Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Cosmological perturbations and the Weinberg theorem

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

JCAP12(2015)027

(http://iopscience.iop.org/1475-7516/2015/12/027)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 1.39.34.86
This content was downloaded on 18/01/2016 at 13:42

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

J ournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics
An IOP and SISSA journal

Cosmological perturbations and the
Weinberg theorem

JCAP12(2015)027
Mohammad Akhshik,a,b Hassan Firouzjahia and Sadra Jazayeria
a School of Astronomy, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM),
P.O. Box 19395-5531, Tehran, Iran
b Department of Physics, Sharif University of Technology,

Tehran, Iran
E-mail: m.akhshik@ipm.ir, firouz@ipm.ir, sadraj@ipm.ir

Received August 18, 2015
Revised November 7, 2015
Accepted November 14, 2015
Published December 14, 2015

Abstract. The celebrated Weinberg theorem in cosmological perturbation theory states that
there always exist two adiabatic scalar modes in which the comoving curvature perturbation is
conserved on super-horizon scales. In particular, when the perturbations are generated from
a single source, such as in single field models of inflation, both of the two allowed independent
solutions are adiabatic and conserved on super-horizon scales. There are few known examples
in literature which violate this theorem. We revisit the theorem and specify the loopholes in
some technical assumptions which violate the theorem in models of non-attractor inflation,
fluid inflation, solid inflation and in the model of pseudo conformal universe.

Keywords: inflation, cosmological perturbation theory

ArXiv ePrint: 1508.03293

Article funded by SCOAP3 . Content from this work may be used
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s)
doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/12/027
and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.

This theorem also states that in addition there is one tensor mode which is conserved on super-horizon scales. we shall concentrate on scalar perturbations. Weinberg’s theorem imply that both of these two modes should be conserved on super-horizon scales in single field models. the comoving curvature perturbations in Newtonian gauge always has two adiabatic modes which are frozen on super- horizon scales. Weinberg’s theorem has strong implications for models in which pertur- bations are generated from a single source. for a review see [1–4]. the fact that there exists adiabatic perturbations which are conserved on super-horizon scales is a powerful tool to connect the large scale fluctuations in CMB or LSS to the corresponding curvature perturbations generated during inflation when the mode of interest leaves the horizon. In our studies here. 5]. In particular. However. Weinberg has generalized this conclu- sion to a broad class of cosmological perturbations in early universe [1. such as during inflation.3 From comoving gauge to Newtonian gauge 9 4 Fluid inflation 12 5 Solid inflation 13 6 Pseudo-conformal universe 18 7 Summary and discussions 21 1 Introduction Cosmological perturbations theory is the vital tool to connect the predictions of perturbations generated from seed quantum fluctuations in early universe. It is well-known that the comoving curvature perturbation R or the curvature perturba- tions on surface of constant energy density ζ are conserved on super-horizon scales in models of single field slow-roll inflation.Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 A brief review of Weinberg’s theorem 2 3 Non-attractor inflation 4 3.1 An equation for R 5 3. After inflation ends. –1– . to late time cosmological observations such as cosmic microwave background (CMB) or large scale structures (LSS). Consequently. such as in models of single field inflation. H is the Hubble expansion rate and k is the comoving wave-number (in Fourier space). the counting of independent degrees of freedom indicate that we have only two in- dependent modes of curvature perturbations. In these models.2 The equation for Φ 7 JCAP12(2015)027 3. the universe enters into the violent phase of reheating and the follow up radiation and matter dominated eras with different sources of energy and matter constituents. corresponding to k/a ≪ H in which a is the cosmic scale factor. The celebrated Weinberg theorem states that whatever the content of the universe.

Let us start with the homogeneous FRW background and then consider the solutions of the perturbed Einstein fields equations which are homogeneous but time-dependent: Φ = Φ(t) and Ψ = Ψ(t). The advantage in using the Newtonian gauge in the analysis of [1. without assuming scalar fields etc. x) and ωij is a constant matrix (note that ωii is the trace of ωij ).2) and (2. If so.2) 3 δp = −ṗ ǫ(t) .   (2. δu is the perturbed velocity potential and π S is the anisotropic inertia (pressure) term. 5]. x) in the coordinate transformation xµ → xµ + ǫµ (t. 2 A brief review of Weinberg’s theorem In this section we briefly review the Weinberg’s theorem which is independent of model (i. there are known examples in literature such as models of non-attractor inflation. ǫ(t) is a function encoding the time-dependent part of ǫ0 (t. The goal of this work is to shed some light on this question. As demonstrated in [1. δρ = −ρ̇ ǫ(t) . For a more extensive review see [1. This was crucially used in the proof of the theorem. As mentioned above. –2– . 5] is that this gauge leaves no residual gauge symmetry except for the mode with the zero wavenumber. In addition. x) dt2 + a(t)2 1 − 2Ψ(t. xµ → xµ + ǫµ (t. in single field slow roll models the decaying mode approaches Rk = 0). 5] one concludes that there is always a spatially homogenous solution to the set of perturbed Einstein equations in Newtonian gauge in which ωii Ψ(t) = Hǫ(t) − . The goal is to see under what conditions a subset of these solutions can be extended to non-zero wavenumber which satisfy all Einstein’s equations. therefore. However. x) dx2 .e. For example it is known that in models of non-attractor inflation the usual would-be decaying mode is actually the growing mode and R grows like a3 [6–10].3) are not physical in general. Of course. In other words. k = 0. Logically.3) where δρ and δp represent respectively the perturbed energy density and pressure. x). one is led to ask how these models evade Weinberg’s theorem. πS = 0 . pseudo conformal universe and Galilean Genesis in which the curvature perturbation is not frozen on super-horizon scales. The scalar sector of metric perturbations in the Newtonian gauge has the following form ds2 = − 1 + 2Φ(t. δu = ǫ(t) . Of course.The theorem states that the dominant mode is the usual conserved mode in single field infla- tion models while the other adiabatic mode is actually Rk = 0. solid inflation. (2. JCAP12(2015)027 We revisit the mechanism in which this theorem is proved and specify the loopholes in some technical assumptions required in the theorem which are violated in these scenarios. fluid inflation. There are some generic features on the violation of these technical assumptions which are shared in these models but we shall study each model independently to specify the exact nature of the violation of the theorem. (2. Φ(t) = −ǫ̇(t) (2. They become physical if they can be promoted to non-zero wave-numbers. We are interested in scalar perturbations of the metric and matter sources.). then these subset of solutions represent physical solutions. they are not physical solutions by themselves as in general they may be removed by a coordinate transformation. these conclusions conform with the know results in single field slow roll inflation models as mentioned above (more precisely. the solution given in eqs.1) in which Φ and Ψ are the Bardeen potentials.

one can extend these analysis to more general case in which π S 6= 0. for this mode R = 0.7). the Poisson equation is a constraint like the above equation. However. 5] seem to leave no loophole. i. However. and yi collectively represents some physical fields. As we shall see this –3– . Now suppose the fields equations or the constraints are written such that k2 α(t)y1 + y2 = β(t)y3 . there are two technical assumptions which may not be justified in general. As we shall see a particular example in which this technical assumption is violated is the model of solid inflation. δρ/ρ̇ = δp/ṗ. we implicitly assumed that there is no anisotropic stress. The first technical assumption is that the set of perturbed Einstein equations are regular at k = 0 so the transition from the gauge mode k = 0 to the physical mode with k 6= 0 but with k → 0 can be made continuously.2) and (2. in order to simplify our presentation of the theorem. without causing difficulties. However. (2. Imposing that eqs. JCAP12(2015)027 The second class of the physical solution is obtained to be CH(t) Ψ=Φ= a(t) δp δρ C = = −δu = − . R = ωii /3.3) become physical if they also satisfy the Einstein fields equations when k 6= 0. We note that in both classes of solutions all scalar quantity s such as ρ or p have equal value for δs/ṡ. Ḣ etc but inde- pendent of k. This summarizes the statement of the theorem. (2. The super-horizon condition is k/aH ≪ 1. (2. Furthermore. For example. 5] is the extent to which one can take the limit k → 0 arbitrarily for the super-horizon mode.6) a2 H 2 in which α(t) and β(t) are functions of background quantities such as H. a more subtle and somewhat hidden point in the proof of [1. As we shall see. The details of assumptions and the derivations employed in [1.e. π S = 0 and consequently Φ = Ψ. In addition. However. For this reason these solutions are called adiabatic. this should be compared with the coefficients α(t) or β(t).3) also satisfy the inhomogeneous perturbed Einstein equations one obtain two sets of independent physical solutions. (2. see eq. The necessity of this technical assumption was already mentioned in [5] (see also [11]) and the fact that this technical assumptions may be invalidated in some certain cases.2) and (2.4) ṗ ρ̇ a(t) τ in which R is the comoving curvature perturbation which is also conserved. then taking k → 0 as the criteria to turn on a physical super-horizon mode from a pure gauge mode k = 0 is ill-defined.5) ṗ ρ̇ a(t) in which C is a constant. The first set of solution is given by H(t) t ′ ′  Z  Ψ=Φ=R −1+ a(t )dt a(t) τ Z t δp δρ R = = −δu = − a(t′ )dt′ .the solutions in eqs. (2. (3. Now when we take k → 0 as the 2 definition of super-horizon limit we actually mean a2kH 2 → 0 to arbitrary extent. as in [5]. if the coefficient α(t) approaches zero more faster than 1/a2 . So whenever we take k → 0 when dealing with the Einstein equations we actually mean the extent to which k/aH goes to zero.

3 Non-attractor inflation In this section we study in details how Weinberg’s theorem is violated in models of non- attractor inflation. suffers from the graceful exit problem as there is no mechanism to terminate inflation. we recover the mode R = constant. The large deviation of η from the usual slow-roll condition is a manifestation of the fact that the potential is exactly flat and ǫ falls off exponentially during inflation. However.4) for the first adiabatic mode in Weinberg’s theorem in non-attractor model. This can be achieved by a heavy waterfall field which has no contribution in curvature perturbation as in models of hybrid inflation.1) a H H2 –4– . This obviously calls for an inspection as how the Weinberg theorem is violated in this setup. With an integration by parts the relation between Φ and R is obtained to be    H a adH Z Φ=R −1+ + . In its simplest realization [6] (see also [14]). the would-be decaying mode in conventional slow-roll inflation is now actually the growing mode while the would-be dominant mode in slow-roll models. as proposed. is here the sub-leading mode. 8]. From the background field equations we obtain φ̇ ∝ a−3 while the first slow-roll parameter ǫ ≡ −Ḣ/H 2 falls off like a−6 . corresponding to R = constant. Now comparing with Weinberg’s theorem. Let us first briefly review the models of non-attractor inflation. Indeed. see also [15]. However. There are two important comments in order. These models are JCAP12(2015)027 proposed as a counter example which violate the Maldacena’s single field non-Gaussianity consistency condition [12. 2 much faster then the combination a2kH 2 . The second comment is that the model. For the later reference. the model consists of a scalar field φ rolling in a flat potential V = V0 . The above simple non-attractor model was extended to more interesting case in the context of K-inflation in which the potential is not flat and the scalar perturbations have a non-trivial sound speed cs [7. 5] is not expected to go through and the results of [1. (3. The first comment is that the fact that R is not frozen on super-horizon scales is the key to violate the single field non-Gaussianity consistency condition. 5] are violated in one way or another. However. In this situations the proof of [1. (2. The non-Gaussianity parameter fNL in the squeezed limit is given by fNL = 5(1 + c2s )/4c2s which clearly violates Maldacena’s consistency condition. it is helpful to calculate the relation between Φ and R given in eq. Putting it another way. note that we still have the constant mode solution for R which is now the sub- leading mode. if R was frozen on super-horizon scales then by a change of coordinate xi → eR xi one could eliminate R completely yielding a zero value for the non-Gaussianity parameter fNL in the squeezed limit. we do not recover the other solution R = 0 and instead we get R ∝ a3 . in a more realistic situation one can imagine that towards the end of inflation a mechanism like waterfall phase transition happens terminating inflation efficiently. The crucial effect in non-attractor model is that the dominant curvature perturbation is not frozen on super-horizon scales and R grows like a3 .is exactly what happens in models of non-attractor inflation in which α(t) falls off like a−6 . As studies in [6] a scale-invariant curvature perturbation with ns = 1 can be obtained with the second slow-roll parameter η ≡ ǫ̇/ǫH ≃ −6. 13].

we solve the sets of Einstein equations to obtain Φ directly and look at its super-horizon limit k/aH ≪ 1 or alternatively kτ → 0 in which τ is the conformal time related to physical time via dτ = dt/a(t). 3. In usual situations.Now taking ǫ = −Ḣ/H 2 ∝ τ 6 . Below we demonstrate the violation of the theorem in simple model of non-attractor inflation [6] with V (φ) = V0 in three different methods. (3. (3. when we take k → 0 we actually rely on the fact that a(t) expands exponentially so k/aH falls off quickly for a given k.7). (3. (2.3) k2 δ φ̈ + 3Hδ φ̇ + δφ = 4φ̇Φ̇ .7) has the form of eq. In the first method. (2. This was the trick to turn on the physical –5– . Going to Fourier space. the above integral can be cast into an integral over τ in the form of dτ τ 4 yielding ǫ Φ = R. (3. and to leadingR order in ǫ. (3. 5] may be violated.4) which will be used in subsequent analysis. eq. In the JCAP12(2015)027 second method. (3. In the third method. we construct the solution first in the comoving gauge and then calculate Φ in Newtonian gauge which enables us to view the violation of the theorem from a different perspective.3) and (3.7) can be discarded and we obtain the relation Φ = −δ u̇ which is the starting point in [5] when proving the theorem for the scalar fields. (3.1 An equation for R We work in the Newtonian gauge and set Ψ = Φ as there is no anisotropic inertia. in the non-attractor model we have ǫ ∝ a−6 so the first term in eq. in which ǫ is nearly constant. the set of perturbed Einstein equation to be solved are Φ̇ + HΦ = 4πGφ̇ δφ (3. If we take the arbitrary mathematical limit k → 0 then the second term in eq. such as in slow-roll models. As promised before.2) 5 We emphasis again that the above relation between Φ and R is valid only for the first mode in Weinberg’s theorem given in eq.6) and we can guess how the theorem in [1. On the other hand. (3.7) a H in which ǫ = −Ḣ/H 2 = 4πGφ̇2 /H 2 . taking the super-horizon limit simply as k → 0 is safe justifying neglecting the second term in eq. we obtain the second order differential equation for R and specify how the theorem is violated. Hτ ≃ −1. (3.6) and k2   ǫ − 2 2 Φ = −ǫδ u̇ (3.5) are cast into Φ̇ + HΦ = −ǫH 2 δu .7) falls off much faster than the second term.5) a in which a dot indicates the derivative with respect to cosmic time t and G is the Newton constant. However. It is more convenient to work with the velocity potential δu = −δφ/φ̇ in which eqs.4) a2 supplemented with the constraint equation (the Poisson equation) k2   Ḣ + 2 Φ = 4πG(−φ̇δ φ̇ + φ̈δφ) .

8) Plugging this into the conservation equation (3. does not vanish faster than the coefficient of k 2 .12) we obtain dt Z R = C1 + C2 . (3. taking the mathematical limit k 2 = 0 requires that Ṙ = 0 for the equations to be consistent. The comoving curvature perturbation R is given by R = Hδu − Φ . With some long but otherwise simple manipulations we obtain ∂t (a3 ǫṘ) + k 2 ǫa R = 0 . (3. (3. in non-attractor model in which ǫ ∝ a−6 . we keep both terms in bracket in eq.12) in Newtonian gauge in order to be on the same platform as in [1. Now. (3. (3.7) without dropping the term containing k 2 .10) and (3. (3. 5].4) into a second order differential equation for R. However. Indeed.12) in which the coefficient of Ṙ. the would be decaying term in eq. –6– . Taking the super-horizon limit of eq.7) falls off much faster than the second term containing k 2 . (3.13) a3 ǫ in which C1 and C2 are two constants of integrations representing the two independent modes. This brings us to the conclusion of [5].7) (the term containing k 2 ) now is the leading term. The mathematical limit of taking k → 0 as employed in [1. (3. (3.6) yields JCAP12(2015)027 Hδ u̇ + H 2 δu = Ṙ + HR . This is opposite to the situation in eq. Now. Now in the non-attractor models. For this reason. (3.12) can be taken without any problem. (3.10) H k and ǫa2 H 2   Ṙ Φ= . (3.7) in which the first term in eq.9) to obtain R a2 ǫ δu = + 2 Ṙ (3.7).11). the super-horizon limit in eq. (3. (3. However. (3. (3.7) falling much faster than the term containing k 2 . a3 ǫ. such as comoving gauge as employed in [6]. this solution is the growing mode yielding R ∼ a(t)3 as observed in [6].12) This is a known equation for R which can easily be obtained in other gauges. with the first term in eq. Surprisingly.11) k2 H The above equations show a non-trivial interplay between Ṙ and k −2 . In conventional slow-roll model in which ǫ is constant. then taking k → 0 as the criteria for super-horizon mode is ill-defined.9) Now we manipulate eqs. The difference now is in the mode represented by C2 . 5]. 5] to prove the theorem. 5] labeled by R = 0. with δu and Φ expressed in terms of R and Ṙ in eqs. (3. we went into long procedure of deriving eq. this mode decays and one approaches the other solution in [1. 5] makes sense only in eq.solution from the pure gauge mode k = 0 in [1. The mode represented by C1 is the usual mode which also exists in [1. 5] and in order to pin down the loophole in the technical assumption employed in [1. we can cast the remaining equation (3.

15) a while the (0i) equation is as given in eq. eq. (3. With δρ = δP . Note also the overall power of k which is different for Φ1 (k.21) Note that the superscript (0) above indicates that we have calculated Φ to zeroth order of (0) (0) ǫ.3. eq. τ ). we obtain δρ = δP = φ̇δ φ̇ − φ̇2 Φ. (3.3). V = V0 . (3. eq. JCAP12(2015)027 The general forms of δρ and δP are given by δP = φ̇δ φ̇ − φ̇2 Φ − Vφ δφ (3. In general. τ ) = k 6 τ (k 2 τ 2 − 3) cos(kτ ) − 3k 7 τ 2 sin(kτ ) . and after eliminating δu = −δφ/φ̇ using eq. as an overall power of k can be absorbed into constants of integration C1 (k) and C2 (k) as we shall see below.3). (3. τ ) and Φ2 (k. (3. (3. (3. we need to solve eq.14) is cast into the simple form 6 6 Φ′′ − Φ′ + 2 Φ + k 2 Φ = 0 . (3. the relation between Φ and R is 1 Φ′   H R = −Φ + (Φ̇ + HΦ) = −Φ − +Φ . (3.8).14) can not be solved exactly because of the slow-roll correction coming from Ḣ. This is chosen for convenience in follow up calculations. we solve it to leading order in ǫ = −Ḣ/H 2 .14) to first order in ǫ to find the sub-leading corrections in R. At zeroth order in ǫ and taking aH = −1/τ . (3. (3. 2 it is the relative k-dependence of Φi and Ri (obtained from Φi below) which matters.18) Ḣ ǫ aH in which a prime indicates the derivative with respect to the conformal time τ where dτ = dt/a(t). τ ) = kτ (k 2 τ 2 − 3) sin kτ + 3k 2 τ 2 cos(kτ ) (3.17) Note the curious effect that in our simple non-attractor model with a constant potential.2 The equation for Φ Here we solve the Einstein equations in Newtonian gauge directly to obtain Φ. (3. δρ and δP from other equations.14) can be solved directly without the need to solve for δu. However. are k2 Φ̈ + 7H Φ̇ + (6H 2 + 2Ḣ)Φ + Φ = −4πG(δρ − δP ) (3. it is important to note that for each i = 1.18). (3.14) a2 k2 3Φ̈ + 9H Ψ̇ + 6(H 2 + Ḣ)Φ − 2 Φ = 4πG(δρ + 3δP ) (3. The cor- responding equations involving the (00) and (ii) components of Einstein’s equations.16) 2 δρ = φ̇δ φ̇ − φ̇ Φ + Vφ δφ . –7– . Note that because of the 1/ǫ factor in eq.20) (0) Φ2 (k. with Ψ = Φ. Our goal is to find the solution of Φ from eq.14) and then use this value of Φ to calculate R. Here. Note that from eq.19) τ τ (0) (0) The general solution is represented in terms of two independent solutions Φ1 and Φ2 in which (0) Φ1 (k.

14) is (1)′′ 6 (1)′ 6 (1) (1) 6ǫ (0)′ 2ǫ (0) Φi − Φi + 2 Φi + k 2 Φi = Φi + 2 Φi i = 1. (3. yielding to leading order k3 τ 3  R1 = − sin(kτ ) + kτ cos(kτ ) ǫ 1 cos(kτ )(105 − 63k 2 τ 2 − 2k 4 τ 4 ) + kτ sin(kτ )(105 − 16k 2 τ 2 ) + O(ǫ) . 2 can be solved separately yielding (1) ǫ  cos(kτ )(21 + 4k 2 τ 2 ) + kτ sin(kτ )(5 + 2k 2 τ 2 ) . R2 ) are valid for both sub-horizon and super-horizon limits.24) (0) (1) Having calculated Φi = Φi + Φi we can calculate R from eq.  + (3. The above expressions for (Φ1 . Having calculated the zeroth order solution of eq.2). τ ) for both modes i = 1.14) now we calculate the next (1) leading term Φi (k. (3. As mentioned before. we –8– . (3. in order to make contact with Weinberg’s theorem. 2. Ci (k) are k-dependent so an overall power of k can be absorbed in both Φi and Ri .28) 3ǫ 4 From the above solutions we observe that Φ1 = 5ǫ R1 in exact agreement with Weinberg’s theorem as given in eq. τ ) obtained from perturbing eq. However. Now. The (1) corresponding differential equation for Φi (k. However. For this we also should take into account that to next slow-roll correction in non-attractor model we have aH ≃ −(1 + ǫ/7)τ −1 .23) 28 JCAP12(2015)027 and (1) ǫ  Φ2 = cos(kτ )(−945 + 315k 2 τ 2 + 5k 6 τ 6 + 2k 8 τ 8 ) 28τ 5 − kτ sin(kτ )(945 + 21k 4 τ 4 + 4k 6 τ 6 )  (3. it is the relative k-dependence of Φi and Ri which is important. Also note that in the mathematical limit k = 0 we see that R1 becomes constant as was expected. (3. R1 ) and (Φ2 . (3. as we discussed in previous sub-section. (3.18).  Φ1 = (3. (3. let us look k at the super-horizon limits of the above solutions corresponding to aH = −kτ → 0. 2 .22) τ τ 7τ 7τ The above equation for i = 1. for each i. (3.26) 28τ 3 Note that the general solution for R is given in terms of two independent solutions R1 and R2 via R = C1 (k)R1 + C2 (k)R2 in which C1 (k) and C2 (k) are two constants of integrations.25) 28 and k8 τ 3  k 2 cos(kτ ) R2 = − kτ sin(kτ ) + cos(kτ ) − (315 − 105k 4 τ 4 + 16k 6 τ 6 ) ǫ 28τ 3 k 2 sin(kτ )kτ − (315 + 105k 2 τ 2 − 63k 4 τ 4 − 2k 6 τ 6 ) + O(ǫ) .27) 15 4 and k 6 τ 6 15 R1 ≃ − + (kτ → 0) . In this limit for the first mode we obtain k6 τ 6 3 Φ1 ≃ − + ǫ (kτ → 0) .

the mathematical super-horizon limit k → 0 employed in [1. Let us start with the ADM formalism in comoving gauge δφ = 0. (3.31) 4τ 6 and k 8 τ 3 45k 2 R2 ≃ − − (kτ → 0) . can not capture this solution. 3. let us parameterize ǫ as  6 τ ǫ(τ ) = ǫ∗ .28) typically dominates over the second term.28). Then we move from comoving gauge to Newtonian gauge which provides us with yet another insight as how the theorem in [1.33) τ ǫ∗ 4 The above result indicates the 1/τ 3 growth of R on super-horizon as observed in [6]. the singular 1/τ 3 pre-factor accompanying k 2 in R2 determines the structure of the physical solution. As just mentioned above.7).have to be careful when taking the super-horizon limit kτ → 0 while k is held fixed. (3. from the above solutions we find R = 0 while Φ2 ∝ ǫ/τ 5 ∝ H/a in agreement with the findings of [1. and with ǫ given in eq. Now let us look at the second mode in super-horizon limit in which we obtain   135ǫ 1 2 2 Φ2 ≃ − 5 1 + k τ (kτ → 0) .29). (3. (3.34) Here N and N i are the lapse function and the shift vectors which are obtained algebraically from the constraint equations. However. As we argued before. Plugging this in eq. the physical super-horizon limit is when kτ → 0 for a given k. Now we can see how the non-attractor solution evades Weinberg’s theorem. (3. To compare the two contributions in eq. 5] is violated. –9– .29) τ∗ in which τ∗ indicates the time when the mode k leaves the horizon corresponding to kτ∗ = −1. (3.30) JCAP12(2015)027 3ǫ∗ 4 From this expression we see that the first term in eq. and very similar to discussions after eq. we obtain k2 1   45 R2 ≃ − 3 + . (3. our results in the mathematical limit k = 0 agree with the second mode of Weinberg. without taking into account the strong time-dependence of ǫ. in which the metric perturbations has the following form ds2 = −N 2 dt2 + gij (N i dt + dxi )(N j dt + dxj ) . However. (3. In this limit ǫ ∝ τ 6 so the first term in eq.28) is a constant too. Note that the 1/τ 3 growth in R2 is specific to non-attractor model in which ǫ falls off exponentially. 5] for the second mode. (3. (3.32) ǫ 4τ 3 In the mathematical limit k = 0. (3. in the physical super-horizon limit in which kτ → 0 while k is held fixed. 5].3 From comoving gauge to Newtonian gauge In this sub-section we present the equations in comoving gauge which is more convenient for models containing scalar fields.28) we obtain 1 15 R1 ≃ − + (kτ → 0) . In this limit. (3.

g00 ≡ −(1 + 2N1 ) . in non-attractor case in which [6] Ṙ = −3HR + O(k 2 /a2 H 2 ) . this choice gives rise to pure gauge mode which has been already taken care of in Weinberg’s theorem.43) we require1 ǫS = 0 . the spatial metric take the following simple form (neglecting trans- verse and traceless part) gij = a2 (1 + 2R)δij .44) in which ∆hµν indicates the change in hµν in transforming from the comoving gauge to the Newtonian gauge. (3. under the above coordinate transformation we have.39) a2 H so χ is analytic in k.38) H Note that in usual attractor case in which R is conserved outside horizon we have k2 Ṙ ∼ R. In comoving gauge. – 10 – . This is another sign that the prescription of taking k → 0 employed in [1. In the Newtonian gauge we should keep the spatial metric diagonal so from eq. If we split the metric as gµν = g µν + hµν . (3.45) 1 Note that in general ǫS = f (t) will keep the spatial metric diagonal too.42) S 2 0 ∆hij = −2∂i ∂j ǫ + 2a Hǫ δij .43) ∆h00 = −2ǫ̇0 . ∆hi0 = ∂i (−ǫ̇S − ǫ0 + 2HǫS ) . χ ≡ ∂ −2 (a2 ǫṘ) . (3. (3. ξ i = ∂ i ǫS .36) from the constraint equations we obtain JCAP12(2015)027 2Ṙ N1 = . we may write down the quadratic action and solve for the lapse function and the shift vector.40) then χ is non-analytic in k. (3. Now we perform the coordinate transformation from the comoving gauge to the New- tonian gauge.35) As usual.37) H and. Consider the coordinate transformation xi → xi + ξ i . Defining the lapse function and the shift vector via [12] g0i = Ni ≡ ∂i ψ . (3. (3. However. (3.41) in which ǫS is the scalar part of spatial coordinate transformation. (3. (3. R ψ=− + χ. (3. However. 5] as the definition of super-horizon limit is problematic. (3.

49) to obtain Φ as follows Φ = Ψ = −H∂ −2 (a2 ǫṘ) = −Hχ .12). Therefore both of Weinberg’s adiabatic modes are physical and the theorem works well. from this equation we obtain R R ǫ0 = − + χ = − + ∂ −2 (a2 ǫṘ) . (3.43) the components of metric in Newtonian gauge is obtained to be 2Ṙ g00 = −1 − − 2ǫ̇0 = −1 + 2ǫR − 2∂t ∂ −2 (a2 ǫṘ) . (3. from eq. This evolution in turn leads to the violation of single field consistency condition. plugging this value of ǫ0 into eqs. in attractor case χ is analytic in k i. in the most simplest non-attractor model considered here we have [6] fNL = 52 . once R is solved this way. we readily obtain the second order differential equation for R as given in eq. This is because in squeezed limit one of the modes is much longer than the other two modes and therefore it leaves the horizon much earlier. (3. Conversely. However. Now imposing the constraint Φ = Ψ in Newtonian gauge. Conse- quently. and it is physical because we obtained it from coordinate transformation of a physical solution in comoving gauge. Before we conclude this section we comment that the violation of Weinberg’s theorem in non-attractor model leads to the evolution of curvature perturbation outside the horizon.48) H gij = a2 1 + 2H∂ −2 (a2 ǫṘ) δij .47) H H JCAP12(2015)027 Now.49) The above expressions for g00 and gij give two independent formulas for Φ and Ψ.50) Note that the above solution works for both attractor and non-attractor phases. (3. (3. if we do not know Ṙ = 0 a priori then we can not assume the analyticity of the solutions in the limit k → 0 which is taken as the guiding principle to distinguish the physical solution from the pure gauge mode. neglecting pure gauge mode.In addition. This is also seen from the explicit solutions of R in eq. Specifically. in Newtonian gauge h0i = 0 and taking into account that in comoving gauge h0i = Ni is given in eqs.38). However this simple intuitive argument fails to hold when curva- ture perturbations evolve outside the horizon. large non-Gaussianity in squeezed limit is generated in this model.44) and (3.46) H Therefore. (3. (3. in the non-attractor case that R evolves on super-horizon scales χ is non-analytic in k so the limit k → 0 is not well defined mathematically.42) we obtain   R ∂i − + χ − ǫ0 = 0 . (3. Now. we can plug it into eq.50) in which Φ = (a2 ǫ/k 2 )Ṙ. This is also seen from the structure of eq. (3.e.12) as discussed in previous sub-section. (3. – 11 – . (3. In addition.   (3.36) (3. The analyticity of the results for the limit k → 0 requires that Ṙ = 0. If curvature perturbation is constant outside the horizon this constant mode will only change the background for the other two modes. as it is stressed earlier. generating no local-type non-Gaussianity. it is well defined in k → 0 limit.

(4.µ . 18] 1 √ √  √ √ L = MP2 −gR − −g ρ 1 + e(ρ) + −g λ1 (gµν U µ U ν + 1) + −g λ2 (ρU µ ). Having this said. Varying the action with respect to the Lagrange multipliers λ1 and λ2 and dynamical fields ρ and gµν we recover the Einstein’s fields equation in which now the stress energy tensor T µν takes the form of a perfect fluid T µν = (E + P )U µ U ν + P g µν . Alternatively. e(ρ) is the specific internal energy and U µ is the 4-velocity. the total energy density. is another example in which Weinberg’s theorem is violated. this implies δρ δP = c2s δE = c2s (E + P ) . P = P (E). An important parameter of the fluid is the sound speed of perturbations cs which is given by Ṗ c2s ≡ .6) makes sense as we consider a barotropic fluid. presented originally in [16]. ρ is the rest mass density.4) dρ ρ Knowing that e = e(ρ).3) Here P plays the role of pressure in which for an isentropic fluid is represented by de(ρ) P = 2. λ1 and λ2 are two Lagrange multipliers JCAP12(2015)027 to enforce the normalization of the 4-velocity and the conservation of the rest mass density. Here we briefly review the setup of fluid inflation and present the reasons why it violates Weinberg’s theorem in close analogy with non-attractor scenarios. E. (4. In order for the perturbations to be stable we require c2s > 0.5) dρ ρ We note that eqs. there is no restriction to consider more general situations in which e can also be a function of other thermodynamic variables such as entropy. (4. (4. and using the conservation equation Ė + 3H(E + P ) = 0. With this prescription.4) and (4. is given by E = ρ(1 + e) . (4. In addition.2) we also conclude dE E+P = . – 12 – . from eq. (4.1) 2 in which MP is the reduced Planck mass. (4.4 Fluid inflation Fluid inflation.2) As in [16] we concentrate on an isentropic or barotropic fluid for which e = e(ρ). which is expected for a barotropic fluid. (4.6) Ė For a small perturbation.5) imply that P is a function of E. The fluid setup is given by the following Lagrangian density [17. while for the perturbations to be sub-luminal we also require c2s ≤ 1. from the above equation we conclude that P is a function of ρ. (4.7) ρ Note that the definition (4.

Very interestingly. for other works on solid inflation see [20–25]. However. Requiring that 0 < c2s ≤ 1. Now quantizing the system and calculating the power spectrum. (3. −3. with cs = 1 we conclude that δP = δE. The cosmological dynamics of the system has the usual FRW form. in Poisson constraint eq. we conclude that −6 .8) H 2 2MP2 H 2 and ǫ̇ JCAP12(2015)027 η≡ = 2ǫ − 3(1 + c2s ) . (3. as com- pared to inflation based on scalar field dynamics. the spectral index is obtained to be ns ≃ 3(1 − c2s ) [16]. this should be fixed from the scale-invariance of the curvature perturbation power spectrum. as we shall see below. The rest of the argument as how the theorem is violated in fluid inflation setup goes parallel to the discussions after eq. we can use any of the arguments presented in sub-sections 3. (4.9) we conclude that η ≃ −6 and hence ǫ ∝ a(t)−6 .1.1. (3. and similar to non-attractor case. 5 Solid inflation In this section we study the model of solid inflation [19] which is another known example in literature which violates Weinberg’s theorem. (4. closely resembles the non-attractor scenario.7) we find that ǫ falls off much stronger than the combination k 2 /a2 H 2 so one can not take k → 0 arbitrarily for a given k to define the super-horizon limit. Having established the direct link between the fluid setup and the non-attractor setup.9) Hǫ From the form of η we see the important difference compared to conventional slow-roll models of scalar field theories. from eq. Or in the method of subsection 3. For example in the method of sub-section 3.12) obtained for scalar field theory.14) can be solved directly to find Φ. We see that to obtain a scale invariant power spectrum we require c2s = 1. To perform the cosmological perturbation analysis we go to comoving gauge defined on a time-slicing in which the fluid’s 4-velocity is orthogonal to the hypersurface t = constant and the three-dimensional spatial metric is conformally flat [16]. Calculating the quadratic action in comoving gauge we obtain (z 2 R′ )′ + c2s k 2 z 2 R = 0 . we note that for fluid setup the total energy density E and the pressure P internally are functions of the rest mass density ρ. η .3 to understand why Weinberg’s theorem is violated in the model of fluid inflation. and taking ǫ ≪ 1 in order to sustain a long enough period of inflation. Consequently.2 or 3. However. eq. (4. This yields a non-trivial equation of state P = P (E) for a barotropic fluid in which cs plays non-trivial roles in perturbation analysis. (4. We note that the above equation for R is similar to eq. completely independent of scalar field dynamics. we see that fluid inflation is a non-trivial realization of non-attractor setup. we readily conclude that ǫ falls off exponentially which. The first and second slow-roll parameters ǫ and η respectively are Ḣ E+P ǫ=− = .33). for η given in the above range. At this stage we can not pin down the exact value of η.10) in which a prime denotes the derivative with respect to conformal time and z is defined via z 2 = 2ǫa2 /c2s . R is not frozen on super-horizon scales and indeed we readily conclude that R ∝ a(t)3 [16]. Now it should not be surprising that in fluid setup. 3. – 13 – .2. (3.

the background is consistent with the cosmological principles.2) and φI → OJI φJ . Y and Z are functions of the derivatives of φI which in turn are given in terms of the SO(3) invariant matrix B IJ via [B 2 ] [B 3 ] X ≡ [B] .3) We note that C I are constants while OJI belong to SO(3) rotation group. I = 1. . in this model inflation is driven by a configuration resembling a solid. 3 . As the name indicates. However. Z= . Y ≡ . The symmetry under translation in field space imposed by eq. In conclusion. indicate the four-dimensional spatial coordi- nates while the capital Latin indices I. (5. 2.2) enforces that the dynamical quantities in the Lagrangian are constructed from derivatives of the scalar fields ∂φI . on the physical grounds. the background eq. the internal SO(3) rotation invariance guarantees the isotropy of the background.1) At this stage the ansatz (5. with the inter- nal symmetries (5. The most general action consistent with the above internal symmetries which is mini- mally coupled to gravity is given by  2 4 √  MP Z S = d x −g R + F [X. In this setup the three-dimensional space is divided into small cells such that the location of each cell is defined by the value of scalar fields φI for I = 1. J.4) 2 in which MP is the reduced Planck mass related to Newton constant via MP2 = 1/8πG and F is a function incorporating the properties of the solid. . Z ≡ . .2) and (5. (5.3) enforced. Y = . (5. Consequently. . ν. Y. at the background level the position of each cell is represented by hφI i = xI . .5) [B]2 [B]3 in which [B] ≡ Tr(B) and B IJ ≡ g µν ∂µ φI ∂ν φJ . . At the background level we can check that 3 1 1 X= . (5.2) becomes invariant under translation. OJI ∈ SO(3) .3) requires that the variables X. (5. (5.7) a(t)2 3 9 Note that the variables Y and Z are constructed such that they are insensitive to the volume of 3-space while the information about the background volume is entirely encoded in X. 2 and 3. (5. – 14 – . one should impose the following internal symmetries to keep the background isotropic and homogeneous JCAP12(2015)027 φI → φI + C I . (5. Furthermore. Z] . The condition that the action is invariant under the internal symmetries (5.2) and (5.1) naively seems to violate the isotropy and the homogeneity of the cosmological background as the scalar fields φI are time-independent and depend explicitly on xI .6) Our convention is that the Greek indices µ. represent the three-dimensional internal matter field space. More specifically. (5.

More specifically.9) X X X2 X3 where FX ≡ ∂F/∂X and so on.13) and decompose the filed π I into its transverse and longitudinal parts as ∂i π i (t. (5.11) 2MP2 On the other hand. x) . the curvature perturbations is given by ζ = − k3 πL which on super- horizon scales is obtained to be ζ(τ ) ∝ (−cL kτ )−A 1 + B ln(−cL kτ ) . (5. From the above expression we observe a mild running of curvature perturbation on super-horizon scales varying like ǫN in which N = ln(−kτ ) is the number of – 15 – .14) −∇2 in which ∂i πTi = 0. x) . the scalar fields equations is obtained to be √ ∂F ∂B ab   ∂µ −g = 0. (5. (5. which are dubbed as “phonons” in [19].8) in which we have defined M IJ via 3FZ Z IJ 2FY B IJ 3FZ B IK B KJ   IJ 2FY Y M ≡ FX − − δ + + .12) ∂B ab ∂∂µ φI We note the curious effect that at the background level φI are independent of t and eq.15) √ in which A and B are constants of order slow roll parameters ǫ and cL ≃ 1/ 3 is the sound speed of phonons. the scalar perturbations are generated effectively by one degree of freedom. (5. With the above form of Tνµ . as studied in [19]. This scalar perturbation is described by the single field πL corresponding to the longitudinal component of of the fluid excitations. (5. x) + πTi (t. The energy momentum-tensor is given by Tνµ = δνµ F − 2g µα ∂α φI ∂ν φJ M IJ . the energy density ρ and the pressure P at the background JCAP12(2015)027 level are given by 2 ρ = −F . (5. x) = √ πL (t.12) is automatically satisfied so we do not get any information from eq. by varying the action with respect to φI .  (5.12) at the background level. Note that we do not pursue the πTi excitations any further because the vector perturbations are damped after inflation. (5. πL sources the curvature perturbations while πTi sources the vector perturbations.10) a yielding the expected cosmological equations 1 3MP2 H 2 = ρ . However. suppose φI = xI + π I (t. (5. Ḣ = − (ρ + P ) . In this decomposition. P = F − 2 FX . Going to flat gauge. At this level it may look that the solid scenario is a model with three inflationary fields I φ which can generate entropy perturbations which can naturally bypass Weinberg’s theorem.

with some efforts one can show that δY and δZ vanish up to linear oder in pertur- bations so we can neglect their contributions and δTττ = FX δX. We have 4 2 2 δTji = FX δXδji − ΨMij − 2 FX Πij − 2 δM ij . (5.18) 3 Similarly. (5. first we need the components of the perturbed energy momentum tensor δTνµ .17) 3 in which the relation π i = k1 ∂i πL has been used.22) 3X 3X Plugging this expression in eq. we obtain the perturbed Einstein equations in Newtonian gauge.23) So far no assumption was made beyond the linear perturbation theory. (5. for δTiτ component we have 2X ′ δTiτ = FX δφi . bypassing the theorem in [1. To simplify the analysis we impose the slow-roll assumptions and ignore terms higher in powers of the slow-roll parameter ǫ. 5]. FY ≃ −FZ and FXX ≃ − FXX [19]. Using eq. To leading order in ǫ one can show that c2L ≃ 13 . On the other hand for δX JCAP12(2015)027 we have 2 δX = δg ii + ∂i δφi a2 2X = (3Ψ − kπL ) .e-folds before the end of inflation. On the other hand. (5.20) a2 a a in which Πij is defined via Πij ≡ ∂i π j + ∂j π i . (5.21) On the other hand.19) 3 in which a prime indicates the derivative with respect to conformal time τ . Our goal in this section is to understand how this happens. (5. As a result. (5.16) However. To address this question. (5. (5. the calculation of δTji is more non-trivial.8) we have δTττ = δF = FX δX + FY δY + FZ δZ . Putting the above results together we obtain the following set of perturbed – 16 – .20) we obtain      2X 4XFX Ψ i 2X 4 δX δTji= FX − FXX δXδj − i δj − ij FX Π + (FY + FZ ) i − 2Ψ δj − Π ij 3 3 3 9 X (5. For this purpose. for δTττ component we obtain   k δTττ = 2XFX Ψ − πL . one can show that 2(FY + FZ ) 2(FY + FZ ) δM ij = FXX δXδ ij − 2 δXδij + (2Ψδij + Πij ) .

(5. (5. in which the scalar velocity potential (in convention of [1]) is obtained to be a δu = − πL′ . 5].32) k 2 + 12H2 Now plugging the above expressions for πL and Φ in eq. (5.29) MP Now with the form of π S given in eq.24). we obtain 4ǫF πS = − πL .e. 5] is violated in solid inflation.24) that. Ψ 6= Φ.27) 3 in which H ≡ aH. and using the following relations which is valid in slow-roll limit ǫ H′ − H2 ≃ 2 .28) 3k On the other hand. To see this explicitly. Consequently.24) k (H′ − H2 ) ′ Ψ′ + HΦ = − πL (5.31) (H′ − H2 )(k 2 + 12H2 ) 12(H′ − H2 )Ψ − 3k 2 Ψ − 12HΨ′ Φ= . Now with δTji given in eq. the i 6= j component of the perturbed Einstein equation in general is written as [1] a2 ∂i ∂j (Φ − Ψ) = − 2 ∂i ∂j π S . (5. the (0i) component of Einstein equation.26)   ′′ 2 ′ ′ ′ 2 ′ 2 2 Ψ + k Ψ + 5HΨ + HΦ + (2H + 4H )Φ = (H − H ) 6Ψ − kπL .25) k 12HΨ′ + 3k 2 Ψ + (k 2 + 12H2 )Φ = 12(H′ − H2 )Ψ (5. (5. (5. i. This is because in the model of solid inflation the longitudinal mode πL sources the anisotropic stress π S and therefore we have φ 6= Ψ. For this purpose from eqs. (5.  (5.34) – 17 – . unlike conventional models of inflation.23). we see the non-analytic 1/k behavior in fields’ equations as discussed above. note that π S is related to δTji via δTji = δP δji + ∂i ∂j π S [1]. (5.25). H′′ ≃ 2H2 . in the slow-roll limit. One can eliminate πL and Φ in favors of Ψ and obtain a closed second order differential equation for Ψ.30) k Again.28) we obtain eq. (5.25) represents the momentum conservation equation. (5. (5.24) and (5. it should not be surprising that the conclusion in [1. As another sign of non-analytic structure of solid model. (5.33) τ we obtain our desired equation for Ψ 3(k 2 + 12H2 )Ψ′′ − 72H3 Ψ′ + k 4 − 12H2 (k 2 + 6H2 ) Ψ = 0 .Einstein equations 4(H′ − H2 ) Φ−Ψ= πL (5. Also note that eq. (5. (5. note that eq. JCAP12(2015)027 Note the interesting conclusion from eq.28) shows the 1/k non-analytic relation between π S and πL which directly violates the analyticity assumption employed in the proof [1.26) we obtain k[(3H′ − 6H2 − k 2 )Ψ − 3HΨ′ ] πL = . (5.

This model was proposed in [28] as an alternative to inflation which relies on conformal symmetries capable of generating nearly – 18 – . We also comment that in solid model R = 6 −ζ. (5.34) can be solved analytically. Note that because ζ = − k3 πL .e. as in non-attractor inflation. 22]. from eq. as also mentioned in [19] (see also [11. However. (5. This non-perturbative growth of Ψ implies that the Newtonian gauge is not a reliable gauge to study perturbations in solid inflation.35) 2k x √ in which we have defined x ≡ kτ .35) we can calculate ζ yielding eq. it depends on the direction from which we reach the squeezed limit k3 ≪ k1 ∼ k2 [19. the squeezed limit non-Gaussianity in solid inflation is very different from non-attractor model in which the bispectrum has a non-trivial shape. in solid inflation the presence of non-analytic anisotropic stress causes the violation of Weinberg’s theorem. even on super-horizon scales. (5. we have Ψ 6= Φ. the pseudo-conformal universe. These non-analytic behaviors between π S . Finally. this by itself is not the source of violation of the Weinberg’s theorem. 26.37) k2 In addition.35) we can calculate ζ. we obtain 3 1 √ r ix −√ Ψ(x) = − 2 (2 3 + ix)2 e 3 . (5. 5].30) we also have the non-analytic relation between δu and ζ. eq. i. the non-analytic relation between π S and πL . Now with Ψ calculated in eq. δu and ζ are in direct conflicts with the analyticity assumption employed in the proof of [1. (5. As we have seen. Now let us look at the above solution in the super-horizon limit x → 0 1 Ψ∝ = e2N (kτ → 0) . (5. This direction- dependency in momentum space is a novel feature of solid inflation which is a consequence of the peculiarities caused by the exotic symmetry breaking hφI i = xI . This is because ζ is not frozen on super-horizon scales yielding R ≃ −c2L ζ on these scales. Imposing the Minkowski initial condition for the modes inside the horizon (corresponding to k|τ | ≫ 1). (5. (5.28). Note that the factor 1/ 3 in the exponent appears because the modes deep inside the horizon propagate with the sound speed c2L ≃ 31 . as given in eq. (5. Knowing that ζ is given by ζ = − k3 πL .28) also implies the non-analytic relation ζ πS ∼ . we comment on the violation of non-Gaussianity consistency condition in solid inflation.15) to leading order in slow-roll corrections. (5. the consistency condition does not hold here. 6 Pseudo-conformal universe In this section we study yet another example in literature which is known to violate the theorem in [1. 27]). However.36) JCAP12(2015)027 (kτ )2 in which N is the number of e-fold towards the end of inflation with the convention N > 0.Happily eq. Instead. Consequently the curvature perturbation grows outside the horizon so. is the key reason for the violation of this theorem in solid inflation. The above equation clearly demonstrates that on super-horizon scales the gravitational potential grows exponentially. 5]. from eq. It is important to note that because of the non-zero anisotropic stress π S .

2. the Hubble expansion rate H and the zeroth order evolution of φ(t) were presented in [28]. (6. we extend these results to next leading order 1/MP4 in order to consistently calculate the next order corrections in Φ and R.1) 6λMP t 2 360λ2 MP4 t4 1 1 H(t) = + + . (6. In the model of pseudo-conformal universe it is assumed that the early universe (before the big bang) enjoys an approximate conformal symmetry in a near flat background. we will not study this field as we are interested to see how the growing mode of the conformal field fluctuation δφ violates Weinberg’s theorem.e.2) 3λMP2 t3 5λ2 MP4 t5 r r r 21 2 1 19 2 1 φ(t) = + + + . the strong time-dependence of ǫ plays crucial roles in violating Weinberg’s theorem. isocurvature fields) which acquire a nearly scale-invariant power spectrum generating the observed curvature perturbations. At this early stage one or more of the conformal fields develop time-dependent expectation values which break the conformal symmetry. As we shall see below. It is assumed that there are sub-leading corrections that can uplift the potential making the potential bounded from below. the scalar field starts rolling from φ = 0. The model is JCAP12(2015)027 classically conformal invariant... the observed curvature perturbations are generated by the additional field χ which has the conformal weight zero and at the background level has no expectation values. In the past infinity t = −∞. Note that t < 0 so that is why we have used |t|. χ = 0. (6. as noted above.. However. corresponding to λMP2 t2 ≫ 1. The criteria for the mode to be super-horizon is k|t| ≪ √λM1 |t| [28].. . Combining these two conditions we have 1 k|t| < √ ≪ 1. Here. In addition. As the scalar field develops an expectation value and the conformal invariance is broken the universe starts a slow phase of contraction in which gravity is very weak. 31. We would like to calculate Φ to leading orders in 1/MP2 and then calculate R and see how the theorem – 19 – . To be specific.. it is assumed that there are other fields with zero conformal weight (i.. On the P other hand. However. (6. From the weak gravity condition this implies that ǫ ≫ 1. The leading order 1/MP2 corrections to the slowly-contracting scale factor a(t). in order for the gravitational back-reaction to be small we require MP |t| ≫ 1. 5].scale invariant power spectrum while solving the flatness and the horizon problems. The latter is the mode of interest which violates the theorem in [1.3) λt 2 λ 6λMp t 3 360 λ λ MP4 t5 2 Note that in this model universe is in a phase of slow contraction so modes leave the horizon smoothly similar to an inflationary background. One mode of δφ perturbations is freezing while the other mode grows on super-horizon scales. To order 1/MP4 we have 1 13 a(t) = 1 − 2 − + . 31] and the Galilean Genesis scenario [32]. we consider a simple model containing the negative quartic potential V = − λ4 φ4 with λ > 0 which is minimally coupled to gravity.4) λMP |t| From the background solutions we can calculate ǫ = −Ḣ/H 2 = 9λMP2 t2 . The model shares similarities to the U(1) model [29. and calculations can be accurately approximated to leading orders of 1/MP2 . Our strategy here is very similar to the strategy employed in sub-section 3. and following [28].

(6. Using eq. (3.14) we obtain 2λφ3 k 2 2λφ3     2 Φ̈ + 7 − H Φ̇ + 6H + 2Ḣ + 2 − H Φ = 0. Ci(x) ≡ γ + ln(x) + 0 dy(cos y − 1)/y and γ is the Euler (0) (1) number.13) 3 9λMP t 30 1350λMP – 20 – .7) t (0) 1  Φ2 = 3 cos(kt) + (kt) sin(kt) .9) 3 3 and (0) 1 (0) k2 Φ2 → . (6.6) order by order in powers of 1/MP2 . (6. to leading order of 1/MP2 we obtain k2     4 7 2 2 1 Φ̈k + + Φ̇k + k + − Φk = 0 . (6. R2 → − .18).10) t3 3t (0) (0) In particular. the above expressions yields Φ1 = −R1 in agreement with eq. (3. λkMP2 |t|3 ≪ 1. (6.6) to leading order in 1/MP2 is obtained to be (1) 1  2 2 4k t kt cos(kt) − sin(kt) Ci(2kt) + 4k 2 t2 cos(kt) + kt sin(kt) Si(2kt)   Φ1 = 2 5 30λMP t + 3k 2 t2 sin(kt) + 23kt cos(kt) − 23 sin(kt)  (6. (2.14) and (3. The corrections after solving eq. (6. (6. Now we calculate the next correction in Φ. (3.5) to zeroth order of 1/MP2 . 5] is violated.5) H φ̇ a φ̇ Plugging the background values of a(t).12) Rx Rx in which Si(x) ≡ 0 dy sin(y)/y.6) t 3λMP2 t3 3λMP2 t2 3 λMP2 t4 JCAP12(2015)027 Now we solve eq. Having obtained Φi = Φi +Φi we can also calculate Ri using eq.11) and (1) 1  2 2  2 2  Φ2 = 2 − 4k t cos(kt) + kt sin(kt) Ci(2kt) + 4k t kt cos(kt) − sin(kt) Si(2kt) 30λMP t5 − 3k 2 t2 cos(kt) + 23kt sin(kt) + 23 cos(kt)  (6. The corresponding equations for δφ and Φ are as in eqs. (2.in [1.8) t Now if we take the mathematical limit k → 0 it is easy to check that (0) k3 (0) k3 Φ1 → − .3) to eliminate δφ.3) in which now δρ − δP = −2λφ3 δφ. R1 → . it is more instructive to look at the super-horizon limit of these solutions. (3. However. For the first mode we obtain √  2  112 − 60 γ + ln(2kt)   −1 1 3 t Φ1 ≃ + 2 2 k + + 2 k5 ( λ kMP t2 ≪ 1) .4) while (0) Φ2 ∝ Ha and R = 0 in agreement with eq. (6. H(t) and φ(t) into the above equation. from from eq. At the zeroth order the solutions are given by (0) 1  Φ1 = 3 (kt) cos(kt) − sin(kt) (6.

17) λt 2 In the proof of [1.17).16) 3t 90λMP2 t3 In the mathematical limit in which k = 0.5) yielding for pseudo conformal model   −1 2 2 1 4 + MP k Φ = (−φ̇δ φ̇ + φ̈δφ) .14) 3 18 270λMP2 1 In particular note that Φ1 ≃ (−1 + 3λMP2 t2 )R1 as anticipated from eq. As we noticed there. As expected.4). let us look at the second mode in the super-horizon limit obtaining √  17 − 8 γ + ln(2kt)    1 23 1 Φ2 ≃ 3 + 2 5 + + 2 3 k2 ( λ kMP t2 ≪ 1) (6. (2.6) and (3. this mode satisfies the results of [1. similar to argument mentioned after eqs. 5]. This is because in this model gravity is assumed to be very weak so we work in the limit MP → ∞. (3.and √  k3 t2 −17 + 12 γ + ln(2kt)  R1 ≃ + − + k5 ( λ kMP t2 ≪ 1) . In this limit. Now. It is also instructive to understand how the proof [1. We also comment that the 1/t growth of R on super-horizon scales was also observed in the model of Galilean Genesis [32]. Therefore. (6. the two independent solutions are given as in eq. 5] is violated in pseudo conformal universe in the method discussed in sub-section 3. The theorem states that there always exists two adiabatic scalar modes which are – 21 – .18) 3 a ǫ 9λMP2 t 1 Interestingly.12). (6.16). we obtain R2 = 0 and Φ2 ∝ Ha in exact agreement √ with the results of [1.12).13) represented by constants C1 and C2 .12) no factor of MP appears so no ambiguity in taking k → 0 while MP → ∞ arises now. (6. the mathematical super-horizon limit k → 0 is justified in eq. 7 Summary and discussions In this work we have revisited the celebrated Weinberg theorem in cosmological perturbation theory. In addition a(t) is very slow-changing and the ǫ-dependence is the same for both terms in eq. (3. (3. Let us start with the original Poisson equation (3. Therefore.7). In the physical super-horizon limit in which λkMP t2 ≪ 1 while k is held fixed we observe the 1/t grows of R2 in super-horizon limit. We see that the situation here is very similar to discussions in sub-section 3. (6. (3.12). (3. the key place to look for is the Poisson equation. 5] the mathematical super-horizon limit corresponds to k = 0 independent of how large MP is.1. in order to be safe. we shall keep both terms in big bracket in eq.1 and we obtain the second order differential equation for R given in eq. (6. The first mode is the constant mode as expected. 5]. this limit is ambiguous here. The rest of analysis go exactly as in sub-section 3. (2.2. However. we see again that R2 ∝ t as obtained in eq. Note the interesting fact that in eq. (6. Now for the second mode we obtain dt −C2 1 Z R2 = C 2 ≃ .15) t 30λMP t 2t 60λMP t JCAP12(2015)027 and √   1 7 R2 ≃ − + k2 ( λ kMP t2 ≪ 1) .

Weinberg. Tasinato and M. solid inflation and pseudo conformal universe. The obvious way is when there is non-analytic relation in terms of the wave-number k in Einstein fields equations. fluid inflation. (2.7).e. J. In the latter example ǫ ∼ MP2 t2 ≫ 1 showing a strong time-dependence. However. the coefficient of the term containing O(k 2 ). We have concentrated on loopholes in some technical assumptions which are violated in models of non-attractor inflation. show strong time-dependence in which the mathematical treatment of JCAP12(2015)027 the super-horizon limit k → 0 is ambiguous as we discussed after eqs. 5] can be violated in two different ways. so the inclusion of corrections of O(k) does not change the conclusion. – 22 – . like the slow-roll parameter ǫ. This is the case in non-attractor inflation. Acknowledgments We would like to thank P.constant on super-horizon scales. References [1] S. Weinberg’s theorem is violated both in zeroth and first order of k. This situation was already anticipated in [1. We have seen that the theorem in [1. In both of these examples it is the sound horizon.K. Another important place is the time of recombination in which the sound speed drops from nearly √13 to nearly zero. Weinberg’s theorem can be easily extended to the case that includes gradient modes containing O(k) corrections. Mirbabayi. M. In addition the assumption Φ = Ψ fails to hold. Weinberg’s theorem can have important implications in late Universe too. however there are known examples in literature which violate this theorem. One immediate place which comes to mind is when the Universe is matter dominated in which sound horizon decays to (approximately) zero.6) and (3. Zaldarriaga for useful discussions and correspondences. Oxford University Press. For example in non-attractor model it was the coefficient of the term at the order O(k 0 ) which was rapidly decaying during inflation as in eqs. Having this said. We also thank ICTP for hospitality during “First ICTP Advanced School on Cosmology” where this work was in progress. In the first two examples ǫ falls off like 1/a6 and the combination k 2 /a2 ǫ appearing in Poisson equation diverges even on super-horizon scales. In this circumstance. G. The case of solid inflation is a specific example in which π S is non-analytically related to ζ via π S ∝ ζ/k 2 .6) or (3. Sasaki. Despite its wide applicability. (2. Cosmology. Oxford U. M.H. 5]. Khoury.7). This is opposite to non-attractor example in which it was the coefficients of O(k 0 ) term which was falling off as time goes by. fluid inflation and in pseudo conformal model. the more non-trivial examples are the cases in which some parameters of the background. Namjoo. Even with the extension of Weinberg’s theorem to include the gradient modes we do not expect our previous conclusion on the violations of the theorem to change. On the other hand in solid inflation the anisotropic stress is non-analytic as k −2 . which shrinks so the situations are in favor of Weinberg’s theorem. Therefore. Creminelli. the Bardeen potential freezes as one expects from Weinberg’s theorem. In this work we have studied the violation of Weinberg’s theorem in very early Universe. As one can easily check. i. we have many modes which are outside the sound horizon yet inside Hubble horizon and hence they are observable. (2008) [INSPIRE]. M. for these modes. This extension is studied in [33–35].

Weinberg. Non-Gaussian features of primordial fluctuations in single field inflationary models. J. H. JCAP 09 (2014) 018 [arXiv:1406. Horizon crossing and inflation with large η. Firouzjahi. Romano. Rev. Chen. Inflation dynamics and reheating. Khoury. Namjoo and M. D 72 (2005) 023515 [gr-qc/0503017] [INSPIRE]. [3] D. Rev. Matarrese.0569] [INSPIRE]. [5] S. [7] X. Mod. Nicolis and J. Chen. JCAP 07 (2015) 048 [arXiv:1501. Ricciardone. [20] S.2689] [INSPIRE].5021] [INSPIRE]. A single field inflation model with large local non-Gaussianity. JCAP 09 (2015) 018 [arXiv:1411.A. In-in and δN calculations of the bispectrum from non-attractor single-field inflation. H. [12] J.R. Wang. JCAP 05 (2015) 043 [arXiv:1409. Mooij. 30 (1966) 481. 78 (2006) 537 [astro-ph/0507632] [INSPIRE]. Clustering fossils in solid inflation. A. Sasaki.A. Europhys. H. Peloso and A. Akhshik. JCAP 11 (2015) 025 [arXiv:1502.A. Sasaki. A. Lyth and A. M. Creminelli and M. Squeezed limit of the solid inflation three-point function. Kinney.03458] [INSPIRE].H.K.5699] [INSPIRE]. Berezhiani and J. [17] J. M. Cambridge University Press. Consistently violating the non-Gaussian consistency relation. [10] S. Phys. M. A. [14] W. Phys.H. Rev.R. [11] L. Acta Phys. [16] X. inflation and the origin of structure. D 90 (2014) 063506 [arXiv:1307. On the initial state and consistency relations.8114] [INSPIRE]. [19] S. Endlich. JCAP 10 (2013) 011 [arXiv:1210. (2008) [INSPIRE].E. Liddle. [18] J. Phys. Effective field theory of non-attractor inflation. [22] M. Cambridge U. Lagrangian density for perfect fluids in general relativity. (2009) [INSPIRE]. Mukhanov. A note on the Lagrangian density for fluid system in general relativity. Sasaki. The primordial density perturbation: cosmology. Komatsu. Wang. Namjoo and M. JCAP 09 (2013) 012 [arXiv:1306. H. Physical foundations of cosmology. Firouzjahi. 13 (1972) 1451. Jazayeri. Cambridge University Press. [13] P. E. Sasaki.H. Horn. Adiabatic modes in cosmology.3692] JCAP12(2015)027 [INSPIRE].4160] [INSPIRE]. B.R.H. D 67 (2003) 123504 [astro-ph/0302326] [INSPIRE]. Violation of non-Gaussianity consistency relation in a single field inflationary model. Math. Solid inflation. Bassett. JCAP 12 (2013) 039 [arXiv:1308. [8] X. Tsujikawa and D. S. Phys.K. JCAP 10 (2004) 006 [astro-ph/0407059] [INSPIRE]. Namjoo and M. S. JCAP 08 (2013) 022 [arXiv:1306. JHEP 05 (2003) 013 [astro-ph/0210603] [INSPIRE]. Cambridge U. [21] N. Ray. Single field consistency relation for the 3-point function.01099] [INSPIRE]. Namjoo. G. Europhys. [9] M. Firouzjahi and M. Lett. 101 (2013) 39001 [arXiv:1210. Wands. Phys.2901] [INSPIRE]. Bartolo. M.M. Firouzjahi. H. – 23 – . [15] H. Yokoyama. Fluid inflation. Motohashi. [4] B. Endlich. Palma and A. Nicolis and J.H.H. Akhshik. [2] V. Zaldarriaga. Starobinsky and J.3004] [INSPIRE]. Chen. Anisotropy in solid inflation. Rev. Lett. 102 (2013) 59001 [arXiv:1301.5341] [INSPIRE]. [6] M. Maldacena. Inflation with a constant rate of roll. Ray. Polon. Firouzjahi and S.

JCAP 01 (2015) 029 [arXiv:1409. Rubakov.4595] [INSPIRE]. S. Breaking discrete symmetries in the effective field theory of inflation.V. A. [31] M. Prog. [32] P. H. Generalised tensor fluctuations and inflation. Mirbabayi and M. 173 (2012) 149] [arXiv:1107. Tasinato and D. Wands.0027] [INSPIRE]. Phys. [30] M. [24] N. Hinterbichler. Harrison-Zeldovich spectrum from conformal invariance. Cannone. Gong and G.-O. [35] M. M. Wang. Creminelli. – 24 – . Noreña and M. Jeong and M. Mat. [33] P.A. The pseudo-conformal universe: scale invariance from spontaneous breaking of conformal symmetry. Ricciardone and C. Cannone. JCAP 08 (2015) 003 [arXiv:1505. The expected anisotropy in solid inflation. Fasiello. Creminelli. 173 (2012) 1457 [Teor. Inflationary tensor fossils in large-scale structure. CMB anisotropies from a gradient mode. G. Suppl. D. JCAP 12 (2014) 050 [arXiv:1407. Math. M. Conformal symmetries of adiabatic modes in cosmology. Comparison of dynamical and spectator models of a (pseudo)conformal universe.05773] [INSPIRE]. Akhshik. Emami. A. R. Statistical anisotropies in gravitational waves in solid inflation. Unal.4777] [INSPIRE]. Rubakov. JCAP 03 (2015) 056 [arXiv:1409. [34] K. Simonović. Zaldarriaga.1036] [INSPIRE]. [29] V. Khoury. [27] D. Properties of scalar perturbations generated by conformal scalar field. 190 (2011) 120 [arXiv:1012. Theor. Bartolo. Tasinato. J. J.6568] [INSPIRE]. Galilean genesis: an alternative to inflation. JCAP 09 (2014) 012 [arXiv:1405.4179] [INSPIRE]. [26] D. Khoury. Rubakov. [25] E. Hinterbichler and J. Phys. Trincherini. JCAP 09 (2009) 030 [arXiv:0906.6351] [INSPIRE]. Dimastrogiovanni. JCAP12(2015)027 [28] K. JCAP 07 (2012) 052 [arXiv:1203. Kamionkowski. Firouzjahi and Y.3693] [INSPIRE]. Theor.A. Conformal consistency relations for single-field inflation.5737] [INSPIRE]. Nicolis and E.8204] [INSPIRE]. JCAP 11 (2014) 009 [arXiv:1407.1428] [INSPIRE]. Fiz. Libanov and V. JCAP 08 (2012) 017 [arXiv:1203. L.8053] [INSPIRE].[23] M. Hui and J. Libanov. JCAP 04 (2012) 023 [arXiv:1106. Peloso. Mironov and V. JCAP 11 (2010) 021 [arXiv:1007.