Arxiv:2005.14571V2 [Gr-Qc] 5 Aug 2020 ∗∗ Nete Rm,Wieteei Nogigdbt Sto As Work Debate [ Ongoing Can Physical an One Is Is One There Scalar Gravity
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Equivalence of inflationary models between the metric and Palatini formulation of scalar-tensor theories 1, 2, 3, Laur J¨arv, ∗ Alexandros Karam, † Aleksander Kozak, ‡ 4, 2, 1, Angelos Lykkas, § Antonio Racioppi, ¶ and Margus Saal ∗∗ 1Institute of Physics, University of Tartu, W. Ostwaldi 1, 50411 Tartu, Estonia 2National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics, R¨avala 10, 10143 Tallinn, Estonia 3Institute of Theoretical Physics University of Wroclaw, pl. Maxa Borna 9, 50-206 Wroclaw, Poland 4Physics Department, University of Ioannina, GR–45110 Ioannina, Greece With a scalar field non-minimally coupled to curvature, the underlying geometry and variational principle of gravity – metric or Palatini – becomes important and makes a difference, as the field dynamics and observational predictions generally depend on this choice. In the present paper we describe a classification principle which encompasses both metric and Palatini models of inflation, employing the fact that inflationary observables can be neatly expressed in terms of certain quantities which remain invariant under conformal transformations and scalar field redefinitions. This allows us to elucidate the specific conditions when a model yields equivalent phenomenology in the metric and Palatini formalisms, and also to outline a method how to systematically construct different models in both formulations that produce the same observables. I. Introduction a frame-invariant approach was developed in [29–31], then fruitfully applied to slow-roll inflation [32–34] and Recent observations of the cosmic microwave back- extended to related theories and formulations [35–39]. ground radiation (CMB) indicate that at large scales The advantage of this method is that, starting from any the Universe is flat and homogeneous. These features scalar-tensor theory, one can define quantities that re- can be explained by postulating a quasi-de Sitter ex- main invariant under the conformal Weyl rescaling of pansion during the very early moments of the Universe. the metric and scalar field reparametrization and then Furthermore, this inflationary era is able to generate express the inflationary observables in terms of these and preserve the primordial inhomogeneities which be- invariants. came the seeds for the subsequent large-scale structure Another issue that arises when one is interested in that we observe. Inflation is usually formulated by sup- non-minimally coupled theories is that of the employed plementing the Einstein-Hilbert action with one or more variational principle. In the metric formalism, the met- real scalar fields whose energy density drives the near- ric is the only dynamical degree of freedom and the exponential expansion. connection is the Levi-Civita. However, in the Pala- Recently, the Planck satellite mission [1] has con- tini or first order formalism [40, 41], the metric and the strained the available parameter space and essentially connection are assumed to be independent variables and excluded many inflationary models. Two of the most one has to vary the action with respect to both of them. popular models, namely Starobinsky [2] and non- Both approaches lead to the same field equation for an minimal Higgs inflation [3–6] still lie in the allowed re- action whose Lagrangian is linear in R and is minimally gion. Incidentally, these theories, even though seem- coupled, but this is no longer true for more general ac- ingly very different, belong to the same equivalence class tions. Regarding inflation, the difference in the predic- arXiv:2005.14571v2 [gr-qc] 5 Aug 2020 which is why they give the same predictions for the ob- tions between the two variational principles has been servables. They also belong to the class of scalar-tensor recently studied in [37, 38, 42–77]. In most of the pre- theories where the inflaton is generally non-minimally vious studies it was shown that the metric and Palatini coupled to gravity but minimally coupled to matter formulations generally give different results when infla- (Jordan frame). Of course, one can always perform a tion is concerned (see however [49, 50]). In this article rescaling of the metric and a scalar field reparametriza- we focus on the cases when the two formalisms can pro- tion and move to the Einstein frame where the scalar duce similar results and extend the classification scheme field is minimally coupled to gravity. One can work of [33] to include Palatini models. in either frame, while there is an ongoing debate as to Future space missions (LITEBIRD [78], PIXIE [79], which one is physical [7–28]. To circumvent the issue, PICO [80]) promise to determine the inflationary ob- servables at high precision that will considerably narrow the range of viable models. However, even when the in- ∗ variant potential can be effectively pinned down, there [email protected] will remain a degeneracy, as many fundamental actions † alexandros.karam@kbfi.ee ‡ [email protected] in different formulations and parametrizations can lead § [email protected] to the same invariant potential and hence to the same ¶ antonio.racioppi@kbfi.ee values for the observables. The aim of the current pa- ∗∗ [email protected] per is to clarify the situation and to outline a method of 2 how to explore and reconstruct such equivalent actions We refer to the set of , , , σ as the model func- in a systematic way. In the end, some actions in a given tions. By considering a{A WeylB V rescaling} of metric (re- equivalence class would be better motivated from the ferred later as a change of frame) and scalar field redef- theoretical point of view, while the degeneracy could inition (referred later as a reparametrization) be also broken by some observations of noninflationary 2¯γ(Φ)¯ physics. gµν =e g¯µν , (4a) The paper is organized as follows. In the next sec- Φ= f¯(Φ)¯ , (4b) tion we adopt the approach of invariants to study gen- eral scalar-tensor theories in both metric and Palatini the action functional (1) preserves its structure (up to formalisms. In section III we focus on inflation and ex- the boundary term) if the functions , , and σ trans- press the slow-roll parameters and inflationary observ- form as [81] A B V ables in terms of the invariant potential and its deriva- ¯ tives. Then, in section IV we determine under which ¯(Φ)=e¯ 2¯γ(Φ) f¯(Φ)¯ , (5a) A A conditions the metric and Palatini formalisms can gen- 2¯γ(Φ)¯ 2 ¯(Φ)=e¯ f¯′ (f¯(Φ))¯ erate the same slow-roll parameters when one starts B B 2¯γ(Φ)¯ 2 from the same action and study some examples. Con- 6 δj Γe (¯γ ′) f¯(Φ)¯ γ¯ ′f¯′ ′ , versely, starting from the same invariant potential in − A − A (5b) section V we explore the reconstruction of the corre- h i ¯ sponding metric and Palatini actions. We summarize ¯(Φ)=e¯ 4¯γ(Φ) f¯(Φ)¯ , (5c) our results and conclude in section VI. Finally, we in- V V σ¯(Φ)¯ = σ f¯(Φ)¯ +¯γ(Φ)¯ , (5d) clude an appendix A where we illustrate how an ad- ditional independent (conformal) transformation of the where prime denotes a derivative with respect to the connection enlarges the general Palatini action, but a scalar field. The Jordan frame is defined by the con- suitable choice neutralizes the effect, a point that has dition σ(Φ) = 0. For what follows we omit the matter not received much attention in the literature so far. part of the action and take m = 0, since our interest is now on the scalar non-minimallyS coupled to gravity which will be identified with the inflaton field. II. Action and invariant quantities By a straightforward calculation it is possible to make sure, that in every spacetime point the numerical value Regardless the gravity formulation, the action for of the quantities [29] general scalar-tensor theory can be written as1 [81], e2σ(Φ) 1 1 m(Φ) = , (6) = d4x √ g (Φ)R (Φ) ( Φ)2 (Φ) I (Φ) S − 2A − 2B ∇ −V A Z (Φ) 2σ(Φ) (Φ) = V 2 , (7) + m[e gµν ,χm] , (1) IV ( (Φ)) S A 2 where we used Planck units MPl = 1 and metric signa- (Φ) 3 ′(Φ) ture ( , +, +, +). The Ricci scalar R = gµν R [Γ, ∂Γ] Φ(Φ) = dΦ B + δj Γ A (8) − µν I s (Φ) 2 (Φ) is a function of the metric tensor gµν and the connection Z A A Γ. The choice of the gravity formulation is reflected on remain invariant, i.e. ¯i(Φ)¯ = i(Φ). In a similar vein, the expression of Γ in eq. (1)[43]: we may introduce anI invariantI metricg ˆ = g , µν A µν λ λ which is unaffected by the conformal transformation Γαβ = αβ + (2) (4a). One can see that the invariant field Φ has a λ λ λ I (1 δj Γ) δα∂βω(Φ) + δβ ∂αω(Φ) gαβ∂ ω(Φ) , different dependence on the model functions when one − − g considers the metric (we use the notation Φ) or Palatini where formalism (denoted as Γ). Still, in bothI formalisms we IΦ ω (Φ) = ln (Φ) , (3) may take the quantity Φ as an invariant description A of the scalar degree of freedomI in the theory [29, 37]. λ p αβ is the Levi-Civita connection, δjk is the Kronecker Negative values for the expression under the square root delta{ } and j = g stands for the metric case while j =Γ in eq. (8) suggest that the scalar field is a ghost, while for the Palatini one. identically constant Φ indicates that the scalar is not dynamical. In the metricI formulation this occurs only 2 ′(Φ) 3 (A ) when (Φ) = 2 (Φ) , while in the Palatini for B − A 1 (Φ) = 0. In both cases the theory is equivalent to The most general Palatini action contains also additional terms B due to the non-metricity of the theory [37].