Abstract
Recent progress on three issues related to the description of first order phase transitions in field theories is reviewed. Firstly, it is demonstrated how magnetic monopoles can act as impurity sites and mediate inhomogeneous first order phase transitions. Secondly, the growth of bubbles nucleated in the decay process is discussed for the case of systems at non-zero temperature and density. Finally, cases of field theories are shown for which the semiclassical description of a first order phase transition is inaccurate. In all cases, applications to phase transitions in early cosmology is also discussed.
Keywords
Nucleation Rate Detonation Wave Early Universe Order Phase Transition Bubble Growth
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.A.D. Linde, Phys. Lett. 70B, 306 (1977).Google Scholar
- 2.A. Guth, Phys. Rev. D23, 347 (1980).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 3.P. Steinhardt, Nucl. Phys. B179, 492 (1981).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 4.M. Sher, Phys. Rev. D22, 2989 (1980).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 5.G. Cook and K. Mahanthappa, Phys. Rev. D23, 1321 (1980).Google Scholar
- 6.H. Georgi and S. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 32, 438 (1974).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 7.S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D15, 2929 (1977).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 8.P. Steinhardt, Nucl. Phys. B190, 583 (1981).CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
- 9.G.’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B79, 276 (1974); A.M. Polyakov, Pis’ ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 20, 430 (1974).Google Scholar
- 10.T.T. Wu and C.N. Yang in Properties of Matter Under Unusual Conditions, edited by H. Mark and S. Fernbach ( Interscience, New York, 1969 ) pp. 349–354.Google Scholar
- 11.S. Coleman, S. Parke, A. Neveu and C.M. Sommerfield, Phys. Rev. D15, 544 (1977); E.B. Bogomol’nyi, Yad. Fiz. 24, 861 (1976); R. Weder, “Existence, Regularity and Exponential Decay of Finite Energy Solution to Gauge Fields”, Vol. 10, No. 198, Series Naranja preprint (1979).Google Scholar
- 12.P. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. D24, 842 (1981).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 13.A. Guth, and E. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D23, 876 (1981).ADSGoogle Scholar
- 14.L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics ( London, Pergamon Press, 1959 ).Google Scholar
- 15.P. Steinhardt, University of Pennsylvania preprint (1981).Google Scholar
- 16.A. Taub, Phys. Rev. 74, 328 (1948).CrossRefMATHADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- 17.For a discussion of the method of calculation, see Ref. 3.Google Scholar
- 18.Actually, there are two reasons why the computation may break down. Firstly, as discussed in M. Sher, Phys. Rev. D to be published (1981), the coupling constant σ, is a function of the temperature, α(T); there is a temperature Ts at which α(T) is on the order of unity and the tree approximation (perturbation theory) can break down. Secondly, as discussed in this section, at some temperature Tb the exponent A(T) is on the order of unity and the semiclassical approximation breaks down. Looking at the calculation by G. Cook and K. Mahanthappa, U. of Colorado at Boulder preprint (1981), one finds Tb > Ts and the semiclassical approximation breaks down first (A. Albrecht and P. Steinhardt, University of Pennsylvania preprint, to be published).Google Scholar
Copyright information
© Plenum Press, New York 1983