arXiv:1906.11572v3 [gr-qc] 30 Sep 2019 ∗ -al [email protected] E-mail: cl)sneteeaefridnb h elguesymmetry. gauge Weyl the by forbidden (suppresse are operators these curvature since scale) dimensional higher unknown by elgaiy niei h trbnk oe,tepeito o ( pro for and prediction experiments the CMB model, by Starobinsky reached the be in Unlike soon gravity. will Weyl values of range This oe rcvrdfrvnsignnmnmlculn) ihamll sm mildly a ( with th ratio to coupling), close scalar non-minimal results vanishing has decouples for field (recovered scalar photon a model Weyl to coupled massive gravity Weyl in the inflation (geomet where gravity Weyl from geometry), scale transition (Riemannian phase a just is this since o pcrlindex spectral a for ofra emty sater nain ne h elsymmet Weyl the under invariant theory gravit a quadratic Weyl is original geometry, The gravity. conformal Weyl in inflation study We erct)aeaodd nti otx,iflto ihfil ausabo values field with inflation context, t this of In near criticisms avoided. century-old mass gravity, are (of Weyl metricity) of “photon” phase Weyl broken the energy” for me Stueckelberg action ( geometric a Proca scale by Planck spontaneously broken the is theory symmetry this In transformations. eateto hoeia hsc,Ntoa nttt fPhysic of Institute National Physics, Theoretical of Department r .Wy rvt rdcsaseic arwrne0 range narrow specific, a predicts gravity Weyl ). n ula niern,Bcaet072,Romania 077125, Bucharest Engineering, Nuclear and iha mretPac scale Planck emergent an with n s ihneprmna onsa 8C n -od number e-folds and 68%CL at bounds experimental within Weyl .M Ghilencea M. D. Abstract R 2 inflation M M mre stesaeweethis where scale the as emerges ) ∗ .Wt hsato sa“low a as action this With ). ysm ag mass large some by d . elte det non- to (due latter he y oEnti gravity Einstein to ry) 00257 hns,t Einstein- to chanism, ,n r, yof ry s nStarobinsky in ose eso that show We . ,bsdo Weyl on based y, s ve sntaffected not is ) ≤ le tensor-to- aller ie etof test a vides M r gauged s ≤ snatural, is 0 N . 00303, =60. scale 1 Motivation
There is a renewed interest in studying scale invariant models for physics beyond Standard Model (SM) and cosmology. This symmetry may also be present at the quantum level [1–4]. All scales (including the scale of “new physics” beyond SM) are generated spontaneously by field vev’s and this symmetry may even preserve a classical hierarchy of scales [2–11]. In cosmology there are global [12–28] or local [29–40] scale invariant alternatives to gravity with spontaneous breaking that generates the Planck scale by a non-minimal coupling. In this paper we study inflation in a theory with gauged scale invariance. The theory considered is the original Weyl gravity [41–43], based on Weyl conformal geometry [44]. This symmetry is also referred to as Weyl gauge symmetry and its associated gauge boson is called hereafter Weyl “photon”. This theory has no fundamental scale (Planck scale, etc), forbidden by its symmetry. Weyl action is [41–43]
ξ0 ˜2 1 2 L0 = √g R 2 Fµν (1) n 4! − 4q o
Each term is Weyl gauge invariant (see later, eq.(6)); R˜ is the scalar curvature of Weyl geometry; Fµν is the field strength of the Weyl “photon” ωµ, with coupling q. In addition to L0, one can also include an independent Weyl-tensor-squared term of Weyl geometry, allowed by the symmetry and considered later. A topological Gauss-Bonnet term of Weyl geometry may be present too, not relevant here. However, higher dimensional operators 4 (R˜ , etc) cannot be present in L0 since there is no scale to suppress them. As recently shown in [38,39] scale dependence in Weyl gravity (1) emerges spontaneously after a geometric version of Stueckelberg breaking mechanism [46] of Weyl gauge symmetry: the dilaton, which is the Goldstone mode of this symmetry (and spin 0 mode propagated by R˜2) is absorbed by the Weyl “photon” which thus becomes massive. Denoting by R the Ricci scalar of Riemannian geometry, action (1) becomes [38,39]:
2 1 2 3 M 1 2 3 2 2 µ L0 = √g M R Fµν + q M ωµω . (2) n − 2 − 2 ξ0 − 4 4 o The Planck scale M is fixed by the dilaton vev and the Weyl “photon” acquired a mass qM near the Planck scale (for q not too small). Therefore the Einstein-Proca action (2) ∼ is just a “low-energy” broken phase of Weyl gravity: it is obtained after “gauge fixing” the Weyl gauge symmetry. This involves fixing the dilaton vev which in a FRW universe is a dynamical effect [47]. Given its equivalence to action (2), Weyl action (1) avoids long-held criticisms since Einstein [42] related to non-metricity effects due to ωµ, e.g. the changing of atomic lines spacing, that can be safely ignored since ωµ decouples near Planck scale M. Having Einstein gravity as a “low-energy” limit of Weyl action motivates us to study inflation in Weyl gravity. Moreover, the presence of R˜2 in (1) points to similarities to successful Starobinsky inflation [48]. And since Planck scale is just a phase transition scale, field values above M are natural in Weyl gravity. This is relevant for inflation where such values are common but harder to accept in models where Planck scale is the physical cutoff.
1 2 Weyl gravity and inflation
To study Weyl inflation we review briefly the action of Weyl gravity coupled to a scalar field 1 φ1, see [38, 39] for a detailed analysis . The Lagrangian is
ξ0 ˜2 1 2 √g 2 ˜ 1 µν ˜ ˜ λ1 4 L = √g R 2 Fµν ξ1φ1 R + √g g Dµφ1Dνφ1 φ1 , (3) h 4! − 4 q i − 12 h2 − 4! i with couplings ξ0, ξ1, λ1; F = ∂ ω ∂ ω (no torsion). D˜ is a Weyl-covariant derivative µν µ ν − ν µ µ
D˜ φ1 = (∂ 1/2 ω ) φ1, (4) µ µ − µ 3 R˜ = R 3 D ωµ ωµω , (5) − µ − 2 µ with the scalar curvature of Weyl geometry (R˜) related to its Riemannian counterpart (R) as above. Lagrangian (3) is invariant under a Weyl gauge transformation Ω(x):
1 ˆ 1 gˆµν =Ω gµν , φˆ1 = φ1, ωˆµ = ωµ ∂µ ln Ω, R˜ = R.˜ (6) √Ω − ⇒ Ω
2 −1 where ω is the Weyl gauge field. We also have √gˆ =Ω √g, g det g ,g ˆµν = Ω gµν , µ ≡ | µν | and metric (+, , , ). Our conventions are those of [50]. − − − Unlike the Riemannian scalar curvature (R), R˜ is computed from a Weyl connection invariant under (6) and it transforms covariantly, due to the inverse metric entering its definition. With this observation, one sees the advantage of Weyl formulation (i.e. using R˜) instead of the Riemannian language (using R) and why L is invariant under (6). 2 2 4 One “linearises” (3) by using an auxiliary field φ0 to replace R˜ 2φ0R˜ φ0 and to →− − obtain a classically equivalent action. Indeed the equation of motion for φ0 has solution 2 φ0 = R˜, which when used back in the action recovers (3). Given this, φ0 transforms as − any other scalar field. Therefore
1 2 1 2 2 ˜ 1 µν ˜ ˜ 1 4 4 L = √g 2 Fµν (ξ0 φ0 + ξ1φ1) R + g Dµφ1Dν φ1 (λ1φ1 + ξ0φ0) , (7) h − 4 q − 12 2 − 4! i
Next, we must fix the gauge which we do by a particular Weyl “gauge-fixing” transforma- 2 2 2 2 tion (6) of Ω = ρ /M and ρ = (1/6)(ξ1φ1 + ξ0φ0) with M some scale (see later). We find
µν 1 2 ˆ 3 2 µ 1 ˆ2 gˆ ˜ˆ ˆ ˜ˆ ˆ ˆ L = gˆ M R + M ωˆµωˆ 2 Fµν + Dµφ1Dν φ1 V , (8) p h − 2 4 − 4q 2 − i with Rˆ the Riemannian scalar curvature and
4 ˆ2 2 ˆ 3M ξ1φ1 λ1 ˆ4 V = 1 2 + φ1. (9) 2 ξ0 h − 6 M i 4! 1Unlike scalars, fermions do not couple to Weyl “photon” [33,34,40,49] in the absence of torsion, as here.
2 Therefore, as detailed in [38, 39], the Weyl “photon” has become massive via a Stueck- elberg mechanism by “absorbing” the field ln ρ ln Ω, eq.(6), of the radial direction in the ∼ field space φ0, φ1. This is the Goldstone (dilaton) mode since under (6) ln ρ has a shift sym- metry ln ρ2 ln ρ2 ln Ω. Weyl gauge symmetry is now spontaneously broken and Einstein → − gravity is recovered as a “low-energy” broken phase of Weyl gravity (this is consistent with the fact that Riemannian-based R2-gravity is equivalent to Einstein gravity plus a massless mode [17] eaten here by the Weyl “photon”). The scale of breaking and the mass of Weyl “photon” is qM, with M identified with the Planck scale. M is itself fixed by the vev of ∼ the radial direction which in a FRW universe is fixed dynamically [47] following a conserved current which drives the dilaton field to a constant value. The Planck scale and the mass of ωµ are thus determined by the dilaton vev. Fields values above M are naturally allowed here since M is just a phase transition scale in the theory. The Weyl-covariant derivative acting on φˆ1 in (8) is a remnant of the initial Weyl gauge µ symmetry, now broken; one would like to decouple ∂µφˆ1 from ω in order to study inflation; for a “standard” kinetic term for φˆ1, a field redefinition is used
′ 2 σ ˆ σ ωˆµ =w ˆµ ∂µ ln cosh , φ1 = M√6 sinh (10) − M√6 hM√6i to find µν 1 2 ˆ 3 2 2 σ ′ ′ µ 1 ˆ′ 2 gˆ L = gˆ M R + M cosh ωˆµωˆ 2 Fµν + ∂µσ∂νσ V . (11) p n − 2 4 hM√6i − 4q 2 − o Finally, one rescales aboveω ˆ′ qωˆ′ , for a canonical gauge kinetic term. The potential is µ → µ 2 4 2 σ 4 σ 3 M V = V0 1 ξ1 sinh + λ1ξ0 sinh ,V0 = . (12) nh − M√6i M√6o 2 ξ0
V encodes the effect of the initial presence of the Weyl “photon”. The potential has a minimum due to the non-minimal gravitational coupling ξ1 > 0 and this is relevant for inflation; we assume σ as the inflaton, with V its potential.
3 Results
V of (12) is largely controlled by ξ1 and the combination λ1ξ0. Its minimum is at:
1/2 4 σmin 2 ξ1 3 M λ1 = ln γ + 1+ γ , γ = 2 ,Vmin = 2 . (13) M√6 h p i hξ1 + ξ0 λ1 i 2 λ1ξ0 + ξ1 The potential is shown in Figure 1 in function of the field σ, for different perturbative values of the non-minimal coupling ξ1, with two fixed values of the product (ξ0λ1). Note that: a) For (λ1ξ0) and ξ1 small enough, V is constant V V0 1/ξ0 and controlled by ξ0. ≈ ∼ b) Inflation begins in the region V = V0 and lasts a number of e-folds that depends on the 2 width of the flat region i.e. on the position of σmin γ. If λ1ξ0 ξ1 then γ 1/√ξ1 so ∝ ≪ ∼
3 reducing ξ1 will extend the flat region. c) From the condition the initial energy be larger than at the end of inflation, V0 Vmin 2 ≫ then λ1ξ0 ξ1 and also Vmin 0, as seen from eq.(12) and the second plot in Figure 1. ≪ ≈ Constraints on the parametric space are found from the normalization of CMB anisotropy 2 4 −9 V0/(24π M ε∗) = κ0, κ0 2.1 10 [51] where ǫ∗ is the slow roll parameter. With ≡ × 2 8 tensor-to-scalar ratio r = 16ǫ∗ and r < 0.07 [51] then ξ0 = 1/(π r κ0) 6.89 10 . In ≥ × conclusion we have the parametric constraints
2 8 λ1ξ0 ξ1, ξ0 6.89 10 . (14) ≪ ≥ × 2 −9 2 A large ξ0 is always compensated by choosing an ultraweak value of λ1 ξ1/ξ0 10 ξ1 so 2 ≪ ∼ eq.(14) is respected for a chosen ξ1 (note the coupling of R˜ is 1/ξ0 and is in the perturbative regime). We shall use these constraints to predict the spectral index ns and r. The potential slow-roll parameters are
2 2 ′ 2 2 2 2 M V 1 sinh (2˜σ) ξ1 + (λ1ξ0 + ξ1) sinh σ˜ σ ǫ = = − , σ˜ , (15) 2 2 4 2 2 n V o 3 1 2 ξ1 sinh σ˜ + (λξ0 + ξ1 ) sinh σ˜ ≡ M√6 − and ′′ 2 2 2 V V0 (λ1ξ0 + ξ1) cosh(4˜σ) (2 ξ1 + λ1ξ0 + ξ1) cosh(2˜σ) η = M = 2− 2 4 . (16) V 3 1 2ξ1 sinh σ˜ + (λ˜ + ξ1 ) sinh σ˜ − 2 For λ1ξ0 ξ1 and ξ1 1, slow roll conditions are met, ǫ, η 1, as seen from a numerical ≪ ≪ ≪ analysis. Further, the number N of e-folds is
1 σ∗ V (σ) N = 2 dσ ′ = (σ∗) (σe) (17) M Zσe V (σ) N −N with
σ 2 2 σ σ (σ)= c1 ln cosh + c2 ln 2 (λ1ξ0 + ξ1) sinh 2 ξ1 + c3 ln sinh (18) N M√6 h M√6 − i M√6 and
2 3 λ1ξ0 +(1+ ξ1) 3 λ1ξ0 3 c1 = 2 , c2 = 2 , c3 = . (19) 2 ξ1 + λ1ξ0 + ξ1 4 ξ1 (ξ1 + λ1ξ0 + ξ1 ) 2 ξ1 −
Above σ = σ∗ is the value at the horizon exit. Inflation ends at σ = σe found from ǫ = 1. Eqs.(15) to (19) are used for a numerical study of the scalar spectral index ns, the tensor-to-scalar ratio r = 16 ǫ∗ and number of e-folds N, in terms of ξ1 and λ1ξ0. We have
n =1+2 η∗ 6 ǫ∗, (20) s − where the subscript stands for σ = σ∗. ∗
4 Figure 1: The potential V (σ) for two fixed values of λ1ξ0 and with different ξ1. The flat region is wide for a large range of σ, with the width controlled by γ 1/√ξ1 while its height 2 ∼ is V0 1/ξ0. We have V/Vmin ξ1/(λ1ξ0). ∝ ∝
Figure 2: The spectral index ns versus r (left plot) and ns versus N (right plot), for models −10 with λ1ξ0 = 10 and with different ξ1. N varies along each curve; in the left plot, on each curve of fixed ξ1, the dark-blue curve has N = 55 and N = 65 at its left and right ends, −3 −4 respectively. The red dots correspond to N = 60. The curves for ξ1 = 10 and ξ1 = 10 are nearly identical (saturated bound as ξ1 0) in both plots. Blue (light blue) regions → correspond to n given by n = 0.9670 0.0037 at 68 % CL (95 % CL) respectively [51]. The s s ± constraint r<0.07 is easily satisfied. The value of r is very small, below that of Starobinsky case: for N = 60 we have r 0.00303 (from top curve, saturated bound as ξ1 0) and ≤ −2 → r>0.00257 from the lower bound on n (68% CL) with ξ1 = 1.6 10 . s ×
5 Before discussing numerical results, we present simple analytical results for ns and r in 2 the limit λ1ξ0 ξ1 1. Therefore, we can keep only the leading term in expansion in ≪ ≪ (λ1ξ0), then expand in ξ1. These results depend on ξ1 only in this approximation. We find
1 2 2 2σ 3 ǫ = ξ1 sinh + (ξ1 ) (21) 3 M√6 O
2 2σ 2 η = ξ1 cosh + (ξ1 ) (22) −3 M√6 O valid up to (λ1ξ0) corrections. Therefore O 4 2σ∗ 2 ns = 1 ξ1 cosh + (ξ1) (23) − 3 M√6 O
