Massive primordial tensor perturbations?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter 302021895
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Tensor
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the generation of tensor perturbations during inflation, specifically analyzing the equations of motion derived from Einstein's equations. The user derives the Ricci tensor components and compares them with results from Dodelson's textbook, identifying a potential error in the interpretation of the mass term in the perturbation equation. The user questions the assumption that the perturbed metric does not introduce additional mass, leading to confusion regarding the energy-momentum tensor's diagonal form. The conversation highlights the importance of careful substitution and understanding the implications of perturbations in cosmological models.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of general relativity and Einstein's equations
  • Familiarity with tensor calculus and perturbation theory
  • Knowledge of cosmological inflation and its mathematical framework
  • Experience with Dodelson's "Modern Cosmology" textbook
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the derivation of the Ricci tensor in the context of cosmological perturbations
  • Study the implications of the energy-momentum tensor in inflationary models
  • Examine the role of the cosmological constant in tensor perturbation equations
  • Explore advanced topics in tensor analysis and their applications in cosmology
USEFUL FOR

Researchers and students in theoretical physics, particularly those focused on cosmology, general relativity, and tensor analysis. This discussion is beneficial for anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of tensor perturbations during inflation.

302021895
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
I am studying the generation of tensor perturbations during inflation, and I am trying to check every statement as carefully as possible. Starting from the metric

ds^2 = dt^2 - a^2(\delta_{ij}+h_{ij})dx^idx^j

I make use of Einstein's equations to find the equation of motion for the perturbation ##h_{ij}##. For the Ricci tensor I obtain

R_{00}=-3(\dot{H}+H^2)
R_{0i}=0
R_{ij} = \frac{a^2}{2}\left[2(3H^2+\dot{H})(\delta_{ij}+h_{ij})+3H\dot{h}_{ij}+\ddot{h}_{ij}-\frac{1}{a^2}\nabla^2h_{ij}\right]
and
R=-(12H^2+6\dot{H})

This coincides with the results shown in Dodelson's textbook, equations (5.47) and (5.57). Dodelson then claims that since the Ricci scalar contains no perturbation (true), the Einstein tensor can be calculated as

\delta G^i_j = \delta R^i_j

(where ##\delta## means the perturbed part), which supposedly leads to the standard result for the massless tensor perturbation. However, if I just blindly substitute,

G_{ij} = R_{ij}-\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}R = \frac{a^2}{2}\left[\ddot{h}_{ij}+3H\dot{h}_{ij} - \frac{1}{a^2}\nabla^2h_{ij} - 2(2\dot{H}+3H^2)(\delta_{ij}+h_{ij})\right]

The energy-momentum tensor for the inflaton is diagonal ##T_{ij}\propto\delta_{ij}##, which means that the previous equation leads to

\ddot{h}_{ij}+3H\dot{h}_{ij} - \frac{1}{a^2}\nabla^2h_{ij} - 2(2\dot{H}+3H^2)h_{ij} = 0

i.e., an equation for a 'massive' perturbation. Why is this incorrect? I agree with Dodelson in that ##\delta R=0##, but ##\delta g_{ij}\neq0##, and it seems to me that this would introduce the extra mass term. Moreover, by contracting with the metric, ##G^a_b=g^{ac}G_{cb}##, we do 'get rid' of the extra term, since ##g_{ab}\rightarrow\delta^a_b##, but it seems to me that this would turn the enegy-momentum tensor in the right-hand side of Einstein's equation to a non-diagonal form, which would then introduce an extra term proportional to ##h^i_j##.

I'm probably making a stupid mistake, but I am now very frustrated and I would appreciate any help. Thanks.
 
Space news on Phys.org
That is a good reason to include a cosmological constant.
 
Chronos said:
That is a good reason to include a cosmological constant.

I'm not sure I follow you...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K