Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Quantum Contributions To Cosmological Correlations II: Can These Corrections Become Large?

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 11

a

r
X
i
v
:
h
e
p
-
t
h
/
0
6
0
5
2
4
4
v
2


2
2

J
u
n

2
0
0
6
UTTG-03-06
Quantum Contributions to Cosmological Correlations II:
Can These Corrections Become Large?
Steven Weinberg

Theory Group, Department of Physics, University of Texas


Austin, TX, 78712
Abstract
This is a sequel to a previous detailed study of quantum corrections to cos-
mological correlations. It was found there that except in special cases these
corrections depend on the whole history of ination, not just on the behav-
ior of elds at horizon exit. It is shown here that at least in perturbation
theory these corrections can nevertheless not be proportional to positive
powers of the RobertsonWalker scale factor, but only at most to powers of
its logarithm, and are therefore never large.

Electronic address: weinberg@physics.utexas.edu


I. INTRODUCTION
Calculations of non-Gaussian corrections to cosmological correlations in
the classical approximation have shown that these higher-order corrections
are generally suppressed by powers of GH
2
, where G is Newtons constant
and H is the cosmological expansion rate at the time of horizon exit[1].
From the magnitude of the observed Gaussian correlations of uctuations
in the cosmic microwave background, it is known that GH
2
10
12
for
the uctuation wavelengths studied in the microwave background, which
makes the expected non-Gaussian corrections quite small. Quantum eects
involve additional powers of G, and are therefore usually supposed to be
too small to be detected. But a recent paper[2] has shown that it in many
theories these quantum corrections depend on the whole history of ination,
not just on the behavior of elds at horizon exit, raising the possibility that
they may be much larger than usually thought. In particular, if quantum
corrections were to involve positive powers of the RobertsonWalker scale
factor a(t) at the end of ination, then they might be large enough to be
detected. In this paper we will extend the results of reference [2] to a very
large class of theories, and show that (at least in perturbation theory) this
never happens; quantum corrections depend at most on powers of ln a(t),
and therefore (without 10
12
e-foldings after horizon exit) never become
large.
II. SCALARS AND GRAVITATION
We will rst consider a theory of multiple scalar elds
n
(x) and gravita-
tion, slightly more general than that considered in reference [2]. The scalar
Lagrangian is assumed to consist of a conventional minimal kinematic term,
plus a term with arbitrary potential V (). In the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner
formalism[3], the components of the metric are
g
ij
= a
2
e
2
[exp ]
ij
,
ii
= 0 , (1)
g
00
= N
2
+g
ij
N
i
N
j
, g
i0
= g
ij
N
j
, (2)
where a(t) is the RobertsonWalker scale factor,
ij
(x, t) is a gravitational
wave amplitude, (x, t) is a scalar, and N and N
i
are auxiliary elds, whose
time-derivatives do not appear in the action. The Lagrangian density (with
8G 1) is
L =
a
3
2
e
3
_
2NV () +N
1
_
E
j
i
E
i
j
(E
i
i
)
2
_
1
+N
1

n
_

n
N
i

n
_
2
_

Na
2
e

[exp ()]
ij

n

n
+
a
2
Ne

[exp()]
ij
R
(3)
ij
, (3)
where
E
ij

1
2
_
g
ij

i
N
j

j
N
i
_
,
E
i
j
= a
2
e
2
[exp()]
ik
E
kj
, N
i
= a
2
e
2
[exp()]
ik
N
k
, (4)
where
i
is the three-dimensional covariant derivative calculated with the
three-metric e
2

ij
; and R
(3)
ij
is the curvature tensor calculated with this
three-metric. The auxiliary elds N and N
i
are to be found by requiring
that the action is stationary in these variables. This gives the constraint
equations:

i
_
N
1
_
E
i
j

i
j
E
k
k
__
= N
1

n
_

n
N
i

n
_
, (5)
N
2
_
R
(3)
2V a
2
e
2
[exp()]
ij

n

n
_
= E
i
j
E
j
i

_
E
i
i
_
2
+

n
_

n
N
i

n
_
2
. (6)
For our present purposes, all we need to know about R
(3)
ij
, E
i
j
, and the
solutions for N and N
i
is that none of them contain terms with positive
powers of a. We can impose gauge conditions, for instance by setting any
one of the scalar elds equal to its unperturbed value and requiring that

ij
= 0.
The possibility of positive powers of a(t) in correlation functions of the
n
and/or arises from the explicit factors a
3
and a in the terms in Eq. (3). But
these factors can be compensated by negative powers of a(t) in various eld
time derivatives and in various commutators, which arise from the structure
of the perturbative expansion for correlation functions. The expectation
value of any product Q(t) of eld operators at various space points (but all
at the same time t) is [2]
Q(t) =

N=0
i
N
_
t

dt
N
_
t
N

dt
N1

_
t
2

dt
1

__
H
I
(t
1
),
_
H
I
(t
2
),
_
H
I
(t
N
), Q
I
(t)
_

___
, (7)
2
(with the N = 0 term understood to be just Q
I
(t)). Here Q
I
is the
product Q in the interaction picture (with time-dependence generated by
the part of the Hamiltonian that is quadratic in uctuations); and H
I
is
the interaction part of the Hamiltonian (the part that is of third or higher
order in uctuations) in the interaction picture. The elds in the interaction
picture are
(x, t) =
_
d
3
q
_
e
iqx
(q)
q
(t) +e
iqx

(q)

q
(t)
_
, (8)

ij
(x, t) =
_
d
3
q

_
e
iqx
e
ij
( q, )(q, )
q
(t) +e
iqx
e

ij
( q, )

(q, )

q
(t)
_
,
(9)

n
(x, t) =
_
d
3
q
_
e
iqx
(q, n)
q
(t) +e
iqx

(q, n)

q
(t)
_
, (10)
where = 2 is a helicity index and e
ij
( q, ) is a polarization tensor, while
(q), (q, ), and (q, n) are conventionally normalized annihilation oper-
ators, satisfying the usual commutation relations
_
(q) ,

(q

)
_
=
3
_
q q

_
,
_
(q) , (q

)
_
= 0 . (11)
_
(q, ) ,

(q

)
_
=


3
_
q q

_
,
_
(q, ) , (q

)
_
= 0 , (12)
and
_
(q, n) ,

(q

, n

)
_
=
nn

3
_
q q

_
,
_
(q, n) , (q

, n

)
_
= 0 , (13)
The expectation value in Eq. (7) is assumed to be taken in a Bunch
Davies vacuum annihilated by these annihilation operators. Also,
q
(t),

q
(t), and
q
(t) are suitably normalized positive-frequency solutions of the
wave equations
d
2

q
dt
2
+
_
3H +
d ln
dt
_
d
q
dt
+ (q/a)
2

q
= 0 , (14)
d
2

q
dt
2
+ 3H
d
q
dt
+ (q/a)
2

q
= 0 , (15)
d
2

q
dt
2
+ 3H
d
q
dt
+ (q/a)
2

q
= 0 , (16)
where H a/a and

H/H
2
.
3
The functions
q
(t),
q
(t), and
q
(t) approach time-independent limits

o
q
,
o
q
, and
o
q
at late times during ination, when the perturbations are
far outside the horizon, with the remainders
q
(t)
o
q
,
q
(t)
o
q
, and

q
(t)
o
q
all vanishing essentially (apart from slowly varying quantities like
H and ) as a
2
(t). In consequence,

q
(t),
q
(t), and
q
(t) all vanish at
late times like a
2
(t). Also, as shown in reference [2], the commutator of
any two interaction-picture elds at times t
1
, t
2
during ination but long
after horizon exit goes essentially as a
3
(t), with t either t
1
or t
2
or some
weighted average of the times between t
1
and t
2
. The same is true for the
commutator of a eld and a eld time derivative, while the commutator of
two eld time derivatives goes as a
5
(t).
1
This asymptotic properties of the commutators can be seen by noting
that
[(x, t) , (y, t

)] =
_
d
3
q e
iq(xy)
Im
_

q
(t)

q
(t

)
_
(17)
[(x, t) , (y, t

)] =
_
d
3
q e
iq(xy)
Im
_

q
(t)

q
(t

)
_
(18)
[(x, t) , (y, t

)] =
_
d
3
q e
iq(xy)
Im
_

q
(t)

q
(t

)
_
. (19)
The general solutions of Eqs. (14)(16) are each linear combinations with
complex coecients of two independent real solutions, one of which goes at
late times as a constant plus terms of order a
2
, while the other goes as a
3
,
so the imaginary parts in Eqs.(17)(19) arise only from the interference of the
two independent real solutions, which goes as a
3
. Likewise the derivatives
of these imaginary parts with respect to either t or t

also goes essentially


as a
3
, because the derivative may act on the solution that already goes as
a
3
, but the derivative with respect to both t and t

goes as a
5
, because
both of the independent real solutions are dierentiated.
We are interested in the behavior of the correlation function (7) at late
times t, when the perturbations are far outside the horizon. Inspection of the
1
In this counting of powers of a(t), we are tacitly assuming that the time dependence
can be evaluated before integrating over momenta, and will not be altered when the
momentum integrals are done. This is based on the expectation that the counterterms
introduced to eliminate ultraviolet divergences in at space will suppress the contributions
of large internal momenta even in an inating spacetime. As discussed in reference [2],
this expectation is not fullled for arbitrary choices of the operators whose correlation
functions are to be calculated. It is necessary to consider only correlation functions of
renormalized operators, for which large internal momenta em are suppressed. More
work needs to be done to see how to construct appropriate renormalized operators.
4
Lagrangian density (3) shows that no term has more than 3 factors of a(t).
According to Eq. (7), there are just as many commutators as interactions,
and each commutator provides at least 3 factors of 1/a(t) at late times, so
the total number of factors of a(t) at late times in the integrals over time or
in any subintegration is at most zero. With zero factors of a(t) the integrand
can still grow like a power of t, which is more or less the same as a power
of ln a(t)[4], but it cannot grow like a power of a(t), and therefore (without
10
12
e-foldings) it cannot become large at late times.
Indeed, since time derivatives of elds go like a
3
(t), and commutators
of time derivatives of elds with each other go like a
5
(t), the integrand will
go like a negative power of a(t) if any interaction has less than 3 explicit
factors of a(t), or if the time derivative of a eld in any interaction does
not appear in a commutator, or appears in a commutator with another time
derivative. It is therefore only a very limited set of terms in the perturbation
series that can contribute to a logarithmic growth of the integrand at late
times.
These conclusions would not be altered by the inclusion of higher-derivative
terms in the action. Each pair of space derivatives is accompanied with a
factor g
ij
a
2
, while eld time derivatives of any order vanish at late
times at least as fast as a
2
.
It remains to consider the inclusion of other kinds of elds, but rst we
must say a word about the eect of scalar eld masses.
III. MASSES
In the foregoing section we have treated the scalar elds (aside from a
single inaton eld whose uctuations can be eliminated by a gauge choice)
as if they were all massless, with any possible scalar mass terms in the
Lagrangian implicitly included as just additional possible terms in the po-
tential V (). As we have seen, when treated perturbatively such a term can
at most introduce powers of ln a in the late-time behavior of the integrand
for cosmological correlation functions. But a mass m cannot be treated as
a perturbation over time intervals t for which mt 1, and in this case the
powers of ln a can add up to eects that materially change the late-time
behavior of the integrand, requiring a separate treatment of mass eects.
If a scalar mass m is suciently large compared with the expansion
rate H, then it produces oscillations in the integrand at late times, which
suppresses the contribution of any times later than 1/m. For m H, the
correlation function is therefore dominated by times in the era of horizon
exit. But for m < H, a more detailed analysis is required.
5
We can get a good idea of what happens in these two cases by considering
the simple example of a purely exponential expansion, a e
Ht
, with H
constant. The wave equation for any one scalar eld of mass m is
d
2

q
dt
2
+ 3H
d
q
dt
+
_
m
2
+ (q/a)
2
_

q
= 0 , (20)
For H constant, the solutions for q/aH 1 are

q
C
q
a

+
_
1 +O
_
q
aH
_
2
_
+D
q
a

_
1 +O
_
q
aH
_
2
_
, (21)
where

=
3
2

9
4

m
2
H
2
, (22)
and C
q
and D
q
are complex constants determined by matching this solution
to solutions before horizon exit. For m > 3H/2 the exponents

are
complex conjugates, so as mentioned above, the oscillations of the wave
functions suppress the contribution of late times.
For m < 3H/2, the

are real, with


3/2 <
+
< 0 , 3 <

< 3/2 .
Each scalar eld factor in the Lagrangian thus contributes a factor of a

+
(t)
at late times, and as long as q/aH
_

+
, the time derivative of a scalar
eld will contribute the same factor. On the other hand, commutators of
scalar elds and/or scalar time derivatives contribute factors a(t)

+
+

=
a
3
(t), since the commutators can arise only from an interference between
the two terms in Eq. (21). Once again, with no more than 3 powers of
a(t) in each interaction, and with just as many commutators as there are
interactions, the total number of factors of a(t) in the integrands for cor-
relation functions cannot be greater than zero. Furthermore, except for
trivial diagrams in which every vertex has just two lines attached, since
each commutator involves just two elds, there must be elds that are not
in commutators. These contribute additional factors of a(t)

+
to the inte-
grand, and since
+
< 0, the integrand will be exponentially damped at late
times, and the correlation functions will depend only on the behavior of the
elds near horizon exit.
IV. VECTOR FIELDS
6
Next consider a massless vector eld, given (in temporal gauge) in the
interaction picture by
A
i
(x, t) =

_
d
3
q
_
e
iqx

i
( q, )(q, )u
q
(t) +e
iqx

i
( q, )

(q, )u

q
(t)
_
,
(23)
where here
i
( q, ) and (q, ) are the polarization vectors and annihilation
operators for massless particles of helicity = 1, and u
q
(t) is a suitably
normalized solution of the wave equation
d
dt
_
a(t)
d
dt
u
q
(t)
_
+
q
2
a(t)
u
q
(t) = 0 (24)
The commutator of two vector elds at unequal times is then
[A
i
(x, t) , A
j
(x

, t

)] =
_
d
3
q
_

ij
q
i
q
j
_
exp
_
iq (x x

)
_

_
u
q
(t) u

q
(t

) u
q
(t

) u

q
(t)
_
. (25)
Now, the general solution of the wave equation (24) here takes the simple
form
u
q
(t) = C
q
cos q +D
q
sin q , (26)
with C
q
and D
q
complex constants, and as usual

_

t
dt

a(t

)
. (27)
We see that at late times, where 0, u
q
(t) approaches a constant, while
u
q
(t) goes essentially as 1/a(t). Also,
u
q
(t) u

q
(t

) u
q
(t

) u

q
(t) = 2iIm
_
C
q
D

q
_
sin
_
q(

)
_
(28)
so at late times u
q
(t)u

q
(t

) u
q
(t

)u

q
(t) and u
q
(t) u

q
(t

) u
q
(t

)u

q
(t) go es-
sentially as 1/a, while u
q
(t) u

q
(t

) u
q
(t

) u

q
(t) goes to zero even faster, as
1/a
3
. There are just as many commutators as there are interaction vertices,
so if a term in the integrand involves a set of interactions H
s
with A
s
explicit
factors of a, the integrand will contain altogether a number of factors of a
bounded by
#

s
[A
s
1] . (29)
7
Because of the vector nature of the eld, the maximum number of explicit
factors of a(t) in any interaction is 3 2 = 1. For instance, in temporal
gauge the electromagnetic interaction of a charged scalar eld is
a
3
a
2
_
ieA
i
_

i

i

_
e
2
A
i
A
i

_
, (30)
with the factor a
3
coming from the metric determinant and the factor a
2
coming from g
ij
. So again the maximum number of factors of a in the
integrand is zero, giving an integrand that grows at most like a power of
ln a. Derivative interactions of the vector eld behave even better, because
time-derivatives of vector elds give extra factors of 1/a, while pairs of space-
derivatives are accompanied with factors g
ij
a
2
. For non-Abelian gauge
elds A

, there are self-interactions


a
3
a
4
_
C

i
A
j
A
i
A
j
+
1
4
C

A
i
A
j
A
i
A
j
_
, (31)
where C

is a structure constant. The four factors of 1/a appear here


because the interaction involves two contractions of space indices. Each
such interaction contributes a factor a
2
to the integrand, suppressing the
contribution of late times.
V. DIRAC FIELDS
A Dirac eld of mass m in the interaction picture involves a wave function

q
(t) that satises the wave equation
d
dt

q
+
3H
2

q
+ia
1

i
q
i

q
+
0
m
q
= 0 . (32)
Hence for wave numbers far outside the horizon, the Dirac wave function
has the asymptotic limit

q
(t) e

0
mt
a
3/2
(t) . (33)
The matrix
0
has eigenvalues i, so the factor e

0
mt
produces an oscilla-
tion, which does not aect bilinears like

or

0
, but does produce an
oscillation in bilinears like

i
, which suppresses the late-time contribution
of interactions containing such bilinears. Even apart from this factor (as for
instance for m = 0), every bilinear combination of and

is suppressed by
a factor a
3
produced by the factor a
3/2
in Eq. (33). This in itself cancels
the a
3
factor from the metric determinant, so that no positive powers of a(t)
can be produced by any interaction involving Dirac elds.
8
VI. AFTERTHOUGHT
In generic theories the N integrals over time in N-th order perturbation
theory will yield correlation functions at time t that grow as (ln a(t))
N
. Such
a power series in ln a(t) can easily add up to a time dependence that grows
like a power of a(t), or even more dramatically. As everyone knows, the
series of powers of the logarithm of energy encountered in various at-space
theories such as quantum chromodynamics can be summed by the method of
the renormalization group. It will be interesting to see if the power series in
ln a(t) encountered in calculating cosmological correlation functions at time
t, though arising here in a very dierent way, can be summed by similar
methods.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
For helpful conversations I am grateful to K. Chaicherdsakul. This mate-
rial is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under
Grants Nos. PHY-0071512 and PHY-0455649 and with support from The
Robert A. Welch Foundation, Grant No. F-0014, and also grant support
from the US Navy, Oce of Naval Research, Grant Nos. N00014-03-1-0639
and N00014-04-1-0336, Quantum Optics Initiative.
REFERENCES
1. J. Maldacena, J. High Energy Phys. 0305, 013 (2003) (astro-ph/0210603).
For other work on this problem, see A. Gangui, F. Lucchin, S. Matar-
rese,and S. Mollerach, Astrophys. J. 430, 447 (1994) (astro-ph/9312033);
P. Creminelli, J. Cosm. Astropart. Phys. 0310, 003 (3002) (astro-
ph/0306122); P. Creminelli and M. Zaldarriaga, J. Cosm. Astropart.
Phys. 0410, 006 (2004) (astro-ph/0407059); G. I. Rigopoulos, E.P.S.
Shellard, and B.J.W. van Tent, Phys. Rev. D 72, 08357 (2005) (astro-
ph/0410486); F. Bernardeau, T. Brunier, and J-P. Uzan, Phys. Rev.
D 69, 063520 (2004). For a review, see N. Bartolo, E. Komatsu,
S. Matarrese, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rept. 402, 103 (2004) (astro-
ph/0406398).
2. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 72, 043514 (2005) (hep-th/0506236).
3. R. S. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C. W. Misner, in Gravitation: An Intro-
duction to Current Research, ed. L. Witten (Wiley, New York, 1962):
227; now available as gr-qc/0405109.
9
4. A log a(t) dependence has been found in dierent contexts by Woodard
and his collaborators; see e. g. N. C. Tsamis and R. Woodard, Ann.
Phys. 238, 1 (1995); 253, 1 (1997); N. C. Tsamis and R. Woodard,
Phys. Lett. B426, 21 (1998); V. K. Onemli and R. P. Woodard,
Class. Quant. Grav. 19, 4607 (2002); T. Prokopec, O. Tornkvist, and
R. P. Woodard, Ann. Phys. 303, 251 (2003); T. Prokopec and R. P.
Woodard, JHEP 0310, 059 (2003); V. K. Onemli and R. P. Woodard,
Phys. Rev. D 70, 107301 (2004); T. Brunier, V.K. Onemli, and R. P.
Woodard, Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 59 (2005).
10

You might also like