Inflation and GUTs: Energy Scales & Model Dependence

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inflation
Click For Summary
The energy scales of inflation and Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) are generally considered independent, allowing for inflation to occur without GUTs, though typical GUT models suggest a scale around 10^16 GeV. The characteristic energy scale for inflation, observed to be between 10^15 and 10^16 GeV, is based on empirical data, while GUT scales can vary depending on the specific model. Historically, inflation was proposed to address issues in GUT theories, particularly the overproduction of particles like magnetic monopoles. The discussion highlights a potential causal relationship, with GUT symmetry breaking possibly initiating inflation, as their respective time scales suggest a sequence of events. Overall, the interplay between inflation and GUTs remains a complex and evolving topic in cosmology.
Jim
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Can someone please clarify if the energy scales of Inflation & GUTs are identical,
or model-dependent ? One typically sees ~10^15 Gev to 2x10^16 Gev in the literature,
which is a small variance, but its not clear if there are `standard values'.

I am also curious if one can have inflation without GUTs ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The scales of inflation and GUTs are independent, so yes, one can have inflation without GUTs. And on the flip side, GUTs don't automatically incorporate inflation. The usually quoted characteristic energy scale of inflation 10^15-10^16 Gev is based on observation. Unlike inflation, GUTs are hypothetical, and the energy scales associated with them are model-dependent. It just so happens that "standard" field theory GUTs require a scale of 10^16 Gev. But there are certainly GUTs, e.g. in theories with at least one extra dimension, in which the characteristic scale is of a different order of magnitude.
 
Keep in mind, historically, inflation was partially invented to rescue GUT theories in cosmology. GUT theories are amongst the most widely held beliefs (that we can't prove) in the HEP community. They're almost taken for granted.

The problem is many typical models incorporate a preponderous of particles like magnetic monopoles and other various topological defects. Roughly, they should be everywhere, b/c the big bang would copiously produce them and that is flagrantly in violation of observation.

Enter an inflationary epoch somewhere around the GUT scale (typically a little bit higher energy), which dilutes the abundance to observational limits.
 
Jim said:
I am also curious if one can have inflation without GUTs ?

Just a thought, particles are created near horizons, e.g. black holes. But acceleration also creates horizons, i.e. Unruh effect. So if space is expanding exponentially (inflation), then every point in space becomes an horizon due to acceleration. So perhaps it is that inflation is what is responsible for the original particles to begin with, and therefore connected in some way to GUT's
 
Last edited:
Thanx all for your quik responses !

Haelfix: Agree about the historical correlation. Running with the mSSM value of 2E16 Gev
for the GUT group to split into SU(3) and SU(2)xU(1), this occurs considerably prior to reheating at ~ 2E15 Gev, when FRW evolution kicks in again. The time scales are approx.,
Trh ~ 100Tgut. Clearly, there is a temporal sequence of events here.

In terms of chicken v. egg, accd'g to Guth, inflation began ~ 10^-37 sec. mSSM GUT energy corresponds to a time scale of about 10^-39 sec, which strongly suggests a causal relation, with the GUT symmetry breaking causing the phase transition driving inflation.
Indeed, it seems more aesthetic to have the GUT symmetry breaking initiate inflation, since GUTs correspond to ~ 100-1000 Planck lengths, whereas inflation ranges up into the macroscopic domain ~ centimeters.
 
I thought I would start a thread, as as spinoff to perhaps highlight and contemplate of that the ideas in the paper mitchell porter pointed to means. I just started to sniff it.. and wrote in the other thread "How to fix Relativistic QM so it's consistent?" Indeed fixing relativity and how to understnad equivalences, seems to be the central issue of the below paper. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Huge paper, I havent ready it through fully but skimmed...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K