1 + z = (u^\mu k_\mu)_{em} / (u^\mu
k_\mu)_{ob}$ is not useful in this gauge since $k^\mu = (R', -1, 0, 0)
= (1, -1, 0, 0)$ is not geodesic, though it is tangent to the past
null cone.}
To calculate $\dot{R}'(t,r)$ we differentiate (\ref{eq:R}) with
respect to $t$
\begin{equation}
\dot{R}' = {\dot{R} \over 3} \left[ {t_B' \over t - t_B} + {M'
\over M} \right], ~~~~~\dot{R} = \left[ {4 M \over 3 (t - t_B)}
\right]^{1/3} \,.
\end{equation}
Since $\hat{t}(r) = t_0 - r$ when we choose $R' = 1$ on the null
cone, $\dot{R}'(\hat{t},r)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\dot{R}' (\hat{t},r) = {1 \over 3} \left[ {4M \over 3 \tau}
\right]^{1/3}
\left[ {M' \over M} - {1 + \tau' \over \tau} \right] \,.
\end{equation}
After some manipulation of the above expression substituted into
(\ref{eq:lnz}), we find that
\begin{equation}
\ln (1 + z) = \left({{4 M} \over {3 \tau}} \right)^{1/3} - {1 \over
3}
\int_{0}^{r_{em}} {\left({4 M} \over {3 \tau^4} \right)^{1/3}} dr \,.
\label{eq:z}
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{eq:tau2}) and (\ref{eq:M2}) this equation may be written
as
\begin{equation}
\ln (1 + z) = \left(1 - \frac{d \hat{R}}{d r} \right)-
\frac{1}{2} \int_{0}^{r_{em}} \left( 1 - \frac{d \hat{R}}{d {r}}
\right)^{2} \,/\,{\hat{R}} \, d {r}
\label{eq:z2}
\end{equation}
so we can now determine the redshift-area distance relation.
\subsection{The Friedmann-Lema\^{\i}tre Limit}
The characterisation of the {\sc fl} limit is that the bang time
surface is simultaneous. So $t_B(r) = {t_{B}}_{\mbox{\tiny FL}} =
\mbox{constant}$; from whence
\begin{equation}
R_{\mbox{\tiny{{FL}}}}(t,r) = \left[ {9 \over 2}
M_{\mbox{\tiny{{FL}}}}(r) (t - {t_{B}}_{\mbox{\tiny FL}}) ^2
\right]^{1/3},~~~~R_{\mbox{\tiny{{FL}}}}'(t,r) = {3 \over 2
R_{\mbox{\tiny{{FL}}}}^2 } M_{\mbox{\tiny{{FL}}}}'(r) \,(t -
{t_{B}}_{\mbox{\tiny FL}})^{2} \,.
\label{eq:FLlim}
\end{equation}
The freedom left here in $M_{\mbox{\tiny{{FL}}}}(r)$ is just
essentially the coordinate freedom, corresponding to the freedom of
choice of $r $. The above relations determine the {\sc fl} density
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\mbox{\tiny{{FL}}}}(t) = \frac{1} {6 \pi (t -
{t_{B}}_{\mbox{\tiny FL}})^2}
\end{equation}
which is spatially homogeneous as required, unaffected by
$M_{\mbox{\tiny{{FL}}}}(r)$. It is usual to set ${t_{B}}_{\mbox{\tiny
FL}} = 0$. We do not have a freedom to rescale the density by a
constant because this is the critical density case.
As we would eventually like to compare our {\sc ltb} model as chosen
above to an underlying {\sc fl} model, it is appropriate to write the
{\sc fl} limit in the same kind of coordinate system. Consider light
rays coming in to the event ($t = t_1, r = 0$) in a {\sc fl} model.
When we choose coordinates for which $R_{\mbox{\tiny{{FL}}}}'(t,r) =
1$ on the null cone, the past null cone can be located by $\hat{t} =
t_1 - r - {t_{B}}_{\mbox{\tiny FL}} = t_1 - r$. (We use $t_1$ rather
than $t_0$ here, as we will need to distinguish {\sc ltb} and {\sc fl}
values later on.) As a limit of the flat {\sc ltb} model in these
coordinates, the {\sc fl} form of $M(r)$ is obtained from setting
$\tau = t_1 - r$ in (\ref{eq:condn}). This yields
\begin{eqnarray}
{M_{\mbox{\tiny{{FL}}}}}& = & {6} \left[ t_1^{1/3} - (t_1 - r)^{1/3}
\right]^3 ~~~~~~ ( M_{\mbox{\tiny{{FL}}}}(0) = 0 ) \label{MFL} \\
{{\hat{R}}_{\mbox{\tiny{{FL}}}}}& = & {3} \left[ t_1^{1/3} - (t_1 -
r)^{1/3}
\right](t_1 - r)^{2/3} ~~~~~~ ( R_{\mbox{\tiny{{FL}}}}(0) = 0 ) \,.
\label{eq:Rrwhat}
\end{eqnarray}
We note that this in conjunction with (\ref{eq:FLlim}) implies that
\begin{equation}
R_{\mbox{\tiny{{FL}}}}(t,r) = 3 \left[ t_1^{1/3} - \left(t_1 - r
\right)^{1/3} \right] t^{2/3}~~~,~~~ R_{\mbox{\tiny{{FL}}}}' =
\frac{3 {M_{\mbox{\tiny{{FL}}}}'}}{2 R_{\mbox{\tiny{{FL}}}}^{2}} t^2
= {t^{2/3} \over (t_1 - r)^{2/3}}\,.
\label{eq:r1}
\end{equation}
The {\sc rw} metric that results is, from (\ref{eq:r1}) and
(\ref{eq:flatmet}),
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = - dt^2 + t^{4/3} \left\{ {1 \over (t_1-r)^{4/3}} dr^2 + {9}
\left[ t_1^{1/3} - (t_1-r)^{1/3} \right]^2 d\Omega^2
\right\} \,. \label{ds2FL}
\end{equation}
These coordinates are singular at the particle horizon, $r = t_1$
(when the past null cone of $t = t_1$ runs into the initial
singularity). Thus they are valid for $0 \leq r < t_1$. The {\sc fl}
redshift-distance formula can be obtained by inserting the {\sc fl}
forms of $M(r)$ and $\tau(r)$ into equation (\ref{eq:z}). That is
\begin{equation}
z(r) = \left({t_1 \over t_1 - r} \right)^{2/3} - 1
~~~~~~\Longleftrightarrow~~~~~~r(z) = t_1 \left[{(1 + z)^{3/2} - 1
\over (1 + z)^{3/2}} \right] \,.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Averaging and Fitting}
We want to compare and contrast total areas of wavefronts at given
redshifts of an inhomogeneous model to that of the corresponding {\sc
fl} model of density equal to the inhomogeneous density perfectly
smoothed. This must be done with respect to the inhomogeneous metric
because physically the smoothing does not occur.
Perhaps the crucial part of our analysis is that we ensure that we
compare with the {\sc fl} model with the correct average density. We
define the {\em average} or {\em background} {\sc fl} model to be the
one that matches on at the particle horizon where $\tau = 0$, $r =
r_\Sigma$, using the Darmois-Israel boundary conditions
\cite{bi:D27,bi:I66}. Matching first and second fundamental forms of
this timelike (comoving) boundary surface $\Sigma$ gives
\begin{equation}
\left.{R_{\mbox{\tiny{LTB}}}}\right|_{\Sigma} =
\left.{R_{\mbox{\tiny{FL}}}}\right|_{\Sigma}
\end{equation}
and the background model must be parabolic if the inhomogeneous one
is; or vice versa.
The matching must hold over all of $\Sigma$; that is, at all times
--- so
\begin{equation}
\left.{{\dot{R}}_{\mbox{\tiny{LTB}}}}\right|_{\Sigma} =
\left.{{\dot{R}}_{\mbox{\tiny{FL}}}}\right|_{\Sigma}
\end{equation} and thus, by (\ref{eq:Rdot}),
\begin{equation}
\left.{M_{\mbox{\tiny{LTB}}}}\right|_{\Sigma} =
\left.{M_{\mbox{\tiny{FL}}}}\right|_{\Sigma}\,.
\end{equation}
Thus it is sufficient to match the masses at $\Sigma$, and
synchronise the starting times (bang times) when
$\left.{R_{\mbox{\tiny{LTB}}}}\right|_{\Sigma} = 0 =
\left.{R_{\mbox{\tiny{FL}}}}\right|_{\Sigma}$. In general, we do not
expect the {\sc fl} radial coordinate on $\Sigma$
($\left.{r_{\mbox{\tiny{FL}}}}\right|_{\Sigma}$) to be the same as the
{\sc ltb} one there ($\left.{r_{\mbox{\tiny{LTB}}}}\right|_{\Sigma} =
r_\Sigma$) since the coordinate condition $\hat{R'} = 1$ holds on the
null cone, whose locus is model dependent.
For a parabolic {\sc ltb} model with metric (\ref{eq:flatmet}) and
density given by (\ref{eq:rho}), the background density
$\rho_{\mbox{\tiny FL}}$ is the same as that obtained by integrating
over constant time slices.
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \rho \rangle_{t_0, r_{\Sigma}} &=& \left( {\int_0^{2\pi}
\int_0^{\pi}
\int_0^{r_{\Sigma}} ~\rho \sqrt{{}^{3}g}~ dr d\theta d\Phi}
\right)\,/\,
\left({\int_0^{2 \pi} \int_0^{\pi} \int_0^{r_{\Sigma}}
~\sqrt{{}^{3}g}~ dr d\theta d\Phi } \right) \nonumber \\
&=& \left({\int_{0}^{r_{\Sigma}}
\frac{M'}{R^{2} R'} \sqrt{{R'}^2 R^4} dr} \right)\,/\, \left({4\pi
\int_{0}^{r_{\Sigma}} \sqrt{{R'}^2 R^4} dr } \right) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{3}{4 \pi}
\frac{M(r_{\Sigma})}{[R(r_{\Sigma},t_0)]^{3}}
\nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{6 \pi (t_0 -
t_{B}(r_{\Sigma}))^{2}} = \rho_{\mbox{\tiny{FL}}}
\label{eq:tolavg}
\end{eqnarray}
where equation (\ref{eq:R}) was used.
One important point that must be made here is that a covariant
averaging procedure does not exist as yet. We have used here an
averaging method which is `natural' for the comoving synchronous
coordinates which lead to a $3 + 1$ foliation of spacetime. However,
the same model in different (for example observational) coordinates
would suggest a different averaging procedure which could conceivably
yield different results. Therefore the claim \cite{bi:W76} that the
wavefront areas obtained in the inhomogeneous model and the averaged
model are the same already seems highly unlikely.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}
We use geometric units such that $G = c = 1$. If we choose a unit of
time $T_G$ {\it seconds} to be 1 geometric time unit ($gtu$), then the
geometric units of length, mass, density, etc. are fixed by $ 1 \; glu
= L_G = cT_G$ {\it metres}, $1 \; gmu = M_G = (c^3/G)T_G \; kg$, $1 \;
gmu
\; glu^{-3} = \rho_G = (1/G)T_G^{-2} \; kg \; m^{-3}$. For the
purposes of this paper, we want units suitable to cosmological scales,
so we specify that one cosmological time unit, $1 \; ctu$, is ten
billion years
--- of the order of the age of the universe. This gives us
\begin{center}
{\bf Cosmological Geometric Units}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
& Time & Length & Mass & Density \\
\hline
Cosmological & $1 \; ctu$
& $1 \; clu$
& $1 \; cmu$
& $1 \; cmu \; clu^{-3}$ \\
\hline
SI & $3.156 \times 10^{17} \; s$
& $9.461 \times 10^{25} \; m$
& $1.275 \times 10^{53} \; kg$
& $1.505 \times 10^{-25} \;
kg/m^3$ \\
\hline
Astronomical & $10 \; Gyr$
& $3.066 \; Gpc$
& $6.409 \times 10^{22} \; M_\odot$
& $1.505 \times 10^{-28} \; g/cc$
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The first subsection (\ref{sec:mod1}) gives a very simple model which
satisfies the criteria for a reasonable cosmological model (with the
classical Copernican principle dropped) and which provides a {\em
proof that there exist physically reasonable density behaviours which
lead to a nonzero magnification or shrinking}. It is obvious that
averaging over the sky will not remove this effect since the model is
already spherically symmetric. The second model (section
\ref{sec:mod2}) does the same, but is smoother at the origin and
displays interesting behaviour in redshift space, and the third model
(section {\ref{sec:mod3}) is exactly homogeneous beyond a given
comoving radius.
\subsection{Form of Perturbation and General Results}
It is not easy to choose a form of area distance function for the
inhomogeneous model which results in reasonable physical behaviour. So
instead we choose it in the form of a `perturbation' from a flat
Friedmann model; that is,
\begin{equation}
\hat{R}(r)= \hat{R}^{u}_{\mbox{\tiny{{FL}}}}(r) (1 + \delta(r))
\label{eq:hatR}
\end{equation}
where, from (\ref{eq:Rrwhat}),
$\displaystyle{\hat{R}^{u}_{\mbox{\tiny{{FL}}}}(r) = 3[{t_{u}}^{1/3} -
(t_{u} - r)^{1/3}]\,(t_{u} - r)^{2/3}}$ is the area function of an
{\em underlying} {\sc fl} model of age $t_{1} = t_{u}$. (This
`underlying' {\sc fl} model is a mathematical device with no physical
significance. It can not be considered a background or average model
since we have not restricted $\delta(r)$ to average out to zero in any
sense.) In principle, one should choose a density function and then
determine the area distance function from it or risk the possibility
of assuming the result. However, if we can show that the above choice
of $\hat{R}$ leads to a density profile with reasonable physical
behaviour, this would suffice
--- since if we had initially chosen that density function, it would
lead to an $\hat{R}$ as chosen above. We will show that this is indeed
the case and also indicate that the model is free of shell
crossings.\footnote
{The necessary and sufficient conditions for there to be no shell
crossings anywhere or at any time in the evolution of a flat model
with $R' > 0$ are that $M(r)$ be an increasing and $t_{B}(r)$ a
decreasing function. They were found (for all {\sc ltb} spacetimes)
by Hellaby and Lake \cite{bi:HL85}.}
Obviously, for $\delta(r)$ smooth and finite, $\hat{R}(r)$ is zero at
the same places as $\displaystyle{\hat{R}^{u}_{\mbox{\tiny{FL}}}}(r)$,
i.e. at $r=0$ and at $r = t_{u}$. For this form of perturbation, in
terms of the convenient parametrisation $v = r/t_{u}$, we find
\begin{eqnarray}
X &\equiv& \left[ \frac{1}{(1 - v)^{1/3}} - 1 \right]
\\
M & = & \frac{3}{2} t_u X (1 - v) (1 + \delta) [2X
(1 + \delta) -
\delta - 3 t_u X (1 - v) \delta']^2 \\
\tau & = & \frac{2 t_u X (1 - v) (1 + \delta)}{[2 X (1
+ \delta) -
\delta - 3 t_u X (1 - v) \delta']} \\
t_B & = & t_0 - r - \tau \\
8 \pi \hat{\rho} & = &\frac{2 X (1 + \delta) - \delta - 3 t_u X (1
- v)
\delta'}{9[t_u X (1 - v) (1 + \delta)]^2} \{ 2 X (3 + 4\delta)(1 +
\delta) -
\delta (1 + \delta) - 3 t_u X (1 - v) (5 + 6 \delta) \delta'
\nonumber \\
&+& 36 t_u X^2 (1
- v) (1 + \delta) \delta' - 9 {t_{u}}^2 X^2 (1 - v)^2[2 (1 +
\delta)\delta''
+ \delta'^2]\} \\
\frac{d \ln (1 + z)}{d z} & = &\{ 4 X (1 + 2 \delta) (1 + \delta) -
\delta^2
- 6 t_u X (1 - v) (2 + 3 \delta) \delta' \nonumber \\
&+& 36 t_u X^2 (1 - v) (1 + \delta)
\delta' - 9 {t_u}^2 X^2 (1 - v)^2 [2 (1 + \delta) \delta'' +
\delta'^2] \}
\,/\,[6 t_u X (1 - v) (1 + \delta)]\,.
\end{eqnarray}
If $\delta(0) \neq 0$ we find the unphysical limits $\tau(0) = 0$ and
$\hat{\rho}(0) = \infty$. Thus we set $\delta(0) = 0$, obtaining the
following limiting values:
\begin{eqnarray}
M(0) &=& \left. \frac{2 (1 - 3 t_u \delta'(r))^2 r^3}{9 {t_u}^2}
\right|_{r \rightarrow 0} = 0 \\
\tau(0) &=& \frac{t_u}{1 - 3 t_u \delta'(0)} \label{eq:taumod} \\
8 \pi \hat{\rho}(0) &=& \frac{4(1 - 3 t_u \delta'(0))^2}{3 {t_u}^2}\\
\left. \frac{d \ln (1 + z)}{dr} \right|_{r = 0} &=&
\frac{2 (1 - 3 t_u \delta'(0))}{3 t_u}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
M(t_u) &=& 6 t_u (1 + \delta(t_u))^3 \label{eq:Mmod} \\
\tau(t_u) &=& \left. (t_u - r) \right|_{r \rightarrow t_u} = 0 \\
8 \pi \hat{\rho}(t_u) &=& \left. \frac{4 (3 + 4 \delta(r))}
{9 (t_u - r)^2} \right|_{r \rightarrow t_u} = \infty \\
\left. \frac{d \ln (1 + z)}{d r} \right|_{t_u} &=& \left. \frac{2 (1
+ 2
\delta(r))}{3 (t_u - r)} \right|_{r \rightarrow t_u} = \infty \,.
\end{eqnarray}
(The limits for the background {\sc fl} model are obtained by setting
$\delta = 0 = \delta' = \delta''$ and replacing $t_u$ by $t_b$.) From
numerical experimentation we concluded, in order to avoid shell
crossings, that $\delta(r)$ must remain sufficiently far away from
zero over most if not the entire range of $r > 0$, and certainly near
$r = t_u$. We want the proper time from the bang surface to the null
surface on the central worldine to be the `true' age of the universe;
that is, we want it to be $t_0$, the time at the origin of the {\sc
ltb} model. By setting $\tau(0) = t_0$ in (\ref{eq:taumod}), the age
of the underlying model is determined
\begin{equation}
t_{u} = t_0 \left( 1 - 3\, t_{1} \, \delta'(0) \right)\,.
\end{equation}
The parameter $t_{u}$ is the $r$-coordinate value at which the null
cone of the {\sc ltb} model intersects the bang. We will average
quantities on this scale; that is to say, we shall take $r_{\Sigma} =
t_{u}$. We match this inhomogeneous universe to a flat {\sc fl} model
at the surface $r_{\Sigma}$ by equating the masses and bang times at
that point. This then determines the time $t_{1} = t_{b}$ in the {\em
background} {\sc fl} model which we will use for our comparison. At $r
= t_{u}$, $\hat{R} = 0$ and (\ref{eq:Mmod}) shows that at this point,
\[ M(t_{u}) = M^{u}_{\mbox{\tiny{{FL}}}}(t_{u}) \, (1 +
\delta(t_{u}))^3 = 6 t_{u} \, (1 + \delta(t_{u}))^3 \,.\]
In the background {\sc fl} model the value of the mass at $\Sigma$ is
$6 t_{b}$ and this is what we have to match the inhomogeneous mass to.
This gives us a value of the age for the background flat {\sc fl}
model of
\begin{equation}
t_{b} = t_{u} \left(1 + \delta(t_{u}) \right)^{3} \,.
\end{equation}
\subsection{A Regular Model which Exhibits Shrinking and
Magnification}
\label{sec:mod1}
The following simple example is physically well behaved, being free
of shell crossings at all times in its evolution for $r \leq t_{u}$.
Since $t_{B}'
\neq 0$ at the origin, the model is not as smooth there as one would
like, but there are no physical problems. We choose $\delta(r)$ for
our first model, LTB1, to be
\begin{equation}
\delta(r) = - \frac{1}{5} \sin \left({0.8 \pi r \over t_{u}}
\right)\,.
\end{equation} When we set $\tau(0) = t_0 = 1$ then
\begin{equation}
t_{u} = t_0 \left( 1 + \frac{12 \pi}{25} \right)
\end{equation}
and the age for the background model FL1, after matching the masses,
is
\begin{equation}
t_{b} = t_{u} \left(1 - \frac{\sin 0.8 \pi}{5} \right)^{3}\,.
\end{equation}
The calculation of the redshift was done by a numerical quadrature of
(\ref{eq:z2}). Figs. \ref{fig:rz1} and \ref{fig:rhoz1} compare the
dependence of area distance and density on redshift, $\hat{R}(z)$ \&
$\hat{\rho(z)}$, in LTB1 with the corresponding functions in the
background model FL1.
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{0.3cm}
% the numbers are for the postscript bounding box
% many postscript applications produce their own bounding box comment
% it is more useful to have it in your file for manipulation and so
% that the file does not have to be read (especially if it does not
% exist yet)
% [x1,y1,x2,y2] from the upper left corner
\epsffile[0 0 399 241]{fig1.eps}
\vspace*{0.5cm}
\caption{A plot of area distance against redshift $\hat{R}(z)$ \&
$\hat{R}_{FL}(z)$ on the past null cone of the inhomogeneous model
LTB1 and the corresponding background model FL1. The units of $\hat{R}$
are cosmological length units, and all the figures use base 10 logs. This
shows that there are systematic shrinking ($\hat{R} > \hat{R}_{FL}$) and
magnification ($\hat{R} < \hat{R}_{FL}$) effects due to purely radial
lensing, which obviously cannot be removed by averaging over large angular
scales or even the whole sky. Effects of true lensing in a more realistic
universe would be imposed on top of this.}
\label{fig:rz1}
\end{figure}
% tex the source file and use dvips filename (.dvi file) to convert
% the file and postcript inclusions to postcript
\vspace*{.1cm}
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{0.3cm}
\epsffile[0 0 396 239]{fig2.eps}
\vspace*{0.5cm}
\caption{The density of matter $\hat{\rho}(z)$ \&
$\hat{\rho}_{FL}(z)$ against redshift on the past null cone
in the models of {\sc fig.}~\protect{\ref{fig:rz1}}, LTB1 and its
corresponding background model FL1. The units are cosmological
density units ($cmu \; clu^{-3}$). When comparing with {\sc
fig.}~\protect{\ref{fig:rz1}}, we see that roughly speaking,
magnification occurs for obects in or just beyond an overdense region,
and shrinking occurs for objects in or just beyond an underdensity.}
\label{fig:rhoz1}
\end{figure}
\vspace*{.1cm}
It is important to plot these quantities in terms of the observable
quantity $z$ for two reasons. First of all, in the transformation $r
\rightarrow z$, the possibility exists that the area distances of the
flat and inhomogeneous models might transform into each other.
Secondly, under certain circumstances the redshift becomes disordered
with distance and unexpected behaviour might occur, as the following
model illustrates.
\subsection{A Regular Model with Multivalued Observations}
\label{sec:mod2}
As an illustration of how different the physical quantities plotted
against radial coordinate $r$ as opposed to those same quantities
plotted against redshift $z$ may appear, we present here an {\sc ltb}
model for which the redshift becomes disordered with distance at some
points and then ordered again at later points.
The universe is chosen as above but with a `perturbation function' of
\begin{equation}
\delta (r) = -{1\over4}\sin \left(\frac{0.75 \pi r}{t_{u}} \right) -
\frac{1}{4^{6}} \left(\frac{11}{ \pi} + \frac{3}{2}
\right) \left[ 1 - \cos \left(\frac{4 \pi r}{t_{u}} \right)\right]\,.
\end{equation}
This model, which we call LTB2, is also free of shell crossings at
any time for $r \leq t_{u}$ and has a completely smooth and regular
origin (where $t_{B}' = 0$). Setting $\tau(0) = t_0 = 1$ once again
gives
\begin{equation}
t_{u} = t_0 \left( 1 + \frac{9 \pi}{16} \right)
\end{equation}
and the appropriate background model FL2 has age
\begin{equation}
t_{b} = t_{u} \left(1 - \frac{\sin 0.75 \pi}{4} \right)^{3}\,.
\end{equation}
which are different from those of LTB1. Figs.
\ref{fig:rr2}-\ref{fig:rhoz2} show $\hat{R}$ and $\hat{\rho}$ against
$r$ and against $z$ for LTB2 and FL2.
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{0.5cm}
\epsffile[0 0 401 239]{fig3.eps}
\vspace*{0.5cm}
\caption{The area distance functions $\hat{R}(r)$ \&
${\hat{R}}_{FL}(r)$ on the past null cones of the second model, LTB2,
and its corresponding background model, FL2, given in cosmological
units. The horizontal variable is $v = r/t_u$ or $r/t_b$ for LTB2
and FL2 respectively. The physical behaviour of LTB2 as plotted
against $v$ appears normal.}
\label{fig:rr2}
\end{figure}
\vspace*{.2cm}
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{0.5cm}
\epsffile[0 0 396 238]{fig4.eps}
\vspace*{0.5cm}
\caption{The densities on the past null cone for LTB2 and FL2,
$\hat{\rho}(r)$ and ${\hat{\rho}}_{FL}(r)$, in cosmological units.
Again, LTB2's inhomogeneous profile vs $v$ appears quite acceptable.}
\label{fig:rhor2}
\end{figure}
\vspace*{.2cm}
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{0.5cm}
\epsffile[0 0 401 243]{fig5.eps}
\vspace*{0.5cm}
\caption{Area distance against redshift $\hat{R}(z)$ \&
${\hat{R}}_{FL}(z)$ for LTB2 and FL2. The interesting point to note is
that at some redshifts the area distance in LTB2 is multivalued. For
$\log_{10} (1 + z) \geq 1$ the graph looks very much like {\sc
fig.}~\protect{\ref{fig:rz1}}.}
\label{fig:rz2}
\end{figure}
\vspace*{.2cm}
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{0.5cm}
\epsffile[0 0 397 243]{fig6.eps}
\vspace*{0.5cm}
\caption{The densities, $\hat{\rho}(z)$ and ${\hat{\rho}}_{FL}(z)$,
against redshift for LTB2 and FL2. Note the quaint `looping'
behaviour. For $\log_{10} (1 + z) \geq 1$ the graph looks very much
like {\sc fig.}~\protect{\ref{fig:rhoz1}}.}
\label{fig:rhoz2}
\end{figure}
\vspace*{.2cm}
This model provides a good illustration of why one has to be careful
in ascribing physical behaviour in a certain coordinate system. Viewed
as functions of $r$, $\hat{R}$ and $\hat{\rho}$ have fairly standard
behaviour, but viewed in terms of the observable quantity $z$, the
density and area distance become multivalued. Hence, three objects
with the same intrinsic luminosity located at different distances
appear at the same $z$, with three different apparent luminosities (or
area distances).
Our numerical experiments indicate that the redshift on the light cone
is most sensitive to perturbations in the vicinity of the maximum in
$\hat{R}(z)$. All our models in which $dz\,/\,dr$ became negative did
so in this region. The looping behaviour in the $\hat{R}$ vs $\log (1
+ z)$ plot occurs when the maximum and minimum in the $\log (1 + z)$
vs $r$ graph bracket the maximum in the $\hat{R}$ vs $r$ graph.
Similarly, perturbations more easily generate a maximum and minimum in
the $\hat{\rho}(z)$ near the maximum in $\hat{R}$, hence the loop in
that graph.
\subsection{A Swiss-Cheese Type Model}
\label{sec:mod3}
In order to emphasise the effect of inhomogeneity on the past null
cone, we consider a model which is homogeneous on the large scale. We
construct a local inhomogeneity which is properly matched onto an exact
{\sc fl} model at some comoving radius, $r = r_j$, somewhere between us
and the particle horizon. In other words, the outer regions are exactly
homogeneous. This is a simple model of a universe which is {\sc FL} on
some averaging scale less than the horizon size, and is seen by an
observer located in an overdensity.
In particular, for LTB3, we set $r_j = 0.85 t_u = 2.352$, we retain
the inhomogeneous LTB2 model for the interior, $r \leq r_j$, and for
the exterior, $r \geq r_j$, we use the matching {\sc fl} model, FLJ,
with the same mass and bang time as LTB2 at the boundary
$r_j$.\footnote
{In order to make the radial coordinate continuous at this matching,
we use $\hat{R}_{FLJ}=3[t_3^{1/3}-(t_2-r)^{1/3}](t_2-r)^{2/3}$,
$M_{FLJ}=6[t_3^{1/3}-(t_2-r)^{1/3}]^3$, where
$t_2=\tau_{LTB}(r_j)+r_j$ and
$t_3^{1/3}=\tau_{LTB}^{1/3}(r_j)+(M_{LTB}(r_j)/6)^{1/3}$. These
differ from the purely {\sc fl} expressions because our definition of
$r$ is also path dependent. It turns out that $t_b=t_3$.}
Obviously the background model FL3 that we fit at the particle
horizon is identically the one matched at $r_j$, FLJ, but written in
the form
(\ref{MFL})-(\ref{ds2FL})
--- i.e. with a different $r$ coordinate.
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{-0.1cm}
\epsffile[0 0 401 243]{fig7.eps}
\vspace*{0.3cm}
\caption{Area distance against redshift $\hat{R}(z)$ \&
$\hat{R}_{FL}(z)$ for the swiss-cheese model LTB3 and its
corresponding background model FL3. The boundary is located at
$\log_{10}(1+z_j)=0.2635$, with the model being identical to LTB2 for
smaller $z$, and exactly {\sc fl} for larger $z$. Though the
background and matched {\sc fl} models are identical, the $\hat{R}(z)$
curves do not match up in the exterior region
--- there is a constant displacement parallel to the $\log(1+z)$
axis. This emphasises the fact that the $z$ integral is path
dependent, and so the value of $z$ at any given area distance is
affected by the warping of the null cone in the inhomogeneous
interior.}
\label{fig:rz3}
\end{figure}
\vspace*{2mm}
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{-0.1cm}
\epsffile[0 0 397 243]{fig8.eps}
\vspace*{0.3cm}
\caption{Density against redshift $\hat{\rho}(z)$ \&
$\hat{\rho}_{FL}(z)$ for the swiss-cheese model LTB3 and its
background model FL3. The density jumps at the boundary,
$\log_{10}(1+z_j)=0.2635$, but this is not unrealistic. (Within the
constraints of a parabolic model, it could only have been made
continuous at the expense of creating shell crossings.) As with the
area distance, the two $\hat{\rho}(z)$ curves do not co-incide in the
{\sc fl} exterior, because the shape of the null cone is determined by
the spacetime geometry it encounters along its path. The boundary
could have been put at any $z$ value, and it is evident from {\sc
figs.}~\protect{\ref{fig:rz2}} and \protect{\ref{fig:rhoz2}}
especially that in general the standard {\sc fl} relations are not
recovered in the {\sc fl} exterior.
}
\label{fig:rhoz3}
\end{figure}
\vspace*{2mm}
Figs \ref{fig:rz3} and \ref{fig:rhoz3} show clearly that the
null cone
relations $\hat{R}(z)$ and $\hat{\rho}(z)$ in this model (LTB3) do
not return to the standard {\sc fl} ones in the {\sc fl} region beyond
the boundary, $z > z_j$. This is because the redshift $z$ is path
dependent and the inhomogeneous interior distorts the null cone.
After passing through the inhomogeneity, the null cone, and thus the
value of $\log_{10}(1+z)$, are displaced relative to a model which is
{\sc fl} throughout. This holds generally for any choice of
inhomogeneous interior and boundary position.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conc}
The general belief that photon conservation implies that the total
area of an incoming wavefront must be the same as in the background,
matter-averaged, {\sc fl} model is contradicted by our results.
The functions $\hat{R}(z)$ and $\hat{\rho}(z)$ in an inhomogeneous
model differ from their standard {\sc fl} forms, because the redshift
$z$ is path dependent and the null cone is warped. Thus, even if the
inhomogeneous model is exactly homogeneous beyond some radius, the
standard {\sc fl} forms are not recovered. This means that a universe
which is {\sc fl} {\em on average} will not in general present standard
{\sc fl} forms of $\hat{R}(z)$ and $\hat{\rho}(z)$ to an observer.
The spherically symmetric model used here is simple but effective,
since averaging over direction cannot change the results. In more
realistic models of the lumpy universe this effect will still be
present, and we expect full gravitational lensing to occur, resulting
in more significant deviations from the {\sc fl} formula.
This investigation used a parabolic {\sc ltb} model, where the areal
radius $\hat{R}$ is also the area distance of the 2-sphere wavefronts
of the past null cone. The density in the {\sc ltb} model is averaged
to give a background Einstein-de Sitter ($\Omega = 1$) model, and it
is tested against this model. Although there exists no covariant way
to perform this averaging, we use the `natural' one defined by the use
of junction conditions, here equivalent to the one used in
astrophysical problems: that is, averaging by integrating the rest
mass and proper volume on constant time slices.
More importantly, the functions $\hat{R}(z)$ and $\hat{\rho}(z)$ in
the examples are obviously perturbed away from the standard {\sc fl}
ones, so that no one {\sc fl} model can give the same $\hat{R}$ and
$\hat{\rho}$ values as an inhomogeneous one at a variety of $z$
values.
The results show that it is quite easy to have areas in the
inhomogeneous models which differ significantly from areas in the
background, matter-averaged {\sc fl} model. The result may either be
shrinking (the background {\sc fl} area distance underestimates the
real area distance at that redshift) or magnification (background {\sc
fl} area distance is an overestimate). The presence of loops in the
$\hat{R}$-$z$ and $\hat{\rho}$-$z$ graphs is analogous to the well
known `finger of God' effect familiar in redshift maps of the galaxy
distribution.
Our results and conclusions generally agree with those of
Kurki-Suonio and Liang \cite{bi:K-SL92}, who calculated obervational
relations numerically in 4 hyperbolic {\sc ltb} models out to $z =
0.5$. They generated mild and strong deviations from the {\sc fl}
observational relations, with `bang time' inhomogeneities and `areal
radius' inhomogeneities having opposite effects on the oberved matter
distribution in redshift space, compared with the present day
distribution. Their method did not permit the redshift to be
disordered with distance.
Whilst the major aim of this paper has been the above thesis, the
choice of radial coordinate which locates the observer's null cone
will be of use in future analyses of observations in these isotropic
dust models.
An important caveat is that since the {\sc ltb} model does not allow
for formation of caustics in the null cone of the central observer, it
cannot be considered a useful model for obtaining quantitative `real
world' results. Rather this paper should be viewed as a proof that
even purely radial lensing distorts the area distance-redshift
relation significantly. If the observer moves away from the central
position, then continuity ensures that the radial effects found here
will still be present, and the effects of true lensing will be
superimposed. As argued in \cite{bi:EBD96,bi:SEB96}, we expect
caustics to skew the area towards larger values, so that most objects
in the universe are demagnified.
The importance of all this is that it opens up the way for
considering the effects of lensing by inhomogeneities on large
angular-scale number counts and
area distances
as opposed to limiting discussion to lensing effects on small scales.
\begin{references}
\bibitem{bi:EBD96} G.F.R. Ellis, B.A.C.C. Bassett and P.K.S. Dunsby,
{\em submitted to}, Class. Q. Grav. (1997) .
\bibitem{bi:SEB96} D.M. Solomons, G.F.R. Ellis and P. Haines {\em
submitted to} Class. Q. Grav. (1997).
\bibitem{bi:DR72} C.C. Dyer and R.C. Roeder, {\em Astrophys. J.},
{\bf 174}, L115, (1972).
\bibitem{bi:W76} S. Weinberg, {\em Astrophys. J.}, {\bf 208}, L1-3,
(1976).
\bibitem{bi:SEF92} P. Schneider, J. Ehlers and E.E. Falco, {\em
Gravitational Lenses}, (Berlin: Springer Verlag), (1992).
\bibitem{bi:L88} E.V. Linder, {\em Astron. and Astrophys.}, {\bf
206}, 190, (1988).
\bibitem{bi:L33} G. Lema\^{\i}tre, {\em Ann. Soc. Scient. Bruxelles},
{\bf A53}, 51, (1933).
\bibitem{bi:T34} R.C. Tolman, {\em Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.}, {\bf 20},
169, (1934).
\bibitem{bi:B47} H. Bondi, {\em Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.}, {\bf
107}, 410, (1947).
\bibitem{bi:MHMS95} R. Maartens, N.P. Humphreys, D.R. Matravers and
W. Stoeger, {\em Class. Q. Grav.} {\bf 13}, 253-264, (1996).
(gr-qc/9511045).
\bibitem{bi:HMM96} N.P. Humphreys, R. Maartens and D.R. Matravers,
{\em Portsmouth University preprint} RCG 96/1, (1996).
\bibitem{bi:K-SL92} H. Kurki-Suonio and E. Liang, {\em Astrophys.
J.}, {\bf 390}, 5-16 (1992).
\bibitem{bi:D27} G. Darmois, {\em M\'{e}morial des Sciences
Mathematiques}, Fasc.{\bf 25}, Gaulthier-Villars, Paris, (1927).
\bibitem{bi:I66} W. Israel, {\em Il Nuovo Cim.}. {\bf 44B}, 1
(1966), and errata in {\em ibid} {\bf 48B}, 463, (1967).
\bibitem{bi:HL85} C. Hellaby and K. Lake, {\em Astrophys. J.}, {\bf
290}, 381-9, (1985), and errata in {\em ibid} {\bf 300}, 461, (1986).
\end{references}
\end{document}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%