format: text

text:
# The CDM isocurvature perturbation in the curvaton scenario

## I Introduction

The inhomogeneity of the early Universe first becomes measurable a few Hubble times before cosmological scales enter the horizon. At this stage, well after Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), we know that the Universe consists primarily of photons, neutrinos, baryonic matter and Cold Dark Matter (CDM) . The perturbations in the densities of these components are conventionally specified by the perturbation in the total energy density, characterised by a spatial curvature perturbation, $`\zeta `$, and by three isocurvature perturbations

$$𝒮_i\frac{\delta (n_i/n_\gamma )}{(n_i/n_\gamma )},$$
(1)
with $`i=`$CDM, $`B`$ or $`\nu `$, giving the inhomogeneity in the relevant number density per photon . As we shall see, $`\zeta `$ and the $`𝒮_i`$ are constant from BBN to the approach of horizon entry. They set the initial conditions for the subsequent evolution of cosmological perturbations, and we refer to them collectively as the ‘Primordial Density Perturbation’.

Observation is consistent with the hypothesis that the isocurvature perturbations are absent, while the curvature perturbation is Gaussian with an almost perfectly flat spectrum . On the other hand, spectral tilt, non-Gaussianity and isocurvature perturbations may all be present at some level.

The Primordial Density Perturbation presumably originates during inflation, from the vacuum fluctuation of one or more light scalar fields. According to the usual hypothesis , it originates solely from the vacuum fluctuation of the inflaton field, defined as the one whose value determines the end of inflation. This ‘inflaton scenario’ leads to definite expectations about the nature of the primordial density perturbation. There are no isocurvature perturbations, and non-gaussianity will almost certainly exist  only at the $`10^5`$ level through second-order perturbations.***Bigger non-gaussianity of the $`\chi ^2`$ type can be generated in a multi-field model, but only at the expense of fine-tuning . On the other hand, significant spectral tilt is expected, and significant running of the spectral index is quite possible . It is also possible that the curvature perturbation is accompanied by gravitational waves of sufficient amplitude to affect the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropy . These expectations have achieved the status of a ‘standard model’ of the early Universe, which is now used by almost all groups who analyse CMB and galaxy distribution measurements.

It has been pointed out recently  (see also ) that the inflaton scenario is not the only possible mechanism to generate large scale structure from inflation. The primordial density perturbation may instead originate from the vacuum fluctuation of some ‘curvaton’ field, different from the inflaton field. The curvaton energy density has an isocurvature perturbation, and this generates the curvature perturbation when the curvaton density comes to be a significant fraction of the total before the curvaton finally decays.Recently, a completely different scheme has been proposed , in which the responsible field acts by perturbing the inflaton decay rate without ever contributing significantly to the energy density. This ‘curvaton scenario’ leads to completely different expectations about the nature of the primordial density perturbation. Gravitational waves  (see also ), and probably also the spectral tilt will be negligible, but non-Gaussianity and isocurvature perturbations are perfectly possible .

The curvaton scenario has received a lot of attention  because it opens up new possibilities both for model-building and for observation. The present paper focusses on the possible isocurvature perturbations, following . Because they have the same source as the curvature perturbation, they are fully correlated

$$𝒮_i(𝐱)=s_i\zeta (𝐱),$$
(2)
with $`s_i`$ numbers that depend on the physical model. Following , we call this kind of isocurvature perturbation residual. A given $`s_i`$ will be zero if the relevant quantity (CDM, baryon number or lepton number) is created after the curvaton decays. Otherwise it can be calculated within a given early-Universe scenario, and it is generally expected to be of order unity. Our main purpose is to derive specific formulas for the CDM case, for the various possibilities regarding the nature of the CDM that are commonly envisaged.

In either the inflaton or the curvaton scenario, one can suppose that the vacuum fluctuation of one or more additional fields is also relevant. Such additional fields may generate additional isocurvature perturbations, which will in general be uncorrelated with the curvature perturbation and at best only partially correlated. We shall call these intrinsic isocurvature perturbations. In general, intrinsic isocurvature perturbations and the curvature perturbation are determined by different sectors of the underlying particle theory. This means that in general, there is no reason to expect the magnitude of an intrinsic isocurvature perturbation to be comparable with that of the curvature perturbation. In a particular model though, it may turn out that a single sector of the theory accounts for both the curvature perturbation and an intrinsic isocurvature perturbation, so that their magnitudes are comparable. (See  for the only example known so far, arising within the curvaton scenario.)

The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section II we recall the general description of the Primordial Density Perturbation, in terms of quantities which are conserved on super-horizon scales. In Section III we discuss how isocurvature perturbations can originate, first in the inflaton scenario and then in the curvaton scenario, giving a general formula for the residual isocurvature perturbations. In Section IV we apply our formula, to evaluate the residual CDM isocurvature perturbation for each of the commonly-envisaged CDM possibilities. We conclude in Section V.

## II Conserved perturbations

The discussion of the evolution of perturbations while they are outside the horizon is facilitated by the existence of perturbations that are, under suitable circumstances, conserved . The conserved perturbations are conveniently defined with reference to the slices of spacetime which have zero intrinsic curvature perturbation (spatially flat slices), because on super-horizon scales the local expansion of the Universe between such slices is uniform . By virtue of this uniformity, a perturbation will be conserved on super-horizon scales if it is constructed according to the following recipe . Consider a quantity $`f(𝐱,t)`$, with $`t`$ the coordinate time labelling spatially flat slices. If $`f`$ decreases (or increases) monotonically with the comoving volume $`𝒱`$ according to an equation of the form

$$𝒱\frac{f}{𝒱}=y(f),$$
(3)
then the perturbation

$$X_fH\frac{\delta f}{\dot{f}}$$
(4)
is conserved , where $`\delta f`$ is to be evaluated on spatially flat slices. In practice we find conserved quantities of three types.

#### a The total energy density perturbation.

The quantity

$$\zeta H\frac{\delta \rho }{\dot{\rho }}=\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho +P}$$
(5)
is conserved provided that the pressure $`P`$ of the Universe is a unique function of the energy density $`\rho `$, or equivalently if the perturbations satisfy the adiabatic condition

$$\delta P/\delta \rho =\dot{P}/\dot{\rho }.$$
(6)
More general, if the pressure is non-adiabatic,

$$\dot{\zeta }=\frac{H}{\rho +P}\delta P_{\mathrm{nad}},$$
(7)
where

$$\delta P_{\mathrm{nad}}\delta P\frac{\dot{P}}{\dot{\rho }}\delta \rho .$$
(8)
#### b Separate energy density perturbations.

Let $`\rho _i`$ and $`P_i`$ refer to some component which by itself satisfies the adiabatic condition Eq. (6), and which does not exchange energy with any other component. Then the quantity

$$\zeta _iH\frac{\delta \rho _i}{\dot{\rho }_i}=\frac{\delta \rho _i}{\rho _i+P_i}$$
(9)
is conserved. If the component is radiation ($`P_i=\rho _i/3`$),

$$\zeta _i\frac{1}{4}\frac{\delta \rho _i}{\rho _i}(\mathrm{radiation}),$$
(10)
and if it is matter ($`P_i=0`$)

$$\zeta _i\frac{1}{3}\frac{\delta \rho _i}{\rho _i}(\mathrm{matter}).$$
(11)
The conservation of $`\zeta _i`$ in these cases is an immediate consequence of the dependence of the local energy densities on comoving volume $`𝒱`$ (namely $`\rho _i𝒱^1`$ for matter and $`\zeta _i𝒱^{4/3}`$ for radiation).

#### c Number density perturbation.

Let $`n_i`$ be any conserved number density. Then, since $`n_i𝒱^1`$ the quantity

$$\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_i\frac{1}{3}\frac{\delta n_i}{n_i},$$
(12)
is conserved.

### A The primordial density perturbation

The epoch $`T10\text{MeV}`$, marking the beginning of of the Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis process, is the earliest one of which we have definite knowledge. After $`T`$ falls below $`1\text{MeV}`$, the energy density is dominated by radiation in the form of photons and neutrinos, and there is also baryonic matter and presumably Cold Dark Matter (CDM);If non-relativistic particles decaying well after nucleosynthesis have a significant effect, we are assuming here that the perturbation in their energy density is adiabatic and hence need not be considered separately. The number of particles is conserved for each component, and there is no exchange of energy between components. As a result the following quantities are conserved until the approach of horizon entry:

$`\zeta _{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho _{\mathrm{cdm}}}{\rho _{\mathrm{cdm}}}}`$ (13)
$`\zeta _B`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho _B}{\rho _B}}`$ (14)
$`\zeta _\nu `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho _\nu }{\rho _\nu }}`$ (15)
$`\zeta _\gamma `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho _\gamma }{\rho _\gamma }}`$ (16)
The three isocurvature perturbations Eq. (1) are given by

$$𝒮_i3(\zeta _i\zeta _\gamma ),$$
(17)
and they too are conserved until the approach of horizon entry. The total energy density/curvature perturbation, Eq. (5), is given by

$`\zeta `$ $`=`$ $`H{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _i\zeta _i}{\dot{\rho }}}`$ (18)
$``$ $`(1f_\nu )\zeta _\gamma +f_\nu \zeta _\nu ,`$ (19)
during the primordial era when the matter density is negligible and $`f_\nu =\rho _\nu /\rho _\gamma `$ is a constant. The curvature perturbation $`\zeta `$ is thus constant during the radiation dominated era to high accuracy until the approach of horizon entry.

The smallest cosmological scale, enclosing say $`M10^6M_{}`$, enters the horizon at $`T1\text{keV}`$. The curvature perturbation $`\zeta `$ and the isocurvature perturbations $`𝒮_i`$ therefore have constant values on all cosmological scales in the regime $`1\text{keV}\text{ }<T\text{ }<1\text{MeV}`$. We are calling them collectively the Primordial Density Perturbation, and through the Einstein field equation and the Boltzmann hierarchy, they specify the subsequent linear evolution of the entire set of cosmological perturbations . They are therefore determined by observation.

It is found from observation  that the primordial curvature perturbation is almost Gaussian, with an almost scale-independent spectrum given by $`𝒫_\zeta ^{\frac{1}{2}}5\times 10^5`$. Current observations provide only upper bounds on the isocurvature perturbations , which depend on the degree of correlation between them and the curvature perturbation. In this paper we are concerned with the fully-correlated perturbations that can be produced only in the curvaton scenario. For them, the ratios $`𝒮_i(𝐱)/\zeta (𝐱)`$ are constants determined by the particle physics model.

The observational bound in the case of $`s_\mathrm{B}=𝒮_\mathrm{B}(𝐱)/\zeta (𝐱)`$ is  at $`95\%`$ confidence level

$$0.53<s_\mathrm{B}<0.43.$$
(20)
The bound on $`s_{\mathrm{cdm}}=S_{\mathrm{cdm}}(𝐱)/\zeta (𝐱)`$ is tighter by precisely the factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}/\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ , and taking that ratio as $`1/6`$ we get

$$0.09<s_{\mathrm{cdm}}<0.07.$$
(21)
The observational bound on $`s_\nu `$ is

$$0.14<s_\nu <0.47.$$
(22)
This bound has been calculated for negligible lepton asymmetry, whereas according to Eq. (29) below a non-zero lepton asymmetry is required  to produce an neutrino isocurvature density perturbation. Nevertheless, because the lepton asymmetry is small the bound may be expected to provide a good approximation.

### B Conserved number densities

To describe the origin of the isocurvature perturbations in the early Universe, we need to consider  the CDM number density $`n_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$, the density of baryon number $`n_B`$ and the density of lepton number $`n_L`$. Their perturbations may be characterised by

$$\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_iH\frac{\delta n_i}{\dot{n}_i},$$
(23)
with $`i=`$cdm, $`B`$ or $`L`$. We can take the epoch of creation of CDM, baryon number or lepton number to be the epoch after which the relevant quantity (CDM particle number, baryon number or lepton number) is conserved. Each quantity $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_i=\delta n_i/3n_i`$ is then conserved after the relevant epoch of creation .

In the case of CDM, $`\zeta _{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ in Eq. (13) and $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ Eq. (23) will usually be equal from the moment of CDM creation, and in any case are equal by the primordial epoch. The exception is the case of axionic CDM though, where the axion mass is initially temperature-dependent so that only $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ is conserved after creation. In that case, $`\zeta _{\mathrm{cdm}}`$, will be equal to $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ after the mass becomes constant.

It follows from Eqs. (17) and (19) that

$`𝒮_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ $`=`$ $`3(\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}}\zeta _\gamma )`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`3(\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}}\zeta ).`$ (25)
The final equality assumes that $`𝒮_\nu =0`$, but the modification in the case of nonzero $`𝒮_\nu `$ is quite straightforward  and there is no need to consider it here.

In the case of baryonic matter, there is no useful definition of $`\zeta _B`$ before the quark-hadron transition, since baryon number is not carried by a particular energy density. Afterwards, $`\zeta _B=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_B`$ leading to

$`𝒮_\mathrm{B}`$ $`=`$ $`3(\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_\mathrm{B}\zeta _\gamma )`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`3(\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_\mathrm{B}\zeta ).`$ (27)
In the case of neutrinos, $`\zeta _\nu `$ is of course always defined provided that neutrinos exist but it is a useful quantity only after neutrinos freeze out of thermal equilibrium. After that epoch ,

$`𝒮_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{135}{7}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{\pi }}\right)^2\left(\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_L\zeta _\gamma \right)`$ (28)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{135}{7}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{\pi }}\right)^2\left(\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_L\zeta \right).`$ (29)
In these expressions, $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_L`$ is the perturbed net lepton number, $`\delta n_L/3n_L`$, and $`\xi `$ is the neutrino asymmetry parameter, constrained by nucleosynthesis to $`|\xi |<0.07`$. The second equality is a good approximation  by virtue of the bound on $`|\xi |`$.

In the curvaton scenario, $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_L`$ is negligible compared with $`\zeta `$ if the neutrino asymmetry is created before the curvaton contributes significantly to the energy density . Then, the present observational bound Eq. (22) leads to $`\xi <0.27`$, which is competitive with the nucleosynthesis bound.

## III Intrinsic and residual isocurvature perturbations

### A The inflationary initial condition

Inflation is supposed to set the initial condition for the subsequent evolution of the Universe, through the values of the light scalar fields which exist at the end of inflation. We are here defining a field as light if the second derivative of the potential in that direction is much less than $`H^2`$. This means that a light field has a flat spectrum of perturbations with spectrum $`(H_{}/2\pi )^2`$, with the star denoting the epoch of horizon exit.

To handle the perturbed Universe, we adopt what has been called the separate universe picture , which means that the local evolution of regions within our presently observable Universe is the same as that of an unperturbed FRW universe. One assumes that the Universe is smoothed on the shortest relevant scale. At least for cosmological scales the separate universe picture seems very likely to be valid, since such scales are far larger than the Hubble scale in the very early Universe.§§§In  the separate universe picture at a given epoch is taken to be valid for any smoothing scale bigger than the Hubble distance. That is a stronger assumption, which might not be valid in the presence of short-distance phenomena like preheating . As a result, physical processes in the very early Universe are unlikely to distinguish between the shortest cosmological scale (say, $`1`$ Mpc) and the longest one corresponding to the present Hubble scale ($`10^4`$ Mpc). And the separate universe assumption is certainly valid on the latter scale, or else the whole concept of an using an unperturbed FRW background to describe our observable Universe makes no sense.

For an unperturbed FRW universe, a generic quantity $`g`$ (such as energy density, pressure, number density or a scalar field) has an evolution of the form

$$g(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\mathrm{},N),$$
(30)
where $`\varphi _i`$ are the values of the light fields specified at some initial epoch. We are specifying the epoch at which $`g`$ is to be evaluated by the amount of expansion

$$N\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{ln}(𝒱/𝒱_{\mathrm{initial}})\mathrm{ln}(a/a_{\mathrm{initial}})_{t_{\mathrm{initial}}}^tH\text{d}t.$$
(31)
In the separate universe picture, the locally-defined generic quantity $`g`$ has the same functional form as in the unperturbed Universe, Eq. (30), but with position-dependent arguments;

$$g(\varphi _1(𝐱),\varphi _2(𝐱),\mathrm{},N(𝐱,t)),$$
(32)
where $`(𝐱,t)`$ are the coordinates (gauge) used to describe the perturbations, and $`N`$ is the locally-defined defined quantity.The final expression of Eq. (31) is now $`H\text{d}\tau `$ where $`H`$ is the locally-defined quantity Hubble expansion and $`\tau (t)`$ is the local proper time.

The first-order perturbation can be written as

$$\delta g=\underset{i}{}\frac{g}{\varphi _i}\delta \varphi _i(𝐱)+\frac{g}{N}\delta N(𝐱,t).$$
(33)
For a given wavenumber $`k/a`$ one can choose the initial time to be a few Hubble times after horizon exit during inflation. Then the $`\delta \varphi _i(k)`$ are uncorrelated gaussian quantities, with an almost flat spectrum

$$𝒫(k)=(H_{}/2\pi )^2,$$
(34)
where the star denotes the epoch of horizon exit $`aH=k`$.

Any conserved quantity $`X_f`$, defined in Eq. (4), can be calculated by evaluating $`\delta f`$ on a spatially flat time-slice as a function of the initial field perturbations . This is separated from an initial spatially flat time-slice during inflation by a uniform expansion, i.e., $`\delta N=0`$, which yields from Eq. (33)

$$X_f=\frac{H}{\dot{f}}\delta f=\frac{H}{\dot{f}}\left(\frac{f}{\varphi _i}\right)_N\delta \varphi _i(𝐱),$$
(35)
In particular we can write the total curvature perturbation as

$$\zeta =\frac{H}{\dot{\rho }}\delta \rho =\frac{H}{\dot{\rho }}\underset{i}{}\left(\frac{\rho }{\varphi _i}\right)_N\delta \varphi _i(𝐱),$$
(36)
This is a generalisation of the approach advocated by Sasaki and Stewart  as the simplest way to calculate the curvature perturbation in multi-field models. They calculated $`\zeta =\delta N`$ in the particular case where $`N`$ is the local expansion between an initial spatially flat time-slice and a final uniform-density slice . Taking $`g=\rho `$ and requiring $`\delta \rho =0`$ in Eq. (33) reproduces this expression:

$$\zeta =\delta N=\underset{i}{}\left(\frac{N}{\varphi _i}\right)_\rho \delta \varphi _i(𝐱).$$
(37)
where we have used $`dN/d\rho =H/\dot{\rho }`$ along the background solution.

The general expression Eq. (33) has not been written down before. But it is all that is required in the separate universe picture to calculate the conserved quantities $`\zeta _i`$ Eq. (23) produced from field fluctuations during inflation, and hence describe the Primordial Density Perturbation. In what follows we will be interested in the case of isocurvature perturbations corresponding to conserved number densities $`n_i`$, and our main result will be Eq. (46), which along with Eq. (68) is a further example of Eq. (33).

### B The inflaton scenario

During single-field slow-roll inflation,We adopt the now-standard terminology, where ‘single-field’ means that there is an essentially unique slow-roll trajectory while ‘multi-field’ means that there is a family of slow-roll trajectories. the inflaton field satisfies $`3H\dot{\varphi }=V^{}(\varphi )`$, which can be integrated to give $`\varphi `$ as a unique function $`\varphi (N)`$ of the integrated expansion $`N`$, up to a constant of integration.

In the the inflaton scenario, $`\varphi `$ sets the initial condition for both the energy density and the pressure. As a result, the pressure perturbation is adiabatic, making $`\zeta `$ constant. Using Eq. (5) with $`\delta \rho V^{}\delta \varphi `$ one finds that a few Hubble-times after horizon exit the well-known formula

$$\zeta \frac{H}{\dot{\varphi }}\delta \varphi ,$$
(38)
where the right hand side can be evaluated at horizon exit. In the inflaton scenario, this value is maintained until the primordial epoch.

A primordial isocurvature perturbation $`𝒮_i`$ can be generated in the inflaton scenario if the relevant number density $`n_i`$ at the time of its creation depends on some scalar field $`\chi `$ as well as the inflaton field;

$$n_i(\varphi (𝐱),\chi (𝐱),N(𝐱)).$$
(39)
We shall call this kind of isocurvature perturbation an intrinsic one, as opposed to the ‘residual’ one that can appear only in the curvaton scenario. The known cases where it is possible are when the CDM comes initially from an oscillating field (axion or Wimpzilla), or when there is Affleck-Dine baryo- or lepto-genesis. The qualification ‘possible’ is here crucial, because the axion or Affleck-Dine field has to be light during inflation so as to acquire a perturbation, and also because that perturbation has to survive until $`n_i`$ is created. This does not happen if the CDM axions come mostly from the oscillation of Peccei-Quinn cosmic strings, or if the Affleck-Dine field has the generic effective mass-squared of order $`\pm H^2`$.

The possibilities for obtaining an intrinsic isocurvature perturbation are very limited, so that, for example, there is no known way of obtaining an intrinsic CDM isocurvature perturbation if the CDM consists of the relic abundance of the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle obtained when it decouples from thermal equilibrium. Even when there is an intrinsic isocurvature perturbation, there is in general no reason to expect its magnitude is comparable with that of the adiabatic perturbation. This is because the magnitudes of the two perturbations depend on different and in general unrelated parameters, as a result of the fact that the perturbations are caused by different fields.

A final and very important property of an intrinsic isocurvature perturbation is that it is uncorrelated with the adiabatic perturbation. Again, this comes from the fact that two different fields are involved.

With one possible exception, the above discussion applies also to multi-field inflation, if we define the inflaton as the specific linear combination of fields corresponding to the inflaton trajectory at the end of inflation. The possible exception concerns the correlation; there is correlation in the exceptional case that the combination of fields orthogonal to the inflaton was responsible for the isocurvature perturbation . However, no example of this has been proposed in the context of particle physics; in particular, no model has been exhibited where this combination is the axion or an Affleck-Dine field.

### C The curvaton scenario

In the curvaton scenario, the value Eq. (38) of $`\zeta `$ generated by the inflaton is supposed to be negligible compared with the observed value of order $`10^5`$, and to remain negligible until the curvaton field $`\sigma `$ starts to oscillate. The density $`\rho _\sigma `$ is supposed to be negligible when the oscillation starts, but during radiation domination it grows like $`a(t)`$ relative to the radiation density Until the curvaton starts to decay, the energy densities of the radiation and the curvaton are decoupled, so that $`\zeta _\mathrm{r}`$ is constant and negligible, while $`\zeta _\sigma `$ is constant but not negligible. From Eq. (36) we then have

$$\zeta (t,𝐱)=\frac{H}{\dot{\rho }}\left(\frac{\rho }{\sigma }\right)\delta \sigma (𝐱)=f(t)\zeta _\sigma (𝐱),$$
(40)
where $`\zeta _\sigma =H\delta \sigma /\dot{\sigma }`$ and

$$f\frac{\dot{\rho }_\sigma }{\dot{\rho }}=\frac{3\rho _\sigma }{4\rho _\mathrm{r}+3\rho _\sigma },$$
(41)
is a growing function of time.

When curvaton decay is complete, the Universe is supposed to be thermalised, so that the temperature determines the entire future evolution of the energy density and pressure. (Non-thermalised components such as CDM are supposed to give a negligible contribution to these quantities until at least the primordial epoch.) As a result, the pressure in each separate universe is once again a practically unique function of energy density, leading to a practically constant value of $`\zeta `$ given by Eq. (43). Following  we define

$$r\zeta /\zeta _\sigma ,$$
(42)
where $`\zeta `$ on the left-hand-side is evaluated after curvaton decay is complete, and $`\zeta _\sigma `$ on the right-hand-side is evaluated before the decay starts.

In the sudden decay approximation we have

$$\zeta f(t_{\mathrm{dec}})\zeta _\sigma .$$
(43)
Hence we have $`r(\rho _\sigma /\rho )_{\mathrm{dec}}`$. Equation (43) gives a good approximation (to within 10%) to the precise numerical solution . Note that $`r`$ is found to be always less than (or equal to) one and, in particular, $`r1`$ in the limit $`\rho _\sigma /\rho 1`$.

In the curvaton scenario there might be an intrinsic primordial isocurvature perturbation due to some other field $`\chi `$, different from both the inflaton $`\varphi `$ and the curvaton $`\sigma `$. If present, it will have the features discussed already in the case of isocurvature perturbations for the inflaton scenario. It will generally be uncorrelated with the residual isocurvature perturbation and accordingly we ignore it from now on.

We are interested in a different type of primordial isocurvature perturbation, which we term residual . A residual isocurvature perturbation can arise because in the curvaton case, the separate universes are not identical while the curvaton is oscillating. This is because they are characterised by the two independent local energy densities $`\rho _\varphi `$ and $`\rho _\sigma `$. Thus, a residual isocurvature perturbation $`𝒮_i`$ will inevitably be present at some level unless the relevant number density $`n_i`$ is created after the curvaton has decayed.

In the sudden-decay approximation, it is easy to arrive at a general formula for the residual isocurvature perturbations. Note first that before curvaton decay, $`\rho _r`$ is supposed to be uniform on the flat slicing. The perturbation of the number density $`n_i(\rho _\mathrm{r},\rho _\sigma )`$ on this slicing is therefore just given by

$$\delta n_i=\left(\frac{n_i}{\rho _\sigma }\right)\delta \rho _\sigma .$$
(44)
As a result the perturbation, Eq. (12), can be written as

$$\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_i=\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{n_i}{\rho _\sigma }\right)\frac{\delta \rho _\sigma }{n_i}.$$
(45)
Using Eq. (42) for the total curvature perturbation after curvaton decay, we have

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_i}{\zeta }=\frac{1}{r}\frac{\rho _\sigma }{n}\left(\frac{n_i}{\rho _\sigma }\right).$$
(46)
This expression can be evaluated at any epoch after the conservation of $`n_i`$ but before curvaton decay, since both $`n_i`$ and $`\rho _\sigma `$ are proportional to $`a^3`$. Courtesy of the separate universe assumption, its evaluation requires only a knowledge of the function $`n_i(\rho _\mathrm{r},\rho _\sigma )`$ in an unperturbed universe. This is similar in spirit to the calculation in  of the curvature perturbation produced by multi-field inflation. The separate universe assumption can be verified by explicit calculation in all three of the CDM cases that we shall deal with in the next section, since the situation there is sufficiently simple, just as it can be verified in the case of multi-field inflation.

In the case where the CDM or baryon number is created before the curvaton decays, the residual CDM or baryonic matter isocurvature perturbation is thus given by Eq. (2) with

$`s_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ $`=`$ $`3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _\sigma }{n_{\mathrm{cdm}}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_{\mathrm{cdm}}}{\rho _\sigma }}\right)1\right]`$ (47)
$`s_B`$ $`=`$ $`3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _\sigma }{n_B}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_B}{\rho _\sigma }}\right)1\right].`$ (48)
In the opposite case where the curvaton decays and its decay products are thermalised before the CDM or baryon number is created, the CDM or baryon number at creation is simply a function of the local energy density, as in the inflaton scenario, and we have $`s_i=0`$.

## IV The residual CDM isocurvature perturbation

For the rest of this paper, we focus on the residual CDM isocurvature perturbation, which is present in the curvaton scenario if the CDM is created before the curvaton has decayed. We shall work out Eq. (47) in the cases that the CDM (i) is a WIMP (ii) is an axion and (iii) comes from an oscillating field with constant mass, such as a Wimpzilla. We shall also compare our results with present observational bounds.

Before looking at the individual cases though, we recall two results already considered in . The first result holds in the case that the CDM is created at an epoch when $`(\rho _\sigma /\rho )`$ is negligible compared with the value when the curvaton decays, which means in particular that the CDM must be created well before the curvaton decays. If the curvaton density has a negligible effect on $`n_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$, Eq. (47) becomes

$$s_{\mathrm{cdm}}=3.$$
(49)
This is too big to be compatible with the current observational bound given in Eq. (21), and is independent of the nature of the CDM. It follows that in the curvaton scenario, CDM cannot be created significantly before the curvature perturbation achieves its final value. In particular, CDM cannot be created just after inflation, as would be the case if the CDM consisted of heavy weakly interacting particles created from the vacuum. (This kind of CDM was originally envisaged in , and later  called Wimpzilla CDM.)

The other result holds when the CDM is created by the decay of the curvaton itself. The epoch of CDM creation then corresponds to the epoch when the curvaton decay is complete. The resulting local CDM density is a fixed multiple of the curvaton number density well before decay. The fractional perturbations are thus equal and hence

$$\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}}=\zeta _\sigma .$$
(50)
In terms of $`r`$, defined in Eq. (42), the prediction Eq. (50) leads to

$$s_{\mathrm{cdm}}=3\left(\frac{1r}{r}\right).$$
(51)
This is compatible with Eq. (21) only if $`1r<0.03`$, which means that the curvaton has to dominate before it decays. Note that $`r1`$  and hence in this case there is a positive correlation between the primordial curvature perturbation $`\zeta `$ and isocurvature perturbation $`𝒮`$, i.e., $`s>0`$.

### A Weakly interacting massive particles

If the CDM consists of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs), it is initially in thermal equilibrium. The number density of the WIMPs is conserved only after the epoch when the WIMPs fall out of thermal equilibrium (the epoch of freezout). In the present context that epoch should be taken as the one when the CDM is created. In contrast with the axion case that we shall discuss next, no scalar field can be involved in the creation of WIMP CDM and therefore there can be no intrinsic isocurvature perturbation.

The calculation of the residual isocurvature perturbation after freeze-out in terms of gauge-invariant linear perturbations is given in an Appendix A. However we shall show here how the same result can be obtained working only in terms of the unperturbed background equations, via Eq. (47).

In either case we work in the approximation of sudden freeze-out, denoting the moment of freeze-out by a star. This moment is determined by an equation of the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(T_{})/H_{}=K,$$
(52)
where $`K`$ is of order 1 and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the interaction rate per CDM particle. The temperature dependence of the interaction rate given in terms of a dimensionless parameter

$$\alpha \frac{d\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mathrm{ln}T},$$
(53)
with $`\alpha >2`$ if there is initially thermal equilibrium at high temperatures.

The number density of non-relativistic particles ($`m>T_{}`$) at freeze-out is

$$n_{}=g_{}\left(\frac{mT_{}}{2\pi }\right)_{}^{\frac{3}{2}}e^{m/T_{}},$$
(54)
where $`m`$ is the mass and $`g_{}`$ the internal degrees of freedom of the WIMP. The annihilation cross-section for non-relativistic WIMPs is weakly dependent on temperature, with $`\sigma _AvT^{p/2}`$ where $`p=0`$ for $`s`$-wave annihilation and $`p=2`$ for $`p`$-wave annihilation . The rate of change of the interaction rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is thus mainly determined by the rapidly decreasing number density if $`m>T`$, yielding

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=n\sigma _AvT^{3/2+(p/2)}e^{m/T},$$
(55)
and hence $`\alpha =(m/T)+(3/2)+(p/2)`$.

After freeze-out interactions are negligible and the number density is diluted as the universe expands, so we have $`n=n_{}(a_{}/a)^3`$. During any era when the number of effective species is constant, we have $`a1/T`$ and hence

$$n=n_{}(T/T_{})^3=g_{}(m/2\pi T_{})^{\frac{3}{2}}e^{m/T_{}}T^3,$$
(56)
This is the expression that we want to insert into Eq. (47). The partial derivative is at fixed $`\rho _r`$ and therefore at fixed temperature, $`T<T_{}`$, so that Eq. (47) can be written

$$s_{\mathrm{cdm}}+3=\frac{3}{r}\left(\frac{\rho _\sigma }{n}\frac{n}{\rho _\sigma }\right)_T.$$
(57)
The local CDM number density after decoupling varies with the local curvaton density because the curvaton density at freeze-out, $`\rho _\sigma `$, affects the expansion rate, $`H_{}`$ in Eq. (52), and hence the local freeze-out temperature, $`T_{}`$. Hence we can write

$$\left(\frac{\rho _\sigma }{n}\frac{n}{\rho _\sigma }\right)_T=\left(\frac{m}{T_{}}\frac{3}{2}\right)\left(\frac{\rho _\sigma }{T_{}}\frac{T_{}}{\rho _\sigma }\right)_T$$
(58)
where we have used Eq. (56) to obtain $`(n/T_{})_T=(m/T_{}^23/2T_{})n`$.

Assuming that the curvaton is oscillating at freeze-out (i.e., the curvaton mass is greater than the Hubble rate, $`m_\sigma >H_{}`$) we have

$$\rho _\sigma =\rho _\sigma \left(\frac{a_{}}{a}\right)^3=\rho _\sigma \left(\frac{T}{T_{}}\right)^3,$$
(59)
and hence

$$\left(\frac{\rho _\sigma }{T_{}}\frac{T_{}}{\rho _\sigma }\right)_T=\left(\frac{T_{}}{\rho _\sigma }\frac{d\rho _\sigma }{dT_{}}3\right)^1.$$
(60)
Finally then we must determine $`d\rho _\sigma /dT_{}`$ from Eq. (52), which gives

$`dK`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\alpha _{}{\displaystyle \frac{dT_{}}{T_{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho _{}}{\rho _{}}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(T_{})}{H_{}}},`$ (61)
$`=`$ $`\left[\left(\alpha _{}2(1\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma )\right){\displaystyle \frac{dT_{}}{T_{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{d\rho _\sigma }{\rho _\sigma }}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(T_{})}{H_{}}},`$ (62)
$`=`$ $`0.`$ (63)
and hence

$$\frac{T_{}}{\rho _\sigma }\frac{d\rho _\sigma }{dT_{}}=\frac{2(\alpha _{}2)+4\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma }{\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma }.$$
(64)
Combining Eqs. (57), (58), (60) and (64) we then obtain the residual isocurvature perturbation,

$$s_{\mathrm{cdm}}=3\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma }{r}\left(\frac{m}{T_{}}\frac{3}{2}\right)\frac{1}{2(\alpha _{}2)+\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma }1\right].$$
(65)
In the usual case that freeze-out occurs during radiation domination (requiring $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma 1`$) with the WIMP a neutralino, then $`m/T_{}`$ is of order 20. In this case the annihilation cross-section is approximately constant while the number density drops rapidly and hence

$$\alpha _{}\left(\frac{d\mathrm{ln}n}{d\mathrm{ln}T}\right)_{}\frac{m}{T_{}},$$
(66)
and Eq. (65) reduces to

$$s_{\mathrm{cdm}}3\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma }{2r}1\right].$$
(67)
The first term in the bracket is thus roughly of order $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma /\mathrm{\Omega }_{\sigma \mathrm{dec}}`$ (using the sudden-decay approximation Eq. (43) which gives $`r\mathrm{\Omega }_{\sigma \mathrm{dec}}`$). If freezout occurs well before the curvaton decays and while the curvaton accounts for only a small fraction of the energy density (i.e., for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma \mathrm{\Omega }_{\sigma \mathrm{dec}}`$), this makes $`s_{\mathrm{cdm}}3`$ in accordance with the general expectation  for this regime, which violates the observational bound.

On the other hand, if the curvaton dominates the energy density before freeze-out so that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma \mathrm{\Omega }_{\sigma \mathrm{dec}}1`$ (or if freeze-out occurs close to curvaton decay with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma \mathrm{\Omega }_{\sigma \mathrm{dec}}<1`$), there could be a regime where $`s_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ is small enough to satisfy observational bounds. Note that if the CDM freezes-out when the curvaton has come to dominate the energy density ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma 1`$) but before it decays, then the CDM abundance relative to the radiation density will be significantly diluted when the curvaton decays. Thus $`m/T_{}`$ could be significantly smaller than usually assumed. In order to determine the allowed regime more precisely would require more detailed numerical modeling going beyond the sudden freeze-out and sudden decay approximations that we have used here.

### B Axion CDM

If the CDM consists of axions, it is created when the rising axion mass $`m(T)`$ becomes equal to the falling Hubble parameter $`H`$ because only then does the approximately homogeneous axion field become free to oscillate. If axionic strings are present, the axions radiated from them will probably be the dominant creation mechanism. In that case there can be no intrinsic CDM isocurvature perturbation. If instead such strings are absent, the axion field $`\chi (𝐱,t)`$ oscillates independently at each comoving position, with an initial value that is the same as it was during inflation. (This is the separate universe assumption, which in the present case can be verified by explicit calculation  from the axion field equation.) Then, the axion density is proportional to the square of the initial axion field value, and a perturbation in this value will generate an intrinsic isocurvature perturbation

$$𝒮_{\mathrm{cdm}}=\frac{2\delta \chi }{\chi }.$$
(68)
We are here concerned instead with the residual isocurvature perturbation, which is always present if the curvaton decays after the epoch of axion creation. We work in the approximation that the oscillation starts suddenly and is immediately harmonic, which is known to be reasonable in most of parameter space . Then, if axion creation occurs during radiation domination the calculation is very similar to the one that we gave for the WIMP case. The freezout epoch is determined by

$$m(T_{})/H_{}=K,$$
(69)
with $`K`$ conventionally set equal to 1 exactly. The increasing mass is given accurately by

$$mT_{}^\beta ,$$
(70)
with $`\beta =3.7`$ . Assuming that there is no intrinsic perturbation, the axion number density $`n_{}`$ at creation is proportional to $`m(T_{})`$. Repeating the calculation of the WIMP case we find for the axion case

$$s_{\mathrm{cdm}}=3\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma }{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\sigma \mathrm{dec}}}\frac{3+\beta }{2\beta +4\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma }1\right].$$
(71)
In contrast with Eq. (65), this always gives $`s_{\mathrm{cdm}}3`$. We conclude that if the CDM consists of axions, the curvaton cannot decay after the CDM is created at $`T\text{GeV}`$.

### C CDM from an oscillating field of fixed mass

The previous calculation does not apply if axion creation occurs at low temperatures, and in particular if it occurs while the curvaton density dominates. In such a case, the temperature of the sub-dominant radiation will have a negligible effect on the axion mass, which will therefore have its vacuum value.

More generally, the CDM might consist of particles corresponding to the oscillation of some scalar field other than the axion, in which case the mass will generally be at the vacuum value whether or not creation takes place during matter domination. This possibility is envisaged in the rather attractive proposal of Moroi and Randall , whereby a modulus decays before nucleosynthesis into both baryonic matter and CDM. The decay occurs because the modulus mass is $`10`$ to $`100\text{TeV}`$ instead of the usual $`1\text{TeV}`$ or so. In contrast with earlier proposals though, the high mass is explained naturally, arising from the fact that in this scenario SUSY-breaking is anomaly-mediated as opposed to gravity-mediated. The anomaly-mediation also ensures that matter will not be over-produced by the decay. Of course, this idea has been worked out only under within the inflaton scenario and it remains to be seen whether it can be viable in the curvaton scenario, with the oscillation starting before the curvaton decays as we are envisaging.

Without focusing on any particular scenario, we consider the residual CDM isocurvature perturbation that is produced if the CDM does originate from the oscillation of some field with fixed mass. With constant mass, corresponding to $`\beta =0`$, Eq. (71) can be written

$$s_{\mathrm{cdm}}=3\left(\frac{f_{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\sigma ,\mathrm{dec}}}1\right),$$
(72)
where $`f`$ is defined in Eq. (41). Using Eq. (40) this equation corresponds actually to

$$\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}}=\zeta _{}.$$
(73)
This in turn is simply a consequence of the fact that the oscillation starts on a slice of uniform energy density, corresponding to local Hubble parameter $`H=m`$.

If the oscillation starts well before the curvaton decays, and while the curvaton accounts for only a small fraction of the energy density, this again gives $`s_{\mathrm{cdm}}3`$ in contradiction with observation. However, in contrast with the cases of WIMP and axionic CDM, $`s_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ in the present case vanishes in the limit that the curvaton completely dominates the energy density when the CDM is created (ie. when the CDM oscillation starts). Using Eq. (72) one finds in this regime

$$s_{\mathrm{cdm}}\frac{4}{3}\left(\frac{\rho _\mathrm{r}}{\rho _\sigma }\right)_{}+\left(\frac{\rho _\mathrm{r}}{\rho _\sigma }\right)_{\mathrm{dec}}.$$
(74)
Unfortunately, the sudden-oscillation and sudden-decay approximations both become inadequate in this regime, so that Eq. (74) will not in fact be correct. Departures in the sudden-oscillation can be calculated once the potential of the oscillating is known but no relevant calculation has been published so far. Even in the absence of such a calculation though, it follows just from continuity that that there will be a regime in which $`s_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ is within the present observational bound, while being big enough to be observable in the future.

## V Conclusion

The observed primordial curvature perturbation may well be accompanied by isocurvature perturbations in CDM, baryonic matter or neutrino. In the curvaton scenario, such a perturbation is inevitably generated by the curvaton perturbation, unless the curvaton decays before the relevant quantity (CDM, baryon number or lepton number) is created. This ‘residual’ isocurvature perturbation is fully correlated with the curvature perturbation.

We presented a general expression, Eq. (46), which allows the residual isocurvature perturbation to be evaluated once the mechanism for generating the relevant quantity is specified. We then evaluated the residual CDM isocurvature perturbation for all the commonly considered candidates in the sudden decay approximation, and compared it with the observational upper bound . We first recalled previously-known results . The CDM cannot be created right after inflation in the curvaton scenario, as in the case of CDM in the form of super-heavy weakly interacting massive particles (Wimpzillas), created from the vacuum energy . But if the curvaton dominates the energy density before it decays, then the CDM can be created from that decay.

We then went on to consider new cases, using Eq. (47). After a fairly complicated calculation, we derive Eq. (65) for the case of CDM falling out of thermal equilibrium (weakly interacting massive particle or WIMP CDM). It is compatible with observation only if the CDM is created when the curvaton density has a rather specific value. Modifying the previous calculation slightly, we arrive at the case of axion CDM given by Eq. (71), which we find is too big in all cases. These results mean that axions, and probably also WIMPS, have to be created after curvaton decay. Such a requirement is not however a strong constraint on the curvaton scenario, since WIMPS and axions are both typically created rather late (at temperatures respectively of order $`10\text{GeV}`$ and $`1\text{GeV}`$).

Finally, we consider the case of CDM created from the oscillation of a scalar field with fixed mass. As the created particle would need to be massive and very weakly interacting to avoid subsequent thermalisation, we are again dealing with a Wimpzilla. We derive Eq. (72) for the residual isocurvature perturbation in this case. It again gives $`s_{\mathrm{cdm}}=3`$ in the limit where the curvaton density when the oscillation starts is much smaller than its final value. In contrast with the previous cases though, it gives $`s_{\mathrm{cdm}}=0`$ in the opposite limit where curvaton domination is complete when the oscillation starts. There must therefore be an intermediate regime where $`s_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ in this case is of potentially observable magnitude.

We can summarise the situation as follows. The residual CDM isocurvature perturbation is absent if the CDM is created after curvaton decay. Otherwise it is present, and it is typically either too big to be compatible with observation, or completely negligible. There are cases though where it can be of observable magnitude. In particular, this can occur if the CDM comes from the decay of the curvaton, or from the oscillation of a scalar field of fixed mass. In both of these cases, the residual isocurvature perturbation vanishes in the limit that the curvaton completely dominates the energy density at the time of the CDM creation, but isocurvature perturbations can exist at a detectable level if the domination is not complete.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Y. C. Kim for a comment on our treatment of the WIMP case. This work was supported in part by PPARC grants PPA/G/S/1999/00138, PPA/G/S/2000/00115 and PGA/G/O/2000/00466. DW is supported by the Royal Society.

## A Gauge-invariant calculation

In this section we reproduce the calculation of the CDM perturbation given in section IV in terms of manifestly gauge invariant perturbations.

To determine the CDM isocurvature perturbation we need to determine the gauge-invariant perturbation in the the CDM number density on spatially flat slices, Eq. (12), (or equivalently the curvature perturbation on uniform number-density slices)

$$\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}}\frac{1}{3}\frac{\delta n_{\mathrm{cdm}}}{n_{\mathrm{cdm}}}\psi .$$
(A1)
where $`\delta n_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ and $`\psi `$ are the gauge-dependent perturbed number density and curvature perturbation respectively.

In the sudden freeze-out approximation, we assume that the CDM remains in equilibrium abundance, with number density given by Eq. (54), until the local interaction rate per expansion time falls below the critical value

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{H}|_f=K.$$
(A2)
Thereafter the CDM number is conserved and hence the curvature perturbation $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ in Eq. (A1) remains constant on large scales after freeze-out. The physical condition (A2) picks out a physical hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_f`$ which marks the transition between equilibrium and freeze-out. Thus we can determine $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ in Eq. (A1) after freeze-out from the curvature perturbation, $`\psi _f`$, and perturbed number density, $`\delta n_f`$, on this hypersurface.

A uniform temperature slice at this time $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_T`$ has no perturbation in the equilibrium number density, $`\delta n_T=0`$, but may have a curvature perturbation $`\psi _T=\zeta _r`$. (In the curvaton scenario we have $`\zeta _r\zeta _\sigma `$ before the curvaton decays.) We obtain $`\psi _f`$ and $`\delta n_f`$ via a gauge-shift from the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_T`$ to the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_f`$. This corresponds to a coordinate-shift

$$\delta t_{fT}=\frac{\delta (\mathrm{\Gamma }/H)_T}{(\dot{\mathrm{\Gamma }}/H)(\dot{H}\mathrm{\Gamma }/H^2)}.$$
(A3)
We then have

$`\psi _f`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _T+H\delta t_{fT},`$ (A4)
$`\delta n_f`$ $`=`$ $`\delta n_T\dot{n}\delta t_{fT},`$ (A5)
and hence

$$\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}}=\zeta _r+\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{m}{T_{}}\frac{3}{2}\right)H_{}\delta t_{fT},$$
(A6)
where we have assumed $`H^1\dot{T}/T=1`$.

Assuming $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/HT^\alpha /\rho ^{1/2}`$ (where $`\alpha >2`$ for CDM to fall out of equilibrium with decreasing temperature) we have from Eq. (A3)

$$\delta t_{fT}=\left(\frac{4\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma }{2(2\alpha )\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma }\right)_{}\frac{\delta \rho _T}{\dot{\rho }_{}},$$
(A7)
and using

$$\frac{H\delta \rho _T}{\dot{\rho }}=\zeta _r\zeta =\frac{3\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma }{4\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma }(\zeta _r\zeta _\sigma ),$$
(A8)
we then have

$$H_{}\delta t_{fT}=\left(\frac{3\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma }{2(\alpha 2)+\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma }\right)_{}(\zeta _\sigma \zeta _r).$$
(A9)
Finally we then obtain from Eq. (A6) and (A9)

$$\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}}=\zeta _r+\left(\frac{m}{T_{}}\frac{3}{2}\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma }{2(\alpha 2)+\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma }(\zeta _\sigma \zeta _r).$$
(A10)
If we have adiabatic perturbations ($`\zeta _r=\zeta _\sigma `$) before freeze-out, we must have $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}}=\zeta _r`$ from Eq. (A10), and hence $`s_{\mathrm{cdm}}=0`$ after freeze-out.

In the curvaton scenario when the CDM decouples before the curvaton decays, we have $`\zeta _\sigma \zeta _r`$ and the primordial curvature perturbation is given by $`\zeta =r\zeta _\sigma `$. The residual CDM isocurvature perturbation is then given by Eq. (65) of section III.


text:
# Limits on eclipses of the pre-main-sequence star KH 15D in the first half of the 20th century

## 1 Introduction

The unique eclipses of the pre-main sequence star KH 15D have recently gained attention because of the possibility that they are related to processes of planet formation. The eclipses were discovered by Kearns & Herbst (1998)111The name KH 15D was derived from their initials and the star’s catalog number in field D of Kearns et al. (1997). during a variability study of the young cluster NGC 2264. The optical spectrum of KH 15D is that of a T Tauri star (Hamilton et al., 2001, 2003), a category believed to represent a late stage in the accretion and dispersal of circumstellar material and the condensation of planets (Bertout, 1989). Hamilton et al. (2001) estimated the age of the star to be 2–10 Myr, from its position on a color-magnitude diagram.

During the eclipses, which recur every 48.36 days and last $``$20 days, the star plummets in brightness by over 3 magnitudes in a manner consistent with a knife-edge crossing the face of the star (see Herbst et al. 2002 for a striking presentation and discussion of the light curves). The obscuring matter must be composed of large dust grains or macroscopic objects, because small dust grains would cause reddening of the starlight that is not observed. If the obscuring material is orbiting the star, it must be spread out over a large fraction of the orbit in order to explain the long duration of the eclipses. Strangely, the star re-brightens near mideclipse, as if the obscuring material is distributed symmetrically about a central opening.

The eclipses are sufficiently dramatic that it appeared possible to investigate their history in photographic plate archives, despite the poor sensitivity and resolution of old photographs compared to modern detectors. In § 2, we describe our findings from the Harvard College Observatory plate collection. In § 3 we use the data to place limits on the eclipse properties of KH 15D in the first half of the 20th century. Finally, in § 4, we place our results in the context of previous measurements and previously offered theories for the origin of the eclipses.

## 2 Data

We searched the collection of the Harvard College Observatory, one of the world’s largest archives (Hazen, 1994), for plates of NGC 2264. The most useful part of the archive was the “MC series,” one of the highest-quality plate series in the collection. It was obtained with the 16-inch $`f/5.2`$ Metcalf Doublet refracting telescope, in Cambridge and Oak Ridge, Massachusetts, between 1909 and 1988. We found 66 suitable plates in the MC series. In each case we digitized a $`30\mathrm{}\times 30\mathrm{}`$ region surrounding the expected position of KH 15D, using an optical scanner with a resolution of 3000 pixels inch-1 and 14 bits pixel-1.

We also found one suitable plate in the “A series,” taken with the 24-inch $`f/5.6`$ Bruce Doublet in Bloemfontein, South Africa, on 1936 January 24. This plate could not be digitized due to its large physical size ($`14\times 17`$ inches). However, the A plate was of much higher quality than any of the MC plates, allowing the analysis described below to be performed visually.

To determine the threshold of detectability of each plate, we chose 10 stars with a range in brightness of roughly 2 magnitudes bracketing the magnitude of KH 15D in its uneclipsed state, and searched for those 10 stars in each image. These reference stars are identified by KH number in Fig. 1a, which is an image of the field from the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS)222The National Geographic Society—Palomar Observatory Sky Atlas (POSS-I) was made by the California Institute of Technology with grants from the National Geographic Society..

Next, we looked for KH 15D. This was not a trivial task because its uneclipsed magnitude was usually close to the limiting magnitude. In addition, a nearby bright star (HD 47887) was often overexposed to such a degree that its “halo” of scattered light enveloped the expected position of KH 15D. This was a particular problem in blue-light observations (which formed the majority of cases) because the bright star is very blue. In those cases, we employed the technique of “unsharp masking” commonly used in astrophotography (see, e.g., Malin & Zealey, 1979). In this technique, one produces a blurred image by convolving the original with a circular Gaussian tapering function, and then subtracts a scaled version of the blurred image from the original image. This enhances contrast by removing low spatial frequencies, at the expense of an increased noise level. The width of the Gaussian function, and the scaling of the blurred image, are adjusted to achieve optimal results. Here the method works because the image of HD 47887 is very broad and flat-topped, whereas images of fainter stars such as KH 15D are more sharply peaked (see Figs. 1b and 1c). Star KH 24D, being brighter than KH 15D and slightly further away from HD 47887, provided a useful test of our ability to detect stars close to the bright central star: if KH 24D could not be detected, surely no useful information about KH 15D could be obtained from that plate.

In this manner we determined that 40 of the plates had sufficient sensitivity and resolution for KH 15D to have been detected when uneclipsed. Among these, we securely detected KH 15D in 36 cases. In the other 4 cases, we believe KH 15D is present, but we are not as confident in the detection because it is right at the plate limit (i.e. brighter comparison stars were detected, but fainter comparison stars were not detected). We summarize the results as follows: in 90% of the cases for which detection of KH 15D was possible, it was securely detected, and there were no secure non-detections.

We have not attempted accurate photometry because of the contaminating influence of HD 47887. However, judging from the comparison stars, we conclude that the detection of KH 15D on a given plate rules out an eclipse deeper than 1 mag at that epoch. Thus, the data are consistent with no eclipses deeper than 1 mag.

## 3 Analysis

Fig. 2 shows the time coverage of the 40 high-quality plates, and also includes the POSS image (1951 December 1) and the 2 epochs of the DPOSS-2 images333The Digitized Sky Surveys were produced at the Space Telescope Science Institute under U.S. Government grant NAG W-2166. The images of these surveys are based on photographic data obtained using the Oschin Schmidt Telescope on Palomar Mountain and the UK Schmidt Telescope. The plates were processed into the present compressed digital form with the permission of these institutions. (1989 November 7 and 1992 December 21), on which KH 15D appears uneclipsed. The data fall naturally into four groups in time, which we have distinguished by arbitrary colors and symbols: black triangles, for 1913–1915; red circles, for 1924–1939; green squares, for 1946–1955; and blue diamonds, for 1978–1992. Solid symbols are secure detections and open symbols are the ambiguous cases.

We use this data to place limits on the “eclipse fraction” $`f`$, defined as the fraction of time that KH 15D is eclipsed by $`>`$1 mag. The simplest approach is to ignore the modern ephemeris and assume that the phase of each epoch is random. We also assume, conservatively, that the 4 lower-confidence detections represent eclipses. Then, using binomial statistics with a uniform prior on $`f`$, the observation that KH 15D is uneclipsed in 39/43 cases implies $`f<0.20`$ with 95% confidence. The result changes to $`f<0.24`$ when only the 1924–1939 data are used, and $`f<0.17`$ when only the 1946–1955 data are used.

A more sophisticated approach is to use the modern ephemeris to convert the time of each observation into $`\varphi `$, the phase of the photometric period. Hamilton et al. (2001) estimated the period to be $`48.34\pm 0.02`$ days. After obtaining additional data, Herbst et al. (2002) revised the period to 48.36 days but did not give an error estimate. We adopt the ephemeris of Herbst et al. (2002),

$$\mathrm{JD}(\mathrm{mideclipse})=2,452,352.26+48.36E,$$
(1)
and an uncertainty of 0.02 days in the period. The phase coverage of our observations is shown in Fig. 3, for the choices $`P=48.34`$, 48.36, and 48.38 days. The dashed lines show the modern eclipse duration. The dotted lines show the approximate phases of the mideclipse re-brightenings, during which the star has sometimes been observed at its uneclipsed brightness (or even slightly brighter).

The phase coverage is fairly complete and can be used to rule out eclipses with the present characteristics. Suppose, for example, that the past eclipses were nearly symmetric about mideclipse, as they are today. We define the “eclipse duty cycle” $`f^{}`$ as the fraction of the photometric period between the 1 mag levels of ingress and egress. In general, $`f^{}f`$ because of the possibility of mideclipse re-brightenings. We determine the maximum phase of the eclipses, $`\varphi _{\mathrm{max}}`$, as the minimum $`|\varphi |`$ among all the secure detections, not counting detections with $`|\varphi |<0.05`$ (where re-brightenings are expected). The resulting limit on the eclipse duty cycle is $`f^{}<2\varphi _{\mathrm{max}}`$. To deal with the period uncertainty, we determine $`\varphi _{\mathrm{max}}`$ for all possible values of $`P`$, and then compute a weighted histogram of the results, using a weighting function that is Gaussian in $`P`$ with mean 48.36 days and $`\sigma =0.02`$ days.

Using all the data, the result is $`f^{}<0.14`$ with 95% confidence. Using only the data from 1924–1939, the result is $`f^{}<0.18`$. With only the 1946–1955 data, the result is $`f^{}<0.24`$. Neither the earliest data nor the most recent data are constraining by themselves.

## 4 Summary and discussion

We conclude that the deep eclipses of KH 15D observed today did not occur in the first half of the 20th century with their present characteristics. The eclipses may have been shorter in duration or shallower than 1 mag, or perhaps the mideclipse re-brightenings extended to larger phases. Of course, a combination of these effects or a more complex time history are also possible.

The simplest explanation is that the eclipses have grown in duration, as has been observed over the last decade. Fig. 4 shows the upper limits on the eclipse duty cycle derived at the end of the previous section, along with modern values that we estimated from the light curves of Herbst et al. (2002) and from unpublished data from 2002-3 obtained by a group led by one of the authors (P.G.). Apparently a change is occurring on decadal timescales, in either the features of the obscuring material surrounding the KH 15D system, or in the alignment of those features with our viewing angle.

What could explain both the eclipses and their recent onset? Hamilton et al. (2001) and Herbst et al. (2002) offered two hypotheses to explain the eclipses: (1) KH 15D has a nearly edge-on protoplanetary disk, and a warp or ridge in the disk periodically blocks the star. (2) KH 15D has a higher-mass companion that is hidden by an edge-on circumstellar disk. The observed star is eclipsed as its orbit carries it through the projected plane of the disk. Grinin & Tambovtseva (2002) offered another hypothesis: (3) KH 15D has a low-mass companion, and the resulting accretion and outflow of circumstellar material creates an asymmetric common envelope, with a large and dense region near the low-mass companion. The orbital motion of the secondary causes periodic occultations of the primary.

Hypothesis (2) seemed unlikely even before this work, because Herbst et al. (2002) and Hamilton et al. (2003) measured only a small radial velocity shift ($`3.3\pm 0.6`$ km s-1) between widely separated phases. Those authors also expressed concern about systematic effects that may allow the true radial velocity shift to be zero. In addition, we do not know how to make this hypothesis compatible with the recent onset of the eclipses.

The low-mass companion of hypothesis (3) could be small enough to be allowed by the current radial velocity measurements. Grinin & Tambovtseva (2002) do not make any specific statements regarding the expected timescale of changes in eclipse duration, but they do claim that their model can explain decadal variations seen in other young photometrically active stars such as UX Ori stars. This makes hypothesis (3) viable and worthy of further investigation.

Hypothesis (1) is not only consistent with a small radial velocity shift, but also naturally involves a physical timescale that is compatible with our result. The viscous timescale at the orbital distance of 0.2 A.U. (corresponding to the 48-day period) is 10–100 years. If protoplanet/disk interactions cause perturbations in the disk, then one would expect these perturbations to evolve on this timescale. All other timescales in the disk at 0.2 AU are much shorter: the dynamical and cooling timescales are $``$2 days, while a single-impulse perturbation would be damped in less than 1 month (D’Alessio et al., 1999). Thus, protoplanet/disk interactions are an appealing explanation of the KH 15D phenomenon and the observed evolution.

For the sake of providing a concrete and falsifiable example of such an interaction, we indulge in further speculation, elaborating on a suggestion by Herbst et al. (2002). Models of planet formation at larger orbital distances predict density perturbations in the form of two spiral waves: a leading wave extending to smaller orbital distances, and a lagging wave extending to larger distances (see, e.g., Bate et al., 2003). The spiral waves extend more than a radian in azimuth, and for a Jupiter-mass planet the density is enhanced by a factor of 3-5 even at one pressure scale-height, $`h`$, above the midplane. For a typical T Tauri disk, the optically thick portion of the disk extends to a height of $`H_s4h`$ above the midplane (D’Alessio et al., 1999; Jang-Condell & Sasselov, 2003), corresponding to 0.02 A.U. at the estimated orbital distance (0.2 A.U.) of the occulting feature. This thickness is approximately equal to the diameter of the young star ($`2R_s4R_{}=0.02`$ A.U.). The spiral shock waves induced by a Jupiter-sized protoplanet are capable of increasing $`H_s`$ by more than a factor of 2 and creating an elongated ridge along our line of sight that is thick enough to block the central star entirely. Moreover, as previously suggested (Herbst et al., 2002) and recently demonstrated with three-dimensional computational models (Bate et al., 2003), the ridge will have a local depression at the position of the protoplanet, which would explain the mid-eclipse re-brightenings.

If this is correct, our naïve prediction is that the eclipse duty cycle will increase to $``$0.75 and remain there for the next decade, because in the simulations, the spiral waves cover a maximum of $``$75% of the orbit. Furthermore, if the true period is actually 97 days, as suggested by Herbst et al. (2002) based on small differences between alternate eclipses, this scenario would be wrong. We emphasize that this speculation was inspired by simulations at much larger orbital distances; we are not aware of any detailed simulations of protoplanet/disk interactions at 0.2 A.U.

Finally, we note that although the Harvard collection does not happen to include many photographs of this field after 1960, many such photographs undoubtedly exist. Because of its placement in a scientifically interesting young cluster, and near a photogenic nebula, there should be many images from 1960 onward that are of sufficient quality to measure KH 15D. A compilation of these data should reveal the onset of the modern eclipse behavior.

The authors wish to thank Alison Doane and Doug Mink for valuable assistance with the plate archive. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0104347.