1: \documentclass[aps,prd,twocolumn,amssymb,eqsecnum,showpacs,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

2: %\documentclass[prd,nofootinbib,preprint]{revtex4}

3: \usepackage{graphicx}

4: \usepackage{amsmath}

5: \usepackage{amssymb}

6: \usepackage{bm}

7:  \usepackage{color}

8: 

9: \def\nn{\nonumber}

10: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

11: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

12: \def\ba{\begin{eqnarray}}

13: \def\ea{\end{eqnarray}}

14: \def\dper{d_\perp}

15: \def\Dp{{\rm D}p}

16: \def\rp{r_\perp}

17: \def\rpl{r_\parallel}

18: \def\Vp{V_\perp}

19: \def\Vpl{V_\parallel}

20: \def\lp{\ell_\perp}

21: \def\lpl{\ell_\parallel}

22: \def\lsim{\roughly<}

23: \def\gsim{\roughly>}

24: \def\vpl{v_\parallel}

25: \def\a{{\alpha^\prime}}

26: \def\dprime{\prime \prime}

27: \def\linf{L_{\rm inf}}

28: \def\Deltar{\Delta^2_{\cal R}(k)}

29: \def\Deltarz{\Delta^2_{\cal R}(k_0)}

30: %\def\mpl{{\rm p}}

31: \def\mpl{m_{\rm p}}

32:   \def\be{\begin{equation}}

33: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

34:  \def\bi{\begin{itemize}}

35:  \def\ei{\end{itemize}}

36:   \def\ben{\begin{enumerate}}

37: \def\een{\end{enumerate}}

38:   \def\bt{\begin{tabular}}

39: \def\et{\end{tabular}}

40: \def\bc{\begin{center}}

41: \def\ec{\end{center}}

42: \def\la{\label}

43: \def\kap{\kappa}

44: \def\gam{\gamma}

45: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

46: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

47: \def\l{\left}

48: \def\r{\right}

49: \def\f{\frac}

50: \def\hub{{\cal H}}

51: \def\d{\partial}

52: \def\ddaoa{\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}  %\Double-Dot A Over A

53: \def\dRoY{\left( \frac{\delta R}{Y} \right)}   % Delta R / Y

54: \newcommand{\koa}[1]{\frac{k^{#1}}{a^{#1}}}                     % (k/a)

55: \newcommand{\aok}[1]{\frac{a^{#1}}{k^{#1}}}                     % (a/k)

56: \newcommand{\pderv}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}

57: %\def\le{\left}

58: \def\ri{\right}

59: \def\fr{\frac}

60: \def\la{\label}

61: \def\kap{\kappa}

62: \def\gam{\gamma}

63: \def\omp{e^{\kappa\beta\phi}}

64: \def\omn{e^{-\kappa\beta\phi}}

65: \def\omph{e^{\frac{\kappa\beta\phi}{2}}}

66: \def\omnh{e^{-\frac{\kappa\beta\phi}{2}}}

67: \def\ompd{e^{2\kappa\beta\phi}}

68: \def\omnd{e^{-2\kappa\beta\phi}}

69: \def\om{\kappa\beta\phi}

70: \def\dom{\kappa\beta\varphi}

71: \def\fru{(1+f_{R})}

72: \def\frd{\frac{1}{(1+f_{R})}}

73: \def\frdh{\frac{1}{(1+f_{R})^{\frac{1}{2}}}}

74: \def\frru{\frac{f_{RR}}{(1+f_{R})}}

75: \def\frrd{\frac{(1+f_{R})}{f_{RR}}}

76: \def\tcr{\textcolor{red}}

77: \def\tcb{\textcolor{blue}}

78: \newcommand{\bes}{\begin{subequations}}

79: \newcommand{\ees}{\end{subequations}}

80: 

81: 

82: \begin{document}

83: 

84: \title{Adiabatic instability in coupled dark energy-dark matter models}

85: \author{Rachel Bean$^{1}$}

86: \author{\'Eanna \'E. Flanagan$^{1,2}$}

87: \author{Mark Trodden$^{3}$}

88: 

89: \affiliation{$^{1}$ Department of Astronomy, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA}

90: \affiliation{$^{2}$Laboratory for Elementary Particle Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.}

91: \affiliation{$^{3}$Department of Physics, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA}

92: 

93: % ----------------------------------------------------------------------

94: %

95: % TIME OF DAY

96: %

97: \newcount\hh

98: \newcount\mm

99: \mm=\time

100: \hh=\time

101: \divide\hh by 60

102: \divide\mm by 60

103: \multiply\mm by 60

104: \mm=-\mm

105: \advance\mm by \time

106: \def\hhmm{\number\hh:\ifnum\mm<10{}0\fi\number\mm}

107: 

108: 

109: % ----------------------------------------------------------------------

110: 

111: 

112: \date{\today}

113: 

114: \begin{abstract}

115: 

116: We consider theories in which there exists a nontrivial coupling between the

117: dark matter sector and the sector responsible for the acceleration of the universe.

118: Such theories can possess an adiabatic regime in which the

119: quintessence field always sits at the minimum of its effective

120: potential, which is set by the local dark matter density.

121: We show that if the coupling strength is much larger than

122: gravitational, then the adiabatic regime is always

123: subject to an instability.  The instability, which can also be thought of as a type

124: of Jeans instability, is characterized by a negative sound speed squared of

125: an effective coupled dark matter/dark energy fluid, and results in the

126: exponential growth of small scale modes.

127: We discuss the role of the instability in specific coupled CDM and Mass Varying Neutrino (MaVaN) models

128: of dark energy, and clarify for these theories the regimes in which the instability

129: can be evaded due to non-adiabaticity or weak coupling.

130: 

131: \end{abstract}

132: \maketitle

133: 

134: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

135: \section{Introduction}

136: \label{intro}

137: 

138: In order for our cosmological models to provide an accurate fit to all

139: current observational data, it is necessary to postulate two dramatic

140: augmentations beyond the minimalist assumption of baryonic matter

141: interacting gravitationally through Einstein's equations. The first

142: assumption is that there must exist either new gravitational dynamics

143: or a new component of the cosmic energy budget -- {\it dark matter} --

144: that allows structure to form and accounts for weak lensing and

145: galactic rotation curves. The second assumption is that a further

146: dynamical modification or energy component -- {\it dark energy} --

147: exists, driving late-time cosmic acceleration.

148: 

149: In the first case, recent results~\cite{Clowe:2006eq} have added

150: significant support to an explanation in terms of particulate

151: cold dark matter (CDM), rather than a modification of gravity. In the case of

152: cosmic acceleration, however, the data remains consistent with a

153: simple cosmological constant, with modifications to gravity, or with

154: dark energy as the correct explanation.

155: 

156: A logical possibility is that the two dark sectors -- dark matter and

157: dark energy -- interact with each other or with the visible sector of

158: the theory

159: \cite{Damour:1990,Carroll:1998zi,Amendola:1999er,Bean:2000zm,Bean:2001ys,

160:  Chiba:2003ir,Majerotto:2004ji,Das:2005yj,Lee:2006za,Kesden:2006zb}.

161: In fact, a number of models have been proposed that exploit this idea

162: to address, among other things, the coincidence problem

163: \cite{Bean:2000zm,Bean:2001ys}. Further,

164: there exist classes of modified gravity models which may either be

165: mapped to interacting dark energy models, or closely approximated by

166: them over a broad range of dynamical interest \cite{Chiba:2003ir,Tsujikawa:2007gd}.

167: 

168: 

169: There are concerns, however, about coupling these two rather

170: differently behaving sectors. One concern is the presence of dynamical

171: attractors that produce a cosmic expansion history significantly

172: different from $\Lambda CDM$; see, for example, Refs.\

173: \cite{Amendola:1999er,Amendola:2006mr,Agarwal:2007}.

174: Another specific example is

175: the possibility of

176: instabilities that are not present for the uncoupled system

177: \cite{Afshordi:2005ym,Kaplinghat:2006jk,Bjaelde:2007ki}.

178: 

179: In this paper we perform a careful analysis of the viability of

180: coupled dark energy-dark matter models.

181: We consider implications of

182: such coupled theories on cosmological scales, both in terms of

183: homogeneous background expansion and the growth of linear

184: perturbations. We focus, in particular, on a

185: class of models in which there exists an {\it adiabatic regime} in

186: which the dark energy field instantaneously tracks the minimum of its

187: effective potential, as explored by Das, Corasaniti and

188: Khoury\cite{Das:2005yj}.

189: We show that if the coupling strength

190: is much larger than gravitational, then the adiabatic regime is always

191: subject to an instability.  The instability is characterized by a negative sound speed squared of

192: an effective coupled dark matter/dark energy fluid, and results in the

193: exponential growth of small scale modes.

194: We analyze a number of different models, and show that for these

195: models the instability

196: strongly constrains the region in parameter space that is compatible with observations.

197: A short version of our results was given in the recent paper \cite{letter}.

198: 

199: We improve on previous investigations of this instability

200: \cite{Afshordi:2005ym,Kaplinghat:2006jk,Bjaelde:2007ki} in a number of

201: ways.  First, we show that the instability occurs only for coupling strengths that are strong

202: compared to gravitational coupling, and can be evaded at weaker

203: couplings; this point was missed all in previous work.

204: Second, we give a simple intuitive explanation of the instability

205: as a type of Jeans instability.  Normally, for cosmological perturbations, Hubble damping

206: converts the exponential growth of gravitationally unstable modes into power law growth.

207: However, here the Hubble damping is ineffective, due to the fact that

208: the effective Newton's constant for the interaction of dark matter

209: with itself is much larger than the Newton's constant governing the

210: background cosmology.  The result is the exponential growth of perturbations.

211: Finally, we generalize previous treatments to allow an arbitrary coupling between

212: the dark energy sector and the visible sector, in addition to the

213: coupling between dark energy and dark matter.

214: 

215: 

216: 

217: In more detail, we consider models which are characterized by a

218: function $\alpha_c(\phi)$ governing the interaction between CDM and a

219: quintessence type scalar field $\phi$, and a function $\alpha_b(\phi)$

220: governing the interaction between visible matter (baryons) and $\phi$.

221: The effective Newton's constants

222: for the interaction of CDM with itself (cc), the interaction of CDM

223: with baryons (cb), and the interaction of baryons with themselves (bb)

224: are (see Appendix \ref{sec:Geff})

225: \bes

226: \label{Newtons}

227: \bea

228: G_{cc} &=& G \left [1 + 2 \mpl^2 \alpha_c'(\phi)^2 \right], \\

229: G_{cb} &=& G \left [1 + 2 \mpl^2 \alpha_c'(\phi) \alpha_b'(\phi)\right], \\

230: G_{bb} &=& G \left [1 + 2 \mpl^2 \alpha_b'(\phi)^2 \right].

231: \eea

232: \ees

233: These Newton constants are those of the Einstein frame in the short

234: wavelength limit, and include the effect of the scalar interaction

235: mediated by $\phi$.  Here $\mpl$ is the Planck mass.

236: 

237: The adiabatic instability occurs when $G_{cc} \gg G$, or equivalently

238: $\mpl \alpha_c' \gg 1$, when the scalar coupling between dark matter

239: particles is strong compared to the tensor coupling\footnote{This

240: requirement is admittedly a fine tuning and unnatural from the

241: viewpoint of effective field theory.}.

242: In the present day Universe, this regime is excluded by observations

243: if we assume that perturbations to the cosmological background value of

244: $\phi$ are in the linear regime, so that the parameters

245: (\ref{Newtons}) are constants (see below).

246: First, tests of general relativity in the Solar System constrain $\mpl

247: \alpha_b'$ to be small compared to unity.  Second, observations of

248: tidal disruption of satellite galaxies of the Milky Way provide the

249: constraint\footnote{Only the combination (\ref{Mark}) of the Newton's constants

250:   can be constrained by observations of the gravitational interactions

251:   of baryons and dark matter, since once cannot separately measure the

252:   densities and the Newton's constants.} \cite{Kesden:2006zb}

253: \be

254: \left| \frac{G_{bc}}{\sqrt{G_{cc} G_{bb}}} -1 \right| \alt 0.02.

255: \label{Mark}

256: \ee

257: Combining these constraints excludes the regime $G_{cc} \gg G$.

258: 

259: 

260: Nevertheless, it is still of interest to explore the adiabatic

261: instability, for a number of reasons.

262: First, the argument given above assumes a single type of CDM particle.

263: In more complicated models with two different CDM species, one coupled

264: and one uncoupled, the constraint can be evaded (see Secs.\

265: \ref{sec:twocomponent} and \ref{sec:MaVaN} below).  Second, the Newton's

266: constants can evolve as a function of

267: redshift, via the dependence of $\phi$ on redshift,

268: so present day observations $(z \approx 0)$ do not exclude the

269: occurrence of the instability at high redshifts.  Third, it is useful

270: to have multiple independent constraints on coupled models.

271: Finally, it is not necessarily true that perturbations to the

272: cosmological background value of $\phi$ are in the linear regime.  In particular, it

273: has been claimed that observational constraints on $\mpl

274: \alpha_b'$ can be evaded in chameleon models\footnote{In particular,

275: chameleon models in the regime $\mpl \alpha_b' \gg 1$

276: have been extensively explored \cite{Mota:2006ed}.}, due the

277: dependence of the local effective Newton's constants (\ref{Newtons})

278: on $\phi$ and hence on the local matter density \cite{Khoury:2003aq,Khoury:2003rn}.

279: 

280: 

281: 

282: 

283: The structure of the paper is as follows. In the next section, we

284: introduce the general class of models and the framework in which we

285: work.

286: In section~\ref{adiabatic} we discuss the

287: adiabatic regime, giving both local and nonlocal conditions for its

288: applicability.  We also derive the effective equation of state for

289: these models in the adiabatic regime; as previously noted in Ref.\

290: \cite{Das:2005yj}, superacceleration is a generic feature of these models.

291: Section \ref{instability} discusses the adiabatic instability that can

292: arise in the adiabatic regime.  We discuss two complementary ways of

293: understanding the instability, a hydrodynamic viewpoint and a Jeans

294: instability viewpoint.  We also derive the range of lengthscales over

295: which the instability operates, which was incomplete in earlier

296: analyses \cite{Afshordi:2005ym,Kaplinghat:2006jk}.

297: In

298: section~\ref{examples} we apply our general analysis to some

299: well-known coupled models. We perform analytic and numerical analyses of the evolution of

300: the background cosmology and of perturbations in both coupled CDM,

301: chameleon \cite{Khoury:2003aq,Khoury:2003rn}

302: and mass varying neutrino (MaVaN) \cite{Fardon:2003eh,Kaplan:2004dq,Fardon:2005wc} models, and identify

303: the regimes in which they are subject to the instability. We conclude in~\ref{conclusions} by summarizing

304: our findings and discussing their implications.

305: 

306: In appendix~\ref{visible} we generalize the derivation of the

307: instability to include baryonic matter, and in appendix~\ref{kinetic}

308: we generalize the derivation of the instability to regimes where

309: CDM cannot be treated as a pressureless fluid but instead must be

310: treated in terms of kinetic theory.

311: Finally, in appendix~\ref{sec:Geff} we derive and describe the Jeans

312: instability viewpoint on the instability.

313: 

314: A note on conventions: throughout this paper we use a metric signature

315: (-,+,+,+), and we define the reduced Planck mass by $\mpl \equiv

316: (8\pi G)^{-1/2} $.

317: 

318: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

319: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

320: \section{Models with a coupling between dark energy and dark matter}

321: \label{sec:web}

322: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

323: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

324: 

325: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

326: \subsection{General class of models}

327: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

328: 

329: We begin from the following action

330: \bea

331: S &=& S[g_{ab},\phi,\Psi_{\rm j}] \nonumber \\

332: &=& \int d^4x\sqrt{-g}

333: \left[ \frac{1}{2} \mpl^2 R

334: -\frac{1}{2} (\nabla \phi)^2

335:  - V(\phi)

336: \right] \nonumber \\

337: &&+ \sum_{\rm j} S_{\rm j}[e^{2 \alpha_{\rm j}(\phi)} g_{ab}, \Psi_{\rm j}],

338: \label{action0}

339: \eea

340: where $g_{ab}$ is the Einstein frame metric, $\phi$ is a scalar field

341: which acts as dark energy, and $\Psi_{\rm j}$ are the matter fields.

342: The functions $\alpha_{\rm j}(\phi)$ are coupling functions that determine the strength

343: of the coupling of the jth matter sector to the scalar field.

344: The matter sectors include cold dark matter with coupling function

345: $\alpha_c(\phi)$, and baryons with coupling function $\alpha_b(\phi)$.

346: 

347: This general action encapsulates many models studied in the

348: literature.

349: The case

350: of equal coupling to dark and visible matter,

351: $\alpha_{\rm j}(\phi) = \alpha(\phi)$ for all j\footnote{A more

352: precise characterization of equal coupling is $\alpha_{\rm j}'(\phi)

353: = \alpha'(\phi)$ for all j, since any constant term in $\alpha_{\rm

354:   j}(\phi)$ can be absorbed into a rescaling of all dimensionful

355: parameters in the action $S_{\rm j}$.},

356: corresponds to

357: scalar-tensor theories of gravity which have been extensively studied,

358: recently under the name of ``coupled quintessence''

359: \cite{Amendola:1999er}.

360: This class of theories includes the $f(R)$ modified gravity theories

361: \cite{Carroll:2003wy}.

362: Several authors have considered the case $\alpha_b(\phi)=0$, in which

363: the dark energy couples only to dark matter.

364: We note that this choice yields a

365: microphysical model

366: for Modified-Source Gravity~\cite{Carroll:2006jn}

367: in the adiabatic regime discussed in Sec.\ \ref{adiabatic} below

368: (in the approximation where one considers only a dark matter source

369: and neglects baryons).

370: 

371: 

372: There is good theoretical motivation for considering nontrivial and different

373: coupling functions $\alpha_{\rm j}(\phi)$, since

374: this is a generic prediction

375: of string theory and of higher dimensional models.

376: In fact, typically the moduli and dilation fields of string theory must be

377: massive today, because for massless fields it is difficult to satisfy the observational

378: constraints [Solar System tests and fifth force experiments that require

379:  $d\alpha_b/d\phi \alt 10^{-2} \mpl^{-1}$, equivalence principle

380: tests that require matter coupling functions for

381: different matter sectors aside from dark matter to be

382: very nearly the same] in a natural way because

383: of loop corrections.

384: However dynamical dark energy models require massless or nearly

385: massless fields so one is forced to confront the naturalness issue.

386: One possible solution, suggested by Damour and Polyakov

387: \cite{Damour:1994ya}, is that there is an attractor mechanism under

388: cosmological evolution that drives the theory to be very close to

389: general relativity, $\alpha_{\rm j}^\prime \to 0$ for all $j$.

390: It is possible that this mechanism does not work

391: perfectly, and that there are residual deviations in the form of

392: nontrivial matter couplings.

393: 

394: 

395: In addition, while equivalence principle tests strongly constrain

396: differences between the coupling functions for different types

397: of visible matter, the corresponding constraints on dark matter are

398: much weaker, as first pointed out by Damour, Gibbons and Gundlach \cite{Damour:1990}.

399: So there is good motivation for exploring models with various couplings

400: to dark matter.

401: 

402: 

403: If the jth sector consists of a fermion of mass $m$, the

404: corresponding action in Eq.\ (\ref{action0}) can be written as

405: \begin{eqnarray}

406: && S_{\rm j} =

407: \int d^4 x

408: \sqrt{- g} \bigg[ e^{p \alpha(\phi)} {\bar \Psi}_{\rm j} i \gamma^\mu \nabla_\mu

409:  \Psi_{\rm j} - e^{q \alpha(\phi) } m {\bar \Psi}_{\rm j} \Psi_{\rm

410:    j} \bigg], \nonumber\\

411: \label{eq:action10}

412: \end{eqnarray}

413: with $p=2$ and $q=3$.  Other possibilities for

414: $p$ and $q$ have been explored in the

415: literature.  For example, Farrar and Peebles \cite{Farrar:2003uw}

416: consider the case $p=0$, and Bean \cite{Bean:2001ys} considers the

417: case $p=q$.  All of these choices are equivalent\footnote{Up to

418:   redefining $\alpha$ by multiplying by a constant.} in the

419: nonrelativistic limit, when the fermion's rest masses dominate their

420: gravitational interactions.

421: The choice we make here is motivated by the fact that it satisfies the

422: equivalence principle within the jth sector, and also the fact that it

423: arises naturally from higher dimensional models.

424: 

425: 

426: 

427: The field equations resulting from the action (\ref{action0}) are

428: \bea

429: \mpl^2 G_{ab} &=& \nabla_a \phi \nabla_b \phi - \frac{1}{2} g_{ab}

430: (\nabla \phi)^2 - V(\phi) g_{ab} \nonumber \\

431: &&

432: + \sum_{\rm j}e^{4 \alpha_{\rm j}(\phi)} \left[ ({\bar \rho}_{\rm j} + {\bar

433:     p}_{\rm j}) u_{{\rm j}\,a} u_{{\rm j}\,b} + {\bar

434:     p}_{\rm j} g_{ab} \right],\ \ \

435: \label{ee0}

436: \eea

437: and

438: \be

439: \nabla_a \nabla^a \phi - V'(\phi) = \sum_{\rm j} \alpha_{\rm j}'(\phi)

440: e^{4 \alpha_{\rm j}(\phi)}

441: ({\bar \rho}_{\rm j} - 3 {\bar p}_{\rm j} ).

442: \label{eq:scalar10}

443: \ee

444: where the prime represents a derivative with respect to $\phi$. Here we treat the matter $\Psi_{\rm j}$ as a fluid with Jordan-frame density

445: ${\bar \rho}_{\rm j}$ and pressure ${\bar p}_{\rm j}$ and with a

446: 4-velocity $u_{{\rm j}\,a}$ normalized according to $g^{ab} u_{{\rm

447:     j}\,a} u_{{\rm j}\,b}=-1$ [see Appendix \ref{visible}].

448: 

449: For much of this paper we shall work in the approximation where we consider only the

450: gravitational effects of the dark matter and neglect the gravitational

451: effects of the baryons.  In this approximation, the sums over j in

452: Eqs.\ (\ref{ee0}) and (\ref{eq:scalar10}) reduce to a single term involving the dark

453: matter.  Dropping the index j for simplicity, and denoting the

454: CDM coupling function $\alpha_c(\phi)$ simply

455: by $\alpha(\phi)$, the field equations become

456: \bea

457: \mpl^2 G_{ab} &=& \nabla_a \phi \nabla_b \phi - \frac{1}{2} g_{ab}

458: (\nabla \phi)^2 - V(\phi) g_{ab} \nonumber \\

459: && + e^{4 \alpha(\phi)}

460: \left[ ({\bar \rho} + {\bar p}) u_a u_b + {\bar p} g_{ab} \right],

461: \label{ee0d}

462: \eea

463: and

464: \be

465: \nabla_a \nabla^a \phi - V'(\phi) = \alpha'(\phi) e^{4 \alpha(\phi)}

466: ({\bar \rho} - 3 {\bar p} ),

467: \label{eq:scalar10a}

468: \ee

469: These are are the standard equations for a

470: scalar-tensor cosmology.

471: 

472: For dark matter we have ${\bar

473:   p}=0$, and we define a rescaled density variable

474: \be

475: \rho \equiv e^{3 \alpha(\phi)} {\bar \rho}.

476: \label{newdensity}

477: \ee

478: With this new variable, we obtain

479: \be

480: \mpl^2 G_{ab} = \nabla_a \phi \nabla_b \phi - \frac{1}{2} g_{ab}

481: (\nabla \phi)^2 - V(\phi) g_{ab} + e^{\alpha(\phi)}

482: \rho u_a u_b,

483: \label{ee}

484: \ee

485: and

486: \be

487: \nabla_a \nabla^a \phi - V'(\phi) = \alpha'(\phi) e^{\alpha(\phi)}

488: \rho \ .

489: \label{eq:scalar1}

490: \ee

491: The scalar field equation (\ref{eq:scalar1}) can also be written as

492: \be

493: \nabla_a \nabla^a \phi - V_{\rm eff}'(\phi) = 0,

494: \label{eq:scalar2}

495: \ee

496: where the effective potential that includes the matter coupling is

497: \be

498: V_{\rm eff}(\phi) = V(\phi) + e^{\alpha(\phi)}

499: \rho.

500: \label{phieqn}

501: \ee

502: and the prime means derivative with respect to $\phi$ at fixed $\rho$.

503: The equations of motion for the fluid are [see Appendix \ref{visible}]

504: \be

505: \nabla_a ( \rho u^a) =0,

506: \label{eq:fluid1}

507: \ee

508: and

509: \be

510: u^b \nabla_b u^a  = - (g^{ab} + u^a u^b) \nabla_b \alpha \ .

511: \label{eq:fluid2}

512: \ee

513: 

514: 

515: Note that the equations of motion (\ref{ee}) -- (\ref{eq:fluid2}) of the theory

516: do not depend on the coupling function $\alpha_b(\phi)$ of the

517: scalar field to visible matter, in the approximation where we neglect

518: the baryons.

519: Our discussion of the instability in the following sections

520: will be valid for arbitrary $\alpha_b(\phi)$.

521: However we note that $\alpha_b(\phi)$ will

522: enter when we want to compare with observations, since the metric that

523: is measured is $e^{2 \alpha_b} g_{ab}$.  When discussing observations below we will

524: focus on the case $\alpha_b=0$, where the dark energy is coupled only to dark matter.

525: 

526: 

527: 

528: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

529: 

530: \section{The Adiabatic Regime}

531: \label{adiabatic}

532: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

533: 

534: The effective potential (\ref{phieqn}) governing the evolution of the

535: scalar field

536: is the sum of two terms, one arising from the original

537: potential $V(\phi)$, and the other arising from the coupling to the

538: energy density of the dark matter fluid. It is possible, for

539: appropriate choices of the potential and the coupling function, that

540: competition between these terms leads to a minimum of the effective

541: potential. Further, in some regimes, it may be possible for the

542: solution of the equation of motion for $\phi$ to

543: adiabatically\footnote{Note that throughout this paper, we use

544: ``adiabatic'' in the sense of ``gradual change'', not in the thermodynamic

545: sense of ``at constant entropy''.} in the  track

546: the position of this minimum.

547: That is to say, the timescale or lengthscale for $\phi$ to adjust

548: itself to the changing position of the minimum of the effective potential may be short

549: compared to the timescale or lengthscale over which the background

550: density is changing.

551: 

552: 

553: This {\it adiabatic regime} has been previously discussed for spatial

554: variations of $\phi$ in the interior of massive bodies in the so-called Chameleon field models

555: \cite{Khoury:2003aq,Khoury:2003rn}, and for the time variation of

556: $\phi$ in a cosmological context by Refs.\ \cite{Kaplinghat:2006jk,Das:2005yj}.

557: It also has been studied for the specific case of $f(R)$ modified gravity models

558: \cite{Navarro:2006mw,Faulkner:2006ub,Hu:2007nk}, for which the action

559: in the Einstein frame is of the general form (\ref{action0}).

560: In this section we review the adiabatic regime in a general context and give a careful

561: derivation of its domain of validity.

562: 

563: 

564: 

565: 

566: The adiabatic approximation consists of (i) omitting the d'Alembertian

567: term in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:scalar2}), which gives an algebraic equation for $\phi$

568: that one can solve to obtain $\phi$ as a function of the density $\rho$;

569: (ii) omitting the terms involving the gradient of $\phi$ from the field

570: equation (\ref{ee}).  The resulting equations are the same as those of

571: Modified-Source gravity~ \cite{Carroll:2006jn}, in the approximation

572: where one considers only a dark matter source and neglects baryons.

573: The equations can be written as general relativity

574: coupled to a fluid with an effective energy density $\rho_{\rm eff}$

575: and effective pressure $p_{\rm eff}$:

576: \be

577: \mpl^2 G_{ab} =

578: \left[ (\rho_{\rm eff} + p_{\rm eff}) u_a u_b + p_{\rm eff} g_{ab} \right] \ ,

579: \label{ee1}

580: \ee

581: where

582: \be

583: \rho_{\rm eff}(\rho) = e^{\alpha[\phi_{\rm m}(\rho)]} \rho

584: + V[\phi_{\rm m}(\rho)] \ ,

585: \label{rhoeff}

586: \ee

587: \be

588: p_{\rm eff}(\rho) = - V[\phi_{\rm m}(\rho)] \ .

589: \label{peff}

590: \ee

591: Here $\phi_{\rm m}(\rho)$ is the solution of the algebraic

592: equation

593: \be

594: V_{\rm eff}'(\phi)= V'(\phi) + \alpha'(\phi) e^{\alpha(\phi)} \rho =0

595: \label{eq:alg}

596: \ee

597: for $\phi$.

598: Eliminating $\rho$ between Eqs.\ (\ref{rhoeff}) and (\ref{peff}) gives

599: the equation of state $p_{\rm eff} = p_{\rm eff}(\rho_{\rm eff})$.

600: 

601: 

602: In the adiabatic regime, the matter and scalar field are tightly

603: coupled together and evolve as one effective fluid.  By taking the

604: divergence of the field equation (\ref{ee1}), we see that this fluid

605: obeys the usual fluid equations of motion with the given effective

606: equation of state.

607: In a cosmological context, the effective fluid description (\ref{ee1}) is valid

608: for the background cosmology and for linear (and, indeed, nonlinear) perturbations. Therefore,

609: the equation of state of perturbations is the same as that of the

610: background cosmology, or the so-called entropy perturbation vanishes.

611: 

612: 

613: 

614: 

615: 

616: \subsection{Condition for global validity of adiabatic approximation}

617: \label{domain}

618: Of course, the adiabatic approximation will not be a good one for all

619: choices of $V(\phi)$ and $\alpha(\phi)$, or in all physical

620: situations. Our goal in this subsection is to establish criteria under

621: which we can trust the adiabatic approximation.

622: Roughly speaking, the mass of the scalar field

623: associated with the minimum of the effective potential must be

624: sufficiently large.

625: More precisely, we define the effective mass as a function of density

626: $\rho$ by

627: \be

628: m_{\rm eff}^2(\rho) = \left. \frac{\partial^2 V_{\rm eff}}{\partial \phi^2}

629:   (\phi,\rho) \right|_{\phi = \phi_{\rm m}(\rho)},

630: \label{meffdef}

631: \ee

632: where the derivatives are taken at constant $\rho$, and $\phi_{\rm

633:   m}(\rho)$ is the value of the scalar field which minimizes the

634: effective potential at a given density $\rho$.

635: We assume that $m_{\rm eff}^2$ is positive, otherwise there is no

636: local minimum of the potential and an adiabatic regime does not arise.

637: For a perturbation with lengthscale or timescale ${\cal L}$ and density

638: $\rho$ to be in the adiabatic regime, it is necessary that

639: \be

640: {\cal L} \gg m_{\rm eff}^{-1}(\rho).

641: \label{adiabaticok}

642: \ee

643: We call this condition the {\it local adiabatic condition}.\footnote{It has also

644: been called the Compton condition \cite{Hu:2007nk}, since the RHS of

645: Eq.\ (\ref{adiabaticok}) is the effective Compton wavelength of the field.}

646: If the condition is satisfied everywhere in spacetime,

647: then the adiabatic approximation will be good everywhere.  However if

648: the condition is satisfied in a local region, it does not necessarily

649: follow that the adiabatic approximation is valid in that region, due

650: to non-local effects \cite{Khoury:2003aq,Khoury:2003rn,Hu:2007nk}.  This is

651: discussed further in Sec.\ \ref{sec:nonlocal} below.

652: 

653: 

654: We now derive a slightly more precise version of the local adiabatic criterion

655: (\ref{adiabaticok}).  For a given density $\rho_0$ we define

656: $\phi_0 = \phi_{\rm m}(\rho_0)$ and

657: $\delta \phi = \phi - \phi_0$.

658: We expand the potential as

659: \be

660: V(\phi) = V_0 + V_1 \delta \phi + \frac{1}{2} V_2 \delta \phi^2 +

661: O(\delta \phi^3) \ ,

662: \ee

663: and defining $W(\phi) = e^{\alpha(\phi)}$ we similarly expand

664: \be

665: W(\phi) = W_0 + W_1 \delta \phi + \frac{1}{2} W_2 \delta \phi^2 +

666: O(\delta \phi^3) \ .

667: \ee

668: The effective mass (\ref{meffdef}) is then given by

669: \be

670: m_{\rm eff}^2 \equiv \frac{\partial^2 V_{\rm eff}}{\partial \phi^2}(\phi_0,\rho_0) = V_2 + \rho_0 W_2 \ ,

671: \ee

672: and

673: the condition (\ref{eq:alg}) that the effective potential be minimized yields

674: \be

675: V_1 = -\rho_0 W_1.

676: \label{ident}

677: \ee

678: Also a short computation using the definition (\ref{eq:alg}) of the function $\phi_{\rm m}(\rho)$ gives

679: \be

680: \frac{d \phi_{\rm m}}{d\rho} = - \frac{W_1}{V_2 + \rho_0

681:   W_2} = - \frac{ \alpha_0^\prime e^{\alpha_0}}{m_{\rm eff}(\rho_0)^2} \ ,

682: \label{derivformula}

683: \ee

684: where $\alpha_0 = \alpha(\phi_0)$ and $\alpha_0^\prime = \alpha'(\phi_0)$.

685: We also define ${\cal L}$ to be the smallest lengthscale or timescale over which the density $\rho$

686: changes, so that $\nabla_a \nabla^a \rho \sim  \rho/{\cal L}^2$ and

687: $(\nabla \rho)^2 \sim \rho^2 / {\cal L}^2$.

688: 

689: 

690: 

691: 

692: The field equations are the Einstein equation

693: (\ref{ee}), the scalar field equation (\ref{eq:scalar1}), and the

694: fluid equations (\ref{eq:fluid1}) and (\ref{eq:fluid2}).

695: These equations are not all independent, since the Einstein equation

696: enforces conservation of the total stress energy tensor.  We will take

697: as the independent equations just the Einstein equation (\ref{ee}) and

698: the fluid equations (\ref{eq:fluid1}) and (\ref{eq:fluid2}), since the

699: scalar field equation can be derived from these.\footnote{Similarly,

700: the approximate form (\ref{eq:alg}) of the scalar field equation can be

701: obtained from the approximate form (\ref{ee1}) of the Einstein equation

702: together with the fluid equations.}

703: 

704: 

705: Therefore, to justify the

706: adiabatic approximation, it is sufficient to justify dropping the scalar

707: field derivative terms in the Einstein equation (\ref{ee}).

708: The

709: ratio of the scalar field gradient terms to the potential term

710: evaluated at the adiabatic solution is of order

711: \bea

712: \frac{ (\nabla \phi)^2}{V(\phi)} \sim

713: \frac{1}{V_0} \left( \frac{d \phi_{\rm

714:         m}}{d \rho} \right)^2 ( \nabla \rho )^2

715: \sim

716: \frac{1}{V_0 {\cal L}^2} \left( \frac{d \phi_{\rm

717:         m}}{d \ln \rho} \right)^2.\ \ \

718: \label{einsteincheck}

719: \eea

720: By combining Eqs.\ (\ref{ident}) and (\ref{derivformula}) we obtain

721: \be

722: \frac{d \phi_{\rm m}}{d \ln \rho} = \frac{V_1}{m_{\rm eff}^2},

723: \ee

724: and using this to eliminate one of the factors of $d \phi_{\rm m} / d

725: \ln \rho$ from Eq.\ (\ref{einsteincheck}) gives

726: \bea

727: \frac{ (\nabla \phi)^2}{V(\phi)} \sim

728: \frac{V_1}{V_0} \frac{d \phi_{\rm

729:         m}}{d \ln \rho} \left( \frac{1}{m_{\rm eff}^2 {\cal L}^2}

730:     \right)

731: \sim \frac{ d \ln V }{d \ln \rho}

732: \left( \frac{1} {m_{\rm eff}^2 {\cal L}^2 } \right).\ \ \ \

733: \label{einsteincheck1}

734: \eea

735: Thus, the adiabatic approximation will be valid whenever

736: \be

737: \frac{ d \ln V }{d \ln \rho} \left(

738: \frac{1} {m_{\rm eff}^2 {\cal L}^2 }\right)  \ll 1.

739: \label{einsteincheck1a}

740: \ee

741: Now, since the first factor on the left hand side

742: involves derivatives of logarithmic

743: factors, we expect this prefactor to generically be of order unity.

744: When this is true the condition (\ref{einsteincheck1a}) reduces to the

745: local adiabatic condition (\ref{adiabaticok}).

746: 

747: 

748: 

749: 

750: 

751: 

752: 

753: \subsection{Nonlocal condition for breakdown of adiabatic approximation}

754: \label{sec:nonlocal}

755: 

756: As mentioned above, the condition ${\cal L} \gg m_{\rm eff}^{-1}$ in a

757: local region is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the validity of

758: the adiabatic approximation in that region.  This is because

759: the corrections to the adiabatic approximation are determined by a

760: wave equation obtained by perturbing Eq.\ (\ref{eq:scalar1}) whose solutions depend in a non-local

761: way on its sources.  The corrections in a given region can become

762: large due to a breakdown of the local adiabatic condition (\ref{adiabaticok})

763: that occurs elsewhere \cite{Hu:2007nk}.

764: 

765: For the special case of static, spherically symmetric

766: systems, and for a constant density object in a constant density background,

767: the chameleon field papers \cite{Khoury:2003aq,Khoury:2003rn}

768: derived a precise condition for the validity of the adiabatic approximation

769: inside the system, the so-called ``thin shell'' condition, which depends on the asymptotic value

770: of the potential.  The thin-shell condition is both a necessary and

771: sufficient condition, but it restricted to static situations.  Below

772: we will show that for several specific examples

773: the thin-shell condition and the adiabatic condition

774: (\ref{adiabaticok}) give the same predictions in order

775: of magnitude for the boundary of the adiabatic regime.

776: 

777: 

778: We now discuss an order-of-magnitude non-local criterion for static,

779: spherically symmetric situations that predicts when

780: the adiabatic approximation breaks down even when the local adiabatic condition

781: (\ref{adiabaticok}) is satisfied.

782: The condition is a generalization of a condition derived

783: by Hu \cite{Hu:2007nk} in the context of $f(R)$ modified gravity models, and is

784: also a generalization of the thin-shell condition of Refs.\ \cite{Khoury:2003aq,Khoury:2003rn}.

785: 

786: 

787: Consider a spherically symmetric density profile $\rho(r)$, which we

788: will assume for simplicity is monotonically decreasing as $r$

789: increases.  From this density profile we can compute the corresponding

790: adiabatic scalar field profile

791: \be

792: \phi_{\rm ad}(r) \equiv \phi_{\rm m}[\rho(r)].

793: \label{adprofile}

794: \ee

795: If the local adiabatic condition (\ref{adiabaticok}) is

796: satisfied for all $r$, then this adiabatic field is a good

797: approximation to the actual solution $\phi(r)$.  Suppose therefore

798: that the local adiabatic condition is violated\footnote{If the density

799:   goes to a constant at large $r$, then the local adiabatic condition

800:   is always satisfied as $r \to \infty$.} for some set of values

801: ${\bar r}_1 < r < {\bar r}_2$.  Then typically what occurs is

802: that there is a larger interval $r_1 < r < r_2$ with $r_1 < {\bar

803:   r}_1$ and $r_2 > {\bar r}_2$ on which the solution $\phi(r)$ differs

804: significantly from the adiabatic field profile (\ref{adprofile}).

805: For a given interval $(r_1,r_2)$,

806: significant deviations from the adiabatic approximation should occur in the vicinity of $r=r_1$ if

807: \be

808: \phi_2 - \phi_1 \agt \frac{ \alpha_2^\prime e^{\alpha_2}}{r_1} \int_{r_1}^{r_2} r^2 \left[ \rho(r) -

809: \rho_2\right],

810: \label{nonlocal}

811: \ee

812: where $\rho_i = \rho(r_i)$, $\phi_i = \phi_{\rm ad}(r_i)$, $\alpha_i =

813: \alpha(\phi_i)$ and $\alpha_i^\prime = \alpha^\prime(\phi_i)$, $i = 1,2$.

814: The criterion assumes that $r_2 \gg r_1$ and $\rho_2 \ll \rho_1$.

815: 

816: 

817: The criterion (\ref{nonlocal}) is a generalization of other criteria that have

818: appeared in the literature. First, if one assumes that the density

819: varies on a lengthscale of order $\sim r$, then using this to

820: approximate the integral in (\ref{nonlocal}) gives

821: \be

822: \phi_2 - \phi_1 \agt \alpha_2^\prime e^{\alpha_2} r_1^2 (\rho_1 -

823: \rho_2).

824: \label{nonlocal1}

825: \ee

826: Equation (\ref{nonlocal1}) is the condition derived in Ref.\ \cite{Hu:2007nk} in the context of

827: $f(R)$ models, although there the factor of $\alpha_2^\prime

828: e^{\alpha_2}$ was neglected.  The condition (\ref{nonlocal1}) was

829: found to reliably predict the onset of deviations from the adiabatic

830: profile in numerical solutions for the Solar System and the Galaxy\cite{Hu:2007nk}.

831: 

832: 

833: Second, one can derive from Eq.\ (\ref{nonlocal}) the

834: thin-shell condition of Refs.\ \cite{Khoury:2003aq,Khoury:2003rn}, up

835: to a factor of order unity.

836: Suppose one has a uniform density sphere of density $\rho_c$ and

837: radius $R_c$, embedded in a uniform density, infinite medium of

838: density $\rho_\infty$.  For this case the local adiabatic criterion is

839: satisfied everywhere except at the point of discontinuity of the

840: density at $r = R_c$, so we expect a breakdown of the adiabatic

841: approximation near this point.  Following Ref.\ \cite{Khoury:2003aq}

842: we assume that $\alpha^\prime = \beta/\mpl$ is a constant, and that we

843: are in the regime where $\alpha(\phi) \ll 1$, so $e^\alpha \approx

844: 1$.  If we apply the criterion (\ref{nonlocal}) to an interval

845: $(r_1,r_2)$ with $r_1 < R_c < r_2$, we obtain that

846: the adiabatic approximation should fail near $r = r_1$

847: if

848: \be

849: \frac{ \Delta \phi} {\beta \mpl \Phi_c} \agt \frac{R_c^3 - r_1^3}{r_1

850:   R_c^2},

851: \label{thinshell1}

852: \ee

853: where $\Phi_c \sim \rho_c R_c^2/\mpl^2$ is the Newtonian potential at

854: the center of the sphere.  If the left hand side is large compared to

855: unity, then Eq.\ (\ref{thinshell1}) will be satisfied for all values

856: of $r_1$ except very close to $r_1=0$, and it follows that the

857: adiabatic approximation will not apply in most of the interior of the

858: sphere.  On the other hand, if the left hand side of Eq.\

859: (\ref{thinshell1}) is small compared to unity, then it follows that

860: one would expect the adiabatic approximation to be valid throughout the interior of the

861: sphere except very close to the surface, in a thin shell of thickness

862: $\sim R_c \Delta \phi / (\beta \mpl \Phi_c)$.

863: Both of these conclusions agree in order of magnitude with those of

864: Refs.\ \cite{Khoury:2003aq,Khoury:2003rn} \footnote{This example shows

865: that the condition (\ref{nonlocal1}) derived in Ref.\ \cite{Hu:2007nk} is less

866: general than the condition (\ref{nonlocal}) derived here, since that

867: condition cannot be used to derive the thickness of the thin shell.}.

868: 

869: 

870: We now turn to the derivation of the non-local condition

871: (\ref{nonlocal}).

872: We start by noting that static

873: solutions of the equation of motion (\ref{eq:scalar2}) can be obtained

874: by extremizing the energy functional

875: \be

876: E = \int dr \, r^2 \, \left[ \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{d \phi}{d r}

877:   \right)^2 + V(\phi) + e^{\alpha(\phi)} \rho(r) \right].

878: \ee

879: The basic idea \cite{Hu:2007nk} is that the adiabatic field profile (\ref{adprofile})

880: minimizes just the potential energy, and there some kinetic energy

881: cost for following this adiabatic profile.  When this kinetic energy cost becomes

882: sufficiently large, it becomes energetically favorable for the field

883: to switch to a different, non-adiabatic profile with a smaller kinetic

884: energy and with a larger potential energy, for a net gain in energy.

885: 

886: 

887: We now compute the total energies $E_{\rm ad}$ for the adiabatic

888: profile and $E_{\rm trial}$ for an alternative trial profile which is

889: qualitatively similar to numerical solutions \cite{Hu:2007nk}.  When

890: \be

891: E_{\rm trial} - E_{\rm ad} < 0

892: \label{condt0}

893: \ee

894: there is a net gain in energy for switching to the trial profile, and

895: so the adiabatic profile is no longer a good approximation.

896: The trial profile is simply $\phi_{\rm trial}(r) = \phi_2 = $ constant for

897: $r_1 + \Delta r \le r \le r_2$, and $\phi_{\rm trial}(r) = \alpha - \beta/r$ for

898: $r_1 \le r \le r + \Delta r$,

899: with $\alpha$ and $\beta$ chosen to satisfy

900: continuity at $r_1$ and $r_1 + \Delta r$, $\phi_{\rm trial}(r_1) = \phi_1$ and

901: $\phi_{\rm trial}(r_1 + \Delta r) = \phi_2$.  This trial profile depends on one

902: parameter, namely the width $\Delta r$ of the region in which the

903: field transitions from $\phi_1$ to $\phi_2$.

904: We obtain

905: \bea

906: \label{long}

907: E_{\rm trial} - E_{\rm ad} &=&

908: \int_{r_1}^{r_2} dr r^2 \left\{  - \frac{1}{2}  \phi_{\rm ad}'(r)^2   \right. \nn \\

909: &&   + \alpha_2^\prime e^{\alpha_2} \left[ \phi_{\rm trial}(r) - \phi_{\rm

910:       ad}(r) \right] \left[ \rho(r) -\rho_2 \right]  \bigg\} \nn \\

911: && + \frac{r_1 (r_1 + \Delta r) (\phi_2 - \phi_1)^2 }{2 \Delta r}.

912: \eea

913: In deriving this formula we have used an approximate Taylor expansion

914: of the effective potential about the point $\phi_2$ together with Eq.\ (\ref{eq:alg}):

915: \bea

916: V_{\rm eff}(\phi_2,\rho) - V_{\rm eff}(\phi,\rho)

917: &\approx& ( \phi_2 - \phi) \frac{\partial

918:   V_{\rm eff}}{\partial \phi}(\phi_2,\rho) \nn \\

919: &=&  \alpha_2^\prime e^{\alpha_2} ( \phi_2 - \phi) (\rho - \rho_2).\ \ \ \ \ \

920: \eea

921: 

922: Consider first the kinetic energy contributions, the first and third

923: lines of Eq.\ (\ref{long}).  The minimum kinetic energy for

924: any field configuration which satisfies $\phi(r_1) = \phi_1$ and $\phi(r_2) = \phi_2$ is

925: the energy of the Laplace equation solution with these boundary

926: conditions\footnote{This can be shown using the Schwarz inequality

927:   $(\int f g dr)^2 \le \int f^2 dr \, \int g^2 dr$, with $f = r

928:   \phi'(r)$ and $g = 1/r$.}, namely

929: $E_{\rm K,min} = (\Delta \phi)^2 r_1 r_2 / (2 (r_2 - r_1))$, where

930: $\Delta \phi = \phi_2 - \phi_1$.  Therefore we can write the kinetic energy of the

931: adiabatic field profile [the negative of the first line of Eq.\ (\ref{long})] as

932: $E_{\rm K,ad} = E_{\rm K,min} (1 + \varepsilon)$, where $\varepsilon$

933: is dimensionless and nonnegative.

934: We will assume that $\varepsilon \agt 1$, since $\varepsilon \ll 1$ would require

935: the adiabatic profile $\phi_{\rm ad}(r)$ to be very close to the $1/r$

936: profile, which would be a fine tuning.  For generic density profiles

937: we expect $\varepsilon \agt 1$.

938: If we now choose $\Delta r = 2 r_1 /

939: \varepsilon$, then it follows that the net gain in kinetic energy is

940: \be

941: \varepsilon \frac{E_{\rm K,min}}{2} \agt E_{\rm K,{\rm min}} \sim r_1 \Delta

942: \phi^2,

943: \label{KEgain}

944: \ee

945: using $r_2 \gg r_1$.

946: 

947: Turn now to the potential energy contributions, the second line of

948: Eq.\ (\ref{long}).  If we assume that the potential $V(\phi)$ is

949: monotonically decreasing, as in the Chameleon field models, then it

950: follows that $\phi_{\rm ad}(r)$ is an increasing function of $r$, so

951: that

952: \be

953: \phi_{\rm trial}(r) - \phi_{\rm ad}(r) \le \phi_2 - \phi_1.

954: \ee

955: This implies that the potential energy term in Eq.\ (\ref{long}) is

956: bounded above by

957: $$

958:  \alpha_2^\prime e^{\alpha_2} \Delta \phi \int_{r_1}^{r_2} r^2 \left[ \rho(r) -

959: \rho_2\right].

960: $$

961: Inserting this together with the estimate (\ref{KEgain}) of the kinetic

962: energy gain into Eq.\ (\ref{condt0}) yields the criterion (\ref{nonlocal}).

963: 

964: 

965: 

966: \subsection{Observed equation of state parameter}

967: 

968: 

969: In this section we derive the observed equation of state parameter

970: $w_{\rm obs}$ for these models, in the adiabatic regime, for the case $\alpha_b =0$.

971: Generically we have $w_{\rm

972:   obs} < -1$ corresponding to superacceleration, as previously noted

973: in Ref.\ \cite{Das:2005yj}.

974: 

975: The background cosmological evolution is given in the Einstein frame

976: by the equation

977: \be

978: 3 \mpl^2 H^2 = V + e^{\alpha} \frac{\rho_0}{a^3},

979: \label{eee1}

980: \ee

981: where $\rho_0$ is a constant, together with the evolution equation for

982: the scalar field.  Observations of the acceleration of the Universe

983: are fit to the model

984: \be

985: 3 \mpl^2 H^2 = \frac{\rho_1}{a^3} + \rho_{\rm DE}(a)

986: \label{eee2}

987: \ee

988: where $\rho_1 = e^{\alpha_0} \rho_0$ is the observed matter density

989: today\footnote{Note that in this model some fraction of the mass

990:   density in the $V$ term in Eq.\ (\ref{eee1}) will cluster, so

991:   measurements of mass density using clusters will not correspond

992:   exactly to measurements of the second term in Eq.\ (\ref{eee1}).  We

993:   will not address this issue here.}, $\alpha_0$ is the value of $\alpha$ today,

994: and $\rho_{\rm DE}$

995: is the inferred ``dark energy density''.

996: The equation of state parameter is then given by

997: \be

998: w_{\rm obs}(a) = -1 - \frac{1}{3} \frac{d \ln \rho_{\rm DE}}{d \ln a}.

999: \label{eee3}

1000: \ee

1001: Combining Eqs.\ (\ref{eee1}) -- (\ref{eee3}) and using Eq.\ (\ref{eq:alg})

1002: to eliminate the term proportional to $d\phi/da$ gives

1003: \be

1004: w_{\rm obs} = \frac{- V}{ V + \frac{e^{\alpha_0} \rho_0}{a^3}

1005:   (e^{\alpha - \alpha_0} -1)}.

1006: \ee

1007: Next we use Eq.\ (\ref{eq:alg}) again to obtain $\rho_0/a^3 = -

1008: e^{-\alpha} V'(\phi) / \alpha'(\phi)$, which gives

1009: \be

1010: w_{\rm obs} = \frac{-1}{1 - \frac{d \ln V}{d \alpha} ( 1 - e^{\alpha_0

1011:     - \alpha})}.

1012: \ee

1013: 

1014: 

1015: This formula has the property that $w_{\rm obs}=-1$ today for all

1016: models. Also expanding to first order about $a=1$ we obtain $1/w_{\rm

1017:   obs} = -1 + \ln(V/V_0)$, where $V_0$ is the value of $V$ today, so

1018: $w_{\rm obs} < -1$ in the past since $V = V[\phi_{\rm m}(\rho)]> V_0$ in the past.

1019: 

1020: 

1021: 

1022: 

1023: 

1024: \section{Adiabatic instability}

1025: \label{instability}

1026: 

1027: 

1028: In the adiabatic regime, the models (\ref{action0}) discussed here can

1029: exhibit instabilities on

1030: small scales characterized by a negative sound speed squared of the

1031: effective coupled fluid.

1032: This instability extends down to the

1033: smallest scales for which the adiabatic approximation is valid.

1034: Starting with a uniform fluid, the instability will give rise to

1035: exponential growth of small perturbations.  The final state of the

1036: coupled fluid is beyond the scope of this paper.

1037: Theories that exhibit this instability are typically ruled out as

1038: models of dark energy.

1039: 

1040: \subsection{Hydrodynamic viewpoint}

1041: \label{sec:hydro}

1042: 

1043: This adiabatic instability was first discovered by Afshordi,

1044: Zaldarriaga and Kohri \cite{Afshordi:2005ym} in a context slightly

1045: different to that considered here.  That context was the mass varying neutrino model of

1046: dark energy, where a dynamical dark energy model is obtained by

1047: coupling a light scalar field to neutrinos but not to dark matter.

1048: The instability was previously discussed in the context of the models

1049: considered here by Kaplinghat and Rajaraman \cite{Kaplinghat:2006jk}.

1050: In this paper we will generalize

1051: the treatment of the instability given in Ref.\ \cite{Kaplinghat:2006jk}.

1052: 

1053: A fairly simple form of the stability criterion can be obtained by

1054: writing the potential $V(\phi)$ as a function $V(\alpha)$ of the

1055: coupling function $\alpha(\phi)$ by eliminating $\phi$.

1056: This gives

1057: \be

1058: \rho_{\rm eff} = V + e^{ \alpha} \rho = V - \frac{

1059:   dV/d\phi}{d\alpha/d\phi} = V - \frac{dV}{d\alpha} \ ,

1060: \ee

1061: where we have used Eqs.\ ~(\ref{rhoeff}) and (\ref{eq:alg}).  The

1062: square $c_a^2$ of the adiabatic sound speed is then given by

1063: \be

1064: \frac{1}{c_a^2} = \frac{d \rho_{\rm eff}}{dp_{\rm eff}} = \frac{

1065:   d\rho_{\rm eff}/d\alpha} {dp_{\rm eff}/d\alpha} = \frac

1066: {\frac{d}{d\alpha} \left[ V - \frac{dV}{d\alpha} \right] }

1067: {\frac{d}{d\alpha} \left[ -V \right] } = -1 + \frac{ \frac{d^2 V}{d\alpha^2} }{

1068:   \frac{dV}{d\alpha}} \ .

1069: \label{soundspeed}

1070: \ee

1071: The system will be unstable if

1072: \be

1073: c_a^2 <0.

1074: \label{unstablec}

1075: \ee

1076: Equation (\ref{soundspeed}) gives a simple prescription for computing when a

1077: given theory will be unstable, assuming it is in the adiabatic

1078: regime.  This equation furnishes $c_a^2$ as a function of $\alpha$,

1079: which can be re-expressed as a function of $\phi$ using $\alpha =

1080: \alpha(\phi)$, and then as a function of density $\rho$ using $\phi =

1081: \phi_{\rm m}(\rho)$ from Eq.\ (\ref{eq:alg}).

1082: 

1083: More generally, outside of the adiabatic regime, the

1084: effective sound speed is the ratio of the local pressure and density

1085: perturbations

1086: $$

1087: c_s^2 = \frac{\delta p}{\delta \rho}

1088: $$

1089: and can differ from $c_a^2$.  In a cosmological context we have

1090: $c_a^2\equiv \dot{P}/\dot{\rho}$ and $c_s^2(k,a)\equiv \delta

1091: P(k,a)/\delta\rho(k,a)$, where $k$ is spatial wavenumber and $a$ is

1092: scale factor.  For most of this paper we will consider only the

1093: adiabatic regime in which $c_s^2 \to c_a^2$, although the more general

1094: regime will be probed in our numerical integrations in Sec.\ \ref{examples}.

1095: 

1096: 

1097: We now argue that the adiabatic sound speed (\ref{soundspeed}) is {\it always}

1098: negative in the adiabatic regime.

1099: In the definition (\ref{meffdef}) of the effective mass, we rewrite

1100: the $\phi$ derivative in terms of $\alpha$ derivatives using

1101: $\alpha = \alpha(\phi)$.

1102: Using the fact that the first derivative of $V_{\rm eff}$ with respect to $\phi$ vanishes at

1103: $\phi = \phi_{\rm m}(\rho)$, we obtain

1104: \be

1105: m_{\rm eff}^2 = \left( \frac{ d\alpha }{d \phi} \right)^2

1106: \frac{\partial ^2 V_{\rm eff}}{\partial \alpha^2},

1107: \ee

1108: where the derivatives are taken at constant $\rho$.

1109: Using Eq.\ (\ref{phieqn}) and then eliminating $\rho$ using Eq.\

1110: (\ref{eq:alg})

1111: gives

1112: \be

1113: m_{\rm eff}^2 = \left( \frac{ d\alpha }{d \phi} \right)^2

1114: \left[ \frac{d^2 V}{d\alpha^2} - \frac{d V}{d\alpha} \right].

1115: \label{meff2}

1116: \ee

1117: Simplifying using the expression (\ref{soundspeed}) for the sound speed squared

1118: gives

1119: \be

1120: m_{\rm eff}^2 = \left( \frac{ d\alpha }{d \phi} \right)^2

1121:  \frac{d V}{d\alpha} \frac{1}{c_s^2}.

1122: \label{meff3}

1123: \ee

1124: The adiabatic instability arises in the

1125: case $c_s^2<0$ and $m_{\rm eff}^2>0$. [When $m_{\rm eff}^2<0$ there is

1126: no adiabatic regime, in the sense that adiabatic solutions are subject

1127: to a tachyonic instability.  This instability

1128: has been discussed in the context of $f(R)$ gravity models in Refs.\

1129: \cite{Dolgov:2003px,Seifert:2007fr,Sawicki:2007tf}.]  It follows from Eqs.\

1130: (\ref{soundspeed}) and (\ref{meff3}) that the adiabatic instability

1131: occurs when

1132: \be

1133: \frac{dV}{d\alpha} < \frac{d^2 V}{d\alpha^2} < 0,

1134: \label{cc1}

1135: \ee

1136: or when

1137: \be

1138: \frac{dV}{d\alpha} < 0 < \frac{d^2 V}{d\alpha^2}.

1139: \label{cc2}

1140: \ee

1141: 

1142: However, the region in the $(V_{,\alpha},V_{,\alpha\alpha})$ parameter

1143: space defined by the union of the regions (\ref{cc1}) and (\ref{cc2}) is

1144: just the adiabatic regime; the adiabatic approximation requires

1145: both that $V_{,\alpha}<0$ so that the effective potential has a local

1146: extremum, and also that $m_{\rm eff}^2>0$ so that the local extremum is a

1147: local minimum.  It follows that the adiabatic instability condition

1148: (\ref{unstablec}) is satisfied throughout the adiabatic regime.

1149: This genericity of the instability has also been deduced by Kaplinghat

1150: and Rajaraman \cite{Kaplinghat:2006jk} using a different method.

1151: However, as we discuss in the following subsection, the instability

1152: actually occurs only if the coupling $\alpha'(\phi)$ is sufficiently

1153: large, a point missed in Refs.\ \cite{Afshordi:2005ym,Kaplinghat:2006jk}.

1154: 

1155: 

1156: \subsection{Scales over which the instability operates}

1157: \label{sec:scales}

1158: 

1159: For the instability to be relevant on some spatial scale ${\cal L}$, then we must have

1160: \be

1161: {\cal L} \gg m_{\rm eff}^{-1}

1162: \ee

1163: in order that the adiabatic approximation be valid, as discussed

1164: above.  There is also an upper bound on the range of spatial scales

1165: which comes about as follows.  When the instability is present,

1166: spatial Fourier modes with wavelength ${\cal L}$ grow exponentially on

1167: a timescale

1168: \be

1169: \tau \sim \frac{{\cal L}}{\sqrt{|c_s^2|}} \ ,

1170: \ee

1171: where $c_s^2$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{soundspeed}).  If this timescale

1172: is longer than the Hubble time $H^{-1}$, then the mode does

1173: not have time to grow and the instability is not relevant.

1174: Therefore the range of scales over which the instability operates is

1175: \be

1176: m_{\rm eff}^{-1} \ll {\cal L} \ll \frac{\sqrt{|c_s^2|}}{H} \ .

1177: \ee

1178: More generally,

1179: for a fluid of density $\rho$, if the instability is to be unmodified

1180: by the gravitational dynamics of the fluid, then the instability

1181: timescale must be shorter than the gravitational dynamical time, which

1182: from Eq.\ (\ref{ee1}) is $\sim \mpl/\sqrt{\rho_{\rm eff}(\rho)}$.

1183: Here $\rho_{\rm eff}(\rho)$ is the total mass density (\ref{rhoeff}) of the

1184: coupled dark matter-dark energy fluid.

1185: This gives the criterion

1186: \be

1187: m_{\rm eff}(\rho)^{-1} \ll {\cal L} \ll \frac{\mpl

1188:   \sqrt{|c_s^2(\rho)|}}{\sqrt{\rho_{\rm eff}(\rho)}} \ ,

1189: \label{range}

1190: \ee

1191: which determines the values of density $\rho$ and lengthscale ${\cal

1192:   L}$ for which the instability operates.

1193: The upper lengthscale can be rewritten using Eqs.\ (\ref{meff3}),

1194: (\ref{rhoeff}) and (\ref{eq:alg}) to give

1195: \be

1196: \frac{1}{m_{\rm eff}(\rho)} \ll  {\cal L} \ll \frac{\mpl

1197: |\alpha^\prime[\phi_{\rm m}(\rho)]|}{m_{\rm eff}(\rho)}

1198: \sqrt{\frac{1}{1 - \frac{1}{\frac{d\ln V}{d \alpha}}}}.

1199: \label{range1}

1200: \ee

1201: Here the quantity $d \ln V / d\alpha(\alpha)$

1202: on the right hand side is

1203: expressed as a function of $\phi$ using $\alpha = \alpha(\phi)$, and

1204: then as a function of the density using $\phi = \phi_{\rm m}(\rho)$.

1205: 

1206: At longer lengthscales, it is possible that the negative sound speed squared still

1207: engenders an instability, but determining this requires a stability

1208: analysis of the system in question including the effects of self

1209: gravity. The results might vary from one system

1210: to another.

1211: In this paper we will restrict attention to the regime (\ref{range}) where

1212: the presence of the instability can be easily diagnosed.

1213: 

1214: The factor in square brackets in Eq.\ (\ref{range1}) is always smaller

1215: than unity, since $V$ is assumed to be a decreasing function of $\phi$

1216: and hence also of $\alpha$.  It follows that the ratio of the maximum

1217: lengthscale ${\cal L}_{\rm max}$ to the minimum lengthscale ${\cal

1218:   L}_{\rm min}$ satisfies

1219: \be

1220: \frac{{\cal L}_{\rm max}}{{\cal L}_{\rm min}} \le \mpl

1221: |\alpha'[\phi_{\rm m}(\rho)]|.

1222: \ee

1223: Hence in order for there to be a nonempty regime in which the

1224: instability operates, the strength of the coupling of the field to the

1225: dark matter must be much stronger than gravitational strength,

1226: \be

1227: \mpl |\alpha' |\gg 1,

1228: \label{strongcoupling}

1229: \ee

1230: as discussed in the introduction.  In Sec.\ \ref{jeans} below we give a simple

1231: explanation for this requirement.

1232: In Sec.\ \ref{sec:MaVaN} below we give an example of a model where we confirm

1233: numerically instability is present at strong coupling but not when the

1234: coupling is weak.

1235: 

1236: 

1237: 

1238: \subsection{Jeans instability viewpoint}

1239: \label{jeans}

1240: 

1241: There are two different ways of describing and understanding the instability, depending

1242: on whether one thinks of the

1243: scalar-field mediated forces as being ``gravitational'' forces or ``pressure'' forces.

1244: From one point of view, that of the Einstein frame description, the

1245: instability is independent of gravity.  This can be seen from the

1246: equation of motion (\ref{ee1}); the instability is present even when

1247: the (Einstein-frame) metric perturbation due to the fluid can be

1248: neglected.  In the adiabatic regime the acceleration due the scalar

1249: field is a gradient of a local function of the density [cf.\ Eq.\

1250: (\ref{euler1}) below], which can be thought of as a pressure.  The net

1251: effect of the scalar interaction is to give a contribution to the

1252: specific enthalpy $h(\rho) = \int dp/\rho$ of any fluid which is independent

1253: of the composition of the fluid.

1254: If net sound speed squared of the

1255: fluid is negative, then there exists an instability in accord with our

1256: usual hydrodynamic intuition.

1257: 

1258: 

1259: From another point of view, however, that of the Jordan

1260: frame description, the instability involves gravity.

1261: The gravitational force in this frame is mediated partly by a tensor

1262: interaction and partly by a scalar interaction.

1263: The effective Newton's constant describing the interaction of dark matter with itself is

1264: \be

1265: G_{cc} = G \left[ 1

1266:   + \frac{2 \mpl^2 \alpha^\prime(\phi)^2 }{1 +

1267: \frac{m_{\rm eff}^2}{ {\bf k}^2 }

1268: } \right],

1269: \label{Gformula0}

1270: \ee

1271: where ${\bf k}$ is a spatial wavevector.

1272: This is Eq.\ (\ref{Gformula}) of Appendix \ref{sec:Geff} specialized to

1273: ${\rm i} = {\rm j} = c$, with $\alpha_c$ written just as $\alpha$, and

1274: specialized to $\alpha_b=0$ (since

1275: experiments tell us that $|\alpha_b'| \alt 10^{-2} \mpl^{-1}$ today).

1276: Here the 1 in the square brackets describes the tensor interaction and

1277: the second term the scalar interaction.

1278: At long lengthscales, $k \ll m_{\rm eff}/(\mpl |\alpha'|)$, the scalar interaction is

1279: suppressed and we have $G_{cc} \approx G$.  At short lengthscales,

1280: $k \gg m_{\rm eff}$, the scalar field is effectively massless and

1281: $G_{cc}$ asymptotes to a constant, $G_{cc} \approx G [1 + 2 \mpl^2 (\alpha^\prime)^2 ]$.

1282: However, when $\mpl |\alpha^\prime| \gg 1$ there is an intermediate range of

1283: lengthscales,

1284: \be

1285: \frac{m_{\rm eff}} {\mpl |\alpha^\prime|} \ll k \ll m_{\rm eff}

1286: \label{range3}

1287: \ee

1288: in which the effective Newton's constant increases linearly with

1289: $k^2$,

1290: \be

1291: G_{cc} \approx G \frac{2 \mpl^2 (\alpha^\prime)^2}{m_{\rm eff}^2}

1292: {\bf k}^2.

1293: \label{Gcc1}

1294: \ee

1295: A gravitational interaction with $G_{cc} \propto {\bf k}^2$ behaves just

1296: like a (negative) pressure in the hydrodynamic equations.  This

1297: explains why the the effect of the scalar interaction can be thought

1298: of as either pressure or gravity in the range of scales (\ref{range3}).

1299: Note that the range of scales (\ref{range3}) coincides with with the

1300: range (\ref{range1}) derived above, up to a logarithmic correction factor.

1301: 

1302: From this second, Jordan-frame point of view, the instability is

1303: simply a Jeans instability.  In a cosmological background with

1304: Einstein-frame metric $ds^2 = -dt^2 + a(t)^2 d{\bf x}^2$, the evolution equation for

1305: the CDM fractional density perturbation $\delta$ with comoving

1306: wavenumber $k_c$ on subhorizon scales in the adiabatic limit is \cite{Brax:2005ew,paperIII}

1307: \be

1308: {\ddot \delta} + 2 H {\dot \delta} - 4 \pi G_{\rm cc} e^\alpha \rho

1309: \delta = 0,

1310: \label{perts}

1311: \ee

1312: where $H = {\dot a}/a$.  Here $G_{cc}$ is given by the expression

1313: (\ref{Gformula0}) evaluated at the physical wavenumber $k= k_c/a$,

1314: and we have neglected photons and baryons.

1315: 

1316: 

1317: Now in the absence of the Hubble damping term in Eq.\ (\ref{perts}),

1318: the gravitational

1319: interaction described by the last term would cause an exponential

1320: growth of the mode, the usual Jeans instability of uniform fluid.

1321: Normally in a cosmological context, the Hubble damping term

1322: is present and the timescale $\sim 1/H$ associated with this term is

1323: of the same order as the timescale $1/ \sqrt{G \rho}$ associated with

1324: the gravitational interaction in the last term.  Because of this

1325: equality of timescales, the exponential growth is converted to power

1326: law growth by the Hubble damping.  In the present context, however,

1327: things work differently.  The gravitational constant governing the

1328: gravitational self-interaction of the mode is $G_{cc}(k)$ instead of

1329: $G$, and consequently the timescale associated with the last term in

1330: Eq. (\ref{perts}) is shorter than the Hubble damping time by

1331: a factor of

1332: \be

1333: \sim \sqrt{\frac{G_{cc} }{ G }} \sim \frac{ k \mpl |\alpha^{\prime}|  }{ m_{\rm

1334:   eff}} \gg 1.

1335: \ee

1336: Therefore the Hubble damping is ineffective and the Jeans instability

1337: causes approximate exponential growth rather than power law growth.

1338: 

1339: 

1340: The above discussion can also be cast in terms a scale-dependent sound speed instead of a scale

1341: dependent Newton's constant; this clarifies the relation to our previous

1342: discussion of Secs.\ \ref{sec:hydro} and \ref{sec:scales}.

1343: As a slight generalization, consider

1344: a fluid with an intrinsic sound speed $c_{\rm s,in}$.  Then

1345: the evolution equation (\ref{perts}) generalizes to (see Appendix \ref{visible})

1346: \be

1347: {\ddot \delta} + 2 H {\dot \delta} + \frac{ c_{\rm tot}(k)^2 k^2 }{a^2} \delta= 0,

1348: \label{pertsa}

1349: \ee

1350: where the effective total sound speed squared is

1351: \be

1352: c_{\rm tot}(k)^2 = c_{\rm s,in}^2 - \frac{4 \pi}{k^2} G e^\alpha \rho

1353: \left[ 1

1354:   + \frac{2 \mpl^2 \alpha^\prime(\phi)^2 }{1 +

1355: \frac{m_{\rm eff}^2}{ {\bf k}^2 }

1356: } \right].

1357: \label{ctot}

1358: \ee

1359: In the range of lengthscales (\ref{range3}) this squared sound speed is a

1360: constant, independent of $k$, as for a normal, hydrodynamic sound

1361: speed.  Outside of this range of scales, we have $c_{\rm tot}^2 \propto

1362: 1/k$ at both large and small $k$ (if the intrinsic sound speed can be neglected), describing a conventional

1363: gravitational interaction.

1364: 

1365: 

1366: 

1367: We reiterate that the existence of the range of scales (\ref{range3})

1368: in which Newton's constant scales linearly with $k^2$ depends on the

1369: assumption of strong coupling, $|\alpha'| \mpl \ll 1$.  If, instead,

1370: $|\alpha'| \mpl \alt 1$, the dependence of $G$ on $k$ is very close to

1371: that of standard gravity, and the instability reduces to

1372: the normal Jeans instability of a fluid, characterized in a

1373: cosmological context by power law growth.

1374: 

1375: 

1376: %\subsection{Kinetic theory description}

1377: \subsection{Domain of validity of fluid description of dark matter}

1378: 

1379: 

1380: Up till now we have described cold dark matter as a pressureless

1381: fluid.  However, at a more fundamental level, one should use a kinetic

1382: theory description based on the collisionless Boltzmann equation.  In

1383: the conventional $\Lambda$CDM framework, the fluid approximation

1384: breaks down at small scales, below the free-streaming lengthscale,

1385: and also in the nonlinear regime after violent relaxation has taken

1386: place in CDM halos \cite{Gunn}.  We now discuss how, in the models discussed here,

1387: the conventional picture for the fluid domain of validity is slightly modified.

1388: 

1389: 

1390: Let us denote by $\sigma$ the rms velocity of the dark matter particles.

1391: Consider a perturbation characterized by a wavelength $\lambda$ and

1392: wavenumber $k = 2 \pi / \lambda$.

1393: The characteristic growth or oscillation time associated with this perturbation is

1394: $

1395: \tau(k) \sim \lambda / \sqrt{ | c_{\rm tot}(k) |^2},

1396: $

1397: where the total effective sound speed $c_{\rm tot}$ is given by Eq.\ (\ref{ctot}).

1398: The distance traveled by a dark matter particle in this time is $d(k)

1399: \sim \sigma \tau(k)$, and the ratio of this distance to the size of

1400: the perturbation is

1401: \be

1402: \frac{d(k) }{\lambda} \sim \frac{\sigma \tau(k)}{\lambda} \sim

1403: \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{|c_{\rm tot}(k)^2|}}.

1404: \label{ratio0}

1405: \ee

1406: When this dimensionless ratio is of order unity or larger,

1407: perturbations do not have time to grow before they are washed out by

1408: free streaming of the particles, and the fluid approximation breaks

1409: down.  Using the formula (\ref{ctot}) with $c_{\rm s,in}$ set to

1410: zero\footnote{Since we expect $c_{\rm s,in} \sim \sigma$, setting

1411: $c_{\rm s,in}$ to zero is only consistent in the regime $\sigma^2

1412: \ll | c_s^2|$.  However, for $\sigma^2 \agt |c_s^2|$, retaining the intrinsic sound speed in Eq.\

1413: (\protect{\ref{ratio0}}) does not change the final result

1414: (\protect{\ref{lambdaFS}}) for the free streaming scale in order of

1415: magnitude.},

1416: , we obtain

1417: \be

1418: \frac{d(k)}{\lambda} \sim \frac{ \sigma k}{ \sqrt{4 \pi G e^\alpha \rho}}

1419: \left[ 1

1420:   + \frac{2 \mpl^2 \alpha^\prime(\phi)^2 }{1 +

1421: \frac{m_{\rm eff}^2}{ {\bf k}^2 }

1422: } \right]^{-1/2}.

1423: \label{ratio1}

1424: \ee

1425: 

1426: 

1427: Now in the conventional CDM framework, the factor in the square

1428: brackets is unity, so the ratio (\ref{ratio1}) is proportional

1429: to $k$ and becomes large as $k\to\infty$.  Hence the fluid approximation breaks down on small scales,

1430: below the critical free-streaming lengthscale $\lambda_{\rm FS} \sim

1431: \sigma / \sqrt{G \rho}$.

1432: 

1433: In the present context things work a little differently due to the

1434: scale dependence of Newton's constant.

1435: We can rewrite Eq.\ (\ref{ratio1}) in the approximate form

1436: \begin{equation}

1437: \label{ratio2}

1438: \frac{d(k)}{\lambda} \sim \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}

1439:     \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{|c_s^2|}} \frac{\sqrt{2} k \mpl | \alpha'|}{m_{\rm eff}} & \mbox{ $k \ll

1440:         \frac{m_{\rm eff}}{\sqrt{2} \mpl |\alpha'|}$,}\\

1441:        \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{|c_s^2|}} & \mbox{

1442:         $\frac{m_{\rm eff}}{\sqrt{2} \mpl |\alpha'|} \ll k \ll m_{\rm

1443:           eff},$}\\

1444:          \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{|c_s^2|}} \frac{k}{m_{\rm eff}} &

1445:         \mbox{ $ m_{\rm eff} \ll k, $}\\

1446:         \end{array} \right.

1447: \end{equation}

1448: where $c_s^2 = - 8 \pi G e^\alpha \rho \mpl^2 \alpha^{\prime\,2} / m_{\rm eff}^2$

1449: is the constant value of the second term in the

1450: expression (\ref{ctot}) for $c_{\rm tot}^2$ in the range of scales

1451: (\ref{range3}), or equivalently the sound speed discussed in Sec.\ \ref{sec:hydro}.

1452: We see that the ratio $d(k)/\lambda$ is proportional to $k$ at large

1453: scales and at small scales, but that in the intermediate range of

1454: scales it is a constant, so that the effect of free streaming is

1455: equally important for all the modes in this range.

1456: If we define the free streaming lengthscale $\lambda_{\rm FS}(\sigma)$

1457: to be the smallest lengthscale for which free streaming is unimportant, $d(k)/\lambda \alt 1$, then we

1458: obtain

1459: \begin{equation}

1460: \label{lambdaFS}

1461: \lambda_{\rm FS}(\sigma) \sim \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{|c_s^2|}}

1462:     \frac{ \mpl | \alpha'|}{m_{\rm eff}} & \mbox{ $\sigma^2 \agt

1463:         |c_s^2|$,}\\

1464:        \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{|c_s^2|}} \frac{1}{m_{\rm eff}}& \mbox{

1465:         $\sigma^2 \alt |c_s^2|.$}\\

1466:         \end{array} \right.

1467: \end{equation}

1468: This lengthscale jumps discontinuously at $\sigma^2 \sim |c_s^2|$.

1469: 

1470: 

1471: 

1472: There are thus two different regimes that occur:

1473: \begin{itemize}

1474: 

1475: \item When $\sigma^2

1476: \ll |c_s^2|$, free streaming is important only at

1477: scales small compared to $1/m_{\rm eff}$ (for which the adiabatic

1478: approximation is invalid anyway).

1479: The fluid approximation is valid throughout the range of

1480: lengthscales (\ref{range3}), and so the adiabatic instability is present.

1481: This conclusion is confirmed by a kinetic theory analysis (see

1482: Appendix \ref{kinetic}), which shows

1483: that linearized perturbations of any

1484: homogeneous, isotropic initial particle distribution function are always unstable on scales

1485: that are in the regime (\ref{range3}), as long as $\sigma^2 \ll |c_s^2|$.

1486: 

1487: 

1488: 

1489: \item When $\sigma^2 \agt |c_s^2|$, free streaming becomes important

1490: and the fluid approximation breaks down throughout the range of scales

1491: (\ref{range3}).

1492: %\footnote{Normally for a fluid one

1493: %expects the sound speed to be of order the velocity

1494: %dispersion $\sigma$ of the particles.  This constraint does not apply

1495: %here since $c_s^2$ is a parameter that essentially arises from the

1496: %(scalar-mediated) gravitational interactions, and not from the

1497: %microphysics of the fluid.  Thus, it is possible to have $\sigma^2 \ll

1498: %|c_s^2|$ or $\sigma^2 \gg |c_s^2|$.}

1499: One expects the free streaming

1500: (also called Landau damping) to kill the instability.

1501: This is confirmed by our kinetic theory analysis of Appendix \ref{kinetic}:

1502: we show that for a Maxwellian distribution, the finite velocity

1503: dispersion stabilizes the coupled fluid whenever

1504: $\sigma^2 \ge | c_s^2|$, in agreement with the analysis of Ref.\ \cite{Afshordi:2005ym}.

1505: 

1506: \end{itemize}

1507: 

1508: 

1509: 

1510: Consider now the evolution of cosmological perturbation modes.  When

1511: will our analysis of instability apply?  First,

1512: the condition $\sigma^2 \le |c_s^2|$ is not

1513: very restrictive, since the CDM cools rapidly with the Universe's expansion, with

1514: temperature scaling as $(1+z)^2$ once the

1515: particles become non-relativistic.  For example, for CDM particles of

1516: mass $\sim $ GeV with weak scale cross sections, the CDM temperature

1517: is $\sim 10^{-4}$ K at decoupling \cite{Gunn}.

1518: However, after perturbations go nonlinear and

1519: violent relaxation takes place in CDM halos, the effective

1520: coarse-grained velocity dispersion becomes much larger.

1521: Hence, our analysis does not apply to modes that are in the nonlinear

1522: regime.  Our analysis will apply in the early Universe, before any

1523: modes have gone nonlinear.  It will also apply to large scale modes, even

1524: after smaller scale modes have gone nonlinear, since such large scale

1525: modes should still be well described by linear theory (see for example

1526: the qualitative arguments in chapter 28 of Peebles \cite{Peebles}).

1527: Our investigation of specific models later in the paper will focus on

1528: these large scale, linear regime modes.

1529: 

1530: We note that earlier investigations of the instability focused instead

1531: on small scale modes, below the free streaming scale $\lambda_{\rm

1532:   FS}$ \cite{Afshordi:2005ym,Kaplinghat:2006jk}.

1533: From the formula (\ref{lambdaFS}) we see that, for the models

1534: discussed here, either the adiabatic approximation is not valid on these

1535: small scales since $\lambda_{\rm FS} \alt 1/m_{\rm eff}$, or

1536: $\sigma^2 \agt |c_s^2|$ and the instability is killed by free streaming.

1537: 

1538: 

1539: 

1540: 

1541: 

1542: 

1543: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1544: \section{Examples of theories with adiabatic instability}

1545: \label{examples}

1546: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1547: In this section we discuss some specific classes of theories.

1548: 

1549: 

1550: \subsection{Exponential potential and constant coupling}

1551: \label{sec:exponential}

1552: 

1553: 

1554: We first consider theories with exponential potentials of the form

1555: \be

1556: V = V_0 e^{-\lambda \phi/\mpl} \ ,

1557: \label{expV}

1558: \ee

1559: with $\lambda>0$ and with linear coupling functions

1560: \be

1561: \alpha(\phi) = - \beta C \frac{\phi}{\mpl} \ ,

1562: \label{constantcoupling}

1563: \ee

1564: where $\beta = \sqrt{2/3}$ and $C$ is a constant.\footnote{The

1565:   notation in Eq.\ (\ref{constantcoupling}) is chosen such that $f(R)$

1566:   gravity theories correspond to $C=1/2$.}

1567: These theories have been previously studied in Ref.\ \cite{Amendola:1999er}.

1568: The effective potential is, from Eq.\ (\ref{phieqn}),

1569: \be

1570: V_{\rm eff}(\phi,\rho) = V_0 e^{-\lambda \phi/\mpl} + e^{-\beta C \phi/\mpl} \rho \ ,

1571: \ee

1572: and solving for the local minimum of this potential yields

1573: the relation between $\phi$ and $\rho$ in the adiabatic regime:

1574: \be

1575: e^{(\lambda -\beta C) \phi_{\rm m}(\rho)/\mpl} = \frac{ \lambda V_0 }{-\beta C

1576:   \rho} \ .

1577: \label{phimans}

1578: \ee

1579: Note that $C$ must be negative in order for

1580: the effective potential to have a local minimum and for an adiabatic

1581: regime to exist.  We will restrict attention to this case, and we

1582: define the dimensionless

1583: positive parameter $\gamma = - \lambda / \beta C$.

1584: The corresponding effective mass parameter is

1585: \be

1586: m_{\rm eff}^2 = \lambda^2 \mpl^{-2} V_0 \frac{1+\gamma}{\gamma} \left( \frac{

1587:     \rho}{\gamma V_0} \right)^{\frac{\gamma}{\gamma+1}} \ .

1588: \label{mass1}

1589: \ee

1590: 

1591: 

1592: Next, we compute the sound speed squared.  Using Eq.\

1593: (\ref{soundspeed}) we obtain

1594: \be

1595: c_s^2  =  - \frac{1}{1+\gamma} \ ,

1596: \label{cs21}

1597: \ee

1598: so this

1599: model is always unstable in the adiabatic regime.

1600: From Eqs.\ (\ref{expV}) and (\ref{phimans}) we also obtain

1601: \be

1602: \frac{\partial \ln V}{\partial \ln \rho} = \frac{\gamma}{1 + \gamma} \ .

1603: \label{logd}

1604: \ee

1605: We now insert the effective mass (\ref{mass1}), the sound speed

1606: squared (\ref{cs21}) and the logarithmic derivative

1607: (\ref{logd})

1608: into Eq.\ (\ref{einsteincheck1a})

1609: and into the second half of

1610: Eq.\ (\ref{range}).  This yields the range of spatial scales ${\cal

1611:   L}$ over which

1612: the instability operates for a given density $\rho$ to be

1613: ${\cal L}_{\rm min}(\rho) \ll {\cal L} \ll {\cal L}_{\rm max}(\rho)$,

1614: where

1615: \be

1616: {\cal L}_{\rm min}(\rho)^2 = \frac{\gamma^2 }{\lambda^2 (1 + \gamma)^2 }

1617: \frac{\mpl^2}{V_0}

1618: \left( \frac{ \gamma

1619:     V_0}{ \rho} \right)^{\frac{\gamma}{\gamma+1}}

1620: \label{Lmin2}

1621: \ee

1622: and ${\cal L}_{\rm max}(\rho)^2$ is a constant times this:

1623: \be

1624: {\cal L}_{\rm max}(\rho)^2 = \beta^2 C^2 {\cal L}_{\rm min}(\rho)^2 \ .

1625: \label{Lmax2}

1626: \ee

1627: Thus, there is a nonempty unstable regime only when $\beta |C| \gg 1$,

1628: ie with the scalar coupling is strong compared to the gravitational

1629: coupling, in agreement with the discussion in Sec.\ \ref{sec:scales}.

1630: 

1631: To see the effect of the instability more explicitly, we consider cosmological perturbations.

1632: The Einstein-frame FRW equation in the adiabatic limit is

1633: \be

1634: 3 \mpl^2 H^2 = V + e^\alpha \rho \ ,

1635: \label{cosmo1}

1636: \ee

1637: where $\rho \propto 1/a^3$.  This yields $a(t) \propto t^{2/(3 + 3 w_{\rm eff})}$, where

1638: the effective equation of state parameter is

1639: \be

1640: w_{\rm eff} = - \frac{1}{1 + \gamma} \ .

1641: \label{weff1}

1642: \ee

1643: In the strong coupling limit $|C| \to \infty$ that we specialize to here, $w_{\rm eff} \to -1$.

1644: Thus the adiabatic regime of this model with large $|C|$ is incompatible with

1645: observations in the matter dominated era, where we know $w_{\rm eff} \approx

1646: 0$ except for at small redshifts.

1647: Nevertheless, the model is still

1648: useful as an illustration of the instability.

1649: 

1650: 

1651: We find from Eqs.\ (\ref{Lmin2}), (\ref{Lmax2}) and (\ref{cosmo1})

1652: that the range of unstable scales is given by

1653: \be

1654: \frac{1}{\beta^2 C^2} \ll \frac{H^2 a^2}{k^2}  \ll \frac{1}{3(1+\gamma)} \ ,

1655: \ee

1656: where $k$ is comoving wavenumber.  This range of scales always lies

1657: just inside the horizon.  A given mode $k$ will evolve through this

1658: unstable region before it exits the horizon.

1659: 

1660: 

1661: Next we use the approximate form (\ref{Gcc1}) of Newton's constant in the

1662: perturbation evolution equation (\ref{perts}), and transform from $t$

1663: derivatives to $a$ derivatives.

1664: This gives

1665: \be

1666: \frac{d^2 \delta}{d a^2} + \frac{3}{a} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{2} \frac{d

1667:     \ln \rho_{\rm eff}}{d \ln \rho} \right) \frac{d \delta}{da} -

1668: \left( \frac{ (\alpha^\prime)^2 k^2 e^\alpha \rho}{m_{\rm eff}^2 H^2

1669:     a^4} \right) \delta =0 \ .

1670: \ee

1671: Specializing this equation to the exponential model using Eqs.\

1672: (\ref{constantcoupling}), (\ref{phimans}), (\ref{mass1}) and

1673: (\ref{cosmo1}) and taking the strong coupling limit

1674: $|C| \to \infty$ gives

1675: \be

1676: \frac{d^2 \delta}{d a^2} + \frac{3}{a} \frac{d \delta}{da} -

1677: \frac{k^2}{ H^2 a^4} \delta =0 \ .

1678: \ee

1679: In the strong coupling limit $H$ is approximately a constant, $H

1680: \approx H_0$, and the growing mode solution is

1681: \be

1682: \delta(a) \propto \frac{1}{a} K_1\left(\frac{k}{H_0 a}\right) \approx

1683: \sqrt{ \frac{\pi H_0}{2 k a}} \exp \left(-\frac{k}{H_0 a} \right) \ ,

1684: \ee

1685: where $K_1$ is the modified Bessel function.  The mode grows by a

1686: factor $\sim e$ when the scale factor changes from $a$ to $a + \Delta

1687: a$, where $\Delta a/a \sim a H_0 / k \ll 1$ for subhorizon

1688: modes.

1689: 

1690: A more detailed analysis of the cosmology of this model is given in

1691: Ref.\ \cite{paperIII}, but in the non-adiabatic regime $|C| \sim 1$ rather than the

1692: strong coupling regime $|C| \gg 1$ considered here.

1693: 

1694: 

1695: \subsection{Two component dark matter models}

1696: \label{sec:twocomponent}

1697: 

1698: We next consider models in which there are two dark matter sectors, a

1699: density $\rho_c$ which is not coupled to the scalar field, and a

1700: density $\rho_{co}$ which is coupled with coupling function (\ref{constantcoupling})

1701: and exponential potential (\ref{expV}).

1702: Both of these components are treated as pressureless fluids.

1703: The FRW equation for this model in the adiabatic limit is

1704: [cf.\ Eq.\ (\ref{cosmo1}) above]

1705: \be

1706: 3 \mpl^2 H^2 = V + e^\alpha \rho_{co} + \rho_c \ .

1707: \label{cosmo2}

1708: \ee

1709: Similar two component models have been considered by Farrar and Peebles

1710: \cite{Farrar:2003uw}.  This model is also similar to the mass varying

1711: neutrino model model \cite{Afshordi:2005ym,Bjaelde:2007ki}

1712: where the neutrinos play the role of the coupled component; see Sec.\

1713: \ref{sec:MaVaN} below.

1714: The first two terms on the right hand

1715: side of Eq.\ (\ref{cosmo2}) act like a fluid with equation of state

1716: parameter given by (\ref{weff1}), and in the strong coupling limit

1717: $|C| \gg 1$ this

1718: fluid acts like a cosmological constant.  Thus, the background

1719: cosmology can be made close to $\Lambda$CDM by taking $|C|$ to be

1720: large.

1721: 

1722: The fraction of dark matter which is coupled must be small in the

1723: limit of large coupling, $|C| \gg 1$.

1724: Denoting $\Omega_V = V / (3 \mpl^2 H^2)$,

1725: $\Omega_{co} = e^\alpha \rho_{co} / (3 \mpl^2 H^2)$ and

1726: $\Omega_c = \rho_c / (3 \mpl^2 H^2)$, we have $1 = \Omega_V +

1727: \Omega_{co} + \Omega_c$.  Also from Eq.\ (\ref{phimans}) it follows

1728: that, if the asymptotic adiabatic regime  has been reached, $\Omega_{co} = \gamma \Omega_V$, and we we obtain

1729: \be

1730: \Omega_{co} = \frac{\gamma}{1 + \gamma} (1 - \Omega_c) \ .

1731: \label{Omegaco}

1732: \ee

1733: Since $\Omega_c \sim 0.3$ today, and $\gamma \ll 1$ in the strong

1734: coupling limit we are considering, we must have $\Omega_{co} \ll 1$

1735: today.

1736: 

1737: 

1738: 

1739: The maximum and minimum lengthscales for the instability are still

1740: given by Eqs.\ (\ref{Lmin2}) and (\ref{Lmax2}), but with $\rho$ replaced by

1741: $\rho_{co}$.  Since $\rho_{\rm co}$ is approximately a constant in the

1742: strong coupling limit, these lengthscales are also constants.

1743: If the parameters of the model are chosen so that $\Omega_c \sim 1$

1744: today, then

1745: \be

1746: {\cal L}_{\rm max} \sim H_0^{-1}, \ \ \ \ {\cal L}_{\rm min} \sim

1747: \frac{H_0^{-1}}{\beta |C|} \ .

1748: \label{scales0}

1749: \ee

1750: The evolution equations for the fractional density perturbations

1751: $\delta_{\rm j} = \delta \rho_{\rm j} / \rho_{\rm j}$

1752: in the adiabatic limit on subhorizon scales

1753: are given by

1754: \be

1755: {\ddot \delta}_{\rm j} + 2 H {\dot \delta}_{\rm j} - 4\pi \sum_k

1756: G_{{\rm j}{\rm k}}

1757: \rho_{\rm k} e^{\alpha_{\rm k}} \delta_{\rm k}=0 \ ,

1758: \ee

1759: where the effective Newton's constants are given by Eq.\

1760: (\ref{Gformula}) with $\alpha_b$ set to zero.  Writing this out

1761: explicitly we obtain

1762: \bea

1763: {\ddot \delta}_c + 2 H {\dot \delta}_c &=& \frac{1}{2 \mpl^2} \rho_c \delta_c +

1764: \frac{1}{2 \mpl^2} e^\alpha \rho_{co} \delta_{co}, \\

1765: {\ddot \delta}_{co} + 2 H {\dot \delta}_{co} &=& \frac{1}{2 \mpl^2}

1766: \rho_c \delta_c \nonumber \\

1767: &&+

1768: \frac{1}{2 \mpl^2} \left[ 1 + \frac{2 \beta^2 C^2}{1 + \frac{m_{\rm

1769:         eff}^2 a^2}{k^2}} \right] e^\alpha \rho_{co}

1770: \delta_{co} \ . \nonumber \\

1771: \label{uns}

1772: \eea

1773: The condition for the instability to operate is that

1774: the timescale associated with the second

1775: term on the right hand side of Eq.\ (\ref{uns}) be short compared with

1776: $H^{-1}$, or

1777: \be

1778: \frac{\beta^2 C^2 k^2}{m_{\rm eff}^2 a^2} \rho_{co} e^\alpha \gg H^2

1779: \mpl^2 \ .

1780: \label{condt4}

1781: \ee

1782: Now the effective mass for this model is given by

1783: $m_{\rm eff}^2 = \beta^2 C^2 \mpl^{-2} (V + e^\alpha \rho_{co}) = 3

1784: \beta^2 C^2 \mpl^{-2} H^2 (\Omega_V + \Omega_{co})$.  Substituting this

1785: into Eq.\ (\ref{condt4}) and using Eq.\ (\ref{Omegaco}) gives the criterion

1786: $k/(a H) \gg 1$.  Therefore

1787: the instability should operate whenever modes are inside the horizon

1788: and in the range of scales (\ref{scales0}).

1789: 

1790: \begin{figure}[t]

1791: \begin{center}

1792: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{fig1.ps}

1793: \caption{[Bottom] The two component coupled dark energy (CDE)

1794:   model, with exponential potential and coupling, with $\lambda =2$ and coupling $C=-20$ with $H_0=70 \, {\rm km} \, {\rm s}^{-1}\, {\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, $\Omega_{b}=0.05$,

1795:   $\Omega_{c}=0.2$, $\Omega_{co}=0.05$, and $\Omega_{V}=0.70$. At late times the scalar field finds the adiabatic minimum with asymptotic equation of state, and sound speed $= -1/(1+\gamma) = -0.89$, able to reproduce a viable background evolution consistent   with supernovae, CMB angular diameter distance and BBN expansion

1796:   history constraints. The figure shows the evolution of the effective equation of state, $w_{eff} = P_{tot}/\rho_{tot}=(2/3) (d\ln t / d\ln a) -1,$ (black full line), the adiabatic speed of sound, $c_{a}^{2}=\dot{P}/\dot{\rho}$ for all components (blue long dashed line) and for the coupled components only (green dot long dashed line), and effective speed of sound for $c_s^2=\delta P/\delta\rho$ at $k=0.01/Mpc$ for all components (red dot-dashed line)  and for the coupled components alone (magenta dotted line). The effective equation of state for a comparable $\Lambda$CDM model with $\Omega_{c}=0.25$, $\Omega_b=0.05$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$ is also shown (black dashed line). [Top] The growth of the fractional over-density $\delta=\delta\rho/\rho$ for $k=0.01/Mpc$ for the coupled CDM component, $\delta_{co}$, (red long dashed line) and uncoupled component, $\delta_{c}$, (black full line) in comparison to the growth for the $\Lambda$CDM model (black dashed line). At late times the adiabatic behavior triggers a dramatic increase in the rate of growth of both uncoupled and coupled components, leading to structure predictions inconsistent with observations.\label{fig1}}

1797: \end{center}

1798: \end{figure}

1799: 

1800: These expectations are confirmed by numerical integrations.

1801: In figure \ref{fig1}  we present a numerical analysis

1802: of such a two component model. We consider an exponential potential with $\lambda =2$ and strong

1803: coupling with $C=-20$, and typical cosmological parameters are assumed,

1804: $H_0=70 \, {\rm km} \, {\rm s}^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$,

1805: $\Omega_{b}=0.05$, $\Omega_{c}=0.2$, $\Omega_{co}=0.05$, and

1806: $\Omega_{V}=0.7$. We fix initial conditions of $\phi/\mpl=10^{-3}$ and

1807: $\dot\phi=0$ at $a=10^{-10}$, although the dynamical attractor renders

1808: the final evolution largely insensitive to these choices, we have checked that $\phi/\mpl(a=10^{-10})=10^{-30}-1$ give the same evolution. We neglect the effect of the coupled CDM component peculiar velocity in the initial conditions (it is many orders of magnitude smaller than  the density perturbation) and assume

1809: that the coupled  and uncoupled CDM components have the same initial

1810: fractional density perturbations $\delta_c=\delta_{co}$, fixed by the

1811: usual adiabatic initial conditions. As shown in figure \ref{fig1}, the

1812: background evolution is entirely consistent with a $\Lambda$CDM like

1813: scenario, with $w_{\rm eff}=-0.69$ today

1814: and an asymptotic equation of state at

1815: late times, given by (\ref{weff1}), $w_{\rm eff} = -1/(1+\gamma)=-0.89$. The large

1816: coupling drives the evolution to an adiabatic regime at late times,

1817: with an adiabatic sound speed $c_{a}^{2}\rightarrow -1/(1+\gamma)$ as

1818: in (\ref{cs21}). This drives a rapid growth in over-densities once in the adiabatic regime so that although consistent with structure observations at early times, they are inconsistent once the accelerative regime has begun.

1819: 

1820: 

1821: 

1822: 

1823: 

1824: 

1825: In summary, these models provide a class of theories for which the

1826: background cosmology is compatible with observations, but which are

1827: ruled out by the adiabatic instability of the perturbations.

1828: 

1829: 

1830: \subsection{Chameleon models}

1831: 

1832: Next we study the so-called chameleon models \cite{Khoury:2003aq,Khoury:2003rn}

1833: defined by the potential

1834: \be

1835: V(\phi) = \lambda M^4 \left( \frac{M }{\phi} \right)^n \ ,

1836: \ee

1837: where $M$ is a mass scale and $n>0$ and $\lambda$ are dimensionless constants,

1838: together with the coupling function~(\ref{constantcoupling}).

1839: In these models it has been previously shown that the adiabatic regime

1840: is achieved in static solutions describing macroscopic bodies like

1841: the Earth, and that cosmological solutions in the adiabatic regime

1842: provide good models of dark energy \cite{Brax:2004qh,Brax:2004px,Brax:2005ew}.

1843: We now study under what conditions these models are

1844: unstable.

1845: 

1846: 

1847: The effective potential is, from Eq.\ (\ref{phieqn}),

1848: \be

1849: V_{\rm eff}(\phi,\rho) = \lambda M^4 \left( \frac{M }{\phi} \right)^n

1850:  + e^{-\beta C \phi/\mpl} \rho \ ,

1851: \ee

1852: and solving for the local minimum of this potential yields

1853: the relation between $\phi$ and $\rho$ in the adiabatic regime:

1854: \be

1855: x^{n+1} e^x = \frac{\rho_{\rm crit}}{\rho} \ ,

1856: \label{xeqn}

1857: \ee

1858: Here $x = -\beta C \phi_c(\rho)/\mpl$ is dimensionless and the critical density is

1859: \be

1860: \rho_{\rm crit} = n \lambda M^4 \left(\frac{-\beta C M}{\mpl}\right)^n \ .

1861: \ee

1862: As before the existence of a local minimum in the effective potential requires

1863: $C$ to be negative.

1864: We shall restrict attention to the regime

1865: \be

1866: \rho \gg \rho_{\rm crit}

1867: \label{highdensity}

1868: \ee

1869: since for models of dark energy $\rho_{\rm crit}$ will be of order the

1870: present day cosmological density.  In this

1871: regime the solution to Eq.\ (\ref{xeqn}) is approximately

1872: \be

1873: x \approx \left( \frac{\rho_{\rm crit} }{\rho} \right)^{\frac{1}{n+1}}.

1874: \ee

1875: The corresponding effective mass parameter is

1876: \be

1877: m_{\rm eff}^2 = (x + n + 1) n \lambda M^2 \left( \frac{-\beta C M}{x \mpl} \right)^{n+2},

1878: \label{mass2}

1879: \ee

1880: which in the regime (\ref{highdensity}) simplifies to

1881: \be

1882: m_{\rm eff}^2 = (n+1) (-\beta C)^2 \mpl^{-2} \rho_{\rm crit} \left( \frac{\rho}{\rho_{\rm crit}}

1883: \right)^{\frac{n+2}{n+1}}.

1884: \ee

1885: 

1886: Next, we compute the sound speed squared.  Using Eq.\

1887: (\ref{soundspeed}) we obtain

1888: \be

1889: \frac{1}{c_s^2}  = -1 -  \frac{n+1}{(-\beta C)} \frac{\mpl}{\phi},

1890: \label{cs213}

1891: \ee

1892: and since $C$ is negative, we see that this

1893: model is always unstable in the adiabatic regime.

1894: Inserting the effective mass (\ref{mass2}) and the sound speed squared (\ref{cs213})

1895: into Eq.\ (\ref{range}) we obtain the range of spatial scales ${\cal

1896:   L}$ over which

1897: the instability operates for a given density $\rho$:

1898: \be

1899: {\cal L}_{\rm min}(\rho)^2 \ll {\cal L}^2 \ll

1900: (\beta C)^2  {\cal L}_{\rm min}(\rho)^2,

1901: \label{range2}

1902: \ee

1903: where

1904: \be

1905: {\cal L}_{\rm min}^2(\rho) = \frac{\mpl^2}{ (n+1) (\beta C)^2 \rho_{\rm crit}} \left(

1906:   \frac{ \rho_{\rm crit} }{\rho} \right)^{\frac{n+2}{n+1}}.

1907: \ee

1908: We see that the range of unstable lengthscales is non-empty only if

1909: \be

1910: \beta |C| \gg 1,

1911: \label{ad34}

1912: \ee

1913: which as before is equivalent to the strong coupling condition (\ref{strongcoupling}).

1914: Note that the first of the two inequalities in

1915: Eq.\ (\ref{range2}) is equivalent to the ``thin-shell condition'' of Ref.\

1916: \cite{Khoury:2003rn}

1917: when the background value of the scalar field can be neglected.

1918: 

1919: 

1920: As for the exponential models of Sec.\ \ref{sec:exponential}, the

1921: effective equation of state $w_{\rm eff}$ is close to $-1$

1922: in the adiabatic regime for large coupling, assuming $\rho \gg \rho_{\rm crit}$.

1923: Therefore these models do not give an acceptable background cosmology for the matter dominated era

1924: in their adiabatic regime.  However, one can construct two component

1925: models analogous to those in Sec.\ \ref{sec:twocomponent} using the

1926: chameleon potential.  Those models give an acceptable background

1927: cosmology, but are then ruled out by the adiabatic instability.

1928: 

1929: \subsection{Mass Varying Neutrino (``MaVaN'') models }

1930: \label{sec:MaVaN}

1931: 

1932: The impact of adiabatic instabilities has been discussed extensively in the context of MaVaN models, in which the light mass of the neutrino and the recent accelerative era are twinned together through a scalar field coupling \cite{Fardon:2003eh,Kaplan:2004dq,Fardon:2005wc}.  The adiabatic instability was shown to be a concern in these models with the implication of forming compact localized regions of neutrinos after undergoing dramatic adiabatic collapse \cite{Afshordi:2005ym}.

1933: 

1934: 

1935: The action for the MaVaN models is of the form (\ref{eq:action10}) with $p=0$.

1936: Therefore the analysis in the earlier sections of this paper, which

1937: assumed $p=2$, does not directly apply to these models.  However it is

1938: straightforward to generalize our analysis to cover this case.

1939: Consistent with the general discussion in sections

1940: \ref{adiabatic}-\ref{instability}, the instability is present in these

1941: theories if the coupling is strong. Here we discuss examples of

1942: models which evade or are subject to the instability on cosmological

1943: scales.

1944: 

1945: Recently,  Ref.\ \cite{Bjaelde:2007ki} discussed a MaVaN scenario with a logarithmic potential and scalar dependent mass,

1946: \bea

1947: V(\phi) &= &V_0\log(1+\xi\phi) \

1948: \\

1949: \label{mavan1}

1950: m_\nu(\phi) &=& m_{\nu 0}\left(\frac{\phi_*}{\phi}\right) \ ,

1951: \eea

1952: where $\xi$ is a constant and $m_{\nu 0}$ and $\phi_*$ are the current values of the neutrino mass and the scalar field respectively.

1953: It was found in \cite{Bjaelde:2007ki} that this model can exhibit an instability in growth for an otherwise cosmologically viable background solution. We find, however, that this model can also allow stable solutions for identical fractional densities today as those studied in \cite{Bjaelde:2007ki}, for a wide range of parameter values. If the coupling, $m_\nu'/m_\nu$, is not large compared to $\mpl^{-1}$ at late times, the evolution never enters the adiabatic regime on cosmic scales. This translates in this model to $\phi_*$ not being significantly less than $\mpl$.

1954: 

1955: 

1956: 

1957: The MaVaN model evolves according to a coupled Klein Gordon equation,

1958: \bea

1959: \ddot{\phi} + 2H \dot\phi +a^2V'(\phi) &=& -a^2 (\rho'_\nu(\phi)-3P'_\nu(\phi)) \ .\ \ \ \ \ \ \label{KGnu}

1960: \eea

1961: Assuming no chemical potential, and $g$ spin states per neutrino species with momentum $p$ and mass $m$ ,the neutrino density and pressure are given by

1962: \bea

1963: a^4 \rho_\nu& = & {g (k_{B}T_{\nu}^{0})^{4} \over 2\pi^{2}} \int_{0}^{\infty} dq q^{2} (q^{2}+a^{2}\bar{m}_\nu^{2})^{1\over 2} f(q) \\

1964: a^4 P_\nu & = & {g (k_{B}T_{\nu}^{0})^{4} \over 2\pi^{2}} \int_{0}^{\infty} dq q^{2} {q^{2}\over 3(q^{2}+a^{2}\bar{m}_\nu^{2})^{1\over 2}} f(q) \ \  \ \ \

1965: \\

1966: f(q)&\approx& \left[\exp\left({q}\right)+1\right]^{-1} \ ,

1967: \eea

1968:  with $q \equiv ap/ k_{B}T_{\nu}^{0}$ and $\bar{m}_\nu\equiv m_\nu c^{2}/k_{B}T_{\nu}^{0}$.

1969: 

1970: In the relativistic regime, with $\bar{m}\ll 1$, the potential is negligible and the driving term, on the right hand side of  (\ref{KGnu}), can be calculated by doing a Taylor expansion to first order in $\bar{m}_\nu$,

1971: \bea

1972: a^4 (\rho_\nu-3P_\nu)

1973: & \approx &{g (k_{B}T_{\nu}^{0})^{4} \over 2\pi^{2}} \int_{0}^{\infty} dq q f(q) a^{2}\bar{m}_\nu^{2} \ \

1974: \\

1975: a^{2}(\rho_\nu-3P_\nu)

1976: &\approx&  \frac{10}{7\pi^2}\bar{m}_\nu(\phi)^{2}\rho_0 \ ,

1977: \eea

1978: so that

1979: \bea

1980: a^{2}(\rho'_\nu-3P'_\nu) &\approx& -\frac{2}{\phi}(\rho_\nu-3P_\nu) a^{2} \ ,

1981: \label{rhopres}

1982: \eea

1983: where $\rho_0\equiv 7\pi^2 g(k_BT_\nu^0)^4 /240$ would be the relativistic neutrino energy density per neutrino species today with temperature $T_{\nu}^{0}$.

1984: 

1985: 

1986: Putting (\ref{rhopres}) into (\ref{KGnu}) and neglecting the potential

1987: we find a power law attractor $\phi\propto \tau^{x}$ with $x=0.5$.

1988: The normalization of $\phi$ is wholly specified in the attractor by (\ref{KGnu}). Writing $\phi = \phi_i(\tau/\tau_i)^{0.5}$, and $a\propto\tau^{p}$, with $p=2/(1+3w_{\rm eff})$, we find

1989: \bea

1990: \phi &=& \left[\frac{80\rho_0m_{\nu 0}^{2}\phi_*^{2}}{7\pi^2(4p-1)}\right]^{0.25}\tau^{0.5} \ .

1991: \label{phinorm}

1992: \eea

1993: 

1994: When the neutrino is non-relativistic, if we again neglect the potential,

1995: \bea

1996: (\rho_\nu-3P_\nu) &=&  \frac{3H_{0}^{2}\mpl^2 \Omega_\nu}{a^3} \left(\frac{\phi_*}{\phi}\right)

1997: \\

1998: a^2(\rho'_\nu-3P'_\nu) &=&-\frac{3H_{0}^{2}\mpl^2 \Omega_\nu\phi_*}{a} \left(\frac{1}{\phi^{2}}\right) \ .

1999: \eea

2000: The Klein-Gordon equation has a solution $\phi \propto \tau^x$ with $x=(2-p)/3$, tending towards a cessation of growth in $\phi$ in the matter dominated era.

2001: \begin{figure}[t]

2002: \begin{center}

2003: \includegraphics[width=3.6in]{fig2.ps}

2004: \caption{[Top panels] Evolution of $m_\nu(\phi)$ and neutrino temperature (left), and associated equation of state and adiabatic sound speed (right) for MaVaN model described in the text with $m_{\nu 0}=0.312eV$ and $\phi_*=1.8\mpl$. [Bottom left panel] Scalar field evolution in the MaVaN scenario, for 3 values of $\phi_*\sim 10^{-3}\mpl$, $0.3\mpl$ and $1.8\mpl$ (full lines) showing the $\tau^{0.5}$ attractor while the neutrino is relativistic allowing late time evolution to be independent of initial conditions. The vacuum expectation value of the scalar field, if the field becomes adiabatic, (dashed lines) is also shown. For $\phi_* \gtrsim 10^{-2}\mpl$ the scalar field does not enter an adiabatic era on cosmological scales before now, and growth of perturbations remains well-behaved. For smaller $\phi_*$, for example $\phi_*\sim 10^{-3}\mpl$ shown, the evolution is adiabatic at late times, similar to that discussed in \cite{Bjaelde:2007ki}. [Bottom right panel] The resulting matter power spectrum from the coupled dark energy (CDE) model with $\phi_* = 1.8\mpl$ and $\Omega_\nu=0.02$ (full line) is very similar to that for $\Lambda$CDM (dashed line) with the same baryon fraction and $H_0$, $\Omega_m=0.3$, $\Omega_\nu=0.02$ when normalized at large scales.}\label{fig2}

2005: \end{center}

2006: 

2007: \end{figure}

2008: 

2009: 

2010: 

2011: If the neutrinos are non-relativistic (but, of course, assuming that

2012: they decoupled when they were relativistic)

2013: \bea

2014: (\rho_\nu-3P_\nu) &\approx& N_\nu \frac{n_0}{a^3} m_{\nu 0} \left(\frac{\phi_*}{\phi}\right)

2015: \\

2016: & \approx& \frac{180\zeta(3)}{7\pi^4}\frac{\rho_0}{a^{3}} N_\nu \bar{m}_{\nu0}\left(\frac{\phi_*}{\phi}\right) \ .

2017: \eea

2018: At late times, the complete effective potential is relevant, for which there exists a minimum at positive $\phi$ given by

2019: \bea

2020: \frac{\phi_{VEV}}{\phi_*}  = \frac{1}{a^{3}}\frac{\Omega_{\nu}}{\Omega_{pot}}\log(1+\xi\phi_*) \ .

2021: \eea

2022: 

2023: 

2024: We modified CAMB \cite{Lewis:2002ah} to investigate the evolution numerically.

2025: % corrected a misspelling in the following sentence, "tos a fiducial"

2026: % -> "to a fiducial"

2027: In figure \ref{fig2} we show the scalar field and neutrino mass evolution for $\xi = 10^{20}\mpl^{-1}$, $\phi_*=1.8\mpl$, and $m_{\nu 0}=0.312eV$ (giving $\Omega_\nu=0.02$), $\Omega_b=0.05$, $\Omega_c=0.23$, $H_0=70 $kms$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$.  In the bottom left hand figure, the numerical evolution of scalar field is shown for $\phi_*=1.8\mpl$ along with two smaller values $\phi_*\sim 10^{-3}\mpl$ and $0.3\mpl$ for which the minimum of the effective potential is steeper. The background evolution obeys the $\phi\sim\tau^{0.5}$ attractor and normalization in (\ref{phinorm}), rendering it largely independent of the initial conditions. When the neutrino becomes non-relativistic the evolution slows and for small values of $\phi_*$ starts to track the VEV, as discussed in \cite{Bjaelde:2007ki}. However for larger values of $\phi_*$, the VEV is not reached until later times, and in addition, the effective potential minimum is shallow enough that the scalar field does not get fixed at the VEV automatically, enabling well-behaved growth. The bottom right hand figure shows the resultant matter power spectrum, which is very similar to a fiducial $\Lambda$CDM model with the same Hubble factor, baryon and neutrino density today when normalized to the same amplitude at large scales.

2028: 

2029: 

2030: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2031: \section{Conclusions}

2032: \label{conclusions}

2033: 

2034: If dark energy and dark matter are to fit into a coherent fundamental

2035: physics framework then there are likely couplings between them.

2036: Such couplings may have far reaching macroscopic implications on scales

2037: ranging from the solar system up to cosmological horizon. As we have

2038: discussed, these effects may lead to observationally distinctive

2039: characteristics, which may allow us to tease out the nature of the

2040: dark sector. However they may also give rise to catastrophic

2041: instabilities with which we may constrain the class of physically

2042: viable dark energy models.

2043: 

2044: In this paper we have  considered such theories in which there exists a nontrivial coupling between the

2045: dark matter sector and the sector responsible for the acceleration of the universe.

2046: 

2047: We have comprehensively analyzed an instability -- characterized by a

2048: negative sound speed squared of

2049: an effective coupled dark matter/dark energy fluid -- that exists

2050: whenever such theories enter an adiabatic regime in which the scalar

2051: field faithfully tracks the minimum of the effective potential, and

2052: the coupling strength is strong compared to gravitational strength.

2053: The adiabatic regime occurs when the relaxation time scale associated with

2054: the scalar field is much shorter than the Hubble time. We have

2055: demonstrated how this instability can be viewed from the

2056: alternative perspectives of the kinetic theory of dark matter and as a

2057: Jeans instability associated with modified Newton's constants.

2058: 

2059: We have established the conditions under which the adiabatic instability occurs, finding  a condition on the coupling, $|\alpha'|\mpl\gg1$, and have identified the time and length scales over which the instability is active in a given setting governed by the matter density.  These length scales can differ greatly dependent on whether one is considering galactic or cosmic densities.

2060: 

2061: Our work builds on previous analyses  of MaVaN

2062: \cite{Fardon:2003eh,Kaplan:2004dq,Fardon:2005wc,Afshordi:2005ym,Bjaelde:2007ki},

2063: chameleon \cite{Khoury:2003aq,Khoury:2003rn}, and general coupled

2064: scenarios \cite{Kaplinghat:2006jk}. Our numerical analyses of coupled

2065: CDM and MaVaN models reinforce our analytic findings. We show that the

2066: regime of adiabatic behavior agrees with the predictions based on coupling strength and length scale

2067: conditions mentioned above.  In the appropriate limits, our results

2068: reduce to the previous findings in a number of cases, while in several

2069: other cases we have provided corrected results. In particular,  we

2070: have shown that stable MaVaN models exist that evade the instability,

2071: if $m_\nu'/m_\nu$ is not large compared to $\mpl$.

2072: 

2073: 

2074: 

2075: 

2076: \acknowledgments

2077: 

2078: We would like to thank Ole Bjaelde,  Anthony Brookfield, Steen

2079: Hannestad, Carsten Van der Bruck, Ira Wasserman and Christoph

2080: Wetterich for useful discussions in the course of this work.

2081: We thank an anonymous referee for some helpful comments.

2082: RB's work is supported by National Science Foundation (NSF) grants AST-0607018 and PHY-0555216, EF's by

2083: NSF grants PHY-0457200 and PHY-0555216, and MT's by NSF grant

2084: PHY-0354990 and by the Research Corporation.

2085: 

2086: \appendix

2087: 

2088: 

2089: \section{Effect of normal matter on instability}

2090: \label{visible}

2091: 

2092: In the body of this paper

2093: we have neglected the effect of baryons and the other matter

2094: species, assuming that their

2095: density is much smaller than that of the dark matter.

2096: A natural

2097: question is does the instability persist in regimes where the density

2098: of visible matter

2099: density is comparable to or larger than that of the dark matter -- one

2100: might expect the instability to be killed by

2101: the pressure of the visible matter.  In general the answer

2102: depends on the coupling function $\alpha_b$ in the action

2103: (\ref{action0}), which governs the coupling of the scalar field $\phi$

2104: to normal matter.  The instability persists in two specific cases, (i)

2105: $\alpha_b =0$ where normal matter is uncoupled from $\phi$, and

2106: (ii) $\alpha_b = \alpha_c$, the case usually considered in which

2107: dark matter and normal matter couple the same way to the scalar field,

2108: respecting the equivalence principle.

2109: 

2110: To derive this result, we generalize the derivation given in the body of the paper

2111: from a single, pressureless fluid to a set of $N$ non-interacting

2112: fluids, each of which can have a pressure.

2113: We start from the action (\ref{action0}),

2114: and we define the Jordan frame metric that the ${\rm

2115:   j}$th sector couples minimally to by

2116: \be

2117: {\bar g}_{{\rm j}\,ab} = e^{2 \alpha_{\rm j}(\phi)} g_{ab} \ .

2118: \label{Jordan1}

2119: \ee

2120: The stress energy tensor ${\bar T}_{{\rm j}}^{\,ab}$ of the ${\rm

2121: j}$th sector is defined by

2122: \be

2123: S_{\rm j}[ {\bar g}_{{\rm j}\,ab} + \delta {\bar g}_{{\rm j}\,ab}, \Psi_{\rm

2124:     j}] = S_{\rm j}[ {\bar g}_{{\rm j}\,ab}, \Psi_{\rm j}] + \frac{1}{2}

2125: \int d^4 x \sqrt{- {\bar g}_{\rm j}} {\bar T}_{{\rm j}}^{\,ab}

2126: \delta {\bar g}_{{\rm j}\,ab} \ ,

2127: \ee

2128: and we assume it has the form of a perfect fluid

2129: \be

2130: {\bar T}_{{\rm j}}^{\,ab} = ( {\bar \rho}_{\rm j} + {\bar p}_{\rm

2131:   j}) {\bar u}_{\rm j}^{\,a} {\bar u}_{\rm j}^{\,b} + {\bar

2132:   p}_{\rm j} {\bar g}_{\rm j}^{\,ab} \ .

2133: \ee

2134: Here ${\bar u}_{\rm j}^{\,a}$ is the 4-velocity which is normalized

2135: according to ${\bar g}_{{\rm j}\,ab} {\bar u}_{\rm j}^{\,a}

2136: {\bar u}_{\rm j}^{\,b} = -1$.

2137: This perfect fluid assumption requires that the matter in the jth

2138: sector be barotropic, ie that its pressure be determined uniquely by its density,

2139: which in many regimes is a good approximation.

2140: 

2141: The equation of motion of the ${\rm j}$th fluid is

2142: \be

2143: {\bar \nabla}_{{\rm j}\,a} {\bar T}_{\rm j}^{\,ab} = 0 \ ,

2144: \ee

2145: where ${\bar \nabla}_{{\rm j}\,a}$ is the derivative operator

2146: determined by the metric ${\bar g}_{{\rm j}\,ab}$.

2147: The components of this equation perpendicular to and parallel to the

2148: 4-velocity are

2149: \be

2150: {\bar a}_{\rm j}^a = - \frac{1}{{\bar \rho}_{\rm j} + {\bar p}_{\rm

2151:     j}} ({\bar g}_{\rm j}^{ab} + {\bar u}_{\rm j}^a {\bar u}_{\rm

2152:   j}^b)  {\bar \nabla}_{{\rm j}\,b} {\bar p}_{\rm j} \ ,

2153: \ee

2154: where ${\bar a}_{\rm j}^a = {\bar u}_{\rm j}^{\,b} {\bar \nabla}_{{\rm

2155:     j}\,b} {\bar u}_{\rm j}^{\,a}$ is the Jordan frame 4-acceleration,

2156: and

2157: \be

2158: {\bar \nabla}_{{\rm j}\,a} \left[ ({\bar \rho}_{\rm j} + {\bar p}_{\rm

2159:     j}) {\bar u}_{\rm j}^{\,a} \right] = {\bar u}_{\rm j}^{\,a} {\bar

2160:   \nabla}_{{\rm j}\,a} {\bar p}_{\rm j} \ .

2161: \ee

2162: Next, we conformally transform these fluid

2163: equations

2164: using Eq.\ (\ref{Jordan1}) to

2165: write them in terms

2166: of the Einstein frame metric $g_{ab}$ and the Einstein-frame

2167: normalized 4-velocities $u_{\rm j}^{\,a}=e^{\alpha_{\rm j}}{\bar u}_{\rm j}^{\,a}$ which satisfy $g_{ab} u_{\rm

2168:   j}^{\,a} u_{\rm j}^{\,b} =-1$.  This gives

2169: \be

2170: a_{\rm j}^{\,a} = -

2171:  (g^{ab} + u_{\rm j}^a u_{\rm j}^b)  \left[ \frac{ \nabla_b {\bar p}_{\rm j}}

2172:   {{\bar \rho}_{\rm j} + {\bar p}_{\rm j}} + \nabla_b \alpha_{\rm j}\right] \ ,

2173: \label{fluid1}

2174: \ee

2175: where $a_{\rm j}^{\,a} = u_{\rm j}^{\,b} \nabla_b u_{\rm j}^{\,a}$ and

2176: \be

2177: e^{-3 \alpha_{\rm j}} \nabla_a \left[ e^{3 \alpha_{\rm j}} ({\bar

2178:       \rho}_{\rm j} + {\bar p}_{\rm j} ) u_{\rm j}^{\,a} \right] =

2179:   u_{\rm j}^a \nabla_a {\bar p}_{\rm j} \ .

2180: \label{fluid2}

2181: \ee

2182: 

2183: 

2184: 

2185: Next, we consider the non-relativistic limit of the fluid equations

2186: (\ref{fluid1}) and (\ref{fluid2})

2187: together with the adiabatic limit of

2188: the scalar field equation (\ref{eq:scalar10}).  We also

2189: neglect self-gravity in the Einstein frame, taking $g_{ab} \approx \eta_{ab}$.  This

2190: approximation should be valid on sufficiently small spatial scales.

2191: We get

2192: \be

2193: \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left( e^{3 \alpha_{\rm j}} {\bar

2194:   \rho}_{\rm j} \right) + {\bf \nabla} \cdot \left( e^{3 \alpha_{\rm

2195:     j}} {\bar \rho}_{\rm j} {\bf v}_{\rm j} \right) =0 \ ,

2196: \ee

2197: \be

2198: \frac{ \partial {\bf v}_{\rm j}} {\partial t} + ( {\bf v}_{\rm j}

2199: \cdot {\bf \nabla} ) {\bf v}_{\rm j} = - \frac{ {\bf \nabla} {\bar

2200:     p}_{\rm j}}{{\bar \rho}_{\rm j}} - {\bf \nabla} \alpha_{\rm j} \ ,

2201: \label{euler1}

2202: \ee

2203: where $\alpha_{\rm j} = \alpha_{\rm j}(\phi)$ and $\phi = \phi({\bar

2204:   \rho}_{\rm k})$ is given by the equation

2205: \be

2206: V'(\phi) = - \sum_{\rm j} \alpha'_{\rm j}(\phi) e^{4 \alpha_{\rm j}(\phi)}

2207: {\bar \rho}_{\rm j} \ .

2208: \label{scalar12}

2209: \ee

2210: 

2211: 

2212: Next, we switch to using the rescaled density variables

2213: \be

2214: \rho_{\rm j} = e^{3 \alpha_{\rm j}} {\bar \rho}_{\rm j} \ .

2215: \ee

2216: We linearize the resulting equations about the background solution

2217: $\rho_{\rm j} = \rho_{{\rm j}0} = $ constant, ${\bf

2218:   v}_{\rm j} = 0$, $\phi = \phi_0$.  In other words we assume that the

2219: dark matter and

2220: visible matter densities are constant and that the fluids are not

2221: in relative motion.  We define $\alpha_{{\rm j}0} = \alpha_{\rm

2222:   j}(\phi_0)$ and $\alpha'_{{\rm j}0} = \alpha'_{\rm j}(\phi_0)$,

2223: and look for a solution

2224: \begin{eqnarray}

2225: \rho_{\rm j} &=& \rho_{{\rm j}0} + \delta \rho_{\rm

2226:   j},\\

2227: \phi &=& \phi_0 + \delta \phi \ .

2228: \end{eqnarray}

2229: From Eq.\ (\ref{scalar12}) we obtain that $\delta \phi = \sum_j \chi_{\rm j}

2230: \delta \rho_{\rm j}$, where

2231: \be

2232: \chi_{\rm j} = - \frac{ \alpha'_{{\rm j}0} e^{\alpha_{{\rm j}0}} }

2233: {V''(\phi_0) + \sum_{\rm k} \left[ \alpha''_{{\rm k}0} +

2234:     (\alpha'_{{\rm k}0})^2\right] e^{ \alpha_{{\rm k}0}}

2235:     \rho_{{\rm k}0}} \ .

2236: \label{chidef}

2237: \ee

2238: Next we assume that all the variables are proportional to $\exp

2239: \left[i {\bf k} \cdot {\bf x} - i \omega t \right]$, and that the

2240: velocities are proportional to ${\bf k}$.  This assumption will

2241: yield one particular set

2242: of modes of oscillation of the coupled fluids, but these modes

2243: will contain the instability if it is present.  The resulting

2244: eigenvalue equation for $\omega^2$ is

2245: \be

2246: \omega^2  \delta \rho_{\rm j} = {\bf k}^2 \Gamma_{{\rm j}{\rm k}} \delta

2247:         \rho_{\rm k} \ ,

2248: \label{evaleqn}

2249: \ee

2250: where the matrix $\Gamma_{{\rm j}{\rm k}}$, which plays the role of

2251: the effective squared sound speed, is

2252: \be

2253: \Gamma_{{\rm j}{\rm k}} = {\bar c}_{\rm j}^2 \delta_{{\rm j}{\rm k}} +

2254: (1 - 3 {\bar c}_{\rm j}^2) \rho_{{\rm j}0} \alpha'_{{\rm j}0}

2255: \chi_{\rm k} \ .

2256: \label{Gamma}

2257: \ee

2258: Here

2259: \be

2260: {\bar c}_{\rm j}^2 = \frac{d {\bar p}_{\rm j}}{d {\bar \rho}_{\rm j}}

2261: \ee

2262: is the physical (Jordan frame) squared sound speed of the ${\rm j}$th fluid.

2263: 

2264: 

2265: From the eigenvalue equation (\ref{evaleqn}), it follows that

2266: the system will be stable if and only if

2267: all of the eigenvalues of

2268: the matrix $\Gamma_{{\rm j}{\rm k}}$ are real and positive.

2269: For the case of a single fluid with ${\bar c}_{\rm j}^2=0$, this criterion

2270: reduces to the criterion (\ref{unstablec}) derived in the body of the paper.

2271: In general, there is a competition between the positive squared

2272: sound speeds of the fluids in the first term in Eq.\ (\ref{Gamma}), and the

2273: (possibly) negative squared sound speeds coming from the interaction

2274: with the scalar field given in the second term.

2275: 

2276: 

2277: We now specialize to two fluids, a dark matter fluid with zero sound

2278: speed, and a fluid describing the visible matter.  Taking ${\rm j}

2279: = 1 = c$ for the dark matter (CDM) and ${\rm j} = 2 = b$ for

2280: the visible matter (baryons), and defining

2281: \be

2282: \nu_{\rm j}  = (1 - 3 {\bar c}_{\rm j}^2) \rho_{{\rm j}0} \alpha'_{{\rm j}0}

2283: \label{nudef}

2284: \ee

2285: gives for the matrix

2286: \begin{equation}

2287: \Gamma_{{\rm j}{\rm k}} = \left( \begin{array}{cc}

2288: \nu_{c} \chi_c &

2289: \nu_{c} \chi_b   \\

2290: \nu_{b} \chi_c   &

2291: {\bar c}_b^2 + \nu_b \chi_b

2292: \end{array} \right) \ .

2293: \label{matrix1}

2294: \end{equation}

2295: Now if the system is stable, then both of the eigenvalues $\lambda_1$

2296: and $\lambda_2$ of the

2297: matrix must be real and nonnegative, and hence both the determinant

2298: $\lambda_1 \lambda_2$ and

2299: the trace $\lambda_1 + \lambda_2$ of the matrix must be nonnegative.

2300: Conversely, if either the determinant or the trace of the matrix is

2301: negative, then the system is unstable.

2302: The determinant is

2303: \begin{eqnarray}

2304: {\rm det} \, {\bf \Gamma} &=& {\bar c}_b^2 \nu_c

2305:  \chi_c

2306: = - \frac{ ( \alpha'_c)^2 e^{\alpha_c} {\bar c}_b^2 \rho_c}

2307: {\Upsilon

2308: } \ , \ \ \ \

2309: \label{detGamma}

2310: \end{eqnarray}

2311: where

2312: \bea

2313: \Upsilon &=& V'' + \left[ \alpha''_c + (\alpha'_c)^2 \right]

2314: e^{\alpha_{c}} \rho_c

2315: \nonumber \\ &&

2316: + \left[ \alpha''_b + (\alpha'_b)^2 \right] e^{\alpha_b} \rho_b

2317: \label{Upsilondef}

2318: \eea

2319: and where we have used Eqs.\ (\ref{chidef}) and (\ref{nudef}).

2320: In Eqs.\ (\ref{detGamma}) and (\ref{Upsilondef}), $\phi$ can be taken

2321: to be the function of $\rho_{c}$ and $\rho_b$ given by [cf.\ Eq.\

2322: (\ref{fluid2})]

2323: \be

2324: V'(\phi) = - \alpha'_c(\phi) e^{\alpha_c(\phi)}

2325: \rho_c - \alpha'_b(\phi) e^{\alpha_b(\phi)}

2326: \rho_b \ .

2327: \label{Phieqn4}

2328: \ee

2329: Equations (\ref{detGamma}) -- (\ref{Phieqn4}) allow us to determine

2330: which values of $\rho_c$ and $\rho_b$ satisfy the sufficient condition

2331: ${\rm det} \, {\bf \Gamma} < 0$ for instability,

2332: given the functions $V(\phi)$, $\alpha_c(\phi)$ and

2333: $\alpha_b(\phi)$.  Note that $\alpha_c(\phi)$ was denoted by

2334: $\alpha(\phi)$ in the body of the paper.

2335: 

2336: 

2337: 

2338: We now consider two special cases.  If $\alpha'_b=0$, so that

2339: the visible matter is not coupled to the scalar field, then

2340: eigenvalues of the matrix ${\bf \Gamma}$ are just ${\bar c}_{b}^2$ and

2341: $\nu_c \chi_c$.  The second of these

2342: eigenvalues coincides with the effective squared sound speed computed above in

2343: Eq.\ (\ref{soundspeed}).  Thus we recover the results of the body of

2344: the paper.

2345: 

2346: 

2347: The second special case is when $\alpha_b = \alpha_c$.

2348: In this case the instability criterion ${\rm det} \, {\bf \Gamma}<0$ again reduces to the criterion

2349: (\ref{soundspeed}) computed earlier for a single fluid, with the

2350: modification that the effective sound speed squared is now a function

2351: of the total density $\rho = \rho_c + \rho_b$

2352: rather than just of $\rho_c$.  If this

2353: total density is in the unstable regime, then the instability will

2354: persist despite the pressure of the visible matter.

2355: 

2356: Finally, one can also consider the effect of the scalar field on just

2357: the baryons, neglecting the dark matter.  The sound speed of the

2358: baryons gets an additional term, but it is a small correction unless

2359: the coupling is large, $\alpha_b^\prime \mpl \gg 1$, and observational

2360: tests of general relativity in the Solar System

2361: require $\alpha_b^\prime \mpl \ll 1$.

2362: 

2363: \section{Kinetic theory treatment of instability}

2364: \label{kinetic}

2365: 

2366: 

2367: In this appendix we describe dark matter using the collisionless

2368: Boltzmann equation, and specialize to the non-relativistic regime and

2369: to lengthscales small enough that self-gravity can be neglected.

2370: We show, first, that the instability is generic, occurring for any

2371: velocity distribution function with sufficiently small velocity

2372: dispersion, and, second, that for Maxwellian distributions

2373: the fluid is stabilized by free streaming once the velocity dispersion

2374: becomes larger than a critical value.

2375: 

2376: Starting from the general

2377: action (\ref{action0}), we specialize to the non-relativistic limit

2378: neglecting self-gravity ($g_{ab} \approx \eta_{ab}$), which will

2379: be valid on sufficiently small spatial scales.  The Jordan-frame

2380: metric is then

2381: $$

2382: ds^2 = e^{2 \alpha} (-dt^2 + d{\bf x}^2) \ .

2383: $$

2384: We assume that dark matter is composed of non-interacting,

2385: non-relativistic particles of mass $\mu$.

2386: We denote by $f(t,{\bf x},{\bf v})$ the one-particle distribution function,

2387: normalized so that the number of particles in the volume element

2388: $d^3x$ and in the velocity region $d^3v$ is

2389: $$

2390: f(t,{\bf x},{\bf v})  d^3x d^3v \ .

2391: $$

2392: Now the physical (Jordan-frame)

2393: volume element is $e^{3 \alpha} d^3 x$,

2394: so the Jordan frame mass density ${\bar \rho}$ [cf.\

2395: Eq.\ (\ref{ee0}) above] is given by

2396: $

2397: {\bar \rho} = \mu e^{-3 \alpha} \int d^3v f.

2398: $

2399: From Eq.\ (\ref{newdensity}) the rescaled density variable $\rho$ is then given

2400: by

2401: \be

2402: \rho = \mu \int d^3v f \ .

2403: \label{kineticrho}

2404: \ee

2405: With this notation the collisionless Boltzmann equation is [cf.\ Eq.\

2406: (\ref{euler1}) above with ${\bar p}_{\rm j}=0$]

2407: \be

2408: \frac{\partial f}{\partial t} + v^i \frac{\partial f}{\partial x^i} =

2409: \frac{\partial \alpha}{\partial x^i} \frac{\partial f}{\partial v^i} \ .

2410: \ee

2411: In the adiabatic limit, the variable $\alpha$ in this equation is

2412: given by $\alpha = \alpha(\phi)$, where $\phi$ is given in terms of

2413: $\rho$ by Eq.\ (\ref{eq:alg}), and $\rho$ is given in turn in terms

2414: of $f$ by Eq.\ (\ref{kineticrho}).

2415: 

2416: 

2417: We now linearize the Boltzmann equation about a homogeneous background

2418: solution,

2419: taking

2420: $

2421: f = f_0({\bf v}) + \delta f(t,{\bf x},{\bf v}).

2422: $

2423: and taking $\delta f \propto \exp[- i \omega t + i {\bf k} \cdot {\bf

2424:   x}]$.  Using the identity $d\alpha/d\rho = c_s^2/\rho$ from Eq.\

2425: (\ref{soundspeed}), and integrating over ${\bf v}$, gives the dispersion

2426: relation

2427: \be

2428: \int d^3 v \frac{ {\bf k} \cdot \frac{\partial f_0}{\partial {\bf

2429:       v}}}{\omega - {\bf k} \cdot {\bf v}} = - \frac{\rho_0}{\mu c_s^2} \ .

2430: \ee

2431: Here $\rho_0$ is the background density.

2432: Without loss of generality we take ${\bf k}$ to be in the

2433: $z$-direction, assuming $f_0$ is isotropic, and we define

2434: \be

2435: F(v) = \frac{\mu}{\rho_0} \int_{-\infty}^\infty dv_x

2436: \int_{-\infty}^\infty dv_y \, f_0(v_x,v_y,v) \ .

2437: \ee

2438: This distribution function is normalized so that $\int dv F =1$, and

2439: the dispersion relation can now be written as

2440: \be

2441: 1 + c_s^2 \int dv \, \frac{F'(v)}{\omega/k - v} =0 \ .

2442: \label{dispersion}

2443: \ee

2444: Given the distribution function $F(v)$ we can solve this equation to obtain

2445: $\omega = \omega(k)$, which is complex in general.

2446: 

2447: The integrand in Eq.\ (\ref{dispersion}) contains a singularity at $v =

2448: \omega/k$.  The derivation given here is incomplete since it does not

2449: provide a specification for how to deal with the singularity.

2450: However, just as in plasma physics \cite{Landau}, it is possible to give an

2451: alternative derivation based on Laplace transforms.  That alternative derivation yields the

2452: following specification: the integral over $v$ must be taken over the

2453: Landau contour, which runs along the real axis if ${\rm Im}(\omega) > 0$, but

2454: dips below the real axis to encircle the pole at $v = \omega/k$ if

2455: ${\rm Im}(\omega) \le 0$.

2456: 

2457: 

2458: We now specialize to the adiabatic regime where $c_s^2 < 0$, and we

2459: write $c_s^2 = - \beta^2$.  We write the complex frequency in terms of

2460: its real and imaginary parts, $\omega = \omega_r +  i \omega_i$, and

2461: we look for a solution $\omega = \omega(k)$ of the dispersion relation

2462: (\ref{dispersion}) with $\omega_i > 0$, corresponding to an unstable

2463: mode.  For such a solution the Landau contour is along the real

2464: axis which simplifies the analysis.

2465: 

2466: If the velocity dispersion of the distribution $F(v)$ is small, we can

2467: expand the denominator of the integrand in Eq.\ (\ref{dispersion}) as a power series in

2468: $v k / \omega$.  Integrating by parts and solving the resulting

2469: equation for $\omega^2$ gives

2470: \be

2471: \omega^2 = k^2 \left[ - \beta^2 + 3 \sigma^2 +

2472:   O\left(\frac{\sigma^4}{\beta^2}\right) \right] \ ,

2473: \label{omegaans}

2474: \ee

2475: where $\sigma^2 = \int dv v^2 F(v)$.

2476: This equation has a solution with positive imaginary part,

2477: $\omega_i>0$, consistent

2478: with the assumption used in its derivation.  Therefore

2479: the instability is generic, present for

2480: any velocity distribution, as long as $\sigma \ll \beta$.

2481: Equation (\ref{omegaans}) also suggests that the instability will be

2482: removed when $\sigma$ gets large, as argued in Ref.\ \cite{Afshordi:2005ym},

2483: since then the positive second term

2484: in the square brackets will overcome the negative first term.

2485: However, Eq.\ (\ref{omegaans}) is only valid in the regime $\sigma \ll

2486: \beta$, and so to investigate stabilization we must use an alternative

2487: method of computation.

2488: 

2489: Returning to the general dispersion relation (\ref{dispersion}), we obtain from

2490: its real and imaginary parts the equations

2491: \be

2492: 1 - k \beta^2 \int_{-\infty}^\infty dv \, \frac{ (\omega_r - k v )

2493:   F'(v)}{(\omega_r - k v)^2 + \omega_i^2} =0 \ ,

2494: \label{realpart}

2495: \ee

2496: and

2497: \be

2498: \int_{-\infty}^\infty dv \, \frac{

2499:   F'(v)}{(\omega_r - k v)^2 + \omega_i^2} =0 \ .

2500: \label{imagpart}

2501: \ee

2502: We now specialize to the Maxwellian velocity distribution

2503: \be

2504: F(v) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi} \sigma} e^{ - \frac{ v^2}{2 \sigma^2}} \ .

2505: \ee

2506: For this case Eq.\ (\ref{imagpart}) has a unique solution for

2507: $\omega_r$, namely $\omega_r =0$.  This can be seen by splitting the

2508: integral into $v>0$ and $v<0$ contributions and substituting $v \to

2509: -v$ in the $v<0$ term.  This yields

2510: \be

2511: 0 =

2512: \omega_r \int_0^\infty dv

2513: \frac{ v^2 e^{- \frac{v^2}{2 \sigma^2}}}

2514: { \left[ (\omega_r - k v)^2 +

2515:       \omega_i^2 \right] \left[ (\omega_r + k v)^2 +

2516:       \omega_i^2 \right]} \ ,

2517: \ee

2518: and the result follows since the integrand is everywhere positive.

2519: Equation (\ref{realpart}) now simplifies to

2520: \be

2521: \frac{\sigma^2}{\beta^2} = \int_{-\infty}^\infty d{\bar v}

2522: \left(

2523: \frac{

2524: {\bar v}^2

2525: }

2526: {

2527: {\bar v}^2 + \kappa^2

2528: }

2529: \right)

2530: \, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} e^{- \frac{{\bar v}^2}{2}} \ ,

2531: \label{finale}

2532: \ee

2533: where we have defined ${\bar v} = v / \sigma$ and $\kappa = \omega_i /

2534: (k \sigma)$.

2535: 

2536: Equation (\ref{finale})

2537: determines $\kappa$ and thence $\omega_i$ as a function of $\sigma/\beta$.  When

2538: $\kappa$ is large, expanding the factor in round brackets in the

2539: integrand as a power series in ${\bar v}/\kappa$

2540: gives the result (\ref{omegaans}) above.  As $\kappa$ decreases,

2541: $\sigma/\beta$ increases, until as $\kappa \to 0$, $\sigma/\beta$

2542: approaches the limiting value $\sigma/\beta =1$.  It can be seen that

2543: there are no solutions to Eq.\ (\ref{finale}) with $\sigma/\beta>1$,

2544: since the right hand side is a monotonic function of $\kappa^2$.

2545: Therefore, whenever\footnote{Note that the critical value of velocity

2546:   dispersion $\sigma=\beta$ is a factor of $\sqrt{3}$ larger than indicated by the

2547:   approximate formula (\ref{omegaans}) which was used in Ref.\ \cite{Afshordi:2005ym}.}

2548: \be

2549: \sigma > \beta \ ,

2550: \ee

2551: there are no unstable modes with $\omega_i > 0$.  In other words, the

2552: instability has been removed by the damping process associated with

2553: the finite dispersion (Landau damping, also called free streaming).

2554: The perturbation to the distribution function

2555: is proportional to the integrand in Eq.\ (\ref{finale}).  Therefore

2556: the nature of the damping is that interaction with the growing

2557: mode moves some particles from velocities $v \sim \beta$ to larger

2558: velocities, removing energy from the mode.

2559: 

2560: 

2561: 

2562: \section{Effective Newton's constant}

2563: \label{sec:Geff}

2564: 

2565: In this appendix we derive the formula (\ref{Gformula}) for the effective Newton's

2566: constant for the theory (\ref{action0}).

2567: 

2568: Since Newton's constant $G$ is dimensionful, we need to define the

2569: system of units used in measurements of $G$, as our final result will

2570: depend on the system of units chosen.  Here we are not concerned with

2571: changes of units in the usual sense where the ratios between the old

2572: and new standards of mass, length and time are constants, independent

2573: of space and time.  Rather, we are concerned with changes in the

2574: operational procedures for how units are defined, for which the ratios

2575: between the old and new standards can vary with space and time, as

2576: discussed by Dicke \cite{Dicke}.  Changes of units of this type

2577: encompass conformal transformations of the metric, but can be more

2578: general.  The necessity of specifying a system

2579: of units before discussing the space-time variation of dimensionful

2580: constants of nature is discussed in detail in Duff \cite{Duff}.

2581: 

2582: We choose to use systems of units which

2583: are determined completely by physics in the

2584: visible sector (which we label by ${\rm j}= b$ for baryonic), and are not

2585: determined by

2586: gravitational physics or by physics of the dark matter sector.

2587: For example, this is true of SI units.  Alternatively one could take

2588: one's standards of mass, length and time to be the mass, size, and

2589: light travel time across a Hydrogen atom.  Any system of units of this

2590: type will give rise to the formula (\ref{Gformula}) below for $G$.

2591: 

2592: We note that alternative choices are in principle possible.  For

2593: example, one could have a small fiducial black hole, and one could transport

2594: it adiabatically around the Universe to act as a standard.  Then one

2595: could define the standard of mass to be the mass of the black hole,

2596: while defining the standards of length and time in terms of Hydrogen

2597: atoms as above.  In this system of units $G$ would vary in space and

2598: time, but in a manner different to that described by the formula

2599: (\ref{Gformula}) below, and Planck's constant $\hbar$ would also vary in

2600: space and time.  Another possibility would be to define the units of

2601: mass in terms of the mass of the dark matter particle; this would also

2602: yield a different formula for $G$ whenever the dark matter coupling

2603: function $\alpha_c(\phi)$ differs from that of the baryons

2604: $\alpha_b(\phi)$.

2605: 

2606: We next discuss the quantities on which the formula for $G$ depends.  First,

2607: for the theory (\ref{action0}) with several different matter sectors,

2608: Newton's constant becomes a matrix whose i,j element governs the

2609: strength of the gravitational interaction between sector ${\rm i}$ and

2610: sector j.  Second, $G$ will depend on the scalar field

2611: $\phi$, and through this dependence become a function of space and

2612: time.  Here $\phi$ should be thought of as a background value of the

2613: scalar field; gravitational interactions that act as perturbations

2614: to this background, for which the perturbation to the

2615: scalar field can be treated linearly, have a strength described by the

2616: formula (\ref{Gformula}).  Finally, since the scalar contribution to

2617: the gravitational force will in general have a Yukawa profile, $G$

2618: will also depend on a spatial wave vector ${\bf k}$, which is measured

2619: in the units discussed above.

2620: 

2621: 

2622: 

2623: 

2624: Our formula for Newton's constant is

2625: \be

2626: G_{{\rm i}{\rm j}}(\phi,{\bf k}) = G e^{2 \alpha_b(\phi)} \left[ 1

2627:   + \frac{2 \mpl^2 \alpha_{\rm i}^\prime(\phi) \alpha_{\rm j}^\prime(\phi)}{1 +

2628: \frac{m_{\rm eff}^2(\phi,\rho)}{e^{2 \alpha_b(\phi)} {\bf k}^2 }

2629: } \right] \ .

2630: \label{Gformula}

2631: \ee

2632: Here on the right hand side, $G$ is a constant, related to $\mpl^2$ by

2633: $G = 1 / (8 \pi \mpl^2)$, and the effective mass $m_{\rm eff}(\phi,\rho)$

2634: is defined by

2635: \be

2636: m_{\rm eff}^2(\phi,\rho) = \frac{ \partial^2 V_{\rm

2637:     eff}(\phi,\rho)}{\partial^2 \phi} \ ,

2638: \label{meffgen}

2639: \ee

2640: where the effective potential is given by Eq.\ (\ref{phieqn}).  In the

2641: adiabatic regime this effective mass reduces to the mass (\ref{meffdef}).

2642: Several different aspects of this formula have appeared before in the

2643: literature.  The overall prefactor of $e^{2\alpha_b}$ is well known, and

2644: the formula for the case of one matter sector has been previously derived in

2645: the context of cosmological perturbation theory \cite{Amendola:2004a}.

2646: The $1$ in the square brackets describes the exchange of a graviton,

2647: and the second term in the square brackets describes the exchange of a

2648: scalar quantum, which couples to particles in the sector i with an

2649: amplitude proportional to $\alpha_{\rm i}'(\phi)$.

2650: The scalar coupling term

2651: vanishes in the long wavelength limit $k \to 0$ if the scalar

2652: field has a finite effective mass $m_{\rm eff}$.

2653: 

2654: 

2655: 

2656: 

2657: We now turn to the derivation of the formula (\ref{Gformula}).

2658: For the derivation it will be convenient to use a different system of

2659: units, which are defined as follows.

2660: The standards of mass, length and time are defined to be the mass,

2661: size and light travel time across a small fiducial black hole, which

2662: is transported adiabatically around the Universe to act as a

2663: reference.  Equivalent units\footnote{By equivalent units we mean

2664:   units that differ only by multiplication by constants.} can be

2665: defined by demanding that

2666: the speed of light $c$ and Planck's constant $\hbar$ be unity, and

2667: that lengths and times are measured using the Einstein frame metric

2668: $g_{ab}$. At the end of the derivation we will transform back to the

2669: visible-sector-based units.

2670: 

2671: Starting with the action (\ref{action0}), we perform the following

2672: steps.  We specialize the matter action in the jth sector to be that

2673: of a collection of point particles with masses $m^{({\rm

2674:     j})}_{\alpha_{\rm j}}$

2675: and worldlines $x^{({\rm j})a}_{\alpha_{\rm j}}(\lambda)$:

2676: \be

2677: S_{\rm j}[e^{2 \alpha_{\rm j}(\phi)} g_{ab}, \Psi_{\rm j}] =

2678: \sum_{\alpha_{\rm j}}

2679: m^{({\rm j})}_{\alpha_{\rm j}} \int d\lambda \sqrt{ - e^{2 \alpha_{\rm

2680:       j}} g_{ab}

2681:   \frac{d x^{({\rm j})a}_{\alpha_{\rm j}}}{d\lambda}   \frac{d

2682:     x^{({\rm j})b}_{\alpha_{\rm j}}}{d\lambda}} \ .

2683: \ee

2684: We specialize to the Newtonian limit, so that the Einstein-frame

2685: metric $g_{ab}$ is of the form $- (1 + 2 \Phi) dt^2 + (1 - 2 \Phi)

2686: d{\bf x}^2$.  We write the scalar field as $\phi + \delta \phi$, and

2687: expand to quadratic order in $\delta \phi$ and $\Phi$.  We assume that there is a

2688: background mass density $\rho$, so that the effective mass of the

2689: scalar field is given by Eq.\ (\ref{meffgen}).

2690: Finally, we compute from

2691: the action the energy $E$ for a static configuration, up to an

2692: additive constant.  This yields

2693: \bea

2694: E &=& \int d^3 x \left\{ \mpl^2 ({\bf \nabla} \Phi)^2 + \frac{1}{2} (

2695:   {\bf \nabla} \delta \phi)^2 + \frac{1}{2} m_{\rm eff}^2 \delta

2696: \phi^2 \right. \nn \\

2697: && + \sum_{\rm j} e^{\alpha_{\rm j}(\phi)} \left[ 1 + \Phi +

2698:       \alpha_{\rm j}^\prime(\phi) \delta \phi \right] \rho_{\rm j}  \bigg\} \ ,

2699: \eea

2700: where

2701: \be

2702: \rho_{\rm j} = \sum_{\alpha_{\rm j}} m^{({\rm j})}_{\alpha_{\rm j}} \delta^3[ {\bf x} - {\bf

2703:   x}^{({\rm j})}_{\alpha_{\rm j}} ] \ .

2704: \ee

2705: Now integrating out $\Phi$ and $\delta \phi$ yields

2706: \bea

2707: E &=& - \frac{1}{4 \mpl^2} \sum_{{\rm i},{\rm j}} \sum_{\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \ldots}

2708: \sum_{\beta_1, \beta_2, \ldots} e^{\alpha_{\rm i}(\phi) + \alpha_{\rm j}(\phi)}

2709: \frac{ m^{({\rm i})}_{\alpha_{\rm i}} m^{({\rm j})}_{\beta_{\rm

2710:       j}}}{r^{{\rm i}{\rm j}}_{\alpha\beta}}

2711: \nn \\

2712: && \times \left[ 1 + 2 \mpl^2

2713:       \alpha_{\rm i}'(\phi) \alpha_{\rm j}'(\phi) e^{-

2714:       m_{\rm eff} r^{{\rm i}{\rm j}}_{\alpha\beta} }\right] \ ,

2715: \label{energy2}

2716: \eea

2717: where $r^{{\rm i}{\rm j}}_{\alpha\beta} = | {\bf x}^{({\rm

2718:     i})}_{\alpha_{\rm i}} - {\bf x}^{({\rm j})}_{\beta_{\rm j}}|$.

2719: 

2720: Now we transform back to the visible sector or Jordan frame units.

2721: The energy ${\tilde E}$, distances ${\tilde r}^{{\rm i}{\rm

2722:     j}}_{\alpha\beta}$ and masses ${\tilde m}^{({\rm i})}_{\alpha_{\rm

2723:     i}}$ in those units are given by

2724: \bes

2725: \bea

2726: {\tilde E} &=& e^{-\alpha_b(\phi)} E,  \\

2727: {\tilde r}^{{\rm i}{\rm j}}_{\alpha\beta} &=& e^{\alpha_b(\phi)}

2728: r^{{\rm i}{\rm j}}_{\alpha\beta}, \\

2729: {\tilde m}^{({\rm i})}_{\alpha_{\rm i}} &=& e^{-\alpha_b(\phi)} \left[

2730:   e^{\alpha_{\rm i}(\phi)} m^{({\rm i})}_{\alpha_{\rm i}} \right] \ ,

2731: \label{jmass}

2732: \eea

2733: \ees

2734: where the factor in square brackets on the right hand side of Eq.\

2735: (\ref{jmass}) is the mass as measured in the Einstein-frame units.

2736: Substituting these unit transformations into the energy expression

2737: (\ref{energy2}) and transforming from position space to momentum space

2738: yields an expression for the energy from which we can

2739: finally read off the effective Newton's constant (\ref{Gformula}).

2740: 

2741: 

2742: 

2743: 

2744: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2745: 

2746: \bibitem{Clowe:2006eq}

2747:  D.~Clowe et. al.,

2748:   arXiv:astro-ph/0608407.

2749: 

2750: \bibitem{Damour:1990}

2751:  T.~Damour, G.~W.~Gibbons and C.~Gundlach,

2752:  % "DARK MATTER, TIME VARYING G, AND A DILATON FIELD"

2753:  Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 64}, 123 (1990).

2754: 

2755: \bibitem{Carroll:1998zi}

2756:  S.~Carroll,

2757:  % "Quintessence and the rest of the world"

2758: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 3067 (1998).

2759: 

2760: %\cite{Amendola:1999er}

2761: \bibitem{Amendola:1999er}

2762:   L.~Amendola,

2763:   %``Coupled quintessence,''

2764:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 043511 (2000)

2765:   [arXiv:astro-ph/9908023].

2766:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9908023;%%

2767: 

2768: %\cite{Bean:2000zm}

2769: \bibitem{Bean:2000zm}

2770:   R.~Bean and J.~Magueijo,

2771:   % ``Dilaton-derived quintessence scenario leading naturally to the  late-time

2772:   %acceleration of the universe,''

2773:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 517}, 177 (2001)

2774:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0007199].

2775:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0007199;%%

2776: 

2777:   %\cite{Bean:2001ys}

2778: \bibitem{Bean:2001ys}

2779:   R.~Bean,

2780:   %``Perturbation evolution with a non-minimally coupled scalar field,''

2781:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 123516 (2001)

2782:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0104464].

2783:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0104464;%%

2784: 

2785: \bibitem{Majerotto:2004ji}

2786:   E.~Majerotto, D.~Sapone and L.~Amendola,

2787:   % "Supernovae type Ia data favor negatively coupled phantom energy"

2788:  arXiv:astro-ph/0410543

2789: 

2790: \bibitem{Das:2005yj}

2791:   S.~Das, P.~S.~Corasaniti and J.~Khoury,

2792: %  "Super-acceleration as signature of dark sector interaction"

2793:   Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73}, 083509 (2006).

2794: 

2795: \bibitem{Lee:2006za}

2796:   S.~Lee, G-C.~Liu and K-W.~Ng,

2797:   % "Constraints on the coupled quintessence from cosmic

2798:   %  microwave  background anisotropy and matter power spectrum"

2799:  Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73}, 083516 (2006).

2800: 

2801: %\cite{Kesden:2006zb}

2802: \bibitem{Kesden:2006zb}

2803:   M.~Kesden and M.~Kamionkowski,

2804:   %``Galilean Equivalence for Galactic Dark Matter,''

2805:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 97}, 131303 (2006)

2806:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0606566].

2807:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,97,131303;%%

2808: 

2809: 

2810: 

2811: %\cite{Chiba:2003ir}

2812: \bibitem{Chiba:2003ir}

2813:   T.~Chiba,

2814:   %``1/R gravity and scalar-tensor gravity,''

2815:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 575}, 1 (2003)

2816:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0307338].

2817:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0307338;%%

2818: 

2819: %\cite{Tsujikawa:2007gd}

2820: \bibitem{Tsujikawa:2007gd}

2821:   S.~Tsujikawa,

2822:   %``Matter density perturbations and effective gravitational constant in

2823:   %modified gravity models of dark energy,''

2824:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 76}, 023514 (2007)

2825:   [arXiv:0705.1032 [astro-ph]].

2826:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D76,023514;%%

2827: 

2828: 

2829: \bibitem{Amendola:2006mr}

2830:   L.~Amendola, D.~Polarski, and S.~Tsujikawa,

2831:   %``Are f(R) dark energy models cosmologically viable?,''

2832:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0603703].

2833:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0603703;%%

2834: 

2835: 

2836: \bibitem{Agarwal:2007}

2837: N. ~Agarwal and R. ~Bean,

2838: %``The dynamical viability of scalar-tensor theories with a general coupling"

2839: [arXiv:0708.3967].

2840: 

2841: \bibitem{Afshordi:2005ym}

2842:  N.~Afshordi, M.~Zaldarriaga and K.~Kohri,

2843:  % "On the stability of dark energy with mass-varying neutrinos"

2844:  Phys. Rev. D {\bf 72}, 065024 (2005).

2845: 

2846: 

2847: \bibitem{Kaplinghat:2006jk}

2848:   M.~Kaplinghat and A.~Rajaraman,

2849:   %``Stable models of super-acceleration,''

2850:   arXiv:astro-ph/0601517.

2851:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0601517;%%

2852: 

2853: 

2854: 

2855: 

2856: 

2857: %\cite{Bjaelde:2007ki}

2858: \bibitem{Bjaelde:2007ki}

2859:   O.~E.~Bjaelde, A.~W.~Brookfield, C.~van de Bruck, S.~Hannestad, D.~F.~Mota, L.~Schrempp and D.~Tocchini-Valentini,

2860:   %``Neutrino Dark Energy -- Revisiting the Stability Issue,''

2861:   arXiv:0705.2018 [astro-ph].

2862:   %%CITATION = ARXIV:0705.2018;%%

2863: 

2864: \bibitem{letter}

2865: R.\ Bean, \'E.\ \'E.\ Flanagan, M. Trodden,

2866: %{\it The Adiabatic Instability on Cosmology's Dark Side},

2867: arXiv:0709.1124 [astro-ph].

2868: 

2869: \bibitem{Khoury:2003aq}

2870:  J.~Khoury, A.~Weltman,

2871:  % "Chameleon fields: Awaiting surprises for tests of gravity in space"

2872:  Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93}, 171190 (2004).

2873: 

2874: \bibitem{Khoury:2003rn}

2875: J.~Khoury and A.~Weltman,

2876:  %"Chameleon cosmology"

2877: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 044026 (2004).

2878: 

2879: %\cite{Mota:2006ed}

2880: \bibitem{Mota:2006ed}

2881:   D.~F.~Mota and D.~J.~Shaw,

2882:   %``Strongly coupled chameleon fields: New horizons in scalar field theory,''

2883:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 97}, 151102 (2006)

2884:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0606204].

2885:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,97,151102;%%

2886: 

2887: %\cite{Fardon:2003eh}

2888: \bibitem{Fardon:2003eh}

2889:   R.~Fardon, A.~E.~Nelson and N.~Weiner,

2890:  %``Dark energy from mass varying neutrinos,''

2891:  JCAP {\bf 0410}, 005 (2004)

2892:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0309800].

2893:   %%CITATION = JCAPA,0410,005;%%

2894: 

2895: %\cite{Fardon:2005wc}

2896: \bibitem{Fardon:2005wc}

2897:   R.~Fardon, A.~E.~Nelson and N.~Weiner,

2898:   %``Supersymmetric theories of neutrino dark energy,''

2899:  JHEP {\bf 0603}, 042 (2006)

2900:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0507235].

2901:   %%CITATION = JHEPA,0603,042;%%

2902: 

2903: %\cite{Kaplan:2004dq}

2904: \bibitem{Kaplan:2004dq}

2905:   D.~B.~Kaplan, A.~E.~Nelson and N.~Weiner,

2906:   %``Neutrino oscillations as a probe of dark energy,''

2907:  Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 93}, 091801 (2004)

2908:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0401099].

2909:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,93,091801;%%

2910: 

2911: 

2912: 

2913: 

2914:   %\cite{Carroll:2003wy}

2915: \bibitem{Carroll:2003wy}

2916:   S.~M.~Carroll, V.~Duvvuri, M.~Trodden and M.~S.~Turner,

2917:   %``Is cosmic speed-up due to new gravitational physics?,''

2918:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 043528 (2004)

2919:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0306438].

2920:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0306438;%%

2921: 

2922: 

2923: %\cite{Carroll:2006jn}

2924: \bibitem{Carroll:2006jn}

2925:   S.~M.~Carroll, I.~Sawicki, A.~Silvestri and M.~Trodden,

2926:   %``Modified-Source Gravity and Cosmological Structure Formation,''

2927:   New J.\ Phys.\  {\bf 8}, 323 (2006)

2928:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0607458].

2929:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0607458;%%

2930: 

2931: 

2932: %\cite{Damour:1994ya}

2933: \bibitem{Damour:1994ya}

2934:   T.~Damour and A.~M.~Polyakov,

2935:   %``String theory and gravity,''

2936:   Gen.\ Rel.\ Grav.\  {\bf 26}, 1171 (1994)

2937:   [arXiv:gr-qc/9411069].

2938:   %%CITATION = GRGVA,26,1171;%%

2939: 

2940: 

2941: %\cite{Farrar:2003uw}

2942: \bibitem{Farrar:2003uw}

2943:   G.~R.~Farrar and P.~J.~E.~Peebles,

2944:   %``Interacting dark matter and dark energy,''

2945:   Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 604}, 1 (2004)

2946:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0307316].

2947:   %%CITATION = ASJOA,604,1;%%

2948: 

2949: 

2950: \bibitem{Faulkner:2006ub}

2951:  T.~Faulkner, M.~Tegmark, E.~F.~Bunn and Y.~Mao,

2952:  % "Constraining f(R) gravity as a scalar tensor theory"

2953:  arXiv: astro-ph/0612569

2954: 

2955: \bibitem{Navarro:2006mw}

2956:  I.~Navarro and K.~Van Acoleyen,

2957:  % f(R) actions, cosmic acceleration and local tests of gravity"

2958:   arXiv:gr-qc/0611127

2959: 

2960: %\cite{Hu:2007nk}

2961: \bibitem{Hu:2007nk}

2962:   W.~Hu and I.~Sawicki,

2963:   %``Models of f(R) Cosmic Acceleration that Evade Solar-System Tests,''

2964:   arXiv:0705.1158 [astro-ph].

2965:   %%CITATION = ARXIV:0705.1158;%%

2966: 

2967: 

2968:   %\cite{Dolgov:2003px}

2969: \bibitem{Dolgov:2003px}

2970:   A.~D.~Dolgov and M.~Kawasaki,

2971:   % "Can modified gravity explain accelerated cosmic expansion?",

2972:   Phys. Lett. B {\bf 573}, 1 (2003)

2973:   [arxiv:astro-ph/0307285].

2974: 

2975:   %\cite{Seifert:2007fr}

2976: \bibitem{Seifert:2007fr}

2977:   M.~D.~Seifert,

2978:   % "Stability of spherically symmetric solutions in modified theories of gravity"

2979:   arXiv:gr-qc/0703060.

2980: 

2981:   %\cite{Sawicki:2007tf}

2982: \bibitem{Sawicki:2007tf}

2983:   I.~Sawicki and W.~Hu,

2984:   %``Stability of cosmological solution in f(R) models of gravity,''

2985:   arXiv:astro-ph/0702278.

2986:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH/0702278;%%

2987: 

2988: \bibitem{Gunn} Gunn, J.~E., Lee, B.~W.,

2989: Lerche, I., Schramm, D.~N., \& Steigman, G.\ 1978, Ap.\ J.\ {\bf 223},

2990: 1015 (1978).

2991: 

2992: \bibitem{Peebles} P.J.E. Peebles, {\it The Large Scale Structure of

2993: the Universe}, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey,

2994: 1980.

2995: 

2996: %\cite{Brax:2005ew}

2997: \bibitem{Brax:2005ew}

2998:   P.~Brax, C.~van de Bruck, A.~C.~Davis and A.~M.~Green,

2999:   %``Small Scale Structure Formation in Chameleon Cosmology,''

3000:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 633}, 441 (2006)

3001:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0509878].

3002:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B633,441;%%

3003: 

3004: \bibitem{paperIII} R.\ Bean, \'E.\ \'E.\ Flanagan, M. Trodden, {\it

3005:     Constraints on coupled dark matter-dark energy models}, in

3006:   preparation.

3007: 

3008: %\cite{Lewis:2002ah}

3009: \bibitem{Lewis:2002ah}

3010:   A.~Lewis and S.~Bridle,

3011:   %``Cosmological parameters from CMB and other data: a Monte-Carlo approach,''

3012:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 66}, 103511 (2002)

3013:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0205436].

3014:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,103511;%%

3015: 

3016: \bibitem{Brax:2004qh}

3017: P.\ Brax, C.\ van de Bruck, A.-C.\ Davis, J. Khoury and A. Weltman,

3018: astro-ph/0408415.

3019: 

3020: \bibitem{Brax:2004px}

3021: P.\ Brax, C.\ van de Bruck, A.-C.\ Davis, J. Khoury and A. Weltman,

3022: astro-ph/0410103.

3023: 

3024: \bibitem{Landau} L.~D.~Landau, J. Phys. USSR {\bf 10}, 25 (1946).

3025: 

3026: \bibitem{Dicke}

3027: R.\ H.\ Dicke,

3028: %{\it Mach's principle and invariance under transformation of units},

3029: Phys. Rev. {\bf 126}, 2163 (1961).

3030: 

3031: 

3032: \bibitem{Duff}

3033: M.\ J.\ Duff, {\it Comment on time variation of fundamental

3034: constants}, hep-th/0208093.

3035: 

3036: \bibitem{Amendola:2004a}

3037: L.\ Amendola, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 103524 (2004).

3038: 

3039: 

3040: 

3041: 

3042: 

3043: \end{thebibliography}

3044: 

3045: 

3046: \end{document}

3047: