Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Top-Hat Spherical Collapse with Clustering Dark Energy. I. Radius Evolution and Critical Contrast Density

Top-Hat Spherical Collapse with Clustering Dark Energy. I. Radius Evolution and Critical Contrast... Top-Hat Spherical Collapse with Clustering Dark Energy. I. Radius Evolution and Critical Contrast Density 1, 1,y 1,z D. Herrera, I. Waga, and S.E. Jor as Instituto de F sica, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro C. P. 68528, CEP 21941-972, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil Understanding the in uence of dark energy on the formation of structures is currently a major challenge in Cosmology, since it can distinguish otherwise degenerated viable models. In this work we consider the Top-Hat Spherical-Collapse (SC) model with dark energy, which can partially (or totally) cluster, according to a free parameter . The lack of energy conservation has to be taken into account accordingly, as we will show. We determine characteristic quantities for the SC model, such as the critical contrast density and radius evolution, with particular emphasis on their dependence on the clustering parameter . I. INTRODUCTION Recent results [1, 2] from independent cosmological observations | such as anisotropies in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO), type-Ia Supernovae (SNe Ia) and the Large-Scale Structure of the Universe (LSS) | imply that the Universe is speeding up. [3, 4]. The responsible for this e ect is dubbed \dark energy" (DE), whose physical nature is still unknown. If we model dark energy as a uid, according to General Relativity, it needs to have negative pressure. In particular, the cosmological model that better ts observations is the cold-dark-matter with Cosmological-Constant model (CDM). However, this model presents diculties at theoretical level [5, 6], motivating the search for alternatives such as quintessence [7{10], phantom dark energy [11], k-essence [12], decaying vacuum models [13, 14] or even modi cations of General Relativity, such as f (R) theories [15], among others. A great diculty is that many of these models behave very similarly to CDM at the background level, making it dicult to distinguish them through cosmological kinematical tests (those that depend essentially only on distance). Therefore, it is crucially important to study the evolution of perturbations and the structure formation in those models, where they are expected to have di erent (and measurable) consequences from those obtained by CDM. The simplest way to study the structure formation with dark energy is through the Top-Hat Spherical-Collapse (SC) approach, which was initially used in Einstein-de Sitter (EdS) background (as an useful benchmark since it yields an exact analytical result for the critical density), in the standard cold-dark-matter scenario [16], and later in CDM [17]. The SC model has also been extended to quintessence elds [18{20], decaying vacuum models [21], f (R) theories [22{26], DE with constant equation-of-state (EoS) models [27{30], coupled DE models [31, 32], and agegraphic DE cosmologies [33]. In particular, Ref. [27] investigated constant phantom, constant non-phantom and varying DE EoS parameter, always assuming that the latter is the same both inside and outside the collapsed region . These authors have focused only in the limiting cases, namely, fully clustered and completely homogeneous DE. In Ref. [30] the SC model with fully clustered DE is considered assuming a linear relation between the matter contrast density and the DE one, according to a free parameter r. In Ref. [30], as well as in [28], it is also assumed that the DE EoS is the same inside and outside the collapsed region. In this work we relax the aforementioned hypotheses and generalize some of those results. Following the Ansatz suggested in Ref. [34] (see also [18]), we investigate the SC model with DE, assuming that it can cluster partially or totally, according to a normalized parameter: if = 0, DE is fully clustered; if = 1, DE is completely homogeneous. This paper is organized as follows. In Section II we show the basic equations that describe the SC model with dark- energy perturbations. We apply the so-called di erential-radius method, which has been shown [25] (see also [35]) to be more robust than the constant-in nity method | which uses a xed large value for the local overdensity as a threshold for indicating a collapsed structure. The former method, on the other hand, follows the di erence between the background scale factor and the collapsing bubble radius (also known as local scale factor). Electronic address: duvanh@if.ufrj.br Electronic address: ioav@if.ufrj.br Electronic address: joras@if.ufrj.br As we will show further down, this assumption is equivalent to requiring that the DE EoS parameter is equal to its speed of sound squared: w = c . arXiv:1906.04326v1 [astro-ph.CO] 11 Jun 2019 2 In Subsection III A we analyze the radius evolution of the collapsing spherical region. In Section III B we determine the critical contrast density. We conclude in Section IV. II. SPHERICAL COLLAPSE WITH DARK ENERGY PERTURBATIONS For a at, homogeneous and isotropic universe with dark matter and dark energy, the Einstein equations are given by: a _ 8G H = (  +   ) ; (1) m de a 3 a  4G = [  + (1 + 3w)  ] : (2) m de a 3 In the equations above, a is the scale factor, H is the Hubble parameter, w  p  =  is the EoS parameter of DE de de (assumed to be constant), and   ,   and p  are the (background) energy densities of matter and DE and the DE m de de pressure, respectively. A dot over a given quantity denotes its time derivative. Assuming that both dark matter and DE interact only gravitationally and are separately conserved, we get + 3H  = 0; (3) m m + 3H (1 + w)  = 0: (4) de de Here we investigate the nonlinear evolution of the gravitational collapse and, to this aim, we consider the Top- Hat Spherical-Collapse (SC) model. The SC model considers a spherical region with a top-hat pro le and uniform density (t) =  (t) + (t), immersed in a homogeneous universe with energy density  (t). Here  initially is a small perturbation of the background uid energy density. We suppose that this region also contains nonrelativistic matter (p = p  = 0) and DE. Such a spherical region can be described as a separated universe with (local) scale factor r. m m The acceleration equation for this region is given by: r  4G = ( +  + 3p ) ; (5) m de de r 3 where p (t) = p  (t) + p(t) is the DE pressure inside the spherical region and p(t) a small pressure perturbation. de de The DE EoS parameter in the spherical region is given by [36] p (c w) de de c s w  = w + ; (6) 1 + de de c 2 where the superscript \ " stands for \clustered", c  p = is the DE sound speed squared (assumed to be de de constant) and  is the DE density contrast (see its de nition below). Note that only if c = w (or homogeneous DE, de i.e.,  = 0) the DE EoS parameter in the collapsing region is equal to that of the background (w = w). de Due to its standard attractive character, dark matter always tends to cluster, so the local continuity equation takes a similar form as the continuity equation for the background uid, that is: r _ _ + 3  = 0; (7) m m where r is the local scale factor. Of course, it is clear that dark matter will actually cluster only if the initial  is large enough to overcome the e ects from both the background expansion and DE. In the present work we assume that DE can also collapse | although not necessarily together with the matter content, since it can ow away from the collapsing sphere. This is precisely the reason for the lack of energy conservation in the perturbed region. Therefore, we parameterize such physical phenomenon writing the local continuity equation for DE as [34] (see also [18]) : r _ _ + 3(1 + w )  = ; with 0   1 ; (8) de de where r _ a _ 3(1 + w )  : (9) de r a 3 Here, describes the leaking of DE away from the spherical collapsing region and 0   1 is the aforementioned clustering parameter. The non-clustering, i.e, homogeneous DE corresponds to = 1. Notice that in this case, we c 3(1+w) have  / exp[3 (1 +w )da=a] while   scales as   / a . So, in principle, even if the DE energy densities de de de were initially equal, they would evolve di erently. However, as we will show further down, when = 1, in the linear regime, there is no growing mode and  rapidly tends to zero. Therefore, it is not possible to distinguish in this de case the behavior of the DE inside and outside the spherical region:  =   and consequently w = w. In this case de de (and also for > 0) the total energy of the system is not conserved [34]. In contrast, the case of full clustering, i.e, when = 0, ensures that  6=   , such that the spherical region is completely segregated from the background and de de it is considered an isolated system, which conserves energy. We shall also consider intermediate values of in our analysis. Notice that, di erently from Ref. [34], we are not assuming that the DE EoS is the same inside and outside the collapsing spherical region. As remarked above, this is only the case when dark energy is homogeneous ( = 1) or c = w. Di erentiating twice the density contrast    =  1 for both dark matter ( ) and dark energy ( ) and using j j j m de the equations above we obtain the following nonlinear evolution equations : 2 2 4 3H m 2  _ + 2H = (1 +  ) + (1 ) (1 + 3c ) ; (10) m m m m m m de 3(1 +  ) 2  _ _ = 3(h H )(1 + w)(1 ) 3(h(1 ) + H )w de de de _ _ 3(1 + w)(1 ) h H (1 +  ) de _ _ 3w(1 ) h(1 ) + H (1 +  ) de 3 (h(1 ) + H ) w (1 +  ) : (11) de In the expression above, w  w w (see eq. (6)), r _  + 3H (1 + w)(1 + ) + 1 w + + c de de h  = ; (12) r 3 (1 + ) (1 + w + (1 + c )  ) de r  h = h ; (13) r  H (1 +  ) + (1 ) (1 + 3c ) + 1 + 3w (14) m m m de r 2 and H = H (1 + w (1 )) : (15) Here (t) is the background nonrelativistic matter energy-density parameter at the instant t. m m In the expressions above we assume, obviously, that 6= 1, since, as mentioned before, if = 1 DE does not cluster. We note that in the particular case in which c = w [27, 28, 30], such that w = 0, eq. (11) reduces to 4 + 3w 3 (1 + w) de  _ + 2H = de de 3(1 + w)(1 ) (1 +  ) de 3H = (1 +  )(1 )(1 + w)[ + (1 ) (1 + 3w)]: (16) de m m m de If we further impose = 0, we then recover Eq. (7) of Ref. [27] for the case in which w is constant. To determine the initial conditions for  and  , we consider the linear approximation of Eqs. (10) and (11) in a m de matter-dominated universe ( 1 and 0): m de 3  3 00 m +  = 0 (17) 2 a 2a 00 2 de + 3(w c ) de s 2 a (1 + w)(1 ) + (w c ) ) = 0; (18) m de 2a 4 where  d=da . Since we are interested in the formation of structures, the decreasing mode of the above equations will not be considered. The growing mode solutions are: (a) = C a and (19) (1 + w)(1 ) (a) =  (a): (20) de m 1 3(w c ) As remarked above, if = 1 we obtain  = 0. We assume in our analysis that 1 3(w c ) > 0 which implies de that for phantom models (w < 1)  < 0 (i.e, there is less dark energy inside the bubble than in the background). de Note that if  < 1, then  < 0. Although such case is exotic, in principle, it is allowed in some modi ed gravity de de models [37]. Whenever  crosses 1, which happens only if w < 1, then w goes from 1 to +1 (see Eq. (6) and de Fig. 1). Note, however, that such divergence does not a ect the evolution of the bubble, since w does not appear explicitly in the equations of motion for the radius r (or, actually, for the variable y), as we will show next. γ = 0 , w = -1.1 = c γ = 0 , w = -0.9 = c γ = 1, w = -0.9 =0.5, c -2 γ = 1 , w = -1.1 = 0.5, c γ = 1 , w = -1.1 =0, c -4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 t/t colΛCDM FIG. 1: Behavior of the equation-of-state parameter inside the bubble (w ) with respect to time, for the labeled parameters. Given the contrast density for each uid, the evolution of the local scale factor is given by Eq. (5), which in terms r a of y  can be written as: r a i i 1 H 1 00 0 y + y + + = (21) a H a 1 H a = y + 2 Ha a a 1 +  + m0 m 2 3(1+w) + 1 + 3w + (1 + 3c ) 1 a 1 +  ; de m0 de w 5 where is the present value of the matter density parameter. An initial condition for Eq. (21) is naturally y(a ) = 0. m0 i To obtain y (a ), we consider that, initially, the mass of the spherical region is given only by the contribution from dark matter: M = R (1 +  )  : (22) i mi mi The (possible) contribution from DE is negligible since    when the initial conditions are set, in a matter- de m dominated universe. In the above equations, R  r(t )X is the physical radius of the collapsing sphere at instant t , X is its coordinate i i i radius and  is the initial matter density contrast. Since dark matter always collapses (depending, of course, on mi the initial conditions of the matter perturbations), the mass M inside the spherical region will always be a constant. 0 0 5 Thus, we have y (a ) =  =[3(1 +  )]. We adopt in our numerical calculations a = 10 . i mi i mi III. BUBBLE EVOLUTION In this section we investigate the bubble evolution, namely its radius as a function of time, and one of the main results from the SC model: the critical density contrast | a crucial quantity to determine the number of collapsed objects. Throughout the paper we assume that = 0:3. We also keep the same initial conditions for dark-matter m0 perturbations, such that the collapse in CDM always occurs at the present time. We pay special attention to the dependence of the outcomes in the free parameters of our model: , c and w. Some situations are particularly interesting and express the richness of the present parametrization: c = 0, in which there is no DE pressure perturbation. It is interesting to point out that, in this case, in the nal stages of the collapse ( ! 1), the local dark energy does behave as dark matter, since w ! 0 | see de eq. (6). Note also, from eq. (20), that for phantom dark energy one will always get  < 0: there is less dark de energy inside the bubble than in the background. 2 c c = w, which indicates that the clustered DE EoS parameter (w ) and the background one (w) are equal. c = . We intend to model a continuous \turning on" of the clustering in scalar eld models [34]. In quintessence and k-essence models, usually, two choices are made: a) c = 1, in which case the standard quintessence scalar eld (i.e, a minimally coupled scalar eld with a canonical kinetic term) does not cluster, remaining homogeneous on subhorizon scales [10], and b) c = 0 (or more generally sub-luminal behaviour) are considered in k-essence scalar elds [19]. The new parameter models the lack of energy conservation, which happens whenever a fraction of DE does not cluster. Note that when = 1, results from di erent c should coincide, since the latter does not play a role if DE is homogeneous. A. Radius We now investigate the evolution of the spherical-region radius, as given by eq. (21). As mentioned before, the initial conditions for dark-matter perturbations in all models are xed such that the collapse in CDM model always occurs at the present time. The initial conditions for dark-energy perturbations are given by Eq. (20). We point out some noteworthy features in a few particular cases: 2 c c = w (w = w) The collapsing time t is earlier than CDM t only for phantom DE. This is a reasonable outcome, col col;CDM since  < 0 if w < 1 (as mentioned above): the lack of DE in the clustered region accelerates the collapse. de For non-phantom, DE starts to dominate earlier when compared to CDM for any . On the other hand, a smaller corresponds to a larger  , which will delay the collapse, since in this case  > 0. de de There is no strong dependence on , except for a small drift towards CDM when ! 1 (homogeneous DE), as expected. Besides, the term that inhibits the collapse in Eq. (5), namely  + 3p , although always present, de de will be less important in this limit. See Fig. 2. 6 1.0 Ω = 0.3 m0 c = w γ=0 0.8 γ=0.5 γ=1 w=-0.9 0.6 γ=1 γ=0.5 0.4 w=-1.1 γ=0 0.2 ΛCDM 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 t/t col,ΛCDM FIG. 2: Evolution of the scale radius of the collapsing sphere for c = w = f0:9;1:1g and di erent values of . The solid blue line corresponds to the CDM model. c = 0 We also get t < t only for phantom DE, as anticipated. The dependence on is very weak. There is col col;CDM a slight drift away from CDM as ! 1. Such opposite behavior (as compared to the previous case) happens because here p  c  = 0. Without any pressure support, the collapse is expedited if ! 0 and w > 1. de de Nevertheless, with phantom DE (w < 1), one has  < 0 and the clustering of DE (slightly) delays the de collapse | one can (barely) see the tiny shift to larger t when decreases from 0:8 to 0 in Fig. 3. col c = 1 (standard quintessence-like DE) As before, t < t for phantom DE but one can also expedite the collapse if w > 1. See Fig. 4. col col;CDM The most striking feature is the possibility to entirely prevent the collapse. This is not completely unexpected if there is enough sti DE in the initial perturbation.The other ingredients for the bounce are phantom dark energy and no energy leaking. The full consequences of such behavior will be the subject of a future work. Here, the collapse time t is de ned as: col da t (w) = ; (23) col H (w; a)a where a is the scale factor at collapse and H (w; a) is the Hubble parameter of the wCDM model. Of course, t (w = 1) represents the collapse time of CMD model, t . The curves = 1 (homogeneous DE) from all col col;CDM the panels coincide, regardless of c , as expected. B. The critical contrast density As can be seen in Eq. (5) and from the discussions in the previous section, the DE perturbations do contribute to the collapse. Therefore, the de nition of the critical density contrast must be modi ed in order to take this contribution into account. So, let us consider the expression [29, 38] de =  +  ; (24) tot m de ta 7 1.0 Ω = 0.3 m0 c = 0 0.8 w=-0.9 0.6 γ = 0.8 ΛCDM γ=0 0.4 w=-1.1 γ=0 0.2 γ = 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 t/t col,ΛCDM FIG. 3: Evolution of the scale radius of the collapsing sphere for c = 0, w = f0:9;1:1g and di erent values of . The solid blue line corresponds to the CDM model. 1.0 Ω = 0.3 m0 c = 1 γ = 0.8 0.8 w = -0.9 0.6 γ = 0 γ = 0 0.4 w = -1.1 γ = 0.8 0.2 ΛCDM 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 t/t col,ΛCDM FIG. 4: Evolution of the scale radius of the collapsing sphere for c = 1, w = f0:9;1:1g and di erent values of . The solid blue line corresponds to the CDM model. Note the non-collapsing curve ( = 0; w = 1:1). We also point out that the curve given by = 0, c = 1 and w = 0:9, that crosses CDM close to the collapse, is also dissonant in Fig. 7. r r r ta ta 8 1.0 Ω = 0.3 m0 c = γ 0.8 w=-0.9 0.6 w=-1.1 0.4 ΛCDM 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 t/t col,ΛCDM FIG. 5: Evolution of the scale radius of the collapsing sphere for c = , w = f0:9;1:1g and di erent values of = f0; 0:8g. The solid blue line corresponds to the CDM model. as the total perturbation. Note that, when ! 0, the conventional de nition for the critical contrast is recovered. de As usual, the critical contrast  is determined by its linear evolution | given by Eqs. (17) and (18) | at the collapse redshift z (obtained from requiring that r(z = z ) ! 0): c c lin =  (z ): (25) c c tot Using the di erential-radius method [25], the dependence of  with z is shown in Fig. 6, 7, 8, and 9 for di erent c c values of the free parameters c , w and , and xed = 0:3. m0 Dark-energy overdensities ( > 0) inhibits the growth of dark-matter perturbations ( ) due to its repulsive de m nature. On the other hand, dark-energy underdensities ( < 0) enhance the growth of  . The former case occurs de m in non-phantom models (w > 1), while the latter generally happens when w < 1. Indeed, as one can see in Figs. 6 to 9, the critical overdensity for a collapsing structure ( ) is smaller in phantom cases. Therefore, one should expect an enhancement on the number of collapsed objects in this case. The choice = 0 yields extreme variations of  with respect to CDM, because, in this case, there is no leakage of DE away from the collapsing regions, which maximizes its e ects. In all the presented cases,  tends to the expected EdS value at high z . Note also that  is always larger (smaller) c c c than the standard CDM value for w < 1 (w > 1) and 6= 1 (i.e, in the presence of DE perturbations). When = 1 (homogeneous DE), this behavior is inverted. The most striking feature in Fig. 6 (c = 0) is the strong dependence of  (z = 0) on w alone. That piece of c c information by itself reassures the importance of studying the critical density for breaking the degeneracy among di erent DE models. The dependence on alone is not so strong ( 2%). Changing both parameters at a time yields larger modi cations on the curves, of course. The possibility of constraints on this parameters from observational data is beyond the scope of this paper. In Fig. 7, where we keep c = 1, we note once again the dependence on w, although about half as strong as in the previous case. One can notice a dissonant curve ( = 0, c = 1, w = 0:9), which corresponds to the one that crosses over CDM in Fig. 4. It might be a sign of incompatibility of such parameters, since = 0 means that there is no DE leaking away from the collapsing matter bubble, but at the same time c = 1 corresponds to a sti behavior of the former, which should (at least) delay the DE collapsing process. The strongest dependence of  (z = 0) on the parameters is observed in Fig. 8, where we keep c = w. Observe c c also that, for larger w,  (z = 0) rapidly increases. For (non)phantom DE, a (larger) smaller decreases  (z = 0). c c c c On the other hand, a larger failure on energy conservation (i.e, larger ) in the collapsing region does move any of the curves towards CDM. ta 9 The cases c = are depicted in Fig. 9. As expected, the curves tend to CDM whenever ! 1, regardless of the values of c . We also notice that if = 1 (without DE perturbation), the phantom-DE curve is slightly above CDM, as opposed to all the other cases presented here. The non-phantom is also inverted (below CDM in this case alone). IV. CONCLUSIONS In summary, we have shown the non-linear equations that describe the evolution of the perturbations for both the dark matter and dark energy in the SC model when the clustering fraction of the latter is de ned by a parameter , which consequently also models the lack of energy conservation in the collapsing region. We have determined the critical contrast density  for di erent values of , obtaining larger values for stronger DE clustering. The largest discrepancies from CDM happen when c = w (both clustered and smooth DE have the same EoS) and = 0 (fully clustered DE). In a next paper, we will explore the consequences of the results presented here, namely deviations on the num- ber density of collapsed objects, and the possibility of constraining the free parameters with current and future observational data. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS D.H. acknowledges nancial support from CAPES. [1] P. A. R. Ade et al. Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys., 594:A13, 2016. [2] Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, and N. Bartolo. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1807.06209, Jul 2018. [3] Adam G. Riess et al. Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant. Astron.J., 116:1009{1038, 1998. [4] S. Perlmutter et al. Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 high redshift supernovae. Astrophys.J., 517:565{586, [5] Varun Sahni and Alexei A. Starobinsky. The case for a positive cosmological Lambda term. Int. J. Mod. Phys., D9:373{444, [6] L. Amendola and S. Tsujikawa. Dark energy: Theory and Observations. Cambridge University Press, 2010. Cambridge Books. [7] Bharat Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles. Cosmological consequences of a rolling homogeneous scalar eld. Phys. Rev. D, 37:3406{3427, Jun 1988. [8] C. Wetterich. Cosmology and the fate of dilatation symmetry. Nucl. Phys., B302:668{696, 1988. [9] Joshua A. Frieman, Christopher T. Hill, Albert Stebbins, and Ioav Waga. Cosmology with ultralight pseudo Nambu- Goldstone bosons. Phys. Rev. Lett., 75:2077{2080, 1995. [10] Paul J. Steinhardt, Li-Min Wang, and Ivaylo Zlatev. Cosmological tracking solutions. Phys. Rev., D59:123504, 1999. [11] Kevin J. Ludwick. The viability of phantom dark energy: A review. Mod. Phys. Lett., A32(28):1730025, 2017. [12] C. Armendariz-Picon, Viatcheslav F. Mukhanov, and Paul J. Steinhardt. Essentials of k essence. Phys. Rev., D63:103510, [13] J. C. Carvalho, J. A. S. Lima, and I. Waga. Cosmological consequences of a time-dependent  term. Phys. Rev. D, 46:2404{2407, Sep 1992. [14] Spyros Basilakos, Manolis Plionis, and Joan Sol a. Hubble expansion and structure formation in time varying vacuum models. Phys. Rev. D, 80:083511, Oct 2009. [15] Thomas P. Sotiriou and Valerio Faraoni. f(R) theories of gravity. Rev. Mod. Phys., 82:451{497, 2010. [16] James E. Gunn and J. Richard III Gott. On the infall of matter into clusters of galaxies and some e ects on their evolution. Astrophys.J., 176:1{19, 1972. [17] Ofer Lahav, Per B. Lilje, Joel R. Primack, and Martin J. Rees. Dynamical e ects of the cosmological constant. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 251(1):128{136, 1991. [18] D. F. Mota and C. van de Bruck. On the spherical collapse model in dark energy cosmologies. Astron. Astrophys., 421:71{81, 2004. [19] Paolo Creminelli, Guido D'Amico, Jorge Norena, Leonardo Senatore, and Filippo Vernizzi. Spherical collapse in quintessence models with zero speed of sound. JCAP, 1003:027, 2010. 10 [20] Manvendra Pratap Rajvanshi and Jasjeet Singh Bagla. Nonlinear spherical perturbations in Quintessence Models of Dark Energy. JCAP, 1806(06):018, 2018. [21] Spyros Basilakos, Manolis Plionis, and Joan Sola. The spherical collapse model in time varying vacuum cosmologies. Phys. Rev., D82:083512, 2010. [22] Fabian Schmidt, Marcos Vinicius Lima, Hiroaki Oyaizu, and Wayne Hu. Non-linear evolution of f(R) cosmologies III: Halo statistics. Phys.Rev., D79:083518, 2009. [23] Alexander Borisov, Bhuvnesh Jain, and Pengjie Zhang. Spherical collapse in f (R) gravity. Phys. Rev. D, 85:063518, Mar [24] Michael Kopp, Stephen A. Appleby, Ixandra Achitouv, and Jochen Weller. Spherical collapse and halo mass function in f (R) theories. Phys. Rev. D, 88:084015, Oct 2013. [25] D. Herrera, I. Waga, and S. E. Jor as. Calculation of the critical overdensity in the spherical-collapse approximation. Phys. Rev., D95(6):064029, 2017. [26] Ph. Brax, R. Rosenfeld, and D.A. Steer. Spherical collapse in chameleon models. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2010(08):033, 2010. [27] L. R. Abramo, R. C. Batista, L. Liberato, and R. Rosenfeld. Structure formation in the presence of dark energy pertur- bations. JCAP, 0711:012, 2007. [28] Seokcheon Lee and Kin-Wang Ng. Spherical collapse model with non-clustering dark energy. Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics, 2010:028, October 2010. [29] Ronaldo C. Batista and Valerio Marra. Clustering dark energy and halo abundances. JCAP, 1711(11):048, 2017. [30] Chia-Chun Chang, Wolung Lee, and Kin-Wang Ng. Spherical collapse models with clustered dark energy. Phys. Dark Univ., 19:12{20, 2018. [31] Stharporn Sapa, Khamphee Karwan, and David F. Mota. Spherical collapse and cluster number counts in dark energy models disformally coupled to dark matter. Phys. Rev. D, 98:023528, Jul 2018. [32] Nico Wintergerst and Valeria Pettorino. Clarifying spherical collapse in coupled dark energy cosmologies. Phys. Rev. D, 82:103516, Nov 2010. [33] Mehdi Rezaei and Mohammad Malekjani. Spherical collapse model in agegraphic dark energy cosmologies. Phys. Rev. D, 96:063519, Sep 2017. [34] Irit Maor and Ofer Lahav. On virialization with dark energy. JCAP, 0507:003, 2005. [35] Francesco Pace, Sven Meyer, and Matthias Bartelmann. On the implementation of the spherical collapse model for dark energy models. JCAP, 1710(10):040, 2017. [36] L. Raul W. Abramo, R. C. Batista, L. Liberato, and R. Rosenfeld. Dynamical Mutation of Dark Energy. Phys. Rev., D77:067301, 2008. [37] Kourosh Nozari and Faeze Kiani. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2009(07):010{010, jul 2009. [38] Emiliano Sefusatti and Filippo Vernizzi. Cosmological structure formation with clustering quintessence. Journal of Cos- mology and Astro-Particle Physics, 2011(3):047, Mar 2011. 11 1.74 2 Ω = 0.3 γ=0 = 0, w = -0.9 m0 , c 1.72 γ=0.5 = 0, w = -0.9 , c 1.70 ΛCDM 1.68 1.66 γ=0.5 = 0, w = -1.1 , c 1.64 γ=0 = 0, w = -1.1 , c 1.62 1.60 0 1 2 3 4 FIG. 6: Evolution of the critical contrast density for c = 0 and di erent values of w and . The solid black line corresponds to CDM model. c 12 Ω = 0.3 1.74 m0 1.72 1.70 γ=0.5 = 1, w = -0.9 , c ΛCDM 1.68 γ=0 = 1, w = -0.9 , c γ=0.5 = 1, w = -1.1 , c 1.66 1.64 1.62 1.60 0 1 2 3 4 FIG. 7: Evolution of the critical contrast density for c = 1 and di erent values of w and . The solid black line corresponds to CDM model. c 13 1.9 Ω = 0.3 m0 γ=0 = w = -0.9 , c 1.8 γ=0.5 = w = -0.9 , c 1.7 ΛCDM γ=0.5 = w = -1.1 , c 1.6 γ=0 = w = -1.1 , c 1.5 1.4 0 1 2 3 4 FIG. 8: Evolution of the critical contrast density for c = w and di erent values of w and . The solid black line corresponds to CDM model in all panels. As before, here we nd the largest deviations from CDM. c 14 1.74 Ω = 0.3 2 m0 γ = 0, w = -0.9 = c 1.72 γ = 0.5 , w = -0.9 = c 1.70 γ = 1, w = -1.1 1.68 ΛCDM γ = 1 , w = -0.9 1.66 γ = 0.5, w = -1.1 =c 1.64 γ = 0, w = -1.1 = c 1.62 1.60 0 1 2 3 4 FIG. 9: Evolution of the critical contrast density for : c = and di erent values of w and . The solid black line corresponds to CDM model in all panels. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Astrophysics arXiv (Cornell University)

Top-Hat Spherical Collapse with Clustering Dark Energy. I. Radius Evolution and Critical Contrast Density

Herrera, D.; Waga, I.; Jorás, S. E.
Astrophysics , Volume 2019 (1906) – Jun 11, 2019
Download PDF
14 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/arxiv-cornell-university/top-hat-spherical-collapse-with-clustering-dark-energy-i-radius-gNtatGQoz0

References (38)

ISSN
2212-6864
eISSN
ARCH-3330
DOI
10.1016/j.dark.2019.100335
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Top-Hat Spherical Collapse with Clustering Dark Energy. I. Radius Evolution and Critical Contrast Density 1, 1,y 1,z D. Herrera, I. Waga, and S.E. Jor as Instituto de F sica, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro C. P. 68528, CEP 21941-972, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil Understanding the in uence of dark energy on the formation of structures is currently a major challenge in Cosmology, since it can distinguish otherwise degenerated viable models. In this work we consider the Top-Hat Spherical-Collapse (SC) model with dark energy, which can partially (or totally) cluster, according to a free parameter . The lack of energy conservation has to be taken into account accordingly, as we will show. We determine characteristic quantities for the SC model, such as the critical contrast density and radius evolution, with particular emphasis on their dependence on the clustering parameter . I. INTRODUCTION Recent results [1, 2] from independent cosmological observations | such as anisotropies in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO), type-Ia Supernovae (SNe Ia) and the Large-Scale Structure of the Universe (LSS) | imply that the Universe is speeding up. [3, 4]. The responsible for this e ect is dubbed \dark energy" (DE), whose physical nature is still unknown. If we model dark energy as a uid, according to General Relativity, it needs to have negative pressure. In particular, the cosmological model that better ts observations is the cold-dark-matter with Cosmological-Constant model (CDM). However, this model presents diculties at theoretical level [5, 6], motivating the search for alternatives such as quintessence [7{10], phantom dark energy [11], k-essence [12], decaying vacuum models [13, 14] or even modi cations of General Relativity, such as f (R) theories [15], among others. A great diculty is that many of these models behave very similarly to CDM at the background level, making it dicult to distinguish them through cosmological kinematical tests (those that depend essentially only on distance). Therefore, it is crucially important to study the evolution of perturbations and the structure formation in those models, where they are expected to have di erent (and measurable) consequences from those obtained by CDM. The simplest way to study the structure formation with dark energy is through the Top-Hat Spherical-Collapse (SC) approach, which was initially used in Einstein-de Sitter (EdS) background (as an useful benchmark since it yields an exact analytical result for the critical density), in the standard cold-dark-matter scenario [16], and later in CDM [17]. The SC model has also been extended to quintessence elds [18{20], decaying vacuum models [21], f (R) theories [22{26], DE with constant equation-of-state (EoS) models [27{30], coupled DE models [31, 32], and agegraphic DE cosmologies [33]. In particular, Ref. [27] investigated constant phantom, constant non-phantom and varying DE EoS parameter, always assuming that the latter is the same both inside and outside the collapsed region . These authors have focused only in the limiting cases, namely, fully clustered and completely homogeneous DE. In Ref. [30] the SC model with fully clustered DE is considered assuming a linear relation between the matter contrast density and the DE one, according to a free parameter r. In Ref. [30], as well as in [28], it is also assumed that the DE EoS is the same inside and outside the collapsed region. In this work we relax the aforementioned hypotheses and generalize some of those results. Following the Ansatz suggested in Ref. [34] (see also [18]), we investigate the SC model with DE, assuming that it can cluster partially or totally, according to a normalized parameter: if = 0, DE is fully clustered; if = 1, DE is completely homogeneous. This paper is organized as follows. In Section II we show the basic equations that describe the SC model with dark- energy perturbations. We apply the so-called di erential-radius method, which has been shown [25] (see also [35]) to be more robust than the constant-in nity method | which uses a xed large value for the local overdensity as a threshold for indicating a collapsed structure. The former method, on the other hand, follows the di erence between the background scale factor and the collapsing bubble radius (also known as local scale factor). Electronic address: duvanh@if.ufrj.br Electronic address: ioav@if.ufrj.br Electronic address: joras@if.ufrj.br As we will show further down, this assumption is equivalent to requiring that the DE EoS parameter is equal to its speed of sound squared: w = c . arXiv:1906.04326v1 [astro-ph.CO] 11 Jun 2019 2 In Subsection III A we analyze the radius evolution of the collapsing spherical region. In Section III B we determine the critical contrast density. We conclude in Section IV. II. SPHERICAL COLLAPSE WITH DARK ENERGY PERTURBATIONS For a at, homogeneous and isotropic universe with dark matter and dark energy, the Einstein equations are given by: a _ 8G H = (  +   ) ; (1) m de a 3 a  4G = [  + (1 + 3w)  ] : (2) m de a 3 In the equations above, a is the scale factor, H is the Hubble parameter, w  p  =  is the EoS parameter of DE de de (assumed to be constant), and   ,   and p  are the (background) energy densities of matter and DE and the DE m de de pressure, respectively. A dot over a given quantity denotes its time derivative. Assuming that both dark matter and DE interact only gravitationally and are separately conserved, we get + 3H  = 0; (3) m m + 3H (1 + w)  = 0: (4) de de Here we investigate the nonlinear evolution of the gravitational collapse and, to this aim, we consider the Top- Hat Spherical-Collapse (SC) model. The SC model considers a spherical region with a top-hat pro le and uniform density (t) =  (t) + (t), immersed in a homogeneous universe with energy density  (t). Here  initially is a small perturbation of the background uid energy density. We suppose that this region also contains nonrelativistic matter (p = p  = 0) and DE. Such a spherical region can be described as a separated universe with (local) scale factor r. m m The acceleration equation for this region is given by: r  4G = ( +  + 3p ) ; (5) m de de r 3 where p (t) = p  (t) + p(t) is the DE pressure inside the spherical region and p(t) a small pressure perturbation. de de The DE EoS parameter in the spherical region is given by [36] p (c w) de de c s w  = w + ; (6) 1 + de de c 2 where the superscript \ " stands for \clustered", c  p = is the DE sound speed squared (assumed to be de de constant) and  is the DE density contrast (see its de nition below). Note that only if c = w (or homogeneous DE, de i.e.,  = 0) the DE EoS parameter in the collapsing region is equal to that of the background (w = w). de Due to its standard attractive character, dark matter always tends to cluster, so the local continuity equation takes a similar form as the continuity equation for the background uid, that is: r _ _ + 3  = 0; (7) m m where r is the local scale factor. Of course, it is clear that dark matter will actually cluster only if the initial  is large enough to overcome the e ects from both the background expansion and DE. In the present work we assume that DE can also collapse | although not necessarily together with the matter content, since it can ow away from the collapsing sphere. This is precisely the reason for the lack of energy conservation in the perturbed region. Therefore, we parameterize such physical phenomenon writing the local continuity equation for DE as [34] (see also [18]) : r _ _ + 3(1 + w )  = ; with 0   1 ; (8) de de where r _ a _ 3(1 + w )  : (9) de r a 3 Here, describes the leaking of DE away from the spherical collapsing region and 0   1 is the aforementioned clustering parameter. The non-clustering, i.e, homogeneous DE corresponds to = 1. Notice that in this case, we c 3(1+w) have  / exp[3 (1 +w )da=a] while   scales as   / a . So, in principle, even if the DE energy densities de de de were initially equal, they would evolve di erently. However, as we will show further down, when = 1, in the linear regime, there is no growing mode and  rapidly tends to zero. Therefore, it is not possible to distinguish in this de case the behavior of the DE inside and outside the spherical region:  =   and consequently w = w. In this case de de (and also for > 0) the total energy of the system is not conserved [34]. In contrast, the case of full clustering, i.e, when = 0, ensures that  6=   , such that the spherical region is completely segregated from the background and de de it is considered an isolated system, which conserves energy. We shall also consider intermediate values of in our analysis. Notice that, di erently from Ref. [34], we are not assuming that the DE EoS is the same inside and outside the collapsing spherical region. As remarked above, this is only the case when dark energy is homogeneous ( = 1) or c = w. Di erentiating twice the density contrast    =  1 for both dark matter ( ) and dark energy ( ) and using j j j m de the equations above we obtain the following nonlinear evolution equations : 2 2 4 3H m 2  _ + 2H = (1 +  ) + (1 ) (1 + 3c ) ; (10) m m m m m m de 3(1 +  ) 2  _ _ = 3(h H )(1 + w)(1 ) 3(h(1 ) + H )w de de de _ _ 3(1 + w)(1 ) h H (1 +  ) de _ _ 3w(1 ) h(1 ) + H (1 +  ) de 3 (h(1 ) + H ) w (1 +  ) : (11) de In the expression above, w  w w (see eq. (6)), r _  + 3H (1 + w)(1 + ) + 1 w + + c de de h  = ; (12) r 3 (1 + ) (1 + w + (1 + c )  ) de r  h = h ; (13) r  H (1 +  ) + (1 ) (1 + 3c ) + 1 + 3w (14) m m m de r 2 and H = H (1 + w (1 )) : (15) Here (t) is the background nonrelativistic matter energy-density parameter at the instant t. m m In the expressions above we assume, obviously, that 6= 1, since, as mentioned before, if = 1 DE does not cluster. We note that in the particular case in which c = w [27, 28, 30], such that w = 0, eq. (11) reduces to 4 + 3w 3 (1 + w) de  _ + 2H = de de 3(1 + w)(1 ) (1 +  ) de 3H = (1 +  )(1 )(1 + w)[ + (1 ) (1 + 3w)]: (16) de m m m de If we further impose = 0, we then recover Eq. (7) of Ref. [27] for the case in which w is constant. To determine the initial conditions for  and  , we consider the linear approximation of Eqs. (10) and (11) in a m de matter-dominated universe ( 1 and 0): m de 3  3 00 m +  = 0 (17) 2 a 2a 00 2 de + 3(w c ) de s 2 a (1 + w)(1 ) + (w c ) ) = 0; (18) m de 2a 4 where  d=da . Since we are interested in the formation of structures, the decreasing mode of the above equations will not be considered. The growing mode solutions are: (a) = C a and (19) (1 + w)(1 ) (a) =  (a): (20) de m 1 3(w c ) As remarked above, if = 1 we obtain  = 0. We assume in our analysis that 1 3(w c ) > 0 which implies de that for phantom models (w < 1)  < 0 (i.e, there is less dark energy inside the bubble than in the background). de Note that if  < 1, then  < 0. Although such case is exotic, in principle, it is allowed in some modi ed gravity de de models [37]. Whenever  crosses 1, which happens only if w < 1, then w goes from 1 to +1 (see Eq. (6) and de Fig. 1). Note, however, that such divergence does not a ect the evolution of the bubble, since w does not appear explicitly in the equations of motion for the radius r (or, actually, for the variable y), as we will show next. γ = 0 , w = -1.1 = c γ = 0 , w = -0.9 = c γ = 1, w = -0.9 =0.5, c -2 γ = 1 , w = -1.1 = 0.5, c γ = 1 , w = -1.1 =0, c -4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 t/t colΛCDM FIG. 1: Behavior of the equation-of-state parameter inside the bubble (w ) with respect to time, for the labeled parameters. Given the contrast density for each uid, the evolution of the local scale factor is given by Eq. (5), which in terms r a of y  can be written as: r a i i 1 H 1 00 0 y + y + + = (21) a H a 1 H a = y + 2 Ha a a 1 +  + m0 m 2 3(1+w) + 1 + 3w + (1 + 3c ) 1 a 1 +  ; de m0 de w 5 where is the present value of the matter density parameter. An initial condition for Eq. (21) is naturally y(a ) = 0. m0 i To obtain y (a ), we consider that, initially, the mass of the spherical region is given only by the contribution from dark matter: M = R (1 +  )  : (22) i mi mi The (possible) contribution from DE is negligible since    when the initial conditions are set, in a matter- de m dominated universe. In the above equations, R  r(t )X is the physical radius of the collapsing sphere at instant t , X is its coordinate i i i radius and  is the initial matter density contrast. Since dark matter always collapses (depending, of course, on mi the initial conditions of the matter perturbations), the mass M inside the spherical region will always be a constant. 0 0 5 Thus, we have y (a ) =  =[3(1 +  )]. We adopt in our numerical calculations a = 10 . i mi i mi III. BUBBLE EVOLUTION In this section we investigate the bubble evolution, namely its radius as a function of time, and one of the main results from the SC model: the critical density contrast | a crucial quantity to determine the number of collapsed objects. Throughout the paper we assume that = 0:3. We also keep the same initial conditions for dark-matter m0 perturbations, such that the collapse in CDM always occurs at the present time. We pay special attention to the dependence of the outcomes in the free parameters of our model: , c and w. Some situations are particularly interesting and express the richness of the present parametrization: c = 0, in which there is no DE pressure perturbation. It is interesting to point out that, in this case, in the nal stages of the collapse ( ! 1), the local dark energy does behave as dark matter, since w ! 0 | see de eq. (6). Note also, from eq. (20), that for phantom dark energy one will always get  < 0: there is less dark de energy inside the bubble than in the background. 2 c c = w, which indicates that the clustered DE EoS parameter (w ) and the background one (w) are equal. c = . We intend to model a continuous \turning on" of the clustering in scalar eld models [34]. In quintessence and k-essence models, usually, two choices are made: a) c = 1, in which case the standard quintessence scalar eld (i.e, a minimally coupled scalar eld with a canonical kinetic term) does not cluster, remaining homogeneous on subhorizon scales [10], and b) c = 0 (or more generally sub-luminal behaviour) are considered in k-essence scalar elds [19]. The new parameter models the lack of energy conservation, which happens whenever a fraction of DE does not cluster. Note that when = 1, results from di erent c should coincide, since the latter does not play a role if DE is homogeneous. A. Radius We now investigate the evolution of the spherical-region radius, as given by eq. (21). As mentioned before, the initial conditions for dark-matter perturbations in all models are xed such that the collapse in CDM model always occurs at the present time. The initial conditions for dark-energy perturbations are given by Eq. (20). We point out some noteworthy features in a few particular cases: 2 c c = w (w = w) The collapsing time t is earlier than CDM t only for phantom DE. This is a reasonable outcome, col col;CDM since  < 0 if w < 1 (as mentioned above): the lack of DE in the clustered region accelerates the collapse. de For non-phantom, DE starts to dominate earlier when compared to CDM for any . On the other hand, a smaller corresponds to a larger  , which will delay the collapse, since in this case  > 0. de de There is no strong dependence on , except for a small drift towards CDM when ! 1 (homogeneous DE), as expected. Besides, the term that inhibits the collapse in Eq. (5), namely  + 3p , although always present, de de will be less important in this limit. See Fig. 2. 6 1.0 Ω = 0.3 m0 c = w γ=0 0.8 γ=0.5 γ=1 w=-0.9 0.6 γ=1 γ=0.5 0.4 w=-1.1 γ=0 0.2 ΛCDM 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 t/t col,ΛCDM FIG. 2: Evolution of the scale radius of the collapsing sphere for c = w = f0:9;1:1g and di erent values of . The solid blue line corresponds to the CDM model. c = 0 We also get t < t only for phantom DE, as anticipated. The dependence on is very weak. There is col col;CDM a slight drift away from CDM as ! 1. Such opposite behavior (as compared to the previous case) happens because here p  c  = 0. Without any pressure support, the collapse is expedited if ! 0 and w > 1. de de Nevertheless, with phantom DE (w < 1), one has  < 0 and the clustering of DE (slightly) delays the de collapse | one can (barely) see the tiny shift to larger t when decreases from 0:8 to 0 in Fig. 3. col c = 1 (standard quintessence-like DE) As before, t < t for phantom DE but one can also expedite the collapse if w > 1. See Fig. 4. col col;CDM The most striking feature is the possibility to entirely prevent the collapse. This is not completely unexpected if there is enough sti DE in the initial perturbation.The other ingredients for the bounce are phantom dark energy and no energy leaking. The full consequences of such behavior will be the subject of a future work. Here, the collapse time t is de ned as: col da t (w) = ; (23) col H (w; a)a where a is the scale factor at collapse and H (w; a) is the Hubble parameter of the wCDM model. Of course, t (w = 1) represents the collapse time of CMD model, t . The curves = 1 (homogeneous DE) from all col col;CDM the panels coincide, regardless of c , as expected. B. The critical contrast density As can be seen in Eq. (5) and from the discussions in the previous section, the DE perturbations do contribute to the collapse. Therefore, the de nition of the critical density contrast must be modi ed in order to take this contribution into account. So, let us consider the expression [29, 38] de =  +  ; (24) tot m de ta 7 1.0 Ω = 0.3 m0 c = 0 0.8 w=-0.9 0.6 γ = 0.8 ΛCDM γ=0 0.4 w=-1.1 γ=0 0.2 γ = 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 t/t col,ΛCDM FIG. 3: Evolution of the scale radius of the collapsing sphere for c = 0, w = f0:9;1:1g and di erent values of . The solid blue line corresponds to the CDM model. 1.0 Ω = 0.3 m0 c = 1 γ = 0.8 0.8 w = -0.9 0.6 γ = 0 γ = 0 0.4 w = -1.1 γ = 0.8 0.2 ΛCDM 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 t/t col,ΛCDM FIG. 4: Evolution of the scale radius of the collapsing sphere for c = 1, w = f0:9;1:1g and di erent values of . The solid blue line corresponds to the CDM model. Note the non-collapsing curve ( = 0; w = 1:1). We also point out that the curve given by = 0, c = 1 and w = 0:9, that crosses CDM close to the collapse, is also dissonant in Fig. 7. r r r ta ta 8 1.0 Ω = 0.3 m0 c = γ 0.8 w=-0.9 0.6 w=-1.1 0.4 ΛCDM 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 t/t col,ΛCDM FIG. 5: Evolution of the scale radius of the collapsing sphere for c = , w = f0:9;1:1g and di erent values of = f0; 0:8g. The solid blue line corresponds to the CDM model. as the total perturbation. Note that, when ! 0, the conventional de nition for the critical contrast is recovered. de As usual, the critical contrast  is determined by its linear evolution | given by Eqs. (17) and (18) | at the collapse redshift z (obtained from requiring that r(z = z ) ! 0): c c lin =  (z ): (25) c c tot Using the di erential-radius method [25], the dependence of  with z is shown in Fig. 6, 7, 8, and 9 for di erent c c values of the free parameters c , w and , and xed = 0:3. m0 Dark-energy overdensities ( > 0) inhibits the growth of dark-matter perturbations ( ) due to its repulsive de m nature. On the other hand, dark-energy underdensities ( < 0) enhance the growth of  . The former case occurs de m in non-phantom models (w > 1), while the latter generally happens when w < 1. Indeed, as one can see in Figs. 6 to 9, the critical overdensity for a collapsing structure ( ) is smaller in phantom cases. Therefore, one should expect an enhancement on the number of collapsed objects in this case. The choice = 0 yields extreme variations of  with respect to CDM, because, in this case, there is no leakage of DE away from the collapsing regions, which maximizes its e ects. In all the presented cases,  tends to the expected EdS value at high z . Note also that  is always larger (smaller) c c c than the standard CDM value for w < 1 (w > 1) and 6= 1 (i.e, in the presence of DE perturbations). When = 1 (homogeneous DE), this behavior is inverted. The most striking feature in Fig. 6 (c = 0) is the strong dependence of  (z = 0) on w alone. That piece of c c information by itself reassures the importance of studying the critical density for breaking the degeneracy among di erent DE models. The dependence on alone is not so strong ( 2%). Changing both parameters at a time yields larger modi cations on the curves, of course. The possibility of constraints on this parameters from observational data is beyond the scope of this paper. In Fig. 7, where we keep c = 1, we note once again the dependence on w, although about half as strong as in the previous case. One can notice a dissonant curve ( = 0, c = 1, w = 0:9), which corresponds to the one that crosses over CDM in Fig. 4. It might be a sign of incompatibility of such parameters, since = 0 means that there is no DE leaking away from the collapsing matter bubble, but at the same time c = 1 corresponds to a sti behavior of the former, which should (at least) delay the DE collapsing process. The strongest dependence of  (z = 0) on the parameters is observed in Fig. 8, where we keep c = w. Observe c c also that, for larger w,  (z = 0) rapidly increases. For (non)phantom DE, a (larger) smaller decreases  (z = 0). c c c c On the other hand, a larger failure on energy conservation (i.e, larger ) in the collapsing region does move any of the curves towards CDM. ta 9 The cases c = are depicted in Fig. 9. As expected, the curves tend to CDM whenever ! 1, regardless of the values of c . We also notice that if = 1 (without DE perturbation), the phantom-DE curve is slightly above CDM, as opposed to all the other cases presented here. The non-phantom is also inverted (below CDM in this case alone). IV. CONCLUSIONS In summary, we have shown the non-linear equations that describe the evolution of the perturbations for both the dark matter and dark energy in the SC model when the clustering fraction of the latter is de ned by a parameter , which consequently also models the lack of energy conservation in the collapsing region. We have determined the critical contrast density  for di erent values of , obtaining larger values for stronger DE clustering. The largest discrepancies from CDM happen when c = w (both clustered and smooth DE have the same EoS) and = 0 (fully clustered DE). In a next paper, we will explore the consequences of the results presented here, namely deviations on the num- ber density of collapsed objects, and the possibility of constraining the free parameters with current and future observational data. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS D.H. acknowledges nancial support from CAPES. [1] P. A. R. Ade et al. Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys., 594:A13, 2016. [2] Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, and N. Bartolo. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1807.06209, Jul 2018. [3] Adam G. Riess et al. Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant. Astron.J., 116:1009{1038, 1998. [4] S. Perlmutter et al. Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 high redshift supernovae. Astrophys.J., 517:565{586, [5] Varun Sahni and Alexei A. Starobinsky. The case for a positive cosmological Lambda term. Int. J. Mod. Phys., D9:373{444, [6] L. Amendola and S. Tsujikawa. Dark energy: Theory and Observations. Cambridge University Press, 2010. Cambridge Books. [7] Bharat Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles. Cosmological consequences of a rolling homogeneous scalar eld. Phys. Rev. D, 37:3406{3427, Jun 1988. [8] C. Wetterich. Cosmology and the fate of dilatation symmetry. Nucl. Phys., B302:668{696, 1988. [9] Joshua A. Frieman, Christopher T. Hill, Albert Stebbins, and Ioav Waga. Cosmology with ultralight pseudo Nambu- Goldstone bosons. Phys. Rev. Lett., 75:2077{2080, 1995. [10] Paul J. Steinhardt, Li-Min Wang, and Ivaylo Zlatev. Cosmological tracking solutions. Phys. Rev., D59:123504, 1999. [11] Kevin J. Ludwick. The viability of phantom dark energy: A review. Mod. Phys. Lett., A32(28):1730025, 2017. [12] C. Armendariz-Picon, Viatcheslav F. Mukhanov, and Paul J. Steinhardt. Essentials of k essence. Phys. Rev., D63:103510, [13] J. C. Carvalho, J. A. S. Lima, and I. Waga. Cosmological consequences of a time-dependent  term. Phys. Rev. D, 46:2404{2407, Sep 1992. [14] Spyros Basilakos, Manolis Plionis, and Joan Sol a. Hubble expansion and structure formation in time varying vacuum models. Phys. Rev. D, 80:083511, Oct 2009. [15] Thomas P. Sotiriou and Valerio Faraoni. f(R) theories of gravity. Rev. Mod. Phys., 82:451{497, 2010. [16] James E. Gunn and J. Richard III Gott. On the infall of matter into clusters of galaxies and some e ects on their evolution. Astrophys.J., 176:1{19, 1972. [17] Ofer Lahav, Per B. Lilje, Joel R. Primack, and Martin J. Rees. Dynamical e ects of the cosmological constant. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 251(1):128{136, 1991. [18] D. F. Mota and C. van de Bruck. On the spherical collapse model in dark energy cosmologies. Astron. Astrophys., 421:71{81, 2004. [19] Paolo Creminelli, Guido D'Amico, Jorge Norena, Leonardo Senatore, and Filippo Vernizzi. Spherical collapse in quintessence models with zero speed of sound. JCAP, 1003:027, 2010. 10 [20] Manvendra Pratap Rajvanshi and Jasjeet Singh Bagla. Nonlinear spherical perturbations in Quintessence Models of Dark Energy. JCAP, 1806(06):018, 2018. [21] Spyros Basilakos, Manolis Plionis, and Joan Sola. The spherical collapse model in time varying vacuum cosmologies. Phys. Rev., D82:083512, 2010. [22] Fabian Schmidt, Marcos Vinicius Lima, Hiroaki Oyaizu, and Wayne Hu. Non-linear evolution of f(R) cosmologies III: Halo statistics. Phys.Rev., D79:083518, 2009. [23] Alexander Borisov, Bhuvnesh Jain, and Pengjie Zhang. Spherical collapse in f (R) gravity. Phys. Rev. D, 85:063518, Mar [24] Michael Kopp, Stephen A. Appleby, Ixandra Achitouv, and Jochen Weller. Spherical collapse and halo mass function in f (R) theories. Phys. Rev. D, 88:084015, Oct 2013. [25] D. Herrera, I. Waga, and S. E. Jor as. Calculation of the critical overdensity in the spherical-collapse approximation. Phys. Rev., D95(6):064029, 2017. [26] Ph. Brax, R. Rosenfeld, and D.A. Steer. Spherical collapse in chameleon models. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2010(08):033, 2010. [27] L. R. Abramo, R. C. Batista, L. Liberato, and R. Rosenfeld. Structure formation in the presence of dark energy pertur- bations. JCAP, 0711:012, 2007. [28] Seokcheon Lee and Kin-Wang Ng. Spherical collapse model with non-clustering dark energy. Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics, 2010:028, October 2010. [29] Ronaldo C. Batista and Valerio Marra. Clustering dark energy and halo abundances. JCAP, 1711(11):048, 2017. [30] Chia-Chun Chang, Wolung Lee, and Kin-Wang Ng. Spherical collapse models with clustered dark energy. Phys. Dark Univ., 19:12{20, 2018. [31] Stharporn Sapa, Khamphee Karwan, and David F. Mota. Spherical collapse and cluster number counts in dark energy models disformally coupled to dark matter. Phys. Rev. D, 98:023528, Jul 2018. [32] Nico Wintergerst and Valeria Pettorino. Clarifying spherical collapse in coupled dark energy cosmologies. Phys. Rev. D, 82:103516, Nov 2010. [33] Mehdi Rezaei and Mohammad Malekjani. Spherical collapse model in agegraphic dark energy cosmologies. Phys. Rev. D, 96:063519, Sep 2017. [34] Irit Maor and Ofer Lahav. On virialization with dark energy. JCAP, 0507:003, 2005. [35] Francesco Pace, Sven Meyer, and Matthias Bartelmann. On the implementation of the spherical collapse model for dark energy models. JCAP, 1710(10):040, 2017. [36] L. Raul W. Abramo, R. C. Batista, L. Liberato, and R. Rosenfeld. Dynamical Mutation of Dark Energy. Phys. Rev., D77:067301, 2008. [37] Kourosh Nozari and Faeze Kiani. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2009(07):010{010, jul 2009. [38] Emiliano Sefusatti and Filippo Vernizzi. Cosmological structure formation with clustering quintessence. Journal of Cos- mology and Astro-Particle Physics, 2011(3):047, Mar 2011. 11 1.74 2 Ω = 0.3 γ=0 = 0, w = -0.9 m0 , c 1.72 γ=0.5 = 0, w = -0.9 , c 1.70 ΛCDM 1.68 1.66 γ=0.5 = 0, w = -1.1 , c 1.64 γ=0 = 0, w = -1.1 , c 1.62 1.60 0 1 2 3 4 FIG. 6: Evolution of the critical contrast density for c = 0 and di erent values of w and . The solid black line corresponds to CDM model. c 12 Ω = 0.3 1.74 m0 1.72 1.70 γ=0.5 = 1, w = -0.9 , c ΛCDM 1.68 γ=0 = 1, w = -0.9 , c γ=0.5 = 1, w = -1.1 , c 1.66 1.64 1.62 1.60 0 1 2 3 4 FIG. 7: Evolution of the critical contrast density for c = 1 and di erent values of w and . The solid black line corresponds to CDM model. c 13 1.9 Ω = 0.3 m0 γ=0 = w = -0.9 , c 1.8 γ=0.5 = w = -0.9 , c 1.7 ΛCDM γ=0.5 = w = -1.1 , c 1.6 γ=0 = w = -1.1 , c 1.5 1.4 0 1 2 3 4 FIG. 8: Evolution of the critical contrast density for c = w and di erent values of w and . The solid black line corresponds to CDM model in all panels. As before, here we nd the largest deviations from CDM. c 14 1.74 Ω = 0.3 2 m0 γ = 0, w = -0.9 = c 1.72 γ = 0.5 , w = -0.9 = c 1.70 γ = 1, w = -1.1 1.68 ΛCDM γ = 1 , w = -0.9 1.66 γ = 0.5, w = -1.1 =c 1.64 γ = 0, w = -1.1 = c 1.62 1.60 0 1 2 3 4 FIG. 9: Evolution of the critical contrast density for : c = and di erent values of w and . The solid black line corresponds to CDM model in all panels.

Journal

Astrophysics – arXiv (Cornell University)

Published: Jun 11, 2019

There are no references for this article.