Inflation Then k=(1+q)(a) ~r/16 0<

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Observational constraints on primordial perturbations Antony Lewis CITA, Toronto
Advertisements

Primordial perturbations and precision cosmology from the Cosmic Microwave Background Antony Lewis CITA, University of Toronto
Dick Bond Constraining Inflation Trajectories, now & then.
Brane-World Inflation
Constraining Inflation Histories with the CMB & Large Scale Structure Dynamical & Resolution Trajectories for Inflation then & now Dick Bond.
Parameterizing Dark Energy Z. Huang, R. J. Bond, L. Kofman Canadian Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics.
Distinguishing Primordial B Modes from Lensing Section 5: F. Finelli, A. Lewis, M. Bucher, A. Balbi, V. Aquaviva, J. Diego, F. Stivoli Abstract:” If the.
Moduli Stabilization: A Revolution in String Phenomenology / Cosmology ? F. Quevedo SUSY 2005.
Probing the Structure of Stringy Landscape by Large Scale CMB Experiments Amjad Ashoorioon in collaboration with Ulf H. Danielsson 24 th Nordic Conference.
Falsifying Paradigms for Cosmic Acceleration Michael Mortonson Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago January 22, 2009.
IFIC, 6 February 2007 Julien Lesgourgues (LAPTH, Annecy)
Quintessence – Phenomenology. How can quintessence be distinguished from a cosmological constant ?
Voids of dark energy Irit Maor Case Western Reserve University With Sourish Dutta PRD 75, gr-qc/ Irit Maor Case Western Reserve University With.
Scanning Inflation and Reheating Bottom-up approach to inflation: reconstruction of acceleration trajectories Top-down approach to inflation: seeks to.
COMING HOME Michael S. Turner Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics The University of Chicago.
Non-Gaussianities of Single Field Inflation with Non-minimal Coupling Taotao Qiu Based on paper: arXiv: [Hep-th] (collaborated with.
Based on Phys.Rev.D84:043515,2011,arXiv: &JCAP01(2012)016 Phys.Rev.D84:043515,2011,arXiv: &JCAP01(2012)016.
Emergent Universe Scenario
Large distance modification of gravity and dark energy
Modified (dark) gravity Roy Maartens, Portsmouth or Dark Gravity?
THE LARGE SCALE CMB CUT-OFF AND THE TENSOR-TO-SCALAR RATIO Gavin Nicholson Imperial College London with Carlo Contaldi Imperial College London (astro-ph/ )
Dark Matter and Dark Energy from the solution of the strong CP problem Roberto Mainini, L. Colombo & S.A. Bonometto Universita’ di Milano Bicocca Mainini.
1 Circular Polarization of Gravitational Waves in String Cosmology MIAMI, 200 7 Jiro Soda Kyoto University work with Masaki Satoh & Sugumi Kanno.
Probing the Reheating with Astrophysical Observations Jérôme Martin Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris (IAP) 1 [In collaboration with K. Jedamzik & M. Lemoine,
Cosmology and String Theory F. Quevedo Cambridge CORFU 2005.
Yugo Abe (Shinshu University) July 10, 2015 In collaboration with T. Inami (NTU), Y. Kawamura (Shinshu U), Y. Koyama (NCTS) YA, T. Inami,
Dick Bond Inflation Now 1+ w (a)=  s f(a/a  eq ;a s /a  eq ;  s ) goes to  a  x3/2 = 3 (1+q)/2 ~1 good e-fold. only ~2params cf. w(a): w0,wa, w.
Constraints on Dark Energy from CMB Eiichiro Komatsu University of Texas at Austin Dark Energy February 27, 2006.
1 1 Eric Linder University of California, Berkeley Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Interpreting Dark Energy JDEM constraints.
Making and Probing Inflation Lev Kofman KITPC Beijing November Making Inflation in String Theory How small can be r Gravity Waves from Preheating.
Surveying Inflation and Reheating Cosmological Landscape: Strings, Gravity and Inflation Seoul, September 2005 “K. listened intently. So the Castle had.
Geometrical reconstruction of dark energy Stéphane Fay School of Mathematical Science Queen Mary, University of London, UK
Observational constraints and cosmological parameters Antony Lewis Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge
Dick Bond Inflation Then  k  =(1+q)(a) ~r/16 0<   = multi-parameter expansion in ( ln Ha ~ lnk) ~ 10 good e-folds in a (k~10 -4 Mpc -1 to ~ 1 Mpc.
General Relativity Physics Honours 2008 A/Prof. Geraint F. Lewis Rm 560, A29 Lecture Notes 10.
Cosmological Model Selection David Parkinson (with Andrew Liddle & Pia Mukherjee)
Inflation and Branes Bottom-up approach to inflation: reconstruction of acceleration trajectories Top-down approach to inflation: seeks to embed it in.
Dynamical & Resolution Trajectories for Inflation then & now Dick Bond Inflation Now 1+w(a)=  f(a/a  eq ) to 3 (1+q)/2 ~ 1 good e-fold. Only ~2 parameters.
Unesco July 2005Francis Bernardeau SPhT Saclay1 Models of inflation with primordial non-Gaussianities Francis Bernardeau SPhT Saclay Collaboration with.
Trajectories Bond, Contaldi, Frolov, Kofman, Souradeep, Vaudrevange 05.
Constraining Inflation Trajectories with the CMB & Large Scale Structure Dick Bond Dynamical & Resolution Trajectories/Histories, for Inflation then &
1 1 The Darkness of the Universe: The Darkness of the Universe: Acceleration and Deceleration Eric Linder Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Inflation & its Cosmic Probes, now & then Dick Bond Inflation Now 1+ w (a)=  s f(a/a  eq ;a s /a  eq ;  s ) goes to  a  x3/2 = 3 (1+q)/2 ~1 good.
L. Perivolaropoulos Department of Physics University of Ioannina Open page.
Determining cosmological parameters with the latest observational data Hong Li TPCSF/IHEP
Dynamical Trajectories for Inflation now & then Dick Bond Inflation Now 1+ w (a)=  s f(a/a  eq ; a s /a  eq ) goes to  a  x3/2 = 3 (1+q)/2 ~1 good.
P-Term Cosmology A.C. Davis (with C. Burrage) ,
The Nature of Dark Energy David Weinberg Ohio State University Based in part on Kujat, Linn, Scherrer, & Weinberg 2002, ApJ, 572, 1.
Dark Energy: Hopes and Expectations Mario Livio Space Telescope Science Institute Mario Livio Space Telescope Science Institute.
The HORIZON Quintessential Simulations A.Füzfa 1,2, J.-M. Alimi 2, V. Boucher 3, F. Roy 2 1 Chargé de recherches F.N.R.S., University of Namur, Belgium.
Inflation Then & Now and Cosmic Probes Now & Then Dynamical & Resolution Trajectories for Inflation then & now Dick Bond Inflation Now 1+w(a)=  f(a/a.
Constraints on cosmological parameters from the 6dF Galaxy Survey
Bond, Boyle, Kofman, Prokushkin, Vaudrevange
Early & Late Inflation Theory
Kähler Moduli Inflation
Probing the Coupling between Dark Components of the Universe
Recent status of dark energy and beyond
Complementarity of Dark Energy Probes
Inflation with a Gauss-Bonnet coupling
暗能量、残余引力波、CMB极化 Dark energy, relic GW and CMB polarization 张杨 (Yang Zhang) 中国科学技术大学 (USTC) 天体物理中心(CFA) 2018/12/3.
COSMOLOGY.
Notes on non-minimally derivative coupling
Shintaro Nakamura (Tokyo University of Science)
Probing the Dark Sector
最新CMB观测结果对暴胀势的限制 胡建伟 中科院理论物理所 2014年 郑州 2014/07/07.
Parameterizing dark energy: a field space approach
Inflation and the cosmological density perturbation
General, single field Inflation
University of Portsmouth
“B-mode from space” workshop,
Presentation transcript:

Inflation Then k=(1+q)(a) ~r/16 0< Dick Bond Dynamical Trajectories for Inflation now & then Inflation Now1+w(a)= εsf(a/aeq; as/aeq) goes to (a)x3/2 = 3(1+q)/2 ~1 good e-fold. only ~2params Zhiqi Huang, Bond & Kofman 07 es=0.0+-0.25 , weak as Cosmic Probes Now CFHTLS SNe (192), WL (Apr07), CMB, BAO, LSS Inflation Then k=(1+q)(a) ~r/16 0< = multi-parameter expansion in (lnHa ~ lnk) Dynamics ~ Resolution ~ 10 good e-folds (~10-4Mpc-1 to ~ 1 Mpc-1 LSS) ~10+ parameters? r(kp) i.e. k is very prior dependent. Large (uniform ), Small (uniform ). Tiny (roulette inflation of moduli; almost all string-inspired models).

w-trajectories for V(f) For a given quintessence potential V(f), we set the “initial conditions” at z=0 and evolve backward in time. w-trajectories for Ωm (z=0) = 0.27 and (V’/V)2/(16πG) (z=0) = 0.25, the 1-sigma limit, varying the initial kinetic energy w0 = w(z=0) Dashed lines are our 2-param approximation using an a-averaged es= (V’/V)2/(16πG) and χ2 -fitted as. Wild rise solutions S-M-roll solutions Complicated scenarios: roll-up then roll-down

Approximating Quintessence for Phenomenology Zhiqi Huang, Bond & Kofman 07 + Friedmann Equations + DM+B 1+w=2sin2 

slow-to-moderate roll conditions 1+w< 0.3 (for 0<z<10) gives a 2- parameter model (as and es): Early-Exit Scenario: scaling regime info is lost by Hubble damping, i.e.small as 1+w< 0.2 (for 0<z<10) and gives a 1- parameter model (as<<1):

w-trajectories for V(f): varying V

w-trajectories for V(f): varying es

w-trajectories for pNGB potentials pNGB potentials (Sorbo’s talk Jun7/07) are also covered by our 2-param approximation Dashed lines are using a-averaged es= (V’/V)2/(16πG) and χ2 fitted as. Wild rise solutions S-M-roll solutions Complicated scenarios: roll-up then roll-down

w-trajectories for pNGB V(f): varying f,f(0)

effective constraint eq. Some Models Cosmological Constant (w=-1) Quintessence (-1≤w≤1) Phantom field (w≤-1) Tachyon fields (-1 ≤ w ≤ 0) K-essence (no prior on w) w(a)=w0+wa(1-a) Uses latest April’07 SNe, BAO, WL, LSS, CMB, Lya data Higher Chebyshev expansion is not useful: data cannot determine >2 EOS parameters. e.g., Crittenden etal.06 Parameter eigenmodes effective constraint eq.

w(a)=w0+wa(1-a) models cf. SNLS+HST+ESSENCE = 192 "Gold" SN illustrates the near-degeneracies of the contour plot

Measuring constant w (SNe+CMB+WL+LSS)

Include a w<-1 phantom field, via a negative kinetic energy term φ -> iφ  es= - (V’/V)2/(16πG) < 0 es>0  quintessence es=0  cosmological constant es<0  phantom field

45 low-z SN + ESSENCE SN + SNLS 1st year SN + Riess high-z SN, all fit with MLCS SNLS+HST = 182 "Gold" SN SNLS+HST+ESSENCE = 192 "Gold" SN SNLS1 = 117 SN (~50  are low-z)

Measuring es and as(SNe+CMB+WL+LSS+Lya) Well determined es 0.0 +- 0.25 ill-determined as

estrajectories cf. the 1-parameter model Dynamical es= (1+w)(a)/f(a) cf. shape es= (V’/V)2 (a) /(16πG)

Measuring es (SNe+CMB+WL+LSS+Lya) Modified CosmoMC with Weak Lensing and time- varying w models

Measuring es (SNe+CMB+WL+LSS+Lya) Marginalizing over the ill- determined as (2-param model) or setting as =0 (1-param model) has little effect on prob(es , Wm)

as is not well-determined by the current data Inflation now summary The data cannot determine more than 2 w-parameters (+ csound?). general higher order Chebyshev expansion in 1+w as for “inflation-then” =(1+q) is not that useful The w(a)=w0+wa(1-a) phenomenology requires baroque potentials Philosophy of HBK07: backtrack from now (z=0) all w-trajectories arising from quintessence (es >0) and the phantom equivalent (es <0); use a few-parameter model to well-approximate the not-too-baroque w-trajectories For general slow-to-moderate rolling one needs 2 “dynamical parameters” (as, es) & WQ to describe w to a few % for the not-too-baroque w-trajectories (cf. for a given Q-potential, velocity, amp, shape parameters are needed to define a w-trajectory) as is not well-determined by the current data In the early-exit scenario, the information stored in as is erased by Hubble friction over the observable range & w can be described by a single parameter es. phantom (es <0), cosmological constant (es =0), and quintessence (es >0) are all allowed with current observations which are well-centered around the cosmological constant es=0.0+-0.25 To use: given V, compute trajectories, do a-averaged es & test (or simpler es -estimate) Aside: detailed results depend upon the SN data set used. Best available used here (192 SN), but this summer CFHT SNLS will deliver ~300 SN to add to the ~100 non-CFHTLS and will put all on the same analysis/calibration footing – very important. Newest CFHTLS Lensing data is important to narrow the range over just CMB and SN

Inflation Then Trajectories & Primordial Power Spectrum Constraints Constraining Inflaton Acceleration Trajectories Bond, Contaldi, Kofman & Vaudrevange 07 Ensemble of Kahler Moduli/Axion Inflations Bond, Kofman, Prokushkin & Vaudrevange 06

Inflation in the context of ever changing fundamental theory 1980 -inflation Old Inflation New Inflation Chaotic inflation SUGRA inflation Power-law inflation Double Inflation Extended inflation 1990 Hybrid inflation Natural inflation Assisted inflation SUSY F-term inflation SUSY D-term inflation Brane inflation Super-natural Inflation 2000 SUSY P-term inflation K-flation N-flation DBI inflation inflation Warped Brane inflation Tachyon inflation Racetrack inflation Roulette inflation Kahler moduli/axion

(equal a-prior probability hypothesis) Constraining Inflaton Acceleration Trajectories Bond, Contaldi, Kofman & Vaudrevange 07 “path integral” over probability landscape of theory and data, with mode-function expansions of the paths truncated by an imposed smoothness (Chebyshev-filter) criterion [data cannot constrain high ln k frequencies] P(trajectory|data, th) ~ P(lnHp,ek|data, th) ~ P(data| lnHp,ek ) P(lnHp,ek | th) / P(data|th) Likelihood theory prior / evidence Data: CMBall (WMAP3,B03,CBI, ACBAR, DASI,VSA,MAXIMA) + LSS (2dF, SDSS, s8[lens]) Theory prior uniform in lnHp,ek (equal a-prior probability hypothesis) Nodal points cf. Chebyshev coefficients (linear combinations) monotonic in ek The theory prior matters alot We have tried many theory priors

Old view: Theory prior = delta function of THE correct one and only theory New view: Theory prior = probability distribution on an energy landscape whose features are at best only glimpsed, huge number of potential minima, inflation the late stage flow in the low energy structure toward these minima. Critical role of collective geometrical coordinates (moduli fields) and of brane and antibrane “moduli” (D3,D7).

r = .082+- .08 (<.22) r = .21+- .17 (<.53) lnPs Pt (nodal 2 and 1) + 4 params cf Ps Pt (nodal 5 and 5) + 4 params reconstructed from CMB+LSS data using Chebyshev nodal point expansion & MCMC Power law scalar and constant tensor + 4 params effective r-prior makes the limit stringent r = .082+- .08 (<.22) no self consistency: order 5 in scalar and tensor power r = .21+- .17 (<.53)

lnPs lnPt no self consistency: order 5 in scalar and tensor power lnPs lnPt (nodal 5 and 5) + 4 params. Uniform in exp(nodal bandpowers) cf. uniform in nodal bandpowers reconstructed from April07 CMB+LSS data using Chebyshev nodal point expansion & MCMC: shows prior dependence with current data lnPs lnPt no self consistency: order 5 in scalar and tensor power uniform prior r = .21+- .11 (<.42) log prior r <0.075)

r < 0.075 r < 0.42 logarithmic prior uniform prior lnPs lnPt (nodal 5 and 5) + 4 params. Uniform in exp(nodal bandpowers) cf. uniform in nodal bandpowers reconstructed from April07 CMB+LSS data using Chebyshev nodal point expansion & MCMC: shows prior dependence with current data logarithmic prior r < 0.075 uniform prior r < 0.42

CL BB for lnPs lnPt (nodal 5 and 5) + 4 params inflation trajectories reconstructed from CMB+LSS data using Chebyshev nodal point expansion & MCMC Planck satellite 2008.6 Spider balloon 2009.9

CL TT BB for e (ln Ha) inflation trajectories reconstructed from a CMBpol expt (noise power = Planck/180) using Chebyshev nodal point expansion in lne (order 5, adjusting to make a uniform prior in e) & MCMC: output = input even with r=0.0005. (sytematics & foregrounds aside)

Ps Ps & e (ln Ha) inflation trajectories reconstructed from a CMBpol expt (CLnoise = 1.7(-6) mK2 (x2 for polarization)) using Chebyshev nodal point expansion in lne (order 5, adjusting to make a uniform prior in e) & MCMC: output = input even with r=0.0005. (systematics & foregrounds aside) Input model = tilted LCDM using Acbar06 params + variable r, here tiny but reconstructable

The ‘house’ does not just play dice with the world. Roulette: which minimum for the rolling ball depends upon the throw; but which roulette wheel we play is chance too. The ‘house’ does not just play dice with the world. even so, even smaller r’s may arise from string-inspired inflation models e.g., KKLMMT inflation, large compactified volume Kahler moduli inflation

Inflation then summary the basic 6 parameter model with no GW allowed fits all of the data OK Usual GW limits come from adding r with a fixed GW spectrum and no consistency criterion (7 params). Adding minimal consistency does not make that much difference (7 params) r (<.28 95%) limit comes from relating high k region of 8 to low k region of GW CL Uniform priors in (k) ~ r(k): with current data, the scalar power downturns ((k) goes up) at low L if there is freedom in the mode expansion to do this. Adds GW to compensate, breaks old r limit. T/S (k) can cross unity. But log prior in  drives to low r. a CMBpol could break this prior dependence. Complexity of trajectories arises in many-moduli string models. Roulette example: 4-cycle complex Kahler moduli in Type IIB string theory TINY r ~ 10-10 a general argument that the normalized inflaton cannot change by more than unity over ~50 e-folds gives r < 10-3 Prior probabilities on the inflation trajectories are crucial and cannot be decided at this time. Philosophy: be as wide open and least prejudiced as possible Even with low energy inflation, the prospects are good with Spider and even Planck to either detect the GW-induced B-mode of polarization or set a powerful upper limit against nearly uniform acceleration. Both have strong Cdn roles. CMBpol

end

w-trajectories cf. the 2-parameter model es= (V’/V)2/(16πG) a-averaged at z<2 the field starts to slow-roll at a~as

w-trajectories cf. the 1-parameter model Require S-M roll conditions at 0<z<10, es= (V’/V)2/(16πG) a-averaged at z<2