Effects of dark energy anisotropic stress on the matter power spectrum

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2020.100668Get rights and content

Abstract

We study the effects of dark energy (DE) anisotropic stress on features of the matter power spectrum (PS). We employ the Parametrized Post-Friedmannian (PPF) formalism to emulate an effective DE, and model its anisotropic stress properties through a two-parameter equation that governs its overall amplitude (g0) and transition scale (cg). For the background cosmology, we consider different equations of state to model DE including a constant w0 parameter, and models that provide thawing (CPL) and freezing (nCPL) behaviors. We first constrain these parameters by using the Pantheon, BAO, H0 and CMB Planck data. Then, we analyze the role played by these parameters in the linear PS. In order for the anisotropic stress not to provoke deviations larger than 10% and 5% with respect to the ΛCDM PS at k0.01hMpc, the parameters have to be in the range 0.30<g0<0.32, 0cg2<0.01 and 0.15<g0<0.16, 0cg2<0.01, respectively. Additionally, we compute the leading nonlinear corrections to the PS using standard perturbation theory in real and redshift space, showing that the differences with respect to the ΛCDM are enhanced, especially for the quadrupole and hexadecapole RSD multipoles.

Introduction

The discovery of the accelerated expansion of the Universe implied the existence of dark energy (DE), that has been extensively confirmed by a two-decade variety of experiments, initially employing Supernovae type Ia [1], [2], then using anisotropies in the CMB from WMAP and Planck data [3], distance measurements of different tracers [4], and clustering of large galaxy surveys, among other probes [5], [6], [7]. However, little is known of the fundamental properties of DE, apart from being a ‘fluid’ that possess negative pressure. In the most successful model a cosmological constant, Λ, is capable to fit the observations, albeit current tensions exist among a few parameters when measured with different probes [8].

The effects of DE have been widely studied in the context of background cosmological dynamics; most of the work has been devoted to test different equations of state (EoS) for DE to understand the dynamics of the Hubble expansion flow. However, in comparison its perturbative effects are less explored, partially because we expect little deviations at perturbative level, but also because we have no clues on its fundamental origin. One can, for example, treat DE as a barotropic fluid, hence, its sound speed depends only on background quantities, or to consider it as a non-adiabatic fluid to account for its linear effects for which additional hypotheses have to be made about the fluid’s speed of sound [9]. There are many works that study the effect of DE speed of sound in the perturbative dynamics, initially done by [10], [11], [12], [13]. It turns out that the effects of DE clustering result to be small, especially if the DE EoS is close to 1, as demanded by observations, and then they are difficult to discern with late-Universe measurements [14], [15]. But, in fact, varying the DE sound speed can induce deviations of up 2% in the matter power spectrum (PS) [16], [17], that should be important in view of the expected constraints from upcoming galaxy surveys, such as DESI [18].

Another possibility is to consider DE anisotropic stress. A homogenous and isotropic symmetric background metric forbids it, but it can be introduced at the perturbed level [19]. Anisotropic stress can also mimic modified gravity (MG) at linear order [20], [21], [22], [23], since it introduces at least a new parameter, and together with DE EoS and sound speed, it yields a modified growth of structures in the Universe. In fact, DE stress generates similar outcomes as those of varying the sound speed of DE, but the detailed behavior depends on the signs of the EoS and stress parameter [24]. From theoretical grounds, one expects DE anisotropic stress to affect the evolution of the metric potentials and this provokes CMB temperature anisotropies at low-multipoles, to be affected through the Integrated Sachs–Wolfe (ISW) effect. In Refs. [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] DE anisotropic stress was analyzed to prove this conclusion using CMB data available at that time, but due to the cosmic variance, CMB constraints are still broad. However, DE stress should affect also matter clustering at large scales. Effects of anisotropic stress on the matter power spectrum (PS) and on the growth function have been studied in several works [24], [25], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], showing that shear viscosity has an effect on very large scales, but one the other hand it does not change much other cosmological parameter values; for instance, for this latter reason we do not expect that DE shear terms alone can alleviate the current tension in the Hubble constant; see however [35] in which it is proven that adding anisotropic shear to interacting models helps to increase the Hubble constant to release the tension for phantom DE.

In the literature there is a number of works considering different aspects of imperfect fluids, e.g. in connection to second order perturbation in ΛCDM [36], or related to generalized scalar fields [37], [38]. Also, based on MG, efforts have been put forward to understand how the gravitational effects of the fifth-force (that generates an effective shear term) influence the observables at cosmological scales, changing the clustering properties [39], [40]. Our motivation here, linked to these latter works, is to analyze the anisotropic stress effects on CMB and matter PS since the level of accuracy of future LSS galaxy surveys and probes shall demand detailed understanding of the clustering properties of the matter field. In this way, being able to constrain an hypothetical anisotropic shear, stemming either from DE or MG. Ways to carry out this comparison are discussed e.g. in Refs. [41], [42], [43]. Recently, analysis of recent probes hints for non-zero anisotropic stress [44], that also encourages us to further analyze its clustering properties.

In the present work, we use the Parametrized Post-Friedmannian (PPF) approach [26], [45], [46], though originally motivated to emulate MG models, they naturally introduce an effective DE anisotropic stress term. In this respect, the formalism serves to phenomenologically introduce either DE stress or effective MG stress terms. Viewed as effective DE, we consider specific equations of state and fix the DE speed of sound, to concentrate our analysis on the effects of the anisotropic stress. We analyze the constraints from CMB power spectra and, especially, look for deviations in the PS. Interestingly, we find that DE anisotropic stress is allowed by Planck CMB data, as in Refs. [24], [26], but the linear and nonlinear PS impose tighter constraints to it. We consider different DE EoS, firstly w=1 that emulates Λ at background level, then constant w0, and finally, thawing and freezing models, to find out their effects in combination with stress parameters.

The structure of this paper is the following: In Section 2 we motivate DE EoS parametrizations chosen, and in Section 3 we introduce the DE perturbation theory with anisotropic stress, where a specific anisotropic stress phenomenology is adopted. Section 4 shows our results employing different EoS, and Section 5 shows the theory and results for nonlinear perturbation theory to 1-loop. Finally, Section 6 concludes.

Section snippets

Dark energy equation of state

Beyond a cosmological constant, the accelerated expansion of the Universe can be driven by a dynamical DE component whose EoS is commonly parametrized by a time dependent function Pde=w(z)ρde,where the EoS parameter, w(z), can be chosen with different purposes; as for example, it can mimic quintessence and phantom fields [47], [48]. In general, EoS parameterizations w(z) can be classified into two broad categories: thawing and freezing behaviors [49], [50]. In the first case the scalar field is

Dark energy fluctuations

We consider a perturbed metric around a Friedmann–Lemaitre–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) spacetime in Newtonian,longitudinal gauge, ds2=a2(τ)1+2Ψdτ2+(1+2Φ)dxidxi,where Ψ and Φ are the gauge invariant scalar potentials [56], [57]. The components of the energy–momentum tensor are T00=ρ+δρ,T0k=ρ+Pvk,Tkl=P+δPδkl+PΠkl, where ρ and P are the energy density and pressure at the background, δρ and δP their perturbations, and Πkl are the anisotropic stress components. Since we are dealing with scalar

Effects of DE anisotropic stress on power spectra

We adapted the codes CAMB1  [62] and CosmoMC2  [63] to include the shear contribution as detailed in the previous sections. We analyze the outcomes of the above anisotropic stress phenomenological model in combination with the effects of different DE EoS. The cosmological data set used in this work is: BAO measurements from 6dFGS, SDSS-MGS, and BOSS LOWZ BAO [64], [65], [66], [67], supernovae from the combined Pantheon Sample [68], recent H0

Nonlinear evolution

Our treatment until here has been limited to linear physics. In the present section we now explore the PS behavior produced by the nonlinear evolution at quasi-linear scales. That is, we will consider some selected values of the above parameters and evolve the system with the standard tools of nonlinear perturbation theory. We will consider the real space PS obtained using standard perturbation theory and the redshift-space multipoles using the TNS model [76]. Hence, the objective of this

Conclusions

The standard model of cosmology assumes that the recent accelerated expansion of the Universe is originated by a cosmological constant, but it may well be caused by an evolving piece, DE or MG. These two latter general schemes are degenerated at first order perturbation theory when DE is provided with anisotropic stress [20], [21], [22], [23]. This is the reason that permits to introduce the DE stress in the context of the PPF formalism as an effective MG phenomenon, thus allowing to study its

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Gabriela Garcia-Arroyo: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - review & editing. Jorge L. Cervantes-Cota: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - review & editing. Ulises Nucamendi: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - review & editing. Alejandro Aviles: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - review & editing.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge partial support by CONACYT project 283151. GG-A acknowledges CONACYT for grant no. 290778.

References (80)

  • SenS. et al.

    The thawing dark energy dynamics: Can we detect it?

    Phys. Lett. B

    (2010)
  • RiessA.G.

    Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant

    Astron. J.

    (1998)
  • PerlmutterS.

    Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 high redshift supernovae

    Astrophys. J.

    (1999)
  • AdeP.

    Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters

    Astron. Astrophys.

    (2016)
  • SternD. et al.

    Cosmic chronometers: Constraining the equation of state of dark energy. I: H(z) measurements

    J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.

    (2010)
  • BlakeC.

    The WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey: mapping the distance-redshift relation with baryon acoustic oscillations

    Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.

    (2011)
  • AbbottT.

    Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing

    Phys. Rev. D

    (2018)
  • AtaM.

    The clustering of the SDSS-IV extended baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey DR14 quasar sample: first measurement of baryon acoustic oscillations between redshift 0.8 and 2.2

    Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.

    (2018)
  • RiessA.G. et al.

    Large magellanic cloud cepheid standards provide a 1% foundation for the determination of the hubble constant and stronger evidence for physics beyond ΛCDM

    Astrophys. J.

    (2019)
  • AmendolaL. et al.

    Dark Energy: Theory and Observations

    (2015)
  • AvelinoP. et al.

    Alternatives to quintessence model-building

    Phys. Rev. D

    (2003)
  • SandvikH. et al.

    The end of unified dark matter?

    Phys. Rev. D

    (2004)
  • BalakinA.B. et al.

    Curvature force and dark energy

    New J. Phys.

    (2003)
  • BeanR. et al.

    Probing dark energy perturbations: The Dark energy equation of state and speed of sound as measured by WMAP

    Phys. Rev. D

    (2004)
  • WellerJ. et al.

    Large scale cosmic microwave background anisotropies and dark energy

    Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.

    (2003)
  • HutererD. et al.

    Dark energy two decades after: Observables, probes, consistency tests

    Rep. Progr. Phys.

    (2018)
  • de PutterR. et al.

    Measuring the speed of dark: Detecting dark energy perturbations

    Phys. Rev. D

    (2010)
  • VagnozziS. et al.

    Do we have any hope of detecting scattering between dark energy and baryons through cosmology?

    Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.

    (2020)
  • AghamousaA.

    The DESI experiment Part I: Science,targeting, and survey design

    (2016)
  • HuW. et al.

    The structure of structure formation theories

    Phys. Rev. D

    (1999)
  • KunzM. et al.

    Dark energy versus modified gravity

    Phys. Rev. Lett.

    (2007)
  • SongY.-S. et al.

    Theoretical priors on modified growth parametrisations

    J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.

    (2010)
  • ArjonaR. et al.

    Unraveling the effective fluid approach for f(R) models in the subhorizon approximation

    Phys. Rev. D

    (2019)
  • ArjonaR. et al.

    Designing horndeski and the effective fluid approach

    Phys. Rev. D

    (2019)
  • KoivistoT. et al.

    Dark energy anisotropic stress and large scale structure formation

    Phys. Rev. D

    (2006)
  • HuW.

    Structure formation with generalized dark matter

    Astrophys. J.

    (1998)
  • HuW.

    Parametrized post-friedmann signatures of acceleration in the CMB

    Phys. Rev. D

    (2008)
  • IchikiK. et al.

    Constraints on generalized dark energy from recent observations

    Phys. Rev. D

    (2007)
  • CalabreseE. et al.

    Future CMB constraints on early, cold, or stressed dark energy

    Phys. Rev. D

    (2011)
  • ChangB. et al.

    Confronting dark energy anisotropic stress

    Phys. Rev. D

    (2014)
  • MotaD. et al.

    Constraining dark energy anisotropic stress

    Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.

    (2007)
  • PogosianL. et al.

    How to optimally parametrize deviations from general relativity in the evolution of cosmological perturbations?

    Phys. Rev. D

    (2010)
  • SaponeD. et al.

    Fingerprinting Dark Energy III: distinctive marks of viscosity

    Phys. Rev. D

    (2012)
  • CardonaW. et al.

    The traces of anisotropic dark energy in light of Planck

    J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.

    (2014)
  • ChangB. et al.

    Matter sourced anisotropic stress for dark energy

    Phys. Rev. D

    (2014)
  • YangW. et al.

    Effects of anisotropic stress in interacting dark matter – dark energy scenarios

    Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.

    (2019)
  • BallesterosG. et al.

    Nonlinear cosmological consistency relations and effective matter stresses

    J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.

    (2012)
  • SawickiI. et al.

    Consistent perturbations in an imperfect fluid

    J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.

    (2013)
  • NarukoA. et al.

    The effect of anisotropic stress and non-adiabatic pressure perturbations on the evolution of the comoving curvature perturbation

    Classical Quantum Gravity

    (2020)
  • HutererD.

    Weak lensing, dark matter and dark energy

    Gen. Relativity Gravitation

    (2010)
  • Cited by (6)

    View full text