4.2 Article

Swampland criteria of inflationary scalar field models with well-known potentials

期刊

出版社

WORLD SCIENTIFIC PUBL CO PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1142/S0218271823500049

关键词

Swampland conjectures; warm inflation; tachyon scalar field; well-known potentials

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigate the swampland conjectures of quintessence and tachyon scalar field models in f(T) and Einstein gravities. Constraints on de-Sitter conjectures are developed through the Bekenstein entropy relation in the cold and warm inflationary scenarios. The results show that the de-Sitter conjecture constraint is satisfied for specific choices of constants in both scenarios.
We explore the swampland conjectures of quintessence and tachyon scalar field models in f(T) and Einstein gravities, respectively. In f(T) gravity, we consider cold and warm (by assuming generalized dissipative coefficient) inflationary scenarios and develop constraints on de-Sitter conjectures through Bekenstein entropy relation. In usual inflation, the de-Sitter conjecture constraint becomes constant (in terms of models constant parameters) which can be easily analyzed for its validity (i.e., |V'|V <= O(1)). However, in warm inflation, we analyze the de-Sitter conjecture constraint through tau'V/tau V ' , i.e., if tau'V/tau V ' < 1 then |V'|V <= O(1) and hence we can obtain the required result. For evaluating this condition, we choose three well-known potentials such as monomial chaotic, hilltop and generalized exponential. It is observed that the condition tau'V/tau V' < 1 satisfied for all three potentials in both regimes of dissipative coefficient for specific choice of constants. We also obtain satisfactory results of de-Sitter conjecture for tachyon and polytropic (with quintessence scalar field) in general relativity. We investigate the consistency of assumed potentials through inflationary parameters ns and r comparing with Planck's observational data 2018 and found them compatible with the recent observations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据