Scalar-scalar, scalar-tensor, and tensor-tensor correlators from anisotropic inflation
By A. Gümrükçüoğlu, B. Himmetoḡlu, Marco Peloso. 2010
180 citations recorded by the source corpus.
We compute the phenomenological signatures of a model [Watanabe et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 191302 (2009)] of anisotropic inflation driven by a scalar and a vector field. The action for the vector is U(1) invariant, and the model is free of ghost instabilities. A suitable coupling of the scalar to the kinetic term of the vector allows for a slow roll evolution of the vector vacuum expectation value, and hence for a prolonged anisotropic expansion; this provides a counter example to the cosmic no hair conjecture. We compute the nonvanishing two point correlation functions between physical modes of the system, and express them in terms of power spectra with angular dependence. The anisotropy parameter ${g}_{*}$ for the scalar-scalar spectrum (defined as in the Ackerman et al. [Phys. Rev. D 75, 0835002 (2007)] parametrization) turns out to be negative in the simplest realization of the model, which, therefore, cannot account for the angular dependence emerged in some analyses of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe data. A ${g}_{*}$ of order $\ensuremath{-}0.1$ is achieved when the energy of the vector is about 6\char21{}7 orders of magnitude smaller than that of the scalar during inflation. For such values of the parameters, the scalar-tensor correlation (which is in principle a distinctive signature of anisotropic spaces) is smaller than the tensor-tensor correlation.
Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Oceanography
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4392e95553ca1f315e5b60ab3c57648ec7dd0abf
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Astronomy and Astrophysics
In Oceanography
Citations in the corpus
- Gauge fields and inflation (2012, background): “185) In [116], it is pointed out that the sign of gs predicted by our models is different from the observed one [40].”