Interacting diffusive unified dark energy and dark matter from scalar fields

The European Physical Journal C, Jun 2017

Here we generalize ideas of unified dark matter–dark energy in the context of two measure theories and of dynamical space time theories. In two measure theories one uses metric independent volume elements and this allows one to construct unified dark matter–dark energy, where the cosmological constant appears as an integration constant associated with the equation of motion of the measure fields. The dynamical space-time theories generalize the two measure theories by introducing a vector field whose equation of motion guarantees the conservation of a certain Energy Momentum tensor, which may be related, but in general is not the same as the gravitational Energy Momentum tensor. We propose two formulations of this idea: (I) by demanding that this vector field be the gradient of a scalar, (II) by considering the dynamical space field appearing in another part of the action. Then the dynamical space time theory becomes a theory of Diffusive Unified dark energy and dark matter. These generalizations produce non-conserved energy momentum tensors instead of conserved energy momentum tensors which leads at the end to a formulation of interacting DE–DM dust models in the form of a diffusive type interacting Unified dark energy and dark matter scenario. We solved analytically the theories for perturbative solution and asymptotic solution, and we show that the \(\Lambda \)CDM is a fixed point of these theories at large times. Also a preliminary argument as regards the good behavior of the theory at the quantum level is proposed for both theories.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1140%2Fepjc%2Fs10052-017-4939-x.pdf

Interacting diffusive unified dark energy and dark matter from scalar fields

Eur. Phys. J. C Interacting diffusive unified dark energy and dark matter from scalar fields David Benisty 0 E. I. Guendelman 0 0 Department of Physics, Ben Gurion University of the Negev , 84105 Beersheba , Israel Here we generalize ideas of unified dark matterdark energy in the context of two measure theories and of dynamical space time theories. In two measure theories one uses metric independent volume elements and this allows one to construct unified dark matter-dark energy, where the cosmological constant appears as an integration constant associated with the equation of motion of the measure fields. The dynamical space-time theories generalize the two measure theories by introducing a vector field whose equation of motion guarantees the conservation of a certain Energy Momentum tensor, which may be related, but in general is not the same as the gravitational Energy Momentum tensor. We propose two formulations of this idea: (I) by demanding that this vector field be the gradient of a scalar, (II) by considering the dynamical space field appearing in another part of the action. Then the dynamical space time theory becomes a theory of Diffusive Unified dark energy and dark matter. These generalizations produce non-conserved energy momentum tensors instead of conserved energy momentum tensors which leads at the end to a formulation of interacting DE-DM dust models in the form of a diffusive type interacting Unified dark energy and dark matter scenario. We solved analytically the theories for perturbative solution and asymptotic solution, and we show that the CDM is a fixed point of these theories at large times. Also a preliminary argument as regards the good behavior of the theory at the quantum level is proposed for both theories. The best explanation, and fitting with data for the accelerated expansion of our universe, is the CDM model, which tells us that our universe contains 68% of dark energy, and 27% of dark matter. This model present two big questions: The - cosmological constant problem [1–3] – why there is a large disagreement between the vacuum expectation value of the energy momentum tensor which comes from quantum field theory and the observable value of dark energy density – and the coincidence problem [4] – why the observable values of dark energy and dark matter densities in the late universe are of the same order of magnitude. In order to solve this problem, many approaches emerged [5–8]. One interesting suggestion was a diffusive exchange of energy between dark energy and dark matter made by Calogero [9,10], Haba et al. [11], and Szydlowski and Stachowski [12], with some solution to cosmic problems. The basic notion is that the diffusion equation (or more exactly, the Fokker–Planck equation [13,14], which describes the time evolution of the probability density function of the velocity of a particle under the influence of random forces), implies a non-conserved stress energy tensor T μν , which has some current source j μ: where σ is the diffusion coefficient of the fluid. This generalization is Lorentz invariant and fit for curved space-time. The current j μ is a time-like covariantly conserved vector field and its conservation tells us that the number of particles in this fluid is constant. However, in the gravitational equations, the Einstein tensor is proportional to the conserved stress energy tensor ∇μT(μGν) = 0, which we labeled with “G” [15,16]. So Calogero came up with what he called φCDM model, which achieves a conserved total energy momentum tensor appearing in the right hand side of Einstein’s equation. But for the dark energy and dust stress tensors there is some source current for those tensors (however, the sum is conserved): As Calogero mentioned [9], the diffusion model introduced in his paper lacks an action principle formulation. Therefore we develop from a generalization of two measure theories [17–28] a “diffusive energy theory” which can produce on one hand a non-conserved stress energy tensor (T(μχν)), as in (1), and on the other hand the conserved stress energy tensor (T(μGν)) that we know from the right hand side of Einstein’s equation. As we will see, this suggested theory is asymptotically different from the φCDM model, and more close in this limit to the standard CDM. a dynamical time (here represented by the dynamical time χ 0). Some cosmological solutions of (5) have been studied in [30], in the context of spatially flat radiation-like solutions, and considering gauge field equations in curved space time. For a related approach where a set of dynamical spacetime coordinates are introduced, not only in the measure of integration, but also in the lagrangian, see [31]. 2 Two measure theories and dynamical time theories There have been theoretical approaches to gravity theories, where a fundamental constraint is implemented; like in two measure theories where one works, in addition to the regular measure of integration in the action √−g, with yet another measure, which is also a density and which is also a total derivative. In this case, one can use for constructing this measure four scalar fields ϕa , where a = 1, 2, 3, 4. Then we can define the density = εαβγ δεabcd ∂αϕa ∂β ϕb∂γ ϕc∂δϕd , and we can write an action that uses both of these densities: S = −gL2. As a consequence of the variation with respect to the scalar fields ϕa , assuming that L1 and L2 are independent of the scalar fields ϕa , we obtain where Aaα = εαβγ δεabcd ∂β ϕb∂γ ϕc∂δϕd . Since det[ Aaα] ∼ 3 as one easily sees, for = 0, (4) implies that L1 = M = Const. This result can expressed as covariant conservation of a stress energy momentum of the form T μν ( ) = L1gμν , and using the second order formalism, where the covariant derivative of gμν is zero, we obtain ∇μT(μν) = 0. This implies ∂αL1 = 0. This suggests generalizing the idea of the two measure theory, by imposing the covariant conservation of a more non-trivial kind of the energy momentum tensor, which we denote T(μχν) [29]. Therefore, we consider an action of the form d4x √−g R where χμ;ν = ∂ν χμ − μλν χλ. If we assume T(μχν) to be independent of χμ and having μλν being defined as the Christoffel connection coefficients, then the variation with respect to χμ gives a covariant conservation: ∇μT(μχν) = 0. Notice the fact that the energy density is the canonically conjugated variable to χ 0, which is what we expect from 3 Diffusive energy theory from action principle Let us consider a four dimensional case, where there is a coupling between the scalar field χ and the stress energy momentum tensor T(μχν): where, μ; ν are covariant derivatives of the scalar field. When λ μν is being defined as the Christoffel connection coefficients, the variation with respect to χ gives a covariant conservation of a current f μ: which is the source of the stress energy momentum tensor. This corresponds to the “dynamical space-time” theory (5), where the dynamical space-time 4-vector χμ is replaced by a gradient of a scalar field χ . In the “dynamical space theory” we obtain four equations of motion, by the variation of χμ, which correspond to covariant conservation of the energy momentum tensor, ∇μT(μχν) = 0. By changing the four vector to a gradient of a scalar ∂μχ at the end, what we do is to change the conservation of the energy momentum tensor to the asymptotic conservation of the energy momentum tensor (7) which corresponds to a conservation of a current ∇ν f ν = 0. In an expanding universe, the current fμ gets diluted, so then we recover asymptotically a covariant conservation law for T μν again. Equation (7) has a close cor(χ) respondence with the one obtained in a “diffusion scenario” for DE–DM exchange [9,10]. This stress energy tensor is substantially different from the stress energy tensor we all know, which is defined as 8πc4G T(μGν) = Rμν − 21 gμν R. In this case, the stress energy momentum tensor T(μχν) is not conserved (but there is some conserved current f ν , which is the source to this stress energy momentum tensor non-conservation), here there is some conserved stress energy tensor T(μGν), which comes from variation of the action according to the metric: The lagrangian LM could be the modified term χ,μ;ν T(μχν), but as we will see, it could be added to more action terms. Using different expressions for T(μχν), which depend on other variables, will give the connection between the scalar field χ and those other variables. Notice that for the theory the shift symmetry holds, and χ → χ + Cχ ; T(μχν) → T μν (χ) + gμν CT will not change any equation of motion. When Cχ , CT are some arbitrary constants. This means that if the matter is coupled through its energy momentum tensor as in (9), the process of redefinition of the energy momentum tensor will not affect the equations of motion. Of course, a redefinition of such a type of energy momentum tensor is exactly what is done in the process of normal ordering in quantum field theory, for example. 4 Diffusive energy theory without high derivatives Another model that does not involve high derivatives is obtained, by keeping χμ as a 4-vector, which is not gradient, but we introduce the vector field χμ in another part of the action: where A is another scalar field. Then from variation with respect to χμ we obtain as (7), where the source is But in contrast to (7), where fμ appears as an integration function, here f μ appears as a function of the dynamical fields. From the variation with respect to A, we indeed see that the current χ μ + ∂μ A is conserved, which means again μν with (7) that ∇μ∇ν T(χ) = 0, but it does not tell us that all of the equations of motion are the same. Nevertheless, asymptotically, for the late universe, the two theories coincide. To start with, we discuss a toy model in one dimension describing a system that allows the non-conservation of a certain energy function, which increases or decreases linearly with time, while there is another energy which is conserved. It is of interest to compare with a mechanism that produces non-conserved energy momentum tensors which leads to a formulation of interacting DE–DM models; however, there are crucial differences. 5 A mechanical system with a constant power and diffusive properties In order to see the applications of the ideas, we start with a simple action of one dimensional particle in a potential V (x ). We introduce a coupling between the total energy of the particle 21 m x˙2 + V (x ) and the second derivative of some dynamical variable B: S = In order to see the applications of the ideas, we start with a simple action of a one dimensional particle in a potential V (x ). We introduce a coupling between the total energy of the particle 21 m x˙2 + V (x ) and the second derivative of some dynamical variable B: S = The equation of motion according to the dynamical variable B shows that the second derivative of the total energy is zero. In other words, the total energy of the particle is linear in time: m x˙2 + V (x ) = E (t ) = Pt + E0 where P is a constant power which is given to the particle or taken from it, and E0 is the total energy of the particle at time equal to zero. From the equation of motion according to coordinate x we get a close connection between the dynamical variable B and the coordinate of the particle: which with Eq. (15) gives B¨˙ 2V (x ) P B¨ = √2m(E (t ) − V (x )) − 2(E (t ) − V (x )) To get a feeling of these kinds of theories, let us look at the case of a harmonic oscillator V (x ) = 21 k x 2. First of all, we see from Eq. (5) and the condition that the right hand side be positive; since the left hand side obviously is positive, we see that there is a boundary time τ = − EP0 , for which for P > 0 we get t > τ , and for P < 0 there is a maximal time t < τ . Let us consider the case that the power P is positive. The equations of motion in that case will not oscillate, but they will grow exponentially until the “Pt” term present in Eq. (15) dominates, when x 2 ∝ t . This is very similar to Brownian motion. The momenta for this toy model are πB = ∂∂LB˙ − ddt ∂∂LB¨ = − ddt E (t ), ∂L B = ∂ B¨ = E (t ). Using the Hamiltonian formalism (with second order derivative [32,33]) we see that the hamiltonian of the system is Since the action in not explicitly dependent on time, the hamiltonian is conserved. So even if the total energy of the particle is not conserved, we have the conserved hamiltonian (21). This notion is equivalent to a non-conserved stress energy tensor T(μχν), in addition to the conserved stress energy T(μGν), which appears in the Einstein equation. Notice that this hamiltonian is not necessarily bounded from below. However, there are only mild instabilities in the solutions. For example, for the case V (x ) = 0, we get 1 x˙ ∝ B˙ ∝ t 2 . In the case of a harmonic oscillator, where V (x ) = 21 k x 2, there is an even milder behavior at large times: 1 x ∝ t 2 , which resembles a diffusive behavior, or Brownian motion. This behavior is a mild kind of instability, since no exponential growth appears, only power law growth. The related model in cosmology, as we will see, because of the coupling to an expanding space-time shows dumped perturbations, shows a trend towards a fixed point solution, where it coincides with the standard CDM model. This is because whatever potential instabilities the model may have in a flat background, the expanding space (most notably the de Sitter space) has the counter property of red shifting any perturbation; this effect overcomes and cancels these rather soft instabilities (power law instabilities that may exist for the solution in flat space) as we will see in Sect. 7. The exponential expansion is known to counter all kind of unstable behaviors, for example, it goes against the gravitational instability and a big enough cosmological constant can prevent galaxy formation; our case is much simpler than that, but the basic reason is the same. In this context it is important to notice that in an expanding universe a non-covariant conservation of an energy momentum tensor, which may imply that some energy density is increasing in the locally inertial frame, does not mean a corresponding increase of the energy density in the comoving cosmological frame. For example, a non-covariant conservation of the dust component of the universe, in the examples we study, will produce a still decreasing dust density, although there is a positive flow of energy in the inertial frame. The result of this flow of energy in the local inertial frame is going to be just that the dust energy density decreases a bit slower that the conventional dust in the comoving frame. Independently of this, we will see how it is possible to construct theories with positive Euclidean action that describe diffusive DE–DM unification. 6 Gravity, “k-essence” and diffusive behavior Our starting point is the following non-conventional gravityscalar-field action, which will produce a diffusive type of interacting DE–DM theory: d4x √−g R + with the following explanations for the different terms: R is the Ricci scalar which appears in the Einstein–Hilbert action. L(φ, X ) is the general-coordinate invariant Lagrangian of a single scalar field φ, which can be of an arbitrary generic “k-essence” type: some function of a scalar field φ and the combination X = ∂μφ∂μφ [34–36]): N =1 As we will see, this last action will produce a diffusive interμν action between DE–DM type theory. For the ansatz of T(χ) we choose to use some tensor which is proportional to the metric, with a proportionality function (φ, X ): T(μχν) = gμν (φ, X ) ⇒ S(χ) = From the variation of the scalar field χ we get = 0, whose solution will be interpreted as a dynamically generated cosmological constant with diffusive source. We take the simple example for this generalized theory, and for the functions L, we take the first order of the Taylor expansion from (23), or L = = X ( A1 = 1, A2 = A3 = · · · = 0). From the variation according to the scalar field we get a conserved current j;μμ = 0: For a cosmological solution we take into account only the change as a function of time φ = φ (t ). From that we see that the ‘0’ component of the current jα is non-zero. The last variation we should take is according to the metric (using the identities in Appendix A), which gives a conserved stress energy tensor: ,σ ) + j μφ,ν − χ ,μ ,ν − χ ,ν ,μ. For cosmological solutions the interpretation of the dark energy is by a term proportional to the metric − + χ ,σ ,σ , and dark matter dust by the ‘00’ component of the tensor j μφ,ν − χ ,μ ,ν − χ ,ν ,μ. Let us see the solution for the Friedman–Robertson–Walker metric: ds2 = −dt 2 + a2(t ) The basic combination becomes L = = X = ∂μφ∂μφ = −φ˙ 2. Notice that there are high derivative equations, but all such types of equations correspond to conservation laws. For example, we see that the variation of the scalar field (24) will give ddt (2φ˙ φ¨a3) = 0, which can be integrated to which can be integrated again to give The conserved current from Eq. (25) gives the relation C3 2φ˙ ( χ + 1) = a3 , which can also be integrated to give which provides the solution for the scalar field χ . From (26) we get the terms for the DE–DM densities: and the pressure of DE: pde = −ρde and DM: pdm = 0. This leads to the Friedman equations with (32) and (33) as source, and there are a few approximations that we want to discuss. The first one is the asymptotic solution. 7 Asymptotic solution and stability of the theory We can solve asymptotically and by the way show the basic stability of the theory (which should eliminate any concerns related to the formal unboundedness of the action). First we solve for χ˙ ; see Eq. (31). We see that the leading term is the fraction a13 a3dt . For an asymptotically de Sitter space, where a(t ) ≈ a0 exp (H0t ), we see that there is a unique asymptotic value: This is in accordance with our expectations that the expansion of the universe will stabilize the solutions, indeed (30) is basically equivalent to the equation of a particle rolling down a linear potential plus additional negligible terms as a(t ) goes to infinity; the fixed point solution is of course that of constant velocity, when friction × velocity = force = 1; since friction = 3H, we obtain Eq. (34). With this information we can check what the asymptotic value of DE is, from (28), (29) and (32). We see that in this limit, the non-constant part of φ˙ 2 is canceled by 2χ˙ φ˙ φ¨, and then asymptotically with the same analysis for DM density we obtain The Friedman equation provides a relation between C1 and H0 (the asymptotic value of Hubble constant) which is H 2 0 = 8π G C1. For negative C2 we have decaying dark energy, the 3 last term of the contribution for dark energy density is positive (and the opposite). This behavior, where C2 < 0, has a chance of explaining the coincidence problem, because unlike the standard CDM model, where the dark energy is exactly constant, and the dark matter decreases like a−3, in our case, dark energy can slowly decrease, instead of being constant, and dark matter also decreases, but not as fast as a−3. As suggested, this behavior can be understood by the observation that in an expanding universe a non-covariant conservation of an energy momentum tensor, which may imply that some energy density is increasing in the locally inertial frame, does not mean a corresponding increase of the energy density in the comoving cosmological frame, here in particular the non-covariant conservation of the dust component of the universe will produce a still decreasing dust density, although, for C2 < 0, there will be a positive flow of energy in the inertial frame to the dust component, but the result of this flow of energy in the local inertial frame will be just that the dust energy density will decrease a bit more slowly than conventional dust (but still it decreases). This is yet another example where potential instabilities are softened or in this case eliminated by the expansion of the universe. It is well known in the case of the Jeans gravitational instability, which is much softer in the expanding universe and also in other situations [37]. Another application of this mechanism could be to use it to explain the particle production, “taking vacuum energy and converting it into particles” as expected from the inflation reheating epoch. Maybe this can be combined with a mechanism that creates standard model particles. As we see, the expansion of the universe stabilizes the solutions, such that for large times all of them become indistinguishable from CDM, which appears as an attractor fixed point of our theory, showing a basic stability of the solutions at large times. Choosing C1 as positive is necessary, because of the demand that the terms with √C1 will not be imaginary. But for the other constants of integration, there is only the condition C3√C1 > 32CH20 , which gives a positive dust density at large times. 8 C2 = 0 solution Another special case is when C2 = 0. That means that the dark energy of this universe is constant: we have φ˙ 2 = C1 and φ¨ = 0. The equation of motions for the dark energy and dust (32) and (33) are independent on the scalar field χ , and therefore the density of dust in that universe behaves as C3√C1 . This solution says there is no interaction between a3 dark energy and dark matter. This is precisely the solution of the two measure theory [38–40], with the action d4x √−g R + which provides a unified picture of DE–DM. For more about two measure theory and related models and solutions for DE– DM, see the discussion in Appendix C. The FRWM for both theories gives the solution For this trivial case, C2 = 0, there is no diffusion effect between dark matter and dark energy. The current f μ, which is the source of the stress energy tensor T(μχν) (see (7)) is zero, and both stress energy tensors are conserved. This is equivalent to CDM. The exact solution of the case of constant dark energy and dust, using (38) and (39) is [41] a0(t ) = where α = 23 √C1. From comparing to the CDM solution, we can see how the observables values are related to the constant of integration that come from the solution of the theory: = H ; m = C1√C3 where H is the Hubble constant for the late universe. For exploring the non-trivial diffusive effect for C2 = 0, we use perturbation theory. 9 Perturbative solution The conclusion from this correspondence is that the diffusion between dark energy and dark matter dust at the late universe is very small, since that is the effect of the C2 term, and therefore we can estimate the solution by perturbation theory. So we obtain two dimensionless terms, which are dependent on time and scale factor, and they tell us the “diffusion rate”: where the integration is between two close times t0 and t . For C2 = 0, both λ1 and λ2 are equal to zero, and there is no dissipative effect, which as we saw, gives us the CDM model. For any non-zero λ1,2 1, the stress energy tensor T(μχν) is not conserved, and there is a little diffusion effect. The use of defining these two dimensionless terms is evident when C2 is small enough for using perturbation theory. By using λ1 we can write the scalar field term as φ˙ 2 = C1(1 + λ). The definition for λ2 is from the assumption that the leading term in (33), whose scale √C1C3, is much bigger than the other term χ˙ φ˙ φ¨ (with the χ˙ C2 component, using (28)). The total contributions for the densities, in the context of perturbation theory at the first order, are We can see from those terms that in the deviation from the unperturbed standard solution, the behavior of dark energy and dust are opposite – for increasing dark energy (for example the components are C2 < 0; C1, C3, C4 > 0), the dark matter amount (a3ρdm ) gets lower. Or in the case of decreasing dark energy, the amounts of dark matter increases (and C1, C2, C3, C4 > 0). 10 Equation of motion and solutions for diffusive energy without higher derivatives For the second class of theories we proposed in (10)–(12), we can write the diffusive energy action, without high derivatives: 1 S = 16π G σ + 2 √−g R + √−g and, as before, the stress energy tensor T(μχν) = gμν . From the variation with respect to the vector field χμ: jα = 2(χ;λλ + 1)φ,α; j;α = 0, α as (7) and (25). Finally for the stress energy tensor, which comes from variation with respect to the metric we obtain 1 ,λ − 2σ + j μφ,ν − χ ,μ ,ν − χ ,ν ,μ Both theories, (22) and (46), give rise to similar final equations of motion, besides the variation according to the metric, which asymptotically for large times behave in the same way. The new terms − 21σ ,μ ,μ and σ1 ,μ ,μ are negligible at the late universe, since they go as a16 . For the early universe those terms may be very important, which we will study in future publications. The modified model of diffusion gives rise to the simpler model when σ goes to infinity. Since, in this case, the extra σ2 √−g(χμ + ∂μ A)2 term forces χμ = −∂μ A (because (χμ + ∂μ A)2 = 0 and and we are also disregarding light like solutions for (χμ + ∂μ A), which do not appear relevant to cosmology), i.e. the χμ is a gradient of a scalar. Therefore the theory of dynamical time (5) with a source (46) becomes a diffusive action with high derivatives (6) and (22). 11 Some preliminary ideas on quantization and the boundedness of the Euclidean action Let us take the action (46); by integration by parts of χμ;ν T(μχν), and throwing away total derivatives, we obtain the action √−g R + We notice that there are no derivatives acting on the χμ field at this action, and therefor χμ is a Lagrange multiplier. It is legitimate to solve χμ from its equation of motions, and insert the result back into the action. The equation of motion according to the χμ variation is √−g R + Considering the functional integral quantization for this theory will give a few integrations over the field variables. The functional integral over the scalar A gives rise to a delta function that enforces the covariant conservation of the current ∇μT(μχν) = f ν . The Euclidean functional integral will be Z = This partition function excludes the Hilbert–Einstein action term, which has its own problems, which are not particularly of interest to this paper. In the full theory we need to include the integration over all the Euclidean geometries. We can see that the integration measure is positive definite, and the argument of the integrals in the exponents are negative definite in a Euclidean signature space-time sign[+, +, +, +], following the Hawking approach [42]. The terms fμ f μ and φ,μφ,μ are positive definite, and by choosing the proper sign of σ , the action is positive definite, and the partition function is convergent. The original theory we formulated in (22) is equivalent to (46) when σ goes to minus infinity. Therefore, this proof is valid for both theories. However, the simple model (22) has to be regularized by first taking A complete set of solutions of these differential equations (in the form of Friedman equations) is very complicated, but one phenomenological solution for this theory predicts a DE– DM ratio similar to the observed one [11]. Both approaches (which are described in this paper and in Calogero’s theory) become very similar when the time derivative of the scalar field is low χ˙ C2 1. In that case, the dark energy density (32) becomes The dark matter dust will reduce to the term (33): and for those equations it implies diffusion between dark energy and dark matter dust, like Calogero has found. In this model they assumed that the dark energy and the dust are not separately conserved. We can see that our asymptotic solution does not fit with Calogero’s model, for general C2. As opposed to Eq. (2), in our asymptotic solution (35)–(36) the dark energy density becomes constant, providing a behavior much closer to the standard CDM model. The main reason for this nonequivalence of those theories is the role of the χ˙ field, which has the effect of making the exchange between dark matter and dark energy less symmetric than in the φCMD model. In our case, χ˙ makes the decay of DE much lower than in φCDM, and it keeps the DM evolution still decreasing as CDM (a−3). finite and negative σ , and then letting the σ go to minus infinity. This is a preliminary approach, because in the quantum theory, there are many issues concerning how one goes from the Hamiltonian formulation to the path integral formulation, etc. But we see that the quantum theory has a chance to be well defined. 12 Diffusive dark energy and dust by Calogero The solution for the Calogero suggestion we presented at the beginning, see (1) and (2), leads to the following interdependence between the densities of dark matter and dark energy and the scale parameter: 13 Discussion, conclusions and prospects In this paper we have generalized the TMT and the dynamical space time theory, which imposes the covariant conservation of an energy momentum tensor. We demand that the dynamical space-time 4-vector χμ, which appears in the dynamical space-time theory, be a gradient ∂μχ . We do not obtain the covariant conservation of the energy momentum tensor that is introduced in the action. Instead we obtain current conservation. The current is the divergence of this energy momentum tensor. This current, which drives the non-conservation of the energy momentum tensor, is dissipated in the case of an expanding universe. So we get asymptotic conservation of this energy momentum tensor. Because the four-divergence of the covariant divergence of both the dark matter and dark energy is zero, we can make contact with the dissipative models of [9,10]. This might give a deeper motivation for these models and allow for the construction of new models. This energy tensor is not the gravitational energy tensor which appears in the right hand side of the Einstein tensor, in the gravity equations, but the non-covariant conservation of the energy momentum tensor that appears in the action induces an energy momentum transfer between the dark energy and dark matter components, of the gravitational energy momentum tensor, in a way that resembles the ideas in [11]. But one did not provide any action principle to support their ideas. Although the mechanism is similar, our formulation and theirs are not equivalent. From the asymptotic solution we see that when C2 < 0, unlike the standard CDM model, where the dark energy is exactly constant, and the dark matter decreases like a−3, in our case, dark energy can slowly decrease, instead of being constant, and dark matter also decreases, but not as fast as a−3. This special property is different in the φCMD model, where the exchange between DE and DM is much stronger in the asymptotic limit. This behavior, where C2 < 0, has a chance of explaining the coincidence problem, because unlike the standard CMD model, where the dark energy is exactly constant, and the dark matter decreases like a−3, in our case, dark energy can slowly decrease, instead of being constant, and dark matter also decreases, but not as fast as a−3. This behavior can be understood by the observation that in an expanding universe a non-covariant conservation of an energy momentum tensor, which may imply that some energy density is increasing in the locally inertial frame, does not mean a corresponding increase of the energy density in the comoving cosmological frame. Here in particular the non-covariant conservation of the dust component of the universe will produce a still decreasing dust density, although, for C2 < 0, there will be a positive flow of energy in the inertial frame to the dust component, but the result of this flow of energy in the local inertial frame will be just that the dust energy density will decrease a bit more slowly than the conventional dust (but it still decreases). We have seen that in perturbation theory, the behavior of dark energy and dust are different – for increasing dark energy (for example the components are C2 < 0; C1, C3, C4 > 0), the dark matter amount (a3ρdm ) grows lower. Or in the case of decreasing dark energy, the amounts of dark matter increase (and all the constants of integration are positive). For another suggestion for diffusive energy action, which does not produce high derivative equations, we have kept the χμ field as a 4-vector (not the gradient of a scalar), but now χμ appears in another term at the action, in addition to a scalar field A. The equations of motion produce again a diffusive energy equation, but with the additional contribution of two terms that are negligible for the late universe. A preliminary argument about the good behavior of the theory at the quantum level is also proposed for both theories. Some additional investigations concerning the quantum theory could be developed by using the WDW equation, in the mini-super space approximation. Also in the future we will study not only the asymptotic behavior, but the full numerical solution of the dark energy and dark matter components, starting from the early universe, for all the theories we suggested. Acknowledgements We are very grateful to Professor Zbigniew Haba for interesting comments and encouragement. This study was funded by Foundational Questions Institute. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecomm ons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. Funded by SCOAP3. 14 Appendix A: Identities 1 ν σ μ σ = 4 [gμτ (δαν δλσ + δλδα ) + gτ ν (δαμδλσ + δλ δα ) −2 ∂ −g 15 Appendix B An equivalent expression for (7), when T(μχν) is formulated as a perfect fluid in FRWM space, is when C2 = 0, the stress energy tensor is conserved, and there is no diffusive effect. For late times, where the scale parameter goes to infinity, we see that the diffusive effect vanishes. 16 Appendix C TMTs also have many points of similarity with ‘Lagrange multiplier gravity (LMG)’ [43,44]. The Lagrange multiplier field in LMG enforces the condition that a certain function be zero. In the TMT this is equivalent to the constraint that requires some lagrangian to be constant. The two measure models presented here are different from the LMG models of [43,44], and they provide us with an arbitrary constant of integration for the value of a given lagrangian, this constant of integration, if non-zero, can generate spontaneous symmetry breaking of scale invariance, which is present in the theory for example. Recently a lot of interest has been attracted by the so-called “mimetic” dark matter model proposed in [45,46]. The latter employs a special covariant isolation of the conformal degree of freedom in Einstein gravity, whose dynamics mimics cold dark matter as a pressure-less “dust”. Important questions concerning the stability of “mimetic” gravity are studied in Refs. [47,48] where also one formulates a generalized tensor–vector–scalar “mimetic” gravity, which avoids those problems. In [49] the idea is applied to inflationary scenarios. Most versions of the mimetic gravity, except for [47] appear to be equivalent to a special kind of Lagrange multiplier theory or TMT models that were known before, where we have the simple constraint that the kinetic term of a scalar field be constant. This of course gives identical results to the very special TMT where the lagrangian that couples to the new measure is the kinetic term of this scalar field. 1. S. Weinberg , The cosmological constant problem . Rev. Mod. Phys . 61 , 1 - 23 ( 1989 ) 2. S. Perlmutter et al., Supernova cosmology project . Nature 391 , 51 ( 1998 ). arXiv:astro-ph/9712212 3. M.P. Hobson , G.P. Efstathiou , A.N. Lasenby , General Relativity : An Introduction for Physicists , reprint edn) ( Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 2006 ), p. 187 (ISBN 978-0-521-82951-9) 4. P. Peebles , B. Ratra , Astrophys . J. 325 , L17 ( 1988 ) 5. M. Cataldo , F. Arevalo , P. Mella , Canonical and phantom scalar fields as an interaction of two perfect fluids . Astrophys. Space Sci . 344 , 495 - 503 ( 2013 ) 6. F. Arevalo , A. Paula , R. Bacalhau , W. Zimdahl , Cosmological Dynamics with Non-linear Interactions ( 2011 ) 7. T. Chiba , T. Okabe , M. Yamaguchi , Phys. Rev. D 62 , 023511 ( 2000 ). arXiv:astro-ph/9912463 8. J.B. Jimenez , D. Rubiera-Garcia , D. Sa´ez-Go´mez , V. Salzano , Cosmological future singularities in interacting dark energy models . doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.123520 9. S. Calogero , A kinetic theory of diffusion in general relativity with cosmological scalar field . JCAP 1111 , 016 ( 2011 ). arXiv:1107.4973 10. S. Calogero , Cosmological models with fluid matter undergoing velocity diffusion . J. Geom. Phys . 62 , 22082213 ( 2012 ). arXiv:1202.4888 11. Z. Haba , A. Stachowski , M. Szydlowski , Dynamics of the diffusive DM-DE interaction-dynamical system approach . JCAP 1607 ( 07 ), 024 ( 2016 ). doi:10.1088/ 1475 - 7516 /2016/07/024. arXiv: 1603 .07620 12. M. Szydlowski , A. Stachowski , Does the diffusion DM-DE interaction model solve cosmological puzzles? arXiv:1605.02325v1 13. L.P. Kadanoff , Statistical Physics: Statics, Dynamics and Renormalization(World Scientific, Singapore , 2000 ) ( ISBN 981-02- 3764-2) 14. A.D. Fokker, Die mittlere Energie rotierender elektrischer Dipole im Strahlungsfeld . Ann. Phys. 348 (4. Folge 43 ), 810 - 820 ( 1914 ). doi:10.1002/andp.19143480507 15. A. Einstein , Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation . In: Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin , pp. 844 - 847 . Retrieved 12 Sep 2006 ( 1915 ) 16. O. Gron , S. Hervik , Einstein's General Theory of Relativity: With Modern Applications in Cosmology, illustrated edn . (Springer, New York, 2007 ), p. 180 (ISBN 978-0-387-69200-5) 17. E.I. Guendelman , Mod. Phys. Lett. A 14 , 1043 ( 1999 ). arXiv:gr-qc/9901017 18. E.I. Guendelman , A.B. Kaganovich , Phys. Rev. D 53 , 7020 ( 1996 ) 19. F. Gronwald , U. Muench , A. Macias , F.W. Hehl , Phys. Rev. D 58 , 084021 ( 1998 ). arXiv:gr-qc/9712063 20. E.I. Guendelman , A.B. Kaganovich , Class. Quantum Grav . 25 , 235015 ( 2008 ). arXiv:0804.1278 [gr-qc] 21. H. Nishino , S. Rajpoot , Mod. Phys. Lett. A 21 , 127 ( 2006 ). arXiv:hep-th/0404088 22. E.I. Guendelman , A.B. Kaganovich , Ann. Phys. 323 , 866 ( 2008 ). arXiv:0704.1998 [gr-qc] 23. E.I. Guendelman , A.B. Kaganovich , Phys. Rev. D 75 , 083505 ( 2007 ). arXiv:gr-qc/0607111 24. E.I. Guendelman , A.B. Kaganovich , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 21 , 4373 ( 2006 ). arXiv:gr-qc/0603070 25. E. Guendelman , R. Herrera , P. Labrana , E. Nissimov , S. Pacheva , Gen. Rel. Grav. 47 ( 2015 ). arXiv:1408.5344 [gr-qc] 26. E.I. Guendelman , Ann. Phys. 322 (10), 891 - 921 ( 2010 ) 27. E.I. Guendelman , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25 , 4081 - 4099 ( 2010 ). doi:10.1142/S0217751X10050317. arXiv: 0911 .0178 [gr-qc] 28. E. Guendelman , E. Nissimov , S. Pacheva , M. Vasihoun , Dynamical volume element in scale-invariant and supergravity theories . Bulg. J. Phys . 40 , 121 ( 2013 ). arXiv:1310.2772 [hep-th] 29. E.I. Guendelman , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25 , 4081 ( 2010 ). doi:10. 1142/S0217751X10050317 30. D. Benisty , E.I. Guendelman , Mod. Phys. Lett. A 31(33) , 1650188 ( 2016 ). doi:10.1142/S0217732316501881. arXiv: 1609 .03189 31. J. Struckmeier, Phys. Rev. D 91 , 085030 ( 2015 ). arxiv: 1411 .1558 [gr-qc] 32. B.M Barker, R. F . O'Connell, Phys. Lett. 78A(3) (1980) 33. (Merida, IPN), R. Gomez-Cortes , A. Molgado , E. Rojas . J. Math. Phys. 57 ( 6 ), 062903 ( 2016 ). arXiv:1310.5750 34. C. Armendariz-Picon , V. Mukhanov , P. Stein-hardt , Phys. Rev. Lett . 85 , 4438 ( 2000 ). arXiv:astroph/0004134 35. C. Armendariz-Picon , V. Mukhanov , P. Steinhardt , Phys. Rev. D 63 , 103510 ( 2001 ). arXiv:astro-ph/0006373 36. T. Chiba , Phys. Rev. D 66 , 063514 ( 2002 ). arXiv:astroph/0206298 37. T.C. Bachlechner, Inflation expels runaways . JHEP 1612 , 155 ( 2016 ). doi:10.1007/ JHEP12(2016)155 . arXiv:1608.07576 38. E. Guendelman , D. Singleton , N. Yongram , A two measure model of dark energy and dark matter . JCAP 1211 , 044 ( 2012 ). doi:10. 1088/ 1475 - 7516 /2012/11/044. arXiv: 1205 .1056 39. E. Guendelman , E. Nissimov , S. Pacheva , Dark energy and dark matter from hidden symmetry of gravity model with a nonRiemannian volume form . Eur. Phys. J. C 75(10) , 472 ( 2015 ). doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 015 - 3699 -8. arXiv: 1508 . 02008 [gr-qc] 40. E. Guendelman , E. Nissimov , S. Pacheva , Unified dark energy and dust dark matter dual to quadratic purely kinetic k-essence . Eur. Phys. J. C 76 ( 2 ), 90 ( 2016 ). doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 016 - 3938 -7. arXiv: 1511 .07071 41. M.V. Sazhin , O.S. Sazhina , U. Chadayammuri , The Scale Factor in the Universe with Dark Energy . arXiv: 1109 . 2258v1 [astro-ph .CO] 42. W. Stephen , General Relativity-An Einstein Centenary Survey, Hawking, the path integral approach to quantum gravity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1977 ) 43. E. Lim , I. Sawicki , A. Vikman , Dust of dark energy . JCAP 1005 , 012 ( 2010 ) 44. S. Capozziello , J. Matsumoto , S. Nojiri , S.D. Odintsov , Phys. Lett. 693B , 198 ( 2010 ). arXiv:1004.369 [hep-th] 45. A. Chamseddine , V. Mukhanov , JHEP 1311 , 135 ( 2013 ). arXiv:1308.5410 46. A. Chamseddine , V. Mukhanov , A. Vikman , JCAP 1406 , 017 ( 2014 ). arXiv:1403.3961 47. M. Chaichian , J. Kluson , M. Oksanen , A. Tureanu , Mimetic dark matter, ghost instability and a mimetic tensor-vector-scalar gravity . JHEP 1412 , 102 ( 2014 ). arXiv:1404.4008 48. A.O. Barvinsky , Dark matter as a ghost free conformal extension of Einstein theory . JCAP 1401 , 014 ( 2014 ). doi:10.1088/ 1475 - 7516 / 2014/01/014. arXiv: 1311 .3111 [hep-th] 49. R. Myrzakulov , L. Sebastiani , S. Vagnozzi , Eur. Phys. J. C 75 , 444 ( 2015 ). arXiv:1504.07984


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1140%2Fepjc%2Fs10052-017-4939-x.pdf

David Benisty, E. I. Guendelman. Interacting diffusive unified dark energy and dark matter from scalar fields, The European Physical Journal C, 2017, DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4939-x