Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
In the standard model, the initial universe is will reach its maximum size on the order of this
taken to be homogeneous and isotropic, and filled time scale, while a typical open universe will
with a gas of effectively massless particles in dwindle to a value of p much less than p. A uni-
thermal equilibrium at temperature To. The ini- verse can survive -10' years only by extreme fine
tial value of the Hubble expansion "constant" H is tuning of the initial values of p and H, so that p is
taken to be Ho, and the model universe is then very near p. For the initial conditions taken at
ALAN H. GUTH
p 3t(T)T', (2. 6)
random nucleation of bubbles. Some vague ideas 30
which might alleviate these difficulties are men-
tioned in Sec. VI. ' (2. 6)
4m'
P I
continue to cool as it expands, and it will then su- theory, the form of T~ is determined by the con-
percool in the high- temperature phase. Suppose servation requirement
~gatv up to the possible modifica-
that this supercooling continues down to some tem- tion
perature Tmany orders of magnitude below T, . +
Ttt, v Ttt v s (s. 6)
When the phase transition finally takes place at
temperature T the latent heat is released. How- for any constant X. (X cannot depend on the values
ever, this latent heat is characteristic of the ener- of the fields, nor can it depend on the temperature
gy scale Twhich is huge relative to T, . The uni- or the phase. ) The freedom to introduce the mod-
verse is then reheated to some temperature T ification (3. 6) is identical to the freedom to intro-
which is compa, rable to T, . The entropy density is duce a cosmological constant into Einstein's equa-
then increased by a factor of roughly (T/T, ) (as- tions. One can always choose to write Einstein's
suming that the number X of degrees of freedom equations without an explicit cosmological term;
for the two phases are comparable), while the val- the cosmological constant A is then defined by
ue of R remains unchanged. Thus,
(0 T, I 0) =Ag. ,
[ (3. 7)
Z= T/T, . (s. 4) where Io) denotes the true vacuum. A is identified
If the universe supercools by 28 or more orders of as the energy density of the vacuum, and, in prin-
magnitude below some critical temperature, the ciple, there is no reason for it to vanish. Empir-
horizon and flatness problems disappear. ically A is known to be very small ( IA 10+6 I ("
In order for this scenario to work, it is neces- GeV ) so I will take its value to be zero. The
sary for the universe to be essentially devoid of value of p0 is then necessarily positive and is de-
any strictly conserved quantities. Let n denote the termined by the particle theory. '2 It is typically
density of some strictly conserved quantity, and of 0(r, ').
let y= n/s denote the ratio of this conserved quan- Using (3. 5), Eq. (2. 10) becomes
tity to entropy. Then x~ = Z 3x0 + 10 +0, Thus,
only an absurdly large value for the initial ratio
T2
T
4n
45
Gx(r)r -e(r)r + 8w Gp 0'. (3. 8)
would lead to a measurable value for the present
ratio. Thus, if baryon number were exactly con- This equation has two types of solutions, depending
served, the inflationary model would be untenable. on the parameters. If e& e0, where
However, in the context of grand unified models, 8w2v' 30
baryon number is not exactly conserved. The net 0 GvPO (s. 9)
45 ~
posed on the entropy which ca.n be generated in any and then the universe contracts again. Note that
phase transition with T, 10 GeV, in particular,
the Weinberg-Salam phase transition. )
T
io.
is of this is not the desired scenar-
0(T,), so
The case of interest is e& e0, in which case the
Let us examine the properties of the supercooling expansion of the universe is unchecked. [Note that
universe in more detail. Note that the energy den- co-v9LT, '/M~' ispresumably avery small number.
sity p(T), given in the standard model by (2. 5), Thus 0( e & eo (a closed universe) seems unlikely,
must now be modified. As T-O, the system is but e & 0 (an open universe) is quite plausible. ]
cooling not toward the true vacuum, but rather to- Once the temperature is low enough for the p0 term
ward some metastable false vacuum with an energy to dominate over the other two terms on the HHS
density p0 which is necessarily higher than that of of (3. 8), one has
the true vacuum. Thus, to a good approximation T(t) = const&&e "', (3. 11)
(ignoring mass thresholds)
where
p(T) = Ot(r)T' + po. (s. 5)
X' = Sm' G~0 ~ (3. 12)
3
Perhaps a few words should be said concerning
the zero point of energy. Classical general rela- Since RT = const, one has"
tivity couples to an energy-momentum tensor of
matter, T~, which is necessarily (covariantly)
R(t) = const&& e" '.
conserved. When matter is described by a field The universe is expanding exponentially, in a false
IN F LATIONAR 7 UNIVERSE: A POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO. . . 351
vacuum state of energy density pp. The Hubble formed at time t&.
constant is given by H=R/R=y. (More precisely, I will now' assume that the nucleation rate is suf-
H approaches X monotonically. from above. This ficiently slow so that no significant nucleation takes
behavior differs markedly from the standard rnod- place until TTwhen exponential growth has set
el, in which H falls as t"'. ) in. I will further assume that by this time &(t) is
The false vacuum state is Lorentz invariant, so given approximately by the zero-temperature nu-
T& = p'pg+ . I't follows tha't p = pp the pressure cleation rate Xp. One then has
is negative. This negative pressure allows for the
conservation of energy, Eq. (2. 3). From the sec- P(t) = exp +0(1) (3. Is)
ond-order Einstein equation (2. 2a), it can be seen
that the negative pressure is also the driving force where
behind the exponential expansion.
The Lorentz invariance of the false vacuum has T =
3X
(s. iv)
4nzp'
one other consequence: The metric described by
(3. 13) (with @=0) does not single out a comoving and O(1) refers
to terms which approach a constant
frame. The metric is invariant under an O(4, 1) as Xt ~.
During one of these time constants, the
group of transformations, in contrast to the usual universe will expand by a factor
Robertson-Walker invariance of O(4). It is known 3X4 l
as the de Sitter metric, and it is discussed in the Z, = exp(}t~) = exp ' (s. is}
s tandard literature. ' 4mXp)
Now consider the process of bubble formation in If the phase transition is associated with the ex-
a Robertson-Walker universe. The bubbles form pectation value of a Higgs field, then Xp can be cal-
randomly, so there is a certain nucleation rate culated using the method of Coleman and Callan. "
X(t), which is the probability per (physical) volume The key point is that nucleation is a tunneling pro-
per time that a bubble will form in any region cess, so that &p is typically very small. The
which is still in the high-temperature phase. I Coleman-Callan method gives an answer of the
will idealize the situation slightly and assume that form
the bubbles start at a point and expand at the speed
&0 =A po exp(-B), (s. 19}
of light. Furthermore, I neglect k in the metric,
so d7 =dt R (t)dx . where B is a barrier penetration term and A is a,
I want to calculate p(t), the probability that any dimensionless coefficient of order unity. Since Z,
given point remains in the high-temperature phase
at time t. Note that the distribution of bubbles is
totally uncorrelated except for the exclusion prin-
very easily' '
is then an exponential of an exponential, one can
obtain values as large as log&pZ
=28, or even log&pZ=10
ciple that bubbles do not form inside of bubbles. Thus, if the universe reaches a state of exponen-
This exclusion principle causes no problem be- tial growth, it is quite plausible for it to expand
cause one can imagine fictitious bubbles which and supercool by a huge number of orders of mag-
form inside the real bubbles with the same nuclea- nitude before a significant fraction of the universe
tion rate X(t). With all bubbles expanding at the undergoes the phase transition.
speed of light, the fictitious bubbles mill be forever So far I have assumed that the ea, rly universe can
inside the real bubbles and will have no effect on be described from the beginning by a Robertson-
p(t). The distribution of all bubbles, real and fic- Walker metric. If this assumption were really
titious, is then totally uncorrelated. necessary, then it would be senseless to talk about
P(t) is the probability that there are no bubbles "solving" the horizon problem; perfect homogeneity
which engulf a given point in space. But the num- was assumed at the outset. Thus, I must now ar-
ber of bubbles mhich engulf a given point is a Pois- gue that the assumption can probably be dropped.
son-distributed variable, so P(t) =exp[-1V(t)], Suppose instead that the initial metric, and the
where Z(t) is the expectation value of the number distribution of particles, mas rather chaotic. One
of bubbles engulfing the point. Thus would then expect that statistical effects mould tend
to thermalize the particle distribution on a local
p(t) = exp dtqX(t~)R (tq) V(t, t~) (3. 14) scale. 2 It has also been shown (in idealized cir-
p
cumstances} that anisotropies in the metric are
where damped out on the time scale of -10' Planck
temperatures high compared to Tone would ex- order Mx/n-10~6 GeV, where n =g /4m is the
pect that, by the time the temperature in one of grand unified fine structure constant. Since the
these regions falls to T it will be locally homoge- monopoles are really topologically stable knots in
neous, isotropic, and in thermal equilibrium. By the Higgs field expectation value, they do not exist
locally, I am talking about a length scale $ which in the high-temperature phase of the theory. They
is of course less than the horizon distance. It will therefore come into existence during the course of
then be possible to describe this local region of the a phase transition, and the dynamics of the phase
universe by a Robertson-Walker metric, which will transition is then intimately related to the mono-
be accurate at distance scales small compared to pole production rate.
When the temperature of such a region falls be- The problem of monopole production and the sub-
low T the inflationary scenario will take place. sequent annihilation of monopoles, in the context of
The end result will be a, huge region of space which a second-order or weakly first-order phase transi-
is homogeneous, isotropie, and of nearly critical tion, was analyzed by Zeldovieh and Khlopov30 and
mass density. If Z is sufficiently large, this re- by Preskill.
' In Preskill's analysis, which was
gion can be bigger than (or much bigger than) our more specifically geared toward grand unified
observed region of the universe. models, it was found that relic monopoles would
exceed present bounds by roughly 14 orders of
IV. GRAND UNIFIED MODELS AND MAGNETIC magnitude. Since it gems difficult to modify the
MONOPOLE PRODUCTION estimated annihilation rate, one must find a scen-
In this section I will discuss the inflationary ario which suppresses the production of these
model in the context of grand unified models of monopole s.
elementary-par ticle interac tions. 2 ~ Kibble 2 has pointed out that monopoles are pro-
A grand unified model begins with a, simple gauge duced in the course of the phase transition by the
group G which is a valid symmetry at the highest process of bubble coalescence. The orientation of
energies. As the energy is lowered, the theory the Higgs field inside one bubble will have no cor-
undergoes a hierarchy of spontaneous symmetry relation with that of another bubble not in contact.
breaking into successive subgroups: G -0 When the bubbles coalesce to fill the space, it will
' ' '-Ho, where Hi SU3&&SU2&&Uq [@CD (quantum be impossible for the uncorrela, ted Higgs fields to
chromodynamics) & Weinberg-Salam] and Ho SU3 align uniformly. One expects to find topological
x U&". In the Georgi-Glashow model, which is knots, and these knots are the monopoles. The
the simplest model of this type, G = SU, and n = 1. number of monopoles so produced is then compar-
The symmetry breaking of SU& SU3 x SU2 x U$ oc- able to the number of bubbles, to within a few or-
curs at an energy scale M~- 10 GeV. ders of magnitude.
At high temperatures, it was suggested by Kirzh- Kibble's production mechanism can be used to
nits and Linde25 that the Higgs fields of any spon- set a "horizon bound" on monopole production
taneously broken gauge theory would lose their ex- which is valid if the phase transition does not sig-
pectation values, resulting in a high-temperature nificantly disturb the evolution of the universe.
phase in which the full gauge symmetry is re- At the time of bubble coalescence t the size l of
stored. A formalism for treating such problems the bubbles cannot exceed the horizon distance at
was developed by Weinberg and by Dolan and that time. So
Jackiw. In the range of parameters for which the
tree potential is valid, the phase structure of the l & 2tcoal = (4. 1)
' ' We 7 T coal 2
SU5 model was analyzed by Tye and me. ~
ticular, they are simultaneously at the same tem- man and Leonard Susskind, and for the invaluable
perature. help I received from my collaborators Henry Tye
(ii) The flatness problem. For a fixed initial and Erick Weinberg. I would also like to acknowl-
temperature, the initial value of the Hubble "con- edge very useful conversations with Michael Aizen-
stant" must be fine tuned to extraordinary accura- man, Beilok Hu, Harry Kesten, Paul Langacker,
cy to produce a universe which is as flat as the one Gordon LasherSo- Young Pi, John Preskill, and
we observe. EdwardWitten. This work was supported by the
Both of these problems would disappear if the Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-
universe supercooled by 28 or more orders of AC03-76SF00515.
magnitude below the critical temperature for some
phase transition. (Under such circumstances, the
universe would be growing exponentially in time. )
However, the random formation of bubbles of the
new phase seems to lead to a much too inhomoge-
neous universe. APPENDIX: REMARKS ON THE FLATNESS
The inhomogeneity problem would be solved if PROBLEM
one couM avoid the assumption that the nucleation
rate X(t) approaches a small constant Xp as the
-0. This appendix is added in the hope that some
temperature T If, instead, the nucleation
skeptics can be convinced that the flatness problem
rate rose sharply at some T&, then bubbles of an
is real. Some physicists would rebut the argument
approximately uniform size would suddenly fill
given in Sec. I by insisting that the equations might
space as T fell to T&. Of course, the full advant-
make sense all the way back to t=0. Then if one
age of the inflationary scenario is achieved only if
fixes the value of II corresponding to some arbi-
T, &10 "T,. trary temperature Tone always finds that when
Recently Witten has suggested that the above
chain of events may in fact occur if the parameters
of the SU5 Higgs field potential are chosen to obey
Q -
the equations are extrapolated backboard in time,
-1 as t 0. Thus, they would argue, it is na-
tural for 0 to be very nearly equal to 1 at early
the Coleman-Weinberg condition4P (i. e. , that O'V/
times. For physicists who take this point of view,
8&fP=O at /=0). Witten has studied this possi-
the flatness problem must be restated in other
bility in detail for the case of the Weinberg-Salam
terms. Since Hz and Tz have no significance, the
ph3se transition. Here he finds that thermal tun-
model universe must be specified by its conserved
neling is totally ineffective, but instead the phase
transition is driven when the temperature of the quantities. In fact, the model universe is com-
@CD chiral-symmetry-breaking phase transition pletely specified by the dimensionless constant &
=
Ip/R2T2, where k and R are parameters of the
is reached. For the SU, case, one can hope that a
much larger amount of supercooling will be found;
Robertson-Walker metric, Eq. (2. 1). For our
however, it is difficult to see how 28 orders of universe, one must take lel &3&10~ . The prob-
magnitude could arise.
lem then is the to explain why le should have such
l
Another physical effect which has so far been left a startlingly small value.
out of the analysis is the production of particles Some physicists also take the point of view that
e=0 is plausible enough, so to them there is no
due to the changing gravitational metric. 2 This
effect may become important in an exponentially problem. To these physicists I point out that the
universe is certainly not described exactly by a
expanding universe at low temperatures.
In conclusion, the inflationary scenario seems
Robertson-Walker metric. Thus it is difficult to
like a natural and simple way to eliminate both the imagine any physical principle which would require
horizon and the flatness problems. I am publishing a parameter of that metric to be exactly equal to
this paper in the hope that it will highlight the ex- zero.
istence of these problems and encourage others to In the end, I must admit that questions of plausi-
find- some way to avoid the undesirable features of bility are not logically determinable and depend
the inflationary scenario.
somewhat on intuition. Thus I am sure that some
physicists will remain unconvinced that there real-
ly is a flatness problem. However, I am also sure
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
that many physicists agree with me that the flatness
I would like to express my thanks for the advice of the universe is a peculiar situation which at
and encouragement I received from Sidney Cole- some point will admit a physical explanation.
INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE: A POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO. . .
Nanopoulos and S. Weinberg, Phys. Bev. D 20, 2484 H. Georgi and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. 82B,
{1979);J. Ellis, M. K. Gaillard, and D. V. Nanopoulos, 392 (1979) and Nucl. Phys. B155, 52 (1979). The E(6)
Phys. Lett. 80B, 360 {1979); 82B, 464 (1979); M. Hon- model: F. Gursey, P. Ramond, and P. Sikivie, Phys.
da and M. Yoshimura, Prog. Theor. Phys. 62, 1704 Lett. 60B, 177 (1975); F. Gursey and M. Serdaroglu,
(1979); D. Toussaint and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. 81B, Lett. Nuovo Cirnento 21, 28 (1978). The K(7) model:
238 {1979); S. Barr, G. Segre, and H. A. Weldon, F. Giirsey and P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 775
Phys. Rev. D 20, 2494 {1979); A. D. Sakharov, Zh. (1976), and Phys. Bev. D 16, 816 (1977); P. Ramond,
Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 76, 1172 (1979) fSov. Phys. JETP Nucl. Phys. B110, 214 {1976). For some general
49, 594 {1979)];A. Yu Ignatiev, N. V. Krashikov, properties of grand unified models, see M. Gell-Mann,
V. A. Kuzmin, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, Rev. Mod. Phys. 50, 721
87B, 114 (1979); E. W. Kolb and S. Wolfram, ibid. (1978). For a review, see P. Langacker, Report No.
91B, 217 (1980); Noel. Phys. B172, 224 (1980); J. N. SLAC-PUB-2544, 1980 (unpublished).
Fry, K. A. Olive, and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 22, D. A. Kirzhnits and A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. 42B,
2953 (1980); 22, 2977 (1980); S. B. Treiman and 471 (1972).
F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. 95B, 222 (1980); G. Senjanovic S. Weinberg, Phys. Bev. D 9, 3357 (1S74); L. Dolan
and F. W. Stecker, Phys. Lett. B (to be published). and R. Jackiw, ibid. 9, 3320 (1974); see also D. A.
~~The reason A is so small is of course one of the deep Kirzhnits and A. D. Linde, Ann. Phys. {Y.
) 101, 195
mysteries of physics. The value of A is not determined (1S76); A. D. Linde, Bep. Prog. Phys. 42, 389 (19?9).
,
by the particle theory alone, but must be fixed by &-expansion techniques are employed by P. Ginsparg,
whatever theory couples particles to quantum gravity. Nucl. Phys. B (to be published).
27
This appears to be a separate problem from the ones In the case that the Higgs quartic couplings are corn-
discussed in this paper, and I merely use the empiri- parable to g or smaller (g = gauge coupling), the
cal fact that A=O. phase structure has been studied by M. Daniel and
S. A. Bludman and M. A. Buderman, Phys. Rev. Lett. C. E. Vayonakis, CERN Report No. TH. 2860 1980
ALAN H. GUTH
(unpublished); and by P. Suranyi, University of Cin- been proposed by P. Langacker and S.-Y. Pi, Phys.
cinnati Report No. SO-0506 (unpublished). Rev. Lett. 45, 1 {1980). By modifying the Higgs
8G. 't Hooft, Nucl. Phys. 879, 276 {1974); A. M. Poly- structure, they have constructed a model in which the
akov, Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 20, 430 (1974) high-temperature SU5 phase undergoes a phase transi-
[JETP Lett. 20, 194 (1974)]. For a review, see tion to an SU3 phase at T 10~4GeV. Another phase
P. Goddard and D. I. Olive, Rep. Prog. Phys. 41, 1357 transition occurs at T -10 GeV, and below this
(1978). temperature the symmetry is SU3x U~ + . Monopoles
If II&(|") and 02(C) are both trivial, then II2(G/Kp) cannot exist until T + 10 GeV, but their production is
= IIf (0'p). In our case IIf +p) is the group of integers. negligible at these low temperatures. The suppression
For a general review of topology written for physicists, of monopoles due to the breaking of U~ symmetry at
see N. D. Mermin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 51, 591 (1979). high temperatures was also suggested by S. -H. Tye,
Y. B. Zeldovich and M. Y. Khlopov, Phys. Lett. 79B, talk given at the 1980 Guangzhou Conference on Theo-
239 (1978). retical Particle Physics, Canton, 1980 (unpublished).
@J. P. Preskill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1365 (1979). +The Weinberg- Salam phase transition has also been
T. W. B. Kibble, J. Phys. A 9, 1387 (1976). investigated by a number of authors: E. Witten, Ref.
This argument was first shown to me by John Pres- 41; M. A. Sher, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2989 (1980); P. J.
kill. It is also described by Einhorn et al. , Ref. 34, Steinhardt, Harvard report, 1980 (unpublished); and
except that they make no distinction between T~~ and A. H. Guth and E. J. Weinberg, Ref. 1S.
Tc' 37This section represents the work of E. J. Weinberg,
+The problem of monopole production was also exam- H. Kesten, and myself. Weinberg and I are preparing
ined by M. B. Einhorn, D. L. Stein, and D. Toussaint, a manuscript on this subject.
Phys. Rev. D 21, 3295 (1980), who focused on second- The proof of this statement was outlined by H. Kesten
order transitions. The structure of SU(5) monopoles (Dept. of Mathematics, Cornell University), with de-
has been studied by C. P. Dokos and T. N. Tomaras, tails completed by me.
Phys. Rev. D 21, 2940 (1980); and by M. Daniel, 39E. Witten, private communication.
G. Lazarides, and Q. Shafi, Nucl. Phys. B170, 156 4
J.
S. Coleman and E. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. . D 7, 1888
(1980). The problem of suppression of the cosmologi- (1973); see also, J.
Ellis, M. K. Gaillard, D. Nano-
cal production of monopoles is discussed by G. Laza- poulos, and C. Sachrajda, Phys. Lett. 83B, 339 (1979),
rides and Q. Shafi, Phys. Lett. 948, 149 {19SO), and and J.Ellis, M. K. GaiQard, A. Peterman, and
G. Lazarides, M. Magg, and Q. Shafi, CERN Report C. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B164, 253 (1980),
No. TH. 2856, 1980 (unpublished); the suppression dis- 4~E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B (to be published).
cussed here relies on a novel confinement mechanism, L. Parker, in Asymptotic Structure of Spacetime,
and also on the same kind of supercooling as in Ref. editedby F. Esposito and L. Witten (Plenum, New York,
16. See also J. N. Fry and D. N. Schramm, Phys. Rev. 1977); V. N. Lukash, I. D. Novikov, A. A. Starobin-
Lett. 44, 1361 (1980). sky, and Ya. B. Zeldovich, Nuovo Cimento 35B, 293
35An alternative solution to the monopole problem has (1976).