format: text

text:
# The Gap at 𝜈=5/2 and the Role of Disorder in Fractional Quantum Hall States

(March 13, 2024)

## Abstract

Theoretical results for the gaps of fractional quantum Hall states are substantially larger than experimental values determined from the activated behaviour of charge transport. The disparity in the case of the enigmatic $`\nu =5/2`$ state is worrying as it amounts to a factor 20 to 30. We argue that disorder effects are responsible for this disparity and show how intrinsic gaps can be extracted from the measured transport gaps of particle-hole symmetric states within the same Landau level. We present new theoretical results for gaps at $`\nu =5/2`$ and 7/2, as well as at $`\nu =1/3,`$ 2/5, 3/7 and 4/9, based on exact diagonalizations, taking account of the finite thickness of the two-dimensional electron layer and Landau level mixing effects. We find these to be consistent with the intrinsic gaps inferred from measured transport gaps. While earlier analyses (Du et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2944 (1993)) assumed constant broadening for each sample, our results for the disorder broadening depend on the filling fraction, and appear to scale with the charge of the elementary excitations of the corresponding fractional state. This result is consistent with quasiparticle mediated dissipative transport.

The gaps obtained from analyzing the activated temperature-dependence of the longitudinal conductance near the center of fractional quantized Hall (FQH) plateaus in GaAs heterostructures Willett\_88 ; Du93  disagree with the values obtained from direct diagonalizations of finite systems Morf\_NdA\_SdS\_02 . This is the case even taking account of the softening of the Coulomb interaction between electrons resulting from the non-zero thickness of the 2D electron layer and of Landau level mixing effects. The discrepancies can be around a factor of two in the highest mobility samples for FQH states in the lowest Landau level (LLL). For FQH states in the second Landau level the discrepancies are even larger, as much as a factor of 20 at filling fraction $`\nu =5/2`$ eisenstein\_52\_1 ; pan\_exact\_quantization ; Morf\_NdA\_SdS\_02  and a factor of 30 at $`\nu =7/2`$ eisenstein\_2002 . Such large discrepancies make one wonder whether the $`\nu =5/2`$ state has been correctly identified.

Here, we argue that disorder effects are responsible for these discrepancies. We show how the intrinsic gap of FQH states, that are strongly affected by disorder, can be estimated directly from measurements of the transport gaps using a simple model. These estimates are consistent with results we obtain from exact diagonalizations of finite systems provided we take account both of the non-zero width of the electron wavefunction in the direction perpendicular to the two-dimensional electron layer and of Landau level mixing (LLM). Our analysis also provides estimates for the reduction of the measured activation gaps relative to the disorder-free intrinsic gaps—the so-called ‘disorder broadening’. We find that the disorder-induced gap reduction depends on the FQH state studied and is roughly proportional to the fractional charge of the corresponding elementary excitations. This is not in agreement with previous analyses of FQH gaps near $`\nu =1/2`$ which assumed a filling factor independent disorder broadening of electronic states Du93 . These gave intrinsic gaps which scaled as $`|B_\nu B_{1/2}|`$, where $`B_\nu `$ is the magnetic field at which the filling is precisely $`\nu `$, and implied an effective mass of the composite fermions which is independent of the filling fraction, contrary to theoretical predictions HLR . Our results show that, using a combination of the scaling analysis (described here) and comparisons with the results of exact diagonalizations, it will be possible to extract from measurements of activation energies reliable estimates both for the intrinsic FQH gap and for the disorder-induced gap reduction.

This work has been motivated by the observation of a transport gap for a FQH state at $`\nu =7/2`$ by Eisenstein et al. eisenstein\_2002 , and by their report of transport gaps for the $`\nu =7/2`$ and 5/2 FQH states of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a(7/2)=0.07`$K and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a(5/2)=0.31`$K. The latter is almost a factor of three larger than the earlier value $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a(5/2)=0.11`$K (first reported in reference eisenstein\_52\_1  and confirmed in pan\_exact\_quantization ). The smaller gaps at $`\nu =5/2`$ were obtained for samples with electron density $`n_S=2.3\times 10^{11}`$/cm2, whereas the most recent results are for $`n_S=3\times 10^{11}`$/cm2 eisenstein\_2002 . The factor of three difference between the new and old results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a(5/2)`$ cannot result from Coulomb interaction effects alone, as these scale with $`\sqrt{n_S}`$.

A FQH state at $`\nu =7/2`$ is expected on theoretical grounds. Its structure should be very similar to that of the $`\nu =5/2`$ state, as these two states are related by particle-hole conjugation symmetry, which becomes exact in the limit when LLM can be neglected. In that limit, if the energy gaps are purely controlled by the Coulomb interaction,

$$E_c=e^2/\kappa \mathrm{}_0,$$
(1)
the intrinsic gaps $`\mathrm{\Delta }^i(\nu )`$ of pure (disorder-free) systems can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^i(\nu )=\delta (\nu )E_c.$$
(2)
The symbol $`\mathrm{}_0`$ in equation (1) stands for the magnetic length, defined in terms of the magnetic field $`B`$, by $`\mathrm{}_0=\sqrt{\mathrm{}c/eB}`$, and $`\kappa `$ is the dielectric constant of the semiconductor material. For physically equivalent FQH states at fillings $`\nu `$ and $`\nu ^{}`$ (those related by particle-hole conjugation symmetry), the coefficients $`\delta (\nu )`$ and $`\delta (\nu ^{})`$ in (2) will be the same and the difference in the gap values $`\mathrm{\Delta }^i(\nu )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^i(\nu ^{})`$ will reflect the difference in the Coulomb energy scale $`E_c`$ at the magnetic fields $`B_\nu `$ and $`B_\nu ^{}`$ at which the FQH states occur. This will happen for $`\nu ^{}=2\nu `$, and in the second Landau level, when $`\delta (2+\nu )=\delta (2+(2\nu ))`$, implying $`\delta (5/2)=\delta (7/2)`$. If, in addition, spin-mixing effects can be neglected, FQH states at filling fraction $`\nu `$ can be mapped to states at $`\nu ^{}=1\nu `$. As an example, we expect that gaps of fractional states at $`\nu =1/3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}/3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}/3`$ and $`5/3`$ will all be described by the same coefficient $`\delta (1/3)`$ as long as the Zeeman energy is large enough to suppress spin reversal in all these states, and as long as LLM effects can be neglected.

On the basis of equation (2), we analyze the measured gaps of symmetry related states as a function of $`E_c`$ to extract an estimate of the dimensionless coefficient $`\delta (\nu )`$. In Figure 1, we show the gap results from eisenstein\_2002  for the $`\nu =5/2`$ and 7/2 states as a function of $`E_c`$. The slope of the straight line through the two gap values yields $`\delta (5/2)0.014`$. This is just $`35\%`$ smaller than the theoretical estimate for a spin-polarized paired state of the Moore-Read type Moore-Read , $`\delta ^{th}(5/2)0.022`$, which was computed without taking account of LLM effects Morf\_NdA\_SdS\_02 . The intercept of the straight line gives an estimate of the gap reduction due to disorder, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(5/2)1.24`$K, which is only slightly less than the estimate for the intrinsic gap itself. We emphasize that the estimate for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the two states is based solely on the assumption that the $`7/2`$ and $`5/2`$ states are particle-hole conjugates of each other and that the Coulomb interaction dominates the value of the intrinsic gap. Although, in practice, the state at $`\nu =7/2`$ is likely to be more strongly affected by LLM than that at $`\nu =5/2`$, the assumption of particle-hole symmetry between the two states should still be approximately valid. In the following, we show that the effects of LLM reduce the theoretical value to $`\delta ^{th}(5/2)0.016`$, so that the discrepancy between theoretical and experimental estimates of the gap at 5/2 essentially disappears. This provides further support for the identification of the FQH state at $`\nu =5/2`$ as a paired statemorf98 ; Rez-Hald00 .

We have also reanalyzed older results for FQH states at filling $`\nu =p/(2p+1)`$ and $`(p+1)/(2p+1)`$. We define the gap reduction $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )`$, as the difference between the measured activation gaps, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a(\nu )`$, and the intrinsic gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }^i(\nu )=\delta (\nu )E_c`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^a(\nu )=\delta (\nu )E_c\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu ).$$
(3)
As for the 5/2 system, we assume that the dominant contribution to the FQH gaps comes from the Coulomb interaction of the electrons, so that the symmetry related states in the set $`S_\nu =\{\nu ,(1\nu ),\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\nu ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\nu \}`$ are all described by the same coefficient $`\delta _\nu `$. If in addition, we assume that the gap reduction $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu ^{})`$ has the same value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu `$ for all states $`\nu ^{}`$ in $`S_\nu `$, the activation gap is approximated by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^a(\nu ^{})\delta _\nu E_c\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu \nu ^{}S_\nu .$$
(4)
This allows us to use the measured transport gaps $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a(\nu ^{})`$ at $`\nu ^{}=\nu ,(1\nu ),\mathrm{}`$ to obtain estimates, $`\delta _\nu ^{est}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^{est}`$, for the intrinsic gap and the gap reduction for each family $`S_\nu `$.

The disorder scattering in the GaAs heterostructures, for which studies of the activated transport have been reported, is thought to be due mainly to ionized donors separated from the electron gas by a spacer layer of width $`d`$, where $`d800\AA `$ Du93 . Our assumption that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu `$ is the same for all states $`\nu ^{}`$ in $`S_\nu `$ is equivalent to assuming that, for a given sample, the effect of these ionized donors on the FQH states and the low-lying excitations will be the same for the FQH states at filling fractions in the set $`S_\nu `$. In the limit $`l_0/d1`$ the response of the system on the length scale $`d`$ should be close to that of point-like quasiparticles, so that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu `$ may depend on properties of the low-lying excitations like their charge $`q`$, which will be common to symmetry related states in the set $`S_\nu `$ but different for inequivalent sets $`S_\nu `$. However effects related to the internal structure of the excitations, which would result in an additional dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu `$ on the ratio $`l_0/d`$, are assumed to be small. When we compare with our results from exact diagonalizations, this assumption appears reasonable for the filling fractions close to 1/2 (see below).

In Figure 2, we show the measured gaps taken from Du93 ; Du\_97 ; Willett\_88  for three different very high-mobility samples at filling fractions $`\nu =p/(2p+1),\nu ^{}=1\nu ,`$ and $`\nu ^{}=2\nu `$ for $`p=1`$ (Figure 2a), $`p=2`$ (Figure 2b) and $`p=3`$ (Figure 2c) as function of $`E_c`$. Samples A and B of Du93  have an electron density $`n_S`$ of (1.12 and 2.3)$`\times 10^{11}/`$cm2 and mobilities $`\mu =`$(6.8 and 12)$`\times 10^6`$cm2/Vs. The sample of Willett\_88  (which we will call sample C) has $`n_S=1.65\times 10^{11}/`$cm2 and a mobility $`\mu =5\times 10^6`$cm2/Vs. Gaps at $`\nu =5/3`$ and $`4/3`$ were reported for sample A in Du\_97 . The dependence of the gap on total magnetic field in a tilted field experiment showed that at $`\nu =5/3`$ the ground and low-lying excited states were spin-polarized. At $`\nu =4/3`$ the ground state was not spin-polarized for tilt angles up to $`65.1^{}`$ while the excitations involved spin-reversals up to even larger tilt angles. We therefore assume that only the states at $`\nu =1/3`$, $`2/3`$ and $`5/3`$ are related by symmetry and not the state at $`\nu =4/3`$. We show the measured gaps in untilted field as a function of $`E_c`$ in Figure 2a. We note that the slopes of the three straight line fits through the gaps of samples A,B and C are quite similar yielding estimates of $`\delta _{1/3}=`$0.064, 0.058 and 0.075, respectively. By contrast, the intercepts at $`E_c=0`$, which yield estimates, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1/3}^{est}`$, that vary by almost a factor 2, and reflect differences in sample quality. In Figures 2b and 2c we show the analysis of the states states at $`\nu =2/5,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}/5`$ and $`\nu =3/7,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}/7`$, respectively. We again note that the slope of the gaps as function of $`E_c`$ are very similar for the two samples A and B. They yield estimates of $`\delta _{2/5}=0.029`$ for both samples (Figure 2b) and $`\delta _{3/7}=0.027`$ and 0.025 (Figure 2c) for samples A and B, respectively.

An alternative approach to determining $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )`$ is simply to attribute the difference between precise calculations of FQH gaps of disorder-free systems and measured gaps to the effects of disorder and use equation 3 as definition of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )`$. Such calculations must of course include the effects of the finite thickness $`w`$ of the two-dimensional electron system as well as LLM. We take account of LLM within the random phase approximation for the dielectric function aleiner95

$$ϵ(q,\omega )=1\stackrel{~}{V}(q)\mathrm{\Pi }(q,\omega ),$$
(5)
and represent the electron-electron interaction by

$$U(r)=\frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}\stackrel{~}{V}(q)\frac{e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}}}{ϵ(q,0)},$$
(6)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{V}(q)=\frac{2\pi e^2}{\kappa q}e^{q^2w^2}erfc(qw)$$
(7)
is the interaction between electrons that are trapped at the interface in a Gaussian wave function of width $`w`$ Morf\_NdA\_SdS\_02 . The polarization $`\mathrm{\Pi }(q,\omega )`$ in (5) is given by

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(q,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}}{\pi \mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{[\nu (s)1]}{}}}F(\nu (s)n){\displaystyle \underset{k=n+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}F(k\nu (s))`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{(kn)}(kn)}{(\omega /\omega _c)^2+(kn)^2}}L_n^{kn}(x)L_k^{nk}(x)e^x(7)`$
where $`x=(q\mathrm{}_0)^2/2`$ and $`_s`$ stands for the summation over spin $`s=,`$. The symbol $`[x]`$ denotes the largest integer $`x`$. Equation (7) agrees with expression (A1) of Aleiner and Glazman aleiner95 , which describes the spin degenerate case, $`\nu ()=\nu ()=N`$, with integer filling $`2N`$. The function $`F(z)`$ is introduced to treat the case of fractional filling and measures the filling fraction of the Landau level $`n`$, via $`F(z)=z`$ for $`0<z<1`$, $`F(z)1`$ for $`z1`$ and $`F(z)0`$ for $`z0`$. We have verified this method for incorporating finite width and LLM corrections at filling fraction $`\nu =1/3`$ where we could check that our results are consistent with those by Yoshioka yoshioka\_mixing . Expression (6) together with (7) and (5) lead to a modification of the electron interaction at short separation, which is controlled by the dimensionless parameter $`\lambda =E_c/\mathrm{}\omega _c`$. Here $`\omega _c=eB/m^{}c`$ stands for the cyclotron frequency, with $`m^{}`$ the effective mass of the electrons. A full account of this method will be published elsewhere.

For the particular sample of eisenstein\_2002  we have repeated the calculation of Morf\_NdA\_SdS\_02  using the interaction amended for LL mixing and taking account of the non-zero thickness of the wavefunction. We have computed the quasiparticle and quasihole energies as described in Morf\_NdA\_SdS\_02  and, by extrapolating to the thermodynamic limit, we have estimated the intrinsic gaps at $`\nu =5/2`$ and $`\nu =7/2`$. The gaps are $`\delta ^{th}(5/2)=0.016`$, and $`\delta ^{th}(7/2)=0.015`$, and are close to the estimate $`\delta _{5/2}^{est}0.14`$ obtained from the experimental values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$ at $`\nu =5/2`$ and 7/2, using (4) as discussed above. We have also calculated the finite width and LLM corrections for all the other states reported in references Willett\_88 ; Du93 ; Du\_97 . These results are listed in Table 1. As can be seen, the estimates $`\delta _\nu ^{est}`$ of the gap coefficients, calculated on the basis of the simple Ansatz (4) from the experimental values of the activation gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }^a`$, are consistent with the theoretical values $`\delta ^{th}(\nu )`$ within realistic error bars (cf. caption of Table 1). We also note that the gap coefficients $`\delta ^{th}(\nu )`$ for symmetry related states are indeed very similar even when finite width and LLM effects are taken into account. With the exception of the $`\nu =5/3`$ case, our assumption $`\delta (\nu ^{})\delta (\nu )`$ for all $`\nu `$ in the set $`S_\nu `$ of symmetry related states therefore appears reasonable.

Estimates for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )`$, based on equation (3), are listed in the last two columns of Table 1 and plotted in Figure 3 against the charge $`q=1/(2p+1)`$ of the elementary excitation of the FQH state at $`\nu =p/(2p+1)`$ or its symmetry related siblings. The values we obtain for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )`$ scale with the charge of the excitation in each sample. They are comparable for families of symmetry related states as we assumed in (4), with the assumption better justified the closer the filling fractions are to $`\nu =1/2`$. However, in each family, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )`$ is systematically smaller for larger filling factors, with smaller differences between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\nu )`$ when $`\nu `$ is close to 1/2. The largest differences are for the case of $`\nu =1/3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}/3`$ and 5/3, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/3)`$ is about twice $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(5/3)`$. We attribute this reduction of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )`$ at larger $`\nu `$ to LLM and other polarization/screening effects which should increase as $`l_0/d`$ increases (for the $`\nu =5/3`$ state in Du\_97  $`l_0/d1/3`$), but which would require a microscopic model of the response of the FQH system to potential variations to quantify.

A reduction of the gap as a result of disorder is reminiscent of what happens in models of the effects of disorder on the integer quantum Hall effect (IQHE) in the variable range hopping regime Polyakov\_Shklovskii\_94/5 . However, this model is not thought to apply in the regime of large $`d`$, and may not be adequate to describe the gap reductions that have been observed.

The authors acknowledge useful discussions with B.I. Halperin.


text:
# Causality and Sound Speed for General Scalar Field Models, including 𝑤<-1, tachyonic, phantom, k-essence and curvature corrections

## I Motivation

It is usually stated that the ”speed of sound” for a fluid is given either by $`w_\varphi p/\rho `$ if it is constant or by $`dp_o/d\rho _o`$ if $`w_\varphi `$ is time dependent, where $`p_o`$ is the pressure and $`\rho _o`$ the energy density. In the case that $`wp/\rho `$ is constant then the two quantities $`dp/d\rho =w`$ coincide. The requirement that the propagation of information should not exceed the speed of light implies that $`|w_\varphi |<1`$ and/or $`|dp_o/d\rho _o|<1`$. However, as we will show, neither of these two conditions are necessarily satisfied for a scalar field.

Considering an homogenous scalar field, it is well known that its evolution leads naturally to a non-constant $`w_\varphi `$, so $`w_\varphi `$ should not be interpreted as the ”speed of sound”. The equation of state parameter for a scalar field is

$$w_{\varphi o}\frac{p_{\varphi o}}{\rho _{\varphi o}}=\frac{\lambda \frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }_o^2V(\varphi _o)}{\lambda \frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }_o^2+V(\varphi _o)}$$
(1)
where the $`o`$ denotes that we are considering an homogenous scalar with $`\varphi _o(t)`$ and $`\dot{\varphi }d\varphi /dt`$ and we have included the parameter $`\lambda =\pm 1`$ to take into account a canonical scalar field $`\lambda =1`$ and a phantom field $`\lambda =1`$. It is easy to see from the above equation that for any scalar field with positive kinetic term $`E_k=\dot{\varphi }^2/20`$ that the magnitude and sign $`w_\varphi `$ depends on the value of the potential $`V(\varphi )`$ and eq.(1) gives

$`|w_{\varphi o}|1`$ $``$ $`V(\varphi _o)0`$ (2)
$`w_{\varphi o}>1`$ $``$ $`E_k>V>0`$
$`w_{\varphi o}<1`$ $``$ $`E_k+V<0.`$ (3)
As we see from eqs.(3) we can obtain $`w_{\varphi o}<1`$ for a scalar field with a negative potential (e.g. for a tachyon field with $`V=m^2\varphi _o^2,m^2<0`$). We can also have $`w_{\varphi o}<1`$ for a phantom field with negative kinetic energy ($`E_k<0`$) with positive potential ($`V(\varphi _o)>0`$). It was shown in ax.neg  that this kind of behavior is reached naturally for scalar field with a negative minimum in the presence of a barotropic fluid that can be, for example, matter or radiation. Therefore, we do not need exotic fluids to have regions with $`|w_\varphi |>1`$.

Now, let us analyze the quantity $`dp_\varphi /d\rho _\varphi `$ for a scalar field with arbitrary potential. The homogenous part of the scalar field depends only on time and using eq.(1) we have the adiabatic quantity

$$\frac{dp_\varphi }{d\rho _\varphi }=\frac{\dot{p}_\varphi }{\dot{\rho }_\varphi }=1\frac{2V^{}}{\lambda \ddot{\varphi }+V^{}}=1+\frac{2}{3}\frac{V^{}}{\lambda H\dot{\varphi }}$$
(4)
where we have used

$$\dot{p}_\varphi =\dot{\varphi }(\lambda \ddot{\varphi }V^{})\dot{\rho }_\varphi =\dot{\varphi }(\lambda \ddot{\varphi }+V^{})$$
(5)
and the equation of motion of the scalar field

$$\lambda (\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi })+V^{}=0$$
(6)
for the second equality of eq.(4) with $`V^{}dV/d\varphi `$. Notice that in general eq.(4) has not only regions where $`|dp_\varphi /d\rho _\varphi |`$ is larger than one but regions where it diverges. This will happen at the turning points of the field oscillations around the minimum of the potential when $`\dot{\varphi }=0`$, if the point is reached at a non-extremum of the potential $`V`$, (i.e. $`\lambda \ddot{\varphi }=V^{}0`$), e.g. for any potential with a minimum at finite $`\varphi `$ as for a massive scalar field with $`V=m^2\varphi ^2`$.

Clearly, we see that under normal conditions both (homogenous) quantities $`w_\varphi ,dp_\varphi /d\rho _\varphi `$ can be larger than the one (the speed of light). Does this imply that the sound speed of scalar fields travel faster then the speed of light? The answer is no, as we will show later, and the reason is that neither $`w_\varphi `$ nor $`dp_\varphi /d\rho _\varphi `$ gives the correct interpretation of the sound speed.

## II Summary of Different Velocities

In order to clarify the notion of causality for fluid or a scalar field it will be useful to define the different velocities involved in determining the transportation of a signal in a medium.

For simplicity in presentation purposes we will consider only one space dimension. The wave equation for a fluid is given by

$$\ddot{\rho }\frac{v^2}{c^2}_x^2\rho +d\dot{\rho }+b\rho =0$$
(7)
where $`c`$ is the speed of light and the parameters $`v,b,d`$ may depend, in general, on the coordinates $`t,x`$ and they define the type of medium the fluid is in. If we take a Fourier transformation

$$\rho (t,x)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\rho _k(t)e^{ikx}$$
(8)
eq.(7) takes the form

$$\ddot{\rho }_k+d\dot{\rho }_k+(\frac{v^2}{c^2}k^2+b)\rho _k=0.$$
(9)
The parameter $`v`$ defines the phase velocity while the friction term is given by $`d`$. The simplest wave equation is given by $`d=b=0`$ and $`v`$ constant. In this case all monochromatic wave functions will have the same speed and $`v`$ can be interpreted as the sound speed. For $`d=0`$ and $`(v^2k^2/c^2+b)/k^2`$ is $`k`$-dependent, the medium is said to be dispersive and the monochromatic wave functions will travel with different phase velocities. In this case it is the group velocity that determines the speed of sound. If we allow $`d`$ to be different than zero then we have a dissipative medium and the wave amplitude will suffer a damping or growth depending on the sign of $`d`$ and neither the phase nor the group velocity would give the ”sound speed”.

For $`d=b=0`$ and $`v=cte`$ the solution to eq.(9) involves a sum of monochromatic waves

$$\rho (t,x)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(A_ke^{i(kx\varpi t)}+B_ke^{i(kx\varpi t)}\right)𝑑k$$
(10)
with $`\varpi ,k`$ constants and the amplitudes $`A_k,B_k`$ also constant. From eq.(9), with $`b=d=0`$, the frequency $`\varpi `$ (it should not be confused with $`w`$ the equation of state parameter defined in the previous section) is a function of k

$$\varpi ^2=\frac{v^2}{c^2}k^2.$$
(11)
The wave number is given by $`k=2\pi /\lambda `$ and gives the inverse of the wave length. From now on we will set the speed of light back to one ($`c=1`$). The speed for a monochromatic wave, e.g. the speed of the maximum of the wave, is given by the constrain $`kx\varpi t=cte`$ from which we have the phase velocity

$$v_p\frac{dx}{dt}=\frac{\varpi }{k}=v$$
(12)
if $`k,\varpi `$ are independent of $`x,t`$. A velocity smaller than $`c`$ requires $`v_p=\varpi /k<1`$. Notice that in this case $`v_p`$ is the same for all monochromatic wave functions since $`w/k`$ is $`k`$-independent.

If we are in a dispersive medium $`b0`$ and the wave frequency depends on the value of $`k`$. In this case one needs to consider the evolution of wave packets since their shape will be time dependent. A wave packet occupies a limited region in space. It is common to assume that the monochromatic frequencies that form the packet are concentrated around a central value $`\varpi `$ with corresponding wave number $`k`$. For a wave function with a slightly different wave number $`k^{}=k+\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ the corresponding frequency is $`\varpi (k+\mathrm{\Delta }k)`$ and for $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ small we can write $`\varpi (k+\mathrm{\Delta }k)\varpi (k)+(d\varpi /dk)\mathrm{\Delta }k`$. The solution to the wave equation for a wave packet is of the form

$$\rho (t,x)=Ae^{i(kx\varpi t)}f((\mathrm{\Delta }kxt\mathrm{\Delta }\varpi ))$$
(13)
and the amplitude of the wave is modulated by the function $`f`$. The group velocity is defined by requiring the argument of $`f`$ to be constant, i.e. by the solution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }kxt\mathrm{\Delta }\varpi =cte`$, giving the group velocity

$$v_g=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\varpi }{\mathrm{\Delta }k}=\frac{d\varpi }{dk}$$
(14)
if $`d\varpi /dk`$ is $`t,x`$ independent. The group velocity $`v_g`$ is valid for any dependence of $`\varpi (k)`$ but only as long as $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ is small. If the medium is non dispersive $`\varpi `$ is constant then the group velocity and the phase velocity coincide $`v_g=v_p=\varpi /k`$.

In general the form of the packet will not remain constant and it will be smoothed out during its propagation and the condition of having a small $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ will no be maintained.

Lastly let as consider a dissipative medium in the simple case of constant $`b,d,v`$. In this case the solution to eq.(9), with the ansatz $`\rho _k=Ae^{i\varpi t}+Be^{i\varpi t}`$ give the equation,

$$\varpi ^2+id\varpi +(\frac{v^2}{c^2}k^2+b)=0$$
(15)
with

$$\varpi =\frac{id\pm \sqrt{4(\frac{v^2}{c^2}k^2+b)d^2}}{2}$$
(16)
and we see that $`\varpi `$ takes imaginary values if $`d0`$ or $`4(k^2v^2/c^2+b)d^2<0`$. This will give damping or a growing wave function solution. If $`4(k^2v^2/c^2+b)d^2>0`$ the damping term will be the same for all monochromatic modes.

The short explanation we have given above also shows conditions for the validity of the approximation: the packet must be quasi-monochromatic and the frequency a slowly varying real function of $`k`$. If either of these approximations breaks down, the group velocity loses its physical meaning. In the general case the ”speed of sound” is neither the group nor the phase velocity and one must use the more complex and subtle notion of signal velocity Sommerfeld ; Brillouin . The signal velocity is defined as the velocity with which a given standard *amplitude* of the wave packet moves, for instance half that of the maximum amplitude. The standard Sommerfeld-Brillouin definition amounts to this. The condition of *retarded* wave guarantees then that the signal velocity will be always smaller than $`c`$, even if the wave packet deforms very much and the group velocity becomes $`v_g>c`$. That this may happen is shown in the classical Sommerfeld-Brillouin diagram Stratton  for the three velocities in the neighborhood of an absorption line (Fig. 1). In the case of a scalar field the group velocity diverges when $`\dot{\varphi }=0`$ with $`V^{}0`$. This will happen in most cases and even for a potential of the form $`V=m^2\varphi ^2`$ around the turning points of the scalar field.

## III Perfect Fluid and Scalar Field

### III.1 Perfect Fluid

A perfect fluid has an energy momentum tensor $`T^{\mu \nu }(\rho +p)u^\mu u^\nu pg^{\mu \nu }`$ where $`\rho `$ is the energy density and $`p`$ the pressure of the fluid, $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ the metric tensor while $`u^\mu `$ the 4-velocity. In the rest frame $`u^o=1,u^i=0`$ and $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ gives the usual energy momentum tensor $`T_\nu ^\mu =diag[\rho ,p,p,p]`$. For an arbitrary velocity $`v`$ the four velocity is $`u^\mu =u^o(1,v^i)`$ with $`u^0=1/\sqrt{1v^2}`$. The equation of motion are given by the conservation equation $`_\mu T^{\mu \nu }=0`$ and to solved them one needs to add an equation of state $`p=w\rho `$. Matter and radiation have a constant $`w`$ equal to zero, 1/3 respectively.

In order to study the propagation of sound it is common to take perturbations around a central value $`p_o,\rho _o`$

$$p(t,x)=p_o(t)+p_1(t,x),\rho (t,x)=\rho _o(t)+\rho _1(t,x)$$
(17)
where the central values do not depend on the space coordinates while the perturbations $`p_1,\rho _1`$ depend on $`t`$ and $`x`$.

Keeping first order terms in the pressure and energy density perturbations one gets by solving the equation of motion, with a Minkowski metric, the equations

$$\frac{p_1}{t}=(\rho +p)v\frac{v}{t}=\frac{1}{\rho +p}p_1.$$
(18)
Using the relationship $`p=w\rho `$ (or equivalently $`p_1=w\rho _1`$) one has

$$p_1=w\rho _1$$
(19)
which is valid if $`w`$ is not a function of $`x`$. The restriction on $`w=p_1/\rho _1=p/\rho `$ to not depend on the spatial variations follows from the hypothesis of adiabatic perturbations. Eliminating $`v`$ from eqs.(18) and using (19) we get the usual wave equation

$$\ddot{\rho }_1w^2^2\rho _1=0.$$
(20)
Comparing eq.(20) with eq.(9) we see that the phase velocity is given by $`v_p=|w|=v`$ and it is the same for all monochromatic wave functions of the fluid perturbations $`\rho _1`$ since $`b=d=0`$. Eq.(20) is valid for a static (Minkowski) space in the absence of gravitational interactions.

If we consider a flat FRW space, with metric $`ds^2=dt^2a(t)^2dx^2`$, then the perturbation equation for radiation with $`\delta _r\delta \rho _r/\rho _r`$ is given (in the transverse gauge) by

$$\ddot{\delta }_r+\frac{1}{3}k^2\delta _r=\frac{4}{3}\ddot{\delta }_c$$
(21)
where $`\delta _c\delta \rho _c/\rho _c`$ is the perturbation of (cold) matter and the r.h.s. term in eq.(21) is a source term for $`\delta _r`$. Comparing eq.(21) and eq.(9) we see that the phase velocity is given by $`v^2=1/3`$ and in the absence of the source term, the group and the phase velocity would coincide. Since there is no dissipative term ($`d=0`$) the sound velocity for radiation would be given be $`v_p=v_g=v_p=1/\sqrt{3}`$.

Notice that even in an expanding universe the perfect fluid (in this case for radiation) has no dispersion.

### III.2 Scalar Field

A scalar field is defined by the action

$$S=𝑑x^4\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{\lambda }{2}\left(_\nu \varphi \right)^2V(\varphi )\right]$$
(22)
where $`gdet[g_{\mu \nu }]`$ and we have introduced the parameter $`\lambda =\pm 1`$ in order to incorporate phantom fields in the analysis ($`+1`$ for a canonical scalar fields and $`1`$ for phantom fields). From this eq. we can extract the energy momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }(\varphi )=\lambda _\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi g_{\mu \nu }\left[\frac{1}{2}\lambda g^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha \varphi _\beta \varphi V(\varphi )\right]`$ and the equation of motion is

$$\lambda (^\mu _\mu \varphi +3H\dot{\varphi })+V^{}=0.$$
(23)
where we have set $`[_\mu (g^{\mu \nu }\sqrt{g})/\sqrt{g}]_\mu \varphi =3H\dot{\varphi }`$, valid in a flat FRW metric, with $`\sqrt{g}=a(t)^3`$, $`H=\dot{a}/a`$ the Hubble parameter and $`a(t)`$ the scale factor. The $`T_o^o=\rho `$ component defines the energy density while $`T_i^i=p_\varphi `$ the pressure, for simplicity and presentation purposes we will only consider perturbations in one direction $`i=x`$, giving

$$\rho _\varphi =\lambda (\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2\frac{1}{2}^i\varphi _i\varphi )+V(\varphi )p_\varphi =\lambda (\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2\frac{1}{2}^i\varphi _i\varphi )V(\varphi )$$
(24)
and the equation of state parameter is

$$w_\varphi \frac{p_\varphi }{\rho _\varphi }=\frac{\lambda (\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2\frac{1}{2}^i\varphi _i\varphi )V(\varphi )}{\lambda (\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2\frac{1}{2}^i\varphi _i\varphi )+V(\varphi )}.$$
(25)
In cosmology it is usual to assume the scalar field to be homogenous in space and therefore $`\varphi (t,x)=\varphi _o(t)`$ is only a function of time and the space derivatives vanish, $`_i\varphi _o=0`$. In such a case eq.(25) reduces to eq.(1).

However, contrary to a perfect fluid, in the case of a scalar field the equation of state cannot be imposed and it is dynamically determined by the evolution of $`\varphi `$ given by eq.(23). It is easy to see that $`w`$ in eq.(25) does depend on the spatial coordinates. Taking a perturbations in the $`x`$-direction around the average solution $`\varphi _o`$ one has

$$\varphi (t,x)=\varphi _o(t)+\phi (t,x)$$
(26)
and to first order in $`\phi `$ we have $`V(\varphi (t,x))V_o(\varphi _o(t))+V_o^{}\phi +O(\phi ^2)`$ with $`V_o^{}=V/\varphi |_{\varphi _o}`$ and $`(\dot{\varphi }^2^i\varphi _i\varphi )/2=\dot{\varphi }_o^2/2+\dot{\varphi }_o\dot{\phi }+O(\phi ^2)`$. Eq.(25) up to first order in $`\phi `$ gives

$$w_\varphi =w_{\varphi o}+\frac{2\lambda \left[V_o^{}\dot{\varphi }_o^2\phi (t,x)2V_o\dot{\varphi }_o\dot{\phi }(t,x)\right]}{p_{\varphi o}^2}+O(\phi ^2)$$
(27)
where $`w_{\varphi o}`$ is given by eq.(1) and $`p_{\varphi o}=\lambda \dot{\varphi }_o^2/2V_o(\varphi _o)`$. The perturbed equation (23) up to first order in $`\phi `$ is

$$\lambda (\ddot{\phi }^2\phi +3H\dot{\phi })+V(\varphi _o)^{\prime \prime }\phi =\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }_o\dot{h}$$
(28)
where the r.h.s in eq.(28) is due to the variation of the metric tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`^2a^2^2`$ and $`V^{\prime \prime }=^2V/\varphi ^2`$. In terms of a Fourier transformation $`\phi (t,x)=(2\pi )^3𝑑k^3\phi _ke^{ikx^{}/a}`$ we can write eq.(28) as

$$\ddot{\phi }_k+3H\dot{\phi }_k+(\frac{k^2}{a^2}+\frac{V(\varphi _o(t))^{\prime \prime }}{\lambda })\phi _k=\frac{1}{2\lambda }\dot{\varphi }_{ko}\dot{h}$$
(29)
with $`k^2=kk`$. Eq.(29) gives the wave equation for the scalar field perturbations and we can see that the medium is dissipative ($`H0`$) and dispersive ($`(k^2/a^2+V^{\prime \prime }/\lambda )/k^2`$ is $`k`$ dependent). In conformal time $`ad\tau =dt`$ eq.(29) becomes

$$\phi _k^{}+2\text{H}\phi _k^{}+(k^2+\frac{a^2V(\varphi _o(t))^{\prime \prime }}{\lambda })\phi _k=\frac{1}{2\lambda }\varphi _{ko}^{}h^{}$$
(30)
where $``$ means derivative w.r.t. $`d\tau `$ and $`\text{H}a^{}/a`$. Comparing eq.(30) with eq.(9) we see that $`v_p=1`$, i.e. the ”phase velocity” is the speed of light, $`b=a^2V(\varphi _o(t))^{\prime \prime }/\lambda `$ and $`d=2\text{H}`$ are non zero and time dependent. Therefore, the wave function will have a non constant amplitude and the velocity of each monochromatic wave will differ thus giving a group velocity different than the phase velocity. We also remark that the left hand side of eq.(30) is the same for a canonical scalar field with negative mass square (i.e. a tachyon field with $`V^{\prime \prime }/\lambda =V^{\prime \prime }<0`$) to a phantom field with positive $`m^2`$ (i.e. $`V^{\prime \prime }/\lambda =V^{\prime \prime }<0`$). On the other hand, the gravitational contribution given by the r.h.s of eq.(30) has opposite sign for a canonical field and a phantom field since $`\lambda `$ changes sign.

### III.3 K-essence

Let us now consider the following (k-essence) action for a scalar field kessence

$$S=𝑑x^4\sqrt{g}K(\varphi )F(X)$$
(31)
with $`K(\varphi )`$ an arbitrary function of the scalar field $`\varphi `$ and $`F(X)`$ a function of the kinetic term $`X=_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi /2`$. The equation of motion of eq.(31), in a flat FRW metric, is given by

$$_\mu \left(a(t)^3F^{}(X)K(\varphi )^\mu \varphi \right)a(t)^3F(X)K^{}(\varphi )=0$$
(32)
where we have taken $`\sqrt{g}=a^3(t)`$ and a prime denotes derivative w.r.t. the argument and we used $`\delta X/\delta ^\mu \varphi =_\mu \varphi `$. Eq.(32) is then

$$_\mu ^\mu \varphi +\frac{K^{}}{K}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi +\frac{F^{\prime \prime }}{F^{}}_\mu X^\mu \varphi +3H\dot{\varphi }\frac{F}{F^{}}\frac{K^{}}{K}=0$$
(33)
The Lagrangian in eq.(31) can be reduced to a canonical kinetic term scalar Lagrangian for $`F=X,K=1`$ and eq.(33) reduces to $`_\mu ^\mu \varphi +3H\dot{\varphi }=0`$, i.e. a scalar field without potential. For an homogenous scalar field $`\varphi =\varphi _o(t)`$ we have $`_\mu X=\dot{\varphi }_o\ddot{\varphi }_o`$ and eq.(33) becomes

$$_\mu ^\mu \varphi _o+3H\dot{\varphi }_o\frac{F^{}}{F^{}+F^{\prime \prime }\dot{\varphi }_o^2}+\frac{F}{F^{}}\frac{K^{}}{K}\left(\frac{\dot{\varphi }_o^2FF^{}}{F^{}+F^{\prime \prime }\dot{\varphi }_o^2}\right)=0$$
(34)
In order to analyze the evolution of the perturbations we will expand eq.(33) to first order in $`\varphi (t,x)=\varphi _o(t)+\phi (t,x)`$. Let us defined the functions $`D(\varphi )K^{}(\varphi )/K(\varphi ),E(X)F^{\prime \prime }(X)/F^{}(X)`$ and $`S(X)F(X)/F^{}(X)`$ which appear in eq.(33). We expand the functions $`D,E,S`$ to first order in $`\phi (t,x)`$, i.e. $`D=D_o+D^{}\phi ,E=E_o+E^{}\delta X,S=S_o+S^{}\delta X`$ with $`\delta X=\dot{\varphi }_o\dot{\phi }`$ where the prime denotes derivative w.r.t. the argument. The expansion of $`X`$ and $`_\mu X`$ are given by

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`X_o+\delta X=X_o+\dot{\varphi }_o\dot{\phi }+O(\phi ^2)`$
$`_\mu X`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu X_o+\dot{\phi }_\mu \dot{\varphi }_o+\dot{\varphi }_o_\mu \dot{\phi }+O(\phi ^2)`$ (35)
with $`X_o=\dot{\varphi }_o^2/2,\dot{X}_o=\dot{\varphi }_o\ddot{\varphi }_o`$, $`_\alpha X_o=_\alpha (_\mu \varphi _o^\mu \varphi _o/2)=\dot{\varphi }_o\ddot{\varphi }_o\delta _{o\alpha }`$ and $`_\mu X^\mu \varphi =\dot{\varphi }_o\dot{X}_o+2\dot{\varphi }_o\ddot{\varphi }_o\dot{\phi }+\dot{\varphi }_o^2\ddot{\phi }`$. To first order in $`\phi (t,x)`$ eq.(33) becomes

$$\ddot{\phi }B^2\phi +3BH\dot{\phi }+A\dot{\phi }+m_{eff}^2\phi =\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }_o\dot{h}$$
(36)
where

$$B=1/(1+E_o\dot{\varphi }_o^2)=F^{}/(F^{}+F^{\prime \prime }\dot{\varphi }^2),A=B(2D_o\dot{\varphi }_o+E^{}\dot{\varphi }_o^3\ddot{\varphi }_oS^{}D_o\dot{\varphi }_o+2E_o\ddot{\varphi }_o\dot{\varphi }_o)$$
(37)
and the effective mass is given by

$$m_{eff}^2=B(\dot{\varphi }_o^2S_o)D^{}=\frac{(\dot{\varphi }_o^2S_o)D^{}}{1+E_o\dot{\varphi }_o^2}.$$
(38)
Making a fourier transformation of eq.(36), as in eq.(29), we get

$$\ddot{\phi }_k+(3BH+A)\dot{\phi }_k+(\frac{k^2}{a^2}B+m_{eff}^2)\phi _k=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }_o\dot{h}$$
(39)
The r.h.s. in eq.(36) is due to the variation of the metric as in eq.(28) and the factor of $`B`$ in eqs.(36) and (38) arises because $`_\mu X^\mu \varphi `$ involves a second order time derivative of $`\phi `$. Comparing equation (39) to eq.(29) we see that they are similar, eq.(39) has a second time derivative term, a friction term and an effective mass $`m_{eff}^2`$. The friction term, the effective mass and the phase velocity $`v_p^2=B`$, as seen from eq.(9), are model and time dependent. The phase velocity will, in general, be different than the speed of light contrary to a canonical scalar field. The effective mass square can in principle be positive or negative and the effect of the friction term is to damp or enhance the amplitude of the fluctuations, depending on its sign.

Let us now consider the particular case presented in kessence . In this special case $`K(\varphi )=1/\varphi ^2`$ and $`F(X)=g(y)/y`$ with $`y`$ defined as $`y=1/\sqrt{X}`$ and the pressure, energy density, equation of state and group velocity are given by kessence , k-MCLT

$`p={\displaystyle \frac{g(y)}{\varphi ^2y}}`$ $`\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{g^{}(y)}{\varphi ^2}}`$ (40)
$`w={\displaystyle \frac{g(y)}{yg^{}(y)}}`$ $`v_g={\displaystyle \frac{g(y)yg^{}(y)}{y^2g^{\prime \prime }(y)}}.`$ (41)
As seen from eqs.(41) the equation of state parameter (i.e. the phase velocity) diverges when $`g^{}(y)=0`$ while the group velocity diverges at $`g^{\prime \prime }(y)=0`$. In this class of models we have $`D(\varphi )=K^{}(\varphi )/K(\varphi )=2/\varphi ,D^{}=dD/d\varphi =2/\varphi _o^2,E(X)=F^{\prime \prime }(X)/F^{}(X)=y^2(y(g^{}+yg^{\prime \prime })g)/(2(gyg^{}))`$ and $`S(X)=F(X)/F^{}(X)=2g/(y^2(gyg^{}))`$ and the effective mass of eq.(38) is given by

$$m_{eff}^2=\frac{4}{y^2\varphi _o^2}\frac{[\dot{\varphi }_o^2y^2(gyg^{})2g]}{[2(gyg^{})+(y(g+yg^{})g)y^2\dot{\varphi }_o^2]}.$$
(42)
The coefficients $`A,B`$ of eq.(37) can be easily obtained. However, even in this particular case the effective mass, $`A`$ and $`B`$ have not a simple form and are still model and time dependent but the main conclusions remain valid. The sound speed for k-essence differs from a canonical scalar field, its phase velocity is no longer equal to the speed of light but and its sound velocity is smaller than the speed of light.

### III.4 Curvature Correction

In the case where we consider corrections to the Einstein general relativity we have a lagrangian Capozzolo03 ; CDTT04

$$S=𝑑x^4\sqrt{g}\left(f(R)+L_m\right)$$
(43)
with $`f(R)`$ an arbitrary function of the Ricci scalar $`R`$ and $`L_m(\varphi )`$ the matter lagrangian. The equation of motion of eq.(43) in a flat FRW metric, is given by

$$f^{}(R)R_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}f(R)g_{\alpha \beta }=f^{}(R)^{;\mu \nu }\left(g_{\alpha \mu }g_{\beta \nu }g_{\alpha \beta }g_{\mu \nu }\right)+\overline{T}_{\alpha \beta }^M$$
(44)
which can be written in a suggestive form Capozzolo03

$$R_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\alpha \beta }=T_{\alpha \beta }^C+T_{\alpha \beta }^M$$
(45)
where

$`T_{\alpha \beta }^C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f^{}(R)}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[f(R)Rf^{}(R)\right]+f^{}(R)^{;\mu \nu }\left(g_{\alpha \mu }g_{\beta \nu }g_{\alpha \beta }g_{\mu \nu }\right)\right\}`$ (46)
$`T_{\alpha \beta }^M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f^{}(R)}}\overline{T}_{\alpha \beta }^M`$ (47)
In some interesting cases, such as

$$\begin{array}{cc}f(R)=R^{\frac{3}{2}},& f(R)=R\frac{\mu ^2}{R}\end{array}$$
(48)
these fourth order equations can be transformed to the Einstein frame, where the gravitational equations take the Einstein form, coupled to a scalar field. This is done through a conformal mapping Capozzolo03 ; CDTT04

$$\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{g}_{\alpha \beta }=F(R)g_{\alpha \beta },& \varphi =G(R)\end{array}$$
(49)
with suitable chosen functions $`F(R)`$ and $`G(R)`$. The resulting equations are

$`\stackrel{~}{R}_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{g}_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`T_{\alpha \beta }^\varphi +T_{\alpha \beta }^M`$ (50)
$`_\mu ^\mu \varphi V^{}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma `$ (51)
for a suitable source term $`\sigma `$ Capozzolo03 ; CDTT04 . Thus, in many interesting cases, curvature corrections model of dark energy can be mapped on the scalar field quintessence paradigm. Therefore, the small disturbances equations will have the form (29).

It should be noted that if the action (43) is treated with a Palatini variation cur-Vuc ; cur2  the resulting field equations are of the second order type. The resulting field equations have an effective cosmological constant which, for a suitable choice of parameters, can be fitted to reproduce the present deceleration parameter. Since these equations have the Einstein form, small perturbations will behave much the same way as in a cosmological model with a varying cosmological constant. In particular, adiabatic scalar modes will obey a scalar ave equation, formally similar to (29). However, for lagrangians singular in $`R=0`$ the newtonian limit cannot be recovered Barraco04 .

## IV Solution

We shall study now the propagation speeds of a scalar field. For the sake of simplicity, let us consider Eq. (23) in Minkowski space-time, with $`\sqrt{g}=1`$ in a 1+1 dimensional space-time. Let us consider the Lagrangian density $`=\frac{\lambda }{2}[(_{ct}\varphi )^2(_z\varphi )^2]V(\varphi )`$, where the constant $`\lambda `$ allow us to include phantom fields in the following discussion. The equation of motion as given by eq.(23) and the perturbed equation of motion for $`\phi (z,t)`$, eq.(28) ($`\varphi (z,t)=\varphi _0(t)+\phi (z,t)`$), in the absence of the source term, is

$$\lambda \left(\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{^2\phi }{t^2}\frac{^2\phi }{z^2}\right)+m^2\phi =0.$$
(52)
where we have taken $`V(\varphi _o)^{\prime \prime }=m^2`$. In terms of the Fourier transformation we have

$$\frac{\lambda }{c^2}\ddot{\phi }_k+\left(\lambda k^2+m^2\right)\phi _k=0.$$
(53)
We have not incorporated a friction term because it only enhances or damps the amplitude of the fluctuations but does not interfere with the sound speed. Eqs.(52) or (53) encompasses several particular cases commonly found in the cosmological literature: a standard scalar field $`\lambda >0,m^2>0`$ with $`1>w_{\varphi o}>1`$, a negative potential field $`\lambda >0,m^2<0`$ and a phantom field $`\lambda <0,m^2>0`$. The last two examples have regions with $`|w_{\varphi o}|>1`$ and/or $`|dp_o/d\rho _o|>1`$. The second case corresponds to $`\varphi `$ near a maximum of the potential, which means the existence of an effective tachyon. It would seem that the sound velocity becomes grater than $`c`$ in this case, but this is not so: the fluid model breaks down when the propagation of perturbations in the system is considered, even in the “normal” case $`w<1`$. The same thing happens for the third case, i.e. phantom field.

We are interested in finding the general solution with the initial conditions

$$\phi (z,0)=f(z),\left(\frac{\phi }{t}\right)_{t=0}=g(z).$$
(54)
It is enough to find the fundamental solution of eq.(52) $`\mathrm{\Delta }(z,t)`$, satisfying

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(z,0)=0,\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{t}\right)_{t=0}=\delta (z)$$
(55)
since for any set of initial conditions (54) we have

$$\phi (z,t)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\zeta \left[\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}(z\zeta ,t)f(\zeta )+\mathrm{\Delta }(z\zeta ,t)g(\zeta )\right].$$
(56)
Indeed

$`\phi (z,0)`$ $`=`$ $`f(z)`$ (57)
$`\underset{t0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi (z,t)}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{t0}{lim}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\zeta \left[\ddot{\mathrm{\Delta }}(z\zeta ,t)f(\zeta )+\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}(z\zeta ,t)g(\zeta )\right]`$ (58)
$`=`$ $`\underset{t0}{lim}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\zeta \left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Delta }}{z^2}}m^2\mathrm{\Delta }\right)f(\zeta )+\delta (z\zeta )g(\zeta )\right]`$ (59)
$`=`$ $`g(z).`$ (60)
Using a Fourier decomposition for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(z,t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ke^{ikz}\mathrm{\Delta }(k)e^{i\omega t}$$
(61)
we find the dispersion relation

$$\omega =\pm c\sqrt{k^2+\mu ^2}$$
(62)
with $`\mu ^2m^2/\lambda `$. Observe that negative kinetic energy, $`\lambda <0`$, behaves as a negative $`m^2`$ with respect to propagation. Using the initial conditions eqs.(55) we find

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(z,t)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\frac{\mathrm{sin}\omega (k)t}{\omega (k)}e^{ikz}.$$
(63)
Now we use the integral representation (GR4e, , (Integral 6.677.6))

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}ct\sqrt{k^2+\mu ^2}}{c\sqrt{k^2+\mu ^2}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c}}{\displaystyle _{ct}^{ct}}𝑑\xi J_0\left(\mu \sqrt{(ct)^2\xi ^2}\right)e^{ik\xi }`$ (64)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\xi J_0\left(\mu \sqrt{(ct)^2\xi ^2}\right)\mathrm{\Theta }[(ct)^2\xi ^2]e^{ik\xi }`$ (65)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }[x]`$ is the Heaveside function ($`\mathrm{\Theta }[x]=1`$ for $`x0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }[x]=0,x<0`$) and $`J_0(x)`$ the Bessel function of zero order (notice that the change in integration from eq.(64) to eq.(65) is taken care by the Heaveside function), to obtain

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(z,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi c}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ke^{ikz}{\displaystyle _{ct}^{ct}}J_0\left(\mu \sqrt{(ct)^2\xi ^2}\right)e^{ik\xi }𝑑\xi `$ (66)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi c}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k𝑑\xi J_0\left(\mu \sqrt{(ct)^2\xi ^2}\right)\mathrm{\Theta }[(ct)^2\xi ^2]e^{ik(z\xi )}`$ (67)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c}}J_0\left(\mu \sqrt{(ct)^2z^2}\right)\mathrm{\Theta }[(ct)^2z^2].`$ (68)
The last equation (68) is valid for $`t0`$ and it gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }(z,t=0)=0`$, as can be seen from eq.(67). Taking the derivative of eq.(68) we have

$`\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}(z,t)=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ct}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{J_1\left(\mu \sqrt{(ct)^2z^2}\right)}{\sqrt{(ct)^2z^2}}}\mathrm{\Theta }[(ct)^2z^2]`$ (69)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_0\left(\mu \sqrt{(ct)^2z^2}\right)\left(\delta (ctz)+\delta (ct+z)\right)`$
and for $`t=0`$ we get $`\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}(z,0)=\delta (z)`$. Eqs. (68) and (69) are the main results of this section. They show that a signal propagates always with speed smaller or equal than $`c`$, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }(z,t)`$ and $`\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}(z,t)`$ vanish for $`|z|>ct`$. This ensures that a signal generated at $`t=0,z_0`$ will necessarily arrive at a point $`|zz_0|`$ at a time larger or equal than $`ct`$, as can be seen from the vanishing of the wave function $`\phi (z,t)`$ for $`|zz_0|>ct`$ from eqs.(56), (68) and (69).

On the other hand, the result for $`m^2<0`$ (or $`\lambda <0`$) can be obtained easily from Eq. (65) or (68) using analytic continuation in the parameter $`\mu =m/\sqrt{\lambda }`$. In both cases one gets

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_I(z,t)=\frac{1}{2c}I_0\left(|\mu |\sqrt{(ct)^2z^2}\right)\mathrm{\Theta }[(ct)^2z^2]$$
(70)
where $`I_0`$ is the modified Bessel function of zero order. The amplitude of eq.(70) grows exponentially with time, showing explicitly the instability of a field with $`m^2<0`$ (or $`\lambda <0`$). However, it also shows that the speed of the wave packet is smaller or equal to the speed of light, as for the standard scalar field case ($`m^2>0,\lambda >0`$). The instability growth of the perturbation is ameliorated by the expansion of the universe since instead of growing exponentially fast it grows power like. The increase of the amplitude implies that the first order approximation in the perturbed differential equation (52) will cease to be valid. This implies that we can no longer use eq.(52) to study the evolution of $`\phi `$ and non-perturbative methods must be used. In this case the universe will be become inhomogeneous. However, we would like to emphasis that the sound speed never becomes larger than the speed of light.

It should be stressed that the above results are general. Indeed, the Principle of Equivalence guarantees that in a freely falling reference systems, the equations of motion for the fluid or scalar field will take their Minkowskian form.

This behavior can be simply illustrated solving eq.(52) in 1+1 dimensional space-time. We assume that a rectangular semi-infinite wave train of unit amplitude is incident at the spatial point $`z=0`$ and look its subsequent behavior. The initial conditions for such a pulse are

$`f(z)`$ $`=`$ $`sin(kx)\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$
$`g(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{df(z)}{dz}}`$
Fig.2a shows the normal case with $`\mu ^2>0`$ and $`E=\omega =2\mu `$. The front of the train moves towards the right with a speed equal to $`c`$, but the first crest diminishes and settles slowly into the group velocity. This process is just beginning in the figure. The field is stable and there is no increase of the amplitude with time.

Fig.2b shows the propagation of the same wave train in the case $`\mu ^2<0`$, i.e. when the field is “tachyonic”. In spite of that character, the signal velocity is equal to $`c`$ and the amplitude of the wave vanishes outside the lightcone (i.e. for $`z>t`$). However, the system is unstable and shows exponential growth of the signal as can be seen from the height of the amplitude around $`z=0,t=8`$.

## V Conclusions

We have shown that scalar fields have naturally regions where $`|w_{\varphi o}|>1`$ and/or $`|dp_o/d\rho _o|>1`$ and these properties seem to contradict causality. In some of these regions the scalar field can be interpreted as an effective tachyon (i.e. $`m^2<0`$) or phantom (i.e. $`\lambda \dot{\varphi }^2<0`$) scalar field, i.e. $`\mu ^2<0`$ in both cases. We studied the evolution of the scalar field perturbations for models with $`|w_{\varphi o}|>1`$ and/or $`|dp_o/d\rho _o|>1`$ including tachyon, phantom, k-essence and curvature models. We have shown that even in these extreme cases the scalar field is consistent with causality and Lorentz invariance provided dispersion is taken into account and the sound speed is never larger than the speed of light. Dispersion, however, appears naturally for scalar fields having nontrivial potentials (e.g. mass term) such as those used to model dark energy. However, when $`\mu ^2`$ becomes negative the amplitude of the perturbations grows rapidly and the first order approximation breaks down. The universe becomes, therefore, inhomogeneous and non-perturbative mathematical methods must be used to study the evolution of the perturbations.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by CONACYT project 32415-E and DGAPA, UNAM project IN-110200.