abstract: This article looks at how inhomogeneous spacetime models may be significant for cosmology. First it looks at how the averaging process may affect large scale dynamics, with backreaction effects leading to effective contributions to the averaged energy-momentum tensor. Secondly it considers how local inhomogeneities may affect cosmological observations in cosmology, possibly significantly affecting the concordance model parameters. Thirdly it presents the possibility that the universe is spatially inhomogeneous on Hubble scales, with a violation of the Copernican principle leading to an apparent acceleration of the universe. This could perhaps even remove the need for the postulate of dark energy.
author: George F R Ellis[^1]

ACGC and Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics,
University of Cape Town,
Rondebosch 7701, Cape Town, South Africa.
title: Inhomogeneity effects in Cosmology

# Introduction

The standard models of present day cosmology are perturbed FLRW (Friedmann-Lemaı̂tre-Robertson-Walker) models. These models, developed by Einstein, de Sitter, Friedmann, Lemaı̂tre, Robertson, and Walker in the period from 1917 to 1935, are exactly spatially homogeneous and isotropic, with an implied smooth fluid approximation; an early standard reference on their properties is by Robertson . The main developments since then are, firstly, consideration of much more complex matter content than considered at that time, in particular considering inclusion of background radiation interacting with multiple matter components and scalar fields, allowing in particular an inflationary early epoch; secondly, and consequent on this, a sophisticated history of the physical evolution of the contents of the universe, including in particular nucleosynthesis and matter-radiation decoupling; and thirdly, following the pioneering work of Lifschitz, the extension of these models to perturbed models where linearized structure formation and its effects on the background radiation can be studied. Observational relations can be calculated in these models and compared with astronomical data, confirming that they give good physical models that account satisfactorily for these observations. Summaries are given in many texts, e.g. Dodelson , Peters and Uzan , Ellis, Maartens and MacCallum .

The basic model is very successful, but has major mysteries: particular the nature of dark matter on the one hand, and the nature of the dark energy causing acceleration of the universe at recent times on the other. However like all models, it is an idealization: it represents the background model and linear perturbations around it very well, but the real universe has non-linear structure and voids at scales smaller than the Hubble scale , which are not well represented by these models.

The FLRW model is a large-scale approximation to these non-linear structures, that is supposed to represent the result of global averaging of inhomogeneities. There are three key issues here:

-   local inhomogeneities may affect the averaged large scale dynamics,

-   locally inhomogeneities affect photon propagation, and so may affect cosmological observations,

-   maybe the universe is after all not spatially homogeneous on the largest scales, and is better represented at late times by a Lemaı̂tre-Tolman-Bondi (LTB) spherically symmetric model, where we are situated near the centre of a Hubble scale void.

These concerns, which are not mutually exclusive, gain traction because of the mysterious issue of dark energy, whose nature is completely unknown. So the question is not just whether inhomogeneities may significantly affect the interpretation of observations in cosmology; it is whether they can affect the need for dark energy, or at least significantly affect the concordance model parameter values. In brief: is inhomogeneity important for cosmology itself, apart from being central to the study of structure growth?

These are the issues I shall introduce here. There is a large literature on these topics, so I can only refer to representative publications on them in the following sections; most of the relevant papers will be mentioned in the further articles in this special issue. Note that this is not an article on the use of inhomogeneous models to explore structure formation in the expanding universe: that is a separate, though related, issue.

## Preliminaries

The Einstein Field Equations ('EFE') algebraically determine $R_{ab}$ from the matter tensor $T_{ab}$: [^2] $$\label{efe}
R_{ab} = T_{ab} - {\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}\,T\,g_{ab} +
\Lambda\,g_{ab} \hspace{5mm} \Rightarrow \hspace{5mm} R = -\,T + 4\,\Lambda \ .$$ When the matter takes a 'perfect fluid' form, $$\label{pf}
T_{ab} = (\mu+p)\,u_{a}\,u_{b} + p\,g_{ab} \hspace{5mm} \Rightarrow \hspace{5mm} T
= -\,(\mu-3p)$$ with $\mu$ the total energy density and $p$ the isotropic pressure, the Ricci tensor expression is $$\label{ricci}
R_{ab} = (\mu+p)\,u_{a}\,u_{b} +
{\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}\,(\mu-p+2\Lambda) \,g_{ab} \hspace{5mm}
\Rightarrow \hspace{5mm} R = (\mu-3p) + 4\,\Lambda \ .$$ This is necessarily the case in a FLRW model. The cosmological constant $\Lambda$ is equivalent to a Ricci tensor contribution () with $\mu_\Lambda+p_\Lambda=0$. That is one can represent $\Lambda$ either on the left hand side of the EFE as in (), or on the right hand side of the EFE as a fluid () with equation of state $p = - \mu$.

# Backreaction effects

## The basic idea

The concept of backreaction from smaller to larger scales was developed in a paper by Brill and Hartle in the context of John Wheeler's idea of geons. It was extended to the case of gravitational radiation in two beautiful papers by Isaacson . He envisaged high frequency waves superimposed on a slowly varying background: $$\label{isaacson1}
g_{\mu\nu} = \gamma_{\mu\nu} + \epsilon h_{\mu\nu}, \,\,\partial
\gamma \simeq \gamma/L, \,\,\,\partial h \simeq h/\lambda, \,$$ where $L$ is the lengthscale of variation of the background metric and $\lambda$ that of the gravitational waves superimposed on the background. Then $$\label{isaacson2}
R_{\mu\nu}(\gamma + \epsilon h) = R_{\mu\nu}^{(0)} + \epsilon
R_{\mu\nu}^{(1)} + \epsilon^{2} R_{\mu\nu}^{(2)} + \epsilon^3
R_{\mu\nu}^{(3+)}$$ where $R_{\mu\nu}^{(0)} = R_{\mu\nu}^{(0)}(\gamma)$ and the others are functions of $h_{\mu\nu}$. Thus if the actual spacetime is empty: $R_{\mu\nu}(g) = 0$, the background metric is not that of an empty spacetime: $R_{\mu\nu}^{(0)} \neq 0$ and there is an effective matter term on the right hand side of the EFE. One finds $R_{\mu\nu}^{(1)}=0$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{isaacson3}
R_{\mu\nu}^{(0)} - \frac{1}{2}R^{(0)} \gamma_{\mu\nu} = -8\pi T_{\mu\nu}^{\,\,\,eff},\\
T_{\mu\nu}^{\,\,\,eff} = \frac{\epsilon^2}{8\pi}( R_{\mu\nu}^{(2)}
-\frac{1}{2} R^{(2)} \gamma_{\mu\nu} )
\end{aligned}$$ so the gravitational wave appears as a source of the background. This is backreaction from the small scale structure to the large scale structure.

This illustrates the basic backreaction proposal: coarse-graining microstructure results in effective matter components at macro scales that can influence the macro (coarse-grained) dynamics. The issue was taken up *inter alia* by Szekeres , who showed that this averaging effect could be expressed in a weak-field polarization formalism in analogy with the electromagnetic case; by MacCallum and Taub , who derived Isaacson's results using a two-time Lagrangian formalism; and by Noonan , who extended Isaacson's formulation to include matter (an astronomical "medium").

## Non-commutativity of EFE and averaging

The basic point is that averaging the geometry and calculating the field equations do not commute . We use angle brackets to denote averaging over a suitable volume $V$, so $\overline{g}_{ab} \equiv \langle g_{ab}\rangle$ is the background metric with inverse $\overline{g}^{ab}$ given by $\overline{g}^{ab}
\overline{g}_{bc}=\delta^a_c$, and indices should be raised and lowered using the full metric $g^{ab}$, $g_{ab}$. Then $$\label{average1}
 g_{ab} = \overline{g}_{ab} + \delta g_{ab}\,\,\,g^{ab} g_{bc} = \delta^a_c ,\,\,\,% \Rightarrow
g^{ab} = \overline{g}^{ab}  + h^{ab}$$ shows that $$\label{average4}
(\overline{g}^{ab}  + h^{ab}) (\overline{g}_{bc} + \delta
g_{bc})=\delta^a_c$$ so $\overline{g}^{ab} \neq \langle g^{ab}\rangle$ and ${h}^{ab} \neq
\delta g^{ab} \equiv  g^{ae} g^{bf} (\delta g_{ef})$. Consequently the Christoffel symbols gain extra terms relative to the averaged Christoffel symbols: $\Gamma^a_{\,\,\,bc}
= \overline{\Gamma}^a_{\,\,\,bc} + \delta \Gamma^a_{\,\,\,bc}$ and the Ricci and Einstein tensors in turn gain extra terms: $$\label{average2}
R_{ab} = \overline{R}_{ab} + \delta R_{ab}\,\,
 \Rightarrow  G_{ab} = \overline{G}_{ab}  + \delta G_{ab}\,,$$ hence the averaged EFE gain an extra term: $$\label{average3}
G_{ab} = T_{ab}  + \Lambda\,g_{ab} \Rightarrow \overline{G}_{ab} +
\delta G_{ab} =
\overline{T}_{ab}  + \Lambda\,g_{ab}$$ These extra terms are effective matter terms in the large scale field equations, consequent on the coarse-graining of small scale inhomogeneities; this called the backreaction from the smaller to the larger scales, and is consequent on the fact that coarse-graining (or averaging) does not commute with calculating the EFE from the metric tensor: $$\label{average5}
\overline{G}_{ab} = \widetilde{T}_{ab}  + \Lambda\,g_{ab},\,\,
\widetilde{T}_{ab} := \overline{T}_{ab}  %+ \delta T_{ab})
- \delta G_{ab}
%G_{ab} = \overline{G}_{ab} + \Lambda g_{ab} + E_{ab},\,\,
 %\Rightarrow  G_{ab} = \overline{G}_{ab}  + E^{ab}$$ where $\widetilde{T}_{ab}$ is the effective coarse-grained source term, the second term on the right being the effect of matter averaging and the third term the geometric backreaction effect. The Isaacson gravitational radiation calculation summarised above is a specific example (a vacuum spacetime with a rapidly varying gravitational wave appears to have an effective matter content when viewed on larger scales).

In principle carrying out that calculation is straightforward but very complex. However to be certain of the result, one needs to average in the real universe, not the background spacetime. The basic problem then is that averaging involves integration of tensor quantities over a spacetime volume, and so is not a well-defined tensorial operation: changing the coordinates will change the result in an arbitrary way. One can try to handle this by

1.  defining a covariant averaging of tensors via bitensors, or

2.  using only field equations involving averaged scalars, perhaps involving a convolution rather than simple averaging, or

3.  carrying out the calculation in a weak field approximation where the integrals can be well defined in a highly symmetric background spacetime, and the difference between the integral in the background spacetime and the real spacetime is negligible, or

4.  choosing a uniquely defined physically motivated coordinate system in the fully non-linear spacetime.

All have been tried. There are problems in each case:

1.  there is no uniquely defined usable bitensor, as the Synge parallel transport bitensor does not work (it leaves the metric tensor invariant);

2.  it is not easy to find well-defined scalars that fully define the geometry and dynamics in a generic case;

3.  the linearized procedure may not accurately reflect the needed integral in the real spacetime;

4.  one is breaking general covariance in this procedure; one has to motivate that the result is physically meaningful.

## Cosmological applications: Fitting and averaging

The application of the idea of backreaction to cosmology was raised in , see also , and then taken up *inter alia* by Futamase , Stoeger et al , and particularly by Buchert and collaborators, first in the Newtonian case and then in the GR case . The implications for cosmology have been discussed more recently by Kolb, Matarrese, Wiltshire, Räsänen, Sussman, and others.

The key point from the discussion above is that backreaction from small scale inhomogeneity to the large scale geometry can generate a dynamic effect in the effective Friedmann equation for the cosmology, allowing an acceleration contribution due to back reaction from "small scale" inhomogeneities. This has a potential effect on cosmological parameters ; the question is whether it is large enough to give a significant contribution to dark energy. Kolb and Wiltshire propose it can provide a sufficient source of all the effective dark energy, leading to the possibility of concordance cosmology without $\Lambda$. In contrast, as discussed below, many others deny the effect is important.

The further issue that arises is that while some form of averaging process is in principle what one should do to arrive at the large scale geometry of the universe on the basis of observations, in practice what is normally done is the inverse. One assumes *a priori* a FLRW model as a background model, and then uses some form of observationally-based fitting process to determine its basic parameters . This in effect defines a mapping from the smooth background model into the perturbed more realistic space time, which then *defines* the specific perturbations that occur about the background model , for if you change the fitting - what is often called the *gauge* - you change the perturbations.

Now there are many ways one can conceive of to perform such a fitting, and indeed averaging is one of them: in principle one can average energy densities, pressures, expansion rates, etc to arrive at a FLRW model from a more accurate representation. However in practice fitting is done via astronomical observations down the past null cone, leading to fitting procedures for the FLRW parameters as set out in the paradigmatic paper by Sandage , updated by all the myriad other data now used to determine the best-fit FLRW model . Once one has fitted a specific FLRW model to the observable region of the universe, one can then try to determine the specific local deviations from the background model - as for example in all the studies trying to identify the Great Attractor . Ideally what one would do is show that both a coarse-graining procedure and a suitable fitting procedure for a realistic lumpy universe model - depicting all the great walls, voids, etc - would give the same result. No one has so far shown how this might work.

An interesting question here is whether (i) there is a scale above which the universe is exactly FLRW, or (ii) at all scales the universe is only ever approximately FLRW. In fact while averaging can in principle lead to an almost homogeneous model to any degree of approximation, it can never lead to exact homogeneity, if the initial model is not homogeneous : there will always remain residual traces of those inhomogeneities. Fitting of course starts off with such an exactly homogeneous model. Thus in this sense the two cannot be exact inverses of each other, and there cannot be any scale where the universe is exactly FLRW - but it can be very closely so.

Whether these effects are sufficient to significantly alter the cosmological parameters determined from supernova observations is an important ongoing debate involving interesting modeling and general relativity issues, and particularly how one models a universe with genuinely large–scale voids, as well as the nature of the Newtonian limit in cosmology (see the article by Räsänen). In this section we consider various approaches to averaging and determining backreaction.

### The Zalaletdinov approach

The problem with employing a tensorial averaging procedure is that the result is not covariant: one obtains coordinate dependent results, unless one uses bitensors to define covariant averaging in a local domain, as proposed by Zalaletdinov . This can be done for curvature and matter, but is difficult to do in a unique way for metric itself, because the metric is invariant under parallel propagation, so the Synge bitensor will not work. In any case this approach leads to complex equations that have not yet been productive in terms of the cosmological backreaction problem, despite some valiant attempts .

### The Buchert approach

Alternatively, one can avoid this problem by only averaging scalars, as Buchert does. He shows this can in principle provide an effective acceleration term in the averaged equations.

The key point is that expansion and averaging do not commute: in any domain $D$, for any field $\psi$, $$\partial_t \left<\psi\right>_D - \left< \partial_t \psi\right>_D = \left<\Theta\psi\right>_D
 - \left<\theta\right>_D \left<\psi\right>_D$$ where $\Theta$ is the expansion rate. This leads to Buchert's modified Friedmann and Raychaudhuri equations: e.g. $$\partial_t\left<\Theta\right>_D = \Lambda - 4\pi G \rho_D + 2 \left<II\right>_D - \left<I\right>_D^2$$ where $II = \Theta^2/3 - \sigma^2$ and $I = \Theta$, $\sigma$ being the shear. This in principle allows acceleration terms to arise from the averaging process, through the term $\left<II\right>_D$. To complete the dynamical equations, one needs the shear evolution, but this cannot easily be obtained from the full set of 1+3 dynamic equations through such averaging of scalars. Hence Buchert's analysis relies on an Ansatz for this evolution, which is not fully justified from the underlying dynamics. There are integrability conditions linking the shear to the curvature that give a combined conservation law for curvature plus fluctuations. This forms the basis for the assumed closure conditions, leading to exact classes of solutions where the evolution of the averaged shear is determined. The closure condition replaces what in Friedmannian cosmology would be the equation of state for the sources; here it is the equation of state for the effective sources.

The Buchert equations indicate the broad nature of the effect, and are widely used as the basis of further studies, for instance by Kolb et al, Wiltshire, and Räsänen. Buchert presents his approach in his article in this special issue. The use of scalars more generally is proposed by Coley .

### The renormalization group approach

Carfora and Piotrkowska have developed a sophisticated geodesic-ball based averaging approach, *inter alia* using the ideas of the renormalization group . This has lead to intriguing analyses of the effects of such averaging on cosmology , giving formula for averaged effects on cosmic parameters. This is a very sophisticated extension of the basic Buchert programme, indeed it is something of a technical *tour de force* . Its relation to practical cosmological observations is still to be developed.

## Non-linear models

The previous approaches are not tied in to specific geometric models of the universe. The key issue however is how good the linear models are at representing the non-linear inhomogeneities in the real universe, with gigantic voids, walls, and so on at larger scales, and mainly empty space at smaller scales :

> Voids have been known as a feature of the Megaparsec universe since the first galaxy redshift surveys were compiled. Voids are enormous regions with sizes in the range of $20-50h ^{-1}$ Mpc that are practically devoid of any galaxy, usually roundish in shape and occupying the major share of space in the Universe \[37\]. Forming an essential ingredient of the Cosmic Web, they are surrounded by elongated filaments, sheetlike walls, and dense compact clusters.

Various non-linear models have been developed that try to approximate this kind of situation without using a linearization procedure; they are discussed in the articles by Bolejko, Célérier, and Krasinski (and see for discussions of exact inhomogeneous models). The original such models were the "Swiss cheese" models of Einstein and Straus , where spherical 'vacuoles' with a spherical mass at the centre are cut out of an expanding FLRW universe model. This gives an exact solution of the EFE with static voids imbedded in an expanding universe. However there is no dynamical backreaction from the inhomogeneities in these models, because the matching conditions between the voids and the expanding universe require that the mass at the centre of each vacuole is the same as would have been there if there were no vacuole.

Models with voids have been developed in depth by Wiltshire who has emphasized that time runs differently in the voids, potentially leading to a substantial effect when integrated over long times. Furthermore voids expand while clusters collapse or stay the same size, so the universe becomes void dominated, and the region we live in is increasingly not representative or "average". These models can potentially lead to apparent acceleration of the universe . However the degree to which the models represent the real universe is not clear. These models are discussed in the article by Wiltshire.

A completely different approach is to construct the expanding model from an aggregation of local spherical vacuum regions, joined together at boundary surfaces, as developed first by Wheeler and Lindquist . These models are radically different from all the others in that here one does not start with a FLRW model and then perturb it or excise regions from it: rather a FLRW-like structure emerges at large scales as an approximation to the small scale vacuum domains with imbedded static masses. Thus there is no back-reaction to a large scale model because there was no such model to begin with. Rather the junctions between local inhomogeneities underlie the large scale dynamics, which is emergent rather than the result of averaging. This approach has been developed interestingly at recent times by Clifton and Fereira . These models are discussed in the article by Clifton (and see also , discussed further below).

## Perturbative approach

In contrast to these attempts at non-linear models, there is a large literature studying backreaction effects on the basis of linearly perturbed FLRW models. Differing views are held as to the result, reviewed recently by Clarkson and Maartens (and see also ). Some workers claim the weak field approximation is adequate to describe the non-linear structures, because the gravitational potential is very small even though the density contrasts are very large; and consequently the backreaction effect is negligible (see for this view). Counter claim by Kolb, Wiltshire, Matarrese and others (see e.g. ) emphasize that as there are major voids in the expanding universe, a weak-field kind of approximation to a spatially homogeneous model is not adequate: you have to properly model (possibly quasi-static) voids and their junctions to the expanding external universe, and the linear models are not adequate for this purpose. An in between view is given by Clarkson, Ananda, and Larena ().

A recent contribution from the skeptical side is by Green and Wald , using an ultra-local averaging procedure to show - in direct contradiction of Buchert's claim - that no acceleration can result from backreaction associated with such averaging, because the effect is trace-free. The limiting process embodied in this elegant work probably does not adequately represent the results of averaging over finite volumes, as represented by the other methods discussed here, because it does not in fact involve any such averaging, so this method does not disprove Buchert's results. Indeed it is unlikely that this "trace-free" result is true for models that genuinely represent averaging over finite volumes.

There are many workers skeptical there is any significant effect, with strong arguments based on the perturbed FLRW approach: the gravitational potentials involved are so small that a quasi-Newtonian analysis is adequate, and the back reaction effect does indeed occur but is negligible. However others suggest it may be at least large enough to affect the cosmic relation between energy densities and expansion that leads us to deduce the spatial curvature is almost flat. Greater conceptual clarity on the modeling issues involved is required; the issue is discussed in the articles by Kolb and Clarkson. Three specific issues arise that suggest caution is advisable before accepting the pessimistic view.

### The averaging process

In the weak field case, the perturbed quantities can be averaged in the background unperturbed Robertson–Walker geometry: a linearized calculations in the background spacetime. This is central to the weak field approach. But that procedure is inadequate for truly non–linear cases, where the integral needs to be done over a generic lumpy (non–linearly perturbed) spacetime that are not "perturbations" of a high–symmetry background. It is precisely in these cases that the most interesting effects will occur.

### Global coordinates: Models with genuine voids

The response often given is that even though the density may be highly non-linear, in a suitable non-comoving quasi-newtonian frame the gravitational potential remains very small. Then one has $\delta\rho/\rho \simeq 10^{+28}$ but $\delta \phi/\phi \simeq
10^{-5}$. This is possible because the second derivatives of the potential are not small, and they are what enter the field equations to balance the very large density perturbations ; so a suitable linearised approach is acceptable.

Underlying this is the issue of global existence of the quasi-Newtonian coordinates in situations of real inhomogeneity with locally static almost empty spacetimes joining together to form an expanding universe, as envisaged by Lindquist and Wheeler. The case for global validity of these coordinates is put for example by Ishibashi and Wald and by Baumann et al . In the Poisson gauge to second-order in scalar perturbations the metric is $$\label{weakmetric}
ds^2=-\left(1+2\Phi+\Phi^{(2)}\right)dt^2 +a^2(t)
\left(1-2\Psi-\Psi^{(2)}\right)\delta_{ij}d x^i dx^j.$$ The first-order scalar perturbations are given by $\Phi, \Psi$, and the second-order ones by $\Phi^{(2)}, \Psi^{(2)}$ (which are needed for a consistent analysis of backreaction).

But the fact that such coordinates can on the one hand be used globally in an asymptotically flat inhomogeneous region such as the solar system, and on the other in a linearly perturbed FLRW model, does not mean it can be used globally for a genuinely inhomogeneous expanding universe model including both kinds of domains, as claimed by Wald and Ishibashi. For example Lindquist and Wheeler do not give a global coordinate system: they match local coordinates to each other across a boundary. But this is not done exactly, because the geometry is too complex to do so. The one case where one can do the job exactly is an expanding two-mass solution with locally static voids joined to create an expanding universe with compact space sections . The surprising result is that the join can only be done across a null surface (a 'horizon'), with intermediate spatially homogeneous anisotropically expanding vacuum regions - it is the existence of these regions that allow the universe to expand. It is not possible to find global coordinates of the form () in such a spacetime, as posited by Wald and Ishibashi. Thus in that case the weak field arguments do not apply because the coordinate system on which they rely does not exist globally. They may however be possible in Swiss Cheese models, where it is the intervening fluid domains that allow the static vacuum domains to move way from each other; but these are not the kind of situation we consider here, with galaxies everywhere imbedded in genuinely vacuum regions and no fluid-filled domains acting as buffers between them.

So real inhomogeneities have properties that are not the same as perturbed FLRW models that are fluid-filled everywhere. The key issue underlying the two-mass result is the rigidity of local spherical vacuum regions that is embodied in Birkhoff's Theorem. So a criticism might be that Birkhoff's theorem applies only to exact spherically symmetry vacuum solutions; the argument won't apply to more realistic solutions with almost spherically symmetric vacuum domains. However this argument is invalid: an 'Almost Birkhoff' theorem shows the Birkhoff result is stable . On this view, the issue is whether (on appropriate averaging scales) the real universe is globally filled with an intergalactic medium that can serve as the substratum allowing expansion to take place in a way compatible with the weak field view (because there are then in fact no vacuum regions, such as represented in the Lindquist-Wheeler type models). This may or may not be the case.

In it is shown that the second derivatives can be of order one in the situation given by the other numbers for metrical perturbations. Curvature is thus important and not a perturbation of a flat model; but it is the curvature that drives the backreaction effect. The degree to which a suitable linearised approach is acceptable as a model of genuinely inhomogenous regions thus remains open to debate, particularly in the case of a linearised treatment on a flat background, where the curvature remains small.

### The gauge issue

Finally underlying this all is the gauge issue: to what degree are the results dependent on the choice of how the background metric is mapped into the more realistic model? One can after all always find a gauge where the density perturbation $\delta\rho$ is zero . The key is to find a gauge invariant formalism to tackle the problem - if that is possible . The major attempt to tackle this so far is by Gasperini, Marozzi, and Venziano . This has not yet however led to specific conclusions about cosmological acceleration. This issue is related to the complexities of appopriately defining the background spacetime .
The overall conclusion is that while it may at first seem rather unlikely that dynamical backreaction is of significance in the late universe, there are some unresolved questions, so that one should keep an open mind. The issue is debated in some of the following papers in this special issue. Furthermore it may be important in the early universe: for example Mukhanov *et al* have shown that the back reaction of cosmological perturbations on the background can become important already at energies below the self-reproduction scale in inflationary universe scenarios . However I will not discuss that context here.

# Optical effects of local inhomogeneity

Small scale inhomogeneity can have significant effects on the propagation of photons in a lumpy universe, with potentially important effects on observations. There are three issues here.

## Redshift effects

Firstly, inhomogeneities can affect redshifts, as for example in the Rees-Sciama effect where CMB photons falling into a time-dependent gravitational potential well experience an overall change in redshift because they climb out of a different shaped well than when they fell in. Also if light is emitted from a source within a potential well, it will be redshifted as it climbs out; this effect lies behind the 'timescape cosmology' proposal of Wiltshire , who points out that the associated time dilation effect is cumulative over the history of the source.

## Area distance effects

Secondly inhomogeneities can affect area distances, which underlie the apparent angular diameter, and hence apparent luminosity, of images . The key point is the difference between Ricci focusing and Weyl focusing, as emphasized by Bertotti . The focussing of an irrotational bundle of null geodesics with tangent vector $K^a$ is given by $$\label{null1}
d\hat{\theta}/dv = -R_{ab}K^aK^b - 2\hat{\sigma}^2 - \hat{\theta}^2$$ $$\label{null2}
d \hat{\sigma}_{mn}/dv  = - E_{mn}$$ where $\hat{\theta}$ is the expansion and $\hat{\sigma}$ the shear of the null rays, $R_{ab}$ is the Ricci tensor, determined pointwise by the matter distribution, and $E_{ab}$ the electric part of the Weyl tensor, determined non-locally by matter elsewhere.

In the case of Robertson-Walker observations, there is zero Weyl tensor and a non-zero Ricci tensor, so (,) become $$\label{null3}
d\hat{\theta}/dv = -R_{ab}K^aK^b  - \hat{\theta}^2$$ $$\label{null4}
d\hat{\sigma}_{mn}/dv  = 0$$ which are the standard equations underlying observations in a FLRW model. Actual observations however are the opposite: photons travel through empty space (on small scales), described by zero Ricci tensor and non-zero Weyl tensor: so (,) become $$\label{null5}
d\hat{\theta}/dv =  - 2\hat{\sigma}^2 - \hat{\theta}^2$$ $$\label{null6}
d \hat{\sigma}_{mn}/dv  = - E_{mn}$$ This averages out to FLRW equations when averaged over whole sky, which is not obvious! This does not follow from energy conservation *per se*, but rather depends on how area distances average out over the sky. But supernova observations are preferentially made in directions where there is no matter in between to interfere with the observations; hence area distances, and so cosmological observations, will be different in this case.

The usual way of handling this is to use the Dyer-Roeder (DR) equation , that takes matter into account but not shear, because the shear enters the focusing equation quadratically, and so is neglible if shear is small. Thus the DR equation takes in to account only the Ricci focusing due to a specified fraction $f(v)$ of the uniform density of matter in the universe : $$\label{null7}
d\hat{\theta}/dv = - f(v) R_{ab}K^aK^b  - \hat{\theta}^2.$$ When $f=1$ one has the FLRW result; when $f = 0$ one has photons travelling through vacuum regions in the clumpy universe.

How this works out depends on how dark matter is clustered, which differs on different scales. The Dyer-Roeder approximation is good if the Weyl focusing term (causing gravitational lensing) can always be neglected in this way; this needs investigation in the light of the expected clustering pattern; many examples are given by Mortsell , showing the effect is potentially significant, and analytic forms by Kantowski . When this approximation is valid, the outcome depends crucially on what fraction of the overall cosmic density (baryonic and non-baryonic) occurs in a smooth form along the line of sight on different scales. Note that on some angular scales the clumping experienced along the line of sight will be partially compensated, in that each void (a low density region on the line of sight) will be matched by a wall (a high density region) so that the overall density is the same as the background density. However they will not exactly compensate because 3-dimensionally compensated voids do not reduce to a 1-dimensionally compensated distribution of matter along the line of sight . It will also have some impact on the CMB observations .

One can investigate these effects in non-linear models. How it works out in Swiss cheese models is investigated *inter alia* in , confirming there can indeed be a significant effect. The case of observations in a Wheeler-Lindquist type model is investigated in .

The key issue is how empty the voids really are, from supergalactic scales down to the "vacuum" regions in the solar system. There are some galaxies in the large scale voids, but are they imbedded in an intergalactic gas of baryons and CDM? If so what what fraction is its density of the global average density of the model (when smoothed on the largest scales)? The answer does not seem to be known: but the outcome depends crucially on these figures. On the small scales relevant to the supernova observations, one may expect mostly empty space, except perhaps for CDM left over from structure formation; but it is unclear what the relevant fractional density is on these scales

## Afine parameter effects

Finally, there are effects that arise through altering the relation $z(v)$ between the affine parameter $z$ and the redshift $z$. These effects have been little studied. However it is noteworthy that it is only through this relation that the cosmolgical constant can affect observation relatons such as the area-distance redshift relation ($\Lambda$ does not explicitly enter the null Raychaudhuri relation ()). Thus this may well be interesting to investigate.
Overall these effects are indeed likely to be significant: that is, they may be significant enough to appreciably affect the parameter values of the concordance model of cosmology . How this works out is crucially dependent on how matter is distributed on small scales, and how empty the voids really are. This is an important area for investigation, and is discussed by Mattsson.

# Spatial homogeneity?

So far I have considered the effect of local inhomogeneities on global dynamics and observations; where "local" means sufficiently small that we can claim that overall the Copernican principle - the claim that the universe is the same everywhere - still holds when we coarse-grain on large enough scales. The further issue of interest is whether this is in fact the case: might it be that the Copernican principle does not hold, so the FLRW models are in fact misleading models of the large scale geometry of the visible region of the universe?

The Cosmological Principle was introduced by Milne 1930's, and then formalized in a technical sense by Robertson and Walker. It was the foundation of cosmology in the 1960s to 1980s, see Bondi and Weinberg . But it is an *a priori* philosophical principle. It produces world models that work - namely the standard models of cosmology. But is it true? Can it be tested? Maybe there are inhomogeneous models that would fit the observations as well - or even better.

## The argument for homogeneity

It is not obvious the universe is spatially homogeneous . We can directly observe isotropy, but not homogeneity, firstly because we effectively observe the universe from one space-time point, and secondly because when undertaking astronomical observations, the finite speed of light inextricably mixes spatial distance with time.

Arguments for homogeneity are discussed in . Direct determination of homogeneity from number counts is in principle possible, but fails in practice because of the look-back time necessarily associated with all cosmological observations: we cannot uniquely separate out spatial inhomogeneity from a time evolution of sources . Similarly in principle an observational verification of the Mattig magnitude-redshift relation for galaxies in FLRW models (or its generalization to non-zero $\Lambda$) would suffice . This in-principle direct determinations of homogeneity depends on being precisely fit by FLRW data functions, and does not depend on observations by other fundamental observers. But again this is not practicable. So how can one proceed?

The high degree of isotropy of astronomical observations (averaged on a large enough scale) suggests an observational basis for the assumption of spatial homogeneity. Indeed a universe which is isotropic everywhere is necessarily a FLRW model (Walker , Ehlers ). But we can't check if this is true or not: it's an assumption, because we can only test isotropy where we are. However we can attain a weaker version of the Walker result: Ehlers, Geren and Sachs proved the EGS theorem, that isotropy everywhere of the CBR only is sufficient to prove a FLRW geometry, if the universe is expanding. This result has been strengthened even further through generalisations of the EGS theorem to almost isotropy and to models with matter and dark energy . This provides a stronger motivation for spatial homogeneity, but until recently still relied on an untested philosophical assumption: addition of a Copernican Principle, assuming that we are not in a special position in the universe, so everyone else will also see isotropic background radiation. The result then follows. However it is now known that this assumption is indeed at least partly testable via measurements of CMB spectrum distortions, as will be discussed below.

There are a number of other observational tests of the Copernican principle that are now possible, because of observational improvements in the past decade. Before coming to them, I will first discuss the inhomogeneous models that make this an interesting possibility.

## Large scale inhomogeneity?

The proposal that inhomogeneous models can explain the supernova observations without any dark energy is discussed by Célérier and Tanimoto & T. Nambu . The idea is that there is a large scale inhomogeneity of the observable universe such as that described by the Lemaı̂tre-Tolman-Bondi (LTB) pressure-free spherically symmetric models (, see also see ), and we are near the centre of a void. The LTB models have comoving coordinates

$$ds^2 = - dt^2 + B^2(r,t) + A^2(r,t)(d\theta^2+\sin^2 \theta
d\phi^2)$$ where

$$B^2(r,t) = A'(r,t)^2 (1-k(r))^{-1}$$ and the evolution equation is

$$(\dot{A}/A)^2 = F(r)/A^3 + 8pG\rho_\Lambda/3 - k(r)/A^2$$ with the energy density given by $F' (A'A^2)^{-1} = 8pG\rho_M$. There are two arbitrary functions of the spatial coordinate $r$: namely $k(r)$ (curvature) and $F(r)$ (matter). That this freedom enables us to fit the supernova observations with no dark energy or other exotic physics is a consequence of a theorem proved by Mustapha *et al* , updated in . One can also fit the basic nucleosynthesis data and CBR observations because they refer to much larger values of $r$ see e.g. Alexander *et al* . The key point is that different scales are probed by different astronomical observations and can in principle all be fitted by adjusting the free spatial functions at different distances. One can also use Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) measurements to estimate distances ; but note that to calculate the CBR and BAO results with precision, one must use the LTB perturbation theory , not the theory of FLRW perturbations.

A typical observationally viable model is one in which we live roughly centrally (within 10% of the central position) in a large void with a compensated underdense region stretching to $z \simeq
0.08$ with $\delta \rho/\rho \simeq -0.4$ and size $160/h$ Mpc to $250/h$ Mpc, a jump in the Hubble constant of about $1.20$ at that distance, and no dark energy or quintessence field (). Actually you don't need a void to explain the observations; more general models can do the job . One can also use the more complex Szekeres universes to obtain observationally viable models .

One ends up with a degeneracy: both FLRW and LTB models can explain the basic cosmological observations, as was confirmed for example by the SDSS team . One needs more detailed modeling to distinguish which is the better model when precision cosmological observations are taken into account. Before I turn to these tests, some theoretical objections must be faced.

## Dynamical origins and Probability

Given that we can fit the observations by such a model, is there a plausible dynamic scenario for them? Because evolution along individual world lines in such models is governed by the Friedmann equation, inflation followed by a Hot Big Bang era can have the same basic dynamics as in the standard model, but with position dependent parameters. One argument for homogeneity is that inflation creates a high degree of uniformity, and in the subsequent cosmic evolution, perturbations can only grow to a certain size. Above that scale, we should have the inflation-created uniformity. But that depends on the details supposed for the inflationary epoch. If there are multiple inflaton fields and appropriate inflationary potential and initial conditions, then it should certainly be possible to arrive at an inhomogeneous a situation, for example multi-stream inflation gives such a mechanism. This involves two inflaton fields, a hill in the potential, and tunneling between different paths from initial to final states, resulting in different numbers of e-foldings in different places. This mechanism can create large over or under densities of the kind envisaged here.

Many dismiss these models on probability grounds: "t is improbable we are near the centre of such a model." But there is always improbability in cosmology: we can shift it around, but it is always there. Three comments are in order. First, there simply is no proof the universe is probable; that is a philosophical assumption, which may not be true. Secondly, a study by Linde *et al* shows that (given a particular choice of measure) this kind of inhomogeneity actually is a probable outcome of inflationary theory, with ourselves being located near the centre. And thirdly, Boljeko and Sussman argue that the problem of improbability is ameliorated if one has for example a Szekeres rather than LTB solution.

Overall, one cannot simply dismiss such models out of hand. Philosophical opinions and probability arguments will have to give way to the results of observational testing of these models.

## Observational tests of spatial homogeneity

Given that we can both find inhomogeneous models to reproduce the observations without any exotic energy, as well as homogeneous models with some form of dark energy that explain the same observations, can we distinguish between the two? Ideally we need a model-independent test: is a RW geometry the correct metric for the observed universe region, irrespective of assumptions about the dynamics and matter content? Four kinds of tests are possible.

### Behaviour near origin

The universe must not have a geometric cusp at the origin, as this implies a singularity there. Thus it has been claimed there are centrality conditions that must be fulfilled in the inhomogeneous models (Vanderveld et al ). The distance modulus behaves as $\Delta dm(z) = - (5/2)q_0z$ in standard $\Lambda$CDM models, but if this were true in a LTB void model without $\Lambda$ this has been said to imply a singularity (Clifton *et al* ); observational tests of this requirement will be available from intermediate redshift supernovae in the future. However and show this is not a real issue.

### Area distance versus Hubble parameter

Measures of the area distance and Hubble parameter as a function of redshift can give a direct test of spatial homogeneity. There are two geometric effects on distance measurements: curvature $\Omega_k$ bends null geodesics, expansion $H(z)$ changes radial distances. In RW geometries, we can combine the Hubble rate and distance data to find the curvature today: $$\Omega_k = \frac{[H(z)D'(z)]^2-1}{[H_0D(z)]^2}$$ This relation is independent of all other cosmological parameters, including dark energy model and theory of gravity. It can be used at single redshift to determine $\Omega_k$, but must give the same result for all redshifts. The important result of Clarkson *et al* () is that since $\Omega_k$ is independent of $z$, we can differentiate to get the consistency relation $$C(z) := 1 + H^2(DD''-D'^2) + HH'DD' =0,$$ which depends only on a RW geometry: it is independent of curvature, dark energy, nature of matter, and theory of gravity. Thus it gives the desired consistency test for spatial homogeneity. In realistic models we should expect $C(z) \simeq 10^{-5}$, reflecting perturbations about the RW model related to structure formation. Errors may be estimated from a series expansion

$$C(z) = \left[q_0^{(D)}-q_0^{(H)}\right]z + O(z^2)$$ where $q_0^{(D)}$ is measured from distance data and $q_0^{(H)}$ from the Hubble parameter. It is simplest to measure $H(z)$ from BAO data. It is only as difficult carrying out this test as carrying out dark energy measurements of $w(z)$ from Hubble data, which requires $H'(z)$ from distance measurements or the second derivative $D''(z)$. Another promising approach is to use the time drift of cosmological redshifts as a way of determining these functions . An analysis of how well the time drift of redshift $\dot {z}$ can distinguish an LTB model from a FLRW model is given in .

This is the simplest direct test of spatial homogeneity, and its implementation should be regarded as a high priority: for if it confirms spatial homogeneity, that reinforces the evidence for the standard view in a satisfying way; but if it does not, it has the possibility of undermining the entire project of searching for a physical form of dark energy.

In the future, the same measurements can potentially be carried out by gravitational wave observations of black hole binary mergers .

### The CMB Spectrum: Verifying the EGS Theorem conditions

The peaks in the CMB anisotropy power spectrum can be adequately accommodated in the LTB family of models . The key further point is that one can use scattered CMB photons to check CMB isotropy at points away from the origin (Goodman ; Caldwell and Stebbins ), thus checking some of the conditions required by the EGS theorem.

If the CMB radiation is anisotropic around distant observers (as will be true in inhomogeneous models), then the Sunyaev-Zeldovich scattered photons will cause a distorted spectrum CMB spectrum, as anisotropy of the CMB out there will cause a mixing of temperatures in the scattered photons. Such anisotropy can arise in two ways . Firstly, the Kinematic SZ effect occurs due to via relative motion between matter and the CMB at distant points. Gradients in the void gravitational potential causes gas to move relative to CMB frame, hence there will be a CMB dipole out there. This violates the EGS conditions, and scattering mixes these temperatures, causing a spectral distortion. Secondly, potential wells cause anisotropy due to gravitational redshift effects. If some photons originate inside the void and others outside, this again causes a locally anisotropic CMB out there, and SZ scattering compares potentials at the two locations.

It has recently been claimed by two groups that such CMB observations disprove inhomogeneity , but counter claims give specific models where the CMB observations are acceptably accounted for.

The problem seems to be firstly that the papers refer to restricted families of LTB Models, which have to be generalized to include radiation effects in order to handle the CMB observations; the radiation and the matter may not be comoving . Also if one only considers LTB models with fixed bang-time, one has removed half the freedom of the LTB models; it is then hardly surprising if fitting the observations is difficult. Generic analysis should allow varying bang time. Secondly, these are not self consistent studies, as they use FLRW perturbation theory to study structure formation in LTB models. One needs to use LTB perturbation theory to get consistent results.

Future work of interest here will be to check to what degree such tests can verify the full requirements of the extended versions of the EGS theorem discussed by Clarkson and Maartens . Can they fully test the needed anisotropy requirements for one of the extended versions of the EGS results, or do they only serve as partial checks of the needed conditions, because they only check mixing of lower order CMB multipoles?

### Thermal History based tests

If the kinds of structures that occur in distant regions are similar to those nearby, that indicates that the thermal histories leading to the existence of those structures must have been the same; and this suggests that the universe must have been spatially homogeneous at the relevant early times - which will imply it is homogeneous today. This is the *Postulate of Uniform Thermal Histories* ('PUTH') . Conversely, if the kinds of objects that have come into being far away look different from those nearby, this indicates spatial inhomogeneity.

In principle this can be applied for example to studies of galaxies and and Large Scale Structure; this has not yet been formally done. However a present application is to element abundances. There are now claims of some anomalies in the abundance of lithium with distance (see e.g. ). Regis and Clarkson show that this can be taken as indirect evidence for spatial inhomogeneity.
Observations in inhomogeneous models are discussed in the papers by Zibin by V. Marra and A. Notari.

# Conclusion

An implicit averaging is effectively at the foundation of how the standard model deals with matter and structure formation, while being uniform on large scales. The problem of averaging is far from solved - but it is a problem that will not go away. Smaller scale inhomogeneities may possibly cause observable effects through dynamical backreaction, but this is a controversial suggestion. Ultimately, we probably need a general relativistic simulation of structure formation to resolve the issue of averaging. However, such inhomogeneities certainly can significantly affect the observational determination of the parameters of the concordance cosmological model. Whether this is the case or not depends on the detailed nature of clustering of dark matter, on small scales, in the universe, which is not known at present.

Additionally, we must take seriously the idea that the acceleration apparently indicated by supernova data could be due to large scale inhomogeneity with no dark energy. Observational tests of the latter possibility are as important as pursuing the dark energy (exotic physics) option in a homogeneous universe. Theoretical prejudices as to the universe's geometry, and our place in it, must bow to such observational tests. Precisely because of the foundational nature of the Copernican Principle for standard cosmology, we need to fully check this foundation. And one must emphasize here that standard CMB anisotropy studies do not *prove* the Copernican principle: they *assume* it at the start.

Whatever the outcome of these studies, the point remains that inhomogeneity is a critical topic in cosmology. Simplified models of inhomogeneity such as LTB models, where we can actually calculate dynamics and predict observational relations, are an important part of the necessity to probe every aspect of the standard model, as are studies of the nature of the backreaction effect and the effects of inhomogeneities on observations.

## To be done

To complete our understanding of these issue, inter alia we need to

-   develop a general relativistic simulation of structure formation

-   develop perturbation studies of the LTB models, and hence CMB anisotropies and LSS observations, in a self-consistent way

-   develop the PUTH approach for galaxies and LSS

-   Use observations and simulations to characterize in detail the DM inhomogeneity on small scales, and find out to what degree it clusters with baryons on these scales

-   hence to characterise in detail the DM and baryonic IGM (Inter-Galactic Medium) that may permeate the 'voids' in the cosmic web, at different scales

-   along with determining homogeneity, we really need to determine the smallest length scale on which the universe is almost-FLRW, if indeed it is almost-FLRW on large scales. This is related to the possibility that some of the data we use for determining the cosmology may not be probing almost-FLRW scales of the universe – e. g. may not be probing the Hubble flow.

Finally on should remember that the issues mentioned here are not mutually exclusive. If we do live in a Hubble scale inhomogeneity, the universe is additionally inhmogeneous on smaller scales. Hence the eventual aim must be to investigate the combination of all these effects.

# Acknowledgements

I thank Bill Stoeger, Thomas Buchert, Chris Clarkson, Jean-Philippe Uzan, Roy Maartens, Julien Larena, and Obinna Umeh for helpful discussions on these topics, and Charles Hellaby, Thomas Buchert, Bill Stoeger, and Alan Coley for useful comments on previous versions of this text. This work has been supported by the South African National Research Foundation (NRF) and University of Cape Town (UCT).

[^1]: E-mail: email@example.com

[^2]: Geometrized units, characterized by $c = 1 = 8\pi G/c^{2}$, are used throughout.


abstract: To perform Quantum Key Distribution, the mastering of the extremely weak signals carried by the quantum channel is required. Transporting these signals without disturbance is customarily done by isolating the quantum channel from any noise sources using a dedicated physical channel. However, to really profit from this technology, a full integration with conventional network technologies would be highly desirable. Trying to use single photon signals with others that carry an average power many orders of magnitude bigger while sharing as much infrastructure with a conventional network as possible brings obvious problems. The purpose of the present paper is to report our efforts in researching the limits of the integration of QKD in modern optical networks scenarios. We have built a full metropolitan area network testbed comprising a backbone and an access network. The emphasis is put in using as much as possible the same industrial grade technology that is actually used in already installed networks, in order to understand the throughput, limits and cost of deploying QKD in a real network.
address: $^1$ Facultad de Informática, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid,
Campus de Montegancedo, Madrid 28660, Spain; $^2$ Depto. Seguridad en Redes y Servicios, Telefónica Investigación y Desarrollo,
Emilio Vargas 6, Madrid 28043, Spain.
author: D. Lancho$^1$, J. Martinez$^1$, D. Elkouss$^1$, M. Soto$^2$ and V. Martin$^1$
date: 08 January 2010
title: QKD in Standard Optical Telecommunications Networks

# Introduction and Testbeds

To date, QKD development has mostly focused in non-shared point-to-point links and in networks made of these links . However, the benefits of integrating QKD with the commercial network infrastructure are clear. With the possibility of a scalable deployment and without requiring a massive initial investment, QKD can reach a broader market. Current networks are evolving towards optical, passive infrastructures and this opens up a window of opportunity for QKD integration, since an all optical path among two points in the network is no longer unfeasible nor extremely expensive. However, the simultaneous propagation of quantum and classical signals over a shared link, presents important problems due to the spilling of photons coming from classical signals that typically have 100 dBm more power.

Research has been done about the use of QKD in optical networks , including some recent studies  using the 200 GHz (1.6 nm) ITU DWDM grid (Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing). Their aim was to characterize the sources of noise and to demonstrate the use of reconfigurable optical add and drop multiplexers (ROADM) for QKD purposes. Here we go one step beyond in completing a metropolitan area optical network able to establish a transparent path among two of their nodes in order to sustain a QKD link.

Metro networks are logically divided into backbone and access parts. The backbone is specialized in high speed communications. The number of nodes is limited and the cost per node is less of a concern, sharing importance with throughput, reliability, serviceability and upgradeability. Clients are connected to the backbone through an access network. This is a point to multipoint network, with one end connected to the backbone at the carrier company premises, while the other gives service to several clients. A shared link goes from the backbone to some form of splitter that is located in the vicinity of the clients. An exclusive use link connects the splitter to each one of the clients. In the access network, throughput is not as relevant, but cost and maintenance are important issues, since many of them have to be deployed and part of the equipment is either sold or leased to the client.

The new generations of access networks, that are being massively deployed in the current fiber to the home infrastructures, are designed as optical and passive, which opens the possibility of using them for QKD.

The purpose of the present paper is to investigate the limits, trade offs and compatibility issues that the integration of QKD with the existing or newly deployed optical infrastructure could pose. In order to do so, a full metro network comprising backbone and access parts is used.

The backbone testbed is built as a ring composed of three CWDM (Coarse WDM ) ROADM nodes, the most common technology in metro and regional networks. Typically, the CWDM ITU grid is implemented in a spectrum of 18 channels separated 20 nm starting at a central wavelength of 1270 nm. The bigger channel spacing makes for an easier filtering of the spurious photons coming from other channels and made the use of amplifiers less common in this kind of networks, since no single EDFA amplifier is able to amplify all of the CWDM channels, thus making the option less attractive from a cost/benefit perspective than in DWDM links.

The access network uses the GPON (Gigabit Passive Optical Network) standard , again, the most used in new deployments of fiber to the business. GPON multiplexes three wavelengths over the same fiber to connect the OLT (Optical Line Termination) on the backbone side to the ONT (Optical Network Termination) on the client side. A splitter located at some point in between the OLT and the set of the ONTs —typically much closer to the latter— divides the signal among all the ONTs. The standard defines the 1490 nm wavelength to transport the downstream channel, 1310 nm the upstream channel and 1550 nm for analog video broadcast. The last one is rarely used for its intended purpose and we are using it for the quantum channel. This is just a matter of convenience and other channel could have been chosen.

A brief report of these setups, was given in . It is to be noted that the emphasis is put in what can be readily achieved with currently deployable technology, using as much off the shelf systems as possible and limiting to a minimum the modifications done to what, in essence, is a standard network environment.

# Results

Data were obtained using id Quantique two way QKD systems, models 3000 and 3100, using BB84. Their maximum admissible loss budget in order to obtain at least a few secure bits per second is around 15 dB. The maximum throughput under ideal conditions (QBER=0), imposed by the detector deadtime, is 100 kbits/sec. In our case, mean photon number was set to simulate a decoy state protocol  with signal plus one decoy. The optimal mean number for our setup, 0.79, was calculated according to . A full protocol stack, including LDPC (Low Density Parity Check) error correction with 1.05 efficiency  and privacy amplification was used.

The backbone results were obtained using three wavelengths. Two wavelengths, 1510 and 1470 nm are used for classical signals (co and counterpropagating, respectively) while 1550 is reserved for the quantum channel. This is not an specially favorable case for QKD, where the quantum channel should have been located at the shorter wavelength. Modules to add and drop the 1550 channel as desired are included at each node. Extra filtering to further isolate the quantum channel was needed and standard DWDM 100 GHz (0.8 nm) filters were used. It is to be noted that, due to the spreading of CWDM and DWDM technology, very narrow and high quality filters are starting to be readily available for commercial use. 50 GHz (0.4 nm) filters are now reasonably common, hence we have extrapolated the data to this case. Losses in this scenario, without the fiber, are 8 dB. A full description will be published elsewhere.

In the backbone experiment, two QKD systems are used to test point to point key growing, key pass-through and key forwarding through the ring while data signals are being simultaneously transmitted at full rate. In Fig.  we present an example of a point to point key growing using a pass-through configuration in the middle node. The Quantum Bit Error Rate and key throughput, at different stages of the key distillation process, are shown as a function of the fiber length connecting the first and second ROADM nodes. Only a short, fixed length, fiber was used among the second and third. This is a worst case scenario for QKD since it produces more spurious photons due to Raman Scattering than the situation in which, for the same total distance, the second ROADM node is located somewhere else in between. The QBER value obtained, although high, is well below the 11% threshold above which no secret key rate can be obtained in the usual setting with one way error correction and privacy amplification. A secure key rate around half a kbit/sec. was obtained for distances till 6 km, although is reduced to 100 bits/sec. for 10 km, a length larger than the typical for ROADM nodes. It is to be noted that these scenarios are dominated by absorptions in the nodes and not in the fiber. Fiber length is relevant as long as it contributes to produce Raman scattering. It is important to put this result in perspective: a fully populated DWDM link, with all the 160 channels transmitting at 2.4 Gbit/sec. and secured with a 1 kbit/sec. key, will have to encrypt less than $2^{37}$ bits per 256 bit AES key. This is less than the known reasonable security limit of $2^{40}$ for DES , an assumed lower security encryption method. For standard links, key rates as low as a few tens of bits/sec. would suffice to have a much higher security level than what is standard today.

The number of spurious photons entering the quantum channel depends on the total power sent through the fiber, but also on the fiber itself and some other characteristics like the directivity and crosstalk of the components used to build the ROADM, which in our case is a standard model with no special modifications. In a CWDM set up, four wave mixing is not an issue and only Raman scattering is a real threat. Apart from the line length, the only controllable variable is the total launch power. Here it was attenuated (differently for each link length) respect to the standard power used, but well above the detection limit of the transponders, so no increased data error rate resulted in the classical channels working at full speed.

In the access network experiment with GPON, a continuous data flux was established among the OLT (backbone side) and ONT (client side) using the 1490 nm (downstream) and 1310 nm (upstream) channels. Again, QKD used the 1550 nm channel. Due to the more integrated nature of the access equipment (the client part needs to be compact and cheap) there are less modifications that can be readily done. The launch power is fixed and only a small attenuation can be introduced in the OLT and only in the 1490 channel. The filtering used was the same (100 GHz) and the maximum splitting factor possible with our QKD equipment is four. Losses without fiber are 9 dB. The results are shown in Fig. . This time, QBER and key rates are presented as a function of the line length connecting the OLT and the splitter, which is the longest segment in access networks and, again, the one that more heavily penalizes the quantum channel. This scenario is more demanding than the ROADM but this is mainly due to the difficulty of attenuating the total power in the line without HW modifications of the OLT/ONT. There is an advantage, however, in that there is no actual need to have the fiber populated with classical signals at the same time that the quantum channel is being used. Because GPON works on a Time Division Multiplexing control, it is easy in theory to assign time slots to the quantum channel. In practice, this is more difficult, since it requires access to reprogram the micro controllers and that would require the involvement of the manufacturer. The QBER obtained is quite high, although still clearly below the threshold. It already starts, for a 0 km line, at 4% due to the crosstalk in the internal components, mostly coming from the 1310 nm channel that is impossible to attenuate in our setup. This produces a secure key rate around 500 bits/sec. at 0 km that rapidly reduces to 20 bits/sec. at 3.5 km. In our next measurement, at 4.5 km, there is no secret key rate. This would call for a time slot assignment for the QKD channel or a redesign of the OLT/ONT pair to work on a much lower power budget. Although the final key rate was lower than in the backbone, it is still enough to sustain a 256 bits AES key renewal rate faster than it is usual today at short distances. It is to be noted that typical OLT/ONT distances are of the order of 1-2 km in big cities.

# Conclusion

In this paper we have demonstrated the use of QKD within standard metropolitan optical networks comprising a backbone and access network with all the testbed built around readily available systems and components. The emphasis is put in finding out the limits of QKD integration in real networks rather than in absolute security against any conceivable attack, since finite key effects are not taken into consideration. Some test cases are the worst possible for QKD and they are not the way in which QKD would be reasonably integrated in a network; they are just the most straightforward without resorting to modify the classical communications equipment. They serve the purpose of bounding the performance limits. Some freedom exists when integrating QKD with standard optical networks and a mixture of scenarios is what is to be expected in the real world. For example, in the backbone network, the existence of unused dark fiber for backup purposes is quite common, hence, in the ROADM scenario, bypassing heavily loaded nodes is a real possibility. In GPON, the mentioned time slot assignment for QKD is an obvious solution that is not difficult to implement and would not hit significantly the performance of the access network. A direct connection without shared access network is also a possibility for medium to big companies. In metro scenarios, where limits to the integration are imposed by noise and absorptions in the optical equipment rather than in the fiber, moving the quantum channel to the second window ($\sim$`<!-- -->`{=html}1300 nm) would be advantageous. All this considerations support the view that the integration of QKD in modern optical networks is a real alternative to exclusive use quantum links and trusted-nodes QKD networks.

In the frame of the present testbed and with current QKD equipment, we observe that in the CWDM backbone scenario, the limited absorption budget tolerable by the QKD systems can be as stringent as the Raman scattering from classical channels that, apart from filtering, can be controlled through attenuation and very sensitive transponders without disrupting the classical transmission. The access scenario tested is essentially a worst case (for QKD) GPON in which no modification is done neither to the GPON management nor to the HW itself. In this case, a maximum 1:4 splitting is possible with the current QKD devices. In this scenario, it is possible to greatly increase the key throughput by modifying the device profiles to assign time slots for QKD transmission. Without HW or SW modifications, the GPON scenario is mainly limited by Raman scattering and components crosstalk. In order to obtain the reported QBER and key rates mentioned above, a decoy state protocol is needed. In such a heavily penalized scenarios, it is important not to waste bits of the raw key and more efficient error correction protocols  would be a welcome addition . On the other hand, next generation QKD devices like the ones now in the labs, able to withstand more than 30 dB losses, would allow for far higher bit rates and would open the possibility of crossing a full metro network without the need of trusted repeaters.

The authors are indebted to M. Curty for his helpful comments. This work was supported by CDTI, Ministry of Trade and Industry of Spain under project Segur@, CENIT-2007 2004 and UPM 178/Q06 1005-127.


abstract: While the diffusion of hydrogen on silicon surfaces has been relatively well characterised both experimentally and theoretically, the diffusion around corners between surfaces, as will be found on nanowires and nanostructures, has not been studied. Motivated by nanostructure fabrication by Patterned Atomic Layer Epitaxy (PALE), we present a density functional theory (DFT) study of the diffusion of hydrogen around the edge formed by the orthogonal (001) and (110) surfaces in silicon. We find that the barrier from (001) to (110) is approximately 0.3 eV lower than from (110) to (001), and that it is comparable to diffusion between rows on the clean surface, with no significant effect on the hydrogen patterns at growth temperatures used.
address: $^{1}$London Centre for Nanotechnology, UCL, 17-19 Gordon St, London WC1H 0AH, UK; $^{2}$Department of Physics & Astronomy, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT, UK; $^{3}$Thomas Young Centre, UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT, UK; $^{4}$International Centre for Materials Nanoarchitectonics (MANA), National Institute for Materials Science (NIMS), 1-1 Namiki, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0044, JAPAN
author: Richard Smith$^{1,2,3}$, Veronika Brázdová$^{1,2,3}$ and David R. Bowler$^{1,2,3,4}$
bibliography: HDiffCorner.bib
date: 1 October 2013
title: Hydrogen adsorption and diffusion around Si(001)/Si(110) corners in nanostructures

# INTRODUCTION

Historically, bulk silicon chip fabrication has been a planar process based on repetitive optical lithography. The progressive reduction in device surface area has impaired switching characteristics, leading to the introduction of three-dimensional structures (e.g. finFETs) that can be realized in planar processes. This trend has prompted interest in other ways of engineering three-dimensional silicon growth such as Patterned Atomic Layer Epitaxy (PALE) . PALE utilizes chemical vapour deposition (CVD) to create silicon features without the conventional lithography and masking steps. In this paper we use density functional theory (DFT) to consider how hydrogen diffusion around feature edges affects the growth process.

In PALE a hydrogen-passivated Si(001) substrate can be patterned by selective removal of the hydrogen atoms using an STM probe in UHV conditions  : the exposed dangling bonds provide adsorption sites for Si fragments deposited from disilane gas admitted into the STM chamber, a form of UHV-CVD. In principle, an atomically-precise three-dimensional structure of any height could be grown by successive depassivation and deposition steps. In practice the quality of the grown layers depends critically on the effectiveness of the depassivation process, which tends to fall as growth proceeds. This leads to surface roughening and the eventual breakdown of epitaxial growth  .

CVD reactions are complex with multiple pathways through the adsorption, deposition and desorption phases . On the clean Si(001) surface, the disilane molecule dissociates into SiH$_2$ groups with accompanying atomic hydrogen. When these groups occur on adjacent surface sites they form monohydride dimers  which grow into strings and islands upon further disilane deposition. The hydrogen is adsorbed directly on the substrate and slowly desorbs into molecular gas. The ad-dimers and atomic hydrogen compete for unreacted substrate sites, whose availability determines the overall reaction rate. Conventional low pressure CVD is conducted at relatively high (around 1000 K) temperatures and the growth rate is determined by precursor throughput. With PALE the ambient temperature cannot exceed 550 K otherwise the passivating H-layer is destabilized. At this temperature, desorption is incomplete and atomic hydrogen remains bound to the substrate, preventing completion of the first monolayer. Now the surface is saturated with a variety of Si–H configurations and further depassivation is necessary. Completion of the first layer typically occurs after 3 or 4 depassivation and deposition cycles .

Surface coverage is also affected by hydrogen diffusion at the prevailing temperature. H adatoms have been shown to diffuse along trenches in the the (011) surface with energy barrier of the order 1 eV . Other theoretical calculations on the (001) surface predict somewhat larger barriers, i.e. 1.6 eV  to 1.7 eV , in agreement with experiment  . In this study, we use DFT to study H adatoms on the top and side walls of a notional PALE nanostructure, a simple pillar with a horizontal (001) growth surface. The sidewalls are assumed to have the (110) orientation, a surface of technological interest due to its high carrier mobility. We investigate whether diffusion pathways around the corners would inhibit growth, increasing the number of depassivation/deposition cycles required per monolayer thus rendering PALE impractical. We construct a supercell containing both the (001) and (110) faces and and seek possible diffusion paths around the corners between these faces. Finally we calculate the energy barrier between the two faces and discuss the likely effect on the PALE growth process.

# METHODS

## Computational details

All calculations used density functional theory , as implemented in the Vienna Ab-initio Simulation Package  (VASP version 4.6.34) with the Perdew-Burke-Enzerhof (PBE) generalised gradient approximation (GGA) exchange-correlation functional . The VASP projector-augmented-wave   (PAW) potentials for silicon and hydrogen were used. The PAW-PBE potential file (POTCAR) for the silicon atom was dated 5th January 2001 and that for hydrogen 15th June 2001. We used a 200 eV energy cutoff. The Brillouin zone was sampled with a Monkhorst-Pack mesh . Gaussian smearing was applied to fractional occupancies with a width of 0.1 eV. The convergence criterion for forces on atoms was 0.01 eV/Å and for total energy 10$^{-4}$ eV. These parameters yield relative energies and energy barriers reliable to within $\pm$ 0.01 eV. We used the FIRE algorithm  to optimize the structures. Structural relaxations for hydrogen adsorption and diffusion pathways used the quasi-Newton method implemented in VASP.

Transition state search was performed using the climbing image nudged elastic band method as implemented in the VASP Transition State Tools  (VTST) code. The climbing image variation of NEB converges rigorously onto the highest saddle point using just a single intermediate point and yields accurate barrier energy values .

## The supercell

We used a chevron-shaped supercell with a 28$\:$Å$\:$$\times\:$`<!-- -->`{=html}8$\:$Å$\;$cross section with the vertical perpendicular in the (112) direction (Figure ). This orientation exposes approximately equal (001) and (110) surface areas at the apex. A vacuum spacing of 14 Å was interposed and terminating H atoms added between periodic images. We used the experimental bulk Si lattice parameter (5.431 Å), which is in good agreement with the calculated value for this DFT setup. The supercell depth was determined empirically by adding base layers until the change in energy decrement $\Delta$E was less than 0.01 eV. The Monkhorst-Pack sampling grid was established in a similar way and set to 6 $\times$ 2 $\times$ 1. The final structure had a depth of 50 Å and contained 350 Si atoms. The reconstruction of the of the apex region is shown in Figure  (lower). We also tested a smaller supercell with a 18$\:$Å$\:$$\times\:$`<!-- -->`{=html}8$\:$Å$\;$cross section and 160 atoms but found that the reconstruction at the apex showed evidence of strain from the base layers which disappeared when the structure was enlarged.

All coordinate files are available freely on figshare .

## Finding H adsorption sites and diffusion pathways

The H adsorption sites are likely to be 3-coordinate on the (110) surface or dimers on the (001) surface. In both cases a single dangling bond is exposed and its replacement by a covalent Si–H bond causes a reduction in the total energy. We placed a H atom 1.5 Å above each potential adsorption site on the reconstructed surface (in the direction of the dangling bond) and re-optimized the structure. Total structure energy was typically reduced by approximately 4 eV when compared to the clean structure. Binding energies of the adsorbed hydrogen atom were calculated with respect to the energy of a gaseous $H_2$ molecule:

$$%E_b = E_{ads} - E_{clean} - \frac {1} {2}E_{H_{2}},
E_{\mathrm{b}} = E_{\mathrm{ads}} - E_{\mathrm{clean}} - 1/2\, E_{\mathrm{H}_{2}},$$

where $E_{\mathrm{ads}}$, $E_{\mathrm{clean}}$ and $E_{\mathrm{H}_{2}}$ represent the total energy of the optimised structure with the adsorbed H atom, the optimised energy of the clean Si reconstruction and the total energy of gas-phase hydrogen molecule, respectively. A negative binding energy indicates an energy gain on adsoprtion; a positive binding energy indicates an energy loss. A diffusion pathway will be formed between two adjacent adsorption sites provided that the energy required to surmount any intervening energy barriers is comparable with the thermal energy acquired by the mobile atom. We select the lowest energy sites close to the step edge and use the NEB climbing-image optimizer to find the diffusion barriers. We then use the Arrhenius equation to estimate the diffusion rate across the edge.

# RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

## Reconstruction and characterization

As the (001) surface normal swings through a right-angle to the (110) direction it passes through a number of intermediate surface planes e.g. \[114\], \[113\], \[111\], \[331\]  . Each of these surfaces has its own reconstruction strategy but all contain the prototypical 3-coordinate surface atom found on the bulk-truncated (111) surface. Consequently we can expect the reconstruction to of the apex region to include the hexagonal pattern seen on the (111) unreconstructed surface. This can be seen in Figure  (upper), while the relaxed structure can be seen in Figure  (lower), which also shows the extended bond lengths expected in the presence of delocalized electrons. Away from the apex, the figure shows characteristic dimerization and buckling on the (001) surface and out-of-plane buckling of the zig-zag rows of the (110) surface. Distortion in the bulk structure is greatest in the region beneath the apex and extends to a depth of 20 Å. These observations suggest that the reconstruction is plausible, offering a sensible basis for the calculation of a model potential energy surface. An exhaustive characterization of the step edge reconstruction would require examination of larger structures in multiple orientations and is beyond the scope of this work.

## The potential energy surface

We investigated 16 possible adsorption sites on the reconstructed surfaces. Six of these gave total energies falling within a 0.3 eV range while the remainder was at least 1 eV higher and not considered further further (an increment of 1 eV reduces the adsorption probability by a factor of $\approx 10^4$). These values are shown in Table  and the sites depicted in Figure .

|      |                 |                |
|:-----|:----------------|:---------------|
| Site | Relative energy | Binding energy |
| 1    | 0.29            | -1.65          |
| 2    | 0.06            | -1.88          |
| 3    | 0.00            | -1.95          |
| 4    | 0.02            | -1.92          |
| 5    | 0.29            | -1.65          |
| 6    | 0.13            | -1.81          |

Stability of H adsorption sites on the chevron surface. All values are in eV. Site labels are those shown in Figure  (upper).

Sites 3, 4 and 5 are situated on the chevron apex so we considered a diffusion path consisting of the two hops 3–4 and 4–5. Each is analogous to the kinetics of a chemical reaction with a single transition state corresponding to the highest saddle point in the potential energy landscape lying between the end points. The climbing image variation of NEB returns the energy at the highest saddle point and so a single-image NEB calculation per hop suffices in this case. Additional images can provide further points on the reaction path corresponding to the route taken by diffusing atoms, although the computational cost is considerable. Since we are interested only in relative barrier heights, we elect to perform single-image calculations.

|  |  |  |  |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| End-point | Energy | $\Delta E_{(011\rightarrow100)}$ | $\Delta E_{(100\rightarrow110)}$ |
| 3 | -1947.01 |  |  |
| *barrier* | -1945.44 | 1.57 | 1.55 |
| 4 | -1946.98 |  |  |
| *barrier* | -1945.00 | 1.99 | 1.72 |
| 5 | -1946.71 |  |  |

End-point and NEB barrier energies for a two-hop diffusion pathway around the chevron apex. All values are in eV. Site labels are those shown in Figure  (lower). This data is shown graphically in Figure .

These results of the NEB calculations values are shown in Table  and represented graphically in Figure . Figure  (lower) gives a rough indication of the actual diffusion path. The effective barrier for the path is the greater of the hop barriers and is asymmetrical, due to the differing starting energies. Diffusion from (001) to (110) has a barrier of 1.72 eV, while the reverse process has a barrier of 1.99 eV. These can be compared with published values of 1.66 eV $\pm$ 0.15 eV  and 1.75 $\pm$ 0.02 eV  for intrarow H diffusion on the (001) surface and 1.17 eV (intra row) and 1.49 eV (inter row) on the Si(110) surface. The diffusion from the top of the pillar (the (001) surface) to the side of the pillar (the (110) surface) has a comparable barrier to diffusion on the Si(001) surface, while diffusion in the opposite direction has a significantly larger barrier.

# Discussion and Conclusions

We have studied the stability of hydrogen adatoms at positions near the intersection of the Si(001) and (110) surfaces, as might be found on a nanopillar grown on Si(001) by patterned ALE. We have identified a diffusion pathway around the corner and calculated the barrier energies on it. We find that that the hydrogen is more stable on the (110) face than the (001) face.

In the PALE context we are concerned with whether hydrogen will leave the top of the nanopillar for the sidewall or vice versa. The process involves a disilane gas source and leaves hydrogen on the sidewalls. Hydrogen migration onto the growth surface would interfere with subsequent STM lithography and possibly compromise the entire process. From the barriers we can see that, at least for this configuration, diffusion off the top of a nanopillar will only be activated once diffusion on the substrate is activated and diffusion back onto the top will occur only at higher temperatures. The difference in barrier energy ($\approx$ 0.3 eV) is significant in DFT terms and equivalent to a temperature increase of $\approx$ 100 K.

The actual diffusion rate $\nu$ ($s^{-1}$) can be estimated from the energy barrier by the Arrhenius equation

$$\nu =\nu _{hop}\times \exp \left[ -\left( \frac{\Delta \mathrm{E}}{k_{B}T}%
\right) \right],$$

where $\nu _{hop}$ is the attempt frequency, $\Delta \mathrm{E}$ the energy barrier, $k_{B}$ the Boltzmann constant and $T$ the ambient temperture. $\nu _{hop}$ is generally found to lie in the range $10^{12}-10^{13}$ $s^{-1}$ and since the rate expression is dominated the negative exponential energy term we can take $\nu
_{hop}=10^{13}$ $s^{-1}$ to get an upper bound on the rate. If the PALE process temperature of 550 K is assumed and adsorption sites are assumed to be occupied with a probability of one, then we could estimate a rate of $1.7\times 10^{-3}$ $s^{-1}$ or approximately one diffusion event every 10 minutes *off* the nanopillar. The reverse process would be three hundred times less frequent at 550K.

We can extrapolate from this single event to an entire nanopillar, under the conditions used in PALE. A pillar with a side of 5 nm would have 100 edge sites available, generating a diffusion event *off* the pillar every 5 or 6 seconds, assuming that there was a empty site to reach. The reverse process produces a diffusion event every half hour. These results indicate that there would be net hydrogen migration off the pillar, which is a desirable outcome in PALE terms. There is little reason to be concerned about higher temperatures, as the process temperature of 550K is chosen to avoid desorption of the hydrogen resist (it begins to show mobility at temperatures exceeding 600K).

Although sidewall hydrogen diffusion may not be a critical issue in a PALE manufacturing process other obstacles remain. Chief amongst these is the the formation of anti-phase boundaries (APBs) in the growth surface due to the collision of islands with different registry. These APBs can trap hydrogen beneath the surface, leading to a reduction in the depassivation yield from subsequent STM lithography. The reduction in yield can be mitigated by adjusting the STM parameters prior to each depassivation step, but the remanent hydrogen causes cumulative surface damage which halts epitaxial growth after 2 or 3 monolayers. The remediation of APBs and improvement of the quality of the silicon is the subject of ongoing research.

# ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We acknowledge useful discussions with James Owen and John Randall of ZyvexLabs.