### [1003.4531] Manifestly Covariant Gauge-invariant Cosmologic

Posted:

**March 30 2010**Could someone who knows better tell me if I should read/worry about this paper or not?

Page **1** of **1**

Posted: **March 30 2010**

Could someone who knows better tell me if I should read/worry about this paper or not?

Posted: **March 30 2010**

Hi Anze,

Actually, I am a bit confused myself as well. I only had a quick look at the paper, but my attention fell on eqs (56) and (57) that describe the evolution of perturbations of the energy density [tex]\delta[/tex] in the "new" case and the standard case respectively.

There is clearly a huge difference in these two eqs and (if I understood it correctly - see Section I.B) the reason they give is that the pressure should depend both on the number n and the energy density [tex]\epsilon[/tex], ie [tex]p=p(n,\epsilon)[/tex], as they claim the perturbations actually do not evolve adiabatically. They explain why they believe this is so in a previous paper 0805.0421, see text near eq. (193)/page 30. Their result is that only in the non-relativist limit do the perturbations evolve adiabatically.

I might have missed or misunderstood something, but this is what I got after having a quick look. I can't say I am really convinced but I might have a closer look.

Cheers,

Savvas

PS By the way, the previous paper 0805.0421, doesn't seem to be published anywhere yet. I'm not sure about what this means.

Actually, I am a bit confused myself as well. I only had a quick look at the paper, but my attention fell on eqs (56) and (57) that describe the evolution of perturbations of the energy density [tex]\delta[/tex] in the "new" case and the standard case respectively.

There is clearly a huge difference in these two eqs and (if I understood it correctly - see Section I.B) the reason they give is that the pressure should depend both on the number n and the energy density [tex]\epsilon[/tex], ie [tex]p=p(n,\epsilon)[/tex], as they claim the perturbations actually do not evolve adiabatically. They explain why they believe this is so in a previous paper 0805.0421, see text near eq. (193)/page 30. Their result is that only in the non-relativist limit do the perturbations evolve adiabatically.

I might have missed or misunderstood something, but this is what I got after having a quick look. I can't say I am really convinced but I might have a closer look.

Cheers,

Savvas

PS By the way, the previous paper 0805.0421, doesn't seem to be published anywhere yet. I'm not sure about what this means.

Posted: **March 31 2010**

My understanding is that adiabaticity is an initial condition. I guess from a cursory look, assuming the math is correct, what they are effectively doing is evolving a mixture of curvature and entropy perturbations ...

Posted: **April 01 2010**

Hi Anze, Rishi and Savas,

Thank you for your comments on my article.

The fact that density perturbations do evolve diabatically follows from [tex]p=p(n, \varepsilon)[/tex], thermodynamics (23) and the background Einstein equations (5).

The difference between (56) and (57) is that the general solution of the standard equation (57) contains the gauge function [tex]\psi[/tex]. Consequently, the standard equation (57) has no physical meaning. The general solution of (56) is gauge-invariant, and [tex]\delta_\varepsilon[/tex] is the real, physical density contrast, as has been shown in Section IX on the non-relativistic limit. Note that in the large-scale limit, (56) yields the two well-known solutions proportional to [tex]t^{2/3}[/tex] and [tex]t^{-5/3}[/tex]: see references below (45).

Regards,

Pieter

Thank you for your comments on my article.

The fact that density perturbations do evolve diabatically follows from [tex]p=p(n, \varepsilon)[/tex], thermodynamics (23) and the background Einstein equations (5).

The difference between (56) and (57) is that the general solution of the standard equation (57) contains the gauge function [tex]\psi[/tex]. Consequently, the standard equation (57) has no physical meaning. The general solution of (56) is gauge-invariant, and [tex]\delta_\varepsilon[/tex] is the real, physical density contrast, as has been shown in Section IX on the non-relativistic limit. Note that in the large-scale limit, (56) yields the two well-known solutions proportional to [tex]t^{2/3}[/tex] and [tex]t^{-5/3}[/tex]: see references below (45).

Regards,

Pieter

Posted: **May 30 2010**

Hi Anze, Rishi and Savvas,

I have just uploaded a new version. It will appear on arXiv June, 1.

I have added equations (26) and (27) for a better explanation why density perturbations in an expanding universe evolve diabatically.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Cheers,

Pieter

I have just uploaded a new version. It will appear on arXiv June, 1.

I have added equations (26) and (27) for a better explanation why density perturbations in an expanding universe evolve diabatically.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Cheers,

Pieter