1: %\documentclass{article}

2: \documentstyle[epsf]{article}

3: \oddsidemargin 0.3in

4: \textwidth 5.9in

5: \topmargin 0in

6: \headheight 0in

7: \headsep 0in

8: %\topmargin -.40in

9: %this was put in for Los Alamos, before I realized that with this version of

10: %tex, putting in

11: % left the \headheight and \headsep at their default values (.17 and .35 in, resp

12: % -- p. 225 in latex book). so total would be  1.52 down from top). to cure this,

13: %I could either put in a \topmargin -0.51in, or put \headheight 0in, \headsep 0in.

14: \textheight 9in

15: \parskip .03in

16: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.3}

17: %

18: \def\pri{^{\, \prime}}

19: \def\prii{^{\,\prime \prime}}

20: \def\ra{\rightarrow}

21: \def\pria#1{^{\, \prime #1}}

22: \def\prd#1{{\em Phys.~Rev.}~{\bf D#1}\ }

23: \def\prb#1{{\em Phys.~Rev.}~{\bf B#1}\ }

24: \def\prl#1{{\em Phys.~Rev.~Lett.}~{\bf #1}\ }

25: \def\plett#1{{\em Phys.~Lett.}~{\bf #1B}\ }

26: \def\np#1{{\em Nucl.~Phys.}~{\bf B#1}\ }

27: \def\deg{\ifmmode{^{\circ}}\else ${^{\circ}}$\fi}

28: \def\ni#1{\noindent$(#1)\quad$}

29: \def\nib#1{\noindent{\bf{#1}.}$\quad$}

30: \def\itm#1{\item[$(#1)$]}

31: \def\gsim{\,\raisebox{-0.13cm}{$\stackrel{\textstyle>}{\textstyle\sim}$}\,}

32: \def\lsim{\,\raisebox{-0.13cm}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\textstyle\sim}$}\,}

33: \def\bi{\begin{itemize}}

34: \def\ei{\end{itemize}}

35: \def\ed{\end{document}}

36: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

37: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

38: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

39: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

40: \def\beas{\begin{eqnarray*}}

41: \def\eeas{\end{eqnarray*}}

42: \def\req#1{(\ref{eq:#1})}

43: \def\eq#1{Eq.~(\ref{eq:#1})}

44: \def\labeq#1{\label{eq:#1}}

45: \def\vev#1{\left<{#1}\right>}

46: \def\tfrac#1#2{{\textstyle\frac{#1}{#2}}}

47: %

48: \def\half{\frac{1}{2}}

49: \def\quarter{\frac{1}{4}}

50: \def\thalf{\tfrac{1}{2}}

51: \def\tquarter{\tfrac{1}{4}}

52: \def\tthird{\tfrac{1}{3}}

53: \def\tsixth{\tfrac{1}{6}}

54: %

55: \def\ev{\ \mbox{eV}}

56: \def\gev{\ \mbox{GeV}}

57: \def\tev{\ \mbox{TeV}}

58: \def\mev{\ \mbox{MeV}}

59: \def\kev{\ \mbox{KeV}}

60: %

61: \def\eps{\epsilon}

62: \def\index{n_{\rm ref}}

63: \def\gsim{\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\stackrel{>}{\sim}$}}

64: \def\lsim{\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\stackrel{<}{\sim}$}}

65: %

66: \def\hedd#1{\noindent{\large\bf #1}\medskip}

67: \def\eb{\end{thebibliography}}

68: \def\nl{\newline}

69: \def\nn{\nonumber}

70: \def\nns{\nn\\[.1in]}

71: \def\nlni{\nl\noindent}

72: \def\labeq#1{\label{eq:#1}}

73: \def\req#1{(\ref{eq:#1})}

74: \def\eq#1{Eq.~(\ref{eq:#1})}

75: \def\bb{\bibitem}

76: \def\pd#1#2{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}

77: \def\co#1{${\cal O}(#1)$}

78: \def\ov#1{\overline{#1}}

79: \def\order#1{\ifmmode {{\cal O}(#1)}\else ${\cal O}(#1)$\fi}

80: %

81: \def\rl{\rho_{\Lambda}}

82: \def\rlq{\ifmmode\rl^{\; 1/4}\else $\rl^{\; 1/4}$\fi}

83: \def\nf{\ifmmode N_f\else $N_f\ $\fi}

84: \def\tnf{2\nf}

85: \def\sut{\ifmmode SU(2)\pri\else $SU(2)\pri$\fi}

86: \def\lsut{\ifmmode \Lambda_{\sut}\else $\Lambda_{\sut}$\fi}

87: \def\agp{\alpha_{\rm GUT}\pri}

88: \def\tpt{\frac{T\pri}{T}}

89: \def\fct{F_c/T}

90: \def\tc{T_c}

91: \def\p{\Phi}

92: \def\pd{\p^{\dagger}}

93: \def\pdp{\pd\p}

94: \def\tr{\mbox{Tr}}

95: \def\lm{\lambda}

96: \def\lw{\lm_1}

97: \def\lt{\lm_2}

98: \def\lb{{\bar\lm}}

99: \def\lbt{\lb_2}

100: \def\ppl{\phi_+}

101: \def\pp{\phi\pri}

102: \def\rp{r\pri}

103: \def\ttc{T/\tc}

104: \def\vbar{{\overline V}}

105: %

106: \begin{document}

107: \begin{titlepage}

108: \begin{flushright}

109: {\sl NUB-3208/00-Th}\\

110: %{\sl March 2000}\\

111: hep-ph/0003197

112: \end{flushright}

113: \vskip 0.5in

114: 

115: \begin{center}

116: {\Large\bf Proposal for a Constant Cosmological Constant}\\ [.5in] {Haim

117: Goldberg}\\ [.1in]

118: %

119: {\it Department of Physics\\ Northeastern University\\ Boston, MA 02115, USA}\\

120: %

121: \end{center}

122: \vskip 0.4in

123: 

124: \begin{abstract}

125: It is proposed that the apparent positive acceleration of the cosmological

126: scale factor is due to the vacuum energy of an incomplete chiral phase

127: transition in a hidden $SU(2)$ sector. Constraints from primordial

128: nucleosynthesis imply that the present metastable phase is in a substantially

129: supercooled state. It is argued that  massless chiral condensates can

130: substantially enhance the possibility of supercooling, and a linear sigma

131: model exhibiting scale invariance broken only at the quantum level is shown to

132: accommodate the required supercooling with a reasonable choice of

133: quartic couplings. The extensive supercooling can in principle be

134: confirmed or rejected on the basis of interface tension measurements

135: in lattice simulations with dynamical fermions.

136: %The hidden $SU(2)$

137: %has a coupling constant $\alpha\simeq \frac{1}{35}$ at GUT energies,

138: %which can be the consequence of residing on a  brane different from ours,

139: %one with slightly larger compact dimensions.

140: \end{abstract}

141: \end{titlepage}

142: \setcounter{page}{2}

143: 

144: \section{Introduction}

145: There is accumulating evidence that the expansion rate of the universe is

146: greater now than in the past \cite{perlmutter}. The data, taken alone or in

147: conjunction with constraints from large scale structure \cite{turnperlwhite},

148: are compatible (in a flat universe)

149: with a contribution $\Omega_{\Lambda}\simeq 0.7$ from a

150: cosmological constant

151: $\Lambda $ or its equivalent. Cluster abundance estimates for

152: the matter fraction  $\Omega_{matter}$ of the critical density, combined with

153: an analysis \cite{dodelson} of CMB observations in the Doppler peak region

154: (which

155: support the inflation prediction  $\Omega_{tot}=1$)

156: are also compatible with such a contribution to the ``dark energy''.

157: The resulting energy density is given by

158: \be

159: \rl=(2.2\times 10^{-3}\ {\rm eV})^4\cdot

160: (\Omega_{\Lambda}/0.7) \cdot(h/0.65)^2\ \ ,

161: \labeq{rholambda}

162: \ee

163: where $h=$ present Hubble constant $H_0$ in units of 100 km/sec/Mpc. The

164: introduction of a non-zero value for $\rl$ or its equivalent presents an

165: important challenge to particle physicists and cosmologists. Even if one

166: concedes ignorance and simply accepts as premise that the universe is relaxing

167: to a state with $\rl=0$ \cite{witten},  there  still remains the perplexing

168: question of the origin of a mass scale $\rlq\sim 10^{-3}$ eV which makes $\rl$

169: relevant in the present era. Discussion in recent years has centered on models

170: in which $\Lambda$ becomes time-dependent, originating in the energy density of

171: a scalar field $\phi$ evolving in a potential $V(\phi).$ One candidate for

172: $\phi$ is a pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson (axion)  in a harmonic potential

173: associated with the breaking of a $U(1)$ symmetry to $Z_N$ \cite{hillross}. The

174: cosmological consequences of this scenario depend on both the normalization of

175: the potential $M^4$ and the scale $f$ at which the $U(1)$ symmetry is realized

176: in the Goldstone mode, and there have been studies \cite{FriemanHillWatkins,

177: FriemanHillStebbinsWaga} where the parameters make the model relevant

178: to late-time cosmology, including recent applications to the

179: SNeIa results \cite{FriemanWaga,CormierHolman}. The required scale

180: $M\sim 10^{-3}\ev$ can be associated with a

181: neutrino mass \cite{FriemanHillWatkins} or

182: with the confining scale of a hidden gauge theory \cite{Starkman},  $\phi$ being

183: the axion. In quintessence models  \cite{peebles,steinhardt}, $\phi$  evolves

184: so that the late-time behavior of the dark energy density $\rho_{\phi}$ is

185: largely independent of initial conditions. What remains  to be tuned by hand is

186: the parameter in the potential which allows for a positive acceleration of the

187: scale parameter during the SNeIa era relevant to the observations of Ref.

188: \cite{perlmutter}. The origin of the field $\phi,$ the form of its potential,

189: and its relation to other physics remain to be explained \cite{albrecht}.

190: 

191: In this paper, I would like to propose that the dark energy $\rl$ is not

192: evolving, but is the false vacuum energy associated with an incomplete chiral

193: phase transition in a hidden \sut\ gauge theory with strong scale $\sim\rlq.$

194: It will be seen that in the context of modern D-brane physics, the scale

195: $\rlq$ for the vacuum energy can be accommodated in a

196: natural manner in a supersymmetric GUT theory. Instead, the central problem will

197: be to explain how  a low temperature

198: $T_{hidden}<T_{\rm CMB}\simeq \tfrac{1}{10} \rlq$ can be sustained

199: for the quark-gluon

200: phase of the (supercooled) plasma of the hidden sector. Such a high degree of

201: supercooling can potentially be tested in lattice simulations. In the present work,

202: it will strongly constrain the effective field theory.

203: The model is described in the

204: next section, and some possible advantages as an alternative to the scalar field

205: scenario are mentioned in the concluding section.

206: 

207: \section{The Model}

208: 

209: I will consider a hidden unbroken \sut\  Yang-Mills theory whose low energy

210: matter content is \nf Dirac fermions (2\nf Weyl fermions) with vector-like

211: coupling to the gauge field. (For now, hidden sector quantities will be denoted

212: by a prime.) Except for gravitational interactions, this

213: \sut\  is completely decoupled from all standard model fields. The choice of

214: \sut\ is doubly motivated: (1) the running of the gauge coupling is slow,

215: so that the scale  \lsut\ can be pushed to values approximating

216: \rlq\ \cite{FriemanHillWatkins} (2) there will be fewer  massless degrees of freedom

217: to perturb the successful scenario of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), a

218: critical requirement of the model. The hidden nature of the \sut\ will be

219: discussed when the coupling requirement at GUT energies is obtained.

220: 

221: 

222: Since the theory will be considered to have evolved from GUT energies, the

223: supersymmetric version becomes relevant.

