Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Ruben Curbelo, Tame Gonzalez and Israel Quiros- Interacting Phantom Energy and Avoidance of the Big Rip Singularity

Ruben Curbelo, Tame Gonzalez and Israel Quiros- Interacting Phantom Energy and Avoidance of the Big Rip Singularity

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3|Likes:
Published by Dex30KM

More info:

Published by: Dex30KM on Jan 20, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/07/2015

pdf

text

original

 
Interacting Phantom Energy and Avoidance of the Big Rip Singularity
Ruben Curbelo, Tame Gonzalez and Israel Quiros
Universidad Central de Las Villas. Santa Clara. Cub
(Dated: February 2, 2008)Models of the universe with arbitrary (non gravitational) interaction between the components of the cosmic fluid: the phantom energy and the background, are investigated. A general form of theinteraction that is inspired in scalar-tensor theories of gravity is considered. No specific model forthe phantom fluid is assumed. We concentrate our investigation on solutions that are free of thecoincidence problem. We found a wide region in the parameter space where the solutions are freeof the big rip singularity also. Physical arguments, together with arguments based on the analysisof the observational evidence, suggest that phantom models without big rip singularity might bepreferred by Nature.
PACS numbers: 04.20.Jb, 04.20.Dw, 98.80.-k, 98.80.Es, 95.30.Sf, 95.35.+d
I. INTRODUCTION
Recently it has been argued that astrophysical ob-servations might favor a dark energy (DE) componentwith ”supernegative” equation-of-state (EOS) parameter
ω
i
=
p
i
i
<
1[1,2], where
p
i
is the pressure and
ρ
i
theenergy density of the i-th component of the cosmic fluid.Sources sharing this property violate the null dominantenergy condition (NDEC). Otherwise, well-behaved en-ergy sources (positive energy density) that violate NDEC(necessarily negative pressure), have EOS parameter lessthan minus unity[3]. NDEC-violating sources are be-ing investigated as possible dark energy (DE) candidatesand have been called as ”phantom” components[4,5].[27] Since NDEC prevents instability of the vacuum or prop-agation of energy outside the light cone, then, phan-tom models are intrinsically unstable. Nevertheless, if thought of as effective field theories (valid up to a givenmomentum cutoff), these models could be phenomeno-logically viable [3]. Another very strange property of phantom universes is that their entropy is negative[6].To the number of unwanted properties of a phan-tom component with ”supernegative” EOS parameter
ω
 ph
=
p
 ph
 ph
<
1, we add the fact that its en-ergy density
ρ
 ph
increases in an expanding universe.[28]This property ultimately leads to a catastrophic (future)big rip singularity[8] that is characterized by divergencesin the scale factor
a
, the Hubble parameter
and itstime-derivative˙
[10]. Although other kinds of singu-larity might occur in scenarios with phantom energy, inthe present paper we are interested only in the big ripkind of singularity.[29] This singularity is at a finite
Electronic address:rcurbelo@uclv.edu.cu;tame@uclv.edu.cu;israel@uclv.edu.cu[27] That NDEC-violating sources can occur has been argued decadesago, for instance, in reference[9].[28] Alternatives to phantom models to account for supernegativeEOS parameter have been considered also. See, for instance,references[7][29] A detailed study of the kinds of singularity might occur in phan-tom scenarios (including the big rip) has been the target of ref-
amount of proper time into the future but, before it isreached, the phantom energy will rip apart all boundstructures, including molecules, atoms and nuclei. Toavoid this catastrophic event (also called ”cosmic dooms-day”), some models and/or mechanisms have been in-voked. In Ref.[12], for instance, it has been shown thatthis singularity in the future of the cosmic evolutionmight be avoided or, at least, made milder if quantumeffects are taken into consideration. Instead, a suitableperturbation of de Sitter equation of state can also lead toclassical evolution free of the big rip [13]. Gravitationalback reaction effects[14] and scalar fields with negativekinetic energy term with self interaction potentials withmaxima[3,15], have also been considered . Another way to avoid the unwanted big rip singularityis to allow for a suitable interaction between the phan-tom energy and the background (DM) fluid[16,17]. [30] In effect, if there is transfer of energy from the phantomcomponent to the background fluid, it is possible to ar-range the free parameters of the model, in such a waythat the energy densities of both components decreasewith time, thus avoiding the big rip[16]. Models with in-teraction between the phantom and the DM componentsare also appealing since the coincidence problem (whythe energy densities of dark matter and dark energy areof the same order precisely at present?) can be solved or,at least, smoothed out[16,17,20]. Aim of the present paper is, precisely, to study modelswith interaction between the phantom (DE) and back-ground components of the cosmological fluid but, un-
erence[11].[30] Although experimental tests in the solar system impose severerestrictions on the possibility of non-minimal coupling betweenthe DE and ordinary matter fluids[18], due to the unknown na- ture of the DM as part of the background, it is possible to haveadditional (non gravitational) interactions between the dark en-ergy component and dark matter, without conflict with the ex-perimental data. It should be pointed out, however, that whenthe stability of DE potentials in quintessence models is consid-ered, the coupling dark matter-dark energy is troublesome [19].Perhaps, the argument might be extended to phantom models.
 
2like the phenomenological approach followed in othercases to specify the interaction term (see references[16,17]), we start with a general form of the interac- tion that is inspired in scalar-tensor (ST) theories of gravity. We concentrate our investigation on solutionsthat are free of the coincidence problem. In this pa-per no specific model for the phantom energy is as-sumed. A flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) uni-verse (
ds
2
=
dt
2
+
a
(
t
)
2
δ
ij
dx
i
dx
j
;
i,j
= 1
,
2
,
3) is con-sidered that is filled with a mixture of two interacting flu-ids: the background (mainly DM) with a linear equationof state
p
m
=
ω
m
ρ
m
, ω
m
=
const.
,[31] and the phantomfluid with EOS parameter
ω
 ph
=
p
 ph
 ph
<
1. Addi-tionally we consider the ”ratio function”:
r
=
ρ
m
ρ
 ph
,
(1)between the energy densities of both fluids. It is, in fact,no more than a useful parametrization. We assume that
r
can be written as function of the scale factor.The paper has been organized in the following way: InSection 2 we develop a general formalism that is adequateto study the kind of coupling between phantom energyand the background fluid (inspired in ST theories as said)we want to investigate. Models of references [16,17] can be treated as particular cases. The way one can escapeone of the most undesirable features of any DE model:the coincidence problem, is discussed in Section 3 for thecase of interest, where the DE is modelled by a phantomfluid. In this section it is also briefly discussed underwhich conditions the big rip singularity might be avoided.With the help of the formalism developed before, in Sec-tion 4, particular models with interaction between thecomponents of the mixture are investigated where thecoincidence problem is solved. The cases with constantand dynamical EOS parameter are studied separately. Itis found that, in all cases, there is a wide range in pa-rameter space, where the solutions are free of the bigrip singularity also. It is argued that observational dataseems to favor phantom models without big rip singular-ity. This conclusion is reinforced by a physical argumentrelated to the possibility that the interaction term is al-ways bounded. Conclusions are given in Section 5.
II. GENERAL FORMALISM
Since there is exchange of energy between the phantomand the background fluids, the energy is not conservedseparately for each component. Instead, the continuity
[31] Although baryons, which should be left uncoupled or weakly cou-pled to be consistent with observations, are a non vanishing butsmall part of the background, these are not being consideredhere for sake of simplicity. Also there are suggestive argumentsshowing that observational bounds on the ”fifth” force do notnecessarily imply decoupling of baryons from DE[21].
equation for each fluid shows a source (interaction) term:˙
ρ
m
+ 3
(
ρ
m
+
p
m
) =
Q,
(2)˙
ρ
 ph
+ 3
(
ρ
 ph
+
p
 ph
) =
Q,
(3)where the dot accounts for derivative with respect to thecosmic time and
Q
is the interaction term. Note thatthe total energy density
ρ
=
ρ
m
+
ρ
 ph
(
 p
=
p
m
+
 p
 ph
)is indeed conserved: ˙
ρ
+ 3
(
ρ
+
p
) = 0. To specifythe general form of the interaction term, we look at ascalar-tensor theory of gravity where the matter degreesof freedom and the scalar field are coupled in the actionthrough the scalar-tensor metric
χ
(
φ
)
1
g
ab
[22]:
ST 
=
 
d
4
x
 
|
g
|{
R
2
12(
φ
)
2
+
χ
(
φ
)
2
L
m
(
µ,
µ,χ
1
g
ab
)
}
,
(4)where
χ
(
φ
)
2
is the coupling function,
L
m
is the matterLagrangian and
µ
is the collective name for the matterdegrees of freedom. It can be shown that, in terms of the coupling function
χ
(
φ
), the interaction term
Q
inequations (2) and (3), can be written in the following form:
Q
=
ρ
m
[
ad
(ln ¯
χ
)
da
]
,
(5)where we have introduced the following ”reduced” no-tation: ¯
χ
(
a
)
χ
(
a
)
(3
ω
m
1)
/
2
and it has been assumedthat the coupling can be written as a function of thescale factor ¯
χ
= ¯
χ
(
a
).[32] This is the general form of theinteraction we consider in the present paper.[33] Com-paring this with other interaction terms in the bibliog-raphy, one can obtain the functional form of the cou-pling function ¯
χ
in each case. In Ref.[16], for instance,
Q
= 3
Hc
2
(
ρ
 ph
+
ρ
m
) = 3
c
2
Hρ
m
(
r
+ 1)
/r
, where
c
2
de-notes the transfer strength. If one compares this expres-sion with (5) one obtains the following coupling function:¯
χ
(
a
) = ¯
χ
0
e
3
 
daa
(
r
+1
r
)
c
2
,
(6)where ¯
χ
0
is an arbitrary integration constant. If 
c
2
=
c
20
=
const.
and
r
=
r
0
=
const.
, then ¯
χ
=
[32] If 
ST 
represents Brans-Dicke theory formulated inthe Einstein frame, then the coupling function
χ
(
φ
) =
χ
0
exp(
φ/
 
ω
+ 3
/
2). The dynamics of such a theory but, fora standard scalar field with exponential self-interaction potentialhas been studied, for instance, in Ref.[23]. For a phantom scalarfield it has been studied in[24].[33] We recall that we do not consider any specific model for thephantom field so, the scalar-tensor theory given by the action
ST 
serves just as inspiration for specifying the general form of the interaction term
Q
.
 
3¯
χ
0
a
3
c
20
(
r
0
+1)
/r
0
. Another example is the interaction termin Ref. [17]:
Q
=
δHρ
m
, where
δ
is a dimensionless cou-pling function. It is related with the coupling function ¯
χ
(Eqn. (5)) through:¯
χ
(
a
) = ¯
χ
0
e
 
daa
δ
,
(7)and, for
δ
=
δ
0
; ¯
χ
(
a
) = ¯
χ
0
a
δ
0
.If one substitutes (5) in(2), then the last equation can be integrated:
ρ
m
=
ρ
m,
0
a
3(
ω
m
+1)
¯
χ,
(8)where
ρ
m,
0
is an arbitrary integration constant.If one considers Eqn. (1) then, Eqn.(3) can be ar- ranged in the form: ˙
ρ
 ph
 ph
+ 3(
ω
 ph
1)
= (3
ω
m
1)
rH 
[
ad
(ln
χ
1
/
2
)
/da
] or, after integrating:
ρ
 ph
=
ρ
 ph,
0
exp
{−
 
daa
[1 + 3
ω
 ph
+
rad
(ln ¯
χ
)
da
]
}
,
(9)where
ρ
 ph,
0
is another integration constant. Using equa-tions (8), (1) and (9), it can be obtained an equation relating the coupling function ¯
χ
, the phantom EOS pa-rameter
ω
 ph
and the ”ratio function
r
:¯
χ
(
a
) = ¯
χ
0
(
rr
+ 1)
e
3
 
daa
(
ωph
ωmr
+1
)
,
(10)where, as before, ¯
χ
0
is an integration constant. There-fore, by the knowledge of 
ω
 ph
=
ω
 ph
(
a
) and
r
=
r
(
a
),one can describe the dynamics of the model under study.Actually, if 
ω
 ph
and
r
are given as functions of the scalefactor, then one can integrate in Eqn. (10) to obtain¯
χ
= ¯
χ
(
a
) and, consequently,
ρ
m
=
ρ
m
(
a
) is given throughEqn. (8). The energy density of the phantom field canbe computed through either relationship (1) or (9). Be- sides, the Friedmann equation can be rewritten in termsof 
r
and one of the energy densities:3
2
=
ρ
 ph
(1 +
r
) =
ρ
m
(1 +
rr
)
,
(11)so, the Hubble parameter
=
(
a
) is also known. Dueto Eqn.(11), the (dimensionless) density parameters Ω
i
=
ρ
i
/
3
2
(Ω
m
+ Ω
 ph
= 1) are given in terms of only
r
:
 ph
=11+
r,
m
=
r
1 +
r,
(12)respectively. It is useful to rewrite Eqn.(10), alterna-tively, in terms of Ω
 ph
and
ω
 ph
:¯
χ
(
a
) = ¯
χ
0
(1
 ph
)
e
3
 
daa
(
ω
ph
ω
m
)Ω
ph
.
(13)Another useful parameter (to judge whether or not theexpansion if accelerated), is the deceleration parameter
q
=
(1+˙
H/H 
2
), that is given by the following equation:
q
=
1+32[
ω
 ph
+ 1 + (
ω
m
+ 1)
r
1 +
r
]
,
(14)or, in terms of Ω
 ph
and
ω
 ph
:
q
=12[1 + 3
ω
m
+ 3(
ω
 ph
ω
m
)Ω
 ph
]
.
(15)When the EOS parameter of the phantom field is aconstant
ω
 ph
=
(1 +
ξ
2
)
<
1,
ξ
2
R
+
, we need tospecify only the behavior of the ratio function
r
=
r
(
a
)or, equivalently, of the phantom density parameter Ω
 ph
=
 ph
(
a
). In this case the equation for determining of thecoupling function ¯
χ
(10) or, alternatively, (13), can be written in either form:¯
χ
(
a
) = ¯
χ
0
(
rr
+ 1)
e
3(1+
ξ
2
+
ω
m
)
 
daa
(
r
+1)
,
(16)or,¯
χ
(
a
) = ¯
χ
0
(1
 ph
)
e
3(1+
ξ
2
+
ω
m
)
 
daa
ph
.
(17)The deceleration parameter is given, in this case, by
q
=
1 + (3
/
2)[(
r
ξ
2
)
/
(
r
+ 1)] so, to obtain acceleratedexpansion
r <
2 + 3
ξ
2
.
III. AVOIDING THE COINCIDENCE PROBLEM
In this section we discuss the way in which one of themost undesirable features of any DE model (including thephantom) can be avoided or evaded. For completenesswe briefly discuss also the conditions under which thedoomsday event can be evaded.
A. How to avoid the coincidence problem?
It is interesting to discuss, in the general case, un-der which conditions the coincidence problem might beavoided in models with interaction among the compo-nents in the mixture. In this sense one expects that aregime with simultaneous non zero values of the den-sity parameters of the interacting components is a criti-cal point of the corresponding dynamical system, so thesystem lives in this state for a sufficiently long period of time and, hence, the coincidence does not arises.In the present case where we have a two-componentfluid: DM plus DE, one should look for models wherethe dimensionless energy density of the background(DM)and of the DE are simultaneously non vanishing dur-ing a (cosmologically) long period of time. Otherwise,we are interested in ratio functions
r
(
a
) that approacha constant value
r
0
1 at late times. A precedent of this idea but for a phenomenologically chosen interac-tion term can be found, for instance, in Ref.[16], wherea scalar field model of phantom energy has been ex-plored (a self-interacting scalar field with negative ki-netic energy term
ρ
 ph
=
˙
φ
2
/
2 +
(
φ
)). In this case,as already noted, the interaction term is of the form
Q
= 3
Hc
2
(
ρ
 ph
+
ρ
m
) = 3
c
2
Hρ
m
(
r
+ 1)
/r
. For thiskind of interaction, stability of models with constant ra-tio
r
0
=
ρ
m
 ph
(and constant EOS parameter) yields to

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->