4.7 Article

Linear and nonlinear interactions in the dark sector

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 81, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.043525

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Buenos Aires [X044]
  2. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas [PIP 114-200801-00328]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigate models of interacting dark matter and dark energy for the Universe in a spatially flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker space-time. We find the source equation for the total energy density and determine the energy density of each dark component. We introduce an effective one-fluid description to evidence that interacting and unified models are related to each other, analyze the effective model, and obtain the attractor solutions. We study linear and nonlinear interactions, the former comprises a linear combination of the dark matter and dark energy densities, their first derivatives, the total energy density, its first and second derivatives, and a function of the scale factor. The latter is a possible generalization of the linear interaction consisting of an aggregate of the above linear combination and a significant nonlinear term built with a rational function of the dark matter and dark energy densities homogeneous of degree 1. We solve the evolution equations of the dark components for both interactions and examine exhaustively several examples. There exist cases where the effective one-fluid description produces different alternatives to the Lambda CDM model and cases where the problem of coincidence is alleviated. In addition, we find that some nonlinear interactions yield an effective one-fluid model with a Chaplygin gas equation of state, whereas others generate cosmological models with de Sitter and power-law expansions. We show that a generic nonlinear interaction induces an effective equation of state which depends on the scale factor in the same way as the variable modified Chaplygin gas model, giving rise to the relaxed Chaplygin gas model.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据