text:
# Gauge-Invariant Perturbations of Varying-Alpha Cosmologies

## 1 Introduction

A third sample of observations of quasar absorption-line spectra has been found to be consistent with a time variation in the value of the fine structure ’constant’ between redshifts $`z=0.23.7`$ and the present. The entire data set of 128 objects gives spectra consistent with a shift of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha [\alpha (z)\alpha _0]/\alpha _0=0.57\pm 0.10\times 10^5,`$ where $`\alpha _0`$ is the present value of the fine structure constant . Extensive analysis has yet to find a selection effect that can explain the sense and magnitude of the relativistic line-shifts underpinning these deductions. Motivated by these observations, there has been considerable theoretical investigation of the cosmological consequences of varying $`\alpha `$, . Barrow, Sandvik, and Magueijo  have studied in detail the cosmological consequence of an extension of the varying-$`\alpha `$ Maxwell equations formulated by Bekenstein . We call these BSBM theories. They allow us to understand the effects of the expansion of the universe on variations of $`\alpha `$ and to evaluate the effects of varying $`\alpha `$ on free fall which leads to potentially observable violations of the weak equivalence principle . They also allow us to investigate whether or not other cosmological observations are consistent with the small variations in $`\alpha `$ that are required to fit the quasar observations. Other theories, founded explicitly upon variation in the velocity of light, have also been proposed but their main interest is in connection with events in the very early universe  and the problem of whether or not non-inflationary explanations for particular features of the large-scale structure of the universe are possible . Others have begun to consider the implications for grand unification of coupling strengths, , and astronomical probes of the constancy of the electron-proton mass ratio have reported possible evidence for time variation, , but as yet the statistical significance is low.

Barrow, Sandvik, and Magueijo  have shown that BSBM theories have a number of appealing properties. They predict that there should be no variation of $`\alpha `$ during the radiation era in our universe and none during any present or late-time curvature or cosmological constant dominated era. During the dust era $`\alpha `$ should grow (leading to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha <0`$ as observed) but only as $`\mathrm{log}(t).`$This behaviour allows the quasar data to be accommodated without producing conflict with recent geonuclear limits on allowed variations of $`\alpha `$, like the Oklo natural reactor limits of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha 10^7`$  because they are imposed at a very low effective redshift of $`z0.15,`$ at which time the universe has begun accelerating and all variations in $`\alpha `$ are damped out. Recent deductions of a possible upper limit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha 3\times 10^7`$ at $`z=0.45`$ from nuclear $`\beta `$ decays are potentially more restrictive . However, it must be remembered that both these nuclear limits are derived from a local solar-system environment. In the absence of a theory relating the value of, and rate of change of, $`\alpha `$ on the cosmological scales where quasar lines form to their values in the virialised local inhomogeneities where galaxies, stars and planets form, one should be wary of ignoring the possible corrections that must be introduced when comparing planetary and quasar bounds: the density of the Earth would not, for example, be a good indicator of the density of the universe. Thus, inhomogeneity is an important factor in the study of varying-constant cosmological theories. In this paper we are going to study the evolution of small, gauge-invariant perturbations to the exact Friedmann-Robertson-Walker solutions of the BSBM theory. The results of this investigation will reveal whether one must worry about fast growth of small initial inhomogeneities in the value of $`\alpha `$, which would lead to spatial variations in the value of $`\alpha `$ that might be more significant than the time variations at late times.

Bekenstein  generalised Maxwell’s equations to include varying $`e`$ and this theory was then generalised by Sandvik, Barrow and Magueijo  to include gravitation. In the BSBM varying-$`\alpha `$ theory, the quantities $`c`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ are taken to be constant, while $`e`$ varies as a function of a real scalar field $`\psi ,`$ with $`\alpha =e^2,`$ hence

$`e`$ $`=`$ $`e_0\mathrm{exp}[\psi ]`$ (1)
$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _0\mathrm{exp}[2\psi ]`$ (2)
Our discussion is organised as follows. In section 2 of the paper we give the gauge-invariant perturbation equations following the development used in general relativity. In section 3 we specify the BSBM cosmology with varying $`\alpha `$ and derive the gauge invariant linear perturbation equations which couple the perturbations in the gravitational field to those in $`\alpha `$ and the density. In section 4 we solve for the time-evolution of small inhomogeneities in the fine structure ’constant’ on large and small scales for radiation, dust, and cosmological constant dominated expansion of the background universe. In section 5 we extend these studies into the non-linear regime by means of numerical solutions for flat and closed FRW universes. The evolution of spherical curvature inhomogeneities in density and in $`\alpha `$ is followed by computing the difference in time evolution between the FRW models of different curvature. These studies also reveal for the first time the behaviour of $`\alpha `$ in closed FRW models in the BSBM theory. These results are discussed and conclusions drawn in section 6.

Units will be used in which $`c=\mathrm{}=1`$; Greek indices run form $`0`$ to $`3`$ and Latin indices only over the spatial degrees of freedom $`1`$ to $`3`$. The Einstein summation convention is assumed; $`a(t)`$ is the scale factor of the background Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric and $`G`$ is Newton’s gravitation constant.

## 2 The Background and Perturbations

In what follows we shall assume that the metric of space-time deviates only by a small amount from a homogeneous, isotropic FRW space-time which is defined to be the background universe. In this case, it is convenient to split the metric into two parts: the background metric, and its perturbation. We observe that the universe is nearly homogeneous and isotropic on large scales (metric perturbations to the cosmic microwave background radiation are observed to be small $`10^5`$ $`<<1`$).

The background line element is:

$$ds^2=^{(0)}g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =dt^2a^2(t)\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j=a^2(\eta )(d\eta ^2\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j),$$
(3)
where $`\eta `$ is the conformal time,

$$d\eta =a^1dt.$$

We choose the background metric to be the FRW metric, so

$$\gamma _{ij}=\delta _{ij}[1+\kappa (x^2+y^2+z^2)]^2,$$

where $`\kappa =0,1,1`$ depending on whether the three-dimensional hypersurfaces of constant $`\eta `$ are flat, closed or open. The Einstein equations are:

$$G_\nu ^\mu =R_\nu ^\mu \frac{1}{2}\delta _\nu ^\mu R=8\pi GT_\nu ^\mu ,$$
(4)
where $`R_\nu ^\mu `$ is the Ricci tensor, $`RR_\mu ^\mu `$ is the Ricci scalar and $`T_\nu ^\mu `$ is the total energy-momentum tensor. We shall exploit the fact that the BSBM theory for varying $`\alpha `$ can be expressed as general relativity with a particular linear combination of energy-momentum tensors. For the moment consider the presence of a single energy-momentum tensor. In the next section this will be decomposed appropriately.

For the background metric in equation (3), in conformal time, the Einstein equations reduce to the $`00`$ equation

$$^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}a^2T_0^0\kappa ,$$
(5)
where $`\frac{a^{}}{a}`$ using conformal time, and the $`ii`$ equation:

$$^{}+^2=\frac{4\pi G}{3}a^2T\kappa ,TT_\mu ^\mu $$
(6)
For the background metric (3), the space-space part of the Ricci tensor $`R_j^i`$ is proportional to $`\delta _j^i`$. Thus, for an isotropic background universe, the energy-momentum tensor must also be spatially diagonal, $`T_j^i\delta _j^i`$, in order that the Einstein equations are satisfied. Differentiating (5) with respect to $`\eta `$ and subtracting $`2a^{}`$ we get the continuity equation for matter $`\mathrm{}_\mu T_0^\mu =0`$ :

$$dT_0^0=(4T_0^0T)d\mathrm{ln}a.$$
(7)
We now introduce small perturbations around the FRW background and follow the gauge-invariant approach of Mukhanov . The full line element may be expressed as:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{(0)}g_{\mu \nu }^{}dx^\mu dx^\nu +\delta g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu ,`$ (8)
where $`\delta g_{\mu \nu }`$ describes the perturbation. The full metric has been decoupled into its background parts and perturbation parts:

$`g_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{(0)}g_{\mu \nu }^{}+\delta g_{\mu \nu }.`$ (9)
In general, the metric perturbations can be divided into three distinct types: scalar, vector and tensor. Neither of the vector and tensor perturbations exhibit growing instabilities in dust and radiation universes . Vector perturbations decay kinematically in an expanding universe whereas tensor perturbations lead to gravitational waves that do not couple to the isotropic energy-density and pressure inhomogeneities. However, scalar perturbations may lead to growing inhomogeneities which, in turn, have an important effect on the dynamics of matter and thereby on the time and space variations of the fine structure constant in the BSBM theory. In the linear approximation, scalar, vector and tensor perturbations evolve independently and can be considered separately. In this paper we will consider only the scalar perturbation modes.

The most general form of the scalar metric perturbations is constructed using four scalar quantities which are functions of space and time coordinates:

$`\delta g_{\mu \nu }=\begin{array}{ccccc}& & & & \\ & (\mathrm{}& 2\varphi & B_{|i}& )\mathrm{}\\ & B_{|i}& 2(\chi \gamma _{ij}E_{|ij})\end{array},`$

where $`|i`$ represents the three-dimensional covariant derivative.

From the above equation and eqn. (9), the line element for the background and for the scalar metric perturbations is

$$ds^2=a^2(\eta )\{(1+2\varphi )d\eta ^22B_{|i}dx^id\eta [(12\chi )\gamma _{ij}+2E_{|ij}]dx^idx^j)\}.$$
(10)
### 2.1 Gauge-invariant Variables

Gauge-invariant variables are unchanged under all infinitesimal scalar coordinate transformations, so they are independent of the background coordinates. Such quantities can be constructed out of the four scalar functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`E`$ and $`B`$ . The simplest gauge-invariant linear combinations which span the space of gauge-invariant variables that can be constructed from the metric variables alone are:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi +\frac{[(BE^{})a]^{}}{a},\mathrm{\Psi }=\chi \frac{a}{a^{}}\left(BE^{}\right).$$
(11)
In general, a scalar quantity $`f(\eta ,𝐱)`$ defined in the spacetime can be split into its background value and a perturbation $`f(\eta ,𝐱)=f_0(\eta )+\delta f(\eta ,𝐱)`$. Since, in general, $`\delta f`$ is not gauge invariant, we cannot use this scalar quantity without modification if we want to have gauge-invariant equations. Hence, we consider the following gauge-invariant combination:

$$\delta f^{(gi)}=\delta f+f_0^{}(BE^{}).$$
(12)
The freedom of gauge choice can be used to impose two conditions on the four scalar functions. The longitudinal gauge is defined by the conditions $`E=B=0`$. This gauge choice has the advantage of ruling out the complications of residual gauge modes. Also, in this gauge $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$ coincide with the gauge-invariant variables $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ respectively. In this longitudinal gauge, the metric takes the form:

$$ds^2=a^2(\eta )[(1+2\mathrm{\Phi })d\eta ^2(12\mathrm{\Psi })\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j)],$$

and the gauge invariants $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ become the amplitudes of the metric perturbations in the longitudinal coordinate system. In the case where there are no space-space components in the energy-momentum tensor, so $`T_j^i\delta _j^i`$, we have that $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and there remains only one free metric perturbation variable which is a generalisation of the Newtonian gravitational potential.

## 3 Linear Theory for Cosmological Perturbations

For small perturbations of the metric, the Einstein tensor can be written as $`G_\nu ^\mu =^{(0)}G_\nu ^\mu +\delta G_\nu ^\mu `$, and the energy-momentum tensor can be split in a similar way. The fully perturbed Einstein equations can be obtained for scalar perturbation modes with the line element given by (10). However, these equations are not gauge invariant, since they contain non gauge-invariant quantities. In order to have gauge-invariant equations we need to replace $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$ by the gauge-invariant variables $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`BE^{}`$ and to construct the gauge-invariant equivalents of $`\delta G_\nu ^\mu `$ and $`\delta T_\nu ^\mu `$ we need to rewrite then as :

$`\delta G_0^{(gi)0}=\delta G_0^0+(^{(0)}G_0^0)^{}(BE^{}),`$ (13)
$`\delta G_j^{(gi)i}=\delta G_j^i+(^{(0)}G_j^i)^{}(BE^{}),`$
$`\delta G_i^{(gi)0}=\delta G_i^0+(^{(0)}G_0^0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}^{(0)}G_k^k)(BE^{})_{|i},`$
and analogously for $`\delta T_\nu ^\mu `$,

$$\delta T_0^{(gi)0}=\delta T_0^0+(^{(0)}T_0^0)^{}(BE^{}),$$

$$\delta T_j^{(gi)i}=\delta T_j^i+(^{(0)}T_j^i)^{}(BE^{}),$$

$$\delta T_i^{(gi)0}=\delta T_i^0+(^{(0)}T_0^0\frac{1}{3}^{(0)}T_k^k)(BE^{})_{|i}.$$

The components of the perturbed Einstein equations linearised around small perturbations of the background are $`\delta G_\nu ^{(gi)\mu }=8\pi G\delta T_\nu ^{(gi)\mu }`$:

$`\delta G_0^0=\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Phi }3\mathrm{\Phi }^{}3\mathrm{\Phi }(^2\kappa )=4\pi Ga^2\delta T_0^{(gi)0}`$
$`\delta G_i^0=_i(a\mathrm{\Phi })^{^{}}=4\pi Ga\delta T_i^{(gi)0}`$ (14)
$`\delta G_i^j=\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }+3\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\mathrm{\Phi }(2^{}+^2\kappa )=4\pi Ga^2\delta T_j^{(gi)i}`$
where we have already simplified the equations since the energy-momentum tensor that we will be considering in section 3 has no space-space components and so $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

In order to close our system of equations, we need equations of motion for the matter formulated in a gauge-invariant way. This requires explicit expressions for the energy-momentum tensor and so we must now specify the BSBM theory.

### 3.1 The Model and the Background Equations

#### 3.1.1 The BSBM Theory

The action for the universe in the BSBM theory is given by:

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left(_{grav}+_{matter}+_\psi +_{em}e^{2\psi }\right),$$
(15)
where $`_\psi =\frac{\omega }{2}_\mu \psi ^\mu \psi `$, $`\omega `$ is a coupling constant, $`_{em}=\frac{1}{4}f_{\mu \nu }f^{\mu \nu },`$ and $`\psi `$ was defined in eqn. (1). The gravitational Lagrangian is the usual $`_g=\frac{1}{16\pi G}R`$, with $`R`$ the curvature scalar, and we have defined an auxiliary gauge potential $`a_\mu =ϵA_\mu ,`$ where $`\epsilon (x^\mu )=e/e_0`$ describes change in the electron charge away from a constant reference value $`e_0`$. The field tensor $`f_{\mu \nu }=ϵF_{\mu \nu }=_\mu a_\nu _\nu a_\mu `$, so the covariant derivative takes the usual form, $`D_\mu =_\mu +ie_0a_\mu `$. The dependence on $`ϵ`$ in the Lagrangian then occurs only in the kinetic term for $`ϵ`$ and through the $`F^2=f^2/ϵ^2`$ term.

It was shown in  and  that, in the context of the BSBM model, the homogeneous evolution of $`\psi `$ does not create significant metric perturbations at late times and the cosmological time-evolution of the expansion scale-factor is very well approximated by the usual power-laws found in $`\kappa =0`$ FRW models filled with a perfect fluid.

Therefore, we will assume there are no major modifications in the perturbed spacetime which would lead to changes of the behaviour of the perturbed variables of a perturbed FRW spacetime filled with perfect fluid. That is, we will assume that the energy-density perturbations and the metric potential are the same as in a FRW universe with no variation of $`\alpha `$. Physically, this is to be expected for most of the evolution, although this assumption might break down (along with much else) on approach to initial and final cosmological singularities. It is a reflection of the fact that the changes in $`\alpha `$ have negligible feedback into the changes in the expansion, which are governed to leading order by gravity. The principal effects are those of perturbations in the matter density and expansion rate on the evolution of $`\alpha .`$ This simplification will allow us to write the time and space variations of the scalar field, $`\delta \psi `$, as a functions of $`\rho _m`$, $`\rho _r`$, $`\delta \rho _m`$, $`\delta \rho _r`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\psi `$, where $`\delta \rho _m`$, $`\delta \rho _r`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ will be given by the solutions found in ref.  for universes with no variation of $`\alpha ;`$ the field $`\psi `$ will be given by the solutions found previously in . In order to find an expression for $`\delta \psi `$ in terms of these quantities we need to write the gauge-invariant linearly perturbed Einstein equations for the BSBM model.

#### 3.1.2 The Background Equations

We vary the action (15) with respect to the metric to obtain the generalised Einstein equations:

$$G_\nu ^\mu =8\pi G\left(T_\nu ^{\mathrm{𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟}\mu }+T_\nu ^{\psi \mu }+T_\nu ^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑚}\mu }\right)$$

where $`T_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{mat}}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta (\sqrt{g}_{\mathrm{mat}})}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}`$ is the energy-momentum tensor for perfect-fluid matter fields, and

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{matter}}=(\rho _m+p_m)u_\mu u_\nu p_mg_{\mu \nu },$$

where $`u^\mu `$ $`=\delta _0^\mu `$ is the comoving fluid 4-velocity; $`T_\nu ^{\psi \mu }`$ and $`T_\nu ^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑚}\mu }`$ are the energy-momentum tensors for the kinetic energy of the field $`\psi `$ and the electromagnetic field respectively:

$$T_{\mu \nu }^\psi =\omega _\mu \psi _\nu \psi \frac{\omega }{2}g_{\mu \nu }_\beta \psi ^\beta \psi ,T_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{em}}=F_{\mu \beta }F_\nu ^\beta e^{2\psi }\frac{1}{4}g_{\mu \nu }F_{\sigma \beta }F^{\sigma \beta }e^{2\psi }.$$

Note, the total energy density of the electromagnetic field is the sum of the Coulomb energy density $`\zeta \rho _m`$ and the radiation energy density $`\rho _r`$ , where $`1\zeta 1`$ is the fraction of mass density $`\rho _m`$ of matter in the form of the Coulomb energy. We will then consider $`T_\nu ^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑚}\mu }`$ as a perfect fluid:

$$T_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{em}}=(|\zeta |\rho _m+\rho _r+p_m+p_r)e^{2\psi }u_\mu u_\nu \left(p_m+p_r\right)e^{2\psi }g_{\mu \nu }$$

The propagation equation for $`\psi `$ comes from the variational principle as:

$$_\mu \left[\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }_\nu \psi \right]=\frac{2}{\omega }\sqrt{g}e^{2\psi }_{\mathrm{em}}.$$
(16)
This equation determines how $`e,`$ and hence $`\alpha `$, varies with time. It is clear that $`_{em}`$ vanishes for a sea of pure radiation because $`_{em}=(E^2B^2)/2=0`$. In order to make quantitative predictions we need to know how non-relativistic matter contributes to the right hand side for equation (16), through $`_{em}=\zeta \rho _m`$.

The background equations can now be explicitly obtained:

$`3^2`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi Ga^2\left(\rho _m+\left(\rho _r+|\zeta |\rho _m\right)e^{2\psi }+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2}}a^2\psi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)+a^2\mathrm{\Lambda }3\kappa `$ (17)
$`3^{}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi Ga^2\left(\rho _m\left(1+|\zeta |e^{2\psi }\right)+2\rho _re^{2\psi }+2\omega a^2\psi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)+a^2\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cosmological constant. The equation of motion for the $`\psi `$ field is:

$$2\psi ^{}+\psi ^{\prime \prime }=\frac{2|\zeta |a^2}{\omega }\rho _me^{2\psi }$$
(18)
The conservation equations for the matter fields, $`\rho _r`$ and $`\rho _m`$ respectively, are:

$`\rho _m^{}+3\rho _m`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (19)
$`\rho _r^{}+4\rho _r^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2\psi ^{}\rho _r.`$ (20)
### 3.2 Linear Perturbations

The perturbed components of the total energy-momentum ($`T_{\mu \nu }^{total}=T_{\mu \nu }^{mat}+T_{\mu \nu }^\psi +T_{\mu \nu }^{em}`$) arise from perturbations of the different matter fields which are time and space dependent. In particular, we have $`\rho _m\rho _m+\delta \rho _m`$, $`\rho _r\rho _r+\delta \rho _r`$ and $`\psi \psi +\delta \psi `$. Note also that we have to perturb the fluid 4-velocity field, so we have $`u_iu_i+\delta u_i`$, where $`i`$ $`=1,2,3`$.

In order to have gauge-invariant equations we need to express the perturbed energy-momentum tensor in terms of the gauge-invariant energy density, pressure, scalar field and velocity field perturbations . The gauge invariants $`\delta \rho _m^{(gi)}`$, $`\delta \rho _r^{(gi)}`$ and $`\delta \psi ^{(gi)}`$ are defined in the same way as the gauge-invariant perturbation of a general four-scalar, see equation (11), so:

$$\delta \rho _m^{(gi)}=\delta \rho _m+\rho _m^{}(BE^{}),\delta p^{(gi)}=\delta p+p^{}(BE^{}),\delta \psi ^{(gi)}=\delta \psi +\psi ^{}(BE^{}),$$

where $`\delta p`$ is the perturbed pressure for a specific component and the gauge-invariant three-velocity $`\delta u_i^{(gi)}`$ is given by :

$$\delta u_i^{(gi)}=\delta u_i+a(BE^{})_{|i}.$$

The physical meaning of the quantities which enter the gauge-invariant equations is very simple: they coincide with the corresponding perturbations in the longitudinal gauge. From now on we will drop the superscript $`(gi)`$ since we will always be dealing only with gauge-invariant quantities.

We can now write the gauge-invariant linearly perturbed energy-momentum tensor:

$`\delta T_0^{\mathrm{𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟}0}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta \rho _m,`$ (21)
$`\delta T_i^{\mathrm{𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟}0}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\rho _m+p_m\right)a^1\delta u_i,`$ (22)
$`\delta T_j^{\mathrm{𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟}i}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta p_m\delta _j^i,`$ (23)
$`\delta T_0^{\psi 0}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega a^2\left(\psi ^{}\delta \psi ^{}\psi ^^2\mathrm{\Phi }\right),`$ (24)
$`\delta T_i^{\psi 0}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega a^2\psi ^{}_i\delta \psi ,`$ (25)
$`\delta T_j^{\psi i}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega a^2\left(\psi ^^2\mathrm{\Phi }\psi ^{}\delta \psi ^{}\right)\delta _j^i,`$ (26)
$`\delta T_0^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑚}0}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(|\zeta |\delta \rho _m+\delta \rho _r\right)e^{2\psi }2e^{2\psi }\left(|\zeta |\rho _m+\rho _r\right)\delta \psi ,`$ (27)
$`\delta T_i^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑚}0}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\psi }\left(|\zeta |\rho _m+\rho _r+p_m+p_r\right)a^1\delta u_i,`$ (28)
$`\delta T_j^{\mathrm{𝑒𝑚}i}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2\delta \psi \left(p_m+p_r\right)e^{2\psi }\left(\delta p_m+\delta p_r\right)e^{2\psi }\right)\delta _j^i.`$ (29)
We have assumed there are no anisotropic stresses in the energy-momentum tensors and we have considered only adiabatic perturbations; that is, we consider the pressure perturbations to depend only on the energy-density perturbations. In the dust and radiation cases this means $`p_m=0`$, $`\delta p_m=0`$, or $`p_r=\frac{1}{3}\rho _r`$ and $`\delta p_r=\frac{1}{3}\delta \rho _r`$, respectively.

The fully perturbed gauge–invariant Einstein equations can be obtained from (3) using the expressions above for $`\delta T_\nu ^\mu `$ (21-27). We have

$`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(3^2+3k+4G\pi \omega \psi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)+\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Phi }4G\pi \omega \psi ^{}\delta \psi ^{}3\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=`$
$`4G\pi a^2e^{2\psi }\left[\left(e^{2\psi }+|\zeta |\right)\delta \rho _m+\delta \rho _r2\delta \psi \left(\rho _r+|\zeta |\rho _m\right)\right]`$ (30)
$$\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=4G\pi \omega \psi ^{}\mathrm{}^2\delta \psi \frac{4G\pi }{3}ae^{2\psi }\left[4\rho _r+3\left(e^{2\psi }+|\zeta |\right)\rho _m\right]\mathrm{}\delta u$$

$`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(^2+2^{}k+4G\pi \omega \psi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)+3\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4G\pi }{3}}\left[a^2e^{2\psi }\left(\delta \rho _r2\rho _r\delta \psi \right)+3\omega \psi ^{}\delta \psi ^{}\right]`$ (31)
It is useful to write the perturbed energy-momentum conservation equations for each component:

$$\delta \psi ^{^{\prime \prime }}=\frac{2|\zeta |}{\omega }e^{2\psi }a^2\left[\delta \rho _m+2\rho _m\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\delta \psi \right)\right]2\delta \psi ^{^{}}+\mathrm{}^2\delta \psi +4\psi ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}},$$
(32)
$$\delta \rho _r^{^{}}=\frac{2}{3}\left[\delta \rho _r\left(63\psi ^{}\right)+\rho _r\left(2\mathrm{}\delta u3\delta \psi ^{^{}}6\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}\right)\right],$$
(33)
$$\delta \rho _m^{^{}}=3\delta \rho _m\rho _m\left(\mathrm{}\delta u3\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}\right).$$
(34)
From these expressions it is clear that perturbations in $`\alpha `$ are sourced by perturbations in the dust, but not vice versa. Hence we expect that, in a dust-dominated universe with varying $`\alpha `$, the cold dark matter perturbations will behave as in a dust-dominated universe with no varying $`\alpha `$. Notice however that the same cannot be concluded so easily for a radiation-dominated era, since there is a source term in equation (33) proportional to $`\delta \psi ^{}`$. We expect this term to be negligible at large scales, but that might not be the case on small scales.

The gauge-invariant perturbation for $`\alpha `$ is given by eqn. (1) as

$$\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }=2\delta \psi .$$

From equations (3.2), (3.2), (3.2), using (17) to simplify, we obtain the general form for $`\delta \psi ,`$ the perturbation to the scalar field which drives variations in the fine structure ’constant’, as

$`\delta \psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8G\pi a^2\left(2\rho _r+3|\zeta |\rho _m\right)}}(4G\pi a^2[2(\delta \rho _r4\rho _r\mathrm{\Phi })+3(e^{2\psi }+|\zeta |)`$
$`(\delta \rho _m2\rho _m\mathrm{\Phi })]+3e^{2\psi }[2\mathrm{\Phi }(3^2k4G\pi \omega \psi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Phi }+6\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}+\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{\prime \prime }}])`$
This is a gauge-invariant expression for $`\delta \psi `$, written as a function of the gauge-invariant quantities $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`\delta \rho _m`$, and $`\delta \rho _r`$.

## 4 Evolution of the Perturbations

In a spatially flat universe, $`\kappa =0`$, the general gauge-invariant expression for $`\delta \psi `$ becomes:

$`\delta \psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8G\pi a^2\left(2\rho _r+3|\zeta |\rho _m\right)}}(4G\pi a^2[2(\delta \rho _r4\rho _r\mathrm{\Phi })+3(e^{2\psi }+|\zeta |)`$
$`(\delta \rho _m2\rho _m\mathrm{\Phi })]+3e^{2\psi }[\mathrm{\Phi }(6^28G\pi \omega \psi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Phi }+6\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}+\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{\prime \prime }}]).`$
It was shown in  and  that the cosmological evolution of the metric scale factor is unchanged (up to very small logarithmic corrections) to leading order by the time evolution of $`\psi `$. The dominant effect is that of the evolution of the scale factor on the evolution of $`\psi `$ through its propagation equation.

It is known that perturbations of massless scalar fields, or scalar fields with a very small mass are negligible with respect to perturbations in the matter fields and the gravitational potential. Guided by this, in order to obtain the evolutionary behaviour for $`\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }`$, we will assume that the matter field perturbations, $`\delta \rho _m`$ and $`\delta \rho _r`$, and the metric perturbations, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, are unaffected by the $`\psi `$ perturbations to leading order. We will assume that these three quantities will therefore be the same to this order as they are in a flat FRW universe filled with barotropic matter and a minimally coupled scalar field. These assumptions are valid if the energy density of $`\psi `$ is much smaller than the energy density of the matter fields, so $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ will be driven only by the matter perturbations. If we examine the perturbations in the non-linear regime it is confirmed that $`\frac{\delta \psi }{\psi }\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }`$(see figure (4)).

### 4.1 Radiation-Dominated Universes

In any radiation-dominated era in which the expansion of the universe is dominated by relativistic particles with an equation of state $`p=\frac{1}{3}\rho `$, we can neglect the non-relativistic stresses in the universe, in particular, the cold dark matter and the cosmological constant since $`\rho _r>>\rho _m>>\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to a good approximation. If we assume that $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=0=\kappa `$ and $`\delta \rho _m=0`$, the background equations of motion give the usual conformal time evolution for the scale factor and the energy density of the radiation:

$$\rho _r=\rho _{r_0}a^4e^{2\psi }a=\sqrt{8\pi G\rho _{r_0}}\eta $$

where $`\rho _{r_0}`$ is a constant.

The perturbations in the barotropic matter fluid and the potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ come from the equations (3.2), (3.2). The usual flat FRW solutions with constant $`\alpha `$ are obtained by setting the terms proportional to $`\psi `$ to zero, (3.2). The general solution of these equations can be obtained by expanding the physical quantities in terms of the eigenfunctions of the operator $`\mathrm{}^2`$ (where $`k^2`$ denotes the eigenvalue of this operator) and solving for each mode separately. Resuming the terms, the general solutions of the linearly perturbed equations for the potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the barotropic matter are:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\eta ^3\{\left[w\eta \mathrm{cos}(w\eta )\mathrm{sin}(w\eta )\right]C_1+\left[w\eta \mathrm{sin}(w\eta )+\mathrm{cos}(w\eta )\right]C_2\}e^{i\mathrm{𝐤𝐱}}$$
(37)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho _r}{\rho _r}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\eta ^3}}(C_1\{\eta w[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\eta w\right)^2]\mathrm{cos}(\eta w)+[\left(\eta w\right)^21]\mathrm{sin}(\eta w)\}`$
$`+\{[1\left(\eta w\right)^2]\mathrm{cos}(\eta w)+\eta w[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\eta w\right)^2]\mathrm{sin}(\eta w)\}C_2)e^{i\mathrm{𝐤𝐱}},`$
where we have expanded the general solution in plane waves since we are assuming a spatially flat universe; $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are arbitrary functions of the spatial coordinates; $`k`$ is the wave vector mode and $`w=k/\sqrt{3}`$. Note that these quantities are all expressed in their gauge-invariant format. Finally, to calculate the explicit time dependence of $`\delta \psi `$, we need to use the background solution for $`\psi `$:

$$\psi =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}(8N)+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{log}(\frac{a_0}{2}\eta ^2).$$
(39)
This was found in  and  for a radiation-dominated universe, where $`N=\frac{2\zeta }{\omega }\rho _ma^3>0`$ since $`\zeta <0`$ in the magnetic energy dominated theories considered by BSBM. It is important to notice that in universes with an entropy to baryon ratio ($`S10^9`$) like our own, $`\psi `$ does not experience any growth in time . The constant term on the right-hand side of (39) dominates the solution for $`\psi (\eta )`$ throughout the radiation era. Numerical solutions confirm this freezing in of $`\psi `$, and hence of $`\alpha `$, during the radiation era, .

#### 4.1.1 Large-scale perturbations in a radiation-dominated era

In the long-wavelength limit ($`w\eta <<1`$) where the scale of the perturbation exceeds the Hubble radius, we can neglect spatial gradients. So, in this limit, $`\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }`$ becomes:

$$\delta \psi =\frac{1}{2}\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }\frac{1}{2\eta }e^{i\mathrm{𝐤𝐱}}\mathrm{}^2C_24\pi Gwe^{i\mathrm{𝐤𝐱}}C_2\eta ^3$$

From this expression we can see at that on large scales the inhomogeneous perturbations in $`\alpha `$ will decrease as a power-law in time. This behaviour agrees with the one found in  by other methods.

#### 4.1.2 Small-scale perturbations in a radiation-dominated era

On scales smaller than the Hubble radius ($`w\eta >>1`$) the dominant terms are proportional to $`\mathrm{}^2C_1`$ and $`\mathrm{}^2C_2`$, so the asymptotic behaviour for $`\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }`$ will be:

$`\delta \psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}w\left[\mathrm{cos}(\eta w)\mathrm{}^2C_1+\mathrm{sin}(\eta w)\mathrm{}^2C_2\right]e^{i\mathrm{𝐤𝐱}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\eta }}\left[\mathrm{sin}(\eta w)\mathrm{}^2C_1\mathrm{cos}(\eta w)\mathrm{}^2C_2\right]e^{i\mathrm{𝐤𝐱}}`$
On small scales we can see the perturbations on $`\alpha `$ will be oscillatory. This behaviour is new and does not coincide with the ones found in .

### 4.2 Dust-Dominated Universes

In the case of a flat dust-dominated universe, filled with a $`p=0`$ fluid, we can assume $`\rho _r=\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=0=\kappa `$ and $`\delta \rho _r=0`$. Again, in order to obtain an explicit expression of $`\delta \psi `$ from equation (4), we will assume that the matter-field perturbations, $`\rho _m`$ and $`\delta \rho _m`$, and the metric perturbation, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, are not affected by the $`\psi `$ perturbations to leading order. Thus, we will assume that these functions behave as in a perturbed flat FRW dust universe.

In general, for a flat dust universe we have the following background solutions:

$$\rho _m=\rho _{m_0}a^3,a=\frac{2\pi G\rho _{m_0}}{3}\eta ^2,$$

where $`\rho _{m_0}`$ is constant.

As before, we can calculate the most general gauge-invariant solutions for the energy-momentum perturbations $`\delta \rho _m,`$ and for the potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, assuming that the $`\psi `$ field does not affect them to leading order, so their time dependences are :

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=C_1+C_2\eta ^5$$
(41)
and

$$\frac{\delta \rho _m}{\rho _m}=\frac{1}{6}\left[\left(\eta ^2\mathrm{}^2C_112C_1\right)+\left(\eta ^2\mathrm{}^2C_2+18C_2\right)\eta ^5\right],$$
(42)
where $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are arbitrary functions of the spatial coordinates.

Once again, we need the background solution for $`\psi `$, in order to calculate $`\delta \psi `$ as an explicit function of the conformal time. We use the asymptotic solution

$$\psi =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}[2N\mathrm{log}(\frac{a_m}{6}\eta ^3)],$$

which was found in , as an asymptotic approximation for a dust-dominated universe which is in good agreement with numerical solutions, and where, as above, $`N=\frac{2\zeta }{\omega }\rho _ma^3>0`$ is a constant.

#### 4.2.1 Large-scale perturbations in a dust-dominated era

On scales larger than the Hubble radius we can neglect the terms proportional to $`_iC_1`$,$`\mathrm{}^2C_1`$, $`\mathrm{}^2C_2`$ and $`_iC_2`$; so in this limit we have the following asymptotic behaviour for the non-decaying mode:

$$\delta \psi =\frac{1}{2}\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }2C_1\frac{2\pi G\rho _{m_0}}{\mathrm{ln}(\eta )}C_1$$
(43)
Therefore, on large scales the inhomogeneous perturbations of $`\alpha `$ will not grow in time by gravitational instability. This behaviour can be understood with reference to the general evolution equation for $`\psi `$ in Friedmann universes. On large scales, where spatial gradients in $`\psi `$ can be neglected with respect to its time derivatives, we may view inhomogeneities in density and in $`\psi `$ as if they are separate Friedmann universes of non-zero curvature ($`\kappa 0`$). The growth of inhomogeneity can be deduced by comparing the evolution of $`\alpha `$ in the $`\kappa 0`$ universes with those in the $`\kappa =0`$ model (a more detailed numerical study of this model will be presented in section 5 below). In effect, this uses the Birkhoff-Newton property of gravitational fields with spherical symmetry. We note that the (18) evolution equation has the simple property that $`\psi `$ cannot have a maximum because $`\ddot{\psi }>0`$ when $`\dot{\psi }>0`$ because $`N>0`$ , . This result holds irrespective of the value of $`\kappa 0.`$ Thus $`\psi `$ and $`\alpha `$ will continue their slow increase in both over-densities, under-densities and the flat background until we reach scales small enough for spatial derivative to come significantly into play. This has the important consequence that we do not expect large spatial inhomogeneities in $`\alpha `$ to have developed. However, it should be noted that the sensitivity of the observations of varying-$`\alpha `$ effects in quasar spectra is sufficient to discern variations in redshift space smaller than $`O(10^5)`$, which is of the same order as the amplitude of density fluctuation on very large scales in the universe.

#### 4.2.2 Small-scale perturbations in a dust-dominated era

On scales smaller than the Hubble radius the dominant terms are those proportional to $`\mathrm{}^2C_1`$ and $`\mathrm{}^2C_2`$, so the asymptotic behaviour for the growing mode will be:

$$\delta \psi \frac{1}{12}\eta ^2\mathrm{}^2C_1$$
(44)
This also shows that perturbations of $`\alpha `$ will grow on small scales. This result is a product of the assumption that on small scales the universe can be considered as being filled by an homogeneous and isotropic fluid, however we know this is not true below the scale where gravitational clustering becomes non-linear. On these small scales we also have to worry about new consequences of inhomogeneity which have not been included in our analysis. For example, the constant parameter $`N=\frac{2\zeta }{\omega }\rho _ma^3\zeta \mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ will vary in space due to inhomogeneity in the background matter density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and in the dark matter parameter $`1\zeta 1`$. We have assumed that $`\zeta <0`$ for the cold dark matter on large scales in order for the cosmological consequences of time-varying $`\alpha `$ to be a small perturbation to the standard cosmological dynamics. But on small scales the dark matter will be baryonic in nature and so $`\zeta >0`$ there. Hence, we expect $`\zeta `$ to be significantly scale dependent as we go to small scales. This behaviour will be investigated elsewhere along with the problem of the clustering of inhomogeneities in $`\rho `$ and $`\alpha `$.

### 4.3 Accelerated Expansion

In an era of accelerated expansion, $`\ddot{a}>0`$, as would arise during inflation or during a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$\- or quintessence-dominated epoch at late times, we can consider the scale factor to evolve as a power-law of the conformal time as $`a=\eta ^n`$, where $`n1`$ and $`\eta `$ runs from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`0`$. The case of $`a=\eta ^1`$ corresponds to a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated epoch.

As in the previous sections, we will assume that all the other matter components which fill the universe will behave exactly as in a perturbed FRW universe with no variations in $`\alpha `$. We also assume that neither of the dust and radiation perturbations will affect the behaviour and evolution of $`\delta \psi `$, and that these perturbations are negligible with respect to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ stress driving the expansion, so we will consider $`\delta \rho _m=0`$ and $`\delta \rho _r=0`$.

It was found in  and  that in universe which is undergoing accelerated expansion, the asymptotic solution for $`\psi `$ is a constant, so we will assume that $`\psi =\psi _{\mathrm{}}`$, in the background, where $`\psi _{\mathrm{}}`$ is a constant. Thus, equations (3.2) and (3.2) become:

$$\frac{8G\pi |\zeta |\delta \psi \rho _m}{e^{2\psi _{\mathrm{}}}\eta ^{2n}}+\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{3n\left(\eta \mathrm{\Phi }n\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}\right)}{\eta ^2}=0$$

$$n\left(2+n\right)\mathrm{\Phi }+\eta \left(\eta \mathrm{\Phi }^{^{\prime \prime }}3n\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{}}\right)=0$$

where we have also considered $`\rho _r=0`$, but $`\rho _m0`$ because of the coupling with $`\psi `$ in the equation of motion of the scalar field. Note that if we had also set $`\rho _m=0`$ here, we would have imposed a no $`\alpha `$-variation condition: $`\delta \psi =0`$.

Integrating the last equation, we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\eta ^{\frac{3n\sqrt{1+n\left(5n2\right)}}{2}}\left(\sqrt{\eta }C_1+\eta ^{\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{1+n\left(5n2\right)}}C_2\right)$$

where $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are arbitrary functions of the spatial coordinates. Note that since $`n>1`$ in accelerating universes we see that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ will decay in time as $`\eta 0`$. From this solution for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, we obtain:

$`\delta \psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }}={\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\psi _{\mathrm{}}}}{16G\rho _{m_0}\pi |\zeta |}}\eta ^{\frac{3+n\sqrt{1+n\left(2+5n\right)}}{2}}[3n(1+n\sqrt{1+n\left(5n2\right)})C_1+`$
$`3n(1+n+\sqrt{1+n\left(5n2\right)})\eta ^{\sqrt{1+n\left(5n2\right)}}C_2+2\eta ^2\mathrm{}^2C_1+2\eta ^{2+\sqrt{1+n\left(5n2\right)}}\mathrm{}^2C_2]`$
which is a decaying function of the conformal time when $`n>1`$ and a constant when $`n=1`$. Thus, in accord with the expectations of the cosmic no hair theorem, the universe approaches the FRW model and $`\alpha `$ is asymptotically constant at late times.

#### 4.3.1 Large-scale perturbations during accelerated expansion

On scales larger than the Hubble radius we can neglect the terms proportional to the spatial derivatives; so in this limit we have the following asymptotic behaviour:

$`\delta \psi `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3e^{2\psi _{\mathrm{}}}n}{16G\rho _{m_0}\pi |\zeta |}}\eta ^{\frac{n3\sqrt{1+n\left(5n2\right)}}{2}}[(1+n\sqrt{1+n\left(5n2\right)})C_1`$ (46)
$`+(1+n+\sqrt{1+n\left(5n2\right)})\eta ^{\sqrt{1+n\left(5n2\right)}}C_2]`$
Therefore, as expected, on large scales during an accelerated era inhomogeneities in $`\alpha `$ will decrease on time when $`n>1`$ and will be a constant when $`n=1`$.

#### 4.3.2 Small-scale perturbations during accelerated expansion

On scales smaller than the Hubble radius the dominant terms are the ones proportional to $`\mathrm{}^2C_1`$ and $`\mathrm{}^2C_2`$, so the asymptotic behaviour will be

$$\delta \psi \frac{e^{2\psi _{\mathrm{}}}}{8G\rho _{m_0}\pi |\zeta |}\eta ^{\frac{1+n\sqrt{1+n\left(5n2\right)}}{2}}\left[\mathrm{}^2C_1+\eta ^{\sqrt{1+n\left(5n2\right)}}\mathrm{}^2C_2\right]$$
(47)
This confirms that perturbations of $`\alpha `$, as $`\eta 0`$, will decrease on small scales when $`n>1`$ and will be constant when $`n=1`$.

### 4.4  <br>Summary of behaviour

In Table 1 we summarise the time evolution of small inhomogeneities in $`\alpha `$ found under different conditions in this section.

| Universal equation of state | Time Evolution of the perturbations $`\delta \psi =`$$`\frac{1}{2}\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }`$ | |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | Large scales | Small scales |
| Radiation-dominated epoch | Decaying | Oscillatory |
| $`p=\frac{1}{3}\rho ,a\eta `$ |  |  |
| Dust-dominated epoch | Constant | Growing |
| $`p=0,a\eta ^2`$ |  |  |
| Accelerated expn $`a\eta ^n,n\mathit{1}`$ |  |  |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated | Constant | Constant |
| $`p=\rho ,a\eta ^1`$ |  |  |
| Power-law acceleration, $`n>1`$ | Decaying | Decaying |
| $`p=w\rho ,w<0,a\eta ^n`$ |  |  |

Table 1: Time evolution of small inhomogeneities in $`\alpha .`$

## 5 The Non-Linear Regime

In order to study the evolution of inhomogeneities in $`\alpha `$ beyond the domain of linear perturbation theory we need to use a different model. The simplest approach is to confine attention to spherically symmetric inhomogeneities. This will be done by comparing the solution of the BSBM theory for $`\alpha `$ in a closed ($`\kappa =1`$) universe, with the solution for $`\alpha `$ in a flat ($`\kappa =0`$) universe. We are assuming a Birkhoff property for the BSBM theory so that we can treat the perturbation as an independent closed universe. This is a standard technique in general relativity which was first used by Lemaître .

We define the alpha ’over-density perturbation’ (which is not necessarily small) by

$$\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }\frac{\alpha _{\kappa =1}\alpha _{\kappa =0}}{\alpha _{\kappa =0}}$$

where $`\alpha _\kappa `$ is the solution of equation (16) for a universe with curvature $`\kappa `$.

### 5.1 Radiation-dominated Era

The scale factor for a radiation-dominated closed ($`\kappa =1`$) FRW universe is given by $`a=\mathrm{sin}(\eta )`$; for a flat ($`\kappa =0`$) FRW universe the normalised scale factor is given by $`a=\eta `$.

The evolution of $`\alpha `$ can be seen in Figure 1 along with the evolution of $`a`$ for $`\kappa =1,0`$. As expected, we can see there is no difference in the evolution of $`\alpha `$ at early times and $`\alpha \eta `$ as it was found in . When the difference between the scale factors of the two universes becomes significant, the behaviour of $`\alpha _{\kappa =1}`$ begins to deviate from that of $`\alpha _{\kappa =0}`$. We see that $`\alpha _{\kappa =1}`$ clearly grows faster than $`\alpha _{\kappa =0}`$. The difference in the growth rates become very significant near the expansion maximum of the bound region ($`\eta \pi `$). However, after this time our assumption that the background is not affected by changes of $`\psi `$ in the cosmological equations that describe the background universe breaks down, since the kinetic energy of the scalar field will diverge and can no longer be neglected in the Friedmann equation. We expect the behaviour near the final singularity to be similar to the kinetic-dominated evolution near the initial singularity discussed in ref. .

From Figure 2 we see that the variations in $`\alpha `$ will become increasingly important as $`\eta `$ approaches the second singularity. Notice that although there is a considerable growth in the perturbations in $`\alpha `$, when we compare them with the perturbations in the radiation, they are not as significant as can be observed from the evolution of the ratio $`\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }/\frac{\delta \rho _r}{\rho _r}`$ versus $`\eta `$ in Figure 2.

### 5.2 Dust-dominated Era

During the dust-dominated phase of a closed universe ($`\kappa =1`$) the normalised scale factor is given by $`a=2\left(1\mathrm{cos}(\eta )\right)`$, while for a flat universe ($`\kappa =0`$) the normalised scale factor is given by $`a=\eta ^2`$. Integrating equation (16) for both cases we obtain the evolution of $`\alpha `$ for both cases.

The evolution of $`\alpha (\eta )`$ can be seen in Figure 3 along with the evolution of $`a(\eta )`$ for $`\kappa =1,0`$. As in the radiation case, we can see there is little difference in the evolution of $`\alpha `$ at early times, since the scale factor for the closed model evolves very similarly to the flat one for $`\eta <<1`$ and $`\alpha \mathrm{ln}(\eta )`$. The differences between $`\alpha _{\kappa =1}`$ and $`\alpha _{\kappa =0}`$ cases start to appear when $`\eta 1`$, when the nonlinear regime commences. These differences become more accentuated near the second singularity, but once again this is the region where our approximations break down.

Notice that although there is a considerable growth in the perturbations in $`\alpha `$, when we compare them with the perturbations in the cold dark matter, they are not as significant as can be observed from the evolution of $`\mathrm{log}(\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha })`$ and $`\mathrm{log}(\frac{\delta \rho _m}{\rho _m})`$ $`vs.`$ $`\mathrm{log}(\eta )`$ in Figure 4. In this case perturbations in $`\alpha `$ are even less significant than in the radiation case. We note that the fact that the linear regime is a very good approximation at early times, since as can be seen from Figure 4, $`\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }`$ tracks $`\frac{\delta \rho _m}{\rho _m}t^{2/3}`$ at early times. From the detail of Figure 4 we see that variations in the cold dark matter will start to occur before than variations in $`\alpha `$, and $`\frac{\delta \rho _m}{\rho _m}`$ is at least three orders of magnitude bigger than $`\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }`$.

## 6 Conclusions

By applying the gauge-invariant formalism of ref.  to the simple BSBM theory of varying $`\alpha `$ we have determined the evolution of small inhomogeneities in $`\delta \alpha /\alpha `$ in the presence of small adiabatic density inhomogeneities. To leading order, the evolution of the perturbations to the expansion dynamics and the matter and radiation content of the universe behave as in cosmological models with constant $`\alpha `$ and we can to determine the behaviour of small inhomogeneities in $`\delta \alpha /\alpha `$ in the gravitational fields created by the density and metric perturbations (see also refs.  and ).

In a flat radiation-dominated universe we find that inhomogeneous perturbations in $`\alpha `$ will decrease on large scales while on scales smaller than the Hubble radius they will undergo bounded oscillations. In reality, we expect dissipation of the adiabatic fluctuations to occur by Silk damping and small-scale fluctuations in $`\alpha `$ will also undergo decay as their driving terms damp out. However, while the exact solution for the evolution of $`\alpha `$ is a linear sum of a constant and a slow power-law growth the power-law evolution does not become dominant by the end of the radiation era in universes like our own with entropy per baryon $`O(10^9).`$

In a flat dust-dominated universe small inhomogeneities in $`\alpha `$ will become constant on large scales at late times while on small scales they will increase as $`t^{2/3}`$. In reality, the small-scale evolution will be made more complicated by the breakdown of the assumptions underlying the perturbation analysis and the development of local deviations from the FRW behaviour.

In an accelerated phase of our universe, as is the case for an early inflationary epoch, or during a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$\- or quintessence-dominated late phase of evolution, we show that inhomogeneous perturbations in $`\alpha `$ will decrease on all scales. This result complements the earlier discovery , , that $`\alpha `$ tends to a constant with exponential rapidity in Friedmann universes that become dominated by a cosmological vacuum stress. Any pre-existing inhomogeneities will be frozen in but their scale will be exponentially increased by the de Sitter expansion.

These perturbative results are quite good approximations when we consider large scales, but are expected to break down when extended to small scales, where non-linear effects come into play and local deviations from isotropy and homogeneity of the matter content are significant. We note that the background solutions for $`\psi `$, about which we have linearised the perturbations of the Einstein equations, are solutions which describe the time evolution of $`\psi `$ on a ’standard’ FRW background. Our neglect of the back-reaction of the $`\psi `$ perturbations on the background expansion dynamics is a good approximation up to logarithmic corrections.

When we examined the non-linear evolution of spherical inhomogeneities by means of a comparative numerical study of flat and closed Friedmann models we found that perturbations in $`\alpha `$ remain almost negligible with respect to perturbations in the fluid that dominates the energy density of the universe at the same epoch. Comparing the flat with the closed solution for $`\alpha `$, we concluded that in both the cases of a radiation or dust-dominated epoch, $`\alpha `$ will ’feel’ the change of behaviour in the scale factor, and the perturbations $`\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }`$ will grow in time. The early-time behaviour of the non-linear solutions confirms the linear behaviour found in section 4. In particular$`\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }`$ changes in proportion to $`\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }`$ at early times.

We have provided a detailed analysis of the behaviour of inhomogeneous perturbations in $`\alpha `$ and its time variation on large scales under the assumption that the defining constant of the BSBM theory, $`\zeta `$, is constant and negative in sign. In reality this assumption will break down on small scales. The negativity of the effective value of $`\zeta `$ requires that the cold dark matter is dominated by the magnetic rather than the electric field energy (see also the discussion of ref  and by Bekenstein ). However, on sufficiently small scales the dark matter will become dominated by baryons and the sign of the effective $`\zeta `$ will have to change sign. Overall, there will also be a gradient in the value of $`\left|\zeta \right|`$ reflecting the scale dependence of the relative contribution of dark matter to the total density of the universe. We have not included these effects in the present analysis. They would need to be included in any detailed analysis of the small-scale behaviour of inhomogeneities in $`\alpha .`$ This is an important challenge for future work because it would enable the quasar data on varying $`\alpha `$ to be compared directly with the limits from the Oklo natural reactor  and Rhenium-Osmium abundances in meteorites . At present the relation between the cosmological and geonuclear evidences is unclear because the latter are derived from physical processes occurring within the cosmologically non-evolving solar system environment.

Variations in $`\alpha `$ also affect the cosmic microwave background radiation spectrum and anisotropy in different ways, but the effects must be disentangled from allowed changes in other cosmological parameters that can contribute similar effects. These changes in the microwave background with $`\alpha `$ left as a free constant parameter were analysed in  using the new WMAP data. They are far less sensitive that the many-multiplet analyses of quasars at $`z=0.53`$ , although they derive from higher redshifts, $`z<1100`$. These studies can accommodate constant and varying $`\alpha `$ but up to a level that would be too large to be consistent with the quasar data and the slow time-evolution of the theory with time-varying $`\alpha `$ described in this paper.

Acknowledgements DFM would like to thank P. Ferreira, K. Moodley and C. Skordis for hospitality at the Oxford University Physics Department during the time when part of this article was written and for discussions. DFM was partially supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, through the research grant BD/15981/98 and by Fundação Calouste Gulbênkian, through the research grant Proc.50096. We would like to thank J. Magueijo, M. Murphy, H. Sandvik, and J. Webb for discussions.


format: text

text:
# The Power Set FunctionPartially supported by the Isreal Science Foundation.

## 1. Introduction

One of the central topics of Set Theory since Cantor was the study of the power function . The basic problem is to determine all the possible values of $`2^\kappa `$ for a cardinal $`\kappa `$. Paul Cohen  proved the independence of the Continuum Hypothesis and invented the method of forcing. Shortly after, Easton  building on Cohen’s results showed the function $`\kappa 2^\kappa `$, for regular $`\kappa `$, can behave in any prescribed way consistent with König’s Theorem. This reduces the study to singular cardinals. It turned out that the situation with powers of singular cardinals is much more involved. Thus, for example, a remarkable theorem of Silver  states that a singular cardinal of uncountable cofinality cannot be first to violate GCH. The Singular Cardinal Problem is the problem of finding a complete set of rules describing the behavior of the power function on singular cardinals. There are three main tools for dealing with the problem: $`pcf`$-theory, inner models theory and forcing involving large cardinals.

## 2. Classical results and basic definitions

In 1938 Gödel proved the consistency of the Axiom of Choice (AC) and the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis (GCH) with the rest axioms of set theory. In 1963 Cohen proved the independence of AC and GCH. He showed, in particular, that $`2^\mathrm{}_0`$ can be arbitrary large. Shortly after Solovay proved that $`2^\mathrm{}_0`$ can take any value $`\lambda `$ with $`cf(\lambda )>\mathrm{}_0`$. The $`cofinality`$ of a limit ordinal $`\alpha `$ ($`cf(\alpha )`$) is the least ordinal $`\beta \alpha `$ so that there is a function $`f:\beta \alpha `$ with $`rng(f)`$ unbounded in $`\alpha `$. A cardinal $`\kappa `$ is called a $`regular`$ if $`\kappa =cf(\kappa )`$. Otherwise a cardinal is called a $`singular`$ cardinal. Thus, for example, $`\mathrm{}_8`$ is regular and $`\mathrm{}_\omega `$ is singular of cofinality $`\omega `$.

By a result of Easton , if we restrict ourselves to regular cardinals, then every class function $`F:RegularsCardinals`$ $`satisfying`$

(a) $`\kappa \lambda `$ $`implies`$ $`F(\kappa )F(\lambda )`$

(b) $`cf(F(\kappa )>\kappa `$ ( König’s Theorem)

can be realized as a power function in a generic extension.

From this point we restrict ourselves to singular cardinals.

## 3. Restrictions on the power of singular cardinals

The Singular Cardinal Problem (SCP) is the problem of finding a complete set of rules describing the behavior of the power function on singular cardinals. For singular cardinals there are more limitations. Thus

(c) (Bukovsky - Hechler) If $`\kappa `$ is a singular and there is $`\gamma _0<\kappa `$ such that $`2^\gamma =2^{\gamma _0}`$ for every $`\gamma ,\gamma \gamma <\kappa `$ , then $`2^\kappa =2^{\gamma _0}`$.

(d) (Silver) If $`\kappa `$ is a singular strong limit cardinal of uncountable cofinality and $`2^\kappa >\kappa ^+`$ then $`\{\alpha <\kappa |2^\alpha >\alpha ^+\}`$ contains a closed unbounded subset of $`\kappa `$.

A set $`C\kappa `$ is called a $`closed`$ $`unbounded`$ subset of $`\kappa `$ iff

(1) $`\alpha <\kappa \beta C(\beta >\alpha )`$ ($`unbounded`$)

(2) $`\alpha <\kappa (C\alpha \varphi sup(C\alpha )C)`$ ($`closed`$).

Subsets of $`\kappa `$ containing a closed unbounded set form a filter over $`\kappa `$ which is $`\kappa `$ complete. A positive for this filter sets are called $`stationry`$.

(e) (Galvin - Hajnal, Shelah) If $`\mathrm{}_\delta `$ is strong limit and $`\delta <\mathrm{}_\delta `$ then $`2^\mathrm{}_\delta <\mathrm{}_{2^{|\delta |^+}}`$

(f) (Shelah) It is possible to replace $`2^{|\delta |^+}`$ in (e) by $`|\delta |^{+4}`$.

(g) (Shelah) Let $`\mathrm{}_\delta `$ be the $`\omega _1`$ -th fixed point of the $`\mathrm{}`$ \- function. If it is a strong limit , then $`2^\mathrm{}_\delta <min((2^{\omega _1})^+`$ -fixed point, $`\omega _4`$ -th fixed point).

A cardinal $`\kappa `$ is called a $`fixed`$ $`point`$ of the $`\mathrm{}`$ function if $`\kappa =\mathrm{}_\kappa `$.

It is unknown if $`4`$ in (f) and in (g) can be reduced or just replaced by $`1`$. One of the major questions in Cardinal Arithmetic asks if $`2^\mathrm{}_\omega `$ can be bigger than $`\mathrm{}_{\omega _1}`$ provided it is a strong limit. We refer to the books by Jech  and by Shelah  for the proofs of the above results.

## 4. Inner models and large cardinals

There are other restrictions which depend on large cardinals. Thus the celebrated Covering Theorem of Jensen  implies that for every singular strong limit cardinal $`\kappa `$ $`2^\kappa =\kappa ^+`$, provided the universe is close to Gödel’s model $`L`$ ( precisely, if $`o\mathrm{\#}`$ does not exist, or, equivalently , there is no elementary embedding from $`L`$ into $`L`$). On the other hand, using large cardinals (initially supercompact cardinals were used ) it is possible to have the following.

(Prikry-Silver, see ):

$`\kappa `$ is a strong limit of cofinality $`\omega `$ and $`2^\kappa >\kappa ^+`$.

(Magidor ,,):

(1) the same with $`\kappa `$ of any uncountable cofinality.

(2) the same with $`\kappa =\mathrm{}_\omega `$.

So, the answer to SCP may depend on presence of particular large cardinals. Hence, it is reasonable to study the possibilities for the power function level by level according to existence of particular large cardinals. There are generalizations of the Gödel model $`L`$ which may include bigger and bigger large cardinals, have nice combinatorial properties, satisfy GCH and are invariant under set forcing extensions. This models are called $`Core`$ $`Models`$. We refer to the book by Zeman  for a recent account on this fundamental results.

The Singular Cardinals Problem can now be reformulated as follows:

Given a core model $`K`$ with certain large cardinals. Which functions can be realized in extensions of $`K`$ as power set functions , i.e. let $`F:OrdOrd`$ be a class function in $`K`$, is there an extension (generic) of $`K`$ satisfying $`2^\mathrm{}_\alpha =\mathrm{}_{F(\alpha )}`$ for all ordinals $`\alpha `$?

We will need few definitions.

An uncountable cardinal $`\kappa `$ is called a $`measurable`$ cardinal iff there is $`\mu :P(\kappa )`$ $`\{0,1\}`$ such that

(1) $`\alpha <\kappa `$ $`\mu (\{\alpha \})=0`$.

(2) $`\mu (\kappa )=1`$.

(3) $`AB\mu (A)\mu (B)`$.

(4) $`\delta <\kappa `$ $``$ $`\{A_\nu |\nu <\delta \}`$ subsets of $`\kappa `$ with $`\mu (A_\nu )=0`$ $`\mu (`$ $`A_\nu |\nu <\delta \})=0`$.

If $`\kappa `$ is a measurable, then it is possible always to find $`\mu `$ with an additional property called $`normality`$:

(5) If $`\mu (A)=1`$ and $`f:A\kappa ,f(\alpha )<\alpha `$ then there is a subset of $`A`$ of measure one on which $`f`$ is constant. Further by measure we shall mean a normal measure, i.e. one satisfying (1)–(5). A cardinal $`\kappa `$ has the $`Mitchell`$ $`order`$ $`1(o(\kappa )1)`$ iff $`\kappa `$ is a measurable. A cardinal $`\kappa `$ has the $`Mitchell`$ $`order`$ $`2`$ ($`o(\kappa )2`$) iff there is a measure over $`\kappa `$ concentrating on measurable cardinals, i.e. $`\mu (\{\alpha <\kappa |o(\alpha )1\})=1.`$

In a similar fashion we can continue further , but up to $`\kappa ^{++}`$ only. Just the total number of ultrafilters over $`\kappa `$ under GCH is $`\kappa ^{++}`$. In order to continue above this point , directed systems of ultrafilters called extenders are used. This way we can reach $`\kappa `$ with $`o(\kappa )=Ord`$. Such $`\kappa `$ is called a $`strong`$ $`cardinal`$. Core models are well developed to the level of strong cardinal and much further. Almost all known consistency results on the Singular Cardinals Problem require large cardinals below the level of a strong cardinal.

## 5. Finite gaps

By results of Jensen , Dodd- Jensen , Mitchell , Shelah  and Gitik  nothing interesting in sense of SCP happens bellow the level of $`o(\kappa )=\kappa ^{++}`$. If there is $`n<\omega `$ such that for every $`\alpha ,o(\alpha )\alpha ^{+n}`$, then we have the following additional restrictions:

(1) (Gitik-Mitchell  ) If $`\kappa `$ is a singular strong limit and $`2^\kappa =\kappa ^{+m}`$ for some $`m>1`$, then, in $`K,o(\kappa )\kappa ^{+m}`$. In particular, $`mn`$.

(2) If $`\kappa `$ is a singular cardinal of uncountable cofinality and for some $`m,1m<\omega `$ $`\{\alpha <\kappa |2^\alpha =\alpha ^{+m}\}`$ is stationry, then $`\{\alpha <\kappa |2^\alpha =\alpha ^{+m}\}`$ contains a closed unbounded subset of $`\kappa `$.

By results of Merimovich  it looks like this are the only restrictions.

## 6. Uncountable cofinality case

Assume only that there is no inner model with a strong cardinal. Then we have the following restrictions:

(1) If $`\kappa `$ is a singular strong limit cardinal of uncountable cofinality $`\delta `$ and $`2^\kappa \lambda >\kappa ^+`$ , where $`\lambda `$ is not the successor of a cardinal of cofinality less than $`\kappa `$, then $`o(\kappa )\lambda +\delta `$, if $`\delta >\omega _1`$ or $`o(\kappa )\lambda `$, if $`\delta =\omega _1`$.

(2) Let $`\kappa `$ be a singular strong limit cardinal of uncountable cofinality $`\delta `$ and let $`\tau <\delta `$. If $`A=\{\alpha <\kappa |cf\alpha >\omega ,2^\alpha =\alpha ^{+\tau }\}`$ is stationry, then $`A`$ contains a closed unbounded subset of $`\kappa `$.

(3) If $`\delta <\mathrm{}_\delta ,\mathrm{}_\delta `$ strong limit then $`2^\mathrm{}_\delta <\mathrm{}_{|\delta |^+}`$

(This was improved recently by R.Schindler  to many Woodin cardinals).

(4) Let $`\mathrm{}_\delta `$ be the $`\omega _1`$ -th fixed point of the $`\mathrm{}`$-function. If it is a strong limit cardinal then $`2^\mathrm{}_\delta <\omega _2`$ -th fixed point.

(5) If $`a`$ is an uncountable set of regular cardinals with $`min(a)>2^{|a|^++\mathrm{}_2}`$, then $`|pcf(a)|=|a|`$, where $`pcf(a)=\{cf(\mathrm{\Pi }a/D)|D`$ is an ultrafilter over $`a\}.`$

It is a major problem of Cardinal Arithmetic if it is possible to have a set of regular cardinals $`a`$ with $`min(a)>|a|`$ such that $`|pcf(a)|>|a|`$ . The results above were proved in Gitik-Mitchell , and in . It is unknown if there is no further restrictions in this case (i.e. singulars of uncountable cofinality under the assumption that there is no inner model with a strong cardinal). Some local cases were checked by Segal  and Merimovich .

## 7. Countable cofinality case

In this section we revue some more recent results dealing with countable cofinality. First suppose that

$`(n<\omega \alpha `$ $`o(\alpha )=\alpha ^{+n})`$, but $`\neg (\alpha `$ $`o(\alpha )=\alpha ^{+\omega })`$.

Then the following holds: Let $`\kappa `$ be a cardinal of countable cofinality such that for every $`n<\omega `$ $`\{\alpha <\kappa |o(\alpha )\alpha ^{+n}\}`$ is unbounded in $`\kappa `$. Then for every $`\lambda \kappa ^+`$ there is a cardinal preserving generic extension satisfying “$`\kappa `$ is a strong limit and $`2^\kappa \lambda `$ ”. So the gap between a singular and its power can already be arbitrary large . But by :

If $`2^\kappa \kappa ^{+\delta }`$ for $`\delta \omega _1`$, then GCH cannot hold below $`\kappa `$.

(Actually , GCH can hold if the gap is at most countable .)

We do not know if “pcf (a)uncountable for a countable $`a`$” is stronger than the assumption above. If we require also GCH below, then it is.

Once one likes to have uncountable gaps between a singular cardinal and its power together with GCH below , then the following results provide this and are sharp. The proofs are spread through papers , , .

Suppose that $`\kappa >\delta \mathrm{}_0,\delta `$ is a cardinal, $`2^\kappa \kappa ^{+\delta },cf\kappa =\mathrm{}_0`$ and GCH below $`\kappa `$. Then

(i) $`cf\delta =\mathrm{}_0`$ implies (that in the core model) for every $`\tau <\delta `$ $`\{\alpha <\kappa |o(\alpha )\alpha ^{+\tau }\}`$ is unbounded in $`\kappa `$.

(ii) $`cf\delta >\mathrm{}_0`$ implies (in the core model) $`o(\kappa )\kappa ^{+\delta +1}+1`$ or $`\{\alpha <\kappa |o(\alpha )\alpha ^{+\delta +1}\}`$ is unbounded in $`\kappa `$.

Finally let us consider the following large cardinal: $`\kappa `$ is singular of cofinality $`\omega `$ and for every $`\tau <\kappa `$ $`\{\alpha <\kappa |o(\alpha )\alpha ^{+\tau }\}`$ is unbounded in $`\kappa `$.

Under this assumption it is possible to blow up the power of $`\kappa `$ arbitrary high preserving GCH below $`\kappa `$. Also, it is possible to turn $`\kappa `$ into the first fixed point of the $`\mathrm{}`$ function, see . This answers Question ($`\gamma `$) from the Shelah’s book on cardinal arithmetic . What are the possibilities for the power function under the assumption above? First in order to be able to deal with cardinals above $`\kappa `$, let us replace it by a global one:

For every $`\tau `$ there is $`\alpha `$ $`o(\alpha )\alpha ^{+\tau }`$.

We do not know the status of “$`pcf`$ of a countable set uncountable”, but other limitations like

(1) $`\mathrm{}_\omega `$ strong limit implies $`2^\mathrm{}_\omega <\mathrm{}_{\omega _1}`$

(2) If $`\kappa `$ is a singular of uncountable cofinality then either $`\{\alpha <\kappa |2^\alpha \alpha ^+\}`$ $`or`$ $`\{\alpha <\kappa |2^\alpha >\alpha ^+\}`$ contains a closed unbounded subset of $`\kappa `$

are true below strong cardinal.

By recent result  the negation of the second assumption implies initially unrelated statement - Projective Determinacy. We refer to the books by A. Kanamori  and H. Woodin  on this subject. We conjecture that there is no other limitations, i.e. (1) with $`\mathrm{}_\omega `$ replaced by $`\mathrm{}_\delta `$ for $`\delta <\mathrm{}_\delta `$, (2) and the classical ones.

## 8. One idea

Let us conclude with a sketch of one basic idea which is crucial for the forcing constructions in the countable cofinality case. Let $`U`$ be a $`\kappa `$ complete nontrivial ultrafilter over $`\kappa `$ (say, in $`K`$). A sequence $`\delta _n|n<\omega `$ is called a $`Prikry`$ $`sequence`$ for $`U`$ iff for each $`AU`$ $`n_0nn_0`$ $`\delta _nA`$. Suppose now that $`\kappa `$ is a strong limit singular cardinal of cofinality $`\omega `$ and $`2^\kappa =\kappa ^{++}`$. Then, usually (by , ), we will have a sequence $`U_\alpha |\alpha <\kappa ^{++}`$ of ultrafilters in $`K`$ and a sequence $`\delta _{\alpha ,n}|\alpha <\kappa ^{++},n<\omega `$ so that

(1) $`\alpha <\beta n_0nn_0\delta _{\alpha ,n}<\delta _{\beta ,n}`$,

(2) $`\delta _{\alpha ,n}|n<\omega `$ is a Prikry sequence for $`U_\alpha `$.

Ultrafilters $`U_\alpha `$ are different here. So each sequence $`\delta _{\alpha ,n}|n<\omega `$ relates to unique ultrafilter from the list. But once $`\kappa ^{++}`$ is replaced by $`\kappa ^{+++}`$, the corresponding sequence of ultrafilters $`U_\alpha |\alpha <\kappa ^{+++}`$ will have different $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, $`\kappa ^{++}<\alpha <\beta <\kappa ^{+++}`$ with $`U_\alpha =U_\beta `$. Then a certain Prikry sequence $`\delta _n|n<\omega `$ may pretend to correspond to both $`U_\alpha `$ and $`U_\beta `$. In order to decide, we will need a Prikry sequence for some $`U_\gamma `$ with $`\gamma <\kappa ^{++}`$ (more precisely, if $`f_\beta `$ is the canonical one to one correspondence in $`K`$ between $`\kappa ^{++}`$ and $`\beta `$ then $`f_\beta (\gamma )=\alpha `$). Dealing with $`\kappa ^{+4}`$ we will need go down twice, first to $`\kappa ^{+3}`$ and after that to $`\kappa ^{++}`$. In general, for $`n,3n<\omega `$, $`n2`$-many times. Certainly, it is impossible to go down infinitely many times, but instead we replace the fixed $`\kappa `$ by an increasing sequence $`\kappa _n|n<\omega `$ with each $`\kappa _n`$ carrying $`\kappa _n^{+n+3}`$ many ultrafilters. Now it turns out to be possible to add $`\omega `$ \- sequences with no assignment to ultrafilters. Just the number of steps needed to produce the assignment is $`\omega `$ which is not enough for sequences of the length $`\omega `$.


text:
# Unified Model for Dark Energy

## Abstract

A new model for the universe filled with a generalized Chaplygin fluid is considered which unitarily describes as a single vacuum entity both a quintessence scalar field and a cosmological constant, so unifying the notion of dark energy. While the evolution of the universe filled with such a fluid does not obviously contradict the present cosmic acceleration, the introduced single dark-energy component, for equations of state with characteristic parameter $`\omega 1`$, behaves like an usual quintessence fluid with constant equation of state at early high densities, and like a pure cosmological constant at late cosmological times.

preprint: IMAFF-RCA-02-08

Rather surprising new evidence for dark energy from a ten-year census of the gravitational lensing in distant quasars has been quite recently added by Browne et al.  to the itself compelling evidence originally obtained from distant supernova  and all those ever favorable results later amassed in the past five years . Thus, it now appears as a rather solid conclusion that the present universe is accelerating and that most of its energy is in the form of a mysterious dark energy, which has long-range anti-gravity properties. Dark energy is closely related to the idea of a positive cosmological constant, or to the notion of the so-called cosmic quintessence , a slowly-varying, tracked  or not , scalar field that produces a negative pressure. But, whatever its ultimate nature, dark energy has become one of the main problems of all sciences .

On the other hand, dark energy has also been claimed  to be just one of the two vacuum-energy components in a unified model for cosmic darkness whose other component is dark matter. Rather than fine-tuning any specific quintessence potential, this model explains the present accelerating expansion of the universe by means of the rather exotic equation of state that corresponds to a generalized Chaplygin gas , acting in such a way that it caused the gas to behave like pure dark matter at early times (high density) and like dark energy at late times (small density). The generalized Chaplygin gas is a substance which is characterized by an equation of state \[9-11\]

$$p=A\rho ^\alpha ,$$
(1)
with $`A`$ a positive definite constant and $`\alpha `$ a parameter which can take on positive or negative values. The original Chaplygin gas was characterized by $`\alpha =1`$. It is an equation of state with a form as given by Eq. (1) that has thus been claimed to represent the stiff that simultaneously describes dark matter and dark energy. In this letter we generalize the idea of Chaplygin gas still one step further in such a way that, rather than unitarily characterizing dark matter and dark energy as a single entity, the resulting gas theory would now simultaneously describe the physics of a quintessence scalar field and that of a cosmological constant as the two opposite limiting situations that result at early and late times, respectively, from a unique unified dark energy physical picture.

The dynamical cosmological equations that represent a pure quintessence field with constant state equation  $`p=\omega \rho `$ are known to be valid only in an $`\omega `$-interval, $`0\omega <1`$, which cannot include the value $`\omega =1`$ that corresponds to a pure cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ . The generalization of the Chaplygin gas that we are going to introduce does neither require specifying any potential for the generalized field and is based on suitably combining the state equations for a slowly-varying quintessence scalar field with that for the generalized Chaplygin gas given by Eq. (1), in such a way that the resulting state equation would give rise to cosmological dynamical equations that would represent both a quintessence-like field and a cosmological constant in the above single unified way. We take for that state equation the following simplest combination

$$p=\left(\omega \frac{A}{\rho ^{\alpha +1}}\right)\rho ,$$
(2)
where $`p`$ and $`\rho `$ are respectively pressure and energy density in a comoving reference frame, with $`p<0`$ and $`\rho >0`$, $`0\omega >1`$ and $`A`$ is again a constant, but one which should not be necessarily positive definite, provided $`p0`$. This equation of state is interesting as it can be connected with both cosmology through parameter $`\omega `$ and string theory through its Chaplygin-like gas component . Inserting Eq. (2) into the general cosmic conservation law for energy

$$d\rho =3\left(\rho +p\right)\frac{da}{a},$$
(3)
we obtain for the density of the dark energy Chaplygin gas a nonlinear expression in terms of the scale factor $`a`$. It is:

$$\rho (a)=\left\{\frac{1}{1+\omega }\left[A+\frac{B}{a^{3(1+\alpha )(1+\omega )}}\right]\right\}^{1/(1+\alpha )},$$
(4)
with $`B`$ an integration constant and $`aa(t)`$ the cosmic scale factor which is normalized to unity today $`a=(1+z)^1`$, when expressed in terms of the redshif $`z`$. A differential feature of the present model in relation with the unified dark matter model is that, although the density never drop below the value $`A^{1/(1+\alpha )}`$, no matter how much you expand the gas, it get a value $`\rho a^{3(1+\omega )}`$ when sufficiently compressed, so that the density can never reach the value $`\rho a^3`$ if $`\omega <0`$.

Let us now introduce the re-definitions for the current generalized dark-energy field $`\varphi `$ cosmological parameter

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi ^0=\frac{B}{A+B}.$$

and energy density

$$\rho _0=\left[\frac{A+B}{1+\omega }\right]^{1/(1+\alpha )}.$$

In terms of these quantities Eq. (4) can be re-written in a form which is similar to that has been used in unified dark matter models

$$\rho (a)=\rho _0\left[1\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi ^0+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi ^0}{a^{3(1+\omega )(1+\alpha )}}\right]^{1/(1+\alpha )}.$$
(5)
In order to interpret this equation, let us consider the corresponding expression for the energy density in the case that we have a quintessence slowly-varying scalar field and a cosmological constant which are separatedly defined in the flat cosmological case , i.e.

$$\rho (a)=\rho _0\left[\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)a^{3(1+\omega _0)}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right].$$
(6)
We first note that, although Eq. (5) involves a single substance and Eq. (6) involves two, the energy densities given by these two equations become both the density $`\rho _0`$ for the current value ($`z=0`$) of the scale factor $`a=1/(1+z)=1`$. Making then the identifications

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi ^0=\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)^{1+\alpha },\omega =\omega _0,$$

we see that Eqs. (5) and (6) again become the same and are both given by

$$\rho =\rho _0\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi ^0a^{3(1+\omega )}$$

in the limit $`a0`$. It follows that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$ behaves like though it were an effective quintessence density in the considered model. Also for the flat case, once again Eqs. (5) and (6) become the same when $`\alpha =0`$ and are both given by

$$\rho =\rho _0\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi ^0+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }a^{3(1+\omega )}\right],$$

which corresponds to the standard combined ”$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-Quintessence” model which involves two substances. Finally, Eqs. (5) and (6) become also the same in the limit $`a\mathrm{}`$, where both read

$$\rho =\rho _0\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },$$

in case that the identification $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left(1\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi ^0\right)^{1/(1+\alpha )}`$ be also introduced. This latter case would clearly correspond to that for a pure cosmological constant.

The interpretation of our present picture for dark energy which describes quintessence and cosmological constant in a unified, single fashion can be further strengthened if we also introduce definitions for the effective parameter entering the equation of state and the effective speed of sound, which in the present case become

$$\omega ^{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{p}{\rho }=\omega \frac{(1+\omega )A}{A+\frac{B}{a^{3(1+\omega )(1+\alpha )}}}$$
(7)
$$c_s^{\mathrm{eff2}}=\frac{p}{\rho }=\omega +\frac{(1+\omega )\alpha A}{A+\frac{B}{a^{3(1+\omega )(1+\alpha )}}}$$
(8)
We notice that both $`\omega ^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`c_s^{\mathrm{eff2}}`$ reduce to $`\omega `$ (the typical pure quintessential case) when $`a0`$, and to $`\omega ^{\mathrm{eff}}=1`$, $`c_s^{\mathrm{eff2}}=\alpha +\omega (1+\alpha )`$ (the cosmological constant case) whenever $`a\mathrm{}`$. This closes up the proof that our model consistently describes both quintessence and cosmological constant as given limiting concepts from a more general unified dark energy description involving one single substance, and can therefore be looked at as being a promising concept for cosmology.

However, a wide class of the so-called unified dark energy models, which are similarly constructed using a less generalized Chaplygin equation of state, has been recently excluded  because such models give rise to oscillations or exponential browup in the matter power spectrum that are inconsistent with observations. One would in fact expect these unwanted phenomena to occur as well in our present unified dark energy model. Following Sandvik et al. , the evolution of density perturbations $`\delta _k`$ with wave vector $`k`$ can be written in the form :

$`\delta _k^{\prime \prime }+\left[2+\xi 3\left(2\omega ^{\mathrm{eff}}c_s^{\mathrm{eff2}}\right)\right]\delta _k^{}`$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(16c_s^{\mathrm{eff2}}+8\omega ^{\mathrm{eff}}3\omega ^{\mathrm{eff2}})`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{kc_s^{\mathrm{eff}}}{aH}}\right)^2]\delta _k=0,`$ (9)
where $`H`$ is the Hubble parameter,

$$\xi =\frac{2}{3}\left[1+\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi ^0}1\right)a^{3(1+\alpha )}\right]^1,$$

and the prime denotes differentiation with respect to the timelike independent variable $`\mathrm{ln}a`$. By inspecting Eq. (9) it can in fact be inferred that whenever the effective speed of sound is nonzero, the unwanted oscillatory ($`c_s^{\mathrm{eff}}>0`$) and exponential blowup ($`c_s^{\mathrm{eff}}<0`$) behaviours of fluctuations with wavelengths below the Jeans scale $`\sqrt{\pi |c_s^{\mathrm{eff}}|^2/G\rho }`$ would always take place. Whereas this situation is unavoidable for the wide class of unified dark matter models pointed out by Sandvik et al. , here one always has the possibility to set $`c_s^{\mathrm{eff}}=0`$ at all times, while keeping a nonzero value for the bare speed of sound,

$$c_s^2=\frac{A\alpha }{A+\frac{B}{a^{3(1+\omega )(1+\alpha )}}},$$

because the constant $`A`$ may in our case take also on negative values while the right-hand-side of Eq. (8) has two terms to play with. Thus, restricting to the simplest case where we choose $`\alpha =1`$, and hence $`\omega ^{\mathrm{eff}}=0`$, the fluctuations appear to be free from the unwanted oscillatory and exponential blowup behaviours. In this case, one has to take negative values for the cosmological constant $`A`$ \[a case which can have very positive implications (see later on)\], so that Eq. (9) reduces to:

$$\delta ^{\prime \prime }+\left(2\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi ^0\right)\delta ^{}\frac{3}{2}\delta =0.$$
(10)
The solutions to Eq. (10) are

$$\delta _\pm =a^{\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi ^01\pm \sqrt{1+\frac{9}{16}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi ^0\right)^2\frac{3}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi ^01\right)}}$$

at all times. We have thus shown that the unstability problem and the presence of unobserved oscillations affecting most of the unified dark matter models can both be avoided in the kind of models considered here for unified dark energy.

All the above kinds of models are however unrealistic, unless as asymptotic approximations, because they describe an asymptotic universe devoid of observable matter. One therefore ought to include some kind of observable matter and/or radiation contents in order to make the models more realistic. This will be later implemented by considering a FRW scenario where, besides the unified dark energy field, a radiation field will also be included. We shall classically describe such a radiation field as a massless scalar field which is conformally coupled to gravity . Before doing that, we shall first consider the simplest case of a spatially flat universe filled only with the single generalized Chaplygin gas discussed in this letter that satisfies the state equation given by Eq. (2). The Friedmann equation for this problem is

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^{2(1+\alpha )}=\frac{1}{1+\omega }\left[A+\frac{B}{a^{3(1+\alpha )(1+\omega )}}\right],$$
(11)
where the overhead dot means time derivative. As pointed out above, the solution to Eq. (11) for the general case in which $`\alpha 0`$ can only match the solution to the Friedmann equation for the simple case that corresponds to a quintessence field with constant equation of state $`p=\omega \rho `$ plus a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=3H^2\lambda `$, that is for e.g. an allowed value of the initial, constant parameter $`\omega `$ whose following evolution be able to reproduce the current cosmic acceleration, $`\omega =2/3`$,

$$a(t)=\frac{8\pi G}{3\sigma \lambda }\mathrm{sinh}^2\left(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{3\lambda }t\right),$$
(12)
just in the limiting cases of small $`a`$ as $`\alpha 0`$, with $`A=\lambda `$ and $`B=8\pi G/(3\sigma )`$, in which $`\sigma `$ is another integration constant. Note that for negative cosmological constant the above solution changes into

$$a(t)=\frac{8\pi G}{3\sigma |\lambda |}\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{3|\lambda |}t\right).$$
(13)
For the small values of $`|\lambda |`$ and $`a`$ for which this oscillating solution is valid, it would be expected that the universe will show  no future event horizon, a property which has been claimed  to be of decisive importance for allowing a consistent mathematical formulation of fundamental string and M theories.

Applying the generalization considered in this letter to the original Chaplygin gas ($`\alpha =1`$), one obtains from Eq. (11) for the flat case in the simple situation that corresponds to the initial equation of state parameter $`\omega =2/3`$ (which is compatible with the present cosmic accelerating expansion for moderate values of $`A/(A+B)`$ and the most recent observational constraints ),

$$\dot{a}^4=3\left(Aa^4+Ba^2\right).$$
(14)
A closed-form general analytical solution to Eq. (14) can be obtained for the scale factor $`a`$ in parametric form and is given by

$$t=(3A)^{1/4}\{\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{1+F(a)}{1F(a)}\right]^{1/2}\mathrm{arctan}\left[F(a)\right]\}+\zeta ,$$
(15)
where $`\zeta `$ is an adjustable integration constant and

$$F(a)=\left(1+\frac{B}{Aa^2}\right)^{1/4}=\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi ^0}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^0a^2}\right)^{1/4}.$$

Choosing

$$\zeta =\frac{(1i)\pi }{2(3A)^{1/4}}$$

for the integration constant so that $`a0`$ as $`t0`$, we finally get

$$t=(3A)^{1/4}\{\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{F(a)+1}{F(a)1}\right]^{1/2}+\frac{\pi }{2}\mathrm{arctan}\left[F(a)\right]\}$$
(16)
It follows from this solution that as the single gas is evolving from a pure quintessence field into a cosmological term, the scale factor $`a`$ will increses from zero, at $`t=0`$, to infinity, as $`t\mathrm{}`$, such as one should expect in the unified picture for dark energy.

Let us next include a term in the Friedmann equation that accounts for the existence of an observable radiation field. As we mentioned before, we represent this field by means of a massless scalar field which is conformally coupled to gravity  so that one has to modify  the Friedmann equation (11) to read:

$$\left[\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2\frac{M^2}{a^4}\right]^{1+\alpha }=\frac{1}{1+\omega }\left[A+\frac{B}{a^{3(1+\alpha )(1+\omega )}}\right],$$
(17)
where $`M^2`$ is an integration constant. Although we have been unable to find any analytical solution to Eq. (17) in closed-form, it is still possible to readily deduce that in the limit of very small values of the scale factor we have the approximate solution

$$a(t)=\sqrt{2Mt},$$

for the entire range of allowed values of parameter $`\omega 0`$. It follows that radiation dominated over the unified dark energy at early time. At late time the unified dark energy field would start dominating over radiation, as one would expect, so that it will be described by Eq. (16) (or any of its counterpart solutions for $`\alpha 1`$) which would govern the evolution of the current universe. It appears therefore that during the time along which the generalized Chaplygin dark-energy gas behaved like a quintessence field at the earliest times, this was nevertheless dominated by radiation; however, at the late times when that generalized single gas behaves like a cosmological constant, this dominated over radiation. We therefore hope that a more detailed consideration of unified dark energy may lead us to solve, or at least greatly alleviate the cosmic coincidence problem . Before closing up, we mention the interesting possibility that the unified dark energy can also behave like a quintessence field when $`a\mathrm{}`$ and like a cosmological constant as $`a0`$. That would happen if $`\omega <1`$, with $`A`$ and $`B`$ taking on negative values (so keeping the current density, the quintessence energy density and the cosmological constant all positive), a case which is not excluded by current constraints on the state equation for dark energy . We finally note that Eq. (2) would reduce to Eq. (1) in case that $`\alpha <0`$ as $`a0`$, so indicating that in such a case our unified model for dark energy also included the current unified model for dark matter in the limit of high density.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author thanks Mariam Bouhmadi and Carmen L. Sigüenza for useful conversations. This work was supported by MCYT under Research Project No. BMF2002-03758.