Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2017 / iii / Paper 310 / 4

Let $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ be the reduced Planck mass, $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^{-2}=8\pi G$ in units $\hslash =c=1$. Combining that equation with the Friedmann acceleration equation givesDifferentiate $3M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2{H}^2=\rho$ to obtain $\dot{\rho }=-3H(\rho +P)=-3H{\dot{\varphi }}^2$. For the homogeneous canonical scalar field, $\dot{\rho }=\dot{\varphi }\ddot{\varphi }+V_{,\varphi }\dot{\varphi }$, soWhere $\dot{\varphi }\ne 0$, division gives the inflaton equation of motion; continuity extends it to isolated turning points:The Hubble friction term describes loss of kinetic energy into expansion.

There is a small logical caveat if the field is frozen on an entire interval: the homogeneous Einstein constraints alone only give the product equation and do not force $V_{,\varphi }=0$. The frozen scalar fields and the Friedmann constraint counterexample makes this explicit. For a canonical scalar, the field equation also follows directly from its inflaton action in an expanding universe, whose homogeneous Lagrangian is $a^3[{\dot{\varphi }}^2/2-V(\varphi )]$. The Euler-Lagrange equation gives $d(a^3\dot{\varphi })/dt+a^3{V}_{,\varphi }=0$, including the frozen case, and yields the same boxed equation without division by $\dot{\varphi }$.

The first Hubble slow-roll parameter measures the fractional change of $H$ per number of e-folds, and the second Hubble slow-roll parameter measures the fractional change of the first parameter. Since $d\log a/dt=H$,For a canonical inflaton, $ϵ={\dot{\varphi }}^2/(2M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2{H}^2)\ge 0$. Expanding cosmic inflation means $\ddot{a}>0$, equivalently $\boxed{ϵ<1}$ because $\ddot{a}/a=H^2(1-ϵ)$. Small $\eta$ is not required for accelerated expansion itself, but helps maintain the slow-roll approximation over many e-folds. Its logarithmic definition assumes $ϵ>0$; in exact de Sitter expansion it is undefined unless interpreted as a limit.

For conventional slow-roll inflation, assume ${\dot{\varphi }}^2\ll V$, $|\ddot{\varphi }|\ll 3H|\dot{\varphi }|$, a smooth positive scalar potential, and slowly varying small parameters. The Friedmann equation and inflaton equation of motion then reduce toSubstitute these in the exact expression for $ϵ$:To obtain the potential and Hubble slow-roll parameter relation, differentiate $\log {ϵ}_V$ along the slow-roll trajectory $\dot{\varphi }/H\simeq -M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2{V}_{,\varphi }/V$:HenceThe second quantity on the right is the second potential slow-roll parameter, not the logarithmic Hubble-flow $\eta$ itself. Consistency usually requires ${ϵ}_V\ll 1$ and $|{\eta }_V|\ll 1$; identities involving division by $V_{,\varphi }$ are used on rolling intervals and interpreted by limiting values at stationary points.

For the monomial inflation potential on $\varphi >0$, $V_{,\varphi }/V=n/\varphi$ and $V_{,\varphi \varphi }/V=n(n-1)/{\varphi }^2$. Thus, to leading slow-roll approximation,For $n=2,3,4$, $2n\ge n^2/2$. Therefore the loose order-one requirements $ϵ\le 1$ and $|\eta |\le 1$ giveThis is the interpretation under which the printed threshold follows. It is not a sufficient criterion for genuine slow roll, which requires much smaller parameters and hence ${\varphi }^2/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2\gg 2n$ for these fixed powers. Nor is its equality the actual end of acceleration for $n=2,3$: there $ϵ\simeq n/4<1$. For $n=4$ the leading estimate has $ϵ\simeq 1$. The potential-based order-one criterion $|{\eta }_V|<1$ also differs from the Hubble-flow criterion, especially at $n=4$. We use the endpoint the paper explicitly stipulates, rather than treating this boundary as a controlled slow-roll approximation.

Let ${\varphi }_e^2=2n{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2$ by that prescription. The slow-roll e-fold count, using $\dot{\varphi }/H\simeq -n{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2/\varphi$, isFor $N=60$, the monomial inflation with a prescribed endpoint result isApplying the leading scalar spectral index in Hubble slow-roll parameters and tensor-to-scalar ratio formulas givesThese are predictions at the chosen 60-e-fold initial point, normally identified with the pivot scale's horizon exit. A physical endpoint determined by $ϵ=1$ would instead have the leading estimate ${\varphi }_e^2\simeq n^2{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2/2$; its change to the e-fold count and predictions must not be silently mixed with the stipulated $122n$ calculation.

Using the leading predictions just obtained givesThe quadratic and cubic monomial inflation potentials satisfy the quoted interval for the scalar spectral index, whereas the quartic model lies below its lower endpoint. All three exceed the quoted bound on the tensor-to-scalar ratio. ThusThis conclusion uses the exam's numerical bounds and the specified 60-e-fold endpoint convention, not a substitution of later observational constraints. Even a modest endpoint adjustment does not reduce the predicted $r$ by the roughly factor of two or more needed here.

The initial field values are ${\varphi }_i/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=\sqrt{122n}$, approximately $15.6$, $19.1$ and $22.1$ for the three powers. A simple monomial inflation potential over this super-Planckian field range needs theoretical protection. Generic Planck-suppressed corrections to inflaton potentials, such as $c_p{\varphi }^p/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^{p-4}$, need not be small there; they can change the slope and curvature and spoil slow-roll inflation. Radiative corrections and possible couplings to other particles likewise require control. A symmetry, such as an approximate scalar-field shift symmetry, or a specified ultraviolet completion could supply that protection, but it is not part of the bare monomial model.

A large field value is not by itself a proof that the energy density is Planckian: a sufficiently small $\lambda$ can keep $V\ll M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^4$. The issue is control of the effective field theory and stability of the flat potential over its field range, rather than simply comparing the field value with a mass scale.

There is also a global potential issue for $n=3$: $V=\lambda {\varphi }^3$ continued over all real $\varphi$ is unbounded below and has no stable minimum at zero. Restricting to $\varphi >0$ does not specify what happens when the field reaches that boundary, so a completion is needed for post-inflationary evolution and reheating. The even powers have a stable minimum but still need interactions that transfer the inflaton energy to a hot bath. These interactions and the resulting reheating history also affect the mapping between a pivot scale and the assumed 60 number of e-folds. Therefore the concise theoretical concerns are control of large-field corrections, a consistent stable completion, and a specified reheating mechanism.