1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: %   Magnetic fields at preheating

3: %   B Bassett, G Pollifrone, S Tsujikawa, F Viniegra

4: %   28/10/00

5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6: \documentstyle[aps,epsf,eqsecnum]{revtex}

7: %\documentstyle[prl,aps,twocolumn,epsf,eqsecnum]{revtex}

8: %\documentstyle[prl,aps,epsf,rotate]{revtex}   % uses rotate.sty

9: %\documentstyle[prd,eqsecnum,aps]{revtex}

10: %\documentstyle[prl,aps,preprint,epsf]{revtex}

11: 

12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

13: % Command Definitions 

14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

15: 

16: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

17: \newcommand{\beqn}{\begin{eqnarray}}

18: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

19: \newcommand{\eeqn}{\end{eqnarray}}

20: \newcommand{\vp}{\varphi}

21: \newcommand{\dvp}{\delta\varphi}

22: \newcommand{\ts}{  \textstyle}

23: \newcommand{\rd}{\displaystyle{\cdot}}

24: \newcommand{\gsim}{\mbox{\raisebox{-1.ex}{$\stackrel

25:      {\textstyle>}{\textstyle\sim}$}}}

26: \newcommand{\lsim}{\mbox{\raisebox{-1.ex}{$\stackrel

27:      {\textstyle<}{\textstyle \sim}$}}}

28: \newcommand{\square}{\kern1pt\vbox{\hrule height

29: 1.2pt\hbox{\vrule width 1.2pt\hskip 3pt

30:    \vbox{\vskip 6pt}\hskip 3pt\vrule width 0.6pt}\hrule

31: height 0.6pt}\kern1pt}

32: \def\({\left(}

33: \def\){\right)}

34: \def\[{\left[}

35: \def\]{\right]}

36: \def\vpz{\varphi_{0}}

37: \def\p{\phi}

38: \def\P{\Phi}

39: \def\vp{\varphi}

40: \def\Dp{\delta\phi}

41: \def\pI{{\p^i}}

42: \def\pJ{{\p^j}}

43: \def\Qki{{Q_k^i}}

44: \def\Pk{{\P_k}}

45: \def\Pki{{\P_k^i}}

46: \def\Dpk{{\Dp_k}}

47: \def\Dpki{{\Dp_k^i}}

48: \def\t{\tilde}

49: \def\tsig{\tilde{\sigma}}

50: \def\tds{\delta\tilde{\sigma}_k}

51: \def\tPk{{\t{\P}_k}}

52: \def\tPki{{\t{\P}_k^i}}

53: \def\tDpk{{\t{\Dp}_k}}

54: \def\tDpki{\t{{\Dp}_k^i}}

55: \def\tphi{\t{\phi}}

56: \def\tchi{\t{\chi}}

57: \def\tQ{\t{Q}}

58: \def\tdp{\delta\t{\phi}}

59: \def\tdchi{\delta\t{\chi}}

60: \def\tdphi{\delta\t{\phi}}

61: \def\tQki{{\t{Q}_k^i}}

62: \def\tP{\t{\Phi}}

63: \def\tpI{{\t{\p}^i}}

64: \def\tpJ{{\t{\p}^j}}

65: \def\tvp{\tilde{\varphi}}

66: \def\tvpi{{\tvp^i}}

67: \def\tvpj{{\tvp^j}}

68: \def\tdvp{\delta\t{\varphi}}

69: \def\tQkp{ \tilde{Q}^{\varphi}_k}

70: \def\tQkc{ \tilde{Q}^{\chi}_k }

71: \def\ta{\tilde{A}}

72: \def\H{{\cal{H}}}

73: \def\N{{\cal{N}}}

74: \def\R{{\cal{R}}}

75: \def\V{{\cal{V}}}

76: \def\L{\lambda}

77: \def\k{\kappa}

78: \def\alp{\alpha}

79: \def\pri{^\mid{}}

80: \def\sec{\section}

81: \def\cb{{\cal B}_k}

82: 

83: 

84: \begin{document}

85: \draft

86: \twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname

87: @twocolumnfalse\endcsname

88: 

89: \title{\bf Preheating - cosmic magnetic dynamo ?}

90: 

91: \author{ 

92: Bruce A. Bassett,${}^{1}$ Giuseppe Pollifrone,${}^{2,3}$

93: Shinji Tsujikawa${}^{4}$ and Fermin Viniegra${}^{5}$}

94:  \address{${}^{1}$ 

95: Relativity and Cosmology Group, School of Computer Science and Mathematics, 

96: Portsmouth University, Portsmouth~PO1~2EG, England} 

97: \address{${}^{2}$ 

98: Astronomy Unit, School of Mathematical Sciences, Queen Mary,

99: University of London, London~E1~4NS, England} 

100: \address{${}^{3}$ 

101:  ABN AMRO Bank N.V.,  250 Bishopsgate

102: London, EC2M 4AA}

103: \address{${}^{4}$ Department of Physics, 

104: Waseda University, 3-4-1 Ohkubo, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan} 

105: \address{${}^{5}$ Department of Theoretical Physics, Oxford University, 

106: Oxford~OX1~3NP, England}

107: \date{\today}

108: \maketitle

109: \begin{abstract}

110: We study the amplification of large-scale magnetic fields during

111: preheating and inflation in several different models. Preheating can 

112: resonantly amplify  seed fields on cosmological scales. 

113: In the presence of conductivity, however,  the effect of resonance 

114: is typically weakened and the amplitude of produced magnetic fields 

115: depends sensitively on the evolution of conductivity 

116: during the preheating and thermalisation phases.

117: In addition we discuss geometric magnetisation,

118: where amplification of magnetic fields occurs through coupling to

119: curvature invariants. This can be efficient during inflation  

120: due to a negative coupling instability. 

121: Finally we discuss the breaking of the conformal flatness of the 

122: background metric whereby magnetic fields can be stimulated through the 

123: growth of scalar metric perturbations during metric preheating.

124: \end{abstract}

125: \pacs{98.80.Cq \hspace*{0.2cm}}

126: \centerline{PU-RCG-00/33, WUAP-00/27, astro-ph/0010628}

127: \vskip 1pc

128:  ]

129: 

130: 

131: 

132: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

133: \section{Introduction}

134: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

135: 

136: With the current dominance of the inflationary paradigm and  the

137: gravitational instability picture of structure formation seeded by quantum

138: fluctuations it is easy to forget earlier, competing,  models. In

139: particular, models of structure formation based on turbulence had the

140: advantage that they were able to make strong connections between galaxy

141: formation, galactic angular momentum and galactic magnetic fields

142: \cite{wass78}.

143: 

144: Inflation, by contrast, predicts essentially zero vorticity and

145: in its purest forms,\footnote{With no explicit terms or interactions

146: which break conformal invariance.} rather small magnetic fields.

147: The end of inflation may be very violent, with rapid particle

148: production -- a process known as preheating. During preheating, 

149: fluctuations of scalar and Gauge fields exhibit exponential growth by parametric resonance \cite{earlypre,KLS,on}. It has a host of potentially radical 

150: side-effects: 

151: Grand Unified Scale baryogenesis \cite{baryogenesis}, non-thermal symmetry 

152: restoration \cite{ntsr}, and topological defect formation \cite{defect}.  

153: Here we will discuss a side effect which may have persisted until the 

154: present day - the amplification and sculpting of primordial magnetic fields 

155: to the amplitudes seen today on cosmic scales.

156: 

157: Magnetic fields are known, partly via the Faraday rotation of light they

158: induce, to permeate many astro-physical systems including intra-cluster

159: gas, quasars, pulsars and spiral galaxies. The fields are large, with

160: magnitudes $\sim 3 \times 10^{-6}$ G on scales greater than $10$ kpc

161: \cite{review}. Such amplitudes present an ``inverse" fine-tuning problem 

162: as compared with the standard one 

163: in inflation\footnote{For example, for the

164: potential $V = \frac14 \lambda\phi^4$, CMB anisotropies in the absence of

165: preheating demand $\lambda \sim 10^{-13}$, a rather severe fine-tuning.}:

166: Since Maxwell's equations are conformally invariant and 

167: Friedmann-Lema$\hat{\i}$tre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) models are conformally

168: flat\footnote{i.e., The Weyl tensor, $C_{\alpha\beta\mu\nu}$, vanishes.}, the 

169: cosmic expansion does {\em not} create photons or 

170: magnetic fields.  The origin of 

171: these large amplitude fields, correlated on such large scales, is still 

172: generally regarded as an unsolved mystery, despite the proliferation of 

173: putative explanations \cite{parker,ZRS}.

174: 

175: The observed magnetic fields today have an energy density comparable to

176: that in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB): $r \equiv B^2/(8\pi

177: \rho_{\gamma}) \sim 1$ \cite{TW}. If we run the cosmic clock backwards

178: past a redshift of $z > 100$ where structure formation is strongly in the

179: linear regime, $r$ may have decreased to around $10^{-34}$ through the

180: combined effects of the galactic dynamo \cite{parker,ZRS} and collapse of

181: structure, which amplifies the magnetic field as $(\delta\rho/\rho)^{2/3}$

182: due to flux conservation. The galactic dynamo efficiently converts

183: differential rotation of spiral galaxies into magnetic field energy and

184: without it $r \sim 10^{-8}$ is required to seed the observed fields \cite{TW}.

185: 

186: The limit on a homogeneous magnetic field on horizon scales today is 

187: $~\lsim~10^{-9}$ G \cite{BFS}. In contrast, at decoupling a magnetic field at 

188: smaller scales would lead to dissipation of energy into the photon 

189: fluid and  lead to spectral distortions.  To avoid  conflict 

190: with COBE FIRAS results requires the field to be  less 

191: than $\sim 10^{-8}$ G today at scales $0.4 - 600$ kpc.

192: 

193: The time evolution of $r$ is typically believed to be

194: rather trivial: $r \sim$ constant. This is due to the high conductivity of

195: the universe through the matter and radiation dominated phases which

196: conserves magnetic flux and leads to the behaviour $B \sim a^{-2}$ and

197: $B^2/\rho_{\gamma} \sim $ constant. However, during preheating and

198: inflation, the low conductivity of the universe, due to the paucity of

199: charged particles, creates an environment in which $r$ can change freely.

200: 

201: The production of magnetic fields during inflation has been studied by

202: Turner and Widrow \cite{TW} and Davis {\em et al.} \cite{DDPT} and during 

203: phase transitions by several authors \cite{Vachaspati,EO,DD}.  In reheating 

204: their production via stochastic currents was investigated by Calzetta {\em et 

205: al.} \cite{calzetta}.  

206: 

207: In this paper we consider the mechanisms discussed by Turner and Widrow

208: \cite{TW} and show  how preheating may lead to resonant amplification

209: of magnetic fields \cite{FG}.

210: We also discuss a mechanism \cite{BGMK,maroto} based on the breaking of 

211: conformal flatness of the background geometry due to metric preheating 

212: rather than breaking of the conformal invariance of the Maxwell equations.  

213: Although they also lead to resonance, we do not consider the axion-like 

214: couplings $\phi F_{\mu\nu}^*F^{\mu\nu}$ since they have been considered in 

215: depth by a number of authors \cite{Car,Bru}.  We will also not describe 

216: resonant production of magnetic fields in low-energy string actions where 

217: conformal invariance is broken by the existence of the dilaton $\phi$.  

218: Such models have been discussed in 

219: \cite{ratra,dolgovanomaly,lemoine,gasperini}.

220: 

221: 

222: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

223: \section{Magnetic fields in curved spacetime}

224: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

225: 

226: Maxwell's equations arise from the Lagrangian density $-\ts{1\over 4}

227: F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}$, where $F_{\mu\nu} \equiv 2 

228: \nabla_{[\mu} A_{\nu]}$ is the Maxwell tensor, 

229: $A_{\mu}$ is the four-potential, $\nabla_{\mu}$ is

230: the curved space, covariant derivative, and square brackets on

231: indices denote anti-symmetrisation on those indices.

232: 

233: The Maxwell equations that arise are then:

234: \beq

235: \square A_{\mu} + R_{\mu\nu} A^{\nu}-

236: \nabla_{\mu} \nabla_{\nu}A^{\nu} = 0\,,

237: \label{maxeq}

238: \eeq

239: where $\square \equiv \nabla_{\mu} \nabla^{\mu} =

240: (1/\sqrt{-g})\partial_{\mu}(g^{\mu\nu}\sqrt{-g}\partial_{\nu})$ and 

241: $g \equiv {\rm det}(g_{\mu\nu})$. The Ricci tensor term arises through the

242: non-commutativity of covariant derivatives and application of the

243: contracted Ricci identities $2\nabla_{[\mu\nu]}A^{\nu} =

244: R_{\mu\nu}A^{\nu}$ \cite{ellis}.

245: 

246: The four-potential suffers from a gauge freedom which must be eliminated.

247: One may use either the covariant Lorentz gauge condition $\nabla^{\mu} A_{\mu}

248: = 0$ or the combined Coloumb/tri-dimensional/radiation  gauge  conditions

249: $A_0 = 0, \partial^i A_i = 0$.  In both cases the last term in Eq.  

250: (\ref{maxeq}) vanishes \footnote{If one explicitly breaks the $U(1)_{\rm EM}$ 

251: gauge invariance and conformal invariance by introducing a photon mass term 

252: $m^2 A_{\nu} A^{\nu}$ into the Lagrangian, then one recovers the Proca 

253: equation, and the gauge condition $\nabla^{\mu} A_{\mu} = 0$, becomes a 

254: true constraint equation.}.

255: 

256: Except for the last section we will use a flat FLRW spacetime 

257: as a background. 

258: The metric is then

259: \beq

260: ds^2 =  a^2(\eta)(-d\eta^2 + \delta_{ij}dx^i dx^j)\,,

261: \label{FLRW}

262: \eeq

263: where $\eta \equiv \int a^{-1}dt$ is conformal time, $a(\eta)$ is the scale

264: factor of the universe and $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta.

265: The traceless part of the Riemann tensor -- the Weyl tensor

266: $C_{\alpha\beta\mu\nu}$ -- defined by \cite{ellis}, 

267: \beq

268: C_{\alpha\beta\mu\nu} = R_{\alpha\beta\mu\nu}

269: -g_{\alpha[\mu} R_{\nu]\beta}+g_{\beta[\mu} R_{\nu]\alpha}

270: +\frac13 R g_{\alpha[\mu} g_{\nu]\beta}\,,

271: \label{weyl}

272: \eeq

273: vanishes in FLRW backgrounds which are therefore conformally flat. The

274: metric (\ref{FLRW}) is also conformally static.

275: 

276: Placing a {\em homogeneous} magnetic field in a FLRW background is not

277: consistent since the magnetic field picks out a preferred direction which

278: is not consistent with the maximal symmetry spatial subsections of the

279: FLRW models. Instead, the (anisotropic) Bianchi models provide an

280: appropriate background for the study of this problem

281: \cite{TM}.

282: 

283: Instead we will assume that the magnetic field produced will not be

284: coherent on very large scales. Such a possibility is already strongly

285: constrained by the CMB. Rather we will assume that the  power

286: spectrum, $B(k)$, of the magnetic field is statistically isotropic and

287: homogeneous, hence consistent with the symmetries of the background FLRW model.

288: One then finds, e.g., \cite{wass78}:

289: \beq

290: \langle B_i(k) B_j^*(k')\rangle = 4\pi^3

291: \delta^3({k}-{k'}) {P_{ij}(k)} |B(k)|^2\,,

292: \eeq

293: where, due to the ${\rm div} {\bf B} = 0$ constraint, $P_{ij}(k)$ must be the 

294: transverse projection tensor: 

295: \beq P_{ij}({k}) = \delta_{ij} - \frac{k_i 

296: k_j}{k^2}\,.  

297: \eeq 

298: Assuming the spectrum $B(k)$ is known, then constraints 

299: at small scales can be used to normalize the spectrum and lead to 

300: predictions on large scales.

301: 

302: The energy in the magnetic field in a logarithmic k-space 

303: interval $d\ln k$ is

304: \beq

305: \rho_{B}=\frac{d\rho_{B}}{d\ln k} = 

306: \frac{|B(k)|^2}{8\pi}\,. 

307: \label{energy}

308: \eeq 

309: The evolution of magnetic fields is usually described as 

310: $B(k) \propto a^{-2}$, which means that $\rho_B$ behaves as isotropic 

311: radiation.

312: 

313: 

314: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

315: \section{A simple but effective analytical model}\label{toy}

316: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

317: 

318: As we shall see, a most efficient and  elegant amplification mechanism

319: is to assume a complex scalar field, $\sigma$, charged under $U(1)$, in

320: addition to the inflaton. We will  assume that its potential,

321: $V(\sigma\sigma^*)$, is such

322: that during inflation it is displaced from its global minimum. 

323: This is relatively easy to arrange and occurs rather naturally

324: in hybrid models of inflation \cite{LR99} 

325: \footnote{For example, consider the archetypal 

326: potential \cite{DSS}

327: \begin{eqnarray}

328: V = \alpha^2\phi^2 \sigma^2 +

329: |\alpha\sigma\sigma^* - \mu^2|^2\,, \nonumber 

330: \end{eqnarray}

331: where $\alpha, \mu$ are constants. 

332: Inflation occurs at $\phi > \phi_{{\rm cr}} \equiv \mu/\alpha$ 

333: where the minimum of the potential is $\chi = \chi^* = 0$ and hence 

334: the effective mass of

335: the photon is zero and the $U(1)$ of electromagnetism is unbroken. For

336: $A_{\mu} = 0$ and $\phi < \phi_{{\rm cr}}$ the minimum of the potential now

337: corresponds to the globally SUSY vacuum at $\phi = 0$, $\chi = \chi^* =

338: \mu/\sqrt{\alpha}$.}.

339: 

340: One way to achieve the desired displacement from

341: the global minimum is to give $\sigma$ a negative effective mass during

342: inflation which drives it to  a non-zero vacuum expectation value (vev).

343: At the end of inflation the effective mass becomes positive and the field

344: begins coherent oscillations. This is a typical scenario for Affleck-Dine

345: baryogenesis \cite{Adine} where the coherent oscillations lead to 

346: the baryogenesis \footnote{A specific model is given by the following 

347: potential in the supersymmetric standard model (SSM) along a flat direction

348: \begin{eqnarray}

349: V = (m_{\sigma}^2 - c H^2)|\sigma|^2 + \left[\ts{\lambda(Am_{3/2} -

350: aH)\sigma^n\over M^{n-3}} + {\rm h.c.} \right] +

351: \ts{|\lambda|^2|\sigma|^{2n-6}\over M^{2n-6}}, \nonumber

352: \label{ssm}

353: \end{eqnarray}

354: where $m_{\sigma}$ is of order the weak scale, $m_{3/2}$ is the gravitino

355: mass and $n$ is proportional to the number of chiral superfields defining

356: the flat direction. During inflation the $c H^2$ term dominates and drives

357: $\sigma$ away from the origin. After inflation $\sigma$ oscillates

358: around the time-dependent minimum of the potential. The terms proportional

359: to $\lambda$ are soft-supersymmetry-breaking corrections responsible for

360: violating $B-L$ and giving rise to baryogenesis\cite{DRS}.}.

361: 

362: Giving $\sigma$ a non-zero vev during inflation

363: spontaneously breaks the $U(1)$ of electromagnetism and causes any

364: monopole--anti-monopole pairs to be connected by magnetic flux tubes.

365: These confining flux tubes facilitate the annihilation of monopoles. This,

366: the Langacker-Pi solution to the monopole problem, is an

367: independent benefit of breaking conformal invariance in this manner. Such

368: an additional weapon may be required to deal with monopoles produced by

369: non-thermal symmetry restoration  in preheating \cite{ntsr} or in models

370: of inflation which do not solve the monopole problem, such as canonical

371: $SU(5)$ where the inflaton is a gauge singlet \cite{KDL}.

372: 

373: We will not, however, proceed any further in building a detailed

374: phenomenology for $\sigma$ but will assume for pedagogical reasons, to

375: become clear later on, that around the

376: global minimum the potential is quartic and the field is conformally

377: coupled to the curvature. The Lagrangian for this scalar QED is:

378: \beqn

379: {\cal L}&=&\frac{R}{16\pi G}-D_\mu\sigma(D^\mu \sigma)^*

380: -\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} \nonumber\\

381: &-&\frac{\lambda_{\sigma}}{4} (\sigma\sigma^*)^2 - 

382: \frac{1}{12}R |\sigma|^2+{\cal L}_{{\rm inflaton}}\,.

383: \label{totallag}

384: \eeqn

385: The conformal coupling will simplify the evolution equation for $\sigma$

386: and reduce it to a form independent of $a$. The gauge covariant derivative

387: $D_{\mu} \equiv \nabla_{\mu} -

388: i e A_{\mu}$ leads to an effective mass for the photon 

389: $m_{\gamma}^2 =2e^2|\sigma|^2$ which oscillates in time as $\sigma$ oscillates. This leads

390: to parametric resonant amplification of $A_{\mu}$ analogous to studies in

391: Minkowski spacetime.

392: 

393: We work in the so-called unitarity gauge  in which $\sigma = \sigma^*$,

394: and decompose $\sigma$ into a homogeneous part and a fluctuation:

395: $\sigma(t, {\bf x})  \to \sigma(t)+\delta\sigma (t,{\bf x})$.

396: Now let $\sigma(t_i)$ be the initial amplitude of $\sigma$ oscillations.

397: We assume that the oscillations are independent of the inflaton, $\phi$,

398: and follow the notation of \cite{BV99} in denoting variables 

399: rescaled by the scale factor $a$ with a tilde; e.g.,

400:  $\tilde{\sigma} \equiv a \sigma$.

401: Then the equation for $\tsig(t)$ is 

402: \beq

403: \tsig'' + \lambda_{\sigma} \tsig^3  + 

404: e^2 a^2 \langle A^2 \rangle \tsig = 0,

405: \label{sigma}

406: \eeq

407: where a prime denotes the derivative with respect to the 

408: conformal time, $\eta$, and $\langle A^2 \rangle$ is the 

409: expectation value of  $A_{\mu}A^{\mu}$. 

410: The electromagnetic field vanishes in 

411: the background, and hence it is automatically gauge invariant in the 

412: perturbed spacetime.  Neglecting the last term in Eq.~(\ref{sigma}) for 

413: the moment and  introducing the dimensionless quantities

414: $x=\sqrt{\lambda_{\sigma}}\tilde{\sigma}(t_i) \eta$ and 

415: $f=\tilde{\sigma}(t)/\tilde{\sigma}(t_i)$, we find \beq 

416: \frac{d^2f}{dx^2}+f^3=0.

417: \label{f}

418: \eeq

419: The solution for this equation can be written as an elliptic cosine,

420: $f={\rm cn}(x, 1/\sqrt{2})$, 

421: which yields \cite{GKLS97,dk2} 

422: \beq \tilde{\sigma} = \tilde{\sigma}(t_i) {\rm cn}\left(x, 

423: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \right)\,.

424: \label{cn}

425: \eeq

426: The Fourier modes of $\tilde{\sigma}$ fluctuations satisfy

427: the following equation:

428: \beq

429: \frac{d^2}{dx^2} \delta \tilde{\sigma}_k + 

430: \left[\kappa^2 + 3 {\rm cn}^2 \left(x, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \right)

431: \right] \delta \tilde{\sigma}_k = 0\,,

432: \label{delsig}

433: \eeq

434: where $\kappa^2=k^2/(\lambda_{\sigma} \tilde{\sigma}^2(t_i))$.

435: 

436: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% added 1/2/1

437: \subsection{Parametric amplification of magnetic fields} 

438: 

439: Variations of the Lagrangian (\ref{totallag}) with respect to $A_{\mu}$

440: leads to the following equation,

441: \beq

442: \nabla_{\mu} F^{\mu\nu}=-j^{\nu}+2e^2A^{\nu}|\sigma|^2,

443: \label{maxwell2}

444: \eeq

445: where the current $j^{\nu}$ is defined by 

446: $j^{\nu}=ie(\sigma \nabla^{\nu}\sigma^{*}-\sigma^{*} \nabla^{\nu}\sigma)$, 

447: and vanishes when $\sigma=\sigma^*$.  Adopting the Coulomb or radiation 

448: gauge conditions, $A_0 = 0, \partial^i A_i = 0$, Fourier modes of $A_i$ 

449: satisfy \cite{TW,FG} 

450: \beq 

451: A_{k}'' + (k^2 + 2e^2a^2\sigma^2)A_{k}=0.

452: \label{amu}

453: \eeq

454: Substituting the solution (\ref{cn}) for  (\ref{amu}), we find

455: \beq

456: \frac{d^2}{dx^2}A_{k}+\left[\kappa^2 + \frac{2e^2}{\lambda_{\sigma}} 

457: {\rm cn}^2 \left(x, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right) \right] A_{k}=0\,.

458: \label{amu2}

459: \eeq

460: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

461: \begin{figure}

462: \epsfxsize = 3.0in

463: \epsffile{ferminfi.eps}

464: \caption{Density plot of the Floquet chart for the 

465: generalized Lam\'e equation (\ref{amu2}) 

466: for $0 \leq 2e^2/\lambda_{\sigma} \leq 22$ and $\kappa^2\leq 3$.

467: The shaded regions correspond to parameter ranges where parametric 

468: amplification of magnetic fields can be expected, $\mu_k > 0$.  

469: The Floquet index, $\mu_k$, takes larger values in the 

470: darker shaded regions, and reaches its maxima  for 

471: $2e^2/\lambda_{\sigma}=2n^2$ at $\kappa^2=0$.

472: } 

473: \label{ferminfi}

474: \end{figure}

475: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

476: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

477: \begin{figure}

478: \epsfxsize = 3.0in

479: \epsffile{lame3dlabel.eps}

480: \caption{Three-dimensional plot of the Floquet chart for the 

481: generalized Lam\'e equation (\ref{amu2}) 

482: for $0 \leq 2e^2/\lambda_{\sigma} \leq 25$ and $\kappa^2\leq 3$. 

483: } 

484: \label{lame3d}

485: \end{figure}

486: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

487: The whole system reduces to a problem in Minkowski spacetime 

488: and hence can be solved exactly using the Floquet theory. 

489: In fact Eqs.~(\ref{delsig}) and (\ref{amu2}) are the Lam\'e and generalized 

490: Lam\'e equations respectively.  This elegant exact solution 

491: is unstable to perturbations 

492: which introduce a length scale into the problem 

493: (such as giving $\sigma$ a mass) but the 

494: existence of the parametric resonance is stable.

495: 

496: The solutions of these equations behave as $\sim e^{\mu_k x}$ where $\mu_k$ is

497: the Floquet index, which controls the strength of the exponential growth.

498: As for the solutions of the $\delta\sigma_k$ fluctuation, 

499: Eq.~(\ref{delsig}), there is only a single resonance band \cite{on}, 

500: constrained to lie in the narrow, 

501: sub-Hubble range \cite{GKLS97,dk2,lame}, 

502: \beq 

503: \frac32<\kappa^2<\sqrt{3},

504: \label{deltasig}

505: \eeq

506: with a small maximum growth rate, 

507: $\mu_{\rm max} \approx 0.03598$ at $\kappa^2 \approx 1.615$.

508: In the absence of the $\sigma$ decay to the magnetic field, 

509: resonance ends before the energy of the homogeneous $\sigma$ is 

510: sufficiently transferred to the $\sigma$ fluctuation, in which case 

511: the final variance is estimated as

512:  $\langle\delta\sigma^2\rangle \approx 0.05\sigma^2$.

513: 

514: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

515: \begin{figure}

516: \epsfxsize = 3.5in

517: \epsffile{backreaction.eps}

518: \caption{The evolution of the variance $\langle A^2 \rangle=

519: \langle A_{\mu}A^{\mu} \rangle$ and $\langle \delta \sigma^2 \rangle$ 

520: for $2e^2/\lambda_{\sigma}=5000$ 

521: in the Hartree approximation at zero conductivity, 

522: c.f. Fig.~\ref{backnew}.

523: In this case fluctuations of the magnetic field are dominated

524: by sub-Hubble modes, and the growth of $\langle A^2 \rangle$

525: stops by backreaction effects. Note that $\langle \delta \sigma^2 \rangle$ 

526: is also amplified with smaller growth rate relative to that of 

527: $\langle A^2 \rangle$.}

528: \label{backreaction}

529: \end{figure}

530: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

531: 

532: 

533: In contrast the magnetic fluctuations can exhibit strong amplifications,

534: whose strength depends on the ratio, $2e^2/\lambda_{\sigma}$.

535: According to the analytic investigation in Ref.~\cite{GKLS97}, 

536: the strongest resonance occurs at $\kappa^2=0$ with 

537: $\mu_{\rm max}=0.2377$ when the 

538: parameter $2e^2/\lambda_{\sigma}$ equals 

539: \beq 

540: 2e^2/\lambda_{\sigma}=2n^2\,,

541: \label{strongest}

542: \eeq

543: where $n$ is an integer. Fluctuations with low momenta

544: ($\kappa \to 0$) are enhanced in the parameter range,

545: \beq

546: n(2n-1)<2e^2/\lambda_{\sigma}<n(2n+1)\,,

547: \label{strong}

548: \eeq

549: in which case $\mu_k$ is typically large and strong resonance 

550: can be expected. 

551: This is found in Fig.~\ref{ferminfi} where we show a density chart of 

552: the Floquet index vs $\kappa^2$ and $2e^2/\lambda_{\sigma}$. 

553: 

554: When $2e^{2}/\lambda_\sigma \sim {\cal O}(1)$ the magnetic

555: field is not suppressed on super-Hubble scales

556: during inflation \cite{BV99,FB,TBV,ZBS}.  

557: Since the resonance bands (where 

558: $\mu_k > 0$) stretch down to include arbitrarily small $k/aH$ in the 

559: parameter  regions given by (\ref{strong}), 

560: this allows the resonant production of large-scale, 

561: coherent, magnetic fields during preheating without violation of causality 

562: \cite{BKM,BTKM} for the case of $1<2e^2/\lambda_{\sigma}<3$ and 

563: $6<2e^2/\lambda_{\sigma}<10$.

564: 

565: In Fig.~\ref{backnew} we plot the evolution of $A_k$

566: for $2e^2/\lambda_{\sigma}=2$ and  a super-Hubble 

567: mode $\kappa=10^{-25}$. We find that $A_k$ is amplified about  

568: $10^9$ times by parametric resonance, in which case 

569: the resultant cosmological magnetic field is large.

570: However, as we discuss in the next subsection, the growth of conductivity

571: during preheating and thermalisation counteracts this resonant growth, 

572: and can overwhelm it completely.

573: 

574: For large $2e^{2}/\lambda_\sigma (\gg 1)$, the inflationary suppression is 

575: strong \cite{supp}, which makes the large-scale magnetic fields 

576: negligibly small even if they are amplified by parametric resonance.

577: This is actually preferable since development of a strong, coherent

578: magnetic field on cosmological scales would destroy the isotropy of the

579: background geometry set-up during inflation.

580: The magnetic spectrum is blue and steep ($\propto k^{3}$) so that 

581: the variance is dominated by sub-Hubble modes.

582: 

583: Since the magnetic field modes are growing exponentially, 

584: backreaction effects become important after the fluctuations 

585: are sufficiently amplified.  

586: Taking this into account via the one-loop Hartree approximation, 

587: Eq.~(\ref{sigma}) is modified to

588: \beq 

589: \tsig'' + \lambda_{\sigma} (\tsig^2 + 

590: 3\langle \delta\tilde{\sigma}^2 \rangle)\tilde{\sigma}+ 

591: e^2 a^2 \langle A^2 \rangle \tsig = 0.

592: \label{sigma2}

593: \eeq

594: As long as the ratio $2e^2/\lambda_{\sigma}$ lies in the range of 

595: Eq.~(\ref{strong}), the growth rate of $A^i_k$ is typically larger than 

596: that of 

597: the $\delta\sigma_k$ fluctuation.\footnote{Note that in the limit of 

598: $2e^2/\lambda_{\sigma} \to \infty$, the maximal $\mu_k$ asymptotically 

599: approaches the value $0.2377$ for arbitrary $2e^2/\lambda_{\sigma}$ 

600: \cite{GKLS97}.} This makes to stop the growth of the magnetic field modes 

601: earlier by backreaction effects when the term $e^2 a^2\langle A^2 

602: \rangle \tsig$ in Eq.~(\ref{sigma2}) is comparable to the $\lambda_{\sigma} 

603: \tilde{\sigma}^3$ term, which yields

604: \beq 

605: \langle A^2 \rangle \approx \sigma^2/(e^2/\lambda_{\sigma}).

606: \label{fvariance}

607: \eeq

608: This relation indicates that the final variance is suppressed with 

609: $2e^2/\lambda_{\sigma}$ being increased, which is similar to the standard 

610: picture of preheating. 

611: In actual numerical simulations based on the Hartree approximation, 

612: the final variance typically takes larger values than estimated 

613: by Eq.~(\ref{fvariance}).  The backreaction effect due to the growth of 

614: magnetic fluctuations do not completely violate the $\sigma$ oscillations 

615: \cite{BV99}, which can lead to the amplification of the $\sigma$ 

616: fluctuations even after magnetic fluctuations are sufficiently amplified.  

617: This behaviour is found in Fig.~\ref{backreaction} where we plot the 

618: evolution of fluctuations for the case of $2e^2/\lambda_{\sigma}=5000$.

619: 

620: 

621: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

622: \subsection{The growth of conductivity, $\sigma_c$} 

623: 

624: The above analysis assumed that the conductivity $\sigma_c$ 

625: of the universe vanished

626: during inflation and preheating. This is almost certainly incorrect \cite{GS}

627: but accurate modelling of the growth of conductivity is difficult for two 

628: reasons:

629: 

630: (1) such calculations depend sensitively on the underlying 

631: theory in which the inflaton is embedded, and 

632: 

633: (2) to estimate the growth of conductivity $\sigma_c$ requires 

634: non-perturbative, non-equilibrium quantum field theory techniques, hence is

635: extremely difficult. 

636: 

637: (3) Accurate estimates of the final magnetic field requires 

638: the conductivity in three phases - during inflation, during 

639: the initial resonance phase and during thermalisation, each of which is 

640: dominated by different physics. 

641: 

642: The growth of $\sigma_c$ in the QED case has been studied in detail \cite{BDS}.

643: Since this is not appropriate for energies near the GUT scale we can only 

644: draw broad lessons: the conductivity grows exponentially

645: but is also spatially inhomogeneous. 

646: 

647: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

648: \begin{figure}

649: \epsfxsize = 3.2in

650: \epsffile{backnew.eps}

651: \caption{The growth of $A_k$ in the case of 

652: $2e^2/\lambda_{\sigma}=2$ for the mode $\kappa=10^{-25}$.

653: In the absence of conductivity ($\sigma_c = 0$)

654: the large-scale magnetic field fluctuations are strongly amplified due 

655: to the oscillating $\sigma$ field. As the rapidity of the growth of 

656: the conductivity increases (increasing $c$) the resonant growth of $A_k$

657: is increasingly stalled. For large conductivity (not shown)  

658: $\sigma_c \rightarrow \infty$ the electric field vanishes 

659: and the magnetic field becomes frozen, $B_k \propto

660: a^{-2}$. }

661: \label{backnew}

662: \end{figure}

663: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

664: 

665: This is related to the fact that while the plasma is on average charge neutral,

666: there will be fluctuations in the charge density which act as stochastic 

667: sources of magnetic fields; see \cite{calzetta}. Given the problems described 

668: above we take a phenomenological approach to the growth of conductivity. 

669: 

670: Since we are interested in large scales we neglect the spatial variation 

671: of  $\sigma_c$ and model its growth as:

672: \begin{equation} 

673: \sigma_c =  \sigma_f \tanh[c (x-x_0)],

674: \label{conductivity}

675: \end{equation} 

676: where $\sigma_f$ is the final value of conductivity, 

677: and $c$ controls  the growth rate of $\sigma_c$, $x$ is the dimensionless

678: conformal time and $x_0$ is the onset of preheating. We therefore assume

679: that $\sigma_c = 0$ during inflation. As noted in \cite{GS} if 

680: $\sigma_c > e^2 \sigma^2$ at the onset of preheating then the resonance 

681: in $A_k$ never begins. 

682: 

683: $\sigma_f$ and $c$ determine the strength of conductivity.

684: Fig.~\ref{backnew} shows the evolution of a cosmological $A_k$ mode 

685: for three pairs $(\sigma_f, c)$. The value $\tilde{\sigma}_f \equiv

686: \sigma_f/(\sqrt{\lambda_{\sigma}}\sigma(t_i))=1$ is used, where

687: $\sigma(t_i)$ is the value of the $\sigma$ field at the beginning 

688: of its oscillations.

689: 

690: 

691: The four-potential in the finite-$\sigma_c$ case obeys the equation:

692: \begin{eqnarray} 

693: A_k''  + (k^2+2e^2a^2\sigma^2) A_k =-\sigma_c a A_k',

694: \label{acond}

695: \end{eqnarray} 

696: which shows how the conductivity acts to damp the resonance when we neglect

697: the spatial dependence of $\sigma_c$. Fig.~\ref{backnew} shows how the

698: the preheating resonance competes with the damping due to conductivity. 

699: If the growth of $\sigma_c$ is too rapid (large $c$) the resonant growth 

700: of $A_k$ is stalled. However, for relatively slow growth of $\sigma_c$ 

701: (roughly more than 10 $\sigma$ oscillations) $A_k$ can grow almost to its 

702: $\sigma_c = 0$ maximum. 

703: 

704: Once backreaction causes the resonance to end there is nothing to 

705: compensate the damping effects of the finite conductivity and $A_k$ begins 

706: to decay exponentially.  In the limit $\sigma_c \rightarrow 

707: \infty$ the solution of Eq.~(\ref{acond}) is obviously 

708: $A_k = {\rm constant}$, which corresponds to 

709: $B_k \propto a^{-2}$, the ratio of  magnetic field  energy density to 

710: incoherent radiation energy density is fixed. 

711: 

712: To estimate $r$ at the start of the radiation dominated phase is therefore 

713: a subtle issue because one must know, not only the growth of conductivity

714: during the initial preheating phase, but also how the conductivity 

715: grows during thermalisation and how $\sigma$ decays by Born process to 

716: complete reheating.  If the conductivity is high during preheating, the 

717: magnetic fields will exhibit exponential suppression during which 

718: $\sigma_c$ increases from zero to the final value, $\sigma_f$, which means 

719: that the gains of preheating will be washed out and lost.

720: 

721: When the conductivity term is much smaller than the $2e^2a^2\sigma^2 A_k$ 

722: term in Eq.~(\ref{acond}) during preheating, the evolution of magnetic fields

723: is the same as the case of the non-conductivity in preheating phase.

724: However when the rhs of Eq.~(\ref{acond}) becomes of order the

725: $2e^2a^2\sigma^2 A_k$ term after preheating, the magnetic field begins to be 

726: exponentially suppressed.  

727: 

728: Although the $A_k$ freeze when the lhs of 

729: Eq.~(\ref{acond}) becomes negligible relative to the conductivity term,

730: the gains obtained in preheating are not generally preserved due to 

731: the rapid decay of magnetic fields before the freeze of $A_k$. 

732: However, the Born decay of $\sigma$ before thermalisation can alter

733: the strength of the $2e^2a^2\sigma^2 A_k$ term, which may alter the above 

734: estimates.  In addition to this, we need to know the evolution of 

735: conductivity during thermalization for a complete study, although it is 

736: difficult and few studies of thermalization after preheating exist;

737: see e.g. \cite{son}.

738: 

739: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

740: \begin{figure}

741: \epsfxsize = 3.2in

742: \epsffile{conductivity.eps}

743: \caption{The maximum variance $\langle A^2 \rangle$ as a function of 

744: the conductivity parameters $c$ and $\tilde{\sigma}_f$ appearing in Eq. 

745: (\ref{conductivity}). As $c$ and $\tilde{\sigma}_f$ increase the period 

746: and degree to which preheating can amplify  $\langle A^2 \rangle$ decreases

747: rapidly.}

748: \label{conductfig}

749: \end{figure}

750: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

751: 

752: 

753: In conclusion, in the absence of conductivity,

754: either the magnetic field is resonantly amplified on super-Hubble scales, 

755: or it has a $k^3$ spectrum and is too small on cosmological scales.

756: 

757: When conductivity is included one introduces several model-dependent 

758: parameters into the problem which  impact on the viability of 

759: preheating as a significant source of magnetic fields. 

760: The effect of resonance is typically washed out by the growth of 

761: conductivity, while the final size of magnetic 

762: fields depends on details of the 

763: Born decay process and the evolution of conductivity after preheating.

764: To answer which case applies is model-dependent and beyond the scope of the 

765: current paper.

766: 

767: 

768: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

769: \section{Geometric magnetisation}

770: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

771: 

772: Turner and Widrow \cite{TW} found that the most efficient way to produce 

773: magnetic fields is to break $U(1)$ gauge invariance as well as conformal 

774: invariance, via the Lagrangian: 

775: \begin{eqnarray} 

776: {\cal L} &=& \frac{R}{16\pi G} - \frac{1}{4} F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}

777: -\frac{\beta}{2} R A_{\mu} A^{\mu} \nonumber\\

778:  &-& \frac{\gamma}{2} R_{\mu \nu} A^{\mu} A^{\nu} 

779:  + {\cal L}_{{\rm inflaton}},

780:  \label{laggeometric}

781: \end{eqnarray} 

782: where $\beta, \gamma$ are real constants.  These terms were 

783: found to give rise, for apparently reasonable values of the constants, 

784: during inflation, to fields corresponding to the required 

785: value $r \sim 10^{-8}$ today \cite{TW}.

786: Variation of the action (\ref{laggeometric}) with respect to

787: $A^{\mu}$ and $F^{\mu \nu}$ yield the following equations of motion:

788: \begin{eqnarray} 

789: \nabla^{\mu}F_{\mu \nu}-\beta RA_{\nu}-\gamma R^{\mu}_{\nu}

790: A_{\mu}=0,

791: \label{max1}

792: \end{eqnarray} 

793: \begin{eqnarray} 

794: \partial_{\mu}F_{\nu \lambda}+\partial_{\lambda}F_{\mu \nu}

795: +\partial_{\nu}F_{\lambda \mu}=0.

796: \label{max2}

797: \end{eqnarray} 

798: Writing these equations in terms of magnetic and electric fields 

799: and eliminating the electric field, we obtain \cite{TW}

800: \begin{eqnarray} 

801: (a^2 {\bf B})''-\nabla^2 (a^2{\bf B})+\theta(\eta) a^2{\bf B}=0,

802: \label{geobasic1}

803: \end{eqnarray} 

804: with 

805: \begin{eqnarray} 

806: \theta(\eta)=6\beta \frac{a''}{a}+\gamma \left\{\frac{a''}{a}+ 

807: \left(\frac{a'}{a}\right)^2 \right\}.

808: \label{theta}

809: \end{eqnarray} 

810: Expanding the magnetic field in Fourier components as

811: $a^2{\bf B}=\int e^{-i{\bf k}\cdot{\bf x}}\cb~d^3{\bf k}$, each 

812: mode satisfies the 

813: following equation,

814: \begin{eqnarray} 

815: \cb''+\left[k^2+\theta(\eta)\right]\cb=0.

816: \label{Feq}

817: \end{eqnarray} 

818: Hereafter we set $\gamma=0$ and leave $\beta$ 

819: as a free parameter, in which case $\theta$ reduces to

820: $\theta=6\beta a''/a=6\beta a^2 R$.

821: When the system is dominated by the inflaton field, $\phi$,

822: the scalar curvature is:

823: \begin{eqnarray} 

824: R=\frac{8\pi}{m_{\rm pl}^2}

825:  \left[4V(\phi)- \frac{\phi'^2}{a^2} \right],

826: \label{curvature}

827: \end{eqnarray} 

828: where $V(\phi)$ is the inflaton potential.

829: During inflation $R$ slowly decreases.  

830: When $\beta$ is negative, the magnetic field 

831: fluctuations exhibit super-adiabatic amplification due to the so-called

832: negative coupling instability, as studied in the non-minimally coupled 

833: case in Refs.~\cite{SH,TY}. This enhancement is most relevant during 

834: inflation. 

835: 

836: \subsection{Magnetic amplification during inflation}

837: 

838: Let us study the evolution of magnetic fluctuations during inflation.

839: When $\gamma=0$, the solutions for Eq.~(\ref{Feq}) are 

840: expressed as combinations of the Hankel

841: functions $H_{\nu}^{(J)}$ ($J=1, 2$) \cite{SH}:

842: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

843: \begin{eqnarray}

844: \cb=c_1 \sqrt{\eta} H_{\nu}^{(2)}

845: (k \eta) +c_2 \sqrt{\eta} H_{\nu}^{(1)}(k \eta),

846: \label{analyticFk}

847: \end{eqnarray}

848: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

849: where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are constants, and the order $\nu$ of

850: the Hankel functions is given by 

851: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

852: \begin{eqnarray}

853: \nu^2=\frac14 -12\beta.

854: \label{nu}

855: \end{eqnarray}

856: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

857: The choice of $c_1=\sqrt{\pi}/2$ and $c_2=0$ corresponds to

858: the Bunch-Davies vacuum.

859: In the long wavelength limit, $k\eta \to 0$, 

860: $H_{\nu}^{(2,1)}(k\eta)$ approaches the values

861: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

862: \begin{eqnarray}

863: H_{\nu}^{(2,1)}(k\eta) \to \pm \frac{i}{\pi} \Gamma(\nu)

864: \left(\frac{k\eta}{2}\right)^{-\nu}, 

865: \label{longlimit}

866: \end{eqnarray}

867: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

868: where $\Gamma(\nu)$ is the Gamma function.

869: In inflation, conformal time can approximately be

870: written as $\eta \approx -1/(aH)$, and  

871: long wave $\cb$ modes exhibit exponential growth, 

872: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

873: \begin{eqnarray}

874: \cb \propto a^{\nu- 1/2}=a^{\frac12(\sqrt{1-48\beta}-1)},

875: \label{Fkgrowth}

876: \end{eqnarray}

877: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

878: for negative values of $\beta$.

879: In this case the energy density in the $k$-th mode of the magnetic 

880: field evolves as

881: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

882: \begin{eqnarray}

883: \rho_B \propto |\cb|^2/a^4=a^{\sqrt{1-48\beta}-5},

884: \label{rhob}

885: \end{eqnarray}

886: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

887: which means that the ratio, $r=\rho_B/\rho_{\gamma}$, {\em increases} during 

888: inflation when $\beta<0$.

889: This makes it possible to reach the value $r \sim 10^{-8}$

890: required to explain the existence of current galactic magnetic

891: fields \cite{TW}.

892: 

893: Large negative values of $\beta$ lead to extremely strong amplification 

894: of magnetic fields.  When $\beta=-1/6$, 

895: $\cb \propto a$ and $\rho_B \propto a^{-2}$, which 

896: corresponds to the minimally coupled scalar field case.

897: Compared with the standard adiabatic result, $\rho_B 

898: \propto a^{-4}$ with $\beta=0$, the energy density decreases

899: more slowly due to superadiabatic amplification.

900: 

901: For $\beta ~<~1$, super-Hubble magnetic fluctuations 

902: exhibit enormous amplification during inflation, i,e., 

903: $r=\rho_B/\rho_{\gamma} \propto a^c$ with $c \ge 6$, 

904: which conflicts with  observations unless their initial values at the start

905: of inflation were extraordinarily small. 

906: 

907: When $\beta$ is positive, magnetic fields are exponentially 

908: suppressed during inflation.

909: For $0<\beta<1/48$, which corresponds to $0<\nu<1/2$,

910: $\cb$ and $\rho_B$ evolve as

911: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

912: \begin{eqnarray}

913: \cb \propto a^{-\frac12(\sqrt{1-48\beta}-1)},~~~~

914: \rho_B \propto a^{-\sqrt{1-48\beta}-3}.

915: \label{positive1}

916: \end{eqnarray}

917: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

918: When $\beta>1/48$ (i.e., complex $\nu$), we find 

919: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

920: \begin{eqnarray}

921: \cb \propto a^{-1/2},~~~~

922: \rho_B \propto a^{-5},

923: \label{positive2}

924: \end{eqnarray}

925: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

926: in which case the evolution of magnetic fields is independent of 

927: the strength of $\beta$.

928: 

929: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

930: \begin{figure}

931: \epsfxsize = 3.5in

932: \epsffile{geometric.eps}

933: \caption{The evolution of a super-Hubble $\cb$ mode during inflation 

934: and preheating for $\beta=0, -0.01, 10$ in the massive chaotic inflationary 

935: model.  We choose the initial value of inflaton as $\phi=3m_{\rm pl}$,

936: which corresponds to 60 e-foldings before the end of inflation.

937: The inflationary period continues until $mt \sim 20$, after which 

938: the system enters the reheating stage.  While $\cb$ is exponentially 

939: suppressed during inflation for positive $\beta$, negative $\beta$

940: leads to superadiabatic amplification.} 

941: \label{geometric}

942: \end{figure}

943: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

944: 

945: We plot in Fig.~\ref{geometric} the evolution of a super-Hubble $\cb$ mode

946: for $\beta=0, -0.01, 10$ for the inflaton potential,

947: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

948: \begin{eqnarray}

949: V(\phi)=\frac12 m^2\phi^2.

950: \label{geopotential}

951: \end{eqnarray}

952: %%%%%%%%%%%%% 

953: When $\beta=0$, $\cb$ 

954: is constant (i.e., $B_k \propto a^{-2}$) from Eq.~(\ref{positive1}),  

955: as is confirmed in Fig.~\ref{geometric}.  For negative $\beta$, $\cb$ exhibits 

956: an exponential increase as estimated by Eq.~(\ref{Fkgrowth}).  An important 

957: point to note is that the rapid growth of magnetic fields may 

958: affect the evolution of background quantities, an effect we do not include.  

959: 

960: In Ref.~\cite{TY}, it was found 

961: that exponential growth of scalar field fluctuations makes the inflationary 

962: period terminate earlier, in the context of a non-minimally coupled scalar 

963: field.  Exponential growth of large scale magnetic fields will also 

964: stimulate the enhancement of super-Hubble metric perturbations, which may 

965: lead to deviations from the scale-invariant Harrison-Zel'dovich spectra.  

966: This is expected to be strong for $\beta~\lsim~-1$ in the analogy of the 

967: non-minimally coupled scalar field case \cite{TY}.  Complete analysis 

968: including backreaction and metric perturbations is now in progress.

969: 

970: \subsection{The preheating phase}

971: 

972: The inflationary period corresponds to $0<mt~\lsim~20$ in 

973: Fig.~\ref{geometric}, after which time the system enters the reheating stage.  

974: During reheating, 

975: the scale factor evolves as $a \propto t^{2/3} \propto \eta^2$ in the 

976: massive inflaton potential (\ref{geopotential}).  From 

977: Eqs.~(\ref{analyticFk}) and 

978: (\ref{longlimit}), we have that $\cb \propto 

979: a^{\frac14(1+\sqrt{1-48\beta})}$ and $\rho_B \propto 

980: a^{\frac12(\sqrt{1-48\beta}-7)}$ for negative $\beta$ in the long-wave 

981: limit $k\eta \to 0$.  Similarly $\cb \propto a^{1/4}$ and 

982: $\rho_B \propto a^{-7/2}$ when $\beta>1/48$.  However, 

983: this corresponds to an estimate of the frequency $\theta 

984: \propto \eta^{-2} \propto t^{-2/3}$, which only provides information about 

985: the average amplitude of the scalar curvature.

986: 

987: In actual fact the scalar curvature oscillates due to the oscillating inflaton 

988: condensate, which can lead to efficient enhancement of field fluctuations 

989: \cite{BL98,TMT,TB00}.  We find in Fig.~\ref{geometric} that $\cb$ begins to 

990: grow for $mt~\gsim~20$ in the case of $\beta=10$ in spite of the 

991: inflationary suppression.  This is the geometric preheating stage where 

992: $\cb$ grows quasi-exponentially, in which case the above naive estimate 

993: neglecting the oscillations of the scalar curvature can not be applied.  In 

994: the non-minimally coupled multi-field case, the growth of scalar field 

995: fluctuations during preheating is only relevant for $|\xi|~\gsim~1$ 

996: \cite{BL98,TMT}.

997: 

998: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

999: \begin{figure}

1000: \epsfxsize = 1in

1001: \caption{{\bf See associated JPEG image}. 

1002: The time-averaged Floquet chart for the geometric magnetisation 

1003: mechanism during preheating. Since the problem 

1004: is {\em not} scalar-factor independent, exact 

1005: Floquet theory cannot be used - the expansion causes the weakening 

1006: of the resonance bands but also removes the stability bands so that all 

1007: modes are amplified for sufficiently large $\beta$. It is clear that as $\beta$

1008: is increased, the super-Hubble modes $\kappa \ll 1$ are the ones that grow 

1009: first. The negative coupling case $\beta < 0$, which is much stronger, is not

1010: shown.}

1011: \label{geomfloquet}

1012: \end{figure}

1013: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1014: 

1015: 

1016: Let us analytically study the evolution of magnetic field fluctuations 

1017: during preheating.  Making use of the time averaged relation, $\langle\frac12 

1018: \dot{\phi}^2\rangle_T=\langle V(\phi) \rangle_T$, with the potential 

1019: (\ref{geopotential}), the evolution of the inflaton condensate 

1020: is described by 

1021: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

1022: \begin{eqnarray}

1023: \phi=\frac{m_{\rm pl}}{\sqrt{3\pi}mt} \sin mt, 

1024: \label{oscillation}

1025: \end{eqnarray}

1026: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

1027: where we choose the time when the oscillation starts 

1028: as $mt_0=1/4$ \cite{KLS}.  

1029: Then the scalar curvature (\ref{curvature}) is approximately 

1030: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

1031: \begin{eqnarray}

1032: R \approx \frac{4}{3t^2}(1-3\cos2mt).

1033: \label{curvature2}

1034: \end{eqnarray}

1035: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

1036: Although $R$ oscillates, its amplitude

1037: decreases as $t^{-2}$ due to the cosmic expansion

1038: which means that parametric resonance soon becomes ineffective

1039: if $|\beta|$ is small.

1040: Substituting Eq.~(\ref{curvature2}) into Eq.~(\ref{Feq}) and introducing 

1041: a new scalar field $\bar{\cal B}_k=a^{1/2}\cb$, $\bar{\cal B}_k$ satisfies the 

1042: well known Mathieu equation\footnote{We neglect the 

1043: $(\dot{a}/{2a})^2-\ddot{a}/{2a}$ term which appears in the 

1044: parenthesis of Eq.~(\ref{mathieu}), which can be justified for 

1045: $|\beta|~\gsim~1$.}, 

1046: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1047: \begin{eqnarray}

1048: \frac{d^2 \bar{\cal B}_k}{d z^2} + \left(A_k -2q \cos 2z \right)

1049: \bar{\cal B}_k=0,

1050: \label{mathieu}

1051: \end{eqnarray}

1052: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1053: where for $\beta>0$,

1054: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1055: \begin{eqnarray}

1056: A_k= \frac23 q + \frac{k^2}{m^2a^2},~~~~

1057: q=\frac{3\beta}{\pi^2\bar{t}^2},

1058:  \label{Aq1}

1059: \end{eqnarray}

1060: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1061: and for $\beta<0$,

1062: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1063: \begin{eqnarray}

1064: A_k= -\frac23 q + \frac{k^2}{m^2a^2},~~~~

1065: q=\frac{3|\beta|}{\pi^2\bar{t}^2}.

1066:  \label{Aq2}

1067: \end{eqnarray}

1068: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1069: Here $z=mt$, and $\bar{t}=mt/(2\pi)$ naively corresponds to the number of 

1070: oscillations executed by the inflaton at time $t$.

1071: 

1072: In the context of standard preheating with the effective potential, 

1073: $V(\phi,\chi)=\frac12 m^2\phi^2+\frac12g^2\phi^2\chi^2$,

1074: the relation of $A_k$ and $q$ for the $\chi$ field is written as 

1075: $A_k=2q+k^2/(m^2a^2)$ \cite{KLS}.

1076: In this case $\chi$ particle production is inefficient 

1077: unless the initial $q$ is much larger than unity.

1078: In contrast, the resonance band is broader  in the present model\cite{TMT}.

1079: 

1080: Therefore parametric resonance takes place for smaller initial values of $q$.

1081: In spite of this, since the resonance band is narrow for $q~\lsim~1$,

1082: we typically require the coupling, $|\beta|~\gsim~1$, for  relevant

1083: growth of $\cb$\footnote{When $|\beta|=1$, the initial value of $q$ is 

1084: estimated to be $q_i \approx 4.9$ with $\bar{t}_i=1/4$.} (see 

1085: Fig.~\ref{geomfloquet} where we show Floquet indices for positive $\beta$).  

1086: When $|\beta|~\gsim~1$, fluctuations grow as $\bar{\cal B}_k \sim e^{\mu_k 

1087: mt}$, whose growth rate gets gradually larger with $|\beta|$.  For $|\beta| 

1088: \gg 1$, however, the final variance of magnetic fields will be suppressed 

1089: as studied in e.g.,  Ref.~\cite{TMT}.

1090: 

1091: When $\beta$ is positive, long-wave $\cb$ modes 

1092: are exponentially suppressed during inflation. Hence it is rather 

1093: difficult to produce sufficient 

1094: large scale magnetic fields even when $\beta \gg 1$.  On 

1095: sub-Hubble scales, however, the inflationary suppression of $\cb$ is weak 

1096: relative to super-Hubble modes and magnetic fields are excited during 

1097: preheating.  Hence the final magnetic variance 

1098: $\langle A^2 \rangle$, is dominated by sub-Hubble modes.

1099: For negative values of $\beta$ with $\beta~\lsim~-1$, the growth of $\cb$ 

1100: can be strong but is typically dominated by the growth during inflation.  

1101: When $-1~\lsim~\beta<0$, the production of magnetic fields is weak 

1102: during preheating, while they are amplified in the preceding inflationary 

1103: phase as found in Fig.~\ref{geometric}.

1104: 

1105: \subsection{Effects of the growth of conductivity}

1106: 

1107: Now let us consider the ratio $r=\rho_B/\rho_\gamma$ on some comoving 

1108: scale in the presence of the preheating phase.

1109: As the reheating process proceeds, the effect of the conducting plasma

1110: is expected to be important \cite{TW}. 

1111: This effect appears as a friction-like term in the equation of $\cb$ 

1112: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1113: \begin{eqnarray}

1114: \cb''+\left[k^2+\theta(\eta)\right]\cb=-\sigma_c a \cb'

1115: \label{conduct}

1116: \end{eqnarray}

1117: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1118: where $\sigma_c$ is the conductivity of the plasma.

1119: If the conductivity is very high, we find $\cb \sim {\rm constant}$,

1120: which implies that the energy density of magnetic fields decreases

1121: as $\rho_B \sim a^{-4}$.

1122: 

1123: We assume that the effect of the conductivity begins to dominate

1124: at some temperature, $T_c~(\lsim~T_{r})$, where $T_r$ is 

1125: the reheating temperature.  At the first Hubble-crossing 

1126: during inflation, the ratio of $\rho_B$ to the total energy density, 

1127: $\rho_T$, is approximately 

1128: estimated as $\rho_B/\rho_T \approx (M/m_{\rm pl})^4$, 

1129: where $M^4$ is the energy scale of inflation.  For negative $\beta$, one 

1130: obtains the following ratio on the comoving length scale $\lambda$ 

1131: neglecting the parametric amplification of magnetic fields during 

1132: preheating \cite{TW}: 

1133: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1134: \begin{eqnarray}

1135: r &\approx& 10^{26(\alpha-5)} \left( \frac{M}{m_{\rm pl}} 

1136: \right)^{4\alpha/3} \left(\frac{T_r}{m_{\rm pl}} \right)^{(1+3\alpha)/3} 

1137: \nonumber \\

1138: &\times& \left(\frac{T_c}{m_{\rm pl}}

1139: \right)^{-4(1+\alpha)/3} \left(\frac{\lambda}{{\rm Mpc}}\right)

1140: ^{\alpha-5},

1141: \label{ratioest}

1142: \end{eqnarray}

1143: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1144: where $\alpha \equiv \sqrt{1-48\beta}$.

1145: For example, when $\beta=-1/2$, $r |_{\rm 1Mpc}$ reaches $\sim 10^{-8}$ for 

1146: $M=10^{17}$ GeV, $T_r=10^{17}$ GeV, and $T_c=10^{17}$ GeV, in which case 

1147: seed magnetic fields can be produced without the need for the 

1148: galactic dynamo mechanism.  

1149: When $-1~\lsim~\beta<0$, since parametric excitation of magnetic 

1150: fields is irrelevant, the estimation of $r$ in Eq.~(\ref{ratioest}) is hardly 

1151: modified due to the existence of the preheating phase.  

1152: 

1153: In contrast, for 

1154: $\beta~\lsim~-1$, it is expected that preheating will lead to the increase 

1155: of $r$.  In this case, however, $r |_{\rm 1Mpc}$ is typically much 

1156: greater than unity 

1157: even in the absence of preheating because $10^{26(\alpha-5)} \gg 1$ in 

1158: Eq.~(\ref{ratioest})\footnote{For example, for $\beta=-1$, $M=10^{16}$ 

1159: GeV, $T_r=10^{15}$ GeV, and $T_c=10^{15}$ GeV, we find 

1160: $r |_{\rm 1Mpc} \sim 10^{37}$, 

1161: which is clearly excessive.}.  Although $r$ is further increased 

1162: corresponding to the amplification of $\cb$ during preheating, this case 

1163: will be ruled out by observations.

1164: 

1165: Let us consider the case $\beta~\gsim~1$

1166: where the excitation of magnetic fields by resonance is expected.

1167: In this case, an analytic estimate of $r$ neglecting the contribution during 

1168: preheating is 

1169: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1170: \begin{eqnarray}

1171: r &\approx& 10^{-130} \left(\frac{M}{m_{\rm pl}}\right)

1172: \left(\frac{T_r}{m_{\rm pl}} \right)^{1/3} \nonumber \\

1173: &\times&

1174:  \left(\frac{T_c}{m_{\rm pl}} \right)^{-4/3} \left(\frac{\lambda}{{\rm 

1175: Mpc}}\right)^{-5}.

1176: \label{ratioest2}

1177: \end{eqnarray}

1178: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1179: Due to the strong inflationary suppression, $r$ is restricted to be very small.

1180: For example, for  $M=10^{16}$ GeV, $T_r=10^{15}$ GeV, 

1181: and $T_c=10^{15}$ GeV, $r |_{1{\rm Mpc}}=10^{-129}$.  During preheating, 

1182: the $\cb$ fluctuation exhibits exponential increase, which makes $r$ larger 

1183: than estimated in Eq.~(\ref{ratioest2}).  For example, when $\beta=10$, $\cb$ 

1184: is amplified about $10^5$ times (see Fig.~\ref{geometric}), and the ratio 

1185: increases to $r |_{1{\rm Mpc}} \sim 10^{-120}$.  However, the amplification 

1186: during preheating in the positive $\beta$ case is typically insufficient to 

1187: explain the large-scale seed magnetic fields even for $\beta \gg 1$.

1188: 

1189: We conclude that with regard to the geometric magnetisation mechanism, 

1190: the ratio $r=\rho_B/\rho_T$ is mainly determined by the 

1191: inflationary phase, despite the fact that  magnetic 

1192: fields can be amplified during preheating. While we have studied this in

1193: the massive inflaton model, we expect similar results in other

1194: inflationary models. For example, in the quartic inflaton potential the 

1195: frequency $\theta$ depends explicitly on the scale factor and we cannot 

1196: reduce the problem to one in Minkowski space, as we did in section III.

1197: 

1198: 

1199: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1200: \section{Magnetic field amplification due to large metric perturbations}

1201: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1202: 

1203: Since the FLRW metric is conformally flat, i.e., the Weyl tensor vanishes, 

1204: magnetic fields are not produced due to the cosmic expansion.  

1205: During preheating however, scalar metric perturbations can grow 

1206: exponentially on both super-Hubble and sub-Hubble scales \cite{BV99,BTKM}.

1207: 

1208: This growth of metric perturbations means that the spacetime may 

1209: no-longer be well-described by a conformally flat background metric. If the 

1210: metric perturbations remain small, this breaking of conformal invariance 

1211: is small (as measured by the

1212: curvature invariant 

1213: $C_{\alpha\beta\mu\nu} C^{\alpha\beta\mu\nu}$) and the production of 

1214: photons is very suppressed.  Once the metric perturbations at a certain 

1215: scale become large, however, this is no-longer true and the production of 

1216: magnetic fields can be expected. This was discussed by Calzetta and Kandus

1217: \cite{CK} in the context of structure formation and suggested 

1218: in the context of preheating in \cite{BGMK}. Here we follow the recent 

1219: analysis of Maroto\cite{maroto}.

1220: 

1221: The  line element for a flat FLRW model with scalar metric perturbations

1222: in the conformal Newtonian or longitudinal 

1223: gauge is \cite{MFB,earlympre}

1224:  \beq ds^2=a^2(\eta)[-(1+2\Phi)d\eta^2 

1225: +(1-2\Phi)\delta_{ij}dx^idx^j].

1226: \label{metric}

1227: \eeq

1228: We consider the following two-field model in the presence of magnetic 

1229: fields:

1230: \begin{eqnarray} 

1231: {\cal L} = \frac{R}{16\pi G} &-& \frac{1}{4} F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}

1232: -\frac12 (\nabla \phi)^2-\frac14\lambda\phi^4 \nonumber \\

1233: &-& \frac12 (\nabla \chi)^2 -\frac12g^2\phi^2\chi^2,

1234: \label{lagmetric}

1235: \end{eqnarray} 

1236: where $\chi$ is a scalar field coupled to inflaton, $\phi$.

1237: Then the magnetic field satisfies the Maxwell equation, 

1238: $\nabla_{\mu}F^{\mu\nu}=0$, i.e.,

1239: \begin{eqnarray} 

1240: \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{\mu}}

1241: \left[ \sqrt{-g} g^{\mu \alpha}g^{\nu \beta}

1242: (\partial_{\alpha}A_{\beta}-\partial_{\beta}A_{\alpha})

1243: \right]=0.

1244: \label{maxwell}

1245: \end{eqnarray} 

1246: Using the relations $\sqrt{-g}=a^4(1-2\Phi), 

1247: g^{00}=-a^{-2}(1-2\Phi), g^{ii}=a^{-2}(1+2\Phi)$ in the 

1248: perturbed metric (\ref{metric}), Eq.~(\ref{maxwell}) yields

1249: for $\nu=i$:

1250: \begin{eqnarray} 

1251: & &\frac{\partial}{\partial \eta}\left[(1-2\Phi)

1252: (\partial_i A_0-\partial_0A_i)\right] \nonumber \\ 

1253: &+& 

1254: \frac{\partial}{\partial x^j}\left[(1+2\Phi) 

1255: (\partial_j A_i-\partial_i A_j)\right]=0.

1256: \label{nui}

1257: \end{eqnarray} 

1258: Adopting the Coulomb gauge condition: $A_0=0, \partial^i A_i=0$,

1259: one finds that

1260: \begin{eqnarray} 

1261: A_i''-\nabla^2 A_i &=& 2\Phi' A_i'+4\Phi \nabla^2 A_i \nonumber \\

1262: &+& 2\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x^j}

1263: \left(\frac{\partial A_i}{\partial x^j}- 

1264: \frac{\partial A_j}{\partial x^i} \right).

1265: \label{perturbedmax}

1266: \end{eqnarray} 

1267: The effect of metric perturbations appears at second order 

1268: in the rhs of Eq.~(\ref{perturbedmax}). In Fourier space this leads 

1269: to convolutions of the form $\int d^3k' \Phi'_{{\bf k'}} 

1270: A'_{{\bf k}-{\bf k'}}$, which lead to mode-mode coupling.

1271: 

1272: However, if we assume that $\Phi$ is only dependent on 

1273: time on scales larger than some 

1274: cosmological scale $\lambda_c=2\pi/k_c$ \cite{maroto}, each Fourier 

1275: component of $A_i$ satisfies the simple equation:

1276: \begin{eqnarray} 

1277: A_k''+k^2 A_k=2\Phi'A_k'-4k^2\Phi A_k.

1278: \label{simplify}

1279: \end{eqnarray} 

1280: where the coupling between the metric potential on smaller scales 

1281: ($k>k_c$) and the magnetic fields are ignored. Note that one cannot simply

1282: assume $\Phi = \Phi(t)$ on all scales since then the Weyl tensor vanishes 

1283: identically and no photons are produced. 

1284: 

1285: Treating the full problem is complicated due to the fact that the last 

1286: term in the rhs of Eq.~(\ref{perturbedmax}) does not vanish, hence the various

1287: components of $A_j$ are coupled.  While the 

1288: precise analysis including these fully nonlinear effects is very 

1289: complicated, we can still estimate the amplitude of magnetic fields 

1290: produced during preheating by using Eq.~(\ref{simplify}).

1291: 

1292: Introducing a new field, $\tilde{A}_{k}=(1-\Phi)A_{k}$, to eliminate

1293: the $A_{k}'$ term in Eq.~(\ref{simplify}), one finds

1294: \begin{eqnarray} 

1295: \tilde{A}_k''+k^2 \tilde{A}_k=\Phi'' \tilde{A}_k,

1296: \label{simplify2}

1297: \end{eqnarray} 

1298: where we have  neglected the last term in Eq.~(\ref{simplify}) which is not 

1299: important on large scales.

1300: Before the start of preheating, the $\Phi''\tilde{A}_{k}$ term 

1301: is negligible

1302: and  $\tilde{A}_{k}$ is described by the following 

1303: positive-frequency solution:

1304: \begin{eqnarray} 

1305: \tilde{A}_{k}^{(i)} \approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{2k}}e^{-ik\eta}.

1306: \label{solutionini}

1307: \end{eqnarray} 

1308: One finds the solution for Eq.~(\ref{simplify2}) in integral form 

1309: \cite{ZS}:

1310: \begin{eqnarray} 

1311: \tilde{A}_k(\eta)=\tilde{A}_k^{(i)}+ \frac{1}{k} \int_{\eta_i}^{\eta} 

1312: \Phi'' \tilde{A}_k (\eta') \sin k(\eta-\eta') d\eta'.

1313: \label{solutioneta}

1314: \end{eqnarray} 

1315: The energy density in the magnetic field can be expressed as

1316: \begin{eqnarray} 

1317: \rho_B=(k/a)^4 |\beta_k|^2,

1318: \label{energyden}

1319: \end{eqnarray} 

1320: where the Bogolyubov coefficients, $\beta_k$, are approximately \cite{maroto}

1321: \begin{eqnarray} 

1322: \beta_k=-i \int_{\eta_i}^{\eta}

1323: \tilde{A}_k^{(i)}\Phi'' \tilde{A}_k(\eta) d\eta.

1324: \label{beta}

1325: \end{eqnarray} 

1326: Substituting Eq.~(\ref{solutioneta}) for Eq.~(\ref{beta}) with 

1327: Eq.~(\ref{solutionini}) and assuming that $\Phi'$ vanishes 

1328: before and after preheating [i.e., $\Phi'(t_i)=0$ and $\Phi'(t_f)=0$

1329: where the subscript $i$ and $f$ denote the values at the beginning and end

1330: of preheating, respectively], one easily finds that the next order term in 

1331: Eq.~(\ref{solutioneta}) gives an important contribution to $\beta_k$, 

1332: yielding \cite{maroto}

1333: \begin{eqnarray} 

1334: \beta_k \approx -\frac{i}{2k}

1335: \int_{\eta_i}^{\eta_f} (\Phi')^2 d\eta,

1336: \label{beta2}

1337: \end{eqnarray} 

1338: where we considered the super-Hubble modes: $k\eta \ll 1$.

1339: Combining Eqs.~(\ref{energy}), (\ref{energyden}), and (\ref{beta2}),

1340: we obtain the amplitude of magnetic fields as

1341: \begin{eqnarray} 

1342: |B_k| \approx \frac{k}{a^2} \int_{\eta_i}^{\eta_f}

1343: (\Phi')^2 d\eta.

1344: \label{magestimation}

1345: \end{eqnarray}  

1346: In order to analyze the evolution of the magnetic fields, it is convenient to 

1347: rewrite Eq.~(\ref{magestimation}) using the dimensionless conformal time, 

1348: $x =\sqrt{\lambda}a_i\phi_i \eta$, as

1349: \begin{eqnarray} 

1350: |B_k|=\left(\frac{a_i}{a}\right) \left(\frac{k}{a}\right)

1351: \sqrt{\lambda}\phi_i \int_{x_i}^{x_f}

1352: \left(\frac{d\Phi}{dx}\right)^2dx.

1353: \label{magestimation1}

1354: \end{eqnarray} 

1355: At the decoupling epoch where the coherence scale corresponds

1356: to $(k/a)_{\rm dec} \sim 10^{-33}$ GeV, the amplitude of 

1357: magnetic fields can be estimated by

1358: \begin{eqnarray} 

1359: |B_k^{\rm dec}|/ 1 {\rm G} \approx 10^{-2} \frac{a_i}{a_{\rm dec}} 

1360: \int_{x_i}^{x_f}

1361: \left(\frac{d\Phi}{dx}\right)^2dx,

1362: \label{magestimation2}

1363: \end{eqnarray} 

1364: where we used the value, $\sqrt{\lambda}\phi_i \sim 10^{12}$ GeV.

1365: The ratio $a_i/a_{\rm dec}$ depends on the reheating temperature, $T_R$.

1366: If the energy of inflaton at the end of inflation were instantaneously  

1367: transferred to radiation, the reheating temperature would be 

1368: $T_R \sim 10^{15}$ GeV, which yields $a_i/a_{\rm dec}\sim T_{\rm 

1369: dec}/T_R~\sim~10^{-25}$.  Note that the ratio $a_i/a_{\rm dec}$ becomes 

1370: larger for lower reheating temperature.

1371: 

1372: Primordial seed magnetic fields for the galactic dynamo mechanism are in 

1373: the regions of $|B_k^{\rm dec}|=10^{-25}$ G $\sim 10^{-15}$ G.

1374: In the single field 

1375: case in which large-scale metric perturbations are hardly amplified 

1376: during preheating, 

1377: it was found that magnetic fields estimated by Eq.~(\ref{magestimation2}) 

1378: are below the values required for the galactic dynamo in the realistic

1379: values of $a_i/a_{\rm dec}$ \cite{maroto}.

1380: 

1381: In the two-field case with self-coupling inflaton, we can expect the growth 

1382: of metric perturbations due to the enhancement of field perturbations, 

1383: which stimulates the growth of magnetic fluctuations through gravitational 

1384: scattering.

1385: Decomposing the scalar fields as $\varphi_J(t, {\bf x}) \to \varphi_J(t)+

1386: \delta\varphi_J(t, {\bf x})$, the Fourier transformed, perturbed Einstein 

1387: equations are 

1388: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

1389: \begin{eqnarray}

1390: \delta\ddot{\phi}_k &+& 3H\delta\dot{\phi}_k

1391: + \left[\frac{k^2}{a^2}+3\lambda 

1392: (\phi^2+\langle \delta \phi^2 \rangle) 

1393: +g^2(\chi^2+\langle \delta \chi^2 \rangle) \right] 

1394: \delta\phi_k \nonumber \\

1395: &=& 4\dot{\phi} \dot{\Phi}_k 

1396: + 2(\ddot{\phi}

1397: +3H\dot{\phi})\Phi_k-2g^2\phi\chi \delta\chi_k,

1398: \label{deltaphi}

1399: \end{eqnarray}

1400: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

1401: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

1402: \begin{eqnarray}

1403: \delta\ddot{\chi}_k &+& 3H\delta\dot{\chi}_k+

1404: \left[ \frac{k^2}{a^2}+g^2(\phi^2+\langle \delta \phi^2 \rangle)

1405: \right] \delta\chi_k \nonumber \\

1406: &=& 4\dot{\chi} \dot{\Phi}_k 

1407: + 2(\ddot{\chi}+3H\dot{\chi})\Phi_k-2g^2\phi\chi\delta\phi_k,

1408: \label{deltachi}

1409: \end{eqnarray}

1410: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

1411: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

1412: \begin{eqnarray}

1413: \dot{\Phi}_k+H\Phi_k=4\pi G

1414: (\dot{\phi} \delta\phi_k+\dot{\chi} \delta\chi_k).

1415: \label{Phi}

1416: \end{eqnarray}

1417: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

1418: As long as $\delta\chi_k$ fluctuations in low momentum modes are not 

1419: strongly  suppressed during inflation (i.e., $g^2/\lambda < 10$) 

1420: and are excited during preheating, this 

1421: leads to the growth of $\Phi_k$ and $\delta\phi_k$ on large scales, as is 

1422: found in numerical simulations of Eqs.~(\ref{Phi}) and (\ref{deltaphi}).

1423: Neglecting metric perturbations on the rhs of Eqs.~(\ref{deltachi}) which are

1424: small during inflation, we find the following analytic solution

1425: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

1426: \begin{eqnarray}

1427: \delta\chi_k=a^{-1} \left[c_1 \sqrt{\eta} H_{\nu}^{(2)} (k \eta) +c_2 

1428: \sqrt{\eta} H_{\nu}^{(1)}(k \eta)\right],

1429: \label{analyticchik}

1430: \end{eqnarray}

1431: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

1432: with \cite{BV99}

1433: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

1434: \begin{eqnarray}

1435: \nu^2=\frac94-\frac{g^2\phi^2}{H^2} \approx 

1436: \frac94-\frac{3g^2}{2\pi \lambda}

1437: \left(\frac{m_{\rm pl}}{\phi}\right)^2,

1438: \label{nu2}

1439: \end{eqnarray}

1440: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

1441: since $H^2 \approx 2\pi \lambda \phi^4/3$.

1442: In the centre of the first resonance band, $g^2/\lambda=2$, $\nu^2$ is 

1443: negative only when $\phi<2/\sqrt{3\pi} \sim 0.7m_{\rm pl}$, which means

1444: that the exponential suppression can be avoided during most of 

1445: inflation.  In this case large-scale metric perturbations are significantly 

1446: amplified  during the preheating phase.  

1447: 

1448: 

1449: In Fig.~\ref{metricevo} we plot the evolution of $\Phi_k$, $\delta\chi_k$, 

1450: $\delta\chi_k$, and $M(x) \equiv \int_{x_i}^{x} \left( d\Phi/dx\right)^2 

1451: dx$ for $g^2/\lambda=2$ during inflation and preheating for a cosmological 

1452: mode.  We include second order field and metric backreaction effects as 

1453: spatial averages for background equations (see Refs.~\cite{ZBS,supp,PBH2} 

1454: for details), and choose initial values for the scalar fields at the start of

1455: inflation to be $\phi(0)=4m_{\rm pl}$ and 

1456: $\chi(0)=10^{-3}m_{\rm pl}$.  Metric perturbations begin to grow during 

1457: preheating after

1458: $\delta\chi_k$ grows to or order $\delta\phi_k$, which results in the final 

1459: amplitude of order $\Phi \sim 0.1$, clearly in conflict with  

1460: observations of the CMB.

1461: 

1462: In spite of this, it is worth investigating this case 

1463: in order to understand how the growth of metric perturbations  affects 

1464: the evolution of magnetic fields.  The $M(x_f) =\int_{x_i}^{x_f} 

1465: \left( d\Phi/dx\right)^2 dx$ term on the 

1466: rhs of Eq.~(\ref{magestimation2}) becomes

1467: of order $0.01$ (see Fig.~\ref{metricevo}), and the resulting 

1468: magnetic field at 

1469: decoupling is then estimated to be $|B_k^{\rm dec}|/ 1 {\rm G} 

1470: \approx 10^{-4} 

1471: a_i/a_{\rm dec}$.  When $a_i/a_{\rm dec}~\gsim~10^{-21}$ which corresponds 

1472: to the reheating temperature, $T_R~\lsim~10^{11}$ GeV, magnetic fields 

1473: exceed the value, $|B_k^{\rm dec}|~\sim~10^{-25}$ G, which is required to 

1474: seed the galactic dynamo.

1475: 

1476: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1477: \begin{figure}

1478: \epsfxsize = 3.5in

1479: \epsffile{metricevo.eps}

1480: \caption{The time evolution of 

1481: $\Phi_k$, $\delta\chi_k$, $\delta\phi_k$, and

1482: $M(x) \equiv \int_{x_i}^{x} \left( d\Phi/dx\right)^2 dx$ for

1483: $g^2/\lambda=2$ during inflation and preheating for a cosmological mode.

1484: In this case, the enhancement of metric perturbations leads to the 

1485: production of magnetic fields due to the breaking of conformal flatness

1486: of the background metric. } 

1487: \label{metricevo}

1488: \end{figure}

1489: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1490: 

1491: With the increase of $g^2/\lambda$, the inflationary suppression for long wave 

1492: $\delta\chi_k$ modes begin to be significant.  For example, in the centre 

1493: of the second resonance band, $g^2/\lambda=8$, the suppression is relevant 

1494: for $\phi~\lsim~1.3m_{\rm pl}$.  In the Hartree approximation, the 

1495: enhancement of super-Hubble metric perturbations during preheating was 

1496: found to be weak for $g^2/\lambda~\gsim~8$ due to the suppressed $\chi$ 

1497: fluctuation at the end of inflation \cite{ZBS}, which means that magnetic 

1498: field fluctuations are hardly enhanced by large-scale metric perturbations.

1499: 

1500: However, since sub-Hubble $\delta\chi_k$ fluctuations are

1501: free from strong inflationary suppression and exhibit parametric amplification

1502: during preheating, metric preheating is typically vital on sub-Hubble 

1503: scales \cite{PBH2}.  Then the mode-mode coupling between small-scale metric 

1504: and large-scale magnetic field in Eq.~(\ref{perturbedmax}) may 

1505: lead to the production of magnetic fluctuations.

1506: In this case analytic estimations by Eq.~(\ref{magestimation}) can no longer 

1507: be applied, and we have to solve the complicated nonlinear equation 

1508: (\ref{perturbedmax}) directly.

1509: Whether magnetic fields can be sufficiently amplified by the 

1510: growth of small-scale metric perturbations is uncertain at present.  We 

1511: leave to future work for the precise analysis of this issue.

1512: 

1513: We should also note that parametric excitation of sub-Hubble $\delta\chi_k$ 

1514: modes will stimulate the growth of large-scale $\delta\phi_k$ and 

1515: $\Phi_k$ modes.

1516: The Hartree approximation misses this rescattering 

1517: effect \cite{resca1,resca2}, which is expected to be important once 

1518: fluctuations begin to be amplified significantly.  

1519: In fact it was recently found that 

1520: rescattering can lead to the amplification of super-Hubble metric 

1521: perturbations even for $g^2/\lambda~\gsim~8$ in one-dimensional lattice 

1522: simulations \cite{mpreFK}.  It is unknown whether this holds true for 

1523: $g^2/\lambda \gg 1$, which will be clarified by fully nonlinear 

1524: three-dimensional calculations.

1525: 

1526: It is certainly of interest to find parameter regions which satisfy both the 

1527: CMB constraints and produce sufficient large-scale seed magnetic 

1528: fields.  Although we have restricted ourselves in the chaotic inflationary 

1529: scenario, the ratio $a_i/a_{\rm dec}$ and the energy scale of inflation are 

1530: model-dependent. It is encouraging that we can test inflationary 

1531: models by the  magnetic fields produced, together with CMB and 

1532: primordial black hole  over-production constraints 

1533: during preheating \cite{PBH1,PBH2}.

1534: 

1535: 

1536: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1537: \section{Conclusions}

1538: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1539: 

1540: In this paper we have considered the amplification 

1541: of (hyper-)magnetic fields during inflation and preheating. The conformal 

1542: invariance of the standard Maxwell equations and the conformal flatness of

1543: the FLRW background leave the observed cosmic magnetic fields as a major

1544: mystery. 

1545: In order to overcome such obstacles, we have considered three 

1546: specific mechanisms:

1547: 

1548: (1) Couple the magnetic field to a coherently oscillating scalar field which

1549: induces resonant growth of the magnetic field. 

1550: In the presence of plasma effects,  parametric amplification of 

1551: magnetic fields is typically counteracted by the growth of conductivity.

1552: This competition is model dependent and the final outcome depends 

1553: sensitively on the conductivity during inflation, the resonance

1554: and thermalisation phases (see Figs 4,5).

1555: 

1556: (2) Break conformal invariance of Maxwell's equations through 

1557: non-renormalisable  couplings to the curvature such as 

1558: $R A_{\mu} A^{\mu}$.  When the corresponding coupling constant, $\beta$, 

1559: is  negative, strong amplification of the magnetic field occurs during 

1560: inflation.  As a result it is a promising mechanism, though some fine-tuning

1561: may be required not to over-produce the magnetic fields by the end of 

1562: preheating. For positive $\beta$ the produced field is too weak to 

1563: be relevant even with the resonance from preheating. 

1564: 

1565: (3) Break the conformal flatness of the background metric. During metric 

1566: preheating super-Hubble metric perturbations grow exponentially. The 

1567: resulting growth of the Weyl tensor leads to amplification of the magnetic 

1568: field, which while it is generic, is a complex, mode-mode, coupling problem.

1569: 

1570: It is certainly of interest to consider issues such as the 

1571: non-equilibrium aspects 

1572: of the problem and a detailed model of e.g., the GUT gauge group and couplings 

1573: between the relevant gauge fields and the curvature/other fields,

1574: which we leave to future work.

1575: 

1576: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1577: \section*{ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS}

1578: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1579: 

1580: The authors thank Peter Coles, Alexandre Dolgov,  

1581: Fabio Finelli, Alan Guth, David Kaiser, Roy Maartens, Antonio Maroto, 

1582: Ue-Li Pen, Jos\'e Senovilla, Dam Son, Alexei Starobinsky and Raul Vera 

1583: for enlightening discussions and comments 

1584: over the long  course of this project. 

1585: 

1586: BB, GP and FV thank the Newton 

1587: Institute for support and hospitality during the program ``Structure 

1588: Formation in the Universe".  BB thanks UCT, Cape Town for hospitality 

1589: during early stages of this work.  FV acknowledges support from CONACYT 

1590: scholarship Ref:115625/116522.  ST was supported by the Waseda University 

1591: Grant for Special Research Projects.

1592: 

1593: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1594: \section*{Appendix: Magnetic fields with $R F_{\mu \nu}

1595: F^{\mu \nu}$ interactions}

1596: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1597: 

1598: The 1-loop QED result in curved space includes terms of the form $R F_{\mu

1599: \nu} F^{\mu \nu}$ together with similar terms involving $R_{\mu \nu}$ and

1600: $R_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta}$. These are more complex to treat as resonance

1601: systems because of periodic divergences. To illustrate this we consider

1602: the Lagrangian

1603: \beq

1604: {\cal L}=\frac{R}{16\pi G} -

1605: \frac{1}{4}\left(1+b\frac{R}{m_e^2}\right)

1606: F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}+{\cal L}_{{\rm inflaton}},

1607: \label{F2term}

1608: \eeq

1609: where $b$ is a constant \footnote{The coefficient $b$ was calculated in 

1610: \cite{DH} using perturbation theory in $R/m_e^2$.   

1611: However, as pointed out in \cite{TW}, this result is not applicable in the 

1612: early universe and $b$ is left as an arbitrary constant.}.

1613: 

1614: The equation of motion for the Fourier modes of $A_{\mu}$ are

1615: \beq 

1616: A_{ik}''+k^2A_{ik}+ \frac{b}{m^2_e + bR} 

1617: R'A_{ik}'=0.

1618: \label{F2eq}

1619:  \eeq 

1620: In the limit of $R \gg m_e^2$ (the one appropriate for the early universe 

1621: \cite{TW}), the coefficient of $A_{ik}'$  becomes $R'/R$ and is 

1622: independent of $b$.

1623: 

1624: Since $R$ oscillates through zero [see e.g., Eq.~(\ref{curvature2})], 

1625: the equation is not amenable to simple numerical analysis. In this regard it

1626: is similar to the evolution equation for the potential $\Phi$ in the

1627: single, oscillating, scalar field case \cite{earlypre}. As discussed at the

1628: end of  \cite{BV99}, the periodic singularities do not forbid resonance

1629: bands. In the case of negative $b$ the possibility of efficient amplification 

1630: during inflation exists due to the negative coupling instability.

1631: 

1632: 

1633: 

1634: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1635: \begin{references}

1636: 

1637: \bibitem{wass78} I.~Wasserman, Ap.\ J, {\bf 224}, 337 (1978).

1638: 

1639: \bibitem{earlypre}

1640: J. Traschen and R. H. Brandenberger, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 42}, 2491

1641: (1990); Y. Shtanov, J. Trashen, and R. H. Brandenberger,

1642: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 51}, 5438 (1995); 

1643: A. D. Dolgov and D. P. Kirilova, Sov. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 51}, 273 (1990).

1644: 

1645: \bibitem{KLS}

1646: L. Kofman, A. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, 

1647: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 3195 (1994);

1648: L. Kofman, A. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, 

1649: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 3258 (1997).

1650: 

1651: \bibitem{on}

1652: D. Boyanovsky, H. J. de Vega, R. Holman and J. F. J. Salgado, 

1653: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 54}, 7570 (1996)

1654: 

1655: \bibitem{baryogenesis}

1656:  E. W. Kolb, A. D. Linde, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev.  Lett.

1657: {\bf 77}, 4290 (1996); G. Anderson, A. D. Linde, and A. Riotto, Phys.

1658: Rev.  Lett. {\bf 77}, 3716 (1996); G. Dvali and A. Riotto, Phys. Lett.

1659: {\bf B388}, 247 (1996).

1660: 

1661: \bibitem{ntsr}

1662: L. Kofman, A. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev.

1663: Lett. {\bf 76}, 1011 (1996); I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Lett. {\bf B376}, 35

1664: (1996); A. Riotto and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Lett. {\bf B385}, 57 (1996); 

1665: E. W. Kolb and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 55}, 3313 (1997).

1666: 

1667: \bibitem{defect}

1668: S. Khlebnikov, L. Kofman, A. Linde, and I.  Tkachev,

1669: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 2012 (1998); I. Tkachev, S. Khlebnikov, L.

1670: Kofman, and A. Linde, Phys. Lett. {\bf B440}, 262 (1998); 

1671: S. Kasuya and M. Kawasaki, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58}, 083516 (1998).

1672: 

1673: \bibitem{review}

1674: Y. Sofue, M. Fujimoto, and R. Wielebinski, Ann. Rev.

1675: Astron. Astrophys. {\bf 24}, 459 (1986).

1676: 

1677: \bibitem{parker} 

1678: E. N. Parker, {\em Cosmical Magnetic Fields}

1679: (Clarendon, Oxford, 1979).

1680: 

1681: \bibitem{ZRS} 

1682: Ya. B. Zeldovich, A. A. Ruzmaiki, and D. D. Sokoloff,

1683: Magnetic fields in Astrophysics (Gordon and Breach, NY, 1983).

1684: 

1685: \bibitem{TW}

1686: M. S. Turner and L. M. Widrow, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 37}, 2743 (1988).

1687: 

1688: \bibitem{BFS}

1689: J. D. Barrow, P. Ferreira, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 

1690: 3610 (1997).

1691: 

1692: \bibitem{DDPT}

1693: A. Davis, K. Dimopoulos, T. Prokopec, and O. Tornkvist, 

1694: astro-ph/0007214 (2000).

1695: 

1696: \bibitem{Vachaspati}

1697: T. Vachaspati, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 265}, 258 (1991).

1698: 

1699: \bibitem{EO}

1700: K. Enqvist and P. Olesen, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 319}, 178 (1993);

1701: B {\bf 329}, 195 (1994).

1702: 

1703: \bibitem{DD}

1704: A. Davis and K.  Dimopoulos, Phys.  Rev.  D {\bf 55}, 7398 (1997).

1705: 

1706: \bibitem{calzetta} 

1707: E. A. Calzetta, A. Kandus, and F. D. Mazzitelli,

1708: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 7139 (1998).

1709: 

1710: \bibitem{FG} 

1711: F. Finelli and A. Gruppuso, hep-ph/0001231 (2000).

1712: 

1713: \bibitem{BGMK}

1714: B. A. Bassett, C. Gordon, R. Maartens, 

1715: and D. I. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 061302 (R) (2000).

1716: 

1717: \bibitem{maroto} 

1718: A. L. Maroto, hep-ph/0008288 (2000).

1719: 

1720: \bibitem{Car} 

1721: S. M. Carroll, G. B. Field, and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D

1722: {\bf  41}, 1231 (1990);  S. M. Carroll and G. B. Field, 

1723: astro-ph/9807159 (1998);

1724: G. B. Field and S. M. Carroll, astro-ph/9811206 (1998).

1725: 

1726: \bibitem{Bru} 

1727: R. Brustein and D. H. Oaknin, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60}, 023508 (1999).

1728: 

1729: \bibitem{ratra} 

1730: B. Ratra, Astrophys. J. Letter {\bf 391}, L1 (1992).

1731: 

1732: \bibitem{dolgovanomaly} 

1733: A.D. Dolgov, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 48}, 2499 (1993).

1734: 

1735: \bibitem{lemoine} 

1736: D. Lemoine and M. Lemoine  Phys. Rev. D {\bf 52}, 1955 (1995).

1737: 

1738: \bibitem{gasperini} 

1739: M. Gasperini, M. Giovannini, and G. Veneziano, Phys. Rev. Lett.

1740: {\bf 75}, 3796 (1995).

1741: 

1742: \bibitem{ellis} 

1743: G. F. R. Ellis, Varenna Lectures (1973); 

1744: G. F. R. Ellis and H. V. Elst, Carg\'ese Lectures,  gr-qc/9812046 (1998).

1745: 

1746: \bibitem{TM} 

1747: C. Tsagas and R. Maartens, 

1748: Class.  Quant.  Grav.  {\bf 17}, 2215 (2000).

1749: 

1750: \bibitem{LR99}

1751: D. H. Lyth and A. Riotto, Phys. Rep. {\bf 314}, 1 (1999).

1752: 

1753: \bibitem{DSS}

1754:  G. Dvali, Q. Shafi and R. Schaefer, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 1886 (1994) 

1755: 

1756: \bibitem{Adine} 

1757: I. Affleck and M. Dine, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B249}, 361 (1985).

1758: 

1759: \bibitem{DRS} 

1760: M. Dine, L. Randall, and S. Thomas,

1761: Nucl. Phys. D {\bf 458}, 291 (1996).

1762: 

1763: \bibitem{KDL}

1764: G. Dvali, L.M. Krauss, and H. Liu, hep-ph/9707456.

1765: 

1766: \bibitem{BV99} 

1767: B. A. Bassett and F. Viniegra, 

1768: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 043507 (2000).

1769: 

1770: \bibitem{GKLS97}  

1771: P. B. Greene, L. Kofman, A. Linde, and A. A.

1772: Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 56}, 6175 (1997).

1773: 

1774: \bibitem{dk2} 

1775: D. I. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 706 (1997); D {\bf 57},

1776: 702 (1998).

1777: 

1778: \bibitem{lame}

1779: F.  Finkel, A.  Gonzalez-Lopez, A.  L.  Maroto, and M.  A.  Rodriguez, 

1780: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 103515 (2000).

1781: 

1782: \bibitem{GS}

1783: M. Giovannini and M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 103512 (2000);

1784: {\it ibid}. hep-ph/0011105 (2000).

1785: 

1786: \bibitem{BDS} 

1787: D. Boyanovsky, H. J. de Vega, and M. Simionato, 

1788: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 085007 (2000).

1789: 

1790: \bibitem{son} 

1791: D. T. Son, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 54}, 3745 (1996).

1792: 

1793: \bibitem{FB}

1794: F. Finelli and R. Brandenberger, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 083502 (2000).

1795: 

1796: \bibitem{TBV}

1797: S. Tsujikawa, B. A. Bassett, and F. Viniegra, JHEP {\bf 08}, 019 (2000).

1798: 

1799: \bibitem{ZBS}

1800: Z. P. Zibin, R. H. Brandenberger, and D. Scott, 

1801: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 043511 (2001).

1802: 

1803: \bibitem{BKM} 

1804: B. A. Bassett, D. I. Kaiser, and R. Maartens, Phys. Lett.

1805: {\bf B455}, 84 (1999).

1806: 

1807: \bibitem{BTKM} 

1808: B. A. Bassett, F. Tamburini, D. I. Kaiser, and

1809: R. Maartens, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 561}, 188 (1999).

1810: 

1811: \bibitem{supp}  

1812: K. Jedamzik and G. Sigl,

1813: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 023519 (2000);

1814: P. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 023505 (2000);

1815: A. R. Liddle {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 103509 (2000).

1816: 

1817: \bibitem{SH}

1818: V. Sahni and S. Habib, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 1766 (1998).

1819: 

1820: \bibitem{TY}

1821: S.  Tsujikawa and H.  Yajima, 

1822: Phys.  Rev. D {\bf 62}, 123512 (2000).

1823: 

1824: \bibitem{BL98} 

1825: B. A. Bassett and S.  Liberati, Phys.  Rev.  D {\bf58}, 021302 (1998).

1826: 

1827: \bibitem{TMT}

1828: S. Tsujikawa, K. Maeda, and T. Torii,

1829: Phys.  Rev.  D {\bf 60}, 063515 (1999); 

1830: see also D {\bf 60}, 123505 (1999).

1831: 

1832: \bibitem{TB00}

1833: S. Tsujikawa, K. Maeda, and T. Torii,

1834: Phys.  Rev.  D {\bf 61}, 103501 (2000);

1835: S.  Tsujikawa and B. A. Bassett, 

1836: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 043510 (2000).

1837: 

1838: \bibitem{MFB}

1839: H. Kodama and M. Sasaki, Prog. Theo. Phys. Supp. {\bf 78},

1840: 1 (1984); V. F. Mukhanov, H. A. Feldman, and R. H. Brandenberger,

1841: Phys. Rep. {\bf 215}, 293 (1992).

1842: 

1843: \bibitem{CK}

1844: E. A. Calzetta and A. Kandus, astro-ph/9901009.

1845: 

1846: \bibitem{earlympre} 

1847: H.  Kodama and T.  Hamazaki, Prog.  Theor.  Phys.  {\bf 

1848: 96}, 949 (1996); Y.  Nambu and A.  Taruya, Prog.  Theor.  Phys.  {\bf 97} 

1849: 83 (1997); T.  Hamazaki and H.  Kodama, Prog.  Theor. Phys.  

1850: {\bf 96}, 1123 (1996); A.  Taruya and Y.  Nambu, Phys.  Lett.  {\bf B428}, 

1851: 37 (1998); F.  Finelli and R. Brandenberger, 

1852: Phys.  Rev.  Lett.  {\bf 82}, 1362 (1999).

1853: 

1854: \bibitem{ZS}

1855: Ya.  B.  Zeldovich and A.  A.  Starobinsky, Zh.  Eksp.  Teor.

1856: Fiz.  {\bf 61}, 2161 (1971).

1857: 

1858: \bibitem{PBH2}

1859: B.  A.  Bassett and S.  Tsujikawa, hep-ph/0008328 (2000).

1860: 

1861: \bibitem{resca1}

1862: S. Khlebnikov and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 219 (1996);

1863: {\bf 79}, 1607 (1997).

1864: 

1865: \bibitem{resca2}

1866: R.  Easther and M .  Parry, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 103503 (2000).

1867: 

1868: \bibitem{mpreFK}

1869: F. Finelli and S. Khlebnikov, hep-ph/0009093 (2000).

1870: 

1871: \bibitem{PBH1}

1872: A.  M.  Green and K. A.  Malik, hep-ph/0008113 (2000).

1873: 

1874: \bibitem{DH} 

1875: I. T. Drummond and S. J. Hathrell, Phys. Rev. D

1876: {\bf 22}, 343 (1980).

1877: 

1878: 

1879: \end{references}

1880: \end{document}

1881: 

1882: 

1883: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1884: %%%% uuencoded-figures  %%%

1885: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1886: 

1887: