CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4,310Cosmology and Gravitation TheoriesDark Matter and Cosmic PhenomenaNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories

Cosmological consequences of a rolling homogeneous scalar field

Open access
Ratra, Bharat, Peebles, P. J. E.·1988·Physical Review D
DOI 10.1103/physrevd.37.3406
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The cosmological consequences of a pervasive, rolling, self-interacting, homogeneous scalar field are investigated. A number of models in which the energy density of the scalar field red-shifts in a specific manner are studied. In these models the current epoch is chosen to be scalar-field dominated to agree with dynamical estimates of the density parameter, ${\ensuremath{\Omega}}_{\mathrm{dyn}\mathrm{\ensuremath{\sim}}0.2}$, and zero spatial curvature. The required scalar-field potential is ``nonlinear'' and decreases in magnitude as the value of the scalar field increases. A special solution of the field equations which is an attractive, time-dependent, fixed point is presented. These models are consistent with the classical tests of gravitation theory. The E\"otv\"os-Dicke measurements strongly constrain the coupling of the scalar field to light (nongravitational) fields. Nucleosynthesis proceeds as in the standard hot big-bang model. In linear perturbation theory the behavior of baryonic perturbations, in the baryon-dominated epoch, do not differ significantly from the canonical scenario, while the presence of a substantial amount of homogeneous scalar-field energy density at low red-shifts inhibits the growth of perturbations in the baryonic fluid. The energy density in the scalar field is not appreciably perturbed by nonrelativistic gravitational fields, either in the radiation-dominated, matter-dominated, or scalar-field-dominated epochs. On the basis of this effect, we argue that these models could reconcile the low dynamical estimates of the mean mass density with the negligibly small spatial curvature preferred by inflation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevd.37.3406

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Quintessence involves a scalar field rolling down a runaway potential, acting as a fluid with effective equation of state in the range -1 ≤ w ≤ 1 if the field is minimally coupled.

    “Among all the proposals, quintessence (Ratra and Peebles 1988) involves a scalar field rolling down a runaway potential hence acting as a fluid with an effective equation of state in the range À1 w 1 if the field is minimally coupled.”

    From Fundamental constants: from measurement to the universe, a window on gravitation and cosmology (2025) · cites this paper as Ratra and Peebles 1988

  • A new light degree of freedom introduced to extend General Relativity and make constants dynamical faces the problem of generating too large a violation of the universality of free fall or of Solar system tests of General Relativity, especially when the field is assumed light as a dark energy candidate, typically m ~ 10^-33 eV for a scalar field.

    “While the introduction of a new light degree of freedom is an easy recipe to extend General Relativity and to make some constants dynamical, they face the problem to generate a too large violation of the UFF or of the tests of General Relativity in the Solar system, in particular when the new field is assumed to be light in order to be a dark energy candidate, typically m $ 10 À33 eV for a scalar”

    From Fundamental constants: from measurement to the universe, a window on gravitation and cosmology (2025) · cites this paper as Ratra and Peebles 1988

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 58

  1. P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J. 284, 439 (1984); Nature (Lon- don ) 321, 27 {1986);
  2. M E. Brown and P. J. E. Peebles, Astro- phys. J. 317, 588 (1987).
  3. A. M. Boesgaard and G. Steigman, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astro- phys. 23, 319 (1985), and references therein.
  4. R. H. Dicke and P. J. E. Peebles, in General Relativity, edited by S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1979).
  5. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981). It is useful to bear in mind that this is based on a purely classi- cal analysis and that quantum fluctuations (near the end of inflation) in the curvature of spatial hypersurfaces are likely to invalidate this conclusion (possibly, to a part in 10 on the scale of the horizon); see, for example, T. Banks, W. Fischler, and L. Susskind, Nucl. Phys. B262, 159 (1985).
  6. 7G. R. Blumenthal, S. M. Faber, J. R. Primack, and M. J. Rees, Nature (London) 311, 517 (1984);
  7. M. Davis, G. Efstathiou, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J. 292, 371 (1985), and references therein.
  8. E. R. Harrison, Phys. Rev. D 1, 2726 (1970);
  9. P. J. E. Peebles and J. T. Yu, Astrophys. J. 162, 815 (1970);
  10. J. M. Bardeen, J. R. Bond, N. Kaiser, and A. S. Szalay, Astro- phys. J. 304, 15 (1986), and references therein.
  11. "P.J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J. 258, 415 (1982);
  12. S. D. M. W'hite, C. S. Frenk, and M. Davis, Astrophys. J. Lett. 274, L1 (1983).
  13. P. J. E. Peebles, Science 224, 1385 (1984)~
  14. A. Dressier et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 313, L37 (1987).
  15. ~5K. A. Olive, D. Seckel, and E. Vishniac, Astrophys. J. 292, 1 (1985), and references therein.
  16. ' P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J. 284, 439 (1984).
  17. P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Astrophys. J. Lett. 325, L17 (1988).
  18. '8M. Guyot and Ya. B. Zel'dovich, Astron. Astrophys. 9, 227 (1970);
  19. P. Meszaros, ibid. 37, 225 (1974);
  20. E. J. Groth and P. J. E. Peebles, ibid. 41, 143 (1975).
  21. P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J. 142, 1317 (1965);
  22. J. Silk, ibid. 151, 459 (1968);
  23. P. J. E. Peebles and J. T. Yu, ibid. 162, 815 (1970).
  24. L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D 20, 2619 (1979)~ 24P. Jordan, Z. Phys. 157, 112 (1959).
  25. F. Hoyle, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 120, 256 (1960).
  26. C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 124, 925 (1961).
  27. See, for example, W. Fischler and L. Susskind, Phys. Lett. B 171, 363 (1986); 173, 262 (1986). In the standard superstring scenario, it is believed that once supersymmetry is broken string-loop corrections will generate a potential for the dila- ton. It is hoped that the form of this potential will ensure that the resulting time variation of the dilaton "vacuum" ex- pectation value (and hence that of coupling constants such as the fine-structure constant which depend on the dilaton "vac- uum" expectation value) does not conflict with observational bounds on the time variation of fundamental constants. 28A simple-minded analysis (which ignores the need to compac- tify the higher-dimensional superstring theory) suggests that it might be difficult to reconcile a slowly rolling dilaton "vac- uum" expectation value with the observational bounds on the time variation of fundamental constants. J. E. Gunn and B. M. Tinsley, Nature (London) 257, 454
  28. A. D. Dolgov, in The Very Early Uniuerse, edited by G. W. Gibbons, S. W. Hawking, and S. T. C. Siklos (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, England, 1983);
  29. S. M. Barr, Phys. Rev. D 36, 1691 (1987).
  30. R. D. Peccei, J. Sola, and C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B 195, 183 (1987);
  31. W. Buchmuller and N. Dragon, Phys. Lett. ibid. 195, 417 (1987);
  32. J. Ellis, N. C. Tsamis, and M. Voloshin, ibid. 194, 291 (1987).
  33. T. Banks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 1461 (1984).
  34. J. D. Brown and C. Teitelboim, Phys. Lett. B 195, 177 (1987);
  35. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2607 (1987);
  36. s9A. M. Polyakov, Usp. Fiz. Nauk. 136, 539 (1982) [Sov. Phys. Usp. 25, 187 (1982)].
  37. T. S. Olson and T. F. Jordan, Phys. Rev. 0 35, 3258 (1987).
  38. M. Ozer and M. O. Taha, Phys. Lett. B 171, 363 (1986);
  39. M. Reuter and C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B 188, 38 (1987).
  40. 45A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1220 (1982);
  41. 46B. Ratra, Phys. Rev. D 31, 1931 (1985).
  42. 47A. H. Guth and S.-Y. Pi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1110 (1982);
  43. J. M. Bardeen, P. J. Steinhardt, and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 28, 679 (1983);
  44. example, J. E. Moody and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D 30, 130 (1984). It is, at present, unclear whether sufficient entropy can be generated in such pseudoscalar models.
  45. F. Lucchin and S. Matarrese, Phys. Rev. D 32, 1316 (1985).
  46. J. J. Halliwell, Phys. Lett. B 185, 341 (1987).
  47. R. H. Dicke, Astrophys. J. 152, 1 (1968).
  48. C. M. Bender and S. A. Orszag, Advanced Mathematical Methods for Scientists and Engineers (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978);
  49. s4p. J. E. peebles, The Large Scale Struct-ure of the Universe (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1980).
  50. P. G. Roll, R. Krotkov, and R. H. Dicke, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 26, 442 (1964).
  51. R. V. Wagoner, Phys. Rev. D 1, 3209 (1970).
  52. E. D. Loh and E. J. Spillar, Astrophys. J. Lett. 307, L1 (1986);
  53. E. D. Loh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 2865 (1986).
  54. C. Alcock, G. M. Fuller, and G. J. Mathews, Astrophys. J. 320, 439 (1987);
  55. J. H. Applegate, C. J. Hogan, and R. J. Scherrer, Phys. Rev. D 35, 1151 (1987); and references therein.
  56. P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J. Lett. 315, L73 (1987); Nature (London) 327, 210 (1987).
  57. J. P. Ostriker, C. Thompson, and E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B 180, 231 (1986).
  58. A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rep. 121, 263 (1985), and references therein.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ratra, B., & Peebles, P. J. E.
Affiliations
Princeton University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Physical Review D
Publisher
American Physical Society (APS)
Published
1988-06-15
Volume
37
Issue
12
Pages
3406-3427
ISSN
0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1103/physrevd.37.3406
OpenAlex
W2137919480
Cited by
4,310
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 141 · 2025: 184 · 2024: 197 · 2023: 184 · 2022: 157 · 2021: 176 · 2020: 173 · 2019: 188 · 2018: 169 · 2017: 125 · 2016: 158 · 2015: 136 · 2014: 152 · 2013: 178 · 2012: 173
FWCI
14.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
link.aps.org/licenses/aps-default-license (vor)
Locations
  • Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Dark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Keywords
scalar field potential, nucleosynthesis, perturbation growth, scalar perturbations, cosmological density, fixed-point solutions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review