Dark energy and Dark matter interaction in light of the second law of thermodynamics

TL;DR

This paper explores the thermodynamic basis for interactions between dark energy and dark matter, testing models with observational data, and finds evidence supporting energy transfer from dark energy to dark matter, with implications for cosmological models.

Contribution

It introduces a thermodynamics-based framework to understand dark component interactions and tests specific models against observational data, revealing preferred energy flow directions.

Findings

Evidence of interaction with energy flowing from dark energy to dark matter

Best fit models suggest a phantom equation of state for dark energy

Thermodynamics constraints influence the viability of interaction models

Abstract

In the context of thermodynamics we discuss the way inevitable emerge an interaction between dark components, and in this way, provide a mechanism to understand the limits of the LCDM model and the class of interaction models between dark components. Using observational data we have tested two models of explicit interaction between dark components and reconstructed the evolution of temperatures for both components. We found that observations suggest the interaction exist with energy flowing from dark energy to dark matter. The best fit also suggest a phantom equation of state parameter for dark energy. We discuss the results having in mind the constraints imposed by thermodynamics.

Tables

Table 1. Table 1: Best fit values of the cosmological parameters for the interaction models using SNIa+ H ​ ( z ) 𝐻 𝑧 H(z) +BAO+ f g ​ a ​ s + limit-from subscript 𝑓 𝑔 𝑎 𝑠 f_{gas}+ CMB.

	$Q=3H\gamma {\rho }_m$		$Q=3H\gamma {\rho }_x$
$h$	$0.669\pm 0.008$		$0.671\pm 0.009$
${\Omega }_c$	$0.301\pm 0.004$		$0.300\pm 0.004$
${\Omega }_b$	$0.049\pm 0.001$		$0.048\pm 0.001$
$\omega$	$-1.03\pm 0.02$		$-1.05\pm 0.02$
$\gamma$	$0.071\pm 0.006$		$0.07\pm 0.005$

Equations

$$3H^2=\rho ,\dot{\rho }+3H(\rho +p)=0,$$

$$TdS=d\left[(\rho +p)V\right]-Vdp.$$

$$\frac{\rho +p}{T}=\frac{dp}{dT},$$

$$dS=\frac{d\left[(\rho +p)V\right]}{T}-V(\rho +p)\frac{dT}{T^2}=d\left[\frac{(\rho +p)V}{T}\right],$$

$$S=\text{const.}+\frac{(\rho +p)a^3}{T}.$$

$$d\left[(\rho +p)V\right]=Vdp,$$

$$S=\frac{(\rho +p)a^3}{T}=\text{const.}$$

$$\dot{T}=-3HT\frac{\partial p}{\partial \rho }.$$

$$T(a)\simeq a^{-3\omega },$$

$$T(a)=T(a_0)\exp \left(-3{\int }_{a_0}^{a}da\frac{\omega (a)}{a}\right).$$

$${\dot{\rho }}_x+3H\left(1+{\omega }_x\right){\rho }_x$$

$${\dot{\rho }}_m+3H\left(1+{\omega }_m\right){\rho }_m$$

$$T_m\simeq \frac{1}{a^2},T_x\simeq \exp \left(-3\int da\frac{{\omega }_x}{a}\right),$$

$$dS=\left(1+\omega \right)d\left(\frac{\rho V}{T}\right),$$

$$\left(1+\omega \right)\rho V=\text{const.}\times T.$$

$$TS=\left(1+\omega \right)\rho V⟹TS<0\to S>0,$$

$${\dot{\rho }}_x+3H\left(1+{\omega }_x\right){\rho }_x$$

$${\dot{\rho }}_m+3H\left(1+{\omega }_m\right){\rho }_m$$

$$Q=-\frac{T_x}{V}\frac{d{S}_x}{dt}=\frac{T_m}{V}\frac{d{S}_m}{dt}.$$

$$T_{m}d{S}_m+T_{x}d{S}_x=0,$$

$$d\left(S_m+S_x\right)=-\left(\frac{T_m}{T_x}-1\right)d{S}_m\ne 0⟹S_m+S_x\ne \text{const.}$$

$$Q>0⟹d{S}_x<0\text{and}d{S}_m>0,$$

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(S_x+S_m\right)=-\left(\frac{T_m}{T_x}-1\right)\frac{d{S}_m}{dt}>0⟹T_m<T_x,$$

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(S_x+S_m\right)=\left(\frac{1}{T_m}-\frac{1}{T_x}\right)VQ>0⟺Q>0\text{ and }{T}_m<T_x,$$

$${\dot{\rho }}_x+3H(1+{\omega }_x){\rho }_x$$

$${\dot{\rho }}_m+3H(1+{\omega }_m){\rho }_m$$

$${\dot{\rho }}_x$$

$${\dot{\rho }}_m+3H{\rho }_m$$

$${\dot{\rho }}_x+3H\left(1+{\omega }_x^{eff}\right){\rho }_x$$

$${\dot{\rho }}_m+3H\left(1+{\omega }_m^{eff}\right){\rho }_m$$

$${\omega }_x^{eff}={\omega }_x+\frac{Q}{3H{\rho }_x}\text{and }{\omega }_m^{eff}={\omega }_m-\frac{Q}{3H{\rho }_m},$$

$$T\left(z\right)=T\left(0\right)\exp \left(3{\int }_0^z\frac{dz}{1+z}{\omega }^{eff}\left(z\right)\right).$$

$$T_x\left(z\right)$$

Full text

Dark energy; Dark Matter; Interaction

I Introduction

One of the main problems in cosmology today is to identify or characterize the cause of the accelerated expansion found in ref:Riess98 ; ref:Perlmuter99 , usually called dark energy (DE). Although there have been, from time to time, evidence for DE evolution, or in its primordial form, evidence for a variable cosmological constant, the case have taken new impulse after the results using the BAO BOSS DR11 Delubac:2014aqe . In that work, by interpreting the results in a simple wCDM model, strongly suggest a $2.5\sigma$ departure from LCDM at $z=2.34$. Soon after this work appears, several papers focused on finding what model better describe the results from the BOSS analysis. In Sahni:2014ooa the authors found evidence for DE evolution using the $H(z)$ measurement implied by Delubac:2014aqe . They propose a model where the cosmological constant was screened in the past. Also in Abdalla:2014cla the authors demonstrate that it is possible to explain the BOSS result in the context of the interacting dark scenario (dark matter (DM) interacting with DE), excluding null interaction at $2\sigma$. Also in Ding:2015vpa the authors found similar results to Sahni:2014ooa . Regarding the dark interaction scenario, using data from Planck, type Ia supernova, and redshift space distortions, in Salvatelli:2014zta the authors found statistical evidence for a dark interacting model (the so called Interacting vacuum model, named iVCDM , wands ) starting at $z\simeq 0.9$.

One of the main problems with dark interaction models is the arbitrariness in the coupling, usually named $Q$. In particular, in the iVCDM the coupling is written as $Q=-q_{v}H\rho_{v}$, where $H$ is the Hubble function, $q_{v}(z)$ is the arbitrary constant usually parameterized in bins to be reconstructed by observations, and $\rho_{v}$ is the vacuum energy density. In some sense, the same pathological feature $\Lambda$ has in the $\Lambda$CDM model, here emerges through $Q$ in the interacting dark matter/energy model. So it would be interesting to find ways to constraint $Q$ not only through observations but also from physical principles.

In this paper, we want to explore to what extent, the interaction term $Q$ can be determined and constrained by appealing to thermodynamic considerations. In what follows we use natural units, $c=8\pi G=k_{B}=1$. The paper is organized as follows: in the next section we discuss the thermodynamics in the context of an interacting model. In section III we discuss the method of effective equation of state and obtain the expressions for the temperature as a function of redshift. Then we describe the models of interaction we study and the data we have used to constraint the models in section V. We end with the discussion of our results.

II Thermodynamics and interaction

II.1 A single fluid

Let us start with general considerations about thermodynamics in an expanding Universe using a single fluid. Assuming a flat universe and a homogeneous component we get the Hubble equation and the conservation equation

[TABLE]

where $H=\dot{a}/a$ is the Hubble parameter and $a(t)$ the scale factor. From the second law of thermodynamics applied to a comoving volume element of unit coordinate volume (and physical volume $V=a^{3}$) we can write

[TABLE]

Here $\rho$ is the energy density, $p$ is the pressure, $T$ the temperature of the system and $S$ the total entropy per comoving volume. Using the fact that $S$ is an state function we get

[TABLE]

then Eq.(2) can be written as

[TABLE]

which means that entropy can be written as

[TABLE]

On the other hand, from Einstein’s equations we get the energy conservation equation (1) that can be written as

[TABLE]

which means that the entropy (5) is constant during the expansion,

[TABLE]

This results emphasize the adiabatic expansion universe picture. Then Einstein’s equations implies adiabatic expansion assuming $T\neq 0$. Also, Eq.(7) tell us that the special combination of physical variables keep a constant value once the evolution of $p(a)$, $\rho(a)$ and $T(a)$ are introduced. Clearly, once we know the equation of state (EoS), we can infer the temperature evolution of the system.

Another way to see this, is by using that our single component satisfies number and energy conservation. Following (Maartens:1996vi, ) it is possible to find the relation

[TABLE]

This equation also enable us to find how the temperature evolves if an EoS is given. For example, for $p=\omega\rho$ we get

[TABLE]

that gives the expected answer for radiation ($\omega_{r}=1/3$). The same result can be obtained from Eq.(7). In general, assuming $\omega=\omega(a)$ we can write

[TABLE]

II.2 Two fluids

Let us assume now two fluids – DM and DE for example – and assume that both components conserved separately, i.e. they satisfy

[TABLE]

so no interaction is present. For each component is possible to write the same equations derived before. In particular, we can write the evolution of temperature for these two components as

[TABLE]

where we have used the previous result for dust. It is clear that this result suggest that today $T_{m}\ll T_{x}$ because $\omega_{x}<0$, as was first notice in Pavon:2007gt . It is also clear that in this case the expansion is adiabatic, because each one of the conservation equations above can be written as $dU+pdV=0$ where $U=\Omega_{v}\rho a^{3}$ and $V=\Omega_{v}a^{3}$ where $\Omega_{v}$ is a volume constant factor.

The current observational evidence – so far – support the $\Lambda$CDM model, where $\Lambda$ is a component that can be considered as a fluid with EoS parameter $\omega=-1$, plus a cold (non relativistic velocities) DM component, both of which conserved separately, i.e., they do not interact. In this context we can ask, what temperature can be associated to this $\Lambda$ fluid? From our previous considerations, assuming $p=\omega\rho$ with $\omega=\text{const.}$ we can write

[TABLE]

from which we can obtain

[TABLE]

This relation suggest that for a fluid with $\omega=-1$ we get $T=0$, which according to the third law of thermodynamics implies $S=0$. This result – independent of the awkward features of existence of a pure cosmological constant component – tells us that such a component is at least inconsistent with thermodynamic too.

Moreover, for the case $\omega<-1$? i.e., the phantom case, following the same argument we get $T<0$, and if we use the Euler relation

[TABLE]

which is the well known phantom problem. In this regard in phantomp a solution is proposed in the context of irreversible thermodynamics.

Now, let us turn on the interaction between the dark components. The conservation equations can then be written as

[TABLE]

According to (2) these equations tell us that the entropy for each component is not constant. By re-written each one as the first law we get for the interaction function $Q$

[TABLE]

No interaction $Q=0$ means both $S_{m}$ and $S_{x}$ being constants, i.e. we have an adiabatic evolution, in contrast to an interacting model, where a $Q\neq 0$ leads to

[TABLE]

then we get non-adiabaticity. By using (19) we can also see this in another form by written

[TABLE]

According to (19) also we get that

[TABLE]

implying the DE entropy decreases as the DM entropy increases. From (20) it is direct to write

[TABLE]

because $dS_{m}/dt>0$. Then at any instant DM is cooler than the DE. We can also write this last relation using (19) to get

[TABLE]

Having found these results, let us discuss a specific model. Let us study an interacting model close to the $\Lambda$CDM one. According to (17) and (18)

[TABLE]

and for the purpose in hands, let us assume $\omega_{x}=-1\left(\Lambda\right)$, and $\omega_{m}=0\left(CDM\right)$, then we get

[TABLE]

which reduces to $\Lambda$CDM for $Q=0$ zero interaction. This model is actually the i$\Lambda$CDM model of wands . It was this model that was tested in Salvatelli:2014zta against observation finding positive evidence for interaction. Given there are evidence for an evolving $\rho_{x}$ that means – given the well known results in saulo – we have also evidence for an interacting model.

For a component $\rho_{x}=\Lambda$ ($\omega_{x}=-1$) it is clear that $Q=0$ and then $T_{m}dS_{m}/dt=0$, and beacuse $T_{m}=const.$, then $S_{m}=const.$ And also as we saw before, because $T_{x}\left(\omega_{x}=-1\right)=0$ and $S_{x}\left(\omega_{x}=-1\right)=0.$

In conclusion, $\Lambda CDM$ is well supported by observations and also the assumption of adiabatic evolution ( $S=const.$) is consistent with the philosophy of the standard model that ensures adiabatic evolution after inflation ends. Then – if there is evidence for an interaction between DE and DM – then in general the universe evolution is no adiabatic. Thus, our considerations on thermodynamics implies that a pure $\Lambda$ component is hardly consistent with physics, unless we accept that both components – DM and DE – interact with each other.

III Effective temperature method (ETM)

In this section we study the thermal evolution in an interaction DE/DM model using an effective equation of state. We follow previous works (samuel, ) on the subject. Let us write the system (25, 26) as

[TABLE]

where

[TABLE]

then according to (10) we can write

[TABLE]

where we have used that $1+z=a_{0}/a$, and so for each dark component from (17) and (18) we can write

[TABLE]

and from this, we see that if interaction exists for $\omega_{m}=0$ (CDM) we get $T_{m}\left(z\right)\neq const.$ Let us apply this result to the most well known Ansatzes: $Q=3\gamma H\rho_{x}$ and $Q=3\gamma H\rho_{m}$.

III.1 Ansatz $Q=3\gamma H\rho_{x}$

In this case, we get

[TABLE]

where $r\left(z\right)=\rho_{m}\left(z\right)/\rho_{x}\left(z\right)$ is the coincidence parameter. In order to get a close solution for both temperatures we need the solution for both energy densities first. In this case – using the equation (29) – we get the solution

[TABLE]

Using this last result in the conservation equation for dark matter $\rho_{m}$ in Eq.(30) and using that $x=a/a_{0}$ and $d/dt\rightarrow d/da$, we can write the equation as

[TABLE]

whose solution is given by

[TABLE]

The integral can be done directly, recalling that $x=a/a_{0}=\left(1+z\right)^{-1}$. In this way we get $\rho_{m}\left(z\right)$ and consequently $r\left(z\right)$ y $T_{m}\left(z\right)$, according to (36).

III.2 Ansatz $Q=3\gamma H\rho_{m}$

Using this ansatz, with $\gamma>0$ we get

[TABLE]

Again, from the conservation equation (30) we get

[TABLE]

Using this in the conservation equation for $\rho_{x}$ we get

[TABLE]

Following the previous case we get

[TABLE]

and the integral can be done explicitly. In this way knowing $\rho_{x}\left(z\right)$ and then $r\left(z\right)$ and $T_{x}\left(z\right)$ according to (40).

IV The models

In this section we write explicitly the formulae to be used in the study of restrictions imposed by observational data. Here we study the two models of interaction discussed in the previous section, $Q_{1}=3\gamma H\rho_{m}$, and $Q_{2}=3\gamma H\rho_{x}$. Both have been already studied in xia . If $\gamma$ is zero, then there is no interaction.

For the first model (i), the Hubble function $H(z)/H_{0}=E(z)$ is given by

[TABLE]

where $\Omega_{r}=2.469\times 10^{-5}h^{-2}(1+0.2271N_{\rm eff})$ and $N_{\rm eff}=3.04$, and $\gamma$ is the parameter that makes the interaction manifest. Here $\Omega_{m}=\Omega_{c}+\Omega_{b}$, where $\Omega_{c}$ is the non-baryonic part and $\Omega_{b}$ is the baryonic one.

For the second model (ii), we obtain

[TABLE]

Here the free parameters are $h$, $\Omega_{b}$, $\Omega_{c}$, $w$ and $\gamma$. It is clear that for $\gamma=0$ both expressions - those for models (i) and (ii) - reduced to that of the wCDM model.

V The data

In this section we describe the five sets of observational data we have used to put constraints on the models we have defined in the previous section. Preliminary results of this work appears in dani18 . We use: measurements of the Hubble function $H(z)$, from type Ia supernova (SNIa), baryonic acoustic oscillations (BAO), gas mass fraction in clusters $f_{gas}$ and from Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

The 31 data points for the Hubble function $H(z)$ are taken from several works and were compiled by Magana:2017nfs expanding a redshift range from $z=0.07$ to $z=1.965$. In summary it comprise data points from zhang2014 , Stern2010 , moresco2012 and also from moresco2015 . It is important to notice that we have used only those $H(z)$ measurements obtained using the differential age method dem , and we have explicitly exclude those obtained using the clustering method, because we are also using data from BAO.

The latest sample of SNIa is the Pantheon sample Scolnic:2017caz . Here we use the chi square function defined as

[TABLE]

where $C$ corresponds to the covariance matrix delivered in Scolnic:2017caz , $\mu_{th}=5\log_{10}\left(d_{L}(z)/10pc\right)$ is the distance modulus where $d_{L}(z)$ is the luminosity distance, and the modular distance is assumed to take the shape

[TABLE]

where $m$ is the maximum apparent magnitude in band B, $X$ is related to the widening of the light curves, and $Y$ corrects the color. The cosmological parameters are then constrained along with the parameters $M$, $X$ and $Y$. Also from Scolnic:2017caz a binned version of the data was published where only $M$ is a free parameter.

The data points we use for BAO are those compiled in evslin . This set comprise data from the 6dF survey 2011MNRAS.416.3017B at redshift $z=0.106$, distance measurements from Ross:2014qpa at redshift $z=0.15$, and with data from the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS) at redshifts $z=0.32$, $z=0.57$ and $z=2.34$. In all these cases the baryonic peak is estimated performing an average in the radial and transverse direction. At higher redshift it is possible to measure the BAO scale in the radial and tangential directions simultaneously, proving measurements of the Hubble parameter $H(z)$ and the angular diameter distance $D_{A}(z)$.

The BAO observations give information about the ratio

[TABLE]

for the transverse direction. Here $P=c/(r_{s}H_{0})$ and it takes the value $30.0\pm 0.4$ for the best $\Lambda$CDM Planck fit, $r_{s}$ is the co-moving sound horizon that according to Planck it takes the value $r_{s}=1059.68$ h0planck , and also information about the ratio

[TABLE]

for the line-of-sight direction. The parameter $P$ was used in evslin to perform an unanchored BAO analysis, which does not use a value for $r_{s}$ obtained from a cosmological constant, also performed in aubourg .

At low redshift, because it is not possible to disentangle the BAO scale in the transverse and radial direction, the surveys give the value for the ratio $D_{V}(z)/r_{s}$, where

[TABLE]

which is an angle-weighted average of $D_{A}$ and $D_{H}$. From evslin the data considered are: at low redshift, at $z=0.106$ we have $D_{V}/r_{s}=2.98\pm 0.13$, and for $z=0.15$, $D_{V}/r_{s}=4.47\pm 0.17$. For high redshift we consider $0.00874D_{H}/r_{s}+0.146D_{A}/r_{s}=1.201\pm 0.021$ and $0.0388D_{H}/r_{s}-0.0330D_{H}/r_{s}=0.781\pm 0.053$ at $z=0.32$; $0.0158D_{H}/r_{s}+0.101D_{A}/r_{s}=1.276\pm 0.011$ and $0.0433D_{H}/r_{s}-0.0368D_{H}/r_{s}=0.546\pm 0.026$ at $z=0.57$. Following evslin , in order to use the BAO measurements for the Lyman $\alpha$, we used the $\chi^{2}$ files supplied on the website baofit directly. In what follows, we take the Planck value for $r_{s}$ and use $P$ as a function of $H_{0}$.

Data from measurements of gas mass fraction in clusters, $f_{gas}$ was also used assuming they are sources of X-ray as suggested by Sasaki:1996zz . In particular we use the data from Allen:2007ue which consist in 42 measurements of the X-ray gas mass fraction $f_{gas}$ in relaxed galaxy clusters in the redshift range $0.05<z<1.1$. To determine constraints on cosmological parameters we use the model function Allen:2004cd

[TABLE]

where $d_{A}(z)$ is the angular diameter distance, $b$ is a bias factor which accounts that the baryon fraction is slightly lower than for the universe as a whole. From eke98 it is obtained $b=0.824\pm 0.0033$. In the analysis we also use standard priors on $\Omega_{b}h^{2}=0.02226\pm 0.0023$ and $h=0.678\pm 0.009$ PDG .

We also use CMB data in the form of the acoustic scale $l_{A}$, the shift parameter $R$, and the decoupling redshift $z_{*}$. The $\chi^{2}$ for the CMB data is constructed as

[TABLE]

where

[TABLE]

The acoustic scale is defined as

[TABLE]

and the redshift of decoupling $z_{*}$ is given by (husugi, ),

[TABLE]

[TABLE]

The shift parameter $R$ is defined as in (BET97, )

[TABLE]

$C_{CMB}^{-1}$ in Eq. (53) is the inverse covariance matrix,

[TABLE]

More details of the work with the data see Cardenas:2014 .

VI Results

For the analysis we have used the code EMCEE emcee . It is a Python module that implement an Affine-invariant Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method. We have perform the analysis using the five data sets mentioned in the previous section. In practice we have considered a burn-in phase where we monitoring the auto-correlation time ($\tau$) and set a target number of independent samples. Then, we set 10000 MCMC steps (N) with a number of walkers in the range between 50 and 100. Our estimations of the auto-correlation times for each parameter in the three models all satisfies the relation $N/\tau\gg 50$ suggested in emcee , a condition that is considered a good measure of assets convergence in our samplings.

The results are shown in Table 1, and the best fit plots are shown in Fig.(1) for model (i) and in Fig.(4) for model (ii).

As can be seen, the best fit with the full set of observational data in both models indicates positive evidence for interaction – with a similar value for $\gamma\simeq 0.07$ – and that the transfer of energy flows from DE to DM. Based on the considerations we have made in previous sections, we find that our theoretical constraints are in agreement with the observational evidence. We also notice that the EoS parameter for DE $\omega$ is less than $-1$ in both cases, pointing towards evidence for phantom dark energy. The rest of the parameters take best fit values that are not too different from the usual ones. The results for the best fit for model (i) is shown in Fig.(1).

Using these best fit values, we can use Eqs.(35, 36) to reconstruct the temperatures for DE and DM. In Fig.(2) we show the result for model (i).

According to what we expect, the temperature of the dark energy grows with the expansion, and through the interaction, causes also that the temperature of dark matter to grow as well, much more moderately, but it increases. This is expected because, without interaction, DM temperature is constant, so once there is a transfer of energy from DE to DM, it will result in an increase in temperature, since the DE temperature increases with the expansion.

In the case of model (ii) the results are very similar as can be seen in Table I. The best fit values of the parameters are shown in Fig.(4). The reconstructed temperatures are also very similar as can be seen in Fig.(3).

In this section we have performed an analysis using five geometric probes to constrain two interacting models. Compared to previous analysis as in xia , we have used more data probes but we have obtained higher values for $\gamma$ in both cases. The reason behind this finding could be the use of BAO data at larger redshift as those at $z=2.34$ and $z=2.36$ not used in xia . We know that the inclusion of that data points suggest strongly a departure from $\Lambda$CDM and a preference for an interaction model. It could be also the use of $f_{gas}$ data, a set with well known tension with $\Lambda$CDM Cardenas:2013roa .

Although we have performed an analysis in the context of an interacting model, it is interesting to come back to the thermodynamic features of the LCDM model. As we have discussed here, a pure $\Lambda$ component – understood as a source in the right hand side of Einstein’s equations – does not have any sense thermodynamically. In fact, as we have found in section II, the entropy associated to $\Lambda$ should be zero during all the universe evolution. This implies that a more sound model is necessary to explain what we are observing. Assuming that the EoS parameter evolve with redshift is equivalent to consider an interaction between components, in our case DE and DM, so, a more physical model – thinking in thermodynamics – must consider an interaction, something that the observational data seems to support.

Finally, it is very difficult to measure the temperature for dark matter (see for example OPBB , NMira ). What we know from the thermodynamic considerations is that $T_{m}<T_{x}$. Certainly, more work is needed to understand the implications of the thermodynamic evolution of our universe.