text:
# The binary black-hole dynamics at the third post-Newtonian order in the orbital motion

## I Introduction

The motion of binary systems is one of the most important problems in general relativity, particularly in view of the future detection of gravitational waves from such systems. The simplest two-body problem is the one where the components of the system are objects which are as spherically symmetric and point-like as possible. In general relativity, those objects are black holes. In spite of the extension of black holes, in binary orbit approximate calculations of post-Newtonian (PN) type (which use expansions in powers of $`1/c`$, where $`c`$ denotes the velocity of light), the ansatz of Dirac delta functions to describe point-like sources turned out to be very successful up to the 2.5PN approximation , and at the 3.5PN order of approximation too . At the 3PN order, i.e. at the order $`(1/c^2)^3`$, only partial success was achievable . Two terms in the binary point-mass calculations came out ambiguously: a kinetic one, depending on the bodies’ linear momenta squared , and a static one, not depending on the momenta . The authors were able to show that the static ambiguity is intimately related to the fact that different exact solutions (Brill-Lindquist and Misner-Lindquist) of the time-symmetric and conformally flat initial value problem for two black holes do exist, which at the time reveal the emergence of black holes in binary point-mass calculations at the 3PN order . In this paper we confront the kinetic ambiguity with the center-of-mass motion and claim that it can be fixed through the standard relation between the center-of-mass velocity and the total linear momentum which results from global Lorentz invariance.

We employ the following notation: $`𝐱_a=\left(x_a^i\right)`$ ($`a=1,2`$; $`i=1,2,3`$) denotes the position of the $`a`$th point mass in the 3-dimensional Euclidean space endowed with a standard Euclidean scalar product (denoted by a dot). We also define $`𝐫_{12}𝐱_1𝐱_2`$, $`r_{12}|𝐫_{12}|`$, $`𝐧_{12}𝐫_{12}/r_{12}`$; $`||`$ stands here for the Euclidean length of a vector. The linear momentum of the $`a`$th body is denoted by $`𝐩_a=\left(p_{ai}\right)`$.

## II The generalized conservative Hamiltonian to 3PN order

The post-Newtonian approximation order 2.5PN (as well 3.5PN) is of purely dissipative character. Subtraction of the 2.5PN terms from the 3PN Hamiltonian results in the conservative 3PN Hamiltonian. This Hamiltonian is primarily of higher order as it depends on time derivatives of the positions and momenta of the bodies .

The conservative 3PN higher-order Hamiltonian for two-body point-mass systems was calculated in Ref. . We present here the explicit form of this Hamiltonian in the center-of-mass reference frame (where $`𝐩_1+𝐩_2=0`$). It is convenient to introduce the following reduced variables

$$𝐫\frac{𝐱_1𝐱_2}{GM},𝐩\frac{𝐩_1}{\mu }=\frac{𝐩_2}{\mu },\widehat{t}\frac{t}{GM},\widehat{H}^{\mathrm{NR}}\frac{H^{\mathrm{NR}}}{\mu },$$
(1)
where

$$\mu \frac{m_1m_2}{M},Mm_1+m_2,\nu \frac{\mu }{M}=\frac{m_1m_2}{(m_1+m_2)^2}.$$
(2)
In Eq. (1) the superscript NR denotes a ‘non-relativistic’ Hamiltonian, i.e. the Hamiltonian without the rest-mass contribution $`Mc^2`$. We also introduce the reduced-time derivatives:

$$\dot{𝐫}\frac{d𝐫}{d\widehat{t}}=\frac{d(𝐱_1𝐱_2)}{dt},\dot{𝐩}\frac{d𝐩}{d\widehat{t}}=\frac{G}{\nu }\frac{d𝐩_1}{dt}=\frac{G}{\nu }\frac{d𝐩_2}{dt}.$$
(3)
The reduced two-point-mass conservative Hamiltonian up to the 3PN order reads

$`\widehat{H}^{\text{NR}}(𝐫,𝐩,\dot{𝐫},\dot{𝐩})`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{H}_\mathrm{N}(𝐫,𝐩)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c^2}}\widehat{H}_{1\mathrm{P}\mathrm{N}}(𝐫,𝐩)`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c^4}}\widehat{H}_{2\mathrm{P}\mathrm{N}}(𝐫,𝐩)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c^6}}\widehat{H}_{3\mathrm{P}\mathrm{N}}(𝐫,𝐩,\dot{𝐫},\dot{𝐩}),`$
where (here $`r|𝐫|`$ and $`𝐧𝐫/r`$)

$$\widehat{H}_\mathrm{N}(𝐫,𝐩)=\frac{𝐩^2}{2}\frac{1}{r},$$
(6)
$$\widehat{H}_{1\mathrm{P}\mathrm{N}}(𝐫,𝐩)=\frac{1}{8}(3\nu 1)(𝐩^2)^2\frac{1}{2}\left[(3+\nu )𝐩^2+\nu (𝐧𝐩)^2\right]\frac{1}{r}+\frac{1}{2r^2},$$
(7)
$`\widehat{H}_{2\mathrm{P}\mathrm{N}}(𝐫,𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\left(15\nu +5\nu ^2\right)(𝐩^2)^3`$ (10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left[\left(520\nu 3\nu ^2\right)(𝐩^2)^22\nu ^2(𝐧𝐩)^2𝐩^23\nu ^2(𝐧𝐩)^4\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(5+8\nu )𝐩^2+3\nu (𝐧𝐩)^2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(1+3\nu ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^3}},`$
$`\widehat{H}_{3\mathrm{P}\mathrm{N}}(𝐫,𝐩,\dot{𝐫},\dot{𝐩})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{128}}\left(5+35\nu 70\nu ^2+35\nu ^3\right)(𝐩^2)^4`$ (19)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\{(7+42\nu 53\nu ^26\nu ^3)(𝐩^2)^3`$
$`+(12\nu )\nu ^2[2(𝐧𝐩)^2(𝐩^2)^2+3(𝐧𝐩)^4𝐩^2]\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}[3(27+140\nu +96\nu ^2)(𝐩^2)^2`$
$`+6(8+25\nu )\nu (𝐧𝐩)^2𝐩^2(35267\nu )\nu (𝐧𝐩)^4]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1536}}\{[48003(8944315\pi ^2)\nu 7808\nu ^2]𝐩^2`$
$`+9(2672315\pi ^2+448\nu )\nu (𝐧𝐩)^2\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^3}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96}}\left[12+(87263\pi ^2)\nu \right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^4}}`$
$`+\widehat{D}(𝐫,𝐩,\dot{𝐫},\dot{𝐩})+\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(𝐫,𝐩).`$
In Eq. (19) $`\widehat{D}(𝐫,𝐩,\dot{𝐫},\dot{𝐩})`$ denotes that part of the 3PN Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_{3\mathrm{P}\mathrm{N}}`$ which depends on the time derivatives $`\dot{𝐫}`$ and $`\dot{𝐩}`$. Its explicit form reads

$$\widehat{D}=\widehat{D}_1r+\widehat{D}_0+\widehat{D}_1\frac{1}{r}+\widehat{D}_2\frac{1}{r^2}+\widehat{D}_3\frac{1}{r^3},$$
(20)
where

$`\widehat{D}_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\nu ^2[4(𝐧𝐩)(𝐧\dot{𝐩})(𝐩\dot{𝐩})5(𝐧\dot{𝐩})^2𝐩^2`$ (22)
$`5(𝐧𝐩)^2\dot{𝐩}^2(𝐧𝐩)^2(𝐧\dot{𝐩})^2+13𝐩^2\dot{𝐩}^2+2(𝐩\dot{𝐩})^2],`$
$`\widehat{D}_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\nu ^2\{(𝐧\dot{𝐫})(𝐩\dot{𝐩})[5𝐩^2+(𝐧𝐩)^2]`$ (25)
$`(𝐧𝐩)\left[𝐩^2(\dot{𝐩}\dot{𝐫})+2(𝐩\dot{𝐩})(𝐩\dot{𝐫})\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(𝐧𝐩)^3(\dot{𝐩}\dot{𝐫})`$
$`+(𝐧\dot{𝐩})[𝐩^2+(𝐧𝐩)^2][(𝐧𝐩)(𝐧\dot{𝐫})(𝐩\dot{𝐫})]\},`$
$`\widehat{D}_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\nu \{2(1710\nu )(𝐧𝐩)(𝐧\dot{𝐩})(𝐧\dot{𝐫})(15+22\nu )(𝐧𝐩)^2(𝐧\dot{𝐩})`$ (32)
$`(518\nu )(𝐧\dot{𝐩})𝐩^22(65\nu )(𝐧𝐩)(𝐩\dot{𝐩})`$
$`2(12\nu )(𝐧\dot{𝐫})(𝐩\dot{𝐩})2(72\nu )[(𝐧𝐩)(\dot{𝐩}\dot{𝐫})+(𝐧\dot{𝐩})(𝐩\dot{𝐫})]\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\nu ^3[8(𝐧𝐩)(𝐧\dot{𝐫})𝐩^2(𝐩\dot{𝐫})+8(𝐧𝐩)^3(𝐧\dot{𝐫})(𝐩\dot{𝐫})`$
$`+2(𝐧𝐩)^2𝐩^2\dot{𝐫}^2+5(𝐩^2)^2\dot{𝐫}^2+(𝐧𝐩)^4\dot{𝐫}^25(𝐧\dot{𝐫})^2(𝐩^2)^2`$
$`6(𝐧𝐩)^2(𝐧\dot{𝐫})^2𝐩^25(𝐧𝐩)^4(𝐧\dot{𝐫})^2`$
$`4(𝐧𝐩)^2(\dot{𝐩}\dot{𝐫})^24𝐩^2(\dot{𝐩}\dot{𝐫})^2],`$
$`\widehat{D}_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}\nu [5(57\nu )(𝐧𝐩)^3(𝐧\dot{𝐫})+10(35\nu )(𝐧𝐩)^2(𝐧\dot{𝐫})^2`$ (37)
$`+3(1735\nu )(𝐧𝐩)(𝐧\dot{𝐫})𝐩^228(38\nu )(𝐧𝐩)(𝐧\dot{𝐫})(𝐩\dot{𝐫})`$
$`15(23\nu )(𝐧𝐩)^2(𝐩\dot{𝐫})+2(2477\nu )(𝐧𝐩)^2\dot{𝐫}^2`$
$`+2(929\nu )(𝐧\dot{𝐫})^2𝐩^23(49\nu )𝐩^2(𝐩\dot{𝐫})`$
$`2(1237\nu )𝐩^2\dot{𝐫}^2+4(617\nu )(𝐩\dot{𝐫})^2],`$
$`\widehat{D}_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1536}}\nu \{3[927\pi ^210832+36(485\pi ^2)\nu ](𝐧𝐩)(𝐧\dot{𝐫})`$ (41)
$`6\left[3(16+\pi ^2)2(45\pi ^2464)\nu \right](𝐧\dot{𝐫})^2`$
$`+\left[11600927\pi ^2+20(9\pi ^280)\nu \right](𝐩\dot{𝐫})`$
$`+2[176+3\pi ^2+6(17615\pi ^2)\nu ]\dot{𝐫}^2\}.`$
The last term in Eq. (19), $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(𝐫,𝐩)`$, contains the parameters which parametrize the ambiguities of the 3PN Hamiltonian. Its explicit form is

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(𝐫,𝐩)=\omega _{\text{kinetic}}\left[𝐩^23(𝐧𝐩)^2\right]\frac{\nu ^2}{r^3}+\omega _{\text{static}}\frac{\nu }{r^4},$$
(42)
where $`\omega _{\text{kinetic}}`$ parametrizes the kinetic ambiguity, and the static ambiguity is parametrized by $`\omega _{\text{static}}`$.

The 3PN higher-order Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_{3\mathrm{P}\mathrm{N}}(𝐫,𝐩,\dot{𝐫},\dot{𝐩})`$, Eq. (19), can be reduced to a usual Hamiltonian depending only on $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐩`$. Details of the reduction can be found in Sec. II of Ref. .

## III The ambiguous part of the 3PN Hamiltonian

It was found in ,  that the ambiguous part $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the 3PN Hamiltonian, Eq. (42), takes, in a non-center-of-mass reference frame and in non-reduced variables, the form ($`G`$, the Newtonian gravitational constant, is put equal to one)

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐱_1,𝐱_2,𝐩_1,𝐩_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c^6}}{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ba}{}}\{\omega _{\text{static}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_a^3m_b^2}{r_{ab}^4}}`$ (44)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _{\text{kinetic}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_am_b}{r_{ab}^3}}[(𝐩_a)^23(𝐧_{ab}𝐩_a)^2]\}.`$
In the following we shall show how center-of-mass considerations can impose restrictions onto the “kinetic” ambiguous term. To make contact with the intended center-of-mass motion calculations we transform (44) to the Lagrangean level. On this level, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ appears as $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐱_1,𝐱_2,𝐯_1,𝐯_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c^6}}{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ba}{}}\{\omega _{\text{static}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_a^3m_b^2}{r_{ab}^4}}`$ (46)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _{\text{kinetic}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_a^3m_b}{r_{ab}^3}}[(𝐯_a)^23(𝐧_{ab}𝐯_a)^2]\},`$
where the bodies’ velocities are given by $`𝐯_a=𝐩_a/m_a`$.

In view of the relation between the total linear momentum $`𝐏`$ and the center-of-mass velocity $`𝐕=\dot{𝐗}`$ ($`𝐗`$ denotes the center-of-mass coordinate) demanded by global Lorentz invariance, ,

$$𝐏=\frac{H}{c^2}\frac{d𝐗}{dt},𝐏=𝐩_1+𝐩_2,$$
(47)
where $`H`$ is the conserved total energy, $`H=Mc^2+H^{\text{NR}}`$, the following expression (which is one of the contributions to $`𝐏=L/𝐯_1+L/𝐯_2`$)

$`𝐃{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{𝐯_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{𝐯_2}}=\omega _{\text{kinetic}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c^6}}{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ba}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_a^3m_b}{r_{ab}^3}}\left[𝐯_a3(𝐧_{ab}𝐯_a)𝐧_{ab}\right]`$ (48)
has either to be a total time derivative (in which case no restrictions are imposed on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) or to be fixed by other terms in Eq. (47) (note that no static ambiguity is involved here).

The simplest way to show that $`𝐃`$ is not a total time derivative is to write it in the form

$$D^i=\omega _{\text{kinetic}}m_1m_2[(m_1^2+m_2^2)V^j+\frac{m_1m_2(m_1m_2)}{M}v^j]_{1j}_{1i}\frac{1}{r_{12}},$$
(49)
($`v^i`$ denotes the relative velocity, $`v^i=v_1^iv_2^i`$, and here, $`MV^i=m_1v_1^i+m_2v_2^i`$ holds) and to average $`D^i`$ over a circular orbit of the relative motion simply assuming that the center-of-mass motion is orthogonal to the relative motion. The result is (notice that the relative motion part in the Eq. (49) is a total time derivative)

$$<𝐃>=\omega _{\text{kinetic}}\frac{m_1m_2}{r_{12}^3}(m_1^2+m_2^2)𝐕.$$
(50)
In the center-of-mass frame $`D^i`$ is always a total time derivative. This fits with Ref.  where the kinetic ambiguity, in the center-of-mass frame, was shown to be influenced by coordinate transformations which additionally only influence, unimportant in this context, the static potential at 3PN order.

## IV Conclusions

In this paper we have shown that the kinetic ambiguity obtained in binary point-mass calculations at the 3PN order should be getting fixed by center-of-mass motion considerations. The static ambiguity was known to be fixable by referring to e.g., the Brill-Lindquist ($`\omega _{\text{static}}=0`$) or the Misner-Lindquist solution ($`\omega _{\text{static}}=1/8`$). The energy content of the latter solution is influenced by the topology of the involved non-simply connected 3-space.

G.S. wishes to acknowledge useful discussions with Luc Blanchet about Lorentz invariance. The authors also thank Thibault Damour for constructive remarks. This work was supported in part by the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Grant No. 02160-361-TG74 (G.S.) and the KBN Grant No. 2 P03B 094 17 (P.J.).


format: text

text:
# Non-Linear Gravitational growth of large scale structures inside and outside standard Cosmology

## 1. Introduction

In Cosmology the standard picture of gravitational growth, and also many aspects of fundamental physics, are extrapolated many orders of magnitude, from the scales and times where our current theory of gravity (General Relativity, GR) has been experimentally tested, into the distant universe. In particular, current limits on the (parametrized) Post Newtonian formalism mostly restrict to our very local Universe (see Will 1993). It is important to evaluate how much our predictions and cosmological picture depend on the underlying hypothesis (see Peebles 1999 for insightful comments on the state of this subject). The other side of this argument is that cosmology can be used to test fundamental physics, such as our theory of gravity.

One aspect of GR that could be questioned or tested without modifying the basic structure or symmetry of the theory are Einstein’s field equations, relating the energy content ($`T_{\mu \nu }`$) to the curvature ($`R_{\mu \nu }`$). One such modification, which will be considered here, is scalar-tensor theories (STT), such as Brans-Dicke (BD) theory. A more generic, but also more vague, way of testing the importance of Einstein’s field equations is to model independently the geometry and the matter content, thus allowing for the possibility of other relations between them. Some simple aspects of this idea will be illustrated here by studying structure formation in a flat, matter dominated universe but with a more general growth law for the Hubble rate —see section 3.2 below. Similarly, we will also consider results for a generic equation of state: $`p=\gamma \rho `$, where $`\gamma `$ can be chosen independently of the cosmological parameters ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$).

Our aim in this paper is to explore certain variations of the standard model to see how they affect structure formation. The idea is to find a way to parameterize variations from GR that might produce differences large enough to be observable. The variations considered could have other observable consequences (eg in the local universe or in the radiation dominated regime) which might rule them out as a viable new theory. But even if this were the case, we still would have learn something about how structure formation depends on the underlying theory of Gravity or the assumptions about the equation of state. This aspect of the theory has hardly been explored and it therefore represents an important step forward in analyzing alternatives to the current paradigm, eg non-baryonic matter (see Peebles 1999), and could also help to set limits on variations of GR or the equation of state at high red-shifts.

Here we consider two main regimes for structure formation in non-standard gravity/cosmology: weakly non-linear and strongly non-linear large scale clustering. We study the shear-free or spherical collapse (SC) model, which corresponds to the spherically symmetric (or local) dynamics (see below). This approximation works very well at least in two different contexts, that will be explored here.

The first one is the growth of the smoothed 1-point cumulants of the probability distribution for large scale density fluctuations: the SC model turns out to reproduce exactly the leading order perturbation theory predictions (Bernardeau 1992), and turns out to be an excellent approximation for the exact dynamics as compared to N-body simulations both with Gaussian (Fosalba & Gaztañaga 1998a, 1998b) and non-Gaussian initial conditions (Gaztañaga & Fosalba 1998). The measured 1-point cumulants in galaxy catalogues have been compared with these predictions (eg Bouchet et al. 1993, Gaztañaga 1992,1994, Gaztañaga & Frieman 1994, Baugh, Gaztañaga & Efstathiou 1995, Gaztañaga 1995, Baugh & Gaztañaga 1996, Colombi etal 1997, Hui & Gaztañaga 1999).

The second one is the study of the epoch of formation and abundance of structures (such as galaxies and clusters), using the Press & Schechter (1974) formalism and its extensions (eg Bond et al. 1991, Lacey & Cole 1993, Sheth & Lemson 1999, Scoccimarro et al. 2000). Given some Gaussian initial conditions, this formalism can predict the number of structures (halos) of a given mass that will form at each stage of the evolution. One can use the SC model to predict the value of the critical linear over-density, $`\delta _c`$, that will collapse into virialized halos. It turns out that the analytical predictions for the halo mass function and formation rates are remarkably accurate as compared to N-body simulations (Lacey & Cole 1994). One can also use this type of modeling to predict clustering properties of halos (eg Mo & White 1996, Mo, Jing & White 1997), cluster abundances (White, Efstathiou & Frenk 1993, Bahcall & Fan 1998) or weak lensing through mass functions (Jain & Van Waerbeke 2000). The observed cluster abundances have been used as a strong discriminant for cosmological models and also as a way to measure the amplitude of mass fluctuations, $`\sigma _8`$ (see White, Efstathiou & Frenk 1993, Bahcall & Fan 1998).

In summary, we propose to address a very specific question here: how different are the above non-linear predictions when using a non-standard cosmology and non-standard theory of Gravity? To answer this question we will consider two non-standard variations: scalar-tensor models and some examples of a cosmology that do not obey Einstein’s field equations. The paper is organized as follows: In §2 we give a summary on how non-linear structure formation relates to the underlying theory of Gravity (see Weinberg 1972, Peebles 1993, Ellis 1999 and references therein, for a review on the relation between gravitational theory and cosmology). This section covers old ground with some detail as an introduction to later sections and for the reader that is not familiar with this subject or notation. We also present the more general case of an ideal (relativistic) fluid. As far as we know, some of the non-linear results presented here are new. In §3 we show how these predictions change in the two examples of non-standard gravity. Observational consequences are explored in §4. In §5 we present a discussion and the conclusions.

## 2. Gravitational Growth inside GR

The self-gravity of an over-dense region work against the expansion of the universe so that this region will expand at a slower rate that the background. This increases the density contrast so that eventually the region collapses. The details of this collapse depends on the initial density profile. Here we will focus in the spherically symmetric case. We will revise non-linear structure growth in the context of the fluid limit and the shear-free approximation. These turns out to be very good approximation for the applications that will be considered later (leading order and strongly non-linear statistics).

We start with the Raychaudhuri’s equation, which is valid for an arbitrary Ricci tensor $`R_{\mu \nu }`$. We use Einstein’s field equations and the continuity equation to turn Raychaudhuri’s equation into a second order differential equation for the density contrast. We first present the matter dominated (non-relativistic) case, with solutions for the linear and non-linear regimes. Later, in §2.5, we assess the more generic case of an ideal (relativistic) fluid and its corresponding solution.

### 2.1. Einstein’s and Raychaudhuri’s Equations

We start recalling that the metric tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ defines the line element of space-time:

$$ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu $$
(1)
which in the homogeneous and isotropic model of the cosmological principle can be written as (see eg Weinberg 1972):

$$ds^2=dt^2a^2(t)\left[\frac{dr^2}{1+kr^2}+r^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right]$$
(2)
As usual we will work in comoving coordinates x related to physical coordinates by $`\text{r}_p=a(t)\text{x}`$, where $`a(t)=(1+z)^1`$ is the cosmic scale factor, and $`z`$ the corresponding red-shift ($`a_01`$). Thus all geometrical aspects of this universal line element are determined up to the function $`a(t)`$ and the arbitrary constant $`k`$, which defines the usual open, Einstein-deSitter and closed universes. The function $`a(t)`$ can be found for each energy content by solving the corresponding equations of motion, eg the gravitational field equations.

In this section we consider Einstein’s equations:

$$R_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }=8\pi G\left(T_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }T\right)$$
(3)
where $`Tg^{\mu \nu }T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the trace of the energy-momentum tensor; we have included a cosmological constant term to keep the equations general at this stage. For an ideal fluid, we have:

$$T_{\mu \nu }=pg_{\mu \nu }+(p+\rho )u_\mu u_\nu $$
(4)
We can now use the field equations and the above energy-momentum to find the scale factor $`a(t)`$ in the metric:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{3\ddot{a}}{a}}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi G\rho \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3p}{\rho }}\right)+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (5)
$`H^2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G\rho }{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}},\dot{}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}`$ (6)
In the fluid approximation, deviations from the mean background $`\overline{\rho }`$ are characterized by fluctuations in the density and velocity fields. The continuity equation for a non-relativistic fluid is (Peebles 1993):

$$\frac{}{\tau }\delta (\text{x},\tau )+\{\left[1+\delta (\text{x},\tau )\right]\text{v}(\text{x},\tau )\}=0$$
(7)
where $`\delta (\text{x},\tau )\rho (\text{x},\tau )/\overline{\rho }1`$ is the local density contrast, $`\text{v}(\text{x},\tau )`$ the peculiar velocity (see Eq. below), and $`\tau `$ the conformal time defined by

$$d\tau =\frac{dt}{a(t)}\frac{d}{dt}=\frac{1}{a}\frac{d}{d\tau }$$
(8)
The continuity equation  can also be written

$$\frac{d\delta }{d\tau }+(1+\delta )\theta =0,\theta \text{v}$$
(9)
In order to find an equation of motion for the density contrast alone we shall resort to the Raychaudhuri equation (see eg Wald 1984)

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Theta }}{ds}+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Theta }^2=\sigma _{ij}\sigma ^{ij}+\omega _{ij}\omega ^{ij}+R_{\mu \nu }u^\mu u^\nu $$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mu u^\mu `$, $`\sigma _{ij}`$ is the shear tensor, $`\omega _{ij}`$ the vorticity tensor, and $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ the Ricci tensor, and $`s`$ the proper time parameter; $`u^\mu `$ is the fluid’s 4-velocity, $`u^0=1`$, and

$$\text{u}=\dot{a}(t)\text{x}+\text{v}(\text{x},t)$$
(11)
It is important to stress that Raychaudhuri’s equation, Eq. , is purely geometric: it describes the evolution in proper time of the dilatation coefficient $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ of a bundle of nearby geodesics. There is no physics in this equation until a relationship between $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ and the matter contents of the universe is specified by means of a set of field equations. This makes it very useful for our purposes in this paper, as we shall later make reference to a different set of field equations.

If Einstein’s field equations, Eq.  and , are assumed then it is readily verified that

$$R_{\mu \nu }u^\mu u^\nu =4\pi G\rho \left(1+\frac{3p}{\rho }\right)+\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(12)
### 2.2. Shear free and matter domination

In a matter dominated regime ($`p=0`$), $`\rho a^3`$. Equation  for the Hubble rate $`H`$, can be rewritten using the notation: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M8\pi G\rho _0/(3H_0^2)`$, which is the ratio of the current matter density to the critical density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=k/H_0^2`$ gives the global curvature, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }/(3H_0^2)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cosmological constant, so that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_k+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$:

$$H^2(z)=H_0^2\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_M(1+z)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_k(1+z)^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]$$
(13)
We can now replace equation  into equation . In a matter-dominated regime, and for a shear free, non-rotating cosmic fluid we obtain:

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Theta }}{dt}+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Theta }^2=4\pi G\rho +\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(14)
On making use of equation  we can split $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_\mu u^\mu =\frac{3\dot{a}}{a}+\frac{\theta }{a}$$
(15)
so that, taking into consideration the field equations for the expansion factor $`a(t)`$ (Eqs.  and ), equation  can be recast in the form

$$\frac{d\theta }{d\tau }+(\tau )\theta +\frac{1}{3}\theta ^2=4\pi Ga^2\overline{\rho }\delta $$
(16)
where $`(\tau )d(\mathrm{ln}a)/d\tau `$. We can now eliminate $`\theta `$ between eqs.  and  to find the following second order differential equation for the density contrast:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\delta }{d\tau ^2}}+(\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{d\delta }{d\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}^2(\tau )\mathrm{\Omega }_M(\tau )\delta `$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(1+\delta )^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\delta }{d\tau }}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}^2(\tau )\mathrm{\Omega }_M(\tau )\delta ^2`$
where we have shifted to the rhs all non-linear terms, and used the notation

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_M(\tau )=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_M}{\mathrm{\Omega }_M+a\mathrm{\Omega }_k+a^3\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}$$
(18)
Equation  reproduces the equation of the spherical collapse model (SC). In other words, the SC approximation is the exact dynamics when shear is neglected (see Fosalba & Gaztañaga 1998a). As one would expect, this yields a local evolution, in the sense that the evolved field at a point is just given by a local (non-linear) transformation of the initial field at the same point, with independence of the surroundings. This SC solution yields the exact perturbation theory predictions for the cumulants at tree-level (leading order with Gaussian initial conditions) and it also is an excellent approximation for next to leading orders, see below. As mentioned in the introduction, one can also use the SC model to predict the value of the critical linear overdensity, $`\delta _c`$, that will collapse into virialized halos.

### 2.3. Linear growth

We next do a perturbative expansion for $`\delta `$. The first contribution is the linear theory solution. For this, equation  clearly simplifies to

$$\frac{d^2\delta _l}{d\tau ^2}+(\tau )\frac{d\delta _l}{d\tau }\frac{3}{2}^2(\tau )\mathrm{\Omega }_M(\tau )\delta _l=0$$
(19)
where $`\delta _l`$ stands for the “linear” solution. Because the coefficients of the above equation are time dependent only, the spatial and temporal part factorise:

$$\delta _l(\text{x},\tau )=\delta _0(\text{x})D(\tau )$$
(20)
where $`D`$ is usually called the linear growth factor. Thus initial fluctuations, no matter of what size, are amplified by the same factor, and the statistical properties of the initial field are just linearly scaled. For example, the $`N`$-point correlation functions are:

$$\xi _N(r_1,..,r_N,t)=D^N\xi _N(r_1,..,r_N,0)$$
(21)
To find the solution to equation  it is expedient to change the time variable to $`\eta =\mathrm{ln}(a)`$, so that

$$\frac{d}{d\eta }=\frac{1}{(\tau )}\frac{d}{d\tau }=\frac{1}{H}\frac{d}{dt}$$
(22)
We then have

$$\frac{d^2D}{d^2\eta }+\left(2+\frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}\right)\frac{dD}{d\eta }\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_M(\eta )D=0$$
(23)
where we can write

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_M+2/3e^\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_k}{\mathrm{\Omega }_M+e^\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_k+e^{3\eta }\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right)`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_M}{\mathrm{\Omega }_M+e^\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_k+e^{3\eta }\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ (25)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are just constants (the current value at $`a=1`$).

In the Einstein-deSitter universe ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$) we have that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(\eta )=1`$ and $`\dot{H}/H^2=3/2`$, so the differential equation becomes

$$\frac{d^2D}{d^2\eta }+\frac{1}{2}\frac{dD}{d\eta }\frac{3}{2}D=0$$
(26)
whose solutions

$$D=C_1e^\eta +C_2e^{3/2\eta }=C_1a+C_2a^{3/2}$$
(27)
reproduce the usual linear growth $`Da`$ and the decaying solutions $`Da^{3/2}`$.

### 2.4. Non-linear growth

The exact (non-perturbative) solution for the SC Eq. for the density contrast in an Einstein-deSitter universe admits a well known parametric representation:

$`\delta (\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\phi \mathrm{sin}\phi )^2}{(1\mathrm{cos}\phi )^3}}1`$
$`\delta _l(\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}(\phi \mathrm{sin}\phi )\right]^{2/3}`$ (28)
for $`\delta _l>0`$, linear overdensity, and

$`\delta (\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{sinh}\phi \phi )^2}{(\mathrm{cosh}\phi 1)^3}}1`$
$`\delta _l(\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}(\mathrm{sinh}\phi \phi )\right]^{2/3}`$ (29)
for $`\delta _l<0`$, linear under-density (see Peebles 1993), where the parameter $`\phi `$ is just a parametrisation of the time coordinate. There is also a solution for the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M1`$ case (see Bernardeau 1992, Fosalba & Gaztañaga 1998b). The continuous line in Figure 1 illustrates the solution to the above equation (the other lines will be explained later). Note the singularity at $`\delta _l1.686`$, which corresponds to the gravitational collapse (see §3.1.3 below).

If we are only interested in the perturbative regime ($`\delta _l0`$), which is the relevant one for the description of structure formation on large scales, the above solution can be expressed directly in terms of the linear density contrast, $`\delta _l`$, which plays the role of the initial size of the spherical fluctuation in Eq.. This way, the evolved density contrast in the perturbative regime is given by a local-density transformation of the linear density fluctuation,

$$\delta =f(\delta _l)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\nu _n}{n!}[\delta _l]^n$$
(30)
Notice that all the non-linear dynamical information in the SC model is encoded in the $`\nu _n`$ coefficients. We can now introduce the above power series expansion in Eq. and determine the $`\nu _n`$ coefficients one by one. Before we do this, it is convenient to change again the time variable to $`\eta =\mathrm{ln}(a)`$ as we did in the linear case, Eq:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\delta }{d^2\eta }}+\left(2+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{d\delta }{d\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_M(\eta )\delta `$ (31)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\delta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\delta }{d\eta }}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_M(\eta )\delta ^2`$
We can now use the expansion in Eq. with $`\delta _l`$ given by the linear growth factor $`D=a=e^\eta `$ and compare order by order. For the Einstein-deSitter universe they turn out to be:

$$\nu _2=\frac{34}{21};\nu _3=\frac{682}{189}$$
(32)
and so on (see eg Folsalba & Gaztañaga 1998b for other cases). Once we have these coefficients we can get the evolution of the non-linear variance and higher order moments in terms of the initial conditions (see §4.1 below).

### 2.5. Equation of state $`p=\gamma \rho `$

We will now consider a perfect fluid with equation of sate $`p=\gamma \rho `$. Not all values of $`\gamma `$ make physical sense. Here, in the spirit of going beyond the standard paradigm, we will ignore these restrictions and assume that $`\gamma `$ can take any real constant value, irrespective of other cosmological parameters.

The time-component of the energy conservation equations $`_\nu T^{\mu \nu }=0`$ gives us (for $`p=\gamma \rho `$) both the background density behavior

$$\overline{\rho }a^{3(1+\gamma )}=\text{const}$$
(33)
and the continuity equation for the density contrast

$$\frac{d\delta }{d\tau }+(1+\gamma )(1+\delta )\theta =\gamma \overline{\rho }(\text{v}\delta )$$
(34)
where, like before, $`\tau `$ is the conformal time, and $`\theta \text{v}`$. This is the generalization of equation  for a relativistic fluid. Note that an additional (quadratic) term now appears in the rhs of . The magnitude of this term is assessed by resorting to the space-components of the energy conservation equations $`_\nu T^{\mu \nu }=0`$: these are identically satisfied when $`\gamma =0`$, and they show that $`\text{v}\delta |\text{v}|^2/c^2`$, plus higher order contributions. These can be safely neglected since peculiar velocities are always very small compared to the speed of light; in fact the approximation $`|\text{v}|^2/c^20`$ is always made, even in the more standard case when $`\gamma =0`$. We shall therefore consistently adopt the following equation for the density contrast:

$$\frac{d\delta }{d\tau }+(1+\gamma )(1+\delta )\theta =0$$
(35)
Also, Hubble’s equation, Eq. , now becomes

$$H^2=H_0^2\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_Ma^{3(1+\gamma )}+\mathrm{\Omega }_ka^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]$$
(36)
We can combine equation  with the Raychaudhuri equation for this case —cf Eqs.  and

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Theta }}{dt}+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Theta }^2=4\pi G\rho \left(1+3\gamma \right)+\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(37)
to obtain, after some algebra,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\delta }{d^2\eta }}+\left(2+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{d\delta }{d\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(1+\gamma )(1+3\gamma )\mathrm{\Omega }(\eta )\delta =`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4+3\gamma }{3+3\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\delta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\delta }{d\eta }}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(1+\gamma )(1+3\gamma )\mathrm{\Omega }(\eta )\delta ^2`$ (38)
where we have expediently redefined $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\eta )`$ in Eq.  to

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_M(\eta )=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_M}{\mathrm{\Omega }_M+e^{\eta (1+3\gamma )}\mathrm{\Omega }_k+e^{3\eta (1+\gamma )}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}$$
(39)
and we can write

$$\frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}=\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{(1+\gamma )\mathrm{\Omega }_Me^{3\eta \gamma }+2/3e^\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_k}{\mathrm{\Omega }_Me^{3\eta \gamma }+e^\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_k+e^{3\eta }\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)$$
(40)
In an Einstein-deSitter universe ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$), $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\eta )=1`$, and the linear regime is governed by

$$\frac{d^2D}{d^2\eta }+\frac{13\gamma }{2}\frac{dD}{d\eta }\frac{3}{2}(1+\gamma )(1+3\gamma )D=0$$
(41)
which has the usual solutions of the form $`D=a^\alpha `$, with

$$\alpha _1=1+3\gamma ,\alpha _2=3(1+\gamma )/2$$
(42)
Figure 2 shows these perturbative solutions. The shaded region corresponds to the case where linear evolution is suppressed, eg $`\alpha <0`$. In this case, as can be seen from Eq.-, $`\nu _2`$ and $`\nu _3`$ have a very rapid variation. The growing mode for $`\gamma >1/3`$ is:

$`\alpha _1`$ $`=`$ $`1+3\gamma `$ (43)
$`\nu _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\left(17+48\gamma +27\gamma ^2\right)}{3\left(1+\gamma \right)\left(7+15\gamma \right)}}`$ (44)
$`\nu _3`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}72}+540\gamma +324\gamma ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{\left(1+\gamma \right)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{24}{1+\gamma }}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(6+18\gamma \right)\left(17+48\gamma +27\gamma ^2\right)}{\left(1+\gamma \right)\left(7+15\gamma \right)}}]`$
$`\times `$ $`\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}27}+144\gamma +189\gamma ^2\right)^1`$ (46)
For $`\gamma <1`$ the dominant linear growth is $`\alpha _2`$ and the values of $`\nu _2`$ and $`\nu _3`$ are constant:

$`\alpha _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\left(1+\gamma \right)}{2}}`$ (47)
$`\nu _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}`$ (48)
$`\nu _3`$ $`=`$ $`3`$ (49)
For radiation ($`\gamma =1/3`$) we have that $`\alpha _1=2`$ which reproduces the well known results (see Peebles 1993) and $`\nu _2=\frac{3}{2}`$ and $`\nu _3=3`$, which are new results as far as we know. Note that these values are identical to the case of negative pressure, $`\gamma <1`$, the only difference being in the linear growth, but for $`\gamma =7/3`$ all $`\alpha `$, $`\nu _2`$ and $`\nu _3`$ are identical to the radiation case. In the limit of strong pressure $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$ we find: $`\nu _2=6/5`$ and $`\nu _3=12/7`$ . As can be seen in Figure 2, and also in the equations above, there are poles for $`\nu _2`$ at $`\gamma =1`$ and $`\gamma =7/15`$.

Figure 3 shows the corresponding variation in $`\delta _c`$, defined as the value of the linear overdensity where the corresponding non-linear value becomes infinity (see §3.1.3).

## 3. Gravitational Growth outside GR

### 3.1. Scalar-Tensor Theories

Here we investigate how a varying $`G`$ could change the above results. We parameterize the variation of $`G`$ using scalar-tensor theories (STT) of gravity such as Brans-Dicke (BD) theory or its extensions.

To make quantitative predictions we will consider cosmic evolution in STTs, where $`G`$ is derived from a scalar field $`\varphi `$ which is characterized by a function $`\omega =\omega (\varphi )`$ determining the strength of the coupling between the scalar field and gravity. In the simplest BD models, $`\omega `$ is just a constant and $`G\varphi ^1`$ —see below. However if $`\omega `$ varies then it can change with cosmic time, so that $`\omega =\omega (z)`$. The structure of the solutions to BD equations is quite rich and depends crucially on the coupling function $`\omega (\varphi )`$ (see Barrow & Parsons 1996).

Here we shall be considering the standard BD model with constant $`\omega `$; the field equations are (see eg Weinberg 1972):

$`R_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{\varphi }}\left(T_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1+\omega }{3+2\omega }}g_{\mu \nu }T\right){\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\varphi ^2}}_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi `$ (50)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varphi }}_\mu _\nu \varphi `$
$`\mathrm{}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{3+2\omega }}T,(Tg^{\mu \nu }T_{\mu \nu })`$ (51)
The Hubble rate $`H`$ for a homogeneous and isotropic background universe can be easily obtained from the above;

$$H^2\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{8\pi \rho }{3\varphi }+\frac{k}{a^2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}+\frac{\omega }{6}\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{\varphi ^2}H\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }$$
(52)
These equations must be complemented with the equation of state for the cosmic fluid. In a flat, matter dominated universe ($`p=0`$), an exact solution to the problem can be found:

$$G=\frac{4+2\omega }{3+2\omega }\varphi ^1=G_0(1+z)^{1/(1+\omega )}$$
(53)
and

$$a(t)=(t/t_0)^{(2\omega +2)/(3\omega +4)}$$
(54)
This solution for the flat universe is recovered in a general case in the limit $`t\mathrm{}`$, and also arises as an exact solution of Newtonian gravity with a power law $`Gt^n`$ (Barrow 1996). For non-flat models, $`a(t)`$ is not a simple power law and the solutions get far more complicated. To illustrate the effects of a non-flat cosmology we will consider general solutions that can be parametrized as Eq.  but which are not simple power-laws in $`a(t)`$. In this case, it is easy to check that the new Hubble law given by Eq.  becomes

$$H^2=H_0^2\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_M(1+z)^{3+1/(1+\omega )}+\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_k(1+z)^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]$$
(55)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_M`$,$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_k`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ follow the usual relation $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_M+\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_k+\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$, and are related to the familiar local ratios ($`z0`$: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M8\pi G_0\rho _0/(3H_0^2)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=k/H_0^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }/(3H_0^2)`$) by

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_M`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M{\displaystyle \frac{3(1+\omega )^2}{(2+\omega )(4+3\omega )}}`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{6(1+\omega )^2}{(3+2\omega )(4+3\omega )}}`$ (56)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_k`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k{\displaystyle \frac{6(1+\omega )^2}{(3+2\omega )(4+3\omega )}}`$
Thus the GR limit is recovered as $`\omega \mathrm{}`$.

We now investigate the density fluctuations in the above theory. Like in section II, we shall make use of the continuity equation  in combination with the Raychaudhuri equation . As mentioned above, cf section 2.1, both of these are still valid within the context of BD theory: it is only needed to replace the Ricci tensor in the rhs of Eq.  according to BD’s field equations, Eq. . Considering again a non-rotating, shear-free cosmic fluid, we find:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Theta }}{dt}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Theta }^2=`$ (57)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4+2\omega }{3+2\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \rho }{\varphi }}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1+\omega }{2+\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{3p}{\rho }}\right)\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{\varphi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{\varphi }}{\varphi }}`$
We shall still make use of a gravitational “constant” parametrized as in equation  above; this is justified insofar as the characteristic length for the variation of $`\varphi `$ is typically much greater than that of the density fluctuations in a matter dominated universe —see eg (Nariai 1969). In this approximation, the above equation gives

$$\frac{d\theta }{d\tau }+(\tau )\theta +\frac{1}{3}\theta ^2=\frac{4+2\omega }{3+2\omega }\frac{4\pi a^2\overline{\rho }\delta }{\varphi }$$
(58)
where $`\tau `$ is again the conformal time parameter, $`d\tau =a^1dt`$, and $`\theta `$ is defined in equations  and . Remarkably, this equation is very similar to the GR equation : we only need to replace in it the gravitational constant $`G`$ by its expression as a multiple of the varying scalar field $`\varphi `$ given in equation . Combining  with the continuity equation  we immediately find

$$\frac{d^2\delta }{d\tau ^2}+(\tau )\frac{d\delta }{d\tau }\frac{4}{3(1+\delta )}\left(\frac{d\delta }{d\tau }\right)^2=\frac{4+2\omega }{3+2\omega }\frac{4\pi a^2\rho \delta }{\varphi }$$
(59)
Like in section II, we change the independent variable in  to $`\eta =\mathrm{ln}a`$, whereby we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\delta }{d\eta ^2}}+\left(2+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{d\delta }{d\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(1+\delta )^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\delta }{d\eta }}\right)^2`$ (60)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4+2\omega }{3+2\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi a^2\rho \delta }{H^2\varphi }}`$
Using equation  to calculate $`\dot{H}`$, and assuming further that $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_k=\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, we finally get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\delta }{d^2\eta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{1+\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\delta }{d\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2+\omega )(4+3\omega )}{(1+\omega )^2}}\delta `$ (61)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\delta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\delta }{d\eta }}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2+\omega )(4+3\omega )}{(1+\omega )^2}}\delta ^2`$
We next examine the solutions to this equation.

#### 3.1.1 Linear growth

Let us call $`D(\eta )`$ the solution to the linearized version of equation , i.e.,

$$\frac{d^2D}{d^2\eta }+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\omega }{1+\omega }\frac{dD}{d\eta }\frac{1}{2}\frac{(2+\omega )(4+3\omega )}{(1+\omega )^2}D=0$$
(62)
Again the solutions are given by the roots $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _1`$ of the corresponding characteristic functions:

$$D=C_1a^{\alpha _1}+C_2a^{\alpha _2}$$
(63)
with

$`\alpha _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2+\omega }{1+\omega }}1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega ^2}}\right)`$ (64)
$`\alpha _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{43\omega }{2+2\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega ^2}}\right)`$ (65)
which reproduces the usual linear growth $`Da`$ and $`Da^{3/2}`$ in the limit $`\omega \mathrm{}`$. Note that $`\alpha _1`$ corresponds to the growing mode only for large values of $`|\omega |`$, but the situation is more complicated when $`\omega `$ is not large.

Figure 4 shows the values of $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ as functions of $`\omega `$. The effective $`G`$ in BD decreases as the Universe expands if $`1<\omega <\mathrm{}`$, and the expansion factor $`a(t)`$ stops for $`\omega =1`$; the growing mode in this regime is controlled by $`\alpha _1`$, since this is the positive root. The growing mode for $`4/3<\omega <1`$ is $`\alpha _2`$, but the universe shrinks to an eventual collapse in this regime (see Eq. ). Between $`2<\omega <4/3`$ the Universe expands again, but there are no growing modes, as can be seen in Figure 4 (both $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ are negative). For $`\omega <2`$ the expansion factor grows with time and $`\alpha _1`$ becomes the growing mode again. Notice that in this regime of $`\omega <2`$, $`\alpha _1<1`$, so that it is slower than for $`\omega >0`$. As we will show below this is compensated in part by a stronger non-linear growth.

#### 3.1.2 Non-linear growth

In the non-linear case we consider the full version of equation . We can now proceed as before, using the expansion in Eq. with $`\delta _l`$ given by the linear growth factor $`D=a^{\alpha _1}=e^{\alpha _1\eta }`$, and compare order by order. We find

$`\nu _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{34\omega +56}{21\omega +36}}={\displaystyle \frac{34}{21}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{8}{119}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega ^2}}\right)\right]`$ (66)
$`\nu _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(944+1136\omega +341\omega ^2)}{3(12+7\omega )(16+9\omega )}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{682}{189}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{3452}{21483}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega ^2}}\right)\right]`$ (67)
Note how for positive $`\omega `$ non-linear effects tend to compensate the increase in linear effects, cf Figure 4, whereas for $`\omega <4/3`$, the linear effects are reduced ($`\alpha <1`$) while non-linearities get larger.

Figure 5 shows the variation in $`\nu _2`$ as a function of $`\omega `$ using Eq.. Negative values of $`\omega `$ produce almost symmetrical variations in the opposite direction when $`|\omega |`$ is large. For small $`\omega `$ there is a pole at $`\omega =12/7`$ where $`\nu _2`$ diverges. But note that there is no growing linear mode in this case, which means that fluctuations are rapidly suppressed.

#### 3.1.3 Strongly non-linear regime

Figure 1 shows the fully non-linear solution for the overdensity $`\delta `$ as a function of the linear one $`\delta _l`$. The continuous line shows the standard solution to Eq. as given in Eq.-. As can be seen in the Figure, there is a critical value of $`\delta _l=3/2(3\pi /2)^{3/2}1.6865`$ where the non-linear fluctuations become infinite. This corresponds to the point where the spherical collapse occurs (see Peebles 1993). Thus an initial fluctuations $`\delta _0`$ will collapse after evolving a time $`t`$, such that the growth factor is $`D(t)=\delta _c/\delta _0`$. For the standard GR, flat and matter dominated case, this time would correspond to a formation red-shift: $`z_f=\delta _0/\delta _c1`$ (if we use $`a=1`$ today). For the BD case both $`\delta _c`$ and $`D(t)`$ are different, so that formation times $`z_f`$ will be correspondingly different (see Eq.). The short-dashed lines in Figure 1 correspond to the same exact solution in the BD model with $`\omega =10`$ and $`\omega =1`$. Right panel in Figure 5 illustrates how $`\delta _c`$ changes in the BD model as a function of $`\omega `$.

### 3.2. Gravitational Growth with $`H^2a^{3(1+ϵ)}`$

Consider now the flat case with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. To account for a simple variation on the standard Einstein’s field equations we will consider the case where fluctuations grow according to the matter dominated case (ie $`\gamma =0`$) but the background evolves in a different way. We will assume that the Hubble rate goes like $`H^2a^{3(1+ϵ)}`$ rather than $`H^2a^3`$. It might be possible to find some motivation for this model, but this is beyond the scope of this work. Here we just want to introduce some parametric variations around the standard field equations to see how things might change. In this case we have:

$$\frac{d^2\delta }{d^2\eta }+\frac{13ϵ}{2}\frac{d\delta }{d\eta }\frac{3}{2}\delta =\frac{4}{3}\frac{1}{1+\delta }\left(\frac{d\delta }{d\eta }\right)^2+\frac{3}{2}\delta ^2$$
(68)
The solutions for the linear growth factor index and the non-linear coefficient $`\nu _2`$ are

$`\alpha _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+3ϵ+\sqrt{256ϵ+9ϵ^2}}{4}}`$ (69)
$`\nu _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{13130ϵ+45ϵ^2+(13ϵ)\sqrt{256ϵ+9ϵ^2}}{8418ϵ+27ϵ^2}}`$ (70)
These solutions as a function of $`ϵ`$ are illustrated in Figure 6, which also shows $`\nu _3`$. As can be seen in the Figure, the higher the linear growth index $`\alpha _1`$ the lower the non-linear coefficients.

Right panel in Figure 6 shows the corresponding variation in $`\delta _c`$.

## 4. Observational consequences

We will focus here on Gaussian initial conditions. That is, our initial field for structure formation is a spatial realization of a (three-dimensional) Gaussian distribution with a given power spectrum shape, and a very small initial amplitude. As we are interested in the gravitational regime alone, this field will be smoothed over a large enough scale, corresponding to the distance beyond which non-gravitational forces (eg hydrodynamics) can be neglected. Thus at each point the overdensity $`\delta (\text{x})`$ grows according to gravity, which in the shear free approximation is just a local dynamics: the spherical collapse (eg Eq.).

### 4.1. Cumulants

Consider the $`Jorder`$ moments of the fluctuating field:

$$m_J\delta ^J.$$
(71)
Here the expectation values $`\mathrm{}`$ correspond to an average over realizations of the initial field. On comparing with observations we assume the fair sample hypothesis (§30 Peebles 1980), by which we can commute spatial integrals with expectation values. Thus, in practice $`\mathrm{}`$ is the average over positions in the survey area. In this notation the variance is defined as:

$$Var(\delta )\sigma ^2m_2m_1^2$$
(72)
More generally, we introduce the connected moments $`\overline{\xi }_J`$, which carry statistical information independent of the lower order moments, and are formally denoted by a bracket with subscript $`c`$:

$$\overline{\xi }_J\delta ^J_c$$
(73)
The connected moments are also called cumulants, reduced moments or irreducible moments. They are defined by just subtracting the lower order contributions:

$`\overline{\xi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`m_10`$
$`\overline{\xi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma ^2=m_2\overline{\xi }_1^2=m_2`$
$`\overline{\xi }_3`$ $`=`$ $`m_33\overline{\xi }_2\overline{\xi }_1\overline{\xi }_1^3=m_3`$ (74)
$`\overline{\xi }_4`$ $`=`$ $`m_44\overline{\xi }_3\overline{\xi }_13\overline{\xi }_2^26\overline{\xi }_2\overline{\xi }_1^2\overline{\xi }_1^4=m_43m_2^2`$
and so on. It is useful to introduce the hierarchical ratios:

$$S_J=\frac{\overline{\xi }_J}{\overline{\xi }_2^{J1}}$$
(75)
which are also called normalized one-point cumulants or reduced cumulants. We shall use the term skewness, for $`S_3=\overline{\xi }_3/\overline{\xi }_2^2`$ and kurtosis, for $`S_4=\overline{\xi }_4/\overline{\xi }_2^3`$.

#### 4.1.1 Linear Theory

As mentioned in §2.3, initial fluctuations, $`\delta _0`$, no matter of what amplitude, grow all by the same factor, $`D`$; thus the statistical properties of the initial field are just linearly scaled in the final (linear) field, $`\delta _l`$:

$$\delta _l^J_c=D^J\delta _0^J_c$$
(76)
Consider for example the linear rms fluctuations $`\sigma _l`$ or its variance $`\sigma _l^2`$. In the linear regime we have:

$$\sigma _l^2\delta ^2(t)=D(tt_0)^2\delta _0^2=D(tt_0)^2\sigma _0^2$$
(77)
where $`\sigma _0`$ refers to some initial reference time $`t_0`$. To give an idea of this effect, consider the growth of fluctuations since matter domination, when the universe was about 1100 times smaller. In General Relativity (GR) in the matter dominated Einstein-deSitter universe, $`\sigma `$ would grow by a factor $`D1100`$. While, if we take $`\omega 10`$ in the DB theory, eg Eq., we have that fluctuations increase instead by a factor $`D2079`$, which is about $`1.9`$ times larger in $`\sigma `$, so the variance nowadays would be about $`3.6`$ times larger if we fixed it around the COBE variance of Cosmic Microwave Background (CBM) temperature fluctuations. For $`\omega 100`$, the variance would only be $`14\%`$ larger than in GR. This latter result is small, but it could be relevant for future precision measurements (eg MAP or PLANCK satellites to map CMB and 2DF or SLOAN DIGITAL SKY galaxy surveys). Similar considerations can be made for the values of $`\alpha `$ with a different cosmic equation of state, eg Eq. or a different Hubble law, Eq.. In general we can write that a small change in $`\alpha `$ would produce a relative change in the linear rms of

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma }{\sigma }=\mathrm{ln}(1+z)\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha $$
(78)
Thus, a change of only $`1\%`$ in the absolute value of the equation of state $`\gamma `$, would produce a relative change of $`20\%`$ in $`\sigma `$ between recombination $`z1100`$ and now, cf Eq..

The hierarchical ratios (see Eq.) will scale as, $`S_J=S_J(0)/D^{J2}`$, where $`S_J(0)`$ are the initial ratios. This implies that the linear growth erases the initial skewness and kurtosis, so that $`S_J0`$, as time evolves (and $`D\mathrm{}`$). Note that if we want to do a meaningful calculation of these ratios or the cumulants, in general we might need to consider more terms in the perturbative series, Eq.. For Gaussian initial conditions $`S_J(0)=0`$, and we need to consider higher order terms in the perturbation series to find the leading order prediction.

#### 4.1.2 Weakly non-linear

The next to leading order solutions for the cumulants of the evolved field given the expansion Eq., can be easily found by just taking expectation values of different powers of $`\delta `$ (see eg Fosalba & Gaztañaga 1998a). For leading order Gaussian initial conditions we have

$`S_3`$ $`=`$ $`3\nu _2+𝒪(\sigma _l^2)`$
$`S_4`$ $`=`$ $`4\nu _3+12\nu _2^2+𝒪(\sigma _l^2)`$ (79)
For non-Gaussian initial conditions see Fry & Scherrer (1994) Chodorowski & Bouchet (1996), Gaztañaga & Mahonen (1996), Gaztañaga & Fosalba (1998).

If we use for $`\nu _2`$ the solution in Eq., eg $`\nu _2=34/21`$, the skewness yields $`S_3=3\nu _2=34/7`$, which reproduces the exact perturbation theory (PT) result by Peebles (1980) in the matter dominated Einstein-deSitter universe. Thus the shear-free or SC model gives the exact leading order result for the skewness. This is also true for higher orders (see Bernardeau 1992 and Fosalba & Gaztañaga 1998a) and for other cosmologies (eg Bouchet et al. 1992, Bernardeau 1994a, Fosalba & Gaztañaga 1998b, Kamionkowski & Buchalter 1999). For smoothed fields, the exact leading order results are slightly different:

$`S_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{34}{7}}+\gamma _1`$ (80)
$`S_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{60712}{1323}}+{\displaystyle \frac{62}{3}}\gamma _1+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{3}}\gamma _1^2`$ (81)
where $`\gamma _1`$ is the logarithmic slope of the smoothed variance (see Juszkiewicz et al. 1993, Bernardeau 1994a, 1994b). These can also be reproduced in the shear-free approximation as shown by Gaztañaga & Fosalba (1998); this results in a smoothing correction:

$`\overline{\nu _2}`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1}{3}}`$
$`\overline{\nu _3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(2\gamma _1+\gamma _1^2+6\gamma _1\nu _2+4\nu _3)`$ (82)
and replacing $`\nu _2`$ and $`\nu _3`$ by $`\overline{\nu _2}`$ and $`\overline{\nu _3}`$ in Eq. (see Fosalba & Gaztañaga 1998a for more details). There are also corrections to the above expressions when measurements are taken in red-shift space (eg Hivon et al 1995, Scoccimarro, Couchman and Frieman 1999). Next to leading order terms have been estimated by Scoccimarro & Frieman (1996) (see also Fosalba & Gaztañaga 1998a,b).

The smoothed values of $`S_3`$ and $`S_4`$ can be measured as traced by the large scale galaxy distribution (eg Bouchet et al. 1993, Gaztañaga 1992, 1994, Szapudi el at 1995, Hui & Gaztañaga 1999 and references therein), weak-lensing (Bernardeau, Van Waerbeke & Mellier 1997, Gaztañaga & Bernardeau 1998, Hui 1999) or the Ly-alpha QSO absorptions (Gaztañaga & Croft 1999). These measurements of the skewness and kurtosis can be translated into estimations of $`\nu _2`$ and $`\nu _3`$ which can be used to place constraints on $`\gamma `$, $`\omega `$ or $`ϵ`$ using Eq.,  and . For small values of these parameters the relationship is linear, so the uncertainties in $`S_3`$ and $`S_4`$ would directly translate into the corresponding uncertainties in $`\gamma `$, $`\omega `$ or $`ϵ`$.

The expressions above apply to unbiased tracers of the density field; since galaxies of different morphologies are known to have different clustering properties, at least some galaxy species must be biased tracers of the mass. As an example, suppose the probability of forming a luminous galaxy depends only on the underlying mean density field in its immediate vicinity. Under this simplifying assumption, the relation between the galaxy density field $`\delta _{gal}(\text{x})`$ and the mass density field $`\delta (\text{x})`$ can be written as

$$\delta _{gal}(\text{x})=f(\delta (\text{x}))=\underset{n}{}\frac{b_n}{n!}\delta ^n(\text{x}),$$

where $`b_n`$ are the bias parameters. Thus, biasing and gravity could produce comparable non-linear effects. To leading order in $`\overline{\xi }_2`$, this local bias scheme implies $`\overline{\xi }_2^{gal}=b_1^2\overline{\xi }_2`$, and (see Fry & Gaztañaga 1993)

$`S_3^{gal}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{S_3}{b_1}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{b_2}{b_1^2}}`$
$`S_4^{gal}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{S_4}{b_1^2}}+12{\displaystyle \frac{b_2S_3}{b_1^3}}+4{\displaystyle \frac{b_3}{b_1^4}}+12{\displaystyle \frac{b_2^2}{b_1^4}}`$ (83)
Gaztañaga & Frieman (1994) have used the comparison of $`S_3`$ and $`S_4`$ in PT with the corresponding values measured APM Galaxy Survey (Maddox et al. 1990), to infer that $`b_11`$, $`b_20`$ and $`b_30`$, but the results are degenerate due to the relative scale-independence of $`S_N`$ and the increasing number of biasing parameters. One could break this degeneracy by using the configuration dependence of the projected 3-point function, $`q_3(\alpha )`$, as proposed by Frieman & Gaztañaga (1994), Fry (1994), Matarrese, Verde & Heavens (1997), Scoccimarro et al. (1998). As shown in Frieman & Gaztañaga (1999), the configuration dependence of $`q_3(\alpha )`$ on large scales in the APM catalog is quite close to that expected in perturbation theory (see Fry 1984, Scoccimarro et al. 1998, Buchalter, Jaffe & Kamionkowski 2000), suggesting again that $`b_1`$ is of order unity (and $`b_20`$) for these galaxies. These agreement indicates that large-scale structure is driven by non-linear gravitational instability and that APM galaxies are relatively unbiased tracers of the mass on these large scales.

The values of $`S_3`$ and $`S_4`$ in the APM are measured to agree with the standard matter dominated Einstein-deSitter universe within about $`10\%20\%`$ (see Gaztañaga 1994; Gaztañaga & Frieman 1994; Baugh, Gaztañaga & Efstathiou 1995; Gaztañaga 1995, Hui & Gaztañaga 1999), also in agreement with the shape information in the 3-point function (see Frieman & Gaztañaga 1999). For example, using the projected APM catalogue Gaztañaga 1994 (Table 3) finds an average of $`S_3=3.2\pm 0.2`$ and $`S_4\pm 20.6\pm 2.6`$ scales between 7 and 30 $`h^1\text{Mpc}`$. For an average APM slope of $`\gamma _11.7`$, these values are in agreement with the PT predictions in Eq. yield: $`S_33.1`$ and $`S_418`$.

The 1–sigma error bar of $`10\%`$ on large scales quoted by Gaztañaga 1994 is mostly statistical (sampling error). Other systematics effects due to biasing, projection, or large scale errors in the building of the APM catalogue could be of the same order (see Frieman & Gaztañaga 1999 and Hui & Gaztañaga 1999). Thus given the current uncertainties it would be conservative to take a $`20\%`$ error bar. Unfortunately, with such large error bars we can not constraint much the values of $`\gamma `$ $`\omega `$ or $`ϵ`$. Stronger constraints can be found if we take the more optimistic 1–sigma $`10\%`$ error bars in the measurements of $`S_3`$ and $`S_4`$. This case is shown as horizontal dotted lines in Figures 2, 5 and 6. From $`\nu _2`$ the $`10\%`$ uncertainty translates into

$`0.2<`$ $`\gamma `$ $`<0.4`$
$`2.4>`$ $`\omega `$ $`>1.0`$
$`0.9<`$ $`ϵ`$ $`<0.9`$ (84)
Note that this is still of marginal interest. For example, the constraints on $`\gamma `$ include the possibility of a radiation ($`\gamma =1/3`$), matter ($`\gamma =0`$) or negative pressure $`\gamma <0`$. From $`\nu _3`$ we can obtain stronger constraints from a $`10\%`$ error (but obviously systematic effects could be larger for higher order cumulants):

$`0.1<`$ $`\gamma `$ $`<0.15`$
$`3.4>`$ $`\omega `$ $`>0.2`$
$`0.35<`$ $`ϵ`$ $`<0.35`$ (85)
These bounds are more interesting. It is clear that forthcoming surveys (such as the SLOAN Digital Sky Survey) will dramatically improve this situation (for errors on statistics see Szapudi, Colombi and Bernardeau 1999, and references therein).

Note that the above results are independent of the normalization of fluctuations.

### 4.2. Collapsed objects

Press & Schechter (1974) formalism and its extensions (eg Bond et al. 1991; Lacey & Cole 1993) predict the evolution of the mass function of halos and also their clustering properties. Comparison with N-body simulations show a very good agreement of these prescriptions for a wide range of statistical properties (eg see Lacey & Cole 1994 and references therein). For example, the comoving number density of collapsed objects (halos or clusters) of mass $`M`$ is

$$n(M)dM=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\left(\frac{\delta _c}{\sigma }\right)\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\sigma }{d\mathrm{ln}M}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\delta _c^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right)\frac{\overline{\rho }dM}{M^2}$$
(86)
where $`\sigma =\sigma (R)`$ is the current linear rms fluctuation at the scale $`R`$ corresponding to the mass $`M=4/3\pi R^3\overline{\rho }`$, and $`\overline{\rho }`$ is the mean background. The value of $`\delta _c`$ corresponds to the value of the linear overdensity at the time of collapse. The collapsing structure virializes when the (non-linear) overdensity becomes very large ($`\delta \begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}100`$). The actual definition is not very important, as once $`\delta \begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}100`$, the non-linear collapse is quite rapid, as can be seen in the plots of Figure 1, and the corresponding value of $`\delta _l`$ does not change much. Here we will take $`\delta _c`$ to be the critical value where $`\delta \mathrm{}`$; other prescriptions (eg the value of $`\delta _l`$ corresponding $`\delta 178`$) yield similar results. For the standard Einstein-de Sitter case we have $`\delta _c1.686`$. Note that the above abundance depends on the ratio

$$\nu \frac{\delta _c}{\sigma }$$
(87)
The time of collapse or formation is just given by the ratio of $`\delta _c`$ to the linear overdensity $`\delta _l`$ today

$$z_f=\left(\frac{\delta _l}{\delta _c}\right)^{1/\alpha }1$$
(88)
so that an object which has $`\delta _l=\delta _c`$ now, has a formation red-shift $`z_f=0`$, while a fluctuation 4 times larger collapses at $`z_f=3`$ if $`\alpha =1`$ or at $`z_f=1`$ if $`\alpha =2`$.

Non-standard parametrisation of the spherical collapse considered in the previous sections can change the above formalism in two ways. If we label objects by its initial overdensity $`\delta _0`$ then the corresponding $`\delta _l`$ today is

$$\delta _l=\delta _0a^\alpha $$
(89)
So a different value of $`\alpha `$, from the standard GR result ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha \alpha \alpha _{GR}`$), as shown in Figures 2, 4, and 6, will produce a different amplitude of linear fluctuations today. Moreover, as shown in §3.1.3 and Figures 3, 5, and 6, the solution to the spherical collapse equation produces different values of $`\delta _c`$, and therefore different mass functions and formation times. Finally, for a directly measurable quantity, such as the surface density of objects, typically one needs the volume element, which is also a function of the cosmology.

For example if fluctuations are normalized at a given red-shift, $`z_n`$, then the change in $`\delta _l`$ today will be

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _l}{\delta _l}=\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha \mathrm{log}(1+z_n)$$
(90)
For recombination, eg COBE normalization, we have $`z_n1100`$, and

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _l}{\delta _l}3\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha $$
(91)
In the case of the BD theory, we can see in Figure 4 that for $`\omega >1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha \alpha \alpha _{GR}>0`$, which means that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _l>0`$. This makes sense as the linear growth is faster and, for fixed initial fluctuations, the final linear overdensity will be larger. As shown in right panel of Figure 5, $`\delta _c`$ will also be larger. Thus in this case the effects tend to compensate each other. This is true for both the formation red-shift $`z_f`$ or for $`\nu `$ in Eq. above. For the formation red-shift $`z_f`$ we have

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z_f}{1+z_f}\frac{1}{\alpha }\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _l}{\delta _l}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _c}{\delta _c}\right)$$
(92)
which is only valid for small changes. In the BD example given above with $`\omega =10`$ (and COBE normalization) we have that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _l/\delta _l0.9`$ while $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _c/\delta _c0.01`$, so the net effect is still quite large. In this case, a formation red-shift of $`z_f=1`$ will change to $`z_f=1.39`$. Thus, a positive finite $`\omega `$ (which corresponds to a larger $`G`$ at high red-shifts) tends to produce larger (earlier) formation red-shifts and higher densities (or larger abundances) at a given red-shift, than the standard model. This goes in the direction of some recent observations (eg see Bahcall & Fan 1998; Robinson, Gawiser & Silk 1998, Willick 1999), which seem to need larger abundances that expected in some standard cosmologies. This interpretation is degenerate with respect to initial conditions and cosmological parameters.

Figure 7 illustrates the large differences in the cluster counts that can be seen between different cosmological models at $`z>1`$ (see Holder et al. 1999 for details). Deviations from General Relativity in the BD models with $`\omega =100`$ and $`\omega =25`$ can be noticed even at low redshift, when models are normalized to CMB fluctuations.

A similar trend is found for the case of Hubble rate $`H^2=a^{3(1+ϵ)}`$ parametrisation. A change of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ|0.3`$ (allowed by the bounds in Eq.), when normalized to COBE, also produces $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _l/\delta _l|0.9`$ and a smaller effect on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _c/\delta _c`$. This translates into a similar change (of several tens to hundreds of percent) in $`z_f`$. Earlier (later) formation times and larger (smaller) abundances are found for $`ϵ>0`$ ($`ϵ<0`$).

The change in the equation of state $`p=\gamma \rho `$ could produce comparable effects. The allowed values in Eq. of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma |0.1`$ translate into $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _l/\delta _l|0.3`$, which results in similar changes for $`z_f`$ in either direction, with earlier formation for $`\gamma >0`$.

If the normalization is not fixed, ie we do not quite know what is the value of the initial fluctuation that gave rise to an object we see today (eg a cluster), then all the relative change in the formation or abundance comes through $`\delta _c`$, which tends to produce smaller (later) formation red-shifts ($`\delta _c`$ is larger than the standard GR value) and lower densities (or smaller abundances) at a given red-shift.

## 5. Discussion and Conclusions

We have reconsidered the problem of non-linear structure formation in two different contexts that relate to observations: 1-point cumulants of large scale density fluctuations and the epoch of formation and abundance of structures using the Press & Schechter (1974) formalism. We have use the the shear-free or spherical collapse (SC) model, which is very good approximation for the above applications. We have addressed the question of how different are the predictions when using a non-standard theory of Gravity, such as BD model, or non-standard cosmological model (eg a different equation of state or Hubble law). Note that these are slight variations on the standard theme in the sense that they preserved the main ingredients of GR, such as the covariance and the geometrical aspects of the theory, including the same metric, with only slight changes in the field equations.

We have also presented some preliminary bounds on $`\gamma `$, $`\omega `$ and $`ϵ`$ from observations of the skewness and kurtosis in the APM Galaxy Survey, eg Eq.-. These bounds are optimistic given the current data, but the situation is going to change rapidly, and one can hope to find much better bounds form upcoming data (such as 2DF or SDSS projects). In terms of the equation of state the bounds in Eq. would indicate that our Universe is neither radiation ($`\gamma =1/3`$) or vacuum dominated ($`\gamma =1`$), but somewhere in between (eg matter dominated). In terms of the Gravitational constant, the bounds on $`\omega `$ from Eq. would say that $`G`$ has not changed by more than $`5\%`$ from $`z1.15`$, or by distances of $`400h^1\text{Mpc}`$. Clustering at higher red-shift would probe much larger scales and times. In terms of $`ϵ`$ the bounds Eq., would say that the Hubble law does not differ by more than $`7\%`$ from the standard result (assumed here to be $`ϵ=0`$). We have also shown how halo and cluster abundances and formation times could change in these non-standard cases. The above bounds on $`\gamma `$, $`\omega `$ and $`ϵ`$ from observations of the skewness and kurtosis in the APM still allow significant changes (of several tens to hundreds of percent) on formation red-shifts $`z_f`$ and the corresponding abundances (see §4.2).

In the context of BD models the limits we find for $`\omega `$ are less restrictive than the solar system limits $`\omega \begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}100`$. However, BD models allow $`\omega =\omega (\varphi )`$ so that $`\omega `$ can increase with cosmic time, $`\omega =\omega (z)`$, in such a way that it could approach the general relativity predictions ($`\omega \mathrm{}`$) at present time and still give significant deviations at earlier cosmological times. It is important to recall that our theory of gravity has only be tested on stellar distances (a.u.) while we want to use it on cosmological scales ($`Mpc`$). Our working example shows, for the first time, how non-linear effects are changed in such a model and sets the framework to study non-linear effects of more complicated (or realistic) Scalar-Tensor theories of gravity.

It is straightforward to combine several of the changes proposed here to explore more general situations. One could for example parameterize theories in the ($`\gamma ,\omega `$) plane, eg different equations of state with different BD parameters, or consider the whole ($`\gamma ,\omega ,\mathrm{\Omega }_M,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) space. One could also consider a different equation of state for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$component, as in quintessence cosmologies (Caldwell, Dave, Steinhardt 1998), such models have already been used to predict cluster abundances within the “standard” cosmology (see Haiman, Mohr, Holder 2000 and references therein). This would obviously allow for a wider set of possible solutions and degeneracies. One should also consider other observational consequences of these variations, in particular relating to BD theory, such as the age of the Universe, the effects on CMB (eg see Chen & Kamionkowski 1999), radiation-matter transition (Liddle, Mazumdar & Barrow 1998), or the constraints from nucleosynthesis (Santiago et al. 1997). These considerations could rule out some aspects of the proposed variations on the standard model, or might require more elaborate solutions (eg $`\omega =\omega (\varphi )`$ which implies $`\omega =\omega (z)`$). But even if this were the case, we still have learn a few new things about how structure formation depends on the underlying theory of Gravity, which is a first step towards further analysis of these issues.

Throughout this paper we have assumed Gaussian initial conditions and no biasing. Both biasing (eg Fry & Gaztañaga 1993) and non-Gaussianities in the initial conditions (Gaztañaga & Fosalba 1998) would provide an additional source of degeneracy as they might produce similar effects as the non-standard variations presented here. This is the case for example when we have non-zero initial skewness or kurtosis, which could produced quite different values of $`S_3`$ and $`S_4`$ (eg see Gaztañaga & Mahonen 1996; Peebles 1999a,b; White 1999; Scoccimarro 2000), and therefore to the inferred values of $`\nu _2`$ and $`\nu _3`$. Biasing can have a very similar effect (eg see Mo, Jing & White 1997). One would also expect some level of degeneracy with biasing and initial conditions for cluster abundances or formation times (see Robinson, Gawiser & Silk 1998, Willick 1999).

Rather than proposing an alternative theory of gravity or cosmological model, the aim of this paper was to show that some small deviations from the current paradigm have significant and measurable consequences for non-linear structure formation. This could eventually help explaining some of the current puzzles confronting the theory, such as the need of non-baryonic dark matter. Alternatively, current and upcoming observations of non-linear clustering and mass functions can be used to explore our assumptions and place limits on the theory of gravity at large ($`\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}1h^1\text{Mpc}`$) scales. This provides an interesting test for gravity as the driving force for structure formation and for our knowledge of the cosmological equation of state. A more comprehensive comparison with particular scenarios is left for future work.

## Acknowledgments

One of us (JAL) gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Education, contract PB96-0384, and also Institut d’Estudis Catalans. EG acknowledges support from CSIC, DGICYT (Spain), project PB96-0925. We would like to thank IEEC, where most of this work was carried out.


text:
# The onset of exciton absorption in modulation doped GaAs quantum wells

## Abstract

We study the evolution of the absorption spectrum of a modulation doped GaAs/AlGaAs semiconductor quantum well with decreasing the carrier density. We find that there is a critical density which marks the transition from a Fermi edge singularity to a hydrogen-like behavior. At this density both the lineshape and the transitions energies of the excitons change. We study the density dependence of the singularity exponent $`\alpha `$ and show that disorder plays an important role in determining the energy scale over which it grows.

The absorption spectrum in the presence of a Fermi sea of electrons has been a subject of theoretical and experimental research for more than three decades. The interest in this problem was triggered by the pioneering work of Mahan, who showed that in metals and bulk semiconductors this spectrum should exhibit a power law singularity at the Fermi energy. This singularity, which became known as the Fermi edge singularity (FES), reflects the response of the Fermi sea electrons to the attractive potential of the valence band hole. Mahan’s work was followed by a bulk of theoretical works, which established the many body nature of the FES and provided the tools to treat it .

The FES was indeed observed in the X-ray absorption of metals but was never observed in bulk semiconductors. Its first observation in semiconductors was in modulation doped quantum wells. It is manifested in these systems as a pronounced enhancement of the absorption at the Fermi edge, with an asymmetrical lineshape: a fast rise at the low energy side and a slow fall at high energies. A signature of the FES is its strong dependence on temperature and electron density. The high energy slope becomes more and more gradual when these parameters are increased .

An intriguing aspect of the behavior of a system of many electrons and a hole is the existence of a bound state. Initially, the singularity was associated with a bound state (the so-called Mahan exciton), which is built out of empty conduction band states below the Fermi level, but soon after, it was realized that this exciton is unstable . Nevertheless, a bound state of electrons and a hole should exist in a two-dimensional (2D) system. It is well known that in 2D bound states occur for arbitrarily small attractive potentials. Thus, the attractive potential of a valence hole should have a bound state even after the many-body interactions have been accounted for.

The recent discovery of the charged exciton, X-, in semiconductor quantum wells, at low-electron densities  created a renewed interest in the problem. The X-, which consists of two electrons with opposite spins bound to a valence band hole, appears at the absorption and emission spectra as a spectral line at some energy below the neutral exciton line, X. A natural question which then arises is how does the low density spectrum, of the X- and X bound states, transform into the FES. This issue has been addressed in a number of theoretical publications . It was shown that an X- like bound state should persist to a high electron density, and be manifested in the absorption spectrum as a spectral line with an asymmetric singular shape of the form $`(\omega \omega _0)^\alpha `$. Another singular peak, which is exciton like, was predicted to appear at some energy above that line. Indeed, this prediction was recently confirmed in CdTe modulation doped quantum wells , where the X-X- doublet was observed up to densities of a few$`\times `$1011 cm-2. Attempts to observe the X-X- doublet in the absorption spectrum of GaAs quantum wells in the presence of a high density two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) have yielded inconclusive results .

In this paper we investigate the evolution of the absorption spectrum of a single GaAs/AlGaAs quantum well with decreasing electron density, from $`1.5\times 10^{11}`$ to $`1.5\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2. We tune the electron density continuously by applying a voltage to a semi-transparent gate relative to an ohmic contact, which is made into the 2DEG. We find that there is a critical density which marks the transition from a FES to a hydrogen-like behavior. At this critical density both the lineshape and the transitions energies of the excitons exhibit a clear change: the singular asymmetric line becomes a symmetric resonance and the energy difference between X and X- becomes constant. We study the density dependence of the singularity exponent $`\alpha `$ and show that the energy scale over which it grows is determined by disorder.

The absorption spectrum is obtained using photocurrent spectroscopy. Electrons are excited from surface states by the incident photons to energies above the Schottkey barrier, and then drift into the doped region. From there they tunnel into the well and are collected by the ohmic contacts of the 2DEG, giving rise to a photocurrent in the gate circuit. This mechanism gives rise to a photocurrent at photon energies which extend well below the GaAs gap. At photon energies which can be absorbed in the quantum well there is an additional contribution to the photocurrent, resulting from electron-hole pairs created in the well. The characteristics of this photocurrent will be discussed in details elsewhere. There are, however, two important experimental points which should be mentioned:

\- In this gated structures light illumination gives rise to some depletion of the carrier density. However, since the capacitance of the structure is constant, this only implies that we need to add some positive gate voltage in order to recover the density in the dark. We have verified this behavior over a large light intensity range.

\- The photocurrent from the quantum well rides on a background signal, due to surface state absorption. The value of this background photocurrent depends on the sample structure and surface treatment. The spectra are displayed after this background was subtracted.

The sample structure that we investigated consists of the following sequence of layers: a $`300`$ nm-thick GaAs buffer, a superlattice with $`50`$ periods of $`100`$ nm Al0.37Ga0.67As and $`30`$ nm GaAs , a $`20`$ nm-thick GaAs quantum well, a $`50`$ nm-thick Al0.37Ga0.67As spacer layer, Si delta-doping of $`1\times 10^{12}`$ cm-2, a $`100`$ nm Al0.37Ga0.67As, a $`20`$ nm thick n-type Al0.37Ga0.67As, and a GaAs cap layer. The wafer is processed into a field-effect transistor structure, with a $`5`$ nm thick semi-transparent PaAu gate. Determination of the electron density $`N`$ under illumination is done by measuring the photoluminescence (PL) spectrum as a function of magnetic field, and finding the magnetic field values at which an integer number of Landau levels are filled. At these magnetic fields there is an abrupt change in the PL spectrum . This procedure works well up to $`N8\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2. To obtain the lower electron densities we use the capacitance of this structure to extrapolate the curve of $`N(V_\text{g})`$, where $`V_\text{g}`$ is the gate voltage.

The measurements are conducted in a liquid helium storage dewar at a temperature of $`4.2`$ K, using an optical fiber based system. We use a single-mode fiber at close proximity, $`100`$ $`\mu `$m, to illuminate the sample. A second multi-mode fiber is set at a distance of a few mm from the sample and collects the emitted PL. The sample is excited by a tunable Ti-sapphire laser, which is coupled into the single-mode fiber. The photocurrent is amplified by a sensitive current amplifier and measured using a lock-in amplifier. We have conducted the measurements using power levels from $`10`$ nW to $`1`$ mW. Except for a shift in the $`N(V_\text{g})`$ curve and some broadening at high power levels the results are power independent. After an absorption measurement at a given gate voltage $`V_\text{g}`$, the laser is set to $`1.541`$ eV and the PL is measured.

Figure 1 shows a set of photocurrent and emission spectra taken for various gate voltages. We label each spectrum with the corresponding Fermi energy E$`{}_{\text{F}}{}^{}=\pi `$h $`{}_{}{}^{2}N/m^{}`$, where $`N`$ is the electron density and $`m^{}`$ is the electron effective mass ($`m^{}=0.067m_0`$). At large electron densities (Figs. 1a) the absorption edge is a broad step which is shifted to high energies relative to the emission. In Fig. 1b, which is taken at E$`{}_{\text{F}}{}^{}=2.5`$ meV, we observe the formation of two broad peaks: one at the absorption edge and the other a few meV higher. As the density is further reduced (E$`_\text{F}`$ $`<1.1`$ meV) the two broad peaks acquire an asymmetric singular lineshape, characterized by a steep rise at low energies and a slow fall at high energies (Fig. 1c-d). Following the notation of Ref.  we label the low energy peak as $`\omega _1`$ and the high energy one as $`\omega _2`$. The singularity in $`\omega _2`$ increases very fast, and at E$`{}_{\text{F}}{}^{}=0.75`$ meV it becomes a symmetric resonance, the heavy-hole exciton (Fig. 1e). The $`\omega _1`$ peak exhibits less pronounced changes. As the density is reduced it becomes weaker and evolves into the well known charged exciton, X- (Figs. 1e-f). A replica of that scenario appears at the light-hole exciton energy, 4 meV higher.

The evolution of the singularity is surprisingly fast. Figure 2 describes a fit of a power law singularity $`A(\omega )=(\omega \omega _0)^\alpha `$ to the high side energy of $`\omega _2`$ at E$`{}_{\text{F}}{}^{}=0.9`$ meV. Such a fitting procedure allows us to accurately extract the exponent $`\alpha `$ at each density. The inset shows the dependence of $`\alpha `$ on E$`_\text{F}`$. It is seen that $`\alpha `$ increases by nearly an order of magnitude (from $`0.05`$ to $`0.4)`$ in a very narrow range, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$E$`{}_{\text{F}}{}^{}=0.25`$ meV, which corresponds to reducing the electron density by less than $`1\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2.

The exponent $`\alpha `$ is related to the phase shift of the electrons at the Fermi surface, when scattering off the valence hole potential . In that sense it measures the efficiency of the Fermi sea electrons in screening that potential: the smaller $`\alpha `$ is, the better is the screening. Previous studies have reported a significantly broader density range over which the singularity was observed . For example, in Ref.  a similar change of $`\alpha `$ was observed on an energy scale of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$E$`{}_{\text{F}}{}^{}10`$ meV, more than an order of magnitude larger than in our measurements. It was argued that the energy scale over which $`\alpha `$ changes is related to the many body nature of the problem . As we shall show in the following, disorder plays a critical role and determines the energy scale at which the singularity is observed.

Examining the PL spectra, we notice that at the density, at which $`\alpha `$ starts to grow the PL lineshape transforms from a broad single peak to two narrow resonances, associated with the X and X-. This behavior of the PL was extensively studied by some of us . We have shown that the appearance of excitons marks the onset of strong localization of the electrons in the potential fluctuations of the ionized donors. These donors, which are at a distance of 50 nm (the spacer width), are randomly distributed in the plane and induce a spatially fluctuating electrostatic potential at the 2DEG. At high electron density the 2DEG efficiently screens the fluctuations, but as the density is reduced the screening becomes less efficient and they grow considerably . Thus, the growth of $`\alpha `$ is related to the onset of strong disorder in the sample.

It should be noticed that this sample is of high quality. This is evidenced by the high mobility ( $`10^6`$ cm2V-1s-1), the narrow exciton linewidth ($`0.3`$ meV), and the absence of a Stokes shift between the PL and absorption ($`<0.1`$ meV) . Thus, at E$`{}_{\text{F}}{}^{}>1.1`$ meV, where the potential fluctuations are suppressed, our sample could be considered as close to ideal. Nevertheless, the singularity is significantly suppressed at that range. Only when disorder sets in, and electrons can not efficiently screen the valence-hole potential, $`\alpha `$ becomes large enough to make $`\omega _2`$ and $`\omega _1`$ observable as singular peaks. Indeed, it is indicated in Ref.  that there is strong disorder present in the samples and the mobility is rather low. Large disorder is also present in the narrow quantum wells studied in Ref. , as is evident by the very broad exciton line $`8`$ meV. The wide range in which singular lineshapes are observed in these works is, therefore, related to the large disorder in the samples which were used and not to a fundamental energy scale. The use of a gated sample in this study allows us to control the onset and amount of disorder.

Let us now turn to examining the density dependence of the energies of the $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ peaks (Fig. 3). The data is presented for a limited density range, where the singularity edge is clear and the peak energy can be unambiguously determined. In Fig. 3a we show the $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ transition energies. It is seen that the $`\omega _2`$ peak shifts to higher energies with increasing density while the energy of $`\omega _1`$ remains nearly constant. In Fig. 3b we present the energy difference h $`(\omega _1`$ $`\omega _2)`$ as a function of E$`_\text{F}`$. It is evident that there exists a threshold density value, $`N_\text{c}2.5\times 10^{10}`$ cm-2 (which corresponds to E$`_\text{F}`$ $`=0.85`$ meV), below which h $`(\omega _2\omega _1)`$ is constant and equals $`1.2`$ meV. Only above this threshold density the energy difference h $`(\omega _2\omega _1)`$ grows. This behavior is in clear contrast with that reported in Ref. , where it was argued that h $`(\omega _2\omega _1)`$ changes linearly with E$`_\text{F}`$, all the way to zero density. The value of $`1.2`$ meV is well documented experimentally as the X- binding energy in a $`20`$ nm GaAs quantum well . In fact, it is the energy difference between the two peaks in the PL spectra (Fig. 1). It should be emphasized that the optical spectra (Figs. 1e-f) clearly show that the density is indeed changing in this range, as evidenced by the exchange of oscillator strength between the X and the X-. This conclusion is supported by transport measurements through the sample at this range, which show that the conductivity decreases as the gate voltage becomes more negative.

To explain this behavior let us consider the energy spectrum of the system , which is schematically shown at the inset of Fig. 3b ($`\mu `$ is the chemical potential and E$`_\text{c}`$ is the single particle band gap). At the limit of infinitesimal density there are two bound states, X and X-, at a relatively large energy distance (the exciton binding energy, E$`_\text{X}`$ ) below E$`_\text{c}`$. The energy separation between the two bound states is E$`_\text{B}`$, the X- binding energy. On the other hand, at the limit of high electron density there is only one, X--like, bound state. The absorption spectrum of the system was predicted to consist of two peaks, with an energy difference given by

$$\text{h}\text{ }\text{ }(\omega _2\omega _1)=\mu \epsilon _\mathrm{b}$$
(1)
where $`\epsilon _\mathrm{b}`$ is the binding energy of the X- like bound state. It is important to note that both $`\mu `$and $`\epsilon _\mathrm{b}`$ in Eq. 1 are measured with respect to the same level, which we take as the bottom of the conduction band at zero electron density, E$`{}_{}{}^{0}{}_{\text{c}}{}^{}`$. Equation 1 has a simple meaning: it describes the energy cost for ionizing the X--like bound state by exciting one of the two electrons to the chemical potential level $`\mu `$. However, it is clear that this relation is valid only at the high density limit. At low densities $`\mu 0`$ and $`\epsilon _\mathrm{b}>`$ E$`_\text{X}`$. Hence, Eq. 1 would imply that h $`(\omega _2\omega _1)>`$ E$`_\text{X}`$, and that we should observe a huge increase in h $`(\omega _2\omega _1)`$ below a certain density. Thus, the use of Eq. 1 down to zero density is incorrect , and consequently the determination of the X- binding energy in CdTe has to be re-examined. Our experimental findings show that below $`N_\text{c}`$ the correct relation is h $`(\omega _2\omega _1)=`$ E$`_\text{B}`$. Only at large densities, where there is only one bound state, we are at the limit covered by Eq. 1.

It is remarkable that at the threshold density $`N_\text{c}`$ the exciton lineshape undergoes a drastic change. This change is clearly seen in Fig. 1: the exciton lineshape is symmetric below $`N_\text{c}`$ (Fig. 1e-f) and becomes a singular asymmetric line above it (Figs. 1b-d). The comparison between the exciton lineshape in Figs. 1e and 1d is particularly interesting. The difference is manifested not only in the high energy side but also at the low energy side, which becomes steeper above $`N_\text{c}`$. The fact that both the energy dispersion and lineshape change at $`N_\text{c}`$ implies that this density marks the transition from a hydrogen-like behavior to a FES. It is interesting to note that the value of $`N_\text{c}`$, which is found here, is very close to that reported in electroreflectance measurements , where quenching of the excitonic absorption was studied.

Finally, we wish to comment on the behavior at high densities. It can be seen at Fig. 3b that at densities above $`N_\text{c}`$ the energy separation between the X and X- grows monotonically. The dashed line describes the relation h $`(\omega _2\omega _1)=`$ E$`_\text{B}`$ $`+`$ E$`_\text{F}`$, (where E$`{}_{\text{B}}{}^{}=1.2`$ meV). This relation results from Eq. 1 and was used to fit the data in Ref. . It is evident that all the measured points in Fig. 3b are below this curve, but as the density gets higher the data points are approaching the curve. Unfortunately, we can not determine the behavior accurately at the high density limit. The X and X- lines become too broad, and one can not reliably obtain their energy separation. Nevertheless, it is obvious from our data at higher densities that the energy separation indeed increases monotonically with density.

This research was supported by the Minerva foundation.