- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Free to Read
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Cosmological consequences of a rolling homogeneous scalar field

Bharat Ratra and P. J. E. Peebles

  • Joseph Henry Laboratories, Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544

PDF

Phys. Rev. D 37, 3406 – Published 15 June, 1988

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.37.3406

Abstract

The cosmological consequences of a pervasive, rolling, self-interacting, homogeneous scalar field are investigated. A number of models in which the energy density of the scalar field red-shifts in a specific manner are studied. In these models the current epoch is chosen to be scalar-field dominated to agree with dynamical estimates of the density parameter, Ωdyn∼0.2, and zero spatial curvature. The required scalar-field potential is ‘‘nonlinear’’ and decreases in magnitude as the value of the scalar field increases. A special solution of the field equations which is an attractive, time-dependent, fixed point is presented. These models are consistent with the classical tests of gravitation theory. The Eötvös-Dicke measurements strongly constrain the coupling of the scalar field to light (nongravitational) fields. Nucleosynthesis proceeds as in the standard hot big-bang model. In linear perturbation theory the behavior of baryonic perturbations, in the baryon-dominated epoch, do not differ significantly from the canonical scenario, while the presence of a substantial amount of homogeneous scalar-field energy density at low red-shifts inhibits the growth of perturbations in the baryonic fluid. The energy density in the scalar field is not appreciably perturbed by nonrelativistic gravitational fields, either in the radiation-dominated, matter-dominated, or scalar-field-dominated epochs. On the basis of this effect, we argue that these models could reconcile the low dynamical estimates of the mean mass density with the negligibly small spatial curvature preferred by inflation.

View figure in article

References (64)

  1. S. Faber and J. Gallagher, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 17, 135 (1979), and references therein.
  2. P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J. 284, 439 (1984); Nature (Lon- don ) 321, 27 (1986) M E. Brown and P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J. 317, 588 (1987).
  3. A. M. Boesgaard and G. Steigman, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 23, 319 (1985), and references therein.
  4. R. H. Dicke and P. J. E. Peebles, in General Relativity, edited by S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1979).
  5. A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981).
  6. It is useful to bear in mind that this is based on a purely classical analysis and that quantum fluctuations (near the end of inflation) in the curvature of spatial hypersurfaces are likely to invalidate this conclusion (possibly, to a part in 104 on the scale of the horizon); see, for example, T. Banks, W. Fischler and L. Susskind, Nucl. Phys. B262, 159 (1985).
  7. G. R. Blumenthal, S. M. Faber, J. R. Primack and M. J. Rees, Nature (London) 311, 517 (1984); M. Davis, G. Efstathiou, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J. 292, 371 (1985), and references therein.
  8. E. R. Harrison, Phys. Rev. D 1, 2726 (1970); P. J. E. Peebles and J. T. Yu, Astrophys. J. 162, 815 (1970); Ya. B. Zel'dovich, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 160, 1P (1972).
  9. P. J. E. Peebles, in The Structure of the Universe, edited by J. Audouze (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1987).
  10. J. M. Bardeen, J. R. Bond, N. Kaiser and A. S. Szalay, Astrophys. J. 304, 15 (1986), and references therein.
  11. P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J. 258, 415 (1982); S. D. M. White, C. S. Frenk and M. Davis, Astrophys. J. Lett. 274, L1 (1983).
  12. P. J. E. Peebles, Science 224, 1385 (1984).
  13. A. Dressler et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 313, L37 (1987).
  14. P. J. E. Peebles, in Large Scale Motions in the Universe, edited by G. Coyne and V. C. Rubin (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, to be published).
  15. K. A. Olive, D. Seckel and E. Vishniac, Astrophys. J. 292, 1 (1985), and references therein.
  16. P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J. 284, 439 (1984).
  17. P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Astrophys. J. Lett. 325, L17 (1988).
  18. M. Guyot and Ya. B. Zel'dovich, Astron. Astrophys. 9, 227 (1970); P. Mészáros, ibid. 37, 225 (1974); E. J. Groth and P. J. E. Peebles, ibid. 41, 143 (1975).
  19. P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J. 142, 1317 (1965); J. Silk, ibid. 151, 459 (1968); P. J. E. Peebles and J. T. Yu, ibid. 162, 815 (1970).
  20. L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. 120B, 133 (1983); M. Dine and W. Fischler, ibid. 120B, 137 (1983); J. Preskill, M. Wise and F. Wilczek, ibid. 120B, 127 (1983).
  21. One would hope that an explanation of this coincidental similarity can be achieved consistent with the requirement that the scalar field and the baryonic fluid interact, if at all, only exceedingly weakly.
  22. In Ref. 17 we presented contours of three cosmological parameters in the two-dimensional ( ΩB, α ) parameter space for the power-law potential models ( alpha is the power-law index of the scalar-field potential). If the cosmological measurements converge to select a point in the ( ΩB, α ) space, this will be strong circumstantial evidence for a power-law potential model. Other scalar-field potential models may be compared to the observational data in a similar manner. At this stage we can make no further observational predictions. However, once a detailed model for entropy production and galaxy formation is constructed, these models should have further observational consequences.
  23. L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D 20, 2619 (1979).
  24. P. Jordan, Z. Phys. 157, 112 (1959).
  25. F. Hoyle, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 120, 256 (1960).
  26. C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 124, 925 (1961).
  27. See, for example, W. Fischler and L. Susskind, Phys. Lett. B 171, 363 (1986); ibid. 173, 262 (1986). In the standard superstring scenario, it is believed that once supersymmetry is broken string-loop corrections will generate a potential for the dilaton. It is hoped that the form of this potential will ensure that the resulting time variation of the dilaton ``vacuum'' expectation value (and hence that of coupling constants such as the fine-structure constant which depend on the dilaton ``vacuum'' expectation value) does not conflict with observational bounds on the time variation of fundamental constants.
  28. A simple-minded analysis (which ignores the need to compactify the higher-dimensional superstring theory) suggests that it might be difficult to reconcile a slowly rolling dilaton ``vacuum'' expectation value with the observational bounds on the time variation of fundamental constants.
  29. J. E. Gunn and B. M. Tinsley, Nature (London) 257, 454 (1975); A. Sandage and G. A. Tammann, in Large-Scale Structure of the Universe, edited by G. Setti and L. Van Hove ESO CERN report, 1984; E. J. Wampler and W. L. Burke, ESO Report No. 519, 1987 (unpublished).
  30. If one was willing to depart even further from the conventional inflation modified hot big-bang scenario, it is conceivable that this small ratio could be increased, even closer, towards unity.
  31. G. 't Hooft, in Recent Developments in Gauge Theories, edited by G. 't Hooft et al.. (Plenum, New York, 1980).
  32. In our models there are really two, somewhat different, facets of the cosmological-constant ``problem.'' There is the issue of preserving the shape of the potential as well as the issue of ensuring that the energy at the global minimum of the potential is exceedingly small, compared to the Planck scale.
  33. In any current, satisfactory, theory of particle physics, the cosmological constant at low energies is, essentially, a free parameter. This even seems to be true in superstring theories (at least at the present stage of their development), since the symmetry (supersymmetry) which might ensure that LAMBDA vanishes at the Planck scale must be broken below >wig 1 TeV. In the absence of a theory which determines the value of the cosmological constant and in the absence of conclusive observational evidence that Λ =0 (in fact the observational data is not inconsistent with the existence of a LAMBDA energy density an order of magnitude larger than the present energy density in baryons), the only option seems to be to study the observational consequences of models with a nonvanishing cosmological ``constant.''
  34. A. D. Dolgov, in The Very Early Universe, edited by G. W. Gibbons, S. W. Hawking, and S. T. C. Siklos (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1983); F. Wilczek, Santa Barbara Report No. NSF-ITP-84-14, 1984 (unpublished); L. F. Abbott, Phys. Lett. 150B, 427 (1985); T. Banks, Nucl. Phys. B249, 332 (1985); S. M. Barr, Phys. Rev. D 36, 1691 (1987).
  35. R. D. Peccei, J. Sola` and C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B 195, 183 (1987); W. Buchmüller and N. Dragon, Phys. Lett. ibid 195, 417 (1987) J. Ellis, N. C. Tsamis and M. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B 194, 291 (1987).
  36. O. Bertolami, Nuovo Cimento 93B, 36 (1986); C. Wetterich, DESY Reports Nos. DESY 87-122 and DESY 87-123, 1987 (unpublished), and references therein.
  37. S. W. Hawking, Phys. Lett. 134B, 403 (1984); E. Witten, Princeton Report, 1983 (unpublished); T. Banks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 1461 (1984).
  38. V. A. Rubakov and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. 125B, 139 (1983); C. Wetterich, Nucl. Phys. B255, 480 (1985); J. D. Brown and C. Teitelboim, Phys. Lett. B 195, 177 (1987); S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2607 (1987); N. Weiss, report, 1987 (unpublished).
  39. A. M. Polyakov, S. G. RajeevUsp. Fiz. Nauk. 136, 539 (1982) [Sov. Phys. Usp. 25, 187 (1982)]. , Phys. Lett. 125B, 144 (1983).
  40. T. S. Olson and T. F. Jordan, Phys. Rev. D 35, 3258 (1987).
  41. M. OÜzer and M. O. Taha, Phys. Lett. B 171, 363 (1986); Nucl. Phys. B287, 776 (1987).
  42. K. Freese, F. C. Adams, J. A. Frieman and E. Mottola, Nucl. Phys. B287, 797 (1987).
  43. M. Reuter and C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B 188, 38 (1987).
  44. W. Fischler, B. Ratra and L. Susskind, Nucl. Phys. B259, 730 (1985).
  45. A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1220 (1982); A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. 108B, 389 (1982); ibid. 129B, 177 (1983).
  46. B. Ratra, Phys. Rev. D 31, 1931 (1985).
  47. A. H. Guth and S.-Y. Pi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1110 (1982); S. W. Hawking, Phys. Lett. 115B, 295 (1982); A. A. Starobinsky, ibid. 117B, 175 (1982); J. M. Bardeen, P. J. Steinhardt and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 28, 679 (1983); R. H. Brandenberger, Nucl. Phys. B245, 328 (1984).
  48. In the standard inflationary scenario, sufficient entropy is expected to be generated during the period of rapid damped scalar oscillations about the minimum of the potential. We are unaware of a comprehensive study of this part of the canonical scenario. In our models, it might be possible to produce entropy if V( Φ ) had a local minimum followed by a local maximum, before the epoch when PHI begins to roll. However, with such a potential some regions of the Universe might get stuck in the local minimum, possibly leading to a problem similar to that in the original model of inflation. It is for this reason that we have suggested an alternate mechanism for the production of entropy.
  49. The cosmological consequences of our models do not depend on the parity of the scalar field. In certain cases a pseudoscalar field might be more desirable than a scalar field (although this does restrict the form of the potential). The forces mediated by a pseudoscalar coupled to ordinary matter are usually more difficult to detect than the scalar mediated force; see, for example, J. E. Moody and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D 30, 130 (1984). It is, at present, unclear whether sufficient entropy can be generated in such pseudoscalar models.
  50. F. Lucchin and S. Matarrese, Phys. Rev. D 32, 1316 (1985).
  51. J. J. Halliwell, Phys. Lett. B 185, 341 (1987).
  52. R. H. Dicke, Astrophys. J. 152, 1 (1968).
  53. V. I. Arnold, Ordinary Differential Equations (MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1981); C. M. Bender and S. A. Orszag, Advanced Mathematical Methods for Scientists and Engineers (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978); E. A. Coddington and N. Levinson, Theory of Ordinary Differential Equations (Krieger, Melbourne, Fl, 1984); H. T. Davis, Introduction to Nonlinear Differential and Integral Equations (USAEC, Washington, D.C., 1960).
  54. P. J. E. Peebles, The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1980).
  55. P. G. Roll, R. Krotkov and R. H. Dicke, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 26, 442 (1964).
  56. R. V. Wagoner, Phys. Rev. D 1, 3209 (1970).
  57. E. D. Loh and E. J. Spillar, Astrophys. J. Lett. 307, L1 (1986); E. D. Loh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 2865 (1986).
  58. C. Alcock, G. M. Fuller and G. J. Mathews, Astrophys. J. 320, 439 (1987); J. H. Applegate, C. J. Hogan and R. J. Scherrer, Phys. Rev. D 35, 1151 (1987); and references therein.
  59. S. Dimopoulos, R. Esmailzadeh, L. J. Hall, and G. D. Starkman, SLAC Report No. SLAC-PUB-4356, 1987 (unpublished), and references therein.
  60. J. R. Bond, in The Early Universe, edited by W. G. Unruh and G. W. Semenoff (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1987).
  61. P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J. Lett. 315, L73 (1987); Nature (London) 327, 210 (1987).
  62. J. P. Ostriker, C. Thompson and E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B 180, 231 (1986).
  63. A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rep. 121, 263 (1985), and references therein.
  64. P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra (in preparation)

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 37, 3406– Published 15 June, 1988
  • Received 16 February 1988

© 1988 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation