SO(10) -> SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) -inflation?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the potential for inflation scenarios arising from the symmetry breaking of SO(10) to SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1), drawing parallels to Andrei Linde's 1982 paper on inflation driven by SU(5). Participants express curiosity about existing research on SO(10) in the context of inflation, noting that while SU(5) is not a viable model, SO(10) may offer new insights. Key aspects that could differentiate inflationary scenarios include the shape of the scalar field potential, couplings to other fields affecting reheating, and the implications for monopole production. There is a consensus that these factors warrant investigation within the framework of SO(10), yet relevant literature appears scarce. The discussion highlights a gap in research that could be valuable for understanding inflation in grand unified theories.
EL
Science Advisor
Messages
557
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to learn some theory of inflation, and recently read a paper by Andrei Linde from 1982 where he suggested a scenario where inflation is driven by the phase transition SU(5) -> SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1). Now SU(5) is known to not be a good candidate as an extension of the standard model, but what about SO(10)? I wonder if anyone has studied what kind of inflation scenario a spontaneous symmetrybreaking of the kind SO(10) -> SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) could give? Anyone knows any refs?
 
Space news on Phys.org
There must be someone here knowing about inflation?
The reference to Linde's paper is:
Linde A.D., "A new inflationary universe scenario: A possible solution of the horizon, flatness, homogeneity, isotropy and primordial monopole problems", Physics Letters B, Volume 108, Issue 6, p. 389-393.
 
I cannot give you an answer, but it is a pitty if this question gets forgotten. I can share some thoughts with you about this, but keep in mind that I do not know anything about these GUT theories. I guess there are mainly three aspects that may differentiate both inflationary scenarios:

- The shape of the scalar field potential, that will determine the duration of inflation and how it takes place.
- The couplings to the other fields, that will determine how reheating takes place and therefore production of matter.
- The quantity and masses of monopoles that may be created. Historically, the reason for Alan Guth to postulate inflation was to find a mechanism to remove GUT monopoles from the observable universe.
 
hellfire said:
I guess there are mainly three aspects that may differentiate both inflationary scenarios:

- The shape of the scalar field potential, that will determine the duration of inflation and how it takes place.
- The couplings to the other fields, that will determine how reheating takes place and therefore production of matter.
- The quantity and masses of monopoles that may be created. Historically, the reason for Alan Guth to postulate inflation was to find a mechanism to remove GUT monopoles from the observable universe.

Yes, I really think those three points must have been investigated for an SO(10)-model too, but I just cannot find any such paper, which surprises me a bit.

Btw, the ref to Guth's "inflation-paper" is:
A.H. Guth, "Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems", Phys.Rev.D23 (1981) 347.
 
I always thought it was odd that we know dark energy expands our universe, and that we know it has been increasing over time, yet no one ever expressed a "true" size of the universe (not "observable" universe, the ENTIRE universe) by just reversing the process of expansion based on our understanding of its rate through history, to the point where everything would've been in an extremely small region. The more I've looked into it recently, I've come to find that it is due to that "inflation"...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K