1: %version modified by FP, 6 May

2: \documentstyle[eqsecnum,epsfig,aps,floats,preprint,delarray]{revtex}

3:  

4: \def\build#1_#2^#3{\mathrel{

5: \mathop{\kern 0pt#1}\limits_{#2}^{#3}}}

6:        

7: \def\baselinestretch{1.2}

8: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.0cm}

9: \setlength{\textwidth}{16.5cm}

10: \setlength{\topmargin}{-.9cm}

11: \setlength{\textheight}{22.5cm}%

12: 

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

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

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

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

17: 

18: %minore o circa uguale

19: \def\laq{~\raise 0.4ex\hbox{$<$}\kern -0.8em\lower 0.62

20: 

21: ex\hbox{$\sim$}~}

22: %maggiore o circa uguale

23: 

24: \def\gaq{~\raise 0.4ex\hbox{$>$}\kern -0.7em\lower 0.62

25: ex\hbox{$\sim$}~}

26: 

27: 

28: \def \pa {\partial}

29: \def \ra {\rightarrow}

30: 

31: \def \la {\lambda}

32: \def \La {\Lambda}

33: \def \Da {\Delta}

34: \def \b {\beta}

35: \def \a {\alpha}

36: \def \ap {\alpha^{\prime}}

37: \def \Ga {\Gamma}

38: \def \ga {\gamma}

39: \def \sg {\sigma}

40: \def \da {\delta}

41: \def \ep {\epsilon}

42: \def \r {\rho}

43: \def \om {\omega}

44: \def \Om {\Omega}

45: \def \noi {\noindent}

46: \def \ti {\tilde}

47: 

48: \def \wt {\widetilde}

49: \def \ep {\epsilon}

50: \def \fb {\overline \phi}

51: \def \rb {\overline \rho}

52: \def \sgb {\overline \sg}

53: \def \pb {\overline p}

54: \def \fbp {\dot{\fb}}

55: \def \va {\varphi}

56: 

57: 

58: \newcommand{\epsi}{e^\psi}

59: \newcommand{\rhm}{\rho_m}

60: \newcommand{\wtm}{\widetilde m_P}

61: \newcommand{\whh}{\widehat H}

62: 

63: \parskip 0.2cm

64: 

65: \begin{document}

66: \par

67: \begingroup

68: 

69: \begin{flushright}

70: IHES/P/02/09 \\ 

71: Bicocca-FT-02-03 \\

72: CERN-TH/2002-093

73: \end{flushright}

74: 

75: 

76: {\large\bf\centering\ignorespaces

77: Violations of the equivalence principle in a dilaton-runaway scenario

78: \vskip2.5pt}

79: {\dimen0=-\prevdepth \advance\dimen0 by23pt

80: \nointerlineskip \rm\centering

81: \vrule height\dimen0 width0pt\relax\ignorespaces

82: T. Damour$^{1}$, F. Piazza$^{2}$ and G. Veneziano$^{3,4}$

83: \par}

84: %\bigskip

85: {\small\it\centering\ignorespaces

86: ${}^{1}$

87: Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques, 91440 

88: Bures-sur-Yvette, France \\

89: %\bigskip

90: ${}^{2}$

91: Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit\`a di Milano Bicocca \\

92: Piazza delle Scienze 3, I-20126 Milan, Italy \\

93: %\bigskip

94: ${}^{3}$

95: Theory Division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland\\

96: %\bigskip

97: ${}^{4}$

98: Laboratoire de Physique Th\'eorique, Universit\'e Paris

99: Sud, 91405 Orsay, France\\

100: \par}

101: 

102: \par

103: \bgroup

104: \leftskip=0.10753\textwidth \rightskip\leftskip

105: \dimen0=-\prevdepth \advance\dimen0 by17.5pt \nointerlineskip

106: \small\vrule width 0pt height\dimen0 \relax

107: 

108: \begin{abstract}

109: We explore a version of the cosmological dilaton-fixing and decoupling mechanism  

110: in which  the dilaton-dependence of the low-energy effective action is extremized

111: for infinitely large values of the bare string coupling 

112: $g_s^2 = e^{\phi}$. We study the efficiency with which the dilaton $\phi$ runs away 

113: towards its ``fixed point'' at infinity during a primordial inflationary stage, and 

114: thereby approximately decouples from matter. The residual dilaton couplings are found 

115: to be related to the amplitude of the density fluctuations generated during inflation. 

116: For the simplest inflationary potential, $V (\chi) = \frac{1}{2} \, m_{\chi}^2 (\phi) 

117: \, \chi^2$, the residual dilaton couplings are shown to predict violations of the 

118: universality of gravitational acceleration near the $\Delta a / a \sim 10^{-12}$ level. 

119: This suggests that a modest improvement in the precision of equivalence principle tests 

120: might be able to detect the effect of such a runaway dilaton. Under some assumptions

121: about the coupling of the dilaton to dark matter and/or dark energy, the expected

122: time-variation of natural ``constants'' (in particular of the fine-structure

123: constant) might also be large enough to be within reach of improved experimental 

124: or observational data.

125: \end{abstract}

126: 

127:  \par\egroup

128: %\vskip2pc]

129: \thispagestyle{plain}

130: \endgroup

131: 

132: \pacs{PACS numbers: 11.25.-w,  04.80.Cc,  98.80.Cq }

133: 

134: \section{Introduction}\label{sec1}

135: 

136: All string theory models predict the existence of a scalar partner of the spin 2 

137: graviton: the dilaton $\phi$, whose vacuum expectation value (VEV) determines the 

138: string coupling constant $g_s = e^{\phi / 2}$ \cite{Witten}. At tree level,

139:  the dilaton is massless 

140: and has gravitational-strength couplings to matter which violate the equivalence 

141: principle \cite{TV88}. This is in violent conflict with present experimental tests of 

142: general relativity. It is generally assumed that this conflict is avoided because, 

143: after supersymmetry breaking, the dilaton might acquire a (large enough) mass (say 

144: $m_{\phi} \gtrsim 10^{-3} \, {\rm eV}$ so that observable deviations from Einstein's 

145: gravity are quenched on distances larger than a fraction of a millimeter). However, 

146: Ref.~\cite{DP94} (see also \cite{DN93}) has proposed a mechanism which can naturally 

147: reconcile a {\it massless} dilaton with existing experimental data. The basic idea of 

148: Ref.~\cite{DP94} was to exploit the string-loop modifications of the (four dimensional) 

149: effective low-energy action (we use the signature $-+++$)

150: \be

151: \label{eq1.1}

152: S = \int d^4 x \sqrt{\widetilde{g}} \left( \frac{B_g (\phi)}{\alpha'} \, \widetilde R + 

153: \frac{B_{\phi} (\phi)}{\alpha'} \, \lbrack 2 \widetilde{\build\Box_{}^{}} \phi -

154: (\widetilde{\nabla} \phi)^2 \rbrack - \frac{1}{4} \, B_F 

155: (\phi) \, \widetilde{F}^2 - V + \cdots \right) \, ,

156: \ee

157: i.e. the $\phi$-dependence of the various coefficients $B_i (\phi)$, $i = g , \phi , F, 

158: \ldots$ , given in the weak-coupling region ($e^{\phi} \to 0$) by series of the form

159: \be

160: \label{eq1.2}

161: B_i (\phi) = e^{-\phi} + c_0^{(i)} + c_1^{(i)} \, e^{\phi} + c_2^{(i)} \, e^{2\phi} + 

162: \cdots \, ,

163: \ee

164: coming from genus expansion of string theory: $B_i = \Sigma_n \, g_s^{2(n-1)} c_n^{(i)}$, 

165: with $n = 0,1,2,\ldots$. It was shown in \cite{DP94} that, if there exists a special 

166: value $\phi_m$ of $\phi$ which extremizes all the (relevant) coupling functions 

167: $B_i^{-1} (\phi)$, the cosmological evolution of the graviton-dilaton-matter system 

168: naturally drives $\phi$ towards $\phi_m$. This provides a mechanism for fixing a 

169: massless dilaton at a value where it decouples from matter (``Least Coupling 

170: Principle''). A simple situation where the existence of a universally extremizing 

171: dilaton value $\phi_m$ is guaranteed is that of $S$ duality, i.e. a symmetry $g_s 

172: \leftrightarrow 1/g_s$, or $\phi \rightarrow -\phi$ (so that $\phi_m = 0$).

173: 

174: It has been recently suggested \cite{V01} that the infinite-bare-coupling limit $g_s 

175: \rightarrow \infty$ ($\phi \rightarrow +\infty$) might yield smooth {\it finite} limits 

176: for all the coupling functions, namely

177: \be

178: \label{eq1.3}

179: B_i (\phi) = C_i + {\cal O} (e^{-\phi}) \, .

180: \ee

181: Under this assumption, the coupling functions are all extremized at infinity, i.e. 

182: $\phi_m = + \infty$. The late-time cosmology of models satisfying (\ref{eq1.3}) has 

183: been recently explored \cite{GPV}. In the ``large N''-type toy model of \cite{V01}

184: it would be natural to expect that the ${\cal O} (e^{-\phi})$ term in Eq.~(\ref{eq1.3})

185: be {\it positive}, so that $B_i (\phi)$ be {\it minimized} at infinity. This would

186: correspond to couplings  $\lambda_i (\phi) \sim  B_i^{-1} (\phi) 

187: = C_i^{-1} - {\cal O} (e^{-\phi})$ which are {\it maximized} at infinity. Note, however,

188:  that the most relevant cosmological

189: coupling for this work, the coupling  to the inflaton, $\lambda(\phi)$,

190:  contained in $V$ (see

191:  Eq. (\ref{eq2.10}) below) is closer to a $B_i$ than to its inverse. Thus $\lambda(\phi)$

192: is naturally {\it minimized} at infinity (see further discussion of this point below), a

193:  crucial property for the attractor mechanism of \cite{DP94,DN93}.

194: 

195: 

196: In this paper\footnote{The main results of this work have been recently

197: summarized in a short note \cite{prl}.} we shall consider in detail the early-time cosmology of models satisfying 

198: (\ref{eq1.3}). More precisely, our main aims will be: (i) to study the efficiency with 

199: which a primordial inflationary stage drives $\phi$ towards the ``fixed point'' at 

200: infinity $\phi_m = + \infty$ (thereby generalizing the work \cite{DV96} which 

201: considered the inflationary attraction towards a local extremum $\phi_m$), and (ii) to 

202: give quantitative estimates of the present violations of the equivalence principle (non 

203: universality of free fall, and variation of ``constants''). Our most important 

204: conclusion is that the runaway of the dilaton towards strong-coupling (under the 

205: assumption (\ref{eq1.3})) naturally leads to equivalence-principle violations which are 

206: rather large, in the sense of not being much smaller than the presently tested 

207: level $\sim 10^{-12}$. This gives additional motivation for the currently planned 

208: improved tests of the universality of free fall. Within our scenario, most of the other 

209: deviations from general relativity (``post-Einsteinian'' effects in gravitationally 

210: interacting systems: solar system, binary pulsars, ...) are too small to be of 

211: phenomenological interest. However, under some assumptions about the coupling of $\phi$

212: to dark matter and/or dark energy, the time variation of the natural ``constants'' 

213: (notably the fine-structure constant) predicted by our scenario might be large enough

214: to be within reach of improved experimental and/or observational data. The 

215: phenomenologically interesting conclusion that equivalence-principle violations are 

216: generically predicted to be rather large after inflation (in sharp contrast with the 

217: results of \cite{DV96}) is due to the fact that the attraction towards an extremum at 

218: infinity is much less effective than the attraction towards a (finite) local extremum 

219: as originally contemplated in \cite{DP94}. This reduced effectiveness was already 

220: pointed out in Ref.~\cite{DN93} within the context of equivalence-principle-respecting 

221: tensor-scalar theories (\`a la Jordan-Fierz-Brans-Dicke).

222: 

223: \section{Dilaton runaway}

224: 

225: In this section we study the dilaton's runaway 

226: during the various stages of 

227: cosmological evolution. We first show (subsection

228: \ref{sec2}) 

229: that, like in the case of a local extremum \cite{DV96}, inflation is 

230: particularly efficient in pushing $\phi$ towards the fixed point.

231: We will then argue (subsection

232: \ref{sec2b}) that the order of magnitude of the bare string coupling

233:  $e^{\phi} \simeq e^{c\varphi}$ does not suffer further appreciable changes 

234:  during all the subsequent evolution. 

235: 

236: 

237: \subsection{The inflationary period}\label{sec2}

238: 

239: Assuming some primordial inflationary stage driven by the potential energy of an

240: inflaton 

241: field $\widetilde{\chi}$, and taking into account generic couplings to the dilaton 

242: $\phi$, we consider an effective action of the form

243: \be 

244: \label{eq2.1}

245: S = \int d^4 x \sqrt{\widetilde g} \left( \frac{B_g (\phi)}{\alpha'} \, \widetilde{R} + 

246: \frac{B_{\phi} (\phi)}{\alpha'} \, \lbrack 2 \widetilde{\build\Box_{}^{}} \phi -

247: (\widetilde{\nabla} \phi)^2 \rbrack

248: - \frac{1}{2} \, 

249: B_{\chi} (\phi) (\widetilde{\nabla} \widetilde{\chi})^2 - \widetilde V 

250: (\widetilde{\chi} , \phi) \right) \, .

251: \ee

252: In this string-frame action, the dilaton dependence of all the functions $B_i (\phi)$, 

253: $\widetilde V (\widetilde{\chi} , \phi)$ is assumed to be of the form (\ref{eq1.2}). It 

254: is convenient to replace the ($\sigma$-model) string metric $\widetilde{g}_{\mu \nu}$ 

255: by the conformally related Einstein metric $g_{\mu \nu} = C \, B_g (\phi) \, 

256: \widetilde{g}_{\mu \nu}$, and the dilaton field by the variable

257: \be

258: \label{eq2.2}

259: \varphi = \int d \phi \left[ \frac{3}{4} \left( \frac{B'_g}{B_g} \right)^2 + 

260: \frac{B'_{\phi}}{B_g} + \frac{1}{2} \, \frac{B_{\phi}}{B_g} \right]^{\frac{1}{2}} \, , \;

261: B' \equiv \partial B/\partial \phi \; .

262: \ee

263: The normalization constant $C$ is chosen so that the string units coincide with the 

264: Einstein units when $\phi \rightarrow + \infty$: $C \, B_g (+\infty) = 1$. [Note that 

265: $C = 1/C_g$ in terms of the general notation of Eq.~(\ref{eq1.3}).] Introducing the 

266: (modified) Planck mass

267: \be

268: \label{eq2.3}

269: \widetilde{m}_P^2 = \frac{1}{4\pi G} = \frac{4}{C \alpha'}\, ,

270: \ee

271: and replacing also the inflaton by the dimensionless variable $\chi = C^{-1/2} \, 

272: \widetilde{m}_P^{-1} \, \widetilde{\chi}$, we end up with an action of the form

273: \be

274: \label{eq2.4}

275: S = \int d^4 x \sqrt{g} \left[ \frac{\widetilde{m}_P^2}{4} \, R - 

276: \frac{\widetilde{m}_P^2}{2} \, (\nabla \varphi)^2 - \frac{\widetilde{m}_P^2}{2} \, F 

277: (\varphi) (\nabla \chi)^2 - \widetilde{m}_P^4 \, V (\chi , \varphi) \right] \, ,

278: \ee

279: where

280: \be

281: \label{eq2.5}

282: F(\varphi) = B_{\chi} (\phi) / B_g (\phi) \, , \ V(\chi , \varphi) = C^{-2} \, 

283: \widetilde{m}_P^{-4} \, B_g^{-2} (\phi) \, \widetilde V (\widetilde{\chi} , \phi) \, .

284: \ee

285: In view of our basic assumption (\ref{eq1.3}), note that, in the strong-coupling limit 

286: $\phi \rightarrow +\infty$, $d\varphi / d \phi$ tends, according to Eq.~(\ref{eq2.2}), 

287: to the constant $(C_{\phi} / 2 C_g)^{1/2}$, while the dilaton-dependent factor 

288: $F(\varphi)$ in front of the inflaton kinetic term tends to the constant $C_{\chi} / 

289: C_g$. The toy model of Ref.~\cite{V01} suggests that the various (positive) constants $C_i$ in 

290: Eq.~(\ref{eq1.3}) are all largish and comparable to each other. We shall therefore 

291: assume that the various ratios $C_i / C_j$ are of order unity. The most important such 

292: ratio for the following is $c \equiv (2 C_g / C_{\phi})^{1/2}$ which gives the 

293: asymptotic behaviour of the bare string coupling as

294: \be

295: \label{eq2.6}

296: g_s^2 = e^{\phi} \simeq e^{c\varphi} \, .

297: \ee

298: In view of the fact that, in the strong-coupling limit we are interested in, the factor 

299: $F(\varphi)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq2.4}) quickly tends to a constant, we can simplify our 

300: analysis (without modifying the essential physics) by replacing it by a constant (which 

301: can then be absorbed in a redefinition of $\chi$). Henceforth, we shall simply take 

302: $F(\varphi) = 1$. [See, however, the comments below concerning the self-regenerating

303: inflationary regime.]

304: 

305: Following \cite{DN93,D95} it is then useful to combine the Friedmann equations for the 

306: scale factor $a(t)$ during inflation ($ds^2 = -dt^2 + a^2 (t) \, \delta_{ij} \, dx^i \, 

307: dx^j$) with the equations of motion of the two scalar fields $\chi (t)$, $\varphi (t)$, 

308: to write an autonomous equation describing the evolution of the two scalars in terms of 

309: the parameter

310: \be

311: \label{eq2.7}

312: p = \int H dt = \int \frac{\dot a}{a} \, dt = \ln \, a + {\rm const}

313: \ee

314: measuring the number of $e$-folds of the expansion. For any multiplet of scalar fields, 

315: $\mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$} = (\varphi^a)$, this yields the simple equation 

316: \cite{DN93,D95}

317: \be

318: \label{eq2.8}

319: \frac{2}{3 - \mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$}'^2} \, \mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$}'' + 2 

320: \, \mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$}' = - \nabla_{\mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$}} \ln \vert V 

321: (\mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$}) \vert \, ,

322: \ee

323: where $\mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$}' \equiv d \mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$} / dp$, and where 

324: all operations on $\mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$}$ are covariantly defined in terms of the 

325: $\sigma$-model metric defining the scalar kinetic terms ($d\sigma^2 = \gamma_{ab} 

326: (\varphi) \, d\varphi^a \, d\varphi^b$). In our simple model (with $F(\varphi) = 1$), 

327: we have a flat metric $d\sigma^2 = d \varphi^2 + d\chi^2$. [Note that, when 

328: $\gamma_{ab} (\varphi)$ is curved the acceleration term $\mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$}''$ 

329: involves a covariant derivative.]

330: 

331: The generic solution of Eq.~(\ref{eq2.8}) is easily grasped if one interprets it as a 

332: mechanical model: a particle with position $\mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$}$, and 

333: velocity-dependent mass $m(\mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$}') = 

334: 2/(3-\mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$}'^2)$, moves, in the ``time'' $p = \ln a + {\rm cst}$, in 

335: the manifold $d \sigma^2$ under the influence of an external potential $\ln \vert V 

336: (\mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$})\vert$ and a constant friction force $-2 \, 

337: \mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$}'$. If the curvature of the effective potential $\ln \vert V 

338: (\mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$})\vert$ is sufficiently small the motion of 

339: $\mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$}$ rapidly becomes slow and friction-dominated:

340: \be

341: \label{eq2.9}

342: 2 \, \frac{d\mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$}}{dp} \simeq - \nabla_{\mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$}} 

343: \ln V (\mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$}) \, .

344: \ee

345: Eq.~(\ref{eq2.9}) is equivalent to the usual ``slow roll'' approximation.

346: 

347:  Consistently with our general assumption (\ref{eq1.3}), we consider potentials allowing

348: a strong-coupling expansion of the form:

349: \be

350: \label{genpot}

351: V (\chi , \varphi) = V_0(\chi) + V_1(\chi) e^{-c\varphi} + {\cal O}(e^{-2c\varphi}) \, ,

352: \ee

353: where $V_0(\chi)$ is a typical chaotic-inflation potential with 

354: $V_0(0)=0$, while $V_1(0) = v_1 \ge 0$ can possibly provide (if $v_1 >0$)

355:  the effective cosmological constant

356: driving   today's acceleration in the scenario of \cite{GPV}.

357: For the sake of simplicity we shall discuss mainly the ``factorized'' 

358: power-law case $V_0(\chi) \sim V_1(\chi) \sim \chi^n$ for which we can

359: conveniently write $V$ in the form:

360: \be

361: \label{eq2.10}

362: V (\chi , \varphi) = \lambda (\varphi) \, \frac{\chi^n}{n} \, ,

363: \ee

364:  with a dilaton-dependent coupling constant $\lambda (\varphi)$  of the form

365: \be

366: \label{eq2.11}

367: \lambda (\varphi) = \lambda_{\infty} (1 + b_{\lambda} \, e^{-c\varphi}) \, .

368: \ee

369: This example belongs to the class of the

370:  two-field inflationary potentials discussed in \cite{L90}. We have checked that

371: our results remain qualitatively the same for the more general potential (\ref{genpot})

372: provided that  $V_0(\chi)$ and $V_1(\chi)$ are not extremely diffent and given

373: the fact that $v_1$ is phenomenologically constrained to be very small.

374: [Note that, within the simplified model (\ref{eq2.11}), the ratio  $V_1(\chi)/V_0(\chi)$

375: is equal to the constant coefficient  $b_{\lambda}$.]

376: 

377: The universal (positive) constant $c$ appearing in the exponential $e^{-c\varphi}$

378:   is the same as in 

379: Eq.~(\ref{eq2.6}) [i.e. $c \equiv (2 C_g / C_{\phi})^{1/2}$, which is expected to be of 

380: order unity]. The coefficient $b_{\lambda}$ in (\ref{eq2.11}) is such that $b_{\lambda} 

381: \, e^{-c \varphi} \simeq b_{\lambda} \, e^{-\phi}$ roughly corresponds to a combination 

382: of terms $\sim \pm \, C_i^{-1} \, {\cal O} (e^{-\phi})$ coming from the strong-coupling 

383: asymptotics of several $B_i (\phi)$, Eq.~(\ref{eq1.3}) (see Eq.~(\ref{eq2.5})). In the 

384: toy model of \cite{V01} one would therefore expect $b_{\lambda}$ to be smallish. 

385: Anyway, we shall see that in final results only the ratios of such $b_i$ coefficients 

386: enter. More important than the magnitude of $b_{\lambda}$ is its sign. It is crucial 

387: for the present strong-coupling attractor scenario to assume that $b_{\lambda} > 0$, 

388: i.e that $\lambda (\varphi)$ reaches a {\it minimum} at strong-coupling, $\varphi 

389: \rightarrow + \infty$. Note again that this behaviour is consistent with the

390: simple ``large $N$''-type idea of \cite{V01} if we assimilate $\lambda (\varphi)$ to one

391: of the inverse couplings $B_i$ appearing in (\ref{eq1.1})

392:  (for instance $B_F \sim g_F^{-2}$, where $g_F$ is a 

393: gauge coupling), rather than to

394:  the coupling itself.

395: If the latter were the case, $\lambda (\varphi)$ would reach 

396: a {\it maximum} as $\phi \rightarrow + \infty$, and the attractor mechanism of 

397: \cite{DP94} would drive $\phi$ towards weak coupling ($\phi \rightarrow - \infty$).

398: However, the Einstein-frame $\phi$-dependence of $V(\chi)$ gets contributions from 

399: several $B_i^{\pm n}(\phi)$, Eq.~(\ref{eq2.5}), which might conspire to minimize it

400: at strong coupling. This feature is also probably necessary in order to solve

401: the cosmological-constant problem through some argument by which the vacuum at infinity

402: has vanishing energy density.

403: 

404: Substituting the potential (\ref{genpot}) into the slow roll equation (\ref{eq2.9})

405: and assuming (for simplicity) that $ V_1(\chi) e^{-c\varphi}$ is significantly smaller 

406: than $V_0(\chi)$ 

407: leads to a decoupled set of evolution equations for $\chi$ and $\varphi$ (where 

408: $V' \equiv \partial V / \partial \chi$):

409: \be

410: \label{eq2.12}

411: \frac{d \chi}{dp} = - \frac{1}{2} \, \frac{V'_0}{V_0} \, ,

412: \ee

413: \be

414: \label{eq2.13}

415: \frac{d \varphi}{dp} =  \frac{1}{2}  \, c \, e^{-c \varphi} \frac{V_1}{V_0} \, .

416: \ee

417: Given some ``initial'' conditions $\chi_{\rm in}$, $\varphi_{\rm in}$ (discussed below)

418: at some starting 

419: point, say $p=0$, the solution of Eqs.~(\ref{eq2.12}), (\ref{eq2.13}) is simply

420: 

421: \be

422: \label{eq2.14}

423: p =  \, 2 \int_{\chi}^{\chi_{\rm in}} d\bar\chi \,

424: \bar\chi \left( \frac{V_0(\bar\chi)}{\bar\chi \, V'_0(\bar\chi)}\right) \, ,

425: \ee

426: \be

427: \label{eq2.15}

428: e^{c \varphi} = e^{c \varphi_{\rm in}} +   \, \frac{c^2}{2} \, 

429: \int dp \, \frac{V_1(\chi (p))}{V_0(\chi (p))} \, ,

430: \ee

431: which simply become:

432: \be

433: \label{eq2.16}

434: p =  \frac{1}{n} \left( \chi_{\rm in}^2 - \chi^2 \right)  \, , \quad 

435: e^{c \varphi} + \frac{b_{\lambda} \, c^2}{2n} \, \chi^2 = {\rm const}. = e^{c 

436: \varphi_{\rm in}} + \frac{b_{\lambda} \, c^2}{2n} \, \chi_{\rm in}^2 \, ,

437: \ee

438: in the simplified case of eqs. (\ref{eq2.10}), (\ref{eq2.11}).

439: 

440: Equations (\ref{eq2.16}) show that, in order for the string coupling 

441:  $g_s^2 \simeq e^{c \varphi}$ to have reached large values at the end of inflation,

442: a large total number of e-folds must have occurred while the

443: (dimensionless) inflaton field $\chi$ decreases from a large initial value, to a

444: value of order unity (in Planck units). To get a quantitative estimate of the string coupling

445: at the end of inflation we need to choose the initial conditions 

446: $\chi_{\rm in}$, $\varphi_{\rm in}$. A physically reasonable way (which is further

447: discussed below) of choosing $\chi_{\rm in}$

448: is to start the classical evolution (\ref{eq2.12})-(\ref{eq2.16}) at the exit of the

449: era of self-regenerating inflation (see \cite{L90} and references therein).

450: We will now show how to relate the exit from self-regenerating inflation 

451:  to the size of density fluctuations generated by inflation.

452: 

453: 

454:  Let us recall (see \cite{L90} and references 

455: therein) that the density fluctuation $\delta \equiv \delta \rho / \rho$ on large scales 

456: (estimated in the one-field approximation where the inflaton $\chi$ is the main 

457: contributor) is obtained by evaluating the expression

458: \be

459: \label{eq2.19}

460: \delta (\chi) \simeq \frac{4}{3} \, \frac{1}{\pi} \left( \frac{2}{3} 

461: \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \, \frac{V^{3/2}}{\partial_\chi V}

462: \ee

463: at the value $\chi = \chi_{\times}$, at which the physical scale

464: we are considering crossed the horizon outwards during inflation. For the scale

465: corresponding to  our present

466: horizon this usually corresponds to  a value  $\chi_{\times}(H_0)$  ($\chi_H$ for short)  

467: reached some $ 60$ $e$-folds before 

468: the end of slow-roll. From Ref.~\cite{L90}, $\chi_H \simeq 5 \sqrt n$ for the model 

469: (\ref{eq2.10}) (and with our modified definition of $\chi$). 

470: The numerical value of $\delta_H \equiv \delta (\chi_H)$ which 

471: is compatible with cosmological data (structure 

472: formation and cosmic microwave background) is $\delta_H \simeq 5 \times 10^{-5}$.

473:  In the model 

474: (\ref{eq2.10}) the function $\delta (\chi)$ defined by (\ref{eq2.19}) scales with 

475: $\chi$ as $\chi^{\frac{n+2}{2}}$. Putting together this information we obtain a

476: relation between  $\chi_{\rm in}$ and $\delta(\chi_{\rm in})$, which involves

477: the value of the observable horizon-size fluctuations 

478: $\delta_H \equiv \delta (\chi_H)$:

479: \be

480: \label{eq2.21}

481: \frac{\delta (\chi_{\rm in})}{\delta (\chi_H)} = \left( \frac{\chi_{\rm in}}{\chi_H} 

482: \right)^{\frac{n+2}{2}} ,

483: \ee

484: i.e.

485: \be

486: \label{eq2.22}

487: \chi_{\rm in} \simeq \chi_H \, \left(\frac{\delta_{\rm in}}{\delta_H} \right)^{ \frac{2}{n+2}} 

488: \simeq \, 5 \sqrt n \, 

489: \left(\frac{\delta_{\rm in}}{\delta_H} \right)^{ \frac{2}{n+2}} \, ,

490: \ee

491: where we introduced the short-hand notation 

492: $\delta_{\rm in} \equiv \delta (\chi_{\rm in})$.

493: 

494: 

495: Inserting Eq.~(\ref{eq2.22}) into Eq.~(\ref{eq2.15}) we then obtain the following 

496: estimate of the string coupling constant after inflation as a function of 

497: $\varphi_{\rm in}$ and $\delta(\chi_{\rm in})$

498: \be

499: \label{eq2.23}

500: e^{c \varphi_{\rm end}} -  e^{c \varphi_{\rm in}} \, \simeq \, \frac{c^2}{2}

501: \langle V_1/V_0 \rangle  p \, \sim \, \frac{c^2}{2n} \langle V_1/V_0 \rangle  

502: \chi_{\rm in}^2 \, \sim \, 

503: \frac{25 c^2}{2} \, \langle V_1/V_0 \rangle  \, 

504: \left(\frac{\delta_{\rm in}}{\delta_H} \right)^{ \frac{4}{n+2}} \, ,

505: \ee

506: where $\langle V_1/V_0 \rangle $ denotes the average value of $V_1/V_0$: $\langle V_1/V_0 \rangle  \equiv

507:  \int dp (V_1/V_0)/\int dp $ [note that this average ratio is equal to $b_{\lambda}$

508:  in the simplified model (\ref{eq2.11})].

509:  

510: To get a quantitative estimate of $e^{c \varphi_{\rm end}}$ we still need to 

511: estimate the value of $\delta (\chi_{\rm in})$ corresponding to the chosen 

512: ``initial'' value of the inflaton.  As we will now check,

513: taking for $\chi_{\rm in}$ the value corresponding to the exit from self-regenerating 

514: inflation corresponds simply to taking $\delta (\chi_{\rm in}) \sim 1$. Indeed, let us

515: first recall that, during inflation, each (canonically normalized) scalar field

516: (of mass smaller than the expansion rate $H$) undergoes typical quantum fluctuations

517: of order $H/(2 \pi)$, per Hubble time (see, e.g., \cite{L90}).

518:  This implies (for our dimensionless fields) that the value of $\chi$ at the exit

519:  from self-regeneration, say $\chi_{\rm ex}$, is characterized by

520:  ${\widehat H}_{\rm ex}/(2 \pi) \approx \lbrack \partial_\chi V/(2 V) \rbrack_{\rm ex}$,

521:  where ${\widehat H} \equiv H / \widetilde{m}_P $ is the dimensionless Hubble expansion 

522: rate and where the right-hand side (RHS) is the classical change of $\chi$ per Hubble time

523:  (corresponding to the RHS of Eq.(\ref{eq2.12})). Using Friedmann's equation 

524:  (in the slow-roll approximation) ${\widehat H}^2_{\rm ex} \approx

525:  (2/3) V(\chi_{\rm ex})$, it is easily seen that that the exit from

526:  self-regeneration corresponds to $\delta (\chi_{\rm ex}) \approx 4/3 \sim 1$.

527:  It is, a posteriori, physically quite reasonable to start using the classical evolution

528: system only when the (formal extrapolation) of the density fluctuation $\delta (\chi)$ 

529: becomes smaller than one.

530: 

531: Within some approximation (see \cite{L90}), one can implement the effect of the 

532: combined quantum fluctuations of $(\varphi, \chi)$ 

533:  by adding  random terms with r.m.s. values 

534: $\widehat H/2\pi$  on the right hand side of equations (\ref{eq2.12}) and (\ref{eq2.13}),

535: $d \chi/dp$ and $d \varphi/dp$ being precisely the shifts of the fields in a Hubble time.

536: The system of equations becomes thus of the Langevin-type 

537: \begin{equation}

538: \label{eq4.1}

539: \frac{d \chi}{d p} \, = 

540: \, - \frac{1}{2} \, \frac{V'_0}{V_0}\,  +\, \frac{\whh}{2\pi}\, \xi_1 \, ,

541: \end{equation}

542: \begin{equation}

543: \label{eq4.2}

544: \frac{d \varphi}{dp} \, = \, \frac{1}{2} \, c \, e^{-c \varphi} \frac{V_1}{V_0}\,  +\, \frac{\whh}{2\pi} \,

545: \xi_2 \, ,

546: \end{equation} 

547: where ${\widehat H} \approx [(2/3) V(\chi,\phi)]^{1/2}$ (in the slow-roll approximation) is the

548: dimensionless expansion rate, and where $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$ are

549: (independent) normalized random white noises:

550: \be

551: \langle\xi_i(p_1)\, \xi_j(p_2) \rangle \, \, =\, \delta_{ij}\delta(p_1-p_2), \qquad i,j = 1,2 \, .

552: \ee

553: 

554: When the random force terms dominate the evolution

555: in either equation (\ref{eq4.1}) or equation (\ref{eq4.2}) the quasi-classical description 

556: (\ref{eq2.12}) , (\ref{eq2.13}) breaks down. 

557: The phase space of the sytem can thus be roughly divided into four regions 

558: according to whether the evolution of none, one or both of the two fields

559:  is dominated by quantum fluctuations. 

560: This is depicted in Figure 1 where such regions are delimited by dashed, 

561: thick curves in the case of a power-law potential (\ref{eq2.10}). 

562: 

563: \begin{figure}[t] \label{figure1}

564: \begin{center}

565: \includegraphics[height=9cm]{fig2.eps}

566: \vskip 3mm

567: \caption{\sl The phase space of the system is represented in the case of  

568: a power--law potential (\ref{eq2.10}) with $n=2$, $b_\lambda = 0.1$ and 

569: $\lambda_\infty = 10^{-10}$. The 

570: thick--dashed (red) curves delimitate the quantum behaviour of the two fields, 

571: the horizontal curve $\chi = \lambda_\infty^{-1/(n+2)} $  and the 

572: hyperbola-like curve $\chi = b_\lambda^{2/n} \lambda_\infty^{-1/n} e^{-2 c\varphi/n}$

573: being the limit of the quantum behaviour for $\chi$ and $\varphi$ respectively. 

574: In the white region both fields have a classical behaviour. The last 

575: ``fully classical'' trajectory has been represented by a thick (blue) curve.

576: The bright--gray regions are those where either the $\varphi$ or the $\chi$ evolution

577: are dominated by quantum fluctuations. The fully--quantum region 

578: is the dark--gray region on the top right.}

579: \end{center}

580: \end{figure}

581: 

582: Apart from factors of order one, the evolution of the inflaton $\chi$ is quasi-classical

583: in the region under the line $\chi = \lambda_\infty^{-1/(n+2)}$. 

584: In the chaotic inflationary models \cite{L90} 

585: such an inflaton's value corresponds to

586: the exit from the self-regenerating regime and to the beginning of the quasi-classical

587: slow-roll inflation. As mentioned above it 

588: also corresponds to a perturbation $\delta(\chi) \sim 1$.

589: Somewhat surprisingly, in the model at hand, however, the quasi-classical region for the 

590: inflaton evolution 

591: $\chi \lesssim \lambda_\infty^{-1/(n+2)}$ is  affected

592: by quantum fluctuations that still dominate the  evolution of $\varphi$

593: in  the region above the hyperbola-like 

594: curve $\chi = b_\lambda^{2/n} \lambda_\infty^{-1/n} e^{-2 c\varphi/n}$.

595: We must therefore study, in some detail, the evolution of the system 

596: in the presence of the noise term for $\varphi$ as in eq. (\ref{eq4.2}), assuming 

597: a quasi classical evolution for $\chi$. This is done in the appendix. 

598: The final result is that, if we start at $\chi \lesssim \lambda_\infty^{-1/(n+2)}$, 

599: (classical evolution for $\chi$)  

600: the average value of $e^{c\varphi}$ 

601: is {\it multiplicatively renormalized}, by a factor of order unity, with respect to 

602:  the classical trajectory $e^{c\varphi_{\rm cl}}$, given by solving equations

603:  (\ref{eq2.12}) - (\ref{eq2.13}), i.e.

604: $\langle e^{c\varphi} \rangle = {\cal O}(1) e^{c\varphi_{\rm cl}}$. One also finds

605: that the dispersion of $e^{c\varphi}$ around its average value is comparable to its

606: average value.

607: 

608: We shall not try to discuss here what happens in the self-regenerating region

609: $\chi \agt \chi_{\rm in} \sim \lambda_\infty^{-1/(n+2)}$. Let us recall that the simple decoupled

610: system (\ref{eq2.12}) , (\ref{eq2.13}) was obtained by neglecting the kinetic coupling term

611: $F(\varphi)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq2.4}). If we were to consider a more general model, we would have

612: more coupling between $\chi$ and $\varphi$ and we would expect that (contrary to Fig. 1 which

613: exhibits a ``classical $\varphi$ region'' above the ``quantum $\chi$ line'') the evolution

614: in the self-regenerating region involves a strongly coupled system of Langevin equations.

615: Then, as discussed in \cite{L90}, solving such a system necessitates to give boundary conditions

616: on all the boundaries of the problem: notably for $\chi \to \infty$, but also for 

617: $\varphi \to +\infty$ and $\varphi \to -\infty$. We leave to future work such an

618: investigation (and a discussion of what are reasonable boundary conditions). In this work

619: we shall content ourselves with ``starting'' the evolution on the quantum $\chi$ boundary

620: line $\chi_{\rm in}$ with some value $\varphi = \varphi_{\rm in}$, assuming that

621: $ e^{c\varphi_{\rm in}}$ is smaller than the driving effect due to inflation, i.e. than

622: the RHS of Eq.~(\ref{eq2.23}). [This assumption is most natural in a work aimed at 

623: studying the ``attracting'' effect due to primordial inflation.]

624: 

625: 

626: Going back to our result (\ref{eq2.23}), we can now insert, 

627: according to the preceding discussion, the values $\delta_{\rm in}=1$ and 

628: $e^{c \varphi_{\rm in}} \ll e^{c \varphi_{\rm end}}$.

629: Finally, in the simplified model (\ref{eq2.10}), (\ref{eq2.11}), we get the estimate:

630:  \be

631: \label{eq2.23'}

632: e^{c \varphi_{\rm end}}  = {\cal O}(1) \cdot e^{c\varphi_{\rm cl,\, end}} \sim

633: {\cal O}(1) \cdot \frac{25 c^2}{2} \, b_{\lambda} \, 

634: \left(\delta_H\right)^{ -\frac{4}{n+2}} \, .

635: \ee

636: 

637: A more general analysis, based on the potential (\ref{genpot})

638:  leads to the same final result but with $n$ replaced

639:  by some average value of $\frac{\chi V_{0,\chi}}{V_0}$, and with $b_{\lambda}$ replaced by

640:  some average of the ratio $V_1/V_0$.

641:  Note that 

642: smaller values of the exponent $n$ lead to larger values of $e^{c \varphi_{\rm end}}$, i.e. 

643: to a more effective attraction towards the ``fixed point at infinity''. The same is true

644: if we take different exponents $n_0$ and $n_1$ (for $V_0$ and $V_1$ respectively) 

645: and assume $V_1(\chi_{\rm in})

646:  \gg V_0 (\chi_{\rm in})$ to hold as a result of $\chi_{\rm in} \gg 1$ and 

647: $n_1 > n_0$. Also note that, 

648: numerically, if we consider $n=2$, i.e. the simplest chaotic-inflation potential $V = 

649: \frac{1}{2} \, m_{\chi}^2 (\varphi) \, \chi^2$, Eq.~(\ref{eq2.23'}) involves the large 

650: number $12.5 \times \delta_H^{-1} \sim 2.5 \times 10^5$. In the case where $n=4$, i.e. $V = 

651: \frac{1}{4} \, \lambda (\varphi) \, \chi^4$, we have instead the number $12.5 \times 

652: \delta_H^{-2/3} \sim 0.92 \times 10^4$. To understand the phenomenological meaning of these 

653: numbers we need to relate $e^{c \varphi_{\rm end}}$ to the present, observable deviations 

654: from general relativity. This issue is addressed in Section \ref{sec3} after having argued

655: that the post-inflationary evolution of $\varphi$ is sub-dominant.

656: 

657:  

658: 

659: \subsection{Attraction of $\varphi$ by the subsequent cosmological evolution}\label{sec2b}

660: 

661: We have discussed above the efficiency with which inflation drives the dilaton towards a 

662: fixed point at infinity. We need to complete this discussion by estimating the effect 

663: of the many $e$-folds of expansion that took place between the end of inflation and the 

664: present time. To address this question, we need to study in more detail the 

665: coupling of a runaway dilaton to various types of matter, say a multi-component 

666: distribution of (relativistic or non-relativistic) particles. 

667: We work in the Einstein frame, with an action of the type

668: 

669: \begin{eqnarray}

670: S = \int d^4x \sqrt{g}\left[\frac{\widetilde{m}_P^2}{4}R-\frac{\widetilde{m}_P^2}{2}

671: (\nabla \varphi)^2  - \frac{1}{4} B_F(\varphi) F^2 + \dots \right]  

672: \qquad \qquad\\[2mm]

673:  \qquad   \qquad  \qquad  -  \sum_A \int m_A[\varphi(x_A)] \sqrt{-g_{\mu \nu}(x_A) dx_A^\mu dx_A^\nu}\, . 

674: \nonumber

675: \end{eqnarray}

676: Following \cite{TV88,DP94}, one 

677: introduces the crucial dimensionless quantity

678: \be

679: \label{eq3.1}

680: \alpha_A (\varphi) \equiv \frac{\partial \ln m_A (\varphi)}{\partial \, \varphi} \, ,

681: \ee

682: measuring the coupling of $\varphi$ to a particle of type $A$. [For consistency with previous 

683: work, we keep the notation $\alpha_A$ but warn the reader that this should not be confused 

684: with the various gauge coupling constants, often denoted $\alpha_i = g_i^2 / 4\pi$.] The 

685: quantity $\alpha_A$ determines the effect of cosmological matter on the evolution of $\varphi$ 

686: through the general equation \cite{DN93,DP94}

687: 

688: \be

689: \label{eq3.2}

690: \frac{2}{3 - \varphi'^2} \, \varphi'' + \left( 1 - \frac{P}{\rho} \right) \varphi' = - 

691: \sum_A \alpha_A (\varphi) \, \frac{\rho_A - 3 P_A}{\rho} \, ,

692: \ee

693: where the primes denote derivatives with respect to $ p = \ln a + {\rm const} $ and where

694: $\rho = \Sigma_A \, \rho_A$ and $P = \Sigma_A \, P_A$ 

695: are the total ``material''

696: energy density and pressure respectively, both obtained

697: as sums over the various components  

698: filling the universe \emph{at the exception of} the kinetic energy density and pressure 

699: of $\varphi$, $\rho_k = (\widetilde{m}_P^2 /2) (d\varphi/dt)^2 = 

700: (\widetilde{m}_P^2 /2) H^2 {\varphi'}^2 $ and 

701: % $

702: $P_k = \rho_k$. Accordingly, the Friedmann equation reads 

703: \be \label{friedman}

704: 3 H^2\, =\, \frac{2}{\widetilde{m}_P^2} \, \rho_{\rm tot} \, = \, 

705:  \frac{2 \, \rho}{ \widetilde{m}_P^2} + 

706: H^2 {\varphi'}^2.

707: \ee

708: 

709: Note that $\rho$ and $P$ may also account for the potential energy density and 

710: pressure of the scalar field,  $\rho_V = V(\varphi)$, $ P_V = - \rho_V $ and that one

711: can formally extend Eq. (\ref{eq3.2}) to the ``vacuum

712: energy'' component $V(\varphi)$  by associating to the potential 

713: $V(\varphi)$ the mass scale $m_V (\varphi) \equiv V(\varphi)^{\frac{1}{4}}$ which gives

714: $\alpha_V = \partial \ln m_V (\varphi) / \partial \varphi = \frac{1}{4} \, \partial 

715: \ln V(\varphi) / \partial \, \varphi$. Equation (\ref{eq2.8}) is then recovered in the limit

716: where the scalar field is the dominant component.

717: 

718: In the simple cases (which are quite frequent; at least as approximate cases) 

719: where one ``matter'' component, with known ``equation of state'' 

720: $P_A / \rho_A = w_A = {\rm const.} $,

721: dominates the cosmological density and pressure, Eq. (\ref{eq3.2}) yields an autonomous

722: equation for the evolution (with redshift) of $\varphi$. 

723: Using (\ref{friedman}) one  finds  

724: that the ``equation of 

725: state parameter'' $w_{\rm tot} \equiv P_{\rm tot}/ \rho_{\rm tot}$  corresponding to

726: the {\it total} energy and pressure (including now the kinetic contributions of $\varphi$;

727: i.e. $\rho_{\rm tot} = \rho + (\widetilde{m}_P^2/2) (d\varphi/dt)^2 \, , \, 

728: P_{\rm tot} = P + (\widetilde{m}_P^2/2) \, (d\varphi/dt)^2$) is given 

729: in terms of the ``matter'' equation-of-state parameter $w \equiv P/\rho$ by

730: \be

731: \label{eq3.2bis}

732: w_{\rm tot} = w  + \frac{1 - w}{3} (\varphi')^2 \, . 

733: \ee

734: The knowledge of $w_{\rm tot}$ then allows one to write explicitly the energy-balance equation

735: $ d \rho_{\rm tot} + 3 ( \rho_{\rm tot} + P_{\rm tot}) d \ln a = 0$, which is easily

736: solved in the simple cases where $w_{\rm tot}$ is (approximately) constant.

737: 

738: 

739: We see from Eq.~(\ref{eq3.2}) that, during the radiation era (starting, say, immediately 

740: after the end of inflation), i.e. when the universe is dominated by an ultra-relativistic gas 

741: ($\rho_A - 3 P_A = 0$), the ``driving force'' on the right-hand side of (\ref{eq3.2}) 

742: vanishes, so that $\varphi$ is not driven further away towards infinity. Actually, one should 

743: take into account both the ``inertial'' effect of the ``velocity'' $\varphi'$ acquired during 

744: the preceding inflationary driving of $\varphi$, and the integrated effect of the many ``mass 

745: thresholds'', $T_A \sim m_A$, when some component becomes non-relativistic (so that $\rho_A - 

746: 3 P_A \ne 0$). Using the results of \cite{DN93,DP94} one sees that, in our case, both these 

747: effects have only a small impact on the value of $\varphi$. Therefore, to a good approximation 

748: $\varphi \simeq \varphi_{\rm end}$ until the end of radiation era.

749: 

750: On the other hand, when the universe gets dominated by non-relativistic  matter, one 

751: gets a non-zero driving force in Eq.~(\ref{eq3.2}). In the slow roll approximation,

752: as the transient behaviour has died out, since $w=P/\rho$ gets negligible, we have simply

753: \be

754: \label{eq3.3'}

755: \varphi'_m = - \alpha_m (\varphi) \, ,

756: \ee

757: where $\varphi'_m$ stands the $\varphi$-velocity during matter domination.

758: and $\alpha_m 

759:  (\varphi)$ denotes the coupling (\ref{eq3.1}) to dark matter.

760: 

761: The coupling to dark matter,  $\alpha_m (\varphi)$, depends on the assumption one makes

762: about the asymptotic behaviour, at strong bare string coupling,  of the mass of the

763: WIMPs constituting the dark matter.

764: One natural looking, minimal assumption is that dark matter, like all visible types of 

765: matter, is coupled in 

766: a way which levels off at strong-bare-coupling, as in Eq.~(\ref{eq1.3}). In other words, one 

767: generally expects that $m_m (\varphi) \simeq m_m (+\infty) (1+b_m \, e^{-c \varphi})$ so that 

768: $\alpha_m (\varphi) \simeq -b_m \, c \, e^{-c \varphi}$. It is then easy to solve 

769: Eq.~(\ref{eq3.3'}), with initial conditions $\varphi_0 = \varphi_{\rm end}$, $\varphi'_0 = 0$ 

770: (inherited from radiation era) at the beginning of the matter era. But we shall not bother to 

771: write the explicit solution because it is easily seen that the smallness of $e^{-c 

772: \varphi_{\rm end}}$ guarantees that the ``driving force'' $\propto \alpha_m (\varphi)$ remains 

773: always so small that the ${\cal O} (10)$ $e$-folds of matter era until vacuum-energy 

774: domination (or until the present) have only a fractionally negligible effect on $\varphi$.

775: 

776: A more significant evolution of $\varphi$ during the matter era is provided

777: if, as first proposed in \cite{DGG} and taken up in \cite{SBM,OP}, 

778: dark matter couples much more strongly to 

779: $\varphi$ than ``ordinary'' matter. 

780: Such a stronger coupling to dark matter, which is not constrained by usual equivalence 

781: principle experiments, follows assuming more general quantum corrections in the 

782: dark matter sector of the theory, i.e. corrections such that the dark matter mass 

783: $m_m (\varphi)$, instead of

784: levelling off, either vanishes or keeps increasing at strong bare coupling:

785: $m_m(\varphi) \propto e^{c_m \varphi}$, so that $\alpha_m = c_m$ is a (negative or 

786: positive) constant.

787: In \cite{GPV} (but see also \cite{AT}) it has been shown that under the latter

788: assumption (i.e. with a positive coupling parameter $\alpha_m >0 $) 

789: the dilaton can play the role of quintessence, leading to a late-time cosmology

790: of accelerated expansion. By Eq. (\ref{eq3.3'}) we have

791: $\varphi = \varphi_{\rm end} - \alpha_m p $, where $p$ is now counted from the end of 

792: the radiation era. 

793: Given that about nine e-folds separate us from the end of the radiation era,

794: we see that such an evolution might (if  $|\alpha_m|$ is really of order unity)

795:  have a significant effect on the present value

796: of $\varphi$ (when compared with the value at the end of inflation, i.e.

797: $c \varphi_{\rm end} \sim \ln (1/\delta_H) \sim 10$). However, the running of 

798: $ \varphi$ during the matter era changes the standard recent cosmological picture

799: and is therefore constrained by observations.

800: In fact, by equation (\ref{eq3.2bis}), the total matter-era equation of state parameter $w_{\rm tot}$ 

801: in the presence of the dilaton reads $ w_{\rm tot} = (\varphi'_m)^2/3$. Accordingly, 

802: the matter density varies as $ \rho \propto a^{- 3 (1 + w_{\rm tot})} = 

803: a^{-( 3 +(\varphi'_m)^2 )}$, possibly affecting the

804: standard scenario of structure formation as well as the  global temporal

805: picture between now and the epoch of matter-radiation equality. 

806: The compatibility with phenomenology therefore puts constraints on the magnitude of

807: ${\varphi'_m}^2 = \alpha_m (\varphi)^2$.

808:  In  \cite{GPV}   $w_{\rm tot} < 0.1$, i.e.

809: $v \equiv {\varphi'_m}^2/ 0.3 < 1$,  was suggested to be  the maximal deviation one can 

810: roughly tolerate during the matter era, the establishment of a more precise bound being presently

811: under study \cite{AGUT}.

812:  We shall

813: therefore assume either that we are in the ``normal'' case  where the dilaton does not

814: couple more strongly to dark matter than to ordinary matter (so that 

815: $\alpha_m (\varphi) \simeq -b_m \, c \, e^{-c \varphi} \ll 1$), or that, if

816: it does, $ \alpha_m ^2 < 0.3$.

817: This leads to a displacement of $ \varphi$ during matter era 

818: smaller than the dispersion  $\varphi_{\rm end} - \varphi_{\rm cl, end} \sim 

819: \varphi_{\rm cl, end}$ produced by quantum fluctuations during inflation, Eq.~(\ref{eq2.23'}).

820: 

821: 

822: In this context one should also

823: consider the attraction effect of a negative pressure component, either in the form of

824: a $\varphi$-dependent vacuum energy (dilatonic quintessence) 

825: or in the form of any other, $\varphi$-independent  component (such as a ``genuine'' 

826: cosmological constant). Of course, the present recent 

827: ($z \lesssim 1$) accelerated expansion phase is very short (in ``$p$-time'') 

828: and sensible changes of the dilaton 

829: value since the end of matter domination are not expected. Still, it is crucial to  

830: estimate the present dilaton velocity $\varphi'_0$ 

831: since it is related to the cosmological variations of the coupling 

832: constants (see next section). 

833: In the general case where both non-relativistic matter and (possibly 

834: $\varphi$-dependent) vacuum energy density $V(\varphi)$ are present, the value

835: of $\varphi_0'$ predicted by our model is obtained by applying Eq. (\ref{eq3.2})

836: (in the slow-roll approximation):

837: \be \label{eq2.32bis}

838: (\Omega_m + \Omega_V)(1-w_0) \varphi'_0 = (\Omega_m + 2 \Omega_V ) \varphi_0' 

839: = - \Omega_m \alpha_m - 4 \Omega_V \alpha_V.

840: \ee 

841: 

842: In the above expression $\Omega_m $ and $\Omega_V$ are, respectively, 

843: the non-relativistic (dark) matter- and the 

844: vacuum-fraction of critical energy density ($\rho_c \equiv (3/2) {\widetilde{m}_P^2} H^2$),

845:  and  the already mentioned prescriptions   

846: $\alpha_V =  \frac{1}{4} \, \partial 

847: \ln V(\varphi) / \partial \, \varphi$, $P_V = -\rho_V = -V(\varphi)$ have been used.

848: 

849: The value of ${\varphi'_0}$ is therefore some combination of the values of $\alpha_m$ and

850: $\alpha_V$. We can have two classes of contrasting situations: In the first class,

851:  the dilaton couples

852: ``normally'' (i.e. weakly) both to dark matter and to dark energy, i.e. both 

853:  $\alpha_m \simeq -b_m \, c \, e^{-c \varphi} \ll 1$ and $\alpha_V \ll 1$ and 

854:  Eq.~(\ref{eq2.32bis}) implies $\varphi'_0 \ll 1$. In the second class, the dilaton

855:  couples more strongly to some type of dark matter or energy, i.e. either (or both) 

856:  $\alpha_m$  or/and   $\alpha_V$ is of order unity so that ${\varphi'_0} = {\cal O} (1)$.

857: The second case is realized in the scenario of \cite{GPV}. In the context of this 

858: scenario we have an exponential dependence of the potential on $\varphi$,

859: $ V(\varphi) \simeq V_1 e^{-c\varphi}$ so that $\alpha_V \simeq - (c/4)$ and

860: \be \label{eq2.34}

861: \varphi'_0 \, = \, \frac{c\, \Omega_V - \alpha_m \Omega_m}{2\Omega_V + \Omega_m} \, \lesssim  \,

862: \frac{c}{3}.

863: \ee 

864: The last inequality follows from the bound

865: $\alpha_m >c/2$ (which is a necessary condition to have positive

866: acceleration in the model \cite{GPV}) and the reasonable bound $\Omega_m > 0.25$. 

867:  

868:   In the present work, we

869:  wish, however, to be as independent as possible from specific assumptions (as the ones

870:  used in \cite{GPV}). Therefore, rather than insisting on specific (model-dependent) predictions

871:  for the present value of ${\varphi'_0}$ we wish to find the (model-independent) upper

872: bounds on the possible values of ${\varphi'_0}$ set by current observational data. 

873: There are several ways of getting such phenomenological bounds, because the existence

874: of a kinetic energy (and pressure) associated to $d \varphi / d t = H \varphi'$ has

875: several observable consequences. A rather secure bound can be obtained by relating

876: the value of $\varphi'$ to the  deceleration parameter 

877: $q \equiv - \ddot{a}a/\dot{a}^2$. In the general class of models that we consider,

878:  the cosmological

879: energy density and pressure have (currently) three significant contributions: dark matter

880: ( $\Omega_m = \rho_m/ \rho_c$), dark energy ($\Omega_V$) and the kinetic effect of a

881: scalar field ($\Omega_k = \rho_k/\rho_c$ with $\rho_k = (\widetilde{m}_P^2 /2) (d\varphi/dt)^2 = 

882: (\widetilde{m}_P^2 /2) H^2 {\varphi'}^2 $ so that $\Omega_k = \varphi'^2/3$).

883: We assume (consistently with recent cosmic background data) that the space curvature is

884: zero. Therefore we have the first relation 

885: \be \label{om1}

886:  \Omega_m + \Omega_V + \Omega_k = 1 = \Omega_m + \Omega_V + \varphi'^2/3 \, .

887: \ee 

888: The deceleration parameter is given by the general expression

889: $ 2 q = \Sigma_A \Omega_A ( 1 + 3 w_A)$. Using $ w_m = 0$, $ w_V = -1$ and $w_k = + 1$,

890: we get 

891: \be \label{q1}

892: 2 q  = \Omega_m - 2 \Omega_V + \frac{4}{3} \varphi'^2.

893: \ee

894: Using the relation (\ref{om1})  above to eliminate $\Omega_V$ we get the following expression for 

895: $\varphi'^2$ in terms of the observable quantities $q$ and $\Omega_m$

896: \be \label{q2}

897: \varphi'^2 = 1 + q - \frac{3}{2} \Omega_m.

898: \ee

899: 

900: The supernovae Ia data \cite{SNI} give a strict upper bound on the

901: present value $q_0$: $q_0<0$. A generous lower bound on the present value of

902: $\Omega_m$ is $\Omega_{m 0} > 0.2$ \cite{omegam}. 

903: Inserting these two constraints in Eq.(\ref{q2}) finally yields

904: the safe upper bound

905: \be \label{q3}

906:  {\varphi'_0}^2 < 0.7 \, , \; {\rm i.e.} \; \vert \varphi'_0 \vert < 0.84 \; .

907: \ee

908:  

909:  To summarize, 

910: quite different rates of evolution for the dilaton are possible. A very slow variation

911: is expected whenever dilaton couplings to both dark energy and dark matter follow

912: the ``normal'' behaviour (\ref{eq1.3}). Otherwise, dilaton variations on the Hubble 

913: scale are expected. However, cosmological observations set the strict

914: upper bound (\ref{q3}) on the present time variation of $\varphi$.

915: For the purpose of the present section (evaluating the current location of the dilaton)

916: these two alternatives do not make much difference because the vacuum-dominance

917: era has started less than about 0.7 e-folds away ($\ln (1+z_*)$ with $z_* < 1$).

918: Therefore, $\varphi$ did not have enough ``$p$-time'' , during vacuum dominance, to

919: move much, even if it is coupled to vacuum energy with $\alpha_V \simeq - (c/4) \sim 1$.

920: 

921:  Finally, we conclude from this analysis that, to a 

922: good approximation (and using the fact that the phenomenology of

923: the matter-era constrains the dark-matter couplings of the dilaton to be rather small),

924:  the value of $\varphi$ now is essentially given by the value $\varphi_{\rm 

925: end}$ at the end of inflation, i.e. by Eq.~(\ref{eq2.23}).

926: 

927: \section{Deviations from general relativity induced by a runaway dilaton}\label{sec3}

928: 

929: \subsection{Composition-independent deviations from general relativity}

930:  

931: 

932: The previous section has reached the conclusion that present deviations 

933: from general relativity are given, to a 

934: good approximation, by the values of the matter-coupling coefficients 

935: $\alpha_{A} (\varphi)$ 

936: given by Eq.~(\ref{eq3.1}) calculated at $\varphi \simeq \varphi_{\rm end}$ as given by 

937: Eq. (\ref{eq2.23'}). Let us now see the 

938: meaning of this result in terms of observable quantities.

939: 

940: Let us first consider the (approximately) composition-independent deviations from general 

941: relativity, i.e. those that do not essentially depend on violations of the equivalence 

942: principle. Most composition-independent gravitational experiments (in the solar system or in 

943: binary pulsars) consider the long-range interaction between objects whose masses are 

944: essentially baryonic (the Sun, planets, neutron stars). As argued in \cite{TV88,DP94} the 

945: relevant coupling coefficient $\alpha_A$ is then approximately universal and given by the 

946: logarithmic derivative of the QCD confinement scale $\Lambda_{\rm QCD} (\varphi)$, because the 

947: mass of hadrons is essentially given by a pure number times $\Lambda_{\rm QCD} (\varphi)$. [We 

948: shall consider below the small, non-universal, corrections to $m_A (\varphi)$ and 

949: $\alpha_A (\varphi)$ 

950: linked to QED effects and quark masses.] Remembering from Eq.~(\ref{eq1.1}) the 

951: fact that, in the string frame (where there is a fixed cut-off linked to the string mass 

952: $\widetilde{M}_s \sim (\alpha')^{-1/2}$) the gauge coupling is dilaton-dependent ($g_F^{-2} = 

953: B_F (\varphi)$), we see that (after conformal transformation) the Einstein-frame confinement 

954: scale has a dilaton-dependence of the form

955: \be

956: \label{eq3.5}

957: \Lambda_{\rm QCD} (\varphi) \sim C^{-1/2} \, B_g^{-1/2} (\varphi) \exp [- 8 \pi^2 \, b_3^{-1} 

958: \, B_F (\varphi)] \, \widetilde{M}_s \, ,

959: \ee

960: where $b_3$ denotes the one-loop (rational) coefficient entering the Renormalization Group 

961: running of $g_F$. Here $B_F (\varphi)$ denotes the coupling to the ${\rm SU} (3)$ gauge 

962: fields. For simplicity, we shall assume that (modulo rational coefficients) all gauge fields 

963: couple (near the string cut off) to the same $B_F (\varphi)$. This yields the following 

964: approximately universal dilaton coupling to hadronic matter

965: \be

966: \label{eq3.6}

967: \alpha_{\rm had} (\varphi) \simeq \left( \ln \left( \frac{\widetilde{M}_s}{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}} 

968: \right) + \frac{1}{2} \right) \frac{\partial \ln B_F^{-1} (\varphi)}{\partial \, \varphi} \, .

969: \ee

970: We recall that the quantity $\alpha_{\rm had}(\varphi)$, 

971: which measures the coupling of the

972: dilaton to hadronic matter, should not be confused with any "strong" gauge

973: coupling, $\alpha_s = g_s^2/4 \pi$.

974: Numerically, the coefficient in front of the R.H.S. of (\ref{eq3.6}) is of order 40. 

975: Consistently with our basic assumption (\ref{eq1.3}), we parametrize 

976: the $\varphi$ dependence of the gauge coupling $g_F^2 = B_F^{-1}$ as

977: \be

978: \label{eq3.7}

979: B_F^{-1} (\varphi) = B_F^{-1} (+ \infty) \, [1 - b_F \, e^{-c\varphi}] \, .

980: \ee

981: Note that, like $b_\lambda$ (see section \ref{sec2}), 

982: also $b_F$ is expected to be smallish [$\sim B_F^{-1} (+ \infty)$ or, equivalently,

983: $\sim C_F^{-1}$ in the notations of (\ref{eq1.3})] and typically the ratio 

984: $b_F/b_\lambda$ is of order unity.

985: We finally obtain 

986: \be

987: \label{eq3.8}

988: \alpha_{\rm had} (\varphi) \simeq 40 \, b_F \, c \, e^{-c\varphi} \, .

989: \ee

990: We can now insert the estimate (\ref{eq2.23'}) of the value of $\varphi$ reached because of the 

991: cosmological evolution. Neglecting the ${\cal O} (1)$ renormalization factor due to quantum noise,

992: we get the estimate

993: \be

994: \label{eq3.9}

995: \alpha_{\rm had} (\varphi_{\rm end}) \simeq 3.2 \, \frac{b_F}{b_{\lambda} \, c} \, 

996: \delta_H^{\frac{4}{n+2}} \, ,

997: \ee

998: \be

999: \label{eq3.10}

1000: \alpha_{\rm had}^2 (\varphi_{\rm end}) \simeq 10 \left(\frac{b_F}{b_{\lambda} \, c} \right)^2 

1001: \delta_H^{\frac{8}{n+2}} \, .

1002: \ee

1003: As said above, it is plausible to expect that the quantity $c$ (which is a ratio) and the 

1004: ratio $b_F / b_{\lambda}$ are both of order unity. This then leads to the numerical estimate 

1005: $\alpha_{\rm had}^2 \sim 10 \, \delta_H^{\frac{8}{n+2}}$, with $\delta_H \simeq 5 \times 

1006: 10^{-5}$. An interesting aspect of this result is that the expected present value of 

1007: $\alpha_{\rm had}^2$ depends rather strongly on the value of the exponent $n$ (which entered 

1008: the inflaton potential $V(\chi) \propto \chi^n$). In the case $n=2$ (i.e. $V(\chi) = 

1009: \frac{1}{2} \, m_{\chi}^2 \, \chi^2$) we have $\alpha_{\rm had}^2 \sim 2.5 \times 10^{-8}$, 

1010: while if $n=4$ ($V (\chi) = \frac{1}{4} \, \lambda \, \chi^4$) we have $\alpha_{\rm had}^2 \sim 

1011: 1.8 \times 10^{-5}$.

1012: 

1013:  How do these numbers compare to present (composition-independent) 

1014: experimental limits on deviations from Einstein's theory \cite{exp}? This question has been 

1015: addressed in the literature. Concerning solar-system (post-Newtonian) tests it was shown (see, 

1016: e.g., \cite{DEF92}) that the two main ``Eddington'' parameters $\gamma - 1$ and $\beta - 1$ 

1017: measuring post-Newtonian deviations from general relativity are linked as follows to the 

1018: dilaton coupling $\alpha_{\rm had} (\varphi)$:

1019: \be

1020: \label{eq3.11}

1021: \gamma - 1 = - 2 \, \frac{\alpha_{\rm had}^2}{1 + \alpha_{\rm had}^2} \simeq - 2 \, \alpha_{\rm 

1022: had}^2 \, ,

1023: \ee

1024: \be

1025: \label{eq3.12}

1026: \beta - 1 = \frac{1}{2} \, \frac{\alpha'_{\rm had} \, \alpha_{\rm had}^2}{(1 + \alpha_{\rm 

1027: had}^2)^2} \simeq \frac{1}{2} \, \alpha'_{\rm had} \, \alpha_{\rm had}^2 \, ,

1028: \ee

1029: where $\alpha'_{\rm had} \equiv \partial  \alpha_{\rm had} (\varphi) / \partial \varphi$.

1030: 

1031: {}From Eq.~(\ref{eq3.8}) we see that $\alpha'_{\rm had} \simeq -c \, \alpha_{\rm had}$, so that 

1032: the deviation $\beta - 1$ is ${\cal O} (\alpha_{\rm had}^3)$ and thereby predicted to be too 

1033: small to be phenomenologically interesting. This leaves $\gamma - 1 \simeq -2 \, \alpha_{\rm 

1034: had}^2$ as the leading observable deviation. The best current solar-system limit on $\gamma - 

1035: 1$ comes from Very Long Baseline Interferometry measurements of the deflection of radio waves 

1036: by the Sun and is (approximately) $\vert \gamma - 1 \vert \lesssim 2 \times 10^{-4}$, 

1037: corresponding to $\alpha_{\rm had}^2 \lesssim 10^{-4}$ (see \cite{exp} for reviews and 

1038: references). In addition to solar-system tests, we should also consider binary-pulsar tests 

1039: which provide another high-precision window on possible deviations from general relativity. 

1040: They have been analyzed in terms of the two quantities $\alpha_{\rm had}$ (denoted $\alpha$) 

1041: and $\alpha'_{\rm had}$ (denoted $\beta$) in \cite{DEF}. The final conclusion is that the 

1042: binary-pulsar limit on $\alpha_{\rm had}$ is of order $\alpha_{\rm had}^2 \lesssim 10^{-3}$.

1043: 

1044: At this stage it seems that the runaway scenario explored here is 

1045: leading to deviations from 

1046: general relativity which are much smaller than present experimental limits. However, we must 

1047: turn our attention to {\it composition-dependent} effects which turn out to be much more 

1048: sensitive tests.

1049: 

1050: \subsection{Composition-dependent deviations from general relativity}

1051: 

1052: Let us then consider situations where the non-universal couplings of the dilaton induce 

1053: (apparent) violations of the equivalence principle. Let us start by considering the 

1054: composition-dependence of the dilaton coupling $\alpha_A$, Eq.~(\ref{eq3.1}), i.e. the 

1055: dependence of $\alpha_A$ on the type of matter we consider.

1056: The definition of $\alpha_A$ is such that, at the Newtonian approximation, the interaction 

1057: potential between particle $A$ and particle $B$ is $-G_{AB} \, m_A \, m_B / r_{AB}$ where 

1058: \cite{DP94}

1059: \be

1060: \label{eq3.13}

1061: G_{AB} = G (1 + \alpha_A \, \alpha_B) \, .

1062: \ee

1063: Here, $G$ is the bare gravitational coupling constant entering the Einstein-frame action 

1064: (\ref{eq2.4}), and $\alpha_A = \alpha_A (\varphi)$ is the strength of the dilaton coupling to 

1065: $A$-particles, taken at the present (cosmologically determined) VEV of $\varphi$. The term 

1066: $\alpha_A \, \alpha_B$ comes from the additional attractive effect of dilaton exchange. Two 

1067: test masses, made respectively of $A$- and $B$-type particles will then fall in the 

1068: gravitational field generated by an external mass $m_E$ with accelerations differing by

1069: \be

1070: \label{eq3.14}

1071: \left( \frac{\Delta a}{a} \right)_{AB} \equiv 2 \, \frac{a_A - a_B}{a_A + a_B} \simeq 

1072: (\alpha_A - \alpha_B) \, \alpha_E \, .

1073: \ee

1074: We have seen above that in lowest approximation $\alpha_A \simeq \alpha_{\rm had}$ does not 

1075: depend on the composition of $A$. We need, however, now to retain the small 

1076: composition-dependent effects to $\alpha_A$ linked to the $\varphi$-dependence of QED and 

1077: quark contributions to $m_A$. This has been investigated in \cite{DP94} with the result

1078: \be

1079: \label{eq3.15}

1080: \left( \frac{\Delta a}{a} \right)_{AB} = \left( \frac{\alpha_{\rm had}}{40} \right)^2 \left[ 

1081: C_B \, \Delta \left( \frac{B}{M} \right) + C_D \, \Delta \left( \frac{D}{M} \right) + C_E \, 

1082: \Delta \left( \frac{E}{M} \right) \right]_{AB} \,  ,

1083: \ee

1084: where $(\Delta X)_{AB} \equiv X_A - X_B$, where $B \equiv N + Z$ is the baryon number, $D 

1085: \equiv N-Z$ the neutron excess, $E \equiv Z (Z-1) / (N+Z)^{1/3}$ a quantity linked to nuclear 

1086: Coulomb effects, and where $M \equiv m/u$ denotes the mass in atomic mass unit, $u = 

1087: 931.49432$ MeV. It is difficult (and model-dependent) to try to estimate the coefficients 

1088: $C_B$ and $C_D$. It was argued in \cite{DP94} that their contributions to (\ref{eq3.15}) is 

1089: generically expected to be sub-dominant with respect to the last contribution, $\propto C_E$, 

1090: which can be better estimated because it is linked to the $\varphi$-dependence of the 

1091: fine-structure constant $e^2 \propto B_F^{-1} (\varphi)$. This then leads to the numerical 

1092: estimate $C_E \simeq 3.14 \times 10^{-2}$ and a violation of the universality of free fall 

1093: approximately given by

1094: \be

1095: \label{eq3.16}

1096: \left( \frac{\Delta a}{a} \right)_{AB} \simeq 2 \times 10^{-5} \, \alpha_{\rm had}^2 \left[ 

1097: \left( \frac{E}{M} \right)_A - \left( \frac{E}{M} \right)_B \right] \, .

1098: \ee

1099: 

1100: The values of $B/M$, $D/M$ and $E/M$ have been computed in \cite{D96}. For mass-pairs that 

1101: have been actually used in recent experiments (such as Beryllium and Copper), as well as for 

1102: mass-pairs that are planned to be used in forthcoming experiments (such as Platinum and 

1103: Titanium) one finds: $(E/M)_{\rm Cu} - (E/M)_{\rm Be} = 2.56$, $(E/M)_{\rm Pt} - (E/M)_{\rm 

1104: Ti} = 2.65$. Using the average estimate $\Delta (E/M) \simeq 2.6$, we get from (\ref{eq3.16}) 

1105: and (\ref{eq3.10}) the estimate

1106: \be

1107: \label{eq3.17}

1108: \left( \frac{\Delta a}{a} \right) \simeq 5.2 \times 10^{-5} \, \alpha_{\rm had}^2 \simeq 5.2 

1109: \times 10^{-4} \left( \frac{b_F}{b_{\lambda} \, c} \right)^2 \, \delta_H^{\frac{8}{n+2}} 

1110: \, .

1111: \ee

1112: Note also (from (\ref{eq3.11})) the link between composition-dependent effects and 

1113: post-Newtonian ones

1114: \be

1115: \label{eq3.18}

1116: \left( \frac{\Delta a}{a} \right) \simeq - 2.6 \times 10^{-5} (\gamma - 1) \, .

1117: \ee

1118: As current tests of the universality of free fall (UFF) have put limits in the $10^{-12}$ 

1119: range (e.g. $(\Delta a / a)_{\rm Be \, Cu} = (-1.9 \pm 2.5) \times 10^{-12}$ from 

1120: \cite{Su94}), we see from Eq.~(\ref{eq3.18}) that this corresponds to limits on $\gamma - 1$ 

1121: or $\alpha_{\rm had}^2$ in the $10^{-7}$ range. Therefore tests of the UFF put much more 

1122: stringent limits on dilaton models than solar-system or binary-pulsar tests.

1123: 

1124: 

1125: If we insert the estimate $\delta_H \sim 5 \times 10^{-5}$ in (\ref{eq3.17}) we obtain a level 

1126: of violation of UFF due to a runaway dilaton which is

1127: \be

1128: \label{eq3.19}

1129: \frac{\Delta a}{a} \simeq 1.3 \left( \frac{b_F}{b_{\lambda} \, c} \right)^2 \times 

1130: 10^{-12} \quad \hbox{for} \ n=2 \, ,

1131: \ee

1132: \be

1133: \label{eq3.20}

1134: \frac{\Delta a}{a} \simeq 0.98 \left( \frac{b_F}{b_{\lambda} \, c} \right)^2 \times 

1135: 10^{-9} \quad \hbox{for} \ n=4 \, .

1136: \ee

1137: At face value, one is tempted to conclude that a scenario with $n=4$ (i.e. $V(\chi) \propto 

1138: \chi^4$) tends to be too weak an attractor towards $\varphi = + \infty$ to be naturally 

1139: compatible with equivalence-principle tests. [See, however, the discussion below.] On the 

1140: other hand, the simple scenario $n=2$ ($V(\chi) = \frac{1}{2} \, m_{\chi}^2 \, \chi^2$) is 

1141: quite appealing in that it naturally provides enough attraction towards $\varphi = + \infty$ 

1142: to be compatible with all existing experimental tests. At the same time it suggests 

1143: that a modest improvement in the precision of UFF experiments might discover a violation 

1144: caused by a runaway dilaton.

1145: 

1146: \subsection{Cosmological variation of ``constants''}

1147: 

1148: Let us now consider another possible deviation

1149: from General Relativity and the standard model: a possible variation 

1150: of the coupling constants, most notably of the fine structure 

1151: constant $e^2/\hbar c$ on which the strongest limits are available.

1152: We will discuss first the effects due to the cosmological time-variation of the 

1153: homogeneous component of $\varphi$ 

1154: and, in the next subsection, the possible spatial (and time) variations 

1155: due to  quantum fluctuations of $\varphi$

1156:  as they got amplified during inflation.

1157: 

1158:  Consistently with our previous assumptions we expect 

1159: $e^2 \propto B_F^{-1} (\varphi)$ so that, from (\ref{eq3.7}),

1160: \be

1161: \label{eq3.21}

1162: e^2 (\varphi) = e^2 (+ \infty) \, [1 - b_F \, e^{- c \varphi} ] \, .

1163: \ee

1164: The present logarithmic variation of $e^2$ (using again $dp = H \, dt ;  

1165: \varphi' = d \varphi / d p$) is thus

1166: given by

1167: \be

1168: \label{eq3.21bis}

1169: \frac{d \ln e^2}{H \, dt} = \frac{d \ln e^2}{dp} \simeq b_F \, c \, e^{-c \varphi} \, 

1170: \varphi'_0 \, ,

1171: \ee

1172: where the current value of $\varphi'$,  $\varphi'_0$, is given in general by Eq.~(\ref{eq2.32bis}).

1173: Using  Eq.~(\ref{eq3.8}), we can rewrite the result (\ref{eq3.21bis}) in terms of the 

1174: hadronic coupling:

1175: \be

1176: \label{eq3.21ter}

1177: \frac{d \ln e^2}{H \, dt} \simeq \frac{1}{40} \alpha_{\rm had} \varphi'_0 \, .

1178: \ee

1179: 

1180: As said in section \ref{sec2b}, we have basically two alternatives concerning the 

1181: current coupling of the dilaton

1182: to the dominant energy sources in the universe. 

1183: These two alternatives lead to drastically different predictions for the 

1184: current value of the rate of variation of the fine-structure constant. 

1185: We shall consider

1186: these two alternatives in turn.

1187: 

1188: In the conservative case where 

1189: the dilaton does not play any special role in the present accelerated phase of the 

1190: universe ($\alpha_V \simeq 0$) nor does it have any stronger coupling to dark matter 

1191: than to visible matter ($\alpha_m \simeq -b_m \, c \, e^{-c\varphi}$) the dilaton 

1192: ``velocity'' $\varphi'$ is exponentially suppressed ( so that, from (\ref{om1}),

1193: $ \Omega_V \simeq  1 - \Omega_m$) and 

1194: by Eq. (\ref{eq2.32bis}) one obtains

1195: \be \label{eq3.22'}

1196: \frac{d \ln e^2}{H \, dt} \, \simeq \,  - \frac{\Omega_m}{\Omega_m + 2 \Omega_V} \, b_F \, c\,  

1197: e^{-c\varphi}\alpha_m(\varphi) \, \simeq \, \frac{\Omega_m}{2-\Omega_m} \, b_F \, b_m \, c^2 \, 

1198: e^{-2 c\varphi}.

1199: \ee

1200: An indicative value for the ratio $\Omega_m /(\Omega_m + 2 \Omega_V) \simeq 

1201: \Omega_m /(2-\Omega_m)$, by taking for instance

1202: $\Omega_m = 0.3$, is $0.18$. 

1203: As above, it is useful to relate (\ref{eq3.22'}) to the estimate (\ref{eq3.8}) for $\alpha_{\rm had}$. 

1204: This yields

1205: \be

1206: \label{eq3.23}

1207: \frac{d \ln e^2}{H \, dt} \, \simeq \, \frac{1}{(40)^2} \, \frac{\Omega_m}{2-\Omega_m} \, \frac{b_m}{b_F} \, 

1208: \alpha_{\rm had}^2 \, .

1209: \ee

1210: In terms of the UFF level $\Delta a / a$ predicted by our model in (\ref{eq3.17}) we see also 

1211: that

1212: \be

1213: \label{eq3.24}

1214: \frac{d \ln e^2}{H \, dt} \, \simeq \, 

1215: 12 \, \frac{\Omega_m}{2-\Omega_m} \, \frac{b_m}{b_F} \, \frac{\Delta a}{a} \, .

1216: \ee

1217: Even  if the universe were completely dominated by dark matter 

1218: ($\Omega_m=1$) we see, assuming that $b_m/b_F$ is of order unity,

1219:  that current experimental limits on UFF 

1220: ($\Delta a / a \lesssim 

1221: 10^{-12}$) imply (within dilaton models) that $\vert d \ln e^2 / dt \vert \lesssim 10^{-11} \, 

1222: H \sim 10^{-21} \, {\rm yr}^{-1}$ (the sign of $d \ln e^2 / dt$ being given by the

1223: sign of $b_m/b_F$). This level of variation is much smaller than the current best 

1224: limit on the time variation of $e^2$, namely $\vert d \ln e^2 / dt \vert \lesssim 5 \times 

1225: 10^{-17} \, {\rm yr}^{-1} \sim 5 \times 10^{-7} \, H$, as obtained from an analysis of Oklo data 

1226: \cite{Oklo}. (Note that the assumption-dependent analysis of Ref. \cite{OPQCCV}

1227: gives a limit on the variation of $e^2$ which is strengthened by 

1228: about two orders of magnitude.)

1229: 

1230: 

1231: The situation, however, is drastically different if we consider the alternative case

1232: where the dilaton coupling to the current dominant energy sources does not tend to 

1233: triviality, as in the case of a $\varphi$-dependent vacuum energy

1234: $V(\varphi) = V_0 + V_1 e^{-c\varphi}$ when the first 

1235: term is zero or negligible.

1236: In such a case the dilaton shares a relevant part of the 

1237: total energy density and more significant (though still quite

1238: constrained by UFF data) variations of 

1239: the coupling constants are generally expected.

1240: A general expression for the dilaton ``velocity'' is given in eq.

1241: (\ref{q2}) in terms of observable quantities.  

1242: Using Eqs.~(\ref{q2}) and (\ref{eq3.21ter}) one can relate the expected variation 

1243: of the electromagnetic coupling constant to the hadronic coupling:

1244: \be \label{eq3.25'}

1245: \frac{d \ln e^2}{H \, dt} \simeq \pm \, \frac{\alpha_{\rm had}}{40}  

1246: \, \sqrt{  1 + q_0- 3\Omega_m/2  } 

1247:  \, .

1248: \ee 

1249: 

1250: We can also use the estimate (\ref{eq3.9}) relating

1251: ${\alpha}_{\rm had}$ to the density fluctuations generated during inflation.

1252: We obtain

1253: \be

1254: \label{eq3.26}

1255: \frac{d \ln e^2}{H \, dt} \simeq  

1256: \pm \, 8 \times 10^{-2}  \, \sqrt{  1 + q_0- 3\Omega_m/2  }

1257: \, \frac{b_F}{b_{\lambda} c} \,  \delta_H^{\frac{4}{n+2}}  \, .

1258: \ee 

1259: 

1260: However, in view of the theoretical uncertainties attached to the initial 

1261: conditions

1262: $\chi_{\rm in}$ and $\varphi_{\rm in}$ used in the estimate (\ref{eq3.9}), 

1263: as well as  the ones associated to the order unity ratio 

1264: $b_F / (b_{\lambda} c)$,

1265: it is more interesting

1266: to rewrite our prediction in terms of {\it observable} quantities. Using again

1267: the link Eq.~(\ref{eq3.17}) between ${\alpha}_{\rm had}$ and the observable

1268: violation of the universality of free fall (UFF) the 

1269: above result can be written in the form

1270: \be

1271: \label{eq3.26''}

1272: \frac{d \ln e^2}{H \, dt} \simeq \pm \, 3.5 \times 10^{-6} \, 

1273: \sqrt{  1 + q_0- 3\Omega_m/2  }

1274: \, \sqrt{ 10^{12} \frac{\Delta a}{a}} \, .

1275: \ee

1276: 

1277: 

1278: Note that the sign of the variation of $e^2$ is in general model-dependent (as it

1279: depends both on the sign of $b_F$ and the sign of $\varphi'_0$). Specific classes

1280: of models might, however, favour particular signs of $d e^2/d t$. For instance,  

1281:  from the point of view of \cite{V01} one would expect the ${\cal O} (e^{-\phi})$ terms

1282:  in Eq.~(\ref{eq1.3}) to be positive, which would then imply that $b_F$ is positive.

1283:  If we combine this information with the prediction Eq.~(\ref{eq2.34}) of the

1284: model \cite{GPV} implying that $\varphi'$ is also positive, we would reach the conclusion that 

1285: $e^2$ must be currently {\it increasing}. 

1286: 

1287: Independently of this question of the sign, we see that

1288: Eq.~(\ref{eq3.26''}) predicts an interesting link between the observational violation 

1289: of the UFF

1290: (constrained to $\Delta a/a \lesssim 10^{-12}$),

1291: and the current time-variation of the fine-structure constant. Contrary to the relation 

1292: (\ref{eq3.24}), obtained above under the alternative assumption about the dilaton dependence

1293: of the dominant cosmological energy, which predicted a  relation linear in $\Delta a/a$,

1294:  we have here a relation involving the square root of the UFF violation (such

1295: a relation is similar to the result of \cite{DGG} which concerned the time-variation of

1296: the Newton constant). 

1297: 

1298: The phenomenologically interesting consequence of Eq.~(\ref{eq3.26''})

1299: is to predict a time-variation of constants which may be large enough to be detected

1300: by high-precision laboratory experiments. Indeed, using $H_0 \simeq 66$ km/s/Mpc, and the

1301: plausible estimates

1302: $\Omega_m = 0.3$, $q_0 = -0.4$,

1303: Eq.~(\ref{eq3.26''}) yields the numerical estimate 

1304: $d \ln e^2 / dt \sim \pm 0.9 \times 10^{-16}

1305: \,   \sqrt{ 10^{12} \Delta a/a} \, {\rm yr}^{-1}$.

1306:  Therefore, the current bound on UFF violations

1307: ($\Delta a/a \sim 10^{-12}$) corresponds to the level $10^{-16}{\rm yr}^{-1}$,

1308: which is comparable to the planned sensitivity of currently developed cold-atom clocks

1309: \cite{salomon}. [Present laboratory bounds are at the  $10^{-14}{\rm yr}^{-1}$

1310: level \cite{prestage,salomon}.] Note that if we insert in Eq.~(\ref{eq3.26''}) 

1311: the secure bounds $\Omega_m > 0.2$ and $q_0 < 0$ (leading to the limit Eq.~(\ref{q3})), 

1312: we get as maximal estimate of the time

1313: variation of the fine-structure constant $d \ln e^2 / dt \sim \pm 2.0 \times 10^{-16}

1314: \,   \sqrt{ 10^{12} \Delta a/a} \, {\rm yr}^{-1}$.

1315: We note also that the upper limit on the variation of $e^2$ 

1316: given by the Oklo data, i.e. 

1317: $\vert d \ln e^2 / dt \vert \lesssim 5 \times 10^{-17} \, {\rm yr}^{-1}$ \cite{Oklo},

1318: ``corresponds''  to a violation of the UFF at the

1319: level  $ \sim  10^{-13}$. 

1320: 

1321: In this respect, it is interesting to consider not only the {\it present} variation of

1322: $e^2$ (the only one relevant for laboratory experiments), but also its variation

1323: over several billions of years. (We recall that the  Oklo phenomenon took place 

1324: about two billion years ago, and that astronomical observations constrain the variation

1325: of $e^2$ over the last ten billion years or so). In particular, an interesting question

1326: is to see whether our model could reconcile the Oklo limit (which corresponds to a 

1327: redshift $z \simeq 0.14$) with the recent claim \cite{Webb}

1328: of a variation $ \Delta e^2/ e^2 = ( -0.72 \pm 0.18 ) \times 10^{-5}$ around

1329: redshifts $ z \approx 0.5-3.5$ as proposed in \cite{SBM,OP}. 

1330: The only hope of reconciling the two results would be to

1331: allow for a faster variation of $e^2$ for redshifts $ z > 0.5$. Such recent redshifts have

1332: (apparently) been connected to a transition from matter dominance to vacuum dominance. Let us

1333: see whether taking into account this transition might allow for a large enough change of

1334: $e^2$ around redshifts $ z \approx 0.5-3.5$. We must clearly assume the ``strong coupling'' scenario

1335: $ \alpha_m = {\cal O}(1)$. In this scenario, the variation of $\varphi$

1336: during the matter era is given by Eq.(\ref{eq3.3'}). Neglecting, for simplicity, the transient 

1337: evolution effects localized around the matter-vacuum transition (and treating  both

1338: $\varphi'_m = - \alpha_m$ and $\varphi'_V = \varphi'_0$ as constants), the solution giving the 

1339: recent cosmological evolution of $ \varphi $ reads

1340: $ \varphi - \varphi_0 = - \varphi'_0 \ln (1+z)$ during the vacuum era, and

1341: $ \varphi - \varphi_0 = - \varphi'_0 \ln (1+z_*) - \varphi'_m \ln [ (1+z)/(1+z_*)]$ during

1342: the matter era (the index $0$ refers to the present epoch, i.e. $z=0$;  $z_*$ denotes 

1343: the transition redshift).

1344:  Inserting this change in Eq.(\ref{eq3.21}) leads to the following expression 

1345: for the cosmological change of the fine-structure constant:

1346: \be

1347: \label{3.26''}

1348: \frac{e^2 - e^2_0}{e^2_0} = - {\rm sign} (b_F) \, 3.5 \times 10^{-6} \,

1349: \lbrack \varphi'_0 \ln (1+z_*) + \varphi'_m \ln \frac{ 1+z}{1+z_*} \rbrack \,  

1350: \sqrt{ 10^{12} \frac{\Delta a}{a}}\, .

1351: \ee

1352: Here, we have written the result for the matter era. During the vacuum era the bracket is

1353: simply $[ \varphi'_0 \ln (1+z) ]$. Remembering that the absolute value of $\varphi'_m$ is 

1354: (like that of $\varphi'_V$)

1355: observationally constrained to be smaller than $\sqrt{0.3} \simeq 0.55$ (and that $\varphi'_0$

1356: is also constrained by $ \vert \varphi'_V \vert < 0.84$), we see that there is

1357: no way, within our model, to explain a variation of $e^2$ as large as 

1358: $ \Delta e^2/ e^2 = ( -0.72 \pm 0.18 ) \times 10^{-5}$ around redshifts $ z \approx 0.5-3.5$ 

1359: \cite{Webb}. In our model, even under the assumption that UFF is violated just below

1360: the currently tested level, such a change would have to correspond to a 

1361: value  $ \vert \varphi'_m \vert > 2$, entailing observationally unacceptable modifications

1362: of standard cosmology. [For instance, in the model \cite{GPV} a value as large as

1363:  $\alpha_m >1$ already leads to a pathological behaviour (``total dragging'') 

1364: where all the components scale like radiation.] This difficulty of reconciling 

1365: the Oklo limit with the claim of 

1366: \cite{Webb} was addressed in \cite{OP,SBM} within a different class of models, namely

1367: with a field $\phi$ 

1368: which {\it does not} couple universally to all gauge fields $F_{\mu \nu}$, as the

1369: dilaton $\varphi$ is expected to do. The fact that the field $\phi$ in \cite{OP} 

1370: (or $\psi$ in \cite{SBM}) is assumed to couple only to the electromagnetic 

1371: gauge field

1372: drastically changes our Eq. (\ref{eq3.17}) and allows one to satisfy the UFF limit

1373: $\Delta a/a \lesssim 10^{-12}$, for a stronger coupling of

1374: $\phi$ to electromagnetism than in our class of models, i.e. (in our notation)

1375: for a larger  $d \ln B_F(\varphi)/ d \varphi$. This explains why Ref. \cite{OP} 

1376: could construct some explicit (but fine-tuned) models in which all

1377: observational

1378: limits (UFF, Oklo,...) could be met and still allow for a variation of

1379: $e^2$ as strong as the claim[23].

1380: The maximal variation predicted by Eq.(\ref{3.26''})

1381: for redshifts  corresponding to the matter era

1382: (obtained when $\Delta a/a = 10^{-12}$ and  $\varphi'_m = \pm \sqrt{0.3}$; and assuming a smaller

1383: value of $\varphi'_0$ to be compatible with the Oklo constraint), is of order

1384: $ \Delta e^2/ e^2 = \pm 1.9 \times 10^{-6}$. This is only a factor $\sim 4$ below the claim \cite{Webb}

1385: and is at the level of their one sigma error bar. Therefore a modest improvement in the

1386: observational precision (accompanied by an improved control of systematics) will start to

1387: probe a domain of variation of constants which, according to our scenario, corresponds

1388: to an UFF violation smaller than the $10^{-12}$ level.

1389: 

1390: \subsection{Spatio-temporal fluctuations of the ``constants''}

1391: 

1392: We now turn to the second possible source of spatial-temporal variations 

1393: for $e^2$ in our model,

1394: the quantum fluctuations of the dilaton generated during inflation.  

1395: Within linear perturbation theory, the relevant calculation may

1396: be summarized  as follows.

1397: 

1398:  Consider a flat FRW universe 

1399: $ds^2 = -dt^2 + a(t)^2 \, \Sigma_i dx_i^2 $ . 

1400: The dilaton fluctuations 

1401: can be expanded in Fourier components $\delta \varphi_{\bf k}$ of given comoving

1402: momentum ${\bf k}$ as follows:

1403: \be

1404: \delta\varphi({\bf x},t) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}\int d^3k \,

1405: \delta \varphi_{\bf k}(t) e^{i {\bf k x}},

1406: \ee

1407: where $t$ is the cosmological time.  

1408: Each Fourier mode $\delta \varphi_{\bf k}$ 

1409: ``leaves'' the horizon during inflation with an amplitude 

1410: $\sim \whh_{\rm ex}(k)/\sqrt{2 k^3}\, $ 

1411: \cite{lyth} where, by definition, $\whh_{\rm ex}(k)$ is the value of the dimensionless

1412: Hubble expansion rate as $k a^{-1}$ equals $H$ during inflation (note that we denote here

1413: $\whh_{\rm ex}$ what was denoted $\whh_{\times}$ above).

1414: Well after the exit ($k \ll a H$) the amplitude of each mode ``freezes out'',

1415: i.e. remains roughly constant, until it reenters the horizon during the 

1416: post-inflationary epoch 

1417: ($k a_{re}^{-1} \simeq H_{re}$). After re-entry  the amplitude starts to 

1418: damp out as $a^{-1}$. 

1419: For a given Fourier mode $\delta\varphi_{\bf k}(t)$, 

1420: the latter damping effect is described by the piecewise function 

1421: \begin{equation}

1422: f_z(k) \equiv \left\{ \begin{array}{llc}

1423: 1 & {\rm if} & \quad a_0^{-1} H_0^{-1} \, k \, < \, (z+1)^{1/2} \\[2mm]

1424: a_0^2 H_0^2 \, (z+1) k^{-2}& {\rm if} & \qquad (z+1)^{1/2} \, < \, 

1425: a_0^{-1} H_0^{-1}\, k \, < \, 10^2  \\[2mm]

1426: 10^{-2} a_0 H_0 \, (z+1) k^{-1}\qquad \qquad & {\rm if} &  \quad a_0^{-1} H_0^{-1}\, k \, 

1427: > \, 10^2 

1428: \end{array} \right.

1429: \ee

1430: Here the cosmological redshift $z=a_0/a(t)-1$ has been introduced in replacement of the 

1431: cosmological time

1432: $t$. The first case refers to  Fourier modes that have

1433:  not reentered yet at redshift $z$ 

1434: and whose amplitudes are still frozen. The second and third cases refer to  modes 

1435: that reenter during matter and radiation domination respectively.

1436: Putting all together, and assuming a gaussian probability distribution for the 

1437: perturbations, we have:

1438: \be \label{eq3.28f}

1439: \langle\delta\varphi_{\bf k} (t)^* \, \delta\varphi_{\bf k'} (t') \rangle  \, \, =\, 

1440: \frac{\whh_{\rm ex}^2(k)}{2k^3} \, f_z(k)\, f_{z'}(k)

1441: \, \delta^3({\bf k} - {\bf k'}) \, .

1442: \ee

1443: Possible spatial/temporal variations of $e^2$ induced by the 

1444: fluctuations of the dilaton will be given by

1445: \be \label{eq3.27}

1446: \left. \frac{\Delta^{\rm fluc} e^2}{e^2}\right|_{({\bf x}, t;\, {\bf x'}, t')} \, = \, 

1447: \frac{d \ln e^2}{d\varphi}\, \Delta^{\rm fluc} \varphi |_{({\bf x}, t;\, {\bf x'}, t')}

1448: \, ,

1449: \ee

1450: where the r.m.s $\Delta^{\rm fluc}\varphi$ between two events (${\bf x}, t$) and (${\bf x'}, t'$) 

1451: is defined as follows

1452: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1453: \Delta^{\rm fluc} \varphi |_{({\bf x}, t;\, {\bf x'}, t')} ^2 \, 

1454: & \equiv & \, \langle\, [\delta\varphi({\bf x}, t) - \delta\varphi({\bf x'}, t')]^2 \rangle  \\[2mm]

1455: & = & \, \frac{\whh_{\rm ex}^2}{(2\pi)^3} \int \frac{d^3 k}{2\, k^3}\, 

1456: \left[f_z(k)^2 + f_{z'}(k)^2

1457: - 2 f_z(k) f_{z'}(k) \, e^{i {\bf k}({\bf x} - {\bf x'})} \right]\\[2mm]

1458: & = & \, \frac{\whh_{\rm ex}^2}{(2\pi)^2} \int_0^\infty \frac{d k}{k}\, 

1459: \left\{\left[f_z(k) - f_{z'}(k)\right]^2 + 2

1460: f_z(k) f_{z'}(k)\left[1- \, \frac{\sin k x} 

1461: {k x}\right]\right\}\, . \label{eq3.30}

1462: \end{eqnarray}

1463: Here, $x \equiv |{\bf x} - {\bf x'}|$ is the coordinate distance between the two events

1464: and, consistently with the slow-roll approximation, the Hubble expansion rate at

1465: exit has been assumed to be scale-invariant:

1466:  $\whh_{\rm ex}(k) \simeq \whh_{\rm ex}  \simeq 3 \times 10^{-5}$ . 

1467: 

1468: If one considers spatial fluctuations over terrestrial or 

1469: solar system proper length scales $l=a_0k^{-1} \ll H_0^{-1}$ at the present time 

1470: $t=t'= t_0$, the first square brackets in (\ref{eq3.30}) vanishes and one can expand the 

1471: sine function at small $kx$  

1472: obtaining 

1473: \be \label{eq3.28}

1474: \Delta^{\rm fluc} \varphi |_{l;\, z=0} \, \simeq  \frac{\whh_{\rm ex}}{2\pi} \, 

1475: \, \frac{H_0\, l}{\sqrt{3}} \qquad ; \, 

1476: \left. \frac{\Delta^{\rm fluc} e^2}{e^2}\right|_{l;\, z=0} \, \simeq \, 10^{-2} \, 

1477: \alpha_{\rm had}\, \whh_{\rm ex}\, H_0 \, l \, .

1478: \ee

1479: As expected, these variations are

1480: extremely small, ${\Delta^{\rm fluc} e^2}/{e^2}|_{l;\, z=0}\simeq 10^{-33} \, 

1481: l / {\rm km}$. 

1482: It is also interesting to compare dilaton fluctuations at different redshifts 

1483: along a comoving observer wordline. By putting $x\simeq 0$ in (\ref{eq3.30}) 

1484: the second term in the square brackets vanishes and one has:

1485: \be \label{eq3.34}

1486: \Delta^{\rm fluc} \varphi |_{z;\, x=0} \, \simeq \, \frac{\whh_{\rm ex}}{2\pi}

1487: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}

1488: \left[\log(1+z) - \frac{z}{1+z} + \frac{10^{-8}}{2} z^2\right]^{1/2} \simeq 

1489: \frac{\whh_{\rm ex}}{2\pi} \left[\frac{z}{2} - \frac{z^2}{3} + \dots\right] \, .

1490: \ee

1491: 

1492: It is slightly  more complicated  to compare dilaton fluctuations

1493:  between ``now'' and events 

1494: at redshift $z$ along a null ray. Expanding in powers of $z$ around $z=0$  

1495: one gets from (\ref{eq3.30}), after a straightforward calculation:

1496: \be \label{eq3.29} 

1497: \Delta^{\rm fluc} \varphi |_z  \,  \simeq \, \frac{\whh_{\rm ex}}{2\pi}\, 

1498: \left[\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{7}{3}}\, z - \frac{2}{\sqrt{21}}\, z^2 + \dots \, \right] .

1499: \ee

1500: Numerically, at redshift $z \sim 1$, the effects of dilatonic fluctuations 

1501: give  $\Delta^{\rm fluc}  \varphi |_{z=1} \sim \whh_{\rm ex}/(2 \pi) \sim 5 \times 10^{-6}$.

1502:  This is to be

1503: contrasted with the effects of the cosmic, 

1504: homogeneous evolution which yields $\Delta  \varphi |_{z=1} \simeq \alpha_m$.

1505: In the ``normal'' case where $\alpha_m \sim e^{-c \varphi} \sim \delta_H^{4/(n+2)}$,

1506: the two effects, though a priori unrelated, are related  in our  scenario , when $n=2$.

1507: Indeed, if $n=2$,  $\delta_H^{4/(n+2)} = \delta_H \sim 5 \times 10^{-5}$ is linked to

1508: $\whh_{\rm ex}/(2 \pi)$ via $ \delta(\chi_{\rm ex}) = A \whh_{\rm ex}/(2 \pi)$

1509: with $A = (8/3) V/ \partial_{\chi} V = (8/3) (\chi/n) \simeq 40/( 3 \sqrt{n}) \sim 10$.

1510: On the other hand, in the case where $\varphi$ is strongly coupled to dark matter, the

1511: homogeneous evolution $\Delta  \varphi |_{z=1} \simeq \alpha_m \sim 1$ is parametrically

1512: larger than the fluctuations $\Delta^{\rm fluc}  \varphi |_{z=1} \sim \whh_{\rm ex}/(2 \pi)$.

1513:  

1514: To conclude on this subsection, we see that the inhomogeneous space-time fluctuations

1515: of the fine-structure constant are typically too small to be observable (if the limits

1516: from UFF are already satisfied), being suppressed, relative to their natural values 

1517: $H_0 l\,, \, H_0 t$, by the  small factor $\alpha_{\rm had} \whh_{\rm ex} $. 

1518: 

1519: 

1520: \section{Summary and conclusion}

1521: We have studied the dilaton-fixing mechanism of \cite{DP94} within the context where the 

1522: dilaton-dependent low-energy couplings are extremized at $\varphi = + \infty$, i.e. for 

1523: infinitely large values of the bare string coupling $g_s^2 = e^{\phi} \simeq e^{c \varphi}$. 

1524: [The crucial coupling to the inflaton, say $\lambda(\varphi)$ in Eq.(\ref{eq2.10}), must be

1525: {\it minimized} at $ \varphi \to + \infty$; the other couplings can be either minimized

1526: or maximized there.]

1527: This possibility of a fixed point at infinity (in bare string coupling space) has been 

1528: recently suggested \cite{V01}, and its late-cosmological consequences have been explored in 

1529: \cite{GPV}. We found that a primordial inflationary stage, with inflaton potential $V(\chi) = 

1530: \lambda (\varphi) \, \chi^n / n$, was much less efficient in decoupling a dilaton with least 

1531: couplings at infinity than in the case where the least couplings are reached at a finite value 

1532: of $\varphi$ (as in \cite{DP94,DV96}). This reduced efficiency has interesting 

1533: phenomenological consequences. Indeed, it predicts much larger observable deviations from 

1534: general relativity. In the case of the simplest chaotic potential \cite{L90} $V(\chi) = 

1535: \frac{1}{2} \, m_{\chi}^2 (\varphi) \, \chi^2$, we find that, under the simplest assumptions 

1536: about the pre-inflationary state, this scenario predicts violations of the universality of 

1537: free fall (UFF) of order $\Delta a / a \sim 5 \times 10^{-4} \, \delta_H^2$ where $\delta_H$ 

1538: is the density fluctuation generated by inflation on horizon scales. The observed level of 

1539: large-scale density (and cosmic microwave background temperature) fluctuations fixes 

1540: $\delta_H$ to be around $5 \times 10^{-5}$ which finally leads to a prediction for a violation 

1541: of the UFF near the $\Delta a / a \sim 10^{-12}$ level. This is naturally compatible with 

1542: present experimental tests of the equivalence principle, and suggests that a modest 

1543: improvement in the precision of UFF tests might be able to detect a deviation linked to 

1544: dilaton exchange with a coupling reduced by the attraction towards the fixed point at 

1545: infinity. Because of the presence of unknown dimensionless

1546:  ratios $(c, b_F / b_\lambda)$ in 

1547: our estimates, and of quantum noise in the evolution of the dilaton,

1548:  we cannot give sharp quantitative estimates of $\Delta a / a$. However, we note 

1549: that dilaton-induced violations of the UFF have a rather precise signature with a 

1550: composition-dependence of the form (\ref{eq3.15}), with probable domination by the last 

1551: (Coulomb energy) term \cite{DP94}. As explored in \cite{D96} this signature is quite distinct 

1552: from UFF violations induced by other fields, such as a vector field. We note that the approved 

1553: Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES) mission MICROSCOPE \cite{Touboul} (to fly in 

1554: 2004) will explore the level $\Delta a / a \sim 10^{-15}$, while the planned National 

1555: Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) and European Space Agency (ESA) mission STEP (Satellite 

1556: Test of the Equivalence Principle)\cite{worden}

1557:  could explore the $\Delta a / a \sim 10^{-18}$ level. 

1558: Our scenario gives additional motivation for such experiments and suggests that they might find 

1559: a rather strong violation signal, whose composition-dependence might then be studied in detail 

1560: to compare it with Eq.~(\ref{eq3.15}).

1561: 

1562: In the case of inflationary potentials $V(\chi) \propto \chi^n$ with $n > 2$ our simplest 

1563: estimates predict a violation of the UFF of order $\Delta a / a \sim 5 \times 10^{-4} \, 

1564: \delta_H^{\frac{8}{n+2}}$ which is larger than $10^{-12}$. At face value this suggests that 

1565: existing UFF experimental data can be interpreted as favouring $n \leq 2$ over $n > 2$. 

1566: However, we must remember that our estimates have made several simplifying assumptions. It is 

1567: possible that the large quantum fluctuations of the inflaton in the self-regenerating regime 

1568: $\chi > \chi_{\rm in}$, with $\chi_{\rm in}$ defined by Eq.~(\ref{eq2.19}), can give more time 

1569: for $\varphi$ to run away towards large values, so that the effective value of $e^{c 

1570: \varphi_{\rm in}}$ to be used in Eq.~(\ref{eq2.23}) turn out to dominate the first term in the 

1571: R.H.S. that we have used for our estimates. We leave to future work a study of the system of

1572: Langevin equations describing  the coupled fluctuations of $\phi$ and $\chi$ during the

1573: self-regenerating regime.

1574: 

1575: 

1576: Finally let us note some other conclusions of our work.

1577: 

1578:   We recover the conclusion of previous 

1579: works on dilaton models that the most interesting experimental probes of a massless weakly 

1580: coupled dilaton are tests of the UFF. The composition-independent gravitational tests (solar-system, 

1581: binary-pulsar) tend to be much 

1582: less sensitive probes (as highlighted by the relations (\ref{eq3.18}), (\ref{eq3.23}) and 

1583: (\ref{eq3.24})).

1584: 

1585:  However, a possible exception concerns the time-variation of the

1586: coupling constants. Here the conclusion depends crucially on the assumptions made about the

1587: couplings of the dilaton to the cosmologically dominant forms of energy (dark matter and/or

1588: dark energy). If these couplings are of order unity (and as large as is phenomenologically 

1589: acceptable, i.e. so that $(\varphi'_0)^2 = 0.7$),

1590: the present time variation of the fine-structure constant is linked to the violation

1591: of the UFF by the relation $d \ln e^2 / dt \sim \pm 2.0 \times 10^{-16}

1592: \,   \sqrt{ 10^{12} \Delta a/a} {\rm yr}^{-1}$. [The most natural sign here being $+$, 

1593: i.e. $b_F > 0$, which corresponds to {\it smaller} $e^2$ in the past, 

1594: just as suggested by the claim \cite{Webb}.]

1595: Such a time variation might be observable

1596: ( if $\Delta a/a$ is not very much below its present upper bound $\sim 10^{-12}$) through

1597: the comparison of high-accuracy cold-atom clocks and/or via improved measurements of

1598: astronomical spectra.

1599: 

1600:  More theoretical work is needed to justify the basic assumption 

1601: (\ref{eq1.3}) of our scenario. In particular, it is crucial to investigate whether it is 

1602: natural to expect that the sign of the crucial coefficient $b_{\lambda}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq2.11}) 

1603: be indeed {\it positive}. [Recall that the general mechanism of \cite{DP94} is an attraction 

1604: towards ``Least Couplings'' while Eq.~(\ref{eq1.3}) with ${\cal O}(e^{- \phi}) > 0$ leads

1605: to largest couplings at infinity.] Note in this respect that the sign of the other $b_i$'s is not 

1606: important as, once inflation has pushed $e^{c \varphi}$ to very large values $e^{c 

1607: \varphi_{\rm end}}$, the subsequent cosmological evolutions tend to be ineffective in further 

1608: displacing $\varphi$. 

1609: \acknowledgments

1610: It is a pleasure to thank Ian Kogan for suggesting a method to solve the (decoupled) Langevin

1611: equation for $\varphi$.

1612: GV   wishes to

1613: acknowledge the support of a ``Chaire Internationale Blaise

1614: Pascal", administered by the ``Fondation de L'Ecole Normale

1615: Sup\'erieure''. The work of F.P. was supported in part

1616: by INFN and MURST under contract 2001-025492, and by the European

1617: Commission TMR program HPRN-CT-2000-00131, in association to the

1618: University of Padova."

1619: 

1620: 

1621: 

1622: 

1623: 

1624: 

1625: 

1626: 

1627: 

1628: 

1629: \appendix 

1630: 

1631: \section{The stochastic evolution of the dilaton}

1632: 

1633: In this appendix we study the stochastic evolution of the dilaton $\varphi$ during 

1634: inflation as described by the Langevin-type equation (\ref{eq4.2}). 

1635: We restrict our attention to the region of 

1636: phase space where the evolution of the inflaton

1637: $\chi$ is classical, and to a power-law potential of the form (\ref{eq2.10}). 

1638: It follows that the inflaton evolves according to the classical slow-roll equation 

1639: (\ref{eq2.13}) whose solution reads

1640: \be \label{a0} 

1641: \chi^2 = \chi_{\rm in}^2 - n p,

1642: \ee 

1643: where $p$, the 

1644: parameter defined in (\ref{eq2.7}), is shifted in such a way that $p_{\rm in} \equiv 0$. 

1645: Equation  (\ref{eq4.2}) takes the form 

1646: \begin{equation} \label{a1}

1647: \frac{d \varphi}{dp} = \frac{1}{2} \, b_{\lambda} \, c \, e^{-c\varphi} +  \,

1648: \xi (p) \, ,

1649: \end{equation} 

1650: where $\xi(p)$ is a gaussian stochastic variable (GSV), with a ``time-dependent'' r.m.s. 

1651: amplitude $\whh (p) /2\pi$:

1652: \be \label{a3}

1653: \langle\xi(p_1)\, \xi(p_2) \rangle \, \, =\, \frac{\whh^2}{(2\pi)^2}\, \delta(p_1-p_2), 

1654: \ee

1655: [the relation with the normalized random white noise term of (\ref{eq4.2}) is

1656: $\xi(p) = \xi_2(p) \whh / 2\pi$].

1657: For any given source term $\xi(p)$, the formal solution of (\ref{a1}) reads

1658: \be \label{a4}

1659: e^{c\, \varphi(p)} \, =\, e^{c\, \varphi_{\rm in}} \, e^{c\, \eta(p)} + 

1660: \frac{b_\lambda c^2}{2}

1661: \int_0^p dp' e^{c\, [\eta(p) - \eta(p')]}\, ,

1662: \qquad

1663: \eta(p) \equiv \int_0^p dp'\, \xi(p')\, . 

1664: \ee

1665: Note that the classical solution in (\ref{eq2.16}), 

1666: $e^{c\, \varphi_{\rm cl}(p)} = e^{c\, \varphi_{\rm in}} + (b_\lambda c^2 /2)\,  p$ ,

1667: can be easily recovered in the 

1668: small noise limit $\xi(p) \rightarrow 0$, $\eta(p) \rightarrow 0$. 

1669: 

1670: It proves convenient to compare the true solution

1671:  to the classical one by studying the statistical 

1672: behaviour of the ratio $A(p) \equiv e^{c\, \varphi(p)}/ e^{c\, \varphi_{\rm cl}(p)}$.

1673: As we will show below, $\langle e^{c\, \eta(p)} \rangle  = {\cal O}(1)$. Moreover, we 

1674: are also assuming $e^{c\, \varphi_{\rm in}} = {\cal O}(1)$ or, at least,

1675: $e^{c\, \varphi_{\rm in}} \ll (b_\lambda c^2/2) p$ (see Section II for details)

1676: so that the leading contribution to the first equation in (\ref{a4}) is given by the integral, 

1677: and we have

1678: \be\label{a4'}

1679: A(p) \, \equiv \, e^{c\, \varphi(p)}/ e^{c\, \varphi_{\rm cl}(p)} \, \simeq \, 

1680: \frac{1}{p} 

1681: \int_0^p dp' e^{c\, [\eta(p) - \eta(p')]}\, .

1682: \ee 

1683: Since $\xi(p)$ is a GSV, also its integral $\eta(p)$ is a (centered) GSV. Moreover,

1684: if $x$ is a GSV with $\sigma_x^2 \, \equiv \, \langle x^2 \rangle  - \langle x \rangle ^2 \, = \, \langle x^2 \rangle $, 

1685: by Bloch's theorem $y= e^x$ is a new stochastic variable with 

1686: $\langle y \rangle  \, = \, \langle e^x \rangle  \, = \, e^{\langle x^2 \rangle /2}$ and 

1687: $\sigma_y^2 \, = \, e^{2 \langle x^2 \rangle } - e^{\langle x^2 \rangle }$.

1688: The average value of $A(p)$ thus reads 

1689: \be 

1690: \label{a5}

1691: \langle A(p) \rangle   \, \, \simeq \,

1692: \frac{1}{p} \int_0^p dp' \, e^{(c^2/2)\, \langle[\eta(p) - \eta(p')]^2 \rangle }\,. 

1693: \ee

1694: The exponent on the right hand side of the above equation can be estimated by 

1695: using (\ref{a3}) and the slow-roll approximation  

1696: $\whh^2 \simeq 2 V(\chi,\varphi)/3 = 2 \lambda(\varphi) \chi^n /3n \simeq 2 

1697: \lambda_\infty \chi^n/3n $. One gets

1698: \be \label{a6}

1699: \langle[\eta(p)-\eta(p')]^2 \rangle \, \, =\, 

1700: \frac{1}{(2\pi)^2} \int_{p'}^{p} \whh^2 dp''\, \simeq \, \frac{n}{2(n+2)}

1701: \left[\left(\frac{\chi(p')}{\chi_{\rm in}}\right)^{n+2}\!\!\! -\left( 

1702: \frac{\chi(p)}{\chi_{\rm in}}\right)^{n+2} \right]\, ,

1703: \ee

1704: where $\chi_{\rm in}$ is the  value at exit from self-regenerating inflation: 

1705: $\whh(\chi_{\rm in})/2\pi = n /(2\chi_{\rm in})$ (see Section II for more details).

1706: Since we are interested in evaluating (\ref{a5}) at the end of inflation, 

1707: $p = p_{\rm end} \simeq \chi_{\rm in}^2/n$, we can thus write

1708: \be \label{a8}

1709: \langle[\eta(p)-\eta(p')]^2 \rangle \, \, \simeq\, 

1710: \frac{n}{2(n+2)} \left[1-\frac{p'}{p_{\rm end}}\, \right]^{(n+2)/2}.

1711: \ee

1712: When evaluated at $p'=0$, the above formula gives  

1713: $\langle\eta(p)^2 \rangle  = n/(2(n+2))$. Thus the normalization factor to the initial condition in 

1714: (\ref{a4}) is of order one, as anticipated: $\langle e^{c\, \eta(p)} \rangle  =  e^{ \frac{1}{2} c \langle 

1715: \eta(p)^2 \rangle} = {\cal O}(1)$.

1716: {}From (\ref{a5}) and (\ref{a8}) we have:

1717: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1718: \langle A(p_{\rm end})  \rangle  \, 

1719: &\simeq &\, \,  \frac{1}{p_{\rm end}} 

1720: \int_0^{p_{\rm end}} dp' \exp\left[\frac{c^2 n}{4(n+2)}\left(1-\frac{p'}{p_{\rm end}}

1721: \right)^{(n+2)/2}\right]   \\

1722: & = & \, 

1723: \int_0^1 \, \exp\left[\frac{c^2 n}{4(n+2)} 

1724: x^{(n+2)/2}\right] dx  \\ \nonumber

1725: & = & \,  \exp\left(\frac{c^2 n \theta}{4(n+2)}\right) = {\cal O}(1) ,

1726: \end{eqnarray}

1727: with $0 < \theta < 1$.

1728: 

1729:  We can estimate the dispersion of the same quantity by  expanding

1730: the exponential inside the integral (\ref{a5}) 

1731: in powers of $\xi(p)$:

1732: \be

1733: A(p) \, \simeq \, 

1734: 1 + \frac{c}{p} \int_0^p dp' \int_{p'}^p dp'' \xi(p'') + \frac{1}{2} \frac{c^2}{p} 

1735: \int_0^p dp'\left(\int_{p'}^p dp''\xi(p'')\right)^2 + \dots .

1736: \ee

1737: At lowest order in $\xi(p)$ the variance of the above quantity calculated at 

1738: $p = p_{\rm end}$ reads

1739: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1740: \sigma^2_{A(p_{\rm end})}\,  & = &

1741: \left\langle \left(\frac{c}{p} \int_0^p dp' \int_{p'}^p dp'' \xi(p'')\right)^2\right \rangle \\

1742: &=& \frac{c^2}{p^2}  \int_0^p dp'  \int_0^p dp''\int_{{\rm max}(p',p'')}^p dp''' 

1743: \frac{\whh^2(p''')}{(2\pi)^2} \\ \nonumber

1744: &=& \frac{2 c^2}{p^2} \int_0^p dp' p' \int_{p'}^p dp'' \frac{\whh^2(p'')}{(2\pi)^2} .

1745: \end{eqnarray}

1746: As in equation (\ref{a6}) we can use the slow-roll approximation and obtain 

1747: \be

1748: \sigma^2_{A(p_{\rm end})}\  =  \

1749: \frac{c^2\, n}{n+2}\int_0^1 x\, (1-x)^{(n+2)/2} dx\ 

1750: = \ c^2 {\cal O}(1) \, . \nonumber

1751: \ee

1752: 

1753: 

1754: 

1755: 

1756: \begin{references}

1757: \bibitem{Witten}  E. Witten, {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 149}, 351 (1984).

1758: \bibitem{TV88} T.R. Taylor and G. Veneziano, {\it Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 213}, 450 (1988).

1759: \bibitem{DP94} T. Damour and A.M. Polyakov, {\it Nucl. Phys. B} {\bf 423}, 532 (1994); {\it 

1760: Gen. Rel. Grav.} {\bf 26}, 1171 (1994).

1761: \bibitem{DN93} T. Damour and K. Nordtvedt, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 70}, 2217 (1993); {\it 

1762: Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 48}, 3436 (1993).

1763: \bibitem{V01} G. Veneziano, {\it J. High Energy Phys.} {\bf 06}, 051 (2002).  

1764: 

1765: \bibitem{GPV} M. Gasperini, F. Piazza and G. Veneziano, {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 65}, 023508

1766:  (2002).

1767: \bibitem{prl}  T. Damour, F. Piazza and G. Veneziano, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 89}, 081601 (2002).

1768: \bibitem{DV96} T. Damour and A. Vilenkin, {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 53}, 2981 (1996).

1769: \bibitem{D95} T. Damour, in {\it Susy 95}, Proceedings of the 1995 International Workshop on 

1770: Supersymmetry and Unification of Fundamental Interactions, edited by I.~Antoniadis and 

1771: H.~Videau (Editions Fronti\`eres, Gif-sur-Yvette, 1996), pp.~577-584.

1772: \bibitem{L90} A. Linde, {\it Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology}, (Harwood, Chur, 

1773: 1990).

1774: \bibitem{DGG} T. Damour, G.W. Gibbons and C. Gundlach, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 64}, 123 

1775: (1990).

1776: \bibitem{AT} L. Amendola and D. Tocchini-Valentini, {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 64}, 043509 (2001)

1777: \bibitem{AGUT} L. Amendola, M. Gasperini, C. Ungarelli and D. Tocchini-Valentini, 

1778: in preparation.

1779: \bibitem{SNI} S. Perlmutter et al., {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 517}, 565 (1999);

1780: A. Riess et al. {\it Astronom. J.} {\bf 116}, 1009 (1998).

1781: \bibitem{omegam} See, e.g., the review of global cosmological parameters (chap. 17) in

1782:  D.E. Groom et al., {\it European Physical Journal} {\bf C15}, 1 (2000); updated version

1783:  available on http://pdg.lbl.gov/.

1784: \bibitem{exp} D.E. Groom et al., {\it European Physical Journal} {\bf C15}, 1 (2000),

1785:  see Chapter~14 ``Experimental tests of gravitational theory'',

1786:  available on http://pdg.lbl.gov/; 

1787: and C.M.~Will, {\it Living Rev. Rel.} {\bf 4}, 4 (2001).

1788: \bibitem{DEF92} T. Damour and G. Esposito-Far\`ese, {\it Class. Quant. Grav.} {\bf 9}, 

1789: 2093 (1992).

1790: \bibitem{DEF} T. Damour and G. Esposito-Far\`ese, {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 54}, 1474 (1996); 

1791: {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 58}, 042001 (1998).

1792: \bibitem{D96} T. Damour, {\it Class. Quant. Grav.} {\bf 13}, A33 (1996).

1793: \bibitem{Su94} Y. Su et al., {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 50}, 3614 (1994).

1794: \bibitem{Oklo} A.I. Shlyakhter, {\it Nature} {\bf 264}, 340 (1976); T. Damour and F. Dyson, 

1795: {\it Nucl. Phys. B} {\bf 480}, 37 (1996).

1796: \bibitem{OPQCCV}  K. A. Olive, M. Pospelov, Y. Z. Qian, A. Coc, M. Casse and 

1797: E. Vangioni-Flam, \emph{Constraints on the Variations of the Fundamental Couplings}, 

1798: hep-ph/0205269

1799: \bibitem{Gaspe} M. Gasperini, {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 64} 043510 (2001). 

1800: \bibitem{Webb} J.K. Webb et al., {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 87}, 091301 (2001).

1801: \bibitem{SBM} H. B. Sandvik, J. D. Barrow and J. Magueijo, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 88} 031302 (2002).

1802: \bibitem{OP} K. A. Olive and M. Pospelov,  {\it Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 65}, 85044 (2002).

1803: \bibitem{lyth} A. R. Liddle and D. H. Lyth, {\it Cosmological inflation and large scale structure}, 

1804: (Cambridge University Press, 2000).

1805: \bibitem{salomon}C. Salomon et al., in {\it Cold atom clocks on Earth and in space,  

1806: Proceedings of the 17$^{th}$ Int. Conf. on Atomic Physics}, E. Arimondo, M.

1807: Inguscio, ed., (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001), p 23;

1808: Y. Sortais et al., {\it Physica Scripta}, {\bf 95}, 50 (2001). 

1809: \bibitem{prestage} J. D. Prestage, R. L. Tjoelker, and L. Maleki, {\it

1810: Phys. Rev. Lett.}

1811: {\bf 74} 3511 (1995).

1812: \bibitem{Touboul} P. Touboul et al., {\it C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris} {\bf 2} (s\'erie IV) 1271 

1813: (2001).

1814: \bibitem{worden} P. W. Worden, in {\it Proceedings of the Seventh Marcel Grossmann Meeting

1815: on General Relativity}, edited by R. T. Jantzen and G. Mac Keiser (World Scientific, Singapore,

1816: 1996), pp 1569-1573.

1817: \end{references}

1818: 

1819: \end{document}

1820: 

1821: 

1822: 

1823: 

1824: 

1825: 

1826: 

1827: