1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%%%%% template.tex for PTPTeX.cls <ver.0.9> %%%%%
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4: \documentclass[seceq]{ptptex}
5: %\documentclass[letter]{ptptex}
6: %\documentclass[seceq,supplement]{ptptex}
7: %\documentclass[seceq,addenda]{ptptex}
8: %\documentclass[seceq,errata]{ptptex}
9: %\documentclass[seceq,preprint]{ptptex}
10:
11: \usepackage{graphicx}
12: \usepackage{wrapft}
13:
14: %%%%% Personal Macros %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
15:
16: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
17: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
18: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
19: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
20: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al. }}
21:
22: \newcommand{\bfk}{\boldsymbol{k}}
23: \newcommand{\bfl}{\boldsymbol{l}}
24: \newcommand{\bfp}{\boldsymbol{p}}
25: \newcommand{\bfq}{\boldsymbol{q}}
26:
27: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
28:
29: %\pubinfo{Vol.~11X, No.~X, Mmmmm YYYY}%Editorial Office will fill in this.
30: %\setcounter{page}{} %Editorial Office will fill in this.
31: %\def\ptype{p} %Editorial Office will fill in this.
32: %\def\ptpsubject{} %Editorial Office will fill in this.
33: %\def\pageinfo{X-X} %Editorial Office will fill in this.
34: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------
35: %\nofigureboxrule %to eliminate the rule of \figurebox
36: \notypesetlogo %comment in if to eliminate PTPTeX
37: %---- When [preprint] you can put preprint number at top right corner.
38: %\preprintnumber[3cm]{%<-- [..]: optional width of preprint # column.
39: %KUNS-1325\\PTPTeX ver.0.8\\ August, 1997}
40: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------
41:
42: \markboth{% %running head for even-page (authors' name)
43: R. Takahashi
44: }{% %running head for odd-page (`short' title)
45: Third Order Density Perturbation
46: }
47:
48: \title{
49: Third-Order Density Perturbation and
50: One-Loop Power Spectrum in Dark-Energy-Dominated Universe
51: }
52:
53: %\subtitle{Subtitle} %use this when you want a subtitle
54:
55: \author{
56: Ryuichi \textsc{Takahashi}
57: }
58:
59: \inst{
60: Department of Physics and Astrophysics, Nagoya University,
61: Nagoya 464-8602, Japan
62: }
63:
64: %\publishedin{% %Write this ONLY in cases of addenda and errata
65: %Prog.~Theor.~Phys.\ \textbf{XX} (19YY), page.}
66:
67: %\recdate{Mmmmm DD, YYYY}% %Editorial Office will fill in this.
68:
69: \abst{
70:
71: We investigate the third-order density perturbation and
72: the one-loop correction to the linear power spectrum
73: in the dark-energy cosmological model.
74: Our main interest is to understand the dark-energy effect
75: on baryon acoustic oscillations in a
76: quasi-nonlinear regime ($k \approx 0.1h$/Mpc).
77: Analytical solutions and simple fitting formulae are presented for
78: the dark-energy model with the general time-varying equation of
79: state $w(a)$.
80: It turns out that the power spectrum coincides with the approximate
81: result based on the EdS
82: (Einstein de-Sitter) model within $1\%$ for $k<0.4h/$Mpc at $z=0$
83: in the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) 5yr best-fitting
84: cosmological model,
85: which suggests that the cosmological dependence is very small.
86: %Hence the assumption is valid even in the BAO measurement.
87: }
88:
89: \begin{document}
90:
91: \maketitle
92:
93: \section{Introduction}
94:
95:
96: Revealing the nature of dark energy is fundamentally important
97: not only for astrophysics but also for particle physics.
98: Constraints on the dark energy from astronomical
99: observations is very influential for them.
100: %Many physicists pay much attention to its nature.
101: %Precious constrain provide gravitation at large scale.
102: % such as breakdown of general relativity at large scale.
103: Baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) in the galaxy power spectrum
104: provide a strong constraint on the dark energy
105: using its acoustic scale as a standard ruler.
106: %Especially it provides the strong constraint on the dark energy.
107: Large galaxy surveys such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and two degree
108: field already provide the constraint and future larger surveys are
109: currently planned to detect the BAO more accurately\cite{ei05,co05,pe07,ok07}.
110: Hence, an accurate theoretical model of the BAO is crucial,
111: %Baryon wiggle small amplitude
112: and many authors have been investigating the BAO using numerical
113: simulation\cite{se05,abfl07,h07,sss07,sss08,t08,sba08}
114: and the perturbation theory (including the renormalized
115: perturbation theory)\cite{jk06,cs06,cs08,m07,mc07,th08,is07,mp07,n07}.
116:
117: %The acoustic scale of $100$Mpc/$h$ the non-linear gravitational evolution
118: % becomes important.
119: %The difficult task to model the BAO is the several complicated
120: % processes such as the non-linear evolution,
121: % the redshift distortion, the halo and galaxy bias.
122: %The first step is the understanding the non-linear evolution of the
123: % dark matter power spectrum, and we study this topic.
124: %The one-loop power spectrum is the linear power spectrum with
125: % the leading non-linear correction term.
126: Previously, several authors investigated the third-order density
127: perturbation and
128: derived the one-loop correction to the linear power spectrum in the EdS
129: model\cite{j81,j83,ggrw86,ss91,mss92,jb94}.
130: Similarly for the cosmological constant model,
131: Bernardeau (1994) presented the third-order perturbation solution
132: (see also Refs. \citen{bjcp92,b94,bchj95,clmm95,m95}).
133: They found that the dependence of the cosmological model on the second-
134: and third-order perturbations is very
135: small, if the scale factor in the EdS model is replaced with the
136: linear growth factor.\footnote{Martel \& Freudling (1991) and
137: Scoccimarro et al. (1998) showed that
138: this assumption is valid if $f \equiv d \ln D_1/ d \ln a
139: = \Omega_M^{1/2}$. However, since $f \approx \Omega_M^{0.6}$, the
140: approximation is not accurate.}
141: %Hence one usually apply the results in the EdS model
142: % to other cosmological models.
143: However, since the theoretical model of the BAO should
144: archive the subpercent accuracy to provide a strong constraint on the
145: dark energy, it is useful to reinvestigate this topic to accurately check
146: the above assumption.
147: In this study, we calculate the third-order density perturbation,
148: newly including the dark energy with the time-varying equation of state,
149: % in a dark energy dominated universe
150: and derive the one-loop power spectrum analytically for the first time.
151: %We newly include the dark energy.
152: We compare our results with the approximate results based on the EdS model
153: in detail, and discuss the effect of the dark energy on the power spectrum
154: near the baryon acoustic scale.
155:
156:
157: Throughout this paper, we use $\delta$ as the density fluctuation,
158: $\theta ~(=\nabla \cdot {\boldsymbol{v}})$ as the divergence of the peculiar
159: velocity field, and $\tau=a(t) dt$ as the conformal time.
160: $\Omega_M$, $\Omega_K$ and $\Omega_X$ are the density parameter for
161: the matter, the curvature and the dark energy at present.
162: $w(a)$ is the equation of state of the dark energy.
163: The Hubble expansion rate is $H^2(a)= H_0^2 \left[ \Omega_M a^{-3} +
164: \Omega_K a^{-2} + \Omega_X \exp \left[ 3 \int_a^1 da^\prime
165: \left( 1+w(a^\prime) \right)/a^\prime \right] \right]$.
166:
167:
168: %{\bf 1.Basics}
169: \section{Basics}
170:
171: %We briefly discuss the basic equations determine the growth of
172: %the density fluctuation and the peculiar velocity field.
173: % and theses solutions in the linear regime.
174: The equation of motion determines the growth of the density field
175: $\delta(\bfk,\tau)$, and
176: velocity field $\theta(\bfk,\tau)$ $(\equiv i \bfk \cdot
177: {\boldsymbol{v}}(\bfk, \tau))$
178: in the Fourier space is \cite{bcgs02}
179: \beqa
180: && \frac{\partial \delta(\bfk, \tau)}{\partial \tau} + \theta(\bfk,\tau)
181: = - \int d^3 \bfq ~\alpha(\bfq,\bfk-\bfq) \theta(\bfq,\tau)
182: \delta(\bfk-\bfq,\tau), \label{eom1} \\
183: && \frac{\partial \theta(\bfk,\tau)}{\partial \tau} + a(\tau) H(\tau)
184: \theta(\bfk,\tau) + \frac{3}{2} a^2(\tau) \Omega_M(\tau) H^2(\tau)
185: \delta(\bfk,\tau) \label{eom2} \nonumber \\
186: && ~~~= - \int d^3 \bfq ~\beta(\bfq,\bfk-\bfq) \theta(\bfq,\tau)
187: \theta(\bfk-\bfq,\tau),
188: \eeqa
189: with
190: \beq
191: \alpha(\bfp,\bfq)=\frac{\left( \bfp+\bfq \right) \cdot \bfp}{p^2}, ~~
192: \beta(\bfp,\bfq)=\frac{\left( \bfp+\bfq \right)^2 \bfp \cdot \bfq}
193: {2 p^2 q^2}.
194: \eeq
195: Equation (\ref{eom1}) is the continuity equation,
196: while equation (\ref{eom2}) is the Euler equation
197: with the Poisson equation.
198: In the linear regime, one can neglect the mode-coupling terms on the
199: right-hand sides of Eqs. (\ref{eom1}) and (\ref{eom2}).
200: Then the linear solutions are
201: \beq
202: \delta_1(\bfk,a)=D_1(a) \delta_1(\bfk), ~\theta_1(\bfk,a)=-a^2 H(a)
203: \frac{dD_1(a)}{da} \delta_1(\bfk).
204: \eeq
205: The linear growth factor $D_1(a)$ is determined by
206: \beq
207: \frac{d}{d^2\ln a^2} \frac{D_1}{a} + \left( 4+ \frac{d \ln H}{d \ln a}
208: \right) \frac{d}{d\ln a} \frac{D_1}{a} + \left( 3+\frac{d \ln H}{d \ln a}
209: - \frac{3}{2} \Omega_M(a) \right) \frac{D_1}{a} = 0,
210: \eeq
211: with the initial condition $D_1(a)/a \rightarrow 1$ at $a \rightarrow 0$.
212: In the special case of the flat model ($\Omega_K=0$) with the constant $w$,
213: the solution is given by the hypergeometric function\cite{sw94,p03}.
214:
215: The density field is formally expanded up to the third order as
216: $\delta(\bfk,a)=\delta_1(\bfk,a) +\delta_2(\bfk,a)+\delta_3(\bfk,a)$.
217: % and $\theta(\bfk,a)=\theta_1(\bfk,a) +\theta_2(\bfk,a)+\theta_3(\bfk,a)$.
218: We will show the second- and third-order solutions in the following sections.
219:
220:
221: \section{Second-order solution}
222:
223: Inserting the linear-order solutions of $\delta_1$ and $\theta_1$ into the
224: right-hand sides of equations (\ref{eom1}) and (\ref{eom2}),
225: one can obtain the second-order solution as
226: \beq
227: \delta_2(\bfk, a)=D_{2 A}(a) A(\bfk) + D_{2 B}(a) B(\bfk),
228: \label{d2}
229: \eeq
230: with
231: \beqa
232: A(\bfk) = \frac{5}{7} \int d^3 \bfq ~\alpha(\bfq,\bfk-\bfq) \delta_1(\bfq)
233: \delta_1(\bfk-\bfq), \\
234: B(\bfk) = \frac{2}{7} \int d^3 \bfq ~\beta(\bfq,\bfk-\bfq) \delta_1(\bfq)
235: \delta_1(\bfk-\bfq).
236: \eeqa
237: The second-order growth factors $D_{2 A,B}$ are determined by
238: ordinary differential equations with the boundary
239: condition $D_{2 A,B} \rightarrow a^2$ at $a \rightarrow 0$
240: (see Appendix A).
241: One usually approximately use $D_1^2$, instead of $D_{2A,B}$, in
242: equation (\ref{d2}).
243: % however this is only valid in the EdS model.
244: In order to demonstrate the validity of this approximation,
245: we show the relative differences between $D_{2 A,B}$ and $D_1^2$
246: in Fig.~\ref{fig_f2h3} for the constant $w$ in the flat model
247: ($\Omega_K=0$).
248: The results are shown by the contour lines in the $\Omega_M - w$ plane
249: for $D_{2 A}$ (top left panel) and $D_{2 B}$ (top right panel).
250: As clearly seen in the figures, the relative errors are
251: small, less than $4 \%$ for $0.1<\Omega_M<1$ and $-0.5<w<-1.5$.
252: The errors become larger for larger $w$.
253: % $\sim 4 \%$ for $w=-0.5$.
254: %because the deviation from the EdS model becomes more recently.
255: This tenancy suggests for larger $w$ that the dark energy has been
256: affecting the expansion rate since long time ago, and hence the
257: large differences between $D_{2A,B}$ and $D_1^2$ arise at present.
258:
259:
260: Figure \ref{fig_d2d3} is the same as Fig.~\ref{fig_f2h3}, but for the time
261: varying equation of state\cite{cp01,jbp05}
262: \beq
263: w(a)=w_0+w_a a \left( 1-a \right).
264: \eeq
265: The results are shown in the $w_0 - w_a$ plane with
266: $\Omega_M=0.28$ $(=1-\Omega_X)$.
267: As shown in the figure, for large $w_a$, the relative differences
268: become large.
269: This is because the dark energy term in the hubble expansion
270: $H^2(a)$, $\Omega_X a^{-3 (1+w_0)}$ $\exp \left[ (3/2)
271: w_a (1-a)^2 \right]$, becomes large for large $w_a$ in the past ($a<1$).
272: The relative errors are less than $10 \%$ for $-1.5<w_0<-0.5$ and
273: $w_a<3$.
274:
275:
276: \begin{figure}[htb]
277: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=12.cm]{f1.eps}}
278: \caption{
279: %The contour maps of the $\Omega_M-w$ plane in which
280: Top panels: the contour lines show the relative differences between
281: $D_{2 A,B}$ and $D_1^2$ at present ($a=1$) in the $\Omega_M-w$ plane.
282: The flat cosmological model and the constant equation of state are assumed.
283: The top left (right) panel is the result for $D_{2 A}$ ($D_{2 B}$).
284: Middle and bottom panels: same as top panels, but for the relative
285: differences between $D_{3}$ and $D_1^3$.
286: }
287: \label{fig_f2h3}
288: \end{figure}
289:
290:
291: \begin{figure}[htb]
292: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=12.cm]{f2.eps}}
293: \caption{
294: Same as Fig.~\ref{fig_f2h3}, but for the time-varying equation of state,
295: $w(a)=w_0+w_a a \left( 1-a \right)$.
296: The results are shown in the $w_0 - w_a$ plane in the flat cosmological
297: model with $\Omega_M=0.28$.
298: }
299: \label{fig_d2d3}
300: \end{figure}
301:
302:
303:
304: \section{Third-order solution}
305:
306:
307: Similarly, the third-order solution consists of six terms, as shown by
308: \beqa
309: \delta_3(\bfk, a)=D_{3 AA}(a) C_{AA}(\bfk)
310: + D_{3 AA}^{\prime}(a) C^{\prime}_{AA}(\bfk)
311: + D_{3 AB}(a) C_{AB}(\bfk) \nonumber \\
312: + D_{3 AB}^{\prime}(a) C^{\prime}_{AB}(\bfk)
313: + D_{3 BA}(a) C_{BA}(\bfk) + D_{3 BB}(a) C_{BB}(\bfk),
314: \label{d3}
315: \eeqa
316: with
317: \beqa
318: &&C_{AA}(\bfk) = \frac{7}{18} \int d^3 \bfq ~\alpha(\bfq,\bfk-\bfq)
319: \delta_1(\bfq) A(\bfk-\bfq), \\
320: &&C^{\prime}_{AA}(\bfk) = \frac{7}{30} \int d^3 \bfq ~\alpha(\bfq,\bfk-\bfq)
321: \delta_1(\bfk-\bfq) A(\bfq), \\
322: &&C_{AB}(\bfk) = \frac{7}{18} \int d^3 \bfq ~\alpha(\bfq,\bfk-\bfq)
323: \delta_1(\bfq) B(\bfk-\bfq), \\
324: &&C^{\prime}_{AB}(\bfk) = \frac{7}{9} \int d^3 \bfq ~\alpha(\bfq,\bfk-\bfq)
325: \delta_1(\bfk-\bfq) B(\bfq), \\
326: &&C_{BA}(\bfk) = \frac{2}{15} \int d^3 \bfq ~\beta(\bfq,\bfk-\bfq)
327: \delta_1(\bfq) A(\bfk-\bfq), \\
328: &&C_{BB}(\bfk) = \frac{4}{9} \int d^3 \bfq ~\beta(\bfq,\bfk-\bfq)
329: \delta_1(\bfq) B(\bfk-\bfq).
330: \eeqa
331: There are two additional conditions of
332: \beqa
333: \frac{5}{18} D_{3AA} + \frac{2}{9} D_{3AB}^\prime = \frac{1}{2} D_1^3,
334: \nonumber \\
335: \frac{1}{6} D_{3AA}^\prime + \frac{1}{9} D_{3AB} + \frac{2}{21} D_{3BA}
336: + \frac{8}{63} D_{3BB} = \frac{1}{2} D_1^3,
337: \label{d3_cond}
338: \eeqa
339: and hence only four terms in Eq.~(\ref{d3}) are independent of each other.
340: The growth factors $D_{3**}$ are determined by the ordinary
341: differential equations with the boundary conditions of
342: $D_{3**} \rightarrow a^3$ in $a \rightarrow 0$ (see Appendix A).
343: The middle and bottom panels in Figs.~\ref{fig_f2h3} and \ref{fig_d2d3}
344: are the same as the top panels, but for the relative
345: differences between $D_{3**}$ and $D_1^3$.
346: The results are shown for $D_{3AA}$ (middle left), $D_{3AB}$
347: (middle right), $D_{3BA}$ (bottom left), and $D_{3BB}$ (bottom right).
348: The relative differences are less than $7 \%$ for $0.1<\Omega_M<1$ and
349: $-1.5<w<-0.5$ and less than $20 \%$ for $-0.5<w_0<0.5$ and $w_a<3$.
350:
351: Our results of the second- and third-order solutions are consistent with
352: the previous results of Bernardeau (1994) for the cosmological constant
353: model ($w=-1$).
354: Although we presented the results for only the density perturbations,
355: one can easily obtain the velocity field perturbations
356: by inserting Eqs. (\ref{d2}) and (\ref{d3}) to Eqs.
357: (\ref{eom1}) and (\ref{eom2}).
358:
359:
360: %The second- and third-order solutions of the velocity field is also
361: % easily obtained by inserting the results of
362: % Eqs.(\ref{d2}) and (\ref{d3}) to Eq.(\ref{eom1}).
363:
364:
365: \section{One-loop power spectrum}
366:
367: The one-loop power spectrum is the linear power spectrum with the
368: leading correction arising from the second- and third-order density
369: perturbations,
370: \beqa
371: P(k,a) &=& \langle \left| \delta_1(k,a)+\delta_2(k,a)+\delta_3(k,a)
372: \right|^2 \rangle \nonumber \\
373: &=& D_1^2(a) P_{11}(k) + P_{22}(k,a)+P_{13}(k,a),
374: \label{one_loop_pk}
375: \eeqa
376: where $P_{11}=\langle |\delta_1|^2 \rangle$, $P_{22}=\langle |\delta_2|^2
377: \rangle$ and $P_{13}= \langle 2 {\rm{Re}} (\delta_1 \delta_3^*) \rangle$.
378: The first term is the linear power spectrum, and the second and third
379: terms are the one-loop corrections.
380: The explicit formulae for $P_{22}$ and $P_{13}$ are given in Appendix B.
381:
382: One usually approximately apply the one-loop power spectrum in the EdS model
383: to an arbitrary cosmological model by replacing the scale factor
384: by the linear growth factor,
385: \beq
386: P_{\rm EdS}(k,a)=D_1^2(a) P_{11}(k) + D_1^4(a) \left[ P_{22}(k)+P_{13}(k)
387: \right]_{\rm EdS},
388: \label{one_loop_pk_eds}
389: \eeq
390: where the second and third terms are the corrections for the
391: EdS model\cite{mss92,jb94} (see also Appendix B).
392: We compare the two power spectra in
393: Eqs.~(\ref{one_loop_pk}) and (\ref{one_loop_pk_eds}) in order to
394: quantitatively demonstrate the validity of the above approximation.
395: We use CAMB (Code for Anisotropies in the Microwave Background)\cite{lcl00}
396: to calculate the linear power spectrum with the cosmological parameters
397: $h=0.701$, $\Omega_B=0.0462$, $\Omega_M=0.279$, $n_s=0.96$
398: and $\sigma_8=0.82$, consistent with the WMAP 5yr result\cite{k08}.
399:
400:
401: \begin{figure}[htb]
402: \parbox{\halftext}{\includegraphics[width=6.6cm]{f3a.eps}}
403: \hspace{0.5cm}
404: \parbox{\halftext}{\includegraphics[width=6.6cm]{f3b.eps}}
405: \parbox{\halftext}{\includegraphics[width=6.6cm]{f3c.eps}}
406: \hspace{0.5cm}
407: \parbox{\halftext}{\includegraphics[width=6.6cm]{f3d.eps}}
408: \caption{
409: Relative differences of $P_{22}(k)$ (top left), $P_{13}(k)$
410: (top right), $P_{22}(k)+P_{13}(k)$ (bottom left) and
411: $P(k)$ (bottom right) between the correct results and the approximate
412: results denoted by $[...]_{\rm EdS}$.
413: The cosmological model is consistent with the WMAP 5yr result.
414: }
415: \label{fig_dp}
416: \end{figure}
417:
418:
419: \begin{figure}[htb]
420: \parbox{\halftext}{\includegraphics[width=6.6cm]{f4a.eps}}
421: \hspace{0.5cm}
422: \parbox{\halftext}{\includegraphics[width=6.6cm]{f4b.eps}}
423: \caption{
424: Same as top panels in Fig.\ref{fig_dp}, but at various redshifts
425: of $z=0,1,3$.
426: }
427: \label{fig_dp_z}
428: \end{figure}
429:
430:
431:
432:
433:
434: Figure \ref{fig_dp} shows the relative differences in $P_{22}(k)$,
435: $P_{13}(k)$, $P_{22}(k)+P_{13}(k)$ and $P(k)$
436: between Eqs.~(\ref{one_loop_pk}) and (\ref{one_loop_pk_eds}) at $z=0$.
437: The equation of states are $(w_0,w_a)=(-1.2,0)$, $(-1,0)$, $(-1,2)$,
438: and $(-0.8,0)$.
439: From the top panels, the error is $< 5 \%$ for $P_{13}$ while
440: $\ll 1 \%$ for $P_{22}$.
441: %This is because the deviations of second-order growth factors $D_{2A}$
442: % and $D_{2B}$ from the EdS model are canceled as shown in Fig.\ref{fig_d2}.
443: On a small scale, these differences are small.
444: In the bottom left panel, the error diverges at $k \simeq 0.75h/$Mpc because
445: the denominator of $P_{22}+P_{13}$ vanishes there.
446: The approximate formula of $P_{\rm EdS}$ predicts a slightly lower value than
447: the correct result,
448: because $[P_{22}]_{\rm EdS}(>0)$ is almost the same as $P_{22}$ while
449: $[P_{13}]_{\rm EdS}(<0)$ is more negative than $P_{13}$ as shown in the
450: top panels.
451: However, as expected, the difference is very small
452: at less than $\sim 1 \%$ for $k<0.4 {\rm h/Mpc}$.
453: Figure \ref{fig_dp_z} is the same as Fig.~\ref{fig_dp}, but at various
454: redshifts of $z=0,1,3$.
455: Hence, from this figure, the EdS model approximation in
456: Eq.~(\ref{one_loop_pk_eds}) is
457: sufficiently more accurate for higher redshifts $z>1$.
458: %At $z=1$ the difference reduces to $< 0.1\%$.
459: % for $k < 0.4h$/Mpc.
460:
461: Finally, we calculate the shift in the position of the first acoustic peak
462: at $k \simeq 0.07h$/Mpc.
463: Dividing $P(k)$ by the no-wiggle model of Eisenstein \& Hu (1999),
464: we find that the position is shifted by only $0.8\% (0.02\%)$ for
465: $z=0(z=1)$.
466:
467:
468: In this chapter, we calculated the one-loop power spectrum,
469: however it is not accurate in the strong nonlinear regime
470: ($k \gtrsim 0.1h/$Mpc).
471: In fact, Jeong \& Komatsu (2006) found that the one-loop power
472: spectrum coincides with the nonlinear power spectrum from the numerical
473: simulation within $1\%$ if $\Delta^2(k)=k^3 P(k)/2\pi^2<0.4$ is satisfied.
474: This condition is rewritten as $k<0.12(0.26)h/$Mpc at $z=0(z=1)$.
475: Hence, in order to extend our analysis to a smaller scale,
476: further analysis of the cosmological dependence
477: of the higher-order perturbation theory is necessary.
478:
479:
480: \section{Conclusion}
481:
482: We investigate the third-order density perturbation
483: and the one-loop power spectrum in the dark-energy cosmological model.
484: %We also present these solutions and the analytical formula of the
485: % one-loop power spectrum.
486: We present analytical solutions and a fitting formula
487: with the general time-varying equation of state
488: for the first time.
489: It turns out that the cosmological dependence is very weak,
490: for example,
491: less than $1 \%$ for $k<0.4h/$Mpc for the power spectrum.
492: However, our results may be useful in some cases
493: when one needs a very highly accurate theoretical model of the BAO
494: % the sub percent accuracy of the BAO
495: or in the study of the nonlinear evolution on a smaller scale ($>0.4h$/Mpc).
496:
497:
498: \section*{Acknowledgements}
499: We would like to thank Takahiko Matsubara and the anonymous referees
500: for helpful comments and suggestions.
501: This work is supported in part by a
502: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Areas No. 467
503: ``Probing the Dark Energy through an Extremely Wide and Deep Survey with
504: Subaru Telescope''.
505:
506: \appendix
507: \section{Second- and Third-Order Growth Factors}
508:
509: The second-order growth factors $D_{2 A,B}$ are determined by
510: the ordinary differential equations
511: \beq
512: \frac{d^2}{d \ln a^2} \frac{D_2}{a^2}
513: + \left( 6 + \frac{d \ln H}{d \ln a} \right) \frac{d}{d \ln a}
514: \frac{D_2}{a^2}
515: + \left[ 8 + 2~\frac{d \ln H}{d \ln a} - \frac{3}{2} \Omega_M(a)
516: \right] \frac{D_2}{a^2} \nonumber
517: \eeq
518: \beqa
519: &&= \frac{7}{5} \left[ \left( \frac{dD_1}{da} \right)^2 +
520: \frac{3}{2} \Omega_M(a) \left( \frac{D_1}{a} \right)^2 \right]
521: ~\mbox{for} ~D_{2A}, \hspace{2cm} \\
522: &&= \frac{7}{2} \left( \frac{dD_1}{da} \right)^2 ~~\mbox{for} ~D_{2B},
523: \hspace{2cm}
524: \eeqa
525: with the initial conditions at $a=0$:
526: \beq
527: \frac{D_{2A,B}}{a^2}=1,~\frac{d}{da} \frac{D_{2A,B}}{a^2}=0.
528: \eeq
529: For the flat model with the constant equation of state,
530: the solutions are well approximated as
531: \beqa
532: D_{2A} &\simeq& D_1^2 \left[ 1+ \left| \ln \Omega_M \right| \left(
533: \frac{5.54 \times 10^{-3}}{|w|} - \frac{3.40 \times 10^{-3}}{\sqrt{|w|}}
534: \right) \right], \\
535: D_{2B} &\simeq& D_1^2 \left[ 1+ \left| \ln \Omega_M \right| \left(
536: - \frac{1.384 \times 10^{-2}}{|w|} + \frac{8.50 \times 10^{-3}}{\sqrt{|w|}}
537: \right) \right],
538: \eeqa
539: within a maximum error of $0.03 \%$ for both $0.1 \leq \Omega_M \leq 1$
540: and $-1.5 \leq w \leq -0.5$.
541: %Hence, the differences between $D_{2A,B}$ and $D_1^2$ are very small.
542:
543: \
544:
545: Similarly, the third-order growth factors are determined by
546: \beq
547: \frac{d^2}{d \ln a^2} \frac{D_3}{a^3}
548: + \left( 8 + \frac{d \ln H}{d \ln a} \right) \frac{d}{d \ln a}
549: \frac{D_3}{a^3}
550: + \left[ 15 + 3~\frac{d \ln H}{d \ln a} - \frac{3}{2} \Omega_M(a)
551: \right] \frac{D_3}{a^3} \nonumber
552: \eeq
553: \beqa
554: &&= \frac{18}{7} \left[ 2 \frac{dD_1}{da} +
555: \frac{3}{2} \Omega_M(a) \frac{D_1}{a} \right] \frac{D_{2A,B}}{a^2}
556: + \frac{18}{7} a \frac{dD_1}{da} \frac{d}{da} \frac{D_{2A,B}}{a^2}
557: ~~\mbox{for} ~D_{3AA,3AB}
558: \nonumber \\
559: \\
560: &&= 15 \frac{dD_1}{da} \left[ a \frac{d}{da} \frac{D_{2A}}{a^2} + 2
561: \frac{D_{2A}}{a^2} - \frac{7}{5} \frac{D_1}{a} \frac{dD_1}{da}
562: \right] , ~~\mbox{for} ~D_{3BA} \\
563: &&= \frac{9}{2} \frac{dD_1}{da} \left[ a \frac{d}{da} \frac{D_{2B}}{a^2} + 2
564: \frac{D_{2B}}{a^2} \right] , ~~\mbox{for} ~D_{3BB}
565: \eeqa
566: with the initial conditions at $a=0$:
567: \beq
568: \frac{D_{3}}{a^3}=1,~\frac{d}{da} \frac{D_{3}}{a^3}=0.
569: \eeq
570: For $\Omega_K=0$ with the constant $w$,
571: the solutions are well fitted by
572: \beqa
573: D_{3AA} &\simeq& D_1^3 \left[ 1+ \left| \ln \Omega_M \right| \left(
574: \frac{8.21 \times 10^{-3}}{|w|} - \frac{5.14 \times 10^{-3}}{\sqrt{|w|}}
575: \right) \right], \\
576: D_{3AB} &\simeq& D_1^3 \left[ 1+ \left| \ln \Omega_M \right|^{1.5+0.4 \ln |w|} \left| \Omega_M \right|^{0.7 |w|} \left( - \frac{9.16 \times 10^{-3}}{|w|} + \frac{8.95 \times 10^{-3}}{\sqrt{|w|}}
577: \right) \right], \nonumber \\
578: \\
579: D_{3BA} &\simeq& D_1^3 \left[ 1+ \left| \ln \Omega_M \right|^{1.06-0.5 \ln |w|} \left( {7.68 \times 10^{-3}}{|w|} - {1.130 \times 10^{-2}}{\sqrt{|w|}}
580: \right) \right], \\
581: D_{3BB} &\simeq& D_1^3 \left[ 1+ \left| \ln \Omega_M \right| \left(
582: - \frac{2.641 \times 10^{-2}}{|w|} + \frac{1.582 \times 10^{-2}}{\sqrt{|w|}}
583: \right) \right],
584: \eeqa
585: within a maximum error of $0.05 \%$ for both $0.1 \leq \Omega_M \leq 1$ and
586: $-1.5 \leq w \leq -0.5$.
587: The other growth factors $D_{3AA}^\prime$ and $D_{3AB}^\prime$ can be
588: obtained using Eq.~(\ref{d3_cond}).
589:
590: \section{Explicit Expressions of $P_{22}$ and $P_{13}$}
591:
592: Here, we present the explicit expressions of the one-loop correction
593: terms $P_{22}$ and $P_{13}$.
594: From the results in \S $3$, we obtain
595: \beq
596: P_{22}(k,a)=\langle \left| \delta_2(\bfk,a) \right|^2 \rangle
597: = D_{2 A}^2 (a) P_{2 AA}(k) + 2 D_{2 A}(a) D_{2 B}(a) P_{2 AB}(k)
598: + D_{2 B}^2 (a) P_{2 BB}(k),
599: \label{app_p22}
600: \eeq
601: with
602: \beq
603: P_{2 AA}(k)= \frac{25}{392 \pi^2} k^4 \int_0^\infty dk_1 \int_{-1}^1 d\mu
604: P_{11}(k_1) P_{11} \left( \sqrt{k^2+k_1^2-2 k k_1 \mu} \right)
605: \left( \frac{k\mu+k_1-2k_1\mu^2}{k^2+k_1^2-2kk_1 \mu} \right)^2,
606: \nonumber
607: \eeq
608: \beq
609: P_{2 BB}(k)= \frac{1}{98 \pi^2} k^4 \int_0^\infty dk_1 \int_{-1}^1 d\mu
610: P_{11}(k_1) P_{11} \left( \sqrt{k^2+k_1^2-2 k k_1 \mu} \right)
611: \left( \frac{k\mu-k_1}{k^2+k_1^2-2kk_1 \mu} \right)^2,
612: \nonumber
613: \eeq
614: \beq
615: P_{2 AB}(k)= \frac{5}{196 \pi^2} k^4 \int_0^\infty dk_1 \int_{-1}^1 d\mu
616: P_{11}(k_1) P_{11} \left( \sqrt{k^2+k_1^2-2 k k_1 \mu} \right)
617: \frac{\left( k\mu-k_1 \right) \left( k\mu+k_1-2k_1\mu^2 \right)}
618: {\left( k^2+k_1^2-2kk_1 \mu \right)^2},
619: \nonumber
620: \eeq
621: where $\mu$ is the cosine between $\bfk$ and $\bfk_1$.
622:
623: Similarly for $P_{13}$, from the results in \S $4$, we obtain
624: \beqa
625: P_{13}(k,a) &=& \left< 2 {\rm Re} \left( \delta_1(\bfk,a) \delta_3^*(\bfk,a)
626: \right) \right> \nonumber \\
627: &=& D_{3 AA}(a) P_{3 AA}(k)
628: + D_{3 AA}^{\prime}(a) P^{\prime}_{3 AA}(k)
629: + D_{3 AB}(a) P_{3 AB}(k) \nonumber \\
630: &+& D_{3 AB}^{\prime}(a) P^{\prime}_{3 AB}(k)
631: + D_{3 BA}(a) P_{3 BA}(k) + P_{3 BB}(a) P_{3 BB}(k),
632: \label{app_p13}
633: \eeqa
634: with
635: \beqa
636: &&P_{3 AA}(k)=-\frac{5}{54 \pi^2} k^3 P_{11}(k) \int_0^\infty dr P_{11}(k r)
637: \left( 1+r^2 \right), \nonumber \\
638: &&P_{3 AA}^\prime (k)=\frac{1}{24 \pi^2} k^3 P_{11}(k) \int_0^\infty dr
639: P_{11}(k r) \left[ 1+4r^2-r^4 + \frac{1}{2r} \left( r^2-1 \right)^3
640: \ln \left| \frac{r+1}{r-1} \right| \right], \nonumber \\
641: &&P_{3 AB} (k)=- \frac{1}{27 \pi^2} k^3 P_{11}(k) \int_0^\infty dr
642: P_{11}(k r) \left( 1+r^2 \right), \nonumber \\
643: &&P_{3 AB}^\prime (k)= \frac{2}{27 \pi^2} k^3 P_{11}(k) \int_0^\infty dr
644: P_{11}(k r) r^2, \nonumber \\
645: &&P_{3 BA} (k)=\frac{1}{168 \pi^2} k^3 P_{11}(k) \int_0^\infty dr
646: P_{11}(kr) \left[ \frac{2}{r^2} \left( 1-4r^2-r^4 \right)
647: +\frac{(r^2-1)^3}{r^3} \ln \left| \frac{r+1}{r-1} \right| \right],
648: \nonumber \\
649: &&P_{3 BB} (k)=- \frac{4}{189 \pi^2} k^3 P_{11}(k) \int_0^\infty dr
650: P_{11}(kr). \nonumber
651: \eeqa
652: By setting $D_2=a^2$ and $D_3=a^3$ in Eqs. (\ref{app_p22}) and
653: (\ref{app_p13}), the correction terms reduce to
654: the result in the EdS model, $a^4[P_{22}(k)+P_{13}(k)]_{\rm EdS}$.
655:
656:
657:
658: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
659: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
660: % Some macros are available for the bibliography:
661: % o for general use
662: % \JL : general journals \andvol : Vol (Year) Page
663: % o for individual journal
664: % \AJ : Astrophys. J. \NC : Nuovo Cim.
665: % \ANN : Ann. of Phys. \NPA, \NPB : Nucl. Phys. [A,B]
666: % \CMP : Commun. Math. Phys. \PLA, \PLB : Phys. Lett. [A,B]
667: % \IJMP : Int. J. Mod. Phys. \PRA - \PRE : Phys. Rev. [A-E]
668: % \JHEP : J. High Energy Phys. \PRL : Phys. Rev. Lett.
669: % \JMP : J. Math. Phys. \PRP : Phys. Rep.
670: % \JP : J. of Phys. \PTP : Prog. Theor. Phys.
671: % \JPSJ : J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. \PTPS : Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.
672: % Usage:
673: % \PRD{45,1990,345} ==> Phys.~Rev.\ D \textbf{45} (1990), 345
674: % \JL{Nature,418,2002,123} ==> Nature \textbf{418} (2002), 123
675: % \andvol{123,1995,1020} ==> \textbf{123} (1995), 1020
676: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
677:
678:
679:
680: % SDSS & 2dF
681:
682: \bibitem{ei05}
683: D.~J.~Eisenstein et al., Astrophys. J. \textbf{633} (2005), 560.
684:
685: \bibitem{co05}
686: S.~Cole et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. \textbf{362} (2005), 505.
687:
688: \bibitem{pe07}
689: W.~J.~Percival et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. \textbf{381} (2007), 1053.
690:
691: \bibitem{ok07}
692: T.~Okumura et al., Astrophys. J. \textbf{676} (2008), 889.
693:
694:
695: % BAO simulations
696:
697: \bibitem{se05}
698: H.~J.~Seo and D.~J.~Eisenstein, Astrophys. J. \textbf{633} (2005), 575.
699:
700: \bibitem{abfl07}
701: R.~E.~Angulo, C.~M.~Baugh, C.~S.~Frenk, and C.~G.~Lacey,
702: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. \textbf{383} (2008), 755.
703:
704: \bibitem{h07}
705: E.~Huff et al., Astropart. Phys. \textbf{26} (2007), 351.
706:
707: \bibitem{sss07}
708: R.~E.~Smith, R.~Scoccimarro and R.~K.~Sheth, Phys. Rev. D
709: \textbf{75} (2007), 063512.
710:
711: \bibitem{sss08}
712: R.~E.~Smith, R.~Scoccimarro and R.~K.~Sheth, Phys. Rev. D
713: \textbf{77} (2008), 043525.
714:
715: \bibitem{t08}
716: R.~Takahashi et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. in press (2008),
717: arXiv:0802.1808.
718:
719: \bibitem{sba08}
720: A.~G.~Sanchez, C.~M.~Baugh and R.~Angulo,
721: submitted to Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., (2008), arXiv:0804.0233.
722:
723: \bibitem{ssew08}
724: H.-J.~Seo, E.~R.~Siegel, D.~J.~Eisenstein and M.~White,
725: submitted to Astrophys. J. (2008), arXiv:0805.0117.
726:
727:
728:
729: % BAO PT
730:
731: \bibitem{jk06}
732: D.~Jeong and E.~Komatsu, Astrophys. J. \textbf{651} (2006), 619.
733:
734: \bibitem{cs08}
735: M.~Crocce and R.~Scoccimarro, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{77} (2008), 023533.
736:
737: \bibitem{cs06}
738: M.~Crocce and R.~Scoccimarro, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{73} (2006), 063519.
739:
740: \bibitem{m07}
741: T.~Matsubara, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{77} (2008), 063530.
742:
743: \bibitem{mc07}
744: P.~McDonald, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{75} (2007), 043514.
745:
746: \bibitem{th08}
747: A.~Taruya and T.~Hiramatsu, Astrophys. J. \textbf{674} (2008), 617.
748:
749: \bibitem{is07}
750: K.~Izumi and J.~Soda, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{76} (2007), 083517.
751:
752: \bibitem{mp07}
753: S.~Matarrese and M.~Pietroni, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. \textbf{06}
754: (2007), 026.
755:
756: \bibitem{n07}
757: T.~Nishimichi et al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn. \textbf{59} (2007), 1049.
758:
759: \bibitem{jk08}
760: D.~Jeong and E.~Komatsu, arXiv:0805.2632.
761:
762:
763: % one-loop P(k) in EdS
764:
765: \bibitem{j81}
766: R.~Juszkiewicz, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. \textbf{197} (1981), 931.
767:
768: \bibitem{j83}
769: E.~T.~Vishniac, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. \textbf{203} (1983), 345.
770:
771: \bibitem{ggrw86}
772: M.~H.~Goroff, B.~Grinstein, S.~J.~Rey and M.~B.~Wise,
773: Astrophys. J. \textbf{311} (1986), 1.
774:
775: \bibitem{ss91}
776: Y.~Suto and M.~Sasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{21} (1991), 264.
777:
778: \bibitem{mss92}
779: N.~Makino, M.~Sasaki and Y.~Suto, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{46} (1992), 585.
780:
781: \bibitem{jb94}
782: B.~Jain and E.~Bertschinger, Astrophys. J. \textbf{431} (1994), 495.
783:
784:
785:
786: % 3rd order PT in not EdS model
787:
788: \bibitem{mf91}
789: H.~Martel and W.~Freudling, Astrophys. J. \textbf{371} (1991), 1.
790:
791: \bibitem{s98}
792: R.~Scoccimarro et al., Astrophys. J. \textbf{496} (1998), 586.
793:
794: \bibitem{bcgs02}
795: F.~Bernardeau, S.~Colombi, E.~Gaztanaga and R.~Scoccimarro, Phys. Rep.
796: \textbf{367} (2002), 1.
797:
798: \bibitem{bjcp92}
799: F.~R.~Bouchet, R.~Juszkiewicz, S.~Colombi and R.~Pellat,
800: Astrophys. J. \textbf{394} (1992), L5.
801:
802: \bibitem{b94}
803: F.~Bernardeau, Astrophys. J. \textbf{433} (1994), 1.
804:
805: \bibitem{bchj95}
806: F.~R.~Bouchet, S.~Colombi, E.~Hivon and R.~Juszkiewicz,
807: Astron. Astrophys. \textbf{296} (1995), 575.
808:
809: \bibitem{clmm95}
810: P.~Catelan, F.~Lucchin, S.~Matarrese and L.~Moscardini,
811: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. \textbf{276} (1995), 39.
812:
813: \bibitem{m95}
814: T.~Matsubara, Prog. Theor. Phys. \textbf{94} (1995), 1151.
815:
816: \bibitem{sw94}
817: V.~Silveira \& I.~Waga, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{50} (1994), 4890.
818:
819: \bibitem{p03}
820: T.~Padmanabhan, Phys. Rep. \textbf{380} (2003), 235.
821:
822:
823:
824: % time-varing equation of state
825:
826: \bibitem{cp01}
827: M.~Chevallier and D.~Polarski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D \textbf{10} (2001), 213.
828:
829: \bibitem{jbp05}
830: H.~K.~Jassal, J.~S.~Bagla and T.~Padmanabhan, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.
831: \textbf{356} (2005), L11.
832:
833:
834:
835:
836: \bibitem{lcl00}
837: A.~Lewis, A.~Challinor and A.~Lasenby, Astrophys. J.
838: \textbf{538} (2000), 473.
839:
840: \bibitem{k08}
841: E.~Komatsu et al., submitted to Astrophys. J. Suppl. arXiv:0803.0547.
842:
843:
844:
845: % no-wiggle model for P(k)
846:
847: \bibitem{eh99}
848: D.J.~Eisenstein and W.~Hu, Astrophys. J. \textbf{511} (1999), 5.
849:
850: \end{thebibliography}
851: \end{document}
852:
853:
854:
855:
856:
857:
858:
859:
860:
861:
862:
863:
864:
865:
866: