Natural Inflation After Planck 2018. (arXiv:2106.02089v1 [astro-ph.CO])
<a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Stein_N/0/1/0/all/0/1">Nina K. Stein</a>, <a href="http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Kinney_W/0/1/0/all/0/1">William H. Kinney</a> (Univ. at Buffalo, SUNY)
We calculate high-precision constraints on Natural Inflation relative to
current observational constraints from Planck 2018 + BICEP/Keck(BK15)
Polarization + BAO on $r$ and $n_S$, including post-inflationary history of the
universe. We find that, for conventional post-inflationary dynamics, Natural
Inflation with a cosine potential is disfavored at greater than 95% confidence
out by current data. If we assume protracted reheating characterized by
$overline{w}>1/3,$ Natural Inflation can be brought into agreement with
current observational constraints. However, bringing unmodified Natural
Inflation into the 68% confidence region requires values of $T_{mathrm{re}}$
below the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking. The addition of a SHOES prior
on the Hubble Constant $H_0$ only worsens the fit.
We calculate high-precision constraints on Natural Inflation relative to
current observational constraints from Planck 2018 + BICEP/Keck(BK15)
Polarization + BAO on $r$ and $n_S$, including post-inflationary history of the
universe. We find that, for conventional post-inflationary dynamics, Natural
Inflation with a cosine potential is disfavored at greater than 95% confidence
out by current data. If we assume protracted reheating characterized by
$overline{w}>1/3,$ Natural Inflation can be brought into agreement with
current observational constraints. However, bringing unmodified Natural
Inflation into the 68% confidence region requires values of $T_{mathrm{re}}$
below the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking. The addition of a SHOES prior
on the Hubble Constant $H_0$ only worsens the fit.
http://arxiv.org/icons/sfx.gif
