Linearisation of continuity equation (cosmology)

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the linearization of the continuity equation in cosmology, specifically addressing the term involving the Hubble parameter, ##3H \delta \rho##. The user has derived a first-order equation after expanding in ##\epsilon## and is seeking clarification on how to incorporate the Hubble parameter, defined as ##H = \dot{a}/a##. They reference the zeroth-order equation, which relates the time derivative of the average density to the Hubble parameter. A suggestion is made to compute the time derivative of the density contrast normalized by the average density before proceeding with the first-order equation. The conversation highlights the challenge of balancing guidance without revealing too much of the solution.
ergospherical
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
1,387
Homework Statement
Show linearisation of
##\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} + 3H \rho + \frac{1}{a} \nabla \cdot (\rho \mathbf{v}) = 0##
is
##\frac{\partial \delta}{\partial t} + \frac{1}{a} \nabla \cdot (\delta \mathbf{v}) = 0##
where
##\delta \equiv \delta \rho / \bar{\rho}##, ##\rho = \bar{\rho} + \epsilon \delta \rho##, ##\mathbf{v} = \epsilon \delta \mathbf{v}##, and ##\epsilon \ll 1##.
Relevant Equations
N/A
After expanding to first order in ##\epsilon## and subtracting off the unperturbed equation, I get\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial \delta \rho}{\partial t} + 3H \delta \rho + \frac{\bar{\rho}}{a} \nabla \cdot \delta \mathbf{v}=0
\end{align*}I'm not sure how to deal with the ##3H \delta \rho## term. Where does ##H## enter? (##H = \dot{a}/a## is the Hubble parameter).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The 0'th order eqn is $$ \partial_t \bar\rho ~+~ 3 H \bar\rho ~=~ 0 ~.$$ You must use this in the 1st order eqn.

Additional hint: before writing out the 1st order eqn, compute ##\,\partial_t \left( \frac{\delta\rho}{\bar\rho} \right)## carefully, separately, using the 0'th order eqn.

[Question for other HW helpers: does the above give away too much of the solution in one go? I'm never really sure where the balance lies.]
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and ergospherical
At first, I derived that: $$\nabla \frac 1{\mu}=-\frac 1{{\mu}^3}\left((1-\beta^2)+\frac{\dot{\vec\beta}\cdot\vec R}c\right)\vec R$$ (dot means differentiation with respect to ##t'##). I assume this result is true because it gives valid result for magnetic field. To find electric field one should also derive partial derivative of ##\vec A## with respect to ##t##. I've used chain rule, substituted ##\vec A## and used derivative of product formula. $$\frac {\partial \vec A}{\partial t}=\frac...