The value of ns is controlled by η in leading order (ξ1) while ǫ contribution is subleading 2 O (ξ1 ); hence we have a small tensor-to-scalar ratio r = 16 ǫ∗. We then have O 2 2 r = 3 (1 n ) + (ξ1 ) (24) − s O
This is an approximate result (valid only for smallest ξ1) for the top curve shown in the left plot in Figure 2 (this figure actually uses the exact numerical results discussed later). As an example, if n = 0.968 then r 0.003. Increasing ξ1 should reduce n of (23) but there s ≈ s is implicit ξ1-dependence in σ∗, computed below. First, we have
3 2 σ 3 2 σ 2 (σ)= ln tanh + ln cosh + (ξ1 ) (25) N −4 ξ1 M√6 4 M√6 O
Inflation ends at σ = σe where
2 2σe 3 sinh = 2 + (ξ1). (26) M√6 ξ1 O
−4 −2 For example: (σe,ξ1) = (12.8M, 10 ); (7.16M, 10 ). Then from (25), (26)
√3 3 3 3 √3 2 (σe)= + ln ln ξ1 + ξ1 + (ξ1 ). (27) N h 2 8 4i − 4 4 O
Using this result we find an iterative solution σ∗ to eq.(17) for a fixed N:
2 σ∗ 4ξ1 tanh 1 N, (28) M√6 ≈ − 3 where
3 4ξ1 2 N = N + (σe)+ ln N + (σe) + (ξ1 ). (29) n N 4 h 3 N io O 6 −4 −3 For N = 60 then N 64.1 for ξ1 between 10 and 10 ; for N = 55 then N 59.06 for ≈ ≈ the same ξ1 range. Finally, using σ∗ of (28) and (21), (23), we have approximate relations for ns and r = 16 ǫ∗: 2 ns = 1 + (ξ1) (30) − N O 12 16 r = 2 + (ξ1) (31) N N O which are consistent with (24) and accurate for ξ 10−3 for the r values considered here. ∼ Let us now analyse the exact numerical values of ns, r, N, eqs.(15) to (20) and compare them with the experimental data. Figure 2 summarises the main results of the paper: we presented ns versus r (left plot) and ns versus N (right plot), for models with parametric −10 −3 −4 constraint λ1ξ0 = 10 and curves of different ξ1. The curves for ξ1 = 10 and ξ1 = 10 or smaller are nearly identical (saturated bound) in both plots. N varies along each curve in the plane (ns, r), and the range of values from N = 55 to N = 60 is shown in dark blue for each curve. Regions in blue (light blue) show the experimental values of ns at 68% (95% CL), respectively, where n = 0.9670 0.0037 (68% CL) from Planck 2018 (TT, TE, EE + s ± low E + lensing + BK14 + BAO) [51]. These bounds on ns and r are comfortably respected at 68% CL for the values of ξ1 shown. Let us compare Figure 2 to a result of Starobinsky model in which for N = 55 one has n 0.965 and r 0.0034 [54]. In our model, for the same N we also have r 0.00345 s ≈ ≈ ≈ which is the largest r in the model for N = 55 (top curve in Figure 2). Therefore the values for r of the Starobinsky model (recovered for ξ1 0), are at the upper limit of those in → our model. This is also indicated by approximate results (30), (31) which also apply to Starobinsky model but with replacement N N. With N > N we see that for the same → N, we expect a mildly larger ns and smaller r than in Starobinsky model. Figure 2 for N = 60 gives a lower bound for r from the experimental (lower) value of −2 n (at 68% CL) quoted above and with ξ1 = 1.6 10 ; there is also an upper bound on r s × from the smallest ξ1 (saturated limit, top red curve) also giving the largest ns:
N = 60, 0.00257 r 0.00303. (32) ≤ ≤
Similar bounds can be extracted for different N. To conclude, a small tensor-to-scalar ratio is predicted by this model. Such value will soon be tested experimentally [55–57]. Our predictions used a hierarchy of couplings λ1 ξ1 ξ0. This hierarchy is stable ≪ ≪ under matter (scalar) quantum corrections to (3) due to ultraweak λ1 required to satisfy 2 2 (14): we have one-loop corrections δλ1 λ1/κ; δξ1 (ξ1 + 1/6)λ1/κ and δξ0 (ξ1 + 1/6) /κ, 2 ∝ ∝ ∝ with κ = (4π) , see e.g.[53] (Section 3.1). Therefore the relative λ1 suppression factor can maintain this hierarchy since then δλ1 δξ1 δξ0 . Therefore matter quantum | | ≪ | | ≪ | | corrections to r and ns are small (for the Starobinsky-Higgs model these are well below 2.5% for r and less than 1σ for ns for minimal values of λ1 used here [53]).
7 4 Weyl-tensor corrections to Weyl inflation
The analysis so far was based on L0 of (1) coupled to the inflaton. A most general Weyl quadratic gravity action can contain an additional term allowed by symmetry (6), [38,39]
1 ˜ ˜µνρσ 1 µνρσ 3 2 L1 = CµνρσC = Cµνρσ C + Fµν , (33) η η h 2 i where C˜µνρσ (Cµνρσ) denotes the Weyl tensor of Weyl (Riemannian) geometry, respectively; in the second step we used an identity to rewrite the action in the Riemannian picture. If present, L1 modifies our previous results for r. The analysis proceeds as before, since the transformations applied to obtain eqs.(11), (12) from eq.(3) leave L1 invariant. Therefore, the new Lagrangian is that of eq.(11) plus L1. For this new Lagrangian, the corrections to r induced by the Weyl tensor were studied in [58] to which we refer the reader for details. The Weyl tensor brings a quadratic action for tensor fluctuations and a modified 2 2 2 sound speed ct given by 1/ct 1 = (2H )/(ηM ) [58] (see eqs.(2.10), (2.22), (2.24)). With 2 − 2 a slow roll relation H V/(3M ), V V0, the corrected tensor-to-scalar ratio r is then ≈ ≈ c 8 1/2 rc = r 1+ , (34) h ηξ0 i where r is the value in the absence of L1 while ns is unchanged. The Weyl boson mass is as 2 2 2 2 in eq.(8) but with q qc = q /(1 6q /η) > 0 where qc is the new corrected coupling of → − 2 2 2 the gauge kinetic term which includes that from L1; also q <1 if η<0 or η>6q /(1 q ). c − As expected, eq.(34) shows that the change of r due to L1 depends on the relative size of the perturbative couplings of the two quadratic terms, η versus 1/ξ0, and equals 8 θ = (r r)/r 4/(ηξ0) for η ξ0 1. Recalling that ξ0 > 6.89 10 , a relative change c − ≈ | | ≫ × by θ requires η 6 10−9/θ. A value r
5 Further remarks
A potential similar to that in Section 3 was encountered in a previous model [32] with Weyl local symmetry. What are the differences? In our model there is no torsion (Weyl connection coefficients are symmetric [38, 39]) but we have Weyl gauge symmetry and non-metricity, while in the model of [32] only torsion is present. Further, in [32] the “gauge” field (denoted
8 ) emerges from the trace over the torsion and replaces our ω . However, an ansatz is Tµ µ made
= ∂ φ (35) Tµ µ with φ a scalar field. Under this assumption the model is Weyl integrable i.e. Riemannian (see e.g.[52]) and then non-metricity is absent ( being a “pure” gauge field). Due to Tµ (35) the gauge kinetic term of is vanishing (no dynamics) and can be integrated out. Tµ Therefore, no geometrical Stueckelberg mass mechanism can take place. For this reason a flat (Goldstone) direction remains present in [32] and it has kinetic mixing with the inflaton. The results then depend on the dynamics of the flat direction. This has implications for inflation discussed in [32], where it is shown that a distinct field space geometry changes the slow-roll plateau, which can affect inflation. If the kinetic energy of the Goldstone is large it can dominate and a “kination” period predates the slow-roll inflation; this may have additional consequences (observable effects in the CMB on large angular scales) [32]. In our case there is no Goldstone (flat direction) left since it was eaten by the Weyl “photon” which becomes massive via Stueckelberg mechanism and eventually decouples, yet it impacts on the potential (compare (12) to (9))2. Weyl inflation has an advantage compared to the Starobinsky model in that it cannot contain higher dimensional/curvature operators like R˜4/M 4, etc of unknown coefficients that could affect significantly the numerical predictions or the convergence of such an expansion (in powers of R˜), see [62] for a discussion. Unlike in the Starobinsky model, such higher dimensional operators and their corrections are forbidden by the Weyl gauge symmetry. One could think of such operators being suppressed instead by (powers of) the dilaton field3 (to preserve this symmetry) but this is not possible since this field is already “eaten” by the Weyl massive “photon”, to all orders in perturbation theory. Further, given the Weyl gauge symmetry, the model is allowed by black-hole physics, which is not the case of similar models of inflation with only global scale symmetry (global charges can be eaten by black holes which subsequently evaporate, e.g. [61]). Finally, compared to models of inflation with local scale invariance (no gauging) that have a ghost present when generating Planck scale spontaneously by the dilaton vev4, this problem is not present in Weyl gravity action eq.(3).
6 Conclusions
We examined if the original Weyl quadratic gravity is suitable for inflation. This theory is based on Weyl conformal geometry and its gauged (local) scale symmetry (also called Weyl gauge symmetry) forbids the presence of any fundamental mass scale in the action. Its
2 Non-metricity effects from ωµ are suppressed by its large mass qM, for q perturbative, not too small. Current non-metricity bounds [59,60] are as low as TeV, but depend on the model details. The fermions in our model do not couple to Weyl “photon” [33,34,40] and may evade these constraints even for ultraweak q. 3Such situation is possible in quantum scale invariant models in flat spacetime when scale-invariant higher dimensional operators are generated at quantum level, suppressed by powers of the dilaton [3–5]. 4See for example [35,40] for a discussion and references.
9 action undergoes spontaneous breaking via geometric Stueckelberg mechanism. In this way the Weyl “photon” of gauged dilatations becomes massive (mass qM), after absorbing ∼ the Goldstone mode (compensator/dilaton) ln φ0 which is the spin-0 mode propagated by the R˜2 term in the action. The result in the broken phase is the Einstein-Proca action for the Weyl “photon” and a positive cosmological constant. If the initial action also has a non-minimal coupling ξ1 to an additional scalar (φ1), a scalar potential is found after the Stueckelberg mechanism. This potential has a minimum for non-vanishing scalar vev that is triggered by the gravitational effects (non-minimal coupling) and is suitable for inflation. Since the Planck scale is emergent as the scale where Weyl gauge symmetry is broken, the presence of field values above this scale, needed for inflation, is actually natural in Weyl gravity. Moreover, the existence of a non-zero vev of the dilaton (fixing M) is actually a dynamical effect in a FRW universe. The study is also motivated by the fact that the action involves the square of the (Weyl) scalar curvature, which points to similarities to the successful Starobinsky model. Our analysis shows that Weyl inflation predicts a specific, small tensor-to-scalar ratio (r) within a narrow range 0.00257 r 0.00303 for N = 60 and with n within 68% (CL) of ≤ ≤ s the experimental value. This range of values for r will soon be tested experimentally; they are mildly smaller than those for same N in the Starobinsky model M 2R + R2 recovered in the limit of vanishing non-minimal coupling. Such value for r is also an indirect test of the presence of the Weyl gauge symmetry. Compared to the Starobinsky model, the Weyl model of inflation has the advantage that it does not contain higher order curvature terms (e.g. effective operators R4/M 4, etc) that modify the predictions or question the convergence of a series expansion in curvature; such operators are forbidden in Weyl inflation by the underlying Weyl gauge symmetry. This is because this symmetry does not allow a mass scale be present in the Weyl action to suppress such operators, while the dilaton field that could in principle suppress them (while preserving this symmetry) was already “eaten” by the massive Weyl photon. Another advantage is that the Weyl gauge symmetry of this model is also allowed by black-hole physics, unlike the models with a global scale symmetry, while local scale invariant models (no gauging) have a notorious ghost dilaton present, when generating the Planck scale spontaneously (by the dilaton vev). Finally, the above predictions for r and the spectral index ns are found for values of the non-minimal coupling ξ1 in the perturbative regime. In this respect the situation is very different from Higgs inflation where a large coupling ξ1 is actually required.
Note added in proof: While this work was being typewritten, preprint arXiv:1906.03415 appeared (10 June) which analyses (section 4) inflation in this model by using the two-field basis eq.(7) instead of our one-field formulation, eq.(12). The results are consistent and complementary.
10 References
[1] F. Englert, C. Truffin and R. Gastmans, “Conformal Invariance in Quantum Gravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 117 (1976) 407. [2] M. Shaposhnikov and D. Zenhausern, “Quantum scale invariance, cosmological constant and hierarchy problem,” Phys. Lett. B 671 (2009) 162 [arXiv:0809.3406 [hep-th]]. [3] D. M. Ghilencea, “Quantum implications of a scale invariant regularization,” Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.7, 075015 [arXiv:1712.06024 [hep-th]]. [4] D. M. Ghilencea, “Manifestly scale-invariant regularization and quantum effective operators,” Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.10, 105006 [arXiv:1508.00595 [hep-ph]]. [5] D. M. Ghilencea, Z. Lalak and P. Olszewski, “Standard Model with spontaneously broken quantum scale invariance,” Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) no.5, 055034 [arXiv:1612.09120 [hep-ph]]. [6] D. M. Ghilencea, Z. Lalak and P. Olszewski, “Two-loop scale-invariant scalar potential and quantum effective operators,” Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) no.12, 656 [arXiv:1608.05336 [hep-th]]. [7] S. Mooij, M. Shaposhnikov and T. Voumard, “Hidden and explicit quantum scale invariance,” Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.8, 085013 [arXiv:1812.07946 [hep-th]]. [8] M. E. Shaposhnikov and F. V. Tkachov, “Quantum scale-invariant models as effective field theories,” arXiv:0905.4857 [hep-th]. [9] M. Shaposhnikov and K. Shimada, “Asymptotic Scale Invariance and its Consequences,” Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.10, 103528 [arXiv:1812.08706 [hep-ph]]. [10] M. Shaposhnikov and A. Shkerin, “Gravity, Scale Invariance and the Hierarchy Problem,” JHEP 1810 (2018) 024 [arXiv:1804.06376 [hep-th]]. [11] R. Foot, A. Kobakhidze, K. L. McDonald and R. R. Volkas, “Poincar´eprotection for a natural electroweak scale,” Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) no.11, 115018 [arXiv:1310.0223 [hep-ph]]. [12] M. Shaposhnikov and D. Zenhausern, “Scale invariance, unimodular gravity and dark energy,” Phys. Lett. B 671 (2009) 187 [arXiv:0809.3395 [hep-th]]. [13] D. Blas, M. Shaposhnikov and D. Zenhausern, “Scale-invariant alternatives to general relativ- ity,” Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 044001 [arXiv:1104.1392 [hep-th]]. [14] J. Garcia-Bellido, J. Rubio, M. Shaposhnikov and D. Zenhausern, “Higgs-Dilaton Cosmology: From the Early to the Late Universe,” Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 123504 [arXiv:1107.2163 [hep- ph]]. [15] F. Bezrukov, G. K. Karananas, J. Rubio and M. Shaposhnikov, “Higgs-Dilaton Cosmology: an effective field theory approach,” Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) no.9, 096001 [arXiv:1212.4148 [hep-ph]]. [16] L. Alvarez-Gaume, A. Kehagias, C. Kounnas, D. L¨ust and A. Riotto, “Aspects of Quadratic Gravity,” Fortsch. Phys. 64 (2016) no.2-3, 176 [arXiv:1505.07657 [hep-th]]. [17] C. Kounnas, D. L¨ust and N. Toumbas, “R2 inflation from scale invariant supergravity and anomaly free superstrings with fluxes,” Fortsch. Phys. 63 (2015) 12 [arXiv:1409.7076 [hep-th]]. [18] M. Trashorras, S. Nesseris and J. Garcia-Bellido, “Cosmological Constraints on Higgs-Dilaton Inflation,” Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) no.6, 063511 [arXiv:1604.06760 [astro-ph.CO]]. [19] G. K. Karananas and J. Rubio, “On the geometrical interpretation of scale-invariant models of inflation,” Phys. Lett. B 761 (2016) 223 [arXiv:1606.08848 [hep-ph]].
11 [20] I. Antoniadis, A. Karam, A. Lykkas and K. Tamvakis, “Palatini inflation in models with an R2 term,” JCAP 1811 (2018) no.11, 028 [arXiv:1810.10418 [gr-qc]]. [21] A. Karam, T. Pappas and K. Tamvakis, “Nonminimal Coleman–Weinberg Inflation with an R2 term,” JCAP 1902 (2019) 006 [arXiv:1810.12884 [gr-qc]]. [22] J. Rubio and M. Shaposhnikov, “Higgs-Dilaton cosmology: Universality versus criticality,” Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 027307 [arXiv:1406.5182 [hep-ph]]. [23] S. Casas, G. K. Karananas, M. Pauly and J. Rubio, “Scale-invariant alternatives to general relativity. III. The inflation-dark energy connection,” Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.6, 063512 [arXiv:1811.05984 [astro-ph.CO]]. [24] P. G. Ferreira, C. T. Hill and G. G. Ross, “Scale-Independent Inflation and Hierarchy Genera- tion,” Phys. Lett. B 763 (2016) 174 [arXiv:1603.05983 [hep-th]]. [25] P. G. Ferreira, C. T. Hill and G. G. Ross, “Weyl Current, Scale-Invariant Inflation and Planck Scale Generation,” Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) no.4, 043507 [arXiv:1610.09243 [hep-th]]; [26] P. G. Ferreira, C. T. Hill and G. G. Ross, “No fifth force in a scale invariant universe,” Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) no.6, 064038 [arXiv:1612.03157 [gr-qc]]. [27] S. Vicentini, L. Vanzo and M. Rinaldi, “Scale-invariant inflation with one-loop quantum correc- tions,” Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.10, 103516 [arXiv:1902.04434 [gr-qc]]. [28] M. Rinaldi and L. Vanzo, “Inflation and reheating in theories with spontaneous scale invariance symmetry breaking,” Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) no.2, 024009 [arXiv:1512.07186 [gr-qc]]. [29] G. ’t Hooft, “Local conformal symmetry in black holes, standard model, and quantum grav- ity,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 26 (2016) no.03, 1730006; “A class of elementary particle models without any adjustable real parameters,” Found. Phys. 41 (2011) 1829 [arXiv:1104.4543 [gr-qc]]. “Probing the small distance structure of canonical quantum gravity using the conformal group,” arXiv:1009.0669 [gr-qc]. [30] J. Beltran Jimenez, L. Heisenberg and T. S. Koivisto, “Cosmology for quadratic gravity in generalized Weyl geometry,” JCAP 1604 (2016) no.04, 046 [arXiv:1602.07287 [hep-th]]. [31] Y. Tang and Y. L. Wu, “Weyl Symmetry Inspired Inflation and Dark Matter,” arXiv:1904.04493 [hep-ph]. [32] A. Barnaveli, S. Lucat and T. Prokopec, “Inflation as a spontaneous symmetry breaking of Weyl symmetry,” JCAP 1901 (2019) no.01, 022 [arXiv:1809.10586 [gr-qc]]. [33] M. de Cesare, J. W. Moffat and M. Sakellariadou, “Local conformal symmetry in non- Riemannian geometry and the origin of physical scales,” Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) no.9, 605 [arXiv:1612.08066 [hep-th]]. [34] H. Nishino and S. Rajpoot, “Implication of Compensator Field and Local Scale Invariance in the Standard Model,” Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 125025 [arXiv:0906.4778 [hep-th]]. [35] H. C. Ohanian, “Weyl gauge-vector and complex dilaton scalar for conformal symmetry and its breaking,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 48 (2016) no.3, 25 [arXiv:1502.00020 [gr-qc]]. [36] L. Smolin, “Towards a Theory of Space-Time Structure at Very Short Distances,” Nucl. Phys. B 160 (1979) 253.
12 [37] R. Percacci, “Gravity from a Particle Physicists’ perspective,” PoS ISFTG (2009) 011 [arXiv:0910.5167 [hep-th]]. “The Higgs phenomenon in quantum gravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 353 (1991) 271 [arXiv:0712.3545 [hep-th]]. [38] D. M. Ghilencea, “Stueckelberg breaking of Weyl conformal geometry and applications to grav- ity,” arXiv:1904.06596 [hep-th]. [39] D. M. Ghilencea, “Spontaneous breaking of Weyl quadratic gravity to Einstein action and Higgs potential,” JHEP 1903 (2019) 049 [arXiv:1812.08613 [hep-th]]. [40] D. M. Ghilencea, H. M. Lee, “Weyl gauge symmetry and its spontaneous breaking in Standard Model and inflation,” Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.11, 115007 [arXiv:1809.09174 [hep-th]]. [41] Hermann Weyl, Gravitation und elektrizit¨at, Sitzungsberichte der K¨oniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (1918), pp.465; (Einstein’s comment appended). [42] “Eine neue Erweiterung der Relativit¨atstheorie” (“A new extension of the theory of relativity”), Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) (4) 59 (1919), 101-133. [43] “Raum, Zeit, Materie”, vierte erweiterte Auflage. Julius Springer, Berlin 1921 “Space-time- matter”, translated from German by Henry L. Brose, 1922, Methuen & Co Ltd, London. [44] For a review on Weyl geometry, applications to model building and references, see E. Scholz, “The unexpected resurgence of Weyl geometry in late 20-th century physics,” Einstein Stud. 14 (2018) 261 [arXiv:1703.03187 [math.HO]]; “Paving the Way for Transitions—A Case for Weyl Geometry,” Einstein Stud. 13 (2017) 171 [arXiv:1206.1559 [gr-qc]]; “Weyl geometry in late 20th century physics,” arXiv:1111.3220 [math.HO]. [45] W. Drechsler and H. Tann, “Broken Weyl invariance and the origin of mass,” Found. Phys. 29 (1999) 1023 [gr-qc/9802044]. [46] E. C. G. Stueckelberg, “Interaction forces in electrodynamics and in the field theory of nuclear forces,” Helv. Phys. Acta 11 (1938) 299. [47] P. G. Ferreira, C. T. Hill and G. G. Ross, “Inertial Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and Quantum Scale Invariance,” Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.11, 116012 [arXiv:1801.07676 [hep-th]]. C. T. Hill, “Inertial Symmetry Breaking,” arXiv:1803.06994 [hep-th]. [48] A. A. Starobinsky “A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models Without Singularity,” Phys. Lett. B 91 (1980) 99 [Phys. Lett. 91B (1980) 99] [Adv. Ser. Astrophys. Cosmol. 3 (1987) 130]. [49] K. Hayashi and T. Kugo, “Everything About Weyl’s Gauge Field,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 61 (1979) 334. doi:10.1143/PTP.61.334 [50] D. Gorbunov, V. Rubakov, “Introduction to the theory of the early Universe”, World Scientific, 2011. [51] Y. Akrami et al. [Planck Collaboration], “Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation,” arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]. [52] I. Quiros, “Scale invariant theory of gravity and the standard model of particles,” E-print arXiv:1401.2643 [gr-qc]. [53] D. M. Ghilencea, “Two-loop corrections to Starobinsky-Higgs inflation,” Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.10, 103524 [arXiv:1807.06900 [hep-ph]]. [54] C. Patrignani et al., Particle Data Group, Chin. Phys. C, 40, 100001 (2016).
13 [55] K. N. Abazajian et al. [CMB-S4 Collaboration], “CMB-S4 Science Book, First Edition,” arXiv:1610.02743 [astro-ph.CO]. https://cmb-s4.org/ [56] J. Errard, S. M. Feeney, H. V. Peiris and A. H. Jaffe, “Robust forecasts on fundamental physics from the foreground-obscured, gravitationally-lensed CMB polarization,” JCAP 1603 (2016) no.03, 052 [arXiv:1509.06770 [astro-ph.CO]]. [57] A. Suzuki et al., “The LiteBIRD Satellite Mission - Sub-Kelvin Instrument,” J. Low. Temp. Phys. 193 (2018) no.5-6, 1048 [arXiv:1801.06987 [astro-ph.IM]]. [58] D. Baumann, H. Lee and G. L. Pimentel, “High-Scale Inflation and the Tensor Tilt,” JHEP 1601 (2016) 101 [arXiv:1507.07250 [hep-th]]. [59] A. Delhom, G. J. Olmo and M. Ronco, “Observable traces of non-metricity: new constraints on metric-affine gravity,” Phys. Lett. B 780 (2018) 294, [arXiv:1709.04249 [hep-th]] and references therein. [60] I. P. Lobo and C. Romero, “Experimental constraints on the second clock effect,” Phys. Lett. B 783 (2018) 306 [arXiv:1807.07188 [gr-qc]]. [61] R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde, D. A. Linde and L. Susskind, “Gravity and global symmetries,” Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 912 [hep-th/9502069]. [62] J. Edholm, “UV completion of the Starobinsky model, tensor-to-scalar ratio, and constraints on nonlocality,” Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) no.4, 044004 [arXiv:1611.05062 [gr-qc]]. [63] P. G. Ferreira, C. T. Hill, J. Noller and G. G. Ross, “Scale independent R2 inflation,” arXiv:1906.03415 [gr-qc].
14