text:
# Inhomogeneous cosmologies, the Copernican principle and the cosmic microwave background: More on the EGS theorem

## 1 Introduction

The standard model of cosmology rests on several fundamental assumptions. As with any theoretical model of a physical system, it is crucial that these assumptions are identified and tested wherever possible, in order that the proposed model be considered acceptable. The standard model of cosmology is founded on the (perturbed) spatially homogeneous and isotropic cosmological models of Friedman-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW), which are derived from the cosmological principle. The cosmological principle may be taken to state that the universe is spatially homogeneous . This is a strong assumption; considerably stronger than the Copernican principle which says that we are not at a special location in the Universe. Regardless of which principle one cares to take, when these are combined with *assumed* perfect isotropy about ourselves, on all scales, we arrive at the FLRW models. If we assume such perfect isotropy about us without a ‘mediocrity’ principle, then we must be at a center of symmetry. Obviously, the properties of a spatially homogeneous universe can be radically different from a spherically symmetric one, for example, and it is therefore of fundamental importance to find some method to test the assumption of homogeneity, and to identify what exactly happens if any of the assumptions are relaxed. This is particularly important, since studying inhomogeneous models will allow us to identify some possible tests of non-homogeneity in the universe.

What evidence do we have that the universe is so isotropic about us? Obviously the strongest and most important piece of evidence for this is the extremely high isotropy of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) which is isotropic to one part in $`10^5`$. The question is: In what context can we infer spatial homogeneity from our observations of the CMB? Without the Copernican principle (or something similar) the answer is obviously not – we may be located at the ‘center’ of the universe and thus see the CMB isotropically distributed about us, whereas all other observers would not have such a unique and privileged view. However, if we assume the Copernican principle (i.e., we assume that all or ‘most’ observers in the universe see the CMB to be as isotropic as we see it) can we infer homogeneity on the basis of the CMB alone?

The first attempt to answer this question resulted in a theorem by Ehlers, Geren and Sachs  (hereafter, EGS) which states that if all observers in an expanding dust universe see an isotropic radiation field then that spacetime is homogeneous and isotropic (and therefore FLRW). This can trivially be generalised to the case of a geodesic and barotropic perfect fluid . The ‘isotropic radiation field’ is implicitly identified with the CMB. However, as has been emphasised recently , the resulting spacetime will be FLRW only if the matter content is of perfect fluid form, and the observers geodesic and irrotational. This work has been extended  to include inhomogeneous universe models with non-geodesic observers. That is, inhomogeneous spacetimes have been found which also allow every observer to see an isotropic CMB. It has also been shown that a significant subset of these models are consistent with other observational constraints, regardless of observer position . This means that these models are consistent with observations on all scales even when the Copernican principle is taken into account – and yet the models are significantly inhomogeneous. However, a problem of these models is that the non-geodesic motion of the observers prohibits a barotropic equation of state for the matter (although the models admit a thermodynamic scheme). There have been recent developments along this line, where in  a realistic multi-fluid form of the matter was proposed (although the models used were slightly different from those in  which allow an isotropic radiation field). Alternatively, a fractal distribution may be more appropriate . Other recent work concerning rotating and anisotropic cosmological models also supports these results ; other non-FLRW models exist which admit an isotropic radiation field.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss more general cosmological models which allow an isotropic radiation field. Specifically, we wish to discuss models with ‘realistic’ matter in order to demonstrate that there exist physically viable inhomogeneous cosmological models which will allow an isotropic radiation field by construction but are not FLRW. The recent supernovae data imply an accelerated expansion rate in the universe: within the standard model this implies some sort of negative pressure, be it a cosmological constant or quintessence or some other type of exotic matter. Therefore, we will consider here not just traditional barotropic perfect fluid matter, but more exotic forms, such as scalar fields and varying $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ models.

Spacetimes which allow all observers the view of an isotropic CMB must satisfy the ‘isotropic radiation field theorem’. The isotropic radiation field theorem may be derived from the Einstein-Boltzmann equations for photons in a curved spacetime. It is easy to show from the multipole expansions of  that a spacetime with an isotropic radiation field must have the velocity field, $`u^a`$, of the photons being shearfree and obeying

$$\dot{u}_a=\stackrel{~}{}_aQ,\theta =3\dot{Q},$$
(1)
where $`Q`$ is a function of the energy density of the radiation field. Any observers traveling on this congruence will observe the isotropic radiation. This velocity field is also a conformal Killing vector of the spacetime. In fact, a spacetime admitting an isotropic radiation field must be conformally stationary, and we use this fact to construct some ‘generalised-EGS’ spacetimes.

In the following we show how some irrotational multifluid spacetimes may be constructed, which satisfy (1). To this end, we consider two non-comoving perfect fluids, which can be interacting or non-interacting, and may or may not admit barotropic equations of state for the fluids. The fluids are chosen to be non-comoving to allow for energy flux and anisotropic pressures in the energy momentum tensor; otherwise the models may be written as a single perfect fluid, which are the models studied in . In a similar vein we consider models with a perfect fluid and scalar field; in contrast to usual work on mixtures of this kind, we allow for the case where the scalar field has a spatial gradient relative to the perfect fluid, which we take to be comoving with the isotropic radiation (test) field. In both cases we take one of the perfect fluids to be ‘comoving’ with the radiation field; that is one of the fluid velocities will be (parallel to) the timelike conformal Killing vector of the spacetime. We then consider some models with non-zero heat flux, but zero anisotropic pressure, which were previously considered in , which may be interpreted as ‘quintessence’ models with varying $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and energy flux.

The case of non-zero rotation has also been considered elsewhere, and simple expanding and rotating spacetimes with plausible matter in which the observers could measure an isotropic CMB have been constructed . This may be considered as a counter-example to numerous claims that the rotation of the universe may be constrained by observations of the CMB alone; such results make additional assumptions of the matter present and the velocity field we follow in the universe.

The upshot of all this is to emphasise that the high isotropy of the CMB when combined with the Copernican principle is simply not enough to draw conclusions about the spatial homogeneity of our universe.

## 2 Spacetimes admitting an isotropic radiation field

We are interested in spacetimes in which the high isotropy of the CMB is permissible for every observer. In the particular case where we have a model in which all observers on some congruence $`u^a`$ see an exactly isotropic radiation field, then this velocity field has two important properties:

$$_{[a}\left(\dot{u}_{b]}\frac{1}{3}\theta u_{b]}\right)=0=\sigma _{ab}.$$
(2)
Writing $`\dot{u}_a\frac{1}{3}\theta u_a=_aQ`$ we see that the first condition is equivalent to (1). Spacetimes admitting an isotropic radiation field are conformally stationary, with the velocity fields of the two (conformally related) spacetimes parallel – see the appendix. Now, if we were to assume that these observers measured only dust, then that spacetime must be FLRW – the origional EGS theorem .

In this paper, for simplicity, we also restrict our attention to the irrotational case. This may be justified by the following considerations. If part of the matter consists of a conserved comoving barotropic perfect fluid other than radiation, or for geodesic motion with any matter source, it follows from (1) that the expansion or the rotation must be zero. For a conserved barotropic perfect fluid, we have $`\dot{u}_a=\stackrel{~}{}_a\varphi `$, and $`p^{}\theta =\dot{\varphi }`$, where $`\varphi 𝑑p/(\mu (p)+p)`$, and $`p^{}=dp/d\mu `$; so, $`\eta _{abc}\stackrel{~}{}^b\stackrel{~}{}^c(Q\varphi )=2(\frac{1}{3}p^{})\theta \omega _a=0`$. For geodesic motion, $`\eta _{abc}\stackrel{~}{}^b\stackrel{~}{}^cQ=\frac{2}{3}\theta \omega _a=0`$. However, rotating universes which allow an isotropic radiation field have been found and discussed in some detail – see .

In this case the metric can then take the form

$$ds^2=e^{2Q(t,x^\alpha )}\left\{dt^2+H_{\alpha \beta }dx^\alpha dx^\beta \right\}$$
(3)
where $`H_{\alpha \beta }(x^\gamma )`$ can be diagonalised. If $`Q=Q(t)`$ then the acceleration is zero and we recover the models studied by Coley and MacManus; indeed, even in this case (i.e., the acceleration-free case) it follows that there are physically viable spacetimes that are not FLRW.

In order to find irrotational spacetimes with an isotropic CMB, we can simply compute the Einstein tensor of (3), and equate with the matter we desire. In the appendix, we discuss this computation further.

### 2.1 The energy momentum tensor of multiple fluids

In general, the energy momentum tensor, $`T_{ab}`$ for any spacetime may be decomposed with respect to the velocity field $`u^a`$ in the following covariant manner:

$$T_{ab}=\overline{\mu }u_au_b+\overline{p}h_{ab}+2\overline{q}_{(a}u_{b)}+\overline{\pi }_{ab}.$$
(4)
This decomposition allows us to make the physical interpretations that $`\overline{\mu }=u^au^bT_{ab}`$ is the energy density, $`\overline{p}=\frac{1}{3}h^{ab}T_{ab}`$ the isotropic pressure, $`\overline{q}_a=h_a^bu^cT_{bc}`$ the energy or heat flux and $`\overline{\pi }_{ab}=T_{ab}`$ the anisotropic pressure or stress. All these quantities are interpreted by an observer traveling on the $`u^a`$ congruence.

#### 2.1.1 perfect fluids

Consider the energy-momentum tensor due to two non-comoving perfect fluids;

$$T_{ab}=\mu _1u_au_b+p_1h_{ab}+\mu _2\stackrel{~}{u}_a\stackrel{~}{u}_b+p_2\stackrel{~}{h}_{ab},$$
(5)
where $`\mu _i`$ are the energy densities of the fluids in each comoving frame, and the $`p_i`$’s are their respective pressures. The velocity field of the second congruence may be written as a Lorentz boost of the first;

$$\stackrel{~}{u}^a=\gamma (u^a+v^a),\gamma =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1v^av_a}},v^au_a=0.$$
(6)
If we write this as one fluid with respect to the $`u^a`$ congruence, then $`T_{ab}`$ has the form of (4), with components

$`\overline{\mu }=u^au^bT_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _1+\mu _2+\gamma ^2v^2\left(\mu _2+p_2\right),`$
$`\overline{p}=\frac{1}{3}h^{ab}T_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`p_1+p_2+\frac{1}{3}\gamma ^2v^2\left(\mu _2+p_2\right),`$
$`\overline{q}_a=h_a^bu^cT_{bc}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^2(\mu _2+p_2)v_a,`$
$`\overline{\pi }_{ab}=T_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^2(\mu _2+p_2)v_av_b.`$ (7)
Thus we see that the first fluid will experience an energy flux due to the second fluid passing through their frame (provided $`\mu _2+p_20`$).

#### 2.1.2 perfect fluid plus scalar field

In general the energy-momentum tensor of a scalar field $`\varphi `$ may be written

$$T_{ab}^\varphi =\varphi _{,a}\varphi _{,b}g_{ab}\left(\frac{1}{2}\varphi _{,c}\varphi ^{,c}+V(\varphi )\right),$$
(8)
which, when a velocity field is specified, takes the form

$$T_{ab}^\varphi =\dot{\varphi }^2u_au_b+\stackrel{~}{}_a\varphi \stackrel{~}{}_b\varphi 2\dot{\varphi }u_{(a}\stackrel{~}{}_{b)}\varphi g_{ab}\left(\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{}_c\varphi \stackrel{~}{}^c\varphi \frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+V(\varphi )\right).$$
(9)
Thus, if we add to this scalar field a perfect fluid (perfect with respect to this $`u^a`$ congruence), then we find that the total or mean matter variables become

$`\overline{\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\mu +\mu _\varphi =\mu +\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{}_c\varphi \stackrel{~}{}^c\varphi +V(\varphi ),`$
$`\overline{p}`$ $`=`$ $`p+p_\varphi =p+\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2\frac{1}{6}\stackrel{~}{}_c\varphi \stackrel{~}{}^c\varphi V(\varphi ),`$
$`\overline{q}_a`$ $`=`$ $`q_a^\varphi =\dot{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{}_a\varphi ,`$
$`\overline{\pi }_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi _{ab}^\varphi =\stackrel{~}{}_a\varphi \stackrel{~}{}_b\varphi .`$ (10)
Note that if $`\stackrel{~}{}_a\varphi =0`$ then formally the total fluid takes the form of a single perfect fluid.

We may demand that $`\varphi `$ satisfies the Klein-Gordon equation, which may be derived from the energy conservation equation for the scalar field, $`^aT_{ab}^\varphi =0`$,

$$\frac{V(\varphi )}{\varphi }=_a^a\varphi =\dot{u}^a\stackrel{~}{}_a\varphi +\stackrel{~}{}^a\stackrel{~}{}_a\varphi \ddot{\varphi }\theta \dot{\varphi }.$$
(11)
However, if there is an interaction between the scalar field and some other matter, then this equation may not hold; for example, we could have a scalar field decaying into physical matter in which case the energy of the scalar field will not be conserved independently.

### 2.2 Scalar Tensor Theories of Gravity

Scalar-tensor theories, in which a long-range scalar field combined with a tensor field mediate the gravitational interaction, are standard alternatives to general relativity. The original motivation for these theories was to incorporate a varying gravitational constant into GR to account for alleged discrepancies between observations and weak-field predictions of GR. A special case of the scalar tensor theories, known as the Brans-Dicke theory of gravity (BDT ) (with a constant $`\omega _0`$ parameter), was the original of these theories. Scalar-tensor theories occur as the low-energy limit in supergravity theories from string theory  and other higher-dimensional gravity theories .

Recently the recovery of the EGS theorem in scalar tensor theories was given ; geodesic observers in a scalar tensor theory of gravity observing isotropic radiation must be in a FLRW universe. We mention here that inhomogeneous spacetimes are possible however if the geodesic assumption is dropped. The field equations, obtained by varying the BD action with respect to the metric and the field $`\varphi `$, are

$`G_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{\varphi }}T_{ab}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\varphi ^2}}\left(_a\varphi _b\varphi \frac{1}{2}g_{ab}_c\varphi ^c\varphi \right)+\varphi ^1(_a_b\varphi g_{ab}_c^c\varphi )\frac{1}{2}g_{ab}U(\varphi ).`$ (13)
$`(3+2\omega )_a^a\varphi =8\pi T_a\omega ^a\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{dU}{d\varphi }}`$
where the energy-momentum tensor of the matter, $`T^{ab}`$, may take any of the usual desired forms. In the scalar-tensor gravity theories the principle of equivalence is guaranteed by requiring that all matter fields are minimally coupled to the metric $`g_{ab}`$. Thus energy-momentum is conserved:

$$^aT_{ab}=0.$$
(14)
It is known that scalar-tensor theories can be rewritten in the conformally related ‘Einstein’ frame , so that the models are formally equivalent to GR coupled to a scalar field. Therefore, scalar-tensor theories may be incorporated here as a special case of the scalar field in GR – see Sec. 2.1.2.

## 3 Some solutions

Rather than provide an exhaustive study of multi-fluid solutions, we will present some example of how such solutions may be derived. This is in keeping with our aim of illustrating the existence of ‘realistic’ inhomogeneous cosmological solutions which satisfy the Copernican principle.

### 3.1 Two perfect fluids

For simplicity, we restrict ourselves to the case where $`Q(t,x^\alpha )=Q(t,r)`$ in comoving polar coordinates and we also restrict ourselves to the spherically symmetric case, $`H_{rr}=H_{\theta \theta }=H_{\varphi \varphi }=\mathrm{exp}2B(r,\theta ,\varphi )`$. In this case the energy flux relative to the comoving $`u^a`$ frame is

$$\overline{q}_r=2e^Q\left(Q_{,tr}Q_{,t}Q_{,r}\right)=\gamma ^2(\mu _2+p_2)v_r,\overline{q}_\theta =\overline{q}_\varphi =0v_\theta =v_\varphi =0.$$
(15)
Because $`v^a`$ has one non-vanishing component, this implies from (7) that $`\overline{\pi }_{ab}`$ must be diagonal. Calculating the components of $`\pi _{ab}`$, we find that $`B`$ can only be a function of $`r`$ alone:

$`\overline{\pi }_{rr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left[(B^{\prime \prime }+2Q^{\prime \prime })+(B^{}+2Q^{})^22Q^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}(B^{}+2Q^{})\right]`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\gamma ^2(\mu _2+p_2)v_r^2.`$
Hence we find

$$v_r=\frac{3}{2}\frac{\overline{\pi }_{rr}}{\overline{q}_r}.$$
(17)
We may also calculate the mean energy density and pressure;

$`\overline{\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`3e^{2Q}Q_{,t}^2e^{2(Q+B)}\left[2(B^{\prime \prime }+Q^{\prime \prime })+(B^{}+Q^{})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r}}(B^{}+Q^{})\right],`$
$`=`$ $`\mu _1+\mu _2+\gamma ^2v^2\left(\mu _2+p_2\right),`$
$`\overline{p}`$ $`=`$ $`3e^{2Q}\left[Q_{,t}^2+2Q_{,tt}\right]e^{2(Q+B)}\left[2(B^{\prime \prime }+Q^{\prime \prime })+B^2+5Q^2+4Q^{}B^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r}}(B^{}+2Q^{})\right]`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`p_1+p_2+\frac{1}{3}\gamma ^2v^2\left(\mu _2+p_2\right).`$
As yet we have only determined $`v`$ (and $`\gamma `$), and we have three equations relating four functions, $`\mu _i,p_i`$ (Eqs. (18), and the remaining freedom from $`\overline{\pi }_{rr}`$ and $`q_r`$). In principle we have the freedom to specify one more equation relating the four free functions. The most obvious restrictions are barotropic equations of state for the two fluids, $`p_i=p_i(\mu _i)`$, or separate energy conservation for the two fluids, $`^aT_{ab}^i=0`$. However, if $`Q`$ and $`B`$ are specified then only one of these types of conditions may be used in general. We can use the freedom in the two metric functions to allow us to use both conditions if we choose. For simplicity, we consider the case of the two fluids obeying linear equations of state, $`p_i=w_i\mu _i`$.

#### 3.1.1 Example: $`p_i=w_i\mu _i`$, with $`B=0`$

We have four free functions, $`Q\mu _i`$, and $`v_r`$ together with four equations; specifying two equations of state is then sufficient to close the system. We may solve Eqs. (15) and (16) for $`\mu _2`$ and $`v_r`$ as functions of $`Q`$ (and derivatives of). Substituting these into (18) we get two equations for $`\mu _1`$; requiring equality leads to a horrendous equation for $`Q`$;

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`((2r^2+2w_1r^2)Q_{\mathrm{𝑟𝑟}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+((w_1r^2r^2+3w_2w_1r^2+3w_2r^2)Q_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+(6w_2w_1r+2w_1r`$ (19)
$`+`$ $`4w_2r)Q_r+(2w_2r^22r^2)Q_{\mathrm{𝑡𝑡}}+(w_2r^23w_2w_1r^2r^23w_1r^2)Q_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})Q_{\mathrm{𝑟𝑟}}`$
$`+`$ $`(3w_2r^2w_1r^23w_2w_1r^2r^2)Q_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}+(7w_2r5w_1r3r9w_2w_1r)Q_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}`$
$`+`$ $`((2w_2r^2+2r^2)Q_{\mathrm{𝑡𝑡}}+(3w_2r^2+r^2+w_1r^2+3w_2w_1r^2)Q_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}4w_24w_126w_2w_1)Q_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
$`+`$ $`((2w_2r+2r)Q_{\mathrm{𝑡𝑡}}+(3w_1r+w_2r+3w_2w_1r+r)Q_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+(4w_2r^2Q_{\mathrm{𝑡𝑟}}+4w_1r^2Q_{\mathrm{𝑡𝑟}})Q_t)Q_r`$
$`+`$ $`2w_2r^2Q_{\mathrm{𝑡𝑟}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2w_1r^2Q_{\mathrm{𝑡𝑟}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})/rw_1(Q_rrQ_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+rQ_{\mathrm{𝑟𝑟}})(1+w_2).`$
A solution of the form $`Q=a\mathrm{ln}t+b\mathrm{ln}r`$ exists, provided we choose

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{1+w_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2w_2}{8w_2w_12w_23w_1+3w_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2w_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+3w_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}w_16w_2w_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}1}},`$ (20)
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{3w_2w_1+2w_2+w_1}{1+3w_2+w_1+3w_2w_1}}.`$ (21)
The only other physical constraint is that $`v^2<1`$, for all $`t`$ and $`r`$. In the case where the first fluid is dust, $`w_1=0`$, this requires that $`\frac{1}{3}<w_2<\frac{1}{6}`$. This also ensures that the fluids become comoving at late times.

Thus we have demonstrated the existence of inhomogeneous two barotropic fluid solutions of the field equations which allow the existence of isotropic radiation. There are clearly much more general solutions than we have presented here, our solution being a very special case.

### 3.2 Perfect fluid plus scalar field revisited.

As before, we restrict ourselves to the spherically symmetric case where $`Q(t,x^\alpha )=Q(t,r)`$ and $`H_{rr}=H_{\theta \theta }=H_{\varphi \varphi }=\mathrm{exp}(2B(r,\theta ,\varphi ))`$. In this case the energy flux relative to the comoving $`u^a`$ frame is

$`\overline{q}_r=2e^Q(Q_{,tr}Q_tQ_r)=\dot{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{}_r\varphi ,\overline{q}_\theta =\overline{q}_\varphi =0\varphi (t,r).`$ (22)
Because $`\varphi `$ is only a function of time and the spatial coordinate $`r`$, this implies that $`\overline{\pi }_{ab}`$ must be diagonal. Calculating the components of $`\overline{\pi }_{ab}`$, we find that $`B`$ can only be a function of r alone. We find that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(\stackrel{~}{}_r\varphi )^2=\overline{\pi }_{rr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}[(B{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }+2Q{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime })+2Q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+4B^{}Q^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}(2Q^{}+B^{})].`$ (23)
Hence we find

$`\dot{\varphi }^2={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\overline{\pi }_{rr}}}.`$
We may also calculate the mean energy density and pressure;

$`\overline{\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`3e^{2Q}\ddot{Q}^2e^{2(Q+B)}[2(B^{^{\prime \prime }}+Q^{^{\prime \prime }})+(B^{}+Q^{})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r}}(B^{}+Q^{})]`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\varphi }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{}_r\varphi \stackrel{~}{}^r\varphi +V(\varphi ),`$
$`\overline{p}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}[3e^{2Q}[\dot{Q}^2+2\ddot{Q}]e^{2(Q+B)}[4Q^{^{\prime \prime }}+2B^{^{\prime \prime }}+4B^{}Q^{}+5Q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r}}(B^{}+2Q^{})]]`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`p+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\varphi }^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\stackrel{~}{}_r\varphi \stackrel{~}{}^r\varphi V(\varphi ),`$
We may impose the restriction of a barotropic equation of state for the perfect fluid $`p(\mu )`$ and an energy conservation law for the fluid $`^aT_{ab}=0`$. We choose the equation of state $`p=w\mu .`$ The energy conservation equations for the perfect fluid read

$$\mu _{,t}+3Q_{,t}(1+w)\mu =0$$
(26)
$$w\mu ^{}+Q^{}(1+w)\mu =0,$$
(27)
which when integrated imply that $`Q`$ must have the form

$`Q(t,r)=\alpha (t)+\beta (r).`$ (28)
It follows that a specific form for the comoving energy will be

$`\mu =\mathrm{exp}[(1+w)(3\alpha +\beta /w)].`$ (29)
To simplify things we will assume that $`B=0`$, so that the metric now becomes

$`g_{ab}=e^{2\alpha (t)+2\beta (r)}\eta _{ab};`$ (30)
which implies that $`\theta =3\alpha _{,t}e^Q`$$`\dot{u}_r=\beta ^{}`$, and

$`\overline{\pi }_{rr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}[2\beta {}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }+2\beta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\beta ^{}]`$ (31)
$`\overline{q}_r`$ $`=`$ $`2e^Q\alpha _{,t}\beta ^{}.`$ (32)
Hence we find that

$$\dot{\varphi }^2=\frac{2}{3}\frac{\overline{q}_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\overline{\pi }_{rr}}=\frac{2}{9}\theta ^2\beta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{1}{[\beta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{\beta ^{}}{r}\beta ^{^{\prime \prime }}]}.$$
(33)
The scalar field wave equation is

$`\ddot{\varphi }+\varphi ^{^{\prime \prime }}e^{2B}2\dot{Q}\dot{\varphi }+(2Q^{}+B^{})\varphi ^{}e^{2B}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\varphi ^{}}{r}}e^{2B}={\displaystyle \frac{dV}{d\varphi }}e^{2Q}.`$ (34)
We will assume a solution of the form

$`\varphi =\mathrm{\Phi }(t)+\mathrm{\Psi }(r),`$ (35)
which allows the derivation of the following two equations from the scalar field equation when $`V=0`$:

$`\ddot{\mathrm{\Phi }}+2\dot{\alpha }\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}=C`$ (36)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }+2(\beta ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}})\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=C,`$ (37)
where C is a constant. We can rewrite the equations for heat conduction and anisotropic pressure as

$`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=2e^Q\dot{\alpha }\beta ^{}`$ (38)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=2\beta ^{^{\prime \prime }}+2\beta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\beta ^{}`$ (39)
Hence we compute the following differential equations for $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$:

$`\ddot{\alpha }+\dot{\alpha }^2=Ae^\alpha `$ (40)
$`\beta ^{^{\prime \prime }}+\beta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{r}}=Be^\beta `$ (41)
These equations have non-trivial solutions implying a non-FLRW cosmology (the FLRW limit is recovered when $`\beta =0`$). Hence we have shown that spacetimes with a barotropic perfect fluid and a *non-comoving* scalar field exist which allow an isotropic radiation field for all observers, which are non-FLRW. Clearly there are a huge number of solutions meeting this criteria; we have demonstrated existence in this simplest of cases. These new solutions could play an important role in cosmology, for example as a new generalisation of quintessence.

## 4 Inhomogeneous quintessential cosmologies

Simple multifluid models can be constructed by introducing, together with a barotropic fluid, a varying $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$ term as the second fluid:

$$\rho =\mu +\mathrm{\Lambda },p=(\gamma 1)\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(42)
where $`\rho ,p`$ are “total” energy density and pressure obtained from the field equations. The varying $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ term can be interpreted as the asymptotic state of a scalar field associated with a quintessence dominated scenario, coexisting with a material fluid described by $`\mu `$. We show in this section that such an interpretation is compatible with the asymptotic properties of a class of simple models that allow an isotropic radiation field.

The simplest models satisfying the EGS criterion and compatible with the decomposition (42) are characterized by the conformally FLRW metric (a particular case of (3)) given by

$$\text{d}s^2=\frac{\text{d}t^2+\text{d}r^2+r^2\left(\text{d}\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \text{d}\phi ^2\right)}{\mathrm{\Phi }^2},\mathrm{\Phi }a(t)+b(t)r^2$$
(43)
whose source is the imperfect fluid

$$T_{ab}=\rho u_au_b+ph_{ab}+2q_{(a}u_{b)}$$
(44)
where $`u^a=\mathrm{\Phi }\delta _t^a`$ and $`q_a=q_r\delta _a^r`$, while $`\rho `$ and $`p`$ must comply with (42). Applying the field equations for (43) and (44) leads to

$$8\pi \gamma \mu =2\left(a_{,tt}+2b+b_{,tt}r^2\right)(a+br^2)$$
(45)
$$8\pi q_r=4b_{,t}r,8\pi q=8\pi |g^{ab}q_aq_b|^{1/2}=4|b_{,t}|r(a+br^2)$$
(46)
$$8\pi \gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }=L_4(t)r^4+2L_2(t)r^2+L_0(t)$$
(47)
where

$$L_4(t)3b_{,t}^2\gamma 2b_{,tt}b,L_2(t)3\gamma a_{,t}b_{,t}2b^2a_{,tt}bb_{,tt}a,L_0(t)3\gamma \left(a_{,t}^2+4ab\right)2a\left(2b+a_{,tt}\right)$$
(48)
If we demand that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be only a time-dependent function, we obtain

$$L_2(t)=0,L_4(t)=0,8\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }=L_0(t)/\gamma $$
(49)
which yields differential equations that determine $`a,b`$ for a given $`\gamma (t)`$, and the definition of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$.

Since we are interested in an asymptotic regime that assumes a slowly varying $`\gamma (t)`$, we shall consider a constant $`\gamma `$. The general solution of the system (49) in this case is

$$b=b_0t^{2\nu },a=a_1t^{2\nu }+a_2t^{3\gamma \nu }\frac{b_0}{3}t^{6(\gamma 1)\nu },\gamma 2/3,\nu 1/(3\gamma 2)$$
(50)
where $`b_0,a_1,a_2`$ are arbitrary integration constants. Since we are assuming $`\mu `$ characterizes a material fluid (baryons plus photons and possibly CDM), we have that $`1\gamma 2`$ and hence $`\nu `$ in (50) is always positive. Inserting (50) into (43), (45), (46), and (49) leads to

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\frac{1}{a+br^2}=\frac{t^{3\gamma \nu }}{(b_0/3)t^3+(a_1+b_0r^2)t+a_2}$$
(51)
$$8\pi \mu =\frac{12\left[(2\gamma 5/3)b_0t^3+(a_1+b_0r^2)t+(3\gamma 1)a_2\right]\left[(b_0/3)t^3+(a_1+b_0r^2)t+a_2\right]}{\nu ^2t^{4(3\gamma 1)\nu }}$$
(52)
$$8\pi q_r=\frac{2}{\nu }rt^{3\gamma \nu },8\pi q=\frac{8|b_0|\left|(b_0/3)t^3+(a_1+b_0r^2)t+a_2\right|\nu r}{t^{6\gamma \nu }}$$
(53)
$$8\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{(8/3)b_0^2t^6+12a_1b_0t^4+16a_2Kt^3+3a_2^2}{t^{4(3\gamma 1)\nu }}$$
(54)
Because of the apparent (and coordinate dependent) resemblance of (43) to a spatially flat FLRW, it is tempting to assume that these two metrics have common geometric features. For example, it is evident from (52), (53) and (54) that $`\mu ,\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`q`$ diverge as $`t0`$ for $`\nu >0`$ and $`1\gamma 2`$, hence we can identify $`t=0`$ as the locus of a “big bang” singularity, analogous to the FLRW big bang. In spatially flat FLRW spacetimes it is always possible to assume that the coordinate range is given by $`0<t<\mathrm{}`$ and $`0r<\mathrm{}`$, so that $`t\mathrm{}`$ and $`r\mathrm{}`$ mark asymptotic future infinities in the timelike, null and spacelike directions. However, for the models under consideration the coordinate domain is necessarily restricted by the extra condition that the conformal factor $`1/\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a bounded function. Also, proper time along the worldlines of comoving observers is $`\tau =𝑑t/\mathrm{\Phi }`$ evaluated for fixed $`(r,\theta ,\varphi )`$, and so a sufficient condition for having $`\tau \mathrm{}`$ occurs if the conformal factor $`1/\mathrm{\Phi }`$ diverges, even if it does so for finite values of the coordinates $`t,r`$. From (51), this occurs for all $`a_1,a_2,b_0,\gamma `$, since the equation $`(b_0/3)t^3+(a_1+b_0r^2)t+a_2=0`$ always has real roots in the coordinate domain $`t>0,r0`$, defining the hypersurface

$$B=[t,r(t),\theta ,\varphi ],r(t)=\left[\frac{(1/3)b_0t^3a_1ta_2}{b_0t}\right]^{1/2}$$
(55)
which can be represented as a parametric curve in the $`t,r`$ plane. If one or both of $`a_1,a_2`$ is zero, the boundary $`B`$ persists, though its parametrization in the $`t,r`$ plane is simpler than (55). The only exception is if $`b_0=0`$, whence the solutions trivially reduce to FLRW. Therefore, this feature is inherent to the models characterized by (42), (43) and (44).

The fact that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ and $`Y=r\mathrm{\Phi }^1`$ diverge at (55) means that $`B`$ marks a spacetime boundary beyond which the spacetime manifold cannot be extended. An asymptotic past/future is then defined as the coordinate values marked by $`B`$ which are reached by causal curves, either comoving observers ($`r=`$ const.) or radial null geodesics: ($`v=t+r,w=tr`$). From (51), it is straightforward to prove that $`\tau \mathrm{}`$ holds as $`B`$ is reached by future and past directed worldlines of comoving obervers. Also the affine parameter of radial null geodesics diverge at spacetime points marked by $`B`$. The coordinate domain of definition is then restricted by $`|\mathrm{\Phi }|>0`$ and depends on the signs of the constants $`a_1,a_2,b_0`$, specifying the form of $`B`$ in the plane $`t,r`$. ¿From the various numerical values for these constants, we eliminate all those cases in which the evolution of the comoving observers occurs between two branches of $`B`$. The remaining cases display the two types of evolution classified below:

Case (i). If $`a_1,a_2,b_0`$ are negative, $`B`$ lies in the infinite past of all observers evolving towards their infinite future as $`t\mathrm{}`$, and we have a null infinity analogous to that of a FLRW cosmology (the infinite past is then marked by $`B`$). Using null coordinates the asymptotic limit along outgoing radial null geodesics $`v\mathrm{}`$ is given by

$$8\pi \mu \frac{16b_0^2(3\gamma 1)}{9\nu }v^{2(3\gamma 4)\nu },8\pi q\frac{16b_0^2\nu }{3}v^{2(3\gamma 4)\nu },\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{8b_0^2}{3}v^{2(3\gamma 4)\nu }$$
(56)
so that a regular null infinity requires $`\gamma >4/3`$ (otherwise, the affine parameter has a finite limit as $`t\mathrm{}`$ and this locus marks a null singularity). For a heat conducting shear-free fluid the weak energy condition requires: $`\rho +p=\gamma \mu >2q`$ , a relation that is satisfied by the asymptotic forms (56) only for $`2/3<\gamma <1`$. Hence, this case is unphysical.

Case (ii) If $`a_1,a_2,b_0`$ are positive, then all worldlines of comoving observers start their evolution at $`t=0`$ (big bang) and evolve towards their infinite future at $`B`$. From (52), (53) and (54), we have

$$\frac{q}{\mu }=\frac{2\nu ^3|b_0|t^2r}{(2\gamma 5/3)b_0t^3+(a_1+b_0r^2)t+(3\gamma 1)a_2}$$
(57)
$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu }=\frac{\nu ^2\left[\left((8/3)b_0t^6+12a_1t^4+16a_2t^3\right)b_0+3a_2^2\right]}{12\left[(2\gamma 5/3)b_0t^3+(a_1+b_0r^2)t+(3\gamma 1)a_2\right]\left[(b_0/3)t^3+(a_1+b_0r^2)t+a_2\right]}$$
(58)
so that near $`t=0`$ we obtain

$$\frac{q}{\mu }\frac{2\nu ^3r}{(2\gamma 5/3)t},\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu }\frac{\nu ^2}{4(3\gamma 1)}$$
(59)
while at the boundary $`B`$ we have

$$\mu 0,q0,\rho \mathrm{\Lambda },p\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }__B=\mathrm{\Lambda }(t__B)$$
(60)
$$\left[\frac{q}{\mu }\right]_B=\frac{3\nu ^4\sqrt{|b_0|}t__B^2r__B}{2b_0t__B^3+a_2},\mathrm{\Lambda }__B=\frac{4b_0t__B^2[(a_12b_0r__B^2)t__B+2a_2]}{t__B^{4(3\gamma 1)\nu }}$$
(61)
where $`t__B,r__B`$ are related by (55). The limits (59) indicate (for $`1\gamma 2`$) that the models are matter dominated at the big bang ($`0<\mathrm{\Lambda }\mu `$), evolving towards a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dominated future at $`B`$ (represented by (61). Notice that the asymptotic future state at $`B`$ can be de Sitter (or anti de Sitter) and is not an asymptotically homogeneous state since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }__B`$ depends on position (for each observer a different constant value). For $`r__B=0`$ (in (55)) we have that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }__B>0`$. As $`r__B`$ grows along $`B`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }__B<0`$, which implies that the total energy density $`\rho =\mu +\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ becomes negative asymptotically. Hence, for the physical reasons, we exclude coordinate values $`r>\overline{r}__B`$, where $`\overline{r}__B`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{\Lambda }__B(\overline{r}__B)=0`$.

The behavior of $`q`$ is compatible with the energy conditions, since $`q\mu r/t\mu `$ holds all along the evolution, near the big bang and near $`B`$. It is still necessary to find an adequate physical interpretation for this term, whether as a heat flux or as a kinetic term associated with a velocity field or the dipole of a kinetic theory distribution . However, since we are interested mainly in the asymptotic stage near $`B`$, as long as $`r`$ is sufficiently small we will have $`q\mu `$ and could consider $`q`$ as a residual term.

Another feature of the models, absent in FLRW spacetimes, is the fact that $`\mu `$ and $`q`$ diverge as $`r\mathrm{}`$ along hypersurfaces of constant $`t`$ that do not intersect $`B`$, marking a point singularity at spacelike infinity. This feature is also present for perfect fluid sources of (43), see . Note that models similar to those examined here were considered recently ; however, the existence of the boundary (55) was not considered in the asymptotic study of those models.

The models discussed in this section illustrate how even simple inhomogeneous spacetimes have a much richer geometrical structure that heavily constrains their physical applicability. Pending a reasonable physical interpretation for $`q_a`$ and provided we exclude sufficiently large values of $`r`$, these solutions are inhomogeneous models that comply with the EGS criterion and describe a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dominated scenario usually associated with the “quintessence” field .

## 5 Discussion

In this paper we have proven the existence and examined the physical viability of a number of spacetimes which have been constructed to allow an isotropic radiation field. Since these inhomogeneous spacetimes satisfy the Copernican principle (as far as the CMB is concerned), the question of finding methods of testing the cosmological principle, and thus observationally testing whether the universe is in fact an FLRW model, arises.

More precisely, it has been shown here and elsewhere  that inhomogeneous universe models with non-geodesic observers obey the EGS criterion. That is, inhomogeneous spacetimes have been found which allow every observer to see an isotropic CMB. It has also been shown that a significant subset of these models are consistent with other observational constraints, and hence these models are consistent with observations even when the Copernican principle is taken into account – and yet the models are not spatially homogeneous . A potential problem with these particular models is that the non-geodesic motion of the observers prohibits a barotropic equation of state for perfect fluid matter. However, we have shown here that more general and physically viable cosmological models (with realistic matter) allow an isotropic radiation field. In particular, irrotational multi-fluid spacetimes have been constructed which satisfy (1). These cosmologies include two non-comoving perfect fluids, which can be interacting or non-interacting, and may or may not admit barotropic equations of state for the fluids. The fluids are chosen to be non-comoving to allow for energy flux and anisotropic pressures in the energy momentum tensor (otherwise the models may be written as a single perfect fluid and correspond to the models studied in ). Even in the acceleration-free case there are examples of spacetimes that are not FLRW . Similarly, models with a perfect fluid and scalar field can be constructed in which the scalar field can have a spatial gradient relative to the perfect fluid, which is taken to be comoving with the isotropic radiation field. As a particular example, a class of shear-free spherically symmetric, inhomogeneous (quintessential) cosmologies whose source is a heat conducting fluid and a scalar field were considered in detail.

One of our key assumptions has been zero rotation. It has been shown that rotating spacetimes which allow an isotropic radiation field may also be constructed .

Other recent work also supports these conclusions. In the fundamental EGS theorem , and here, it is assumed that all fundamental observers measure the CMB temperature to be exactly isotropic during a time interval $`I`$ (defined by $`t_Ett_0`$, where $`t_E`$ is the time of last scattering and $`t_0`$ is the time of observation). Under this assumption the theorem then asserts that the universe is exactly an FLRW model during this time interval. However, the EGS theorem cannot be used to conclude that the physical universe is close to an FLRW model since the CMB temperature can only be observed at one instant of time on a cosmological scale. Hence it is of interest to ask what restrictions, if any, can be placed on the anisotropy in the rate of expansion, assuming that all fundamental observers measure the CMB temperature to be exactly isotropic at some instant of time $`t_0`$ only. On the basis of continuity, it can then be argued that all fundamental observers will measure the CMB temperature to be almost isotropic in some time interval of time of length $`\delta `$ centered on $`t_0`$. This time interval could, however, be much shorter than the time interval $`I`$. However, in  it was shown that for a given time $`t_0`$, there is a class of locally rotationally symmetric non-tilted dust Bianchi type VIII spatially homogeneous cosmological models such that at $`t_0`$ the CMB temperature is measured to be isotropic by all fundamental observers, even though the overall expansion of the universe is highly anisotropic at $`t_0`$.

In addition, the EGS theorem is of course not directly applicable to the real universe since the CMB temperature is not exactly isotropic. This result has consequently been generalized by  to the “almost EGS theorem”, which states that if all fundamental observers measure the CMB temperature to be almost isotropic during some time interval in an expanding universe, then the universe is described by an almost FLRW model during this time interval. The dimensionless shear parameter and the Weyl parameter were introduced in . Since the Weyl curvature tensor is related to time derivatives of the shear tensor, restricting the shear parameter to be small does not guarantee that the Weyl parameter is small. Therefore a necessary condition for the universe to be close to an FLRW model is that both of the shear and Weyl parameters must be small. In the almost-EGS theorems the dimensionless time and spatial derivatives of the multipoles are assumed to bounded by the multipoles themselves . If this assumption is not satisfied, then the CMB temperature observations do not impose upper bounds on the shear and Weyl parameters, and hence do not establish that the universe is close to FLRW. In  a class of spatially homogeneous non-tilted Bianchi type VII<sub>0</sub> dust models in which the CMB is treated as a test field or a non-interacting radiation fluid was studied. To obtain the present CMB temperature pattern, the photon energies were integrated numerically along the null geodesics that connect points of emission on the surface of last scattering with the event of observation at the present time. Wainwright et al.  then showed that the shear parameter tends to zero but the Weyl parameter does not tend to zero at late times in these models. In other words, although the models isotropize as regards the shear, the Weyl curvature remains dynamically significant. A variety of numerical simulations to calculate anisotropy patterns of the CMB temperature in Bianchi VII<sub>0</sub> models were explicitly performed  to demonstrate that there exists cosmological models that are not close to any FLRW model even though the temperature of the CMB is almost isotropic in the sense that the observational bounds on the quadrupole and octupole are satisfied.

It is clear, then, that the Copernican principle when combined with our observations of the CMB does not imply the cosmological principle: that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. Recent work on this suggests that the assumptions in the EGS (dust observers) and almost-EGS (small gradients of CMB multipoles and dust observers) theorems are crucial to the conclusions; weakening of any of these assumptions appears to negate the theorems almost entirely. It is therefore important to ask what observations we need to test the cosmological principle?

Assuming for the moment that the assumptions of the almost EGS theorem actually hold in our universe, then one method by which the cosmological principle may be tested is as follows: if we can observe the CMB as seen by some other observers, then we can immediately confirm or reject the cosmological principle. That is, if we find the CMB is as isotropic around these other observers as we see it around us, we may conclude that we live in a homogeneous universe. There is, in fact, a physical method by which we *can* observe the CMB as seen by other observers. It consists of light from the CMB being scattered by hot gas in galaxy clusters in such a way as to allow us to observe the anisotropy of the CMB as seen by that particular galaxy. This is known as the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SZ) effect , and has been suggested by a number of authors as a possible means to test the Copernican and cosmological principles .

This will only work of course if the initial assumptions of the EGS theorem apply in our actual Universe. The original EGS theorem relies on the observers in the universe being well described by a dust fluid – i.e., they are geodesic. Indeed, in the almost EGS theorem, it was necessary to demand dust observers to first order – i.e., more general matter was only allowed at second order.

Any possible attempt to verify the cosmological principle by using methods such as the SZ effect above, or any other method which relies on making observations of the CMB from other locations, will fail. If we were living in a universe found here or in , for example, we would see exactly the same effect: all observations of the CMB around other observers would be as isotropic as the standard homogeneous FLRW models. It follows, therefore, that *the high isotropy of the CMB can never be used, on its own, to show our universe is nearly homogeneous*.

On the other hand, we *can* test the cosmological principle using the SZ effect and methods like it *provided* we can show definitively that our universe is made of a dust-like fluid and that we travel on geodesics. Recent observations suggesting quintessential matter making up a significant part of the energy density of the universe throws this standard assumption into question: there is no *a priori* reason why this matter – whatever it turns out to be – should be homogeneous (many dark matter theories allow equations of state which are not dust also).

The geodesic assumption can be tested to some degree by local observations. If we look closely at the recession velocity of galaxies close to us, then we can detect a dipole moment in the relative velocities of these galaxies. This deviation from the linear Hubble law is usually attributed to our local random motion with respect to the local expansion rate of the universe, caused by our gravitational infall into the Great Attractor. Acceleration will also leave its mark on the linear Hubble law also as a dipole distribution in the direction of the CMB dipole, but as a dipole which grows linearly with distance . With sufficiently accurate knowledge of the local distribution of galaxies, the two effects can be disentangled as our bulk gravitational motion affects the Hubble law irrespective of distance. Current knowledge of our local group motion will only provide relatively weak constrains on acceleration (roughly $`\dot{u}/H_00.1`$; compare this with $`\sigma /H_0^210^5`$ from almost-EGS CMB observations ).

If we assume, for arguments sake, that the results of such a study reveal that the local dipole is entirely accounted for by our peculiar velocity, then what can we say about the spatial homogeneity of our universe? If the acceleration around our location is small, then we may assert the Copernican principle and ascertain that all observers in the universe follow geodesics; therefore we may apply the EGS theorem (assuming the SZ measurements measure small enough anisotropies of the CMB around other observers) and deduce that the cosmological principle is a valid assumption. This would yield tremendous support for our faith in the standard model.

Of course, acceleration is just one possible inhomogeneity which causes problems: others are rotation, Weyl curvature, and anisotropy of the energy momentum tensor. These all leave their mark to varying degrees to the anisotropy of the magnitude-redshift and number-count-redshift relations, but at higher order in redshift (if expanded in a power series in redshift) than acceleration, so are much harder to detect.

What should be clear from this argument is that the cosmological principle is simply untestable. Even if SZ measurements reveal the Copernican principle to be true, accurate determination of anisotropies of the magnitude-redshift relation at high redshift are out of the question for the foreseeable future.

### 5.1 Acknowledgements

We would like to that Martin Hendry, Stephane Rauzy and Kenton D’Mellow for useful discussions. RAS would like to thank Dalhousie University for hospitality while this work was carried out. The work was supported, in part, by NSERC.

### A. Appendix. The energy momentum tensor of conformally related spacetimes

A conformal transformation is an angle preserving transformation that changes lengths and volumes. The importance of these types of transformations lies in the fact that, under a conformal transformation, *the causal structure of the spacetime is preserved.* The Weyl tensor, $`C_{abc}^d`$, is invariant, so that a conformal transformation will introduce no tidal forces or gravitational waves; that is, a conformal transformation will only introduce ‘non-gravitational’ forces and matter into the new spacetime (by changing $`R_{ab}`$ and thus the matter tensor $`T_{ab}`$ via Einstein’s equations).

We will discuss conformal transformations and their 1+3 splitting here as it is a useful tool for constructing new spacetimes from old, especially if one is after spacetimes with an isotropic radiation field. The conformal transformation is defined by

$$g_{ab}=e^{2Q}\widehat{g}_{ab},u^a=e^Q\widehat{u}^a,u_a=e^Q\widehat{u}_a;$$
(62)
where $`Q>0`$ is an arbitrary function, $`u^a`$ is a velocity vector with respect to $`g_{ab}`$: $`g_{ab}u^au^b=u_au^a=1`$; and $`\widehat{u}^a`$ is the conformally related (parallel) velocity vector, and is normalised with respect to $`\widehat{g}_{ab}`$: $`\widehat{g}_{ab}\widehat{u}^a\widehat{u}^b=1`$. The covariant derivative of any one-form field $`v_a`$ transforms as

$$_av_b=\widehat{}_av_b2Q_{(a}v_{b)}+g_{ab}Q^cv_c,$$
(63)
where $`Q_aQ_{,a}=\stackrel{~}{}_aQ\dot{Q}u_a`$. The expansion ($`\theta =\mathrm{𝖽𝗂𝗏}u`$), acceleration ($`\dot{u}^a=u^b_bu^a`$), rotation ($`\omega _a=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{𝖼𝗎𝗋𝗅}u_a`$), and shear ($`\sigma _{ab}=\stackrel{~}{}_au_b`$) of the two velocity congruences are related by:

$`\widehat{\theta }`$ $`=`$ $`e^Q(\theta 3\dot{Q})`$
$`\widehat{\dot{u}}_a`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{u}_a\stackrel{~}{}_aQ`$
$`\widehat{\omega }_a`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _a`$
$`\widehat{\sigma }_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`e^Q\sigma _{ab}.`$ (64)
The equation for the acceleration corrects equation (6.14) of . These show that a conformal transformation may induce acceleration and expansion into the new spacetime, but not shear or rotation: in particular, a conformally flat model must have vanishing shear and rotation . With respect to $`g_{ab}`$, a dot denotes time differentiation along the fluid flow, $`\dot{F}_{ab}=u^c_cF_{ab}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{}_a`$ is the spatial derivative projected orthogonal to the flow lines, $`\stackrel{~}{}_cF_{ab}=h_c^dh_a^eh_b^f_dF_{ef}`$, where $`h_{ab}=g_{ab}+u_au_b`$ is the usual projection tensor.

The Einstein tensor transforms as

$$G_{ab}=\widehat{G}_{ab}2_aQ_b2Q_aQ_b+g_{ab}\left[2_cQ^cQ^2\right],$$
(65)
where $`\widehat{G}_{ab}`$ is the Einstein tensor of $`\widehat{g}_{ab}`$, and $`Q^2=Q_aQ^a`$. For clarity, we decompose derivatives of $`Q`$ into time and space derivatives:

$`Q_a=\stackrel{~}{}_aQ\dot{Q}u_a,`$
$`_bQ_a`$ $`=`$ $`u_au_b\left(\ddot{Q}\dot{u}^c\stackrel{~}{}_cQ\right)+2u_{(a}\left[\stackrel{~}{}_{b)}\dot{Q}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\theta \stackrel{~}{}_{b)}Q+\left(\sigma _{b)c}+\eta _{b)dc}\omega ^d\right)\stackrel{~}{}^cQ\right]`$ (66)
$`+\frac{1}{3}h_{ab}\left[\stackrel{~}{}^c\stackrel{~}{}_cQ\dot{Q}\theta \right]\dot{Q}\sigma _{ab}+\stackrel{~}{}_a\stackrel{~}{}_bQ.`$
We also write $`\widehat{T}_{ab}=\widehat{G}_{ab}`$, and $`T_{ab}=G_{ab}`$ as general fluids, both with respect to $`u^a`$:

$`\widehat{G}_{ab}=\widehat{\mu }\widehat{u}_a\widehat{u}_b+\widehat{p}\widehat{h}_{ab}+2\widehat{q}_{(a}\widehat{u}_{b)}+\widehat{\pi }_{ab},`$ (67)
$`G_{ab}=\mu u_au_b+ph_{ab}+2q_{(a}u_{b)}+\pi _{ab};`$ (68)
where $`\{\widehat{\mu },\widehat{p},\widehat{q}_a,\widehat{\pi }_{ab}\}`$, and $`\{\mu ,p,q_a,\pi _{ab}\}`$ are the energy density, isotropic pressure, heat flux, and anisotropic pressure of $`\widehat{G}_{ab}`$ and $`G_{ab}`$ respectively.

We can decompose $`G_{ab}`$ given by (65) into the fluid variables in (68) by using (66) in the following covariant manner:

$`\mu `$ $`=`$ $`u^au^bG_{ab}=e^{2Q}\widehat{\mu }3\dot{Q}\left(\dot{Q}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\theta \right)2\stackrel{~}{}_a\stackrel{~}{}^aQ+\stackrel{~}{}_aQ\stackrel{~}{}^aQ,`$ (69)
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}h^{ab}G_{ab}=e^{2Q}\widehat{p}+\left(\dot{Q}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\theta \right)\dot{Q}2\ddot{Q}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\stackrel{~}{}_a\stackrel{~}{}^aQ{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}\stackrel{~}{}_aQ\stackrel{~}{}^aQ+2\dot{u}_c\stackrel{~}{}^cQ,`$
$`q_a`$ $`=`$ $`u^bG_{ab}=e^Q\widehat{q}_a+2\dot{Q}\left(\stackrel{~}{}_aQ\dot{u}_a\right)+2h_a^b\left(\stackrel{~}{}_bQ\right)^.+4\eta _{abc}\omega ^b\stackrel{~}{}^cQ`$ (70)
$`\pi _{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`G_{ab}=\widehat{\pi }_{ab}+2\dot{Q}\sigma _{ab}2\stackrel{~}{}_a\stackrel{~}{}_bQ2\stackrel{~}{}_aQ\stackrel{~}{}_bQ.`$ (71)
In the energy flux equation we used the identity

$$\stackrel{~}{}_a\dot{Q}=h_a^b\left(\stackrel{~}{}_bQ\right)^{}\dot{Q}\dot{u}_a+\frac{1}{3}\theta \stackrel{~}{}_aQ+\sigma _a^b\stackrel{~}{}_bQ+\eta _{abc}\omega ^b\stackrel{~}{}^cQ.$$
(72)


format: text

text:
# Girsanov Theorem for Filtered Poisson Processes

## 1. Introduction

At the beginning of the theories of mathematical finance and performance analysis of telecommunications networks, asset prices or input traffics were modeled by Markovian diffusion processes. It is by now well known that these processes don’t capture some of the essential features observed in the real datas. Namely, diffusion processes do no reflect long-range dependance exhibited in many traces . Alternative models are currently being considered such as Lévy processes, fractional Brownian motion, shot noise processes and different combinations of them. For instance, in , it is suggested that one could represent the evolution of an asset price by a process $`S_t=\mathrm{exp}(B_t+N_t),`$ where $`B`$ is a standard Brownian motion and $`N`$ is a shot noise process (for discussions about the validity of this model we refer to ). Motivated by this work, we here investigate some of the basic properties of processes which encompass shot-noise models. Given a marked Poisson process $`N`$ and a deterministic kernel $`K`$, we define filtered Poisson process $`N^K,`$ by

$`N_t^K`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^t}K(t,s)𝑑N_s`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^t}{\displaystyle _E}zK(t,s)\mu (ds,dz).`$
If $`K`$ is a convolution kernel, i.e., $`K(t,s)=k(ts)`$ then $`N^K`$ is usually called a shot-noise process. Shot-noise processes are used in numerous fields of applications, e.g. electronics, hydrology, climatology, telecommunications (see , ,  and references therein), insurance (see  and references therein) and finance (see  and  for a review on this topic). It follows that filtered Poisson processes can, in the same fields, model more general phenomena so that we believe, it is an interesting class of processes to consider. This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we give some preliminaries on point processes. In section 3, we prove the Girsanov theorem for filtered Poisson processes and in section 4, we apply this result to an estimate problem.

## 2. Preliminaries

Let $`^d`$ equipped with its borelian $`\sigma `$-algebra and $`(\mathrm{\Omega },𝔉,(𝔉_t)_{t^+},𝐏)`$ a filtered probability space. We consider that we are given an $`𝔉`$-adapted, marked Point process $`\mu `$ of intensity measure $`\nu `$ of the form (for details, see )

$$\nu (\omega ,ds,dz)=\lambda (s)ds\eta (dz).$$

This means that there exist two sequences of random variables $`(T_n)_n^{}`$ and $`(Z_n)_n^{}`$ such that : $`(T_n)_n^{}`$ is a strictly increasing sequence of $`^+`$ (jump times) verifying $`lim_n\mathrm{}T_n=+\mathrm{}`$ and $`(Z_n)_n^{}`$ is a sequence of $`^d`$ (the marks associated with the jump times), such that

$$\mu _{t,z}=\underset{n^{}}{}\delta _{(T_n,Z_n)}(t,z).$$

We associate with $`\mu `$ the Marked Poisson process $`N`$ defined as:

$$N_t=\underset{n^{}}{}Z_n\mathrm{𝟏}_{[T_nt]}.$$

###### Hypothesis 1.

We assume now that our deterministic kernel satisfies a few regularity assumptions :

* $`K`$ is triangular, i.e., $`K(t,s)=0`$ for $`s>t.`$
* $`K`$ is sufficiently integrable in the sense that $`(s,z)zK(t,s)`$ is in $`^2(\nu )`$ for any $`t>0`$.
* $`K`$ is continuously differentiable with respect to $`t`$ and $`s`$ in $`\{(t,s):\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}<s<t\}.`$

We now define a filtered Poisson process by

(1)
$$N_t^K=_0^t_EzK(t,s)\mu (ds,dz).$$

The first hypothesis thus appears as necessary if we want to have a non- anticipative process $`N^K.`$ The other two are only technical assumptions. The next proposition is immediate.

###### Proposition 1.

The sample-paths of $`N^K`$ are càdlàg iff $`K(t,t)`$ is finite for any $`t`$ and that they are continuous iff $`K(t,t)=0`$ for any $`t.`$

## 3. Girsanov Theorem

We hereafter assume that $`K`$ is degenerate on the diagonal, that is to say $`K(t,t)=0`$ for any $`t.`$ It has thus a sense to look at the perturbations of the sample-paths which induce an absolutely continuous change of probability measure.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`\{\stackrel{~}{N}_t:t0\}`$ the compensated Marked Poisson Process associated with $`N`$ defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{N}_t^K=_0^t_EzK(t,s)(\mu (ds,dz)\nu (ds,dz)).$$

Consider a function $`h^1(\nu )`$ and introduce the probability measure $`𝐏_h`$ which is absolutely continuous with respect to $`𝐏`$ of Radon-Nikodym density given by:

$`Z_t`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{d𝐏_h}{d𝐏}}|_{𝔉_t}`$
(2) $`=𝒟\left({\displaystyle _0^.}{\displaystyle _E}h(s,z)(\mu \nu )(ds,dz)\right)_t`$
where $`𝒟(X)_t`$ indicates the Doléans-Dade exponential of the process $`X`$ at time $`t`$.

Let $`N^{h,K}`$ be defined by

$$N_t^{h,K}=_0^t_EzK(t,s)(\mu (ds,dz)\nu (ds,dz))_0^t_EzK(t,s)h(s,z)\nu (ds,dz).$$

Then the following equality in law holds:

$$(\stackrel{~}{N}^K,𝐏_h)=(\stackrel{~}{N}^{h,K},𝐏)$$

###### Proof.

Let $`n^{}`$ and $`(t_1,\mathrm{},t_n)[0,T]^n`$ fixed. When these instants are fixed, the processes

$$M_r^i:r_0^r_EzK(t_i,s)\mu (ds,dz)$$

are marked Point processes whose compensators are:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_r^i:r_0^r_EzK(t_i,s)\nu (ds,dz)$$

Hence, $`\left(M^i\mathrm{\Phi }^i\right)_{i=1}^n`$ is a $`𝐏`$-martingale and the Girsanov theorem (see ) makes certain that:

$$(M^{i,h}:rM_r^i\mathrm{\Phi }_r^i_0^r\frac{1}{Z_s^{}}dM^i\mathrm{\Phi }^i,Z_s)_{i=1}^n$$

is a $`𝐏_h`$-martingale. $`Z`$ is defined by (2) so $`Z`$ is solution of the equation:

$$R_t=1+_0^t_ER_s^{}[h(s,z)1](\mu \nu )(ds,dz)$$

Hence, we can write:

$`(A)`$ $`=M^i\mathrm{\Phi }^i,Z_s`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^.}{\displaystyle _E}zK(t_i,s)(\mu \nu )(ds,dz),1+{\displaystyle _0^.}{\displaystyle _E}Z_s^{}[h(s,z)1](\mu \nu )(ds,dz)_s`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^.}{\displaystyle _E}zK(t_i,s)(\mu \nu )(ds,dz),{\displaystyle _0^.}{\displaystyle _E}Z_s^{}[h(s,z)1](\mu \nu )(ds,dz)_s`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^s}zK(t_i,s)Z_s^{}[h(s,z)1]d{\displaystyle _0^.}{\displaystyle _E}(\mu \nu )(ds,dz);{\displaystyle _0^.}{\displaystyle _E}(\mu \nu )(ds,dz)_s`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^s}{\displaystyle _E}zK(t_i,s)Z_s^{}[h(s,z)1]\nu (ds,dz)`$
We can conclude that:

$`M_r^{i,h}`$ $`=M_r^i\mathrm{\Phi }_r^i{\displaystyle _0^r}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_s^{}}}dM^i\mathrm{\Phi }^i,Z_s`$
$`=M_r^i\mathrm{\Phi }_r^i{\displaystyle _0^r}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_s^{}}}{\displaystyle _E}zK(t_i,s)Z_s^{}[h(s,z)1]\nu (ds,dz)𝑑z`$
$`=M_r^i\mathrm{\Phi }_r^i{\displaystyle _0^r}{\displaystyle _E}zK(t_i,s)[h(s,z)1]\nu (ds,dz)`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^r}{\displaystyle _E}zK(t_i,s)\mu (ds,dz)\mathrm{\Phi }_r^i{\displaystyle _0^r}{\displaystyle _E}zK(t_i,s)h(s,z)\nu (ds,dz)+\mathrm{\Phi }_r^i`$
(3) $`={\displaystyle _0^r}{\displaystyle _E}zK(t_i,s)\mu (ds,dz){\displaystyle _0^r}{\displaystyle _E}zK(t_i,s)h(s,z)\nu (ds,dz)`$
thus,

$$r_0^r_EzK(t_i,s)\mu (ds,dz)_0^r_EzK(t_i,s)h(s,z)\nu (ds,dz)$$

is a $`𝐏_h`$-martingale and

(4)
$$r_0^r_EzK(t_i,s)h(s,z)\nu (ds,dz)$$

is the $`𝐏_h`$-compensator of $`M^i`$.
\>From (3), $`M^{i,h}`$ is written:

$$M^{i,h}:r_0^r_EzK(t_i,s)(\mu (ds,dz)h(s,z)\nu (ds,dz))$$

So its compensator under $`𝐏`$ is (4).
It follows (see ) that:

$$(\left[rM_r^i\right]_{i=1}^n;𝐏_h)=(\left[rM_r^{i,h}\right]_{i=1}^n;𝐏)$$

Now, taking $`r=\underset{1in}{Sup}t_i`$, the kernel being triangular, the result holds. ∎

## 4. An application

Suppose now that we are given to observe the paths of a perturbed filtered Poisson process:

$$X_t^\theta =\stackrel{~}{N}_t^K\theta t\text{ with }\theta >0.$$

We now investigate the problem of the estimate of $`\theta .`$ Such a problem has been thoroughly investigated when a standard Brownian motion is put in place of $`N`$ (i.e., a fractional Brownian motion is substituted to $`\stackrel{~}{N}^K`$) . We here need to assume that $`\nu `$ and $`K`$ are such that there exists one and only one function $`\varphi `$ such that:

$$_0^t_EzK(t,s)\varphi (s)\nu (ds,dz)=t.$$

We then introduce the likelihood function:

$$Z_t^\theta =\frac{d𝐏_\theta }{d𝐏}|_{𝔉_t}=𝒟\left(_0^._E\theta \varphi (s)(\mu \nu )(ds,dz)\right)_t.$$

According to the previous theorem, the processes $`X^\theta `$ under $`𝐏`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{N}^K`$ under $`𝐏_\theta `$ have the same law thus an estimate of $`\theta `$ is given by:

$$\widehat{\theta }_t=\underset{\theta [0,1]}{Argmax}Z_t^\theta .$$

Unfortunately, the exact expression of the Doléans-Dade exponential is so intricate in case of jump processes that we have to find another expression of $`Z^\theta `$ more suitable for computations $`\widehat{\theta }_t.`$

###### Lemma 1.

If $`\varphi ^1(\nu )`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}(1+\theta \varphi )^1(\nu )`$ then:

$$\{𝒟\left(_0^._E\theta \varphi (s)(\mu \nu )(ds,dz)\right)_t:0tT\}=\{\mathrm{exp}(Y_t^\theta ):0tT\}$$

with for any $`0tT`$:

$$Y_t^\theta =_0^t_E\mathrm{ln}(1+\theta \varphi (s))\mu (ds,dz)_0^t_E\theta \varphi (s)\nu (ds,dz)$$

###### Proof.

Apply Itô formula to the function $`x\mathrm{exp}(x)`$ with respect to the jump process $`Y^\theta `$. One gets:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{exp}(Y_t^\theta )1\hfill \\ \hfill \begin{array}{cc}\hfill =& _0^t\mathrm{exp}(Y_s^{}^\theta )𝑑Y_s^\theta +\underset{st}{}[\mathrm{exp}(Y_s^\theta )\mathrm{exp}(Y_s^{}^\theta )\mathrm{exp}(Y_s^{}^\theta )(Y_s^\theta Y_s^{}^\theta )]\hfill \\ \hfill =& _0^t\mathrm{exp}(Y_s^{}^\theta )dY_s^\theta +_0^t_E[\mathrm{exp}(Y_s^{}^\theta +\mathrm{ln}(1+\theta \varphi (s)))\mathrm{exp}(Y_s^{}^\theta )\hfill \\ & \mathrm{exp}(Y_s^{}^\theta )(\mathrm{ln}(1+\theta \varphi (s)))\mu (ds,dz)]\hfill \\ \hfill =& _0^t\mathrm{exp}(Y_s^{}^\theta )dY_s^\theta +_0^t_E[\mathrm{exp}(Y_s^{}^\theta +\mathrm{ln}(1+\theta \varphi (s)))\hfill \\ & \mathrm{exp}(Y_s^{}^\theta )(1+\mathrm{ln}(1+\theta \varphi (s)))\mu (ds,dz)]\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$

But we have:

$$dY_s^\theta =_E\mathrm{ln}(1+\theta \varphi (s))\mu (ds,dz)_E\theta \varphi (s)\nu (ds,dz)$$

hence:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{exp}(Y_t^\theta )1\hfill \\ \hfill \begin{array}{cc}\hfill =& _0^t_E\mathrm{exp}(Y_s^{}^\theta )[\mathrm{ln}(1+\theta \varphi (s))\mu (ds,dz)\theta \varphi (s)\nu (ds,dz)]\hfill \\ & +_0^t_E[\mathrm{exp}(Y_s^{}^\theta +\mathrm{ln}(1+\theta \varphi (s)))\hfill \\ & \mathrm{exp}(Y_s^{}^\theta )(1+\mathrm{ln}(1+\theta \varphi (s)))]\mu (ds,dz)\hfill \\ \hfill =& _0^t_E\mathrm{exp}(Y_s^{}^\theta )[\mathrm{ln}(1+\theta \varphi (s))(1+\mathrm{ln}(1+\theta \varphi (s)))\hfill \\ & +\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{ln}(1+\theta \varphi (s)))]\mu (ds,dz)\hfill \\ & _0^t_E\mathrm{exp}(Y_s^{}^\theta )\theta \varphi (s)\nu (ds,dz)\hfill \\ \hfill =& _0^t_E\mathrm{exp}(Y_s^{}^\theta )\theta \varphi (s)\mu (ds,dz)_0^t_E\mathrm{exp}(Y_s^{}^\theta )\theta \varphi (s)\nu (ds,dz)\hfill \\ \hfill =& _0^t_E\mathrm{exp}(Y_s^{}^\theta )\theta \varphi (s)(\mu \nu )(ds,dz)\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$

It follows that the process $`\mathrm{exp}(Y^\theta )`$ is a solution to the Stochastic Differential Equation which defines the Doléans-Dade exponential. By uniqueness of the solution, the result holds. ∎

###### Proposition 1.

Suppose $`\varphi ^1(\nu )`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}(1+\theta \varphi )^1(\nu )`$. Then, for any $`t[0,T],`$ $`\widehat{\theta }_t`$ exists and is the unique positive solution of

(5)
$$\underset{T_jt}{}\frac{\varphi (T_j)}{1+\widehat{\theta }_t\varphi (T_j)}=_0^t\varphi (s)\lambda (s)𝑑s.$$

###### Proof.

Fix $`t[0,T]`$. The likelihood function reaches its maximum when the function:

$$f:\theta _0^t_E\mathrm{ln}(1+\theta \varphi (s))\mu (ds,dz)_0^t_E\theta \varphi (s)\nu (ds,dz)$$

reaches its maximum. Noticing that:

$`f^{}(\theta )`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^t}{\displaystyle _E}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi (s)}{1+\theta \varphi (s)}}\mu (ds,dz){\displaystyle _0^t}{\displaystyle _E}\varphi (s)\nu (ds,dz)`$
$`f^{\prime \prime }(\theta )`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^t}{\displaystyle _E}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi (s)^2}{[1+\theta \varphi (s)]^2}}\mu (ds,dz),`$
wee see that the function $`f`$ is concave hence that it admits a unique maximum and that this maximum $`\widehat{\theta }_t`$ satisfies (5). ∎

###### Remark 1.

If we consider the fractional Poisson Process: this means that $`K`$ is taken to be the kernel $`K_H`$ associated to fractional Brownian motion (see ):

$$K_H(t,s)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(H+1/2)}(ts)^{H1/2}F(H1/2,1/2H,H+1/2,1t/s),$$

where $`F(a,b,c,z)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)\mathrm{\Gamma }(cb)}_0^1u^{b1}(1u)^{cb1}(1zu)^a𝑑u,`$ and that $`N`$ is a Poisson process with constant intensity $`\lambda .`$ Then, we know (see Decreusefond Üstünel ) that $`\varphi `$ is given by:

(6)
$$s\varphi (s)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{2}H)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(22H)}\frac{s^{\frac{1}{2}H}}{\lambda }$$

The theorem can be applied because $`\varphi ^1(\nu )`$ as soon as $`\frac{1}{2}<H<1`$ and in this case so does $`\mathrm{ln}(1+\theta \varphi ).`$

We now prove that for $`\theta >0,`$ $`\widehat{\theta }_t`$ is strongly consistant, i.e., that $`\widehat{\theta }_t`$ converges a.s. to $`\theta .`$

###### Lemma 2.

The process $`\widehat{\theta }_t`$ is decreasing on any interval $`[T_n,T_{n+1}[.`$

###### Proof.

Let $`\psi (x,y)=x/(1+xy),`$ it is clear that for $`x>0,`$ the partial map $`(y\psi (x,y))`$ is decreasing. We know that $`\widehat{\theta }_t`$ is the solution of the equation

(7)
$$\underset{T_jt}{}\psi (\varphi (T_j),\widehat{\theta }_t)=_0^t\varphi (s)\lambda (s)𝑑s.$$

For $`t[T_n,T_{n+1}[,`$ the number of terms in the left-hand-side in (7) is constant and the right-hand-side is an increasing function of $`t.`$ It follows that $`\widehat{\theta }_t`$ must decrease between $`T_n`$ and $`T_{n+1}.`$

To go further, we need additional hypothesis on $`\varphi .`$ Note that all these hypothesis are satisfied by $`\varphi `$ as defined in (6). We don’t know whether $`\widehat{\theta }_{T_n}`$ is decreasing sequence and we cannot thus conclude to the convergence of $`\widehat{\theta }_t.`$ However, we now prove that it is a bounded process.

###### Lemma 3.

Assume $`\theta >0`$ and that $`\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{ln}(1+\theta \varphi )`$ belong to $`L^1([0,T],\lambda (s)ds)`$ for any $`T>0.`$ Assume that

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}_0^t\varphi ^2(s)\lambda (s)𝑑s=\mathrm{}$$

and that

(8)
$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{_0^t\varphi ^{2+j}(s)\lambda (s)𝑑s}{_0^t\varphi ^2(s)\lambda (s)𝑑s}=0,\text{ for any }j>0.$$

Then, $`\{\widehat{\theta }_t,t0\}`$ is $`𝐏_\theta `$-a.s. bounded.

###### Proof.

Let $`M>\theta `$ and consider

$$A_M=\{\omega \mathrm{\Omega },\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\widehat{\theta }_t(\omega )M\}.$$

On $`A_M`$, there exists a sequence $`\{t_n,n1\}`$ of positive reals such that $`\widehat{\theta }_{t_n}M`$ for any $`n1`$. Thus

$$\underset{T_jt_n}{}\psi (\varphi (T_j),\widehat{\theta }_{t_n})\underset{T_jt_n}{}\psi (\varphi (T_j),M)$$

By the very definition of $`\widehat{\theta }_t`$,

$$\underset{T_jt_n}{}\psi (\varphi (T_j),\widehat{\theta }_{t_n})=_0^{t_n}\varphi (s)\lambda (s)𝑑s,$$

thus

(9)
$$\begin{array}{c}_0^{t_n}\varphi (s)\lambda (s)𝑑s_0^{t_n}\psi (\varphi (s),M)(1+\theta \varphi (s))\lambda (s)𝑑s\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{T_jt_n}{}\psi (\varphi (T_j),M)_0^{t_n}\psi (\varphi (s),M)(1+\theta \varphi (s))\lambda (s)𝑑s.\end{array}$$

Left-hand-side of Equation (9) can be simplified as

$$\begin{array}{c}_0^{t_n}\varphi (s)\lambda (s)𝑑s_0^{t_n}\psi (\varphi (s),M)(1+\theta \varphi (s))\lambda (s)𝑑s\hfill \\ \hfill =(M\theta )_0^{t_n}\frac{\varphi ^2(s)\lambda (s)}{1+M\varphi (s)}𝑑s.\end{array}$$

Thus, Equation (9) now reads as

(10)
$$\begin{array}{c}(M\theta )_0^{t_n}\frac{\varphi ^2(s)\lambda (s)}{1+M\varphi (s)}𝑑s\underset{T_jt_n}{}\psi (\varphi (T_j),M)\hfill \\ \hfill _0^{t_n}\psi (\varphi (s),M)(1+\theta \varphi (s))\lambda (s)𝑑s.\end{array}$$

Furthermore, since $`\varphi 0`$ and $`M>\theta ,`$ we have

(11)
$$_0^t\frac{\varphi ^2(s)\lambda (s)(1+\theta \varphi (s))}{(1+M\varphi (s))^2}𝑑s_0^t\frac{\varphi ^2(s)\lambda (s)}{1+M\varphi (s)}𝑑s.$$

On the other hand, Central Limit theorem for martingale, says that, $`𝐏_\theta `$ a.s.,

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{_{T_jt_n}\psi (\varphi (T_j),M)_0^{t_n}\psi (\varphi (s),M)(1+\theta \varphi (s))\lambda (s)𝑑s}{_0^{t_n}\psi (\varphi (s),M)^2\lambda (s)(1+\theta \varphi (s))𝑑s}\stackrel{n\mathrm{}}{}0,\hfill \end{array}$$

Then, divide both sides of (10) by $`_0^{t_n}\psi (\varphi (s),M)\varphi (s)\lambda (s)𝑑s`$ and let $`n`$ go to infinity. In virtue of (8) and (11), this yields to the contradiction that on $`A_M,`$ $`\theta M.`$ Finally, $`𝐏_\theta (A_M)=0`$ and thus $`\{\widehat{\theta }_t,t>0\}`$ is $`𝐏_\theta `$-a.s. bounded. ∎

###### Theorem 2.

Assume $`\theta >0`$ and that $`\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{ln}(1+\theta \varphi )`$ belong to $`L^1([0,T],\lambda (s)ds)`$ for any $`T>0.`$ Assume that

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}_0^t\varphi ^2(s)\lambda (s)𝑑s=\mathrm{}$$

and that

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{_0^t\varphi ^{2+j}(s)\lambda (s)𝑑s}{_0^t\varphi ^2(s)\lambda (s)𝑑s}=0,\text{ for any }j>0.$$

Then $`\widehat{\theta }_t`$ tends $`\text{P}_\theta `$-a.s. to $`\theta .`$

###### Proof.

Let $`N_t(\varphi )=_{T_nt}\varphi (T_n).`$ According to (7), we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& =\underset{T_nt}{}\frac{\varphi (T_n)}{1+\widehat{\theta }_t\varphi (T_n)}_0^t\varphi (s)\lambda (s)𝑑s\hfill \\ & =N_t(\varphi )_0^t\varphi (s)\lambda (s)(1+\theta \varphi (s))𝑑s\hfill \\ & \widehat{\theta }_t\left(N_t(\varphi ^2)_0^t\varphi ^2(s)\lambda (s)(1+\theta \varphi (s))𝑑s\right)\hfill \\ & +\widehat{\theta }_t^2\underset{T_nt}{}\frac{\varphi (T_n)^3}{1+\widehat{\theta }_t\varphi (T_n)}\theta \widehat{\theta }_t_0^t\varphi ^3(s)\lambda (s)𝑑s\hfill \\ & +(\theta \widehat{\theta }_t)_0^t\varphi ^2(s)\lambda (s)𝑑s.\hfill \end{array}$$

After some simple algebra, this yields to

(12)
$$\begin{array}{c}(\theta \widehat{\theta }_t)\left(_0^t\varphi ^2(s)\lambda (s)𝑑s+\widehat{\theta }_t_0^t\varphi ^3(s)\lambda (s)𝑑s\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \begin{array}{cc}& =(N_t(\varphi )_0^t\varphi (s)\lambda (s)(1+\theta \varphi (s))𝑑s)\hfill \\ & +\widehat{\theta }_t\left(N_t(\varphi ^2)_0^t\varphi ^2(s)\lambda (s)(1+\theta \varphi (s))𝑑s\right)\hfill \\ & \widehat{\theta }_t^2\left(N_t(\varphi ^3)_0^t\varphi ^3(s)\lambda (s)(1+\theta \varphi (s))𝑑s\right)\hfill \\ & \widehat{\theta }_t^2\underset{T_nt}{}\left(\frac{\varphi (T_n)^3}{1+\widehat{\theta }_t\varphi (T_n)}\varphi (T_n)^3\right)+\theta \widehat{\theta }_t^2_0^t\varphi ^4(s)\lambda (s)𝑑s.\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$

For any deterministic $`\zeta ,`$ the process $`\{N_t(\zeta )_0^t\zeta (s)\lambda (s)(1+\theta \varphi (s))𝑑s,t0\}`$ is a martingale whose square bracket given by

$$_0^t\zeta (s)^2\lambda (s)(1+\theta \varphi (s))𝑑s.$$

It follows from hypothesis and Central Limit Theorem for martingales that

(13)
$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{N_t(\varphi ^j)_0^t\varphi (s)^j\lambda (s)(1+\theta \varphi (s))𝑑s}{_0^t\varphi ^2(s)\lambda (s)𝑑s}=0,$$

for any $`j1.`$ Moreover,

(14)
$$\underset{T_nt}{}\left(\frac{\varphi (T_n)^3}{1+\widehat{\theta }_t\varphi (T_n)}\varphi (T_n)^3\right)=\widehat{\theta }_t\underset{T_nt}{}\frac{\varphi (T_n)^4}{1+\widehat{\theta }_t\varphi (T_n)}.$$

Thus,

$$0\underset{T_nt}{}\left(\frac{\varphi (T_n)^3}{1+\widehat{\theta }_t\varphi (T_n)}\varphi (T_n)^3\right)\widehat{\theta }_tN_t(\varphi ^4).$$

According to (13) and to hypothesis (8), we have

(15)
$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{N_t(\varphi ^4)}{_0^t\varphi ^2(s)\lambda (s)𝑑s}=0,𝐏_\theta \text{ a.s..}$$

Divide (12) by $`_0^t\varphi ^2(s)\lambda (s)𝑑s`$ and let $`t`$ goes to infinity, it follows from (13) and (15) that $`\widehat{\theta }_t`$ converges to $`\theta .`$


text:
# Median Statistics and the Mass Density of the Universe

## 1 Introduction

Oftentimes it is useful to combine results from many different measurements of a quantity and derive a more accurate estimate of that quantity. Thus Gott et al. (2001) study a collection of all available pre-mid-1999 estimates of the present value of Hubble’s constant, $`H_0`$, and derive

$$H_0=100h\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1=67\pm 7\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1,$$
(1)
at two standard deviations111 Where the first equation defines the dimensionless parameter $`h`$ and we halve the 2 $`\sigma `$ error bar of Gott et al. (2001) to get a 1 $`\sigma `$ error bar for our computations., a significantly more constraining estimate of $`H_0`$ than is provided by any single measurement.

Similar meta-analysis techniques have been used to determine binned multipole-space cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy power spectra by combining many different CMB anisotropy measurements (see, e.g., Podariu et al. 2001; Miller et al. 2002; Page 2002; Wang et al. 2002; Mukherjee & Wang 2003), and to derive constraints on cosmological-model-parameters from combined CMB anisotropy data sets (see, e.g., Ödman et al. 2002; Mukherjee et al. 2002; Douspis et al. 2002; Wang et al. 2002).

The more widely used weighted mean technique, discussed in Podariu et al. (2001), assumes Gaussian errors.222 A number of quantities of interest, e.g., the CMB anisotropy spectrum, are commonly thought to have been generated by quantum fluctuations in a weakly coupled field during an early epoch of inflation and are thus realizations of spatially stationary Gaussian random processes (see, e.g., Ratra 1985; Fischler, Ratra, & Susskind 1985). Measurements appear to be consistent with this Gaussianity assumption — for discussions of the Gaussianity of the smaller-scale CMB anisotropy see, e.g., Park et al. (2001), Shandarin et al. (2002), Santos et al. (2002), and Polenta et al. (2002) — and so in cases where the experimental noise is Gaussian it is fair to use the weighted mean technique. Thus in this case one may compute a goodness-of-fit parameter, and the number of standard deviations, $`N_\sigma `$, this parameter deviates from what is expected (Podariu et al. 2001). A large value of $`N_\sigma `$ could indicate the presence of unaccounted for systematic uncertainties, the breakdown of the Gaussian assumption, or the presence of significant correlations between the individual measurements used.

The other technique we use, that based on median statistics (Gott et al. 2001)333 See Avelino, Martins, & Pinto (2002) for a recent application of the Gott et al. (2001) median statistics technique., does not assume that the measurement errors are Gaussian, or even that the magnitude of these errors are known. It assumes only that the measurements are independent and free of systematic errors. It is hence not possible to estimate the goodness of fit in the median statistics case. However, since the median statistics technique is based on fewer assumptions than the weighted mean technique, median statistics results are more robust, but still — as Gott et al. (2001) show — almost as constraining as weighted mean results.

In this paper we apply both these techniques to collections of estimates of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$, the present value of the mean mass density of non-relativistic matter in the universe. A robust and tight estimate of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ is of great interest. Current indications are that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ is small and we live in a low-density universe (see Peebles & Ratra 2003 for a review). This, in conjunction with recent CMB anisotropy measurements which suggest that the curvature of spatial hypersurfaces is small, indicates that a dark energy dominated spatially-flat universe (see, e.g., Peebles 1984; Peebles & Ratra 1988, 2003; Steinhardt 1999; Sahni & Starobinsky 2000; Carroll 2001; Padmanabhan 2002) is observationally favored over a spatially open model with insignificant dark energy density (see, e.g., Gott 1982; Ratra & Peebles 1995). To strengthen this conclusion it would be helpful to have in hand a more robust and tight estimate of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ than is available from any single measurement.444 Of course, comparing the predictions of dark energy dominated models to observational measurements is another way to check for the presence of dark energy. In the near future neoclassical cosmological tests that hold significant promise include those based on CMB anisotropy (see, e.g., Brax, Martin, & Riazuelo 2000; Amendola et al. 2002), gravitational lensing (see, e.g., Ratra & Quillen 1992; Waga & Frieman 2000; Chae et al. 2002), Type Ia supernova redshift-apparent magnitude (see, e.g., Podariu & Ratra 2000; Waga & Frieman 2000; Leibundgut 2001), redshift-counts (see, e.g., Huterer & Turner 2001; Podariu & Ratra 2001; Levine, Schulz, & White 2002), and redshift-angular size (see, e.g., Zhu & Fujimoto 2002; Chen & Ratra 2003; Podariu et al. 2003) data.

While it would be useful to focus on measurements of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ that are independent of cosmological model, we have been able to locate only 30 such recent smaller-scale estimates of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$. To reduce statistical uncertainty it is desirable to have a greater number of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ estimates. We hence also consider recent $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ estimates derived assuming either a spatially-flat model with a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or an open model with no $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ measurements we focus on are listed and discussed in $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 2. Results are presented and discussed in $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 3. We conclude in $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 4.

## 2 $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ Measurements

Tables 1—3 list the values and errors bars of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ for the measurements we consider. Table 1 lists values determined in a manner that is independent of cosmological model, while Tables 2 and 3 list values derived assuming a spatially flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dominated model, and a spatially open model with no $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, respectively. In general, in these Tables, we include quoted systematic errors in quadrature when determining the total error bar and assume a Gaussian distribution when determining 1 $`\sigma `$ errors (if these are not given). In what follows we briefly describe how we determine the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ values and error bars given in these Tables.

### 2.1 Redshift Distortion Factor

There are many measurements of the redshift distortion factor $`\beta =\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}^{0.6}/b`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}^{0.6}`$ is a reasonably accurate approximation of the velocity function evaluated at zero redshift $`f(z=0)`$ (Peebles 1993, $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 13) and $`b`$ is the bias factor for the tracer used, defined in terms of the ratio of the fractional density perturbations, $`b=\delta _{\mathrm{trace}}/\delta _{\mathrm{mass}}`$, where $`\delta _{\mathrm{trace}}`$ is the fractional number density perturbation.

To determine $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ from $`\beta `$ we need to know the bias factor. In this paper, we use, for optical galaxies (Verde et al. 2002; Lahav et al. 2002; Peacock et al. 2002)555 We average the values given in these papers to get the $`b_O`$ value quoted here.

$$b_O=1.0\pm 0.1,$$
(2)
and for infrared galaxies and clusters of galaxies (Plionis et al. 2000),

$$b_I=b_O/(1.21\pm 0.06),b_C=b_I(4.3\pm 0.8),$$
(3)
all at one standard deviation.

Typically, $`\beta `$ is measured from density-density comparisons (D-D in the Tables) or velocity-velocity comparisons (V-V in the Tables), or through the distortion effect of peculiar velocities on redshift surveys. By using the somewhat related least-action principle, Susperregi (2001) is able to independently determine $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ and $`b`$, and we quote his value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ in Table 1.

### 2.2 Power Spectrum

A commonly used simple analytic fit to the observed power spectrum of cosmological mass fluctuations is the CDM spectrum (see, e.g., Peacock 1999, $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 16.8). In this approximation, the shape and amplitude of the mass power spectrum depends on two parameters: the shape parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and $`\sigma _8`$, the rms fractional mass density variation averaged over 8$`h^1`$ Mpc spheres. Nowadays, the shape parameter is usually approximated by (Sugiyama 1995),

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}he^{\mathrm{\Omega }_B(1+\sqrt{2h}/\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}})}$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ is a measure of the present mean mass density in baryonic matter. Occasionally however the shape parameter is still defined through $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}h`$.

To extract a value and error bars for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ from a measurement of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we need the value of $`h`$ — we use eq. (1) for this — and an estimate of the baryonic mass density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$, for which we use

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.014\pm 0.004,$$
(5)
at 1 $`\sigma `$, derived by averaging the two extreme values quoted in $`\mathrm{\S }`$ IV.B.2 of Peebles & Ratra (2003).

### 2.3 Velocity Correlation

By assuming a shape for the power spectrum, the velocity correlation method provides a constraint on a function of $`\sigma _8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}^{0.6}`$ by comparing the observed velocity correlation to that predicted from the power spectrum. Given an estimate of $`\sigma _8`$, for which we use666 Here the rms factional mass density variation averaged over 8$`h^1`$ Mpc spheres $`\sigma _8=\sigma _{8\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{e}}/b_{\mathrm{trace}}`$, where $`\sigma _{8\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{e}}`$ is the corresponding rms number density variation and $`b_{\mathrm{trace}}`$ is the bias factor for the tracer used. We average the values given for $`\sigma _8`$ in eq. (37) of Hamilton & Tegmark (2002) and eq. (12) of Szalay et al. (2001).

$$\sigma _8=0.94\pm 0.11,$$
(6)
at 1 $`\sigma `$, we can determine $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$. Juszkiewicz et al. (2000) consider a variant of this method based on relative velocities of galaxies.

### 2.4 Gas Mass Fraction

Assuming the baryonic mass fraction in galaxy clusters is an accurate representation of that of the universe, and given $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$, the baryon mass fraction $`f_b`$ provides an estimate of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}=\mathrm{\Omega }_B/f_b.$$
(7)
The related gas mass fraction of galaxy clusters, $`f_g`$, is what is measured, and it provides the estimate

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_B}{f_g(1+0.19h^{0.5})},$$
(8)
where we use $`h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ from eqs. (1) and (5).

### 2.5 Mass to Light Ratios

This method assumes that the mass-to-light ratios of galaxy clusters are accurate representatives of that of the whole universe. Table 1 lists the Carlberg et al. (1997a) and Bahcall et al. (2000) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ values and 1 $`\sigma `$ ranges. We also show results derived from the Hradecky et al. (2000) data; to determine the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ central value and 1 $`\sigma `$ range, we compute the weighted mean and error bar of $`M/L_V`$ using Table 5 of their paper and use the Efstathiou, Ellis, & Peterson (1988) estimate $`L(2\pm 0.7)\times 10^8hL_{}`$ Mpc-3.

### 2.6 Cosmological-Model-Dependent Estimates

Tables 2 and 3 list $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ values determined assuming a flat-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and an open cosmological model, respectively. Such model-dependent estimates are becoming more common. Weak lensing (WL) measurements have recently begun to provide interesting constraints on a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ and $`\sigma _8`$, while improving galaxy cluster number density measurements (both at the present epoch and as a function of redshift) constrain a related function. Using the estimate for $`\sigma _8`$ given in eq. (6) we may use these constraints as measurements of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$.

Table 2 also lists estimates of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ from various other methods, including cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy measurements, the angular size versus redshift ($`\theta z`$) test, strong gravitational lensing, and the supernova apparent magnitude versus redshift test.

## 3 Methods and Results

Table 1 lists 30 “model-independent” measurements of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$, while Tables 2 and 3 show 28 and 14 results determined assuming a flat-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and an open model, respectively. In addition to these three data sets, we also consider two additional combination data sets: combinations of the 30 model-independent results with the flat-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ model values and with the open model values.

For each of these five data sets, we compute the weighted mean of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ and the associated error estimate as follows (see, e.g., Podariu et al. 2001). The standard expression for the weighted mean is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}=\frac{\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}})_i/\sigma _i^2}{_{i=1}^N1/\sigma _i^2},$$
(9)
where $`i=1,2,\mathrm{}N`$ indexes the $`N`$ measurements in the data set, with central values $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}})_i`$ and errors $`\sigma _i`$. The (internal) error estimate for each data set is

$$\sigma =(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}1/\sigma _i{}_{}{}^{2})^{1/2}.$$
(10)
The goodness of fit parameter is

$$\chi ^2=\frac{1}{N1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\left((\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}})_i\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}\right)^2}{\sigma _i^2}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\chi _i^2,$$
(11)
where the last equation defines $`\chi _i^2`$, the “reduced $`\chi ^2`$” contribution from each measurement. Since the weighted mean technique assumes Gaussian errors, $`\chi `$ has expected value unity with error $`1/\sqrt{2(N1)}`$, so the number of standard deviations that $`\chi `$ deviates from unity is

$$N_\sigma =|\chi 1|\sqrt{2(N1)}.$$
(12)
A large value of $`N_\sigma `$ could indicate the presence of unaccounted for systematic errors, the invalidity of the Gaussian assumption, or the presence of significant correlations between the measurements.

We also analyze each of the five data sets using median statistics (see, e.g., Gott et al. 2001; Podariu et al. 2001). For each data set, we construct the distribution for the true median $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ value using the binomial theorem method of eq. (1) of Gott et al. (2001).777 For example, if there were two measurements of a given quantity, $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ ($`x_1<x_2`$), then there is a 25 % probability that the true median lies below $`x_1`$, a 50 % probability that it lies between $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$, and a 25 % probability that it lies above $`x_2`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ is positive, following Gott et al. (2001), we integrate over this distribution with a logarithmic prior between data points to determine confidence intervals for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$.888 Lower and upper confidence levels at 1 and 2 $`\sigma `$ significance are determined such that the probabilities inside the 1 and 2 $`\sigma `$ ranges are divided in half by the median value.

Table 4 shows the results for the weighted mean and median statistics analyses. The upper half of the table shows results derived using all measurements. The weighted mean technique results in tighter constraints on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$, while the median statistics constraints are weaker. This result (Gott et al. 2001; Podariu et al. 2001) is reinforced by the large $`N_\sigma `$ values in the upper half of Table 4. For Gaussian distributed errors, $`N_\sigma `$ is a measure of how well the weighted mean and derived error bar represent the measurements considered. $`N_\sigma `$ is greater than 2 in all cases, i.e., $`\chi `$ is more than 2 $`\sigma `$ away from what is expected for Gaussian distributed errors. This most likely means that one (or more) of the measurements has an underestimated error bar.999 Given the available evidence, it is reasonable to assume that the Gaussianity assumption is not invalid. In addition, we have attempted to select only those measurements that are not strongly correlated. Thus the large $`N_\sigma `$ values we find are most likely a consequence of one (or more) measurements that have underestimated error bars. Since median statistics do not make use of the measurement error bars, the median statistics results are likely more reliable than the weighted mean results.

To examine the issue of large $`N_\sigma `$ values, we proceed as follows. For each measurement in each of the five data sets, we compute $`\chi _i^2`$, eq. (11). We then discard the $``$ 5 % most discrepant (largest $`\chi _i^2`$) measurements from each data set and so generate five culled data sets of “good” measurements. For the model-independent data set, we drop only one measurement, that from the least-action principle method (Susperregi 2001), which has a small error bar and $`\chi _i^2=0.99`$. For the flat-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ data set we have to drop two measurements: the Zaroubi et al. (1997) $`v`$-correlation result which has a large $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ and $`\chi _i^2=0.29`$, and the Allen et al. (2002b) cluster number density measurement which has a small $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ and $`\chi _i^2=0.27`$. For the open model data set we drop the Hamana et al. (2002) weak lensing measurement which has a small $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ and $`\chi _i^2=1.3`$. These measurements are also the most discrepant ones in the two combination data sets, so we drop them again when generating the culled combination data sets. Of course, not all large $`N_\sigma `$ values are reduced to unity by this culling (although they can be by further culling): we are only discarding the most “discrepant” measurements to investigate the stability (robustness) of the constraints on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$.

Results from the analyses of the culled data sets are shown in the lower half of Table 4. For the model-independent, flat-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and their combination data sets, the weighted mean and median statistics error bars are in better accord, and $`N_\sigma `$ are of order unity. For the open model data sets $`N_\sigma `$ are smaller now, but still significantly large than unity, indicating perhaps that the error bars on one or more of the remaining measurements are underestimated.

Focussing on the median statistics 2 $`\sigma `$ ranges for the culled data sets (the lower half of the last column of Table 4), if we exclude the open model results for the reason mentioned above, a reasonable summary is

$$0.2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}0.35$$
(13)
at two standard deviations, with central value at $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}0.250.3`$. It is reassuring that these summary values are in agreement with other recent estimates (see, e.g., Peebles & Ratra 2003).

## 4 Conclusion

We have determined a preliminary estimate of the mean mass density in nonrelativistic matter, from median statistics analyses of various collections of measurements. The results of our meta-analysis estimate of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ appear very reasonable. More high quality data, especially “model-independent” data, should allow for significantly more constraining limits on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$.

We acknowledge helpful discussions with R. Gott, J. Peebles, S. Podariu, and U. Seljak, and support from NSF CAREER grant AST-9875031.