Cosmological Inflation: From the Big Bang to the present day∗

Alex Spies
Student - Physics Department, University of California, Berkeley†
(Final Essay for PHYS219??)
(Dated: April 29, 2018)
Purpose: This essay provides a reader familiar with the theory of general relativity with a brief overview of the
key ideas underpinning the theory of inflation.
Structure: Relativistic formalism, to how quantum fluctuations in the early universe manifest themselves in
present-day large scale structures. Small detours are taken to discuss specific areas of interest, including an
investigation of naturalness as a tool, a detailed calculation of a pet scalar field theory, quantum fluctuations, and
modern developments in inflation, and its child-theories.

I. INTRODUCTION II. THE FRLW METRIC AND THE CLASSICAL

BIG BANG

God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Genesis 1:3
It is (perhaps not wisely) a popular belief amongst the-
oretical physicists that true theories of nature ought to
be beautiful; a view point which is easy to understand
from an anthropocentric point of view, after all, physics
endeavours to describe nature in her purest form, and
nature’s beauty is without question. Whether the reader
prescribes to such a philosophy or not, it is a fortunate
coincidence that the theory of general relativity is one
of not just striking elegance and clarity, but also predic-
tive power (contrary to Einstein’s expecatations! - CITE
can’t solve field equations).
Indeed, the development of the theory of cosmologi-
cal inflation, amongst others, harnesses the framework
of general relativity to describe a picture of the early
universe which may seem radical at first, but stands on
strong theoretical ground. It is in the belief that there
are few questions more profound than the age-old ”where
did we come from”, that this paper is written; it seeks to
serve as a concise summary of the key ideas of inflation,
and to provide the reader with a clear conceptual grasp
of the theory’s inner workings.
To this end, we begin with a swift recap of the old
classical theory of Friedmann-Walker cosmology, and in-
vestigate its shortcomings to motivate early work on in-
flation (stopping briefly along the way to philosophise).
Then we will dive into the real meat of inflation; briefly
covering effective field theories (even creating our own in-
flationary field!) and quantum fluctuations in the early
universe. From here we will discuss (in some detail) some
of the most tantalizing and promising ways in which we
may probe the validity of inflation (perhaps garnering
insights about quantum gravity in the process!) for ex-
periments must always have the final say.
We provide here a brief overview of cosmology, closely
following Carroll’s treatment of the subject1 ; working
throughout in geometrized units, where GN = c = 1.
Unsurprisingly, it was not long after the inception of
the general theory that people began to play around with
metrics which could describe plausible universes. The
first notable works in this area were by einstein CITE
and desitter CITe. However, it was Friedmann in 1922
and 1924, who really got the ball rolling2 (Very nice pa-
pers, though written in German). He showed that Ein-
stein and DeSitters works could were special cases of a
more general metric, whose form was determined by two
considerations:
• Those regarding the ”General, so to speak, geomet-
ric character of the world”.
• The distribution of matter, and the velocities of
such matter, throughout the universe at large -
Assumed to be approximately uniform and non-
relativistic.
From these considerations, and some slightly tedious
mathematics, he was able to investigate the behaviour of
the metric for different initial conditions, even estimat-
ing the lifetime of a universe which eventually collapses
to an order of magnitude of 10 billion years (though he
did effectively guess the free parameters).
Later work by Lemaı̂tre, Robertson (1935) and Walker
proceeded in a similar vein, and built on the conse-
quences, and rigorous establishing, of the metric; thus
yielding the name FRLW (or subsets thereof) metric.
The resulting ”standard model of comoslogy” remained
the main cosmological framework for atleast (UNTIL IN-
FLATION) year.
Let us now quantify both of these considerations, start-
ing with the general form of the FRLW Metric and how
its dependance on curvature may be seen. We write
the FRLW metric in an illuminating form: JUSTIFY
COPERNICAN PRINCIPLE
it can be shown that if the copernican principle ap-
plies that the form of the metric must be maximally
 2

symmetric, and from this fact alone one can derive a having found the form of the metric and stress-energy
general maximally symmetric metric without making any tensor we need only plug these into the field equation,
assumptions as to the actual curvature of space. This is
the FRLW metric:
Gµν = 8πTµν , (4)
dr2 in order to determine the behaviour of the scale factor
ds2 = −dt2 + a2 (t)[ + r2 dΩ22 ]. (1)
1 − kr2 with relation to the matter of our universe. Luckily this
has been done by many others, and the important result
The first expression for the metric shows its general
is known as the Friedmann equations:
form in the comoving coordinate system (constructed at
any point by considering the set of geodesics which would
be followed by a ”comoving” particle CHECK), with Ω22  2
ȧ 8π k
representing the familiar metric of a 2-sphere (S 2 ). Im- H2 ≡ = ρ − 2. (5)
a 3 a
portantly, R(t) and R0 (t) represent the scale factors (dif-
fering by a constant) which characterise the size of maxi- and
mally symmetric three-dimensional spacelike slices which
foliate the manifold as a function of time; more intu-
itively, one can picture these as describing the distance ä 4π
H 2 + Ḣ = = − (ρ + 3p). (6)
between two ”stationary” (in the static Newtonian sense) a 3
observers.
Strictly speaking, only equation 5 is usually referred
The interesting constant is k however, as its value de-
to as the ”Friedmann equation”. Additionally, we have
termines the curvature of the space which the FRLW
defined H, the familiar Hubble parameter, which char-
metric is describing, Specifically,
acteries the rate of expansion of the universe, and is also
 of considerable interest in observational astronomy (for
+1, de sitter (hyperbolic foliation)
 example, it is often used in the quantification of galactic
k = 0, flat (2) redshifts).

−1, anti de-Sitter (spherical foliation). Finally, in the interest of describing our own universe,
we define the density parameter,
MAKE FIGURE SHOWING SPACE
An observation which will be of interest in section ?? is 8π ρ
that the FRLW metric retains its maximally symmetric Ω≡ ρ≡ ,
3H 2 ρcrit
character for all three of these cases, but the generators
of the rotations change (i.e. different symmetry groups where the critical density, ρcrit , can be related to k,
are obeyed). In the mean time, let us shift our attention and therefore the geometric character of the universe. In
to the second consideration so that we may investigate doing so one finds the conditions:
the predictions of the FRLW theory.
The second consideration regards the form of matter
which fills the universe (i.e. the form of the stress-energy ρ > ρcrit Ω>1 anti de sitter,
tensor). Sticking to simplicity and the Copernican prin- ρ = ρcrit Ω=1 flat,
ciple, we find that the appropriate form is given by a non- ρ < ρcrit Ω<1 de sitter.
relativistic perfect fluid; one with no shear, viscosity or
heat. Such fluids are entirely characterised by a uniform Finally, let us define H0 as the rate of expansion for
mass density and isotropic pressure, and are mathemat- a universe filled with matter of density ρcrit such that
ically described by the stress-energy tensor by, we can define relative, present day, fractional density pa-
rameters:
p µ ν
T µν = (ρm + )U U + pg µν , (3)
c2
ρi (a) k
Where the ρm and p represent the mass density and Ωi ≡ and Ωc ≡ − (7)
ρcrit (a) a2 H 2 (a)
the pressure of the fluid, respectively. It is worth taking
a brief moment to justify this assumption for the form Note that the Ωk terms represents an effective contri-
of the stress-energy; in essence we are treating large- bution to the density from the curvature.
scale matter (on the scale where galaxies are the atoms We shall discuss the experimental side of things in some
of our fluid) as being homogeneously and isotropically detail section V; suffice it to say that modern experiments
distributed on cosmological scales. Such an assumption have found Ωtotal ≈ 1. Nonetheless it is illuminating
is a fairly egalitarian one, known as the Copernican prin- to explore the evolution of the scale factor for all three
ciple, and there is considerable experimental ground to possibilities, and armed with the equations 5 and 6 this
believe that it should hold (more on this later). can be achieved.
 3

Type Ωi w From this expression, we see that depending on the

form of matter, the curvature contribution will either in-
Matter Ωm 0
crease or decrease; the steady solution is not a stable one.
Radiation Ωr + 13 The problem arises because observations show CITe that
Curvature Ωc − 13 the present day Ωc ≈ 10−3 . But then the above rela-
tionship implies that at times just after the big bang, the
Vacuum Ωv −1
curvature contribution was almost zero. I.e. the universe
started off almost perfectly flat!
TABLE I. Values of w, and symbolic definitions for different
types of matter.
So, for the FRLW cosmology to hold, the universe must
have started off with k effectively equal to zero, and we
have no good reasons to justify this extremely specific
A useful step in this process is to typically seperate constraint on the initial conditions.
the contributions to the density into the physical matter
and radiation contributions and the fictitious curvature
and vacuum contributions. A point of considerable in- B. Philosophical Aside: Fine tuning
terest is that the vacuum and curvature contributions
to the energy-density need not be positive, as their ori- ”It’s no use, Mr. James; it’s turtles all the way down.”
gin (certainly for curvature) need not be from physical
John Ross3
fields/particles. This can lead to a universe where Ḣ < 0
but ä > 0 if there is a negative vacuum energy contribu- The reader may have noticed that the Flatness problem
tion (famously the cosmological constant). Indeed, this is not a problem in the typical sense; the flatness problem
appears the case to for our universe. ultimately originates from our philosophical prejudices,
Figure (Possible univereses) shows the difference be- not from some experimental contradiction.
tween vacuum energy and matter dominated universes; We are used to dealing with theories where initial con-
note that such universes all originate (and some end up ditions are free to be specified without too much worry,
at) a point where the scale factor is zero; ofcourse, this but when it comes to the origins of cosmos, we pay special
implies the existence of a famous ”big bang” There is heed to these. However, it is always sobering to remem-
much more that could be said about the predictive as- ber that nature may choose not to justify itself; that we
pects of the FRLW theory, and section VIII points the may never find a satisfying explanation for why certain
reader in some good directions. things are the way they are. But then, this should come
as no surprise, for any confident reductionist must accept
that we will eventually run out of turtles on top of other
A. Flatness Problem turtles (or find a turtle which humans can never hope to
pass)
It is not without cause that the theory of inflation was Luckily, there is a more notable issue with the FRLW
developed, and indeed there are two well-known issues cosmology, that shall prevent us (for now) from utilizing
with the standard FRLW cosmology, the first of these is the anthropic principle.
the so-called ”flatness problem”.
The Friedmann equations allow us to derive the evolu-
tion of the scale factor for perfect fluids with the equation C. Horizon Problem
of state,
A more significant issue the flatness problem is the
so called horizon problem, this stems from our desire to
p = wρ.
justify the Copernican principle as a likely outcome of
2
What one finds is that a ∝ t 3(1+w) , where w varies for our theory.
different types of matter as shown in table I. Again we consider a matter dominated universe
Then we can calculate the time variation of the cur- ur moms the cmb lol - CMB causally disconnected re-
vature contribution, Ωc given its definition in equation gions; opaqueness of early universe (more on this later -
7 evolving universe section)
!
k ȧ Ḣ
Ω̇c = − 2 2 −2 − 2 D. Naturalness, and, When is a problem a
a H (a) a H
problem?
Then, from equation ?? and given the time dependance
of a, Our attractive guide through the tangled jungle
ä ȧ2
! of theoretical physics has been shown to work part-
ȧ a − a2 ä time as a cruel siren; luring phd candidates (and
Ω̇c = 2Ωc + ȧ
= 2Ωc
a a
ȧ more than a few beachgoing professors) to their
 4

demise, as they seek to find their ways to field- IV. QUANTUM FLUCTUATIONS IN THE
specialization-island. not given initial conditions. Biases EARLY UNIVERSE
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/10/i-totally-
mean-it-inflation-never.html Technical naturalness- A. Estimating the scales
T’hooft, Higgs mass, Inflaton field, quantizing gravity
B. galactic seeds and large scale structure

V. EXPERIMENTAL TESTS OF INFLATION

A. Investigations of the CMB

Shit in the radio telescope

1. Anistropy due to quantum fluctuations

2. Polarization due to gravitational waves

Polarizations - bicep 2 - dust - denied nobel - recent

book
3. other?
III. INFLATION
B. Large scale structure

C. Other?
A. effective field Theory
D. Inflation as a probe for quantum gravity

VI. DISCUSSION

B. our pet theory A. Key Ideas

B. Turtles all the way down

C. Looking Forward
C. The evolving universe

VII. CONCLUSION

VIII. FURTHER READING

Reheating, recombination, opaqueness etc.

∗ 1
This essay was completed as a final project for the class
PHYSXXX: General Relativity as UC Berkeley. The class
2
was taught by Prof. Ori Ganor, whom I would like to thank
for a wonderfully well-motivated and clear treatment of the
subject, and for taking the time to discuss many foolish (on
my part) questions with me.
†
alex.spies@berkeley.edu
3
Sean M. Carroll, Spacetime and geometry : an introduction
to general relativity (Addison Wesley, 2004) p. 513.
A. Friedmann, “Ueber die Kruemmung des Raumes,”
Zeitschrift fuer Physik 10, 377–386 (1922); “Ueber die
Moeglichkeit einer Welt mit konstanter negativer Kruem-
mung des Raumes,” Zeitschrift fuer Physik 21, 326–332
(1924).
John Robert Ross, “Constraints on variables in syntax.”
(1967).