Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

160 submissions , 132 unreviewed
4,164 questions , 1,543 unanswered
5,014 answers , 21,272 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
586 active unimported users
More ...

  Metric $f(R)$ Instability

+ 2 like - 0 dislike
174 views

I was reading this manuscript about Metric \(f(R)\) instability, could anyone explain why the value of \(\mu^4\) creates strong instability in Eq. (4)?

One piece I don't understand is where it says "Thus, the \(T^{3}/6\mu^{4}\) dominates the coefficient in front of \(R_1\) term in Eq. (6) and leads to strong instability" just below Eq.(7). Why is the value of the coefficient of \(R_1\) may create instabilities.

Consider the field equation:\(D^{2}R-3\frac{D_{a}R D_{a}R}{R}+\frac{R^{4}}{6{\mu}^{4}}-\frac{R^{2}}{2}=-\frac{T R^{3}}{6{\mu}^{4}}\), why the value of \(\mu^4\), whether positive or negative, may create instabilities?

This question and the first comment below it was deleted from Physics Stack Exchange and has been restored from an archive.    

asked Apr 13, 2014 in Theoretical Physics by user38032 (10 points) [ revision history ]
edited Apr 30, 2014 by dimension10

Consider the field equation: \(D^{2}R-3\frac{D_{a}R D_{a}R}{R}+\frac{R^{4}}{6{\mu}^{4}}-\frac{R^{2}}{2}=-\frac{T R^{3}}{6{\mu}^{4}}\), why the value of \(\mu^4\), whether positive or negative, may create instabilities?

A comment by David Zaslavasky has been omitted from repost, since the linked manuscript is merely 4 pages long.  

I am extremely sorry @physicsnewbie, it seems you are correct. I found from a meta.SE discussion that SE "redistributes [deleted content] to 10k+rep users and moderators", and whether it redistributes content at all is a choice it makes, but it still owns its content. 

1 Answer

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

I actually dealt this model some in my thesis work.  (Shameless plug: Stability of spherically symmetric solutions in modified theories of gravity.)  The basic picture in the Dolgov-Kawasaki paper is that they start with a background solution where the Ricci scalar is equal to the trace of the stress-energy tensor, \(R_0 = T\) (inside a star, say). This solution should match up to some exterior solution with \(R_0 \approx \mu^4\) (one of the cosmological models that were motivating Carroll, Duvvuri, Trodden, & Turner);  however, if \(\mu^4 < 0\), this turns out to be impossible.  (Basically, the Ricci scalar tends to diverge at large distances from the star.)  

Having dispensed with the \(\mu^4 < 0\) case, they look at at the \(\mu^4 > 0\) case.  In this case, one can obtain a well-behaved solution in which \(R_0 \approx T\) inside the star and \(R_0 \approx \mu^4\) asymptotically.  The next step is to look at the behavior of perturbations about this solution;  the linearized perturbation equation is eq. (5) in their paper.  The equation of motion for the first-order perturbations grows exponentially with time, since the last term on the left-hand side of eq. (5) is so large in magnitude and negative.

I should mention that while Dolgov & Kawasaki's proof isn't iron-clad (see my comments at the start of Section III.B in the paper I linked to above), it does persist in a more rigorous analysis.  You might also take a look at The Large Scale Structure of f(R) Gravity, which obtains a similar result.

answered May 2, 2014 by Johnny Assay (70 points) [ revision history ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysics$\varnothing$verflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...