arxiv: v1 [gr-qc] 30 Aug 2018

Transcription

1 Coleman-de Luccia Tunneling Wave Function J. Kristiano, R. D. Lambaga, and H. S. Ramadhan Departemen Fisika, FMIPA, Universitas Indonesia, Depok 1424, Indonesia Dated: August 31, 2018) arxiv: v1 [gr-qc] 30 Aug 2018 We revisit the amous Coleman-de Luccia ormalism or decay o alse vacuum in gravitational theory. Since the corresponding wave unction is time-independent we argue that its instanton s interpretation as the decay rate probability is problematic. We instead propose that such phenomenon can better be described by the Wheeler-de Witt s wave unction. To do so, the Hamilton-Jacobi ormalism is employed in the WKB approximation. The scalar and gravitational ields can then be treated as a two-dimensional eective metric. For a particular case o ds-to-ds tunneling, we calculated the wave unction and ound that it depends only on the potential o the alse, and not on the true, vacuum; reminiscent o, though in totally dierent ormalism with, the Hawking-Moss result. In general, this alternative approach might have signiicant impact on the study o very early universe and quantum cosmology. PACS numbers: 03.5.Xp, 04.0.Bc, 04.0.Ds, E, Kc Decay o metastable state was explained by Coleman and Callan CC) using the Euclidean action ormalism [1, 2]. Consider a system with two homogeneous stable equilibrium states with dierent potential levels. Metastable state is the state in the local minimum o potential, commonly called the alse vacuum. This state might decay to the true vacuum, the state o global minimum o the potential, by quantum tunneling. Coleman and Callan derived the decay rate using Euclidean path integral to ind the imaginary part o energy. The decay rate per unit volume can be expressed as Γ/V = Ae B, where B is Euclidean action o classical solution and A is the coeicient ound by quantum correction. They derived the decay rate in quantum mechanics ormalism, but it can be extended into quantum ield theory. The starting point is the Euclidean path integral Z = x e HT x i = N xt )=x x0)=x i [dx]e S E[x], 1) where H is the Hamiltonian, x i and x are the initial and inal points respectively, and T is Euclidean time interval. By inserting the let-hand side o Eq. 1) with a complete set o Hamiltonian eigenstates H n = E n n, the equation becomes Z = n e EnT φ n x i )φ nx ). 2) For T, the lowest energy term dominates the path integral. Then, the lowest energy can be expressed in the orm ln Z E 0 = lim T T, 3) energy E is given by the WKB ormula T = exp ds ) 2mV E), 4) with ds is the path which minimizes the integral above, and thus satisies δ ds V E = 0. 5) BBW made a ormalism or tunneling wave unction, while CC ormulate how to calculate the decay rate. Tunneling wave unction is the ratio between timeindependent wave unction at one side o barrier to the other side with the same potential level, while the decay rate is the ratio between probability o inding the state in the same region ater certain time. In the literature the relation between the tunneling probability and the decay rate is oten skipped, mostly by assuming that they are equivalent. A closer look, however, shows that there is a subtle dierence between them; the ormer can have no time dependence. Thus it is not perectly clear how to draw their equivalence. Recently, such relation was discussed in great detail by Andreassen et.al [4]. Consider a state intially in the alse vacuum. The probability o inding the state in the same region ater time T is P F V T ) = dx ψx, T ) 2 exp ΓT ), ) F V where it is expected to all exponentially. So, the decay rate is Γ = 1 P F V dp F V dt. 7) and the corresponding decay rate is Γ = 2 ImE 0 ). Prior study to the barrier penetration in many dimensions was done by Banks, Bender, and Wu BBW) [3]. The tunneling amplitude or a particle with mass m and We recall the result obtained by Andreassen et.al [4]. Consider a one dimensional barrier penetration problem, with alse vacuum located in x = a and the same potential level at the right side o barrier located in x = b. The

2 2 relation between the decay rate and the tunneling wave unction is Γ = p b φ E b) 2 m b 0 dx φ Ex), 8) 2 where φ E x) is the wave unction, φ E x) = A 2m [E V x)]) 1/4 { x exp dy )} 2m[V y) E], 9) a the coeicient A is an x-independent normalization constant, and p b = i [ φ E x φ E φ E x φ ] E 2 φ E 2. 10) x=b When gravity is added, the inequivalence discussed above is more severe, precisely because the notion o decay rate is, strictly-speaking, ill-deined. The eects o gravitation to the decay rate was irst studied by Coleman and De Luccia CdL) [5]. The action consists o scalar and gravitational ields, with homogeneous and isotropic Euclidean metric. Contrary to naive expectation, they showed that the eects o gravitation are not negligible but have critical contribution to the decay rate instead. Unortunately, the use o Euclidean action ormalism to describe the decay rate or tunneling probability o ields with gravitation has several problems. Vilenkin tried to interpret the Euclidean action as tunneling probability or creation o the universe, but it leads to positive exponential probability []. Later he used Wheeler-DeWitt tunneling wave unction and it leads to negative exponential probability [7]. Another problem in Euclidean action ormalism was explained by Feldbrugge, Lehners, and Turok FLT) [8]. They argue that the Lorentzian path integral is a better starting point or quantum cosmology. They ound that the problem in Euclidean approach is that the inclusion o topologically-nontrivial maniold renders the Euclidean action unbounded below. The main problem in Euclidean approach or gravitational theory is that the corresponding Hamiltonian becomes the constraint or the wave unction, HΨ = 0, which is nothing but the Wheeler-de Witt WdW) equation [9]. The consequence is that the wave unction is time-independent. This makes the interpretation o the exponential o Euclidean action as a decay rate problematic. Mathematically, the problem is as ollows: the path integral over compact Euclidean our-geometry and scalar ield is given by Z = g µν, φ e HT g µν, φ = N [dg µν ][dφ]e S E[g µν,φ]. 11) Since HΨ = 0 we cannot insert a complete set o Hamiltonian eigenstates in the let-hand side o Eq. 11). We thus cannot get the decay rate rom the ground state energy, because the Hamiltonian constraint makes the eigenvalue always equal to zero. We argue that the tunnelling wave unction is more suitable to describe CdL eects, rather than the Euclidean action. There is an alternative explanation or the notion o decay rate in gravitational theory. Mithani and Vilenkin [10] introduce semiclassical superspace variables, which play the role o clock. They calculated decay rate in the simple harmonic universe SHU) model. The role o clock was played by a homogenous, massless, minimally coupled scalar ield. Another alternative was pointed out by Feng and Matzner [11]. They ound that variations o metric at spatial boundary can be used to describe time evolution. The role o time in gravitational theory is governed by boundary conditions on the gravitational ield at the spatial boundary. They called the theory an extended WdW equation. The concept o decay rate in gravitational theory may be developed along this line. Emphasizing the dierence between the notion o the tunneling probability and the decay rate, in this paper we study the CdL phenomenon rom the point o view o Lorentzian) wave unction. To begin, let us start rom the CdL action [5] S = d 4 x g [ 1 2 gµν µ φ ν φ V φ) + R 2 ], 12) where φ and V φ) are the scalar ield and its potential, g µν and g is metric ield and its determinant, R is Ricci scalar, and = 8πG. Consider homogeneous and isotropic metric and scalar ields, ds 2 = dt 2 + a 2 t)[dχ 2 + sin 2 χdθ 2 + sin 2 θdφ 2 )], φ = φt). 13) With those ansatz, the action becomes [ 1 S = dt 2π 2 a 3 2 φ 2 V φ) + R ], 14) 2 and the corresponding Lagrangian is L = 2π 2 a 3 [ 1 2 φ 2 V φ) + R 2 with Euler-Lagrange equation ȧ a2 [ V φ) φ 2 ] = 0, φ + dv dφ ], 15) = 0. 1) which is also the tt-component o the Einstein equation. The canonical momentum o both ield is π φ = L φ = 2π2 a 3 φ, 17)

3 3 π a = L ȧ = 12π2 aȧ. 18) The Hamiltonian is ound by means o the Legendre transormation H = π φ φ + πa ȧ L { = π2 a ȧ [ ]} 1 3 a2 2 φ 2 + V φ), 19) which is equal to zero because the terms in the bracket exactly satisy Eq. 1). The Hamiltonian becomes a constraint or the wave unction, HΨ = 0. Expressing H in terms o canonical momentum and ield, and change the momentum to ield operator π φ = i φ, π a = i a, 20) the constraint becomes { HΨ = 1 2 4π 2 a 3 φ π 2 a a 2 } π2 a + 2π2 a 3 V φ) Ψ = 0, 21) which is the WdW equation. We can see that gravity modiies the potential o the wave unction. It now consists not only o the scalar ield potential V φ), but also there is contribution rom the scale actor a. This potential makes the wave unction is not separable in terms o a and φ. The general solution to the WdW equation can be expressed in the orm Ψa, φ) = Aa, φ) e iφa,φ). Substituting it into Eq. 21) and employing the WKBapproximation neglecting the second derivative o A), we get the ollowing dierential equation ) 2 ) 2 Φ Φ a Uφ, a) = 0, 22) φ a where Uφ, a) is the eective potential, ) 12π 2 2 { 2Uφ, a) a } 3 a2 V φ). 23) In quantum mechanics, the dierential equations o the WKB-approximation correspond to the Hamilton-Jacobi HJ) equation in classical mechanics. Thereore, we may call 22) the Hamilton-Jacobi equation with two degrees o reedom scale actor a and scalar ield φ). The general orm o the HJ equation is Φ) Φ) + 2Uφ, a) = 0. 24) The irst term can be expressed in the orm o g ij i Φ j Φ. The scale actor and the scalar ield orm a new coordinate system q i = φ, a). Matching the general orm o Hamilton-Jacobi equation to equation 22)), we get the internal metric g ij = diag ) a 2, 1, 25) and the internal line element ds 2 = g ij dq i dq j = 1 a2 dφ 2 + da 2. 2) The interesting thing is that the metric component g φφ has opposite sign to g aa. Thereore, the line element ds is not always a real, i.e., it can be imaginary. This makes an important consequence to the tunnelling wave unction, which we discuss later. The solution o the HJ equation is Φ = ds [ 2Uφ, a)] 1/2 = [ 1 a2 dφ 2 + da 2 ] 1/2 [ 2Uφ, a)] 1/2, 27) with φt) and at) are the solutions that makes Φ stationary, δφ = 0. To simpliy the problem, we take a as an independent variable so we can express φ = φa), and then deine α a /3. The dierential equation satisied by φα) is then ound by variational calculus φ = { 3 φv φ φ α } 1 1 α 1 2α2 V ) α2 φ 2 1 α 2 V 2 1 α2 φ 2 ), 28) where prime denotes derivative with respect to α. To solve 28) we need a speciic V φ) unction. Consider the ollowing scalar ield potential V φ) = λ ) φ + 8 φ2 φ 2 0) 2 φ0 + ɛ ɛ t ) + ɛ t, 29) 2φ 0 with assumption ɛ, ɛ t λ. This potential has a local minimum at V φ 0 ) = ɛ and a global minimum at V φ 0 ) = ɛ t. The shape o V φ) can be seen in Fig. 1. The boundary condition or 28) is the classical turning point Uφ, a) = 0. Consider tunneling rom alse vacuum to true vacuum, the initial point is φ 0, 1/ ɛ ) and the inal point is φ 0, 1/ ɛ t ). Unortunately, the boundary condition makes the dierential equation singular because the actor 1 α 2 V in the denominator is equal to zero.the numerator, then, must be zero; i.e φ must have ixed value φ α ) = ± and φ α α 2 t ) = ± α 2 t at initial and inal point respectively. It is utile to solve 28) analytically. Thereore we resort to numerical solution. A typical proile o φα) is presented in Fig. 2. Here we set / φ 0 in order not to violate the Grand Uniied Theory GUT) scenario. In natural units, / GeV while φ GeV [12]. We )

4 4 Vϕ) ϕ TV ϕ FV ϕ FIG. 1: Plot o V φ). FIG. 3: Plot o Uφ, a). The blue line indicated a rough approximation o the proile o φa) given by Fig. 2. The red line indicated Uφ, a) = 0. 0 tum mechanics problem the tunneling contribution comes rom the path ds, not rom the potential part, because the line element ds can be imaginary. Substituting the solution φα) and its gradient to Φ, we obtain Φ = i 3π2 2 0 φ 0 dφ [α 2 α 2 ] 1/2 α[α 2 V 1] 1/2, 30) - 0 with αφ) is a straight line unction FIG. 2: Proile o φα). t α = α {1 + φ0 φ)}. 31) We may neglect 1 compared to α 2 V because α 2 V V/ɛ 1, so we get also embed this proile to Uφ, a) in Fig. 3. At irst the plot looks like an inverted kink. However, there is a dierence between the two. Our solution is closed or compact), while the kink solution is open, ı.e., extending to ininity by asymptotically approaching the vacuum. To calculate the integral 27) we can just integrate, by brute orce, the numerical solution o φα). However, it is more instructive to approximate the proile solution as three separate regions. The irst is a straight line with gradient φ = rom φ = φ α 2 0 to φ = 0. The second is a horizontal line at φ = 0. The third region is again a straight line with gradient φ = rom α 2 t φ = 0 to φ = φ 0. We believe this is a reliable approximation since we accommodate the characteristic o the dierential equation, which has ixed value o gradient at initial and inal point. Interestingly, as we shall see, the tunneling contribution comes only rom the irst region. The relevant contribution to probability comes rom the imaginary part o Φ, which in our case is obtained only rom the irst region. Thus, contrary to the usual quan- α 3 Φ = i 3π2 ) 1/2 λ [ 2 dφ φ 2 0 φ 2 ) 1 + φ0 φ)] φ 0 2 φ0 φ) + φ 0 φ) 2. 32) Expanding it in power o Φ i 3 2π 2 2 ɛ 2 ) 3/4 λ φ7/ ) The tunneling probability is proportional to P exp{ 2 Φ }. The non-zero contribution comes when the ields go rom the alse vacuum to the local maximum. Ater that, the ields stuck in the local maximum and roll down to the global minimum. The value o the global minimum does not contribute to the wave unction. Seeing that the tunneling process occurs only rom the alse vacuum to the local maximum, one can compare

5 5 this solution to the well-known Hawking-Moss HM) instanton [13]. This similarity is expected as HM solution is a degenerate case o CDL [14]. We must, however, remind the readers that ours uses a totally dierent method than HM or CDL ormalism, as we do not use Euclidean action. Thus, our solution is not an instanton, but a ully quantum-mechanical wave unction. Also, the tunneling path comes rather naturally rom the theory, by solving 28) and integrating 27), as opposed to the one postulated in HM. In conclusion, we wish to draw the reader s attention to the subtle distinction between the tunneling rate and the decay rate. While the two are perectly well-deined and proportionally-related in non-gravitational theories, the story is not that trivial when gravity is included. Taking the Wheeler-de Witt WdW) into account it can be shown that the notion o decay rate becomes ill-deined; thus the Coleman-de Luccia CdL) phenomenon is better perceived as a tunneling, rather than decay, phenomenon. We use the BBW ormalism to compute the CdL wave unction. We consider a homogeneous and isotropic ansatz to the gravitational and scalar ield. We ind that the compact rotated kink is the solution o Hamilton-Jacobi dierential equation, which its in the GUT scenario. This wave unction only depends on the potential o alse vacuum. As in the original CdL bounce, gravity still has non-perturbative eect on the tunneling probability. It is that now the whole picture is described in a relatively) more consistent quantum-gravitational ormalism. We thank Alex Vilenkin or enlightening discussions and useul comments on the original manuscript. This work is partially unded by PITTA grants rom Universitas Indonesia under the contract no. 227/UN2.R3.1/HKP.05.00/2018. jason.kristiano@sci.ui.ac.id reyhan.dani@sci.ui.ac.id hramad@ui.ac.id [1] S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D 15, 2929; 1, 1248E) 1977). [2] C. G. Callan and S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D 1, ). [3] T. Banks, C. M. Bender, and T. T. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 8, ). [4] A. Andreassen, et.al, Phys. Rev. D 95, ). [5] S. Coleman and F. D. Luccia, Phys. Rev. D 21, ). [] A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 27, ). [7] A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 30, ). [8] J. Feldbrugge, J. Lehners, and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D 95, ). [9] B. S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. 10, ). [10] A. T. Mithani and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 91, ). [11] J. C. Feng and R. A. Matzner, Phys. Rev. D 9, ). [12] A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett 48, ). [13] S. W. Hawking and I. G. Moss, Phys. Lett. B 110, ). [14] L. G. Jensen and P. J. Steinhardt, Nucl. Phys. B 237, ).