Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Cosmic domain walls on a lattice: Illusive effects of initial conditions

I. Dankovsky1,2, S. Ramazanov3, E. Babichev4, D. Gorbunov2,5, and A. Vikman6

Phys. Rev. D 112, 123521 – Published 10 December, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/l9gp-7vp5

Abstract

Evolution of cosmic domain walls (DWs) settles to the scaling solution, which is often assumed to be independent of initial conditions. However, lattice simulations performed in this work reveal a clear dependence of the scaling DW area on the initial configuration of the sourcing scalar field, specifically, its infrared (IR) properties. Namely, the DW area grows as one suppresses IR modes in the initial scalar field spectrum. This growth is saturated, when the area parameter ξ commonly used in the literature reaches the value ξmax≈1.2. The dependence of ξ on IR modes is argued to be of nonphysical origin: it is likely to be due to effects of the lattice boundary. Assuming that physically the memory of initial conditions is erased, one recognizes ξ≈1.2 obtained in the situation with maximally suppressed IR modes as a genuine universal value of the area parameter in the scaling regime. We demonstrate that ignorance about initial conditions may affect predictions for the energy density of gravitational waves by the factor O(5). The spectral shape of gravitational waves is also affected by the choice of initial conditions, most notably in the low-frequency part. Likewise, we revisit annihilation of DWs under the influence of a potential bias. It has been previously found in Babichev et al. [J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2025) 103.] that the annihilation happens significantly earlier compared to the estimate based on the simple balance between the potential bias and surface energy density. We further support this observation and show that the tendency toward an earlier annihilation gets even stronger upon removing IR modes in simulations.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (51)

  1. Y. B. Zeldovich, I. Y. Kobzarev, and L. B. Okun, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 67, 3 (1974).
  2. P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1156 (1982).
  3. G. B. Gelmini, M. Gleiser, and E. W. Kolb, Phys. Rev. D 39, 1558 (1989).
  4. G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi, Phys. Lett. 115B, 21 (1982).
  5. D. Coulson, Z. Lalak, and B. A. Ovrut, Phys. Rev. D 53, 4237 (1996).
  6. A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 23, 852 (1981).
  7. S. Ramazanov, E. Babichev, D. Gorbunov, and A. Vikman, Phys. Rev. D 105, 063530 (2022).
  8. E. Babichev, D. Gorbunov, S. Ramazanov, and A. Vikman, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04 (2022) 028.
  9. E. Babichev, D. Gorbunov, S. Ramazanov, R. Samanta, and A. Vikman, Phys. Rev. D 108, 123529 (2023).
  10. T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, K. Seiko, and T. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. D 85, 105020 (2012); 86, 089902(E) (2012).
  11. M. Kawasaki, K. Saikawa, and T. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. D 91, 065014 (2015).
  12. T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, and K. Saikawa, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2014) 031.
  13. R. Z. Ferreira, A. Notari, O. Pujolas, and F. Rompineve, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2023) 001.
  14. R. Z. Ferreira, S. Gasparotto, T. Hiramatsu, I. Obata, and O. Pujolas, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2024) 066.
  15. N. Kitajima, J. Lee, K. Murai, F. Takahashi, and W. Yin, Phys. Lett. B 851, 138586 (2024).
  16. I. Dankovsky, E. Babichev, D. Gorbunov, S. Ramazanov, and A. Vikman, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09 (2024) 047.
  17. B. Cyr, S. Cotterill, and R. Battye, arXiv:2504.02076.
  18. A. Notari, F. Rompineve, and F. Torrenti, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2025) 049.
  19. E. Babichev, I. Dankovsky, D. Gorbunov, S. Ramazanov, and A. Vikman, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2025) 103.
  20. W. H. Press, B. S. Ryden, and D. N. Spergel, Astrophys. J. 347, 590 (1989).
  21. T. Garagounis and M. Hindmarsh, Phys. Rev. D 68, 103506 (2003).
  22. N. Kitajima, J. Lee, F. Takahashi, and W. Yin, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2025) 053.
  23. D. Gonzalez, N. Kitajima, F. Takahashi, and W. Yin, Phys. Lett. B 843, 137990 (2023).
  24. G. Agazie et al. (NANOGrav Collaboration), Astrophys. J. Lett. 951, L8 (2023).
  25. J. Antoniadis et al. (EPTA and InPTA Collaborations), Astron. Astrophys. 678, A50 (2023).
  26. J. Antoniadis et al. (EPTA and InPTA Collaborations), Astron. Astrophys. 685, A94 (2024).
  27. H. Xu et al., Res. Astron. Astrophys. 23, 075024 (2023).
  28. D. J. Reardon et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 951, L6 (2023).
  29. A. Afzal et al. (NANOGrav Collaboration), Astrophys. J. Lett. 951, L11 (2023); 971, L27(E) (2024).
  30. P. Amaro-Seoane et al. (LISA Collaboration), arXiv:1702.00786.
  31. W. R. Hu and Y. L. Wu, Natl. Sci. Rev. 4, 685 (2017).
  32. W. H. Ruan, Z. K. Guo, R. G. Cai, and Y. Z. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35, 2050075 (2020).
  33. J. Luo et al. (TianQin Collaboration), Classical Quantum Gravity 33, 035010 (2016).
  34. S. Kawamura et al., Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2021, 05A105 (2021).
  35. A. Abac et al., arXiv:2503.12263.
  36. D. Reitze et al., Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51, 035 (2019), arXiv:1907.04833.
  37. A. Lazanu, C. J. A. P. Martins, and E. P. S. Shellard, Phys. Lett. B 747, 426 (2015).
  38. D. G. Figueroa, A. Florio, F. Torrenti, and W. Valkenburg, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 04 (2021) 035.
  39. D. G. Figueroa, A. Florio, F. Torrenti, and W. Valkenburg, Comput. Phys. Commun. 283, 108586 (2023).
  40. I. Dankovsky, S. Ramazanov, E. Babichev, D. Gorbunov, and A. Vikman, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2025) 064.
  41. M. Mukhopadhyay, O. Pujolas, and G. Zahariade, Phys. Rev. D 110, 063548 (2024).
  42. C. J. A. P. Martins, I. Y. Rybak, A. Avgoustidis, and E. P. S. Shellard, Phys. Rev. D 94, 116017 (2016); 95, 039902(E) (2017).
  43. M. Hindmarsh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4495 (1996).
  44. S. E. Larsson, S. Sarkar, and P. L. White, Phys. Rev. D 55, 5129 (1997).
  45. J. R. C. C. C. Correia, I. S. C. R. Leite, and C. J. A. P. Martins, Phys. Rev. D 90, 023521 (2014).
  46. O. Pujolas and G. Zahariade, Phys. Rev. D 107, 123527 (2023).
  47. R. Z. Ferreira, A. Notari, O. Pujolàs, and F. Rompineve, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 06 (2024) 020.
  48. J. Garriga and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 44, 1007 (1991).
  49. C. Caprini, R. Durrer, T. Konstandin, and G. Servant, Phys. Rev. D 79, 083519 (2009).
  50. R. G. Cai, S. Pi, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D 102, 083528 (2020).
  51. A. Hook, G. Marques-Tavares, and D. Racco, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2021) 117.

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation