format: text

text:
# On the newtonian limit and cut–off scales of isothermal dark matter halos with cosmological constant.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Recent observational data from type Ia supernovae and CMB anisotropies suggests that large scale cosmic dynamics are dominated by a repulsive type of matter–energy density, generically known as a “dark energy”. In its most simple empirical formulation, dark energy can be described as a “$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field” associated with the “cosmological constant”. More sophisticated models of dark energy take the form of scalar field sources in which the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field corresponds to the limit of vanishing scalar field gradients. This paper addresses an important issue in this context, namely: to examine if this type of repulsive interaction has any influence on the equilibrium of virialized galactic halo structures. Various aspects regarding this question have been considered previously in the literature. Lahav et al. (1991) have argued, using Newtonian spherical infall models (or “top hat” models), that the effects of a cosmological constant can be neglected in the study of structure formation. Further improvements of “top hat” models incorporating $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and/or quintessence–like fields have been considered by Wang & Steinhardt (1998), Iliev & Shapiro (2001) and Lokas & Hoffman (2001). Constraints on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at the level of clusters and superclusters have been placed by means of optical gravitational lens surveys (Quast & Helbig 1999) and peculiar velocities of galaxies (Zehavi & Dekel 1999). Other papers (e.g. Axenides et al. 2000, Nowakowski 2001 and Nowakowski et al. 2001) have studied the effect of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on galactic structures within the framework of General Relativity, though looking at this effect not in the self–gravitating sources themselves, but through the dynamics of test observers in a Schwarzschild-deSitter field that is supposed to be the “external” field of these sources.

In this paper we complement and extend previous work by studying a spherically symmetric, self–gravitating, Maxwell–Boltzmann (MB) gas in hydrostatic equilibrium with a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field given as a “cosmological constant”, subject to observational constraints. Although galactic halo structures are characterized by Newtonian energies and velocities, we find it to be more correct to examine these sources within General Relativity and then obtain the adequate (“weak field”) Newtonian limit. The reason for this approach follows from the fact that in Newtonian physics the mass density is the only source of gravitation and so a non–gravitational interaction, such as the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field, does not contribute to the “effective gravitational mass”. In General Relativity, on the other hand, all forms of matter–energy count as sources of gravitation (curvature of spacetime). Therefore, even in the Newtonian limit, the matter–energy contribution from the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field could be comparable (or at least might not be negligible in comparison) to rest–mass density of the MB gas, so that the hydrostatic equations furnished by the Newtonian limit might not coincide with those “naively” obtained from a Newtonian framework. As we show in this paper, for a MB gas and a constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field, the Newtonian limit yields a different set of equilibrium equations from those of Newtonian theory. However, we cannot know a priori if this difference leads to significant or negligible effects until we solve the equilibrium equations and compare their solutions in both cases. Such ambiguity regarding the Newtonian limit would not arise if we were only dealing with a MB gas (a thermal source), this is so because in this case the internal energy (the only contribution to matter–energy besides rest–mass) is negligible in comparison with rest–mass, leading to the “isothermal sphere” as the unequivocal Newtonian limit.

It is a well known result that within the hierarchical model of structure formation (White & Rees 1978) the final halo structure which results from the repeated merger events building up a galaxy is well represented not by an isothermal structure, but by a centrally divergent steep inner halo profile, first noted by Navarro, Frenk & White (1997), and since confirmed by numerous authors. However, controversy still surrounds this result in as much as direct dynamical studies of galactic rotation curves, across wide dynamical ranges in galaxy size, appear to indicate the presence of a constant density core in the dark haloes of galaxies (e.g. Burkert & Silk 1997, de Blok, McGaugh & Rubin 2001, Firmani et al. 2001, among others). This being the case, we think it worthwhile to study in depth the modifications a simple isothermal halo suffers in the presence of a dominant $`\lambda `$ component, even though this results may prove to be merely indicative of a case where not just a stable halo is being treated, but including the full merger-driven formation of such a structure. Whatever the correct structure scenario eventually turns out to be, a detailed understanding of the behaviour of the quintessential galactic halo toy model -the isothermal halo- in the presence of an important cosmological $`\lambda `$ term, will surely prove valuable.

The organization of the paper is described below. Sections II, III and IV respectively provide the general relativistic formulation for a non–relativistic MB gas, a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field as a zero gradient limit of a quintessence–like scalar field and the equations of hydrostatic equilibrium for these sources. We examine the Newtonian limit of the models in section V, showing that in the equilibrium equations in this limit do not coincide with the corresponding Newtonian equations for the same sources. In section VI we discuss the cut off length scales, $`r_1,r_2`$, introduced by the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field, comparing them in section VII (by means of rough qualitative arguments) with physically motivated length scales of virialized halo structures (virialization radius and critical radius associated with Antonov instability). In section VIII we review briefly the equilibrium equations for the King halos, while in section IX we use the numerical integration of the various sets of equilibrium equations in order to verify the issues discussed analytically and qualitatively in previous sections: the difference between the Newtonian limit of General Relativity and a pure Newtonian framework and the fact that $`r_2`$ is 5–7 times larger than physically motivated length scales. We briefly summarize these results in section X. The paper contains 9 figures obtained from the numerical solution of the equilibrium equations.

## 2 The non–relativistic Maxwell-Boltzmann gas

A relativistic MB gas follows from a Kinetic Theory formalism associated with the equilibrium MB distribution (de Groot et al. 1980). For gas particles of mass $`m`$, the parameter of “relativity coldness” is defined as

$`\beta {\displaystyle \frac{mc^2}{k__BT}},`$ (1)
where $`k__B`$ is Boltzmann constant and $`T`$ is the temperature. The non–relativistic MB gas corresponds to the limit $`\beta 1`$, leading to the following forms for the energy density $`\epsilon `$ and pressure $`p`$

$`\epsilon `$ $`=n\left(mc^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}k__BT\right)=mc^2n\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\beta }}\right),`$ (2)
$`p`$ $`=nk__BT={\displaystyle \frac{mc^2n}{\beta }},`$ (3)
with the particle number density, $`n`$, given by

$`n=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{mc}{\sqrt{2\pi \beta }\mathrm{}}}\right]^3\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{mc^2}}1\right)\right],`$ (4)
where $`2\pi \mathrm{}`$ is Planck’s constant and $`\mu `$ is the Gibbs function per particle (de Groot et al. 1980), the chemical potential. The MB distribution is a solution of the Einstein–Boltzmann equations, irrespective of whether the gas is collisional or collisionless, its applicability is only restricted by the criterion of “non-degeneracy” or “dilute occupancy” (Pathria 1972): $`\mathrm{exp}(\mu \beta /mc^2)1`$. For typical galactic halo variables, this criterion holds for particle masses complying with $`m60`$ eV (Cabral-Rossetti et al. 2002).

Under General Relativity, a spacetime whose source is a self gravitating MB gas can be described by the Momentum–Energy tensor of a perfect fluid

$`T_{\text{MB}}^{ab}=\epsilon u^au^b+ph^{ab},`$ (5)
where $`\epsilon ,p`$ follows from equations (2)–(4) and $`h^{ab}=u^au^b+g^{ab}`$. Such a spacetime must admit a timelike Killing vector field (Maartens 1996)

$$\beta ^a=\beta u^a,$$
(6)
so that

$$\dot{u}_ah_a^b(\mathrm{ln}\beta )_{,b}=0,$$
(7)
where $`\dot{u}_a=u_{;b}u^b`$ is the 4-acceleration. Condition (6) implies that the spacetime must be stationary (or static if vorticity vanishes), while condition (7) is the “Tolman Law” indicating that equilibrium of a MB gas in General Relativity requires the existence of a nonzero temperature gradient, a specific spacelike gradient that balances the 4-acceleration associated with a stationary frame. In a comoving representation, condition (7) becomes $`T\sqrt{g_{tt}}=\text{const.}`$

## 3 Quintessence and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ field

“Dark energy” matter-energy sources are usually represented as a quintessence–like scalar field $`\varphi `$ with a Momentum–Energy tensor

$`T_\text{Q}^{ab}=\varphi ^{,a}\varphi ^{,b}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi _{,c}\varphi ^{,c}+V(\varphi )\right]g^{ab},`$ (8)
where $`V(\varphi )`$ is the scalar field potential. Since we are not interested in a cosmological quintessence source, but rather in its gravitational interaction with a MB gas at the galactic and galactic cluster scale, it is reasonable to assume that the gradients $`\varphi _{,a}`$ are negligible, hence we can approximate equation (8) by a “cosmological constant” or a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field given by

$`T_\text{Q}^{ab}V(\varphi _0)g^{ab}=\mathrm{\Lambda }g^{ab},`$ (9)
equivalent to a source with matter–energy density

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _{\text{crit}}c^2,`$
$`\rho _{\text{crit}}`$ $`=1.88\times 10^{29}h^2\text{gm}/\text{cm}^3`$ (10)
where, according to observational evidence, we can take $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7`$ and $`h0.65`$. If there is only gravitational interaction between the MB gas and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ field, the conditions

$`T_\text{Q}^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}=0,T_{\text{MB}}^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}=0,`$ (11)
must hold separately. This condition is trivially satisfied for $`T_\text{Q}^{ab}`$ given by equation (9).

## 4 The field equations

In order to model an equilibrium galactic halo structure we will consider spherically symmetric static spacetimes, compatible with equations (6) and (7). The metric is then

$`\text{d}s^2=`$ $`\text{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Phi }}{c^2}}\right)c^2\text{d}t^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}r^2}{1\kappa M/r}}+r^2\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$
$`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ $`\text{d}\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \text{d}\varphi ^2,`$ (12)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(r),M=M(r)`$ and $`\kappa 8\pi G/c^2`$, so that $`M`$ is given in mass units. The source of equation (12) is the perfect fluid momentum–energy tensor

$`T^{ab}=`$ $`T_{\text{MB}}^{ab}+T_\text{Q}^{ab}=(\epsilon +\mathrm{\Lambda })u^au^b+(p\mathrm{\Lambda })h^{ab},`$
$`u^a=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Phi }/c^2)\delta _t^a,`$ (13)
with $`ϵ,p`$ given by equations (2)–(4). Einstein’s field equations together with the balance law $`T_{\text{MB}}^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}=0`$ for equation (12), equations (13) and (17) now take the form

$`M^{}`$ $`=(\epsilon +\mathrm{\Lambda })r^2/c^2,`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}}{c^2}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M+(p\mathrm{\Lambda })r^3/c^2}{r(r\kappa M)}},`$ (15)
$`p^{}`$ $`=(\epsilon +p){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}}{c^2}},`$ (16)
where a prime denotes derivative with respect to $`r`$. Since the 4-acceleration is given by $`\dot{u}_a=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}/c^2\delta _a^r`$, the constraint (7) takes the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}}{c^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\beta =\beta _c\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_c}{c^2}}\right),`$ (17)
where $`\beta _c\beta (0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_c\mathrm{\Phi }(0)`$. The subscript c will denote henceforth evaluation along the symmetry center $`r=0`$. Inserting equations (2), (3) and (4) into equation (16) and using condition (17) yields after some algebra

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{}}{\mu }}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \mu }{mc^2}}=C_0=\text{const.},`$ (18)
so that $`n,ϵ`$ and $`p`$ become functions depending only on $`\beta `$ (or on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ via equation (17)). Using equation (18) and re-scaling $`n`$ with respect to the central rest–mass density $`\rho _c=mn_c`$, the matter–energy density and pressure for the equilibrium MB gas become

$`\epsilon =\rho c^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\beta }}\right),p={\displaystyle \frac{\rho c^2}{\beta }},`$ (19)
where the rest–mass density is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\rho _c}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _c}{\beta }}\right)^{3/2}\text{e}^{\beta _c\beta }.`$ (20)
However, it is more useful to express these state variables and the field equations themselves in terms of the central velocity dispersion (e.g. Binney & Tremaine 1987)

$`\sigma _c^2{\displaystyle \frac{k__BT_c}{m}}={\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{\beta _c}},`$ (21)
and the dimensionless variable

$`\mathrm{\Psi }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_c\mathrm{\Phi }}{\sigma _c^2}},`$ (22)
which in the Newtonian limit becomes the “normalized potential”. Combining equations (17), (21) and (22), we obtain the “redshifted” temperature provided by Tolman’s law

$`T=T_c\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_c\mathrm{\Phi }}{c^2}}\right)=T_c\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _c^2}{c^2}}\mathrm{\Psi }\right),`$ (23)
showing the specific temperature gradient of an MB gas in thermodynamic equilibrium.

With the help of equations (17) and (20), we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\rho _c}}=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _c^2}{c^2}}\mathrm{\Psi }+{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{\sigma _c^2}}\left(1\text{e}^{(\sigma _c/c)^2\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)\right],`$
(24)
so that $`\epsilon `$ and $`p`$ become

$`\epsilon `$ $`=\rho c^2\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{3\sigma _c^2}{2c^2}}\text{e}^{(\sigma _c/c)^2\mathrm{\Psi }}\right],`$ (25)
$`p`$ $`=\rho \sigma _c^2\text{e}^{(\sigma _c/c)^2\mathrm{\Psi }},`$ (26)
The field equation that we have to solve are then equations (14) and (15), with $`\epsilon ,p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ given by equations (10), (25) and (26). However, it is convenient to express these equations in terms of equations (21), (22) and the following dimensionless variables

$`x`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_0}},r_0^2={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi G\rho _c}{\sigma _c^2}},`$
$``$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{M}{\rho _cr_0^3}},`$ (27)
leading to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}x}}`$ $`=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\rho _c}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3\sigma _c^2}{2c^2}}\text{e}^{(\sigma _c/c)^2\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)+\lambda \right]x^2,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Psi }}{\text{d}x}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{+\left[(\rho /\rho _c)(\sigma _c^2/c^2)\text{e}^{(\sigma _c/c)^2\mathrm{\Psi }}\lambda \right]x^3}{x\left[x2(\sigma _c^2/c^2)\right]}},`$
where $`\rho /\rho _c`$ follows from equation (24) and

$`\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{\text{crit}}}{\rho _c}}=2.538\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^7\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }h^2{\displaystyle \frac{\text{M}_{}/\text{pc}^3}{\rho _c}},`$ (29)
while the length scale $`r_0`$ is one third of the “King radius” of Binney & Tremaine (1987) and can be given numerically as

$`r_0=4.2303\times 10^6{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _c}{\text{km/sec}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\text{M}_{}/\text{pc}^3}{\rho _c}}\right)^{1/2}\text{Mpc}.`$ (30)
Now equation (LABEL:feqrel) is a self–consistent system of differential equations that can be integrated once numerical values for the independent parameters ($`\rho _c,\sigma _c,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },h`$) have been supplied, while regularity conditions at the center require $`_c=_c^{}=\mathrm{\Psi }_c=\mathrm{\Psi }_c^{}=0`$. Notice that by setting $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, we obtain the general relativistic equations of hydrostatic equilibrium for a Maxwell–Boltzmann gas characterized by the equation of state of equations (2) and (3)–(4).

An alternative system to that of equation (LABEL:feqrel), that is easier to handle numerically, follows by expressing $`\rho ,\epsilon ,p`$ as functions of $`\beta `$ by means of equations (19) and (20), so that $`\beta `$ replaces $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in equation (LABEL:feqrel). However, the variables $``$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in equation (LABEL:feqrel) are more convenient to explore the Newtonian limit.

## 5 The Newtonian limit vs. Newtonian configurations

We can identify Newtonian conditions, within the framework of General Relativity, as the weak field limit of the theory for the metric of equation (12) and source of equation (13). By looking at equations (23), (24), (25)– (26) and (LABEL:feqrel), dimensionless variables $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $``$ (which are not, necessarily, small) always appear multiplied by the ratio $`\sigma _c^2/c^2`$. Since $`\sigma _c`$ is a characteristic velocity of the MB gas, we can examine Newtonian conditions by expanding all relevant quantities in powers of this ratio. Using relation (27) we find to first order in $`\sigma _c^2/c^2`$

$`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_c)}{c^2}}\right]12{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _c^2}{c^2}}\mathrm{\Psi },`$
$`\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa M}{r}}\right]^11+2{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _c^2}{c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}.`$ (31)
Thus, the Newtonian limit of General Relativity for the sources under consideration is characterized by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _c}{c}}1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{c^2}}1,{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa M}{r}}1,`$ (32)
so that $`g_{tt}1,g_{rr}1`$ and we can identify (in this limit) the Newtonian potential with $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Also, at first order in $`\sigma _c^2/c^2`$ we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _c^2}{c^2}}\mathrm{\Psi }+{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{\sigma _c^2}}\left[1\text{e}^{(\sigma _c/c)^2\mathrm{\Psi }}\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{\sigma _c^2}}\left[1\text{e}^{(\sigma _c/c)^2\mathrm{\Psi }}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{\sigma _c^2}}\left[1\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _c^2}{c^2}}\mathrm{\Psi }\right\}\right]\mathrm{\Psi },`$
and so equations (23), (24) and (25)–(26) become

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\rho _c}}\text{e}^\mathrm{\Psi },\epsilon \rho c^2,p{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _c^2}{c^2}}\epsilon \epsilon ,`$ (33)
$`TT_c\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _c^2}{c^2}}\mathrm{\Psi }\right]=T_c\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _c^2}{c^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\rho _c}}\right]`$ (34)
thus, a spherical MB gas in its Newtonian limit approaches the “isothermal sphere” with $`T=T_c`$ (or, equivalently $`\sigma =\sigma _c`$) for all $`x`$ (see figure 1). The field equations (LABEL:feqrel) become (at first order in $`\sigma _c^2/c^2`$) the system

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}x}}`$ $`=\left[\text{e}^\mathrm{\Psi }\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3\sigma _c^2}{2c^2}}\right)+\lambda \right]x^2,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Psi }}{\text{d}x}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{x^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _c^2}{c^2}}\text{e}^\mathrm{\Psi }\lambda \right)x,`$ (35)
where we have kept, together with rest–mass energy density ($`\rho `$), the other two contributions to the total matter–energy density: internal energy ($`p\sigma _c^2\rho `$) and that of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ field ($`\lambda `$), as we do not know a priori which one of the latter two contributions is larger. In the case without the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ field ($`\lambda =0`$), we only need to compare rest–mass and internal energy densities. From equations (32) and (33), it is evident that in this case the Newtonian limit of equation (35) can only lead to the equilibrium equations for the Newtonian “isothermal sphere”

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}x}}`$ $`=\text{e}^\mathrm{\Psi }x^2,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Psi }}{\text{d}x}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{x^2}},`$ (36)
whose corresponding Poisson equation is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}x}}\left(x^2{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Psi }}{\text{d}x}}\right)=\text{e}^\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ (37)
However, if we have the contribution of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ field (besides the internal–energy term) then, before deciding which terms can be neglected, we should verify first if $`\lambda `$ is comparable in magnitude to the internal energy density term that is first order in $`\sigma _c^2/c^2`$. This comparison is especially important in the “force” equation (i.e. the second of equations (35)) where this term and $`\lambda `$ have opposite signs.

For a wide variety of galactic objects (from dwarf galaxies to clusters), we have the range $`4\text{km/sec}<\sigma _c<1500\text{km/sec}`$ (e.g. Kleyna 2002, Wilkinson 2002, Salucci & Burkert 2000), hence

$`10^9<{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _c^2}{c^2}}<2.5\times 10^5,`$ (38)
On the other hand, for currently accepted estimates of central halo density: $`0.001M_{}/\text{pc}^3<\rho _c<1M_{}/\text{pc}^3`$, (e.g. Firmani et al. 2001, Shapiro & Iliev 2002, Dalcanton & Hogan 2001) we have

$`4\times 10^6\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }h^2<\lambda <4\times 10^3\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }h^2.`$ (39)
Therefore, since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7`$ and $`h0.65`$, it is evident that near the center we have $`\rho /\rho _c=\text{e}^\mathrm{\Psi }1`$ and so $`\sigma _c^2/c^2`$ and $`\lambda `$ can have comparable magnitude (especially for structures with large $`\rho _c1\text{M}_{}/\text{pc}^3`$). However, as $`x`$ increases the $`\lambda `$ term remains constant while $`\rho /\rho _{\text{crit}}`$ decreases, implying that for large $`x`$ the constant $`\lambda `$ term will always end up dominating. Also, since the Newtonian potential is negative with $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_c|>|\mathrm{\Phi }|`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Psi }<0`$, we can safely assume that $`\lambda (\sigma _c/c)^2\text{e}^\mathrm{\Psi }`$ holds even for small values of $`x`$.

Therefore, we can ignore the contribution from hydrostatic pressure in equations (35) and replace them by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}x}}`$ $`=\left(\text{e}^\mathrm{\Psi }+\lambda \right)x^2,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Psi }}{\text{d}x}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{x^2}}+\lambda x,`$ (40)
so that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}x}}\left(x^2{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Psi }}{\text{d}x}}\right)=\text{e}^\mathrm{\Psi }2\lambda .`$ (41)
These equations are the Newtonian limit of equation (LABEL:feqrel), based on removing only those terms that can be neglected for all $`x`$ in terms of expansions around $`\sigma _c^2/c^2`$ and of comparison with rest–mass density. However, it is interesting to remark that if we start from the Newtonian isothermal sphere, as given by equations (36) and (36), and within a purely Newtonian framework (ie not the Newtonian limit of General Relativity) we generalize it by adding a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type repulsive interaction, we would not obtain equations (40) and (41), but the set

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}x}}`$ $`=\text{e}^\mathrm{\Psi }x^2,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Psi }}{\text{d}x}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{x^2}}+\lambda x,`$ (42)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}x}}\left(x^2{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Psi }}{\text{d}x}}\right)=\text{e}^\mathrm{\Psi }3\lambda ,`$ (43)
since in Newtonian gravity the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ field only enters into the “force” equation in (42) but does not enter in the evaluation of the gravitational mass $``$ that follows from integrating equation (42). On the other hand, in the Newtonian limit equations (40) the form of $``$ (and thus the forms of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and all variables related to $``$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$) is affected by the presence of the $`\lambda `$ term.

This difference between a purely Newtonian treatment and the Newtonian limit from General Relativity is a significant feature certainly worth remarking, since it concerns $`M`$ which is the effective gravitational mass affecting the evolution of test observers and light rays. Since General Relativity is currently the best available theory of gravitation, we suggest that the system of equations (40)–(41) should be preferred (at least conceptually) to the purely Newtonian system of equations (42)–(43). In fact, these systems have different solutions and if the differences in these solutions are not negligible, this can (in principle) be relevant in dark matter tracing and gravitational lensing methods used for estimating the properties of dark matter haloes of galactic clusters. The long numerical integrations of cosmological N-body simulations imply that even minor correction factors, of the type discussed here, could have important effects on the final result. Figures 2a and 2b illustrate how the correct Newtonian limit of a Maxwell–Boltzmann gas in equilibrium with a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field is furnished by equations (40)–(41), just as the Newtonian limit without $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the isothermal sphere. However, before solving equations (40) and (42) numerically it is not possible to know if the differences in their solutions are significant or negligible. We will examine this issue in section IX (see figures 2 and 3). For the remaining of the discussion we will consider only the Newtonian limit (NL) equations (40).

## 6 Existence and stability of circular geodesic orbits

The relativistic generalization of the “rotation velocity” along circular orbits is the rotation velocity of test observers along circular geodesics in the spacetime, equation (12). Bounded timelike geodesics of equation (12) are characterized by (Chandrasekhar 1983) $`\theta =\pi /2`$ and by two constants of motion, “energy” $`E_0=2\text{e}^{2\mathrm{\Phi }/c^2}\dot{t}`$ and “angular momentum” $`L_0=r^2\dot{\phi }`$, where the dot denotes derivative with respect to proper time of the observers. Radial motion is governed by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{e}^{2\mathrm{\Phi }/c^2}}{1\kappa M/r}}\dot{r}^2+V(r)=E_0^2,`$
where

$`V(r)=\text{e}^{2\mathrm{\Phi }/c^2}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{L_0^2}{r^2}}\right),`$
is the “effective potential”. The conditions for the existence of circular geodesic orbits with radius $`r=r^{}`$ are $`\dot{r}=\ddot{r}=0`$, leading to

$`E_0^2={\displaystyle \frac{\text{e}^{2\mathrm{\Phi }/c^2}}{1r\mathrm{\Phi }^{}/c^2}},L_0^2={\displaystyle \frac{r^3\mathrm{\Phi }^{}/c^2}{1r\mathrm{\Phi }^{}/c^2}},`$ (44)
so that

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}>0,1r\mathrm{\Phi }^{}/c^2>0,`$ (45)
Stability of these orbits requires $`r=r^{}`$ to be a minimum of the effective potential. Hence we must have $`V^{}(r^{})=0`$ and $`V^{\prime \prime }(r^{})>0`$, leading (with the help of equations (44)) to

$`3\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+r\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }2r\mathrm{\Phi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/c^2>0.`$ (46)
Using the full relativistic equilibrium equations (LABEL:feqrel) and expressing conditions (45) in terms of the variables introduced in section IV, the conditions for the existence of circular geodesic orbits are, up to first order in $`\sigma _c^2/c^2`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda x^3}{x^2}}\left[x\text{e}^\mathrm{\Psi }+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x^3}}2\lambda \right]{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _c^2}{c^2}}<0,`$ (47)
$`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda x^3}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _c^2}{c^2}}>0,`$ (48)
while the condition (46) for stability becomes

$$\frac{(3\lambda \text{e}^\mathrm{\Psi })x^3M}{x^2}+\frac{\sigma _c^2}{c^2}\{\frac{}{}4\lambda ^2x^3+(x^3\text{e}^\mathrm{\Psi }2)\lambda $$

$`+[{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Psi }^23\mathrm{\Psi }11)x6}{2}}3]\text{e}^\mathrm{\Psi }+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{x^3}}\}<0,`$
(49)
In the Newtonian limit we can neglect the terms multiplying $`\sigma _c^2/c^2`$, hence condition (48) becomes trivial, while conditions (47) and (49) respectively become the Newtonian limit conditions for existence and stability of circular geodesic orbits

$`\lambda x^3>0,`$ (50)
$`(3\lambda \text{e}^\mathrm{\Psi })x^3>0.`$ (51)
These conditions coincide with those that would have resulted had we used the Newtonian limit equations (40) (instead of the relativistic equations) in equations (45) and (46). If we had used the Newtonian equations (42) we would have obtained the same existence condition (50) but the stability condition would be condition (51), modified by having the $`\lambda `$ term multiplied by a factor of $`4`$, instead of $`3`$. Figures 3a and 3b depict graphically conditions (50) and (51) from the numerical solution of conditions (40) and (42).

The actual velocity of observers along circular geodesics follows from evaluating $`\text{d}\phi /\text{d}t=\dot{\phi }/\dot{t}`$, which with the help of the previous equations (see Cabral-Rosetti et al. 2002) yields

$`\text{v}^2(r)=r\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=x\sigma _c^2{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Psi }}{\text{d}x}}=\sigma _c^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\lambda x^2\right]`$ (52)
where we have used equation (40) to eliminate $`\text{d}\mathrm{\Psi }/\text{d}x`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ becomes the Newtonian gravitational potential in the Newtonian limit, circular geodesics orbits exist and $`\text{v}(r)`$ is well defined as long as the gravitational force field is attractive (ie $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}>0`$ or equivalently $`\text{d}\mathrm{\Psi }/\text{d}x<0`$).

For physically reasonable spherical configurations, we must demand that existence and stability conditions (50) and (51) (or (59) and (60)), as well as that $`\text{v}^2>0`$, should hold at least in a finite range $`0<x<x_\lambda `$ around the symmetry center, where $`x_\lambda `$ is a radius where one of these conditions breaks down. A sufficient condition for this follows by looking at the behavior of conditions (50) and (51) around the symmetry center. Expanding $``$ around $`x=0`$ with the help of equation (40) and the regularity conditions $`(0)=_x(0)=\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=\mathrm{\Psi }_x(0)=0`$, where the subindex x denotes derivative with respect to $`x`$. We obtain $`(1/6)_{xxx}(0)x^3=(1+\lambda )x^3/3`$, hence for $`x0`$ both conditions (50) and (51) yield $`(12\lambda )x^3/3>0`$, so that the central density must satisfy

$`\rho _c>2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _{\text{crit}}.`$ (53)
Had we used the Newtonian equations (42) instead of equation (40), we would have obtained $`\rho _c>3\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _{\text{crit}}`$, representing a very small departure from the Newtonian limit expression (53).

The fact that physically reasonable configurations require a minimal bound on $`\rho _c`$ is an interesting result that has no equivalent in the isothermal sphere and the King halos. Since $`\text{e}^\mathrm{\Psi }=\rho /\rho _c`$ and setting $`\lambda =0`$ in equations (50), (51) and (52), it is evident that stable geodesic circular orbits, of any radius and for any value of $`\rho _c>0`$, always exist for the isothermal sphere and the King models (see section VIII) as long as $``$ and $`\rho `$ are positive. If there is a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field then for very small central densities violating condition (53), conditions (50) and (51) do not hold in a range around the symmetry center, though these conditions do hold for a set of ranges like $`0<x_i<x<x_j`$ (see figure 3c). However, these cases with $`\rho _c2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _{\text{crit}}`$ are unphysical and will not be examined any further.

Bearing in mind equations (10) and (29), condition (53) is satisfied by all known virialized galactic structures whose current estimates of $`\rho _c`$ are between three and six orders of magnitude larger than $`\rho _{\text{crit}}`$. In fact, the extremely low values $`\rho _c<2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _{\text{crit}}`$ would apply today only to large superclusters, still “in–falling” within a linear regime, whose density contrast is of order unity. Obviously such large scale structures cannot be equilibrium configurations (hence the remarks in Nowakowski 2001, Nowakowski et al. 2002 are obvious for present day structures). Moreover, $`\rho _{\text{crit}}`$ is a (model dependent) function of the cosmic era, hence the minimal $`\rho _c`$ for stable configurations varies with the virialization redshift $`z_{\text{vir}}`$. Assuming a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–CDM model for which $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{CDM}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$, the critical density at any $`z`$ is given in terms of $`\rho _{\text{crit}}`$ today by

$`\rho _{\text{crit}}(z)=\left[(1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]\rho _{\text{crit}}(z=0).`$ (54)
Thus, for dwarf galaxies which virialized at large $`z`$ (i.e. $`z_{\text{vir}}<30`$), equations (53) and (54) imply

$`\rho _c(z=30)>1.8\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^4\rho _{\text{crit}}(z=0)0.008\text{M}_{}/\text{pc}^3,`$
(55)
a minimal bound on $`\rho _c`$ that agrees with current estimates (Firmani et al. 2001, Shapiro & Iliev 2002, Kleyna et al. 2002) for central halo densities of these galaxies. Within the current hierarchical models of structure formation, where large structures form as the result of the merger of smaller ones, given Liouville’s theorem, it is clear that the central densities of the first bound structures will also represent an indicative upper bound on the central densities of larger structures. It is interesting that dynamical studies across wide ranges of galactic haloes consistently find central densities above the stability requirement at $`z30`$ of $`0.008M_{}pc^2`$. Figure 4 illustrates the minimal bound on $`\rho _c`$ given by condition (55).

## 7 Cut off scale of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and comparison with other length scales

Assuming that condition (53) holds, each one of conditions (50) and (51) will necessary break down at some radii, $`x_1,x_2`$, given by the smallest positive roots of the equations

$`(x_1)\lambda x_1^3=0,`$ (56)
$`(x_2)[3\lambda \text{e}^{\mathrm{\Psi }((x_2)}]x_2^3=0.`$ (57)
These radii provide “cut off” length scales that do not exist when $`\lambda =0`$. We will compare these length scales with other physical cut off scales, such as the virialization radius and the radius for the onset of Antonov instability.

It is useful to express conditions (50) and (51) in terms of the volume average of rest–mass energy density $`\rho `$. Under Newtonian conditions the total matter–energy density is $`\epsilon _{\text{total}}=(\rho +\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _{\text{crit}})c^2`$, while its volume average is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{\text{total}}}{c^2}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi _0^r(\rho +\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _{\text{crit}})r^2\text{d}r}{4\pi _0^rr^2\text{d}r}}={\displaystyle \frac{3M}{r^3}}`$ (58)
$`=\rho +\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _{\text{crit}},`$
therefore, conditions (50) and (51) can be given respectively as

$`\rho `$ $`>2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _{\text{crit}},`$ (59)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\rho `$ $`>2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _{\text{crit}},`$ (60)
where we used equation (29) and $`M/r^3=\rho _c/x^3`$. Equations (56) and (57) then become

$`\rho (x_1)`$ $`=2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _{\text{crit}},`$ (61)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\rho (x_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\rho (x_2)`$ $`=2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _{\text{crit}},`$ (62)
From the volume averaging definition (58), we obtain by integration by parts

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{\rho x^2\text{d}x}{x^2\text{d}x}}=\rho {\displaystyle \frac{x^3\rho _x\text{d}x}{x^3}}`$ (63)
Hence, for $`0<x<x_\lambda `$, where $`x_\lambda =r_0x_\lambda `$ is either one of $`x_1,x_2`$, we have have: $`\rho \rho `$. Since condition (59) holds in this range, then $`\rho _x<0`$ follows from $`\mathrm{\Psi }_x<0`$ (because $`\rho _x\mathrm{\Psi }_x\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Psi })`$). Therefore for any $`x`$ in the range of interest we have $`(1/4)\rho +(3/4)\rho \rho `$. Hence, the root $`x_2`$ corresponds to larger density values than $`x_1`$, but since both $`\rho `$ and $`\rho `$ decrease with $`x`$, we must necessarily have

$`x_2x_1,`$ (64)
which is a reasonable result, since it is to be expected that the repulsive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field will destabilize those circular orbits with radii $`x_2<x<x_1`$ that lie near the length scale $`x_1`$ beyond which no such orbits exist. As we show in section IX, the range $`x_2<x<x_1`$ corresponds to a transition zone between the isothermal region $`0<x<x_2`$ and the asymptotic region $`x>x_1`$ dominated by the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field. Thus, since $`x=x_2`$ marks the maximal radius of a stable circular orbit, we can consider this radius as a “cut off” scale for isothermal spheres in hydrostatic equilibrium with a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field. In the remaining of this section we will use simple qualitative arguments to compare other cut off length scales of the isothermal sphere with $`x_1`$. Since numerical estimates (see figure 5a) show that $`x_2`$ is about two thirds of $`x_1`$ (see section IX), this comparison can be extended to $`x_2`$ as well.

Consider the virialization radius, $`r_{\text{vir}}`$, the currently accepted physical cut off scale associated with the virialization of galactic structures (Padmanabhan 1995). The condition to determine the value of this length scale follows from the Newtonian spherical “in fall” (or “top hat”) model as Lokas & Hoffman (2001), Iliev & Shapiro (2001) and Padnamabhan (1995) show,

$`\rho (r_{\text{vir}})|_{z_{\text{vir}}}\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{\text{crit}}(z_{\text{vir}}),`$ (65)
or, equivalently (using equations (27) and (58)), as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(x_{\text{vir}})|_{z_{\text{vir}}}}{x_{\text{vir}}^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{\text{crit}}(z_{\text{vir}})}{\rho _c(z_{\text{vir}})}},`$ (66)
where the factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a model dependent (see Lokas & Hoffman 2001 for a discussion on this issue) contrast factor between the average rest–mass density of the overdense region and the critical density of the cosmological background, both evaluated at a virialization epoch, $`0<z_{\text{vir}}<30`$, which depends on the galactic structure and/or a specific structure formation model. From equations (61) and (65), we can see that both $`\rho (r_1)`$ and $`\rho (r_{\text{vir}})`$ are proportional to $`\rho _{\text{crit}}`$. Therefore, for all $`z<z_{\text{vir}}`$, once the galactic structure has virialized and the equilibrium equations are valid, we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho (r_1)}{\rho (r_{\text{vir}})}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}},`$ (67)
or the same expression with a factor 3 instead of 2 if we had used the Newtonian equations (42). Since it is reasonable to assume (to a good approximation) that $`\rho \rho r^2`$ for $`r<r_1`$, a rough qualitative estimate of the ratio $`r_1/r_{\text{vir}}`$ is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{r_1}{r_{\text{vir}}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right]^{1/2},`$ (68)
Considering that $`\mathrm{\Delta }100`$ in the case when the cosmological background complies with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{CDM}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ (Lokas & Hoffman 2001), this estimate means that for present day virialized structures $`r_1`$ is approximately one order of magnitude larger than $`r_{\text{vir}}`$. Because of equation (64), $`r_2`$ should be less than an order of magnitude larger than $`r_{\text{vir}}`$. The precise numerical value of $`x_{\text{vir}}`$ is displayed in figure 5b, while the qualitative estimates mentioned before are corroborated numerically in figures 6 and 7, showing that $`r_2`$ is about seven times larger than $`r_{\text{vir}}`$. Using the Newtonian equations (42) yields smaller $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ by a factor of $`\sqrt{2/3}`$. In either case, these results indicate that the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field should have a negligible effect on the virialization process.

Another physically motivated length scale, characteristic of the isothermal sphere, is the critical radius associated with the Antonov instability, or with the onset of the gravothermal catastrophe. This radius follows from demanding that the structural parameters of an isothermal sphere should correspond to a stable thermal equilibrium, characterized by a second variation of a suitably defined entropy functional. As discussed in Padmanabhan (1990), for all isothermal spheres extending up to a critical radius $`R`$ so that $`E`$ is the Newtonian total energy at $`R`$, the constraint $`RE/(GM^2)>0.335`$ must hold, though stable configuration with local maxima must also satisfy $`\rho _c<709\rho (R)`$, while isothermal spheres complying with $`RE/(GM^2)>0.335`$ but for which $`\rho _c/\rho (R)>709`$ correspond to metastable configurations in which the entropy extrema is a saddle point. The critical radius $`R`$ complies with

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _c}{\rho (R)}}=709,`$ (69)
corresponding to the maximal stable isothermal sphere for which entropy is a local maximum. Using equation (29), we can find the ratio

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho (R)}{\rho _{\text{crit}}}}={\displaystyle \frac{5.55\times 10^3}{h^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _c}{\text{M}_{}/\text{pc}^3}},`$ (70)
which can be compared to the ratio of $`\rho (r_{\text{vir}})`$ to $`\rho _{\text{crit}}`$ given by equation (67). This yields approximately

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho (r_{\text{vir}})}{\rho (R)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho (r_{\text{vir}})}{\rho (R)}}{\displaystyle \frac{h^2\mathrm{\Delta }}{5.55\times 10^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{M}_{}/\text{pc}^3}{\rho _c}},`$ (71)
but, if $`R<r_1`$, then we should have approximately $`\rho \rho r^2`$ for $`r<R`$, hence we obtain a ratio

$`{\displaystyle \frac{R}{r_{\text{vir}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{h\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}}{74.16}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\text{M}_{}/\text{pc}^3}{\rho _c}}\right)^{1/2},`$ (72)
and also the following ratio analogous to (68)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{r_1}{R}}{\displaystyle \frac{74.16}{(2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })^{1/2}h}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho _c}{\text{M}_{}/\text{pc}^3}}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (73)
Assuming that $`h=0.65,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, equations (72) and (73) show that for values (consistent with current estimates) around $`\rho _c10^310^2\text{M}_{}/\text{pc}^3`$ (see figures 5 and 6), the virialization radius is about the same order of magnitude as the length scale $`R`$ of equation (69) and about one to two orders of magnitude smaller than $`r_1`$. An estimate of the value of $`R`$ in Mpc follows from the fact that the variables (27) that we use coincide (save notation differences, a minus sign in $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$) with those defined in equations (4.21) and (4.22) of Padmanabhan (1990) which yield $`x(R)=R/r_0=34.2`$. Using equation (30) we obtain

$`r(R)=1.467\times 10^4{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _c}{\text{km/sec}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\text{M}_{}/\text{pc}^3}{\rho _c}}\right)^{1/2}\text{Mpc}.`$
(74)
By looking at the numerical solutions for the equilibrium equations (40) and (42), we will verify in section IX the qualitative estimates of $`r_1`$, $`r_2`$, $`r_{\text{vir}}`$ and $`R`$ that we have presented above. These estimates tend to support the conclusion that the effects of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ field can be ignored in the study of virialized structures.

## 8 The King models

It is interesting to compare the effect of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field on a MB distribution with other distribution functions (but without $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). We examine briefly the case of the Michie–King models, obtained by truncation of the MB distribution at a given maximal escape velocity (Binney & Tremaine 1987). This distribution functions leads to equilibrium equations similar to (36), but with $`\rho /\rho _c`$ given by Binney & Tremaine (1987) and Katz (1980)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\rho _c}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{K(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }})}{K(\mathrm{\Psi }_0)}},`$ (75)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Psi }_0,\mathrm{\Psi }_0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_b\mathrm{\Phi }_c}{\sigma _c^2}},`$ (76)
$`K(X)`$ $`=\text{e}^X\text{erf}(X^{1/2}){\displaystyle \frac{2X^{1/2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}X\right),`$ (77)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is given by equation (22), while $`\mathrm{\Phi }_b\mathrm{\Phi }(x_b)`$ for $`x=x_b`$ satisfying the constraint $`K(x_b)=0\rho (x_b)=0`$. The $`x_b`$ is known as the “tidal radius” marking a theoretical cut off scale whose value depends on $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$. The equilibrium equations for the King models expressed in terms of the dimensionless variables $`x`$ and $``$ are then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}x}}`$ $`=x^2{\displaystyle \frac{K(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }})}{K(\mathrm{\Psi }_0)}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Psi }}{\text{d}x}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{x^2}}.`$ (78)
Since $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(0)=\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and $`(0)=0`$, the integration of these equations requires one to specify a given value of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$, leading to a family of numerical solutions parametrized by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$. Theoretical studies of the King distribution applied to globular clusters (see Katz 1980) yield the stability range $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0<8`$, though there are observations and theoretical estimates allowing for values up to $`\mathrm{\Psi }_011`$.

As we will show in the following section, the dynamical variables of the King models behave asymptotically in a very different manner from those of the MB models with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. However, the cut off scale $`r_\lambda `$ in the latter is of the same order of magnitude as the tidal radius of King models with deep potential wells ($`\mathrm{\Psi }_010`$).

## 9 Numerical analysis

We solve numerically the systems of equations (LABEL:feqrel), (36), (40), (42) and (78), assuming the regularity conditions $`_c=_c^{}=\mathrm{\Psi }_c=\mathrm{\Psi }_c^{}=0`$, for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7,h=0.65`$ and suitable values of the free parameters $`\sigma _c,\rho _c,\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$.

### 9.1 The isothermal limit with a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ field

It is interesting to examine the Newtonian limit of the MB gas (with and without the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field) by looking at how an isothermal behavior emerges as temperature gradients decrease for sequentially decreasing values of the ratio $`\sigma _c/c`$, starting from relativistic values down to smaller Newtonian velocities. Using $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ from the numerical solution of equation (LABEL:feqrel), we plot in figure 1 the normalized temperature, $`T/T_c`$, given by equation (23) vs $`\mathrm{log}_{10}x`$ for four values in the range $`\sigma _c/c=0.08`$ down to $`\sigma _c/c=1.6\times 10^2`$, that is from $`\sigma _c=25000`$ km/sec to $`\sigma _c=5000`$ km/sec (still a dispersion velocity much larger than that of any galactic structure). As shown in this figure, the temperature gradients of the MB gas are already small ($`T/T_c<0.2`$) even for $`\sigma _c=25000`$ km/sec, suggesting that even for more relativistic values of $`\sigma _c/c`$ the linearized expression (34) can be used instead of equation (23). These gradients steadily decrease for smaller $`\sigma _c/c`$, becoming negligible for the velocities characteristic of galactic structures, and so approaching in the limit $`\sigma _c/c0`$ an isothermal condition $`T=T_c`$. In the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ the temperature curves steadily decrease so that $`T/T_c0`$ as $`x\mathrm{}`$. However, if there is a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field, then these curves stop decreasing at $`x=x_1`$ and begin to oscillate around a constant value, $`T=T_\lambda `$, that can be identified as a characteristic temperature of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field.

### 9.2 The correct Newtonian limit

The Newtonian limit of equation (LABEL:feqrel) can also be illustrated by means of sequences of curves corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ obtained from equation (LABEL:feqrel) for sequentially decreasing values of $`\sigma _c/c`$. The curves of figure 2a ($`\lambda =0`$) clearly tend to the thick curve at the bottom, marked as “IS”, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ for the isothermal sphere, obtained from equation (36). In figure 2b we consider the case with nonzero $`\lambda `$ given by equation (29). It is evident that the sequence of curves tends to the thick curve, marked NL, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ obtained from equation (40) and not to the thick curve, marked “N”, that corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ obtained from equation (42). Hence, the correct Newtonian limit of a MB gas with a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ field is given by equations (40)–(41) and not by the Newtonian equations (42)–(43).

### 9.3 The “cut off” length scales

Numerical solution of the systems (40) and (42) allow us to depict graphically conditions (50)–(51) (figures 3a and 3b), conditions (59)–(60) giving the same results, where the length scales for the existence and stability of circular orbits, $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$, follow from the roots given by equations (56)–(57) and (61)–(62). Assuming $`\rho _c=0.01\text{M}_{}/\text{pc}^3`$, the following numerical values emerge from figure 3a: $`x_1800`$, $`x_2555`$, while for the Newtonian equations (42) we obtain smaller values (see figure 3b): $`x_1660`$, $`x_2460`$. For the same value of $`\rho _c`$ and for the Newtonian limit equations (40) we obtain from figure 5: $`x_{\text{vir}}72`$ and $`x(R)35`$. These values of $`x`$ can be translated into actual distances for specific galactic structures by using $`r=r_0x`$ where $`r_0`$ is given by equation (30). The resulting length scales are shown in Table 1.

As we mentioned in section VI, the conditions (50)–(51) for the existence and stability of circular geodesic orbits are violated for $`\rho _c<2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _{\text{crit}}`$. This possibility is illustrated by figure 3c, where these conditions are plotted for $`\rho _c=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _{\text{crit}}`$, clearly showing how conditions (50)–(51) do not hold around the center (though they do hold in disconnected ranges of $`x`$ that exclude the center). Since both $`\rho _c`$ and $`\rho _{\text{crit}}`$ are functions of the cosmic era, condition (53) with the help of equation (54) yields a minimal bound of $`\rho _c`$ for virialized structures complying with conditions (50)–(51). This is illustrated in figure 4, showing that structures of relatively recent virialization easily meet this minimal bound, though for galaxies which virialized at $`z30`$, the fulfillment of condition (53) is non–trivial, leading to $`\rho _c>0.008\text{M}_{}/\text{pc}^3`$, a value that is consistent with current estimates of $`\rho _c`$.

In figures 3a–b and 5 we considered $`\rho _c=0.01\text{M}_{}/\text{pc}^3`$. In order to find out the dependence of the values of $`x_1,x_2`$ and $`R`$ on $`\rho _c`$, we plot in figure 6 the ratios of these length scales with respect to $`x_{\text{vir}}`$, clearly emerging from this figure that $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ have a very weak dependence on $`\rho _c`$ and are, respectively, about 10 and 7 times larger than $`x_{\text{vir}}`$ (for the Newtonian case these figures are about two thirds smaller). However, $`R`$ is quite sensitive to $`\rho _c`$, with $`x_{\text{vir}}R`$ for densities in the range $`0.0010.01\text{M}_{}/\text{pc}^3`$. This is a nice result, illustrating that these two physically motivated length scales approximately coincide for values of $`\rho _c`$ close to current estimates. All length scales we have considered show a clear linear dependence on $`\sigma _c`$ (from equation (30)). This is shown in figure 7, displaying the graph of each length scale as a function of $`\sigma _c`$ for a wide range of values of $`\rho _c`$ ($`10^51\text{M}_{}/\text{pc}^3`$). Since the dependence on $`\rho _c`$ is very weak, the strip of lines for all values of $`\rho _c`$ simply makes the lines thicker.

### 9.4 Density profiles and rotation curves

The effects of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field can be clearly illustrated by plotting relevant physical variables of the isothermal halos, such as the density profiles and rotation velocity along circular orbits.

Figure 8 depicts a logarithmic plot of the rest–mass density, $`\rho `$, normalized by $`\rho _{\text{crit}}`$ for $`\rho _c=0.01\text{M}_{}/pc^3`$, in comparison with the rest-mass density of the isothermal sphere and of King halos associated with various values of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ (only the Newtonian limit “NL” case is shown). It is evident that in the range $`0<x<x_2`$ where stable circular orbits exist, the density curve of the NL case is almost identical with that of the isothermal sphere (marked as “IS”). However, in the asymptotic range $`x>x_1`$, these curves are completely different, since for the IS $`\rho `$ simply decays as $`x^2`$ while in the NL case it oscillates around a value close to $`\rho _{\text{crit}}`$. Since $`\rho =\rho _c\text{e}^\mathrm{\Psi }`$, these oscillations mark relative maxima and minima of the Newtonian potential, hence $`x=x_1`$ marks an unstable equilibrium where this potential becomes repulsive (though furhter out it alternates from repulsive to attractive). Clearly, this behavior of the asymptotic region is dominated by the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field and is in stark contrast with the behavior of the isothermal region $`0<x<x_2`$. The region $`x_2<x<x_1`$, where circular orbits exist but are unstable, is a transition zone between the isothermal and asymptotic zones. However, in the physical range $`0<x<x_{\text{vir}}`$, the effects of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field are practically negligible. Notice that $`\rho `$ for the NL case is also very different from the density curves of the King halos, though the cut off boundary (the tidal radius) of some of these halos ($`\mathrm{\Psi }_0>10`$) can be of the same order of magnitude (or even larger) than $`x_2`$.

Rotation velocities normalized by $`\sigma _c`$ are given by equation (52). These “rotation curves” are plotted in figure 9 for the NL case for $`\rho _c=0.01\text{M}_{}/pc^3`$, in comparison with rotation curves of the isothermal sphere and of King halos associated with various values of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$. The figure also displays the cut off length scales $`x_1,x_2`$, separating the isothermal, asymptotic and transition zones, as well as the physical radius $`x_{\text{vir}}`$. Since this is not a logarithmic plot, the effects of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field are more noticeable. For example, in the NL case the rotation curve is not flat and decreases significantly already in the isothermal region, though it is practically identical to the rotation curve of the isothermal sphere in the range $`0<x<x_{\text{vir}}`$ where all visible matter would be located. The rotation curve of the NL case plunges to zero for $`x=x_1`$, so that for a range of values $`x>x_1`$ circular geodesic orbits do not exist. This is connected to the fact that $`x=x_1`$ marks an unstable equilibrium where the Newtonian potential becomes repulsive. However, this potential oscillates, hence it becomes again attractive and then repulsive again, all of this in disconnected domains of $`x`$ for $`x>x_1`$. As a comparison, the rotation curves of King halos (evaluated up to their tidal radii) also decrease but never reach zero.

## 10 Conclusion

We have examined the equilibrium of a MB gas in the presence of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field constrained by recent observational data. Proceeding from a general relativistic framework and carefully taking the Newtonian limit, we obtain the equilibrium equations (40)–(41) that are different form those that follow from a “naive” Newtonian treatment that would simply add the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field to an isothermal sphere (i.e. equations (42)–(43)). We have shown that the presence of this repulsive field implies that isothermal configurations are now characterized by the length scales, $`x_1,x_2`$, defined by conditions (50) and (51) and respectively associated with existence and stability of circular geodesic orbits. We have shown that these length scales can also be characterized by the constraints given by (59) and (60) on the rest–mass density and its volume average, hence $`x_2x_1`$. The fulfillment of the existence and stability constraints in a region containing the symmetry center $`x=0`$ yields a minimal central rest–mass density $`\rho _c=2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _{\text{crit}}`$, and thus a minimal central density of $`\rho _c=0.008\text{M}_{}/\text{pc}^3`$ for galactic structures having virialized at $`z30`$. Since $`x=x_2`$ marks the radius of the largest stable circular orbit, it is reasonable to consider this radius as the cut off length scale of isothermal configurations in equilibrium with a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field. The numerical solution of the equilibrium equations provides precise numerical estimates of all involved length scales, showing that $`x_2`$ is about 7 times larger than physically motivated cut off length scales of isothermal halos, such as the virialization radius $`x_{\text{vir}}`$ and the radius for the onset of Antonov instability $`R`$. By looking at the graphs of the rest–mass density and rotation curves, we can identify isothermal ($`0<x<x_2`$), asymptotic ($`x>x_1`$) and transition ($`x_2<x<x_1`$) regions in which these variables change from an almost isothermal behavior to an asymptotic regime dominated by the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field. It is quite noticeable that up to the physical cut off scale, $`x_{\text{vir}}`$, the behavior of the MB gas with the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field is practically indistinguishable from that of an isothermal sphere. Therefore, for the purposes of studying the equilibrium state of virialized structures, the effects of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field are negligible and can be safely ignored. However, these effects might be important in the study of the gravitational clustering of larger structures that have already left the linear regime but are not yet virialized, or the formation of galactic structures (though the assumption of thermodynamical equilibrium might not be applicable in these cases).

Finally, the zero gradient approximation associated with the constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field is basically a toy model of more general quintessence–like sources described by non–trivial scalar fields. The equilibrium of a MB gas together with such a source could yield interesting features that are absent in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–field approximation. This problem is currently under investigation (Núẽz, Matos and Sussman, 2003).

## 11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

XH acknowledges financial support from CoNaCyT grant I39181-E. RAS is thankful to Offer Lahav for his warm hospitality and illuminating discussions. RAS also acknowledges inspiration from the wise meowing of his feline friends Moquis, Tontis and Niña.


text:
# Flux Ratio Anomalies: Micro- and Milli-lensing

## 1. Flux Ratio Anomalies?

There is a theorem in gravitational lensing that says, under certain circumstances,111The separation between images must be small compared to the displacement of the images from the galaxy and the gravitational potential must be smooth on the scale of the image separation. The theorem is then a direct consequence of expanding the light travel time as a power series in the neighborhood of a critical curve, keeping terms up to third order in distance from the critical curve.  a close pair of images in a quadruple system will be both bright and of equal brightness (e.g. Gaudi and Petters 2002). The archetype of such systems, PG1115+080 (Weymann et al. 1980), has a pair of bright images separated by $`0.^{\prime \prime }48`$.

But as is often the case, the archetype turns out not to be archetypical. Zhao and Metcalf (2002) have examined a range of “reasonable” models for PG1115 and find that the rms magnitude difference for the $`A1`$ and $`A2`$ (figure 1) images ought to be roughly 10%. The observed difference appears to have varied with time, having ranged from 5-50% (Vanderriest et al. 1986; Kristian et al. 1993; Courbin et al. 1997; Iwamuro et al 2000), well outside the range allowed by the models. One might argue that the combination of intrinsic variability and gravitational time delay could produce the observed differences, but the predicted differential time delay between $`A1`$ and $`A2`$ is of order one day and the quasar varies much more slowly (Schechter et al. 1997).

Other quads with similar configurations have the same problem, only worse. MG0414+0534 has a I-filter magnitude difference $`A1A2=0.9`$ (Schechter and Moore 1993). By contrast the radio flux ratio (Moore and Hewitt 1977), $`A2/A1`$, is very nearly unity. Reimers et al. (2002) call HS0810+2554 a twin to PG1115, but its bright pair of images differ by 0.7 mag. Most recently and most dramatically, the system SDSS0924+0219 (Inada et al. 2003) has what appears to be a close pair of images with a flux ratio of nearly ten.

Such “flux ratio anomalies” are not restricted to systems with close pairs of images. Systems with three close images and a more distant image (e.g. B1422+231; Mao and Schneider 1998) and “Einstein crosses” (e.g. HE0435-1223; Wisotzki et al. 2002) exhibit similar anomalies.

## 2. Micro-lensing?

The problem with the theorem (and with the models) is that they assume a gravitational potential which is smooth on the scale of the image separation. With the discovery of the first lensed system Chang and Refsdal (1979) predicted flux variations due to micro-lensing by the stars in the intervening galaxy. The associated graininess in the gravitational potential will affect the fluxes if the Einstein rings of the stars are larger than the source.

Witt, Mao and Schechter (1995) attempted to explain the anomalous fluxes in MG0414 as the result of micro-lensing. They took the galaxy to be comprised entirely of stars (as opposed to an admixture of stars and dark matter) so as to maximize the effects of micro-lensing. The observed $`A2/A1`$ ratio was at the limits of what might reasonably be expected. But the flux ratio in Inada’s new system, SDSS0924, is more extreme than in MG0414, well outside the anything seen in the Witt et al. simulations.

Understandable though it might have been, Witt et al. were mistaken in thinking that a galaxy comprised entirely of stars would maximize micro-lensing fluctuations. Deguchi and Watson (1987) and Seitz, Schneider and Wambsganss (1994) had shown that for the case of zero shear, increasing the optical depth to micro-lensing beyond a certain point decreased the rms amplitude of the micro-lensing fluctuations. More recently, Schechter and Wambsganss (2002) have shown that for systems like MG0414, micro-lensing fluctuations are enhanced by keeping the surface mass density constant but substituting smooth (and presumably) dark matter for some (but not all) of the stellar micro-lenses. A case as extreme as that of SDSS0924 is no longer impossible.

This counterintuitive result may be explained by a two part argument. First, at high magnification, a screen of micro-lenses produces a large number of extra positive parity micro-images (Paczyński 1986; Wambsganss, Witt and Schneider 1993; Granot, Schechter and Wambsganss 2003). Negative parity micro-images can (and mostly do) have magnifications less than unity, but positive parity micro-images must have unit magnification or greater. As the number of positive parity micro-images grows large, the fluctuations drop as the square root of the number. On the other hand, at very low optical depth, fluctuations are rare and the rms must be small. One might reasonably expect the fluctuations to be largest when the number of extra positive parity micro-images is of order unity.

Paczyński (1986) has shown that for a random distribution of micro-lenses with convergence $`\kappa _{}`$, immersed in a smooth mass sheet with convergence $`\kappa _c`$ and under the influence of an external shear $`\gamma `$, there is an equivalent configuration with no smooth component, but with effective convergence $`\kappa _{}^{eff}=\kappa _{}/(1\kappa _c)`$ and effective shear $`\gamma ^{eff}=\gamma /(1\kappa _c)`$, subject to the condition that magnifications computed in the effective model, $`\mu ^{eff}`$, must be multiplied by $`(1\kappa _c)^2`$. By adjusting the relative contributions of $`\kappa _{}`$ and $`\kappa _c`$ to the value of $`\kappa _{tot}`$ determined by the smooth lens model, one changes the number of extra positive parity micro-images.

Schechter and Wambsganss found (figure 3) that for values of $`\kappa _{tot}`$ and $`\gamma `$ typical of PG1115-like systems, a dark matter fraction of 50-90% of the surface density maximizes the micro-lensing fluctuations. They argue that such a dark matter fraction is consistent with the mass to light ratios observed for elliptical galaxies.

They also found that diluting a 100% grainy surface density with a smooth component affected positive and negative parity macro-images differently. In the case of positive parity macro-images (minima of the light travel time), substituting a smooth dark component introduces a lower limit on the combined flux of the micro-images,222a consequence of the requirement that there be at least one positive parity image, and that the minimum magnification for a positive parity image is $`(1\kappa _c)^2`$ eventually narrowing the magnification distribution. By contrast negative parity macro-images (saddle-points of the light travel time) are quite vulnerable to demagnification by micro-lensing. A high magnification saddle-point is easily split into two low-magnification micro-saddles (Chang and Refsdal 1979; Schechter and Wambsganss 2002). The net result is that for pairs of bright macro-images in PG1115-like systems, the saddle-point is almost always fainter than the than the associated minimum.

In systems like PG1115, each image in the bright pair has a magnification of order 10. At the positions of the images, the shear $`\gamma `$ and the total convergence and shear $`\kappa _{tot}`$, are determined by the smooth lens model and are both roughly 0.5. But the relative contributions of stars, $`\kappa _{}`$ and dark matter, $`\kappa _c`$ to the total convergence are unknown. Were the mass all in stars, the number of extra positive parity micro-images would be of order 3. If 80% of the convergence were in a smooth component, the effective magnification would be roughly 3 and the number of extra positive parity images would be of order unity.

In all of the above mentioned systems (save the case of HS0810, where the parities of the images are ambiguous) the saddle-points are fainter than predicted in the smooth models. The minimum/saddle-point asymmetry had been earlier noted in the theoretical work of Metcalf and Madau (2001), who saw differences in their cumulative magnification distributions for their saddle-points and minima, and in Witt et al. (1995) in their treatment of MG0414.

The foregoing considerations point to what would appear to a neat method for measuring the relative contributions of grainy and smooth matter to the surface mass density of lensing galaxies. One would assemble a “fair” sample of quadruple systems, model them using image positions (but not fluxes) as constraints, and adjust the ratio of grainy to smooth matter so as to match the observed distribution of flux residuals.

## 3. Milli-lensing!

Astrophysics is cursed with a surfeit of explanations. In the present case there is second possible source of graininess. N-body simulations of the hierarchical clustering of cold dark matter produce large numbers of “mini-halos” within the halos of typical galaxies (Moore et al. 1999; Klypin et al. 1999). These can be reconciled with the much smaller numbers of dwarf satellites only if a mechanism is invoked to prevent the baryonic matter from forming stars in these mini-halos. But the mini-halos (which produce deflections of order a milliarcsecond) might still be expected to cause milli-lensing of background QSOs.

How then, might one distinguish between milli- and micro-lensing? Kochanek and Dalal (2003), following Koopmans and de Bruyn (2000), argue that quasar radio source sizes are expected to be larger than the Einstein rings of stars, ruling out micro-lensing as the source of radio flux ratio anomalies. The lensed system B1555+375 (Marlow et al. 1999) is a radio analog of PG1115, whose bright components have a flux ratio of 0.57. Kochanek and Dalal analyze a sample of radio quads and find that the brighter of the two saddle-points is significantly fainter than the model predictions.

Dalal and Kochanek (2002) argue that roughly 2% of the projected mass density (with a factor of three uncertainty) must be in the form of mini-halos. Evans and Witt (2002) argued that multipoles of higher order than quadrupole might produce similar results, but Kochanek and Dalal argue that these would require galaxies far more misshapen than the observed lenses.

## 4. Micro- and Milli-lensing!

While micro-lensing cannot explain the radio anomalies, milli-lensing can explain the optical anomalies. Is there the any need for micro-lensing?

Two separate lines of argument suggest that micro-lensing is also important. First, the broad emission line regions of quasars are thought to be larger than the Einstein rings of micro-lenses (e.g. Moustakas and Metcalf, 2002). An absence of broad emission line anomalies would argue for micro-lensing. Indeed differences between emission-line and continuum flux ratios in several systems (Wisotzki et al. 1993; Schechter et al. 1998; Burud et al. 2002). Second, micro-lensing produces uncorrelated variations in multiple images. These have been seen, most famously in Huchra’s lens, B2237+0305 (Woźniak et al. 2000) but also in HE1104-1805 (Schechter et al. 2003) and B0957+561 (Schild 1996; Refsdal et al. 2000), and with less coverage, in B1600+434 (Burud et al. 2001) and several other systems. The timescale for milli-lensing variations would be thousands of years. Thus it seems that both micro- and milli-lensing are at work.

How much of the discrepancy between the observed optical fluxes and the models is due to micro-lensing and how much is due to milli-lensing? Ideally one would observe lenses in both the radio and optical and compare flux ratios. The difference between the two would be attributable to micro-lensing. Unfortunately 90% of quasars are radio quiet. But with the advent of integral field units (and with judicious use of HST) one can imagine obtaining broad emission line flux ratios for a large sample of quads. We may therefore soon know whether micro- or milli-lensing is the major contributor to the observed anomalies. When we do we will have measures of the relative contributions of smooth and clumpy dark matter to the mass budget of galaxies.

### Acknowledgments.

I am indebted to my colleagues Scott Burles, Jonathan Granot, Naohisa Inada, Joachim Wambsganss and Lutz Wisotzki, without whose sustained efforts there would be no story to tell.

## References

Burud, I. et al. 2000, ApJ, 544, 117

Burud, I. et al. 2002, A&A, 383, 71

Chang, K. & Refsdal, S. 1979, Nature, 282, 561

Courbin, F., Magain, P., Keeton, C. R., Kochanek, C. S., Vanderriest, C., Jaunsen, A. O., & Hjorth, J. 1997, A&A, 324, L1

Dalal, N. & Kochanek, C. S. 2002, ApJ, 572, 25

Deguchi, S. & Watson, W. D. 1987, Phys. Rev. Lett, 59, 2814

Evans, N.W. and Witt, H.J, 2003, preprint (astro-ph/0212013 )

Gaudi, B. S. & Petters, A. O. 2002, ApJ, 574, 970

Granot, J., Schechter, P. L., & Wambsganss, J. 2003, ApJ, 583, 575

Inada, N. et al. 2003, ApJ , accepted (astro-ph/0304377)

Iwamuro, F. et al. 2000, PASJ, 52, 25

Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A. V., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F. 1999, ApJ, 522, 82

Kochanek, C. S. and Dalal, N. 2003, preprint (astro-ph/0302036)

Koopmans, L. V. E. & de Bruyn, A. G. 2000, A&A, 358, 793

Kristian, J. et al. 1993, AJ, 106, 1330

Mao, S. & Schneider, P. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 587

Marlow, D. R. et al. 1999, AJ, 118, 654

Metcalf, R. B. & Madau, P. 2001, ApJ, 563, 9

Metcalf, R. B. & Zhao, H. 2002, ApJ Letters, 567, L5

Moore, B., Ghigna, S., Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T., Stadel, J., & Tozzi, P. 1999, ApJ Letters, 524, L19

Moore, C. B. & Hewitt, J. N. 1997, ApJ, 491, 451

Moustakas, L. A. & Metcalf, R. B. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 607

Paczynski, B. 1986, ApJ, 301, 503

Refsdal, S., Stabell, R., Pelt, J., & Schild, R. 2000, A&A, 360, 10

Reimers, D., Hagen, H.-J., Baade, R., Lopez, S., & Tytler, D. 2002, A&A, 382, L26

Schechter, P. L. et al. 2003, ApJ, 584, 657

Schechter, P. L. et al. 1997, ApJ Letters, 475, L85

Schechter, P. L., Gregg, M. D., Becker, R. H., Helfand, D. J., & White, R. L. 1998, AJ, 115, 1371

Schechter, P. L. & Moore, C. B. 1993, AJ, 105, 1

Schechter, P. L. & Wambsganss, J. 2002, ApJ, 580, 685

Schild, R. E. 1996, ApJ, 464, 125

Schneider, P., Ehlers, J., & Falco, E. E. 1992, Gravitational Lenses, XIV (New York: Springer-Verlag), 560 pp. 112 figs.

Seitz, C., Wambsganss, J., & Schneider, P. 1994, A&A, 288, 19

Vanderriest, C., Wlerick, G., Lelievre, G., Schneider, J., Sol, H., Horville, D., Renard, L., & Servan, B. 1986, A&A, 158, L5

Wambsganss, J., Witt, H. J., & Schneider, P. 1992, A&A, 258, 591

Weymann, R. J., Latham, D., Angel, J. R. P., Green, R. F., Liebert, J. W., Turnshek, D. A., Turnshek, D. E., & Tyson, J. A. 1980, Science News, 118, 4

Wisotzki, L., Schechter, P. L., Bradt, H. V., Heinmüller, J., & Reimers, D. 2002, A&A, 395, 17

Wisotzki, L., Koehler, T., Kayser, R., & Reimers, D. 1993, A&A, 278, L15

Witt, H. J., Mao, S., & Schechter, P. L. 1995, ApJ, 443, 18

Woźniak, P. R., Udalski, A., Szymański, M., Kubiak, M., Pietrzyński, G., Soszyński, I., & Żebruń K. 2000, ApJ Letters, 540, L65