text:
# Quintessence, super-quintessence and observable quantities in Brans-Dicke and non-minimally coupled theories

## I Introduction

During the last years, observations of distant Type Ia supernovae 1  and CMB measurements 2  have shown that the universe is, most likely, undergoing a process of accelerated expansion. The widespread vision of the cosmological model is, since then, a spatially flat low matter density universe. This implies that the total energy density today is dominated by a contribution having negative pressure (cosmological constant, or quintessence Q ) which has just began to undertake the leading role in the right hand side of the Einstein field equations.

The cosmological constant solution to this state of affairs appears not to be completely satisfactory (see for instance 3 ). Precise initial conditions should be given in order to solve the coincidence problem (why the vacuum energy is dominating the energy density right now). Moreover, a fine-tuning problem appears, since a vacuum energy density of order $`10^{47}\mathrm{GeV}^4`$ requires a new mass scale about 14 orders of magnitude smaller than the electroweak scale, having no a-priori reason to exist. In addition, the equation of state, $`p/\rho `$, for vacuum energy is exactly equal to $`1`$, what at first sight appears as yet another value which is, in a dynamical setting, precisely set. Quintessence Q , and its derived models, being the main alternatives, are based on the existence of one or many scalar fields, which dynamically evolve together with all others components of the universe. The above-mentioned problems are alleviated within this framework. A sub-class of models, those having inverse power law potentials, present tracking solutions where a given amount of scalar field energy density can be reached starting from a large range of initial conditions (see for e.g. Refs. tracking ).

The simplest models of quintessence are based on minimally coupled scalar fields. For a general potential $`V`$, the equation of state for those quintessence models is given by

$$\frac{p}{\rho }=\frac{\dot{\varphi }^22V}{\dot{\varphi }^2+2V},$$
(1)
and it can be easily proven that this expression is bounded to be within the range -1 $`p/\rho `$ 1, unless of course one is willing to accept negative defined potentials. In the latter cases, the energy density becomes itself a negative quantity. For usual models of quintessence, then, it is clear that no super-acceleration can appear. The latter is a result of an extremely negative ($`<1`$) equation of state. This possible super-accelerated expansion has been recently dubbed super-quintessence by several authors, e.g. faraoni , although its consequences are being analyzed since some time before menace . The main reason supporting this interest is that current observational constraints are indeed compatible with, if not favoring, such values for the equation of state (see for instance Ref. menace ).

Extended quintessence models are those in which the underlying theory of gravity contains a non-minimally coupled scalar field. It is this same scalar field which, apart from participating in the gravity sector of the theory, is enhanced by a potential to fulfill the role of normal quintessence. From a theoretically point of view, these ideas are appealing: it is the theory of gravity itself what provides the dynamically evolving, and currently dominating, field. Recent works on this area include those presented in Refs. faraoni ; Sen ; perrota ; per2 ; uzan ; farese ; chiba . We will have the opportunity to comment with much more detail on some of these works below. In addition, just to quote a few others in a so vastly covered topic, see the works of Ref. new . We would also like to remark that one of the first detailed analysis of a non-minimally coupled theory with a scalar field potential was made by Santos and Gregory santos , years before the concept of quintessence was introduced.

It has been claimed by many that a non-minimally coupled theory, like for instance Brans-Dicke gravity, can harbor super-quintessence solutions (e.g. faraoni ; Sen ). However, there are different, and in most cases conflicting, definitions for the equation of state in these theories. Then, care should be exercised when analyzing the claims of the existence of super-quintessence solutions: in some cases, they do not report either any physical import, because the equation of state really is not more than a complex relationship between the field and its derivative without any supporting conservation law, nor any observational consequence, because the amount of super-quintessence is so small that is far beyond any foreseen experiment. It is the aim of this paper to help in clarifying these points, and to analyze, from an observational point of view, how non-minimally coupled theories differentiate from usual General Relativity in what concerns to quintessence and super-quintessence models.

The rest of this work is presented as follows. In the following Section we comment on the energy conditions and the status of super-quintessence regarding them. Then, we introduce the gravity theories we are interested in. Section IV analyzes the case of Brans-Dicke gravity whereas Section V studies more general non-minimally coupled theories. A discussion and summary of the results is given in Section VI. A brief Appendix discusses an alternative formulation of the theories of gravity, useful for numerical computations.

## II The energy conditions

For a Friedman-Robertson-Walker space-time and a diagonal stress-energy tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }=(\rho ,p,p,p)`$ with $`\rho `$ being the energy density and $`p`$ the pressure of the fluid, the energy conditions (EC) read:

null: NEC $``$ $`(\rho +p0),`$
weak: WEC $``$ $`(\rho 0)\text{ and }(\rho +p0),`$
strong: SEC $``$ $`(\rho +3p0)\text{ and }(\rho +p0),`$
dominant: DEC $``$ $`(\rho 0)\text{ and }(\rho \pm p0).`$ (2)
They are, then, linear relationships between the energy density and the pressure of the matter/fields generating the space-time curvature. Violations of the EC have sometimes been presented as only being produced by unphysical stress-energy tensors. If NEC is violated, and then WEC is violated as well, negative energy densities –and so negative masses– are thus physically admitted. However, although the EC are widely used to prove theorems concerning singularities and black hole thermodynamics, such as the area increase theorem, the topological censorship theorem, and the singularity theorem of stellar collapse VISSER-BOOK , they lack a rigorous proof from fundamental principles. Moreover, several situations in which they are violated are known; perhaps the most quoted being the Casimir effect, see for instance Refs. VISSER-BOOK ; last-visser  for additional discussion. Observed violations are produced by small quantum systems, resulting of the order of $`\mathrm{}`$. It is currently far from clear whether there could be macroscopic quantities of such an exotic, e.g. WEC-violating, matter/fields may exist in the universe. A program for imposing observational bounds (basically using gravitational micro and macrolensing) on the existence of matter violating some of the EC conditions has been already initiated, and experiments are beginning to actively search for the predicted signatures obs . Wormhole solutions to the Einstein field equations, extensively studied in the last decade (see Refs. VISSER-BOOK ; wh  for particular examples), violate the energy conditions, particularly NEC. Wormholes are probably the most interesting physical entity that could exist out of a macroscopic violation of the EC.

It is interesting to analyze what does super-quintessence imply concerning the validity of the EC. As stated in the Introduction, super-quintessence is described by a cosmic equation of state

$$\frac{p}{\rho }<1,$$
(3)
and so different situations arise depending on the sign of the energy density $`\rho `$. If $`\rho >0`$, super-quintessence implies $`p+\rho <0`$, and thus the violation of all the point-wise EC quoted above. Note that WEC is violated because of the violation of its second inequality. If, on the contrary, already $`\rho <0`$, then NEC may be sustained, but WEC is violated. Super-quintessence then implies strong violations of the commonly cherished EC. But, should this be taken as sufficiently unphysical as to discard a priori the possibility of a super-accelerating phase of the universe?

Apart from the finally relevant response, coming from experiments (today super-quintessence equations of state are not discarded, and maybe even favored by experimental data, see for e.g. menace ), the answer will of course rely on how much do we trust the EC, which, as we have already said, are no more than conjectures. Particularly for non-minimally coupled theories, violations of the EC are much more common than in General Relativity, see for instance the works of Ref. last-visser  and references therein. In addition, recently, the consequences of the energy conditions were confronted with possible values of the Hubble parameter and the gravitational redshifts of the oldest stars in the galactic halo SEC . It was deduced that for the currently favored values of $`H_0`$, the strong energy condition should have been violated sometime between the formation of the oldest stars and the present epoch. SEC violation may or may not imply the violation of the more basic EC, i.e. NEC and WEC, something that have been impossible yet to determine. In any case, super-quintessence could be a nice theoretical framework for explaining observational data opposing the EC. To the study of super-quintessence in non-minimally coupled theories, we devote the rest of this paper.

## III Gravity theory

In this section we shall present the general non-minimally coupled Lagrangian density given by

$`S={\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f(\varphi ,R){\displaystyle \frac{\omega (\varphi )}{2}}^\mu \varphi _\mu \varphi `$
$`V(\varphi )+L_{fluid}].`$ (4)
Here, $`R`$ is the Ricci scalar and units are chosen such that $`8\pi G=1`$. The functions $`\omega (\varphi )`$ and $`V(\varphi )`$ specify the kinetic and potential scalar field energies, respectively. The Lagrangian $`L_{fluid}`$ includes all the components but $`\varphi `$. The function $`f`$ will be assumed to be of the form

$$f(\varphi ,R)=F(\varphi )R.$$
(5)
Einstein equations from the general action (III) are:

$$H^2=\frac{1}{3F}\left(\rho _{fluid}+\frac{\omega }{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+V3H\dot{F}\right),$$
(6)
$$\dot{H}=\frac{1}{2F}\left[(\rho _{fluid}+p_{fluid})+\omega \dot{\varphi }^2+\ddot{F}H\dot{F}\right],$$
(7)
$$\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }=\frac{1}{2\omega }\left(\omega _{,\varphi }\dot{\varphi }^2F_{,\varphi }R+2V_{,\varphi }\right),$$
(8)
where overdots denote normal time derivatives. The Klein-Gordon equation is actually very complicated in the general case. Using that

$`R=6(\dot{H}+2H^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}`$
$`\left[\rho _{fluid}3p_{fluid}\omega \dot{\varphi }^2+4V3(\ddot{F}+3H\dot{F})\right],`$ (9)
after some algebra, it ends up being

$`\ddot{\varphi }\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3F_{,\varphi }^2}{2\omega F}}\right)=3H\dot{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega }}\omega _{,\varphi }\dot{\varphi }^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}V_{,\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{F_{,\varphi }}{2F\omega }}`$
$`(\rho _{fluid}+3p_{fluid}){\displaystyle \frac{F_{,\varphi }}{2F}}\dot{\varphi }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{,\varphi }}{\omega F}}2V`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3F_{,\varphi }}{2\omega F}}F_{,\varphi \varphi }\dot{\varphi }^2{\displaystyle \frac{F_{,\varphi }^2}{2\omega F}}9H\dot{\varphi }.`$ (10)
Two different kinds of theories are usually studied. One is the archetypical Brans-Dicke gravity BD , which appears by choosing $`\omega =\omega _{BD}/\varphi `$ and $`F=\varphi `$, where $`\omega _{BD}`$ is referred to as the coupling parameter. The other, generically named as non-minimally coupled theories (although of course Brans-Dicke gravity also has a non-minimally coupled scalar field), are those for which $`\omega =1`$, and $`F`$ and the potential $`V`$ are generic functions of the field. Interesting differences appear when in the latter cases is of the form $`F=const.+g(\varphi )`$, they will be discussed below. At least formally, starting from one of these Lagrangian densities, one can always rephrase it into the alternative form by a redefinition of the scalar field. Sometimes, however, this cannot be achieved with closed analytical formulae.

### III.1 Experimental constraints

The predictions of General Relativity in the weak field limit are confirmed within less than 1% limits2-cons . Any scalar-tensor gravity theory, then, should produce predictions that deviate from those of GR by less than this amount in the current cosmological era. In general, these deviations from GR can be specified by the post-Newtonian parameters WILL

$$\gamma 1=\frac{(dF/d\varphi )^2}{\omega F+(dF/d\varphi )^2},$$
(11)
$$\beta 1=\frac{1}{4}\frac{F(dF/d\varphi )}{2\omega F+3(dF/d\varphi )^2}\frac{d\gamma }{d\varphi }.$$
(12)
Solar system tests currently constrain limits2-cons :

$$|\gamma 1|<\mathrm{2\hspace{0.33em}10}^3,|\beta 1|<\mathrm{6\hspace{0.33em}10}^4,$$
(13)
and they translate into a limit on $`1/F(dF/d\varphi )^2`$ at the current time, supposing $`\omega =1`$, specifically $`1/F(dF/d\varphi )^2<\mathrm{2\hspace{0.33em}10}^3`$ uzan . If on the contrary, we assume the form of Brans-Dicke theory, they imply $`\omega _{BD}>500`$. This value has been derived from timing experiments using the Viking space probe limit . In other situations, claims have been made to increase this lower limit up to several thousands, see Ref. limits2-cons  for a review.

Starting from the action, one can define the cosmological gravitational constant as $`1/F`$. This factor, however, does not have the same meaning than the Newton gravitational constant of GR. The Newtonian force measured in Cavendish-type experiments between two masses $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ separated a distance $`r`$ is $`G_{\mathrm{eff}}m_1m_2/r^2`$, where $`G_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is given by WILL

$$G_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{1}{F}\left(\frac{2\omega F+4F_{,\varphi }^2}{2\omega F+3F_{,\varphi }^2}\right).$$
(14)
The previous expression reduces to the well-known equality $`G_{\mathrm{eff}}(t)=(1/\varphi (t))(2\omega +4)/(2\omega +3)`$ for Brans-Dicke theory. Current constraints imply

$$|\frac{\dot{G}_{\mathrm{eff}}}{G_{\mathrm{eff}}}|<\mathrm{6\hspace{0.33em}10}^{12}\mathrm{yr}^1.$$
(15)
In general, though, one cannot make the statement that this constraint does directly translate into one for $`\dot{F}/F`$, for one could in principle find a theory for which even when $`F`$ varies significantly, $`G_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ does not. Example of this is the case of Barker’s theory BARKER , where $`G_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is strictly constant.

Nucleosynthesis constraints can also be set for $`\omega `$, however their impact is smaller than those set up in current experiments (see for e.g. Refs. limits3-nucleo  and articles quoted therein).

### III.2 The General Relativity limit

There are important differences between Brans-Dicke gravity and more general non-minimally coupled theories, particularly in what refers to quintessence.

In the case of Brans-Dicke, when the coupling parameter is large, the field decouples from gravity, and the theory reduces itself to General Relativity 111Strictly speaking, this seems to be true only in the cases in which the trace of the energy-momentum tensor for normal matter fields is not zero (see strange  and references therein).. When there is a potential, the limit of $`\omega _{BD}\mathrm{}`$ would make the theory GR + $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for every $`V`$. This is certainly not the case in non-minimally coupled theories when $`F`$ involves a term independent of the field (a constant). The limiting case of a non-variable $`F`$-function is, in that situation, not GR plus a cosmological constant, but GR plus the same potential. In this case, then, the field recovers the status of normal quintessence, being it minimally coupled and enhanced by a generic potential. It is only in this sense that comparing different theories with the same potential is justified. The same procedure do not provide meaningful results when working with Brans-Dicke (or induced gravity) models. To see how this difference appears it would be enough to focus on the different Klein-Gordon equations for both theories. In the case of Brans-Dicke,

$$\ddot{\varphi }+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{\varphi }=\frac{(\rho 3p)}{2\omega _{BD}+3}+\frac{2}{2\omega _{BD}+3}\left[2V\varphi \frac{dV}{d\varphi }\right],$$
(16)
and all terms in the right hand side (including those having the potential) are proportional to $`1/\omega _{BD}`$. Then, a sufficiently large value of $`\omega _{BD}`$ will make this equation sourceless, i.e. a solution being $`\varphi =const.`$, and reduce any $`V`$ in the Lagragian to a constant as well. This does not happen in the case of non-minimally coupled theories where $`F`$ contains an independent factor. For instance, in the case in which $`F=1+\xi \varphi ^2`$, the Klein-Gordon equation is

$$\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }=\xi R\varphi +\frac{dV}{d\varphi },$$
(17)
what clearly shows that the limit $`\xi 0`$ converts the theory into normal quintessence.

## IV Brans-Dicke Theory

### IV.1 Field equations

Consider the Brans-Dicke action given by

$$𝒮=\frac{1}{2}d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[\varphi R\frac{\omega (\varphi )}{\varphi }\varphi ^\alpha \varphi _\alpha 2V(\varphi )\right]+L_{fluid}.$$
(18)
We shall consider that the matter content of the universe is composed by one or several (non-interacting) perfect fluids with stress energy tensor given by

$$T_{\mu \nu }=(\rho +p)v_\mu v_\nu +pg_{\mu \nu },$$
(19)
where $`v_\mu v^\mu =1`$. This previous equation, then, with adequate values of $`\rho `$ and $`p`$ will be valid for the contributions of both, dust and radiation. Finally, we shall assume that the universe is isotropic, homogeneous, and spatially flat, and then represented by a $`k=0`$ Friedmann-Robertson-Walker model whose metric reads

$$ds^2=dt^2+a^2(t)[dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2].$$
(20)
In this setting, the field equations are given by

$$\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}+\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }\frac{\omega }{6}\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{\varphi ^2}\frac{V}{3\varphi }=\frac{\rho }{3\varphi },$$
(21)
$$2\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}+\frac{\ddot{\varphi }}{\varphi }+2\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }+\frac{\omega }{2}\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{\varphi ^2}\frac{V}{\varphi }=\frac{p}{\varphi },$$
(22)
$$\ddot{\varphi }+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{\varphi }=\frac{(\rho 3p)}{2\omega +3}+\frac{2}{2\omega +3}\left[2V\varphi \frac{dV}{d\varphi }\right].$$
(23)
To simplify the notation in this Section we shall name $`\omega _{BD}`$ simply $`\omega `$. The continuity equation follows from the Bianchi identity, yielding the usual relation

$$\dot{\rho }+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}(\rho +p)=0,$$
(24)
which applied to both, matter ($`p_m=0`$) and radiation ($`p_r=1/3\rho `$), gives the standard dependencies:

$$\rho _m=\rho _{m,0}a^3,\rho _r=\rho _{r,0}a^4.$$
(25)
We have chosen the scale factor normalization such that $`a`$ at the present time is $`a_0=1`$. The current values of the densities are given, in turn, by

$$\rho _{m,0}=3H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0},\rho _{r,0}=3H_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{r,0}.$$
(26)
Here, $`H_0=100\times h`$ km/s/Mpc is the current value of the Hubble parameter and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r=4.17\times 10^5/h^2`$ is the radiation contribution to the critical density (taking into account both photons and neutrinos, see Liddle-Lyth ). Typically, we shall work in a model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.4`$, but this can be fixed to any other value we wish, by using the contribution of the Brans-Dicke field to respect the flatness of the universe.

The contribution of the field to the field equations can be directly read from the field equations, if we replace the usual General Relativity gravitational constant with the inverse of $`\varphi `$. The effective energy and pressure for the field end up being,

$$\rho _\varphi =3\left[\frac{\omega }{6}\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{\varphi }+\frac{V}{3}\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{\varphi }\right],$$
(27)
and

$$p_\varphi =\left[\frac{\omega }{2}\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{\varphi }V+\ddot{\varphi }+2\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{\varphi }\right].$$
(28)
### IV.2 Numerical implementation

After being unable to find any obvious coordinates/field transformation, in the sense explored by Mimoso & Wands mimoso , Barrow & Mimoso and Barrow & Parsons barrow , and Torres & Vucetich Torres:1996hv , that can deal with the complexities introduced by the appearance of the self-interaction and solve the system analytically, we have prepared a computed code to integrate the system (21-24) numerically. Indeed, not all 4 equations in the system are independent, because of the Bianchi identities, and we have chosen to integrate Eqs. (21) and (23) having as input the form of the matter densities given in Eq. (25). We have followed the original idea of Brans-Dicke BD ; Weim , and transformed Eq. (21) into an equation for $`H`$, by completing the binomial in the left hand side. Our variable of integration was $`x=\mathrm{ln}(t)`$, and the output were $`\mathrm{ln}(a)`$, $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$, where a prime denotes derivative with respect to $`x`$. Having these values for each moment of the universe evolution, it is immediate to obtain $`\dot{\varphi }`$, $`H`$, and any other quantity depending on them, like the effective pressure and density of the Brans-Dicke field given in Eqs. (27-28). The relevant initial condition of the integration (in $`\varphi `$) is chosen such that we fulfill today the observational constraint ($`G_{\mathrm{eff}}=1`$) given by Eq. (14). The derivative of the field can be set within a very large range at the beginning since, while producing unobservable changes at the early stages of the universe, this initial condition is washed out by the evolution (a large range of different initial conditions will give the same results). The potential is generically written as

$$V=V=V_0f(\varphi ),$$
(29)
and the value of the constant $`V_0`$ is iteratively chosen such that it fulfills the requirement of a large (say, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi 0.6`$) field contribution to the critical density at the present time, for any given function $`f(\varphi )`$. We have tested our code in the limiting cases of the problem and found agreement with previous results. As we have discussed, when $`\omega \mathrm{}`$, Brans-Dicke theory becomes General Relativity, $`\varphi `$ being a constant, and every potential effectively behave as a cosmological constant (i.e. $`p_\varphi /\rho _\varphi =1`$) during all the universe evolution. Additionally, when we are in pure Brans-Dicke theory, without any potential, we reproduce the results of Mazumdar et al. for the ratio between the Hubble length at equality and the present one, $`a_{eq}H_{eq}/H_0`$ maz .

### IV.3 A worked example: $`V=V_0\varphi ^2`$

In Figure 1 we show the different contributions to the critical density during the universe evolution for a Brans-Dicke theory with $`\omega =500`$ and inverse square potential. The contribution of the field is given, at any time of the universe history, by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =\frac{\rho _\varphi }{3H^2\varphi },$$
(30)
and the others $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-values are defined in the same usual way as well. We see that the Brans-Dicke field can act as quintessence, in agreement with what other authors have previously found (see for example Refs. perrota ; chiba  and references therein). The value of $`V_0`$ is extremely small, and mimics a cosmological constant in General Relativity. The Brans-Dicke field and its derivative do evolve in time. However, the current value of is $`\dot{\varphi }=9.8\times 10^{14}`$ yr-1, fulfilling the above-mentioned constraint. The equivalence time (i.e. when $`\rho _{matter}=\rho _{radiation}`$) in this model happens at 19801 yr, or $`\mathrm{ln}(a)=8.59`$.

In Figure 2 we show, for the same model, the evolution of the ratio between the effective pressure and densities for the Brans-Dicke field. This ratio evolves strongly during the recent matter era, the reason being that $`\rho _\varphi `$ actually crosses zero (from negative to positive values). This is in agreement with Figure 1, which shows the current field domination.

Indeed, we can obtain similar results to those presented here changing the form of the potential to a variety of functional dependencies on the Brans-Dicke field (see Table I). Most interestingly, we see that at the present age of the universe, the effective equation of state for some potentials \[we remark here that this is an abuse of language, as will be explained below\] is smaller than -1. As we stated, the phenomenon of having $`p_\varphi /\rho _\varphi <1`$ has been referred to as ‘super-quintessence’ by other authors, whereas the corresponding dark energy has been dubbed ‘phantom energy’ faraoni . Apparently, already the simplest potentials one can imagine can be super-quintessence potentials within Brans-Dicke theory. It is true, however, that the amount of super-quintessence we have found (how large is deviation from -1 towards smaller values) is very small. It is indeed much smaller than what other authors claimed before (see in particular Ref. Sen ). However, we note that, apparently, there is a sign mistake in their Klein-Gordon equation (7), the last term in their rhs should be positive, what can be tested by differentiation or comparison with, for example, Eq. (2.3) of Ref. farese  or Eq. (2.6) of 22  This can actually produce a much bigger difference from an equation of state equal to -1 (as we numerically tested), and is probably the origin of the discrepancy.

As we have briefly implied above, $`p_\varphi /\rho _\varphi <1`$ do not have a especially clear physical meaning. Both, $`p_\varphi `$ and $`\rho _\varphi `$ are made up of terms coming from the Lagrangian density for the field. But they also contain terms coming from the interaction between the field and gravity (through its non-minimal coupling). The crucial aspect, then, is that the ratio $`p_\varphi /\rho _\varphi `$ does not represent an equation of state, like those of the other components, since an equation of the form $`\dot{\rho }_\varphi +3\dot{a}/a(\rho _\varphi +p_\varphi )=0`$ is not fulfilled. We can actually see from first principles why $`\dot{\rho }_\varphi +3\dot{a}/a(\rho _\varphi +p_\varphi )0`$ . The field equations of Brans-Dicke theory in a general metric are

$$G_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{\varphi }\left(T_{\mu \nu }^{matter}+T_{\mu \nu }^\varphi \right),$$
(31)
where $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ is the Einstein tensor, $`T_{\mu \nu }^{matter}`$ is the stress-energy tensor for the matter sector of the theory and

$$T_{\mu \nu }^\varphi =\frac{w}{\varphi }\left(\varphi _{,\mu }\varphi _{,\nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }\varphi _{,\alpha }\varphi ^{,\alpha }\right)+\left(\varphi _{,\mu ;\nu }g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \right),$$
(32)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ being the DAlambertian operator. Now, if we multiply the previous equation (31) by $`\varphi `$ and take covariant derivatives, it can be seen that BD

$$T_{;\nu }^{\mu \nu \varphi }=\left(\varphi G_{\mu \nu }\right)_{;\nu }$$
(33)
so that, whereas the usual continuity equation for matter is valid, the continuity equation for the above-defined ‘stress-energy tensor’ for the field gets complicated.

### IV.4 Observable quantities and the equation of state

Then, if not $`p_\varphi /\rho _\varphi `$, which is the relevant (physically meaningful) quantity to be considered as the equation of state for the field in Brans-Dicke theory? We suggest that the important quantity to look at should come from what we actually measure. In the case of the homogeneous problem we are analyzing, this is the Hubble parameter, $`H`$. If we rewrite the first of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker equations as

$`H^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(\rho _{fluid}+\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\varphi \right)`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(\rho _{m,0}a^3+\rho _{r,0}a^4+\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\varphi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}a^{3(1+w_\varphi )}\right),`$
then, $`w_\varphi `$ is what is going to establish the departure from the predictions of General Relativity plus cosmological constant or a generic quintessence potential of a minimally coupled field. To be specific, if $`w_\varphi =1`$, the theory would be indistinguishable from General Relativity plus cosmological constant (from an observational point of view). If $`w_\varphi >1`$, then the theory would be indistinguishable from a normal (minimally coupled) scalar field with a given potential. And finally, only if $`w_\varphi <1`$, the theory would be observationally different from its general relativistic counterparts: $`w_\varphi <1`$ is a value that cannot be attained by any minimally coupled potential, as we discussed in the Introduction. In that case, super-quintessence adopts its rightful meaning: a super-accelerated expansion of the universe, contrary to the case in which it just represent a particular relationship between quantities importing no physically clear concept. In the previous equation, and to be consistent with the generalized field equations of the theory, we have defined

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=\stackrel{~}{\rho }_0a^{3(1+w_\varphi )}=\rho _{m,0}a^3`$
$`\rho _{r,0}a^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varphi }}\left(\rho _{m,0}a^3+\rho _{r,0}a^4+\rho _\varphi \right),`$ (35)
where sub-indices $`m,r`$ and 0 stand for matter, radiation, and current values, respectively. By definition,

$$w_\varphi =1\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\varphi }{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\varphi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}}\right)\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}(a)}.$$
(36)
In Figure 2 we have already shown the evolution of this quantity in time (redshift). We also see that, although some non-minimally coupled Brans-Dicke field can effectively produce super-quintessence when supported by particular potentials, the effective ‘equation of state’ being less than -1, its value is too close to -1 so as to effectively mimics a cosmological constant at the current epoch. In Table I we show that the same, almost imperceptible, deviation from an effective cosmological constant appears for other potentials. This is then showing a sign of caution when analyzing the impact of non-minimally coupled theories using the equation of state: differences are actually too small and fall below the threshold of any current or foreseen experiment.

### IV.5 The meaning of $`w_\varphi `$

Is $`w_\varphi `$ representing an equation of state in the usual sense? In other words, is the equation $`\dot{\stackrel{~}{\rho }}_\varphi =3H(1+w_\varphi )\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\varphi ,`$ satisfied? To answer this question we shall rewrite the field equations for a general non-minimally coupled theory as per2

$$G_{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu },$$
(37)
where we have defined a new stress-energy momentum tensor, on purpose, to make the previous equation valid:

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }=T_{\mu \nu }^{fluid}+\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }[\varphi ].$$
(38)
As a consequence of the contracted Bianchi identities $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }`$ is conserved. And since there are no explicit coupling between matter and fields, their corresponding energy-momentum tensors are also separately conserved:

$$^\mu T_{\mu \nu }^{fluid}=^\mu \stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }[\varphi ]=0.$$
(39)
In this framework, reporting no more than a rewriting of the field equations i.e. introducing no new physics at all, the explicit expression for $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }[\varphi ]`$ is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }[\varphi ]=\omega \left[_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }^\lambda \varphi _\lambda \varphi \right]`$
$`Vg_{\mu \nu }+_\mu _\nu Fg_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta }F+\left(1F\right)G_{\mu \nu }.`$ (40)
In order to obtain Eq. (37) we have just added and subtracted $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ on the left hand side of the generalized Einstein equations, i.e.

$$G_{\mu \nu }F=T_{\mu \nu }^{fluid}+T_{\mu \nu }^{field},$$

with the usually defined

$`T_{\mu \nu }^{field}=\omega \left[_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }^\lambda \varphi _\lambda \varphi \right]`$
$`Vg_{\mu \nu }+_\mu _\nu Fg_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta }F.`$ (41)
This immediately fixes the expression of $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{\mu \nu }[\varphi ]`$ above. The new effective energy density and pressure that this defined stress-energy density produces are

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\varphi =\omega \frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{2}+V(\varphi )3H\dot{F}+3H^2\left(1F\right),$$
(42)
$$\stackrel{~}{p}_\varphi =\omega \frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{2}V(\varphi )+2H\dot{F}+\ddot{F}(3H^2+2\dot{H})\left(1F\right),$$
(43)
In the case of Brans-Dicke theory, we recall, $`\omega =\omega _{BD}/\varphi `$ and $`F=\varphi `$. Note then that $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\varphi =\rho _\varphi +3H^2(1F)`$, where $`\rho _\varphi `$ was given in Eq. (27). The defined equation of state, $`w_\varphi `$, thus, is exactly that given by $`\stackrel{~}{p}_\varphi /\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\varphi `$, since it was defined using the same Friedmann equation $`H^2=1/3(\rho _{fluid}+\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\varphi )`$. Indeed,

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{fluid}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}(\rho _{fluid}+\rho _\varphi )`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`\rho _{fluid}+3H^2`$
$`=`$ $`(3H^2F\rho _\varphi )+3H^2`$
$`=`$ $`\rho _\varphi +3H^2(1F)`$
At the same time, we can see that

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_\varphi =p_\varphi (3H^2+2\dot{H})\left(1F\right).$$
(45)
We conclude that the definition for $`w_\varphi `$ represents a real equation of state, since it is supported by a conservation law, and that it is this the one that should be taken into account to compare with the predictions of GR, since it is directly related to the observable, $`H`$. We can also see, from Table I, that the difference between $`w_\varphi `$ and the ratio $`p_\varphi /\rho _\varphi `$ is very small. The reasons that leads to this are explicitly discussed for NMC theories in Section III, a similar argument applies here as well.

### IV.6 CMB-related observables

The evolution of the comoving distance from the surface of last scattering (defined as $`z=1000`$, equivalently $`\mathrm{ln}a=6.90`$) can be computed, for different theories, as:

$$𝑑\tau =_{0.001}^a\frac{da}{a^2H(a)}.$$
(46)
Only in the case of extremely low coupling factors (e.g. $`\omega `$ of Brans-Dicke theory), discarded by current constraints, we see a noticeable difference with the result of General Relativity plus cosmological constant. To give a quantitative idea we can quote the ratio

$$\frac{\tau _{BD}\tau _{GR}}{\tau _{GR}},$$

calculated today ($`a=1`$), which, for $`\omega =25`$ results equal to -0.014, whereas for $`\omega =500`$ is $`\mathrm{5.7\hspace{0.33em}10}^4`$, and quickly tends to zero for bigger values of $`\omega `$.

The angular scales at which acoustic oscillations occur are directly proportional to the size of the CMB sound horizon at decoupling, that in comoving coordinates is roughly $`\tau _{dec}/\sqrt{3}`$, and inversely proportional to the comoving distance covered by CMB photons from last scattering until observation, that is $`\tau _0\tau _{dec}`$ Hu1 . The multipoles scale as the inverse of the corresponding angular scale, and so

$$\mathrm{}_{peak}\frac{\tau _0\tau _{dec}}{\tau _{dec}}.$$
(47)
As in the non-minimally coupled models studied in Ref. bacci2 , $`\tau `$ changes because of a different dependence of the Hubble length $`H^1`$ in the past. However, we have already noted that this change is almost imperceptible when compared with usual General Relativity plus a cosmological constant, unless of course (violating current constraints) the coupling parameter $`\omega `$ is low enough.

The Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect makes the CMB coefficients on large scales, small $`\mathrm{}`$’s, change with the variation of the gravitational potential along the CMB photon trajectories Hu . This is undoubtedly changed because of a variation in the gravitational constant since the time of decoupling. However, we expect this change to be also very small, since the $`G`$-variation we have found, for values of $`\omega =500`$ and bigger, are typically less than 2% since the time of decoupling.

The scale entering the Hubble horizon at the matter-radiation equivalence is also important, since it will define the matter power turnover Coble . The shift in the power spectrum turnover is given by bacci2

$$\frac{\delta k_{turn}}{k_{turn}}=\left(\frac{\delta H^1}{H^1}\right)_{eq},$$
(48)
and again, this reports a very small difference for all currently possible $`\omega `$-values. Only for $`\omega =25`$ this difference is about 12% (where a case of a power law potential with exponent equal to -2 taking as an example). For $`\omega =500`$ and bigger, the differences are less than 1% (to give a precise example it reports a 0.7% difference in the same power law case as commented before and $`\omega =500`$). Contrary to what Baccigalupi et al. have done in the past perrota  , we are not comparing two different theories (Brans-Dicke and General Relativity) with the same potential, but rather, and motivated by the findings of this section, Brans-Dicke theory with any given potential and General Relativity plus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. It is in this case that the possibilities of actually distinguishing both situations diminish.

## V Non-minimally coupled Theories

The details of the cosmological evolution using the general action (III) above, with $`\omega =1`$ and

$$F(\varphi )=1+\xi \varphi ^2$$
(49)
were explored in Refs. perrota ; per2 ; bacci2 , among many others, and we refer the reader to these works and references therein for additional relevant discussions. Our numerical code is in agreement with the results therein reported, and it is a direct extension of the numerical implementation reported in Section IIIB.

In this Section, following the previous discussion, we would like to focus on the possible definitions of equations of state and their impact onto observable quantities. Just as an example, we show in Figure 3 the case of a tracking potential of the form $`V=V_0\varphi ^2`$, $`H_0=70`$km/s/Mpc, in a flat universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}=0.4`$. The equivalent Brans-Dicke parameter (obtained by redefining fields in Eq. (III) in order for it to look like a Brans-Dicke theory) is $`\omega _{JBD}=\omega F/F_{,\varphi }^2`$, and its value is given by defining $`\xi `$. The value of $`\xi `$ used in the model of Figure 3 and successive ones is 5.8 $`10^3`$, what implies an equivalent Brans-Dicke parameter $`\omega _{BD}=3071`$, well in agreement with current constraints.

Starting from the general field equations, we can immediately define, as done for the Brans-Dicke theory, an effective energy density and pressure for the scalar field. The former, for instance, appears writing the 00-component of the field equation as $`H^2=1/3F\left(\rho _{fluid}+\rho _\varphi \right).`$ The explicit expression then being,

$$\rho _\varphi =\frac{\omega }{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+V3H\dot{F}$$
(50)
for the energy density, and

$$p_\varphi =\frac{\omega }{2}\dot{\varphi }^2V+2H\dot{F}+\ddot{F}$$
(51)
for the pressure. These two expressions do not, as we have shown before, pertain to a conserved energy-momentum tensor. They do, however, define an effective equation of state, this being just $`p_\varphi /\rho _\varphi `$. This relationship is subject to same caveats mentioned above for the case of Brans-Dicke: it is neither positive nor negative defined, since the effective energy density itself shifts its sign during the evolution. The energy density quoted above is what is depicted (whenever possible) in Figure 3. As it can be seen, it tracks closely the usually defined minimally coupled (MC) energy density at low redshifts, this being an effect of the necessarily small coupling $`\xi `$ that is adopted to fulfill observational constraints.

Again, in order to work with a conserved energy-momentum tensor, we can rewrite the field equations and obtain a real equation of state, $`w_\varphi =\stackrel{~}{p}_\varphi /\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\varphi `$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\varphi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}_\varphi `$ were given in Eqs. (42) and (43), respectively. As we already mentioned in the case of Brans-Dicke, this equation of state is exactly what results in writing the field equation as $`H^2=1/3(\rho _{fluid}+\varrho _\varphi )`$, defining implicitly $`\varrho _\varphi =1/F(\rho _{fluid}+\rho _\varphi )\rho _{fluid}.`$ Finally, just for comparison, one can as well consider the equation of state for the case of a minimally coupled scalar field, $`p/\rho `$, with

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+V(\varphi ),$$
(52)
$$p=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\varphi }^2V(\varphi ).$$
(53)
In Figure 4 we show the results of these different definitions of equation of state for the current time, as a function of the exponent of the power law potential $`V=V_0\varphi ^\alpha `$, for a flat universe model given by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m,0}=0.4`$, the same model used in Figure 3. We see that they do not present noticeable differences. Very low values of the power law exponent (shallow potentials) are needed to produce equations of state near that generated by a cosmological constant. To be quantitative, Figure 4 also shows, in the right panel, the differences between the equation of state directly related with the Hubble parameter, $`w_\varphi `$ and the non-minimally coupled (NMC) and minimally coupled $`p_\varphi /\rho _\varphi `$. Clearly, the differences are minor. One can actually understand why these differences are so small. Note that the energy density and pressure in a non-minimally coupled field theory can be written as the minimally coupled ones plus additional terms. In the case of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\varphi `$, these terms are equal to $`3H\dot{F}+3H^2(1F)`$, whereas for $`\rho _\varphi `$ only the first term above enters. Both these terms are, however, proportional to $`\xi `$, being themselves

$$3H\dot{F}+3H^2(1F)6\xi H\dot{\varphi }3\xi H^2\varphi ^2.$$

But since from the evolution of the field, $`𝒪(H^1\dot{\varphi })`$=1 today, and at the current era, $`𝒪(H^2)V`$, the energy density can be written as $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\varphi \rho _{mc}3\xi (\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{2}+V\varphi ^2)`$, where $`\rho _{mc}`$ is the minimally coupled energy density. Clearly, at the current cosmological era and because of the constraints on $`\xi `$, the second terms are sub-dominant in comparison to the first ones. A similar analysis can be established for the pressure, where again all extra terms are proportional to $`\xi `$, and then for the equations of state. Today the influence of the last terms in Eqs. (42) and (43), the ‘gravitational dragging’ terms, as dubbed in Ref. per2 , is negligible in comparison to the minimally coupled contribution. It is only in the past, when the matter density dominates the evolution of the universe, that these terms become important.

The previous analysis is not valid in the past history of the universe. Figure 5 shows the evolution of the different equations of state with redshift. We can see that the scaling solution of the tracking potentials (equation of state is approximately equal to $`2/(2+\alpha )`$ between $`z`$1–1000, when $`\rho _{matter}>\rho _\varphi `$, see for e.g. Refs. perrota ; per2 ), appears for all defined equations of state but $`w_\varphi `$. We also note that because of the sign non-definiteness of the defined non-minimally coupled effective ‘energy density’, the corresponding equation of state shows sudden changes at high redshift, in the position where the density cross zero. Finally, we find that for tracking non-minimally coupled quintessence, there is no super-quintessence potential in any of the defined equations of state, not even by an small amount, all of them being greater than -1 at present. This latter result is actually valid for all potentials analyzed (similar cases than those presented in Table I).

### V.1 Comments on perturbations and on the possible degeneracy with kinetically driven quintessence

Perturbations analysis of the field equations, as done by Perrotta and Baccigalupi per2 , have shown that rich phenomena are uncovered when working with the field equations written as in (37). The most important of them are those generated by gravitational dragging, exclusive of non-minimally coupled theories. This phenomenon is, basically, the early dominance of the last term in Eqs. (42) and (43), which is, in turn, produced due to the fact that they are proportional to the square of the Hubble parameter, and then to the total energy density. The latter scales as $`a^3`$ and $`a^4`$ at early times, and then makes the gravitational generated term to dominate the dynamics of the field.

The advantage of writing the formalism as in Eq. (37) is the fact that usual perturbation analysis –as applied for any fluid component of the universe– is also valid for the field. In that sense, concepts as the equation of state, or the adiabatic sound speed

$$c_\varphi ^2=\frac{\dot{\stackrel{~}{p}}_\varphi }{\dot{\stackrel{~}{\rho }}_\varphi }=w_\varphi \frac{1}{3H}\frac{\dot{w}_\varphi }{1+w_\varphi },$$
(54)
(where we have made use of the field conservation equation) can be well defined. If the field is slowly varying in time, $`c_\varphi ^2w_\varphi `$. Hu Hu  showed, for negative equations of state, that adiabatic fluctuations are unable to give support against gravitational collapse. Density perturbations would become non-linear after entering the horizon, unless the entropic term $`w_\varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi >0`$ Hu .

The effective sound speed, $`c_{\mathrm{eff},\varphi }^2`$, is then defined in the rest frame of the scalar field, where $`\delta T_{j\varphi }^0=0`$ Hu . The gauge invariant entropic term is written as $`w_\varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi =(c_{\mathrm{eff}}^2c_\varphi ^2)\delta _\varphi ^{(rest)},`$ where $`\delta _\varphi ^{(rest)}`$ is the density contrast in the dark energy rest frame per2  $`\delta _\varphi ^{(rest)}=\delta _\varphi +3\frac{}{k}\left(1+w_\varphi \right)\left(v_\varphi B\right)`$ (we refer the reader to Ref. per2  for more careful explanations). For normal quintessence, the effective sound speed is $`c_{\mathrm{eff},\varphi }^2=1`$, giving a relativistic behavior to the corresponding density fluctuations. However, Perrotta and Baccigalupi per2  have found that the situation can be much different for non-minimally coupled gravity. In that case,

$$c_{\mathrm{eff},\varphi }^2\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{p}_\varphi }{\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }_\varphi }$$
(55)
for values of $`kH`$. But because of gravitational dragging, $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }_\varphi `$ can be quite difference from the usual case, and this ratio may be much lower than unity whenever the energy density perturbations of the scalar field are enhanced by perturbations in the matter field. At the level of perturbations, then, quite distinctive effects appears in non-minimally coupled quintessence as compared with the usual case and make these theories possibly distinguishable.

Very recently, yet another scenario for an alternative model of quintessence was introduced picon . In it, known as $`k`$-essence, the Lagrangian density includes a non-canonic kinetic term:

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{16\pi G}R+p(\varphi ,\varphi )\right)+S_{m,r},$$
(56)
where $`S_{m,r}`$ denotes the action for matter and/or radiation. Examples in which the Lagrangian depends only on the scalar field $`\varphi `$ and its derivative squared $`X=\frac{1}{2}^\mu \varphi _\mu \varphi .`$ have been constructed picon . The field equations for this models are

$`R_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }R=`$
$`8\pi G\left({\displaystyle \frac{p(\varphi ,X)}{X}}_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi +p(\varphi ,X)g_{\mu \nu }+T_{\mu \nu }^{m,r}\right)`$ (57)
where $`T_{\mu \nu }^{m,r}`$ is the energy-momentum tensor for usual matter fields. $`p(\varphi ,X)`$ corresponds to the pressure of the scalar field, whereas the energy density is given by $`\rho _\varphi =2Xp/Xp`$ picon2 . It can be seen that for this models, the speed of sound is given by erik

$$c_{\mathrm{eff}}^2=\frac{p_{Q,X}}{\rho _{Q,X}}=\frac{p_{,X}}{p_{,X}+2Xp_{,XX}}.$$
(58)
Apparently, then, and since $`p`$ is completely generic, it could exist a non-canonic kinetic term within $`k`$-essence giving rise to the same results of non-minimally coupled gravity. Viscosity (a parameter relating velocity and metric shear with anisotropic stress Hu ) can however provide the way to break the degeneracy, since it results non-zero for a non-minimally coupled field (contrary as well to what results in usual quintessence) per2 .

## VI Conclusions

In the case of Brans-Dicke theory, and in the cases of $`\omega _{BD}`$ allowed by current constraints, we have numerically proven that the homogeneous field equations of extended quintessence yield to no observable effect that can distinguish the theory from the predictions of General Relativity plus a cosmological constant. It is with this model that the comparison should be made, since for the large values of the coupling parameters required by current experiments, all potentials are closely similar to a constant function, and the theory itself to General Relativity. Although we have not made a detailed perturbation analysis using the full numerical CMBFAST code, we can safely predict that the same situation will happen there, as a result of the analysis made for the CMB-related observables in Section IIC. We discussed the observationally-related definition of equation of state $`w_\varphi `$, and not to the usually studied ratio between the effective pressure and density directly obtained from the field equations, to which we assign no particular physical meaning. The phenomenon of super-quintessence, i.e. a super-accelerated expansion of the universe, although possible for a non-minimally coupled Brans-Dicke scalar field, and impossible in any minimally coupled field situation, it is of such an small amount that is far beyond the expectations of any realistic experiment. From a practical point of view, then, it will always exist a scalar field potential supporting a minimally coupled field that produces experimentally indistinguishable results from those obtained within the extended quintessence framework of Brans-Dicke theory.

For the more general extended non-minimally coupled models studied, the possibility of having super-quintessence actually disappears: all tracking potentials explored produce effective equations of state greater than -1. We have shown that for low values of the exponent in the tracking potentials supporting the non-minimally coupled field (i.e. equations of state are close to -1), the difference among all defined equations of state is negligible. It is, however, in the perturbation regime where differences with the usual quintessence case can be noticed. As Perrotta and Baccigalupi have found per2 , a new gravitational dragging effect appears here, giving rise to the possibility of clumps of scalar field matter. In this case, however, it is with $`k`$-essence models that a degeneracy could appear, particularly in those cases in which $`p_{,X}+2Xp_{,XX}1`$, yielding the speed of sound to values close to zero.

Finally, we remark that expanding solutions where acceleration is transient have been recently considered given the consistency problem between string theory and spaces with future horizons hellerman . Since scalar-tensor theories of gravity likely originate in string theory, it would be interesting to make a similar analysis to that presented in the previous reference for the case of non-minimally coupled theories.

###### Acknowledgements.

It is a pleasure to warmly acknowledge Prof. Uros Seljak. His contribution and permanent advice were invaluable. Very useful discussions with Dr. F. Perrotta, as well as interesting comments by Dr. A. Mazumdar, are also thankfully acknowledged. Dr. Perrotta is further acknowledged for his critical reading of the manuscript. An important improvement of the paper has been possible after useful remarks from an anonymous Referee.

### Appendix

In the literature, one may find two alternative introductions of general non-minimally coupled theories. Firstly, the one that we follow in Section II (see for instance PRL ), and secondly, the one that is derived from the action

$`S={\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}f(\varphi ,R){\displaystyle \frac{\omega (\varphi )}{2}}^\mu \varphi _\mu \varphi `$
$`V(\varphi )+L_{fluid}],`$ (59)
where $`\kappa `$ is a constant, not necessarily taken as 1, and plays the role of the “bare” gravitational constant (see for instance farese , by the same authors). The function $`f`$ is then assumed to be of the form

$$(1/\kappa )f(\varphi ,R)=F(\varphi )R.$$
(60)
The function $`F`$, in the case we are interested in, is written as

$$F(\varphi )=\frac{1}{\kappa }+\xi \varphi ^2=1+\xi (\varphi ^2\varphi _0^2).$$
(61)
Then, a value of $`\kappa =1`$, as we have taken in the theoretical development of the previous sections just reduces to take $`\varphi _0`$, the current value of the field, equal to 0. This, however, is not what may result, in general, numerically convenient, since it would imply to precisely fix the evolution of the field to reach $`\varphi =0`$ today. Instead, as we are not actually interested in any value of $`\kappa `$ per se, we do not make $`\kappa =1`$ in our numerical code, and instead follow the treatment given by Perrotta and Baccigalupi (per2 ). In that case, they choose to rewrite the field equations as

$$G_{\mu \nu }=\kappa T_{\mu \nu },$$
(62)
with the corresponding field energy density and pressure given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\varphi =\omega \frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{2}+V(\varphi )3H\dot{F}+3H^2\left(\frac{1}{\kappa }F\right),$$
(63)
$$\stackrel{~}{p}_\varphi =\omega \frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{2}V(\varphi )+2H\dot{F}+\ddot{F}(3H^2+2\dot{H})\left(\frac{1}{\kappa }F\right).$$
(64)
When comparing Eq. (62) with the usual Einstein equations, one has to take into account that the value of $`\kappa `$ is not 1 (although certainly it is truly close to unity, because of the constraint imposed on $`\xi `$). Then, if we decide to write the Friedman equation like $`H^2=1/3(\rho _{fluid}+\varrho _\varphi )`$, to directly compare with GR (and the same matter density) the corresponding relationship between $`\varrho _\varphi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\varphi `$ give in Eq. (63) is

$$\varrho _\varphi =(\kappa 1)\rho _{fluid}+\kappa \stackrel{~}{\rho }_\varphi .$$
(65)
In this scheme, $`\stackrel{~}{p}_\varphi /\stackrel{~}{\rho }_\varphi `$ (with quantities defined as in Eqs. (63) and (64)) will differ from the equation

$$w_\varphi =1\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\varrho _\varphi }{\varrho _{\varphi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}}\right)\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}(a)},$$
(66)
because $`\varrho _\varphi \stackrel{~}{\rho }_\varphi `$, but it is the latter Eq. (66) what should be used to compare with the results of General Relativity with a fixed current matter density.


format: text

text:
# Broken space-time symmetries and mechanisms of rectification of ac fields by nonlinear (non)adiabatic response

## I Introduction

Much has been written on noise induced transport, where noise may be coloured, or simply white plus time periodic signal. Arguments include violation of fluctuation-dissipation theorems, breaking of reflection symmetries of potentials in space, Maxwell daemons, mixing of harmonics (of e.g. a periodic drive), etc. All this applied to both classical and quantum systems, and extended at least conceptually to stochastic resonance, quantum stochastic resonance, etc. A recent review on ratchet transport by Reimann  provides with a lot of theoretical and experimental results, and we refer the interested reader to this work.

For a set of related problems, such as directed particle current , directed energy current , average magnetization , and nonlinear Hall effect , to name a few, a recently published symmetry approach was shown to systematically account for all relevant symmetries which have to be broken in order to explain the observed rectification effect. The purpose of this paper is to generalize this approach, and to apply it to different physically relevant situations like underdamped, overdamped or zero temperature cases. We also use the nonlinear response arguments to make the results of symmetry considerations very transparent. We will argue for a rather minor role of additional fluctuations which are mainly responsible for the area of phase space explored. Although we will discuss mostly the case of time-periodic external fields, we will also show how the nonlinear response concept can be generalized to fields which are quasiperiodic in time.

The paper has the following structure. In the next section we discuss the symmetry breaking by considering the adiabatic limit and making use of some general forms of nonlinear response functions. Section III is devoted to the detailed symmetry analysis of a classical particle moving in a periodic potential under the influence of an external ac drive. Symmetry breaking leads to a directed current here. We will discuss the presence of ballistic channels which provide with a mechanism of current rectification. We will show that these ballistic channels survive in the presence of dissipation. Section IV addresses the case of a particle with nonparabolic dispersion. The addition of a spatial potential allows us to tune the system in such a way that ballistic channels disappear. This will lead to an expected dramatic drop of the directed current value. Conclusions and discussions are given in Section V.

## II  Adiabatic response to slow <br>ac fields

Consider a certain system in contact with a heat bath. The system is characterized by some internal (nonlinear) dynamics, and we will discuss concrete models below. So far we just need to know that its state can be characterized by certain variables which are functions of time. These could be functions of phase space variables of a classical system, or expectation values of operators for a quantum system. Consider one of such variables which we denote as $`A(t)`$. The coupling to the heat bath will be characterized by at least two parameters - the temperature of the bath (we will use the notation of inverse temperature $`\beta `$) and some set of relaxation times, in the simplest case just one relaxation time (we will use the notation of the inverse relaxation time $`\nu `$). We also assume that the chosen variable $`A(t)`$ is zero on average.

Let us now apply a static field $`E`$ which couples to $`A`$ such that a nonzero average $`\stackrel{~}{A}=A(t)_t`$ is generated. Its dependence on $`E`$ is assumed to be given by some single valued response function $`\stackrel{~}{A}=f(E)`$  (the physical meaning of the response function can be different, electric polarization or magnetization, for example). The above mentioned symmetries will be connected with corresponding symmetries of the function $`f(E)`$. This function will be in general nonlinear, yet in some cases it may be expanded in a Taylor series around $`E=0`$ and start with a linear term (this term describes then the linear response). There are two possibilities: the function $`f(E)`$ is either antisymmetric $`f(E)=f(E)`$ or it is asymmetric $`f(E)f(E)`$.

Before analyzing the case of adiabatically slow periodic ac fields, we will more rigorously introduce the notion of possible symmetries of an arbitrary periodic function with zero mean.

### A Classification of symmetries of a periodic function with zero mean

Consider a periodic function $`g(z+2\pi )=g(z)`$ having zero mean. First such functions may be symmetric around certain $`z`$ values. Without loss of generality this point may be set to zero and we find $`g(z)=g(z)`$. We will use the abbreviation $`g_s`$ in such a case. Second such functions may be antisymmetric $`g(z)=g(z)`$ (abbrevation $`g_a`$). Note that the points around which a function is symmetric and antisymmetric will be different if the function possesses both symmetries. Finally the function may posses shift symmetry (which is also called antiperiodicity): $`g(z+\pi )=g(z)`$ (abbreviation $`g_{sh}`$). A zero mean periodic function may possess none of the above symemtries, precisely one of them or all three simultaneously. In particular $`g_s`$ functions may be expanded in a pure cosine Fourier series, $`g_a`$ functions in a pure sine Fourier series, and $`g_{sh}`$ functions show up with zero even Fourier components in their Fourier series expansion. As a consequence the simplest function $`g(z)=\mathrm{cos}(z+z_0)`$ possesses all three symmetries. The function $`g(z)=\mathrm{cos}(z)+\mathrm{cos}(2z+z_0)`$ does not posses any of the listed symmetries except for $`z_0=0,\pi `$ ($`g_s`$) and $`z_0=\pm \pi /2`$ ($`g_a`$). A final example $`g(z)=\mathrm{cos}(z)+\mathrm{cos}(3z+z_0)`$ always possesses shift symmetry ($`g_{sh}`$) and in addition may be symmetric and antisymmetric for $`z_0=0,\pi `$.

Let us finally note that most cases under consideration use several harmonics contained in the drive. However it may be also important to use pulse sequences. The symmetry considerations can be straightforwardly applied also to such cases.

### B Periodic ac fields

Let us now assume that the field $`E`$ is slowly varying in time. Slowly means that the characteristic time scales of changes of $`E(t)`$ are much larger than all other time scales in the system. Then we are dealing with the adiabatic limit of the response to time-dependent fields. We may use the response $`f`$ to a static field and simply insert the slow time dependence: $`f[E(t)]`$. Consider a time-periodic field $`E(t)=E(t+T)`$ with zero average $`\stackrel{~}{E}=0`$. In general the corresponding value $`\stackrel{~}{A}=1/Tf(E(t))𝑑t`$ will be nonzero for asymmetric $`f`$. However for antisymmetric single-valued $`f`$ the average $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ will be zero provided the function $`E(t)`$ is either antisymmetric $`E(t)=E(t)`$ or has shift symmetry $`E(t)=E(t+T/2)`$.

Consider as an example

$$E(t)=E_1\mathrm{cos}t+E_2\mathrm{cos}(2t+\alpha )+E_3\mathrm{sin}(3t+\alpha ^{}).$$
(1)
For $`E_2=E_3=0`$ Eq. (1) has all three mentioned symmetries of periodic functions. For $`E_3=0`$ the function has no symmetries except for $`\alpha =n\pi `$ ($`n`$ integer) where it is symmetric or for $`\alpha =\pi (1/2+n)`$ where the function is antisymmetric. For $`E_2=0`$ Eq. (1) has shift symmetry except for $`\alpha ^{}=\pi (1/2+n)`$ when it is in addition symmetric and antisymmetric (around different time origins, of course).

Next we assume a case when the adiabatic response function $`f`$ may be expanded in a Taylor series:

$$f(E)=f_1E+f_2E^2+f_3E^3+\mathrm{}$$
(2)
where the skipping of higher order terms is justified by the smallness of $`E`$. For $`f_20`$ the response is asymmetric and consequently any field from (1) will in general lead to a nonzero average of $`f`$. For $`f_2=0`$ however all shift symmetric and antisymmetric $`E(t)`$ will yield zero averaged $`f`$ (because it leads also to a shift symmetry or antisymmetry of $`f`$ in time). As an example of mixing of harmonics the leading nonzero contribution for $`E_20`$, $`E_3=0`$ equals

$$\stackrel{~}{f}=\frac{1}{T}_0^Tf[E(t)]𝑑t=\frac{3}{4}f_3E_1^2E_2\mathrm{cos}\alpha +\mathrm{}.$$
(3)
In accordance with the above said $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ vanishes for $`\alpha =\pi (1/2+n)`$. Note that the antisymmetry property of $`f(E)`$ is linked to some internal symmetries of the dynamical system under consideration, as will be shown below.

It is important to note that the written above is valid for single-valued response functions. If the coupling to a heat bath is too weak, response functions may contain hysteretic loops. Such cases need separate discussion .

### C Quasiperiodic ac fields

We may even consider quasiperiodic driving here. Suppose that we drive the system with a field $`E(t)=e_1(t)+e_2(t)`$ where both components $`e_{1,2}`$ are time periodic, but with incommensurable periods. The resulting field $`E(t)`$ would be then quasiperiodic. If considering low amplitude fields and expanding the response function to second or third order, the full dc average of $`A(t)`$ will be given by a mere sum of the averages obtained in the presence of only one of the two periodic fields. Consider e.g. $`E(t)=e_1\mathrm{cos}\omega _1t+e_2\mathrm{cos}\omega _2t`$ and an asymmetric response. In lowest order in the field amplitudes we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{f}=f_2\left(\frac{1}{2}e_1^2+\frac{1}{2}e_2^2\right)+f_4\left(\frac{3}{8}e_1^4+\frac{3}{8}e_2^4+\frac{6}{4}e_1^2e_2^2\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(4)
In higher orders in the response interference effects appear, so that products of the field components enter the result. Yet for the lowest order case ($`f_2`$) only the sum appears. So we may assume that further changing the drive by adding more time periodic field components does not change the main result of a possibility of a nonzero average.

If we consider an antisymmetric response function $`f`$, we need to choose a more sophisticated quasiperiodic drive. Take e.g. $`E(t)=e_1(t)+e_2(t)`$ with $`e_i(t)=e_{i1}\mathrm{cos}\omega _it+e_{i2}\mathrm{cos}(2\omega _it+\alpha _i)`$. Assuming again that the field amplitude is small, we obtain in lowest order

$$\stackrel{~}{f}=\frac{3}{4}f_3\left(e_{11}^2e_{12}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _1+e_{21}^2e_{22}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _2\right).$$
(5)
Again we find that the periodic components of the quasiperiodic drive contribute additively in lowest order. Note that each contribution can be obtained by considering a reduced drive function consisting only of this part. The corresponding contribution is clearly related to the symmetry properties of this reduced drive.

### D Do we need more?

Once a given problem is considered in the adiabatic limit like discussed above, the appearance of nonzero averages due to ac fields can be obtained, and further changing of parameters away from the adiabatic limit will change numbers, but not the fact of nonzero averages. Ratchet transport in its general form falls into such a class of systems. Indeed a particle moving in a periodic potential $`V(x)=V(x+\lambda )`$ under the influence of an external colored noise and dissipation may be taken into the limit of zero temperature (no noise), slow periodic driving and zero mass (over damped case):

$$\dot{x}+V^{}(x)+E(t)=0.$$
(6)
The response of $`\dot{x}`$ to a corresponding static field $`E`$ is well known and has been discussed in connection with Josephson current-voltage characteristics (for symmetric potentials). The response is clearly nonlinear, and antisymmetric if the potential is symmetric in space. In case of asymmetric ratchet potentials the response is nonlinear but asymmetric. In the latter case a simple $`E(t)\mathrm{cos}t`$ signal with large enough amplitude will generate a nonzero averaged current. In case of symmetric potentials a drive which is neither antisymmetric nor shift symmetric is needed.

Nonadiabatic corrections are of interest and importance. E.g. upon constantly increasing the frequency of a drive, currents (or other averages) may change sign, or increase or decrease by orders of magnitude ,,. Especially interesting are cases when certain (nonadiabatic) parameter limits give rise to new symmetries. These symmetries may be traced back away from the corresponding limits and help understand lots of peculiar features which are observed in such driven systems.

If the adiabatic response simply vanishes, nonadiabatic response contributions will be not just mere corrections. In such cases the symmetry considerations of the underlying equations of motion presented below appear to be the most direct way to predict rectification effects. One example of such a case is given in  where the problem of driven quantum spins in ac magnetic fields is considered. While the adiabatic limit provides with zero induced magnetization component in y-direction there, nonadiabatic response terms make this component nonzero, as expected from symmetry considerations.

## III Directed currents - the case of a classical particle in a periodic potential

In order to make further progress in the understanding of rectification it is useful to define a model. Here we will consider the case of a particle of the unit mass moving in a space-periodic potential $`V(x)=V(x+\lambda )`$ under the influence of friction and external forces:

$$m\ddot{x}+\gamma \dot{x}f(x)\chi (t)=0,$$
(7)
where $`f(x)=V^{}(x)`$ and $`\chi (t)`$ is zero on average. The mass $`m`$ is assumed to be equal to one if not stated otherwise. If $`\chi (t)`$ is a Gaussian white noise, the particle undertakes diffusion with zero net current, in accord with the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. If however $`\chi (t)`$ contains correlations (color), then it is known that a nonzero net (dc) current is possible. In order to understand this result, it is appropriate to make the correlations in the noise as transparent as possible. The easiest way to do so is to choose

$$\chi (t)=\xi (t)+E(t),E(t)=E(t+T),$$
(8)
where $`\xi (t)`$ is a Gaussian white noise and the time-periodic external field $`E(t)`$ has zero mean. A probabilistic description of the system is then possible using a Fokker-Planck equation (see Appendix A).

In a next radical step we skip the $`\xi (t)`$ term. The reason for that is that we will be left with a deterministic equation, whose symmetries may be studied. These symmetries involving operations in time $`t`$ are assumed to hold even in the presence of a Gaussian white noise, since such a term does not contain temporal correlations. Note that the general nonintegrability of the resulting equations may provide with irregular (chaotic) trajectories. Thus we are left with an equation of the form

$$m\ddot{x}+\gamma \dot{x}f(x)E(t)=0.$$
(9)
### A The relevant symmetries and ways of violations

In order to characterize the symmetries of Eq. (9) we remind that the phase space dimension is three. As we look for nonzero average currents which are characterized by the velocity $`\dot{x}`$, we have to check whether there exist symmetries which allow to generate out of a specific trajectory of (9) another one with reversed velocities. The transformations of interest have to involve a change of sign of $`\dot{x}`$ leaving its absolute value unchanged. Thus we look for transformations which leave Eq.(9) invariant and

* either change the sign of $`xx`$ and simultaneously shift time $`tt+t_0`$
* invert time $`tt`$ and shift coordinate $`xx+x_0`$.

The following symmetries can be identified :

$`\widehat{S}_a:xx,tt+{\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}},\mathrm{if}\{f_a,E_{sh}\};`$ (10)
$`\widehat{S}_b:xx,tt,\mathrm{if}\{E_s,\gamma =0\};`$ (11)
$`\widehat{S}_c:xx+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}},tt,\mathrm{if}\{f_{sh},E_a,m=0\}.`$ (12)
Note that $`\widehat{S}_b`$ and $`\widehat{S}_c`$ require $`\gamma =0`$ (Hamiltonian case) and $`m=0`$ (overdamped case) respectively. Another observation is that all symmetries require certain symmetry properties of the external drive $`E(t)`$, while the properties of the space-periodic force $`f`$ does not matter for $`\widehat{S}_b`$. A proper choice of the drive may thus break all of the above listed symmetries with any coordinate dependence of the force $`f(x)`$.

It is useful to provide an interpretation of the action of the above symmetry operations on trajectories of (9). If the equation of motion is invariant under a symmetry, it implies that a given solution or trajectory, when transformed using the symmetry operation, yields again a solution or trajectory of the system. It may be the same trajectory or a different one. The symmetry $`\widehat{S}_a`$ for $`\gamma 0`$ transforms an attractor into an attractor, repellers into repellers and basins of attraction into basins of attraction. Thus if an attractor is mapped onto itself, the average velocity on that attractor is zero. If an attractor is mapped onto another attractor, we find complete symmetry between the two attractors and their basins of attraction, while the average velocities will be of opposite sign. The symmetry $`\widehat{S}_b`$, which is valid for the Hamiltonian case, simply relates two trajectories to each other, both having opposite average velocities.

Once we add white noise, we have to consider some way of weighting different trajectories. In that sense, if two different trajectories are related by a symmetry $`\widehat{S}_a`$ or $`\widehat{S}_b`$ and have identical statistical weight, their contributions to a total average current will annihilate.

The symmetry $`\widehat{S}_c`$ is acting in the overdamped limit, yet it is reverting the sign of time. Thus it maps an attractor on a repeller and the basin of attraction of an attractor into the basin of repulsion of a repeller. It follows that due to the low dimension $`d=2`$ of the phase space of this problem, the compactness of the phase space and the uniqueness of a trajectory running through a point in it, that all trajectories have zero average velocity when $`\widehat{S}_c`$ is valid.

In order to correctly incorporate the effects of noise, kinetic equations have to be considered. This is done in Appendix A.

If at least one of the symmetries (11) is valid, we conclude that the averaged current is zero if an additional white Gaussian noise term is added. This noise will simply lead to an exploration of the whole phase space and thus realize on finite times different trajectories of the deterministic system.

Once all of the above symmetries are broken, we may expect that in general the average current will be nonzero. The understanding of the mechanisms which will lead to this current can be best obtained in the absence of noise for the deterministic system.

### B Rectification mechanisms in the Hamiltonian limit

As it was shown in  the value of the average current is strongly enhanced for the underdamped case, when the dissipation rate tends to zero. Thus we start our study of the mechanisms with the dissipationless case $`\gamma =0`$. This Hamiltonian limit of Eq. (7) is generically characterized by nonintegrable dynamics with a mixed phase space containing both chaotic and regular areas . A stochastic layer appears around the separatrix of the integrable nondriven \[$`E(t)=0`$\] Eq. (7).

Contributions to a nonzero current may come from trajectories inside the stochastic layer as well as from regular unbound motion. Because the latter always exist for motion in both directions, strong effective cancellation of currents takes place , while the strongest remaining contribution again comes from the stochastic layer, which will be considered below.

In the following we choose the following functions and parameters:

$`V(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}x,`$ (13)
$`E(t)`$ $`=`$ $`E_1\mathrm{cos}\omega t+E_2\mathrm{cos}(2\omega t+\alpha ).`$ (14)
This choice ensures that the symmetries $`\widehat{S}_a`$ and $`\widehat{S}_b`$ are broken. In Fig.1 we show the Poincare map of the main stochastic layer of our model.

Points with coordinates $`p=\dot{x}`$ and $`xmod\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi `$ are drawn after each period of the drive. In Fig. 2 the time dependence of the coordinate $`x(t)`$ is shown.

We observe a drift in accordance with the symmetry breaking . The average velocity is approximately $`\dot{x}0.85`$.

In order to understand the dynamical mechanisms of a nonzero dc current in the stochastic layer, we first note that the stochastic layer is bounded in phase space. The boundary contains of a fractal set of regular islands embedded in the stochastic layer. A trajectory from the stochastic layer may become trapped for quite long times in these boundaries and perform ballistic-like (regular-like) dynamics. The symmetry breaking of the equations of motion is reflected in a desymmetrization of these fractal boundary structures for the upper and lower boundaries. This in turn leads to a desymmetrization of distribution functions which characterize the probability to stick and stay in such a boundary region . In Fig.3(b) the probability distribution functions of the flight durations to the left and the right (for technical details see ) are shown. These functions are characterized by algebaically decaying tails, and we clearly observe the above mentioned desymmetrization.

In the inset of Fig.3(b) each point denotes the distance covered in a given flight during the time of ballistic-like motion. We observe a fine structure with three branches. Two major ones correspond to the main ballistic channels with opposite velocities while and a minor third one corresponds to a channel with smaller negative velocity.

### C Presence of dissipation

When dissipation is present in the system (i.e. $`\gamma 0`$), the phase space of the system separates into basins of attraction of different low-dimensional attractors. Close to the Hamiltonian limit these attractors are limit cycles: $`x(t+T)=x(t)+2\pi m`$, $`\dot{x}(t+T)=\dot{x}(t)`$, $`mZ`$. These limit cycles are locked to the external periodic drive $`E(t)`$, therefore their period $`T`$ is characterized by $`T=2n\pi /\omega `$, $`nZ`$. The average velocity on the limit is given by

$$\dot{x}=\frac{1}{T}_0^T\dot{x}𝑑t=\frac{m}{n}\omega .$$
(15)
When further away from the Hamiltonian limit chaotic attractors can appear via period-doubling bifurcations .

A numerical test reveals that in the case of $`\gamma =10^4`$ only two limit cycle attractors appear. Their location in the Poincare map is shown in Fig. 1 by two filled circles. The dependence of $`\dot{x}(t)`$ on both attractors is shown in Fig. 4.

Note that the attractors are located inside regular islands of the corresponding nondissipative system. These islands are characterized with nonzero winding numbers, and the sticking of the chaotic trajectory of the nondissipative case provides with the above discussed ballistic channels there. So we observe that the ballistic channels of the Hamiltonian system survive by transforming into limit cycle attractors of the weakly dissipative case.

As the attractors are located inside the stochastic layer of the Hamiltonian limit, their basins of attraction are expected to show up with a complex folding structure. This fact is manifested beautifully if we add a noise of weak intensity which corresponds to a small temperature $`1/\beta =0.05`$:

$$\xi (t)\xi (t^{})=2\gamma /\beta \delta (tt^{}).$$
(16)
$`1/\beta `$ is small compared to the energy barrier of the periodic potential. As it turns out, in this case of strong external driving the system is so far from the equilibrium case, that different scales have to be used in order to compare with the noise intensity. In Fig. 5 we show the corresponding Poincare map over a total time of $`t_f=10^6`$. We observe that the trajectory is sticking for long times to the two attractors. But most importantly we observe frequent escapes from the attractors basins. Once the trajectory is kicked out of such a basin, it starts to quickly explore the stochastic layer space, due to the weak damping, weak noise, and the above mentioned complex folding of the basin boundaries. This results in the fact that the probability distribution of the velocities is far from being Maxwellian.

The dependence of $`x(t)`$ for the dissipative case with noise is shown in Fig. 6. Although the dc current value has changed compared to the Hamiltonian case, again the evolution is characterized by sticking to ballistic channels.

An evaluation of the corresponding ballistic flight time distributions is shown in Fig.3(a). A remarkable similarity to the case of the distributions for the Hamiltonian case is observed. Also we observe that the power law tails of the Hamiltonian case are replaced by exponential ones in the dissipative case with noise, due to an expected noise-induced cutoff in the maximum correlation time.

A consequence of the above results is that the loss of ballistic channels due to the variation of some parameter may lead to a crossover-like decrease of the current. In the next section we will design a model which does possess these properties.

## IV Directed currents - the case of nonparabolic dispersion

So far we have discussed the case of a classical particle with parabolic dispersion, i.e. a kinetic energy quadratic in the momentum $`p`$. What happens if we consider nonparabolic dispersion? A prominent example would be a periodic dependence on $`p`$ as for $`(\mathrm{cos}p)`$, which reminds the consideration of a quantum particle evolution in one band approximations.

### A Absence of additional potential

Let us first consider the case of a particle with a general dispersion relation in the presence of additional ac driving:

$$H=ϵ(p)xE(t),ϵ(p)=ϵ(p).$$
(17)
If the function $`ϵ(p)`$ is chosen to be periodic, its period is defined as $`\lambda _p`$. Let us first consider the symmetries of the equations of motion which change the sign of the velocity $`\dot{x}`$:

$$\dot{x}=ϵ^{}(p),\dot{p}=E(t).$$
(18)
The following symmetries can be identified:

$`xx,pp,tt+{\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}\mathrm{if}\{E_{sh}\},`$ (19)
$`tt,pp\mathrm{if}\{E_s\},`$ (20)
$`xx,pp+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _p}{2}}\mathrm{if}\{ϵ_{sh}^{}\},`$ (21)
$`tt,pp+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _p}{2}}\mathrm{if}\{ϵ_{sh}^{},E_a\}.`$ (22)
Note that the last two operations (21,22) may apply only for periodic $`ϵ(p)`$ functions. Furthermore these operations change the energy of the undriven system. If these operations connect different trajectories, they should not matter at finite temperatures since different energies contribute with different weights.

Choosing the free particle case $`ϵ(p)=p^2/2`$ we may arrive at the conclusion that both relevant symmetries (19,20) can be violated by a proper choice of $`E(t)`$. Yet, as shown in , the expected dc current should be zero in such a case, in fact independent on the strength of some additionally applied dissipation and noise. The case of $`ϵ(p)=\mathrm{cos}p`$ is more involved. On one side it is well known that the kinetic Boltzmann equation solution provides with a nonzero dc current if both symmetries (19,20) are broken . On the other side this dc current tends to zero as the dissipationless Hamiltonian case is approached. We will show in the following that the reason for that is an additional symmetry of the solutions of (18) due to the integrability of (17).

Indeed, integration of (18) yields

$$p(t)=g(t;p_0,t_0)=p_0+E_I(t)E_I(t_0).$$
(23)
where $`\dot{E}_I(t)=E(t)`$. The function $`g`$ has the property

$$g(x;y,z)=g(z;y,x).$$
(24)
This symmetry operation relates points on a given trajectory to points on a set of other trajectories. Such a symmetry can not be derived from the equations of motion. It rather is a result of the integrability and reflects the symmetry of the solutions, i.e. of the phase space flow (in contrast symmetries of equations of motion relate two trajectories to each other).

The symmetry (24) is in place independent of the choice of the functions $`ϵ(p)`$ and $`E(t)`$ and provides with the following consequences. If we consider a corresponding kinetic equation with finite dissipation, the loss of correlations implies an averaging over the initial phase $`t_0`$ of the field $`E(t)`$. This averaging persists in the dissipationless limit, while on the other side we recover the above considered Hamiltonian properties. The averaging over $`t_0`$ leads to an enforcement of the symmetry (24), which in turn by changing the sign of $`p`$ changes the sign of $`\dot{x}`$. Thus a vanishing dc current is expected in that limit, in accordance with numerical and analytical analysis of kinetic equations. This result can be also obtained from (23) and (18) if an averaging with a distribution function, which is symmetric in $`p_0`$ and independent of $`x`$ and $`t_0`$, is performed:

$$_0^Tdt_0^Tdt_0\dot{x}|_{p_0}+_0^Tdt_0^Tdt_0\dot{x}|_{p_0}=0.$$
(25)
To detect a dc current carried by the electrons in a single band one has to break the integrability of the semiclassical equations of motion. We consider this case in the next section. An alternative way is a much more careful treatment of the quantum mechanical problem (see, for example ) which is however far beyond the scope of the present paper.

### B Presence of additional potential

Things change drastically if we add an external space-periodic potential to (17). Such a system is in general nonintegrable, and we may expect the additional symmetry (24) to not be present. To be precise, we choose the following model here:

$$H=\mathrm{cos}p\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}(2p)\frac{\xi ^2}{3}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{x}{\xi }\right)\frac{\xi }{3}xE(t).$$
(26)
The corresponding equations of motion read

$`\dot{x}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}p+\mathrm{sin}(2p),`$ (27)
$`\dot{p}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{3}}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{\xi }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{3}}E(t)`$ (28)
The free parameter $`\xi `$ can be used to reach the limit of (9). Indeed for $`\xi 0`$ $`\dot{p}0`$. Choosing a small value of $`|p|1`$ will keep the momentum small. This allows for an expansion of the right hand side of (27) to first order. Additional rescaling $`xx/\xi `$ and $`p(3/\xi )p`$ transforms the problem exactly to Eq. (9) (with $`\gamma =0`$). On the other side, a choice of a finite value of $`p`$ may lead to trajectories which are not contained in Eq. (9). In addition (26) is periodic in $`p`$, so the phase space is compact.

Let us discuss the relevant symmetries of Eqs. (27)-(28). Due to the presence of the $`\mathrm{cos}(2p)`$ term in (26) the shift symmetry of the kinetic energy is broken (in terms of electrons this implies loosing of the particle-hole symmetry). We can identify the following symmetry operations which lead to a change of sign of $`\dot{x}`$:

$`xx,pp,tt+{\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}\mathrm{if}\{E_{sh}\};`$ (29)
$`tt,pp\mathrm{if}\{E_s\}.`$ (30)
In the following we choose $`E(t)`$ from (13) which ensures that both symmetries are broken.

For $`\xi 1`$ the phase space of (26) is characterized by the presence of two disconnected stochastic layers. One of them corresponds to the layer in Fig. 1.

In Fig. 7 we show the Poincare map of (26) for $`\xi =0.35`$. Note that the central layer is the one which continuously transforms into the layer in Fig. 1 when $`\xi 0`$. An increasing of $`\xi `$ will lead to a merging of the layers, which is followed by losses (closings) of ballistic channels, that are located near the boundaries of the central stochastic layer. The Poincare map for $`\xi =1`$ is shown in Fig. 8.

Let us discuss a trajectory with initial conditions $`p=0`$ and $`x=\xi \pi `$, which ensures that we always start in the stochastic layer which corresponds to Fig.1 in the limit of small $`\xi `$. The dependence of the scaled dc current $`j_s=\dot{x}/\xi `$ is shown in Fig. 9 as a function of $`\xi `$. Specifically its values for the presented Poincare maps are $`j_s0.63`$ for $`\xi =0.35`$ and $`j_s0.002`$ for $`\xi =1`$. We observe indeed that the current variations correspond to a closing or opening of ballistic channels.

The above results support the general expectation that in the Hamiltonian limit a mixed phase space is needed, so that the current vanishes both in the case of an integrable system as well as in the case of a fully chaotic one.

## V Conclusions

We presented a symmetry approach to the effect of rectification due to external ac fields applied to a low-dimensional dynamical system with optional contact to a heat bath. The nonlinear (nonadiabatic) response is used to explain the effect. We explained the mechanisms of such a rectification for different cases. In the case of a particle moving in a space-periodic potential the explanation is given in terms of desymmetrization of ballistic channels which correspond to motion in different directions. While this explanation starts from the case of a nondissipative Hamiltonian limit, we showed that the ballistic channels are robust with respect to adding dissipation and fluctuations. The mechanism of the directed current in the presence of dissipation is hidden in the desymmetrization of the basins of attraction of previously symmetry-related limit cycles with oppositely directed velocities.

A recent geometric approach by H. Schanz et al in  provides with an elegant way to account for the average drift velocity in the Hamiltonian case. The basic ingredient of this approach is the assumption of an invariant density distribution in a stochastic layer being constant inside the layer. The resulting sum rule, when evaluated for concrete cases, provides with average velocities which quantitatively agree with our observations. A consequence of the sum rule is that a nonzero directed current may appear only in systems with a mixed phase space. This result correlates with our discussion of the mechanisms of directed currents in terms of ballistic channels, which may appear only provided the stochastic layer has some bounds with regular phase space regions, and the ballistic channels occur precisely in the neighborhood of these bounds. Open questions are: i) is there purely diffusive (chaotic) directed motion besides of transport through ballistic channels? (ii) when can one of these two mechanisms prevail?

It was shown that the symmetry properties of the Fokker-Planck equation match the symmetries of the corresponding deterministic equations of motion in the absence of noise. Similar results hold for a Boltzmann equation .

Our symmetry considerations may be as well used to explain rectifications in such diverse situations as i) the directed motion of particles in non-Newtonian liquids , ii) the appearance of ring currents for particles moving in a two-dimensional space-periodic potential , iii) the appearance of directed heat flux currents in systems of interacting particles , iv) the appearance of a nonzero dc polarization, v) quantum ratchets , to name a few. Symmetry analysis is also instructive in the case of less conventional models, like systems with built-in asymmetry , where the asymmetry is hidden in a many body system’s internal interactions.
Acknowledgments
We thank T. Dittrich, M. V. Fistul, P. Hänggi, R. Ketzmerick, A. Miroshnichenko, P. Reimann and H. Schantz for stimulating discussions, and A. Miroshnichenko for numerical help with solving Fokker-Planck equations.

Appendix A

The Fokker-Planck equation for the probability distribution $`W(x,p,t)`$ with $`p\dot{x}`$ of equations (7),(8) reads

$$\frac{W}{t}=p\frac{W}{x}+\frac{1}{m}\frac{}{p}\left[f(x)E(t)+\gamma p+\frac{\gamma }{m\beta }\frac{}{p}\right]W.$$
(31)
This equation is linear in $`W`$, preserves the norm $`W𝑑x𝑑p`$ and is dissipative. For a fixed norm any initial condition will converge to a single attractor solution $`W_s`$. For the case $`E(t)=0`$ it is easy to see that the attractor is the Gibbs distribution. For nonzero $`E(t)`$ the attractor solution $`W_s`$ will be periodic in $`x`$ and $`t`$. The average current is given by

$$p=pW_s𝑑x𝑑p𝑑t.$$
(32)
It follows that (31) is invariant under the following transformations:

$`\widehat{S}_a:xx,pp,tt+{\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}},\mathrm{if}\{f_a,E_{sh}\};`$ (33)
$`\widehat{S}_b:xx,tt,pp,\mathrm{if}\{E_s,\gamma =0\}.`$ (34)
At the same time (32) is changing sign. Since the solution $`W_s`$ is unique, the conclusion is that $`p=0`$.

The overdamped limit $`m=0`$ is described by the following Fokker-Planck equation

$$\gamma \frac{W}{t}=\frac{}{x}\left[f(x)E(t)\right]W+\frac{1}{\beta }\frac{^2W}{x^2}.$$
(35)
The average current is given by

$$p=f(x)W_s𝑑x𝑑t.$$
(36)
The symmetry $`\widehat{S}_a`$ is again holding. However the symmetry

$`\widehat{S}_c:xx+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}},tt,\mathrm{if}\{f_{sh},E_a,m=0\}.`$ (37)
does not follow from (35) in a similar way. It is interesting to note that Reimann  considered the symmetries of the original stochastic differential equation (7),(8) and argued for a holding of $`\widehat{S}_c`$ for nonzero noise intensities. Fistul  showed that $`\widehat{S}_c`$ connects the original Fokker-Planck equation (35) with its conjugated counterpart.

Here we will use a related approach and prove the vanishing of (36) when $`\widehat{S}_c`$ holds. First we remind that the distribution $`W_s`$ is periodic in $`x`$ and $`t`$. Next we note that the operators $`/t`$ and $`/x`$ are anti-Hermitian on the space of $`x,t`$-periodic functions. Let us define the operator $`T`$ as

$$T=\frac{\frac{}{x}}{\gamma \frac{}{t}\frac{^2}{\beta x^2}+E(t)\frac{}{x}}.$$
(38)
Then (35) can be rewritten as a Lippmann-Schwinger type integral equation:

$$W=1+Tf(x)W.$$
(39)
Provided the conditions for $`\widehat{S}_c`$ hold, i.e. $`E(t)E_a(t)`$, the operator $`T`$ has the property

$$T^{}=T(t),T(x+x_0)=T(x).$$
(40)
Expanding (39) in a formal series in $`f(x)`$ we obtain

$$W_s=1+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(Tf(x))^n.$$
(41)
With (36) we obtain for the average current

$$p=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f(x)(Tf(x))^n𝑑x𝑑t.$$
(42)
Since all terms in (42) are real valued, we conclude that all integrals with even $`n`$ vanish because of $`f(x)f_{sh}(x)`$ and these terms contain odd powers of $`f`$. All integrals with odd $`n`$ vanish because of (40), since they contain odd powers of $`T`$. Thus we find that indeed the average current exactly vanishes when $`\widehat{S}_c`$ holds.

We also performed a numerical solution of (35) for $`T=\gamma =1`$ and $`f(x)=\mathrm{sin}x`$, $`E(t)=\mathrm{sin}(\omega t)+\mathrm{sin}(2\omega t+\alpha )`$ with $`\omega =0.8`$. The function $`W`$ was expanded in a Fourier series in $`x`$ and twenty Fourier harmonics have been taken into account. The resulting coupled ordinary differential equations were simply integrated until the system reached the final attractor $`W_s`$.

For the above choice of functions $`f(x)`$ and $`E(t)`$ the symmetry $`\widehat{S}_a`$ is violated because $`E(t)`$ is not shift-symmetric. At the same time the symmetry $`\widehat{S}_c`$ is violated for all values of $`\alpha `$ except for $`\alpha =0,\pm \pi ,\pm 2\pi ,\mathrm{}`$. In Fig. 10 the dependence of the average current $`p`$ (36) on $`\alpha `$ is shown. We observe that for $`\alpha =0,\pi ,2\pi `$ the symmetry $`\widehat{S}_c`$ is restored and the current is vanishing (the absolute numerical value is less than $`10^{12}`$).