1: \documentclass[floatfix]{emulateapj}
2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %\usepackage{graphicx,amsmath,epsfig,amssymb,natbib}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5:
6: \citestyle{aa}
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \title{Structure and evolution of Zel'dovich pancakes as
10: probes of dark energy models}
11:
12: \author{P.~M.~Sutter} \email{psutter2@uiuc.edu}
13: \affil{Department of Physics,
14: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
15: Urbana, IL 61801-3080}
16:
17: \and
18:
19: \author{P.~M.~Ricker} \email{pmricker@uiuc.edu}
20: \affil{Department of Astronomy,
21: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
22: Urbana, IL 61801\\
23: National Center for Supercomputing Applications,
24: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
25: Urbana, IL 61801}
26:
27: \begin{abstract}
28: We examine how coupled dark matter and dark energy modify the
29: development of Zel'dovich pancakes.
30: We study how the various effects of these theories,
31: such as a fifth force in the dark sector and a modified
32: particle Hubble drag, produce variations in the
33: redshifts of caustic formation and the present-day
34: density profiles of pancakes.
35: We compare our results in direct simulation to
36: a perturbation theory approach for the dark energy
37: scalar field.
38: We determine the range of initial
39: scalar field amplitudes
40: for which perturbation theory is accurate
41: in describing the development of the pancakes.
42: Notably, we find that perturbative methods which neglect
43: kinetic terms in the scalar field equation of motion
44: are not valid for arbitrarily small perturbations.
45: We also examine whether models that
46: have been tuned to match the constraints of
47: current observations can produce new observable effects
48: in the nonlinear structure of pancakes.
49: Our results suggest that a fully realistic three-dimensional
50: simulation will produce significant new observable features,
51: such as modifications to the mass function and halo
52: radial density profile shapes, that can be used to
53: distinguish these models from standard concordance cosmology and from each other.
54: \end{abstract}
55:
56: \keywords{cosmology:theory, dark matter, dark energy, structure formation, methods: N-body simulations}
57: \maketitle
58:
59: \section{Introduction}
60: \label{sec:introduction}
61: Dark energy is perhaps the most profound and essential
62: mystery in modern cosmology.
63: While the $\Lambda$CDM
64: cosmological model has proven very successful in
65: explaining and predicting many features of our universe,
66: such as the
67: fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background~\citep[eg.][]{deBernardis},
68: the large-scale matter distribution~\citep[eg.][]{Percival},
69: and
70: distance measurements to type Ia supernovae~\citep{Perlmutter,Riess}, the physics
71: of the dark sector (dark matter and dark energy), which comprises roughly ninety-six
72: percent
73: of the energy density of the universe, is
74: largely unknown.
75:
76: Currently, there are too few
77: observational constraints to determine the precise
78: nature of the dark energy
79: and any possible interactions it might have with dark and baryonic
80: matter~\citep{Bean}.
81: However, we can use
82: simulations of nonlinear structure
83: formation to explore the consequences of plausible
84: dark energy models,
85: including those that propose
86: couplings between dark matter (DM) and dark energy (DE)~
87: \citep[see][and references therein]{Alcaniz}.
88: Models that have particle physics motivations
89: often predict such couplings~\citep{Amendola2}.
90: Such theories are
91: intriguing because they might provide a resolution to current
92: cosmological problems,
93: such as the so-called coincidence problem~\citep{Zimdahl,Amendola3},
94: and the observed emptiness of the voids~\citep{Farrar},
95: the latter of which was confirmed numerically by~\cite*{Nusser}.
96:
97: An important goal of coupled DM-DE simulations
98: is to identify observational methods to test these theories.
99: The observables studied to date include
100: luminosity distances~\citep{Amendola},
101: the growth of matter perturbations
102: ~\citep{Olivares,Koivisto}, the abundance of clusters~\citep{Manera},
103: and the Sandage-Loeb test~\citep{Corasaniti}.
104: Not only can we use such simulations to search for additional
105: observable features,
106: but we can also use them to find ways to distinguish models and determine
107: the validity of perturbation methods.
108:
109: Much of the work to date has followed the framework
110: established by~\cite*{Farrar}.
111: This model uses a
112: dynamical scalar field to provide the dark energy, and it allows that field
113: to couple to dark matter via a Yukawa interaction.
114: Although there are some
115: issues with models of this type~\citep{Doran},
116: they provide useful foils
117: for studying the possible effects that other
118: models, which are complicated but more robust,
119: might predict.
120: These models would include the model discussed
121: by~\cite*{Huey} and the two-family model considered in Farrar and Peebles.
122:
123: Some of the previous work has examined structure formation
124: with modifications due to a fifth force, albeit at low
125: spatial and force resolution~\citep{Nusser,Maccio}.
126: However, we believe
127: that an incremental approach that analyzes the various
128: effects of DM-DE interactions on simpler initial conditions is crucial
129: before tackling more realistic initial conditions. This approach
130: allows the effects observed in more realistic simulations
131: to be understood and generalized.
132: Therefore, in this paper, we will study the effects of
133: coupling between dark matter and dark energy
134: on the development of Zel'dovich pancakes. Zel'dovich pancakes are
135: the well-known solutions to the problem of
136: the gravitational collapse of
137: one-dimensional, sinusoidal, plane-wave,
138: adiabatic density perturbations~\citep{Zel}. Since they
139: are well-studied in a variety of contexts
140: not involving DM-DE interactions
141: \citep[for example,][and others]{More,Gnedin,Yuan,Valinia,Anninos1,Anninos2},
142: we can more easily understand the effects of
143: additional physics on structure formation, laying the
144: groundwork for a more complete three-dimensional study.
145:
146: In Section~\ref{sec:model} we discuss
147: the relevant equations, the effects we will study,
148: and our numerical techniques.
149: Section~\ref{sec:effects}
150: discusses the role that the exotic physics
151: introduced by the Farrar and Peebles model, such as a DM particle fifth force and
152: time-dependent DM particle mass,
153: plays in structure formation.
154: We are careful to separate the various effects predicted by the
155: model. Even if this particular example does not withstand
156: closer scrutiny, unrelated theories may predict
157: similar effects.
158:
159: In addition, so far many researchers have exploited perturbation theory to
160: treat fluctuations in the DE scalar field. However, we do not know
161: \emph{a priori} the validity of this approach, especially as we begin to
162: explore the nonlinear consequences of this theory.
163: In Section~\ref{sec:validity}
164: we will compare the structure formation results
165: from perturbation theory alone
166: to the results from doing a complete nonlinear analysis.
167: We will also discuss
168: the regime where perturbation theory is most valid in
169: accurately predicting structure.
170:
171: Many of the theories of this type have adjustable parameters, and
172: these parameters must be adjusted to match $\Lambda$CDM predictions, at
173: the risk of being indistinguishable from it. There are also
174: usually several unique combinations of parameters that provide similar,
175: if not identical, results.
176: In Section~\ref{sec:distinguish} we attempt to find ways
177: to distinguish models that remain
178: indistinct in perturbation theory.
179: Also, we will determine if nonlinear effects can distinguish
180: models from standard cosmology even when effects based on
181: perturbative methods cannot.
182:
183:
184:
185: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
186: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
187: \section{The Model}
188: \label{sec:model}
189: \subsection{Coupled Dark Matter and Dark Energy}
190: Following Farrar and Peebles, we will consider
191: a dark energy (DE) scalar field $\phi$ with action
192: \begin{equation}
193: \label{eq:DEaction}
194: S_{DE} = \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \left[ \frac{1}{2}
195: \phi_{,\nu} \phi ^ {,\nu} - V(\phi) \right],
196: \end{equation}
197: and a single classical nonrelativistic dark matter (DM)
198: particle family with action for the $i$th particle
199: \begin{equation}
200: \label{eq:DMaction}
201: {S_{DM}}_i = - \int y \left|
202: \phi\left( x_i \right) - \phi_\ast \right|
203: \sqrt{g_{\mu \nu} dx^{\mu}_{i} dx^{\nu}_{i}},
204: \end{equation}
205: where $y$ is the dimensionless Yukawa interaction
206: strength and $\phi_\ast$ is a constant providing an
207: intrinsic mass to the DM
208: particle. We will set $\phi_\ast = 0$, so that
209: the DM particle mass is due entirely to the field value.
210: In both of the above actions and throughout, we have set $\hbar = c = 1$, and
211: we will ignore baryons.
212:
213: Assuming a spatially flat Friedmann universe, we can
214: use equation~(\ref{eq:DMaction}) to
215: obtain a comoving DM particle
216: equation of motion in one dimension:
217: \begin{equation}
218: \label{eq:dmEoM}
219: \dot v + \left( 2 \frac{\dot{a}}{a} + \frac{\dot{\phi}}{\phi} \right)
220: v = - \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x} - \frac{1}{a^2} \frac{1}{\phi} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x} .
221: \end{equation}
222: Here, $\Phi$ is the normal comoving gravitational potential,
223: $a$ is the scale factor, and $v$ is
224: the comoving particle velocity,
225: and $x$ is the comoving position. Throughout, dots
226: refer to derivatives with respect to proper time $t$.
227: The field action in equation (\ref{eq:DEaction}) gives the evolution of $\phi$:
228: \begin{equation}
229: \label{eq:phiEoM}
230: \ddot{\phi} - \frac{1}{a^2} \nabla^2 \phi + 3 \frac{\dot{a}}{a} \dot{\phi}
231: + \frac{d V}{d \phi} + \frac{\rho}{\phi}a^{-3}= 0,
232: \end{equation}
233: where $\rho$ is the DM particle comoving density.
234:
235: The comoving potential satisfies the Poisson equation:
236: \begin{equation}
237: \label{eq:poisson}
238: \nabla^2 \Phi = \frac{4 \pi G}{a^3} \left( \rho - \overline{\rho} \right).
239: \end{equation}
240: Here and throughout, an overline indicates a spatial average.
241:
242: The Friedmann equation, neglecting radiation, curvature, and
243: baryonic terms, is now
244: \begin{equation}
245: \label{eq:friedmann}
246: \left( \frac{\dot{a}}{a} \right)^2 =
247: H_0^2 \Omega_m \frac{\overline{\phi}}{\overline{\phi}_0} a^{-3} +
248: \frac{8 \pi G}{3} \left[ \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{d \overline{\phi}}{d t}
249: \right)^2 + V(\overline{\phi}) \right].
250: \end{equation}
251: A subscript of $0$ denotes the present-day value.
252: The first term on the right-hand side reflects the contribution
253: of the DM with its time-dependent mass.
254: The terms in brackets are, respectively, the kinetic
255: and potential energies of the DE scalar field.
256:
257: We do not know the
258: initial conditions of the field, but we do know that today the field
259: behaves as a cosmological constant, so the potential term dominates and
260: has a value
261: \begin{equation}
262: V(\overline{\phi}_0) = \Omega_\Lambda \rho_{crit}.
263: \label{eq:potentialToday}
264: \end{equation}
265: Also, at early
266: enough times, Farrar and Peebles found that
267: equation (\ref{eq:phiEoM}) reduces to
268: \begin{equation}
269: \label{eq:initialPhiDot}
270: \frac{d \phi} {d t} = - \frac{H_0^2}{G}
271: \frac{3 \Omega_m }{8 \pi \phi_0} \frac{1}{a^3} t,
272: \end{equation}
273: which we use to set the initial condition for $\dot \phi$.
274:
275: We can identify four unique ways in which the
276: extra interactions modify structure formation.
277: First, the DM particle mass directly depends on
278: the field value, so we may write
279: the ratio of the modified mass to its present-day value as
280: \begin{equation}
281: \label{eq:mass}
282: \eta \equiv \frac{m_{DM}}{m_{DM,0}} = \frac{\phi}{\phi_0}
283: \end{equation}
284: Secondly, the interactions modify the Hubble drag found
285: in the DM equation of motion, so that its
286: ratio to the drag in standard cosmology is
287: \begin{equation}
288: \label{eq:drag}
289: \gamma \equiv \frac{2 \dot{a}/a + \dot{\phi}/ \phi}{2\dot{a}/a}.
290: \end{equation}
291: Next, we notice a modified particle acceleration due
292: to a fifth force in equation (\ref{eq:dmEoM}).
293: We will define
294: \begin{equation}
295: \label{eq:force}
296: \beta \equiv \frac{\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x} +
297: \frac{1}{a^2} \frac{1}{\phi} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x} }
298: {\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x} }.
299: \end{equation}
300: Finally, the dynamic scalar field itself
301: indirectly affects structure formation
302: via a time-varying $\Omega_\Lambda$ in the Friedmann equation. We define
303: \begin{equation}
304: \label{eq:field}
305: \delta \equiv \frac{
306: \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{d \overline{\phi}}{d t}
307: \right)^2 + V(\overline{\phi})
308: }{V \left( \overline{\phi}_0\right)}.
309: \end{equation}
310:
311: If the fluctuations in the field are small enough, we may do
312: perturbation theory. Farrar and Peebles found that in this regime,
313: we may replace $\phi(x)$ with
314: a single spatial average, $\phi_b$ and a
315: sufficiently small perturbation field $\phi_1(x)$.
316: We may then write equation~(\ref{eq:phiEoM}) as
317: \begin{equation}
318: \label{eq:phibEoM}
319: \ddot{\phi_b} + 3 \frac{\dot{a}}{a} \dot{\phi_b}
320: + \frac{d V}{d \phi_b} + \frac{3 \Omega_m H_0^2}
321: {8 \pi G \phi_{b,0}}a^{-3}= 0.
322: \end{equation}
323: Also, the fifth force ratio appears instead as
324: \begin{equation}
325: \label{eq:fifthPert}
326: \beta_{pert} \equiv 1 + \frac{1}{4 \pi G \phi_b^2}.
327: \end{equation}
328:
329: We will contrast our results with standard concordance cosmology, which we
330: achieve by setting $\phi$ to a single value satisfying
331: equation (\ref{eq:potentialToday}) and by
332: preventing $\phi$ from evolving dynamically.
333:
334: We have the freedom to choose an appropriate potential $V(\phi)$.
335: Although there are many potentials in the literature, such as the
336: exponential~\citep{RatraAndPeebles}, power-law~\citep{PeeblesAndRatra},
337: and power-law and sine~\citep{Dodelson},
338: we will adopt the power-law potential found in Farrar and Peebles:
339: \begin{equation}
340: \label{eq:powerLaw}
341: V(\phi) = K / {\phi}^{\alpha},
342: \end{equation}
343: where we are also free to choose the constants $K$ and $\alpha$.
344: Potentials like this lead to reasonable behavior, i.e.
345: potential-dominated solutions at the present epoch.
346: Again, we chose this potential merely as an example.
347:
348: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
349: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
350: \subsection{Numerical Techniques}
351: For our simulations we developed a one-dimensional
352: $N$-body particle-mesh code.
353: We used cloud-in-cell mapping for interpolating between
354: the mesh and particles~\citep{Hockney}, and
355: a second order leapfrog integration scheme for particle advancement.
356: In one dimension and with finite differencing,
357: we can solve the Poisson equation exactly using a
358: Thomas algorithm~\citep{Thomas}, modified for
359: periodic boundaries via the Sherman-Morrison formula~\citep{Sherman}.
360: We discuss the details of our scheme for solving the scalar field
361: and scale factor in the appendix.
362:
363: For all calculations,
364: we used $\Omega_m = 0.26$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.74$,
365: and $H_0 = 100 \mbox{ }h = 71 \mbox{ km s}^{-1}
366: \mbox{ Mpc}^{-1}$. All runs took place in a
367: one-dimensional box of length $10 \mbox{ } h^{-1} \mbox{ Mpc}$ per
368: side, with $65,536$ particles to represent
369: the dark matter and $8,192$ zones
370: for the Poisson solver and the scalar field.
371: Since we used finite-differencing when forming the gradient
372: to construct the fifth force, we required a
373: large particle-zone ratio to dampen noise
374: in the density field, which couples to the scalar field.
375:
376: All simulations used the same initial conditions.
377: We distributed particles evenly throughout the grid (described by
378: position $q_i \equiv i \Delta x$) and perturbed them
379: using the Zel'dovich approximation:
380: \begin{eqnarray}
381: x & = & q + \frac{2}{5} a A \sin{(k q)} \\
382: v & = & \frac{2}{5} \dot{a} A \sin{(k q)},
383: \end{eqnarray}
384: where $k=2\pi / \lambda$ is the comoving wavenumber
385: of the perturbation.
386: The amplitude $A$ can be written in terms of the redshift
387: $z_c$ of the formation
388: of the first caustic:
389: \begin{equation}
390: A = -5(1+z_c)/(2k).
391: \end{equation}
392: We chose the initial perturbation amplitude
393: such that the first caustic would
394: form at $z_c=5.0$ for an $\Omega_m = 1.0$ universe, and
395: we chose the comoving wavelength
396: of perturbations to be $\lambda = 10 \mbox{ }h^{-1} \mbox{ Mpc}$.
397: These choices are arbitrary, but commonly used in the literature.
398: All computations start
399: at a redshift of $z=50$ with DM particle masses
400: determined by equation~(\ref{eq:mass}).
401:
402: We do not know the initial conditions of $\phi$ in advance,
403: so we must guess initial conditions
404: and iterate until we meet the condition $\dot{a} = H_0$
405: at the present epoch.
406: Based on the comments made by Farrar and Peebles, we chose four
407: combinations of the potential parameters $K$ and $\alpha$
408: that yield reasonable behavior.
409: Table~\ref{tab:FandP} lists the parameters, the guessed
410: initial field value at $z=50$, and the field value today as calculated
411: from equation~(\ref{eq:phiEoM}). We performed these calculations in
412: perturbation theory.
413: We selected these parameters for behaviors that were
414: consistent with current observations, but provided
415: unique evolutions of the scalar field for
416: comparison.
417:
418: \begin{table}
419: \centering
420: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
421: \hline
422: Label & $ \alpha $ & $K (G^{1+\alpha/2} / H_0^2)$
423: & $\phi_{\mbox{init}} (G^{1/2})$ & $\phi_0 (G^{1/2})$\\
424: \hline
425: A & $-2$ & $0.03$ & $1.89$ & $1.72$ \\
426: B & $-2$ & $0.0057$ & $4.02$ & $3.94$ \\
427: C & $6$ & $2.0$ & $1.80$ & $1.68$ \\
428: D & $6$ & $280.0$ & $3.89$ & $3.83$ \\
429: \hline
430: \end{tabular}
431: \caption{Simulation parameter choices.}
432: \label{tab:FandP}
433: \end{table}
434:
435: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
436: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
437: \section{Analysis of Effects in Perturbation Theory}
438: \label{sec:effects}
439: We now illustrate the effects of these
440: additional interactions on structure formation.
441: To highlight each individual consequence of the DM-DE interaction,
442: we separately analyze the resulting structure when including the
443: effects of the variable mass,
444: the modified Hubble drag, the fifth force, and the
445: dynamical field.
446: Finally, we will examine the final structure when
447: these effects are combined.
448: In all that follows, we highlight the behavior
449: when using the potential
450: parameters $K = 0.03$ and $\alpha = -2$
451: (parameter set $A$) as an example.
452:
453: Figure~\ref{fig:compareEffects} shows the
454: evolution of $\eta$, $\gamma$, $\beta_{pert}$,
455: and $\delta$ as
456: functions of scale factor for parameter set $A$.
457: On average, the fifth force is
458: about three percent of the gravitational force.
459: We expect the fifth force to play a significant role
460: throughout cosmic history.
461: The Hubble drag is reduced by about one percent. The particle
462: mass starts at ten percent greater than its present-day value,
463: but by a scale factor of $0.5$ it is only
464: two percent larger. We expect the modified mass to contribute to
465: structure mostly in the early universe,
466: but by the present day its effects will not be significant.
467: In the early universe, the dynamic
468: field gives a large $\Omega_\Lambda$, and hence a
469: more rapid expansion, which should delay
470: caustic formation relative to standard cosmology.
471: Notice that our calculations do not give
472: precisely the required values of $\Omega_\Lambda$,
473: but are less than two percent off.
474: We fixed our field at late times
475: such that the energy density of the field was purely
476: in the potential, when in reality
477: the kinetic term, while very small,
478: is not entirely negligible. Fortunately, this small
479: error does not in any way significantly alter structure formation.
480:
481: \begin{figure}
482: \plotone{f1.eps}
483: %\epsfig{figure=figCompareEffects.eps,width=\columnwidth}
484: \caption{Comparison of additional effects due to the
485: DM-DE interactions. Shown are relative values defined
486: above as $\eta$ (solid line), $\gamma$ (line with hatches),
487: $\beta_{pert}$ (line with stars),
488: and $\delta$ (line with boxes).
489: The symbols are only to aid in distinguishing the lines.}
490: \label{fig:compareEffects}
491: \end{figure}
492:
493: We show the density profile at $z=0$ in
494: Figure~\ref{fig:compareDensityProfile}, modified
495: by the individual additional effects of the DM-DE interaction.
496: We do not show the result from an evolving mass and
497: dynamical field, because these profiles are
498: hard to distinguish from standard cosmology.
499: %Figure~\ref{fig:compareCentralDensity} displays
500: %the evolution of the density at the center of the pancake,
501: %showing the redshifts of caustic formation.
502: When isolating the individual effects
503: of the drag, fifth force, and dynamic field,
504: we forced the scalar field to evolve as if the scale factor
505: obeyed the modified
506: Friedmann equation in equation~(\ref{eq:friedmann}); however, the actual scale
507: factor evolved according to concordance cosmology in these comparisons.
508: We did this because without the dynamic mass in
509: the Friedmann equation, the
510: scalar field would not reach its required value today.
511:
512: \begin{figure}
513: \plotone{f2.eps}
514: %\epsfig{figure=figCompareDensityProfile.eps,width=\columnwidth}
515: \caption{Dark matter density profile at $z=0$.
516: The solid line in all plots is the standard
517: cosmology. The dotted line indicates the
518: effects of the additional interactions:
519: the top panel shows only the result with
520: the drag term included, and the bottom panel
521: shows only the fifth force included.
522: %modified mass, the second panel shows only the drag term,
523: %the third shows only the fifth force,
524: %and the bottom shows only the dynamic field.
525: Here, $x$ is the distance from the midplane
526: of each pancake.
527: The numerical shot noise in the density near $x=1$
528: is negligible and unimportant.}
529: \label{fig:compareDensityProfile}
530: \end{figure}
531:
532: %\begin{figure}
533: % \epsfig{figure=figCompareCentralDensity.eps,width=\columnwidth}
534: % \caption{Dark matter density at the center of the pancake
535: % as a function of redshift. The panels are
536: % arranged the same as in
537: % Figure~\ref{fig:compareDensityProfile}.
538: % Note that the peak heights are not realistic.}
539: %\label{fig:compareCentralDensity}
540: %\end{figure}
541:
542: We can easily understand the modifications due to the
543: fifth force: an additional attractive
544: force causes the caustics to form earlier,
545: and hence each peak in the density profile at $z=0$
546: is farther away from the center. The effect on each peak is similar:
547: a fifth force only in the early universe will
548: affect mostly the first two caustics,
549: but since the force ratio remains roughly constant
550: even in late times, the latest peak also shifts.
551: The overall size of the pancake is then larger.
552:
553: Due to the modified drag term alone, the first two caustics form earlier,
554: but the latest caustic forms at the same time as in
555: standard cosmology.
556: This requires more explanation.
557: The Hubble drag term is most important in the early universe.
558: Due to the reduced drag, particles
559: move faster, and reach a greater turnaround radius.
560: So the first two caustics form earlier for the
561: modified cosmology. However, at later times,
562: the drag is no longer significant, and
563: the third caustic forms at nearly the same
564: redshift as in standard cosmology.
565: Also, it appears that modifications to the drag
566: are very important: even small deviations in the
567: redshift of caustic formation lead to significant
568: difference in the final peak locations.
569:
570: The increased mass creates tension between
571: two opposing influences on structure formation.
572: Since the particles already in halos are more massive,
573: they create a deeper potential
574: well and encourage other particles to fall in faster,
575: thereby causing caustics to form
576: earlier. On the other hand, a larger $\Omega_m$ in the
577: Friedmann equation accelerates
578: the expansion in the early universe, which increases
579: the Hubble drag and dampens
580: structure formation.
581: We found that the expansion effect dominates, but
582: not significantly, and caustics form only slightly
583: later than in standard cosmology.
584: %As Figure~\ref{fig:compareCentralDensity}
585: %shows, the expansion effects dominates
586: %the redshift of caustic formation.
587: Also, since the DM particle is more massive in the past,
588: the regions near early-forming caustics have a higher density,
589: but by $z=0$ the mass is the same as in standard cosmology, so the overall
590: amplitude of the density profile does not change.
591:
592: We must contrast this evolving-mass
593: universe with a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology having simply a larger $\Omega_m$.
594: In such a universe, the competing
595: effects of increased mass roughly cancel each other out,
596: and caustics form at
597: similar redshifts to those in standard $\Lambda$CDM.
598: In an evolving-mass universe,
599: however, as the mass decreases,
600: the halo potential wells
601: get shallower, but the universe has already expanded
602: more, so outlying
603: particles take longer to reach the halo,
604: and caustics correspondingly form later.
605: %This also causes the first caustic, which
606: %forms later than in standard cosmology, to reach a
607: %slightly greater final position.
608: At lower redshifts,
609: the particle masses are nearly their present-day
610: values, so this effect is not as significant, and the final
611: peak locations are slightly closer to the pancake midplane.
612:
613: Finally, the dynamic field has the expected result:
614: more rapid early-universe expansion
615: pulls particles away from each other, and caustics take longer to form.
616: As expected, this effect is nearly negligible
617: in the late universe, as the field
618: approaches its present-day value.
619: Unlike the differences between an evolving-mass
620: universe and a constant-mass universe,
621: the structure modifications from a dynamic
622: field are, in this case, nearly indistinguishable from a universe with
623: a roughly ten percent larger, but still constant, $\Omega_\Lambda$.
624:
625: We can also examine the effects on particle
626: velocities due to these additional interactions.
627: Figure~\ref{fig:comparePhase} is a DM particle phase plot at $z=0$ with
628: modifications due to the reduced Hubble drag and the fifth force,
629: compared to standard cosmology.
630: The dynamic field and variable mass terms have no effect, but
631: as expected, the reduced drag and fifth force increase particle velocities.
632:
633: \begin{figure}
634: \plotone{f3.eps}
635: %\epsfig{figure=figComparePhase.eps,width=\columnwidth}
636: \caption{Dark matter particle phase plots at $z=0$.
637: The solid line in all plots is from concordance cosmology,
638: and the dotted lines with open squares
639: are the results from including the
640: effects indicated in each plot.
641: The open squares only represent select data points, to aid
642: in distinguishing the lines.
643: We have omitted the plots
644: with dynamic field and dynamic mass effects, since these
645: have no discernible influence.}
646: \label{fig:comparePhase}
647: \end{figure}
648:
649: When we combine results, in Figure~\ref{fig:compareStandardPertFull},
650: we see that the effects of the modified mass
651: and the dynamic field tend to cancel out the fifth force.
652: So, the final density profile most closely resembles the
653: results from the drag term alone.
654: The innermost caustic is the same distance from the midplane
655: of the pancake,
656: but the outermost and middle peaks are roughly
657: $15\%$ farther away.
658: The slope of the density profile
659: remains undisturbed and the total number of peaks formed by the
660: present epoch are the same.
661:
662: \begin{figure}
663: \plotone{f4.eps}
664: %\epsfig{figure=figCompareStandardPertFull.eps,width=\columnwidth}
665: \caption{Dark matter density profile at $z=0$.
666: The solid line is from standard cosmology. The dashed line is
667: the density from using perturbation theory, and the dotted line
668: is from using full theory.
669: This is including all effects.
670: Note that perturbation theory is nearly
671: indistinct from the full theory.
672: The numerical shot noise in the density near $x=1$
673: is negligible and unimportant.}
674: \label{fig:compareStandardPertFull}
675: \end{figure}
676:
677: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
678: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
679: \section{The Validity of Perturbation Theory}
680: \label{sec:validity}
681: So far, we have only considered perturbation theory,
682: relying on a single value to describe the DE scalar field at
683: a specific time. When we relax this constraint,
684: each particle feels its own force, has its own drag, and has
685: an independent mass. When solving the Friedmann equation,
686: we must take a spatial average of the field, rather
687: than using a single background value. Also, the expression for
688: the fifth force changes
689: to be directly proportional to gradients in the scalar field.
690:
691: There is some ambiguity when considering the initialization
692: of the scalar field. While
693: the average value must match the perturbation theory background
694: value, we are left with
695: few clues to the initial wavelength and amplitude of the
696: perturbations. So, using adiabatic reasoning,
697: we initialized $\phi$ to have
698: the same spectrum as the density field, which in our case
699: is a single perturbation mode with
700: wavelength $\lambda = 10 h^{-1} \mbox{ Mpc}$ at $z=0$.
701: However, we freely chose the amplitude, and
702: we found that to make an attractive fifth force,
703: which is required for a Yukawa-type interaction,
704: we needed $\phi$ to have a phase opposite to that of the density field.
705:
706: We must take care in the initialization of both the background
707: value and amplitude of perturbations of the field when
708: considering the full theory. First, the addition of the
709: gradient term in the equation of motion for the field will
710: affect the field's background evolution, and may force us to modify
711: the initial value, so that $\phi$ still satisfies the
712: present-day condition
713: in equation~(\ref{eq:potentialToday}).
714: Fortunately, the gradients are not large, and
715: this term does not modify the evolution of $\phi$ greatly.
716: Hence, we constructed the field
717: so its average value matched the background perturbation value.
718: It appears that perturbation theory is perfectly appropriate for probing the linear
719: results of this model, such as estimates of the
720: Hubble time and the location of peaks in the CMB power spectrum,
721: which Farrar and Peebles discuss.
722:
723: Secondly, by varying the initial amplitude, we can change the
724: strength of the fifth force at high
725: redshift.~\cite*{Kesden,Kesden2} have shown that a constraint
726: on any dark matter fifth force to within only a few percent
727: of the gravitational force is observationally possible.
728: The fifth force under perturbation theory agrees with this
729: constraint: $\beta_{pert} \approx 1.03$ throughout cosmic history.
730: Figure~\ref{fig:compareFifth} shows the space-averaged
731: and time-averaged value of
732: $\beta_{pert}-1$ and $\beta-1$, which
733: we denote as $\langle \overline{\beta} \rangle - 1$, versus redshift for varying
734: initial amplitudes. This is the average fraction of
735: gravitational acceleration experienced by the DM particles due to the
736: fifth force up to the given scale factor.
737: The field fluctuates rapidly in the early universe, and by
738: time-averaging we can better examine the general
739: force trends.
740: The fluctuations in the field decay rapidly and
741: asymptotically approach a constant value by redshift
742: $z=45$.
743:
744: \begin{figure}
745: \plotone{f5.eps}
746: %\epsfig{figure=figCompareFifth.eps,width=\columnwidth}
747: \caption{Average ratio of fifth force to gravitational
748: force ($\langle \overline{\beta} \rangle-1$)
749: for perturbation theory (solid line),
750: compared to the full result with
751: varying initial amplitudes
752: (dotted lines with various marks, labeled in figure).
753: The marks on the lines only represent select data points, to aid
754: in distinguishing the lines.
755: Shown are the average strengths up to the
756: given scale factor. }
757: \label{fig:compareFifth}
758: \end{figure}
759:
760:
761: No matter the initial amplitude, the average
762: perturbation theory fifth force ratio
763: agrees to within ten percent with the full result by the present epoch.
764: However, the strength of the fifth force matters much
765: more at high redshifts: different forces here can
766: greatly affect structure formation. We found that an initial amplitude
767: contrast of $\delta_\phi(z=50)=10^{-8}$ provides
768: roughly the same order of magnitude additional
769: acceleration as perturbation theory
770: predicts at early times.
771:
772: For amplitudes smaller than $10^{-8}$, the results
773: for the fifth force do not change. Since the scalar field
774: couples directly to the dark matter density, the field
775: will always contain perturbations. If we initialize
776: the amplitudes below the threshold of $10^{-8}$,
777: the density coupling will produce fluctuations in the
778: scalar field spectrum, creating a fifth force.
779: However, larger amplitudes
780: provide too much of an acceleration at early times.
781: For example, a contrast of $\delta_\phi(z=50)=10^{-6}$
782: provides an average fifth force that is almost half as strong as
783: gravity at early times.
784: We found that if the initial contrast is larger than
785: can be handled adequately by
786: perturbation theory, then we get radically different structure formation,
787: such as a very early first caustic and the development of four
788: caustics by the present epoch.
789: Note that these results are largely redshift-independent:
790: the DM coupling will always end up dominating the spectrum
791: of scalar field fluctuations after a short period of time.
792: The large fifth force for amplitudes above $10^{-8}$
793: is due to the large artificial initial scalar field amplitude.
794:
795: However, if the amplitude of
796: perturbations is small in the early universe,
797: then perturbation theory under-emphasizes the
798: fifth force at high redshift.
799: The fact that perturbation theory
800: cannot describe large fluctuations makes sense.
801: However, we would expect that perturbation
802: theory should accurately capture the behavior
803: of all initial amplitudes below a certain value.
804:
805: %\begin{figure}
806: % \epsfig{figure=figCompareDensityFifth.eps,width=\columnwidth}
807: % \caption{The evolution of caustic formation for
808: % perturbation theory with only
809: % the fifth force (solid line) compared to
810: % the full theory with only fifth force
811: % (dashed lines) with varying initial amplitudes of the
812: % scalar field. Drag, mass, and dynamic field
813: % effects are ignored.
814: % The initial contrast of the DE scalar
815: % field perturbations is shown in each panel.}
816: %\label{fig:compareDensityFifth}
817: %\end{figure}
818:
819: With the above considerations, we examined the case of an initial contrast of $\delta_\phi(z=50)=10^{-8}$,
820: since this provides a fifth force large enough to affect structure, but
821: which is not ruled out by observations.
822: We compare perturbation theory
823: to the results from a full dynamical field.
824: We found that for this amplitude, perturbation theory
825: is excellent in capturing the structure
826: and evolution of halos. By construction, the average value
827: of the dynamical field is the same as the background field
828: in perturbation theory. Hence, the modified drag term and
829: modified mass terms are almost identical.
830: Also,
831: perturbation theory appears to be adequate for
832: describing the evolution of the scalar field,
833: so the effects of the dynamic field itself agree in the full theory.
834: Additionally, since fluctuations dampen with time,
835: we only need to satisfy perturbation theory
836: constraints in the early universe. We see in Figure~\ref{fig:compareStandardPertFull}
837: that, for this particular amplitude of fluctuations, perturbation theory
838: is excellent in describing the overall structure of the pancakes.
839:
840: Overall, as Figure~\ref{fig:compareStandardPertFull} showed,
841: perturbation theory seems to be adequate in describing
842: the larger features of the pancakes:
843: the number of caustics and the location of all three caustics at $z=0$.
844: With the notable exception of the fifth force,
845: as we decrease initial scalar field amplitudes,
846: perturbation theory becomes more accurate
847: in providing an accurate solution. Even though the perturbation
848: theory fifth force disagrees with the full theory by several
849: percent, this is not enough to affect structure formation
850: at our resolution.
851:
852: %\begin{figure}
853: % \epsfig{figure=figComparePertFull.eps,width=\columnwidth}
854: % \caption{Dark matter density profile at $z=0$.
855: % The solid line in all plots is from
856: % perturbation theory. The dashed line is
857: % the density from using a full dynamical field.
858: % The topmost panel compares with only
859: % the mass term included,
860: % the second panel compares only the drag term,
861: % the third compares with only the fifth force,
862: % and the bottom compares only the dynamic field.}
863: %\label{fig:comparePertFull}
864: %\end{figure}
865:
866: It is interesting to note that we can produce significant
867: changes in structure formation even with a negligible fifth force,
868: such as might happen with a sufficiently screened potential.
869: Figure~\ref{fig:compareStandardNoForce} shows the results
870: from the full theory, but with no fifth force. In this case,
871: we get stronger deviations in the innermost pancake substructure.
872: Also, the second caustic forms slightly later than in
873: standard cosmology, while the largest
874: caustic is no different than when the fifth force is large.
875:
876:
877: \begin{figure}
878: \plotone{f6.eps}
879: %\epsfig{figure=figCompareStandardNoForce.eps,width=\columnwidth}
880: \caption{Dark matter density profile at $z=0$.
881: The solid line is the standard $\Lambda$CDM
882: cosmology, and the dashed line is the final result in full
883: theory when the fifth force is negligible.
884: The numerical shot noise in the density near $x=1$
885: is negligible and unimportant.}
886: \label{fig:compareStandardNoForce}
887: \end{figure}
888:
889:
890: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
891: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
892: \section{Distinguishability of Models}
893: \label{sec:distinguish}
894: The models chosen in Table~\ref{tab:FandP} are
895: constructed to be consistent with current observations.
896: For example, all these
897: models predict values for the CMB peak locations that are
898: within observational constraints.
899:
900: Figure~\ref{fig:comparePhi}
901: shows how each of our chosen potential parameters in Table~\ref{tab:FandP}
902: affects the evolution of $\phi$.
903: These results agree with the perturbation results from Farrar and Peebles.
904: There are in general two classes
905: of viable $\phi$ evolution tracks.
906: We see from Table~\ref{tab:FandP} that models such as
907: $A$ and $C$ have a smaller initial value, but
908: drop by roughly ten percent by the current epoch.
909: On the other hand, models such as $B$ and $D$ have a high
910: initial value and do not change much throughout cosmic history.
911:
912:
913: \begin{figure}
914: \plotone{f7.eps}
915: %\epsfig{figure=figComparePhi.eps,width=\columnwidth}
916: \caption{Evolution of $\phi_b$, relative to the
917: present-day value, for the various
918: potential parameters labeled in
919: Table~\ref{tab:FandP}.
920: Note that the symbols are only to aid in distinguishing the lines.
921: These
922: calculations are from perturbation theory.}
923: \label{fig:comparePhi}
924: \end{figure}
925:
926:
927: These two classes of parameter sets have interesting
928: consequences for the behaviors of
929: the DM particle mass, the modified Hubble drag,
930: the fifth force, and the dynamical field itself.
931: Figure~\ref{fig:comparePhiEffects} shows how
932: the mass ratio ($\eta$) ,
933: the modified Hubble drag ($\gamma$),
934: the fifth-force acceleration ($\beta_{pert}$), and
935: the field energy density ratio ($\delta$)
936: vary across the models in perturbation theory. For models of the second type,
937: in which $\phi$ does not change much, the mass at $z=50$ is
938: much closer to its present-day value, and hence this effect
939: on structure formation will be smaller than in models
940: where $\phi$ varies strongly. Also, if $\phi$ does not
941: vary much, then the Hubble drag will not be modified greatly.
942: Together, this makes sense: a set of parameters
943: that favors a slightly-varying scalar field
944: will look more like standard $\Lambda$CDM than those which do not.
945: Finally, for larger values of $\phi$, the fifth
946: force is much weaker, since the
947: force is proportional to $\phi^{-2}$ in perturbation theory.
948:
949:
950: \begin{figure}
951: \plotone{f8.eps}
952: %\epsfig{figure=figComparePhiEffects.eps,width=\columnwidth}
953: \caption{Evolution of
954: mass ($\eta$),
955: Hubble drag ($\gamma$),
956: fifth-force acceleration ($\beta_{pert}$),
957: and dynamical field ($\delta$)
958: for the various potential parameters labeled in
959: Table~\ref{tab:FandP}.
960: The symbols are only to aid in distinguishing the lines.
961: These
962: calculations are from perturbation theory.}
963: \label{fig:comparePhiEffects}
964: \end{figure}
965:
966:
967: These behaviors play out accordingly in the final structure at $z=0$, as
968: Figure~\ref{fig:comparePhiDensityProfileFull} shows.
969: These calculations were done using the full theory.
970: When performing the analysis in the full dynamical theory,
971: we again have to
972: be careful when setting the initial scalar field amplitude.
973: For all cases,
974: we set an initial contrast of
975: $\delta_\phi(z=50)=10^{-8}$.
976:
977: Models $B$ and $D$ do not differ
978: much from standard cosmology or each other. Models $A$ and $C$,
979: while both different from
980: $\Lambda$CDM, remain mostly indistinguishable,
981: except that parameter set $A$, whose
982: changes in $\phi$ are most drastic, produces caustics
983: that are slightly farther away from the pancake midplane.
984: Even though $\phi$
985: is increasing at the present epoch in parameter set $C$,
986: this change happens
987: at late times, and so it does not have a significant
988: effect on the resulting structure.
989:
990: We also performed this study in perturbation theory, and
991: we found that accounting for the effects of the full
992: dynamics do not increase the distinguishability of the models.
993:
994:
995: %\begin{figure}
996: % \epsfig{figure=figComparePhiDensityProfilePert.eps,width=\columnwidth}
997: % \caption{Dark matter density profile at $z=0$.
998: % The solid line in all plots is the standard
999: % cosmology. The dashed line indicates
1000: % the result in perturbation theory,
1001: % for the various potential parameters labeled in
1002: % Table~\ref{tab:FandP}.}
1003: %\label{fig:comparePhiDensityProfilePert}
1004: %\end{figure}
1005:
1006:
1007: \begin{figure}
1008: \plotone{f9.eps}
1009: %\epsfig{figure=figComparePhiDensityProfileFull.eps,width=\columnwidth}
1010: \caption{Dark matter density profile at $z=0$.
1011: The solid line in all plots is the standard
1012: cosmology. The dashed line indicates
1013: the result in full theory,
1014: for the various potential parameters labeled in
1015: Table~\ref{tab:FandP}.}
1016: \label{fig:comparePhiDensityProfileFull}
1017: \end{figure}
1018:
1019:
1020: Surprisingly, we do notice some additional distinguishing features
1021: when examining the phase plots, as in Figure~\ref{fig:comparePhaseModels}. Since models $B$ and $D$
1022: remain nearly identical to concordance cosmology, we do not display them.
1023: While models $A$ and $C$ share many common features,
1024: the drag term $\gamma$
1025: increases at late times in model $C$.
1026: This eventually slows down particles at low redshifts and pushes
1027: the peak velocities closer to concordance cosmology.
1028: Hence, the higher peak particle velocities
1029: distinguish model $A$, whereas simply considering
1030: pancake density profiles may not.
1031:
1032:
1033: \begin{figure}
1034: \plotone{f10.eps}
1035: %\epsfig{figure=figComparePhaseModels.eps,width=\columnwidth}
1036: \caption{Dark matter particle phase plots at $z=0$.
1037: The solid line in all plots is from concordance cosmology,
1038: and the dotted lines are the results from various
1039: model parameters, which are labeled in the plots.
1040: These were calculated in the full theory.
1041: The symbols are only to aid in distinguishing the lines.}
1042: \label{fig:comparePhaseModels}
1043: \end{figure}
1044:
1045:
1046: \section{Conclusions}
1047: \label{sec:Conclusion}
1048: These one-dimensional simulations have clearly demonstrated that
1049: models of interacting dark matter and dark energy affect the
1050: growth and structure of plane parallel perturbations. Various consequences of
1051: these theories play important roles at different stages in halo
1052: evolution. Larger fifth forces and modified Hubble drag terms
1053: in the high-redshift universe greatly alter early structure formation,
1054: while an evolving particle mass can affect even late-forming structures.
1055: Ordinary quintessence, which is a dynamic field alone,
1056: does not significantly alter the formation
1057: of pancakes. Of all the effects, a modification to the Hubble
1058: drag gives the largest deviations in the resulting structure.
1059:
1060: We have found that models that are specifically tuned
1061: to match current observational constraints, such as the
1062: CMB peak locations and equation of state parameters,
1063: produce significant deviations from standard
1064: $\Lambda$CDM in the formation of pancakes.
1065:
1066: We have also found that an approach
1067: based on perturbation theory is adequate for understanding the
1068: general evolution of the scalar field.
1069: However, perturbation theory does not seem to be appropriate
1070: at high redshift. Even for arbitrarily small amplitudes,
1071: the fifth force in the full theory is larger than that obtained
1072: by perturbative techniques.
1073: This behavior deviates from the general
1074: pattern of perturbation methods, in that
1075: it does not accurately describe all characteristics
1076: for amplitudes smaller than a threshold value.
1077:
1078: This discrepancy arises from the fact that the
1079: fifth force directly depends on the gradient of the
1080: field. In the perturbative method described
1081: by Farrar and Peebles, the kinetic terms of the perturbation
1082: field equation of motion are dropped, producing a
1083: Poisson equation for the perturbation field and leading to the
1084: simplification of the fifth force expression found in equation~(\ref{eq:fifthPert}).
1085: This simplification is valid at low redshifts, but at high
1086: redshifts the kinetic terms are still important.
1087: Thus, any realistic spectrum of perturbations
1088: for the scalar field which
1089: ignores the kinetic terms may be invalid for the
1090: very largest-scale perturbations.
1091: It also appears that the initial scalar field
1092: amplitude does not serve as a suitable ``small''
1093: parameter for governing the appropriateness
1094: of perturbation theory.
1095:
1096: Because we can freely choose the initial amplitude,
1097: full theory gives us more freedom to study the effects
1098: of various strengths of a fifth force.
1099: In the context of this model,
1100: this can also work in reverse:
1101: working within these frameworks,
1102: constraints on a fifth force in the dark sector could
1103: lead to limitations on the amplitudes
1104: of a DE scalar field in the early universe.
1105:
1106: Anninos and Norman have extensively studied the effects on baryons in the formation of
1107: pancakes~\citep{Anninos1,Anninos2}.
1108: While baryons appear to modify only the last-forming caustic, DM-DE
1109: interactions affect all caustics.
1110: Hence, the modifications to the last caustic may be masked by the baryon dynamics.
1111: Also,
1112: baryons do not appear to significantly modify dark matter particle velocities, while
1113: some of the models considered above produce significant variations.
1114:
1115: The structural differences described above are relatively small.
1116: However, in three dimensions these effects should appear as
1117: percent-level differences in the statistical properties of large samples of dark
1118: matter halos. The various effects could produce different halo mass
1119: functions, which could be compared to other
1120: high-resolution mass functions,
1121: such as the $\Lambda$CDM ones considered by~\citet{Warren}.
1122: In fact,~\cite*{Mainini} have shown that
1123: DM-DE interactions do modify analytic mass functions,
1124: and a direct simulation could be compared against
1125: these results. DM-DE
1126: interactions may also affect halo substructure,
1127: in which case they would impact
1128: NFW profiles~\citep{NFW} and distributions of
1129: concentrations in halo catalogs~\citep{Lukic, Reed}.
1130:
1131: The present work focused on a single model and a
1132: single potential, simply to analyze the
1133: feasibility of a direct simulation approach.
1134: With a full three-dimensional simulation, we can
1135: also examine the results of using other potentials, or
1136: even more complicated models.
1137: With future simulations, we
1138: can also contrast these structure formation results to the
1139: \emph{N}-body results from other theories of DE,
1140: such as modified General Relativity, which
1141: have been examined in~\citet{Stabenau}.
1142:
1143: For the models with the largest deviations from $\Lambda$CDM, we notice
1144: that the sign of the difference of the caustic peak location changes.
1145: This implies that the shape and evolution of the mass function for these
1146: cosmologies will change relative to $\Lambda$CDM,
1147: not simply the amplitude. This holds the most hope for
1148: observations, particularly for surveys such as the DES~\citep{Annis}.
1149: Most notably, we found that we will still get
1150: significant modifications to pancake structure even if the fifth force is negligible.
1151: Indeed, the modifications to the mass function may even
1152: be more significant without a fifth force.
1153: Since many recent efforts have concentrated mostly on
1154: constraining the fifth force~\citep{Kesden,Farrar2,Bertolami,Guo}, this result clearly shows
1155: that we should not ignore the other
1156: consequences, such as modifications to the
1157: Hubble drag, of these models.
1158: Also, the phase plots revealed another observable effect: the large-scale matter velocity field,
1159: which is also accessible to the DES survey.
1160: The feasibility of constraining these models with this behavior could be tested with
1161: velocity correlations in full three-dimensional simulations.
1162:
1163: However, there are several computational and
1164: theoretical challenges in developing
1165: and analyzing full
1166: three dimensional simulations. For example, there should be a stronger
1167: theoretical understanding of the initial conditions of the field.
1168: While implicitly solving the scalar field is
1169: relatively straightforward in one dimension,
1170: requiring a simple Thomas algorithm,
1171: a full three dimensional solver would be much more complex,
1172: probably requiring a multigrid solver that could easily be
1173: combined with existing parallel adaptive-mesh codes
1174: such as FLASH~\citep{Fryxell} or GADGET-2~\citep{Springel}. Since there
1175: might be interesting changes in halo substructure, simulations
1176: will require very high resolution.
1177: Also, simulations will require many halos
1178: to get significant statistical results.
1179:
1180: Fortunately, none of these issues are intractable, and this
1181: approach holds much hope for providing a strong, consistent
1182: method of analyzing the nonlinear effects of these myriad
1183: dark energy models.
1184:
1185: \acknowledgements
1186: The authors would like to thank Luke Olson, Ben Wandelt,
1187: and Greg Huey for enlightening and valuable discussions.
1188:
1189: The authors acknowledge support under a Presidential Early
1190: Career Award from the U.S. Department of Energy,
1191: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (contract B532720).
1192: Additional support was provided by a DOE
1193: Computational Science Graduate Fellowship
1194: (DE-FG02-97ER25308) and the National Center for
1195: Supercomputing Applications.
1196:
1197: \appendix
1198: \section{Numerically Solving the Scalar Field Equation}
1199: \label{app:numerics}
1200: We have
1201: \begin{eqnarray}
1202: \label{eq:phi}
1203: \ddot{\phi} - \frac{c^2}{a^2} \nabla^2 \phi + 3 \frac{\dot{a}}{a} \dot{\phi} + \frac{d V}{d \phi}
1204: + \frac{\rho}{\phi}a^{-3}& = & 0.
1205: \end{eqnarray}
1206:
1207: We will let $V(\phi) = K \phi^{-\alpha}$,
1208: and we have re-introduced $c$ for clarity. We may break up equation~(\ref{eq:phi})
1209: using standard operator splitting techniques:
1210: \begin{eqnarray}
1211: \label{eq:splitPhi1}
1212: {\phi}^n \rightarrow {\phi}^{(1)} & : & \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial t^2} - \frac{c^2}{a^2} \nabla^2 \phi = 0 \\
1213: \label{eq:splitPhi2}
1214: {\phi}^{(1)} \rightarrow {\phi}^{n+1} & : & \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial t^2} + \frac{d V}{d \phi}
1215: + 3 \frac{\dot{a}}{a} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t} + \frac{\rho}{\phi}a^{-3} = 0.
1216: \end{eqnarray}
1217:
1218: Here and below, superscripts are temporal indices and subscripts
1219: will denote the index of the location on the mesh.
1220: We solve Eq.(\ref{eq:splitPhi1}) by reducing it to a set
1221: of two 1st-order equations:
1222: \begin{eqnarray}
1223: \label{eq:splitWave1}
1224: \frac{\partial \phi^{(1)}}{\partial t} & = & \dot{\phi}^{n} \\
1225: \label{eq:splitWave2}
1226: \frac{\partial \dot {\phi}^{(1)}}{\partial t} & = & - \frac{c^2}{a^2} \nabla^2 \phi^{n}.
1227: \end{eqnarray}
1228:
1229: Since the sound speed is so high ($v_s = c/a$),
1230: we found that a direct integration scheme was highly unstable
1231: except for unworkably small $\Delta t$. So,
1232: we use a midpoint method for Eq.(\ref{eq:splitWave1})
1233: and a fully implicit method for equation~(\ref{eq:splitWave2}) :
1234: \begin{eqnarray}
1235: \label{eq:midpoint}
1236: \phi^{1}_{i} & = & \phi^{n}_i + \frac{1}{2} \Delta t \left( \dot{\phi}^{n}_i + \dot{\phi}^{(1)}_i \right)\\
1237: \label{eq:implicit}
1238: \dot{\phi}^{(1)}_i & = & \dot{\phi}^{n}_i
1239: + \frac{c^2 \Delta t}{\Delta x^2 \left( a^{(1)}\right)^2}
1240: \left( \phi^{(1)}_{i+1} - 2 \phi^{(1)}_{i} + \phi^{(1)}_{i-1} \right).
1241: \end{eqnarray}
1242:
1243: We substitute our expression for $\phi^{(1)}_{i}$ into equation~(\ref{eq:implicit}), yielding the matrix equation $Ax=b$, where
1244: \begin{equation}
1245: x_i \equiv \dot{\phi}_i^{(1)},
1246: \end{equation}
1247: \begin{eqnarray}
1248: b_i \equiv \dot{\phi}^{n}_{i} & + & \sigma \phi^{n}_{i+1} + \gamma \sigma \dot{\phi}^{n}_{i+1} \nonumber \\
1249: & - & 2 \sigma \phi^{n}_{i} -2 \gamma \sigma \dot{\phi}^{n}_{i} \\
1250: & + & \sigma \phi^{n}_{i-1} + \gamma \sigma \dot{\phi}^{n}_{i-1} \nonumber,
1251: \end{eqnarray}
1252: and
1253: \begin{eqnarray}
1254: A = \left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
1255: 1+2 \sigma \gamma & -\sigma \gamma & 0 & \cdots & -\sigma \gamma \\
1256: -\sigma \gamma & 1+2 \sigma \gamma & -\sigma \gamma & \cdots & 0 \\
1257: 0 & -\sigma \gamma & 1+2 \sigma \gamma & -\sigma \gamma & 0 \\
1258: \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\
1259: -\sigma \gamma & \cdots & 0 & -\sigma \gamma & 1+2 \sigma \gamma \end{array}
1260: \right) \nonumber.
1261: \end{eqnarray}
1262: Note the periodic boundary conditions. We have defined
1263: \begin{eqnarray}
1264: \sigma & \equiv & \frac{c^2}{\left( a^{(1)}\right)^2} \frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x^2}, \\
1265: \gamma & \equiv & \frac{1}{2} \Delta t. \nonumber
1266: \end{eqnarray}
1267: We solved this matrix-vector equation exactly using a Thomas algorithm~\citep{Thomas}, modified for
1268: periodic boundaries via the Sherman-Morrison formula~\citep{Sherman}.
1269:
1270: We may now update our solution through equation~(\ref{eq:splitPhi2}) by expanding in a Taylor series:
1271: \begin{equation}
1272: \dot{\phi}^{n+1} = \dot{\phi}^{(1)} + \ddot{\phi}^{(1)} \Delta t
1273: + \frac{1}{2} \frac{d^3 \phi^{(1)}}{dt^3} \Delta t^2 + O(\Delta t^3),
1274: \end{equation}
1275: where
1276: \begin{eqnarray*}
1277: \ddot{\phi}^{(1)} & = & K \alpha \left( {\phi^{n}}\right)^{-\alpha-1}
1278: - 3 \frac{\dot{a}^{n}}{a^{n}} \dot{\phi}^{(1)}
1279: - \frac{\rho}{\phi^{(1)}}(a^{n})^{-3}
1280: \end{eqnarray*}
1281: and
1282: \begin{eqnarray*}
1283: \frac{d^3 \phi^{(1)}}{dt^3}& = & -K \alpha (\alpha+1) \left(\phi^{n} \right)^{-\alpha-2} \dot{\phi}^{(1)}
1284: - 3 \frac{\ddot{a}^{n}}{a^{n}} \dot{\phi}^{(1)} \\
1285: &\mbox{ }& + 12 \left( \frac{\dot{a}^{n}}{a^{n}} \right)^2 \dot{\phi}^{(1)}
1286: - \frac{\dot \rho}{\phi^{(1)}}(a^{n})^{-3} \\
1287: &\mbox{ }& - \frac{\rho}{\left( \phi^{(1)} \right)^2}(a^{n})^{-3} \dot{\phi}^{(1)}
1288: +3 \frac{\rho}{\phi^{(1)}}(a^{n})^{-4} (\dot{a}^{n}).
1289: \end{eqnarray*}
1290: Here, $\dot \rho = \left( \rho^{n} - \rho^{n-1}\right)/dt $.
1291:
1292: At any step $n$, after computing $\phi^{n}$ across the grid,
1293: we may update the scale factor using a Taylor series:
1294: \begin{equation}
1295: a^{n+1} = a^n + \dot{a}^n \Delta t + \frac{1}{2} \ddot{a}^n \Delta t^2 + O(\Delta t^3),
1296: \end{equation}
1297:
1298: where $\dot{a}$ and $\ddot{a}$ are given by the Friedmann equation and Friedmann energy equation, respectively:
1299: \begin{eqnarray}
1300: \label{eq:a}
1301: \dot{a}^{n} & = & \left[ H_0^2 \Omega_m \frac{ \overline{\phi} }{ \overline{\phi}_0} a^{-1}
1302: + \frac{8 \pi G}{3} a^{2} \rho_\phi \right]^{1/2} \\
1303: \ddot{a}^{n} & = & -\frac{1}{2} H_0^2 \Omega_m \frac{\overline{\phi} }{\overline{\phi}_0} a^{-2} - \frac{4 \pi G}{3} (1+3w)\rho_\phi a.
1304: \end{eqnarray}
1305:
1306: Ignoring fluctuations, the equation of state parameter, $w$, is
1307: \begin{equation}
1308: w \equiv \frac{p_\phi}{\rho_\phi} = \frac{\frac{1}{2} \overline{\dot \phi}^2 - V(\overline{\phi})}
1309: {\frac{1}{2} \overline{\dot \phi}^2 + V(\overline{\phi})}.
1310: \end{equation}
1311:
1312: \bibliographystyle{apj}
1313: \bibliography{ms}
1314: \nocite{*}
1315:
1316: \end{document}