arxiv: v1 [gr-qc] 11 Feb 2018

Transcription

1 The speed of gravitational waves and power-law solutions in a scalar-tensor model L. N. Granda and D. F. Jimenez Departamento de Fisica, Universidad del Valle arxiv: v1 [gr-qc] 11 Feb 2018 A.A , Cali, Colombia Abstract One of the most relevant solutions in any cosmological model concerning the evolution of the universe is the power-law solution. For the scalar-tensor model of dark energy with kinetic and Gauss Bonnet couplings, it is shown that we can conserve the power-law solution and at the same time meet the recent observational bound on the speed of gravitational waves. In the FRW background the anomalous contribution to the speed of gravitational waves, coming from the kinetic and Gauss-Bonnet couplings, cancel each other for power-law solutions without requiring fine tuning. It is shown that by simple restriction on the model parameters we can achieve a non-time-dependent cancellation of the anomaly. PACS numbers: w, kd, x luis.granda@correounivalle.edu.co jimenez.diego@correounivalle.edu.co 1

2 I. INTRODUCTION The recent detection of gravitational waves (GW) from the merger of neutron stars in the binary system GW together with its electromagnetic counterpart, the gamma-ray burst GRB A [1 3], imposes strong bound on the speed of GW c g which should differ from the speed of light c by at least one part in At the same time this bound on the speed of GW translates into strong constraints on a widely studied scalar-tensor theories of gravity [4, 5] which have successfully explained some of the aspects of the current dark energy problem (see reviews [6 9]). Horndeski theories are the most general scalar-field theories with equations of motion with no higher than second order derivatives. They include the known dark energy models of quintessense, k-essence, non-minimal coupling of the scalar field to curvature, to the Gauss-Bonnet invariant and non-minimal kinetic couplings to curvature, among other interactions. The interaction terms containing the coupling of the scalar field to the Gauss-Bonnet invariant, and the coupling between the scalar kinetic term and the curvature appear, among others, in the α -expansion of the string effective action [10, 11]. The non-minimal couplings of the kinetic term to curvature were considered in [12, 13] to study inflationary attractor solutions, in [14] to find a connection with the cosmological constant, and a variety of solutions for the different cosmological epochs, particularly for late time acceleration, were found in [15]-[18], [19], [20], [21]. The coupling between the scalar field and the Gauss-Bonnet invariant has been proposed to address the dark energy problem in [22], where it was found that quintessence or phantom phase may occur in the late time universe. Different aspects of accelerating cosmologies with GB correction have been also discussed in [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], and a modified GB theory applied to dark energy have been suggested in [28]. Late time cosmological solutions in a model that includes both, non-minimal kinetic coupling to curvature and coupling of the scalar field to the Gauss-Bonnet invariant, have been studied in [29]-[31]. A very important feature of these general scalar-tensor models is that they predict an anomalous GW speed (c g c), entering in contradiction with the observed results from GW and GRB A, and therefore are serious candidates to be discarded as dark energy models. The implications that this discovery has for the nature of dark energy (DE), apart form the tests of General Relativity, have been highlighted in [32 35]. Constraints imposed by the speed of GW on a scalar-tensor theories were analyzed in [33, 36 39]. In [40] it was shown 2

3 that the scalar field should be conformally coupled to the curvature in order to avoid the restrictions imposed by the speed of GW. Restrictions on vector-tensor theories have also been analyzed in [34, 40]. The GW constraints on the coupling of the scalar kinetic term to the Einstein tensor and the scalar field to the GB invariant have been studied in [41], and restrictions on the beyond Horndeski parameters have been analyzed in [42]. According to all above studies, the overall conclusion is that the constraint on α g leaves only models that are conformally coupled to gravity, including models where the gravity is minimally coupled and models such as f(r) gravity. Despite the severe restrictions imposed by GRB A, in this work we show that there is an important solution, namely the power-law expansion in the frame of a scalar-tensor model with non-minimal kinetic and Gauss-Bonnet couplings, that passes the test of the speed of GW and remains consistent, at least in the FRW background, even after GRB A. The relevance of the power-law solutions lies in the fact that they describe the different asymptotic regimes of expansion, depending on the type of matter that dominates throughout the evolution of the universe. We show that the cancelation between the anomalous contributions to c g coming from the kinetic and GB couplings is not time-dependent and the model parameters don t require to be tuned beyond what is necessary to comply with the dark energy observations. The paper is organized as follows. In section II we give the general equations expanded on the FRW metric, and and find the power-law solutions for quintessence and phantom expansion. In section III we find the speed of GW from the second order perturbations for the model, and find the restrictions on the parameters that cancel the anomalous contribution to the speed of GW. In section IV we give a summary and discussion. II. THE MODEL AND POWER-LAW SOLUTIONS We consider the following string motivated action which includes the Gauss Bonnet coupling to the scalar field and kinetic couplings to curvature. These terms are present in the next to leading α corrections in the string effective action (where the coupling coefficients are functions of the scalar field) [10], [11]. S = d 4 x [ 1 g 16πG R 1 2 µφ µ φ+f 1 (φ)g µν µ φ ν φ ] (1) V(φ) F 2 (φ)g 3

4 where G µν = R µν 1g 2 µνr, G is the 4-dimensional GB invariant G = R 2 4R µν R µν + R µνρσ R µνρσ. The coupling F 1 (φ) has dimension of (length) 2, and the coupling F 2 (φ) is dimensionless. Note that we are not considering derivative terms that are not directly coupled to curvature, of the form φ µ φ µ φ and ( µ φ µ φ) 2. The equations derived from this action contain only second derivatives of the metric and the scalar field. In the spatially-flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric, ds 2 = dt 2 +a(t) 2( dr 2 +r 2 dω 2), (2) where a(t) is the scale factor, the set of equations describing the dynamical evolution of the FRW background and the scalar field for the model (1) are (8πG = κ 2 = M 2 p ) H 2 = κ2 3 ( ) 1 2 φ 2 +V(φ)+9H 2 F 1 (φ) φ 2 +24H 3dF 2 dφ φ ( dv φ+3h φ+ dφ +3H2 2F 1 (φ) φ+ df ) 1 dφ φ 2 + ) 18H 3 F 1 (φ) φ+12hḣf 1(φ) φ+24 (ḢH 2 +H 4 df2 dφ = 0 Here we will consider the string inspired model with exponential couplings, and additionally, we consider an exponential potential given by (3) (4) F 1 (φ) =ξe ακφ/ 2, F 2 (φ) = ηe ακφ/ 2, V(φ) = V 0 e ακφ/ 2 (5) Where the coupling η may be related to the string coupling g s as η 1/gs 2. The de Sitter solution for the model (1) with couplings and potential given by (5) follows from Eqs. (3) and (4) by setting H = const. = H c and φ = const. = φ c, which gives H0 2 = M2 p 2 8η e 2ακφc/ (6) This model admits the power-law solution for quintessence expansion [43, 44] H = p t, φ = φ 0ln t t 1, (7) and the solution H = p t s t, φ = φ 0ln t s t t 1 (8) 4

5 for phantom power-law expansion. These solutions lead to the effective equation of state w eff w eff = 1± 2 3p where the lower sign is for phantom solution. The equations (7) and (8), after being replaced in the Friedmann equation (3), lead to the following restrictions (9) 3p 2 κ = φ2 0 +V 0t ξp2 φ 2 t 2 0 ± 48ηp3 1 t 2 1 (10) where we fixed φ 0 according to 2 2 ακ = φ 0, (11) in order to get the power t 2 from the interacting terms. The equation of motion (4) gives (±3p 1)φ 2 0 2V 0t ξp2 (±3p 2) φ 2 t 2 0 ± 48ηp3 (±p 1) = 0 (12) 1 t 2 1 where the lower minus sign follows for the phantom solution. The stability properties of the solutions (7) and (8) has been performed in [43] for the case of V 0 = 0 and in [44] for more general cases. As will be shown below, the restrictions (10)-(12) with an additional constraint coming from the velocity of the GW can be solved consistently. III. RESTRICTION FROM THE SPEED OF GRAVITATIONAL WAVES The generalized Galileons, which are equivalent to Horndeski theory in four dimensions, represent the most general scalar field theories having second-order field equations and are described by the Lagrangian density [5, 45] L = 5 L i (13) i=2 with L 2 = K(φ,X), L 3 = G 3 (φ,x) φ, (14) [ L 4 = G 4 (φ,x)r+g 4,X ( φ) 2 ( µ ν φ) 2], (15) L 5 =G 5 (φ,x)g µν µ ν φ G [ 5,X ( φ) 3 6 ] 3 φ( µ ν φ) 2 +2( µ ν φ) 3 (16) 5

6 where X = 1 2 µφ µ φ, G µν is the Einstein tensor and G i,x = G i / X. The Einstein general relativity takes place for K = G 3 = G 5 = 0 and G 4 = Mp 2 /2. To identify to which the sector of the generalized Galileons, the Lagrangian density (1) is related, we use the following correspondence [45, 46]: the terms generate the Galilean functions [46] R 2κ 2 +F 1(φ)G µν µ φ ν φ (17) K = 2F 1 (φ)x2, G 3 = 3F 1 (φ)x, G 4 = M2 p 2 +F 1(φ)X (18) and the Gauss-Bonnet coupling F 2 (φ)g generates [45, 46] K = 8F 2 (φ)x2 (3 ln(x)), G 3 = 4F 2 (φ)x(7 3ln(X)) G 4 = 4F 2 (φ)x(2 ln(x)), G 5 = 4F 2 (φ)ln(x) (19) where denotes derivative with respect to φ and X = 1/2 µ φ ν φ. Thus, the explicit functions K and G i that establish the correspondence of the model (1) with the general Galileons are given by K = 2F 1 (φ)x2 8F 2 (φ)x2 (3 ln(x)) (20) G 3 = 3F 1 (φ)x 4F 2 (φ)x(7 3ln(X)) (21) G 4 = M2 p 2 +F 1(φ)X 4F 2 (φ)x(2 ln(x)) (22) G 5 = 4F 2 (φ)ln(x) (23) Then, the generalized Galileons Lagrangian density equivalent to the one of the model (1) has the explicit form L =2F 1 (φ)x2 8F 2 (φ)x2 (3 ln(x)) [ M 2 p 2 +F 1(φ)X 4F +4F 2(ln(X))G µν µ ν φ 2 3 X 1 F 2 [ 3F 1 (φ)x 4F 2 ] φ+ (φ)x(7 3ln(X)) [ ][ ] 2 ]R+ (φ)x(2 ln(x)) F 1 4F 2 (1 ln(x)) ( φ) 2 ( µ ν φ) 2 ] [( φ) 3 3 φ( µ ν φ) 2 +2( µ ν φ) 3 6 (24)

7 The second order action for the tensor perturbations h ij, which generate the GW, can be written in the form [45, 47, 48]. S (2) h = 1 8 [ dtd 3 xa 3 Q h ḣ 2 ij F ] h a ( h ij) 2, (25) 2 where [ )] Q h = 2 G 4 2XG 4X X ( φhg5x G 5φ, (26) [ )] F h = 2 G 4 X ( φg5x +G 5φ (27) which gives the squared speed of propagation for the GW as It is convenient to write c 2 g c 2 g = F h Q h. (28) in terms of the velocity of light (c = 1) plus an anomalous contribution, α g, which reflects the contribution to G 4 and G 5 coming from the non minimally coupled terms c 2 g = 1+α g (29) In order to satisfy the GW and GRB A observations, it is natural to consider α g 0 and try to analyze its implications for the corresponding model. From (26)-(28) one find the following expression X [2G 4,X 2G 5,φ ( φ φh)g ] 5,X α g = G 4 2XG 4,X +XG 5,φ φhxg (30) 5,X Note that for the minimally coupled models, the cancelation of α g is trivial, while for the non-zero terms G 4X, G 5φ and G 5X it has not been possible to achieve α g 0 without finely-tuned cancellations [33, 34, 36 40]. However, as shown bellow, there are important cosmological solutions corresponding to asymptotic regimes of cosmological expansion, that pass the test of the GW and GRB A observations, even in the frame of scalartensor models. For the present model the contribution to α g comes from the interactions related to the kinetic and GB couplings. These anomalies can be obtained from the model (1), using the correspondence equations for G 4 (22) and G 5 (23), which give α g = ) 2X(F 1 4F 2) 4 ( φ φh F 2 M 2 p/2 XF 1 +4 φhf 2 7 (31)

8 In order to satisfy the observed restriction on the velocity of GW (i.e. α g < ), we require α g = 0 and look for the conditions to cancel de numerator in (31). First we note that the de Sitter solution (where φ = const.) leads automatically to α g = 0. By replacing the couplings F 1 and F 2 from (5) and noticing that the exponential is a common factor to the whole expression, we get ( ξ 4ηγ 2 ) φ2 4( φ φh ) γη = 0, (32) where γ = κα/ 2. This is the condition for the cancelation of the anomalous contribution to c g, from the non-minimal kinetic and GB couplings, when these couplings have the exponential form (5). Note that this constraint has a general character in the sense that it can be used to restrict the dynamics of the model, and it is not just a fine tune. Applying the restriction (32) to the power-law solutions (8) and (10) we can see that the time dependence can be factorized from the whole expression, and (32) leads to φ 0 (ξ 4ηγ 2 )+4(1±p)γη = 0 (33) This restriction establishes a relationship between the string-related parameters η, ξ, α and the nature of the expansion encoded in p. With this new ingredient added to the equations (10)-(12) the resulting system can be written in the form 4 3p 2 α 2 +α 2 Ṽ 0 +24(3 p)p 2 ηα 2 λ 2 = 0 (34) 4(±3p 1) α 2 Ṽ 0 48p 2 (p 1) 2 ηα 2 λ 2 = 0 (35) ξ = (1 p)κ 2 ηα 2 (36) where Ṽ0 = κ 2 t 2 1 V 0 and λ = (κ/t 1 ). This system can be solved with respect to ξ, η and Ṽ0 to obtain Ṽ 0 = 4(3p4 α 2 6p 3 α 2 +3p 2 α 2 (p±1) 2 ) (4p 2 7p+1)α 2 (37) pα 2 4 η = (38) 8p(4p 2 7p+1)α 2 λ 2 ξ = (±p 1)(pα2 4)κ 2 8p(4p 2 7p+1)λ 2 (39) where the upper sign is for quintessence and the lower is for phantom solutions. Note that the potential is always positive for the values of p of interest for accelerated expansion (for 8

9 instance p 20 gives w eff 1±0.03) for quintessence and phantom solutions (in general, for a given p we can always choose appropriate α 2 to satisfy V 0 > 0). If we consider the scale for t 1 of the order of H 1 0, then we can neglect the terms with λ 2 in the Eqs. (34) and (35), since (κ/t 1 ) 2 = H 2 0 /M2 p , and as the result it is found, for the quintessence case, that Ṽ0 p(3p 1) (V p(3p 1)ev 4 ), α 2 4/p and ξ 16(3+p)η/(p 2 M 2 p ). IV. DISCUSSION The recent discovery of gravitational waves from the NS merge in the binary system GW imposes a severe bound on the velocity of propagation of the GW, and is currently of great importance to constraint the wide variety of models that have been considered as serious and viable candidates for dark energy. As a consequence all models that make contribution to the anomalous velocity c g c of GW (i.e. that give α g 0), suffered severe restriction that drastically reduces the number of viable models of dark energy. This is the case of the generalized Galileons or Horndeski theory that accommodate most of the dark energy models proposed so far, including non-minimal derivative couplings to curvature and non-minimal coupling to the GB invariant. These last two interactions make the contribution to α g given in (31). However in the case of the string inspired scalar-tensor model (1) with the exponential couplings (5), the exponential can be factorized in the expression (31) and the restriction α g = 0, which is consistent with the observed value of c g, leads to (32). When the power-law solutions (7) and (8) are considered, we are left with the constraint (33) which together with (10)-(12) gives the solutions (37)-(39). An important feature of this model is that the restriction (33) is not time-dependent and it does not imply any fine tuning apart from the one necessary to comply with the dark energy observations. So, at least in the frame of the scalar-tensor model (1), the asymptotic states described by the power-law expansion can be safely considered even after the GW discovery. However, solutions of the type a(t) t p or a(t) (t c t) p (p > 0) do not support the transition between different regimes of acceleration since w eff is constant, and we need solutions in which w eff dynamically changes. The implication of the constraint α g = 0, coming from the equation (31) (or from the general Eq. (30)), in the dynamics of the model (1) that allows time-dependent equation of state could be an interesting subject of study. 9

10 This work was supported by Universidad del Valle under project CI and by COL- CIENCIAS grant number , DFJ acknowledges support from COLCIENCIAS, Colombia. [1] [1] B.. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scientic), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, (2017); arxiv: [gr-qc]. [2] B. P. Abbott et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters 848, L13 (2017), URL [3] B. P. Abbott et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters 848, L12 (2017), URL [4] G. W. Horndeski, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 10, 363 (1974). [5] C. Deffayet, X. Gao, D. A. Steer, G. Zahariade, Phys. Rev. D 84, (2011); arxiv: [hep-th]. [6] E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15, 1753 (2006); arxiv:hepth/ [7] L. Amendola and S. Tsujikawa, Dark Energy: Theory and Observations. Cambridge University Press, [8] T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, Phys. Rept. 513 (2012) 1?189, arxiv: [astro-ph.co]. [9] S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rep. 505, 59 (2011); arxiv: [gr-qc] [10] R. Metsaev and A. Tseytlin, Nucl. Phys. B 293, 385 (1987). [11] K. A. Meissner, Phys.Lett. B392 (1997) ; arxiv:hep-th/ v2 [12] Luca Amendola, Phys. Lett. B301, 175 (1993); gr-qc/ [13] S. Capozziello, G. Lambiase, H.-J.Schmidt, Annalen Phys. 9, 39 (2000); gr-qc/ [14] S. Capozziello, G. Lambiase, Gen. Rel. Grav. 31, 1005 (1999); gr-qc/ [15] S.V. Sushkov, Phys. Rev. D80, (2009); arxiv: [16] E. N. Saridakis and S.V. Sushkov, Phys. Rev. D81, (2010); arxiv: [gr-qc] [17] S.V. Sushkov, Phys. Rev. D85, (2012); arxiv: [gr-qc] [18] J. Matsumoto, S. V. Sushkov, arxiv: [gr-qc] 10

11 [19] G. Gubitosi, E. V. Linder, Phys. Lett. B703, 113 (2011); arxiv: [astro-ph.co] [20] L. N. Granda, JCAP 07, 006 (2010); arxiv: [hep-th] [21] L. N. Granda and W. Cardona, JCAP 07, 021 (2010); arxiv: [hep-th] [22] S. Nojiri, S D. Odintsov, M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D71, (2005); arxiv:hep-th/ [23] S. Tsujikawa and M. Sami, JCAP 0701 (2007) 006; arxiv:hep-th/ [24] B. M. Leith and I. P. Neupane, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys (2007) 019; arxiv:hepth/ [25] T. Koivisto and D. F. Mota, Phys. Lett. B 644 (2007) 104; arxiv:astro-ph/ [26] T. Koivisto and D. F. Mota, Phys. Rev. D75, (2007), arxiv:hep-th/ [hep-th]. [27] I. P. Neupane, Class. Quantum Grav. 23 (2006) 7493; arxiv:hep-th/ [28] S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B 631 (2005) 1, arxiv:hep-th/ [29] L. N. Granda and E. Loaiza, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D2, (2012), arxiv: [hep-th]. [30] L. N. Granda, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 51, 2813 (2012); arxiv: [gr-qc]. [31] L. N. Granda, D. F. Jimenez, Phys. Rev. D 90, (2014); arxiv: [gr-qc]. [32] P. Creminelli and F. Vernizzi, arxiv: [astro-ph.co]. [33] J. M. Ezquiaga, M. Zumalacrregui, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, (2017); arxiv: [astro-ph.co]. [34] T. Baker, E. Bellini, P. G. Ferreira, M. Lagos, J. Noller, I. Sawicki, arxiv: [astroph.co]. [35] D. Bettoni, J. M. Ezquiaga, K. Hinterbichler, M. Zumalacarregui, Phys. Rev. D 95, (2017); arxiv: [gr-qc]. [36] S. Nojiri, S D. Odintsov, arxiv: [astro-ph.co] [37] J. Sakstein, B. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, (2017); arxiv: [astro-ph.co] [38] S. Peirone, N. Frusciante, B. Hu, M. Raveri, A. Silvestri, arxiv: [astro-ph.co] [39] D.Langlois, R. Saito, D. Yamauchi, K. Noui, arxiv: [gr-qc] [40] L. Amendola, M. Kunz, I. D. Saltas, I. Sawicki, arxiv: [astro-ph.co] [41] Y. Gong, E. Papantonopoulos, Z. Yi, arxiv: [gr-qc] [42] A. Dima, F. Vernizzi, arxiv: [gr-qc] [43] L. N. Granda, D. F. Jimenez, C. Sanchez, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 22, (2013); arxiv: [astro-ph.co] [44] L. N. Granda, E. Loaiza, Phys. Rev. D 94, (2016); arxiv: [gr-qc] 11

12 [45] T. Kobayashi, M. Yamaguchi, J. i. Yokoyama, Prog. Theor. Phys. 126, 511 (2011); arxiv: [hep-th]. [46] C. Charmousis, E. J. Copeland, A. Padilla, P. M. Saffin, Phys. Rev. D 85, (2012); arxiv: [hep-th] [47] A. De Felice, S. Tsujikawa, JCAP 1202, 007 (2012); arxiv: [gr-qc] [48] E. Bellini, I. Sawicki, JCAP 07, 050 (2014); arxiv: [astro-ph.co] 12