format: text

text:
# Shear-dependent apparent slip on hydrophobic surfaces: The Mattress Model

## I Introduction

The validity of the no-slip boundary condition is at the center of our current understanding of fluid mechanics. It remains however an assumption whose microscopic validity has been widely debated Goldstein . The widespread acceptance of the no-slip condition is based on a historical record of outstanding agreement between theories and experiments. It is commonly agreed that the no-slip condition results from inevitable microscopic roughness, which causes enough viscous dissipation to effectively bring the fluid to rest near the surface Richardson ; Jansons ; Granick2002 . Remarkably, this explanation is independent of the nature of the solid and the liquid, contrary to ideas first proposed by Girard (see Goldstein ).

The development of small devices has recently prompted a reexamination of fluid slip on length scales of nanometers and microns, both experimentally Granick2002 ; Pit ; Baudry ; Craig ; Granick ; Bonaccurso ; Cheng ; Meinhart ; Cottin  and theoretically Nature ; Barrat ; BrennerPRE ; Koplik ; Denniston ; Lauga ; deGennes . The degree of slip is usually quantified by a slip length $`\lambda =U_s/\dot{\gamma }`$, where $`U_s`$ is the slip velocity and $`\dot{\gamma }`$ is the liquid strain rate evaluated at the surface; equivalently, $`\lambda `$ is the distance below the solid surface where the velocity extrapolates linearly to zero Navier . In experiments, slip is usually found when the liquid partially wets the solid surface; measured slip lengths span four orders of magnitude, from molecular sizes to microns, and are usually shear-dependent in squeeze flow experiments, with $`\lambda `$ an increasing function of $`\dot{\gamma }`$. In particular, Zhu & Granick Granick  reported squeeze flow experiments, in which two crossed cylinders oscillate about a fixed average distance. By measuring the viscous resistance, Zhu & Granick extracted the slip length over a wide range of oscillation amplitudes. These experiments lead to the largest shear-dependent slip lengths yet (up to $``$ 2 $`\mu `$m).

The origin of this large shear dependent slip is heretofore mysterious. Nanobubbles have recently been observed on hydrophobic surfaces, using atomic force microscopy, with typical thickness $`h10`$ nm, typical radius $`R50100`$ nm and high surface coverage nano1 ; nano2 ; nano3 ; nano4 . Although the origin of these bubbles is unclear and skepticism remains in the community about their existence, they have been often invoked as a possible origin of the so-called hydrophobic attraction hydro0 ; hydro2 ; hydro3 ; hydro5 ; hydro6  and their existence points to a possible picture for such large slip nano2 ; deGennes .

It is well known that there is in general a non-zero velocity at a liquid-gas interface, and therefore it is natural to wonder whether the existence of such a gas layer at the solid surface is sufficient to explain the experiments. When a fluid of viscosity $`\eta _1`$ adjoins a layer of fluid of thickness $`h`$ with smaller viscosity $`\eta _2`$, the discontinuous strain rate at the fluid-fluid interface results in an apparent slip with slip length

$$\lambda =h(\frac{\eta _1}{\eta _2}1)$$
(1)
Choosing $`\eta _1/\eta _2=50`$ appropriate for a gas-water interface leads to slip lengths as large as $`500`$ nm. This estimate is however independent of the interfacial shear and therefore unable to explain the squeeze flow experiments; it also overestimates the slip length in the case of bubbles, as is discussed in section III. Note however that similar arguments are consistent with data from pressure-driven flow experiments where reported slip lengths to date are essentially shear-independent Cheng ; Meinhart ; Schnell ; Churaev ; Watanabe ; Lauga .

In this article, we will assume bubbles exist on hydrophobic surfaces and will calculate their dynamic response to an imposed oscillatory shear. In an oscillatory squeeze flow experiment Granick , we argue that the pressure fluctuations in the fluid cause the bubbles to act as a “leaking mattress”, with both compression and dilation of the gas in the bubble, as well as diffusion of gas into (and out of) the bubble. As the solid sphere oscillates, this periodic in-phase response of the bubbles sizes reduces the amount of liquid necessary to be squeezed out of the gap and thereby the force on the moving sphere, creating an apparent slip. Our calculations indicate that the magnitude of this apparent slip is consistent with the observations of Zhu & Granick. We present the details of our model in the next section and discuss the comparison with the experiment in section III.

## II Influence of bubbles on force measurements

A typical oscillatory squeeze flow experiment is shown in Figure 1. A sphere of radius $`a`$ oscillates with velocity $`V_S`$ in a viscous liquid of viscosity $`\eta `$ at a distance $`D`$ of a planar surface (equivalently, the surfaces can be two crossed cylinders). The two surfaces are assumed to have the same physico-chemical properties. If no bubbles are present and the no slip boundary condition is satisfied on both surfaces, the lubrication force opposing the motion of the sphere is given by the Reynolds equation

$$F(t)=𝐞_z𝐅(t)=\frac{6\pi \eta a^2}{D}V_SF_{\mathrm{lub}}.$$
(2)
If however flow occurs on the surfaces with a slip length $`\lambda `$, the viscous force is decreased by an amount $`f_{\mathrm{slip}}`$ Vino95  given by

$$f_{\mathrm{slip}}=\frac{D}{3\lambda }[(1+\frac{D}{6\lambda })\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{6\lambda }{D})1]$$
(3)
Equation (3) is used experimentally to infer effective slip lengths: the experimental viscous force $`F_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ is compared to the theoretical no-slip result $`F_{\mathrm{lub}}`$ and any difference is interpreted as fluid slip, with a slip length $`\lambda `$ corresponding to $`f_{\mathrm{slip}}=F_{\mathrm{exp}}/F_{\mathrm{lub}}`$.

Let us now assume that the solid surface is covered with a percentage $`\varphi `$ of identical gas bubbles (Figure 1), and determine how the bubbles modify the dynamic response. Although this assumption has been made by previous authors hydro2 ; hydro3 ; hydro5 ; hydro6 ; nano2 ; deGennes , the physical mechanism responsible for such bubbles is unknown. Simple estimates indicate that small bubbles are short lived in solution lifetime . However, stable bubbles could arise from any number of possibilities that are known to prolong bubble lifetimes, including surfactants, surface heterogeneities, or local supersaturation of dissolved gas attard . In this paper, we are interested in understanding whether the dynamic response of hypothesized bubbles is sufficient to rationalize slip experiments.

### II.1 Total force

The total force $`F(t)`$ resisting the oscillatory motion of the area $`S`$ of the sphere has two components: (1) a viscous lubrication force $`F_h`$, due to hydrodynamic pressure fluctuations and acting on an area $`(1\varphi )S`$ and (2) an elastic bubble force $`F_b`$, due to pressure fluctuations inside the bubbles and acting on an area $`\varphi S`$. The total force is therefore given by

$$F(t)=(1\varphi )F_h+\varphi F_b,$$
(4)
where

$$F_h=(pp_0)S,F_b=(p_bp_{eq})S.$$
(5)
Here $`p`$ and $`p_b`$ ($`p_0`$ and $`p_{eq}`$) denote the (equilibrium) pressures in the liquid and the bubbles respectively. Moreover, since $`Da`$, the surface $`S`$ is given by $`S\pi aD`$.

### II.2 Lubrication force

Let us first calculate the hydrodynamic force $`F_h`$.

The presence of bubbles modifies equation (2) in two ways. First, flow occurs over a distribution of bubbles located on an otherwise no-slip surface, so the viscous force is reduced by an amount $`f_{\mathrm{slip}}`$ given by equation (3), where $`\lambda `$ is the appropriate effective slip length for flow over a distribution of bubbles Philip ; Lauga .

Second, the size of the bubbles changes in time in response to pressure fluctuations in the liquid. This volume effect will modify the amount of liquid necessary to be squeezed out of the gap at each cycle of the oscillations, hence the viscous force. Consequently, bubble dynamics has to be subtracted from the forcing $`V_S`$ and the hydrodynamic lubrication $`F_h`$ force is now given by a modified Reynolds equation

$$F_h=f_{\mathrm{slip}}\frac{6\pi \eta a^2}{D}\left(V_S2\frac{\mathrm{d}h}{\mathrm{d}t}\right)$$
(6)
where $`h`$ is an average bubble thickness on each surface and the factor 2 accounts for the fact that each surface is covered with bubbles.

### II.3 Rate of change of bubble height

In order to calculate $`\mathrm{d}h/dt`$ in equation (6), let us now consider the dynamics of the bubbles. We assume the bubbles are undeformed by viscous stresses and remain spherical, with radius of curvature $`R(t)`$ and interior angle ($`\pi \theta `$) (see Figure 1). We neglect interactions between bubbles. We expect $`h(t)`$ to depend explicitly on the forcing on the bubbles, i.e. $`F_b`$.

At the small frequencies typical of squeeze flow experiments (1-100 Hz), the gas is isothermal, so the pressure in the bubble changes via the ideal gas law

$$\frac{p_b(t)V(t)}{m(t)}=\frac{p_{eq}V_0}{m_0},$$
(7)
where $`V`$ and $`m`$ denote the volume and the mass of a single bubble. The average thickness of the gas layer is defined as $`h(t)=nV(t)`$, where $`n`$ is the number density of bubbles on the solid surface, so that equation (7) can be rewritten as

$$\frac{p_b(t)h(t)}{m(t)}=\frac{p_{eq}h_0}{m_0}$$
(8)
Combining the time-derivative of (8) with $`F_b=(p_bp_{eq})S`$ and linearizing around $`\{p_b,h,m\}\{p_{eq},h_0,m_0\}`$, we obtain the equation for the rate of change of the mean bubble height $`h`$

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}h}{\mathrm{d}t}=\frac{h_0}{m_0}\frac{\mathrm{d}m}{\mathrm{d}t}\frac{h_0}{p_{eq}S}\frac{\mathrm{d}F_b}{\mathrm{d}t}$$
(9)
We thus have that the rate of change of $`h`$ is the sum of a rate of change governed by gas diffusion plus a second contribution due to the gas compressibility.

We now consider the rate of gas diffusion from the bubble. In our model for the oscillatory squeeze flow experiments Baudry ; Granick ; Granick2002 , bubbles lose mass by both vertical diffusion across the liquid layer and radial diffusion along the apparatus; because of the scale separation $`Da`$, these two processes require separate treatment.

Let us first consider the case of vertical diffusion. Since for most common gases, $`\kappa 10^9`$ m2/s, the vertical Peclet number $`Pe_v=D^2\omega /\kappa `$ is much smaller than unity: on the experimental time scale $`\omega ^1`$, the bubbles are approximately in instantaneous vertical diffusive equilibrium. The dissolved gas concentration above the bubble is therefore uniform throughout the liquid gap and is given, in the case of small amplitude oscillations, by Henry’s law $`c=p_bc_{\mathrm{}}/p_{eq}`$. The mass $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ of gas necessary to fill the liquid gap at this concentration is equal to the gap thickness $`(D2h)`$ times the change in concentration $`c_{\mathrm{}}(p_b/p_{eq}1)`$ times the area in the liquid which is influenced by the bubble, i.e. $`1/n`$ . Linearizing around $`hh_0`$ and combining with $`p_{eq}/c_{\mathrm{}}=p_0/c_0`$, we get that $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ is proportional to the bubble force $`F_b`$

$$\stackrel{~}{m}=\frac{c_0(D2h_0)}{np_0S}F_b$$
(10)
Consequently, the total rate of change of $`m`$ is given by

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}m}{\mathrm{d}t}=\frac{\mathrm{d}m_r}{\mathrm{d}t}\frac{c_0(D2h_0)}{np_0S}\frac{\mathrm{d}F_b}{\mathrm{d}t}$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{d}m_r/\mathrm{d}t`$ is the rate of change in the bubble mass governed by gas diffusion in the (slowly varying) radial direction of the apparatus; let us now evaluate this contribution.

In contrast to the vertical case, the radial oscillatory Peclet number, $`Pe_r=L^2\omega /\kappa =aD\omega /\kappa `$, is of order unity or larger, so that radial diffusion has to be accounted for explicitly. Assuming the dissolved gas is in vertical diffusive equilibrium, the time rate of change of the mass of a gas bubble $`\mathrm{d}m_r/\mathrm{d}t`$ is given by a flux integral on the bubble surface $`S_b`$

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}m_r}{\mathrm{d}t}=\kappa _{S_b}𝐧c\mathrm{d}S=\kappa R^2I(\theta )\frac{c}{r},$$
(12)
where the assumption od spherical cap bubble implies that $`I(\theta )=\pi (2(\pi \theta )+\mathrm{sin}2\theta )/2`$.

In general, the radial concentration of dissolved gas $`c(r,t)`$ verifies an advection-diffusion equation with shear dependent diffusivity TaylorDispersion . However, for the small amplitude oscillation in Granick , both advection and Taylor dispersion are negligible, and $`c(r,t)`$ satisfies a pure diffusion equation. We finally approximate radial concentration gradient by a simple linear law $`c/r(c_{\mathrm{}}c)/L_r`$ where $`L_r(\kappa /\omega )^{1/2}L/Pe_r^{1/2}`$ is the typical (shear dependent) radial gradient length scale. Equation (12) together with Henry’s law leads therefore to a linear relation between the rate of change $`\dot{m_r}`$ and the bubble force

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}m_r}{\mathrm{d}t}=\frac{\kappa R_0^2I(\theta )c_0}{p_0SL_r}F_b$$
(13)
Combining $`m_0=\rho _0h_0/n`$ with (9), (11) and (13), we finally obtain that the mean bubble height $`h`$ satisfies the differential equation

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}h}{\mathrm{d}t}=k_1F_bk_2\frac{\mathrm{d}F_b}{\mathrm{d}t},$$
(14)
where $`(k_1,k_2)`$ are given by

$`k_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n\kappa R_0^2I(\theta )c_0}{\rho _0p_0SL_r}},`$ (15)
$`k_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_0h_0}{c_{\mathrm{}}p_0S}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{}}(D2h_0)}{\rho _0h_0}})`$ (16)
### II.4 Bubble force

We finally need to calculate the bubble force $`F_b`$ in order to close the system of equations (6) and (14). This in general requires understanding the (equilibrium or nonequilibrium) mechanism responsible for the presence of these long-lived bubbles. However, we can bypass this unknown physics by assuming without loss of generality that the pressure fluctuations in the bubbles and that in the liquid are proportional

$$\mathrm{\Delta }p_b=\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }p,$$
(17)
where $`\alpha `$ is an unknown constant. Hence, bubble and hydrodynamic forces are proportional $`F_b=\alpha F_h`$, and the total force on the sphere can be expressed as

$$F=\left(1\varphi +\alpha \varphi \right)F_h=\left(\frac{1\varphi +\alpha \varphi }{\alpha }\right)F_b.$$
(18)
### II.5 Total force on the sphere

We can now combine (6), (14) and (18) to express the total force opposing the motion of the sphere $`F`$. We obtain

$$F(t)=\frac{\delta }{2}(1\varphi +\alpha \varphi )\left(V_S+2k_1F_b+2k_2\frac{\mathrm{d}F_b}{\mathrm{d}t}\right),$$
(19)
where$`\delta =12\pi \eta a^2f_{\mathrm{slip}}/D`$. Since $`F`$ and $`F_b`$ are related by equation (18), (19) can be transformed into an ordinary differential equation for $`F`$,

$$F(t)=\frac{\delta }{2}\left(\stackrel{~}{V_S}+2\alpha k_1F+2\alpha k_2\frac{\mathrm{d}F}{\mathrm{d}t}\right),$$
(20)
where $`\stackrel{~}{V_S}=(1\varphi +\alpha \varphi )V_S`$. For an oscillating sphere velocity $`V_S=\mathrm{d}\left(d\mathrm{sin}\omega t\right)/\mathrm{d}t`$, the periodic solution to (20) is given by 111The general solution to (20) also an exponentially decaying transient occurring on a time scale $`\tau \delta k_2/(1+\delta k_1)`$ with $`\tau 1`$ ms or less in experiments such as Granick .

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F(t)}{F_{\mathrm{lub}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\mathrm{slip}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1\varphi +\alpha \varphi )(1+\delta \alpha k_1)}{(1+\delta \alpha k_1)^2+(\delta \omega \alpha k_2)^2}}`$
$`\times (\mathrm{cos}\omega t+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \omega \alpha k_2}{1+\delta \alpha k_1}}\mathrm{sin}\omega t)`$
### II.6 What is the value of $`\alpha `$?

By comparing our model (II.5) to the results of squeeze flow experiments, we find that the only choice consistent with available data at large separation distances is $`\alpha 1`$.

To see this, consider equation (II.5) in the limit of large separations between the sphere and the planar surface $`D`$. Since equation (3) shows that $`f_{\mathrm{slip}}1`$ when $`D`$ is large, we get $`\delta D^1`$. Moreover, $`SD`$ so that, from (15) and (16), we obtain $`\delta k_1D^2`$ and $`\delta k_2D^1`$. Consequently, in the limit of large separations, we obtain that the ratio of the measured force, out-of-phase with the sphere displacement, to the expected no-slip force (2) is given by

$$\underset{D\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(\frac{F}{F_{\mathrm{lub}}}\right)=1\varphi +\alpha \varphi .$$
(22)
Within experimental errors, this ratio is always measured to be unity Granick2002 ; Craig ; Granick ; Bonaccurso ; Cottin , i.e. the expected lubrication no-slip force is recovered for large separation distances. We therefore need $`1\varphi +\alpha \varphi 1`$ or $`\alpha 1`$.

We emphasize that this conclusion is reached because we assume that the model presented in II is the major physical mechanism responsible for the force decrease observed in experiments such as Granick .

### II.7 Final formula for the force ratio

We obtain from (II.5) that the ratio $`f^{}`$ of the peak force out-of-phase with the sphere displacement to that expected with no-slip and no bubbles (2) is given by

$$\frac{f^{}(\omega )}{f_{\mathrm{slip}}}=\frac{1}{1+\left(\delta k_1+{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega \delta k_2)^2}{1+\delta k_1}}\right)}$$
(23)
The “leaking mattress” model therefore leads to an apparent slip effect, of dynamic origin. The effect is shear-dependent through the frequency dependence in (23): higher frequency and therefore higher shear shear rates lead to a larger apparent slip, in agreement with Granick2002 ; Craig ; Granick . The model was derived under the assumption of small amplitude oscillations $`d`$, which consequently does not appear in the final formula for $`f^{}`$.

Note that in the limit of high frequencies the force ratio (23) becomes $`f^{}(\omega \mathrm{})\omega ^2`$, whereas at low frequencies $`f^{}(\omega 0)\frac{1}{1+\delta k_1}.`$ In the low frequency limit $`f^{}`$ is independent of frequency and depends only on separation distance. Furthermore, equation (23) implies that the apparent slip effect increases with the fluid viscosity, in agreement with experiments Craig ; Cheng . It also increases with the size of the sphere $`a`$, which might account for the large slip lengths reported in Granick  (cm-size spheres) as opposed to other squeeze flow experiments (usually $`\mu `$m-size spheres). The model predicts that the measured overall apparent slip length is therefore not only a solid/liquid property but depends on the system size Lauga .

We finally note from (II.5) that the total pressure force on the sphere $`F(t)`$ also contains a non-zero component in-phase with the displacement of the sphere, and therefore out-of-phase with its velocity. If we denote by $`g^{}`$ the ratio of this in-phase response to the expected no-slip no-bubbles out-of-phase response, we obtain

$$g^{}=\frac{\delta \omega k_2}{(1+\delta k_1)^2+(\delta \omega k_2)^2}f_{\mathrm{slip}}=\frac{\delta \omega k_2}{1+\delta k_1}f^{}$$
(24)
Equation (24) is a prediction of the effective elasticity provided by the bubbles to the surface, which would occur in addition to other in-phase contribution such as intermolecular forces, and is experimentally testable. The values of the in-phase responses of the forces were unfortunately not reported by Zhu & Granick Granick .

## III Comparison with experiments

We present in this section a quantitative comparison of our model with the experimental results of Zhu & Granick in the case of deionized water, namely the four sets of data presented in Figure 2 of ref Granick . The macroscopic water/solid contact angle in this case was $`110`$ the sphere radius was $`a=2`$ cm and we assumed that the liquid was saturated with O2 at 25C and 1 atm ($`c_{\mathrm{}}=c_0`$), for which $`\rho _0=1.28`$ kg/m3, $`c_0=8.3\times 10^3`$ kg/m3 and $`\kappa =2\times 10^9`$ m2/s. As a matter of comparison, we have also summarized in Table 1 the experimental results of nano1 ; nano2 ; nano3 ; nano4  on the typical size, distribution and morphology of bubbles observed by atomic force microscopy.

The “leaking mattress” model we have presented in the previous sections has three free parameters which we fit to the experimental data: (a) the area fraction of the bubbles on the surface, $`0\varphi 1`$, (b) the size of the spherical bubbles, described by their radius of curvature $`R_0`$ and (c) the microscopic contact angle $`\theta `$ at the bubble level, which significantly differs from the macroscopic contact angle because of both intermolecular forces at the nanometer scale. Note that $`\varphi `$ is related to the area fraction $`n`$ by the formula $`\varphi `$=$`n\pi R_0^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$.

Furthermore, in order to present a meaningful fit to available data, we require that in each experiment the two layers of bubbles fit in the gap between the sphere and the plane for all separation distance. This is a geometrical constraint written as $`2h_0=2R_0(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )\mathrm{min}(D)`$ 222The model also requires specification of the effective slip length $`\lambda `$ in equation (3). Since a set of gas bubbles on a surface resists fluid motion more strongly than a gas layer, equation (1) is not appropriate. We have experimented with several models (see e.g. Lauga ; Philip ), all of which give slip length in the range ($`\lambda 10100`$ nm depending on the experiment). Owing to the weak dependence of $`f^{}`$ on the slip length, the precise value of $`\lambda `$ has virtually no impact on the quantitative results of our fits.

The model (23) can be well fit to the experiments Granick  with appropriate parameter choices. The best fits are obtained when we choose $`R_010`$ nm. This is illustrated in Figure 2 where the fits are compared the force ratio from the model to the small (a) and large (b) amplitude data from Zhu & Granick Granick ; the values of the angles $`\theta `$ were chosen for each curve to be the best in a least-square sense and $`\varphi =99\%`$. As expected from the linearity of our model, the fit to the low amplitude data of Granick  is better than that obtained for oscillations of larger amplitude.

We explore the influence of the three parameters of our model ($`\varphi ,R_0,\theta `$) in Figure 3a-c for the measurements from Granick  with $`d=1.6`$ nm and $`\omega =10`$ Hz.

We first find that the results of our model depend weakly on the bubble sizes: the results on Figure 3a are consistent with the experimental data for a large range of bubble sizes, $`R_01`$ to 50 nm. These sizes are agreement with the experimental evidence of bubbles in nano1 ; nano2 ; nano3 ; nano4  as summarized in Table 1, although somewhat smaller. As a matter of comparison, the data in nano3  show large standard deviation (up to 70%) for the bubble area.

As a difference, we find that the results of our model depend on both the assumed microscopic contact angle $`\theta `$ and coverage of the surface by the bubbles $`\varphi `$. We observe variations in the contact angles leading to best fit to the four experiments (Figure 2) and also note that we obtain a departure from the best fit when the angle is chosen to be significantly different (Figure 3b). In three experiments out of four, we find that the microscopic contact is larger than the macroscopic contact angle $`110^{}`$ characterizing the wetting of deionized water on the surfaces used in Granick . This result is consistent with the data in Table 1 where, in all cases, bubbles were found experimentally to be flat with microscopic contact angles larger than the macroscopic wetting angles. The fourth set of data from Granick  is found to be consistent with a microscopic angle of about $`90^{}`$. Although this is different from the data in nano1 ; nano2 ; nano3 ; nano4 , it is consistent with theoretical studies which show that intermolecular forces lead to microscopic contact angles which are always closer to 90 than their macroscopic counterpart hocking . Furthermore, we note that electrical effects are known to have significant impact on contact angles of bubbles and drops electrowetting ; chou .

Finally, we find that our model is consistent with the experimental data when the surface coverage is assumed to be large and almost equal to 100% (see Figure 3c). This result compare well with the available data on bubbles where, in three out of four studies nano2 ; nano3 ; nano4 , the bubbles were found to cover almost entirely the solid surface. As a difference, the pictures in nano1  show bubbles with lower surface coverage. We also note that our previous study of slip in pressure-driven flow experiments lead to a similar conclusion: in order for surface-attached bubbles to be responsible for the measured effective slip, surface coverage of almost 100% was necessary Lauga .

## IV Conclusion

We have explored in this paper the consequences of the presence of nanobubbles on the surfaces where squeeze flow experiments are performed. We have shown that, within the framework of a simple stabilizing model, the time-dynamics of bubbles always leads naturally to a shear-dependent decrease in the measured viscous force by a “leaking mattress” effect. The effect was found to increase with viscosity of the fluid and the size of the sphere, in agreement with earlier experimental results.

We emphasize that this mechanism is of dynamic origin, and is not a consequence of the microscopic slip at the bubble surfaces; in particular, we argue that this is why shear-dependent slip length have not been reported by investigations of slip in pressure-driven flow experiments to date, where no oscillatory pressure is present to trigger an effect similar to the one proposed here. Also, the mechanism we propose should also apply to squeeze flow experiments performed on super-hydrophobic surfaces such those reported in Onda  with small air bubbles trapped on fractal surfaces (see also Bico ).

Assuming the presence of bubbles, the calculations on the model have been performed with several simplifying assumptions and, in particular, additional contributions to the sets of coefficients $`(k_1,k_2)`$ could come from bridging bubbles, large amplitude oscillations of the solid sphere or bubble interactions, deformation or displacement on the solid surface.

We have then presented a comparison between the results of our model when applied to the experiments of Zhu & Granick. We found that our model gives results which are in agreement with the force decrease measured experimentally, for bubble features which are consistent with available experimental data on nanobubbles (bubble size $`R_010`$nm, large microscopic contact angles, large surface coverage). Finally, a formula has been proposed for the (additional) effective elasticity provided by the bubbles to the solid surface.

We note that our study does not rule out the possibility of bubbles with dynamically selected sizes. It has been reported experimentally in Yakobov  that the jump-in distance between two hydrophobic surfaces in water, believed to be due to the presence of bubbles, depended on the history of the sample; performing the experiment several times lead to changes in the jump-in distances over time which was found to remain constant only after a few periods. A similar scenario could be envisioned in experiments such as Granick .

To conclude, we present a simple prediction based on the results of our model. If a squeeze flow experiment was performed with two different surfaces, say a hydrophobic plane and a hydrophilic sphere, force ratio measurements displaying shear-dependant results should be able to test whether the ideas put forward in this paper are valid. Indeed, if the force decreases was really due, not to bubbles, but to a change in the hydrodynamic boundary condition for flow past the hydrophobic surface, the maximum force decrease one could expect to obtain is $`1/4`$ for the case of a perfectly slipping surface (see Vino95  for the calculation; this result can also be found by symmetry about the plane where slip occurs). If alternatively the measurements are due to a “leaking mattress” effect similar to the one we propose here, equation (6) should also apply (with different prefactors) and therefore so is equation (23); consequently, force ratio smaller than $`1/4`$ should be obtained in this case. This proposition for an experiment, together with the prediction for the in-phase response of the force (24), would allow our model to be tested experimentally.

#### Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Jacquie Ashmore, José Gordillo, Steve Granick, Jacob Israelachvili, Todd Squires, and Howard Stone for useful discussions.

We also thank an anonymous referee for pointing out a mistake in an earlier version of the manuscript. This research was supported by the Harvard MRSEC, and the NSF Division of Mathematical Sciences.


text:
# Little Inflatons and Gauge Inflation

## I Introduction

Inflation Guth (1981) is an important feature of most modern cosmologies. It not only provides solutions for the horizon problem and the flatness problem, it also provides a natural explanation for the spectrum of density perturbations observed by COBE Bennett et al. (1996) and the more recent experiments such as MAXIMA Lee et al. (2001), BOOMERANG de Bernardis et al. (2002) and DASI Kovac et al. (2002). Even more recently, the WMAP Bennett et al. (2003); Spergel et al. (2003) experiment has added a great deal of new precision data, giving great new information into the physics of inflation.

In building models of inflation, one generally requires three basic ingredients: a large background energy density to drive inflation, a scalar field $`\varphi `$ which will roll from some initial value to some other value where inflation ends, and the requirement that the energy associated with the kinetic energy is subdominant to the background energy density (the slow-roll conditions). With recent measurements, one can also constrain the form of the inflaton potential by studying density perturbations.

The simplest implementation of chaotic inflation Linde (1983) is just a scalar field with a polynomial potential. However, when the slow roll conditions (below) are applied, these models typically require super-Planckian vevs to drive inflation. In other words, because the potential is flat, one must start at very large field values to produce enough vacuum energy.

One interesting solution, hybrid inflation Linde (1994), represented significant progress in inflation model-building. If one field is responsible for slowly rolling while a different field is kept from relaxing to its minimum, then it is possible to divorce the size of the vacuum energy from the slow roll potential in a relatively natural way. In its original form, there are two fields, $`\varphi `$, the slow-roll field and $`\sigma `$, the “waterfall” field, and a potential

$$V(\varphi ,\sigma )=\lambda (M^2\sigma ^2)^2+\frac{m^2}{2}\varphi ^2+\frac{g^2}{2}\varphi ^2\sigma ^2.$$
(1)
When the slow roll field has a large value, $`\sigma `$ has a large positive mass squared and is quickly driven to zero. From this point the universe inflates with an energy density $`\lambda M^4`$ and $`\varphi `$ slowly rolls until it reaches $`\varphi _c\sqrt{4\lambda M^2/g^2}`$ where the mass squared of $`\sigma `$ changes sign. At this point inflation ends.

The slow roll requirements are $`ϵ1`$ and $`|\eta |1`$ where

$`ϵ`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_{Pl}^2}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V^{}}{V}}\right)^2,`$ (2)
$`\eta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_{Pl}^2V^{\prime \prime }}{V}}.`$ (3)
These imply that $`m^2\lambda M^4/M_{Pl}^2`$ (where $`M_{Pl}2\times 10^{18}`$ GeV, the reduced Planck mass). This introduces a significant model building problem: the (squared) mass of a scalar field receives quadratically divergent quantum corrections generically making it too large and making it sensitive to physics at the ultraviolet cutoff of the theory.

A technically natural mass for $`\varphi `$, taking the cutoff to be $`M_{Pl}`$, is $`m^2(g/4\pi )^2M_{Pl}^2`$. With an $`m^2`$ about a tenth this size (requiring $`10\%`$ fine-tuning) it is possible to generate enough e-foldings of inflation

$`N(\varphi _i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{Pl}^2}}{\displaystyle _{\varphi _c}^{\varphi _i}}{\displaystyle \frac{V}{V^{}}}𝑑\varphi `$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\varphi _c}^{\varphi _i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{\varphi }}_{}^>60`$ (5)
and density perturbations consistent with the COBE data:

$$V^{1/4}=6ϵ^{1/4}\times 10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(6)
However, the couplings in this model are $`\lambda 10^{11}`$ and $`g^210^{10}`$. In addition, the vevs are $`M,\varphi _cM_{Pl}`$ thus requiring all higher-dimensional operators to be suppressed by similar factors. Such extreme values can be avoided at the cost of dramatically increasing the fine-tuning required.

There are only two known symmetries which can protect a scalar field from acquiring a mass: supersymmetry and the shift symmetry of a Goldstone boson. Supersymmetry would seem a natural choice because of the ubiquitous flat directions in supersymmetric theories, but inflation is driven by a vacuum energy density which breaks supersymmetry and generically gives Hubble-scale masses to all scalar fields in the theory Copeland et al. (1994).

The shift symmetry of a Nambu-Goldstone boson (NGB) will, indeed, protect it from acquiring a mass, even during inflation. However, the inflaton cannot be an exact NGB as this same shift symmetry would prohibit the coupling required in the hybrid model. Pseudo Nambu-Goldstone bosons (pNGB) have couplings which violate the shift symmetry by small amounts and thus these fields remain light. However, simply calling $`\varphi `$ a pNGB is not enough to correct the above picture - the parameter $`m^2`$ still gets a one-loop quadratic divergent contribution from $`\varphi `$’s coupling to $`\sigma `$ which puts strain on the model. It is this contribution which must be suppressed.

The first use of pNGBs for the inflaton was so-called “Natural Inflation” Freese et al. (1990); Adams et al. (1993) (see also Frieman et al. (1995)) in which a pNGB sat at a particular point in its potential from whence it could roll. They have also been used, for example, as the waterfall field in supersymmetric hybrid inflation models Randall et al. (1996). However, these models did not suitably take into account possible gravitational corrections, which can be significant. Indeed, in Randall et al. (1996), the slow roll field would still naturally pick up a large mass from gravitational interactions.

Recently, a new class of pNGBs have been discovered Arkani-Hamed et al. (2001a) in which loop contributions to masses are suppressed. The suppression is due to the “non-local” or “collective” behavior of the explicit symmetry breaking: the breaking comes from a combination of couplings in the Lagrangian. The result is a vanishing tree-level mass and the cancelation of quadratic divergences at one or more loops. The first application of this mechanism was to the question of electroweak symmetry breaking Arkani-Hamed et al. (2001a), where the Higgs quartic arose from multiple symmetry breaking terms and the loop contributions to its mass were suppressed. A “Little Inflaton” theory is therefore one in which the slow-roll field $`\varphi `$ is a little pNGB. It can have non-trivial interactions with the waterfall field (which itself may or may not be a pNGB) without generating large corrections to its mass.

We will show that the use of the above mechanism will maintain a flat potential for the slow-roll field against all dangerous corrections, including gravitational. In the next section we review the mechanism of collective symmetry breaking (CSB) and then present a little inflaton model.

In Section III we review the difficulty in realizing inflation models in supersymmetric theories coupled to supergravity (the “$`\eta `$ problem”). We then present a simple supersymmetric model using the same mechanism as in the previous case. The dimensionless parameters are all order one and the model only requires one additional scale besides the Planck scale. We include a sequestered model in an extra dimension which gives a natural microscopic explanation for the form of the potential.

Another naturally light scalar with a protective shift symmetry is the fifth component of a gauge field in an extra dimension. In Section IV we present models of “gauge inflation” in which the slow roll field is the fifth component of a $`U(1)`$ gauge field, again achieving natural inflation with order one parameters. One can see from dimensional deconstruction Arkani-Hamed et al. (2001b) that these extra components of the gauge field are akin to pNGBs. We discuss the deconstruction of a particular six-dimensional model of this type.

In Section V, we discuss the significance of the recent WMAP results on the given models. Finally, in Section VI we conclude.

## II Goldstone Bosons, Collective Breaking and a New Model of Inflation

Before discussing explicit models of inflation, we describe a new mechanism which leads to a naturally flat scalar potential. Until now, this mechanism has only been applied to electroweak symmetry breaking to produce a light Higgs boson mass compared to the cutoff of the theory. Here we apply it to the inflaton potential.

A NGB is a scalar field that results from a spontaneous broken global symmetry. For example, we can consider an $`SO(2)`$ symmetry broken by a linear sigma model field

$`\mathrm{\Phi }=e^{i\tau _2\theta (x^\mu )/f}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ f+\rho (x^\mu )\end{array}\right)`$ (9)
(where the normalization is chosen for notation ease later). It will frequently be convenient to set $`\rho =0`$, that is to consider the non-linear sigma model in which we do not discuss the dynamics of symmetry breaking. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ appears only in terms which respect the $`SO(2)`$ symmetry, the field $`\theta `$ will have only derivative interactions.

A pseudo- or approximate NGB is one in which the potential explicitly breaks the global symmetry with small couplings. An example of pseudo-NGBs in nature are the pions of QCD. Quark masses and electric charge break the chiral symmetry explicitly and give the pions masses at tree-level and one loop respectively.

The inflaton is a natural candidate for a NGB as we have discussed, because of the necessary flatness of the potential. However, calling $`\varphi `$ in the hybrid inflation model above a pNGB doesn’t change the theory - specifically, $`\varphi `$ still receives a large mass term via quantum effects.

The problem with the hybrid model considered as theory of a pNGB inflaton is that a single coupling in the potential broke the symmetry protecting $`\varphi `$ from a mass term. A quadratically divergent renormalization was thus allowed to appear at one-loop, which is generically too large.

However, if the global symmetry is explicitly broken by a combination of couplings, then loop contributions to pNGB masses must involve all of the couplings, and the one-loop contribution cannot be quadratically divergent. This is the essence of collective or non-local symmetry breaking Arkani-Hamed et al. (2001a). The effect is to suppress loop contributions to the $`\varphi `$ mass in the model of the previous section, naturally making the slow-roll parameter $`\eta `$ small.

### II.1 The littlest inflaton

We begin by considering the simplest model of the type described above. It involves replacing $`\varphi `$ with a pseudo-NGB $`\theta `$ which comes from the breaking of a global $`SO(2)`$ symmetry. We integrate out the “radial” degree of freedom $`\rho `$ and push the cutoff of this non-linear sigma model to the point where $`\varphi `$ becomes strongly coupled, namely $`\mathrm{\Lambda }4\pi f`$. Thus the inflaton is parameterized as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}(\theta /f)& \mathrm{sin}(\theta /f)\\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta /f)& \mathrm{cos}(\theta /f)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)\times {\displaystyle \frac{f}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ (14)
We choose to parameterize the $`SO(2)`$ breaking in the direction above for convenience later. We take its tree-level potential to be:

$$V=\lambda \left(\sigma ^T\sigma v^2\right)^2+\frac{g_1}{4}(\sigma ^T\mathrm{\Phi })^2+\frac{g_2}{4}(\sigma ^T\tau _1\mathrm{\Phi })^2$$
(15)
where $`\sigma ^T=(\sigma _1\sigma _2)`$ and $`\tau _1`$ is the first Pauli matrix.

When $`g_1=g_2=0`$, $`\theta `$ transforms non-linearly under an exact $`SO(2)`$ symmetry while $`\sigma `$ transforms linearly under a different $`SO(2)`$ symmetry. Making, for example, $`g_1`$ non-zero explicitly breaks the two symmetries to the diagonal $`SO(2)`$ which leaves $`(\sigma _1\sigma _2)\mathrm{\Phi }`$ invariant. The remaining $`SO(2)`$ is still spontaneously broken and thus $`\theta `$ still represents an exact NGB. To see this, one can do a field redefinition which makes $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^T=\sigma ^Te^{i\tau _2\theta /f}`$, which turns the $`g_1`$ operator into a mass term for the linear combination $`(\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_2)`$. The transformation changes the derivative operators in the theory (e.g., the kinetic terms for $`\sigma `$ produce higher-dimensional operators), but the potential is independent of $`\theta `$.

If instead we make $`g_2`$ non-zero, we still leave an $`SO(2)`$ symmetry preserved under which $`(\sigma _2\sigma _1)\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a singlet. We could again go to “unitary gauge” and transform $`\theta `$ away. However, with both terms present, we can only eliminate one term by a field transformation, leaving a non-trivial potential for $`\theta `$. However, since this potential and consequently the renormalization of the mass will require both $`g_1,g_20`$, the slow-roll conditions are easily accommodated.

For the rest of this discussion we take $`g_1=g_2g`$ for simplicity. This can be enforced by imposing a $`𝒵_2`$ symmetry which takes $`\sigma _1\sigma _2`$. This simplification is not necessary for a successful model and the dynamics are not dramatically different in the more general case. In addition, we have imposed a $`\sigma \sigma `$ symmetry on the Lagrangian to avoid terms linear in $`\sigma `$.

Now we compute the one-loop corrections to the mass of $`\theta `$. From expanding out the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$s in the potential,

$$V=\frac{gf^2}{4}(\sigma _1^2+\sigma _2^22\sigma _1\sigma _2\mathrm{cos}(2\theta /f))$$
(16)
it is clear that there is no one-loop quadratic divergent contribution to a $`\theta `$ mass. This is because $`\theta `$ only couples to the combination $`\sigma _1\sigma _2`$ making it impossible to close a loop with only one vertex. There is a logarithmic divergence at one loop proportional to $`g_1g_2=g^2`$

$`V_{1loop}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{128\pi ^2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m_\theta ^2}}\right)(\mathrm{\Phi }^T\tau _1\mathrm{\Phi })^2+\mathrm{}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2f^4}{128\pi ^2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m_\theta ^2}}\right)\mathrm{cos}^2(2\theta /f)+\mathrm{}`$
Because this theory is a non-linear sigma model, it becomes strongly coupled at a scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }4\pi f`$. We take this to be the cutoff of the theory but for now leave its value unspecified. It could be at $`M_{Pl}`$ or far below.

Let us now compute the number of e-foldings. For simplicity, we take the VEV of the waterfall field $`\sigma `$ to be $`v=f\mathrm{\Lambda }/4\pi `$. This value is not only technically natural, but the theory remains perturbative (and therefore under control) in this regime. To find the critical value of $`\theta `$, we diagonalize the $`\sigma `$ mass matrix:

$`\sigma ^T{\displaystyle \frac{g}{4}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \mathrm{cos}(2\theta /f)\\ \mathrm{cos}(2\theta /f)& 1\end{array}\right)\sigma `$ (20)
$``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^T{\displaystyle \frac{g}{4}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\mathrm{cos}(2\theta /f)& 0\\ 0& 1+\mathrm{cos}(2\theta /f)\end{array}\right)\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ (23)
This gives us a value for $`\theta _c`$ satisfying

$$\frac{4\lambda }{g}=1\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _c/f)=2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\theta _c}{f}\right).$$
(24)
The $`\sigma `$ field is stabilized when $`|\theta |>|\theta _c|`$. Note the sign of the mass term for $`\theta `$ needs to be opposite that which appears in the loop calculation. However, the sign is not a prediction of the theory as there is a counterterm canceling this logarithmic divergence at one loop (along with the two-loop quadratic divergence). We assume the sign is what we need for the proper dynamics while the magnitude is approximately that calculated above, i.e.,

$$V_{\theta mass}\frac{g^2f^4}{128\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m_\theta ^2}\right)\mathrm{cos}^2(2\theta /f)\frac{\overline{g}^2}{128\pi ^2}f^4\mathrm{cos}^2(2\theta /f),$$
(25)
where $`\overline{g}^2=g^2\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/m_\theta ^2)`$. The number of e-foldings can be computed

$`N(\theta _i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{Pl}^2}}{\displaystyle _{\theta _c}^{\theta _i}}{\displaystyle \frac{128\pi ^2\lambda f^4}{2\overline{g}^2f^3\mathrm{sin}(4\theta /f)}}𝑑\theta `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\overline{g}^2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}(2\theta _c/f)}{\mathrm{tan}(2\theta _i/f)}}\right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2\overline{g}^2}}\mathrm{log}(g/\lambda )`$
where we have assumed $`\theta _cf`$ and we’ve taken $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=M_{Pl}=4\pi f`$. Thus we see from eq. (24) that $`\lambda <g`$ and from eq. (II.1) we require $`\lambda g^2`$.

COBE requirements on the spectrum imply

$$\frac{\lambda ^{3/2}}{\pi \overline{g}^2\mathrm{sin}(4\theta /f)}=5.2\times 10^4$$
(27)
or, roughly,

$$\overline{g}^2\lambda ^{3/2}\times 10^3.$$
(28)
Altogether, this implies $`\overline{g}<10^3`$ and $`\lambda <10^6`$. Numerically, then, we have $`m_\sigma ^24\lambda f^2<(4\times 10^{14}\mathrm{GeV})^2`$ and $`m_\theta ^2\overline{g}^2f^2/16\pi ^2<(2\times 10^{13}\mathrm{GeV})^2`$.

Thus, as an illustration of the mechanism, we have shown an example of a hybrid model with only one additional coupling ($`gg_1,g_2`$) which is technically natural, does not require cutoff-size vevs, and yet has a much smaller inflaton mass than would be otherwise expected.

## III A Supersymmetric Little Inflaton

Supersymmetry would seem a natural resolution to the flatness problem of the inflaton potential. After all, scalar fields in supersymmetric theories are protected by non-renormalization theorems, and the abundant flat directions in supersymmetric theories seem natural candidates for the inflaton field.

However, since inflation necessarily involves gravity, it is necessary to embed the theory in supergravity. Because inflation occurs as a result of energy density, supersymmetry is broken during inflation and fields generically pick up masses of order the Hubble parameter, in direct conflict with slow-roll requirements Copeland et al. (1994).

Let us see explicitly how this happens: the potential for a scalar field during inflation is

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{K}{M_{Pl}^2}}\right)\times `$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2K}{\overline{\varphi }_\alpha \varphi _\beta }}\right)^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{W}{\varphi _\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{W}{M_{Pl}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{K}{\varphi _\alpha }}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{W}{\overline{\varphi }_\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{W}{M_{Pl}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{K}{\overline{\varphi }_\beta }}\right)3{\displaystyle \frac{|W|^2}{M_{Pl}^2}}\right],`$
where $`W`$ is the superpotential and $`K`$ is the Kähler potential. Let us assume that the inflaton field has canonical Kähler potential , and that there is a source of vacuum energy, and thus supersymmetry breaking, in the $`F`$ term of some field, such that $`F^2=\mu ^4`$. Then the inflaton field automatically picks up a mass through supergravity couplings,

$$V=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{K}{M_{Pl}^2}\right)(\mu ^4+\mathrm{}).$$
(30)
For a canonical Kähler potential $`K(\varphi ^{},\varphi )=\varphi ^{}\varphi `$, this yields a slow-roll parameter $`\eta =1`$ at tree level, absent fine tunings of other terms in the potential.

There are at least two other approaches two address this: first of all, if the slow-roll field enters only linearly in the superpotential, there is a cancellation between this term and other terms Linde and Riotto (1997). However, this requires no additional Planck-scale vevs in the theory, such as dilaton vevs or moduli vevs – a highly restrictive assumption about the ultraviolet theory. Another alternative is D-term inflation Binetruy and Dvali (1996), where the vacuum energy is driven by a Fayet-Iliopoulos term, although the scales in such models are often too high and it is difficult to avoid generating large $`F`$ terms.

### III.1 The Model

As we have already described, a little pNGB is one which is a pseudo-goldstone boson, whose mass is protected by a combination of symmetries. In non-supersymmetric theories, this is typically realized with multiple approximate internal symmetries. In supersymmetric theories, masses are already protected by supersymmetry. For a pNGB to acquire a mass, only terms which combine both violations of supersymmetry as well as violations of the approximate internal symmetry can contribute.

A number of authors have previously considered models of pNGBs in supersymmetric theories. In Copeland et al. (1994), it was noted that pNGBs would not suffer from the supergravity $`\eta `$ problem. Models with discrete non-Abelian symmetries were constructed by Cohn and Stewart (2000). In Murayama et al. (1994) such form of the Kähler potential was invoked, while Adams et al. (1997) noted that moduli fields can naturally yield appropriate Kähler potentials. The authors of Kawasaki et al. (2000); Yamaguchi (2001) considered many models of pNGBs which have nearly exact symmetries except for small breaking parameters. In Randall et al. (1996), pNGBs were considered as candidates for waterfall fields.

Goldstone bosons are protected by a shift symmetry, rather than supersymmetry. Hence, even in the presence of a cosmological constant, Goldstone bosons in supergravity are massless. Let us understand this more carefully. Suppose we have a field which spontaneously breaks a global $`U(1)`$ symmetry,

$$W_{gb}=S(\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}v^2).$$
(31)
$`F`$-flatness is achieved when

$`\varphi =ve^{\theta /\sqrt{2}v},`$ (32)
$`\overline{\varphi }=ve^{\theta /\sqrt{2}v},`$ (33)
where $`\theta `$ is a complex scalar field. We can promote $`\theta `$ to a superfield $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, in which case the kinetic terms are

$$K(\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }^{})=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}=2v^2\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }+\mathrm{\Theta }^{}}{\sqrt{2}v}).$$
(35)
Let us then as before assume the presence of a field with a non-vanishing $`F`$-term. Then the the potential for $`\theta `$ in the presence of supergravity is

$$V=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2v^2}{M_{Pl}^2}\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{\theta +\theta ^{}}{\sqrt{2}v}\right)\right](\mu ^4+\mathrm{})$$
(36)
Notice that since $`K(\theta ,\theta ^{})`$ depends only on the real component of $`\theta `$ and therefore only the real component acquires a mass! This is completely expected, because it is not supersymmetry protecting the imaginary component, but the shift symmetry of the goldstone boson. Indeed, any field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ whose Kähler potential is a function of $`\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ alone has this same shift symmetry in the Kähler potential and will not acquire a mass. However, for an ordinary field, such a form for the Kähler potential would seem an unnatural tuning, whereas for a goldstone boson it is automatic.

We will consider a theory with a spontaneous breaking of an approximate little $`U(1)`$. All terms in the superpotential will respect a spontaneously broken $`U(1)`$, but in combination they will not.

For the moment, we will not concern ourselves with the origin of this model, and will only address questions of technical naturalness. Later, we will comment on microscopic origins for the form given. The complete model is given by the superpotential

$$W=X_1(\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}v^2)+X_2(\frac{\kappa }{2}S^2\mu ^2)+\lambda S^2(\mathrm{\Phi }+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})$$
(37)
The equality of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ couplings can be justified by a $`\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ exchange symmetry. Notice that each term respects a $`U(1)`$ under which $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is charged, but in combination, there is no preserved $`U(1)`$. At a scale $`v`$, $`\varphi `$ and $`\overline{\varphi }`$ acquire vevs and we are left with a non-linear sigma model below this scale. We can thus instead study the theory

$$W=X_2(\frac{\kappa }{2}S^2\mu ^2)+2\lambda vS^2\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{\sqrt{2}v}\right)$$
(38)
This model has a potential (neglecting supergravity contributions)

$$V_0=|\frac{\kappa }{2}s^2\mu ^2|^2+|\kappa x_2s+4\lambda vs\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{\theta }{\sqrt{2}v}\right)|^2+2\lambda ^2(ss^{})^2\frac{|\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\theta }{\sqrt{2}v}\right)|^2}{\mathrm{cosh}\left(\frac{\theta +\theta ^{}}{\sqrt{2}v}\right)}$$
(39)
Of course, because $`\varphi `$ is just a pseudo-goldstone boson, radiative effects will give it a mass. There are two sources for such terms. The first is due to the fact that the form of the Kähler potential is unstable against radiative corrections, leading to induced $`\varphi ^{}\overline{\varphi }+h.c.`$ Kähler potential terms. The contribution to the Kähler potential will be

$$\delta K=\frac{\overline{\lambda }^2}{16\pi ^2}(\varphi ^{}\overline{\varphi }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.),$$
(40)
where $`\overline{\lambda }^2=\lambda ^2\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/v)`$. The $`O(v^2)`$ masses will drive $`s`$ to $`0`$, while supersymmetry breaking masses for $`\theta _r`$ will drive it to zero.

Another contribution to the potential for $`\theta _i`$ will come from the Coleman-Weinberg potential Coleman and Weinberg (1973). This is found to be

$`\delta V={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\mu ^4}{128\pi ^2}}[(x^21)^2\mathrm{log}((x^21)\kappa \mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)+`$ (41)
$`(x^2+1)^2\mathrm{log}((x^2+1)\kappa \mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)2x^4\mathrm{log}(x^2\kappa \mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)]`$
where $`x=4\lambda v\mathrm{cos}(\theta _i/\sqrt{2}v)/\sqrt{\kappa }\mu `$. Note that one cannot estimate which contribution is more relevant merely by which is larger because the slow roll conditions involve the derivatives of $`\theta _i`$’s potential, not its absolute value.

We will first consider each contribution in turn. If we assume the supergravity contribution is dominant, we have

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\lambda }^2v^2}{8\pi ^2M_{Pl}^2}}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\theta _i}{v}}\right)\right)\mu ^4`$ (42)
$``$ $`\mu ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\lambda }^2v^2\mu ^4}{8\pi ^2M_{Pl}^2}}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\theta _i}{v}}\right).`$ (43)
Note that this regardless of the particular value of $`\theta _i`$, the second term is a negligible contribution to the total energy. We can now calculate the slow roll parameters

$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_{Pl}^2}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V^{}}{V}}\right)^2={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\lambda }^4v^2}{(8\pi ^2)^2M_{Pl}^2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\theta _i}{v}}\right)`$ (44)
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_{Pl}^2V^{\prime \prime }}{V}}={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\lambda }^2}{4\pi ^2}}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\theta _i}{v}}\right),`$ (45)
where we assume an arbitrary starting value for $`\theta _iv`$. Because the potential for the slow roll field is generated at the loop level, both $`\eta `$ and $`ϵ`$ are small. Indeed, $`ϵ`$ is small even if $`vM_{Pl}`$.

The additional requirements on inflation are also easily satisfied. The total number of e-foldings during inflation is given by

$$N=_{\varphi _i}^{\varphi _f}M_{Pl}^2\frac{\mu ^4}{V^{}}𝑑\varphi \frac{4\pi ^2}{\overline{\lambda }^2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{tan}\theta _f}{\mathrm{tan}\theta _i}\right)\frac{4\pi ^2}{\overline{\lambda }^2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{4\lambda v}{\sqrt{\kappa }\mu }\right),$$
(46)
requiring $`\overline{\lambda }^2O(1)`$ to achieve 60 e-foldings, a very mild requirement. Note that this requirement combined with our expressions for the slow roll parameters tells us that we would expect a blue spectrum if the SUGRA terms dominate the inflation.

COBE constraints on density perturbations require the relationship between the scale of inflation and the symmetry breaking scale

$$\mu ^2=10^5(\overline{\lambda }^2)vM_{Pl}.$$
(47)
Since we require $`v>\mu `$ in order to achieve a workable hybrid inflation model, this implies

$$v\times 10^5(\overline{\lambda }^2)M_{Pl}(\overline{\lambda }^2)2\times 10^{13}\mathrm{GeV},$$
(48)
where this limit is saturated in the limit that $`v=\mu `$. Note that in the other limit, $`v=M_{Pl}`$ we derive

$$\mu \overline{8}\lambda \times 10^{15}\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(49)
Now let us assume the Coleman-Weinberg contribution is dominant. Then we have slow roll parameters

$`ϵ`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_{Pl}^2\kappa ^4\mathrm{tan}^2(\sqrt{2}\theta _i/v)}{1024\pi ^4v^2}},`$ (50)
$`\eta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_{Pl}^2\kappa ^2\mathrm{sec}^2(\sqrt{2}\theta _i/v)}{14\pi ^2v^2}}.`$ (51)
We thus have $`ϵ/\eta =\kappa ^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta /\sqrt{2}v)/64\pi ^2`$, so $`|\eta |>ϵ`$. Consequently, we would expect a red spectrum if the CW potential dominates the dynamics of inflation.

The number of efoldings is

$$N\frac{16\pi ^2v^2}{M_{Pl}^2\kappa ^2}\mathrm{log}(x_i),$$
(52)
hence for large $`v`$, order one $`\kappa `$ will suffice, while in general we require $`\kappa v/M_{Pl}`$ to achieve the necessary inflation. COBE requires

$$\mu ^2v2.3\times 10^6M_{Pl}^3\kappa ^2\mathrm{tan}\left(\sqrt{2}\theta _i/v\right).$$
(53)
In conclusion, in both scenarios (supergravity dominated and Coleman-Weinberg dominated) the loop factor is responsible for both the slow roll and the large number of e-foldings. The density perturbations make a requirement on the scales in the theory. However, while $`\mu vM_{Pl}`$ is consistent with the theory, we do not require multiple hierarchies in the theory. Both $`\mu v`$ and $`vM_{Pl}`$ are consistent scenarios with only two scales present and no other very small parameters, and no other small parameters at all if $`vM_{Pl}`$.

### III.2 Sequestered Realizations

The theory presented is technically natural, in the sense that some couplings are included only at their radiatively induced size. It is interesting to consider whether there are microscopic realizations which set these couplings to zero at tree level automatically. Here we will discuss the use of sequestering to achieve this, while in section IV we will consider models where the inflaton is part of a higher dimensional gauge field.

While the precise model described above is difficult to realize on the basis of symmetries and sequestering, a very similar model can be. Let us consider a five dimensional theory on $`S_1/Z_2`$ with a gauged $`U(1)`$ propagating in the fifth dimension. Let us further suppose that we spontaneously break the $`U(1)`$ on two boundaries by fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,2},\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{1/2}`$ with charges $`\pm 1`$, and that a bulk hypermultiplet $`S,\overline{S}`$ propagates in the fifth dimension and has charge $`\pm 1/2`$ under the $`U(1)`$. Then we can go to the gauge where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2=\mathrm{\Phi }=e^{\theta /2v}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1=\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}=e^{\theta /2v}`$ .

The superpotential is constrained because no direct couplings between $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ can occur due to locality. However, we can write

$$WX(S\overline{S}\mu ^2)+\overline{S}^2(\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\mathrm{\Phi }_2)+S^2(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2),$$
(54)
which, going to the nonlinear sigma model yields

$$WX(S\overline{S}\mu ^2)+\overline{S}^2(\mathrm{\Phi }+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})+S^2(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}+\mathrm{\Phi }).$$
(55)
This is a minor modification of the earlier model, and the subsequent analysis follows with only trivial changes.

## IV Inflation from Extra Dimensions

Now we present models of the inflaton as a component of a higher-dimensional gauge field. In a five-dimensional theory with a $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetry, $`A_5`$, the fifth component of the gauge boson, is protected by a remnant of the full gauge symmetry and therefore its mass is cut off by the compactification scale, making it a perfect candidate for an inflaton. It is the Wilson line which is simply a pNGB as is clearly shown by deconstruction Arkani-Hamed et al. (2001b). Finally, we present a supersymmetric version of gauge inflation which is to some extent a “reconstructed” version of the model in section III. We briefly describe a six-dimensional version with $`A_6`$ as the waterfall field, and its deconstruction. Adding compact extra dimensions requires their stabilization, which we shall assume happens independent of these models. This assumption is of course not required in the deconstructed case. Note that components of gauge fields in extra (and deconstructed) dimensions has been suggested as a mechanism for quintessence Hill and Leibovich (2002).

### IV.1 Gauge Inflation

The Lagrangian of a $`U(1)`$ gauge theory in five dimensions compactified on a circle, with a charged scalar $`\sigma `$ in the bulk is

$$_5=|_M\sigma +ig_5A_M\sigma |^2+\frac{1}{2}F^{MN}F_{MN}+V(|\sigma |^2)$$
(56)
where $`M,N=0,1,2,3,5`$ and the Lagrangian has dimensions of (mass)<sup>5</sup>. The field $`A_5(x,y)`$ will have an initial non-zero value before the 60 e-foldings. Five-dimensional gauge invariance allows one to transform a general profile for the field in the fifth direction to one which is flat (independent of $`y`$. This is the Wilson line which, below the compactification scale $`M_cR^1=(2\pi L)^1`$, is simply a scalar field. This is the scale at which loop corrections to the zero-mode ($`A_5^0`$) mass are cut off. This motivates us to consider $`A_5\varphi `$ as a slow roll field.

Let us begin by considering the simplest theory with one extra dimension and a charged scalar field. We will take the fundamental scale $`M_{}`$ to be a free parameter, up to the requirement that $`M_{}>L^1`$. If the one extra dimension is the only parametrically large dimension, then we have the relation $`M_{Pl}^2=M_{}^3L`$ Arkani-Hamed et al. (1998). However, if there are other extra dimensions in which the fields we consider do not propagate, the fundamental scale can be lower.

The potential we will consider will be

$$V=\lambda (|\sigma |^2v^2)^2+g^2|\sigma |^2\varphi ^2$$
(57)
Radiative effects tell us that the natural size are $`\lambda _{}^>g^4/16\pi ^2`$ and $`v^2M_{}^2/16\pi ^2`$ if $`\lambda >g^2`$ and $`g^2M_{}^2/\lambda 16\pi ^2`$ if $`\lambda <g^2`$. Note that we have not yet included any potential for $`\varphi `$.

The potential for $`\varphi `$ is a subtle issue. Because $`\varphi `$ is identified with the fifth component of a gauge field in an extra dimension, the dynamics which generates it arises only from non-local interactions. Specifically, it will arise from loops of charged fields which propagate all the way around the extra dimension. However, these loops will be exponentially suppressed if the masses are large. For $`\sigma `$, which have a negative mass-squared, in order to have a $`\sigma =0`$ stable during inflation, we will need to take $`|m_\sigma ^2|<1/gL`$.

One can calculate the effective potential exactly, as the Lagrangian is quadratic in $`\sigma `$.

$`\delta V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{log}[(n+g\varphi R)^2+(qR)^2+(mR)^2]}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}(if\pi g\varphi \pi R)\mathrm{sin}(if\pi +g\varphi \pi R)}{\mathrm{sin}^2(i\pi f)}\right)},`$
where $`f=R\sqrt{m^2+q^2}`$.

When the waterfall field has a small mass compared to the compactification scale, this is well approximated by a cosine potential of the form

$$\delta VA(1\mathrm{cos}(2g\pi R\varphi ))$$
(59)
where

$$A=\frac{93\zeta (5)}{1024R^4\pi ^6}\frac{3}{32R^4\pi ^6}.$$
(60)
The slow roll parameters are given by

$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9g^2M_{Pl}^2}{512\pi ^{10}\lambda ^2v^8R^6}}\mathrm{sin}^2(2g\pi R\varphi )`$ (61)
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3g^2M_{Pl}^2}{8\lambda v^4\pi ^4R^2}}\mathrm{cos}(2g\pi R\varphi ).`$
The total efoldings are

$$N=\frac{8\lambda \pi ^4R^2v^4}{3g^2M_{Pl}^2}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\mathrm{tan}(g\pi R\theta _i)}{\mathrm{tan}(g\pi R\theta _f)}\right).$$
(62)
There are two interesting limits we can take, one in which the vev of $`\sigma `$ is as small as possible and one in which it is as large as possible ($`\lambda v^41/(R)^4`$). We can reexpress $`M_{Pl}^2=M_{}^32\pi RV_n`$, where $`V_n`$ is the additional volume in fundamental units.

In the small vev case we have

$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2304\mathrm{sin}^2(2g\pi R\varphi )V_n}{g^2M_{}^5R^5\pi x^4}},`$ (63)
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{192\pi \mathrm{cos}(2g\pi R\varphi )V_n}{M_{}Rx^2}},`$
where $`x=g/\sqrt{\lambda }(\sqrt{\lambda }/g)`$ if $`g^2>\lambda `$ ($`\lambda >g^2`$). If we take a large energy density (of order the compactification scale) we have

$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9g^2(M_{}R)^3\mathrm{sin}^2(2g\pi R\varphi )V_n}{256\pi ^9}},`$ (64)
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3g^2\pi (M_{}R)^3\mathrm{cos}(2g\pi R\varphi )V_n}{4\pi ^3}}.`$ (65)
Irrespective of the other parameters of the model, we have from COBE

$$\eta 83\mathrm{cos}(2g\pi R\varphi )\left(\frac{g^4}{\mathrm{sin}^2(2g\pi R\varphi )}\right)^{1/3},$$
(66)
so we need a somewhat small $`g`$ in order to satisfy density pertubations.

### IV.2 Pseudo-pseudo: the waterfall field

It is possible to make both the slow-roll and waterfall fields components of gauge fields and thus have a theory without fundamental scalars. By going to six dimensions, the job of the waterfall field can be done by $`A_6`$. We will take a compactification scale for the sixth dimension higher than that for the fifth dimension, i.e., $`L_6^1>L_5^1`$.

Start with a six-dimensional $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory compactified with boundary conditions along the sixth dimension which break the $`SU(2)`$ to $`U(1)`$. This can be done by an orbifold such that under the transformation $`x_6x_6`$, the $`A_\mu ^0,A_5^0,A_6^\pm `$ are even and the $`A_\mu ^\pm ,A_5^\pm ,A_6^0`$ are odd. Only the even fields have zero mode and so below the scale $`L_6^1`$, there is a five-dimensional $`U(1)`$ gauge field and a charged scalar which we identify as $`\sigma A_6^+/\sqrt{L_6}`$.

The necessary coupling between inflaton and waterfall appears automatically as a result of gauge invariance. The gauge kinetic term contains $`F_{56}F^{56}`$ which in turn contains terms $`\mathrm{Tr}[A_5^0,\sigma ^\pm ]^2`$. In addition, a potential for $`\sigma `$ is generated below $`L_6^1`$. Thus the inflaton-waterfall coupling is built in! All that is needed is a potential for the waterfall field. This can be generated by a fermion doublet living on a boundary of the fifth dimension (say at $`x_5=0`$), or living in the full bulk with a mass $`m_fL_6^1L_5^1`$. The fermion will couple to $`A_6`$ through normal gauge interactions and give a negative squared mass and positive quartic term to the waterfall field, similar to the top contributions to the Higgs effective potential in the standard model of particle physics. Below the compactification scale of the sixth dimension, the dynamics are as in the five-dimensional model of the previous section.

We can deconstruct the six-dimensional model above, i.e., latticize the two extra dimensions. However, we can retain the salient features of the model above with very few lattice sites: two to be precise.

The model is of the same form as the “minimal moose” Arkani-Hamed et al. (2002a) model used to explain a light Higgs and electroweak symmetry breaking. There are four sets of link fields:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_i=fe^{i\stackrel{~}{\theta }_i/f}=fe^{i\theta ^a\tau ^a/f}$$
(67)
which each parameterize the breaking of $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_RSU(2)_V`$, just like the pions of QCD. Two $`U(1)`$ symmetries are gauged, $`U(1)_L\times U(1)_R`$, such that all links transform as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_ie^{i\tau ^3\alpha (x)_L}\mathrm{\Phi }_ie^{i\tau ^3\alpha (x)_R}.$$
(68)
In other words, we have gauged a $`U(1)`$ subgroup of the four $`SU(2)_L`$s and similarly for the $`SU(2)_R`$. This is the equivalent to orbifolding. Adding the operators

$$g_1\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_3\mathrm{\Phi }_4^{}+g_2\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_4^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_3\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}$$
(69)
produces a quartic potential mixing the neutral and charged components of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$s. Both couplings are required to produce a quartic-type coupling at tree level, and both are required to break the symmetries of some of the fields, thus suppressing one-loop contributions to their masses. Using the $`U(1)`$ gauge couplings as spurions, it is possible to introduce or generate a suitable potential for all of the fields, allowing for technical naturalness to suppress the sizes of operators.

While we do not explore the full details of this model here, we note that it would be of interest to produce a “moose” model Georgi (1986) from a theory of fermions and gauge fields and without fundamental scalars.

### IV.3 Supersymmetry in Extra Dimensions

These extensions to higher dimensional gauge theories also work well in the supersymmetric models. Again, let us consider a five-dimensional $`U(1)`$ gauge theory with a bulk hypermultiplet $`S,\overline{S}`$. The action for the bulk fields Arkani-Hamed et al. (2002b) (including the radion Marti and Pomarol (2001)) are (we follow the notation of Kaplan and Weiner (2001))

$`S_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4xd\varphi [{\displaystyle }d^2\theta {\displaystyle \frac{T}{4g_5^2}}W^\alpha W_\alpha +\overline{S}(_\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{\sqrt{2}}})S+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4\theta \frac{1}{T+T^{}}\left[\frac{2}{g_5^2}\left(_\varphi V\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\chi +\chi ^{}\right)\right)^2\right]}+{\displaystyle \frac{T+T^{}}{2}}(S^{}S+\overline{S}^{}\overline{S}).`$
We then add a boundary term which explicitly breaks the $`N=2`$ supersymmetry and the $`U(1)`$

$$S_4=d^4x𝑑\varphi \delta (\varphi )d^2\theta X(\frac{\kappa }{2}S\overline{S}\mu ^2).$$
(71)
Notice that once the radion is stabilized to a value $`R`$, this reduces to a a field with the appropriate Yukawa superpotential term, and most importantly, a kinetic term that depends only on $`\chi +\chi ^{}`$. This is a remnant of the shift symmetry of the theory which protects the field from getting a mass. Of course, below the compactification, there is no remnant of the higher dimensional gauge theory and radiative effects should spoil this as in the little inflaton model.

The fact that an $`N=2`$ gauge theory coupled to charged matter has the proper form for a hybrid inflation model has been noted by Watari and Yanagida (2001) and Kallosh (2001) and later studied by Kallosh et al. (2002). These models were not little inflaton models, however, because the Kähler potential employed was minimal, and they did not arise from fundamentally higher dimensional gauge theories. There the supergravity $`\eta `$ problem was solved by assuming the absence of Planck scale vevs in Watari and Yanagida (2001) and was solved by driving inflation with Fayet-Iliopoulos terms D-terms in Kallosh (2001). F-term inflation would still have induced a large mass in this latter case.

In our model, the particular form of the Kähler potential is enforced by the five dimensional gauge symmetry, but below the compactification scale, radiative effects will spoil this. Moreover, contributions from the Coleman-Weinberg potential will also give a mass to $`\chi `$.

The corrections to the Kähler potential will be

$$\delta K=\frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}(\chi L)\chi \chi ^{},$$
(72)
while the Coleman-Weinberg contributions will be

$`\delta V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\mu ^4}{64\pi ^2}}[2x^4\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{x^2\kappa \mu ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}})+(x^21)^2\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{(x^21)\kappa \mu ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}})`$
$`+(x^2+1)^2\mathrm{log}({\displaystyle \frac{(x^2+1)\kappa \mu ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}})]`$
where $`x=g\chi /\sqrt{2\kappa }\mu `$. This yields for $`x1`$

$$\delta V\frac{\kappa ^2\mu ^4}{32\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}(x^2\kappa \mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2).$$
(74)
Again we consider each case in turn, first when supergravity corrections are dominant and then when Coleman-Weinberg contributions are dominant.

We begin with supergravity contributions, which give a mass term

$$\delta V\frac{g^2\mu ^4}{16\pi ^2M_{Pl}^2}\mathrm{log}(\chi L)\chi \chi ^{}.$$
(75)
The slow roll parameters are then

$`ϵ={\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{128\pi ^4M_{Pl}^2}}\chi \mathrm{log}(\chi L)^2,`$ (76)
$`\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{8\pi ^2}}2\mathrm{log}(\chi L).`$
Thus, slow roll is easily achieved, even with $`O(1)`$ $`g`$. The number of efoldings is

$$N=\frac{8\pi ^2}{g^2}\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{log}(\chi _iL)/\mathrm{log}(\chi _fL)),$$
(77)
while COBE requires

$$\mu 6\times 10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}\frac{g}{2\pi }\sqrt{\chi \mathrm{log}(\pi /L\chi )/2\sqrt{2}M_{Pl}}.$$
(78)
If the Coleman-Weinberg potential drives the slow-roll field, this essentially the model of Dvali et al. (1994), and we have slow roll parameters

$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\kappa ^3M_{Pl}^2x^2}{4(4\pi )^4\mu ^2}}(x^2\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^4}{x^41}}\right)+\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^21}{x^2+1}}\right))^2,`$ (79)
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\kappa M_{Pl}^2}{32\pi ^2\mu ^2}}(3x^2\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^4}{x^41}}\right)+\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^21}{x^2+1}}\right)).`$
For $`x1`$ these simplify to

$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\kappa ^3M_{Pl}^2}{4(4\pi )^4\mu ^2x^2}},`$ (80)
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\kappa M_{Pl}^2}{32\pi ^2\mu ^2x^2}}.`$
Note that we have $`ϵ=\kappa ^2\eta /32\pi ^2`$. So merely by perturbativity ($`\kappa <4\pi `$) we have a $`|\eta |>ϵ`$. The number of efoldings is

$$N=\frac{16\pi ^2\mu ^2x_i^2}{g^2\kappa M_{Pl}^2},$$
(81)
so even for $`O(1)`$ $`\kappa `$, $`g`$, we can have sufficient inflation. Given the relatively simple form for $`N`$, we can rewrite the slow roll parameters at the COBE era as

$`ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{64\pi ^2N_{COBE}}},`$ (82)
$`\eta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N_{COBE}}}.`$
Lastly COBE requires

$$\mu =6\times 10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}\sqrt{\frac{k}{8\pi \sqrt{N_{COBE}}}}.$$
(83)
In conclusion, the corrections to the potential are sufficiently soft that slow roll is easily achieved, along with satisfying COBE requirements, all without any very large or small parameters.

## V Implications of WMAP

With the release of the new WMAP data Bennett et al. (2003); Spergel et al. (2003), cosmology has moved into a new era of precision data. In particular, we have a great deal of information now on the tilt parameter $`n`$, and tantalizing hints for possible non-zero $`dn/d\mathrm{log}k`$. A broad discussion of the implications for inflation is given in Peiris et al. (2003).

Let us begin by simply summarizing the WMAP results: from WMAP alone, $`n=0.99\pm 0.04`$, while inclusion of 2dFGRS Colless et al. (2001); Percival et al. (2001) and studies of Lyman $`\alpha `$ systems Croft et al. (2002); Gnedin and Hamilton (2001) gives $`n=0.93\pm 0.03`$. From this we see the data prefer red spectra, but are still consistent with blue spectra. These results assume a running spectral index, which is found to have $`dn/d\mathrm{log}(k)=0.031_{0.017}^{+0.016}`$. This suggests that $`n`$ is moving red on small distance scales, and a particularly remarkable indiciation is that the spectrum actually moves from blue ($`n>1`$) on long distance scales to red ($`n<1`$) on short distance scales. In light of this, we will examing the models studied here, beginning with the non-supersymmetric models and moving on to the supersymmetric ones.

The “littlest inflaton” model of section II has very small couplings, which are a priori independent. Without any explanation of their origin, one requires a fine-tuning of parameters in order to achieve any observable deviation from $`n=1`$. However, if such a tuning did occur, one would require the log enhancement of equation II.1 (that is, $`\mathrm{tan}(2\theta _i/f)1`$), and hence $`\eta <1`$ would be possible, allowing a red spectrum.

Next we consider the non-supersymmetric “gauge inflation” model. Here we have the relation

$$ϵ\frac{3}{64\lambda \pi ^6R^4v^4}\eta $$
(84)
Hence, if the inflation scale ($`\lambda v^4`$) is small compared to the compactification scale, it is natural to have $`ϵ>|\eta |`$, yielding a red spectrum. However, if $`|\eta |>ϵ`$, because the potential involves a cosine, $`\eta `$ can have either sign. As a consequence it is difficult to make predictions with this model. However, $`dn/d\mathrm{log}k`$ can only be negative if $`ϵ`$ is significant (yielding possibly observable tensor perturbations and a red spectrum) or in the top half of the potential (where the curvature is negative). Hence, if the observations of a spectrum changing from blue to red are verified, this non-supersymmetric model will be excluded.

The supersymmetric models are perhaps the most interesting because they have two sources to their potential: one from the Coleman-Weinberg potential and one from supergravity corrections. This is analagous to the situation in Linde and Riotto (1997), with two important differences: first, we have no need to make additional assumptions about the short-distance physics of the theory. Unlike Linde and Riotto (1997), we do not need to assume small vevs for all moduli fields, and all dangerous higher dimension operators which could give a large mass to the slow roll field are absent at tree level. This arises from the shift symmetry of the goldstone boson or the five-dimensional gauge symmetry. Secondly, the theory is entirely predictive from the renormalizable parameters of the theory - the non-renormalizable operators which are significant are those that arise out of the tree-level supergravity potential.

This being said, let us study the supersymmetric models in more detail. We will focus on the extra dimensional model, while the deconstructed model is quite similar with $`1/L`$ identified with $`v`$. Recall that in the CW regime, $`\eta 1/2N`$. The transition between the CW and the SUGRA regime (when $`V_{SUGRA}^{}=V_{CW}^{}`$ and $`V_{SUGRA}^{\prime \prime }=V_{CW}^{\prime \prime }`$) occurs at $`\chi =M_{Pl}\kappa /\sqrt{2}g`$ (here we ignore the logarithmic dependence of the SUGRA potential, keeping only the dominant power behavior and setting $`\overline{g}g`$). The efoldings in the CW regime is then

$$N_{CW}=\frac{4\pi ^2}{g^2}.$$
(85)
Hence, for order one $`g`$, the transition from SUGRA to CW naturally occurs at $`O(40)`$ efoldings before the end of inflation. As pointed out in Linde and Riotto (1997), this is interesting because the transition from SUGRA to CW regimes gives a transition from a blue to a red spectrum, which is a feature suggested at $`2\sigma `$ from the WMAP data. However, unlike Linde and Riotto (1997) this is quite natural with order one parameters, and does not require additional small parameters.

In summary, the analyzed models are consistent with the WMAP data, although the “littlest inflaton” would appear finely tuned if there is increasing certainty of $`n1`$. The non-supersymmetric gauge inflation model can satisfy a red spectrum with non-zero $`dn/d\mathrm{log}k`$, but cannot accomodate a change from blue to red. If the data continue to support this, this model will be excluded. The supersymmetric models quite naturally give all the qualitative features observed. A change from blue to red is quite natural in the regime suggested by WMAP, and, in fact arises in the model without any fine tuning of the parameters, or any assumptions about the coefficients of non-renormalizable operators. A complete study of these models is therefore warranted.

## VI Discussion

Inflation solves the big problem of the flatness of the universe, leaving a little problem in its wake – the flatness of the inflaton potential. This new class of particles – pNGBs with collective symmetry breaking – fits perfectly in this role.

It is clear now that fundamental scalars are not required for inflation. Higher components of extra-dimensional gauge fields can contain all of the required dynamics. Little inflaton models can be generated by confining theories of fermions and gauge fields, possibly even to construct renormalizable ones (i.e., no n-fermion operators required).

For pNGBs in supersymmetric theories, the $`\eta `$-problem is solved. The kinetic term for these fields always come in the form $`T+T^{}`$, and any modulus could potentially play the role of the inflaton. For example, if $`T`$ were the radion multiplet in a five-dimensional supersymmetric theory, its imaginary scalar component is the fifth component of the gravi-photon $`B_5`$. Thus it may be that a model which stabilizes the compact dimension already has all of the ingredients to produce inflation.

Previous discussions of pNGBs have involved either axion-like potentials (so-called “natural inflation”) or situations where the approximate symmetry was very good, in that the explicit symmetry breaking parameters were very small. Here, we need not rely on extremely high scales (as in natural inflation) or very small parameters. Moreover, because the dynamics is more complicated, there is a greater hope for observable consequences in the CMBR.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Andy Cohen for very useful conversations on inflation and Nemanja Kaloper for reading the draft and useful comments, as well as Ann Nelson and Raman Sundrum for useful discussions. The authors would also like to thank the theory group at Boston University where much of this work was undertaken.

Note added: As this work was being completed, we became aware of Arkani-Hamed et al. (2003), which also considers the $`A_5`$ as a candidate for the inflaton, as well as work in progress by the same authors on similar ideas.