How Can I Graph Hubble Term vs. Inflaton Using Mathematica?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on graphing the relationship between Hubble parameter (H) and the inflaton field (φ) using Mathematica. The primary equation under consideration is the Friedmann equation, specifically H^2 = ρ/(3M_p^2), where ρ represents density and M_p is the Planck mass. To graph H vs. φ, the differential equation involving φ and its time derivative (φ̇) must be solved, necessitating the use of the second Friedmann equation and potentially the Klein-Gordon equation, which includes a dissipation term (Γ) for warm inflation scenarios. Participants emphasize the need for numerical methods in Mathematica to explore these relationships effectively.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Friedmann equations in cosmology
  • Familiarity with differential equations and their solutions
  • Basic knowledge of the Klein-Gordon equation
  • Proficiency in using Mathematica for numerical calculations
NEXT STEPS
  • Learn how to implement numerical methods in Mathematica for solving differential equations
  • Study the second Friedmann equation and its implications in cosmology
  • Explore the Klein-Gordon equation and its modifications for warm inflation scenarios
  • Investigate the relationship between the tensor-to-scalar ratio (r) and the Hubble slow roll parameter (ε)
USEFUL FOR

Cosmologists, physicists studying inflationary models, and researchers interested in numerical simulations of cosmological equations using Mathematica.

shinobi20
Messages
277
Reaction score
20
From cosmology,

##H^2 = \frac{ρ}{3M_p^2} = \frac{1}{3M_p^2}(½\dot φ^2 + ½m^2φ^2)##

Suppose ##V(φ) = ½m^2φ^2##

where
##ρ## = density
##M_p## = Planck mass

I want to graph ##H## vs. ##φ## but there is a ##\dot φ## and I know this is a differential equation, can somebody help me what to do here?
 
Space news on Phys.org
shinobi20 said:
From cosmology,

##H^2 = \frac{ρ}{3M_p^2} = \frac{1}{3M_p^2}(½\dot φ^2 + ½m^2φ^2)##

Suppose ##V(φ) = ½m^2φ^2##

where
##ρ## = density
##M_p## = Planck mass

I want to graph ##H## vs. ##φ## but there is a ##\dot φ## and I know this is a differential equation, can somebody help me what to do here?
The only way is to solve the differential equation so that you know ##\phi(t)##. For that, you'll need more than just this equation, as you have an unknown function of time on both sides of the equation. You'd need to make use of a second equation, possibly the second Friedmann equation, to resolve the discrepancy.
 
Chalnoth said:
The only way is to solve the differential equation so that you know ##\phi(t)##. For that, you'll need more than just this equation, as you have an unknown function of time on both sides of the equation. You'd need to make use of a second equation, possibly the second Friedmann equation, to resolve the discrepancy.

I was hoping to get rid of ##\dot φ## but it seems I can't find any relationship for that. If I'm to use the second Friedmann equation,
##\frac{\ddot a}{a} = -\frac{1}{6M_p^2}(ρ+3p)~~~~~~~~~ ^*~H = \frac{\dot a}{a}~~→~~\dot H = \frac{\ddot a}{a} - (\frac{\dot a}{a})^2~~→~~\dot H = \frac{\ddot a}{a} - H^2##

##\dot H + H = -\frac{1}{6M_p^2}(ρ+3p)##

The problem is the form of ##ρ## and ##p##. For warm inflation, should I consider ##ρ = ρ_λ + ρ_r## and ##p = p_λ + p_r##? Given that ##p_λ = -ρ_λ## and ##p_r = \frac{1}{3}ρ_r##
 
You cannot get rid of the time derivative in favour of other quantities. That would remove the dynamics of the field itself.

In some cases, like slow-roll inflation, you can neglect the kinetic term in the energy, but it is still there.
 
Orodruin said:
You cannot get rid of the time derivative in favour of other quantities. That would remove the dynamics of the field itself.

In some cases, like slow-roll inflation, you can neglect the kinetic term in the energy, but it is still there.
Yes, that's why I'd like to solve the DE exactly but there is an ##H^2## in front which is also a variable.
 
Chalnoth said:
The only way is to solve the differential equation so that you know ##\phi(t)##. For that, you'll need more than just this equation, as you have an unknown function of time on both sides of the equation. You'd need to make use of a second equation, possibly the second Friedmann equation, to resolve the discrepancy.
If I define ##t_H = H^{-1}## (Hubble time) then it would be just an ODE so I could use the typical numerical calculation in Mathematica?
 
Last edited:
Have you considered the Klein-Gordon equation?
$$ \ddot{\phi}+3H\dot{\phi}+\dfrac{dV}{d\phi}=0$$
 
MinasKar said:
Have you considered the Klein-Gordon equation?
$$ \ddot{\phi}+3H\dot{\phi}+\dfrac{dV}{d\phi}=0$$
That would be the case in typical inflationary scenario but in warm inflation KG equation would be modified to

##\ddot{\phi}+(3H + Γ)\dot{\phi}+\dfrac{dV}{d\phi}=0##

There is an extra dissipation term ##Γ##, which I would also need later, so that is also a problem.
Basically, I want to find the relationship of the tensor to scalar ratio ##r## with the ##Γ## dissipation term by the theoretical result ##r = 16ε## where ##ε## is the Hubble slow roll parameter, but from the equations I can see, ##H##, ##φ##, and ##\dot φ## are in the way since ##ε = -\frac{\dot H}{H^2}## so I think I can numerically calculate ##H## in terms of ##φ## in order to get different values of H to again numerically calculate ##r## in terms of ##H##.
 
Last edited:
I can only think of two equations that I can use to get the behavior of ##H## in terms of ##\phi## for various dissipation term ##\Gamma##,

$$\ddot{\phi}+3H\dot{\phi}+\dfrac{dV}{d\phi}=0 ,\quad H^2 = \frac{1}{6M_p^2}(\dot φ^2 + m^2φ^2)$$

Can anyone help me figure out how can I use mathematica to solve ##H## for different ##\Gamma##? I only have basic knowledge of mathematica.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
13K