1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2:
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \usepackage{amsmath}
5: \usepackage{verbatim}
6:
7:
8: \textwidth 16.25cm
9: \textheight 22.5cm
10: \hoffset -1.5cm
11: \voffset -1cm
12:
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14: %% SOME DEFINITIONS
15:
16: \newcommand{\nc}{\newcommand}
17: %
18: \nc{\be}{\begin{equation}}
19: \nc{\ee}{\end{equation}}
20: \nc{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
21: \nc{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
22: \nc{\nn}{\nonumber}
23:
24: \nc{\lp}{\left(}
25: \nc{\rp}{\right)}
26:
27: \nc{\rme}{{\textrm{e}}}
28:
29: \nc{\markb}{$\clubsuit \Rightarrow $}
30: \nc{\marke}{$ \Leftarrow \clubsuit $}
31: \nc{\markx}{$ \clubsuit !! \clubsuit $}
32: \nc{\markeq}{ \clubsuit !! \clubsuit }
33:
34: \nc{\eq}{{Eq.}}
35: \nc{\eqs}{{Eqs.}}
36:
37:
38: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
39: %% MAIN TEXT
40:
41:
42: \begin{document}
43:
44:
45: \begin{flushright}
46: {\tt MAN/HEP/2006/29}
47: \end{flushright}
48:
49:
50: \begin{center}
51:
52: {\Large\bf Hybrid Inflation Exit through Tunneling}
53:
54: \vskip 1cm
55:
56: Bj\"orn Garbrecht\\
57: {\it
58: School of Physics \& Astronomy,
59: The University of~Manchester,\\
60: Oxford~Road,
61: Manchester M13~9PL, United Kingdom}
62:
63: \vskip .5cm
64:
65:
66:
67: Thomas Konstandin
68: \\{\it
69: Department of Theoretical Physics,
70: Royal Institute of Technology (KTH),\\
71: AlbaNova University Center,
72: Roslagstullsbacken 21,\\
73: 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden}
74:
75: \end{center}
76:
77:
78: \vskip .5cm
79:
80:
81:
82: \begin{abstract}
83: For hybrid inflationary potentials, we derive the tunneling rate from
84: field configurations along the flat direction towards the waterfall regime.
85: This process competes with the classically
86: rolling evolution of the scalar fields and needs to be strongly
87: subdominant for
88: phenomenologically viable models. Tunneling may exclude models with a mass
89: scale below $10^{12}\, {\rm GeV}$, but can be suppressed by small values of the
90: coupling constants. We find that tunneling is negligible for
91: those models, which do not require fine tuning in order to cancel radiative
92: corrections, in particular for GUT-scale SUSY inflation.
93: In contrast, electroweak scale hybrid inflation is not viable,
94: unless the inflaton-waterfall field coupling is smaller than
95: approximately $10^{-11}$.
96: \end{abstract}
97:
98: \section{Introduction}
99:
100: The slow roll paradigm of inflation~\cite{LythRiotto} requires the
101: scalar potential to be flat to such an extent, that the Hubble
102: expansion causes an overdamping of the evolution of the inflaton
103: field. This has the consequence, that the kinetic energy of the
104: inflaton is negligible, and the equation of state of the dominant
105: component of the Universe is approximately the same as for vacuum
106: energy. When realizing slow roll inflation within single field
107: models, one encounters the problem of reconciling the flatness of the
108: potential, its comparably large magnitude and the wish to keep the
109: vacuum expectation value (VEV) of the inflaton below the Planck scale.
110:
111: A possibility to address this problem is the hybrid inflation~\cite{Linde}
112: mechanism, where the slowly rolling inflaton
113: triggers a waterfall field to rapidly roll down the
114: potential and to terminate inflation at some critical point.
115: The direction along which the
116: potential increases towards large values driving inflation and the
117: direction of the slow-roll are therefore separated.
118:
119: When comparing different models of hybrid inflation at the same scale, that is
120: with the same value
121: of the potential, it is clear that in a model which has a flatter
122: direction for the inflaton, a certain comoving scale leaves the horizon
123: when the inflaton is closer to the critical point than in a model with a
124: steeper direction. Imagining the limiting case of a completely flat direction,
125: the classical field dynamics suggest that inflation may last infinitely
126: long with the inflaton being arbitrarily close to the critical point.
127: However, within quantum theory, metastable configurations eventually always
128: decay to the one of lowest energy. We therefore expect that in hybrid
129: inflation, a field configuration along the flat direction may tunnel
130: to form a bubble containing a field configuration in which inflation
131: ends and the scalar fields rapidly assume the true vacuum state.
132: It is the purpose of this study, to estimate this decay rate, compare
133: it to the classical field evolution and to specify for which model
134: parameters tunneling is a non-negligible effect.
135:
136:
137: \section{Tunneling during Inflation}
138:
139: \subsection{Tunneling without Barriers}
140:
141: The semiclassical theory of tunneling for scalar field theory is developed
142: by Coleman and Callan in~\cite{Coleman,CallanColeman}.
143: We consider the Lagrangian
144: %
145: \begin{equation}
146: {\cal L}=\frac 12 (\partial_\mu \varphi)(\partial^\mu\varphi) -V(\varphi)\,,
147: \end{equation}
148: %
149: where the field $\varphi$ is initially located everywhere in space at the point
150: $\varphi_+$, which corresponds to
151: a false vacuum or a classically metastable configuration, and where
152: we normalize $V(\varphi_+)=0$.
153: In order to calculate the decay rate, one proceeds by solving the
154: classical Euclidean equation of motion
155: %
156: \begin{equation}
157: \label{EOM:Eu}
158: \frac{\partial^2\varphi}{\partial \varrho^2}+\frac{3}{\varrho}
159: \frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial \varrho} = V^\prime(\varphi)\,,
160: \end{equation}
161: %
162: where the prime denotes a derivative with respect to $\varphi$. We assume
163: that the solution takes a spherical symmetric form in Euclidean space and
164: write $\varrho=|x|$. In order to understand the properties of the solutions
165: to this equation, it is most useful to recall that it corresponds to
166: the equation of motion for a one-dimensional particle
167: moving in the potential $V(\phi)$ turned upside down and with a friction term
168: $(3/\varrho)(\partial\varphi/\partial\varrho)$, which implies infinite
169: damping at $\varrho=0$ and vanishing damping when $\varrho \to \infty$.
170:
171:
172: The instanton solution, which obeys the boundary condition
173: $\varphi(\infty)=\varphi_+$ is called the bounce, and we denote it by
174: $\overline \varphi(\varrho)$. It uniquely determines a release point
175: $\varphi_{\rm r}$, at which $V(\varphi_{\rm r})<V(\varphi_+)$ and which
176: satisfies $\partial \overline \varphi / \partial \varrho =0$ at
177: $\overline \varphi=\varphi_{\rm r}$ and $\varrho=0$.
178: Physically, $\varphi_{\rm r}$ is the
179: initial value of the scalar field inside a nucleating bubble, from which
180: it starts to evolve classically.
181:
182: Having found the bounce solution, we can compute its Euclidean action
183: %
184: \begin{equation}
185: \label{S:Eu}
186: S_{\rm E}=2 \pi^2 \int\limits_0^\infty \varrho^3 d\varrho
187: \left[\frac 12 \left(\frac{\partial\overline\varphi}{\partial\varrho}\right)^2+V(\overline\varphi)\right]\,,
188: \end{equation}
189: %
190: which is used to obtain the tunneling rate $\Gamma$ per volume ${\cal V}$ as
191: %
192: \begin{equation}
193: \label{tunnelingrate}
194: \frac \Gamma {\cal V} = \frac{S_{\rm E}^2}{4\pi^2}
195: \left(
196: \frac{\det^\prime\left[-\partial^2+V^{\prime\prime}(\overline \varphi)\right]}{\det\left[-\partial^2 + V^{\prime\prime}(\varphi_+)\right]}
197: \right)^{-1/2}{\rm e}^{-S_{\rm E}}\,,
198: \end{equation}
199: %
200: where the prime at the determinant indicates the omission of the zero
201: eigenvalues. The evaluation of the determinants is a quite costly task,
202: and we follow the common
203: practice~\cite{WeinbergLee,LindeTunnel,FelderKofmanLinde} to estimate
204: their
205: values from the parameters of the particular theory under consideration.
206: Indeed, the results we present justify this procedure a posteriori.
207:
208: We intend to apply this theory of tunneling to
209: hybrid inflation, which is implemented by the generic potential~\cite{Linde}
210: %
211: \begin{equation}
212: \label{hybpot}
213: V(\sigma,\phi)= V_0(\sigma,\phi) + V_L(\sigma)
214: = \frac\lambda 4 \phi^4 - \frac{m^2}2 \phi^2
215: + \frac{m^4}{ 4\lambda} + \frac12 g^2 \phi^2 \sigma^2 + V_L(\sigma)\,.
216: \end{equation}
217: %
218: This potential is almost flat with respect to the inflaton
219: $\sigma$ along the direction
220: where $\phi=0$. The flat direction is lifted by the
221: contribution $V_{\rm L}(\sigma)$,
222: where we normalize $V_{\rm L}(0)=0$,
223: which causes $\sigma$ to classically roll down the potential from
224: larger to smaller values. Inflation ends shortly after
225: $\sigma$ reaches the critical value
226: %
227: \begin{equation}
228: \sigma_{\rm c}=\frac mg \,.
229: \end{equation}
230: %
231: At this point, the mass square for the field $\phi$ changes its sign from
232: positive to negative and the inflationary valley turns into a ridge.
233: The field $\phi$ then quickly evolves away from zero
234: and the fields eventually assume the values
235: %
236: \begin{eqnarray}
237: \label{glmin}
238: \sigma_0=0\,,\quad \phi_0= \frac{m}{\sqrt{\lambda}} \,,
239: \end{eqnarray}
240: %
241: where $V(\sigma_0,\phi_0)=0$ and inflation is terminated.
242: Due to the transition from valley to ridge, from which the fields
243: fall, this is called the waterfall
244: mechanism, and we denote the area where $\sigma<\sigma_{\rm c}$ as the
245: waterfall region.
246:
247: Returning to the question of tunneling, we note that
248: the hybrid potential~(\ref{hybpot}) does not have any local minima
249: but the global one~(\ref{glmin}). Therefore, there are no false vacuum
250: configurations possible, and it may appear that the
251: theory of tunneling and bubble nucleation does not play any role for
252: hybrid scenarios. However, as already mentioned in the introduction,
253: we can imagine the case $V_{\rm L}(\sigma)=0$ and wonder whether
254: a configuration with $\sigma>\sigma_{\rm c}$ is stable.
255:
256: Quite similar situations are discussed by Weinberg and Lee~\cite{WeinbergLee},
257: and they point out that a bounce solution can exist in some
258: cases without a potential barrier between the initial point and the
259: global minimum of the potential\footnote{
260: Linde has given an earlier example of upside-down $\phi^4$-theory,
261: where tunneling can occur~\cite{LindeTunnel}. See
262: also~\cite{FelderKofmanLinde}
263: for a more recent related discussion.
264: }.
265: The necessary condition for the existence of a bounce is not the
266: presence of a potential barrier, but of an energy barrier,
267: constituted by the potential and a contribution from the gradient terms
268: of the bubble wall.
269: Therefore, a false vacuum is not required
270: to exist for tunneling to be a relevant process.
271: A very instructive example is given by the potential
272: %
273: \be
274: V(\phi) = \left\{
275: \begin{aligned}
276: 0, \quad &\phi < 0 \\
277: -k\phi \quad & \phi \geq 0 \\
278: \end{aligned}
279: \right.\, .
280: \ee
281: %
282: Classically, if the field is positioned on the plateau at the position
283: $\phi=-\Delta \phi$, the system
284: would be stable, while quantum-mechanically, it turns out to be unstable
285: due to tunneling.
286: The existence of a corresponding bounce solution can be understood from
287: the Euclidean equation of motion~(\ref{EOM:Eu}).
288: If the field is released at rest when $\varrho=0$
289: and $\phi=\phi_{\rm r}>0$, it
290: will accelerate in the upside-down potential until $\phi=0$ and then
291: asymptotically come
292: to rest again at $\phi=-\Delta \phi$ due to the damping term. This
293: bounce solution therefore describes tunneling from the metastable position
294: $\phi=-\Delta \phi$ on the plateau to nucleate a bubble with the
295: vacuum expectation value $\phi=\phi_{\rm r}$ inside. The rate for
296: this to happen is calculated to be~\cite{WeinbergLee}
297: \begin{equation}
298: \label{rateWL}
299: \frac{\Gamma}{\cal V}=
300: C\frac 49 \pi^2 \Delta \phi^4
301: \exp\left(-\frac{32\pi^2}3 \frac{\Delta\phi^3}k \right)
302: \,,
303: \end{equation}
304: where $C$ is a constant of order one, which can in principle be determined
305: by evaluating the determinants in \eq~(\ref{tunnelingrate}).
306: This result is apparently already very useful in order to estimate
307: whether for a given inflationary model,
308: it is in order to worry about tunneling. If the cube of the distance from
309: the region where inflation takes place to some other point of lower potential
310: is of the same order or smaller than the derivative of the potential at
311: that point, the bounce action can be of order one and tunneling sizeable.
312: Similar to this example, for the hybrid potential $V_0$,
313: \eq~(\ref{hybpot}), bounce solutions exist that start in the waterfall
314: region and come at rest on the flat direction where $\phi=0$ and
315: $\sigma>\sigma_c$.
316:
317: One may argue that the potential during inflation is not exactly flat and
318: that therefore the formula~(\ref{rateWL}) for the tunneling rate does
319: not apply. We follow however the argument of Weinberg and Lee,
320: that taking the motion of the inflaton field or the lifting of the flat
321: direction into account will only reduce the action of the tunneling process.
322: For calculating the bubble nucleation rate in the hybrid model,
323: we therefore determine the bounce
324: solution for the potential $V_0$ and neglect the effect of $V_{\rm L}$.
325: This way, we obtain a lower bound for the tunneling probability, which still
326: allows to derive constraints on the parameter space for hybrid inflation.
327:
328: \subsection{Numerical Results}
329:
330: We now determine the bounce action for the hybrid potential~(\ref{hybpot})
331: as a function of the distance of the inflaton from the critical point,
332: \begin{equation}
333: \Delta\sigma=\sigma-\sigma_{\rm c}\,.
334: \end{equation}
335: While it is not possible to find analytic bounce solutions, one can
336: reduce the problem considerably by making use of the scaling properties of
337: the potential.
338: Inspecting the Euclidean equations of motion~(\ref{EOM:Eu})
339: for the hybrid case,
340: \begin{eqnarray}
341: \frac{\partial^2 \sigma}{\partial \varrho^2}
342: +\frac 3\varrho \frac{\partial \sigma}{\partial \varrho}\!\!\!&=&\!\!\!
343: g^2 \phi^2 \sigma\,, \nonumber\\
344: \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial \varrho^2}
345: +\frac 3\varrho \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial \varrho}\!\!\!&=&\!\!\!
346: -m^2 \phi + g^2 \sigma^2 \phi + 4\lambda \phi^3
347: \label{EoMexplicit}
348: \,,
349: \end{eqnarray}
350: we see that they are left invariant under the following rescaling:
351: %
352: \be
353: \lambda \to \lambda \kappa, \quad \rho \to \rho \kappa^{-1/2}, \quad
354: m \to m \kappa^{1/2},\quad g \to g \kappa^{1/2}\,.
355: \ee
356: %
357: The bounce action~(\ref{S:Eu}) then transforms as
358: %
359: \be
360: S_E(\lambda,m,g, \Delta \sigma / \sigma_c) = \lambda^{-1}
361: S_E(1,m/\sqrt{\lambda},g/\sqrt{\lambda}, \Delta \sigma / \sigma_c)\,.
362: \ee
363: %
364: Another rescaling leaving the equations of motion~(\ref{EoMexplicit})
365: invariant is
366: %
367: \be
368: m \to \kappa m, \quad \sigma \to \kappa \sigma,
369: \quad \phi \to \kappa \phi, \quad \rho \to \kappa^{-1} \rho\,.
370: \ee
371: %
372: This reveals that $S_E(\lambda,m,g, \Delta \sigma / \sigma_c)$
373: does not depend on $m$,
374: %
375: \be
376: S_E(\lambda,m,g, \Delta \sigma / \sigma_c)
377: %= \lambda^{-1} S_E(1,m/\sqrt{\lambda},g/\sqrt{\lambda}, \Delta \sigma / \sigma_c)
378: = \lambda^{-1} S_E(1,m_0,g/\sqrt{\lambda}, \Delta \sigma / \sigma_c)
379: =: \lambda^{-1} \chi (g/\sqrt{\lambda}, \Delta \sigma / \sigma_c)\,,
380: \label{SE:para}
381: \ee
382: %
383: where $m_0$ is arbitrary.
384:
385: We now determine the function $\chi$ numerically.
386: In general, finding bounce solutions can be very complicated for multi-dimensional problems, or at least time consuming. Two
387: algorithms, that can be applied to a wide range of problems, have been
388: presented, {\it e.g.} in Refs.~\cite{Konstandin:2006nd, Cline:1999wi}.
389: These algorithms are not immediately applicable to our problem, since
390: they have been designed for the case of tunneling with potential
391: barriers. Fortunately, for two-dimensional problems, one can resort to
392: scan procedures, which we apply here. First, we fix the
393: starting point of the configuration $(\sigma_0, \phi_0)$ and solve the
394: equations of motion by integration. For late times, the solution can behave
395: in two qualitatively different ways.
396: The first possibility is that $\sigma$ always stays
397: smaller than $\sigma_c$, and $\phi$ oscillates around zero. In this case
398: $\sigma_0$ was chosen too small. In the second case, $\sigma$
399: is finally larger than $\sigma_c$ and the upside-down
400: potential is hence unstable
401: in the $\phi$-direction. Depending on the initial point, the
402: configuration then behaves usually as $\phi \to \pm \infty$, when
403: $\rho \to
404: \infty$. These two cases correspond to the 'over-/undershooting'
405: of the one-dimensional problem. Keeping $\phi_0$ fixed, while varying
406: $\sigma_0$ using the 'over-/undershooting' method, leads thus to a
407: bounce solution.
408:
409: In Fig.~\ref{SE_2d}, we plot the function
410: $\chi(g/\sqrt{\lambda}, \Delta \sigma / \sigma_c)$, obtained
411: by the above procedure, for different values of
412: $g/\sqrt{\lambda}$.
413: %
414: \begin{figure}[t]
415: \begin{center}
416: \epsfig{file=chi.eps, width=4.0in} %,width=5.3in}
417: \end{center}
418: \caption{
419: \label{SE_2d}
420: \small
421: The two-dimensional numerical result for the function
422: $\chi(g/\sqrt{\lambda}, \Delta \sigma / \sigma_c)$ for the values
423: $g/\sqrt{\lambda}=\sqrt{2}$ (dashed),
424: $g/\sqrt{\lambda}=1$ (dot-dashed) and
425: $g/\sqrt{\lambda}=1/\sqrt{2}$ (dotted).
426: }
427: \end{figure}
428: %
429: The results show for small $\Delta \sigma\ll m g/\lambda$ a scaling according
430: to $g^{-2} \Delta\sigma$, which we explain below.
431: The numerical coefficient turns out to be
432: %
433: \be
434: \label{SE:2d}
435: S_{\rm E} \approx 158 \times \frac{\Delta \sigma}{\sigma_c} \frac{1}{g^2}.
436: \ee
437: %
438:
439: To ensure this scaling behaviour even for very small values for the
440: coupling constants, we will give an analytical upper bound for the
441: Euclidean action in the following. With above insights, we can proceed
442: with further simplifications of the problem. Sizeable tunneling may
443: only occur when the inflaton $\sigma$ is close to its critical value,
444: {\it cf.} Fig.~\ref{SE_2d}.
445: %which we will show is indeed the case.
446: Therefore, we assume
447: %
448: \be
449: \label{assume1}
450: \Delta\sigma \ll \sigma_{\rm c}.
451: \ee
452: %
453: In order to obtain a lower bound on the tunneling rate, we impose the
454: instanton to follow a straight trajectory in $(\sigma,\phi)$ space.
455: The exact solution along a curved trajectory has a lower Euclidean
456: action and therefore corresponds to a larger tunneling rate.
457: The trajectory is parameterized by
458: %
459: \begin{eqnarray}
460: \phi&=&aw\nonumber\,,\\
461: \sigma&=&\Delta\sigma+\frac mg - \sqrt{1-a^2}w\,,
462: \end{eqnarray}
463: %
464: where $a\in[0;1]$ is a free parameter that will be determined by
465: minimizing the action. Along this trajectory, the
466: potential~(\ref{hybpot}) close to the critical point takes the form
467: %
468: \begin{equation}
469: \label{V:approx}
470: V=\frac 14 \frac{m^4}{\lambda}-a^2 \sqrt{1-a^2}gmw^3+a^2gm\Delta\sigma w^2
471: +O\left(w^2\Delta \sigma^2,\;w^4\right)
472: \,.
473: \end{equation}
474: %
475: We now determine the value of the parameter $a$, for which the Euclidean bounce
476: action is minimal. For that purpose, we consider the potential
477: %
478: \begin{equation}
479: V=-\alpha w^3 +\beta w^2\,.
480: \end{equation}
481: %
482: By rescaling arguments, one obtains that
483: the corresponding action has to scale as
484: %
485: \be
486: S_{\rm E} \sim \frac{\beta}{\alpha^2} \sim \frac{\Delta \sigma}{ m \, g}
487: \times \frac1{a^2(1-a^2)}
488: \ee
489: %
490: and is minimized for $a=1/\sqrt{2}$. This explains the scaling behaviour for
491: small $\Delta \sigma$ observed in~(\ref{SE:2d}).
492: The comparison with
493: \eq~(\ref{SE:para}) yields for the linearized case
494: %
495: \bea
496: S_E &\sim& \quad \frac{\Delta \sigma}{\sigma_c} \frac{1}{g^2}\,, \\
497: \chi (g/\sqrt{\lambda}, \Delta \sigma / \sigma_c)
498: &\sim& \lp\frac{g}{\sqrt{\lambda}}\rp^{-2} \times \frac{\Delta \sigma}{\sigma_c}\,.
499: %, \quad \frac{\Delta \sigma}{\sigma_c} \frac{\lambda}{g^2} \ll 1\,.
500: \eea
501: %
502: For the choice $a=1/\sqrt 2$,
503: neglecting the $w^4$ terms in the approximated linearized
504: potential~(\ref{V:approx}) is justified when
505: %
506: \be
507: \label{assume2}
508: w\ll \sqrt{32} \sigma_{\rm c} \frac{g^2}{\lambda}\,,
509: \ee
510: %where we assume $g \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 1$, $\lambda \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 1$,
511: and the $w^2\Delta\sigma^2$ terms are subdominant if
512: %
513: \be
514: \label{assume3}
515: \Delta\sigma \ll 2 \sigma_{\rm c}\,.
516: \ee
517: %
518: Numerically, we find for the constant of
519: proportionality
520: \be
521: \label{SENum}
522: S_{\rm E}= 182\times \frac{\Delta \sigma}{\sigma_c} \frac{1}{g^2}\,,
523: \ee
524: where the larger factor of proportionality when compared with~(\ref{SE:2d}) is
525: due to the fact that we are restricted to the linear path and therefore
526: miss the minimum of the Euclidean action in the two-dimensional field space.
527: We also note that the point $w_{\rm r}$, from which the field $w$
528: in the bounce solution is released, scales according to
529: %
530: \begin{equation}
531: \label{wr}
532: w_{\rm r}=
533: 8.2 \times \frac{\Delta\sigma}{\sigma_{\rm c}}\frac mg
534: =8.2 \times \Delta \sigma\,.
535: \end{equation}
536: %
537: Notice that a small Euclidean action, $S_{\rm E} \ll 1$, automatically
538: ensures the requirements in \eqs~(\ref{assume2}) and (\ref{assume3})
539: and hence the validity of the approximation in \eq~(\ref{V:approx}),
540: if $g,\lambda < 1$.
541:
542: Finally, when assuming
543: $m$ to be of order of the Grand Unified Scale $10^{16}\,{\rm GeV}$ or less,
544: all scales in the problem are larger than the Hubble rate\footnote{
545: The displacement $\Delta \sigma$ exceeds the Hubble rate as a consequence
546: of imposing the small observed value~(\ref{SPRnum}) on the
547: the amplitude of the scalar perturbations~(\ref{SPR}).
548: }
549: \begin{equation}
550: \label{Hubble}
551: H=\sqrt{\frac{8\pi V}{3 m_{\rm Pl}^2}}\,,
552: \end{equation}
553: where $m_{\rm Pl}=1.22 \times 10^{19} \,{\rm GeV}$ denotes the Planck mass,
554: such that
555: gravitational effects can be neglected~\cite{ColemanDeLuccia}.
556:
557:
558:
559: \section{Bounds on Specific Models}
560:
561: We estimate the relevant values for $\Delta \sigma$ using
562: the standard slow-roll dynamics of the inflaton.
563: When the expectation value of the inflaton,
564: at a certain instant during inflation, takes the value
565: $\sigma=\sigma_{\rm e}$, the number of e-foldings $N_{\rm e}$ that will
566: elapse until inflation ends is calculated as
567: %
568: \begin{equation}
569: \label{Ne}
570: N_{\rm e}=\int\limits_{\sigma_{\rm e}}^{\sigma_{\rm c}} H\,dt
571: =\frac{8\pi}{m_{\rm Pl}^2}V \int\limits_{\sigma_{\rm c}}^{\sigma_{\rm e}}
572: \frac{d\sigma}{\partial V/\partial \sigma}\,,
573: \end{equation}
574: %
575: where we have used the slow-roll approximation
576: $3H \partial \sigma / \partial t =-\partial V /\partial \sigma$.
577: One important observational constraint is the amplitude $\sqrt{P_{\cal R}}$
578: of the power spectrum of scalar perturbations
579: for the scale $k$, that exits the horizon when
580: $\sigma=\sigma_{\rm e}$,
581: %
582: \begin{equation}
583: \label{SPR}
584: \sqrt{P_{\cal R}}=\sqrt\frac \pi 6 \frac {16}{m_{\rm Pl}^3}
585: \frac{V^{3/2}}{\partial V / \partial \sigma}\,\Bigg|_{\sigma=\sigma_{\rm e}}\,.
586: \end{equation}
587: %
588: Here, we impose the normalization~\cite{WMAP3}
589: %
590: \begin{equation}
591: \label{SPRnum}
592: \sqrt{P_{\cal R}}=4.5 \times 10^{-5}
593: \end{equation}
594: %
595: at $k=0.05 \, {\rm Mpc^{-1}}$.
596: This scale exits the horizon at
597: %
598: \begin{equation}
599: N_{\rm e}=50+\frac 13 \log_{10} \frac{T_{\rm R}}{10^9 \, {\rm GeV}}
600: +\frac 23 \log_{10} \frac{V^{1/4}}{10^{15} \, {\rm GeV}}
601: \,.
602: \end{equation}
603: %
604: Since $k=0.05 \, {\rm Mpc^{-1}}$ corresponds to multipole moments around
605: $\ell=700$, the largest angular observable scales have exited the horizon
606: about six to seven e-folds earlier.
607:
608: A very conservative estimate for $\Delta \sigma$ and therefore the tunneling
609: rate is therefore obtained by setting $N_{\rm e}=60$ and
610: %
611: \begin{equation}
612: \Delta \sigma = \sigma_{\rm e}-\sigma_{\rm c}\,.
613: \end{equation}
614: %
615: We use this value to compute the Euclidean action~(\ref{SENum}) and to
616: estimate the tunneling rate~(\ref{tunnelingrate}). The latter is to be compared
617: with the expansion rate during inflation $H$, {\it e.g.} the number
618: of non-inflationary bubbles nucleated per expansion time in one horizon
619: is given by $\Gamma/({\cal V}H^4)$ and should be much less than one. An
620: interesting, but difficult question would be to quantify how much less.
621: Due to the exponentially strong dependence of the tunneling rate on
622: the model parameters, we omit a discussion of this question by the
623: same token on which we do not evaluate the determinants in
624: \eq~(\ref{tunnelingrate}).
625:
626: We furthermore remark that it appears very likely that for viable
627: inflationary models,
628: one has to impose that tunneling also does not occur at much lower values of
629: $N_{\rm e}$ than 60.
630: The nucleation of non-inflationary bubbles would lead to very
631: large density perturbations on small scales, which induce the production
632: of primordial black holes~\cite{Carr}, which is strongly constrained
633: observationally~\cite{GreenLiddle}. We do not discuss this possibility here
634: any further and just explore the conservative bound.
635:
636: \subsection{Blue Model -- Quadratically Lifted Flat Direction}\label{ModBlue}
637:
638: In the seminal work~\cite{Linde}, hybrid inflation is implemented by a
639: quadratically lifted
640: flat direction, through the effective potential
641: \begin{equation}
642: \label{VL:blue}
643: V_{\rm L}(\sigma)=\frac 12 m_\sigma^2 \sigma^2\,.
644: \end{equation}
645: Due to the positive curvature of the potential along the flat direction,
646: the scalar perturbations are predicted to be blue tilted, which is
647: characterized by a scalar spectral index $n_{\rm s}>1$.
648: Using~(\ref{Ne}) and the basic potential~(\ref{hybpot}), we can solve for
649: \begin{equation}
650: \label{se:blue}
651: \sigma_{\rm e}=\frac mg
652: \exp\left\{\frac{\lambda}{2\pi} \frac{m_{\rm Pl}^2 m_\sigma^2}{m^4} N_{\rm e}\right\}
653: \,,
654: \end{equation}
655: while the amplitude of the power spectrum~(\ref{SPR}) is given by
656: \begin{equation}
657: \sqrt{P_{\cal R}}=
658: \sqrt{\frac 23 \pi} \frac{g m^5}{\lambda^{3/2}m_{\rm Pl}^3 m_\sigma^2}\,.
659: \end{equation}
660:
661: The latter two equations can be solved for $m_\sigma$ and $\sigma_{\rm e}$
662: by assuming that the exponent in~(\ref{se:blue}) is small,
663: approximating $\sigma_{\rm e}\approx \sigma_{\rm c}$, and justifying this
664: a posteriori.
665: We find
666: \begin{equation}
667: \label{msblue}
668: m_\sigma^2 =\frac{g}{\lambda^{3/2}}
669: \sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{3 P_{\cal R}}}
670: \frac{m^5}{m_{\rm Pl}^3}\,,
671: \end{equation}
672: and
673: \begin{equation}
674: \label{seblue}
675: \sigma_{\rm e}=\frac mg
676: \exp\left\{\frac{g}{\sqrt{6\pi\lambda P_{\cal R}}}\frac m{m_{\rm Pl}} N_{\rm e}
677: \right\}\,,
678: \end{equation}
679: such that
680: \begin{equation}
681: \label{Deltasblue}
682: \Delta \sigma\approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{6\pi\lambda P_{\cal R}}}\frac {m^2}{m_{\rm Pl}} N_{\rm e}
683: \end{equation}
684: Inserting these into~(\ref{SENum}) and using~(\ref{SPRnum}) yields
685: \begin{equation}
686: \label{SEblue}
687: S_{\rm E}=\frac{42}{g\sqrt{\lambda P_{\cal R}}}\frac{m}{m_{\rm Pl}}N_{\rm e}
688: =\frac{9.3\times 10^5}{g\sqrt{\lambda}}\frac{m}{m_{\rm Pl}}N_{\rm e} \,.
689: \end{equation}
690: %Finally, setting
691: %$N_{\rm e}=60$ and using~(\ref{SPRnum})leads to
692: %\begin{equation}
693: %\frac 1{S_{\rm E}}\frac 1{g\sqrt\lambda}\frac{m}{m_{\rm Pl}} =
694: %4.2 \times 10^{-8}\,.
695: %\end{equation}
696:
697: We now discuss the self-consistency of the above results. For the
698: approximation of the potential $V$
699: by expression~(\ref{V:approx}) to be valid for the bounce solution,
700: we have to fulfill the relation~(\ref{assume2}) with $w=w_{\rm r}$.
701: Using~(\ref{wr}) and~(\ref{Deltasblue}) with
702: $N_{\rm e}=60$, we find the bound
703: \begin{equation}
704: \label{scboundblue}
705: m\ll 2.2\times 10^{-6} \frac g{\sqrt{\lambda}} m_{\rm Pl}\,.
706: \end{equation}
707: This condition also ensures the validity of the assumption
708: $\Delta\sigma\ll \sigma_{\rm c}$, in particular that the exponent
709: in~(\ref{seblue}) is much smaller than one.
710:
711: \begin{figure}[htbp]
712: \begin{center}
713: \epsfig{file=htplot.ps, height=3.2in %,width=5.3in
714: }
715: \end{center}
716: \caption{
717: \label{figureblue}
718: \small
719: Hubble expansion {\it vs.} tunneling decay in the blue model. The plot shows
720: $\log_{10} R$ for $R=H^4$ (solid) and $R=\Gamma/{\cal V}$ for $g=0.5$ (dashed),
721: $g=5\times 10^{-6}$ (dot-dashed) and $g=5\times 10^{-12}$ (dotted). We have
722: chosen $\lambda=0.5$.
723: }
724: \vskip -0.in
725: \end{figure}
726:
727: % \begin{figure}[htbp]
728: % \begin{center}
729: % \epsfig{file=figs/htplred.ps, height=3.2in %,width=5.3in
730: % }
731: % \end{center}
732: % \caption{
733: % \label{figurered}
734: % \small
735: % Hubble expansion {\it vs.} tunneling decay in the red model.
736: % $\log_{10} R$ for $R=H^4$ (solid) and $R=\Gamma/{\cal V}$ for $g=0.5$ (dashed),
737: % $g=5\times 10^{-6}$ (dot-dashed) and $g=5\times 10^{-12}$ (dotted). We have
738: % chosen $\lambda=0.5$.
739: % }
740: % \vskip -0.in
741: % \end{figure}
742:
743: In order to summarize these results, we present Fig.~\ref{figureblue}.
744: A reasonable estimate of the tunneling rate is given by
745: \begin{equation}
746: \frac{\Gamma}{\cal V}=\frac{S_{\rm E}^2}{4\pi^2}g^4 m^4{\rm e}^{-S_{\rm E}},
747: \end{equation}
748: since $g m$ is the smallest dimensionful scale occurring in the approximate
749: potential~(\ref{V:approx}).
750: We compare the decay rate with the Hubble rate~(\ref{Hubble}),
751: since $(\Gamma/{\cal V})/H^4$ is the number of bubbles nucleating in one Hubble
752: time within a Hubble volume.
753: Note that for the range of $m$ for the individual graphs
754: of $\Gamma/{\cal V}$ in Fig.~\ref{figureblue},
755: the consistency condition~(\ref{scboundblue}) is met.
756: The wide range of orders of magnitude
757: covered relativizes the importance of the
758: prefactor of the exponential in the expression for $\Gamma/{\cal V}$,
759: in particular the determinants in
760: \eq~(\ref{tunnelingrate}). Also the precise bound on the tunneling rate
761: loses importance due to its strong dependence on
762: $m$ after it has reached is maximum. As a conservative requirement,
763: we may impose $(\Gamma/{\cal V})<H^4$. A bound which is stronger by a few
764: orders of magnitude might be in order to accord with observation, but has
765: no significant impact on the tunneling bound on $m$.
766:
767: % For an inflaton-waterfall coupling $g=0.5$,
768: % tunneling appears to be important for $m$ below $10^{14}\,{\rm GeV}$.
769: % However, this is in conflict with the bound~(\ref{phi0boundblue}), such that
770: % a reliable statement that tunneling will cause a problem can only be made
771: % for $m \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}5\times10^{12}\,{\rm GeV}$. Tunneling is also
772: % suppressed for smaller values of $g$.
773:
774: An important implication to be read off from Fig.~(\ref{figureblue}) is that
775: for the TeV-scale as
776: a special scale of interest, $g$ has to be smaller than at most $10^{-11}$
777: in order to avoid a fast end of inflation through tunneling, provided
778: $\lambda$ is of order one. Besides
779: by suppressing $g$, we see from \eq~(\ref{SEblue}), that also small
780: values of $\lambda$ serve to suppress the tunneling rate. Choosing this
781: option however leads to expectation values for $\phi$ after inflation
782: and $\sigma$ during inflation, which are much larger than $m$. If one considers
783: $m$ as a cutoff scale or to be closely related to a cutoff scale of an
784: effective theory, this
785: is undesirable.
786:
787: As a curiosity, we note that we rule out a particular choice of
788: parameters used as an example in the original work on hybrid
789: inflation~\cite{Linde},
790: $m=1.3\times 10^{11} \, {\rm GeV}$, $g^2=\lambda =0.1$. In this case,
791: $\Gamma/{\cal V}=1.3\times 10^{33}\, {\rm GeV}^4$,
792: whereas $H^4=1.7\times 10^{14} \,{\rm GeV}^4$, indicating that
793: $\Gamma/({\cal V} H^4)=7.6\times 10^{18}$ non-inflationary bubbles are
794: nucleated during one expansion time within a horizon.
795:
796:
797: \subsection{Red Model}
798:
799: \label{secRedModel}
800:
801: Since the WMAP3 data strongly prefers a red-tilted scalar spectral index
802: $n_{\rm s}$, with the best-fit value given by
803: $n_{\rm s}\approx 0.95$~\cite{WMAP3}, we also study models with
804: a negative curvature along the flat direction.
805: A simple possible realization of these is given by
806: \begin{equation}
807: \label{VL:red}
808: V_{\rm L}=A^3 \sigma - \frac 12 m_\sigma^2 \sigma^2\,.
809: \end{equation}
810: During inflation, the inflaton takes values in between $\sigma_{\rm c}$
811: and the maximum of $V_{\rm L}$, which is located at
812: $\sigma=A^3/m_\sigma^2$. This translates into the requirement
813: \begin{equation}
814: \frac mg < \frac{A^3}{m_\sigma^2}\,.
815: \end{equation}
816:
817: Note that this model has an additional parameter when compared with the
818: quadratically lifted model, which is fixed by imposing the value of
819: the spectral
820: index of the scalar perturbations $n_{\rm s}=0.95$
821: as an additional constraint. It is calculated through
822: the slow-roll parameter $\eta$ as
823: \begin{equation}
824: n_{\rm s}=1+2\eta\,,
825: \end{equation}
826: where
827: \begin{equation}
828: \eta=\frac{m_{\rm Pl}^2}{8\pi} \frac{\partial^2 V/\partial \sigma^2}{V}\,.
829: \end{equation}
830:
831: Imposing the spectral index constraint together with equations~(\ref{Ne})
832: and~(\ref{SPR}), we find the relations
833: \begin{eqnarray}
834: \label{msred}
835: m_\sigma^2&=&-\eta \frac{2\pi}{\lambda}\frac{m^4}{m_{\rm Pl}^2}\,,\\
836: A^3&=&- \frac{2\pi \eta}{g \lambda}\frac{m^5}{m_{\rm Pl}^2}
837: +\sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{3 P_{\cal R}}}\lambda^{-3/2}
838: \frac{m^6}{m_{\rm Pl}^3}{\rm e}^{-\eta N_{\rm e}}\,,\\
839: \sigma_{\rm e}&=&\frac mg +
840: \frac{1-\exp\{-\eta N_{\rm e}\}}{\eta \sqrt{6\pi \lambda P_{\cal R}}}
841: \frac{m^2}{m_{\rm Pl}}\,.
842: \end{eqnarray}
843:
844: With the numerical result for the Euclidean action~(\ref{SENum})
845: and the power spectrum normalization~(\ref{SPRnum}), this gives
846: \begin{equation}
847: S_{\rm E}=\frac{42}{\eta g \sqrt{\lambda P_{\cal R}}}
848: \left(1-\exp\{-\eta N_{\rm e}\}\right)\frac{m}{m_{\rm Pl}}
849: =\frac{9.3\times 10^5}{\eta g \sqrt{\lambda}}
850: \left(1-\exp\{-\eta N_{\rm e}\}\right)\frac{m}{m_{\rm Pl}}
851: \,,
852: \end{equation}
853: and, when additionally imposing $N_{\rm e}=60$, $\eta=-0.025$,
854: \begin{equation}
855: \label{SEred}
856: S_{\rm E}=\frac{1.3\times 10^8\, m}{g\sqrt{\lambda}m_{\rm Pl}}\,.
857: \end{equation}
858: The consistency condition~(\ref{assume2}) with $w=w_{\rm r}$
859: %and $N_{\rm e}=60$
860: for our approximation is fulfilled when
861: \begin{equation}
862: m \ll 9.7\times 10^{-7} \frac g{\sqrt{\lambda}} m_{\rm Pl}\,.
863: \end{equation}
864:
865: Again, we have found that tunneling is preferred for large couplings
866: $\lambda$ and $g$ and small values for the mass parameter $m$, where the
867: small ratio to the Planck scale is imposed by the small amplitude
868: of density perturbations.
869: Comparison of the Euclidean actions for the blue model~(\ref{SEblue})
870: and the red~(\ref{SEred}) with $N_{\rm e}=60$ shows that both differ
871: only by a proportionality factor which is irrelevant with respect to
872: the level of our approximation. The figure for the blue model
873: is therefore almost indistinguishable for the eye when compared
874: to Fig.~\ref{figureblue} for the red model, which is why it is omitted here.
875:
876: We note that for the above models, one should bear in mind that
877: in order to obtain the effective potentials~(\ref{VL:blue}) and~(\ref{VL:red})
878: in the parametric range which allows for tunneling decay,
879: one has to require a more than substantial amount of
880: tuning. For hybrid inflation at the Electroweak scale, this is discussed
881: in~\cite{Lyth,CoLyRaTr}.
882: The one-loop correction to the tree-level hybrid
883: potential~(\ref{hybpot}) is given by
884: \begin{equation}
885: \label{V1loop}
886: V_{1-{\rm loop}}=\frac 1{64\pi^2} \left(m^2 -g^2 \sigma^2\right)^2
887: \log \frac{g^2 \sigma^2 -m^2}{\Lambda^2}\,,
888: \end{equation}
889: where $\Lambda$ is an ultraviolet cutoff. Suppose now, we choose the
890: renormalizable counterterms, which are the terms up to fourth order in
891: $\sigma$,
892: in such a way that for $\sigma=\sigma_{\rm e}$,
893: we have the desired values for $m_\sigma$ and $A$, while the cubic and quartic
894: self-couplings cancel to zero. When now expanding the potential around
895: $\sigma_{\rm e}$ down to values of
896: $\sigma \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} \sigma_{\rm c}$, the
897: nonrenormalizable fifth order term, which we
898: did not eliminate, induces an additional mass for the field $\sigma$ of
899: order $g m$. This is to be compared with $m_\sigma$ as in~(\ref{msblue})
900: or~(\ref{msred}). In order for the quantum correction to be subdominant,
901: one therefore has to require $g\ll m^3/m_{ \rm Pl}^3$ (blue) or
902: $g\ll m^2/m_{ \rm Pl}^2$ (red), respectively.
903: Comparing with Fig.~\ref{figureblue}, it is easy to see that tunneling does not
904: play any role within hybrid models which do not require the fine-tuning
905: of nonrenormalizable operators.
906: This reasoning already strongly indicates that the supersymmetric
907: scenarios with radiatively lifted flat directions
908: do not suffer from tunneling either, as we shall see explicitly
909: in the next section, number~\ref{SUSYhybrid}.
910:
911: The above study shows that inflation exit via tunneling is mostly
912: relevant for inflation models with an energy scale below the GUT scale
913: and especially for the intriguing case of models
914: where inflation is connected to electroweak physics and therefore
915: within experimental reach. In fact, a hybrid model has been suggested
916: where the role of the waterfall field $\phi$ is played by the Standard Model
917: Higgs field, such that the field content only needs to be extended by the
918: inflaton singlet $\sigma$~\cite{GaGrKuSh,KraussTrodden}.
919: Since these models apparently also bear the
920: potential for successful baryogenesis, the enormous fine
921: tuning of the potential may be considered worth the price for a minimal
922: field content. However, our analysis shows that for the desired
923: parameters $m/ \sqrt{\lambda} = 246 \, {\rm GeV}$, and the
924: couplings $g,\;\lambda={\cal O}(1)$ in order
925: to allow for strong pre- or reheating,
926: a rapid decay via tunneling is inevitable, such that the electroweak hybrid
927: models are not viable, even if fine tuned.
928:
929: Another motivation for contemplating low scales of inflation originates
930: from models
931: explaining the hierarchy between the Planck scale and a fundamental unified
932: scale by the presence of large extra dimensions. Inflation then has
933: to take place at energies below the unified scale.
934: Kaloper and Linde~\cite{KaloperLinde} point out that hybrid inflation is
935: a possible way to keep the vacuum expectation value of the scalar fields in the
936: effective four-dimensional potential for inflation below the fundamental scale.
937: While they agree with Lyth on the view that when inflation occurs at the
938: Electroweak scale,
939: one faces a severe fine tuning problem, they conclude that models with
940: $M\sim 10^{11} \,{\rm GeV}$, $g^2=\lambda=0.1$ fit perfectly
941: in the hybrid scenario, somewhat in contradiction with our estimate
942: $g\ll m^3/m_{ \rm Pl}^3$. Note also our comment on the tunneling rate
943: for this parametric range at the end of section~\ref{ModBlue}.
944:
945:
946: \subsection{SUSY Hybrid Inflation}
947: \label{SUSYhybrid}
948:
949: From the general arguments on the irrelevance of the tunneling rate
950: within our approximation for models without fine-tuning of nonrenormalizable
951: operators, it is already clear that tunneling does not play a role
952: in SUSY-hybrid inflation~\cite{Copeland:1994vg,Dvali:1994ms}. These models
953: are however of special interest since they rely on rather minimal assumptions
954: and in their simplest version depend only on a single parameter
955: $\kappa$~\cite{Senoguz:2003zw},
956: which can be determined~\cite{Battye:2006pk} from the latest observational
957: data~\cite{WMAP3}~\footnote{Before the WMAP3 data became available, only an
958: upper bound on $\kappa$ could be given.}.
959: They furthermore bear the potential of
960: a successful embedding of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model in
961: an inflationary scenario, possibly linked to a Grand Unified
962: Theory~\cite{Dvali:1994ms,Kyae:2005vg,Garbrecht:2005rr,Garbrecht:2006ft}.
963: Due to the importance of these models,
964: we derive here an expression for the Euclidean bounce action $S_{\rm E}$,
965: although it will be large and prohibit tunneling.
966:
967: $F$-term SUSY hybrid inflation is implemented by the superpotential
968: \begin{equation}
969: W=\kappa S \left(G \overline G -M^2\right)\,,
970: \end{equation}
971: which leads to the tree-level scalar potential
972: \begin{equation}
973: \label{VSUSY}
974: V=\kappa^2|G\overline G -M^2|^2+\kappa^2|S G|^2+\kappa^2 |S \overline G|^2
975: \,.
976: \end{equation}
977: The involved fields are complex, where $S$ is a singlet, $G$ a gauged
978: multiplet of
979: dimension ${\cal N}$ and $\overline G$ its conjugate. Vanishing of the
980: $D$-terms relates the vacuum expectation values
981: $\langle G\rangle =\langle \overline G\rangle^*$.
982:
983: We choose the phase of $S$ to be zero and identify
984: \begin{equation}
985: \sigma=\sqrt 2 {\rm Re}[S]\,.
986: \end{equation}
987: Likewise, by a unitary gauge choice, such that
988: $\langle {\rm Re}[G^i] \rangle =\langle |G| \rangle$, we can set
989: \begin{equation}
990: \phi=\sqrt 2 {\rm Re}[G^i]\,.
991: \end{equation}
992: In terms of these fields, the potential~(\ref{VSUSY}) reads
993: \begin{equation}
994: V=\kappa^2 M^4 - \kappa^2 M^2 \phi^2 +\frac 14 \kappa^2 \phi^4
995: +\frac 12 \kappa^2 \sigma^2 \phi^2\,.
996: \end{equation}
997: This is a special case of the more general potential~(\ref{hybpot})
998: with the replacements
999: \begin{eqnarray}
1000: m^2 &=& 2\kappa^2 M^2\,,\nonumber\\
1001: g &=& \kappa\,,\nonumber\\
1002: \lambda &=& \kappa^2\,.
1003: \end{eqnarray}
1004: The lifting of the flat direction is then induced
1005: by the Coleman-Weinberg potential~\cite{Dvali:1994ms,Garbrecht:2006ft}
1006: \begin{eqnarray}
1007: V_{\rm L}&=&\frac{\cal N}{32 \pi^2}\kappa^4
1008: \left\{
1009: \left(\frac{\sigma^2}{2}+M^2\right)^2
1010: \log\left( \kappa^2 \frac{\frac 12 \sigma^2 +M^2}{\Lambda^2}\right)
1011: +\left(\frac{\sigma^2}{2}-M^2\right)^2
1012: \log\left( \kappa^2 \frac{\frac 12 \sigma^2 -M^2}{\Lambda^2}\right)
1013: \right.
1014: \nonumber\\
1015: &&
1016: \left.
1017: -\frac 12 \sigma^4 \log\left(\kappa^2 \frac 12 \frac{\sigma^2}{\Lambda^2}\right)
1018: \right\}
1019: \,.
1020: \end{eqnarray}
1021:
1022: We consider again the situation where $\sigma$ is close to the critical
1023: point, such that we can approximate
1024: %
1025: \begin{equation}
1026: \frac{\partial V_{\rm L}}{\partial \sigma}
1027: \approx
1028: \sqrt 2 \log 2 \frac{\cal N}{8\pi^2}\kappa^4 M^3 + O(M^2 \Delta \sigma)\,,
1029: \end{equation}
1030: %
1031: where the critical point is at $\sigma=\sigma_{\rm c}=\sqrt 2 M$ and
1032: $\Delta \sigma =\sigma -\sigma_c$.
1033: Within this approximation, the number of e-folds~(\ref{Ne}) is
1034: %
1035: \begin{equation}
1036: N_{\rm e}= \frac{64 \pi^3}{\sqrt 2 \log 2}
1037: \frac{M \Delta \sigma}{\kappa^2 {\cal N} m_{\rm Pl}^2}\,.
1038: \end{equation}
1039: %
1040: Imposing the normalization of the power spectrum~(\ref{SPR}),
1041: we get a relation between $\kappa$ and $M$,
1042: %
1043: \begin{equation}
1044: M=\kappa^{1/3}\left(\frac{\sqrt{3\,P_{\cal R}} \, {\cal N} \log 2}{\pi^{5/2}}\right)^{1/3}
1045: \frac{m_{\rm Pl}}4\,,
1046: \end{equation}
1047: %
1048: such that we can derive
1049: %
1050: \begin{eqnarray}
1051: \Delta \sigma = (\log 2)^{1/3} 2^{-3/2} 3^{-1/3} \pi^{-4/3}
1052: \kappa^{4/3} \left(\sqrt{P_{\cal R}}\right)^{-2/3} M {\cal N}^{1/3} N_{\rm e}\,.
1053: \end{eqnarray}
1054: %
1055: Using~(\ref{SENum}), we find for the Euclidean tunneling action
1056: %
1057: \begin{equation}
1058: S_{\rm E}=6.1 \left(\kappa \sqrt{P_{\cal R}}\right)^{-2/3} {\cal N}^{1/3} N_{\rm e}
1059: =4800 \kappa^{-2/3}{\cal N}^{1/3} N_{\rm e}\,.
1060: \end{equation}
1061: %
1062: Tunneling therefore does not occur within $F$-term SUSY-hybrid inflation.
1063:
1064: We have also performed a corresponding study for the $D$-term
1065: model~\cite{Halyo:1996pp,Binetruy:1996xj},
1066: which is more involved due to the additional parametric dependence on the
1067: gauge coupling constant. However, as one can already anticipate from
1068: the general arguments about radiative corrections and tunneling given at
1069: the end of section~\ref{secRedModel}, we find that tunneling is also very
1070: suppressed in these scenarios. We therefore omit a detailed presentation
1071: of the derivation of this negative result.
1072:
1073: \section{Conclusions}
1074:
1075: Imposing the normalization of the scalar perturbation
1076: spectrum~(\ref{SPR}), it is possible to estimate for generic
1077: models of hybrid inflation the range of parameters where tunneling
1078: dominates over the slow-roll evolution of the inflaton fields.
1079: In order to calculate the Euclidean action $S_{\rm E}$, we have assumed
1080: that the bounce solution follows a straight trajectory in the field space
1081: spanned by the inflaton and the waterfall field. We have
1082: numerically obtained the action for a particular set of parameters and
1083: then used its scaling properties
1084: in order to calculate the tunneling rates
1085: in parametric regions of small couplings and small field values,
1086: which are difficult to access numerically. This result is expressed in
1087: \eq~(\ref{SENum}), which we have used to derive constraints
1088: on hybrid inflation, arising from the requirement that tunneling should
1089: be suppressed. The consistency of our approach is
1090: verified by a comparison with the numerically determined results for the
1091: bounce action along the curved extremal path in two-dimensional
1092: field space.
1093:
1094: Our results are best summarized by the formulas~(\ref{SEblue}), (\ref{SEred})
1095: and by Fig.~\ref{figureblue}. Tunneling may play a role for models with
1096: a mass below $10^{12}\,{\rm GeV}$, but can effectively be suppressed by
1097: small values of the inflaton-waterfall coupling $g$ and the
1098: waterfall self coupling $\lambda$, which in turn imply large expectation
1099: values of the inflaton field during inflation or the waterfall field after
1100: its end.
1101:
1102: Provided one does not allow for the fine-tuning of nonrenormalizable operators,
1103: tunneling never constitutes a problem. In particular, one cannot
1104: derive any tunneling bounds on the parameters of $F$- or $D$-term SUSY
1105: models.
1106: In contrast, models of electroweak hybrid inflation, which need coupling
1107: constants of order one for a sufficient reheating of the Universe but require
1108: fine-tuning, are completely ruled out since the inflaton would rapidly decay
1109: through bubble nucleation.
1110: Leaving alone the issue of
1111: stability of the inflaton potential with respect
1112: to radiative corrections, tunneling decay prohibits
1113: the realization of hybrid inflation when the vacuum
1114: energy and all field expectation values are required to be at scales
1115: below $10^{12}\,{\rm GeV}$.
1116:
1117: \section*{Acknowledgements}
1118:
1119: T.K. would like to thank Tommy Ohlsson and Malcolm Fairbairn for useful
1120: discussions. T.K. is supported by the Swedish Research Council
1121: (Vetenskapsr{\aa}det), Contract No.~621-2001-1611.
1122:
1123:
1124: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
1125:
1126: \bibitem{LythRiotto}
1127: See \emph{e.g.}
1128: D.~H.~Lyth and A.~Riotto,
1129: ``Particle physics models of inflation and the cosmological density
1130: perturbation,''
1131: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 314} (1999) 1
1132: [arXiv:hep-ph/9807278].
1133: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807278;%%
1134:
1135: \bibitem{Linde}
1136: A.~D.~Linde,
1137: ``Axions in inflationary cosmology,''
1138: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 259} (1991) 38;
1139: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B259,38;%%
1140: A.~D.~Linde,
1141: ``Hybrid inflation,''
1142: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49} (1994) 748
1143: [arXiv:astro-ph/9307002].
1144: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9307002;%%
1145:
1146: \bibitem{Coleman}
1147: S.~R.~Coleman,
1148: ``The Fate Of The False Vacuum. 1. Semiclassical Theory,''
1149: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 15} (1977) 2929
1150: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 16} (1977) 1248].
1151: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D15,2929;%%
1152:
1153: \bibitem{CallanColeman}
1154: C.~G.~.~Callan and S.~R.~Coleman,
1155: ``The Fate Of The False Vacuum. 2. First Quantum Corrections,''
1156: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 16} (1977) 1762.
1157: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D16,1762;%%
1158:
1159: \bibitem{WeinbergLee}
1160: K.~M.~Lee and E.~J.~Weinberg,
1161: ``Tunneling Without Barriers,''
1162: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 267} (1986) 181.
1163: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B267,181;%%
1164:
1165: \bibitem{LindeTunnel}
1166: A.~D.~Linde,
1167: ``Decay Of The False Vacuum At Finite Temperature,''
1168: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 216} (1983) 421
1169: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 223} (1983) 544].
1170: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B216,421;%%
1171:
1172: \bibitem{FelderKofmanLinde}
1173: G.~N.~Felder, L.~Kofman and A.~D.~Linde,
1174: ``Tachyonic instability and dynamics of spontaneous symmetry breaking,''
1175: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 123517
1176: [arXiv:hep-th/0106179].
1177: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0106179;%%
1178:
1179: %\cite{Konstandin:2006nd}
1180: \bibitem{Konstandin:2006nd}
1181: T.~Konstandin and S.~J.~Huber,
1182: ``Numerical approach to multi dimensional phase transitions,''
1183: JCAP {\bf 0606} (2006) 021
1184: [arXiv:hep-ph/0603081].
1185: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603081;%%
1186:
1187: %\cite{Cline:1999wi}
1188: \bibitem{Cline:1999wi}
1189: J.~M.~Cline, G.~D.~Moore and G.~Servant,
1190: ``Was the electroweak phase transition preceded by a color broken phase?,''
1191: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 105035
1192: [arXiv:hep-ph/9902220].
1193: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9902220;%%
1194:
1195:
1196: %\cite{Coleman:1980aw}
1197: \bibitem{ColemanDeLuccia}
1198: S.~R.~Coleman and F.~De Luccia,
1199: ``Gravitational Effects On And Of Vacuum Decay,''
1200: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 21} (1980) 3305.
1201: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D21,3305;%%
1202:
1203: \bibitem{WMAP3}
1204: D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.},
1205: ``Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) three year results:
1206: Implications for cosmology,''
1207: arXiv:astro-ph/0603449.
1208: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0603449;%%
1209:
1210: \bibitem{Carr}
1211: B.~J.~Carr,
1212: ``The Primordial Black Hole Mass Spectrum,''
1213: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 201} (1975) 1.
1214: %%CITATION = ASJOA,201,1;%%
1215:
1216: \bibitem{GreenLiddle}
1217: A.~M.~Green and A.~R.~Liddle,
1218: ``Constraints on the density perturbation spectrum from primordial black
1219: holes,''
1220: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} (1997) 6166
1221: [arXiv:astro-ph/9704251].
1222: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9704251;%%
1223:
1224: \bibitem{Lyth}
1225: D.~H.~Lyth,
1226: ``Constraints on TeV-scale hybrid inflation and comments on non-hybrid
1227: alternatives,''
1228: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 466} (1999) 85
1229: [arXiv:hep-ph/9908219].
1230: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908219;%%
1231:
1232: \bibitem{CoLyRaTr}
1233: E.~J.~Copeland, D.~Lyth, A.~Rajantie and M.~Trodden,
1234: %``Hybrid inflation and baryogenesis at the TeV scale,''
1235: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 043506
1236: [arXiv:hep-ph/0103231].
1237:
1238: %\cite{Garcia-Bellido:1999sv}
1239: \bibitem{GaGrKuSh}
1240: J.~Garcia-Bellido, D.~Y.~Grigoriev, A.~Kusenko and M.~E.~Shaposhnikov,
1241: ``Non-equilibrium electroweak baryogenesis from preheating after
1242: %inflation,''
1243: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 123504
1244: [arXiv:hep-ph/9902449].
1245: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9902449;%%
1246:
1247: \bibitem{KraussTrodden}
1248: L.~M.~Krauss and M.~Trodden,
1249: ``Baryogenesis below the electroweak scale,''
1250: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83} (1999) 1502
1251: [arXiv:hep-ph/9902420].
1252: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9902420;%%
1253:
1254: \bibitem{KaloperLinde}
1255: N.~Kaloper and A.~D.~Linde,
1256: ``Inflation and large internal dimensions,''
1257: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 101303
1258: [arXiv:hep-th/9811141].
1259: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9811141;%%
1260:
1261:
1262: %\cite{Copeland:1994vg}
1263: \bibitem{Copeland:1994vg}
1264: E.~J.~Copeland, A.~R.~Liddle, D.~H.~Lyth, E.~D.~Stewart and D.~Wands,
1265: ``False vacuum inflation with Einstein gravity,''
1266: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49} (1994) 6410
1267: [arXiv:astro-ph/9401011].
1268: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9401011;%%
1269:
1270: %\cite{Dvali:1994ms}
1271: \bibitem{Dvali:1994ms}
1272: G.~R.~Dvali, Q.~Shafi and R.~K.~Schaefer,
1273: ``Large scale structure and supersymmetric inflation without fine tuning,''
1274: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 73} (1994) 1886
1275: [arXiv:hep-ph/9406319].
1276:
1277: \bibitem{Senoguz:2003zw}
1278: V.~N.~Senoguz and Q.~Shafi,
1279: ``Testing supersymmetric grand unified models of inflation,''
1280: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 567} (2003) 79
1281: [arXiv:hep-ph/0305089].
1282:
1283: \bibitem{Battye:2006pk}
1284: R.~A.~Battye, B.~Garbrecht and A.~Moss,
1285: ``Constraints on supersymmetric models of hybrid inflation,''
1286: JCAP {\bf 0609} (2006) 007
1287: [arXiv:astro-ph/0607339].
1288:
1289: \bibitem{Kyae:2005vg}
1290: B.~Kyae and Q.~Shafi,
1291: ``Inflation with realistic supersymmetric SO(10),''
1292: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 063515
1293: [arXiv:hep-ph/0504044].
1294:
1295: \bibitem{Garbrecht:2005rr}
1296: B.~Garbrecht, T.~Prokopec and M.~G.~Schmidt,
1297: ``SO(10) - GUT coherent baryogenesis,''
1298: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 736} (2006) 133
1299: [arXiv:hep-ph/0509190].
1300:
1301: %\cite{Garbrecht:2006ft}
1302: \bibitem{Garbrecht:2006ft}
1303: B.~Garbrecht and A.~Pilaftsis,
1304: ``F(D)-term hybrid inflation with electroweak-scale lepton number
1305: violation,''
1306: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 636} (2006) 154
1307: [arXiv:hep-ph/0601080];
1308: %\bibitem{Garbrecht:2006az}
1309: B.~Garbrecht, C.~Pallis and A.~Pilaftsis,
1310: ``Anatomy of F(D)-term hybrid inflation,''
1311: arXiv:hep-ph/0605264.
1312: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605264;%%
1313: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0601080;%%
1314:
1315:
1316: \bibitem{Halyo:1996pp}
1317: E.~Halyo,
1318: ``Hybrid inflation from supergravity D-terms,''
1319: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 387} (1996) 43
1320: [arXiv:hep-ph/9606423].
1321:
1322: \bibitem{Binetruy:1996xj}
1323: P.~Binetruy and G.~R.~Dvali,
1324: ``D-term inflation,''
1325: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 388} (1996) 241
1326: [arXiv:hep-ph/9606342].
1327:
1328: \end{thebibliography}
1329:
1330: \end{document}
1331: