1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%
3: %% Rinton-P9x6.tex : 7-28-00
4: %% This Latex2e file rewritten from various sources for use in the
5: %% preparation of the (larger [9''x6'']) single-column proceedings
6: %% Volume
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8: %
9: \documentclass{Rinton-P9x6}
10:
11: \begin{document}
12:
13: \title{Monopole Problem and Extensions of Supersymmetric
14: Hybrid Inflation}
15: \author{R. Jeannerot}
16: \address{SISSA, Via Beirut 2--4, 34013 Trieste, Italy and INFN,
17: sez. di Trieste, Trieste, Italy}
18:
19: \author{S. Khalil}
20: \address{
21: Centre for Theoretical Physics, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1
22: 9QJ,~~U.~K.\\
23: Ain Shams University, Faculty of Science, Cairo, 11566, Egypt.}
24: \author{G. LAZARIDES}
25:
26: \address{Physics Division, School of Technology,
27: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
28: Thessaloniki GR 540 06, Greece}
29:
30: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
31: % You may repeat \author \address as often as necessary %
32: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
33:
34: \maketitle
35:
36: \abstracts{
37: We discuss, in the context of a concrete supersymmetric grand
38: unified model based on the Pati-Salam gauge group $SU(4)_c\times
39: SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$~, two `natural' extensions of supersymmetric
40: hybrid inflation, which avoid the cosmological disaster
41: encountered in the standard hybrid inflationary scenario from the
42: overproduction of monopoles at the end of inflation. Successful
43: `reheating' which satisfies the gravitino constraint takes place
44: after the end of inflation. Also, adequate baryogenesis via a
45: primordial leptogenesis occurs consistently with the solar and
46: atmospheric neutrino oscillation data as well as the $SU(4)_c$
47: symmetry. Moreover, the $\mu$-term is generated via a
48: Peccei-Quinn symmetry and proton is practically stable.}
49:
50:
51:
52: \section{Introduction}
53: \label{sec:introduction}
54:
55: Inflation offers an elegant solution to the outstanding problems of
56: the standard Big-Bang cosmological model and predicts the formation
57: of the large scale structure of the universe and the temperature
58: fluctuations which are observed in the cosmic microwave background
59: radiation (CMBR). It also solves the cosmological problem caused by
60: the overproduction of grand unified theory (GUT) magnetic monopoles
61: as well as other unwanted relics such as domain walls, gravitini or
62: moduli fields.
63:
64: However, the early realizations of inflation require extremely flat
65: potentials and very small coupling constants. To solve this
66: naturalness problem, the hybrid inflationary scenario has been
67: introduced \cite{linde}. The basic idea was to use two real scalar
68: fields $\chi$ and $\sigma$ instead of one that was normally used.
69: The field $\chi$ may be a gauge non-singlet and provides the `vacuum'
70: energy density which drives inflation, while $\sigma$ is the slowly
71: varying field during inflation. This splitting of roles between two
72: fields allows us to reproduce the observed temperature fluctuations
73: of the CMBR with `natural' (not too small) values of the relevant
74: parameters in contrast to previous realizations of inflation.
75:
76: The scalar potential for hybrid inflation possesses a valley of
77: local minima with respect to $\chi$ with large `vacuum' energy
78: density. This valley lies at $\chi=0$ with $\sigma$ being greater
79: than a certain critical (instability) value $\sigma_c$, and has
80: a classical inclination provided by the mass of $\sigma$. The
81: global minima of the potential lie at $\chi\neq 0$ and $\sigma=0$.
82: As the system rolls down the valley of local minima, the slow-roll
83: conditions (see e.g., Ref.\cite{cosmology}) are satisfied and
84: inflation takes place. Inflation ends abruptly as $\sigma$ falls
85: below $\sigma_c$. It is followed by a `waterfall' regime and
86: $\chi$ starts oscillating about a global minimum of the potential
87: acquiring a non-vanishing vacuum expectation value (vev). If
88: $\chi$ is a gauge non-singlet, spontaneous gauge symmetry
89: breaking occurs at the end of inflation, and topological defect
90: can potentially form \cite{smooth}.
91:
92: The simplest framework for realizing hybrid inflation is provided
93: \cite{Cop,dvasha} by supersymmetric (SUSY) GUTs which are based on
94: gauge groups with rank greater than five. The same superpotential
95: which lowers the rank of the gauge group also leads \cite{dvasha}
96: to successful hybrid inflation with `natural' values of the
97: relevant parameter and a gauge symmetry breaking scale of the order
98: of the SUSY GUT scale. The slowly rolling inflaton field belongs to
99: a gauge singlet superfield which couples to a conjugate pair of
100: gauge non-singlet Higgs superfields. The tree-level scalar potential
101: possesses a flat valley of local minima for values of the gauge
102: singlet inflaton greater than a certain critical value. Along this
103: valley, the vevs of the Higgs superfields vanish, there exists
104: a constant non-zero `vacuum' energy density and SUSY is broken.
105: The (classical) flatness of the valley is lifted by the one-loop
106: radiative corrections \cite{dvasha} to the scalar potential
107: which are calculated with the GUT gauge symmetry being restored
108: and SUSY being broken. A variant of Linde's scenario is thus
109: obtained. Inflation ends by a `waterfall' regime as the gauge
110: singlet falls below its critical value, the Higgs fields and the
111: gauge singlet start oscillating about the SUSY minima of the
112: potential where the Higgs vevs are non-zero.
113:
114: If the SUSY vacuum manifold is homotopically non-trivial,
115: topological defects will be copiously formed \cite{smooth} by
116: the Kibble mechanism \cite{kibble} since the system can end up
117: at any point of the vacuum manifold with equal probability. So
118: a cosmological disaster is encountered in the hybrid inflationary
119: models which are based on a gauge symmetry breaking which predicts
120: the existence of magnetic monopoles. One way out of this
121: catastrophe is to do this symmetry breaking in two steps by
122: introducing an intermediate symmetry breaking scale between the GUT
123: and the standard model scales. The intermediate gauge symmetry must
124: be chosen such that the unwanted monopoles are formed in the
125: first step of symmetry breaking, and hybrid inflation occurs in
126: the second step which does not lead to the formation of new
127: unwanted topological defects. Inflation then dilutes the
128: pre-existing monopoles without generating new ones. The rank of
129: the gauge group must be lowered in the second step and, in many
130: realistic GUTs, cosmic strings are formed at the end of inflation
131: \cite{RJSSB}. They will contribute to the CMBR anisotropy in a
132: proportion which depends upon the GUT gauge group and the cosmic
133: microwave explorer (COBE) \cite{cobe} normalization for strings
134: and inflation.
135:
136: One idea \cite{smooth,jean1,jean2} for solving the monopole
137: problem of hybrid inflation is to include into the standard
138: superpotential for hybrid inflation the leading
139: non-renormalizable term. This term, as we will explain in the
140: next section, cannot be excluded by any symmetries and, if its
141: dimensionless coefficient is of order unity, can be comparable
142: with the trilinear coupling of the standard superpotential
143: (whose coefficient is $\sim 10^{-3}$). Actually, we have two
144: options. We can either keep \cite{jean1} both these terms or
145: remove \cite{smooth,jean2} the trilinear term by imposing an
146: appropriate discrete symmetry and keep only the leading
147: non-renormalizable term. The pictures which emerge in the two
148: cases are quite different. However, they share an important
149: common feature. The GUT gauge group is already broken during
150: inflation and thus no topological defects can form at the end
151: of inflation. Consequently, the monopole problem is solve even
152: in GUTs with a single step of symmetry breaking.
153:
154: Furthermore, the constraints on the quadrupole anisotropy of the
155: CMBR from the COBE \cite{cobe} measurements can be easily
156: satisfied. Our model possesses a number of other interesting
157: features too. The $\mu$ problem of the minimal supersymmetric
158: standard model (MSSM) is solved \cite{PQmu} via a Peccei-Quinn
159: (PQ) symmetry \cite{pq} which also solves the strong CP problem.
160: Although the baryon and lepton numbers are explicitly
161: violated, the proton life time is considerably higher than the
162: present experimental limits. Light neutrinos acquire hierarchical
163: masses by the seesaw mechanism and the baryon asymmetry of the
164: universe (BAU) can be generated via a primordial leptogenesis
165: \cite{leptogenesis} (for a recent review see Ref.\cite{springer}).
166: The gravitino constraint \cite{khlopov}
167: on the `reheat' temperature, the low deuterium abundance limits
168: \cite{deuterium} on the BAU and the requirement of almost
169: maximal $\nu_{\mu}-\nu_{\tau}$ mixing from SuperKamiokande
170: \cite{japan} can be met for $\mu$- and $\tau$-neutrino masses
171: restricted by the small or large mixing angle MSW solution
172: \cite{bahcall} of the solar neutrino puzzle and SuperKamiokande
173: respectively. The required values of the relevant parameters are
174: `natural'.
175:
176: \section{SUSY Hybrid Inflation and its Extensions}
177: \label{sec:hybrid}
178:
179: We will now summarize the standard SUSY hybrid inflationary
180: scenario in the context of a concrete SUSY GUT and discuss its
181: extensions which solve the magnetic monopole problem
182: encountered in the standard scenario. Along the lines of
183: Refs.\cite{jean1,jean2}, we consider the SUSY Pati-Salam (PS)
184: model \cite{ps} which is one of the simplest GUT models
185: predicting magnetic monopoles. This model is based on the PS
186: gauge group $G_{PS}=SU(4)_c\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$.
187: The PS monopoles carry two units of `Dirac' magnetic charge
188: \cite{magg}. We will present possible solutions of the
189: magnetic monopole problem of hybrid inflation within the SUSY
190: PS model \cite{jean1,jean2}. It is worth mentioning, however,
191: that these solutions can be readily applied to other semi-simple
192: gauge groups too such as the `trinification' group $SU(3)_c
193: \times SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R$, which emerges from string
194: theory and predicts \cite{trinification} monopoles with triple
195: `Dirac' magnetic charge, and possibly to simple gauge groups
196: such as $SO(10)$.
197:
198: In the SUSY PS model, the left-handed quark and lepton
199: superfields are accommodated in the following representations:
200: \begin{eqnarray}
201: F_i &=& (4,2,1) \equiv \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
202: u_i & u_i & u_i & \nu_i\\
203: d_i & d_i & d_i & e_i
204: \end{array}\right) , \nonumber\\
205: F^c_i &=& (\bar{4},1,2) \equiv \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
206: u^c_i & u^c_i & u^c_i & \nu^c_i\\
207: d^c_i & d^c_i & d^c_i & e^c_i
208: \end{array}\right) ,
209: \end{eqnarray}
210: where the subscript $i=1,2,3$ denotes the family index. The
211: $G_{PS}$ gauge symmetry can be spontaneously broken to the
212: standard model gauge group by a pair of Higgs superfields
213: \begin{eqnarray}
214: H^c &=& (\bar{4},1,2) \equiv \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
215: u^c_H & u^c_H & u^c_H & \nu_H^c\\
216: d^c_H & d^c_H & d^c_H & e^c_H
217: \end{array}\right) , \nonumber\\
218: \bar{H}^c &=& (4,1,2) \equiv \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
219: \bar{u}^c_H & \bar{u}^c_H &
220: \bar{u}^c_H &
221: \bar{\nu}_H^c\\
222: \bar{d}^c_H & \bar{d}^c_H &
223: \bar{d}^c_H & \bar{e}^c_H
224: \end{array}\right)
225: \end{eqnarray}
226: acquiring non-vanishing vevs in the right-handed neutrino
227: direction, $\langle\nu_H^c\rangle$, $\langle\bar{\nu}_H^c
228: \rangle\neq 0$. The two low energy Higgs doublets of the MSSM
229: are contained in the following representation:
230: \begin{eqnarray}
231: h = (1,2,2) \equiv \left(\begin{array}{cc}
232: h_2^+ & h_1^0 \\
233: h_2^0 & h_1^-
234: \end{array}\right).
235: \end{eqnarray}
236: After the breaking of $G_{PS}$, the bidoublet Higgs field $h$
237: splits into two Higgs doublets $h_1$, $h_2$, whose neutral
238: components subsequently develop weak vevs $\langle h^0_1\rangle
239: =v_1$ and $\langle h^0_2\rangle=v_2$ with $\tan\beta=v_2/v_1$.
240:
241: The (renormalizable) superpotential for the breaking of $G_{PS}$
242: is
243: \begin{equation}
244: W=\kappa S(-M^2+H^c\bar H^{c})~,
245: \label{eq:W}
246: \end{equation}
247: where $S$ is a gauge singlet left-handed superfield and the
248: parameters $\kappa$, $M$ can be made positive by field
249: redefinitions. The vanishing of the F-term $F_S$ implies that
250: $\langle H^c \rangle\langle\bar{H}^c\rangle=M^2$, whereas
251: the D-terms vanish for $\vert\langle H^c\rangle\vert=
252: \vert\langle\bar{H}^c\rangle\vert$. So, the SUSY vacua
253: (rotated to the real axis) lie at
254: $\langle H^c\rangle=\langle\bar{H}^c\rangle^*=
255: \pm M$ and $\langle S\rangle=0$ (from $F_{H^c}=
256: F_{\bar{H}^c}=0$). We see that $W$ leads to the spontaneous
257: breaking of $G_{PS}$.
258:
259: It is interesting to note that the same superpotential which
260: breaks $G_{PS}$ also leads to hybrid inflation. The potential
261: derived from $W$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:W}) is
262: \begin{equation}
263: V(H^c,\bar{H}^c,S)=
264: \kappa^2\vert M^2-H^c\bar{H}^c\vert^2+
265: \kappa^2\vert S\vert^2(\vert H^c\vert^2+
266: \vert\bar{H}^c\vert^2)+{\rm{D-terms}}.
267: \label{eq:hybpot}
268: \end{equation}
269: For $\vert S\vert>S_{c}\equiv M$, the potential $V$ is
270: minimized by $H^c=\bar{H}^c=0$. This yields a classically
271: flat valley of local minima. However, the flatness of this
272: valley is lifted at the one-loop level. The SUSY breaking by
273: the `vacuum' energy density $\kappa^2M^4$ along this valley
274: causes a mass splitting in the supermultiplets $H^c$,
275: $\bar{H}^c$. We obtain a Dirac fermion with ${\rm mass}^2$
276: equal to $\kappa^2\vert S\vert^2$ and two complex scalars
277: with ${\rm mass}^2$ equal to
278: $\kappa^2\vert S\vert^2\pm\kappa^2M^2$. This leads to
279: the existence of important one-loop radiative corrections to
280: $V$ on the valley which can be found from the Coleman-Weinberg
281: formula \cite{cw}:
282: \begin{equation}
283: \Delta V=\frac{1}{64\pi^2}\sum_i(-)^{F_i}\ M_i^4\ln
284: \frac{M_i^2}{\Lambda^2}~,
285: \label{eq:deltav}
286: \end{equation}
287: where the sum extends over all helicity states $i$, $F_i$ and
288: $M_i^2$ are the fermion number and ${\rm mass}^2$ of the
289: $i$th state, and $\Lambda$ is a renormalization mass scale.
290: We find that $\Delta V(\vert S\vert)$ is given \cite{lisbon}
291: by
292: \begin{equation}
293: \kappa^2 M^4~{\kappa^2\over 4\pi^2}\left(
294: 2\ln{\kappa^2\vert S\vert^2\over\Lambda^2}
295: +(z+1)^{2}\ln(1+z^{-1})+(z-1)^{2}\ln(1-z^{-1})\right),
296: \label{eq:rc}
297: \end{equation}
298: where $z=\vert S\vert^2/M^2$. For $z\gg 1$
299: ($\vert S\vert\gg S_c$), the effective potential on the
300: valley can be expanded \cite{dvasha,lss} as
301: \begin{equation}
302: V_{{\rm{eff}}}(\vert S\vert)=\kappa^2 M^4
303: \left[1+\frac{\kappa^2}{2\pi^2}\left(\ln
304: \frac{\kappa^2\vert S\vert^2}{\Lambda^2}
305: +\frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{12z^2}+\cdots\right)\right].
306: \label{eq:veff}
307: \end{equation}
308:
309: We see that the one-loop radiative corrections generate a
310: ($\Lambda$-independent) slope along the classically flat
311: valley of local minima. So this valley can, in principle, be
312: used as an inflationary trajectory. As the system rolls down
313: the valley driven by the contribution in Eq.(\ref{eq:veff}),
314: the energy density is dominated by the tree-level `vacuum'
315: energy density $\kappa^2 M^4$, the slow-roll conditions hold,
316: and inflation takes place till $\vert S\vert$ reaches its
317: critical value $S_c$. The COBE \cite{cobe} measurements on
318: the quadrupole anisotropy of the CMBR can be reproduced
319: \cite{dvasha} with `natural' values of $\kappa$, and $M$'s
320: close to the SUSY GUT scale.
321:
322: At $S_c$, the system enters into a `waterfall' regime followed
323: by damped oscillations about the SUSY vacua where $H^c$ and
324: $\bar{H}^c$ acquire non-zero vevs and $G_{PS}$ breaks. It
325: is an important feature of the scenario that the $G_{PS}$
326: gauge symmetry is restored along the inflationary trajectory
327: and breaks spontaneously only at the end of inflation when the
328: system falls towards the SUSY minima. This transition then
329: leads \cite{smooth} to a cosmologically unacceptable copious
330: production of doubly charged magnetic monopoles. One way to
331: resolve this problem, which arises if standard hybrid inflation
332: is employed, is to use as inflationary trajectory another flat
333: direction in which $G_{PS}$ is already broken. Such a direction
334: naturally appears if we include the next order non-renormalizable
335: superpotential coupling of $S$ to $H^c$, $\bar{H}^c$. The
336: trilinear term in Eq.(\ref{eq:W}) can be either kept
337: \cite{jean1} or removed \cite{smooth,jean2} by a discrete
338: symmetry.
339:
340: \subsection{Shifted Hybrid Inflation}
341: \label{subsec:shifted}
342:
343: As mentioned above, the cosmological monopole problem can be
344: solved by including the leading non-renormalizable term in the
345: superpotential for hybrid inflation. We will first examine the
346: case where the trilinear term in Eq.(\ref{eq:W}) is also kept.
347: The coexistence of these terms leads \cite{jean1} to the
348: appearance of a new `shifted' classically flat direction where
349: the $G_{PS}$ gauge symmetry is broken, i.e., the Higgs fields
350: $H^c$, $\bar{H}^c$ possess (constant) non-vanishing vevs. The
351: trivial valley of minima where $G_{PS}$ is restored is also
352: present. The `shifted' flat direction can be used as an
353: alternative inflationary trajectory with the necessary
354: inclination obtained again from one-loop radiative corrections,
355: which now have to be calculated with both the GUT gauge symmetry
356: and SUSY being broken. The termination of inflation is again
357: abrupt followed by a `waterfall', but no monopoles are formed
358: in this transition since $G_{PS}$ is already spontaneously
359: broken during inflation.
360:
361: The relevant part of the superpotential, which includes the
362: leading non-renormalizable term, is
363: \begin{equation}
364: W=\kappa S(-M^2+H^c\bar{H}^c)-
365: \beta\frac{S(H^c\bar{H}^c)^2}{M_S^2}~,
366: \label{eq:susyinfl}
367: \end{equation}
368: where $M_S\approx 5\times 10^{17}~{\rm GeV}$ is the string
369: scale and $\beta$ is taken positive for simplicity.
370: D-flatness implies that $H^c \,^{*}=e^{i\theta}\bar{H}^{c}$.
371: We restrict ourselves to the direction with $\theta=0$
372: ($H^c \,^{*}=\bar{H}^{c}$) containing the non-trivial
373: (`shifted') inflationary path (see below). The scalar potential
374: derived from $W$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:susyinfl}) then takes the form
375: \begin{equation}
376: V=\left[\kappa(\vert H^c\vert^2-M^2)-\beta\frac{\vert H^c
377: \vert^4}{M_S^2}\right]^2+2\kappa^2\vert S\vert^2
378: \vert H^c\vert^2
379: \left[1-\frac{2\beta}{\kappa M_S^2}\vert H^c\vert^2
380: \right]^2.
381: \label{eq:inflpot}
382: \end{equation}
383: Defining the dimensionless variables $y=\vert H^c\vert/M$,
384: $w=\vert S\vert/M$, we obtain
385: \begin{equation}
386: \tilde{V}=\frac{V}{\kappa^2M^4}=(y^2-1-\xi y^4)^2+
387: 2w^2y^2(1-2\xi y^2)^2,
388: \label{eq:vtilde}
389: \end{equation}
390: where $\xi=\beta M^2/\kappa M_S^2$. This potential is a
391: simple extension of the standard potential for SUSY hybrid
392: inflation (which corresponds to $\xi=0$) and appears in a
393: wide class of models incorporating the leading
394: non-renormalizable correction to the standard hybrid
395: inflationary superpotential.
396:
397: For constant $w$ (or $|S|$), $\tilde V$ in
398: Eq.(\ref{eq:vtilde}) has extrema at
399: \begin{equation}
400: y_1=0,~y_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\xi}},~y_{3\pm}=\frac{1}
401: {\sqrt{2\xi}}\sqrt{(1-6\xi w^2)\pm\sqrt{(1-6\xi w^2)^2
402: -4\xi(1-w^2)}}.
403: \label{eq:extrema}
404: \end{equation}
405: Note that the first two extrema (at $y_1$, $y_2$) are
406: $|S|$-independent and, thus, correspond to classically
407: flat directions, the trivial one at $y_1=0$ with
408: $\tilde{V}_1=1$, and the non-trivial one at
409: $y_2=1/\sqrt{2\xi}={\rm constant}$ with
410: $\tilde{V}_2=(1/4\xi-1)^2$, which we will use as our
411: inflationary path. The trivial trajectory is a valley of
412: minima for $w>1$, while the non-trivial one for
413: $w>w_0=(1/8\xi-1/2)^{1/2}$, which is its instability
414: (critical) point. We take $\xi<1/4$, so that $w_0>0$ and
415: the non-trivial path is destabilized before $w$
416: reaches zero (the destabilization is in the chosen direction
417: $H^c \,^{*}=\bar{H}^{c}$). The extrema at $y_{3\pm}$,
418: which are $|S|$-dependent and non-flat, do not exist for
419: all values of $w$ and $\xi$, since the expressions under
420: the square roots in Eq.(\ref{eq:extrema}) are not always
421: non-negative. These two extrema, at $w=0$, become the SUSY
422: vacua. The relevant SUSY vacuum (see below) corresponds to
423: $y_{3-}(w=0)$ and, thus, the absolute value $v_0$ of the
424: common vev of $H^c \,^{*}$, $\bar{H}^{c}$ is given by
425: \begin{equation}
426: (\frac{v_0}{M})^2=\frac{1}{2\xi}(1-\sqrt{1-4\xi}).
427: \label{eq:v0}
428: \end{equation}
429:
430: We will now discuss the structure of $\tilde{V}$ and the
431: inflationary history in the most interesting range of $\xi$,
432: which is $1/4>\xi>1/6$. For fixed $w>1$,
433: there exist two local minima at $y_1=0$ and
434: $y_2=1/\sqrt{2\xi}$, which corresponds to lower potential
435: energy density, and a local maximum at $y_{3+}$ lying
436: between the minima. As $w$ becomes smaller than unity, the
437: extremum at $y_1$ turns into a local maximum, while the
438: extremum at $y_{3+}$ disappears. The system can freely fall
439: into the non-trivial (desirable) trajectory at $y_2$ even
440: if it started at $y_1=0$. As we further decrease $w$ below
441: $(2-\sqrt{36\xi-5})^{1/2}/3\sqrt{2\xi}$, a pair of new
442: extrema, a local minimum at $y_{3-}$ and a local maximum at
443: $y_{3+}$, are created between $y_1$ and $y_2$. As $w$
444: crosses $(1/8\xi-1/2)^{1/2}$, the local maximum at
445: $y_{3+}$ crosses $y_2$ becoming a local minimum. At the
446: same time, the local minimum at $y_2$ turns into a local
447: maximum and inflation along the `shifted' trajectory is
448: terminated with the system falling into the local minimum at
449: $y_{3-}$ which, at $w=0$, develops into a SUSY vacuum.
450:
451: We see that, no matter where the system starts from, it
452: always passes from the `shifted' trajectory, where the
453: relevant part of inflation takes place, before falling
454: into the SUSY vacuum. So, $G_{PS}$ is already broken
455: during inflation and no monopoles are produced at the
456: `waterfall'.
457:
458: The COBE \cite{cobe} result can be reproduced, for instance,
459: with $\kappa\approx 4\times 10^{-3}$, which corresponds to
460: $\xi=1/5$, $v_0\approx 1.7\times 10^{16}~{\rm GeV}$,
461: $M\approx 1.45\times 10^{16}~{\rm GeV}$ (for $\beta=1$,
462: $M_S=5\times 10^{17}~{\rm GeV}$). Notice that
463: $v_0\sim 10^{16}~{\rm GeV}$ consistently with the
464: unification of the MSSM gauge couplings. The spectral index
465: $n=0.954$.
466:
467: After inflation, the system could possibly fall into the
468: minimum at $y_{3+}$. This, however, does not happen since in
469: the last e-folding or so the barrier between the minima at
470: $y_{3-}$ and $y_2$ is considerably reduced and the decay of
471: the `false vacuum' at $y_2$ to the minimum at $y_{3-}$ is
472: completed within a fraction of an e-folding before the
473: $y_{3+}$ minimum even comes into existence.
474:
475: \subsection{Smooth Hybrid Inflation}
476: \label{subsec:smooth}
477:
478: An alternative solution \cite{smooth,jean2} to the monopole
479: problem of hybrid inflation can be constructed by imposing, in
480: the model of Sec.\ref{subsec:shifted}, an extra $Z_2$ symmetry
481: under which $H^c\bar{H}^c\rightarrow -H^c\bar{H}^c$ (say
482: $H^c\rightarrow -H^c$). The whole structure of the model
483: remains unaltered except that now only even powers of the
484: combination $H^c\bar{H}^c$ are allowed in the superpotential
485: terms.
486:
487: The inflationary superpotential in Eq.(\ref{eq:susyinfl})
488: becomes
489: \begin{equation}
490: W=S\left(-\mu^2+\frac{(H^c\bar{H}^c)^2}
491: {M_S^2}\right),
492: \label{eq:smoothsuper}
493: \end{equation}
494: where we absorbed the dimensionless parameters $\kappa$,
495: $\beta$ in $\mu$, $M_S$. The resulting scalar potential
496: $V$ is then given by
497: \begin{equation}
498: \tilde{V}=\frac{V}{\mu^4}=(1-\tilde\chi^4)^2+
499: 16\tilde\sigma^2\tilde\chi^6,
500: \label{eq:smoothpot}
501: \end{equation}
502: where we used the dimensionless fields $\tilde\chi=
503: \chi/2(\mu M_S)^{1/2}$, $\tilde\sigma=
504: \sigma/2(\mu M_S)^{1/2}$ with $\chi$, $\sigma$ being
505: normalized real scalar fields defined by
506: $\nu_H^c=\bar{\nu}_H^c=\chi/2$, $S=\sigma/\sqrt{2}$
507: after rotating $\nu_H^c$, $\bar{\nu}_H^c$, $S$ to the
508: real axis.
509:
510: The emerging picture is completely different. The flat
511: direction at $\tilde\chi=0$ is now a local maximum with
512: respect to $\tilde\chi$ for all values of $\tilde\sigma$,
513: and two new symmetric valleys of minima appear
514: \cite{smooth,jean2} at
515: \begin{equation}
516: \tilde\chi=\pm\sqrt{6}\tilde\sigma\left[\left(1+
517: \frac{1}{36\tilde\sigma^4}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}-1
518: \right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.
519: \label{eq:smoothvalley}
520: \end{equation}
521: They contain the SUSY vacua which lie at $\tilde\chi=
522: \pm 1$, $\tilde\sigma=0$. Note that these valleys are not
523: classically flat. In fact, they possess an inclination already
524: at the classical level, which can drive the inflaton towards
525: the vacua. As a consequence, contrary to the case of standard
526: SUSY or shifted hybrid inflation, there is no need of radiative
527: corrections, which are expected to give a subdominant
528: contribution to the slope of the
529: inflationary paths. In spite of this, one could try to include
530: the one-loop corrections. This requires the construction of the
531: mass spectrum on the inflationary trajectories. In doing so, we
532: find that the ${\rm mass}^2$ of some scalars belonging to the
533: inflaton sector is negative. The one-loop corrections, which
534: involve logarithms of the masses squared, are then ill-defined.
535: This may be remedied by resumming the perturbative expansion to
536: all orders, which is a formidable task and we do not pursue it
537: here.
538:
539: The potential along the symmetric valleys of minima is given by
540: \cite{smooth,jean2}
541: \begin{eqnarray}
542: \tilde{V}&=&48\tilde\sigma^4\left[72\tilde\sigma^4\left(1+
543: \frac{1}{36\tilde\sigma^4}\right)\left(\left(1+
544: \frac{1}{36\tilde\sigma^4}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}-1\right)
545: -1\right]
546: \nonumber \\
547: &=&1-\frac{1}{216\tilde\sigma^4}+\cdots,~~{\rm for}
548: ~\tilde\sigma\gg 1.
549: \label{eq:smoothV}
550: \end{eqnarray}
551: The system follows, from the beginning, a particular
552: inflationary trajectory and, thus, ends up at a particular
553: point of the vacuum manifold leading to no production of
554: disastrous magnetic monopoles.
555:
556: \par
557: Inflation does not come to an abrupt end in this case since
558: the inflationary path is stable with respect to $\tilde\chi$
559: for all $\tilde\sigma$'s. The value $\tilde\sigma_0$ of
560: $\tilde\sigma$ at which inflation is terminated smoothly is
561: found from the $\epsilon$ and $\eta$ criteria (see e.g.,
562: Ref.\cite{cosmology}), and the derivatives \cite{jean2} of
563: the potential along the inflationary path:
564:
565: \begin{equation}
566: \frac{d\tilde{V}}{d\tilde\sigma}=192\tilde\sigma^3
567: \left[(1+144\tilde\sigma^4)\left(\left(1+
568: \frac{1}{36\tilde\sigma^4}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
569: -1\right)-2\right],
570: \label{eq:firstder}
571: \end{equation}
572: \begin{eqnarray}
573: \frac{d^2\tilde{V}}{d\tilde\sigma^2}&=&
574: \frac{16}{3\tilde\sigma^2}
575: \Biggl\{(1+504\tilde\sigma^4)
576: \left[72\tilde\sigma^4\left(\left(1+
577: \frac{1}{36\tilde\sigma^4}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
578: -1\right)-1\right]
579: \nonumber \\
580: & &-(1+252\tilde\sigma^4)\left(\left(1+
581: \frac{1}{36\tilde\sigma^4}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}
582: -1\right)\Biggl\}.
583: \label{eq:secondder}
584: \end{eqnarray}
585:
586: Here, we have the freedom to identify the vev $v_0=
587: \vert\langle H^c\rangle\vert=\vert\langle\bar{H}^c\rangle
588: \vert$, which equals $(\mu M_S)^{1/2}$, with
589: the SUSY GUT scale $M_G\approx 2.86\times 10^{16}~{\rm GeV}$.
590: From COBE \cite{cobe}, we then obtain
591: $M_S\approx 4.39\times 10^{17}~{\rm GeV}$ and
592: $\mu\approx 1.86\times 10^{15}~{\rm GeV}$.
593:
594: \section{Relevant Phenomenological and Cosmological
595: Constraints: Shifted versus Smooth Hybrid Inflation}
596: \label{sec:constraints}
597:
598: \subsection{The $\mu$ Problem}
599: \label{subsec:mu}
600:
601: An important shortcoming of MSSM is that there is no
602: understanding of how the SUSY $\mu$-term, with the right
603: magnitude of $|\mu|\sim 10^{2}-10^{3}~{\rm GeV}$, arises.
604: In both scenarios of shifted and smooth hybrid inflation, one
605: way \cite{PQmu} to solve this $\mu$ problem is via a PQ
606: symmetry $U(1)_{PQ}$ \cite{pq}, which also solves the strong
607: CP problem. This solution is based on the observation \cite{kn}
608: that the axion decay constant $f_{a}$,
609: which is the symmetry breaking scale of $U(1)_{PQ}$, is
610: (normally) `intermediate' ($\sim 10^{11}-10^{12}~{\rm GeV}$)
611: and, thus, $|\mu|\sim f_{a}^2/M_S$. The scale $f_{a}$ is,
612: in turn, $\sim (m_{3/2}M_S)^{1/2}$, where
613: $m_{3/2}\sim 1~{\rm{TeV}}$ is
614: the gravity-mediated soft SUSY breaking scale (gravitino mass).
615: In order to implement this solution of the $\mu$ problem, we
616: introduce a pair of gauge singlet superfields $N$, $\bar{N}$
617: with PQ charges -1, 1 and the non-renormalizable couplings
618: $\lambda_1N^2h^2/M_S$, $\lambda_2N^2\bar{N}^2/M_S$ in
619: the superpotential. Here, $\lambda_{1,2}$ are taken
620: positive by redefining the phases of $N$, $\bar{N}$. After
621: SUSY breaking, the $N^2\bar N^2$ term leads to the scalar
622: potential:
623: \begin{eqnarray}
624: V_{PQ}&=&\left(m_{3/2}^2
625: +4\lambda_2^2\left|\frac{N\bar{N}}{M_S}\right|^2\right)
626: \left[(|N|-|\bar{N}|)^2+2|N||\bar{N}|\right]
627: \nonumber \\
628: & &+2|A|m_{3/2}\lambda_2\frac{|N\bar{N}|^2}{M_S}
629: {\rm{cos}}(\epsilon+2\theta+2\bar{\theta}),
630: \label{eq:pqpot}
631: \end{eqnarray}
632: where $A$ is the dimensionless coefficient of the soft SUSY
633: breaking term corresponding to the superpotential term
634: $N^2\bar{N}^2$ and $\epsilon$, $\theta$, $\bar{\theta}$
635: are the phases of $A$, $N$, $\bar{N}$ respectively.
636: Minimization of $V_{PQ}$ then requires
637: $|N|=|\bar{N}|$, $\epsilon+2\theta+2\bar{\theta}=\pi$
638: and $V_{PQ}$ takes the form
639: \begin{equation}
640: V_{PQ}=2|N|^2m_{3/2}^2\left(4\lambda_2^2\frac{|N|^4}
641: {m_{3/2}^2M_S^2}-|A|\lambda_2\frac{|N|^2}{m_{3/2}M_S}
642: +1\right).
643: \label{eq:pqpotmin}
644: \end{equation}
645: For $|A|>4$, the absolute minimum of the potential is at
646: \begin{equation}
647: |\langle N\rangle|=|\langle\bar{N}\rangle|\equiv
648: \frac{f_a}{2}=(m_{3/2}M_S)^{\frac{1}{2}}
649: \left(\frac{|A|+(|A|^2-12)^{\frac{1}{2}}}
650: {12\lambda_2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\sim (m_{3/2}M_{S})
651: ^{\frac{1}{2}}.
652: \label{eq:solution}
653: \end{equation}
654: The $\mu$-term is generated via the $N^2h^2$ superpotential
655: term with $|\mu|=2\lambda_1|\langle N\rangle|^2/M_S$,
656: which is of the right magnitude.
657:
658: The potential $V_{PQ}$ also has a local minimum at
659: $N=\bar{N}=0$, which is separated from the global PQ minimum by
660: a sizable potential barrier preventing a successful transition
661: from the trivial to the PQ vacuum. This situation persists at all
662: cosmic temperatures after the `reheating' which follows hybrid
663: inflation, as has been shown \cite{jean1} by considering the
664: one-loop temperature corrections \cite{jackiw} to the potential.
665: We are, thus, obliged to assume that, after the end of inflation,
666: the system emerges in the PQ vacuum since, otherwise, it will be
667: stuck for ever in the trivial vacuum.
668:
669: \subsection{`Reheating' and Leptogenesis}
670: \label{subsec:reheat}
671:
672: A complete inflationary scenario should be followed by a
673: successful `reheating' satisfying the gravitino constraint
674: \cite{khlopov} on the `reheat' temperature, $T_r
675: \stackrel{_{<}}{_{\sim}}10^9~{\rm GeV}$, and
676: generating the observed BAU. After the end of inflation,
677: the system falls towards
678: the SUSY vacuum and performs damped oscillations about it.
679: The inflaton (oscillating system) consists of the two
680: complex scalar fields $\theta=(\delta\nu^c_H+
681: \delta\bar\nu^c_H)/\sqrt{2}$ ($\delta\nu^c_H=
682: \nu^c_H-v_0$, $\delta\bar\nu^c_H=\bar\nu^c_H-v_0$) and
683: $S$, with equal mass $m_{\rm infl}=\sqrt{2}\kappa v_0
684: (1-2\xi v_0^2/M^2)$ or $2\sqrt{2}(\mu/M_S)^{1/2}\mu$
685: for shifted or smooth hybrid inflation respectively.
686:
687: The fields $\theta$ and $S$ decay into a pair of right-handed
688: neutrinos ($\psi_{\nu^c_i}$) and sneutrinos ($\nu^c_i$)
689: respectively via the coupling
690: $\gamma_i\bar{H}^c\bar{H}^c F_i^cF_i^c/M_S$
691: and the terms in Eq.(\ref{eq:susyinfl}) or
692: (\ref{eq:smoothsuper}) in the shifted or smooth case. The
693: Lagrangian terms are:
694: \begin{equation}
695: L^\theta_{\rm decay}=-\sqrt{2}\gamma_i\frac{v_0}{M_S}
696: \theta\psi_{\nu_i^c}\psi_{\nu_i^c}+ h.c.~,
697: \label{eq:thetadecay}
698: \end{equation}
699: \begin{equation}
700: L^S_{\rm decay}=-\sqrt{2}\gamma_i\frac{v_0}{M_S}S^*\nu^c_i
701: \nu^c_im_{\rm infl}+h.c.~,
702: \label{eq:sdecay}
703: \end{equation}
704: and the common, as it turns out, decay width is given by
705: \begin{equation}
706: \Gamma=\Gamma_{\theta\rightarrow\bar\psi_{\nu^c_i}
707: \bar\psi_{\nu^c_i}}=\Gamma_{S\rightarrow\nu^c_i\nu^c_i}=
708: \frac{1}{8\pi}\left(\frac{M_i}{v_0}\right)^2m_{\rm infl}~,
709: \label{eq:gamma}
710: \end{equation}
711: provided that the mass $M_i=2\gamma_iv_0^2/M_S$ of the relevant
712: $\nu^c_i$ satisfies the inequality $M_i<m_{\rm infl}/2$. The
713: same number of particles and sparticles is produced after
714: inflation, and thus the SUSY world is recovered.
715:
716: To minimize the number of small coupling constants, we assume
717: that
718: \begin{equation}
719: M_2<\frac{1}{2}m_{\rm infl}\leq M_3~,
720: \label{eq:ineq}
721: \end{equation}
722: so that the coupling $\gamma_3$ can be of order unity. The
723: inflaton then decays into the second heaviest right-handed
724: neutrino superfield with mass $M_2$. Note that there always
725: exist $\gamma_3$'s smaller than unity such that the second
726: inequality in Eq.(\ref{eq:ineq}) is satisfied for all
727: relevant values of the other parameters.
728:
729: The `reheat' temperature $T_r$, for the MSSM spectrum, is
730: given \cite{lss} by
731: \begin{equation}
732: T_r\approx\frac{1}{7}(\Gamma M_P)^{\frac{1}{2}},
733: \label{eq:reheat}
734: \end{equation}
735: and must satisfy the gravitino constraint \cite{khlopov},
736: $T_r\stackrel{_{<}}{_{\sim}}10^9~{\rm GeV}$, for
737: gravity-mediated SUSY breaking with universal boundary
738: conditions. To maximize the naturalness of the model, we take
739: the maximal $M_2$ (and thus $\gamma_2$) allowed by the
740: gravitino constraint. These $M_2$'s turn out to be much
741: smaller than the values of $m_{\rm{infl}}/2$ and, thus, the
742: first inequality in Eq.(\ref{eq:ineq}) is well satisfied.
743:
744: Another important constraint comes from the BAU. In this model,
745: a primordial lepton asymmetry \cite{leptogenesis} is produced
746: which is then partly converted into baryon asymmetry by the
747: non-perturbative electroweak sphaleron effects \cite{sphaleron}.
748: Actually, in the PS model under consideration as well as in
749: many other models, this is the only way to generate the observed
750: BAU since the inflaton decays into right-handed neutrino
751: superfields. The subsequent decay of these superfields into
752: lepton (antilepton) $L$ ($\bar L$) and electroweak Higgs
753: superfields can only produce a lepton asymmetry. It is important
754: to ensure that this lepton asymmetry is not erased \cite{turner}
755: by lepton number violating $2 \rightarrow 2$ scattering
756: processes such as $LL\rightarrow h_2^{*}h_2^{*}$ or
757: $Lh_2\rightarrow\bar{L}h_2^{*}$ at all
758: temperatures between $T_{r}$ and $100~{\rm GeV}$. This is
759: automatically satisfied since the lepton asymmetry is
760: protected \cite{ibanez} by SUSY at temperatures between
761: $T_r$ and $T \sim 10^{7}~{\rm GeV}$ and, for
762: $T\stackrel{_{<}}{_{\sim }}10^{7}~{\rm GeV}$, these
763: scattering processes are well out of equilibrium provided
764: \cite{ibanez}
765: $m_{\nu_{\tau}}\stackrel{_<}{_\sim} 10~{\rm{eV}}$,
766: which readily holds in our case (see below). For MSSM
767: spectrum, the observed BAU $n_B/s$ is related \cite{ibanez}
768: to the primordial lepton asymmetry $n_L/s$ by
769: $n_B/s=(-28/79)n_L/s$. Thus, the low deuterium abundance
770: constraint \cite{deuterium} on the BAU gives $1.8\times
771: 10^{-10}\stackrel{_<}{_\sim}-n_L/s\stackrel{_<}{_\sim}
772: 2.3\times 10^{-10}$.
773:
774: As already mentioned, the lepton asymmetry is produced
775: through the decay of the superfield $\nu^{c}_{2}$, which
776: emerges as decay product of the inflaton. This superfield
777: decays into electroweak Higgs and (anti)lepton superfields.
778: The relevant one-loop diagrams are both of the vertex and
779: self-energy type \cite{covi} with an exchange of
780: $\nu^{c}_{3}$. The resulting lepton asymmetry is
781: \cite{Laz3}
782: \begin{equation}
783: \frac{n_{L}}{s}\approx 1.33~\frac{9T_{r}}
784: {16\pi m_{\rm infl}}~\frac{M_2}{M_3}
785: ~\frac{{\rm c}^{2}{\rm s}^{2}\sin 2\delta
786: (m_{3}^{D}\,^{2}-m_{2}^{D}\,^{2})^{2}}
787: {|\langle h_2\rangle|^{2}~(m_{3}^{D}\,^{2}
788: {\rm \ s}^{2}+m_{2}^{D}\,^{2}{\rm \ c^{2}})}~,
789: \label{eq:leptonasym}
790: \end{equation}
791: where $|\langle h_2\rangle|\approx 174~\rm{GeV}$,
792: $m_{2,3}^{D}$ ($m_{2}^{D}\leq m_{3}^{D}$) are the
793: `Dirac' neutrino masses (in a basis where they are diagonal
794: and positive), and ${\rm c}=\cos\theta$,
795: ${\rm s}=\sin\theta$, with $\theta$ and $\delta$ being
796: the rotation angle and phase which diagonalize the Majorana
797: mass matrix of the right-handed neutrinos. Note that
798: Eq.(\ref{eq:leptonasym}) holds \cite{pilaftsis} provided
799: that $M_{2}\ll M_{3}$ and the decay width of
800: $\nu^{c}_{3}$ is $\ll(M_{3}^{2}-M_{2}^{2})/M_{2}$,
801: and both conditions are well satisfied in our model. Here,
802: we concentrated on the
803: two heaviest families ($i=2,3$) and ignored the first one.
804: We were able to do this since the analysis \cite{giunti} of
805: the CHOOZ experiment \cite{chooz} shows that the solar and
806: atmospheric neutrino oscillations decouple.
807:
808: The light neutrino mass matrix is given by the seesaw
809: formula:
810: \begin{equation}
811: m_{\nu}\approx-\tilde m^{D}\frac{1}{M}m^{D},
812: \label{eq:neumass}
813: \end{equation}
814: where $m^{D}$ is the `Dirac' neutrino mass matrix and
815: $M$ the Majorana mass matrix of right-handed neutrinos.
816: The determinant and the trace invariance of
817: $m_{\nu}^\dagger m_{\nu}$ imply \cite{Laz3} two
818: constraints on the asymptotic (at $M_G$) parameters which
819: take the form:
820: \begin{equation}
821: m_{2}m_{3}=\frac{\left(m_{2}^{D}m_{3}^{D}\right)^{2}}
822: {M_{2}M_{3}}~,
823: \label{eq:determinant}
824: \end{equation}
825: \begin{eqnarray*}
826: m_{2}\,^{2}+m_{3}\,^{2}=\frac{\left(m_{2}^{D}\,^{2}
827: {\rm \ c}^{2}+m_{3}^{D}\,^{2}{\rm \ s}^{2}\right)^{2}}
828: {M_{2}\,^{2}}+
829: \end{eqnarray*}
830: \begin{equation}
831: \frac{\left(m_{3}^{D}\,^{2}{\rm \ c}^{2}+
832: m_{2}^{D}\,^{2}{\rm \ s}^{2}\right)^{2}}{M_{3}\,^{2}}+
833: \frac{2(m_{3}^{D}\,^{2}-m_{2}^{D}\,^{2})^{2}
834: {\rm c}^{2}{\rm s}^{2}{\cos 2\delta }}{M_{2}M_{3}}~,
835: \label{eq:trace}
836: \end{equation}
837: where $m_{2}=m_{\nu_\mu}$ and $m_{3}=m_{\nu_\tau}$ are the
838: (positive) eigenvalues of $m_{\nu}$, which are restricted by
839: the small or large mixing angle MSW solution \cite{bahcall} of
840: the solar neutrino puzzle and SuperKamiokande \cite{japan}
841: respectively.
842:
843: The $\mu-\tau$ mixing angle $\theta_{23}=\theta _{\mu\tau}$
844: lies \cite{Laz3} in the range
845: \begin{equation}
846: |\,\varphi -\theta ^{D}|\leq \theta _{\mu\tau}\leq
847: \varphi +\theta ^{D},\ {\rm {for}\ \varphi +
848: \theta }^{D}\leq \ \pi /2~,
849: \label{eq:mixing}
850: \end{equation}
851: where $\varphi$ is the rotation angle which diagonalizes
852: $m_{\nu}$ in the basis where $m^D$ is diagonal and
853: $\theta^{D}$ is the `Dirac' mixing angle (i.e., the
854: `unphysical' mixing angle with zero Majorana
855: masses for the right-handed neutrinos). We will assume, for
856: simplicity, that $\theta^D$ is negligible, which implies
857: $\theta_{\mu\tau}\simeq\varphi$. Also due to the presence
858: of $SU(4)_c$ in $G_{PS}$, $m^D_3$
859: coincides with the asymptotic value of the top quark mass.
860: Taking renormalization effects into account, in the context of
861: the MSSM with large $\tan\beta$, we find \cite{Laz3}
862: $m^D_3=110-120~{\rm{GeV}}$. We also include the running
863: of $\theta_{\mu\tau}$ from $M_G$ to the electroweak scale
864: \cite{springer}.
865:
866: In shifted hybrid inflation, for each $\kappa$ and $\gamma_3$,
867: the $M_{2,3}$ are fixed. Taking $m_{2,3}$ and
868: $m^D_3$ also fixed in their allowed ranges, we are left with
869: three undetermined parameters $\delta$, $\theta$ and
870: $m^D_2$ which are restricted by four constraints:
871: almost maximal $\nu_{\mu}-\nu_{\tau}$ mixing
872: ($\sin^{2}2\theta_{\mu\tau}\stackrel{_>}{_\sim}0.85$)
873: from SuperKamiokande \cite{japan}, the leptogenesis
874: bound ($1.8\times 10^{-10} \stackrel{_<}{_\sim}
875: -n_L/s\stackrel{_<}{_\sim}2.3\times 10^{-10}$), and
876: Eqs.(\ref{eq:determinant}) and (\ref{eq:trace}). It is
877: highly non-trivial that solutions satisfying all the above
878: requirements can be found with natural $\kappa$'s
879: ($\sim 10^{-3}$) and $m^D_2$'s of order $1~{\rm GeV}$ (see
880: last paragraph of this section). Typical solutions can be
881: constructed, for instance, for $\kappa=4\times 10^{-3}$ (see
882: Sec.\ref{subsec:shifted}), which gives $m_{\rm{infl}}\simeq
883: 4.1\times 10^{13}~{\rm GeV}$, $M_2\simeq 5.9\times 10^{10}
884: ~{\rm GeV}$ and $M_3\simeq 1.1\times 10^{15}~{\rm GeV}$ (for
885: $\gamma_3=0.5$). Taking, for example, $m_{\nu_{\mu}}=7.6
886: \times 10^{-3}~{\rm eV}$, $m_{\nu_{\tau}}=8\times 10^{-2}
887: ~{\rm eV}$ and $m^D_3=120~{\rm GeV}$, we find $m^D_2\simeq
888: 1.2~{\rm GeV}$, $\sin^2 2\theta_{\mu\tau}\simeq 0.9$,
889: $n_L/s\simeq -1.8\times 10^{-10}$ and $\theta\simeq 0.016$
890: for $\delta\simeq -\pi/3$. Note that the $m_{\nu_\mu}$'s,
891: for which solutions are found, turn out to be consistent with
892: the large rather than the small mixing angle MSW mechanism.
893:
894: In smooth hybrid inflation, we observe that no solutions can be
895: found with $T_r\stackrel{_{<}}{_{\sim }}10^9~{\rm GeV}$,
896: which is the gravitino constraint as usually quoted. We thus take
897: $T_r=10^{10}~{\rm GeV}$, which is also perfectly acceptable
898: provided \cite{kawasaki} that the branching ratio of the
899: gravitino to photons is somewhat smaller than unity and the
900: gravitino mass is relatively large ($\sim$ a few hundred GeV).
901:
902: \begin{figure}[ht]
903: \begin{center}
904: \hspace{-2.5cm}\psfig{figure=sin2n1c.ps,height=8cm}
905: \end{center}
906: \caption{The scatter plot in the $m_{\nu_\tau}-
907: \sin^2 2 \theta_{\mu\tau}$ plane of the solutions which
908: satisfy the low deuterium abundance constraint on the BAU, the
909: restrictions from solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations,
910: and the $SU(4)_c$ invariance in the case of smooth hybrid
911: inflation. We take $T_r=10^{10}~{\rm GeV}$, $\gamma_3\approx
912: 0.05-0.5$, $m^D_2\approx 0.8-2~{\rm GeV}$ and $m^D_3\approx
913: 110-120~{\rm GeV}$.}
914: \label{sin2n1}
915: \end{figure}
916:
917: Our results are shown in Fig.\ref{sin2n1}, where we plot
918: solutions corresponding to $T_r=10^{10}~{\rm GeV}$ and
919: satisfying the leptogenesis constraint consistently with the
920: neutrino oscillation data and the $SU(4)_c$ symmetry. The
921: parameter $\gamma_3$ runs from $0.05$ to $0.5$, i.e.,
922: $M_3\approx 1.86\times 10^{14}-1.86\times 10^{15}
923: ~{\rm GeV}$. The second inequality in Eq.(\ref{eq:ineq})
924: implies that $\gamma_3\stackrel{_{>}}{_{\sim }}0.046$.
925: However, no solutions are found for $\gamma_3<0.05$. Also,
926: values of $\gamma_3$ higher than 0.5 do not allow solutions.
927: The mass of the second heaviest right-handed neutrino
928: $M_2\approx 1.55\times 10^{11}~{\rm GeV}$, which clearly
929: satisfies the first inequality in Eq.(\ref{eq:ineq}). The
930: restrictions from $SU(4)_c$ invariance are expected to be
931: more or less accurate only if applied to the masses of the
932: third family quarks and leptons. For the second family, they
933: should hold only as order of magnitude relations. We thus
934: restrict ourselves to values of $m^D_2$ smaller than
935: $2~{\rm GeV}$ since much bigger $m^D_2$'s would violate
936: strongly the $SU(4)_c$ symmetry (the value of $m^D_2$ from
937: exact $SU(4)_c$ is \cite{Laz3} about $0.23~{\rm GeV}$ for
938: MSSM spectrum with large $\tan\beta$). Moreover, we find
939: that solutions exist only if
940: $m^D_2\stackrel{_{>}}{_{\sim }}0.8$. So we take
941: $m^D_2\approx 0.8-2~{\rm GeV}$ and,
942: as required by $SU(4)_c$ invariance, $m^D_3\approx 110-120
943: ~{\rm GeV}$. Also, the phase
944: $\delta\approx (-\pi/8)-(-\pi/5)$ and the rotation angle
945: $\theta\approx 0.01-0.03$ for solutions to appear. Note that
946: $\delta$'s close to 0 or $-\pi/2$ are excluded since they
947: yield very small primordial lepton asymmetry.
948:
949: \section{Conclusions}
950:
951: We presented, in the context of the PS SUSY GUT model, two
952: `natural' extensions of hybrid inflation, which solve the
953: cosmological monopole problem. These models reproduce the
954: COBE measurements with `natural' values of the parameters
955: and a PS breaking scale close to (or equal with) the SUSY
956: GUT scale. A PQ symmetry is used to generate the $\mu$-term
957: of MSSM and proton is practically stable. Inflation is
958: followed by a successful `reheating' satisfying the gravitino
959: constraint on the `reheat' temperature and generating the
960: observed BAU via a primordial leptogenesis consistently with
961: the requirements from solar and atmospheric neutrino
962: oscillations and the $SU(4)_c$ symmetry.
963:
964: \section*{Acknowledgement}
965: This work was supported by European Union under the TMR contract
966: ERBFMRX-CT96-0090 and the RTN contracts HPRN-CT-2000-00148 and
967: HPRN-CT-2000-00152. One of us (S. K.) was supported by PPARC.
968:
969: \def\anj#1#2#3{{\it Astron. J.}~{\bf #1}~(#2)~#3}
970: \def\apj#1#2#3{{\it Astrophys. Journal}~{\bf #1}~(#2)~#3}
971: \def\apjl#1#2#3{{\it Astrophys. J. Lett.}~{\bf #1}~(#2)~#3}
972: \def\baas#1#2#3{{\it Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.}~{\bf #1}~(#2)~#3}
973: \def\cmp#1#2#3{{\it Commun. Math. Phys.}~{\bf #1}~(#2)~#3}
974: \def\grg#1#2#3{{\it Gen. Rel. Grav.}~{\bf #1}~(#2)~#3}
975: \def\jetpl#1#2#3{{\it JETP Lett.}~{\bf #1}~(#2)~#3}
976: \def\jetpsp#1#2#3{{\it JETP (Sov. Phys.)}~{\bf #1}~(#2)~#3}
977: \def\jhep#1#2#3{{\it JHEP}~{\bf #1}~(#2)~#3}
978: \def\jpa#1#2#3{{\it J. Phys.}~{\bf A~#1}~(#2)~#3}
979: \def\mnras#1#2#3{{\it Mon. Not. Roy. Astr. Soc.}
980: ~{\bf #1}~(#2)~#3}
981: \def\n#1#2#3{{\it Nature}~{\bf #1}~(#2)~#3}
982: \def\npb#1#2#3{{\it Nucl. Phys.}~{\bf B~#1}~(#2)~#3}
983: \def\pl#1#2#3{{\it Phys. Lett.}~{\bf #1~B}~(#2)~#3}
984: \def\plb#1#2#3{{\it Phys. Lett.}~{\bf B~#1}~(#2)~#3}
985: \def\pr#1#2#3{{\it Phys. Reports}~{\bf #1}~(#2)~#3}
986: \def\prd#1#2#3{{\it Phys. Rev.}~{\bf D~#1}~(#2)~#3}
987: \def\prl#1#2#3{{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}~{\bf #1}~(#2)~#3}
988: \def\prsla#1#2#3{{\it Proc. Roy. Soc. London}
989: ~{\bf A~#1}~(#2)~#3}
990: \def\ptp#1#2#3{{\it Prog. Theor. Phys.}~{\bf #1}~(#2)~#3}
991: \def\spss#1#2#3{{\it Sov. Phys. -Solid State}
992: ~{\bf #1}~(#2)~#3}
993: \def\ibid#1#2#3{{\it ibid.}~{\bf #1}~(#2)~#3}
994: \def\stmp#1#2#3{{\it Springer Trac. Mod. Phys.}
995: ~{\bf #1}~(#2)~#3}
996:
997: \begin{thebibliography}{}
998:
999: \bibitem{linde} A.D. Linde, \prd{49}{1994}{748}.
1000:
1001: \bibitem{cosmology} G. Lazarides, hep-ph/9802415;
1002: {\it PRHEP}-corfu98/014 (hep-ph/9904502).
1003:
1004: \bibitem{smooth} G. Lazarides, and C. Panagiotakopoulos,
1005: \prd{52}{1995}{559}.
1006:
1007: \bibitem{Cop} E.J. Copeland, A.R. Liddle, D.H. Lyth,
1008: E.D. Stewart, and D. Wands, \prd{49}{1994}{6410}.
1009:
1010: \bibitem{dvasha} G. Dvali, Q. Shafi, and R. Schaefer,
1011: \prl{73}{1994}{1886}.
1012:
1013: \bibitem{kibble} T.W.B. Kibble, \jpa{9}{1976}{387}.
1014:
1015: \bibitem{RJSSB} A-C. Davis, and R. Jeannerot,
1016: \prd{52}{1996}{7220}; R. Jeannerot, \prd{56}{1997}{6205}.
1017:
1018: \bibitem{cobe} G.F. Smoot {\it et al.},
1019: \apjl{396}{1992}{L1}; C.L. Bennett {\it et al.},
1020: \apjl{464}{1996}{1}.
1021:
1022: \bibitem{jean1} R. Jeannerot, S. Khalil, G. Lazarides, and
1023: Q. Shafi, {\it JHEP} {\bf 0010} (2000) 012.
1024:
1025: \bibitem{jean2} R. Jeannerot, S. Khalil, and G. Lazarides,
1026: {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B~506} (2001) 344.
1027: %\plb{506}{2001}{344}.
1028:
1029: \bibitem{PQmu} G. Lazarides, and Q. Shafi,
1030: \prd{58}{1998}{071702}.
1031:
1032: \bibitem{pq} R. Peccei, and H. Quinn, \prl{38}{1977}{1440};
1033: S. Weinberg, \prl{40}{1978}{223}; F. Wilczek,
1034: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 40} (1978) 279.
1035: %\prl{40}{1978}{279}.
1036:
1037: \bibitem{leptogenesis} M. Fukugita, and T. Yanagida,
1038: \plb{174}{1986}{45}; W. Buch- m\"uller, and M. Pl\"umacher,
1039: \plb{389}{1996}{73}. In the context
1040: of inflation see G. Lazarides, and Q. Shafi,
1041: %\plb{258}{1991}{305}
1042: {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B~258} (1991) 305; G. Lazarides,
1043: C. Panagiotakopoulos, and Q. Shafi,
1044: %\plb{315}{1993}{325}
1045: {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B~315}~(1993) 325,
1046: (E) \ibid{317}{1993}{661}.
1047:
1048: \bibitem{springer} G. Lazarides, \stmp{163}{2000}{227}
1049: (hep-ph/99 04428).
1050:
1051: \bibitem{khlopov} M.Yu. Khlopov, and A.D. Linde,
1052: \plb{138}{1984}{265}; J. Ellis, J.E. Kim, and D. Nanopoulos,
1053: \plb{145}{1984}{181}.
1054:
1055: \bibitem{deuterium} S. Burles, and D. Tytler,
1056: \apj{499}{1998}{699}; {\it ibid.} {\bf 507} (1998) 732.
1057:
1058: \bibitem{japan} S. Fukuda {\it et al.},
1059: \prl{85}{2000}{3999}.
1060:
1061: \bibitem{bahcall} J.N. Bahcall, P.I. Krastev, and A.Yu. Smirnov,
1062: %\prd{58}{1998}{096016}
1063: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D~58} (1998) 096016;
1064: \ibid{60}{1999}{093001}.
1065:
1066: \bibitem{ps} J.C. Pati, and A. Salam, \prd{10}{1974}{275}.
1067:
1068: \bibitem{magg} G. Lazarides, M. Magg, and Q. Shafi,
1069: \plb{97}{1980}{87}.
1070:
1071: \bibitem{trinification} G. Lazarides, C. Panagiotakopoulos,
1072: and Q. Shafi,
1073: %\prl{58}{1987}{1707}
1074: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 58} (1987) 1707;
1075: G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi,
1076: and T.N. Tomaras, \prd{39}{1989}{1239}.
1077:
1078: \bibitem{cw} S. Coleman, and E. Weinberg,
1079: \prd{7}{1973}{1888}.
1080:
1081: \bibitem{lisbon} G. Lazarides, hep-ph/0011130.
1082:
1083: \bibitem{lss} G. Lazarides, R. Schaefer, and Q. Shafi,
1084: \prd{56}{1997}{1324}.
1085:
1086: \bibitem{kn} J.E. Kim, and H.P. Nilles,
1087: \plb{138}{1984}{150}.
1088:
1089: \bibitem{jackiw} L. Dolan, and R. Jackiw,
1090: \prd{9}{1974}{3320}; S. Weinberg, \prd{9}{1974}{3357}.
1091:
1092: \bibitem{sphaleron} S. Dimopoulos, and L. Susskind,
1093: \prd{18}{1978}{4500}; V. Kuzmin, V. Rubakov, and
1094: M. Shaposhnikov, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B~155} (1985) 36;
1095: %\plb{155}{1985}{36};
1096: P. Arnold, and L. McLerran, \prd{36}{1987}{581}.
1097:
1098: \bibitem{turner} J.A. Harvey, and M.S. Turner,
1099: \prd{42}{1990}{3344}.
1100:
1101: \bibitem{ibanez} L.E. Ib\'a\~nez, and F. Quevedo,
1102: \plb{283}{1992}{261}.
1103:
1104: \bibitem{covi} L. Covi, E. Roulet, and F. Vissani,
1105: \plb{384}{1996}{169}.
1106:
1107: \bibitem{Laz3} G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi, and N.D. Vlachos,
1108: \plb{427}{1998}{53}; G. Lazarides, and N.D. Vlachos,
1109: \plb{459}{1999}{482}.
1110:
1111: \bibitem{pilaftsis} A. Pilaftsis, \prd{56}{1997}{5431}.
1112:
1113: \bibitem{giunti} C. Giunti, hep-ph/9802201.
1114:
1115: \bibitem{chooz} M. Apollonio {\it et al.},
1116: \plb{420}{1998}{397}.
1117:
1118: \bibitem{kawasaki} M. Kawasaki, and T. Moroi,
1119: \ptp{93}{1995}{879}.
1120:
1121: \end{thebibliography}
1122:
1123: \end{document}
1124:
1125:
1126:
1127:
1128:
1129:
1130:
1131:
1132:
1133: