Seventh installment of my column now out!
#1 2002.02941: Swampland, Trans-Planckian Censorship and Fine-Tuning Problem for Inflation: Tunnelling Wavefunction to the Rescue by Suddhasattwa Brahma, Robert Brandenberger, and Dong-Han Yeom
I already wrote about the trans-Planckian censorship conjecture (TCC) in my first post of this column (there too in the context of a paper by Brandenberger, whose papers are always worth reading). Recall the TCC conjectures that in a consistent theory of quantum gravity no modes whose wavelength is smaller than the Planck scale can exit the Hubble horizon at any point, which in turn requires a very low-scale inflation and a vanishingly small tensor-to-scalar ratio. The TCC falls more generally within the realm of the swampland conjectures (read more here), a set of recently conjectured criteria which attempt to distinguish naïvely consistent effective field theories (EFTs) which lie in the swampland from EFTs which actually admit a stringy quantum gravity UV completion. The whole swampland program can be summarized in one sentence in “Nature abhors stable and metastable de Sitter vacua, scalar potentials should be steep in Planckian units so forget that slow-roll business, and oh by the way better keep those trans-Planckian modes hidden“. Clearly all of this spells trouble for inflation, at least for standard single-field slow-roll inflation (with Will Kinney and Luca Visinelli we discussed it in this paper published in Classical and Quantum Gravity).
In this week’s paper, the authors start from the observation that the combination of the TCC and swampland criteria (in particular the refined dS swampland criterion) with observational data favors low-scale hilltop inflationary potentials. However, the low-scale, small-field nature of the model leads to two fine-tuning problems, namely inflation should start really close to the hilltop and the initial kinetic energy of the inflaton should be very low. The question is then what would generate these otherwise finely-tuned initial conditions in a natural way in first place? They therefore resort to the tunneling wavefunction idea, and in particular its realization put forward by Vilenkin (for a recent study see this paper). In short, within this picture the Universe tunnels out of a state with no classical space and time (what one would call “nothing”). Given Vilenkin’s wavefunction, the authors show that the most likely point the Universe will tunnel into is such that the inflaton is sitting on top of the hilltop potential (because the tunneling probability goes like e^-1/V, with V the value of the potential at a certain point, so it is naturally easier to tunnel at the top). The same wavefunction automatically gives the inflaton a very tiny velocity due to regularity conditions. The reason I found this paper interesting is that it connects the swampland conjectures to an existing solid proposal for the origin of the Universe. The difficulty with this model, however, is that in order to be consistent with the TCC inflation has to end before not long, and the easiest way to do this by suddenly steepening the potential at high field values is also the least natural one. Also worth mentioning is a recent paper by Tommi Tenkanen and Eemeli Tomberg along similar lines of research (see the paper).
#2 2002.04035: Combining Full-Shape and BAO Analyses of Galaxy Power Spectra: A 1.6% CMB-independent constraint on H0 by Oliver Philcox et al.
This paper is the most recent one in a small string of high-quality very technical papers which appeared after last summer, attempting to rigorously analyze full-shape galaxy power spectrum data, P(k), from the BOSS DR12 data release. Analyzing full-shape data has notoriously been tricky, and very few people have done it outside big collaborations. These papers (see 1909.05271, 1909.05277, and 1912.08208 for the earlier ones) came from two groups, one mostly West Coast (Stanford) based, and the other one mostly East Coast (Princeton) based: this week’s paper is East Coast-based. What these papers tried to do was to analyze P(k) data in a rigorous way based on the effective field theory of large-scale structure (EFTofLSS). The topic of EFTofLSS is a very technical one and I can’t do it justice in a blog post, for those willing to dig a bit more into the technical details see the original paper. Suffice it, however, to say that the framework is now theoretically mature enough that one can indeed apply it to real data, as these groups have been doing. The rationale of this week’s paper is to find a way to combine Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) measurements with full-shape data to improve constraints on cosmological parameters. The BAO information comes from the wiggles in the power spectrum and is encapsulated in the so-called Alcock-Paczynski (AP) parameters which measure radial and tangential distortions, and is crucially extracted using the so-called reconstruction procedure, which sharpens the peak and increases its signal-to-noise. Heuristically, you can think of the reconstruction procedure as reconstructing the large-scale structure velocity field from the density field (via the Poisson equation) and then using it to move the galaxies back in time at a point when their evolution was less non-linear and hence cleaner. At the same time, it is difficult to analyze the reconstructed full-shape of the power spectrum, whereas it is easier to analyze the unreconstructed version of the latter using EFTofLSS methods.
Today’s paper builds on these earlier findings trying to find a way to combine BAO (extracted from reconstructed power spectra) and unreconstructed full-shape power spectrum measurements, the latter modelled using the EFTofLSS. A crucial point if one wants to do this is to estimate the cross-covariance terms between these two measurements, since one can expect them to be strongly correlated (after all, they carry information extracted from the same field). The paper is a technical tour-de-force but there are a few very interesting results worth highlighting. First of all, with only BAO and full-shape data and no Planck CMB data (!!!), and only a prior on the baryon density from BBN, they manage to get a 1.6% measurement of the Hubble constant, which is pretty impressive, and improves to 1% when adding further information on the scalar spectral index from Planck. Including Planck, BAO, and full-shape information also gives a very tight constraint on the sum of the neutrino masses (0.14 eV). One not unexpected result is that BAO adds a lot more info to the full-shape measurements if the latter are used alone, but not if Planck data is used as well. Also worth noting is that thanks to the use of the EFTofLSS approach the authors manage to push the full-shape analysis to rather high wavenumber (i.e. small scales), with kmax~0.3 hMpc^-1 (for comparison, the non-linear scale at redshift z approximately 0.5 is about 0.15 hMpc^-1. This shouldn’t be too surprising given that the mildly non-linear regime is precisely that where the EFTofLSS is supposed to work well, by construction. I think this paper is really an impressive work which goes to show, if needed, that EFTofLSS is much more than a proof-of-principle thing which can now be applied to real data with fantastic results. I hope the authors, and the “competing” (?) Stanford group as well, will make their codes public, because it will be really beneficial for the community. At the same time, I always had one general concern on the use EFTofLSS on real data, completely detached from this paper of course. By construction loop-level EFTofLSS only works well/is useful in a limited range of wavenumbers (at very large scales tree level results hold well, and at very small scales EFTofLSS breaks down anyway). Wouldn’t it make more sense to go with emulators of fully non-linear N-body simulations from the start, given that they work great both in the non-linear and in the mildly non-linear regime? Of course this does not go to say that people should not work on EFTofLSS, because even if simulations are perhaps “superior” for practical purposes, there’s so much we can learn from this framework (including about simulations as well) :)
#3 2002.05154: Probing the Seesaw Mechanism with Cosmological data by Jamerson Rodrigues et al.
This paper puts forward the intriguing proposal connecting the physics of neutrino mass generation with cosmological observations in the form of inflationary parameters (the usual scalar spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio). Recall the seesaw mechanism is a generic way of explaining the tiny neutrino mass scale as being inversely proportional to another heavy mass scale (hence the seesaw term), usually related to one or more new scalar fields associated to lepton number violation. At very high energies, these scalar fields might then drive inflation, while at the same time the Coleman-Weinberg potential would receive loop corrections from the particles they are coupled to. The hope is then that one, with one such particular model in mind, might be able to say something about these loop corrections and hence the underlying neutrino mass generation model, from observational constraints on inflationary parameters.
This week’s paper does precisely this. The authors take the well-known type-I and type-II seesaw models, identify one of the relevant scalars as the inflaton (in the type-I case it is the real part of the complex scalar, whereas in the type-II case it is the neutral component of the scalar triplet), non-minimally couple the scalar to the Ricci (same as in Higgs inflation, to ensure that the potential is sufficiently flat at high field values), compute one-loop corrections to the potential arising from the specific type-I or type-II couplings of the inflaton, and finally compute observable inflationary parameters and confront these against data. One interesting aspect is that the strength of the non-minimal coupling required in this case (at most 100) is less than the 10^4 required in Higgs inflation, which leads to unitarity loss problems: at least during inflation the authors’ model seems to be safe from these issues. The authors then put constraints on the parameters of the model, the most interesting of which is a parameter they call a’, which is related to the strength of the radiative corrections (and hence to the coupling of these scalar fields to the matter content of the Standard Model), i.e. appears in front of the Coleman-Weinberg potential. They find a positive value for a’ at more than 3 sigma, which if correct would indicate a preference for type-II seesaw over type-I, since radiative corrections from the latter at one-loop level arising from loops of right-handed neutrinos are expected to be negative. One thing I am not totally convinced about in this analysis is the authors’ choice of not varying the non-minimal coupling xi, which they fix to xi=100. I expect xi and a’ would be correlated more or less strongly, and therefore I wonder if the claimed 3 sigma detection of positive radiative corrections would be softened if xi were varied as well (which I seem to understand might be computationally challenging). The most interesting thing I find about this paper is that the results are actually relatively model-independent, in the sense that it is up to you to choose how to interpret the bounds (or detection) on a’ in terms of your favorite BSM model. The authors do this in terms of type-I vs type-II seesaw, but in principle as long as your favourite BSM model gives you a Coleman-Weinberg-like potential at high energies, and you can compute the strength of radiative corrections, you can translate these bounds to your favourite BSM model. In case you are wondering why the authors didn’t consider type-III seesaw (which I would have loved to for the reason that it was my MSc advisor Robert Foot who came up with it :) ), the reason is that it is leptons responsible for the seesaw mechanism, and thus the whole idea of driving inflation is a bit tricker and their results cannot, unfortunately, be directly applied.