text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Ever since Einstein first introduced it, the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has had a history full of ups and downs. The interest in it has been reawakened by novel results, which now lead us to believe that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an essential factor in the present dynamical evolution of the universe. A result supporting the existence of a cosmological constant is due to the recent balloon-borne measurements of the cosmic background radiation (\[de Bernardis et al. 2000, Hanany et al. 2000\]). These measurements lead to a non-zero cosmological constant and to an $`\mathrm{\Omega }1`$ universe. Another important result comes from the study of high redshift supernovae (\[Riess et al 1998, Perlmutter et al. 1999\]), which leads us to believe that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. In combination, both studies yield for the present energy densities of matter and the cosmological constant roughly the values $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7`$. An alternative to the cosmological constant scenario is provided by quintessence, a scalar field furnishing an effective negative pressure fluid (\[Peebles 1984, Peebles & Ratra 1988\]). Recent results indicate that the energy density $`\rho `$ and the pressure $`p`$ of the fluid are constrained by $`\rho p\stackrel{<}{}0.6\rho `$ \[Efstathiou 2000\]. Since $`p=\rho `$ is equivalent to the pure cosmological constant model, it is appropriate to study this case further, in some detail, which we shall do in this paper.

A long standing issue yet to be fully solved, in which the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (or variants such as quintessence) can play a role, is how the multitude of structures we observe in the sky has formed from a homogeneous background. In harmony with the novel findings mentioned above, some works have also shown that the existence of a positive cosmological constant in a cold dark matter scenario yields results that fit better with observations, namely, the power in the perturbation spectrum as a function of wavelength (or mass) (\[Kofman et al. 1993, Krauss & Turner 1995, Ostriker & Steinhardt 1995\] , and the cluster abundance as a function of redshift \[Bertschinger 1998, Bahcall et al. 1999\]). There are now some good reviews on the effect of a non-zero cosmological constant on the universe (\[Carroll et al. 1992, Cohn 1998, Sahni & Starobinsky 2000, Carroll 2000\]).

One subject that has not been discussed in detail for a universe with a positive cosmological constant, and which is a basic step in the understanding of structure formation, is the study of the equations and solutions of linear perturbations from the homogeneous background. This has been done exhaustively for models considering mainly dark matter, both warm and cold, normal matter and radiation (see, e.g., \[Peebles 1980, Peebles 1993, Padmanabhan 1993\], and references therein), but mostly leaving out the existence of a possible cosmological constant. Some exceptions are the papers by \[Kofman & Starobinskii 1985\] where the authors study anisotropies in the microwavebackground in a positive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ universe, \[Silveira & Waga 1994\] where a perturbation analysis and power spectrum calculation in a universe with a time-dependent cosmological constant is performed, \[Abramo & Finelli 2001\] and \[Riazuelo & Uzan 2000\] where one finds a perturbation analysis in models of quintessence, and \[Proty 2000\] in which an extrapolation from a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ case to a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ case is made.

An excellent discussion on the theory of linear perturbations and their connection to structure formation is given in the book of Padmanabhan (\[Padmanabhan 1993\]). Our work presented here is based mainly on chapter 4 of Padmanabhan’s book. It is our aim to extend the analysis and study of the linear perturbation theory by including the effects of a positive cosmological constant. A Newtonian analysis has been presented in (\[Cohn 1998\]), which is valid for perturbations with wavelengths much smaller than the horizon size and for non-relativistic fluids. We enlarge the analysis to the relativistic regime, valid for wavelengths larger than the horizon size, and for relativistic fluids. As it is known, the existence of a positive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ affects the rate of expansion of the universe, but not the the self-gravity of the perturbations. This causes a suppression on the growth of the perturbations. Since observations favour a flat universe we set $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ in our study. We then find that, indeed, for a positive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-Universe (i) the perturbations will grow slower in the relativistic regime for a two-fluid composed of dark matter and radiation (the growing mode grows with the power $`1/4`$ instead of $`1`$ which characterizes the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ case), and (ii) in the Newtonian regime, the perturbations stop growing in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated universe (see also \[Kofman et al. 1993, Cohn 1998\]).

Our paper is delineated as follows. In section 2 the perturbed equations for a single relativistic fluid are found and solved for a radiation dominated phase, for a matter dominated phase and for a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dominated phase. In section 3 the perturbed equations for two relativistic fluids are studied and applied for the coupled system of radiation and dark matter. In section 4 the perturbed equations in the Newtonian approximation are obtained and solved. These are valid for length scales smaller than the horizon size. In section 5 we conclude.

## 2 The relativistic case: single fluid

### 2.1 Equations

When studying perturbations in general relativity there is always the problem of fixing a gauge, or coordinate system. A discussion of the perturbation equations in different gauge conditions is given by Hwang and Noh (\[Hwang & Noh 1997\], see also \[Bardeen 1980\]), while Unruh (\[Unruh 1998\]) gives a discussion on the problems of gauge fixing. We will fix our gauge as the comoving gauge, with the four-velocity $`u^\alpha `$ given by $`u^\alpha =(1,0,0,0)`$, to derive the perturbation equations for a nonzero $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ universe. The derivation of the equations for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ is given by Padmanabhan (\[Padmanabhan 1993\]); we will here follow his procedure closely, modifying the equations to introduce the cosmological constant.

We use the overdot to denote the derivative $`u^\alpha D_\alpha `$. The projection tensor onto surfaces orthogonal to comoving world lines, the comoving hypersurfaces, is $`h_{\alpha \beta }=g_{\alpha \beta }u_\alpha u_\beta `$. The natural derivative on these comoving hypersurfaces is $`h_\alpha ^\beta D_\beta `$, and the Laplacian is given by $`^2=h_\alpha ^\beta D_\beta h^{\alpha \gamma }D_\gamma `$. The metric is the usual Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric for a flat universe, given by

$$ds^2=dt^2a(t)^2[dr^2+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)].$$
(1)
The energy momentum tensor is $`T^{\alpha \beta }=(\rho +p)u^\alpha u^\beta pg^{\alpha \beta }`$, where $`\rho `$ is the energy density and $`p`$ the pressure of the fluid. We start with the relativistic continuity and Euler equations, derived from $`D_\alpha T_\beta ^\alpha =0`$:

$$\dot{\rho }=3H(\rho +p),$$
(2)
$$\dot{u}_\alpha =\frac{h_\alpha ^\beta D_\beta p}{\rho +p}.$$
(3)
The Einstein field equations, $`G_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\alpha \beta }=8\pi GT_{\alpha \beta }`$, yield the Friedmann equation

$$H^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho +\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}.$$
(4)
Note that it is sometimes interesting to consider the cosmological constant term, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }g^{\alpha \beta }`$, as being an energy-momentum tensor for a special fluid. Here we do not follow this procedure, since we find more useful to see it as a cosmological constant term.

Expanding $`\dot{u}^\alpha `$, using the definition for overdot given above, we have

$$D_\alpha \dot{u}^\alpha =(D_\alpha u^\beta )(D_\beta u^\alpha )+u^\beta D_\beta (D_\alpha u^\alpha )+u^\beta R_{\alpha \beta }u^\alpha .$$
(5)
In our chosen frame, the first two terms in the left hand side are purely spatial. Using

$$u^\alpha R_{\alpha \beta }u^\beta =R_{00}=4\pi G(\rho +3p)\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(6)
and, splitting the tensor $`D_iu^j`$ into a diagonal term (which in the absence of perturbations will be related to the Hubble’s constant $`H`$ by Hubble’s Law) and non-diagonal terms (which are perturbative terms whose square is of second order) we get, up to first order

$$D_\alpha \dot{u}^\alpha =3\dot{H}+3H^2+4\pi G(\rho +3p)\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(7)
Using now Euler’s equation (3), and again up to first order, we can relate the left hand side of (7) to $`^2p`$ by

$$D_\alpha \dot{u}^\alpha =\frac{^2p}{\rho +p}.$$
(8)
Combining equations (7) and (8), we have

$$\dot{H}=H^2\frac{4\pi G}{3}(\rho +3p)+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\frac{^2p}{\rho +p}.$$
(9)
Following Padmanabhan (\[Padmanabhan 1993\]), we need to change our time variable to have a valid time label for the comoving hypersurfaces. Taking $`t`$ to be the valid ordering label, we have:

$$\frac{d\tau }{dt}=1\frac{\delta p}{\rho +p}$$
(10)
Taking now the perturbed quantities of the form $`A=A_b+\delta A`$, where $`A_b`$ is the background, non-perturbed quantity and $`\delta A`$ is a small perturbation, we can rewrite the continuity equation (2) up to first order as

$$\frac{d\rho }{d\tau }=\dot{\rho }_b+\delta \dot{\rho }+\frac{\dot{\rho }_b}{\rho _b+p_b}\delta p$$
(11)
where the overdot is used to represent the derivatives with respect to $`t`$. Taking the linearized right-hand side of (2), and equating the zeroth order terms, we get

$$\dot{\rho }_b=3H_b(\rho _b+p_b),$$
(12)
and, for the first order terms,

$$\delta \dot{\rho }=3\delta H(\rho _b+p_b)3H_b\delta \rho .$$
(13)
For $`\dot{H}`$, we have

$$\frac{dH}{d\tau }=\dot{H}_b+\delta \dot{H}_b+\frac{\dot{H}_b}{\rho _b+p_b}\delta p.$$
(14)
Linearizing equation (9) and equating to equation (14), we have for the zeroth order terms,

$$\dot{H}_b=H_b^2\frac{4\pi G}{3}(\rho _b+3p_b)+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}.$$
(15)
Using now the zeroth order expression (15) and Friedmann’s equation, (4), the first order term is

$$\delta \dot{H}=2H_b\delta H\frac{4\pi G}{3}\delta \rho \frac{c_\mathrm{s}^2}{3}\frac{^2\delta \rho }{\rho _b+p_b},$$
(16)
where we used the definition $`\delta p=c_\mathrm{s}^2\delta \rho `$, $`c_\mathrm{s}`$ being the speed of sound. We can then rewrite equation (13) in first order in $`\delta H`$, and differentiate it with respect to $`t`$ to get:

$$\delta \dot{H}=\frac{1}{3(1+w)}\left[\ddot{\delta }3H_b(2wc_\mathrm{s}^2)\dot{\delta }+\frac{9}{2}H_b^2(2c_\mathrm{s}^2w+w^2)\delta \frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }w(1+w)\delta \right],$$
(17)
where $`w=p/\rho `$ and $`\delta =\delta \rho /\rho `$, and we have used

$$\dot{w}=3H_b(1+w)(c_\mathrm{s}^2w),$$
(18)
$$\dot{H}_b=\frac{3}{2}H_b^2(1+w)+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }(1+w).$$
(19)
Using (13), (16) and (17), we finally arrive at:

$`\ddot{\delta }+H_b(26w+3c_\mathrm{s}^2)\dot{\delta }{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}H_b^2(16c_\mathrm{s}^23w^2+8w)\delta `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+w)(13w)\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta =\left({\displaystyle \frac{kc_\mathrm{s}}{a}}\right)^2\delta ,`$ (20)
where we introduced the Fourier transform such that $`^2\delta =(k/a)^2\delta `$. The Newtonian limit, is obtained by taking $`w0`$ and $`c_\mathrm{s}^20`$ in the left hand side and using Friedmann’s equation (4) (see also section 4).

### 2.2 Solutions

We start by changing the independent variable in equation (2.1) from $`t`$ to $`a`$:

$$a^2\frac{d^2\delta }{da^2}+Aa\frac{d\delta }{da}+\left(B+\frac{k^2c_\mathrm{s}^2}{H^2a^2}\right)\delta =0,$$
(21)
where

$$A=\frac{3}{2}(1+2c_\mathrm{s}^25w)+\frac{3}{2}(1+w)\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H^2},$$
(22)
$$B=\frac{3}{2}(16c_\mathrm{s}^23w^2+8w)+\frac{3}{2}(1+w)(13w)\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H^2}.$$
(23)
Radiation dominated phase:
We take radiation to be the dominant component, and study its perturbations $`\delta _R`$. We take $`(k^2c_\mathrm{s}^2)/(H^2a^2)1`$, which in this case corresponds to considering perturbations larger than the Hubble radius. Taking $`c_\mathrm{s}^2=w=1/3`$, equation (21) becomes

$$a^2\frac{d^2\delta _R}{da^2}+2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H^2}a\frac{d\delta _R}{da}2\delta _R=0.$$
(24)
We now rewrite Friedmann’s equation as

$$H^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}(\rho _R+\rho _{DM})+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}.$$
(25)
Ignoring the matter term in (25), we can write $`H`$ as $`H^2=H_0^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_Ra_0^4/a^4+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, where the quantities $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are the usual quotient of the density to the critical density, given by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_R=\frac{8\pi G}{3H_0^2}\rho _R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H_0^2}`$. Using this in equation (24), we get the solutions

$$\delta _{Rg}a_2^2F_1[\frac{1}{4},1,\frac{7}{4},\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Omega }_R}\frac{a^4}{a_0^4}],$$
(26)
$$\delta _{Rd}\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }a^4+\mathrm{\Omega }_Ra_0^4}}{a},$$
(27)
where $`d`$ and $`g`$ stand for the decaying and growing modes and $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[a,b;c;z]`$ is the hypergeometric function which can be given in terms of a power series $`_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}(a)_k(b)_k/(c)_kz^k/k!`$. As $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }a^4\mathrm{\Omega }_Ra_0^4`$, these solutions reduce to those obtained in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ case: $`\delta _{Rg}a^2,\delta _{Rd}1/a`$, as would be expect from the fact that, in the radiation dominated phase, the cosmological constant does not have much influence in the dynamics of expansion, given by equation (4).

To consider perturbations smaller than the Hubble radius in the radiation dominated phase, we take $`(k^2c_\mathrm{s}^2)/(H^2a^2)1`$, and ignore the $`B`$ term in (21). As we are considering the radiation dominated phase, the cosmological constant does not have much influence in the dynamics of evolution, and thus the solution in this case is the same as the one for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ case (see \[Padmanabhan 1993\]).

Matter dominated phase:
We now study the perturbations in dark matter, $`\delta _{DM}`$ in the matter dominated phase (to study matter perturbations in the radiation dominated phase, we need to consider the two fluid situation, developed in the next section). We have $`c_\mathrm{s}^2=w=0`$, and, using this (but preserving $`c_\mathrm{s}`$ in the $`(k^2c_\mathrm{s}^2)/(H^2a^2)`$ term to account for pressure support), equation (21) becomes

$$a^2\frac{d^2\delta }{da^2}+\frac{3}{2}\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H^2}\right)a\frac{d\delta }{da}+\left(\frac{k^2c_\mathrm{s}^2}{H^2a^2}\frac{3}{2}+\frac{3}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H^2}\right)\delta =0.$$
(28)
We take $`(k^2c_\mathrm{s}^2)/(H^2a^2)1`$, which here corresponds to considering wavelengths larger than the Jeans wavelength, $`\lambda _Jc_\mathrm{s}/\rho ^{1/2}`$, which is the characteristic scale at which pressure support becomes an important factor. For matter domination, we approximate (25) by taking only the matter term. We can then ignore the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ terms in (28), and get the usual solutions (see, e.g., \[Padmanabhan 1993\]), given by $`\delta _{DM}=Aa+Ba^{3/2}`$.

Lambda dominated phase:
If we take into account the cosmological constant, as well as matter, we can write $`H`$ as $`H^2=H_0^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_Ma_0^3/a^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=\frac{8\pi G}{3H_0^2}\rho _{DM}`$. Substituting this into equation (28) and once again ignoring the term $`(k^2c_\mathrm{s}^2)/(H^2a^2)`$, we will get the solutions:

$$\delta _{DMd}=A\frac{\sqrt{1+\overline{x}^3}}{\overline{x}^{3/2}}$$
(29)
$$\delta _{DMg}=B\overline{x}_2F_1[\frac{1}{3},1,\frac{11}{6},\overline{x}^3]$$
(30)
where $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ is the hypergeometric function defined earlier, and $`\overline{x}`$ is a modified scale factor defined by $`\overline{x}=a/a_\mathrm{\Lambda }=xa_{\mathrm{eq}}/a_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where $`x`$ is the usual scale factor $`x=a/a_{\mathrm{eq}}`$, with $`a_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ the scale factor at the time of matter radiation equivalence and $`a_\mathrm{\Lambda }=a_0(\mathrm{\Omega }_M/\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })^{1/3}`$ the scale factor of the universe when the energy density of dark matter and of the cosmological constant is the same. These solutions have also been obtained by Silveira and Waga \[Silveira & Waga 1994\] for a study of perturbations in a universe with a time dependent cosmological constant. The behaviour for zero cosmological constant is obtained by taking the limit $`\overline{x}1`$, and corresponds to the solutions obtained for the matter dominated phase. Solution (30) is shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1. Amplitude of the dark matter perturbations as a function of the modified scale factor $`\overline{x}`$; the dashed line represents the evolution of the perturbation for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, the full line in the presence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. One sees that for $`\overline{x}1`$ the perturbations follow the behaviour for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, $`\delta _{DM}\overline{x}`$, while for $`\overline{x}1`$, when the cosmological constant dominates dynamically, the growth of perturbations is suppressed.

We finally consider the case where the cosmological term dominates in equation (4). We can then write $`H^2\mathrm{\Lambda }/3`$ and equation (28) becomes simply

$$a^2\frac{d^2\delta _{DM}}{da^2}+3\frac{d\delta _{DM}}{da}=0,$$
(31)
whose solution is

$$\delta _{DM}=A+Ba^2.$$
(32)
Comparing this to the solution for the matter dominated phase, given by $`\delta =Aa+Ba^{3/2}`$, we can see that the presence of the cosmological constant causes the perturbations to stop growing.

The growing mode throughout the different phases is then given by:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\delta _R=a^2\hfill & \text{(radiation d.p., mode bigger than the H.r.)}\hfill \\ \delta _{DM}=a\hfill & \text{(matter d.p., mode bigger than J.l.)}\hfill \\ \delta _{DM}=\text{constant}\hfill & \text{(}\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{ d.p., mode bigger than J.l.)}\hfill \end{array}$$

where “d.p.” stands for dominated phase, “H.r.” for Hubble radius, and “J.l.” Jeans length. The one fluid relativistic description is good enough to study perturbations in the dynamical dominant component. However, if one wants to understand the behaviour of the other fluid components one needs a two-fluid description. This we shall do now for the case of radiation and dark matter.

## 3 The relativistic case: two fluids

### 3.1 Equations

In order to study simultaneously the perturbations in radiation and dark matter, we shall first set up the equations for the relativistic, multi-fluid case, and then specify for a 2-fluid with those components. We again follow (\[Padmanabhan 1993\]), generalizing the procedure to include a non-zero cosmological constant.
We consider the case of a perfect fluid made up of N perfect fluids, each with an energy momentum tensor given by $`T_N^{\alpha \beta }=(\rho _N+p_N)u_N^\alpha u_N^\beta p_Ng^{\alpha \beta }`$, where, as before, we work in the comoving gauge, $`u_N^\alpha (1,0,0,0)`$. Each of these fluids will then obey equations (2) and (3), where the quantities will now have indexes $`N`$. Following the same procedure as in the single fluid case, we get the following equations:

$$\dot{\rho }_N=3H_N(\rho _N+p_N),$$
(33)
$$\frac{1}{3}D_\alpha \dot{u}_N^\alpha =\dot{H}_N+H_N^2+\frac{4\pi G}{3}(\rho +p)\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3},$$
(34)
$$D_\alpha \dot{u}_N^\alpha =\frac{^2p_N}{\rho _N+p_N}+\frac{3(HH_N)}{\rho _N+p_N}\dot{p}_N.$$
(35)
In equation (35), the last term in the right hand side is new when compared to equation (8). This comes from the fact that, in the equation for each fluid equivalent to (3), we no longer have $`h_\alpha ^\beta `$, which is the correct projection tensor onto the comoving hypersurfaces, but a term $`h_{N\alpha }^\beta =g_\alpha ^\beta u_{N\alpha }u_N^\beta `$. This new term reduces to zero in the case of a single fluid. We also have for the total fluid quantities:

$$\rho =\underset{N}{}\rho _N,p=\underset{N}{}p_N,H=\underset{N}{}\frac{\rho _N+p_N}{\rho +p}H_N,$$
(36)
and

$$HH_N=\delta H\delta H_N.$$
(37)
We can now follow the procedure of linearizing equations (33), (34) and (35), using the change in time variable described in the last section, given by (10), and equation (37), to get the following perturbation equations:

$$\delta \dot{\rho }_N=3(\rho _N+p_N)3H\delta \rho _N3H(\delta p_N\theta _N\delta p)$$
(38)
$$\delta \dot{H}_N=2H_N\delta H_N\frac{4\pi G}{3}\delta \rho \frac{1}{3}\frac{^2p_N}{\rho _N+p_N}+\frac{\dot{p}_N}{\rho _N+p_N}\left[\underset{M}{}(\theta _M\delta H_M)\delta H_N\right]$$
(39)
where

$$\theta _N=\frac{\rho _N+p_N}{\rho +p}.$$
(40)
The quantities $`w_N`$ and $`c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{N}{}^{2}`$ are as defined before for the fluid $`N`$. For the total fluid these are given by:

$$w=\frac{p}{\rho };c_\mathrm{s}^2=\frac{\dot{p}}{\dot{\rho }},$$
(41)
where $`\rho `$ and $`p`$ are defined by (36). It is important to notice that, unlike what happened with a single fluid, we have here $`c_\mathrm{s}^2\delta p/\delta \rho `$. The final equation for the perturbations is then given by

$`\ddot{\delta }_N`$ $`+`$ $`(2+3c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{N}{}^{2}6w_N)H\dot{\delta }_N+3H{\displaystyle \frac{1+w_N}{1+w}}c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{N}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \underset{M}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _M}{\rho }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{M}{}^{2}}{c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{N}{}^{2}}}\right)\dot{\delta }_M`$ (42)
$`+`$ $`3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(3H^2+\mathrm{\Lambda })(c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{N}{}^{2}w_N)(1+w)+5H^2(c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{N}{}^{2}w_N)+2Hc_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{N}{}^{}\dot{c_\mathrm{s}}_N\right]\delta _N`$
$`+`$ $`9H^2{\displaystyle \frac{1+w_N}{1+w}}(c_\mathrm{s}^2w)c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{N}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \underset{M}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _M}{\rho }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{M}{}^{2}w_M}{c_\mathrm{s}^2w}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{M}{}^{2}}{c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{N}{}^{2}}}\right)\delta _M`$
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{6H^2}{1+w}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(3H^2+\mathrm{\Lambda })\right)(1+w_N){\displaystyle \underset{M}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _M}{\rho }}c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{N}{}^{2}\delta _M`$
$``$ $`3H{\displaystyle \frac{1+w_N}{1+w}}{\displaystyle \underset{M}{}}c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{M}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _M}{\rho }}\left(3Hc_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{M}{}^{}(ww_M)+2\dot{c_\mathrm{s}}_M\right)4\pi G(1+w_N)\delta `$
$``$ $`c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{N}{}^{2}^2\delta _N=0`$
We are interested in studying the two fluid case, which in this case will be radiation and dark matter. Following (\[Padmanabhan 1993\]), we now introduce the adiabatic $`\delta `$ and isocurvature $`S`$ perturbations related to the individual fluid perturbations by:

$$\delta =\frac{\rho _1\delta _1+\rho _2\delta _2}{\rho _1+\rho _2};S=\frac{\delta _1}{1+w_1}\frac{\delta _2}{1+w_2}.$$
(43)
Using these definitions, the two perturbation equations become:

$`\ddot{\delta }+H(26w+3c_\mathrm{s}^2)\dot{\delta }{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}H^2(16c_\mathrm{s}^2+8w3w^2)\delta `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+w)(13w)\mathrm{\Lambda }\delta ={\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{a^2}}\left(c_\mathrm{s}^2\delta +w\eta \right)`$ (44)
and

$$\ddot{S}+H(23u^2)\dot{S}=\frac{k^2}{a^2}\left((c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{1}{}^{2}c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{2}{}^{2})\frac{\delta }{1+w}u^2S\right),$$
(45)
where

$$\eta =\frac{\rho _1(1+w_1)\rho _2(1+w_2)}{\rho w(1+w)}(c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{1}{}^{2}c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{2}{}^{2})S,$$
(46)
$$u^2=\frac{\rho _1(1+w_1)c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{2}{}^{2}+\rho _2(1+w_2)c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{1}{}^{2}}{\rho (1+w)}.$$
(47)
Equation (3.1) reduces to that of the single fluid case (2.1) if we take $`\eta =0`$ and a single fluid component.

### 3.2 Solutions

We discuss here the case of a two component system, with radiation and dark matter. We will use as variable, instead of $`a`$, $`x=a/a_{\mathrm{eq}}`$, with $`a_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ being the scale factor at the time of matter-radiation equivalence. With this new variable we can write:

$$\frac{\rho _{DM}}{\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}}=\frac{1}{2x^3};\frac{\rho _R}{\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}}=\frac{1}{2x^4};\frac{\rho }{\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}}=\frac{\rho _{DM}+\rho _R}{\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}}=\frac{1}{2x^4}(x+1).$$
(48)
Taking $`w_{DM}=0=c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{DM}{}^{2}`$ and $`w_R=1/3=c_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{R}{}^{2}`$, we have

$$w=\frac{p_{DM}+p_R}{\rho _{DM}+\rho _R}=\frac{1}{3(1+x)};c_\mathrm{s}^2=\frac{\dot{p_{DM}}+\dot{p_R}}{\dot{\rho _{DM}}+\dot{\rho _R}}=\frac{4}{9}\frac{1}{x+4/3}.$$
(49)
Using these definitions, we may write $`H`$ as

$$H^2(x)=\frac{1}{2x^4}(x+1)H_{\mathrm{eq}}^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\left(1\frac{1}{2x^4}(x+1)\right).$$
(50)
We will characterize the perturbations by the parameter $`\omega `$, with

$$\frac{k^2}{H^2a^2}=\frac{2x^2}{(1+x)}\omega ^2,$$
(51)
with $`\omega `$ related to the wavelength by $`2\pi \omega =[d_H(t_{\mathrm{eq}})/\lambda (a_{\mathrm{eq}})]`$, where $`d_H`$ is the Hubble radius. Perturbations for which $`\omega >1`$ will enter the Hubble radius in the radiation dominated phase, while for $`\omega <1`$ they will enter it in the matter dominated phase.

Using the new variable $`x`$, and definitions (48) to (51), and defining $`\widehat{D}=x(d/dx)`$, we can rewrite equations (3.1) and (45) as

$`\widehat{D}^2\delta +[{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{1+x}}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{x+4/3}}1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H^2}}(3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+x}})]\widehat{D}\delta +({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{(1+x)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3x}{4}}`$ (52)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{x+4/3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3x^2}{1+x}}2+2x{\displaystyle \frac{x+4/3}{(x+1)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H^2}})\delta `$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{(x+1)(x+4/3)}}\left(xS(x+1)\delta \right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{x+1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2x^4}{x+1}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H^2}}\right]`$
$`\widehat{D}^2S+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x}{2(1+x)}}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{x+4/3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+x}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H^2}}\right]\widehat{D}S`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2x}{x+4/3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2x^2}{x+1}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2x^2}{x+1}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H^2}}\right]S`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{x+4/3}}\left[2x^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{x+1}{x^2}}2x^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H^2}}\right]\delta `$ (53)
The perturbations $`\delta `$ and $`S`$ can be related to the perturbations in the radiation and dark matter components by:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_R=\frac{3}{4}\delta _R=\frac{x+1}{x+4/3}\delta \frac{x}{x+4/3}S,$$
(54)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{DM}=\delta _{DM}=\frac{x+1}{x+4/3}\delta +\frac{4}{3}\frac{1}{x+4/3}S.$$
(55)
With these relations we can now write the equations in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{DM}`$ corresponding to equations (52) and (3.2):

$`[\widehat{D}^2`$ $`+`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{x+1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x+4/3}{x+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H^2}})\widehat{D}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{x+1}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H^2}}1)]\mathrm{\Delta }_{DM}=`$ (56)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x+4/3}}\left[\widehat{D}+2{\displaystyle \frac{x}{x+4/3}}\right]\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+x2x^4}{x^2(x+1)(x+4/3)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H^2}}\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }_R,`$
$`[\widehat{D}^2+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{x+1}}1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x+4/3}{x+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H^2}})\widehat{D}+({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2x^2}{x+1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x+4/3}}({\displaystyle \frac{x}{x+4/3}}2))`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x(x+4/3)}}{\displaystyle \frac{2x^2}{x+1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^3}{(x+1)(x+4/3)}})\omega ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H^2}}]\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$
$`=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{x+1}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{x}{x+4/3}}\widehat{D}\right]\mathrm{\Delta }_{DM}.`$ (57)
We are interested in studying the solutions of these equations in the two limiting cases $`\omega ^21`$ (perturbations entering the Hubble radius in the radiation dominated phase) and $`\omega ^21`$ (perturbations entergin the Hubble radius in the matter dominated phase). We can further divide our study to the cases where $`x1`$ and $`x1`$. As we have discussed earlier, the effects of the presence of a cosmological constant will only be important for $`x1`$, well into the matter dominated phase, as the cosmological constant starts to assume a greater importance in the dynamics of evolution. Therefore, we will here restrict ourselves mainly to these cases; we will, however, discuss a situation where $`x1`$ in order to certify that the solution obtained is approximately the same as that of the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$.

*$`\omega ^21`$: perturbations entering the Hubble radius in the radiation dominated phase*
The case $`\omega ^21`$, for which the perturbations enter the Hubble radius in the radiation dominated phase, has three distinct cases: (i) when the mode is bigger than the Hubble radius, $`\omega x1`$, the solution is very close to that of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ case, given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R=\mathrm{\Delta }_{DM}=x^2`$, so we will not discuss it further here; (ii) when $`\omega x1`$, but $`x1`$, the mode has entered the Hubble radius, but the universe is still in the radiation dominated phase; this case also shows very little deviation from the zero cosmological constant case, but we will consider it here to show this; (iii) finally, there is the case $`\omega x1`$, and $`x1`$, when the universe is in the matter dominated phase; this case shows significant deviation from the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ case. For zero cosmological constant, (\[Nayeri & Padmanabhan 1998\]) give an interesting approach to this case, based on a Newtonian theory with a modified continuity equation (see also \[Lima et al. 1997\]).

We now discuss case (ii). Approximating equation (3.2) for $`\omega x1`$, $`x1`$, we get

$$\widehat{D}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_R\widehat{D}\mathrm{\Delta }_R+\frac{2}{3}\omega ^2x^2\mathrm{\Delta }_R+\frac{\omega ^2}{x^2}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Delta }_R=0.$$
(58)
Using equation (50), we can write $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H^2}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{eq}}\frac{2x^4}{x+1+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{eq}}(2x^4x1)}$$
(59)
where the index $`\mathrm{eq}`$ refers to the time of matter radiation equivalence. This expression can, in this case, be approximated to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{eq}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}x^4`$, where we took $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{eq}}1`$. As $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{eq}}`$ is constant, equation (58) can be solved to give

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_R=A\mathrm{exp}(\pm i\nu x);\nu ^2=\left(\frac{2}{3}+2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{eq}}\right)\omega ^21.$$
(60)
This represents a rapid oscillation at frequency $`\nu `$, which, due to the fact that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{eq}}1`$, is very close to the frequency of oscillation of the solution for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ case (see \[Padmanabhan 1993\]). The solution for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{DM}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{DM}=\text{ln}x`$, is also approximately that obtained for zero $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.
We finally consider case (iii), $`x1`$. The equations are:

$$\widehat{D}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{DM}+\frac{1}{2}(1+3\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })\widehat{D}\mathrm{\Delta }_{DM}+\frac{3}{2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }1)\mathrm{\Delta }_{DM}=\frac{16}{9}\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Delta }_R,$$
(61)
$$\widehat{D}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_R+\frac{1}{2}(1+3\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })\widehat{D}\mathrm{\Delta }_R+\frac{2}{3}\omega ^2x(1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Delta }_R=\frac{3}{2}(1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Delta }_{DM}\widehat{D}\mathrm{\Delta }_{DM}.$$
(62)
For a value of $`x`$ sufficiently low, the perturbations will still follow the behaviour they had in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ case, as long as the cosmological constant does not produce significant changes in the dynamics of expansion. From (\[Padmanabhan 1993\]), we see that the growing mode of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{DM}`$ is $`Ax`$, while the corresponding mode of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ is $`(3A)/(4w^2)`$. For $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ close to 1, the term in the first derivative in the left hand side of (61) is then close to $`2Ax`$, while the term in the right hand side is $`4A/3`$; taking $`x1`$, we can then ignore the term in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$. Substituting $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/3H^2`$, and taking $`H^2=H_0^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_Ma_0^3/a_{\mathrm{eq}}^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/x^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, where the quantities $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ now refer to their present values, we obtain for the solutions to the equation in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{DM}`$:

$$\delta _d\frac{\sqrt{a_0^3\mathrm{\Omega }_M+a_{\mathrm{eq}}^3\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }x^3}}{x^{3/2}},$$
(63)
$$\delta _gx_2F_1[\frac{1}{3},1,\frac{11}{6},\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_M}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{a_{\mathrm{eq}}^3}{a_0^3}x^3].$$
(64)
These correspond to the solutions obtained previously to the equations for the perturbations in matter in the single fluid relativistic case, (29) and (30). We now take the limiting case $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$. In this limit, equations (61) and (62) become:

$$\widehat{D}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{DM}+2\widehat{D}\mathrm{\Delta }_{DM}=0,$$
(65)
$$\widehat{D}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_R+\widehat{D}\mathrm{\Delta }_R+\widehat{D}\mathrm{\Delta }_{DM}=0.$$
(66)
The solution of (65) will then be

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{DM}=\delta _{DM}=A+Bx^2,$$
(67)
and, taking the dominant mode in (67), the solution of (66) is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_R=\frac{3}{4}\delta _R=C+Dx^1.$$
(68)
As expected, the presence of a cosmological constant causes a halt in the growth of perturbations, with the perturbations in dark matter being greater than the radiation ones.

We can summarize the evolution of the perturbations as:

$$\{\begin{array}{cccc}\delta _{DM}=x^2\hfill & ;& \delta _R=4/3x^2\hfill & \text{before entering the H.r.}\hfill \\ \delta _{DM}=\text{ln}x\hfill & ;& \delta _R\text{oscillates}\hfill & \text{radiation d.p., after entering the H.r.}\hfill \\ \delta _{DM}\hfill & ;& \delta _R\hfill & \text{tend to a const. for }\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{ domination}\hfill \\ & & & \text{after entering the H.r.}\hfill \end{array}$$

*$`\omega ^21`$: perturbations entering the Hubble radius in the matter dominated phase*
We now treat the case $`\omega ^21`$. In this case, the modes enter the Hubble radius in the matter dominated phase. The solutions for $`x1`$ are approximately the same as in the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, (see \[Padmanabhan 1993\]). We find the solutions for the case $`w^2x^21`$ and $`x1`$. As there is a coupling (through terms of order $`\omega x`$) between $`\delta `$ and $`S`$ in equations (52) and (3.2), we can take $`\delta =S`$ here, and, with these approximations, equations (52) and (3.2) become:

$$\widehat{D}^2\delta +\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{3}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H^2}\right)\widehat{D}+\frac{3}{2}\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H^2}\right)\delta =0,$$
(69)
$$\widehat{D}^2S+\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{3}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H^2}\right)\widehat{D}S=0.$$
(70)
In the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dominated phase we can approximate $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }/(3H^2)`$ as a constant, since $`H`$ will be approximately constant. The dominant growing mode is then given by:

$$\delta _g=S_g=x^{n_g},n_g=\frac{1}{4}(13\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\sqrt{2518\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+9\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2});$$
(71)
and the decaying mode by

$$\delta _d=S_d=x^{n_d},n_d=\frac{1}{4}(13\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{2518\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+9\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}).$$
(72)
For $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$, these exponents become $`n_g=0`$ and $`n_d=2`$, which correspond to the solution (32). For $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, we have $`n_g=0.25`$ and $`n_d=1.8`$. In the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, these reduce to the appropriate solutions, $`n_g=1`$ and $`n_d=3/2`$. The dominant modes can then be summarized as follows:

$$\{\begin{array}{cccc}\delta =x^2\hfill & ;& S=\text{ln}x\hfill & \text{before entering the H.r.}\hfill \\ \delta =x\hfill & ;& S=x\hfill & \text{matter d.p., after entering the H.r.}\hfill \\ \delta =x^{n_g}\hfill & ;& S=x^{n_g}\hfill & \text{limiting case for }\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{ d.p. after entering the H.r.}\hfill \end{array}$$

## 4 Newtonian Approximation

### 4.1 Equations

The equations in the Newtonian approximation are derived classically, so the introduction of a cosmological constant will not change them; it will only influence the solutions when we consider the dynamics of expansion. We will here give a very brief description of the procedure and present the equations we will be using. We start with the classic fluid equations of mass conservation and pressure support:

$$\dot{\rho }\frac{\rho }{t}+(𝐯)\rho =\rho (𝐯)$$
(73)
$$\dot{𝐯}=\varphi \rho ^1p$$
(74)
We relate the velocity $`v`$ to the Hubble constant $`H`$ by Hubble’s Law, $`𝐯(t,𝐱)=H(t)𝐱`$, and consider quantities to be of the form $`A=A_b+\delta A`$. We substitute these in equations (73) and (74), and linearize them, taking only the terms up to first order. Using $`^2\delta \varphi =4\pi G\delta \rho `$ and the definitions $`\delta p=c_\mathrm{s}^2\delta \rho `$ and $`\delta =\delta \rho /\rho `$, we arrive at the following equation for the perturbations:

$$\ddot{\delta }+2H_b\dot{\delta }c_\mathrm{s}^2a^2^2\delta =4\pi G\rho _b\delta ,$$
(75)
where the $`a^2`$ term in the Laplacian comes from considering Friedmann comoving coordinates. Considering perturbations with wavelength $`\lambda `$, and taking the Fourier transform, we can write the $`^2`$ term as $`k^2`$. Equation (75) then takes the form:

$$\ddot{\delta }+2H_b\dot{\delta }+\frac{k^2c_\mathrm{s}^2}{a^2}\delta =4\pi G\rho _b\delta .$$
(76)
This discussion can be generalized for the multi-fluid case. The corresponding equation is then

$$\ddot{\delta }_N+2H_b\dot{\delta }_Nc_{\mathrm{s}}^{}{}_{N}{}^{2}a^2^2\delta _N=4\pi G\underset{M}{}\rho _M\delta _M$$
(77)
where the sum on the right hand side is over all components. A smoothly distributed component (e.g. the cosmological constant term) does not contribute to this term.

### 4.2 Solutions

We consider here the case where $`\lambda \lambda _J`$. We can then ignore pressure support, that is, ignore the $`k^2`$ term in the left hand side of (76), and get the equation

$$\ddot{\delta }+2H\dot{\delta }4\pi G\rho \delta =0$$
(78)
As shown by Heath (\[Heath 1977\]), an integral expression for the growing solution of equation (78) for any value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be obtained by noticing that $`H(t)`$ is itself a decaying solution to this equation. The growing mode can then be given by

$$\delta H(z)_z^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1+x}{H^3(x)}𝑑x,$$
(79)
with

$$H(z)=H_0(1+z)\left[1+\mathrm{\Omega }_Mz+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(\frac{1}{(1+z)^2}1\right)\right]^{1/2}$$
(80)
and $`z=a_0/a1`$ is the redshift.
An analytical solution for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ case is widely known (see, for example, \[Padmanabhan 1993\]), and an analytical expression for (79) in terms of elliptic integrals is given by Eisenstein (\[Eisenstein 1997\]). A good approximation to this integral, given by

$$\delta a\frac{5}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_M\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_M^{4/7}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\left(1+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_M\right)\left(1+\frac{1}{70}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\right]^1,$$
(81)
(which is normalized to give $`\delta =a`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=1,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$) was given by Carroll et al. (\[Carroll et al. 1992\]). Taking the limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M0`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$, the integral (79) can be approximated by

$$\delta \frac{1}{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }},$$
(82)
which is a constant. We expect the perturbations to stop growing when the cosmological constant becomes the dominant energy form, because the expansion becomes faster than the gravitational collapse of the perturbations. The expansion timescale is given roughly by $`t_{\mathrm{exp}}(G\rho _{\mathrm{dominant}})^{1/2}(G\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda })^{1/2}`$, and is smaller than the collapse timescale, $`t_{\mathrm{grav}}(G\rho _M)^{1/2}`$, as long as $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }>\rho _M`$; thus, the rapid expansion of the background prevents the growth of the perturbations by gravitational collapse.
We now study the perturbations in the matter component in a universe with a cosmological constant, in the case $`\lambda \lambda _J`$ where we can ignore the pressure support. The perturbation equation is simply (78), with H given by (25). In order to use the Newtonian equations, we are considering here the case when the universe is well into the matter dominated phase, and as such we can ignore the radiation term in (25). Further, as we are not taking into account the radiation, we need not distinguish between dark matter and baryonic matter, as they do not have different interactions with the cosmological constant term, unlike what happened with radiation.

Using the variable $`\overline{x}=a/a_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we get the equation:

$$(1+\overline{x}^3)\overline{x}^2\delta ^{\prime \prime }+\frac{3}{2}(\overline{x}+2\overline{x}^4)\delta ^{}\frac{3}{2}\delta =0$$
(83)
The solutions to these equations are the same as the ones obtained earlier for the relativistic case, given by (29) and (30).

## 5 Conclusion

We have studied the equations for the gravitational collapse of density perturbations in an expanding universe of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker type, whose dynamics is described by equation (25), taking into account the presence of the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (or equivalently, considering the universe permeated by a quintessence fluid with an effective equation of state given by $`p=\rho `$). We have confirmed that the cosmological constant does not have much influence in the behaviour of perturbations until it becomes a significant factor in the expansion of the universe, see equation (25). Thus, as we have explicitly shown for the particular case of perturbations in radiation for the two-fluid case in (60), the growth of the perturbations for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ is not significantly altered in the radiation dominated phase, when compared to a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ universe. On the other hand, when the cosmological constant becomes important in the expansion, at later times, we have seen that significant differences arise in the behaviour of perturbations. This is caused by the fact that the expansion becomes faster than the gravitational collapse of the perturbations, thereby preventing any further growth. This behaviour can be seen, for example, in the exponent $`n_g`$ of the solution (71), which for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ is $`n_g=1`$, while for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ we have $`n_g=1/4`$. A more detailed solution for the transition from the phase of matter domination to that of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-domination has been obtained, both in the fully relativistic case and in the Newtonian approximation (which we have shown to be a good approximation in this case). This solution is given by equation (30), and is illustrated in Fig. 1. In this figure we can clearly see the transition from the behaviour in the matter domination phase $`(x1)`$, when the perturbations grow as $`a`$, to the phase of cosmological constant domination $`(x1)`$, when the perturbations stop growing altogether.

Acknowledgements: This work was partially funded by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia FCT through project ESO/PRO/1250/98.


format: text

text:
# Observation of 𝐵→ϕ𝐾 and 𝐵→ϕ𝐾^∗

## Abstract

We have studied two-body charmless hadronic decays of $`B`$ mesons into the final states $`\varphi K`$ and $`\varphi K^{}`$. Using 9.7 million $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs collected with the CLEO II detector, we observe the decays $`B^{}\varphi K^{}`$ and $`B^0\varphi K^0`$ with the following branching fractions: $`(B^{}\varphi K^{})=(5.5_{1.8}^{+2.1}\pm 0.6)\times 10^6`$ and $`(B^0\varphi K^0)=(11.5_{3.7}^{+4.5}{}_{1.7}{}^{+1.8})\times 10^6`$. We also see evidence for the decays $`B^0\varphi K^0`$ and $`B^{}\varphi K^{}`$. However, since the statistical significance is not overwhelming for these modes we determine upper limits of $`<12.3\times 10^6`$ and $`<22.5\times 10^6`$ ($`90\%`$ C.L.) respectively.

preprint:   CLNS 01/1719 CLEO 01-03

R. A. Briere,1 G. P. Chen,1 T. Ferguson,1 H. Vogel,1 A. Gritsan,2 J. P. Alexander,3 R. Baker,3 C. Bebek,3 B. E. Berger,3 K. Berkelman,3 F. Blanc,3 V. Boisvert,3 D. G. Cassel,3 P. S. Drell,3 J. E. Duboscq,3 K. M. Ecklund,3 R. Ehrlich,3 P. Gaidarev,3 L. Gibbons,3 B. Gittelman,3 S. W. Gray,3 D. L. Hartill,3 B. K. Heltsley,3 P. I. Hopman,3 L. Hsu,3 C. D. Jones,3 J. Kandaswamy,3 D. L. Kreinick,3 M. Lohner,3 A. Magerkurth,3 T. O. Meyer,3 N. B. Mistry,3 E. Nordberg,3 M. Palmer,3 J. R. Patterson,3 D. Peterson,3 D. Riley,3 A. Romano,3 J. G. Thayer,3 D. Urner,3 B. Valant-Spaight,3 G. Viehhauser,3 A. Warburton,3 P. Avery,4 C. Prescott,4 A. I. Rubiera,4 H. Stoeck,4 J. Yelton,4 G. Brandenburg,5 A. Ershov,5 D. Y.-J. Kim,5 R. Wilson,5 T. Bergfeld,6 B. I. Eisenstein,6 J. Ernst,6 G. E. Gladding,6 G. D. Gollin,6 R. M. Hans,6 E. Johnson,6 I. Karliner,6 M. A. Marsh,6 C. Plager,6 C. Sedlack,6 M. Selen,6 J. J. Thaler,6 J. Williams,6 K. W. Edwards,7 R. Janicek,8 P. M. Patel,8 A. J. Sadoff,9 R. Ammar,10 A. Bean,10 D. Besson,10 X. Zhao,10 S. Anderson,11 V. V. Frolov,11 Y. Kubota,11 S. J. Lee,11 J. J. O’Neill,11 R. Poling,11 T. Riehle,11 A. Smith,11 C. J. Stepaniak,11 J. Urheim,11 S. Ahmed,12 M. S. Alam,12 S. B. Athar,12 L. Jian,12 L. Ling,12 M. Saleem,12 S. Timm,12 F. Wappler,12 A. Anastassov,13 E. Eckhart,13 K. K. Gan,13 C. Gwon,13 T. Hart,13 K. Honscheid,13 D. Hufnagel,13 H. Kagan,13 R. Kass,13 T. K. Pedlar,13 H. Schwarthoff,13 J. B. Thayer,13 E. von Toerne,13 M. M. Zoeller,13 S. J. Richichi,14 H. Severini,14 P. Skubic,14 A. Undrus,14 V. Savinov,15 S. Chen,16 J. Fast,16 J. W. Hinson,16 J. Lee,16 D. H. Miller,16 E. I. Shibata,16 I. P. J. Shipsey,16 V. Pavlunin,16 D. Cronin-Hennessy,17 A.L. Lyon,17 E. H. Thorndike,17 T. E. Coan,18 V. Fadeyev,18 Y. S. Gao,18 Y. Maravin,18 I. Narsky,18 R. Stroynowski,18 J. Ye,18 T. Wlodek,18 M. Artuso,19 C. Boulahouache,19 K. Bukin,19 E. Dambasuren,19 G. Majumder,19 R. Mountain,19 S. Schuh,19 T. Skwarnicki,19 S. Stone,19 J.C. Wang,19 A. Wolf,19 J. Wu,19 S. Kopp,20 M. Kostin,20 A. H. Mahmood,21 S. E. Csorna,22 I. Danko,22 K. W. McLean,22 Z. Xu,22 R. Godang,23 G. Bonvicini,24 D. Cinabro,24 M. Dubrovin,24 S. McGee,24 G. J. Zhou,24 A. Bornheim,25 E. Lipeles,25 S. P. Pappas,25 M. Schmidtler,25 A. Shapiro,25 W. M. Sun,25 A. J. Weinstein,25 D. E. Jaffe,26 R. Mahapatra,26 G. Masek,26 H. P. Paar,26 D. M. Asner,27 A. Eppich,27 T. S. Hill,27 and R. J. Morrison27

1Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213

2University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0390

3Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853

4University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611

5Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

6University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois 61801

7Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6

and the Institute of Particle Physics, Canada

8McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3A 2T8

and the Institute of Particle Physics, Canada

9Ithaca College, Ithaca, New York 14850

10University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045

11University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455

12State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York 12222

13Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210

14University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019

15University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260

16Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907

17University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627

18Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275

19Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244

20University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712

21University of Texas - Pan American, Edinburg, Texas 78539

22Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37235

23Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061

24Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48202

25California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125

26University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093

27University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106

The phenomenon of $`CP`$ violation can be accommodated in the Standard Model (SM) by a complex phase in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) quark-mixing matrix . Whether this phase is the only source of $`CP`$ violation in nature remains an open experimental question. Studies of charmless $`B`$ meson decays will certainly play an important role in constraining the CKM matrix and testing the SM picture of $`CP`$ violation.

Flavor Changing Neutral Currents (FCNC) are forbidden to first order in the SM. Second order loop diagrams, known as penguin and box diagrams, can generate effective FCNC which lead to $`bs`$ transitions. These processes are of considerable interest because they are sensitive to $`V_{ts}`$, the CKM matrix element which will be very difficult to measure in direct decays of the top quark. They are also sensitive to non-Standard Model physics , since charged Higgs bosons, new gauge bosons or supersymmetric particles can contribute via additional loop diagrams.

Among final states produced by the gluonic penguin, $`bsg`$, decay modes in which a gluon splits into two strange quarks, $`gs\overline{s}`$, play a special role since they cannot be produced by any other $`b`$ decay with comparable rate, thus providing an unambiguous signature for the gluonic penguin. As illustrated in Fig. 1, a particularly clean final state is produced when the kaon includes the spectator quark and no pions are emitted.

In this Letter we present the first significant measurements of exclusive charmless hadronic decays $`B\varphi K`$ and $`B\varphi K^{}`$. Measurements of other charmless hadronic decay modes by CLEO are discussed elsewhere .

The data set used in this analysis was collected with the CLEO detector at the Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR). It consists of $`9.13\mathrm{fb}^1`$ taken at the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) (on-resonance), corresponding to $`9.66M`$ $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs, and $`4.35\mathrm{fb}^1`$ taken below $`B\overline{B}`$ threshold, used for continuum background studies.

CLEO II is a general purpose solenoidal magnet detector . Cylindrical drift chambers in a 1.5T solenoidal magnetic field measure momentum and specific ionization ($`dE/dx`$) of charged particles. Photons are detected using a 7800-crystal CsI(Tl) electromagnetic calorimeter. In the CLEO II.V detector configuration, the innermost chamber was replaced by a three-layer, double-sided silicon vertex detector, and the gas in the main drift chamber was changed from an argon-ethane to a helium-propane mixture. As a result of these modifications, the CLEO II.V portion of the data (2/3 of the total) has improved particle identification and momentum resolution.

In the analysis presented here we search for $`B`$ meson decays by selecting $`\varphi `$ and $`K`$ ($`K^{}`$) decay candidates using specific criteria. Track quality requirements are imposed on charged tracks, and pions and kaons are identified by $`dE/dx`$. Electrons are rejected based on $`dE/dx`$ and the ratio of the track momentum to the associated shower energy in the CsI calorimeter; muons are rejected based on their penetration depth in the instrumented steel flux return. The $`K_S^0`$ candidates are selected from $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ pairs forming well-measured secondary vertices with invariant mass within three standard deviations ($`\sigma `$) of the nominal $`K_S^0`$ mass and a decay path significance of at least 3$`\sigma `$. The neutral pion candidates are formed from pairs of isolated photon-like energy clusters in the CsI calorimeter with invariant mass within $`3.5`$ and $`+3.0`$ standard deviations of the $`\pi ^0`$ mass. The $`\varphi `$ meson candidates have $`K^+K^{}`$ mass within $`\pm 20`$ MeV/$`c^2`$ ($`\pm 4.5\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=`$ natural width) of the known $`\varphi `$ mass, and the specific ionization of the tracks are consistent with the $`K^+K^{}`$ hypothesis. The $`K^{}`$ candidates are reconstructed in four modes: $`K^0K^{}\pi ^+`$, $`K^0K^0\pi ^0`$, $`K^{}K^{}\pi ^0`$ and $`K^{}K^0\pi ^{}`$, and their masses lie within $`\pm 75`$ MeV/$`c^2`$ ($`\pm 1.5\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) of the respective known masses. Charmless two-body $`B`$ decays produce the fastest secondary particles among all $`B`$ decays. Therefore, to reduce combinatoric backgrounds only the fastest $`\varphi `$ and the fastest $`K`$ ($`K^{}`$) are used in those events with multiple combinations.

The $`B`$ decay candidate is identified via its invariant mass and its total energy. We calculate a beam-constrained $`B`$ mass $`M_B=\sqrt{E_{\mathrm{beam}}^2p_B^2}`$, where $`p_B`$ is the $`B`$ candidate momentum and $`E_{\mathrm{beam}}`$ is the beam energy. The resolution in $`M_B`$ is dominated by the beam energy spread. We define $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=E_1+E_2E_{\mathrm{beam}}`$, where $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ are the energies of the daughters of the $`B`$ meson candidate. We accept events with $`M_B`$ above $`5.2`$ GeV/$`c^2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E|<200`$ MeV.

We have studied backgrounds from $`bc`$ decays and other $`bu`$ and $`bs`$ decays and find that all are negligible for the analyses presented here. The main background arises from $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}`$ (where $`q=u,d,s,c`$). Such events typically exhibit a two-jet structure and can produce high momentum back-to-back tracks in the fiducial region, while $`B\overline{B}`$ events tend to have more spherical structure, since the $`B`$ mesons are produced nearly at rest. To reduce contamination from these background events, we require the event to have $`H_2/H_0<0.6`$, where $`H_i`$ are Fox-Wolfram moments .

We extract the signal yields from unbinned, extended maximum-likelihood fits of the preselected on-resonance data separately for each topology ($`\varphi K^{}`$, $`\varphi K^0`$, $`\varphi K_{K^{}\pi ^+}^0`$, $`\varphi K_{K^0\pi ^0}^0`$, $`\varphi K_{K^{}\pi ^0}^{}`$, $`\varphi K_{K^0\pi ^{}}^{}`$). For all modes, we distinguish signal from background using $`M_B`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tt}|`$ (the angle between the thrust axes of the $`B`$ candidate and that of the rest of the event), $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _B|`$ (the angle between the $`B`$ candidate momentum and beam axis) and $`m_\varphi `$ (the mass of the $`\varphi `$ candidate). In addition, we include $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _h|`$ (the $`\varphi `$ helicity angle, defined as the kaon direction in the $`\varphi `$ rest frame) for $`\varphi K^{}`$ and $`\varphi K^0`$ modes, $`m_K^{}`$ (the mass of the $`K^{}`$ candidate) for $`\varphi K^{}`$ modes, and $`S_K`$ (the number of standard deviations from the predicted $`dE/dx`$ value) of $`K^{}`$ when applicable.

In each of these fits, the likelihood of the event is the sum of probabilities for the signal and background hypotheses, with relative weights determined by maximizing the likelihood function $``$. The probability of a particular hypothesis is calculated as a product of the probability density functions (PDFs) for each of the input variables. The signal PDFs are represented by a double Gaussian for $`M_B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, by a Breit-Wigner function on top of a linear polynomial for $`m_\varphi `$ and $`m_K^{}`$, by $`1|\mathrm{cos}\theta _B|^2`$ for $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _B|`$, by a third order polynomial for $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tt}|`$, and by $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _h`$ for $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _h|`$. The background distributions for the intermediate resonance masses are parameterized by the sum of a Breit-Wigner and a low-order polynomial. For $`M_B`$, we use an empirical shape ($`f(M_B)M_B\sqrt{1x^2}\mathrm{exp}[\gamma (1x^2)]`$; $`x=M_B/E_{\mathrm{beam}}`$. The background $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _B|`$ PDFs are both linear functions, and $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tt}|`$ is parameterized by the sum of two terms $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tt}|^\alpha `$ with different exponents. The signal and background dependences of $`S_K`$ are bifurcated Gaussian functions.

The parameters for the PDFs are determined from off-resonance data (background) and from high-statistics Monte-Carlo (MC) samples (signal). In the signal MC data, we model $`B\varphi K^{()}`$ as a two-body decay, where for $`\varphi K^{}`$ we assume equal amplitudes for longitudinal and transverse polarizations. Dependence on the unknown decay polarization is included in the systematic uncertainty. We use a Geant  based simulation to model the detector response in detail. Further details about the likelihood fit method can be found in Ref. .

To illustrate the fits, we show in Fig. 2 $`M_B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ projections for the modes with significant signals.

Events entering these plots must satisfy a requirement on the signal-to-background likelihood ratios $`R\mathrm{log}(P_{si}/P_{bi})`$, where $`P_{si}(P_{bi})`$ are signal (background) likelihoods for each event $`i`$, computed without $`M_B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, respectively. This additional cut accepts about 2/3 of the preselected signal events in the MC sample.

We summarize the results for all $`B`$ decay modes, corresponding submodes, and the combined modes in Table I, where we assume equal branching fractions for charged and neutral $`B`$ meson decays .

We combine the samples from multiple secondary decay channels by adding the $`2\mathrm{log}`$ functions of the branching fraction. The statistical significance of a given signal yield is determined from the change in $`2\mathrm{log}`$ when refit with the signal yield fixed to zero. The largest contributions to the systematic uncertainties come, with about equal weight, from uncertainties in the parametrization of the PDFs, decay polarization dependence,*** The $`B\varphi K^{}`$ decay may be longitudinally or transversely polarized. Assuming 100% transverse polarization we obtain $`(B\varphi K^{})=(13.6_{4.4}^{+5.3})\times 10^6`$ (statistical errors only) and $`(B^{}\varphi K^{})=(12.8_{5.9}^{+7.6})\times 10^6`$. Assuming 100% longitudinal polarization we measure $`(B\varphi K^{})=(9.9_{3.4}^{+4.2})\times 10^6`$ and $`(B^{}\varphi K^{})=(9.9_{4.6}^{+6.0})\times 10^6`$. To estimate the uncertainty due to the unknown polarization we assumed that any value between 100% longitudinal and 100% transverse polarization is equally likely.  and possible background from other $`B`$ decays.

We observe a significant signal (above $`5\sigma `$) for the decays $`B^{}\varphi K^{}`$ and $`B^0\varphi K^0`$. Since the statistical significances for the $`B^0\varphi K^0`$ and $`B^{}\varphi K^{}`$ modes are not large ($`2.9\sigma `$ and $`3.1\sigma `$ respectively), we calculate $`90\%`$ confidence level (C.L.) upper limits (UL) by integrating the likelihood curve to $`90\%`$ of its total area, and increasing it by one unit of the systematic error.

In summary, we have measured $`(B^{}\varphi K^{})=(5.5_{1.8}^{+2.1}\pm 0.6)\times 10^6`$ and $`(B^0\varphi K^0)=(11.5_{3.7}^{+4.5}{}_{1.7}{}^{+1.8})\times 10^6`$ each with statistical significance above $`5\sigma `$. The statistical significance of the $`B^0\varphi K^0`$ and $`B^{}\varphi K^{}`$ signals are $`2.9\sigma `$ and $`3.1\sigma `$ respectively. The measured rates are $`(B^0\varphi K^0)=(5.4{}_{2.7}{}^{+3.7}\pm 0.7)\times 10^6`$ and $`(B^{}\varphi K^{})=(10.6_{4.9}^{+6.4}{}_{1.6}{}^{+1.8})\times 10^6`$. Since the statistical significance in these modes is limited we set upper limits of $`<12.3\times 10^6`$ and $`<22.5\times 10^6`$ (at $`90\%`$ C.L.) respectively. Averaging over $`B^0`$ and $`B^{}`$ we obtain $`(B\varphi K)=(5.5_{1.5}^{+1.8}\pm 0.7)\times 10^6`$ ($`6.1\sigma `$) and $`(B\varphi K^{})=(11.2_{3.1}^{+3.6}{}_{1.7}{}^{+1.8})\times 10^6`$ ($`5.9\sigma `$). The measured branching fractions lie in the range of theoretical predictions (see Table I). Since there is a considerable spread in theoretical predictions among various calculations, our results will help constrain model parameters.

We gratefully acknowledge the effort of the CESR staff in providing us with excellent luminosity and running conditions. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Research Corporation, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Texas Advanced Research Program, and the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The problem of defining $`2D`$ Riemannian manifolds which admit projective motions, i. e. continuous transformation groups preserving geodesics dates back to S.Lie who considered it in \[K\]. In more recent times, that was A.V.Aminova who has got a complete solution to this problem \[A90\]. For the Riemannian manifolds of dimension greater than 2 the same problem has been solved by G.Fubini \[F\] and A.S.Solodovnikov \[S\].

In the later paper, \[A95\] A.V.Aminova has classified all the Lorentzian manifolds of dimension $`3`$ that admit nonhomothetic projective or affine infinitesimal transformations. In each case, there were determined the corresponding maximal projective and affine Lie algebras.

In this paper we continue to investigate this problem and study the $`6`$-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian space $`V^6(g_{ij})`$ with signature $`[++]`$, and, particularly, the $`h`$-space of the type $`[33]`$. The general method of determining pseudo-Riemannian manifolds that admit some nonhomothetic projective group $`G_r`$ has been developed by A.V.Aminova \[A95\] and has got a detailed account in the paper by the author \[Z\] for the $`h`$-space of the type $`[51]`$.

## 2 The metric of the type $`[33]`$ $`h`$-space

In order to find the $`h`$-space admitting a nonhomothetic infinitesimal projective transformation, one needs to integrate the Eisenhart equation

$$\begin{array}{c}h_{ij,k}=2g_{ij}\phi _{,k}+g_{ik}\phi _{,j}+g_{jk}\phi _{,i},\end{array}$$
(1)
which, in the skew-normal frames, is of the form \[A95\]

$$\begin{array}{c}X_r\overline{a}_{pq}+_{h=1}^ne_h(\overline{a}_{hq}\gamma _{\stackrel{~}{h}pr}+\overline{a}_{ph}\gamma _{\stackrel{~}{h}qr})=\overline{g}_{pr}X_q\phi +\overline{g}_{qr}X_p\phi (p,q,r=1,\mathrm{},n),\end{array}$$
(2)
where $`X_r\phi \underset{r}{𝜉}^i\frac{\phi }{x^i}`$, $`\gamma _{pqr}=\gamma _{qpr}=\underset{p}{𝜉}{}_{i,j}{}^{}\underset{q}{𝜉}_{}^{i}\underset{r}{𝜉}^j`$, $`\underset{i}{𝜉}^j`$ are the components of skew-normal frames, $`\overline{g}_{pr}`$ and $`\overline{a}_{pq}`$ are the canonical forms of the tensors $`g_{pr}`$, $`a_{pq}`$, respectively. For the type $`[33]`$ $`h`$-space these latter have the following form \[P\]

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{g}_{ij}dx^idx^j=e_3(2dx^1dx^3+dx_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{2})+e_6(2dx^4dx^6+dx_{}^{5}{}_{}{}^{2}),\end{array}$$
(3)
$$\overline{a}_{ij}dx^idx^j=e_3\lambda _3(2dx^1dx^3+dx_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{2})+2e_3dx^2dx^3+e_6\lambda _6(2dx^4dx^5+dx_{}^{5}{}_{}{}^{2})+2e_6dx^5dx^6,$$

where $`e_3,e_6=\pm 1`$ and $`\lambda _3,\lambda _6`$ are the roots of the characteristic equation $`det(h_{ij}\lambda g_{ij})=0`$. Here $`h_{ij}=\underset{\xi }{𝐿}g_{ij}`$, the Lie derivative of the metric $`g_{ij}`$ in the direction of vector $`\xi ^i`$ gives the projective motion $`x^i^{}=x^i+\xi ^i\delta t`$.

Substituting in (2) the canonical forms $`\overline{g}_{pr}`$ and $`\overline{a}_{pq}`$ from (3) and taking into account that for the type $`[33]`$ $`h`$-space $`e_1=e_2=e_3`$, $`e_4=e_5=e_6`$, $`\stackrel{~}{1}=3`$, $`\stackrel{~}{2}=2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{3}=1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{4}=6`$, $`\stackrel{~}{5}=5`$, $`\stackrel{~}{6}=4`$, one gets the following system of equations

$$\begin{array}{c}X_r\lambda _3=0(r3),X_r\lambda _6=0(r6),\\ X_3(\lambda _32/3\phi )=X_6(\lambda _62/3\phi )=0,\\ \gamma _{213}=1/2e_3X_3\lambda _3,\gamma _{312}=\gamma _{321}=e_3X_3\phi ,\\ \gamma _{546}=1/2e_6X_6\lambda _6,\gamma _{645}=\gamma _{654}=e_6X_6\phi ,\\ \gamma _{163}=\gamma _{262}=\gamma _{361}=\frac{e_3X_6\phi }{\lambda _3\lambda _6},\gamma _{263}=\gamma _{362}=\frac{e_3X_6\phi }{(\lambda _3\lambda _6)^2},\\ \gamma _{346}=\gamma _{355}=\gamma _{364}=\frac{e_6X_3\phi }{\lambda _3\lambda _6},\gamma _{536}=\gamma _{635}=\frac{e_6X_3\phi }{(\lambda _3\lambda _6)^2},\\ \gamma _{363}=\frac{e_3X_6\phi }{(\lambda _3\lambda _6)^3},\gamma _{366}=\frac{e_6X_3\phi }{(\lambda _3\lambda _6)^3}.\end{array}$$
(4)
All others $`\gamma _{pqr}`$ are equal to zero.

The system of linear partial differential equations

$$X_q\theta =\underset{q}{𝜉}^i_i\theta =0,(q=1,\mathrm{},m,i=1,\mathrm{},6),$$

where $`\underset{q}{𝜉}^i`$ are the components of skew-normal frames, is completely integrable if and only if the following conditions are fulfilled (see \[E\], p. 143)

$$\begin{array}{c}(X_q,X_r)\theta =X_qX_r\theta X_rX_q\theta =_{p=1}^6e_p(\gamma _{pqr}\gamma _{prq})X_{\stackrel{~}{p}}.\end{array}$$
(5)
Using formulas (4) and (5), one can write the commutators of the operators $`X_i`$ $`(i=1,\mathrm{},6)`$ in the $`h`$-space under consideration,

$$\begin{array}{c}(X_1,X_2)=(X_1,X_4)=(X_1,X_5)=(X_2,X_5)=(X_4,X_5)=0,\\ (X_1,X_3)=e_2(\gamma _{213}\gamma _{231})X_2,(X_1,X_6)=e_3\gamma _{361}X_1,\\ (X_2,X_3)=e_1(\gamma _{123}\gamma _{132})X_3,(X_2,X_6)=e_3\gamma _{362}X_1e_2\gamma _{262}X_2,\\ (X_3,X_4)=e_6\gamma _{634}X_4,(X_3,X_5)=e_6\gamma _{635}X_4+e_5\gamma _{535}X_5,\\ (X_3,X_6)=e_3\gamma _{363}X_1e_2\gamma _{263}X_2e_1\gamma _{163}X_3+e_6\gamma _{636}X_4+e_5\gamma _{536}X_5+e_4\gamma _{436}X_6,\\ (X_4,X_6)=e_5(\gamma _{546}\gamma _{564})X_5,(X_5,X_6)=e_4(\gamma _{456}\gamma _{465})X_6.\end{array}$$
(6)
From these relations it follows that the systems $`X_p\theta =0`$ $`(p3)`$ and $`X_r\theta =0`$ $`(r6)`$ are completely integrable, their solutions being $`\theta ^3`$ and $`\theta ^6`$ respectively. The systems $`X_1\theta =X_\alpha \theta =0`$ $`(\alpha =4,5,6)`$, $`X_4\theta =X_\beta \theta =0`$ $`(\beta =1,2,3)`$, $`X_\alpha \theta =0`$ and $`X_\beta \theta =0`$ are also integrable. The first system have solutions $`\theta ^2`$, $`\theta ^3`$, the second system – $`\theta ^5`$ and $`\theta ^6`$, the third system – $`\theta ^1`$, $`\theta ^2`$, $`\theta ^3`$ and fourth system have solutions $`\theta ^4`$, $`\theta ^5`$ and $`\theta ^6`$. After coordinate transformation $`x^i^{}=\theta ^i(x)`$, one gets

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{s}{𝜉}^i=P_s(x)\delta _{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{i},\underset{2}{𝜉}^3=\underset{2}{𝜉}^\alpha =\underset{3}{𝜉}^\alpha =\underset{5}{𝜉}^\beta =\underset{5}{𝜉}^6=\underset{6}{𝜉}^\beta =0,(s=1,4).\end{array}$$
(7)
Now integrating the system of equations (6) with using (4) and (7), one can find the components $`\underset{i}{𝜉}^j`$ of skew-normal frames. Using these results and the formulas \[A95\]

$$\begin{array}{c}g^{ij}=_{h=1}^ne_h\underset{h}{𝜉}^i\underset{\stackrel{~}{h}}{𝜉}^j,\underset{h}{𝜉}{}_{i}{}^{}=g_{ij}\underset{h}{𝜉}^j,a_{ij}=_{h,l=1}^ne_he_l\overline{a}_{hl}\underset{\stackrel{~}{h}}{𝜉}{}_{i}{}^{}\underset{\stackrel{~}{l}}{𝜉}_j\end{array}$$
(8)
we can calculate the components of tensors $`g_{ij}`$ and $`a_{ij}`$. Then we come to the following

Theorem 1. If a symmetric tensor $`h_{ij}`$ of the characteristics $`[33]`$ and a function $`\phi `$ satisfy in $`V^6(g_{ij})`$ equation (1), then there exists a holonomic coordinate system so that the function $`\phi `$ and the tensors $`g_{ij}`$, $`h_{ij}`$ are defined by the formulas

$$\begin{array}{c}g_{ij}dx^idx^j=e_3(f_6f_3)^3\{(dx^2)^2+4Adx^1dx^3+2(ϵx^12A\mathrm{\Sigma }_1)dx^2dx^3+\end{array}$$
(9)
$$((ϵx^1)^24ϵx^1A\mathrm{\Sigma }_1+4A^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_2)(dx^3)^2\}+e_6(f_3f_6)^3\{(dx^5)^2+4\stackrel{~}{A}dx^4dx^6+2(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}x^4+$$

$$2\stackrel{~}{A}\mathrm{\Sigma }_1)dx^5dx^6+((\stackrel{~}{ϵ}x^4)^2+4\stackrel{~}{ϵ}x^4\stackrel{~}{A}\mathrm{\Sigma }_1+4\stackrel{~}{A}^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_2((dx^6)^2\},$$

$$\begin{array}{c}a_{ij}dx^idx^j=ϵx^3g_{i_1j_1}dx^{i_1}dx^{j_1}+2g_{13}dx^2dx^3+4Ag_{22}(ϵx^1A\mathrm{\Sigma }_1)(dx^3)^2+\end{array}$$
(10)
$$(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}x^6+a)g_{i_2j_2}dx^{i_2}dx^{j_2}+2g_{46}dx^5dx^6+4\stackrel{~}{A}g_{55}(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}x^4+\stackrel{~}{A}\mathrm{\Sigma }_1)(dx^6)^2,$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\phi =\frac{3}{2}(f_3+f_6)+c,\end{array}$$
(11)
$$\begin{array}{c}h_{ij}=a_{ij}+3(f_3+f_6+c)g_{ij},\end{array}$$
(12)
where $`f_3=ϵx^3`$, $`f_6=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}x^6+a`$, $`ϵ,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=0,1`$, $`c`$ and $`a`$ are some constants, $`a0`$ when $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=0`$, $`i_1,j_1=1,2,3`$, $`i_2,j_2=4,5,6`$, $`e_i=\pm 1`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}A=ϵx^2+\theta (x^3),\stackrel{~}{A}=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}x^4+\omega (x^6),\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=3(f_6f_3)^1,\mathrm{\Sigma }_2=3(f_6f_3)^2,\end{array}$$
(13)
$`\theta (x^3)`$, $`\omega (x^6)`$ are arbitrary functions, $`\theta (x^3)0`$ when $`ϵ=0`$ and $`\omega (x^6)0`$ when $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=0`$.

## 3 Projective group characteristics of the <br>6-dimensional type $`[33]`$ $`h`$-space

To move further, we need a necessary and sufficient condition of the constant curvature of the $`h`$-space under consideration. This condition is known to be expressed by the formula

$$\begin{array}{c}R_{jkl}^i=K(\delta _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}g_{jl}\delta _{l}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}g_{jk}),K=\mathrm{const}.\end{array}$$
(14)
Calculating the components of curvature tensor of our $`h`$-space, we observe that the nonzero components $`R_{\nu b_p\mu }^{a_p}`$ ($`b_p\mu `$, $`a_p<b_p`$) of the curvature tensor, $`R_{5a_16}^{a_1}`$, $`R_{6a_15}^{a_1}`$, $`R_{6a_16}^{a_1}`$, $`R_{2a_23}^{a_2}`$, $`R_{3a_22}^{a_2}`$, $`R_{3a_23}^{a_2}`$ ($`p=1,2`$, $`a_1,b_1=1,2,3`$, $`a_2,b_2=4,5,6`$, $`\nu `$ and $`\mu `$ are the indices of nonzero components of metric $`g_{\nu \mu }`$, (9)) are proportional to $`ϵ`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$. In particulary, $`R_{123}^2=\frac{3ϵ^2}{8A}`$, $`R_{456}^5=\frac{3\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^2}{8\stackrel{~}{A}}`$. Now one can derive from (14) that $`R_{123}^2=R_{163}^6`$ and $`R_{456}^5=R_{436}^3`$ which implies $`ϵ=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=0`$. Obviously, when $`ϵ=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=0`$, all the components of curvature tensor of the $`h`$-space we consider are equal to zero.

Let us now prove the following theorems

Theorem 2. The defining function of projective motion in the type $`[33]`$ $`h`$-space of nonconstant curvature is $`\varphi =a_1\phi `$, where $`a_1`$ is a constant and $`\phi `$ is determined by (11).

Proof. Suppose we are given with a vector field $`\xi ^i`$ that gives the projective motion with the defining function $`\varphi `$ in the $`h`$-space of the type $`[33]`$. Then, for the tensor $`b_{ij}=\underset{\xi }{𝐿}g_{ij}`$ the following Eisenhart equations are fulfilled

$$\begin{array}{c}b_{ij,k}=2g_{ij}\varphi _{,k}+g_{ik}\varphi _{,j}+g_{jk}\varphi _{,i}.\end{array}$$
(15)
Their integrability conditions are

$$\begin{array}{c}b_{mi}R_{jkl}^m+b_{mj}R_{ikl}^m=g_{ik}\varphi _{,jl}+g_{jk}\varphi _{,il}g_{li}\varphi _{,jk}g_{lj}\varphi _{,ik}.\end{array}$$
(16)
Let us show that for any projective motion in the type $`[33]`$ $`h`$-space the following conditions are satisfied

$$\begin{array}{c}b_{\alpha \beta }=0,\varphi _{,\alpha \beta }=0,\end{array}$$
(17)
$`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ being indices of the components $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ of the metric (9) equal to zero. To prove that $`b_{11}=\varphi _{,11}=0`$, set $`(ijkl)=(1212)`$, $`(1416)`$ and $`(1516)`$ in (16). Then, one gets

$$\begin{array}{c}b_{11}R_{212}^1=g_{22}\varphi _{,11},b_{11}R_{416}^1=g_{46}\varphi _{,11},\end{array}$$
(18)
$$\begin{array}{c}b_{11}(\frac{R_{212}^1}{g_{22}}\frac{R_{516}^1}{g_{56}})=0.\end{array}$$
(19)
Since $`R_{416}^1=0`$ and $`g_{46}0`$, we get $`\varphi _{,11}=0`$. Then, from (18) it follows that $`b_{11}=0`$, since $`R_{212}^10`$. Similarly one can get the other equalities (17).

Now, from (15) with $`(ijk)=(166),`$ (266), (433), (533), (346) and (613) and taking into account (17), one obtains

$$\varphi _{,1}=\varphi _{,2}=\varphi _{,4}=\varphi _{,5}=0,$$

$$\varphi _{,3}=\frac{3}{2}\frac{ϵ}{f_6f_3}(\frac{b_{46}}{g_{46}}\frac{b_{13}}{g_{13}}),\varphi _{,6}=\frac{3}{2}\frac{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}{f_6f_3}(\frac{b_{46}}{g_{46}}\frac{b_{13}}{g_{13}}).$$

Comparing the last two formulas one finds

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}\varphi _{,3}=ϵ\varphi _{,6}.\end{array}$$
(20)
Then, from the equality $`\varphi _{,36}=0`$ it follows that $`_{36}\varphi =0`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}0`$, differentiating (20) w.r.t. $`x^3`$ gives $`_{33}\varphi =0`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=0`$, then $`ϵ0`$, since we consider the space of nonzero curvature. In the case of $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=0`$ and $`ϵ0`$, the relation $`_{33}\varphi =0`$ is obtained from (16) with $`(ijkl)=(3312)`$, (3436). One also can analogously show that $`_{66}\varphi =0`$. Integrating the equation obtained, one finally finds

$$\begin{array}{c}\varphi =\frac{1}{2}a_1\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}f_i=a_1\phi ,f_1=f_2=f_3=ϵx^3,f_3=f_4=f_6=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}x^6+a,\end{array}$$
(21)
where $`\phi `$ is determined by formula (11).

Theorem 3. Any covariant constant symmetric tensor $`b_{ij}`$ in the 6-dimensional type $`[33]`$ $`h`$-space of nonzero curvature is proportional to the fundamental tensor

$$\begin{array}{c}b_{ij}=a_2g_{ij},(a_2=\mathrm{const}).\end{array}$$
(22)
Proof. Let $`b_{ij}`$ in $`V^6`$ satisfy the equation

$$\begin{array}{c}b_{ij,k}=0.\end{array}$$
(23)
Integrability conditions for this equation follow from (16) with $`\varphi =const`$. Then, from (17) one has

$$\begin{array}{c}b_{\alpha \beta }=0.\end{array}$$
(24)
Note that for the proof of the theorem one suffices to show that $`b_{ij}=a_2g_{ij}`$, where $`a_2`$ is a coefficient which is constant, due to the equation $`b_{ij,k}=0`$ and parallelism of the metric tensor.

Putting in equation (16) $`(ijkl)=(2223)`$, (3312), (3331), one finds

$$\begin{array}{c}b_{22}R_{223}^2b_{23}R_{232}^3=0,b_{13}R_{312}^1b_{23}R_{232}^3=0,\end{array}$$
(25)
$$b_{13}R_{331}^1+b_{23}R_{331}^2+b_{33}R_{331}^3=0.$$

From (23) with $`(ijk)=(436)`$, (535). (536), (636) it follows that

$$\begin{array}{c}f_3^{}(\frac{b_{33}}{g_{33}}\frac{b_{46}}{g_{46}})=0,f_3^{}(\frac{b_{33}}{g_{33}}\frac{b_{55}}{g_{55}})=0,\\ f_3^{}(\frac{b_{33}}{g_{33}}\frac{b_{56}}{g_{56}})=0,f_3^{}(\frac{b_{33}}{g_{33}}\frac{b_{66}}{g_{66}})=0.\end{array}$$
(26)
If $`f_3^{}0`$, one obtains (22) from (25), (26) and (24). Otherwise, the wanted result follows from (23) with $`(ijk)=(163)`$, (262), (263), (363) and from (16) with $`(ijkl)=(5556)`$, (6645), (6664).

From this theorem, one immediately obtains

Theorem 4. Affine group of the 6-dimensional type $`[33]`$ $`h`$-space of non-constant curvature consists of the homothetics.

This theorems and linearity of the Eisenhart equation give the general solution of the Eisenhart equation in the type $`[33]`$ $`h`$-space of non-constant curvature in the form $`a_1h_{ij}+a_2g_{ij}`$ with two arbitrary constants $`a_1,a_2`$,

$$h_{ij}=a_{ij}+(\underset{k=1}{\overset{6}{}}f_k)g_{ij},$$

tensors $`g_{ij}`$, $`a_{ij}`$ being determined by (9) and (10).

Hence, one obtains

Theorem 5. All projective motion of the 6-dimensional type $`[33]`$ $`h`$-space of non-constant curvature are obtained by integrating the equation

$$L_\xi g_{ij}=\xi _{i,j}+\xi _{j,i}=a_1a_{ij}+(a_1\underset{k=1}{\overset{6}{}}f_k+a_2)g_{ij},$$

where tensors $`g_{ij}`$ and $`a_{ij}`$ are determined by (9) and (10), and $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$ are constants.

It leads to the following important group characteristic of the type $`[33]`$ $`h`$-spaces:

Theorem 6. If the type $`[33]`$ $`h`$-space of non-constant curvature admits a nonhomothetic projective Lie algebra $`P_r`$, then this algebra contains the subalgebra $`H_{r1}`$ of infinitesimal homothetics of dimension $`r1`$.

I am grateful to A.V.Aminova for the constant encouragement and discussions. I also acknowledge Koji Matsumoto for the discussions and kind hospitality at the Yamagata University where this paper was completed. The work is partially supported by RFBR grant 01-02-17682a and INTAS grant 00-00334.