CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 4

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Thermal derivation of the Coleman-De Luccia tunneling prescription

Brown, Adam R., Weinberg, Erick J.·2007·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.0706.1573arXiv 0706.1573
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We derive the rate for transitions between de Sitter vacua by treating the field theory on the static patch as a thermal system. This reproduces the Coleman-De Luccia formalism for calculating the rate, but leads to a modified interpretation of the bounce solution and a different prediction for the evolution of the system after tunneling. The bounce is seen to correspond to a sequence of configurations interpolating between initial and final configurations on either side of the tunneling barrier, all of which are restricted to the static patch. The final configuration, which gives the initial data on the static patch for evolution after tunneling, is obtained from one half of a slice through the center of the bounce, while the other half gives the configuration before tunneling. The formalism makes no statement about the fields beyond the horizon. This approach resolves several puzzling aspects and interpretational issues concerning the Coleman-De Luccia and Hawking-Moss bounces. We work in the limit where the back reaction of matter on metric can be ignored, but argue that the qualitative aspects remain in the more general case. The extension to tunneling between anti-de Sitter vacua is discussed.

Overview

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.0706.1573

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • The interpretation of the tunnelling instanton used by Brown and Weinberg is not the same as the original CDL interpretation, and their conclusion that static instantons imply thermal tunnelling does not apply in the CDL interpretation.

    “However, the interpretation of the tunnelling instanton used by Brown and Weinberg is not the same as the original interpretation due to CDL that we use here.In particular, their conclusion that static instantons imply thermal tunnelling does not apply in the CDL interpretation.”

    From The fate of the Higgs vacuum (2016) · cites this paper as [42]

  • The instanton approach and its interpretation are based on results well understood in flat spacetimes but not rigorously described so far in the curved-space context.

    “The instanton approach, and its interpretation, are based on results which well understood in flat spacetimes but not rigorously described so far in the curved space context (although see [42,44]).”

    From The fate of the Higgs vacuum (2016) · cites this paper as [42]

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. S. Coleman and F. De Luccia, Phys. Rev. D 21, 3305 (1980).
  2. S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D 15, 2929 (1977) [Erratum-ibid. D 16, 1248 (1977)].
  3. C. G. Callan and S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1762 (1977).
  4. S. W. Hawking and I.G. Moss, Phys. Lett. B 110, 35 (1982).
  5. T. Banks, arXiv:hep-th/0211160. · arXiv
  6. J. C. Hackworth and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 71, 044014 (2005).
  7. A. H. Guth and E. J. Weinberg, Nucl. Phys. B 212, 321 (1983).
  8. G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 15, 2738 (1977).
  9. T. S. Bunch and P. C. W. Davies, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 360, 117 (1978).
  10. N. Deruelle, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 4, 1297 (1989).
  11. W. Fischler, D. Morgan and J. Polchinski, Phys. Rev. D 42, 4042 (1990).
  12. V. A. Rubakov and S. M. Sibiryakov, Theor. Math. Phys. 120, 1194 (1999) [Teor. Mat. Fiz. 120, 451 (1999)].
  13. U. Gen and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D 61, 103508 (2000).
  14. T. Banks, C. M. Bender and T. T. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 8, 3346 (1973).
  15. T. Banks and C. M. Bender, Phys. Rev. D 8, 3366 (1973).
  16. J. S. Langer, Annals Phys. 41, 108 (1967).
  17. A. D. Linde, Nucl. Phys. B 216, 421 (1983) [Erratum-ibid. B 223, 544 (1983)].
  18. I. Affleck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 46, 388 (1981).
  19. P. Batra and M. Kleban, arXiv:hep-th/0612083. · arXiv
  20. K. Lee and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 36, 1088 (1987).
  21. A. A. Starobinsky, in H.J. De Vega and N. Sanchez (eds.), Field Theory, Quantum Gravity and Strings, 107-126 (Springer, 1986).
  22. A. S. Goncharov, A. D. Linde and V. F. Mukhanov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 2, 561 (1987).
  23. A. D. Linde, Nucl. Phys. B 372, 421 (1992).
  24. E. J. Weinberg, arXiv:hep-th/0612146. · arXiv
  25. L. G. Jensen and P. J. Steinhardt, Nucl. Phys. B 237, 176 (1984).
  26. L. G. Jensen and P. J. Steinhardt, Nucl. Phys. B 317, 693 (1989).
  27. S. Coleman, Nucl. Phys. B 298, 178 (1988).
  28. T. Tanaka, Nucl. Phys. B 556, 373 (1999).
  29. A. Khvedelidze, G. V. Lavrelashvili and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 62, 083501 (2000).
  30. G. V. Lavrelashvili, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 88, 75 (2000).
  31. S. Gratton and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D 63, 123514 (2001).
  32. J. C. Hackworth, Ph. D. Thesis, Columbia University (2006).
  33. G. Lavrelashvili, Phys. Rev. D 73, 083513 (2006).
  34. S. J. Parke, Phys. Lett. B 121, 313 (1983).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Brown, A. R., & Weinberg, E. J.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2007
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.0706.1573
arXiv
0706.1573
References
0
Type
Preprint
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/assumed-1991-2003/

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