text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The recent data from the WMAP satellite  confirm with greater accuracy the standard cosmological model, according to which the current energy density of the Universe is comprised by about 73 % of dark energy and 27 % of matter, most of which is in the form of non-baryonic dark matter. The WMAP data further tell us that very little of this dark matter can be hot neutrino dark matter, and the reported re-ionization of the Universe when the redshift $`z20`$ is evidence against warm dark matter. WMAP quotes a total matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2=0.135_{0.009}^{+0.008}`$ and a baryon density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.0224\pm 0.0009`$ , from which we infer the following 2-$`\sigma `$ range for the density of cold dark matter: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}h^2=0.1126_{0.0181}^{+0.0161}`$. This range is consistent with that inferred from earlier observations , but is significantly more precise.

It has been appreciated for some time that the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is a suitable candidate for this non-baryonic cold dark matter . The LSP is stable in supersymmetric models where $`R`$ parity is conserved, and its relic density falls naturally within the favoured range if it weighs less than $`1`$ TeV. This statement may be made more precise in the minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM), in which the LSP is expected to be the lightest neutralino $`\chi `$, particularly if the soft supersymmetry-breaking mass terms $`m_{1/2},m_0`$ are constrained to be universal at an input GUT scale: the constrained MSSM (CMSSM). Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2m_\chi n_\chi `$, where $`n_\chi `$ is the relic LSP number density, and $`n_\chi `$ typically increases as the universal soft supersymmetry-breaking mass parameters are increased, one would expect the upper limit on $`m_\chi `$ to decrease when the upper limit on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}h^2`$ is decreased. Compared with taking this upper limit to be 0.3, as we and others  have done previously, taking $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}h^2<0.129`$ as suggested by the WMAP data - which is line with estimates from previous CMB determinations used in  \- may therefore be expected to improve significantly the corresponding upper limit on $`m_\chi `$.

Such is indeed the case for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <45`$ and $`\mu >0`$, or for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <30`$ and $`\mu <0`$, as we show below, where the largest values of $`m_\chi `$ are found in the $`\chi \stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ coannihilation region. We find for these cases that $`m_{1/2}<9001200`$ GeV for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}h^2<0.129`$, whereas $`m_{1/2}<14001750`$ GeV would have been allowed for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}h^2<0.3`$. Correspondingly, the upper limit on the LSP mass becomes $`m_\chi <400500`$ GeV, rather than $`m_\chi <600700`$ GeV as found previously . This stronger upper limit improves the prospects for measuring supersymmetry at the LHC. Also, it would put sleptons within reach of a 1-TeV linear $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider, whereas previously a centre-of-mass energy above 1.2 TeV might have appeared necessary . All the above remarks would also apply if other particles also contribute to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}`$.

For any fixed value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and sign of $`\mu `$, only a narrow region of CMSSM parameter space would be allowed if $`0.094<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.129`$, as would be implied by WMAP if there are no other significant contributors to the density of cold dark matter. The previous ‘bulk’ regions of parameter space at small values of $`m_0`$ and $`m_{1/2}`$ now become quite emaciated, and the previous coannihilation strips now become much narrower, as do the rapid-annihilation funnels that appear at larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ . However, unlike the coannihilation strips, the rapid-annihilation funnels still extend to very large values of $`m_0`$ and $`m_{1/2}`$, the absolute upper limit on $`m_\chi `$ is much weaker for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >50`$ if $`\mu >0`$, or for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >35`$ if $`\mu <0`$ 111Strictly speaking, there is also a filament of parameter space extending to large $`m_\chi `$ in the ‘focus-point’ region  at large $`m_0`$, to which we return later.. The narrowness of the preferred region implies that $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ could in principle be determined from measurements of $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_0`$, as we discuss later.

## 2 WMAP Constraint on the CMSSM Parameter Space

Fig. 1 displays the allowed regions of the CMSSM parameter space for (a) $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10,\mu >0`$, (b) $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10,\mu <0`$, (c) $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =35,\mu <0`$, and (d) $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50,\mu >0`$. We have taken $`m_t=175`$ GeV and $`A_0=0`$ in all of the results shown below. In each panel, we show the regions excluded by the LEP lower limits on $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}},m_{\chi ^\pm }`$ and $`m_h`$, as well as those ruled out by $`bs\gamma `$ decay  as discussed in . In panels (a) and (d) for $`\mu >0`$, we also display the regions favoured by the recent BNL measurement  of $`g_\mu 2`$ at the 2-$`\sigma `$ level, relative to the calculation of the Standard Model based on $`e^+e^{}`$ data at low energies .

Also shown in Fig. 1 are the ‘old’ regions where $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.3`$, and the ‘new’ regions where $`0.094<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.129`$. We see immediately that (i) the cosmological regions are generally much narrower, and (ii) the ‘bulk’ regions at small $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_0`$ have almost disappeared, in particular when the laboratory constraints are imposed. Looking more closely at the coannihilation regions, we see that (iii) they are significantly truncated as well as becoming much narrower, since the reduced upper bound on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ moves the tip where $`m_\chi =m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ to smaller $`m_{1/2}`$. It is this effect that provides the reduced upper bound on $`m_\chi `$ advertized earlier. In panels (c) and (d), we see rapid-annihilation funnels that (iv) are also narrower and extend to lower $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_0`$ than previously. They weaken significantly the upper bound on $`m_\chi `$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >35`$ for $`\mu <0`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >50`$ for $`\mu >0`$.

We take this opportunity to comment on some calculational details concerning the rapid-annihilation funnels. Comparison with other studies of these regions  has shown the importance of treating correctly the running mass of the bottom quark, as we have done in previous works . Also important is the correct treatment of annihilation rates across the convolution of two Boltzmann distributions when the cross section varies rapidly, as in the rapid-annihilation funnels, and we have taken the opportunity of this paper to improve our previous treatment. The results on the low-$`m_{1/2}`$ sides of the the rapid-annihilation funnels are indistinguishable from those shown previously, apart from the narrowing due to the smaller allowed range of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$. However, there are more significant differences on the high-$`m_{1/2}`$ sides of the the rapid-annihilation funnels, where our previous approximation was less adequate. This is most noticeable for the case $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50,\mu >0`$ shown in panel (d) of Fig. 1, where the two strips with relic density in the allowed range are all but merged. A second side of the rapid-annihilation funnel becomes distinctly visible when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 51`$, but the gap between the two sides is much narrower than we found previously. This is also true for $`\mu <0`$, and is exemplified in Fig. 1c for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =35`$ where both sides of the funnel region are clearly distinct222Note that the irregularities seen in the cosmological regions are a result of the resolution used to produce the figures..

Before discussing further our results, we comment on the potential impact of a re-evaluation of $`m_t`$. A recent re-analysis by the D0 collaboration favours a central value some 5 GeV higher than the central value $`m_t=175`$ GeV that we use . If confirmed, this would shift the displayed contours of $`m_h=114`$ GeV to lower $`m_{1/2}`$, e.g., from $`m_{1/2}300`$ GeV to $`m_{1/2}235`$ GeV in the case $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10,\mu >0`$. This would not affect the upper bound on $`m_\chi `$ that we quote later, but it would weaken the lower limit on $`m_\chi `$ in cases where this is provided by the LEP Higgs limit.

The focus-point region would, however, be affected spectacularly by any such increase in $`m_t`$, shifting to much larger $`m_0`$. In the analysis of , for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ and $`m_{1/2}=300`$ GeV, the focus-point is pushed up from $`m_02200`$ GeV to $`m_04200`$ GeV when $`m_t`$ is increased from 175 GeV to 180 GeV, and for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$, it is pushed up from $`m_01800`$ GeV to $`m_03000`$ GeV. In our treatment of the CMSSM, we in fact find no focus-point region when $`m_t=180`$ GeV. In view of this instability in the fixed-point region, we do not include it in our subsequent analysis: our limits should be understood as not applying to this region, though we do note that it would also be further narrowed by the more restricted range of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$.

We display in Fig. 2 the strips of the $`(m_{1/2},m_0)`$ plane allowed by the new cosmological constraint $`0.094<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.129`$ and the laboratory constraints listed above, for $`\mu >0`$ and values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ from 5 to 55, in steps $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{tan}\beta )=5`$. We notice immediately that the strips are considerably narrower than the spacing between them, though any intermediate point in the $`(m_{1/2},m_0)`$ plane would be compatible with some intermediate value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The right (left) ends of the strips correspond to the maximal (minimal) allowed values of $`m_{1/2}`$ and hence $`m_\chi `$333The droplets in the upper right of the figure are due to coannihilations when $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ is sitting on the Higgs pole. Here this occurs at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =45`$.. The lower bounds on $`m_{1/2}`$ are due to the Higgs mass constraint for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 23`$, but are determined by the $`bs\gamma `$ constraint for higher values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The upper bound on $`m_{1/2}`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >50`$ is clearly weaker, because of the rapid-annihilation regions.

Also shown in Fig. 2 in darker shading are the restricted parts of the strips that are compatible with the BNL measurement of $`g_\mu 2`$ at the 2-$`\sigma `$ level, if low-energy $`e^+e^{}`$ data are used to calculate the Standard Model contribution . If this constraint is imposed, the range of $`m_{1/2}`$ is much reduced for any fixed value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and in particular the upper bound on $`m_{1/2}`$ is significantly reduced, particularly for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >50`$. However, there is in general no change in the lower bound on $`m_{1/2}`$.

## 3 Improved Upper Limit on the LSP Mass

We now draw some conclusions from Fig. 2. Its implications for the allowed range of the LSP mass $`m_\chi `$ as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ are displayed in Fig. 3. As already mentioned, the upper limit is rather weak for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >50`$ when $`\mu >0`$. However, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <40`$, we find the absolute upper bound

$$m_\chi <\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}500}\mathrm{GeV},$$
(1)
to be compared with the range up to $`650`$ GeV that we found with the old cosmological relic density constraint. Also shown in Figs. 2 and 3 is the strengthened upper bound on $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_\chi `$ that would apply if one used the $`g_\mu 2`$ constraint. We find

$$m_\chi <\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}370}\mathrm{GeV},$$
(2)
for all values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Fig. 3(a) also shows the lower bound on $`m_\chi `$ as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, leading to

$$m_\chi >\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}108}\mathrm{GeV},$$
(3)
for all values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, with the minimum occurring around $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =23`$, when the $`bs\gamma `$ constraint begins to dominate over the Higgs mass constraint. As such, this lower limit depends on the calculation of $`m_h`$, for which we use the latest version of FeynHiggs . This calculation has an estimated theoretical uncertainty $`2`$ GeV, and is very sensitive to $`m_t`$. The lower bound (3) would become $`>86`$ GeV (with the minimum occurring at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 18`$) if we used $`m_t180`$ GeV in FeynHiggs, or $`>84`$ GeV (with the minimum occurring at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 17`$) if we allowed for a $`2`$ GeV reduction in the calculated value for the nominal value of $`m_t`$.

We do not show the plot corresponding to Fig. 2 for $`\mu <0`$, but we do show in Fig. 3(b) the corresponding lower and upper bounds on $`m_\chi `$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <40`$. We note again that the upper bound would rise rapidly for larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, due to the appearance of a rapid-annihilation funnel analogous to that appearing for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >50`$ when $`\mu >0`$. In the $`\mu <0`$ case, there is no possibility of compatibility with $`g_\mu 2`$ when the $`e^+e^{}`$ data are used. We find the following range for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 30`$:

$$160\mathrm{GeV}<m_\chi <430\mathrm{GeV}$$
(4)
for $`\mu <0`$, with the lower bound being provided by $`bs\gamma `$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >8`$.

We note that the upper and lower limits meet when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3.5(4.3)`$ for $`\mu >(<)0`$, implying that lower values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ are not allowed within our analysis of the CMSSM. This lower bound on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is strengthened to 7 if the $`g_\mu 2`$ constraint is included.

## 4 Implications for Supersymmetric Phenomenology

The reduced upper limit on the sparticle mass scale improves the prospects for measuring supersymmetry at the LHC. Also, the fact that only a narrow strip in the $`(m_{1/2},m_0)`$ plane is allowed for each value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ offers the possibility of determining $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ once $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_0`$ are known, e.g, from measurements at the LHC. We have discussed previously the sensitivity of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ to variations in the CMSSM parameters , and that analysis can be adapted to the present situation. Since the typical separation between strips with $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{tan}\beta )=5`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_025`$ GeV and the width of a typical strip is $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_05`$ GeV, it would in principle be possible to fix $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ with an accuracy $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{tan}\beta )1`$ using measurements of $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_0`$ alone for a fixed value of $`A_0`$ (taken to be 0 here). The required accuracy in $`m_{1/2}`$ is not very demanding, since the strips are nearly horizontal, but $`m_0`$ would need to be determined with an accuracy $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_0<5`$ GeV. It is interesting to compare with the accuracies in $`m_0`$, $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ reported in  for the case $`m_0=100`$ GeV, $`m_{1/2}=300`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2.1`$. This value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is not compatible with our analysis, but the expected accuracies $`\mathrm{\Delta }(m_0)10`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(m_{1/2})=20`$ GeV would already allow interesting crosschecks of the value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ extracted from a fit to the LHC data with that required by cosmology.

The strengthened upper bound (1) on $`m_\chi `$ may also have important consequences for linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider physics . At the tip of the coannihilation region, which corresponds to the upper bound in Fig. 3, we have $`m_\chi =m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}`$, with the $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ not much heavier. Therefore, a linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider with centre-of-mass energy 1 TeV would be able to produce these sleptons. This conclusion holds only if one restricts attention to the CMSSM, as studied here, ignores the focus-point region as also done here, and discards large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Moreover, we note that the left-handed sleptons are somewhat heavier at the tip of the CMSSM cosmological region: $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_L}>700`$ GeV, as shown by the pale blue dotted lines in Fig. 3, and the lightest chargino has $`m_{\chi ^\pm }>800`$ GeV (green dotted lines). However, the strengthened upper limit on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ that has been provided by WMAP does strengthen the physics case for a TeV-scale linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider, compared with .

## 5 Perspective

In general, the WMAP constraint on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ put supersymmetric phenomenology in a new perspective, essentially by reducing the dimensionality of the parameter space: one can now consider $`m_0`$ to be (almost) fixed in terms of the other parameters. The ‘Snowmass lines’  now intersect the allowed cosmological region in just one (fuzzy) point each. The post-LEP benchmark points  have values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ that lie above the WMAP range. However, most of them can easily be adapted, in the ‘bulk’ and coannihilation regions simply by reducing $`m_0`$. An exception is benchmark point H, which was chosen at the tip of a coannihilation tail: WMAP would require this to be brought down to lower $`m_{1/2}`$, which would make it easier to detect at the LHC or a future linear $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider. A more detailed update of the CMSSM benchmarks will be presented elsewhere.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank H. Baer and A. Belyaev for helpful discussions. The work of K.A.O., Y.S., and V.C.S. was supported in part by DOE grant DE–FG02–94ER–40823.


format: text

text:
# The Radial Velocity Precision of Fiber-fed Spectrographs

## 1 Introduction

Radial velocity measurements are of fundamental importance in astronomy. For stars, absolute radial velocities can be uncertain by as much as a km s-1 because of motions in the stellar photosphere. Differential velocities, on the other hand, can be much more precise yielding important information about pulsation for single stars and masses for those in double or multiple systems. The most spectacular return from high precision radial velocities in the last decade has been the detection of the minute reflex accelerations caused by unseen planetary companions for some 100 solar-type stars (see, for example, Marcy & Butler (2000)).

The basic design of spectrographs most commonly used to determine stellar Doppler shifts has changed little in over a century. The telescope images a star on the spectrograph slit which is collimated, dispersed and then reimaged onto a detector. The principal improvements have been in detectors, from eye to photographic plate to photomultiplier or solid state array. In modern spectrographs gratings largely replace prisms for dispersion. Precision in estimating wavelength displacements is compromised by motion and defocus of the star image at the slit. Both translate into a displacement of the stellar spectrum relative to the comparison spectrum. Flexure of the spectrograph decollimates Cassegrain instruments while, for bench-mounted spectrographs, flexure of the telescope causes its optical axis to wander in the spectrograph. Both effects lead to spectral shifts.

Petrie & Fletcher (1967) thoroughly studied these effects with the McKellar spectrograph at the coudé focus of the DAO 1.2-m telescope from photographic spectrograms. Working at a resolution of $``$55,000, they found that even for bright stars with well modulated spectra, there were external errors of nearly 300 m s-1, while for the sky they were closer to 100 m s-1, and internal errors were even lower at $``$70 m s-1. They pointed out that without some scrambling of starlight at the slit, such systematic errors would remain. The subsequent introduction of pupil or image slicers reduced this discrepancy by improving the uniformity of slit illumination. Campbell & Walker (1979), also used the McKellar spectrograph to demonstrate that, with a captive-gas to impose wavelength fiducials directly in the stellar spectrum, systematic errors could be dramatically reduced. Nowadays, with iodine vapor cells, errors have been reduced to a few m s-1, the level at which precision begins to be limited by the natural velocity noise of the star’s atmosphere (Marcy & Butler, 2000).

For many programs it is not always possible or appropriate to include either suitable telluric lines (generally water vapor) or captive-gas lines such as I2. This is certainly true for the blue/ultra-violet at high spectral resolution. In this paper we briefly demonstrate that, with minimal precautions, a precision of $``$20 m s-1 is possible for R$`>`$100,000 with a fiber-fed spectrograph over runs lasting at least several nights and probably for much longer.

We became aware of this high precision following an observing run at CFHT in 2001 to observe Ca II H & K in the spectra of 51 Peg-type stars. These stars had been discovered to have Jupiter-mass secondaries with orbital periods of a few days from precise radial velocity measurements, mostly using captive gas fiducials. Such high quality radial velocity standards were not available to Petrie & Fletcher (1967) but offered us an excellent test of the Gecko + CAFE (CAssegrain Fiber Environment) radial velocity precision. In a run one year later we deliberately took comparison arc spectra before and after every stellar spectrum and it is these spectra which we discuss here.

Our data were certainly adequate to calculate improved periods for each of the stars. The revised periods and phases will be published in another paper.

## 2 The Observations

### 2.1 The spectra

The observations were made on 26 to 30 July 2002 UT with the Gecko échellette spectrograph fiber fed by CAFE (Baudrand & Vitry, 2000) from the Cassegrain focus of the Canada France Hawaii 3.6-m telescope (CFHT). Spectra were centered at 3947 Å in the 14th order which was isolated by a UV grism with some 60 Å intercepted by the CCD. The dispersion was 0.0136Å pixel-1 and the 2.64 pixel FWHM of the thorium-argon (Th/Ar) lines corresponded to R=110,000. The spectra were part of a long term program to monitor variations in the Ca II H & K reversals of stars with short periods (3 to 4.5 days) planets. For this reason, they were of high signal-to-noise in the continuum. The detector was a back-illuminated EEV CCD (13.5 $`\mu `$m2 pixels) with spectral dispersion along the rows of the device. Single Th/Ar arcs were taken immediately before and after each stellar spectrum and, like the flat fields, were fed through the same fiber as the starlight. Probably more comparison spectra should have been taken but, as time was of the essence for this program, only single comparison spectra were taken.

Fiber modal noise was suppressed by continuously agitating the fiber close to its output (see Baudrand & Walker (2000)). A Fabry lens at the fiber output projects the pupil as input to the spectrograph while simultaneously illuminating the grating with the object field. Baudrand et al. (1998) have pointed out that inversion of object and pupil improves both spectral resolution and spectral stability. In this arrangement the image projected on the grating is the fiber core output aperture enlarged 1000 times, while the fiber far field image is transformed into a pseudo slit by a four slice Bowen-Wallraven slicer of silicon which projects to some 50 pixels length in the spectrum. For this program there was no on-chip binning of pixels.

Because the CCD has a number of pixels that suffer from non-linear dark signal, we took a large number of dark exposures with integration times matching those of the various stellar, Th/Ar, and flat-field exposures, and created an average dark for each exposure time. Then, rather than using conventional biases to remove the baseline from each observation in the data reduction, the appropriate mean darks were subtracted from the stellar, Th/Ar, and flat-field exposures. Flat-fields were then normalized to a mean value of unity along each row and the exposures for all stars observed on a night were combined into a mean object to define a single aperture for the extraction of all stellar and comparison exposures, including subtraction of residual background between spectral orders (prior to flat-fielding). This aperture was ultimately used to extract one dimensional spectra of the individual stellar and comparison exposures and a one dimensional extraction of the mean, normalized flat-field (without an interorder background subtraction). The extracted stellar and comparison exposures were then divided by the one dimensional flat-field to obtain flat-fielded spectra.

A specimen, flat-fielded spectrum of $`\tau `$ Ceti is shown in Figure 1 with the $``$ 20 Å of the spectrum used to measure the radial velocities indicated.

### 2.2 The radial velocities

Table 1 lists the five program stars and the standard, $`\tau `$ Ceti, plus spectral types and U magnitudes, the planetary orbital periods and velocity amplitudes, with details of the observations such as average S/N and exposure time.

Radial velocities were estimated with the fxcor routine in IRAF111IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. (AURA) under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.. The Th/Ar comparison lines were used to provide dispersion-corrected stellar spectra. A Fourier cross-correlation was carried out on the dispersion-corrected spectra taking the first spectrum in the series for each star as the template. Hence, all differential radial velocities ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$RV) are relative to the first spectrum on the first night. Both the template and the spectrum being measured were normalized with a low order polynomial and the correlation was taken over that part of the spectrum bounded by (and including) two strong aluminum lines ($``$3942-3963 Å).

In Figure 2 the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$RVs for the five 51 Peg stars are plotted as a function of relative phase, and for $`\tau `$ Ceti as a function of time. The sine curves have the published planetary orbital period and Kmax from Table 1 and were shifted in phase and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$RV to give the best fit. For $`\tau `$ Ceti there is a best fit is to a line of constant velocity. Below each velocity curve are shown the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$RV residuals from the curves. Note that, because the amplitude of the stellar reflex velocity is very different in each case, the individual $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$RV scales vary widely. Values of $`\sigma _{RV}`$ corresponding to the residuals are listed in Table 1. If four out of the 72 data points with $`\sigma _{RV}>`$100 m s-1 are omitted, all of the $`\sigma _{RV}`$ are $`<`$20 m s-1 and the two stars observed at the highest S/N have $`\sigma _{RV}`$ $``$10 m s-1.

### 2.3 The four extra-large residuals

The motions of the comparison spectra expressed as $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$RV on each of the five nights are shown in Figure 3. The results are surprising. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$RV scales on nights 3 and 5 are an order of magnitude greater than on the other three nights. Nights 1 and 4 show a trend and modest scatter, with RMS about the trend being 9 and 18 m s-1, respectively. Night 2 (only partially clear) shows no trend and an RMS scatter of 9 m s-1. Nights 3 and 5 have RMS scatters of 96 and 83 m s-1, respectively!

The most likely reason for spectral shifts on the detector are liquid nitrogen boil-off from the CCD Dewar, distortion of the coudé room floor (Earth tides, dome stress etc.), and spectrograph ‘seeing’ effects. If these changes are slow and linear as they appear to be on nights 1, 2 and 4, then interpolation of the comparison line positions should properly calibrate the shifts for the stellar spectra. Most of the shifts are remarkably small considering that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$RV=10 m s-1 corresponds to 1.3$`\times 10^4`$ Å at 3947 Å which is 10-2 of a pixel or 0.13 $`\mu `$m. Monitoring the exposure meter to estimate the centroid of the stellar exposures would have allowed more accurate barycentric velocity corrections but we did not have such a system to hand.

One might expect that the large, erratic residuals on nights 3 and 5 would be reflected in large reflex residuals for the stellar radial velocities on those nights but this is not always so. The delinquent velocity for 51 Peg on night 3 (see Figure 2) corresponds to the very large comparison residual ($`>`$300 m s-1). By contrast, the velocity for $`\upsilon `$ And observed immediately afterwards which uses the same comparison spectrum agrees within a few m s-1 with the second value for $`\upsilon `$ And on that same night.

On the face of it, there is no consistent reason to reject the four large residuals. They may represent ‘creaking’ in the system which introduces occasional uncalibratable jumps. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the program we were not able to take comparison spectra more often than every 20 or 40 minutes. In two cases, the comparison lines show a residual of more than 100 m s-1 which is reflected as an almost equally large residual in the stellar velocity. In these cases (51 Peg and HD 209458), using a mean Th/Ar which ignores the bad points restores the stellar velocities to the curve. In the other two cases ($`\tau `$ Boo and HD 209458) there is no problem with the Th/Ar comparison.

Some of the large residuals may be inherent to the reductions and not the spectrograph. We used the same version of IRAF on two different platforms, PC-IRAF V2.11.3 and SUN/IRAF V2.11.3. The former generated several very large residuals in the Th/Ar comparison positions which disappeared on reduction on a SUN. The data presented in this paper were all reduced on a SUN but it is still possible that some of the large residuals are artifacts of the reduction. In short, we cannot be sure that occasional large residuals are not a risk with such conventionally determined velocities without a more extensive study.

Differential variations between the strenghts of comparison arc lines can also limit precision. The temperature of the arc, its age, ‘on’ time, voltage stability etc., cause relative line strength variations and introduce line shifts especially when lines are unresolved blends. To judge from the low scatter in the comparison spectral shifts and values of $`\sigma _{RV}`$ $``$ 10 m s-1 for the two stars observed at high S/N, variations in the arc lines has not been important above this level and this $`\sigma _{RV}`$ may be the best achievable for single spectra with this spectrograph, but a more careful study is necessary.

## 3 Conclusions

The effectiveness of fiber agitation in overcoming modal noise has already been demonstrated (Baudrand & Walker, 2000). In this paper we believe we have demonstrated that the optics of the CAFE fiber system which invert the conventional object and pupil (Baudrand et al., 1998) illumination of slit and grating together with agitation effectively eliminates the large guiding and tracking errors which once plagued conventional radial velocity measurements. Our experience suggests that comparison arcs taken with sufficient frequency are adequate to track slow spectrograph drifts for a bench mounted fiber-fed instrument in a stable environment. The precision depends on the resolution which, at 110,000 for Gecko, is better than 10 m s-1. Being an échellette format, the spectral curvature is small, but an échelle format would provide a multiplex gain of one or two orders of magnitude over the single spectra captured by Gecko (in this paper we only used 20 Å!). From the point of view of radial velocities, an échelle would be much more sensitive.

Instrument builders might want to consider the advantages of CAFE in future spectrograph designs. From our observations alone we cannot say much about the stability of such conventional radial velocities over periods of years but it will be interesting to follow it up.

Conventional radial velocities even of the precision reported here are not a substitute for those made with captive-gas fiducials in serious Doppler planet searches but the precision is important for observations made in spectral regions remote from telluric lines or captive-gas fiducials such as we have described here.

Research funding from the Canadian Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (G.A.H.W. & E.S.) and the National Research Council of Canada (D.A.B.) is gratefully acknowledged. We are also indebted to the CFHT staff for their care in setting up the CAFE fiber system and the Gecko spectrograph.


text:
# Average size of random polygons with fixed knot topology

## 1 Introduction

Topology of polymers is an important issue in understanding the physical properties of polymer materials, such as the viscoelasticity of polymer solutions . It is also relevant to fundamental problems in biology ; the enzymes can cut and reconnect DNA strands, which are crucial functions in the mechanism of the complex processes of reproduction, transcription and recombination of DNA strands . The topology of DNA rings can be used as a probe to detect the action of the enzymes on the DNA strands by observing the change of their knot type. The recent experimental observation  reports that the average polymer size depends on the topology of polymers.

One important quantity in the study of ring polymers is their average size with fixed knot type. This quantity has been estimated in several numerical methods . The renormalization group (RG) argument leads to the power law scaling for the average size of linear polymers as thier length increases ,

$$R^2(N)=AN^{2\nu }\left(1+BN^\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{}\right),$$
(1)
where $`N`$ is the number of segments, and $`R^2(N)`$ is the mean square size of polymers. The same scaling law should hold for ring polymers without topological constraint with the same value of the exponent $`\nu `$. It is commonly accepted that the size of ring polymers with fixed knot topology $`K`$ is given by the same scaling relation as (1),

$$R_K^2(N)=A_KN^{2\nu _K}\left(1+B_KN^{\mathrm{\Delta }_K}+\mathrm{}\right).$$
(2)
This conjecture is supported by numerical simulations .

The scaling law of the form (1) has already been discussed in connection with random walks (RW) and self-avoiding walks (SAW). Closed paths of RW and SAW are respectively random polygons and self-avoiding polygons (SAP). The exponents in these two cases are well established: $`\nu _{RW}=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\nu _{SAW}0.588`$ . The central question regarding the scaling (2) is: What is the value of $`\nu _K`$ ? Is $`\nu _K`$ related to either $`\nu _{RW}`$ or $`\nu _{SAW}`$? Note that the exponent $`\nu _K`$, or the coefficient $`A_K`$ or $`B_K`$, should depend on the knot type $`K`$.

It has been found by numerical analysis that, in the case of SAP, the exponent $`\nu _K`$ does not depend on the knot type $`K`$, and is given by $`\nu _{SAW}`$ . The question is then whether the effect of topology appears in $`A_K`$ or at the level of correction to the scaling (2), i.e. in $`B_K`$ . Simulations by van Rensburg et al.  support the conjecture that knot topology does not affect the coefficient $`A_K`$.

For the Gaussian model of polymers, des Cloizeaux made the conjecture that the constraint of topology should lead effectively to the growth of their average size, so called the ”topological excluded volume effect”, even though it has no excluded volume interactions . It is predicted that the exponent $`\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ for polymers with trivial knot topology $`\mathrm{}`$ obeys $`\nu _{\mathrm{}}\nu _{SAW}`$. Deutsch has performed a simulation for phantom chains in the case of trivial knot $`\mathrm{}`$ and obtained the value of $`\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ consistent with this inequality . The conjecture is also supported by a phenomenological argument  for $`\mathrm{}`$ and other knots.

Recently, Shimamura and Deguchi have evaluated the exponent $`\nu _K`$ for the radius of gyration for knot types $`\mathrm{}`$, $`3_1`$ and $`4_1`$ in the case of the Gaussian random polygons . Taking into account the correction term in the scaling (2), they have found that the fit gives $`\nu _K\nu _{RW}`$.

In this paper, we re-examine the radius of gyration of the closed phantom chain model. For the topological effect on the size of random polygons, the two different answers have been presented. Furthermore, other possibilities are not excluded. The topological effect should also be investigated in different models. We employ the pivot algorithm which is a modification of the original one  so that the possible bias is reduced. The simulation procedure used in , which is a kind of pivot algorithm  for continuum models, tends to pick up extended conformation more frequently. It is conceivable that this bias leads to an artificial expansion of chains and to raise the exponent $`\nu _K`$ from $`\nu _{RW}`$. We have evaluated the radii of gyration for the range of chains $`N=100`$$`2200`$ for three knot types, trivial knot, trefoil knot and composite knot, denoted by $`\mathrm{}`$, $`3_1`$ and $`3_1\mathrm{}4_1`$. In the case of $`\mathrm{}`$, our improved algorithm has given a result consistent with that of . We have further results in other cases.

We have found two good fits to our simulation data. The best fit gives $`2\nu _K1.11`$$`1.16`$. It is consistent with $`\nu _{SAW}`$, which also agrees with the result of Deutsch: $`\nu _{\mathrm{}}1.17`$ . The second fit gives $`2\nu _K1.01`$$`1.07`$, which is in accordance with $`\nu _{RW}`$. The first fit gives good fitting curves for the whole range of $`N`$ investigated in simulation: $`N=100`$$`2200`$.

## 2 Model

We consider closed phantom chains in three dimensions, consisting of $`N`$ line segments of length $`a`$. We call them $`N`$-node polygons. We assume that the polygons have no excluded volume. It means that the nodes and segments of the polygon are purely geometrical points and line segments, respectively . This model may be regarded as a model for polymers at the $`\theta `$-point or a polymer in a melt.

A polygon $`𝒫_N`$ is defined by the set of position vectors of its nodes, $`𝒫_N=(R_1,R_2,\mathrm{},R_N)`$. All cyclic permutations of one position vectors correspond to the same polygon. The vectors satisfy the geometrical constraint $`|R_{i+1}R_i|=a`$ for $`1iN`$ ($`R_{N+1}=R_1`$). Each polygon is topologically equivalent to a knot $`K`$ in three dimensions. The configuration space $`𝒞`$ of the model is divided into subspaces $`𝒞_K`$ in which all polygons have a fixed knot type $`K`$, $`𝒞=_K𝒞_K`$.

The radius of gyration of polygons is given by

$$R^2(𝒫_N)=\frac{1}{2N^2}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(R_iR_j\right)^2.$$
(3)
This definition is different from that of the polygon size employed in  but their asymptotic behaviors in the limit of large $`N`$ are the same. We set the segment length $`a`$ to unity; macroscopic properties are independent of the microscopic parameter $`a`$.

We generate a large number $`M`$ of polygons with length $`N`$. They are used to evaluate the mean square size of polygons without topological constraint

$$R^2(N)=\frac{1}{M}\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}R^2(𝒫_{N,i}).$$
(4)
and the same quantities for fixed knot topology,

$$R_K^2(N)=\frac{1}{M_K}\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}R^2(𝒫_{N,i})\chi (𝒫_{N,i},K),$$
(5)
Here the indicator function $`\chi (𝒫,K)`$ takes the value $`1`$ if $`𝒫𝒞_K`$ and zero otherwise. The number of polygons $`M_K`$ with fixed topology $`K`$ is $`M_K=_i\chi (𝒫_{N,i},K)`$.

We are concerned with the scaling relation

$$\frac{R_K^2}{R^2}=\frac{A_K}{A}N^{2\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _K}\left[1+\mathrm{\Delta }B_KN^{1/2}+O(N^1)\right],$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _K=\nu _K\nu `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_K=B_KB`$. It follows from the scaling laws (1) and (2) with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_K=1/2`$ . We perform the fit simulation data using (2)

## 3 Simulation Procedure

Our sampling of the polygons follows the dynamic Monte Carlo method using the pivot algorithm , applied to the continuum model by Deutsch . In the continuum model, a pivot move for a polygon is a rotation of a chain of segments randomly chosen from the polygon around the axis passing the two endmost nodes of the chain by a random amount of angle $`\theta `$.

In practice the method used in  imposes two restrictions on pivot moves, 1) the banning of self-intersections during the move and 2) the range of angle $`\theta `$. There is a possibility that they may cause a virtual expansion of polygons due to these restrictions. The transformation process of the pivot move prohibits those moves in which self-intersections of polygonal segments occur. The angle $`\theta `$ is selected from the range of $`90^{}\theta 90^{}`$, excluding rotations with $`\theta >90^{}`$. This tends to bring polygons to less folded conformations. and hence the polygon size is increased. Furthermore, the rotations are not completely randomly distributed over the range of $`\theta `$, since the rotations are limited to those which make no change of the knot topology.

In this paper, we modify the algorithm in two respects: We allow the selected chain of segments to rotate by an angle $`\theta `$ between $`0`$ and $`360`$ degrees. We do not check the self-intersections during the process of rotation of the chain. In addition, we neglect the possibility of self-intersections occurring in the configuration after a pivot move is completed, since such configurations are negligible in the space $`𝒞`$.

With this algorithm, the topology of a polygon may change by a pivot move. We estimate the knot type of polygons by calculating several topological invariants , the value of the Alexander polynomial $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(t)`$ at $`t=1`$ , and the Vassiliev invariants of the second and third order, $`v_2(K)`$ and $`v_3(K)`$, respectively . The chance of miss identification is negligible for the simple knots we are concerned with.

We choose a certain conformation of a polygon as an initial state of the Markov process. The mean deflection angle between adjacent segments is equal to $`90^{}`$ in the thermal equilibrium. We prepare seeds on the cubic lattice as an equilibrium conformations of a polygon, exploiting the method used for the SAP on the cubic lattice . Starting from a seed, we generate a sequence of polygons by applying the pivot moves repeatedly. After discarding the initial $`2000`$ transient conformations, we take samples of polygons at every $`200`$ pivot moves.

The simulation has been performed for polygons with the length $`N`$ between $`100`$ and $`2200`$ and for each of three knot types $`\mathrm{}`$, $`3_1`$ and $`3_1\mathrm{}4_1`$. We have collected $`10^5`$ polygons for each given length $`N`$ and for each given knot type and we have evaluated the radii of gyration (4) and (5). We put a lower bound $`N_{min}`$ in fitting the simulation results using the scaling formula (6). Thus we make the fit in the range $`N_{min}NN_{max}(=2200)`$, varying the value of $`N_{min}`$ from $`100`$ to $`600`$.

## 4 Results of The Simulation

We now discuss the results of our simulation for the three knot types. The best fit curve for each knot type, together with the data on the ratio $`R_K^2/R^2`$, are shown in Fig.1. We have found that the scaling relation (6) fits the simulation data very well for all three cases in the range of $`N`$ from $`N_{min}100`$ to $`N_{max}=2200`$. The estimated values of the parameters in (6) are shown in Table 1. The $`\chi ^2`$ values remain small, $`\chi ^21`$$`2`$ per datum, even if $`N_{min}`$ is lowered to $`100`$. In the case of $`3_1`$, however, the $`\chi ^2`$ values becomes small for $`N600`$.

The ratios $`R_K^2/R^2`$ increase as functions of $`N`$, and they become larger than one for large $`N`$. The same behavior has been observed in other models, such as the Gaussian random polygon model  and the cylindrical SAP model . The above observation tells that the average size of polygons grows due to the topological constraint. The exponent $`\nu _K`$ obtained in the fit are insensitive to the change of $`N_{min}`$, showing the validity of the scaling relation $`R_K^2N^{2\nu _K}`$. The resulting values $`2\nu _K1.11`$$`1.16`$ are consistent with $`\nu _{SAW}`$, supporting the assertion in the papers .

We have found another optimal fit to our simulation data, as shown in Fig.2. The curves represent the second fit in which only data for $`N600`$ are used in Fig.2. The estimated values of the parameters are given in Table 2. The $`\chi ^2`$ values for these fits grow rapidly as $`N_{min}`$ is lowered less than about $`400`$. It implies that the formula (6) does not give a good approximation in the range $`N400`$.

The second solution implies that the asymptotic behavior of the average size of polygons is scarcely affected by the topological constraint. It gives $`2\nu _K1.01`$$`1.07`$, which is not much different from $`2\nu =1`$. Another noticeable difference is in the value of $`A_K/A`$. $`A_K/A<1`$ for the solution 1, whereas $`A_K/A1`$ for the solution 2.

If we assume $`A_K/A=1`$, then the effect of topological constraint could only appear in the coefficients $`B_K`$. It is noted that the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_K`$ is negative for each knot type with large statistical errors. This observation supports the result derived by the perturbation argument in the limit of large characteristic length .

To summarize, we have confirmed that the simulation data on the average size $`R_K^2`$ of ring polymers can be fitted by the scaling relation (6). We have found two solutions. The best fit solution (solution 1) is good for $`100N2200`$ with quite small $`\chi ^2`$ ($`\chi ^21`$) while the second solution (solution 2) becomes good for $`N_{min}600`$. The two solutions lead to two different interpretations regarding the effect of fixed knot topology on the average size of ring polymers as their length $`N`$ increases.

## Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful to M. K. Shimamura for helpful discussions. A.Y. and H.M. are supported by Research Assistant Fellowship of Chuo University. T.I. are supported partially by Research grant of Japanese Ministry of Education and Science, Kiban C (2), and Chuo University grant for special research.


text:
# A Comment on the 𝝌_𝒚 Genus and Supersymmetric Quantum Mechanics

## Abstract:

In this note we show that a simple modification of supersymmetric quantum mechanics involving a mass term for half the fermions naturally leads to a derivation of the integral formula for the $`\chi _y`$ genus, a quantity that interpolates between the Euler characteristic and arithmetic genus. We note that this modification naturally arises in the moduli space dynamics of monopoles or instantons in theories with 16 supercharges partially broken to 8 supercharges by mass terms.

preprint: hep-th/0303018
SWAT-

Index theory, as developed by Atiyah and Singer , has many important applications in theoretical physics. For the physicist, many of the mathematical complications of index theory can be avoided by following Alvarez-Gaumé  (see also ) and formulating it in the context of a suitable supersymmetric quantum mechanical system. The crucial idea is to find a supersymmetric quantum mechanical system whose Witten index yields the topological index of the elliptic complex in question.

On the other hand, there are situations in which supersymmetric quantum mechanics arises naturally. The one we have in mind here, is in the semi-classical quantization of solitons in field theory. In the classical limit the dynamics can often be described in the terms of motion on the moduli space of the soliton (the space of classical solutions). Semi-classical effects are then described by quantum mechanics on the moduli space. In a supersymmetric theory, soliton solutions generally preserve half the supersymmetries of the parent theory and these are inherited by the quantum mechanical system.

An example of this set up is in five-dimensional gauge theories which have soliton solutions consisting of conventional instanton solutions embedded in the four spatial dimensions. Semi-classical effects are described by quantum mechanics on the moduli space of Yang-Mills instantons of a given charge $`𝔐`$ . If the parent theory has 16 supercharges ($`𝒩=4`$ in four dimensions) then the quantum mechanical system is the one associated to the de Rahm complex which usually admits 2 supercharges but since $`𝔐`$ is hyper-Kähler this is enhanced to 8. On the other hand if the parent theory has 8 supercharges ($`𝒩=2`$ in four dimensions) then the quantum mechanical system is the one associated to the Dolbeault—or equivalently, since $`𝔐`$ is hyper-Kähler, the Dirac—complex which usually admits 1 supercharge but, as above, this is enhanced to 4. A similar application concerns the semi-classical quantization of monopoles in the same theories in four dimensions. In this case the same kind of quantum mechanical systems arise but now associated to the monopole moduli space (see, for example, ).

It is well known that the gauge theories with 16 supercharges can be broken to one with 8 supercharges by adding suitable mass terms. In four dimensions the mass deformed theory is sometimes called the $`𝒩=2^{}`$ theory. These mass terms induce terms in the quantum mechanical system describing the soliton dynamics which have the effect of breaking one half of the supersymmetries. This suggests that the system with the supersymmetry-breaking terms will somehow interpolate between the de Rahm complex and Dolbeault complex and, in particular, its Witten Index will interpolate between the associated topological indices; that is the Euler characteristic and the arithmetic genus. In the applications to instanton-solitons in five-dimensional supersymmetric gauge theory the index is directly relevant because it determines the instanton contributions to the prepotential.

Although the problem was inspired by instanton solitons in five-dimensional gauge theory (or monopoles in the associated four-dimensional theory) we shall divorce our discussion from these particular examples because there are additional complications in these cases. In particular, the moduli spaces of instantons or monopoles are non-compact and this leads to subtleties in defining the Witten Index. We shall work with a target space $`𝔐`$ which is compact. In addition, in both the instanton and monopole examples, VEVs for scalar fields in the parent theory lead to more complicated quantum mechanical systems involving potentials induced by vector fields on the moduli space, as one can see in the instanton case in  and in the monopole case in . This leads to an equivariant generalization of index theory and once again we shall avoid these complications in this note.

Following Alvarez-Gaumé , we start with the quantum mechanical system associated to the de Rahm complex of a compact manifold $`𝔐`$. Let $`X^\mu `$, $`\mu =1,\mathrm{},n`$, be local coordinates for $`𝔐`$ which become one-dimensional fields $`X^\mu (t)`$ in the quantum mechanical system. Associated to these bosonic quantities, we have 2-component fermions $`\psi _\alpha ^\mu (t)`$, $`\alpha =1,2`$, which are Grassmann-valued fields. The basic Lagrangian that defines the system is

$$=\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }\dot{X}^\mu \dot{X}^\nu +\frac{i}{2}g_{\mu \nu }\psi _\alpha ^\mu \dot{\psi }_\alpha ^\nu +\frac{i}{2}g_{\mu \nu }\psi _\alpha ^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \rho }^\nu \dot{X}^\sigma \psi _\alpha ^\rho +\frac{1}{4}R_{\mu \nu \sigma \rho }\psi _1^\mu \psi _1^\nu \psi _2^\sigma \psi _2^\rho ,$$
(1)
where $`g_{\mu \nu }(X)`$ is the metric on $`𝔐`$ and $`R_{\mu \nu \sigma \rho }(X)`$ is the usual Riemann tensor associated to the Levi-Civita connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \rho }^\nu (X)`$.

The quantization of the theory follows by imposing the following canonical (anti-)commutation relations:

$$[X^\mu ,p^\nu ]=ig^{\mu \nu },\{\psi _a^\mu ,\psi _b^\nu \}=\delta _{ab}g^{\mu \nu }.$$
(2)
It is useful to define the super-covariant momentum

$$\pi _\mu =p_\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \lambda }\psi _1^\nu \psi _2^\lambda .$$
(3)
The system is invariant under 2 supersymmetries generated by the supersymmetry charges

$`Q_\alpha =\psi _\alpha ^\mu \pi _\mu .`$ (4a)
It is important to realize that operator ordering here is significant. The Hamiltonian is obtained by the anti-computation of two super-charges:

$$\{Q_\alpha ,Q_\beta \}=2\delta _{\alpha \beta },$$
(5)
yielding

$$=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{g}}\pi _\mu \sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }\pi _\nu .$$
(6)
The Hilbert space of the model is realized in terms of a fermionic Fock space, with creation operators and annihilation operators given by the combinations

$$b^\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\psi _1^\mu i\psi _2^\mu ),b^\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\psi _1^\mu +i\psi _2^\mu ).$$
(7)
The states

$$f_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}(X)b^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}b^{\mu _p}|0$$
(8)
are in one-to-one correspondence with the de Rahm complex of $`𝔐`$; for instance, the above state corresponds to the $`p`$-form

$$f_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}(X)dX^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}dX^{\mu _p}.$$
(9)
Under this correspondence the supercharges $`Q_\alpha `$ are realized in terms of the exterior derivative $`d`$ and its adjoint $`d^{}`$:

$$Q_1=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(dd^{}),Q_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(d+d^{}).$$
(10)
We now suppose that $`𝔐`$ is a Kähler manifold for which $`g`$ is the Kähler metric. So $`𝔐`$ has a Kähler form $`\omega `$ that is closed. The Kähler metric $`g`$ is Hermitian with respect to the complex structure $`𝑰`$ and furthermore $`g(𝑰X,Y)=\omega (X,Y)`$, for 2 arbitrary tangent vectors $`X`$ and $`Y`$. Under these circumstances, it is well known that the quantum mechanical system admits 2 additional supersymmetries generated by the supercharges

$$Q_\alpha ^{}=(𝑰\psi _\alpha )^\mu \pi _\mu .$$
(11)
Since $`𝔐`$ is a complex manifold we can choose (anti-)holomorphic coordinates $`(z^j,\overline{z}^j)`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},\frac{1}{2}n`$, compatible with the complex structure: $`(𝑰z)^j=iz^j`$ and $`(𝑰\overline{z})^j=i\overline{z}^j`$. In this coordinate system, the Hilbert space can be built on a fermionic Fock space for which $`\psi _1^j`$ and $`\overline{\psi }_2^j`$ are the creation operators while $`\overline{\psi }_1^j`$ and $`\psi _2^j`$ are the annihilation operators. States in the Hilbert space are naturally identified with elements of the Dolbeault complex via the correspondence

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \psi _1^{j_1}\mathrm{}\psi _1^{j_p}\overline{\psi }_2^{k_1}\mathrm{}\overline{\psi }_2^{k_q}|0dz^{j_1}\mathrm{}dz^{j_p}d\overline{z}^{k_1}\mathrm{}d\overline{z}^{k_q}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
Since $`𝔐`$ is Kähler, we can add a kind of mass for one of the species of fermions to the Lagrangian:

$$_m=\frac{1}{2}m\omega (\psi _2,\psi _2)+c=\frac{1}{2}m\psi _2^\mu \omega _{\mu \nu }\psi _2^\nu +c=\frac{1}{2}m\psi _{2\mu }(𝑰\psi _2)^\mu +c,$$
(13)
where $`m`$ is a parameter. In the application to instantons, such a term was derived in the effective quantum mechanics on the moduli space in . In the monopole application, such a term can be extracted indirectly from , by choosing the matter content of the $`𝒩=2`$ theory to transform in the adjoint representation. In both cases $`m`$ is the mass of the adjoint hypermultiplet in the parent theory.

The term (13) is only invariant under half the original supersymmetries; namely those generated by $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_1^{}`$, following from the fact that the Kähler form is covariantly constant on a Kähler manifold. In (13), $`c`$ is a constant that arises via a normal ordering prescription and its value is fixed as follows. In the canonical formalism, we require that the term (13) leads to a modification of the Hamiltonian operator of the normal-ordered form

$$^{}=+_m,_m=\frac{1}{2}m:\psi _{2\mu }(𝑰\psi _2)^\mu :,$$
(14)
in order that it annihilates the vacuum state $`|0`$. Notice in the language of the Dolbeault complex, $`_m`$, up to the factor of $`m`$, simply counts the anti-holomorphic degree. Ensuring that (13) leads to (14), fixes

$$c=mn/2.$$
(15)
With the mass term added, the supersymmetry algebra gains a central charge:

$$Q_1^2=^{}𝒵,Q_1^2=^{}𝒵,\{Q_1,Q_1^{}\}=0,$$
(16)
where it is immediately apparent—since $`Q_1`$ is unchanged—that

$$𝒵=_m.$$
(17)
The question is what does the modification do to the Witten Index of the model? Since we have remarked that $`_m`$ has a very simple action on the Dolbeault complex—it simply counts the anti-holomorphic degree of a form multiplied by $`m`$—the Witten Index of the deformed system will be given by

$$\mathrm{ind}_W=\underset{i,j}{}(1)^{i+j}b_{i,j}e^{\beta mj},$$
(18)
where $`b_{i,j}`$ are the Betti numbers of the Dolbeault complex with $`i`$ and $`j`$ being the holomorphic and anti-holomorphic degrees, respectively.

So the addition of the term (13) or (14), which breaks half the supersymmetry, is to deform the index. When $`m=0`$ we recover the Euler characteristic. In the limit, $`m\mathrm{}`$, the index reduces to the arithmetic or Todd genus $`_i(1)^ib_{i,0}`$. In fact the interpolating quantity (18) is the $`\chi _y`$-genus of Hirzebruch

$$\chi _y=\underset{i,j}{}(1)^iy^jb_{i,j},y=e^{\beta m}.$$
(19)
Now we see how it can naturally be obtained from a deformed quantum mechanical supersymmetric $`\sigma `$-model. Note that the $`\chi _y`$-genus has also been related to supersymmetric quantum mechanics in , via a twisted of the boundary conditions on the fermions. Our approach obtained by adding the deformation (13), motivated by the application to soliton dynamics, is different. In related work, a geometric interpretation of the $`\chi _y`$-genus has been given for hyper-Kähler geometries in . In particular, this is relevant for the application of our results to soliton quantization for which the relevant geometry is hyper-Kähler.

It remains to derive the known integral expression for the $`\chi _y`$-genus by computing the partition function of the deformed quantum mechanical system. The steps are a simple generalization of the standard derivation of index densities of supersymmetric quantum mechanics . As usual the Witten Index can be calculated by computing the Euclidean functional integral with fields being periodic in $`t`$. We define $`\beta `$ to be the period. The resulting functional integral expression is then independent of $`\beta `$—apart from via the combination $`\beta m`$—and may be readily evaluated in the limit $`\beta 0`$ (with fixed $`\beta m`$). In this limit, constant configurations of $`X^\mu (t)`$ and $`\psi _\alpha ^\mu (t)`$ dominate the functional integral and one can integrate out the fluctuations to Gaussian order. To this end we expand around constant configurations:

$$X^\mu x^\mu +\delta X^\mu (t),\psi _\alpha ^\mu \eta _\alpha ^\mu +\delta \psi _\alpha ^\mu (t).$$
(20)
We can now integrate out the fluctuations separately and this is greatly facilitated by choosing at each $`x^\mu `$ normal co-ordinates for which:

$$g_{\mu \nu }(x)=\delta _{\mu \nu }+𝒪(\delta X^2).$$
(21)
The Euclidean action then splits in two:

$$S=S_c+_0^\beta 𝑑t_f.$$
(22)
The constant part is

$$S_c=\frac{1}{4}\beta R_{\mu \nu \sigma \rho }\eta _1^\mu \eta _1^\nu \eta _2^\sigma \eta _2^\rho +\frac{1}{2}\beta m\eta _2^\mu \omega _{\mu \nu }\eta _2^\nu +\frac{1}{2}\beta nm,$$
(23)
where the final term arises from the normal-ordering constant in (13). This expression implies that the fermions zero-modes $`\eta _1^\mu `$ scale like $`\beta ^{1/2}`$, while $`\eta _2^\mu `$ do not scale with $`\beta `$ (remember that $`\beta m`$ is fixed). The fluctuation part is then

$$_f=\frac{1}{2}\delta X^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }^B\delta X^\nu +\frac{1}{2}\delta \psi ^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }^F\delta \psi ^\nu +\mathrm{},$$
(24)
where the ellipsis represent non-Gaussian terms which only contribute at a higher order in $`\beta `$ and hence can be ignored. Using the fact that in normal coordinates (21)

$$\psi _1^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \sigma \rho }(X)\dot{X}^\sigma \psi _1^\rho =\frac{1}{2}\delta X^\mu R_{\mu \nu \sigma \rho }(x)\eta _1^\sigma \eta _1^\rho \delta \dot{X}^\nu +\mathrm{}$$
(25)
to leading order and up to total derivatives, the bosonic operator is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }^B=\delta _{\mu \nu }_t^2\frac{1}{2}R_{\mu \nu \sigma \rho }\eta _1^\sigma \eta _1^\rho _t+\mathrm{},$$
(26)
to leading order in $`\beta `$. The fermionic operator is matrix-valued:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }^F=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta _{\mu \nu }_t& 0\\ 0& \delta _{\mu \nu }_t+\frac{1}{2}R_{\mu \nu \sigma \rho }\eta _1^\sigma \eta _1^\rho \beta m\omega _{\mu \nu }\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{},$$
(27)
to leading order in $`\beta `$.

We can now integrate out the fluctuations $`\delta X^\mu `$ and $`\delta \psi ^\mu `$, as well as the constant modes $`\eta _2^\mu `$ keeping careful track of the overall normalization of the functional integral. As usual we can write the resulting integral over $`X^\mu `$ and $`\eta _1^\mu `$ as an integral over differential forms by identifying $`\eta _1^\mu =dX^\mu `$. Finally we have

$$\mathrm{ind}_W=\left(\frac{i}{2\pi }\right)^{n/2}e^{n\beta m/2}_𝔐\mathrm{det}^{1/2}\left(\frac{R/2\mathrm{sinh}(R/2\beta m\omega /2)}{\mathrm{sinh}(R/2)}\right),$$
(28)
where $`R`$ is the matrix-valued curvature 2-form. This can be written as

$$\mathrm{ind}_W=_𝔐\underset{i=1}{\overset{n/2}{}}\frac{x_i(1+ye^{x_i})}{1e^{x_i}},$$
(29)
where $`x_i`$ are the skew eigenvalues of $`R/4\pi `$ and $`y=e^{\beta m}`$. This reproduces the integral form for the $`\chi _y`$ genus .


text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

The dawn of the 21st century has indeed yielded the promised golden age of modern cosmology. The wealth of observational data from both satellites and ground-based surveys provide an increasingly refined set of tools for probing and criticizing the increasingly coherent theoretical framework of the standard cosmological model: a hot big bang evolution of a universe filled with cold dark matter, with an early period of inflation that provides flatness and homogeneity in the observable Universe and which, at the same time, provides the source of primordial density fluctuations from which all observed structure evolved.

The recent results from the first year of data from NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) are a remarkable accomplishment, a tour de force of fantastic and careful analysis. The NASA press conference announcing the results of WMAP claimed that the data provides a confirmation, or at least a corroboration, of the inflationary paradigm. This last phrase, “the inflationary paradigm,” has given rise to considerable angst amongst cosmologists. The mantra that inflation is not a theory, rather it is a paradigm, has been used by enthusiasts and detractors alike. Proponents claim that inflation is a simple but powerful environment where one can study a large variety of models and answer a host of questions. Critics respond by questioning whether inflation is really science under those circumstances, and assert that inflation, as a paradigm rather than a theory, can be engineered to provide whatever result is necessary. Indeed, the claim that WMAP corroborates inflation merely confirmed the worst fears of inflation detractors: how can one confirm a paradigm that can never be disproven?

The cosmology community must surely demand that the pillars of its standard theoretical framework have firm foundations in scientific principles: providing explanations of known information, offering new predictions, and subjecting itself to falsification. Is inflation good science? Perhaps – what is clear is that the criticisms of inflation as a scientific paradigm are not entirely unjustified. We wish to lay out a set of sober thoughts regarding inflation, both pro and con. Little in this discussion will be new. Consider this a rhetorical pamphlet rather than a paper, one where we attempt to collect and organize ideas that many have expressed, to give voice to the frustrations that many physicists and cosmologists have concerning the status of inflation as sound science, and to provide another perspective with which to continue the productive debate on the subject.§§§ With apologies to our colleagues, given the nature of this document and the familiarity of the community with the subject matter, we have included no references.

### A An Allegory

Is the inflationary paradigm good science? By this we mean is it falsifiable? Are there any principles or predictions that are inviolable? These are the stringent questions that must be asked of any scientific paradigm. But, it is worth contemplating an analogy before denouncing inflation.

Particle physics lays claim to a remarkable theoretical foundation, its Standard Model. This model, approximately thirty years old, has been tested to an exquisite degree and, by the standards of cosmology, holds up incredibly well. But, just as one can ask whether the inflationary paradigm is good science, one can as easily ask the same of the Standard Model. More accurately, we should ask whether the gauge principle is good science. Here, we view the gauge principle as the governing concept that all fundamental interactions are mediated by vector bosons that are universally coupled to fermionic matter, representing a perfectly respected gauge symmetry. This gauge principle arising out of quantum electrodynamics is the foundation for the Standard Model.

But is the gauge principle falsifiable? What firm predictions does it make? Just as for inflation, there are many models that are consistent with the paradigm, many gauge groups that may be considered, many variations on the theme. In the real world, one must take the rather cumbersome $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge group to explain all the data. Indeed, if the data were to be different, one would modify the gauge group or add more particles to explain every anomalous feature.

One can take this analogy even further. Taken in its simplest form, the gauge principle has definite predictions. It must have massless gauge bosons for every gauge symmetry present. And while this prediction works extraordinarily well for electromagnetism, it doesn’t work for the nuclear forces. The weak gauge bosons are not massless. One cannot even directly observe the gluons. Not all gauge symmetries are explicitly, or even approximately, respected.

Direct predictions of the simplest manifestation of the gauge principle are categorically refuted by observation. A whole new system needs to be manufactured. Outrageous modifications are made to the gauge paradigm such as the addition of a fundamental scalar Higgs boson with non-universal couplings and spontaneous symmetry breaking; and a non-perturbative realization of the gauge principle must be introduced for the color force in order to bring the gauge principle into line with observations. Should one then argue that the gauge principle is garbage? That it isn’t science because one can modify it ad infinitum in order to fit, however awkwardly, with the data? And yet the gauge paradigm is considered wildly successful. Why? Is this situation different from inflation?

### B Lessons

Particle physicists would be reluctant to characterize to the gauge principle as lacking the heft of real science, or being totally devoid of inviolable predictions, and therefore not falsifiable. The answers to the provocative questions raised above are that, indeed, the gauge principle does have a set of inviolable principles: an exact (but possibly hidden) gauge symmetry, gauge bosons mediating the associated interactions, and universal couplings of those gauge bosons to matter. Each of these predictions is indeed confirmed by observation. All variants of the Standard Model, however baroque, must respect these principles.

In order to put inflation on the same footing as the gauge principle, we need to enumerate a similar set of inviolable principles. Put another way, we need to identify what makes inflation so appealing that it may suffer many alterations. What are its inviolable predictions? What are its core principles? The frustration with inflation stems from the apparent scarcity of inviolable principles, thanks to the ingenuity of creative inflationary theorists, and the apparent scarcity of independent experiments with which to test the self-consistency of inflation in the conceivable future.

## II The Inflationary Paradigm

What are the principles underlying an inflationary theory?

We start by defining the classical inflationary paradigm as: accelerated expansion of an initially marginal super-horizon (or, super-Planck, if at $`t=0`$) volume, proceeding for many doubling times (order 100), and ending everywhere (or at least over an exponentially larger super-horizon volume) with thermalization and baryogenesis (sufficient for successful nucleosynthesis). Implicit in this paradigm is some driving mechanism for the accelerated expansion and the appropriate initial conditions that would lead to it. In all realizations of which we are aware, the driving mechanism is some field, usually referred to as the “inflaton.” Suitable initial conditions for the inflaton are assumed, usually on the basis that all possible initial conditions are statistically realized. General relativity (GR) is taken to be the dynamics of spacetime.

This classical paradigm, which arises out of classical field theory, must be promoted to a quantum paradigm. So long as we are interested in spacetime curvature scales much less than the Planck scale, we continue to treat gravity as classical; however, the inflaton field must be treated quantum field theoretically. Also implicit has been a particular description of the vacuum state of the theory (the Bunch-Davies vacuum), extending possibly to trans-Planckian energy scales (and hence sub-Planckian length scales), although some researchers have begun to explore the robustness of this framework. Here there are two levels of complexity which we denote the semiclassical inflationary paradigm and the quantum inflationary paradigm.

In the semiclassical inflationary paradigm one is in the perturbative regime of the quantum theory and quantum fluctuations can self-consistently be regarded as occurring against a background of the classical evolution of the inflaton field and the metric, at least over a range of length scales extending up beyond our current Hubble volume. This paradigm is the one appropriate to new inflationary and natural inflation models. Moreover, it is this paradigm that is in play whenever predictions of inflation are compared to observational data.

In the quantum inflationary paradigm, for at least some portion of the inflationary epoch, one is in the regime where backreaction of quantum fluctuations on the spacetime need to be taken into account. To do this properly, one would need to extend GR to include quantum effects. This paradigm is the one appropriate to eternal, stochastic or chaotic inflation. The progenitors of inflation have argued that the quantum paradigm is the most satisfying realization of the inflationary paradigm, especially to alleviate the tuning of initial conditions necessary to start inflation. In this scenario the Universe is bubbling with regions that are inflating. Inflation never ends everywhere; nevertheless, there are pockets that stop inflating and subsequently thermalize. According to this quantum scenario, we live in one of the thermalized regions. Inflation is therefore anthropic. Conditional probabilities for predictions are found with the condition that the thermalized region be inhabitable. The Universe is not homogeneous on the largest scales, but regions large enough to accommodate our visible Universe can be smooth enough.

The apparent simplicity of these paradigms makes inflation so attractive. Unfortunately, it also means that there are only a few generic features to characterize inflationary models of the Universe observationally or experimentally. Nevertheless, even these few ingredients do seem to have certain consequences:

### A Homogeneous, Isotropic Entropy-Filled Universe.

That the accelerated expansion of the Universe ends everywhere is implicit in the semiclassical paradigm. That it does so in the quantum paradigm is no less true, but much more subtle, incorporating generically the simultaneous truths that at any given place it eventually ends, but that it never ends everywhere, and the volume of space in which it has ended is vastly smaller than the volume in which it has not. Indeed, in this picture it is often justified only anthropically why we do not inhabit a still-inflating region. Either way, we apparently must live in a region where the energy stored in the field driving inflation, the inflaton, was converted into other more prosaic forms of energy. The vast amount of inflationary expansion is followed in all generic models by a rapid injection of entropy and its thermalization (through either reheating or preheating). This is taken to be governed by a Lagrangian density which is independent of space-time location. It is difficult to put any measure on the predicted efficiency of this process, but the reheat temperature must be high enough to allow nucleosynthesis.

In the semiclassical paradigm, the vast inflationary expansion provides (almost) homogeneous initial conditions for entropy injection and thermalization over some large length scale. This scale may however be limited (as in $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ theory) where, despite weak coupling ($`\lambda 1`$) the semiclassical approximation ($`\delta \rho /\rho 1`$) fails on sufficiently large scales. Thus, homogeneity sufficient to accommodate the semiclassical assumption over a moderate range of scales is a consequence of weak coupling.

In the quantum paradigm homogeneity seems to be an assumption that can be made self-consistently rather than a prediction. In this scenario, quantum fluctuations can be large, though inflation might be quenched wherever this happens. Models exist in which the fluctuations remain tamed.

### B Super-Horizon Fluctuations

The inevitable quantum fluctuations in the inflaton field will be stretched beyond the cosmic horizon and imprint themselves in the resulting energy density after reheating. Only after inflation stops and conventional big-bang evolution occurs will scales that left the horizon during inflation reenter the cosmic horizon. These fluctuations thus appear super-horizon in scale. Unfortunately, there is no minimum predicted amplitude of scalar fluctuations; their spectrum is model-dependent.

The same type of fluctuations would be produced for any light (compared to inflationary Hubble scale), non-conformally-coupled field, e.g., gravity waves. As with inflaton fluctuations, these field fluctuations will be super-horizon. However, unlike the inflaton, these fields are not expected to carry the bulk of the Universe’s energy density, and sifting for these particular signature fields may be challenging. The amplitude for super-horizon tensor (gravity-wave) fluctuations is constrained from below by the requirement that the post-inflationary reheat temperature be larger than that necessary for nucleosynthesis. In principle this constraint offers a strictly falsifiable prediction of the inflationary paradigm, though in practice the minimum amplitude is inaccessible for the foreseeable future.

### C Other Model-Independent Predictions

Of course, there are other predictions, such as the existence of inflaton particles that should appear at the inflationary mass scale. These particles, however, may be extremely weakly coupled to conventional matter and may be difficult to observe, even if one had access to such energies. Nevertheless, the inflaton field cannot be completely decoupled from standard model physics. A significant amount of reheating to conventional particles requires some amount of coupling. This coupling may in principle be exploited, putting inflation strictly within the regime of particle physics, and providing another avenue for the falsification of inflation. Unfortunately, unless the inflation energy scale is very low compared to the Planck scale (e.g. near energies of $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$), this also remains an inaccessible possibility for the foreseeable future.

## III Model-Dependent Predictions

Unfortunately, other predictions depend on the particular inflation model employed. As indicated earlier, the ingenuity of theorists has shown that the idea that the Universe can be homogenized with an early stage of accelerated expansion may be incorporated (with varying degrees of ease) in an overwhelmingly diverse set of models. However, we may take the predictions made by the simplest models as a guide for what is more or less natural in an inflationary model.

We can imagine a scenario where hypothetical observers know very little about observational cosmology except that the Universe is very old and filled with matter. However, they have a great deal of understanding about the rest of physics, and in particular, have been led to believe that gravitation is intimately connected with the dynamics of spacetime and that GR should govern the evolution of the Universe. In so doing, they would have realized, as have we, that the age of the Universe, as determined from the ages of planetary and meteoroidal material, is much greater than the only natural time scale of GR – the Planck time, and that the curvature scale of the Universe is much greater than the only natural length scale in GR – the Planck length. They might also have wondered where all the entropy in the Universe came from, and why, in particular, the total energy of everything they could see was much greater than the only natural mass scale in GR – the Planck mass.

Faced with these problems – the age problem, the flatness problem and the entropy problem – they might well have developed the beautiful paradigm of inflation: the idea that there was in the early history of the Universe an epoch of accelerated expansion driven by the energy density and negative pressure of the instantaneous vacuum state, which serves to flatten the Universe, vastly increase the characteristic dynamical time scale of cosmology, and fills the Universe with a relatively homogeneous and abundant “soup” of particles. In the absence of any substantial data, physicists in this world would turn to the most basic models of inflation to ascertain possible new predictions about cosmology.

The simplest versions of inflation involve a single scalar field, minimally coupled to gravity, with a potential polynomial in the field, e.g., $`V=\lambda \varphi ^4`$ where $`\varphi (x^\mu )`$ is the inflaton field, and $`\lambda `$ is small. The inflaton begins trapped in some state far away from the true vacuum, $`\varphi (t=0,𝐱)=\varphi _0M_P`$, where $`M_P`$ is the Planck mass. If $`\varphi _0M_P\lambda ^{1/6}`$, we are in the semiclassical paradigm. The inflaton field rolls slowly down the potential as the Universe engages in accelerated expansion. Eventually, the field exits the slow-roll regime and coherently oscillates around the vacuum. This oscillation induces preheating and reheating to standard model particles, and the Universe subsequently evolves via a standard hot-big-bang model. If $`\varphi _0M_P\lambda ^{1/6}`$, we are in the quantum paradigm. The Universe begins in a stochastically inflating state but eventually transitions into a regime where $`\varphi (t)M_P\lambda ^{1/6}`$ in some region; semiclassical behavior subsequently dominates. Evolution in this region proceeds as in the semiclassical paradigm.

### A Flat Universe

In this simplest model, inflationary expansion flattens the Universe beyond the ability of any likely experiment to discern a non-zero value for $`|\mathrm{\Omega }1|`$. Thus, the hypothetical cosmologists would conclude that $`|\mathrm{\Omega }1|`$ should be so small as to not be easily measurable.

One can see how this prediction can be easily avoided by looking beyond the simplest models. The original terrestrial (“old”) inflationary models, in which inflation ended via a first-order phase transition generically predicted that if we live in a single bubble of the true vacuum then the space-like hypersurfaces of constant curvature should be hyperbolic ($`\mathrm{\Omega }<1`$). (When cosmological data suggested that indeed $`\mathrm{\Omega }0.3`$, this fact was used to argue that $`\mathrm{\Omega }0.11`$ was generic.) However, first-order inflation (unless dressed up with double inflation, topologically-non-trivial manifolds, or other complexifications) fails to solve the suite of inflation-motivating cosmological problems. Moreover, if even in the simplest models, inflation can accommodate observably non-flat universes by allowing inflation to turn off at exactly the correct number of e-foldings. Of course, this just-so possibility is often viewed as unpalatable and unnatural.

### B $`\delta \rho /\rho <1`$

In the semiclassical regime, for an inflationary field $`\varphi `$ with a self-interaction potential $`V(\varphi )`$, the amplitude of scalar fluctuations (as opposed to vector or tensor modes) is

$$\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }\frac{V^{3/2}}{V^{}M_{Pl}^2}.$$
(1)
Specifically, to find the amplitude of fluctuations on a particular scale, we evaluate the right-hand side of Eq. (1) at the value which $`\varphi `$ held when that particular scale crossed out of the apparent horizon. It might seem that this easily could be much less than unity. However, during slow-roll, there is a relationship between $`\varphi `$ and the number of e-foldings until the end of inflation, $`N`$,

$$N\frac{\varphi ^2}{M_{Pl}^2}.$$
(2)
For the model $`V(\varphi )=\lambda \varphi ^4`$, Eq. (1) may be recast as

$$\frac{\delta \rho }{\rho }|_k\lambda ^{1/2}N_k^{3/2},$$
(3)
where $`\delta \rho /\rho |_k`$ is the scalar fluctuation amplitude of a given comoving wavenumber, $`k`$, where $`N_k`$ is the number of e-foldings between when that scale left the inflationary horizon and the end of inflation. Those scales where $`\delta \rho /\rho |_k>𝒪(1)`$ actually probe the stochastic regime of the quantum inflationary paradigm, implying Eq. (3) is no longer valid.

We observe density fluctuations in the Universe over a given range of comoving scales $`k`$ whose $`N_k100`$. Equation (3) then implies that even though $`\lambda `$ may be small enough for weak-coupling to be self-consistent, density fluctuations need not be small. For $`\delta \rho /\rho |_k1`$, $`\lambda `$ must be further fine-tuned; the smaller the observed fluctuations, the more fine-tuned $`\lambda `$ must be. Alternatively, one may venture into so-called natural inflation models, which exploit almost-symmetries (such as pseudo-goldstone modes or flat directions in dynamically broken supersymmetry) to explain unexpectedly small density perturbations.

### C Adiabatic fluctuations

Because the energy in the field driving inflation is eventually converted into the thermal soup of radiation and matter filling the Universe, the inflaton would be converted into fluctuations in the cosmic energy density, and thence, through the dynamical response of the local geometry, into fluctuations in the metric, as well as the large-scale statistical distribution of matter in the Universe. Thus, the fluctuations would generically be adiabatic. In more complicated models of inflation, however, the fluctuations can have a non-adiabatic component.

### D Gaussian fluctuations

In the simplest inflationary models, the fluctuations arise from the excitation of independent inflaton modes. Therefore the statistics of each mode would be that of a Gaussian random field. In more complicated inflationary models, it is seen that there can be small departures from Gaussianity.

### E (Very Nearly) Equal Power on All Scales

Equation (1) shows that $`\delta \rho /\rho `$ is a function only of $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$. Since to realize a large number of e-folds of expansion $`V(\varphi )`$ must be very flat, therefore the amplitude of fluctuations generated on all scales should be nearly equal. The hypothetical cosmologists would therefore conclude that the spectrum of fluctuations should be scale-free or very nearly so. In particular, unless the scale corresponding to the onset of inflation, or some other transitory event, just happens to have been stretched to a physically observable scale – less than the current horizon size yet larger than the scale on which non-linear dynamics confuses the traces of the primordial fluctuations – there should be no observable features in the primordial power spectrum that they would deduce when they some day make measurements of structure beyond their planetary system.

However, the detailed structure of the power spectrum depends on the exact form of the inflaton potential, the potential can be tuned in such a way as to provide whatever power spectrum is necessary, within some broad constraints that slow-roll inflation require. It is no wonder why many cosmologists invariably point to this feature of inflation and regard it as dangerously epicyclic. That one can tune the spectrum with an arbitrarily pliable inflaton potential to fit most any given spectrum is disturbingly unsatisfying.

## IV Observations and Evaluation of the Paradigm

In our hypothetical scenario, eventually observational cosmology as we know it would be revealed. We here summarize current observations, and evaluate the inflationary paradigm in light of each piece of evidence.

1. A homogeneous, full Universe. Measurements of the CMB probe primarily our past light cone, and mostly the surface of last scattering. Although Occam’s razor suggests that it is highly unlikely that we just happen to live at the center (within parts per billion by volume) of a spherically symmetric inhomogeneous universe, direct observational probes of the interior of the light cone are harder to come by. However, observations of distant galaxies establish that element abundances are uniform across the Universe, suggesting that there were no large fluctuations in the energy density or baryon number at the time of primordial nucleosynthesis. Having had ample time to investigate the details of the onset and dynamics of inflation, we may well be reluctant to claim that the homogeneity and isotropy of the Universe are really great successes of inflation since the onset of inflation in any particular patch of space requires that that patch be relatively homogeneous on super-horizon scales to begin with (although once it is, inflation can vastly improve the homogeneity). Moreover, other theories (such as variable speed of light and various braneworld scenarios) may also explain the homogeneity and isotropy, so these features are not terribly good discriminators between theories. Consistent with the classical paradigm, the visible Universe has a very large entropy, $`S10^{87}`$.
2. Super-horizon fluctuations. The observation of acoustic peaks in the angular power spectrum of the CMB and in particular, as discussed by the WMAP team, the anti-correlation between the temperature anisotropy and the E-mode polarization at $`12^{}`$ angular scales establishes that super-horizon scalar fluctuations exist. This observation is a true cause of celebration for the inflationary paradigm. While other theories may also predict such fluctuations, they really are a generic feature of all inflationary models. Tensor fluctuations have not yet been observed. This sets a mildly interesting limit on the inflationary energy scale, but of course far above the minimum energy scale required by nucleosynthesis.

The rudiments of the inflationary paradigm seem to hold up to scrutiny. However, as we commented, these are extremely limited, and lack a great deal of discriminatory power. What of predictions of the simplest models? How surprised would our hypothetical cosmologists be?

1. A flat Universe. The discovery and clear definition of the first peak in the angular power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) established definitively that the Universe is flat or nearly so, $`\mathrm{\Omega }1`$, in particular that $`\mathrm{\Omega }0.3`$ as had previously been widely considered. Analysis of the WMAP observations show that $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1.02\pm 0.02`$. In the simplest models of inflation, which are the only ones we are considering here, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is predicted to be unity to very high precision. This fits in well with observation.
2. An extremely homogeneous Universe. The original discovery of the $`2.7\mathrm{K}`$ CMB radiation by Penzias and Wilson in 1965, was soon followed by efforts to measure any anisotropy in that background. However, it was not until 1991 that the first successful measurement of the anisotropy was made by the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite. The long delay was due to the very small amplitude of the anisotropy, only parts per $`10^5`$. Since then many experiments have measured this anisotropy and its properties. The fine-tuning needed to achieve the observed $`\delta \rho /\rho `$ would concern our hypothetical cosmologists. Because we developed inflation with the foreknowledge that $`\delta \rho /\rho 1`$, we have been more prepared to accept a priori this fine-tuning problem. As limits on $`\delta \rho /\rho `$ improved through the 1980’s, the fine-tuning grew ever more severe, but it did so adiabatically, forestalling any increasing sense of concern.
3. Adiabatic fluctuations. All known observations are consistent with all fluctuations being entirely adiabatic in nature. As reported by WMAP the fit to their data is not improved by adding any amount of isocurvature fluctuations. This is good support for acausal generation of perturbations, and fits in very well with the simplest models of inflation. So the consistency of adiabaticity is important, but the limits on non-adiabaticity remain weak. Also a number of inflationary models have been constructed that generate non-adiabatic fluctuations.
4. Gaussian fluctuations. No deviations from Gaussianity have been observed in the fluctuation spectrum. The absence of any detected non-Gaussianity of the fluctuations would likely be viewed as a relief, but hardly a coup, since very nearly Gaussian distributions are rather generic due to the central limit theorem; moreover, unless one knows what non-Gaussianity to look for, finding it is really like finding a needle in a very large haystack. It is again to be noted that there exist several inflationary models that predict non-Gaussian fluctuations.
5. Lack of equal power on all scales. On scales characterized by $`\mathrm{}`$s from ten to several hundred, the angular power spectrum, as determined by many CMB experiments, and particularly by WMAP is nearly scale free. However, COBE-DMR found and WMAP has confirmed that on angular scales greater than about $`60^{}`$, the two point angular correlation function of the CMB temperature fluctuations nearly vanishes. The WMAP team has argued that the best fit standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }CDM`$ model is ruled out at the 99.85% confidence level based on comparisons of the observed $`C(\theta )`$ with a Monte Carlo of $`10^5`$ realizations of the model. Mild adjustments of the model only improve that to a 99.7% exclusion. The absence of these correlations on large angular scales is a serious problem for inflation. This is not because there exist no inflationary models which accommodate it. Features in the inflaton potential, two stage inflation, just-so inflation in a compact manifold, braneworld models, etc. all may hold promise of accommodating this data. However, unless such modifications offer additional testable predictions, they are, indeed, dangerously epicyclic.

## V Concluding Remarks

Post-WMAP statements have been made claiming that the predictions of inflation have been confirmed, and that inflation is a successful paradigm. However, careful consideration of the meaning of the term “inflationary paradigm” suggests that such statements are, at best, imprecise. Generic predictions of the inflationary paradigms depend on certain assumptions that are rarely made explicit. Granting these assumptions, the essential predictions of homogeneity and isotropy, and the existence of super-horizon fluctuations are indeed confirmed; however, only the latter is a post-inflation discovery.

Further implementation of the inflationary paradigm requires adopting a particular model. The simplest one-field inflation models have met with limited success when confronted by new data. The Universe appears spatially flat, and fluctuations are adiabatic and Gaussian. However, the fluctuation amplitude is unnaturally small and are decidedly not scale-free on the largest angular scales. While the former requires only a fine-tuning of Lagrangian parameters, the absence of large-scale power seems to demand models that are carefully designed. But, unless these new models yield testable predictions, this tack merely perpetuates the habits that inflation’s critics abhor. Do we continue to accept inflation merely because there is no better alternative?

Science is not a democratic pursuit. It only takes one contradictory fact to consign a theory to the dustbin of history, or at least to take it off its pedestal and send it back to the workshop. On the other hand, when one poses a given paradigm, it always make sense to begin with the simplest incarnation of that paradigm. The degree to which a model must be engineered to reproduce the needed data should then be factored into a reassessment of the worth of the original idea. If a theory is repeatedly faced with contradictory facts which force a reengineering, at what point does it stop being good science? If this is to be the dawn of a new era of precision cosmology, it must involve not only precise determinations of an ever increasing number of new parameters, but also precision tests of the self-consistency of our theories which permit their dispassionate evaluation.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Serge Winitzki for clarifying remarks on the quantum inflationary scenario. This work is sponsored by DOE Grant DEFG0295ER40898 and CWRU Office of the Provost.