44 S. Alexander, N. Yunes / <strong>Physics</strong> <strong>Reports</strong> 480 (2009) 1–55and simplify the equation of motion in the limit 256/Θ 2 ≫ 1, which corresponds to large scale behavior, such that Eq. (272)becomesd 2 µ s k+[− 1dy 2 4 + κ ( ) ]1 1y + 4 − ξ 2 µ sy 2 k= 0. (274)The exact <strong>general</strong> solution to this equation is given in terms of Whittaker functionsµ s k (η) = C s 1 (k)W κ,ξ (y) + C s 2 (k)W −κ,ξ (−y) , (275)where C s(k) 1 and C s 2(k) are two constants of integration.Initial conditions are determined in the divergence-free region −1 < x ≪ 0, where we assume µ s kbehavior [169]has a plane waveC s (k) = − 4√ ( )πl Pl1√ e iqη iexp − λs πΘ, C s 2(k) = 0, (276)2k32where l Pl is the Planck length and we have used that W κ,ξ (y) ∼ e −y/2 y κ as y → +∞. This assumption is equivalent torequiring that non-linear phenomena occurring near the divergence of the effective potential does not affect the initialconditions in the region x > −1. Indeed, such an assumption is also made in inflationary cosmology, where the vacuumis assumed to be the correct initial state, in spite of the fact that modes of astrophysical interest today originate from thetrans-Planckian region [170]. A possible weakness of the above comparison is that, in the case of the trans-Planckian problemof inflation [170,171], one can show that (under certain conditions) the final result can be robust to changes in the shortdistance physics [170,171]. In the present context, however, it is more difficult to imagine that the non-linearities will notaffect the initial conditions. On the other hand, in the absence of a second-order calculations and as a first approach to theproblem, this seems to be quite reasonable.8.1.3. Power spectrum and tensor-to-scalar ratioThe power spectrum can be calculated either as the two-point correlation function in the vacuum state or as a classicalspatial average. We take here the latter view, since a fully consistent quantum formulation of the present theory is not yetavailable. The power spectrum is then defined as∫〈h ij (η, x) h ij (η, x)〉 = 1 Vdx h ij (η, x) h ij (η, x) , (277)with V = ∫ dx is the total volume. Using the properties of the polarization tensor, straightforward calculations show that〈h ij (η, x) h ij (η, x)〉 = 1π 2∑s=L,R∫ +∞dkfrom which we deduce the power spectrum∣k 3 P s k3 ∣∣∣∣h(k) =π 2∣µ s ∣∣∣∣2ka(η) √ 1 − λ s kf ′ /a 20∣ k k3 hs ∣ 2k, (278). (279)The power spectrum is usually proportional to 2k 3 /π 2 , where here the factor of 2 is missing because we have not summedover polarizations.The CS corrected power spectrum could be calculated exactly in terms of the Whittaker function, but only the large scalebehavior is needed so, in this regime, one hask 3 P s = 16 l 2 Plk −2ɛ Ɣ 2 (2ξ)hπ a 2 2 2ξ |Ɣ (1/2 + ξ − iλ0s Θ/16) | 2 e−λs πΘ/16 . (280)where Ɣ[·] is the Gamma function and α 0 is the value of the scale factor today. Eq. (280) can be expanded to first order inthe slow-roll parameter to obtainwith,k 3 P s h (k) = 16H2 infπm 2 Pl12 As (Θ)[1 − 2 (C + 1) ɛ − 2ɛ ln k ]− ɛB(Θ) , (281)k ∗(π π2A s ≡ 1 − λ s16 Θ + 384 − 1 )Θ 2 + O ( Θ 3) , B ≡ 4Ψ − 2Ψ (2), (282)256where Ψ is related to the derivative of the Gamma function via Ψ = Ɣ ′ /Ɣ. The amplitude of the CS corrected rightpolarizationstate is reduced while the one of the left-polarization state is enhanced. Moreover, at leading order in theslow-roll parameter, the spectral index remains un<strong>modified</strong>, since n s = ( T d ln k 3 Ph) s /d ln k = −2ɛ for each polarizationstate.
S. Alexander, N. Yunes / <strong>Physics</strong> <strong>Reports</strong> 480 (2009) 1–55 45Let us now compute how the tensor to scalar ratio T/S in the <strong>modified</strong> theory. In CS theory, the scalar power spectrumis not <strong>modified</strong> (see also Ref. [172]) and reads [167][k 3 P ζ =H2 infπm 2 ɛ 1 − 2ɛ − 2C(2ɛ − δ) − 2(2ɛ − δ) ln k ], (283)kPl ∗while the tensor power spectrum is given by Eq. (281). The T/S ratio is then given by( )∣TS ≡ ( 1 ∑ ∣∣∣∣) k 3 P sk 3 h= 16ɛ × 1 [A L (Θ) + A R (Θ) ] (284)P ζ 2s=L,Rk=k∗[ ( π2≃ 16ɛ × 1 +384 − 1 ) ]Θ 2 , (285)256where we see that the linear corrections in Θ has canceled out, and one is left with a second-order correction only.Alternatively, we can express the above result as the fraction CS correction(T/S) Θ≠0(T/S) Θ=0≃ 1 + 0.022 × Θ 2 , (286)from which it is clear that the CS correction is not observable, since one has assumed here that Θ 10 −5 (i.e. for thedivergence of the effective potential to be in the trans-Planckian region).The super-Hubble power spectrum exhibits two interesting regimes: a linear and non-linear one. The non-linear regimeoccurs when kη ∼ Θ −1 , because the effective potential controlling the evolution of the linear perturbations divergesand linear cosmological perturbation theory becomes invalid. This divergence occurs for all modes (i.e. for all comovingwavenumber k) but at different times. The full non-linear regime has not yet been investigated.The linear regime is compatible with the stringy embedding of inflationary baryogenesis [27], part of which we discussedin Section 3.2. In this context, Θ is enhanced, possibly leading to resonant frequencies that could be associated withthe observed baryon asymmetry. Since Θ is completely determined by the string scale and string coupling in a modelindependentfashion, one obtains a direct link between stringy quantities and CMB anisotropies:(T/S) Θ≠0≃ 1 + 0.022(T/S) Θ=0 4where we have used thatN = π 2 √gs2(MPl(HinfM 10) 4g s ɛ, (287)M 10) 2, (288)M 10 is the ten-dimensional fundamental scale and g s is the string coupling. For reasonable values of string coupling (i.e. weak)and the string scale set to 10 16 GeV, Θ ∼ 10 −2 , but the stringy embedding admits much larger values of Θ, forcing theanalysis into the non-linear regime.Large values of Θ (eg. Θ 10 −5 ) require a non-linear calculation, through which one could hope to obtain a significantmodification to T/S that might lead to an observable CMB signature. Unfortunately, it is precisely in this observable regimewhere technical difficulties have prevented a full analysis of the cosmological perturbations.8.2. Parity violation in the CMBOne of the major issues in the standard model of particle physics is the origin of parity violation in the weak interactions.While we know that the other gauge interactions respect parity, it may be the case that the there is a definite handednesson cosmological scales. The polarization pattern in the CMB fluctuations can leave an imprint of parity violation in the earlyuniverse through a positive measurement of cross correlation functions that are not parity invariant.The measurement of parity violation from CMB polarization was first discussed by Lue, Wang and Kamionkowski [134].They realized that the presence of the CS term naturally leads to a rotation of the plane of polarization as a CMB photontravels to the observer. It was later realized by Alexander [30] that gravitational backreaction of parity violating modes canlead to loss of power for parity-odd spherical harmonics, which lacking a systematic explanation, is observed in the CMB forlow multipole moments.Such considerations can be understood by studying the polarization state of light as described through the Stokesparameters. Let us consider a classical electromagnetic plane-wave with electric field given by the following components:E 1 (t) = a 1 sin(ωt − ɛ 1 ) and E 2 (t) = a 2 sin(ωt − ɛ 2 ) (289)where we assume, for simplicity, that the wave is nearly monochromatic with frequency ω, such that a 1 , a 2 , ɛ 1 , and ɛ 2 onlyvary on time scales long compared to ω −1 . The Stokes parameters in the linear polarization basis are then defined as
- Page 1 and 2: Physics Reports 480 (2009) 1-55Cont
- Page 3 and 4: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 5 and 6: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 7 and 8: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 9 and 10: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 11 and 12: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 13 and 14: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 15 and 16: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 17 and 18: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 19 and 20: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 21 and 22: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 23 and 24: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 25 and 26: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 27 and 28: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 29 and 30: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 31 and 32: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 33 and 34: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 35 and 36: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 37 and 38: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 39 and 40: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 41 and 42: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 43: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 47 and 48: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 49 and 50: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 51 and 52: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 53 and 54: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re
- Page 55: S. Alexander, N. Yunes / Physics Re