AG-2024.09-097·hep-th·cross-listed: gr-qc
Remote Hawking-Moss instanton and the Lorentzian path integral
Authors
- Daiki Saito
- Naritaka Oshita
Abstract
The Hawking-Moss (HM) bounce solution implies that the tunneling amplitude between vacua is uniquely determined by the vacuum energy at the initial vacuum and the top of a potential barrier, regardless of the field distance between them $Δφ$. This implausible conclusion was carefully discussed in [E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 251303, (2007)], and it was concluded that the conventional HM amplitude is not reliable for a transition to the top of distant local maxima (hereinafter referred to as the remote HM transition). We revisit this issue and study the impact of the quantum tunneling effect on the remote HM transition. We demonstrate that the amplitude for such a distant transition is indeed smaller than the conventional HM amplitude by employing the Lorentzian path integral in a simple setup. We consider a linear potential, which allows for analytic treatments, and evaluate the up-tunneling probability of a homogeneous scalar field in de Sitter spacetime. The Picard-Lefschetz theory is employed to identify the relevant Lefschetz thimble, representing the relevant tunneling trajectory. We then compare the resulting transition amplitude with the conventional HM amplitude. We find that when the field separation $|Δφ|$ is larger, the quantum-tunneling amplitude, estimated by our Lorentzian path integral, is smaller than that of the conventional HM amplitude. This implies that the transition amplitude may be significantly suppressed if the thermal interpretation is not applicable and the quantum-tunneling effect is dominant for the remote HM transition.
Submitted
6 September 20241 year ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2409.03978
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.