Solutions for nonrelativistic-matter perturbations

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding nonrelativistic-matter perturbations in the context of the Universe's expansion, specifically through the lens of the growth of density perturbations. The original poster is examining a specific differential equation related to these perturbations and is seeking clarity on the relationship between initial conditions and the transfer function. They reference documents from Caltech and Cambridge, noting the potential for two independent solutions based on wavelength. The conversation also touches on the Meszaros equation and the derivation of density perturbations using the continuity and Euler equations. Overall, the thread emphasizes the complexity of the topic and the need for careful mathematical manipulation to derive meaningful results.
happyparticle
Messages
490
Reaction score
24
Homework Statement
Solutions for nonrelativistic-matter perturbations
Relevant Equations
##\delta'' + \frac{2+3y}{2y(1+y)}\delta' - \frac{3}{2y(1+y)}\delta = 0##

##y=\frac{a}{a_{eq}}##
I'm studying the nonrelativistic-matter perturbations if the expansion of the Universe is driven by a combination of components.

I'm currently Following this document (The growth of density perturbations) from Caltech. However, the author doesn't explain how he has found the solutions for the following expression that can be found in page 5.

##\delta'' + \frac{2+3y}{2y(1+y)}\delta' - \frac{3}{2y(1+y)}\delta = 0##

##y=\frac{a}{a_{eq}}##

Moreover, I found those notes (University of Cambridge Part II Mathematical Tripos) from David Tong at Cambridge explaining the transfer function (p.146).

Thus, I'm wondering if there is a relationship between the initial conditions and the transfer function. However, the first document doesn't mention the initial conditions for the solutions.

My thoughts are that we can find 2 independents solutions, one for small wavelengths and one for long wavelength as explained by Tong. Thus, #T(k) \approx C# for long wavelengths and #T(K) \approx C ln(a?)# for short for small wavelengths.

Furthermore, if the transfer function is defined as follow.

##\delta(\vec{k},t_0) = T(k)\delta(\vec{k},t_i)##

Does it means that #T(k)# acts as the constant in the particular solution?

I might be totally wrong. There is a lot of guesses here, since I'm unsure to understand.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's the Meszaros equation for the growth of matter perturbations. When you combine the continuity and Euler equations for pressureless perturbations you get$$\delta_{m}'' + \mathcal{H} \delta_m' - 4\pi G a^2 \bar{\rho}_m \delta_m = 0$$where ##\mathcal{H} \equiv aH## (in cosmological perturbation theory we generally work with this so-called conformal Hubble parameter). The Friedmann equation is$$\mathcal{H}^2 = \frac{8\pi G}{3}a^2(\rho_m + \rho_r)$$You have already come across the parameter ##y = a/a_{eq}##, where ##a_{eq}## is the scale-factor at matter-radiation equality. Because ##\rho_m = \rho_{eq} y^{-3}## and ##\rho_r = \rho_{eq} y^{-4}## (remembering the scalings), check that you can in fact write the Friedmann equation in the form$$\mathcal{H}^2 = \mathcal{H}_0^2 \frac{\Omega_{m0}^2}{\Omega_{r0}}(y^{-1} + y^{-2})$$where

##\Omega_{m0} = \frac{8\pi G}{3\mathcal{H}_0^2} \rho_{m0} = \frac{8\pi G}{3\mathcal{H}_0^2}\rho_{eq} a_{eq}^3##
and
##\Omega_{r0} = \frac{8\pi G}{3\mathcal{H}_0^2} \rho_{r0} = \frac{8\pi G}{3\mathcal{H}_0^2} \rho_{eq} a_{eq}^4##

as per usual. Now you are almost ready to calculate ##\delta_m'## and ##\delta_m''##. Remember that the prime indicates derivation with respect to conformal time ##d\eta = dt/a##, so you can check that$$\frac{d}{d\eta} = y \mathcal{H} \frac{d}{dy}$$OK, so now you can use this to figure out ##\delta_m'## and ##\delta_m''##, by making use of the expression above for ##\mathcal{H}## in terms of ##y##. Be warned that you will need to do some slightly tedious simplification.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes happyparticle
PeterDonis said:
@happyparticle is this a homework problem?
Not exactly. However, it's a question about a specific example from the document.
I guess it is like a homework question.

@ergospherical Thank you again.
Your explanation helped me.
 
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...