Advertisement

Stable exponential cosmological solutions with 3- and l-dimensional factor spaces in the Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet model with a \(\Lambda \)-term

  • V. D. Ivashchuk
  • A. A. Kobtsev
Open Access
Regular Article - Theoretical Physics

Abstract

A D-dimensional gravitational model with a Gauss–Bonnet term and the cosmological term \(\Lambda \) is studied. We assume the metrics to be diagonal cosmological ones. For certain fine-tuned \(\Lambda \), we find a class of solutions with exponential time dependence of two scale factors, governed by two Hubble-like parameters \(H >0\) and h, corresponding to factor spaces of dimensions 3 and \(l > 2\), respectively and \(D = 1 + 3 + l\). The fine-tuned \(\Lambda = \Lambda (x, l, \alpha )\) depends upon the ratio \(h/H = x\), l and the ratio \(\alpha = \alpha _2/\alpha _1\) of two constants (\(\alpha _2\) and \(\alpha _1\)) of the model. For fixed \(\Lambda , \alpha \) and \(l > 2\) the equation \(\Lambda (x,l,\alpha ) = \Lambda \) is equivalent to a polynomial equation of either fourth or third order and may be solved in radicals (the example \(l =3\) is presented). For certain restrictions on x we prove the stability of the solutions in a class of cosmological solutions with diagonal metrics. A subclass of solutions with small enough variation of the effective gravitational constant G is considered. It is shown that all solutions from this subclass are stable.

1 Introduction

In this paper we study a D-dimensional gravitational model with Gauss–Bonnet term and cosmological term \(\Lambda \), i.e. we deal with the so-called Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet model (in short, EGB-, or more precisely EGB\(\Lambda \)-model). The so-called Gauss–Bonnet term appeared in string theory as a correction to the string effective action [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].

At the moment there is a certain interest to Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet (EGB) gravitational model and its modifications, see [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30] and Refs. therein. They are intensively studied in cosmology, e.g. for possible explanation of accelerating expansion of the Universe which follow from supernovae (type Ia) observational data [31, 32, 33].

Here we consider the cosmological solutions with diagonal metrics. They are governed by \(n = 3 + l> 5\) scale factors which depend upon the synchronous time variable. We deal with solutions which have exponential dependence of scale factors. We present a class of such solutions with two scale factors, which correspond to factor spaces of dimensions 3 and \(l > 2\), and are described by two Hubble-like parameters \(H >0\) and h, respectively. Here the total dimension is \(D = 1 + 3 + l\) . Any of these solutions is presented in parametrized form: the cosmological constant \(\Lambda \) is fine-tuned, it depends upon the ratio \(h/H = x\), l and a ratio two coupling constants. Any solution describes an exponential expansion of 3d factor space with Hubble parameter \(H > 0\) [34].

Here we study the stability of the solutions in a class of cosmological solutions with diagonal metrics and single out a subclass of stable solutions. Our analysis is based on earlier results of Refs. [25, 26] (see also the approach of Ref. [23]).

We also consider a subclass of solutions which correspond to a small enough variation of the effective gravitational constant G in the Jordan frame [35, 36] (see also [37, 38, 39] and Refs. therein). We show that all these solutions are stable.

2 The setup

The action of the model has the following form
$$\begin{aligned} S = \int _{M} d^{D}z \sqrt{|g|}\left\{ \alpha _1 (R[g] - 2 \Lambda ) + \alpha _2 \mathcal {L}_2[g]\right\} , \end{aligned}$$
(2.1)
where \(g = g_{MN} dz^{M} \otimes dz^{N}\) is a smooth metric defined on a smooth manifold M, \({\dim M} = D\), \(|g| = |\det (g_{MN})|\), \(\Lambda \) is the cosmological term, R[g] is scalar curvature and
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {L}_2[g] = R_{MNPQ} R^{MNPQ} - 4 R_{MN} R^{MN} +R^2 \end{aligned}$$
is the standard Gauss–Bonnet term. Here \(\alpha _1\), \(\alpha _2\) are nonzero constants.
Our choice of the manifold is as follows
$$\begin{aligned} M = {\mathbb {R}} \times M_1 \times \cdots \times M_n. \end{aligned}$$
(2.2)
We deal with the metric
$$\begin{aligned} g= - d t \otimes d t + \sum _{i=1}^{n} B_i e^{2v^i t} dy^i \otimes dy^i, \end{aligned}$$
(2.3)
where \(B_i > 0\) are constants, \(i = 1, \ldots , n\), and \(M_1, \ldots , M_n\) are one-dimensional manifolds (e.g. \( {\mathbb {R}} \) or \(S^1\)) and \(n > 3\), \(D = n +1\).
Equations of motion for the action (2.1) give us the set of polynomial equations [25]
$$\begin{aligned}&G_{ij} v^i v^j + 2 \Lambda - \alpha G_{ijkl} v^i v^j v^k v^l = 0, \end{aligned}$$
(2.4)
$$\begin{aligned}&\left[ 2 G_{ij} v^j - \frac{4}{3} \alpha G_{ijkl} v^j v^k v^l \right] \sum _{i=1}^n v^i - \frac{2}{3} G_{ij} v^i v^j + \frac{8}{3} \Lambda = 0, \end{aligned}$$
(2.5)
\(i = 1,\ldots , n\), where \(\alpha = \alpha _2/\alpha _1\). Here we use the notations from Refs. [17, 18].
$$\begin{aligned} G_{ij} = \delta _{ij} -1, \quad G_{ijkl} = G_{ij} G_{ik} G_{il} G_{jk} G_{jl} G_{kl} \end{aligned}$$
(2.6)
which are, respectively, the components of two metrics (2-metric and 4-metric) on \( {\mathbb {R}} ^{n}\) . For \(n > 3\) we get a set of forth-order polynomial equations.

In what follows we deal with anisotropic solutions. The isotropic solutions with \(v^1 = \cdots = v^n = H\), \(\alpha < 0\) (and \(n > 3\)) were considered in Refs. [17, 18] and [20] for \(\Lambda =0\) and \(\Lambda \ne 0\), respectively. As it was shown in Refs. [17, 18] there are no more than three different numbers among \(v^1,\ldots ,v^n\) when \(\Lambda =0\). This is valid also in the case \(\Lambda \ne 0\), when the additional restriction \(\sum _{i = 1}^{n} v^i \ne 0\) is imposed [26].

3 Solutions with two Hubble-like parameters

In this section we deal with solutions to the set of equations (2.4), (2.5) of the following form:
$$\begin{aligned} v =\left( \underbrace{H,H,H}_{``our'' \ space},\underbrace{\overbrace{h, \ldots , h}^{l}}_{internal \ space}\right) . \end{aligned}$$
(3.1)
where H is the Hubble-like parameter corresponding to the 3-dimensional factor space and h is the Hubble-like parameter corresponding to the l-dimensional factor space, \(l > 2\).
We set
$$\begin{aligned} H > 0 \end{aligned}$$
(3.2)
for a description of an accelerated expansion of the 3-dimensional subspace (which may describe our Universe). The evolution of the l-dimensional internal factor space is described by the Hubble-like parameter h.

It is widely known that the 4d effective gravitational constant \(G = G_{eff}\) in the Brans–Dicke–Jordan (or simply Jordan) frame [35] (see also [36]) is proportional to the inverse volume scale factor of the internal space, see [37, 39] and references therein.

It follows from Ref. [26] (for a more general scheme see [21]) that if we consider the ansatz (3.1) with two Hubble-like parameters H and h obeying two restrictions imposed
$$\begin{aligned} 3 H + lh \ne 0, \quad H \ne h, \end{aligned}$$
(3.3)
we may reduce relations (2.4) and (2.5) to the following set of equations
$$\begin{aligned} E= & {} 3 H^2 + l h^2 - (3H + lh)^2 + 2 \Lambda \nonumber \\&- \alpha [ 24 l H^3 h + 36 l (l - 1) H^2 h^2\nonumber \\&+ 12 l (l - 1) (l - 2) H h^3\nonumber \\&+ l (l - 1) (l - 2) (l - 3) h^4] = 0, \end{aligned}$$
(3.4)
$$\begin{aligned} Q= & {} 2 H^2 + 4 (l - 1) H h + (l - 1)(l - 2)h^2 = - \frac{1}{2 \alpha }.\nonumber \\ \end{aligned}$$
(3.5)
Using Eq. (3.5) we get for \(l > 2\)
$$\begin{aligned} H = (- 2 \alpha \mathcal {P})^{-1/2}, \end{aligned}$$
(3.6)
where
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {P}&= \mathcal {P}(x,l) \equiv 2 + 4 (l - 1) x + (l - 1)(l - 2)x^2, \end{aligned}$$
(3.7)
$$\begin{aligned} x&\equiv h/H, \end{aligned}$$
(3.8)
and
$$\begin{aligned} \alpha \mathcal {P} < 0. \end{aligned}$$
(3.9)
Due to restrictions (3.3) we have for x from (3.8)
$$\begin{aligned} x \ne x_d = x_d(l) \equiv - 3/l, \quad x \ne x_a \equiv 1. \end{aligned}$$
(3.10)
The relation (3.5) is valid if
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {P}(x,l) \ne 0. \end{aligned}$$
(3.11)
For \(\mathcal {P}(x,l) = 0\) the Eq. (3.5) is not satisfied.
Substituting relation (3.6) into (3.4) we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} \Lambda \alpha = \lambda = \lambda (x,l)&\equiv \frac{1}{4} (\mathcal {P}(x,l))^{-1} \mathcal {M}(x,l) \qquad \nonumber \\&\quad + \frac{1}{8 }( \mathcal {P}(x,l))^{-2} \mathcal {R}(x,l), \end{aligned}$$
(3.12)
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {M}(x,l)&\equiv 3 + l x^2 -(3 + l x)^2, \end{aligned}$$
(3.13)
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {R}(x,l)&\equiv 24 l x + 36 l (l - 1) x^2 + 12 l (l - 1) (l - 2) x^3 \qquad \nonumber \\&\quad + l (l - 1) (l - 2)(l - 3) x^4. \qquad \end{aligned}$$
(3.14)
From (3.11) we get
$$\begin{aligned} x \ne x_{\pm }&= x_{\pm }(l) \equiv \frac{- 2(l - 1) \pm \sqrt{\Delta (l)}}{(l - 1)(l - 2)}, \end{aligned}$$
(3.15)
$$\begin{aligned} \Delta (l)&\equiv 2(l - 1)l, \qquad \end{aligned}$$
(3.16)
where \(x_{\pm }(l)\) are roots of the quadratic equation \(\mathcal {P}(x,l) =0\). They obey the identities
$$\begin{aligned} x_{+}(l) x_{-}(l)&= \frac{2}{(l - 1)(l - 2)}, \qquad \end{aligned}$$
(3.17)
$$\begin{aligned} x_{+}(l) + x_{-}(l)&= - \frac{ 4 }{l - 2}, \qquad \end{aligned}$$
(3.18)
which imply the following inequalities
$$\begin{aligned} x_{-}(l)< x_{+}(l) < 0. \qquad \end{aligned}$$
(3.19)
It follows from (3.9) and (3.12) that
$$\begin{aligned} \Lambda = \alpha ^{-1} \lambda (x,l), \qquad \end{aligned}$$
(3.20)
where
$$\begin{aligned} x_{-}(l)< x < x_{+}(l) \ \mathrm{for} \ \alpha > 0 \qquad \end{aligned}$$
(3.21)
and
$$\begin{aligned} x< x_{-}(l), \ \mathrm{or} \ x > x_{+}(l) \ \mathrm{for} \ \alpha < 0. \qquad \end{aligned}$$
(3.22)
For \( \alpha < 0\) we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} \lim _{x \rightarrow \pm \infty } \lambda (x,l) = \lambda _{\infty }(l) \equiv - \frac{l(l + 1)}{8 (l - 1)(l - 2)} < 0 \qquad \end{aligned}$$
(3.23)
and hence
$$\begin{aligned} \lim _{x \rightarrow \pm \infty } \Lambda = \Lambda _{\infty } \equiv - \frac{l(l + 1)}{8 \alpha (l - 1)(l - 2)} > 0, \qquad \end{aligned}$$
(3.24)
\(l > 2\). For \(x = 0\) we get
$$\begin{aligned} \Lambda = \Lambda _{0} = \alpha ^{-1} \lambda (0,l) = - \frac{3}{4 \alpha } > 0, \quad \end{aligned}$$
(3.25)
which does not depend upon l. In this case the Hubble-like parameters read
$$\begin{aligned} H = H_0 = (- 4 \alpha )^{-1/2}, \qquad h = 0 \end{aligned}$$
(3.26)
and our ansatz (2.2), (2.3) gives us the product of (a part of) 4-dimensional de-Sitter space and l-dimensional Euclidean space.

Let us consider the behaviour of the function \(\lambda (x,l)\) in the vicinity of the points \(x_{-}(l)\) and \(x_{+}(l)\). Here the following proposition is valid.

Proposition 1

For \(l > 2\)
$$\begin{aligned} \lambda (x,l) \sim B_{\pm }(l) (x - x_{\pm }(l))^{-2}, \end{aligned}$$
(3.27)
as \(x \rightarrow x_{\pm } = x_{\pm }(l)\), where \(B_{\pm }(l) < 0\) and hence
$$\begin{aligned} \lim _{x \rightarrow x_{\pm }} \lambda (x,l) = - \infty . \end{aligned}$$
(3.28)

In the proof of the Proposition 1 the following lemma is used.

Lemma

For all \(l > 2\)
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {R}_{\pm }(l) \equiv \mathcal {R}(x_{\pm }(l),l) < 0. \end{aligned}$$
(3.29)

The Lemma is proved in the Appendix A.

The proof of Proposition 1

By using the relation \(\mathcal {P}(x,l) = (l-1)(l-2) (x - x_{+})(x - x_{-})\) and Lemma we are led to relation (3.27) with
$$\begin{aligned} B_{\pm }(l)&= \frac{\mathcal {R}_{\pm }(l)}{8 (l-1)^2 (l-2)^2 (x_{+} - x_{-})^{2} } \nonumber \\&= \frac{\mathcal {R}_{\pm }(l)}{64 (l-1) l} < 0 \end{aligned}$$
(3.30)
for \(l > 2\). Relation (3.28) just follows from (3.27) and (3.30). The Proposition 1 is proved. \(\square \)
Now we study the behaviour of the function \(\lambda (x,l)\) for fixed l and \(x \ne x_{\pm }(l)\). First, we find the extremum points which obey \(\frac{\partial }{\partial x} \lambda (x,l) = 0\). The calculations give us
$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial }{\partial x} \lambda (x,l)&= - f(x,l) (\mathcal {P}(x,l))^{-3}, \qquad \end{aligned}$$
(3.31)
$$\begin{aligned} f(x,l)&= 2 (l-1)(x-1)(lx+3) \nonumber \\&\quad \times [(l-2)x + 2][(l-1)x + 1], \end{aligned}$$
(3.32)
\(x \ne x_{\pm }(l)\). By using these relations we find the following extremum points
$$\begin{aligned} x_a&\equiv 1, \end{aligned}$$
(3.33)
$$\begin{aligned} x_b&= x_b(l) \equiv - \frac{2}{l-2} < 0, \end{aligned}$$
(3.34)
$$\begin{aligned} x_c&= x_c(l) \equiv - \frac{1}{l-1} < 0, \end{aligned}$$
(3.35)
$$\begin{aligned} x_d&= x_d(l) \equiv - \frac{3}{l} < 0. \end{aligned}$$
(3.36)
We also obtain
$$\begin{aligned} x_b(l) < x_c(l) \end{aligned}$$
(3.37)
since
$$\begin{aligned} x_c(l) - x_b(l) = \frac{l}{(l-1)(l-2)} > 0 \end{aligned}$$
(3.38)
for all \(l>2\).
The points \( x_b, x_c, x_d\) from (3.34), (3.35), (3.36) belong to the interval \((x_{-},x_{+})\), i.e.
$$\begin{aligned} x_i(l) \in (x_{-}(l),x_{+}(l)), \end{aligned}$$
(3.39)
\(i = b,c,d\) for \(l>2\). This follows from relations \(\mathcal {P}_i(l) = \mathcal {P}(x_i(l),l) < 0\), \(i = b,c,d\). Indeed,
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {P}_b(l)&= - \frac{2 l}{l - 2} < 0, \end{aligned}$$
(3.40)
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {P}_c(l)&= - \frac{ l }{l - 1} < 0, \qquad \end{aligned}$$
(3.41)
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {P}_d(l)&= - \frac{w(l)}{l^2} < 0, \qquad \end{aligned}$$
(3.42)
for \(l > 2\), where
$$\begin{aligned} w(l) = l^2 + 15 l - 18 > 0. \qquad \end{aligned}$$
(3.43)
Using relations
$$\begin{aligned} x_d - x_c&= \frac{3-2l}{l(l-1)}, \end{aligned}$$
(3.44)
$$\begin{aligned} x_d - x_b&= \frac{6-l}{l(l-2)}, \end{aligned}$$
(3.45)
we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} (A) \ x_b&< x_d< x_c, \ \quad \text {for } 2< l < 6, \end{aligned}$$
(3.46)
$$\begin{aligned} (B) \ x_d&< x_b < x_c, \ \quad \text {for } l > 6, \end{aligned}$$
(3.47)
and
$$\begin{aligned} (B_0) \ x_d = x_b < x_c, \ \quad \text {for } l = 6. \end{aligned}$$
(3.48)
Now we calculate \(\lambda _i=\lambda (x_i,l)\), \(i=a,b,c,d\). We find
$$\begin{aligned} \lambda _a&=-\frac{(l +2)(l+3)}{8l(l+1)}<0, \end{aligned}$$
(3.49)
$$\begin{aligned} \lambda _b&=\frac{ l^2 - 4 l + 6}{4(l-2)l}>0, \end{aligned}$$
(3.50)
$$\begin{aligned} \lambda _c&=\frac{3 l^2- 7l+ 6}{8(l-1)l}>0, \end{aligned}$$
(3.51)
$$\begin{aligned} \lambda _d&= \frac{3l(l+3)}{8 w(l)}>0, \end{aligned}$$
(3.52)
for \(l > 2\) [w(l) is defined in (3.43)].
We also obtain
$$\begin{aligned} \lambda _b-\lambda _c=\frac{l(3 - l)}{8(l-2)(l-1)} {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} =0, \text {if } l = 3, \\ <0, \text {if } l > 3, \end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$
(3.53)
and
$$\begin{aligned} \lambda _d-\lambda _c&=\frac{(3-2l)^3}{2 l(l-1) w(l)}, \end{aligned}$$
(3.54)
$$\begin{aligned} \lambda _d-\lambda _b&=\frac{(l-1)(l-6)^3}{ 8 l(l-2) w(l)}, \end{aligned}$$
(3.55)
for \(l > 2\). Using these relations we find
$$\begin{aligned} \lambda _d-\lambda _c < 0, \end{aligned}$$
(3.56)
for \(l > 2\) and
$$\begin{aligned} \lambda _d - \lambda _b {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}>0, \text {if } l > 6, \\ =0, \text {if } l = 6, \\<0, \text {if } 2< l < 6. \end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$
(3.57)
Now we analyze the behaviour of the function \(\lambda (x,l)\) with respect to x for fixed \(l>2\). We calculate \(n(\Lambda , \alpha )\), which is the number of solutions (in variable x) of the relation \(\Lambda \alpha = \lambda (x,l)\). In what follows we use relations (3.33), (3.34), (3.35), (3.36), (3.37), (3.39), (3.46), (3.47), (3.48), (3.49), (3.50), (3.51), (3.52), (3.53), (3.54), (3.55), (3.56), (3.57), corresponding to points of extremum \(x_i\) and \(\lambda _i\) (\(i = a,b,c,d\)) and relations (3.28), (3.32).

First, we consider the case \(\alpha > 0\) and \(x_{-}< x < x_{+}\). We keep in mind that the solution \(x = x_d\) is excluded.

(A) \(2< l < 6\). We get \(x_b< x_d < x_c\) and \(\lambda _d < \lambda _c\), \(\lambda _d < \lambda _b\). Points \(x_b, x_c\) are points of local maximum and \(x_d\) is a point of local minimum.

We split this case on two subcases: \((A_{0})\) \(l=3\) and \((A_{-})\) \(3< l < 6\).

\((A_{0})\) \(l =3\). In this subcase \(\lambda _d < \lambda _c = \lambda _b\) and hence
$$\begin{aligned} n(\Lambda , \alpha ) = {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0, \quad \Lambda \alpha > \lambda _b = \lambda _c, \\ 2, \quad \Lambda \alpha = \lambda _b = \lambda _c, \\ 4, \quad \lambda _d< \Lambda \alpha< \lambda _b = \lambda _c, \\ 2, \quad \Lambda \alpha = \lambda _d, \\ 2, \quad \Lambda \alpha < \lambda _d. \end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$
(3.58)
An example of the function \(\lambda (x) = \Lambda \alpha \) for \(\alpha > 0\) and \(l=3\) is depicted at Fig. 1. At this and other figures we mark by i the point \((x_i, \lambda _i)\), where \(i = a,b,c,d\).
Fig. 1

The function \(\lambda (x) = \Lambda (x) \alpha \) for \(\alpha > 0\), \(l = 3\)

Fig. 2

The function \(\lambda (x) = \Lambda (x) \alpha \) for \(\alpha > 0\), \(l = 4\)

\((A_{-})\) \(3< l < 6\) (or \(l = 4,5\)). In this subcase \(\lambda _d< \lambda _b < \lambda _c\) and
$$\begin{aligned} n(\Lambda , \alpha ) = {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0, \quad \Lambda \alpha > \lambda _c, \\ 1, \quad \Lambda \alpha = \lambda _c, \\ 2, \quad \lambda _b< \Lambda \alpha< \lambda _c, \\ 3, \quad \Lambda \alpha = \lambda _b, \\ 4, \quad \lambda _d< \Lambda \alpha< \lambda _b, \\ 2, \quad \Lambda \alpha = \lambda _d, \\ 2, \quad \Lambda \alpha < \lambda _d. \end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$
(3.59)
An example of the function \(\lambda (x) = \Lambda (x) \alpha \) for \(\alpha > 0\) and \(l=4\) is depicted at Fig. 2.
(B) \(l > 6\). We have \(x_d< x_b < x_c\) and \(\lambda _b< \lambda _d < \lambda _c\). Points \(x_c\) and \(x_d\) are points of local maximum (\(x_c\) is a point of maximum on interval \((x_{-}, x_{+})\)) and \(x_b\) is a point of local minimum. We find
$$\begin{aligned} n(\Lambda , \alpha ) = {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0, \quad \Lambda \alpha > \lambda _c, \\ 1, \quad \Lambda \alpha = \lambda _c, \\ 2, \quad \lambda _d< \Lambda \alpha< \lambda _c, \\ 2, \quad \Lambda \alpha = \lambda _d, \\ 4, \quad \lambda _b< \Lambda \alpha< \lambda _d, \\ 3, \quad \Lambda \alpha = \lambda _b, \\ 2, \quad \Lambda \alpha < \lambda _b. \end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$
(3.60)
An example of the function \(\lambda (x) = \Lambda (x) \alpha \) for \(\alpha > 0\) and \(l=12\) is depicted at Fig. 3.
Fig. 3

The function \(\lambda (x) = \Lambda (x) \alpha \) for \(\alpha > 0\), \(l = 12\)

Fig. 4

The function \(\lambda (x) = \Lambda (x) \alpha \) for \(\alpha > 0\), \(l = 6\)

\((B_0)\) \(l = 6\). We have \(x_d = x_b < x_c\) and \(\lambda _b = \lambda _d < \lambda _c\). The point \(x_c\) is a point of maximum on interval \((x_{-}, x_{+})\) and \(x_b = x_d\) is a point of inflection. We obtain
$$\begin{aligned} n(\Lambda , \alpha ) = {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0, \quad \Lambda \alpha > \lambda _c, \\ 1, \quad \Lambda \alpha = \lambda _c, \\ 2, \quad \lambda _d< \Lambda \alpha< \lambda _c, \\ 1, \quad \Lambda \alpha = \lambda _d, \\ 2, \quad \Lambda \alpha < \lambda _d. \\ \end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$
(3.61)
An example of the function \(\lambda (x) = \Lambda (x) \alpha \) for \(\alpha > 0\) and \(l=6\) is depicted at Fig. 4. Thus, we see that for \(\alpha > 0\) and small enough value of \(\Lambda \) there exist at least two solutions \(x_1, x_2\): \(x_{-}< x_1< x_2< x_{+} < 0\).
Now we consider the case \(\alpha < 0\). Here we remember that the solution \(x = x_a\) is excluded. We get \(\Lambda (x) |\alpha | = - \lambda (x) \), where \(x < x_{-}\) or \(x > x_{+}\). According to the identities (3.23), (3.32) and Proposition 1 the function \(\Lambda (x) |\alpha | = - \lambda (x)\) is monotonically increasing: in the interval \((-\infty ,x_{-})\) from \(- \lambda _{\infty } \) to \(+ \infty \) and in the interval \((x_{a} = 1, +\infty )\) from \(- \lambda _{a} + 0 \) to \(- \lambda _{\infty } \). It is monotonically decreasing in the interval \((x_{+}, x_{a})\) from \(+ \infty \) to \(- \lambda _{a} +0 \). Here \(x_{a}\) is a point of local minimum of the function \(\Lambda (x) |\alpha | = - \lambda (x) \) and \(- \lambda _{a} < - \lambda _{\infty }\). The last relation (inequality) may be verified explicitly. Indeed, due to relations (3.23), (3.49) we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} \lambda _a - \lambda _{\infty } = \frac{4 (2l^2 + 2l -3 )}{8(l - 1)(l - 2)l (l+1)} > 0, \end{aligned}$$
(3.62)
for \(l > 2\). The graphical representation of functions \(\Lambda (x) = \Lambda (x,\alpha ) = \lambda (x)/\alpha \) for \(\alpha = +1, -1\), respectively, and \(l =3\) is given at Fig. 5.
Fig. 5

The function \(\Lambda (x) = \lambda (x)/\alpha \) for \(\alpha = \pm 1 \), \(l = 3\)

Fig. 6

The function \(\lambda (x)\) for \(\alpha < 0\) and \(l = 3\)

The function \(\lambda (x)\) for \(\alpha < 0\) and \(l =3\) is presented at Fig. 6.

For the number of solutions for \(\alpha < 0\) we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} n(\Lambda , \alpha ) = {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 2, \quad \Lambda |\alpha | > |\lambda _{\infty }|, \\ 1, \quad \Lambda |\alpha | = |\lambda _{\infty }|, \\ 2, \quad |\lambda _{a}|< \Lambda |\alpha | < |\lambda _{\infty }|, \\ 0, \quad \Lambda |\alpha | \le |\lambda _{a}|. \\ \end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$
(3.63)
Here we use \(x \ne x_a =1\). Thus, for \(\alpha < 0\) and big enough values of \(\Lambda \) there exist two solutions \(x_1, x_2\): \(x_1< x_{-} < 0\) and \(x_2 > x_{+}\).
Master equation The Eq. (3.12) may be written in the following form
$$\begin{aligned} 2 \mathcal {P}(x,l) \mathcal {M}(x,l) + \mathcal {R}(x,l) - 8 \lambda ( \mathcal {P}(x,l))^{2} = 0. \end{aligned}$$
(3.64)
We call this equation as a master equation. It is of fourth order (in x) for \(\lambda \ne \lambda _{\infty }(l)\) and of third order for \(\lambda = \lambda _{\infty }(l)\). For any \(l > 2\) the master equation can be solved in radicals.
Example for \(l = 3\) As an example we consider the solution for \(l = 3\). In this case \(x_{\pm } = - 2 \pm \sqrt{3}\), \(x_b = - 2\), \(x_c = - 1/2\), \(x_d = - 1\) and \(\lambda _a = - 5/16\), \(\lambda _{\infty } = - 3/4\), \(\lambda _b = \lambda _c = 1/4\), \(\lambda _d = 3/16\). The solutions obey \(x \ne x_{\pm }\). The master Eq. (3.64) for \(m = l = 3\) reads
$$\begin{aligned}&(4 \lambda + 3) x^4 + (32\lambda + 12)x^3 + (72 \lambda +15) x^2 \nonumber \\&\quad + (32\lambda + 12)x + (4\lambda + 3) = 0. \end{aligned}$$
(3.65)
For \(\lambda \ne -3/4\) we get the following solution
$$\begin{aligned} x={\frac{-16\,\lambda + \varepsilon _1 \sqrt{3}\sqrt{ \left( -32\,\lambda -12 \right) \varepsilon _2 \sqrt{-4\,\lambda +1}+64\,{\lambda }^{2}+20\,\lambda +3} + 3\, \varepsilon _2 \sqrt{-4\,\lambda +1}-6}{8\,\lambda +6}}, \end{aligned}$$
(3.66)
where \(\varepsilon _1 = \pm 1\) and \(\varepsilon _2 = \pm 1\), while for \(\lambda = -3/4\) we have
$$\begin{aligned} x = \frac{-13 \pm \sqrt{105}}{8}, \quad \mathrm{or} \ x = 0. \end{aligned}$$
(3.67)

4 Stability analysis

Here we outline main relations from [25, 26], devoted to stability analysis of exponential solutions (2.3) with non-static volume factor [proportional to \( \exp (\sum _{i = 1}^{n} v^i t)\)], which obey
$$\begin{aligned} K = K(v) = \sum _{i = 1}^{n} v^i \ne 0. \end{aligned}$$
(4.1)
For a general cosmological diagonal metric
$$\begin{aligned} g= - dt \otimes dt + \sum _{i=1}^{n} e^{2\beta ^i(t)} dy^i \otimes dy^i, \end{aligned}$$
(4.2)
the equations of motion for the action (2.1) gives us the set equations [25]
$$\begin{aligned} E&= G_{ij} h^i h^j + 2 \Lambda - \alpha G_{ijkl} h^i h^j h^k h^l = 0, \end{aligned}$$
(4.3)
$$\begin{aligned} Y_i&= \frac{d L_i}{dt} + \left( \sum _{j=1}^n h^j\right) L_i - \frac{2}{3} (G_{sj} h^s h^j - 4 \Lambda ) = 0, \end{aligned}$$
(4.4)
where \(h^i = \dot{\beta }^i\),
$$\begin{aligned} L_i = L_i(h) = 2 G_{ij} h^j - \frac{4}{3} \alpha G_{ijkl} h^j h^k h^l , \end{aligned}$$
(4.5)
\(i = 1,\ldots , n\).
We set the following restriction
$$\begin{aligned} \det (L_{ij}(v)) \ne 0 \end{aligned}$$
(4.6)
on the matrix
$$\begin{aligned} L =(L_{ij}(v)) = \left( 2 G_{ij} - 4 \alpha G_{ijks} v^k v^s\right) . \end{aligned}$$
(4.7)
It was proved in [26] that a fixed point solution \((h^i(t)) = (v^i)\) (\(i = 1, \ldots , n\); \(n >3\)) to Eqs. (4.3), (4.4) obeying restrictions (4.1), (4.6) is stable under perturbations
$$\begin{aligned} h^i(t) = v^i + \delta h^i(t), \end{aligned}$$
(4.8)
\(i = 1,\ldots , n\), (as \(t \rightarrow + \infty \)) if
$$\begin{aligned} K(v) = \sum _{k = 1}^{n} v^k > 0 \end{aligned}$$
(4.9)
and it is unstable (as \(t \rightarrow + \infty \)) if
$$\begin{aligned} K(v) = \sum _{k = 1}^{n} v^k < 0. \end{aligned}$$
(4.10)
The set of equations for perturbations is presented in Appendix B.
For our ansatz with \(K(v) = 3 H + l h\) and \(H >0\) the restriction (4.9) is equivalent to the inequality
$$\begin{aligned} x > - \frac{3}{l} = x_d, \end{aligned}$$
(4.11)
while the restriction (4.10) is equivalent to another inequality
$$\begin{aligned} x < - \frac{3}{l} = x_d. \end{aligned}$$
(4.12)
It follows from Ref. [26] that for the vector v from (3.1), obeying relations (3.3), the matrix L has a block-diagonal form
$$\begin{aligned} (L_{ij}) = \mathrm{diag}(L_{\mu \nu }, L_{\alpha \beta } ), \end{aligned}$$
(4.13)
where
$$\begin{aligned} L_{\mu \nu }&= G_{\mu \nu } (2 + 4 \alpha S_{HH}), \end{aligned}$$
(4.14)
$$\begin{aligned} L_{\alpha \beta }&= G_{\alpha \beta } (2 + 4 \alpha S_{hh}) \end{aligned}$$
(4.15)
and
$$\begin{aligned} S_{HH}&= 2lHh + l(l - 1)h^2 , \end{aligned}$$
(4.16)
$$\begin{aligned} S_{hh}&= 6 H^2 + 6(l-2)Hh+ (l- 2)(l- 3)h^2. \end{aligned}$$
(4.17)
The matrix (4.13) is invertible (for \(l >1\)) if and only if [26]
$$\begin{aligned} S_{HH}&\ne - \frac{1}{2 \alpha }, \end{aligned}$$
(4.18)
$$\begin{aligned} S_{hh}&\ne - \frac{1}{2 \alpha }. \end{aligned}$$
(4.19)
Now, let us prove that inequalities (4.18), (4.19) are satisfied if
$$\begin{aligned} x \ne - \frac{1}{l -1} = x_c. \end{aligned}$$
(4.20)
and
$$\begin{aligned} x \ne - \frac{2}{l - 2} = x_b \end{aligned}$$
(4.21)
for \( l > 2\).
Let us suppose that (4.18) is not satisfied, i.e. \(S_{HH} = - \frac{1}{2 \alpha }\). Then using (3.5) we get
$$\begin{aligned} S_{HH} - Q = - 2 (H - h) ( H + (l -1) h ) = 0, \end{aligned}$$
(4.22)
which implies due to \(H - h \ne 0\):
$$\begin{aligned} H + (l -1) h = 0. \end{aligned}$$
(4.23)
which is in contradiction with our restriction (4.20). This contradiction proves the inequality (4.18).
Now we suppose that (4.19) is not valid, i.e. \(S_{hh} = - \frac{1}{2 \alpha }\). Then using (3.5) we get
$$\begin{aligned} S_{hh} - Q = - 2 (h - H) ((l - 2) h + 2 H ) = 0, \end{aligned}$$
(4.24)
which implies due to \(H - h \ne 0\):
$$\begin{aligned} (l - 2) h + 2 H = 0. \end{aligned}$$
(4.25)
which contradicts the restriction (4.21). The contradiction proves the inequality (4.19).

Thus, we proved that relations (4.18) and (4.19) are valid. Hence the restriction (4.6) is satisfied for our solutions.

Thus we are led to the following proposition.

Proposition 2

The cosmological solutions under consideration obeying \(x = h/H \ne x_i\), \(i = a,b,c,d\), where \(x_a =1\), \(x_b = - \frac{2}{l - 2}\), \(x_c = - \frac{1}{l -1}\), \(x_d = - \frac{3}{l}\), are stable if (i) \(x > x_d\) and unstable if (ii) \(x < x_d\).

We note that for the anisotropic solutions under consideration the points \(x= x_a\) and \(x= x_d\) are excluded. Nevertheless, the solutions are defined for special extremal cases, when \(x = x_b\) or \(x = x_c\), if \(x \ne x_d\). The stability analysis of these special solutions can not be deduced just from the equations for perturbations (see relations (B.3), (B.4) from the Appendix) in the linear approximation. They need a special consideration [30].

We note that for the example \(l =3\) from Sect. 3 we get stable cosmological solutions for \(x > -1\) and \(x \ne -1/2\), \(x \ne 1\).

Let us denote by \(n_{+}(\Lambda , \alpha )\) the number of non-special stable solutions which are given by Proposition 2 [see item (i)]. By using the results (e.g. figures) from the previous section we find for \(\alpha > 0\):

(A) \(2< l < 6\)
$$\begin{aligned} n_{+}(\Lambda , \alpha ) = {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0, \quad \Lambda \alpha \ge \lambda _c, \\ 2, \quad \lambda _d< \Lambda \alpha < \lambda _c, \\ 1, \quad \Lambda \alpha \le \lambda _d; \\ \end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$
(4.26)
(B) \(l > 6\)
$$\begin{aligned} n_{+}(\Lambda , \alpha ) = {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0, \quad \Lambda \alpha \ge \lambda _c, \\ 2, \quad \lambda _d \le \Lambda \alpha< \lambda _c, \\ 3, \quad \lambda _b< \Lambda \alpha < \lambda _d, \\ 1, \quad \Lambda \alpha \le \lambda _b; \end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$
(4.27)
\((B_0)\) \(l = 6\)
$$\begin{aligned} n_{+}(\Lambda , \alpha ) = {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0, \quad \Lambda \alpha \ge \lambda _c, \\ 2, \quad \lambda _d< \Lambda \alpha < \lambda _c, \\ 1, \quad \Lambda \alpha \le \lambda _d. \\ \end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$
(4.28)
Thus, for \(\alpha > 0\) and small enough value of \(\Lambda \) there exists at least one stable solution with \(x \in (x_{-},x_{+})\).
For \(\alpha < 0\) we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} n_{+}(\Lambda , \alpha ) = {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1, \quad \Lambda |\alpha | \ge |\lambda _{\infty }|, \\ 2, \quad |\lambda _{a}|< \Lambda |\alpha | < |\lambda _{\infty }|. \\ 0, \quad \Lambda |\alpha | \le |\lambda _{a}|. \\ \end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$
(4.29)
Here we use \(x \ne x_a =1\). Thus, for \(\alpha < 0\) and big enough value of \(\Lambda \) there exists at least one stable solution with x obeying \(x > x_{+}\). The solution with \(x < x_{-}\) is unstable.

5 Solutions with small enough variation of G

The solutions under consideration may be analysed on a variation of the effective gravitational constant G, which is proportional (in the Jordan frame) to the inverse volume scale factor of the anisotropic internal space, i.e.
$$\begin{aligned} G = \mathrm{const } \exp {( - l h t)}, \end{aligned}$$
(5.1)
see [22, 37, 38, 39] and references therein.
From (5.1) we get the following relation for a dimensionless parameter of temporal variation of G:
$$\begin{aligned} \delta \equiv \frac{\dot{G}}{GH} = - l x, \quad x = h/H. \end{aligned}$$
(5.2)
We remind that \(H >0\) is the Hubble parameter.
Due to experimental (or observational) data, the variation of the gravitational constant is allowed at the level of \(10^{-13}\) per year and less. In Ref. [22] the following constraint on the value of the dimensionless variation of the effective gravitational constant was used:
$$\begin{aligned} - \,0,65 \cdot 10^{-3}< \frac{\dot{G}}{GH} < 1,12 \cdot 10^{-3}. \end{aligned}$$
(5.3)
It comes from the most stringent limitation on G-dot obtained in Ref. [40] (by the set of ephemerides)
$$\begin{aligned} \dot{G}/G = (0.16 \pm 0.6) \cdot 10^{-13} \ \mathrm{year}^{-1} \end{aligned}$$
(5.4)
allowed at 95% confidence (2-\(\sigma \)) level and the present value of the Hubble parameter [34]
$$\begin{aligned} H_0= & {} (67.80 \pm 1.54) \ \mathrm{km/s \ Mpc}^{-1} \nonumber \\= & {} (6.929 \pm 0,157) \cdot 10^{-11} \ \mathrm{year}^{-1}, \end{aligned}$$
(5.5)
with 95% confidence level.
For a given value of \(\delta \) we get from (5.2)
$$\begin{aligned} x = x_0(\delta ,l) \equiv - \frac{\delta }{l}. \end{aligned}$$
(5.6)
Our solutions are defined if
$$\begin{aligned} x_0(\delta ,l) \ne x_{\pm }(l), \end{aligned}$$
(5.7)
or, equivalently, if
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {P}(x_0(\delta ,l),l) \ne 0. \end{aligned}$$
(5.8)
The calculation of quadratic polynomial (3.7) for \( x = x_0(\delta ,l)\) gives us
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {P}(x_0(\delta ,l),l) = 2 - 4 \frac{ (l-1)(l-3) }{l^2} \delta + \frac{(l-1)(l-2) }{l^2} \delta ^2 . \end{aligned}$$
(5.9)
The inequality (5.8) is satisfied due to the bounds (5.3) for any \(l > 2\). Hence, relation (5.7) is valid.
Now we analyse the stability of the solutions with small enough variation of G. The main condition for the stability \(x_0(\delta ,l) > x_d\) is satisfied since
$$\begin{aligned} x_0(\delta ,l) - x_d = \frac{3 - \delta }{l} > 0 \end{aligned}$$
(5.10)
due to our bounds (5.3).
Other three conditions (see Proposition 2) \(x_0(\delta ,l) \ne x_a\), \(x_0(\delta ,l) \ne x_b\) and \(x_0(\delta ,l) \ne x_c\) give us
$$\begin{aligned} \delta \ne \delta _a = - l, \quad \delta \ne \delta _b = \frac{2 l }{l - 2}, \quad \delta \ne \delta _c = \frac{l}{l - 1}, \end{aligned}$$
(5.11)
which are satisfied due to bounds (5.3) and inequalities: \(\delta _a \le -3\), \(\delta _b > 2\) and \(\delta _c > 1\) for \(l > 2\).

Thus, we have shown that all (well-defined) solutions under consideration obeying the bounds (5.3) (coming from the physical bounds on variation of G) are stable. We note that the proof of this fact is also valid for less restrictive bounds for \(\delta \) than (5.3).

6 Conclusions

Here we have considered the Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet (EGB) model in dimension \(D = 1 + 3 + l\), \(l > 2\), with the \(\Lambda \)-term and two non-zero constants \(\alpha _1\) and \(\alpha _2\). By using the ansatz with diagonal cosmological metrics, we have found, for certain fine-tuned \(\Lambda = \Lambda (x,l,\alpha )\), where \(\alpha = \alpha _2 / \alpha _1 \), a class of solutions with exponential time dependence of two scale factors, governed by two Hubble-like parameters \(H >0\) and \(h = x H\), corresponding to submanifolds of dimensions 3 and \(l > 2\), respectively. The parameter \(x = h/H\) obey the restrictions \(x \ne x_a =1\), \(x \ne x_d = - 3/l\) and \(\mathcal {P}(x,l) = 2 + 4(l - 1) x + (l - 1)(l - 2)x^2 \ne 0\). Moreover, it should be imposed: \(\mathcal {P}(x,l) < 0\) for \(\alpha > 0\) and \(\mathcal {P}(x,l) > 0\) for \(\alpha < 0\). For fixed \(\Lambda , \alpha \) and \(l > 2\) the equation \(\Lambda (x,l,\alpha ) = \Lambda \) is equivalent to a polynomial equation of either fourth or third order and hence may be solved in radicals.

Any of solutions describes an exponential expansion of 3d subspace (our space) with the Hubble parameter \(H > 0\) and either contraction or expansion (with Hubble-like parameter h), or stabilization (\(h = 0\)) of l-dimensional internal subspace.

By using results of Ref. [26] we have proved that the cosmological solution (under consideration) is stable as \(t \rightarrow + \infty \), if it obey the following restrictions: \(x > x_d = -\, 3/l\), \(x \ne x_b = - \frac{2}{l - 2}\) and \( x \ne x_c = - \frac{1}{l - 1}\). Here the points \(x_a, x_b, x_c, x_d\) are points of extremum of the function \(\lambda (x,l) = \alpha \Lambda (x,l,\alpha )\) for any \(l > 2\).

We have also shown that all (well-defined) solutions with small enough variation of the effective gravitational constant G (in the Jordan frame), obeying physical bounds, are stable.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The publication was prepared with the support of the “RUDN University Program 5-100”. It was also partially supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, Grant nr. 16-02-00602.

References

  1. 1.
    B. Zwiebach, Curvature squared terms and string theories. Phys. Lett. B 156, 315 (1985)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    E.S. Fradkin, A.A. Tseytlin, Effective field theory from quantized strings. Phys. Lett. B 158, 316–322 (1985)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    E.S. Fradkin, A.A. Tseytlin, Effective action approach to superstring theory. Phys. Lett. B 160, 69–76 (1985)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Gross, E. Witten, Superstrings modifications of Einstein’s equations. Nucl. Phys. B 277, 1 (1986)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R.R. Metsaev, A.A. Tseytlin, Two loop beta function for the generalized bosonic sigma model. Phys. Lett. B 191, 354 (1987)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. Ishihara, Cosmological solutions of the extended Einstein gravity with the Gauss–Bonnet term. Phys. Lett. B 179, 217 (1986)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. Deruelle, On the approach to the cosmological singularity in quadratic theories of gravity: the Kasner regimes. Nucl. Phys. B 327, 253–266 (1989)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, Introduction to modified gravity and gravitational alternative for Dark Energy. Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 4, 115–146 (2007). arXiv:hep-th/0601213 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Cognola, E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, S. Zerbini, One-loop effective action for non-local modified Gauss–Bonnet gravity in de Sitter space. Eur. Phys. J. C 64(3), 483–494 (2009). arXiv:0905.0543 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. Elizalde, A.N. Makarenko, V.V. Obukhov, K.E. Osetrin, A.E. Filippov, Stationary vs. singular points in an accelerating FRW cosmology derived from six-dimensional Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet gravity. Phys. Lett. B 644, 1–6 (2007). arXiv:hep-th/0611213 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Bamba, Z.-K. Guo, N. Ohta, Accelerating cosmologies in the Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet theory with dilaton. Prog. Theor. Phys. 118, 879–892 (2007). arXiv:0707.4334 ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Toporensky, P. Tretyakov, Power-law anisotropic cosmological solution in 5+1 dimensional Gauss–Bonnet gravity. Grav. Cosmol. 13, 207–210 (2007). arXiv:0705.1346 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    S.A. Pavluchenko, A.V. Toporensky, A note on differences between \((4+1)\)- and \((5+1)\)-dimensional anisotropic cosmology in the presence of the Gauss–Bonnet term. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 24, 513–521 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    I.V. Kirnos, A.N. Makarenko, Accelerating cosmologies in Lovelock gravity with dilaton. Open Astron. J. 3, 37–48 (2010). arXiv:0903.0083 ADSGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    S.A. Pavluchenko, On the general features of Bianchi-I cosmological models in Lovelock gravity. Phys. Rev. D 80, 107501 (2009). arXiv:0906.0141 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    I.V. Kirnos, A.N. Makarenko, S.A. Pavluchenko, A.V. Toporensky, The nature of singularity in multidimensional anisotropic Gauss–Bonnet cosmology with a perfect fluid. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 42, 2633–2641 (2010). arXiv:0906.0140 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    V.D. Ivashchuk, On anisotropic Gauss–Bonnet cosmologies in (n + 1) dimensions, governed by an n-dimensional Finslerian 4-metric. Grav. Cosmol. 16(2), 118–125 (2010). arXiv:0909.5462 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    V.D. Ivashchuk, On cosmological-type solutions in multidimensional model with Gauss–Bonnet term. Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 7(5), 797–819 (2010). arXiv:0910.3426 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    K-i Maeda, N. Ohta, Cosmic acceleration with a negative cosmological constant in higher dimensions. JHEP 1406, 095 (2014). arXiv:1404.0561 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Chirkov, S. Pavluchenko, A. Toporensky, Exact exponential solutions in Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet flat anisotropic cosmology. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 29, 1450093 (11 pages) (2014). arXiv:1401.2962
  21. 21.
    D. Chirkov, S.A. Pavluchenko, A. Toporensky, Non-constant volume exponential solutions in higher-dimensional Lovelock cosmologies. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 47, 137 (33 pages) (2015). arXiv:1501.04360
  22. 22.
    V.D. Ivashchuk, A.A. Kobtsev, On exponential cosmological type solutions in the model with Gauss–Bonnet term and variation of gravitational constant. Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 177 (12 pages) (2015). Erratum ibid. 76, 584 (2016). arXiv:1503.00860
  23. 23.
    S.A. Pavluchenko, Stability analysis of exponential solutions in Lovelock cosmologies. Phys. Rev. D 92, 104017 (2015). arXiv:1507.01871 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    S.A. Pavluchenko, Cosmological dynamics of spatially flat Einstein–Gauss-Bonnet models in various dimensions: low-dimensional \(\Lambda \)-term case. Phys. Rev. D 94, 084019 (2016). arXiv:1607.07347 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    K.K. Ernazarov, V.D. Ivashchuk, A.A. Kobtsev, On exponential solutions in the Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet cosmology, stability and variation of G. Grav. Cosmol. 22(3), 245–250 (2016)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    V.D. Ivashchuk, On stability of exponential cosmological solutions with non-static volume factor in the Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet model. Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 431 (2016). arXiv:1607.01244v2 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    V.D. Ivashchuk, On stable exponential solutions in Einstein–Gauss–Bonnet cosmology with zero variation of G. Grav. Cosmol. 22(4), 329–332 (2016). Erratum ibid. 23(4), 401 (2017). arXiv:1612.07178
  28. 28.
    K.K. Ernazarov, V.D. Ivashchuk, Stable exponential cosmological solutions with zero variation of G in the Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet model with a \(\Lambda \)-term. Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 89 (6 pages) (2017). arXiv:1612.08451
  29. 29.
    K.K. Ernazarov, V.D. Ivashchuk, Stable exponential cosmological solutions with zero variation of G and three different Hubble-like parameters in the Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet model with a \(\Lambda \)-term. Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 402 (7 pages)(2017). arXiv:1705.05456
  30. 30.
    D.M. Chirkov, A.V. Toporensky, On stable exponential cosmological solutions in the EGB model with a cosmological constant in dimensions \(D = 5, 6, 7, 8\). Grav. Cosmol. 23(4), 359–366 (2017). arXiv:1706.08889 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    A.G. Riess et al., Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant. Astron. J. 116, 1009–1038 (1998)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    S. Perlmutter et al., Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae. Astrophys. J. 517, 565–586 (1999)ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    M. Kowalski, D. Rubin et al., Improved cosmological constraints from new, old and combined supernova datasets. Astrophys. J. 686(2), 749–778 (2008). arXiv:0804.4142 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    P.A.R. Ade et al. [Planck Collaboration], Planck 2013 results. I. Overview of products and scientific results. Astron. Astrophys. 571, A1 (2014). arXiv:1303.5076
  35. 35.
    M. Rainer, A. Zhuk, Einstein and Brans–Dicke frames in multidimensional cosmology. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 32, 79–104 (2000). arXiv:gr-qc/9808073 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    V.D. Ivashchuk, V.N. Melnikov, Multidimensional gravity with Einstein internal spaces. Grav. Cosmol. 2(3), 211–220 (1996). arXiv:hep-th/9612054 zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    K.A. Bronnikov, V.D. Ivashchuk, V.N. Melnikov, Time variation of gravitational constant in multidimensional cosmology. Nuovo Cimento B 102, 209–215 (1998)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    V.N. Melnikov, Models of G time variations in diverse dimensions. Front. Phys. China 4, 75–93 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    V.D. Ivashchuk, V.N. Melnikov, On time variations of gravitational and Yang–Mills constants in a cosmological model of superstring origin. Grav. Cosmol. 20(1), 26–29 (2014). arXiv:1401.5491 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    E.V. Pitjeva, Updated IAA RAS planetary ephemerides-EPM2011 and their use in scientific research. Astron. Vestnik 47(5), 419–435 (2013). arXiv:1308.6416 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Funded by SCOAP3

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Gravitation and CosmologyPeoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)MoscowRussian Federation
  2. 2.Center for Gravitation and Fundamental Metrology, VNIIMSMoscowRussian Federation
  3. 3.Institute for Nuclear Research, RASMoscowRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations