Why Do Scalar Fields in Hybrid Inflation Model Diverge with Large Mixing Term?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of scalar fields in the hybrid inflation model, particularly focusing on the implications of introducing a large mixing term between two scalar fields, \phi_1 and \phi_2. Participants explore the dynamics of these fields under different potential scenarios and the resulting values they can take, especially when the mixing term is significant.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the initial conditions of the scalar fields and their independent potentials, noting that they exhibit harmonic oscillation until a mixing term is introduced.
  • Another participant questions the implications of the mixing term, suggesting that it should lead to \phi_1 equaling \phi_2, yet the fields diverge to infinite values when the mixing term is large.
  • A participant raises a concern about the limits of the mixing term, proposing that it should not exceed \lambda^2 = m_1^2 + m_2^2 for sensible results.
  • Another participant discusses the potential for processes that could exceed this limit, such as fast scattering between the two fields, which might bring them to equilibrium.
  • One participant introduces the concept of a mixing matrix that relates fundamental particles to observable particles, suggesting that the nature of the mixing term affects the physical interpretation of the system.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the mixing term and its limits, with no consensus reached on the behavior of the scalar fields under large mixing conditions. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the physical significance of the mixing term and its effects on the scalar fields.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the dependence of results on the chosen basis for the scalar fields and the potential for different interpretations based on the presence or absence of mixing terms. There are unresolved questions about the conditions under which the mixing term leads to infinite values.

Accidently
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
I have a puzzle when I study the hybrid inflation model.

Suppose we have two scalar fields, [itex]\phi_1 and \phi_2[/itex]
first, let's consider the situation where they are in their independent potentials
[itex]V(\phi_i)=m_i^2\phi_i^2, i = 1,2[/itex]
with initial value
[itex]\phi_i^{ini}[/itex]
We can solve the scalar dynamic equations for them. And they are both in harmonic oscillation. This is Okay.

But when a 'mixing term' [itex]\lambda^2 \phi_1\phi_2[/itex] is introduced, [itex]\phi_1[/itex] and [itex]\phi_2[/itex] get infinite values, if \lambda is large. This can be showed numerically. What I thought is the large mixing term would lead to [itex]\phi_1 = \phi_2[/itex]. So why it goes to infinite?

And we can rotate [itex]\phi_1[/itex] and [itex]\phi_2[/itex] to a basis where there is no mixing term. In this basis, we would not get infinite values for [itex]\phi_1[/itex] or [itex]\phi_2[/itex]. So it seems I get a different result working in different basis. What is the problem
 
Space news on Phys.org
You are confusing scalar quantities with vector quantities.
 
Accidently said:
I have a puzzle when I study the hybrid inflation model.

Suppose we have two scalar fields, [itex]\phi_1 and \phi_2[/itex]
first, let's consider the situation where they are in their independent potentials
[itex]V(\phi_i)=m_i^2\phi_i^2, i = 1,2[/itex]
with initial value
[itex]\phi_i^{ini}[/itex]
We can solve the scalar dynamic equations for them. And they are both in harmonic oscillation. This is Okay.

But when a 'mixing term' [itex]\lambda^2 \phi_1\phi_2[/itex] is introduced, [itex]\phi_1[/itex] and [itex]\phi_2[/itex] get infinite values, if \lambda is large. This can be showed numerically. What I thought is the large mixing term would lead to [itex]\phi_1 = \phi_2[/itex]. So why it goes to infinite?

And we can rotate [itex]\phi_1[/itex] and [itex]\phi_2[/itex] to a basis where there is no mixing term. In this basis, we would not get infinite values for [itex]\phi_1[/itex] or [itex]\phi_2[/itex]. So it seems I get a different result working in different basis. What is the problem
How large are we talking? I don't think you can go above [itex]\lambda^2 = m_1^2 + m_2^2[/itex] and have sensible results.
 
Chronos said:
You are confusing scalar quantities with vector quantities.

do you mean scalars can not mix? I thought about that. But my understanding is two fields can mix if they have exactly the same quantum number.
 
Chalnoth said:
How large are we talking? I don't think you can go above [itex]\lambda^2 = m_1^2 + m_2^2[/itex] and have sensible results.

The limit sounds reasonable. But why do we have this limit? Unfortunately, I am consider some process which can go beyond this limit (for example, a fast scattering between the two scalars, bringing the two fields to equilibrium.)
 
Accidently said:
The limit sounds reasonable. But why do we have this limit? Unfortunately, I am consider some process which can go beyond this limit (for example, a fast scattering between the two scalars, bringing the two fields to equilibrium.)
Well, one way to think about this is that the fundamental particles are different from the particles we observe, and that the fundamental particles are mixed, through virtue of some matrix, into the particles we observe. This mixing matrix gives rise to the cross-term interaction.

If your cross term is zero, then the mixing matrix is diagonal, and the particles we observe are the fundamental particles. If, however, the mixing term is at the limit [itex]\lambda^2 = m_1^2 + m_2^2[/itex], then the mixing matrix is saying that there are is in actuality only one fundamental particle that is mixed into these two, and the behavior of the system is fully-specified by the behavior of one of the particles. If you try to get larger off-diagonal terms, the mixing matrix ceases to make any sort of physical sense.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
3K