- ...matrices
- see e.g. Sakurai [13], but note that
our conventions differ
from those of Jackson [14] for by (-1)
^{m}.
The correspondence to [4] is ..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

- ...becomes,
- Chandrasekhar employs a different
sign convention for .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

- ...HREF="node6.html#sec:radial">IIB,
- Our conventions differ
from [3] as and similarly
for with and so but with other power spectra the same.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

- ...,
- The expressions above were
all derived assuming a flat spatial
geometry. In this formalism, including the effects of spatial
curvature is straightforward: the terms in the
hierarchy are multiplied by factors of
[6,7],
where the curvature is . These
factors account for geodesic deviation and alter the transfer of
power through the hierarchy. A full treatment of such effects
will be provided in [8].
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.