text:
# Spherical collapse and mass function of rich clusters in models with curvature and cosmological constant

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The mass function and X-ray temperature function of rich clusters of galaxies are important characteristics of the large-scale structure of the Universe. The studies of rich clusters are so intensive due to their eminent properties: а) they are the largest gravitationally bound systems in the Universe; b) the observational selection criterion for these structures is quite evident enabling one to draw the catalogues of these objects with the highest completeness, at least within the radius of $`300h^1`$Мpc, within cones $`30^o`$ around the poles of our galaxy; c) space and velocity distributions of galaxies in the clusters demonstrate their dynamical equilibrium – hence indicate to the possibility the main theorems of dynamics of gravitational systems to be applied for determination of their characteristics at current state; d) Press-Schechter formalism and its modifications \[1-9\] connect these physical parameters with features of the power spectrum of initial density perturbations. This power spectrum is sensible both to dynamical parameters of the Universe (Hubble constant, 3D-space curvature, cosmological constant), which determine the rate and acceleration of its expansion, and to the density parameters of different matter components (baryons, photons, neutrinos and hypothetical particles which compose the hidden mass of the Universe) – that enables one to determine these parameters on the basis of the observed data on the large-scale structure of the Universe.

The latest experimental programs dealing with detection of the microwave background temperature fluctuations on different angular scales (COBE, Boomerang, MAXIMA, DASI etc.) and more complete catalogues of galaxies and galaxy clusters (Sloan Digital Sky Survey, 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey etc.) allow us to determine main cosmological parameters and accuracy of such determination. The enhanced experimental accuracy requires more precise theoretical description of the observed phenomena. Press-Schechter formalism describes dependence of the mass function of rich clusters of galaxies on the mean matter density of the Universe ($`\overline{\rho }`$), dispersion of density fluctuations on the scale of clusters ($`\sigma _M`$) and threshold value of the amplitude of density fluctuation collapsed at the current epoch ($`\delta _c`$): $`n_{PS}(M)=F(M,\overline{\rho },\sigma _M)\delta _c/\sigma _M\mathrm{exp}(\delta _c^2/2\sigma _M^2)`$, where $`F=\sqrt{2/\pi }\overline{\rho }/M^2|dln\sigma _M/dlnM|`$. Ecke et al. (1996)  had shown that the observed data of those time were well approximated by such dependence with $`\delta _c=1.686`$, as could be inferred from the dynamics of the collapse of spherically symmetrical cloud for the flat model of the Universe without cosmological constant. The conclusion drawn by these authors regarding the weak dependence of the $`\delta _c`$ value on 3D-space curvature and cosmological constant paved the way for the canonical value $`\delta _c=1.686`$ to be used at arbitrary values of 3D-space curvature and cosmological constant without the analysis of errors considered. However, the data of the apparent magnitude - redshift testing for Supernovae Ia become available since 1998 (see references in \[10-12\]) and suggest that the Universe is expanding with acceleration. Thus the most plausible model of the Universe rather strongly deviates from the canonical model with a zero 3D curvature and zero cosmological constant. Most probably, the matter density (dark matter plus baryons) is only 20-30% of the critical density value, and the rest 70-80% is a dark energy (cosmological constant, vacuum energy, or quintessence). This requires more careful approach to applying of the Press-Schechter formalism for determination of concentration, mass function and X-ray temperature function of rich clusters of galaxies in different cosmological models for their comparison with observed data.

The paper is aimed to:

\- analyze the dynamics of the collapse of spherical dust-like cloud in models with arbitrary values of 3D curvature and cosmological constant;

\- to study dependence of $`\delta _c`$, the threshold value of the initial density perturbation amplitude, on the above mentioned parameters, as well as dependence of the final density fluctuation after establishment of dynamical equilibrium, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$;

\- construct approximations of these dependences on the values of the 3D-space curvature and cosmological constant;

\- study deviation of the mass function and X-ray temperature of rich clusters of galaxies employing real and canonical values of $`\delta _c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ (1.686 and 178 respectively) for the models being analyzed in modern literature.

The analyses of the dynamics of the collapse of spherical dust-like cloud for models with zero 3D-space curvature and arbitrary values of cosmological constant as well as for generalized models, with non-zero curvature, were carried out in .

In this paper we study the dynamics of the collapse of spherical perturbations for models with arbitrary curvature and cosmological constant parameters and analyze the influence of the dependence of critical amplitude on these parameters for the calculation of mass function of rich clusters of galaxies. Aiming at this, we will find solutions of appropriate equations, which describe the development of density perturbations at all evolutionary stages from initial linear one up to nonlinear collapse and virialization.

## 2 The dynamics equation for a dust-like cloud when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ and $`k0`$

In order to analyze the development of spherically symmetrical perturbations in the Universe with a non-zero cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$), we consider the dynamics of dust like cloud in the comoving synchronous gauge. Note that similar problem was first solved by Tolman in 1934 for the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ . We will consider the dynamics of spherical cloud before the appearance of first counterflows, that is trajectory intersections of single particles (spherical shells). At this stage, the dynamics of matter is well described by the continuum approximation, that is by the energy-momentum tensor of perfect fluid

$$T_{ik}=(\epsilon +P)u_iu_kg_{ik}P,(i,k=0,1,2,3),$$

where $`\epsilon =\rho c^2`$ is energy density, $`P`$ is hydrodynamic pressure, $`u_i`$ – 4D velocity components.

The continuum approximation with $`P=0`$ allows to consider perturbations in the gauge, which is simultaneously synchronous and comoving ($`u_\alpha =0,\alpha =1,2,3`$). In spatial spherical coordinates $`R`$, $`\theta `$ and $`\phi `$ the metric of such Universe would take the following form

$$ds^2=d\tau ^2e^{\lambda (R,\tau )}dR^2r^2(R,\tau )(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2),$$
(1)
where $`\tau =ct`$ is the time in units of length. Einstein’s equations with cosmological constant are so

$$R_{ik}\frac{1}{2}g_{ik}R=\frac{8\pi G}{c^2}T_{ik}+g_{ik}\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$

Calculating the tensor components $`R_{ik}`$ for the metric (1) and substituting them into Einstein’s equations, and assuming $`T_{\alpha \beta }=0`$ for our case (where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta =1,2,3`$), we obtain the following set of equations:

$$\frac{e^\lambda }{r^2}(2r^{\prime \prime }r+r^2rr^{}\lambda ^{})+\frac{1}{r^2}(r\dot{r}\dot{\lambda }+\dot{r}^2+1)=8\pi G\rho +\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(2)
$$2\ddot{r}r+\dot{r}^2+1r^2e^\lambda =\mathrm{\Lambda }r^2,$$
(3)
$$\ddot{\lambda }+2\frac{\ddot{r}}{r}+\frac{\dot{\lambda }^2}{2}+\frac{\dot{\lambda }\dot{r}}{r}\frac{e^\lambda }{r}(2r^{\prime \prime }\lambda ^{}r^{})=2\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(4)
$$\dot{\lambda }r^{}2\dot{r}^{}=0.$$
(5)
All other components are identically zeros. By integrating the latest equation, the following relation is obtained:

$$e^{\lambda (R,\tau )}=\frac{r^2(R,\tau )}{1f(R)},$$

where the value $`f(R)`$ satisfies the condition $`1f(R)>0`$. Substituting it into (3) results in

$$2\ddot{r}r+\dot{r}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }r^2+f=0.$$
(6)
Integrating of this equation gives

$$\dot{r}^2\frac{F(R)}{r}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}r^2=f,$$
(7)
where $`F(R)`$ – time independent value. This equation can be interpreted as an energy conservation equation for unit mass particle moving in the potential field $`U=(\mathrm{\Lambda }/6)r^2F/(2r)`$ with total energy equal to $`f/2`$. Multiplying (2) by $`r^{}r^2`$ and using (5) and (7), we obtain

$$8\pi G\rho =\frac{F^{}}{r^{}r^2}.$$

Carrying out the integration of the latest equation it becomes

$$F(R)=8\pi G\underset{0}{\overset{R}{}}\rho r^2r^{}𝑑R=2Gm,$$
(8)
where $`m`$ – total mass of the sphere with comoving radius $`R`$. Since integrals are taken over the hypersurface of constant time, so $`dr=r^{}dR`$. By substitution $`\rho =\overline{\rho }(1+\delta (R,\tau ))`$ (where $`\delta (R,\tau )(\rho (R,\tau )\overline{\rho }(\tau ))/\overline{\rho }(\tau )`$ and $`\overline{\rho }(\tau )`$ \- mean matter density in the Universe) into equation (8) we obtain

$$F(R)=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\overline{\rho }r^3(1+\delta _r)=H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_m\left(\frac{r}{a}\right)^3(1+\delta _r),$$
(9)
where

$$\delta _r(R,\tau )=\frac{3}{r^3}\underset{0}{\overset{r}{}}\delta (y,\tau )y^2𝑑y.$$

Also we have used here the definition for the mean matter density in the Universe

$$\overline{\rho }(\tau )=\frac{3H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{8\pi G}a^3(\tau ),$$

where $`H_0`$ is the current value of the Hubble constant, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ – the density of dust-like matter in units of the critical density of the Universe, $`a(\tau )`$ – scale factor of cosmological model with metric

$$ds^2=d\tau ^2a^2(\tau )\left[dR^2+\chi ^2(R)(d\theta ^2+sin^2\theta d\phi ^2)\right],$$

Тherefore

$$\delta _r(R,\tau )=\frac{F(R)}{H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_m^0}\left(\frac{a}{r}\right)^31,$$
(10)
or

$$\delta _r(R,\tau )=(\delta _r(R,\tau _i)+1)\left(\frac{r_i}{a_i}\right)^3\left(\frac{a}{r}\right)^31,$$
(11)
where the index $`i`$ denotes fixed values at a given period of time $`\tau _i`$. In the absence of perturbations, the components of metric take the form

$$\begin{array}{c}e^{\lambda (R,\tau )}a^2(\tau ),\hfill \\ r(R,\tau )a(\tau )\chi (R).\hfill \end{array}$$

In this case, the set of equations (2-5) will be reduced to the following

$$\dot{a}^2\frac{8\pi G}{3}\overline{\rho }a^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}a^2=k,$$
(12)
$$2\ddot{a}a+\dot{a}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }a^2+k=0,$$

$$\chi ^{\prime \prime }(R)\chi (R)\chi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(R)+1=0,$$

where $`k=(1\chi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(R))/\chi ^2(R)`$ – curvature parameter. The real solutions of the last equation are

$$\chi (R)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}(\omega R)/\omega \\ R\\ sh(\omega R)/\omega \end{array}\right),$$

where $`\omega =\pi /R_0`$, and $`R_0`$ – radius of the Universe. With them the curvature parameter takes values

$$k=\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill 1\\ \hfill 0\\ \hfill 1\end{array}\right).$$

For closed models ($`k=1`$) $`R_0`$ is real number, in the case of open models ($`k=1`$) radius of the Universe is imaginary number. The set of equations (7), (11) and (12) allows us to describe the evolution of perturbations from early linear stage up to late nonlinear one. The initial conditions are following: $`\delta _{r,i}=\delta _r(a_i)`$ and $`r_i=r(a_i)`$.

## 3  Linearization of Tolman’s model equations and their solutions

At first, let us consider this set of equations for the case of small perturbations, namely for $`\delta 1`$. Then the metric components (1) may be written in the following way

$$e^{\lambda (R,\tau )}=a^2(\tau )(1+h_{11}(R,\tau )),r(R,\tau )=a(\tau )\chi (R)(1+h_{22}(R,\tau )).$$
(13)
Employing (7) and (9), one may represent the equation (6) in the form:

$$2\ddot{r}r\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}r^2+\frac{8\pi G}{3}\overline{\rho }(1+\delta _r)r^2=0.$$

For small perturbations ($`h_{11}1`$, $`h_{22}1`$) the last equation in the linear approximation acquires the form

$$a^2\ddot{h}_{22}+2\dot{a}ah_{22}+\frac{4\pi G}{3}\overline{\rho }\delta _ra^2=0.$$
(14)
In order to find the relation between the $`h_{22}`$ аnd $`\delta _r`$, let’s insert (13) into (10) and confine ourselves by the 1-st order values

$$\delta _r=\frac{F(R)}{H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_m\chi ^3(R)}\left(1\frac{3h_{22}}{2}\right)1.$$

Switching onto the case of non-perturbed metric ($`h_{22}0`$), one obtains

$$\delta _r=F(R)/(H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_m\chi ^3(R))1,$$

with $`\dot{\delta }_r=0`$. The presence of density perturbations in the matter distribution inevitably leads to respective perturbations in the metric, that is $`h_{22}0`$. Therefore, the amplitude $`\delta _r`$ for $`h_{22}0`$ must to be identically 0. Hence

$$F(R)=H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_m\chi ^3(R).$$
(15)
In other words, the analysis of perturbation behavior is carried out by comparing space and velocity distributions of the same particles in the regions that contain equal mass $`m`$ within the same comoving $`R`$. The equation for the growth of matter perturbations (10) when (15) is assumed, becomes the next

$$\delta (R,\tau )=\left(\frac{a\chi (R)}{r}\right)^31.$$

This equation is often used for the correction of linear power spectrum for the nonlinear evolution of the perturbation . Taking it into account one may obtain

$$h_{22}=\frac{1}{3}\delta _r(R,\tau ).$$
(16)
In fact, this condition let to single out from the arbitrary initial conditions those ones which determine a scalar perturbation mode – of the most interest in cosmological studies. The substitution of the latest equation into (14) provides the following linear equation for the evolution of the small perturbation (see also )

$$\ddot{\delta }_r+2\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{\delta }_r4\pi G\overline{\rho }\delta _r=0.$$
(17)
The general solutions can be expressed by the relative difference in background densities of the two similar models which differ in integration constants

$$\delta _{r,j}\frac{1}{a}\frac{a}{\alpha _j},$$

where $`\alpha _j`$ – integration constant of the cosmological equations for background.

To find the solutions of (12) we need the initial value of the scale factor $`a_ia(\tau _i)`$ for some arbitrary time $`\tau _i`$. In particular, for the start time $`\tau =0`$ we fix the value of scale factor $`a(\tau =0)=0`$. Due to this we can obtain the value of scale factor from (12) for any time and in particular for this moment $`\tau _0`$. The current time $`\tau _0`$ is obtained from Hubble constant. This constant is denoted as $`H_0`$ at current time, and the scale factor as $`a_0`$. In the case of non-zero curvature

$$a_0=\sqrt{\frac{k}{\frac{8\pi G}{3}\overline{\rho }_0+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}H_0^2}}.$$

Values of $`\overline{\rho }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at present time are defined through physical coordinates and not dependent on value of $`a_0`$. In the case of zero curvature the scale factor is indefinite and could by taken deliberately. Apparently, the physical sense is contained in the ratio $`a(\tau _1)/a(\tau _2)`$, where $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _2`$ any moments of time you choose, not in a base value of scale factor. Let us reduce the scale factor to its present value $`a_0`$. So, when noting this rate as $`\stackrel{~}{a}=a/a_0`$, the equation (12) takes the form

$$\dot{\stackrel{~}{a}}^2\frac{8\pi G}{3}\overline{\rho }\stackrel{~}{a}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\stackrel{~}{a}^2=\stackrel{~}{k},$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{k}=k/a_0^2`$ takes continuous values. Below we denote $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ by $`k`$, considering it as continuous quantity, and $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ by $`a`$, putting scale factor at the present time equal to unity. The quantities $`\tau _0`$ and $`a_0`$, or, what is the same, $`\tau _0`$ and $`k`$, are integrals of cosmological equation. Thus, we obtain two solutions of equation (17)

$$\delta _{r,1}\frac{1}{a}\frac{a}{\tau _0},\delta _{r,2}\frac{1}{a}\frac{a}{k}.$$

According to the above definition

$$\delta _{r,1}\frac{\overline{\rho }(\tau ,k,\tau _0+d\tau _0)\overline{\rho }(\tau ,k,\tau _0)}{\overline{\rho }(\tau ,k,\tau _0)},\delta _{r,2}\frac{\overline{\rho }(\tau ,k+dk,\tau _0)\overline{\rho }(\tau ,k,\tau _0)}{\overline{\rho }(\tau ,k,\tau _0)}.$$
(18)
Using the integral of the equation (12), the last expressions can be represented as

$$\delta _{r,1}\frac{1}{a}X^{1/2},\delta _{r,2}\frac{1}{a}X^{1/2}\underset{0}{\overset{a}{}}X^{3/2}𝑑a,$$

wherе $`X=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}a^2+\frac{8\pi G}{3}\overline{\rho }a^2k.`$ We are interested in the growing solution $`\delta _{r,2}`$ so far. Let’s introduce the designation

$$D(a)=\frac{5H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{2a}X^{1/2}\underset{0}{\overset{a}{}}X^{3/2}𝑑a$$
(19)
Then the exact linear solution for the increasing mode of matter density perturbation is

$$\delta _r^l(a)=\frac{\delta _r(a_i)}{D(a_i)}D(a).$$
(20)
In view of the fact that perturbation at the initial stages was very small, one may assume

$$\delta _r(a)\underset{a1}{}\delta _r^l(a).$$
(21)
When $`a1`$, one may expand (20) into series over a small parameter $`a`$, so that

$$\delta _r(a)\delta _r^l(a)A(a+O(a^2)),$$
(22)
where

$$A=\frac{\delta _r(a_i)}{D(a_i)}.$$
(23)
## 4  Parameters $`\delta _c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$, and their dependences on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`k`$

One of the important values used in cosmology for analyzing conditions of the large-scale structure of the Universe formation is the initial amplitude of matter perturbations which collapse at the given moment of time. It is called threshold amplitude and denoted by $`\delta _c`$ and depends both on the parameters of cosmological model and on the time moment of collapse $`\tau _{col}`$ ($`\delta _c\delta _c(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },\tau _{col})`$). In the framework of linear theory of perturbations the increasing solution is described by the expression (20). To find the solution that would describe the case for $`\delta 1`$, let’s use the fact that the increasing mode of scalar perturbation is determined by the difference between the models with different curvature and the same start time $`\delta _r=\delta _{r,2}`$ (18). This makes possible to extract the increasing part out of the general solution (10) by use of the time synchronization of integrals of equations (7) and (12) respectively

$$\underset{0}{\overset{a}{}}\frac{da}{\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}a^2+\frac{8\pi G}{3}\overline{\rho }a^2k}}=\tau \tau _0,\underset{0}{\overset{r(a)}{}}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}r^2+\frac{F}{r}f}}=\tau \tau _0.$$

Equating them gives

$$\underset{0}{\overset{a}{}}\frac{da}{\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}a^2+\frac{8\pi G}{3}\overline{\rho }a^2k}}=\underset{0}{\overset{r(a)}{}}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}r^2+\frac{F}{r}f}}.$$
(24)
At the moment when perturbation turns around, i.e. when $`\dot{r}=0`$, $`r`$ reaches its maximal value $`r=r_{ta}`$, where $`r_{ta}=r(a_{ta})`$ and can be obtained from the equation

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}r_{ta}^3fr_{ta}+F=0.$$

At the same moment the right-hand integrand in the equality (24) takes an infinitely large value, but the integral remains an finite quantity. So, let’s rewrite the (24) to the form

$$\underset{0}{\overset{a_{ta}}{}}\frac{da}{\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}a^2+\frac{8\pi G}{3}\overline{\rho }a^2k}}=PV\underset{0}{\overset{r_{ta}}{}}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}r^2+\frac{F}{r}f}},$$

wherе $`PV`$ means principal integral value.

As we already mentioned, the equation (7) is equivalent to the energy conservation equation for the massive particle motion in given spherically symmetrical potential field. It is well known, that in the case of negative total energy (that is when $`f>0`$) such motion is symmetrical in time with respect to $`\dot{r}=0`$ moment, thus

$$\tau _{col}=2\tau _{ta},$$

wherе $`\tau _{col}`$ – moment of the collapse of the cloud. We have assumed here that the expansion of cloud started at zero moment of time. This equality can be rewritten in the following way:

$$\underset{0}{\overset{a_{col}}{}}\frac{da}{\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}a^2+\frac{8\pi G}{3}\overline{\rho }a^2k}}=2PV\underset{0}{\overset{r_{ta}}{}}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}r^2+\frac{F}{r}f}},$$

where $`a_{col}=a(\tau _{col})`$. Taking into account (15), one obtains

$$\underset{0}{\overset{a_{col}}{}}\frac{\sqrt{a}da}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }a^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_ka+\mathrm{\Omega }_m}}=2\underset{0}{\overset{x_{ta}}{}}\frac{\sqrt{x}dx}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }x^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_fx+\mathrm{\Omega }_m}},$$
(25)
wherе $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }/(3H_0^2)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=8\pi G\overline{\rho }_0/(3H_0^2)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=k/H_0^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_f=f/(H_0^2\chi ^2(R))`$, $`x=r/\chi (R)`$, $`x_{ta}=r_{ta}/\chi (R)`$.

Setting the time of collapse and using the last equality, one can find the value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_f`$ for the perturbation collapsing at the moment $`a_{col}`$. Substituting (13) with (16) and (15) into (7) and confining ourselves to the 1-st order quantities:

$$\dot{a}^2a\frac{d\delta _r}{da}+\left(\dot{a}^2+\frac{4\pi G}{3}\overline{\rho }a^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}a^2\right)\delta _r=\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{f}{\chi ^2}k\right).$$

Considering the equality only at small $`a`$, substituting (22) into this equation and writing out components at zero power of $`a`$ gives:

$$\frac{20}{3}\pi G\overline{\rho }_0A=\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{f}{\chi ^2}k\right),$$

Hence

$$A=\frac{3(\mathrm{\Omega }_k\mathrm{\Omega }_f)}{5\mathrm{\Omega }_m}.$$

Taking into account (19), (20) and (23) we obtain

$$\delta _r^l(a)=\frac{3(\mathrm{\Omega }_k\mathrm{\Omega }_f)}{5\mathrm{\Omega }_m}D(a).$$
(26)
Thus, the initial amplitude of increasing mode of the perturbation is determined by the difference of curvature parameters of the background 3D-curvature parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ and local perturbation $`\mathrm{\Omega }_f`$ one. Fixing the time of collapse $`\tau _{col}`$ in arbitrary way and determining the value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_f`$ from (25), we substitute it in (26) and obtain the sought value of $`\delta _c`$

$$\delta _c(a_{col},a)=\frac{3(\mathrm{\Omega }_k\mathrm{\Omega }_f(a_{col}))}{5\mathrm{\Omega }_m}D(a),$$
(27)
where $`a_{col}`$ – scale factor at the moment of collapse, $`a`$ – scale factor at the moment for which recalculation of the critical amplitude is done according to the linear theory of perturbations. In the case of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=0`$, after appropriate redesignations, the above-stated formula is equivalent to the similar value obtained by . For the simplest case of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=0`$ it coincides with the well known one from literature (see for example ), since, as it may be easy shown, the critical amplitude will take on the form

$$\delta _c(a_{col},a)=\frac{3}{5}\left(\frac{3\pi }{2}\right)^{2/3}\frac{a}{a_{col}}1.68647\frac{a}{a_{col}},$$

and at $`a=a_{col}`$ it has the canonical value.

Fig. 1 shows dependence of $`\delta _c`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ for the models with fixed values of curvature parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ (a) and cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (d). In the models with positive values of cosmological constant the condition of positive curvature of local perturbation is not sufficient for its ever collapse since the positive cosmological constant counteracts to deceleration at the stage of expansion of perturbation. The local curvature ($`f/\chi ^2(R)`$) needed for the collapse must exceed some critical value determined from the condition that there exists the moment of turn around of perturbation region where $`\dot{r}=0`$.

The magnitude $`\dot{r}^2`$ according to (7) acquires the minimum at $`r=r_{extr}(\mathrm{\Omega }_m/(2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }))^{1/3}`$. Then

$$\dot{r}_{min}^2=\dot{r}^2(r_{extr})=3(\mathrm{\Omega }_m/2)^{2/3}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/3}+\mathrm{\Omega }_f.$$

In order the turn around moment to exist there must be $`\dot{r}_{min}^20`$ (only at this condition there is a moment when $`\dot{r}=0`$). That means

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_f3(\mathrm{\Omega }_m/2)^{2/3}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/3}.$$

As it was already shown above, the initial value of perturbation is determined by the difference between the background curvature and the local curvature of the perturbation region (see (26)). For the models with negative curvature ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_k>0`$), the initial value of the density perturbation amplitude of collapsing cloud always must exceed some critical value, because the collapse region must have a positive value of curvature. Moreover, the larger $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ is the larger value of the amplitude of perturbation takes at the turn around of its expansion, as calculated within the framework of linear theory (see (27) and Fig.1b and e). Among background models with a positive curvature ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_k<0`$), one can find models with considerable slow-down of their expansion. Moreover, the perturbation amplitude needed for collapse can be infinitesimal (Fig.1b). However, after recalculation according to the linear theory for the present time (Fig.1a), the initially small perturbation amplitude tends to large values. This is due to the fact that these models have long period of time when the rate of expansion of the background model was close to zero $`\dot{a}0`$ (Fig. 2a). Both for the perturbation region and background, the minimum value for the rate of expansion, according to (12), is reached when $`a=a_{extr}=(\mathrm{\Omega }_m/(2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }))^{1/3}`$. Similarly,

$$\dot{a}_{min}^2=\dot{a}^2(a_{extr})=3(\mathrm{\Omega }_m/2)^{2/3}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/3}+\mathrm{\Omega }_k.$$

In contrast to the perturbation region, the smallest rate of expansion for background models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m<2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ ($`a_{extr}<1`$) have to be greater than zero. Otherwise, we would observe now a stationary or collapsing model of the Universe. At the moment of the minimum rate of expansion, as it could be easily shown, the acceleration equals zero. Nearly zero rate of expansion and its invariability with time leads to the appearance of a long-lasting stage in the evolution of the Universe, where the value for the scale factor is almost constant. According to (17), perturbations at this stage grow exponentially

$$\delta e^{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }\tau },$$

where $`\alpha =\sqrt{4\pi G\overline{\rho }_0}a_{extr}^{3/2}`$, а $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ – duration of a considerable slow-down in the background expansion (in units of the Hubble constant). The closer the minimum rate of expansion is to zero (see Fig. 2a), the longer stage is and the increase of amplitude is greater (see Fig. 2b). The characteristic time for this stage can be obtained on the basis of (12)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\tau \frac{a_{extr}}{\dot{a}_{min}}ϵ,$$

where $`ϵ=\mathrm{\Delta }a/a`$ – an allowable relative change in the scale factor. At the infinitesimal value of $`ϵ`$ and nearly-zero value of $`\dot{a}_{min}`$ the time of exponential increase of perturbations $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ may take arbitrary large values. Correspondingly, an increase of the perturbation amplitude for this period of time is large as well. Thus, cosmological models with a substantial slow-down in expansion are gravitationally unstable.

In models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k0`$ such slow-down is essentially less, resulting in an inverse relation between $`\delta _c(a_{col})`$ and $`\delta _c(a_{ta})`$: $`\delta _c(a_{col})/\delta _c(a_{ta})`$ decreases with decrease of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$. Such behavior is caused by decrease of the rate of perturbation growth at the final stage of the collapse of perturbations due to an increased influence of the cosmological constant and curvature of the Universe (Fig. 3).

Dependence of the critical amplitude $`\delta _c\delta _c(z_{col})`$ recalculated to the moment of collapse, allows to evaluate a change of influence of the cosmological parameters on the dynamics of the growth of perturbations in the expansion Universe (Fig. 4a). It is clear that the influence of the cosmological constant on $`\delta _c`$ with increasing of $`z`$ diminishes as it is also substantiated by graphs.

Dependence of $`\delta _c(a_{col}=1,a=1)`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be expressed by the following approximate formula:

$$\delta _c=AB\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Omega }_m+C),$$

where

$$\begin{array}{c}A=1.687+0.021\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },\hfill \\ B=0.01568(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })^{1.774}0.03061,\hfill \\ C=0.001950.01135\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+0.00382(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })^2.\hfill \end{array}$$

The numerical values of the coefficients are found by the method of best-fit adjustment. The accuracy of approximation for different parameters of the model are shown in Fig. 6a.

Note that the real amplitude of perturbation $`\delta `$, calculated according to (10), is infinitely large at the moment of collapse. In fact, at the final stage of collapse of a cloud the energy is redistributed with subsequent equilibrium due to the short-range particle interaction and a finite target parameter. At very small scales, the gravitational force is counteracted by the short-range interaction that is determined by the nature of the particles in a cloud. At large scales, the key role in formation of stationary structures plays the balance of inertial and gravitational forces. According to the virial theorem, a system of particles, approaching its dynamical equilibrium, has the following kinetic energy per unit mass

$$T=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}v_i^2=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}\stackrel{}{r}_i\stackrel{}{}_{\stackrel{}{r}_i}U.$$

In our case: $`U=U_\mathrm{\Lambda }+U_\rho =\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6}r^2\frac{F}{2r}`$, so

$$T=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{6}r^2+\frac{1}{2}\frac{F}{2r}=U_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{1}{2}U_\rho .$$

The moment when this equality is true we shall call the moment of virialization and denote with an index ’$`vir`$’. Let’s make use of the conservation law expressed in the form:

$$T+U_\mathrm{\Lambda }+U_\rho =U_{\mathrm{\Lambda },ta}+U_{\rho ,ta}.$$

At the moment of virialization, the last equality takes on the form of

$$2U_{\mathrm{\Lambda },vir}+\frac{1}{2}U_{\rho ,vir}=U_{\mathrm{\Lambda },ta}+U_{\rho ,ta},$$

or another form

$$4\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }x_{vir}^3+2\mathrm{\Omega }_fx_{vir}+\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0,$$

where $`x_{vir}=r_{vir}/\chi (R)`$.

It would be reasonable to introduce here a quantity to characterize the relative divergence of density taking into account virialization process. This quantity, called as overdensity after virialization, is defined in the following way:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_c=\frac{\rho _{vir}}{\rho _c}\left(a_{col}\right)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_mH_0^2}{x_{vir}^3H^2(a_{col})}.$$

In the case of the canonical model ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=0`$)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_c=18\pi ^2178.$$

Dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ on cosmological parameters is shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 5b. At scales of stationary clusters of galaxies, the density of the energy that is connected with the cosmological constant is far less than the energy of the matter, hence it has a subtle influence on the final value of the radius $`r_{vir}`$. In this case, we may assume with a high certainty that $`r_{vir}r_{ta}/2`$. Thus, the final amplitude of the virialized perturbation is completely determined by scale of turn around $`x_{ta}r_{ta}/\chi (R)`$. When the relative density of the matter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ increases, the perturbation amplitude grows nearly proportionally to it. Although for the models with small values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ this linearity is broken because of the increase in the role of cosmological constant (see Fig. 5a and Fig. 5b).

The behavior of overdensity $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ could be explained by analyzing the influence of every parameter on its dynamics. As far the matter component $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ makes the process of expansion more slow, so the value of $`r_{ta}`$ should be decreasing when this component’s content increase (one of the components, either $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ we will assume to be fixed). So that the value $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c(a_{col}=1)=\mathrm{\Omega }_m/x_{vir}^3`$ will be growing. In the same way, since component $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ accelerates the expansion, $`r_{ta}`$ will be growing. This leads to decrease in amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ when $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ is held fixed.

As it was shown above, the relative amplitude of perturbation depends linearly on the difference of curvatures, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k\mathrm{\Omega }_f`$. The local curvature parameter, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_f`$, depends on parameters of background model for the fixed collapse moment. However, because of slow variation in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_f`$ against $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ at the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ being fixed, the change in value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k\mathrm{\Omega }_f`$ will be determined by the change in value of curvature parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$. Therefore, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ increase, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ do the same. These relations of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ dependence to the cosmological parameters are illustrated in Figs. 5a,b.

As it was noted before, the influence of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ on the dynamics of Universe at early stages was diminished by expansion. This makes the variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ value within two arbitrary models smaller (see Fig. 4b). While we are moving to the earlier stages, the values $`\delta _c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ would converge to the their canonical values $`3/5(3\pi /2)^{2/3}1.686`$ and $`18\pi ^2178`$ correspondingly (Fig. 4a,b).

The analytical approximation for the above mentioned value has the following form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_c=AB\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Omega }_m+C),$$

where

$$\begin{array}{c}A=110.8912.91\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+7.92(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })^20.03/\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\hfill \\ B=113.28+6.84\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+7.13(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })^2,\hfill \\ C=0.7870.115\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.093(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })^2.\hfill \end{array}$$

Numerical values of the coefficients are determined using the method of best-fit adjustment. Accuracy of the approximation for different models is shown in Fig. 6b.

## 5  Mass function of rich clusters of galaxies

Rich clusters of galaxies are supposed to have been formed at the highest peaks of the matter density fluctuations – which, as we know, are almost spherically symmetrical. That’s why these formations can be described using the spherical collapse model. One of the most important features of the large-scale structure of the Universe at the scales $`10`$ Мpc is a mass function that determines the number of gravitationally bound systems with their masses exceeding the given one. To calculate this distribution in the case of spherically symmetrical collapse it is convenient to use the Press-Schechter formalism. The amplitude of initial perturbations ($`\delta 1`$) is assumed to be distributed according to the Gauss law

$$P(R,\tau )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma (R,\tau )}e^{\frac{\delta ^2}{2\sigma ^2(R,\tau )}},$$

where

$$\sigma ^2(R,\tau )=<\delta _s^2>=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}d^3k|\delta _k|^2|W(kR)|^2.$$

A fraction of collapsed perturbations equals

$$F(R,\tau )=_{\delta _c}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\delta }{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma (R,\tau )}e^{\frac{\delta ^2}{2\sigma (R,\tau )^2}}.$$

The number of the objects collapsed per unit volume with their masses within $`dM`$, according to the Press-Schechter approach constitutes

$$n(M,\tau )dM=2\frac{\overline{\rho }}{M}\frac{F}{R}\frac{dR}{dM}dM=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\frac{\overline{\rho }}{M}\frac{\delta _c}{\sigma ^2(R,\tau )}\frac{d\sigma (R,\tau )}{dM}e^{\frac{\delta _c^2}{2\sigma ^2(R,\tau )}}dM.$$
(28)
The number of objects with masses greater than a given $`M`$ equals

$$N(>M)=_M^{\mathrm{}}n(M^{})𝑑M^{}.$$

Dependence of the mass function on cosmological parameters is shown in Fig. 7a,b. For numerical calculations, we have used an analytic form of power spectrum  normalized according to . Filled circles depict experimental data taken from . Long dashed lines depict the mass functions which differ from the previous ones by using canonical value $`\delta _c=1.686`$ instead of their exact values $`\delta _c\delta _c(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. As we can see in Fig. 7a-c the difference in the logarithmic scale is small and lesser than experimental errors. While switching to linear scales they appear to be more prominent. Fig. 8 represents graphs for relative errors of the mass function for different cosmological models with fixed values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (a), and for models with zero curvature (b)

$$Error=\frac{N(>M,\delta _c(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }))N(>M,\delta _c=1.686)}{N(>M,\delta _c(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }))}\times 100\%.$$

As we can see, the relative difference of the concentrations of rich clusters of galaxies, calculated according to the Press-Schechter formalism with real and canonical values $`\delta _c`$, is quite large and lie within $`10÷20\%`$. For the closest zero-curvature model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.36`$ аnd $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.64`$ (see Fig. 7b), the relative error changes in the range of 5 to 20 percents. This model is also superior compared to other tests . For some other models, this error can be no less than several dozen percents (Fig. 8). In fact, as can be deduced from (28),

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }n}{n}=\left|1\frac{\delta _c^2}{\sigma ^2}\right|\left|\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _c}{\delta _c}\right|,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _c`$ is difference between model $`\delta _c`$ and its canonical value 1.686. For $`\sigma (M)0.8`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _c/\delta _c|0.06`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }n/n`$ (and correspondingly $`Error`$) will be $`>20\%`$. This fact suggests that one should take into account dependence of critical amplitude on cosmological parameters, in order to keep calculation errors within 10%. The observational mass function data do not prevent one from possible realization of the model with a curvature other than zero. For example, Fig. 8 demonstrates the most consistent with experimental data mass function for the model with a negative curvature $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=0.1`$. Theoretical mass functions in the case of elliptical collapse Sheth-Tormen (ST)  and Lee-Shandarin (LS)  are presented here also. As we can see, the theory of spherical collapse well agrees with experimental data, since rich clusters of galaxies have formed in maxima of the density peaks which predominantly have spherically symmetrical form.

## 6 CONCLUSIONS

We have analyzed the evolution of a spherical dust-like cloud from the early linear stage, when the relative difference between the background and densities of cloud is $`\delta 1`$, up to the late non-linear stage, when the collapse occurs, $`\delta \mathrm{}`$, in cosmological models with an arbitrary 3D space curvature and positive values of cosmological constant. There are two parameters convenient for comparison of such dynamics in various cosmological models. First, the threshold value of initial amplitude of density perturbation, $`\delta _c`$, calculated at the moment of collapse according to the law of linear growth. The second is the final amplitude of overdensity following the dynamical equilibrium, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$. $`\delta _c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ are used for calculation of the mass function and X-ray temperature of rich clusters of galaxies respectively. On the base of the analytical and numerical results presented here it can be concluded that for models with negative or zero 3D space curvature and positive cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$), $`\delta _c`$ is smaller than its canonical value 1.686 ($`k=\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$) due to longer duration of perturbation increasing. It decreases with increase of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and with decrease of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$.

In models with positive 3D curvature $`\delta _c`$ can be either greater or smaller in comparison with canonical value. In this case critical amplitude $`\delta _c`$ goes to infinity when $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ converges to some small critical value. It happens because the moment of slow down of expansion of the background takes place. At this moment amplitude of density perturbations grows very quickly tending to the exponential law in models with collapse. Such models are gravitationally unstable in the sense that even the smallest perturbations cause their collapse in finite time.

The range of change for the threshold value $`\delta _c`$, within the range of parameters $`0.4\mathrm{\Omega }_k0.4`$, $`0\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$, $`0.1\mathrm{\Omega }_m1`$ is small: $`1.55\delta _c1.75`$. But the discrepancy in values of the concentration of rich clusters of galaxies, as calculated according to the Press-Schechter formalism, with real and canonical values $`\delta _c`$, reaches few dozens of percents for some models. This discrepancy grows with an increase of the mass of clusters.

The range of variation for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ is much wider, $`60\mathrm{\Delta }_c180`$ (for the same range of cosmological parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$). This leads to the deviations of the calculated values of the X-ray temperature of the gas by $`40\%`$, as compared to those calculated for the canonical value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$, $`178`$.

Experimental uncertainties of determining mass function and X-ray temperature function of rich clusters of galaxies in the vicinity of Milky Way are considerably larger than those for the models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.4`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.6`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k0`$ (see  and references therein). Nevertheless, with accumulation of data using deep-sky surveys (including SDSS, 2dF GRS etc) and with respective increase of accuracy of the data observed, the given dependences of $`\delta _c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ should be taken into account when comparing theoretical predictions with the observational data in problems aimed searching for adequate models of the Universe.

## 7 Acknowledgments

Authors are thankful to Dr. S. Apunevych and Dr. Yu. Chornij for useful discussions and comments. BN is grateful also to Astronomical observatory of Jagellonian University in Cracow for hospitality as well as prof. M. Ostrowski and Dr. Hab. A. Wozchyna for discussions.