Cited by 27Cosmology and Gravitation TheoriesBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories

Brane big bang brought on by a bulk bubble

Open access

Abstract

We propose an alternative inflationary universe scenario in the context of Randall-Sundrum braneworld cosmology. In this new scenario the existence of extra dimension(s) plays an essential role. First, the brane universe is initially in the inflationary phase driven by the effective cosmological constant induced by a small mismatch between the vacuum energy in the five-dimensional bulk and the brane tension. This mismatch arises since the bulk is initially in a false vacuum. Then, false vacuum decay occurs, nucleating a true vacuum bubble with negative energy inside the bulk. The nucleated bubble expands in the bulk and consequently hits the brane, causing a hot big-bang brane universe of the Randall-Sundrum type. Here, the termination of the inflationary phase is due to the change of the bulk vacuum energy. The bubble kinetic energy heats up the universe. As a simple realization, we propose a model in which we assume an interaction between the brane and the bubble. We derive the constraints on the model parameters taking into account the following requirements: solving the flatness problem, no force which prohibits the bubble from colliding with the brane, a sufficiently high reheating temperature for the standard nucleosynthesis to work, and the recovery of Newton's law up to 1 mm. We find that a fine-tuning is needed in order to satisfy the first and the second requirements simultaneously, although the other constraints are satisfied in a wide range of the model parameters.

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.66.023519

Cites

2 of 2 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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gen, U., Ishibashi, A., & Tanaka, T.
Affiliations
Kyoto University (JP)
Venue
Physical Review D
Published
2002-07-22
Volume
66
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
  • 1089-4918
OpenAlex
W147302382
Cited by
27
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
3.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Black Holes and Theoretical Physics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
Keywords
brane inflation, false vacuum decay, bubble nucleation, extra dimensions, effective cosmological constant, reheating temperature, nucleosynthesis, flatness problem, fine-tuning

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