14. Eye on ArXiv: 8 Apr 2008 – Unifying inflation, dark matter and dark energy?

1. Andrew R. Liddle, Cedric Pahud, L. Arturo Urena-Lopez, “Triple unification of inflation, dark matter, and dark energy using a single field”.

The title says for itself; the paper is a development of older Andrew’s idea, which is the following.

Suppose that inflation is driven by a scalar field with the potential . Inflaton slowly rolls down towards the minimum of its potential at and starts to oscillate near it after the end of inflation. If you calculate the effective equation of state of the inflaton condensate at this stage, you will see that it is the one of non-relativistic matter, i.e., ; so, in principle, one may have a temptation to consider inflaton condensate as a candidate for cold dark matter.

But a bit deeper thinking leaves you with the feeling of disappointment. The reason is that the energy density stored in the condensate after the end of inflation is HUGE. Indeed, we have in the end of inflation

.

This amount of non-relativistic dark matter will clearly overclose the Universe, so we need this field to decay somehow. Decay is achieved by coupling the inflaton to some other field and is called reheating.

There are basically two possibilities.

a) If the inflaton is coupled to the field through quartic interaction , it does not decay completely, its fluctuations freeze out and still inevitably overclose the Universe (one can easily estimate inflaton abundance using standard formula from Kolb-Turner).

b) If the inflaton is coupled through trilinear interaction , it will decay completely, first by parametric resonance and than through perturbative decay channel.

Now, how can we build a model such that inflaton decays but in the end of decay there is still small amount of energy stored in the inflaton? (30% of the overall energy density)

Andrew et al. say: let us introduce the second (tiny in length, about 12 efolds) stage of inflation in order ro decrease the relic abundance. I think I am fine with this picture, the only problem is the amount of finetuning (not so clear from the paper) you need to apply to the theory in order to:

a) get correct energy density of dark matter

b) correct number of efoldings from inflation

c) correct reheating temperature.

Authors also claim that they can incorporate dark energy into the scenario by applying landscapism arguments.

2. D.S. Gorbunov, P.G. Tinyakov, I.I. Tkachev, S.V. Troitsky, “On the interpretation of the cosmic-ray anisotropy at ultra-high energies”

More pressure on the Pierre Auger Collaboration Let me remind you that PAC reported a strong correlation between the arrival directions of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays and positions of nearby Active Galactic Nuclei. If the correlation is indeed there, the famous problem of UHECRs is closed (UHECRs are NOT of the cosmological origin). There are however some tovarischs who are in doubt that such interpretation of PAC observations is correct, and it seems even without their argumentation that one has rights to doubt: for example, similar correlation in the Northern hemisphere is absent, as AGASA data show.

Authors simulate expected flux of cosmic rays using AGN hypothesis and compare it with observed UHECR events. Expected fluxes from Virgo and Centaurus superclusters are the same , but, as it turns out, there is a deficite of observed events from Virgo supercluster allowing authors to rule out the AGN hypothesis.