format: text

text:
# The primordial density perturbation in the curvaton scenario

## I Introduction

It is now clear that the origin of structure in the Universe is a primordial density perturbation, existing already when cosmological scales start to enter the horizon. Observation is consistent with the hypothesis that the density perturbation is perfectly adiabatic, Gaussian and scale–independent, but significant departures from this state of affairs is still allowed by the data. In particular it is not excluded that the adiabatic density perturbation may be accompanied by a significant isocurvature density perturbation .

Inflation provides a natural origin for the perturbation, since it converts the vacuum fluctuation of each light free scalar field into a classical scale–independent perturbation. One or more of these field perturbations may cause the primordial density perturbation.

It is usually assumed that inflation involves a slowly-rolling field, dubbed the inflaton, whose value determines the end of inflation. The perturbation in the inflaton field cannot cause an isocurvature perturbation, but does inevitably cause at some level an adiabatic perturbation. The usual hypothesis  is that the inflaton is solely responsible for the observed adiabatic density perturbation. Under this ‘inflaton hypothesis’ significant non-Gaussianity is excluded in the usual one–field models . In multi–field models, where there is a family of possible inflaton trajectories curved in field space, significant non-Gaussianity is possible  but apparently only at the expense of extreme fine–tuning of the initial condition that specifies the inflaton trajectory. Any isocurvature density perturbation must be caused by the perturbation of some non–inflaton field. Under the inflaton hypothesis this means that the isocurvature density perturbation (if present) depends on different physical parameters from the adiabatic density perturbation. As a result, an isocurvature perturbation of observable magnitude would require fine-tuning of the physical parameters, or else some as-yet unforseen connection between them.

An alternative hypothesis  is that the adiabatic density perturbation originates from the perturbation in some ‘curvaton’ field different from the inflaton. In this scenario the adiabatic density perturbation is generated only after inflation, from an initial condition which corresponds to a purely isocurvature perturbation ***This conversion mechanism has been considered also in the pre big bang scenario . In this scenario though, the required scale-invariant curvaton field perturbations will be generated only if the curvaton has a non-trivial coupling and for particular initial conditions . The object of the present paper is to explore the nature of the primordial density perturbation under this hypothesis. In the curvaton scenario, significant non-Gaussianity may easily be present because the curvaton density is proportional to the square of the curvaton field. Also, the curvaton density perturbation can lead, after curvaton decay, to isocurvature perturbations in the densities of the various components of the cosmic fluid. These, which we term ‘residual’ isocurvature components, are either fully correlated or fully anti-correlated with the adiabatic density perturbation, with a calculable and generally significant relative magnitude.

The paper is organized as follows. We deal in Section II with the adiabatic perturbation and its possible non-Gaussianity. In Section III we formulate the description of isocurvature perturbations, in a way which will allow us to analyse CDM, baryon and neutrino perturbations in a unified manner. In Section IV we calculate the residual isocurvature perturbations of cold dark matter (CDM) and baryons. In Section V we give a general formalism for describing the primordial neutrino isocurvature perturbation, taking into account for the first time the crucial issue of lepton number. Then we use it to calculate the residual isocurvature neutrino perturbation. Our conclusions are summarised in Section VI.

## II The curvature perturbation

### A The curvature perturbation and the primordial density perturbations

From the viewpoint of observation the ‘primordial’ epoch is the one a few Hubble times before the smallest cosmological scale approaches the horizon. Taking that scale to enclose say $`10^6`$ solar masses, the primordial epoch corresponds to temperature of order $`10\text{keV}`$ which is after nucleosynthesis. Leaving aside the possibility of a particle decaying after nucleosynthesis, the content of the Universe at the primordial epoch is therefore rather well known. There are photons, practically massless neutrinos, baryons and (assuming it is already in existence) cold dark matter, with the radiation dominating the energy density. The corresponding primordial density perturbation has an adiabatic mode

$$\frac{1}{4}\frac{\delta \rho _\gamma }{\rho _\gamma }=\frac{1}{4}\frac{\delta \rho _\nu }{\rho _\nu }=\frac{1}{3}\frac{\delta \rho _B}{\rho _B}=\frac{1}{3}\frac{\delta \rho _{\mathrm{cdm}}}{\rho _{\mathrm{cdm}}},$$
(1)
which leaves the local ratio of number densities unperturbed. Non-adiabatic or isocurvature modes are defined by

$`𝒮_B`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho _B}{\rho _B}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho _\gamma }{\rho _\gamma }}`$ (2)
$`𝒮_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho _{\mathrm{cdm}}}{\rho _{\mathrm{cdm}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho _\gamma }{\rho _\gamma }}`$ (3)
$`𝒮_\nu `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho _\nu }{\rho _\nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho _\gamma }{\rho _\gamma }}.`$ (4)
In this section we focus on the adiabatic mode, which is known to be the dominant one responsible for structure formation, and return to the possible isocurvature modes in the next section.

The primordial adiabatic density perturbation is associated with a spatial curvature perturbation. Following  we define the curvature perturbation $`\zeta `$ on spatial slices of uniform density $`\rho `$ with the line element

$$\text{d}\mathrm{}^2=a^2(1+2\zeta )\delta _{ij}\text{d}x^i\text{d}x^j.$$
(5)
The quantity $`\zeta `$ is related to the density perturbation, $`\delta \rho `$, and curvature perturbation, $`\psi `$, on a generic slicing (using the sign convention of Ref.) by the gauge-invariant formulaIn general a gauge corresponds to a definite slicing and threading of spacetime, but in this paper only the former is relevant so that ‘gauge-invariant’ can be taken to mean ‘independent of the slicing’.

$`\zeta `$ $`=`$ $`\psi H\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`\psi H{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho }{\dot{\rho }}}.`$ (7)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is the displacement of the generic slicing from the uniform-density slicing. On super-horizon scales $`\zeta `$ is practically identical with the curvature $``$ defined on slices orthogonal to comoving worldlines. The quantity $`\zeta `$ is useful on such scales because it is time-independent  provided that the pressure perturbation is adiabatic, meaning that $`\delta P=c_s^2\delta \rho `$, where the adiabatic sound speed $`c_s^2=\dot{P}/\dot{\rho }`$. This is guaranteed if there exists a universal equation of state $`P(\rho )`$. If the pressure perturbation is not adiabatic, then $`\zeta `$ changes according to the equation

$$\dot{\zeta }=\frac{H}{\rho +P}\delta P_{\mathrm{nad}},$$
(8)
where $`\delta P_{\mathrm{nad}}=\delta Pc_s^2\delta \rho `$.

In the conventional inflaton model for the origin of structure purely adiabatic perturbations are generated due to quantum fluctuations in the single scalar field driving inflation. Thus the curvature perturbation, $`\zeta _{}`$, calculated shortly after Hubble-exit ($`k=aH`$) determines the curvature perturbation until that scale re-enters the Hubble scale during the subsequent radiation or matter-dominated era. By contrast, we are interested in a scenario where the curvature perturbation generated on large-scales during inflation in the very early universe is negligible.

In the rest of this section we describe the generation of the large-scale curvature perturbation, $`\zeta `$, in the curvaton scenario, amplifying the outline given in the original paper  (see also ). We deal with the simplest version of the curvaton scenario, where the curvature perturbation is caused exclusively by a single ‘curvaton’ field distinct from the inflaton field.

### B Generating the curvaton field perturbation

During inflation the Hubble parameter $`H`$ is assumed to be slowly varying, $`ϵ_H\dot{H}/H^21`$. The inflaton (if it exists) is supposed to produce a negligible curvature perturbation. Demanding that it is (say) less than $`1\%`$ of the observed value implies  $`V_{}^{\frac{1}{4}}<2\times 10^{15}\text{GeV}`$, which in turn implies  that the primordial gravitational waves will have no detectable effect on the CMB anisotropy. Conversely, the detection of an effect would rule out the curvaton hypothesis (an “anti-smoking gun”) .

The curvaton field $`\sigma `$ is supposed to be practically free during inflation, with small effective mass ($`|V_{\sigma \sigma }|H^2`$ where a subscript $`\sigma `$ denotes $`/\sigma `$). It follows that on super-horizon scales there is a Gaussian perturbation with an approximately scale-independent spectrum given by

$$𝒫_{\delta \sigma }^{\frac{1}{2}}(k)\frac{H_{}}{2\pi },$$
(9)
where the * denotes the epoch of horizon exit $`k=aH`$. (The normalization of the spectrum  is such that $`𝒫_{\delta \sigma }^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ specifies the typical magnitude of a spatial fluctuation in $`\delta \sigma `$ on a physical scale $`a/k`$.) The spectral index specifying the slight scale-dependence is given by

$$n1\text{d}\mathrm{ln}(𝒫_{\delta \sigma })/\text{d}\mathrm{ln}k=2\eta _{\sigma \sigma }2ϵ_H,$$
(10)
where $`\eta _{\sigma \sigma }V_{\sigma \sigma }/3H^2`$.

After the smallest cosmological scale leaves the horizon, the curvature perturbation remains negligible until after the curvaton starts to oscillate. As a result, the curvaton field evolves in unperturbed spacetime. To follow the evolution it is assumed that the curvaton field has no significant coupling to other fields or, to be more precise, that the effect of any coupling can be integrated out to give a possibly time-dependent effective potential $`V`$. With these assumptions, the curvaton field smoothed on the smallest cosmological scale evolves along each comoving worldline according to the unperturbed field equation

$$\ddot{\sigma }+3H\dot{\sigma }+V_\sigma =0.$$
(11)
Making the first-order approximation $`\delta (V_\sigma (𝐱,t))V_{\sigma \sigma }(t)\delta \sigma (𝐱,t)`$, its inhomogeneous perturbation satisfies

$$\ddot{\delta \sigma }+3H\dot{\delta \sigma }+V_{\sigma \sigma }\delta \sigma =0.$$
(12)
Assuming only that the evolution of $`\delta \sigma `$ is linear, the Gaussianity and (slight) scale-dependence of the original quantity are preserved. The fractional perturbation $`\delta \sigma (𝐱)/\sigma `$ does not evolve at all if the potential is either sufficiently flat (so that $`\sigma `$ and $`\delta \sigma `$ are both constant) or quadratic (so that $`\sigma `$ and $`\delta \sigma `$ satisfy the same equation).

The field remains over-damped until the Hubble parameter falls below the curvaton mass $`m_\sigma `$. The curvaton field will then start to oscillate about its vacuum value (taken to be $`\sigma =0`$) with an amplitude which decreases with time. Even if the potential of the curvaton field is not quadratic, after a few Hubble times we can make the approximation $`V\frac{1}{2}m_\sigma ^2\sigma ^2`$. The fractional field perturbation then has some constant value,

$$\left(\frac{\delta \sigma }{\sigma }\right)=q\left(\frac{\delta \sigma }{\sigma }\right)_{},$$
(13)
where the factor $`q`$ is time-independent because the oscillation is around a quadratic minimum of the potential. In particular, if the effective potential for the curvaton is quadratic (or sufficiently flat) throughout its evolution, $`q=1`$. Using Eq. (9), the spectrum of the fractional field perturbation at this stage is

$$𝒫_{\delta \sigma /\sigma }^{\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{q}{2\pi }\frac{H_{}}{\sigma _{}}.$$
(14)
The energy density in the oscillating field is

$$\rho _\sigma (𝐱,t)=m_\sigma ^2\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^2(𝐱,t),$$
(15)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(𝐱,t)`$ is the amplitude of the oscillation. The perturbation in $`\rho _\sigma `$ depends on the curvaton field perturbation through both a linear and a quadratic term. Assuming, for the moment, that the linear term dominates (which we shall see is demanded by the data) we have

$$\frac{\delta \rho _\sigma }{\rho _\sigma }2\frac{\delta \sigma }{\sigma }=2q\left(\frac{\delta \sigma }{\sigma }\right)_{}.$$
(16)
We shall return to consider the possible contribution from the quadratic term in section II D.

### C Generating the curvature perturbation

So far we have reached the epoch just after the Hubble parameter falls below the curvaton mass, and the curvaton oscillation starts. At this stage, it is supposed that the dominant energy density comes from radiation. The curvaton, though, is supposed to be fairly long-lived, while decaying comfortably before nucleosynthesis. So long as the decay-rate is negligible ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }H`$), we have $`\rho _\sigma a^3`$ and $`\rho _ra^4`$, leading to $`\rho _\sigma /\rho _ra`$. It is this increase in the relative curvaton energy density which generates the curvature perturbation.

To analyse the generation of the curvature perturbation (and also, later on, to discuss possible isocurvature perturbations produced by the curvaton decay), it is convenient to consider the curvature perturbations $`\zeta _i`$ corresponding to the separate components of the energy density. These are defined on slices of uniform $`\rho _i`$, corresponding to the gauge-invariant definition

$$\zeta _i\psi H\left(\frac{\delta \rho _i}{\dot{\rho _i}}\right).$$
(17)
In particular, evaluating $`\zeta _\sigma `$ for the curvaton on unperturbed ($`\psi =0`$) hypersurfaces when the curvaton starts to oscillate, we have

$$\zeta _\sigma =\frac{1}{3}\frac{\delta \rho _\sigma }{\rho _\sigma }=\frac{2}{3}q\left(\frac{\delta \sigma }{\sigma }\right)_{}.$$
(18)
The total curvature perturbation (7) can then be written as the weighted sum

$$\zeta =(1f)\zeta _r+f\zeta _\sigma $$
(19)
where the relative contribution of the curvaton to the total curvature is given by

$$f=\frac{3\rho _\sigma }{4\rho _r+3\rho _\sigma }.$$
(20)
Thus the curvaton perturbation, $`\zeta _\sigma `$, can initially be described as an isocurvature perturbation since $`f0`$, i.e., $`\rho _\sigma /\rho _r0`$, in the early-time limit.

Until the effect of curvaton decay becomes significant, the curvaton and radiation densities each satisfy their own energy conservation equation $`\dot{\rho }_i=3H(\rho _i+P_i)`$. In this regime, each $`\zeta _i`$ is constant on super-horizon scales . The evolution of $`\zeta `$ on these scales is due solely to the change of $`f`$ in Eq. (19), which yields

$$\dot{\zeta }=\dot{f}\left(\zeta _\sigma \zeta _r\right)=Hf(1f)\left(\zeta _\sigma \zeta _r\right)$$
(21)
It is intuitively easy to see how $`\zeta `$ changes with time as the curvaton density grows relative to the radiation, $`\dot{f}>0`$. It is straightforward to check that Eq. (21) is consistent with Eq. (8) where the non-adiabatic pressure perturbation is given by

$$\delta P_{\mathrm{nad}}=\frac{4\rho _r\rho _\sigma }{4\rho _\sigma +3\rho _r}\left(\zeta _\sigma \zeta _r\right).$$
(22)
An adiabatic perturbation $`\delta \rho _r/\dot{\rho }_r=\delta \rho _\sigma /\dot{\rho }_\sigma `$ corresponds to the special case

$$\zeta =\zeta _r=\zeta _\sigma =\mathrm{constant}.$$
(23)
The curvaton scenario corresponds to the case where the curvature perturbation in the radiation produced at the end of inflation is negligible, $`\zeta _r0`$. In the approximation of sudden decay , $`\zeta _r`$ and $`\zeta _\sigma `$ both remain constant up until decay and the curvature perturbation at decay is therefore

$`\zeta `$ $``$ $`f_{\mathrm{dec}}\zeta _\sigma `$ (24)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}f_{\mathrm{dec}}q\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \sigma }{\sigma }}\right)_{},`$ (25)
where $`f_{\mathrm{dec}}`$ is $`f`$ at the decay epoch, conventionally defined in terms of the decay rate by $`H_{\mathrm{dec}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We assume that after decay, the pre-existing radiation is either insignificant, or else thermalizes with the decay products with the possible exception of CDM. Since we are assuming that there is only one curvaton field, this is sufficient to ensure that $`\zeta `$ on cosmological scales will retain the same value until the primordial epoch.

Going beyond the sudden decay approximation, we define a number $`r`$ by

$`\zeta `$ $`=`$ $`r\zeta _\sigma `$ (26)
$`=`$ $`r{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho _\sigma }{\rho _\sigma }}`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`rq{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \sigma }{\sigma }}\right)_{},`$ (28)
where $`\zeta `$ is evaluated well after the epoch of curvaton decay and $`\zeta _\sigma `$ is evaluated well before this epoch. In the limit where the curvaton completely dominates the energy density before it decays, $`r=1`$. In other words, the sudden-decay approximation becomes exact in this limit. The reason is that in this case the curvaton and its decay products constitute a single fluid with a definite $`P(\rho )`$, so that they have constant curvature perturbation which is equal to $`\zeta _\sigma `$. If the curvaton does not dominate, one has to resort to numerical calculation of the coupled perturbation equations , for which one finds

$$r\left(\frac{\rho _\sigma }{\rho }\right)_{\mathrm{dec}}.$$
(29)
The prediction of the curvaton model for the spectrum of the curvature perturbation is

$$𝒫_\zeta ^{\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{2}{3}r𝒫_{\delta \sigma /\sigma }^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(30)
with $`𝒫_{\delta \sigma /\sigma }^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ given by Eq. (14). The COBE measurement of the CMB quadrupole anisotropy requires

$$𝒫_\zeta ^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{COBE})=4.8\times 10^5.$$
(31)
If the curvaton dominates the energy density before it decays ($`r=1`$) this implies the following amplitude for the perturbations of the curvaton field

$$𝒫_{\delta \sigma /\sigma }^{\frac{1}{2}}=7.2\times 10^5.$$
(32)
In other words, the typical field (and density) perturbation on cosmological scales must be of order $`10^4`$ in that case. If the curvaton does not dominate, we need at least $`r\text{ }>10^4`$ to get a spectrum of the correct magnitude (since the typical density perturbation can be at most of order 1). We shall now see how the observational bound on non-Gaussianity actually requires a much higher value.

### D Possible non-Gaussianity of the curvature perturbation

From Eqs. (15) and (27), the curvature perturbation depends on the curvaton field perturbation through both linear and a quadratic terms. So far we evaluated only the linear contribution, which gives a Gaussian contribution to the curvature perturbation. However, if the quadratic term in the density perturbation of the curvaton field is not negligible, the total curvature perturbation will have a non-gaussian ($`\chi ^2`$) component.

The relative magnitude of the quadratic term is conventionally specified  by a number $`f_{\mathrm{NL}}`$ (NL meaning ‘non-linear’), which nominally determines the non-Gaussian contribution to the Bardeen potential according to the formula

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{gauss}}+f_{\mathrm{NL}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{gauss}}^2$$
(33)
The connection with the Bardeen potential is only nominal, because the relation between $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\zeta `$ is taken  to be

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{3}{5}\zeta =\frac{r}{5}\frac{\delta \rho _\sigma }{\rho _\sigma }.$$
(34)
This relation is actually valid only on super-horizon scales after matter domination, the correct relation at the primordial epoch being more complicated and involving the relative neutrino density .

Using Eq. (15) we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho _\sigma }{\rho _\sigma }}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \sigma }{\sigma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\delta \sigma )^2}{\sigma ^2}}.`$ (35)
Thus, using Eqs. (33) and (34), the prediction of the curvaton hypothesis is

$$f_{\mathrm{NL}}=\frac{5}{4r}.$$
(36)
At this point we have to remember that first-order cosmological perturbation theory is being assumed. Second-order metric perturbations will also give a correction $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}(𝐱)`$, presumably with typical magnitude

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}(𝐱)|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{gauss}}^2.$$
(37)
It follows that the estimate Eq. (36) of $`f_{\mathrm{NL}}`$ will be valid only in the regime $`f_{\mathrm{NL}}1`$ (and that smaller values of $`f_{\mathrm{NL}}`$ cannot even be defined, unless $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}(𝐱)`$ is itself the square of a Gaussian quantity). In other words, the validity of the estimate Eq. (36) requires that the curvaton contributes only a small fraction of the energy density just before it decays. In the opposite case that the curvaton dominates the density before it decays, the non-Gaussianity calculated according to linear theory is lost in the “noise” of the unknown second-order correction to cosmological perturbation theory.

Now we compare the prediction with present and future data on the CMB anisotropy. A recent analysis of the COBE data  yields $`|f_{\mathrm{NL}}|\text{ }<2\times 10^3`$, implying the constraint $`r\text{ }>6\times 10^4`$. From Eqs. (30) and (31) we see that this bound is equivalent to $`𝒫_{\delta \sigma /\sigma }^{\frac{1}{2}}\text{ }<0.1`$. Starting in 2003, data from the MAP satellite  will either detect non-Gaussianity or give $`|f_{\mathrm{NL}}|\text{ }<20`$  corresponding to $`r\text{ }>0.06`$. If non-Gaussianity is detected by MAP it will clearly be above the noise of the second-order correction. Looking further ahead, the PLANCK satellite will either detect non-Gaussianity or give $`|f_{\mathrm{NL}}|\text{ }<5`$  corresponding to $`r\text{ }>0.2`$. Apparent non-Gaussianity at the bottom end of this range would however have to be checked against the second-order order correction to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to make sure that the correction is negligible.

We have seen that the curvaton hypothesis can easily give significant non-Gaussianity. The reason is that the predicted curvature perturbation is proportional to the perturbation of the curvaton density, a quantity which depends on the square of the curvaton field. The perturbation in the curvaton field is supposed to be Gaussian because it is supposed to have negligible interaction, making its Fourier components uncorrelated which is the definition of Gaussianity. But the corresponding perturbation in the curvaton density is a linear combination of the curvaton field perturbation and its square. From a theoretical viewpoint the square could even dominate , though as we have seen this is ruled out by the data.

This is in sharp contrast with the situation for the inflaton hypothesis, in which the curvature perturbation is purely linear in the inflaton field perturbation. The inflaton can usually be treated as a practically free field, making its perturbations and the curvature practically Gaussian. In particular, for the usual single-field models, where there is an essentially unique inflaton trajectory, the self-interaction of the inflaton field is the only relevant one and is kept small by the flatness conditions $`ϵ,\eta 1`$. As a result single-field models give  $`|f_{\mathrm{NL}}|=|2ϵ2\eta |\text{ }<0.1`$ which is lost in the noise from the second-order correction to cosmological perturbation theory.The bound $`0.1`$ comes from the observational bound on the spectral index in the inflaton scenario, $`n=2\eta 6ϵ`$. In two-field models, where there is a family of possible inflaton trajectories curved in field space, the inflaton field perturbation at the end of inflation will be a linear combination

$$\delta \varphi _{\mathrm{end}}\mathrm{cos}\theta \delta \varphi _{}+\mathrm{sin}\theta \delta \chi _{},$$
(38)
where $`\varphi _{}`$ is the inflaton field at the time of horizon exit and $`\chi _{}`$ is the field orthogonal to it. By definition the slope of the potential vanishes in the $`\chi `$ direction but the higher derivatives might in principle be present corresponding to a self-interaction big enough to generate significant non-Gaussianity. In particular there might be a cubic term $`M\chi ^3`$ in the potential  (with the unperturbed $`\chi _{}=0`$) or something more complicated . This setup might generate significant non-Gaussianity, but it obviously requires a special choice of the inflaton trajectory. Even when such a choice is made initially, it might be destabilized by the quantum fluctuation before cosmological scales start to leave the horizon.

We conclude that a detection of non-Gaussianity by MAP would strongly suggest that the primordial curvature perturbation is produced by a curvaton field. Such a detection would imply that the density of the curvaton before it decays reaches no more than $`6\%`$ of the total. In the opposite case that the curvaton dominates before it decays, it gives a practically Gaussian curvature perturbation, just as in the inflaton scenario.

## III Isocurvature perturbations

Thus far we have concentrated upon how the curvaton introduces a large-scale curvature perturbation. Now we consider the isocurvature perturbations that may be imprinted in different particle species after the curvaton decay.

We adopt the ‘separate universe’ viewpoint, implicit in practically all discussions of perturbations on super-horizon scales. At each epoch, it is assumed that each comoving region with size much bigger than the Hubble distance looks locally like some unperturbed (Robertson-Walker) universe. If these ‘separate universes’ are all identical, the cosmological perturbations are said to be adiabatic. Perturbations in matter fields then vanish on slices of uniform energy density, and the curvature perturbation $`\zeta `$ is the only thing that needs to be specified to determine the evolution of the perturbations after horizon entry.

If the ‘separate universes’ are not identical there are isocurvature perturbations, so-called because they evolve independently of the curvature perturbation on large scales which can therefore be taken to vanish when considering them. One way of specifying a generic isocurvature perturbation, $`\delta x`$, is to give its value on uniform-density slices, related to its value on a different slicing by the gauge-invariant equation

$$H\left(\frac{\delta x}{\dot{x}}\right)_{\delta \rho =0}=H\left(\frac{\delta x}{\dot{x}}\frac{\delta \rho }{\dot{\rho }}\right).$$
(39)
For a set of fluids with energy density $`\rho _i`$, the isocurvature perturbations are instead conventionally defined by the gauge-invariant quantities

$$𝒮_{ij}=3H\left(\frac{\delta \rho _i}{\dot{\rho }_i}\frac{\delta \rho _j}{\dot{\rho }_j}\right).$$
(40)
In terms of the individual curvature perturbations defined in Eq. (17) this becomes

$$𝒮_{ij}=3\left(\zeta _i\zeta _j\right)$$
(41)
For fluids which are ‘decoupled’ (in the sense that there is no energy transfer) and which have a definite equation of state $`P_i(\rho _i)`$, the $`\zeta _i`$’s are constant on superhorizon scales  and hence so are the isocurvature perturbations (41). In this language, the curvaton density perturbation before it decays corresponds to a constant isocurvature perturbation $`S_{\sigma r}3(\zeta _\sigma \zeta _r)`$ which in the curvaton scenario ($`\zeta _r=0`$) reduces to $`𝒮_{\sigma r}3\zeta _\sigma `$.

At the ‘primordial’ epoch, before the smallest cosmological scale approaches the horizon, there are four ‘decoupled’ fluids namely the CDM, baryons, photons and neutrinos (taken to be massless). The conventional definitions Eqs. (2)–(4) of the three isocurvature perturbations correspond to

$`𝒮_B`$ $`=`$ $`3\left(\zeta _B\zeta _\gamma \right)`$ (42)
$`𝒮_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ $`=`$ $`3\left(\zeta _{\mathrm{cdm}}\zeta _\gamma \right)`$ (43)
$`𝒮_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`3\left(\zeta _\nu \zeta _\gamma \right),`$ (44)
In the standard single-inflaton scenario it is impossible to introduce isocurvature perturbations on large scales at the primordial epoch from the purely adiabatic perturbations existing after the end of inflation . But in the curvaton scenario the non-adiabatic nature of the curvaton perturbation after inflation ($`𝒮_{\sigma r}0`$) means that it is possible for the curvaton to leave isocurvature perturbations after the curvaton decays even on super-horizon scales, which we term ‘residual’ isocurvature perturbations.

In addition to the energy densities we shall need to consider ‘number’ densities $`n_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$, $`n_B`$, $`n_L`$ and $`n_{Li}`$. They are defined, respectively, as (i) the number density of CDM particles, (ii) the density of baryon number $`B`$, (iii) the density of lepton number $`L`$ and (iv) the densities of the three individual lepton numbers $`L_i`$ ($`i=`$ e, $`\mu `$ or $`\tau `$). By the ‘primordial’ era any significant lepton number will be carried entirely by neutrinos, making $`n_{Li}`$ the difference between neutrino and anti-neutrino number densities. In the unperturbed Universe each number density is proportional to $`a^3`$ so long as the corresponding quantity is conserved in a comoving volume.

For each of these number densities, it will be useful to consider the curvature perturbations $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_i`$ on slices of uniform $`n_i`$,

$`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_i`$ $``$ $`\psi H{\displaystyle \frac{\delta n_i}{\dot{n}_i}}`$ (45)
$`=`$ $`\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta n_i}{n_i}}.`$ (46)
In a homogeneous universe the conserved number density $`n_i`$ obeys the evolution equation

$$\dot{n}_i+3Hn_i=0.$$
(47)
Allowing for large-scale perturbations about the strictly homogeneous background, we obtain the local evolution equation for the first-order perturbation

$$\dot{\delta n_i}+3H\delta n_i3n_i\dot{\psi }=0,$$
(48)
assuming all spatial gradients (e.g., divergence of the particles velocity field) are negligible on large scales. Combining equations (4548) we obtain the evolution equation for the curvature perturbation

$$\dot{\stackrel{~}{\zeta }}_i=0.$$
(49)
Hence we see that $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_i`$ defined in Eq. (45) remains constant on large-scales so long as the particle number $`n_i`$ is conserved.

Equations (45) and (49) are equivalent to the statement that the perturbation in the fractional number density ($`\delta n_i/n_i`$) is conserved on flat ($`\psi =0`$) spatial hypersurfaces. The perturbations in the number densities are best defined on the flat slicing, because on this slicing the expansion rate with respect to coordinate time is unperturbed , leading to the constancy of the fractional perturbations.

This is a significant extension to the case of interacting fluids of the result found in Ref. for the constancy of $`\zeta _i`$ for non-interacting fluids on large-scales. It will prove a powerful tool to describe the possible generation of isocurvature perturbations after curvaton decay in what follows.

## IV Residual isocurvature matter perturbations

### A Residual isocurvature CDM perturbation

Without making any assumption about the nature of the CDM, we take the epoch of its creation as the one after which its particle number $`n_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ is conserved. There are several candidates for the CDM particle, such as the axion, the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP), a stable massive particle (wimpzilla) or primordial black holes. For axions the epoch of creation corresponds to the temperature $`1\text{GeV}`$ at which the effective axion mass rises above the Hubble parameter, and for the conventional LSP it corresponds to the freeze-out temperature roughly of order $`10\text{GeV}`$. For very massive particles (wimpzillas)  or black holes  the epoch of creation may be the end of slow-roll inflation corresponding to an energy scale $`\rho ^{\frac{1}{4}}`$ up to $`10^{16}\text{GeV}`$. In the case of wimpzillas it may instead  be the epoch of thermal inflation corresponding to perhaps $`\rho ^{\frac{1}{4}}10^6\text{GeV}`$. The CDM might also be created as an out-of-equilibrium decay product of the inflaton, the curvaton or some other particle.

After CDM creation, conservation of the CDM particle number ensures that $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ defined by Eq. (45) is constant on super-horizon scales . When the CDM becomes non-relativistic with constant mass, $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ reduces to $`\zeta _{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ defined by Eq. (17). In most of the examples mentioned above, this occurs at the epoch of creation. It could happen though that that CDM created from out-of-equilibrium decay is initially relativistic. Also, the axion mass (induced by the QCD instanton) increases after the epoch of creation, becoming constant only when the temperature falls to $`100\text{MeV}`$. In any case, $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ will certainly have reduced to $`\zeta _{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ by the primordial epoch.

To evaluate the primordial isocurvature perturbation $`𝒮_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$, we assume that the primordial $`\zeta _\gamma =\zeta `$ corresponding to a zero or small neutrino isocurvature perturbation $`\zeta _\nu \zeta _\gamma `$, postponing until Section V A the possibility of a significant neutrino isocurvature perturbation. We can then re-write Eq. (43) as

$$𝒮_{\mathrm{cdm}}=3\left(\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}}\zeta \right).$$
(50)
As we have mentioned, several different mechanism have been considered for creating the CDM. In most cases, the creation mechanism does not involve any quantity with an isocurvature perturbation, which means that at creation the CDM has no isocurvature perturbation. To put it differently, the ‘separate universes’ are in these cases identical at the epoch of CDM creation, which means that the number density $`n_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ at creation depends only on the local energy density.

The most usual way of obtaining CDM which has an isocurvature perturbation at creation is to suppose that it consists of axions, whose production in each region of space corresponds to the onset of the axion field oscillation in that region. If the axion field has an isocurvature perturbation, a CDM isocurvature perturbation will then be produced at the time of creation. However, the magnitude of the isocurvature CDM perturbation produced in this way is unrelated to that of the curvature perturbation. In other words, there is no reason why CDM originating from an oscillation of the axion field should have a significant isocurvature density at the time of its creation. The same is true for all of the other CDM production mechanisms that have been considered so far.

In what follows we will assume that the CDM number density at the epoch of creation depends only on the local energy density. We expect this to be valid in the absence of any non-adiabatic pressure perturbation, i.e., where the local density also determines the local pressure. The only exception will be the case that the CDM is produced directly by the curvaton decay, which will require separate treatment.

In the curvaton scenario where the CDM is created after the curvaton has decayed (or in the inflaton scenario) the CDM isocurvature perturbation will be zero at the ‘primordial’ epoch. The basic reason is that the ‘separate Universes’ in these cases are identical. To proceed more formally, the assumption that there is initially no isocurvature density perturbation means that the CDM number density at creation is uniform ($`\delta n_{\mathrm{cdm}}=0`$) on slices of uniform density (where $`\psi =\zeta `$). Hence we may evaluate the gauge-invariant expression (45) on a surface of uniform density to obtain $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}}=\zeta `$, with both sides constant. Going forward to the primordial epoch, when the CDM energy is conserved so that $`\zeta _{\mathrm{cdm}}=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ we find that the primordial CDM isocurvature perturbation, $`𝒮_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ given by Eq. (43), vanishes.

The situation is dramatically different if the CDM is created before the curvaton decays, or if it is created by the curvaton decay itself. In these cases, the process of curvaton decay creates a ‘residual’ isocurvature CDM perturbation whose properties are closely tied to the curvature perturbation.

Consider the case that the CDM is created well before the curvaton decays and well before the curvaton comes to dominate the energy density ($`f1`$ in Eq. (20)). In this regime the Universe is practically unperturbed and therefore $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ is practically zero. At the primordial epoch this gives the residual CDM isocurvature perturbation in Eq. (43) as

$$𝒮_{\mathrm{cdm}}=3\zeta .$$
(51)
In the notation of Ref.  this corresponds to a maximum correlation between curvature and CDM-isocurvature perturbations. The power spectra of the two perturbations have the same spectral index and the isocurvature perturbation has an amplitude three times larger than the adiabatic one. Such a large correlated perturbation is ruled out by current observations which require

$$\left|\frac{𝒮_{\mathrm{cdm}}}{\zeta }\right|<1.5\mathrm{at}95\%\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{l}..$$
(52)
Our conclusion is that in the curvaton scenario, CDM cannot be created before the curvaton decays and while the total curvature perturbation remains small, $`\zeta r\zeta _\sigma `$. In particular CDM creation just after inflation ends, such as might occur in the case of wimpzillas or black holes, is incompatible with the curvaton scenario.

If the CDM is created before the curvaton decays, but when the curvaton density has become non-negligible, $`f1`$ in Eq. (20), there will be a significant non-adiabatic pressure perturbation, $`\delta P_{\mathrm{nad}}`$ given by Eq. (22), at the epoch of creation and we can no longer assume that the initial CDM number density is unperturbed on uniform density slices. Instead the actual number density at creation will depend on the mechanism by which the CDM is created, and we leave a detailed investigation of the different cases for future work.

Finally, we consider the case that the CDM is created by the decay of the curvaton itself. The epoch of CDM creation then corresponds to the epoch when the curvaton decay is complete. The resulting local CDM density is then a fixed multiple of the curvaton number density well before decay. The fractional perturbations are thus equal and hence

$$\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}}=\zeta _\sigma .$$
(53)
Using the definition of $`r`$ in Eq. (26), this gives at the primordial epoch

$$𝒮_{\mathrm{cdm}}=3\left(\frac{1r}{r}\right)\zeta .$$
(54)
This is negligible if the curvaton comes to dominate before it decays ($`r=1`$), the physical reason being that the curvaton perturbation becomes an adiabatic curvature perturbation, so it cannot leave behind any residual isocurvature perturbation. But if the curvaton decays before it dominates, $`r1`$, there will be large isocurvature perturbations in the CDM, incompatible with existing observational constraints. Note that in the notation of Ref. the curvature and isocurvature perturbations are anti-correlated, in which case the observational limit becomes

$$\left|\frac{𝒮_{\mathrm{cdm}}}{\zeta }\right|<0.2\mathrm{at}95\%\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{l}.,$$
(55)
much stronger than that for correlated isocurvature perturbations. Observational limits on the amplitude of the anti-correlated isocurvature perturbations thus require the curvaton to effectively dominate, $`r>0.9`$, if the CDM is created by the curvaton decay.

### B Residual baryon isocurvature perturbation

Baryon number $`B`$ may be created directly, in which case we take the epoch of baryogenesis to be the one after which $`B`$ is conserved. Alternatively $`B`$ may be created through the conversion of $`L`$ at the electroweak transition. In the latter case $`BL`$ is conserved, and for the present purpose we may take the epoch of baryogenesis as the one when $`BL`$ is created. Depending on what type of mechanism operates, the epoch of baryon creation in this sense may be anywhere from the end of inflation to the electroweak transition. To keep the notation simple we take the relevant quantity to be $`B`$ from now on, with the understanding that $`B`$ is to be replaced by $`BL`$ if that is the relevant quantity.

Until the QCD transition at $`T100\text{MeV}`$, $`B`$ represents the difference between the abundances of the typically relativistic particles and anti-particles carrying baryon number, and cannot usefully be associated with an energy density. In this situation we need to use $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_B`$ the curvature perturbation on slices of uniform $`n_B`$ (given in Eq. (45)). This quantity is constant on large scales at all times after baryon creation, and it reduces to $`\zeta _B`$ (Eq. (17)) after the QCD transition when baryon number is carried by non-relativistic nucleons and nuclei.

The theoretical situation for the baryon isocurvature perturbation is similar to the one for CDM. We make the reasonable assumption that the baryon number density at the epoch of baryogenesis depends only on the local energy density, unless baryogenesis comes the curvaton decay itself. If baryogenesis occurs after the curvaton decays, there will be no primordial baryon isocurvature perturbation. If instead baryon number is generated well before curvaton decay and well before the curvaton dominates, there will be a large residual baryon isocurvature perturbation,

$$𝒮_B=3\zeta .$$
(56)
In contrast with the CDM case, such a perturbation is still marginally compatible with current observational data . The effect on the CMB angular power spectrum of a baryon-isocurvature perturbation is essentially the same as that of a CDM-isocurvature perturbation but the size of the effect is diminished by a factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B/\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{cdm}}`$ due to the smaller density of baryonic matter , so the constraint in Eq. (52) becomes

$$\left|\frac{𝒮_B}{\zeta }\right|<1.5\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{cdm}}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_B}\right)\mathrm{at}95\%\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{l}..$$
(57)
An isocurvature perturbation of the form given in Eq. (56) will either be ruled out or observed in the near future, providing in the latter case a smoking gun for the curvaton scenario.

The final possibility is that baryon number is produced by the out-of-equilibrium decay of the curvaton itself, as is the case if we identify the curvaton with the right-handed sneutrino of ref. . Then we have at the primordial epoch, in the sudden decay approximation,

$$𝒮_B=3\left(\frac{1r}{r}\right)\zeta .$$
(58)
Current observational limits on the amplitude of such an anti-correlated baryon-isocurvature mode require that the curvaton must dominate the density at decay, $`r>0.6`$, if the curvaton itself is responsible for baryogenesis.

## V Neutrino isocurvature perturbations

### A The general formalism

In this section we discuss the possibility of a neutrino isocurvature density perturbation. As far as we are aware our treatment is the first one taking into account the crucial issue of lepton number.

The era of thermal equilibrium for neutrinos ends just before nucleosynthesis, which almost certainly means that this era determines the abundances of neutrinos and anti-neutrinos at the later ‘primordial’ epoch. (We are not in this paper considering the possibility that the curvaton decays after nucleosynthesis, and for the present purpose we discount too the possibility that it decays between neutrino decoupling and nucleosynthesis.) Taking that for granted, there is no neutrino isocurvature if the lepton number at decoupling is negligible, because the primordial abundance of the neutrinos is then determined entirely by the photon temperature .

We therefore consider the case of non-zero lepton number density $`n_{Li}`$, with $`i=`$e, $`\mu `$ or $`\tau `$. While the neutrinos are effectively massless and in equilibrium, with temperature $`T_\nu `$ this corresponds to occupation numbers

$$f_i(E)=[\mathrm{exp}(E/T_\nu \xi _i)+1]^1,$$
(59)
for neutrinos and anti-neutrinos with energy $`E`$. This gives the following expressions for the total energy density $`\rho _i`$ of neutrinos and anti-neutrinos, and the lepton number density $`n_{Li}`$ equal to the difference between the number densities of neutrino and anti-neutrinos ;

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _i}{\rho _\gamma }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7}{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_\nu }{T_\gamma }}\right)^4A_i`$ (60)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n_{Li}}{n_\gamma }}`$ $`=`$ $`2.15\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_\nu }{T_\gamma }}\right)^3B_i.`$ (61)
where

$`A_i`$ $`=`$ $`\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{30}{7}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _i}{\pi }}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{7}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _i}{\pi }}\right)^4\right],`$ (62)
$`B_i`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _i}{\pi }}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _i}{\pi }}\right)^3\right],`$ (63)
and

$`\rho _\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{15}}T_\gamma ^4,`$ (64)
$`n_\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2.40}{\pi ^2}}T_\gamma ^3.`$ (65)
In the usual case that the lepton asymmetry is negligible, these expressions start to become valid at reheating, and hold with $`T_\nu =T_\gamma `$ until positron annihilation, after which

$$T_\nu =(4/11)^{\frac{1}{3}}T_\gamma .$$
(66)
In the case of significant lepton asymmetry that we are considering, there is significant neutrino mixing and the expressions become valid only when $`T_\nu =T_\gamma `$ falls to a few MeV. The subsequent evolution is more complicated than in the usual case so that the thermal distribution Eq. (59) is not precisely maintained , but following the usual practice we make the approximation that it is maintained so that Eqs. (59)–(66) are all valid after positron annihilation. From now on we take the expressions to refer to that era. The asymmetry parameters $`\xi _i`$ are then constant since the neutrinos are travelling freely leading to $`n_iT_\nu ^31/a^3`$.

Big-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) and large-scale structure (LSS) constrain $`\xi _e`$ and $`|\xi _\mu |^2+|\xi _\tau |^2`$. If the favoured large mixing angle (LMA) solution to the solar neutrino problem is correct, neutrino oscillations ensure that the $`\xi _i`$ have a common value $`\xi `$  . In that case, the BBN/LSS constraint is  $`0.01<\xi <0.07`$. With this constraint, unperturbed lepton number densities are almost certainly too small to have any observable effect on the CMB anisotropy or large-scale structure (LSS). We shall see, though, that this need not be the case for the residual isocurvature perturbation.

Final confirmation of the LMA is expected in a few months from the Kamland reactor experiment , but we shall nevertheless allow independent asymmetry parameters in our analysis. In that case BBN and CMB/LSS together give constraints on $`|\xi _\mu |=|\xi _\tau |`$ (assumed equal for convenience) and $`\xi _e`$ which are much weaker, namely $`|\xi _{\mu ,\tau }|2.5`$ and $`|\xi _e|0.30`$ . Note that these limits were obtained assuming a purely adiabatic primordial perturbation spectrum and hence serve only as a rough guide in the case of a correlated curvature and neutrino isocurvature perturbations.

For each individual neutrino species we can calculate the curvature $`\zeta _i`$ on uniform-$`\rho _i`$ hypersurfaces from Eqs. (17) and (60)

$$\zeta _i\zeta _\gamma =\left(\frac{\delta T_\nu }{T_\nu }\frac{\delta T_\gamma }{T_\gamma }\right)+\frac{1}{4}\frac{A_i^{}}{A_i}\frac{\delta \xi _i}{\pi },$$
(67)
and the curvature $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_i`$ on uniform-$`n_{Li}`$ hypersurfaces given from Eqs. (45) and (61) as

$$\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_i\zeta _\gamma =\left(\frac{\delta T_\nu }{T_\nu }\frac{\delta T_\gamma }{T_\gamma }\right)+\frac{1}{3}\frac{B_i^{}}{B_i}\frac{\delta \xi _i}{\pi },$$
(68)
where $`A_i^{}=(60/7)B_i`$ and $`B_i^{}=1+3(\xi _i/\pi )^2`$. Only when $`\delta \xi _i=0`$ do these two quantities coincide.

As we have noted, a neutrino isocurvature perturbation due to the first term in Eqs. (67) and (68), representing a perturbation in the neutrino to photon temperature ratio, is extremely unlikely since it would have to be generated during the extremely short era between neutrino decoupling and nucleosynthesis. We here take the first term to be zero.

Following the path that we trod for the CDM and baryon number perturbations, we define the isocurvature perturbations in the number densities of the three lepton numbers,

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta n_{Li}}{n_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta n_\gamma }{n_\gamma }}`$ (69)
$`=`$ $`3(\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_i\zeta _\gamma ).`$ (70)
They determine the perturbations in the asymmetry parameters,

$$\frac{\delta \xi _i}{\pi }=\frac{B_i}{B_i^{}}\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_i\frac{\xi _i}{\pi }\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_i,$$
(71)
where the final equality is valid in the regime $`(\xi _i/\pi )^21`$. These expressions refer to the primordial era, and are valid in the early Universe only back to the epoch of positron annihilation at $`T\text{MeV}`$. While they are valid, the lepton numbers $`L_i`$ are conserved and the curvature perturbation $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_i`$ on slices of uniform $`n_{Li}`$ is constant. At early times though, corresponding to $`T`$ bigger than a few MeV, neutrino mixing becomes significant and the individual lepton numbers are not defined. Instead there is only the total lepton number density and its perturbation,

$`n_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle n_{Li}}`$ (72)
$`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta n_L}{n_L}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta n_\gamma }{n_\gamma }}`$ (73)
$`=`$ $`3(\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_L\zeta _\gamma ).`$ (74)
The total lepton number $`L`$ is well-defined in the early Universe after the epoch of lepton number creation, which we take to be the one after which $`L`$ is conserved. While $`L`$ is conserved, the curvature perturbation $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_L`$ on slices of uniform $`n_L`$ is constant.

The three primordial quantities $`n_i`$ and their perturbations $`𝒮_i`$ are not in general determined by $`n_L`$ and $`𝒮_L`$. They are however determined if the LMA solution to the solar neutrino problem is correct because the three quantities are then equal

$`n_{Li}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}n_L`$ (75)
$`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_i`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_L`$ (76)
If one or more neutrino masses are big enough to give a significant amount of dark matter, it will be necessary to insert the $`\delta \xi _i`$ into the initial occupation number Eq. (59), propagating this initial condition forward with evolution equations. In that case the initial condition requires a knowledge of the three individual isocurvature perturbations $`𝒮_i`$. Here we make instead the opposite approximation of massless neutrinos. Then, the only required initial condition is the isocurvature perturbation in the total neutrino energy density which is specified by the derived quantity $`𝒮_\nu `$, defined by Eq. (4). This quantity may be calculated using

$$\zeta _\nu =\frac{\rho _i\zeta _i}{\rho _i},$$
(77)
taking $`\rho _i`$ from Eq. (60) and $`\zeta _i`$ from Eq. (67). The result is

$`S_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{45}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_i(\delta \xi _i/\pi )}{A_i}},`$ (78)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{45}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{(B_i^2/B_i^{})\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_i}{A_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{15}{7}}{\displaystyle \left(\frac{\xi _i}{\pi }\right)^2\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_i},`$ (79)
where the final approximation is valid for $`(\xi _i/\pi )^21`$.

As far as we are aware, this is the first time that expressions for the neutrino isocurvature perturbation have been given in the most realistic case where it is determined by the (perturbed) lepton asymmetry. The effect of the neutrino isocurvature perturbations has never been tested against observational data while including non-zero chemical potential.

### B Induced matter isocurvature perturbations

Now we address an issue that is relevant for calculating the amplitude of CDM and baryon isocurvature perturbations in the presence of a neutrino isocurvature perturbation. In the presence of the latter, the equality $`\zeta _\gamma =\zeta _\nu =\zeta `$ breaks down, and instead we have

$$\zeta =(1R_\nu )\zeta _\gamma +R_\nu \zeta _\nu =\zeta _\gamma +\frac{R_\nu }{3}𝒮_\nu ,$$
(80)
where $`R_\nu \rho _\nu /(\rho _\nu +\rho _\gamma )`$ is the fraction of the final radiation density in neutrinos, and $`R_\nu 0.41`$ for $`\xi _i1`$.

The amplitude of the CDM and baryon isocurvature perturbations, calculated assuming $`\zeta =\zeta _\gamma `$, acquire an additional term

$$𝒮_{\mathrm{cdm}/B}=3(\zeta _{\mathrm{cdm}/B}\zeta _\gamma )=3(\zeta _{\mathrm{cdm}/B}\zeta )+R_\nu 𝒮_\nu .$$
(81)
Hence for CDM/baryons created after curvaton decay (or in the inflaton scenario), for which $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}/B}=\zeta `$, we now have a non-zero isocurvature matter perturbation

$$𝒮_{\mathrm{cdm}/B}=R_\nu 𝒮_\nu ,$$
(82)
for CDM/baryons created before curvaton decay, with $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}/B}=0`$, we have

$$𝒮_{\mathrm{cdm}/B}=3\zeta +R_\nu 𝒮_\nu ,$$
(83)
while for CDM/baryons created by curvaton decay, with $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}/B}=\zeta _\sigma `$, we have

$$𝒮_{\mathrm{cdm}/B}=3\left(\frac{1r}{r}\right)\zeta +R_\nu 𝒮_\nu .$$
(84)
If $`S_\nu \zeta `$, then $`\zeta _\gamma `$ can be identified to high accuracy with $`\zeta `$, and the changes in $`𝒮_{\mathrm{cdm}/B}`$ induced by the neutrino isocurvature perturbations represent a small correction.

These changes do not correspond to any change in the evolution of the CDM or baryons in the early Universe. They would be avoided if we worked instead with the quantities $`\widehat{𝒮}_{\mathrm{cdm}/\mathrm{B}}=3(\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_{\mathrm{cdm}/\mathrm{B}}\zeta )`$, that define the perturbations on slices of uniform total density (Eq. (39)). These quantities are independent of $`𝒮_\nu `$ so that, for example, they always vanish if the CDM or matter is created after curvaton decay with a density depending only on the local energy density. In a similar way, the quantities $`\widehat{𝒮}_i=3(\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_i\zeta )`$ reflect the early Universe situation more directly than the quantities $`\stackrel{~}{S}_i`$, as we shall see when discussing leptogenesis from curvaton decay. In all cases though, the unhatted quantities are those commonly used at the ‘primordial’ era, as a starting point for the forward evolution of the perturbations.

### C The residual neutrino isocurvature perturbation

Now we wish to discuss the residual neutrino isocurvature perturbation in the curvaton scenario, along the same lines as for the CDM and baryons. To do this, we assume that the LMA solution is correct so that the primordial lepton number densities have a common value, determined by the total lepton number density that is conserved in the early Universe. Since the lepton asymmetry is small in that case, the neutrino isocurvature perturbation is given to high accuracy by Eq. (79),

$$𝒮_\nu \frac{45}{7}\left(\frac{\xi }{\pi }\right)^2\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_L,$$
(85)
where the common asymmetry parameter $`\xi `$ satisfies the nucleosynthesis constraint $`|\xi |<0.07`$.

To evaluate $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_L`$ we can follow closely the previous discussions of CDM and baryon number. We take the epoch of creation of lepton number $`L`$ to be the one at which this quantity starts to be conserved. We assume that the lepton number isocurvature perturbation at creation is zero or negligible, except in the case that lepton number is created by the curvaton decay. If lepton number is created after curvaton decay, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_L=0`$ and there is no neutrino isocurvature perturbation.

If lepton number is created well before curvaton decay and well before the curvaton dominates the density,

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_L=3\zeta _\gamma ,$$
(86)
giving

$$𝒮_\nu =\frac{135}{7}\left(\frac{\xi }{\pi }\right)^2\zeta _\gamma .$$
(87)
For $`|\xi |<0.07`$ and using Eq. (80), we have

$$|S_\nu |<0.01\zeta .$$
(88)
This is very small and may never by observable.

Finally, if lepton number is created by out-of-equilibrium curvaton decay,§§§The exact formula is $`\widehat{𝒮}_L=3\zeta (1r)/r`$ where $`\widehat{𝒮}_L=3(\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_L\zeta )`$, but the difference is negligible in the regime $`(\xi /\pi )^21`$.

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_L3\left(\frac{1r}{r}\right)\zeta .$$
(89)
If the curvaton does not dominate before it decays, this gives

$`𝒮_\nu `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{135}{7}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1r}{r}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{\pi }}\right)^2\zeta `$ (90)
$`|𝒮_\nu |`$ $`<`$ $`0.01{\displaystyle \frac{1r}{r}}\zeta \text{ }<15\zeta ,`$ (91)
where the final inequality comes from the current bounds on the non-Gaussianity parameter, $`f_{\mathrm{NL}}`$, given in Eq. (36). This upper bound represents a large anti-correlated neutrino isocurvature component which may already be incompatible with current data, though this possibility is yet to be tested against observations. If MAP further constrains the non-Gaussian parameter, $`f_{\mathrm{NL}}`$, (rather than detecting non-Gaussianity) the bound will become $`|𝒮_\nu |<0.2\zeta `$.

We note that the neutrino isocurvature velocity mode considered by Bucher et al  is hard to generate in a curvaton scenario, since we would expect any velocity perturbation left on large scales after the curvaton decay to be suppressed by factors of order $`(k/aH)^2`$ with respect to the (almost scale-invariant) density perturbation, i.e., generated only by spatial gradients in the curvaton field.

## VI Conclusions

In this paper we have reviewed the mechanism by which a curvaton field can generate a large-scale density perturbation after inflation, and gone on to investigate the nature of the primordial perturbation that is produced. In many cosmological models the curvaton scenario can reproduce the purely adiabatic and Gaussian density perturbation (curvature perturbation) that is familiar from the inflaton scenario. In another regime though, it can give large non-Gaussianity, and/or a large ‘residual’ isocurvature perturbation which is completely correlated with the curvature perturbation and can in principle be present in any or all of the baryonic matter, the CDM and the three neutrino species.

The non-Gaussianity of the curvature perturbation $`\zeta `$ arises if the curvaton fails to dominate the energy density before it decays. The perturbation is described by a $`\chi ^2`$-distribution, whose non-Gaussianity is parameterised by

$$f_{\mathrm{NL}}=\frac{5}{4r},$$
(92)
where $`r`$ is approximately given by the curvaton density just before decay, as a fraction of the total. In 2003, results from MAP satellite  will either detect this non-Gaussianity or show that the curvaton density is at least a few percent of the total when it decays.

The residual isocurvature perturbation in CDM or baryonic matter arises if the CDM or baryon number is created either before curvaton decay, or by the curvaton decay itself. If it is created significantly before curvaton decay and before the curvaton dominates the energy density, the isocurvature perturbation is given by

$$S_{\mathrm{cdm}}=3\zeta ,$$
(93)
and similarly for baryons. This large, correlated isocurvature perturbation is ruled out by observation for CDM. In other words, CDM cannot be created significantly before curvaton decay and before the curvaton dominates. This is a strong constraint on the cosmology, implying for example that the curvaton scenario is inconsistent with the CDM creation just after the end of inflation. For baryons the perturbation amplitude is close to current observational limits and will be ruled out or detected in the near future, providing in the latter case a smoking gun for the curvaton scenario.

If the CDM or baryon number is created by the curvaton decay itself,

$$S_{\mathrm{cdm}}=3\left(\frac{1r}{r}\right)\zeta ,$$
(94)
and similarly for baryons. Unless $`r`$ is close to 1, this large anti-correlated contribution is ruled out by observation for both CDM and baryons. In other words, the curvaton decay cannot create CDM or baryons unless the curvaton dominates the energy density before it decays.

For the neutrino isocurvature perturbation we have presented an analysis which, for the first time, includes the crucial issue of lepton number, and is relevant for any cosmology. Although general formulae are given, we focus on the case where the ratio of the neutrino and photon temperature is unperturbed, because the late decoupling of neutrinos makes it very hard to see how it could be otherwise. We also focus on the case that the e, $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$ lepton number densities are equal, which will be ensured by mixing in the early Universe at least if the large mixing angle solution to the solar neutrino problem is correct.

With these assumptions, the isocurvature energy density perturbation $`S_\nu `$ of massless neutrinos is related to the lepton number density isocurvature perturbation $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_L`$ by

$$𝒮_\nu =\frac{45}{7}\left(\frac{\xi }{\pi }\right)^2\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_L,$$
(95)
where $`\xi `$ is the lepton asymmetry parameter, related to the lepton number density by $`\xi =4.02(n_L/n_\gamma )`$. If the lepton number density is of order the baryon number density as is usually supposed, $`|\xi |10^9`$ and the neutrino isocurvature perturbation will be completely undetectable. Observationally though, the lepton density is subject only to the nucleosynthesis bound $`|\xi |<0.07`$, which may allow a detectable perturbation. However neutrino isocurvature perturbations in the presence of a significant lepton asymmetry have never been tested against observations.

In the curvaton scenario, the formulas for the residual isocurvature perturbation $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_L`$ are the same as those for the CDM and baryon perturbations. If leptogenesis occurs after curvaton decay there is no residual neutrino isocurvature perturbation. If it is significantly before curvaton decay and before the curvaton dominates, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_L=3\zeta `$ and $`|𝒮_\nu |<0.01\zeta `$ which may never be observable. The interesting result comes in the third case, that the curvaton decay itself causes leptogenesis. Then $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_L=3((1r)/r)\zeta `$, and if the curvaton does not dominate before decay we have a neutrino isocurvature perturbation whose magnitude is related to the non-Gaussianity parameter $`f_{\mathrm{NL}}=5/4r`$,

$$𝒮_\nu \frac{135}{7}\left(\frac{\xi }{\pi }\right)^2\left(\frac{4}{5}f_{\mathrm{NL}}1\right)\zeta .$$
(96)
If the present bound on non-Gaussianity, $`|f_{\mathrm{NL}}|<2000`$, is saturated this permits a huge effect, presumably already ruled out by observation, and even the expected MAP bound on $`|f_{\mathrm{NL}}|<20`$ will still allow a significant effect. Observational bounds on $`f_{\mathrm{NL}}`$ and $`𝒮_\nu `$ in this scenario should be obtained jointly, taking into account the correlation of these two quantities with each other and with the curvature perturbation $`\zeta `$.

In summary, we have shown that different curvaton scenarios offer a number of distinctive observational predictions which may be tested by forthcoming experiments.

Note added: A related paper by Moroi and Takahashi  discussing the case of matter isocurvature perturbations in the curvaton scenario appeared while this work was in progress.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Kostas Dimopoulos, Luca Amendola and Martin Bucher for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by PPARC grants PPA/G/S/1999/00138, PPA/G/S/2000/00115 and PGA/G/O/2000/00466, and by EU grant HPRN-CT-2000-00152. DW is supported by the Royal Society.


text:
# Entwined Paths, Difference Equations and the Dirac Equation

## I Introduction

This paper is the first of a series of papers exploring the consequences of a recent discovery. The new result is that the Feynman Chessboard model of the Dirac propagator can be transplanted into classical statistical mechanics, bypassing Formal Analytic Continuation(FAC) completelyOrd and Gualtieri (2001). The new feature allowing this is the use of entwined space-time paths which are essentially self-quantizing. These will be discussed shortly, but first we clarify what is meant by the phrase ‘transplanted into classical statistical mechanics’.

One usually arrives at quantum mechanics through one of two routes. The most common approach is to analytically continue from $``$ to $``$ explicitly by imposing operator relations (eg. $`pi\mathrm{}\frac{}{x},Ei\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}`$). Another alternative is to force FAC by imposing physical conditions that cannot be met within the original space (eg. requiring diffusion to be reversible).Nelson (1966, 1985); Nagasawa (1996); Nottale (1992); El Naschie (1995) Both of these procedures extend classical physics to a suitably enlarged regime (i.e. Hilbert space). However the resultant wavefunctions are formal objects with no direct interpretation.

We avoid these routes entirely. In our approach the components of wavefunctions are classical ensemble averages obtainable by simple counting processes. It is the spatio-temporal geometry of entwined paths that gives rise to the properties described by the standard quantum mechanical complex wave equations. The relevant algebraic property $`i^2=1`$ appears explicitly through the geometry of entwined paths. It is because the equivalent of this algebraic structure (expressed, as we shall later see, by an antihermitian operator) is built into the geometry of the space-time paths themselves that we never need to introduce it artificially through a FAC. This is the main feature of our results and we will return to the relation between geometry and algebra in the discussion at the end of the paper.

By avoiding the FAC generally used to quantize a system, entwined paths provide the Dirac equation with a new context that is conceptually very different from its context in quantum mechanics. In quantum theory the Dirac equation is a ‘fundamental’ equation. Wavefunction solutions are thought to contain ‘all the information about the state of a system’, and the Dirac equation describes the evolution of the wavefunction.

In the context described in this paper, the Dirac equation is not a fundamental equation at all. Rather it is a phenomenological equation that describes ensemble averages of a classical charge density arising from entwined paths. Just as the Diffusion equation is a phenomenological equation describing a density of random paths (Brownian motion), so the Dirac equation describes net densities of entwined paths, where the time-reversed portions of paths add the new qualitative features of interference and reversibility. Because there is a specific underlying stochastic model involved, wavefunction solutions do not contain all the information about the state of a system, they are simply ensemble averages of the background stochastic process. In the new context, the stochastic process itself is the fundamental object. This means that there is an identifiable underlying stochastic process involved in the *formation* of wavefunctions.

In contrast, quantum mechanics has nothing to say about the process of wavefunction formation, since there, the wavefunction is just part of an algorithm. Probability only enters quantum mechanics through the measurement postulates, not through unitary evolution (Fig(1)). Thus, in quantum mechanics we postulate that the modulus squared of the wavefunction represents a probability density. That the postulate is correct is well verified experimentally, but remains a feature which does not follow from unitary evolution itself. On the other hand entwined paths support unitary evolution of an ensemble average which itself has an underlying stochastic process that, as we shall see, is amenable to direct simulation. In the future we shall be able to ask ‘does the underlying stochastic process also mimic the measurement postulates through the stochastic formation of the wavefunction?’ If the answer is yes, then the stochastic process we are proposing for the Dirac equation may have a deeper connection to quantum mechanics. If not the two contexts for the Dirac equation will remain distinct.

## II Entwined Paths

We shall be working in a two dimensional discrete space $`(z,t)`$ with lattice spacings $`\delta `$ and $`ϵ`$ respectively. Although we shall eventually think of $`t`$ as time, it is convenient at this point to think of $`t`$ as a spatial coordinate. Entwined paths can be generated in two different ways, both ways being important in understanding the resulting phenomenology. We shall employ two walkers, Eve and Max, who will generate and colour random walks, using the two different methods. Eve’s method is explicitly Ergodic in the sense that she will generate the full ensemble of entwined paths in a serial fashion after a sufficiently long time. Max will not use an explicitly ergodic process. He will however generate an ensemble of paths using a Markovian process which generates paths in parallel, many at a time. At each step, Max’s behaviour will depend only on his current state. Both walkers generate and colour their paths through $`(z,t)`$ based on calls to a random process R which generates a string of letters, with the distribution:

$$R=\{\begin{array}{cc}U\hfill & \hfill \text{with probability }1a\mathrm{\Delta }t\\ M\hfill & \hfill \text{with probability }a\mathrm{\Delta }t.\end{array}$$
(1)
We can think of $`M`$ as standing for Marked and $`U`$ standing for Unmarked, with the whole string of symbols a sequential list or tape $`T`$.

Eve’s instructions for colouring her path through the lattice are as follows. Eve starts at the origin and her first step is to the lattice site $`(\delta ,ϵ)`$. At the next step she consults the random process. If a $`U`$ is the first letter on the tape she maintains her direction and steps to $`(2\delta ,2ϵ)`$. If she gets an $`M`$ she changes her direction in $`z`$ and steps to $`(0,2ϵ)`$. Again she consults the tape. If she gets a $`U`$ she maintains her direction and takes another step. If she gets her second $`M`$ she drops a ‘marker’ at the site but steps forward maintaining her direction. This process is repeated, alternately changing direction and dropping markers whenever the random process indicates a mark. Eve colours her path blue as she goes. With each step she advances one lattice spacing in $`t`$ until the first time she is called to drop a marker after a set return ‘time’ $`t_R`$. This marker will be the last symbol on the tape that describes this particular path. At this marker Eve maintains her direction in $`z`$ but steps back one unit in $`t`$ and switches to the colour red (Fig 2.A). Eve now makes her way back to the origin down the ‘light-cone’ paths (paths with slopes of unit magnitude in the $`(z,t)`$ plane) which intersect all of the markers, colouring the path red as she goes (Fig(2.B)). On her return path Eve doesn’t need to consult a tape since her trail of markers uniquely defines her return path.

There are several things of interest about the entwined path generated by Eve’s walk. The first thing to notice is that the distribution of distances between the corners in the path and neighbouring markers/crossing points is identical to the distribution of steps between the marks on the tape. Furthermore, because Eve returns to the origin at the end of her return journey, we see that her walk is ergodic. She can cover all such paths simply by repeating the process enough times, covering all possible distributions of marks on the tapes with the appropriate frequency from the random process. Thus the time-average contribution from Eve, in the limit of large time, is the same as the ensemble average, for when Eve has returned to the origin after N circuits to $`t_R`$ and back, we cannot distinguish the pattern of the space-time path from that of N Eves each traversing the lattice once.

We also note that an entwined pair generated by Eve can be viewed as two osculating paths which start at the origin moving in opposite directions and finally merge where Eve changes directions in $`t`$. We call these two paths the left and right envelopes of the pair.

The envelopes themselves have simple properties. They always have opposite colouring. They both change colour at every second corner of the envelope. The distribution of lengths between corners is the same for both envelopes and is the same as the distribution of waiting times between the marks on the tape.

The simple properties of the envelopes allow Max, our second walker, to traverse and colour the paths in a different way. Max will not actually step between each neighbouring lattice site as did Eve. We imagine Max to have long arms and he will paint entwined paths as pairs, painting one envelope with each hand. Max uses the same tapes as Eve but he will interpret them in a different way.

Max reads the tape out to the end of the second mark at, say, $`t_2`$. He notes the position of the two marks on the tape and walks to the position where the envelopes touch at the second mark. As he does this, he paints the right envelope path blue with his right hand and the left envelope path red with his left hand. Max needed to see where the first two marks on the tape were in order to get both corners on his right and left hand in the appropriate places. At $`t_2`$ Max interchanges the paintbrushes, reads the tape out to the fourth mark and repeats his double-handed painting. Max continues this process until he brings the paint brushes together at or beyond the return time $`t_R`$. At this point, Max picks up his brushes and returns to the origin without painting the lattice. Max can cover the entire ensemble of paths by repeating the process a large number of times however, since he always returns to the origin without painting, Max’s technique is not continuously Ergodic. Note that Eve always painted wherever she moved, including on the return path to the origin. Eve can fully paint any of Max’s paths without having to remove her brushes from the lattice. Note also that a single tape codes for an entwined *pair* for both Eve and Max. Eve traverses the pair in a forward and reversed path (Fig. 2a); Max ‘traverses’ the pair by painting the two envelopes in parallel.

Although Max’s technique is not Ergodic, it can be made Markovian. That is, if we allow Max enough arms, and the ability to paint many pairs in parallel, he can paint the entire ensemble of paths in a single pass from the origin to $`t_R`$, without ever requiring information beyond the current symbols on an ensemble of tapes, and the current state of each ‘arm’. Thus, he paints at step $`n`$ according to his state at the previous step. He never has to reverse his direction in $`t`$, and he never has to read more than one symbol per envelope path at a time. He doesn’t need to read out to the second mark on each tape before he starts painting.

To see how he does this, suppose that Max takes one of Eve’s Tapes, $`T_p`$ say, and regards it as instructions for his right hand only. He interprets it in the following way. Each mark will now correspond to a direction change and every other mark will also be interpreted as a colour change, so he only needs to read the tape one symbol at a time. Although this interpretation of the tape by Max will not generate the same right envelope for him as it would for Eve, the difference is a simple, unique permutation of the symbols on the tape. That is, Max’s right envelope for $`T_p`$ will correspond to Eve’s right envelope for another unique tape $`T_p^{}`$ and vice versa. If Max is going to paint all distinct tapes in the ensemble simultaneously, he can use his new interpretation of Eve’s tapes to do this, since the mapping between $`T_p`$ and $`T_p^{}`$ is invertible. Thus, although Eve’s traversal of entwined paths is not Markovian, the ensemble average generated by her traversing the full ensemble *is* Markovian, and we may write a difference equation for it just by noting how Max interprets and paints trajectories. This is true for both envelopes.

Now we have been thinking of $`t`$ as a spatial coordinate, but since Max can generate the ensemble of paths via a Markov process which just steps forward in $`t`$, we can think of $`t`$ as a macroscopic time. In this case the Red/Blue colouring of Eve’s path, which indicated the direction in $`t`$ of the traversal, now indicates particle-antiparticle status. For example, Blue indicates particle and Red indicates antiparticle. If we associate a plus 1 with blue we have to associate a minus one with red. This number associated with colour we shall call charge, but it is not to be confused with electromagnetic charge. Our charge is a classical concept which is associated with the (discrete) continuity of the trajectory. Since our entwined pairs all return to the origin, we see them as either pairs of points at fixed t, or as two points superimposed, or no points at all at fixed t. Particle number is not conserved in $`t`$ but charge is, if we allow particle and antiparticle opposite charge.

How does charge behave in ensembles of entwined pairs? This is easy to calculate if we consider ensembles of paths by their envelopes, generated by Max’s Markovian method.

Consider the left envelope path in Fig.1C. Note that the rule for its generation is very simple. Starting at the origin, the particle proceeds in the $`z`$ direction until a mark on the tape indicates a direction change. At the first (*right*) turn, the particle just changes direction but not colour. At the second (*left*) turn the path also changes colour, and the charge changes sign. This process is repeated. Each right corner maintains the colour, each left turn changes the colour and the sign of the charge. The reader familiar with the Feynman chessboard model will recognize this rule as a version of Feynman’s corner ruleOrd (1992); Kauffman and Noyes (1996). In this context the rule is dictated by the geometry of entwined paths. Left turns in the left envelope are actually crossing points of the particle-antiparticle pair, and the origin of the sign change is physical.

If we now let $`\varphi _n^1(z)`$ be the ensemble charge density from left envelope links parallel to the left light-cone at step $`n`$ and $`\varphi _n^2(z)`$ be the ensemble charge density from left envelope links parallel to the right light-cone, we can write:

$`\varphi _n^1(z)`$ $`=`$ $`(1a\mathrm{\Delta }t)\varphi _{n1}^1(z+c\mathrm{\Delta }t)a\mathrm{\Delta }t\varphi _{n1}^2(zc\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ (2)
$`\varphi _n^2(z)`$ $`=`$ $`(1a\mathrm{\Delta }t)\varphi _{n1}^2(zc\mathrm{\Delta }t)+a\mathrm{\Delta }t\varphi _{n1}^1(z+c\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$
That is, regarding Fig. 3, most paths maintain their direction and colour as they pass through a lattice site. The proportion which do this is $`(1a\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$. However a proportion $`a\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ change direction at the site. When they scatter from the right light cone they change charge on scattering, so they *decrease* the net charge in the new direction in proportion to the density in the old direction. However when they scatter from the left light cone they maintain their charge on scattering, so they *increase* the net charge in the new direction in proportion to the density in the old direction.

The right envelope is similar, except here it is the right turns which change charge. If we let $`\varphi _n^3(z)`$ and $`\varphi _n^4(z)`$ be the right envelope charges parallel to respectively left light cones and right light cones we have

$`\varphi _n^3(z)`$ $`=`$ $`(1a\mathrm{\Delta }t)\varphi _{n1}^3(z+c\mathrm{\Delta }t)+a\mathrm{\Delta }t\varphi _{n1}^4(zc\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$
$`\varphi _n^4(z)`$ $`=`$ $`(1a\mathrm{\Delta }t)\varphi _{n1}^4(zc\mathrm{\Delta }t)a\mathrm{\Delta }t\varphi _{n1}^3(z+c\mathrm{\Delta }t).`$ (3)
Note that the change in signs of the scattering terms in the above equations are a direct result of the geometry of entwined pairs. It is Eve’s insistence on entwining forward and reversed paths that allows Max to use his simple colouring rule of a change in colour after every second corner. This rule in turn forces the ensemble to alternate the signs of the scattering terms, since it is a detailed feature of every path in the ensemble.

Equations (2-3) constitute a set of coupled difference equations in the four densities $`\varphi ^1\varphi ^4`$. Although their derivation is straightforward, their consequences as a description of a classical ergodic stochastic process are potentially far-reaching, since these are representations of the discrete Dirac equations -this will be demonstrated in section IV. Furthermore, the above arguments discuss only ensemble averages. It is possible that the above equations are correct for the ensemble average, but that the underlying stochastic process gives rise to such large fluctuations that the ensemble average survives only in the event of a uniformly covered ensemble. In this case, normal stochastic fluctuations would swamp the signal and the system would not exhibit the above equations except under the rare circumstance of an almost perfectly uniform coverage of the ensemble. In other words, if we watch Eve sequentially follow a large number of randomly chosen tapes, adding and subtracting her contributions to the sample average, would this sample average $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ converge to the ensemble average predicted in (2-3)? In the following section we test this question by stochastic simulations of Eve’s generation of entwined paths.

## III Numerical Checks

In the previous section we discussed entwined paths from the perspective of two walkers, Eve and Max. Eve draws a single entwined path by traversing a pair through a forward passage followed by the entwined reverse passage. Since she returns to the origin after each pair traversal, she can sequentially cover all members of the ensemble of paths. Each time she traverses the lattice, she records her passage by adding and subtracting ones as appropriate to the direction she is moving in $`t`$ to her record of of path visits. She thus creates a space-time field which we shall denote by $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$. For example, before she starts, all the $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ are $`0`$ for all $`z`$ with $`t>0`$. At her first step she arrives at $`(\delta ,ϵ)`$ and adds a $`1`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^4(\delta ,ϵ)`$. If her tape gives her a $`U`$ at this point, her second step is to $`(2\delta ,2ϵ)`$ where she will add a $`1`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^4(2\delta ,2ϵ)`$. If she receives an $`M`$ at the second step she would instead move to $`(0,2ϵ)`$ where she would add a $`1`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^3(0,2ϵ)`$. She repeats this process until the return time where she traverses the return path, adding -$`1`$’s to the appropriate $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ on the way. If Eve were to perform this task so as to cover all distinct paths exactly once, the arguments of the previous section imply that the $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ will satisfy the difference equations (2-3) exactly, since these difference equations represent the ensemble averages that Max would generate if he painted all the paths simultaneously with his Markovian algorithm. As Eve sequentially paints path after path, a question that needs testing is whether the difference equations (2-3) emerge as approximate descriptions of the sample averages $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ generated by Eve. With no extra controls over the stochastic process the probabilities $`\alpha =a\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`\beta =1\alpha `$ as actual frequencies will necessarily fluctuate over the sample. It is important to check that the fluctuations do not destroy the signal, and that Eve’s sequentially generated sample does approximately satisfy the difference equations. To check this we note that on the lattice the $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^i`$ at any time-step are vectors indexed by the value of $`z`$. At time step $`m`$ each vector $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ has roughly $`m+1`$ non-zero elements. If $`||.||`$ is the Euclidean norm we can then test the relative measure of error in each separate difference equation in (2-3) *for a sample average generated by Eve.* For example to test equation (2) for a sample average $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^1`$ we consider the error $`E_n^1`$ after Eve has traversed the lattice $`n`$ times:

$$E_n^1=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_n^1(z)\left((1a\mathrm{\Delta }t)\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{n1}^1(zc\mathrm{\Delta }t)a\mathrm{\Delta }t\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{n1}^2(zc\mathrm{\Delta }t)\right)}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_n^1(z)}$$
(4)
Analogous expressions apply for the other sample averages. Here $`a`$ is the *ensemble parameter* not the sample approximation. If we were to replace the $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ in (4) by the ensemble average $`\varphi `$ we would get zero. However $`E_1^1>0`$ since, after only one traversal, the ensemble averages cannot be met, there being only a single entwined path through the lattice. If however $`lim_n\mathrm{}E_n^1=0`$ then the stochastic process is stable and the ensemble average description is a valid approximation of the process for large $`n`$.

Figure(4) shows $`E_n^4`$ for various values of the sample size $`n`$ plotted on a log-log scale. The three groups of points represent three values of $`t`$. As $`t`$ increases, the range of $`z`$ increases and the relative coverage by the sample paths decreases, resulting in a larger error. If Eve randomly chooses at each lattice site whether or not to scatter we would expect the convergence to have the usual $`1/\sqrt{n}`$ dependence characteristic of random sampling without replacement. This would yield a very slow rate of convergence. This does indeed happen, so we have modified the underlying stochastic process to a form of sampling without replacement. In our approach, when Eve has to make a decision at a lattice site, she checks her previous decisions and chooses to scatter or not scatter based on her local scattering probability, making the choice that causes this probability to come closer to the ensemble average if this is possible, choosing randomly if not. This improves the convergence so that it is asymptotically $`1/n`$. The other three errors $`E_n^1,E_n^2,E_n^3`$ show the same convergence characteristics. Note that the sampling technique only speeds up the convergence. It does not affect the limit itself since it does not alter the ensemble average for the probabilities $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. Random sampling with replacement in which the ‘local’ probability is not consulted and each call to the random process is independent gives rise to figures similar to Fig. 4 except the slope of the trend lines is less, corresponding to $`1/\sqrt{n}`$ convergence.

Fig.(5) shows a contour plot of $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi _3}`$ as Eve continues to traverse entwined paths. At the resolution of the figure, part (c) is indistinguishable from the exact solution of equations(3) with the source at the origin. That is, Eve’s formation of the component of the propagator pictured in Fig. 5c is indistinguishable from Max’s formation of the ensemble average using his Markovian technique. The other components are similar. Interestingly, whereas Max ‘draws’ Fig. 5c sequentially from $`t=0`$ to $`t=t_R`$, one step at a time, colouring all paths in parallel and evolving the ‘picture’ in a form of unitary evolution, Eve assembles the picture as a projection from a larger space. If we think of Eve as having her movement in the $`(z,t)`$-plane parameterized by some variable $`s`$, then the sequence of pictures in Fig. 5 represents a projection of Eve’s history onto the $`(z,t)`$-plane with $`s`$ increasing from (a) to (c). Projection has been used before to bypass FAC Ord (1996)

These numerical results confirm the fact that the difference equations (2-3) have an underlying stochastic process and are phenomenological equations for entwined pairs. In the next section we show that the difference equations describing the ensemble averages are discrete versions of the Dirac equation.

## IV Comparison with Dirac

By expanding equations (2-3) to first order we can approximate the difference equations by a set of coupled PDE’s. The resulting equations are:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^1}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`c{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^1}{z}}a\varphi ^1a\varphi ^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`c{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{z}}a\varphi ^2+a\varphi ^1`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^3}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`c{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^3}{z}}a\varphi ^3+a\varphi ^4`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^4}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`c{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^4}{z}}a\varphi ^4a\varphi ^3`$
Removing the exponential decay by writing $`u^\mu (z,t)=e^{at}\varphi ^\mu (z,t)`$ the above becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{u^1}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`c{\displaystyle \frac{u^1}{z}}au^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`c{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{z}}+au^1`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{u^3}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`c{\displaystyle \frac{u^3}{z}}+au^4`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{u^4}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`c{\displaystyle \frac{u^4}{z}}au^3`$
The above is a representation of the Dirac equation in which all the densities $`u`$ are real. This may be seen by writing the equation in matrix form. If we write $`p_z=i\frac{}{z}`$, setting $`c=1`$ and $`a=m`$ with $`\alpha _z=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _z& 0\\ 0& \sigma _z\end{array}\right)`$ $`\beta =\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _y& 0\\ 0& \sigma _y\end{array}\right)`$ we have

$$i\frac{u}{t}=(\alpha _zp_z+\beta m)u$$
(7)
where the $`\sigma `$ are the Pauli matrices. Note that $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ anticommute as required, and the relativistic energy-momentum relations are obeyed if we associate the usual meanings with $`E`$ and $`p`$. It is important to note that the rewrite of equations (IV) in (7) is only cosmetic. The use of $`p`$ and $`i`$ are conventions only; the $`u`$ are still real densities, the limit of ensemble averages. They are not the formal objects of conventional quantum mechanics.

## V Discussion

The Dirac equation is usually produced along the lines of Dirac’s original argument. The start of the argument is canonical quantization $`pi\mathrm{}\frac{}{x},Ei\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}`$. From there Dirac leads us through the construction of his algebra to satisfy the requirements of the relativistic energy-momentum relations. From the perspective of the above work, the formal step in Dirac’s argument is the first one, the FAC.

Entwined paths are essentially self-quantizing, as can be seen by the form of (7). If $`m`$ is set equal to zero in (7) the resulting equation is just two, 2-component forms of the wave equation which are appropriate for classical particles that stay on their initial light cones. It is the $`m\beta `$ term that both describes scattering and brings in the interference effects characteristic of the Dirac equation. An inspection of the $`\beta `$ matrix shows that its hermitian character arises because of the factor of $`i`$ absorbed into it in the rewrite from (IV). The predecessor of $`\beta `$ in (IV) is *antihermitian* and it is this feature that ultimately results in interference effects. On the other hand the antihermitian form arises *directly* from the entwined geometry of the paths. It is for this reason that entwined paths make the canonical quantization step from classical physics unnecessary. The space-time geometry of entwined paths automatically builds in the relevant physics. To see this, note that it is the regular crossing of the entwined paths that produces the alternating signs of the scattering terms in (2-3), and ultimately the $`\beta `$ matrix in (7) .

The existence of an underlying stochastic model for the Dirac equation, as demonstrated in this paper, allows us the opportunity to consider the Dirac equation as a phenomenological equation describing the evolution of a particle moving on an entwined path in space-time. We now have a stochastic basis for the “U process” of quantum mechanics (that process by which a wavefunction unitarily evolves), to use Penrose’s terminology Penrose (1989, 1995), at least in the special case of a free particle in one dimension. We hope exploration of the stochastic model will help to further clarify the relationships between classical and quantum physics, and possibly shed some light on the process by which wavefunctions ‘collapse’ as a consequence of a measurement (the ‘R”-process).

###### Acknowledgements.

GNO is grateful for helpful discussions and support from J.A. Gualtieri. This work was partially supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.