1 / 43

HAUNTINGS

This presentation will probably involve audience discussion, which will create action items. Use PowerPoint to keep track of these action items during your presentation In Slide Show, click on the right mouse button Select “Meeting Minder” Select the “Action Items” tab

stu
Download Presentation

HAUNTINGS

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. This presentation will probably involve audience discussion, which will create action items. Use PowerPoint to keep track of these action items during your presentation • In Slide Show, click on the right mouse button • Select “Meeting Minder” • Select the “Action Items” tab • Type in action items as they come up • Click OK to dismiss this box • This will automatically create an Action Item slide at the end of your presentation with your points entered. HAUNTINGS Nemanja Kaloper UC Davis Based on: C. Charmousis, R. Gregory, A. Padilla, hep-th/0604086; and work in preparation with D. Kiley. Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  2. Overview • Who cares? • Chasing ghosts in DGP • Codimension-1 case • Specteral analysis: diagnostics • Shock therapy • Shocking codimension-2 • Gravity of photons = electrostatics on cones • Gravitational See-Saw • Summary Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  3. Splitting the cosmic pie We DO NOT understand 95% of the contents of our Universe! Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  4. The Concert of Cosmos? • Einstein’s GR: a beautiful theoretical framework for gravity and cosmology, consistent with numerous experiments and observations: • Solar system tests of GR • Sub-millimeter (non)deviations from Newton’s law • Concordance Cosmology! • How well do we REALLY know gravity? • Hands-on observational tests confirm GR at scales between roughly 0.1 mm and - say - about 100 MPc; are we certain that GR remains valid at shorter and longer distances? New tests? New tests? Or, Dark Discords? Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  5. Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  6. Cosmological constant failure • The situation with the cosmological constant is desperate (by at least 60 orders of magnitude!)  desperate measures required? • Might changing gravity help? A (very!) heuristic argument: • Legendre transforms: adding ∫ dx(x) J(x) to Strades an independent variable F for another independent variable J. • Reconstruction of G(F) from W(J) yields a family of effective actionsparameterized byan arbitraryJ; J=0 is put in by hand! • ∫ dx√det(g) L isa Legendre transform. • In GR, general covariance det(g) does not propagate! • So the Legendre transform ∫ dx√det(g) L‘loses’ information about only ONE IR parameter - L. Thus L is not calculable, but is an input! • Could changing gravity alter this, circumventing no-go theorems?… Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  7. Headaches • Changing gravity → adding new DOFs in the IR • They can be problematic: • Too light and too strongly coupled → new long range forces Observations place bounds on these! • Negative mass squaredor negative residue of the pole in the propagator for the new DOFs: tachyonsand/orghosts Instabilities can render the theory nonsensical! Caveat emptor: this need not be a theory killer; it means that a naive perturbative description about some background is very bad. BUT: one *must* develop a meaningful perturbative regime before surveying phenomenological issues and applications. Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  8. Shock box Modified Gravity Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  9. DGP Braneworlds • Brane-induced gravity(Dvali, Gabadadze, Porrati, 2000): • Ricci terms BOTH in the bulk and on the end-of-the-world brane, arising from e.g. wave function renormalization of the graviton by brane loops • May appear in string theory (Kiritsis, Tetradis, Tomaras, 2001; Corley, Lowe, Ramgoolam, 2001) • Related works on exploration of brane-localized radiative corrections (Collins, Holdom, 2000) Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  10. Codimension-1 • Action: for the case of codimension-1 brane, • Assume ∞ bulk: 4D gravity has to be mimicked by the exchange of bulk DOFs! • 5th dimension is concealed by the brane curvature enforcing momentum transfer  1/p2for p > 1/rc (DGP, 2000; Dvali, Gabadadze, 2000): Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  11. Strong coupling caveats • In massive gravity, naïve linear perturbation theory in massive gravity on a flat space breaks down → idea: nonlinearities improve the theory and yield continuous limit(Vainshtein, 1972)? • There are examples without IvDVZ discontinuity in curved backgrounds(Kogan et al; Karch et al; Porrati; 2000). (dS with a rock of salt!) • Key: the scalar graviton is strongly coupled at a scale much bigger than the gravitational radius(a long list of people… sorry, y’all!). • In DGP a naïve expansion around flat space also breaks down at macroscopic scales(Deffayet, Dvali, Gabadadze, Vainshtein, 2001; Luty, Porrati, Rattazi, 2003; Rubakov, 2003).Including curvature may push it down to about ~1 cm (Rattazi & Nicolis, 2004). • LPR also claim a ghost in the scalar sector on the self-accelerating branch; after some vacillation, people seem to - mostly - agree(Koyama, 2005; Gorbunov, Koyama, Sibiryakov, 2005; Charmousis, Gregory, NK,, Padilla, 2006; Izumi, Koyama, Tanaka, 2006; Carena, Lykken, Park, Santiago, 2006 (two days ago); attempt to remove it by weird boundary conditions, by Deffayet, Gabadadze, Iglesias, 2006, fails to convince this speaker; ghost after all means that the system leaks to infinity, so finding that the system is sensitive to what happens faraway is an indicator of occult phenomena) Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  12. Perturbing cosmological vacua • Difficulty: equations are hard, perturbative treatments of both background and interactions subtle... Can we be more precise? • An attempt: construct realistic backgrounds; solve • Look at the vacua first: • Symmetries require(see e.g. N.K, A. Linde, 1998): where 4d metric is de Sitter. Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  13. Codimension-1 vacua Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  14. Normal and self-inflating branches • The intrinsic curvature and the tension related by (N.K.; Deffayet,2000) • e = ±1 an integration constant; e = -1 normal branch, i.e. this reduces to the usual inflating brane in 5D! • e =1 self-inflating branch, inflates even if tension vanishes! Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  15. Specteroscopy • Logic: start with the cosmological vacua and perturb the bulk & brane system, allowing for brane matter as well; gravity sector is • But, there are still unbroken gauge invariances of the bulk+brane system! Not all modes are physical. • The analysis here is linear- think of it as a diagnostic tool. But: it reflects problems with perturbations at lengths > Vainshtein scale. Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  16. Gauge symmetry I • Infinitesimal transformations • The perturbations change as • Set e.g. and to zero; that leaves us with and Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  17. Gauge symmetry II • Decomposition theorem (see CGKP, 2006) : • Not all need be propagating modes! • To linear order, vectors decouple by gauge symmetry, and the only modes responding to brane matter are TT-tensors and scalars. • Write down the TT-tensor and scalar Lagrangian. Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  18. Gauge symmetry III • Note: there still remain residual gauge transformations under which so we can go to a brane-fixed gauge F’=0 and Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  19. Forking • Direct substitution into field equations yields the spectrum; use mode decomposition • Get the bulk eigenvalue problem • A constant potential with an attractive -function well. • This is self-adjoint with respect to the norm Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  20. Brane-localized modes: Tensors • Gapped continuum: • Bound state: Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  21. Bound state specifics • On the normal branch, e=-1, the bound state is massless! This is the normalizable graviton zero mode, arising because the bulk volume ends on a horizon, a finite distance away. It has additional residual gauge invariances, and so only 2 propagating modes, with matter couplings g ~ H. It decouples on a flat brane. • On the self-accelerating branch, e=1, the bound state mass is not zero! Instead, it has Pauli-Fierz mass term and 5 components, • Perturbative ghost: m2<2H2, helicity-0 component has negative kinetic term (Deser, Nepomechie, 1983; Higuchi, 1987; I. Bengtsson, 1994; Deser, Waldron 2001). Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  22. Brane-localized modes: Scalars • Single mode, with m2 = 2H2, obeying with the brane boundary condition • Subtlety: interplay between normalizability, brane dynamics and gauge invariance. On the normal branch, the normalizable scalar can always be gauged away by residual gauge transformations; not so on the self-accelerating branch. There one combination survives: Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  23. Full perturbative solution • Full perturbative solution of the problem is • On the normal branch, this solution has no scalar contribution, and the bound state tensor is a zero mode. Hence there are no ghosts. • On the self-accelerating branch, the bound state is massive, and when  its helicity-0 mode is a ghost; for , the surviving scalar is a ghost (its kinetic term is proportional to ). • Zero tension is tricky. Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  24. Zeroing in • Zero tension corresponds to m2 = 2H2 on SA branch. The lightest tensor and the scalar become completely degenerate. In Pauli-Fierz theory, there is an accidental symmetry (Deser, Nepomechie, 1983) so that helicity-0 is pure gauge, and so it decouples – ghost gone! • With brane present, this symmetry is spontaneously broken! The brane Goldstone mode becomes the Stuckelberg-like field, and as long as we demand normalizability the symmetry lifts to • We can’t gauge away both helicity-0 and the scalar; the one which remains is a ghost (see also Dubovsky, Koyama, Sibiryakov, 2005). Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  25. (d)Effective action II • By focusing on the helicity zero mode, we can check that in the unitary gauge (see Deser, Waldron, 2001; CGKP, 2006) its Hamiltonian is where , and therefore this mode is a ghost when m2 < 2H2; by mixing with the brane bending it does not decouple even when m2 = 2H2 . • In the action, the surviving combination is Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  26. Shocking nonlocalities • What does this ghost imply? In the Lagrangian in the bulk, there is no explicit negative norm states; the ghost comes about from brane boundary conditions - brane does not want to stay put. • Can it move and/or interact with the bulk and eliminate the ghost? • In shock wave analysis (NK, 2005) one finds a singularity in the gravitational wave field of a massless brane particle in the localized solution. It can be smoothed out with a non-integrable mode. • But: this mode GROWS far from the brane – it lives at asymptotic infinity, and is sensitive to the boundary conditions there. • Can we say anything about what goes on there? Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  27. Trick: shock waves • Physically: because of the Lorentz contraction in the direction of motion, the field lines get pushed towards the instantaneous plane which is orthogonal to V. • The field lines of a massless charge are confined to this plane! (P.G Bergmann, 1940’s) • The same intuition works for the gravitational field. (Pirani; Penrose; Dray, ‘t Hooft; Ferrari, Pendenza, Veneziano; Sfetsos; NK; …) Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  28. 4D: Aichelburg-Sexl shockwave • In flat 4D environment, the exact gravitational field of a photon found by boosting linearized Schwarzschild metric (Aichelburg, Sexl, 1971). • Here u,v = (x ±t)/√2 are null coordinates of the photon. • For a particle with a momentum p , f is, up to a constant where R = (y2 + z2)1/2 is the transverse distance and l0 an arbitrary integration parameter. • This will be our template… Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  29. DGP in a state of shock • The starting point for ‘shocked’ DGP is (NK, 2005 ) • Term ~ f is the discontinuity in dv . Substitute this metric in the DGP field equations, where the new brane stress energy tensor includes photon momentum • Turn the crank! Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  30. Chasing shocks • Best to work with two ‘antipodal’ photons, that zip along the past horizon (ie boundary of future light cone) in opposite directions. This avoids problems with spurious singularities on compact spaces. It is also the correct infinite boost limit of Schwarzschild-dS solution in 4D(Hotta, Tanaka, 1993) . The field equation is(NK, 2005) Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  31. “Antipodal’’ photons in the static patch on de Sitter brane Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  32. Shocking solutions I • Thanks to the symmetries of the problem, we can solve the equations by mode expansion: where the radial wavefunctions are • Here is normalizable: it describes gravitons localized on the brane. The mode is not normalizable. Its amplitude diverges at infinity. This mode lives far from the brane, and is sensitive to boundary conditions there. Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  33. Shocking solutions II • Defining , using the spherical harmonic addition theorem, and changing normalization to we can finally write the solution down as: • The parameter controls the contribution from the nonintegrable modes. This is like choosing the vacuum of a QFT in curved space. • At short distances: the solution is well approximated by the Aichelburg-Sexl 4D shockwave - so the theory does look 4D! • But at large distances, one finds that low-l (large wavelength) are repulsive - they resemble ghosts, from 4D point of view. Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  34. More on shocks… • For integer g there are poles similar to the pole encountered on the SA branch in the tensionless limit g=1 for the lightest brane mode. • This suggests that the general problem has more resonant channnels for energy losses into the bulk, once the door is opened to non-integrable modes. • Once a single non-integrable mode is allowed, one cannot stop all of them from coming in without breaking bulk general covariance. In contrast, normal branch solutions are completely well behaved. One may be able to use them as a benchmark for looking for cosmological signatures of modified gravity. Once a small cosmological term is put in by hand, • it simulates w<-1(Sahni, Shtanov, 2002; Lue, Starkman, 2004) • it changes cosmological structure formation Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  35. Codimension-2 DGP • Higher codimension models are different. A lump of energy of codimension greater than unity gravitates. This lends to gravitational short distance singularities which must be regulated. • The DGP gravitational filter may still work, confining gravity to the defect. However the crossover from 4D to higher-D depends on the short distance cutoff. (Dvali, Gabadadze, Hou, Sefusatti, 2001) • There were concerns about ghosts, and/or nonlocal effects. (Dubovsky, Rubakov; Kolanovic, Porrati, Rombouts; Gabadadze, Veinshtein) • We find a very precise and simple description of the cod-2 case. The shocks show both the short distance singularities and see-saw of the cross-over scale by the UV cutoff. (NK, D. Kiley, in preparation) • We suspect: no ghosts (very preliminary - but we almost have the proof)! HOWEVER: There are light gravitationally coupled modes so that the theory is Brans-Dicke below the crossover. Can the BD field be stabilized? Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  36. Unresolved codimension-2 • Look for the vacua; field equations: • Select 4D Minkowski vacuum x 2D cone: • This is IDENTICAL to the codimension-2 flat brane in conventional 6D gravity. (Sundrum, 1998) • Here b measures deficit angle: far from the core, g ~ B22 d2, • The tension (a.k.a. brane-localized vacuum energy) dumped in the bulk! • But to have static solution, one NEEDS B>0 ! And, one must have appearance of 4D to Hubble scales… How is rc ~H0-1generated from M6 ≥ TeV, and M4 ~ 1019 GeV ? Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  37. Unresolved vacuum • A conical singularity in two infinite extra dimensions: Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  38. Gravity on unresolved cone • Put a photon on the brane: • Field equation, using l = M4/M62: conical electrostatics! • “Solution”: note that D(k, ) ~ I(0) K(k) where r is the longitudinal and  transverse distance. Both I and K are divergent at small argument; but on the brane (=0) divergences cancel, and for r < l /(1-b) one finds the leading behavior of 4D A-S shockwave! • However for any ‡ 0 the divergence in the denominator fixes f=0 - very singular! We must regulate this… Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  39. Resolving the cone An example of an ill-defined exterior boundary value problem in electrostatics! Resolution: replace the point charge with a ring source and solve by imposing regular boundary conditions in and out! This can be done by taking a 4-brane with a massless scalar and wrapping it on a circle of a fixed radius r0. Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  40. Resolved vacuum • Replace the 3-brane with a 4-brane and wrap it on a cylinder! To do this, put in the matter action an `axion’ , so the vacuum action is • Look for 4D Minkowski vacuum x 2D truncated cone, with q; with one tuning condition, . Then we can dimensionally reduce on the angle, viewing the matter as 4D with a KK tower of states moving around the cylinder, with a mass gap ~ (r Then we can think of the cylindrical brane as a thin 3-brane at large distances, with the effective 4D tension . The solution is precisely the conical `mesa’, with the metric • The only difference that b is twice as big as for a naïve thin brane, due to the `axion’ contribution: Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  41. Shocking resolved vacuum • Now, put a photon (a massless ring) on the brane, a la Dray-’t Hooft • Field equation, using l = M4/M62 and R=+br0/(1-b), with r0 the 4-brane radius: • Solution! everywhere regular! Explicitly taking the limits, at distances r < rc one finds the 4D Aichelburg-Sexl shock wave! At r > rc changes to 6D (of Ferrari, Pendenza,Veneziano, 1988). Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  42. See-Saw • Thus this theory simulates 4D gravity at least in the helicity-2 sector, at distances shorter than the cross-over scale. • The cross-over scale rc is not the naïve ratio of M4 and M6, but it depends on the short ditsnace regularization scale r0 . It is exactly the see-saw scale of DGHS: • But now it is easy to see why. Recall that we really have brane graviton term on a 4-brane, with the brane Planck scale M5. But then brane is wrapped on a cylinder  truncation of the action to only the zero modes yields effective graviton term on a 3-brane, with the normalisation given by • Substituting in the cross-over scale formula, we find exactly the codimension-1 result, but for 5D : Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

  43. Summary • The keystone: gravitational filter - hides the extra dimension. But: longitudinal scalar is tricky! • On SA brane, the localized mode is a perturbative ghost. Cosmology with it running loose is unreliable. • What does the ghost do? • Can it catalyze transition from SA to normal branch? • Can it `condense’? • What do strong couplings do? At short scales? At long scales?… • Cod-2: the simple wrapped 4-brane resolution looks ghost-free. But: the tuning of the axion generates a “multiverse” of vacua. Can those contain long deep “gulches” insensitive to the SM contributions? • More work: we may reveal interesting new realms of gravity! Nemanja Kaloper, UC Davis

More Related