1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: % Inflationary preheating and primordial black holes
3: % 9 Jan 01
4: % hep-ph/0008328
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6:
7: %\documentstyle[prd,twocolumn,eqsecnum,aps]{revtex}
8: \documentstyle[aps,prd,eqsecnum,twocolumn,epsf]{revtex}
9: %\documentstyle[prd,eqsecnum,aps]{revtex}
10: %\documentstyle[preprint,eqsecnum,aps]{revtex}
11:
12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
13: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
14: \newcommand{\beqn}{\begin{eqnarray}}
15: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
16: \newcommand{\eeqn}{\end{eqnarray}}
17: \newcommand{\k}{{\kappa}}
18: %%%%% singlefig %%%%%
19: \newcommand{\singlefig}[2]{
20: \begin{center}
21: \begin{minipage}{#1}
22: \epsfxsize=#1
23: \epsffile{#2}
24: \end{minipage}
25: \end{center}}
26: %
27: %%%%% figcaption %%%%%
28: \newenvironment{figcaption}[2]{
29: \vspace{0.3cm}
30: \refstepcounter{figure}
31: \label{#1}
32: \begin{center}
33: \begin{minipage}{#2}
34: \begingroup \small FIG. \thefigure: }{
35: \endgroup
36: \end{minipage}
37: \end{center}}
38: %
39:
40: %------------------------------
41: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
42: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
43: \newcommand{\gsim}{\mbox{\raisebox{-1.ex}{$\stackrel
44: {\textstyle>}{\textstyle\sim}$}}}
45: \newcommand{\lsim}{\mbox{\raisebox{-1.ex}{$\stackrel
46: {\textstyle<}{\textstyle \sim}$}}}
47: \newcommand{\square}{\kern1pt\vbox{\hrule height
48: 1.2pt\hbox{\vrule width 1.2pt\hskip 3pt
49: \vbox{\vskip 6pt}\hskip 3pt\vrule width 0.6pt}\hrule
50: height 0.6pt}\kern1pt}
51: %------------------------------
52:
53:
54: \begin{document}
55: \draft \twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname
56: @twocolumnfalse\endcsname
57:
58: \title{Inflationary preheating and primordial black holes}
59: \author{Bruce A. Bassett$^*$ and Shinji Tsujikawa$^{\P}$}
60: \address{$^*$ Relativity and Cosmology Group (RCG), University of
61: Portsmouth, Mercantile House, Portsmouth, PO1 2EG,
62: England\\[.3em]}
63: \address{$^{\P}$ Department of Physics, Waseda University,
64: 3-4-1 Ohkubo, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan\\[.3em]}
65: \date{\today}
66: \maketitle
67: \begin{abstract}
68: Preheating after inflation may over-produce primordial black holes (PBH's)
69: in many regions of parameter space.
70: As an example we study two-field models with a
71: massless self-interacting inflaton, taking into account second order
72: field and metric backreaction effects as spatial averages.
73: We find that a complex quilt of
74: parameter regions above the Gaussian PBH over-production
75: threshold emerges due to the enhancement of
76: curvature perturbations on all scales.
77: It should be possible to constrain realistic models of inflation
78: through PBH over-production although many issues,
79: such as rescattering and non-Gaussianity, remain
80: unsolved or unexplored.
81: \end{abstract}
82: \vskip 1pc \pacs{pacs: 98.80.Cq}
83: \centerline{RCG-00/27, WUAP-00/22}
84: \vskip 2pc
85: ]
86:
87: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
88: %%%% Introduction %%%%%%
89: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
90:
91: \underline{\em Introduction} -- The issue of whether initial
92: conditions at the Planck
93: era were suitable for the onset of inflation is both complex and
94: controversial \cite{init,GPVT}. With these subtleties aside, there
95: remains a cavernous space of possible inflationary models \cite{LR}.
96: The requirement of graceful exit from the cold inflationary phase
97: into an acceptable radiation-dominated FLRW universe has proven
98: a powerful filter on this model space.
99:
100: Failure to exit gracefully spelt the end of the
101: old inflationary scenario \cite{GW}, is perhaps the major stumbling block
102: in pre-big-bang models\cite{PBB} and continues to plague string and
103: supergravity models of inflation through the threat of overproduction of
104: dangerous relics such as moduli and gravitinos \cite{relic}.
105:
106: Perhaps the most radical way to end inflation is via preheating
107: (see e.g., \cite{pre}) in which runaway particle production
108: occurs in fields coupled non-gravitationally to the inflaton.
109: This explosive growth of quantum fluctuations drives similar resonances in
110: metric perturbations on scales which range from cosmological to
111: sub-Hubble \cite{mpre1}.
112:
113: It is now recognized that in certain models preheating can alter
114: the predictions of inflation for
115: the Cosmic Microwave Background
116: (CMB)\cite{mpre2,mpre3,mpre4,mpre5,mpre6} by
117: exponentially amplifying super-Hubble metric perturbations.
118: This does not violate causality but depends sensitively on the preceding
119: inflationary phase which determines the spectrum of $\chi$ fluctuations
120: \cite{JS,Ivanov,LLKW,HM,shinji}.
121: In this paper we discuss what appears to be a more
122: robust mechanism for constraining models of preheating --
123: over-production of primordial black holes (PBH's).
124:
125: The idea that the amplification
126: of metric perturbations during preheating would lead to enhancement
127: of PBH abundances was raised early on \cite{mpre1} and has been
128: alluded to frequently since; e.g., \cite{JS,PE}.
129: Recently Green and Malik
130: \cite{GM} have used a semi-analytic approach which incorporates second
131: order $\chi$ field fluctuations to study PBH formation in a
132: two-field massive inflaton model.
133:
134: Their results suggest that during strong preheating ($q \gg 1$
135: \cite{pre}), PBH formation could violate astrophysical limits
136: before backreaction ends the resonant growth of $\chi$ fluctuations.
137: This is a crucial issue since strong preheating is generic in many models
138: of inflation. However, Green and Malik used the results of \cite{pre} for the
139: estimate of the time at which
140: backreaction ends the initial resonance. As they point out this
141: estimate does not include metric perturbations or rescattering and hence
142: could be misleading.
143:
144: %%%%%%%%%%
145: \begin{figure}
146: \epsfxsize=3.2in
147: \epsffile{pbhfig2b.eps}
148: \caption{A schematic figure showing the numerical approaches to preheating
149: with numbers in brackets denoting appropriate references. See the text for
150: discussion.}
151: \end{figure}
152: %%%%%%%%%%
153:
154: Here we present first estimates of PBH production including backreaction
155: computed dynamically. We find that while preheating may lead to over-production
156: of PBH's in some regions of parameter space, the result is sensitive to
157: many subtle issues.
158:
159: To place our methods in context, consider
160: Fig.~1 which shows the different numerical studies of
161: preheating undertaken in the literature. The eventual goal
162: of these studies is a fully
163: nonlinear analysis of multi-field preheating including metric perturbations.
164: So far this has been achieved without metric
165: perturbations (``no $\Phi$'') - often with simplified expansion dynamics -
166: through lattice simulations \cite{lattice}. The furthest the community has
167: progressed \cite{PE} in solving the full Einstein field
168: equations is in a model with plane wave symmetry and a
169: single scalar field.
170:
171: An alternative to full lattice simulations of preheating is the use of the
172: Hartree, large-N, and mean field approximations \cite{hartree}.
173: Recently the Hartree approximation has been combined with the linear
174: approximation for metric perturbations $\Phi$ \cite{mpre5,HM,shinji}
175: and, in \cite{mpre6,JS}, with the second order metric
176: perturbations formalism of
177: Abramo {\em et al.} \cite{ABM}. It is this latter approach that we adopt.
178:
179: Immediate goals are fully
180: nonlinear spherically symmetric simulations suitable for studying individual
181: PBH formation (c.f. \cite{boson}) and inclusion of rescattering effects
182: in the presence of metric perturbations, $\Phi$. The latter requires
183: going beyond the Hartree approximation and evaluating double and
184: triple convolutions.
185:
186: \underline{\em The Model} -- We consider the two scalar field
187: chaotic inflation model
188: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
189: \begin{eqnarray}
190: V(\phi, \chi) = \frac{\lambda}{4}\phi^4 + \frac{g^2}{2}\phi^2 \chi^2,
191: \label{potential}
192: \end{eqnarray}
193: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
194: where $\phi$ is an inflaton field.
195: During inflation $\chi$ decreases rapidly towards zero if $g^2/\lambda
196: \gg 1$ in which case the temperature anisotropies
197: in the CMB simply scale as
198: $\Delta T/T \sim \sqrt{\lambda}$. We therefore choose a self-coupling of
199: $\lambda = 10^{-13}$. During preheating, $\chi$ and $\delta\chi_k$ grow
200: exponentially in very specific geometric channels or resonance bands which
201: are well understood in terms of Floquet theory\cite{GKLS97,mpre3}.
202:
203: We assume a flat background FLRW geometry with perturbations in
204: the longitudinal gauge\cite{mpre1}:
205: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
206: \begin{eqnarray}
207: ds^2=-(1+2\Phi)dt^2
208: +a^2(1-2\Phi)\delta_{ij} dx^i dx^j,
209: \label{B2}
210: \end{eqnarray}
211: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
212: where $\Phi = \Phi({\bf x},t)$, the natural generalization of the
213: Newtonian potential, describes scalar perturbations and
214: $a = a(t)$ is the scale factor.
215: We decompose the scalar fields into homogeneous parts and fluctuations
216: as $\phi(t, {\bf x}) \to \phi (t)+\delta\phi (t,{\bf x})$ and
217: $\chi(t, {\bf x}) \to \chi (t)+\delta\chi (t,{\bf x})$.
218:
219: The structure of the linearized Einstein field equations for this system
220: can be schematically written in terms of two vectors: one for the FLRW
221: background dynamics ${\bf X} = (\phi, \dot{\phi}, \chi, \dot{\chi},
222: a, \dot{a})$, and one for the perturbation variables in Fourier
223: space: ${\bf Y}_k = (\delta\phi_k, \delta\dot{\phi}_k,
224: \delta \chi_k, \delta\dot{\chi}_k, \Phi_k, \zeta_k)$.
225:
226: While we solve the system of linearized Einstein field equations in the
227: longitudinal gauge, it is convenient to calculate PBH constraints
228: in terms of the curvature perturbation $\zeta_k$ rather than
229: $\Phi_k$.
230: $\zeta_k$ is defined in terms of $\Phi_k$
231: and the Hubble parameter, $H \equiv \dot{a}/a$, by
232: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
233: \begin{eqnarray}
234: \zeta_k \equiv \Phi_k-\frac{H}{\dot{H}}\left(H\Phi_k+\dot{\Phi}_k\right),
235: \label{C1}
236: \end{eqnarray}
237: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
238: and is usually conserved on super-Hubble scales
239: in the adiabatic single field inflationary scenario.
240: In the multi-field case which we consider in this paper,
241: this quantity can change nonadiabatically due to the amplification
242: of isocurvature (entropy) perturbations.
243:
244: %%%%%%%%%%
245: \begin{figure}
246: \epsfxsize=3.5in
247: \epsffile{pbh3f2.eps}
248: \caption{An
249: illustration of primordial black hole (PBH) formation during preheating due
250: to growth of density perturbations. The PBH event horizon
251: is schematically shown by the white ring in the final panel.
252: Astrophysical limits on PBH's constrain $\beta$,
253: the ratio of PBH to total energy density.
254: To constrain theory one needs to map $\beta$ into the
255: mass variance $\sigma$, most easily achieved with a Gaussian
256: or chi-squared assumption for density perturbations. It
257: is $\sigma$ that we calculate in our simulations.}
258: \end{figure}
259: %%%%%%%%%%
260:
261: We include backreaction effects to second order in {\em both} field and
262: metric perturbations\cite{ABM},
263: which implies that we integrate coupled integro-differential equations.
264: The precise structure of these equations and additional details
265: can be found in Appendix and \cite{mpre5,mpre6,JS,ABM}. Here we
266: illustrate the skeletal structure of the system, which has the form
267: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
268: \beqn
269: \dot{{\bf X}} &=& {\bf F}({\bf X},\langle{\bf Y}^2\rangle), \nonumber \\
270: \dot{{\bf Y}}_k &=& {\bf G}({\bf X},\langle{\bf Y}^2\rangle)~{\bf Y}_k,
271: \nonumber \\
272: {\bf F} &=& {\bf F}_{\rm hom} + {\bf F}_{\rm pert}, \nonumber \\
273: {\bf F}_{\rm pert} &=& {\bf F}_{\rm pert}(\langle \delta\phi^2 \rangle,
274: \langle \delta\chi^2 \rangle, \langle \Phi^2 \rangle, ...)\,,
275: \label{sys}
276: \eeqn
277: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
278: where the variance is defined by
279: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
280: \beq
281: \langle \diamond^2 \rangle \equiv \frac{1}{2\pi^2}
282: \int k^2 |\diamond|_k^2 dk \,,
283: \eeq
284: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
285: for any field $\diamond$. ${\bf F}$ and ${\bf G}$ are nonlinear functions
286: of the spatially homogeneous background
287: vector ${\bf X}$ and the variances of the components of ${\bf Y}$.
288: The complete system is integrated from 50 e-folds before the end of inflation
289: to provide the appropriate initial conditions for preheating.
290: The initial values at the start of inflation are chosen as
291: $\phi=4m_{\rm pl}$ and $\chi=10^{-3}m_{\rm pl}$
292: with conformal vacuum states for the
293: fluctuations\footnote{Using the initial condition $\chi=10^{-6}m_{\rm pl}$
294: we reproduced the results of Ref.~\cite{mpre6}.}.
295: Including the field variances ensures total energy conservation at 1-loop.
296:
297:
298: \underline{\em Primordial black hole constraints} -- Since PBH's form
299: from large density fluctuations\cite{carr},
300: it is an obvious concern that preheating might encounter
301: problems with PBH constraints arising from the Hawking
302: evaporation of small PBH's or from overclosure of the universe
303: ($\Omega_{\rm PBH} > 1$) for heavy PBH's.
304:
305: To quantify this suspicion one needs to compute the mass function
306: $\beta$\cite{BP,gl}:
307: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
308: \begin{eqnarray}
309: \beta = \frac{\rho_{\rm PBH}}{\rho_{\rm TOT}}
310: =\int_{\delta_c}^{\infty} P(\delta)~d\delta,
311: \label{D1}
312: \end{eqnarray}
313: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
314: where $P(\delta)$ is the probability distribution of the density
315: contrast, $\delta$, and $\delta_c$, $(\approx 0.7)$ \cite{nj},
316: is the critical value at which
317: PBH formation occurs in the radiation dominated era.
318:
319: Usually one assumes a Gaussian distribution
320: $P(\delta)=1/(\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma) \exp[-\delta^2/(2\sigma^2)]$,
321: where $\sigma$ is the mass variance at horizon crossing.
322: Observational constraints imply that
323: $\beta < 10^{-20}$ over a very wide range of mass scales, which translates
324: into a bound on the mass variance of $\sigma<\sigma_{*}=0.08$. $\sigma
325: > \sigma_*$ corresponds to PBH over-production in the Gaussian
326: distributed case.
327: When the distribution is instead first order chi-squared -- an approximation
328: to the $\chi$ density fluctuations in
329: preheating (see the later discussions) -- the threshold is
330: $\sigma_{*}=0.03$\cite{GM}.
331:
332: Defining the power-spectrum of the curvature perturbation as
333: ${\cal P}_{\zeta} \equiv k^3|\zeta_k|^2/(2\pi^2)$,
334: the mass variance can be expressed as\cite{GM,LL}
335: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
336: \begin{eqnarray}
337: \sigma^2=\left(\frac49\right)^2 \int_0^{\infty}
338: \left(\frac{k}{aH}\right)^4 {\cal P}_{\zeta}
339: \tilde{W}(kR) \frac{dk}{k}.
340: \label{D3}
341: \end{eqnarray}
342: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
343: We choose a Gaussian-filtered window function
344: $\tilde{W}(kR) \equiv \exp(-k^2 R^2/2)$ where $R \equiv 1/k_*$ is
345: the artificial smoothing scale \cite{LL}.
346: We can expect exponential increase of $\sigma$ due to the excitement
347: of field and metric perturbations during preheating.
348: We solved the Einstein equations (\ref{sys}) numerically, varying the
349: ratio $g^2/\lambda$, and evaluated the mass variance with two cut-offs
350: $k_*=aH$ and $k_*=10aH$ to investigate sensitivity to cut-off effects.
351:
352: %%%%%%%%%%
353: \begin{figure}
354: \epsfxsize=3.5in
355: \epsffile{Fig3.eps}
356: \caption{Threshold PBH formation -- the growth of $\sigma$,
357: $\tilde{\zeta}_k \equiv k^{3/2}\zeta_k$, and
358: $\delta\tilde{\chi}_k \equiv k^{3/2}\delta\chi_k/m_{\rm pl}$
359: for a super-Hubble mode $\kappa \equiv k/(\sqrt{\lambda}\phi_0)
360: =10^{-22}$ vs dimensionless time $x \equiv \sqrt{\lambda}\phi_0 \eta$
361: in the case $g^2/\lambda = 2.5$, where $\phi_0
362: \simeq 0.1 m_{\rm pl}$ is the value of inflaton when it begins to oscillate coherently.
363: With the choice $k_* = aH$ in the window function
364: $\tilde{W}(kR)=\exp(-k^2R^2/2)$, $\sigma$ just
365: reaches the threshold $\sigma_{*}=0.03$ for the PBH formation
366: for chi-squared first order distributions.}
367: \label{sigmaevolution}
368: \end{figure}
369: %%%%%%%%%%
370:
371:
372: When $\chi_k$ fluctuations are amplified during preheating,
373: this stimulates the growth of the metric perturbation, $\Phi_k$.
374: On cosmological scales this effect is sensitive to the
375: suppression of $\chi$ and $\delta\chi_k$ modes in the preceding inflationary
376: phase.
377:
378: When $g^2/\lambda={\cal O}(1)$, this suppression is weak since the
379: $\chi$ field is light \cite{mpre3}
380: and once the long-wave $\delta\chi_k$ modes grow to of order
381: $\delta\phi_k$ during preheating, super-Hubble $\Phi_k$ and
382: $\zeta_k$ are amplified until backreaction effects
383: shut off the resonance. This amplification occurs
384: in the region
385: $1<g^2/\lambda<3$\cite{mpre3,mpre4,mpre5,mpre6},
386: where the $k \simeq 0$ modes lie in a resonance band.
387: The increase in $\zeta_k$ leads to a corresponding growth of
388: the mass variance
389: $\sigma$ which can reach the threshold
390: $\sigma_{*}=0.03$ for $1<g^2/\lambda<3$ and $6<g^2/\lambda<10$
391: with the cut-off set at $k_*=aH$, i.e., around the Hubble scale
392: (see Fig.~\ref{sigmaevolution}).
393:
394: As $g^2/\lambda$ is increased, the $\chi$ field becomes heavy and
395: suppressed during inflation.
396: This restricts the amplification of super-Hubble metric perturbations
397: \cite{mpre6} despite the fact that
398: the $k \rightarrow 0$ mode of $\delta\chi_k$ lies
399: in a resonance band for
400: $n(2n-1)<g^2/\lambda<n(2n+1)$, $n = 1,2,3...$
401: \cite{GKLS97}, as is evident from Fig.~\ref{spectrum}.
402: However, since sub-Hubble $\delta\chi_k$ modes are not
403: suppressed during inflation\cite{JS,mpre2}, $\Phi_k$ and
404: $\zeta_k$ on sub-Hubble
405: scales do exhibit nonadiabatic, resonant, growth for $g^2/\lambda \gg 1$
406: \footnote{We have reproduced the result that the homogeneous part
407: of the $\chi$ field is amplified by the second order couplings between
408: $\Phi_k$ and $\delta\chi_k$\cite{JS} despite of the
409: inflationary suppression.},
410: which leads to growth of $\sigma$.
411:
412: However, we do {\em not} find that this is significant enough to lead to
413: $\sigma > \sigma_*$ for $g^2/\lambda \gg 1$, except for very short intervals
414: around $\dot{\phi} = 0$, in contrast to the
415: expectations of \cite{GM}. However, when we enlarge the cut-off
416: frequency $k_*$ to $10aH$, we do find $\sigma > 0.08$ in wide
417: ranges of parameter space (see Fig.~\ref{sigma}).
418: Somewhat surprisingly, these super-threshold regions are
419: all clustered around the super-Hubble resonance bands in $g^2/\lambda$
420: space.
421:
422:
423: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
424: \begin{figure}
425: \epsfxsize=3.5in
426: \epsffile{Fig4.eps}
427: \caption{The power spectrum of $\zeta$ at the end of preheating
428: for the values of $g^2/\lambda = 2, 50$ with $k_*=aH$.
429: Since the inflationary suppression of $\chi$ becomes stronger as
430: $g^2/\lambda$ is increased, the growth of $\zeta_k$ at long wavelengths
431: is suppressed. Note also the dominance of the $g^2/\lambda = 2$
432: modes at sub-Hubble scales $\kappa > 1$.
433: {\bf Inset :} The evolution of $\delta\chi_k$ for a super-Hubble mode
434: $\kappa \equiv k/(\sqrt{\lambda}\phi_0)=10^{-22}$ for $g^2/\lambda = 2, 50$.
435: The suppression of the initial conditions, due to the preceding inflationary
436: phase, in the heavy case $g^2/\lambda = 50$ is evident.}
437: \label{spectrum}
438: \end{figure}
439: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
440:
441: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
442: \begin{figure}
443: \epsfxsize=3.5in
444: \epsffile{Fig5.eps}
445: \caption{The mass variance $\sigma$ vs $g^2/\lambda$
446: for two window function cut-offs $k_* = aH$ and $k_* = 10aH$.
447: The threshold of $\sigma_{*} = 0.03$ in the chi-squared
448: distributed case is shown and is marginally crossed for the regions around
449: $g^2/\lambda \sim 2$ and $g^2/\lambda \sim 8$ when $k_* = aH$.
450: For $k_* = 10aH$ a quilt of regions above the Gaussian threshold
451: $\sigma_{*} = 0.08$ emerges
452: which coincide closely with $g^2/\lambda = 2n^2$ corresponding to Floquet
453: indices with maxima at longest wavelengths. }
454: \label{sigma}
455: \end{figure}
456: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
457:
458: \underline{Initial conditions for the $\chi$ field} -- An issue
459: of general importance which has been little studied is that of initial
460: conditions for non-inflaton fields at the {\em start} of inflation.
461: In our model these fields are represented by $\chi$ and the initial value
462: is set $55$ e-folds before the end of inflation.
463: This problem has two facets - the initial value of the background, or vacuum
464: expectation value of $\chi$, and the initial value of the distribution of
465: fluctuations, i.e., $\delta\chi_k$.
466:
467: A sensible choice for the latter is the Bunch-Davis vacuum, but it is the
468: initial value of the homogeneous part of $\chi$, which is of the most
469: importance, since if
470: $\chi = 0$ (the minimum of the potential) no resonance can
471: occur at linear order.
472:
473: We have found four suggestions for setting the initial value, $\chi_i$,
474: as follows.
475:
476: (1) Choose the value of $\chi$ which maximises the
477: probability distribution in eternal
478: inflation for fixed large values of the inflaton ($\phi > 1 m_{\rm pl}$) at
479: a specific time.
480: Since the regions with the largest Hubble constant dominate the distribution
481: \cite{eternal} this corresponds to choosing $\chi > 1 m_{\rm pl}$, i.e.,
482: super-Planckian chaotic initial conditions for $\chi$.
483:
484: This suggestion is, however, sensitive to the choice of a hypersurface
485: for setting the initial conditions. If one defines initial
486: conditions on the hypersurface of energy
487: density equal to the Planck energy for instance, then the Hubble constant
488: will likely be maximised by placing all energy into the field with the flatest
489: potential, rather than distributing it amoung the various fields,
490: some of which may have steep potentials. This will lead to vanishingly small
491: initial $\chi$ unless $\chi$ is a good inflaton, i.e., $g^2~\lsim~\lambda$.
492:
493: (2) Choose $\chi_i$ to satisfy $\chi_i^2 = \langle \chi^2
494: \rangle$ \cite{mpre6}. If we use the Bunch-Davis condition, $\chi_k
495: \sim 1/\sqrt{\omega_k} \sim 1/\sqrt{g\phi}$, we can estimate
496: $\langle \chi^2 \rangle = \frac{1}{2\pi^2}\int k^2 |\chi_k|^2 dk$ to be
497: $\sim k_*^3/(g\phi)$
498: if the variance is super-Hubble dominated during inflation and where $k_* =
499: H$ is the natural cut-off at the Hubble scale.
500:
501: Now if inflation is driven by $\phi$ then $H^2 \simeq V(\phi)/m_{\rm pl}^2$ and
502: we find $\chi_i^2 \simeq V(\phi)^{3/2}/(g\phi m_{\rm pl}^3)$. For the
503: potential (\ref{potential}) this
504: leads to the estimates $\chi_i \sim 10^{-5} m_{\rm pl}$ for $g^2/\lambda =
505: {\cal O}(1)$ and $\chi_i \sim 10^{-8} g^{-1/2} m_{\rm pl}$
506: for $g^2/\lambda \gg 1$
507: if we take $\lambda \sim 10^{-13}$ and $\phi_i \sim 4m_{\rm pl}$.
508:
509: (3) Choose the value of $\chi_i$ which leads to a stationary distribution
510: in eternal inflation (where the classical drift and quantum fluctuations
511: are balanced) \footnote{We thank Alan Guth for this suggestion.}.
512: Assuming quantum fluctuations $\delta\phi \sim H/2\pi$ on
513: characteristic time scales $\delta t \sim H^{-1}$ one arrives at
514: $\chi_i \sim H^3/(g^2\phi^2) \sim \lambda^{3/2} \phi^4/(g^2m_{\rm pl}^3)$
515: and hence $\chi_i \sim 10^{-4}-10^{-3} m_{\rm pl}$
516: for $g^2/\lambda = {\cal O}(1)$ and
517: $\chi_i \sim 10^{-16} g^{-2} m_{\rm pl}$ for $g^2/\lambda \gg 1$.
518:
519:
520: (4) Finally we may choose the value of $\chi_i$ which corresponds to the
521: instantaneous minimum of the potential. It suggests $\chi_i = 0$.
522: This argument has several problems the most fundamental of which is that
523: the system is not in equilibrium since the $\chi$ field is not strongly
524: coupled except for $g^2/\lambda \gg 1$.
525:
526: Despite the wide range of possible initial values, $\chi_i$, at the start of
527: inflation, Fig.~\ref{initial} shows that the final mass variance, and
528: hence the probability of PBH over-production, depends rather weakly on
529: $\chi_i$.
530:
531: %%%%%%%%%%
532: \begin{figure}
533: \epsfxsize=3.5in
534: \epsffile{pbhinitial.eps}
535: \caption{The smoothed dependence of the final mass variance $\sigma$ on
536: the initial condition, $\chi_i$, 55 e-folds before the start of preheating
537: for $g^2/\lambda = 2, 50$. Note the relatively weak dependence
538: in both cases. }
539: \label{initial}
540: \end{figure}
541: %%%%%%%%%%
542:
543: \underline{\em Potential problems and unresolved issues} -- Our results
544: suggest that PBH over-production may {\em not} be generic in
545: strong preheating.
546: However they can only be considered as preliminary for a number of reasons:
547:
548: \begin{itemize}
549: \item There are at least two fields critically involved in preheating.
550: Even if the inflationary fluctuations are Gaussian, the fluctuations
551: induced by preheating are typically not. If the $\chi$ field has no
552: vacuum expectation value, its density fluctuations are roughly
553: $\propto \delta\chi^2$, so approximately chi-squared if $\delta\chi$ is
554: Gaussian distributed. As discussed above, we take $\chi \neq 0$. The
555: recent results of \cite{latticeeasy} suggest that $\chi$ is Gaussian
556: distributed before rescattering sets in
557: and hence the density perturbations would be
558: Gaussian, at least while dominated by linear fluctuations.
559:
560: Rescattering leads to non-Gaussian distributions and to
561: $\delta \phi \propto \delta\chi^2$ \cite{pre}. The applicability of the
562: criterion $\sigma > \sigma_*$ therefore depends largely on when PBH formation
563: actually takes place - before or after rescattering.
564:
565: Further, the density fluctuations may go nonlinear. Since
566: $\delta \in [-1,\infty)$ this necessarily
567: skews the distribution, similar to the toy-model discussed in the second
568: Ref. of \cite{BP}. Non-Gaussianity may drastically alter the relationship
569: between $\beta$ and $\sigma$ \cite{BP,iv}, changing $\sigma_*$ and
570: requiring the use of higher-order statistics.
571:
572: \item In preheating the Hubble radius is vastly smaller than the true particle
573: horizon and resonance bands often cover the complete range of scales.
574: Predicting the mass spectrum of
575: PBH's created during preheating is therefore a subtle issue.
576: Crudely one expects a wide range of PBH masses to be produced,
577: even without criticality arguments \cite{nj}.
578:
579: This is related to our results showing
580: cut-off, $k_*$, sensitivity. The increase in $\sigma$ when $k_*$ is
581: altered from $aH$ to $10aH$ reflects the important contributions of
582: sub-Hubble modes. Does this necessarily imply that the resulting
583: PBH's are very small ? If so, they are not constrained
584: since they evaporate harmlessly long before nucleosynthesis.
585:
586:
587: %\item PBH formation depends on the ambient pressure. It is common to state
588: %that during the coherent oscillations of the inflaton the effective
589: %equation of state is that of dust. This is only true for a massive inflaton.
590: %A massless inflaton behaves as radiation. Also, the oscillations of the
591: %inflaton are the very source of the resonance and averaging over them must be
592: %carefully justified.
593:
594: \item We have not included rescattering. This is known to enhance
595: variances over the Hartree approximation at small
596: resonance parameters, $q$, in the absence
597: of metric perturbations\cite{lattice}.
598: For $q \gg 1$ however, the situation is reversed
599: and variances are overestimated by the Hartree approximation. Whether these results are stable to inclusion of metric perturbations is unknown, but this
600: may provide a way to avoid PBH over-production since it should
601: filter through to $\zeta_k$ and $\sigma$.
602:
603: %\item The initial conditions of $\chi$ are important -- if
604: %$\chi > 10^{-3} m_{\rm pl}$ at the start of the last 50 e-foldings
605: %of inflation, one finds increased values for $\sigma$. Hence PBH formation
606: %at preheating is sensitive to primal initial conditions and the
607: %duration of the entire inflationary phase.
608: %
609: %\item PBH formation implies nonlinear metric perturbations. A fully nonlinear
610: %formalism needs to be used. However, the singularity theorems suggest it will
611: %be very difficult to reverse PBH formation.
612:
613: \item Fig.~\ref{sigma} shows $\sigma$ as a function
614: of $g^2/\lambda$. The value of $\sigma$ plotted is its maximum at the
615: end of preheating. However, $\sigma$ does grow larger than this value,
616: instantaneously exceeding $0.01$, even for $k_* = aH$, when
617: $\dot{\phi} = 0$. We choose the
618: more conservative route of not taking these as the true maxima, but the
619: question remains, can large $\sigma$, attained for very short periods, lead to
620: PBH formation ?
621:
622: \item We solved the $\chi$ field equation, including second
623: order terms such as $\langle\Phi\delta\ddot{\chi}\rangle$\cite{JS}.
624: Initially $\delta\chi$ and $\Phi$ are correlated but when the $\chi$
625: fluctuations are sufficiently amplified, they are well
626: described by classical stochastic waves\cite{HM}, which may be uncorrelated
627: with metric variables.
628:
629: It is uncertain that contributions of second order
630: metric terms should be included during such classical regimes.
631: Since this issue affects $\chi$ rather significantly,
632: the quantum to classical transition appears to be of quantitative importance,
633: deserving further study.
634:
635: \end{itemize}
636:
637: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
638: \underline{\em Conclusions} -- We have studied primordial black
639: hole (PBH) formation during
640: preheating using numerical simulations of the perturbed Einstein field
641: equations including second order field and metric backreaction effects.
642: We found that there exist parameter ranges where standard
643: Gaussian and chi-squared thresholds for PBH formation are exceeded.
644:
645: Nevertheless, the results are not unambiguous. We discovered a
646: significant sensitivity to the window function cut-off, $k_*$, and since
647: preheating is expected to lead to non-Gaussian fluctuations, it is not
648: clear how realistic the Gaussian threshold for PBH formation is.
649: Nevertheless, PBH over-production constraints are very robust. The
650: study of PBH's in preheating is an exciting area which may lead
651: to strong constraints on realistic inflationary models.
652:
653: We note that there are a number of possible escape routes
654: to preserve preheating but avoid PBH over-production.
655: Fermionic preheating is very unlikely to lead to PBH formation unless
656: the fermions are extremely massive. Similarly, instant preheating
657: \cite{instant}, which
658: draws energy away from the $\chi$ field almost immediately seems likely
659: to stall PBH formation, as does a large $\chi$ self-interaction.
660:
661: On the other hand, since growth of $\zeta_k$ and $\sigma$ is seeded
662: through isocurvature/entropy
663: perturbations \cite{LLKW}, it is possible that other models of reheating,
664: such as non-oscillatory models \cite{no}, which lead to significant
665: isocurvature modes, may also have a PBH over-production problem.
666:
667: Nevertheless, the precise scenario of the PBH formation during preheating
668: can only be understood properly by overcoming two serious hurdles - (1)
669: understanding the probability distribution of density fluctuations
670: during preheating and (ii) going to fully
671: nonlinear simulations of resonant PBH formation which include
672: rescattering and nonlinear metric perturbations.
673:
674:
675: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
676: %%%%%%% ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS %%%%%%%%%
677: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
678: \underline{\em Acknowledgements} -- We thank Christopher Gordon,
679: Alan Guth, Anne Green, Roy Maartens,
680: Kei-ichi Maeda, Karim Malik, Masaaki Morita, and Takashi Torii
681: for useful discussions and comments.
682:
683:
684: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
685: \section*{Appendix: Detailed form of the evolution equations}
686: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
687:
688: In this Appendix we present the evolution equations in details.
689: We include second order field and metric backreaction
690: effects\cite{ABM} in the background equations,
691: which is combined with the Hartree approximation\cite{hartree}.
692:
693: Then the Hubble parameter
694: and homogeneous parts of the scalar fields satisfy\cite{mpre6,JS}:
695: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
696: \begin{eqnarray}
697: H^2 &=&
698: \frac{8\pi G}{3}
699: \Biggl[ \frac12 \dot{\phi}^2+ \frac12
700: \langle \delta \dot{\phi}^2 \rangle+
701: \frac{1}{2a^2} \langle (\nabla \delta\phi)^2
702: \rangle \nonumber \\
703: &+& \frac12 \dot{\chi}^2+ \frac12
704: \langle \delta \dot{\chi}^2 \rangle+
705: \frac{1}{2a^2} \langle (\nabla \delta\chi)^2
706: \rangle \nonumber \\
707: &+& \frac14 \lambda(\phi^4+6\phi^2
708: \langle \delta\phi^2 \rangle
709: +3\langle \delta\phi^2 \rangle^2)
710: +\frac12 g^2\phi^2\langle\chi^2\rangle
711: \nonumber \\
712: &+& 2(\lambda\phi^3+g^2\phi\chi^2)
713: \langle \Phi\delta\phi \rangle+
714: 2g^2\phi^2\chi \langle \Phi\delta\chi \rangle \Biggr]
715: \nonumber \\
716: &+& 4H\langle\Phi\dot{\Phi}\rangle-
717: \langle \dot{\Phi}^2 \rangle+\frac{3}{a^2}
718: \langle(\nabla \Phi)^2\rangle,
719: \label{B6}
720: \end{eqnarray}
721: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
722: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
723: \begin{eqnarray}
724: (\ddot{\phi} &+& 3H \dot{\phi})(1+4\langle\Phi^2\rangle)
725: +\lambda \phi(\phi^2+3 \langle \delta\phi^2 \rangle)
726: \nonumber \\
727: &+& g^2(\chi^2+\langle \delta\chi^2 \rangle)\phi
728: -2\langle\Phi\delta\ddot{\phi}\rangle
729: -4\langle\dot{\Phi}\delta\dot{\phi}\rangle
730: \nonumber \\
731: &-& 6H\langle\Phi\delta\dot{\phi}\rangle
732: +4\dot{\phi}\langle\dot{\Phi}\Phi\rangle
733: -\frac{2}{a^2} \langle \Phi\nabla^2(\delta\phi)\rangle
734: =0,
735: \label{B7}
736: \end{eqnarray}
737: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
738: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
739: \begin{eqnarray}
740: (\ddot{\chi} &+& 3H \dot{\chi})(1+4\langle\Phi^2\rangle)
741: +g^2(\phi^2+3 \langle\delta\phi^2 \rangle)\chi \nonumber \\
742: &-& 2\langle\Phi\delta\ddot{\chi}\rangle
743: -4\langle\dot{\Phi}\delta\dot{\chi}\rangle
744: - 6H\langle\Phi\delta\dot{\chi}\rangle \nonumber \\
745: &+& 4\dot{\chi}\langle\dot{\Phi}\Phi\rangle
746: -\frac{2}{a^2} \langle \Phi\nabla^2(\delta\chi)\rangle=0,
747: \label{B8}
748: \end{eqnarray}
749: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
750: where $G \equiv m_{\rm pl}^{-2}$ is Newton's
751: gravitational constant.
752: Note that $\langle ... \rangle$ implies a spatial average.
753: In spite of the exponential suppression during inflation, operative
754: when the $\chi$ field is heavy ($g^2/\lambda \gg 1$),
755: the $\chi$ field can be significantly enhanced in the presence of
756: the second order metric backreaction terms in Eq.~(\ref{B8})
757: as pointed out in Ref.~\cite{JS}.
758:
759: The Fourier transformed, perturbed Einstein equations
760: are
761: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
762: \begin{eqnarray}
763: \delta\ddot{\phi}_k &+& 3H\delta\dot{\phi}_k
764: \nonumber \\
765: &+& \left[\frac{k^2}{a^2}+3\lambda(\phi^2+
766: \langle\delta\phi^2\rangle)
767: +g^2(\chi^2+\langle\delta\chi^2\rangle) \right]
768: \delta\phi_k \nonumber \\
769: &=& 4\dot{\phi} \dot{\Phi}_k
770: + 2(\ddot{\phi}
771: +3H\dot{\phi})\Phi_k-2g^2\phi\chi
772: \delta\chi_k,
773: \label{B3}
774: \end{eqnarray}
775: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
776: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
777: \begin{eqnarray}
778: \delta\ddot{\chi}_k &+& 3H\delta\dot{\chi}_k+
779: \left[ \frac{k^2}{a^2}+g^2(\phi^2+\langle\delta\phi^2\rangle)
780: \right] \delta\chi_k \nonumber \\
781: &=& 4\dot{\chi} \dot{\Phi}_k
782: + 2(\ddot{\chi}+3H\dot{\chi})\Phi_k-2g^2\phi\chi\delta\phi_k,
783: \label{B4}
784: \end{eqnarray}
785: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
786: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
787: \begin{eqnarray}
788: \dot{\Phi}_k+H\Phi_k=4\pi G
789: (\dot{\phi} \delta\phi_k+\dot{\chi} \delta\chi_k).
790: \label{B5}
791: \end{eqnarray}
792: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
793: We find from Eq.~(\ref{B5}) that metric perturbations
794: grow if $\chi$ and $\delta\chi_k$ fluctuations are amplified
795: during preheating and the $\chi$-dependent source term
796: exceeds the $\phi$-dependent one.
797: When field and metric fluctuations are sufficently amplified,
798: the coherent oscillations of the inflaton condensate, $\phi$, are
799: destroyed. The entire spectrum of fluctuations typically moves out
800: of the dominant resonance band and the resonance is shut off.
801:
802:
803: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
804: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
805: \bibitem{init}
806: S. W. Hawking and N. Turok, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 425}, 25 (1998);
807: S. W. Hawking and H. S. Reall, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}, 023502 (1999);
808: A. Vilenkin, {\it ibid}. {\bf 58}, 067301 (1998);
809: V. Vanchurin, A. Vilenkin, and S. Winitzki, {\it ibid}. {\bf 61} 083507 (2000).
810: \bibitem{GPVT}
811: D. Goldwirth and T. Piran, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 64}, 2852 (1990);
812: T. Vachaspati and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61} 023502 (2000).
813: \bibitem{LR}
814: D. H. Lyth and A. Riotto, Phys. Rep. {\bf 314}, 1 (1999).
815: \bibitem{GW}
816: A. H. Guth and E. J. Weinberg, Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 212}, 321 (1983).
817: \bibitem{PBB}
818: M. Gasperini, J. Maharana, and G. Veneziano,
819: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 472}, 349 (1996).
820: \bibitem{relic}
821: G. F. Giudice, A. Riotto, and I. I. Tkachev, JHEP {\bf 9911},
822: 036 (1999); D. H. Lyth, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 469}, 69 (1999);
823: R. Kallosh, L. Kofman, A. Linde, and A. Van Proeyen,
824: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 103503 (2000).
825: \bibitem{pre}
826: L. Kofman, A. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev.
827: D {\bf 56}, 3258 (1997).
828: \bibitem{mpre1}
829: B. A. Bassett, D. I. Kaiser, and R. Maartens,
830: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 455}, 84 (1999);
831: B. A. Bassett, F. Tamburini, D. I. Kaiser, and
832: R. Maartens, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 561}, 188 (1999).
833: \bibitem{mpre2}
834: B. A. Bassett, C. Gordon, R. Maartens,
835: and D. I. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 061302 (R) (2000).
836: \bibitem{mpre3}
837: B. A. Bassett and F. Viniegra, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 043507 (2000).
838: \bibitem{mpre4}
839: F. Finelli and R. Brandenberger, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 083502 (2000).
840: \bibitem{mpre5}
841: S. Tsujikawa, B. A. Bassett, and F. Viniegra, JHEP {\bf 08}, 019 (2000);
842: S. Tsujikawa and B. A. Bassett, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 045310 (2000).
843: \bibitem{mpre6}
844: Z. P. Zibin, R. H. Brandenberger, and D. Scott, hep-ph/0007219 (2000).
845: \bibitem{JS}
846: K. Jedamzik and G. Sigl, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 023519 (2000).
847: \bibitem{Ivanov}
848: P. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 023505 (2000).
849: \bibitem{LLKW}
850: A. R. Liddle {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 103509 (2000).
851: \bibitem{HM}
852: A. B. Henriques and R. G. Moorhouse,
853: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 063512 (2000).
854: \bibitem{shinji}
855: S. Tsujikawa, JHEP {\bf 07}, 024 (2000).
856: \bibitem{PE}
857: M. Parry and R. Easther, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 103503 (2000).
858: \bibitem{GM}
859: A. M. Green and K. A. Malik, hep-ph/0008113 (2000).
860: \bibitem{lattice}
861: S. Yu. Khlebnikov and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79},
862: 1607 (1997); T. Prokopec and T. G. Roos, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 55},
863: 3768 (1997); S. Kasuya and M. Kawasaki, {\it ibid}. {\bf 58},
864: 083516 (1998); M. Parry and A. T. Sornborger,
865: {\it ibid}. {\bf 60}, 103504 (1999);
866: A. Rajantie and E. J. Copeland, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85},
867: 916 (2000).
868: \bibitem{hartree}
869: S. Yu. Khlebnikov, I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 390} 80 (1997);
870: S. A. Ramsey and B. L. Hu, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 678 (1997);
871: D. Boyanovsky {\em et al.}, {\it ibid}. {\bf 56}, 1939 (1997);
872: S. Tsujikawa, K. Maeda, and T. Torii, {\it ibid}.
873: {\bf 60}, 063515 (1999); 123505 (1999);
874: J. Baacke and C. Patzold, {\it ibid}. {\bf 61}, 024016 (2000);
875: B. A. Bassett and F. Tamburini, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81},
876: 2630 (1998).
877: \bibitem{ABM}
878: L. R. Abramo, R. H. Brandenberger, and V. M. Mukhanov,
879: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 3248 (1997).
880: \bibitem{boson}
881: J. Balakrishna, E. Seidel, and W.-M. Suen,
882: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58}, 104004 (1998).
883: \bibitem{GKLS97}
884: P. B. Greene, L. Kofman, A. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky,
885: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 6175 (1997).
886: \bibitem{carr}
887: B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.
888: {\bf 168}, 399 (1974);
889: B. J. Carr, Astrophys. J. {\bf 205}, 1 (1975).
890: \bibitem{BP}
891: J. S. Bullock and J. Primack, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 55}, 7423 (1997);
892: {\it ibid}. astro-ph/9806301.
893: \bibitem{iv}
894: P. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 7145 (1998).
895: \bibitem{gl}
896: A. M. Green and A. R. Liddle,
897: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 6166 (1997);
898: A. M. Green, A. R. Liddle, and A. Riotto, {\it ibid}.
899: 7554 (1997).
900: \bibitem{nj}
901: J. C. Niemeyer and K. Jedamzik, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80},
902: 5481 (1998); {\it ibid}. Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}, 124013 (1999).
903: \bibitem{latticeeasy}
904: G. Felder and L. Kofman, hep-ph/0011160.
905: \bibitem{eternal}
906: S. Winitzki and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61} 084008 (2000).
907: \bibitem{LL}
908: A. R. Liddle and D. H. Lyth, Phys. Rep. {\bf 231}, 1 (1993).
909: \bibitem{instant}
910: G. Felder, L. Kofman, A. Linde, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 59}, 123523 (1999).
911: \bibitem{no}
912: G. Felder, L. Kofman, A. Linde, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 60}, 103505 (1999).
913: \end{thebibliography}
914:
915:
916: \end{document}
917:
918: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
919: %%%%%% uu-files (figures) %%%%%
920: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
921:
922: