Modern Cosmology by Dodelson: Problem 6.12 a

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around deriving identities involving slow-roll parameters during inflation, specifically showing that the derivative of \( \frac{1}{aH} \) with respect to conformal time \( \eta \) equals \( \epsilon - 1 \). Participants struggle with the differentiation process, particularly distinguishing between derivatives with respect to time \( t \) and conformal time \( \eta \). Clarification arises that a dot notation in the context of Dodelson's text refers to differentiation with respect to \( \eta \), which resolves some inconsistencies in calculations. Ultimately, the correct formulation of \( H \) and the relationship between \( \epsilon \) and the derivatives leads to a clearer understanding of the problem. The conversation emphasizes the importance of consistent notation and understanding the context of derivatives in cosmological equations.
travelingscienceman
Messages
5
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


The general goal of the problem is to derive some useful identities involving the slow-roll parameters during inflation.
For part a show that:
$$\frac {d} {d\eta} (\frac {1} {aH})= \epsilon - 1$$

Homework Equations



$$\epsilon \equiv \frac {d} {dt} (\frac {1} {H})= \frac {-\dot H} {aH^2}$$
$$H=\frac {\dot a}{a}$$
$$\eta\approx\frac{-1}{aH}$$

The Attempt at a Solution


First I put everything into the scale factor a and its derivatives:

$$-\dot H = \frac{\dot a^2 - \ddot a a}{a^2}$$
$$\frac{1}{a H^2}=\frac{a}{\dot a^2}$$

$$\frac {-\dot H} {aH^2} = \frac{\dot a^2 - \ddot a a}{a\dot a^2}=\frac{1}{a}-\frac{\ddot a}{\dot a^2}=\epsilon$$

Now this is where I am struggling.

He uses a derivative with respect to time and one with respect to conformal time (##\eta##). Coupled with the fact that

$$\frac {d} {d\eta} (\frac {1} {aH})=\frac {d} {d\eta} (-\eta) =-1=\epsilon - 1$$

Which means that ##\epsilon=0## which is not correct. Instead of substituting I could do the following:

$$\frac {d} {d\eta} (\frac {1} {aH})=\frac {d} {d\eta} (\frac {1} {\dot a})=\frac {-1} {\ddot a}=\epsilon - 1$$

Rearranging we get

$$\epsilon=1-\frac {1} {\ddot a}$$

And I am not sure this is correct either. I cannot see any way to make the RHS equal to epsilon.

Any help showing where I might have gone wrong would be appreciated and thanks in advance for taking a look at this!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try using that ##\frac {d} {d\eta} = a \frac{d}{dt}##. So you've got ##a \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{1}{a} \frac{1}{H})##. It's pretty straightforward from there.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes travelingscienceman
That helps but I am still having trouble. With ##\epsilon=\frac{-\dot H}{a H^2}## I just end up going in circles. But if I work with ##\epsilon=\frac{d}{dt}\frac{1}{H}## I get the following:

$$\epsilon=\frac{d}{dt}\frac{1}{H}=\frac{\dot a^2 - \ddot a a}{\dot a^2}$$
$$\frac{d}{d\eta}\frac{1}{\dot a}=a\frac{d}{dt}\frac{1}{\dot a}=\frac{-a}{\ddot a}=\epsilon-1$$
$$1+\frac{a}{\ddot a}=\epsilon=\frac{\dot a^2 - \ddot a a}{\dot a^2}$$
$$\dot a^2 \ddot a -a \dot a^2=\ddot a \dot a^2 - \ddot a^2 a$$
$$\dot a =\ddot a$$

Which is better but not right.
 
From looking inside Dodelson's text at Amazon, it appears that the author uses a dot to denote differentiation with respect to ##\eta##. But, it looks like you are sometimes interpreting the dot as differentiation with respect to ##t## (for example, when you write ##H =\large \frac{\dot a}{a}##).
 
  • Like
Likes travelingscienceman
TSny said:
From looking inside Dodelson's text at Amazon, it appears that the author uses a dot to denote differentiation with respect to ##\eta##. But, it looks like you are sometimes interpreting the dot as differentiation with respect to ##t## (for example, when you write ##H =\large \frac{\dot a}{a}##).

Ah, that explains some inconsistencies. I assumed dot was differentiation by ##t## from that definition of ##H##.
 
Thank you both. Today with a clear head I figured it out.

$$H=\frac{\dot a}{a^2}$$

And so

$$\epsilon=\frac{2\dot a^2 -\ddot a a}{\dot a^2}$$

Which made things much easier.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top