4.2 The Model 47 signatures. We consider that these are the dominant contributions to the curvature perturbation, so that the inflaton’s contribution can be ignored. It should be noted that the first scenario is very similar to that in Ref. [30]. However, in that paper the authors use a modulated coupling constant rather than a modulated mass. Also, the treatment that has been given to the work in this thesis is much more comprehensive. One example of this is in the consideration of the effect that the thermal fluctuation of the ther- mal waterfall field has on the model (see Section 4.4.3.6). Another example is the requirement that the thermal waterfall field is thermalized (see Sec- tion 4.4.3.7). Also, there is no consideration given in Ref. [30] to requiring a fast transition from thermal inflation to thermal waterfall field oscillation (see Section 4.4.3.10), as detailed in Ref. [34], as this paper appeared after Ref. [30]. where φ is the thermal waterfall scalar field, ψ is a light spectator scalar field, T is the temperature of the thermal bath, g , h and λ are dimensionless coupling constants, α ≥ 1 and n ≥ 1 are integers and the − 1 $_{2}$m 2 0 and 1 $_{2}$m 2 ψ terms come from soft SUSY breaking. 2 We do not include a φ 4 term, because the thermal waterfall field is a flaton, whose potential is stabilised by the $^{2}$h has a factorial term absorbed into it. Also, we are absorbing the 1 (2 n +4)! factor into λ . V ( φ, T, ψ ) = V$_{0}$ + ( g $^{2}$T 2 − 1 2 m 2 $_{0}$+ h 2 ψ 2 α M 2 α − 2 P ) φ $^{2}$+ λ φ 2 n +4 M 2 n P + 1 2 m 2 $_{ψ}$ψ 2 (4.2) Throughout this work, units are used where c = ℏ = k$_{B}$ = 1 and the re- duced Planck Mass is M$_{P}$ =2 . 436 × 10 18 GeV. The potential that is considered in this model is