Free Gravitons Break de Sitter Invariance (arxiv: , ) S. P. Miao (Utrecht) N. C. Tsamis (Crete) R. P.

Transcription

1 Free Gravitons Break de Sitter Invariance (arxiv: , ) S. P. Miao (Utrecht) N. C. Tsamis (Crete) R. P. Woodard (Florida)

2 Spacetime Exp. Strengthens QFT Why? Loops classical physics of virtuals Expansion holds virtuals apart longer Maximum Effect for Inflation M=0 No conformal invariance (classically) Two Particles MMC scalars gravitons

3 Primordial Inflation was nearly de Sitter with small GH ² ds 2 = -dt 2 + a ² (t) dx.dx H(t) = á/a & ε(t) = -Ḣ/H ² For single-scalar inflation with k = H(t k )a(t k ) ² R(k) GH ² (t k )/πε(t k ) & ² h(k) 16GH ² (t k )/π WMAP data for k =.002/Mpc ² R = x 10-9 & r = ² h/ ² R < 0.22 Hence ε r/16 < (even smaller before t k!) GH ² π/16 x r x ² R < 10-10

4 MMC Scalar Models 1. λφ 4 (Brunier, Kahya, Onemli) M ² (x;x') u(t,k) & <T µν > Growing scalar mass & pos. vac. Energy 2. SQED (Degueldre, Kahya, Prokopec, Tornkvist, Tsamis) M ² (x;x') u & [ µ Π ν ](x;x') ε µ <φ*φ>, <(D µ φ)*d ν φ>, <F µν F ρσ > & <T µν > Growing photon mass & neg. vac. Energy 3. Yukawa (Duffy, Prokopec, Miao) M ² (x;x') u, Σ(x;x') u & <φψ γ 0 ψ> Growing fermion mass & neg. vac. Energy

5 Quantum Gravity Models 1. QG + Dirac (Miao) [ i Σ j ](x;x') u(t,k) Growing fermion field strength 2. QG + MMC Scalar (Kahya, Park) M ² (x;x') u(t,k) [ µν Σ ρσ ](x;x ) ε µν & force of gravity Possible tilt in Power Spectrum 3. QG (Tsamis, Mora) [ µν Σ ρσ ](x;x') & <hµν> Consistent with relaxation of Λ

6 Enhanced QFT as IR Logs What? factors of ln(a) = Ht Egρ= λ(h/2π) 4 x ⅛ ln ² (a) + O(λ 2 ) Through propagators i (x;x ) = (ds inv) + H ² /8π ² ln(aa ) i[ ij kl ](x;x ) = [2δ i(k δ l)j 2δ ij δ kl ] x same Also from vertex integrations t dt 1 = t = ln(a)/h NB occur even if no ds breaking in i!

7 Math Guys Hate IR logs Reluctantly accept in i (x;x ) But struggle to avoid consequences But deny in i[ ij kl ](x;x ) NB vertex integrations still break ds d 4 x -g(x ) θ(x 0 -x 0 ) θ[-l 2 (x;x )] = t dt a 3 (t ) x 4π/3H 3 (1/a 1/a) 3 = 4π/3H 4 [ln(a) + O(1)] But simplest IR logs come from props

8 ds Inv Eqns Don t Always Have Invariant Solutions MMC φ: i (x;x ) = iδ 4 (x-x )/ -g Allen & Folacci, PRD35 (1987) ds 2 = -dt 2 + a 2 (t) dxdx i (x;x ) = d 3 k/(2π) 3 e k(x-x ) a(t) = e Ht x[θ(t-t )u(t,k)u * (t,k) + θ(t -t)u * (t,k)u(t,k)] u(t,k) = H/(2 k 3 ) ½ [1 ik/ha] Exp[ik/Ha] IR problem: uu * ~ H 2 /2k 3

9 What about i[ µν ρσ ](x;x )? Cosmologists: not invariant Grishchuk (Sov. Phys. JETP 40 (1975) 409) Gravitons have same u(t,k) as MMC φ This IS observable! ² h = k 3 /2π 2 d 3 x e ikx <h ij (t,x) h ij (t,0)> = k 3 /2π 2 32πG 2 u(t,k) 2 = 16/π GH 2 (a.k.a. SCALE INVARIANCE) Kleppe (PLB 317B (1993) 305) Comp. trans. does not restore invariance

10 What about i[ µν ρσ ](x;x )? Math Physicists: Yes it is! Add α(d ν h νµ + βd µ h ν ν) 2 Solve in Euclidean space & continue Ok except few singular choices of α and β Burden of my Talk: Math Physicists are wrong Obstacle to adding gauge fixing term Obstacle to analytic continuation Origin of singular gauges

11 Exact vs Average Gauges Illustrate with EM in flat space Exact: i A i = 0 (Coulomb) Average: L L-½( µ A µ ) 2 (Feynman) Derive Average from Exact Start in canonical functional formalism [de T ] [da T ] e is fixed S. Coleman, Erice 1973

12 Coleman s Seven Steps 1. Integrate out E T 2. Use [da T ] = [da] δ[ i A i ] det[ i i ] 3. Undo A 0 constraint 4. Write integrand as invariant 5. δ[ µ A µ ] w field dependent gauge trans 6. δ[ µ A µ f(x)] w C-number gauge trans 7. Multiply by [df] Exp[-½i f 2 ]

13 Obstacle on T 3 R Invariant: i F i0 = J 0 Q = 0 Feynman: [- t 2+ i i ]A 0 = J 0 Q 0 ok Problems at Coleman s steps 2 & 3 No 0-modes for δ[ i A i ] and A 0 Hence no 0-mode for gauge fixing term Same Obstacle on de Sitter IR of φφ * self-energy (gr-qc/ )

14 Analytic Continuation Sees Only Logarithmic IR Divergences [ -M 2 ]i (x;x ) = iδ 4 (x-x )/ -g i (x;x ) = d 3 k/(2π) 3 e ik(x-x ) x[θ(t-t )u(t,k)u * (t,k)+θ(t -t)u * (t,k)u(t,k)] u(t,k) = [π/(4ha 3 )] ½ H ν (1) [k/ha] ν = [9/4 M 2 /H 2 ] ½ uu * ~ k -2ν [1 + O(k 2 )] IR s for 2ν 3 M 2 0 But only logarithmic for M 2 = -N(3+N) H 2

15 IR s Signal Wrong Physics DON T subtract them, fix the physics Exclusive Inclusive in flat QED, QCD & QG Physical Problem: Can t enforce Bunch-Davies for k < Ha initial Standard Fixes Vilenkin (NPB:226,527,1983) Change Bunch-Davies for k < Ha initial NCT and RPW (CQG:11,2969,1994) Keep Bunch-Davies on T 3 xr with no k < Ha initial

16 How It Works In Practice i naïve (x;x ) = d 3 k/(2π) 3 e k(x-x ) x[θ(t-t )u(t,k)u * (t,k) + θ(t -t)u * (t,k)u(t,k)] Just cut off IR d 3 k/(2π) 3 e k(x-x ) θ(k-k 0 ) x (Same) Resolves old problem of Ford & Parker (1977) Scalar-driven FRW Iliopoulos,Tomaras,NCT,RPW (NPB:534,419,1998) MMC scalars on FRW with constant ε Janssen,SPM,Prokopec,RPW (CQG:25,245013,2008) de Sitter with M ² S = -N(N+3)H ² and M ² V = -(N+1)(N+3)H ² SPM,NCT,PRW (JMP:51,072503,2010)

17 Why Not Use the Subtracted Solutions for Power Law IR s? [ -M ² ] i (x;x ) = iδ 4 (x-x )/ -g but i (x;x ) <ψ T[φ(x)φ(x ) ] ψ> Eg i (x;x ) i G ret (x;x ) Vanishes for x =x vs <ψ φ ² ψ> 0 SHO: -m[(d/dt) ² +ω ² ] i (t;t ) = iδ(t-t ) -i sin[ω t-t ]/2mω + α cos(ωt)cos(ωt ) + β sin[ω(t+t )] + γ sin(ωt)sin(ωt ) Solves for any α, β & γ, but QM requires α + γ 1/2mω and αγ ¼β ² Math: Reflection Positivity fails

18 Exact de Donder Gauge mtrc µν = g µν + h µν with D ν h νµ = ½D µ h ν ν D µν αβ i[ αβ ρσ ](x;x ) g µ(ρ g σ)ν iδ 4 (x-x ) Not consistent with gauge condition rhs = [g µ(ρ g σ)ν - ½ g µν g ρσ ] iδ 4 (x-x ) + 2 -g Sym{D µ D ρ i[ ν σ ](x;x )} [ +3H 2 ] i[ µ ν ](x;x ) = g µν iδ 4 (x-x )/ -g Corresponds to M V 2 = -6H 2 IR s M V 2 0, Log M V 2 = -(N+2)(N+3)H 2

19 Scalar Structure Functions in i[ µν ρσ ](x;x ) Spin 0 Part: P µν (x) P ρσ (x ) S 0 (x;x ) P µν = D µ D ν + ½ [ +6H ² ] g µν ¾[ +4H ² ][ +6H ² ] ² S 0 (x;x ) = -iδ 4 (x-x )/ -g M ² = -4H ² is Log, M ² = -6H ² is power Spin 2 Part: P µν β δ (x) P ρσ κθ (x ) [R βκ R δθ S 2 ] C αβγδ = P µν αβγδ h µν + O(h 2 ) P µν βδ = -1/2H ² P µν αβγδ D α D γ R βκ = -1/2H ² ² y/ x β x κ y= aa H ² (x-x )² ³[ -2H²]²S 2 = 128 H 4 iδ4(x-x ) Log ³!

20 Solving Scalar Propagators [ + (b ² -9/4)H ² ] i b (x;z) = iδ 4 (x-z)/ -g u b (t,k) = [π/4ha ³ ] ½ H b (1)(k/Ha) IR for b 3/2 i b (x;x ) = d 3 k/(2π) 3 e k(x-x ) θ(k-h) x[θ(t-t )u b (t,k)u b* (t,k) + θ(t -t)ub * (t,k)ub(t,k)] Same as adding few homogeneous terms to i naïve [ + (b ² -9/4)H ² ] i bc (x;z) = i c (x-z) i bc = (i c -i b )/(b ² -c ² )H ² [ + (b ² -9/4)H ² ] i bcd (x;z) = i cd (x;z) i bcd = (i bd -i bc )/(c ² -d ² )H ²

21 And the Answer Is... S 0 (x;z) = -4/3 i WMM (x;z) W = 5/2 & M = 33/2 S 2 (x;z) = 32 [i AAA 2i AAB + i ABB ] A = 3/2 & B = ½ Multiple Infrared Divergences A is Logarithmic W is Quadratic (and Logarithmic) M is a Non-Integer Power Law

22 Conclusion: Graviton Propagator Is NOT de Sitter Invariant Plausible arguments each way Pro: Inv. solns w some gauge fixing terms Con: Dynamically same as MMC scalars + IR divergences in some gauges Long controversy resolved Obstacle to adding gauge fixing terms Obstacle to Euclidean continuation