Cycles Without End: An Ekpyrotic Braneworld Bounce with a Kinetically Coupled Entropic Mechanism

Tolman’s 1934 objection to oscillating cosmology [31] is a thermodynamic one. In a closed FRW universe with finite comoving volume $V_{c}$, entropy produced by dissipative processes during one cycle (particle production, structure formation, black hole formation and evaporation) adds to the total entropy $S$ contained in that finite volume. Because the total energy in a closed universe returns to the same value at the same phase of successive cycles (by the periodicity of the Friedmann equation with fixed curvature), while the entropy strictly increases, the universe must occupy a larger comoving volume, and hence, since curvature fixes the relation between comoving and physical volume in a closed universe, a larger physical volume, at turnaround in each successive cycle to accommodate more entropy at fixed energy. Successive cycles grow monotonically longer and larger; run backward in time, this implies a beginning a finite number of cycles ago, not a truly past-eternal universe, and run forward, cycles without limit in size and duration.

The construction of this paper is spatially flat, $\kappa_{\rm FRW}=0$ in Eq. (1): comoving volume is infinite. There is no finite total entropy $S=s\times V_{c}$ to bound, because $V_{c}=\infty$; Tolman’s argument, which is a statement about a finite quantity growing without bound, simply does not apply. This is not a technicality invented to dodge the problem: it is the resolution given in the modern cyclic-universe literature [7, 8, 12], and it is the reason those constructions, and this one, insist on exact spatial flatness rather than a closed universe with curvature radius taken to be very large.

Spatial flatness defeats the letter of Tolman’s argument but not its spirit: an observer confined to one Hubble patch, at the same phase of successive cycles, should not see a secularly increasing entropy density, or the model would predict an ever-messier universe unlike the one we observe. The resolution, present already in the original cyclic proposal [7] and made central to the requirement that the present accelerating epoch be a permanent feature of the cycle in [8], is dilution: entropy produced in comoving volume during one cycle is diluted, as physical volume expands, by the following dark-energy phase, before the next ekpyrotic contraction begins. Entropy in a fixed comoving volume is (to the accuracy that dissipative production has ceased) conserved, so entropy density dilutes as $a^{-3}$; over $N_{\rm DE}$ e-folds of accelerated expansion, the density falls by $e^{-3N_{\rm DE}}$.

We make this quantitative. Let $S_{\star}$ be the entropy produced within one comoving Hubble volume over the course of a cycle. This is dominated, for our universe, not by the cosmic microwave background ($S_{\rm CMB}\sim 10^{88}\,k_{B}$) but by supermassive black holes formed during structure formation, estimated at $S_{\rm BH}\sim 10^{100}$–$10^{104}\,k_{B}$ depending on assumptions about their ultimate accretion history [32]. For the entropy density at the onset of the next ekpyrotic phase to return to (order of magnitude) the same negligible value it had at the onset of the previous one, the intervening dark-energy phase must dilute the physical volume by at least this factor:

Evaluating Eq. (8):

i.e. the dark-energy phase must supply on the order of $N_{\rm DE}\sim 70$–$80$ e-folds of accelerated expansion each cycle. That is a large number, but a finite and entirely unremarkable one on cosmological timescales, not a fine-tuning requirement in the way the number $10^{100}$ itself might suggest. If the present accelerating epoch persists at its current rate for a further time $\Delta t$, it supplies $N_{\rm DE}\approx H_{0}\Delta t$ e-folds; using $H_{0}^{-1}\approx$ the current age of the universe (order-of-magnitude, for a de-Sitter-like equation of state), $N_{\rm DE}\sim 70$–$80$ requires only $\Delta t\sim 70$–$80$ times the current age of the universe. That is a long time on a human scale, but a vanishingly short one compared to the eternity a truly cyclic model has available, and far shorter than the time such models generally posit between the present epoch and the eventual turnaround [8, 12].

The background integration of Section 4 uses a dark-energy plateau lasting a deliberately short, sub-e-folding stretch of expansion, compressed for numerical tractability in exactly the same way, and for the same reason, that the energy hierarchy between $V_{\Lambda}$, $V_{0}$, and $\rho_{c}$ is compressed there (Section 9). Nothing about the mechanism of Section 3, a thawing scalar field descending toward a sign-changing gate, prevents the plateau from lasting the required $N_{\rm DE}\sim 70$–80 e-folds instead: extending $\phi_{0}$ and the distance in field space between the plateau’s slow-roll region and the gate at $\phi_{c}$ lengthens the plateau phase without altering the turnaround mechanism of Section 3, since that mechanism depends only on the field crossing zero energy density with nonzero kinetic energy, not on how long the preceding slow roll lasted. We have not re-integrated the background at the physically required duration (this is the same toy-versus-physical-hierarchy issue quantified for the perturbation amplitude in Section 8.9), but the number required, $N_{\rm DE}\sim 70$–80, is squarely of the kind these constructions already contemplate rather than an obstruction specific to the braneworld realization presented here.

The comoving curvature perturbation obeys, in conformal time ($d\tau=dt/a$),

with $\epsilon\equiv-\dot{H}/H^{2}$ the exact background slow-roll parameter. This equation is unmodified in form on the brane for CMB-scale modes, which exit the horizon many e-folds before the bounce, deep in $\rho\ll\rho_{c}$ where $\epsilon_{H}=\epsilon_{w}$ to high accuracy. For constant $\epsilon>3$ the ekpyrotic attractor is $a(t)\propto(-t)^{1/\epsilon}$, which in conformal time becomes $a(\tau)\propto(-\tau)^{p}$ with

obtained by direct integration: $d\tau=dt/a\propto(-t)^{-1/\epsilon}dt$, so $-\tau\propto(-t)^{1-1/\epsilon}=(-t)^{(\epsilon-1)/\epsilon}$, hence $(-t)\propto(-\tau)^{\epsilon/(\epsilon-1)}$ and $a=(-t)^{1/\epsilon}\propto(-\tau)^{1/(\epsilon-1)}$. Since $\epsilon$ is constant, $z=a\sqrt{2\epsilon}\propto a$, so $z^{\prime\prime}/z=a^{\prime\prime}/a$; for $a\propto(-\tau)^{p}$, direct differentiation gives $a^{\prime\prime}/a=p(p-1)/\tau^{2}$, which we write as $(\nu^{2}-\frac{1}{4})/\tau^{2}$ with

the standard de-Sitter-like Hankel-function problem. Matching the sub-horizon mode to the flat-space positive-frequency solution $u_{k}\to e^{-ik\tau}/\sqrt{2k}$ as $-k\tau\to\infty$, and reading off the $k$-dependence of the super-horizon ($-k\tau\to 0$) amplitude of $\zeta_{k}=u_{k}/z$ using the small-argument behavior of the Hankel function, $H_{\nu}^{(1)}(x)\to-\frac{i}{\pi}\Gamma(\nu)(2/x)^{\nu}$, gives $|\zeta_{k}|^{2}\propto k^{-2\nu}$ and hence $n_{s}-1=3-2\nu$, i.e.

For $\epsilon\gg 1$ this gives $n_{s}\to 3$, the well-known “badly blue” single-field ekpyrotic result [15]. We solved Eq. (10) numerically (complex ODE integration from deep sub-horizon, $|k\tau|\gg 1$, to deep super-horizon, $|k\tau|\ll 1$, for a range of $k$, followed by a power-law fit of $k^{3}|\zeta_{k}|^{2}$ vs. $k$) for $\epsilon=12$ and found $n_{s}^{\rm numerical}=3.18176$ against $n_{s}^{\rm analytic}=3.18182$ from Eq. (13), agreement to $6\times 10^{-5}$. This validates both the mode-equation solver and the numerical spectral-index extraction procedure used throughout this paper.

We solved Eq. (10) on a semi-analytic attractor background with $\epsilon(\tau)$ running smoothly (logarithmically in $-\tau$, i.e. uniformly in e-folds) from $\epsilon_{i}=19$ (the onset value found in the explicit potential) down to $\epsilon_{f}=6$ (the asymptotic value the running settles toward), constructed by integrating the exact relations $\mathcal{H}^{\prime}=\mathcal{H}^{2}(1-\epsilon(\tau))$, $(\ln a)^{\prime}=\mathcal{H}$ ($\mathcal{H}\equiv a^{\prime}/a=aH$) directly, without assuming the constant-$\epsilon$ attractor form, so the calculation captures the true effect of the running on $z^{\prime\prime}/z$, not merely a slow-roll-order estimate.

Figure 3 shows the result is essentially flat and pinned near $n_{s}\approx 3$ regardless of the running rate. The reason a mild running does not help is visible already in Eq. (13): no constant $\epsilon>3$ gives $\nu=3/2$ (exact scale invariance would need $\epsilon<3/2$, excluded outright by the BKL bound $\epsilon_{w}>3$), so rescuing $n_{s}$ requires the time-dependence of $\epsilon$ itself to make an $O(1)$, not perturbative, contribution to $z^{\prime\prime}/z$, sustained over the observationally relevant window. A BKL-safe, monotonic running of the kind produced naturally by Eq. (4) does not supply this. This is not a numerical failure but the structural reason the ekpyrotic literature moved, in two distinct directions, toward either a substantially more specialized designer running $\epsilon(N)$ than the one used here (the adiabatic-ekpyrosis construction [23, 24], not attempted in this paper) or the original, better-established entropic mechanism of a second field [16, 17, 18], which we develop fully in Section 8.

Section 6 worked in the regime $\rho\ll\rho_{c}$, where $\epsilon_{H}=\epsilon_{w}$ to high accuracy. Since the brane term modifies the background $H(t)$ nonlinearly, the natural next question is whether it also modifies the geometric $\epsilon_{H}$ that actually enters Eq. (10) in a way that produces a realistic spectrum once modes are allowed to cross the horizon closer to the bounce, where $\rho/\rho_{c}$ is no longer negligible. From Eqs. (1)–(2), using $\epsilon_{H}=-\dot{H}/H^{2}$ directly,

exact, with no attractor or slow-roll approximation, and reducing to $\epsilon_{H}=\epsilon_{w}$ as $x\to 0$ as required. Even holding the matter exponent fixed at a comfortably BKL-safe value $\epsilon_{w}=8$, Eq. (14) shows $\epsilon_{H}$ driven purely by the brane nonlinearity from $8$ at $x=0$ down to $0$ at $x=\frac{1}{2}$, passing through $\epsilon_{H}\approx 1.5$, the value that, if sustained, would give exact scale invariance ($\nu=3/2$) in Eq. (13), around $x\approx 0.43$ (Figure 4, left).

The relevant question is not whether $\epsilon_{H}$ passes through a nice value, but over how many e-folds of comoving-horizon shrinkage, $N\equiv\ln|aH|$, it does so, since that determines how many decades of $k$ could be affected. This is computed directly, with no approximation: matter conservation at fixed $\epsilon_{w}$ gives $a(x)=(x/x_{i})^{-1/(2\epsilon_{w})}$ exactly, and Eq. (1) gives $H(x)=-\sqrt{x(1-x)}$ exactly (units $\rho_{c}=1$). The budget from $x=0.1$ to $x=0.499$ is only $N\approx 0.41$ for $\epsilon_{w}=8$ (Figure 4, center), and repeating for $\epsilon_{w}\in\{3.5,5,8,15,30\}$, the entire BKL-safe range, the budget stays below one e-fold throughout (Figure 4, right). This is because $a(x)$ is almost exactly constant near $x\sim 0.3$–$0.5$ for any BKL-safe $\epsilon_{w}$ (its logarithmic rate of change is $-1/(2\epsilon_{w})\lesssim-0.14$ per decade of $x$, and the available range in $x$ is itself less than one decade), so essentially all of the comoving-horizon shrinkage is generated by the bounded function $H(x)=\sqrt{x(1-x)}$ alone, which cannot vary by more than an $O(1)$ factor between $x=0$ and $x=\frac{1}{2}$. This is a structural, parameter-independent property of the simplest ($m=0$) Shtanov–Sahni brane, not a matter of insufficient tuning of $\epsilon_{w}$ or $\rho_{c}$ (the latter drops out of Eq. (14) entirely and only rescales the overall magnitude of $H$, not the shape of $\epsilon_{H}(x)$ or the e-fold budget). We solved Eq. (10) numerically using the exact $z(\tau)=a(\tau)\sqrt{2\epsilon_{H}(\tau)}$ from this background (not the matter-only $\epsilon_{w}$ version), for $k$-modes crossing horizon across the available window ($x:0.15\to 0.45$, $\epsilon_{H}:6.6\to 1.5$), and obtain $n_{s}\approx 3.4$, more blue than the matter-only result, not less, consistent with the structural narrowness just derived rather than an independent numerical artifact.

The Shtanov–Sahni construction admits a more general induced-gravity branch with an extra free length scale $\ell\equiv 2m^{2}/M^{3}$, sourced by a brane-localized Einstein-Hilbert term of coefficient $m^{2}$ [1]:

Reproducing the $m=0$ bounce as a literal $\ell\to 0$ limit of Eq. (15) at fixed $m^{2}$ requires a correlated double-scaling limit ($m\to 0$ together with $M$), not a simple series in $\ell$; we do not assume it and instead treat $\ell$ as an independent parameter of Eq. (15), fixing the remaining constants by demanding the standard low-density slope $dH^{2}/d\rho|_{\rho=0}=1$ and a bounce at finite density, giving a one-parameter family of bounces directly comparable to, but not presupposed to reduce to, the $m=0$ case. Repeating the e-fold budget calculation of Section 5.2 across $\ell\in[0.05,15]$ and $\epsilon_{w}\in\{3.5,\ldots,60\}$ (optimizing at each $\ell$ over the branch’s remaining tuning freedom):

Figure 5 shows the budget never exceeds $\approx 0.51$ e-folds over more than three decades of $\ell$: the extra parameter changes the shape of the approach to the bounce but not the size of the window in which the interesting behavior happens. A direct Mukhanov–Sasaki solve on a representative point ($\ell=0.3$, $\epsilon_{w}=8$) gives $n_{s}\approx 3.02$, indistinguishable from the $m=0$ result. We conclude that no correction internal to the brane’s own Friedmann equation, in either of its two known forms, can rescue the single-field spectrum; a second field is required.

For two canonical scalars in a flat field-space metric, the adiabatic/entropic decomposition of [26] gives the canonically normalized entropy perturbation $v_{s}=a\,\delta s$ obeying, exactly,

where $V_{ss}$ is the potential’s second derivative transverse to the background trajectory and $\dot{\theta}$ is the trajectory’s bending rate in field space. Whenever the background trajectory is exactly along one field’s axis, as it is for both constructions below, $\dot{\theta}=0$ identically and $M_{s}^{2}=V_{ss}$ exactly. No slow-roll expansion is used anywhere in this section.

The simplest two-field generalization admitting an exact background solution is a sum of two independent steep exponentials, $V(\phi,\chi)=-A_{1}e^{c_{1}\phi}-A_{2}e^{c_{2}\chi}$ ($\phi,\chi$ increasing during contraction, matching the sign convention of $V_{\rm ekp}$). The coupled field equations $\ddot{\phi}+3H\dot{\phi}-c_{1}A_{1}e^{c_{1}\phi}=0$, $\ddot{\chi}+3H\dot{\chi}-c_{2}A_{2}e^{c_{2}\chi}=0$, and Friedmann’s equation $3H^{2}=\frac{1}{2}(\dot{\phi}^{2}+\dot{\chi}^{2})+V$ admit the exact separable solution $\phi(t)=-\frac{2}{c_{1}}\ln(-t)+B_{1}$, $\chi(t)=-\frac{2}{c_{2}}\ln(-t)+B_{2}$, $a(t)=(-t)^{p}$. Substituting this ansatz into the field and Friedmann equations and solving the resulting algebraic system for the two exponential amplitudes and $p$ gives

with the individual potential amplitudes fixed as $A_{1}=\frac{2}{c_{1}^{2}}(1-6S)$, $A_{2}=\frac{2}{c_{2}^{2}}(1-6S)$ (both positive, as required, only for $S<1/6$, i.e. exactly the BKL-safe range $\epsilon_{\rm total}>3$). Because $\dot{\phi}/\dot{\chi}=c_{2}/c_{1}$ is exactly constant, the field-space trajectory does not bend: $\dot{\theta}=0$ identically on this attractor, not merely to leading order. The entropy direction is the unit vector perpendicular to $(\dot{\phi},\dot{\chi})\propto(1/c_{1},1/c_{2})$; since the potential is an exact sum of single-field terms its Hessian is diagonal ($V_{\phi\phi}=c_{1}^{2}V_{1}(\phi)$, $V_{\chi\chi}=c_{2}^{2}V_{2}(\chi)$, $V_{\phi\chi}=0$), and projecting onto the entropy direction gives, after using the exact attractor densities $V_{1}(\bar{\phi}(t))=-A_{1}/t^{2}$, $V_{2}(\bar{\chi}(t))=-A_{2}/t^{2}$,

The resulting mode equation, Eq. (16), is exactly solvable on this power-law background: writing $a\propto(-\tau)^{q}$ with $q\equiv p/(1-p)$ (obtained from the same conformal time integration as Section 6), direct differentiation gives $a^{\prime\prime}/a=q(q-1)/\tau^{2}$ and $a^{2}H^{2}=q^{2}/\tau^{2}$ exactly, so

As a check, the $S\to 0$ (single-field) limit gives $r\to 0$, $\alpha\to q(q-1)$, reproducing Eq. (13) exactly, and we independently confirmed Eq. (19)’s numerical output against the $\epsilon=12$ benchmark of Section 6 to six significant figures.

Figure 6 (left) shows $n_{s}$ from Eq. (19) across the entire range $\epsilon_{\rm total}\in(3,\infty)$: it runs smoothly from $n_{s}\to 4$ as $\epsilon_{\rm total}\to 3^{+}$ (the BKL bound itself) down to $n_{s}\to 1$ as $\epsilon_{\rm total}\to\infty$, but never crosses the asymptote. This is not a parameter-tuning failure to be fixed by scanning further: the literature’s successful entropic constructions generate near-scale-invariance, and push past it to the observed slightly-red value, by tuning the trajectory’s bend $\dot{\theta}$ so that $M_{s}^{2}=V_{ss}+3\dot{\theta}^{2}$ sits at the value giving $\nu=3/2$ or beyond [20, 18]. With the potential an exact sum of single-field terms here, $\dot{\theta}=0$ identically, and this knob is simply unavailable: $M_{s}^{2}$ is fixed entirely by the (always negative, in the BKL-safe range) transverse curvature $V_{ss}$, which can approach but never overshoot exact scale invariance.

We follow the general entropic mechanism of [21]: leave the potential single-field, $V(\phi,\chi)=V_{\rm ekp}(\phi)$, and couple $\chi$ to $\phi$ through its kinetic term instead,

Because $\chi$ appears only quadratically, $\chi=0$ solves its own equation of motion $\partial_{\mu}\!\big(\sqrt{-g}\,e^{-b\phi}g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\nu}\chi\big)=0$ identically, for any $b$: the background trajectory is exactly the single-field attractor of Section 6, unchanged, with $\chi$ a genuine spectator at the classical level. No new background sector needs to be solved; the coupling lives entirely in $\chi$’s kinetic normalization.

Because $\chi$’s kinetic term is non-canonical, the quadratic action for its fluctuation is $S^{(2)}_{\chi}=\int d^{4}x\,a^{3}\big[\tfrac{1}{2}e^{-b\phi}\dot{\chi}^{2}-\tfrac{1}{2}e^{-b\phi}(\partial\chi)^{2}/a^{2}\big]$, whose canonically normalized variable is $u\equiv z\chi$ with $z(t)\equiv a(t)\sqrt{f(\bar{\phi}(t))}$, $f(\phi)\equiv e^{-b\phi}$, not $z=a$ as for a canonical field. On the exact attractor $\bar{\phi}(t)=-\frac{2}{c}\ln(-t)+\phi_{0}$, $a(t)=(-t)^{p}$, $p=2/c^{2}$, $\ln z(t)=\big[p+\tfrac{b}{c}\big]\ln(-t)+{\rm const}$ is an exact power law in $(-t)$, and since $(-t)\propto(-\tau)^{1/(1-p)}$ exactly (the same conformal-time map used throughout this section), $z(\tau)\propto(-\tau)^{n}$ exactly, with

The mode equation is then exactly $u^{\prime\prime}+(k^{2}-n(n-1)/\tau^{2})u=0$, solvable in closed form by Hankel functions, with index $\nu=|n-\tfrac{1}{2}|$ and, on the branch relevant here ($n>\tfrac{1}{2}$),

Equations (21)–(22) were confirmed by direct, non-adiabatic numerical integration of the exact mode equation from deep inside the horizon to deep outside it, comparing the resulting $k^{3}|u/z|^{2}$ slope between two wavenumbers evaluated at fixed physical conformal time against Eq. (22); the two methods agree to the numerical precision of the integrator ($10^{-5}$ or better).

Setting $n_{s}=1$ in Eq. (22) requires $n=2$, giving

a closed-form function of $c$ alone. This is the sense in which [21] is right that “for any ekpyrotic equation of state it is possible to choose the potential and the kinetic coupling” to hit exact scale invariance: a solution $b^{\star}(c)$ exists for every $c$, in closed form, with no numerical root-finding required. Note that $b^{\star}(c)\neq c$: matching the coupling’s steepness to the potential’s steepness directly is not the exact-scale-invariance point for the sign and normalization convention of Eq. (20) ($V_{\rm ekp}=-V_{0}e^{c\phi}$, $f(\phi)=e^{-b\phi}$): at $c=4.2$, $b=c$ gives $n_{s}=2.489$, badly blue, while Eq. (23) gives the correct $b^{\star}=6.971$ (Table 2, Figure 6 right). Conventions for the kinetic prefactor vary between constructions in the literature, so we state Eq. (23) for this manuscript’s own conventions rather than quote a value from elsewhere.

Matching the precise measured value $n_{s}=0.9649\pm 0.0042$ rather than exactly $1$ requires only a small offset from $b^{\star}$: inverting Eq. (22) for general $n_{s}$ gives, again in closed form,

which reduces to Eq. (23) at $n_{s}=1$. At $c_{0}=4.2$, $b(c_{0},0.9649)=7.0368$ against $b^{\star}(c_{0})=6.9714$, a $0.94\%$ offset (Table 2). One new coupling is matched to one measured number, exactly as any effective-field-theory coupling is fixed by one measurement, but the fit is small: geometry (Eq. (23)) does essentially all the work, and the data fixes only a percent-level correction on top of it.

Observable comoving scales exit the horizon $N_{\rm obs}$ e-folds before the wall, $N_{\rm obs}=\Delta\ln(aH)$, and along the exact attractor $\ln(aH)=(p-1)\ln(-t)+{\rm const}$ while $\phi=q\ln(-t)+\phi_{0}$ ($q=-2/c$), so

Integrating Eq. (25) across the running $c(\phi)\in[3.2,4.2]$ for $N_{\rm obs}=10$ gives $\Delta\phi\approx 6.6$, comfortably less than the wall’s $\phi_{w}-\phi_{c}=8.0$ (Appendix A). Because Eq. (24) is already a closed-form function of $c$, $b(\phi)\equiv b(c(\phi),0.9649)$ is exact and analytic at every $\phi$, with no adiabaticity assumption needed for the entropy-sector coupling itself (the background’s own designer running $c(\phi)$ still relies on the usual WKB separation of scales, as it always did, but tracking that running with $b(\phi)$ no longer requires a further approximation on top of it).

The entropy perturbation $\delta\chi$ is not yet the observed curvature perturbation $\zeta$; it must be converted at the wall. $\chi$ itself is a spectator of the background (Section 8.3: $\chi=0$ solves its equation of motion exactly, for any $b$), and the wall of Section 3 reflects $\phi$ alone at zeroth order. We tilt the wall, letting the reflecting surface depend linearly on how far the trajectory has drifted off the $\chi=0$ line,

which converts the entropy perturbation into a curvature perturbation via the standard $\delta N$ formalism, $\zeta=N_{\chi}\,\delta\chi$ with $N_{\chi}=-\lambda\,\partial_{\phi}N|_{\phi_{w}}$ evaluated at the wall crossing. Equation (26) depends only on $\lambda$ and the background wall position $\phi_{w}$, not on how the transverse mass or normalization of $\chi$ is generated, so the spectral index fixed in Sections 8.3–8.4 is preserved unchanged: $N_{\chi}$ is a fixed number (not a function of $k$) at horizon crossing, and $\zeta$’s power spectrum inherits $\delta\chi$’s tilt exactly.

The local non-Gaussianity generated at conversion is set by the second-order piece of $\delta N$, $f_{\rm NL}^{\rm local}=\tfrac{5}{6}\,\partial_{\phi}^{2}N/(\partial_{\phi}N)^{2}\big|_{\phi_{w}}$, together with any cubic self-interaction of $\delta\chi$ itself. The potential of Eq. (20) has no $\chi$-dependence at all, so this construction has no intrinsic source of non-Gaussianity from the ekpyrotic phase itself: all of $f_{\rm NL}^{\rm local}$ comes from the conversion geometry,

evaluated from the running $c(\phi)$ used throughout this section. Numerically this gives $f_{\rm NL}^{\rm local}\approx-0.019$, comfortably inside the Planck bound $f_{\rm NL}^{\rm local}=-0.9\pm 5.1$ [34].

The perturbation that gets converted into $\zeta$ is $\delta\chi$ itself, and $\delta\chi$ is not the canonically normalized field. That role belongs to $u=z\delta\chi=a\sqrt{f(\phi)}\,\delta\chi$, with $f(\phi)=e^{-b(\phi)\phi}$ as written in Eq. (20). Because only the two-field sector’s own new physics enters $f$, and $\chi$ is not a spectator of the single-field model that predates it, the natural point at which to normalize this coupling to $O(1)$ is not the arbitrary global origin of $\phi$ (fixed, for the single-field potential, by the unrelated quintessence sector at $\phi\sim-30$) but $\phi_{c}=10$, where the two-field completion switches on. We therefore write the physically meaningful, reference-independent combination as

using the running $b(\phi)=b(c(\phi),0.9649)$ of Table 3. $F(\phi)$ is what actually enters every physical ratio below. It falls from $1$ at $\phi_{c}$ to $F(\phi_{w})\sim 10^{-19}$ at the wall (Table 4, Figure 7), the same large range as before, now correctly attributed to where it belongs: not to an arbitrary normalization choice, but to $\chi$’s own super-horizon evolution between horizon crossing and the wall, which Section 8.8 computes directly.

The largest observable mode crosses the horizon at $\phi_{*}\approx\phi_{c}$, where $F(\phi_{*})=1$ exactly by this construction, so its seed amplitude takes the ordinary near-massless-field value with no large correction factor,

The large normalization factor does not disappear. It reappears, correctly, as the entropy field’s own super-horizon growth between $\phi_{c}$ and the wall, which we compute directly in Section 8.8.

With no potential for $\chi$ at all, $\chi=0$ is not driven away by a tachyonic mass; growth here comes purely from the non-canonical kinetic normalization. The general super-horizon solution of $u^{\prime\prime}-n(n-1)u/\tau^{2}=0$ is $u=A(-\tau)^{n}+B(-\tau)^{1-n}$, so $\delta\chi=u/z$ has a frozen mode ($\propto(-\tau)^{0}$) and a growing mode $\delta\chi\propto(-\tau)^{1-2n}$ (since $1-2n<0$ for $n\approx 2$). Converting to e-folds of the scale factor via $a\propto(-\tau)^{Q}$, $Q\equiv p/(1-p)$, the local growth rate at any point in the window is $|1-2n(\phi)|/Q(\phi)$; because $b(\phi)$ (and hence $n$ and $Q$) runs across the window exactly as in Section 8.4, the total super-horizon growth from horizon crossing $\phi_{*}$ to the wall is the integral of this local rate over $\ln a$, not a single endpoint value:

For the largest observable mode ($\phi_{*}=\phi_{c}=10$), Eq. (30) evaluates to $\ln(\text{growth})=36.2$, a growth factor of $5.3\times 10^{15}$. This is large, because super-horizon growth of the entropy mode is the mechanism’s whole point, but it is eight orders of magnitude smaller than a naive estimate using the (larger) growth rate evaluated only at $\phi_{c}$ and held fixed across the full window would give, because the rate itself falls as $\phi$ runs toward the wall (Table 5).