The ζ-ζ Correlator Is Time
Dependent (arXiv:1006.3999)
E.O. Kahya (U. Jena)
V.K. Onemli (Istanbul Tech.)
R.P. Woodard (U. Florida)
Loop Corrections to ∆R2(k,t)
3
k
k·x
2
3
−i
0)|Ω
∆R(k, t) ≡
d
x
e
Ω|R(t,
x
)R(t,
2π 2
−0.037±0.012
k
+0.088
= 2.441−0.092 × 10−9
−1
0.002 Mpc
∞
GH 2(tk ) 2
ℓ
≈
1+
aℓ(k, t)[GH (tk )]
πǫ(tk )
ℓ=1
ȧ
Ḣ
ds = −dt + a (t)dx · dx ⇒ H(t) ≡ , ǫ(t) ≡ − 2
a
H
tk ∋ k = H(tk )a(tk )
2
2
2
Weinberg’s Bound
(hep-th/0506236, 0605244)
& K. Chaicherdsakul (hep-th/0611352)
|aℓ(k,t)| < powers of ln[a(t)/a(tk)]
IS THE BOUND SATURATED?
Weinberg Yes!
GR + inflaton (Sect. V, eqn 41)
-½ Σi ∂µσi∂νσi gµν(-g) ½ (Sect. VII, eqn 71)
Senatore & Zaldarriaga (arXiv:0912.2734) No!
Eqn (71) is wrong
No IR Logs from anything at any order
What Causes IR Logs?
Tsamis & Woodard (gr-qc/0505115)
TWO KINDS OF FIELDS
Massless, minimally coupled scalars
Gravitons
TWO WAYS OF GETTING IR LOGS
2

i∆(x;x) = UV + H /(4π ) ln[a(t)/a(tI)]
Vilenkin & Ford, Linde, Starobinsky (1982)
Vertex Integrations (T&W 1996)
How IR Logs Happen Consider Mode Sum for i∆(x;x’)
′)
d3 k
′
∗
′
i
k·(
x
−
x
′
θ(k − H) θ(t−t )u(t, k)u (t , k)e
+ θ(t −t)(c.c.)
3
(2π)
a(t) = eHt
ik H ik u(t, k) = √
1−
exp
3
Ha(t)
Ha(t)
2k
H 1 k 2
i k 4
−→ √
1+ (
) + (
) + ...
3
2
Ha
3
Ha
2k
de Sitter
:
> Ha(t) =⇒ u(t, k) oscillates
k∼
i∆(x; x)
≈
Ha
4π
H2
H2
2
dk k ×
=
ln[a(t)]
3
3
2
8π H
2k
4π
Counting IR Logs
Tsamis & Woodard (gr-qc/0505115)
∆L = κ(ϕ,hµν)N × (∂ϕ,∂hµν,other fields)
Each extra κ gives up to lnN[a(t)]
Eg λϕ4 λln2(a)
Eg κh∂h∂h κln(a)
NB ∂σ∂σ SHOULD NOT produce any!
But QG gives GH2 ln(a)
And U(σ) ~ λσ gives λGH2 ln2(a)
MMC Scalar Models
with IR Logs
λφ^4 (Brunier,
1.
M²(x;x') ∆u(t,k) & <Tµν>
Growing scalar mass & pos. vac. Energy
SQED (Kahya,
2.
Kahya, Onemli)
Prokopec, Tornkvist, Tsamis)
M²(x;x') ∆u & Π(x;x') ∆ε
<φ*φ>, <(Dµφ)*Dνφ>, <FµνFρσ> & <Tµν>
Growing photon mass & neg. vac. Energy
Yukawa (Duffy,
3.
Prokopec, Miao)
M²(x;x') ∆u, Σ(x;x') ∆u & <φψψ>
Growing fermion mass & neg. vac. Energy
Quantum Gravity Models
with IR Logs
QG + Dirac (Miao)
1.
Σ(x;x') ∆u(t,k)
Growing fermion field strength
QG + MMC Scalar (Kahya)
2.
M²(x;x') ∆u(t,k)
Possible tilt in Power Spectrum
QG (Tsamis)
3.
Σ(x;x') & <hµν>
Consistent with relaxation of Λ
Our Model: L=LGR+Linfl+Lspec
LGR = 1/(16πG) R(-g)½
Linfl= -½∂µϕ∂νϕgµν(-g)½ - V(ϕ)(-g)½
Lspec =-½∂µσ∂νσgµν(-g)½ - U(σ)(-g)½
Our Background
ds2 = -dt2 + a2(t)dxidxi
ϕ = ϕ0(t)
σ = 0 & U(0) = 0
½(D-2)(D-1)H2 = 8πG [½(dϕ0/dt)2 + V0]
2
2
-(D-2)[Ḣ+½(D-1)H ]=8πG[½(dϕ0/dt) –V0]
(dϕ0/dt)2 = -(D-2) Ḣ/(8πG)
V(ϕ0) = (D-2)[Ḣ + (D-1)H2]/(16πG)
ADM Fields w/o ADM Gauge
OUR FIELDS
ds2 = -[N(t,x)dt – Ni(t,x)dxi]2 + gij(t,x)dxidxj
gij(t,x) = a2(t) exp[2ζ(t,x)] [δij + hij(t,x)]
(-g)½ = N aD-1 e(D-1)ζ
ϕ(t,x) = ϕ0(t) + δϕ(t,x)
σ(t,x) = 0 + σ(t,x)
OUR GAUGE N & Ni from constraint eqns
δϕ(t,x) = 0
∂ihij(t,x) = 0
The N(t,x) Constraint Is Easy
L = S.T. – aD-1e(D-1)ζ [A N + B/N]/(16πG)
A = -R + 16πG[V0 + U(σ) + ½gij∂iσ∂jσ]
B = (Eii)2 – EijEij – 8πG[(∂tϕ0)2+(∂tσ-∂iσNi)2]
Eij = ½ [Ni;j + Nj;i - ∂tgij]
δS/δN = 0 A – B/N2 = 0
N = (B/A)½ (Exact!)
L = (S.T.) – aD-1e(D-1)ζ (AB)½/8πG
The Ni(t,x) Constraint Is Hard
Conformally Rescale: gij ≡ a2 e2ζ ǧij
Expand A & B
A0 = B0 = (D-2)[Ḣ + (D-1) H2]
A = A0 (1+α) & B = A0 (1+β)
(A B)½ = A0 [1 + ½(α+β) - ⅛(α-β)2 + . . .]
Integrate by parts a lot
Eliminate quadratic mixing btwn ζ and Ni
Sk = Nk + ǧkj∂j ∆-1 [e-2ζ ∆ζ/Ha2 - ǫ(∂tζ-∂iζNi)]
Free Theories
LS= aD-1/(32πG) [∂iSk∂iSk
+ (D-3+ǫ)/(D-1-ǫ) ∂iSk∂kSi]
Lζ = (D-2)/(16πG) ǫaD-1 [(∂tζ)2 – a-2∂kζ∂kζ]
Lh= aD-1/(64πG) [∂thij∂thij – a-2∂khij∂khij]
Lσ = ½ aD-1 [(∂tσ)2 – a-2∂kσ∂kσ]
hij & σ are m=0, min. coupled scalars
2
For ǫ = -Ḣ/H ≈ constant, ζ is too!
Relation of R(t,x) to ζ(t,x)
R = -¼∆-1[a2 e2ζ (3-Curvature)]
gij = a2 e2ζ ǧij = a2 e2ζ [δij + hij]
∆ = ǧij Ďi Ďj
3-Curvature
a-2e-2ζ [Ř - 2(D-2)∆ζ – (D-2)(D-3) ǧij∂iζ∂jζ]
Det(ǧ) = 1 & ∂i hij = 0 Ř = O(h2)
R = ½(D-2)ζ + ¼∆-1[Ř-(D-2)(D-3)ǧij∂iζ∂jζ]
= ½(D-2)ζ + O(ζ,ζ h,h2)
Tree Power Spectra from
u(t,k) H/(2k3)½
∆R = k3/2π ∫d3x eik—x <ζ(t,x)ζ(t,0)>
= [k3/2π]×[8πG/(D-2)ǫ]×|u(t,k)|2
GH2/(πǫ)
∆h = k3/2π ∫d3x eik—x <hij(t,x)hij(t,0)>
= [k3/2π]×[32πG]×[2]×|u(t,k)|2
16GH2/π
r = ∆h/∆R < 0.22
(95% confidence)
ǫ = r/16 < 0.014
GH2 = π/16 × r × ∆R < 10-10
Moral: 2 Good Approximations
All Propagators ~ MMC Scalar
[ζ-ζ] ≈ 8πG/[(D-2)ǫ]×i∆(x;x’)
[h-h] = 32πG×[T-T Projector]×i∆(x;x’)
[σ-σ] = i∆(x;x’)
ǫ < 0.014 use de Sitter i∆
∆(x;x’)
Cf. Onemli & Woodard (gr-qc/0204065)
We can compute things this way!
Interactions Tedious . . . But
Undifferentiated Terms Simple
Universal aD-1 e(D-1)ζ
ζ/a2
Space ∂‘s have extra e-2ζ
Self-Interactions of ζ
(D-2)/(16πG) ǫaD-1e(D-1)ζζ
×[(∂tζ)2 – e-2ζζ/a2 ∂kζ∂kζ]
Field re-def: Z = 2/(D-1) [e½(D-1)ζ – 1]
Interactions between ζ & σ
ǫ/(D-1) aD-1 e(D-1)ζζ U(σ)
Don’t ignore ǫ suppressed terms
Time Dependence from a
Spec. Potential U(σ) = λσ/4!
∫dDy [8πG/(D-2)ǫ i∆(x;y)]×⅛×iλ½(D-1)ǫaD-1
×[i∆(y;y)]2×[8πG/(D-2)ǫ i∆(y;x’)]
Fourier transform on x & x’
GH2/(πǫ) × λGH2/(48π) ln3[a(t)]
Hartree Approximation:
σ 3<σ>2 3[H2/4π ln(a)]2
Free: ǫa3/8πG [(∂tζ)2 - ∂iζ∂iζ/a2]
σ Int: ǫa3 λ/16 σζ
ǫa3/8πG × 3λGH4/32π ln2(a) ζ
Mode eqn of u(t,k) for t >> tk
3 H du/dt ≈ 3λ G H4/32π ln2(a) u
3 ½ [1 + λGH2/96π ln3(a) + ...]
u(t,k) ≈ H/(2k )
∆R ≈ k3/2π × 4πG/ǫ × |u(t,k)|2
∆R ≈ GH2/(πǫ) [1+λGH2/(48π) ln3(a) + …]
Time Dependence from
Self-Interactions of ζ(t,x)
Eg. ¼(D-1)2×½Z2(x)×½Z2(x’)
¼(D-1)2×½ [(8πG/(D-2)ǫ) i∆(x;x’)]2
Fourier transform & gather leading logs
2
GH2/(πǫ) × 27/4 GH /(πǫ) ln[a(t)]
Motivations of
Senatore & Zaldarriaga
Weinberg did make error with dim. Reg.
Preserving ∆R as a relic of inflation
But corrections down by GH2 < 10-10
And anyway, growth stops after inflation
IR logs eventually make pert. theory break
But Sect. V, eqn (41) is right
And anyway, there must be such effects
But not for observable modes
And anyway, why is that bad?
Cloudy mysticism about eternal inflation
Our Motivations
IR logs in QG observables
People have doubted this . . .
Loop corrections to ∆R(k,t) MIGHT be
observable some day
21 cm rad. from proto-structures to z~50
Furlanetto, Oh & Briggs, astro-ph/0608032
Enough data to see r ~ 10-8!
Good astrophys. & unique inflation model
Final Thought
Only small IR Log corrections in ∆R
But IR Logs ALSO affect constants
Down by GH2 < 10-10
Ln[a(t)/a(tk)] < 50 for observable modes
Eg., the vacuum energy Λ
Eg., force of gravity G
For long inflation these can matter
a(tk) a(tinitial)
Perturbation theory can break down