text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Fluids with negative pressures have become of utmost importance in modern cosmology. They were first considered in the context of the inflationary scenario in which the early universe has a very short period of accelerating expansion . This inflationary phase solves many problems of the standard model which are connected to specific choices of initial conditions, like the flatness and horizon problem. At the same time, the origin of the seeds of the large scale structures observed today in the universe has a natural explanation in the inflationary scenario, that considers them as quantum fluctuations of a scalar field in a de Sitter background. The inflationary phase must end up with a transition to the radiative phase of the standard model. In many aspects, the inflationary scenario is plagued with problems of arbitrary choice of parameters of the microphysics, but its great success with the above mentioned problems led the community to consider it as part of the standard scenario.

More recently, the observation of the supernova of high redshift led to the preliminary conclusion that the Universe today is in an accelerating expansion . This is a surprising result since there was little doubts that the Universe was desacelerating and that the desaceleration parameter $`q`$ was positive. If the results of the supernova observations are confirmed, the energy of the Universe today must be dominated by a fluid with negative pressure. It could be a cosmological constant, but other cases are not excluded, like a fluid of cosmic string or domain walls  or some scalar field, with a peculiar kind of potential, called quintessence .

In many pratical cases, these fluids with negative pressure may be represented by a perfect fluid with a barotropic equation of state $`p=\alpha \rho `$, with $`\alpha <0`$. To be more precise, in order to have an accelerating universe the strong energy condition must be violated and $`\alpha <\frac{1}{3}`$. A fluid of cosmic string leads to $`\alpha =\frac{1}{3}`$, representing the limiting case between an accelerating and desaccelerating universe; $`\alpha =\frac{2}{3}`$ and $`\alpha =1`$ represent respectively a fluid of domain wall and a cosmological constant. The quintessence fluid only approximativelly can be expressed by a barotropic fluid with $`\alpha <0`$.

In  perturbations in fluids with negative pressure were studied in the hydrodynamical representation. It was found that when the strong energy condition is violated, there are instabilities in the small wavelength limit. This result can be understood by remembering that in this limit the expansion of the universe plays no important role: the negative pressure at this limit acts in the same way as gravity and nothing can prevent the collapse. This can be easily seen in the case of a cosmic string fluid for which the density contrast behaves as $`\mathrm{\Delta }t^{1\pm \sqrt{1+\frac{n^2}{3}}}`$. When $`n\mathrm{}`$ divergences appear, leading to the instability of the background model. In the cosmological perturbation theory, we are generally interested on the unstable modes, but that are not divergent. From here on, instabilities will refer to these undesirable divergent modes.

This study of density perturbations for a fluid of cosmic string has been extended in , where a two-fluid model was considered, one of them being the string fluid and the other ordinary matter with positive pressure. Special attention was payed to the case of a closed spatial section. From the point of view of the background, such models have many interesting features, mainly conected to the horizon problem and to the age of the universe. However, the study of scalar fluctuations around this background shows the presence of instability in the small scale limit, as in the case of the one fluid model. On the other hand, the study of gravitational waves for these models  reveals a very regular behaviour because gravitational waves are mainly connected with the scale factor behaviour, being quite insensitive to the matter representation. This indicates that the instabilities detected in  could be due to the hydrodynamical representation, which could disappear in a more fundamental approach.

In fact, the hydrodynamic representation for fluids with negative pressure is frequently a very poor approximation. Negative pressures appear in situations involving phase transitions in a primordial universe (topological defects) or a fundamental self-interacting scalar field. The exact formulation involves consequently fields, and a representation using a fluid with a barotropic equation of state only in very special situations may be employed. The employment of a perfect fluid representation, mainly when fluids of negative pressure are involved, can be viewed as a practical simplification which in many situations gives the same results as those that could be obtained by employing a more fundamental field representation.

The main point is that the equivalence of a hydrodynamical representation with a more fundamental one is very restricted and it can lead to complete misleading results depending on the problem treated. The instability in the small wavelength limit quoted above is an example. Fluids with negative pressure should have a field representation where their main features could be retained. The representation we will investigate here involves the more reasonable coupling of gravity with a scalar field with a self interacting term.

The aim of this paper is to show that the scalar field representation can more conveniently retain the features we could expect from fluids with negative pressure, mainly for those that are interesting for cosmology, as the objects resulting from phase transitions, like cosmic string. We will concern mainly with the consequences of these different representations for an analysis of perturbations around a homogenous and isotropic expanding universe. We verify that when we use a field representation, with the same behaviour for the scale factor as the corresponding hydrodynamical representation, the instabilities present in the latter case are absent in the former one. This is due essentialy to the fact that when we pass from a hydrodynamical representation to a field representation of the fluid we also pass from an Euler’s type equation to a Klein-Gordon’s type equation, and there is no correspondence when the pressure is negative. On the other hand, for large scale perturbations, both approachs lead to the same results.

We begin by analysing a stiff matter fluid which can mimic a scalar field in a very simple way. As it is well known, a free scalar field minimally coupled to gravity reproduces the stiff matter equation of state. We will show in section $`2`$ that for the stiff matter and free scalar field models, the agreement between the results occurs not only at the background level but also at the perturbative level. In section $`3`$ we extend this analysis to a perfect fluid with arbitrary equation of state $`p=\alpha \rho `$: we determine the corresponding field representation, showing that, at perturbative level, the equivelence between these two approachs remains only when $`\alpha >0`$. In section $`4`$ we review briefly the results obtained in  and we discuss the possibility of a field representation for this two fluid model. In section $`5`$, we review a model of variable cosmological constant that leads, from the point of view of the evolution of the scalar factor, to the same behaviour as a cosmic string fluid. In section $`6`$, we perform a perturbative analysis of the variable constant model, and show explicitly that they are free of instabilities, both for scalar perturbations and tensor perturbations. In section $`7`$, we discuss the results.

## 2 Free scalar field model

The most simple gravity model with a scalar field is described by the action

$$𝒮=\sqrt{g}[R\varphi ,_\alpha \varphi ,^\alpha ]d^4x.$$
(1)
It represents a free scalar field minimally coupled to gravity. The field equations obtained in accordance with the principle of least action by varying $`S`$ with respect to the dynamical variables are:

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R=\varphi _{;\mu }\varphi _{;\nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }\varphi _{;\rho }\varphi ^{;\rho },$$
(2)
$$\mathrm{}\varphi =0.$$
(3)
In a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker flat space-time (FRW), the metric describing the four dimensional geometry is

$$ds^2=dt^2a^2(t)(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2),$$
(4)
and the field equations take the form

$`3({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}})^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\varphi }^2,`$ (5)
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}+({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}})^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{2}},`$ (6)
$`\ddot{\varphi }+3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\dot{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (7)
where the overdot denotes the derivative with respect to the time coordinate $`t`$. The equations (5,6,7) are not independent due to the Bianchi identities.

On the other hand, in an universe filled with a perfect fluid we have the field equations

$`R_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }R`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi GT_{\mu \nu },`$ (8)
$`T_{;\mu }^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (9)
where

$$T_{\mu \nu }=(\rho +p)u_\mu u_\nu pg_{\mu \nu },$$
(10)
with $`p=\alpha \rho `$, $`\alpha `$ being a constant. The most common values of $`\alpha `$ of cosmological interest are $`0`$ (pressurelless matter), $`\frac{1}{3}`$ (radiation) and $`1`$ (stiff matter). Negative values of $`\alpha `$ has acquired increasing importance due to the inflationary paradigm and the new results coming from the supernova type Ia observations, as it was discussed before. Topological defects also require a negative equation of state. Again, equations (8,9) are connected by the Bianchi identities.

In the same FRW flat background, (8,9) take the form

$`3({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}})^2`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi G\rho ,`$ (11)
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}+({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}})^2`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi Gp,`$ (12)
$`\dot{\rho }+3(1+\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\rho `$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (13)
It is a straightforward to check that the equations (5,6,7) and equations (11,12,13) permit the identification

$$\rho _\varphi =p_\varphi =\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{2},$$
(14)
i.e., the ”scalar field fluid” behaves like a stiff matter in the hydrodynamical approach. The scalar field sound velocity, in this case, is $`c_\varphi ^2=\dot{p}_\varphi /\dot{\rho }_\varphi =1`$. The scale factor both in the free scalar field and hydrodynamical stiff matter cases behaves as $`at^{1/3}`$.

The evaluation of the perturbed quantities follows the well known approach of Lifshitz and Khalatnikov . It can be treated either with the synchronous gauge or the gauge-invariant formalism. Here we choose to work in the synchronous gauge formalism, where $`h_{\mu 0}=0`$.

We study first density perturbations and then gravitational waves for this free field model.

### 2.1 Density perturbations

Introducing small perturbations around the background solutions, the perturbed equations for the scalar-tensor model read

$$\ddot{h}+2\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{h}=4\dot{\varphi }\dot{\delta \varphi },$$
(15)
$$\ddot{\delta \varphi }+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{\delta \varphi }+\frac{n^2}{a^2}\delta \varphi \frac{1}{2}\dot{h}\dot{\varphi }=0,$$
(16)
where $`h=h_{kk}/a^2`$ and $`n^2`$ comes from the Helmholtz equation $`^2𝒬+n^2𝒬=0`$: the scalar functions $`𝒬(x^k)`$ are the eingefunctions of the three-dimensional Laplacian operator.

In order, to solve equations (15,16) it is more convenient to work in the conformal time, $`dt=ad\eta `$. The scale factor behaves as $`a\eta ^{1/2}`$. In terms of this new time parameter the solution of the perturbed equations is given by

$$\delta \varphi =\eta ^{3/2}\eta ^{3/2}(c_1(n)J_1(n\eta )+c_2(n)N_1(n\eta ))d\eta ,$$
(17)
where $`J_1`$ and $`N_1`$ are, respectively, the Bessel and Neumann functions of the first order, and $`c_1(n)`$, $`c_2(n)`$ are two arbitrary constants.

We need to verify if the evolution of the perturbations are specified by the equation $`\delta p_\varphi =\alpha \delta \rho _\varphi `$ as it happens with the background evolution showed previously. This should imply that the adiabatic approximation is verified here. To do this, we consider the perturbation of the equation (2) and (10)

$$\delta G^{\mu \nu }=\delta \varphi ,^\mu \varphi ,^\nu +\varphi ,^\mu \delta \varphi ,^\nu +\frac{1}{2}h^{\mu \nu }g^{\alpha \beta }\varphi ,_\beta \varphi ,_\alpha $$

$$+\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }h^{\alpha \beta }\varphi ,_\beta \varphi ,_\alpha \frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }g^{\alpha \beta }(\delta \varphi ,_\beta \varphi ,_\alpha +\varphi ,_\beta \delta \varphi ,_\alpha ),$$
(18)
$$\delta T^{\mu \nu }=(\delta \rho _\varphi +\delta p_\varphi )U^\mu U^\nu +(\rho _\varphi +p_\varphi )(\delta U^\mu U^\nu +U^\mu \delta U^\nu )\delta p_\varphi g^{\mu \nu }+p_\varphi h^{\mu \nu }.$$
(19)
Using the synchronous gauge condition, we have

$$\delta G_{00}=\dot{\varphi }\delta \dot{\varphi },$$
(20)
$$\delta G_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}h_{ij}\dot{\varphi }^2+a^2\delta _{ij}\dot{\varphi }\delta \dot{\varphi },$$
(21)
$$\delta T_{00}=\delta \rho _\varphi ,$$
(22)
$$\delta T_{ij}=p_\varphi h_{ij}+a^2\delta _{ij}\delta p_\varphi .$$
(23)
If we consider the perturbed Einstein equations $`\delta G_{\mu \nu }=8\pi G\delta T_{\mu \nu }`$ and the values of $`\rho _\varphi `$ and $`p_\varphi `$ obtained from equations (11) and (12), we have that

$$\delta \rho _\varphi =\delta p_\varphi .$$
(24)
In the hydrodynamical approach, the solution for the Einstein perturbed equations with $`p=\rho `$ and $`\delta p=\delta \rho `$, leads to the expression

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }=\eta ^{3/2}\eta ^{5/2}(d_1(n)J_0(n\eta )+d_2(n)N_0(n\eta ))d\eta ,$$
(25)
where $`d_1(n)`$ and $`d_2(n)`$ are the integration constants. Remembering that $`\rho _\varphi =\frac{\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2a^2}`$ and $`\delta \rho _\varphi =2\frac{\varphi ^{}\delta \varphi ^{}}{a^2}`$, the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\varphi =\frac{\delta \varphi ^{}}{\varphi ^{}}`$, computed from (17) reduces to (25), using simple recurrence relations for Bessel’s functions.

Hence, in this simple model where the matter is described by a scalar field, the background and perturbed equations can be put in a barotropic form. The ”velocity of sound” $`\delta p_\varphi /\delta \rho _\varphi `$ is the same as the one defined by $`c_\varphi ^2=\dot{p}_\varphi /\dot{\rho }_\varphi `$ in agreement with , where it is shown that this result corresponds to the low-frequency regime of the scalar field oscillations.

### 2.2 Gravitational waves

Here, the perturbed equation of gravitational waves is:

$$h^{\prime \prime }2\frac{a^{}}{a}h^{}+\left[n^22\frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a}+2\frac{a^2}{a^2}\right]h=0,$$
(26)
where $`h_{ij}=h(\eta )Q_{ij}`$, $`Q_{ij}`$ being a tracelless transverse eigenfunction on the spatial section, and primes denote derivative with respect to conformal time $`d\eta =adt`$.

After inserting the backgroung solutions, we obtain the solution of the equation (26), as follow:

$$h=\eta \left(e_1(n)J_1(n\eta )+e_2N_1(n\eta )\right),$$
(27)
where $`e_1(n)`$ and $`e_2(n)`$ are the integration constants. This solution is valid for both representations.

It is easy to verify that the above solution is well-behaved and stable.

## 3 Field representation for an arbitrary barotropic equation of state

Let us return to the Einstein’s equations coupled to a perfect fluid, with a barotropic equation of state $`p=\alpha \rho `$. Solving the Einstein’s equation for a flat spatial section, we obtain for the scale factor $`a=a_0t^{\frac{2}{3(1+\alpha )}}`$. Let us now consider a self interacting scalar field coupled to gravity. The Lagrangian has the form,

$$L=\sqrt{g}[R\varphi _{;\rho }\varphi ^{;\rho }+2V(\varphi )]$$
(28)
where the potential $`V(\varphi )`$ represents the self interaction term. The field equations are

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R=\varphi _{;\mu }\varphi _{;\nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }\varphi _{;\rho }\varphi ^{;\rho }+g_{\mu \nu }V(\varphi ),\mathrm{}\varphi =V_\varphi (\varphi ),$$
(29)
where $`V_\varphi `$ means partial derivative of the potential with respect to $`\varphi `$.

This scalar-tensor model may lead to the same behaviour of the scale factor as in the perfect fluid model provided that the potential takes the form,

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{2}{3}\frac{(1\alpha )}{(1+\alpha )^2}\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{3(1+\alpha )}\varphi ).$$
(30)
Indeed, for a FRW background, this potential leads to the solutions

$$a=a_0t^{\frac{2}{3(1+\alpha )}},\varphi =\pm \frac{2}{\sqrt{3(1+\alpha )}}\mathrm{ln}t.$$
(31)
For the case of a cosmic string fluid, $`at`$, the potential is $`V(\varphi )=2e^{\sqrt{2}\varphi }`$.

We now turn to the perturbative level. The perturbation of the scalar-tensor model leads to

$`h^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{a}}h^{}`$ $`=`$ $`4\varphi ^{}\delta \varphi ^{}+2(\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+2{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{a}}\varphi ^{})\delta \varphi ,`$ (32)
$`\delta \varphi ^{\prime \prime }+2{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{a}}\delta ^{}+(n^2+V_{\varphi \varphi }a^2)\delta \varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^{}h^{},`$ (33)
where we follow the same definitions as before and we have employed the conformal time.

Combining equations (32,33), and inserting the background solutions, we obtain the third order differential equation

$`\delta \varphi ^{\prime \prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{7+3\alpha }{1+3\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \varphi ^{\prime \prime }}{\eta }}+\{n^2+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{224\alpha 18\alpha ^2}{(1+3\alpha )^2\eta ^2}}\right]\}\delta \varphi ^{}`$
$`+\{3{\displaystyle \frac{1+\alpha }{1+3\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{\eta }}18{\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha ^2}{(1+3\alpha )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta ^3}}\}\delta \varphi =0.`$ (34)
One solution for this equation is $`\delta \varphi =\eta ^{3\frac{1+\alpha }{1+3\alpha }}`$, which is given by the residual coordinate transformation freedom characteristic of the synchronous coordinate condition. Using this known solution and some suitable transformation, we can reduce the third order equation to a second order Bessel equation. The final solution for $`\delta \varphi `$ is

$$\delta \varphi =\eta ^{3\frac{1+\alpha }{1+3\alpha }}c_\pm \eta ^{\frac{3}{2}}J_{\pm \nu }(n\eta )𝑑\eta ,$$
(35)
where $`c_\pm `$ are integration constants, that in general depend on $`n`$, and $`J_{\pm \nu }`$ is a Bessel function of order $`\nu =\frac{5+3\alpha }{2(1+3\alpha )}`$.

The solution for the density contrast in the case of the hydrodynamical representation, with $`p=\alpha \rho `$ is well known. It can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^{3\frac{1+\alpha }{1+3\alpha }}{\displaystyle }\eta ^{\frac{5}{2}}(c_+J_\mu (\sqrt{\alpha }n\eta )+c_{}J_\mu (\sqrt{\alpha }n\eta ))d\eta ,\alpha >0,`$ (36)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^{3\frac{1+\alpha }{1+3\alpha }}{\displaystyle }\eta ^{\frac{5}{2}}(c_+I_\mu (\sqrt{\alpha }n\eta )+c_{}K_\mu (\sqrt{\alpha }n\eta ))d\eta ,\alpha <0,`$ (37)
where now $`I_\mu `$ and $`K_\mu `$ are the modified Bessel functions, and $`\mu =\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{1\alpha }{1+\alpha }\right)`$. In order to connect both results we must remember that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\varphi =\frac{\delta \rho _\varphi }{\rho _\varphi }`$, where $`\rho _\varphi =\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{2}+V(\varphi )`$. Using some Bessel’s recurrence relations, as in the previous section we find

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\varphi =C_\pm \eta ^{3\frac{1+\alpha }{1+3\alpha }}\{(1\frac{1}{\alpha })\eta ^{\frac{5}{2}}J_{\pm \mu }(n\eta )+\eta ^{\frac{5}{2}}J_{\pm \mu }(n\eta )d\eta \}.$$
(38)
This expression differs from (36) by the factor $`\alpha `$ in the argument of the Bessel function, and by the first term in (38). However, when $`\alpha >0`$ solutions (36,38) have the same behaviour in the large and small wavelength limit. For $`\alpha =1`$, the equivalence between the two approaches is complete, as can be easily checked by comparing (38) with (36) for this special case. For $`\alpha <0`$, the correspondence between solutions (37,38) occurs only for $`n0`$ (large scale perturbations); for $`n\mathrm{}`$ (small scale perturbations) the hydrodynamical representation exhibits strong instabilities while the scalar field representation displays accoustic oscillation.

Finally we remark that both representations give the same behaviour for gravitational waves.

## 4 Perturbations in cosmic string fluid

An important particular case of the scalar-tensor model develloped in the previous section concerns the case of cosmic string. A cosmic string fluid may mimic a perfect fluid with an equation of state $`p=\frac{\rho }{3}`$. In  the fate of density perturbation in fluids with negative pressure has been studied. The main conclusion was that, in the long wavelength approximation, there are only decreasing modes when the equation of state is such that the strong energy condition is violated; for small wavelengths, instabilities can arise due to the fact that the pressure contributes in the same sense as gravity. For the equation of state of a cosmic string fluid displayed above, density perturbations behave as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=t^{1\pm \sqrt{1+\frac{n^2}{3}}}.$$
(39)
Hence, in the small wavelength limit, $`n\mathrm{}`$, instabilities come to scene.

A scalar-tensor representation of the cosmic string fluid is given by a scalar tensor model with $`V(\varphi )=2\mathrm{exp}(\pm \sqrt{2}\varphi )`$. A perturbation analysis as it was performed in section $`3`$ leads to the following expression for the perturbation in the scalar field (the integration procedure follows very closely to that sketched in the previous section):

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\varphi t^{1\pm \sqrt{1n^2}}.$$
(40)
In the large wavelength limit both representations give the same results; in the small wavelength limit the hydrodynamical representation display instabilities while the scalar-tensor model exhibits accoustic oscillations.

In  it was considered the case of two non interacting fluid, one of them represented by an equation of state like $`p=(1/3)\rho `$ while the second fluid is the ordinary matter with a barotropic equation of state $`p=\alpha \rho `$. This may represent in more realistic way the presence of fluids with negative pressure in the universe. The equations of motion are

$$3(\frac{\dot{a}}{a})^2+3\frac{k}{a^2}=8\pi G(\rho _m+\rho _s),$$
(41)
$$2\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+(\frac{\dot{a}}{a})^2+\frac{k}{a^2}=\frac{8\pi G}{3}(\rho _s3\alpha \rho _m),$$
(42)
$$\dot{\rho }_m+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}(1+\alpha )\rho _m=0,$$
(43)
$$\dot{\rho }_s+2\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\rho _s=0.$$
(44)
In this equations $`\rho _m`$ and $`\rho _s`$ denote the ordinary fluid and stringlike fluid densities respectivelly.

The background solutions are:

$$a=a_0\mathrm{sinh}^2(\frac{\sqrt{\gamma }}{2}\eta ),\text{when}\alpha =0;$$
(45)
$$a=a_0\mathrm{sinh}(\sqrt{\gamma }\eta ),\text{when}\alpha =1/3;$$
(46)
$$a=a_0\sqrt{\mathrm{sinh}(2\sqrt{\gamma }\eta )},\text{when}\alpha =1,$$
(47)
where $`\gamma =|\frac{8}{3}\pi G\rho _{0s}k|`$, $`\rho _{0s}`$ is defined as the ratio $`\rho _s=\frac{\rho _{0s}}{a^2}`$, $`\eta `$ being the conformal time.

### 4.1 Density perturbations

Perturbing the Einstein’s equations and imposing the syncrhonous coordinate condition, a set of equations for the ordinary matter and the cosmic fluid perturbations is obtained:

$$\ddot{h}+2\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{h}=6\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}\mathrm{\Delta }_m,$$
(48)
$$\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}_m+(1+\alpha )(\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{\dot{h}}{2})=0,$$
(49)
$$(1+\alpha )\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}+(1+\alpha )(23\alpha )\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{n^2}{a^2}\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_m=0,$$
(50)
$$\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}_s+\frac{2}{3}(\mathrm{\Theta }\frac{\dot{h}}{2})=0,$$
(51)
$$\dot{\mathrm{\Theta }}+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\mathrm{\Theta }+\frac{n^2}{2a^2}\mathrm{\Delta }_s=0.$$
(52)
The integration procedure is standard , so we will just present the final results:

| model | perturbations | material phase $`(t0)`$ | string phase$`(t\mathrm{})`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\alpha =0`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }_m`$ | $`\eta ^2`$ | constant |
|  | $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ | $`\frac{1}{\eta ^{\frac{2}{3}}}(a_1K_{\frac{3}{2}}(n\eta )+a_2I_{\frac{3}{2}}(n\eta ))`$ | $`t^{1\pm \sqrt{1+\frac{n^2}{3}}}`$ |
| $`\alpha =1/3`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }_m`$ | $`\frac{1}{\eta ^{\frac{1}{2}}}\eta ^{\frac{5}{2}}[c_1J_{\frac{1}{2}}(n\eta )+c_2J_{\frac{1}{2}}(n\eta )]d\eta `$ | $`\mathrm{cos}(\frac{n}{\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{ln}t)`$ |
|  | $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ | $`\frac{1}{\eta ^{\frac{1}{2}}}(d_1I_{\frac{1}{2}}(n\eta )+d_2K_{\frac{1}{2}}(n\eta ))`$ | $`t^{1\pm \sqrt{1+\frac{n^2}{3}}}`$ |
| $`\alpha =1`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }_m`$ | $`\frac{1}{\eta ^{\frac{3}{2}}}\eta ^{\frac{5}{2}}[c_1J_0(n\eta )+c_2J_0(n\eta )]d\eta `$ | $`\mathrm{cos}(n\mathrm{ln}t)`$ |
|  | $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ | $`d_1I_0(n\eta )+d_2K_0(n\eta ))`$ | $`t^{1\pm \sqrt{1+\frac{n^2}{3}}}`$ |

We must exhibit the behaviour of the perturbative model for $`t0`$ and $`t\mathrm{}`$ to find an instability in the density perturbations of cosmic string fluid. Indeed, for small wavelengths, i.e. $`n\mathrm{}`$, the modified Bessel functions $`I_\nu (x)`$ and $`K_\nu (x)`$ go as $`e^{\pm x}/\sqrt{x}`$. However, the ordinary matter has a very regular behaviour for $`t0`$ and $`t\mathrm{}`$.

The instabilities presented above can be attributed to the matter content of the universe and, mainly, to the approach used to describe the density perturbations. We will see that these instabilities do not appear in gravitational waves because the matter content of the universe plays a less important role, being only sensitive to the behaviour of scale factor.

In fact, the same behaviour for the scale factor described above can be obtained by a scalar-tensor model, with a suitable potential, coupled to ordinary matter. For example, in the case of pressurelles ordinary matter ($`p=0`$), the results for the background can be recovered if the potential reads

$$V(\varphi )=V_0\mathrm{sinh}^4(C\varphi ),V_0=\frac{8\mathrm{\Omega }^2+2}{a_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}},C=\frac{1}{\sqrt{8\mathrm{\Omega }^2+2}},\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{2\pi G\rho _0}{3},$$
(53)
where $`\rho _0`$ is defined by the first integral of the conservation of the energy-moment tensor for the pressurelless fluid, $`\rho =\frac{\rho _0}{a^3}`$. We note that the scalar field representation for the two fluid model (pressurelles matter plus string fluid) requires a different potential with respect to the case of the one fluid model (only string fluid).

At the perturbative level, the effect of replacing the barotropic fluid with negative pressure by a scalar-field model is quite the same as that described in section $`3`$. With respect with the preceding table of solutions, the modified Bessel functions must be replaced by ordinary Bessel functions for the perturbation in the exotic fluid. Hence the instability present in the small wavelength limit disappear again; the behaviour in the long wavelength limit is not changed.

### 4.2 Gravitational waves

Following the work , we have the perturbed equations that govern the evolution of gravitational waves

$$h^{\prime \prime }2\frac{a^{}}{a}h^{}+\left[\stackrel{~}{n}^22\left(\frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a}\frac{a^2}{a^2}\right)\right]=0,$$
(54)
where $`\stackrel{~}{n}^2=(1/r^2)(n^2+2k)`$ and prime here denotes derivative with respect to $`\theta =r\eta `$.

After inserting the background solutions (45,46,47), equation (54) can be generally rewritten in terms of a hypergeometric equation. Its final solutions for different phases of the evolution of the universe read as follows:

| model | $`h_1`$ | $`h_2`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`\alpha =1`$ | $`\sqrt{x^21}\left[\frac{1+x}{2}\right]^{2+\sqrt{1\stackrel{~}{n}^2}}\times `$ | $`\sqrt{x^21}\left[\frac{1+x}{2}\right]^{2\sqrt{1\stackrel{~}{n}^2}}\times `$ |
|  | $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(2\sqrt{1\stackrel{~}{n}^2},\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1\stackrel{~}{n}^2},`$ | $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{1\stackrel{~}{n}^2},2+\sqrt{1\stackrel{~}{n}^2},`$ |
|  | $`12\sqrt{1\stackrel{~}{n}^2},\frac{2}{1+x})`$ | $`1+2\sqrt{1\stackrel{~}{n}^2},\frac{2}{1+x})`$ |
| $`\alpha =1/3`$ | $`\mathrm{exp}((\sqrt{1\stackrel{~}{n}^2})\eta )\mathrm{sinh}\eta `$ | $`\mathrm{exp}((\sqrt{1\stackrel{~}{n}^2})\eta )\mathrm{sinh}\eta `$ |
| $`\alpha =0`$ | $`\sqrt{x^21}\left[\frac{1+x}{2}\right]^{1+\sqrt{4\stackrel{~}{n}^2}}\times `$ | $`\sqrt{x^21}\left[\frac{1+x}{2}\right]^{1\sqrt{4\stackrel{~}{n}^2}}\times `$ |
|  | $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1\sqrt{4\stackrel{~}{n}^2},\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4\stackrel{~}{n}^2},`$ | $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{4\stackrel{~}{n}^2},1+\sqrt{4\stackrel{~}{n}^2},`$ |
|  | $`12\sqrt{4\stackrel{~}{n}^2},\frac{2}{1+x})`$ | $`1+2\sqrt{4\stackrel{~}{n}^2},\frac{2}{1+x})`$ |
| $`\alpha =1`$ | $`\sqrt{x^21}\left[\frac{1+x}{2}\right]^{(1+\sqrt{14\stackrel{~}{n}^2})/2}\times `$ | $`\sqrt{x^21}\left[\frac{1+x}{2}\right]^{(1\sqrt{14\stackrel{~}{n}^2})/2}\times `$ |
|  | $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\frac{1\sqrt{14\stackrel{~}{n}^2}}{2},\frac{1\sqrt{14\stackrel{~}{n}^2}}{2},`$ | $`\times _2F_1(\frac{1+\sqrt{14\stackrel{~}{n}^2}}{2},\frac{1+\sqrt{14\stackrel{~}{n}^2}}{2},`$ |
|  | $`1\sqrt{14\stackrel{~}{n}^2},\frac{2}{1+x})`$ | $`1+\sqrt{14\stackrel{~}{n}^2},\frac{2}{1+x})`$ |

where in the above expressions, $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ is a hypergeometric function and $`x=\mathrm{cos}(r\theta )`$, $`r`$ being a constant.

In this two-fluid model, the behaviour of gravitational waves in a closed universe exhibits, in what concerns the behaviour of the scale factor, the dynamic of an open universe. It would cause, also, distorsion in the spectrum of the CMBR. The determination of the evolution of perturbations and its connection with this distorsion is technically difficult to be evaluated. But, for the proposal of the present work, the fundamental feature to be retained in the above solutions is that they do not exhibit instabilities.

## 5 Time dependent cosmological constant model

We present for completeness the background equations based on the reference which is the traditional scalar-tensor theory with a potential that is equivalent to a time dependent cosmological constant model. This is one of the cases which can be represented phenomenologically by a fluid with an equation of state $`p=\frac{\rho }{3}`$ in what concerns the behaviour of the scale factor. The action is given by

$$𝒮=\frac{1}{16\pi G}\sqrt{g}[\varphi R\varphi ^1\omega g^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu \varphi +2\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )]d^4x+𝒮_{ng}.$$
(55)
We remark, however, that in the present case we have a non-minimally coupled scalar field, in opposition to the models described before.

The field equations are

$$G_{\mu \nu }=\frac{8\pi T_{\mu \nu }}{\varphi }+\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )g_{\mu \nu }+\omega \varphi ^2(\varphi ,_\mu \varphi ,_\nu \frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }\varphi ,_\alpha \varphi ,^\alpha )+\varphi ^1(\varphi ;_{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}\varphi ),$$
(56)
$$\mathrm{}\varphi +\frac{2\varphi ^2d\mathrm{\Lambda }/d\varphi 2\varphi \mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )}{3+2\omega }=\frac{1}{3+2\omega }(8\pi T\frac{d\omega }{d\varphi }\varphi ,_\alpha \varphi ,^\alpha ).$$
(57)
We shall consider the case where $`\omega =`$ constant, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )=c\varphi ^m`$ and $`\varphi =\varphi _1t^q`$, with $`c`$, $`m`$ and $`q`$ constants. The ansatz allow us to obtain analytical solutions in the form of power law, which leads to closed expressions for the perturbative equations.

The energy-momentum tensor describes an ordinary perfect fluid, such that

$$T^{\mu \nu };_\nu =0.$$
(58)
The equations of motion are

$$3\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}+3\frac{k}{a^2}c\varphi ^m=\frac{8\pi \rho }{\varphi }+\frac{\omega }{2}\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{\varphi ^2}3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi },$$
(59)
$$2\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}\frac{k}{a^2}+c\varphi ^m=\frac{8\pi p}{\varphi }+\frac{\omega }{2}\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{\varphi ^2}+\frac{\ddot{\varphi }}{\varphi }+2\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi },$$
(60)
$$\frac{\ddot{\varphi }}{\varphi }+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }=\frac{2c(1m)\varphi ^m}{3+2\omega }+\frac{8\pi (\rho 3p)}{\varphi (3+2\omega )}.$$
(61)
The background solutions are

| model | curvature | $`a(t)`$ | $`\varphi (t)`$ | $`\rho `$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\rho =0`$ | $`k0`$ | $`a_1t`$ | $`\varphi _1t^{\frac{2}{m}}`$ | - | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1/t^2`$ |
|  | $`k=0`$ | $`a_1t`$ | $`\varphi _1t^{\frac{2}{1\pm \sqrt{3+2\omega }}}`$ | - | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1/t^2`$ |
| $`p=\alpha \rho `$ | any $`k`$ | $`a_1t`$ | $`\varphi _1t^{(1+3\alpha )}`$ | $`s/a^{3(1+\alpha )}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1/t^2`$ |
| $`p=\rho `$ | any $`k`$ | $`a_1t`$ | $`\varphi _1t^2`$ | $`\rho _0=\text{const.}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1/t^2`$ |

where $`a_1`$, $`\varphi _1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, and $`s`$ are constants.

The solutions for the scale factor above are characteristic of an equation of state $`p_\varphi =\frac{1}{3}\rho _\varphi `$.

We remark that in all above solutions the scale-factor behaves as $`at`$ corresponding to a ”coasting” universe. From the point of view of the background behaviour, the above solutions exhibit the same characteristics as the perfect fluid formulation.

## 6 Perturbations in a time dependent cosmological constant model

We extend our perturbative analysis for this model, first for density perturbations and then for gravitational waves.

### 6.1 Density perturbations

The perturbed equations for the time dependent cosmological constant model are:

$$\ddot{h}+2\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{h}=\frac{16\pi }{\varphi }(\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda )\left(\frac{3\alpha \omega +3\alpha +\omega +2}{3+2\omega }\right)\rho $$

$$2cm\varphi ^m\left(\frac{m+2\omega +2}{3+2\omega }\right)\lambda +2\ddot{\lambda }+4\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }(1+\omega )\dot{\lambda },$$
(62)
$$\ddot{\lambda }+(2\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a})\dot{\lambda }+(\frac{\ddot{\varphi }}{\varphi }+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi })\lambda \frac{1}{2}\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }\dot{h}$$

$$+\frac{n^2}{a^2}\lambda +\frac{2c(m^21)\varphi ^m}{3+2\omega }\lambda =\frac{8\pi }{(3+2\omega )\varphi }\mathrm{\Delta }(13\alpha )\rho ,$$
(63)
$$\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}=(1+\alpha )(\frac{1}{2}\dot{h}\delta U^k,_k),$$
(64)
$$\frac{}{t}(a^5\delta U^k(1+\alpha )\rho )=a^3\alpha \rho \mathrm{\Delta },^k,$$
(65)
where $`h=h_{kk}a^2`$, $`\lambda =\delta \varphi /\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\delta \rho /\rho `$. All functions are spatially expanded into spherical harmonics $`f(x,t)=f(t)𝒬`$, with $`^2𝒬=n^2𝒬`$.

Next, we solve the above equations for the vacuum fluid ($`\alpha =1`$), the empty universe ($`\rho =0`$), radiation phase ($`\alpha =1/3`$), and dust phase ($`\alpha =0`$). We use the background relations in order to simplify the final system of equations.

#### 6.1.1 Vacuum fluid phase ($`\alpha =1`$)

In this case $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ and we have the following equations:

$$\ddot{h}+\frac{2}{t}\dot{h}=(1+2\omega )\frac{\lambda }{t^2}+8(1+\omega )\frac{\dot{\lambda }}{t}+2\ddot{\lambda },$$
(66)
$$\ddot{\lambda }+7\frac{\dot{\lambda }}{t}+[8+\frac{n^2}{a_1}]\frac{\lambda }{t^2}\frac{1}{t}\dot{h}=0,$$
(67)
with the solution

$$\lambda =t^p\text{and}ht^p,\text{where}p=2\pm \sqrt{8\omega \frac{n^2}{a_1^2}}.$$
(68)
There is no divergent behaviour in the small wavelength limit.

#### 6.1.2 Empty universe ($`\rho =0`$)

Here, the system of second order differential equations is

$$\ddot{h}+\frac{2}{t}\dot{h}=\frac{4}{m}\left[\frac{m+2\omega +2}{3+2\omega }\right]\frac{\lambda }{t^2}\frac{8(1+\omega )}{m}\frac{\dot{\lambda }}{t}+2\ddot{\lambda },$$
(69)
$$\ddot{\lambda }+\left[\frac{3m4}{m}\right]\dot{\lambda }+[\frac{n^2}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}4(2+m)\frac{1m}{m^2}]\frac{\lambda }{t^2}+\frac{1}{m}\frac{\dot{h}}{t}=0,$$
(70)
whose solution is

$$\lambda =t^p\text{and}ht^p\text{where}p=\frac{1}{m}\left(1m\pm \sqrt{9+6m3m^2+8\omega m^2\frac{n^2}{a_1^2}}\right),$$
(71)
where $`m`$ is arbitrary for $`k0`$ and $`m=1\pm \sqrt{3+2\omega }`$ for $`k=0`$. As in the preceding case, the solutions are stable.

#### 6.1.3 Radiation phase ($`\alpha =1/3`$)

Combining conveniently the perturbed equations, we find a fifth order Euler’s type equation for $`\lambda `$:

$`\lambda ^v+11{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^{iv}}{t}}+[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}+312d2{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a_1^2}}]{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{\lambda }}{t^2}}+[{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}+228d8{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a_1^2}}]{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{\lambda }}{t^3}}`$
$`+[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{n^4}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}({\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}d2{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a_1^2}})+24d4{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a_1^2}}]{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\lambda }}{t^4}}+[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{n^4}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}d2{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a_1^2}})]{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{t^5}}=0,`$ (72)
with $`d=3+2\omega `$. Due to the residual coordinate transformation freedom characteristic of the synchronous coordinate condition, $`\lambda t^1`$ is a solution of this equation. Hence, we can reduce it to a fourth order equation. Supposing a solution of the type $`\lambda t^r`$, we find the polynomial equation for $`r`$

$$r^4+(\frac{4}{3}\frac{n^2}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}2d2\frac{k}{a_1^2})r^2+(\frac{1}{3}\frac{n^4}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}}\frac{n^2}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}(\frac{2}{3}d+2\frac{k}{a_1^2}))=0$$
(73)
whose solutions are

$$r_{\pm }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{n^2}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}+d+\frac{k}{a_1^2}\pm \sqrt{\frac{n^4}{9a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}}+(\frac{2}{3}\frac{k}{a_1^2}2d)\frac{n^2}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}+(d+\frac{k}{a_1^2})^2}.$$
(74)
In the small wavelength limit, these solutions display an oscillatory behaviour, hence stability. In the longwavelength limit, this expression reduces to $`r_\pm =\pm \sqrt{2(d+\frac{k}{a_1^2})}`$.

#### 6.1.4 Dust Phase ($`\alpha =0`$)

In this case, the equations governing the evolution of density perturbations are

$`\ddot{\mathrm{\Delta }}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{t}}(2+\omega )R{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{t^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\ddot{\lambda }2(1+\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\lambda }}{t}}(2+\omega )S{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{t^2}},`$ (75)
$`\ddot{\lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\lambda }}{t}}+[{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}+S]{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{t^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{t}}+R{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{t^2}},`$ (76)
where $`R=\frac{2\frac{k}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\omega 1}{3+2\omega }`$ and $`S=\frac{6\frac{k}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}+3+\omega }{3+2\omega }`$. These equations may be solved supposing $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_0t^r`$ and $`\lambda =\lambda _0t^r`$, $`r`$ obeying the polynomial equation

$`r^4+2r^3+({\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}+S(3+\omega )R(3+2\omega ))r^2`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}(1+\omega )S+(3+2\omega )R)r(2+\omega )R{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}=0,`$ (77)
This polynomial equation has no simple closed form solution. But, numerical integration reveals the stability of the model in the small wavelength limit. For example, fixing $`a_1=1`$, choosing $`\omega =1`$, $`k=0`$ and $`n=1`$ we find the roots $`r_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }1.16\pm 2.77i`$, $`r_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }0.16\pm 0.33i`$, while for $`n=100`$, keeping unchanged the other parameters, we find $`r_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }0.50\pm 100i`$, $`r_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }0.50\pm 0.97i`$.

### 6.2 Gravitational waves

In this case, the perturbed equation that govern the gravitational waves is

$`\ddot{h}+({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}})\dot{h}+[{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{a^2}}+4{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}}+2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega (\alpha 1)1}{3+2\omega }}\right)(3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{\varphi ^2}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }})`$
$`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+m+\omega (1+\alpha )}{3+2\omega }}\right)c\varphi ^m]h=0.`$ (78)
The solutions of the above equation are

$`\rho =0`$ $``$ $`h=C_\pm t^{\frac{1}{2}(1+A_1\pm \sqrt{(1+A)^24B4\frac{n^2}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}},`$
$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2+m}{m}},B={\displaystyle \frac{4}{m^2}}(m^2m22\omega ),`$ (79)
$`\alpha =1`$ $``$ $`h=C_\pm t^{\pm \sqrt{(\frac{n^2}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}+A_2)}},`$
$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3+2\omega }}[38\omega +4\omega ^23{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}(1+2\omega )],`$ (80)
$`\alpha =0`$ $``$ $`h=C_\pm t^{\frac{3\pm \sqrt{94A_34\frac{n^2}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}}{2}},A_3=2{\displaystyle \frac{4k}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}`$ (81)
$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}`$ $``$ $`h=C_\pm t^{2\pm \sqrt{4\frac{k}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\frac{n^2}{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}},`$ (82)
where $`C_\pm `$ are integration constants.

Here, the solution for the gravitational waves are also well-behaved and stable.

### 6.3 The General Relativity limit

In general, the Brans-Dicke theory reduces to the General Relativity theory when $`\omega \mathrm{}`$, except in some special cases, for example, when the trace of the momentum-energy tensor is zero . The solutions described above do not have a well-behaved limit when $`\omega \mathrm{}`$. In fact, an inspection of the background equations shows that all solutions become trivial in that limit. We could expect that in this case, the Brans-Dicke field could become constant and the model reduces itself to General Relativity with a cosmological constant. But, the imposition that $`at`$ breaks this equivalence.

Concerning the perturbed solutions, they become divergent when $`\omega \mathrm{}`$. This only express the fact that the background scenarios have no sense in this limit. For finite $`\omega `$, the perturbed solutions exhibit growing and decreasing modes as usual, for scalar and tensorial perturbations. One important feature of the solutions found before is that when $`n0`$, all dependence of the solutions on the wavelength of the perturbations is carried out by the integration constants, which must be fitted correctly in order to reproduce the power spectrum observed today.

## 7 Conclusions

In spite of the fact that fluids of negative pressure have become crucial to understand many theoretical and observational aspects of modern cosmology, they are plagued with instabilities in the small wavelength limit. These instabilities appear mainly when the barotropic equation of state is such that the strong energy condition is violated. In this paper we have exploited the possibility that these instabilities are due to the hydrodynamical representation. This possibility was suggested by the fact that, while density perturbations are bad behaved in the small wavelength limit, gravitational waves are well behaved in the same limit. Since gravitational waves depend closely on the behaviour of the scale factor but are quite insensitive to the matter representation, the instabilities should be due to the fact that in the hydrodynamical representation, the equation of state is fixed for all wavelength, while in a more fundamental approach it could depend on the scale of the perturbation.

As a matter of fact, this possibility was first suggested in , and it has been studied under certains conditions in . In reference , this problem has been briefly treated in the realm of minimal scalar-tensor model which was intended to cope with the dark matter problem through the introduction of a scalar field with a convenient potential. However, if we are interested in a field that can drive the accelerated expansion of the Universe, as it is the case in this work, the energy of the scalar field should have a smooth distribution, since it should not be present in the local clusters. Such smooth distribution can be obtained considering that the pressure associated to this field is negative, such that it does not clumpsy in large scale; but in order to avoid instabilities at small scales, the effective equation of state should become positive in this limit, and small fluctuations in this field should oscillate like an accoustic wave.

In the present work, we have verified that, when a fluid of positive pressure can mimic a scalar-tensor model, both formulations are essentially similar in the background and perturbative level. However, when we consider a fluid of negative pressure, the equivalence exists only at the background level: at perturbative level, the models behave in a complete different way. In particular, there is agreement between both representations only in the large wavelength limit: for small wavelengths, the hydrodynamical model is unstable, while the corresponding scalar field representation exhibits accoustic oscillations. Hence, in situations where negative pressures are concerned, a field representation leads to a much more complete scenario, being closer to a realistic model.

This can be understood by remembering that when we pass from a hydrodynamical representation to a fundamental one based for example on scalar fields, we change a relativistic Euler’s type equation to a Klein-Gordon equation: the sign of the laplacian operator in these equations are the same only when the hydrodynamical pressure is positive; otherwise, it changes sign and, in the perfect fluid model, accoustic modes give place to exponential modes, resulting in the presence of instabilities. In the long wavelength limit the laplacian operator can be neglected and the results agree in both representation.

We must notice, however, that the scalar-tensor model that corresponds to a given perfect fluid results is quite model dependent. For example, the one fluid model gives a potential that is different from that of a two-fluid models. It would be interesting to employ in a two fluid model, which is closer to a realistic situation, the potential obtained in the one fluid model, in spite of the great complexity of the equations. We can speculate if the resulting effective equation of state evolves in a quite similar way as the usual quintessence models.

We have extended this study for the case where the cosmic string fluid mimic a variable cosmological constant model, derived from a non-minimal coupled scalar field with a potential. The conclusions are basically the same as before. But, we must stress that, in this case, there is a Brans-Dicke type coupling parameter $`\omega `$ that does not recover the known General Relativity solutions when $`\omega \mathrm{}`$. Moreover, the perturbative behaviour may become unstable in this limit, for any scale. But, in general, for finite values of $`\omega `$ the perturbations do not exhibit either the instabilities that are present in the corresponding hydrodynamical model.

Finally, the fact that both approaches give the same behaviour for the long wavelength limit even if the pressure is negative, implies that the predictions for the power spectrum of the anisotropy of the CMBR for small values of the multipolar expansion parameter $`l`$, that is, for very large structures, is not spoiled by the employment of the hydrodynamical representation. However, for large values of $`l`$, that is, small angular separation, the employment of a field representation, mainly when negative pressures are involved, seems crucial.

## Acknowledgements

We thank Nelson Pinto Neto for his suggestions and for many enlightfull discussions. We acknowledge also the financial support from CNPq and CAPES (Brazil).


format: text

text:
# Mesoscopic phase separation in La2CuO4.02 - a 139La NQR study

## Abstract

In crystals of $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_{4.02}`$ oxygen diffusion can be limited to such small length scales, that the resulting phase separation is invisible for neutrons. Decomposition of the $`{}_{}{}^{139}\mathrm{La}`$ NQR spectra shows the existence of three different regions, of which one orders antiferromagnetically below 17 K concomitantly with the onset of a weak superconductivity in the crystal. These regions are compared to the macroscopic phases seen previously in the title compound and the cluster-glass and striped phases reported for the underdoped Sr-doped cuprates.

Inhomogeneous carrier and spin distributions in high-$`T_c`$ compounds might be related to phase separation and stripes, and are intensively studied especially in hole doped $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_4`$. In underdoped $`\mathrm{La}_{2\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{Sr}_\mathrm{x}\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ for $`x>0.06`$ doping leads to spin-density wave order or stripe formation, as seen by neutron scattering at various $`x`$-values.  Recent NQR and NMR studies have revealed new interesting features, like line intensity suppression caused by spin/charge fluctuations, stripe condensation at low temperatures under favorable pinning conditions, and the presence of inequivalent copper sites attributed to a stripe formation. At very low $`\mathrm{Sr}`$ content ($`x<0.02`$) the magnetic properties are explained in terms of hole segregation, and the formation of a cluster spin glass (x=0.06).

For $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_{4+\mathrm{x}}`$ the presence of the mobile oxygen dopants leads to a macroscopic structural phase separation in antiferromagnetic (AF) and superconducting (SC) regions in the concentration range $`0.01<x<0.06`$ (the so called miscibility gap). The oxygen mobility is linked to lattice imperfections, e.g. it is strongly increased by the presence of planar defects. In $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_{4+\mathrm{x}}`$ single crystals prepared by the molten solution method  oxygen mobility is very low due to the small number of defects and hence the scale of the structural separation can be minimized. The single crystal with $`x=0.02`$ prepared by this way appears homogeneous below 200 K in X-ray and neutron studies, although the composition is inside the miscibility gap. In the crystal a superconducting transition is observed around 15–17 K with a very weak diamagnetic signal. According to $`\mu `$SR part of the sample becomes magnetically ordered below the same temperature of 15 K, but neutron diffraction does not see any long range magnetic structure. Apparently phase separation happens, but the scale is too small to be visible by standard structural methods.

By performing NQR on the same $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_{4.02}`$ single crystal, we will demonstrate the existence of three regions with different oxygen concentrations and show only one (oxygen-poor) phase to have an antiferromagnetic transition. We evaluate the size of the antiferromagnetic regions from the reduction of staggered magnetization. By comparison with the macroscopic phases seen previously in the title compound and the cluster-glass and striped phases seen in $`\mathrm{La}_{1.94}\mathrm{Sr}_{0.06}\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ and La2-x-ySrxEuyCuO4 we will discuss the influence of the character of the local magnetic order on the NQR spectra.

The $`{}_{}{}^{139}\mathrm{La}`$ NQR spectra (Figs.1,2) were taken for the $`\pm 7/2\pm 5/2`$ (referred to as $`m=7/2`$) transition by sweeping the frequency. The nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate $`T_1^1`$ (Fig.4) was measured by monitoring the recovery of magnetization after a single $`\pi `$ pulse. For the nuclear spin-spin relaxation (inset of Fig.4) the standard spin-echo decay method was applied. Fig.1 shows the evolution of $`{}_{}{}^{139}\mathrm{La}`$ spectra with temperature in the $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_{4.02}`$ single crystal. A lower S/N ratio around 15 K is due to the fast relaxation and partial wipe-out of the signal in this region (see below). Differences in S/N in some adjacent spectra are due to a different number of averages. The central part of the spectrum broadens below 30 K. The splitting of the central line (see also Fig.2b) below 17 K is a manifestation of magnetic ordering of the Cu moments generating an internal magnetic field at the La site. Above the magnetic transition the spectra are well described by the sum of three Gaussian lines (labeled 1, 2 and 3 in sequence of increasing width). Below 17 K the spectra show the same structure but with a splitting of the single narrow line 1 into two lines of equal intensity (1a and 1b) as a result of the AF ordering. Figs.2a,b illustrate the results of a spectral decomposition at 73 K and 4.2 K.

As already mentioned above, previous experiments showed the possibility of the phase separation. Our NQR spectra are in agreement with this assumption. In addition our data show that separation is present at temperatures much higher than that of the AF transition. We assign the narrow line 1 (Fig.2a) to oxygen-poor (OP) regions, i.e. a phase with low hole doping. This phase is antiferromagnetically ordered below 17 K (two narrow lines in Fig.2b). The broad line (line 3) has to be associated with oxygen-rich (OR) regions because of its absence in samples with $`x=0`$. The large width (1 MHz) of this line is due to the distortion of the electric field gradient at the La site because of the presence of holes in the $`\mathrm{CuO}_2`$ planes leading to the distribution of the oxygen octahedral tilts and the bond lengths. The OR regions are likely responsible for the superconductivity. The hole concentration in the CuO2 planes does not depend on the method of doping, which allows a comparison to the line position data for La in La2-xSrxCuO4 (to see the similarity with the copper data in ref.\[\], one has to realize that extra holes shift the Cu resonance up, while lowering the La frequency). In La2-xSrxCuO4 the line positions at 4.2 K obey the relation $`\nu =(19.155x)`$ MHz. Using this expression and a hole to excess oxygen ratio of 2:1, the line positions at 4.2 K of 19.13 MHz (midpoint of lines 1a and 1b), 19.02 MHz and 18.84 MHz give oxygen concentrations of 0, 0.01 and 0.035 for lines 1, 2 and 3 resp. The $`x`$ dependence of $`T_c`$ in La2-xSrCuO4 gives an independent way to estimate the hole concentration in the OR-regions. In the phase diagram superconductivity is suggested to start around 0.06. $`T_c`$ = 15 K gives a hole concentration in the OR phase near 0.07 or excess oxygen concentration of 0.035, in agreement with the value found above. In the macroscopically phase separated sample, the oxygen concentration in the OR phase is 0.06. This concentration difference is not surprising since due to the restricted oxygen mobility the local oxygen concentrations will be far from their equilibrium values. According to the above given evaluation, line 2 belongs to regions with rather low oxygen content, although it shows no sign of antiferromagnetic ordering. This line possibly arises from the interface between OP and OR regions and might be compared to the relatively narrow and weak line observed in macroscopically phase separated $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_{4.035}`$ besides the broad metallic and splitted narrow antiferromagnetic lines. In our case the weight in the spectrum will be enhanced due to the small sizes of the correlated regions.

The splitting of the line 1 is almost $`T`$ independent from 14 K to 4.2 K (see Fig.3) and just below the ordering temperature $`T_{AF}=17.0\pm 0.5`$ K seems to increase somewhat faster with lowering $`T`$ than the mean field behavior of the staggered magnetization for $`S`$=1/2 (drawn line on Fig.3). The line splitting (200 kHz) and hence the internal field at the La-site at 4.2 K is 20% lower than the 250 kHz splitting in antiferromagnetic undoped $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_4`$.  This means a 20% reduction of the staggered magnetization and an ordered magnetic moment, that is 0.43 $`\mu _B/\mathrm{Cu}`$ instead of $`\mu =`$0.48 $`\mu _B/\mathrm{Cu}`$ in the undoped compound. In the SDW–like AF ordered striped phase of the Eu and Sr doped compound this value is $`0.29\mu _B/\mathrm{Cu}`$. A temperature dependent reduction of the staggered magnetization in the system with low Sr doping has been explained by finite size effects caused by microsegregation of the holes in domain walls of flat domains. At low temperatures this effect vanishes due to the hole localization. In our case local field reduction is observed even at 4.2 K and may be explained as a finite size effect caused by a small grain dimension. At $`T`$ = 0 K the staggered magnetization of a domain of size $`L`$ (infinite in the two other directions) drops by 20% for $`L`$ about 20 lattice spacings (8 nm). For a quasi-two-dimensional domain (due to the large anisotropy) the reduction should increase and hence this value has to be considered as a lower limit. The neutron data place an upper limit of the same order of magnitude. Thus an average grain size of the order of 8 nm looks reasonable and confirms phase separation on a mesoscopic rather than macroscopic scale.

The $`T`$ dependencies of the spin-lattice ($`T_1^1`$) and spin-spin ($`T_2^1`$) relaxation rates are illustrated in Fig.4 and its inset. Both rates show a large peak at low temperatures. Near the peak temperature, the nuclear magnetization recoveries after the initial magnetization reversal ($`M_z(t)`$) in case of $`T_1^1`$, or the loss of transversal magnetization ($`M_x(t)`$) in case of $`T_2^1`$, are characterized by stretched exponential time dependencies $`\mathrm{exp}[(t/T_{1,2}]^\alpha )`$. Very close to the maximum, fits of $`M_z(t)`$ require a slow and fast time constant. For both $`T_1`$’s $`\alpha `$ is about 0.5, while the quality of the $`M_z(t)`$-fit is found to depend only weakly on the precise value for $`T_1`$ (slow) (of the order of 0.1 s). Closed circles in Fig.4 show the temperature dependence of the fast rate. Below 17 K there is a sharp decrease of this contribution (open circles in Fig.4).

The strong growth of the $`{}_{}{}^{139}\mathrm{La}`$ relaxation rates around 15 K is explained as a result of hole localization and slowing down of hole mediated spin fluctuations. Here in the same temperature region the AF and SC transitions occur. The coincidence of these phenomena likely leads to even more complicated behavior of nuclear relaxation rates, e.g. the above mentioned decrease of the fast contribution to the longitudinal relaxation just below 17K (Fig.4). The occurrence of slow and fast contributions to $`M_z(t)`$ is typical for a multiphase material. Further analysis is not pursued, as its precise character might not only depend on the AF transition alone, but on the coexisting SC transition as well. The other feature caused by the low temperature relaxation behavior is a partial wipe-out of the La NQR signal in the same temperature region. The total intensity multiplied by $`T`$ and corrected for the echo decay factor (Fig.5) shows a decrease around 15 K by about a factor 3 indicating part of the nuclei to have dephased before the echo signal could be measured. The relative decrease of the intensity of the narrow line (1) starts below 70 K (inset of Fig.5) and becomes very pronounced below 30 K. It demonstrates a difference in relaxation behavior in the OP and OR phases. The imprint on other NQR features, if any, might be limited to the changes in the stretched exponential recoveries (see above).

How do these results compare to those in the low doped Sr-cuprates? In $`\mathrm{La}_{1.94}\mathrm{Sr}_{0.06}\mathrm{CuO}_4`$ the La spectra (NMR and NQR) show the existence of at least two sites below 200 K, of which one site is ascribed to AF clusters. The change in the La NMR spectrum around 20 K seems to signal glass formation. Wipe-out effects are clearly seen for Cu-NMR but no La-NQR wipe-out data are shown. In La1.48Sr0.12Nd0.4CuO4 La wipe-out is found to be almost complete. In La2-x-ySrxEuyCuO4 with $`0.08<x<0.18`$, Cu-NQR shows the presence of three inequivalent sites, which is also reminiscent to our case. At low doping at 1.3 K the Cu-intensity is strongly reduced compared to a $`x=1/8`$ sample due to wipe-out effects without affecting the relative strengths of the three lines. This comparison shows at least three major differences of the NQR spectra: in La2CuO4.02 wipe-out effects on the La-site are less severe, and mainly linked to the relaxation peak and the antiferromagnetic transition below 17 K, line features are much sharper than in the Sr-doped cuprates, and the line splitting (hence internal field) in the AF state is almost the same as in the undoped case. The large wipe-out values over very extended temperature regions of the Sr-doped samples seem to be typical for mobile striped or glassy phases, which are not expected in our compound.

The most intriguing feature is the coincidence of the AF and superconducting transitions in the investigated single crystal. The AF ordering temperature is very low in comparison with $`T_N`$’s of macroscopically phase separated $`\mathrm{La}_2\mathrm{CuO}_{4+\mathrm{x}}`$ samples, which are usually higher than 200 K. The transition is sharp (Fig.3) and it looks as the AF state is strongly depressed at high temperatures and is triggered by some reason at low temperatures (the above mentioned relaxation behavior below 17K supports this assumption). It has been argued that superconductivity itself destabilizes the homogeneous metallic state and leads to the formation of (super)conducting droplets weakly linked to each other and separated by insulating (antiferromagnetic) regions. Our system is already inhomogeneous above the AF and SC transitions because the oxygen phase separation occurs at much higher temperatures but the hole concentration in OR grains is far from optimal. Therefore the occurrence of superconductivity in the OR grains might cause an additional electronic redistribution, which favors the AF transition in the OP grains. The other possibility is that both antiferromagnetism and superconductivity are triggered by a common mechanism e.g. slowing down of spin fluctuations coupled to hole motion occurring in the same temperature region.

In summary in single crystal of La2CuO4.02 with limited oxygen mobility the three different La sites seen by NQR are associated with oxygen-poor, oxygen-rich and intermediate regions reminiscent the O-doped macroscopically separated system and the Sr-doped glassy or striped La2CuO4 compounds. Sharper lines, well defined transition temperatures, internal fields close to bulk values and less severe wipe-out effects are seen as the main difference of the NQR data with low Sr-doped cuprates instead of O-doping. The evaluated OP grain size of the order of 8 nm shows that the crystal is phase separated on a mesoscopic scale. Although, like in the underdoped high-$`T_c`$ systems, superconductivity itself is not directly reflected in the NQR data, some features of the antiferromagnetic transition in the OP phase (a sharp transition at low temperature with $`T_NT_c`$ and 139La relaxation peculiarities) are indicative for a possible coupling with the superconducting transition in this system.

We gratefully acknowledge Issa Abu-Shiekah for his help in the experiments. This work is supported in part by FOM-NWO, and NWO/INTAS-1010-CT93-0045.