1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: % Correlation-consistency cartography of the double
3: % inflation landscape
4: %
5: % ST, DP, BB
6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
7:
8: %\documentstyle[prd,twocolumn,eqsecnum,aps]{revtex}
9: \documentstyle[prd,eqsecnum,aps,epsf]{revtex}
10: %\documentstyle[prd,eqsecnum,aps]{revtex}
11: %\documentstyle[preprint,eqsecnum,aps]{revtex}
12:
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
15: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
16: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
17: \def\ba{\begin{eqnarray}}
18: \def\ea{\end{eqnarray}}
19: \newcommand{\beqn}{\begin{eqnarray}}
20: \newcommand{\eeqn}{\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
21: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}} \newcommand{\mpl}{M_{Pl}}
22: \newcommand{\mg}{M_G} \newcommand{\k}{{\kappa}} \newcommand{\lmk}{\left(}
23: \newcommand{\rmk}{\right)} \newcommand{\lkk}{\left[}
24: \newcommand{\rkk}{\right]} \newcommand{\lnk}{\left\{}
25: \newcommand{\rnk}{\right\}} \newcommand{\zk}{z_k}
26: \newcommand{\calr}{{\cal
27: R}} \newcommand{\ch}{{\cal H}} \newcommand{\bx}{{\bf x}}
28: \newcommand{\bfk}{{\bf k}} \newcommand{\dphi}{\delta\varphi}
29: \newcommand{\ds}{\delta\sigma} \newcommand{\ddphi}{\Delta\varphi}
30: \newcommand{\dds}{\Delta\sigma}
31: \newcommand{\vp}{\varphi}
32:
33: %%%%% singlefig %%%%%
34: \newcommand{\singlefig}[2]{
35: \begin{center}
36: \begin{minipage}{#1}
37: \epsfxsize=#1
38: \epsffile{#2}
39: \end{minipage}
40: \end{center}}
41: %
42: %%%%% figcaption %%%%%
43: \newenvironment{figcaption}[2]{
44: \vspace{0.3cm}
45: \refstepcounter{figure}
46: \label{#1}
47: \begin{center}
48: \begin{minipage}{#2}
49: \begingroup \small FIG. \thefigure: }{
50: \endgroup
51: \end{minipage}
52: \end{center}}
53: %
54:
55:
56: %------------------------------
57: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
58: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
59: \newcommand{\gsim}{\mbox{\raisebox{-1.ex}{$\stackrel
60: {\textstyle>}{\textstyle\sim}$}}}
61: \newcommand{\lsim}{\mbox{\raisebox{-1.ex}{$\stackrel
62: {\textstyle<}{\textstyle \sim}$}}}
63: \newcommand{\square}{\kern1pt\vbox{\hrule height
64: 1.2pt\hbox{\vrule width 1.2pt\hskip 3pt
65: \vbox{\vskip 6pt}\hskip 3pt\vrule width 0.6pt}\hrule
66: height 0.6pt}\kern1pt}
67:
68: %------------------------------
69:
70: \begin{document}
71:
72: \draft
73: %\twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname
74: %@twocolumnfalse\endcsname
75:
76: \title{
77: {\bf Correlation-consistency cartography of the double
78: inflation landscape}}
79: \author{Shinji Tsujikawa$^{1}$, David Parkinson$^{2}$ and
80: Bruce A. Bassett$^{2}$} \address{$^1$ Research Center for the Early
81: Universe,
82: University of Tokyo, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan \\[.3em]}
83: \address{$^2$ Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation, University of
84: Portsmouth, Mercantile House, Portsmouth PO1 2EG, \\
85: United Kingdom \\[.3em]}
86: \date{\today}
87: \maketitle
88: \begin{abstract}
89: %*
90: We show explicitly some exciting features of double-inflation:
91: (i) it can often lead to strongly correlated adiabatic and
92: entropy (isocurvature) power spectra.
93: (ii) The two-field slow-roll consistency
94: relations can be violated
95: when the correlation is large at Hubble crossing. (iii) The
96: spectra of
97: adiabatic and entropy perturbations can be strongly scale-dependent and
98: tilted toward either the red or blue. These effects are typically due to a
99: light or time-dependent entropy mass and a non-negligible angular velocity
100: in field space during inflation. They are illustrated via a
101: multi-parameter numerical search for correlations in two concrete models.
102: The correlation is found to be particularly strong in a supersymmetric
103: scenario due to rapid growth of entropy perturbations in the tachyonic
104: region separating the two inflationary stages. Our analysis suggests that
105: realistic double-inflation models will provide a rich and fruitful arena
106: for the application of future cosmic data sets and new approximation
107: schemes which go beyond slow-roll.
108: \end{abstract}
109: \pacs{PACS 98.80.Cq}
110: \vskip 2pc
111: %]
112:
113: \baselineskip = 12pt
114:
115: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
116: \section{Introduction}
117: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
118:
119: One of the radical
120: developments in recent inflationary research
121: has been the realisation -- implicit in early work \cite{early} --
122: that inflationary predictions for the CMB and large-scale structure
123: (LSS) can depend sensitively on post-inflationary, but
124: pre-photon-decoupling,
125: physics.
126: This is a departure from the single-field inflationary
127: paradigm \cite{pert} that has been the backbone of
128: high-energy cosmology over the past 20 years. This rather subtle paradigm
129: shift can be primarily attributed to the driving force of particle physics
130: inflationary models \cite{Lyth:1998xn} which necessarily involve more than
131: one dynamically important field and often lead to more than one phase of
132: inflation \cite{realmulti}.
133:
134: The key point about multi-field models of inflation for this paper is
135: that they allow for substantial super-Hubble entropy/isocurvature
136: perturbations \cite{linde1985} (see also refs.~\cite{KS,MFB}). This
137: implies a very interesting dynamics since, {\em at linear order},
138: entropy perturbations source adiabatic perturbations while the
139: converse is not true in the
140: large scale limit \cite{Gordon:2000hv} (though see the counter-claims
141: in \cite{hwang}).
142: Further, these entropy modes can be partially or
143: completely correlated with the adiabatic modes, and this correlation
144: \footnote{This mode-mode correlation is to be contrasted with the
145: time-dependent correlations of \cite{LF}.} is
146: both important for the CMB and sensitive to the way in which reheating
147: occurs.
148:
149: Our aim in this paper is to provide the first
150: exhaustive study of adiabatic-entropy correlations in
151: ``realistic" double inflation models.
152: Given that the current CMB data actually
153: favour such a correlated cocktail \cite{Amendola:2001ni}
154: there exists the exciting
155: possibility that upcoming data will allow us to significantly
156: constrain realistic inflationary parameter spaces.
157:
158: Let us briefly recap the areas discovered so far for which
159: entropy perturbations can be important.
160:
161: \begin{itemize}
162: \item {\em Perturbations in multi-field inflationary models}
163: \cite{Hwang:1991aj}-\cite{Wands:2002bn} --
164: models with two or more phases of
165: inflation typically lead to some correlation due to the curvature of the
166: phase curves in field space. This correlation can be preserved or
167: wiped-out depending on the precise details of reheating.
168:
169: \item {\em The curvaton}\cite{curv} - an entropy perturbation can
170: be converted into an adiabatic perturbation with a total correlation.
171:
172: \item {\em Preheating} \cite{preheat}- the non-perturbative, resonant,
173: decay of the inflaton
174: can affect standard inflationary predictions for the CMB in certain special
175: cases where there is an entropy perturbation on large scales that is
176: resonantly amplified at preheating.
177:
178: \end{itemize}
179:
180: The possibility of correlated mixtures of adiabatic and isocurvature
181: perturbations is both exciting and depressing for phenomenology. Instead
182: of a single (adiabatic) power spectrum, one needs a matrix of power
183: spectra
184: \cite{TRD,BMT} describing the full correlation network for the complex
185: cosmic cocktail of fluids.
186: In addition the evolution of the correlation power spectra is
187: very sensitive to the way in which particle decays occur after
188: inflation. The precise nature
189: of decay channels and widths during and after reheating can preserve or
190: wash-out pre-existing correlations, introducing new arbitrary parameters
191: but also opening up a new window on particle physics
192: beyond the inflaton potential. Multi-field models may also lead to
193: significant
194: levels of non-Gaussianity in the CMB transferred from the entropy to
195: adiabatic
196: modes \cite{nongauss}.
197:
198: There are still unresolved issues in the multi-field context. In
199: particular, the validity of the slow-roll approximation has not been
200: fully explored. Indeed, this is one of the aims of our analysis.
201: In addition, new effects occur in the case when the kinetic
202: terms of the scalar fields are not canonical (e.g. nonlinear sigma
203: model) and hence parametrise a curved manifold,
204: as occurs in the case of scalar-tensor theories t
205: \cite{Starobinsky:1994mh,Garcia-Bellido:1995fz,Starobinsky:2001xq}
206: and string-inspired cosmologies \cite{Finelli:2001sr}.
207:
208: An analysis of scalar perturbations in such a general situation has
209: been studied \cite{Garcia-Bellido:1995fz,Mukhanov:1997fw} but only
210: under the assumption of the slow-roll. Even in the single-field case
211: the slow-roll approximation can introduce errors in the calculation of
212: the CMB spectrum of up to $15\%$ \cite{slowroll} and going to higher
213: order in the slow-roll parameters may be necessary \cite{Leach:2002ar}.
214: The situation in the more general case is clearly more subtle.
215:
216: Recently Bartolo {\em et al.} \cite{Bartolo:2001rt} investigated the
217: spectra of correlated perturbations and the modification of the standard
218: consistency relation, $n_T=-2r_T$, using the slow-roll analysis in the
219: multi-field context (Here $n_T$ is the spectral index of the gravitational
220: wave and $r_T$ is the relative amplitude of tensor to scalar
221: perturbations). According to their results, the single-field
222: consistency relation is significantly modified when the correlation $r_C$
223: between adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations is strong, i.e.,
224:
225:
226: \begin{itemize}
227: \item \underline{The first consistency relation:}
228: \end{itemize}
229: %
230: \beqn \label{consistency1a}
231: r_T=-\frac{n_T}{2}\left(1-r_C^2 \right) \,.
232: \eeqn
233: %
234:
235: In addition to the standard slow-roll approximation where the second-order
236: derivatives of scalar fields are neglected, Bartolo {\em et al.}
237: assumed that the adiabatic/entropy mass and the scalar field velocity
238: angle evolve slowly during the multiple phases of inflation. While the
239: latter approximation is generally valid in the single-field context, this
240: is not so in models with two stages of inflation because the masses of
241: field perturbations as well as the slow-roll parameters already get large
242: around the end of the {\it first} stage of inflation. Making use of
243: this approximation, Bartolo {\em et al.} derived a second consistency relation
244: \cite{Bartolo:2001rt}
245:
246: \begin{itemize}
247: \item \underline{The second consistency relation:}
248: \end{itemize}
249:
250: %
251: \beqn \label{consistency2a}
252: \left(n_C-n_S\right)r_T= -\frac{n_T}{4}\left(2n_C-n_{\cal R}-n_S
253: \right)\,,
254: \eeqn
255: %
256: where $n_{\cal R}$, $n_S$ and $n_C$ are the spectral indices
257: of curvature perturbations, isocurvature perturbaions and their
258: correlations, respcetively.
259:
260: More recently Wands {\em et al.} \cite{Wands:2002bn} rederived the
261: first of the consistency relations (the multi-field version of the standard
262: single field consistency realtion) assuming slow-roll only {\em at} horizon
263: crossing. On the other hand the slow-roll approximation during whole stage
264: of inflation is required to obtain the second consistency relation [we
265: will explain this issue in the next section].
266:
267: In this work we shall consider the more general situation where the
268: slow-roll conditions are not necessarily satisfied even at horizon crossing
269: and check the validity of the two
270: consistency relations numerically in ``realistic" double inflation
271: models.
272: The models we adopt are the double inflation with two massive scalar
273: fields (both noninteracting
274: \cite{Polarski:1992dq,Polarski:1994rz,Langlois:dw} and interacting
275: \cite{Linde:1996gt}) and the two-stage supersymmetric inflation with
276: tachyonic (spinodal) instability \cite{Linde:1993cn,Copeland:1994vg,RSG}
277: where the second derivative of the potential becomes negative.
278:
279: The former model is probably the simplest double-inflation generalisation
280: of the chaotic inflationary scenario. The second model is motivated by
281: supersymmetric theories \cite{Dvali:ms}-\cite{Linde:1997sj}, in which case
282: the potentials of scalar fields generically have tachyonic instability
283: regions. Since these two kinds of models include the basic properties of
284: double inflation, it is straightforward to extend our analysis to other
285: double inflationary scenarios.
286:
287: We organise our paper as follows.
288: In Sec.~\ref{general} we present the general framework of our analysis
289: including
290: the multi-field decomposition into adiabatic and entropy field
291: perturbations
292: and the resulting power spectra of correlated density
293: perturbations. We also discuss the limitation of the slow-roll
294: approximation
295: in the multi-field context.
296: In Sec.~\ref{tmassive} we analyze the model with two massive scalar
297: fields.
298: Sec.~\ref{supergra} is devoted to the double inflation with a tachyonic
299: instability while the final section concludes.
300:
301:
302: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
303: \section{General Framework} \label{general}
304: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
305:
306: Let us consider two-field inflation with minimally coupled scalar
307: fields, $\phi$ and $\chi$, with a potential $V(\phi, \chi)$.
308: In a flat Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) background
309: with a scale factor $a$, the background equations are
310: %
311: \begin{eqnarray}
312: \label{back2}
313: & & H^2 \equiv \left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{\kappa^2}{3}
314: \left(\frac12 \dot{\phi}^2+ \frac12 \dot{\chi}^2+V \right)\,,~~~
315: \dot{H}=-\frac{\kappa^2}{2} \left( \dot{\phi}^2 +\dot{\chi}^2 \right)\,, \\
316: & &\ddot{\phi}+3H\dot{\phi}+V_{\phi}=0\,,~~~
317: \ddot{\chi}+3H\dot{\chi}+V_{\chi}=0\,,
318: \label{back}
319: \end{eqnarray}
320: %
321: where $V_{\phi} \equiv \partial V/\partial \phi$,
322: $H$ is the Hubble expansion rate, and
323: $\kappa^2=8\pi/M_p^2$ with $M_p$ being the Planck mass. At linear
324: order minimally coupled scalar fields do not induce an anisotropic stress
325: \cite{KS,MFB,NPB} and hence scalar metric perturbations can be
326: characterised by a single potential $\Phi$. The metric in longitudinal
327: gauge then becomes:
328: %
329: \beqn
330: ds^2=-(1+2\Phi)dt^2+a^2(1-2\Phi)\delta_{ij} dx^i dx^j\,\,.
331: \label{metric}
332: \eeqn
333: %
334: The Fourier transformed,
335: linearised Einstein
336: equations for field and metric perturbations in this gauge are
337: %
338: \begin{eqnarray} \label{Phi1}
339: & & \dot{\Phi} + H\Phi = \frac{\kappa^2}{2}
340: \left( \dot{\phi}\delta
341: \phi+\dot{\chi}\delta \chi \right) \,, \\
342: & & \delta\ddot{\phi} + 3H\delta\dot{\phi}+
343: \left( \frac{k^2}{a^2} + V_{\phi\phi} \right) \delta\phi=
344: -2V_{\phi}\Phi+ 4\dot{\phi}\dot{\Phi}-V_{\phi\chi}
345: \delta \chi \,, \\
346: & & \delta\ddot{\chi} + 3H\delta\dot{\chi}+ \left( \frac{k^2}{a^2} +
347: V_{\chi\chi} \right) \delta\chi= -2V_{\chi} \Phi+ 4\dot{\chi}\dot{\Phi}
348: -V_{\phi\chi} \delta \phi \,,
349: \label{perturbed}
350: \end{eqnarray}
351: %
352: where $k$ is comoving momentum (wavenumber). All first order quantities in
353: the
354: equations that follow are functions of both $k$ and $t$ (the $k$ subscript
355: is
356: implicit) \footnote{In this paper we will often use the phrase ``horizon
357: crossing". This
358: should be read ``Hubble radius crossing" occurring for a mode with
359: wavenumber $k$ when $k = aH$.}.
360:
361: We now provide a self-contained review of the
362: decomposition of adiabatic and isocurvature scalar field
363: perturbations \cite{Gordon:2000hv} and the resulting
364: spectra of correlated perturbations \cite{Bartolo:2001rt}.
365: These two papers are our basic references in this section and we will,
366: where
367: possible, follow their notation.
368:
369: We will then also
370: discuss the limitations of results obtained using slow-roll analysis.
371:
372: Let us first introduce the ``adiabatic'' field, $\sigma$, and
373: the ``entropy'' field, $s$, defined by
374: %
375: \beqn
376: d\sigma = (\cos \theta)d\phi +(\sin \theta)d\chi,~~~~
377: ds = -(\sin \theta) d\phi +(\cos \theta) d\chi\,.
378: \label{sigs}
379: \eeqn
380: %
381: Here $\theta$ is the angle of the trajectory in field space,
382: satisfying $\tan \theta=\dot{\chi}/\dot{\phi}$.
383: With an effective potential $V(\phi,\chi)$, the equations
384: for adiabatic and entropy field perturbations are written in the form
385: \cite{Gordon:2000hv}
386: %
387: \beqn
388: \delta \ddot{\sigma}+3H\delta \dot{\sigma}+\left( \frac{k^2}{a^2}
389: +V_{\sigma \sigma}-\dot{\theta}^2 \right)\delta \sigma &= &
390: -2V_{\sigma}\Phi+4\dot{\sigma}\dot{\Phi}+ 2(\dot{\theta}\delta
391: s)^{\bullet}-\frac{2V_{\sigma}} {\dot{\sigma}} \dot{\theta} \delta s, \\
392: \delta \ddot{s}+3H\delta \dot{s}+\left( \frac{k^2}{a^2}
393: +V_{ss}+3\dot{\theta}^2 \right)\delta s
394: &=& \frac{\dot{\theta}}{\dot{\sigma}}
395: \frac{k^2}{2\pi G a^2}\Phi\,,
396: \label{deltas}
397: \eeqn
398: %
399: where
400: %
401: \beqn
402: V_{\sigma \sigma} &=& (\cos^2 \theta) V_{\phi \phi}
403: +(\sin 2\theta)V_{\phi \chi}+(\sin^2 \theta) V_{\chi \chi},\\
404: V_{ss} &=& (\sin^2 \theta) V_{\phi \phi}
405: -(\sin 2\theta)V_{\phi \chi}+(\cos^2 \theta) V_{\chi \chi}\,.
406: \label{Vdd}
407: \eeqn
408: %
409: {}From eq.~(\ref{Phi1}) we have
410: %
411: \beqn
412: \Phi=\frac{\kappa^2}{2a} \int a\dot{\sigma} \delta \sigma dt\,.
413: \label{Phisource}
414: \eeqn
415: %
416: This indicates that the gravitational potential is sourced by the
417: adiabatic field perturbation.
418:
419: Introducing the Sasaki-Mukhanov variable \cite{SaMuka}
420: %
421: \beqn
422: Q_\sigma \equiv \delta\sigma+\frac{\dot{\sigma}}{H}\Phi,
423: \label{SM}
424: \eeqn
425: %
426: the equation for the adiabatic field perturbation
427: can be rewritten as \cite{Gordon:2000hv}
428: %
429: \beqn
430: \ddot{Q}_{\sigma}+3H\dot{Q}_{\sigma}+ \left[
431: \frac{k^2}{a^2} +V_{\sigma
432: \sigma}-\dot{\theta}^2
433: -\frac{\kappa^2}{a^3}\left(\frac{a^3\dot{\sigma}^2}
434: {H}\right)^{\bullet} \right]
435: Q_{\sigma}= 2(\dot{\theta}\delta s)^{\bullet}-2\left(\frac{V_{\sigma}}
436: {\dot{\sigma}} +\frac{\dot{H}}{H}\right)\dot{\theta} \delta s\,.
437: \label{SMeq}
438: \eeqn
439: %
440: The slow-roll solutions for $Q_{\sigma}$ and $\delta s$ can be
441: obtained by neglecting the second-order derivatives ($\ddot{Q}_\sigma$ and
442: $\delta\ddot{s}$) in eqs.~(\ref{SMeq}) and (\ref{deltas}). The
443: evolution of fluctuations using this slow-roll approximation shows
444: fairly good agreement with numerical results except around the end
445: of inflation \cite{Starobinsky:2001xq} unless there exists an
446: intermediate non-inflationary stage (see ref.~\cite{Polarski:1992dq}).
447: Other kinds of slow-roll approximations discussed
448: later are more problematic however.
449:
450: Note, however, that neglecting the
451: second-order derivatives in eqs.~(\ref{SMeq}) and (\ref{deltas}) still
452: leads to deviation of the power spectra at the {\it end} of
453: inflation as found in numerical simulations in
454: ref.~\cite{Starobinsky:2001xq}. In this work, we numerically follow
455: the evolution of perturbations during double inflation and estimate
456: the spectra right after the end of inflation.
457:
458: To provide the comparison to our full numerical results consider the
459: solutions for eqs.~(\ref{SMeq}) and (\ref{deltas}), found by neglecting
460: $\ddot{Q}_\sigma$ and $\delta\ddot{s}$ \cite{Bartolo:2001rt}.
461: These solutions correspond to neglecting the decaying modes
462: of $Q_{\sigma}$ and $\delta s$. Then one has
463: %
464: \beqn
465: Q_{\sigma}\simeq Af(t)+BP(t)\,,~~~~\delta s \simeq Bg(t)\,.
466: \label{slowsolu}
467: \eeqn
468: %
469: Here $A = A(k)$ and $B = B(k)$.
470: When $f=g=1$ and $P=0$ at horizon crossing ($k=aH$) the amplitudes $A$ and
471: $B$
472: are determined by the quantum fluctuations within the Hubble radius:
473: %
474: \beqn
475: A=\frac{H_k}{\sqrt{2k^3}}e_{Q}({\bf k})\,,~~~
476: B=\frac{H_k}{\sqrt{2k^3}}e_{s}({\bf k})\,.
477: \label{AB}
478: \eeqn
479: %
480: Here $e_{Q}({\bf k})$ and $e_{s}({\bf k})$ are classical stochastic
481: Gaussian quantities, satisfying $\langle e_{Q} ({\bf k}) \rangle = \langle
482: e_{s} ({\bf k}) \rangle=0$ and $\langle e_i ({\bf k}) e^*_{j}({\bf k'})
483: \rangle=\delta_{ij} \delta^{(3)}({\bf k}-{\bf k'})$. Note that $H_k$ is
484: the Hubble parameter at horizon crossing.
485: We caution the reader that in the context of double inflation $P$ can
486: be nonzero at horizon crossing due to strong correlations. Clearly then
487: the
488: assumption of uncorrelated adiabatic and entropy perturbations at $k=aH$
489: are not generally justified. In order to make an accurate
490: numerical analysis we choose the Bunch-Davies vacuum state deep inside the
491: horizon ($k \gg aH$) so that the $\dot{\theta}$ term in the rhs of
492: eq.~(\ref{SMeq}) is negligible initially.
493:
494: On super-Hubble scales ($k \ll aH$) the slow-roll solution for $\delta s$
495: can be written as
496: %
497: \beqn
498: g(t)=\exp \left( -\int_{N(t)}^{N_k}
499: \frac{\mu_s^2}{3H^2}\,dN \right) \simeq
500: \exp \left[ -\frac{\mu_s^2}{3H^2}
501: \left(N_k-N(t)\right) \right]\,,
502: \label{deltas_slow}
503: \eeqn
504: %
505: where $\mu_s^2 \equiv V_{ss}+3\dot{\theta}^2$ and
506: $N(t)=-\int_{t_f}^t H dt$ with $t_f$ being the time at the end of
507: inflation. The quantity, $N_k=-\int_{t_f}^{t_k} H dt$, corresponds to the
508: e-folding between the horizon crossing and the end of inflation.
509:
510: In deriving eq.~(\ref{deltas_slow}) the time-dependence of the
511: $-\mu_s^2/(3H^2)$ term has been neglected, and this term is
512: pulled out of the integral. In the single-field inflationary scenario,
513: the variation of this term is associated with the end of inflation, in
514: which
515: case the error in this approximation is not significant for cosmologically
516: relevant scales. In the case of
517: double inflation, the situation is quite different. Since the mass
518: term $-\mu_s^2/(3H^2)$ already grows large at the end of the {\it first}
519: stage of inflation, the assumption that the value of $-\mu_s^2/(3H^2)$
520: will
521: not change during {\it both} stages of inflation is not
522: generally valid. In fact we shall numerically show later that this term
523: typically changes significantly during double-inflation. This
524: casts doubts on results derived using this approximation and suggests that
525: a
526: more sophisticated approximation may be needed to handle multiple phases
527: of
528: inflation completely.
529:
530: The slow-roll expansion for $-\mu_s^2/(3H^2)$ is
531: given as \cite{Bartolo:2001rt}
532: %
533: \beqn
534: -\frac{\mu_s^2}{3H^2} =
535: -\frac{\epsilon_{\chi}\eta_{\phi\phi}+
536: \epsilon_{\phi}\eta_{\chi\chi}}{\epsilon_t} +2\frac{(\pm
537: \sqrt{\epsilon_\phi})(\pm \sqrt{\epsilon_\chi})}
538: {\epsilon_t}\eta_{\phi\chi},\,
539: \label{mu}
540: \eeqn
541: %
542: where the slow-roll parameters are defined by
543: %
544: \beqn
545: \epsilon_I \equiv \frac{1}{2\kappa^2} \left( \frac{V_{\phi_I}}{V}
546: \right)^2\,,~~~~~ \eta_{IJ} \equiv
547: \frac{1}{\kappa^2} \frac{V_{\phi_I \phi_J}}{V}\,,
548: \label{slowpara}
549: \eeqn
550: %
551: with $\epsilon_t \equiv \epsilon_{\phi}+\epsilon_{\chi}$.
552: The entropy field perturbation at the end of inflation is approximately
553: expressed as eq.~(\ref{deltas_slow}) with
554: %
555: \beqn
556: g(t_f)=\exp\left[\left(-\frac{\epsilon_{\chi}\eta_{\phi\phi}+
557: \epsilon_{\phi}\eta_{\chi\chi}}{\epsilon_t} +2\frac{(\pm
558: \sqrt{\epsilon_\phi})(\pm \sqrt{\epsilon_\chi})}
559: {\epsilon_t}\eta_{\phi\chi}\right)_k N_k\right]\,,
560: \label{g}
561: \eeqn
562: %
563: where we set $N(t_f)=0$. The slow-roll parameters in this
564: expression is evaluated at horizon crossing, $k=aH$,
565: since the constancy of the mass term is assumed
566: in eq.~(\ref{deltas_slow}) [the subscript ``$k$" in eq.~(\ref{g})
567: denotes the value at horizon crossing].
568:
569: The slow-roll solution for $Q_{\sigma}$ at the end of inflation
570: can be obtained by assuming the constancy of $\mu_Q^2/H^2 \equiv
571: \left(V_{\sigma \sigma}-\dot{\theta}^2
572: -\kappa^2 a^{-3} (a^3\dot{\sigma}^2/H)^{\bullet}\right)/H^2$ and
573: $\dot{\theta}/H$, as
574: %
575: \beqn
576: f(t_f)=\exp\left[\left(-\frac{\epsilon_{\chi}\eta_{\chi\chi}+
577: \epsilon_{\phi}\eta_{\phi\phi}}{\epsilon_t}-2\frac{(\pm
578: \sqrt{\epsilon_\phi})(\pm \sqrt{\epsilon_\chi})}
579: {\epsilon_t} \eta_{\phi\chi}+2\epsilon_t \right)_k N_k\right]\,,~~~~
580: P(t_f)=2\,g(t_f) \left(\frac{\dot{\theta}}{H}\right)_k \frac{e^{\zeta_k
581: N_k}-1}{\zeta_k} \,,
582: \label{Qslow_roll}
583: \eeqn
584: %
585: where
586: %
587: \beqn
588: \zeta \equiv \frac{\mu_s^2-\mu_Q^2}{3H^2} =
589: \frac{(\epsilon_{\phi}-\epsilon_{\chi})(\eta_{\chi\chi}-\eta_{\phi\phi})}
590: {\epsilon_t}-4\frac{(\pm \sqrt{\epsilon_\phi})(\pm \sqrt{\epsilon_\chi})}
591: {\epsilon_t}\eta_{\phi\chi} +2\epsilon_t \,,
592: \label{D_def}
593: \eeqn
594: and
595: %
596: \beqn
597: \frac{\dot{\theta}}{H}=\frac{\epsilon_{\phi}-\epsilon_{\chi}}
598: {\epsilon_t}\eta_{\phi\chi}+\frac{(\pm \sqrt{\epsilon_\phi})(\pm \sqrt
599: {\epsilon_\chi})} {\epsilon_t} (\eta_{\phi\phi}-\eta_{\chi\chi}) \,.
600: \label{dtheta}
601: \eeqn
602: %
603: In eq.~(\ref{Qslow_roll}) $\zeta_k$ and $(\dot{\theta}/H)_k$ are
604: evaluated at horizon crossing due to the assumption of time-independence
605: during inflation. This assumption is not generally justified in the
606: context of the double inflation, as we already mentioned.
607:
608: The curvature perturbation, ${\cal R}$, is defined
609: by \cite{Gordon:2000hv}
610: %
611: \beqn
612: {\cal R} \equiv \Phi+H \frac{\dot{\phi}\delta\phi+\dot{\chi}\delta\chi}
613: {\dot{\phi}^2+\dot{\chi}^2}=\frac{H}{\dot{\sigma}} Q_{\sigma} \,.
614: \label{cal R}
615: \eeqn
616: %
617: Since the time-derivative of ${\cal R}$ is given
618: as \cite{SaMuka,Gordon:2000hv}
619: %
620: \beqn
621: \dot{\cal R}=\frac{H}{\dot{H}}\frac{k^2}{a^2}\Phi+
622: \frac{2H}{\dot{\sigma}} \dot{\theta}\delta s \,,
623: \label{dotR}
624: \eeqn
625: %
626: the curvature perturbation is not conserved even in the large-scale
627: limit ($k \to 0$) in the presence of the entropy field perturbation,
628: $\delta s$. Therefore the constancy of ${\cal R}$ that is typically
629: assumed in the slow-roll single-field inflationary scenario is not valid
630: in
631: the multi-field case. Instead we need to estimate the power spectrum of
632: ${\cal R}$ at the end of inflation from eq.~(\ref{slowsolu}), as
633: %
634: \beqn
635: {\cal P}_{\cal R}=\left( \frac{H_k}{2\pi} \right)^2
636: \frac{H^2(t_f)}{\dot{\sigma}^2(t_f)}
637: \left[ |f^2(t_f)|+|P^2(t_f)| \right]\simeq
638: \frac{1}{\pi} \left( \frac{H_k}{M_p} \right)^2
639: \frac{1}{\epsilon_t(t_f)} \left[ |f^2(t_f)|+|P^2(t_f)| \right] \,.
640: \label{P_R}
641: \eeqn
642: %
643:
644: The isocurvature perturbation of two scalar fields $\chi$ and $\phi$ is
645: defined
646: by \cite{KS}
647: %
648: \beqn
649: S_{\chi \phi} \equiv \frac{\delta \rho_{\chi}}{\rho_{\chi}+p_{\chi}}-
650: \frac{\delta \rho_{\phi}}{\rho_{\phi}+p_{\phi}}
651: =\dot{\delta}_{\chi \phi}-3H\delta_{\chi \phi} \,,
652: \label{iso}
653: \eeqn
654: %
655: where $\delta_{\chi \phi} \equiv \delta \chi/\dot{\chi}-\delta
656: \phi/\dot{\phi}=\dot{\sigma}/(\dot{\phi}\dot{\chi}) \delta s$.
657: Neglecting the contribution from
658: the $\delta \dot{s}$ term, the isocurvature perturbation can be written in
659: terms of the entropy field perturbation, $\delta s$, as
660: %
661: \beqn
662: S_{\chi \phi} = T_{\chi\phi}\delta s\,,~~~~{\rm with}~~~~
663: T_{\chi\phi} \simeq
664: -3\frac{\sqrt{4\pi}}{M_p} \frac{\sqrt{\epsilon_t}} {(\pm
665: \sqrt{\epsilon_\phi}) (\pm \sqrt{\epsilon_\chi})} \,.
666: \label{S2}
667: \eeqn
668: %
669: We note that when the slow-roll conditions are violated, the
670: $\delta \dot{s}$ term
671: may provide a contribution to the isocurvature perturbation that is not
672: captured by eq.~(\ref{S2}) which can induce small differences when
673: compared with the definition (\ref{iso}).
674:
675: Making use of eq.~(\ref{S2}), the power spectrum of the isocurvature
676: perturbation at the end of inflation is found to be
677: %
678: \beqn
679: {\cal P}_{S}=
680: \left( \frac{H_k}{2\pi} \right)^2 T_{\chi\phi}^2 |g^2(t_f)|
681: \simeq \frac{9}{\pi} \left( \frac{H_k}{M_p} \right)^2
682: \frac{\epsilon_t(t_f)}{\epsilon_{\phi}(t_f) \epsilon_{\chi}(t_f) }
683: |g^2(t_f)| \,.
684: \label{P_S}
685: \eeqn
686: %
687: The cross-spectrum between $Q_{\sigma}$ and $\delta s$ is estimated
688: as $P_{Q\delta s}=(H_k/2\pi)^2 g(t) P(t)$ from eq.~(\ref{slowsolu}).
689: Then we find the cross-spectrum between ${\cal R}$ and $S$ as
690: %
691: \beqn
692: {\cal P}_C=
693: \left( \frac{H_k}{2\pi} \right)^2 \frac{H(t_f)}{\dot{\sigma}(t_f)}
694: \,T_{\chi\phi}
695: \,g(t_f) P(t_f) \simeq -\frac{6}{\pi}
696: \left(\frac{\dot{\theta}}{H}\right)_k
697: \left(\frac{H_k}{M_p}\right)^2 \frac{e^{\zeta_k N_k}-1}{\zeta_k}
698: \frac{|g^2(t_f)|}{(\pm \sqrt{\epsilon_\phi(t_f)})(\pm
699: \sqrt{\epsilon_\chi(t_f)})} \,.
700: \label{P_C}
701: \eeqn
702: %
703:
704: The spectral indices for the power-spectrum, ${\cal P}$, is defined by
705: %
706: \beqn
707: n-1 \equiv \frac{d\,{\rm ln} {\cal P}}{d\,{\rm ln} k}=
708: (1+\epsilon_t) \frac{d\,{\rm ln} {\cal P}}{d\,{\rm ln} a}
709: \Biggr|_{k=aH} \,.
710: \label{n}
711: \eeqn
712: %
713: Therefore the spectral indices for ${\cal P}_{\cal R}$, ${\cal P}_S$, and
714: ${\cal P}_C$ read \cite{Bartolo:2001rt}
715: %
716: \beqn \label{tilt}
717: n_{\cal R}-1 &=& -6\epsilon_t+2\frac{\epsilon_\phi
718: \eta_{\phi\phi}+\epsilon_\chi \eta_{\chi\chi}} {\epsilon_t} +4\frac{(\pm
719: \sqrt{\epsilon_\phi}) (\pm \sqrt{\epsilon_\chi})}{\epsilon_t}
720: \eta_{\phi\chi}
721: -\frac{8|f^2(t_f)|}{|f^2(t_f)|+|P^2(t_f)|}
722: \left(\frac{\dot{\theta}}{H}\right)_k^2 \frac{e^{ -\zeta_k
723: N_k}}{\zeta_k}(1-e^{-\zeta_k N_k}) \,, \\
724: \label{tiltS2}
725: n_S-1 &=& -2\epsilon_t+2\frac{\epsilon_\phi
726: \eta_{\chi\chi}+\epsilon_\chi \eta_{\phi\phi}} {\epsilon_t} -4\frac{(\pm
727: \sqrt{\epsilon_\phi}) (\pm \sqrt{\epsilon_\chi})}{\epsilon_t}
728: \eta_{\phi\chi} \,, \\
729: \label{tiltS}
730: n_C-1 &=& -2\epsilon_t+2\frac{\epsilon_\phi
731: \eta_{\chi\chi}+\epsilon_\chi \eta_{\phi\phi}} {\epsilon_t} -4\frac{(\pm
732: \sqrt{\epsilon_\phi}) (\pm \sqrt{\epsilon_\chi})}{\epsilon_t}
733: \eta_{\phi\chi}
734: -\frac{\zeta_k e^{\zeta_k N_k}}{e^{\zeta_k N_k}-1} \,,
735: \eeqn
736: %
737: where the slow-roll parameters are evaluated at horizon crossing.
738: The spectrum $P_T$ and the spectral index $n_T$ of tensor
739: perturbations are calculated by analyzing the equation of
740: massless gravitational fields \cite{Lyth:1998xn}:
741: %
742: \beqn \label{GW}
743: P_T=\left( \frac{4}{\sqrt{\pi}} \frac{H_k}{M_p} \right)^2
744: \,,~~~~n_T=-\frac{8\pi}{M_p^2} \left(\frac{\dot{\sigma}}{H}
745: \right)_k^2 \,.
746: \eeqn
747: %
748: We introduce two ratios $r_C$ and $r_T$, which are defined as
749: %
750: \beqn \label{r_C}
751: r_C \equiv \frac{P_C}{\sqrt{P_{\cal R}P_S}}\,,
752: \eeqn
753: %
754: and
755: %
756: \beqn \label{r_T}
757: r_T \equiv \frac{P_T}{16P_{\cal R}}\,.
758: \eeqn
759: %
760: {}From eqs.~(\ref{P_R}), (\ref{P_S}) and (\ref{P_C}) we find
761: that the correlation ratio $r_C$ can be expressed as
762: %
763: \beqn \label{x}
764: r_C=\frac{x}{\sqrt{1+x^2}}\,,~~~~ {\rm with}~~~~
765: x= \frac{P(t_f)}{f(t_f)} \,.
766: \eeqn
767: %
768: Therefore $r_C^2$ lies in the range $0 \le r_C^2 \le 1$. Note that the
769: relation (\ref{x}) is obtained without assuming that the
770: adiabatic/entropy masses and $\dot{\theta}/H$ are constant
771: after horizon crossing. Namely, the equality $\simeq$
772: in eqs.~(\ref{P_R}), (\ref{P_S}) and
773: (\ref{P_C}) is not used when we derive eq.~(\ref{x}). If the slow-roll
774: solutions (\ref{Qslow_roll}) are employed, we have
775: %
776: \beqn \label{xslow}
777: x \simeq 2\left(\frac{\dot{\theta}}{H}\right)_k
778: \frac{1-e^{-\zeta_k N_k}}{\zeta_k} \,.
779: \eeqn
780: %
781: The behaviour of the term $\dot{\theta}/H$ is
782: most important when we analyze the correlation between adiabatic and
783: isocurvature perturbations. In eq.~(\ref{xslow}) the ``frozen" value of
784: $\dot{\theta}/H$ is used at horizon crossing. However, since the
785: assumption of constant $\dot{\theta}/H$ is not generally valid during
786: double inflation, the slow-roll result (\ref{xslow}) leads to some errors
787: in estimating $r_C$ at the end of double inflation.
788: When $\dot{\theta}/H$ varies significantly, we have to integrate this term
789: from first horizon crossing to the end of inflation rather than use the
790: ``frozen" value at horizon crossing. Note that if $\dot{\theta}/H$ is
791: vanishingly small during the {\it both} phases of inflation the
792: correlation vanishes ($r_C=0$).
793:
794: The tensor to scalar ratio $r_T$ can be evaluated
795: without using the slow-roll equality in eqs.~(\ref{P_R}) and (\ref{GW}), as
796: %
797: \beqn \label{r_T2}
798: r_T=\frac{4\pi}{M_p^2}\left(\frac{\dot{\sigma}(t_f)}{H(t_f)}
799: \right)^2 \frac{1}{|f^2(t_f)|+|P^2(t_f)|} =\frac{4\pi}{M_p^2}
800: \left(\frac{\dot{\sigma}}{H}\right)^2_k \frac{1}{1+x^2} \,. \eeqn %
801: Here we used the fact that $(H/\dot{\sigma})f$ is conserved after horizon
802: crossing, i.e., $(H/\dot{\sigma})_k=(H(t_f)/\dot{\sigma}(t_f))\,f(t_f)$
803: [see eq.~(\ref{dotR}) with $k \ll aH$ and $\delta s=0$].
804: Making use of eqs.~(\ref{GW}), (\ref{x}) and (\ref{r_T2})
805: we get the consistency relation
806: %
807: \beqn \label{consistency1}
808: r_T=-\frac{n_T}{2}\left(1-r_C^2 \right) \,.
809: \eeqn
810: %
811: This indicates that the correlation between adiabatic and isocurvature
812: perturbations leads to the modification of the consistency relation in the
813: single field case ($r_T=-n_T/2$).
814:
815: In deriving eq.~(\ref{consistency1}), we did not exploit the assumption
816: that the adiabatic/entropy mass and $\dot{\theta}/H$ are constant
817: after horizon crossing. Then this consistency relation should be valid as
818: long as the slow-roll conditions are satisfied {\it at horizon crossing},
819: in which case the uncorrelated solutions for $Q_{\sigma}$ and $\delta s$
820: can be used at $k=aH$ \cite{Wands:2002bn} \footnote{Note that
821: the decaying mode for ${\cal R}$ can be important in some non slow-roll
822: inflationary scenarios \cite{Starobinsky:ts,Leach:2001zf}. In this case
823: the second derivatives of eqs.~(\ref{deltas}) and (\ref{SMeq}) are not
824: necessarily small and the first term in the rhs of eq.~(\ref{slowsolu}) is
825: not negligible. Then we need to add the decaying mode solutions to
826: eq.~(\ref{slowsolu}). The consistency relation (\ref{consistency1}) does
827: not cover this case, although the enhancement of the decaying mode occurs
828: only in some restricted situations \cite{Starobinsky:ts,Leach:2001zf}.}.
829: In the context of double inflation there are some cases where the
830: slow-roll
831: conditions can be violated at horizon crossing, implying that the
832: consistency relation (\ref{consistency1}) does not hold automatically when
833: applied to realistic double inflation models.
834:
835: The authors in ref.~\cite{Bartolo:2001rt} obtained the following second
836: consistency relation from the slow-roll results (\ref{tilt})-(\ref{tiltS})
837: together with (\ref{GW}) and (\ref{r_T2}), as
838: %
839: \beqn \label{consistency2}
840: \left(n_C-n_S\right)r_T= -\frac{n_T}{4}\left(2n_C-n_{\cal R}-n_S
841: \right)\,.
842: \eeqn
843: %
844: Note that the constancy of the adiabatic/entropy mass and $\dot{\theta}/H$
845: is
846: assumed in deriving this relation.
847: Therefore it is likely that the second consistency relation
848: (\ref{consistency2}) is more strongly affected by the violation of the
849: slow-roll conditions compared to the first consistency relation
850: (\ref{consistency1}).
851:
852: While the slow-roll results which include the quantities $n_{\cal R}$,
853: $n_S$,
854: and $n_C$ can exhibit strong deviation from the numerical results,
855: the spectral index $n_T$ of the gravitational wave is well described by
856: eq.~(\ref{GW}) even in the context of double inflation. Therefore
857: provided
858: that the correlation is small at horizon crossing, the first consistency
859: relation (\ref{consistency1}) is expected to be reliable as long as we use
860: $x$ in eq.~(\ref{x}) instead of the slow-roll result in eq.~(\ref{xslow}).
861:
862: In the following section we shall compare the above formula with full
863: numerical simulations for concrete
864: models of double inflation (see Appendix for the numerical method
865: to evaluate power spectra and correlations). We will provide a detailed
866: analysis of the spectra of perturbations and the validity of the
867: consistency relations derived from the above analysis. We will also
868: discuss the parameter ranges where the correlation of adiabatic and
869: isocurvature perturbations is strong.
870:
871:
872: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
873: \section{Double inflation with two massive scalar fields}
874: \label{tmassive}
875: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
876:
877: Let us first consider a simple model where massive scalar fields, $\phi$
878: and $\chi$, are coupled through an interaction term $\frac12
879: g^2\phi^2\chi^2$:
880: %
881: \beqn \label{V}
882: V(\phi,\chi)=\frac12 m_{\phi}^2\phi^2+\frac12 m_{\chi}^2
883: \chi^2 + \frac12
884: g^2\phi^2\chi^2\,.
885: \eeqn
886: %
887: There are three parameters associated with this potential:
888: $m_{\phi}$, $m_{\chi}$ and $g$. Then there are four free parameters
889: associated with the initial conditions of the fields: $\phi_{i}$,
890: $\chi_{i}$, $\dot\phi_{i}$ and $\dot\chi_{i}$. Making use of the slow
891: roll approximation, $\dot\phi = -V_{\phi}/3H$ and $\dot\chi =
892: -V_{\chi}/3H$ with $H^2=(8\pi/3M_p^2)V$ in eqs.~(\ref{back2}) and
893: (\ref{back}), the initial conditions of $\dot\phi$ and $\dot\chi$ are
894: determined by $\phi_i$ and $\chi_i$
895: %*
896: \footnote{Clearly assuming slow-roll to set the initial conditions is not
897: generally valid. Not assuming this will lead to extra transient violations
898: of the slow-roll conditions but if inflation is successfully initiated,
899: the
900: fields should settle to their slow-roll values quickly. At any rate our
901: interest is in correlations and violations of the slow-roll approximation
902: in a minimal sense. Inverting CMB and LSS data to give information about
903: the potential and initial conditions will have to deal with this
904: possibility in general however.}.
905: This assumption cuts down the number of free
906: parameters to two, $\phi_{i}$ and $\chi_{i}$. Therefore we have five
907: free parameters ($m_{\phi}$, $m_{\chi}$, $g$, $\phi_i$ and $\chi_i$)
908: for the model (\ref{V}). Once these parameters are given, the
909: evolution of the background is determined, with the number of e-folds,
910: $N =-{ \rm ln} (a/a_f)$, with $a_f$ being the value of the scale
911: factor at the end of inflation \cite{Polarski:1992dq}. We shall
912: introduce the number of e-folds, $N_H$, which corresponds to the
913: value of $N$ when the scale corresponding to our Hubble radius today
914: crossed out the Hubble radius during inflation. Hereafter we set it to be
915: %
916: \beqn \label{NH}
917: N_H=60 \,,
918: \eeqn
919: %
920: in order to make definite calculations.
921:
922:
923: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
924: \subsection{Non-interacting fields: $g=0$}
925: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
926:
927: In the case where the fields are non-interacting ($g=0$), the slow-roll
928: approximation in eqs.~(\ref{back2}) and (\ref{back}) gives the relation
929: $\phi^2+\chi^2=4N/\kappa^2$. The fields lie on a circle of radius
930: $2\sqrt{N}/\kappa$. Therefore it is useful to write $\phi$ and $\chi$
931: in parametric form \cite{Polarski:1992dq}:
932: %
933: \beqn
934: \phi=\frac{2\sqrt{N}}{\kappa}\,\cos \alpha\,,
935: ~~~~ \chi=\frac{2\sqrt{N}}{\kappa}\,\sin \alpha \,.
936: \label{para}
937: \eeqn
938: %
939: This means that the evolution of two scalar fields is characterised
940: by $N$ and the scalar field position angle, $\alpha$, satisfying
941: the relation $\tan \alpha=\chi/\phi$. The field velocity angle, $\theta$,
942: defined by eq.~(\ref{sigs}) is related to $\alpha$ by
943: %
944: \beqn
945: \tan \theta \simeq -\frac{2m_{\chi}^2\sqrt{N}}
946: {3H\kappa \dot{\sigma}} \tan \alpha \,.
947: \label{theal}
948: \eeqn
949: %
950: Making use of the relation (\ref{para}), we find that
951: the number of e-folds can be expressed as \cite{Polarski:1992dq}
952: %
953: \beqn
954: N = N_0 \frac{(\sin \alpha)^{2/(R^2-1)}}
955: {(\cos \alpha)^{2R^2/(R^2-1)}} \,,
956: \label{Napprox}
957: \eeqn
958: %
959: where
960: %
961: \beqn
962: R \equiv m_{\chi}/m_{\phi}\,.
963: \label{ratio}
964: \eeqn
965: %
966: Note that the integration constant, $N_0$, roughly
967: corresponds to the number of e-folds during the second stage of inflation
968: driven by the light scalar field. Hereafter we shall concentrate on the
969: case where the field $\chi$ is heavier than $\phi$, i.e., $R>1$.
970:
971: In order to know the evolution of the background we need to determine
972: four parameters: $m_{\phi}$, $R$, $N_0$, and $\alpha$.
973: When the total number of e-folds is fixed at around $N_H$, the model
974: parameters are reduced to three ($m_{\phi}$, $R$ and $N_0$). Whether
975: inflation is dominated by the heavy or light fields when the scale of
976: cosmological relevance crosses the Hubble radius depends on the value of
977: $N_0$ relative to $N_H=60$.
978:
979: Adiabatic perturbations for modes larger than the Hubble radius
980: during the radiation dominant era can be matched with the curvature
981: perturbation at the end of inflation, which are given
982: by \cite{Langlois:dw,Gordon:2000hv}
983: %
984: \begin{eqnarray}
985: {\cal R} \simeq -\frac{\kappa^2 H(t_*)}{2\sqrt{2k^3}} \left[\phi(t_*)
986: e_{\phi}({\bf k})+\chi(t_*) e_{\chi}({\bf k}) \right] =-\frac{\kappa
987: H(t_*)\sqrt{N}}{\sqrt{2k^3}} \left[\cos \alpha_* \,e_{\phi}({\bf k})+ \sin
988: \alpha_* \,e_{\chi}({\bf k}) \right] \,,
989: \label{Phirad}
990: \end{eqnarray}
991: %
992: where $\alpha_*$ is the value of $\alpha$ at the horizon crossing.
993: Assuming that the field $\phi$ decays into ordinary matter (baryons,
994: photons, neutrinos) and $\chi$ into cold dark matter, super-Hubble
995: isocurvature perturbations during the radiation dominant era is expressed
996: as \cite{Langlois:dw,Gordon:2000hv}
997: %
998: \begin{eqnarray}
999: S \simeq \frac{H(t_*)}{\sqrt{2k^3}} \left[R^2 \frac{e_{\phi}({\bf
1000: k})}{\phi(t_*)}- \frac{e_{\chi}({\bf k})}{\chi(t_*)} \right] =\frac{\kappa
1001: H(t_*)}{2\sqrt{N} \sqrt{2k^3}} \left[R^2 \frac{e_{\phi}({\bf k})}{\cos
1002: \alpha_*}- \frac{e_{\chi}({\bf k})}{\sin \alpha_*} \right] \,.
1003: \label{isorad}
1004: \end{eqnarray}
1005: %
1006:
1007: The expression (\ref{Phirad}) indicates that for the adiabatic
1008: perturbation the heavy field $\chi$ dominates for $\tan \alpha_*>1$,
1009: while the light field $\phi$ dominates for $\tan \alpha_*<1$. {}From
1010: eq.~(\ref{isorad}) we find that for the isocurvature perturbation the
1011: heavy
1012: field $\chi$ dominates for $\tan \alpha_*<1/R^2$,
1013: while the light field $\phi$ dominates for $\tan \alpha_*>1/R^2$.
1014:
1015: Let us estimate the correlation $r_C$ that is derived from the slow-roll
1016: analysis, see eq.~(\ref{xslow}). This is not actually
1017: completely valid as we pointed out in the previous section, but useful to
1018: make rough estimation for the correlation. We will check, of course, the
1019: validity of the analytic estimates by numerical simulations. By a simple
1020: calculation we find that $x$ defined in eq.~(\ref{xslow}) is given by
1021: %
1022: \begin{eqnarray}
1023: x=\frac{R^2(R^2-1)\tan \alpha_* (1+\tan^2\alpha_*)}
1024: {(1+R^2 \tan^2\alpha_*)(1+R^4 \tan^2 \alpha_*)}
1025: \frac{1-e^{-\zeta_k N_k}}{\zeta_k
1026: N_k}\,.
1027: \label{x_g=0}
1028: \end{eqnarray}
1029: %
1030: If the condition, $|\zeta_k| N_k \ll 1$, is satisfied, this reduces to
1031: %
1032: \begin{eqnarray}
1033: x=\frac{R^2(R^2-1)\tan \alpha_* (1+\tan^2\alpha_*)}
1034: {(1+R^2 \tan^2\alpha_*)(1+R^4 \tan^2 \alpha_*)}\,.
1035: \label{x_gd}
1036: \end{eqnarray}
1037: %
1038: Note that when $|\zeta_k| N_k~\gsim~1$ one has
1039: $|(1-e^{-\zeta_k N_k})/(\zeta_k N_k)|~\simeq 1/|(\zeta_k| N_k)~\lsim~1$.
1040: Therefore the value of $x$ is smaller than in the case of (\ref{x_gd}).
1041: Eq.~(\ref{x}) implies that the correlation $r_C$ vanishes for $x=0$ and
1042: gets larger for increasing $x$. In particular when $x$ is larger than of
1043: order unity, the correlation is strong ($r_C$ is close to unity). {}From
1044: eq.~(\ref{x_g=0}) we find that there is no correlation if the masses of
1045: the scalar fields are equal ($R=1$). We can also make consistency check
1046: by
1047: using eq.~(\ref{x_g=0}) or (\ref{x_gd}). When the masses of the scalar
1048: fields differ significantly ($R \to 0$ or $R \to \infty$), the correlation
1049: is also vanishingly small for fixed $\tan \alpha_* $.
1050:
1051: In order to discuss the correlation precisely, it is useful to
1052: classify model parameters into three cases \cite{Langlois:dw}:
1053: (a)~ $\tan \alpha_* \gg 1$, (b)~$\tan \alpha_*
1054: \ll 1/R^2$ and (c)~$1/R^2<\tan \alpha_* <1$.
1055: Hereafter we shall analyze the strength of the correlation as well as the
1056: power spectra and consistency relations, and check the validity of the
1057: slow-roll analysis.
1058:
1059: \vspace{0.3cm}
1060:
1061: \begin{center}
1062: {\bf (a)~$\tan \alpha_* \gg 1$}
1063: \end{center}
1064:
1065: In this case the field $\chi$ is the main source for adiabatic
1066: perturbations, while isocurvature perturbations are dominated by the
1067: field $\phi$. Therefore both perturbations are regarded as almost
1068: independent ones, and the correlation is weak (see Fig.~\ref{rc}). In
1069: fact when $\tan \alpha_* \gg 1$ eq.~(\ref{x_gd}) yields
1070: %
1071: \begin{eqnarray}
1072: x \simeq \frac{R^2-1}{R^4} \frac{1}{\tan \alpha_*} \,.
1073: \label{x_gd1}
1074: \end{eqnarray}
1075: %
1076: Therefore the correlation $r_C$ decreases with increasing
1077: $\tan \alpha_*$ and one has $r_C \to 0$ for $\tan \alpha_*
1078: \to \infty$. This decreasing rate is more significant for larger $R$
1079: as can be seen from eq.~(\ref{x_gd1}) and Fig.~\ref{rcnogtan}.
1080:
1081: The amplitude of isocurvature perturbations is not typically larger than
1082: that of adiabatic perturbations unless $\alpha_*$ is so much close to
1083: $\pi/2$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{spectra}.\footnote{Note, however, that the
1084: amplitude of isocurvature perturbations can be high if $\alpha_*$ is very
1085: close to $\pi/2$.} Since the correlation term in eq.~(\ref{tilt}) is
1086: neglected and $\epsilon_\phi \ll \epsilon_\chi $ for $\tan \alpha_* \gg
1087: 1$, one has a spectral index of the curvature perturbation that is
1088: approximately the same as the single field case:
1089: %
1090: \begin{eqnarray}
1091: n_{\cal R}-1 \simeq -6\epsilon_\chi+2\eta_{\chi\chi}
1092: =-\frac{1}{\pi} \left( \frac{M_p}{\chi} \right)^2 \,.
1093: \label{nRm}
1094: \end{eqnarray}
1095: %
1096: This is a slowly red-tilted spectrum as found in Fig.~\ref{spectra}.
1097: In Fig.~\ref{consist} we plot the ratio $r_T$
1098: defined by eq.~(\ref{r_T}) and its value obtained by two consistency
1099: relations (\ref{consistency1}) and (\ref{consistency2}).
1100: Except for some discontinuous behaviour which is
1101: accompanied with numerics\footnote{We evaluated the spectral indices
1102: numerically using the definition,
1103: $n=1+\Delta({\rm ln}\,P)/\Delta({\rm ln}\,k)$, which leads to some
1104: numerical errors and some spikiness in some of the figures.},
1105: consistency relations show fairly good agreement
1106: with the value of the original definition of $r_T$. In this case since
1107: $r_C$ is much less than unity the consistency relation (\ref{consistency1}) is
1108: practically no different from that of the single field case,
1109: $r_T=-n_T/2$.
1110: Namely it is almost the same as the single field inflation driven by only
1111: one scalar field. Therefore the assumption that $\mu_Q^2/(3H^2)$,
1112: $\mu_s^2/(3H^2)$ and $\dot{\theta}/H$ do not vary too much during
1113: inflation can be justified in this case, so not giving strong deviation in the
1114: consistency relations.
1115:
1116: \vspace{0.3cm}
1117:
1118: \begin{center}
1119: {\bf (b)~$\tan \alpha_* \ll 1/R^2$}
1120: \end{center}
1121:
1122: In this case the field $\phi$ is the main source for adiabatic
1123: perturbations, while isocurvature perturbations are dominated by the
1124: field $\chi$. {}From eq.~(\ref{x_gd}) one has
1125: %
1126: \begin{eqnarray}
1127: x \simeq R^2(R^2-1) \tan \alpha_* \,,
1128: \label{x_gd2}
1129: \end{eqnarray}
1130: %
1131: for $R^2 \tan \alpha_* \ll 1$. Therefore adiabatic and isocurvature
1132: perturbations are almost independent from each other for smaller $\tan
1133: \alpha_*$, which can be confirmed in Fig.~\ref{rc}. In
1134: Fig.~\ref{rcnogtan}
1135: we find that the prediction (\ref{x_gd}) overestimates the correlation
1136: ratio $r_C$ when $\tan \alpha_*$ is small, while eq.~(\ref{x_g=0}) shows
1137: fairly good agreement with numerical results. This implies that
1138: $|\zeta_k|
1139: N_k$ could be larger than unity, in which case the $(1-e^{-\zeta_k
1140: N_k})/(\zeta_k N_k)$ term can not be neglected in eq.~(\ref{x_g=0}).
1141:
1142: When $\tan \alpha_* \ll 1/R^2$ the amplitude of isocurvature perturbations
1143: are larger than that of adiabatic ones as predicted by
1144: eqs.~(\ref{Phirad}) and (\ref{isorad}) [see Fig.~\ref{spectra}].
1145: The spectrum of curvature perturbations is hardly affected by
1146: isocurvature perturbations because the correlation is small ($r_C \ll 1$).
1147: Therefore the consistency relation in the single-field case should
1148: not be significantly modified in this case.
1149:
1150: In fact, from Fig.~\ref{consist} we find that the first consistency
1151: relation (\ref{consistency1}) shows good agreement with the original
1152: definition of $r_T$, while the second one (\ref{consistency2})
1153: is not so good.
1154: Indeed we should expect deviations from the predictions of the
1155: second consistency relation
1156: around the end of inflation because the masses of the adiabatic/entropy
1157: fields and $\dot{\theta}/H$ are not constant in this case. Even in the
1158: case (a) the discrepancy in the second consistency relation is a bit
1159: larger
1160: than in the case of the first one.
1161:
1162: %%%%%%%%%%
1163: \begin{figure}
1164: \begin{center}
1165: \singlefig{7cm}{rc.eps}
1166: \begin{figcaption}{rc}{7cm}
1167: Correlation spectra $r_C$ for three different cases
1168: with $R=5$, $m_{\phi}=2.0 \times 10^{-7}M_p$ and $g=0$. Each case
1169: corresponds to (a) $\tan \alpha_*=32.0 \gg 1$, (b) $\tan \alpha_*=3.13 \times
1170: 10^{-4} \ll R^{-2}$, and (c) $R^{-2}<\tan \alpha_*=0.16<1$, on the scale
1171: $N_k=65$. The case (c) shows strong correlations, while the cases (a) and
1172: (b) are not.
1173: \end{figcaption}
1174: \end{center}
1175: \end{figure}
1176: %%%%%%%%%%
1177:
1178: %%%%%%%%%%
1179: \begin{figure}
1180: \begin{center}
1181: \singlefig{10cm}{rcnogtan.eps}
1182: \begin{figcaption}{rcnogtan}{10cm}
1183: The square of the correlation $r_C$ as a function of $\tan \alpha_*$
1184: for $R=3$ and $R=7$ with $m_{\phi}=2.0 \times 10^{-7}M_p$ and $g=0$
1185: on the scale corresponding to $N_k=60$. The solid curve corresponds to the
1186: numerical result, while dashed (``a1'') and dotted (``a2'') curves
1187: correspond to the results using eqs.~(\ref{x_g=0}) and (\ref{x_gd}),
1188: respectively.
1189: \end{figcaption}
1190: \end{center}
1191: \end{figure}
1192: %%%%%%%%%%
1193:
1194:
1195: \vspace{0.3cm}
1196:
1197: \begin{center}
1198: {\bf (c)~$1/R^2 \le \tan \alpha_* \le 1$}
1199: \end{center}
1200:
1201: In this case both adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations
1202: are sourced by the light field $\phi$,
1203: but the effect of the heavy field $\chi$ is also important.
1204: {}From eq.~(\ref{x_gd}) we find
1205: %
1206: \begin{eqnarray}
1207: x =\frac{(R^2-1)(R^4+1)}{2R^2(R^2+1)} \,,~~~~
1208: {\rm for}~~~~\tan \alpha_*=\frac{1}{R^2}\,,
1209: \label{x_gd3}
1210: \end{eqnarray}
1211: %
1212: and
1213: %
1214: \begin{eqnarray}
1215: x =\frac{2R^2(R^2-1)}{(R^2+1)(R^4+1)} \,,
1216: ~~~~ {\rm for}~~~~\tan \alpha_*=1 \,.
1217: \label{x_gd4}
1218: \end{eqnarray}
1219: %
1220: Therefore when $\tan \alpha_*=1/R^2$ and $R$ is not too close to
1221: unity, $x$ is typically larger than unity (for example one has
1222: $x>1.275$ for $R>2$). In this case the correlation ratio $r_C$ is
1223: close to 1. The range of this high correlation gets wider for larger
1224: $R$ as found in Fig.~\ref{rcnogtan}. When $\tan \alpha_* \simeq 1$,
1225: $x$ is at a maximum $x_{\rm max} \simeq 0.3$ for $R \simeq
1226: 1.7$, with the correlation ratio ranges $r_C \le 0.28$ in this
1227: case. As $R$ is increased, the maximum correlation becomes smaller,
1228: as is seen in Fig.~\ref{rcnogtan}.
1229:
1230: Note that we need to include the correction term $(1-e^{-\zeta_k
1231: N_k})/(\zeta_k N_k)$ in eq.~(\ref{x_g=0}) to accurately estimate the
1232: strength of the correlation. Fig.~\ref{rcnogtan} clearly indicates
1233: that the correlation is strong around $1/R^2 \le \tan \alpha_* \le 1$.
1234: In this case the correlation term $r_C^2$ is very important in the
1235: consistency relation, (\ref{consistency1}), because $r_C$ will be
1236: close to unity.
1237:
1238:
1239: As found from Fig.~\ref{rcnogtan} analytic estimates by slow-roll
1240: approximations typically give larger values of $r_C$ around the
1241: region where the correlation is strong. When $r_C$ is close to
1242: unity, this difference can affect the consistency relation
1243: (\ref{consistency1}).
1244: In Figs.~\ref{qmphichi}{phchtheta} we plot the evolution of $\mu_Q^2/(3H^2)$,
1245: $\mu_s^2/(3H^2)$ and $\dot\theta/H$ for
1246: $R = 5$, $m_\chi=1 \times 10^{-6} M_p$ and $g=0$ with
1247: initial conditions $\chi=3M_p$ and $\phi=1.5M_p$.
1248: The heavy field $\chi$ leads to the first phase of inflation until $\tau
1249: \equiv 10^{-6}M_p t \simeq 20$, which is followed by the
1250: second stage of inflation driven by $\phi$.
1251: All of $\mu_Q^2/(3H^2)$, $\mu_s^2/(3H^2)$ and $\dot\theta/H$
1252: exhibit rapid increase around the end of the first stage of inflation due
1253: to the breakdown of the slow-roll conditions for $\chi$.
1254: For example, $\mu_s^2/(3H^2)$ continues to grow by the end
1255: of the second stage of inflation, whose growth is about $5 \times 10^4$
1256: times compared to its initial value.
1257:
1258: In this case the assumption of the constancy of the mass terms is no
1259: longer justified in eqs.~(\ref{deltas_slow}) and (\ref{Qslow_roll}),
1260: thereby leading to errors in the correlation $r_C$ if we use the
1261: estimation in eq.~(\ref{xslow}). In addition, the peak value of
1262: $\dot{\theta}/H$ typically provides a larger contribution than its value
1263: at
1264: horizon crossing in eq.~(\ref{xslow}).
1265: Therefore we need to evaluate the values of $x$ and $r_C$ numerically
1266: in order to estimate the correlation accurately.
1267:
1268: In the case where the correlation is strong at horizon crossing, we
1269: expect to find some deviations even from the predictions of the first
1270: consistency relation. In fact the numerical result in Fig.~\ref{consist}
1271: (c) does not completely agree with the slow-roll results, although
1272: the deviation is not significant. This case corresponds to the one where the
1273: slow-roll conditions are violated at horizon crossing. We have numerically
1274: checked that the first consistency relation holds well as long as the
1275: slow-roll conditions are satisfied at horizon crossing, which agrees with
1276: the claim by Wands {\em et al}~\cite{Wands:2002bn}. The second consistency
1277: relation is more strongly affected by the violation of the slow-roll
1278: conditions during double inflation, especially when the correlation is
1279: strong. The slow-roll analysis shows some limitations to correctly
1280: estimate three spectral indices $n_{\cal R}$, $n_S$, and $n_C$. Numerical
1281: analysis is required as well in order to fully understand the strength of
1282: the correlation and the final power spectra of adiabatic and isocurvature
1283: perturbations.
1284:
1285: {}In Fig.~\ref{rc} we find that the correlation is high around
1286: $N_k~\gsim~60$, and decreases toward smaller scales.
1287: This corresponds to the
1288: ``light'' inflationary phase with $\theta~\lsim~1/R$ where the
1289: perturbations are mainly sourced by the field $\phi$ around $N_k \simeq
1290: 60$. In this case the correlation gets weaker toward smaller scales due
1291: to the decrease of $\dot{\theta}$. If the scale $N_k=60$ corresponds
1292: to the ``heavy'' inflationary phase with $\alpha~\gsim~1/R$, the
1293: correlation $r_C$ is nearly constant as shown in ref.~\cite{Langlois:dw}.
1294: This means that $\alpha$ varies slowly during the heavy field inflation,
1295: which makes $\dot{\theta}$ unsuppressed. The slow variation of $r_C$ can
1296: be
1297: actually found in the case (a) of Fig.~\ref{rc}. Note that if we choose
1298: the value of $\alpha$ not much greater than $1/R$ the correlation can be
1299: higher as claimed in ref.~\cite{Langlois:dw}.
1300:
1301:
1302: %%%%%%%%%%
1303: \begin{figure}
1304: \begin{center}
1305: \singlefig{6.5cm}{spectra.eps}
1306: \begin{figcaption}{spectra}{6.5cm}
1307: The power spectra $P_R$, $P_S$ and $P_C$
1308: with $R=5$, $m_{\phi}=2.0 \times 10^{-7}M_p$ and $g=0$.
1309: The curves correspond to the cases
1310: (a) $\tan \alpha_*=32.0 \gg 1$ (heavy-field dominated),
1311: (b) $\tan \alpha_*=3.13
1312: \times 10^{-4} \ll R^{-2}$ (light-field dominated), and
1313: (c) $R^{-2}<\tan \alpha_*=0.16<1$, on the scale
1314: corresponding to $N_k=65$ (double inflation).
1315: \end{figcaption}
1316: \end{center}
1317: \end{figure}
1318: %%%%%%%%%%
1319: %%%%%%%%%%
1320: \begin{figure}
1321: \begin{center}
1322: \singlefig{6cm}{consist.eps}
1323: \begin{figcaption}{consist}{6cm}
1324: The consistency relations
1325: with $R=5$, $m_{\phi}=2.0 \times 10^{-7}M_p$ and $g=0$.
1326: The curves correspond to the cases
1327: (a) $\tan \alpha_*=32.0 \gg 1$,
1328: (b) $\tan \alpha_*=3.13 \times 10^{-4} \ll R^{-2}$, and
1329: (c) $R^{-2}<\tan \alpha_*=0.16<1$, on the scale
1330: corresponding to $N_k=65$ (double inflation). The
1331: ratio $r_T$ that is derived by using eq.~(\ref{r_C}),
1332: and the two consistency relations eq.~(\ref{consistency1})
1333: and (\ref{consistency2}) are denoted by
1334: (i), (ii), (iii), respectively. Note that while the $r_T$ calculated
1335: numerically, (i), typically agreed with (ii), but it often differs from (iii).
1336: \end{figcaption}
1337: \end{center}
1338: \end{figure}
1339: %%%%%%%%%%
1340:
1341: %%%%%%%%%%
1342: \begin{figure}
1343: \begin{center}
1344: \singlefig{7cm}{qmphichi.eps}
1345: \begin{figcaption}{qmphichi}{7cm}
1346: The evolution of $\mu_Q^2/(3H^2)$ and $\mu_s^2/(3H^2)$
1347: with $R = 5$, $m_\chi=1 \times 10^{-6} M_p$ and $g=0$.
1348: The initial conditions are
1349: chosen to be $\chi=3M_p$ and $\phi=1.5M_p$. When the heavy field drops to
1350: the potential valley, a second phase of inflation begins, which is
1351: accompanied by the increase of $\mu_Q^2/(3H^2)$ and $\mu_s^2/(3H^2)$
1352: The term $\mu_s^2/(3H^2)$ exhibits the growth by a factor
1353: of $5 \times 10^4$ by the end of inflation compared to its initial value.
1354: \end{figcaption}
1355: \end{center}
1356: \end{figure}
1357: %%%%%%%%%%
1358: %%%%%%%%%%
1359: \begin{figure}
1360: \begin{center}
1361: \singlefig{7cm}{phchtheta.eps}
1362: \begin{figcaption}{phchtheta}{7cm}
1363: The evolution of $\dot\theta/H$ with the same initial conditions as
1364: in Fig.~\ref{qmphichi}. When the heavy field drops to
1365: the potential valley, a second phase of inflation begins, which is
1366: accompanied by the increase of $\dot\theta/H$ from the initial value
1367: $1.44 \times
1368: 10^{-3} $ to its peak value $\dot\theta/H=0.8$ around the end of the first
1369: stage of inflation.
1370: \end{figcaption}
1371: \end{center}
1372: \end{figure}
1373: %%%%%%%%%%
1374:
1375: Two important quantities to determine the strength of the correlation
1376: are $R$ and $\tan \alpha_*$ around $N_H \simeq 60$
1377: as seen from eq.~(\ref{x_g=0}). The e-folding of the second stage of
1378: inflation, $N_0$, determines whether inflation is dominated by a heavy
1379: or light scalar field around $N_H \simeq 60$ and also the strength of
1380: the correlation on smaller scales. Either of the scalar field masses,
1381: $m_{\phi}$ or $m_{\chi}$, can be determined by the COBE normalization.
1382: The relative ratio $R=m_\chi/m_\phi$ is important when we discuss the
1383: correlation, $r_C$. The correlation is strong around $1/R^2 \le \tan
1384: \alpha_* \le 1$,
1385: whose lower bound is also determined by $R$. If the precise observations
1386: in the future reveals the strength of the correlation around
1387: $50~\lsim~N_k~\lsim~63$, we will be able to constrain on two masses
1388: $m_{\phi}$ and $m_{\chi}$ (alternatively $R$ and $m_{\phi}$) together with
1389: the values of $\tan \alpha_*$ and $N_0$.
1390:
1391:
1392: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1393: \subsection{The interacting case: $g \ne 0$}
1394: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1395:
1396: Let us next consider the case where the coupling $g$ is taken into
1397: account. It was suggested by Linde and Mukhanov \cite{Linde:1996gt}
1398: that inclusion of the coupling $g$ can lead to the blue spectrum of
1399: isocurvature perturbations. Here we shall make detailed analysis
1400: about the correlation of adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations.
1401:
1402: Let us first estimate the spectrum of isocurvature perturbations using the
1403: analytic estimates of Sec.~II.
1404: Although it has some errors due to the breakdown of slow-roll
1405: approximations, it is still useful to make rough estimates
1406: for the power spectrum. The spectral index in eq.~(\ref{tiltS2}) is
1407: estimated as
1408: %
1409: \begin{eqnarray}
1410: n_S-1=-2\epsilon_t+\frac{2\mu_s^2}{3H^2} \,.
1411: \label{nSg}
1412: \end{eqnarray}
1413: %
1414: Therefore it is important to consider the mass of the entropy field
1415: perturbation, $\mu_s$, relative to the Hubble rate, $H$. Note that the
1416: term $-2\epsilon_t$ in the rhs of eq.~(\ref{nSg}) provides the slowly
1417: red-tiled spectrum. If the mass square $\mu_s^2$ is larger than of order
1418: $H^2$, isocurvature perturbations are blue-tilted with $n_S>1$. Making
1419: use
1420: of the slow-roll result (\ref{mu}), we find
1421: %
1422: \begin{eqnarray}
1423: \frac{2\mu_s^2}{3H^2}=
1424: \frac{4(m_\chi^2+g^2\phi^2)(m_\phi^2+g^2\chi^2)
1425: (m_\phi^2\phi^2+m_\chi^2\chi^2-2g^2\phi^2\chi^2)}
1426: {\kappa^2(m_\phi^2\phi^2+m_\chi^2\chi^2+g^2\phi^2\chi^2)
1427: \left\{(m_\phi^2+g^2\chi^2)^2\phi^2+(m_\chi^2+g^2\phi^2)^2
1428: \chi^2 \right\}} \,.
1429: \label{mu_S}
1430: \end{eqnarray}
1431: %
1432:
1433: Let us first consider the case where $\mu_s^2$ is positive during the
1434: whole stage of double inflation, which corresponds to the condition,
1435: $m_\phi^2\phi^2+m_\chi^2\chi^2> 2g^2\phi^2\chi^2$. When the heavy field
1436: $\chi$ rolls down to the valley $\chi=0$ at the first stage of inflation,
1437: we have $\mu_s^2 \simeq m_\chi^2+ g^2\phi^2$ and $3H^2 \simeq 4\pi
1438: m_\phi^2 \phi^2/M_p^2$.
1439: Then the mass square of $\delta s$ is given by
1440: %
1441: \begin{eqnarray}
1442: \mu_s^2 \simeq m_\chi^2+\beta H^2\,,~~~~{\rm with}~~~~
1443: \beta=\frac{3g^2}{4\pi}\left(\frac{M_p}{m_\phi}\right)^2 \,.
1444: \label{beta}
1445: \end{eqnarray}
1446: %
1447: Note that in this case the entropy field perturbation $\delta s$
1448: is almost the same as the heavy field perturbation $\delta \chi$.
1449: If $\chi$ is quickly suppressed, we only need to consider $\delta \chi$,
1450: as in ref.~\cite{Linde:1996gt}, in order to discuss the spectrum of
1451: isocurvature
1452: perturbations. When
1453: $\beta H^2$ is larger than $m_{\chi}^2$ during double inflation, we have
1454: $\mu_s^2 \simeq \beta H^2$ and
1455: %
1456: \begin{eqnarray}
1457: n_S-1 \simeq -2\epsilon_t+\frac23 \beta \,.
1458: \label{nsg}
1459: \end{eqnarray}
1460: %
1461:
1462: When $\beta$ is much larger than unity, this yields the
1463: blue-tilted spectrum, $n_S>1$.\footnote{When $\beta \gg 1$
1464: the spectrum of isocurvature perturbations is highly blue-tilted.
1465: This is actually the case for the preheating scenario
1466: where large-scale entropy field perturbations are strongly
1467: suppressed for the coupling $g$ required for strong preheating,
1468: see refs.~\cite{preheat}.} Making use of this scenario, it is possible to
1469: obtain isocurvature perturbations that tend to grow toward smaller scales
1470: while adiabatic perturbations remain small on present horizon scales
1471: \cite{Linde:1996gt}. If $\mu_s^2 \gg H^2$, then $\chi$ rolls down very
1472: rapidly to the local minimum of the potential valley ($\chi \to 0$), and
1473: $\dot{\theta}$ in eq.~(\ref{P_C}) exponentially decreases on smaller
1474: scales. In this case the correlation between adiabatic and isocurvature
1475: perturbations tends to be very weak except for the scales where $\chi$ is
1476: not very small compared to $\phi$. When $\dot{\theta}$ is negligible, the
1477: spectrum of curvature perturbations is practically no different from the
1478: single field result, $n_{\cal R}-1=-6\epsilon_\phi+2\eta_{\phi \phi}$ [see
1479: eq.~(\ref{tilt})]. In this case adiabatic perturbations can be nearly
1480: scale-invariant, while isocurvature perturbations are blue-tilted.
1481:
1482: {}From eq.~(\ref{beta}) we find that the spectrum of isocurvature
1483: perturbations can be blue-tilted for the coupling $g$ with
1484: $g~\gsim~m_{\phi}/M_p$. In Fig.~\ref{gspectra} we plot the spectra of
1485: $P_R$, $P_S$ and $P_C$ for two cases with $\beta=0.01$ and $\beta=0.95$.
1486: Note that in these cases the model parameters are chosen so that $\mu_s^2$
1487: is positive during the whole of double inflation. When $\beta=0.01$, the
1488: spectrum of isocurvature perturbations is slightly blue-tilted, while for
1489: $\beta=0.95$ it is highly blue-tilted.
1490:
1491: The two spectra $P_{\cal R}$ and
1492: $P_C$ are not significantly modified by the presence of a coupling term
1493: $g$. It can be understood that the correlation of adiabatic and isocurvature
1494: perturbations gets smaller as $\chi$ approaches the potential valley with
1495: decreasing $\dot{\theta}$. As shown in Fig.~\ref{gconsist} the
1496: correlation
1497: $r_C$ tends to decrease more on smaller scales as we choose larger values
1498: of $\beta$. When $\beta~\gsim~1$ we find that $r_C$ decreases rapidly on
1499: smaller scales, which is associated with the highly blue-tilted spectrum
1500: of isocurvature perturbations. This is confirmed by the definition of $r_C$
1501: in eq.~(\ref{r_C}) where only $P_S$ increases toward smaller scales.
1502:
1503: {} From Fig.~\ref{gconsist} we find that the first consistency relation
1504: (\ref{consistency1}) exhibits fairly good agreement with $r_T$ obtained by
1505: eq.~(\ref{r_T}) except for larger scales, while the second one
1506: (\ref{consistency1}) does not. This is caused by the violation of the
1507: slow-roll conditions at horizon crossing and also by the change of
1508: $\mu_Q^2/(3H^2)$, $\mu_s^2/(3H^2)$ and $\dot\theta/H$ during inflation.
1509: Since the correlation decreases toward smaller scales, the deviation from
1510: the numerical results tends to be weaker for smaller $N_k$ in ths case of
1511: the first consistency relation. Since the second consistency relation is
1512: affected by the change of the mass terms after horizon crossing, it does
1513: not agree well with numerical results even on smaller scales.
1514:
1515: %%%%%%%%%%
1516: \begin{figure}
1517: \begin{center}
1518: \singlefig{7cm}{gspectra.eps}
1519: \begin{figcaption}{gspectra}{8cm}
1520: The power
1521: spectra $P_R$, $P_S$, and $P_C$ are shown for $\beta=0.01$ and
1522: $\beta=0.95$.
1523: The model parameters are chosen to be $R=3$, $m_{\phi}=5.0 \times
1524: 10^{-7}M_p$, and $\phi=3.2M_p$, $\chi=0.3M_p$ at $N_k=65$.
1525: \end{figcaption}
1526: \end{center}
1527: \end{figure}
1528: %%%%%%%%%%
1529: %%%%%%%%%%
1530: \begin{figure}
1531: \begin{center}
1532: \singlefig{7cm}{gconsist.eps}
1533: \begin{figcaption}{gconsist}{8cm}
1534: The correlation $r_C$ for $\beta=0.01, 0.47, 0.95$,
1535: and the ratio $r_T$ which are derived by eqs.~(\ref{r_T}),
1536: (\ref{consistency1}) and (\ref{consistency2}), denoted by (i), (ii), and
1537: (iii), respectively.
1538: The model parameters are chosen to be the same as Fig.~\ref{gspectra}.
1539: \end{figcaption}
1540: \end{center}
1541: \end{figure}
1542: %%%%%%%%%%
1543:
1544: Note that in Fig.~\ref{gconsist}
1545: the strength of the correlation $r_C$ increases for larger $\beta$ around
1546: the scale $N_H=60$. Since the inclusion of the coupling $g$ provides the
1547: additional source term for $\dot{\theta}$ [see the $\eta_{\phi\chi}$ term
1548: in eq.~(\ref{dtheta})], this works to induce the larger correlation as
1549: long
1550: as $\chi$ is not strongly suppressed. Making use of eq.~(\ref{dtheta}),
1551: we
1552: can easily show that the correlation is nonzero even for
1553: $R=1$.\footnote{We
1554: have $r_C=0$ for $R=1$ and $\phi=\chi$.} Fig.~\ref{rcg} indicates that the
1555: values of $r_C$ are increased around the region where the correlation is
1556: strong, by including the coupling $g$.
1557:
1558: If the condition, $m_\phi^2\phi^2+m_\chi^2\chi^2<2g^2\phi^2\chi^2$,
1559: is satisfied at horizon crossing, the mass of $\delta s$
1560: is {\it negative}. So the spectrum of isocurvature
1561: perturbations produced is red tilted with a steeper slope than in the
1562: case of $g=0$. Fig.~\ref{negative} corresponds to the case where the
1563: spectrum $P_S$ is red-tilted for $57~\lsim~N_k~\lsim~63$ but begins to be
1564: blue-tilted for $N_k~\lsim~57$. The negative mass of $\delta s$ leads to
1565: the red-tilted spectrum on large scales as expected. When $\phi$ and
1566: $\chi$
1567: are the same order on these scales, the correlation $r_C$ can be close to
1568: unity [see the right panel of Fig.~\ref{negative}]. When the mass of
1569: $\delta s$ becomes positive and $\chi$ begins to decrease toward $\chi=0$,
1570: the situation is almost the same as discussed previously. In this case we
1571: have highly blue-tilted spectrum for isocurvature perturbations with
1572: suppressed correlations ($r_C \ll 1$).
1573:
1574: %%%%%%%%%%
1575: \begin{figure}
1576: \begin{center}
1577: \singlefig{9cm}{rcg1.eps}
1578: \begin{figcaption}{rcg}{9cm}
1579: The correlation $r_C$ as a function of $\chi_*/\phi_*$ for
1580: $\beta=0.01, 0.47, 0.95$ on the scale corresponding to
1581: $N_k=60$. The model parameters are the
1582: same as in Fig.~\ref{gspectra}.
1583: \end{figcaption}
1584: \end{center}
1585: \end{figure}
1586: %%%%%%%%%%
1587:
1588: %%%%%%%%%%
1589: \begin{figure}
1590: \begin{center}
1591: \singlefig{7cm}{negativemass.eps}
1592: \begin{figcaption}{negative}{7cm}
1593: The power spectra $P_R$, $P_S$, $P_C$ (left) and the correlation
1594: $r_C$ for $R=3$, $m_{\phi}=2.0
1595: \times 10^{-7}M_p$ and $g=2.0 \times 10^{-6}$
1596: (corresponding to $\beta=23.9$).
1597: \end{figcaption}
1598: \end{center}
1599: \end{figure}
1600: %%%%%%%%%%
1601:
1602: Unless $g$ is extremely small ($g \ll m_{\phi}/M_p$),
1603: then it is natural to have a stage of the negative
1604: $\mu_s^2$ during double inflation. For example, when
1605: $g~\gsim~m_{\phi}/M_p$, it is easy to satisfy the condition, $\mu_s^2<0$,
1606: if $\chi$ is larger than the order of the Planck mass. For the double
1607: inflationary scenario where inflation starts out with large initial values
1608: of $\phi$ and $\chi$ much greater than the Planck mass, the spectrum $P_S$
1609: is highly red-tilted. Nevertheless, when $g$ is large and $\beta \gg
1610: 1$, $\chi$ decreases very rapidly toward $\chi=0$. Therefore the
1611: blue-tilted spectrum of $P_S$ immediately appears once the mass of $\delta
1612: s$ becomes positive.
1613:
1614: We have found that a variety of power spectra and correlations can be
1615: obtained, depending on the initial values of scalar fields and the
1616: parameters
1617: of the model. In particular the inclusion of the coupling $g$ leads to an
1618: interesting power spectrum of isocurvature perturbations that
1619: tend to increase toward large scales (corresponding to $\mu_s^2<0$)
1620: and also grow again toward smaller scales (corresponding to $\mu_s^2>0$).
1621: If such a spectrum is supported from observations, it should be
1622: possible to constrain on the strength of the coupling $g$ and other model
1623: parameters by taking into account the information of the correlation $r_C$
1624: as well.
1625:
1626: There exist other models of double inflation
1627: which provide the $\beta H^2$ correction as in eq.~(\ref{beta}).
1628: One such model is a non-minimally coupled $\chi$
1629: field with a minimally coupled field $\phi$ \cite{Linde:1996gt}:
1630: %
1631: \begin{eqnarray}
1632: V=\frac12 m_{\phi}^2 \phi^2+\frac12 m_{\chi}^2 \chi^2
1633: +\frac12 \xi R \chi^2\,,
1634: \label{nonminimal}
1635: \end{eqnarray}
1636: %
1637: where $\xi $ is a non-minimal coupling between the scalar curvature
1638: $R$ and the field $\chi$. In this model the spectrum of the isocurvature
1639: perturbations is red-tilted due to the amplification of $\delta \chi$
1640: for negative $\xi$ \cite{Tsujikawa:2000wc,Starobinsky:2001xq},
1641: while it is blue-tilted for positive $\xi$.
1642: Although the decomposition into adiabatic and entropy ``fields''
1643: is not as simple as in the case of minimally coupled fields
1644: discussed in Sec.~II, it would be of interest to extend our analysis
1645: to this case.
1646:
1647:
1648:
1649: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1650: \section{Double inflation motivated by supersymmetry}
1651: \label{supergra}
1652: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1653:
1654: We now come to the perhaps the most interesting of the models
1655: we have studied. In hybrid and supernatural inflationary
1656: models \cite{Linde:1993cn,Copeland:1994vg,RSG},
1657: the symmetry breaking transition occurs in the presence
1658: of the second scalar field,
1659: $\chi$. The effective potential of the original hybrid
1660: inflation model is given by \cite{Linde:1993cn}
1661: %
1662: \begin{eqnarray}
1663: V= \frac{\lambda}{4} \left(\chi^2-\frac{M^2}
1664: {\lambda}\right)^2 +\frac12 g^2 \phi^2 \chi^2+
1665: \frac12 m^2\phi^2\,.
1666: \label{hybrid}
1667: \end{eqnarray}
1668: %
1669:
1670: This potential is closely related with those obtained in
1671: supersymmetric theories \cite{RSG} -\cite{Linde:1997sj}. For example,
1672: consider the supersymmetric theory with a superpotential
1673: %
1674: \begin{eqnarray}
1675: W = S \left(\kappa_0 \vp \bar{\vp}-\mu^2 \right)\,,
1676: \label{superpo}
1677: \end{eqnarray}
1678: %
1679: which includes two superfields, $S$, $\varphi$, together with a conjugate
1680: pair, $\bar{\varphi}$. In the global supersymmetric limit
1681: ($M_p \to \infty$), one obtains the following effective potential for two
1682: superfields $S$ and $\varphi$:
1683: %
1684: \begin{eqnarray}
1685: V=\left| \kappa_0 \varphi \bar{\varphi}-\mu^2 \right|^2+ \kappa_0^2 |S|^2
1686: \left( |\varphi|^2+|\bar{\varphi}|^2 \right) +D{\rm -terms}\,.
1687: \label{effpo}
1688: \end{eqnarray}
1689: %
1690: Note that this has a potential minimum at $|S|=0$, $\langle \varphi
1691: \rangle \langle \bar{\varphi} \rangle=\mu^2/\kappa_0$,
1692: $|\langle \varphi \rangle|= |\langle \bar{\varphi} \rangle|$.
1693: Making gauge and $R$-transformations in
1694: the $D$-flat direction, $|\langle \varphi \rangle|=|\langle \bar{\varphi}
1695: \rangle|$, the complex superfields, $S$, $\varphi$, $\bar{\varphi}$ can be
1696: replaced by real scalar fields, $\phi$ and $\chi$, as
1697: %
1698: \begin{eqnarray}
1699: S=\phi/\sqrt{2},~~~~\varphi=\bar{\varphi}=\chi/2.
1700: \label{realsca}
1701: \end{eqnarray}
1702: %
1703: Then the potential (\ref{effpo}) yields
1704: %
1705: \begin{eqnarray}
1706: V=\frac{\kappa_0^2}{16}\left( \chi^2- \frac{4\mu^2}{\kappa_0} \right)^2+
1707: \frac14 \kappa_0^2\phi^2\chi^2\,,
1708: \label{effpo2}
1709: \end{eqnarray}
1710: %
1711: where we neglected the $D$-terms.
1712: The absolute minimum appears at $\phi=0$, $\chi=2\mu/\sqrt{\kappa_0}$.
1713: The potential (\ref{effpo2}) is exactly flat at the local
1714: minimum, $\chi=0$.
1715: Adding a mass term $\frac12 m^2\phi^2$ in
1716: Eq.~(\ref{effpo2}) results in the effective potential (\ref{hybrid})
1717: with replacement, $\kappa_0^2/2=g^2=2\lambda$ and
1718: $\mu^2=M^2/(2\sqrt{\lambda})$.
1719: Therefore the supersymmetric version of the hybrid or double inflation
1720: corresponds to the case with $g^2/\lambda=2$.
1721:
1722: Taking into account the supergravity correction
1723: gives rise to a slowly varying effective potential,
1724: whose form is approximately given by
1725: $V \simeq \mu^4 \left[1+\phi^4/(8M_p^4)\right]$
1726: \cite{Panagiotakopoulos:1997qd}.
1727: If one-loop radiative corrections are
1728: included, the total effective potential for
1729: $\phi>\sqrt{2}\mu/\sqrt{\kappa_0}$ involves logarithmic term,
1730: ${\rm ln}\,\phi$, as well as the $\phi^4$ term \cite{Linde:1997sj}. The corrections terms,
1731: $\phi^4$ or ${\rm ln}\,\phi$, can lead to an inflationary expansion of the
1732: universe for $\phi>\sqrt{2} \mu/\sqrt{\kappa_0}$.
1733:
1734: Although these are different from the mass
1735: term $\frac12 m^2\phi^2$ in eq.~(\ref{hybrid}), the basic structures of
1736: the
1737: models motivated by supersymmetric theories are well described by the
1738: potential (\ref{hybrid}). In particular, when we discuss the correlation
1739: between adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations, the crucial point is the
1740: evolution of scalar fields {\em after} the symmetry breaking phase
1741: rather than the early evolution at $\phi>\sqrt{2}\mu/\sqrt{\kappa_0}$.
1742: Therefore we shall consider the model
1743: (\ref{hybrid}) in order to understand the basic properties of the
1744: correlations. We are particularly interested
1745: in the supersymmetric case with $g^2/\lambda=2$.
1746:
1747:
1748: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1749: \subsection{The condition for double inflation and the
1750: background evolution }
1751: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1752:
1753: We shall first consider the evolution of the background and the condition
1754: for
1755: double inflation to take place (rather than just a single phase of
1756: inflation)
1757: for the model (\ref{hybrid}). When $\phi$ is larger
1758: than $\phi_c \equiv M/g$, inflation takes place due to the slow-roll
1759: evolution of $\phi$. Since the mass of $\chi$ is positive for
1760: $\phi>\phi_c$, the field $\chi$ rolls down to the potential valley at
1761: $\chi=0$. Therefore the potential is approximately described as
1762: $V \simeq \frac{M^4}{4\lambda}+\frac12 m^2\phi^2$. If the condition,
1763: $m^2\phi_c^2 \ll M^4/\lambda$, is satisfied, the Hubble constant at
1764: $\phi=\phi_c$ is given by $H \simeq H_0 \equiv
1765: \sqrt{2\pi/(3\lambda)}M^2/M_p$.
1766: Let us denote the masses of the two fields $\phi$ and $\chi$ relative to
1767: $H_0^2$ as $\gamma$ and $\delta$:
1768: %
1769: \begin{eqnarray}
1770: \gamma \equiv \frac{m^2}{H_0^2}=
1771: \frac{3\lambda m^2 M_p^2}{2\pi M^4}, ~~~~\delta \equiv
1772: \frac{g^2\phi^2-M^2}{H_0^2} =\frac{3\lambda}{2\pi}\left(\frac{M_p}{M}
1773: \right)^2 (c^2-1)\,,
1774: \label{albe}
1775: \end{eqnarray}
1776: %
1777: where we set $\phi=c\phi_c$. $\gamma$ is required to be smaller than unity
1778: in order to lead to the first stage of inflation for $\phi>\phi_c$,
1779: thereby
1780: yielding
1781: %
1782: \begin{eqnarray}
1783: M^2~\gsim~mM_p \sqrt{\lambda}\,.
1784: \label{del}
1785: \end{eqnarray}
1786: %
1787:
1788: Whether the second stage of inflation occurs or not after $\phi$
1789: drops below $\phi_c$ depends on the model parameters.
1790: If the ``water-fall'' condition,
1791: %
1792: \begin{eqnarray}
1793: M^3 \ll \lambda mM_{p}^2 \,,
1794: \label{waterfall}
1795: \end{eqnarray}
1796: %
1797: is satisfied, inflation soon comes to an end after the
1798: symmetry breaking. This corresponds to the original version of the hybrid
1799: inflationary scenario where inflation ends due to the rapid rolling of the
1800: field $\chi$ \cite{Linde:1993cn}.
1801:
1802: Combining eqs.~(\ref{del}) and (\ref{waterfall}), one has $M \gg m$ and
1803: %
1804: \begin{eqnarray}
1805: \delta \gg \frac{M}{m} (c^2-1) \gg c^2-1 \,.
1806: \label{delap}
1807: \end{eqnarray}
1808: %
1809: This means that the classical field
1810: $\chi$ is strongly suppressed for $\phi>\phi_c$ ($\chi \propto a^{-3/2}$).
1811: Since inflation typically starts when the value of $c^2-1$ is of order
1812: unity or much larger than unity, it is inevitable to avoid the suppression
1813: of
1814: $\chi$ when the water-fall condition is satisfied.
1815: Note that $\delta$ changes sign after the symmetry breaking. The field
1816: $\chi$ and its large-scale fluctuations are amplified by the tachyonic
1817: instability associated with negative $\chi$
1818: mass \cite{Boyanovsky:1997xt,Cormier:1998nt,Tsujikawa,Felder:2000hj}.
1819:
1820: Although the growth is strong for large-scale modes ($k \to 0$),
1821: the size of these fluctuations is
1822: vanishingly small at the beginning of the tachyonic
1823: instability due to their exponential suppression for $\phi>\phi_c$.
1824: Therefore the small-scale modes that are not significantly suppressed for
1825: $\phi>\phi_c$ provide the larger contribution to the total variance
1826: $\langle
1827: \chi^2 \rangle$ of $\chi$ rather than the large-scale modes.
1828:
1829: The condition for the second stage of inflation to occur
1830: is characterised by $|\delta| \ll 1$, namely
1831: %
1832: \begin{eqnarray}
1833: M^2 \gg \lambda M_{p}^2 \,.
1834: \label{double}
1835: \end{eqnarray}
1836: %
1837: In this case the field $\chi$ and its large-scale perturbation are free
1838: from
1839: the inflationary suppression for $\phi>\phi_c$, unless inflation starts
1840: out
1841: with very large values of $\phi$ satisfying $c \gg 1$.
1842: Note that one has $m^2/M^2 \ll g^2/\lambda$ under the
1843: condition that the first stage of inflation is driven by
1844: the Hubble constant, $H_0$ (namely, $m^2\phi_c^2 \ll
1845: M^4/\lambda$).
1846:
1847: Therefore one has $M \gg m$ for
1848: $g^2/\lambda ={\cal O}(1)$. Combining this relation with
1849: eq.~(\ref{double}) gives $M^3 \gg \lambda mM_{p}^2$,
1850: which means that the water-fall condition (\ref{waterfall}) is violated.
1851: In
1852: this case the evolution of the field $\chi$ is sufficiently slow so that
1853: the
1854: second stage of inflation occurs after the symmetry breaking.
1855:
1856: %%%%%%%%%%
1857: \begin{figure}
1858: \begin{center}
1859: \singlefig{10cm}{fieldspace.eps}
1860: \begin{figcaption}{fieldspace}{10cm}
1861: The trajectory of two scalar fields in the plane ($\phi/\phi_c,
1862: \chi/\chi_0$).
1863: Model parameters are chosen to be $M=7.0 \times 10^{-7}M_p$,
1864: $m=2.0 \times 10^{-7}M_p$ with initial scalar fields
1865: $\phi_i=1.5\phi_c$ and $\chi_i=10^{-3}\chi_0$.
1866: We show two cases of $g^2/\lambda=1$ and $g^2/\lambda=2$
1867: with $\lambda=10^{-12}$.
1868: The trajectories are curved in field space, which means that
1869: $\dot{\theta} \ne 0$.
1870: \end{figcaption}
1871: \end{center}
1872: \end{figure}
1873: %%%%%%%%%%
1874:
1875: Let us consider the evolution of the background for
1876: $g^2/\lambda={\cal O}(1)$. The number of e-folds
1877: during the first stage of inflation is described as
1878: %
1879: \begin{eqnarray}
1880: N_1 \simeq \kappa^2 \int_{\phi_c}^{\phi_i}
1881: \frac{V}{V'}\,d\phi \simeq \frac{2\pi M^4}
1882: {\lambda m^2M_p^2}\,{\rm ln} \frac{\phi_i}{\phi_c} \,,
1883: \label{N1}
1884: \end{eqnarray}
1885: %
1886: where we used $V \simeq \frac{M^4}{4\lambda}+\frac12 m^2\phi^2$ for
1887: $\phi>\phi_c$. Here $\phi_i$ is the value of $\phi$ at the beginning of
1888: double inflation. Note that we have $N_1 \gg 1$ under the condition of
1889: eq.~(\ref{del}) [i.e., $\gamma \ll 1$]. Similarly the number of e-folds
1890: after the symmetry breaking is approximately expressed as
1891: %
1892: \begin{eqnarray}
1893: N_2 \simeq \kappa^2 \int_{\chi_0}^{\chi_c} \frac{V}{V'}\,d\chi \simeq
1894: \frac{2\pi M^2}{\lambda M_p^2}\,{\rm ln} \frac{\chi_0}{\chi_c} \,,
1895: \label{N2}
1896: \end{eqnarray}
1897: %
1898: where we used $V \simeq \frac{\lambda}{4}\left(\chi^2-\frac{M^2}
1899: {\lambda}\right)^2$. Here $\chi_0=M/\sqrt{\lambda}$ and $\chi_c$ is the
1900: value of $\chi$ at $\phi=\phi_c$. Again $N_2 \gg 1$ is satisfied under
1901: the
1902: condition of eq.~(\ref{double}). We are interested in the double
1903: inflationary scenario where the total amount of e-folds, $N_T=N_1+N_2$,
1904: exceeds $N_H=60$.
1905:
1906: When $g^2/\lambda={\cal O}(1)$, the critical value $\phi_c=M/g$
1907: and the potential minimum $\chi_0=M/\sqrt{\lambda}$ are of the
1908: same order. Two fundamental masses around the potential minimum
1909: are characterised by $m_{\phi} \equiv (g/\sqrt{\lambda})M$ and
1910: $m_{\chi} \equiv \sqrt{2}M$. Therefore these masses are also comparable
1911: when $g^2/\lambda={\cal O}(1)$. In particular in the supersymmetric case
1912: with $g^2/\lambda=2$, the two masses are completely equal.
1913:
1914: In this case the
1915: trajectory of the two scalar fields after the symmetry breaking is close
1916: to a
1917: straight line in the ($\phi/\phi_c, \chi/\chi_0$) plane if the velocities
1918: of $\phi$ and $\chi$ are sufficiently small at the bifurcation point,
1919: $\phi=\phi_c$ \cite{hybridpre2}. However, since $\dot{\phi}$ is non-zero
1920: because of the non slow-roll evolution around $\phi=\phi_c$, the
1921: trajectory
1922: is not strictly described by a straight line after the symmetry breaking.
1923: In
1924: fact this behaviour can be found in our numerical simulation in
1925: Fig.~\ref{fieldspace}. When $g^2/\lambda ={\cal O}(1)$ and $g^2/\lambda
1926: \ne 2$ the two scalar fields exhibit chaotic behaviour as shown in
1927: refs.~\cite{hybridpre2,Easther:1997hm,hybridpre1}. The trajectory in the
1928: $g^2/\lambda=1$ case is illustrated in
1929: Fig.~\ref{fieldspace}.\footnote{Note
1930: that the amplitude of the two scalar fields can be higher as in
1931: ref.~\cite{hybridpre1,hybridpre2} by changing model parameters.} Since the
1932: trajectory of the two scalar fields is generally curved, this leads to the
1933: variation of $\theta$ in field space ($\dot{\theta} \ne 0$), thereby
1934: generating a correlation of perturbations for $\phi<\phi_c$. Note that
1935: in the case of $g^2/\lambda \ll 1$ or $g^2/\lambda \gg 1$, $m_{\phi}$ and
1936: $m_{\chi}$ as well as $\phi_c$ and $\chi_0$ take quite different values.
1937: We will not consider such cases in this work, since we are interested in
1938: the double inflation motivated by supersymmetric theories.
1939:
1940:
1941: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1942: \subsection{Perturbations}
1943: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1944:
1945: Let us next analyze the perturbations and correlations in the
1946: double inflation model with potential (\ref{hybrid}).
1947: When the field $\phi$ evolves slowly along the potential valley
1948: with $\chi=0$ before the symmetry breaking, the spectral index
1949: of the curvature perturbation generated in the first stage of double
1950: inflation can
1951: be estimated by eq.~(\ref{tilt}), as
1952: %
1953: \begin{eqnarray}
1954: n_{\cal R}-1 \simeq -6\epsilon_{\phi}+2\eta_{\phi \phi}
1955: \simeq \frac 23\,\gamma \left(1-\frac{3m^2\phi^2}{V}\right) \,,
1956: \label{nRs}
1957: \end{eqnarray}
1958: %
1959: where $\gamma$ is defined by eq.~(\ref{albe}).
1960: When the condition, $m^2\phi^2 \ll V \simeq M^4/(4\lambda)$,
1961: holds as is the case with the original hybrid inflation scenario
1962: \cite{Linde:1993cn}, one has the blue-tilted spectrum with
1963: $n_{\cal R}-1 \simeq \frac 23\,\gamma >0$.
1964: Similarly the spectral index of the
1965: isocurvature perturbation generated for $\phi>\phi_c$ is given as
1966: %
1967: \begin{eqnarray}
1968: n_S-1 \simeq -2\epsilon_{\phi}+2\eta_{\chi \chi} \simeq \frac
1969: 23\,\delta-\gamma \frac{m^2\phi^2}{3V} \,,
1970: \label{nSs}
1971: \end{eqnarray}
1972: %
1973: where we used eq.~(\ref{tiltS2}).
1974: Therefore when the condition,
1975: $\frac23 \delta>\gamma \frac{m^2\phi^2}{3V}$, is satisfied,
1976: the isocurvature perturbation is also blue-tilted.
1977: Note that the spectral index of the
1978: correlation $P_C$ is similar to that of $P_S$ except for the last term in
1979: eq.~(\ref{tiltS}) that is of order $1/N_k \ll 1$ when $|\zeta_k N_k| \ll
1980: 1$.
1981:
1982: The spectral indices in eqs.~(\ref{nRs}) and (\ref{nSs}) can be modified
1983: in
1984: the presence of the tachyonic instability region with $\phi<\phi_c$.
1985: After
1986: the symmetry breaking, the field perturbation $\delta \chi$ begins to be
1987: amplified due to the negative $\chi$ mass in eq.~(\ref{albe}) with $c<1$.
1988: This growth is accompanied with the amplification of the entropy field
1989: perturbation $\delta s$ for small $k$ modes, which stimulates the
1990: enhancement of large-scale curvature perturbations by the relation
1991: (\ref{dotR}) [see Fig.~\ref{sugraevo}].
1992:
1993: %%%%%%%%%%
1994: \begin{figure}
1995: \begin{center}
1996: \singlefig{11cm}{sugraevo.eps}
1997: \begin{figcaption}{sugraevo}{11cm}
1998: The evolution of ${\cal R}$, $\Phi$, $\delta s$ and $Q$
1999: for a mode which left the horizon before 60 e-foldings
2000: from the end of the double inflation.
2001: Note that we showed ${\cal R}=\sqrt{P_{\cal R}}$, e.t.c.
2002: Model parameters are
2003: $g^2/\lambda=2$, $g=1.5 \times 10^{-10}$, $M=5.0 \times 10^{-6}$ and
2004: $m=0.2M$ with initial conditions$, \phi=1.34\phi_c$ and $N=10^{-3} \chi_0$.
2005: ${\cal R}$ and $\Phi$ are amplified due to the tachyonic growth of $\delta
2006: s$ and $Q$ during the second stage of inflation.
2007: \end{figcaption}
2008: \end{center}
2009: \end{figure}
2010: %%%%%%%%%%
2011:
2012: As shown in Fig.~\ref{qmuth},
2013: $|\dot{\theta}/H|$ decreases during the first stage of inflation, but
2014: begins to increase after the symmetry breaking. This can lead to the
2015: strong correlation between adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations. In
2016: fact once $\delta s$ and $|\dot{\theta}/H|$ grow sufficiently, this works
2017: as source terms for $Q$ in the r.h.s. of eq.~(\ref{SMeq}), thereby
2018: stimulating the growth of $\Phi$ through the relation (\ref{Phisource}).
2019: This behaviour is clearly seen in the numerical simulation of
2020: Fig.~\ref{sugraevo}.
2021:
2022: %%%%%%%%%%
2023: \begin{figure}
2024: \begin{center}
2025: \singlefig{11cm}{qmuth.eps}
2026: \begin{figcaption}{qmuth}{11cm}
2027: The evolution of (i) $|\mu_Q^2/(3H^2)|$, (ii) $|\mu_s^2/(3H^2)|$
2028: and (iii) $|\dot\theta/H|$ for $g^2/\lambda=2$,
2029: $g=1.5 \times 10^{-10}$, $M=5.0 \times 10^{-6}$ and
2030: $m=0.2M$ with initial conditions$,
2031: \phi=1.34\phi_c$ and $\chi=10^{-3} \chi_0$.
2032: Although we showed the absolute values of these quantities,
2033: it happens that these take negative values in the tachyonic instability
2034: region.
2035: \end{figcaption}
2036: \end{center}
2037: \end{figure}
2038: %%%%%%%%%%
2039:
2040: Let us consider the spectra of perturbations at the end of
2041: the double inflation. In Fig.~\ref{sugracon} we show the spectra $P_R$,
2042: $P_S$, and $P_C$ around the scale $N_H=60$ for three different cases.
2043: The case (a) corresponds to the one with $\gamma \simeq 0.08 \ll 1$ and
2044: $\delta \simeq c^2-1 \simeq 1$ around $N_k \sim 60$, in which case from
2045: eqs.~(\ref{nRs}) and (\ref{nSs}) one has a slight blue-tilt for $P_{\cal
2046: R}$ and a rather steep blue-tilt for $P_S$ at the end of the {\it
2047: first} stage of the double inflation.
2048:
2049: In fact we have numerically checked
2050: that such spectra are generated before symmetry breaking. However
2051: these are different from the final spectra obtained at the end of
2052: double inflation. Since the strong conversion between adiabatic and
2053: isocurvature perturbations occurs during the tachyonic instability region,
2054: the final spectrum of curvature perturbations is affected by the steep
2055: blue-tilted spectrum of isocurvature perturbations. Therefore the final
2056: $P_{\cal R}$ exhibits the steeper blue-tilted spectrum than predicted by
2057: eq.~(\ref{nRs}).
2058:
2059: This tells us that the correlation between adiabatic
2060: and isocurvature perturbations is important to correctly estimate the
2061: final spectra. The slow-roll results (\ref{nRs}) and (\ref{nSs})
2062: typically
2063: show limitations when the correlation is strong. Note that in
2064: Fig.~\ref{sugracon} all spectra $P_R$, $P_S$, and $P_C$ in the case (a)
2065: exhibit almost the same blue spectral indices due to the strong
2066: correlation.
2067:
2068: Although the case (a) corresponds to the one with rather steep
2069: blue-tilted spectra, one can obtain nearly scale-invariant
2070: spectra by choosing small values of $\gamma$ and $\delta$
2071: relative to unity. For example the case (b) in
2072: Fig.~\ref{sugracon} corresponds to the one with
2073: $\gamma \simeq 0.04 \ll 1$ and $\delta \simeq
2074: 0.6(c^2-1)~\lsim~0.2$ for $N_k~\lsim~63$.
2075:
2076: In this case both the adiabatic
2077: and isocurvature spectra generated for $\phi>\phi_c$ are slightly
2078: blue-tilted, as predicted by eqs.~(\ref{nRs}) and (\ref{nSs}). The
2079: conversion of perturbations occurs after the symmetry breaking as well,
2080: but the spectral indices are mostly inherited by the end of double inflation
2081: because both $P_{\cal R}$ and $P_S$ have similar small spectral indices at
2082: $\phi=\phi_c$. As shown in Fig.~\ref{sugracon} all of $P_R$, $P_S$, and
2083: $P_C$ exhibit a slightly blue-tilted spectra at the end of double
2084: inflation.
2085:
2086: %%%%%%%%%%
2087: \begin{figure}
2088: \begin{center}
2089: \singlefig{6.5cm}{suspectra.eps}
2090: \begin{figcaption}{sugracon}{6.5cm}
2091: The power spectra $P_R$, $P_S$ and $P_C$
2092: for $g^2/\lambda=2$. Each case corresponds to
2093: (a) $M=7.0 \times 10^{-7}M_p$, $\lambda=1.0 \times 10^{-12}$,
2094: $m=2.0 \times 10^{-7}M_p$, $\phi_i=1.47\phi_c$,
2095: $\chi_i=1.0 \times 10^{-3}\chi_0$,
2096: (b) $M=8.5 \times 10^{-7}M_p$, $\lambda=9.0
2097: \times 10^{-13}$, $m=2.0 \times 10^{-7}M_p$,
2098: $\phi_i=1.22\phi_c$, $\chi_i=5.0 \times 10^{-2}\chi_0$,
2099: (c) $M=8.1 \times 10^{-7}M_p$, $\lambda=1.0 \times 10^{-12}$,
2100: $m=2.0 \times 10^{-7}M_p$, $\phi_i=1.11\phi_c$,
2101: $\chi_i=1.0 \times 10^{-3}\chi_0$.
2102: \end{figcaption}
2103: \end{center}
2104: \end{figure}
2105: %%%%%%%%%%
2106:
2107: %%%%%%%%%%
2108: \begin{figure}
2109: \begin{center}
2110: \singlefig{6.5cm}{suconsist.eps}
2111: \begin{figcaption}{suconsist}{6.5cm}
2112: The correlation $r_C$ and the ratio $r_T$ that
2113: are derived by using eq.~(\ref{r_C}), and two consistency relations
2114: (\ref{consistency1}) and (\ref{consistency2}), which are denoted by (i),
2115: (ii), (iii), respectively. We show the cases (i), (ii) and (iii)
2116: by solid curves, dashed curves and dotted-dashed curves, respectively. Note
2117: that in the case (\ref{consistency2}) we have taken the absolute value of
2118: $r_T$. The initial condistions for the three cases are the same as in
2119: Fig.~\ref{sugracon}.
2120: \end{figcaption}
2121: \end{center}
2122: \end{figure}
2123: %%%%%%%%%%
2124:
2125: One may consider that the tachyonic growth of large-scale
2126: perturbations may lead to the red-tilted spectra.
2127: In the cases (a) and (b) all modes shown in Fig.~\ref{sugracon}
2128: (corresponding to $51~\lsim~N_k~\lsim~63$) already left far outside of
2129: the horizon when the field reaches $\phi=\phi_c$.
2130: Since the physical momenta
2131: satisfy $k/a \ll H$ for these all modes, the tachyonic growth rate of
2132: perturbations is practically the same for the modes corresponding to
2133: $51~\lsim~N_k~\lsim~63$. Therefore in the cases (a) and (b) the presence
2134: of the tachyonic region does not yield the red-tilted spectra.
2135:
2136: However, if
2137: the duration in the first stage of inflation is short, it is possible to
2138: obtain the red-tilted spectrum on smaller scales. For example, in the
2139: case (c) illustrated in Fig.~\ref{sugracon}, the e-folds during the first stage
2140: of inflation are $N_1 \sim 7.5$ (the total e-folds are $N \sim 65$). The
2141: modes corresponding to $N_k~\gsim~58$ crossed the horizon before the field
2142: reaches to the point $\phi=\phi_c$. For these modes the spectra of
2143: perturbations are blue-tilted as are the cases of (a) and (b).
2144:
2145: In contrast, the smaller-scale modes with $N_k~\lsim~58$ crossed
2146: the horizon after the
2147: symmetry breaking, in which case one has the red-tilted spectrum due to
2148: the negative $\chi$ mass [see Fig.~\ref{sugracon}]. The case (c) corresponds
2149: to the slightly red-tilt spectra with $|\delta| \ll 1$. If the values of
2150: $|\delta|$ are increased, we have steeper negative tilts than shown in
2151: Fig.~\ref{sugracon}. It is very interesting that such a variety of
2152: spectra can be obtained by different choices of model parameters
2153: and initial conditions.
2154:
2155: In Fig.~\ref{qmuth} we find that the absolute values of the mass
2156: $\mu_s^2/(3H^2)$ and $\dot{\theta}/H$ change during the
2157: double inflation, while the variation of
2158: $\mu_Q^2/(3H^2)$ is small.
2159: In addition, although the mass $\mu_s^2/(3H^2)$ is positive
2160: initially, it changes sign after the symmetry breaking.
2161: Therefore, to use the ``frozen"
2162: positive mass in eq.~(\ref{g}) is not
2163: typically valid, thereby leading to the errors in the final consistency
2164: relations. And while the correlation is suppressed for $\phi>\phi_c$, the
2165: tachyonic growth of the fluctuation $\delta\chi$ yields the strong
2166: correlation after the symmetry breaking.
2167:
2168: Numerically we found that the correlation ratio, $r_C$, is very close to
2169: unity at the end of double inflation (see Fig.~\ref{sugracon}). This is
2170: associated with the enhancement of ${\cal R}$ and $\Phi$ shown in
2171: Fig.~\ref{sugraevo}. In Fig.~\ref{suconsist} the first consistency
2172: relation shows good agreement with the numerical results in the cases (a)
2173: and (c), while the case (b) is not so good. In the cases (a) and (c) we
2174: chose the initial value $\chi_i=10^{-3}\chi_0$, while the case (b)
2175: corresponds to $\chi_i=0.04\chi_0$. In the former cases one has
2176: $\dot{\theta}/H$ of order $0.001$ around the scale $N_k \sim 60$, but
2177: $\dot{\theta}/H$ is larger by more than one order of magnitude in the
2178: latter case. The correlation is negligible at horizon crossing in the
2179: cases (a) and (c), but in case (b) it is not. This is the main reason of
2180: the deviation from the first consistency relation in the case (b). In fact
2181: we have numerically checked that the first consistency relation tends to
2182: agree with the numerical results as we decrease the initial $\chi$ (i.e.,
2183: smaller $\dot{\theta}/H$).
2184: Note that $r_C$ grows close to unity during the second stage of inflation,
2185: whose behavior is almost independent on the value of $r_C$ at horizon crossing.
2186:
2187: Our numerical simulations show that the second consistency relation
2188: does not agree with the one obtained by the definition (\ref{r_T}) [see
2189: Fig.~\ref{suconsist}].
2190: In particular, although $r_T$ is positive-definite in
2191: eq.~(\ref{r_T}), negative values of $r_T$ appear when we use
2192: eq.~(\ref{consistency2}), implying strong deviations from the second
2193: consistency relation [Note that in Fig.~\ref{suconsist} we showed the
2194: absolute values of $r_T$]. Again this is mainly due to the violation of
2195: the assumption of the constant masses and $\dot{\theta}/H$ during the
2196: tachyonic instability region.
2197:
2198: Notice also that if we use the slow-roll expression for $x$
2199: in eq.~(\ref{xslow})
2200: this does not provide the correct value of the correlation $r_C$.
2201: In the case (a) of Fig.~\ref{suconsist}, for example, we have
2202: $(\dot{\theta}/H)_k \sim 0.001$ and $\zeta_k \sim 0.37$ around
2203: $N_k=60$. Therefore eq.~(\ref{xslow}) leads to $x \sim 0.005$ and
2204: $r_C \sim 0.005 \ll 1$. This is significantly different from the
2205: numerical value of $r_C$ close to unity. We have to integrate
2206: the $\dot{\theta}/H$ term from the horizon crossing to the end of
2207: inflation in order to correctly estimate the final value of $r_C$.
2208: Note that when we evaluate $x$ in eq.~(\ref{x}) numerically
2209: the first consistency shows excellent agreement with the numerical
2210: results [like in the cases (a) and (c) in Fig.~\ref{suconsist}],
2211: as long as the correlation is not large at horizon crossing.
2212:
2213: When the $\chi$ mass is light
2214: ($|\delta|~\lsim~1$) and the second phase of inflation takes place, we
2215: found that the correlation $r_C$ is close to one, even changing the values
2216: of $g^2/\lambda$ to of order unity. The correlation is also expected to
2217: be strong in other models of double inflation with a
2218: tachyonic instability.
2219:
2220:
2221: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2222: \section{Conclusions}
2223: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2224:
2225: In this paper we have studied the correlation of adiabatic and isocurvature
2226: perturbations generated in inflationary scenarios with two phases of
2227: inflation (double inflation).
2228: We have made a detailed multi-parameter numerical analysis of the
2229: power spectra relevant for the cosmic microwave background and large-scale
2230: structure. We also studied the validity of the inflationary consistency
2231: relations derived from slow-roll analysis for two different models of the
2232: double inflation -- the noninteracting/interacting two massive scalar
2233: fields and the supersymmetric model with a tachyonic (spinodal)
2234: instability separating the two phases of inflation.
2235:
2236: In single-field inflationary scenarios, the slow-roll approximation is
2237: typically reliable apart except near the end of
2238: inflation. In the case of multiple scalar fields, however, we
2239: need to be more careful in the use of the slow-roll approximation.
2240: If one of the scalar field is quickly suppressed and another scalar field
2241: leads to inflation with more than 60 e-folds,
2242: perturbations relevant for large-scale structure are effectively described
2243: by the single-field inflationary scenario.
2244: However, when both scalar fields are of the same order around 60
2245: e-folds before the end of double inflation, we are faced with limitations
2246: in the use of slow-roll results. In this case the slow-roll parameter of a
2247: heavy scalar field is already large around the end of the first stage of
2248: inflation.
2249:
2250:
2251: The assumption of the slow variation of the effective masses of
2252: ``adiabatic" and ``entropy" fields, which is used to obtain the spectra of
2253: perturbations analytically, is often not valid in the context of double
2254: inflationary scenarios. This is reflected in our results where we found
2255: that the slow-roll derived correlation $r_C$ and three spectral indices
2256: $n_{\cal R}$, $n_S$, $n_C$ do not agree well with the full numerical
2257: simulations, especially when the correlation is strong. If the correlation
2258: is negligibly small {\it at horizon crossing}, the first consistency
2259: relation (\ref{consistency1}) shows good agreement with our numerical
2260: results [see the cases (a) and (b) in Fig.~\ref{consist} and the cases (a)
2261: and (c) in Fig.~\ref{suconsist}]. This is consistent with the result of
2262: Wands {\em et al.} that the first consistency relation was obtained by only
2263: assuming a vanishingly small correlation at horizon crossing
2264: \cite{Wands:2002bn}. In the case where slow-roll conditions are violated
2265: at horizon crossing, which can occur in double inflationary scenarios, we
2266: find that numerical results exhibit some deviation from the first
2267: consistency relation (\ref{consistency1}) [see the case (c) in
2268: Fig.~\ref{consist} and the case (b) in Fig.~\ref{suconsist}].
2269:
2270: The second
2271: consistency relation (\ref{consistency2}) is more strongly affected by the
2272: change of the entropy/adiabatic mass and the scalar field velocity angle
2273: $\dot{\theta}$ during double inflation, thereby showing stronger
2274: deviations especially when the correlation is large. These suggest the
2275: necessity of numerical analysis -- or a refined analytical treatment -- in
2276: order to correctly estimate the final power spectra, spectral indices and
2277: the correlations of perturbations.
2278:
2279: We have also found that a wide variety of power spectra and correlations
2280: can be obtained, depending on the parameters of the models considered. In
2281: the case of noninteracting massive scalar fields, two important quantities
2282: determine the strength of the correlation: the ratio of the two scalar
2283: fields ($\tan \alpha_*$) and the ratio of the two masses ($R$). We made a
2284: complete classification for several different cases to understand the
2285: correlation appropriately.
2286:
2287: When the interaction between two scalar fields
2288: ($g^2\phi^2\chi^2$) is introduced, this can lead to a blue spectrum of
2289: isocurvature perturbations if the mass of the entropy field perturbation
2290: is
2291: larger than the Hubble rate. However, the heavy field $\chi$ is soon
2292: suppressed toward the potential valley at $\chi=0$, in which case the
2293: correlation between adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations is weak.
2294:
2295: Therefore the spectrum
2296: of the adiabatic perturbation is typically slightly red-tilted as in the
2297: case with $g=0$. In this model we also found an interesting parameter
2298: range where large values of $g$ and $\chi$ lead to the rather steep
2299: red-tilted spectra of strong correlated adiabatic and isocurvature
2300: perturbations toward large scales. This comes from the negative mass of
2301: the entropy field perturbation with comparable values of two scalar fields.
2302:
2303: In the double inflationary scenario motivated by supersymmetric
2304: theories, the correlation is found to be very large ($r_C \simeq 1$).
2305: This is associated with a tachyonic growth of the entropy field
2306: perturbation during the second stage of the double inflation.
2307: This strong correlation also yields the mixture of
2308: adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations after the symmetry breaking,
2309: thereby modifying the spectra of perturbations generated during the first
2310: stage of inflation. We found that a variety of power spectra can be
2311: obtained by making use of this conversion mechanism.
2312:
2313: In the original version of the hybrid inflation with a
2314: potential (\ref{hybrid}) \cite{Linde:1993cn}, the field $\chi$ is
2315: strongly suppressed because of its large effective mass before
2316: the symmetry breaking.
2317: Inflation ends by a rapid rolling of the field $\chi$ after the symmetry
2318: breaking at $\phi=\phi_c$. Since the field $\chi$ has practically
2319: no homogeneous component at $\phi=\phi_c$,
2320: the decomposition of $\chi$ between the homogeneous field $\chi(t)$
2321: and the perturbative part $\delta \chi({\bf x}, t)$ is not necessarily
2322: valid.
2323: When $\chi$ is negligibly small at $\phi=\phi_c$, we need to
2324: go beyond the perturbation theory using the spatial distribution
2325: of the field $\chi({\bf x}, t)$ as in ref.~\cite{Felder:2000hj}.
2326:
2327: Note, however, that in the case
2328: of the double inflation the field $\chi$ is hardly suppressed for
2329: $\phi>\phi_c$ due to the light $\chi$ mass ($|\delta|~\lsim~1$).
2330: Then we are free from the problem of the decomposition of $\chi$,
2331: in which case our linear analysis can be reliable. We also made
2332: some simulations including the back-reaction effect of field
2333: fluctuations as the Hartree approximation and
2334: obtained similar results as found in this work.
2335:
2336: In our work we analyzed two models of the double inflation
2337: given by the potentials (\ref{V}) and (\ref{hybrid}).
2338: Since these potentials include most of the basic properties of the double
2339: inflation, it should be fairly easy to extend our analysis to other double
2340: inflation models motivated by particle physics.\footnote{In some models
2341: of two-field inflation considered as in
2342: refs.~\cite{Starobinsky:1994mh,Tsujikawa:2000wc,Starobinsky:2001xq}, the
2343: second stage of inflation is absent. In this case the first consistency
2344: relation (\ref{consistency1}) is expected to be valid, while the second
2345: one
2346: (\ref{consistency2}) may be model-dependent \cite{Wands:2002bn}.}
2347:
2348: It is really
2349: encouraging that double inflation models lead to strong correlations
2350: over wide ranges of their parameter spaces. This suggests that searches
2351: for correlations in the CMB
2352: may yield interesting information and constraints on such models and
2353: motivates the development of enhanced slow-roll approximations which can
2354: accurately predict the full numerical results.
2355:
2356:
2357: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2358: \section*{Appendix A:~Numerical methods to evaluate power spectra and
2359: correlations}
2360:
2361: Let us explain the general numerical method used to calculate power spectra and
2362: correlations in the context of multi-field inflation. We treat $Q_{\sigma}$
2363: and $\delta s$ as independent stochastic variabes for the modes deep inside
2364: the Hubble radius. Then we have to do two numerical runs in order to
2365: evaluate $P_{\cal R}$, $P_S$ and $P_C$. One run corresponds to the
2366: Bunch Davies vacuum state for $Q_{\sigma}$ and $\delta s=0$ for the entropy
2367: field perturbation, in which case we get the solutions, ${\cal R}={\cal
2368: R}_1$ and $S=S_1$. Another corresponds to the Bunch Davies vacuum state
2369: for $\delta s$ and $Q_{\sigma}=0$ for the adiabatic field perturbation, in
2370: which case we have ${\cal R}={\cal R}_2$ and $S=S_2$.
2371:
2372:
2373: Then each power spectrum can be expressed in terms of
2374: ${\cal R}_1$, ${\cal R}_2$, $S_1$, and $S_2$, as
2375: %
2376: \begin{eqnarray}
2377: P_{\cal R}&=& \frac{k^3}{2\pi^2} \left( |{\cal R}_1|^2
2378: +|{\cal R}_2|^2 \right)\,,
2379: \label{sto1} \\
2380: P_S &=& \frac{k^3}{2\pi^2} \left( |S_1|^2 + |S_2|^2 \right)\,, \\
2381: P_C &=& \frac{k^3}{2\pi^2} \left| {\cal R}_1S_1 +
2382: {\cal R}_2S_2 \right|\,.
2383: \label{sto3}
2384: \end{eqnarray}
2385: %
2386: {}From this it is easy to show that the correaltion $r_C=P_C/\sqrt{P_{\cal
2387: R}P_S}$ ranges $r_C \le 1$.
2388:
2389: If we run the numerical code only once by using the initial conditions
2390: where both $Q_{\sigma}$ and $\delta s$ are in the vacuum state, we then
2391: get ${\cal R}={\cal R}_1+{\cal R}_2$. In this case the power spectrum of
2392: ${\cal R}$ yields $P_{\cal R}= \frac{k^3}{2\pi^2} \left|
2393: {\cal R}_1+{\cal R}_2 \right|^2$, which is different from
2394: eq.~(\ref{sto1}).
2395: As long as the perturbations are stochastic random variables initially,
2396: it is required to adopt the method described in
2397: eqs.~(\ref{sto1})-(\ref{sto3}).
2398:
2399:
2400:
2401: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2402: \section*{ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS}
2403: We thank Nicola Bartolo, Christopher Gordon, Julien Lesgourgues, Alexei
2404: Starobinsky, Jun'ichi Yokoyama, and particularly
2405: Carlo Ungarelli and David Wands, for useful discussions.
2406: S.T. is also thankful for
2407: financial support from the JSPS (No. 04942). The research of BB is
2408: supported under PPARC grant PPA/G/S/2000/00115. D.P. is thankful for
2409: financial support from the Monbukagakusho Young Foreign Researcher summer
2410: program and grateful to RESCEU for hospitality. S.T. is grateful to
2411: Stanislav Alexeyev and Alexey Toporensky for kind hospitality during his
2412: stay at the Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow State University.
2413: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2414:
2415:
2416: % references
2417:
2418: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
2419:
2420:
2421: \bibitem{early}
2422: J.~M.~Bardeen,
2423: Phys. \ Rev. \ D {\bf 22}, 1882 (1980);
2424: S.~Mollerach, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 242}, 158 (1990);
2425: Phys. \ Rev. \ D{\bf 42}, 313 (1990);
2426: H.~Kodama and M.~Sasaki, Int. \ J.\ Mod.\ Phys. A{\bf 1}.
2427: 265 (1986);
2428: Int. \ J.\ Mod.\ Phys. A{\bf 2}. 491 (1987);
2429: J.~R. Bond and D.~Salopek,
2430: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 45}, 1139 (1992).
2431:
2432: \bibitem{pert}
2433: V.~N.~Lukash, Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 52}, 807 (1980);
2434: V.~F. Mukhanov and G.~V. Chibisov, JETP Lett. {\bf 33},
2435: 532 (1981);
2436: S.~W.~Hawking, Phys. Lett. {\bf B115}, 295 (1982);
2437: A.~A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. {\bf B117}, 175 (1982);
2438: A.~H. Guth and S.~Y.~Pi,
2439: Phys.\ Rev. \ Lett. {\bf 49}, 1110 (1982);
2440: J.~M. Bardeen, P.~J. Steinhardt, and M.~S. Turner,
2441: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 28}, 679 (1983);
2442: D.~H. Lyth, Phys. \ Rev. \ D {\bf 31}, 1792 (1985).
2443:
2444:
2445: %\cite{Lyth:1998xn}
2446: \bibitem{Lyth:1998xn}
2447: D.~H.~Lyth and A.~Riotto,
2448: %``Particle physics models of inflation and the cosmological
2449: % density perturbation,''
2450: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 314}, 1 (1999)
2451: [arXiv:hep-ph/9807278].
2452: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807278;%%
2453:
2454: \bibitem{realmulti}
2455: J. A. Adams, G.G. Ross and S. Sarkar, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 503}, 405 (1997);
2456: J. Lesgourgues, Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 582}, 593 (2000).
2457:
2458: \bibitem{linde1985}
2459: A.~D.~Linde, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 158}, 375 (1985);
2460: A.~A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett. {\bf 42}, 152 (1985);
2461: L.~A.~Kofman, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf
2462: 173}, 400 (1986); A.~D.~Linde and Kofman,
2463: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 282}, 555
2464: (1987); D.~S.~Salopek, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 45},
2465: 1139 (1992).
2466:
2467: \bibitem{KS}
2468: H. Kodama and M. Sasaki,
2469: Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. {\bf 78}, 1 (1984).
2470:
2471: \bibitem{MFB}
2472: V.~F. Mukhanov, H.~A. Feldman, and R.~H. Brandenberger,
2473: Phys. Rep. {\bf 215}, 293 (1992).
2474:
2475: %\cite{Gordon:2000hv}
2476: \bibitem{Gordon:2000hv}
2477: C.~Gordon, D.~Wands, B.~A.~Bassett and R.~Maartens,
2478: %``Adiabatic and entropy perturbations from inflation,''
2479: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 023506 (2001)
2480: [arXiv:astro-ph/0009131].
2481: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0009131;%%
2482:
2483: %\cite{Hwang:2001fb}
2484: \bibitem{hwang}
2485: J.~c.~Hwang and H.~Noh,
2486: %``Cosmological perturbations with multiple fluids and fields,''
2487: Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\ {\bf 19}, 527 (2002)
2488: [arXiv:astro-ph/0103244].
2489: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0103244;%%
2490:
2491: %cite{Amendola:2001ni}
2492: \bibitem{Amendola:2001ni}
2493: L.~Amendola, C.~Gordon, D.~Wands and M.~Sasaki,
2494: %Correlated perturbations
2495: %from inflation and the cosmic microwave background
2496: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett\ {\bf 88}, 211302 (2002)
2497: [arXiv:astro-ph/0107089].
2498: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0107089;%%
2499:
2500: %\cite{Hwang:1991aj}
2501: \bibitem{Hwang:1991aj}
2502: J.~c.~Hwang,
2503: %``Perturbations of the Robertson-Walker space -
2504: %Multicomponent sources and generalized gravity,''
2505: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 375}, 443 (1991).
2506: %%CITATION = ASJOA,375,443;%%
2507:
2508: \bibitem{LF}
2509: W-L. Lee and L-Z. Fang, Europhys. Lett. {\bf 56}, 904 (2001).
2510:
2511: \bibitem{Polarski:1992dq}
2512: D.~Polarski and A.~A.~Starobinsky,
2513: %``Spectra of perturbations produced by double inflation
2514: %with an intermediate matter dominated stage,''
2515: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 385}, 623 (1992).
2516: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B385,623;%%
2517:
2518: %\cite{Polarski:1994rz}
2519: \bibitem{Polarski:1994rz}
2520: D.~Polarski and A.~A.~Starobinsky,
2521: %``Isocurvature perturbations in multiple inflationary models,''
2522: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50}, 6123 (1994)
2523: [arXiv:astro-ph/9404061].
2524: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9404061;%%
2525:
2526: %\cite{Starobinsky:1994mh}
2527: \bibitem{Starobinsky:1994mh}
2528: A.~A.~Starobinsky and J.~Yokoyama,
2529: %``Density fluctuations in Brans-Dicke inflation,''
2530: arXiv:gr-qc/9502002.
2531: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9502002;%%
2532:
2533: %\cite{Garcia-Bellido:1995fz}
2534: \bibitem{Garcia-Bellido:1995fz}
2535: J.~Garcia-Bellido and D.~Wands,
2536: %``Constraints from inflation on scalar -
2537: % tensor gravity theories,''
2538: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52}, 6739 (1995)
2539: [arXiv:gr-qc/9506050];
2540: J.~Garcia-Bellido and D.~Wands,
2541: %``Metric perturbations in two-field inflation,''
2542: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53}, 5437 (1996)
2543: [arXiv:astro-ph/9511029].
2544: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9511029;%%
2545:
2546: %\cite{Sasaki:1995aw}
2547: \bibitem{Sasaki:1995aw}
2548: M.~Sasaki and E.~D.~Stewart,
2549: %``A General analytic formula for the spectral index
2550: %of the density perturbations produced during inflation,''
2551: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 95}, 71 (1996)
2552: [arXiv:astro-ph/9507001].
2553: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9507001;%%
2554:
2555: %\cite{Linde:1996gt}
2556: \bibitem{Linde:1996gt}
2557: A.~D.~Linde and V.~Mukhanov,
2558: %``Nongaussian isocurvature perturbations from inflation,''
2559: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 535 (1997)
2560: [arXiv:astro-ph/9610219].
2561: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9610219;%%
2562:
2563: %\cite{Chiba:1997ij}
2564: \bibitem{Chiba:1997ij}
2565: T.~Chiba, N.~Sugiyama and J.~Yokoyama,
2566: %``Imprints of the metrically coupled dilaton
2567: %on density perturbations in inflationary cosmology,''
2568: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 530}, 304 (1998)
2569: [arXiv:gr-qc/9708030].
2570: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9708030;%%
2571:
2572: %\cite{Mukhanov:1997fw}
2573: \bibitem{Mukhanov:1997fw}
2574: V.~F.~Mukhanov and P.~J.~Steinhardt,
2575: %``Density perturbations in multifield inflationary models,''
2576: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 422}, 52 (1998)
2577: [arXiv:astro-ph/9710038].
2578: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9710038;%%
2579:
2580: %\cite{Lesgourgues:1999uc}
2581: \bibitem{Lesgourgues:1999uc}
2582: J.~Lesgourgues and D.~Polarski,
2583: %``CMB anisotropy predictions for a model of double inflation,''
2584: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 6425 (1997)
2585: [arXiv:astro-ph/9710083].
2586: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9710083;%%
2587:
2588: %\cite{SaTa}
2589: \bibitem{SaTa}
2590: M.~Sasaki and T.~Tanaka,
2591: %``Super-horizon scale dynamics of multi-scalar inflation,''
2592: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 99}, 763 (1998)
2593: [arXiv:gr-qc/9801017].
2594: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9801017;%%
2595:
2596: %\cite{Nambu:1997wh}
2597: \bibitem{Nambu:1997wh}
2598: Y.~Nambu and A.~Taruya,
2599: %``Solutions of gauge invariant cosmological perturbations
2600: % in long-wavelength limit,''
2601: Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\ {\bf 15}, 2761 (1998)
2602: [arXiv:gr-qc/9801021].
2603: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9801021;%%
2604:
2605: %\cite{Langlois:dw}
2606: \bibitem{Langlois:dw}
2607: D.~Langlois,
2608: %``Correlated Adiabatic And Isocurvature Perturbations
2609: % From Double Inflation,''
2610: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 123512 (1999).
2611: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D59,123512;%%
2612:
2613: %\cite{Kanazawa:1999ag}
2614: \bibitem{Kanazawa:1999ag}
2615: T.~Kanazawa, M.~Kawasaki, N.~Sugiyama and T.~Yanagida,
2616: %``Double inflation in supergravity and the large scale structure,''
2617: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 023517 (2000)
2618: [arXiv:hep-ph/9908350].
2619: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908350;%%
2620:
2621: %\cite{Langlois:ar}
2622: \bibitem{Langlois:ar}
2623: D.~Langlois and A.~Riazuelo,
2624: %``Correlated Mixtures Of Adiabatic And Isocurvature
2625: % Cosmological Perturbations,''
2626: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 043504 (2000)
2627: [arXiv:astro-ph/9912497].
2628: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9912497;%%
2629:
2630: %\cite{Wands:2000dp}
2631: \bibitem{WMLL}
2632: D.~Wands, K.~A.~Malik, D.~H.~Lyth and A.~R.~Liddle,
2633: %``A new approach to the evolution of cosmological
2634: % perturbations on large scales,''
2635: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 043527 (2000)
2636: [arXiv:astro-ph/0003278].
2637: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0003278;%%
2638:
2639:
2640: %\cite{Tsujikawa:2000wc}
2641: \bibitem{Tsujikawa:2000wc}
2642: S.~Tsujikawa and H.~Yajima,
2643: %``New constraints on multi-field inflation with
2644: % nonminimal coupling,''
2645: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 123512 (2000)
2646: [arXiv:hep-ph/0007351].
2647: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007351;%%
2648:
2649: %\cite{Hwang:2000jh}
2650: \bibitem{Hwang:2000jh}
2651: J.~c.~Hwang and H.~Noh,
2652: %``Cosmological perturbations with multiple scalar fields,''
2653: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 495}, 277 (2000)
2654: [arXiv:astro-ph/0009268].
2655: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0009268;%%
2656:
2657: %\cite{Bartolo:2001vw}
2658: \bibitem{Bartolo:2001vw}
2659: N.~Bartolo, S.~Matarrese and A.~Riotto,
2660: %``Oscillations during inflation and cosmological
2661: % density perturbations,''
2662: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 083514 (2001)
2663: [arXiv:astro-ph/0106022].
2664: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0106022;%%
2665:
2666: %\cite{Bartolo:2001rt}
2667: \bibitem{Bartolo:2001rt}
2668: N.~Bartolo, S.~Matarrese and A.~Riotto,
2669: %``Adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations from inflation:
2670: %Power spectra and consistency relations,''
2671: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 123504 (2001)
2672: [arXiv:astro-ph/0107502].
2673: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0107502;%%
2674:
2675: %\cite{Starobinsky:2001xq}
2676: \bibitem{Starobinsky:2001xq}
2677: A.~A.~Starobinsky, S.~Tsujikawa and J.~Yokoyama,
2678: %``Cosmological perturbations from multi-field inflation
2679: % in generalized Einstein theories,''
2680: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 610}, 383 (2001)
2681: [arXiv:astro-ph/0107555].
2682: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0107555;%%
2683:
2684: %\cite{GrootNibbelink:2001qt}
2685: \bibitem{GrootNibbelink:2001qt}
2686: S.~Groot Nibbelink and B.~J.~van Tent,
2687: %``Scalar perturbations during multiple field slow-roll inflation,''
2688: Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\ {\bf 19}, 613 (2002)
2689: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107272].
2690: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107272;%%
2691:
2692: %\cite{Wands:2002bn}
2693: \bibitem{Wands:2002bn}
2694: D.~Wands, N.~Bartolo, S.~Matarrese and A.~Riotto,
2695: %``An observational test of two-field inflation,''
2696: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 043520 (2002)
2697: [arXiv:astro-ph/0205253].
2698: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0205253;%%
2699:
2700: \bibitem{curv}
2701: D.~H.~Lyth and D.~Wands,
2702: %``Generating the curvature perturbation without an inflaton,''
2703: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 524}, 5 (2002)
2704: [arXiv:hep-ph/0110002];
2705: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110002;%%
2706: K.~Enqvist and M.~S.~Sloth,
2707: %``Adiabatic CMB perturbations in pre big bang
2708: % string cosmology,''
2709: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 626}, 395 (2002)
2710: [arXiv:hep-ph/0109214];
2711: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109214;%%
2712: T.~Moroi and T.~Takahashi,
2713: %``Effects of cosmological moduli fields on cosmic
2714: %microwave background,''
2715: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 522}, 215 (2001)
2716: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 539}, 303 (2002)]
2717: [arXiv:hep-ph/0110096];
2718: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110096;%%
2719: N.~Bartolo and A.~R.~Liddle,
2720: %``The simplest curvaton model,''
2721: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 121301 (2002)
2722: [arXiv:astro-ph/0203076];
2723: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0203076;%%
2724: T.~Moroi and T.~Takahashi,
2725: %``Cosmic density perturbations from
2726: % late-decaying scalar condensations,''
2727: arXiv:hep-ph/0206026;
2728: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206026;%%
2729: D.~H.~Lyth, C.~Ungarelli and D.~Wands,
2730: %``The primordial density perturbation in the
2731: % curvaton scenario,''
2732: arXiv:astro-ph/0208055;
2733: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0208055;%%
2734: M.~S.~Sloth,
2735: %``Superhorizon curvaton Amplitude in Inflation and
2736: % Pre-Big Bang cosmology,''
2737: arXiv:hep-ph/0208241.
2738: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208241;%%
2739:
2740: \bibitem{preheat}
2741: A.~Taruya and Y.~Nambu,
2742: %``Cosmological perturbation with two scalar fields
2743: % in reheating after inflation,''
2744: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 428}, 37 (1998)
2745: [arXiv:gr-qc/9709035];
2746: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9709035;%%
2747: %\cite{Bassett:1998wg}
2748: B.~A.~Bassett, D.~I.~Kaiser and R.~Maartens,
2749: %``General relativistic preheating after inflation,''
2750: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 455}, 84 (1999)
2751: [arXiv:hep-ph/9808404];
2752: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808404;%%
2753: %\cite{Finelli:1998bu}
2754: F.~Finelli and R.~H.~Brandenberger,
2755: %``Parametric amplification of gravitational
2756: %fluctuations during reheating,''
2757: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82}, 1362 (1999)
2758: [arXiv:hep-ph/9809490];
2759: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9809490;%%
2760: B.~A.~Bassett and F.~Viniegra,
2761: %``Massless metric preheating,''
2762: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 043507 (2000)
2763: [arXiv:hep-ph/9909353];
2764: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909353;%%
2765: %\cite{Finelli:2000ya}
2766: F.~Finelli and R.~H.~Brandenberger,
2767: %``Parametric amplification of metric fluctuations
2768: %during reheating in two field models,''
2769: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 083502 (2000)
2770: [arXiv:hep-ph/0003172];
2771: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003172;%%
2772: B.~A.~Bassett, M.~Peloso, L.~Sorbo and S.~Tsujikawa,
2773: %``Fermion production from preheating-amplified
2774: % metric perturbations,''
2775: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 622}, 393 (2002)
2776: [arXiv:hep-ph/0109176];
2777: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109176;%%
2778: S.~Tsujikawa and B.~A.~Bassett,
2779: %``When can preheating affect the CMB?,''
2780: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 536}, 9 (2002)
2781: [arXiv:astro-ph/0204031].
2782: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0204031;%%
2783:
2784: \bibitem{TRD}
2785: R.~Trotta, A.~Riazuelo and R.~Durrer,
2786: %``Reproducing Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropies
2787: % with mixed isocurvature perturbations,''
2788: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87}, 231301 (2001)
2789: [arXiv:astro-ph/0104017].
2790:
2791: \bibitem{BMT}
2792: M.~Bucher, K.~Moodley and N.~Turok,
2793: %``The general primordial cosmic perturbation,''
2794: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 083508 (2000)
2795: [arXiv:astro-ph/9904231].
2796:
2797: \bibitem{nongauss}
2798: N.~Bartolo, S.~Matarrese and A.~Riotto,
2799: %``Non-Gaussianity from inflation,''
2800: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 103505
2801: [arXiv:hep-ph/0112261];
2802: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112261;%%
2803: F.~Bernardeau and J.~P.~Uzan,
2804: %``Non-Gaussianity in multi-field inflation,''
2805: arXiv:hep-ph/0207295; astro-ph/0209330 (2002).
2806:
2807: %\cite{Finelli:2001sr}
2808: \bibitem{Finelli:2001sr}
2809: F.~Finelli and R.~Brandenberger,
2810: %``On the generation of a scale-invariant spectrum of adiabatic
2811: %fluctuations in cosmological models with a contracting phase,''
2812: Phys.\ Rev.\
2813: D {\bf 65}, 103522 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0112249].
2814: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0112249;%%
2815:
2816: %\cite{Martin:1999wa}
2817: \bibitem{slowroll}
2818: J.~Martin and D.~J.~Schwarz,
2819: %``The precision of slow-roll predictions for the CMBR
2820: %anisotropies,''
2821: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 103520 (2000)
2822: [arXiv:astro-ph/9911225].
2823: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9911225;%%
2824:
2825: %\cite{Leach:2002ar}
2826: \bibitem{Leach:2002ar}
2827: S.~M.~Leach, A.~R.~Liddle, J.~Martin and D.~J.~Schwarz,
2828: %``Cosmological parameter estimation and
2829: % the inflationary cosmology,''
2830: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 023515 (2002)
2831: [arXiv:astro-ph/0202094].
2832:
2833: %\cite{Linde:1993cn}
2834: \bibitem{Linde:1993cn}
2835: A.~D.~Linde,
2836: %``Hybrid inflation,''
2837: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49} (1994) 748
2838: [arXiv:astro-ph/9307002].
2839: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9307002;%%
2840:
2841: %\cite{Copeland:1994vg}
2842: \bibitem{Copeland:1994vg}
2843: E.~J.~Copeland, A.~R.~Liddle, D.~H.~Lyth, E.~D.~Stewart
2844: and D.~Wands,
2845: %``False vacuum inflation with Einstein gravity,''
2846: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 6410 (1994)
2847: [arXiv:astro-ph/9401011].
2848: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9401011;%%
2849:
2850: \bibitem{RSG}
2851: %\cite{Randall:1996ip}
2852: L.~Randall, M.~Soljacic and A.~H.~Guth,
2853: %``Supernatural Inflation,''
2854: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 472}, 377 (1996);
2855: arXiv:hep-ph/9601296.
2856: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9601296;%%
2857:
2858: % hybrid inflation in supergravity
2859: %\cite{Dvali:ms}
2860: \bibitem{Dvali:ms}
2861: G.~R.~Dvali, Q.~Shafi and R.~Schaefer,
2862: %``Large Scale Structure And Supersymmetric Inflation
2863: %Without Fine Tuning,''
2864: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 73}, 1886 (1994)
2865: [arXiv:hep-ph/9406319].
2866: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9406319;%%
2867:
2868: %\cite{Ross:1995dq}
2869: \bibitem{Ross:1995dq}
2870: G.~G.~Ross and S.~Sarkar,
2871: %``Successful supersymmetric inflation,''
2872: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 461}, 597 (1996)
2873: [arXiv:hep-ph/9506283];
2874: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506283;%%
2875: J.~A.~Adams, G.~G.~Ross and S.~Sarkar,
2876: %``Natural supergravity inflation,''
2877: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 391}, 271 (1997)
2878: [arXiv:hep-ph/9608336].
2879: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9608336;%%
2880:
2881: %\cite{Jeannerot:1997is}
2882: \bibitem{Jeannerot:1997is}
2883: R.~Jeannerot,
2884: %``Inflation in supersymmetric unified theories,''
2885: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 6205 (1997)
2886: [arXiv:hep-ph/9706391].
2887: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9706391;%%
2888:
2889: %\cite{Halyo:1996pp}
2890: \bibitem{Halyo:1996pp}
2891: E.~Halyo,
2892: %``Hybrid inflation from supergravity D-terms,''
2893: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 387}, 43 (1996)
2894: [arXiv:hep-ph/9606423];
2895: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9606423;%%
2896: P.~Binetruy and G.~R.~Dvali,
2897: %``D-term inflation,''
2898: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 388}, 241 (1996)
2899: [arXiv:hep-ph/9606342].
2900: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9606342;%%
2901:
2902: %\cite{Panagiotakopoulos:1997qd}
2903: \bibitem{Panagiotakopoulos:1997qd}
2904: C.~Panagiotakopoulos,
2905: %``Blue perturbation spectra from hybrid inflation
2906: % with canonical supergravity,''
2907: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55}, 7335 (1997)
2908: [arXiv:hep-ph/9702433].
2909: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9702433;%%
2910:
2911: %\cite{Linde:1997sj}
2912: \bibitem{Linde:1997sj}
2913: A.~D.~Linde and A.~Riotto,
2914: %``Hybrid inflation in supergravity,''
2915: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 1841 (1997)
2916: [arXiv:hep-ph/9703209].
2917: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9703209;%%
2918:
2919: \bibitem{NPB}
2920: B.~A.~Bassett, F.~Tamburini, D.~I.~Kaiser and R.~Maartens,
2921: %``Metric preheating and limitations of linearized gravity. II,''
2922: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 561}, 188 (1999)
2923: [arXiv:hep-ph/9901319].
2924: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9901319;%%
2925:
2926: %\cite{SaMuka}
2927: \bibitem{SaMuka}
2928: M.~Sasaki,
2929: Prog. \ Theor. \ Phys. {\bf 76}, 1036 (1986);
2930: V. F. Mukhanov, Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 68}, 1297 (1988).
2931:
2932: %\cite{Starobinsky:ts}
2933: \bibitem{Starobinsky:ts}
2934: A.~A.~Starobinsky,
2935: %``Spectrum Of Adiabatic Perturbations In The Universe
2936: %When There Are Singularities In The Inflation Potential,''
2937: JETP Lett.\ {\bf 55} (1992) 489
2938: [Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 55} (1992) 477].
2939: %%CITATION = JTPLA,55,489;%%
2940:
2941: %\cite{Leach:2001zf}
2942: \bibitem{Leach:2001zf}
2943: S.~M.~Leach, M.~Sasaki, D.~Wands and A.~R.~Liddle,
2944: %``Enhancement of superhorizon scale inflationary
2945: % curvature perturbations,''
2946: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 023512 (2001)
2947: [arXiv:astro-ph/0101406].
2948: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0101406;%%
2949:
2950: %\cite{Boyanovsky:1997xt}
2951: \bibitem{Boyanovsky:1997xt}
2952: D.~Boyanovsky, D.~Cormier, H.~J.~de Vega, R.~Holman
2953: and S.~P.~Kumar,
2954: %``Non-perturbative quantum dynamics of
2955: %a new inflation model,''
2956: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 2166 (1998)
2957: [arXiv:hep-ph/9709232].
2958: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9709232;%%
2959:
2960: %\cite{Cormier:1998nt}
2961: \bibitem{Cormier:1998nt}
2962: D.~Cormier and R.~Holman,
2963: %``Spinodal inflation,''
2964: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 041301 (1999)
2965: [arXiv:hep-ph/9812476];
2966: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812476;%%
2967: D.~Cormier and R.~Holman,
2968: %``Spinodal decomposition and inflation:
2969: %Dynamics and metric perturbations,''
2970: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 023520 (2000)
2971: [arXiv:hep-ph/9912483].
2972: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912483;%%
2973:
2974: %\cite{Tsujikawa:1999ni}
2975: \bibitem{Tsujikawa}
2976: S.~Tsujikawa and T.~Torii,
2977: %``Spinodal effect in the natural inflation model,''
2978: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 043505 (2000)
2979: [arXiv:hep-ph/9912499];
2980: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912499;%%
2981: S.~Tsujikawa,
2982: %``Particle production in the oscillating inflation model,''
2983: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 083516 (2000)
2984: [arXiv:hep-ph/0003252].
2985: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003252;%%
2986:
2987:
2988: %\cite{Felder:2000hj}
2989: \bibitem{Felder:2000hj}
2990: G.~N.~Felder, J.~Garcia-Bellido, P.~B.~Greene, L.~Kofman,
2991: A.~D.~Linde and I.~Tkachev,
2992: %``Dynamics of symmetry breaking and tachyonic preheating,''
2993: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87}, 011601 (2001)
2994: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012142];
2995: G.~N.~Felder, L.~Kofman and A.~D.~Linde,
2996: %``Tachyonic instability and dynamics of
2997: % spontaneous symmetry breaking,''
2998: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 123517 (2001)
2999: [arXiv:hep-th/0106179].
3000: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0106179;%%
3001:
3002: %\cite{Bastero-Gil:1999fz}
3003: \bibitem{hybridpre2}
3004: M.~Bastero-Gil, S.~F.~King and J.~Sanderson,
3005: %``Preheating in supersymmetric hybrid inflation,''
3006: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 103517 (1999)
3007: [arXiv:hep-ph/9904315].
3008: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904315;%%
3009:
3010: %\cite{Easther:1997hm}
3011: \bibitem{Easther:1997hm}
3012: R.~Easther and K.~i.~Maeda,
3013: %``Chaotic dynamics and two-field inflation,''
3014: Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\ {\bf 16}, 1637 (1999)
3015: [arXiv:gr-qc/9711035].
3016: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9711035;%%
3017:
3018: %\cite{Garcia-Bellido:1997wm}
3019: \bibitem{hybridpre1}
3020: J.~Garcia-Bellido and A.~D.~Linde,
3021: %``Preheating in hybrid inflation,''
3022: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 6075 (1998)
3023: [arXiv:hep-ph/9711360].
3024: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9711360;%%
3025:
3026:
3027: \end{thebibliography}
3028:
3029: \end{document}
3030:
3031: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3032:
3033: