IR Gravitons Can Screen Λ
hep-ph/9602315, arXiv:0708.2004
with N. C. Tsamis
ds2 = -dt2 + a2dxidxi , a(t) = eHt
• Causal Horizon
∆r(t′→t) = H-1(a′-1-a-1)
Ο Ζήνων είχε δίκιο!
• 4-Vol. past light-cone
4
∫d x′ (-g)1/2 θ(∆r-∆x)
= 4π/3 ∫0t dt′ (a′∆r)3
=4π/3 H-4 [ln(a) + …]
Gravitons and m=0=ξ Scalars
• 0 Loop: “Tail Term”
Gret(x;x′) ~ δ(∆r-∆x)/aa′∆x + H2 θ(∆r-∆x)
• 1 Loop: IR virtuals ripped from vacuum
~ 1 per H-3 ⇒ ρ1 ~ H4
• 2 Loop: Self-gravitation slows inflation
Φ1(x) ~ -G ∫d4x′ (-g)1/2 Gret(x;x’) ρ1(x’)
~ -G H2 ln(a)
ρ2 ~ Φ1 ρ1 ~ -G H6 ln(a)
Why It’s Vacuum Energy
1. L Loops: ρL ~ H4 [GH2 ln(a)]L
2. Conservation: d(ρL)/dt = -3H (ρL+pL)
3. a(t) = eHt ⇒ ln(a) = Ht
For ln(a) ≫ 1 ⇒ |d(ρL)/dt| ≪ H |ρL|
∴ pL ~ -ρL
Note 1st appearance of Leading Log Approx.
An Attractive Model of Inflation
• L = 1/16πG (R - 2Λ)(-g)1/2
Right for infrared quantum gravity
No scalar inflaton
• Generic Initial Conditions
Λ starts inflation
QG back-reaction stops when ln(a) ~ 1/GH2
• No Fine Tuning
Weak gravity (GH2 10-12) makes inflation last
• Unique Predictions
Difficulties
• Doing anything in QG is tough!
• Screening Λ requires ≥ 2 Loops
• Pert. theory eventually breaks down
L
Recall ρL ~ H4 [GH2 ln(a)]
∴ ln(a) ~ 1/GH2 makes ALL loops comparable
• Observations in non-pert. regime
• Invariantly quantifying back-reaction
Infrared Logarithms ⇒ ln(a)
Origins:
1. i∆(x;x) = UV + H2/4π ln(a)
Vilenkin & Ford, Linde, Starobinskii
2. ∫d4x′ θ(∆r-∆x) = 4π/3 H-4 [ln(a) + O(1)]
Tsamis & RPW, Weinberg
Fact:
Any QFT with undiff. gravitons or massless,
minimally coupled scalars will have IR logs
in some Green’s functions
What’s Been Done for Scalars
λϕ4 (Brunier, Kahya, Onemli)
1.
•
•
M2(x;x’) ⇒ u(t,k) & Tµν
Growing mass & positive vacuum energy
2. SQED (Kahya, Prokopec, Tornkvist, Tsamis)
•
•
•
M2(x;x’) ⇒ u(t,k) & [µΠν](x;x’) ⇒ ǫµ(t,k)
ϕ*ϕ , (Dµϕ)* Dνϕ , FµνFρσ & Tµν
Growing γ mass & negative vacuum energy
3. Yukawa (Duffy, Miao, Prokopec)
•
•
M2(x;x’) ⇒ u(t,k) , [iΣj](x;x’) ⇒ ui(t,k) & ϕψ†γ0ψ
Growing ψ mass & negative vacuum energy
R.I.1
Slide 8
R.I.1
Richard Woodart, 5/31/2008
What’s Been Done for QG
1. QG + Dirac (Miao)
•
•
[iΣj](x;x’) ⇒ ui(t,k)
Growing ψ field strength
2. QG + Scalar (Kahya, Tsamis)
•
•
M2(x;x’) ⇒ u(t,k) & hµν
Possible tilt in the Power Spectrum
3. Pure QG (Tsamis)
•
•
[µνΣρσ](x;x’) & hµν
Consistent with secular slowing
Counting IR Logarithms
• ∆ L ~ κ × (h,ϕ)N × (anything)
⇒ up to N ln(a)’s for each extra κ
• Examples
λ ϕ4
⇒ λ ln2(a)
⇒ f2 ln(a)
f ϕψ†γ0ψ
e2 ϕ*ϕAµAνgµν ⇒ e2 ln(a)
G1/2 h∂h∂h ⇒ GH2 ln(a)
• Operator in VEV sets 0th order (sometimes more)
∂ϕ∂ϕ ~ 1 × { 1 + λ ln(a) + …}
ϕ4 ~ ln2(a) × { 1 + λ ln2(a) + . . .}
Leading & Sub-Leading Logs in λϕ4
• Eg. Ω|Tµν|Ω = p×gµν + (ρ+p)×uµuν
λ 7
2
−2 ln (a) − ln(a)
16π 2
2
λ 4
13 4
(ρ + p)2 loop = H ×
− ln(a) −
2
16π
3
18
λ L−1
4
2L−2
(p)L loop = H × (
α[ln(a)]
+ . . . + β ln(a)
)
2
16π
λ L−1 ′
4
2L−3
′
(ρ + p)L loop = H × (
α [ln(a)]
+ ... + β
)
2
16π
(p)2 loop = H 4 ×
Role of Counterterms in λϕ4
√
1
µν
L = − (1 + δZ)∂µϕ∂ν ϕg
−g
2
√
√
1
1
2
4
− δξϕ R −g − (λ + δλ)ϕ −g
2
4!
•
•
•
•
λϕ4
⇒ λ × ln2(a) ⇒ Leading
δξϕ2R ⇒ λ × ln(a) ⇒ 1st Sub-Leading
δλϕ4
⇒ λ × ln2(a) ⇒ 2nd Sub-Leading
δZ∂ϕ∂ϕ ⇒ λ × 1
⇒ 4th Sub-Leading
Counterterms Can Be Leading!
∗
µν √
L = −(1 + δZ2)(∂µ − ieAµ)ϕ (∂ν + ieAν )ϕg −g
√
√
δλ ∗ 2√
∗
µρ
νσ
−δξϕ ϕR −g − (ϕ ϕ) −g − (1 + δZ3)Fµν Fρσ g g −g
4
•
•
•
•
e∂ϕ*Aϕ ⇒ e2 × ln(a) ⇒ Leading
e2ϕ*ϕA2 ⇒ e2 × ln(a) ⇒ Leading
δξϕ*ϕR ⇒ e2 × ln(a) ⇒ Leading
δλ(ϕ*ϕ)2 ⇒ e4 × ln2(a) ⇒ Leading
Perturbative QG
•
•
•
√
1
L0 ≡ 2 [R − (D − 2)Λ] −g
,
κ2 ≡ 16πG
κ
µν ≡ a2 [ηµν + κh µν ]
gµν ≡ a2g
(D − 2) g
ρσ g
µν hρσ,µhν0 HaD−1
L0 −→
−g
2
1
1
αβ
ρσ
µν
g
g
+ −g
g
[ hαρ,µhνσ,β − hαβ,ρhσµ,ν
2
2
1
1
+ hαβ,ρhµν,σ − hαρ,µhβσ,ν ]aD−2
4
4
• hij gives IR logs, not h00 or h0i
• κnhn∂h∂h ⇒ κ2 ln(a)
• κnhn∂hh0ν ⇒ κ2 ln(a)
Curious Consequence for EOM
• κ2gµν(δS0/δgµν) = ½(D-2)[-R+DΛ](-g)½
~ aD[κ∂2h + κ2h∂2h + κ3h2∂2h + κ4h3∂2h + . .]
• NB κ4h3∂2h ~ κ4H6 ln(a) + O(κ6)
• Cf 8πG×ρ2 ~ κ4H6 ln(a) (Screening)
⇒ κhµν ~ κ4H4 ln2(a) + . . .
• But R(-g)½ = DΛ(-g)½ ~ aD[1+κh+. . .]
• Trivial κ4H6 ln2(a) hides ρ2!
-(D-2)δΛ (-g)½/16πG
• 16πG ≡ κ2, δΛ ≡ H2[ακ2H2 + βκ4H4 + . .]
• (-g)½ = aD[1+½κh+⅛κ2h2-¼κ2hρσhρσ+. .]
• α Term ~ H4aD×κnhn
– Affects κhµν at κ2H2 ln(a)
– Set α to null ρ1 ⇒ κ4H4 ln2(a) fixed
• β Term ~ H4aD×κ2H2×κnhn
– Affects κhµν at κ4H4 ln(a)
– Cf ½κ2ρ2 ~ κ4H4 ln(a) in R(-g)½=DΛ(-g)½
Higher Counterterms
1. -δG/16πG2 × [R - (D-2)Λ](-g)½
~ [α + βκ2H2 + . . .]aD[∂h∂h + κh∂h∂h + . . .]
• α Term ~ κ2H2×κh∂h∂h ⇒ κ4H4 ln(a)
• β Term ~ κ4H4×κh∂h∂h ⇒ κ6H6 ln(a)
2. [R - DΛ]2(-g)½ ~ CαβρσCαβρσ(-g)½
~ κ2∂2h∂2h + κ3h∂2h∂2h + . . .
• Affects κhµν at κ4H4 ln(a)
3. κ2[R – DΛ]3(-g)½ etc.
Formal Objections
1. R = 4Λ
•
(Susskind ~ 1980)
All classical solutions obey & some collapse!
2. gµν = const×(dS)µν
•
•
(Hawking ~ 95)
i[µν∆ρσ](x;x’) breaks dS inv.
dS inv. integrand ≠ dS inv. Integral
3. Bloch-Nordsieck for IR ∞‘s
•
•
(DOE ~ 03)
Doesn’t work for ϕ3! (Veneziano 1972)
No S-matrix for de Sitter (Witten 2001)
Misconceptions about Causality
1. “The effect is acausal!”
•
•
(Many ~ 95)
Not even possible with the S-K formalism
Factors of ln(a) from volume of Past L-Cone
2. “Screening self-limiting” (‘t Hooft ~ 06)
•
•
•
Effect not from t=const (H2→0)
Rather from Past Light-Cone (H2≈Λ/3)
Past Light-Cone OPENS as H2→0!
•
•
de Sitter: Vplc ~ t/H3
Flat: Vplc ~ t4 ⇒ Gets stronger, not weaker
Worries about Fluctuations
1. “Large Spatial Fluct.”
(Linde)
•
•
Nearby points share
most Past L-Cone
Especially far past!
2. “What about δρ?”
•
•
Past L-Cone’s not
quite identical
Small fluctuations in
local H(t,x)
Invariant Observables
1. Unruh (astro-ph/9802323)
•
Can’t form invariants from gµν like gµν
2. Abramo & Woodard (astro-ph/0109271)
•
•
Form invariant first, then take VEV
Implemented for scalar-driven inflation
3. Tsamis & Woodard (gr-qc/0506056)
•
•
Use geodesic deviation for pure QG
[gmn∆m∆n]-1 [½∂t2gij - ¼gkl∂tgik∂tgjl]∆i∆j
Should be done but . . .
1. Gauge dep. things contain physical info
•
2.
Eg: Standard Model 1PI functions
hµν crucial to Oinv
Oinv ~ 1 + κh + κ2h2 + κ3h3 + κ4h4 + . . .
•
•
•
•
κh + 3 Vertices ⇒ κ4
κ2h2 + 2 Vertices ⇒ κ4
κ3h3 + 1 Vertex ⇒ κ4
κ4h4 + 0 Vertices ⇒ κ4
3. IR logs contaminate Tµν for scalars
4. One more IR log for each loop!
Nonperturbative Evolution
• κhµνL loops ~ [GH2 ln(a)]L
– Leading logs ~ 1 at ln(a) ~ 1/GH2 1012
– 1st Sub-Leading still ~ GH2 10-12
• Starobinskii’s formalism for V(ϕ)
– Reproduces leading logs trivially
– Summable for V(ϕ) bounded below
• Recently extended to Yukawa and SQED
• Very recent progress for QG
Conclusions I
1. M=0 & ≠ conformal ⇒ Inflation enhances QFT
2. Manifests in factors of ln(a)
3. More at each order!
•
C (ϕ,hij)N × (anything) ⇒ C2 lnN(a)
4. IR logs are real!
•
•
Tµν in scalar models
P(k) in QG + inflaton
5. Leading IR logs can be summed!
•
Not yet for QG but close
Conclusions II
1. Counterterms matter
– 1-loop δΛ leading order
– κhµν affected at κ4H4 ln(a) by:
•
•
2-loop δΛ
1-loop R, R2 and C2 counterterms
2. Plausible argument for screening
– But it does need to be invariant
3. Screening an attractive inflation model!