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

2: % Fermion production from preheating-amplified metric perturbations

3: % 

4: % ST 10-13,19,25-27/8/01,29/8/01-4/9/01,8/9/01,14-16/9/01

5: % BB 10/8/01, 29/8/01, 18/9/01

6: % 

7: % MP,LS,ST,BB              

8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

9: 

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

11: %\documentclass[draft]{JHEP}

12: %\usepackage{epsfig}

13: %\usepackage{amssymb}

14: %\usepackage{bbm}

15:  

16:  

17: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

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

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

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

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

22: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}

23: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}

24: \newcommand{\mpl}{M_p}

25: \newcommand{\k}{{\kappa}}

26: \newcommand{\lmk}{\left(}

27: \newcommand{\rmk}{\right)}

28: \newcommand{\lkk}{\left[}

29: \newcommand{\rkk}{\right]}

30: \newcommand{\lnk}{\left\{}

31: \newcommand{\rnk}{\right\}}

32: \newcommand{\zk}{z_k}

33: \newcommand{\call}{{\cal L}}

34: \newcommand{\calr}{{\cal R}}

35: \newcommand{\half}{\frac{1}{2}}

36: \newcommand{\kc}{\kappa\chi}

37: \newcommand{\bkc}{\beta\kappa\chi}

38: \newcommand{\gkc}{\gamma\kappa\chi}

39: \newcommand{\gbkc}{(\gamma-\beta)\kappa\chi}

40: \newcommand{\dchi}{\delta\chi}

41: \newcommand{\dsigma}{\delta\sigma}

42: \newcommand{\dOmega}{\delta\Omega}

43: \newcommand{\Phibd}{\Phi_{\rm BD}}

44: \newcommand{\echi}{\epsilon_\chi}

45: \newcommand{\esigma}{\epsilon_\sigma}

46: \newcommand{\Phihat}{\hat{\Phi}}

47: \newcommand{\Psihat}{\hat{\Psi}}

48: \newcommand{\ahat}{\hat{a}}

49: \newcommand{\that}{\hat{t}}

50: \newcommand{\Hhat}{\hat{H}}

51: \newcommand{\ab}{q}

52: 

53: \newcommand{\sign}{\mathop{\rm sign}\nolimits}

54: \newcommand{\dett}{\mathop{\rm det}\nolimits}

55: \newcommand{\Ree}{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits}

56: \newcommand{\identity}{\mathbbm{1}}

57: \newcommand{\dbar}{\partial \hskip -5.5pt/ }

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

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

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

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

62: 

63: %\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

64: \newcommand{\dddot}[1]{\stackrel{...}{#1}}

65: \newcommand{\pkt}{\; .}

66: \newcommand{\kma}{\; ,}

67: \newcommand{\tr}{{\rm tr \; }}

68: \newcommand{\Tr}{{\rm  Tr  \;}}

69: \newcommand{\re}[1]{{\rm Re }\,#1}

70: \newcommand{\im}[1]{{\rm Im }\,#1}

71: \newcommand{\pslash}{ \slash\hspace{-2.3mm} p}

72: \newcommand{\calF}{{\cal F}}

73: \newcommand{\calC}{{\cal C}}

74: \newcommand{\calS}{{\cal S}}

75: \newcommand{\calE}{{\cal E}}

76: \newcommand{\calL}{{\cal L}}

77: \newcommand{\intk}{\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3 2\omega_{k0}}\,}

78: \newcommand{\intkp}{\int\frac{d^3k'}{(2\pi)^3 2\omega_{k'0}}\,}

79: \newcommand{\intp}{\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3 2\Ep\,}}

80: \newcommand{\intpp}{\int\frac{d^3p'}{(2\pi)^3 2\Epp\,}}

81: \newcommand{\intppp}{\int\frac{d^3p''}{(2\pi)^3 2\Eppp\,}}

82: \newcommand{\bfk}{{\bf k}}

83: \newcommand{\bfp}{{\bf p}}

84: \newcommand{\bfq}{{\bf q}}

85: \newcommand{\bfx}{{\bf x}}

86: \newcommand{\bgamma}{\mbox{\boldmath{$\gamma$}\unboldmath}}

87: \newcommand{\bsigma}{\mbox{\boldmath{$\sigma$}\unboldmath}}

88: \newcommand{\bSigma}{\mbox{\boldmath{$\Sigma$}\unboldmath}}

89: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

90: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

91: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

92: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

93: \newcommand{\omk}{\omega_{k0}}

94: \newcommand{\omkp}{\omega_{k'0}}

95: \newcommand{\Ep}{E_{p}}

96: \newcommand{\Epp}{E_{p'}}

97: \newcommand{\Eppp}{E_{p''}}

98: 

99: %%%%% singlefig %%%%%

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

101: \begin{center}

102: \begin{minipage}{#1}

103: \epsfxsize=#1

104: \epsffile{#2}

105: \end{minipage}

106: \end{center}}

107: %

108: %%%%% figcaption %%%%%

109: \newenvironment{figcaption}[2]{

110:  \vspace{0.3cm}

111:  \refstepcounter{figure}

112:  \label{#1}

113:  \begin{center}

114:  \begin{minipage}{#2}

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

116:  \endgroup

117:  \end{minipage}

118:  \end{center}}

119: %

120: 

121: \begin{document}

122: 

123: \title{Fermion production from preheating-amplified metric perturbations}

124: \author{Bruce A. Bassett$^1$, Marco Peloso$^2$, Lorenzo Sorbo$^3$

125: and Shinji Tsujikawa$^4$ }

126: \address{$^1$ Relativity and Cosmology Group (RCG), University of

127: Portsmouth, Mercantile House, Portsmouth,  PO1 2EG, 

128: England\\[.3em]}

129: \address{$^2$ Physikalisches Institut, Universit{\"{a}}t Bonn Nussallee 12,

130: D-53115 Bonn, Germany}

131: \address{$^3$ SISSA/ISAS, via Beirut 2-4, I-34013 Trieste, Italy, 

132: and INFN, Sezione di Trieste, via Valerio 2, I-34127 Trieste, Italy}

133: \address{$^4$ Research Center for the Early Universe, 

134: University of Tokyo, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan} 

135: \date{\today} 

136:  \maketitle

137: \begin{abstract}

138: 

139: We study gravitational creation of light fermions in the presence of 

140: classical scalar metric perturbations about a flat Friedmann-Lemaitre-

141: Robertson-Walker (FLRW) background. These perturbations can be large

142: during preheating, breaking the conformal flatness of the background

143: spacetime. We compute numerically the total number of particles generated

144: by the modes of the metric perturbations which have grown sufficiently to

145: become classical. In the absence of inhomogeneities massless fermions are

146: not gravitationally produced, and then this effect may be relevant for

147: abundance estimates of light gravitational relics.

148: 

149: 

150: \end{abstract}

151: \vskip 1pc 

152: \pacs{pacs: 98.80.Cq}

153: \vskip 2pc

154: 

155: 

156: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

157: \section{Introduction}                            

158: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

159: 

160: 

161: It is well known that particles are created in an expanding Universe

162: \cite{BD80}. Pioneering work by Parker \cite{Parker} highlighted the

163: creation of nonconformally-invariant particles even in flat 

164: Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) Universes. The extension to

165: anisotropic Bianchi cosmologies by Zel'dovich and Starobinsky \cite{ZS},

166: showed that massless, conformally coupled, scalar particles are created

167: due to the breaking of conformal invariance which, in four dimensions, is

168: signaled by a non-vanishing Weyl tensor. In the presence of small,

169: inhomogeneous metric perturbations, Horowitz and Wald \cite{HW} obtained

170: the vacuum expectation value of the stress tensor for a conformally

171: invariant field and showed that particle production only occurs if

172: $\langle T_{\mu\nu}(x)\rangle$ is non-local (i.e., has non-zero

173: contributions with support on the past-null cone of the event $x$).

174: 

175: The number of particles created by inhomogeneities can be computed by a

176: perturbative evaluation of the $S$-matrix~\cite{Frieman,campos,CV}. In the

177: inhomogeneous case, the occupation number of produced particles is

178: composed by three parts, {\em viz}, the zeroth-order contribution due to

179: the homogeneous expansion, a first-order (in the  perturbation amplitude)

180: part arising from the interference between 0- and 2- particle states, and

181: a second-order contribution which comes from the interaction between

182: nonzero particle states. In the case of massive or nonconformally coupled

183: scalar fields, the last two terms (respectively linear and quadratic in

184: the metric perturbations) typically give a contribution small compared

185: with  the first one. However, in the massless and conformally coupled

186: cases,  the first two terms vanish in rigid, exactly FLRW backgrounds, and

187: only inhomogeneity contributes to the gravitational particle production.

188: 

189: Such theoretical studies were historically of interest both because they

190: focus on the interplay between quantum field theory and gravity and because

191: of their relevance to Misner's ``chaotic cosmology'' program \cite{misner}

192: in which arbitrary initial inhomogeneity and anisotropy were to be damped

193: to acceptable levels due to particle production. The non-renormalisability

194: of standard quantum gravity, the successes of string theory and the

195: dominance of cosmological inflation have since removed much of the

196: motivation for studies of particle production from inhomogeneity, though

197: research on non-equilibrium issues, generalized fluctuation-dissipation

198: relations and effective Einstein-Langevin equations still continues

199: \cite{CH}.

200: 

201: Inflationary cosmology seems to be less affected by the complex aspects of

202: gravity beyond the semi-classical realm. For inflation to start, a

203: homogeneous patch larger than the Hubble radius, $H^{-1}$, is needed which

204: may require some fine-tuning, especially for inflation at low energy 

205: scales. However, once inflation has begun, the no-hair conjecture

206: \cite{nohair}  should ensure that pre-existing inhomogeneities are driven

207: to  zero. The quantum metric perturbations generated during inflation can 

208: then

209: be tuned to have small  amplitudes $\sim 10^{-5}$ and unless one wants to

210: compute 4-point correlation functions which include graviton loops,

211: comparison with  the anisotropies in the Cosmic Microwave  Background

212: (CMB) is  straight-forward. 

213: 

214: However, nonperturbative production during the coherent oscillation

215: of the inflaton fields~\cite{TB,KLS,Boy,KT,PR}, dubbed

216: preheating~\cite{KLS}, can alter the simple picture of small amplitude 

217: metric  perturbations. Preheating therefore provides a particularly 

218: useful arena for examining some aspects of the boundary 

219: between semi-classical and quantum gravity.

220: 

221: Preheating can lead to the growth of metric perturbations, which

222: in turns is known to stimulate scalar particle creation

223: \cite{TN,massiveB,selfPE} and the production of seed magnetic fields

224: \cite{sting,FG,maroto,BPTV,DPTD}. The amplification of metric 

225: perturbations may also yield

226: runaway instabilities due to the negative specific heat of gravity, 

227: which leads to an interesting possibility of primordial black hole (PBH) 

228: formation \cite{PBHpre1,PBHpre2}. It can also amplify metric

229: perturbations on very large scales

230: \cite{sting,selfBV,selfFB,selfTBV,selfZBS,selfFK}. The growth of metric

231: perturbations, in the case where a PBH does not form, is limited by

232: backreaction effects which are explicitly nonlinear.

233: 

234: Hence on certain scales the Weyl tensor can actually be quite large. This

235: means that there can be significant particle production even if the field

236: is governed by a conformally invariant equation of motion, the classic

237: examples being photons, massless fermions and conformally coupled scalars.

238: In particular, if the effective mass of gravitational relics such as 

239: modulini and gravitini is small enough during reheating, then their  main

240: source of gravitational production will come from metric perturbations. 

241: Since stringent upper bounds hold for the abundances of  these species, it

242: is important to verify that creation from inhomogeneities  (if

243: sufficiently amplified at preheating) does not overcome this threshold.  

244: Our analysis suggests that this does not occur in the simplest models of 

245: chaotic inflation, at least when rescattering is neglected.

246: 

247: Particle creation via inhomogeneities may also be relevant for 

248: alternative scenarios such as the pre-big-bang model \cite{pbb}, where

249: homogeneous gravitational production of moduli and gravitinos is known to

250: be an issue \cite{pbb2} and the Universe goes through a high-curvature

251: phase where higher-order $\alpha'$ corrections are important.

252: 

253: The paper is organized as follows. In section II we review the formalism

254: for computing the number of produced fermions, while in section III we

255: discuss the evolution of metric perturbations during preheating in some

256: specific potentials. Sections IV and V present our numerical results and

257: conclusions respectively.

258: 

259: %

260: \section{Formalism for production of fermions} \label{forma}

261: %

262: 

263: In this section we review the formalism for the production of (Dirac)

264: fermionic quanta by cosmological inhomogeneities, summarizing the

265: calculations of~\cite{Frieman,campos,CV}. 

266: We consider  perturbations around the a FLRW background

267: %

268: \begin{equation}

269: g_{\mu\,\nu}=a^2\left(\eta\right)\,\left(\eta_{\mu\,\nu}

270: +h_{\mu\,\nu}\right)\,\,,

271: \label{gmunu}

272: \end{equation}

273: %

274: where $a(\eta)$ is the scale factor and $\eta$ the conformal time.

275: We will also use proper time, $t$, related to conformal time by

276: $d\eta= dt/a$ and choose to consider only scalar metric 

277: perturbations in the longitudinal

278: gauge~\cite{cosmo,pert} \footnote{Vector perturbations will induce 

279: magnetic fields via the induction equation \cite{TM} but we do not consider

280: them since inflation drives vector perturbations to zero. We also neglect

281: tensor (gravitational wave) modes since they are not strongly amplified 

282: at preheating.}.

283: 

284: At linear order minimally coupled scalar fields 

285: do not induce an anisotropic stress \cite{massiveB} 

286: and hence the metric perturbations 

287: are characterized by a single potential:

288: $h_{\mu\,\nu}=2\,\Phi\,\delta_{\mu\,\nu}\,$, {\em viz}:

289: %

290: \beqn

291: ds^2=a^2(1+2\Phi)d\eta^2

292: -a^2(1-2\Phi)\delta_{ij} dx^i dx^j\,\,.

293: \label{metric}

294: \eeqn

295: %

296: The action of a fermionic field $\psi$ with mass $m$ in 

297: the background~(\ref{metric})  is, to first order in $\Phi$,

298: %

299: \begin{eqnarray}

300: {\cal S} &=& \int\,d^4x\,a^3\,\left(1-2\,\Phi\right)\,\bar{\psi}\,\left\{ 

301: i \,\left[ \, \left( 1- \Phi \right)\, \gamma^0\, \partial_\eta + 

302: \frac{3}{2a} \frac{da}{d\eta}\,\left( 1- \Phi \right)\, 

303: \gamma^0-\frac{3}{2}\frac{d\Phi}{d\eta}\,\gamma^0\right. \right. 

304: \nonumber \\

305: &&\left.\left.+\left( 1+\Phi\right)\, \gamma^i\,\partial_i - \frac{3}{2} 

306: \,\gamma^i\,\partial_i\,\Phi \right]-a\,m\, \right\}\,\psi  \nonumber\\

307: &=& \int d^4x \: {\bar {\tilde{\psi}}} \left[  \left( i \gamma^0 \, 

308: \partial_\eta 

309: + i \gamma^i \, \partial_i - a \, m\right) - 3 \, \Phi \, \gamma^0 \, 

310: \partial_\eta - \Phi \, \gamma^i \, \partial_i - 

311: \frac{3}{2}\frac{d\Phi}{d\eta}\, 

312: \gamma^0 - \frac{3}{2} \, \gamma^i \, \partial_i \Phi \right] \tilde{\psi} 

313:  \nonumber\\

314: &\equiv& 

315: \int d^4x \, \left[ {\cal L}_0 + {\cal L}_I \left( \Phi \right) 

316: \right]\,,

317: \label{feract}

318: \end{eqnarray}

319: %

320: where we have defined $\tilde{\psi} \equiv a^{3/2} \, \psi\,$ and 

321: ${\cal L}_0$, ${\cal L}_I$ denote the homogeneous and interaction 

322: Lagrangians.  

323: 

324: The number density of produced particles is easily computed in the

325: interaction picture, where the evolution of the operators is just

326: determined by the homogeneous expansion of the Universe, and the states 

327: evolve according to the small inhomogeneities in the metric. The field 

328: $\tilde{\psi}$ can be decomposed in the standard way

329: %

330: \begin{equation} \label{decomp0}

331: \tilde{\psi} \left( x \right) = \int \frac{d^3 {\bf k}}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}

332: e^{i {\bf k} \cdot \mathbf{x}}\, \sum_r \left[ u_r \left( k, \eta \right) 

333: \, a_r \left( k \right) + v_r \left( k,\eta \right) b_r^\dagger \left( - k 

334: \right)\right] \,,

335: \end{equation}

336: %

337: where, as usual, the anti-commutation relations are

338: \begin{equation}

339: \left\{a_r(k), a_s^{\dagger}(k') \right\}=

340: \left\{b_r(k), b_s^{\dagger}(k') \right\}=

341: \delta^{(3)} \left( {\bf k}-{\bf k'} \right) \delta_{rs}.

342: \label{anti}

343: \end{equation}

344: %

345: The Fock space is built at the initial time $\eta_i$ starting from the 

346: vacuum state defined by

347: %

348: \begin{equation}

349: a_r \left( k \right) |0 \rangle = b_r \left( k \right) |0 \rangle = 0 \,\,.

350: \label{vacuum}

351: \end{equation}

352: 

353: For massless fermions (the conformally coupled case), the expansion of the 

354: Universe factors out of the free action $\int d^4 x \, {\cal L}_0$ 

355: and the spinors $u_r$ and $v_r$ evolve as in Minkowski spacetime. As a 

356: consequence, 

357: the operators ${a_r}^{(\dagger)} \,,\,{b_r}^{(\dagger)}$ are the physical 

358: annihilation (creation) operators at all times.  Introducing a mass term 

359: breaks the conformal symmetry, and the physical annihilation/creation 

360: operators are defined through the Bogolyubov transformations 

361: (see~\cite{prehferm} for details) %

362: \begin{eqnarray}

363: {\hat a}_r \left(k, \eta \right) &\equiv& \alpha_r \left(k, \eta 

364: \right) \, a_r \left( k \right) - {\beta_r}^* \left(k, \eta \right) \, 

365: {b_r}^\dagger \left( -\,k \right) \,\,, \nonumber\\

366: {{\hat b}_r}^\dagger \left(k, \eta \right) &\equiv& \beta_r

367:  \left( k, \eta \right) \, a_r \left( k \right) + {\alpha_r}^* \left(k, 

368: \eta 

369: \right) \, {b_r}^\dagger \left( -\,k \right) \,\,.

370: \end{eqnarray}

371: %

372: The two Bogolyubov coefficients have initial conditions $\alpha \left( 

373: \eta_i \right) = 1 \,,\, \beta \left( \eta_i \right) = 0\,$ and evolve 

374: according to~\cite{nps}

375: \begin{equation}

376: \alpha_r' = - \frac{m \, k \, a'}{2\, \omega^2} \, {\rm e}^{\,2 \, i 

377: \int^\eta \omega \, d  \eta}\,\beta_r \;\;,\;\; \beta_r' = \frac{m \, 

378: k \, a'}{2\, \omega^2} \, {\rm e}^{\,-\,2\,i \int^\eta \omega \, 

379: d \eta} \alpha_r \,\,,

380: \label{bogo}

381: \end{equation}

382: %

383: with $\omega \equiv \sqrt{k^2 + a^2 \, m^2}\,$. These equations preserve

384: the normalization $\vert \alpha_r \vert^2 + \vert \beta_r \vert^2 = 1\,$, which holds in the fermionic case.

385: 

386: In the interaction picture, the evolution of the initial vacuum (zero

387: particle) state $\vert 0 \rangle$ is determined by the interaction

388: Lagrangian ${\cal L}_I (\Phi)\,$. At first order in $\Phi$ we have

389: %

390: \begin{equation}

391: \vert \psi \rangle = \vert 0 \rangle + \frac{1}{2} 

392: \int d^3 k \, d^3 k' \,\vert k, r \,;\, k', s \rangle\,

393: \langle k, r \,;\, k', s \vert S \vert 0 \rangle \,\,,

394: \label{state}

395: \end{equation}

396: %

397: with the $S$-matrix element ($T$ stands for time ordering)

398: %

399: \begin{equation}

400: \langle k, r \,;\, k', s \vert S \vert 0 \rangle \equiv i \,T\,\langle k, 

401: r 

402: \,;\, k', s \vert {\cal L}_I \left( \Phi \right) \vert 0 \rangle \,\,.

403: \end{equation}

404: 

405: Rigorously speaking, the occupation number can be computed only in the

406: asymptotic future, $\eta_f$, with vanishing perturbations $\Phi \left( 

407: \eta_f \right) = 0\,$. Identical results are obtained for particles and

408: antiparticles, so we concentrate on the former. The expectation value

409: of the number operator ${\hat N} \equiv \left( 2 \, \pi \, a

410: \right)^{-\,3} \int d^3 p \, \hat{a}_r^\dagger \left(p, \eta_f

411: \right) \, \hat{a}_r \left(p, \eta_f \right)$ in the state $\vert

412: \psi \rangle$ is given by the sum of three terms, $N_0 + N_1 + N_2\,$,

413: which are of zeroth, first, and second order in $\Phi\,$, 

414: respectively ~\cite{Frieman,campos,CV},

415: %

416: \begin{eqnarray}

417: N_0 &=& \frac{V}{(2\pi a)^3}\int d^3 k \,

418: \langle 0 \vert \, {\hat a}_{r}^{\dagger}(k) \, {\hat a}_r (k) \, 

419: \vert 0\rangle =

420: \frac{V}{(2\pi a)^3} \int d^3 k \, \vert \beta_k \vert^2 \,\,,

421: \label{N0} \\

422: N_1 &=& - \, \frac{1}{(2\pi a)^3} \int d^3 k

423: \: {\rm Re} \, \left[ \alpha_r \left( k \right) \beta_r \left( k \right) 

424: \, \langle k, r \,;\, -\,k, r \vert S \vert 0 \rangle \right], 

425: \label{N1} \\

426: N_2 &=& \frac{1}{4\,(2\pi a)^3} \int d^3 k \, d^3 k' \, \vert 

427: \langle 0 \vert S \vert k, r  \,;\, k', s \rangle \vert^2 

428: \left[ \vert\alpha_r \left( k \right)\vert^2+\vert\beta_s \left( -\,k' 

429: \right)\vert^2+1 \right] \;\;\;.

430: \label{N2}

431: \end{eqnarray}

432: %

433: The zeroth-order term (\ref{N0}) is the well known expression arising

434: from  the homogeneous expansion of the Universe. $V$ denotes the volume of

435: the Universe at late times, when the perturbations can be neglected. The

436: first-order contribution (\ref{N1}) comes from the combined effect of

437: expansion and inhomogeneities. These two terms vanish for massless

438: fermions, which, as  we remarked, are conformally coupled to the FLRW

439: background (more  explicitly,  we notice that $\beta_r \left(k, \eta

440: \right) = 0$ in this case,  as can be seen from eqs.~(\ref{bogo})).

441: 

442: In the massless case, only the last term~(\ref{N2}) contributes to the 

443: particle production. Furthermore, in this limit $N_2$ acquires the 

444: particularly simple form~\cite{campos}

445: %

446: \begin{equation}

447: N_2 = \frac{1}{160 \, \pi \, a^3} \, \int \frac{d^4 p}{\left( 2 \, \pi 

448: \right)^4}\, \theta \left( p^0 \right) \, \theta \left( p^2 \right) \vert 

449: {\tilde C}^{abcd} \left( p \right) \vert^2 \,\,,

450: \end{equation}

451: %

452: in terms of the Fourier transform 

453: %

454: \begin{equation}

455: {\tilde C}^{abcd} \left( p \right) \equiv \int d^4 x \, {\rm e}^{i\,p\,x} 

456: \, C^{abcd} \left( x \right)

457: \end{equation}

458: %

459: of the Weyl tensor $C^{abcd}\,$.

460: 

461: For the metric~(\ref{metric}), one finds (see also~\cite{campos} for 

462: useful intermediate steps)

463: %

464: \begin{equation}

465: N_2 = \frac{1}{15\,\left( 2 \, \pi \right)^2 \, a^3} \, \int_0^\infty d

466: p_0 \int_{\vert {\bf p} \vert < p_0} d^3 {\bf p} \: \vert {\bf p} \vert^4

467: \: \left| \int_{\eta_i}^{\eta_f} d \eta \, {\rm e}^{i\,p_0\,\eta} \,

468: {\tilde \Phi} \, \left( {\bf p}, \eta \right) \right|^2 \,\,,

469: \label{npsi}

470: \end{equation}

471: %

472: where $\tilde{\Phi}$ is defined by

473: %

474: \begin{equation}

475: \Phi \left( \eta \,,\, {\bf x} \right) \equiv \int \frac{d^3 {\bf 

476: p}}{\left(2\,\pi\right)^{3/2}} \, {\tilde \Phi}

477: \left( {\bf p}, \, \eta \right) \, {\rm e}^{i \, {\bf p} \cdot {\bf x}} 

478: \;\;\;.

479: \label{esse}

480: \end{equation}

481: %

482: In these expressions, $\Phi$ should be regarded as a purely classical 

483: perturbation. The normalization as well as the classicality condition 

484: for $\Phi$ will be discussed in the subsequent sections.

485: 

486: %%

487: \section{Evolution of scalar metric perturbations} \label{secpert}

488: %%

489: 

490: %

491: \subsection{Linearized equations and analytic solutions for 

492: metric perturbations}

493: %

494: 

495: We now discuss the evolution of scalar perturbations $\Phi$ during

496: inflation and reheating in simple models of chaotic

497: inflation~\cite{chaos}, denoting the minimally coupled inflaton field by

498: $\phi$, with potential

499: %

500: \beqn

501: V =\frac12 \, m^2 \, \phi^2 \quad\quad {\rm or} \quad \quad V = \frac14 \, 

502: \lambda \, \phi^4\,.

503: \label{potential}

504: \eeqn

505: %

506: In subsection~\ref{twof} we will then discuss a model where two fields

507: are present.

508: 

509: For the potentials~(\ref{potential}), the COBE normalization

510: of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation~\cite{cobe} requires the

511: coupling constants be $m \sim 10^{-6} \, M_p$ for a massive inflaton

512: and $\lambda \sim 10^{-13}$ for the quartic case. Decomposing the

513: inflaton as $\phi (t, {\bf x}) \to \phi (t)+\delta \phi(t, {\bf x})$, the

514: background equations are given by

515: %

516: \begin{eqnarray}

517:   &&H^2 \equiv \left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=

518:    \frac{8\,\pi}{3\,M_p^2}

519:    \left( \frac12 \dot{\phi}^2+ V \right) \,\,,

520: \label{hubble}\\

521:   &&\ddot{\phi}+3H\dot{\phi}+ \frac{d\,V}{d \, \phi} = 0\,\,,

522: \label{phi}

523: \end{eqnarray}

524: %

525: where dots denote derivatives with respect to physical time. In the

526: numerical simulations which we present in the next section, we will

527: implement the backreaction of field fluctuations within the Hartree

528: approximation. This corresponds to adding the contributions

529: %

530: \begin{eqnarray}

531:  \langle \delta\phi^2 \rangle=\frac{1}{2\pi^2} \int

532: k^2|\delta\phi_k|^2 dk,~~~

533: \langle \delta\dot{\phi}^2 \rangle=\frac{1}{2\pi^2} \int

534: k^2|\delta \dot{\phi}_k|^2 dk,~~~

535: \langle (\nabla\delta \phi)^2 \rangle=\frac{1}{2\pi^2} \int

536: k^4|\delta \phi_k|^2 dk,

537: \label{variance}

538: \end{eqnarray}

539: %

540: to Eqs.~(\ref{hubble}) and (\ref{phi}) (see

541: Refs.~\cite{KLS,Boy} for details). Note that this approach neglects

542: mode-mode coupling and rescattering effects \cite{KT}, which are 

543: important around the end of preheating,

544: and the backreaction effect of metric perturbations.

545:  The Fourier transformed, linearized Einstein

546: equations for field and metric perturbations in the

547: longitudinal gauge are \cite{pert}

548: %

549: \begin{eqnarray}

550: \dot{\Phi}_k + H\Phi_k = \frac{4\,\pi}{M_p^2}\, \dot{\phi}\delta \phi_k, 

551: \label{Phi1}

552: \end{eqnarray}

553: % 

554: \begin{eqnarray}

555: 3H\dot{\Phi}_k + \left( \frac{k^2}{a^2}+3H^2-

556: \frac{4\,\pi}{M_p^2} \, \dot{\phi}^2 \right) \Phi_k=

557: \frac{4\,\pi}{M_p^2} \, \left( \dot{\phi} \delta \dot{\phi}_k+

558: \frac{d^2V}{d \phi^2} \, \phi \delta\phi_k \right),

559: \label{Phi2}

560: \end{eqnarray}

561: % This equation is required to lead to (3.7) [by ST].

562: %

563: \begin{eqnarray}

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

565: \left( \frac{k^2}{a^2} + \frac{d^2V}{d \phi^2}

566: \right) \delta\phi_k=

567: 2(\ddot{\phi}+3H\dot{\phi})\Phi_k+

568: 4\dot{\phi}\dot{\Phi}_k.

569: \label{dphi}

570: \end{eqnarray}

571: 

572: The analytic form of the solutions of the above equations are known in

573: both the  limits of $k \to 0$ and $k \to \infty$ \cite{pert}. During

574: inflation, metric perturbations exhibit  adiabatic growth, $\Phi_k \simeq

575: c \dot{H}/H^2$,  after the first Hubble crossing ($k~\lsim~aH$). During

576: reheating, the super-Hubble modes $(k \ll aH)$ are nearly constant in the

577: single field case. In contrast, the solutions for the small-scale  modes

578: $(k \gg aH)$ can be described by  $\Phi_k \simeq \dot{\phi}\left(c_1e^{i

579: k\eta}+c_2e^{-i k\eta}\right)$, which shows adiabatic damping during

580: reheating.

581: 

582: The system of scalar metric fluctuations $\Phi_k$ and  inflaton

583: fluctuations $\delta \phi_k$ can also be described  in terms of the

584: Mukhanov-Sasaki variable $Q_k$ \cite{muksas}, defined by

585: %

586: \begin{equation}

587: Q_k  \equiv \delta \phi_k + \frac{\dot{\phi}}{H} \Phi_k \,\,,

588: \end{equation}

589: %

590: which satisfies the equation

591: %

592: \begin{equation}

593: \ddot{Q}_k + 3 \, H \, \dot{Q}_k + \left[

594: \frac{k^2}{a^2} +\frac{d^2V}{d \phi^2} + 

595:  \, \left( \frac{\dot{H}}{H} 

596: + 3\, H \right)^\bullet \right] Q_k = 0 \,\,.

597: \label{eqq}

598: \end{equation}

599: %

600: The study of this equation is particularly convenient, since, contrary to 

601: the equation of motion for $\Phi_k$ alone, it is nonsingular during the 

602: oscillations of the inflaton field. The gravitational potential $\Phi_k$ 

603: is then related to $Q_k$ by

604: %

605: \begin{equation}

606: \frac{k^2}{a^2} \, \Phi_k = \frac{4\,\pi}{M_p^2} 

607: \frac{\dot{\phi}^2}{H} \, 

608: \left( \frac{H}{\dot{\phi}} \, Q_k \right)^\bullet \,\,.

609: \label{relqfi}

610: \end{equation}

611: %

612: During inflation, modes of cosmological interest initially (at $t =t_0$)

613: satisfy $k \gg a \, H$, and their equation of motion is that of a free

614: field in an expanding Universe. Quantization of this last quantity is thus

615: straightforward. In the initial vacuum state only positive frequency waves

616: are present (see~\cite{pert} for more details), so that we take as initial

617: conditions

618: %

619: \begin{equation}

620: Q_k \left( t_0 \right) = \frac{1}{a \left( t_0 \right) \, k^{1/2}} \, {\rm 

621: e}^{\,i \alpha_0} \;\;\;,\;\;\; \dot{Q}_k \left( t_0 \right) = 

622: \frac{-\,i\,k^{1/2}}{a^2\left( t_0 \right)} \, {\rm e}^{\,i \alpha_0}\,\,,

623: \label{eqqinitial}

624: \end{equation}

625: %

626: where $\alpha_0$ is an arbitrary phase.

627: 

628: As long as the modes remain much smaller than the Hubble scale 

629: they evolve as plane

630: waves. When their physical lengths grow to of order the Hubble radius 

631: ($k \sim aH$), the variation of the frequency of $Q_k$ becomes important.

632: In fact, resonant amplification of some particular modes can occur during

633: the coherent inflaton oscillations at reheating \cite{TN}. This

634: phenomenon is mostly appreciated when the inflaton is nongravitationally

635: coupled to other fields \cite{selfBV} (see

636: subsection~\ref{twof}). However, some resonant amplification occurs also

637: in the  single-field self coupled case with potential $V=\lambda\phi^4/4$  

638: \cite{selfPE}, as we will discuss 

639: in the next subsection.

640: 

641: %

642: \subsection{Evolution of metric perturbations during reheating}

643: %

644: 

645: %

646: \subsubsection{$V=\frac12 m^2\phi^2$}

647: %

648: 

649: Let us first summarize the behavior of metric fluctuations during

650: reheating in the single field massive inflationary scenario.  During

651: reheating, from the time-averaged relation $\langle \dot{\phi}^2

652: \rangle=\langle m^2\phi^2 \rangle$ one finds $\phi \simeq

653: M_p/(\sqrt{3\pi}\,mt) \sin mt\,$. Neglecting in eq.~(\ref{eqq}) the

654: $H^2$ and $\dot{H}$ terms, which decrease as $\sim t^{-2}$ during

655: reheating, the rescaled variable $\tilde{Q}_k = a^{3/2} \, Q_k\,$ evolves

656: according to a Mathieu equation with time-dependent coefficients

657: %

658: \begin{eqnarray}

659: \frac{d^2}{dz^2}\tilde{Q}_k+(A_k-2q\cos 2z)

660: \tilde{Q}_k=0,

661: \label{Qk2}

662: \end{eqnarray}

663: %

664: where $z=mt/2\,$, and

665: %

666: \begin{eqnarray}

667: A_k=1+\frac{k^2}{(ma)^2},~~~~~

668: q=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}z}.

669: \label{Aq}

670: \end{eqnarray}

671: %

672: The small $k$ modes ($k~\lsim~ma$) lie in the resonance band around

673: $A_k=1$. However, the cosmic expansion makes $q$ smaller than unity

674: already after one inflaton oscillation, and the resonance is not

675: efficient. As a consequence, modes in the long wavelength limit ($k \to

676: 0$) grow as $\tilde{Q}_k \propto a^{3/2}$ \cite{KH,nata,FB}, which makes

677: $Q_k$ and $\Phi_k$ nearly constant during reheating (for the mode

678: $k~\sim~0.1m$ one has  $|k^{3/2}\Phi_k| \sim 10^{-5}$). On the contrary

679: the sub-Hubble modes ($k~\gsim~m)$ decrease  due to adiabatic damping

680: during reheating and are typically smaller than  the modes which already

681: crossed the Hubble scale  by more than one order of magnitude. This

682: behavior is shown for various wavelengths in Fig.~\ref{massivemet}.

683: 

684: %%%%%%%%%%

685: \begin{figure}

686: \begin{center}

687: \singlefig{10cm}{massivemet.eps}

688: \begin{figcaption}{massivemet}{10cm}

689: The evolution of metric perturbations for $\bar{k}\equiv

690: k/m=0.1, 1, 5, 10$ in the model $V=m^2\phi^2/2$ with inflaton mass

691: $m=10^{-6}M_p$. We start integrating with an initial value,

692: $\phi=0.5M_p$. The scale factor is normalized to unity at this time, and

693: $aH$ is always of order $m$ in the time range plotted. Modes with 

694: $k~\lsim~m$ exhibit adiabatic growth, and then (when

695: reheating starts, i.e., at $mt \approx 1.5$ in the plot)

696: $\Phi_k$ becomes nearly constant. Sub-Hubble modes ($k~\gsim~m$)

697: instead decrease during reheating due to the adiabatic damping of the

698: $\dot{\phi}$ term. 

699: \end{figcaption}

700: \end{center}

701: \end{figure}

702: %%%%%%%%%%

703: 

704: 

705: %

706: \subsubsection{$V=\frac14 \lambda\phi^4$}

707: %

708: 

709: Let us next consider the single field massless chaotic 

710: inflation model, with 

711: potential $V(\phi)=\lambda\phi^4/4$. As shown 

712: in~\cite{Boy,Kaiser,GKLS}, the 

713: evolution of $\phi$ is described (on dropping the term $\frac{1}{a}

714: \frac{d^2a}{d\eta^2}$ from the 

715: equation of motion, eq.~(\ref{phi})) by

716: %

717: \begin{equation}

718: \phi \equiv \frac{\varphi}{a} = \frac{\phi_0}{a} \, {\rm cn} \left( x - 

719: x_0 \,,\, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \right) \,\,,

720: \label{masslessev}

721: \end{equation}

722: %

723: where $x \equiv \sqrt{\lambda} \, \varphi_0 \, \eta$ is the dimensionless

724: conformal time, the suffix $0$ indicates the value of the quantities

725: at the beginning of reheating and ${\rm cn}(x-x_0, 1/\sqrt{2})$ 

726: is the elliptic cosine function.

727: 

728: Using the time-averaged relation $\langle \dot{\phi}^2 \rangle

729: =\lambda\phi^4$, one finds $(\dot{H}/{H})^{\cdot}  \propto

730: (\phi^2)^{\cdot} \propto a^{-3}$ and

731: $\dot{H} \propto a^{-4}\,$. Hence, the Hubble terms in 

732: Eq.~({\ref{eqq}) rapidly become negligible. 

733: Using $x$ and rescaling $\tilde{Q}_k = a \, Q_k$, 

734: Eq.~({\ref{eqq}) is reduced to

735: %

736: \begin{eqnarray}

737: \frac{d^2}{dx^2}\tilde{Q}_k+\left[\kappa^2+

738: 3{\rm cn}^2\left(x, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\right]

739: \tilde{Q}_k=0 \,\,,

740: \label{lame}

741: \end{eqnarray}

742: %

743: where we have defined $\kappa^2 \equiv k^2/ \left( \lambda \, \varphi_0^2

744: \right)\,$, and set $x_0 = 0$ for simplicity. Eq.~({\ref{lame}) is a 

745: Lam\'e equation. From the analytical study of~\cite{GKLS} we deduce the

746: presence of one resonance band in the interval

747: %

748: \beqa 

749: \frac{3}{2}<\kappa^2<\sqrt{3} \,\,,

750: \label{single}

751: \eeqa

752: %

753: characterized by an exponential growth $\tilde{Q}_k \propto e^{\mu_k

754: x}\,$. The maximum value of the growth rate, $\mu_{\rm max}\approx

755: 0.03598\,$, occurs at $\kappa^2 \approx 1.615$. This growth dominates 

756: over the dilution from the expansion of the Universe even for the 

757: unrescaled variable $Q_k\,$, and hence also for $\Phi_k\,$. The growth of

758: $\Phi_k$ continues until the backreaction of inflaton fluctuations shuts

759: off the resonance. The maximal value of the metric perturbation  is found

760: numerically to be $\vert k^{3/2} \, \Phi_k \vert \simeq 5 \times

761: 10^{-\,5}\,$. Modes outside the interval~(\ref{single}) do not exhibit

762: nonadiabatic growth, unless rescattering effects are taken into account

763: \cite{KT,selfPE}. 

764: 

765: 

766: %%%%%%%%%%

767: \begin{figure}

768: \begin{center}

769: \singlefig{10cm}{selfmet.eps}

770: \begin{figcaption}{selfmet}{10cm}

771: The evolution of $\Phi_k$ for $\kappa=0.01, 1.25, 10$ in the single field

772: potential $V=\lambda\phi^4/4$ and $\lambda=10^{-13}$. The initial 

773: values of the numerical evolution are $\phi=0.1M_p\,, a=1\,$. We 

774: include the backreaction effect of produced particles via the Hartree 

775: approximation (see the text for details). Notice the enhancement of the 

776: mode $\kappa=1.25$ in the sub-Hubble resonance band~(\ref{single}).

777: \end{figcaption}

778: \end{center}

779: \end{figure}

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

781: 

782: %

783: \subsubsection{$V=\frac14 \lambda\phi^4+\frac12 

784: g^2\phi^2\chi^2$} \label{twof}

785: %

786: 

787: We now discuss the situation in which a massless inflaton $\phi$ is

788: nongravitationally coupled to another scalar field $\chi$, with

789: conformally invariant potential $V=\lambda\phi^4/4+g^2\phi^2\chi^2/2$. 

790: This model was studied in detail, in the absence of

791: metric perturbations, in Refs.~\cite{Kaiser,GKLS}, showing the

792: presence of  an infinite number of strong resonance bands for $\chi$ as a

793: function of

794: \begin{equation}

795: R \equiv g^2/\lambda \,\,.

796: \end{equation}

797: %

798: The conformal invariance allows exact Floquet theory to be used to prove

799: analytically that metric fluctuations can exhibit parametric amplification

800: \cite{selfBV}. This makes the model a very useful testing ground for a

801: number of issues \cite{selfFB,selfTBV,selfZBS,selfFK} including the

802: possible formation of primordial black holes in some parameter space

803: regions \cite{PBHpre2}. Here we briefly summarize those of the above

804: results which are relevant for the calculations of the next section.

805: 

806: As before, it is convenient to introduce a Mukhanov-Sasaki variable for

807: the each field, $Q_k^{(i)}\equiv \delta \varphi_k^{(i)} + \left(

808: \dot{\varphi}^{(i)} / H \right)\Phi_k$, $i = \phi,\chi$ which satisfy a

809: simple generalization of eq.~(\ref{eqq}) \cite{selfBV,selfFB}.

810: 

811: Using eq. (\ref{masslessev}) and rescaling all variables as 

812: ${\tilde F} \equiv a \, F\,$, the equation for

813: $\tilde{Q}_k^{\chi}$ reads \cite{selfBV}

814: %

815: \begin{eqnarray}

816: \frac{d^2}{dx^2}\tilde{Q}_k^{\chi}+\left[\kappa^2+

817: \frac{g^2}{\lambda}{\rm cn}^2\left(x, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\right]

818: \tilde{Q}_k^{\chi}=-2\frac{g^2}{\lambda \phi_0} 

819: {\rm cn}^2\left(x, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right) \tilde{\chi} 

820: \tilde{Q}_k^{\phi}+M_{\phi\chi}\tilde{Q}_k^{\phi}

821: +M_{\chi\chi}\tilde{Q}_k^{\chi} \,\,,

822: \label{lame2}

823: \end{eqnarray}

824: %

825: where

826: %

827: \beqn

828: M_{\varphi_1\varphi_2}=

829: \frac{8\pi}{a^2M_{p}^2} \left[\frac{1}{aH}

830: \left(\tilde{\varphi}_1'-\frac{a'}{a}\tilde{\varphi}_1

831: \right) \left(\tilde{\varphi}_2'-\frac{a'}{a}\tilde{\varphi}_2

832: \right) \right]' \,\,.

833: \label{M}

834: \eeqn

835: Here prime denotes a derivative with respect to $\eta$.

836: In the early stages of preheating, as long as $\chi$ fluctuations are

837: small relative to $\phi\,$, one can neglect the right hand side of

838: eq.~(\ref{lame2}), which then reduces to the generalized Lam\'e equation

839: studied in~\cite{Kaiser,GKLS} (in the following, we will apply the general

840: analytical results for the Lam\'e equation given in~\cite{GKLS}). Of

841: particular cosmological interest are the longwave modes on the scales

842: proben by the current CMB experiments. It can be shown~\cite{GKLS} that

843: the resonance bands extends to very longwave modes ($\kappa \to 0$) only

844: when the ratio $R$ is in the range

845: %

846: \begin{eqnarray}

847: n \, \left( 2n-1 \right) < R < n \, \left( 2n+1 \right) 

848: \,\,,

849: \label{range}

850: \end{eqnarray}

851: %

852: where $n$ is a positive integer. In each of these intervals, the growth

853: rate $\mu_k$ for $\tilde{Q}_k^{\chi}$ can be analytically found as

854: %

855: \begin{eqnarray}

856: \mu_k=\frac{2}{T} {\rm ln}

857: \left(\sqrt{1+e^{-\pi \epsilon^2}}+e^{-\pi \epsilon^2/2}\right),

858: \label{rate}

859: \end{eqnarray}

860: %

861: where $\epsilon \equiv \sqrt{2/R}\,\kappa^2$ and $T \simeq 7.416$ is the

862: period of inflaton oscillations. Then we have maximal growth when $R$ is

863: exactly $2\,n^2$ and $\kappa=0$, with large characteristic exponent

864: $\mu_{\rm max}=(2/T) {\rm ln} (\sqrt{2}+1)\simeq 0.2377\,$.

865: 

866: It is important to recognize that the exponential growth of

867: $\tilde{Q}_k^{\chi}$ just discussed does not necessarily translate into a

868: parametric amplification of the gravitational potential $\Phi_k\,$. In the

869: two-field case, Eq.~(\ref{Phi1}) is modified to

870: %

871: \begin{eqnarray}

872: \dot{\Phi}_k + H\Phi_k = \frac{4\,\pi}{M_p^2}

873: (\dot{\phi}\delta \phi_k+\dot{\chi}\delta \chi_k) \,\,.

874: \label{Phim}

875: \end{eqnarray}

876: %

877: When $\chi$ and $\delta \chi_k$ are vanishingly small relative to  $\phi$

878: and $\delta \phi_k$, the evolution of $\Phi_k$ is similar to  the single

879: field case. In fact, when $R \gg 1$ the homogeneous mode $\chi$ as well as

880: the longwave $\delta\chi_k$ modes ($k \to 0$) are exponentially suppressed

881: during  inflation \cite{selfBV,selfFB,selfTBV,selfZBS} due to the large

882: effective mass $g \, \phi$ relative to the Hubble parameter (see also

883: Ref.~\cite{suppression,liddle,shinji}). This can be explicitly seen by

884: considering the equation of motion for  $\delta \chi_k\,$, which for

885: super-Hubble modes reads

886: %

887: \begin{equation}

888: \ddot{\delta \chi_k} \, + 3 \, H \, \dot{\delta \chi_k} + g^2 \, \phi^2 \, 

889: \delta \chi_k \simeq 0 \,.

890: \label{delchisup}

891: \end{equation}

892: %

893: Hence, during inflation, the amplitudes of the long-waves modes

894: evolve as \cite{selfBV}

895: $|\delta\chi_k| \propto a^{- \left( 3/2-\nu \right)}\,$, with  

896: $\nu = {\rm Re}\left[9/4 - 3 \, R \,M_p^2 / 

897: \left( 2 \, \pi \, \phi^2 \right) \right]^{1/2}$.

898: This confirms that the inflationary suppression of the long-waves modes

899: becomes more  important as $R$ increases. In addition, considering

900: backreaction in the Hartree approximation, one can show~\cite{selfZBS} that

901: for $R~\gsim~8$ the growth of  field perturbations shuts off the resonance

902: before the super-Hubble metric perturbations ($k \to 0$) begin to be

903: amplified. Hence, for large $R\,$, the evolution of the gravitational

904: potential $\Phi_k$ on the scales probed by CMB experiments does not

905: significantly differ from the ``standard'' one described in~\cite{pert}

906: unless rescattering is taken into account. 

907: For these modes, 

908: parametric amplification is expected to

909: be effective in the first resonance band ~(\ref{range}) even when

910: backreaction is considered~\cite{selfBV,selfFB,selfTBV,selfZBS}.

911: 

912: %%%%%%%%%%

913: \begin{figure}

914: \begin{center}

915: \singlefig{10cm}{selfmetmulti.eps}

916: \begin{figcaption}{selfmetmulti}{10cm}

917: The evolution of metric perturbations $\Phi_k$ and field variances 

918: $\langle\delta\chi^2\rangle$ and $\langle\delta\phi^2\rangle$ for 

919: $\kappa=0.1, 3$ in the potential $V=\lambda\phi^4/4+g^2\phi^2\chi^2/2$  

920: with $g^2/\lambda=2$ and

921: $\lambda=10^{-13}$.  We start integrating with initial values

922: $\phi=0.1M_p$  and $\chi=5 \times 10^{-6}M_p$,

923: corresponding to $\chi=10^{-3}M_p$  at $\phi=4M_p$ 

924: (i.e., 55 e-folds before the end of inflation). 

925: The final results are weakly

926: dependent on the choice of the initial $\chi$ as long as

927: $10^{-6}M_p<\chi<M_p$ at $\phi=4M_p$ \cite{selfZBS,PBHpre2}. 

928: \end{figcaption}

929: \end{center}

930: \end{figure}

931: %%%%%%%%%%

932: 

933: In Fig.~\ref{selfmetmulti} we plot the evolution of $\Phi_k$ for the two

934: modes $\kappa=0.1$ and $\kappa=3$ in the $R=2$ case. We find that metric

935: perturbations begin to grow after the $\delta\chi_k$ fluctuations are

936: sufficiently amplified. The growth of $\Phi_k$ ends around $x=90$ where 

937: the backreaction terminates the resonance, after which perturbations reach

938: the plateau region  found in Fig.~\ref{selfmetmulti}. 

939: 

940: While only long-wave modes are necessary when comparing with 

941: CMB measurements, particle production is also induced by modes $\Phi_k$ 

942: with

943: larger momentum. The sub-Hubble modes ($k~\gsim~aH$) at the beginning of

944: reheating are not severely suppressed during inflation, and therefore the

945: modes $\delta \chi_k$ on those scales can be amplified to large values

946: during preheating. However, from $m_\chi = g \, \langle \phi \rangle$ we

947: see that large values of $R=g^2/\lambda$ results in a suppression of

948: the homogeneous mode $\chi$ during inflation. This also suppresses 

949: amplification of $\Phi$ from the rhs of equation~(\ref{Phim}).

950: Indeed, for $R \gg 1$ the dominant effect for the source of metric

951: perturbations is of second order in nonadiabatic (isocurvature) field

952: perturbations \cite{liddle}. To estimate this growth, we consider the

953: curvature perturbation on uniform-density hypersurfaces \cite{BST,adient},

954: denoted by $\zeta\,$. This quantity is related to the gravitational 

955: potential $\Phi$ via \cite{adient}

956: %

957: \begin{eqnarray}

958: -\zeta={\cal R}+\frac{2\rho}{3(\rho+p)}

959: \left(\frac{k}{aH}\right)^2 \Phi,

960: \label{zeta}

961: \end{eqnarray}

962: %

963: where ${\cal R}\equiv \Phi-(H/\dot{H})(\dot{\Phi}+H\Phi)$ is the comoving

964: curvature perturbation, and $p$ and $\rho$ are the pressure and the energy

965: density, respectively. 

966: The variation of $\zeta$ occurs on large scales in the presence of a 

967: nonadiabatic contribution to the pressure perturbation, $\delta p_{\rm 

968: nad}= \dot{p}\left(\delta p/\dot{p}-\delta\rho/\dot{\rho}\right)$.  One can 

969: estimate the second order contribution to $\zeta$, denoted $\zeta_{(2)}$, 

970: as \cite{liddle} 

971: %

972: \begin{eqnarray}

973: \zeta_{(2)}=\frac{3H}{\dot{\rho}} \int

974: \delta p_{\rm nad}Hdt \simeq

975: \frac{1}{\dot{\phi}^2} \int \left(1+\frac{2\lambda\phi^3}

976: {3H\dot{\phi}}\right) g^2\phi^2 \delta\chi^2 H dt,

977: \label{zetanon}

978: \end{eqnarray}

979: %

980: where we used  the time averaged relation,

981: $\delta\dot{\chi}^2 \simeq m_{\chi}^2 \delta\chi^2 \simeq

982: g^2\phi^2\delta\chi^2$.

983: We find that the second order term, $g^2\phi^2 \delta\chi^2$,

984: can induce a variation of $\zeta$, while the first order term

985: including the homogeneous $\chi$ is vanishingly small for $R \gg 1$.

986: {}From eq.~(\ref{zetanon})  we find

987: %

988: \begin{eqnarray}

989: \left|k^{3/2}\zeta_{(2)}(k) \right|

990: \simeq \frac{\sqrt{2}\pi}{\dot{\phi}^2} \int

991:  \left(1+\frac{2\lambda\phi^3}

992: {3H\dot{\phi}}\right) g^2\phi^2 \sqrt{P_{\delta\chi_k^2}} H dt \,,

993: \label{preper2}

994: \end{eqnarray}

995: %

996: where $P_{\delta\chi_k^2}$ is defined by $P_{\delta\chi_k^2} \equiv

997: \frac{k^3}{2\pi^2} \langle |\delta \chi_k^2|^2 \rangle$.

998: Following Ref.~\cite{liddle}, the power spectrum of the $\delta\chi_k$

999: fluctuation is estimated as 

1000: %

1001: \begin{eqnarray}

1002: P_{\delta\chi_k } \equiv

1003: \frac{k^3}{2\pi^2} \langle |\delta \chi_k|^2 \rangle

1004: \simeq 

1005: \frac{H_0}{g\phi_0} \left( \frac{H_0}{2\pi}\right)^2

1006: \left( \frac{\kappa}{\kappa_0}\right)^3 

1007: \frac{e^{2\mu_k x}}{a^2} \,.

1008: \label{Ppre}

1009: \end{eqnarray}

1010: %

1011: Here $\kappa_0 \simeq 0.15$ is the mode corresponding

1012: to the horizon size at $\phi=0.1M_p$.

1013: {}From eq.~(\ref{Ppre}) one finds

1014: %

1015: \begin{eqnarray}

1016: P_{\delta\chi_k^2} \equiv

1017: \frac{k^3}{2\pi^2} \langle |\delta \chi_k^2|^2 \rangle

1018: \simeq

1019: \frac{k^3}{2\pi} \int_0^{k_c} \frac{P_{\delta\chi}

1020: (|{\bf k'}|) P_{\delta\chi}(|{\bf k-k'}|) }{|{\bf k'}|^3

1021: |{\bf k-k'}|^3} d^3 {\bf k'}

1022: \simeq

1023: \left(\frac{H_0}{g\phi_0}\right)^2 \left( \frac{H_0}{2\pi}\right)^4

1024: \left( \frac{\kappa}{\kappa_0}\right)^3 \frac{M(\kappa, x)}{a^4},

1025: \label{Pdeltachi2}

1026: \end{eqnarray}

1027: %

1028: where

1029: %

1030: \begin{eqnarray}

1031: M(\kappa, x) &\equiv& \left(\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}\phi_0}{\kappa_0}

1032: \right)^3 \int_0^{\kappa_c} d\kappa' \int_0^{\pi} d\theta

1033: e^{2(\mu_{\kappa'}+\mu_{\kappa-\kappa'})x} \kappa'^2

1034: \sin \theta \nonumber \\

1035: &\simeq&

1036: 2 \left(\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}\phi_0}{\kappa_0}

1037: \right)^3 \int_0^{\kappa_c} d\kappa' e^{4\mu_{\kappa'}x}

1038: \kappa'^2 +{\cal O} (\kappa^2).

1039: \label{Meq}

1040: \end{eqnarray}

1041: %

1042: Note that we expanded  the term $\mu_{\kappa-\kappa'}$ around 

1043: $\mu_{\kappa'}$ in eq.~(\ref{Meq}). Due the $\kappa^3$ factor in

1044: eq.~(\ref{Pdeltachi2}), the spectrum $P_{\delta\chi_k^2}$ vanishes  in the

1045: large scale limit ($k \to 0$), which implies that also second order

1046: effects in field perturbations do not induce large metric perturbations on

1047: the scales probed by CMB measurements~\cite{liddle}. In contrast, on

1048: sub-Hubble scales at the beginning of preheating ($\kappa \sim \kappa_0$),

1049: $P_{\delta\chi_k^2}$ is nonvanishing. In this case parametric excitation

1050: of the $\chi$ fluctuation can lead to a growth of $\zeta$ and $\Phi$.

1051: 

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

1053: \begin{figure}

1054: \begin{center}

1055: \singlefig{10cm}{second4.eps}

1056: \begin{figcaption}{second}{10cm}

1057: The evolution of the gravitational potential and the

1058: curvature perturbation for  $\kappa=0.1$  in the model of $V=

1059: \lambda\phi^4/4+g^2\phi^2\chi^2/2$   with $g^2/\lambda=5000$ and

1060: $\lambda=10^{-13}$.  Note that we include the second order effect in field

1061: perturbations. We find that metric perturbations are enhanced on

1062: sub-Hubble scales. We also plot the evolution of the field variance, 

1063: $\langle\delta\chi^2\rangle$ and $\langle\delta\phi^2\rangle$, within

1064: the Hartree approximation.

1065: \end{figcaption}

1066: \end{center}

1067: \end{figure}

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

1069: 

1070: As an example, we plot in Fig.~\ref{second} the evolution of 

1071: $|k^{3/2} \Phi_{(2)}|$ and $|k^{3/2}\zeta_{(2)}|$

1072: for $\kappa=0.1$ in the case of $g^2/\lambda=5000$. 

1073: $|k^{3/2}\Phi_{(2)}|$ is evaluated by making use of eqs.~(\ref{zeta}) 

1074: and (\ref{preper2}).  Note that the final field variances are smaller than 

1075: in the $g^2/\lambda=2$ case, due to the stronger backreaction effect (c.f.  

1076: Fig.~\ref{selfmetmulti}).  The growth of nonadiabatic perturbations 

1077: continues until backreaction ends the resonance.  Although the final value 

1078: of $|k^{3/2}\Phi_{(2)}|$ is somewhat smaller than that of 

1079: $|k^{3/2}\Phi_k|$ in the $g^2/\lambda=2$ case, the fermion 

1080: number density (\ref{npsi}) can be larger due to the contribution of higher 

1081: momentum modes, as we will see in the next section.

1082:  

1083:  

1084: %%

1085: \section{Numerical results for the production of fermions}

1086: %%

1087: 

1088: 

1089: %

1090: \subsection{Quantum to classical transition}

1091: %

1092: 

1093: The results of section~\ref{forma} refer to particle production by a

1094: classical external source. On the contrary, the relation (\ref{relqfi}) of

1095: the previous section relates the modes of the decompositions

1096: %

1097: \begin{equation}

1098: \Phi (\eta,\,{\bf x})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,\int\,

1099: \frac{d^3{\bf k}}{\left(2\,\pi\right)^{3/2}}\left[\Phi_k

1100: \left(\eta\right)\,e^{i{\bf 

1101: {k \cdot x}}}\,a(k)+\Phi^*_k\left(\eta\right)\,

1102: e^{-i{\bf {k\cdot x}}}\,a^\dagger(k) \right]\,\,,

1103: \label{deffik}

1104: \end{equation}

1105: %

1106: \begin{equation}\label{defqk}

1107: Q^{(i)}(\eta,\,{\bf x})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,\int\,\frac{d^3{\bf 

1108: k}}{\left(2\,\pi\right)^{3/2}}\left[Q_k^{(i)}\left(\eta\right)\,

1109: e^{i{\bf {k\cdot x}}}\,a(k)+Q^*_k{}^{(i)}

1110: \left(\eta\right)\,e^{-i{\bf {k \cdot x}}}\,

1111: a^\dagger (k)\right]\,\,,

1112: \end{equation}

1113: %

1114: to the annihilation and creation operators $a(k)$ and $a^\dagger(k)$. As is

1115: well known, metric perturbations arise from quantum fluctuations during

1116: inflation and some of them eventually undergo a transition to

1117: classicality. A consistent treatment of fermion production requires the

1118: integral (\ref{npsi}) to be limited to those modes of $\Phi$ that have

1119: grown enough to become classical.

1120: 

1121: A simple criterion for classicality is given in Ref.~\cite{PS}.

1122: Classicality is expected to be a good approximation when the following

1123: condition is satisfied:

1124: %

1125: \begin{equation}

1126: \Delta_k^{(i)} \equiv \left| Q_k ^{(i)} \, a  \right| 

1127: \left| ( Q_k^{(i)} \, a )' 

1128: \right| \gg 1 \,\, ~~~~~~~~i = \phi,\chi

1129: \label{class}

1130: \end{equation}

1131: %

1132: The quantity $\Delta_k^{(i)}$ is related to the uncertainty in the

1133: determination of $\langle \Delta Q^{(i)} \, \Delta \Pi^{(i)} \rangle\,$,

1134: where $\Pi^{(i)}$ is the conjugate momentum of $Q^{(i)}\,$. In the case of

1135: pure vacuum fluctuations, the equality $\Delta_k ^{(i)} = 1$ holds, in

1136: accordance with the rules of quantum mechanics. Notice that this is the

1137: case for the initial states~(\ref{eqqinitial}). A much bigger

1138: uncertainty~(\ref{class}) is associated to large fluctuations of classical 

1139: nature.

1140: 

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

1142: \begin{figure}

1143: \begin{center}

1144: \singlefig{10cm}{deltak.eps}

1145: \begin{figcaption}{deltak}{10cm}

1146: The quantum to classical transition as signaled by the evolution of  the

1147: quantity $\Delta_k^{\phi}$ during inflation and subsequent reheating stage

1148: in the single field model,  $V=\lambda\phi^4/4$. The mode $k=a_0H_0$

1149: leaves the Hubble scale  at $\phi=1.5M_p$ (i.e., at the initial time

1150: plotted). $\Delta_k^{\phi}$ grows significantly from  unity after Hubble

1151: radius crossing. In this figure the end of inflation corresponds to 

1152: $\tilde{t}\equiv \sqrt{\lambda}\phi_0 t \approx 10$.

1153: \end{figcaption}

1154: \end{center}

1155: \end{figure}

1156: %%%%%%%%%%

1157: 

1158: %%%%%%%%%%

1159: \begin{figure}

1160: \begin{center}

1161: \singlefig{10cm}{deltamulti.eps}

1162: \begin{figcaption}{deltamulti}{10cm}

1163: The spectra of $\Delta_k^{\chi}$ when the variance 

1164: $\langle \delta \chi^2 \rangle$ reaches its maximum value

1165: in the two-field model of preheating, 

1166: $V=\lambda\phi^4/4+g^2\phi^2\chi^2/2$,

1167: for different values of $R=g^2/\lambda$.

1168: The small $k$ modes ($\kappa<0.5$) are

1169: sufficiently enhanced by parametric resonance 

1170: for $R=2n^2$, which makes the perturbations

1171: highly classical. In the case of $R<20$ we find that 

1172: $\Delta_k^{\chi}$ is very close to unity

1173: for the modes, $\kappa~\gsim~3$.

1174: Therefore the cut-off $\kappa_c=3$ is justified in evaluating 

1175: the occupation number of fermions for  $R<20$.

1176: \end{figcaption}

1177: \end{center}

1178: \end{figure}

1179: %%%%%%%%%%

1180: 

1181: 

1182: In Fig.~\ref{deltak} the time evolution of $\Delta_k^{\phi}$ is  shown in

1183: the model $V = \lambda \, \phi^4/4$, for some particular values of $k\,$.

1184: We notice that $\Delta_k^{\phi}$ begins to increase around the region

1185: where a mode leaves the Hubble scale during inflation. This is expected to

1186: occur quite generically, irrespective of the specific form of the inflaton

1187: potential. On the contrary, modes which are always inside the Hubble scale

1188: typically conserve their quantum nature ($\Delta_k^{\phi} \simeq 1\,$),

1189: unless some physical (model dependent) process drives them classical.

1190: Among these processes, nonperturbative particle creation during 

1191: preheating can drive to a classical level the sub-Hubble modes in the

1192: resonance bands discussed in the previous

1193: section~\cite{KT,PR,selfPE,selfFK}. 

1194: 

1195: In Fig.~\ref{deltamulti} we show instead the spectrum $\Delta_k^\chi$ in

1196: the two-field model of preheating (\ref{twof}) for some values of $R$ 

1197: (the largest time plotted corresponds to the moment at which Hartree

1198: approximation  breaks down).  The case $R=3$ reproduces the results of the

1199: one massless  field case upon identification of $\chi$ with the

1200: fluctuations of the field  $\phi\,$.  For this value,

1201: Fig.~\ref{deltamulti} shows the enhancement of  the modes in the resonance

1202: band~(\ref{single}).  In the two-field case,  strong resonance occurs in

1203: the parameter ranges described by  Eq.~(\ref{range}).  In the center of

1204: the resonance bands, $R=2n^2$, small  $k$ modes ($\kappa~\lsim~0.5$) are

1205: efficiently excited, while the modes  with $\kappa~\gsim~3$ are regarded

1206: as quantum fluctuations  ($\Delta_k^{\chi} \simeq 1$) as long as $R$ is

1207: not much larger than unity  (this evolution does not include rescattering

1208: effects which become  important in the nonlinear regime).

1209: 

1210: In the next section we numerically evaluate the formula for the 

1211: occupation numbers reported in Sec.~II. In the calculation we do not

1212: include those modes which are not excited to a classical  level

1213: ($\Delta_k^{(i)} \simeq 1$). For modes which become classical, from the 

1214: two decompositions~(\ref{esse}) and (\ref{deffik}) we get

1215: %

1216: \begin{equation}

1217: {\tilde \Phi} \left( k \right) = \frac{V^{1/2}}{\sqrt{2}\,\left( 2 \, \pi 

1218: \right)^{3/2}} \, \Phi_k \,\,.

1219: \label{relpert}

1220: \end{equation}

1221: 

1222: 

1223: %%

1224: \subsection{Particle production}

1225: %%

1226: 

1227: We can combine eqs.~(\ref{npsi}) and (\ref{relpert}) to evaluate the

1228: number density of produced fermions in terms  of the modes $\Phi_k$

1229: computed in the previous section. Moreover, we assume the metric

1230: perturbations to be statistically isotropic and homogeneous, so that

1231: $\Phi_{\bf k} = \Phi_{\vert {\bf k} \vert}\,$. In this case, the final

1232: particle density is given by

1233: %

1234: \begin{equation}

1235: N_\psi \equiv \frac{N_2}{V} = \frac{1}{15 \, \left( 2 \, \pi \right)^4 \,

1236: a^3} \int_0^\infty d p_0 \int_0^{p_0} d p \, p^6 \left|

1237: \int_{\eta_i}^{\eta_f} d \eta \, {\rm e}^{i p_0 \eta} \, \Phi_p

1238: \left( \eta \right) \right|^2 \,\,.

1239: \label{npsi2}

1240: \end{equation}

1241: %

1242: As discussed in the previous subsection, the integral over $p \equiv \vert

1243: {\bf p} \vert$ must be restricted to the region where the perturbations

1244: are classical. We have seen in section~\ref{secpert} that this typically

1245: occurs for $p$ smaller than a cut-off value $p_{c}$ which approximately

1246: corresponds to modes which never crossed the Hubble scale (or, in the

1247: massless inflaton case, to the highest resonance band excited). In the

1248: numerical computation of $N_2$ we also integrated $p_0$ up to $p_{c}\,$.

1249: Higher frequencies are not expected to give a sizable contribution to

1250: eq.~(\ref{npsi2}), since the rapidly oscillating phase 

1251: ${\rm e}^{ip_0\eta}$ averages to nearly zero the time integral. 

1252: 

1253: In the numerical calculations we take as the upper limit $\eta_f$ of the

1254: time integral the moment in which backreaction effects start to shut off

1255: the resonance. In the single self-coupling case this occurs at $x_f \equiv

1256: \sqrt{\lambda}\varphi(t_{\rm co})\eta_f \simeq 500$, while in the

1257: two-field case the precise value of $\eta_f$ is a function of the ratio

1258: $R\,$. Note that this is just an approximate calculation, since the above

1259: integral is defined rigorously only for the asymptotic future, $\eta_f \to

1260: \infty$, with vanishing perturbations $\Phi_k \to 0\,$. That is, our

1261: numerical calculation is approximately

1262: %

1263: \begin{equation}

1264: n_{\psi} \equiv a^3 N_\psi \simeq \frac{1}{15 \, \left( 2 \, \pi 

1265: \right)^4} \int_0^{p_c} d p_0 \int_0^{p_0} d p \, p^6 \left| 

1266: \int_{\eta_i}^{\eta_f} d \eta \,

1267: {\rm e}^{i p_0 \eta} \, \Phi_p \left( \eta \right) \right|^2 \,\,.

1268: \label{npsi3}

1269: \end{equation}

1270: %

1271: 

1272: Before presenting the numerical results, we briefly consider the

1273: occupation number of massive fermions produced by the  homogeneous FLRW

1274: expansion, eq.~(\ref{N0}). For sufficiently small masses, the final

1275: occupation number is still (approximately) given by~(\ref{npsi3}), since

1276: the  Bogolyubov coefficient $\beta$ is very close to zero in this limit

1277: (see  eq.~(\ref{bogo}) and (\ref{N2})). The term~(\ref{N0}), although

1278: quadratic in $\beta\,$, is not suppressed by the small perturbations.

1279: Thus, by solving the equation 

1280: \begin{equation}

1281: N_0 \left( m_\psi \right) = N_2 \left( m_\psi = 0  \right)

1282: \end{equation} 

1283: we can estimate up to which mass $m_\psi$ the

1284: productions by the inhomogeneities is comparable with that

1285: from the  homogeneous expansion.

1286: 

1287: The calculation of $N_0$ has been performed numerically in~\cite{igor} 

1288: (see also references therein). For low fermionic masses, the gravitational

1289: production from the homogeneous expansion mainly occurs when the Hubble

1290: expansion rate equals $m_\psi\,$. After this time, the comoving fermion

1291: number density is given by~\cite{igor}

1292: %

1293: \begin{equation}

1294: n_\psi^{\rm hom} \equiv a^3 \, N_0 / V \simeq C_\alpha \, m_\psi^3 \left( 

1295: \frac{H_0}{m_\psi} \right)^{3\,\alpha}\,\,.

1296: \label{hom}

1297: \end{equation}

1298: %

1299: In this expression, $H_0$ denotes the value of the Hubble rate at the

1300: initial time $t_0\,$, where the scale factor $a \left( t_0 \right)$ is

1301: normalized to unity. The parameter $\alpha$ is instead the exponent

1302: appearing in the expansion law $a \left( t \right) \propto t^\alpha$ when

1303: $H \left( t \right) = m_\psi\,$ (as is well known, the coherent inflaton 

1304: oscillations give effective matter domination, $\alpha = 2/3\,$, in the 

1305: $V=m^2\phi^2/2$ case, and effective radiation domination,  $\alpha

1306: =1/2\,$, for $V=\lambda\phi^4/4$). For the first coefficient of

1307: eq.~(\ref{hom}), the two values $C_{2/3} \simeq 3 \times 10^{-\,3}$ and

1308: $C_{1/2} \simeq 10^{-\,2}$ have been numerically found~\cite{igor}.

1309: 

1310: %

1311: \subsubsection{$V=\frac12m^2\phi^2$}

1312: %

1313: 

1314: Let us first present the numerical results for the massive inflaton 

1315: case.  The precise value deduced from the integral~(\ref{npsi3}) is sensitive to 

1316: the cut-off $p_c$.  To discriminate which cut-off should be taken, we 

1317: consider the quantity $\Delta_k^{\phi}$.  We found that $\Delta_k^{\phi}$ 

1318: approaches unity around $k=10m$, so we chose $p_{c}=10 \,m \,$.  In this 

1319: case, for the comoving occupation number (normalizing $a=1$ at $\phi=0.5 \, 

1320: M_p$) we have numerically found

1321: %

1322: \begin{equation}

1323: n_\psi \equiv a^3 N_{\psi} \simeq 3 \times 10^{-14}m^3

1324: \label{nmass}

1325: \end{equation}

1326: %

1327: (just to give an example on how the final result is sensitive to $p_c\,$, 

1328: we found $n_{\psi} \simeq 1 \times 10^{-14}m^3$ for $p_{c}=5m$

1329: and $n_{\psi}\simeq 1 \times 10^{-13}m^3$ for $p_{c}=20m$).

1330: 

1331: Equating (\ref{npsi3}) with (\ref{hom}), the mass $m_{\psi}$ below which 

1332: the production from inhomogeneities dominates over the one from the 

1333: homogeneous expansion is estimated as

1334: %

1335: \begin{equation}

1336: m_{\psi}=\frac{n_{\psi}}{C_{2/3}H_0^2} \simeq 10^2~{\rm GeV}.

1337: \label{mcompar}

1338: \end{equation}

1339: % 

1340: 

1341: Of more physical interest is the fermionic abundance deduced 

1342: from~(\ref{nmass}). By assuming an instantaneous inflaton decay into a 

1343: thermal bath characterized by the reheat temperature $T_{\rm rh}$, 

1344: the particle density divided by the entropy density, $s$, is given by

1345: %

1346: \begin{equation}

1347: Y_\psi \left( T_{\rm rh} \right) \equiv \frac{N_\psi}{s}

1348: \left( T_{\rm rh} \right) 

1349: \simeq 10^{-\,29} \, \frac{T_{\rm rh}}{10^9 \, {\rm GeV}} \,.

1350: \label{Yb}

1351: \end{equation}

1352: %

1353: In the case of other light gravitational relics, such as  gravitini or

1354: modulini, the primordial abundance is severely constrained by the

1355: successful predictions of Big Bang nucleosynthesis. For masses of order

1356: the electroweak breaking scale, the limit is about $Y~\lsim~10^{-\,13}$ --

1357: $10^{-\,12}\,$~\cite{km}. In the present case, eq.~(\ref{Yb}) gives a much

1358: smaller abundance.

1359: 

1360:  

1361: %

1362: \subsubsection{$V=\frac14 \lambda \phi^4$}

1363: %

1364: 

1365: In the quartic case, both super-Hubble modes and the modes in the

1366: interval~(\ref{single}) contribute to the particle production,

1367: eq.~(\ref{npsi3}). From simple estimates (for example combining

1368: eq.~(\ref{npsi3}) with the values for the perturbations shown in

1369: Fig.~\ref{selfmet}), one can see that the main contribution to particle

1370: production is given by the resonance band~(\ref{single}).

1371: 

1372: In calculating the total number densities of produced fermions due to

1373: inhomogeneities, we take the cut-off value in momentum space at

1374: $p_c=3$, over which $\Delta_k^{\phi}$ approaches unity. 

1375: Then the final particle density reached at the

1376: end of preheating is numerically found to be 

1377: %

1378: \begin{equation}

1379: n_{\psi} \simeq 1 

1380: \times 10^{-13}\,(\sqrt{\lambda}\phi_0)^3.

1381: \label{nself}

1382: \end{equation}

1383: %

1384: which is larger than in the massive inflaton case.

1385: 

1386: Proceeding as in the previous subsection we find that the production from 

1387: metric perturbations dominates over that from the homogeneous expansion 

1388: as long as the fermions have masses smaller than

1389: %

1390: \begin{equation}

1391: m_{\psi}=\frac{1}{H_0} \left(\frac{n_{\psi}}{C_{1/2}} \right)^{2/3} \simeq 

1392: 10^5~{\rm GeV} \,\,.

1393: \label{mcompar2}

1394: \end{equation}

1395: %

1396: The final abundance is also greater than in the previous case (thus 

1397: confirming that the integral~(\ref{npsi3}) is dominated by the modes in 

1398: the resonance band),

1399: %

1400: \begin{equation}

1401: Y_\psi \left( T_{\rm rh} \right) \simeq 10^{-\,22} \,\,.

1402: \label{ab2}

1403: \end{equation}

1404: %

1405: Nevertheless it is still too small to have any cosmological effect.

1406: 

1407: 

1408: %

1409: \subsubsection{$V=\frac14 \lambda \phi^4+\frac12g^2\phi^2\chi^2$}

1410: %

1411: Since this potential leads to an infinite number of resonance bands it 

1412: is the case of most interest. 

1413: In Fig.~\ref{npsif} our numerical results for fermionic production 

1414: are presented as a function of $R \equiv g^2/\lambda\,$, for $R \leq 

1415: 10\,$. This is obtained by solving the linearized equation (\ref{Phim})

1416: using the Hartree approximation for field perturbations.

1417:  By comparison with the single field case ($g = 0$, here reproduced by the 

1418: choice $R=3$) the two equations~(\ref{mcompar2}) and (\ref{ab2}) are 

1419: generalized to

1420: %

1421: \begin{equation}

1422: m_\psi \simeq 5 \times 10^{13} \: {\tilde n}_\psi^{2/3} \: {\rm GeV} 

1423: \;\;\;,\;\;\; Y_\psi \left( T_{\rm rh} \right) \simeq 10^{-\,9} \: {\tilde 

1424: n}_\psi \,\,,

1425: \end{equation}

1426: %

1427: where ${\tilde n}_\psi \equiv n_\psi / (\sqrt{\lambda} \, \phi_0 )^3\,$.

1428: 

1429: The qualitative behavior of Fig.~\ref{npsif} is readily understood from the

1430: structure of resonance~(\ref{range}). In the range of $R$ plotted, we have

1431: maximal production when $R$ is in the center of the first resonance band,

1432: in which case $n_\psi$ is found to be $\tilde{n}_\psi \simeq 5 \times

1433: 10^{-10}$, which is about $5000$ times larger than in

1434: the single-field case. In the second resonance band, particle production is

1435: slightly smaller than in the $R=2$ case. 

1436: 

1437: %%%%%%%%%%

1438: \begin{figure}

1439: \begin{center}

1440: \singlefig{10cm}{npsif.eps}

1441: \begin{figcaption}{npsif}{10cm}

1442: The comoving number density, $\tilde{n}_{\psi} = n_{\psi}/

1443: (\sqrt{\lambda}\phi_0)^3$, vs the ratio $g^2/\lambda$, for

1444: $g^2/\lambda \le 10$. Note that this is based on the linear calculation 

1445: using

1446: eq.~(\ref{Phim}), which does not include the second order effect in field

1447: perturbations. We take $\chi=10^{-3}M_p$ at $\phi=4M_p$. We see that

1448: particle creation is enhanced in the super-Hubble 

1449: resonance bands~(\ref{range}).

1450: \end{figcaption}

1451: \end{center}

1452: \end{figure}

1453: %%%%%%%%%%

1454: 

1455: As $R$ increases, the inflationary suppression of $\chi$ becomes more and

1456: more relevant, and particle production from first order 

1457: perturbations is consequently reduced. Nevertheless, the second order

1458: effect of field perturbations described in subsection~III B 3 can lead to 

1459: the

1460: excitation of metric perturbations on sub-Hubble scales. Just for

1461: indicative purposes, we report a couple of our numerical results in this

1462: range. For large $R$, the resonance bands cover only modes up

1463: to~\cite{GKLS}

1464: %

1465: \begin{eqnarray}

1466: \kappa~\lsim~\left(\frac{R}{2\pi^2}\right)^{1/4} \,\,.

1467: \label{kappamax}

1468: \end{eqnarray}

1469: %

1470: In the center of the 10-th instability band, $R=200$, one finds resonant

1471: amplification up to $\kappa~\lsim~1.78$, as can be appreciated in

1472: Fig.~\ref{deltamulti}. By implementing the analysis reported in 

1473: subsection~III B 3

1474: we find $\tilde{n}_{\psi} \simeq 6 \times 10^{-11}$.

1475: As $R$ increases, higher momentum modes contribute  to the growth of

1476: metric perturbations. For example, eq.~(\ref{kappamax}) gives

1477: $\kappa~\lsim~4$ in the $R=5000$ case.  As a consequence, this 

1478: enhances fermionic production. The comoving occupation number 

1479: in this case is  found to be $\tilde{n}_{\psi} \simeq 1 \times 10^{-7} 

1480: \,,\,\, Y_\psi \left( T_{\rm rh} \right)\simeq 10^{-16}\,$.

1481: 

1482: 

1483: It is however important to mention that for $R \gg1$ the whole analysis

1484: becomes very delicate. For large coupling $g\,$, the backreaction effect

1485: of produced particles ends resonant amplification of field perturbations

1486: earlier. In addition, it was found in Ref.~\cite{KT} that the final field

1487: variances get smaller if rescattering of the $\delta\chi$ fluctuations is

1488: taken into account in the rigid FLRW spacetime ($\Phi = 0$). On the

1489: contrary, the effect of rescattering can lead to the excitation of

1490: inflaton fluctuations through the amplification of $\delta\chi$

1491: fluctuations. Since (contrary to the field $\chi$) the homogeneous

1492: inflaton component is not suppressed during inflation, the gravitational

1493: potential can then acquire a potentially large additional source (see

1494: eq.~(\ref{Phim})). Finally, the anisotropic stress is expected to be

1495: important in the nonlinear regime, in which case the relation $\Phi=\Psi$

1496: no longer holds \cite{selfFK}. The study of these effects is certainly

1497: worth separate detailed investigation.

1498: 

1499: 

1500: %

1501: \section{Conclusions}

1502: %

1503: 

1504: 

1505: In the present work we have discussed gravitational creation of fermions by

1506: inhomogeneous scalar perturbations of a Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker

1507: (FLRW) Universe. Massless fermions are conformally coupled to this

1508: background, and thus are not generated by the homogeneous gravitational 

1509: field. As a consequence, gravitational production of light 

1510: particles is solely induced

1511: by metric perturbations which break the conformal flatness of the 

1512: background. 

1513: Although the small size of perturbations on very large scales

1514: indicated by CMB experiments seems to suggest a small production, a precise

1515: computation is still worth while for light gravitational relics.

1516: 

1517: This is particularly true in scenarios in which

1518: metric perturbations undergo parametric amplification during preheating at 

1519: the end of inflation. To

1520: examine this issue more quantitatively, we have studied some particularly

1521: simple models of chaotic inflation. The simplest example is a 

1522: single massive inflaton field ($V = m^2 \, \phi^2

1523: /2$), where parametric resonance is actually absent. In this model, metric

1524: perturbations are nearly constant during reheating for modes which

1525: left the Hubble scale during inflation, whereas the modes deep inside the

1526: Hubble scale exhibit adiabatic damping. As may be expected, particle 

1527: production

1528: is negligibly small in this situation. 

1529: 

1530: We then studied the massless self-coupled inflaton field 

1531: ($V = \lambda \, \phi^4 / 4$) case, in which

1532: parametric resonance occurs for modes in a small band in momentum space 

1533: near 

1534: the Hubble scale.

1535: As a consequence, particle production is enhanced. Moreover, for a

1536: massless inflaton the background energy density decreases more quickly

1537: with respect to the massive case, and this results in a larger abundance

1538: at reheating of the particles generated by the inhomogeneities. Despite 

1539: these two effects, the final result for the production is however still

1540: well below the limit from nucleosynthesis.

1541: 

1542: More efficient production is expected when more fields are present, such 

1543: as the model characterized by the potential

1544: $V=\lambda \, \phi^4/4 + g^2\phi^2 \, \chi^2/2\,$. In this case, the

1545: crucial parameter which determines the resonance bands is $R

1546: \equiv g^2 / \lambda\,$. In particular, the longwavelength modes of the 

1547: second

1548: field $\chi$ are parametrically amplified whenever $R \simeq 2 \, n^2$

1549: with integer $n\,$. At linear order in field perturbations, these modes

1550: are coupled to metric perturbations through a term proportional to 

1551: $\dot{\chi} \delta \chi_k\,$. For relatively small $R\,$, metric 

1552: perturbations

1553: are amplified by this term, and particle production is strongly

1554: enhanced. 

1555: 

1556: For $R > 10$  the large $\chi$ effective mass 

1557: ($m_\chi = g \, \langle \phi \rangle \propto R^{1/2}$) causes the $\chi$ 

1558: field to be exponentialy suppressed during inflation.

1559: As a consequence, for large $R$ metric perturbations mainly increase due to

1560: second order field fluctuations~\cite{liddle}. Particle

1561: production may be expected to become more significant at very large $R\,$.

1562: This is indeed suggested by our numerical results, although in the cases

1563: considered the final abundance is still below the nucleosynthesis

1564: bounds. 

1565: 

1566: Our numerical simulations include the backreaction of the fluctuations on

1567: the background evolution in the Hartree approximation. Rescattering

1568: effects -- mode-mode coupling between fields -- are instead neglected.

1569: This may considerably affect the final abundances, particularly in the

1570: large $R$ limit where the mode coupling becomes particularly important. 

1571: Strong rescattering effects imply an earlier end to preheating, which may

1572: decrease the final values of field and metric perturbations. On

1573: the other hand, rescattering leads to amplification of modes outside the

1574: resonance bands. In particular, inflaton field fluctuations can be

1575: significantly amplified. Since (contrary to the field $\chi$) the 

1576: homogeneous 

1577: inflaton component is not suppressed during inflation, metric

1578: fluctuations may be strongly enhanced by the source term proportional

1579: to $\dot{\phi} \delta\phi_k$ (analogous to the $\dot{\chi} \delta 

1580: \chi_k$ term considered above). This  would be reflected in more

1581: particle creation.

1582: 

1583: Stronger production from inhomogeneities may also occur in different

1584: contexts. In the multi-field inflationary scenario, the gravitational

1585: potential can exhibit nonadiabatic growth during inflation \cite{SY,GW},

1586: especially when the second field $\chi$ has a negative nonminimal coupling

1587: to the Ricci scalar~\cite{TY,STY}. In addition, it was shown that the 

1588: growth

1589: of metric perturbations can be present even in the single field case in

1590: the context of non-slow roll inflation with potential gap~\cite{LS}, and

1591: during graceful exit in string cosmology~\cite{KS}. It may be

1592: interesting to study gravitational particle production in these contexts 

1593: along the lines presented in this work.

1594: 

1595: 

1596: 

1597: %

1598: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1599: \section*{ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS}

1600: The authors  thank J\"urgen Baacke and 

1601: Fermin Viniegra for contributions at early stages of this project

1602: and Robert H. Brandenberger for comments on the draft.

1603: ST also thanks Alexei A. Starobinsky and Jun'ichi Yokoyama

1604: for useful discussions. 

1605: ST is thankful for financial support from 

1606: the JSPS (No. 04942). The work of MP is supported by the European 

1607: Commission RTN programmes HPRN-CT-2000-00148 and 00152. MP thanks Lev 

1608: Kofman for some useful discussions. He also thanks the Canadian Institute 

1609: for Theoretical Astrophysics of Toronto and the Astrophysics group of 

1610: Fermilab for their friendly hospitality during the early stages of this 

1611: work.

1612: 

1613: 

1614: %%%%%%%%%

1615: % references

1616: %%%%%%%%%

1617: 

1618: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1619: 

1620: \bibitem{BD80}

1621: N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, {\it Quantum

1622: fields in Curved Space} (Cambridge University Press,

1623: Cambridge, England, 1980).

1624: 

1625: \bibitem{Parker}

1626: L. Parker, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 21}, 562 (1968);

1627: Phys. Rev. {\bf 183}, 1057 (1969).

1628: 

1629: \bibitem{ZS}

1630: Ya. B. Zel'dovich and A. A. Starobinsky, Sov. Phys. 

1631: JETP {\bf 34}, 1159 (1972).

1632: 

1633: \bibitem{HW} 

1634: G. T. Horowitz and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 21}, 1462 (1980)

1635: 

1636: \bibitem{Frieman}

1637: J. A. Frieman, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 39}, 389 (1989).

1638: 

1639: \bibitem{campos}

1640: A. Campos and E. Verdaguer, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 45}, 4428 (1992).

1641: 

1642: \bibitem{CV}

1643: J. Cespedes and E. Verdaguer, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 41}, 

1644: 1022 (1990).

1645: 

1646: \bibitem{misner}

1647: C. W. Misner, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 22}, 1071 (1969); 

1648: B. L. Hu and L. Parker, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 17}, 933 (1978).

1649: 

1650: \bibitem{CH}

1651: A. Campos and B. L. Hu, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 58}, 125021 (1998);

1652: A. Campos and E. Verdaguer, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 53}, 1927 (1996).

1653: 

1654: \bibitem{nohair}

1655: G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Phs. Rev. D {\bf 15}, 2738 (1977); R. M. 

1656: Wald, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 28}, 2118 (1983);  M. Bruni, F. C. Mena, 

1657: and R. Tavakol,  gr-qc/0107069.

1658: 

1659: \bibitem{TB}

1660: J. Traschen and R. H. Brandenberger, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 42}, 

1661: 2491 (1990); Y. Shatanov, J. Trashen, and R. H. Brandenberger, 

1662: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 51}, 5438 (1995).

1663: 

1664: \bibitem{KLS} 

1665: L. Kofman, A. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, 

1666: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73},  3195 (1994);

1667: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 3258 (1997).

1668: 

1669: \bibitem{Boy}

1670: D. Boyanovsky et al.,  Phys. Rev. D {\bf 51}, 4419 (1995); 

1671: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 7570 (1996).

1672: 

1673: \bibitem{KT}

1674: S. Khlebnikov and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 219 (1996); 

1675: Phys. Lett. {\bf 390}, 80 (1997);

1676: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 1607 (1997).

1677: 

1678: \bibitem{PR}

1679: T. Prokopec and T. G. Roos,

1680: Phys. Rev. D  {\bf 55}, 3768 (1997).

1681: 

1682: \bibitem{TN}

1683: A. Taruya and Y. Nambu, 

1684: Phys. Lett. {\bf B428}, 37 (1998).

1685: 

1686: \bibitem{massiveB}

1687: B. A. Bassett, D. I. Kaiser, and R. Maartens, 

1688: Phys. Lett.  {\bf B455}, 84 (1999); 

1689: B. A. Bassett, F. Tamburini, D. I. Kaiser, and

1690: R. Maartens, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 561}, 188 (1999).

1691: 

1692: \bibitem{selfPE}

1693: R. Easther and M. Parry, 

1694: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62} 103503 (2000).

1695: 

1696: \bibitem{sting}

1697: B. A. Bassett, C. Gordon, R. Maartens,

1698: and D. I. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 061302 (R) (2000).

1699: 

1700: \bibitem{FG}

1701: F. Finelli and  A. Gruppuso, 

1702: Phys. Lett. {\bf B502}, 216 (2001). 

1703: 

1704: \bibitem{maroto}

1705: A. L. Maroto, hep-ph/0008288.

1706: 

1707: \bibitem{BPTV}

1708: B. A. Bassett, G. Pollifrone, S. Tsujikawa, and F. Viniegra,

1709: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 103515  (2001).

1710: 

1711: \bibitem{DPTD}

1712: K. Dimopoulos, T. Prokopec, O. Tornkvist, and A. C. Davis,

1713: astro-ph/0108093.

1714: 

1715: \bibitem{PBHpre1}

1716: A. M. Green and K. A. Malik, 

1717: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64}, 021301 (2001).

1718: 

1719: \bibitem{PBHpre2}

1720: B. A. Bassett and S. Tsujikawa, 

1721: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 123503 (2001).

1722: 

1723: \bibitem{selfBV}

1724: B. A. Bassett and F. Viniegra, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 043507 (2000).

1725: 

1726: \bibitem{selfFB}

1727: F. Finelli and R. H. Brandenberger, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 083502 (2000).

1728: 

1729: \bibitem{selfTBV}

1730: S. Tsujikawa, B. A. Bassett, and F. Viniegra, JHEP {\bf 08}, 019 (2000).

1731: 

1732: \bibitem{selfZBS}

1733: Z. P. Zibin, R.H. Brandenberger, and D. Scott, 

1734: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 043511 (2001).

1735: 

1736: \bibitem{selfFK}

1737: F. Finelli and S. Khlebnikov, Phys. Lett. {\bf 504}, 309 (2001).

1738: 

1739: \bibitem{pbb}

1740: M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, Astropart. Phys. {\bf 1}, 317 (1993).

1741:  

1742: \bibitem{pbb2}

1743: A. Buonanno, M. Lemoine and K. A. Olive, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 62}, 083513 

1744: (2000).

1745: 

1746: \bibitem{cosmo}

1747: J. Bardeen, Phys. Rev. {\bf D22}, 1882 (1980);

1748: H. Kodama and M. Sasaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.

1749: No. 78, 1 (1984);.

1750: 

1751: \bibitem{pert} 

1752: V. F. Mukhanov, H. Feldman and R. H. Brandenberger, Phys. Rep. 

1753: {\bf 215}, 203 (1992).

1754: 

1755: \bibitem{TM} 

1756: See e.g., C. G. Tsagas and R. Maartens, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 

1757: 083519 (2000) and references therein.

1758: 

1759: \bibitem{prehferm} 

1760: G. F. Giudice, M. Peloso, A. Riotto, and I. Tkachev, 

1761: JHEP {\bf 9908}. 014 (1999); 

1762: M. Peloso and L. Sorbo, JHEP {\bf 0005}, 016 (2000);

1763: S. Tsujikawa and H. Yajima, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64}, 023519 (2001).

1764: 

1765: \bibitem{nps}

1766: H. P. Nilles, M. Peloso and L. Sorbo, JHEP {\bf 0104}, 

1767: 004 (2001).

1768: 

1769: \bibitem{chaos}

1770: A. D. Linde,

1771: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 129}, 177 (1983).

1772: 

1773: \bibitem{cobe} 

1774: G. F. Smoot et al., Ap.J {\bf 396}, L1 (1992); E. L. Wright et 

1775: al., Ap. J. {\bf 396}, L13 (1992).

1776: 

1777: \bibitem{muksas} 

1778: V. F. Mukhanov, JETP Lett. {\bf 41}, 493 (1985);

1779: M. Sasaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 76}, 1036 (1986). 

1780: 

1781: \bibitem{KH}

1782: H. Kodama and T. Hamazaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 96},

1783: 949 (1996).

1784: 

1785: \bibitem{nata}

1786: Y. Nambu and A. Taruya, 

1787: Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 97} 83 (1997).

1788: 

1789: \bibitem{FB}

1790: F. Finelli and R. H. Brandenberger, 

1791: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 1362 (1999).

1792: 

1793: \bibitem{Kaiser}

1794: D. I. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 53}, 1776 (1995); 

1795: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 706 (1997); 

1796: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 702 (1998).

1797: 

1798: \bibitem{GKLS}

1799: P.B. Greene, L. Kofman, A. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky,

1800: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 6175 (1997).

1801: 

1802: \bibitem{suppression}

1803: K. Jedamzik and G. Sigl, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 023519 (2000);

1804: P. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 023505 (2000).

1805: 

1806: \bibitem{liddle}

1807: A. R. Liddle, D. H. Lyth, K. A. Malik, and D. Wands,

1808: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 103509 (2000).

1809: 

1810: \bibitem{shinji}

1811: S. Tsujikawa, JHEP {\bf 07}, 024 (2000).

1812: 

1813: \bibitem{BST}

1814: J. M. Bardeen, P. J. Steinhardt, and M. S. Turner,

1815: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 28}, 679 (1983).

1816: 

1817: \bibitem{adient}

1818: C. Gordon, D. Wands, B. A. Bassett, and R. Maartens,

1819: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 023506 (2001).

1820: 

1821: \bibitem{PS}

1822: D. Polarski and A. A. Starobinsky, Class. Quantum. Grav. 

1823: {\bf 13}, 377 (1996).

1824: 

1825: \bibitem{igor}

1826: V. Kuzmin and I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}, 123006 (1999).

1827: 

1828: \bibitem{km}

1829: M. Kawasaki and T. Moroi, Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 452}, 506 (1995).

1830: 

1831: \bibitem{SY} 

1832: A. A. Starobinsky and J. Yokoyama, in: 

1833: Proc. of The Fourth Workshop on General Relativity and Gravitation, 

1834: ed. by K. Nakao {\it et al.} (Kyoto University, 1994), p. 381 

1835: (gr-qc/9502002).  

1836: 

1837: \bibitem{GW}

1838: J. Garc\'{\i}a-Bellido and D. Wands, 

1839: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 52}, 6739 (1995);

1840: D {\bf 53}, 437 (1996).

1841: 

1842: \bibitem{TY}

1843: S. Tsujikawa and H. Yajima, 

1844: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 123512 (2000); see also

1845: V. Sahni and S. Habib, 

1846: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 1766 (1998);

1847: B. A. Bassett ans S. Liberati, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58}, 

1848: 021302 (1998); S. Tsujikawa, K. Maeda, and T. Torii,

1849: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60}, 063515 (1999); 123505 (1999).

1850: 

1851: \bibitem{STY} 

1852: A. A. Starobinsky, S. Tsujikawa, and J. Yokoyama,

1853: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B610}, 383 (2001). 

1854: 

1855: \bibitem{LS}

1856: A. A. Starobinsky, JETP. Lett. {\bf 55}, 489 (1992);

1857: S. M. Leach, M. Sasaki, D. Wands, and A. R. Liddle, 

1858: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64}, 023512 (2001).

1859: 

1860: \bibitem{KS}

1861: S. Kawai and J. Soda, 

1862: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 460}. 41 (1999). 

1863: 

1864: \end{thebibliography}

1865: 

1866: \end{document}

1867:  

1868: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1869: %%%% figures

1870: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1871: 

1872: