1: \documentclass[prd,a4paper,twocolumn,preprintnumbers,floatfix,aps,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

2: 

3: \usepackage{latexsym}

4: \usepackage{epsfig}

5: \usepackage{amssymb}

6: 

7: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}

8: 

9: \def\bg#1{\mbox{\boldmath$#1$}}

10: 

11: \newcommand{\Tr}{\mbox{Tr}}

12: \newcommand{\tr}{\mbox{tr}}

13: \newcommand{\Det}{\mbox{det}}

14: \newcommand{\Dim}[1]{\mbox{dim[$#1$]}}

15: \newcommand{\del}{\partial}

16: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

17: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

18: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

19: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

20: \newcommand{\bk}{{\bf k}}

21: \newcommand{\bp}{{\bf p}}

22: \newcommand{\bq}{{\bf q}}

23: \newcommand{\br}{{\bf r}}

24: \newcommand{\bx}{{\bf x}}

25: \newcommand{\om}{\omega}

26: \newcommand{\Om}{\Omega}

27: \newcommand{\ua}{\uparrow}

28: \newcommand{\da}{\downarrow}

29: \newcommand{\la}{\leftarrow}

30: \newcommand{\ra}{\rightarrow}

31: \newcommand{\e}{\epsilon}

32: \newcommand{\ve}{\varepsilon}

33: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

34: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{\mbox{$\mid\!#1\rangle$}}

35: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\mbox{$\langle#1\!\mid$}}

36: \newcommand{\wh}[1]{\widehat{#1}}

37: \newcommand{\ex}[1]{\langle\,#1\,\rangle}

38: \newcommand{\D}{{\cal D}}

39: \newcommand{\lam}{\bar{\lambda}}

40: \newcommand{\Mvariable}{}

41: \newcommand{\half}{{1\over 2}}

42: 

43: \begin{document}

44: 

45: \title{Viable Palatini-f(R) cosmologies with generalized dark matter}

46: \date{\today}

47: 

48: \author{Tomi Koivisto}

49: \email{tomikoiv@pcu.helsinki.fi}

50: \affiliation{Helsinki Institute of Physics, P.O. Box 64, FIN-00014 Helsinki, 

51: Finland}

52: \affiliation{Department of Physical Sciences, Helsinki University, P.O. 

53: Box 64, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland}

54: 

55: \begin{abstract}

56: 

57: We study the formation of large-scale structure in universes dominated by dark

58: matter and driven to accelerated expansion by f(R) gravity in the Palatini

59: formalism. If the dark matter is cold, practically all of these models are ruled out

60: because they fail to reproduce the observed matter power spectrum.

61: We point out that if the assumption that dark matter is perfect and pressureless

62: at all scales is relaxed, nontrivial alternatives to a cosmological

63: constant become viable within this class of modified gravity models.

64: 

65: \end{abstract}

66: 

67: \maketitle

68:  

69: \section{Introduction}

70: 

71: The $f(R)$ theories of gravity have been intensively explored in recent years

72: as possible alternatives to dark energy\cite{Nojiri:2006ri}.

73: This class of extensions of general relativity 

74: is defined via a seemingly simple generalization of the Einstein-Hilbert action by 

75: allowing nonlinear interactions of the Ricci scalar as  

76: \be \label{action}

77:  S = 

78:   \frac{1}{16\pi G}

79:   \int d^4x \sqrt{-g}f\left( g^{\mu\nu}R_{\mu\nu}(\Gamma ) \right) + S_m,

80:  \ee

81: where $S_m$ is the matter action. When

82: $\Gamma$ is taken to be the metric-compatible (Christoffel) connection,

83: the action (\ref{action}) represents the so called metric $f(R)$ 

84: models \cite{Carroll:2003wy,Nojiri:2003rz,Nojiri:2003ft,Faraoni:2006fx,Faraoni:2005ie}. Though

85: a realistic universe expansion history may be reconstructed from these models 

86: \cite{Nojiri:2006gh,Capozziello:2006dj}, they

87: seem to be ruled out as alternatives to dark energy because of their 

88: consequences to the Solar system physics \cite{Chiba:2003ir,Erickcek:2006vf,Kainulainen:2007bt}, see 

89: however \cite{Hu:2007nk}. If the connection $\Gamma$ is promoted to an independent variable, the action

90: (\ref{action}) represents the $f(R)$ models in the so called Palatini 

91: formalism \cite{Ferraris:1992dx,Vollick:2003aw,Flanagan:2003iw,Meng:2003en,Allemandi:2005qs,Poplawski:2006kv},

92: which instead appear to pass the Solar system tests \cite{Kainulainen:2006wz}. 

93: The viability of the small-scale limit of these Palatini-$f(R)$ models has been an 

94: issue of debate\cite{Flanagan:2003rb,Vollick:2003ic}. A recent claim of 

95: violations of the equivalence principle \cite{Olmo:2006zu}, though partly erronous \cite{Koivisto:2005yk}, has resurfaced doubts about the physical tenability of

96: the Palatini-$f(R)$ gravity \cite{Olmo:2006zu,Barausse:2007pn}. These 

97: have been already considerably clarified by Kainulainen {\it et al} \cite{Kainulainen:2007bt},

98: and the problems which perhaps remain at tiny scales could also dissipate if one 

99: entertains these models as a macroscopic limit of a possibly more fundamental 

100: description of spacetime with the aid of truly metric-affine degrees 

101: of freedom \cite{Sotiriou:2006qn}.

102:  

103: This suggests it worthwhile to seriously reconsider the cosmology of the Palatini-$f(R)$ 

104: models. Expansionwise, they can generate a viable sequence of radiation dominated, matter dominated and 

105: accelerating era matching with the constraints, as has been shown for various 

106: parameterizations of the function $f(R)$, most often with some power-law forms 

107: (with one, two or three powers of $R$), but also with square-root, logarithmic and exponential 

108: forms for the curvature correction 

109: terms \cite{Capozziello:2004vh,Amarzguioui:2005zq, Borowiec:2006hk,Movahed:2007cs,Fay:2007gg}. 

110: However, the inhomogeneous evolution present in any realistic universe has not been 

111: succesfully reconciled with observations in these models. 

112: At the background level the additional derivative terms in the field equations

113: due to nonlinearity in $f(R)$ can play the role of an effective smooth dark energy. 

114: Meanwhile the spatial gradients of these extra terms cannot be neglected for 

115: cosmological perturbations \cite{Koivisto:2005yc} which then assume unusual behaviour that 

116: is at odds with the observed distribution of galaxies \cite{Koivisto:2006ie} and with the

117: cosmic microwave background spectrum \cite{Li:2006vi}, even if the nonlinear part of the action 

118: is exponentially suppressed at late times \cite{Li:2006ag}. In quantitative terms,

119: parameterizing the $f(R)- R \sim R^\beta$, data analysis constrains  $|\beta| < 10^{-5}$

120: \cite{Koivisto:2005yc,Li:2006vi}. 

121: %(perhaps interestingly though, the limit $\beta=0$, corresponding to the $\Lambda$CDM, is left 

122: %outside the 95 percent confidence contours). 

123: Thus, while these models are allowed by local experiments, 

124: they are extremely tightly constrained by cosmological data.

125: 

126: In this paper our purpose is to investigate under which conditions these

127: cosmological constraints on the Palatini-$f(R)$ could be loosened. 

128: Our approach is to allow generalized dark matter (GDM) with possible (isotropic or anisotropic) 

129: pressures in the matter sector. The gravity sector we assume to be given by a general nonlinear function $f(R)$ 

130: appearing in Eq.(\ref{action}), when understood in the Palatini formalism which yields second order field 

131: equations (in contrast to the ''fourth order'' metric formalism). Note that a linear Lagrangian $f(R) \sim R + 

132: 2\Lambda$ corresponds to general relativity with a cosmological constant $\Lambda$. Note also that here we assume the 

133: nonlinear part of the function $f(R)$ to drive the cosmic acceleration so that there is no need for dark energy. 

134: One could attempt to eliminate also the need for dark matter with nonlinear gravity \cite{Borowiec:2006qr}. That is 

135: not our approach here, but our results could be relevant for such pursuits too.

136: 

137: The paper is organized as follows.

138: We generalize the cosmological equations in section \ref{cosmo} and apply them in 

139: section \ref{gene} to construct an $f(R)$GDM scenario, where anisotropically stressed dark matter 

140: has (up to a normalization) the $\Lambda$CDM (cold dark matter model with a cosmological constant) matter power 

141: spectrum, in a universe with its the background expansion identical to the corresponding $f(R)$CDM model. Therefore we can 

142: conclude in section \ref{conclu} that with specific assumptions about the properties of dark matter, the large-scale 

143: structure in these models can be consistent with observations. Appendix \ref{appe} contains the full linearized 

144: evolution equation.

145: 

146: \section{Cosmology with generalized dark matter}

147: \label{cosmo}

148: 

149: In the $\Lambda$CDM model the CDM component consists possibly of weakly 

150: interacting massive particles or something else which should be 

151: at cosmological scales very accurately approximated as an exactly 

152: pressureless and perfect fluid. These properties are deduced from 

153: the observations of large-scale clustering properties of matter, 

154: assuming the gravitational dynamics to be governed by GR. The so called 

155: hot dark matter scenario, as an example, is excluded because of the finite 

156: pressure in a hot component inhibits matter from clustering at subhorizon 

157: scales efficiently enough to explain the observed amount of structure at those scales

158: when the observations are interpreted within the framework of a cosmological

159: constant model \cite{Hu:1998tj}.

160: 

161: At present study we are focusing on an alternative gravity 

162: model featuring deviations from general relativity at the scales where observations require

163: to invoke dark matter. The question we then ask is not ''what 

164: gravity models are consistent with the CDM cosmology'', but 

165: rather {\it ''what properties of GDM are required

166: for cosmological viability of a given modified gravity model ?''}. 

167: 

168: To begin, we will derive an evolution equation for the inhomogeneities in a general fluid.

169: To characterize small perturbations about the background we can

170: without loss of generality adopt the longitudinal Newtonian gauge \cite{Mukhanov:1990me,Hu:1998tj}, which 

171: is defined by including the two gravitational potentials $\Psi$ and 

172: $\Phi$ to the Robertson-Walker line-element as

173:  \be \label{newtonian}

174:       ds^2 = a^2(\tau)[-(1+2\Psi)d\tau^2 + (1-2\Phi)g^{(3)}_{ij}dx^idx^j],

175:  \ee

176: where $g^{(3)}_{ij}$ is the spatial 3-metric which in a flat universe 

177: reduces to the Dirac delta function $g^{(3)}_{ij} = \delta_{ij}$. The components of 

178: the energy-momentum tensor for a general fluid including scalar perturbations 

179: can be written as

180:  \bea \label{fluid}

181:  T^0_{\phantom{0}0} & = & -\bar{\rho}\left(1+\delta^N\right), \\

182:  T^0_{\phantom{0}i} & = & -\left(\bar{\rho}+\bar{p}\right)v^N_{,i}, \\

183:  T^i_{\phantom{i}j} & = &

184:  \bar{\rho}(w + c^2\delta^N)\delta^i_j +

185:           \left(\nabla^i\nabla_j

186:          + \frac{1}{3}\delta^i_j\nabla^k\nabla_k\right)\Pi. 

187:  \eea

188: where an overbar means the background value, $\delta^N$ is the 

189: overdensity and $v^N$ the velocity potential evaluated in the Newtonian 

190: gauge. A nonzero equation of state $w = p/\rho$ would imply that the properties

191: of dark matter differ from CDM already in their effects to the overall

192: expansion of the universe. Then the pressure perturbation $\delta p$ could

193: differ from zero as well. Our description is not completely general as

194: we do not now allow entropic pressure, but 

195: assume\footnote{We assume this

196: for simplicity since if $w=0$ (which is satisfied by baryons and CDM), the entropic

197: pressure should identically vanish. On the other hand, a small sound speed

198: described by $c^2$ and negligible for the background, could be conceivable

199: for dark matter even when $w=0$ (this is indeed the standard description of baryons).} $\delta p = c^2 \delta \rho$,

200: where $c^2 \equiv \dot{p}/\dot{\rho}$ is the sound speed (an overdot denoting a derivative

201: with respect to the conformal time $\tau$). 

202: The anisotropic stress is constructed from the scalar potential $\Pi$ with the

203: aid of the covariant derivatives $\nabla_k$ of the metric $g^{(3)}_{ij}$.

204: The last term in Eq.(\ref{fluid}) can appear only at the perturbative level

205: in a Friedmann-Lemaitre universe. In the following, it will be useful to employ 

206: the gauge-invariant variable

207: \be \label{com}

208: \delta = \delta^N + 3H(1+w)\frac{v^N}{k},

209: \ee

210: This $\delta$ is equal to the fractional overdensity in the comoving 

211: gauge, where the velocity potential vanishes. On the other hand, it 

212: is proportional to the velocity potential in the uniform-density gauge \cite{Mukhanov:1990me}. 

213: 

214: Following the method of \cite{Koivisto:2005yc}, one may then derive a generalized

215: evolution equation for $\delta$ in the case where that energy-momentum

216: tensor is given by Eq.(\ref{fluid}). Here we report only the result, which is

217: \be \label{s_dddelta}

218: \ddot{\delta} =

219: D_1 H\dot{\delta} +

220: \left(D_2 H^2 + D_k k^2\right)\delta + 

221: P_1 H\dot{\Pi} +

222: P_2 H^2\Pi,

223: \ee

224: where the dimensionless coefficients are given explicitly in the Appendix \ref{appe}.

225: Eq.(\ref{s_dddelta}) determines completely the behaviour of cosmological fluctuations with

226: freedom to choose any $f$, $w$, $c^2$ or $\Pi$. Once the comoving matter

227: fluctuation $\delta$ is solved from this second order differential equation, the

228: corresponding matter variables in any other gauge, as well any metric perturbation, in

229: particular the potentials $\Psi$ and $\Phi$ in Eq.(\ref{newtonian}), are

230: uniquely fixed by the solution for $\delta$, and can be found as usually

231: by plugging this solution into the gauge transformation or constraint 

232: equations determining the relationships between the different variables. 

233: When $w=c^2=\Pi=0$, Eq.(\ref{s_dddelta}) reduces to the cases considered in

234: \cite{Koivisto:2005yc}. The term of main interest to us here is the gradient 

235: term Eq.(\ref{gradient}), whose effects 

236: easily spoil the agreement of these models with observations. This has 

237: been extensively discussed elsewhere \cite{Koivisto:2005yc,Koivisto:2006ie,Li:2006vi,Li:2006ag,Uddin:2007gj} 

238: and here we will just discuss the possibilities of alleviating the 

239: effects of this scale-dependent term. Let us though note that its presence stems from the 

240: new effective matter sources peculiar to the particular class of modified gravity models. It has been 

241: recently found that such a scale-dependent term is absent in various modified gravity theories within the metric formalism

242: \cite{Bean:2006up,Koivisto:2006xf,Koivisto:2006ai,Li:2007xn}.

243: 

244: \section{A specific example escaping the constraints} 

245: \label{gene}

246: 

247: One can notice that the dynamics of perturbations 

248: in a perfect fluid (with $\Pi=0$) can be scale-independent in the 

249: case that the sound speed of the fluid would obey 

250: \be \label{sound}

251: c^2 = -\frac{1}{6}\frac{d\log{F}}{d\log{a}},

252: \ee

253: where we have defined $F \equiv \partial f/\partial R$.

254: In the following we will however study an imperfect case with $\Pi \neq 0$.

255: 

256: We then use a specific expression for the shear stress potential of the cosmic fluid:

257: \be \label{shear}

258: \Pi = \frac{1}{1-3K/k^2}\left(\frac{\dot{F}}{4HF} + \frac{3}{2}c^2\right)\delta.

259: \ee

260: We have kept the prefactor $(1-3K/k^2)^{-1}$ here for the sake of generality, 

261: though it reduces to unity for scales smaller than the curvature radius of the universe, and 

262: in a flat universe it equals identically $1$. The first contribution in 

263: the parenthesis to $\Pi$ is there in order to eliminate the effective matter 

264: sources due to modified gravity, and the second in order to cancel the sources 

265: due to possible isotropic pressure in any kind of warm dark matter. What one then 

266: finds with this input is that Eq.(\ref{s_dddelta}) can be written in a simpler form 

267: \be \label{s_dddelta2}

268: \ddot{\delta} + \tilde{D}_1 H\dot{\delta} + \tilde{D}_2 H^2\delta = 0.

269: \ee

270: This verifies our claim that the effect of gradient can be cancelled by 

271: inherent properties of dark matter.

272: 

273: We can even consider the case when this happens while our dark matter fluid at 

274: the background level is completely pressureless as usual\footnote{Though our present 

275: approach is phenomenological and not aimed at explaining the origin

276: of dark matter stress $\Pi$, we might note that cosmic media satisfying effectively

277: $w=0$ but $\Pi \neq 0$ has indeed been considered \cite{Battye:2007aa}. 

278: (See also \cite{Koivisto:2005mm} for a recent discussion anisotropically stressed 

279: cosmological fluids and \cite{Hu:1998tj} for an extensive review of structure 

280: formation with generalized dark matter).}. Setting $w=0$ our result 

281: will further simplify to Eq.(\ref{s_dddelta3}) in Appendix \ref{appe}.

282: Thus we have shown that it is possible to avoid the tight 

283: constraints from structure formation, while keeping the background 

284: expansion exactly the same as in the CDM scenario. In fact, as the evolution in 

285: Eqs.(\ref{s_dddelta2},\ref{s_dddelta3}) 

286: is scale-invariant, the shape of the matter power spectrum is 

287: exactly the same for any choice of $w$, $c^2$, and in particular for any

288: function $f(R)$. Therefore, if the normalization is left arbitrary, no 

289: constraints at all arise from comparison with the shape of the observed  

290: matter power spectrum. However, the linear growth rate would be a potentially 

291: useful test for these models.

292: 

293: To illustrate this, we will study the toy model $f \sim R^n$. This model 

294: allows an analytical treatment and its predictions have been compared with the

295: data on the late time cosmological 

296: expansion\cite{Capozziello:2004vh,Allemandi:2004ca,Borowiec:2006hk,Borowiec:2006qr}. In fact, the 

297: background is simply described by an effective equation of state $w_{eff} = -1 + (1+w)/n$ when $K=0$, so 

298: that then

299: \bea \label{r_hub}

300: H^2 & = & \frac{4n^2}{\left(3\left(1+w\right)-2n\right)^2}\frac{1}{\tau^2}, \\

301: \dot{H} & = & \left(1-\frac{3\left(1+w\right)}{2n}\right)H^2, \\ 

302: \ddot{H} & = & \frac{1}{2}\left(2-\frac{3\left(1+w\right)}{n}\right)^2 H^3.

303: \eea

304: It is also easy to see also that

305: \bea \label{r_eff}

306: \dot{F} & = & \frac{3\left(1+w\right)\left(1-n\right)}{n}HF, \\

307: \ddot{F} & = & 3\left[\frac{1}{3} - w + c^2 

308: + \left(1+w\right)\left(\frac{1}{2n}-1\right)\right]H\dot{F}.

309: \eea

310: Plugging then the expressions (\ref{r_hub}) and (\ref{r_eff}) in Eq.(\ref{s_dddelta2}) one 

311: finds that, keeping $w$ constant for simplicity, 

312:  \be

313: \ddot{\delta}   =   

314: \frac{3\left(1+w\right)  - n\left(1+9w\right)}{2n-3\left(1+w\right)}\frac{\dot{\delta}}{\tau} +

315: \frac{6\left(n-2\right)\left(1+w\right)}{2n-3\left(1+w\right)}\frac{\delta}{\tau^2}.

316:  \ee

317: This admits two power-law solutions, the other one corresponding to a 

318: decaying and the other to a growing mode. Setting further $w=0$ we find 

319: that the latter is characterized by the growth rate 

320: \be \label{r}

321: r \equiv \frac{d \log{\delta}}{d \log{a}} =  \frac{|n-|12-7n||}{4n}.

322: \ee

323: There is an observational estimate \cite{Verde:2001sf}

324: for this $r$ at the redhift $z = 

325: 1/a-1=0.15$ from the 2dFGRS data \cite{Colless:2001gk}, implying that $r = 0.51 \pm 0.11$. For the $f(R) 

326: \sim R^n$ model considered here, an analysis combining the supernova 

327: and baryon oscillation scale constraints shows that the background data

328: prefers the values of the exponent $n = 2.6 \pm 0.3$ \cite{Borowiec:2006hk}. 

329: This corresponds to about $0.20 < r < 0.47$, thus agreeing with the

330: 2dFGRS constraints. Note that the linear evolution for this same model, but without 

331: making the assumption Eq.(\ref{shear}), is in gross disagreement with the 

332: data\cite{Koivisto:2005yc}. One may also quantify the linear behaviour

333: utilizing the growth index $\gamma$ defined via \cite{Huterer:2006mv}

334: \be

335: g(a) \equiv \delta/a = e^{\int_0^a 

336: d\log{a}\left(\Omega_m(a)^\gamma-1\right)},

337: \ee

338: This single-parameter minimalist characterization of modified gravity effects

339: turns out to depend both on the matter density and about the exponent $n$, whereas 

340: the result for the growth rate $r$ was independent of the amount of matter. 

341: We find a simple relation, $\gamma = \log{r}/\log{\Omega_m}$. As the background 

342: data constrains quite tightly $\Omega_m \approx 0.3$ \cite{Borowiec:2006hk}, we have

343: $0.62 < \gamma < 1.34$. There are other useful probes of modified gravity 

344: effects \cite{Zhang:2007nk}, but their detailed analysis is left for further studies.

345: 

346: \section{Conclusions}

347: \label{conclu}

348: 

349: Inspired by the the theoretical developments \cite{Sotiriou:2006qn}, 

350: the success of the Palatini-$f(R)$ gravities within the Solar system \cite{Kainulainen:2006wz}

351: and the recent resolutions of their physical implications \cite{Kainulainen:2007bt}, we 

352: reconsidered the cosmological viability of these models in view of their predictions for the large-scale structure. 

353: 

354: Previous investigations on the subject had established that the constraints from 

355: matter power spectrum allow only models which are practically indistinguishable (by e.g. their background expansion)

356: from the $\Lambda$CDM model \cite{Koivisto:2005yc,Koivisto:2006ie,Li:2006vi,Li:2006ag}. In the present 

357: paper we examined the robustness of those conclusions to the variations of the dark matter scenario. 

358: We pointed out that the extremely tight constraints from structure

359: formation are valid only for the $f(R)$CDM models, i.e. when the universe energy density 

360: is assumed to be dominated by pressureless and perfect matter. 

361: The instabilities occurring then due to modified gravity effects, may be less severe or even absent

362: in $f(R)$GDM scenarios, i.e. when dark matter is allowed to have inherent stresses. The cosmological 

363: bounds on these $f(R)$ models could thereby be drastically loosened. 

364: 

365: This demonstrates that a revision of the nature dark energy could also change our view of dark matter. 

366: 

367: \acknowledgments

368: 

369: The author is grateful to the Magnus Ehrnrooth Foundation and the 

370: Finnish Cultural Foundation for their support. Marie Curie Research and 

371: Training Network ''UniverseNet'' (HPRN-CT-2006-035863) is acknowledged.

372: 

373: \begin{widetext}

374: 

375: \appendix 

376: 

377: \section{Evolution equation}

378: \label{appe}

379: 

380: The equation (\ref{s_dddelta}) was written as

381: \be 

382: \ddot{\delta} =

383: D_1 H\dot{\delta} +

384: \left(D_2 H^2 + D_k k^2\right) \delta +

385: P_1 H\dot{\Pi} +

386: P_2 H^2\Pi.

387: \ee

388: Defining $F \equiv \partial f/\partial R$, we can then write the dimensionless coefficients as the following:

389: \be

390: D_1 =  \frac{-2FH\left(FH^2(1+3c^2-6w) + \ddot{F} \right) + 2\dot{F}^2H + \dot{F}F\left(2\dot{H}-H^2(1+3c^2-6w)\right)

391:                                     }{F H\left( \dot{F} + 2FH \right)},

392: \ee

393: \bea

394: FH^2\left(\dot{F} + 2FH \right)D_2  & = &   

395: 2FH\left[ FH\left(12H^3(w-c^2)+\dot{H}H(3c^2+3w-2) + \ddot{H}\right) +  \ddot{F}\left(\dot{H}-H^2(1-3w)\right)\right] \\ \nonumber & + &

396: \dot{F}F\left(-2\dot{H}^2+H\ddot{H}+3H^2(\dot{H}-4H^2)(c^2-w)\right) - 2\dot{F}^2H\left(\dot{H}-H^2(1-3w)\right)

397: \eea     

398: \be \label{gradient}

399: D_k = \frac{-\left( \dot{F} + 6c^2FH \right)}{3\left( \dot{F} + 2FH \right)},

400: \ee

401: \be

402: P_1 = 2\left(\frac{3K}{k^2}-1\right),

403: \ee

404: and

405: \be

406: P_2 =    \frac{2\left(k^2 - 3K \right)

407:       \left[ 6\dot{F}^2 +

408:         9\dot{F}FH\left(c^2-w\right)  -

409:         2F\left(3\ddot{F} +

410:            F( 6\dot{H} + 9(c^2-w) H^2 - k^2 )\right)  \right] }{3FH

411:       \left( \dot{F} + 2FH \right)k^2}.

412: \ee

413: In the case that Eq.(\ref{shear}) holds and $w=0$, the evolution equation reduces to 

414: \bea \label{s_dddelta3}

415: \ddot{\delta} & = &

416: \frac{1}{2F^2H^2\left( \dot{F} + 2FH \right)}

417: \Bigg\{ FH\Big[-4FH\left(FH^2+\ddot{F} \right) + 3\dot{F}^2H +

418:       4\dot{F}F\left(\dot{H} - H^2\right)  \Big]\dot{\delta}

419:   \\ \nonumber &  + &  

420: \Big[

421: 2F^2H\left( 2FH( \ddot{H} - 2\dot{H}H)  +

422:          \ddot{F}(2\dot{H} - 3H^2)

423:         \right) + 3\dot{F}^3H^2 - 3\dot{F}^2FH( \dot{H} - 2H^2) \\ \nonumber

424: & + &    \dot{F}F\left(-4\dot{H}^2F +

425:          2\ddot{H}FH -

426:          (3\ddot{F} + 2\dot{H}F) H^2\right)  

427: \Big]\delta\Bigg\}.

428: \eea

429: 

430: \end{widetext}

431: 

432: \bibliography{refs}

433: \end{document}

434: