1: \documentclass[aps,showpacs,floatfix]{revtex4}

2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3: \usepackage{amssymb}

4: \usepackage{amsmath}

5: \usepackage{epsfig}

6: \usepackage{subfigure}

7: 

8: \setcounter{MaxMatrixCols}{10}

9: %TCIDATA{OutputFilter=Latex.dll}

10: %TCIDATA{Version=4.00.0.2312}

11: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Tuesday, September 13, 2005 15:10:50}

12: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="GraphicsSave" CONTENT="32">}

13: %TCIDATA{Language=American English}

14: 

15: \begin{document}

16: 

17: \title{The Power of General Relativity }

18: \author{Timothy Clifton}

19: \email{T.Clifton@damtp.cam.ac.uk}

20: \affiliation{DAMTP, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, University of Cambridge,

21: Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WA, UK}

22: \author{John D. Barrow}

23: \email{J.D.Barrow@damtp.cam.ac.uk}

24: \affiliation{DAMTP, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, University of Cambridge,

25: Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WA, UK}

26: \date{\today }

27: \pacs{95.30.Sf, 98.80.Jk, 04.80.Cc, 98.80.Bp, 98.80.Ft, 95.10.Eg}

28: 

29: \begin{abstract}

30: We study the cosmological and weak-field properties of theories of gravity

31: derived by extending general relativity by means of a Lagrangian

32: proportional to $R^{1+\delta }$. This scale-free extension reduces to

33: general relativity when $\delta \rightarrow 0$. In order to constrain

34: generalisations of general relativity of this power class we analyse the

35: behaviour of the perfect-fluid Friedmann universes and isolate the

36: physically relevant models of zero curvature. A stable matter-dominated

37: period of evolution requires $\delta >0$ or $\delta <-1/4$. The stable

38: attractors of the evolution are found. By considering the synthesis of light

39: elements (helium-4, deuterium and lithium-7) we obtain the bound $%

40: -0.017<\delta <0.0012.$ We evaluate the effect on the power spectrum of

41: clustering via the shift in the epoch of matter-radiation equality. The

42: horizon size at matter--radiation equality will be shifted by $\sim 1\%$ for

43: a value of $\delta \sim 0.0005.$ We study the stable extensions of the

44: Schwarzschild solution in these theories and calculate the timelike and null

45: geodesics. No significant bounds arise from null geodesic effects but the

46: perihelion precession observations lead to the strong bound $\delta =2.7\pm

47: 4.5\times 10^{-19}$ assuming that Mercury follows a timelike geodesic. The

48: combination of these observational constraints leads to the overall bound $%

49: 0\leq \delta <7.2\times 10^{-19}$ on theories of this type.

50: \end{abstract}

51: 

52: \maketitle

53: 

54: \section{Introduction}

55: 

56: There is a long history of considering generalisations of Einstein's theory

57: of general relativity which reduce to general relativity in the weak gravity

58: limit when the spacetime curvature, $R$, becomes small. Typically, these

59: studies consider a gravitational Lagrangian which augments the linear

60: Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian by the addition of terms of quadratic or higher

61: order in $R,$ first considered by Eddington \cite{edd}; these additions may

62: also include terms in $\ln R$, \cite{gur}. More general extensions of

63: general relativity in this spirit have considered the structure of theories

64: derived from gravitational Lagrangians that are general analytic functions

65: of $R$, \cite{buch, kerner, BO, magg}. These choices produce theories which

66: can look like general relativity plus small polynomial corrections in the

67: appropriate limiting situations as $R$ becomes small. There has also been

68: interest in theories with corrections to general relativity that are $%

69: O(R^{-1})$ because of their scope to introduce cosmological deviations from

70: general relativity at late times which might mimic the effects of dark

71: energy on the Hubble flow \cite{tur, new}. We also know that theories derived

72: from a Lagrangian that is an analytic function of $R$ have an important

73: conformal relationship to general relativity with scalar field sources so

74: long as the trace of the energy-momentum tensor vanishes in the higher-order

75: gravity theory \cite{CB, maeda}. All these theories introduce corrections to

76: general relativity which come with a characteristic length scale that is

77: determined by the new coupling constant that couples the higher-order terms

78: to the Einstein-Hilbert part of the Lagrangian. In general, these theories

79: are mathematically complicated with 4$^{th}$-order field equations that can

80: exhibit singular perturbation behaviour unless care is taken to ensure that

81: the stationary action does not become maximal rather than minimal \cite{ruz,

82: BO}. and there are few interesting exact solutions other than those of

83: general relativity, which are particular solutions in vacuum and for

84: trace-free energy momentum tensor so long as the cosmological constant

85: vanishes \cite{BO}.

86: 

87: In this paper we are going to consider a different type of generalisation of

88: Einstein's general relativity, in which no new scale is introduced. The

89: Lagrangian is proportional to $R^{n}$, and so general relativity is

90: recovered in the $n\rightarrow 1$ limit, from above or below. Particular

91: cases have been studied by Buchdahl \cite{Buc70} and Roxburgh \cite{rox}.

92: This gravitation theory has many appealing properties and, unlike

93: other higher-order gravity theories, admits simple

94: exact solutions for Friedmann cosmological models and exact static

95: spherically symmetric solutions which generalise the Schwarzschild

96: metric.  As well as allowing comparison with observation these

97: solutions also provide an interesting testing

98: ground for new developments in gravitation theory such as particle production,

99: holography and gravitational thermodynamics.  Furthermore, 

100: this theory is of additional interest because it permits a very general

101: investigation of the nature of its behaviour in the vicinity of a

102: cosmological singularity which brings the behaviour of general

103: relativity into sharper focus.  In another paper \cite{Bar05}, we show

104: that the counterpart of the Kasner anisotropic vacuum cosmology can be

105: found exactly and strong conclusions drawn about the presence or absence

106: of the chaotic behaviour found in the Mixmaster universe.

107: 

108: The structure of this paper is as follows; in the next section we present

109: the gravitational action and field equations for the theory of gravity we

110: will be considering. A conformal relationship with general relativity

111: containing a scalar field in a Liouville (exponential) potential is then

112: outlined and the Newtonian limit of the field equations is investigated. The

113: rest of the paper is then split into two sections; the first investigates

114: the cosmology of the theory and the second investigates the static and

115: spherically symmetric weak field - in both cases our goal is to calculate

116: predictions for physical processes, the results of which can be compared

117: with observation. We use observational data from cosmology and the standard

118: solar system tests of general relativity to bound the allowed values of $n$,

119: the single defining parameter of the theory.

120: 

121: In the cosmology section we consider Friedmann--Robertson--Walker universes.

122: We present the equivalent of the Friedmann equations, in this theory, and

123: find some power--law exact solutions. A dynamical systems approach is then

124: used to show the extent to which these solutions can be considered as

125: attractors of spatially flat universes at late times. After showing the

126: attractive properties of these solutions (with certain exceptions) we

127: proceed to predict the results of primordial nucleosynthesis and the form of

128: the power spectrum of perturbations in this theory. These predictions are

129: then compared to observation and used to constrain deviations from general

130: relativity.

131: 

132: The static and spherically symmetric weak-field analysis follows. We present

133: the field equations and find the physically relevant exact solution to them.

134: A dynamical systems approach is then used to find the asymptotic attractor

135: of the general solution at large distances. This asymptotic form is then

136: perturbed and the linearised field equations are found and solved. The exact

137: solution is shown to be the relevant solution in this limit, when

138: oscillatory modes in the perturbed metric functions are set to zero. We find

139: the null and time-like geodesics for this spacetime to Newtonian and

140: post-Newtonian order. Predictions are then made for the outcomes of the

141: classical tests of general relativity in this theory; namely the bending of

142: light, the time-delay of radio signals and the perihelion precession of

143: Mercury. These predictions are then compared to observation and again used

144: to constrain deviations from general relativity.

145: 

146: \section{Field equations}

147: 

148: We consider here a gravitational theory derived from the Lagrangian density 

149: \begin{equation}

150: \mathcal{L}_{G}=\frac{1}{\chi }\sqrt{-g}R^{1+\delta },  \label{action}

151: \end{equation}%

152: where $\delta $ is a real number and $\chi $ is a constant. The limit $%

153: \delta \rightarrow 0$ gives us the familiar Einstein--Hilbert Lagrangian of

154: general relativity and we are interested in the observational consequences

155: of $\left\vert \delta \right\vert $ $>0$.

156: 

157: We denote the matter action as $S_{m}$ and ignore the boundary term.

158: Extremizing 

159: \begin{equation*}

160: S=\int \mathcal{L}_{G}d^{4}x+S_{m},

161: \end{equation*}%

162: with respect to the metric $g_{ab}$ then gives \cite{Buc70} 

163: \begin{multline}

164: \delta (1-\delta ^{2})R^{\delta }\frac{R_{,a}R_{,b}}{R^{2}}-\delta (1+\delta

165: )R^{\delta }\frac{R_{;ab}}{R}+(1+\delta )R^{\delta }R_{ab}-\frac{1}{2}%

166: g_{ab}RR^{\delta }  \label{field} \\

167: -g_{ab}\delta (1-\delta ^{2})R^{\delta }\frac{R_{,c}R_{,}^{\ c}}{R^{2}}%

168: +\delta (1+\delta )g_{ab}R^{\delta }\frac{\Box R}{R}=\frac{\chi }{2}T_{ab},

169: \end{multline}%

170: where $T_{ab}$ is the energy--momentum tensor of the matter, and is defined

171: in terms of $S_{m}$ and $g_{ab}$ in the usual way. We take the quantity $%

172: R^{\delta }$ to be the positive real root of $R$ throughout this paper.

173: 

174: \subsection{Conformal equivalence to general relativity}

175: 

176: Rescaling the metric by the conformal factor $\Omega (r)=\Omega

177: _{0}R^{\delta }$ the vacuum field equations (\ref{field}) become 

178: \begin{equation*}

179: \bar{G}_{ab}=\frac{3\delta ^{2}}{2}\frac{R_{,a}R_{,b}}{R^{2}}-\frac{3\delta

180: ^{2}}{4}\bar{g}_{ab}\bar{g}^{cd}\frac{R_{,c}R_{,d}}{R^{2}}-\frac{\delta }{%

181: 2(1+\delta )}\frac{\bar{g}_{ab}}{\Omega _{0}}\frac{R}{R^{\delta }},

182: \end{equation*}%

183: where $\bar{g}_{ab}=\Omega g_{ab}$ and other quantities with overbars are

184: constructed from the rescaled metric $\bar{g}_{ab}$.

185: 

186: Making the definition of a scalar field

187: 

188: \begin{equation*}

189: \phi \equiv \sqrt{\frac{3}{16\pi G}}\ln R^{\delta },

190: \end{equation*}

191: 

192: these equations can be rewritten as 

193: \begin{equation}

194: \bar{G}_{ab}=8\pi G\left( \phi _{,a}\phi _{,b}-\frac{1}{2}\bar{g}_{ab}(\bar{g%

195: }^{cd}\phi _{,c}\phi _{,d}+2 V(\phi ))\right)  \label{conformalfield}

196: \end{equation}%

197: and 

198: \begin{equation*}

199: \square \phi =\frac{dV}{d\phi },

200: \end{equation*}%

201: where $V(\phi )$ is given by 

202: \begin{equation}

203: V(\phi )=\frac{\delta \ \text{sign}(R)}{16\pi G(1+\delta )\Omega _{0}}\exp

204: \left\{ {\sqrt{\frac{16\pi G}{3}}\frac{(1-\delta )}{\delta }\phi }\right\} .

205: \label{pot1}

206: \end{equation}%

207: The magnitude of the quantity $\Omega _{0}$ is not physically important and

208: simply corresponds to the rescaling of the metric by a constant quantity,

209: which can be absorbed by an appropriate rescaling of units. It is, however,

210: important to ensure that $\Omega _{0}>0$ in order to maintain the +2

211: signature of the metric. This result is a particular example of the general

212: conformal equivalence to general relativity plus a scalar field for

213: Lagrangians of the form $f(R)$, where $f$ is an analytic function found in

214: refs. \cite{CB, maeda}.

215: 

216: \subsection{The Newtonian Limit}

217: 

218: By comparing the geodesic equation to Newton's gravitational force law it

219: can be seen that, as usual, 

220: \begin{equation}

221: \Gamma _{00}^{\mu }=\Phi _{,\mu }  \label{ChrN}

222: \end{equation}%

223: where $\Phi $ is the Newtonian gravitational potential. All the other

224: Christoffel symbols have $\Gamma _{\;bc}^{a}=0$, to the required order of

225: accuracy.

226: 

227: We now seek an approximation to the field equations (\ref{field}) that is of

228: the form of Poisson's equation; this will allow us to fix the constant $\chi 

229: $. Constructing the components of the Riemann tensor from (\ref{ChrN}) we

230: obtain the standard results 

231: \begin{equation}

232: R_{\;0\nu 0}^{\mu }=\frac{\partial ^{2}\Phi }{\partial x^{\mu }\partial

233: x^{\nu }}\qquad \text{and}\qquad R_{00}=\nabla ^{2}\Phi .  \label{R00}

234: \end{equation}%

235: The $00$ component of the field equations (\ref{field}) can now be written 

236: \begin{equation}

237: (1+\delta )R_{00}-\frac{1}{2}g_{00}R=\frac{\chi }{2}\frac{T_{00}}{R^{\delta }%

238: }  \label{approx}

239: \end{equation}%

240: where terms containing derivatives of $R$ have been discarded as they will

241: contain third and fourth derivatives of $\Phi $, which will have no

242: counterparts in Poisson's equation. Subtracting the trace of equation (\ref%

243: {approx}) gives 

244: \begin{equation}

245: (1+\delta )R_{00}=\frac{\chi }{2R^{\delta }}\left( T_{00}-\frac{1}{%

246: 2(1-\delta )}g_{00}T\right)  \label{approx2}

247: \end{equation}%

248: where $T$ is the trace of the stress--energy tensor. Assuming a

249: perfect--fluid form for $T$ we should have, to first--order, 

250: \begin{equation}

251: T_{00}\simeq \rho \qquad \text{and}\qquad T\simeq 3p-\rho \simeq -\rho .

252: \label{T00}

253: \end{equation}%

254: Substituting (\ref{T00}) and (\ref{R00}) into (\ref{approx2}) gives 

255: \begin{equation*}

256: \nabla ^{2}\Phi \simeq \frac{\chi (1-2\delta )}{4(1-\delta ^{2})}\frac{\rho 

257: }{R^{\delta }}.

258: \end{equation*}%

259: Comparison of this expression with Poisson's equation allows one to read off 

260: \begin{equation}

261: \chi =16\pi G\frac{(1-\delta ^{2})}{(1-2\delta )}R_{0}^{\delta }  \label{chi}

262: \end{equation}%

263: where $R_{0}$ is the value of the Ricci tensor at the time $G$ is measured.

264: It can be seen that the Newtonian limit of the field equations (\ref{field})

265: does not reduce to the usual relation $\nabla ^{2}\Phi \propto \rho $, but

266: instead contains an extra factor of $R^{\delta }$. This can be interpreted

267: as being the space--time dependence of Newton's constant, in this theory.

268: Such a dependence should be expected as the Lagrangian (\ref{action}) can be

269: shown to be equivalent to a scalar--tensor theory, after an appropriate

270: Legendre transformation \footnote{This equivalence to

271: scalar-tensor theories should not be taken to imply that bounds on the

272: Brans-Dicke parameter $\omega$ are immediately applicable to this

273: theory.  It can be shown that a potential for the scalar-field can

274: have a non-trivial effect on the resulting phenomenology of the theory

275: \cite{Olmo}.  Furthermore, the form of the perturbation to general

276: relativity that we are considering does not allow an expansion of the

277: corresponding scalar field of the form $\phi_0+\phi_1$ where $\phi_0$ is constant

278: and $\vert \phi_1 \vert << \vert \phi_0 \vert$, so that any

279: constraints obtained in a weak-field expansion of this sort cannot be

280: applied to this situation.} (see e.g, \cite{Mag94}).  This type of Newtonian

281: gravity theory admits a range of simple exact solutions in the case where

282: the effective value of $G$ is a power-law in time even though the theory

283: is non-conservative and there is no longer an energy integral

284: \cite{newt}.

285: 

286: \section{Cosmology}

287: 

288: In this paper we will be concerned with the idealised homogeneous and

289: isotropic space--times described by the Friedmann--Robertson--Walker metric

290: with curvature parameter $\kappa $: 

291: \begin{equation}

292: ds^{2}=-dt^{2}+a^{2}(t)\left( \frac{dr^{2}}{(1-\kappa r^{2})}+r^{2}d\theta

293: ^{2}+r^{2}\sin ^{2}\theta d\phi ^{2}\right) .  \label{FRW}

294: \end{equation}%

295: Substituting this metric ansatz into the field equations (\ref{field}), and

296: assuming the universe to be filled with a perfect fluid of pressure $p$ and

297: density $\rho $, gives the generalised version of the Friedmann equations 

298: \begin{align}

299: (1-\delta )R^{1+\delta }+3\delta (1+\delta )R^{\delta }\left( \frac{\ddot{R}%

300: }{R}+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\frac{\dot{R}}{R}\right) -3\delta (1-\delta

301: ^{2})R^{\delta }\frac{\dot{R}^{2}}{R^{2}}& =\frac{\chi }{2}(\rho -3p)

302: \label{Friedman1} \\

303: -3\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}(1+\delta )R^{\delta }+\frac{R^{1+\delta }}{2}+3\delta

304: (1+\delta )\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\frac{\dot{R}}{R}R^{\delta }& =\frac{\chi }{2}%

305: \rho

306: \label{Friedman2}

307: \end{align}%

308: where, as usual, 

309: \begin{equation}

310: R=6\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+6\frac{\dot{a}^{2}}{a^{2}}+6\frac{\kappa }{a^{2}}.

311: \label{R2}

312: \end{equation}%

313: It can be seen that in the limit $\delta \rightarrow 0$ these equations

314: reduce to the standard Friedmann equations of general relativity. A study of

315: the vacuum solutions to these equations for all $\kappa $ has been made by

316: Schmidt, see the review \cite{schmidt} and a qualitative study of the

317: perfect-fluid evolution for all $\kappa $ has been made by Carloni et al 

318: \cite{Car04}. Various conclusions are also immediate from the general

319: analysis of $f(R)$ Lagrangians made in ref \cite{BO} by specialising them to

320: the case $f=R^{1+\delta }$. In what follows we shall be interested in

321: extracting the physically relevant aspects of the general evolution so that

322: observational bounds can be placed on the allowed values of $\delta $.

323: 

324: Assuming a perfect-fluid equation of state of the form $p=\omega \rho $

325: gives the usual conservation equation $\rho \propto a^{-3(\omega +1)}$.

326: Substituting this into equations (\ref{Friedman1}) and (\ref{Friedman2}),

327: with $\kappa =0$, gives the power--law exact Friedmann solution for $\omega

328: \neq -1$ 

329: \begin{equation}

330: a(t)=t^{\frac{2(1+\delta )}{3(1+\omega )}}  \label{power}

331: \end{equation}%

332: where 

333: \begin{equation}

334: (1-2\delta )(2-3\delta (1+\omega )-2\delta ^{2}(4+3\omega ))=12\pi

335: G(1-\delta )(1+\omega )^{2}\rho _{c}  \label{rhoc}

336: \end{equation}%

337: and $\rho _{c}$ is the critical density of the universe.

338: 

339: Alternatively, if $\omega =-1$, there exists the de Sitter solution 

340: \begin{equation*}

341: a(t)=e^{nt}

342: \end{equation*}%

343: where

344: 

345: \begin{equation*}

346: 3(1-2\delta )n^{2}=8\pi G(1-\delta )\rho _{c}.

347: \end{equation*}

348: 

349: The critical density (\ref{rhoc}) is shown graphically, in figure \ref%

350: {density}, in terms of the density parameter $\Omega _{0}=\frac{8\pi G\rho

351: _{c}}{3H_{0}^{2}}$ as a function of $\delta $ for pressureless dust ($\omega

352: =0$) and black-body radiation ($\omega =1/3$). It can be seen from the graph

353: that the density of matter required for a flat universe is dramatically

354: reduced for positive $\delta $, or large negative $\delta $. In order for

355: the critical density to correspond to a positive matter density we require $%

356: \delta $ to lie in the range 

357: \begin{equation}

358: -\frac{\sqrt{73+66\omega +9\omega ^{2}}+3(1+\omega )}{4(4+3\omega )}<\delta <%

359: \frac{\sqrt{73+66\omega +9\omega ^{2}}-3(1+\omega )}{4(4+3\omega )}.

360: \label{range}

361: \end{equation}

362: 

363: \begin{figure}[tbp]

364: \epsfig{file=density.eps,height=4cm}

365: \caption{\textit{Critical density, $\Omega_0$, as a function of $\protect%

366: \delta$. Solid line corresponds to pressure-less dust and dashed line to

367: black--body radiation.}}

368: \label{density}

369: \end{figure}

370: 

371: \subsection{The dynamical systems approach}

372: 

373: The system of equations (\ref{Friedman1}) and (\ref{Friedman2}) have been

374: studied previously using a dynamical systems approach by Carloni, Dunsby,

375: Capozziello and Troisi for general $\kappa $ \cite{Car04}. We elaborate on

376: their work by studying in detail the spatially flat, $\kappa =0$, subspace

377: of solutions. This allows us to draw conclusions about the asymptotic

378: solutions of (\ref{Friedman1}) and (\ref{Friedman2}) when $\kappa =0$ and so

379: investigate the stability of the power--law exact solution (\ref{power}) and

380: the extent to which it can be considered an attractor solution. By

381: restricting to $\kappa =0$ we avoid `instabilities' associated with the

382: curvature which are already present in general relativistic cosmologies.

383: 

384: In performing this analysis we choose to work in the conformal time

385: coordinate 

386: \begin{equation}  \label{tau}

387: d \tau \equiv \sqrt{\frac{8 \pi \rho}{3 R^{\delta}}} dt.

388: \end{equation}

389: 

390: Making the definitions 

391: \begin{equation*}

392: x \equiv \frac{R^{\prime}}{R} \qquad \text{and} \qquad y \equiv \frac{%

393: a^{\prime}}{a},

394: \end{equation*}

395: where a prime indicates differentiation with respect to $\tau$, the field

396: equations (\ref{Friedman1}) and (\ref{Friedman2}) can be written as the

397: autonomous set of first order equations 

398: \begin{align}  \label{phase1}

399: x^{\prime}&= \frac{2- \delta (1+ 3 \omega)}{\delta^2 (1+\delta)}- \frac{%

400: \delta x^2}{2}-\frac{(4-\delta (1+3 \omega)) x y}{2 \delta}- \frac{2

401: (1-\delta) y^2}{\delta^2} \\

402: y^{\prime}&= -\frac{1}{\delta}+\frac{1}{2} (2+3 \delta) x y+\frac{(2+\delta

403: (1+3 \omega)) y^2}{2 \delta}.

404: \label{phase2}

405: \end{align}

406: 

407: These coordinate definitions are closely related to those chosen by Holden

408: and Wands \cite{Hol98} for their phase-plane analysis of Brans-Dicke

409: cosmologies and allow us to proceed in a similar fashion.

410: 

411: \subsubsection{Locating the critical points}

412: 

413: The critical points at finite distances in the system of equations (\ref%

414: {phase1}) and (\ref{phase2}) are located at 

415: \begin{equation}  \label{critical1}

416: x_{1,2} = \pm \frac{1-3 \omega}{\delta \sqrt{(1+ \delta) (2-3 \omega)}}

417: \qquad \text{and} \qquad y_{1,2} = \pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{(1+\delta) (2-3 \omega)%

418: }}

419: \end{equation}

420: and at 

421: \begin{equation}  \label{critical2}

422: x_{3,4} = \mp \frac{3 \sqrt{2 (1+\omega)}}{\sqrt{(1+\delta) (2-3 \delta

423: (1+\omega)-\delta^2 (8+6 \omega))}} \qquad \text{and} \qquad y_{3,4} = \pm 

424: \frac{\sqrt{2 (1+\delta)}}{\sqrt{2-3 \delta (1+\omega)-\delta^2 (8+6 \omega)}%

425: }.

426: \end{equation}

427: 

428: The exact form of $a(t)$ at these critical points, and the stability of

429: these solutions, can be easily deduced. At the critical point $(x_{i},y_{i})$

430: the forms of $a(\tau )$ and $R(\tau )$ are given by 

431: \begin{equation}

432: a(\tau )=a_{0}e^{y_{i}\tau }\qquad \text{and}\qquad R(\tau

433: )=R_{0}e^{x_{i}\tau },  \label{atau}

434: \end{equation}%

435: where $a_{0}$ and $R_{0}$ are constants of integration. In terms of $\tau $

436: the perfect-fluid conservation equation can be integrated to give 

437: \begin{equation*}

438: \rho =\rho _{0}e^{-3(1+\omega )y_{i}\tau },

439: \end{equation*}%

440: where $\rho _{0}$ is another positive constant. Substituting into the

441: definition of $\tau $ now gives 

442: \begin{equation*}

443: d\tau \propto e^{-\frac{3}{2}(1+\omega )y_{i}\tau -\frac{\delta }{2}%

444: x_{i}\tau }dt

445: \end{equation*}%

446: or, integrating, 

447: \begin{equation}

448: t-t_{0}\propto \frac{1}{\frac{3}{2}(1+\omega )y_{i}+\frac{\delta }{2}x_{i}}%

449: e^{\frac{3}{2}(1+\omega )y_{i}\tau +\frac{\delta }{2}x_{i}\tau }.  \label{t}

450: \end{equation}

451: 

452: It can now be seen that if $3 (1+\omega) y_i+\delta x_i >0$ then $t

453: \rightarrow \infty$ as $\tau \rightarrow \infty$ and $t \rightarrow t_0$ as $%

454: \tau \rightarrow -\infty$. Conversely, if $3 (1+\omega) y_i+\delta x_i <0$

455: then $t \rightarrow t_0$ as $\tau \rightarrow \infty$ and $t \rightarrow

456: -\infty$ as $\tau \rightarrow -\infty$.

457: 

458: In terms of $t$ time the solutions corresponding to the critical points at

459: finite distances can now be written as 

460: \begin{equation*}

461: a(t)\propto (t-t_{0})^{\frac{2y_{i}}{3(1+\omega )y_{i}+\delta x_{i}}}\qquad 

462: \text{and}\qquad R(t)\propto (t-t_{0})^{\frac{2x_{i}}{3(1+\omega

463: )y_{i}+\delta x_{i}}}.

464: \end{equation*}%

465: The critical points 1 and 2 can now been seen to correspond to $a\propto t^{%

466: \frac{1}{2}}$ and the points 3 and 4 correspond to (\ref{power}).

467: 

468: In order to analyse the behaviour of the solutions as they approach infinity

469: it is convenient to transform to the polar coordinates 

470: \begin{align*}

471: x &= \bar{r} \cos \phi \\

472: y &= \bar{r} \sin \phi.

473: \end{align*}

474: The infinite phase plane can then be compacted into a finite size by

475: introducing the coordinate 

476: \begin{equation*}

477: r = \frac{\bar{r}}{1+\bar{r}}.

478: \end{equation*}

479: The equations (\ref{phase1}) and (\ref{phase2}) then become 

480: \begin{multline}  \label{phase3}

481: r^{\prime}=\frac{-1}{4 \delta^2 (1+\delta)} \Biggl( 4 (1-2 r) (\delta

482: (1+\delta) \sin \phi-(2-\delta (1+3 \omega)) \cos \phi) \\

483: - r^2 ((6-4 \delta+3 \delta^2+\delta^3-12 \delta \omega) \cos \phi

484: +(1+\delta) (2-2 \delta-\delta^2-2 \delta^3) \cos 3 \phi \\

485: - 2 \delta (3-\delta (1+3 \omega)+3 \cos 2 \phi) \sin \phi) \Biggr)

486: \end{multline}

487: and 

488: \begin{multline}  \label{phase4}

489: \phi^{\prime}=\frac{-1}{2 \delta^2 (1+\delta) (1-r) r} \Biggl( (2 \delta

490: (1+\delta) \cos \phi+2(2-\delta (1+3 \omega)) \sin \phi) (1-2 r) \\

491: -\Bigl( \delta (1+\delta) \cos \phi (1-3 \cos 2 \phi)-4 \sin \phi+4

492: (1-\delta)^2 \sin^3 \phi \\

493: +2 \delta (1+3 \omega+\delta (1+\delta) (1+2 \delta) \cos^2 \phi) \sin \phi

494: \Bigr) r^2 \Biggr).

495: \end{multline}

496: 

497: In the limit $r\rightarrow 1$ ($\bar{r} \rightarrow \infty$) it can be seen

498: that critical points at infinity satisfy 

499: \begin{equation*}

500: \sin \phi_i (\delta \cos \phi_i+\sin \phi_i) (\delta (1+2 \delta) \cos

501: \phi_i+2 (1-\delta) \sin \phi_i)=0

502: \end{equation*}

503: and so are located at 

504: \begin{align}  \label{5,6}

505: \phi_{5,(6)} &=0\qquad(+\pi) \\

506:  \label{7,8}

507: \phi_{7,(8)} &=\tan^{-1} (-\delta)\qquad (+\pi) \\

508: \phi_{9,(10)} &=\tan^{-1} \left( -\frac{\delta (1+2 \delta)}{2 (1-\delta)}%

509: \right) \qquad(+\pi).

510:  \label{9,10}

511: \end{align}

512: The form of $a(t)$ can now be calculated for each of these critical points

513: by proceeding as Holden and Wands \cite{Hol98}. Firstly, as $r \rightarrow 1$

514: equation (\ref{phase3}) approaches 

515: \begin{align*}

516: r^{\prime}&\rightarrow \frac{1}{4 \delta^2} \Biggl( \delta (1+2 \delta (1+3

517: \omega)) \sin \phi_i-3 \delta \sin 3 \phi_i \\

518: &\qquad -(2-\delta (2+\delta))\cos \phi_i+(2-\delta (2+\delta+2 \delta^2))

519: \cos 3 \phi_i\Biggr) \\

520: &\equiv f(\phi_i)

521: \end{align*}

522: which allows the integral 

523: \begin{equation*}

524: r-1= f(\phi_i) (\tau-\tau_0)

525: \end{equation*}

526: where the constant of integration, $\tau_0$, has been set so that $r

527: \rightarrow 1$ as $\tau \rightarrow \tau_0$. Now the definition of $x$

528: allows us to write 

529: \begin{equation*}

530: \frac{R^{\prime}}{R}=\frac{r}{(1-r)} \cos \phi_i=-\frac{f(\phi_i)

531: (\tau-\tau_0)+1}{f(\phi_i) (\tau-\tau_0)} \cos \phi_i \rightarrow -\frac{%

532: \cos \phi_i}{f(\phi_i) (\tau-\tau_0)}

533: \end{equation*}

534: as $\tau \rightarrow \tau_0$. Integrating this it can be seen that 

535: \begin{equation*}

536: R \propto \vert \tau-\tau_0 \vert^{-\frac{\cos \phi_i}{f(\phi_i)}} \qquad 

537: \text{as} \qquad r \rightarrow 1.

538: \end{equation*}

539: Similarly, 

540: \begin{equation*}

541: a \propto \vert \tau-\tau_0 \vert^{-\frac{\sin \phi_i}{f(\phi_i)}} \qquad 

542: \text{as} \qquad r \rightarrow 1.

543: \end{equation*}

544: 

545: The definition of $\tau$ (\ref{tau}) now gives 

546: \begin{equation*}

547: d \tau \propto \vert \tau-\tau_0 \vert^{\frac{3}{2} (1+\omega) \frac{%

548: \sin\phi_i}{f(\phi_i)}+\frac{\delta}{2} \frac{\cos\phi_i}{f(\phi_i)}} dt

549: \end{equation*}

550: which integrates to 

551: \begin{equation}  \label{tinfty}

552: t-t_0 \propto - \frac{f(\phi_1)}{F(\phi_i)} \vert \tau-\tau_0 \vert^{-\frac{%

553: F(\phi_i)}{f(\phi_i)}}

554: \end{equation}

555: where 

556: \begin{equation*}

557: F(\phi_i)=\frac{3 (1+\omega) \sin \phi_i +\delta \cos \phi_i-2 f(\phi_i)}{2}.

558: \end{equation*}

559: The location of critical points at infinity can now be written in terms of $%

560: t $ as the power--law solutions 

561: \begin{equation}  \label{inftysol}

562: R(t) \propto (t-t_0)^{\frac{\cos\phi_i}{F(\phi_i)}} \qquad \text{and} \qquad

563: a(t) \propto (t-t_0)^{\frac{\sin\phi_i}{F(\phi_i)}}.

564: \end{equation}

565: 

566: Direct substitution of the critical points (\ref{5,6}), (\ref{7,8}) and (\ref%

567: {9,10}) into (\ref{inftysol}) gives 

568: \begin{align*}

569: a_{5,6}(t)& \rightarrow \ constant \\

570: a_{7,8}(t)& \rightarrow \sqrt{t-t_{0}} \\

571: a_{9,10}(t)& \rightarrow (t-t_{0})^{\frac{\delta (1+2\delta )}{(1-\delta )}}

572: \end{align*}%

573: as $r\rightarrow 1$. Moreover, it can be seen from (\ref{tinfty}) that as $%

574: r\rightarrow 1$ and $\tau \rightarrow \tau _{0}$ so $t\rightarrow t_{0}$ as

575: long as $F(\phi _{i})/f(\phi _{i})<0$, as is the case for the stationary

576: points considered here (as long as the value of $\delta $ lies within the

577: range given by (\ref{range})).

578: 

579: The exact forms of $a(t)$ at all the critical points are summarised in the

580: table below.

581: 

582: \begin{center}

583: \begin{tabular}{c|c}

584: \textbf{Critical point} & \textbf{a(t)} \\ \hline

585: 1, 2, 7 and 8 & $t^{\frac{1}{2}}$ \\ 

586: 3 and 4 & $t^{\frac{2 (1+\delta)}{3 (1+\omega)}}$ \\ 

587: 5 and 6 & constant \\ 

588: 9 and 10 & $t^{\frac{\delta (1+2 \delta)}{(1-\delta)}}$%

589: \end{tabular}

590: \end{center}

591: 

592: \subsubsection{Stability of the critical points}

593: 

594: The stability of the critical points at finite distances can be established

595: by perturbing $x$ and $y$ as 

596: \begin{equation}

597: x(r)=x_{i}+u(r)\qquad \text{and}\qquad y(r)=y_{i}+v(r)  \label{lin}

598: \end{equation}%

599: and checking the sign of the eigenvalues, $\lambda _{i}$, of the linearised

600: equations 

601: \begin{equation*}

602: u^{\prime }=\lambda _{i}u\qquad \text{and}\qquad v^{\prime }=\lambda _{i}v.

603: \end{equation*}

604: 

605: Substituting (\ref{lin}) into equations (\ref{phase1}) and (\ref{phase2})

606: and linearising in $u$ and $v$ gives 

607: \begin{align*}

608: u^{\prime }& =-\left( \delta x_{i}+\frac{(4-\delta (1+3\omega ))}{2\delta }%

609: y_{i}\right) u-\left( \frac{(4-\delta (1+3\omega ))}{2\delta }x_{i}+4\frac{%

610: (1+\delta )}{\delta ^{2}}y_{i}\right) v \\

611: v^{\prime }& =\frac{(2+3\delta )}{2}y_{0}u+\left( \frac{(2+3\delta )}{2}%

612: x_{i}+\frac{(2+\delta (1+3\omega ))}{\delta }y_{0}\right) v.

613: \end{align*}%

614: The eigenvalues $\lambda _{i}$ are therefore the roots of the quadratic

615: equation 

616: \begin{equation*}

617: \lambda _{i}^{2}+B\lambda _{i}+C=0

618: \end{equation*}%

619: where 

620: \begin{align*}

621: B& =-\frac{1}{2}(2+\delta )x_{i}-\frac{3}{2}(1+3\omega )y_{i} \\

622: C& =-\frac{\delta }{2}(2+3\delta )x_{i}^{2}-(2+\delta (1+3\delta

623: ))x_{i}y_{i}+\frac{1}{2\delta }(2-11\delta -6\omega (1-\delta )+9\delta

624: \omega ^{2})y_{i}^{2}.

625: \end{align*}%

626: If $B>0$ and $C>0$ then both values of $\lambda _{i}$ are negative, and we

627: have a stable critical point. If $B<0$ and $C>0$ both values of $\lambda

628: _{i} $ are positive, and the critical point is unstable to perturbations. $%

629: C>0$ gives a saddle-point.

630: 

631: For points $1$ (upper branch) and $2$ (lower branch) this gives 

632: \begin{equation*}

633: B= \mp \frac{(1+\delta (2+3 \omega)-3 \omega)}{\delta \sqrt{(1+\delta) (2-3

634: \omega)}} \qquad \text{and} \qquad C= - \frac{(1+4 \delta-3 \omega)}{\delta

635: (1+\delta)}

636: \end{equation*}

637: and for points $3$ (upper branch) and $4$ (lower branch) 

638: \begin{equation*}

639: B = \pm \frac{3 (1-\omega (1+2 \delta))}{\sqrt{2 (1+\delta) (2-3 \delta

640: (1+\omega)-2 \delta^2 (4+3 \omega))}} \qquad \text{and} \qquad C= \frac{(1+4

641: \delta -3 \omega)}{\delta (1+\delta)}.

642: \end{equation*}

643: 

644: The stability of the critical points at finite distances for a universe

645: filled with pressureless dust are therefore, for various different values of 

646: $\delta $, given by

647: 

648: \begin{center}

649: \begin{tabular}{c|cc|ccc}

650: \label{w=0} \textbf{Critical point} & \textbf{B} & \textbf{C} & $-\frac{%

651: \sqrt{73}+3}{16} <\delta <-\frac{1}{4}$ & $-\frac{1}{4} <\delta<0$ & $%

652: 0<\delta <\frac{\sqrt{73}-3}{16} $ \\ \hline

653: 1 & $-\frac{(1+2 \delta)}{\delta \sqrt{2 (1+\delta)}}$ & $-\frac{(1+4 \delta)%

654: }{\delta (1+\delta)}$ & Saddle & Stable & Saddle \\ 

655: 2 & $\frac{(1+2 \delta)}{\delta \sqrt{2 (1+\delta)}}$ & $-\frac{(1+4 \delta)%

656: }{\delta (1+\delta)}$ & Saddle & Unstable & Saddle \\ 

657: 3 & $\frac{3}{\sqrt{2 (1+\delta) (2-3 \delta-8 \delta^2)}}$ & $\frac{(1+4

658: \delta)}{\delta (1+\delta)}$ & Stable & Saddle & Stable \\ 

659: 4 & $-\frac{3}{\sqrt{2 (1+\delta) (2-3 \delta-8 \delta^2)}}$ & $\frac{(1+4

660: \delta)}{\delta (1+\delta)}$ & Unstable & Saddle & Unstable%

661: \end{tabular}

662: \end{center}

663: 

664: and for a universe filled with black-body radiation are given by

665: 

666: \begin{center}

667: \begin{tabular}{c|cc|c}

668: \label{w=1/3} \textbf{Critical point} & \textbf{B} & \textbf{C} & $-\frac{%

669: \sqrt{6}+1}{5} <\delta < \frac{\sqrt{6}-1}{5}$ \\ \hline

670: 1 & $-\frac{3}{\sqrt{1+\delta}}$ & $-\frac{4}{(1+\delta)}$ & Saddle \\ 

671: 2 & $\frac{3}{\sqrt{1+\delta}}$ & $-\frac{4}{(1+\delta)}$ & Saddle \\ 

672: 3 & $\frac{(1-\delta)}{\sqrt{(1+\delta) (1-2\delta-5 \delta^2)}}$ & $\frac{4%

673: }{(1+\delta)}$ & Stable \\ 

674: 4 & $-\frac{(1-\delta)}{\sqrt{(1+\delta) (1-2\delta-5 \delta^2)}}$ & $\frac{4%

675: }{(1+\delta)}$ & Unstable%

676: \end{tabular}

677: \end{center}

678: 

679: Values of $\delta<-\frac{\sqrt{73+66\omega+9\omega^2}+3(1+\omega)}{4 (4+3

680: \omega)}$ and $\delta>\frac{\sqrt{73+66\omega+9\omega^2}-3(1+\omega)}{4 (4+3

681: \omega)}$ have not been considered here as they lead to negative values of $%

682: \rho_0$ for the solution (\ref{power}).  (The reader may note the

683: difference here between the range of $\delta$ for which point 3 is a

684: stable attractor compared with the analysis of Carloni et. al.).

685: 

686: Point 3 lies in the $y>0$ region and so corresponds to the expanding

687: power--law solution (\ref{power}). It can be seen from the table above that

688: this solution is stable for certain ranges of $\delta $ and a saddle-point

689: for others. In contrast, point 4, the contracting power--law solution (\ref%

690: {power}), is unstable or a saddle-point. The nature of the stability of

691: these points and the trajectories which are attracted towards them will be

692: explained further in the next section.

693: 

694: A similar analysis can be performed for the critical points at infinity.

695: This time only the variable $\phi $ will be perturbed as 

696: \begin{equation}

697: \phi (t)=\phi _{i}+q(t).  \label{phipert}

698: \end{equation}%

699: The conditions for stability of the critical points are now that $r^{\prime

700: }>0$ and the eigenvalue $\mu $ of the linearised equation $q^{\prime }=\mu q$

701: satisfies $\mu <0$, in the limit $r\rightarrow 1$. If both of these

702: conditions are satisfied then the point is a stable attractor, if only one

703: is satisfied the point is a saddle-point and if neither are satisfied then

704: the point is repulsive.

705: 

706: Substituting (\ref{phipert}) into (\ref{phase4}) and linearising in $q(t)$

707: gives, in the limit $r\rightarrow 1$, 

708: \begin{align*}

709: q^{\prime }& =\frac{1}{4\delta ^{2}(1-r)}\left( (6(1-\delta )+\delta

710: ^{2}(1+2\delta ))\cos \phi _{i}-3(2(1-\delta )-\delta ^{2}(1+2\delta ))\cos

711: 3\phi _{i}-3\delta \sin \phi _{i}+9\delta \sin 3\phi \right) q \\

712: & \equiv \mu q.

713: \end{align*}%

714: The sign of $r^{\prime }$ in the limit $r\rightarrow 1$ can be read off from

715: (\ref{phase3}). The stability properties of each of the stationary points at

716: infinity can now be summarised in the table below

717: 

718: \begin{center}

719: \begin{tabular}{c|cccc}

720: \label{w=0infty} \textbf{Critical point} & $-N_1 <\delta <-\frac{1}{2}$ & $-%

721: \frac{1}{2}<\delta<0$ & $0<\delta<\frac{1}{4}$ & $\frac{1}{4}<\delta <N_2 $

722: \\ \hline

723: 5 & Stable & Saddle & Unstable & Unstable \\ 

724: 6 & Unstable & Saddle & Stable & Stable \\ 

725: 7 & Unstable & Unstable & Saddle & Stable \\ 

726: 8 & Stable & Stable & Saddle & Unstable \\ 

727: 9 & Saddle & Stable & Stable & Saddle \\ 

728: 10 & Saddle & Unstable & Unstable & Saddle%

729: \end{tabular}

730: \end{center}

731: 

732: where $N_1=\frac{\sqrt{73+66\omega+9\omega^2}+3(1+\omega)}{4 (4+3 \omega)}$

733: and $N_2=\frac{\sqrt{73+66\omega+9\omega^2}-3(1+\omega)}{4 (4+3 \omega)}$.

734: 

735: \subsubsection{Illustration of the phase plane}

736: 

737: Some representative illustrations of the phase plane are now presented.

738: Firstly, the compactified phase plane for a universe filled with

739: pressureless dust, $\omega =0$, and a value of $\delta =0.1$ is shown in

740: figure \ref{d0.1}. 

741: \begin{figure}[tbp]

742: \epsfig{file=d01.eps,height=10cm}

743: \caption{\textit{Phase plane of cosmological solutions for $\protect\omega %

744: =0 $ and $\protect\delta =0.1$.}}

745: \label{d0.1}

746: \end{figure}

747: Figure \ref{d0.1} is seen to be split into three separate regions labelled

748: I, II and III. The boundaries between these regions are the sub-manifolds $%

749: R=0$. As pointed out by Carloni et. al. the plane $R=0$ is an invariant

750: sub-manifold of the phase space through which trajectories cannot pass.

751: 

752: The equation for $R$ in a FRW universe, (\ref{R2}), can now be rewritten as 

753: \begin{equation}

754: R=\frac{16\pi \rho }{\delta R^{\delta }}((1+\delta )y^{2}+\delta (1+\delta

755: )xy-1).  \label{xy}

756: \end{equation}%

757: This shows that the boundary $R=0$ is given in terms of $x$ and $y$ by $%

758: (1+\delta )y^{2}+\delta (1+\delta )xy-1=0$ and that in region I the sign of $%

759: R$ must be opposite to the sign of $\delta $ in order to have a positive $%

760: \rho $. Similarly, in regions II and III, $R$ must have the same sign as $%

761: \delta $ in order to ensure a positive $\rho $.

762: 

763: It can be seen that regions II and III are symmetric under a rotation of $%

764: \pi $ and a reversal of the direction of the trajectories. As region II is

765: exclusively in the semi--circle $y\geqslant 0$ all trajectories confined to

766: this region correspond to eternally expanding (or expanding and

767: asymptotically static) universes. Similarly, region III is confined to the

768: semi--circle $y \leqslant 0$ and so all trajectories confined to this region

769: correspond to eternally contracting (or contracting and asymptotically

770: static) universes. Region I, however, spans the $y=0$ plane and so can have

771: trajectories which correspond to universes with both expanding and

772: contracting phases. In fact, it can be seen from figure \ref{d0.1} that, for 

773: $\delta=0.1$ all trajectories in region I are initially expanding and

774: eventually contracting.

775: 

776: It can be seen from figure \ref{d0.1} that in region I the only stable

777: attractors are, at early times, the expanding point 10 and at late times the

778: contracting point 9. (By `attractors at early times' we mean the critical

779: points which are approached if the trajectories are followed backwards in

780: time). Both of these points correspond to the solution

781: 

782: \begin{equation*}

783: a\propto t^{\delta \frac{(1+2\delta )}{(1-\delta )}}

784: \end{equation*}

785: which describes a slow evolution independent of the matter content of the

786: universe. Notably, region I only has stable attractor points, at both early

787: and late times, which have been shown to correspond to $t\rightarrow $%

788: constant; region I therefore does not have an asymptotic attractor when $%

789: t\rightarrow \infty $, for the range of $\delta $ being considered. In

790: region II the only stable attractors can be seen to be the static point 5 at

791: some early finite time, $t_{0}$, and the expanding matter-driven expansion

792: described by point 3 as $t\rightarrow \infty $. Conversely, in region III

793: the only stable attractors are the contracting point 4 for $t\rightarrow

794: -\infty $ and the static point 6 for $t\rightarrow t_{0}$.

795: 

796: Figure \ref{d-0.1} shows the compactified phase plane for a universe

797: containing pressureless dust and having $\delta =-0.1$. 

798: \begin{figure}[tbp]

799: \epsfig{file=dm012.eps,height=10cm}

800: \caption{\textit{Phase plane of cosmological solutions for $\protect\omega %

801: =0 $ and $\protect\delta =-0.1$.}}

802: \label{d-0.1}

803: \end{figure}

804: Figure \ref{d-0.1} is split into three separate regions in a similar way to

805: figure \ref{d0.1}, with the boundary between the regions again corresponding

806: to $R=0$ and is given in terms of $x$ and $y$ by (\ref{xy}). Regions II and

807: III again correspond to expanding and contacting solutions, respectively.

808: Region I, still has point 10 as the early-time attractor and point 9 as the

809: late-time attractor, but now has all trajectories initially contracting and

810: eventually expanding. There are still no stable attractors in Region I which

811: correspond to regions where $t\rightarrow \infty $. Region II now has point

812: 7 as an early-time stable attractor solution and point 1 as a late-time

813: stable attractor solution, corresponding to $a\rightarrow t^{\frac{1}{2}}$

814: as $t\rightarrow \infty $. Point 3, which was the stable attractor at late

815: times when $\delta =0.1$ is now no longer located in Region II and can

816: instead be located in region I where it is now a saddle-point in the phase

817: plane. Interestingly, the value of $\delta $ for which point 3 ceases to

818: behave as a stable attractor ($\delta =0$) is exactly the same value of $%

819: \delta $ at which the point moves from region II into region I; so as long

820: as point 3 can be located in region I, it is the late-time stable attractor

821: solution and as soon as it moves into region I it becomes a saddle-point. At

822: this same value of $\delta ,$ point 1 ceases to be a saddle-point and

823: becomes the late-time stable attractor for region II, so that region II

824: always has a stable late-time attractor where $t\rightarrow \infty $. Region

825: III behaves in a similar way to the description given for region II above,

826: under a rotation of $\pi $ and with the directions of the trajectories

827: reversed.

828: 

829: Phase planes diagrams for $\omega =0$ with values of $\delta $ other than $%

830: 0.1$ and $-0.1$, but still within the range

831: 

832: \begin{equation*}

833: -\frac{\sqrt{73+66\omega +9\omega ^{2}}+3(1+\omega )}{4(4+3\omega )}<\delta <%

834: \frac{\sqrt{73+66\omega +9\omega ^{2}}-3(1+\omega )}{4(4+3\omega )},

835: \end{equation*}%

836: look qualitatively similar to those above with some of the attractor

837: properties of the critical points being exchanged as they pass each

838: other.  Notably, for $\delta <-\frac{1}{4}$ point 3 returns to region II and once

839: again becomes the stable late-time attractor for trajectories in that

840: region. The points that are the stable attractors for any particular value

841: of $\delta $ can be read off from the tables in the previous section.

842: 

843: Universes filled with perfect fluid black-body radiation also retain

844: qualitatively similar phase-plane diagrams to the ones above; with the

845: notable difference that the point 3 is always located in region II and is

846: always the late-time stable attractor of that region. This can be seen

847: directly from the Ricci scalar for the solution (\ref{power}) which is given

848: by 

849: \begin{equation*}

850: R=\frac{3\delta (1+\delta )}{t^{2}}

851: \end{equation*}%

852: and can be seen to have the same sign as $\delta $, for $\delta >-1$, and so

853: is always found in region II.

854: 

855: For a spatially-flat, expanding FRW universe containing black-body radiation

856: we therefore have that (\ref{power}) is the generic attractor as $%

857: t\rightarrow \infty $. Similarly, for a spatially-flat, expanding,

858: matter-dominated FRW universe (\ref{power}) is the attractor solution as $%

859: t\rightarrow \infty $; except when $-\frac{1}{4}<\delta <0$, in which case

860: it is point 1 ($a\propto t^{\frac{1}{2}}$).

861: 

862: If we require a stable period of matter domination, during which $a(t)\sim

863: t^{\frac{2}{3}}$, we therefore have the theoretical constraint $\delta >0$

864: (or $\delta <-\frac{1}{4}$). Such a period is necessary for structure to

865: form through gravitational collapse in the post-recombination era of the

866: universe's expansion.

867: 

868: The effect of a non--zero curvature, $\kappa \neq 0$, on the cosmological

869: dynamics is similar to the general relativistic case. The role of negative

870: curvature ($\kappa =-1$) can be deduced by noting that its effect is similar

871: to that of a fluid with $\omega =-1/3$. The solution (\ref{power}) is

872: unstable to any perturbation away from flatness and will diverge away from $%

873: \kappa =0$ as $t\rightarrow \infty $. This is usually referred to as the

874: `flatness problem' and can be seen to exist in this theory from the analysis

875: of Carloni et. al. \cite{Car04}.

876: 

877: \subsection{Physical consequences}

878: 

879: The modified cosmological dynamics discussed in the last section lead to

880: different predictions for the outcomes of physical processes, such as

881: primordial nucleosynthesis and CMB formation, compared to the standard

882: general-relativistic model. The relevant modifications to these physical

883: processes, and the bounds that they can impose upon the theory, will be

884: discussed in this section. We will use the solutions (\ref{power}) as they

885: have been shown to be the generic attractors as $t\rightarrow \infty $

886: (except for the case $-\frac{1}{4}<\delta <0$ when $\omega =0$, which has

887: been excluded as physically unrealistic on the grounds of structure

888: formation).

889: 

890: \subsubsection{Primordial nucleosynthesis}

891: 

892: We find that the temperature-time adiabat during radiation domination for

893: the solution (\ref{power}) is given by the exact relation 

894: \begin{equation}

895: t^{2(1+d)}=\frac{A}{T^{4}}  \label{T(t)}

896: \end{equation}%

897: where, as usual (with units $\hbar =c=1=k_{B}$), 

898: \begin{equation*}

899: \rho =\frac{g\pi ^{2}}{15}T^{4}

900: \end{equation*}%

901: where $g$ is the total number of relativistic spin states at temperature $T$%

902: . The constant $A$ can be determined from the generalised Friedmann equation

903: (\ref{Friedman2}) and is dependent on the present day value of the Ricci

904: scalar, through equation (\ref{chi}). (This dependence is analogous to the

905: dependence of scalar--tensor theories on the evolution of the non--minimally

906: coupled scalar, as may be expected from the relationship between these

907: theories \cite{Mag94}). As a first approximation we assume the universe to

908: have been matter dominated throughout its later history; this allows us to

909: write 

910: \begin{equation}

911: A=\left( \frac{45(1-2\delta )(1-2\delta -5\delta ^{2})}{32(1-\delta )g\pi

912: ^{3}G}\right) \left( \frac{2(1+\delta )}{3H_{0}}\right) ^{2\delta }

913: \label{A}

914: \end{equation}%

915: where $H_{0}$ is the value of Hubble's constant today and we have used the

916: solution (\ref{power}) to model the evolution of $a(t)$. Adding a recent

917: period of accelerated expansion will refine the constant $A$, but in the

918: interests of brevity we exclude this from the current analysis.

919: 

920: As usual, the weak-interaction time is given by 

921: \begin{equation*}

922: t_{wk}\propto \frac{1}{T^{5}}.

923: \end{equation*}%

924: The freeze--out temperature, $T_{f}$, for neutron--proton kinetic

925: equilibrium is then defined by 

926: \begin{equation*}

927: t(T_{f})=t_{wk}(T_{f}),

928: \end{equation*}%

929: hence the freeze--out temperature in this theory, with $\delta \neq 0$, is

930: related to that in the general-relativistic case with $\delta =0$, $%

931: T_{f}^{GR}$, by 

932: \begin{equation}

933: T_{f}=C(T_{f}^{GR})^{\frac{3(1+\delta )}{(3+5\delta )}}  \label{freeze}

934: \end{equation}%

935: where 

936: \begin{equation}

937: C=\left( \frac{(1-\delta )}{(1-2\delta )(1-2\delta -5\delta ^{2})}\right) ^{%

938: \frac{1}{2(2+5\delta )}}\left( \frac{45}{32g\pi ^{3}G}\right) ^{\frac{\delta

939: (1+\delta )}{2(3+5\delta )}}\left( \frac{3H_{0}}{2(1+\delta )}\right) ^{%

940: \frac{\delta }{(3+5\delta }}.  \label{freeze2}

941: \end{equation}%

942: The neutron--proton ratio, $n/p$, is now determined at temperature $T$ when

943: the equilibrium holds by 

944: \begin{equation*}

945: \frac{n}{p}=\exp \left( -\frac{\Delta m}{T}\right) .

946: \end{equation*}%

947: where $\Delta m$ is the neutron-proton mass difference. Hence the

948: neutron--proton ratio at freeze-out in the $R^{1+\delta }$ early universe is

949: given by 

950: \begin{equation*}

951: \frac{n}{p}=\exp \left( -\frac{\Delta m}{C(T_{f}^{GR})^{1-\varepsilon }}%

952: \right) ,

953: \end{equation*}%

954: where 

955: \begin{equation*}

956: \varepsilon \equiv \frac{2\delta }{3+5\delta }.

957: \end{equation*}

958: 

959: The frozen--out $n/p$ ratio in the $R^{1+\delta }$ theory is given by a

960: power of its value in the general relativistic case, $\left( \frac{n}{p}%

961: \right) _{GR}\approx 1/7$, by 

962: \begin{equation*}

963: \frac{n}{p}=\left( \frac{n}{p}\right) _{GR}^{C(T_{f}^{GR})^{\varepsilon }}.

964: \end{equation*}%

965: It is seen that when $C(T_{f}^{GR})^{\varepsilon }>1$ ($\delta <0$) there is

966: a smaller frozen-out neutron-proton ratio that in the general-relativistic

967: case and consequently a lower final helium-4 abundance than in the standard

968: general-relativistic early universe containing the same number of

969: relativistic spin states. This happens because the freeze-out temperature is

970: lower than in general relativity. The neutrons remain in equilibrium to a

971: lower temperature and their slightly higher mass shifts the number balance

972: more towards the protons the longer they are in equilibrium. Note that a

973: reduction in the helium-4 abundance compared to the standard model of

974: general relativity is both astrophysically interesting and difficult to

975: achieve (all other variants like extra particle species \cite{shv, nus},

976: anisotropies \cite{ht, jb1, jb2, jb3}, magnetic fields \cite{mag, YM},

977: gravitational waves \cite{jb1, jb2, skew}, or varying $G$ \cite{bmaeda,

978: newt, clift}, lead to an \textit{increase} in the expansion rate and in the

979: final helium-4 abundance). Conversely, when $C(T_{f}^{GR})^{\varepsilon }<1$

980: ($\delta >0$) freeze-out occurs at a higher temperature than in general

981: relativity and a higher final helium-4 abundance fraction results. The final

982: helium-4 mass fraction $Y$ is well approximated by 

983: \begin{equation}

984: Y=\frac{2n/p}{(1+n/p)}.

985: \end{equation}

986: 

987: It is now possible to constrain the value of $\delta $ using observational

988: abundances of the light elements. In doing this we will use the results of

989: Carroll and Kaplinghat \cite{Car02} who consider nucleosynthesis with a

990: Hubble constant parametrised by 

991: \begin{equation*}

992: H(T)=\left( \frac{T}{1MeV}\right) ^{\alpha }H_{1}.

993: \end{equation*}%

994: Our theory can be cast into this form by substituting 

995: \begin{equation*}

996: \alpha =\frac{2}{(1+\delta )}

997: \end{equation*}%

998: and 

999: \begin{equation*}

1000: H_{1}=\frac{(1+\delta )}{2}A^{-\frac{1}{2(1+\delta )}}(1MeV)^{\frac{2}{%

1001: (1+\delta )}},

1002: \end{equation*}%

1003: so, taking $g=43/8$, $G=6.72\times 10^{-45}MeV^{-2}$ and $H_{0}=1.51\times

1004: 10^{-39}MeV$ \cite{Ben03}, this can be rewritten as 

1005: \begin{equation*}

1006: H_{1}=\frac{(1+\delta )}{2}\left( \frac{7.96\times 10^{-43}(1-\delta )}{%

1007: (1-2\delta )(1-2\delta -5\delta ^{2})}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2(1+\delta )}%

1008: }\left( \frac{2.23\times 10^{-39}}{(1+\delta )}\right) ^{\frac{\delta }{%

1009: (1+\delta )}}MeV.

1010: \end{equation*}%

1011: Carroll and Kaplinghat use the observational abundances inferred by Olive

1012: et. al. \cite{Oli00} 

1013: \begin{align*}

1014: 0.228\leqslant Y_{P}& \leqslant 0.248 \\

1015: 2\leqslant 10^{5}\times & \frac{D}{H}\leqslant 5 \\

1016: 1\leqslant 10^{10}\times & \frac{^{7}Li}{H}\leqslant 3

1017: \end{align*}%

1018: to impose the constraint 

1019: \begin{equation*}

1020: H_{1}=H_{c}\left( \frac{T_{c}}{MeV}\right) ^{-\alpha }

1021: \end{equation*}%

1022: where $H_{c}=2.6\pm 0.9\times 10^{-23}MeV$ at $T_{c}=0.2MeV$ for $%

1023: 0.5\leqslant \eta _{10}\leqslant 50$, or $H_{c}=2.0\pm 0.3\times 10^{-23}$

1024: for $1\leqslant \eta _{10}\leqslant 10$ and $\eta _{10}$ is $10^{10}$ times

1025: the baryon to photon ratio.

1026: 

1027: These results can now be used to impose upon $\delta$ the constraints 

1028: \begin{equation*}

1029: -0.017 \leqslant \delta \leqslant 0.0012,

1030: \end{equation*}

1031: for $0.5 \leqslant \eta_{10} \leqslant 50$, or 

1032: \begin{equation}

1033: -0.0064 \leqslant \delta \leqslant 0.0012,

1034: \end{equation}

1035: for $1 \leqslant \eta_{10} \leqslant 10$.

1036: 

1037: \subsubsection{Horizon size at matter--radiation equality}

1038: 

1039: The horizon size at the epoch of matter--radiation equality is of great

1040: observational significance. During radiation domination cosmological

1041: perturbations on sub--horizon scales are effectively frozen. Once matter

1042: domination commences, however, perturbations on all scales are allowed to

1043: grow and structure formation begins. The horizon size at matter--radiation

1044: equality is therefore frozen into the power spectrum of perturbations and is

1045: observable. Calculation of the horizon sizes in this theory proceeds in a

1046: similar way to that in Brans--Dicke theory \cite{Lid98}.

1047: 

1048: In making an estimate of the horizon sizes in $R^{1+\delta }$ theory we will

1049: use the generalised Friedmann equation, (\ref{Friedman2}), in the form 

1050: \begin{equation}

1051: H^{2}+\delta H\frac{\dot{R}}{R}-\frac{\delta R}{6(1+\delta )}=\frac{8\pi

1052: G(1-\delta )}{3(1-2\delta )}\frac{R_{0}^{\delta }}{R^{\delta }}\rho .

1053: \label{Fred}

1054: \end{equation}

1055: Again, we assume the form (\ref{power}) to model the evolution of the scale

1056: factor during the epoch of matter domination. This gives the results 

1057: \begin{align*}

1058: a(t)& =a_{0}\left( \frac{t}{t_{0}}\right) ^{\frac{2(1+\delta )}{3}} \\

1059: H_{0}& =\frac{2(1+\delta )}{3t_{0}} \\

1060: \rho _{m}& =\frac{3H_{0}^{2}}{16\pi G}\frac{(1-2\delta )(2-3\delta -8\delta

1061: ^{2})}{(1-\delta )(1+\delta )^{2}}\frac{a_{0}^{3}}{a^{3}} \\

1062: R(t)& =\frac{4(1+5\delta +4\delta ^{2})}{3t^{2}}

1063: \end{align*}%

1064: during the matter-dominated era. In order to simplify matters we assume the

1065: above solutions to hold exactly from the time of matter--radiation equality

1066: up until the present (neglecting the small residual radiation effects and

1067: the very late time acceleration). Substituting them into (\ref{Fred}) along

1068: with $\rho _{eq}=2\rho _{meq}$ at equality we can then solve for $H_{eq}$ to

1069: first order in $\delta $ to find 

1070: \begin{equation}

1071: \frac{a_{eq}H_{eq}}{a_{0}H_{0}}\simeq \sqrt{2}\sqrt{1+z_{eq}}^{\frac{%

1072: 1-2\delta }{1+\delta }}(1-2.686\delta )+O(\delta ^{2})  \label{Heq}

1073: \end{equation}%

1074: where $z_{eq}$ is the redshift at matter radiation equality and $H$ has been

1075: treated as an independent parameter. The value of $1+z_{eq}$ can now be

1076: calculated in this theory as 

1077: \begin{equation}

1078: 1+z_{eq}=\frac{\rho _{r0}}{\rho _{m0}}.  \label{zeq}

1079: \end{equation}%

1080: Taking the present day temperature of the of the microwave background as $%

1081: T=2.728\pm 0.004K$ \cite{Fix96} gives 

1082: \begin{equation}

1083: \rho _{r0}=3.37\times 10^{-39}MeV^{4}  \label{rhor0}

1084: \end{equation}%

1085: where three families of light neutrinos have been assumed at a temperature

1086: lower than that of the microwave background by a factor $(4/11)^{\frac{1}{3}%

1087: } $. Using the same values for $G$ and $H_{0}$ as above we than find from

1088: the above expression for $\rho _{m}$ that 

1089: \begin{equation}

1090: \rho _{m0}=2.03\times 10^{-35}\frac{(1-2\delta )(2-3\delta -8\delta ^{2})}{%

1091: (1-\delta )(1+\delta )^{2}}MeV^{4}.  \label{rhom0}

1092: \end{equation}%

1093: Substituting (\ref{rhor0}), (\ref{rhom0}) and (\ref{zeq}) into (\ref{Heq})

1094: then gives the expression for the horizon size at equality, to first order

1095: in $\delta $, as 

1096: \begin{equation}

1097: \frac{a_{eq}H_{eq}}{a_{0}H_{0}}\simeq 155(1-19\delta )+O(\delta ^{2}).

1098: \end{equation}%

1099: This expression shows that the horizon size at matter--radiation equality

1100: will be shifted by $\sim 1\%$ for a value of $\delta \sim 0.0005$. This

1101: shift in horizon size should be observable in a shift of the peak of the

1102: power spectrum of perturbations, compared to its position in the standard

1103: general relativistic cosmology. Microwave background observations,

1104: therefore, allow a potentially tight bound to be derived on the value of $%

1105: \delta $. This effect is analogous to the shift of power--spectrum peaks in

1106: Brans--Dicke theory (see e.g. \cite{Lid98}, \cite{Che99}).

1107: 

1108: A full analysis of the spectrum of perturbations in this theory requires a

1109: knowledge of the evolution of linearised perturbations as well as a

1110: marginalization over other parameters which can mimic this effect (e.g.

1111: baryon density). Such a study is beyond the scope of the present work.

1112: 

1113: \section{Static and spherically--symmetric solutions}

1114: 

1115: In order to test the $R^{n}$ gravity theory in the weak-field limit by means

1116: of the standard solar-system tests of general relativity we need to find the

1117: analogue of the Schwarzschild metric in this generalised theory and use it

1118: to describe the gravitational field of the Sun. In the absence of any matter

1119: the field equations (\ref{field}) can be written as 

1120: \begin{equation}

1121: R_{ab}=\delta \left( \frac{R_{;}^{\ cd}}{R}-(1-\delta )\frac{R_{,}^{\

1122: c}R_{,}^{\ d}}{R^{2}}\right) \left( g_{ac}g_{bd}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{(1+2\delta

1123: )}{(1-\delta )}g_{ab}g_{cd}\right) .  \label{staticfield}

1124: \end{equation}%

1125: We find that an exact static spherically symmetric solution of these field

1126: equations is given in Schwarzschild coordinates by the line--element 

1127: \begin{equation}

1128: ds^{2}=-A(r)dt^{2}+\frac{dr^{2}}{B(r)}+r^{2}(d\theta ^{2}+\sin ^{2}\theta

1129: d\phi ^{2})  \label{Chan}

1130: \end{equation}%

1131: where 

1132: \begin{align*}

1133: A(r)& =r^{2\delta \frac{(1+2\delta )}{(1-\delta )}}+\frac{C}{r^{\frac{%

1134: (1-4\delta )}{(1-\delta )}}} \\

1135: B(r)& =\frac{(1-\delta )^{2}}{(1-2\delta +4\delta ^{2})(1-2\delta (1+\delta

1136: ))}\left( 1+\frac{C}{r^{\frac{(1-2\delta +4\delta ^{2})}{(1-\delta )}}}%

1137: \right)

1138: \end{align*}%

1139: and $C=$ constant. This solution is conformally related to the $Q=0$ limit

1140: of the one found by Chan, Horne and Mann for a static spherically--symmetric

1141: space--time containing a scalar--field in a Liouville potential \cite{Cha95}%

1142: . It reduces to Schwarzschild in the limit of general relativity: $\delta

1143: \rightarrow 0$.

1144: 

1145: In order to evaluate whether or not this solution is physically relevant we

1146: will proceed as follows. A dynamical systems approach will be used to

1147: establish the asymptotic attractor solutions of the field equations (\ref%

1148: {staticfield}). The field equations will then be perturbed around these

1149: asymptotic attractor solutions and solved to first order in the perturbed

1150: quantities. This linearised solution will then be treated as the physically

1151: relevant static and spherically--symmetric weak--field limit of the field

1152: equations (\ref{staticfield}) and compared with the exact solution (\ref%

1153: {Chan}).

1154: 

1155: \subsection{Dynamical system}

1156: 

1157: The dynamical systems approach has already been applied to a situation of

1158: this kind by Mignemi and Wiltshire \cite{Mig89}. We present a brief summary

1159: of the relevant points of their work in the above notation; for a

1160: comprehensive analysis the reader is referred to their paper.

1161: 

1162: Taking the value of sign$(R)$ from (\ref{Chan}) as sign$(-\delta (1+\delta

1163: )/(1-2\delta (1+\delta )))$ and making a suitable choice of $\Omega _{0}$

1164: allows the scalar-field potential (\ref{pot1}) to be written as 

1165: \begin{equation}

1166: V(\phi )=-\frac{3\delta ^{2}}{8\pi G(1-2\delta (1+\delta ))}\exp \left( {%

1167: \sqrt{\frac{16\pi G}{3}}\frac{(1-\delta )}{\delta }\phi }\right) .

1168: \label{pot}

1169: \end{equation}

1170: 

1171: In four dimensions Mignemi and Wiltshire's choice of line--element

1172: corresponds to 

1173: \begin{equation}

1174: d\bar{s}^{2}=e^{2U(\xi )}\left( -dt^{2}+\bar{r}^{4}(\xi )d\xi ^{2}\right) +%

1175: \bar{r}^{2}(\xi )(d\theta ^{2}+\sin ^{2}\theta d\phi ^{2})  \label{metric}

1176: \end{equation}%

1177: which, after some manipulation, gives the field equations (\ref%

1178: {conformalfield}) as 

1179: \begin{align}

1180: \zeta ^{\prime \prime }& =-\frac{2c_{1}^{2}(1-\delta )^{2}+6\delta ^{2}\eta

1181: ^{\prime }{}^{2}-24\delta ^{2}\eta ^{\prime }\zeta ^{\prime }-2(1-2\delta

1182: -8\delta ^{2})\zeta ^{\prime }{}^{2}}{1-2\delta +4\delta ^{2}}-e^{2\zeta }

1183: \label{wilt1} \\

1184: \eta ^{\prime \prime }& =\frac{(1-2\delta -8\delta ^{2})(c_{1}^{2}(1-\delta

1185: )^{2}+3\delta ^{2}\eta ^{\prime }{}^{2}-12\delta ^{2}\eta ^{\prime }\zeta

1186: ^{\prime }-(1-2\delta -8\delta ^{2})\zeta ^{\prime }{}^{2})}{3\delta

1187: ^{2}(1-2\delta +4\delta ^{2})}+\frac{(1-2\delta (1+\delta ))}{3\delta ^{2}}%

1188: e^{2\zeta }  \label{wilt2}

1189: \end{align}%

1190: and 

1191: \begin{equation}

1192: e^{2\eta }=-\frac{(1-2\delta (1+\delta ))}{3\delta ^{2}(1-2\delta +4\delta

1193: ^{2})}\left( c_{1}^{2}(1-\delta )^{2}+3\delta ^{2}\eta ^{\prime

1194: }{}^{2}-12\delta ^{2}\eta ^{\prime }\zeta ^{\prime }-(1-2\delta -8\delta

1195: ^{2})\zeta ^{\prime }{}^{2}+(1-2\delta +4\delta ^{2})e^{2\zeta }\right)

1196: \label{wilt3}

1197: \end{equation}%

1198: where 

1199: \begin{align*}

1200: \zeta (\xi )& =U(\xi )+\log \bar{r}(\xi ) \\

1201: \eta (\xi )& =-\frac{(1-2\delta (1+\delta ))}{3\delta ^{2}}U(\xi )+2\log 

1202: \bar{r}(\xi )-\frac{(1-\delta )^{2}}{3\delta ^{2}}c_{1}\xi +\text{constant.}

1203: \end{align*}%

1204: Primes denote differentiation with respect to $\xi $ and $c_{1}$ is a

1205: constant of integration.

1206: 

1207: Defining the variables $X$, $Y$ and $Z$ by 

1208: \begin{equation*}

1209: X=\zeta ^{\prime }\qquad Y=\eta ^{\prime }\qquad Z=e^{\zeta }

1210: \end{equation*}%

1211: the field equations (\ref{wilt1}) and (\ref{wilt2}) can then be written as

1212: the following set of first-order autonomous differential equations 

1213: \begin{align}

1214: X^{\prime }& =-\frac{2c_{1}^{2}(1-\delta )^{2}+6\delta ^{2}Y^{2}-24\delta

1215: ^{2}XY-2(1-2\delta -8\delta ^{2})X^{2}}{1-2\delta +4\delta ^{2}}-Z^{2}

1216: \label{X'}

1217: \\

1218: \label{Y'}

1219: Y^{\prime }& =\frac{(1-2\delta -8\delta ^{2})(c_{1}^{2}(1-\delta

1220: )^{2}+3\delta ^{2}Y^{2}-12\delta ^{2}XY-(1-2\delta -8\delta ^{2})X^{2})}{%

1221: 3\delta ^{2}(1-2\delta +4\delta ^{2})}+\frac{(1-2\delta (1+\delta ))}{%

1222: 3\delta ^{2}}Z^{2} \\

1223: Z^{\prime }& =XZ.  \label{Z'}

1224: \end{align}%

1225: (The reader should note the different definition of $Z$ here to that of

1226: Mignemi and Wiltshire). As identified by Mignemi and Wiltshire, the only

1227: critical points at finite values of $X$, $Y$ and $Z$ are in the plane $Z=0$

1228: along the curve defined by 

1229: \begin{equation*}

1230: c_{1}^{2}(1-\delta )^{2}+3\delta ^{2}Y^{2}-12\delta ^{2}XY-(1-2\delta

1231: -8\delta ^{2})X^{2}=0.

1232: \end{equation*}%

1233: These curves are shown as bold lines in figure \ref{finitephase}, together

1234: with some sample trajectories from equations (\ref{X'})and (\ref{Y'}). From

1235: the definition above we see that the condition $Z=0$ is equivalent to $\bar{r%

1236: }e^{U}=0$. Whilst we do not consider trajectories confined to this plane to

1237: be physically relevant we do consider the plot to be instructive as it gives

1238: a picture of the behaviour of trajectories close to this surface and

1239: displays the attractive or repulsive behaviour of the critical points, which

1240: can be the end points for trajectories which could be considered as

1241: physically meaningful. 

1242: \begin{figure}[tbp]

1243: \epsfig{file=finitephase2.eps,height=8cm}

1244: \caption{\textit{The $Z=0$ plane of the phase space defined by $X$,$Y$ and $%

1245: Z $ for $\protect\delta =0.1$ and $c_{1}=0.5$. The bold lines show the

1246: critical points in this plane and the diagonal lines show the unphysical

1247: trajectories confined to this plane. The dotted line is $Y=2X$ and separates

1248: the critical points where $\protect\xi \rightarrow \infty $ from the points

1249: where $\protect\xi \rightarrow -\infty $ }}

1250: \label{finitephase}

1251: \end{figure}

1252: The dotted line in figure \ref{finitephase} corresponds to the line $Y=2X$

1253: and separates two different types of critical points. The critical points

1254: with $Y>2X$ can be seen to be repulsive to the trajectories in the $Z=0$ plane

1255: and correspond to the limit $\xi \rightarrow -\infty $. Conversely, the

1256: points with $Y<2X$ are attractive and correspond to the limit $\xi

1257: \rightarrow \infty $. As $Z=\bar{r}e^{U},$ all critical points of this type

1258: in the $Z=0$ plane correspond either to naked singularities, $\bar{r}%

1259: \rightarrow 0$, or regular horizons, $\bar{r}\rightarrow $constant.

1260: 

1261: The two bold lines in figure \ref{finitephase} are the points at which the

1262: surface defined by 

1263: \begin{equation*}

1264: c_1^2 (1-\delta)^2+3 \delta^2 Y^2 -12 \delta^2 X Y -(1-2 \delta-8\delta^2)

1265: X^2 +(1-2 \delta+4\delta^2) Z^2 =0

1266: \end{equation*}

1267: crosses the $Z=0$ plane. This surface splits the phase space into three

1268: separate regions between which trajectories cannot move. These regions are

1269: labelled $I$, $II$ and $III$ in figure \ref{finitephase}. It can be seen

1270: from (\ref{wilt3}) that trajectories are confined to either regions $I$ or $%

1271: II$, for the potential defined by (\ref{pot}). If we had chosen the opposite

1272: value of sign$(R)$ in (\ref{pot1}) then trajectories would be confined to

1273: region $III$. We will show, however, that region $III$ does not contain

1274: solutions with asymptotic regions in which $\bar{r} \rightarrow \infty$ and

1275: so is of limited interest for our purposes.

1276: 

1277: In order to find the remaining critical points it is necessary to analyse

1278: the sphere at infinity. This can be done by making the transformation 

1279: \begin{equation*}

1280: X=\rho \sin \theta \cos \phi \qquad Y=\rho \sin \theta \sin \phi \qquad

1281: Z=\rho \cos \theta

1282: \end{equation*}%

1283: and taking the limit $\rho \rightarrow \infty $. The set of equations (\ref%

1284: {X'}), (\ref{Y'}) and (\ref{Z'}) then give 

1285: \begin{multline*}

1286: \frac{d\theta }{d\tau }\rightarrow -\frac{\cos \theta }{24\delta

1287: ^{2}(1-2\delta +4\delta )}(6\delta ^{2}\cos \phi (3-3\delta (2-9\delta

1288: )+(1-\delta (2+11\delta ))\cos 2\theta ) \\

1289: -(3-3\delta (4-\delta (15-22\delta -32\delta ^{2}))+(5-\delta (20-\delta

1290: (3+34\delta +32\delta ^{2})))\cos 2\theta )\sin \phi \\

1291: -2(18\delta ^{2}(1-\delta (2+7\delta ))\cos 3\phi -(1-\delta (4+\delta

1292: (9-26\delta +32\delta ^{2})))\sin 3\phi )\sin ^{2}\theta )

1293: \end{multline*}%

1294: and 

1295: \begin{multline*}

1296: \frac{d\phi }{d\tau }\rightarrow -\frac{1}{24\delta ^{2}(1-2\delta +4\delta

1297: ^{2})}(6\delta ^{2}(1-\delta (2+41\delta )-5(1-\delta (2+5\delta ))\cos

1298: 2\theta )\text{cosec}\theta \sin \phi \\

1299: +2((1-\delta (4+\delta (9-26\delta +32\delta ^{2})))\cos 3\phi +18\delta

1300: ^{2}(1-\delta (2+7\delta ))\sin 3\phi )\sin \theta \\

1301: -2\cos \phi (4(1-2\delta (2-\delta (3-2\delta -4\delta ^{2})))\text{cosec}%

1302: \theta -(7-\delta (28+\delta (15-2\delta (43+128\delta ))))\sin \theta ))

1303: \end{multline*}%

1304: where $d\tau =\rho d\xi $. These equations can be used to plot the positions

1305: of critical points and trajectories on the sphere at infinity. The result of

1306: this is shown in figure \ref{infinityphase}. Once again, these trajectories

1307: do not correspond to physical solutions in the phase space but are

1308: illustrative of trajectories at large distances and help to show the

1309: attractive or repulsive nature of the critical points. 

1310: \begin{figure}[tbp]

1311: \epsfig{file=infinityphase2.eps,height=8cm}

1312: \caption{\textit{The surface at infinity of the phase space defined by $X$,$%

1313: Y $ and $Z$ for $\protect\delta =0.1$. The shaded areas show where regions $I

1314: $ and $II$. Region $III$ is unshaded.}}

1315: \label{infinityphase}

1316: \end{figure}

1317: The surface at infinity has eight critical points, labelled $A$-$H$ in

1318: figure \ref{infinityphase}. Points $A$ and $B$ are the end-points of the

1319: trajectory that goes through the origin in figure \ref{finitephase} and are

1320: located at 

1321: \begin{equation*}

1322: \theta =\frac{\pi }{2},\qquad \text{and}\qquad \phi _{1,(2)}=\cos

1323: ^{-1}\left( \frac{-6\delta ^{2}}{\sqrt{1-4\delta -12\delta ^{2}+32\delta

1324: ^{3}+100\delta ^{4}}}\right) (+\pi )

1325: \end{equation*}%

1326: or, in terms of the original functions in the metric (\ref{metric}), 

1327: \begin{equation*}

1328: \bar{r}\rightarrow (\xi -\xi _{1})^{\frac{3\delta ^{2}}{(1-2\delta -8\delta

1329: ^{2})}}\qquad \text{and}\qquad e^{U}\rightarrow (\xi -\xi _{1})^{\frac{%

1330: 3\delta ^{2}}{(1-2\delta -8\delta ^{2})}},

1331: \end{equation*}%

1332: where $\xi _{1}$ is a constant of integration. The points $A$ and $B$

1333: therefore both correspond to $\xi \rightarrow \xi _{1}$ and hence to $\bar{r}%

1334: \rightarrow 0$.

1335: 

1336: Points $C$, $D$, $E$ and $F$ are the four end points of the two curves in

1337: figure \ref{finitephase} and therefore correspond to $\xi \rightarrow \infty$

1338: or $-\infty$ and $\bar{r} \rightarrow 0$ or constant.

1339: 

1340: The remaining points, $G$ and $H$, are located at 

1341: \begin{equation*}

1342: \phi _{1,(2)}=\frac{\pi }{4}(+\pi )\qquad \text{and}\qquad \theta =\frac{1}{2%

1343: }\cos ^{-1}\left( -\frac{1-2\delta +10\delta ^{2}}{3-6\delta +6\delta ^{2}}%

1344: \right)

1345: \end{equation*}%

1346: or 

1347: \begin{equation}

1348: \bar{r}^{\frac{(1-2\delta +4\delta ^{2})}{(1-\delta )^{2}}}\rightarrow \pm 

1349: \sqrt{\frac{(1-2\delta -2\delta ^{2})}{(1-2\delta +4\delta ^{2})}}\frac{1}{%

1350: (\xi -\xi _{2})}\qquad \text{and}\qquad e^{\frac{(1-2\delta +4\delta ^{2})U}{%

1351: 3\delta ^{2}}}\rightarrow \pm \sqrt{\frac{(1-2\delta -2\delta ^{2})}{%

1352: (1-2\delta +4\delta ^{2})}}\frac{1}{(\xi -\xi _{2})},  \label{GH}

1353: \end{equation}%

1354: where $\xi _{2}$ is an integration constant, the positive branch corresponds

1355: to point $H$ and the negative branch to point $G$. These points are,

1356: therefore, the asymptotic limit of the exact solution (\ref{Chan}) and

1357: correspond to $\xi \rightarrow \xi _{2}$ and hence $\bar{r}\rightarrow

1358: \infty $.

1359: 

1360: Whilst it may initially appear that trajectories are repelled from the point 

1361: $H$, this is only the case in terms of the coordinate $\xi $. In terms of

1362: the more physically relevant quantity $\bar{r},$ the point $H$ is an

1363: attractor. This can be seen from the first equation in (\ref{GH}). Taking

1364: the positive branch here it can be seen that $\bar{r}$ increases as $\xi $

1365: decreases. So, in terms of $\bar{r}$ the points $G$ and $H$ are both

1366: attractors, as $\bar{r}\rightarrow \infty $.

1367: 

1368: We can now see that in region $I$ all trajectories appear to start at

1369: critical points corresponding to either $\bar{r} \rightarrow 0$ or constant

1370: and end at point $G$ where $\bar{r} \rightarrow \infty$. Region $II$ appears

1371: to share the same features as region $I$ with all trajectories starting

1372: at either $\bar{r} \rightarrow 0$ or constant and ending at $H$ where $\bar{r%

1373: } \rightarrow \infty$. Region $III$ has no critical points corresponding to $%

1374: \bar{r} \rightarrow \infty$ and so all trajectories both begin and end on

1375: points corresponding to $\bar{r} \rightarrow 0$ or constant.

1376: 

1377: Therefore the only solutions with an asymptotic region in which $\bar{r}%

1378: \rightarrow \infty $ exist in regions $I$ and $II$ where the potential can

1379: be described by equation (\ref{pot}). Furthermore, all trajectories in

1380: regions $I$ and $II$ appear to be attracted to the solution 

1381: \begin{equation}

1382: ds^{2}=-\bar{r}^{\frac{6\delta ^{2}}{(1-\delta )^{2}}}dt^{2}+\frac{%

1383: (1-2\delta +4\delta ^{2})(1-2\delta -2\delta ^{2})}{(1-\delta )^{4}}d\bar{r}%

1384: ^{2}+\bar{r}^{2}(d\theta ^{2}+\sin ^{2}\theta d\phi ^{2}),

1385: \label{asymptotic}

1386: \end{equation}%

1387: which is the asymptotic behaviour of the solution found by Chan, Horne and

1388: Mann \cite{Cha95}. We therefore conclude that all solutions with an

1389: asymptotic region in which $\bar{r}\rightarrow \infty $ are attracted

1390: towards the solution (\ref{asymptotic}) as $\bar{r}\rightarrow \infty $.

1391: 

1392: Rescaling the metric back to the original conformal frame we therefore

1393: conclude that the generic asymptotic attractor solution to the field

1394: equations, (\ref{staticfield}), is 

1395: \begin{equation}

1396: ds^{2}=-r^{2\delta \frac{(1+2\delta )}{(1-\delta )}}dt^{2}+\frac{(1-2\delta

1397: +4\delta ^{2})(1-2\delta -2\delta ^{2})}{(1-\delta )^{2}}dr^{2}+r^{2}(d%

1398: \theta ^{2}+\sin ^{2}\theta d\phi ^{2})  \label{asymptotic2}

1399: \end{equation}%

1400: as $r\rightarrow \infty $. It reduces to Minkowski in the $\delta

1401: \rightarrow 0$ limit of general relativity.

1402: 

1403: \subsection{Linearised solution}

1404: 

1405: We now proceed to find the general solution, to first order in

1406: perturbations, around the background described by (\ref{asymptotic2}).

1407: Writing the perturbed line-element as 

1408: \begin{equation}

1409: ds^{2}=-r^{2\delta \frac{(1+2\delta )}{(1-\delta )}}(1+V(r))dt^{2}+\frac{%

1410: (1-2\delta +4\delta ^{2})(1-2\delta -2\delta ^{2})}{(1-\delta )^{2}}%

1411: (1+W(r))dr^{2}+r^{2}(d\theta ^{2}+\sin ^{2}\theta d\phi ^{2})

1412: \label{asymptotic3}

1413: \end{equation}%

1414: and making no assumptions about the order of $R$ the field equations (\ref%

1415: {staticfield}) become, up to first order in $V$ and $W$, 

1416: \begin{multline}

1417: \frac{\delta (1+2\delta )(1+2\delta ^{2})}{(1-\delta )^{2}r^{2}}+\frac{%

1418: (1+2\delta ^{2})}{(1-\delta )}\frac{V^{\prime }}{r}-\frac{\delta (1-2\delta )%

1419: }{2(1-\delta )}\frac{W^{\prime }}{r}+\frac{V^{\prime \prime }}{2}  \label{rr}

1420: \\

1421: =\frac{\delta (1+2\delta )}{2}\frac{R^{\prime }{}^{2}}{R^{2}}-\frac{\delta

1422: (1+2\delta )}{2(1-\delta )}\frac{R^{\prime \prime }}{R}-\frac{3\delta }{%

1423: 4(1-\delta )}\frac{R^{\prime }}{R}V^{\prime }-\frac{\delta (1+2\delta

1424: )(2+\delta )}{2(1-\delta )^{2}r}\frac{R^{\prime }}{R}+\frac{\delta

1425: (1+2\delta )}{4(1-\delta )}\frac{R^{\prime }}{R}W^{\prime },

1426: \end{multline}%

1427: \begin{multline}

1428: \frac{\delta (1+2\delta )(1-2\delta -2\delta ^{2})}{(1-\delta )^{2}r^{2}}-%

1429: \frac{\delta (1+2\delta )}{(1-\delta )}\frac{V^{\prime }}{r}+\frac{(2-\delta

1430: +2\delta ^{2})}{2(1-\delta )}\frac{W^{\prime }}{r}-\frac{V^{\prime \prime }}{%

1431: 2}  \label{tt} \\

1432: =-\frac{3\delta }{2}\frac{R^{\prime }{}^{2}}{R^{2}}+\frac{3\delta }{%

1433: 2(1-\delta )}\frac{R^{\prime \prime }}{R}+\frac{\delta (1+2\delta )(2-\delta

1434: +2\delta ^{2})}{2(1-\delta )^{2}r}\frac{R^{\prime }}{R}+\frac{\delta

1435: (1+2\delta )}{4(1-\delta )}\frac{R^{\prime }}{R}V^{\prime }-\frac{3\delta }{%

1436: 4(1-\delta )}\frac{R^{\prime }}{R}W^{\prime }

1437: \end{multline}%

1438: and 

1439: \begin{multline}

1440: -\frac{2\delta (3-4\delta +2\delta ^{2}+8\delta ^{3})}{(1-\delta )^{2}r^{2}}+%

1441: \frac{2(1-2\delta +4\delta ^{2})(1-2\delta -2\delta ^{2})}{(1-\delta

1442: )^{2}r^{2}}W-\frac{V^{\prime }}{r}+\frac{W^{\prime }}{r}  \label{thth} \\

1443: =-\delta (1+2\delta )\frac{R^{\prime }{}^{2}}{R^{2}}+\frac{\delta (1+2\delta

1444: )}{(1-\delta )}\frac{R^{\prime \prime }}{R}+\frac{\delta (4-\delta +2\delta

1445: ^{2}+4\delta ^{3})}{(1-\delta )^{2}r}\frac{R^{\prime }}{R}+\frac{\delta

1446: (1+2\delta )}{2(1-\delta )}\frac{R^{\prime }}{R}V^{\prime }-\frac{\delta

1447: (1+2\delta )}{2(1-\delta )}\frac{R^{\prime }}{R}W^{\prime }.

1448: \end{multline}

1449: 

1450: Expanding $R$ to first order in $V$ and $W$ gives 

1451: \begin{equation}  \label{R}

1452: R=-\frac{6 \delta (1+\delta)}{(1-2\delta-2 \delta^2)} \frac{1}{r^2}+R_1

1453: \end{equation}

1454: where 

1455: \begin{multline}  \label{R1}

1456: R_1= \frac{2 (1+\delta+\delta^2)}{(1-2\delta-2\delta^2)} \frac{W}{r^2} -%

1457: \frac{2 (1-\delta) (1+2 \delta^2)}{(1- 2\delta-2\delta^2)(1-2 \delta+4

1458: \delta^2)} \frac{V^{\prime}}{r} \\

1459: +\frac{(1-\delta)(2-\delta+2 \delta^2)}{(1- 2\delta-2\delta^2)(1-2 \delta+4

1460: \delta^2)} \frac{W^{\prime}}{r}- \frac{(1-\delta)^2}{(1-

1461: 2\delta-2\delta^2)(1-2 \delta+4 \delta^2)} V^{\prime\prime}.

1462: \end{multline}

1463: 

1464: Substituting (\ref{R}) into the field equations (\ref{rr}), (\ref{tt}) and (%

1465: \ref{thth}) and eliminating $R_1$ using (\ref{R1}) leaves 

1466: \begin{multline*}

1467: \frac{(1+\delta+\delta^2)(5-12\delta+12 \delta^2+4 \delta^3)}{3 (1-\delta)^2

1468: (1+\delta)} \frac{W}{r} +\frac{(16-47\delta+76 \delta^2-34 \delta^3-16

1469: \delta^4+32 \delta^5)}{6 (1-\delta^2) (1-2\delta+4 \delta^2)} W^{\prime} \\

1470: -\frac{(1+\delta +7 \delta^2-19 \delta^3+44 \delta^4+20 \delta^5)}{3

1471: (1-\delta^2) (1-2\delta+4 \delta^2)} \frac{Y}{r} -\frac{(8-15 \delta+18

1472: \delta^2 +16 \delta^3)}{6 (1+\delta) (1-2\delta+4\delta^2)} Y^{\prime} \\

1473: = -\frac{(1-2\delta-2\delta^2)(5-12\delta+12\delta^2+4\delta^3)}{12

1474: (1-\delta^2) (1+\delta)} \frac{\psi}{r} -\frac{(1-2 \delta-2\delta^2)}{4

1475: (1-\delta^2)} \psi^{\prime},

1476: \end{multline*}

1477: \begin{multline*}

1478: -\frac{(1+2 \delta) (1+\delta+\delta^2) (3-4 \delta+4 \delta^2)}{3

1479: (1-\delta)^2 (1+\delta)} \frac{W}{r} -\frac{(1+2\delta)(2-\delta+2

1480: \delta^2)(3 -4\delta+4\delta^2)}{6 (1-\delta^2) (1-2\delta+4\delta^2)}

1481: W^{\prime} \\

1482: +\frac{(3-2\delta +17\delta^2 -4 \delta^3+40 \delta^2)}{3 (1-\delta^2) (1-2

1483: \delta+4 \delta^2)} \frac{Y}{r}+ \frac{(6-\delta+2 \delta^2+20 \delta^3)}{ 6

1484: (1+\delta) (1-2\delta+4\delta^2)} Y^{\prime} \\

1485: = \frac{(1+2 \delta) (1-2\delta-2 \delta^2) (3-4\delta+4 \delta^2)}{12

1486: (1-\delta)^2 (1+\delta)} \frac{\psi}{r} + \frac{(1+2 \delta)(1-2

1487: \delta-2\delta^2)}{12 (1-\delta^2)} \psi^{\prime}.

1488: \end{multline*}

1489: and 

1490: \begin{multline*}

1491: -\frac{2 (8-8 \delta+3 \delta^2+10 \delta^3-28 \delta^4-12 \delta^5)}{3

1492: (1-\delta^2) (1+\delta) (1-2\delta-2 \delta^2)} \frac{W}{r} - \frac{(13-22

1493: \delta+12 \delta^2+26 \delta^3-56 \delta^4)}{3 (1-\delta^2) (1-2 \delta-2

1494: \delta^2)(1-2 \delta +4 \delta^2)} W^{\prime} \\

1495: +\frac{2 (4+9 \delta^2+8 \delta^3-12\delta^4)}{3 (1+\delta) (1-2

1496: \delta-2\delta^2)(1-2\delta+4 \delta^2)} \frac{Y}{r} + \frac{(5 -4\delta-4

1497: \delta^2+12 \delta^3)}{3 (1+\delta) (1-2 \delta-2\delta^2)(1-2\delta+4

1498: \delta^2)} Y^{\prime} \\

1499: = \frac{(5-4 \delta-4 \delta^2+12 \delta^3)}{6 (1-\delta)^2 (1+\delta)} 

1500: \frac{\psi}{r} +\frac{(1+2 \delta)}{6 (1-\delta^2)} \psi^{\prime}

1501: \end{multline*}

1502: where $Y= r V^{\prime}$ and $\psi=r^3 R_1^{\prime}$, subject to the

1503: constraint (\ref{R1}).

1504: 

1505: For $-\frac{(7+3 \sqrt{21})}{20}<\delta<-\frac{(7-3\sqrt{21})}{20}$ the

1506: general solution to this first order set of coupled equations is given, in

1507: terms of $V$ and $W$, by 

1508: \begin{align}  \label{V}

1509: V(r) &= c_1 V_1(r)+c_2 V_2(r)+ c_3 V_3(r) +\text{constant} \\

1510: W(r) &= -c_1 V_1(r)+c_2 W_2(r)+c_3 W_3(r)

1511: \end{align}

1512: where 

1513: \begin{align*}

1514: V_1 &=-r^{-\frac{(1-2 \delta+4 \delta^2)}{(1-\delta)}} \\

1515: V_2 &= \frac{ (1+2 \delta) r^{-\frac{(1-2 \delta+4 \delta^2)}{2 (1-\delta)}}%

1516: }{2 (2-3 \delta+12 \delta^2+16 \delta^3)} \left( (1+2 \delta)^2 \sin (A \log

1517: r) + 2 A (1-\delta) \cos(A \log r) \right) \\

1518: W_2 &= r^{-\frac{(1-2 \delta+4 \delta^2)}{2 (1-\delta)}} \sin (A \log r) \\

1519: V_3 &= \frac{ (1+2 \delta) r^{-\frac{(1-2 \delta+4 \delta^2)}{2 (1-\delta)}}%

1520: }{2 (2-3 \delta+12 \delta^2+16 \delta^3)} \left( (1+2 \delta)^2 \cos (A \log

1521: r) - 2 A (1-\delta) \sin(A \log r) \right) \\

1522: W_3 &= r^{-\frac{(1-2 \delta+4 \delta^2)}{2 (1-\delta)}} \cos (A \log r)

1523: \end{align*}

1524: and 

1525: \begin{equation*}

1526: A= -\frac{\sqrt{7-28 \delta+36 \delta^2-16 \delta^3-80 \delta^4}}{2

1527: (1-\delta)}.

1528: \end{equation*}

1529: The extra constant in (\ref{V}) is from the integration of $Y$ and can be

1530: trivially absorbed into the definition of the time coordinate. The above

1531: solution satisfies the constraint (\ref{R1}) without imposing any conditions

1532: upon the arbitrary constants $c_1$, $c_2$ and $c_3$.

1533: 

1534: It can be seen by direct comparison that the constant $c_1$ is linearly

1535: related to the constant $C$ in (\ref{Chan}) by a factor that is a function

1536: of $\delta$ only. The constants $c_2$ and $c_3$ correspond to two new

1537: oscillating modes.

1538: 

1539: \subsection{Physical consequences}

1540: 

1541: In order to calculate the classical tests of metric theories of gravity

1542: (i.e. bending and time-delay of light rays and the perihelion precession of

1543: Mercury) we require the static and spherically symmetric solution to the

1544: field equations (\ref{field}). Due to the complicated form of these

1545: equations we are unable to find the general solution; instead we propose to

1546: use the first--order solution around the generic attractor as $r\rightarrow

1547: \infty $. This method should be applicable to gravitational experiments

1548: performed in the solar system as the gravitational field in this region can

1549: be considered weak and we will be considering experiments performed at large 

1550: $r$ (in terms of the Schwarzschild radius of the massive objects in the

1551: system). To this end we will use the solution found at the end of the

1552: previous subsection. We choose to arbitrarily set the constants $c_{2}$ and $%

1553: c_{3}$ to zero - this removes the oscillatory parts of the solution, and

1554: hence ensures that the gravitational force is always attractive. This

1555: considerable simplification of the solution also allows a straightforward

1556: calculation of both null and timelike geodesics which can be used to compute

1557: the outcomes of the classical tests in this theory.

1558: 

1559: \subsubsection{Solution in isotropic coordinates}

1560: 

1561: Having removed the oscillatory parts of the solution we are left with the

1562: part corresponding to the exact solution (\ref{Chan}). Making the coordinate

1563: transformation 

1564: \begin{equation*}

1565: r^{(1-2 \delta+4 \delta^2)/(1-d)}= \left(1-\frac{C}{4 \hat{r}^{\sqrt{\frac{%

1566: (1-2 \delta+4 \delta^2)}{(1-2 \delta-2 \delta^2)}}}} \right)^2 \hat{r}^{%

1567: \sqrt{\frac{(1-2 \delta+4 \delta^2)}{(1-2 \delta-2 \delta^2)}}}

1568: \end{equation*}

1569: the solution (\ref{Chan}) can be transformed into the isotropic coordinate

1570: system 

1571: \begin{equation}  \label{iso}

1572: ds^2=-A(\hat{r}) d t^2+B(\hat{r}) ( d\hat{r}^2+ \hat{r}^2 (d

1573: \theta^2+\sin^2\theta d \phi^2))

1574: \end{equation}

1575: where 

1576: \begin{equation*}

1577: A(\hat{r})= \hat{r}^{\frac{2 \delta (1+2 \delta)}{\sqrt{(1-2

1578: \delta-2\delta^2)(1-2\delta+4 \delta^2)}}} \left(1+\frac{C}{4 \hat{r}^{\sqrt{%

1579: \frac{(1-2 \delta+4 \delta^2)}{(1-2 \delta-2 \delta^2)}}}} \right)^2 \left(1-%

1580: \frac{C}{4 \hat{r}^{\sqrt{\frac{(1-2 \delta+4 \delta^2)}{(1-2 \delta-2

1581: \delta^2)}}}} \right)^{-\frac{2 (1+4 \delta)}{(1-2 \delta+4 \delta^2)}}

1582: \end{equation*}

1583: and 

1584: \begin{equation*}

1585: B(\hat{r})= \hat{r}^{-2+2\frac{(1-\delta)}{\sqrt{(1-2

1586: \delta-2\delta^2)(1-2\delta+4 \delta^2)}}} \left(1-\frac{C}{4 \hat{r}^{\sqrt{%

1587: \frac{(1-2 \delta+4 \delta^2)}{(1-2 \delta-2 \delta^2)}}}} \right)^{\frac{4

1588: (1-\delta)}{(1-2 \delta+4 \delta^2)}},

1589: \end{equation*}

1590: which is, to linear order in $C$, 

1591: \begin{equation*}

1592: A(\hat{r})= \hat{r}^{\frac{2 \delta (1+2 \delta)}{\sqrt{(1-2

1593: \delta-2\delta^2)(1-2\delta+4 \delta^2)}}} \left(1+ \frac{(1-\delta) (1-2

1594: \delta)}{(1-2 \delta+4 \delta^2)}\frac{C}{\hat{r}^{\sqrt{\frac{(1-2 \delta+4

1595: \delta^2)}{(1-2 \delta-2 \delta^2)}}}} \right)

1596: \end{equation*}

1597: and 

1598: \begin{equation*}

1599: B(\hat{r})= \hat{r}^{-2+2\frac{(1-\delta)}{\sqrt{(1-2

1600: \delta-2\delta^2)(1-2\delta+4 \delta^2)}}} \left(1- \frac{(1-\delta)}{(1-2

1601: \delta+4 \delta^2)}\frac{C}{\hat{r}^{\sqrt{\frac{(1-2 \delta+4 \delta^2)}{%

1602: (1-2 \delta-2 \delta^2)}}}} \right).

1603: \end{equation*}

1604: 

1605: \subsubsection{Newtonian limit}

1606: 

1607: We first investigate the Newtonian limit of the geodesic equation in order

1608: to set the constant $C$ in the solution (\ref{iso}) above. As usual, we have 

1609: \begin{equation*}

1610: \Phi _{,\mu }=\Gamma _{\;00}^{\mu }

1611: \end{equation*}%

1612: where $\Phi $ is the Newtonian gravitational potential. Substituting in the

1613: isotropic metric (\ref{iso}) this gives 

1614: \begin{align}

1615: \nabla \Phi & =\frac{\nabla A(\hat{r})}{2B(\hat{r})}  \label{motion} \\

1616: & =\frac{\delta (1+2\delta )\hat{r}^{1-2\sqrt{\frac{1-2\delta -2\delta ^{2}}{%

1617: 1-2\delta +4\delta ^{2}}}}}{\sqrt{(1-2\delta -2\delta ^{2})(1-2\delta

1618: +4\delta ^{2})}}-\frac{(1-\delta )(1-8\delta +4\delta ^{2})C\hat{r}^{1-\frac{%

1619: 3(1-2\delta )}{\sqrt{(1-2\delta -2\delta ^{2})(1-2\delta +4\delta ^{2})}}}}{2%

1620: \sqrt{(1-2\delta -2\delta ^{2})(1-2\delta +4\delta ^{2})^{3}}}+O(C^{2}).

1621: \end{align}

1622: 

1623: The second term in the expression goes as $\sim \hat{r}^{-2+O(\delta ^{2})}$

1624: and so corresponds to the Newtonian part of the gravitational force. The

1625: first term, however, goes as $\sim \hat{r}^{-1+O(\delta ^{2})}$ and has no

1626: Newtonian counterpart. In order for the Newtonian part to dominate over the

1627: non-Newtonian part we must impose upon $\delta $ the requirement that it is

1628: at most 

1629: \begin{equation*}

1630: \delta \sim O\left( \frac{C}{r}\right) .

1631: \end{equation*}%

1632: If $\delta $ were larger than this then the non-Newtonian part of the

1633: potential would dominate over the Newtonian part, which is clearly

1634: unacceptable at scales over which the Newtonian potential has been measured

1635: and shown to be accurate.

1636: 

1637: This requirement upon the order of magnitude of $\delta$ allows (\ref{motion}%

1638: ) to be written 

1639: \begin{equation}  \label{force}

1640: \nabla \Phi = \frac{\delta}{\hat{r}^{1+O(C^2)}}-\frac{C}{2 \hat{r}^{2+O(C^2)}%

1641: }+O(C^2)

1642: \end{equation}

1643: where expansions in $C$ have been carried out separately in the coefficients

1644: and the powers of $\hat{r}$ of the two terms.

1645: 

1646: Comparison of (\ref{force}) with the Newtonian force law 

1647: \begin{equation*}

1648: \nabla \Phi_N=\frac{G m}{r^2}

1649: \end{equation*}

1650: allows the value of $C$ to be read off as 

1651: \begin{equation*}

1652: C=-2 G m +O(\delta).

1653: \end{equation*}

1654: 

1655: \subsubsection{Post--Newtonian limit}

1656: 

1657: We now wish to calculate, to post--Newtonian order, the equations of motion

1658: for test particles in the metric (\ref{iso}). The geodesic equation can be

1659: written in its usual form 

1660: \begin{equation*}

1661: \frac{d^{2}x^{\mu }}{d\lambda ^{2}}+\Gamma _{\;ij}^{\mu }\frac{dx^{i}}{%

1662: d\lambda }\frac{dx^{j}}{d\lambda }=0,

1663: \end{equation*}%

1664: where $\lambda $ can be taken as proper time for a timelike geodesic or as

1665: an affine parameter for a null geodesic. In terms of coordinate time this

1666: can be written 

1667: \begin{equation}

1668: \frac{d^{2}x^{\mu }}{dt^{2}}+\left( \Gamma _{\;ij}^{\mu }-\Gamma _{\;ij}^{0}%

1669: \frac{dx^{\mu }}{dt}\right) \frac{dx^{i}}{dt}\frac{dx^{j}}{dt}=0.

1670: \label{motion2}

1671: \end{equation}%

1672: We also have the integral 

1673: \begin{equation}

1674: g_{ij}\frac{dx^{i}}{dt}\frac{dx^{j}}{dt}=S  \label{motion3}

1675: \end{equation}%

1676: where $S=-1$ for particles and $0$ for photons.

1677: 

1678: Substituting (\ref{iso}) into (\ref{motion2}) and (\ref{motion3}) gives, to

1679: the relevant order, the equations of motion 

1680: \begin{multline}

1681: \frac{d^{2}\mathbf{x}}{dt^{2}}=-\frac{Gm}{r^{2}}\left( 1+\left\vert \frac{d%

1682: \mathbf{x}}{dt}\right\vert ^{2}\right) \mathbf{e_{r}}+4\frac{G^{2}m^{2}}{%

1683: r^{3}}\mathbf{e_{r}}+4\frac{Gm}{r^{2}}\mathbf{e_{r}}\cdot \frac{d\mathbf{x}}{%

1684: dt}\frac{d\mathbf{x}}{dt}  \label{geo1} \\

1685: -\frac{\delta }{r}\left( 1-\left\vert \frac{d\mathbf{x}}{dt}\right\vert

1686: ^{2}\right) \mathbf{e_{r}}-4\frac{\delta ^{2}}{r}\mathbf{e_{r}}+\delta \frac{%

1687: Gm}{r^{2}}\mathbf{e_{r}}+O(G^{3}m^{3})

1688: \end{multline}%

1689: and 

1690: \begin{equation}

1691: \left\vert \frac{d\mathbf{x}}{dt}\right\vert ^{2}=1-4\frac{Gm}{r}+\frac{S}{%

1692: r^{2\delta }}-2S\frac{Gm}{r^{1+2\delta }}+O(G^{2}m^{2}).  \label{geo2}

1693: \end{equation}%

1694: (In the interests of concision we have excluded the $O(\delta ^{2})$ terms

1695: from the powers of $r$, the reader should regard them as being there

1696: implicitly). The first three terms in equation (\ref{geo1}) are identical to

1697: their general-relativistic counterparts. The next two terms are completely

1698: new and have no counterparts in general relativity. The last term in

1699: equation (\ref{geo1}) can be removed by rescaling the mass term by $%

1700: m\rightarrow m(1+\delta )$; this has no effect on the Newtonian limit of the

1701: geodesic equation as any term $Gm\delta $ is of post--Newtonian order.

1702: 

1703: \subsubsection{The bending of light and time delay of radio signals}

1704: 

1705: From equation (\ref{geo2}) it can be seen that the solution for null

1706: geodesics, to zeroth order, is a straight line that can be parametrised by 

1707: \begin{equation*}

1708: \mathbf{x}=\mathbf{n}(t-t_{0})

1709: \end{equation*}%

1710: where $\mathbf{n}\cdot \mathbf{n}=1$. Considering a small departure from the

1711: zeroth order solution we can write 

1712: \begin{equation*}

1713: \mathbf{x}=\mathbf{n}(t-t_{0})+\mathbf{x}_{1}

1714: \end{equation*}%

1715: where $\mathbf{x}_{1}$ is small. To first order, the equations of motion (%

1716: \ref{geo1}) and (\ref{geo2}) then become 

1717: \begin{equation}

1718: \frac{d^{2}\mathbf{x}}{dt^{2}}=-2\frac{Gm}{r^{2}}\mathbf{e_{r}}+4\frac{Gm}{%

1719: r^{2}}(\mathbf{n}\cdot \mathbf{e_{r}})\mathbf{n}  \label{geo3}

1720: \end{equation}%

1721: and 

1722: \begin{equation}

1723: \mathbf{n}\cdot \frac{d\mathbf{x}}{dt}=-2\frac{Gm}{r}.  \label{geo4}

1724: \end{equation}

1725: 

1726: Equations (\ref{geo3}) and (\ref{geo4}) can be seen to be identical to the

1727: first-order equations of motions for photons in general relativity. We

1728: therefore conclude that any observations involving the motion of photons in

1729: a stationary and spherically symmetric weak field situation cannot tell any

1730: difference between general relativity and this $R^{1+\delta }$ theory, to

1731: first post--Newtonian order. This includes the classical light bending and

1732: time delay tests which should measure the post-Newtonian parameter $\gamma $ to be one

1733: in this theory, as in general relativity.

1734: 

1735: \subsubsection{Perihelion precession}

1736: 

1737: In calculating the perihelion precession of a test particle in the geometry (%

1738: \ref{iso}) it is convenient to use the standard procedures for computing the

1739: perturbations of orbital elements (see \cite{Sma53} and \cite{Rob68}). In

1740: the notation of Robertson and Noonan \cite{Rob68} the measured rate of

1741: change of the perihelion in geocentric coordinates is given by 

1742: \begin{equation}

1743: \frac{d\tilde{\omega}}{dt}=-\frac{p\mathcal{R}}{he}\cos \phi +\frac{\mathcal{%

1744: J}(p+r)}{he}\sin \phi  \label{per}

1745: \end{equation}%

1746: where $p$ is the semi--latus rectum of the orbit, $h$ is the

1747: angular--momentum per unit mass, $e$ is the eccentricity and $\mathcal{R}$

1748: and $\mathcal{J}$ are the components of the acceleration in radial and

1749: normal to radial directions in the orbital plane, respectively. The radial

1750: coordinate, $r$, is defined by 

1751: \begin{equation}

1752: r\equiv \frac{p}{(1+e\cos \phi )}  \label{r}

1753: \end{equation}%

1754: and $\phi $ is the angle measured from the perihelion. We have, as usual,

1755: the additional relations 

1756: \begin{equation*}

1757: p=a(1-e^{2})

1758: \end{equation*}%

1759: and 

1760: \begin{equation}

1761: h\equiv \sqrt{Gmp}\equiv r^{2}\frac{d\phi }{dt}.  \label{dr}

1762: \end{equation}

1763: 

1764: From (\ref{geo1}), the components of the acceleration can be read off as 

1765: \begin{equation}

1766: \mathcal{R}=-\frac{Gm}{r^{2}} -\frac{Gm}{r^2} v^2 +4\frac{Gm}{r^{2}}v_{\mathcal{R}}^{2}+4\frac{%

1767: G^{2}m^{2}}{r^{3}}-\frac{\delta }{r}+\frac{\delta }{r}v^{2}-4\frac{\delta

1768: ^{2}}{r}  \label{Raccel}

1769: \end{equation}%

1770: and 

1771: \begin{equation}

1772: \mathcal{J}=4\frac{Gm}{r^{2}}v_{\mathcal{R}}v_{\mathcal{J}}  \label{Jaccel}

1773: \end{equation}%

1774: where we now have the radial and normal-to-radial components of the velocity

1775: as 

1776: \begin{align*}

1777: v_{\mathcal{R}}& =\frac{eh}{p}\sin \phi \\

1778: v_{\mathcal{J}}& =\frac{h}{p}(1+e\cos \phi )

1779: \end{align*}%

1780: and $v^{2}=v_{\mathcal{R}}^{2}+v_{\mathcal{J}}^{2}$. In writing (\ref{Raccel}%

1781: ), the last term of (\ref{geo1}) has been absorbed by a rescaling of $m$, as

1782: mentioned above.

1783: 

1784: The expressions (\ref{Raccel}) and (\ref{Jaccel}) can now be substituted

1785: into (\ref{per}) and integrated from $\phi=0$ to $2 \pi$, using (\ref{r})

1786: and (\ref{dr}) to write $r$ and $dr$ in terms of $\phi$ and $d\phi$. The

1787: perihelion precession per orbit is then given, to post--Newtonian accuracy,

1788: by the expression 

1789: \begin{equation}  \label{precession}

1790: \Delta \tilde{\omega} = \frac{6 \pi G m}{a(1-e^2)}-\frac{2\pi\delta}{e^2}

1791: \left( e^2-1-\frac{(1+4 \delta) a (1-e^2)}{Gm} \right).

1792: \end{equation}

1793: The first term in (\ref{precession}) is clearly the standard general

1794: relativistic expression. The second term is new and contributes to leading

1795: order the term 

1796: \begin{equation*}

1797: \frac{2 \pi a}{Gm} \left( \frac{1-e^2}{e^2} \right) \delta.

1798: \end{equation*}

1799: 

1800: Comparing the prediction (\ref{precession}) with observation is a

1801: non-trivial matter. The above prediction is the highly idealised precession

1802: expected for a timelike geodesic in the geometry described by (\ref{iso}).

1803: If we assume that the geometry (\ref{iso}) is a good approximation to the

1804: weak field for a static Schwarzschild--like mass then it is not trivial to

1805: assume that the timelike geodesics used to calculate the rate of perihelion

1806: precession (\ref{precession}) are the paths that material objects will

1807: follow. Whilst we are assured from the generalised Bianchi identities \cite%

1808: {Mag94} of the covariant conservation of energy--momentum, $%

1809: T_{\;\;;b}^{ab}=0 $, and hence the geodesic motion of an ideal fluid of

1810: pressureless dust, $u^{i}u_{\;;i}^{j}=0$, this does not ensure the geodesic

1811: motion of extended bodies. This deviation from geodesic motion is known as

1812: the Nordvedt effect \cite{Nor68} and, whilst being zero for general

1813: relativity, is generally non--zero for extended theories of gravity. From

1814: the analysis so far it is also not clear how orbiting matter and other

1815: nearby sources (other than the central mass) will contribute to the geometry

1816: (\ref{iso}).

1817: 

1818: In order to make a prediction for a physical system such as the solar

1819: system, and in the interests of brevity, some assumptions must be made. It

1820: is firstly assumed that the geometry of space--time in the solar system can

1821: be considered, to first approximation, as static and spherically symmetric.

1822: It is then assumed that this geometry is determined by the Sun, which can be

1823: treated as a point-like Schwarzschild mass at the origin, and is isolated

1824: from the effects of matter outside the solar system and from the background

1825: cosmology. It is also assumed that the Nordvedt effect is negligible and

1826: that extended massive bodies, such as planets, follow the same timelike

1827: geodesics of the background geometry as neutral test particles.

1828: 

1829: In comparing with observation it is useful to recast (\ref{precession}) in

1830: the form 

1831: \begin{equation*}

1832: \Delta \tilde{\omega}=\frac{6\pi Gm}{a(1-e^{2})}\lambda

1833: \end{equation*}%

1834: where 

1835: \begin{equation*}

1836: \lambda =1+\frac{a^{2}(1-e^{2})^{2}}{3G^{2}m^{2}e^{2}}\delta .

1837: \end{equation*}%

1838: This allows for easy comparison with results which have been used to

1839: constrain the standard post-Newtonian parameters, for which 

1840: \begin{equation*}

1841: \lambda =\frac{1}{3}(2+2\gamma -\beta ).

1842: \end{equation*}%

1843: The observational determination of the perihelion precession of Mercury is

1844: not clear cut and is subject to a number of uncertainties; most notably the

1845: quadrupole moment of the Sun (see e.g. \cite{Pir03}). We choose to use the

1846: result of Shapiro et. al. \cite{Sha76} 

1847: \begin{equation}

1848: \lambda =1.003\pm 0.005  \label{Shapiro}

1849: \end{equation}%

1850: which for standard values of $a$, $e$ and $m$ \cite{All63} gives us the

1851: constraint 

1852: \begin{equation}

1853: \delta =2.7\pm 4.5\times 10^{-19}.

1854: \end{equation}%

1855: In deriving (\ref{Shapiro}) the quadrupole moment of the Sun was assumed to

1856: correspond to uniform rotation.  For more modern estimates of the

1857: anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury see \cite{Pir03}. 

1858: 

1859: \section{Conclusions}

1860: 

1861: We have considered here the modification to the gravitational Lagrangian $%

1862: R\rightarrow R^{1+\delta }$, where $\delta $ is a small rational number. By

1863: considering the idealised Friedmann--Robertson--Walker cosmology and the

1864: static and spherically symmetric weak field situations we have been able to

1865: determine suitable solutions to the field equations which we have used to

1866: make predictions of the consequences of this gravity theory for

1867: astrophysical processes. These predictions have been compared to

1868: observations to derive a number of bounds on the value of $\delta $.

1869: 

1870: Firstly, we showed that for a spatially-flat, matter-dominated universe the

1871: attractor solution for the scale factor as $t\rightarrow \infty $ is of the

1872: form $a(t)\propto t^{\frac{1}{2}}$ if\ $-\frac{1}{4}<\delta <0$. This is

1873: unacceptable as sub--horizon scale density perturbations do not grow in a

1874: universe described by a scale factor of this form. We therefore have the

1875: constraints 

1876: \begin{equation}

1877: \delta \geqslant 0\qquad (\text{or}\quad \delta <-1/4),

1878: \end{equation}%

1879: in which case the attractor solution for the scale factor as $t\rightarrow

1880: \infty $ changes to that of the exact solution $a(t)\propto t^{\frac{%

1881: 2(1+\delta )}{3}}$.

1882: 

1883: Secondly, we showed that the modified expansion rate during primordial

1884: nucleosynthesis alters the predicted abundances of light elements in the

1885: universe. Using the inferred observational abundances of Olive et. al. \cite%

1886: {Oli00} we were able to impose upon $\delta $ the constraints 

1887: \begin{equation}

1888: -0.017\leqslant \delta \leqslant 0.0012,

1889: \end{equation}%

1890: for $0.5\leqslant \eta _{10}\leqslant 50$, or 

1891: \begin{equation}

1892: -0.0064\leqslant \delta \leqslant 0.0012,

1893: \end{equation}%

1894: for $1\leqslant \eta _{10}\leqslant 10$.

1895: 

1896: Next, we considered the horizon size at the time of matter--radiation

1897: equality. After showing that the horizon size is different in this theory to

1898: its counterpart in general-relativistic cosmology we discussed the

1899: implications for microwave background observations. This argument runs in

1900: parallel to that of Liddle et. al. for the Brans--Dicke cosmology \cite%

1901: {Lid98}. The horizon size at matter--radiation equality will be shifted by $%

1902: \sim 1\%$ for a value of $\delta \sim 0.0005.$

1903: 

1904: Finally, we investigated the static and spherically symmetric weak--field

1905: situation. We calculated the null and timelike geodesics of the space--time

1906: to post--Newtonian accuracy. We then showed that null geodesics are, to the

1907: required accuracy, identical in this theory to those in the Schwarzschild

1908: solution of general relativity. The light bending and radio time--delay

1909: tests should, therefore, yield the same results as in general relativity, to

1910: the required order.

1911: 

1912: Our prediction for the perihelion precession of Mercury gave us our tightest

1913: bounds on $\delta $. Assuming that Mercury follows timelike geodesics of the

1914: space--time we used the results of Shapiro et. al. \cite{Sha76} to impose

1915: upon $\delta $ the constraint 

1916: \begin{equation}

1917: \delta =2.7\pm 4.5\times 10^{-19}.

1918: \end{equation}%

1919: This constraint is due to the unusual feature of the static and

1920: spherically--symmetric space--time that as $r\rightarrow \infty $ it is

1921: asymptotically attracted to a form that is not Minkowski spacetime, but

1922: reduces to Minkowski spacetime as $\delta \rightarrow 0$.

1923: 

1924: Combining the above results we therefore have that $\delta $ should be

1925: constrained to lie within the range 

1926: \begin{equation}

1927: 0\leq \delta <7.2\times 10^{-19}.

1928: \end{equation}

1929: This is a remarkably strong observational constraint upon deviations of this kind from

1930: general relativity.

1931: 

1932: \section{Acknowledgements}

1933: 

1934: We would like to thank Robert Scherrer, David Wiltshire and Spiros

1935: Cotsakis for helpful comments and suggestions.  TC is supported by the PPARC.

1936: 

1937: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1938: \bibitem{edd} A.S. Eddington, \textit{The Mathematical Theory of Relativity,

1939: 2nd. edn. }Cambridge UP, Cambridge, (1924).

1940: 

1941: \bibitem{gur} V.T. Gurovich, Sov. Phys. JETP \textbf{46}, 193 (1977).

1942: 

1943: \bibitem{buch} H. Buchdahl, J. Phys. A \textbf{12}, 1229 (1979).

1944: 

1945: \bibitem{kerner} Kerner, R. Gen. Rel. Gravn. \textbf{14}, 453 (1982).

1946: 

1947: \bibitem{BO} J.D. Barrow and A.C. Ottewill, J. Phys. A \textbf{16}, 2757

1948: (1983).

1949: 

1950: \bibitem{magg} G. Magnano, M. Ferraris and M. Francaviglia, Gen. Rel. Gravn. 

1951: \textbf{19}, 465 (1987).

1952: 

1953: \bibitem{tur} S. M. Carroll, A. De Felice, V. Duvvuri, D. A. Easson, M.

1954: Trodden, and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{71}, 063513 (2005).

1955: 

1956: \bibitem{new} S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{68},

1957:   123512 (2003).

1958: 

1959: \bibitem{CB} J.D. Barrow and S. Cotsakis, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{214} 515

1960: (1994).

1961: 

1962: \bibitem{maeda} K-I. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{39}, 3159 (1989)

1963: 

1964: \bibitem{ruz}  T.V. Ruzmaikina and A.A. Ruzmaikin, Sov. Phys. JETP \textbf{30

1965: }, 372 (1970).

1966: 

1967: \bibitem{Buc70} H. A. Buchdahl, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. \textbf{150}, 1

1968: (1970).

1969: 

1970: \bibitem{rox} I. Roxburgh, Gen. Rel. Gravn. \textbf{8}, 219 (1977).

1971: 

1972: \bibitem{Bar05}  J. D. Barrow and T. Clifton, gr-qc/0509085.

1973: 

1974: \bibitem{Olmo} G. J. Olmo, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{72}, 083505 (2005).

1975: 

1976: \bibitem{Mag94} G. Magnano and M. Sokolowski, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{50}, 5039

1977: (1994).

1978: 

1979: \bibitem{schmidt} H.J. Schmidt, gr-qc/0407095.

1980: 

1981: \bibitem{newt} J.D. Barrow, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., \textbf{282}, 1397

1982: (1996).

1983: 

1984: \bibitem{Car04} S. Carloni, P. K. S. Dunsby, S. Capoziello and A, Troisi,

1985: gr-qc/0410046.

1986: 

1987: \bibitem{Hol98} D. J. Holden and D. Wands, Class. Quant. Grav. \textbf{15},

1988: 3271 (1998).

1989: 

1990: \bibitem{shv} V.F. Shvartsman, Sov. Phys. JETP Lett. \textbf{9}, 184 (1969).

1991: 

1992: \bibitem{nus} G. Steigman, hep-ph/0501100.

1993: 

1994: \bibitem{ht} S.W. Hawking and R.J. Tayler, Nature \textbf{209}, 1278 (1966).

1995: 

1996: \bibitem{jb1} J.D. Barrow, Mon. Not. Roy. astr. Soc., \textbf{175}, 359

1997: (1976).

1998: 

1999: \bibitem{jb2} J.D. Barrow, Mon. Not. Roy. astr. Soc., \textbf{178}, 625

2000: (1977).

2001: 

2002: \bibitem{jb3} J.D. Barrow, Mon. Not. Roy. astr. Soc., \textbf{211}, 221

2003: (1984).

2004: 

2005: \bibitem{mag} J.D. Barrow, P.G. Ferreira, J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{%

2006: 78}, 3610 (1997).

2007: 

2008: \bibitem{YM} J.D. Barrow, Y. Jin, and K-I. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D

2009:   \textbf{72}, 103512 (2005).

2010: 

2011: \bibitem{skew} J.D. Barrow, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{55}, 7451, (1997).  

2012: 

2013: \bibitem{bmaeda} J.D. Barrow and K-I. Maeda, Nucl. Phys. B \textbf{341}, 294

2014: (1990). 

2015: 

2016: \bibitem{clift} T. Clifton, J.D. Barrow and R. Scherrer, Phys. Rev. D 

2017: \textbf{71}, 123526 (2005).

2018: 

2019: \bibitem{Car02} S. M. Carroll and M. Kaplinghat, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{65},

2020: 063507 (2002).

2021: 

2022: \bibitem{Ben03} C. L. Bennett et. al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. \textbf{148}, 1

2023: (2003).

2024: 

2025: \bibitem{Oli00} K. A. Olive, G. Steigman and T. P. Walker, Physics Reports 

2026: \textbf{333}, 389 (2000).

2027: 

2028: \bibitem{Lid98} A. R. Liddle, A. Mazumdar and J. D. Barrow, Phys. Rev. D 

2029: \textbf{58} 027302 (1998).

2030: 

2031: \bibitem{Fix96} D. J. Fixsen, E. S. Cheng, J. M. Gales, J. C. Mather, R. A.

2032: Shafer and E. L. Wright, Astrophys. J. \textbf{473}, 576 (1996).

2033: 

2034: \bibitem{Che99} X. Chen and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{60},

2035: 104036 (1999).

2036: 

2037: \bibitem{Cha95} K. C. K. Chan, J. H. Horne and R. B. Mann, Nucl. Phys. 

2038: \textbf{B447}, 441 (1995).

2039: 

2040: \bibitem{Mig89} S. Mignemi and D. L. Wiltshire, Class. Quantum Grav. \textbf{%

2041: 6}, 987 (1989).

2042: 

2043: \bibitem{Sma53} W. M. Smart, \textit{Celestial Mechanics}, Longman Green,

2044: London (1953).

2045: 

2046: \bibitem{Rob68} H. P. Robertson and T. W. Noonan, \textit{Relativity and

2047: Cosmology}, Saunders, Philadelphia (1968).

2048: 

2049: \bibitem{Nor68} K. Nordvedt, Phys. Rev. \textbf{169}, 1014 (1968); K.

2050: Nordvedt, Phys. Rev. \textbf{169}, 1017 (1968).

2051: 

2052: \bibitem{Pir03} S. Pireaux, J. P. Rozelot and S. Godier, Astrophys. Space

2053: Sci. \textbf{284}, 1159 (2003).

2054: 

2055: \bibitem{Sha76} I. I. Shapiro, C. C. Counselman III and R. W. King, Phys.

2056: Rev. Lett. \textbf{36}, 555 (1976).

2057: 

2058: \bibitem{All63} C. W. Allen, \textit{Astrophysical quantities}, The Athlone

2059: Press, London (1965).

2060: 

2061: \end{thebibliography}

2062: 

2063: \end{document}

2064: