Perturbation spectrum in inflation with a cutoff

Physical Review D

Volumn 64, Issue 10, 2001, Pages

  Kempf, Achim ^a,c   Niemeyer, Jens C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUT FÜR ASTROPHYSIK   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; GRAVITY; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; PHYSICS; POWER SPECTRUM; PREDICTION; QUANTUM CHEMISTRY; THEORY; ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION;

EID: 0035890670     PISSN: 05562821     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.64.103501     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. A. R. Liddle and D. H. Lyth, Cosmological Inflation and Large-Scale Structure (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2000).
2. W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 46, 1351 (1981).
3. T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. D 44, 1731 (1991).
4. W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D 51, 2827 (1995).
5. R. Brout, S. Massar, R. Parentani, and P. Spindel, Phys. Rev. D 52, 4559 (1995).
6. S. Corley and T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. D 54, 1568 (1996).
7. R. Brout, C. Gabriel, M. Lubo, and P. Spindel, Phys. Rev. D 59, 044005 (1999).
8. H. Saida and M. Sakagami, Phys. Rev. D 61, 084023 (2000).
9. J. Martin and R. H. Brandenberger, Phys. Rev. D 63, 123501 (2001).
10. J. C. Niemeyer, Phys. Rev. D 63, 123502 (2001).
11. J. Kowalski-Glikman, Phys. Lett. B 499, 1 (2001).
12. J. C. Niemeyer and R. Parentani, astro-ph/0101451.
13. L. Mersini, M. Bastero-Gil, and P. Kanti, Phys. Rev. D 64, 043508 (2001).
14. A. Kempf, Phys. Rev. D 63, 083514 (2001).
15. A. Kempf, hep-th/9810215.
16. E. Witten, Phys. Today 49(4), 24 (1996).
17. A. Kempf, J. Math. Phys. 35, 4483 (1994).
18. A. Kempf, J. Phys. A 30, 2093 (1997).
19. N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, Quantum Fields in Curved Space (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1984).
20. T. Tanaka, astro-ph/0012431.
21. T. Jacobson, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 136, 1 (2000).
22. R. Easther, B. R. Greene, W. H. Kinney, and G. Shiu, Phys. Rev. D 64, 103502 (2001).
23. The same approach was taken in the black hole context in Ref. [7].
24. 2), independent of k, where σ is defined in Eq. (13).
25. Of course, also k̃=k for β→0. However, for the reasons explained above we prefer to label everything in terms of k̃ in order to avoid discussing the k̃→k-map.
26. -4 for β→0.
27. 2=0, they reproduce the same perturbation amplitude as the one predicted by starting in the adiabatic vacuum, providing some support for our conjecture.