1 / 25

30 YEARS OF COSMIC STRINGS

30 YEARS OF COSMIC STRINGS. Alex Vilenkin. Tufts Institute of Cosmology. 30 YEARS OF COSMIC STRINGS. String evolution. FOCUS ON:. Detection (bounds). 30 YEARS OF COSMIC STRINGS. LEAVE OUT:. Superconducting strings Vortons Semilocal strings String formation Strings in GUTs

matteo
Download Presentation

30 YEARS OF COSMIC STRINGS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 30 YEARS OF COSMIC STRINGS Alex Vilenkin Tufts Institute of Cosmology

  2. 30 YEARS OF COSMIC STRINGS String evolution FOCUS ON: Detection (bounds)

  3. 30 YEARS OF COSMIC STRINGS LEAVE OUT: Superconducting strings Vortons Semilocal strings String formation Strings in GUTs Strings in condensed matter …

  4. Cosmic super- strings! Strings are seeds of galaxies! Strings are dead! A BRIEF HISTORY Publications per year Kibble 1976

  5. OLD STRING EVOLUTION SCENARIO Kibble (1976), A.V. (1981) • Distance between strings: • Loop sizes: • Loops decay by gravitational radiation: Mass per unit length of string

  6. THE FIRST COSMIC STRING REVOLUTION

  7. High-resolution simulations: the loops are tiny (below the resolution) rad. matter Small-scale wiggles Bennett & Bouchet (1990) Allen & Shellard (1990) Loop sizes are set by the scale of wiggles.

  8. SCENARIOS: is determined by gravitational back-reaction: Bennett & Bouchet (1990) (“standard model”) Siemens & Olum (2001) Siemens, Olum & A.V. (2002) No scaling: Vincent, Hindmarsh & Sakellariadou (1997) Observational predictions are sensitive to !

  9. THE SECOND COSMIC STRING REVOLUTION (still in progress!)

  10. Small-scale wiggles and loops are resolved! Ringeval, Sakellariadou & Bouchet (2005): Most of the energy goes Into loops with . Requires a cutoff. Shellard & Martins (2005): Loop formation on scales . Radiation era Olum & Vanchurin (2006): Scaling peak in loop production develops at after a long transient regime.

  11. Flat-space exact simulation Vanchurin, Olum & A.V. (2005) after a long transient regime.

  12. The picture that seems to emerge is close to the old string scenario: (?) Broad distribution of loops and small-scale wiggles.

  13. Analytic models: Kibble (1985) Bennett (1986) Copeland, Kibble & Austin (1992) Martins & Shellard (1996) Copeland, Kibble & Steer (1998) Polchinski & Rocha (2006) To reach full understanding, we will need to combine numerical and analytic techniques.

  14. COSMIC SUPERSTRINGS Witten (1985) Sarangi & Tye (2002) Majumdar & A. Davis (2002) F, D and FD strings; FD networks. Copeland, Myers & Polchinski (2004) Dvali & A.V. (2004) Metastable, but the lifetime can be >> 1010 yrs. In models of brane inflation: . Jones, Stoica & Tye (2003) [Similar range in hybrid inflation GUT models] Jeannerot & Postma (2005) Reconnection probability may be small: . Jackson, Jones & Polchinski (2004)

  15. How does affect string evolution? Simple argument suggests Numerical evidence is inconclusive. Sakellariadou & A.V. (1990) Sakellariadou (2005) Avgoustidis & Shellard (2006) But in any case, for p << 1 there is a large number of strings per Hubble volume. Direct observational test of string theory.

  16. EVOLUTION OF FD-NETWORKS Scaling: Vachaspati & A.V. (1987) McGraw (1998) Tye, Wasserman & Wyman (2005) Simple models depends on energy dissipation. Goldstone radiation Spergel & Pen (1997) Copeland & Saffin (2005) Hindmarsh & Saffin (2006) Global string network simulations If the dominant energy loss is gravitational radiation: String domination

  17. Gauge strings Urrestilla U(1)xU(1) Loop production? Scaling:

  18. OBSERVATIONAL BOUNDS

  19. STRING SIGHTINGS: Cowie & Hu (1987) Sazhin et. al. (2003) Schild et. al. (2004)

  20. GRAVITATIONAL RADIATION Stochastic GW background & GW bursts from cusps. Comparable power in bursts and in low harmonics. Vachaspati & A.V. (1984) Hogan & Rees (1984) Caldwell & Allen (1992) Battye, Caldwell & Shellard (1996) … Bursts may be detectable for . Damour & A.V. (2000,2005) Better for p << 1. Siemens et. al. (2006) Hogan (2006) LIGO search is underway!

  21. BOUNDS FROM PULSAR OBSERVATIONS 8 yrs: Kaspi, Taylor & Ryba (1994) 17 yrs: Lommen (2002) Hogan (2006) (disputed) PTA: Jenet et. al. (2006) (Pulsar Timing Array) Full PTA (20 pulsars for 5 yrs)

  22. Implications of large loops Nucleosynthesis bound: Vanchurin, Olum & A.V. (2005) Reionization: loops seed early galaxy formation. Olum & A.V. (2006)

  23. CMB BOUNDS CMB anisotropies Pogosian, Wasserman & Wyman (2006) CMB polarization B-type polarization due to vector perturbations induced by strings. may be detectable. Seljak & Slosar (2006)

  24. Bad news: GUT-scale strings are ruled out. We are not likely to detect strings through gravitational lensing or CMB anisotropies. Constraint is much weaker for global strings: Good news: strings can be detected well below the GUT scale. Gravitational waves, CMB polarization

  25. CONCLUSIONS A new generation of string simulations is underway. Strong indications of loop scaling; (?) important observational implications. The strongest present bound on strings: (PTA) The most promising detection methods: pulsar timing, GW bursts, CMB polarization. May get to in ~ 5 yrs. The field is as vibrant as ever!

More Related