text:
# Quintessence with a constant equation of state in hyperbolic universes

## I Introduction

The recent observations of the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) Netterfield\_et\_al\_2001 ; Lee\_et\_al\_2001 ; Halverson\_et\_al\_2001  together with the power spectrum of the large scale structure (LSS) Peacock\_Dodds\_1994 ; Hamilton\_Tegmark\_Padmanabhan\_2000 ; Percival\_et\_al\_2001 ; Efstathiou\_2dF\_team\_2002 , and the magnitude-redshift relation of the supernovae Ia Hamuy\_et\_al\_1996 ; Riess\_et\_al\_1998 ; Perlmutter\_et\_al\_1999  give strong evidence that the present mean energy density $`\epsilon _{\text{tot}}`$ of the universe consists not only of radiation, baryonic and cold dark matter, but also of a dominant component with negative pressure which nowadays is called dark energy. An obvious candidate for this new energy is Einstein’s cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with a corresponding constant energy density $`\epsilon _\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }c^4/(8\pi G)`$ and negative pressure $`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\epsilon _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, assuming a positive cosmological constant. The associated cosmological models are known as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models.

An alternative explanation for the missing energy is quintessence, where the dark energy density is identified with the energy density $`\epsilon _\varphi `$ (associated with a negative pressure $`p_\varphi `$) arising from a scalar (quintessence) field $`\varphi `$ (see Peebles\_Ratra\_2002  for a recent review). Quintessence can be considered as a natural generalization of the cosmological constant to the case of a time-dependent $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$ with an associated time-dependent pressure.

Many cosmologists seem to accept as established that the universe is flat corresponding to $`k=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}:=\epsilon _{\text{tot}}/\epsilon _{\text{crit}}=1`$. Here we address the question: do the recent observations really establish that our universe is spatially flat? It is demonstrated that present data are consistent with certain quintessence models possessing a constant equation of state in a hyperbolic universe, i. e. with negative spatial curvature, $`k=1`$, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}<1`$. Our result is the consequence of the important observation that there exists a degeneracy in the space of the relevant cosmological parameters $`(w_\varphi ,\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi ,\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c})`$ which are introduced below.

Our background model is the standard cosmological model based on a Friedmann–Lemaître universe with the Robertson-Walker metric

$$ds^2=a^2(\eta )\left(d\eta ^2\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j\right),$$
(1)
where $`\gamma _{ij}`$ denotes the spatial hyperbolic metric, and $`a(\eta )`$ is the cosmic scale factor as a function of conformal time $`\eta `$. Then the Friedmann equation reads $`(a^{}:=da/d\eta ,c=1)`$

$$H^2:=\left(\frac{a^{}}{a^2}\right)^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\epsilon _{\text{tot}}+\frac{1}{a^2},$$
(2)
where $`H=H(\eta )`$ is the Hubble parameter, and the last term in Eq. (2) is the curvature term for $`k=1`$. Furthermore, $`\epsilon _{\text{tot}}=\epsilon _\text{r}+\epsilon _\text{m}+\epsilon _\varphi `$, where $`\epsilon _\text{r}`$ denotes the energy density of “radiation”, i. e. of the relativistic components according to photons and three massless neutrinos; $`\epsilon _\text{m}=\epsilon _\text{b}+\epsilon _{\text{cdm}}`$ is the energy density of non-relativistic “matter” consisting of baryonic matter, $`\epsilon _\text{b}`$, and cold dark matter, $`\epsilon _{\text{cdm}}`$, and $`\epsilon _\varphi `$ is the energy density of the dark energy due to the quintessence field $`\varphi `$. (In Sect. V.3, we will also include the energy density due to a cosmological constant.) For our later discussions of the time-dependence $`\epsilon _\text{x}=\epsilon _\text{x}(\eta )`$ of the various energy components $`(\text{x}=\text{r},\text{m},\varphi )`$, it is important to notice that the initial conditions to be imposed on the Friedmann equation (2) are in the case of negative curvature uniquely given by $`a(0)=0`$ and $`a^{}(0)=\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}^{1/2}(1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}})^1H_0^1`$ with $`H_0=H(\eta _0)`$ being the Hubble constant. Here and in the following, we use the dimensionless density parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{x}(\eta ):=\epsilon _\text{x}(\eta )/\epsilon _{\text{crit}}(\eta )`$ with $`\epsilon _{\text{crit}}(\eta )=3H^2/(8\pi G)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{x}:=\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{x}(\eta _0)`$ denoting their present values.

In quintessence models, the energy density $`\epsilon _\varphi (\eta )`$ and the pressure $`p_\varphi (\eta )`$ of the dark energy are determined by the quintessence potential $`V(\varphi )`$

$$\epsilon _\varphi =\frac{1}{2a^2}\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+V(\varphi ),p_\varphi =\frac{1}{2a^2}\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}V(\varphi ),$$
(3)
or equivalently by the equation of state

$$w_\varphi (\eta )=\frac{p_\varphi (\eta )}{\epsilon _\varphi (\eta )}.$$
(4)
The equation of motion of the real, scalar field $`\varphi (\eta )`$ is

$$\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\frac{a^{}}{a}\varphi ^{}+a^2\frac{V(\varphi )}{\varphi }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},$$
(5)
where it is assumed that $`\varphi `$ couples to matter only through gravitation. The various energy densities are constrained by the continuity equation

$$\epsilon _\text{x}^{}(\eta )+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}(1+w_\text{x}(\eta ))\frac{a^{}}{a}\epsilon _\text{x}(\eta )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},$$
(6)
with the constant equation of state $`w_\text{r}=\frac{1}{3}`$, $`w_\text{m}=0`$ for $`\text{x}=\text{r},\text{m}`$ and $`w_\varphi (\eta )`$ for $`\text{x}=\varphi `$. It is worthwhile to remark that the quintessence field $`\varphi `$ may be regarded as a real physical field, or simply as a device for modeling more general cosmic fluids with negative pressure.

Obviously, there are two complementary approaches:

* Given $`V(\varphi )`$ compute $`w_\varphi (\eta )`$,
* Given $`w_\varphi (\eta )`$ compute $`V(\varphi )`$,

and then make predictions for or compare with cosmological observations. Among the various potentials studied in the literature (see, e. g. Peebles\_Ratra\_2002 ; Brax\_Martin\_Riazuelo\_2000  and references therein), we mention only the inverse power-law potential

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{A}{(B\varphi )^\gamma },\gamma >0,$$
(7)
and the exponential potential

$$V(\varphi )=A\mathrm{exp}(B\varphi ),B>0.$$
(8)
The potentials (7) and (8) can be derived Ratra\_Peebles\_1988  (see also Sect. III), if one requires a constant $`w_\varphi `$ during a given evolution stage of the universe: in the radiation-dominated epoch one obtains the inverse power-law potential (7), whereas in the quintessence-dominated epoch one requires $`w_\varphi =\text{const.}1/3`$ and then obtains the exponential potential (8).

In the following, we concentrate our attention on approach b), where one specifies the equation of state $`w_\varphi `$ rather than the potential $`V(\varphi )`$. In order to generalize the standard cosmological models like $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models with as few as possible additional degrees of freedom, $`w_\varphi `$ will be chosen as constant (as studied for flat universes in, e. g., Caldwell\_Dave\_Steinhardt\_1998 ; Wang\_Steinhardt\_1998 ) This contrasts to approach a), where a whole function, i. e. the potential $`V(\varphi )`$, increases the freedom of the model enormously. Furthermore, since in the standard cosmological theories $`w_\text{x}`$ is constant for the various energy components, one can also consider a constant $`w_\varphi `$ for the dark energy component as the most “natural” generalization. It turns out that the values $`w_\varphi =1/3,2/3`$ play a special role and constitute a kind of new “exceptional phases” in addition to the standard phases characterized by $`w_\text{x}=\{1/3,0,1\}`$ for $`\text{x}=\{\text{r},\text{m},\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$. Such equations of state occur in models based on topological defects where $`w=1/3`$ corresponds to a network of frustrated cosmic strings Vilenkin\_1984 ; Spergel\_Pen\_1997  and $`w=2/3`$ to domain walls Durrer\_Kunz\_Melchiorri\_2002 ; Gangui\_2001 .

One purpose of this paper is to derive the potential $`V(\varphi )`$ for the two special equations of state $`w_\varphi =1/3,2/3`$. The restriction to a constant equation of state arises from the absence of well motivated dark energy models being based on fundamental physics. This restriction should not only be considered as a prejudice but also as an approximation to time-variable equations of state when one attempts to describe cosmological observations. Models with a non-constant equation of state lead to nearly the same CMB anisotropy as corresponding models with an effective (constant) equation of state where $`w_\varphi (\eta )`$ is appropriately $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$-averaged Doran\_Lilley\_Schwindt\_Wetterich\_2001 ; Doran\_Lilley\_2002 . As argued in Doran\_Lilley\_Schwindt\_Wetterich\_2001 , the location of the acoustic peaks is mainly determined by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi (\eta _0)`$, the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$-weighted average of $`w_\varphi (\eta )`$ averaged until the present time, as well as by the average of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi (\eta )`$ until recombination. The latter is negligible for negative $`w_\varphi (\eta )`$, i. e. for non-tracker field models, since around $`z_{\text{sls}}1100`$ the energy density of the quintessence component is then subdominant compared to that of the background component. Thus $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi (\eta _0)`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$-weighted average of $`w_\varphi (\eta )`$ suffice to approximately describe the peak structure. Since the dark energy dominates only recently, the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$-weighted average leads to an averaging over the recent history. Therefore, the anisotropy of the CMB is not well suited to probe the time-dependence of the equation of state $`w_\varphi (\eta )`$. The main properties of the anisotropy are then determined by the angular-diameter distance $`d_A`$ to the surface of last scattering (see, e. g., Cornish\_2000 ). A further dependence of the CMB anisotropy on the dark energy arises through the late-time integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect which contributes mostly to low multipoles in the angular power spectrum. Because of the cosmic variance and a possible contribution of gravity waves, it is difficult to extract information on a time-varying equation of state Corasaniti\_Bassett\_Ungarelli\_Copeland\_2002 . On the other hand, in classical cosmological tests based on the luminosity distance, a dark energy component contributes appreciably only for redshifts $`0.2z2`$ Huterer\_Turner\_2001  since for higher redshifts the contribution to the total energy density is too minute (see also Eq. (51)). Here the difficulties are caused by the luminosity distance which depends on $`w_\varphi (\eta )`$ through a multiple-integral which smears out the information on the time-dependence of $`w_\varphi (\eta )`$ Maor\_Brustein\_Steinhardt\_2001 . Thus, with the exception of tracker fields, it is very difficult to observe a time-dependence of $`w_\varphi (\eta )`$ and therefore one can restrict the discussion to a constant equation of state.

Quintessence models with a constant equation of state differ from a cosmological constant with $`w_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ only in the value of the constant $`w_\varphi 1`$. If the observations are too close to $`w_\varphi w_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, then quintessence models might be superseded by the long-known cosmological constant, i. e. by the vacuum energy. Assuming flat universes, the current bound is, e. g., $`w_\varphi <0.85`$ at 68% C.L. Bean\_Melchiorri\_2002  or even $`w_\varphi <0.93`$ at $`2\sigma `$ Corasaniti\_Copeland\_2002 . The caveat is, as we shall show in Sect. VI, the assumed flatness. Such a value so close to the cosmological constant has, however, problems to account for the observed number of giant arcs in galaxy clusters. For a flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}=0.3`$, the number of arcs is one order of magnitude too low. To obtain the right order, one either needs a low-density open model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}=0.3`$ or a flat model where the vacuum energy is replaced by a dark energy component with $`w_\varphi 0.6`$ Bartelmann\_Meneghetti\_Perrotta\_Baccigalupi\_Moscardini\_2002 . A further variant, not discussed in Bartelmann\_Meneghetti\_Perrotta\_Baccigalupi\_Moscardini\_2002 , would be an open model with dark energy which should also produce enough strong lensing to obtain a large number of arcs. In addition, too few lensed pairs with wide angular separation are observed in comparison with the prediction of a flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM-model Sarbu\_Rusin\_Ma\_2001 . These strong lensing observations point towards a universe with negative curvature.

## II General Formula for the Quintessence Potential

In the following, general properties of quintessence models having a constant equation of state $`w_\varphi `$ with $`w_\varphi [1,1/3]`$ and for a universe with negative curvature, i. e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}<1`$, will be discussed. Especially, we discuss the properties of the potential $`V(\varphi )`$ which belongs to a given $`w_\varphi `$. Without loss of generality, we may assume $`\varphi (\eta )0`$ with the initial value $`\varphi _{\text{in}}=\varphi (0)=0`$. It then will turn out that the potential $`V(\varphi )`$ is uniquely determined.

Our starting point are the simple relations

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}\left(\epsilon _\varphi p_\varphi \right)=\frac{1w_\varphi }{2}\epsilon _\varphi ,$$
(9)
$$\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=a^2\left(\epsilon _\varphi +p_\varphi \right)=(1+w_\varphi )a^2\epsilon _\varphi ,$$
(10)
which directly follow from Eqs. (3) and (4). Since $`w_\varphi `$ is constant, we obtain the following solution for $`\epsilon _\varphi `$ from the continuity equation (6)

$$\epsilon _\varphi (\eta )=\epsilon _\varphi (\eta _0)\left(\frac{a_0}{a(\eta )}\right)^{3(1+w_\varphi )},$$
(11)
where $`a_0=a(\eta _0)=H_0^1(1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}})^{1/2}`$ is the scale factor of the present epoch. Inserting (11) into (9), we arrive at the following exact expression for the potential $`V(\varphi (\eta ))`$ parameterized in terms of the scale factor $`a(\eta )`$

$$V(\varphi (\eta ))=\stackrel{~}{V}_0\left(\frac{a_0}{a(\eta )}\right)^{3(1+w_\varphi )},$$
(12)
where the “potential strength” $`\stackrel{~}{V}_0=V(\varphi (\eta _0))`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_0=\frac{1w_\varphi }{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi \epsilon _{\text{crit}},$$
(13)
with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi (\eta _0)=\epsilon _\varphi (\eta _0)/\epsilon _{\text{crit}}`$ and $`\epsilon _{\text{crit}}=\epsilon _{\text{crit}}(\eta _0)=3H_0^2/(8\pi G)`$. Although Eq. (12) does not yet express $`V(\varphi )`$ as a function of $`\varphi `$, several important conclusions can already be drawn from Eqs. (12) and (13):

* $`V(\varphi )`$ is always positive, $`V(\varphi )0`$,
* $`V(\varphi (\eta ))`$ diverges for $`w_\varphi =\text{const.}>1`$ like

$$V(\varphi (\eta ))=O\left(\frac{1}{\eta ^{3(1+w_\varphi )}}\right)$$
(14)
in the radiation-dominated epoch, $`\eta 0`$, since $`a(\eta )=O(\eta )`$ in this limit,
* $`V(\varphi (\eta ))`$ decreases monotonically with increasing $`\eta `$, since $`a(\eta )`$ increases monotonically,
* the order of magnitude of the potential strength $`\stackrel{~}{V}_0`$, Eq. (13), is determined by the “small” energy density $`\epsilon _{\text{crit}}`$.

The divergent behavior (14) for $`w_\varphi >1`$ implies that $`V(\varphi (\eta ))`$ does not possess a Taylor expansion at $`\eta =0`$, i. e. at $`\varphi _{\text{in}}`$. This in turn is tightly connected with the fact that assuming a Taylor expansion at $`\varphi =\varphi _{\text{in}}`$ necessarily implies a time-varying $`w_\varphi `$ with $`w_\varphi (0)=1`$. (A proof will be given in Sect. III.)

As a side-remark, notice that Eqs. (12) and (13) are consistent with the standard cosmological constant, since $`w_\varphi =1`$ yields $`V(\varphi )=\stackrel{~}{V}_0=\epsilon _\varphi =\text{const.}`$ for all $`\eta 0`$.

In order to determine $`V(\varphi )`$ as a function of $`\varphi `$, we must replace $`a(\eta )`$ in Eq. (12) by $`A(\varphi ):=a(\eta (\varphi ))`$, where $`\eta (\varphi )`$ is the inverse of $`\varphi (\eta )`$. The function $`A(\varphi )`$ can by computed as follows. Combining Eqs. (10) and (11) yields

$$\varphi ^{}(\eta )=\alpha [a(\eta )]^\delta $$
(15)
with $`\alpha :=[(1+w_\varphi )\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi a_0^{3(1+w_\varphi )}\epsilon _{\text{crit}}]^{1/2}`$ and $`\delta :=\frac{1}{2}(1+3w_\varphi )`$. Here we have chosen the positive square root of Eq. (10), since with $`\varphi (0)=0`$ and $`\varphi (\eta )0`$, the general properties i)–iii) of the potential lead to $`\varphi ^{}(\eta )0`$. (Actually, Eq. (15) implies $`\varphi ^{}(\eta )0`$ for $`\eta 0`$ and $`1<w_\varphi <\frac{1}{3}`$.) Furthermore, we have

$$\varphi ^{}(\eta )=\frac{d\varphi (\eta (a))}{da}a^{}=\frac{d\varphi }{dA}\sqrt{f(A)},$$
(16)
where the function $`f(a)`$ is defined by rewriting the Friedmann equation (2) as $`a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=f(a)`$ with

$`f(a)`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G}{3}}\epsilon _{\text{tot}}(\eta )a^4+a^2`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`H_0^2{\displaystyle \underset{\text{x}=\text{r},\text{m},\varphi ,\text{c}}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{x}a_0^{3(1+w_\text{x})}a^{13w_\text{x}}.`$
In the last expression, we have inserted the solutions of the continuity equation (6) for the various energy components $`\text{x}=\{\text{r},\text{m},\varphi \}`$ and, furthermore, have introduced the dimensionless curvature parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}:=(H_0^2a_0^2)^1=1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}>0`$ with the corresponding equation of state $`w_\text{c}=\frac{1}{3}`$. Combining Eqs. (15) and (16) gives

$$d\varphi =\alpha \frac{A^\delta }{\sqrt{f(A)}}dA,$$
(18)
which yields by integration

$$\varphi =\alpha _0^{A(\varphi )}\frac{A^\delta }{\sqrt{f(A)}}𝑑A.$$
(19)
Since $`A(\varphi )=a(\eta (\varphi ))`$ tends to zero in the limit $`\eta 0`$, the integral relation (19) is consistent with our initial condition $`\varphi (\eta )0`$ in this limit. Eq. (19) determines the cosmic scale factor $`A`$ as a function of the quintessence field $`\varphi `$, i. e. as the inverse function of the function defined by the integral in Eq. (19). Inserting the solution $`A(\varphi )`$ of (19) into Eq. (12), leads to our general formula

$$V(\varphi )=\stackrel{~}{V}_0\left(\frac{a_0}{A(\varphi )}\right)^{3(1+w_\varphi )}$$
(20)
for the quintessence potential.

It is convenient to use the dimensionless variable $`y:=\frac{A}{a_0}=\frac{1}{z+1}`$ as an integration variable in (19). Defining the dimensionless function

$$g(y):=\underset{\text{x}=\text{r},\text{m},\varphi ,\text{c}}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{x}y^{13w_\text{x}},$$
(21)
we have $`f(A)=f(a_0y)=H_0^2a_0^4g(y)`$, and Eq. (19) takes the final form

$$B_0\varphi =_0^{A(\varphi )/a_0}\frac{y^{\frac{3}{2}(w_\varphi +\frac{1}{3})}}{\sqrt{g(y)}}𝑑y$$
(22)
with

$$B_0:=\frac{1}{m_P}\sqrt{\frac{8\pi }{3(1+w_\varphi )\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }}.$$
(23)
(Here $`m_P:=G^{1/2}`$ denotes the Planck mass, $`\mathrm{}=1`$.) Note that the combination $`B_0\varphi `$ is dimensionless as required by the right-hand side of (22).

Before we come to a discussion of the general properties of the potential (20), we have to check whether the solution (22) for $`\varphi `$ together with the potential (20) solves the equation of motion (5), which until now has not been used in our derivation. For this purpose, it is useful to express the time-dependence of the various terms in (5) by $`a(\eta )`$. Using $`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }=\frac{d\varphi ^{}}{da}a^{}=\frac{d\varphi ^{}}{da}\sqrt{f(a)}`$ and Eq. (15), we obtain

$$\varphi ^{\prime \prime }=\frac{\alpha \sqrt{f(a)}}{a^{\frac{3}{2}(1+w_\varphi )}}\frac{1+3w_\varphi }{2}.$$
(24)
Furthermore, with $`\frac{V}{\varphi }=\frac{V}{A}\frac{dA}{d\varphi }`$ and Eqs. (18) and (20) we derive

$$a^2\frac{V}{\varphi }=\frac{\alpha \sqrt{f(a)}}{a^{\frac{3}{2}(1+w_\varphi )}}\beta $$
(25)
with $`\beta :=3(1+w_\varphi )\stackrel{~}{V}_0a_0^{3(1+w_\varphi )}/\alpha ^2=\frac{3}{2}(1w_\varphi )`$. Thus, we obtain

$`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+2{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{a}}\varphi ^{}+a^2{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\varphi }}=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \sqrt{f(a)}}{a^{\frac{3}{2}(1+w_\varphi )}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+3w_\varphi }{2}}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{f(a)}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{a^{\frac{1+3w_\varphi }{2}}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \sqrt{f(a)}}{a^{\frac{3}{2}(1+w_\varphi )}}}\beta `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \sqrt{f(a)}}{a^{\frac{3}{2}(1+w_\varphi )}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+3w_\varphi }{2}}2+\beta \right]\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
which proves that the equation of motion is satisfied, since the square bracket in the last expression is identically zero.

## III General Properties of the Quintessence Potential

For arbitrary constant values of $`w_\varphi (1,\frac{1}{3})`$, it is not possible to obtain from Eq. (22) an explicit analytic expression for $`A(\varphi )`$, and thus no explicit analytic expression exists in the general case for the potential (20). (See, however, the special cases $`w_\varphi =\frac{1}{3},\frac{2}{3}`$ which will be discussed in Sect. V.) Nevertheless, it is possible to compute the potential for all values of $`w_\varphi `$ numerically, and therefore one can calculate various quantities, which then can be compared with the cosmological observations. This will be done in Sect. VI. In this Section, we discuss some general properties which can be deduced from the formulae derived in Sect. II.

In the radiation-dominated epoch, $`\eta 0`$ or $`\varphi 0`$, we have $`A(\varphi )0`$, and thus Eq. (22) gives ($`\delta :=\frac{3}{2}(\frac{1}{3}+w_\varphi )0`$)

$`B_0\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{A(\varphi )/a_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^\delta }{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}y+O(y^2)}}}𝑑y`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}}(\delta +1)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A(\varphi )}{a_0}}\right)^{\delta +1}+\mathrm{},`$
which implies

$$A(\varphi )=a_0\left[(\delta +1)B_0\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}}\right]^{\frac{1}{\delta +1}}\varphi ^{\frac{1}{\delta +1}}+\mathrm{},\varphi 0.$$
(27)
Inserting this in (20), gives for the quintessence potential

$$V(\varphi )=O\left(\frac{1}{\varphi ^\gamma }\right),\varphi 0,\gamma =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}6}\frac{1+w_\varphi }{13w_\varphi }.$$
(28)
For the two exceptional cases $`w_\varphi =1/3`$ and $`2/3`$, one obtains from (28) $`\gamma =2`$ and $`2/3`$, respectively. (If radiation is neglected, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}=0`$, while keeping $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}0`$, as it is often assumed, one instead obtains (see Eq. (26)) $`\gamma =2(1+w_\varphi )/w_\varphi `$ which yields in the case $`w_\varphi =1/3`$ the value $`\gamma =4`$ instead of $`\gamma =2`$.) Thus, the quintessence potential behaves for $`\varphi 0`$ as the inverse power-law potential (7), where the power $`\gamma `$ is uniquely given by Eq. (28).

In the quintessence-dominated epoch, one has $`a(\eta )\mathrm{}`$ for $`\eta \eta _{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`\eta _{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{}`$ for $`w_\varphi <\frac{1}{3}`$ and $`\eta _{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}`$ for $`w_\varphi =\frac{1}{3}`$. This follows immediately from the Friedmann equation $`a^{}=da/d\eta =\sqrt{f(a)}`$, which can be integrated to give

$$\eta =_0^{a(\eta )}\frac{da}{\sqrt{f(a)}}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}}_0^{a(\eta )/a_0}\frac{dy}{\sqrt{g(y)}}.$$
(29)
For $`w_\varphi <\frac{1}{3}`$ this yields

$$\eta _{\mathrm{}}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dy}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi y^{13w_\varphi }+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}y^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}y+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}}}<\mathrm{}.$$
(30)
Similarly, we obtain from (22) $`\varphi \mathrm{}`$ in the limit $`\eta \eta _{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`w_\varphi \frac{1}{3}`$. To get the leading asymptotic behavior of $`A(\varphi )`$ in this limit, we have to distinguish again between two cases. For $`w_\varphi =\frac{1}{3}`$, Eq. (22) yields

$`B_0\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{A(\varphi )/a_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c})y^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}y+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}}}}`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}}}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A(\varphi )}{a_0}}\right)+\mathrm{},`$
whereas for $`1<w_\varphi <\frac{1}{3}`$ on gets

$`B_0\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{A(\varphi )/a_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{y^{\frac{3}{2}(w_\varphi +\frac{1}{3})}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi y^{13w_\varphi }+O(y^2)}}}𝑑y`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A(\varphi )}{a_0}}\right)+\mathrm{}.`$
Thus, we obtain from Eqs. (31), (32) and (23)

$$A(\varphi )=O(e^{B\varphi }),\varphi \mathrm{},$$
(33)
with

$$B:=\{\begin{array}{ccc}& B_0& \sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}}=\frac{2\sqrt{\pi }}{m_P}\sqrt{1+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }}\text{ for }w_\varphi =\frac{1}{3}\\ & B_0& \sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }=\frac{2\sqrt{\pi }}{m_P}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3(1+w_\varphi )}}\text{ for }1<w_\varphi <\frac{1}{3}\end{array}.$$
(34)
Inserting the asymptotic behavior (33) in (20), gives

$$V(\varphi )=O\left(e^{\mu \varphi }\right),\varphi \mathrm{},$$
(35)
with

$`\mu `$ $`:=`$ $`3(1+w_\varphi )B`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{\pi }}{m_P}}\{\begin{array}{c}2\sqrt{1+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }}\text{ for }w_\varphi =\frac{1}{3}\\ \sqrt{6(1+w_\varphi )}\text{ for }1<w_\varphi <\frac{1}{3}\end{array}.`$
Thus, the quintessence potential behaves for $`\varphi \mathrm{}`$ as the exponential potential (8), where the exponent $`\mu `$ is uniquely given by (36).

We conclude that for $`w_\varphi =\text{const.}1/3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}=1\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}<1`$ the derived quintessence potential (20) interpolates between the inverse power-law potential (7) for $`\varphi 0`$ and the exponential potential (8) for $`\varphi \mathrm{}`$. There arises then the question: does there exist a closed analytic expression for $`V(\varphi )`$ valid for all $`\varphi 0`$? In Sect. V we shall study the special cases $`w_\varphi =\frac{1}{3},\frac{2}{3}`$ and shall show that for these cases there exist, indeed, exact analytic expressions for the potential.

Before closing this section, we would like to show that the divergent behavior (28) for $`\varphi 0`$ (see also Eq. (14)), which makes it impossible to expand $`V(\varphi )`$ at $`\varphi =0`$ into a Taylor series, is a consequence of the assumption that the quintessence field has a constant equation of state.

Let us suppose, on the contrary, that we have a potential $`V(\varphi )`$ which possesses a well-defined Taylor expansion at some initial field $`\varphi _{\text{in}}=\varphi (0)`$, i. e.

$$V(\varphi )=v_0+v_1(\varphi \varphi _{\text{in}})+O\left((\varphi \varphi _{\text{in}})^2\right)$$
(37)
with $`v_0:=V(\varphi _{\text{in}})>0`$, $`v_1:=\frac{V}{\varphi }(\varphi _{\text{in}})0`$, while $`\varphi (\eta )`$ has at $`\eta =0`$ the expansion $`(b0,\sigma >0)`$

$$\varphi (\eta )=\varphi _{\text{in}}+b\eta ^\sigma (1+O(\eta )).$$
(38)
Using the expansions (37), (38) and the well-known expansion of the scale factor in the radiation-dominated epoch, $`a(\eta )=a^{}(0)\eta +O(\eta ^2)`$, it is not difficult to see that the equation of motion (5) is satisfied iff $`\sigma =4`$ and $`b=\frac{v_1}{20}a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(0)`$.

Now, let us consider the equation of state (4), which by means of (3) can be rewritten as

$$w_\varphi (\eta )=\frac{1r_\varphi (\eta )}{1+r_\varphi (\eta )},r_\varphi (\eta ):=\frac{T(\eta )}{V(\varphi (\eta ))}.$$
(39)
Here $`r_\varphi `$ denotes the ratio of the kinetic energy $`T(\eta ):=\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/(2a^2)`$ of the quintessence field to its potential energy $`V`$. From the above equations, one derives that $`T`$ vanishes like $`O(\eta ^4)`$, which leads to

$$r_\varphi (\eta )=\frac{1}{50}\frac{v_1^2}{v_0}a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(0)\eta ^4+O(\eta ^5)$$
(40)
and

$$w_\varphi (\eta )=1+\frac{1}{25}\frac{v_1^2}{v_0}a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(0)\eta ^4+O(\eta ^5)$$
(41)
in the limit $`\eta 0`$. Thus, in such a model the quintessence component is strongly suppressed at early times and practically indistinguishable from a cosmological constant with $`w_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$. However, with increasing time $`\eta `$, $`w_\varphi (\eta )`$ increases and therefore cannot stay constant at a value $`w_\varphi [1,\frac{1}{3}]`$ for all times.

An example of a quintessence model of this type is given by the exponential potential (8) for which $`\varphi _{\text{in}}`$ can be set to zero without loss of generality. This model has been studied in detail, e. g., in Aurich\_Steiner\_2002a  for hyperbolic universes. Here $`w_\varphi (\eta )`$ starts out at $`1`$ and then approaches zero in the flat case or $`\frac{1}{3}`$ in the hyperbolic case. This shows clearly, as stated already, why our assumption of a constant equation of state necessarily implies an inverse power-law divergence of $`V(\varphi )`$ in the radiation-dominated epoch, see Eq. (28).

## IV Time-Evolution of the Energy Density Parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{x}(\eta )`$

In this Section, we study the time-dependence of the dimensionless energy density parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{x}(\eta )=\epsilon _\text{x}(\eta )/\epsilon _{\text{crit}}(\eta )`$ for the various energy components $`\text{x}=\{\text{r},\text{m},\varphi \}`$ as well as for $`\text{x}=\text{tot}`$ referring to the total energy density. From the continuity equation (6) we obtain for $`\text{x}=\{\text{r},\text{m},\varphi \}`$

$$\epsilon _\text{x}(\eta )=\epsilon _\text{x}(\eta _0)\left(\frac{a_0}{a(\eta )}\right)^{3(1+w_\text{x})},$$
(42)
since all three components are assumed to possess a constant equation of state $`w_\text{x}`$. Expressing the Hubble parameter $`H(\eta )`$ entering $`\epsilon _{\text{crit}}(\eta )`$ by the Friedmann equation (2) and using the variable $`y:=\frac{a}{a_0}=\frac{1}{z+1}`$ together with the function $`g(y)`$, see Eq. (21), one obtains

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{x}(\eta )=\frac{y^{13w_\text{x}}}{g(y)}\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{x},\text{x}=\{\text{r},\text{m},\varphi \}.$$
(43)
The general relation (43) determines the time-evolution of the parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{x}(\eta )`$ in terms of their present values $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{x}=\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{x}(\eta _0)`$ parameterized by the scale factor $`a(\eta )`$, respectively the redshift $`z`$. It follows immediately $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}(0)=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}(0)=\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi (0)=0`$. With $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}(\eta )=_{\text{x}=\text{r},\text{m},\varphi }\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{x}(\eta )`$ and Eqs. (43) and (21) one derives

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}(\eta )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\frac{y^2}{g(y)}(1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}})$$
(44)
satisfying $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}(0)=1`$. (Notice that $`g(1)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}=1`$.)

To analyze the behavior of Eqs. (43) and (44) in the radiation-dominated epoch, we observe that Eq. (29) determines in the case $`w_\varphi \frac{1}{3}`$ the first two terms of the scale factor $`a(\eta )`$ uniquely

$$y=\frac{a(\eta )}{a_0}=\frac{a^{}(0)}{a_0}\left(\eta +\frac{\eta ^2}{2\widehat{\eta }}+O(\eta ^3)\right)$$
(45)
with $`\widehat{\eta }:=2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}}/\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}(1+\sqrt{2})\eta _{\text{eq}}`$, where $`\eta _{\text{eq}}`$ denotes the conformal time at matter-radiation equality. We then obtain for $`\eta 0`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}(\eta )& =& 12(\eta /\widehat{\eta })+O(\eta ^2)\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}(\eta )& =& 2(\eta /\widehat{\eta })+O(\eta ^2)\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi (\eta )& =& O\left(\eta ^{13w_\varphi }\right)\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}(\eta )& =& 1\eta ^2+O(\eta ^{13w_\varphi })\end{array}.$$
(46)
The crucial point to observe is that the quintessence component $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi (\eta )`$ is at early times suppressed (the more the smaller $`w_\varphi `$ is) such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi (\eta _{\text{BBN}})10^5`$ and thus does not interfere with the strong constraints coming from the big-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN).

At late times, $`\eta \eta _{\mathrm{}}`$, respectively $`z1`$, we obtain in the case $`w_\varphi =\frac{1}{3}`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}(\eta )& =& \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }(1+z)^2+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}(\eta )& =& \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }(1+z)+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi (\eta )& & \mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}(\eta )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }+\mathrm{}<1\end{array},$$
(47)
whereas for $`w_\varphi <\frac{1}{3}`$ one derives

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}(\eta )& =& \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }(1+z)^{13w_\varphi }+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}(\eta )& =& \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }(1+z)^{3w_\varphi }+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi (\eta )& & \mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}(\eta )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }(1+z)^{(1+3w_\varphi )}+\mathrm{}1\end{array}.$$
(48)
We see that in all models the quintessence component dominates at low redshift (see Fig.1 in the case $`w_\varphi =\frac{1}{3}`$).

In the case $`w_\varphi <\frac{1}{3}`$, the universe becomes asymptotically flat, whereas for $`w_\varphi =\frac{1}{3}`$ it stays forever hyperbolic with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}(\mathrm{})<1`$, see Eq. (47). Radiation-quintessence equality occurs at $`z=z_{\text{r}\varphi }`$ with

$$z_{\text{r}\varphi }=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}}\right)^{\frac{1}{13w_\varphi }}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}.$$
(49)
The matter component takes its maximum value at a redshift value $`z_\text{m}`$, which can be obtained as a solution of the equation

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}(1+z_\text{m})^{13w_\varphi }\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}(1+z_\text{m})^{(1+3w_\varphi )}=3w_\varphi \mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi .$$
(50)
Matter-quintessence equality holds at $`z=z_{\text{m}\varphi }`$ with

$$z_{\text{m}\varphi }=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}}\right)^{1/(3w_\varphi )}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}.$$
(51)
Fig.1 shows the time-evolution of the energy densities $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{x}(\eta )`$ for $`w_\varphi =\frac{1}{3}`$ using the parameters discussed in Sect. VI. During the epoch of quintessence dominance the growth of linear perturbations is suppressed. This suppression increases thus with increasing $`w_\varphi `$ since then dark energy dominates earlier. In cases of too early dark energy dominance, one needs either a large bias parameter or models with a large CDM-contribution in order to obtain a power spectrum $`P(k)`$ of large scale structure that is consistent with the observations.

## V Explicit Analytic Expressions for the Quintessence Potential

Formula (20) gives the quintessence potential $`V(\varphi )`$ in terms of the scale factor $`A(\varphi )`$, which in turn has to be obtained by “inversion” of the integral appearing in Eq. (22)

$`I_w(u)`$ $`=`$ $`I_w(u;\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r},\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m},\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c},\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi )`$
$`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^u}{\displaystyle \frac{y^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{3}{2}w}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi y^{13w}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}y^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}y+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}}}}𝑑y,`$
where in the following we assume $`u0`$, $`w[1,\frac{1}{3}]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{x}>0`$ for $`\text{x}=\text{r},\text{m},\text{c},\varphi `$. The problem of integration posed by (V) is in general insoluble by means of elementary functions. For special values of $`w`$, however, it is possible to give explicit solutions to our problem.

### V.1 The Potential for $`w_\varphi =\frac{1}{3}`$

In the case of a quintessence component belonging to a constant equation of state, $`w_\varphi =\frac{1}{3}`$, the integral (V) is particularly simple $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\varphi :=\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c})`$

$$I_{\frac{1}{3}}\left(\frac{A(\varphi )}{a_0}\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\varphi }}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{X}{Y}\right),$$
(53)
where we have introduced the abbreviations

$`X`$ $`:=`$ $`2\sqrt{Z}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\varphi \left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{a_0}}\right)+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}`$
$`Y`$ $`:=`$ $`2\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\varphi \mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}`$ (54)
$`Z`$ $`:=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\varphi \left(\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{a_0}}\right)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\varphi \left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{a_0}}\right)^2\right).`$
From Eqs. (53) and (22) one gets

$$X=Ye^{B\varphi },$$
(55)
where $`B`$ is given in Eq. (34) for $`w_\varphi =\frac{1}{3}`$. Furthermore, we obtain from (54) $`(X\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m})2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\varphi \left(\frac{A}{a_0}\right)=2\sqrt{Z}`$, and squaring this equation yields

$`(X\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m})^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\varphi (X\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m})\left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{a_0}}\right)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\varphi ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{a_0}}\right)^2`$ $`=`$
$`4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\varphi \left(\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{a_0}}\right)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\varphi \left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{a_0}}\right)^2\right),`$
which can easily be solved for $`A/a_0`$ giving

$$\frac{A(\varphi )}{a_0}=\frac{1}{4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\varphi }\left(X2\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}+(\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}^24\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\varphi \mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r})X^1\right).$$

Replacing then $`X`$ by the solution (55), leads to the following explicit expression for the scale factor $`A(\varphi )`$ as a function of the quintessence field $`\varphi `$

$$\frac{A(\varphi )}{a_0}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}}{2(\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c})}\left(\stackrel{~}{\eta }\mathrm{sinh}(B\varphi )+\mathrm{cosh}(B\varphi )1\right)$$
(56)
with $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }:=\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}(\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c})}`$. It remains to insert the result (56) into the general formula (20), to arrive at the exact quintessence potential for $`w_\varphi =\frac{1}{3}`$

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{V_0}{\left[\stackrel{~}{\eta }\mathrm{sinh}(B\varphi )+\mathrm{cosh}(B\varphi )1\right]^2},$$
(57)
where we defined the potential strength $`V_0=\frac{8}{3}\epsilon _{\text{crit}}\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi (\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c})^2/\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}^2`$. Thus, in the case $`w_\varphi =\frac{1}{3}`$ the quintessence potential is completely known, not only in its functional form (57), but also with its parameters which are uniquely determined by $`H_0`$ and the present cosmological density parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}=1\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$. The potential (57) and therefore the cosmic evolution is governed by two very different energy scales: the small critical energy $`\epsilon _{\text{crit}}`$ and the huge Planck mass $`m_P`$! Explicitly, one derives from (57)

$$V(\varphi )=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{V_0}{(\stackrel{~}{\eta }B)^2}\frac{1}{\varphi ^2}\text{ for }\varphi 0\\ \frac{4V_0}{(1+\stackrel{~}{\eta })^2}e^{2B\varphi }\text{ for }\varphi \mathrm{}\end{array},$$
(58)
which is in accordance with the general behavior given by Eqs. (28) and (35), respectively.

It is interesting to consider the limit of the potential (57) for vanishing radiation. In this limit, we obtain the following exact quintessence potential for a two-component model consisting of matter and quintessence with $`w_\varphi =\frac{1}{3}`$

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{V_0}{4}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^4\left(\frac{B\varphi }{2}\right)}.$$
(59)
In Sect. V.2, we shall show that this potential leads to an almost constant equation of state $`w_\varphi (\eta )`$ with $`w_\varphi (0)=\frac{1}{9}`$ and $`w_\varphi (\eta )\frac{1}{3}`$ for $`\eta \mathrm{}`$, if (59) is assumed to govern the time-evolution of a quintessence field, where a full three-component background model consisting of radiation, matter and quintessence is employed. (See Sect. V.2 for details.)

### V.2 The Potential for $`w_\varphi =\frac{2}{3}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}0`$

If the quintessence component possesses a constant equation of state, $`w_\varphi =\frac{2}{3}`$, the relevant integral (V) reads

$$I_{\frac{2}{3}}(u)=_0^u\frac{\sqrt{y}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi y^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}y^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}y+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}}}𝑑y.$$
(60)
The integral (60) can be transformed into an elliptic integral of the third kind which can be expressed in terms of the Weierstrass $`\sigma `$\- and $`\zeta `$-function. There exists, however, no simple inversion formula leading to an explicit formula for $`u`$. Eq. (60) simplifies considerably, if we set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}0`$, i. e. neglect radiation. We then have to solve the integral

$$I_{\frac{2}{3}}(u)|_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}0}=_0^u\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi y^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}y+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}}}𝑑y,$$
(61)
which is identical to the integral $`I_{\frac{1}{3}}(u)`$, if we make the replacements $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\varphi =\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}`$. We can thus immediately obtain the corresponding scale factor by making the above replacements in formula (56) and then obtain

$$\frac{A(\varphi )}{a_0}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }\left(\stackrel{ˇ}{\eta }\mathrm{sinh}(B\varphi )+\mathrm{cosh}(B\varphi )1\right)$$
(62)
with $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\eta }:=2\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi \mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}}`$ and $`B=\frac{2\sqrt{2\pi }}{m_P}`$. Inserting (62) into our general formula (20), gives then the exact quintessence potential for a two-component model consisting of matter and quintessence with $`w_\varphi =\frac{2}{3}`$

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{\stackrel{ˇ}{V}_0}{\stackrel{ˇ}{\eta }\mathrm{sinh}(B\varphi )+\mathrm{cosh}(B\varphi )1}$$
(63)
with $`\stackrel{ˇ}{V}_0:=\frac{5}{3}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi ^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}}\epsilon _{\text{crit}}`$. Explicitly, one obtains

$$V(\varphi )=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{\stackrel{ˇ}{V}_0}{\stackrel{ˇ}{\eta }}\frac{1}{B\varphi }\text{ for }\varphi 0\\ \frac{2\stackrel{ˇ}{V}_0}{1+\stackrel{ˇ}{\eta }}e^{B\varphi }\text{ for }\varphi \mathrm{}\end{array},$$
(64)
which is in accordance with the general behavior given by Eqs.(28), (35) and (36).

Since radiation has been neglected in the derivation of the potential (63), it appears at first sight that (63) can be applied only in the matter-dominated epoch and later, i. e. for $`\eta >\eta _\text{m}`$ respectively $`z<z_\text{m}`$ (see Eq. (50)). We can consider, however, a model in which the potential (63) is assumed to govern the time-evolution of the quintessence field for all times, irrespective of its derivation, and solve Eqs. (3)$``$(6) in a full three-component background model consisting of radiation, matter and quintessence. Radiation is then included correctly by means of the scale factor $`a(\eta )`$, and thus the new model is consistent for all times. It is clear, however, that the equation of state $`w_\varphi (\eta )`$ can no more be constant for all $`\eta 0`$. Nevertheless, it is obvious that for the potential (63) asymptotically holds

$$w_\varphi (\eta )\frac{2}{3}\text{ for }\eta \eta _{\mathrm{}},$$
(65)
where we expect $`w_\varphi (\eta )`$ to be almost constant, $`w_\varphi (\eta )\frac{2}{3}`$, already for $`\eta \eta _\text{m}`$. But in the radiation-dominated epoch $`0\eta \eta _\text{m}`$, the equation of state will deviate from its asymptotic value $`\frac{2}{3}`$. It is then interesting to study the behavior of $`w_\varphi (\eta )`$ in the limit $`\eta 0`$.

For this purpose, let us consider the more general situation of a quintessence potential $`V(\varphi )`$ for a two-component model consisting of matter and quintessence with a constant equation of state $`w_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`1<w_{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{3}`$. It follows from Eqs. (26) and (28) that $`V(\varphi )`$ diverges in the radiation-dominated epoch like

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{\overline{V}_0}{\varphi ^{\overline{\gamma }}}+\mathrm{},\overline{\gamma }=\frac{2}{w_{\mathrm{}}}(1+w_{\mathrm{}}).$$
(66)
We then assume, as in the discussion above, that this potential is taken as a model for quintessence using, however, in Eqs. (3)$``$(6) the scale factor $`a(\eta )`$ for a three-component model which takes also radiation into account. One then obtains a time dependent equation of state, $`w_\varphi (\eta )`$, which asymptotically obeys

$$w_\varphi (\eta )w_{\mathrm{}},\eta \eta _{\mathrm{}}.$$
(67)
(We expect $`w_\varphi (\eta )w_{\mathrm{}}`$ to hold for $`\eta \eta _\text{m}`$.) To derive the behavior of $`w_\varphi (\eta )`$ in the opposite limit, $`\eta 0`$, we make the ansatz $`\varphi (\eta )=b\eta ^\sigma +\mathrm{}`$ for $`\eta 0`$ with $`b>0`$, $`\sigma >0`$. Since the background model includes radiation, we have $`a(\eta )=a^{}(0)\eta +\mathrm{}`$ in this limit. With (66), it is not difficult to see that the equation of motion (5) is satisfied iff $`\sigma =4/(\overline{\gamma }+2)`$ and $`b^{\overline{\gamma }+2}=\overline{\gamma }a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(0)\overline{V}_0/(\sigma (\sigma +1))`$. It then follows for the ratio of the kinetic to the potential energy (see Eq.(39)) $`r_\varphi (\eta )r_\varphi (0)`$, $`\eta 0`$, with

$$r_\varphi (0)=\frac{b^{\overline{\gamma }+2}\sigma ^2}{2a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(0)\overline{V}_0}=\frac{2\overline{\gamma }}{\overline{\gamma }+6}$$

which yields

$$w_\varphi (\eta )w_\varphi (0)=\frac{1}{3}(1+4w_{\mathrm{}}),\eta 0.$$
(68)
(Notice that $`1<w_\varphi (0)\frac{1}{9}`$ and $`w_\varphi (0)>w_{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`1<w_{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{3}`$.) We thus conclude that the equation of state for the above models starts with the initial value (68) at $`\eta =0`$ and then decreases to its asymptotic value $`w_{\mathrm{}}`$. In the special case $`w_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{2}{3}`$, discussed at the beginning of this Section, we have $`w_\varphi (0)=\frac{5}{9}`$, and for the potential (59) with $`w_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{3}`$ one gets $`w_\varphi (0)=\frac{1}{9}`$.

### V.3 Potentials with a Positive Cosmological Constant

#### V.3.1 General Properties

In the foregoing discussion, we have considered a three-component model consisting of radiation, matter and quintessence. We will now study a four-component model, which takes into account also a non-vanishing (positive) cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ corresponding to an energy density (vacuum energy density)

$$\epsilon _\mathrm{\Lambda }:=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G}=\text{const.}$$
(69)
with density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H_0^2}>0`$. Assuming $`1<w_\varphi \frac{1}{3}`$, we have now to compute instead of (V) the more general integral

$$\stackrel{~}{I}_w(u):=_0^u\frac{y^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{3}{2}w}dy}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }y^4+\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi y^{13w}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}y^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}y+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}}}.$$
(70)
Let us begin with some general remarks. Obviously, the leading asymptotic behavior of $`\stackrel{~}{I}_w(u)`$ in the limit $`u0`$ is the same as for $`I_w(u)`$, Eq. (V) (see also (26)), and thus we obtain in the radiation-dominated epoch again the power-law divergence (28) with the same power $`\gamma `$ as in the case of the three-component models. In the limit $`u\mathrm{}`$, however, we get a completely different behavior, which follows from the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{I}_w(u)`$, Eq. (70), stays finite in this limit. (Indeed, the integrand of $`\stackrel{~}{I}_w(u)`$ behaves for $`y\mathrm{}`$ like $`y^{\frac{5}{2}\frac{3}{2}w}`$, and thus the integral (70) converges at the upper limit since $`\frac{5}{2}+\frac{3}{2}w>1`$ for $`w>1`$.) Similarly, it follows that the corresponding generalization of the integral (29) stays finite in the limit $`a(\eta )\mathrm{}`$, which implies that the conformal time $`\eta `$ approaches at late times the finite value $`\eta _{\mathrm{}}`$ given by

$$\eta _{\mathrm{}}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dy}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }y^4+\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi y^{13w_\varphi }+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}y^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}y+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}}}.$$
(71)
We thus conclude that the quintessence field $`\varphi (\eta )`$ approaches in the limit $`\eta \eta _{\mathrm{}}`$ the finite value $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}:=\varphi (\eta _{\mathrm{}})`$ given by (see Eqs. (22) and (23))

$$\varphi _{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{B_0}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{y^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{3}{2}w_\varphi }dy}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }y^4+\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi y^{13w_\varphi }+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}y^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}y+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}}}.$$
(72)
With (72), the generalization of Eq. (22) can be rewritten

$$B_0\varphi =B_0\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\widehat{I}_{w_\varphi }\left(\frac{A(\varphi )}{a_0}\right),$$
(73)
where we have defined the function

$$\widehat{I}_w(u):=_u^{\mathrm{}}\frac{y^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{3}{2}w}dy}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }y^4+\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi y^{13w}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}y^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}y+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}}}.$$
(74)
In the limit $`u\mathrm{}`$, one obtains for $`w>1`$

$$\widehat{I}_w(u)=\frac{2}{3}\frac{1}{(1+w)\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}u^{\frac{3}{2}(1+w)}+\mathrm{},$$
(75)
which yields together with (73) the following asymptotic behavior of the scale factor $`A(\varphi )`$

$$\frac{A(\varphi )}{a_0}=O\left((\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\varphi )^{\frac{2}{3(1+w_\varphi )}}\right),\varphi \varphi _{\mathrm{}}.$$
(76)
Inserting the last result in our general formula (20), gives for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$, $`w_\varphi >1`$

$$V(\varphi )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}\pi (1w_\varphi ^2)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\epsilon _{\text{crit}}\left(\frac{\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\varphi }{m_P}\right)^2+\mathrm{},\varphi \varphi _{\mathrm{}}.$$
(77)
Thus, the quintessence potential shows at late times $`(\eta \eta _{\mathrm{}})`$ in a universe with a positive cosmological constant a completely different behavior from that exhibited by Eq. (35). While $`V(\varphi )`$ vanishes in the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ exponentially for $`\varphi \mathrm{}`$, it vanishes for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ only like a power, Eq. (77), at a finite value $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`\varphi \varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$.

In the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$, we have to replace Eq. (43) for the time-evolution of the density parameters by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{x}(\eta )=\frac{y^{13w_\text{x}}}{g_\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)}\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{x},\text{x}=\{\text{r},\text{m},\varphi ,\mathrm{\Lambda }\}$$
(78)
and Eq. (44) for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}(\eta )`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}(\eta )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\frac{y^2}{g_\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)}(1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}})$$
(79)
with (see Eq.(21))

$$g_\mathrm{\Lambda }(y):=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }y^4+g(y)=\underset{\text{x}=\text{r},\text{m},\varphi ,\mathrm{\Lambda },\text{c}}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{x}y^{13w_\text{x}}.$$
(80)
Obviously, the behavior (46) of the density parameters in the limit $`\eta 0`$ is not changed, and we only have to add $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\eta )=O(\eta ^4)`$ for $`\eta 0`$. At late times, $`z1`$, however, Eqs. (47) and (48) have to be replaced by $`(w_\varphi >1)`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}(\eta )& =& \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}(1+z)^4+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}(\eta )& =& \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}(1+z)^3+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi (\eta )& =& \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}(1+z)^{3+3w_\varphi }+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\eta )& =& 1\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}(1+z)^{3+3w_\varphi }+\mathrm{}1\\ \mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}(\eta )& =& 1\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}(1+z)^2+\mathrm{}1\end{array}.$$
(81)
We see that in the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ also the quintessence component vanishes asymptotically at late times, in contrast to the earlier behavior (48), since now the vacuum contribution $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\eta )`$ dominates and approaches one in this limit. Furthermore, we observe that for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ the universe becomes asymptotically flat. Quintessence-vacuum energy equality holds at $`z=z_{\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ with

$$z_{\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }\right)^{\frac{1}{3+3w_\varphi }}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}.$$
(82)
#### V.3.2 The Potential for $`w_\varphi =\frac{1}{3}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$

For $`w_\varphi =\frac{1}{3}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$, we have (see Eqs. (22) and (70))

$$B_0\varphi =\stackrel{~}{I}_{\frac{1}{3}}\left(\frac{A(\varphi )}{a_0}\right),$$
(83)
and thus we have to “invert” the integral

$$\zeta :=\stackrel{~}{I}_{\frac{1}{3}}(u)=_0^u\frac{dy}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }y^4+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\varphi y^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}y+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}}}.$$
(84)
The integral (84) is an elliptic integral of the first kind, which is insoluble by means of elementary functions. However, it is possible to invert it and to express $`u`$ as a rational function of $`𝒫(\zeta )`$, where $`𝒫(\zeta )`$ is the Weierstrass $`𝒫`$-function. It then follows from (83) that $`A(\varphi )/a_0`$ can be expressed as a rational function of $`𝒫(B_0\varphi )`$. (This method has already been used in our earlier paper Aurich\_Steiner\_2000  to express $`a(\eta )`$ in terms of $`𝒫(\eta )`$).

Let $`F(y):=a_0y^4+4a_1y^3+6a_2y^2+4a_3y+a_4`$ be any quartic polynomial which has no repeated factors; and let its invariants be Whittaker\_Watson\_1973

$`g_2`$ $`:=`$ $`a_0a_44a_1a_3+3a_2^2`$
$`g_3`$ $`:=`$ $`a_0a_2a_4+2a_1a_2a_3a_2^3a_0a_3^2a_1^2a_4.`$ (85)
Furthermore, let

$$\zeta =_\alpha ^u\frac{dy}{\sqrt{F(y)}},$$
(86)
where $`\alpha `$ is any constant. (In the applications, which we have in mind, $`\alpha `$ is real and non-negative and $`F(y)>0`$ for $`y\alpha `$.) Then Whittaker\_Watson\_1973

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`u(\zeta )=\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}F^{}(\alpha )\left(𝒫(\zeta )\frac{1}{24}F^{\prime \prime }(\alpha )\right)}{2\left(𝒫(\zeta )\frac{1}{24}F^{\prime \prime }(\alpha )\right)^2\frac{1}{48}F(\alpha )F^{(4)}(\alpha )}}`$ (87)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{24}F(\alpha )F^{\prime \prime \prime }(\alpha )\sqrt{F(\alpha )}𝒫^{}(\zeta )}{2\left(𝒫(\zeta )\frac{1}{24}F^{\prime \prime }(\alpha )\right)^2\frac{1}{48}F(\alpha )F^{(4)}(\alpha )}},`$
the Weierstrass function $`𝒫(\zeta )=𝒫(\zeta ;g_2,g_3)`$ being formed with the invariants (85) of the quartic $`F(y)`$. (Notice that we have corrected a sign on p. 454 in Whittaker\_Watson\_1973  by writing $`\sqrt{F(\alpha )}𝒫^{}(\zeta )`$ in Eq. (87).) $`𝒫(\zeta )`$ can numerically be evaluated very efficiently by its Laurent expansion

$$𝒫(\zeta )=\frac{1}{\zeta ^2}+\underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_k\zeta ^{2k2}$$
(88)
with

$$c_2:=\frac{g_2}{20},c_3:=\frac{g_3}{28}$$

and the recursion relation Abramowitz\_Stegun\_1965

$$c_k=\frac{3}{(2k+1)(k3)}\underset{m=2}{\overset{k2}{}}c_mc_{km}\text{ for }k4.$$

With $`a_0=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`a_1=0`$, $`a_2=(\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c})/6`$, $`a_3=\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}/4`$, $`a_4=\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}`$ and $`\alpha =0`$, we obtain from Eqs. (83), (84), (86) and (87)

$$\frac{A(\varphi )}{a_0}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}}{4}\frac{𝒫(B_0\varphi )\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}}{12}2\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}}𝒫^{}(B_0\varphi )}{\left(𝒫(B_0\varphi )\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}}{12}\right)^2\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4}}$$
(89)
with $`B_0=\frac{2\sqrt{\pi }}{m_P}\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi ^{1/2}`$, where $`𝒫(B_0\varphi ;g_2,g_3)`$ has to be formed with the invariants

$`g_2`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}\right)^2}{12}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (90)
$`g_3`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}\right)^3}{216}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}\right)}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}^2}{16}}\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$
Inserting (89) into our general formula (20), yields the exact quintessence potential for a four-component model with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ and $`w_\varphi =\frac{1}{3}`$

$`V(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4V_0}{\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}\right)^2}}`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{\left(𝒫(B_0\varphi )\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}}{12}\right)^2\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4}}{𝒫(B_0\varphi )\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}}{12}2\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}}𝒫^{}(B_0\varphi )}}\right]^2,`$
where the potential strength $`V_0`$ is found to be the same as in Eq.(57). Using the leading behavior $`𝒫(B_0\varphi )=(B_0\varphi )^2+\mathrm{}`$ and $`𝒫^{}(B_0\varphi )=2(B_0\varphi )^3+\mathrm{}`$ for $`\varphi 0`$, it follows that (V.3.2) obeys the correct power-law behavior (28) (see also Eq. (58)) in the radiation-dominated epoch $`\varphi 0`$. To derive the asymptotic behavior of $`V(\varphi )`$ in the opposite limit at late times, $`\eta \eta _{\mathrm{}}`$ or $`\varphi \varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$, (see Eqs. (71) and (72)), we use Whittaker\_Watson\_1973

$$𝒫(\zeta )=\frac{\sqrt{F(u)F(\alpha )}+F(\alpha )}{2(u\alpha )^2}+\frac{F^{}(\alpha )}{4(u\alpha )}+\frac{F^{\prime \prime }(\alpha )}{24}$$

$`𝒫^{}(\zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{F(u)}{(u\alpha )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}(u)}{4(u\alpha )^2}}\right]\sqrt{F(\alpha )}`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{F(\alpha )}{(u\alpha )^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}(\alpha )}{4(u\alpha )^2}}\right]\sqrt{F(u)}`$
with the same notation as in Eq. (86). From Eqs. (83) and (84) we infer that we have to choose $`\alpha =0`$ in Eq. (V.3.2) and then consider the limit $`u=A(\varphi )/a_0\mathrm{}`$, which yields

$`𝒫(B_0\varphi _{\mathrm{}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{F(0)}}{2}}\underset{u\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{F(u)}}{u^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F^{\prime \prime }(0)}{24}}`$ (93)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}}{12}}`$
and

$`𝒫^{}(B_0\varphi _{\mathrm{}})`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{F(0)}\underset{u\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{F(u)}{u^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}(u)}{4u^2}}\right]`$ (94)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}(0)}{4}}\underset{u\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{F(u)}}{u^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}}{4}}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}.`$
The implicit relation (93) turns out to be very convenient to calculate $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ numerically (instead of computing the integral (72)). A Taylor expansion of $`𝒫(B_0\varphi )`$ and $`𝒫^{}(B_0\varphi )`$ at $`\varphi =\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ gives then for the potential (V.3.2) the desired result in the limit $`\varphi \varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$. Explicitly, one derives

$$V(\varphi )=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{V_0\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}^2}{16\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}}\frac{1}{(B_0\varphi )^2}\text{ for }\varphi 0\\ \frac{2}{3}\epsilon _{\text{crit}}\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(B_0(\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\varphi )\right)^2\text{ for }\varphi \varphi _{\mathrm{}}\end{array}$$
(95)
in full agreement with the general behavior (28) and (77).

It is worthwhile to check whether the potential (V.3.2) goes in the limit of a vanishing cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, over to our previous result (57). From (90), we obtain for the invariants in this limit $`g_2(\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c})^2/12`$ and $`g_3(\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c})^3/216`$. Using the homogeneity property of the function $`𝒫(\zeta )`$ Whittaker\_Watson\_1973 , $`𝒫(\zeta ;g_2,g_3)=\lambda ^2𝒫(\lambda \zeta ;\frac{g_2}{\lambda ^4},\frac{g_3}{\lambda ^6})`$, we obtain with $`\lambda =\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}}`$

$$𝒫(B_0\varphi ;g_2,g_3)_{(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0)}(\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c})𝒫(B\varphi ;\frac{1}{12},\frac{1}{216}),$$
(96)
where we have used the definition $`B:=B_0\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}}`$, see Eq. (34). Since the last $`𝒫`$-function can be expressed in terms of an elementary function Abramowitz\_Stegun\_1965 ,

$$𝒫(\zeta ;\frac{1}{12},\frac{1}{216})=\frac{1}{12}+\frac{1}{4\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{\zeta }{2}},$$
(97)
one obtains, indeed, that the potential (V.3.2) goes over to the potential (57) if the cosmological constant approaches zero.

#### V.3.3 The Potential for $`w_\varphi =\frac{2}{3}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}0`$

For $`w_\varphi =\frac{2}{3}`$, we have to solve (see Eqs. (73) and (74))

$$B_0(\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\varphi )=\widehat{I}_{\frac{2}{3}}\left(\frac{A(\varphi )}{a_0}\right)$$
(98)
with

$$\widehat{I}_{\frac{2}{3}}(u)=_u^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\sqrt{y}dy}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }y^4+\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi y^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}y^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}y+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}}}.$$
(99)
The last integral simplifies considerably, if we set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r0`$, i. e. neglect radiation. Introducing the new variable of integration $`t`$, $`y:=\frac{4}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}\left(t\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }{12}\right)`$, the integrand is transformed into Weierstrass normal form

$$B_0(\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\varphi )=_T^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{\sqrt{4t^3g_2tg_3}}$$
(100)
with invariants

$`g_2`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi ^2}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4}}`$ (101)
$`g_3`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi ^3}{216}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi 3\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
and $`T:=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4}\left(\frac{A(\varphi )}{a_0}\right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }{12}`$. In the form (100), the integral can be solved Whittaker\_Watson\_1973  in terms of the Weierstrass $`𝒫`$-function, $`T=𝒫(B_0(\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\varphi ))`$, and one immediately obtains for the scale factor

$$\frac{A(\varphi )}{a_0}=\frac{4}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝒫(B_0(\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\varphi ))\frac{1}{3}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }},$$
(102)
where the function $`𝒫`$ has to be formed with the invariants (101). Inserting (102) into our general formula (20), yields the exact quintessence potential for a three-component model consisting of matter, quintessence and a cosmological constant with $`w_\varphi =\frac{2}{3}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}0`$

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{\widehat{V}_0}{𝒫(B_0(\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\varphi ))\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }{12}}$$
(103)
with $`\widehat{V}_0=\frac{5}{24}\epsilon _{\text{crit}}\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The potential (103) depends on the field $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$, which is defined by

$`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B_0}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }y^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi y^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}y+\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}}}}`$ (104)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B_0}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi /12}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{\sqrt{4t^3g_2tg_3}}}`$
and can be computed from

$$𝒫(B_0\varphi _{\mathrm{}})=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi }{12}.$$
(105)
Expanding $`𝒫(B_0(\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\varphi ))`$ into a Taylor series at $`\varphi =0`$ and using (105) and

$$𝒫^{}(B_0\varphi _{\mathrm{}})=\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}}}{4}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(106)
one derives the asymptotic behavior of the potential (103) for $`\varphi 0`$. The behavior of $`V(\varphi )`$ in the limit $`\varphi \varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ follows immediately form (88). Explicitly, one obtains

$$V(\varphi )=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{4\widehat{V}_0}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{1}{B_0\varphi }\text{ for }\varphi 0\\ \widehat{V}_0\left(B_0(\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\varphi )\right)^2\text{ for }\varphi \varphi _{\mathrm{}}\end{array},$$
(107)
which is in accordance with the general behavior given by (28) and (77).

## VI Comparison with cosmological observations

After having discussed various aspects of quintessence models with a constant equation of state $`w_\varphi `$, let us come to a detailed comparison with the CMB observations. (A preliminary announcement of our results can be found in Steiner\_Aurich\_2002 .) We use in our comparison the following priors. The Hubble constant $`H_0=h\times 100\text{ km s}^1\text{Mpc}^1`$ is set to $`h=0.65`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{b}=0.05`$ (i. e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{b}h^2=0.021`$) is chosen in agreement with the current Big-Bang nucleosynthesis constraints.

The CMB anisotropy is computed according to Ma\_Bertschinger\_1995 ; Hu\_1998  using the conformal Newtonian gauge. The relativistic components are photons and three massless neutrino families with standard thermal history. For the photons, the polarization dependence on the Thomson cross section is taken into account. The recombination history of the universe is computed using RECFAST Seager\_Sasselov\_Scott\_1999 . The non-relativistic components are baryonic and cold dark matter. The initial conditions are given by an initial curvature perturbation with no initial entropy perturbations in relativistic and non-relativistic components. Furthermore, we assume that there are no tensor mode contributions. The initial curvature perturbation is assumed to be scale-invariant which is “naturally” suggested by inflationary models. The quintessence fluctuations are initially set to zero. Other choices for the quintessence inhomogeneity would yield practically the same results because these models are insensitive to the initial conditions on the quintessence fluctuations Dave\_Caldwell\_Steinhardt\_2002 .

The CMB anisotropy of these quintessence models is compared with the angular power spectrum $`\delta T_l=\sqrt{l(l+1)C_l/2\pi }`$ obtained by the experiments BOOMERanG Netterfield\_et\_al\_2001 , MAXIMA-1 Lee\_et\_al\_2001 , and DASI Halverson\_et\_al\_2001 . This corresponds to 41 data points. The amplitude of the initial curvature perturbation is fitted such that the value of $`\chi ^2`$ is minimized with respect to these three experiments, where $`\chi ^2`$ is computed using RADPACK<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1See RADPACK homepage:
http://bubba.ucdavis.edu/$``$knox/radpack.html.

The figures 2 to 5 present the values of $`\chi ^2`$ for the four cases $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}=0.85`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}=0.9`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}=0.95`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}=1.0`$, respectively. The values of $`\chi ^2`$ are shown in dependence on $`w_\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}`$ is held fixed, the matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}`$ is given by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$ neglecting the small radiation contribution. One observes that a decreasing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}`$ demands an increasing $`w_\varphi `$, i. e. a less negative value; from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}=0.85`$ to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}=1.0`$ the equation of state shifts from $`w_\varphi =0.2`$ to $`w_\varphi =0.7`$. Furthermore, all acceptable models require a dominant dark energy component $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi 0.6`$ and possess $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}=0.25`$. Since the minimum of $`\chi ^2`$ is for all four cases of the same order, $`\chi _{\text{min}}^2=33\mathrm{}36`$, no definite value for the curvature is singled out. Thus we do not find convincing hints pointing towards vanishing curvature, i. e. a flat universe. The four best models corresponding to the cases $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}=0.85`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}=0.9`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}=0.95`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}=1.0`$, respectively, are nearly degenerated with respect to their angular power spectrum $`\delta T_l/T`$ as can be seen in figure 6. With the current observational accuracy, one cannot discriminate between these models. A degeneracy between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$ and $`w_\varphi `$ exists already in the flat case, see e. g. Hu\_Eisenstein\_Tegmark\_White\_1999 ; Bean\_Melchiorri\_2002 ; Melchiorri\_Mersini\_Odman\_Trodden\_2002 . If the assumption of flatness is dropped, a degeneracy with respect to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$ and $`w_\varphi `$ arises. A special case, the degeneracy with respect to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the curvature $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}`$ is discussed in Efstathiou\_Bond\_1999 . The full $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c},\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi ,w_\varphi )`$-degeneracy can be inferred from Huterer\_Turner\_2001  in the neighborhood of a special flat model, where the shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }l_1`$ of the first peak (see their Eq. (18)) from a flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}=0.3`$ is analyzed. This geometrical degeneracy arises through the angular-diameter distance to the surface of last scattering having redshift $`z_{\text{sls}}`$,

$$d_A=\frac{1}{H_0\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}|}(z_{\text{sls}}+1)}S_k\left(\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}|}_{\frac{1}{1+z_{\text{sls}}}}^1\frac{dy}{\sqrt{g(y)}}\right),$$
(108)
where $`S_k(x)`$ is $`\mathrm{sinh}(x)`$, $`x`$, $`\mathrm{sin}(x)`$ for $`k=1,0,+1`$, respectively, if we include also the flat and the positive curvature case. The models with the lowest values of $`\chi ^2`$ possess nearly the same angular-diameter distance $`d_A`$ to the surface of last scattering. Furthermore, the models which for fixed $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}`$ match the anisotropy, have all the same $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}=0.25`$. In figure 7 we show the angular-diameter distance $`d_A`$ to the surface of last scattering for this value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}`$. Our models with the smallest $`\chi ^2`$ lie close to the black marked contour of constant $`d_A`$. One infers from figure 7 that to the model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}=0`$ and $`w_\varphi =0.7`$ correspond models with the same $`d_A`$ having $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}=0.05,0.1,0.15`$ and $`w_\varphi 0.43,0.3,0.22`$, respectively. Thus, this geometrical degeneracy allows also universes of negative curvature.

One observes in figure 7 that the contours of constant $`d_A`$ have a larger slope for larger $`w_\varphi `$, i. e. for the models with more negative curvature. This leads to more sharply confined regions of small values of $`\chi ^2`$ in the parameter space with increasing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}`$, i. e. decreasing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}`$. This trend is clearly visible in figures 2 to 5.

In figure 8 the magnitude-redshift relation $`m_\text{B}(z)`$ is shown for the four best models. One observes a very similar behavior in the three cases with negative curvature consistent with the supernovae Ia observations Hamuy\_et\_al\_1996 ; Riess\_et\_al\_1998 ; Perlmutter\_et\_al\_1999 . The upper dotted curve belonging to the flat case gives a slightly better fit than the curves belonging to the cases with negative curvature but the latter are nevertheless consistent with these observations. At this point, it is important to be aware of the ongoing discussions whether the extinction in the host galaxies is indeed negligible for high $`z`$ supernovae Sullivan\_et\_al\_2002  or whether this indicates an inconsistent treatment of host galaxy extinction when the extinction is only taken into account for low $`z`$ supernovae Rowan-Robinson\_2002 ; Farrah\_Meikle\_Clements\_Rowan-Robinson\_Mattila\_2002 . Furthermore, the hints for an accelerated expansion are also weakened if supernovae not observed before maximum light are excluded from the analysis Rowan-Robinson\_2002 . Thus, it is probably save not to reject universes with negative curvature which need only a $`0.10.2`$ mag shift in order to be in perfect agreement with the observations. At this point it should be noted, as e. g. emphasized recently in Ellis\_Stoeger\_McEwan\_Dunsby\_2002  that while inflation is taken to predict that the universe is very close to flat, it does not imply that the spatial sections are exactly flat.

Let us now turn to the special case $`w_\varphi =\frac{1}{3}`$, i. e. to the potential (57) derived in Sect. V.1. Here we choose the following values for the cosmological parameters: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{cdm}}=0.25`$, i. e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{m}=0.30`$; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =0.60`$, i. e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}=0.90`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c}=0.10`$, which gives $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}(\mathrm{})=\frac{6}{7}0.86`$. We then obtain $`\eta _{\text{eq}}=0.0087`$; $`z_{\text{rec}}=1089`$, i. e. $`\eta _{\text{rec}}=0.0198`$; $`z_\text{m}=\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{c})/\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{r}}183`$, i. e. $`\eta _\text{m}=0.106`$; $`z_{\text{m}\varphi }=1`$, i. e. $`\eta _{\text{m}\varphi }=0.687`$; $`\eta _0=0.8938`$ corresponding to an age of the universe of $`t_0=12.16\text{ Gyr}`$. In Fig. 1 we show the density parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\text{x}(\eta )`$ as a function of conformal time $`\eta `$. Fig. 9 shows the prediction of the model for the angular power spectrum $`\delta T_l=\sqrt{l(l+1)C_l/2\pi }`$ of the CMB anisotropy in comparison with the BOOMERanG Netterfield\_et\_al\_2001 , MAXIMA-1 Lee\_et\_al\_2001 , and DASI Halverson\_et\_al\_2001  experiments. One observes that the model describes the data very well ($`\chi ^2=35`$ for $`N_{\text{data}}=41`$). The first three acoustic peaks occur at $`l_1=222`$, $`l_2=538`$ and $`l_3=820`$, in excellent agreement with the observations. In Fig. 10 we show the magnitude-redshift relation $`m_\text{B}(z)`$ in comparison with the supernovae Ia data Hamuy\_et\_al\_1996 ; Riess\_et\_al\_1998 ; Perlmutter\_et\_al\_1999 . Again we observe good agreement with the data.

To summarize, we conclude that the quintessence model with $`w_\varphi =\frac{1}{3}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{tot}}=0.90`$ is in excellent agreement with present observations. We have thus demonstrated that it is too early to claim that present data have already established that the universe is flat. It remains to be seen whether future observations give additional support to the idea that our universe is close to flat, but not exactly flat, and that its spatial geometry is hyperbolic.


format: text

text:
# Soliton-sound interactions in quasi-one-dimensional Bose-Einstein condensates

## Abstract

Longitudinal confinement of dark solitons in quasi-one-dimensional Bose-Einstein condensates leads to sound emission and reabsorption. We perform quantitative studies of the dynamics of a soliton oscillating in a tight dimple trap, embedded in a weaker harmonic trap. The dimple depth provides a sensitive handle to control the soliton-sound interaction. In the limit of no reabsorption, the power radiated is found to be proportional to the soliton acceleration squared. An experiment is proposed to detect sound emission as a change in amplitude and frequency of soliton oscillations.

The experimental realisation of dilute atomic Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC) Fermi  has introduced an unparalleled platform from which to study the dynamical behaviour of nonlinear systems. Of great interest is the stability of topological structures, such as vortices and dark solitary waves. Recent experiments at low temperatures have highlighted the temperature-independent crystallization Abo  and decay Davies  of vortex structures. Related theoretical work has indicated the importance of vortex-sound interactions Vinen . Following the recent experimental observation of dark solitary waves (henceforth referred to as dark solitons) in BEC’s Burger , one can now study the coupling of solitons to the background sound field.

Dark solitons are robust localised one-dimensional defects characterised by a notch in the ambient condensate density and a phase slip across the centre. They are supported in repulsive (defocussing) nonlinear media where the kinetic dispersion of the wave is balanced by the nonlinear interaction. In three-dimensional geometries they are prone to decay into lower energy topological structures such as vortex rings AndersonB . However, in quasi-one-dimensional (quasi-1D) geometries, where the transverse condensate size is of the order of the healing length, solitons are expected to exhibit longer lifetimes, due to the suppression of transverse excitations Muryshev1 .

In the context of nonlinear optics Kivshar , dark solitons on a homogeneous background can become intrinsically unstable to modifications of the nonlinearity within the optical medium (e.g. due to saturation effects) Pelinovsky . In quasi-1D BEC’s, modified nonlinearities can arise from the transverse dimensions that have been integrated out, as considered for longitudinally homogeneous condensates in Muryshev2 . The longitudinal confinement of current atomic BEC experiments leads to an additional mechanism by which the integrability of the system can be broken Busch ; Fedichev ; Huang . In this paper we perform detailed quantitative analysis of the stability of dark solitons in quasi-1D geometries under longitudinal confinement, and find that dissipation due to the longitudinal inhomogeneity dominates over decay arising from coupling to transverse modes Muryshev2 . Our axial configuration consists of a tight dimple trap (where the soliton resides) embedded in a weaker harmonic potential. Such a geometry enables us to control and examine the interplay between sound emission and reabsorption by the oscillating soliton. In the limit of no reabsorption, the rate of emission is found to be proportional to the local soliton acceleration squared, as predicted for optical solitons in homogeneous nonlinear waveguides Pelinovsky . Finally we propose a controllable experiment where the soliton-sound interactions can be quantified by measuring the amplitude and frequency of the soliton oscillations.

Our analysis is based on numerical simulations of the Gross-Pitaevskii Equation (GPE), describing the dynamics of weakly-interacting BEC’s in the limit of low temperature,

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}^2\psi +V_{\mathrm{ext}}\psi +g|\psi |^2\psi .`$ (1)
Here $`\psi `$ is the order parameter of the system, $`V_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ the confining potential, $`m`$ the atomic mass and $`g=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a/m`$ the scattering amplitude, where $`a`$ is the s-wave scattering length. In the limit of tight transverse confinement, the condensate dynamics are effectively longitudinal Jackson . By integrating out the transverse degrees of freedom, the GPE reduces to a one-dimensional ($`1`$D) form with a modified coupling coefficient $`g_{_{1\mathrm{D}}}=g/(2\pi l_{_{}}^2)`$, where $`l_{_{}}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m\omega _{_{}}}`$ is the transverse harmonic oscillator length and $`\omega _{_{}}`$ the transverse trapping frequency. On a homogeneous background density $`n_{_{1\mathrm{D}}}`$, a dark soliton of speed $`v`$ and position, $`z^{}=(zvt)`$, is defined as,

$`\psi (z,t)=\sqrt{n_{_{1\mathrm{D}}}}\left[\beta \mathrm{tanh}(\beta z^{}/\xi )+i(v/c)\right]\mathrm{e}^{i\mu _{_{1\mathrm{D}}}t/\mathrm{}}`$ (2)
where $`\mu _{_{1\mathrm{D}}}=g_{_{1\mathrm{D}}}n_{_{1\mathrm{D}}}`$ is the one-dimensional chemical potential, $`c=\sqrt{\mu _{_{1\mathrm{D}}}/m}`$ the Bogoliubov speed of sound, $`\beta =\sqrt{1(v/c)^2}`$, and $`\xi =\mathrm{}/\sqrt{m\mu _{_{1\mathrm{D}}}}`$ is the healing length characterising the size of the soliton.

We consider a trap of the form

$$V_{\mathrm{ext}}=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}m\omega _z^2z^2\\ V_0+\frac{1}{2}m\omega _\zeta ^2(|z|z_0)^2\end{array}\mathrm{for}\begin{array}{cc}& \hfill |z|z_0\\ & \hfill |z|>z_0\end{array}$$
(3)
where we have defined the ‘cut-off’ depth of the inner ‘dimple’ trap as $`V_0=\frac{1}{2}m\omega _z^2z_0^2`$ (see Fig. 1). Sound waves generated by the oscillating soliton can either be trapped within the dimple or escape to the outer trap, depending on the value of the cut-off $`V_0`$ relative to the chemical potential $`\mu _{_{1\mathrm{D}}}`$. For a sufficiently weak outer trap, the density in the outer region and close to the dimple becomes approximately homogeneous (Fig. 1(b)), and as a first approximation we initially solve the 1D GPE in the limit $`\omega _\zeta =0`$. We shall return to the experimentally relevant case of $`\omega _\zeta 0`$ and 3D simulations later. The effect of the emitted sound on soliton dynamics can be determined by monitoring the ‘soliton energy’ Soliton\_Energy , a quantity determined by integrating the functional,

$`\epsilon (\psi )={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}\left|\psi \right|^2+V_{\mathrm{ext}}\left|\psi \right|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\left|\psi \right|^4,`$ (4)
across the soliton region ($`z_\mathrm{s}\pm 5\xi `$) and subtracting the corresponding contribution of the background fluid.

Fig. 2 shows the temporal evolution of the soliton energy for different cut-offs (corresponding to different amounts of sound reabsorption), all of which display a periodicity of approximately $`\omega _z/\sqrt{2}`$ due to the motion of the soliton in the trap Busch ; Fedichev ; Huang . One can discriminate two limiting cases: (i) For sufficiently high cut-offs (here $`V_01.2\mu _{_{1\mathrm{D}}}`$) all emitted sound becomes trapped in the dimple, leading principally to the excitation of the dipole mode Busch . The combined effect of the dipole mode and soliton, oscillating at different frequencies, induces beating of characteristic period $`\tau 22`$ (see Fig. 2). (ii) For low cut-offs ($`V_00.4\mu _{_{1\mathrm{D}}}`$) there is essentially pure emission (no reabsorption) of sound by the soliton. This behaviour is consistent with the change in energy experienced by a classical particle of negative mass oscillating in a harmonic trap, subject to a dissipative force which induces an energy loss proportional to the acceleration squared Next\_Paper . The observation that the soliton dynamics changes significantly around $`V_0\mu _{_{1\mathrm{D}}}`$ (since sound excitations have energy of the order of the chemical potential) provides a sensitive handle on the soliton-sound interaction, which can be controlled experimentally.

The dissipative dynamics of a dark soliton in a shallow dimple trap are investigated in Fig. 3. As the soliton oscillates, it becomes asymmetrically deformed Next\_Paper  and tries to adjust to the inhomogeneous background by radiating counter-propagating sound pulses (Fig. 3(a)). Fig. 3(b) shows the power emitted by the soliton as a function of time. At the bottom of the trap there is no sound emission since Eq. (2) becomes the local solution to the GPE, while at the zenith of the first few oscillations, the soliton radiates maximum power. This sound emission (which modifies the soliton depth) leads to an increase in the soliton speed and amplitude of oscillations, which in turn causes a gradual increase in the peak power radiated. As the soliton approaches the edge of the dimple, it experiences a smoothing of the effective potential due to fluid healing. This reduces the emission at the trap edge, as manifested in the ‘intermediate’ dips at $`\omega _zt25`$ and $`29.5`$. Eventually at $`\omega _zt35`$ the soliton escapes the trap Busch .

In the context of nonlinear optics, multiscale asymptotic techniques predict that an unstable optical soliton, propagating in a homogeneous nonlinear waveguide, emits sound at a rate proportional to the soliton acceleration squared Pelinovsky , such that,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dE_\mathrm{s}}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{c^2v^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{2c^2}{n}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_\mathrm{s}}{v}}\right)^2`$
$`+2v\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_\mathrm{s}}{v}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_\mathrm{s}}{v}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_\mathrm{s}}{v}}\right)^2\left]\right({\displaystyle \frac{dv}{dt}})^2.`$
Here $`n`$ is the local background density, $`S_\mathrm{s}`$ the total phase slip across the moving soliton, and $`N_\mathrm{s}=\left(n|\psi |^2\right)dz`$ the number of particles displaced by the soliton. In the optical case, the breakdown of integrability leading to sound emission arises from modifications in the nonlinearity within the medium, as opposed to the longitudinal confinement discussed above.

It may therefore come as a surprise that this expression could also be applicable to the inhomogeneous case. In fact, this can only be valid in double trap structures of Eq. (3) if the dimple trap is sufficiently shallow that it essentially allows complete escape of sound to the outer trap; even then, this result will only hold until the emitted sound returns to the dimple region after reflection from the outer trap. In this limit, the asymptotic conditions become practically indistinguishable from the homogeneous ones, thus justifying the above approach. The validity of Eq. (5) is not dependent on the origin of the instability, but rather on the fact that the emitted sound escapes from the soliton region. Note that the effect of the dimple confinement is implicit in the variations of the parameters $`S_\mathrm{s}`$, $`c`$ and $`n`$, and, contrary to the homogeneous case Pelinovsky , this result will hold for all soliton speeds, due to the continuously-induced ‘soliton instability’ caused by the longitudinal confinement. Fig. 3(b) confirms the applicability of Eqs. (5) (circles) in the limit $`V_0\mu _{_{1\mathrm{D}}}`$ by direct comparison to the 1D GPE simulations (solid line). Further evidence is provided in Fig. 2 which shows clearly that as the cut-off is decreased, the variation of energy with time (solid lines) approaches the above analytical result in the limit of no reabsorption (dotted line). We stress that Eq. (5) will not hold in the usual infinite harmonic traps, where multiscale asymptotic technique must be combined with boundary layer theory Busch .

Simulations of the 3D GPE with cylindrical symmetry (still under the assumption of a homogeneous outer trap) confirm the qualitative findings of Fig. 2. In particular, in the limit $`\mu _{_{3\mathrm{D}}}/\mathrm{}\omega _{_{}}1.2`$ (where the soliton was recently predicted to be stable against transverse decay Muryshev2 ) we find the dominant decay mechanism to be due to axial inhomogeneity. The coupling to transverse modes Huang  merely leads to an additional oscillation of the soliton energy in time (Fig. 4), whose amplitude increases as the transverse confinement is relaxed Comment3 . Subtracting the average oscillation in the 3D longitudinal energy (Fig. 4(b)) from the energy of the soliton region gives essentially perfect agreement with the 1D results (Fig. 2).

Finally we extend our earlier treatment to the experimentally relevant case of $`\omega _\zeta 0`$. We consider a BEC in a quasi-1D geometry Gorlitz  in a cylindrically symmetric trap with frequencies $`\omega _\zeta `$ (longitudinal) and $`\omega _{}`$ (transverse), and then add an inner dimple potential ($`\omega _z`$), such that the longitudinal confinement is as shown in Fig. 1. This could be realized, for example, by a dimple microtrap created optically within a larger magnetic trap. The key points for such a realization are: (i) a very weak longitudinal trap frequency $`\omega _\zeta `$, such that the sound escaping from the inner trap is not reflected back from the outer trap within the timescale of interest, and (ii) a sufficiently tight inner trap $`\omega _z`$ such that the oscillating soliton emits sound at a rate fast enough that its amplitude increases noticeably before other decay mechanisms become important.

Experimentally, the effect of soliton-sound interactions can be probed by determining the soliton path via repeated time of flight measurements, and comparing paths for different depths of the dimple trap. The best signature for this effect arises when comparing the case of an effectively infinite cut-off to that of a lower cut-off, which nonetheless permits a sufficient number of soliton oscillations. Since the soliton rapidly escapes the trap for $`V_0<\mu _{_{1\mathrm{D}}}`$, we thus propose the use of $`V_0=\mu _{_{1\mathrm{D}}}`$ as a low cut-off, for which the soliton remains confined and ultimately decays to a sound pulse. Such a comparison has been performed for the double-trap system in Fig. 5, for both harmonic and gaussian dimple traps. One clearly observes a change in both amplitude and frequency of the soliton oscillations as a result of sound emission. These effects become more noticeable in the gaussian trap, for which the required cut-off for total sound entrapment is larger than the harmonic one. Choosing ‘typical’ parameters $`\omega _\zeta =2\pi \times 5`$ $`\mathrm{Hz}`$, $`\omega _z=10\omega _\zeta `$ and $`\omega _{_{}}=250\omega _\zeta `$ and $`\mu _{_{3\mathrm{D}}}=8\mathrm{}\overline{\omega }`$ where $`\overline{\omega }=(\omega _\zeta \omega _{_{}}^2)^{1/3}`$, we find respectively for a $`{}_{}{}^{23}\mathrm{Na}`$ ($`{}_{}{}^{87}\mathrm{Rb}`$) condensate, a one-dimensional peak dimple density of $`n_{_{1\mathrm{D}}}=5\times 10^7`$ ($`1.5\times 10^7`$) $`\mathrm{m}^1`$, condensate atom number $`N=18,000`$ (3,500) and a total observation timescale for Fig. 5 of $`\tau _{\mathrm{exp}}=220`$ $`\mathrm{ms}`$, consistent with the expected soliton lifetime in such systems Muryshev2 ; Busch ; Fedichev .

In summary, we have performed quantitative studies of the dynamics of dark solitons oscillating in trapped quasi-one-dimensional Bose condensates under longitudinal double-trap confinement. This geometry is ideal for controlling the interplay between sound emission and reabsorption, and we have identified two limiting cases: (i) In the limit of no reabsorption, the power emitted by the soliton is proportional to the square of its acceleration. (ii) The opposite limit of effectively infinite traps (such as harmonic traps in which soliton experiments have been performed) leads to the anticipated stabilization against soliton decay. We suggest that the sound radiation can be quantified by tracking the position of the dark soliton in suitably engineered traps, which allow for precise control of the soliton-sound interaction.

We acknowledge discussions with C. Barenghi, K. Burnett, W.D. Phillips and G.V. Shlyapnikov. Funding was provided by UK EPSRC.