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

2: %\documentstyle[preprint,eqsecnum,aps]{revtex}

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

4: 

5: \begin{document}

6: 

7: %------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

13: 1.2pt\hbox{\vrule width 1.2pt\hskip 3pt

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

15: height 0.6pt}\kern1pt}

16: 

17: %%%%% singlefig %%%%%

18: \newcommand{\singlefig}[2]{

19: \begin{center}

20: \begin{minipage}{#1}

21: \epsfxsize=#1

22: \epsffile{#2}

23: \end{minipage}

24: \end{center}}

25: %

26: %%%%% figcaption %%%%%

27: \newenvironment{figcaption}[2]{

28:  \vspace{0.3cm}

29:  \refstepcounter{figure}

30:  \label{#1}

31:  \begin{center}

32:  \begin{minipage}{#2}

33:  \begingroup \small FIG. \thefigure: }{

34:  \endgroup

35:  \end{minipage}

36:  \end{center}}

37: %

38: 

39: %------------------------------

40: 

41: \draft

42: \title{Preheating with extra dimensions}

43: \author{Shinji Tsujikawa \thanks{electronic

44: address:shinji@gravity.phys.waseda.ac.jp}}

45: \address{ Department of Physics, Waseda University,

46: 3-4-1 Ohkubo, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan\\[.3em]}

47: \date{\today}

48: \maketitle

49: \begin{abstract}

50: We investigate preheating in a higher-dimensional 

51: generalized Kaluza-Klein theory with a quadratic 

52: inflaton potential $V(\phi)=\frac12 m^2\phi^2$ including 

53: metric perturbations explicitly.

54: The system we consider is the multi-field model where

55: there exists a dilaton field $\sigma$ which corresponds 

56: to the scale of compactifications and another scalar field

57: $\chi$ coupled to inflaton with the interaction

58: $\frac12 g^2\phi^2\chi^2+\tilde{g}^2\phi^3\chi$.

59: In the case of $\tilde{g}=0$, we find that the perturbation

60: of dilaton does not undergo parametric amplification 

61: while the $\chi$ field fluctuation can be enhanced 

62: in the usual manner by parametric resonance.

63: In the presence of the $\tilde{g}^2\phi^3\chi$ coupling,

64: the dilaton fluctuation in sub-Hubble 

65: scales is modestly amplified by the growth of 

66: metric perturbations for the large coupling $\tilde{g}$. 

67: In super-Hubble scales, 

68: the enhancement of the dilaton fluctuation 

69: as well as metric perturbations is weak, taking into account

70: the backreaction effect of created $\chi$ particles.

71: We argue that not only is it possible to predict the 

72: ordinary inflationary spectrum in large scales

73: but extra dimensions can be

74: held static during preheating in our scenario. 

75: \end{abstract}

76: 

77: %\pacs{98.80.Cq, 04.50.+h}

78: 

79: \baselineskip = 18pt

80: 

81: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

82: %

83: %                                                 %

84: \section{Introduction}                            %

85: %                                                 %

86: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

87: Physics in higher-dimensions has received

88: much attention in an attempt to unify the interactions in Nature

89: originating from Kaluza and Klein.

90: For example, the ten-dimensional 

91: $E_8 \times E_8$ heterotic superstring theory 

92: would be a strong candidate to describe the real world\cite{GSW}.

93: The strong coupling limit of this theory

94: was found to be the eleven-dimensional supergravity\cite{HW},

95: which is equivalent to the low-energy effective M-theory. 

96: Since the spacetime we recognize is four-dimensional, 

97: we conventionally utilize some mechanisms of

98: dimensional reduction assuming that extra dimensions 

99: are compactified on some manifolds (Kaluza-Klein reductions).

100: Recently, Randall and Sundrum\cite{brane1} proposed an alternative way 

101: of compactifications based on brane models, which was 

102: originally introduced as a solution to the 

103: hierarchy problem between the weak and 

104: Planck scale\cite{brane2,brane3}. 

105: In the brane scenario, gravity works in the five-dimensional

106: bulk of spacetime while matter fields are confined

107: in four-dimensions. 

108: In this paper, however, we adopt conventional Kaluza-Klein reduction

109: from a higher-dimensional action whose dimension is larger than five.

110: 

111: One of the most important topics which plagues

112: such higher-dimensional theories is the stability 

113: of extra dimensions.

114: The internal dimensions

115: need to be held static against small fluctuations

116: in order to settle in the present universe which would be

117: a direct product of the four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime 

118: $M^4$ and a small internal space $K^d$. 

119: In this respect, the basic argument is to introduce a cosmological constant

120: in the higher-dimensional action and keep extra dimensions static

121: with the existence of some fields.

122: In such models  including the Candelas-Weinberg (CW) 

123: model\cite{CW} (sphere compactification with a 

124: cosmological constant and the one-loop

125: quantum correction), it has been recognized that 

126: the present vacuum is static against linear perturbations\cite{BLV}

127: and even non-linear large perturbations\cite{maeda1}.

128: It was also found that stability of the internal space is preserved

129: against a quantum tunneling without the topology 

130: change\cite{maeda2}.

131: 

132: From a cosmological point of view, it is natural to

133: ask whether the internal space is held static during 

134: an inflationary epoch\cite{inflation}.

135: Amendola {\it et al.}\cite{stabilityinf}

136: considered stability of 

137: compactification in the CW model

138: with the existence of an inflaton field $\phi$.

139: In old, new, and extended inflation models, the 

140: system exhibits semiclassical properties in

141: which the stability is preserved as long as the transition

142: probability for the scale of the internal space to tunnel 

143: through its potential barrier is smaller than that of inflaton.

144: In the chaotic inflation model, the expansion of the internal 

145: space can be classically avoided if we choose 

146: the initial value of inflaton and parameters 

147: of the model appropriately. 

148: Amendola {\it et al.} also obtained the upper bound 

149: for the present scale of the internal space as 

150: $b_*~\lsim~\sqrt{d} \times 10^5 l_{\rm pl}$,

151: where $l_{\rm pl}$ is the Planck length, 

152: by the requirement of successful chaotic

153: inflation and stability of compactifications.

154: As for the inflationary scenario in generalized 

155: Einstein theories including Brans-Dicke and induced gravity

156: theories, Berkin and Maeda\cite{BM} analyzed the 

157: dynamics of inflation in new and chaotic inflationary 

158: models in the presence of

159: a dilaton field $\sigma$ with a potential $U(\sigma)=0$. 

160: In the context of large internal dimensions, several 

161: authors\cite{LI} recently investigated inflation 

162: with the higher-dimensional fundamental 

163: Planck scale in the TeV region. 

164: 

165: After the inflationary period ends, the system enters

166: a reheating stage. 

167: It has been recognized that reheating will turn on

168: by an explosive particle production which is called 

169: {\it preheating}\cite{pre1,KLS1,KLS2}.

170: As compared with other inflationary models, the chaotic 

171: inflationary scenario typically leads to 

172: the strong amplification of a scalar field $\chi$ 

173: coupled to inflaton with the interaction

174: $\frac12 g^2\phi^2\chi^2$ due to parametric resonance

175: during the oscillating stage of inflaton.

176: In this scenario, a lot of works have already been done

177: using analytic approaches based on the Mathieu\cite{KLS1,KLS2} 

178: or Lam\'e equations\cite{structure} and numerical computations

179: by mean field approximations\cite{KTmassivehartree,Boy,Baa} 

180: or full lattice simulations\cite{KTselffull,KTmassivefull,PR}.

181: The existence of the preheating stage is important in the 

182: sense that it would affect the 

183: baryogenesis in grand unified scale\cite{baryogenesis}, 

184: topological defect formation\cite{defect}, nonthermal 

185: phase transition\cite{phasetransition}, and 

186: gravitational waves\cite{GW}.

187: 

188: Recently, Mazumdar and Mendes\cite{MM} considered 

189: preheating in generalized Einstein theories including 

190: higher-dimensional theories in the massive chaotic 

191: inflationary model $V(\phi)=\frac12 m^2\phi^2$ 

192: with a scalar field $\chi$ coupled to inflaton. 

193: After dimensional reductions,  

194: we have a dilaton field $\sigma$ which corresponds to 

195: the radius of extra dimensions.

196: They investigated the multi-field system of scalar fields

197: $\phi$, $\chi$, $\sigma$ in the case 

198: where dilaton does not have its own potential.

199: It was pointed out that long-wave modes ($k \to 0$)

200: of the fluctuation of dilaton can be enhanced 

201: due to the growth of metric perturbations.

202: Although their scheme is based on the torus

203: compactifications which have zero curvature,

204: compactifications on the sphere give rise to 

205: a potential term due to the curvature of the internal 

206: space. It is worth investigating whether the stability of 

207: compactification is preserved or not during preheating, 

208: when dilaton has its own potential.

209: In this paper, we adopt the dilaton potential  

210: based on the CW model in the presence of 

211: a massive inflaton field,

212: and analyze the evolution of scalar field fluctuations

213: including the backreaction effect of created particles.

214: We include metric perturbations explicitly for

215: the evolution equations, and also investigate whether 

216: this model predicts the density perturbation observed by

217: the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite.

218: 

219: This paper is organized as follows.

220: In the next section, we describe our model and 

221: consider the dynamics of inflation in the presence

222: of the dilaton field.

223: In Sec.~III, we investigate the parametric amplification

224: of field fluctuations during preheating 

225: including metric perturbations.

226: It is particular of interest to study the evolutions of super-Hubble

227: dilaton and metric perturbations.

228: We present our conclusion and discussion in the final section.

229: 

230: 

231: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

232: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

233: \section{Inflation with extra dimensions}   

234: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

235: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

236: 

237: We investigate a model in $D=d+4$ dimensions

238: with a cosmological constant $\bar{\Lambda}$ and 

239: a single scalar field $\bar{\phi}$, 

240: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

241: \begin{eqnarray}

242: S=\int d^D x \sqrt{-\bar{g}} \left[ \frac{1}

243: {2\bar{\kappa}^2} \bar{R}-2\bar{\Lambda}

244: +\bar{{\cal L}}(\bar{\phi}) \right],

245: \label{B1}

246: \end{eqnarray}

247: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

248: where $\bar{\kappa}^{2}/8\pi \equiv 

249: \bar{G}$ and $\bar{R}$

250: are the $D$-dimensional gravitational constant 

251: and a scalar curvature 

252: with respect to the $D$-dimensional metric

253: $\bar{g}_{MN}$, respectively.

254: The Lagrangian density for the minimally coupled 

255: $\bar{\phi}$ field is written as 

256: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

257: \begin{eqnarray}

258: \bar{{\cal L}}(\bar{\phi})=

259: -\frac12 \bar{g}^{MN}\partial_M \bar{\phi}

260: \partial_N \bar{\phi}-\bar{V}(\bar{\phi}),

261: \label{B2}

262: \end{eqnarray}

263: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

264: where $\bar{V}(\bar{\phi})$ is a potential of the

265: $\bar{\phi}$ field.

266: 

267: We compactify extra dimensions to a $d$-dimensional 

268: sphere $S^d$. Then the metric 

269: $\bar{g}_{MN}$ is expressed as

270: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

271: \begin{eqnarray}

272: ds^2_D=\bar{g}_{MN}dx^M dx^N

273: =\hat{g}_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}

274: +b^2 ds^2_d,

275: \label{B3}

276: \end{eqnarray}

277: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

278: where $\hat{g}_{\mu\nu}$ is a four-dimensional metric,

279: $b$ is a scale of the $d$-dimensional sphere

280: whose present value is $b_*$, and 

281: $ds^2_d$ is a line element of the $d$-unit sphere.

282: After dimensional reduction,

283: the action $(\ref{B1})$ yields

284: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

285: \begin{eqnarray}

286: S=\int d^4 x \sqrt{-\hat{g}} \left(\frac{b}{b_*}\right)^d

287:  \Biggl[\frac{1}{2\kappa^2} \Biggl\{

288: \hat{R} +d(d-1) \frac{\partial_{\mu}b \partial_{\nu}b}{b^2}

289: \hat{g}^{\mu\nu}

290: +\frac{d(d-1)}{b^2} \Biggr\}

291: +V_d^0 \left\{ \hat{{\cal L}} (\hat{\phi})

292: -2\bar{\Lambda} \right\} \Biggr],

293: \label{B4}

294: \end{eqnarray}

295: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

296: where $\kappa^{2}/8\pi$

297: is Newton's gravitational constant which is expressed as

298: $\kappa^{2}/8\pi=\bar{\kappa}^{2}/(8\pi V_d^0)$

299: with the present volume of the internal space $V_d^0$,

300: and $\hat{R}$ is a scalar curvature with respect to

301: $\hat{g}_{\mu\nu}$.

302: The action $(\ref{B4})$ is different from the form of 

303: the Einstein-Hilbert action due to the 

304: time-dependent term $(b/b_*)^d$.

305: In order to obtain the usual form, we perform 

306: the following conformal transformation,

307: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

308: \begin{eqnarray}

309: \hat{g}_{\mu\nu}=\exp\left(-d\frac{\sigma}{\sigma_*}

310: \right) g_{\mu\nu},

311: \label{B5}

312: \end{eqnarray}

313: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

314: where $\sigma$ is the so-called dilaton field

315: which is defined by  

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

317: \begin{eqnarray}

318: \sigma &=& \sigma_* {\rm ln} \left( \frac{b}{b_*} \right), \\

319: \sigma_* &=& \left[ \frac{d(d+2)}{2\kappa^2} \right]^{1/2}.

320: \label{B7}

321: \end{eqnarray}

322: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

323: Then the four-dimensional action in the Einstein frame

324: can be described as

325: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

326: \begin{eqnarray}

327: S=\int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \left[ \frac{1}{2\kappa^2}R

328: -\frac12 g^{\mu\nu} \partial_{\mu} \sigma 

329: \partial_{\nu} \sigma -U(\sigma)

330: -\frac12 g^{\mu\nu} \partial_{\mu} \phi 

331: \partial_{\nu} \phi -\exp \left(-d \frac{\sigma}{\sigma_*}

332: \right) V(\phi) \right],

333: \label{B8}

334: \end{eqnarray}

335: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

336: where $R$ is a scalar curvature related with $g_{\mu\nu}$,

337: and a scalar field $\phi$ is defined by $\phi=\sqrt{V^0_d}

338: \hat{\phi}$.

339: The potential $U(\sigma)$ for the $\sigma$ field is

340: expressed as

341: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

342: \begin{eqnarray}

343: U(\sigma)=\frac{\bar{\Lambda}}{\kappa^2}

344: e^{-d\sigma/\sigma_*}-

345: \frac{d(d-1)}{2\kappa^2b_*^2}

346: e^{-(d+2)\sigma/\sigma_*}.

347: \label{B9}

348: \end{eqnarray}

349: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

350: The second term in Eq.~$(\ref{B9})$ appears due to 

351: the curvature of the internal space by compactifications

352: on the sphere $S^d$.

353: However, since the potential $(\ref{B9})$ lacks a local

354: minimum to stabilize the dilaton field, one needs to introduce

355: quantum correction effects which are so-called Casimir effects. 

356: 

357: Adding a one-loop effective action which is proportional

358: to $e^{-2(d+2)\sigma/\sigma_*}$

359: to the potential $U(\sigma)$

360: and imposing the conditions that the $\sigma$ field has 

361: a local minimum at $\sigma=0$ and its extremum is zero,

362: $U(\sigma)$ can be written in the following form\cite{mukoh} :

363: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

364: \begin{eqnarray}

365: U(\sigma)=\alpha \left[ \frac{2}{d+2}

366: e^{-2(d+2)\sigma/\sigma_*}+e^{-d\sigma/\sigma_*}

367: -\frac{d+4}{d+2} e^{-(d+2)\sigma/\sigma_*} \right],

368: \label{B10}

369: \end{eqnarray}

370: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

371: with

372: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

373: \begin{eqnarray}

374: \alpha=\frac{d(d-1)(d+2)}

375: {2\kappa^2(d+4)b_*^2}.

376: \label{B11}

377: \end{eqnarray}

378: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

379: The first, second, and third terms in $(\ref{B10})$ 

380: are due to the Casimir energy, the cosmological 

381: constant, and the curvature of the internal space, respectively.

382: The potential $U(\sigma)$ in the action $(\ref{B8})$ has 

383: a local minimum at $\sigma=0$ and 

384: a local maximum at $\sigma_c (>0)$ which depends on

385: the extra dimension $d$.

386: In order to reach the final state $\sigma=0$ which 

387: corresponds to the present scale of the internal space

388: $b=b_*$, the initial value of $\sigma$ is required 

389: to be $0<\sigma_I<\sigma_c$ (we assume $\sigma_I>0$),

390: where the subscript $I$ denotes the initial value.

391: Then $\sigma$ evolves toward the minimum of its 

392: potential, and begins to oscillate around $\sigma=0$.

393: Since extra dimensions are compactified on the sphere, 

394: this gives rise to the four-dimensional Kaluza-Klein

395: field $\psi_{lm}$ whose mass is given by

396: $M_l^2=l(l+d-1)e^{-(d+2)\sigma/\sigma_*}/b_*^2 $.

397: It was suggested in Ref.~\cite{mukoh} that 

398: Kaluza-Klein modes can be

399: excited by the oscillation of the $\sigma$ field 

400: in the flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW)

401: background. Later, we found that catastrophic enhancement

402: of Kaluza-Klein modes does not occur relevantly 

403: for any values of 

404: $\sigma_I$ and the quantum number $l \ge 1$\cite{shinji}.

405: Hence we only consider the case of $l=0$ in this paper.

406: For a complete study, however, we have to take into account

407: the existence of Kaluza-Klein modes with $l \ge 1$.

408: 

409: In the presence of the inflaton field $\phi$, the effective 

410: potential for the dilaton field is described by the action 

411: $(\ref{B8})$ as follows

412: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

413: \begin{eqnarray}

414: U_1(\sigma,\phi)=\alpha \left[ \frac{2}{d+2}

415: e^{-2(d+2)\sigma/\sigma_*}+

416: e^{-d\sigma/\sigma_*} \left\{1+\frac{V(\phi)}

417: {\alpha} \right\}

418: -\frac{d+4}{d+2} e^{-(d+2)\sigma/\sigma_*} \right].

419: \label{B12}

420: \end{eqnarray}

421: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

422: The stability of compactification during inflation 

423: with a potential $(\ref{B12})$ in several models of inflation 

424: was analyzed in Ref.~\cite{stabilityinf}.

425: Since we are interested in the model 

426: where strong parametric amplification of scalar fields 

427: can be expected during preheating, 

428: we adopt the quadratic potential of 

429: chaotic inflation,\footnote{In the model of the self-coupling potential

430: $V(\phi)=\frac14 \lambda\phi^4$, we will give some discussions

431: in the final section.}

432: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

433: \begin{eqnarray}

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

435: \label{B13}

436: \end{eqnarray}

437: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

438: In Fig.~1, we depict the effective potential $(\ref{B12})$

439: with $(\ref{B13})$.

440: As was pointed out in Ref.~\cite{stabilityinf},

441: $U_1(\sigma,\phi)$ has either two local extrema 

442: or no local extrema for a fixed value of $\phi$.

443: When $\phi$ is smaller than some critical value

444: $\phi_c$, the potential barrier which prevents 

445: the $\sigma$ field from going toward infinity exists,

446: and the scalar field evolves toward the potential minimum 

447: at $\phi=\sigma=0$.

448: However, when $\phi>\phi_c$, this barrier 

449: disappears and the internal space grows without 

450: limit. The critical value $\phi_c$ can be obtained 

451: by solving the equation $\partial U_1/\partial\sigma=

452: \partial^2 U_1/\partial\sigma^2=0$ as

453: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

454: \begin{eqnarray}

455: \phi_c^2=\frac{2\alpha}{m^2}

456: \left[\left(1+\frac{2}{d}\right)

457: \left(\frac12 \right)^{2/(d+2)} -1\right].

458: \label{B14}

459: \end{eqnarray}

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

461: In order to result in the present vacuum $\sigma=0$,

462: the inflaton $\phi$ is constrained as

463: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

464: \begin{eqnarray}

465: \phi^2 < \phi_c^2

466: =\frac{d(d-1)(d+2)}{8\pi(d+4)}

467: \left[\left(1+\frac{2}{d}\right)

468: \left(\frac12 \right)^{2/(d+2)} -1\right]

469: \left(\frac{m_{\rm pl}}{m}\right)^2

470: \frac{1}{b_*^2},

471: \label{B15}

472: \end{eqnarray}

473: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

474: where we have used Eq.~$(\ref{B11})$.

475: In the chaotic inflationary scenario, the initial value of 

476: inflaton is required to be $\phi_I~\gsim~3m_{\rm pl}$

477: in order to obtain the number of e-foldings greater than 60.

478: Further, the density perturbation observed by the COBE 

479: satellite constrains the coupling of inflaton as $m \sim 10^{-6}m_{\rm pl}$.

480: Then the condition $(\ref{B15})$ leads to the following

481: bound for the present value of the internal space:

482: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

483: \begin{eqnarray}

484: b_*^2~\lsim~\frac{d(d-1)(d+2)}{72\pi(d+4)}

485: \left[\left(1+\frac{2}{d}\right)

486: \left(\frac12 \right)^{2/(d+2)} -1\right]

487: \frac{10^{12}}{m_{\rm pl}^2}.

488: \label{B16}

489: \end{eqnarray}

490: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

491: For example, when $d=2$ and $d=6$, $b_*~\lsim~5\times

492: 10^4/m_{\rm pl}$ and 

493: $b_*~\lsim~1.1 \times 10^5/m_{\rm pl}$, respectively.

494: For large values of $d$, Eq.~$(\ref{B16})$ reads

495: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

496: \begin{eqnarray}

497: b_*~\lsim~\sqrt{d} \times 10^5/m_{\rm pl}.

498: \label{B17}

499: \end{eqnarray}

500: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

501: As was suggested in Ref.~\cite{stabilityinf}, this value is

502: by about ten orders of magnitude smaller than the experimental

503: bound $b_*~\lsim~10^{17}/m_{\rm pl}$.

504: It is worth mentioning that such theoretical bound is derived 

505: by the analysis of stability of compactification

506: during inflation.

507: In what follows, we use the values of $b_*$

508: which satisfy the relation $(\ref{B16})$.

509: 

510: %%%%%%%%%%

511: \begin{figure}

512: \begin{center}

513: \singlefig{12cm}{Fig1.eps}

514: \begin{figcaption}{Fig1}{12cm}

515: The effective potential $U_1(\sigma)$ which is obtained by 

516: introducing the Casimir energy in the sphere compactification

517: with $d=6$. We find that the potential barrier disappears for 

518: large values of inflaton. In order to evolve toward the present

519: vacuum state $\phi=\sigma=0$, inflaton is required to be 

520: smaller than some critical value $\phi_c$.

521: \end{figcaption}

522: \end{center}

523: \end{figure}

524: %%%%%%%%%%

525: 

526: Let us consider the dynamics of inflation 

527: in the presence of the $\sigma$ field.

528: In the flat FRW background: $ds^2=-dt^2+a^2(t)d {\bf x^2}$, 

529: we find that the homogeneous parts of scalar 

530: fields and the scale factor satisfy the following

531: equations of motion by the action $(\ref{B8})$:

532: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

533: \begin{eqnarray}

534: \ddot{\phi}+3H \dot{\phi}+e^{-d\sigma/\sigma_*}

535: V'(\phi)=0,

536: \label{B19}

537: \end{eqnarray}

538: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

539: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

540: \begin{eqnarray}

541: \ddot{\sigma}+3H \dot{\sigma}+U'(\sigma)

542: -\frac{d}{\sigma_*} e^{-d\sigma/\sigma_*}

543: V(\phi)=0,

544: \label{B20}

545: \end{eqnarray}

546: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

547: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

548: \begin{eqnarray}

549: H^2 \equiv \left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2

550:      =\frac{\kappa^2}{3}

551:      \left[ \frac12 \dot{\phi}^2+e^{-d\sigma/\sigma_*}

552:      V(\phi)+\frac12 \dot{\sigma}^2+U(\sigma) \right],

553: \label{B21}

554: \end{eqnarray}

555: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

556: where $H$ is the Hubble expansion rate.

557: 

558: %%%%%%%%%%

559: \begin{figure}

560: \begin{center}

561: \singlefig{12cm}{Fig2.eps}

562: \begin{figcaption}{Fig2}{12cm}

563: The evolution of the $\sigma$ field with the initial value of

564: $\sigma_I=0.1m_{\rm pl}$ for two cases of 

565: $\phi_I=3m_{\rm pl}$ (solid) and $\phi_I=4m_{\rm pl}$

566: (dotted) with $d=6$ and $b_*=1.0 \times 10^5/m_{\rm pl}$.

567: When $\phi_I=3m_{\rm pl}$, the $\sigma$ field evolves toward

568: the potential minimum at $\phi=\sigma=0$ due to the existence 

569: of the potential barrier. On the other hand, when 

570: $\phi_I=4m_{\rm pl}$, the internal space grows without limit. 

571: \end{figcaption}

572: \end{center} 

573: \end{figure}

574: %%%%%%%%%%

575: 

576: When the initial value of inflaton is larger 

577: than $\phi_c$, the last term in the l.h.s. of 

578: Eq.~$(\ref{B20})$ dominates over the third 

579: term and the $\sigma$ field evolves

580: toward $\sigma=\infty$ (see Fig.~2).

581: This is the situation we want to avoid.

582: For the values of $\phi<\phi_c$, there exists 

583: a local minimum at $\sigma=\sigma_1$ and 

584: a local maximum at $\sigma=\sigma_2$

585: with $\sigma_2>\sigma_1>0$.

586: As long as the initial value of $\sigma$ exists

587: in the range of $\sigma<\sigma_2$, 

588: the $\sigma$ field evolves toward the potential

589: minimum at $\sigma=\sigma_1$.

590: The value of $\sigma_1$ decreases to zero as

591: the $\phi$ field moves toward the potential

592: minimum at $\phi=0$.

593: For the initial values of $\sigma$ and $\phi$

594: which are finally trapped in the potential minimum

595: at $\sigma=\phi=0$, one may consider that 

596: the dynamics of inflation is altered in the presence 

597: of the $\sigma$ field.

598: In this case, however, we can numerically confirm that

599: the third term in Eq.~$(\ref{B20})$ rapidly

600: makes the $\sigma $ field shift toward the local

601: minimum at $\sigma=\sigma_1$ for the values of

602: $b_*$ which satisfy the condition of Eq.~$(\ref{B16})$.

603: Then $\sigma$ begins to roll down along the valley

604: of $\sigma=\sigma_1$, and decreases as inflaton 

605: approaches its potential minimum. This behavior is found in 

606: Fig.~2. The dynamics of inflation is hardly affected by 

607: the presence of the $\sigma$ field, and the system can 

608: be effectively described by one scalar field $\phi$.

609: 

610: In Fig.~3, we plot the evolution of both the inflaton 

611: field and the number of e-foldings $N \equiv \ln (a/a_I)$

612: during inflation. After the rapid 

613: decrease of $\sigma$ at the initial stage, inflaton

614: slowly rolls down along its potential in the usual manner,

615: which results in sufficient inflation to solve several 

616: cosmological puzzles.

617: We also find that the number of e-foldings exceeds

618: $N \sim 60$ for the initial value of 

619: $\phi_I=3m_{\rm pl}$. The inflationary period ends 

620: when inflaton decreases to $\phi \approx 0.2m_{\rm pl}$,

621: which corresponds to the time $mt \approx 20$

622: in Fig.~3.

623: In the next section, we investigate the dynamics of field

624: and metric perturbations during preheating.

625: 

626: %%%%%%%%%%

627: \begin{figure}

628: \begin{center}

629: \singlefig{12cm}{Fig3.eps}

630: \begin{figcaption}{Fig3}{12cm}

631: The evolution of the $\phi$ field during inflation 

632: with the initial value of

633: $\sigma_I=0.1m_{\rm pl}$ for two cases of 

634: $\phi_I=3m_{\rm pl}$ (solid) and $\phi_I=4m_{\rm pl}$

635: (dotted) with $d=6$ and $b_*=1.0 \times 10^5/m_{\rm pl}$.

636: When $\phi_I=3m_{\rm pl}$, inflation proceeds in the usual

637: manner while inflaton slowly evolves toward $\phi=0$.

638: When $\phi_I=4m_{\rm pl}$, the system evolves toward 

639: larger values of $\sigma$, and the value of inflaton hardly 

640: changes. {\bf Inset:} Evolution of the number of 

641: e-foldings $N$ during inflation for $\phi_I=3m_{\rm pl}$.

642: We find that $N>60$ is achieved.

643: \end{figcaption}

644: \end{center}

645: \end{figure}

646: %%%%%%%%%%

647: 

648: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

649: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

650: \section{Preheating with extra dimensions}   

651: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

652: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

653: 

654: After inflation, the system enters the preheating stage

655: during which fluctuations of scalar fields will grow

656: by parametric resonance.

657: We introduce another massless scalar field $\chi$ 

658: coupled to inflaton, and adopt the following modified 

659: potential instead of $(\ref{B13})$:

660: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

661: \begin{eqnarray}

662: V(\phi,\chi)=\frac12 m^2\phi^2+

663: \frac12 g^2\phi^2\chi^2+\tilde{g}^2\phi^3\chi.

664: \label{C1}

665: \end{eqnarray}

666: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

667: Note that we include the interaction term 

668: $\tilde{g}^2\phi^3\chi$ which often appears

669: in supergravity models\cite{SUGRA} in addition to the 

670: standard term $\frac12 g^2\phi^2\chi^2$.

671: This provides a way to escape from an inflationary 

672: suppression of the $\chi$ field as we will show later. 

673: 

674: When we consider fluctuations of scalar fields, 

675: metric perturbations should be also taken into account 

676: for a consistent study of 

677: preheating\cite{mpre1,mpre2}.

678: In fact, inclusion of metric perturbations can change 

679: the evolution of field fluctuations significantly in broad

680: classes of models\cite{mpre7,mpre3,mpre4,mpre6}.

681: In this paper, we adopt the perturbed metric in the 

682: longitudinal gauge in the flat FRW background:

683: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

684: \begin{eqnarray}

685: ds^2=-(1+2\Phi)dt^2

686: +a^2(t)(1-2\Psi)\delta_{ij} dx^i dx^j,

687: \label{C2}

688: \end{eqnarray}

689: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

690: where $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ are gauge-invariant 

691: potentials\cite{MFB}. 

692: 

693: Decomposing scalar fields into 

694: homogeneous and gauge-invariant fluctuational

695: parts as $\phi(t,{\bf x}) \to \phi(t)+\delta\phi(t,{\bf x})$,

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

697: $\chi(t,{\bf x}) \to \chi(t)+\delta\chi(t,{\bf x})$,

698: and expanding scalar field fluctuations and metric 

699: fluctuations by Fourier modes, we obtain the

700: following perturbed equations (see e.g.,\cite{mpre2}):

701: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

702: \begin{eqnarray}

703: \Phi_k=\Psi_k,

704: \label{C3}

705: \end{eqnarray}

706: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

707: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

708: \begin{eqnarray}

709: \dot{\Phi}_k+H\Phi_k=\frac{\kappa^2}{2}

710: (\dot{\phi} \delta \phi_k+\dot{\sigma}

711: \delta\sigma_k+\dot{\chi} \delta\chi_k),

712: \label{C4}

713: \end{eqnarray}

714: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

715: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

716: \begin{eqnarray}

717: & &3H\dot{\Phi}_k + \left[\frac{k^2}{a^2}+

718: 3H^2-\frac{\kappa^2}{2}(\dot\phi^2+

719: \dot\sigma^2+\dot\chi^2) \right] \Phi_k 

720: \nonumber \\

721: &=&

722: -\frac{\kappa^2}{2}\left(\dot{\phi}\delta\dot{\phi}_k

723: +U_{1,\phi}\delta\phi_k+\dot{\sigma}\delta\dot{\sigma}_k

724: +U_{1,\sigma}\delta\sigma_k+\dot{\chi}\delta\dot{\chi}_k

725: +U_{1,\chi}\delta\chi_k \right),

726: \label{C50}

727: \end{eqnarray}

728: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

729: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

730: \begin{eqnarray}

731: \delta\ddot{\phi}_k + 3H\delta\dot{\phi}_k+

732: \left[\frac{k^2}{a^2}+e^{-d\sigma/\sigma_*}

733: (m^2+g^2\chi^2+6\tilde{g}^2\phi\chi)\right]

734: \delta\phi_k 

735: = 4\dot{\phi} \dot{\Phi}_k+2(\ddot{\phi}

736: +3H\dot{\phi})\Phi_k-U_{1,\sigma\phi}

737: \delta\sigma_k-U_{1,\chi\phi}\delta\chi_k,

738: \label{C5}

739: \end{eqnarray}

740: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

741: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

742: \begin{eqnarray}

743: & &\delta\ddot{\sigma}_k + 3H\delta\dot{\sigma}_k+

744: \left[\frac{k^2}{a^2}+U''(\sigma)+

745: \frac{d^2}{\sigma_*^2}e^{-d\sigma/\sigma_*}

746: \left( \frac12 m^2\phi^2+\frac12 g^2\phi^2\chi^2

747: +\tilde{g}^2\phi^3\chi \right)

748: \right]\delta\sigma_k \nonumber \\

749: &=& 4\dot{\sigma}\dot{\Phi}_k+2(\ddot{\sigma}

750: +3H\dot{\sigma})\Phi_k-U_{1,\phi\sigma}

751: \delta\phi_k-U_{1,\chi\sigma}\delta\chi_k,

752: \label{C6}

753: \end{eqnarray}

754: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

755: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

756: \begin{eqnarray}

757: \delta\ddot{\chi}_k &+& 3H\delta\dot{\chi}_k+

758: \left( \frac{k^2}{a^2}+g^2\phi^2 e^{-d\sigma/\sigma_*}

759: \right) \delta\chi_k

760: = 4\dot{\chi}\dot{\Phi}_k+2(\ddot{\chi}

761: +3H\dot{\chi})\Phi_k-U_{1,\sigma\chi}

762: \delta\sigma_k-U_{1,\phi\chi}\delta\phi_k,

763: \label{C7}

764: \end{eqnarray}

765: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

766: where $U_{1,\phi\sigma}$, $U_{1,\chi\sigma}$, and 

767: $U_{1,\chi\phi}$ are expressed as

768: $U_{1,\phi\sigma}=-de^{-d\sigma/\sigma_*}

769: (m^2+g^2\chi^2+3\tilde{g}^2\phi\chi)\phi/\sigma_*$,

770: $U_{1,\chi\sigma}=

771: -de^{-d\sigma/\sigma_*}(g^2\chi+\tilde{g}^2

772: \phi)\phi^2/\sigma_*$, and

773: $U_{1,\chi\phi}=e^{-d\sigma/\sigma_*}(2g^2\phi\chi

774: +3\tilde{g}^2\phi^2)$, respectively.

775: 

776: The relation $(\ref{C3})$ indicates that the anisotropic 

777: stress vanishes at linear order.

778: Eliminating the $\dot{\Phi}_k$ term in Eqs.~$(\ref{C4})$

779: and $(\ref{C50})$, we find 

780: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

781: \begin{eqnarray}

782: \left(\frac{k^2}{a^2}-\frac{\kappa^2}{2}

783: \sum_{J}\dot{\varphi}_J^2 \right) \Phi_k =

784: -\frac{\kappa^2}{2}\sum_{J} \left(

785: \dot{\varphi}_J \delta\dot{\varphi}_{Jk}

786: +3H\dot{\varphi}_J \delta{\varphi}_{Jk}

787: +U_{1,\varphi_J}\delta \varphi_{Jk}\right),

788: \label{C51}

789: \end{eqnarray}

790: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

791: where $\varphi_J (J=1, 2, 3)$ correspond to the scalar 

792: fields $\phi$, $\sigma$, $\chi$, respectively.

793: Eq.~$(\ref{C51})$ shows that metric perturbations are 

794: known when evolutions of scalar fields are determined.

795: When field fluctuations are amplified, it is expected that 

796: this stimulates the growth of metric perturbations 

797: by Eq.~$(\ref{C51})$.

798: The enhancement of metric perturbations will also assist

799: the excitation of field perturbations as is found by  

800: Eqs.~$(\ref{C5})$-$(\ref{C7})$.

801: 

802: Parametric amplification of field fluctuations affects  

803: evolutions of the background quantities.

804: Since the $\chi$ fluctuation generally grows 

805: faster than other field fluctuations, we include this 

806: contribution in the background equations as

807: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

808: \begin{eqnarray}

809: \ddot{\phi}+3H \dot{\phi}+e^{-d\sigma/\sigma_*}

810: (m^2+g^2\langle\chi^2\rangle+

811: 3\tilde{g}^2\phi\chi)\phi=0,

812: \label{C21}

813: \end{eqnarray}

814: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

815: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

816: \begin{eqnarray}

817: \ddot{\sigma}+3H \dot{\sigma}+U'(\sigma)

818: -\frac{d}{\sigma_*} e^{-d\sigma/\sigma_*}

819: \left(\frac12 m^2\phi^2+\frac12 g^2\phi^2

820: \langle\chi^2\rangle+\tilde{g}^2\phi^3\chi 

821: \right)=0,

822: \label{C22}

823: \end{eqnarray}

824: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

825: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

826: \begin{eqnarray}

827: \ddot{\chi}+3H \dot{\chi}+e^{-d\sigma/\sigma_*}

828: \left(g^2\phi^2\chi+\tilde{g}^2\phi^3 \right)=0,

829: \label{C23}

830: \end{eqnarray}

831: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

832: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

833: \begin{eqnarray}

834: H^2 =\frac{\kappa^2}{3}

835: \left[ \frac12 \dot{\sigma}^2+U(\sigma)

836: +\frac12 \dot{\phi}^2+\frac12 \dot{\chi}^2

837: +e^{-d\sigma/\sigma_*}

838: \left(\frac12 m^2\phi^2+\frac12 g^2\phi^2

839: \langle\chi^2\rangle+\tilde{g}^2

840: \phi^3\chi \right) \right],

841: \label{C24}

842: \end{eqnarray}

843: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

844: where the spatial average of the $\chi$ fluctuation is

845: defined by

846: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

847: \begin{eqnarray}

848: \langle\chi^2\rangle=

849: \frac{1}{2\pi^2} \int k^2 |\delta\chi_k|^2dk.

850: \label{C25}

851: \end{eqnarray}

852: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

853: Let us examine evolutions of the background 

854: fields and the scale factor.

855: As is found in the previous section, the $\sigma$ field

856: rapidly decreases during inflation compared with the 

857: $\phi$ field, and the condition $\sigma \ll \sigma_*=

858: \sqrt{d(d+2)/16\pi}~m_{\rm pl}$ holds 

859: at the beginning of preheating.

860: Then, in the stage where the $\chi$ fluctuation is not 

861: significantly enhanced, Eqs.~$(\ref{C21})$-$(\ref{C24})$

862: can be approximately written as

863: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

864: \begin{eqnarray}

865: \ddot{\phi}+3H \dot{\phi}+m^2\phi=0,

866: \label{C8}

867: \end{eqnarray}

868: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

869: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

870: \begin{eqnarray}

871: \ddot{\sigma}+3H \dot{\sigma}+

872: \frac{2(d-1)}{b_*^2}\sigma=0,

873: \label{C9}

874: \end{eqnarray}

875: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

876: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

877: \begin{eqnarray}

878: \ddot{\chi}+3H \dot{\chi}

879: +g^2\phi^2\chi+\tilde{g}^2\phi^3=0,

880: \label{C10}

881: \end{eqnarray}

882: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

883: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

884: \begin{eqnarray}

885: H^2=\frac{\kappa^2}{3}

886:  \left( \frac12 \dot{\phi}^2+

887:   \frac12 m^2\phi^2 \right).

888: \label{C11}

889: \end{eqnarray}

890: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

891: Making use of the time-averaged relation 

892: $\langle \frac12 \dot{\phi}^2\rangle_T=\langle \frac12

893: m^2\phi^2 \rangle_T$ during the oscillating stage of inflaton, 

894: the evolution of inflaton is analytically expressed by

895: Eqs.~$(\ref{C8})$ and $(\ref{C11})$ as 

896: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

897: \begin{eqnarray}

898: \phi=\Phi(t) \sin mt,~~~~{\rm with}~~~~ 

899: \Phi(t)=\frac{m_{\rm pl}}{\sqrt{3\pi}mt}.

900: \label{C41}

901: \end{eqnarray}

902: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

903: The coherent oscillation of inflaton begins when 

904: $\Phi (t_i) \sim 0.2m_{\rm pl}$, and we set the initial

905: time as $mt=\pi/2$ as in Ref.~\cite{KLS2}.

906: The scale factor evolves as $a \sim t^{2/3}$ since the 

907: system is dominated by the oscillation of the massive

908: inflaton field.

909: Although the $\sigma$ field oscillates with a frequency 

910: $\sqrt{2(d-1)}/b_*$, its amplitude is very small relative to

911: that of the $\phi$ field. For example, in the simulation

912: of Fig.~2, the amplitude of $\sigma$ at the start 

913: of preheating is found to be about $10^{-5}m_{\rm pl}$.

914: 

915: If we neglect metric perturbations, the evolution of the 

916: $\delta\chi_k$ fluctuation can be studied analytically 

917: at the linear stage of preheating.

918: Ignoring the r.h.s. of Eq.~$(\ref{C7})$ and introducing 

919: a new scalar field $\delta X_k=a^{3/2}\delta \chi_k$,

920: Eq.~$(\ref{C7})$ reads

921: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

922: \begin{eqnarray}

923: \frac{d^2}{dt^2} \delta X_k+

924: \left[ \frac{k^2}{a^2}+g^2\phi^2

925: -\frac34 \left(\frac{2\ddot{a}}{a}+

926: \frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2} \right) 

927: \right] \delta X_k=0.

928: \label{C12}

929: \end{eqnarray}

930: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

931: The last term in Eq.~$(\ref{C12})$ which corresponds to the 

932: pressure term can be neglected during the oscillating stage

933: of inflaton.

934: Then Eq.~$(\ref{C12})$ is reduced to the well-known

935: Mathieu equation\cite{Mathieu},

936: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

937: \begin{eqnarray}

938: \frac{d^2}{d z^2} \delta X_k+ 

939: \left(A_k -2q \cos 2z \right) \delta X_k=0,

940: \label{C13}

941: \end{eqnarray}

942: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

943: where $z=mt$ and

944: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

945: \begin{eqnarray}

946: A_k= 2q + \frac{k^2}{(ma)^2},~~~~

947: q=\frac{g^2\Phi^2(t)}{4m^2}.

948: \label{C15}

949: \end{eqnarray}

950: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

951: Then the value of $q$ at the beginning of preheating 

952: is estimated as

953: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

954: \begin{eqnarray}

955: q_i \approx 10^{10} \times g^2,

956: \label{C16}

957: \end{eqnarray}

958: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

959: where we used $\Phi (t_i) \approx 0.2m_{\rm pl}$

960: and $m \sim 10^{-6}m_{\rm pl}$.

961: The coupling $g~\lsim~10^{-5}$ yields 

962:  $q_i~\lsim~1$, which is generally called 

963: the narrow resonance.

964: In this case, parametric resonance is weak

965: in an expanding universe.

966: However, when $q_i \gg 1$, it was pointed out in 

967: Ref.~\cite{KLS1} that the $\chi$ particle production can be 

968: efficient in spite of the decrease of $q$ due to cosmic 

969: expansion, which was later confirmed

970: by numerical calculations in Ref.~\cite{KTmassivehartree}.

971: In this case, the $\delta\chi_k$ field initially lies 

972: in the broad resonance regime as long as $k$ is not so large 

973: relative to $ma$, and it jumps over many stability 

974: and instability bands with the decrease of $q$.

975: This was termed {\it stochastic resonance} in Ref.~\cite{KLS2},

976: in which the $\delta\chi_k$ fluctuation increases 

977: stochastically overcoming the diluting effect by the expansion

978: of the universe.

979: For $g~\gsim~3 \times 10^{-4}$, the backreaction effect

980: of created $\chi$ particles becomes important,

981: which results in the termination of parametric resonance. 

982: In this case, since the coherent oscillation of the inflaton field

983: is broken  by the growth of the $\delta\chi_k$

984: fluctuation, the analytical

985: method based on the Mathieu equation is no longer applied. 

986: In this respect, several numerical works have been done

987: by making use of mean field approximations

988: or fully nonlinear calculations.

989: In the Hartree approximation the final variance of the 

990: $\chi$ field  is estimated as $\langle\chi^2\rangle_f

991: \propto q^{-1/2}$\cite{KTmassivehartree}, while in the fully 

992: nonlinear calculations it was found to be $\langle\chi^2\rangle_f

993: \propto q^{-1}$ for the case of $q \gg 1$\cite{KTmassivefull}.

994: 

995: 

996: As for the $\delta\sigma_k$ field, there exist resonance

997: terms in the l.h.s. of Eq.~$(\ref{C6})$ which may

998: lead to the enhancement of the fluctuation 

999: of dilaton. If we neglect the effect of metric perturbations 

1000: in the r.h.s. of Eq.~$(\ref{C6})$ and 

1001: making use of the relation $|\sigma| \ll \sigma_*$

1002: during preheating, the equation of the 

1003: $\delta\sigma_k$ field can be approximately written as

1004: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

1005: \begin{eqnarray}

1006: \delta\ddot{\sigma}_k + 3H\delta\dot{\sigma}_k+

1007: \left[\frac{k^2}{a^2}+\frac{2(d-1)}{b_*^2}

1008: +\frac{8\pi d}{d+2}\left(\frac{m}

1009: {m_{\rm pl}}\right)^2 \phi^2 \right]\delta\sigma_k=0.

1010: \label{C17}

1011: \end{eqnarray}

1012: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

1013: Defining a new scalar field $\delta \Sigma_k=

1014: a^{3/2}\delta \sigma_k$ and ignoring the contribution 

1015: from the pressure term, we obtain 

1016: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1017: \begin{eqnarray}

1018: \frac{d^2}{d z^2} \delta \Sigma_k+ 

1019: \left(A_k -2q \cos 2z \right) \delta \Sigma_k=0,

1020: \label{C18}

1021: \end{eqnarray}

1022: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1023: where 

1024: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1025: \begin{eqnarray}

1026: A_k= 2q + \frac{2(d-1)}{b_*^2m^2}

1027: +\frac{k^2}{(ma)^2},~~~~

1028: q=\frac{2d}{3(d+2)z^2}.

1029: \label{C19}

1030: \end{eqnarray}

1031: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1032: For $d \ge 1$, $q_i~\lsim~1$ at the beginning of preheating.

1033: Moreover, since $q$ decreases as $q \sim t^{-2}$,

1034: parametric resonance is very weak.

1035: Namely, in the unperturbed metric, 

1036: analytic estimates indicate that 

1037: the dilaton fluctuation does not grow during preheating.

1038: We also find from Eq.~$(\ref{C5})$  that the 

1039: enhancement of the inflaton fluctuation can not be

1040: expected in the absence of metric perturbations.

1041: 

1042: Let us proceed to the case where metric perturbations

1043: are taken into account. 

1044: {}From Eq.~$(\ref{C4})$, we can expect that 

1045: the growth of the $\delta\chi_k$ field will enhance 

1046: metric perturbations.

1047: On the other hand, it was pointed out in 

1048: Refs.~\cite{mpre8,mpre10,mpre11,mpre12}

1049: that the amplitude of super-Hubble fluctuations in the 

1050: $\delta\chi_k$ field is severely damped during inflation

1051: in the case where $g\phi$ is much larger than the Hubble

1052: expansion rate $H$ with a model of 

1053: $V(\phi,\chi)=\frac12 m^2\phi^2+\frac12 g^2\phi^2\chi^2$.

1054: Later, Bassett {\it et al.}\cite{mpre3}

1055: showed that inclusion of the interaction

1056: $\tilde{g}^2\phi^3\chi$ protects super-Hubble 

1057: $\delta\chi_k$ fluctuations from being suppressed.

1058: In what follows, we will consider both cases of $\tilde{g}=0$

1059: and $\tilde{g} \ne 0$ separately.

1060: 

1061: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1062: \subsection{Case of $\tilde{g}=0$}   

1063: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1064: Let us first estimate the amplitude of super-Hubble 

1065: $\delta\chi_k$ modes at the beginning of preheating.

1066: When $\tilde{g}=0$, the adiabatic solution  for

1067: $\delta\chi_k$ during inflation is expressed as

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

1069: \begin{eqnarray}

1070: \delta\chi_k=\frac{a^{-3/2}}{\sqrt{2\omega_k}}

1071: e^{-i\omega_k t},

1072: \label{C60}

1073: \end{eqnarray}

1074: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1075: where $\omega_k^2=k^2/a^2+g^2\phi^2 e^{-d \sigma/\sigma_*}

1076: \approx k^2/a^2+g^2\phi^2$.

1077: In order to lead to efficient $\chi$ particle production,

1078: the resonance parameter is required to be 

1079: $q=g^2\phi^2/4m^2 \gg 1$.

1080: In this case, the effective mass of 

1081: the $\delta\chi_k$ field is much larger than the Hubble

1082: expansion rate $H \sim m$ during inflation.

1083: Then the amplitude of the super-Hubble 

1084: $\delta\chi_k$ field for modes 

1085: relevant for structure formation is estimated 

1086: as $|\delta\chi_k| \sim a^{-3/2}/\sqrt{g\phi}$, 

1087: which exponentially decreases during inflation.

1088: On the other hand, since the effective mass of 

1089: the $\delta\phi_k$ field in the l.h.s. of Eq.~$(\ref{C5})$

1090: is comparable to the Hubble rate $H$, the super-Hubble

1091: inflaton fluctuation is not affected 

1092: by the suppression during inflation.

1093: 

1094: As for the $\delta\sigma_k$ field, its effective mass 

1095: for super-Hubble modes is given by Eq~$(\ref{C17})$ as

1096: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1097: \begin{eqnarray}

1098: m_{\rm eff}^2=\left[ \frac{2(d-1)}{b_*^2m^2}+

1099: \frac{8\pi d}{d+2}\left(\frac{\phi}

1100: {m_{\rm pl}}\right)^2 \right]m^2.

1101: \label{C61}

1102: \end{eqnarray}

1103: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1104: For the typical scale $b_*$ which is determined by 

1105: Eq.~$(\ref{B16})$ and the initial value of inflaton 

1106: $\phi_I~\gsim~3m_{\rm pl}$, $m_{\rm eff}$ 

1107: is estimated as $m_{\rm eff}^2~\gsim~100m^2\sim 10H^2$.

1108: Hence the super-Hubble $\delta\sigma_k$ fluctuation

1109: will be also affected by the inflationary suppression,

1110: which is relevant for small $b_*$

1111: and large initial values of $\phi$.

1112: We can roughly estimate the amplitude of super-Hubble

1113: $\delta\sigma_k$ modes by Eq.~$(\ref{C6})$ during inflation.

1114: Neglecting the contributions of the $\chi$ field and the time

1115: derivative terms of $\sigma$ and $\delta\sigma_k$, we obtain

1116: the amplitude of $\delta\sigma_k$ at the start of preheating as

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

1118: \begin{eqnarray}

1119: |\delta \sigma_k(t_i)| \approx \frac{2}{(d-1)}

1120: \sqrt{\frac{\pi d}{d+2}} \frac{\phi}{m_{\rm pl}}(b_* m)^2 

1121: |\delta \phi_k(t_i)|.

1122: \label{C62}

1123: \end{eqnarray}

1124: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1125: For example, when $d=6$, since $b_*$ is constrained as

1126: $b_*~\lsim~1.1 \times 10^{5}/m_{\rm pl}$, 

1127:  Eq.~$(\ref{C62})$ yields

1128: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1129: \begin{eqnarray}

1130: |\delta \sigma_k(t_i)| ~\lsim~10^{-3} |\delta \phi_k(t_i)|.

1131: \label{C63}

1132: \end{eqnarray}

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

1134: This means that the suppression effect of super-Hubble modes

1135: is weak compared with the $\delta\chi_k$ field

1136: as long as $b_*$ is not much smaller than its upper bound. 

1137: 

1138: Let us estimate the impact on metric perturbations by the 

1139: growth of field fluctuations.

1140: First, we introduce the power spectrum of $\Phi_k$:

1141: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

1142: \begin{eqnarray}

1143: {\cal P}(k)=\frac{k^3}{2\pi^2}|\Phi_k|^2=

1144: \frac{|\tilde{\Phi}_k|^2}{2\pi^2},

1145: \label{C42}

1146: \end{eqnarray}

1147: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1148: where $\tilde{\Phi}_k \equiv k^{3/2} \Phi_k$.

1149: Defining new scalar fields 

1150: $\tilde{\varphi}_{J} \equiv \varphi_{J}/m_{\rm pl}$

1151: and $\delta \tilde{\varphi}_{Jk} \equiv k^{3/2}\delta 

1152: \varphi_{Jk}/m_{\rm pl}$ ($J=1, 2, 3$), 

1153: we obtain the following relation from 

1154: Eq.~$(\ref{C4})$:

1155: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

1156: \begin{eqnarray}

1157: \dot{\tilde{\Phi}}_k+H\tilde{\Phi}_k=

1158: 4\pi(\dot{\tilde{\phi}} \delta\tilde{\phi}_k+

1159: \dot{\tilde{\sigma}}

1160: \delta\tilde{\sigma}_k+\dot{\tilde{\chi}}

1161: \delta\tilde{\chi}_k).

1162: \label{C20}

1163: \end{eqnarray}

1164: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1165: For super-Hubble modes $k \ll aH$,

1166: the amplitude of $\delta\tilde{\chi}_k$ is written as

1167: $|\delta\tilde{\chi}_k| \approx \bar{k}^{3/2}(m/

1168: m_{\rm pl}) \sqrt{m/(2g\phi)}$ where $\bar{k}

1169: \equiv k/(ma_i)$ with $a_i$ the scale factor

1170: at the onset of preheating.

1171: Since the cosmological modes correspond to 

1172: $\bar{k}\sim e^{-60} \sim 10^{-26}$, 

1173: $|\delta\tilde{\chi}_k|$ is estimated as 

1174: $|\delta\tilde{\chi}_k|~\lsim~10^{-45}$ for 

1175: the broad resonance case $q\gg 1$. 

1176: The homogeneous part of the $\chi$ field 

1177: is also affected by this strong suppression

1178: [see Eq.~$(\ref{C23})$ with $\tilde{g}=0$]. 

1179: At the beginning of preheating, the $\dot{\chi}\delta\chi_k$ 

1180: term in the r.h.s. of Eq.~$(\ref{C4})$ is very small 

1181: relative to the $\dot{\phi}\delta\phi_k$ term.

1182: Although super-Hubble $\delta\chi_k$ fluctuations

1183: exhibit parametric amplification during preheating, 

1184: it increases only by the factors $10^4-10^5$

1185: for the coupling of $g=3\times 10^{-4}-10^{-2}$\cite{mpre10}.

1186: Hence we can expect that the excitement of the $\delta\chi_k$

1187: fluctuation hardly affects the evolution 

1188: of super-Hubble metric perturbations by analytic estimates.

1189: 

1190: %%%%%%%%%%

1191: \begin{figure}

1192: \begin{center}

1193: \singlefig{12cm}{Fig4.eps}

1194: \begin{figcaption}{Fig4}{12cm}

1195: The evolutions of field perturbations

1196: $\delta\tilde{\phi}_k$, $\delta\tilde{\sigma}_k$, 

1197: $\delta\tilde{\chi}_k$

1198: for a super-Hubble mode $\bar{k}=10^{-26}$ with 

1199: $g=1.0 \times 10^{-3}$, $d=6$,

1200: $b_*=1.0 \times 10^5/m_{\rm pl}$, 

1201: and $m=10^{-6}m_{\rm pl}$. 

1202: See the text for the initial 

1203: conditions of scalar fields. Note that we start integrating 

1204: about 60 e-foldings before the beginning of preheating.

1205: {\bf Inset:} The evolution of the metric 

1206: perturbation $\tilde{\Phi}_k$ for a super-Hubble 

1207: mode $\bar{k}=10^{-26}$. 

1208: \end{figcaption}

1209: \end{center}

1210: \end{figure}

1211: %%%%%%%%%%

1212: 

1213: We are also concerned with whether super-Hubble 

1214: $\delta\sigma_k$ fluctuations are enhanced or not

1215: during preheating.

1216: Although the inflationary suppression for $\delta\sigma_k$ 

1217: is not so significant as compared with the $\delta\chi_k$ case,

1218: we have to keep in mind that $\delta\sigma_k$

1219: can not be enhanced unless metric perturbations are 

1220: taken into account.

1221: In order to amplify super-Hubble metric perturbations,

1222: we generally require some scalar fields such as $\chi$

1223: which exhibit parametric amplification even in the absence of 

1224: metric perturbations.

1225: However, when $\tilde{g}=0$, the 

1226: $\delta\chi_k$ fluctuation in large scales is strongly suppressed.

1227: It is expected that the super-Hubble fluctuation of dilaton 

1228: will be held static during preheating, because  

1229: the $\sigma$ field will not play a dominant

1230: role to stimulate the enhancement of metric perturbations.

1231: 

1232: In order to verify the above estimates, we numerically solved 

1233: perturbed equations

1234: $(\ref{C3})$-$(\ref{C7})$ along with background 

1235: equations $(\ref{C21})$-$(\ref{C24})$. 

1236: In Fig.~4, we plot the evolutions of field perturbations

1237: $\delta\tilde{\phi}_k$, $\delta\tilde{\sigma}_k$,

1238: $\delta\tilde{\chi}_k$, 

1239: and the metric perturbation $\tilde{\Phi}_k$ during inflation and

1240: preheating for a super-Hubble mode 

1241: $\bar{k}=10^{-26}$ with $g=1.0 \times 10^{-3}$, $d=6$,

1242: $b_*=1.0 \times 10^5/m_{\rm pl}$, 

1243: and $m=10^{-6}m_{\rm pl}$.

1244: The initial values of homogeneous scalar fields

1245: are chosen as $\phi_I=3.0m_{\rm pl}$, 

1246: $\sigma_I=0.1m_{\rm pl}$, and $\chi_I=1.0 \times

1247: 10^{-3} m_{\rm pl}$. As for the initial field perturbations,

1248: we take

1249: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1250: \begin{eqnarray}

1251: |\delta\varphi_{Jk}| =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega_{Jk}}},~~~

1252: |\delta\dot{\varphi}_{Jk}| =\omega_{Jk}|\delta\varphi_{Jk}|,

1253: \label{C64}

1254: \end{eqnarray}

1255: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1256: where $\omega_{Jk}^2\equiv k^2/a^2+m_{\varphi_J}^2$

1257: ($J=1,2,3)$ with $m_{\varphi_J}$ is the effective mass

1258: of the each scalar field in the l.h.s. of 

1259: Eqs.~$(\ref{C5})$-$(\ref{C7})$.

1260: 

1261: 

1262: In Fig.~4, the $\delta\chi_k$ fluctuation  is exponentially 

1263: suppressed during inflation

1264: ($0<mt~\lsim~20$), yielding $\delta\tilde{\chi}_k \sim 10^{-45}$

1265: at the beginning of preheating.

1266: Although $\delta\chi_k$ is enhanced 

1267: by parametric resonance for $mt~\gsim~20$, the final value is

1268: very small as $\delta\tilde{\chi}_k \sim 10^{-40}$.

1269: The amplitude of $\delta\sigma_k$ is by three 

1270: orders of magnitude smaller than that of $\delta\phi_k$

1271: as is analytically estimated by Eq.~$(\ref{C62})$

1272: at the end of inflation. We also find in Fig.~4 

1273: that both of super-Hubble

1274: $\delta\sigma_k$ and $\delta\phi_k$ fluctuations do not 

1275: grow during preheating, which means that field fluctuations

1276: are not assisted by the presence of metric perturbations.

1277: As is found in the inset of Fig.~4, super-Hubble 

1278: metric perturbations remain almost constant 

1279: during preheating.

1280: In the case of $\tilde{g}=0$, 

1281: the usual prediction of the inflationary 

1282: spectrum in large scales is not likely to be modified, and 

1283: the analysis neglecting metric perturbations gives almost 

1284: the same results as compared with the perturbed metric case.

1285: As a result, the fluctuation of dilaton on super-Hubble

1286: scales can not be amplified during preheating.

1287: 

1288: Let us next consider smaller scales which are within the 

1289: Hubble radius at the beginning of preheating.

1290: Since this corresponds to the modes $k~\gsim~a_iH_i$,

1291: the condition $k^2/a^2>g^2\phi^2$ holds in most stage

1292: of inflation. Hence the amplitude of these

1293: modes during inflation is approximately expressed 

1294: by Eq.~$(\ref{C60})$ as

1295: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1296: \begin{eqnarray}

1297: |\delta \chi_k| \approx \frac{1}{a\sqrt{2k}}.

1298: \label{C65}

1299: \end{eqnarray}

1300: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1301: The r.h.s. of Eq.~$(\ref{C65})$ decreases slower compared 

1302: with the super-Hubble modes. In fact, for the modes of

1303: $k^2/a_i^2~\gsim~g^2\phi_i^2$ at the start of preheating,

1304: we obtain

1305: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1306: \begin{eqnarray}

1307: |\delta \tilde{\chi}_k (t_i)| \approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}

1308: \frac{m}{m_{\rm pl}} \bar{k}.

1309: \label{C66}

1310: \end{eqnarray}

1311: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1312: For sub-Hubble modes $\bar{k}=k/(ma_i)~\gsim~1$, we find 

1313: $|\delta \tilde{\chi}_k (t_i)|~\gsim~10^{-6}$, which is much 

1314: larger than in the super-Hubble case.

1315: However, since the homogeneous part of the $\chi$ field is severely

1316: damped, the $\dot{\chi}\delta\chi_k$ term in the r.h.s. of 

1317: Eq.~$(\ref{C4})$ is still much smaller than the  

1318: $\dot{\phi}\delta\phi_k$ term at the beginning of preheating.

1319: This indicates that parametric amplification of 

1320: the $\delta\chi_k$ fluctuation will not lead to the 

1321: growth of sub-Hubble metric perturbations.

1322: We have numerically confirmed that metric perturbations and 

1323: the $\delta\sigma_k$ fluctuation for sub-Hubble modes

1324: $1~\lsim~k/(ma_i)~\lsim~100$ are not relevantly enhanced 

1325: for the coupling of $3 \times 10^{-4}~\lsim~g~\lsim~10^{-2}$

1326: (see Fig.~5).

1327: However, we have to caution that including the second order

1328: metric backreaction effect\cite{SMP} will lift the homogeneous $\chi$ field,

1329: which may assist the enhancement of metric and field fluctuations 

1330: in sub-Hubble modes as was mentioned in Ref.~\cite{mpre10}.

1331: The full backreaction issues are left for the future work.

1332: 

1333: %%%%%%%%%%

1334: \begin{figure}

1335: \begin{center}

1336: \singlefig{12cm}{Fig5.eps}

1337: \begin{figcaption}{Fig5}{12cm}

1338: The evolutions of field perturbations

1339: $\delta\tilde{\phi}_k$, $\delta\tilde{\sigma}_k$,

1340: $\delta\tilde{\chi}_k$, and the metric perturbation

1341: $\tilde{\Phi}_k$ for a sub-Hubble mode $\bar{k}=5$ with 

1342: $g=1.0 \times 10^{-3}$, $d=6$,

1343: $b_*=1.0 \times 10^5/m_{\rm pl}$, 

1344: and $m=10^{-6}m_{\rm pl}$. 

1345: Note that we start integrating from 

1346: the beginning of preheating.

1347: \end{figcaption}

1348: \end{center}

1349: \end{figure}

1350: %%%%%%%%%%

1351: 

1352: In the case of $\tilde{g}=0$, we argue that 

1353: the dilaton fluctuation as well as metric perturbations

1354: in both super- and sub-Hublle scales 

1355: can not be strongly amplified during preheating.

1356: 

1357: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1358: \subsection{Case of $\tilde{g} \ne 0$}   

1359: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1360:  

1361: If the coupling $\tilde{g}^2\phi^3\chi$ is taken into account,

1362: the suppression of the super-Hubble $\delta\chi_k$ fluctuation 

1363: can be avoided. For super-Hubble modes, neglecting 

1364: derivative terms of $\delta\chi_k$ and $\chi$

1365: fields as well as the $\delta\sigma_k$ term

1366: in Eq.~$(\ref{C7})$, we find the following relation 

1367: at the end of inflation:

1368: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1369: \begin{eqnarray}

1370: \delta \chi_k \approx -3\left(\frac{\tilde{g}}{g}\right)^2

1371: \delta \phi_k.

1372: \label{C67}

1373: \end{eqnarray}

1374: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1375: As for the homogeneous part of the $\chi$ field,

1376: Eq.~$(\ref{C10})$ implies

1377: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1378: \begin{eqnarray}

1379: \chi \approx -\left(\frac{\tilde{g}}{g}\right)^2 \phi.

1380: \label{C68}

1381: \end{eqnarray}

1382: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1383: We find from Eqs.~$(\ref{C67})$ and $(\ref{C68})$

1384: that both of super-Hubble $\delta\chi_k$ fluctuations and the 

1385: homogeneous $\chi$ field are not severely

1386: suppressed compared with the $\tilde{g}=0$ case.

1387: Then we can expect that the growth of the $\dot{\chi}

1388: \delta{\chi}_k$ term in the r.h.s. of Eq.~$(\ref{C4})$

1389: during preheating may lead to the enhancement

1390: of super-Hubble metric perturbations. 

1391: 

1392: Although larger values of $\tilde{g}$ will surely 

1393: escape the inflationary suppression, we have to take

1394: care that this may prevent the successful 

1395: inflationary scenario. 

1396: During inflation, the frequency $\Omega_{\phi}$

1397: of the inflaton condensate is estimated by making use of 

1398: Eq.~$(\ref{C68})$ as 

1399: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1400: \begin{eqnarray}

1401: \Omega_{\phi}^2 \equiv 

1402: m^2+g^2\chi^2+3e^{-d\sigma/\sigma_*}

1403: \tilde{g}^2\phi\chi \approx m^2\left[ 

1404: 1-\frac{2\tilde{g}^2\phi^2}

1405: {m^2} \left(\frac{\tilde{g}}{g}\right)^2 \right],

1406: \label{C69}

1407: \end{eqnarray}

1408: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1409: where we used the relation $e^{-d\sigma/\sigma_*}

1410: \approx 1$.

1411: Eq.~$(\ref{C69})$ indicates that larger values of $\tilde{g}$

1412: make $\Omega_{\phi}^2$ negative, and will 

1413: lead to the unphysical result that $\phi$ increases by 

1414: negative instability.

1415: In order to avoid this, 

1416: $\Omega_{\phi}^2$ should be positive 

1417: at the start of inflation ($\phi_I \sim 3m_{\rm pl}$). 

1418: Then the ratio $\tilde{g}/g$  is constrained as 

1419: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1420: \begin{eqnarray}

1421: \frac{\tilde{g}}{g}~\lsim~\frac{5\times 10^{-4}}

1422: {\sqrt{g}},

1423: \label{C70}

1424: \end{eqnarray}

1425: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

1426: where we used $m \sim 10^{-6}m_{\rm pl}$.

1427: For an efficient $\chi$ particle production, the 

1428: coupling $g$ is required to be $g~\gsim~3.0 \times10^{-4}$

1429: \cite{KLS2}, which leads to the constraint:

1430: $\tilde{g}/g~\lsim~2.9 \times 10^{-2}$.

1431: The upper bound of $\tilde{g}/g$ decreases 

1432: with the increase of $g$ as is found by Eq.~$(\ref{C70})$.

1433: For example, $\tilde{g}/g~\lsim~1.6 \times 10^{-2}$

1434: for $g=1.0 \times 10^{-3}$, and 

1435: $\tilde{g}/g~\lsim~5.0 \times 10^{-3}$

1436: for $g=1.0 \times 10^{-2}$.

1437: Although larger values of $g$ are favorable for the 

1438: rapid growth of the $\delta\chi_k$ fluctuation, 

1439: this simultaneously results in the stronger suppression

1440: for $\delta\chi_k$ and $\chi$ in Eqs.~$(\ref{C67})$

1441: and $(\ref{C68})$.

1442: 

1443: We have numerically examined the dynamics of 

1444: preheating in the coupling regimes 

1445: $g=3 \times 10^{-4}-10^{-2}$ with $\tilde{g}$

1446: constrained by Eq.~$(\ref{C70})$, and also

1447: checked that the inflationary period proceeds in the 

1448: usual manner.

1449: In Fig.~6, the evolutions of field perturbations

1450: $\delta\phi_k$, $\delta\chi_k$, $\delta\sigma_k$ and 

1451: the metric perturbation $\Phi_k$ are

1452: depicted for a super-Hubble mode 

1453: $\bar{k}=10^{-26}$ with $g=5.0 \times 10^{-4}$,

1454: $\tilde{g}/g=2.0 \times 10^{-2}$.

1455: We start integrating about 60

1456: e-foldings before the beginning of preheating, and choose

1457: initial conditions $\phi_I=3.0m_{\rm pl}$,

1458: $\sigma_I=0.1m_{\rm pl}$, and $\chi_I=-(\tilde{g}/g)^2\phi_I$

1459: for the homogeneous part, and use Eq.~$(\ref{C64})$ for

1460: the fluctuational parts.

1461: In this case, the analytic estimation $(\ref{C67})$ implies

1462: the relation $|\delta \chi_k(t_i)| \approx 10^{-3}|\delta \phi_k(t_i)|$ 

1463: at the onset of preheating ($mt \approx 20$),

1464: which can be easily confirmed in Fig.~6(a).

1465: The super-Hubble $\delta\chi_k$ fluctuation starts to grow

1466: from $mt \approx 30$ by parametric resonance, and 

1467: catches up the $\delta\phi_k$ fluctuation at $mt \approx 120$.

1468: At this stage, the backreaction effect of the produced

1469: $\chi$ particle begins to destroy the coherent oscillation 

1470: of the $\phi$ field [see the inset of Fig.~6(a)].

1471: In spite of this, the amplification of the $\delta\chi_k$ fluctuation 

1472: still takes place before the oscillation 

1473: of $\phi$ is completely broken at $mt \approx 220$.

1474: For  $140~\lsim~mt~\lsim~170$, 

1475: the super-Hubble $\delta\phi_k$ fluctuation is enhanced 

1476: by about two orders of magnitude.

1477: This occurs in the perturbed metric case where the r.h.s. of

1478: Eq.~$(\ref{C5})$ stimulates the excitement of the 

1479: $\delta\phi_k$ fluctuation.

1480: However, since the increase of $\delta\chi_k$ 

1481: is weakened by the backreaction effect of created particles,

1482: the period during which the $\delta\phi_k$ fluctuation 

1483: is enhanced does not continue long.

1484: In Fig.~6(b), we find that the super-Hubble metric 

1485: perturbation $\Phi_k$ begins to oscillate for $mt~\gsim~180$,

1486: which is due to the enhancement of field fluctuations.

1487: However, $\Phi_k$ does not increase even by one order 

1488: of magnitude from the beginning of preheating.

1489: This is mainly because the 

1490: backreaction effect restricts the rapid increase 

1491: of $\delta\chi_k$ soon after the super-Hubble 

1492: $\delta\chi_k$ fluctuation catches up  

1493: $\delta\phi_k$. Although one may think that

1494: larger values of $\tilde{g}$ will lead to the strong 

1495: amplification of $\Phi_k$,

1496: Eq.~$(\ref{C70})$ constrains the coupling 

1497: as $\tilde{g}/g~\lsim~2.2 \times 10^{-2}$ with 

1498: $g=5.0\times 10^{-4}$, in which case 

1499: the super-Hubble metric perturbation can not be strongly

1500: excited. 

1501: 

1502: %%%%%%%%%%

1503: \begin{figure}

1504: \begin{center}

1505: \singlefig{12cm}{Fig6.eps}

1506: \begin{figcaption}{Fig6}{12cm}

1507: The evolutions of field perturbations

1508: $\delta\tilde{\phi}_k$, $\delta\tilde{\chi}_k$

1509: $\delta\tilde{\sigma}_k$, and the metric perturbation

1510: $\tilde{\Phi}_k$ for a super-Hubble

1511: mode $\bar{k}=10^{-26}$

1512: with $g=5.0 \times 10^{-4}$, $\tilde{g}/g=2.0\times

1513: 10^{-2}$, $d=6$, $b_*=1.0 \times 10^5/m_{\rm pl}$, 

1514: and $m=10^{-6}m_{\rm pl}$ 

1515: during inflation and preheating. 

1516: {\bf Inset of Fig.~6(a):} The evolution of the inflaton 

1517:  condensate $\phi$.

1518: \end{figcaption}

1519: \end{center}

1520: \end{figure}

1521: %%%%%%%%%%

1522: 

1523: We have also investigated other values 

1524: of the coupling $g$, and numerical results exhibit the similar behavior.

1525: The large scale cosmic microwave background (CMB) 

1526: anisotropies will not be significantly modified with the existence

1527: of the preheating phase,

1528: even taking into account the coupling $\tilde{g}^2\phi^3\chi$.

1529: However, the additional enhancement of the 

1530: super-Hubble metric perturbation found in

1531: Fig.~6(b) for $mt~\gsim~180$ may give some small imprints 

1532: in the CMB spectrum.

1533: 

1534: The $\delta\sigma_k$ fluctuation in super-Hubble scales 

1535: can be amplified a little in a short stage 

1536: as in the case of $\delta\phi_k$.

1537: In Fig.~6(b), we find that $\delta\sigma_k$ increases 

1538: by about  two orders of magnitude during 

1539: $140~\lsim~mt~\lsim~220$. 

1540: However, for $g~\gsim~3.0 \times 10^{-4}$

1541: and values of $\tilde{g}$ which satisfy the condition of 

1542: $(\ref{C70})$, numerical calculations imply that 

1543: the growth of super-Hubble $\delta\sigma_k$ 

1544: modes is hardly expected except in the case where $\tilde{g}/g$

1545: is close to its upper bound.

1546: Even when $\tilde{g}/g$ is close to its upper bound as in the 

1547: case of $g=5.0 \times 10^{-4}$, $\tilde{g}/g=2.0 \times 10^{-2}$,

1548: the enhancement is found to be weak. Moreover, 

1549: final fluctuations $\delta\tilde{\sigma}_k$ in super-Hubble 

1550: modes are typically smaller than $\delta\tilde{\phi}_k$

1551: and $\delta\tilde{\chi}_k$ as is found in Fig.~6.

1552: 

1553: %%%%%%%%%%

1554: \begin{figure}

1555: \begin{center}

1556: \singlefig{12cm}{Fig7.eps}

1557: \begin{figcaption}{Fig7}{12cm}

1558: The evolutions of the metric perturbation 

1559: $\Phi_k$ and the field perturbation $\delta\sigma_k$ for a 

1560: sub-Hubble mode $\bar{k}=5$ with 

1561: $g=5.0 \times 10^{-4}$, $\tilde{g}/g=2.0\times

1562: 10^{-2}$, $d=6$, $b_*=1.0 \times 10^5/m_{\rm pl}$, 

1563: and $m=10^{-6}m_{\rm pl}$. 

1564: \end{figcaption}

1565: \end{center}

1566: \end{figure}

1567: %%%%%%%%%%

1568: 

1569: As for sub-Hubble scales, amplifications of metric 

1570: perturbations and the $\delta\sigma_k$ fluctuation are relevant

1571: compared with the super-Hubble case.

1572: In Fig.~7, we show the evolutions of $\Phi_k$ 

1573: and $\delta\sigma_k$ during preheating for

1574: a sub-Hubble mode $\bar{k}=5$

1575: with $g=5.0 \times 10^{-4}$, $\tilde{g}/g=2.0\times 10^{-2}$.

1576: In this case, the sub-Hubble fluctuation of $\delta\tilde{\chi}_k$ is 

1577: larger than in the super-Hubble case at the start of preheating.

1578: We find in Fig.~7 that $\Phi_k$ 

1579: increases by more than one order of magnitude, which 

1580: indicates that metric preheating can be vital in small scales 

1581: in the presence of the $\tilde{g}^2\phi^3\chi$ term.

1582: The dilaton fluctuation in sub-Hubble modes is also enhanced

1583: with the growth of metric perturbations. However,

1584: the final $\delta\sigma_k$ fluctuation 

1585: does not exceed its fluctuation at the onset of preheating.

1586: If we choose smaller values of $\tilde{g}$, the enhancement

1587: of sub-Hubble $\Phi_k$ and $\delta\sigma_k$ modes becomes 

1588: weaker. 

1589: For the couplings which range 

1590: $3 \times 10^{-4}~\lsim~g~\lsim~ 10^{-2}$,

1591: we numerically find that 

1592: the sub-Hubble dilaton fluctuation is not relevantly amplified 

1593: for the value of $\tilde{g}$ which is smaller 

1594: by one order of magnitude than its upper bound given 

1595: by Eq.~$(\ref{C70})$.

1596: When the standard coupling $g^2\phi^2\chi^2$

1597: dominates over the coupling $\tilde{g}^3\phi^3\chi$ (namely

1598: $g \gg \tilde{g}$), we conclude that the fluctuation of dilaton 

1599: can be held static both in the sub- and super-Hubble scales. 

1600: 

1601: 

1602: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1603: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1604: \section{Concluding remarks and discussions}   

1605: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1606: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1607: In this paper, we have studied preheating after inflation 

1608: with a quadratic inflaton potential $V(\phi)=\frac12 m^2\phi^2$

1609: in the presence of a dilaton field $\sigma$ which represents

1610: the scale of compactifications in a higher-dimensional 

1611: generalized Kaluza-Klein theory.

1612: We consider the Candelas-Weinberg model

1613: where extra dimensions are compactified on the sphere

1614: with a cosmological constant and a one-loop quantum

1615: correction (Casimir effects).

1616: In the chaotic inflation model, 

1617: a potential barrier which prevents the growth 

1618: of the internal space disappears for large values 

1619: of inflaton. However, the fine-tuned initial conditions

1620: and parameters of the model naturally lead to successful inflation. 

1621: We find that the existence of dilaton during inflation hardly

1622: affects the evolution of inflaton, and the chaotic inflationary 

1623: scenario proceeds in the usual manner as long as initial 

1624: conditions are chosen so that 

1625: dilaton does not go beyond the potential barrier.

1626: 

1627: At the stage of preheating after inflation,

1628: another scalar field $\chi$ coupled to inflaton 

1629: can be amplified by parametric resonance 

1630: due to the oscillation of inflaton. In addition to the standard 

1631: coupling $\frac12 g^2\phi^2\chi^2$, we have also included

1632: the coupling $\tilde{g}^2\phi^3\chi$ by which the exponential 

1633: suppression of the super-Hubble $\chi$ fluctuation can be avoided

1634: during inflation. We include metric perturbations explicitly

1635: for scalar field equations, and investigate how the fluctuation of 

1636: dilaton will be amplified both in super- and sub-Hubble scales. 

1637: Neglecting metric perturbations, the equation for the dilaton

1638: fluctuation is reduced to the form of Mathieu equation 

1639: as in the case of the $\chi$ fluctuation at the linear stage of preheating.

1640: Since the resonance parameter $q$ is smaller

1641: than unity during the whole stage of preheating, 

1642: the dilaton fluctuation does not exhibit parametric amplification 

1643: in the rigid spacetime case.

1644: 

1645: In the perturbed metric case, it is generally expected that field resonances

1646: will stimulate the enhancement of metric perturbations $\Phi_k$.

1647: In the case of $\tilde{g}=0$, however, since

1648: low momentum modes of the $\chi$ field fluctuation are

1649: severely suppressed during inflation, 

1650: super-Hubble metric perturbations are hardly affected 

1651: by parametric amplification of the field perturbation.

1652: We have numerically verified that super-Hubble 

1653: metric perturbations remain almost constant during preheating,

1654: and also found that the dilaton fluctuation in super-Hubble modes

1655: can not be enhanced.

1656: As for sub-Hubble modes with $\tilde{g}=0$, the $\chi$ field 

1657: fluctuation is not suppressed relative to super-Hubble modes.

1658: However, since the source term in the equation of $\Phi_k$

1659: contains the time derivative of the homogeneous $\chi$ field,

1660: we can not expect the strong amplification of 

1661: dilaton fluctuation as well as metric perturbations.

1662: 

1663: If the coupling $\tilde{g}^2\phi^3\chi$ is taken into account,

1664: both the homogeneous and super-Hubble fluctuational parts

1665: of the $\chi$ field can escape the inflationary suppression.

1666: These are about $(\tilde{g}/g)^2$ times  those of inflaton

1667: at the onset of preheating.

1668: In this case, the $\chi$ fluctuation can typically increase to 

1669: the order of the inflaton fluctuation, after which 

1670: the backreaction effect of created $\chi$

1671: particles onto the $\phi$ field begins to be relevant.

1672: This restricts the further excitement of the $\chi$ fluctuation, and 

1673: amplifications of the super-Hubble metric perturbation and 

1674: the dilaton fluctuation are found to be weak even for large values of 

1675: $\tilde{g}$ which are close to its upper bound.

1676: As for sub-Hubble scales, the dilaton fluctuation can be modestly 

1677: amplified by the growth of metric perturbations.

1678: However, the dilaton fluctuation does not grow for the value

1679: of $\tilde{g}$ which is smaller by one order of magnitude than its

1680: upper bound given by Eq.~$(\ref{C70})$.

1681: We argue that the stability of compactifications can be 

1682: preserved during preheating in the quadratic chaotic inflationary

1683: scenario as long as $\tilde{g} \ll g$.

1684: 

1685: We have found that the enhancement of the dilaton perturbation

1686: is intimately related with the generation of metric perturbations.

1687: Although we only considered the backreaction due to 

1688:  field fluctuations, we should also include second order 

1689: metric perturbations to the background equations 

1690: for a consistent study. In fact, the effective momentum tensor

1691: formalism in Ref.~\cite{SMP} gives rise to the coupling of

1692: the metric $\Phi$ and the fluctuation $\delta\chi_k$

1693: in the equation of the homogeneous $\phi$ field,

1694: which leads to the growth of the super-Hubble $\delta\chi_k$

1695: fluctuation as well as the homogeneous 

1696: $\chi$ field. Although it is expected that  

1697: metric perturbations in super-Hubble scales remain well within

1698: linear regimes in the case of $\tilde{g}=0$ as 

1699: in Ref.~\cite{mpre10}, inclusion of 

1700: second order metric backreaction effects may lead to the distortion

1701: of the large-scale CMB spectrum as well as the enhancement 

1702: of sub-Hubble metric and field fluctuations in the presence of the interaction 

1703: $\tilde{g}^2\phi^3\chi$. 

1704: In addition to this, rescattering effects of field and metric 

1705: fluctuations (i.e. mode-mode coupling) will be important at the 

1706: final stage of preheating\cite{KLS2,KTselffull,KTmassivefull,mpre13}.

1707: Although we do not consider these complicated issues 

1708: in this paper, we should take into account the full backreaction

1709: and the rescattering effects for a complete study of preheating.

1710:  

1711: In this paper, we have restricted ourselves to the massive 

1712: inflaton model as a first step toward 

1713: understanding  the dynamics of preheating with extra dimensions.

1714: We found that amplification of the super-Hubble dilaton

1715: fluctuation is weak in this model. 

1716: However, in other models of inflation, there may

1717: be a possibility that extra dimensions will be unstable during preheating.

1718: Indeed, it was recently suggested that 

1719: super-Hubble metric perturbations can be strongly enhanced 

1720: in broad classes of models\cite{mpre7,mpre3,mpre6}.

1721: One of such models is the massless chaotic inflation model

1722: $V(\phi)=\frac14\lambda\phi^4$ with the interaction

1723: $\frac12 g^2\phi^2\chi^2$. In this model, 

1724: even when the effective mass of the $\chi$ field 

1725: is comparable to the Hubble expansion rate $H$,

1726: the super-Hubble

1727: $\chi$ field fluctuation can be excited by 

1728: parametric resonance.

1729: This  will lead to the enhancement of the dilaton

1730: fluctuation in long wave modes through

1731: the amplification of super-Hubble metric perturbations.  

1732: It was also pointed out in Ref.~\cite{mpre3} 

1733: that the negative coupling $\frac12 g^2\phi^2\chi^2$ with 

1734: $g^2<0$\cite{negative}

1735: or the negative nonminimal coupling $\frac12 \xi R\chi^2$ with 

1736: $\xi<0$\cite{nonminimalpre} will escape 

1737: the inflationary suppression of the super-Hubble $\chi$ fluctuation. 

1738: In addition to this, although we did not consider the interaction 

1739: between $\sigma$ and $\chi$ fields, including this coupling may 

1740: strengthen parametric resonance of scalar fields\cite{Bruce}. 

1741: It is quite interesting to investigate the evolution of metric and 

1742: field fluctuations in broad classes of models

1743: with several interactions in the sense that 

1744: we can constrain the inflaton potential 

1745: in terms of distortions from the CMB spectrum.

1746: 

1747: Although we have investigated compactifications

1748: on the sphere, there exist several ways of

1749: compactifications on other manifolds.

1750: For example, the dilaton does not have its own potential 

1751: in the torus compactification, which would lead to 

1752: the growth of extra dimensions during inflation as was

1753: analyzed in Ref.~\cite{BM}.

1754: In this case, since the resonance term 

1755: $g^2\phi^2e^{-d\sigma/\sigma_*}$ in the l.h.s.

1756: of Eq.~$(\ref{C7})$ will be suppressed during inflation,

1757: the ordinary picture of preheating may be modified in the 

1758: presence of extra dimensions.

1759: It is also of interest to investigate the dynamics of 

1760: inflation and preheating in more realistic models

1761: of compactifications such as Calabi-Yau manifolds,

1762: because it is possible to judge whether such 

1763: compactifications are appropriate or not from 

1764: the cosmological point of view.

1765: These issues are under consideration. 

1766: 

1767: 

1768: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1769: \section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}

1770: The author would like to thank Bruce A. Bassett, Kei-ichi Maeda, 

1771: Shinji Mukohyama, Takashi Torii, Kunihito Uzawa, Fermin Viniegra,

1772: and Hiroki Yajima for useful discussions and comments. 

1773: This work was supported partially by a Grant-in-Aid for  Scientific

1774: Research Fund of the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture

1775: (No. 09410217), and by the Waseda University 

1776: Grant for Special Research Projects.

1777: 

1778: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1779: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1780: \bibitem{GSW}

1781: M. B. Green, J. H. Schwartz, and E. Witten,

1782: {\it Superstring theory}~(Cambridge University Press,

1783: Cambridge, England, 1987).

1784: \bibitem{HW}

1785: P. Horava and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B460}, 506 (1996).

1786: \bibitem{brane1}

1787: L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 

1788: 3370 (1999); L. Randall and R. Sundrum, hep-th/9906064.

1789: \bibitem{brane2}

1790: M. Visser, Phys. Lett. {\bf 159B}, 22 (1985); hep-th/9910093;

1791: V.A. Rubakov and M.E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. {\bf 125B},

1792: 139 (1983).

1793: \bibitem{brane3}

1794: I. Antoniadis, Phys. Lett. {\bf 246B}, 377 (1990);

1795: N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and 

1796: G. Dvali, Phys. Lett. {\bf 429B}, 263 (1998);

1797: I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and 

1798: G. Dvali, Phys. Lett. {\bf 436B}, 257 (1998).

1799: \bibitem{CW}

1800: S. Weinberg, Phys. Lett. {\bf 125B}, 265 (1983);

1801: P. Candelas and S. Weinberg, Nucl. Phys.

1802: {\bf B237}, 397 (1984).

1803: \bibitem{BLV}

1804: D. Bailin, A. Love, and C. E. Vayonakis,

1805: Phys. Lett. {\bf 142B}, 344 (1984).

1806: \bibitem{maeda1}

1807: K. Maeda, Class. Quantum. Grav. {\bf 3}, 233 (1986);

1808: {\it ibid}, 344 (1986).

1809: \bibitem{maeda2}

1810: K. Maeda, Phys. Lett. {\bf 186B}, 33 (1987).

1811: \bibitem{inflation}

1812: E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, {\it The Early Universe}

1813: (Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, California, 1990); 

1814: A. D. Linde,  {\it Particle

1815: Physics and Inflationary Cosmology}

1816: (Harwood, Chur, Switzerland, 1990).

1817: \bibitem{stabilityinf}

1818: L. Amendola, E. W. Kolb, M. Litterio, and

1819: F. Occhionero, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 42}, 1944 (1990).

1820: \bibitem{BM}

1821: A. L. Berkin and K. Maeda, 

1822: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 44}, 1691 (1991).

1823: \bibitem{LI}

1824: D. H. Lyth, Phys. Lett. {\bf B448}, 191 (1999);

1825: N. Kaloper and A. Linde, Phys, Rev. D {\bf 59},

1826: 101303 (1999); G. Dvali and S. H. Tye, 

1827: Phys. Lett. {\bf B450}, 72 (1999);

1828: A. Mazumdar, Phys. Lett. {\bf B469}, 55 (1999).

1829: \bibitem{pre1}

1830: J. Traschen and R. H. Brandenberger, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 42}, 2491

1831: (1990); Y. Shtanov, J. Trashen, and R. H. Brandenberger,

1832: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 51}, 5438 (1995); 

1833: A. D. Dolgov and D. P. Kirilova, Sov. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 51}, 273 (1990).

1834: \bibitem{KLS1}

1835: L. Kofman, A. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, 

1836: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 3195 (1994).

1837: \bibitem{KLS2}

1838: L. Kofman, A. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, 

1839: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 3258 (1997).

1840: \bibitem{structure}

1841: P. B. Greene, L. Kofman,

1842: A. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 6175

1843: (1997); D. I. Kaiser, Phys.  Rev.  D {\bf 56} 706 (1997).

1844: \bibitem{KTmassivehartree}

1845: S. Khlebnikov and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Lett. {\bf B390}, 80 (1997).

1846: \bibitem{Boy}

1847: D. Boyanovsky, H. J. de Vega, R. Holman, D. S. Lee, and A. Singh,

1848: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 51}, 4419 (1995);

1849: D. Boyanovsky, D. Cormier, H. J. de Vega, R. Holman, A. Singh,

1850: and M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 1939 (1997).

1851: \bibitem{Baa}

1852: J. Baacke, K. Heitmann, and C. P\"atzold, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 55}, 2320

1853: (1997); {\it ibid} D {\bf 56}, 6556 (1997).

1854: \bibitem{KTselffull}

1855: S. Khlebnikov and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 219 (1996). 

1856: \bibitem{KTmassivefull}

1857: S. Khlebnikov and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 1607 (1997).

1858: \bibitem{PR}

1859: T. Prokopec and T. G. Roos, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 55}, 3768 (1997).

1860: \bibitem{baryogenesis}

1861: E. W. Kolb, A. D. Linde, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77},

1862: 3716 (1996); E. W. Kolb,  A. Riotto, and I. I. Tkachev,

1863: Phys. Lett. {\bf B423}, 348 (1998).

1864: \bibitem{defect}

1865: S. Khlebnikov, L. Kofman, A. Linde, and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. Lett.

1866: {\bf 81}, 2012 (1998); I. I. Tkachev, S. Khlebnikov, L. Kofman,

1867: A. Linde, Phys. Lett. {\bf B440}, 262 (1998);

1868: S. Kasuya and M. Kawasaki, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58},

1869: 083516 (1998). 

1870: \bibitem{phasetransition}

1871: L. Kofman, A. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.

1872: {\bf 76}, 1011 (1996); I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Lett. {\bf B376},

1873: 35 (1996); S. Kasuya and M. Kawasaki, Phys. Rev.  D {\bf 56},

1874: 7597 (1997). 

1875: \bibitem{GW}

1876: S. Khlebnikov and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 653 (1997);

1877: B. A. Bassett, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 3439 (1997);

1878: D. Tilley and  R. Maartens, gr-qc/0002089.

1879: \bibitem{MM}

1880: A. Mazumdar and L. E. Mendes, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60},

1881: 103513 (1999).

1882: \bibitem{mukoh}

1883: S. Mukohyama, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 6191 (1998);

1884: K. Uzawa, Y. Morisawa, and S. Mukohyama, gr-qc/9912108.

1885: \bibitem{shinji}

1886: S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 124002 (2000).

1887: \bibitem{SUGRA}

1888: G. G. Ross, Phys. Lett. {\bf B171}, 46 (1986);

1889: G. G. Ross and S. Sarkar, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B461}, 597 (1996).

1890: \bibitem{mpre1}

1891: H. Kodama and T. Hamazaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 96}, 949

1892: (1996); Y. Nambu and A. Taruya, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 97},

1893: 83 (1997); F. Finelli and R. Brandenberger,

1894: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82} 1362 (1999);

1895: M. Parry and R. Easther, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59} 061301 (1999).

1896: \bibitem{mpre2}

1897: B. A. Bassett, D. I. Kaiser, and R. Maartens,

1898: Phys. Lett. {\bf B455}, 84 (1999);

1899: B. A. Bassett, F. Tamburini, D. I. Kaiser, and R. Maartens,

1900: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B561}, 188 (1999).

1901: \bibitem{mpre7}

1902: B. A. Bassett and F. Viniegra, hep-ph/9909353,

1903: to appear in Physical Review D.

1904: \bibitem{mpre3}

1905: B. A. Bassett, C. Gordon, R. Maartens, and D. I. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D. 061302 (R)

1906: (2000).

1907: \bibitem{mpre4}

1908: S. Tsujikawa and B. A. Bassett, hep-ph/0003068,

1909: to appear in Physical Review D.

1910: \bibitem{mpre6}

1911: F. Finelli and R. Brandenberger, hep-ph/0003172.

1912: \bibitem{MFB}

1913: V. F. Mukhanov, H. A. Feldman, and R. H. Brandenberger,

1914: Phys. Rep. {\bf 215}, 293 (1992).

1915: \bibitem{Mathieu}

1916: N. W. Mac Lachlan, {\it Theory and Applications of Mathieu

1917: Functions} (Dover, New York, 1961).

1918: \bibitem{mpre8}

1919: P. Ivanov, Phys, Rev. D {\bf 61}, 023505 (2000).

1920: \bibitem{mpre10}

1921: K. Jedamzik and G. Sigl, Phys, Rev. D {\bf 61},

1922: 023519 (2000).

1923: \bibitem{mpre11}

1924: A. R. Liddle, D. H. Lyth, K. A. Malik, and D. Wands,

1925: Phys, Rev. D {\bf 61}, 103509 (2000).

1926: \bibitem{mpre12}

1927: A. B. Henriques and R. G. Moorhouse, hep-ph/0003141.

1928: \bibitem{SMP}

1929: L. R. Abramo, R. H. Brandenberger, and V. F. Mukhanov,

1930: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 3248 (1997).

1931: \bibitem{mpre13}

1932: M.  Parry and R. Easther, hep-ph/9910441.

1933: \bibitem{negative}

1934: B. R. Greene, T. Prokopec, and T. G. Roos, 

1935: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 6484 (1997).

1936: \bibitem{nonminimalpre}

1937: As for the particle production by nonminimal coupling, 

1938: see the following papers:

1939: B. A. Bassett and S. Liberati,

1940: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58} 021302 (1998);

1941: S. Tsujikawa, K. Maeda, and T. Torii,

1942: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60}, 063515 (1999); 123505 (1999);

1943: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 103501 (2000). 

1944: \bibitem{Bruce}

1945: B. A. Bassett, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58}, 021303 (1998);

1946: B. A. Bassett and F. Tamburini, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81},

1947: 2630 (1998).

1948: \end{thebibliography}

1949: 

1950: 

1951: \end{document}

1952: 

1953: %-----------------------------------------------------

1954: 

1955: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1956: %%%%%%%%   uu-files %%%%%%%%%%%

1957: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1958: 

1959: