text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In our previous paper  we showed that the traditional constraint structure of Dirac formalism  can also be obtained from symplectic analysis  of Faddeev-Jackiw formalism . In the traditional Dirac method, at each level of consistency, constraints divide to first- and second-class. Hence, the consistency of second class constraints at that level determines a number of Lagrange multipliers, while the consistency of first-class ones leads to constraints of the next level. For this reason this method is called level by level.

An alternative method, called chain by chain, has been recently introduced , in which constraints are collected as first- and second- class chains. In this method the consistency of each individual constraint in a definite chain gives the next element of that chain, assuming that it is not the terminating element. Such a chain structure possesses suitable properties in constructing the gauge generating function  as well as the process of gauge fixing .

In this paper we show that the chain structure can also be derived from the symplectic analysis. In other words, following the singularity properties of symplectic two-form, one can find suitable null-eigenvectors for it such that the resulting constraints emerge in a chain structure. This would be done in section (2). In section (3) we give more technical details about terminating elements of the chains, together with discussing the main properties of the chains (when they are first class and when they are second class). Some examples are given in section (4) and our concluding remarks are given in section (5).

## 2 Chain Structure

Consider a phase space with coordinates $`y^i(i=1,\mathrm{},2N)`$ specified by the first order Lagrangian

$$L=a_i(y)\dot{y}^iH(y)$$
(1)
where $`H(y)`$ is the canonical Hamiltonian of the system. The equations of motion read

$$f_{ij}\dot{y^j}=_iH$$
(2)
where

$$f_{ij}_ia_j(y)_ja_i(y)$$
(3)
It is called presymplectic tensor . We denote it in matrix notation as $`f`$. Suppose it is non-singular. Let $`f^{ij}`$ be the components of the inverse, $`f^1`$. Then from (2) we have

$$\dot{y}^i=\{y^i,H\},$$
(4)
where the Poisson bracket $`\{,\}`$ is defined as

$$\{F(y),G(y)\}=_iF_jGf^{ij}.$$
(5)
Suppose we want to impose the set of primary constraints $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu ^{(1)}`$ to the system. To do this, as stated in , one should add the consistency term $`\eta ^\mu \dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\mu ^0`$ to the canonical Hamiltonian and extend the phase space to include the Lagrange multipliers $`\eta ^\mu `$. This gives the next order Lagrangian

$$L^{(1)}=(a_i\eta ^\mu A_{\mu i})\dot{y}^iH(y)$$
(6)
where

$$A_{\mu i}=_i\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu ^{(1)},$$
(7)
Considering $`Y(y^i,\eta ^\mu )`$ as coordinates, the symplectic tensor $`F`$ reads

$$F=\left(\begin{array}{cc}f& A\\ & \\ \stackrel{~}{A}& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(8)
The equations of motion in the matrix notation are

$$F\dot{Y}=H$$
(9)
Using operations that keep the determinant invariant, it is easy to show that

$`detF`$ $`=`$ $`det\left(\begin{array}{cc}f& A\\ & \\ 0& \stackrel{~}{A}f^1A\end{array}\right)`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`(detf)(det\stackrel{~}{A}f^1A).`$ (13)
Assuming $`detf0`$, $`F`$ would be singular if $`C\stackrel{~}{A}f^1A`$ is singular. Using (5) and (7) we have

$$C_{\mu \nu }=\{\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu ^{(1)},\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^{(1)}\}.$$
(14)
Now we want to give a different approach compared to our previous work in . In that paper we investigated all null eigenvectors of $`F`$. Here, considering the matrix $`C_{\mu \nu }`$ in more detail, we concentrate only on the first row (and first column). Suppose $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(1)}`$ has vanishing Poisson bracket with all primary constraints, i.e. $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(1)},\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu ^{(1)}\}0`$. Then it is clear that $`F`$ has the null eigenvector

$$(_i\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(1)}f^{ij},1,0,\mathrm{},0).$$
(15)
Multiplying both sides of (9) with (15) gives the secondary constraint

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(2)}=\{\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(1)},H\}.$$
(16)
Next, we consider the consistency of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(1)}`$ and add the term $`\eta _{(2)}^1\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1^{(2)}`$ to the Hamiltonian. We array the phase space coordinates as

$$Y(y^i;\eta _{(1)}^1,\eta _{(2)}^1;\eta _{(1)}^2,\mathrm{},\eta _{(1)}^m).$$

Then the matrix $`A`$ at this stage reads

$$A(\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(1)},\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(2)};\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(1)},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_m^{(1)}).$$
(17)
The matrix $`C`$ should also be improved to

$$C=\left(\begin{array}{cc}C_{11}& C_{1\nu }\\ & \\ C_{\mu 1}& C_{\mu \nu }\end{array}\right)$$
(18)
where

$$C_{\mu \nu }^{(nm)}=\{\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu ^{(n)},\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^{(m)}\}$$
(19)
(So far , we have $`m=1,2`$ just for $`\mu =1`$. However, for $`\mu >1`$ only $`m=1`$ is present.)

Suppose again that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(2)}`$ has vanishing Poisson brackets with all primary constraints. Then a new null eigenvector would emerge for $`F`$ as

$$(_i\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(2)}f^{ij};0,1;0,\mathrm{},0).$$
(20)
Multiplying both sides of equations of motion (9) with (20) gives the third level constraint

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(3)}=\{\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(2)},H\}.$$
(21)
The process will be continued by adding the term $`\eta _{(3)}^1\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1^{(3)}`$ to the Hamiltonian and extend the set of coordinates to include $`\eta _{(3)}^1`$ as well. Proceeding in this way one produces the constraint chain  that begins with primary constraint $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(1)}`$(while keeping the primary constraints $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(1)},\mathrm{\Phi }_3^{(1)},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_m^{(1)}`$ as they are). The first chain terminates if no new constraint emerge at the terminating point, or if the singularity of $`F`$ due to the constraints of first chain disappears. We postpone the discussion on ”how the chain would terminate” to the next section.

The first chain terminated, one should proceed to the next chain beginning with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(1)}`$. At this stage the (rectangular) matrix $`A`$ in (8) is as follows

$$A(\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(1)},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(N_1)};\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(1)},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_m^{(1)}).$$
(22)
Suppose $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(1)}`$ has vanishing Poisson brackets with the constraints of the first chain and with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu ^{(1)}`$ ,$`\mu >2`$ as well. It is easy to find that the symplectic matrix $`F`$ has the following null eigenvector

$$(_i\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(1)}f^{ij};\stackrel{N_1}{\stackrel{}{0,\mathrm{},0}};1,0,\mathrm{},0).$$
(23)
Multiplying with equation of motion gives the next constraint $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(2)}`$ of the second chain. Then the second chain (beginning with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(1)}`$) can be knitted in the same way as the first one. The second chain terminated, one can produce the constraints of the third chain, and so on. In this way one can construct the whole system of constraints (within the symplectic analysis) as a collection of constraint chains.

## 3 Terminal elements

In this section we want to see how the constraint chains may terminate. We will also discuss that whether the chains are first or second class. For this reason we begin with a one-chain system. In this case the ”chain by chain method” coincides exactly with level by level method investigated in the framework of symplectic analysis in . Suppose the chain, beginning with $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}`$, terminates after $`N_1`$ steps. Then the rectangular matrix $`A`$ in (8) is

$$A(\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }^{(N_1)})$$
(24)
and the matrix elements of $`C\stackrel{~}{A}f^1A`$ would be

$$\begin{array}{cc}C^{(nm)}=\{\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)},\mathrm{\Phi }^{(m)}\}\hfill & \hfill n,m=1,\mathrm{},N_1.\end{array}$$
(25)
Using the Jacobbi identity it is possible to show that

$$C=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& C^{1N_1}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& C^{2(N_11)}& C^{2N_1}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& C^{(N_11)2}& \mathrm{}& C^{(N_11)(N_11)}& C^{(N_11)N_1}\\ C^{N_11}& C^{N_12}& \mathrm{}& C^{N_1(N_11)}& P^{N_1N_1}\end{array}\right)$$
(26)
and

$$detC=(1)^{\frac{N_1}{2}}det\left(C^{1N_1}\right)^{N_1}.$$
(27)
If $`C^{1N_1}\{\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)},\mathrm{\Phi }^{(N_1)}\}0`$ then from (13) and (27) we have $`detF0`$. In order that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(N_1)}`$ be the terminal element, multiplying the null eigenvector

$$(_i\mathrm{\Phi }^{(N_1)}f^{ij};\stackrel{N_1}{\stackrel{}{0,\mathrm{},1}})$$
(28)
with the equations of motion (9) should give no new constraint. This would be so if $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }^{N_1},H\}0`$.

If, on the other hand, $`C^{1N_1}0`$ we have $`detC0`$. This means that all constraints of the chain are second class. Moreover, $`detF0`$ and the symplectic two-form would be invertible. As shown in  the inverse of $`F`$ can be written as

$$F^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}f^1f^1AC^1\stackrel{~}{A}f^1& f^1AC^1\\ & \\ C^1\stackrel{~}{A}f^1& C^1\end{array}\right).$$
(29)
where $`A`$ is defined in (24). Then $`F^1`$ defines a new bracket between functions of the original phase space that is the same as Dirac bracket. Using (29), the equations of motion (9) can be solved for $`\dot{\eta }_{(n)}`$’s. Imposing the results to the Lagrangian and adding a total derivative is equivalent to redefining the original Hamiltonian as

$$HH\{H,\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}\}C_{nm}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(m)}$$
(30)
where $`C_{nm}`$’s are elements of $`C^1`$.

The whole procedure is in full agreement with Dirac approach in the framework of chain by chain method. That is, a one chain system is completely first or second class. In the latter case the system is called self-conjugate, since the matrix $`C`$ of the Poisson brackets of constraints of the chain, i.e. (26), is non-singular.

Now let consider a system with two chains. This is the case when we are given two primary constraints, say $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}`$.

Considering the consistency of constraints in the framework of chain by chain method, the authors of  have shown that a double chain system may be of four categories. both first class, one first class and one self conjugate second class, both self conjugate second class, and finally two cross conjugate second class. In the following we show that the same things may emerge as the results of the symplectic analysis, provided that one follows similar steps of chain by chain method.

i) two first class chains

In the chain by chain method, this happens when the terminal element of first chain, say $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(N_1)}`$, has vanishing Poisson brackets with primary constraints $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}`$ as well as with Hamiltonian and then knitting the second chain, the same thing is true for the terminal element $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(N_2)}`$.

In symplectic analysis, the procedure of knitting the first chain is described more or less in section (2), leading to matrix $`A`$, given in (22). One should notice that the singularity of $`F`$ given in (8) is not removed at this step. In fact, there are $`N_1`$ null eigenvectors corresponding to $`N_1`$ first class constraints of the first chain. However, to begin knitting the second chain, we keep these null eigenvectors as they are and just search for new null eigenvectors corresponding to second chain. In other words, to find the $`(n+1)`$th element of the second chain we use the following null eigenvector:

$$(_i\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n)}f^{ij};\stackrel{N_1}{\stackrel{}{0,\mathrm{},0}};\stackrel{n1}{\stackrel{}{0,\mathrm{},0}};1)$$
(31)
Multiplying this with equations of motion (9), as before, gives the constraint

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n+1)}=\{\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n)},H\}.$$
(32)
Knitting the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$-chain in this manner, we reach finally the terminal element $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(N_2)}`$ which commute with $`H`$. We remember that the final symplectic two-form possesses $`N_1+N_2`$ null eigenvectors.

ii) One first and one second class chain

By now, it may have been clear to the reader that in order to knit the constraint chains similar steps should be followed in symplectic analysis and Dirac formalism. In symplectic analysis we search for appropriate null eigenvectors while in Dirac formalism we investigate directly the consistency conditions.

For the case under consideration suppose the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-chain is first class and the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$-chain is second class. In this case the matrix $`F`$ has the following from

$$F=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}f& A_1& A_2\\ & & \\ \stackrel{~}{A}_1& 0& 0\\ & & \\ \stackrel{~}{A}_2& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(33)
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}A_{1i}^{(n)}=_i\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}\hfill & \hfill n=1,\mathrm{},N_1\\ A_{2i}^{(n^{})}=_i\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n^{})}\hfill & \hfill n^{}=1,\mathrm{},N_2\end{array}$$
(34)
Concerning the part $`A_1`$(and $`\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$), the matrix $`F`$ has $`N_1`$ null eigenvectors as

$$(_i\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}f^{ij};\stackrel{N_1}{\stackrel{}{0,\mathrm{},1,\mathrm{},0}};\stackrel{N_2}{\stackrel{}{0,\mathrm{},0}}).$$

However, since the constraints in $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$-chain are second class the singularity in part $`A_2`$ has been removed. If one omits the columns and and rows of part $`A_1`$, the remaining matrix

$$F_{\text{inv}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}f& A_2\\ & \\ \stackrel{~}{A}_2& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(35)
would be invertible, where its inverse is something similar to (29).

If conversely $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$\- chain were second class and the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$\- chain were first class, then $`A_1`$-part would be invertible and $`A_2`$-part would have $`N_2`$ null eigenvectors.

iii) two self conjugate second class chains

In Dirac formalism this is the case when both chains are second class and the terminating element of each chain has non vanishing Poisson bracket with the top element of the same chain. As shown in  it is possible to redefine the Hamiltonian and constraints in such a way that constraints of one chain commute with the constraints of the other chain.

Following the steps of chain by chain method in symplectic analysis, one finally reaches to the symplectic two-form shown in (33) and (34); but this time it is invertible. Considering the algebra of Poisson brackets one can show that the inverse can be written as:

$$F^1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}f^1_{i=1}^2f^1A_iC_i^1\stackrel{~}{A}_if^1& f^1A_1C_1^1& f^1A_2C_2^1\\ & & \\ C_1^1\stackrel{~}{A}_1f^1& C_1^1& 0\\ & & \\ C_2^1\stackrel{~}{A}_2f^1& 0& C_2^1\end{array}\right).$$
(36)
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}C_1^{nm}=\{\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)},\mathrm{\Phi }^{(m)}\}\hfill & \\ C_2^{n^{}m^{}}=\{\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n^{})},\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m^{})}\}\hfill & \end{array}$$
(37)
iv) two cross-conjugate second class chains

In this case the chains have the same length and the terminal element of each chain has non-vanishing Poisson bracket with the top element of the other chain . Each constraint in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-chain finds its conjugate in the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$-chain and vice-versa.

Following all the steps needed to knit the chains, finally the symplectic two-form $`F`$, is as written in (33) and (34), noticing that $`N_1=N_2`$. Suppose $`A(A_1,A_2)`$ is a rectangular matrix with $`2N_1`$ columns. Then the inverse of $`F`$ would be as in (29). It should be noted that the matrix $`C`$ of Poisson brackets in this case is as follows

$$C=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& X\\ & \\ \stackrel{~}{X}& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(38)
where

$$X^{nm}=\{\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)},\mathrm{\Psi }^{(m)}\}.$$
(39)
Analyzing the general case, i.e. the multi-chain system, is more or less similar to the two-chain system. The chains are collected as first class, self-conjugate second class, and couples of cross-conjugate second class chains. The essential points to reach such a system of constraints can be understood from the discussions given above, however, the details are complicated and does not lead to any new point.

## 4 Example

As an example, consider the Lagrangian

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\left(\dot{x}ay\right)^2byz\frac{1}{2}cy^2\frac{1}{2}dz^2$$
(40)
where $`x,y`$ and $`z`$ are variables and $`a,b,c`$ and $`d`$ are parameters. The primary constraints are $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(1)}=P_y`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(2)}=P_z`$. The canonical Hamiltonian is

$$H_c=\frac{1}{2}P_x^2+aP_xy+byz+\frac{1}{2}cy^2+\frac{1}{2}dz^2.$$
(41)
The secondary constraints are $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(1)}=aP_x+bz+cy`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(2)}=by+dz`$.

Different types of a two-chain system can be obtained by suitable choices of parameters. For $`a=d=1`$ and $`b=c=0`$ the chains are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(1)}=P_y& & \mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(2)}=P_z\\ \mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(1)}=P_x& & \mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(2)}=z\end{array}.$$
(42)
The first chain is first-class and the next one is second-chain. For $`a=b=0`$ and $`c=d=1`$ we have two self-conjugate chain as follows

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(1)}=P_y& & \mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(2)}=P_z\\ \mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(1)}=y& & \mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(2)}=z\end{array}.$$
(43)
Finally for $`a=c=d=0`$ and $`b=1`$ there are two cross-conjugate chains as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(1)}=P_y& \mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(2)}=P_z\\ \mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(1)}=z& \mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(2)}=y\end{array}.$$
(44)
Now let discuss the above system in symplectic analysis. The first order Lagrangian is

$$L=P_x\dot{x}+P_y\dot{y}+P_z\dot{z}\left(\frac{1}{2}P_x^2+aP_xy+byz+\frac{1}{2}cy^2+\frac{1}{2}dz^2\right)$$
(45)
with the primary constraints $`P_y`$ and $`P_z`$. Suppose $`(y^1,\mathrm{},y^6)`$ stand for $`(x,y,z,P_x,P_y,P_z)`$. Adding the consistency term $`\eta ^1\dot{P}_y,\eta ^2\dot{P}_z`$ to the Lagrangian (see Eq.6 ) the symplectic two-form $`F`$ for coordinates

$$Y(y^1,\mathrm{},y^6,\eta ^1,\eta ^2)$$

is similar to Eq. 8 in which $`f`$ is a $`6\times 6`$ symplectic matrix and

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 0\\ 0& 0\\ 0& 0\\ 1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(46)
It has two null-eigenvectors as follows

$$\begin{array}{c}v_1=(0,1,0,0,0,0;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},0)\\ v_2=(0,0,1,0,0,0;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1).\end{array}$$
(47)
According to the procedure given in this paper, we should consider them one by one. Multiplying $`v_1`$form left by the equations of motion (9) gives the second level constraint of the first chain as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(2)}=aP_x+bz+cy.$$
(48)
Now let consider different choice of parameters:

i) suppose $`a=d=1`$ and $`b=c=0`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(2)}=P_x`$ which commute with primary constraints and Hamiltonian. So the singularity of symplectic two-form due to first chain remains in the system, and the first chain terminates at this step. Then multiplying the null eigenvector $`v_2`$ (see Eq. 47) by equations of motion (9) gives the constraint $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(2)}=z`$ which is conjugate to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(1)}=P_z`$. In this way the system of constraints (42) are reproduced (one first-class and one second-class).

ii) Suppose $`a=b=0`$ and $`c=d=1`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(2)}=y`$ is conjugate to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(1)}=P_y`$. Adding the consistency term $`\eta _{(2)}^1\dot{y}`$ to the Lagrangian, the singularity of symplectic two-form due to first chain disappears. So the first chain is second class and terminates at $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(2)}`$. Again from null eigenvector $`v_2`$ the second level constraint $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(2)}=z`$ emerges $`v_2`$ which is conjugate to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(1)}=P_z`$. The singularity due to second chain also disappears by adding $`\eta _{(2)}^2\dot{z}`$ to the Lagrangian. As observed, the system of two self-conjugate chain given in (43) is derived from the symplectic analysis.

iii) Suppose $`a=c=d=0`$ and $`b=1`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(2)}=z`$ is conjugate to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(1)}=P_z`$. According to the algorithm of chain by chain method  in such a situation (when the last element of a chain a chain does not commute with some other primary constraint) one should begin to knit the next chain and then investigate the consistency condition of both chains simultaneously. In symplectic analysis, this should be done by considering the next null eigenvector, i.e. $`v_2`$(see Eq. 47). Multiplying the equations of motion (9) by $`v_2`$ gives the constraint $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(2)}=y`$. In this way the two cross-conjugate chains (44) would be reproduced.

Adding the consistency term

$$\eta _{(1)}^1\dot{P}_y+\eta _{(1)}^2\dot{P}_z+\eta _{(2)}^1\dot{z}+\eta _{(2)}^2\dot{y}$$

to the Lagrangian the $`6\times 4`$ matrix $`A`$ in the symplectic two-form (8) takes the form

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(49)
It is obvious that singularity of symplectic two-form is removed and using $`F^1`$ the brackets induced in phase space (see eq. 5) is the same as Dirac brackets due to second class constraints $`P_y,P_z,z,y`$.

## 5 Conclusion

In this work we showed that the symplectic analysis is able to construct the constraints in a chain structure. In fact, at each stage one can play suitably with null-eigenvectors of the symplectic tensor to produce any set of desired constraints. To construct the constraint chains one should act with null-eigenvectors one by one, such that at each stage only one chain gains a new constraint.

We think that this work shows once again the essential equivalence between symplectic analysis and the Dirac method. In fact, there are some hidden calculation in Faddeev- Jackiw formalism and symplectic analysis which is more or less equivalent to what done in traditional Dirac method. We tried to show some of theses detailed calculations.


format: text

text:
# Are Inflationary Predictions Sensitive to Very High Energy Physics?

## 1 Introduction

Decoupling is a double-edged sword. On the one hand it ensures that most of low-energy physics is independent of the details of the unknown physics at higher energies, and so allows a meaningful comparison between experiments and theory before a complete ‘theory of everything’ is constructed. In retrospect, this was a prerequisite for the success of physics as a discipline, since it allows an understanding of Nature at one scale at a time.

On the other hand, decoupling is a real obstacle in our present situation where we have a candidate theory of everything (string theory) but only have access to experiments at energies much below the fundamental string scale. The falsification of such theories is extremely difficult using any terrestrial experiment we can currently conceive. This has led many to look for ways in which very-high-energy physics might have imprinted itself on cosmological observables which were privy to higher-energy effects at very early times but with consequences which have survived until the present epoch.

A recently much-discussed  candidate for such an observable is the temperature anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), whose properties are presently being measured with unprecedented accuracy . This particular observable suggests itself as a potential probe of very high energies because these anisotropies appear to be well described as arising from primordial metric perturbations (both scalar and tensor) generated during a much-earlier inflationary phase of the Universe (see e.g. ). Given that such an inflationary phase must have provided at least 60-70 $`e`$-folds of inflation in order to solve the various initial-condition problems of the hot big bang, length scales which are now cosmological in size could easily have been below the Planck length prior to freezing out as they left the horizon during inflation . This idea was first investigated in a stringy/quantum gravity context in , which also first pointed out that the effects might be as large as order $`H/M`$.

Thus, it is not an outrageous hope to think that trans-Planckian effects could manifest themselves in the CMB, though perhaps in a subtle way. Several examples of exotic physics which can do so are put forward in refs. , including new particles having non-Lorentz-invariant dispersion relations, short-distance modifications to quantum-mechanical commutation relations, and the preparation of fields in the various nonstandard vacua (more about which later) that can arise in de Sitter space.

But what of decoupling? Why don’t these exotic and hypothetical high-energy phenomena decouple from the lower-energy physics of horizon exit? It has recently been argued  that decoupling precludes the physics of a high energy $`M`$ from contributing effects which are larger than $`O(H^2/M^2)`$, where $`H`$ is the Hubble scale when the perturbations of interest leave the horizon during inflation.111As pointed out in , there is a class of higher-derivative terms which lead to potentially larger corrections than those described in . This makes the effects largely undetectable unless $`M`$ is very close to $`H`$. They reach this conclusion by parameterizing the effects of higher-energy physics at horizon exit using interactions in a low-energy effective lagrangian, as is known to be valid elsewhere in other physical applications.

Motivated by the disagreement between the authors of refs.  and , we present here a critical analysis of how high-energy effects can affect inflationary predictions. In order to keep our discussion precise we examine a simple model in which the higher-energy physics is well understood, consisting of a single heavy scalar particle. By making the heavy physics mundane and simple, we can explicitly compute the predictions of the high-energy theory and see when an effective description applies. In our model a pre-inflationary period of matter-dominated FRW expansion can occur, which allows us to unambiguously decide what the initial quantum state of the system should be. Apart from these reasons, we also believe it to be useful to know how conventional kinds of high-energy physics can change the predictions for inflation, not least to use as a benchmark against which to compare the more exotic types which have been considered to date.

We find an element of truth in both sides of the above-mentioned dispute. In a nutshell:

* We find that it is possible for the high-energy scalar to modify the inflationary predictions for the fluctuations in the CMB, provided the epoch of horizon exit of the relevant wavelengths for the CMB does not occur too much later than the onset of inflation. In fact, by adjusting parameters, we can have observable effects after as many as 30 $`e`$-foldings of inflation before horizon exit. The reason this modification occurs is due to a failure of the adiabatic approximation stemming from the rapid oscillations of the heavy field before horizon exit. This then ensures that the epoch before horizon exit will not be well described by a low-energy effective theory. This shows how the interference with standard inflationary predictions is consistent with decoupling, inasmuch as observers at all times agree on why the high-energy physics does not decouple.
* Although we find that the heavy scalar can influence inflationary predictions, the desired effect is only important in comparatively special parts of parameter space or for a specific class of initial conditions. The generic situation is to have the high-energy scalar decouple, and so not alter the standard inflationary predictions. In particular all deviations from standard inflationary predictions can be made negligible by having sufficient inflation occur before horizon exit, at least for the conventional heavy physics considered here.

Our results also bear on a related issue which has arisen within the discussion of trans-Planckian physics. The question is whether it is in principle sensible to use the various nonstandard vacua of de Sitter space. In particular, various recent calculations have been used to argue that some of these vacua give physically nonsensical results . We show here that it is possible to obtain some of the non-standard vacua starting from the usual vacuum in a pre-inflationary phase of matter- or radiation-dominated FRW expansion. This possibility shows that these particular inflationary vacua must make physical sense, since they arise by time evolving a pre-existing well-behaved state. The reasonable states which are obtained in this way differ from those discussed in  in that they approach the standard (Bunch-Davies ) vacuum for sufficiently high momenta. Together, these results make it unlikely that reasonable high-energy physics can lead to nonstandard vacua for modes of arbitrarily high momentum. For lower momenta, we show that it is always possible to choose a momentum-dependent nonstandard vacuum in such a way as to reproduce in the CMB fluctuations the effects we find from a heavy scalar field.

All told, we find our results to be very encouraging since they suggest we may be able to have our cake and eat it too. On the one hand we can sensibly compare standard inflationary results with CMB measurements, secure in the knowledge that the comparison is independent of the vast majority of things which could be happening at higher energies. On the other hand there are specific kinds of high-energy physics which can leave their imprint in the CMB, and for which searches should therefore be made. In particular we might learn something about how long inflation had gone on before observed scales left the horizon. The resulting implications for the CMB might indeed be observable in the next generation of experiments, such as MAP  or PLANCK .

We present our discussion in the following way. Section (2) describes our model of high-energy physics. It consists of a standard hybrid-inflation model  containing a light inflaton, $`\varphi `$, together with a much heavier scalar, $`\chi `$. We then examine how the heavy scalar field evolves if it is not started at a local minimum of its potential, and how sufficiently large oscillations of this scalar can dominate the universe’s energy density, causing a period of pre-inflationary matter domination. The implications of these oscillations for inflaton fluctuations are described analytically and numerically in Section (3), ending with the consequences which they imply for post-inflationary density fluctuations. Section (4) considers an alternative model, for which observable implications persist for a longer period during inflation, and for which the visible signatures might occur at smaller angular scales than in the previous case. Our conclusions are briefly summarized in Section (5).

## 2 The Model

For the purposes of our analysis we initially adopt a textbook  hybrid-inflation model , defined by the lagrangian density

$``$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi +\frac{1}{2}_\mu \chi ^\mu \chi +V(\varphi ,\chi )\right],`$ (1)
$`\text{with}V(\varphi ,\chi )`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2+\frac{1}{4}\lambda (\chi ^2v^2)^2+\frac{1}{2}g\chi ^2\varphi ^2+\frac{1}{12}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\varphi ^4.`$
The potential has absolute minima at $`\chi =\pm v`$ and $`\varphi =0`$, but also has a long trough at $`\chi =0`$ provided $`g\varphi ^2>\lambda v^2`$. In a later section (3.3) we will consider a variation of this model with a trilinear coupling, $`g^{}\chi \varphi ^2`$, which will be shown to have a qualitatively different effect on the CMB temperature anisotropy.

### 2.1 Conditions for Inflation

In the model (1) the inflaton, $`\varphi `$, starts at $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$, with $`g\varphi _0^2\lambda v^2`$, and then slow-rolls along the $`\chi =0`$ trough. To ensure that the trough is sufficiently flat, we require the following conditions:

1. In order to ensure that $`V(\varphi ,\chi =0)\frac{1}{4}\lambda v^4`$ for all $`\varphi <\varphi _0`$ we require $`m^2\varphi _0^2\lambda v^4`$, as well as $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }m^2/\varphi _0^2`$ (which allows us to neglect $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ in what follows). This is consistent with having sufficiently large $`\varphi _0`$ provided $`m^2gv^2`$. Under these assumptions the Hubble scale during inflation is $`H^2\lambda v^4/(12M_p^2)`$, where $`1/M_p^2=8\pi G`$. In order to trust Einstein’s equations we take $`\lambda v^2M_p^2`$, and so have $`H^2v^2`$.
2. Define the slow-roll parameters  as $`ϵ=(M_pV_{\mathrm{tr}}^{}/V_{\mathrm{tr}})^2`$ and $`\eta =M_p^2V_{\mathrm{tr}}^{\prime \prime }/V_{\mathrm{tr}}`$, where the truncated scalar potential is $`V_{\mathrm{tr}}(\varphi )=V(\varphi ,\chi =0)`$. By requiring $`4m^2M_p^2\lambda v^4`$, or equivalently, $`m^23H^2`$ we can make the slow-roll parameters small enough for sufficient inflation.

Under these conditions the field $`\chi `$ is a heavy degree of freedom throughout all but the very end of the inflationary epoch. Its mass is given by the curvature of the potential transverse to the trough, which depends on the value of the inflaton field through the relation

$$M^2=\frac{^2V}{\chi ^2}|_{\chi =0}=\lambda v^2+g\varphi ^2g\varphi ^2.$$
(2)
The last approximation follows right up until the end of inflation by virtue of the conditions described above. We can nevertheless follow the evolution of this scalar using Einstein’s equations during an inflationary phase provided $`\lambda v^2M^2M_p^2`$. If the couplings $`g`$ and $`\lambda `$ are not too different from one another and are not too small, we also have $`mHM`$ during inflation.

### 2.2 $`\chi `$ Oscillations and a Possible Pre-Inflationary Phase

The picture so far is standard. Our only modification will be to choose $`\chi `$ to lie at $`\chi _00`$, with $`\dot{\chi }_0=0`$ initially, rather than at the bottom of the trough, $`\chi _0=0`$. (See  for other discussions of the initial conditions in hybrid inflation models.) Since large enough $`\chi `$ oscillations can dominate the energy of the universe, in this section we do not assume that the Hubble scale $`H=\dot{a}/a`$ is a constant.

If $`\chi _0`$ is chosen close enough to the trough’s bottom (i.e. with $`\lambda \chi _0^2M^2`$) then we may neglect the effect of the $`\chi ^4`$ terms in the action on the $`\chi `$ field equations, leading to

$$\ddot{\chi }+3H\dot{\chi }+M^2(\varphi )\chi 0.$$
(3)
As usual, we consider only the evolution of the homogeneous $`\chi `$ mode, i.e. we take $`\chi =0`$, since spatially-inhomogeneous modes will be redshifted as inflation proceeds.

A general solution to this equation may be obtained, regardless of the time-dependence of $`H`$, so long as we may neglect $`\dot{\varphi }/\varphi `$ and $`H`$ in comparison with $`M`$. (We have already seen this neglect to be justified during the inflationary regime which is of most interest for the purposes of this paper.) Assuming the initial condition $`\dot{\chi }_0/\chi _0\text{ }\stackrel{<}{}\text{ }O(H)`$ we find

$$\chi (t)A(t)\mathrm{cos}\left[M(\varphi )(tt_0)\right],$$
(4)
where the slowly-varying envelope is given by $`A(t)=\chi _0[a(t_0)/a(t)]^{3/2}`$, and $`M^2(\varphi )g\varphi ^2`$. This evolution describes a fast oscillation rather than a slow roll because of the condition $`MH`$, whose origin is discussed above.

The energy density associated with these oscillations is

$$\rho _\chi (t)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\dot{\chi }^2+M^2\chi ^2\right)=\frac{1}{2}M^2A^2(t)=\frac{1}{2}M^2\chi _0^2\left(\frac{a(t_0)}{a(t)}\right)^3,$$
(5)
which scales with $`a(t)`$ as does non-relativistic matter. If the initial amplitude is chosen to be large enough this energy can be larger than $`\frac{1}{4}\lambda v^4`$, in which case the universe is initially matter-dominated. The amplitude of the $`\chi `$ oscillations is then damped by the universal expansion, and so long as the $`\varphi `$ roll remains slow an inflationary phase eventually begins. As the $`\chi `$ oscillations damp to zero we match onto the standard picture of hybrid inflation based on the slow $`\varphi `$ roll.

In Figs. (1,2) we plot the total energy density and the $`\varphi `$ kinetic energy for several such rolls, calculated numerically, where the initial condition $`\varphi _0`$ is fixed but $`\chi _0`$ varies. The plot shows how the length of the inflationary period shrinks as $`\chi _0`$ gets larger, corresponding to the longer time required to damp away the energy in $`\chi `$ oscillations.

From these considerations we see that there are potentially three times we should keep track of:

* We define $`t=0`$ as the time during inflation when inflaton fluctuations having $`k=k_{\mathrm{COBE}}7.5H_{\mathrm{present}}`$  leave the horizon: $`k_{\mathrm{COBE}}/a_{he}=H`$. Here $`H_{\mathrm{present}}`$ denotes the present-day Hubble scale. We denote the size of the oscillatory envelope at this time by $`\chi _{he}=A_{he}A(t=0)`$. For later convenience we normalize the scale factor so that $`a_{he}a(t=0)=1`$.
* $`t=t_0<0`$ denotes the time when $`\chi `$ oscillations begin, which may or may not lie within a pre-inflationary oscillation-dominated phase. As in previous discussions $`\chi _0=A_0`$ and $`a_0`$ denote the values of the $`\chi `$ field envelope and the scale factor at this time.
* If there is a pre-inflationary phase then $`t_i`$, with $`t_0<t_i<0`$, denotes the time where inflation begins, as defined by when the energy in $`\chi `$ oscillations falls below the constant scalar potential value $`\frac{1}{4}\lambda v^4`$. A subscript ‘$`i`$’ then denotes the value taken by a quantity at $`t=t_i`$. If the initial $`\chi `$ oscillations are never large enough to dominate the energy density, we need never consider $`t_i`$, and we instead define $`t_i=t_0`$ and use these two symbols interchangeably.

Since the amplitude of oscillations during inflation is exponentially damped, $`\chi _i=\chi _{he}e^{3H|t_i|/2}`$, the time $`t_i`$ is related to the size, $`\chi _{he}`$ of the oscillation envelope at horizon exit. To see this notice that $`\chi _i`$ is found by equating the $`\chi `$-oscillation energy at $`t_i`$, $`\frac{1}{2}M^2\chi _i^2`$ to the inflationary vacuum energy, $`\frac{1}{4}\lambda v^4=3H^2M_p^2`$, giving

$$\chi _i^2=\frac{6H^2M_p^2}{M^2}.$$
(6)
The number of $`e`$-foldings between the beginning of inflation and horizon exit then is

$$H|t_i|\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\chi _i^2}{\chi _{he}^2}\right)\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{6M_p^2/M^2}{\chi _{he}^2/H^2}\right).$$
(7)
Clearly — for fixed fluctuation size, $`\chi _{he}/H`$ — the later horizon exit occurs after the onset of inflation, the lower $`M`$ must be, and hence the smaller $`m`$, $`v`$ and $`H`$ must also be in order to have sufficient inflation after horizon exit.

If $`t_0<t_i`$ then the initial amplitude must be larger still, by a matter-dominated expansion factor of $`[a(t_0)/a(t_i)]^{3/2}=t_0/t_i`$. The duration of the matter-domination oscillations also cannot be too long without pushing the initial oscillation energy above the Planck scale, and so invalidating the use of Einstein’s equations. This condition requires

$$\frac{t_0}{t_i}<\frac{M_p}{\sqrt{3}H},$$
(8)
which can be enormous, for small $`H`$.

## 3 Modifications to Inflaton Fluctuations

We now turn to a computation of how the $`\chi `$ oscillations change the power spectrum of inflaton fluctuations which get imprinted onto the CMB. For simplicity, we first consider the case where the $`\chi `$ oscillations occur entirely during the inflationary phase ($`t_it_0`$).

Consider the quantum fluctuations of the inflaton, $`\phi `$. A mode with wave number $`k`$ has the equation of motion

$$\ddot{\phi }_k+3H\dot{\phi }_k+\left[k^2e^{2Ht}+V^{\prime \prime }(\varphi )g\chi ^2(t)\right]\phi _k=0.$$
(9)
In the absence of the coupling to $`\chi `$, and taking $`V^{\prime \prime }H^2`$ as required for slow roll, the standard positive and negative frequency solutions are

$$\phi _k^\pm =(\pm iH+k/a)e^{\pm ik/aH},$$
(10)
where the scale factor is $`a=e^{Ht}`$. In the standard canonical quantization, it is assumed that the universe starts in the adiabatic vacuum state which is annihilated by $`a_k`$ in the mode expansion

$$\varphi \underset{k}{}(a_k\phi _k^++a_k^{}\phi _k^{}).$$
(11)
This is also known as the Bunch-Davies vacuum, $`a_k|BD=0`$. If the universe started in a different state $`|\alpha _k`$, annihilated by some linear combination of $`a_k`$ and $`a_k^{}`$, say $`b_k=\mathrm{cosh}\alpha _ka_k+e^{i\delta }\mathrm{sinh}\alpha _ka_k^{}`$ , then the mode expansion would be in terms of functions $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_k^+,\stackrel{~}{\phi }_k^{}`$ given as linear combinations of the positive and negative frequencies,

$`\varphi `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(b_k\stackrel{~}{\phi }_k^++b_k^{}\stackrel{~}{\phi }_k^{}),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_k^+`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}\alpha _k\phi _k^++e^{i\delta }\mathrm{sinh}\alpha _k\phi _k^{}.`$ (12)
It is the interference between positive and negative frequency components of $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_k^+`$ which gives rise to potentially observable effects in the CMB power spectrum, since the latter is derived from $`|\stackrel{~}{\phi }_k^+|^2`$ evaluated at horizon crossing, $`k/a=H.`$

If $`\delta =0`$, the effect on the power spectrum is a modulation of the standard one,

$$\stackrel{~}{P}_k\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}|\stackrel{~}{\phi }_k|^2=|\mathrm{cosh}\alpha _k\mathrm{sinh}\alpha _k|^2P_k,$$
(13)
where $`P_k`$ is the standard Harrison-Zeldovich spectrum.

The simple point we wish to make here is that the coupling of $`\varphi `$ to $`\chi `$ can also induce an admixture of positive- and negative-frequency components in solutions for $`\varphi `$ which are initially purely positive frequency. In the next section we demonstrate this explicitly by numerically evolving the fields forward in time starting from various initial conditions for $`\chi `$.

### 3.1 Asymptotic Forms

Before describing these numerical results, we first identify some of their limiting features by considering an approximate analytic solution.

In the classical analysis of interest here, the influence of $`\chi `$ oscillations on $`\varphi `$ fluctuations can be obtained explicitly by using the solution $`\chi (\varphi ,t)`$ from eq. (4) in the mode equation (9). The mode equations can then be solved perturbatively by use of the appropriate Greens’ function, which since we are interested in the classical evolution of the fluctuations, is the retarded one. It is defined by

$$G_{k,<}(t,t^{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,& t<t^{}\hfill \\ \phi _k^+(t)\phi _k^{}(t^{})\phi _k^{}(t)\phi _k^+(t^{}),& t>t^{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
and obeys the differential equation

$$\left[_t^2+3H_t+k^2e^{2Ht}\right]G_{k,<}(t,t^{})=2ik^3e^{3Ht}\delta (tt^{}).$$
(15)
The perturbed positive frequency solution of eq. (9) is

$`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_k^+(t)`$ $``$ $`\phi _k^+(t)+\delta \phi _k^+(t),`$
$`\delta \phi _k^+(t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}𝑑t^{}G_{k,<}(t,t^{}){\displaystyle \frac{e^{3Ht^{}}}{2ik^3}}gA^2(t^{})\mathrm{cos}^2[M(t^{}t_0)]\phi _k^+(t^{}),`$ (16)
and we assume for simplicity no pre-inflationary period, so $`t_i=t_0`$. Direct comparison of eqs. (3.1) and (14) shows that the perturbed solution has an admixture of the original positive- and negative-frequency modes.

Since we are interested in the amplitude of the perturbations well after their oscillations have frozen out, we may take $`t\mathrm{}`$ and use eq. (13) to compute the change in the spectrum of fluctuations:

$$\frac{\delta P}{P}(k)=\left|\frac{\stackrel{~}{\phi }_k^+(\mathrm{})}{\phi _k^+(\mathrm{})}\right|^21\frac{2\text{Im}\delta \phi _k^+(\mathrm{})}{H},$$
(17)
where we use the unperturbed result: $`\phi _k^+(\mathrm{})=iH`$.

We can use the perturbative expression, eq. (3.1), to deduce useful asymptotic expressions for the solution in the limit of large and small $`k`$. Changing variables to $`u=(k/H)e^{Ht}`$, the large time limit corresponds to $`u0`$, and the integral can then be rewritten as

$$\delta \phi _k^+(\mathrm{})=\frac{H^2}{k^3}g\chi _{he}^2_0^{u_0}\frac{du}{u}\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\frac{M}{H}\mathrm{ln}\frac{u}{u_0}\right)e^{iu}(i+u)\left(\mathrm{sin}uu\mathrm{cos}u\right),$$
(18)
where $`u_0=(k/H)e^{Ht_0}`$ and we use $`a_{he}=1`$. Taking first as $`k0`$ (hence $`u_00`$), the integral can be evaluated to give:

$$\underset{k0}{lim}\delta \phi _k^+(\mathrm{})i\frac{g\chi _{he}^2}{18H}e^{3H|t_0|}=i\frac{g\chi _0^2}{18H},$$
(19)
up to $`O(H^2/M^2)`$ corrections. Comparing this to the unperturbed value $`\phi _k^+(\mathrm{})=iH`$, we see that this causes a suppression of power which depends on the initial fluctuation amplitude, $`\chi _0`$, and is independent of $`M`$ in the limit $`M\mathrm{}`$.

This loss of power at long wavelengths is also seen in the full (nonperturbative) numerical integration of the equation of motion (9), whose results are shown in fig. 3. Notice in these numerical examples that the deviation of $`|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k^+(\mathrm{})|`$ from its normal value ($`H`$) can be large, even if $`\chi _{he}`$ is small. A flavor of this also seen in the perturbative expression due to the conversion of $`\chi _{he}`$ to $`\chi _0`$ by the factor $`e^{|3Ht_i/2|}`$.

Eq. (18) also gives the limiting form when $`k\mathrm{}`$ ($`u_0\mathrm{}`$), although this limit is somewhat more difficult to obtain. Since eq. (17) shows we are only concerned with the imaginary part of $`\delta \phi _k^+(\mathrm{})`$ for the power spectrum we focus on this. In the limit of large $`M`$ and large $`u_0`$ we find

$`\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{Im}\delta \phi _k^+(\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g\chi _{he}^2M}{4k^2}}e^{H|t_0|}f(k)={\displaystyle \frac{g\chi _0^2M}{4k^2}}e^{2H|t_0|}f(k),`$ (20)
where $`f(k)`$ is an oscillatory function of $`k`$ of unit amplitude. Thus the deviations from the standard power spectrum are oscillatory with an amplitude that falls like $`1/k^2`$ for large $`k`$. This behavior is also confirmed by the numerical results, as shown in figure 4.

We can understand the frequency of the fast oscillations in the numerical results as coming directly from those of the $`\chi `$ field itself. The numerics indicate that this frequency is the same as that of the function $`\mathrm{cos}[(2M/H)\mathrm{ln}(k)]`$. If we rewrite $`k`$ in terms of the physical wavelength of the mode, $`k=k_{\mathrm{phys}}e^{Ht}`$, the previous function becomes $`\mathrm{cos}(2Mt)`$ up to a phase. This is what we expect for $`\delta P`$ due to the driving field, $`\chi `$, as is seen using the identity $`\mathrm{cos}^2(Mt)=\frac{1}{2}[1+\mathrm{cos}(2Mt)]`$.

The fact that $`t_0`$ only enters the perturbative results through the combination $`u_0=(k/H)e^{Ht_0}`$ means that the effect of choosing earlier initial times, $`t_0`$, to be more negative is largely to translate the graphs to the left in $`\mathrm{log}(k)`$ space. At the same time the normalization changes because of our convention of using $`\chi _{\mathrm{he}}=e^{3H|t_i|/2}\chi _0`$ as the input parameter. These features are also borne out by the numerics.

### 3.2 Implications for the CMB

To quantify the effect of the oscillating scalar on the CMB fluctuations, we have integrated the equation of motion for inflaton fluctuations numerically for a large range of parameters. We then compute the fractional deviation in the power spectrum using eq. (17).

In figure 4 we plot the log of the absolute value of the percentage deviation ($`\mathrm{log}_{10}(|\delta P|/P\times 100)`$) as a function of $`\mathrm{log}_{10}(k/H)`$, for a range of values of $`M`$, and for two different values of $`t_0`$. We find a spectrum of deviations which oscillates rapidly, due to the fast $`\chi `$ oscillations, with an envelope which interpolates between the large- and small-$`k`$ limits described above.

As can be seen from figures 3 and 4, the largest deviations in the primordial power spectrum occur at the lowest $`k`$ values. This can be understood because at early times the average value of $`g\chi ^2`$ is potentially large, and thus effectively gives the inflaton a significant mass. This in turn gives rise to a tilted spectrum at low values of $`k`$, which is constrained by measurements of the large-angle CMB anisotropy. We have computed the effect of input spectra like these on the CMB using CMBFAST , with the results shown in figures 5 and 6. We have chosen to normalize all the spectra to a common value (unity) at $`l=10`$, and so the depression in fluctuations on very large scales leads to an enhancement of the size of the first and subsequent peaks.

For comparison, the effect of tilting the input spectrum with a spectral index of 1.05, and no coupling to $`\chi (t)`$, is shown as the dashed line in these figures. This shows that the effect of $`\chi `$ is qualitatively close to that of tilt, but still in principle distinguishable. In particular, the anisotropy of the tilted model falls below that of the $`g\chi _{he}^2=10^5`$ model for $`10<l\text{ }\stackrel{<}{}\text{ }70`$, but becomes larger for $`l\text{ }\stackrel{>}{}\text{ }70`$.

### 3.3 Phenomenology

Now that we know how big $`\chi `$ oscillations must be at horizon exit in order to be detected we may ask how natural or fine-tuned our initial conditions must be in order to affect the CMB in an observable way. Since figures 5 and 6 show that an amplitude $`g\chi _{he}^210^5H^2`$ has implications which are comparable to a 5% tilt to the Zeldovich spectrum, we take this as our benchmark for what an observable deviation would be in the predictions for CMB fluctuations.

Since the amplitude of oscillations during inflation is exponentially damped, $`\chi _i=\chi _{he}e^{3H|t_i|/2}`$, $`\chi _{he}`$ will be unobservable if too much time passes between the onset of inflation and the time of horizon exit. From eq. (7) we see this implies

$$H|t_i|\text{ }\stackrel{<}{}\text{ }\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\chi _i^2}{\chi _{he}^2}\right)\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{6\times 10^5gM_p^2}{M^2}\right).$$
(21)
Choosing all parameters optimistically we could have $`g\lambda O(1)`$ and $`H100`$ GeV, in which case $`v(HM_p)^{1/2}10^{10}`$ GeV. Taking then $`M10^{12}`$ GeV would give $`H|t_i|14`$, so horizon exit can occur quite deep (more than 10 $`e`$-foldings) into the inflationary phase.

In summary, we conclude that in this model if inflation persists for more than about 10 $`e`$-foldings longer than the minimum necessary to solve the usual problems of big bang cosmology, none of the effects which we are considering here are likely to be observable. However rapid $`\chi `$ oscillations can significantly extend the period of inflation before horizon exit to which CMB observations could be sensitive. The strongest effects on the CMB anisotropy appear at low $`l`$ values, and so would not be expected to be discovered by experiments whose advantage is their smaller angular resolution. This CMB window onto high-energy physics due to non-adiabatic oscillations is perhaps no less interesting than the more nebulous possibility of observing the effects of trans-Planckian physics.

## 4 An Alternative Model

For comparison we now turn to a slightly different model, for which the observable window is wider and has qualitatively different features. The model is motivated by the observation that roughly twice as many $`e`$-foldings would be possible if the $`\chi `$-$`\varphi `$ coupling were linear in $`\chi `$ instead of quadratic: i.e. if $`_{\chi \varphi }=g^{}\chi \varphi ^2`$. In this case the amplitude of $`\chi `$ oscillations still fall like $`a^{3/2}`$, but this now implies that the perturbations, $`\delta P_k`$, to the CMB fluctuations are only damped as $`a^{3/2}`$ instead of as $`a^3`$. Equally interesting is that in this case the distortions of the primordial power spectrum can have a maximum at some intermediate value of the wave number, which could correspond to multipoles of the CMB anisotropy beyond the first Doppler peak.

We consider, then, a model in which the inflaton field starts near $`\varphi =0`$ and rolls away from the origin during inflation, such as the inverted hybrid inflation model . In this case $`\chi `$ is no longer the field which controls the duration of inflation, whose existence is not important for the present discussion; rather it is another field which is introduced just to obtain the new kinds of effects we are interested in exploring. The Lagrangian can be written as

$$V(\varphi ,\chi )=v^4\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2+\frac{1}{2}M^2\chi ^2+g^{}\chi \varphi ^2.$$
(22)
Here the coupling $`g^{}`$ has dimensions of mass. The mass parameter $`M`$ in this model does not depend on $`\varphi `$, and we must have $`M^2H^2`$ to ensure that $`\chi `$ is not slowly rolling. The term $`v^4`$ denotes the constant energy density which dominates during inflation.

In the limit that the inflaton rolls very slowly so that $`\dot{\varphi }`$ can be neglected, the exact solution for $`\chi (t)`$ is:

$$\chi (t)=\frac{g^{}\varphi ^2}{2M^2}+e^{3H(tt_0)/2}\left(\chi _0\frac{g^{}\varphi ^2}{2M^2}\right)\mathrm{cos}[\stackrel{~}{M}(tt_0)].$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{M}=\sqrt{M^2\frac{9}{4}H^2}`$. Since we are interested in the case $`MH`$, we can take $`\stackrel{~}{M}M`$.

We need to keep the inflaton nearly massless relative to $`H`$ to insure that it rolls slowly enough to get sufficient inflation. Since the constant term in $`g^{}\chi `$ is the inflaton mass squared, this requires $`g^2\varphi ^2/M^2H^2`$. We also demand that the $`\chi `$ energy density is subdominant relative to that of the inflaton; otherwise we initially have a matter dominated era rather than inflation (a possibility which we will discuss below). Moreover we are assuming that $`\varphi 0`$ during inflation, so that the solution for $`\chi `$ in eq. (4) can be written as:

$$\chi (t)e^{3Ht/2}\chi _{he}\mathrm{cos}\left(M(tt_0)\right),$$
(23)
where $`\chi _{he}=\chi _0e^{3Ht_0/2}`$.

The calculation of the power spectrum proceeds much as before, and we only record here those expressions which differ from the previously-explained hybrid-inflation example. Neglecting the inflaton mass, the equation governing the quantum fluctuations of the inflaton, $`\phi `$ becomes

$$\ddot{\phi }_k+3H\dot{\phi }_k+\left[k^2e^{2Ht}g^{}\chi (t)\right]\phi _k=0,$$
(24)
which generates the same retarded Green’s function as before.

The perturbed positive-frequency solution of eq. (9) is then

$`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_k^+(t)`$ $``$ $`\phi _k^+(t)+\delta \phi _k^+(t),`$
$`\delta \phi _k^+(t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _{t_0}^t}𝑑t^{}G_{k,<}(t,t^{}){\displaystyle \frac{e^{3Ht^{}}}{2ik^3}}g^{}A(t^{})\mathrm{cos}[M(t^{}t_0)]\phi _k^+(t^{}).`$ (25)
The limiting forms of eq. (4) may be deduced as before, by changing variables to $`u=(k/H)e^{Ht}`$. This time we find

$$\delta \phi _k^+(\mathrm{})=\frac{H^{1/2}}{k^{3/2}}g^{}A_{he}_0^{u_0}\frac{du}{u^{5/2}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{M}{H}\mathrm{ln}\frac{u}{u_0}\right)e^{iu}(i+u)\left(\mathrm{sin}uu\mathrm{cos}u\right),$$
(26)
for which the $`k0`$ limit then becomes

$$\underset{k0}{lim}\delta \phi _k^+(\mathrm{})=i\frac{g^{}A_{he}H}{2M^2}e^{3H|t_0|/2}=i\frac{g^{}A_0H}{2M^2}.$$
(27)
As was true in the previous example, the $`k0`$ limit of $`\delta \phi _k^+(\mathrm{})/H`$ is a constant, which is proportional to $`g^{}A_0/M^2`$. However in contrast to the previous model, this deviation vanishes in the limit of large $`M`$, so that power at large wavelengths will be relatively unchanged.

The limiting behavior as $`k\mathrm{}`$ ($`u_0\mathrm{}`$) differs from our previous example, since the integral converges for large $`u_0`$. We find in the large-$`k`$ limit:

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\delta \phi _k^+(\mathrm{})0.5\frac{g^{}A_{he}H^{1/2}}{k^{3/2}}\times \text{(oscillatory function)}$$
(28)
whose amplitude is independent of $`M`$. These limits are borne out by our numerical results, presented in figures 7-9, which approach an $`M`$-dependent constant for small $`k`$ and fall with an $`M`$-independent envelope for large $`k`$. The numerical constant in eq. (28) is established by comparison with these numerical results.

Figures (8,9) plot the log of the percentage deviation ($`\mathrm{log}_{10}(\delta P/P\times 100)`$) as a function of $`\mathrm{log}_{10}(k/H)`$, for a range of values of $`M`$, and for two different values of $`t_0`$. The spectrum of deviations is observed to reach a maximum for wave numbers of order

$$k_{\mathrm{max}}\frac{M}{2}e^{H|t_0|}$$
(29)
before joining the universal $`k^{3/2}`$ fall-off at larger $`k`$. From these two results we read off the maximum size of the deviation as being:

$$\frac{\delta P}{P}(k_{\mathrm{max}})\frac{g^{}A_{he}e^{3H|t_0|/2}}{H^{1/2}(M/2)^{3/2}}=\frac{g^{}A_0}{H^{1/2}(M/2)^{3/2}}.$$
(30)
This maximum value is therefore greater than the small-$`k`$ limit by the factor $`(M/H)^{1/2}`$.

There is a simple intuitive understanding of the above behavior based on conservation laws and on how amplitudes and wave-numbers are damped during inflation. The pumping of $`\varphi `$ by the oscillating $`\chi `$ field preferentially creates $`\varphi `$ modes with physical wave numbers which are equal to $`M/2`$, although the wave-number is subsequently redshifted. The strongest production occurs for modes which are pumped right at the beginning of inflation since the $`\chi `$ amplitude is largest here, not having yet been damped as inflation proceeds. This explains both the value of $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$ in (29) and the $`k^{3/2}`$ scaling of $`\delta P/P`$ at large $`k`$. The strongest deviations are initially created with $`k/a(t_0)=M/2`$, in agreement with (29). Perturbations which are created at later times $`t>t_0`$ then correspond to wave-number $`k=a(t)M/2>k_{\mathrm{max}}`$, and the effect of $`\chi `$ on these perturbations is smaller by the damping factor $`[a(t_0)/a(t)]^{3/2}k^{3/2}`$. Furthermore, we can understand why the deviations also have power on scales $`k<k_{\mathrm{max}}`$: the pumping amplitude is proportional to the Fourier transform of the background $`\chi `$ field. This has an envelope $`e^{3Ht/2}`$ in addition to the oscillations. One therefore expects to see a spectrum of pairs with $`k/a(t_0)\text{ }\stackrel{<}{}\text{ }H`$.

### 4.1 Phenomenology of trilinear coupling model

With the results of the previous section in hand, we can now address in more detail what range of parameters could give rise to a potentially observable effect on the CMB. Since we have already examined what choices for $`H`$, $`m`$ and $`v`$ maximize the range of pre-horizon-exit inflation to which the CMB is sensitive, in this section we instead focus on the $`g^{}\chi \varphi ^2`$ model.

To interpret our results, recall that the scale factor is normalized such that $`a(0)=1`$; hence $`k`$ is the physical wave number at $`t=0`$. The value $`k=H`$ corresponds to the mode which is crossing the horizon at that instant. Since we have not specified how much inflation takes place after $`t=0`$, we are free to imagine that this is the value of $`k`$ which corresponds to some observable scale of interest, call it $`k_{\mathrm{COBE}}`$. We are interested in distortions of the spectrum of perturbations in this region. The most fortuitous situation would be that in which $`k_{\mathrm{COBE}}=k_{\mathrm{max}}`$, so that the deviations from the Harrison-Zeldovich spectrum would drop off for larger or smaller values of $`k`$, rather than increase to potentially ruled-out values on one side or the other. In what follows, let us focus on this special case, and consider how much fine tuning of the model parameters would be needed to get an observable effect.

For the $`g^{}\chi \varphi ^2`$ model, we find the following estimates. Since we are now assuming that $`k_{\mathrm{COBE}}=k_{\mathrm{max}}=H`$, eq. (29) implies that $`M=2He^{H|t_0|}`$, and eq. (30) then gives $`\frac{\delta P}{P}(k_{\mathrm{max}})=g^{}A_0H^2`$. Let us suppose that a $`1\%`$ effect is observable; hence $`g^{}A_0=0.01H^2`$. Recall the bound that the initial $`\chi `$ energy density must be less than that of the inflaton: $`M^2A_0^2e^{3H|t_0|}\text{ }\stackrel{<}{}\text{ }H^2M_p^2`$. Eliminating $`M`$ and $`A_0`$, we obtain a bound on the number of $`e`$-foldings which can have occurred prior to horizon-crossing of the COBE-scale mode:

$$H|t_0|\text{ }\stackrel{<}{}\text{ }\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{10^4g^2M_p^2}{4H^4}\right)^{1/5}\text{ }\stackrel{<}{}\text{ }\frac{4}{5}\mathrm{ln}\frac{10M_p}{H}33.$$
(31)
The numerical result 33 is based on taking $`g^{}M_p`$ and a conservative value $`H=100`$ GeV for the Hubble parameter during inflation. Such a value can be obtained for natural choices of parameters in hybrid inflation . With some tuning, a lower value of $`H`$ could be obtained.

This verifies our expectation that the $`g^{}\chi \varphi ^2`$ model is sensitive to $`\chi `$ oscillations over more $`e`$-foldings than is possible for the $`g\chi ^2\varphi ^2`$ hybrid-inflation model. In so doing it also underlines our observation that trans-Planckian effects could be mimicked without having to tune the duration of inflation so that COBE scales crossed the horizon exactly at the beginning of inflation. An interesting feature of the choice $`g^{}=M_p`$ is that the effect would be caused by relatively small initial amplitude oscillations of $`\chi `$, with $`A_0e^{3H|t_0|}10^4`$ GeV. On the other hand, this requires a small value of the inflaton itself, $`\varphi <MH/M_p=0.1`$ GeV, to insure that the inflaton rolls slowly. This again requires the use of a small-field inflation model like hybrid inflation.

To give a better idea of what the actual observable effects are, we have used our distorted initial power spectra as inputs to the CMBFAST  program, to produce sample plots of the power spectrum of CMB temperature fluctuations. Figure 10 show how a given template for the initial power spectrum, translates into temperature fluctuations. This template was produced using the parameters $`t_0=8/H`$, $`M=1000H`$ and a large amplitude $`g^{}A_0=0.1`$, chosen to make the effects more visible. The different choices for $`k_{\mathrm{COBE}}`$ (in Mpc-1) correspond to deciding which physical scale to associate with a given feature in the input spectrum (controlled by the number of e-foldings between the horizon crossing of that mode and the end of inflation). We have normalized the different curves so that they all have the same magnitude at the first Doppler peak. The fast oscillations of the input power are washed out in the temperature fluctuations, but the low frequency modulations have a clearly visible effect.

The above examples used an unrealistically large distortion of the primordial power spectrum in order to illustrate the possibilities qualitatively. For a more realistic example, we consider the case of fig. 11 in which the observable effects are at the 5% level. To get this large a deviation in the CMB, it is necessary to have a considerably larger deviation (30%) in $`|\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k^+(\mathrm{})|^2`$, to compensate for the fact that the oscillatory behavior of the latter tends to wash out its effects. The effect of shifting the value of $`k_{\mathrm{COBE}}`$ is clearly visible—it shifts the multipole values where the distortion in the CMB is most pronounced. In particular, these examples show that it is possible to avoid any observable deviation at low $`l`$.

### 4.2 Pre-inflationary Oscillations

In the previous subsections we took the oscillations of the pumping field $`\chi `$ to begin at the same time as the inflationary phase. We will now show that qualitatively different results can be obtained by having the oscillations start prior to the beginning of inflation. In particular the $`\chi `$ oscillations could initially dominate the energy density of the universe, so that inflation is preceded by a matter-dominated period.

The transition from matter to inflaton domination can be modelled by a scale factor with the behavior

$`a(t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(t/t_1)^{2/3},\hfill & t<t_1\hfill \\ e^{2t/3t_12/3},\hfill & t>t_1\hfill \end{array}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\eta ^2/4,\hfill & \eta <2\hfill \\ 1/(3\eta ),\hfill & 2<\eta <3\hfill \end{array}`$ (36)
Here we have introduced conformal time for convenience, defined by $`d\eta =2/(3t_1a)d\eta `$. The solution for the oscillating scalar continues to have the form

$$\chi (t)=\chi _0\mathrm{cos}[M(tt_0)]\left(\frac{a(t_0)}{a(t)}\right)^{3/2}.$$
(37)
despite the change in the functional form of $`a(t)`$ at $`t=t_i`$.

However in this situation, there is an interesting effect on the inflaton fluctuations even in the absence of the pumping scalar, due to the time variation of the background geometry. The solutions for the fluctuations have different forms in the matter and inflaton dominated eras:

$`\varphi _k(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`A_1\left(3{\displaystyle \frac{\eta k\mathrm{cos}\left(\eta k\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\eta k\right)}{\eta ^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2\mathrm{sin}\left(\eta k\right)}{\eta ^2}}\right)`$ (38)
$`+`$ $`A_2\left(3{\displaystyle \frac{\eta k\mathrm{sin}\left(\eta k\right)+\mathrm{cos}\left(\eta k\right)}{\eta ^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2\mathrm{cos}\left(\eta k\right)}{\eta ^2}}\right),\eta <2`$
and

$`\varphi _k(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`B_1\left(k\left(3+\eta \right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\eta k\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\eta k\right)\right)`$ (39)
$`+`$ $`B_2\left(k\left(3+\eta \right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\eta k\right)+\mathrm{cos}\left(\eta k\right)\right),\eta >2`$
It is obvious that if we form positive and negative frequency combinations of the independent solutions in each era, there will be mixing of the two kinds of solutions when we match the functions at $`\eta =2`$. Therefore if we start in the vacuum state appropriate for the matter dominated era, the inflaton will not be in the usual Bunch-Davies vacuum when it enters the inflationary era. This phenomenon was first noticed by Ford and Vilenkin . The only scale associated with the spacetime background is the value of the Hubble rate at the transition time; thus one expects that modes with $`k\text{ }\stackrel{<}{}\text{ }H`$ will be affected, and there will be no distortion of the spectrum for $`kH`$.

This is precisely the kind of behavior we see when we numerically integrate to follow the scalar field evolution in the case where there is no coupling of $`\varphi `$ to an external field $`\chi `$, starting with initial conditions appropriate for the purely positive frequency state of $`\varphi _k(\eta )`$. (We also checked that the analytic solution given above agrees with our numerical results.) The spectral distortion can be clearly seen in the $`g^{}\chi =0`$ curve in Figure 12, where the amplitude of $`\varphi _k(\mathrm{})`$ is much smaller for $`kH`$ than for $`kH`$. The sign of the effect is surprising; one might have expected particle production of low-$`k`$ modes to have produced the opposite effect.

As before, by adjusting the total duration of inflation we can shift the effect of the distortion to lower or higher multipole values in the CMB, as illustrated in figure 13.

When we turn on the coupling $`g^{}`$, we see from figure 12 that it is possible to counteract the suppression of power at low $`k`$. However it would require some fine tuning of $`g^{}`$ to arrange for this compensation to be exact. In any case, the new features in the spectrum occur for $`k`$ values in the range $`k\text{ }\stackrel{<}{}\text{ }H`$. The only way these can show up in the CMB is if the transition between matter and radiation domination occurs just when the relevant modes cross the horizon. Thus we are back to the situation where the amount of inflation is the bare minimum compatible with solving the horizon and flatness problems.

This is in contrast to the previous case where horizon crossing could occur some time after the beginning of inflation by adjusting the $`\chi `$ mass $`M`$ to larger values. The difference is that, similarly to the standard hybrid inflation model, in the present case the largest distortions of power always occur at small wave numbers. Although there is a peak in the spectrum at high $`k`$ given by $`Me^{H|t_i|}/2`$, it is only a local maximum, and never exceeds the size of the deviation that occurs at low $`k`$ values. This is the essential difference between the present situation and the previous case where the evolution was presumed to start during inflation. To reiterate, the difference arises because the prior period of matter domination puts the inflaton in a state which is not the same as the usually presumed Bunch-Davies vacuum.

## 5 Conclusions

Clearly, using the CMB to probe energy scales so far beyond what could be done in accelerators in an intriguing possibility. But, at least in principle, this approach carries the risk of completely undermining the predictiveness of inflationary models, and so negating the value of comparing them with CMB observations.

What our results show is that there can be a reasonable window onto higher-energy physics purely within a model under which all calculations are completely under quantitative control. The window we find is onto any epoch of inflation prior to horizon exit but after inflation begins, provided that this epoch is not too long (i.e. not longer than from 10 to 30 $`e`$-foldings, depending on the model). A longer pre-horizon epoch of inflation would be sufficient to completely remove the effects for the CMB of any early oscillating scalar modes.

Indeed, it is not too surprising that some sensitivity exists within the CMB towards the cosmic expansion just before horizon exit, since the standard inflationary predictions relate the CMB fluctuations to the size of the slow-roll parameters at horizon exit. For instance, if observed scales were to exit the horizon just as inflation began, then even standard calculations would not predict a spectral index near unity. What our calculation does is to extend this sensitivity to many more $`e`$-foldings of pre-horizon-exit inflation provided that the non-adiabatic scalar oscillations we consider are present during these times.

Three features of our results bear particular emphasis.

* First, they allow for new effects in the CMB, but do not make them generic. This means that the standard predictions are very robust to higher-energy physics, just as they had been expected to be. But our results also encourage the search for deviations from standard predictions, since they broaden the kinds of physics which can plausibly be expected to produce them.
* Second, our results do not contradict any of the well-established implications of decoupling. The kinds of oscillations we consider would not be expected to decouple by observers at any energy under consideration, since they can continually pump energy $`EM`$ into the lower-mass modes. All observers therefore understand why it would be wrong to try to integrate out the heavy fields having mass $`M`$ in the usual way, since modes of energy $`M`$ are constantly being pumped by the scalar oscillations.
* Third, it is clear from our calculations – as well as from older calculations  – that for low wave-numbers the $`\alpha `$ vacua of de-Sitter space do make physical sense, since they may be obtained by evolving the usual FRW vacua forward in time in a non-adiabatic way. $`\alpha `$-vacua can be expected to be obtained in this way up to a maximum wave-number, $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$, whose value is set by the most energetic states which can be excited by the non-adiabatic evolution. Recent objections in principle  to using $`\alpha `$ vacua may in this way be seen to be traceable to the use of these vacua up to arbitrarily high wave-numbers.

Our calculation does not directly preclude the possibility that trans-Planckian physics might yet contribute uncontrollably to inflationary predictions to the CMB, since we have restricted our focus entirely to sub-Planckian physics for which calculations can be systematically made. Indeed it is likely to remain difficult to draw any definitive conclusions on this score without having a detailed understanding of the nature of trans-Planckian physics.

However, we believe our calculation does a new features to the trans-Planckian debate. First, it identifies non-adiabaticity as a key ingredient of previous examples of how trans-Planckian effects can influence the CMB. (This is in agreement with the results of Martin and Brandenberger , but by disentangling the adiabaticity from more exotic possibilities like non-Lorentz-invariant dispersion relations we also show that these exotic assumptions are not crucial for obtaining an observable effect.) The relevance of adiabaticity can be traced to its role in preventing the heavy physics from being integrated out despite the modes involved being heavy. From this point of view we believe that if trans-Planckian physics obeys our usual notions of decoupling (as, for example, string theory appears to do) then it is unlikely that it can affect the CMB unless it introduces new low-energy states or non-adiabatic physics at the scale of horizon exit.

Second, in the event that controlled calculations of trans-Planckian physics should ultimately be possible, our calculation provides a useful benchmark against which they may be compared. Indeed such a comparison would be necessary in order to distinguish really new trans-Planckian physics from the more mundane types which we consider here. In particular, our calculation shows that it is always possible to mock up an observed modulation of the observed CMB power spectrum in terms of some sort of $`\alpha `$-vacuum, so in itself the power spectrum cannot be used to tell if any observed deviations are due to an $`\alpha `$-vacuum or some other physics.

At any rate, it is probably safe to say that inflation offers the best hope to find relics of very-high-energy physics at the present time, be it trans-Planckian or not.

###### Acknowledgments.

The authors would like to acknowledge the Aspen Center for Physics where this work was begun. We thank G. Shiu for helpful comments on the manuscript, and U. Seljak for his kind assistance with CMBFAST. We also thank R. Brandenberger, B. Greene and S. Shenker for stimulating discussions. R. H. was supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG03-91-ER40682, while the research of C.B., J.C. and F.L. is partially supported by grants from N.S.E.R.C. (Canada) and F.C.A.R. (Québec).


text:
# Delocalized Operator Expansion

## 1 INTRODUCTION - WILSON’S OPE

The Wilson OPE is one of the standard tools in modern hadronic physics. The OPE provides the framework for systematically separating short-distance contributions ($`x\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$)*** I generically denote the low-energy hadronic scale by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.  from long-distance contributions ($`x\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$). For illustration consider the large-momentum expansion of the correlator of a gauge-invariant QCD current $`j(x)`$ ,

$`i{\displaystyle d^4xe^{iqx}Tj(x)j^{}(0)}\stackrel{Q^2=q^2\mathrm{}}{}`$ (1)
$`\text{ }Q^2{\displaystyle \underset{N=0}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{l_N}{}}}c_{Nl}(Q^2)O_{Nl}(0)`$
where $`N`$ runs over the dimension of the local and gauge-invariant composite operators $`O_{Nl}(0)`$, and $`l`$ labels operators of the same dimensions. The long-distance fluctuations are encoded in the matrix elements $`O_{Nl}(0)`$, also called condensates, and the short-distance contributions are contained in the Wilson coefficients $`c_{Nl}(Q^2)`$. One has the scaling $`O_{Nl}(0)\mathrm{\Lambda }^N`$ and $`c_{Nl}(Q^2)Q^N`$. The $`N=0`$ term is entirely perturbative and higher order terms in the series are of order $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }/Q)^N`$. For the case $`Q\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the expansion should be reasonably well-behaved, but it is known to be asymptotic. There are situations where the OPE cannot be applied or where it cannot give definite answers. When $`Q`$ approaches $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the series breaks down. The OPE can also not answer questions related to the asymptotics of the series due to the truncation of the series. In this talk I discuss a generalization of the local OPE that has been proposed in Ref.  and has been called ”Delocalized Operator Expansion” (DOE). The DOE is an attempt to combine the advantages of the OPE with methods that might be useful to resolve issues that cannot be tackled easily in the framework of the OPE.

## 2 BASIC FRAMEWORK

Given the exact knowledge of (nonlocal) gauge-invariant QCD vacuum correlators and assuming for now that perturbative propagation can be factorized unambiguously from nonperturbative fluctuations, one may view the OPE as the multipole expansion of the perturbative part. To see this, let us consider the simplified case of a nonperturbative and nonlocal dimension-4 structure $`g(x)`$ corresponding to a slowly varying 2-point correlator falling off at distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ in its Euclidean space-time argument $`x`$. In addition, we consider a perturbative short-distance function $`f(x)`$, that probes the vacuum at distance $`x\mathrm{\Delta }_fQ^1`$. For $`Q\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`f(x)`$ is strongly peaked compared to $`g(x)`$ (see Fig. 1).

For illustration I consider the problem in one dimension. Then the chain of local power corrections to the perturbative result is obtained from the expression

$`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}dxf(x)g(x)=:(f,g),`$ (2)
which is the bilinear form in the dual space spanned by strongly peaked functions such as $`f`$ and slowly varying functions such as $`g`$. The generalization to more than one dimension, which also allows the treatment of non-perturbative $`n`$-point correlators, is straightforward. In the OPE $`f(x)`$ is expanded in analogy to the multipole expansion of a localized charge distribution in electrostatics. This can be formulated by introducing the dual space basis functions ($`n=0,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$)

$`e_n(x)\frac{(1)^n}{n!}\delta ^{(n)}(x),\stackrel{~}{e}_n(x)x^n,`$ (3)
with the orthonormality relation $`(e_n,\stackrel{~}{e}_m)=\delta _{nm}`$. The multipole expansion of $`f(x)`$ then reads

$`f(x)=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}(f,\stackrel{~}{e}_n)e_n(x)`$ (4)
which leads to

$`{\displaystyle }dxf(x)g(x)={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(f,\stackrel{~}{e}_n)(e_n,g)=:{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}f_ng_n.`$ (5)
The $`f_n`$’s are the Wilson coefficients and the $`g_n`$ the matrix elements of operators obtained from locally expanding the field content in the correlator $`g(x)`$ for small $`x`$. In momentum space representation the Wilson coefficients and matrix elements have the generic form

$`f_n=(i\frac{d}{dk})^n\stackrel{~}{f}(k)|_{k=0},g_n=\frac{dk}{2\pi }\frac{(ik)^n}{n!}\stackrel{~}{g}(k),`$ (6)
where $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ are the Fourier transforms of $`f`$ and $`g`$, respectively.

Briefly switching to 4 dimensions, a simple example for the function $`g(x)`$ is the gauge invariant field strength correlator

$$g_{\mu \nu \kappa \lambda }(x)\text{Tr}g^2G_{\mu \nu }(x)S(x,0)G_{\kappa \lambda }(0)S(0,x),$$
(7)
where

$$S(x,y)=𝒫\mathrm{exp}\{ig_0^x𝑑z_\mu A_\mu (z)\}.$$
(8)
It generates the following chain of vacuum expectation values (VEV’s) involving local operators of increasing dimension

$`\text{Tr}g^2G_{\mu \nu }G_{\kappa \lambda },\text{Tr}g^2G_{\mu \nu }D_\rho G_{\kappa \lambda },`$
$`\text{Tr}g^2G_{\mu \nu }D_\tau D_\rho G_{\kappa \lambda },\mathrm{}.`$ (9)
In the limit, where $`R\mathrm{\Delta }g/\mathrm{\Delta }f\mathrm{}`$, the VEV with the lowest dimension, usually called the gluon condensate, dominates, and the contributions of higher dimensional VEV’s are suppressed by higher powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/Q`$. VEV’s with odd numbers of covariant derivatives do not contribute due to parity and time-reversal invariance. Perturbatively, one can define the gluon condensate in such a way that its anomalous dimension vanishes to all orders in $`\alpha _s`$.

Improved convergence properties may be achieved using a multipole expansion of $`f(x)`$ based on functions of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }_fQ^1`$ instead of the infinitely narrow $`\delta `$-functions. This is the basic idea in the construction of the DOE. At this point I would like to note that there exist a number of phenomenological studies where the non-local expression in Eq. (2) has been analyzed directly without any expansion for cases where the OPE did not have a good convergence behavior, see e.g. Refs. . This approach has the feature that it requires a model-dependent ansatz for the correlation function $`g(x)`$ and that the computation of $`f(x)`$ can become cumbersome, particularly at higher loop level. The DOE has been constructed with the aim to provide an alternative formalism to describe non-local effects. As we will see later the DOE simplifies numerical predictions in a given model for $`g(x)`$. However, I will also show that the DOE allows to extract non-local non-perturbative information on the QCD vacuum in a model-independent way.

Let me continue with the construction of the DOE. For Cartesian coordinates the dual space basis

$`e_n^\mathrm{\Omega }(x)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{n+1}}{\sqrt{\pi }n!}H_n(\mathrm{\Omega }x)e^{\mathrm{\Omega }^2x^2},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{e}_n^\mathrm{\Omega }(x)\frac{H_n(\mathrm{\Omega }x)}{(2\mathrm{\Omega })^n},`$ (10)
with $`(e_n^\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{~}{e}_n^\mathrm{\Omega })=\delta _{mn}`$, the $`H_n`$ being the Hermite polynomials, is well suited. Of course this choice is not unique, but it fixes a scheme, which can be unambiguously related to other possible schemes that can be used. The $`e_n^\mathrm{\Omega }`$ have a width of order $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$, and for $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{}`$ one finds $`e_n^\mathrm{\Omega }e_n`$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_n^\mathrm{\Omega }\stackrel{~}{e}_n`$. The parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is called resolution scale. In this basis Eq. (2) can be written as

$`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}(f,\stackrel{~}{e}_n^\mathrm{\Omega })(e_n^\mathrm{\Omega },g)=:_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}f_n(\mathrm{\Omega })g_n(\mathrm{\Omega }),`$ (11)
where the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-dependent short-distance coefficients and matrix elements have the form

$`f_n(\mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{1}{(2\mathrm{\Omega })^n}H_n(\mathrm{\Omega }(i\frac{d}{dk}))\stackrel{~}{f}(k)|_{k=0},`$
$`g_n(\mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{dk}{2\pi }\frac{(ik)^n}{n!}e^{\frac{k^2}{4\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}\stackrel{~}{g}(k),`$ (12)
in momentum space representation. The series in Eq. (11) has better convergence properties, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is of order $`Q`$ rather than being equal to $`\mathrm{}`$, because the first term in the delocalized multipole expansion generally provides a better approximation of the actual form of $`f(x)`$ than the local expansion. The relation between basis functions for resolution parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ reads

$`\stackrel{~}{e}_n^\mathrm{\Omega }(x)=_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}a_{nm}(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{})\stackrel{~}{e}_m^\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(x)`$
$`e_n^\mathrm{\Omega }(x)=_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}a_{mn}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{},\mathrm{\Omega })e_m^\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(x),`$ (13)
where

$$a_{nm}(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{})=\frac{n!}{m!(\frac{nm}{2})!}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{4\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}\right)^{\left({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{nm}{2}}\right)}$$
(14)
if $`nm0`$ and even, and $`a_{nm}=0`$ otherwise. The transformations $`a_{nm}(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{})`$ form a group. One can relate the short-distance coefficients and matrix elements for different resolution parameters to each other. Here, I only want to discuss these relations for finite $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=\mathrm{}`$:

$`f_0(\mathrm{\Omega })=f_0,`$ (15)
$`f_2(\mathrm{\Omega })=f_2\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}f_0,\mathrm{},`$
$`f_n(\mathrm{\Omega })=_{i=0}^{[n/2]}\frac{n!}{(n2i)!i!}(\frac{1}{4\mathrm{\Omega }^2})^if_{n2i},`$
$`g_n(\mathrm{\Omega })=_{i=n}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{(n+2i)!}{n!i!}\left(\frac{1}{4\mathrm{\Omega }^2}\right)^ig_{n+2i}.`$ (16)
The coefficient $`f_n(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ can be expressed in terms of a finite linear combination of the local Wilson coefficients $`f_i(\mathrm{})`$ for $`in`$. The short-distance coefficient of the leading power correction is $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-independent. The $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-dependent matrix elements $`g_n(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ are related to an infinite sum of local matrix elements with additional covariant derivatives. These properties exist for all dual space bases constructed from orthogonal polynomials. Note that relations (15) can also be employed if the separation between long- and short-distance contributions is factorization scale dependent, and one can therefore use these relations as the formal definition of the terms in the DOE.

The DOE of quantities such as in Eq. (1) has the same parametric counting in powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/Q`$ as the OPE, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is not chosen parametrically smaller than $`Q`$. Consider that $`g_n\mathrm{\Lambda }^n`$ and $`f_nQ^n`$ in the OPE, then we have

$`g_n(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Lambda }^n_i(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Omega }})^i\mathrm{\Lambda }^n,`$
$`f_n(\mathrm{\Omega })Q^n_i(\frac{Q}{\mathrm{\Omega }})^iQ^n,`$ (17)
as long as $`\mathrm{\Omega }>Q`$. However, one expects that the actual size of the term $`f_n(\mathrm{\Omega })g_n(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ in the DOE for $`\mathrm{\Omega }Q`$ has an additional numerical suppression by powers of a small number.

## 3 HEAVY QUARKONIUM GROUND STATE ENERGY

In heavy quarkonium systems the relevant physical scales, mass $`m`$, momentum $`p`$, energy $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ have the hierarchy

$`mpmvEmv^2\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ (18)
where $`v1`$ is the quark velocity. Thus the spatial size $`(mv)^1`$ is much smaller than the typical dynamical time scale $`(mv^2)^1`$. In this section I demonstrate the DOE in a toy-model computation for the nonperturbative corrections to the $`1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}S_1`$ ground state for the expansion in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/E`$. My intention is not to carry out a phenomenological study, but to show how well the series in the DOE behaves in comparison to the series in OPE and how well the DOE approximates the exact model result. The ratios of $`m`$, $`p`$ and $`E`$ are treated at leading order in the local expansion. This means that the perturbative dynamics is described by the nonrelativistic two-body Schrödinger equation and that the interaction with the nonperturbative vacuum is accounted for by two insertions of the local $`\mathrm{𝐱𝐄}`$ dipole operator, $`𝐄`$ being the chromoelectric field.  The chain of VEV’s of the two gluon operator with increasing numbers of covariant derivatives times powers of quark-antiquark octet propagators , is treated in the DOE. In this model the interaction with the vacuum fluctuations only depends on the temporal distance (in Euclidean space) of two insertions of $`\mathrm{𝐱𝐄}`$ dipole operators and the nonperturbative correction to the ground state energy reads ($`k=\frac{2}{3}m\alpha _s`$)

$`E^{np}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tf(t)g(t),`$
$`f(t)=\frac{dq_0}{72\pi }e^{q_0t}d^3𝐱d^3𝐲\varphi (x)(\mathrm{𝐱𝐲})`$
$`\times G_o(𝐱,𝐲,\frac{k^2}{m}q_0)\varphi (y),`$ (19)
where $`f(t)`$ is the short-distance function that depends on ground state Coulomb wave function $`\varphi `$ and the octet Green-function $`G_o`$  and $`g(t)`$ is the gluon field strength correlator for $`x=(t,0,0,0)`$. In Fig. 2 the function $`f(t)`$ (solid line) is displayed for $`m=5`$ GeV and $`\alpha _s=0.39`$.

The characteristic width of $`f`$ is of order the energy $`k^2/m(m\alpha _s^2)^1(mv^2)^1`$. For the nonperturbative gluonic field strength correlator I use a lattice-inspired  model

$`g(t)=12A_0\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{t^2+\lambda _A^2}/\lambda _A+1)`$
$`A_0=0.04\text{GeV}^4,\lambda _A^1=0.7\text{GeV},`$ (20)
with a large-time behavior $`e^{t/\mathrm{\Lambda }_A}`$. In this model the value of the gluon condensate is $`\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G_{\mu \nu }^aG_{\mu \nu }^a=\frac{6A_0}{\pi ^2}=0.024\text{GeV}^4`$.

In Tab. 1 the exact result and the first four terms of the resolution-dependent expansion of $`E^{np}`$ are shown for the quark masses $`m=5`$ (upper part) and $`175`$ GeV (lower part) and for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=k^2/m`$. The strong coupling has been fixed by the relation $`\alpha _s=\alpha _s(k)`$. The numerical values of $`f_ng_n`$ have been determined from Eqs. (6,12). The series are all asymptotic. The local expansion is badly behaved for $`m=5`$ GeV because $`k^2/m<\lambda _A^1`$, and basically meaningless. For $`m=175`$ GeV, where $`k^2/m>\lambda _A^1`$, the local expansion is good. For $`\mathrm{\Omega }=k^2/m`$, however, the series is much better behaved for all quark masses. The size of the order $`n`$ term is about a factor $`2^n`$ smaller than the order $`n`$ term in the local expansion. One also observes that even in the case $`k^2/m<\lambda _A^1`$ the leading term in the delocalized expansion for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=k^2/m`$ agrees with the exact result within a few percent. This feature is a general property of the delocalized expansion, and should apply to any quantity for which the local expansion in the ratio of two scales breaks down because the ratio is not sufficiently small.

## 4 RUNNING GLUON CONDENSATE FROM CHARMONIUM SUM RULES

The $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-dependent matrix elements are either determined from experimental data or from lattice measurements. In the following the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-dependent (“running”) gluon condensate is extracted from charmonium sum rules which are based on moments

$`_n=\frac{1}{n!}(\frac{d}{dQ^2})^n\mathrm{\Pi }^c(Q^2)|_{Q^2=0}`$ (21)
of the correlator of two charm quark vector currents $`j_\mu \overline{c}\gamma _\mu c`$. The moments can be determined theoretically in an expansion of the form

$$_n=_n^0\{1+\text{[p. corr.]}+\delta _n^{(4)}g^2G^2+\mathrm{}\},$$
(22)
while the experimental moments are obtained from a dispersion integral over the $`c\overline{c}`$ cross section in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation. The Wilson coefficient of the gluon condensate, $`\delta _n^{(4)}`$, is $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-independent. We consider the ratio  $`r_n\frac{_n}{_{n1}}`$ and extract the gluon condensate as a function of $`n`$. Since the relevant short-distance scale for the moment $`_n`$ is of order $`m_c/n`$, a proper choice for the resolution scale is $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2m_c/n`$. Thus the dependence of the gluon condensate on $`n`$ can be interpreted as the dependence on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The results for the gluon condensate as a function of $`n`$ is shown in Fig. 3 for $`n8`$ and $`\overline{m}_c(\overline{m}_c)=1.23`$ (white triangles), $`1.24`$ (black stars), $`1.25`$ (white squares) and $`1.26`$ GeV (black triangles). The area between the upper and lower symbols indicates the experimental and theoretical uncertainties.

The running gluon condensate appears to be a decreasing function of $`n`$. The solid thick line is $`\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ obtained from the form of the gluon field strength correlator suggested from lattice computations  for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(2.5\text{GeV})/n`$ and the vacuum correlation length $`\lambda _A^1=0.7`$ GeV. The qualitative agreement is encouraging but, the uncertainties of our extraction are still quite large. (See Ref.  for an analysis based on hadronic $`\tau `$ decay data.)

## 5 CONCLUSIONS

In this talk I discussed a generalization of the Wilson OPE based on nonlocal projections of gauge invariant correlation functions in a delocalized version of the multipole expansion for the perturbatively calculable coefficient functions.  This ”Delocalized Operator Expansion” (DOE) depends on an additional parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, called ”resolution scale” which adjusts the width of the projection functions used for the expansion. The DOE has the same power counting as the OPE, but in general better convergence properties than the OPE. The DOE short-distance coefficients can be determined from the OPE Wilson coefficients at the same order in the expansion, whereas the DOE matrix elements correspond to an infinite sum of OPE matrix elements with additional covariant derivatives. I believe that the DOE can serve as a useful tool for situations where the OPE cannot be applied.