1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}

2: \usepackage{moriond,epsfig}

3: \usepackage{units,amssymb}

4: 

5: % Commands %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6: \newcommand{\Dm}{D_\mu}

7: \newcommand{\Dn}{D_\nu}

8: \newcommand{\dm}{\partial_\mu}

9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

10: 

11: 

12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

13: \begin{document}

14: \vspace*{4cm}

15: \title{The Standard model Higgs as the inflaton}

16: 

17: \author{F. L. Bezrukov}

18: 

19: \address{

20:   Institut de Th\'eorie des Ph\'enom\`enes Physiques,

21:   \'Ecole Polytechnique F\'ed\'erale de Lausanne,

22:   CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland}

23: %  Institute for Nuclear Research of Russian Academy of Sciences,

24: %  Prospect 60-letiya Oktyabrya 7a,

25: %  Moscow 117312, Russia}

26: 

27: \maketitle

28: \abstracts{%

29:   We describe how non-minimal coupling term between the Higgs boson

30:   and gravity can lead to the chaotic inflation in the Standard Model

31:   without introduction of any additional degrees of freedom.  Produced

32:   cosmological perturbations are predicted to be in accordance with

33:   observations.  The tensor modes of perturbations are practically

34:   vanishing in the model.}

35: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

36: 

37: 

38: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

39: \section{Introduction}

40: 

41: This talk is based on the recent work \cite{Bezrukov:2007ep}, and

42: closely follows it.  Note, that the expression for the inflationary

43: potential presented here differs from the one presented in the

44: original work---both expressions coincide in the region relevant for

45: inflation, while the expression given here has a wider range of

46: validity (down to the Standard Model regime).

47: 

48: The fact that our universe is almost flat, homogeneous and isotropic

49: is often considered as a strong indication that the Standard Model

50: (SM) of elementary particles is not complete.  Indeed, these puzzles,

51: together with the problem of generation of (almost) scale invariant

52: spectrum of perturbations, necessary for structure formation, are most

53: elegantly solved by inflation~%

54: \cite{Starobinsky:1979ty,Starobinsky:1980te,Mukhanov:1981xt,Guth:1980zm,%

55:   Linde:1981mu,Albrecht:1982wi}.  The majority of present models of

56: inflation require an introduction of an additional scalar---the

57: ``inflaton''.  Inflaton properties are constrained by the observations

58: of fluctuations of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and the

59: matter distribution in the universe.  Though the mass and the

60: interaction of the inflaton with matter fields are not fixed, the well

61: known considerations prefer a heavy scalar field with a mass $\sim

62: \unit[10^{13}]{GeV}$

63: and extremely small self-interacting quartic

64: coupling constant $\lambda \sim 10^{-13}$ for realization of the

65: chaotic inflationary scenario~\cite{Linde:1983gd}.  This value of the

66: mass is close to the GUT scale, which is often considered as an

67: argument in favour of existence of new physics between the electroweak

68: and Planck scales.

69: 

70: It was recently demonstrated in \cite{Bezrukov:2007ep} that the SM

71: itself can give rise to inflation, provided non-minimal copling of the

72: Higgs field with gravity.  The spectral index and the amplitude of

73: tensor perturbations can be predicted and be used to distinguish this

74: possibility from other models for inflation; these parameters for the

75: SM fall within the $1\sigma$ confidence contours of the WMAP-5

76: observations \cite{Komatsu:2008hk}.

77: 

78: To explain our main idea, let us consider the Lagrangian of

79: the SM non-minimally coupled to gravity,

80: \begin{equation}

81: \label{main}

82:   L_{\mathrm{tot}}= L_{\mathrm{SM}} - \frac{M^2}{2} R -\xi H^\dagger HR

83:   \;,

84: \end{equation}

85: where $L_{\mathrm{SM}}$ is the SM part, $M$ is some mass parameter,

86: $R$ is the scalar curvature, $H$ is the Higgs field, and $\xi$ is an

87: unknown constant to be fixed later.  The third term in (\ref{main}) is

88: in fact required by the renormalization properties of the scalar field

89: in a curved space-time background \cite{Birrell:1982ix}, so, in

90: principle, it should be added to the usual SM Lagrangian with some

91: constant.  Here, we will analyse the situation with large

92: non-minimal coupling parameter $\xi\gg1$, but still not too large for

93: the non-minimal term to contribute significantly to the Plank mass in

94: the SM regime ($H\sim v$), i.e.\ $\sqrt{\xi} \lll 10^{17}$.  Thus, we

95: have $M\simeq M_P=(8\pi G_N)^{-1/2}=\unit[2.4\times 10^{18}]{GeV}$.

96: 

97: It is well known that inflation has interesting properties in models

98: of this type~%

99: \cite{Spokoiny:1984bd,Futamase:1987ua,Salopek:1988qh,Fakir1990,Kaiser:1994wj,%

100:   Kaiser:1994vs,Komatsu:1999mt}.  However, in these works the scalar

101: was not identified with the Higgs field of the SM.  Basically, most

102: attempts were made to identify the inflaton field with the GUT Higgs

103: field.  In this case one naturally gets into the regime of induced

104: gravity (where, unlike this paper, $M=0$ and $M_P$ is generated from

105: the non-minimal coupling term by the Higgs vacuum expectation value).

106: In this case the Higgs field decouples from the other fields of the

107: model \cite{vanderBij:1993hx,CervantesCota:1995tz,Bij1995}, which is

108: generally undesirable.  Here we demonstrate, that when the SM Higgs

109: boson is coupled non-minimally to gravity, the scales for the

110: electroweak physics and inflation are separate, the electroweak

111: properties are unchanged, while for much larger field values the

112: inflation is possible.

113: 

114: The paper is organised as follows.  We start from discussion of

115: inflation in the model, and use the slow-roll approximation to find

116: the perturbation spectra parameters.  Then we will argue in

117: Section~\ref{sec:radcorr} that quantum corrections are unlikely to

118: spoil the classical analysis we used in Section~\ref{sec:cmb}.  We

119: conclude in Section~\ref{sec:concl}.

120: 

121: 

122: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

123: \section{Inflation and CMB fluctuations}

124: \label{sec:cmb}

125: 

126: Let us consider the scalar sector of the Standard Model, coupled to

127: gravity in a non-minimal way. We will use the unitary gauge

128: $H=h/\sqrt{2}$ and neglect all gauge interactions for the time being,

129: they will be discussed later in Section \ref{sec:radcorr}.  Then the

130: Lagrangian has the form:

131: \begin{equation}

132:   \label{eq:1}

133: %  \begin{array}{l@{\,}l}

134: %    \displaystyle

135:     S_{J} =\int d^4x \sqrt{-g} \Bigg\{

136: %&\displaystyle

137:     - \frac{M^2+\xi h^2}{2}R

138:     \\

139: %    &\displaystyle

140:     + \frac{\dm h\partial^\mu h}{2}

141:     -\frac{\lambda}{4}\left(h^2-v^2\right)^2

142:     \Bigg\}

143:     \;.

144: %  \end{array}

145: \end{equation}

146: This Lagrangian has been studied in detail in many papers on inflation

147: \cite{Salopek:1988qh,Fakir1990,Kaiser:1994vs,Komatsu:1999mt}, we will

148: reproduce here the main results of

149: \cite{Salopek:1988qh,Kaiser:1994vs}.  Compared to

150: \cite{Bezrukov:2007ep} we present a better approximation for the

151: inflationary potential here.  To simplify the formulae, we will

152: consider only $\xi$ in the region $1\ll\sqrt{\xi}\lll10^{17}$, in

153: which $M \simeq M_P$ with very good accuracy.

154: 

155: It is possible to get rid of the non-minimal coupling to gravity by

156: making the conformal transformation from the Jordan frame to the

157: Einstein frame

158: \begin{equation}

159:   \label{eq:2}

160:   \hat{g}_{\mu\nu} = \Omega^2 g_{\mu\nu}

161:   \;,\quad

162:   \Omega(h)^2 = 1 + \frac{\xi h^2}{M_P^2}

163:   \;.

164: \end{equation}

165: This transformation leads to a non-minimal kinetic term for the Higgs

166: field. So, it is convenient to make the change to the new scalar field

167: $\chi$ with

168: \begin{equation}

169:   \label{eq:3}

170:    \frac{d\chi}{dh}=\frac{\sqrt{\Omega^2+\frac{3}{2}M_P^2\left(\frac{d(\Omega^2)}{dh}\right)^2}}{\Omega^2}

171:    =\frac{\sqrt{1 + (\xi+6\xi^2)\frac{h^2}{M_P^2}}}{1 + \xi\frac{ h^2}{M_P^2}}

172:   \;.

173: \end{equation}

174: Finally, the action in the Einstein frame is

175: \begin{equation}

176:   \label{eq:4}

177:     S_E =\int d^4x\sqrt{-\hat{g}} \Bigg\{

178:     - \frac{M_P^2}{2}\hat{R}

179:     + \frac{\dm \chi\partial^\mu \chi}{2}

180:     - U(\chi)

181:     \Bigg\}

182:     \;,

183: \end{equation}

184: where $\hat{R}$ is calculated using the metric $\hat{g}_{\mu\nu}$ and

185: the potential is

186: \begin{equation}

187:   \label{eq:5}

188:   U(\chi) =

189:   \frac{1}{\Omega(h(\chi))^4}\frac{\lambda}{4}\left(h(\chi)^2-v^2\right)^2

190:   \;.

191: \end{equation}

192: For small field values $h,\chi<M_P/\xi$ the change of variables is

193: trivial, $h\simeq\xi$ and $\Omega^2\simeq1$, so the potential for the

194: field $\chi$ is the same as that for the initial Higgs field and we

195: get into the SM regime.  For $h,\chi\gg M_P/\xi$ the situation changes

196: a lot.  In this limit the variable change (\ref{eq:3}) is

197: \footnote{The following two formulae have wider validity range than

198:   those in \cite{Bezrukov:2007ep}, which are valid only for

199:   $h\gg M_P/\sqrt{\xi}$.}

200: \begin{equation}\label{eq:hlarge}

201:   \Omega(h)^2\simeq \exp\left(\frac{2\chi}{\sqrt{6}M_P}\right)

202:   \;.

203: \end{equation}

204: The potential for the Higgs field is exponentially flat for large

205: $\xi$ and has the form

206: \begin{equation}

207:   \label{eq:6}

208:   U(\chi) = \frac{\lambda M_P^4}{4\xi^2}

209:   \left(

210:     1-\exp\left(

211:       -\frac{2\chi}{\sqrt{6}M_P}

212:     \right)

213:   \right)^{2}

214:   \;.

215: \end{equation}

216: The full effective potential in the Einstein frame is presented in

217: Fig.~\ref{fig:Ueff}.  It is the flatness of the potential at

218: $\chi\gtrsim M_P$ which makes the successful (chaotic) inflation

219: possible.

220: 

221: Basically, there are two distinct scales---for low field values

222: $h,\chi\ll

223: M_P/\xi$ we have the SM, for high field values

224: $h\gg M_P/\sqrt{\xi}$ ($\chi>M_P$) we have inflation with exponentially flat

225: potential (\ref{eq:6})

226: and the Higgs field is decoupled from all other SM fields (because $\Omega\propto

227: h$,

228: see Section~\ref{sec:radcorr}).  In the intermediate region

229: $M_P/\xi\ll h\ll M_P/\sqrt{\xi}$ ($M_P/\xi\ll\chi<M_P$) the coupling with other particles is

230: not suppressed ($\Omega\sim 1$), while the potential and change of

231: variables are still given by (\ref{eq:6}) and (\ref{eq:hlarge}).

232: 

233: \begin{figure}

234:   \centering

235:   \begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\textwidth}

236:     \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{potential}

237:     \caption{Effective potential in the Einstein frame.}

238:     \label{fig:Ueff}

239:   \end{minipage}%

240:   \begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\textwidth}

241:     \includegraphics[width=0.865\textwidth]{wmap05-e}

242:     \caption{The allowed WMAP region for inflationary parameters ($r$,

243:       $n$).  The green boxes are our predictions supposing 50 and 60

244:       e-foldings of inflation.  Black and white dots are predictions of

245:       usual chaotic inflation with $\lambda\phi^4$ and $m^2\phi^2$

246:       potentials, HZ is the Harrison-Zeldovich spectrum.}

247:     \label{fig:wmap}

248:   \end{minipage}

249: \end{figure}

250: 

251: Analysis of the inflation in the Einstein frame \footnote{The same

252:   results can be obtained in the Jordan frame

253:   \cite{Makino1991,Fakir:1992cg}.} can be performed in the standard way

254: using the slow-roll approximation.  The slow roll parameters (in

255: notations of \cite{Lyth:1998xn}) can be expressed analytically as

256: functions of the field $h(\chi)$ using (\ref{eq:3}) and (\ref{eq:5})

257: (we give here the expressions for the case

258: \footnote{These formulas are valid up to the end of the slow roll regime

259:   $h_\mathrm{end}$, while the formulas (10) and (11) in

260:   \cite{Bezrukov:2007ep} are applicable only for the earlier

261:   inflationary stages, $h^2\gg M_P^2/\xi$, which is sufficient to

262:   calculate primordial spectrum parameters $n_s$ and $r$.}

263: $h^2\gtrsim M_P^2/\xi\gg v^2$, $\xi\gg1$, exact

264: expressions can be found in \cite{Kaiser:1994vs}),

265: \begin{eqnarray}

266:   \label{eq:7}

267:   \epsilon & =& \frac{M_P^2}{2}\left(\frac{dU/d\chi}{U}\right)^2

268:   \simeq\frac{4 M_P^4 }{3

269:    \xi^2h^4}

270:   \;, \\

271:   \eta & = & M_P^2\frac{d^2U/d\chi^2}{U}

272:   \simeq \frac{4 M_P^4}{3 \xi^2 h^4 }\left(1-\frac{\xi h^2}{M_P^2}\right)

273:   \;, \\

274:   \zeta^2 &= & M_P^4\frac{(d^3U/d\chi^3)dU/d\chi}{U^2}

275:   \simeq \frac{16 M_P^6 }{9\xi^3 h^6}\left(\frac{\xi h^2}{M_P^2}-3\right)

276:   \;.

277: \end{eqnarray}

278: Slow roll ends when $\epsilon\simeq1$, so the field value at the end of

279: inflation is

280: $h_{\mathrm{end}}\simeq(4/3)^{1/4}M_P/\sqrt{\xi}\simeq1.07M_P/\sqrt{\xi}$.

281: The number of e-foldings for the change of the field $h$ from $h_0$ to

282: $h_{\mathrm{end}}$ is given by

283: \begin{equation}

284:   \label{eq:8}

285:   N = \int_{h_{\mathrm{end}}}^{h_0}

286:   \frac{1}{M_P^2}\frac{U}{dU/dh}\left(\frac{d\chi}{dh}\right)^2dh

287:   \simeq \frac{3}{4}\frac{h_0^2-h_{\mathrm{end}}^2}{M_P^2/\xi}

288:   \;.

289: \end{equation}

290: We see that for all values of $\sqrt{\xi}\lll10^{17}$ the scale

291: of the Standard Model $v$ does not enter in the formulae, so the

292: inflationary physics is independent on it.

293: 

294: After end of the slow roll the $\chi$ field enters oscillatory stage

295: with diminishing amplitude.  After the oscillation amplitude falls

296: below $M_P/\xi$, the situation returns to the SM one, so at this

297: moment the reheating is imminent due to the SM interactions, which

298: guarantees the minimum reheating temperature

299: $T_{\mathrm{reh}}\gtrsim

300: (\frac{15\lambda}{8\pi^2 g^*})^{1/4}\frac{M_P}{\xi}\simeq\unit[1.5\times

301: 10^{13}]{GeV}$,

302: where $g^*=106.75$ is the number of degrees of freedom

303: of the SM\@.  Careful analysis may give a larger temperature generated

304: during the decay of the oscillating $\chi$ field, but definitely below

305: the energy scale at the end of the inflation

306: $T_{\mathrm{reh}}<(\frac{2\lambda}{\pi^2

307:   g^*})^{1/4}\frac{M_P}{\sqrt{\xi}}\simeq\unit[2\times10^{15}]{GeV}$.

308: 

309: As far as the reheating mechanism and the universe evolution after the

310: end of the inflation is fixed in the model, the number of e-foldings

311: for the the COBE scale entering the horizon can be calculated (see

312: \cite{Lyth:1998xn}).  Here we estimate it as

313: $N_{\mathrm{COBE}}\simeq62$ (exact value depends on the detailed

314: analysis of reheating, which will be done elsewhere).  The

315: corresponding field value is

316: $h_{\mathrm{COBE}}\simeq9.4M_P/\sqrt{\xi}$.  Inserting (\ref{eq:8})

317: into the COBE normalization $U/\epsilon=(0.027M_P)^4$ we find the

318: required value for $\xi$

319: \begin{equation}

320:   \label{eq:9}

321:   \xi \simeq \sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{3}}\frac{N_{\mathrm{COBE}}}{0.027^2}

322:   \simeq  49000\sqrt{\lambda}

323:   =  49000\frac{m_H}{\sqrt{2}v}

324:   \;.

325: \end{equation}

326: Note, that if one could deduce $\xi$ from some fundamental theory this

327: relation would provide a connection between the Higgs mass and the

328: amplitude of primordial perturbations.

329: 

330: The spectral index $n_s=1-6\epsilon+2\eta$ calculated for $N=60$

331: (corresponding to the scale $k=0.002/\mathrm{Mpc}$) is

332: $n_s\simeq1-8(4N+9)/(4N+3)^2\simeq0.97$.  The tensor to scalar

333: perturbation ratio \cite{Komatsu:2008hk} is

334: $r=16\epsilon\simeq192/(4N+3)^2\simeq0.0033$.

335: The predicted values are well within one sigma of the current WMAP

336: measurements \cite{Komatsu:2008hk}, see Fig.~\ref{fig:wmap}.

337: 

338: 

339: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

340: \section{Radiative corrections}

341: \label{sec:radcorr}

342: 

343: An essential point for inflation is the flatness of the scalar

344: potential in the region of the field values $h\sim10M_P/\sqrt{\xi}$

345: ($\chi\sim 6 M_P$).  It is important that radiative corrections do not

346: spoil this property.  Of course, any discussion of quantum corrections

347: is flawed by the non-renormalizable character of gravity, so the

348: arguments we present below are not rigorous.

349: 

350: There are two qualitatively different type of corrections one can

351: think about.  The first one is related to the quantum gravity

352: contribution.  It is conceivable to think \cite{Linde:1987yb} that

353: these terms are proportional to the energy density of the field $\chi$

354: rather than its value and are of the order of magnitude $U(\chi)/M_P^4

355: \sim \lambda/\xi^2$.

356: They are small at large $\xi$ required by

357: observations.  Moreover, adding non-renormalizable operators

358: $h^{4+2n}/M_P^{2n}$ to the Lagrangian (\ref{eq:1}) also does not

359: change the flatness of the potential in the inflationary

360: region.\footnote{Actually, in the Jordan frame, we expect that

361:   higher-dimensional operators are suppressed by the effective Planck

362:   scale $M_P^2+\xi h^2$.}

363: 

364: Other type of corrections is induced by the fields of the Standard

365: Model coupled to the Higgs field.  In one loop approximation these

366: contributions have the structure

367: \begin{equation}

368: \Delta U \sim \frac{m^4(\chi)}{64\pi^2} \log\frac{m^2(\chi)}{\mu^2}~,

369: \label{1loop}

370: \end{equation}

371: where $m(\chi)$ is the mass of the particle (vector boson, fermion, or

372: the Higgs field itself) in the background of field $\chi$, and $\mu$ is

373: the normalization point.  Note that the terms of the type $m^2(\chi)

374: M_P^2$

375: (related to quadratic divergences) do not appear in

376: scale-invariant subtraction schemes that are based, for example, on

377: dimensional regularisation (see a relevant discussion in

378: \cite{Shaposhnikov:2006xi,Meissner:2006zh,Shaposhnikov:2007nj,Meissner:2007xv}).

379: The masses of the SM fields can be readily computed

380: \cite{Salopek:1988qh} and have the form

381: \begin{equation}

382:   m_{\psi,A}(\chi) = \frac{m(v)}{v}\frac{h(\chi)}{\Omega(\chi)}

383:   \;,\quad

384:   m^2_H(\chi) = \frac{d^2U}{d\chi^2}

385: \end{equation}

386: for fermions, vector bosons and 

387: the Higgs (inflaton) field.  It is crucial that for large $\chi$

388: these masses approach different constants (i.e.\ the one-loop contribution

389: is as flat as the tree potential) and that (\ref{1loop}) is suppressed

390: by the gauge or Yukawa couplings in comparison with the tree term.  In

391: other words, one-loop radiative corrections do not spoil the flatness

392: of the potential as well.  This argument is identical to the one given

393: in \cite{Salopek:1988qh}.

394: 

395: % Another important correction is connected with running of the

396: % non-minimal coupling $\xi$ to gravity.  The

397: % corresponding renormalization group equation is \cite{Buchbinder1992,Yoon1997}

398: % \begin{equation}\label{eq:xi}

399: %   \mu\frac{d\xi}{d\mu}=\left(\xi+\frac{1}{6}\right)\frac{\left(

400: %     12\lambda+12y_t^2-\frac{9}{2}g^2-\frac{3}{2}{g'}^2

401: %   \right)}{16\pi^2}\;,

402: % \end{equation}

403: % where $y_t=m_t/v$ is the top Yukawa coupling, $g$ and $g'$ are SU(2)

404: % and U(1)

405: % couplings of the Standard Model and $\mu$ is the characteristic

406: % scale.  The renormalization of $\xi$ from $\mu\sim M_W$ to the Planck

407: % scale is considerable, $\xi(M_P)\approx 2\xi(M_W)$.  At the

408: % same time, the change of $\xi$ in the inflationary region is small,

409: % $\delta\xi/\xi\approx0.2$.  Thus, the logarithmic running of $\xi$

410: % does not change the behaviour of the potential required for inflation.

411: 

412: % There is also the induced one-loop pure gravitational term of the form

413: % $\xi^2 R^2/64\pi^2$.  During the inflationary epoch it is smaller

414: % than the tree term $M_P^2R$ by the Higgs self-coupling $\lambda/64\pi^2$ and does not

415: % change the conclusion.

416: 

417: 

418: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

419: \section{Conclusions}

420: \label{sec:concl}

421: 

422: Non-minimal coupling of the Higgs field to gravity leads to the

423: possibility of chaotic inflation in SM.  Specific predictions for the

424: primordial perturbation spectrum are obtained.  Specifically, very

425: small amount of tensor perturbations is expected, which means that

426: future CMB experiments measuring the B-mode of the CMB polarization

427: (PLANCK) can distinguish between the described scenario from other

428: models (based, e.g.\ on inflaton with quadratic potential).

429: 

430: At the same time, we expect that the Higgs potential does not enter

431: into the string coupling regime, nor generates another vacuum up to

432: the scale of at least $M_P/\xi\sim\unit[10^{14}]{GeV}$, so we expect the

433: Higgs mass to be in the window $\unit[130]{GeV}<M_H<\unit[190]{GeV}$

434: (see, eg.\ \cite{Pirogov:1998tj}), otherwise the inflation would be

435: impossible.

436: 

437: The inflation mechanism we discussed has in fact a general character

438: and can be used in many extensions of the SM. Thus, the $\nu$MSM of

439: \cite{Asaka:2005an,Asaka:2005pn,Bezrukov:2005mx,Asaka:2006ek,Shaposhnikov:2006xi,%

440:   Shaposhnikov:2006nn,Asaka:2006rw,Asaka:2006nq,Bezrukov:2006cy,Gorbunov:2007ak,%

441:   Shaposhnikov:2008pf,Laine:2008pg} (SM plus three light fermionic

442: singlets) can explain simultaneously neutrino masses, dark matter,

443: baryon asymmetry of the universe and inflation without introducing any

444: additional particles (the $\nu$MSM with the inflaton was considered in

445: \cite{Shaposhnikov:2006xi}).  This provides an extra argument in favour

446: of absence of a new energy scale between the electroweak and Planck

447: scales, advocated in \cite{Shaposhnikov:2007nj}.

448: 

449: 

450: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

451: \section*{Acknowledgements}

452: 

453: The author thank M. Shaposhnikov, S. Sibiryakov, V. Rubakov, G.

454: Dvali, I. Tkachev, O.  Ruchayskiy, H.D. Kim, P. Tinyakov, and A.

455: Boyarsky for valuable discussions.  This work was supported by the

456: Swiss National Science Foundation.

457: 

458: 

459: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

460: \section*{References}

461: %\bibliographystyle{unsrt}

462: % for BibTeX - sorted numerical labels by order of

463: % first citation.

464: %\bibliographystyle{h-elsevier3-s}

465: %\bibliography{all,bookrefs}

466: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

467: 

468: \bibitem{Bezrukov:2007ep}

469: F.L. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov,

470: \newblock Phys. Lett. B659 (2008) 703.

471: %%CITATION = 0710.3755;%%

472: 

473: \bibitem{Starobinsky:1979ty}

474: A.A. Starobinsky,

475: \newblock JETP Lett. 30 (1979) 682.

476: %%CITATION = JTPLA,30,682;%%

477: 

478: \bibitem{Starobinsky:1980te}

479: A.A. Starobinsky,

480: \newblock Phys. Lett. B91 (1980) 99.

481: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B91,99;%%

482: 

483: \bibitem{Mukhanov:1981xt}

484: V.F. Mukhanov and G.V. Chibisov,

485: \newblock JETP Lett. 33 (1981) 532.

486: %%CITATION = JTPLA,33,532;%%

487: 

488: \bibitem{Guth:1980zm}

489: A.H. Guth,

490: \newblock Phys. Rev. D23 (1981) 347.

491: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D23,347;%%

492: 

493: \bibitem{Linde:1981mu}

494: A.D. Linde,

495: \newblock Phys. Lett. B108 (1982) 389.

496: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B108,389;%%

497: 

498: \bibitem{Albrecht:1982wi}

499: A. Albrecht and P.J. Steinhardt,

500: \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. 48 (1982) 1220.

501: %%CITATION = PRLTA,48,1220;%%

502: 

503: \bibitem{Linde:1983gd}

504: A.D. Linde,

505: \newblock Phys. Lett. B129 (1983) 177.

506: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B129,177;%%

507: 

508: \bibitem{Komatsu:2008hk}

509: WMAP, E. Komatsu et~al.,

510: \newblock (2008), arXiv:0803.0547 [astro-ph].

511: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0803.0547;%%

512: 

513: \bibitem{Birrell:1982ix}

514: N.D. Birrell and P.C.W. Davies,

515: \newblock Quantum Fields in Curved Space (Cambridge, UK: Univ. Pr., 1982).

516: 

517: \bibitem{Spokoiny:1984bd}

518: B.L. Spokoiny,

519: \newblock Phys. Lett. B147 (1984) 39.

520: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B147,39;%%

521: 

522: \bibitem{Futamase:1987ua}

523: T. Futamase and K. Maeda,

524: \newblock Phys. Rev. D39 (1989) 399.

525: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D39,399;%%

526: 

527: \bibitem{Salopek:1988qh}

528: D.S. Salopek, J.R. Bond and J.M. Bardeen,

529: \newblock Phys. Rev. D40 (1989) 1753.

530: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D40,1753;%%

531: 

532: \bibitem{Fakir1990}

533: R. Fakir and W.G. Unruh,

534: \newblock Phys. Rev. D41 (1990) 1783.

535: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D41,1783;%%

536: 

537: \bibitem{Kaiser:1994wj}

538: D.I. Kaiser,

539: \newblock Phys. Lett. B340 (1994) 23.

540: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH/9405029;%%

541: 

542: \bibitem{Kaiser:1994vs}

543: D.I. Kaiser,

544: \newblock Phys. Rev. D52 (1995) 4295.

545: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH/9408044;%%

546: 

547: \bibitem{Komatsu:1999mt}

548: E. Komatsu and T. Futamase,

549: \newblock Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 064029.

550: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH/9901127;%%

551: 

552: \bibitem{vanderBij:1993hx}

553: J.J. van~der Bij,

554: \newblock Acta Phys. Polon. B25 (1994) 827.

555: %%CITATION = APPOA,B25,827;%%

556: 

557: \bibitem{CervantesCota:1995tz}

558: J.L. Cervantes-Cota and H. Dehnen,

559: \newblock Nucl. Phys. B442 (1995) 391.

560: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH/9505069;%%

561: 

562: \bibitem{Bij1995}

563: J.J. van~der Bij,

564: \newblock Int.J.Phys. 1 (1995) 63.

565: 

566: \bibitem{Makino1991}

567: N. Makino and M. Sasaki,

568: \newblock Prog. Theor. Phys. 86 (1991) 103.

569: %%CITATION = PTPKA,86,103;%%

570: 

571: \bibitem{Fakir:1992cg}

572: R. Fakir, S. Habib and W. Unruh,

573: \newblock Astrophys. J. 394 (1992) 396.

574: %%CITATION = ASJOA,394,396;%%

575: 

576: \bibitem{Lyth:1998xn}

577: D.H. Lyth and A. Riotto,

578: \newblock Phys. Rept. 314 (1999) 1.

579: %%CITATION = HEP-PH/9807278;%%

580: 

581: \bibitem{Linde:1987yb}

582: A.D. Linde,

583: \newblock Phys. Lett. B202 (1988) 194.

584: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B202,194;%%

585: 

586: \bibitem{Shaposhnikov:2006xi}

587: M. Shaposhnikov and I. Tkachev,

588: \newblock Phys. Lett. B639 (2006) 414.

589: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604236;%%

590: 

591: \bibitem{Meissner:2006zh}

592: K.A. Meissner and H. Nicolai,

593: \newblock Phys. Lett. B648 (2007) 312.

594: %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0612165;%%

595: 

596: \bibitem{Shaposhnikov:2007nj}

597: M. Shaposhnikov,

598: \newblock (2007), arXiv:0708.3550 [hep-th].

599: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0708.3550;%%

600: 

601: \bibitem{Meissner:2007xv}

602: K.A. Meissner and H. Nicolai,

603: \newblock (2007), arXiv:0710.2840 [hep-th].

604: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0710.2840;%%

605: 

606: \bibitem{Pirogov:1998tj}

607: Y.F. Pirogov and O.V. Zenin,

608: \newblock Eur. Phys. J. C10 (1999) 629.

609: %%CITATION = HEP-PH/9808396;%%

610: 

611: \bibitem{Asaka:2005an}

612: T. Asaka, S. Blanchet and M. Shaposhnikov,

613: \newblock Phys. Lett. B631 (2005) 151.

614: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503065;%%

615: 

616: \bibitem{Asaka:2005pn}

617: T. Asaka and M. Shaposhnikov,

618: \newblock Phys. Lett. B620 (2005) 17.

619: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0505013;%%

620: 

621: \bibitem{Bezrukov:2005mx}

622: F. Bezrukov,

623: \newblock Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 071303.

624: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0505247;%%

625: 

626: \bibitem{Asaka:2006ek}

627: T. Asaka, M. Shaposhnikov and A. Kusenko,

628: \newblock Phys. Lett. B638 (2006) 401.

629: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0602150;%%

630: 

631: \bibitem{Shaposhnikov:2006nn}

632: M. Shaposhnikov,

633: \newblock Nucl. Phys. B763 (2007) 49.

634: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605047;%%

635: 

636: \bibitem{Asaka:2006rw}

637: T. Asaka, M. Laine and M. Shaposhnikov,

638: \newblock JHEP 06 (2006) 053.

639: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605209;%%

640: 

641: \bibitem{Asaka:2006nq}

642: T. Asaka, M. Laine and M. Shaposhnikov,

643: \newblock JHEP 0701 (2007) 091.

644: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0612182;%%

645: 

646: \bibitem{Bezrukov:2006cy}

647: F. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov,

648: \newblock Phys. Rev. D75 (2007) 053005.

649: %%CITATION = HEP-PH/0611352;%%

650: 

651: \bibitem{Gorbunov:2007ak}

652: D. Gorbunov and M. Shaposhnikov,

653: \newblock (2007), arXiv:0705.1729 [hep-ph].

654: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0705.1729;%%

655: 

656: \bibitem{Shaposhnikov:2008pf}

657: M. Shaposhnikov,

658: \newblock (2008), arXiv:0804.4542 [hep-ph].

659: %%CITATION = 0804.4542;%%

660: 

661: \bibitem{Laine:2008pg}

662: M. Laine and M. Shaposhnikov,

663: \newblock (2008), arXiv:0804.4543 [hep-ph].

664: %%CITATION = 0804.4543;%%

665: 

666: \end{thebibliography}

667: 

668: \end{document}

669: %%% Local Variables: 

670: %%% mode: latex

671: %%% TeX-master: t

672: %%% End: 

673: