the modern approach to the study of a dynamical system identifies solving the problem with finding the global structure of phase space . on the other hand ,
bifurcation theory has mostly concentrated on _ local behavior in the parameter space _ ( so even when global phase space bifurcations are considered , they are always considered in a small neighborhood of a given parameter value ) . here
we suggest that global analysis with respect to parameters leads to understanding of the phase space structure in parameter regimes which are unreachable by the currently known analysis techniques .
in particular , we examine some features of the global dependence of periodically forced systems with finite forcing amplitude on the forcing frequency .    the study of the effect of periodic forcing on homoclinic loops has been thoroughly investigated since the times of poincar .
analytical understanding of such systems has been attained in three possible limits ( see @xcite,@xcite ) : the fast and slow oscillations limits and the small forcing limit ( see figure [ fig : spanfam ] ) . for fast oscillations averaging methods apply , and together with kam theory , these are used to obtain upper bounds on the separatrix splitting .
these bounds are exponentially small in the frequency ( @xcite,@xcite ) .
lower bounds on the separatrix splitting involve delicate analysis which has been proved , under some structural assumptions on the flow , only in recent years ( see @xcite and references therein ) .
the slow oscillations regime corresponds to the region where adiabatic theory applies .
two approaches have been applied to this limit - the first one corresponds to extending classical adiabatic theory to separatrix crossing ( @xcite,@xcite ) and the other corresponds to examining the geometrical properties of stable and unstable manifolds to hyperbolic manifolds with slowly varying motion on them ( see @xcite,@xcite,@xcite,@xcite ) .
most of the analytical studies have been performed in the small oscillations regime in which perturbation methods apply ( see ( @xcite ) and references therein ) . the most important ingredient from these studies to the current paper
is the existence of a flux mechanism via lobes ( see @xcite,@xcite,@xcite,@xcite,@xcite ) .
here we show that for a large class of systems , the phase space structure and its associated transport properties have some common non - monotone dependence on the frequency of the forcing term .
namely , we establish that in some cases , even for finite size oscillations , there exists a function which depends on the frequency continuously . after some natural scaling ,
this function is simply the sum of the areas of the incoming lobes per period , normalized by the forcing period .
hence , results obtained in the fast and slow limits supply information regarding the behavior in the intermediate regime where no analytical methods apply ( see figure [ fig : spanfam ] ) .
furthermore , this proposed viewpoint leads to a non - traditional scaling of the flow which is relevant for studying its behavior near homoclinic tangles .
this paper supplies mathematical formulation and generalization of the common work of the author with a. poje @xcite , in which similar issues were considered in the context of fluid mixing .
the paper is organized as follows : in the first section we define the class of forced hamiltonian families which we consider .
roughly , these are forced hamiltonian families with split separatrices , for which the splitting exists for all positive parameter values and as the family parameter varies the scaled frequency includes the semi - infinite line . in the second section
we construct a labelling scheme for primary homoclinic orbits , which relies on the concepts of unstable ordering introduced by easton @xcite .
this labelling scheme is valid for all parameter values and behaves well across homoclinic bifurcations . in the third section
we prove the main result of this paper - that the flux through the homoclinic loop depends continuously ( in fact it is @xmath3 ) in the spanning parameter of the family ( in @xcite we considered a restricted class of systems for which the continuity of the flux followed immediately ) .
to prove this result several properties of the lobes are studied , the details are included in appendix 2 . in the fourth section
we recall the proof of rk and poje , showing that the flux is non - monotone in the scaled frequency and recall the implications of these results , especially in view of their implications regarding the stochastic zone width ( see @xcite ) .
section five includes a demonstration of these concepts for the forced center - saddle bifurcation problem .
conclusions are followed by two appendices - in the first the homoclinic scaling is discussed whereas in the second detailed proofs of some properties of the lobes are included , the relation between the flux and the areas of the exit and entry sets is explained , and the adiabatic limit is discussed .
consider a one - and - a - half degree of freedom hamiltonian @xmath5 which is @xmath6 periodic in its last argument and depends smoothly on the parameter @xmath7 where @xmath8 may be finite or infinite .
this hamiltonian may be written in the form @xmath9 where the second term has zero time average : @xmath10 and may be as large as the first one . assume the hamiltonian system of ( [ ham ] ) : @xmath11 satisfies the following structural assumptions :    a1 : :    @xmath12 and @xmath13 are    @xmath14 functions of all their arguments ,    @xmath13 is @xmath6 periodic with zero mean in    its last argument .
a2 : :    for all @xmath0 values in @xmath15 $ ] ,    ( [ hamsys ] ) possesses a hyperbolic periodic orbit which depends    smoothly on @xmath0 .
a3 : :    the family of hamiltonians spans the frequency parameter : the    frequency @xmath16 is a smooth    @xmath14 function , and it maps the interval    @xmath17 onto the semi - infinite line :    @xmath18 furthermore ,    @xmath19 only at one of the interval s boundaries and at no    interior point .
a4 : :    for @xmath20 , for any phase @xmath21 , at    least one branch of the stable and unstable manifolds of that periodic    orbit coincide to form a homoclinic loop .
furthermore , the manifolds    and the homoclinic loops created at @xmath20 depend    smoothly on @xmath21 , and the phase space area enclosed by    these homoclinic loops , @xmath22 , is    non - constant and has a finite number of extrema :    @xmath23\backslash\{\theta_{1},\theta_{2}, ... ,\theta_{n_{0}}\}\text{.}\ ] ]    for concreteness , with no loss of generality , we assume that at @xmath20 the manifolds topology is of a lying figure eight ( closed geometry ) or of a fish swimming to the left ( open geometry ) , so the left branches always coincide at @xmath20 , see figure [ fig1 ] .    .
a. closed geometry ( lying 8) b. open geometry ( fish).,width=415 ]    for @xmath24 , consider the standard global poincar map @xmath25 of the extended phase space @xmath26 which is simply the time-@xmath27 map of the time dependent flow ( here @xmath21 is introduced to account for phase variations ) : @xmath28 the two dimensional symplectic map @xmath25 has , by the above assumptions , a hyperbolic fixed point @xmath29 with its associated stable and unstable manifolds .
@xmath30 is a _
primary _ homoclinic point of @xmath29 iff the open segments of the unstable ( respectively stable ) manifold connecting @xmath29 with the homoclinic point @xmath30 , @xmath31 ( respectively @xmath32 ) do not intersect ( @xcite,@xcite ) : @xmath33 the points @xmath34 in figure [ fig2 ] are all primary homoclinic points , whereas the intersection points of the manifolds inside the shaded region in figure [ fig5 ] are homoclinic points which are not primary .
we assume :    a5 : :    for all @xmath35 there is a finite number of primary    homoclinic orbits .
furthermore , for each intersecting branches of the    manifolds there exist at least two primary homoclinic orbits which are    topologically transverse .
a6 : :    the number of _ primary _ homoclinic bifurcations is bounded in any    bounded open interval of @xmath0 for all    @xmath35 .
the order of the _ primary _ homoclinic    bifurcations is uniformly bounded by the integer @xmath36
+    for convenience of notation , let us assume that @xmath37    finally , to establish asymptotic behavior in the frequency , we assume there exists an appropriate scaling so that the scaled separatrix length scales and the maximal velocity along the separatrix are of order one :    a7 : :    there exist smooth ( @xmath38 in @xmath0 )    non - vanishing scaling functions , @xmath39    @xmath40 such that in the    scaled variables : @xmath41 the scaled system :    @xmath42    with the two non - dimensional parameters    @xmath43 :    @xmath44 satisfies assumptions    a1-a6 .
_ furthermore , for the scaled system , the width and length of    the separatrix and the maximal velocity along it are all of order one for all _ @xmath45__. _ _
@xmath46 measures the relative strength of the temporal oscillations to the mean flow whereas @xmath1 compares the oscillation s time scale with the travel time along the separatrix loop ( outside of the saddle orbit neighborhood ) .
we assert that the magnitude of these two parameters supplies _ complete information on the qualitative behavior _ of the system ( [ schamsys ] ) and hence on the original system .
notice that assumption a3 is now made with respect to the scaled frequency .
a family of hamiltonian systems depending on a parameter @xmath0 which satisfies assumptions a1-a7 is called a _ _  frequency - spanning homoclinic family , _ _ and @xmath0 is called a _ frequency - spanning parameter . _
a few remarks are now in order :    * assumptions a1-a7 clearly hold in the standard near integrable case ( small @xmath46 ) where the steady flow has a homoclinic loop of fixed size ( independent of @xmath0 ) , the perturbation is generic ( so a5 and a6 are satisfied ) , and its frequency , @xmath47 spans the half real line .
* a5 refers only to _ primary _ homoclinic bifurcations - otherwise it would have been violated generically , see @xcite and references therein .
* in the near - integrable case the scaling functions may be simply extracted from the integrable flow , see for example section [ sec : sadcen ] . in appendix 1 , after some notation is established in the next section , we propose an algorithm for defining the characteristic scales in the finite amplitude size forcing case . *
the assumptions here are slightly weaker than the ones in @xcite : in particular a5 and a6 replace the stronger assumption of @xcite that there exists one topologically transverse primary homoclinic orbit which depends continuously on @xmath0 , a property which may be easily violated in applications .
relaxing this assumption requires the introduction of a new labelling scheme for the homoclinic points which takes into account the possible annihilation of primary homoclinic points .
hereafter we assume the forced system is in its scaled form and we drop all the over bars when non - ambiguous , as described next .
denote by @xmath48 @xmath49 the _ topologically transverse primary _ homoclinic _ orbits _ of @xmath29 belonging to the left branch ( for simplicity of notation we consider hereafter only the left branch of the loop ) , where @xmath50 , namely the discrete index @xmath51 denotes iterations under the map and the index @xmath52 denotes the label of the specific orbit .
each such transverse homoclinic point , @xmath53 defines a region , @xmath54 enclosed by the closed segments of the stable and unstable manifolds which emanate from the fixed point and meet at @xmath53 namely @xmath55\cup s[\gamma ( \nu),p_{i}^{r_{n}}(\nu ) ] , \label{rdef}\ ] ] where , clearly @xmath56    denote by @xmath57 the ordered parameter values at which primary homoclinic bifurcations occur ( by a6 this may be done ) , and by @xmath58 the set of all primary homoclinic bifurcation values in @xmath17 : @xmath59 @xmath60 . in figures [ fig2 ] and [ fig3 ]
we illustrate a possible behavior of the manifolds before and after a primary homoclinic bifurcation occurs .
we say that @xmath61 undergoes a homoclinic bifurcation at @xmath62 if @xmath63 is a tangent homoclinic orbit .
next we construct a labelling of the orbits in @xmath64 which is convenient even across homoclinic bifurcations .
consider a frequency spanning homoclinic family .
then , there exists a labelling scheme for the primary homoclinic orbits satisfying the following properties :    1 .
@xmath65 is piecewise constant , changing only at values of @xmath0 at which @xmath66 undergoes a homoclinic bifurcation .
the labelling scheme respects the unstable ordering , so that @xmath67 iff @xmath68 , namely ( see @xcite ) : @xmath69\subset u[\gamma(\nu),p_{0}^{r_{m}}(\nu)]\text { \ \ for \ \ } r_{n}<r_{m}. \label{orderhom}\ ] ]    by construction .
we construct such a labelling scheme inductively , in the intervals @xmath70 starting with the interval @xmath71    by a5 , @xmath72 for all @xmath35 . since the poincar .
map is orientation preserving and since only topologically transverse intersections are counted , @xmath73 is even . by assumption a6 ,
there exists a well defined limit of the number of primary homoclinic orbits as @xmath74 , so that @xmath75 is well defined and is finite , and @xmath76 . for @xmath77 ,
let @xmath78 the labelling is chosen to obey the unstable ordering @xmath79 for @xmath80 where we identify : @xmath81 these rules determine the labelling for @xmath82 up to a cyclic permutation , and do not define the origin ( which homoclinic point is @xmath83 ) . to remove the first ambiguity , define the labelling so that as @xmath74 , the first homoclinic orbit defines the region of maximal area for all @xmath84 : @xmath85 . to remove the second ambiguity
, we define the origin ( @xmath86 as the point for which the boundaries of  @xmath87 are of minimal length ; denote the arc length of the boundary of @xmath88 by @xmath89 .
notice that @xmath90 as @xmath91 .
let @xmath83 , satisfy @xmath92 .
when there are no degeneracies ( here , when the maximal area is achieved at a unique orbit and the minimal boundary length is achieved at a unique homoclinic point ) this procedure determines uniquely the labelling of the topologically transverse homoclinic orbits for @xmath93 if a degeneracy occurs , choose any one of the finite number of the maximizing ( respectively minimizing ) orbits ( respectively points ) .     of figure [ fig4].,width=415 ]    given the labelling @xmath94 , for @xmath95 , so that @xmath96 for @xmath97 , we construct @xmath98 as follows :    if the associated homoclinic orbit , @xmath99 , depends continuously on @xmath0 at @xmath100 leave @xmath101 unchanged .
if @xmath99 cease to exist for @xmath102 , delete @xmath101 from @xmath103    if @xmath104 additional homoclinic orbits are created between ( along the unstable ordering ) @xmath99 and @xmath105 insert the @xmath104 labels , @xmath106 , @xmath107 , so that @xmath108    by construction the labelling scheme respects the unstable ordering and does not change labels unless homoclinic bifurcation occur , as claimed .
notice that the first case in the proof includes two possibility which are topologically equivalent - the first is that the homoclinic orbit @xmath109 is not involved in the homoclinic bifurcation and the second possibility is that @xmath109 is a tangent periodic orbit with odd order tangency so that no topological bifurcation occurs at @xmath100 .    for any @xmath0
we have constructed a finite , ordered set of labels @xmath110 ( so @xmath111 ) with corresponding homoclinic orbits which satisfy ( [ orderhom ] ) .
the ordering @xmath112 enumerates the primary homoclinic orbits in @xmath64 by their unstable ordering .
while the @xmath113 depend smoothly on @xmath0 as long as @xmath114 has not bifurcated , @xmath115 can be discontinuous in @xmath65 due to bifurcations of orbits @xmath116 with some @xmath117 .
for example , in the simplest , generic case of quadratic tangency , if at @xmath118 two primary homoclinic orbits are created between ( in the sense of the unstable ordering ) the @xmath119th and the @xmath120 homoclinic orbits which existed for @xmath121 , then these will be labeled as @xmath122 so that @xmath123 @xmath124 as demonstrated in figure [ fig3 ] : @xmath125     where @xmath126@xmath127 see figure [ fig4].,width=415 ]    by construction , for @xmath82 , @xmath128 or equivalently , @xmath129 . on the other hand , for @xmath130 , for the generic case of ( [ pwexm ] ) we have
@xmath131 so @xmath132{l}r\text { \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ for } r\leq j\\ \lbrack r]+[(r-[r])\cdot10]\text { \ \ for } j < r
< j+1\\ r+2\text { \ \ for } r\geq j+1 , \end{array } \right
.   \text { \ \ \ \ for \ } \nu_{1}<\nu<\nu_{2}\ ] ] and we see that @xmath133 changes at @xmath118 for all @xmath134 hence , as opposed to the @xmath101 s , it does not serve as a good labelling system for the homoclinic orbits across bifurcations
.     represents natural parametarization along the unstable manifold.,width=415 ]
consider now a fixed @xmath0 value , with @xmath135 where @xmath136 , and @xmath137 . henceforth we omit the explicit dependence on @xmath0 unless needed .
@xmath138 @xmath139 are called neighbors if @xmath140    @xmath141 and @xmath142 ( see ( [ rdef ] ) ) are called neighboring regions if @xmath138 are neighbors .
the difference between neighboring regions @xmath141 and @xmath142 are lobes - regions which are enclosed by the segments @xmath143\cup$ ] @xmath144 $ ] :    a lobe @xmath145 is the region enclosed by @xmath146\cup$ ] @xmath147 $ ] where @xmath148 are neighboring primary homoclinic points .
let @xmath149 where ( [ cycllab ] ) is used to define @xmath150 , see figure [ fig2 ] .
next we prove that this definition indeed corresponds to the figure , namely that the choice of the labelling is such that @xmath151 is exterior to @xmath152 whereas @xmath153 is inside the region @xmath154 :    [ lem : ekdk]for all @xmath155 and all @xmath156 the lobes @xmath153 and @xmath157 satisfy denotes a union of sets with disjoint interior . ] : @xmath158    first we prove that for @xmath82 , the lemma follows from the definition of the labelling and claim [ uinout ] which is proved in appendix 2 ; recall that for these @xmath159s @xmath160 and @xmath161 has maximal area . by the lobes and regions definitions
, it follows immediately that neighboring regions defer from each other by lobes , so proving the lemma amounts to proving that :    1 .
the lobes boundaries can not intersect the corresponding boundaries of the regions , hence they can be either completely interior or completely exterior to the regions .
the definition of the exiting ( @xmath162 s ) and entering ( @xmath163 s ) lobes is consistent with ( [ nghbrreg ] ) .    the first part is contained in claim [ uinout ] of appendix 2 , where it is proved that:@xmath164@xmath165@xmath166 where @xmath167  denotes topologically transverse intersection .
these results , together with the observation that @xmath168\subset$ ] @xmath169 , implies that the lobe @xmath170 , which is enclosed by the segments @xmath171\cup$ ] @xmath168 $ ] is either contained in @xmath161 or is completely outside of it .
hence , either @xmath172 or @xmath173 . however , the latter contradicts the choice of @xmath161 as the region with maximal area as @xmath74 .
another manifestation of the labelling scheme may be formulated by looking at the manifold s orientation : @xmath174 iff @xmath171 $ ] is interior to @xmath168 $ ] as shown in figure [ fig2 ] .
the manifolds orientation is clearly preserved for @xmath175 .
furthermore , by topological transversality of the points in @xmath64 it follows immediately that all odd ( respectively even ) indexed points have the same manifolds orientation as of @xmath83 ( respectively @xmath176 ) , so that for @xmath82 the lemma is proved for all @xmath156 .    for @xmath177 ,
the lemma is proved by induction , noticing that at the bifurcations , topologically transverse homoclinic points are inserted / deleted in neighboring pairs , hence the orientation of the manifolds at @xmath178 ( respectively at @xmath179 ) is always as that of @xmath180 ( respectively as of @xmath181 ) . notice that tangent , non topologically transverse homoclinic points are not labeled .    for all @xmath155
the regions with even order have smaller areas than their neighbors , namely @xmath182 are regions of locally maximal area whereas @xmath152 are regions of locally minimal areas .
finally , note the following property of the lobes :    [ simplecon]the lobes @xmath183 @xmath184 are simply connected .
the lobe s boundaries , by definition , are given by @xmath185 , which are both connected arcs which are joined at their end - points , hence the lobes are connected .
each component of the boundary can not intersect itself , and by lemma [ uinout ] they can not intersect transversely each other either , so the only source of non - trivial topology may stem from tangencies .
the appearance of primary homoclinic tangency ( e.g. at @xmath186 of figure [ fig3 ] ) does not change the simple connectedness property of a lobe .
finally , it follows from eq .
( [ eq : trans ] ) that the lobe can not reconnect and form a ring ( even in the closed geometry case ! ) .      for every @xmath0 there exist a collection of incoming and outgoing lobes . their areas changes with @xmath0 , and , at homoclinic bifurcation points these changes can be discontinuous ( at even order bifurcations where lobes split or coincide , as shown in figure [ fig3 ] ) . nonetheless ,    [ prop : c1areas]consider a frequency - spanning homoclinic family .
the sums of the areas of the outgoing  and incoming lobes : @xmath187 are @xmath3 in @xmath4    it follows from lemma [ simplecon ] that away of the primary homoclinic bifurcation values @xmath188 the area of each lobe depends smoothly ( @xmath38 ) on @xmath0 , hence so do @xmath189 and @xmath190 . by orientation preservation ,
near the bifurcation values an even number of topological transverse primary homoclinic points are added or eliminated . consider first a tangential bifurcation of even order occurring at @xmath100 so that @xmath191 new topologically transverse homoclinic points are created at @xmath192 these new homoclinic points , appearing , for example , between the homoclinic points @xmath193 , are denoted by @xmath194 , @xmath195 see figure 5 , is similar : simply change the corresponding indices and interchange the letters @xmath163 and @xmath162 in this paragraph . ] .
the bifurcation splits the lobe @xmath196 ( enclosed by @xmath197\cup s[p^{2j+1},p^{2j}]$ ] ) to the @xmath198 disjoint lobes @xmath199 created by the new homoclinic points . as @xmath200 by the smooth dependence of the manifolds on @xmath0 ( recall that only a finite extension of the local stable and unstable manifolds is considered here ) , the areas of the interior , newly created lobes ( @xmath201 )  vanish , whereas @xmath202 .
the area of the diminishing lobes near @xmath100 is of the form @xmath203 where  @xmath204 is the order of the tangency at @xmath100 .
clearly the same argument applies to the case where pairs of homoclinic orbits annihilate at @xmath205 it follows that generically @xmath206 and @xmath207 are @xmath3 in @xmath0 ( i thank b. fiedler for this observation ) .    intuitively , we think of the @xmath157 lobes as existing lobes and the @xmath153 as entering lobes . a more elegant framework for discussing transport in phase space is achieved by introducing the notion of exit and entry sets ( see @xcite , @xcite ) :    for any region @xmath208 , the exit ( @xmath209 ) and entry ( @xmath210 ) sets of @xmath208 are defined as : @xmath211    in appendix 2 we study the relation between entry and exit sets of the regions @xmath212 and the corresponding entering and exiting lobes . in particular , we define , for each region @xmath212 the set of turnstile lobes @xmath213 in terms of union of entering and exiting lobes ( see equations ( [ lobed ] ) in the appendix ) .
we conclude that in case there are no intersections between these two sets they correspond exactly to the entry and exit sets of @xmath212 . however , if such intersections exist , the two sets are different .
we provide an example which demonstrates that when such intersections exist the measure of the entry and exit sets depends on @xmath214    _ we therefore conclude that while the notion of entry and exit sets appears more elegant , it has a major flaw from a dynamic point of view - it is not invariant with respect to the regions definition .
_    another problem arising from the definition of the entry and exit sets has to do with self intersection of the lobes ( for close geometry , in the limit of highly stretched lobes ) .
indeed , the boundaries of the entry and exit sets may depend on the appearance of non - primary homoclinic orbits .
the appearance of such orbits is expected to depend sensitively on parameter values .
equivalently , the proposition regarding the smooth dependence of the lobes area on parameters is proved for the sum of their areas , @xmath190 ( see [ sumed ] ) , and not for the area of the lobes union .
in fact , any definition of flux which depends on homoclinic orbits of higher order ( namely not primary homoclinic orbits ) must be carefully examined due to the recent results on richness of chaos @xcite in the neighborhood of a homoclinic tangency .
hence , we define the flux into a region using the concept of the sum of lobes areas :    consider a frequency spanning homoclinic family .
the _ scaled flux function _ of this family is : @xmath215    [ cor : conflux]the flux function of a frequency spanning homoclinic family depends continuously and has a continuous derivative ( is @xmath3 ) in the frequency spanning parameter .    by proposition [ prop : c1areas ] and assumptions a3 and a7 .
notice that the scaled system defines a scaled flux function . substituting the scaling function ,
we observe that the flux function is scaled by the typical area and time scale associated with travelling along the homoclinic loop , as appropriate : @xmath216
consider a frequency - spanning homoclinic family .
then , in the scaled system ( [ schamsys ] ) the scaled flux function ( eq ( [ fluxdef ] ) ) depends non - monotonically on the scaled frequency @xmath217    recall that by corollary [ cor : conflux ] the flux function depends continuously on @xmath0 and that @xmath218 as @xmath219 , the system ( [ schamsys ] ) approaches the adiabatic limit . then , by corollary [ melimit ] of appendix 2 ,  @xmath220 , which implies , by assumption a3 and a7 , that @xmath221 .
furthermore , since @xmath118 ( the first primary homoclinic bifurcation value ) is bounded away from zero , it follows from a3 that there exists a @xmath222 such that @xmath223 and @xmath224 is monotone in the interval @xmath225 $ ] . on the other hand , as @xmath226 , averaging of the scaled system ( [ schamsys ] ) implies that the separatrix splitting is exponentially small in @xmath227 ( see @xcite,@xcite,@xcite ) .
it follows that @xmath228 exponentially as @xmath229 ( where @xmath230 , and by a3 @xmath231 ) , and so does @xmath224 .
in particular , there exists a @xmath232 @xmath233 such that for @xmath234 @xmath159 , @xmath235 @xmath236 .
this proves that @xmath224 is non - monotone in @xmath4    we now discuss some of the implications of the non - monotone behavior of the flux function , see @xcite for a fluid mixing application of these results .
first , we notice that in the near - integrable case , when the number of primary homoclinic orbits is fixed , the flux function is proportional to the amplitude of the melnikov integral .
hence the above theorem proves that the melnikov function amplitude is non - monotone in this case , which indeed explains the non - monotone figure one typically gets in numerous calculations of the melnikov integral ( e.g. forced duffing s , forced cubic potential , forced pendulum ) .
it is clear that very small ( large ) flux corresponds to a small ( large ) chaotic region near the separatrix , hence , it was suggested that the melnikov function amplitude gives a good characteristic to the amount of chaos in the system .
however , we proved that the flux function is non - monotone in the spanning parameter .
it is therefore natural to compare the dynamics , and the properties of the chaotic region at equi - flux parameter values .
let @xmath237 denote equi - flux parameter values such that : @xmath238 it follows immediately , by the flux definition , that @xmath239 namely , the sum of the lobes areas of the lower frequency is larger than that of the higher frequency .
this observation , which is well reflected when one examines poincar maps of equi - flux frequencies may lead to the wrong conclusion that adiabatic mixing leads to a larger chaotic zone .
in fact , at least for small amplitudes , we can use @xcite to show that the converse result hold : @xmath240 where @xmath241 denotes the area of the mixing zone ( the area enclosed by the kam tori which are closest to the separatrix on either side of the loops )
. a more precise statement of these observations , with numerical demonstrations , may be found in @xcite .
the seemingly contradicting statements are well understood when one realizes that for small @xmath242 the lobes overlap considerably - in the adiabatic limit , the measure of overlap between the turnstile lobes may approach the full lobe s area ( see @xcite for a proof ) , namely there exists a @xmath119 such that @xmath243 where @xmath244 are defined by eq .
( [ lobed ] ) in appendix 2 .
as an example consider the forced saddle center bifurcation : @xmath245 for @xmath246 . near @xmath247 a hyperbolic periodic orbit appears .
its separatrix length scales ( width and height ) in the @xmath248 directions are @xmath249 , so @xmath250 the maximal velocity along the loop scales like @xmath251 . finally , since @xmath252{\nu}})$ ] .
we obtain the scaling : @xmath253{\nu}t,\ \ \\ \ \ \ \overline{h }   &   = \nu^{-3/2}h\end{aligned}\ ] ] hence , the effective homoclinic forcing amplitude and frequency are : @xmath254{\nu } } \label{sadnodpar}\ ] ] and the scaled system ( with over bars dropped where non ambiguous ) is : @xmath255 namely , the effective frequency and damping increases inversely with the bifurcation parameter . for fixed @xmath256 and fixed @xmath257 we recover the well known result that the separatrix splitting is exponentially small as the bifurcation is approached . for fixed @xmath258
we see that the exact dependence on @xmath259 matters . for large @xmath260 an appropriate ( see @xcite ) melnikov calculation for ( [ eq : ressadcen ] ) will lead to a function of the form : @xmath261{\nu}})\frac{b}{\nu^{1-n/2}}\exp(-\frac{\pi\omega}{\sqrt[4]{\nu}})\cos\frac{\omega t}{\sqrt[4]{\nu}}\ ] ] where @xmath262 is , up to exponential small corrections , a polynomial . if @xmath263 and @xmath264 , then @xmath265{\nu}})=k\frac{\omega } { \sqrt[4]{\nu}}$ ] ( see @xcite ) .
let @xmath266 , and consider a frequency @xmath16 which vanishes at some finite distance from the bifurcation value and is non decreasing as the bifurcation value is approached .
for example , take @xmath267  where @xmath268 , @xmath269 .
then , the family of forced saddle - center bifurcation with @xmath270 $ ] is a spanning family , satisfying assumptions a1-a4 .
verifying assumptions a5-a6 amounts to obtaining a lower bound on the separatrix splitting for equation ( [ eq : ressadcen ] ) as @xmath271 , a task which has been achieved in @xcite for the case @xmath263 , and we will assume here that a similar lower bound may be found for @xmath272 so that a5 and a6 are satisfied .
a7 is clearly satisfied with the scaled parameters [ sadnodpar ] .
furthermore , the scaled frequency @xmath273 is monotone for @xmath270 $ ] , and @xmath274)=[0,\infty)$ ] . in particular , taking @xmath275 shows that the system : @xmath276 is transformed to the scaled system ( [ eq : ressadcen ] ) with @xmath277 and @xmath278{\nu}}$ ] .
we therefore conclude that the homoclinic structure of this family behaves in a non - monotone fashion - there exists at least one value of @xmath279 @xmath280 such that the scaled homoclinic flux function : @xmath281 has a local extrema at @xmath282 .
in particular , this implies that the corresponding melnikov function amplitude is non - monotone in @xmath4 one expects that @xmath283 , hence @xmath284 , namely the maxima location scales with the size of the interval on which the family is spanning .
we have demonstrated that the concept of spanning families , in which one considers global dependence on parameters , leads to non - trivial results regarding the properties of forced systems .
this approach leads to the development of a new tool - a novel way of labelling of primary homoclinic points across bifurcations . using this tool we are able to prove several results regarding the global dependence of the lobes on the spanning parameter .
we proved that lobes are simply connected .
we proved that under natural assumptions on the spanning families the flux is continuous and non - monotone in the spanning parameter .
we demonstrated that under the same conditions the area of the exit and entry sets may depend on the spanning parameter discontinuously .
we demonstrated that this approach leads to non - standard view of the forced saddle - center bifurcation .
the relation of this work to higher dimensional systems , in which the spanning parameter is in fact a slowly varying variable is yet to be explored .
discussions with b. fiedler and d. turaev are greatly appreciated .
below we supply an algorithm for determining the length and time scales characteristics for the finite amplitude forcing case .
consider the original system .
define : @xmath285 where the regions @xmath88 are the regions defined by the primary homoclinic points @xmath99 as in section [ sec : label ] .
the characteristic width and length of the separatrix loop are given by : @xmath286 where @xmath287 and @xmath288 is some finite number .
let @xmath289 the choice of the labelling so that @xmath290 is minimal among all @xmath291 and the oscillatory nature of the boundary for large @xmath51 , implies that @xmath292 is expected to be small , and therefore independent of @xmath288 if @xmath288 is sufficiently large .
the characteristic velocities along the separatrix loops are similarly defined : @xmath293 where @xmath294 denotes the primary homoclinic orbit with the initial condition @xmath295 .
since @xmath296 are all primary homoclinic orbits ( in particular , bounded orbits ) the functions @xmath297 are clearly well defined and are independent of the choice of  the labelling .
away from the homoclinic bifurcation points @xmath298 depend smoothly on @xmath0 and @xmath299 depend continuously on @xmath0 . at @xmath300
these functions may be discontinuous .
let @xmath301 denote @xmath38- functions , which are close in the @xmath302 topology to the corresponding hatted functions , uniformly in @xmath0 .
these are the proposed scaling functions for assumption a7 .
[ uinout]for all neighboring homoclinic points @xmath303 either @xmath304 or @xmath305 , namely @xmath306  and similarly@xmath307@xmath308 ( where @xmath167 denotes topologically transverse intersection ) . in particular , @xmath309    recall that by definition @xmath310\cup s[\gamma , p_{0}^{r_{j}}]$ ] .
since the unstable segments can not intersect each other clearly @xmath311=\emptyset.$ ]  so , to prove ( [ uisout ] ) we need to prove that @xmath312=\emptyset$ ] .
notice that @xmath313=s[\gamma , p_{0}^{r_{j+1}}]\cup s[p_{0}^{r_{j+1}},p_{0}^{r_{j}}]$ ] .
since @xmath314 are primary homoclinic points @xmath315 @xmath316 and in particular @xmath317 and @xmath318 hence , it is left to prove ( [ uands ] ) .
assume the contrary : denote by @xmath319 all the topologically transverse homoclinic points in this intersection .
denote by @xmath320 the homoclinic point which is closest to @xmath321 by the unstable ordering , namely @xmath322 .
then , it follows from ( [ usinters ] ) and the observation that @xmath323 that @xmath324 namely @xmath325 is a topologically transverse _ primary _ intersection point , which contradicts the statement that @xmath326 are neighbors in @xmath64 . hence ( [ uisout ] ) and ( [ uands ] ) are proven . to prove ( [ sisout ] ) notice that @xmath327\cup s[\gamma , p_{0}^{r_{j+1}}]$ ] , hence , to prove the claim we need to prove that @xmath328=$ ] @xmath329\cup u(p_{0}^{r_{j}},p_{0}^{r_{j+1}}))=\emptyset.$ ] the intersection with the first term is empty by ( [ usinters ] ) and the transverse intersection with the second term is empty by ( [ uands ] )
consider first the case @xmath333 where only two topologically transverse primary homoclinic orbits exist . from ( [ nghbrreg ] ) we immediately get that : @xmath334 hence @xmath335 and@xmath336 therefor , we see that @xmath337 , @xmath338 and @xmath339 iff @xmath340 . in particular , in figure [ fig5 ]
we demonstrate that if @xmath341 and @xmath342 we obtain : @xmath343 so the measure of the entry and exit sets depend on the region one chooses , while the measure of the entry and exit lobes are independent of this arbitrary choice .
furthermore , we see that the entry and exit sets depend on the nature of non - primary homoclinic orbits
. the appearance of such orbits may depend sensitively on parameter values .
it follows ( after some manipulation of ( [ nghbrreg ] ) ) that in the open geometry case ( where @xmath345 for all @xmath346 ) the exit and entry sets of the regions @xmath212 are given by : @xmath347{c}e_{r_{0}^{r_{j}}}=e^{j}\backslash\left (   e^{j}\cap d^{j}\right )   \\ d_{r_{0}^{r_{j}}}=f^{-1}\left (   d^{j}\backslash\left (   e^{j}\cap d^{j}\right ) \right ) \end{array } \text { \ if \ } e_{i}\cap e_{j}=d_{i}\cap d_{j}=\emptyset\text { \ for all } i\neq j.\text{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } \ ] ] in particular , in the near - integrable case , where @xmath348 for all @xmath349 the exit and entry sets are given by the entering and exiting lobes .
indeed , for @xmath350 we find:@xmath351 and therefore the first example follows this general rule .      the limit of @xmath352 is called the adiabatic limit .
it corresponds to a forcing with frequency which is much smaller than the time scale associated with the flow along the separatrix .
the traditional way of analyzing this limit is by using the adiabatic approximation . in this approximation one
considers solutions to the frozen hamiltonian @xmath353 , namely the time - dependent oscillations are now fixed at the frozen phase @xmath21 .
one then studies adiabatic variables ( to leading order , the action ) , and asserts that in the nonlinear case , as long as the solutions are bounded away from the separatrix , such variables can not change by much due to the persistence of kam tori .
furthermore , when the solution crosses the separatrix one can estimate the resulting change in the adiabatic invariances and the phases by constructing an adiabatic separatrix mapping ( see for example @xcite,@xcite,@xcite,@xcite ) .
another point of view which is applicable to the same limit ( see @xcite,@xcite and @xcite ) , is concerned with the geometry of the manifolds and lobes .
consider the extended system @xmath354 , and realize that the manifold @xmath355 is a normally hyperbolic manifold for @xmath356 , hence it persists with its stable and unstable manifolds for sufficiently small @xmath357 .
the solutions belonging to these manifolds can be well approximated , for semi - infinite time intervals by the extended system at @xmath358 denoting the homoclinic solution to this extended frozen system by @xmath359 and the orbits belonging to the stable and unstable manifolds of the extended system by @xmath360 we see that as @xmath361@xmath362\\ q^{u}(t;\tau_{0},\nu )   &   = q_{h}(t;\tau_{0}+\overline{\omega}(\nu ) t)+ ... ,\text { \ \ \ \ } t\in\lbrack - t,\infty)\end{aligned}\ ] ] where dots stand for higher order terms in @xmath1 , @xmath363 is a positive constant and the higher order terms are small for @xmath364 @xmath365 . recall that in the limit @xmath74 ( which , by a3 corresponds to the limit @xmath366 ) , there are @xmath75 topologically transverse primary homoclinic orbits , @xmath367 . by definition ,
these orbits belong to both @xmath368 and @xmath369 for some phase @xmath370 , so that @xmath371 @xmath372 .
we conclude that these phases , @xmath373 , are given , to leading order in @xmath374 by the phases at which the area enclosed by the frozen homoclinic loop achieves its maxima or minima :    ( kaper and kovacic ) let @xmath375 denote the @xmath376 s at the minima and maxima of the homoclinic loop area @xmath377 , where @xmath378 , and @xmath379 .
then , as @xmath361 , the primary homoclinic orbits @xmath380 and : @xmath381 where @xmath382 denotes the region enclosed by @xmath383 $ ] and @xmath384 $ ] .
the structure of the lobes in this limit is more complicated than the commonly seen graphs of homoclinic tangles .
in particular , on one hand , generically , only one of the primary homoclinic points @xmath389 is bounded away from the fixed point @xmath29 , leading to the creation of large lobes with area of @xmath390 ( see @xcite ) . on the other hand
the lobes get stretched and elongated , creating a web of small intersecting regions  ( see @xcite,@xcite ) .
( neishtadt @xcite ) let @xmath392 denote the phase at which @xmath377 is minimal ( @xmath393 ) . then ,
as @xmath352 , the area enclosed by the largest kam torus inside @xmath394 ( for any @xmath259 ) , @xmath395 asymptotes @xmath396 : @xmath397


there is no more fundamental physical quantity in cosmology than the expansion rate of the universe . in recent years
the present value of the expansion rate , hubble s constant , has been measured with increasing accuracy @xcite . with the exploration of the universe at redshifts of order unity , we now have information about the time evolution of the expansion rate @xcite .
a most surprising result is that the time evolution of the expansion rate does not seem to be described by a matter - dominated friedmann - lematre - robertson - walker ( flrw ) cosmological model .
the usual explanation for the discrepancy is that there is a new component of the energy density of the universe , known as dark energy , that determines the recent evolution of the expansion rate .
of course all indications for dark energy are _ indirect _ ; they all involve some form of the time evolution of the expansion rate .
since the expansion rate of the universe is of such fundamental importance , we must understand any possible effects that would result in an expansion rate different from the flrw prediction .
in this paper we study the change in the expansion rate due to perturbations of a homogeneous , isotropic , flrw model .
in particular , we perform a second - order calculation of the effect of inhomogeneities on the expansion rate .
we only consider modifications to the expansion rate of a matter - dominated universe , although our results can be extended to a universe containing a mixture of matter and a cosmological constant .
we find that the mean corrections are a few parts in @xmath0 .
the expansion rate of a perturbed flrw cosmology has been discussed in many works ( although we believe ours is the first complete second - order calculation ) .
hui and seljak @xcite estimated the order of magnitude of the effect by considering a representative second - order term .
they arrived at the correct mean order of magnitude of the result .
some recent works @xcite suggested that small - scale contributions could give a large correction , producing an apparent accelerated expansion of the universe .
in particular rsnen @xcite suggested that due to ultraviolet sensitivity , one of the second - order terms could give large corrections depending on boundary conditions . as we will discuss in the conclusions
, we find that if one employs the correct averaging procedure the result ( at least for the terms we could compute exactly using the second - order formalism ) is well behaved in the ultraviolet and the term identified by rsnen does not result in a large correction .
in addition to calculating the mean value of the expansion rate , we calculate the variance about the mean value . in calculating the variance
we uncover an interesting infrared effect . at second order
the expansion rate has a term proportional to @xmath1 , where @xmath2 is the peculiar gravitational potential , related to the density perturbations through the cosmological poisson equation .
if inflation is the origin of perturbations , then @xmath3 should be a gaussian random variable with zero mean .
however , if the perturbation spectrum on super - hubble - radius scales is no bluer than a harrison
zeldovich spectrum , then the variance of @xmath3 formally has an infrared singularity .
now if the value of @xmath3 in our local hubble volume is sufficiently large to modify the expansion rate , our perturbative expansion fails .
nevertheless , our results suggest that if the super - hubble modes of @xmath3 have physical significance , then a nonperturbative extension of our calculation could yield a most important modification to the friedmann equation .
one might even speculate that a complete treatment of the effect could explain the observed time dependence of the expansion rate on its own and obviate the need for the dark - energy assumption .
since that conjecture is beyond the perturbative calculation of this paper , we will postpone discussion of this point to a subsequent communication @xcite .    in the next section
we discuss the general perturbative expansion . in section [ thetasynchronous ]
we calculate the corrections to the expansion rate in terms of metric fluctuations , and then express the results in terms of the density perturbation spectrum .
in section [ numbercrunch ] we present the numerical results .
we then conclude , followed by two technical appendices .
in this section we describe how to treat the average properties of a perturbed universe up to second order in the metric variables , including the effect of the inhomogeneous gravitational field on the homogeneous background field .
we then discuss the proper definition of the average expansion rate and express the effect of inhomogeneities to second order as averages of density perturbations .    by `` average , '' we mean the average over a spatial hypersurface at a given time .
clearly an average defined in this way depends on the chosen coordinate system , _
i.e. , _ the gauge .    we will consider a universe filled only by irrotational dust and choose the coordinates of an observer at rest with the dust ( _ i.e. , _ comoving coordinates ) , and with the same time coordinate for every point of the spatial hypersurface ( _ i.e. , _ synchronous coordinates ) .
this system of coordinates can be chosen if the universe is filled by a single pressureless component .
since the pressure vanishes , the only force acting on the particles is gravity , and the comoving world lines coincide with geodesics .
( see ref .
@xcite for a full discussion of this point . )
we will call @xmath4 the ( conformal ) time in this gauge , and @xmath5 the spatial coordinates , so that the metric has the form @xmath6 \label{metric}\ ] ] we will perform the averages on constant-@xmath4 spatial hypersurfaces .
the goal of this paper is a second - order calculation , but before embarking , let us recall the familiar linearized first - order result .
the energy - momentum tensor and metric are expanded to first - order as    [ subonee ] @xmath7    where the superscript @xmath8 denotes the @xmath9-th order perturbation . by definition @xmath10 and @xmath11
are homogeneous and isotropic .    in the synchronous gauge , to first order the metric may be written in terms of a set of perturbation variables consisting of two scalars ( @xmath12 ) , a vector ( @xmath13 ) , and a tensor ( @xmath14 ) .
the vector @xmath15 is transverse ( @xmath16 ) and the tensor @xmath14 is symmetric , transverse , and traceless ( @xmath17 , @xmath18 , @xmath19 ) . in terms of these variables
the metric is @xmath20 where @xmath21 .
the metric perturbations @xmath22 and @xmath23 may be expressed in terms of the peculiar gravitational potential @xmath24 , which is related to @xmath25 , the first - order density perturbation , by the poisson equation , @xmath26 ignoring metric perturbations that decay in time , for a matter - dominated universe @xmath22 and @xmath23 are given by ( see ref .
@xcite ) in ref .
@xcite corresponds to our variable @xmath27 , and vice versa . ]
[ fomp ] @xmath28
to first order we will neglect vector modes , as they do not arise in conventional perturbation - generation mechanisms such as inflation .
we will also assume the tensor mode amplitude is small .
in calculating spatial averages we will also require @xmath29 , where @xmath30 is the determinant of the spatial metric . to first order @xcite , @xmath31
whether calculating to first order or second order , when calculating the spatial average @xmath32 of a quantity @xmath33 one must fix a system of coordinates in which to express @xmath34 , and then integrate with the proper integration measure over @xmath35 at fixed @xmath4 .
for all orders we adopt the definition which is a scalar under the residual gauge freedom . ]
@xmath36 where the domain of integration is some large volume .
if @xmath37 is a homogeneous quantity ( _ i.e. , _ it does not depend on @xmath5 , but only on @xmath4 ) , then simply @xmath38 . in the first - order calculation , if @xmath39 is already a first order quantity we may set @xmath40 , and @xmath41 becomes @xmath42    to first order , the einstein equations are @xmath43 which yield upon averaging the @xmath44 component @xmath45 here we see that @xmath46 may be interpreted as an extra component to the stress - energy tensor .    for the unperturbed flrw cosmology , the expansion rate @xmath47 is found from the @xmath48 component of the einstein equations .
for the first - order perturbed flrw model @xmath49 where @xmath50 .
this is the basic point . in a perturbed flrw cosmology
, @xmath51 is _ not _ @xmath52 . , where @xmath53 is related to @xmath4 by @xmath54 .
] however , one must be careful to find the true variables that describe the evolution of the averaged background .
it is not clear that the quantity @xmath47 describes the physical hubble flow .
the correct quantity to describe the hubble flow may be found from the evolution of @xmath55 .
we know that for a homogeneous isotropic universe there are two independent equations that govern the dynamics of the expansion .
so we have to find the two independent equations that describe the evolution of averaged physical quantities such as like @xmath56 . for the unperturbed model we may augment the @xmath48 equation with the continuity equation , @xmath57 .
this gives for a perfect pressureless fluid ( dust ) @xmath58 where @xmath59 and @xmath60 is the fluid four velocity .
( [ continuity ] ) is true to all orders .
for an unperturbed flrw universe with scale factor @xmath61 , this immediately gives @xmath62 , which results in @xmath63 .
for the perturbed model , we want to expand eq .
( [ continuity ] ) to first order and then average it .
this will give us the effective scale factor for the dilution of the matter density .
in addition to the expansion of @xmath64 , we expand @xmath65 as @xmath66 and obtain @xmath67 using the fact that @xmath68 we are left with @xmath69 this tells us that in a first - order perturbed universe the average matter density is diluted with expansion according to @xmath70 , which in general is _ not _ equivalent to @xmath71 .    an alternative way to express the result
is to define a new scale factor , @xmath72 , such that @xmath73 .
it is clear that @xmath72 must be defined by @xmath74 and so the _ true _ scale factor is @xmath72 and not @xmath61 , at least for the dilution of matter ( see , _
@xcite ) .
the physical quantity of interest is @xmath75 .
it is given by @xmath76 we will define a @xmath77 , and express @xmath65 as @xmath78 two important notational points : we have defined @xmath79 ( _ not _ as @xmath47 ) ; and we have defined @xmath80 as the difference between @xmath75 and @xmath81 ( _ not _ as the difference between @xmath75 and @xmath82 ) .
to calculate @xmath83 , we can express eq .
( [ backeinstein001 ] ) in the form @xmath84 where of course the second equality holds if the corrections are small .
combining eqs .
( [ combo11 ] ) and ( [ combo21 ] ) , we find @xmath85    it will turn out that in the first - order calculation @xmath86 will appear only as a spatial gradient in the final expression for @xmath80 .
this means that the physical result is insensitive to the choice of the normalization of @xmath87 , since we could always add a constant to @xmath86 to make @xmath88 anything we please .
the cancellation of the non - gradient first - order terms in eq .
( [ combo31 ] ) seems accidental , but in appendix [ alternative ] we derive an expression for @xmath80 that at first order only contains spatial derivatives of @xmath86 , which do not change if we shift @xmath86 by a constant ( or even a time - dependent renormalization ) .      the spatial metric @xmath89 is expanded up to second order ( neglecting first order vector and tensor perturbations ) as . ]
@xmath90 the functions @xmath91 , @xmath92 , @xmath93 , and @xmath94 represent the @xmath9th - order perturbation of the metric .
vector and tensor modes have been included here at second order as they are dynamically generated by the non - linear evolution of purely scalar perturbations @xcite .
it will turn out that @xmath95 is the only second - order term for which we will require the explicit form . for a matter - dominated universe
the metric perturbation @xmath95 is obtained similarly to ref .
@xcite @xmath96 the first term arises from a primordial epoch of inflation and can be computed as follows .
there exists a second - order extension of the well - known gauge - invariant variable @xmath97 , the curvature perturbation on uniform density hypersurfaces . in terms of @xmath98 , to first order it is given by @xmath99 .
to second order , @xmath100 , where @xmath101 remains _ constant _ on superhorizon scales in the case in which only adiabatic perturbations are present . in standard single - field inflation
, @xmath101 is generated during inflation and its value is given by @xmath102 @xcite . since in the synchronous gauge and on superhorizon scales @xmath103 and @xmath104 , one readily concludes that the primordial contribution to the second - order metric perturbation @xmath105 is given by the constant term @xmath106 and it also propagates to the coefficients of the term proportional to @xmath107 .    in the second - order calculation care
must be taken in defining the spatial average . again ,
if @xmath108 is a homogeneous quantity , then simply @xmath109 .
if @xmath110 is already a second - order quantity , then we can take @xmath40 , both in the numerator and in the denominator .
but in the second - order calculation of @xmath111 we must remember to include @xmath29 . using eq .
( [ fosd ] ) , @xmath112 where we have introduced the notation @xmath113 for a first - order term to denote the spatial average with the factor @xmath114 , _
i.e. , _ @xmath115 .
so the correct second - order averaging procedure gives    @xmath116    as an illustration of the subtleties in averaging , if at first order @xmath117 , where the first - order averaging prescription is defined in eq .
( [ ffo ] ) , at second order the averaging prescription for a first - order quantity is defined by eq .
( [ avgone ] ) , and @xmath118 need not vanish .
now we perform a second - order expansion .
we first expand the energy - momentum tensor and the metric as    [ ourway ] @xmath119    where again the superscript @xmath8 represents the @xmath9th - order perturbation .
again we will take @xmath120 and @xmath121 to be homogeneous and isotropic , so @xmath122 and @xmath123 .
note that this is _ not _ equivalent to the statement that @xmath124 and @xmath125 .
expanding the einstein tensor @xmath126 to second order yields several types of terms .
the first type are the zeroth - order terms , denoted @xmath127 , which only involve @xmath121 .
@xmath128 will be homogeneous since @xmath121 is homogeneous by definition .
then there are first - order terms , @xmath129,which involve a single power of @xmath130 , possibly combined with @xmath121 .
there are two types of second - order terms .
the first type , denoted by @xmath131 , involves squares of @xmath130 .
the second type of second - order terms , denoted @xmath132 , involves @xmath133 .
now we consider the einstein equations @xmath134 we proceed by averaging eq .
( [ pee ] ) .
this yields @xmath135 from eq .
( [ backeinstein ] ) we see that now @xmath136 may be interpreted as an extra component to the stress - energy tensor . to second order , the @xmath48 component of the perturbed flrw model gives @xmath137 again we see that @xmath51 is _ not _ @xmath138 .
now let us consider the second - order expression for the evolution of @xmath139 .
we again use the continuity equation , eq .
( [ continuity ] ) , and expand @xmath64 and @xmath65 as @xmath140 the result is a bit more complicated than the first - order result : @xmath141 using the fact that @xmath142 , the left - hand side of eq .
( [ coneq ] ) becomes @xmath143 we may also express the right - hand side of eq .
( [ coneq ] ) as @xmath144 equating eqs .
( [ lefths ] ) and ( [ righths ] ) we obtain @xmath145 since to first order a simple calculation yields @xmath146 , we are left with @xmath147 this tells us that as in a first - order perturbed universe , in a second - order perturbed universe the average matter density is diluted with expansion according to @xmath70 , which in general is _ not _ equivalent to @xmath71 .
note that it was crucial to define the averages with the @xmath29 factor ; otherwise we would not have discovered the right quantity to describe the scaling of @xmath56 .
again , the physical quantity of interest is @xmath75 , given by @xmath148 we emphasize again that @xmath79 ( and _ not _ @xmath47 ) .    the goal of this paper is to calculate @xmath83 .
to do so , we can express eq .
( [ backeinstein00 ] ) in the form @xmath149 where of course the second equality holds if the corrections are small .
using eq .
( [ combo2 ] ) , we find @xmath150    it will turn out that @xmath151 will appear only as a spatial gradient in the final expression for @xmath80 .
this means that now the physical result is insensitive to the choice of the normalization of @xmath152 , since we could always add a term that is spatially constant .
the cancellation of the non - gradient second - order terms in eq .
( [ combo3 ] ) seems accidental , but again , in appendix [ alternative ] we derive an expression for @xmath80 that explicitly only contains spatial derivatives of @xmath151 , which do not change if we shift @xmath151 by a term that is spatially constant ( or even a time - dependent normalization ) .
the relevant quantity which we want to calculate is @xmath83 .
the simplest way to proceed is to perform the computation directly in the synchronous gauge .
the synchronous coordinates are more physical for our purposes . if the calculation is performed in the poisson gauge it is necessary to perform a complex calculation ( as we do in appendix [ thetapoisson ] ) to express the result in synchronous coordinates ( see also refs .
@xcite and @xcite ) .
moreover , in general for second - order calculations , the synchronous gauge turns out to be very convenient , since here the scalar perturbations do not have nonlocal terms that appear in other gauges such as the poisson gauge .
also , for matter @xmath153 in this gauge takes the trivial form @xmath154 , so the only terms that have to be computed are the christoffel symbols in the covariant derivative @xmath155 moreover , in the synchronous gauge , to second order @xmath156 @xcite .
finally , the computation of the perturbation of @xmath65 with respect to its background value consists of finding just the trace of @xmath157 . from @xcite , @xmath158 in the last equation we expressed the result in terms of the initial perturbation @xmath3 , using the time evolution of the relevant perturbation variables in the synchronous gauge given in eqs.([fomp ] ) and ( [ somp ] ) .    the simplest way to find @xmath159 is to realize that @xmath160 , and use the explicit solutions for @xmath161 and @xmath162 from ref .
@xcite , but using for @xmath105 the expression augmented with the @xmath163 as in eq .
( [ somp ] ) . in the matter - dominated universe , @xmath164
the value of @xmath165 is found by summing eqs .
( [ fundamentalsyn ] ) and ( [ fundamentalsyng ] ) .
we must now perform the appropriate spatial average . in @xmath77
there is only one first - order term ; the rest of the terms are second order .
the first - order term must be averaged using the procedure of eq.([soa ] ) , while the other terms are averaged using @xmath114 .
the result is @xmath166   .
\label{risultatowithbt}\end{aligned}\ ] ]      we now proceed to express the averages in terms of the matter power spectrum .
the procedure is to fix a spherical domain of radius @xmath167 with volume @xmath168 . from eq .
( [ average ] ) and the definition of @xmath113 , all of the averages in eq.([risultatowithbt ] ) involve integrals of the form @xmath169 for calculational convenience we will employ a gaussian window function and assume @xmath168 is a spherically symmetric volume with volume element @xmath170 and volume @xmath171 .
the fourier transform of the window functions is @xmath172 of course as @xmath173 , @xmath174 .
we wish to evaluate the typical expected value of @xmath65 averaged over this sphere . by `` typical expected value '' we mean the ensemble average .
the metric fluctuation @xmath3 is treated as a gaussian variable with zero mean ( of which we know the @xmath175-point correlation functions ) that takes random values over different `` realizations '' of volumes @xmath168 . in other words , we calculate the typical value of a quantity for a region of radius @xmath167 as the statistical mean over many different similar regions .
we will indicate this statistical average with a bar : @xmath176 .
we will express @xmath3 and its derivatives in terms of a fourier integral , so @xmath177 the fourier components @xmath178 satisfy    @xmath179 \
p_{\varphi}(k_1)p_{\varphi}(k_2 )      \right\ }   \label{fourpoint } , \end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath180 . from eq.([nabla2varphi ] ) we can express @xmath181 in terms of the matter power spectrum as @xmath182 where @xmath183 is the ( dimensionless ) power spectrum of the matter density fluctuations .    let us first consider @xmath184 and @xmath185 . clearly from eq .
( [ onepoint ] ) , @xmath186 and @xmath187 .
however this does not imply that @xmath188 or @xmath189 over any individual volume of radius @xmath167 .
the question is the magnitude of typical departures from the mean values , which corresponds to the statistical variance of our quantities . as we will show , it is intuitively clear that if the radius @xmath167 is big enough , this variance will go to zero .
so the effect of variance could be important .
we will return to the calculation of the variances of the different terms after completing the calculation of the mean values .
next , consider @xmath190 . passing to fourier space
, we have @xmath191   \nonumber   \\ & = & -   \int \frac{d^3\!k_1}{(2\pi)^3 } \frac{d^3\!k_2}{(2 \pi)^3 } \left ( \frac{k_1 ^ 2 + k_2 ^ 2}{2 }   \right )   \overline{\varphi_{\vec{k}_1 } \varphi_{\vec{k}_2 } } \ w\left(\left|\vec{k_1 } + \vec{k_2}\right| r\right ) .\end{aligned}\ ] ] making use of eq .
( [ twopoint ] ) , we find @xmath192 using eq .
( [ pphipdelta ] ) , we can express @xmath193 in its final form . in the same manner we find the means for the other terms .
the result is    @xmath194    of course in the limit @xmath195 , eqs .
( [ ggg ] ) and ( [ hhh ] ) vanish .
therefore , the entire second - order calculation gives @xmath196 where we have used @xmath197 appropriate for a matter - dominated universe .
we will give numerical results in the next section .
now for the variances of selected terms . the variance is defined as @xmath198 =   \overline { \left ( \left\langle\cdots\right\rangle -   \overline{\left\langle\cdots\right\rangle } \right)^2 } .\ ] ] for instance ,    @xmath199 & = &    \frac{9}{4 } a^4 h^4 \int_0^\infty \frac{dk}{k^5 } \delta^2(k , a ) \
w^2(kr )   \label{varphi }   \\ \textrm{var}\left[\left\langle\nabla^2\varphi\right\rangle_1\right ] & = &    \frac{9}{4 } a^4 h^4 \int_0^\infty \frac{dk}{k } \delta^2(k , a ) \
w^2(kr )   . \label{varlinear}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the variances of other terms are more complicated , but straightforward to derive .
for instance , @xmath200 = \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^6 }   \int d^3\!k_1   d^3\!k_2 \frac{1}{2}\left [ k_1 ^ 2+k_2 ^ 2+\frac{13}{9}\vec{k}_1\cdot\vec{k}_2   \right]^2 w^2(|\vec{k_1}+\vec{k_2}| r ) \
p_{\varphi}(k_1 ) p_{\varphi}(k_2 )   .
\label{twopointvar}\ ] ] the angular integrals can be expressed in terms of a filter function , defined in general as @xmath201 for a gaussian window function the filter expression can be expressed in terms of incomplete @xmath202 functions as @xmath203 \left[\gamma(l+1,-\,2r^2 { k_1 } { k_2 } ) - \gamma(l+1 , 2r^2{k_1}{k_2})\right ] } { { 2^{l+1}r^{2(l+1)}{k_1}}^{l+1}{{k_2}}^{l+1 } }   .\end{aligned}\ ] ] we will make use of the fact that for @xmath204 and @xmath205 , @xmath206 .    using the gaussian filter , eq .
( [ twopointvar ] ) becomes @xmath207 & = & \left ( \frac{9}{8 }   a^4 h^4 \right)^2 \int_0^{\infty } \frac{d k_1}{k_1 ^ 3 } \delta^2(k_1,a ) \int_0^{\infty } \frac{d k_2}{k_2
^ 3 } \delta^2(k_2,a )   \left [ \left(\frac{k_1 ^ 2}{k_2 ^ 2}+\frac{k_2 ^ 2}{k_1 ^ 2}+2\right ) j^{(0)}(k_1,k_2,r)\right.\nonumber\\ & & \left .
+ \frac{26}{9}\left ( \frac{k_1}{k_2}+\frac{k_2}{k_1}\right )   j^{(1)}(k_1,k_2,r)+\frac{169}{81}j^{(2)}(k_1,k_2,r ) \right ] .
\label{phi2k2}\end{aligned}\ ] ] it is interesting that the integral is not well behaved in the infrared . as discussed in the next section , for a harrison
zeldovich spectrum @xmath208 , so the term proportional to @xmath209 has an infrared divergence : @xmath210_\infty & = & \left ( \frac{9}{8 }   a^4 h^4 \right)^2 \int_0^{\infty } \frac{d k_1}{k_1 ^ 3 } \delta^2(k_1,a ) \int_0^{\infty } \frac{d k_2}{k_2
^ 3 } \delta^2(k_2,a )   \left(\frac{k_1 ^ 2}{k_2 ^ 2}+\frac{k_2 ^ 2}{k_1 ^ 2}\right ) j^{(0)}(k_1,k_2,r ) \nonumber \\ & = & \left ( \frac{9}{8 }   a^4 h^4 \right)^2 4 \int\frac{dk_2}{k_2}\delta^2(k_2,a ) \int\frac{dk_1}{k_1 ^ 5}\delta^2(k_1,a ) .\end{aligned}\ ] ] we will discuss the importance of this term below .
now we turn to the variances of @xmath211 and @xmath212 .
they are given by    [ uytr ] @xmath213 & = &   \left(\frac{9}{4}a^4h^4\right)^2 \left[\int \frac{dk_1}{k_1}\delta^2(k_1,a)\,w^2(k_1r ) \int \frac{dk_2}{k_2 ^ 5 } \delta^2(k_2,a)w^2(k_2r ) \right .
\nonumber \\   & & \left
. +   \left ( \int\frac{dk}{k^3}\delta^2(k , a)w^2(kr)\right)^2 \right ]   \label{another } \\ \textrm{var}\left [ \left\langle\nabla^2\varphi\right\rangle \left\langle\nabla^2\varphi\right\rangle \right ] & = &   2\left(\frac{9}{4}a^4h^4\right)^2 \left ( \int\frac{dk}{k}\delta^2(k , a)w^2(kr)\right)^2 .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    note that eq .
( [ another ] ) also has an infrared divergence @xmath214_\infty =   \left ( \frac{9}{8 }   a^4 h^4 \right)^2 4 \int\frac{dk_2}{k_2}\delta^2(k_2,a ) \int\frac{dk_1}{k_1 ^
5}\delta^2(k_1,a ) .\ ] ]    of course we will be interested in the variance of the total expression eq.([risultatowithbt ] ) , not the individual terms .
of particular interest is the cross term of the infrared - singular parts .
this will be the only one for which we will include the cross terms .
the infrared - singular pieces appear in eq .
( [ risultatowithbt ] ) proportional to @xmath215 .
the infrared part of the variance of this term is @xmath216_\infty = \left(\frac{9}{4 }   a^4 h^4 \right)^2 4 \int\frac{dk_2}{k_2}\delta^2(k_2,a ) \int\frac{dk_1}{k_1 ^ 5}\delta^2(k_1,a ) .
\label{blowup}\ ] ]    it is straightforward to obtain the variance for the second - order , four - derivative terms .
( the sum of these terms has zero mean . )
it is given by @xmath217 & = &    \left(\frac{9}{4 }   a^4 h^4 \right)^2 \int_0^{\infty } \frac{d k_1}{k_1 } \delta^2(k_1,a ) \int_0^{\infty } \frac{d k_2}{k_2 } \delta^2(k_2,a ) \left [ j^{(0)}(k_1,k_2,r ) -2
j^{(2)}(k_1,k_2,r ) \right .
\nonumber \\ & & \left.+j^{(4)}(k_1,k_2,r ) \right ]   .
\label{phi2k4}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    there is another potential contribution that will result in contributions to the variance similar to the terms we have found .
suppose we expand @xmath77 to _ third _ order in perturbation theory .
we can express @xmath77 in the general form @xmath218 where @xmath219 , @xmath220 , and @xmath221 are operators which contain derivatives .
then the variance of @xmath77 will contains terms like @xmath222 , @xmath223 , and @xmath224 .
the first term is the usual cosmic variance term ; it is well behaved in the infrared .
the second term is singular in the infrared ; it is given in eq .
( [ blowup ] ) .
the third term will be present , in principle it also will have an infrared singular part , and its value requires a relativistic third - order perturbation calculation .
however there is no reason for the infrared singular part of the @xmath225 term to cancel exactly the infrared singular part of the @xmath226 term .
finally we remark on the ultraviolet behavior of the corrections to the expansion rate .
the second - order result for the mean , eq .
( [ thisisit ] ) , should be well behaved in the ultraviolet .
as discussed in the next section , in the linear regime @xmath183 increases logarithmically with @xmath227 for a harrison - zeldovich spectrum , so the first term should be well behaved in the ultraviolet .
the ultraviolet behavior of the last two terms are regulated by the filter function @xmath228 .
the contributions to the variance of the terms we have calculated , eqs .
( [ varlinear ] ) , ( [ phi2k2 ] ) , ( [ uytr ] ) , and ( [ phi2k4 ] ) , all involve filter functions that regulate the ultraviolet behavior .
however , we expect there to be terms that do not involve filter functions . for instance
, if one performs the relativistic third - order calculation , one expects to find contributions to @xmath80 from terms like @xmath229 .
the variance would then include evaluation of terms like @xmath230 ( an example of the aforementioned @xmath225 terms ) .
these terms would include parts with a momentum integration unregulated by a filter function .
if there are third - order terms with large numbers of derivatives bringing down large powers of momentum , then the variance might be sensitive to the ultraviolet behavior .    in the next section
we show the numerical results for the mean and variance of the corrections to the expansion rate .
in this section we present the numerical results for @xmath83 for a matter - dominated universe . we will give the mean values , as well as the variances .
for both the mean and the variances we express the power spectrum @xmath183 in terms of the transfer function @xmath231 . for a harrison
zeldovich spectrum , the power spectrum is @xmath232 where @xmath233 is the dimensionless amplitude , @xmath234 .
we will discuss the implications of other spectra .
for our purposes the bardeen , bond , kaiser , szalay ( bbks ) transfer function @xcite will be adequate .
the bbks transfer function may be expressed in terms of a dimensionless parameter @xmath235 where @xmath202 is the shape factor , defined for a flat universe in terms of the baryon fraction @xmath236 and the total value of @xmath237 as @xmath238 . in terms of @xmath239 , @xmath240^{-1/4 } .\ ] ] of course at small @xmath239 , @xmath241 , while at large @xmath239 , @xmath242 .
also , in all expressions we make use of the fact that in a matter - dominated universe @xmath243 , where @xmath244 is the present value of the scale factor .
consider the mean , given by eq .
( [ thisisit ] ) : @xmath245 where @xmath9 is the dimensionless size of the region , @xmath246 .
we will present results for @xmath247 ( so @xmath248 ) and the last two terms are negligible . while we have indicated the range of integration from @xmath249 to @xmath250 , in reality to employ eq .
( [ powerspectrum ] ) there is a cutoff on the maximum value of the integral .
the ultraviolet cutoff arises because density perturbations become nonlinear .
the mean value is very insensitive to the ultraviolet cutoff .
the integral for the mean value receives most of the contribution in the decade between @xmath251 .
the result for the present mean value of @xmath252 is shown in fig .  [ meaneds ] for various choices of @xmath202 .
it scales as @xmath253 .     the present mean value , @xmath252 , in the matter - dominated universe as a function of the ultraviolet cutoff @xmath254 for various values of the shape factor @xmath202.,scaledwidth=90.0% ]    now consider the variance about the mean value . first consider the variance of the linear term , eq.([varlinear ] ) .
this term contributes to the variance in @xmath255 an amount @xmath256}}{3h } \right|_\textrm{linear term}= \frac{5}{9}\frac{1}{a^2h^2}\sqrt{\textrm{var } \left[\left\langle\nabla^2\varphi\right\rangle_1\right ] } = \frac{5}{6 } \left[\int_0^\infty \frac{dk}{k } \delta^2(k ) \
w^2(kr )   \right]^{1/2}.\ ] ] defining a dimensionless wavenumber @xmath257 , the term becomes @xmath256}}{3h } \right|_\textrm{linear term } = \frac{5}{6}a \left(\frac{h\ , \textrm{mpc}^{-1}}{h_0}\right)^2\frac{a}{a_0 }    r^{-2}\left [ \int_0^{x_\textrm{max } } dx \ x^3 \
t^2(x/\gamma r ) \   e^{-x^2 } \right]^{1/2 } \simeq \frac{a}{a_0}\frac{100}{r^2}\quad ( \gamma r\gg1),\ ] ] where the last expression holds for @xmath258 . the result is shown in fig .  [ variance ] .
because of the window function , the results do not depend on @xmath254 , the ultraviolet cutoff ( so long as it is greater than about @xmath259 ) .
the result is also well behaved in the infrared .
of course as @xmath195 , the variance of the linear term approaches the mean of the linear term , which is zero .
we can see comparing fig .
[ meaneds ] and fig .  [ variance ] that the variance in the linear term dominates the mean value out to distances of about @xmath260 mpc .     the present contribution to @xmath261}/3h$ ] from the indicated terms in a matter - dominated universe as a function of @xmath167 , the volume sampled .
the results are for @xmath262 and @xmath263 . on the logarithmic scale ,
the dependence on @xmath202 and @xmath264 is not noticeable .
we emphasize the point made in the text that the calculation for the the second - order , two - derivative term has an infrared cutoff of the present hubble radius.,scaledwidth=90.0% ]    next , consider the contribution to the variance of a typical second - order , four - derivative term , eq .
( [ phi2k4 ] ) .
this term contributes to the variance in @xmath255 an amount @xmath256}}{3h } \right|_{\textrm{second - order , } k^4}= \frac{4}{27}\frac{1}{a^4h^4}\sqrt { \textrm{var } \left [ \left\langle\left(\nabla^2\varphi\right)^2\right\rangle - \left\langle\varphi_{,ij}\varphi^{,ij}\right\rangle\right]}.\ ] ] again , with the same dimensionless variables @xmath265}}{3h } \right|_{\textrm{second - order , } k^4 } & = & \frac{1}{3}a^2 \left(\frac{h\,\textrm{mpc}^{-1}}{h_0}\right)^4\left(\frac{a}{a_0}\right)^2   r^{-4 } \left [ \int_0^{x_\textrm{max } } dx_1\int_0^{x_\textrm{max } } dx_2 \
x_1 ^ 3   \ x_2 ^ 3   \right .
\nonumber \\ & & \left .
t^2(x_1/\gamma r ) \ t^2(x_2/\gamma r ) \
e^{-x_1 ^ 2}e^{-x_2 ^ 2}\int_{-1}^1 d\mu \
e^{-2x_1x_2\mu}\   \left(1-\mu^2\right)^2 \right]^{1/2 } .\end{aligned}\ ] ] the results are also shown in fig .  [ variance ] .
this term scales as @xmath266 .
the result is well behaved in the infrared and an infrared cutoff does not need to be introduced .    finally , consider the variance of a typical second - order two - derivative term , eq .
( [ phi2k2 ] ) .
as mentioned in the previous section this term is not well behaved in the infrared .
we first calculate the variance by introducing an infrared cutoff which we will take to be the wavenumber of the present hubble radius .
the second - order @xmath267 term contributes to the variance in @xmath255 an amount @xmath256}}{3h } \right|_{\textrm{second - order , } k^2}= \frac{25}{27}\frac{1}{a^2h^2 } \sqrt{\textrm{var}\left [ \left\langle\varphi\nabla^2\varphi\right\rangle + \frac{13}{18}\left\langle\varphi_{,i}\varphi^{,i}\right\rangle\right ] } .\ ] ] in terms of the dimensionless variables @xmath268 and @xmath9 , this term contributes to the variance an amount @xmath265}}{3h } \right|_{\textrm{second - order , } k^2 } & = & \frac{25}{24 } a^2 \left(\frac{h\,\textrm{mpc}^{-1}}{h_0}\right)^2\frac{a}{a_0 }   r^{-2 } \left [ \int_{x_\textrm{min}}^{x_\textrm{max } } dx_1 \int_{x_\textrm{min}}^{x_\textrm{max } } dx_2    \
t^2(x_1/\gamma r ) \ t^2(x_2/\gamma
r ) \ e^{-x_1 ^ 2}e^{-x_2 ^ 2}\right .   \nonumber \\ & &   \times \left .
\int_{-1}^1 d\mu \
e^{-2x_1x_2\mu } \
\left(\frac{x_1 ^ 3}{x_2}+\frac{x_2 ^ 3}{x_1 } +   2x_1 x_2 + \frac{26}{9}x_1 ^ 2\mu + \frac{26}{9}x_2 ^
2\mu   + \frac{169}{81}x_1x_2\mu^2\right )   \right]^{1/2 } .\end{aligned}\ ] ] as a result of the infrared behavior , for this term we must introduce another parameter , @xmath269 , as an infrared cutoff .
its value is shown in fig .
[ variance ] as a function of @xmath167 .
as expected , it has a @xmath270 behavior .
now we turn to the infrared - singular part of the second - order two - derivative term .
the contribution is @xmath256}}{3h } \right|_{\textrm{second - order , } k^2}= \frac{25}{27}\frac{1}{a^2h^2 } \sqrt{\left [ \left\langle\varphi\nabla^2\varphi\right\rangle   -3 \left\langle\varphi\right\rangle_1   \left\langle\nabla^2\varphi\right\rangle_1\right]_\infty } .\ ] ] we will evaluate the integral by defining some @xmath271 such that @xmath272
. we will be interested in large values of @xmath9 , so if @xmath273 , then @xmath274 , and @xmath275 can be set to unity . using eq .
( [ blowup ] ) , this term may be written as @xmath256}}{3h } \right|_{\textrm{second - order , } k^2}=\frac{25}{12 } a^2 \left(\frac{h\,\textrm{mpc}^{-1}}{h_0}\right)^2\frac{a}{a_0 }    r^{-2}\left [ x_*^4\ln \frac{k_*}{k_\textrm{min}}\right]^{1/2 } .\ ] ] if we take @xmath276 where @xmath277 is the hubble wavenumber , then evaluating the term for @xmath9 corresponding to the hubble radius we find @xmath256}}{3h } \right|_{\textrm{second - order , } k^2 }    = \frac{25}{24}a^2\frac{a}{a_0 }    \left[\ln\frac{k_h}{k_\textrm{min}}\right]^{1/2 }   = \frac{25}{36}a\frac{a}{a_0}\sqrt{\textrm{var}[\langle\varphi\rangle_1]}. \label{logterm}\ ] ] we started with a perturbative expansion , and for that expansion to be valid requires @xmath278 , so our perturbative analysis will break down for @xmath279}/3h \sim 10^{-5}$ ] .
of course the total variance of @xmath83 includes cross terms from the various contributions .
however we have seen that the linear term will dominate .
our results are illustrated in figs [ meaneds ] and [ variance ] .
the mean corrections to the expansion rate are a few parts in @xmath0 .
if the correct prescription for dealing with the infrared singular nature of @xmath280 $ ] is to employ a cutoff of the order of the hubble radius , then the variance about the mean is small , and dominated by the first - order term . if , however , the super - hubble modes are physical , then the variance is dominated by the infrared singular part of the second - order corrections . restricting ourselves to @xmath280<1 $ ] where the perturbative calculation is valid , then the variance will be small , of order @xmath281 .    in ref .
@xcite , rsnen considered what amounts to the variance associated with the second - order term proportional to @xmath282 and suggested that due to unknown boundary conditions it may lead to a large contribution to the expansion rate .
we claim that when properly averaged , this term is subdominant .    in closing , let us speculate that corrections to the expansion rate will include a term like @xmath1 even when @xmath283 .
returning to the infrared - singular part of the second - order variance , eq.([logterm ] ) , @xmath256_\infty } } { 3h } \right|_{\textrm{second - order , } k^2 }   = 3.76\times10^{-10 } \frac{a}{a_0}\ln\frac{k_h}{k_\textrm{min } } .
\label{logterm2}\ ] ] for the variance to be of order unity , the perturbation spectrum would have to extend to a factor of @xmath284 ( @xmath285 @xmath286-folds ! ) times the present hubble radius .    rather than a harrison
zeldovich spectrum , if we assume a slightly red spectrum so that @xmath287 with @xmath288 , . ] then the logarithmic term in eq .
( [ logterm2 ] ) is replaced by @xmath289 .
now this will give unit variance if @xmath290 .
for instance , if @xmath291 on super - hubble - radius scales , then a variance of order unity is obtained if the perturbation spectrum extends 676 @xmath286-folds beyond the hubble radius .
since the present hubble radius corresponds to a scale that crossed the hubble radius about 60 @xmath286-folds before the end of inflation , if inflation lasted more than 736 @xmath286-folds with a super - hubble - radius spectral index of @xmath291 , then the effect of super - hubble - radius perturbations would have a large effect on the expansion rate of our hubble volume .
speculation about the significance of this result will follow in a separate paper @xcite .
e.w.k .  is supported in part by nasa grant nag5 - 10842 and by the department of energy .
we would like to thank enrico barausse , riccardo catena , scott dodelson , lam hui , luigi pilo , syksy rsnen , and dominik schwarz for helpful conversations .
the aim of this appendix is to demonstrate that @xmath75 does not depend on the value of @xmath294 since second - order terms will only enter as spatial derivatives . for the demonstration , we first introduce @xmath295 , the extrinsic curvature of constant-@xmath4 hypersurfaces : @xmath296 in either the synchronous or comoving gauge one can see that ( see ref .
@xcite ) @xmath297 one can now write the @xmath298 term in a convenient form ( see eq.(4.3 ) of @xcite ) @xmath299 where @xmath300 is the intrinsic curvature of the three space with metric @xmath89 . at second order @xmath300
is @xmath301 using eq .
( [ vartheta ] ) , eq .
( [ eqr ] ) also can be written as @xmath302 .
\label{usefulrel}\ ] ]    recall now that in any of the definitions adopted , eq .
( [ combo3 ] ) is always valid .
so independent of @xmath294 , @xmath303 using eq .
( [ usefulrel ] ) , we obtain @xmath304   .
\label{complete}\ ] ] we note now that the only piece that depends on @xmath305 is the one contained in @xmath306 . and , as we can see from its explicit expression @xmath307 this is a spatial gradient , so independent on @xmath308 . from this formula
it is also clear that @xmath65 has no term with zero powers of @xmath227 , since the spatial curvature @xmath300 always involves spatial derivatives ( and the same is true for the @xmath309 terms ) .    if one computes @xmath75 using eq .
( [ complete ] ) , one obtains the same result as eq .
( [ risultatowithbt ] ) , thus our results are independent of @xmath294 . by the same argument , in a first - order calculation we could add a constant to @xmath310 .
in this appendix we repeat the calculation in the poisson gauge in order to check our results and compare with other results in the literature for @xmath65 in the that gauge .
the poisson gauge is a second - order generalization of the longitudinal ( or newtonian ) gauge .
since this is a very involved way to do the computation , and since it is only intended to be a check , we do it only in a partial way by just computing the corrections @xmath311 [ see eqs .
( [ combo11 ] ) and ( [ fundamentalsyn ] ) ] .
furthermore we compute exactly the terms with two spatial derivatives , while as for the four derivatives terms , we only check that they have zero statistical mean ( that is , we disregard total spatial gradients ) .
the metric is given at second order in this gauge by and the tensor @xmath312 will never enter in the computations . ]
@xmath313   dy^i dy^j \right\ } .\ ] ] here @xmath314 is a pure symmetric , transverse , traceless tensor degree of freedom
. we will denote the derivative with respect to conformal time @xmath315 as @xmath316 .
we will also introduce here a cosmic time @xmath317 , linked to @xmath315 through the relation @xmath318 , and we will denote the derivative with respect to @xmath317 with a @xmath319 symbol . the spatial derivatives with respect to @xmath5 will be denoted as before , with a simple @xmath320 or @xmath321 symbol .
the derivatives with respect to @xmath322 instead will be explicitly written as @xmath323 or with the subscript @xmath324 .
recall also , as well known , that the @xmath325 component of einstein s equations ( in the absence of anisotropic stress ) imposes @xmath326 , and moreover , the evolution equations in matter domination give @xmath327 the four velocity of the fluid @xmath153 here has a more involved form      where @xmath329 . here
@xmath330 is the second - order contribution to the three velocity .
we will need only its divergence ( which is obtained taking the divergence of the @xmath331 einstein equation ) : @xmath332 now , taking these expressions and taking christoffel symbols from ref.@xcite , we must compute @xmath333 this gives us @xmath334 here @xmath335 is defined as @xmath336 . the piece coming from @xmath337 in eq.([thetapoiss ] ) contains first order ( @xmath338 ) and second order ( @xmath339 ) terms . the first order term [ see eq .
( [ ui1 ] ) ] is equal to @xmath340 and it will be important in the next steps of the computation , since it will produce second - order quantities .
the term @xmath341 [ eq .  ( [ ui2 ] ) ] is a spatial gradient of second - order quantities . for the purposes of this appendix we have to keep the first two pieces in eq .
( [ ui2 ] ) , and moreover we have to consider also the two intrinsically second - order terms @xmath342 and @xmath105 .
note also that , in their time evolution they contain non - local quantities ( @xmath343 and @xmath344 of eqs .
( 6.8 ) of ref.@xcite ) , _
i.e. , _ they are defined through @xmath345   .
\label{theta_0}\end{aligned}\ ] ] so the spatial derivatives of these quantities will produce not only spatial gradients , but also terms who do not have zero statistical mean . in the end
, we keep them in the calculation as @xmath346 where `` @xmath347 '' indicates terms with four spatial gradients ( that we will omit ) .
so , the relevant expression for @xmath348 is obtained by eqs.([thetaexpl ] ) , ( [ u1 ] ) , and ( [ u2 ] ) @xmath349 this is the result in the poisson gauge in coordinates @xmath350 .
note that here there are terms which do not vanish in the infrared limit , proportional to @xmath3 and in @xmath163 ( they will disappear going back to the synchronous and comoving coordinates , as noted in ref .
@xcite ) .    in order to compare with the results already obtained in the synchronous gauge
, we have to express our quantity @xmath348 as @xmath351 and average it over a volume in coordinates @xmath5 at constant @xmath4 as in section [ thetasynchronous ] .
first , we have to change time from @xmath317 to @xmath53 in all the quantities .
this is relevant only for the zeroth - order and first - order terms , and not for the ones which are already second order .
so the quantities in which the time has to be changed are @xmath335 , @xmath352 and @xmath353 . the first two , @xmath354 and @xmath355 , have to be expanded up to second order in @xmath356 , which is defined by @xmath357 and expressed in terms of the scale factor and the hubble rate defined by a comoving observer : @xmath358 , @xmath359 . instead , for the variable @xmath360
, @xmath361 holds since @xmath362 . in order to find the change of the time coordinate from @xmath317 to @xmath53
one knows that @xmath363 , and that @xmath364 . in this way
one obtains an iterative equation @xmath365 where @xmath366 . for zeroth ,
first , and second order , the equation becomes @xmath367 which lead to @xmath368    now using these equations , one can change the time in eq.([thetatx ] ) , obtaining @xmath369 as said before , this transformation ( _ i.e. , _ passing to synchronous time @xmath53 ) has eliminated the two terms in @xmath3 and @xmath163 that do not vanish in the infrared .
we wrote it in this form in order to compare with a previous result in literature ( eq.(10 ) of ref .
@xcite ) . as we are going to show , we agree with that result , but we added here the contribution of intrinsic second - order terms @xmath342 and @xmath105 . this is crucial if we want to recover the result obtained in sec .  [ thetasynchronous ] in the other gauge . here
@xmath370 contains the terms @xmath371 note that after changing time , a new term ( which is not a spatial gradient ) appears , namely @xmath372 .
finally , one has to change also spatial variables from @xmath322 to @xmath5 .
the change of coordinates is found by imposing that the metric @xmath373 in the coordinates @xmath374 has @xmath375 .
using the transformation given by eq .
( [ deltatau ] ) , one finds that to first order the change in spatial coordinates is given by @xmath376 since it is already first order , this change of coordinates is irrelevant for quantities that are already second - order .
moreover , the only first order term of eq .
( [ thetataux ] ) is @xmath377 . here , the change of spatial coordinates in the argument of @xmath378 is not relevant for our purposes , since it produces only an extra term which is a four derivative spatial gradient of something . but
passing from @xmath379 to @xmath380 produces a ( relevant ) extra term with four spatial derivatives , @xmath381 in all the other terms we can safely put @xmath382 . after doing this , the result is @xmath383 using eqs .
( 6.8 ) of ref .
@xcite , together with eqs.([theta_0 ] ) given in the present section , one obtains for the time evolution of the intrinsic second order terms @xmath342 and @xmath384 the result @xmath385 now this is the first check we wanted to do
. we can compare with eq.([fundamentalsyn ] ) and see that deriving by parts and using @xmath386 , they coincide ( up to four - derivative total spatial gradients ) .
an important observation here is that the presence of the intrinsically second - order terms is necessary to obtain not only the correct result , but even a consistent calculation .
in fact if one ignores them , _
i.e. , _ ignores @xmath105 and @xmath387 in the synchronous gauge and ignores @xmath342 and @xmath105 in the poisson gauge , and compares the two results , one sees that they do not coincide . in other words
they are not really `` intrinsic '' second order , since what appears as intrinsic second order in one gauge , can appear as first order times first order in another gauge .    at this point
we may also average expression eq .
( [ thetapf ] ) over a volume @xmath35 as we did in sec .
[ thetasynchronous ] .
this has to be done with the appropriate measure of integration , which is @xmath388 , where @xmath389 .
up to first order the spatial metric is given by @xmath390 = a^2\left(1-\frac{4}{3}\varphi\right )   \left[\delta_{ij}(1 - 2\varphi )   -\frac{4}{3 a^2 h^2}{\partial_i\partial_j \varphi } \right ] \
, , \ ] ] where @xmath391 is the metric in the @xmath392 coordinates , and where we used the transformation of eq .
( [ transformation ] ) . using this metric
, the measure becomes @xmath393   , \label{measure2}\ ] ] and this is the same as eq .
( [ fosd ] ) , and so the final result is the same .    finally , we can check the computation of ref .
@xcite , which used only the first order metric in this gauge .
that is , we have to put @xmath342 and @xmath105 to zero in eq .
( [ thetatauy ] ) , @xmath394 and average it with the measure of eq .
( [ measure2 ] ) .
doing so , we recover the result @xmath395 as in eq .
( 11 ) of ref .
@xcite .
l. hui and u. seljak , in _ proceedings of the 173rd iau symposium _ , edited by c. s. kochanek and j. n. hewitt ( kluwer academic publishers , dordrecht , 1995 ) ; u. seljak and l. hui , in _ proceedings of clusters , lensing and the future of the universe _
( asp conference series vol .
88 , v. trimble and a. reisenegger , eds . , 1995 ) , p 267 .