224: % (with $\lsut\ll M_{SUSY}$, so that there

225: %is no dynamical breaking of supersymmetry).

226: The matter content then consists

227: solely of

228: 2\nf chiral \sut\ doublet superfields $Q_i (i=1\ldots 2\nf).$ In order to

229: preserve the low energy chiral phase transition, \sut\ singlet, flavor

230: antisymmetric  mass terms $\sim Q_iQ_j-Q_jQ_i$ must be prohibited by  a

231: discrete symmetry $(R$-invariance or $Z_N, N>2$ symmetry). Next,  the

232: 1-loop RG equation relates the gauge coupling at GUT

233: $\agp$ and the strong coupling scale \lsut:

234: \bea

235: \frac{2\pi}{\agp}&=&b_2^{\rm SUSY}\ln\left( \frac{M_{\rm GUT}}{1\ {\rm

236: TeV}}\right) + b_2^{\rm non-SUSY} \ln\left(\frac{1\ {\rm TeV}}{\lsut}\right)\nns

237: b_2^{\rm SUSY}&=&6-\nf\nn\\

238: b_2^{\rm non-SUSY}&=&\tfrac{22}{3}-\tfrac{2}{3}\nf\ \ ,

239: \labeq{rg}

240: \eea

241: so that for $M_{\rm GUT}=2\times 10^{16}\ {\rm GeV},$ $\lsut=\rlq=2.2\times

242: 10^{-3}\ {\rm eV}$ one obtains

243: 

244: \be \agp {}^{-1}= 68.6-8.46\ \nf\ \ .

245: \labeq{algp}\ee

246: 

247: The major premise of the model is the existence of a false vacuum at present. A

248: first order phase transition driven by fluctuations of chiral condensates

249: is strongly indicated by

250: theoretical arguments \cite{amit,wilczek,kogut}, most cleanly for

251: $\nf\ge 4.$ From \eq{algp}, it would seem that unification with standard model

252: couplings ($\alpha_{\rm GUT}\simeq\tfrac{1}{25}$) can be achieved with a choice

253: $\nf=5;$ however,  this would elevate the number of Goldstone

254: degrees of freedom below the critical temperature $(=2\nf^2-\nf-1)$

255: \cite{peskin} to a

256: value larger than the effective number of quark-gluon degrees of freedom

257: $(=7\nf+6),$ presumably vitiating the first order phase transition. Thus I

258: choose $\nf=4,$ and

259: \eq{algp} gives

260: \be

261: \agp \simeq \tfrac{1}{35}\ne \alpha_{\rm GUT} \ \ .

262: \labeq{algpp}

263: \ee

264: Such a disparity in GUT-scale gauge couplings is not difficult to accommodate in

265: current formulations of string theory, with gauge fields residing in open

266: strings tied to D-branes. If, for example, the standard model gauge group lives

267: on a 5-brane and the hidden \sut\  on another 5-brane (orthogonal with

268: respect to the

269: compactified 2-tori) \cite{shiutye}, the ratio of the gauge couplings would be

270: inversely proportional to the volumes of the 2-tori:

271: 

272: \be \frac{\agp}{\alpha_{\rm GUT}}=\frac{v_2}{v_2\pri}\ \ .

273: \labeq{tori}

274: \ee

275: Thus, a 20\% difference in toroidal moduli could account for the disparity in

276: the $\alpha$'s.

277: 

278: \subsection*{Temperature Constraints}

279: Having established a model, one can quickly ascertain the constraints which

280: follow from BBN. The hidden sector energy density $\rho\pri$ of the \sut\

281: gauge fields and 2\nf\  Weyl doublets, relative to a single species of

282: left-handed neutrino is given by

283: \be

284: \left.\frac{\rho\pri}{\rho_{\nu_e}}\right|_{BBN}=

285: \left(\frac{7\nf+6}{(7/4)}\right)\left.\left(\tpt\right)^4\right|_{BBN}\ \ .

286: \labeq{bbna}

287: \ee

288: Requiring this ratio to be $\le 0.3$ \cite{bbn} implies (for $\nf=4)$

289: \be

290: \left.\tpt\right|_{BBN}\le 0.353 \ \ .

291: \labeq{bbnb}

292: \ee

293: Much of  this can  be accounted for through reheat processes in the visible

294: sector. Assuming no reheat for the hidden sector for energies below the

295: electroweak scale, one finds

296: \bea

297: \left.\tpt\right|_{BBN}&=&\left(\frac{g^*(BBN)}{g^*(>EW)}\right)^{1/3}\left.

298: \tpt\right|_{>EW}\\

299: &=&\left(\frac{10.75}{106.75}\right)^{1/3}\left.

300: \tpt\right|_{>EW}\ =\ 0.465\left.

301: \tpt\right|_{>EW}\ \ ,

302: \labeq{bbnc}

303: \eea

304: where $>EW$ denotes temperatures above the electroweak scale. In order to

305: comply with the BBN requirement (Eq. 6) an additional suppression of $T\pri/T$

306: above the electroweak scale by a factor of 0.76 is required. Here one can

307: invoke an asymmetric post-inflation reheat into visible and hidden sector

308: quanta \cite{mohapatra}. In the slow reheat scenario \cite{abbott},

309: $T_{reheat}$ is proportional to the coupling of the inflaton to the quanta

310: \cite{lindebook}, so

311: that a ratio of couplings of the same order as the ratio of the $\alpha$'s

312: \req{algpp} could provide the desired additional suppression. This reheat

313: asymmetry could have the same origin as the $\alpha$ asymmetry, if the inflaton

314: originates in the modular sector. Asymmetric reheating also obtains in the

315: case of parametric resonance \cite{linde} because of the asymmetric coupling

316: \cite{mohapatra}.

317: 

318: Because of $e^+e^-$ annihilation, the present $T\pri$ is further depressed

319: relative to the present CMB temperature by the same

320: $(4/11)^{1/3}$ factor as with neutrinos. Thus, together with \req{bbnb},

321: one obtains

322: $(T\pri_{\rm now}/T_{\rm CMB})\le

323: 0.251.$ Since $T_{\rm CMB}=2.35\times 10^{-4}\ {\rm eV} = 0.11\ \rlq,$

324: one finds

325: \be

326: T\pri_{\rm now}/\rlq \le 0.028\ \ .

327: \labeq{tnow}

328: \ee

329: This suggests a great deal of supercooling, which needs to be accommodated.

330: The calculations in this work will require the ratio $\ttc$ ($\tc$

331: is the critical

332: temperature\footnote{From here on, all temperatures will be understood to be

333: hidden sector temperatures, and the primes will be omitted.}) which in turn

334: requires knowledge of the ratio $\rlq/T_c.$ This will be calculable in the

335: effective field theory to be discussed.

336: 

337: \subsection*{Supercooling}

338: In the standard formulation of first order phase transitions via critical

339: bubble formation \cite{landau,alcock} the condition for {\em failure} to

340: complete a phase transition in the expanding universe at (hidden) temperature

341: $T$ is \cite{guth}

342: \be (T/H(T))^4\ e^{-\fct}< 1\ \ ,

343: \labeq{crita}

344: \ee

345: where $F_c$ is the free energy of a critical bubble, and $H(T)$ is the Hubble

346: constant at temperature $T.$ With $H_0\simeq 2.2\times 10^{-33}\ h$ eV,

347: $T=0.28\ T_{\rm CMB},$ one obtains the condition for failure to nucleate

348: \be \fct> 260\ \ .

349: \labeq{critb}

350: \ee

351: In the thin wall approximation, the bubble has  a well-defined surface tension

352: $\sigma,$ and the picture is consistent only for small supercooling below

353: $\tc.$ The bubble action is given by \cite{landau,alcock}

354: %\be \fct=(16\pi/3) \left[\sigma^3/\left(L^2\eta^2\tc\right)\right]\ \ ,

355: \be \frac{F_c}{T}=\frac{16\pi}{3}\ \frac{\sigma^3}{L^2\eta^2\tc}\ \ ,\labeq{fcta}

356: \ee

357: where $L$ is the latent heat and $\eta=(\tc-T)/\tc.$ Thus, a failure to

358: nucleate via thin-walled bubbles requires a large surface tension,

359: $\sigma/\tc^3\ \gsim\  1.$ In lattice studies of quenched QCD \cite{iwasaki},

360: the interface tension between confined and deconfined phases is small:

361: $\sigma/\tc^3\simeq 0.1.$ However, a simple

362: calculation \cite{pokrovskii} based on the MIT bag model \cite{BagModel} suggests

363: that the picture can change  drastically in

364: the presence of chiral condensates: in that case,

365: \be \sigma=-\tquarter\sum_{i=1}^{N_f} \vev{\bar q_iq_i}\ \ .

366: \labeq{pokrov}\ee

367: which for QCD $(\tc\simeq 150\ \mev, \vev{\bar q_iq_i}

368: \simeq -(240\ \mev)^3$ per flavor) would give a large surface tension,

369: $\sigma\simeq 4\tc^3,$ possibly invalidating the thin-wall

370: approximation.\footnote{This would give an average distance

371: between nucleation sites of

372: about 10 m \cite{kajantie}, perhaps marginally affecting

373: primordial light element abundances \cite{alcocka}.} A

374: full analysis of the unquenched QCD situation is probably best carried in the

375: framework of a mean field theory \cite{campbell}. I will proceed in the context

376: of such a theory to see what constraints are imposed on the \sut\ model in order

377: to attain the desired metastability (\eq{critb}) until the present era.

378: 

379: \section{Linear Sigma Model for \sut\ with \nf Flavors.}

380: The symmetry breaking pattern of color \sut\  with \nf flavors has long been

381: known \cite{peskin}, and a  linear sigma model for this case has recently been

382: examined \cite{wirstam}. Such a  model will serve conveniently to study the

383: chiral phase transition. The meson and diquark baryon fields

384: are contained in the $\tnf\times \tnf$ antisymmetric matrix $\p_{ij}=-\p_{ji},$

385: with chiral symmetry breaking occurring in $Sp(\tnf)$ direction \cite{peskin}

386: compatible with the

387: Vafa-Witten theorem \cite{vafa,peskin,koguta}

388: \be

389: \left<\p\right>_0=\frac{\phi_0}{\sqrt{2(\tnf)}}\left(

390: \begin{array}{ccc}

391: {\bf 0}& {\bf 1}\\

392: {\bf -1} & {\bf 0}

393: \end{array}\right)\ee

394: where $\bf 0$ and $\bf 1$ are $\nf\times \nf$ matrices. The lagrangian is

395: \be {\cal L}=\tr\ \partial^{\mu}\p\partial_{\mu}\p -

396: m^2\ \tr\ \pdp-\lw\left(\tr\ \pdp\right)^2-\lt\tr\ \pdp\pdp\ \ .

397: \labeq{lagr}

398: \ee

399: I have omitted a term $\propto \mbox{Pf}(\p)+\mbox{Pf}(\pd)$ arising from the

400: axial anomaly. Since I will be working with $\nf=4,$ this additional operator

401: quartic in the fields will not qualitatively change  the discussion which follows.

402: Stability in all field directions requires $\lt\ge 0,\ \lw+\lt/\tnf\ge 0.$

403: 

404: Specializing now to the field $\phi$ in the direction of the vev, one obtains

405: \bea

406: {\cal L}_0& = &\thalf(\partial_{\mu}\phi)^2 -V(\phi)\ \ ,\nns

407: V(\phi)&=&\thalf\ m^2\phi^2+\tquarter\ \lb\phi^4\ \ ,\nns

408: \lb&=&\lw+\lbt,\ \ \lbt=\lt/\tnf \ \ .

409: \labeq{ello}

410: \eea

411: With finite temperature corrections (restricted for

412: simplicity to the $m^2$ term) and the introduction of a running quartic

413: coupling,

414: one obtains the effective potential

415: \be

416: V(\phi,T)= \thalf\ m^2(T)\phi^2 + \tquarter\ \lb(t)\phi^4\ \ ,

417: \labeq{veff}

418: \ee

419: where $t=\ln(\phi/\phi_0)$, and $m^2$ has the standard $T$-corrected form

420: \be

421: m^2(T)=A(T^2-T_0^2)\ \ .

422: \labeq{msq}

423: \ee

424: In the model described, $A$ can be calculated, and I find at one loop

425: \be

426: A=\tfrac{1}{12}\left[(\tnf(\tnf-1)+2) \lb + (6\nf(\tnf-1)-2)\lbt\right]\ \ .

427: \labeq{a}

428: \ee

429: The $\epsilon$ expansion analysis of the model described by \req{lagr} shows

430: that it allows a first order phase transition through a Coleman-Weinberg

431: mechanism  at $T=T_0,$ when $m^2(T)=0$ \cite{wirstam}.

432: However,

433: it will  shortly be apparent that the large supercooling will

434: require that  $T_0^2\ll T_c^2.$  This (approximate) conformal invariance at tree level in the chiral lagrangian (to be discussed below)  in turn suggests

435: that

436: chiral symmetry breaking at {\em zero temperature}  in this model

437: also proceeds through radiative

438: corrections (Coleman-Weinberg) \cite{coleman}. Thus, to lowest order (see

439: \eq{yamag} below)

440: \be

441: \lb(t)=-\lm(1-4t)\ \ ,\quad \lm\equiv -\lb(0)\ \ .

442: \labeq{lamb}

443: \ee

444: where $t=0$ is defined by the minimum of the second term in

445: \req{veff}.

446: 

447: The vacuum at $\phi=0$ described by the potential \req{veff}

448: becomes metastable at a temperature $T_c$ determined by

449: requiring simultaneously

450: \be

451: V\pri(\ppl)=V(\ppl)=0\ \ ,

452: \labeq{vv}

453: \ee

454: at some field value $\ppl.$ A short algebraic

455: exercise with Eqs. \req{veff}, \req{msq}, \req{lamb}, and \req{vv}

456: determines $\tc:$

457: \be

458: m(\tc)=\sqrt{A(\tc^2-T_0^2)}=\sqrt{\lm}\phi_0e^{-1/4}\ \ .

459: \labeq{tca}

460: \ee

461: \subsection*{Suppression of $m^2$.}

462: For $T_0<T<\tc$ there is a barrier between the false and true vacua. But the

463: extreme supercooling requirement indicated in \eq{tnow} will be seen to impose

464: a large hierarchy, $T_0\ll\tc$ (it will turn out that $T_0\le 0.124 T_c.)$

465: There is no obvious argument to justify this hierarchy --- it is simply

466: required in this model for compatibility with the supercooling requirement.

467: Nevertheless, two comments may be made: (1) A quantitative comparison with the

468: linear $SU(3)\times SU(3)$ sigma model (whose dynamics differs through the

469: presence of the cubic term) is perhaps instructive. In that case, the

470: coefficient $A$ is obtained as a sum over the massive mesons \cite{dolan},

471: $A=\tfrac{1}{12}\sum_{i}M_i^2/v^2,$ where $v\simeq f_{\pi}.$ With $M_i\simeq 1$

472: GeV,  one estimates  $A\simeq 83.$ Since $T_0=\sqrt{-\mu^2/A},$ where

473: $\mu^2\simeq

474: -0.15\ \gev^2$ \cite{haymaker} is the temperature-independent (negative) mass

475: parameter, we find $T_0\simeq 43$ MeV $\simeq 0.24 \tc.$ This may provide a

476: normative expectation for $T_0/\tc.$ (2) In $SU(N)$ gauge theories with $N_f$

477: massless fermion flavors, a {\em continuous} transition to an approximately

478: conformal phase (which would imply $m^2=0)$ is suggested at some value of

479: $N_f/N<11/2\ \cite{appelquist}.$ Some analytic studies

480: \cite{appelquist,schechter} indicate $N_f/N\approx 4$ as a critical value,

481: while a QCD lattice study \cite{mawhinney} show hints of a suppression of the

482: chiral condensate (expected in the transition to the conformal phase

483: \cite{appelquist}) for a smaller value, $N_f/N=\frac{4}{3}$ ($SU(3)$ with 4

484: flavors). Perhaps the ratio in the present case $(N_f/N=2)$ is sufficiently

485: large to significantly suppress the zero temperature $m^2$ term in the

486: effective lagrangian

487: --- a lattice study of chiral symmetry breaking in

488: $SU(2)$ with $N_f=4$ could in principle shed light on

489: this question. At any rate, at this juncture I accept the hierarchy

490: $T_0\ll\tc,$ and simplify matters even more by setting

491: \be

492: T_0=0

493: \labeq{teqz}

494: \ee

495: in \eq{msq}. In such a model, with {\em two} coupling constants, the chiral

496: invariance is broken at $T=0$ in the Coleman-Weinberg manner

497: \cite{coleman,paterson}. For $T\ne 0,$ the transition becomes first order, as

498: described in the previous section.

499: 

500: 

501: \subsection*{Critical Bubbles.}

502: For $T\ne 0$ it will prove convenient to rescale $\phi=m(T)\pp/2\sqrt{\lambda},$

503: so that using Eqs. \req{veff}, \req{lamb} and  \req{tca} one may write

504: \bea

505: V &\equiv& \frac{m^4(T)}{4\lm}\ \vbar\nns

506: \vbar &=& \thalf{\pp}^{\ 2}+\tquarter{\pp}^{\ 4}\

507: \left[ \ln((m(T)/m(T_c))\pp)/2-\thalf\right]\nns

508: &=&\thalf{\pp}^{\ 2}+\tquarter{\pp}^{\ 4}\

509: \left[ \ln((\ttc)\pp/2)-\thalf\right]\ \

510: \labeq{barv}

511: \eea

512: for $T_0=0.$

513: 

514: The O(3) symmetric free energy for a critical bubble formed at temperature

515: $T$ is given by

516: \cite{colemanb}

517: \bea

518: F_c&=&4\pi\

519: \frac{m(T)}{4\lm}\int^{\infty}_{0}d\rp{\rp}^2\left[\thalf

520: %\left(\frac{d\pp}{d\rp}\right)^2 + \vbar(\pp,\ttc)\right)\nns

521: \left(d\pp/d\rp\right)^2 + \vbar(\pp,\ttc)\right]\nns

522: &\equiv&\frac{m(T)}{4\lm}\ f(\ttc)

523: \labeq{fctb}

524: \eea

525: where $\rp=m(T)r.$ The field $\pp$ is the solution to

526: \be

527: \frac{d^2\pp}{d{\rp}^2}+\frac{2}{\rp}\ \frac{d\pp}{d\rp} = \frac{\partial

528: \vbar}{\partial \pp}\ \ .

529: \labeq{eqmotion}

530: \ee

531: subject to $\left.d\pp/d\rp\right|_{\rp=0}=0,\ \pp(\infty)=0.$ With the help of

532: Eqs. \req{msq}, \req{a} and \req{teqz} the bubble action can then be calculated

533: more explicitly in terms of the the quantity $f(\ttc).$

534: For $\nf=4,$ I obtain

535: 

536: \bea

537: \fct&=&\sqrt{A}/(4\lm)\ f(\ttc)\nns

538: %&=&\sqrt{29\lb + 83\lbt}/(4\sqrt{6}\lm)\ \ f(\ttc)\ \ .

539: &=&\sqrt{\tfrac{29}{6}\lb + \tfrac{83}{6}\lbt}/(4\lm)\ \ f(\ttc)\ \ .

540: \labeq{fctc}

541: \eea

542: 

543: At this point, I implement the condition of radiative symmetry breaking  (at

544: $T=0$) in the two-parameter $(\lb,\lbt)$

545: space. This imposes the condition \cite{yamagishi}

546: \be

547: -4\lb(0)=4\lm=\beta_{\lb}(0)\ \ .

548: \labeq{yamag}

549: \ee

550: {}From the one-loop RG equations \cite{wirstam}, for

551: $\lbt(0)\gg\left|\lb(0)\right|,$ but

552: $\lbt(0)$ still perturbative (this

553: will be justified {\em a posteriori}), \eq{yamag} gives

554: \be

555: \lbt(0)= \left(4\pi/\sqrt{4\nf^2-2\nf-2}\ \right)\sqrt{-\lb(0)}=(4\pi/\sqrt{54})\sqrt{\lm}\

556: \ \ ,

557: \labeq{lbtlm}

558: \ee

559: and hence in the same approximation

560: \be

561: A\simeq \tfrac{83}{6}\tfrac{4\pi}{\sqrt{54}}\ \sqrt{\lm}\ \ .

562: \labeq{aa}

563: \ee

564: Thus the bubble action can be written entirely in terms of the coupling

565: constant $\lm=-\lb(0):$

566: \bea

567: \fct& =&\sqrt{\tfrac{4\pi}{\sqrt{54}}\tfrac{83}{6}\sqrt{\lm}}/(4\lm)\ \

568: f(\ttc)\nns

569: &\simeq & 1.22\ f(\ttc)\ \lm^{-3/4}

570: \ \  .

571: \eea

572: We now require the ratio $\ttc.$ From \eq{tnow}, one needs to relate the

573: vacuum energy $\rho_{\Lambda}$ to $\tc.$ At $T=0,\ m(T)=0,$ Eqs. \req{veff},

574: \req{lamb}, \req{tca}, \req{teqz} and \req{aa} give

575: \bea

576: \rho_{\Lambda} &=& V(0)-V(\phi_0)\nns

577: &=&\tquarter \lm\ \phi_0^4\nns

578: &=&\tquarter e A^2\tc^4/\lm\nns

579: &=&(4.4\tc)^4\ \ .

580: \labeq{rhol}

581: \eea

582: Combining this with \eq{tnow}, we have the supercooling requirement

583: \be

584: \ttc\le 0.124\ \ .

585: \labeq{ttc}

586: \ee

587: The bubble action may now be evaluated numerically, and I find

588: $f(0.124)=6.61.$ Since $f(\ttc)$ is a uniformly decreasing function of $\ttc,$

589: I obtain (using \req{critb}) the condition for no nucleation until the present

590: era

591: \be

592: 260\le\fct\le (1.22)(6.61)\ \lm^{-3/4} \ \ ,

593: \labeq{critd}

594: \ee

595: giving a bound on $\lm,$

596: \be

597: \lm\le 0.010,\ \mbox{or}\ -0.010\le\lb(0)\le 0\ \ .

598: \labeq{lambound}

599: \ee

600: 

601: \subsection*{Fine Tuning?}

602: 

603: Does the bound \req{lambound} represent a substantial fine tuning? In an

604: attempt to answer this question, I have presented in Figure 1 the

605: renormalization group flow in the $\lb-\lbt$ plane over less than or equal to

606: %one $e$-folding

607: a decade

608: $\left[(t\le \ln(10))\rightarrow (t=0)\right]$ for those

609: trajectories which begin in the

610: stability region and satisfy the requirement \req{lambound}. It is seen

611: that (1) a reasonable piece of the coupling constant phase space is

612: available

613: (2) the couplings are perturbative but not particularly small  over

614: much of the RG flow and

615: %(2) $\lbt$ is not particularly small (but is still perturbative) and

616: (3) over some of the phase space $\lb$  reaches values of the order of the

617: electroweak Higgs coupling. (In the same normalization, $\lambda_{H}=

618: 0.08\ (m_H/100\ \gev)^2.)$

619: \begin{figure}[ht]

620: \begin{center}

621: \epsfxsize=4.8 in

622: \epsfysize=4.2 in

623: \hfil

624: \epsffile{rengenfoura.eps}

625: \hfil

626: \caption{

627: Basin of attraction (for $t\le \ln(10)$) to relevant parameter space

628: (\eq{lambound}) at $t=0$. Region to right of dashed line is stable for all

629: field directions.

630:  }

631: \label{rengenf}

632: \end{center}

633: \end{figure}

634: 

635: 

636: 

637: 

638: 

639: 

640: 

641: A summary of  results and concluding remarks follows.

642: 

643: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}

644: 

645: \ni{1}A model has been presented  which can generate a cosmological constant

646: of magnitude to

647: account for $\Omega_{\Lambda}\simeq 0.7$ during the present era. The present

648: quasi-deSitter phase is driven by the false vacuum energy associated with

649: the supercooled

650: phase of an incomplete chiral phase transition in a hidden  gauge theory.

651: The

652: very small energy scale

653: $\rlq\simeq 2\times 10^{-3}$ eV for the vacuum energy appears as the strong

654: interaction scale for a hidden \sut\  whose coupling runs from GUT energies, with

655: coupling at GUT not quite unifying with the standard model couplings. Having

656: this \sut\ and the standard model fields reside on different  branes

657: presents a simple solution to this disparity.

658: 

659: \ni{2}An unchanging vacuum energy has some advantages over evolving

660: primordial scalar fields as an origin of the present near-deSitter phase: the

661: problem of protecting the tiny curvature of the potential \cite{kolda, carroll}

662: is circumvented, as is the necessity (in quintessence models) to control the

663: contribution of dark energy during nucleosynthesis \cite{albrecht}.

664: 

665: \ni{3}BBN considerations imply  large supercooling  in the metastable quark-gluon

666: plasma of the present phase. Although present lattice simulations indicate only

667: small supercooling in the {\em quenched} approximation of Yang-Mills theory,

668: theoretical considerations indicate that large supercooling is possible in the

669: presence of chiral condensates. A linear sigma model with two quartic

670: couplings was analyzed in which  all symmetry breaking takes place via

671: dimensional transmutation. In this model the existence of substantial

672: supercooling does not  require fine tuning in the coupling constant space. The

673: existence of a large interface energy in an $SU(2)$ theory with $\nf=4$ dynamical

674: quarks would provide incisive support for this model.

675: 

676: \ni{4}A pivotal requirement in this scenario is the near-scale invariance of the

677: chiral lagrangian. This was briefly discussed in the text in terms of the ratio

678: $N_f/N\ (=2$ in the present work). A hint

679: of the continuous approach to a

680: conformal phase may be suggested in the observed weakening of the chiral

681: phase transition  in a lattice study  \cite{mawhinney} of four flavor

682: QCD with

683: $N_f/N$ as small as 4/3.

684: 

685: \ni{5}The bound $\lm\le 0.010$ (\eq{lambound}) does not change drastically with a

686: tighter bound on the extra effective number of neutrinos. For example, with a

687: requirement

688: $\Delta N_{eff}\le 0.1,$ I find instead of \req{lambound} the bound

689: $\lm\le 0.0086.$ This would also involve a small amount of extra

690: reheating in the visible sector between the GUT and electroweak scales.

691: 

692: \ni{5}Although the phase transition discussed in this paper is long overdue, it

693: may not be catastrophic when it occurs. The nucleation occurs via very

694: thick-walled bubbles, so that the drastic shock-wave scenario depicted in the

695: thin-walled case \cite{colemanb} is perhaps not inevitable.

696: 

697: \subsection*{Acknowledgement} I would like to thank Gary Steigman for

698: comments and for drawing attention to an arithmetic error in \eq{bbnc}

699: in the original version of the manuscript. This research was supported

700: in part by the

701: National Science Foundation through Grant No. PHY-9722044.

702: 

703: 

704: 

705: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

706: \bb{perlmutter}S.J Perlmutter {\em et al.,} {\em Nature} {\bf 391} (1998) 51;

707: S.J. Perlmutter {\em et al.,} {\em Astrophys. J.} (1999) 517;

708: A.G. Riess {\em et al.,} {\em Astron. J.} {\bf 116} (1998) 1009.

709: \bb{turnperlwhite}S. Perlmutter, M.S. Turner and  M. White, \plett{83}(1999) 670.

710: \bb{dodelson}S. Dodelson and L. Knox, \prl{84}(2000) 3523.

711: \bb{witten}E. Witten, hep-ph/0002297

712: \bb{hillross}C.T. Hill and G.G. Ross, \np{311}(1988) 253; \plett{203}(1988) 125.

713: \bb{FriemanHillWatkins}J. Frieman, C.T. Hill and R. Watkins, \prd{46}(1992) 1226.

714: \bb{FriemanHillStebbinsWaga}J.A. Frieman, C.T. Hill, A. Stebbins and I. Waga,

715: \prl{75}(1995) 2077; see also K. Coble, S. Dodelson and J. Frieman,

716: \prd{55}(1997) 1851; A. Singh, \prd{52}(1995) 6700.

717: \bb{FriemanWaga}J. Frieman and I. Waga, \prd{57}(1998) 4642.

718: \bb{CormierHolman}D. Cormier and R. Holman, \prl{84}(2000) 5936.

719: \bb{Starkman}G. Starkman, as quoted in Ref.\cite{FriemanHillWatkins}.

720: \bb{peebles}P.J.E. Peebles and B. Ratra, {\em Ap. J. Lett.} {\bf 325} (1988)

721: L17.

722: \bb{steinhardt}R.R Caldwell, R. Dave and P.J. Steinhardt, \prl{80}(1998) 1582;

723: I. Zlatev, L. Wang and P.J. Steinhardt,

724: \prl{82}(1999) 896.

725: \bb{albrecht}For a recent discussion involving only Planck-scale physics, see

726: A. Albrecht and  C. Skordis, \prl{84}(2000) 2076.

727: \bb{amit}H.H. Iacobson and D.J. Amit, {\em Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)} {\bf 133} (1981) 57.

728: \bb{wilczek}R.D. Pisarski and F. Wilczek, \prd{29}(1984) 1984.

729: \bb{kogut}J. Kogut, \np{290}(1987) 1.

730: \bb{coleman}S. Coleman and E. Weinberg, \prd{7}(1973) 1888. As first shown in

731: this paper, two couplings are required in order that the symmetry breaking

732: take place in the perturbative regime.

733: \bb{peskin}M.E. Peskin, \np{175}(1980) 197.

734: \bb{shiutye}G. Shiu and S.-H. Henry Tye, \prd{58}(1998) 106007.

735: \bb{bbn}For recent discussion, see K.A. Olive and D. Thomas,

736: {\em Astropart. Phys.}{\bf 11}(1999) 403; S. Burles, K. Nollett, J. Truran and

737: M.S. Turner, \prl{82}(1999) 4176; E. Lisi, S. Sarkar and F. Villante,

738: \prd{59}(1999) 123520; K.A. Olive, G. Steigman and T.P. Walker,

739: {\em Phys. Rept.} {\bf 333-334} (2000) 389.

740: \bb{mohapatra}Z.G. Berezhiani, A.D. Dolgov and R.N. Mohapatra,

741: \plett{375}(1996) 26.

742: \bb{abbott}L. Abbott, E. Farhi and M. Wise, \plett{117}(1982) 29;

743: \bb{lindebook}A.D. Linde, {\em Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology,}

744: Harwood, Chur, Switzerland 1990.

745: \bb{linde}L. Kofman, A.D. Linde and A.A. Starobinsky, \prl{73}(1994)3195; Y.

746: Shtanov, J. Traschen and R. Brandenberger, \prd{51}(1995) 3438.

747: \bb{landau}L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, {\em Statistical Physics}, pp. 471-474

748: (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).

749: \bb{alcock} G.M. Fuller, G.J. Mathews and C.R. Alcock,

750: \prd{37}(1988) 1380.

751: \bb{guth}A.H. Guth and E.J. Weinberg, \prd{23}(1981) 876.

752: \bb{iwasaki}Y. Iwasaki, K. Kanaya, L. Karkkainen, K. Rummukainen and T. Yoshie,

753: \prd{49}(1994) 3540.

754: \bb{pokrovskii}Yu.E. Pokrovskii, {\em Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 50} (1989) 565.

755: \bb{BagModel}A. Chodos, R.L. Jaffe, K. Johnson and C.B. Thorn, \prd{10}(1974)

756: 2599.

757: \bb{kajantie}C. Alcock {\em et al.,} Ref. \cite{alcock}  incorporating

758: correction  in K. Kajantie, L. Karkkainen and K. Rummukainen,

759: \np{333}(1990) 100.

760: \bb{alcocka}C. Alcock, G.M. Fuller, G.J. Mathews and B. Mayer,

761: {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A498} (1989) 301.

762: \bb{campbell}B.A. Campbell, J. Ellis and K.A. Olive, \np{345}(1990) 57

763: contains a model treatment of the contribution of the gluon condensate to the

764: surface tension. One may note that, purely on dimensional grounds, there

765: is no simple analogue to \eq{pokrov} for the  pure

766: gauge field contribution to the surface tension in terms

767: of the gauge-invariant gluon condensate $\vev{G_{\mu\nu}G^{\mu\nu}}.$

768: \bb{wirstam}J. Wirstam, \prd{62} (2000) 045012.

769: \bb{vafa}C. Vafa and E. Witten, \np{234}(1984) 173.

770: \bb{koguta}J.B. Kogut, M.A. Stephanov and D. Toublan, \plett{464}(1999) 183.

771: \bb{dolan}L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, \prd{9} (1974) 3320.

772: \bb{haymaker}See, for instance, L.-H. Chan and R.W. Haymaker,

773: \prd{10}(1974) 4143.

774: \bb{appelquist}T. Appelquist, J. Terning, and L.C.R. Wijewardhana,

775: \prl{77}(1996) 1214.

776: \bb{schechter}F. Sannino and J. Schechter, \prd{60}(1999) 056004.

777: \bb{mawhinney}R.D. Mawhinney, {\em Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. A} {\bf 60} (1998)

778: 306; hep-lat/9705030; D. Chen and R.D. Mawhinney,

779: {\em Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. } {\bf 53} (1997) 216.

780: \bb{paterson}This has been discussed in  detail for the QCD-based chiral

781: $SU(3)\times SU(3)$ model by A. J. Paterson, \np{190}(1981) 188.

782: \bb{colemanb}S. Coleman, \prd{10}(1977) 2929.

783: \bb{yamagishi}H. Yamagishi, \prd{23}(1981) 1880.

784: \bb{kolda}C. Kolda and D. Lyth, \plett{458}(1999) 197.

785: \bb{carroll}S. M. Carroll, \prl{81}(1998) 367.

786: \eb\ed

787: %

788: To obtain the amount of supercooling, I relate \rlq to the critical temperature

789: by approximating the entropy of the condensed phase by that of the

790: $2\nf^2-2\nf-2$ Goldstones (see above). This gives a latent heat $L\simeq

791: \rlq=T_c(s_{qg}-s_{Goldstones})=(\pi^2/90)(8\nf+7-2\nf^2)T_c^4,$ so that

792: \be T_c\simeq 1.0 \rlq\ \ .\labeq{tc}\ee The scenario then requires a very large

793: amount of supercooling:

794: \be T\pri/T_c\le 0.028

795: 

796: What are the implications of the small coupling for the meson spectrum?  As an

797: example, I calculate the mass of the scalar corresponding to small

798: oscillations in the potential

799: \req{veff} (with

800: $m(T)=0)$ and obtain

801: \be m_S= 12.4 \lm^{1/4}\tc = 4.9 \tc\ \ ,

802: \labeq{mstc}

803: \ee

804: a result not much different from that found in QCD.

805: