1: %\documentclass{elsart}
2: \documentclass{elsart3p}
3: %\documentclass[narrowdisplay,draft]{elsart}
4: \usepackage{times}
5: \usepackage[numbers,sort&compress]{natbib}
6: \usepackage{amssymb}
7: \usepackage[final]{graphicx}
8: \usepackage{units}
9: %\usepackage{hyperref}
10:
11: %\usepackage[first,bottomafter,timestamp]{draftcopy}
12:
13: % Commands %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14: \newcommand{\Dm}{D_\mu}
15: \newcommand{\Dn}{D_\nu}
16: \newcommand{\dm}{\partial_\mu}
17: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
18:
19:
20: \begin{document}
21:
22: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
23: \begin{frontmatter}
24: \title{The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton}
25:
26: \author[EPFL,INR]{Fedor Bezrukov},
27: \ead{Fedor.Bezrukov@epfl.ch}
28: \author[EPFL]{Mikhail Shaposhnikov}
29: \ead{Mikhail.Shaposhnikov@epfl.ch}
30:
31: \address[EPFL]{
32: Institut de Th\'eorie des Ph\'enom\`enes Physiques,
33: \'Ecole Polytechnique F\'ed\'erale de Lausanne,
34: CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland}
35: \address[INR]{
36: Institute for Nuclear Research of Russian Academy of Sciences,
37: Prospect 60-letiya Oktyabrya 7a,
38: Moscow 117312, Russia}
39:
40: \date{4 December 2007}
41:
42: \begin{abstract}
43: We argue that the Higgs boson of the Standard Model can lead to
44: inflation and produce cosmological perturbations in accordance with
45: observations. An essential requirement is the non-minimal coupling
46: of the Higgs scalar field to gravity; no new particle besides
47: already present in the electroweak theory is required.
48: \end{abstract}
49:
50: \begin{keyword}
51: Inflation \sep Higgs field \sep Standard Model \sep Variable Planck
52: mass \sep
53: Non-minimal coupling
54: \PACS 98.80.Cq \sep 14.80.Bn
55: % 98.80.Cq Particle-theory and field-theory models of the early
56: % Universe (including cosmic pancakes, cosmic strings, chaotic
57: % phenomena, inflationary universe, etc.)
58: % 14.80.Bn Standard-model Higgs bosons
59: \end{keyword}
60:
61: \end{frontmatter}
62: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
63:
64:
65: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
66: \section{Introduction}
67:
68: The fact that our universe is almost flat, homogeneous and isotropic
69: is often considered as a strong indication that the Standard Model
70: (SM) of elementary particles is not complete. Indeed, these puzzles,
71: together with the problem of generation of (almost) scale invariant
72: spectrum of perturbations, necessary for structure formation, are most
73: elegantly solved by inflation
74: \cite{Starobinsky:1979ty,Starobinsky:1980te,Mukhanov:1981xt,Guth:1980zm,%
75: Linde:1981mu,Albrecht:1982wi}. The majority of present models of
76: inflation require an introduction of an additional scalar---the
77: ``inflaton''. This hypothetical particle may appear in a natural or
78: not so natural way in different extensions of the SM, involving Grand
79: Unified Theories (GUTs), supersymmetry, string theory, extra
80: dimensions, etc. Inflaton properties are constrained by
81: the observations of fluctuations of the Cosmic Microwave Background
82: (CMB) and the matter distribution in the universe. Though the mass
83: and the interaction of the inflaton with matter fields are not fixed,
84: the well known considerations prefer a heavy scalar field with a mass
85: $\sim \unit[10^{13}]{GeV}$ and extremely small self-interacting
86: quartic coupling constant $\lambda \sim 10^{-13}$ \cite{Linde:1983gd}.
87: This value of the mass is close to the GUT scale, which is often
88: considered as an argument in favour of existence of new physics
89: between the electroweak and Planck scales.
90:
91: The aim of the present Letter is to demonstrate that the SM itself can
92: give rise to inflation. The spectral index and the amplitude of
93: tensor perturbations can be predicted and be used to distinguish this
94: possibility from other models for inflation; these parameters for the
95: SM fall within the $1\sigma$ confidence contours of the WMAP-3
96: observations \cite{Spergel:2006hy}.
97:
98: To explain our main idea, consider Lagrangian of
99: the SM non-minimally coupled to gravity,
100: \begin{equation}
101: \label{main}
102: L_{\mathrm{tot}}= L_{\mathrm{SM}} - \frac{M^2}{2} R -\xi H^\dagger HR
103: \;,
104: \end{equation}
105: where $L_{\mathrm{SM}}$ is the SM part, $M$ is some mass parameter,
106: $R$ is the scalar curvature, $H$ is the Higgs field, and $\xi$ is an
107: unknown constant to be fixed later.\footnote{In our notations the
108: conformal coupling is $\xi=-1/6$.} The third term in (\ref{main})
109: is in fact required by the renormalization properties of the scalar
110: field in a curved space-time background \cite{Birrell:1982ix}. If
111: $\xi=0$, the coupling of the Higgs field to gravity is said to be
112: ``minimal''. Then $M$ can be identified with Planck scale $M_P$
113: related to the Newton's constant as $M_P=(8\pi
114: G_N)^{-1/2}=\unit[2.4\times 10^{18}]{GeV}$. This model has ``good''
115: particle physics phenomenology but gives ``bad'' inflation since the
116: self-coupling of the Higgs field is too large and matter fluctuations
117: are many orders of magnitude larger than those observed. Another
118: extreme is to put $M$ to zero and consider the ``induced'' gravity
119: \cite{Zee:1978wi,Smolin:1979uz,Spokoiny:1984bd,Fakir:1990iu,Salopek:1988qh},
120: in which the electroweak symmetry
121: breaking generates the Planck mass
122: \cite{vanderBij:1993hx,CervantesCota:1995tz,Bij1995}. This happens if
123: $\sqrt{\xi}\sim1/(\sqrt{G_N} M_W)\sim10^{17}$, where $M_W\sim\unit[100]{GeV}$
124: is the electroweak scale. This model may give ``good'' inflation
125: \cite{Spokoiny:1984bd,Fakir:1990iu,Salopek:1988qh,Kaiser:1994wj,%
126: Kaiser:1994vs,Komatsu:1999mt} even if the scalar self-coupling is of
127: the order of one, but most probably fails to describe particle physics
128: experiments. Indeed, the Higgs field in this case almost completely
129: decouples from other fields of the SM\footnote{This can be seen most
130: easily by rewriting the Lagrangian (\ref{main}), given in the Jordan
131: frame, to the Einstein frame, see also below.}
132: \cite{vanderBij:1993hx,CervantesCota:1995tz,Bij1995}, which corresponds
133: formally to the infinite Higgs mass $m_H$. This is in conflict with
134: the precision tests of the electroweak theory which tell that $m_H$
135: must be below $\unit[285]{GeV}$ \cite{:2005ema} or even
136: \unit[200]{GeV} \cite{PDG2007} if less conservative point of view is
137: taken.
138:
139: These arguments indicate that there may exist some intermediate choice
140: of $M$ and $\xi$ which is ``good'' for particle physics and for
141: inflation at the same time. Indeed, if the parameter $\xi$ is
142: sufficiently small, $\sqrt{\xi} \lll 10^{17}$, we are very far from the
143: regime of induced gravity and the low energy limit of the theory
144: (\ref{main}) is just the SM with the usual Higgs boson. At the same
145: time, if $\xi$ is sufficiently large, $\xi \gg 1$, the scalar field
146: behaviour, relevant for chaotic inflation scenario
147: \cite{Linde:1983gd}, drastically changes, and successful inflation
148: becomes possible. We should note, that models of chaotic inflation
149: with both nonzero $M$ and $\xi$ were considered in literature
150: \cite{Spokoiny:1984bd,Futamase:1987ua,Salopek:1988qh,Fakir1990,Kaiser:1994vs,%
151: Libanov1998,Komatsu:1999mt}, but in the context of either GUT or
152: with an additional inflaton having nothing to do with the Higgs field
153: of the Standard Model.
154:
155: The Letter is organised as follows. We start from discussion of
156: inflation in the model, and use the slow-roll approximation to find
157: the perturbation spectra parameters. Then we will argue in Section
158: \ref{sec:radcorr} that quantum corrections are unlikely to spoil the
159: classical analysis we used in Section \ref{sec:cmb}. We conclude in
160: Section~\ref{sec:concl}.
161:
162:
163: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
164: \section{Inflation and CMB fluctuations}
165: \label{sec:cmb}
166:
167: Let us consider the scalar sector of the Standard Model, coupled to
168: gravity in a non-minimal way. We will use the unitary gauge
169: $H=h/\sqrt{2}$ and neglect all gauge interactions for the time being,
170: they will be discussed later in Section \ref{sec:radcorr}. Then the
171: Lagrangian has the form:
172: \begin{equation}
173: \label{eq:1}
174: \begin{array}{l@{\,}l}
175: \displaystyle
176: S_{J} =\int d^4x \sqrt{-g} \Bigg\{&\displaystyle
177: - \frac{M^2+\xi h^2}{2}R
178: \\
179: &\displaystyle
180: + \frac{\dm h\partial^\mu h}{2}
181: -\frac{\lambda}{4}\left(h^2-v^2\right)^2
182: \Bigg\}
183: \;.
184: \end{array}
185: \end{equation}
186: This Lagrangian has been studied in detail in many papers on inflation
187: \cite{Salopek:1988qh,Fakir1990,Kaiser:1994vs,Komatsu:1999mt}, we will
188: reproduce here the main results of
189: \cite{Salopek:1988qh,Kaiser:1994vs}. To simplify the formulae, we
190: will consider only $\xi$ in the region $1\ll\sqrt{\xi}\lll10^{17}$, in
191: which $M \simeq M_P$ with very good accuracy.
192:
193: It is possible to get rid of the non-minimal coupling to gravity by
194: making the conformal transformation from the Jordan frame to the
195: Einstein frame
196: \begin{equation}
197: \label{eq:2}
198: \hat{g}_{\mu\nu} = \Omega^2 g_{\mu\nu}
199: \;,\quad
200: \Omega^2 = 1 + \frac{\xi h^2}{M_P^2}
201: \;.
202: \end{equation}
203: This transformation leads to a non-minimal kinetic term for the Higgs
204: field. So, it is convenient to make the change to the new scalar field
205: $\chi$ with
206: \begin{equation}
207: \label{eq:3}
208: \frac{d\chi}{dh}=\sqrt{\frac{\Omega^2+6\xi^2h^2/M_P^2}{\Omega^4}}
209: \;.
210: \end{equation}
211: Finally, the action in the Einstein frame is
212: \begin{equation}
213: \label{eq:4}
214: S_E =\int d^4x\sqrt{-\hat{g}} \Bigg\{
215: - \frac{M_P^2}{2}\hat{R}
216: + \frac{\dm \chi\partial^\mu \chi}{2}
217: - U(\chi)
218: \Bigg\}
219: \;,
220: \end{equation}
221: where $\hat{R}$ is calculated using the metric $\hat{g}_{\mu\nu}$ and
222: the potential is
223: \begin{equation}
224: \label{eq:5}
225: U(\chi) =
226: \frac{1}{\Omega(\chi)^4}\frac{\lambda}{4}\left(h(\chi)^2-v^2\right)^2
227: \;.
228: \end{equation}
229: For small field values $h\simeq\chi$ and $\Omega^2\simeq1$, so the
230: potential for the field $\chi$ is the same as that for the initial
231: Higgs field. However, for large values of $h\gg M_P/\sqrt{\xi}$ (or
232: $\chi\gg\sqrt{6}M_P$) the situation changes a lot. In this limit
233: \begin{equation}\label{eq:hlarge}
234: h\simeq \frac{M_P}{\sqrt{\xi}}\exp\left(\frac{\chi}{\sqrt{6}M_P}\right)
235: \;.
236: \end{equation}
237: This means that the
238: potential for the Higgs field is exponentially flat and has the form
239: \begin{equation}
240: \label{eq:6}
241: U(\chi) = \frac{\lambda M_P^4}{4\xi^2}
242: \left(
243: 1+\exp\left(
244: -\frac{2\chi}{\sqrt{6}M_P}
245: \right)
246: \right)^{-2}
247: \;.
248: \end{equation}
249: The full effective potential in the Einstein frame is presented in
250: Fig.~\ref{fig:Ueff}. It is the flatness of the potential at $\chi\gg
251: M_P$ which makes the successful (chaotic) inflation possible.
252:
253: \begin{figure}
254: \centering
255: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{potential}
256: \caption{Effective potential in the Einstein frame.}
257: \label{fig:Ueff}
258: \end{figure}
259:
260: Analysis of the inflation in the Einstein frame\footnote{The same
261: results can be obtained in the Jordan frame
262: \cite{Makino1991,Fakir:1992cg}.} can be performed in standard way
263: using the slow-roll approximation. The slow roll parameters (in
264: notations of \cite{Lyth:1998xn}) can be expressed analytically as
265: functions of the field $h(\chi)$ using (\ref{eq:3}) and (\ref{eq:5})
266: (in the limit of $h^2\gg M_P^2/\xi\gg v^2$),
267: \begin{eqnarray}
268: \label{eq:7}
269: \epsilon & =& \frac{M_P^2}{2}\left(\frac{dU/d\chi}{U}\right)^2
270: \simeq\frac{4 M_P^4 }{3
271: \xi^2h^4}
272: \;, \\
273: \eta & = & M_P^2\frac{d^2U/d\chi^2}{U}
274: \simeq -\frac{4 M_P^2}{3 \xi h^2 }
275: \;, \\
276: \zeta^2 &= & M_P^4\frac{(d^3U/d\chi^3)dU/d\chi}{U^2}
277: \simeq\frac{16 M_P^4 }{9\xi^2
278: h^4}
279: \;.
280: \end{eqnarray}
281: Slow roll ends when $\epsilon\simeq1$, so the field value at the end of
282: inflation is
283: $h_{\mathrm{end}}\simeq(4/3)^{1/4}M_P/\sqrt{\xi}\simeq1.07M_P/\sqrt{\xi}$.
284: The number of e-foldings for the change of the field $h$ from $h_0$ to
285: $h_{\mathrm{end}}$ is given by
286: \begin{equation}
287: \label{eq:8}
288: N = \int_{h_{\mathrm{end}}}^{h_0}
289: \frac{1}{M_P^2}\frac{U}{dU/dh}\left(\frac{d\chi}{dh}\right)^2dh
290: \simeq \frac{6}{8}\frac{h_0^2-h_{\mathrm{end}}^2}{M_P^2/\xi}
291: \;.
292: \end{equation}
293: We see that for all values of $\sqrt{\xi}\lll10^{17}$ the scale
294: of the Standard Model $v$ does not enter in the formulae, so the
295: inflationary physics is independent on it. Since interactions of the
296: Higgs boson with the particles of the SM after the end of inflation
297: are strong, the reheating happens right after the slow-roll, and
298: $T_{\mathrm{reh}}\simeq(\frac{2\lambda}{\pi^2
299: g^*})^{1/4}M_P/\sqrt{\xi}\simeq\unit[2\times10^{15}]{GeV}$, where
300: $g^*=106.75$ is the number of degrees of freedom of the SM. So, the
301: number of e-foldings for the the COBE scale entering the horizon
302: $N_{\mathrm{COBE}}\simeq62$ (see \cite{Lyth:1998xn}) and
303: $h_{\mathrm{COBE}}\simeq9.4M_P/\sqrt{\xi}$. Inserting (\ref{eq:8})
304: into the COBE normalization $U/\epsilon=(0.027M_P)^4$ we find the
305: required value for $\xi$
306: \begin{equation}
307: \label{eq:9}
308: \xi \simeq \sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{3}}\frac{N_{\mathrm{COBE}}}{0.027^2}
309: \simeq 49000\sqrt{\lambda}
310: = 49000\frac{m_H}{\sqrt{2}v}
311: \;.
312: \end{equation}
313: Note, that if one could deduce $\xi$ from some fundamental theory this
314: relation would provide a connection between the Higgs mass and the
315: amplitude of primordial perturbations.
316: The spectral index $n=1-6\epsilon+2\eta$ calculated for $N=60$
317: (corresponding to the scale $k=0.002/\mathrm{Mpc}$) is
318: $n\simeq1-8(4N+9)/(4N+3)^2\simeq0.97$. The tensor to scalar
319: perturbation ratio \cite{Spergel:2006hy} is
320: $r=16\epsilon\simeq192/(4N+3)^2\simeq0.0033$.
321: The predicted values are well within one sigma of the current WMAP
322: measurements \cite{Spergel:2006hy}, see Fig.~\ref{fig:wmap}.
323:
324: \begin{figure}
325: \centering
326: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{f14-e}
327: \caption{The allowed WMAP region for inflationary parameters ($r$,
328: $n$). The green boxes are our predictions supposing 50 and 60
329: e-foldings of inflation. Black and white dots are predictions of
330: usual chaotic inflation with $\lambda\phi^4$ and $m^2\phi^2$
331: potentials, HZ is the Harrison-Zeldovich spectrum.}
332: \label{fig:wmap}
333: \end{figure}
334:
335:
336: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
337: \section{Radiative corrections}
338: \label{sec:radcorr}
339:
340: An essential point for inflation is the flatness of the scalar
341: potential in the region of the field values $h\sim10M_P/\sqrt{\xi}$,
342: what corresponds to the Einstein frame field
343: $\chi\sim 6 M_P$.
344: It is important that radiative corrections do not spoil
345: this property. Of course, any discussion of quantum corrections is
346: flawed by the non-renormalizable character of gravity, so the
347: arguments we present below are not rigorous.
348:
349: There are two qualitatively different type of corrections one can
350: think about. The first one is related to the quantum gravity
351: contribution. It is conceivable to think \cite{Linde:1987yb} that
352: these terms are proportional to the energy density of the field $\chi$
353: rather than its value and are of the order of magnitude $U(\chi)/M_P^4
354: \sim \lambda/\xi^2$.
355: They are small at large $\xi$ required by
356: observations. Moreover, adding non-renormalizable operators
357: $h^{4+2n}/M_P^{2n}$ to the Lagrangian (\ref{eq:1}) also does not
358: change the flatness of the potential in the inflationary region.\footnote{Actually, in
359: the Jordan frame, we expect that higher-dimensional operators are
360: suppressed by the effective Planck scale $M_P^2+\xi h^2$.}
361:
362: Other type of corrections is induced by the fields of the Standard
363: Model coupled to the Higgs field. In one loop approximation these
364: contributions have the structure
365: \begin{equation}
366: \Delta U \sim \frac{m^4(\chi)}{64\pi^2} \log\frac{m^2(\chi)}{\mu^2}~,
367: \label{1loop}
368: \end{equation}
369: where $m(\chi)$ is the mass of the particle (vector boson, fermion, or
370: the Higgs field itself) in the background of field $\chi$, and $\mu$ is
371: the normalization point. Note that the terms of the type $m^2(\chi)
372: M_P^2$
373: (related to quadratic divergences) do not appear in
374: scale-invariant subtraction schemes that are based, for example, on
375: dimensional regularisation (see a relevant discussion in
376: \cite{Shaposhnikov:2006xi,Meissner:2006zh,Shaposhnikov:2007nj,Meissner:2007xv}).
377: The masses of the SM fields can be readily computed
378: \cite{Salopek:1988qh} and have the form
379: \begin{equation}
380: m_{\psi,A}(\chi) = \frac{m(v)}{v}\frac{h(\chi)}{\Omega(\chi)}
381: \;,\quad
382: m^2_H(\chi) = \frac{d^2U}{d\chi^2}
383: \end{equation}
384: for fermions, vector bosons and
385: the Higgs (inflaton) field. It is crucial that for large $\chi$
386: these masses approach different constants (i.e.\ the one-loop contribution
387: is as flat as the tree potential) and that (\ref{1loop}) is suppressed
388: by the gauge or Yukawa couplings in comparison with the tree term. In
389: other words, one-loop radiative corrections do not spoil the flatness
390: of the potential as well. This argument is identical to the one given
391: in \cite{Salopek:1988qh}.
392:
393: Another important correction is connected with running of the
394: non-minimal coupling $\xi$ to gravity. The
395: corresponding renormalization group equation is \cite{Buchbinder1992,Yoon1997}
396: \begin{equation}\label{eq:xi}
397: \mu\frac{d\xi}{d\mu}=\left(\xi+\frac{1}{6}\right)\frac{\left(
398: 12\lambda+12y_t^2-\frac{9}{2}g^2-\frac{3}{2}{g'}^2
399: \right)}{16\pi^2}\;,
400: \end{equation}
401: where $y_t=m_t/v$ is the top Yukawa coupling, $g$ and $g'$ are SU(2)
402: and U(1)
403: couplings of the Standard Model and $\mu$ is the characteristic
404: scale. The renormalization of $\xi$ from $\mu\sim M_W$ to the Planck
405: scale is considerable, $\xi(M_P)\approx 2\xi(M_W)$. At the
406: same time, the change of $\xi$ in the inflationary region is small,
407: $\delta\xi/\xi\approx0.2$. Thus, the logarithmic running of $\xi$
408: does not change the behaviour of the potential required for inflation.
409:
410: There is also the induced one-loop pure gravitational term of the form
411: $\xi^2 R^2/64\pi^2$. During the inflationary epoch it is smaller
412: than the tree term $M_P^2R$ by the Higgs self-coupling $\lambda/64\pi^2$ and does not
413: change the conclusion.
414:
415:
416: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
417: \section{Conclusions}
418: \label{sec:concl}
419:
420: In this Letter we argued that inflation can be a natural consequence of
421: the Standard Model, rather than an indication of its weakness. The
422: price to pay is very modest---a non-minimal coupling of the Higgs
423: field to gravity. An interesting consequence of this hypothesis is
424: that the amplitude of scalar perturbations is proportional to the
425: square of the Higgs mass (at fixed $\xi$), revealing a non-trivial
426: connection between electroweak symmetry breaking and the structure of
427: the universe. The specific prediction of the inflationary parameters
428: (spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio) can distinguish it from
429: other models (based, e.g.\ on inflaton with quadratic potential),
430: provided these parameters are determined with better accuracy.
431:
432: The inflation mechanism we discussed has in fact a general character
433: and can be used in many extensions of the SM. Thus, the $\nu$MSM of
434: \cite{Asaka:2005an,Asaka:2005pn} (SM plus three light fermionic
435: singlets) can explain simultaneously neutrino masses, dark matter,
436: baryon asymmetry of the universe and inflation without introducing any
437: additional particles (the $\nu$MSM with the inflaton was considered in
438: \cite{Shaposhnikov:2006xi}). This provides an extra argument in favour
439: of absence of a new energy scale between the electroweak and Planck
440: scales, advocated in \cite{Shaposhnikov:2007nj}.
441:
442:
443: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
444: \section*{Acknowledgements}
445:
446: The authors thank S. Sibiryakov, V. Rubakov, I. Tkachev, O.
447: Ruchayskiy, H.D. Kim, P. Tinyakov, and A. Boyarsky for valuable
448: discussions. This work was supported by the Swiss National Science
449: Foundation.
450:
451:
452: %\bibliography{all,bookrefs}
453: %\bibliographystyle{h-elsevier3-s}
454: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
455:
456: \bibitem{Starobinsky:1979ty}
457: A.A. Starobinsky,
458: \newblock JETP Lett. 30 (1979) 682.
459: %%CITATION = JTPLA,30,682;%%
460:
461: \bibitem{Starobinsky:1980te}
462: A.A. Starobinsky,
463: \newblock Phys. Lett. B91 (1980) 99.
464: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B91,99;%%
465:
466: \bibitem{Mukhanov:1981xt}
467: V.F. Mukhanov and G.V. Chibisov,
468: \newblock JETP Lett. 33 (1981) 532.
469: %%CITATION = JTPLA,33,532;%%
470:
471: \bibitem{Guth:1980zm}
472: A.H. Guth,
473: \newblock Phys. Rev. D23 (1981) 347.
474: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D23,347;%%
475:
476: \bibitem{Linde:1981mu}
477: A.D. Linde,
478: \newblock Phys. Lett. B108 (1982) 389.
479: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B108,389;%%
480:
481: \bibitem{Albrecht:1982wi}
482: A. Albrecht and P.J. Steinhardt,
483: \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. 48 (1982) 1220.
484: %%CITATION = PRLTA,48,1220;%%
485:
486: \bibitem{Linde:1983gd}
487: A.D. Linde,
488: \newblock Phys. Lett. B129 (1983) 177.
489: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B129,177;%%
490:
491: \bibitem{Spergel:2006hy}
492: D.N. Spergel et~al.,
493: \newblock ApJS, 170, (2007) 377.
494: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH/0603449;%%
495:
496: \bibitem{Birrell:1982ix}
497: N.D. Birrell and P.C.W. Davies,
498: \newblock Quantum Fields in Curved Space (Cambridge, UK: Univ. Pr., 1982).
499:
500: \bibitem{Zee:1978wi}
501: A. Zee,
502: \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 (1979) 417.
503: %%CITATION = PRLTA,42,417;%%
504:
505: \bibitem{Smolin:1979uz}
506: L. Smolin,
507: \newblock Nucl. Phys. B160 (1979) 253.
508: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B160,253;%%
509:
510: \bibitem{Spokoiny:1984bd}
511: B.L. Spokoiny,
512: \newblock Phys. Lett. B147 (1984) 39.
513: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B147,39;%%
514:
515: \bibitem{Fakir:1990iu}
516: R. Fakir and W.G. Unruh,
517: \newblock Phys. Rev. D41 (1990) 1792.
518: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D41,1792;%%
519:
520: \bibitem{Salopek:1988qh}
521: D.S. Salopek, J.R. Bond and J.M. Bardeen,
522: \newblock Phys. Rev. D40 (1989) 1753.
523: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D40,1753;%%
524:
525: \bibitem{vanderBij:1993hx}
526: J.J. van~der Bij,
527: \newblock Acta Phys. Polon. B25 (1994) 827.
528: %%CITATION = APPOA,B25,827;%%
529:
530: \bibitem{CervantesCota:1995tz}
531: J.L. Cervantes-Cota and H. Dehnen,
532: \newblock Nucl. Phys. B442 (1995) 391.
533: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH/9505069;%%
534:
535: \bibitem{Bij1995}
536: J.J. van~der Bij,
537: \newblock Int.J.Phys. 1 (1995) 63.
538:
539: \bibitem{Kaiser:1994wj}
540: D.I. Kaiser,
541: \newblock Phys. Lett. B340 (1994) 23.
542: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH/9405029;%%
543:
544: \bibitem{Kaiser:1994vs}
545: D.I. Kaiser,
546: \newblock Phys. Rev. D52 (1995) 4295.
547: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH/9408044;%%
548:
549: \bibitem{Komatsu:1999mt}
550: E. Komatsu and T. Futamase,
551: \newblock Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 064029.
552: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH/9901127;%%
553:
554: \bibitem{:2005ema}
555: ALEPH,
556: \newblock Phys. Rept. 427 (2006) 257.
557: %%CITATION = HEP-EX/0509008;%%
558:
559: \bibitem{PDG2007}
560: Particle Data Group, W.M. Yao et~al.,
561: \newblock J. Phys. G33 (2006) 1,
562: \newblock and 2007 partial update for the 2008 edition.
563: %%CITATION = JPHGB,G33,1;%%
564:
565: \bibitem{Futamase:1987ua}
566: T. Futamase and K. Maeda,
567: \newblock Phys. Rev. D39 (1989) 399.
568: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D39,399;%%
569:
570: \bibitem{Fakir1990}
571: R. Fakir and W.G. Unruh,
572: \newblock Phys. Rev. D41 (1990) 1783.
573: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D41,1783;%%
574:
575: \bibitem{Libanov1998}
576: M.V. Libanov, V.A. Rubakov and P.G. Tinyakov,
577: \newblock Phys.Lett. B 442 (1998) 63.
578:
579: \bibitem{Makino1991}
580: N. Makino and M. Sasaki,
581: \newblock Prog. Theor. Phys. 86 (1991) 103.
582: %%CITATION = PTPKA,86,103;%%
583:
584: \bibitem{Fakir:1992cg}
585: R. Fakir, S. Habib and W. Unruh,
586: \newblock Astrophys. J. 394 (1992) 396.
587: %%CITATION = ASJOA,394,396;%%
588:
589: \bibitem{Lyth:1998xn}
590: D.H. Lyth and A. Riotto,
591: \newblock Phys. Rept. 314 (1999) 1.
592: %%CITATION = HEP-PH/9807278;%%
593:
594: \bibitem{Linde:1987yb}
595: A.D. Linde,
596: \newblock Phys. Lett. B202 (1988) 194.
597: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B202,194;%%
598:
599: \bibitem{Shaposhnikov:2006xi}
600: M. Shaposhnikov and I. Tkachev,
601: \newblock Phys. Lett. B639 (2006) 414.
602: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604236;%%
603:
604: \bibitem{Meissner:2006zh}
605: K.A. Meissner and H. Nicolai,
606: \newblock Phys. Lett. B648 (2007) 312.
607: %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0612165;%%
608:
609: \bibitem{Shaposhnikov:2007nj}
610: M. Shaposhnikov,
611: \newblock (2007), arXiv:0708.3550 [hep-th].
612: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0708.3550;%%
613:
614: \bibitem{Meissner:2007xv}
615: K.A. Meissner and H. Nicolai,
616: \newblock (2007), arXiv:0710.2840 [hep-th].
617: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0710.2840;%%
618:
619: \bibitem{Buchbinder1992}
620: I.L. Buchbinder, D.D. Odintsov and I.L. Shapiro,
621: \newblock Effective Action in Quantum Gravity (Bristol, UK: IOP, 1992).
622:
623: \bibitem{Yoon1997}
624: Y. Yoon and Y. Yoon,
625: \newblock Int.J.Mod.Phys. A 12 (1997) 2903.
626:
627: \bibitem{Asaka:2005an}
628: T. Asaka, S. Blanchet and M. Shaposhnikov,
629: \newblock Phys. Lett. B631 (2005) 151.
630: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503065;%%
631:
632: \bibitem{Asaka:2005pn}
633: T. Asaka and M. Shaposhnikov,
634: \newblock Phys. Lett. B620 (2005) 17.
635: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0505013;%%
636:
637: \end{thebibliography}
638:
639: \end{document}
640: %%% Local Variables:
641: %%% mode: latex
642: %%% TeX-master: t
643: %%% End:
644: