text:
# Attractors and Isocurvature Perturbations in Quintessence Models

## I Introduction

Observational data seems to indicate that we live in an accelerating Universe . As an alternative to the scenario where the acceleration is fueled by a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, models with a scalar field capable of dominating recently and of developing a negative pressure have been proposed . This scalar field which pervades our universe has been dubbed quintessence.

Compared to the cosmological constant, quintessence has two important differences. First, quintessence can be interpreted as a fluid with a time dependent equation of state. Therefore quintessence models may alleviate the so-called coincidence problem, which is the apparent cosmic collusion that the dark energy component is fine-tuned in a way that it is starting to dominate the energy density of the universe just at the present time. And second, in contrast to the cosmological constant, the quintessence field can fluctuate .

One interesting possibility is that the quintessence field $`Q(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ can, in combination with the other cosmic fluids (radiation, baryons, cold dark matter, etc.), lead not only to adiabatic (curvature) perturbations, but to a mixture which includes an isocurvature component. Isocurvature (or entropy) perturbations appear when the relative energy density and pressure perturbations of the different fluid species combine to leave the overall curvature perturbations unchanged. In quintessence models, the presence of potentially relevant isocurvature modes could be generic, just as in multi-field inflationary models . Indeed, quintessence is constructed is such a way that it is an unthermalized component subdominant for most of the history of the Universe. Since quintessence is uncoupled from the rest of matter because of astrophysical and cosmological constraints , its fluctuations may lead to an isocurvature component, whose nature will be preserved except for the known integrated feeding of the adiabatic component, expressed by the relation :

$$\dot{\zeta }=\frac{2}{3H(1+w)}\left[c_s^2\frac{^2\mathrm{\Phi }}{a^2}+\frac{1}{2}\delta p_{\mathrm{nad}}\right],$$
(1)
where $`\zeta `$ is the gauge-invariant curvature perturbation, a dot denotes time derivative, $`wp/\rho `$ and $`c_s^2\dot{p}/\dot{\rho }`$ denote respectively the equation of state and the speed of sound of the total matter content, $`p_{\mathrm{nad}}`$ is the total non-adiabatic pressure perturbation and we employ units such that $`8\pi G=1`$.

This latter effect was studied  in the context of axion perturbations, and  in the context of the baryon isocurvature model . This effect is also responsible for the growth of super-Hubble adiabatic perturbations during preheating . Considering axions as Cold Dark Matter (CDM) , an isocurvature perturbation due to the angle misalignment produced during inflation induces an adiabatic component of comparable amplitude at the moment of reentry of the perturbation inside the Hubble radius. This is due to the fact that the CDM component is going to dominate about the time of decoupling, and thus the integrated effect is almost completed by the time that mode reenters inside the Hubble radius.

However, the quintessence case is different from the axion/CDM since in most of the models quintessence fluctuations are damped inside the Hubble radius. This is required in order to minimize the impact of an additional dynamical degree of freedom on structure formation. The quintessence and the axion/CDM differ also in either one of two ways: i) Q was still a negligible component before the time of decoupling, or ii) Q was comparable to normal matter, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q=𝒪(1)`$, but in a so-called tracking regime  whereby its equation of state $`w_Qp_Q/\rho _Q`$ was approximately that of dust or radiation — whichever was dominating at the time. In the first case (which happens, for example, in the PNGB scenario ) isocurvature perturbations are irrelevant simply because the field $`Q(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ is a negligible component until a redshift of at least $`z10`$. In the second case the energy density in $`Q`$ need not be small, however due to the tracking of the quintessence field, perturbations in the $`Q`$-fluid behaved similarly to the perturbations in the background for most of the observable history of the Universe, and isocurvature perturbations are therefore suppressed until the end of the tracking phase. In either case, a primordial isocurvature perturbation could still be present, but it would not have had enough time to induce an adiabatic component.

From an observational point of view, isocurvature perturbations have a very distinctive imprint on the spectrum of the temperature anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) . With the accuracy that future CMB experiments such as MAP  and Planck  will be able to reach, the constraints on the ratio of uncorrelated isocurvature perturbations in CDM-radiation to the adiabatic component will be of the order of percents . Recently the impact of generic isocurvature modes on the estimation of cosmological parameters has been also investigated . Therefore it is important to understand the evolution of isocurvature modes in quintessence models where an unthermalized, uncoupled relic survives until the present era, and dominates very recently. In most of the literature a primordial adiabatic spectrum for quintessence perturbations is assumed. If the notion of adiabaticity among different components is related to their thermal equilibrium, then the weakly coupled nature of quintessence could evade this condition. The primordial spectrum could be generated during inflation and/or influenced through its evolution until the decoupling time.

The outline of the paper is as follows. In section II we give necessary notions of the background evolution of quintessence models. In section III we study the evolution of cosmological perturbations and we identify the attractor solution for quintessence perturbations during the tracking regime. In section IV we study the evolution of isocurvature perturbations and their feedback on the adiabatic component. In section V we discuss the initial condition for quintessence perturbations after nucleosynthesys. We conclude in section VI.

## II Background evolution with quintessence

For simplicity we consider only radiation, pressureless matter and quintessence, and ignore the neutrinos as well as the distinction between baryons and CDM. Each component $`i`$ ($`i=r,m,Q`$) has an energy density $`\rho _i`$ and pressure $`p_i`$. The sum of the energy densities determines the Hubble parameter via the usual Einstein equation, $`3H^2=\rho =_i\rho _i`$. The equation of state $`w_ip_i/\rho _i`$ is $`1/3`$ and zero in the case of radiation and matter, respectively. The background energy density and the pressure of the quintessence field are:

$$\rho _Q=\frac{1}{2}\dot{Q}^2+V(Q),p_Q=\frac{1}{2}\dot{Q}^2V(Q),$$
(2)
where the background scalar field $`Q(t)`$ obeys the equation $`\ddot{Q}+3H\dot{Q}+V_{,Q}=0`$. This means that $`w_Q`$ is in general time-dependent.

The main requirement of quintessence is that it starts to dominate the energy density of the Universe only at the present time, with an equation of state $`w_Q(z=0)w_{Q0}<0`$. Conservative phenomenology dictates that $`\rho _{Q0}/\rho _0=\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q0}<0.8`$ — to allow time for galaxy formation — and that $`w_{Q0}<0.5`$ — to accommodate the SNIa data . In addition, nucleosynthesis demands that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q<0.2`$ at $`z10^9`$.

Model building should obtain these values and still manage to solve (or at least alleviate) the coincidence problem without too much fine tuning (see, e.g., .) The main problem seems to be that in order to solve the coincidence problem one needs a period of tracking, but it is hard to get a period of tracking and still obtain $`w_{Q0}<0.5`$. It is certainly possible to construct potentials which implement both conditions , however we prefer to look at simpler potentials which contain features which are generic to most of the models. As it turns out, the relevant features of the cosmological perturbations do not depend on the specific form of the potential, but only on its generic phenomenology.

In a typical scenario, nicely reviewed in , the scalar field starts out subdominant deep in the radiation era, in a kinetic phase with an equation of state $`w_Q=+1`$ (see Fig. 1.) The kinetic energy $`\frac{1}{2}\dot{Q}^2`$ eventually decays, leaving only the quintessence potential energy, which is nearly constant and as a result $`w_Q1`$ (of course, the quintessence field could also start already in the potential-energy dominated regime). This is the so called potential phase. When $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ becomes of order unity, the quintessence field undergoes a transition which puts it into a tracking regime, where it follows approximately the equation of state of the background. Finally, at some point late in the matter era $`Q`$ starts to dominate and the Universe begins the accelerated expansion phase that we observe today (the Q-dominated phase.)

As long as we keep away from the time of equal matter and radiation ($`z_{eq}10^4`$ in our flat models with $`H_0=65`$ Km s-1 Mpc-1), one of the two barotropic fluids (radiation or matter) can be neglected. The equation of state of the total matter content then reads:

$$w\frac{p}{\rho }=w_F+(w_Qw_F)\mathrm{\Omega }_Q,$$
(3)
where the subscript $`F`$ stands for either radiation, when $`tt_{eq}`$, or matter, when $`tt_{eq}`$. The total speed of sound $`c_s^2`$ has a simple expression as well:

$$c_s^2\frac{\dot{p}}{\dot{\rho }}=w_F+\frac{\dot{Q}^2}{\rho +p}(c_Q^2w_F),$$
(4)
where $`c_Q^2\dot{p}_Q/\dot{\rho }_Q`$. It is useful to note that

$$c_Q^2=1+\frac{2V_{,Q}}{3H\dot{Q}}=w_Q\frac{\dot{w}_Q}{3H(1+w_Q)}.$$
(5)
When $`c_Q^2=`$constant, then $`\dot{Q}V_{,Q}/H`$. Taking the time derivative of $`c_Q^2`$ we also obtain:

$$\frac{2V_{,QQ}}{3H^2}=\frac{1}{H}\frac{d}{dt}c_Q^2+(c_Q^21)\left[1+\frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}\frac{1}{2}\left(3c_Q^2+5\right)\right].$$
(6)
When $`w_Q`$ is approximately constant, then from Eq. (5) $`c_Q^2`$ is constant as well. By using the background relation $`\dot{H}/H^23(1+w_F)/2`$ we obtain

$$V_{,QQ}\frac{9}{4}H^2(1c_Q^2)(w_F+c_Q^2+2)\alpha H^2.$$
(7)
We observe that quintessence fluctuations are effectively massless ($`V_{QQ}0`$) during the kinetic phase ($`c_Q^2=1`$) and the potential phase ($`c_Q^2=2w_F`$ ).

A good quantity to measure how closely the quintessence field $`Q`$ tracks the background is the quantity $`\gamma V_{,QQ}V/(V_{,Q}^2)`$ — which was named $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in . When $`w_Q`$ is approximately constant in time, then:

$$\gamma 1+\frac{w_Fw_Q}{2(1+w_Q)}.$$
(8)
If tracking is exact (as is the case in the exponential potential models), $`w_F=w_Q`$, then $`\gamma =1`$ and $`V_{,QQ}/V_{,Q}=V_{,Q}/V`$.

If $`w_Q`$ is approximately constant, then the kinetic and potential energies of the scalar field $`Q`$ must be proportional to each other. Taking the time derivative of $`\rho _Q\dot{Q}^2V`$ we obtain that during a tracking phase:

$$\frac{V_{,Q}}{V}=3(1+w_Q)\frac{H}{\dot{Q}}\mathrm{constant},$$
(9)
where we have used the fact that $`\dot{Q}^2a^{3(1+w_Q)}`$ to find $`H/\dot{Q}a^{3(w_Fw_Q)}`$ constant, if $`w_Qw_F`$.

We note that during the phases in which $`w_Q`$ is constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ goes as:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_Q\frac{\rho _Q}{\rho _{\mathrm{TOT}}}=a^{3(w_{\mathrm{TOT}}w_Q)}.$$
(10)
Therefore in the radiation epoch $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ redshifts as $`a^2`$ during its kinetic phase, and it grows as $`a^4`$ during its potential phase. During the tracking regime $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ is approximately constant (depending on how accurate is the tracking) and in the Q-dominated regime it is evidently constant (since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q𝒪(1)`$ when $`Q`$ dominates.)

## III Evolution of perturbations

We compute the evolution of the cosmological perturbations in longitudinal (or conformal-Newtonian) gauge :

$$ds^2=(1+2\mathrm{\Phi })dt^2a^2(t)(12\mathrm{\Phi })d𝐱^2.$$
(11)
In the matter sector, the perturbed energy density and pressure of quintessence are, as usual,

$`\delta \rho _Q`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{Q}\delta \dot{Q}\dot{Q}^2\mathrm{\Phi }+V_{,Q}\delta Q,`$ (12)
$`\delta p_Q`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{Q}\delta \dot{Q}\dot{Q}^2\mathrm{\Phi }V_{,Q}\delta Q,`$ (13)
where the Fourier transforms of the scalar field fluctuations obeys the equation:

$$\delta \ddot{Q}+3H\delta \dot{Q}+\frac{k^2}{a^2}\delta Q+V_{,QQ}\delta Q=+4\dot{Q}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}2V_{,Q}\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(14)
The density fluctuations in radiation and matter, on the other hand, obey the conservation equations for the density contrasts $`\delta _F\delta \rho _F/\rho _F`$:

$$\dot{\delta }_F3(1+w_F)\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}=(1+w_F)\frac{k}{a(t)}V_F,$$
(15)
where $`V_F`$ is the fluid velocity. In the long wavelength limit ($`kaH`$) this equation is extremely useful, since it reads:

$$\delta _F3(1+w_F)\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{constant}=\delta _F^i3(1+w_F)\mathrm{\Phi }^i,$$
(16)
where the superscript $`i`$ indicates that the fluctuations have been evaluated at some initial time $`t_i`$. We can also combine Eq. (15) for $`\delta _F`$ with the equation for conservation of momentum,

$$\dot{V}_F=\frac{k}{a(t)}\left(\frac{w_F}{1+w_F}\delta _F+\mathrm{\Phi }\right),$$
(17)
and obtain a simple second order equation for $`\delta _F`$:

$$\delta _F^{\prime \prime }+w_Fk^2\delta _F=3(1+w_f)\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }\frac{k^2}{3}\mathrm{\Phi }\right),$$
(18)
where a prime denotes, as usual, derivative with respect to conformal time $`\eta `$, where $`d/d\eta a(t)d/dt`$.

We consider now the evolution of the quintessence field perturbations. At first, let us neglect the metric perturbations, i.e. take Eq. (14) without its right-hand side. By using the rescaled variables $`\delta \stackrel{~}{Q}=a^{1/2}\delta Q`$, Eq. (14) can be rewritten as:

$$\delta \stackrel{~}{Q}^{\prime \prime }+\delta \stackrel{~}{Q}^{}+\left[k^2+a^2V_{,QQ}\frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{2a}\frac{^2}{4}\right]\delta \stackrel{~}{Q}=0,$$
(19)
where $`=a^{}/a=aH`$.

In a radiation dominated universe $`a\eta `$ and the term proportional to the second time derivative of the scale factor vanishes; when Eq. (7) holds, then the solutions for the field perturbations in rigid space-times are:

$$\delta Q\eta ^{1/2}\times \{\begin{array}{c}J_{|\nu |}(k\eta )\\ J_{|\nu |}(k\eta )\end{array},$$

where

$$\nu ^2=\frac{1}{4}\alpha .$$
(20)
If $`\alpha 0`$ both the solutions decay in time. If $`\alpha 0`$ then there is a constant mode.

The argument above holds for a matter dominated universe as well: if $`\alpha =0`$ there is a constant mode, otherwise both the solutions decay in time (for a matter dominated universe the appropriate rescaled variable is $`\delta \stackrel{~}{Q}=a^{3/4}\delta Q`$.)

The inclusion of gravitational fluctuations in Eq. (14) leads to a constant solution for the quintessence perturbations in the long-wavelength limit. From Eq. (14) we immediately see that in this limit there are constant solutions $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$ and $`\delta Q(t)\delta Q^c`$:

$$\delta Q^c2\frac{V_{,Q}}{V_{,QQ}}\mathrm{\Phi }^c,$$
(21)
as long as $`V_{,Q}/V_{,QQ}`$ is approximately constant. But this is precisely what happens during the tracking regime: from Eqs. (9) and (8) we see that $`V_{,Q}/V_{,QQ}V/V_{,Q}`$ constant in the tracking period. We stress that the type of solution (21) does not hold in the kinetic and potential phases, since in these cases $`V_{,QQ}0`$.

We can use the $`00`$ component of the Einstein equations to relate the Newtonian potential to the energy densities of other fluids

$$6H^2\mathrm{\Phi }6H\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}2\frac{k^2}{a^2}\mathrm{\Phi }=\delta \rho _r+\delta \rho _m+\delta \rho _Q.$$
(22)
In the long wavelength limit, assuming that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is stationary and ignoring the subdominant barotropic fluid we obtain:

$$2\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Omega }_F\delta _F+\mathrm{\Omega }_Q\delta _Q.$$
(23)
In the regime described by the attractor in Eq. (21) the perturbed energy density for quintessence, defined in Eq. (12), reduces to:

$`\delta \rho _Q^c`$ $``$ $`2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{V_{,Q}V_{,QQQ}}{V_{,QQ}^2}}\right)\dot{Q}^2\mathrm{\Phi }^c2\mathrm{\Phi }^c({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{Q}^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\gamma }})`$ (24)
$``$ $`2\mathrm{\Phi }^c\left[\rho _Q(\dot{Q}^2+V){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma }}+𝒪(\dot{\gamma })\right].`$ (25)
and the perturbed pressure defined in Eq. (13) is:

$$\delta p_Q=2p_Q\mathrm{\Phi }+2\mathrm{\Phi }(\dot{Q}^2V)\frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma }+𝒪(\dot{\gamma }).$$
(26)
Using now the background identities $`3H^2=\rho `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q1\mathrm{\Omega }_F`$ into Eq. (25), we obtain the density contrasts as functions of the Newtonian potential in the tracking regime:

$$\delta _Q^c\delta _F^c2\mathrm{\Phi }^c.$$
(27)
Notice that during tracking, quintessence and the dominant fluid species are in effect indistinguishable ($`\delta _Q^c\delta _F^c`$), consequently we expect isocurvature perturbations to be suppressed during that period.

A solution corresponding to (21) — though in the synchronous gauge — was first obtained in the case of exponential potentials, for which tracking is exact . An attractor for quintessence perturbations has also been conjectured in . As we have shown, the approximate solutions (21) and (27) hold for any potential, just as long as there is tracking, and, of course, they exist in any gauge.

We can also combine Eqs. (27) and (16) to obtain a relationship between the initial and final values of the Newtonian potential:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^c\frac{1}{6}\left(\delta _r^i4\mathrm{\Phi }^i\right),$$
(28)
where $`\delta _r^i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ are initial conditions for the radiation density contrast and the Newtonian potential respectively. Notice that these initial conditions can be specified even at a time when quintessence is dominating, and even if the radiation contrast and the Newtonian potential are initially not constant.

We have numerically verified formulas (21), (25), (27) and (28) for several scenarios and initial conditions. Take for example the scenario whose background appeared in our Fig. 1. Two typical initial conditions for the field perturbations are plotted in Figs. 2A and 2B (solid and dashed lines), together with the attractor solutions (thin red lines): as the scalar field starts to approach the tracking regime at $`z10^{12}`$, the perturbations start to converge around the attractor solution. As seen in Fig. 2A for the field perturbations $`\delta Q`$, the attractor of Eq. (21) is a very good approximation even after the tracking phase has ended — that is, Eq. (21) is a very good approximation during the quintessence-domination period as well, even though $`\delta Q`$ is not constant anymore. Fig. 2B shows how the quintessence density contrasts converge to $`2\mathrm{\Phi }`$. In fact, for a wide range of initial values the scalar field perturbations end up at the same solution $`\delta Q^c`$ after tracking.

This can be also seen in Fig. 3, which is the phase diagram for the perturbations with different initial conditions shown in Fig. 2. During tracking the solutions spiral down to the attractor (solid and dashed lines.) When tracking ends the attractor disappears, but by that time most modes have settled down to the same value, and their evolution is henceforth the same (see the thin red line in Fig. 3 which springs from the attractor point.) We note that this attractor occurs generally only during tracking and for long wavelengths: when the wavelength becomes important (of the order of the inverse effective mass ***If the effective mass is of the order of the Hubble radius, this occurs when the perturbations reenter inside the Hubble radius. It occurs at the same time if the effective mass vanishes (as happens during the kinetic and potential phases).), there is a sensitivity with respect to the initial conditions of the quintessence perturbations.

Summarizing the results of this section: in the kinetic and potential phases there is a constant long wavelength solution which is a linear combination of the initial field fluctuations and of the gravitational potential, as one can see from the initial evolution in Fig. 2A. In the tracking period the quintessence perturbation stabilizes at the attractor solution (21) and it remains at that constant value until the perturbation reenters the Hubble radius, or until quintessence starts to dominate the background.

## IV Evolution of isocurvature perturbations

Cosmological fluctuations are often characterized in terms of the gauge-invariant curvature perturbation on comoving hypersurfaces, defined as :

$$\zeta \frac{2}{3}\frac{\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}/H+\mathrm{\Phi }}{1+w}+\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(29)
The time variation of the intrinsic curvature $`\zeta `$ is given, on large scales, by the non-adiabatic pressure or, equivalently, by the amplitude of the isocurvature perturbations — see Eq. (1). Therefore, if the non-adiabatic pressure vanishes then $`\zeta `$ is constant.

The pressure perturbations can be split into adiabatic and non-adiabatic components:

$$\delta p=\frac{\delta p}{\delta \rho }|_{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }=0}\delta \rho +\frac{\delta p}{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}|_{\delta \rho =0}\delta \mathrm{\Gamma },$$
(30)
where we define the entropy perturbation $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as :

$$\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\delta p}{\dot{p}}\frac{\delta \rho }{\dot{\rho }}.$$
(31)
As a consequence we have that the adiabatic pressure perturbation is given by

$$\delta p_{\mathrm{ad}}=c_s^2\delta \rho \frac{\delta p}{\delta \rho }|_{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }=0}\delta \rho =\frac{\dot{p}}{\dot{\rho }}\delta \rho ,$$
(32)
and the non-adiabatic pressure is given by the second term in the right-hand side of the definition (30):

$`\delta p_{\mathrm{nad}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta p}{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}}|_{\delta \rho =0}\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }=\dot{p}\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`\delta pc_s^2\delta \rho {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(\delta p_ic_s^2\delta \rho _i\right).`$ (34)
We now give an analytic description of the time evolution of isocurvature perturbations for long wavelengths. We work perturbatively assuming $`\zeta `$ constant, and compute the non adiabatic pressure $`\dot{p}\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$: when the integrated effect is large, it means that isocurvature perturbations cannot be neglected. The results of this analysis confirm the methods of the previous section (where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ was assumed constant) and are in agreement with the numerical analysis.

Using Eq. (33) we find that the non-adiabatic pressure is given by:

$$\delta p_{\mathrm{nad}}=\left(w_rc_s^2\right)\delta \rho _r+\delta p_Qc_s^2\delta \rho _Q,$$
(35)
By using Eqs. (3) and (4) into Eqs. (35) one can check that in general

$$\frac{\delta p_{\mathrm{nad}}}{\rho +p}=𝒪(\mathrm{\Omega }_Q)\times (\delta _r+\delta _Q).$$
(36)
Therefore, when the quintessence contribution to the total energy density is very subdominant, the isocurvature contribution is small. However, since the isocurvature contribution to $`\zeta `$ is an integrated effect, $`\dot{\zeta }t\delta p_{\mathrm{nad}}`$, we should study the time evolution of each term which enters into the definition of the non-adiabatic pressure (35).

The first term in the right-hand side of Eq. (35) is proportional to $`\rho _r\delta _r`$ and leads at most to a logarithmic increase of $`\zeta `$.

Among the contributions from the pressure and the energy density of the scalar field we neglect the first term in the right-hand sides of both Eqs. (12) and (13). The term $`\dot{Q}^2\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is suppressed during the kinetic phase, but leads to a growth as $`a^{7+3w_{\mathrm{TOT}}}`$ in the left-hand-side of Eq. (36) in the potential regime. During the tracking regime $`\dot{Q}^2`$ gives approximately a constant contribution to (36). The term $`V,_Q\delta Q`$ depends explicitly on the quintessence fluctuations: it decays during the kinetic phase and it grows less rapidly than $`\dot{Q}^2\mathrm{\Phi }`$ during the potential regime. However, it leads to a growth as $`a^{3/2(1+w_{\mathrm{TOT}})}`$ during the tracking regime.

It is clear from Eq. (33) that for two barotropic fluids with the same equation of state and the same density contrast the non-adiabatic pressure should be zero. Therefore for exact tracking, quintessence and radiation equilibrate to give zero non-adiabatic pressure. We can also compute the non-adiabatic pressure in the tracking regime by using Eqs. (35), (4) and (8):

$`\delta p_{\mathrm{nad}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{Q}^2}{\rho +p}}(w_rc_Q^2)\left(\rho _r\delta _r2\mathrm{\Phi }\rho _Q\right)`$ (38)
$`+𝒪[(\gamma 1)\rho _Q\mathrm{\Phi }]`$
As expected, the non-adiabatic pressure vanishes for exact tracking ($`\gamma =1`$), otherwise it is small, but not vanishing, during tracking. In general $`\delta p_{\mathrm{nad}}`$ is proportional to $`\rho _Q`$, therefore small in many models.

There is however still one possibility that allows for significant isocurvature fluctuations from quintessence: this happens when the tracking phase starts only at a relatively late redshift, $`z10^510^3`$ (see also the next Section, Figs. 4, 5 and 6.) During the transition from the potential phase to the tracking phase, we can have both $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ non-negligible, and the equation of state and speed of sound of quintessence differ substantially from those of the background fluid. If the quintessence density contrast is of the same order of the matter density contrast at decoupling time $`z_{\mathrm{dec}}10^3`$, the isocurvature perturbations can leave an imprint on the CMBR. Later, as tracking forces the field perturbations to the attractor, the isocurvature fluctuations are temporarily depressed, at least until $`Q`$ starts to dominate at $`z0`$.

## V Initial conditions: adiabatic or mixed?

In this section we address the issue of how initial conditions of quintessence perturbations can be used as tools in CMBFAST . These initial conditions are set after nucleosynthesis, at $`z10^9`$. In most of the literature, the initial conditions for the quintessence fluctuations are set up by requiring adiabaticity with the other components . However, the notion of a purely adiabatic perturbation (as well for a purely isocurvature one) is an instantaneous notion for a multifluid system. Moreover, because of the unthermalized nature of quintessence, the adiabatic condition for this component is even less justified.

The adiabatic condition is usually defined as the vanishing of the relative entropy and its time derivative:

$`S_{rQ}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (39)
$`\dot{S}_{rQ}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (40)
which reduces, in longitudinal gauge, to:

$`\delta Q`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{Q}^2(V,_Q{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{Q}}{6H}})^1({\displaystyle \frac{\delta _rV,_Q}{4H\dot{Q}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{kV_r}{6aH}}),`$ (41)
$`\delta \dot{Q}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{Q}^2(V,_Q{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{Q}}{6H}})^1[{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{6a^2H}}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\delta _r+\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (43)
$`+V,_Q(\mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{Q}\delta _r}{4H\dot{Q}}}{\displaystyle \frac{kV_r}{6aH}})].`$
The relative entropy between the radiation and the quintessence components is defined asNotice that the definition (44) of entropy is different from the $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ introduced in Eq. (31). We consider this more standard definition $`S_{rQ}`$ as well since it is this quantity which is used in much of the literature to define the adiabatic conditions, and we want to show directly the difference between the initial conditions (41)-(43) and the ones defined by the attractor or by some previous dynamics.:

$$S_{rQ}\frac{\delta _r}{1+w_r}\frac{\delta _Q}{1+w_Q}.$$
(44)
From the above relation we immediately understand that $`S_{rQ}=0`$ in the case of exact tracking. Indeed, two fluids with the same equation of state and the same density contrast are undistinguishable. For long wavelengths relations (41)-(43) reduce to:

$`\delta Q`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{Q}}{4H}}\delta _r{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{Q}}{2H}}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (45)
$`\delta \dot{Q}`$ $``$ $`\dot{Q}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _r}{4}}\left(3+{\displaystyle \frac{V,_Q}{H\dot{Q}}}\right)\right]`$ (46)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{Q}}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{V,_Q}{H\dot{Q}}}\right)`$ (47)
where the second line of Eq. (47) holds only if radiation is the dominant component.

The conditions (45)-(47) should be compared with the solutions during the kinetic and potential phases, $`\delta Q=`$constant and $`\delta \dot{Q}=0`$, or with the attractor solution Eq. (21) which applies during the tracking phase:

$`\delta Q`$ $``$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{V,_Q}{V,_{QQ}}}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (48)
$`\delta \dot{Q}`$ $``$ $`2\dot{Q}\mathrm{\Phi }\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{V_{,Q}V_{,QQQ}}{V_{,QQ}^2}}\right).`$ (49)
It is not hard to see from Eq. (49) that in the tracking regime $`\delta \dot{Q}0`$, since $`V_{,Q}/V_{,QQ}V_{,QQ}/V_{,QQQ}`$. Using this fact together with Eq. (9), we also obtain that Eqs. (45) and (48) are similar during the tracking regime. Therefore, as expected, if the scalar field is tracking normal matter, then the adiabatic condition is approximately satisfied.

We illustrate the previous discussion in Figs. 4, 5 and 6. The background model is plotted in Fig. 4, and in Figs. 5-6 we present possible scenarios for the perturbations, as well as a comparison with the cosmological perturbations in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM case.

The upper (thin red) curves of Fig. 5 plot the gauge-invariant curvature $`\zeta `$, defined in Eq. (29). The lower (black) curves are the Newtonian potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. All plots in Fig. 5 have been normalized so that $`\mathrm{\Phi }=5.10^6`$ at $`z=10^9`$, and the wavelengths corresponds to modes which are crossing the Hubble radius at the present time ($`z=0`$.)

The solid lines of Fig. 5 correspond to the cosmological perturbations of a fiducial $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM scenario with adiabatic initial conditions. Notice that, as usual, since $`\zeta `$ remains constant, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has to change by $`9/10`$ after $`z_{eq}=10^4`$.

The long-dashed lines of Fig. 5 are the perturbations in a scenario (ICDM) where, in addition to the adiabatic mode, CDM and radiation have an initial relative isocurvature of $`S_{rCDM}=3\mathrm{\Phi }/2`$.

The short-dashed lines are the perturbations in the case of adiabatic initial conditions (AIC) between all components at $`z10^9`$. The dotted lines are the perturbations in the case where we choose zero isocurvature between radiation and CDM, and $`\delta Q=10^3`$, $`\delta \dot{Q}=0`$ initially (QIC.) This last set of initial conditions (QIC) is motivated by the fact that the field perturbations are constant during the kinetic and the potential phases — see, e.g., Fig. 2A.

Notice the identical late isocurvature effect in AIC and QIC. The signal of this effect is the extra growth of the Bardeen parameter $`\zeta `$ at late times (compare the dotted and short-dashed lines with the solid line in the interval $`0<z<10`$ in Fig. 5.) This effect is independent from the initial conditions for the quintessence fluctuations. In fact, as already emphasized, the notion of adiabaticity (as well as pure isocurvature) is an instantaneous one, imposed at an initial time, and it does not persist in a multi-fluid system. We stress that this effect is distinct from the change of the Newtonian potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which is due to the late change in the equation of state of the background, which can be seen in pure form in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM case (solid line in Fig. 5.) A similar change in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ occurs also at $`z_{\mathrm{eq}}=10^4`$, while $`\zeta `$ remains constant across the transition between radiation- and matter-domination.

Notice also the early isocurvature effect in the QIC case (oscillations of the dotted lines in Fig. 5.) This means that there is a substantial non-adiabatic pressure, and hence a large isocurvature perturbation, in this scenario. As we discussed at the end of the previous Section, the reason why isocurvature fluctuations can become important is that the “tracking regime” of the background model only starts relatively late, at $`z10^5`$. But the quintessence field perturbations need some time to converge to the attractor solution. During this time $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ becomes non-negligible, and since the $`Q`$ component still behaves quite differently from the dominant background fluid, there can be substantial isocurvature perturbations for wavelengths which cross the Hubble radius at $`z0`$. A similar transient effect occurs also for smaller scales, as shown in Fig. 6, for a wavelength which crosses the Hubble radius at the decoupling time. An isocurvature component from the quintessence field leads only to a transient effect, since quintessence fluctuations converge to an attractor for long wavelengths, and decay in time inside the Hubble radius. However, this early transient isocurvature effect can leave an imprint in the spectrum of the CMBR anisotropies.

## VI Discussion and Conclusions

We have studied the evolution of cosmological perturbations in quintessence models, with particular attention paid to isocurvature modes generated by quintessence. We have shown that these isocurvature modes are generic, with the exception of the case in which quintessence mimics exactly radiation. This occurs in the tracking phase of models with exponential potentials . However, these models are unappealing from the phenomenological point of view because their equation of state for quintessence is not negative at the present time.

When tracking is not exact, then isocurvature modes are non-vanishing. We found an attractor solution for long wavelength quintessence fluctuations in the tracking regime. This allows an estimation of the amount of isocurvature fluctuations in the tracking regime for any quintessence model that display a tracking period. In the other phases which usually occur in models with quintessence — the kinetic and potential phases — the quintessence fluctuations have also a constant mode, whose actual value is determined by the previous evolution (including inflation.) The contribution of isocurvature fluctuation to the adiabatic mode grows during the potential, tracking and $`Q`$-domination phases.

We have discussed the assumption of adiabaticity in the context of the setting of initial conditions used in numerical codes such as CMBFAST. As already emphasized, because of the lack of thermal equilibrium, this assumption is not justified for quintessence. However, in the tracking case, the conditions set by the attractor solution are in most cases quantitatively indistinguishable from the adiabatic conditions. Indeed, tracking seems a gravitational mechanism — alternative to thermal equilibrium — which tends to reduce isocurvature modes between quintessence and the background fluid. For models with a tracking phase which starts early in time, we expect a weak dependence on the initial conditions for the quintessence fluctuations. In the stages prior to the tracking phase the “initial conditions” (understood as the values of the field perturbation and its time derivative at a redshift of $`z10^9`$) depend on the conditions set by inflation, and could be different from the adiabatic ones.

We have identified a late isocurvature effect for long wavelengths due to quintessence. Of course, this is due to the fact that Q dominates at late times, and it is qualitatively independent from the model considered. Therefore, the theoretical explanation of the long wavelength evolution of the Newtonian potential in Q models is a superposition of two effects: the change of the equation of state and the growth of $`\zeta `$ on super-Hubble scales. This late isocurvature effect could be useful in order to distinguish a cosmological constant model from the models with a quintessence component.

The observational relevance of isocurvature modes generated by quintessence is weakened by the decay in time of quintessence perturbations inside the Hubble radius. For this reason the isocurvature mode in the Q-radiation sector are very different from those in CDM-radiation. This effect was also very appealing in order to minimize the effects of the inclusion of this extra component on structure formation. In the models examined here, the suppression of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ during the kinetic phase play also a crucial role in order to weaken the effect of some initial isocurvature modes generated by quintessence. Even if the upper bound during nucleosynthesis for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ is $`0.2`$ , the kinetic regime suppresses $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ down to $`10^{15}10^{20}`$ in the models which we have analyzed. Therefore our considerations may be more relevant for models in which $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ is closer to the upper limit, as, for instance, in the models with a modified exponential potential .

It is therefore interesting to study the impact of isocurvature fluctuations in quintessence models using numerical tools such as CMBFAST  in which quintessence perturbations are included. In particular, it is possible to construct models where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q`$ is not so suppressed or in which there is a late tracking phase, in which case isocurvature modes generated by quintessence could lead to observable effects in the temperature anisotropies of the cosmic background radiation.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank C. Baccigalupi, R. Brandenberger, V. Mukhanov and N. Turok for comments. R. A. thanks the Physics Department at Purdue University for its hospitality at the time of writing the first draft of this paper. F. F. also thanks the Ludwig Maximilians Universität for its hospitality during the final stages of this work. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant DE-FG02-91ER40681 (Task B), and by the Sonderforschungsbereich 375-95 für Astro-Teilchenphysik der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft.

## VII Appendix A

Here we present the equations that were evolved numerically. Combining the $`00`$ and $`ii`$ Einstein field equations we can eliminate the radiation perturbations, and obtain the following equation for the quintessence and matter perturbations (as explained in the text, we work with units such that $`8\pi G=1`$, and we have ignored the distinction between baryons and CDM):

$`3\ddot{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`+`$ $`15H\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}+\left(12H^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{a^2}}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (51)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _m\rho _m+\dot{Q}\delta \dot{Q}\dot{Q}^2\mathrm{\Phi }2V_{,Q}\delta Q.`$
The equation of motion for the scalar field perturbations is given in Eq. (14). The matter density contrast obeys the energy conservation equation:

$$\dot{\delta }_m3\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{k}{a}v_m=0,$$
(52)
where $`v_m`$ is the matter fluid velocity, which itself satisfies the momentum conservation equation:

$$\dot{v}_m+Hv_m+\frac{k}{a}\mathrm{\Phi }=0.$$
(53)
## VIII Appendix B

Here we present the evolution of pure isocurvature modes generated by the quintessence sector. Consider contributions from quintessence and another component $`X`$ to the metric perturbation, which cause a vanishing contribution to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$  at some fixed initial time in the energy and momentum constraint. This requires that:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_Q\delta _Q=\mathrm{\Omega }_X\delta _X`$ (54)
$`\dot{Q}\delta Q={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}v_X\rho _X,`$ (55)
which identifies an isocurvature density mode (54) and an isocurvature velocity mode (55) . The third component $`Y`$ is the only one which leads to a curvature perturbation (for long wavelengths $`2\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_Y\delta _Y`$, as follows from Eq. (23).) The components $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are related by adiabaticity ($`S_{XY}=0`$.) Therefore, the quintessence density contrast at fixed initial time is:

$$\delta _Q=\delta _X\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_X}{\mathrm{\Omega }_Q}=2\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{1+w_X}{1+w_Y}\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_X}{\mathrm{\Omega }_Y\mathrm{\Omega }_Q}$$
(56)
In Fig. 7 the evolution of the Bardeen parameter $`\zeta `$ for initial pure Q-CDM ($`X=\mathrm{CDM}`$, solid line) and Q-radiation ($`X=\mathrm{radiation}`$, dashed line) isocurvature initial conditions at $`z=10^9`$ for the model of Fig. 4. At the initial time the Newtonian potential is so small in order to ensure $`\delta _Q1`$. However, in both cases - but in particular for the Q-radiation isocurvature initial conditions -, Eqs. (54)-(55) force Q fluctuations to very large values, either initially and in the subsequent evolution. The evolution of Q fluctuations for these type of initial conditions is not described by the attractor (21) – i.e. the inhomogeneous solution to the differential equation for the quintessence fluctuations –, but by the homogeneous solution to Eq. (14). Indeed, in Fig. 7 the growth of the Bardeen parameter saturates roughly when tracking starts in Fig. 4, i.e. when the homogeneous solution for quintessence fluctuations start to decay, as described by Eqs. (19)-(20) with $`\alpha 0`$.


format: text

text:
# Detection of the optical afterglow of GRB 000630: Implications for dark bursts Based on observations made with the Nordic Optical Telescope, operated on the island of La Palma jointly by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canaria, and with the German-Spanish Astronomical Centre, Calar Alto, operated by the MPI für Astronomie, Heidelberg, jointly with the Spanish National Commission for Astronomy, and with the TNG, operated on the island of La Palma by the Centro Galileo Galilei of the CNAA at the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias.

## 1 Introduction

The discoveries of the first $`X`$-ray afterglow (Costa et al. 1997) and Optical Transient (OT) (van Paradijs et al. 1997) of a gamma-ray burst (GRB) have led to a major breakthrough in GRB research. The determination of a redshift of 0.835 for GRB~970508 (Metzger et al. 1997), and the subsequent determination of redshifts of more than a dozen bursts with a median redshift of $``$1.0, have firmly established their cosmological origin (e.g. Kulkarni et al. 2000 and references therein).

In several cases supernovae (SNe) have been connected to GRBs. Attention to this connection was, from the observational side, first drawn in the remarkable case of GRB~980425 that was associated with SN1998bw (Galama et al. 1998). Furthermore, the light–curves of GRB 970228 and GRB 980326 (Reichart 1999, Galama et al. 2000; Castro-Tirado and Gorosabel 1999; Bloom et al. 1999) have bumps that are consistent with a contribution from an underlying SN. In no cases the presence of an underlying SN contribution to the light–curve has been firmly excluded. The exclusion of a SN contribution from the light–curve of GRB 990712 (Hjorth et al. 2000) was based on a wrong identification of the OT in the HST image. A revised analysis indeed shows an underlying SN contribution to the light–curve (Björnsson et al. 2001).

Moreover, for less than half ($``$ 30%) of all GRBs with well-determined coordinates have searches for optical counterparts been successful. In some cases the lack of detection can be easily explained by too bright detection limits (e.g. due to light from the moon, nearby bright stars or twilight), too slow reaction time or high foreground extinction in the Galaxy. However, GRB 981226 (Frail et al. 1999) and GRB 990506 (Taylor et al. 2000) displayed no optical afterglow down to R–band limits of R=23 and R=23.5 less than half a day after the bursts (Jensen et al. 1999; Pedersen et al. 1999), and both had a detectable radio afterglow. GRB 970828 (Groot et al. 1998a) had a weak X-ray counterpart, but no OT was detected down to an R-band limit of 23.8 only 3 hours after the burst. It is still not known whether these ‘dark’ bursts constitute the faint end of a (continuous) OT luminosity function or whether they represent a special class of GRBs that are truly dark in the optical (in other words a dichotomy similar to the radio-loud vs. radio quiet dichotomy for QSOs).

In this paper we present the detection of the OT of GRB 000630. GRB 000630 was observed by Ulysses, Konus-Wind, NEAR, and the BeppoSAX GRBM June 30.02 UT (Hurley et al. 2000). GRB 000630 had a duration of $``$20 s, and a 25–100 keV fluence of $``$2$`\times `$10-6 erg cm-2. These gamma-ray properties are consistent with the long–duration class of bursts (Hurley 1992; Kouveliotou et al. 1993). In Sect. 2 and in Sect. 3 we present our optical observations and the results we have obtained. We also discuss the implications of our results on our understanding of the $``$ 70% of GRBs with no detected optical counterparts. Finally we summarize our results in Sect. 4.

## 2 Observations

The IPN error-box of GRB~000630 (Hurley et al. 2000) was observed in the R–band with the 2.56-m Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT) on 2000 June 30.90 UT (0.88 days after the burst) using the Andalucía Faint Object Spectrograph (ALFOSC). Comparing with red and blue Palomar Optical Sky Survey II exposures no OT was found (Jensen et al. 2000a). Further R–band imaging of the field was carried out on July 1.9 UT. One object was found to have faded about one magnitude from June 30.90 to July 1.9. Subsequent deep R–band imaging obtained on July 3.9 UT confirmed the transient nature of the object and hence established this object as the likely optical afterglow of GRB 000630 (Jensen et al. 2000b). Further deep R–band imaging of the OT was obtained at the NOT on July 10.9 UT and on July 25.9 UT. We have also obtained R–band imaging with the U.S. Naval Observatory Flagstaff Station (USNOFS) 1.0-m telescope and the Calar Alto (CA) 2.2-m telescope (Greiner et al. 2000), and B and V images with the 3.5-m Telescopio Nazionale Galileo (TNG). The journal of observations is reported in Table LABEL:obslog.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Astrometry

By measuring the position of the OT relative to 29 stars in the USNO-A2.0 catalog we found the celestial coordinates of the OT to be RA(J2000) = 14:47:13.485, Dec(J2000) = +41:13:53.25. The rms deviations around a fit to the positions of the 29 stars is 0.3 arcsec. A region of the NOT images centred on the OT is shown in Fig. 1.

### 3.2 Photometry

#### 3.2.1 The R–band light–curve

As the OT was faint at the time of discovery and as it is situated in a region with several nearby galaxies we have performed Point Spread Function (PSF) photometry with DAOPHOT II (Stetson S1987 (1987)S1997 (1997)) to measure the magnitude of the OT. We first performed relative PSF-photometry between the OT and stars in the field. Standard magnitudes for these stars were then obtained from Henden (2000) and the offset from the PSF-photometry to the standard system was derived. The magnitudes of the OT derived in this way are given in Table LABEL:obslog. The OT was not detected in the two latest epochs (July 10.9 and 25.9). For these epochs we have provided the 2$`\sigma `$ upper limits to the OT R–band magnitude.

To derive the light–curve parameters we fit a linear relation of the form $`R=R_0\alpha 2.5\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ to the NOT and Yost et al. (2000) data points. The $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom is 0.56 and the derived value of the power-law decay slope is $`\alpha `$ = $``$1.035$`\pm `$0.097.

#### 3.2.2 B and V band photometry

We performed the B and V–band photometry in the same way as for the R–band. The results are shown in Table LABEL:obslog. The OT was only detected in the V–band, hence for the B filter we can only derive a 2$`\sigma `$ upper limit. The V$``$R colour of the OT is 0.77$`\pm `$0.27, redder than most OTs observed so far and similar to the red afterglow of GRB 000418 (Klose et al. 2000). The foreground extinction towards the field of GRB 000630 is E(B$``$V)=0.013$`\pm `$0.02 (Schlegel et al. 1998), which is negligible.

### 3.3 Limit on the magnitude of the host galaxy

There are no indications of a host galaxy right underneath the point source emission from the OT. The closest galaxy is located 2.0 arcsec north of the OT. In order to put a stringent limit on the magnitude of any galaxy coincident with the OT we combined all the images obtained on July 10.9 and July 25.9 (a total of 2.8 hours of imaging) using the code described in Møller and Warren (1993). The final combined image reaches a 5$`\sigma `$ limiting magnitude of 25.2 in a 1.0 arcsec radius circular aperture. The FWHM of point sources in the combined image is 0.93 arcsec.

Fig. 2 shows a 10$`\times `$10 arcsec2 region centered on the position of the OT. No emission is detected at that position. The magnitude of the nearest galaxy, 2.0 arcsec north of the OT, is 24.68$`\pm `$0.15 measured in a 1.0 arcsec radius circular aperture. The galaxy has an extension in the direction of the OT, but we cannot with any certainty establish whether this galaxy is the host galaxy of GRB 000630. The galaxy is also detected in the B and V band images of TNG. The colours of the galaxy are B$``$V=0.1$`\pm `$0.3 and V$``$R=0.2$`\pm `$0.2, which is blue compared e.g. to the galaxies in the NTT deep field (Arnouts et al. 1999, their Fig. 2).

### 3.4 Constraint on the presence of an underlying SN

The OT was not detected in the deep R–band image obtained 25.9 days after the event, which constrains the possible contribution to the light–curve from a supernova similar to SN1998bw. Even if the decay slope $`\alpha `$ has steepened to $`\alpha `$ = $``$2.5 four days after the high energy event we can exclude (by 2 and 0.5 magnitudes for redshifts of z=0.5 and 1.3 respectively) a contribution from a supernova like SN1998bw if the redshift of the GRB is below $``$1.3. Any extinction in the host galaxy of the OT emission will of course loosen this constraint.

### 3.5 Implications for dark bursts

The OTs of GRB 980329, GRB 980613 and GRB 000630 are the faintest optical transients detected within 24 hours from the high energy events. The OT of GRB 980329 was detected with the New Technology Telescope at R=23.6$`\pm `$0.2 0.83 days after the GRB (Palazzi et al. 1998) at the position of a previously found radio afterglow (Taylor et al. 1998). The OT of GRB 980613 was detected with the NOT 0.69 days after the GRB with a magnitude of R=22.9$`\pm `$0.2 (Hjorth et al. 1998, 1999; Hjorth et al. in prep.). GRB 000630 is interesting because for this faint burst the afterglow properties (decay and spectral slope) are fairly well constrained. The faintness of the OT of GRB 000630 cannot be explained by a steep decay slope as in the case of GRB 980326 (Groot et al. 1998b). Hence, the OT must be faint either due to reddening in the host galaxy as in the case of GRB 000418 (Klose et al. 2000), a very high redshift as in the case of GRB 000131 (Andersen et al. 2000) or a low-density circumburst environment (Mészáros and Rees 1997; Taylor et al. 2000). The V$``$R colour of the OT implies a spectral slope of $`\beta =2.09\pm `$0.97 (Fν $`t^\alpha \nu ^\beta `$), which, though uncertain, may indicate either significant reddening in the host galaxy or a high redshift. Spectral slopes of GRBs are typically between $``$0.6 and $``$1.0.

It is still not understood why OTs have only been detected for about 30% of well localized GRBs. Possible explanations are i) there is a optically bright vs. optically dark dichotomy for GRBs similar to the radio quiet vs. radio loud dichotomy for QSOs (i.e. a bimodal OT luminosity function), ii) a large fraction of GRBs occur at redshifts $`z`$ 7 and are hence invisible in the optical due to Ly-$`\alpha `$ blanketing and absorption by intervening Lyman-limit systems, iii) a large fraction of GRBs occur in highly obscured galaxies similar to the SCUBA-selected galaxies (e.g. Ivison et al. 2000) so that the optical emission never escapes the host galaxies, or iv) the shape of the OT luminosity function is such that with the search strategies applied in the period 1997–2000 we would not expect to detect OTs for more than 30% of the well localized GRBs.

In order to shed some light on this problem we have compiled in Table LABEL:darkdata, mainly using the GCN Circular archive111http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/gcn3\_archive.html, the most stringent R–band upper limits to magnitudes and their observation epochs relative to the GRB epoch ($`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$) for 43 GRBs with no detected OT. The left panel in Fig. 3 shows the upper limits plotted against $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ for the 43 GRBs. Also plotted is the light–curve of the OT of GRB 000630 (full-drawn line) and its extrapolation to earlier times than the first observing epoch (dashed line). As seen, except for GRB 990316, all upper limits are above the observed ($``$ 1 day after GRB event) light–curve of GRB 000630. However, the strong upper limit on the magnitude of GRB 990316 is only valid for a 2$`\times `$2 arcmin2 region around a candidate LOTIS transient that may be unrelated to the GRB. The upper limits for GRB 970815, GRB 970828, GRB 981226, GRB 990217, GRB 990506, GRB 990704, GRB 990806, GRB 991014, GRB 991105, and GRB 000615 are below the extrapolation of the light–curve to earlier times. Two of these, GRB 991014 and GRB 991105, occurred in fields with relatively high foreground extinction (with E(B$``$V) values 0.268 and 0.598 respectively). Note here, that not all OT light–curves peak at $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$t$`<`$1 day (Guarnieri et al. 1997, but see also Galama et al. 2000; Pedersen et al. 1998). In the right panel of Fig. 3 we show the histogram of R–band magnitudes at $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$t=1 day (in 0.5 mag bins) of the 13 OTs (prior to and including GRB 000630) that were detected earlier than 24 hr after the burst. It is much more difficult to detect an OT at R=23 than at R=19.5, and an OT having R=24 at $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$t=1 day would almost certainly not be detected with current search strategies. Therefore the observed distribution is not the real distribution of apparent OT magnitudes. The real distribution must have a larger fraction of bursts in the fainter bins. From the two plots in Fig. 3 we conclude that the majority ($``$ 75%) of GRBs without detected OTs are consistent with no detection if they were similar to dim bursts like GRB 980329, GRB 980613, and GRB 000630 at optical wavelengths.

In Fig. 4a–c we compare the properties of BATSE-detected GRBs with and without detected OTs. In Fig. 4a we show the spectral hardness vs. duration plot for 1959 BATSE bursts (shown as contours following Jensen et al. (2001)). Superimposed as filled circles and crosses are the positions of GRBs with and without detected OTs. As seen, the two groups populate the same region in the long-duration part of the diagram. In Fig. 4b we show the channel 3 fluence histogram in 0.1 dex bins for all BATSE bursts. The GRBs with and without detected OTs again show similar distributions. Finally, in Fig. 4c the R–band magnitude of the OT at $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ = 1 day in 0.5 mag bins for GRBs with detected OTs or the upper limit for GRBs without detected OTs are plotted against the logarithm of the channel 3 fluence. We have shifted the upper limits to $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ = 1 day assuming a decay slope of $`\alpha =1`$. Intuitively one might expect a correlation between the energy released at gamma-ray wavelengths and in the optical at some level, although different redshifts and different amounts of dust obscuration will increase the scatter. However, Fig. 4c does not indicate any correlation. Moreover, the upper limits for the majority of GRBs with no detected OTs do not place them in regions of the diagram that are not already populated by GRBs with detected OTs. This means that based on the gamma-ray properties of the current sample we cannot conclude that GRBs with no detected OTs belong to another class of GRBs than GRBs with detected OTs.

## 4 Summary

The OT of GRB 000630 was detected with the NOT 21.1 hours after the high energy event with an R–band magnitude of 23.04$`\pm `$0.08. The OT subsequently followed a power-law decay characterized by a slope of $`\alpha `$ = $``$1.035$`\pm `$0.097. From the deep R–band image obtained 25.9 days after the event we find that there is no evidence for an underlying SN. Furthermore, there is no indication of a host galaxy down to a 5$`\sigma `$ limit of R=25.2 right underneath the point source emission from the OT. The closest galaxy is a blue galaxy located 2.0 arcsec north of the OT.

For the problem of dark bursts we find that the majority ($``$ 75%) of GRBs for which searches for optical afterglow have been unsuccessful are consistent with no detection if they were similar to bursts like GRB 000630 at optical wavelengths. We at present cannot exclude nor confirm any of the explanations i – iv listed above (see Sect 3.5) for why some bursts are darker than others. In order to establish the reasons why most GRBs searches for OTs up till now have been unsuccessful, and thereby obtain a more complete understanding of optical afterglows to GRBs and the relation between optical and high energy properties of GRBs, it is therefore essential to conduct deep (R$`{}_{lim}{}^{}`$ 24 at $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$1.0 day) follow-up imaging at optical wavelengths and also deep infra-red follow-up of a sample of well localized and homogeneously selected GRBs. This is feasible with the next generation of GRB satellites and 8–m class telescopes.

## Acknowledgments

We thank our anonymous referee for comments that helped us improve the discussion of dark bursts significantly. Some of the data presented here have been taken using ALFOSC, which is owned by the Instituto de Astrofisica de Andalucia (IAA) and operated at the Nordic Optical Telescope under agreement between IAA and the NBIfAFG of the Astronomical Observatory of Copenhagen. Support for this programme by the director of the Nordic Optical Telescope, professor Piirola, is much appreciated. We acknowledge M. Feroci for his assistance with IPN operations and F. Frontera for his assistance with BeppoSAX operations. KH is grateful for Ulysses support under JPL Contract 958056, for NEAR support under NASA grant NAG5-9503, and for BeppoSAX support under NASA grant NAG5-9126. We thank F. Hoyo for help in the observations at Calar Alto. JG acknowledges the receipt of a Marie Curie Research Grant from the European Commission. This work was supported by the Danish Natural Science Research Council (SNF).