1: %====================================================================%
2: % MORIOND.TEX 2002 %
3: % This latex file rewritten from various sources for use in the %
4: % preparation of the standard proceedings Volume, latest version %
5: % for the Neutrino'96 Helsinki conference proceedings %
6: % by Susan Hezlet with acknowledgments to Lukas Nellen. %
7: % Some changes are due to David Cassel. %
8: %====================================================================%
9:
10: %\documentstyle[11pt,moriond,epsfig]{article}
11: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
12: \usepackage{moriond,epsfig}
13:
14:
15: \bibliographystyle{unsrt}
16: % for BibTeX - sorted numerical labels by order of
17: % first citation.
18:
19: % A useful Journal macro
20: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
21:
22: % Some useful journal names
23: \def\NCA{\em Nuovo Cimento}
24: \def\NIM{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods}
25: \def\NIMA{{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods} A}
26: \def\NPB{{\em Nucl. Phys.} B}
27: \def\PLB{{\em Phys. Lett.} B}
28: \def\PRL{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
29: \def\PRD{{\em Phys. Rev.} D}
30: \def\ZPC{{\em Z. Phys.} C}
31:
32: % Some other macros used in the sample text
33: \def\st{\scriptstyle}
34: \def\sst{\scriptscriptstyle}
35: \def\mco{\multicolumn}
36: \def\epp{\epsilon^{\prime}}
37: \def\vep{\varepsilon}
38: \def\ra{\rightarrow}
39: \def\ppg{\pi^+\pi^-\gamma}
40: \def\vp{{\bf p}}
41: \def\ko{K^0}
42: \def\kb{\bar{K^0}}
43: \def\al{\alpha}
44: \def\ab{\bar{\alpha}}
45: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
46: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
47: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
48: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
49: \def\CPbar{\hbox{{\rm CP}\hskip-1.80em{/}}}
50: %temp replacement due to no font
51: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
52: % %
53: % BEGINNING OF TEXT %
54: % %
55: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
56: \begin{document}
57: \vspace*{4cm}
58: \title{LAMBDA-INFLATION VERSUS OBSERVATIONS}
59:
60: \author{ E.V. MIKHEEVA }
61:
62: \address{Astro Space Center, P.N.Lebedev Physical Institute,
63: 84/32 Profsoyuznaya st.,\\
64: Moscow 117997, Russia}
65:
66: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
67: \maketitle\abstracts{
68: Lambda-inflation is tested against CMB and LSS observational data.
69: The constraints for inflationary parameters are considered.}
70:
71: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
72: \section{Introduction}
73: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
74: An increasing precision of measurements in observational cosmology
75: requires the adequate accuracy of predictions in the early Universe
76: theory. It is particularly true for numerious recent and on-going
77: experiments to measure the CMB angular anisotropy
78: (BOOMERanG~\cite{boom}, MAXIMA~\cite{maxima}, DASI~\cite{dasi},
79: VSA~\cite{vsa}, CBI~\cite{cbi}, ARCHEOPS, MAP).
80:
81: The inflationary paradigm is still the only viable theory of
82: the early Universe. There is no doubt that inflation explains
83: the observable features of the Universe much better than other
84: theories (for example, string or ekpyrotic ones). One of such
85: features is well established flattness of
86: the Universe~\cite{boom,maxima,dasi,vsa}. Other important predictions
87: of inflation is related to the production of cosmological perturbations.
88: If the potential of inflaton is determined, the spectra of scalar
89: and tensor perturbations can be derived by means of any of existing
90: formalisms. Here I use the historically first
91: one proposed in~\cite{qscalar}.
92:
93: A majority of papers dedicated to the numerical analysis of
94: cosmological models considers scale-free cosmological perturbation
95: spectra whereas almost all inflationary models predict more complicated
96: forms of them. In addition, in many inflationary models the cosmic
97: gravitational waves significantly contribute into the large scale CMB
98: anisotropy and have to be taken into account.
99:
100: This problem may be solved in two ways. The first is testing given
101: inflationary models. This way requires accurate calculations of
102: scalar and tensor perturbation spectra. The precision of such method
103: is related with the validity of slow-rolling approximation. The second way
104: is phenomenological one. It is based on the assumption that a density
105: perturbation spectrum can be approximated by power law, $k^n$,
106: where $n$ may be constant or slowly depending on scale. In the latter
107: case a new parameter, the running $\partial n/\partial\ln k$, appears
108: (see, e.g., \cite{hanstead} and references wherein).
109:
110: My present analysis is related with the first way.
111:
112: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
113: \section{Lambda-inflation}
114: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
115: I call by Lambda-inflation a model with a single scalar
116: field $\varphi$ and the following inflaton potential:
117: \be
118: V(\varphi)=V_0+\frac{1}{\kappa}\lambda_\kappa\varphi^\kappa,
119: \ee
120: where $V_0$, $\lambda_\kappa$, $\kappa$ are constants (see
121: also~\cite{linf,linf2}). I will concentrate on a model with $\kappa=4$.
122:
123: This model is often referred in literature as ``hybrid
124: inflation''~\cite{hybridlinde}. I reserve the latter name for
125: the case of Lambda-inflation, where some particular way of
126: the decay of the effective Lambda-term ($V_0$) is assumed.
127:
128: It is convinient to introduce two new parameters. The first of them,
129: $c$, is as follows:
130: \be
131: c\equiv\frac 12\sqrt{\frac{V_0}{\lambda}}
132: \ee
133: (here and below $\lambda\equiv\lambda_\kappa$). $c$ is closely
134: related to the critical field value where both terms of the potential
135: are equal to each other ($\varphi_{cr}=2\sqrt{c}$). The second parameter,
136: $k_{cr}$, is a scale when $\varphi$ reaches $\varphi_{cr}$.
137: The slow-roll approximation is valid for $c\gg 1$. In this case
138: the spectra of perturbations are as follows\footnote{Anywhere
139: the index S means ``scalar perturbations'', T -- ``tensor perturbations''.}:
140: \be
141: {\rm S}:\;\;\;\;\;
142: q_k=\frac{H}{2\pi\sqrt{2\gamma}}=\frac{\sqrt{2\lambda/3}}{\pi}
143: \left(c^2+x^2\right)^{3/4},
144: \ee
145: \be
146: {\rm T}:\;\;\;\;\;
147: h_k=\frac{H}{\pi\sqrt 2}=\frac{2c\sqrt{\lambda/3}}{\pi}
148: \left(1+\frac{x}{\sqrt{c^2+x^2}}\right)^{-1/2},
149: \ee
150: where $H$ is the Hubble constant, $\gamma\equiv -\dot H/H^2$,
151: $x\simeq\ln\left(k/k_{cr}\right)$ (see details in \cite{linf,linf2}).
152: Figure 1 illustrates these formulas.
153:
154: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
155: \begin{figure}
156: %\rule{5cm}{0.2mm}\hfill\rule{5cm}{0.2mm}
157: %\vskip 2.5cm
158: %\rule{5cm}{0.2mm}\hfill\rule{5cm}{0.2mm}
159: \centerline{\psfig{figure=P1.eps,height=1.5in}}
160: \caption{Scalar ($q_k$, dash lines) and tensor ($h_k$, solid lines)
161: perturbation spectra in Lambda-inflation (arbitrary normalization).}
162: \end{figure}
163: %%%%%%%%%%%%
164:
165: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
166: \section{Cosmological model}
167: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
168: Cosmological parameters can be separated into few groups. One of
169: them contains inflationary parameters describing spectra of
170: the cosmological perturbations (usually, they are the slopes,
171: $n_S$, $n_T$, and amplitudes, $q_k$, $h_k$). Another set of
172: parameters describes matter and energy in the Universe
173: (the matter density parameter, $\Omega_m$, $\Lambda$-term,
174: $\Omega_\Lambda$, the baryon abundance, $\Omega_b$, the massive
175: neutrino abundance, $\Omega_\nu$, the number of massive neutrino
176: species $N_\nu$, etc.). Another important cosmological parameter is
177: the value of Hubble constant,
178: $H_0=100h\;{\rm km}\;{\rm s}^{-1}{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$.
179: This short list of cosmological parameters may be expanded.
180:
181: The complete analysis of complex cosmological model is a very
182: hard task: one has to use both a large number of free parameters
183: and all available experimental data related to the determination
184: of cosmological model ($\Delta T/T$, cluster abundance data,
185: $Ly_\alpha$ data, and others).
186:
187: Let us simplify this task. Firstly, let us fix values of the cosmological
188: parameters describing dark matter and energy. Here I assume
189: $\Omega_\Lambda=0.65$, $\Omega_c=0.29$, $\Omega_b=0.05$, $\Omega_\nu=0.01$,
190: $N_\nu=3$, $h=0.65$\footnote{This cosmological model considered with
191: scale-invariant spectrum of density perturbations and negligible value of
192: cosmic gravitational waves satisfies both COBE and $\sigma_8$ tests.}.
193: Secondly, let us take only two observational tests, namely, COBE
194: measurent of $\Delta T/T$ which determines the amplitude of $\Delta T/T$
195: at 10th spherical harmonic ($C_{10}$), and $\sigma_8$ which normalizes
196: the spectrum of density perturbations.
197:
198: As for $C_{10}$, we have some gravitational wave contribution coming
199: from inflation. It is standardly described by T/S parameter:
200: T/S$\equiv C^{\rm T}_{10}/C^{\rm S}_{10}$. The characterictic scale of COBE
201: is $k_{COBE}\equiv k_1\simeq 1.5\times 10^{-3} h\; {\rm Mpc}^{-1}$.
202: As for $\sigma_8$, the characteristic scale is $k_{\sigma_8}\equiv
203: k_2\simeq 1.5\times 10^{-1}h\;{\rm Mpc}^{-1}\simeq 100k_1$.
204:
205: After simple calculations we derive the following equation:
206: \be
207: \left(1+{\rm T/S}\right)\left(\frac{q_{k_1}}{q_{k_2}}\right)^2=1,
208: \ee
209: The numerical solution of this equation can be approximated by linear fit:
210: \be
211: \ln\frac{k_1}{k_{cr}} = 0.32\,c-1.92,
212: \ee
213: the error is in the last digits of both numbers. An important consequence
214: of this solution is that the critical scale should be higher than the COBE
215: scale, so the former is either close to or behind the present horizon.
216:
217: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
218: \begin{figure}
219: %\rule{5cm}{0.2mm}\hfill\rule{5cm}{0.2mm}
220: %\vskip 2.5cm
221: %\rule{5cm}{0.2mm}\hfill\rule{5cm}{0.2mm}
222: \centerline{\psfig{figure=P2.eps,height=1.5in}}
223: \caption{T/S versus $n_{\rm S}$ and $c$ in Lambda-inflation.}
224: \end{figure}
225: %%%%%%%%%%%%
226:
227: Figure 2 presents the corresponding T/S evaluated by means of
228: the famous consistency relation T/S$\simeq -6n_{\rm T}$. The inflationary
229: models, located along the line with solid circles (marked by "c=..."),
230: satisfy both observational tests mentioned above. Assuming that T/S
231: is not large (T/S$<0.5$) we may constrain $n_{\rm S}$ ($1<n_{\rm S}<1.05$)
232: and inflationary parameter $c$ ($c>8$).
233:
234: Recall that $n_{\rm S}$ is estimated at COBE scale
235: and can change at different scales (for example, $n_{\sigma_8}$).
236: Figure 3 demonstrates running parameter $\partial n_{\rm S}/\partial\ln k$.
237: We see that the density perturbation slope at LSS scale ($k_2$) depends on
238: $c$ and can vary from 1 till 1.2.
239:
240: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
241: \begin{figure}
242: %\rule{5cm}{0.2mm}\hfill\rule{5cm}{0.2mm}
243: %\vskip 2.5cm
244: %\rule{5cm}{0.2mm}\hfill\rule{5cm}{0.2mm}
245: \centerline{\psfig{figure=P3.eps,height=1.5in}}
246: \caption{$\partial n_{\rm S}/\partial\ln k$ versus $n_{\rm S}$
247: in Lambda-inflation.}
248: \end{figure}
249: %%%%%%%%%%%%
250:
251: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
252: \section{Discussion}
253: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
254: The demonstrated example of $\Lambda$-inflation favors slightly
255: blue spectra of density perturbations ($n_{\rm S}{}^>_\sim 1$).
256: However, phenomenological constraints for $n_{\rm S}$ based on
257: LSS observational data, while converging to $n_S\simeq 1$, are still
258: uncertain about the sign of ($n_S-1$). E.g., galaxy cluster data
259: prefer $n_S>1$ \cite{novos}, whereas galactic surveys indicate
260: slightly red spectra ($n_{\rm S}<1$) (e.g. \cite{hanstead}). Certainly,
261: better data are required to delimit the slope of the fundamental
262: spectrum. If future analysis reveals a blue spectrum,
263: the $\Lambda$-inflation model will gain strong support as
264: the theory of the very early Universe.
265:
266: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
267: \section*{Acknowledgments}
268: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
269: This work was supported by RFBR 01-02-16274 and Russian State contract
270: 40.022.1.1.1106. I thank the Organizing Committee for hospitality.
271:
272: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
273: \section*{References}
274: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
275: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
276:
277: \bibitem{boom}P. de Bernardis {\it et al},
278: \Journal{\em Nature}{404}{955}{2000}.
279:
280: \bibitem{maxima}A. Balbi {\it et al}, \Journal{\em ApJ}{545}{L1}{2000}.
281:
282: \bibitem{dasi}C. Pryke {\it et al}, \Journal{\em ApJ}{568}{46}{2002}.
283:
284: \bibitem{vsa}see a talk given at this conference.
285:
286: \bibitem{cbi}see a talk given at this conference.
287:
288: \bibitem{qscalar}V.N. Lukash, \Journal{\em Sov.Phys.JETP}{52}{807}{1980}.
289:
290: \bibitem{hanstead}S. Hannestad {\it et al},
291: \Journal{\em Astropart.Phys.}{17}{375}{2002}.
292:
293: \bibitem{linf}V.N. Lukash and E.V. Mikheeva,
294: \Journal{\em{Int.J.Mod.Phys.} A}{15}{3783}{2000}.
295:
296: \bibitem{linf2}V.N.Lukash {\it et al}, \Journal{\em MNRAS}{317}{795}{2000}.
297:
298: \bibitem{hybridlinde}A. Linde, \Journal{\PRD}{49}{748}{1994}.
299:
300: \bibitem{novos}B. Novosyadlyj {\it et al},
301: \Journal{\em A\&A}{356}{418}{2000}.
302:
303: \end{thebibliography}
304:
305: \end{document}
306:
307: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
308: % End of moriond.tex %
309: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
310: