1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsf]{article}
2: %\usepackage{graphics}
3:
4: \newcommand{\comm}[1]{} \newcommand{\dcomm}[1]{#1}
5: \newcommand{\gsim}{\raisebox{-0.8ex}{\mbox{$\stackrel{\textstyle>}{\sim}$}}}
6: \newcommand{\lsim}{\raisebox{-0.8ex}{\mbox{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}$}}}
7: \newcommand{\gl}{\raisebox{-0.8ex}{\mbox{$\stackrel{\textstyle >}{<}$}}}
8: \newcommand{\leg}{\raisebox{-0.8ex}{\mbox{$\stackrel{\textstyle <}{>}$}}}
9: \newcommand{\trh}{T_{\rm rh}}
10: \newcommand{\teff}{T_{\rm eff}}
11: \newcommand{\delcp}{\delta_{_{\rm CP}}}
12: \newcommand{\mh}{m_{_{\rm H}}}
13: \newcommand{\mw}{m_{_{\rm W}}}
14: \newcommand{\alphaw}{\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}
15: \newcommand{\ncs}{N_{_{\rm CS}}}
16: \newcommand{\ndcs}{\dot{N}_{_{\rm CS}}}
17: \newcommand{\ncsmall}{n_{_{\rm CS}}}
18: \newcommand{\etot}{E_{\rm tot}}
19: \newcommand{\phii}{\langle \phi^*\phi \rangle}
20: \newcommand{\sangle}{\langle\sigma\rangle}
21: \newcommand{\ssqangle}{\langle\sigma^2\rangle}
22: \newcommand{\mue}{\mu_{\rm eff}}
23: \newcommand{\ncsa}{\langle n_{_{\rm CS}}\rangle}
24: \newcommand{\ntr}{N^{\rm trans}}
25: \newcommand{\ncst}{\langle N_{_{\rm CS}}(t)\rangle}
26: \newcommand{\ncsmt}{\langle n_{_{\rm CS}}(t)\rangle}
27: \newcommand{\ncstt}{\langle N_{_{\rm CS}}(t_0)\rangle}
28: \newcommand{\dncs}{\delta N_{_{\rm CS}}}
29: \newcommand{\nw}{N_{\rm wind}}
30: \newcommand{\ndw}{\dot{N}_{\rm wind}}
31: \newcommand{\nwa}{\langle N_{\rm wind}\rangle}
32: \newcommand{\esph}{E_{\rm sph}}
33: \newcommand{\gsph}{\Gamma_{\rm sph}}
34: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
35: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
36: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
37: \newcommand{\sign}{\mathop{\rm sign}\nolimits}
38:
39: \begin{document}
40: \title{Resonant Amplification of Electroweak Baryogenesis at Preheating}
41:
42: \author{J. M. Cornwall, D. Grigoriev\thanks{On leave of absence from
43: Institute for Nuclear Research of Russian Academy of Sciences}
44: \thanks{Present address: Dept.~of Mathematical Physics, National
45: University of Ireland, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland} ~and
46: A. Kusenko\thanks{Also at RIKEN BNL Research Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973}\\{\small Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of
47: California}\\[-0.8ex]{\small Los Angeles, CA 90095-1547}}
48: \date{UCLA/01/TEP/10} \maketitle
49:
50:
51: \begin{abstract}
52: We explore viable scenarios for parametric resonant amplification of
53: electroweak (EW) gauge fields and Chern-Simons number during
54: preheating, leading to baryogenesis at the electroweak (EW) scale. In
55: this class of scenarios time-dependent classical EW gauge fields,
56: essentially spatially-homogeneous on the horizon scales, carry
57: Chern-Simons number which can be amplified by parametric resonance
58: up to magnitudes at which unsuppressed topological transitions
59: in the Higgs sector become possible. Baryon number non-conservation
60: associated with the gauge sector and the highly non-equilibrium
61: nature of preheating allow for efficient baryogenesis. The requisite
62: large CP violation can arise either from the time-dependence of a
63: slowly varying Higgs field (spontaneous baryogenesis), or from a
64: resonant amplification of CP violation induced in the gauge sector
65: through loops. We identify several CP violating operators in the
66: Standard Model and its minimal extensions that can facilitate
67: efficient baryogenesis at preheating, and show how to overcome
68: would-be exponential suppression of baryogenesis associated with
69: tunneling barriers.
70:
71: \end{abstract}
72:
73:
74: \section{Introduction}
75:
76: Parametric resonance coupling of the oscillating inflaton to Standard Model
77: fields \cite{kls} offers new dynamical mechanisms for various
78: early-universe phenomena. One interesting scenario \cite{kt,ggks,gg} adjusts
79: inflaton parameters\footnote{The consistency of low-scale inflation with
80: primordial density perturbations has been shown by Germ\'an {\it et al}
81: \cite{grs}.} so that reheating
82: does not heat the universe to a temperature above the EW cross-over
83: temperature $T_c$. This means that sphaleron transitions are frozen out
84: and that B+L created before reheating will not be washed out.
85:
86: The early attempts \cite{krs,ckn} to create B+L solely through Standard
87: Model effects suffered from the fact that if the only source of CP
88: violation is in the CKM matrix, it would lead to far too small a value of
89: B+L, and from the need for a first-order EW phase transition to drive
90: out-of-equilibrium effects. This first-order transition seems to be ruled
91: out by current lower limits on the Higgs mass of around 110 GeV. So it
92: might appear that EW baryogenesis is unattractive. However, with the
93: suggestion of EW preheating and the accompanying parametric resonances, it
94: has become interesting to look at EW baryogenesis in a different way.
95:
96: This was done in a recent paper \cite{alexmike}, where two of us showed
97: that EW parametric resonance, with the Higgs field oscillating because of
98: its coupling to the oscillating inflaton, could amplify CP-violating seed
99: values of the EW gauge potential in an $ansatz$ where this gauge potential
100: was spatially-homogeneous (out to the horizon) but time-dependent. The CP
101: violation was manifested as a homogeneous classical ``condensate" of
102: Chern-Simons number or equivalently of B+L (through the EW anomaly). The
103: scenario of \cite{alexmike} had several shortcomings:
104: \begin{enumerate}
105: \item CP violation only occurred because of CP-violating initial values for
106: the gauge potential, not because of any explicit CP violation in the gauge
107: equations of motion.
108: \item The Higgs field oscillations were considered as given, so that no
109: (classical) back-reaction of the gauge fields on the Higgs field was
110: considered.
111: \item No plausible scenario was suggested for the permanent conversion of
112: Chern-Simons number to actual baryons and leptons; once parametric
113: resonance driving ended, it would be possible for the homogeneous
114: Chern-Simons condensate to dissipate. Actual formation of baryons and
115: leptons requires the development of spatial inhomogeneities, rather similar
116: to sphalerons; one might term this process {\em sphalerization}.
117: \end{enumerate}
118:
119: In the present work we extend the considerations of \cite{alexmike} to
120: deal, at least partially, with these three shortcomings.
121:
122: First, we
123: introduce explicit CP violation\footnote{The CP-violating terms used here
124: are similar to those invoked in spontaneous baryogenesis but represent
125: couplings to the gauge sector; see \cite{ckn1} and references therein. We
126: do not require a first-order phase transition, as commonly invoked in
127: spontaneous baryogenesis. For a version of spontaneous baryogenesis in the
128: present context, see Sec. \ref{spon} below.} in the EW gauge plus Higgs
129: equations of motion. This
130: CP violation comes from coupling of CP-violating effects to the EW gauge
131: fields through loops, typically quark loops. We explore two cases; in one,
132: there is out-of-equilibrium strong CP violation as evidenced by an $\eta'$
133: field slowly (on EW time scales) rolling in a standard QCD potential with
134: zero $\theta$ angle (so that there is no strong CP violation when the
135: $\eta'$ field is in equilibrium). In the other, we invoke
136: spontaneously-broken CP in multi-Higgs models \cite{lw}, again, out of
137: equilibrium.\footnote{These multi-Higgs models are not realistic for CP
138: violation in the $K-\bar{K}$ system, but they could still play a central
139: role in baryogenesis; note that in general our scenarios for baryogenesis
140: involve CP violation which is far from the equilibrium values seen today.}
141: Note that it is not easy to rule out the CP-violating operators we use by
142: present-day experimental results on CP violation, since in our scenario the
143: CP-violating effects are far from their equilibrium values.
144:
145:
146: Second, we study the combined gauge field-Higgs classical equations,
147: extending the previous $ansatz$ to include a spatially-homogeneous
148: time-dependent Higgs field. The classical backreaction of the gauge potential on the Higgs field can drive the Higgs field into oscillating through zero VEV rather than staying near a broken-symmetry minimum. This is important for sphalerization.
149:
150: Third, in the final section of the paper we make some remarks about the dynamics of sphalerization.
151: This is a truly difficult dynamical problem, requiring extensive
152: numerical investigation, and we barely scratch the surface here. Aside from
153: brute-force computation, not attempted here, there are several avenues to
154: explore for guidance, including simple effective-temperature arguments
155: previously used in connection with EW preheating\cite{kls,ggks,gg};
156: numerical studies of the 1+1-dimensional Abelian Higgs
157: model\cite{ggks,gg,ew2000}; and approximate but useful tools for an
158: analysis based on tools developed for understanding the possibility of B+L
159: violation in high-energy two-particle collisions (see, {\it e.g.},
160: \cite{mamo}). A major obstacle to the analysis is that mere production of
161: Chern-Simons number is not enough to produce baryons; the Chern-Simons
162: number must be converted into baryons through the medium of formation of
163: Higgs winding number $\nw$.
164: Using simple topological arguments, we construct a model for the
165: energy profile of the system which illustrates the issues involved. With
166: the simplification of using an effective temperature we estimate
167: baryoproduction for an arbitrary time dependence of the topological
168: transition rate and show how wash-out---fermionic backreaction leading to
169: dissipation of the newly-created baryons and leptons---can be taken into
170: account. Finally we attempt an alternative to effective-temperature
171: considerations by extending some approximate techniques used long ago to
172: examine the possibility of B+L violation in two-particle collisions.
173:
174: The upshot of these considerations is that there are
175: at least two possibilities for conversion of Chern-Simons number to
176: baryons which do not suffer from the exponential suppression of
177: tunneling. In the first, various effects (such as gauge backreaction
178: on the Higgs field) may cause the Higgs VEV $v(t)$ to oscillate
179: through zero during or immediately after preheating, allowing
180: unsuppressed transitions (the sphaleron mass $M_S\sim v/g$ vanishes).
181: In the second, formation of spatial structures on various scales may
182: allow for baryon formation to proceed at energies above barrier
183: heights even if $v$ is near its usual broken-symmetry value. In this
184: case, there is a relation between the size of the structure, the
185: energy of the structure, and the Chern-Simons density, which we
186: explore with a relatively crude but qualitatively satisfactory model
187: of the topological charge barrier factor as a function of energy and
188: size. We argue that as various spatial scales arise and grow during
189: preheating and the Chern-Simons condensate becomes inhomogeneous, it
190: is possible to have conversion of Chern-Simons number to actual
191: baryons (and leptons, which we ignore in this paper) which is not only
192: unsuppressed with regard to topological charge tunneling, but is also
193: not exponentially suppressed by poor overlap between initial and final
194: states. This is an important point. About a decade ago, it was
195: suggested that EW collisions of two particles yielding an $N$-particle
196: final state at energies $E \geq M_S$ large enough to overcome the
197: barrier height and with $N\sim 4\pi/g^2$, could lead to unsuppressed B+L
198: production (see, {\it e.g.}, \cite{mamo} for a contemporaneous
199: collection of papers on the subject). But others (including Banks
200: {\it et al} \cite{mamo} and Cornwall \cite{mamo,co90}) pointed out
201: that the poor overlap between the initial and final states led to
202: exponential suppression anyhow, with a barrier which was a finite
203: fraction of the canonical 't Hooft barrier. The suppression mechanism
204: had actually been proposed earlier by Drukier and Nussinov \cite{dn}
205: to show that production of solitons such as the sphaleron in
206: two-particle collisions was exponentially suppressed.
207:
208: In the present case, the initial state for baryogenesis is not a
209: two-particle plane-wave state, but a Chern-Simons condensate which is
210: largely homogeneous and on which various spatial ripples are growing,
211: as suggested in \cite{alexmike}; when the gauge potential grows to be
212: of order $m/g$, the spatial growth rate is of order $m$.
213: We show that this sort of condensate can have good overlap with
214: baryonic final states (as connected via the EW anomaly) at certain
215: spatial scales under the same circumstances (generally high enough
216: energy) where the topological barrier is gone.
217: These spatial scales, to no one's surprise, are around $m^{-1}$ at
218: energies near the sphaleron mass.
219: Of course, if the Higgs VEV $v$ is rather small, the corresponding
220: spatial scale grows larger and the energy scale grows smaller.
221: We show that if this second mechanism to avoid suppression is to work
222: when $m$ is near its vacuum value, the original spatially-homogeneous
223: Chern-Simons condensate must have a density of order $10^{-2}-10^{-3}$
224: units of topological charge in a volume $m^{-3}$.
225: Such values are indeed reached in numerical simulations (this paper
226: and Ref. \cite{alexmike}).
227:
228: We cannot, with these crude approaches, begin to quantify the number of baryons produced. All we can say is that the number of baryons is essentially linear in the strength of the CP-violating operators we discuss, and that we are not aware of any experimental limits which would lead to strengths too small to produce the observed number of baryons, provided that the baryogenesis process is not exponentially suppressed and that further baryon washout at reheating is not strong.
229: Given the results of this paper, the unexplored rate-limiting step for baryogenesis is the growth of perturbations at various spatial scales.
230:
231:
232:
233:
234: For some simple versions of the models we study it is possible to do
235: some approximate analysis of growth of Chern-Simons number in the
236: spatially-homogeneous phase. Generally we find that adding explicit
237: CP violation to the gauge equations of motion leads, as expected, to
238: secular (that is, not oscillating with the inflaton or Higgs)
239: CP-violating terms in the gauge potential and Chern-Simons density.
240: If the explicit CP violation is correlated on super-Hubble scales, as
241: might be expected following inflation and which we will assume for
242: this paper, the secular average will also be correlated on
243: super-Hubble scales even though initial values of the gauge potentials
244: might be random from one Hubble domain to the next. Without explicit
245: CP violation in the equations of motion, CP violation can only come
246: from CP-violating initial values of the EW gauge fields; if (as
247: mentioned in \cite{alexmike}) these are random from one Hubble volume
248: to the next and on the average CP-symmetric, the baryon number
249: averaged over the whole universe will be zero and fluctuations will be
250: too small by the usual factor of $1/\sqrt N$, where $N$ is the number
251: of Hubble volumes. (Of course, CP-violating effects before preheating can be correlated on super-Hubble scales, so that
252: there can be a
253: secular average with no explicit CP violation in the equations of
254: motion.) We offer one model, somewhat resembling a Brownian ratchet
255: \cite{ratchet}, in which the secular Chern-Simons average depends not
256: only on the sign of the explicit CP violation (assumed to have
257: super-Hubble correlations) but also on the sign of initial conditions,
258: which we could assume as random and uncorrelated. Nonetheless, this
259: model leads to a sort of secular Chern-Simons average, since resonant
260: growth can occur only for one sign of initial-condition parameters;
261: otherwise, there is damping. In this model, however, the secular
262: average itself wanders slowly on a long time scale and consequently is
263: somewhat inefficient. We also offer other models in which the secular
264: Chern-Simons sign depends only on the sign of the explicit
265: CP-violating term in the equation of motion; these lead to a
266: Chern-Simons condensate of unique sign across the universe.
267:
268: We will give a few examples of numerical simulations, making no attempt to cover the possible range of initial conditions and models. The examples are chosen to illustrate strong resonance and hence strong amplification of CP violation; in effect, this means that EW gauge potentials become of order the vacuum Higgs VEV $v$ and the Chern-Simons density grows to order $m^3/8\pi^2$. In strong resonance these final values are essentially independent of the initial values; only the time needed to reach the final values changes with initial conditions. With no resonance there is little or no amplification, and (in our scenarios) far too few baryons would be produced. We are in no position to say what ``final'' values of the Chern-Simons condensate are needed to produce today's B+L values, since our understanding of the conversion of Chern-Simons number to B+L in this very non-equilibrium process is still quite primitive.
269:
270: Our general conclusions are that while there are still many unknowns, involving both
271: parameters of CP-violating physics and unsolved dynamics, we know of
272: nothing which would rule out generation of the observed number of baryons
273: in the universe today in this EW preheating scenario.
274:
275: Other points of view \cite{kls,kt,ggks,rc} have been expressed concerning the mechanisms at work during EW preheating, including the invocation of approximate thermalization of long-wavelength gauge boson modes at an effective temperature much larger than the eventual reheat temperature, so that EW symmetry is effectively restored, and more or less genuine thermalization of shorter wavelengths. Without further numerical simulations it is impossible for us to say how such ideas compare to what we suggest here, which is based on ultimate conversion of a spatially-homogeneous Chern-Simons condensate \cite{alexmike} to a condensate more resembling sphalerons.
276:
277: There is one numerical lattice simulation \cite{ksc} of the full d=3+1 Higgs-gauge system which does not show any secular growth of Chern-Simons number, which instead decays to near zero. For technical reasons these authors did not include CP-violating terms in the gauge equations of motion. As we show here, such terms are important to establish a long-term Chern-Simons condensate, which may undergo sphalerization and conversion to baryons.
278:
279:
280:
281:
282:
283:
284: \section{ \label{spon} Spontaneous baryogenesis at preheating}
285:
286: Biasing the baryon asymmetry through an effective chemical potential can be
287: achieved in a model with two Higgs doublets in what is known as {\it
288: spontaneous baryogenesis}.\footnote{ For numerical simulations of
289: baryogenesis in two-Higgs models see \cite{Grigoriev:1992nv}.} Cohen,
290: Kaplan, and Nelson~\cite{ckn,ckn1} proposed that the effective T-reversal
291: asymmetry may come from a time dependence in the solution for the Higgs
292: field. Their scenario used the variation of the Higgs field inside a wall
293: of a bubble formed in a first-order phase transition. A similar effect can
294: occur at preheating uniformly in space, on the horizon scales. We will
295: discuss this scenario on an example of a two-doublet model.
296:
297:
298:
299: The Higgs potential in a general model with two doublets, $H_1$ and $H_2$,
300: has a form
301:
302: \begin{eqnarray}
303: V(H_1,H_2) & = & \lambda_1 (H_1^\dag H_1 -v_1^2)^2 \nonumber \\ & + &
304: \lambda_2 (H_2^\dag H_2 -v_2^2)^2 \nonumber \\
305: & + & \lambda_3 [(H_1^\dag H_1 -v_1^2)+ (H_2^\dag H_2 -v_2^2) ]^2
306: \nonumber \\
307: & + & \lambda_4 [(H_1^\dag H_1)(H_2^\dag H_2)-
308: (H_1^\dag H_2)(H_2^\dag H_1)] \nonumber \\
309: & + & \lambda_5 [{\rm Re}(H_1^\dag H_2)-v_1 v_2 \cos \xi]^2 \nonumber \\
310: & + & \lambda_6 [{\rm Im}(H_1^\dag H_2)-v_1 v_2 \sin \xi]^2
311: \label{2higgs}
312: \end{eqnarray}
313: At finite temperature, all $\lambda_k$ and $v_i$ receive thermal
314: corrections and depend on the temperature.
315:
316: During preheating the Higgs fields move along some classical trajectory
317: %
318: \begin{equation}
319: H_i= \rho_i(t) e^{i \theta_i (t)}
320: \label{solution}
321: \end{equation}
322: %
323: that satisfies the equations of motion
324: %
325: \begin{eqnarray}
326: \ddot{\theta_i} + 3 h \dot{\theta_i} + \frac{\dot{\rho_i}}{\rho_i}+
327: \rho_i^{-1} \frac{\partial V}{\partial \theta_i} & = & 0, \nonumber \\
328: \ddot{\rho_i} + 3 h \dot{\rho_i} -\dot{\theta_i}^2{\rho_i}+
329: \frac{\partial V}{\partial \rho_i} & = & 0,
330: \label{rho_theta_eqns}
331: \end{eqnarray}
332: where $h$ is the Hubble constant. The term $(\partial V/\partial \theta_i)$
333: is non-vanishing as long as there is a mixing between the Higgs bosons;
334: this term is periodic in $\theta_i$.
335:
336: In the course of reheating, fermions are created and a thermal equilibrium
337: is achieved at some temperature $T_R<100$GeV, low enough to prevent any
338: sphaleron transitions. The Higgs fields change from their zero-temperature
339: values at the end of inflation to some temperature-dependent VEV:
340: %
341: \begin{eqnarray}
342: {\rm at} \ T & = & 0,\ \ \rho_i=v_i; \\ {\rm at} \ T & =& T_{_R},
343: \ \ \rho_i=v_i(T_{_R}).
344: \end{eqnarray}
345: At the same time, the phase $\theta$ also changes:
346: %
347: \begin{eqnarray}
348: \theta(0) & \equiv & \theta_1(0)-\theta_2(0) = \xi, \\
349: \theta(T_{_R}) & \equiv & \theta_1(T_{_R})-\theta_2(T_{_R})=\xi(T_{_R}).
350: \end{eqnarray}
351:
352: The time derivative of $\theta$ serves as a chemical potential for the
353: baryon number~\cite{ckn1,comelli} because of an effective coupling
354: %to fermions $\psi$
355: %
356: \begin{equation}\label{missing}
357: %\frac{1}{2} (\partial_0 \theta) \bar{\psi} \gamma_0 \psi
358: (\partial_0 \theta) j^0_{_Y}
359: \end{equation}
360: that appears in the Lagrangian after the time-dependent phase is eliminated
361: from the Yukawa couplings. Here $j^\mu_{_Y}=m_t \bar{\psi} \gamma^\mu
362: \psi+...$ is the fermionic current.
363:
364: If the gauge fields grow in resonance as described in Ref.~\cite{alexmike},
365: but the Higgs fields are out of resonance, the $\dot{\rho}/\rho$ term in
366: equation (\ref{rho_theta_eqns}) can be neglected. The equation allows for a
367: slowly varying solution $\bar{\theta}(t)$ that interpolates between $
368: \theta=\xi$ and $\theta=\xi(T_{_R})$. Since the Chern-Simon number
369: violating processes in the gauge sector are very rapid on the time scale of
370: thermalization, the fermions produced during reheating will have time to
371: equilibrate to the minimum of free energy when a thermal distribution is
372: ultimately achieved. The effective chemical potential $\mu_{_B}$ is
373: proportional to $\dot{\theta}$, and the equilibrium value of baryon
374: asymmetry is
375: %
376: \begin{equation}
377: \label{nB}
378: n_{_B} \sim \langle \dot{\theta} \rangle
379: \left ( \frac{y_t v(T_{_R})}{T_{_R}}\right )^2
380: T_{_R}^2 \sim \frac{\xi}{t_{_R}}
381: \left ( \frac{y_t v(T_{_R})}{T_{_R}}\right )^2
382: T_{_R}^2 \sim 10^{-10} \ T_{_R}^3 \ \left (\frac{10^{-5} t_{_H}}{t_{_R}}
383: \right) ,
384: \end{equation}
385: where $t_{_R}$ is the time of reheating and $t_{_H}$ is the Hubble time at
386: the electroweak scale, $y_t$ is the top Yukawa coupling, and $v(T)$ is the
387: Higgs VEV. For $T_{_R} \le 70$GeV, there is no wash-out of the
388: baryon number by thermal sphalerons. The required baryon asymmetry,
389: $10^{-10}$, can be achieved in this scenario if the reheat time is $10^{-5}$
390: the Hubble time. The reheat time is usually much shorter than the Hubble
391: time, and the requisite ratio $10^{-5}$ can be achieved in a realistic
392: model.
393:
394: The difference with the scenario proposed by Cohen, Kaplan and
395: Nelson~\cite{ckn1} is that in our case CP violation occurs
396: homogeneously in space, as opposed to in a bubble wall. In addition,
397: the final prediction for baryon asymmetry in the CKN scenario was very far
398: from the equilibrium value (\ref{nB}) because the sphaleron rate was slow
399: on the time scales associated with the growth of the bubble. In our case,
400: $\theta$ changes slowly in time while the baryon number non-conservation
401: is rapid. This allows a slow adiabatic adjustment of the baryon number to
402: that which minimizes the free energy.
403:
404:
405: \section{CP-Violating Operators and Coupling to the EW Gauge Fields}
406:
407:
408: In this section we describe some models of parametric-resonance-enhanced CP
409: and B+L violation which are (at least immediately following inflation)
410: spatially-homogeneous over each Hubble volume, but not fully-correlated
411: over super-horizon regions. These models evade, in various ways, the usual
412: problem that B+L generation in any one Hubble volume is completely
413: uncorrelated to neighboring Hubble volumes. In these models there is one
414: or more feature which is totally-correlated (because of inflation),
415: typically the inflaton VEV or the time-dependent part of Higgs VEVs as
416: driven by coupling to the inflaton. But other features, such as initial
417: values of other fields, may be totally uncorrelated from one Hubble volume
418: to the next. Unlike the earlier study \cite{alexmike} explicit CP
419: violation is built in to the gauge-field equations of motion rather than
420: just into initial values; this CP bias can overcome randomness due to
421: initial values and to stochastic behavior of the solutions to the equations
422: of motion.
423:
424: The CP-violating terms come from various higher-dimensional operators which
425: can be generated from strong CP violation or from multi-Higgs models
426: showing spontaneous CP violation \cite{lw}. The coupling strengths of such
427: CP-violating operators need not be small, since in the early universe
428: strong CP violation can be very much out of equilibrium. Generally the
429: higher-dimension operators come from fermion loops; in the kinematic
430: situation of the present paper, there is no way for a purely bosonic system
431: of gauge fields, inflaton, and Higgs to lead to CP-violating terms in the
432: gauge equations of motion. We will only consider $local$ CP-violating
433: terms, which would be appropriate at the beginning of pre-heating when the
434: universe is very cold; in principle, modifications of locality can occur
435: when the time dependence of various quantities begins to probe the fermion
436: loops carrying the CP violation. We will not consider that case here.
437:
438: There are two generic CP-violating operators which we will consider. The
439: first is of the form
440: \begin{equation}
441: \label{cpop1}
442: \kappa F {\rm\,Tr\,} G_{\mu\nu}\tilde{G}^{\mu\nu}
443: \label{kappacoupling}
444: \end{equation}
445: where $\tilde{G}$ is the dual field strength for the EW $SU(2)$
446: group\footnote{We ignore hypercharge couplings in this paper. A factor of
447: the gauge coupling $g$ is included in our definition of EW potential and
448: field strength.}, $F(x)$ is a (possibly composite) gauge-singlet field and
449: $\kappa$ a coupling strength with dimensions of mass to some negative power
450: (depending on $F$). As usual, integration by parts of equation
451: (\ref{cpop1}) shows that the action can contribute to the gauge-field
452: equations of motion only if $F$ has a non-trivial dependence on $x$; we
453: will seek for this dependence in out-of-equilibrium oscillations of the
454: inflaton or other fields. We note that coupling of the form
455: (\ref{kappacoupling}) as a source for
456: topological number density has been considered in a model with a
457: cosmological pseudoscalar field coupled to hypercharge~\cite{brustein}.
458:
459:
460: Another possibility is:
461: \begin{equation}
462: \label{cpop2}
463: \kappa' F{\rm\,Tr\,} G_{\mu\nu}G_{\nu\alpha}\tilde{G}_{\alpha\mu}.
464: \end{equation}
465: In this case, it is not required that there be any extra field $F(x)$,
466: since the operator in equation (\ref{cpop2}) is not a total divergence.
467: Nonetheless we include it, since there are terms in the gauge-field part of
468: (\ref{cpop2}) which are total divergences and which could be important.
469:
470: When the action constructed from operators of the type (\ref{cpop1},
471: \ref{cpop2}) is added to the EW gauge action and the Higgs equation of
472: motion is added, the dynamics studied in \cite{alexmike} are modified. We
473: discuss the new equations of motion following some brief remarks on the
474: physics behind the operators in (\ref{cpop1}). As for the higher-dimension
475: operator in equation (\ref{cpop2}), it is to be expected at some level
476: whenever the lower-dimension operator in equation (\ref{cpop1}) appears.
477:
478: \section{CP-Violating Physics}
479:
480: The CP-violating physics we are concerned with may come from
481: out-of-equilibrium strong CP violation, from CP violation in the Higgs
482: sector (with two or more Higgs fields), or from other causes. (Note that
483: CKM phase effects are not strong enough to drive CP violation in the
484: Standard Model.) We will discuss the first two explicitly.
485:
486:
487: \subsection{ A model with strong CP violation}
488:
489:
490: Consider the CP-violating operator of equation (\ref{cpop1}), which has a
491: typical axionic form, although we do not associate the field $F$ with an
492: axion. We assume that previous physics associated with earlier times has
493: left a universe which has substantial strong CP violation in the QCD
494: sector. As a prototypical example, consider the $\eta'$ field, which is
495: coupled to the QCD quark anomaly and to the gluonic topological charge
496: density. This coupling to quarks is of the usual form
497: \begin{equation}
498: \label{quark}
499: M_q\bar{q}\exp [\frac{i\gamma_5\eta'}{F_{\eta'}}]q
500: \label{etacoupling}
501: \end{equation}
502: (with suitable but irrelevant normalization of $F_{\eta'}$), showing that
503: $\eta'/F_{\eta'}$ is an angle with period $2\pi$. The potential energy of
504: the $\eta'$ field comes from (\ref{quark}) and from coupling to gluons; the
505: latter must reflect the Witten-Veneziano \cite{witven} relation and other
506: requirements related to the $\theta$-angle dependence of QCD. The result
507: is the standard form:
508: \begin{equation}
509: \label{potential}
510: V(\eta' )={\rm min}_j\;\varepsilon_{\rm QCD}\cos [\frac{1}{N_c}(\theta + 2\pi j+\eta'/F_{\eta'})]
511: \end{equation}
512: where $j=0,1,2$, $N_c=3$ is the number of colors, $\theta$ is the usual QCD
513: vacuum angle, $\varepsilon_{\rm QCD}$ is the QCD gluonic vacuum energy density
514: ($\varepsilon_{\rm QCD}\simeq g_s^2\langle {\rm\,Tr\,} G_s^2\rangle $ in terms of the strong
515: coupling $g_s$ and field strength $G_s$; note that $\varepsilon_{\rm QCD}<0$ with our conventions using antihermitean gauge fields). To be
516: specific, let us suppose that the vacuum angle is zero and that
517: $\eta'/F_{\eta'}$ is small enough so that we need consider only the $j=0$
518: sector explicitly. Now suppose that through the operation of some
519: early-universe physics the field $\eta'$ deviates substantially from its
520: equilibrium value of zero. Furthermore, this deviation, because of
521: inflation, is (roughly) the same across the entire universe. Just as the
522: inflaton does, the $\eta'$ field will begin to roll toward its equilibrium
523: value (at which point strong CP violation is absent or small) on a QCD time
524: scale $\sim GeV^{-1}$, a time scale long compared to all other time scales
525: in the problem. The $\eta'$ field couples to the EW fields $G_{\mu\nu}$
526: through, {\it e.g.}, quark loops, yielding an effective coupling
527: \begin{equation}
528: \label{etaEW}
529: \kappa_{\rm QCD}\eta'\frac{1}{32\pi^2}{\rm\,Tr\,} G_{\mu\nu}\tilde{G}^{\mu\nu}.
530: \end{equation}
531: It is straightforward to check that $\kappa_{\rm QCD}^{-1}$ is of order a QCD
532: mass $M$ of 1 GeV or so. The coupling to the EW potential $\phi$ requires
533: an integration by parts, yielding a term in the action $\sim
534: \kappa_{\rm QCD}\dot{\eta'}\phi^3$, where $\phi$ is a constituent of the EW
535: gauge potential (see equation (\ref{ansatz}) below).
536:
537: It might also happen that the field $F$ coupled to the topological charge
538: density oscillates at the inflaton rate, because of Higgs couplings to the
539: inflaton. For example, with the notation $H$ for an electroweak Higgs
540: field doublet, some unspecified physics may lead to an action of the type
541: of equation (\ref{cpop1})
542: \begin{equation}
543: \label{CP1}
544: \kappa \frac{g^2}{16\pi^2}\int d^4x H^{\dag}H{\rm\,Tr\,}G_{\mu\nu}\tilde{G}^{\mu\nu}
545: \end{equation}
546: where the field $F=H^{\dag}H$ oscillates at inflaton rate scales because
547: the Higgs field is coupled to the inflaton.
548:
549:
550: \subsection{ CP violation in a multi-Higgs sector}
551:
552:
553: Since we are in no position to be very specific about CP violation in the
554: early universe, we will illustrate the concept by using a model
555: (T. D. Lee in \cite{lw}) which cannot account for all CP violation observed in the $K-\bar{K}$ system, but which can nevertheless represent an additional source of CP violation in the early universe. In this model there are
556: two Higgs doublets $H_1,H_2$, and the potential is chosen so that even
557: though all couplings are real, the $H_2$ VEV is complex and of the form
558: \begin{equation}
559: \label{h2}
560: \langle H_2 \rangle = \left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\
561: v_2e^{i\theta}
562: \end{array} \right)
563: \end{equation}
564: with real positive $v_2$.
565: The phase angle $\theta$ arises from terms in the Higgs potential of the form
566: \begin{equation}
567: \label{cppot}
568: V=H^{\dag}_1H_2(DH^{\dag}_1H_2+EH^{\dag}_1H_1)+H.c.+\dots
569: \end{equation}
570: which can be rewritten to show terms involving $\cos \theta$:
571: \begin{equation}
572: \label{thetapot}
573: V=2Dv_1^2v_2^2(\cos \theta + \frac{Ev_1}{4Dv_2})^2+\dots
574: \end{equation}
575:
576: Recall that the essence of EW-scale pre-heating is coupling of the inflaton
577: to the EW Higgs fields. In this case, we invoke (for no deep physics
578: reasons) a coupling of the form
579: \begin{equation}
580: \label{infhiggs}
581: G\sigma^2H^{\dag}_1H_2+ H.c.\sim v_1v_2\sigma^2\cos \theta,
582: \end{equation}
583: assuming for simplicity that the coupling $G$ is real. Once
584: pre-heating sets in and the inflaton $\sigma(t)$ begins oscillating, the
585: angle $\theta$ also begins to oscillate.
586:
587: The CP violation is coupled through $SU(2)$ fermions to the EW gauge
588: fields, and one readily checks that the lowest-order fermion loop graph
589: gives rise to a coupling of the type in equation (\ref{cpop1}) which is
590: proportional\footnote{The Higgs fields change left fermions to right, so
591: both $H_1$ and $H_2$ must act.} to $v_1v_2\sin \theta $. The oscillations
592: of $\theta$ then give rise to a non-trivial coupling to the EW gauge field
593: $\phi$.
594:
595: \section{\label{cpeqns} CP-Violating Equations of Motion}
596:
597: There are several possibilities for CP-violating terms in the equations of
598: motion, depending, for example, on whether the field $F(x)$ in equation
599: (\ref{cpop1}) oscillates at the inflaton oscillation frequency, or at a
600: much lower frequency. Before writing down these terms we set the notation
601: by giving the Standard Model action for the gauge and Higgs fields,
602: including a coupling of the Higgs field to the inflaton field $\sigma$ (but
603: not writing other inflaton terms):
604: \begin{equation}
605: \label{smaction}
606: S=\int d^4x\left[
607: \frac{1}{2g^2}{\rm\,Tr\,}G_{\mu\nu}G^{\mu\nu}+D_{\mu}H^{\dag}D^{\mu}H-\lambda
608: (H^{\dag}H-\frac{1}{2}v^2)^2-G^2\sigma^2H^{\dag}H\right]
609: \end{equation}
610: We use, as before \cite{alexmike}, the following {\it ansatz} for the EW
611: gauge potential, which is $g$ times the canonical potential and is written
612: in antihermitean matrix form (so that $D_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu}+A_{\mu}$):
613: \begin{equation}
614: \label{ansatz}
615: A_0=0;\;\;A_j=(\frac{\tau_j}{2i})\phi (t),
616: \end{equation}
617: with corresponding electric and magnetic fields:
618: \begin{equation}
619: \label{EB}
620: E_j\equiv G_{0j}=(\frac{\tau_j}{2i})\dot{\phi};\;\;B_j\equiv
621: \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{jkl}G_{kl}=(\frac{\tau_j}{2i})\phi^2.
622: \end{equation}
623: For the Higgs field $H$ we use the Standard Model form\footnote{The form of
624: equation (\ref{higgs}) does not contain Goldstone modes, which contain
625: vital topological information during actual creation of baryons; we will
626: discuss these effects in a later section.}
627: \begin{equation}
628: \label{higgs}
629: \langle H \rangle = \left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\
630: v(t)/\sqrt 2
631: \end{array} \right)
632: \end{equation}
633:
634: Evidently the topological charge density goes like $\dot{\phi}\phi^2$,
635: which is, as it must be, a total time derivative. The topological charge
636: density is the time derivative of the Chern-Simons density $\ncsmall$:
637: \begin{equation}
638: \label{csno}
639: \ncsmall =\frac{\phi^3}{8\pi^2}.
640: \end{equation}
641:
642:
643:
644: The gauge and Higgs equations will be written in non-dimensional form,
645: where the time variable is replaced by $mt$, the gauge field $\phi$ is
646: replaced by $\phi /m$, and the Higgs field $v$ is replaced by $v/v_0$.
647: Here $m=v_0g/2$ is the vacuum W-boson mass in terms of the standard Higgs
648: VEV $v_0$. The resulting\footnote{In these equations we ignore Hubble damping, which is miniscule, and damping by decay into fermions, which may have some importance at long time scales where other effects we ignore could also be important.} equations are:
649: \begin{equation}
650: \label{newmotion}
651: \ddot{\phi}+2\phi^3+v^2\phi+[{\rm CP-violating\;term}]=0
652: \end{equation}
653: and
654: \begin{equation}
655: \label{higgsmotion}
656: \ddot{v}+\frac{3}{4}\phi^2v+(\frac{M_H^2}{2m^2})
657: v(v^2-1)+(\frac{G^2\sigma^2}{m^2})v=0.
658: \end{equation}
659: where $M_H=v_0\sqrt {2\lambda} $ is the Higgs mass. An important property of equation (\ref{higgsmotion}) is that if large (order one) values of $\phi$ are reached by resonant amplification, the Higgs potential is strongly modified and $v$ can approach the symmetry-restoring value of zero.
660:
661: There are, as
662: discussed above, several possibilities for the CP-violating term. In these
663: equations we will assume that the inflaton is oscillating sinusoidally at a
664: physical frequency $\omega$, corresponding to a dimensionless frequency
665: $r/2$:
666: \begin{equation}
667: \label{sigma}
668: \sigma =\sigma_0\cos (\frac{rt}{2});\;\;\omega = \frac{rm}{2}.
669: \end{equation}
670: Previously instead of using the Higgs equation of motion
671: (\ref{higgsmotion}) the Higgs potential was set to zero, on the grounds
672: that inflation stops, preheating starts, and the EW sector begins to
673: undergo spontaneous symmetry breaking when the inflaton field reaches the
674: critical value $\sigma_c$:
675: \begin{equation}
676: \label{sigmac}
677: \sigma_c=\frac{M_H}{G\sqrt 2}.
678: \end{equation}
679: This led to
680: \begin{equation}
681: \label{oldv}
682: v^2=1+2\epsilon +2\epsilon \cos rt;\;\; \epsilon \equiv
683: \frac{-\sigma_0^2}{4\sigma_c^2}.
684: \end{equation}
685: Under the assumption that $\epsilon$ is small,\footnote{It is useful for
686: approximate analysis to take the parameter $\epsilon$ to be small, but it
687: can be of order unity in actuality.} so that it can be ignored compared to
688: unity in the constant term in (\ref{oldv}), the gauge equation of motion
689: became \cite{alexmike}:
690: \begin{equation}
691: \label{oldmotion}
692: \ddot{\phi}+2\phi^3+(1+\epsilon \cos rt)\phi=0.
693: \end{equation}
694:
695:
696:
697: Note that there is no CP violation in equation (\ref{oldmotion}), since for
698: any solution $\phi (t)$ there is another solution $-\phi (t)$. CP
699: violation can only come from initial values which favor one sign or the
700: other of the CP-odd field $\phi$. The modifications we address in the next
701: subsection add terms even in $\phi$ to the equations of motion, which
702: therefore will have a built-in CP bias. And when we come to numerical
703: analysis in Sec. 5, we will use equations (\ref{newmotion},
704: \ref{higgsmotion}) instead of the simplified form $1+\epsilon \cos rt$ in
705: equation (\ref{oldmotion}) above.
706:
707:
708:
709:
710:
711:
712:
713:
714: \subsection{ \label{oscil} CP violation at the inflaton oscillation rate}
715:
716:
717:
718: Before studying the complications of the combined Higgs-gauge equations
719: (\ref{newmotion}, \ref{higgsmotion}) which can really only be handled
720: numerically, we will look at adding CP-violating terms to the simplified
721: gauge dynamics of equation (\ref{oldmotion}). This allows a certain amount
722: of approximate analysis, similar to that used in the Mathieu equation, to
723: be done.
724:
725: Using the Higgs dependence on time as shown in (\ref{oldv}) and
726: integrating by parts in the action of equation (\ref{CP1}) gives rise to an
727: action of the form $\int \phi^3\sin \omega t$. We add the appropriate
728: contribution to equation (\ref{oldmotion}) leading to the modified (and
729: explicitly CP-violating) equation:
730: \begin{equation}
731: \label{motion}
732: \ddot{\phi}+2\phi^3+\delta \phi^2\sin rt +(1+\epsilon \cos rt)\phi=0.
733: \end{equation}
734: In this equation the parameter $\delta$ is proportional to $\kappa \epsilon
735: \omega v_0^2$. Note that if $\phi(t)$ is the solution to (\ref{motion}), then
736: $-\phi(t)$ is the solution to this equation when $\delta$ is changed in
737: sign.
738:
739:
740:
741:
742: Without the $\delta \phi^2$ term the equation of motion is essentially a
743: Lam\'e equation, as discussed in \cite{alexmike}. But with this term added
744: we know of no way of reducing the equation of motion to explicitly-soluble
745: form. The major feature of the modified equation can be found by a
746: standard Mathieu-like analysis, assuming that $\phi$ has the form
747: \begin{equation}
748: \label{mathieu}
749: \phi (t)= a(t)\cos (rt/2) + b(t) \sin (rt/2) +c(t)
750: \end{equation}
751: and assuming that $a,b,c$ vary slowly on the time scale of oscillations.
752: The new feature here is the presence of the secular term $c$, which is
753: unnecessary when the $\delta \phi^2$ term is missing in (\ref{motion}). By
754: ignoring all terms oscillating faster than the half-frequency $r/2$ one
755: then finds:
756: \begin{eqnarray}
757: \label{abc}
758: 0 & = & r\dot{a}
759: +b[\frac{r^2}{4}+\frac{\epsilon}{2}-1-\frac{3}{2}(a^2+b^2)]-\delta ac; \\
760: \nonumber 0 & = &
761: -r\dot{b}+a[\frac{r^2}{4}-\frac{\epsilon}{2}-1-\frac{3}{2}(a^2+b^2)]-\delta
762: bc; \\ \nonumber c & = & \frac{-\delta ab}{1+3(a^2+b^2)}.
763: \end{eqnarray}
764: Note that since both $\delta$ and $c$ are proportional to the
765: parametric-resonance parameter $\epsilon$, the new (last terms on the
766: right-hand side of (\ref{abc})) contributions are of order $\epsilon^2$.
767: The formal analysis is done in powers of $\epsilon$, which we therefore
768: assume to be small. Then in (\ref{abc}) the equations for $a$ and $b$ are,
769: to order $\epsilon$, the same as without the $\delta$ term, and the secular
770: term $c$ is driven by the unperturbed values of $a,b$. These show standard
771: Mathieu behavior of the form $\exp \mu t$ with
772: \begin{equation}
773: \label{mu}
774: \mu=\pm \frac{1}{2r}[\epsilon^2 -(r^2-4)]^{1/2}
775: \end{equation}
776: (where we ignore temporarily non-linearities in the equations). Since
777: $\epsilon$ is small, the value of $r$ must be nearly two for $\mu$ to be
778: real and resonant amplification to take place, which is to say that $\mu$
779: scales linearly with $\epsilon$.
780:
781: In studying the original equation with no $\delta$ term but retaining the
782: cubic non-linearity \cite{alexmike}, it was shown that the quantity
783: $a^2+b^2$ obeyed a certain equation which revealed the conditions under
784: which growth rather than damping (negative $\mu$) occurred. With the
785: $\delta$ term added, this equation is:
786: \begin{equation}
787: \label{ampgrowth}
788: \frac{d}{dt}(a^2+b^2)=\frac{-2\epsilon ab}{r}-\frac{2\delta^2
789: ab(a^2-b^2)}{1+3(a^2+b^2)}.
790: \end{equation}
791: The second term on the right of (\ref{ampgrowth}) is of higher order and
792: can be neglected, and then the conclusion is the same as before: Growth is
793: only possibly if $ab$ is positive (for negative $\epsilon$); otherwise there is damping. (When $a,b$
794: are small, their growth leads to growth of the secular term $c$, at twice
795: the rate of growth of $a$ or $b$; see (\ref{abc}).)
796:
797:
798: Writing
799: \begin{equation}
800: \label{abdef}
801: a=A\cos \Psi, b=-A\sin \Psi
802: \end{equation}
803: with positive amplitude $A$, Ref. \cite{alexmike} showed from (\ref{ampgrowth})
804: that\begin{equation}
805: \label{Apsi}
806: A=A_0\exp \int_0^tdt'\frac{\epsilon}{2r}\sin 2\Psi(t')
807: \end{equation}
808: with an accompanying equation for the angle $\Psi$ showing that it varied
809: on the $\epsilon$ rate scale, that is, slowly. Eventually $\Psi$ becomes
810: large enough so that the product $ab$ changes sign and growth turns into
811: damping, or vice versa.
812:
813:
814: What is happening to the Chern-Simons number in this model? The
815: Chern-Simons number density is just $\phi^3/8\pi^2$, and in the case where
816: the CP-violating term proportional to $\delta$ is absent, as is the secular
817: term $c$, this quantity is purely oscillatory and has no appreciable
818: long-term average or preferred sign. But things are different with
819: $\delta\neq 0$; the secular average of the Chern-Simons density is:
820: \begin{equation}
821: \label{CSav}
822: \langle \frac{\phi^3}{8\pi^2}\rangle = \frac{3}{16\pi^2}cA^2
823: \end{equation}
824: Note that the sign of the Chern-Simons density is controlled by the sign of
825: the secular term $c$. Under the usual assumption that the inflaton (and
826: therefore the Higgs) field is correlated across the entire universe,
827: because of inflation, the sign of $\delta$ is also correlated across the
828: universe and by (\ref{abc}) the sign of $c$ depends on the sign of the
829: product $ab$, which may differ in each Hubble volume. But by equation
830: (\ref{ampgrowth}) growth only occurs when this product is positive (since $\epsilon$ is negative), even
831: though $a,b$ may separately be random in each Hubble volume. Of course,
832: only those Hubble volumes where growth actually takes place have
833: appreciable Chern-Simons density and in each of these volumes the sign of
834: the Chern-Simons density is the same. There are Hubble volumes with
835: Chern-Simons density of the opposite sign, but in them there is no growth
836: and this density is small. The result is that at least for a while {\em the entire universe has
837: an average Chern-Simons density of fixed sign, the same in each Hubble
838: volume, even though the initial values of gauge potentials may be random in
839: each Hubble volume}.
840:
841: Numerical simulations discussed below show that on time scales of order $\epsilon^{-1}$ the secular average can change sign, since on such time scales the product $ab$ can also change sign. This may lead to relatively small Chern-Simons condensate values even in strong resonance.
842:
843:
844: We cannot yet say how small or large this condensate value must be, in order to reproduce the observed value of B+L, or of the baryon-photon ratio.
845: The smallness of the baryon-photon ratio must come, in our models, from a
846: combination of the smallness of CP-violating parameters (such as occur in
847: Higgs potentials), dynamical effects during pre-heating such as mentioned above, and sphaleron
848: washout after pre-heating.
849:
850:
851: \subsection{ Equations of motion with strong CP violation} \label{4B}
852:
853:
854: Since the $\eta'$ field potential in equation (\ref{potential}) is
855: determined by QCD parameters it is rolling very slowly on EW time scales
856: and we can replace the time derivative of $\eta'$ by a term of order
857: $M\eta'$, where $M$ is a typical QCD mass, and ultimately (after rescaling
858: time and the EW potential $\phi$ as before) come to another CP-violating
859: $\phi$ equation of the form:
860: \begin{equation}
861: \label{etamotion}
862: \ddot{\phi}+2\phi^3+\delta' \phi^2+(1+\epsilon \cos rt)\phi=0.
863: \end{equation}
864: Here the parameter $\delta'$ is of order $M/m$, the ratio of QCD and EW
865: scales, or perhaps $10^{-2}$.
866:
867: As before, we must add a secular term $c$ to the usual Mathieu {\it ansatz}
868: of equation (\ref{mathieu}). Equations (\ref{abc}) are changed; the
869: equations of motion for $a,b$ are the same as with no CP violation (that
870: is, set $\delta=0$ in the first two equations of (\ref{abc})) while the
871: equation for $c$ becomes:
872: \begin{equation}
873: \label{ceqn}
874: c=\frac{-\delta'(a^2+b^2)}{2[1+3(a^2+b^2)]}.
875: \end{equation}
876: Provided that (as we have already assumed) $\delta'$ is roughly the same in
877: all Hubble volumes, so is the sign of $c$, and so the Chern-Simons numbers
878: in all Hubble volumes add with the same sign.
879:
880:
881: \subsection{
882: Higher-derivative CP violation}
883:
884:
885:
886: We briefly consider here the consequences of adding the
887: higher-derivative CP violation of equation (\ref{cpop2}). It is
888: readily checked that this term yields actions $\sim \int
889: F(\dot{\phi}^3)$ and $\sim F\phi^4\dot{\phi}$; the latter is
890: integrated by parts to $\sim \dot{H}\phi^5$. So to the original
891: equations of motion we must add terms of the form
892: \begin{equation}
893: \label{ddot}
894: \dot{F}\phi^4;\;\;-3(\dot{F}\dot{\phi}^2+2F\dot{\phi}\ddot{\phi}).
895: \end{equation}
896: These can, as discussed in connection with the numerical studies reported below, have
897: dramatic effects because of the appearance of derivatives of $\phi$.
898:
899: \section{Numerical studies}
900:
901: The range of parameter space is vast, and cannot be covered in depth here.
902: We give several examples illustrating most of the effects discussed above.
903: In these examples, we will use the following values of parameters unless
904: otherwise specified:
905: \begin{enumerate}
906: \item Gauge initial values: $\phi(0)=0.01;\;\dot{\phi}(0)=0.01$
907: \item Higgs initial values: $v(0)=0.5;\;\dot{v}(0)=0.5$
908: \item Epsilon parameter\footnote{We choose $\epsilon$ positive for the simulations; this makes no difference to the ultimate interpretation of the numbers.} $\epsilon=0.5$
909: \item $M_H^2/2m^2=1.5$ (corresponding to a Higgs mass of about 140 GeV)
910: \item Resonance parameter $r=2.2$
911: \end{enumerate}
912: Other parameters will be specified as needed. Note that for this standard set of parameters the Higgs field is far from equilibrium; below we give numerics for initial values starting rather close to equilibrium.
913:
914:
915:
916:
917: \subsection{ \label{sin} Sinusoidal CP violation with gauge backreaction}
918:
919:
920:
921: Gauge backreaction is described by equations (\ref{newmotion},
922: \ref{higgsmotion}), to which we will add appropriate CP-violating terms.
923: One of the most important features of this gauge backreaction is that it
924: can help facilitate rapid Higgs transition through $v=0$, which removes the
925: sphaleron barrier and makes baryons from Chern-Simons number. The
926: equations to be studied numerically here are (\ref{higgsmotion}) plus a
927: gauge equation with a sinusoidal CP-violating term:
928: \begin{equation}
929: \label{sinnum}
930: \ddot{\phi}+2\phi^3+v^2\phi+\delta \phi^2\sin rt=0.
931: \end{equation}
932:
933: The initial conditions are as given at the beginning of this Section,
934: except that $\dot{\phi}(0)=-0.01$; also, $\delta =0.51$. This value of $\delta$ is not necessarily realistic, but in general CP-violating quantities scale linearly in $\delta$. The change of
935: sign is done in order to get on the positive-$\epsilon$ growth curve
936: of the parametric-resonance instability of the simplified version of
937: the gauge equation of motion, given in equation (\ref{motion}).
938: Fig.~\ref{cp1fig1} shows the results for $\phi$, $v$, Chern-Simons
939: density $\ncsmall$, and
940: the running average $\ncsa$ of the Chern-Simons density, defined as:
941: \begin{equation}
942: \label{secav}
943: \ncsa = \frac{1}{t}\int_0^tdt'\ncsmall(t').
944: \end{equation}
945: There is no particular physical significance to the running average, but it is more convenient to display than the time-integrated Chern-Simons number, which covers too large a range to be displayed legibly. More to the point is a simple time integral of $\ncsmall$ such as emerges from the dynamics, as in equation (\ref{ncsavg}) below; this is 600 times the running average at the end of the time period simulated.
946:
947: One notes that in the present model the running
948: average $\ncsa$ itself changes sign from time to time on a long time scale, as would be
949: expected from the analysis of Sec.~\ref{oscil}. So this model is not a particularly efficient way of generating B+L even in strong resonance. On the other hand, just how large a long-term Chern-Simons condensate needs to be to generate the observed B+L is not known, so this may or may not be a drawback.
950:
951: \begin{figure}[!ht]
952: \centerline{\epsfxsize 5 truein \epsfbox{cp1fig1.eps}}
953: \caption[]{\small \label{cp1fig1} These figures show the behavior of the dimensionless gauge potential $\phi$, Higgs VEV $v$, Chern-Simons density $n\equiv \ncsmall$, and the
954: running average of the Chern-Simons density $\langle n \rangle \equiv \ncsa$ for the conditions of Sec. \ref{sin}.}
955: \end{figure}
956:
957: \begin{figure}[!htb]
958: \centerline{\epsfxsize 5 truein\epsfbox{cp1fig2.eps}}
959: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}
960: %{\includegraphics[0in,0in][8in,10in]{cp1fig2.eps}}
961: \caption[]{\small \label{cp1fig2} These figures show the behavior of $\phi ,\;v ,\;\ncsmall, $ and $\ncsa$ for the conditions of Sec. \ref{const} with $v(0)=\dot{v}(0)$=0.5.}
962: \end{figure}
963:
964: \begin{figure}[!ht]
965: \centerline{\epsfxsize 5 truein\epsfbox{cp1fig3.eps}}
966: \caption[]{\small \label{cp1fig3} These figures show the behavior of $\phi,\;v,\;\ncsmall,\;$ and $\ncsa$ for the conditions of Sec. \ref{const}, with $v(0)$=1.06, $\dot{v}(0)$=0.1.}
967: \end{figure}
968:
969:
970:
971: \subsection{ \label{const} Constant CP violation with gauge backreaction}
972:
973:
974:
975: In the present example we modify equation (\ref{newmotion}) by adding a
976: quadratic CP-violating term with constant coefficient, as discussed in
977: Sec.~\ref{4B}:
978: \begin{equation}
979: \label{newmotion1}
980: \ddot{\phi}+2\phi^3+v^2\phi+w\phi^2=0
981: \end{equation}
982: We will take $w=0.5$ for the numerical example. This is unrealistically
983: large, but it makes it easier to see what is happening. Generally
984: speaking, the long-term average Chern-Simons density is proportional to $w$; for example, as in the simplified analysis (with no gauge back-reaction) leading to equations~\eq{CSav},\eq{ceqn} which gives:
985: \be
986: \label{simplecp}
987: \ncsa = -{1\over{16\pi^2}}w\langle\phi^2\rangle
988: \ee
989: or $\ncsa\sim -0.0008$ for Figs.~\ref{cp1fig2} and \ref{cp1fig3}.
990:
991: Fig.~\ref{cp1fig2} shows the time history of $\phi,\;v$, the Chern-Simons
992: density $\ncsmall$, and the running average $\ncsa$ for initial Higgs values which are far from equilibrium. The integrated Chern-Simons number is of order 0.1
993: for a CP-violating strength of order unity, and so might be of
994: order $10^{-4}$ for more realistic CP-violating amplitudes $w$ of order
995: $10^{-3}$. This leaves room for inefficiencies in generating B+L from Chern-Simons number, washout of B+L, and other dynamical
996: effects to reduce the baryon number to its actual level of perhaps
997: $10^{-10}$. And, of course, there is no reason to believe that the
998: numerical parameters we use here apply to the real early universe.
999: Experience with running many simulations of the type in Fig.~\ref{cp1fig2}
1000: shows that the initial values of Higgs and gauge fields are not so
1001: important, and that final values of the running Chern-Simons average for unit-strength CP violation range from
1002: about $10^{-3}$ (somewhat smaller than the maximum expected, which is of order $1/8\pi^2$), to the non-resonant value of $\phi (0)^3/8\pi^2$ which is of order $10^{-8}$ for our initial conditions. Of course, these values would be reduced further by the strength of the CP-violating term, which is not small in our simulations.
1003:
1004:
1005:
1006: In the examples so far, the Higgs field has been far from equilibrium
1007: initially and so it swings through the origin frequently. The next
1008: example, also for a constant CP-violating term, shows the importance
1009: of gauge backreaction in causing the Higgs field to oscillate through
1010: zero. For this example we choose Higgs initial values
1011: $v(0)=1.06,\;\dot{v}(0)=0.1$ with all other parameters as for
1012: Fig.~\ref{cp1fig2}. The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{cp1fig3}.
1013: Because the Higgs field is near equilibrium, it stays for a while near
1014: unity, and the gauge field appears to be trivially small. Actually
1015: $\phi$ is slowly growing and finally becomes large around a time
1016: of 200. Fast growth of $\phi$ towards order unity values begins to
1017: send the Higgs field into wild oscillation, accompanied by
1018: growth of the Chern-Simons average value. We will see later that
1019: having the Higgs field go through the origin may be important for
1020: creating baryons from the Chern-Simons condensate.
1021:
1022:
1023: \begin{figure}[!ht]
1024: \centerline{\epsfxsize 5 truein\epsfbox{cp1fig4.eps}}
1025: \caption[]{\small \label{cp1fig4} These figures show $\phi,\;v,\;\ncsmall,$ and $\ncsa$ for the conditions of Sec. \ref{higher}.}
1026: \end{figure}
1027:
1028:
1029:
1030:
1031: \subsection{ \label{higher} Higher-derivative CP violation}
1032:
1033: Adding terms such as those in equation (\ref{ddot}) can and sometimes does lead to singularities in finite time because of the higher derivatives. We show one case where the singularity does not develop before dimensionless time 600. The equations to be solved numerically are the Higgs equation (\ref{higgsmotion}) and:
1034: \begin{equation}
1035: \label{ddoteqn}
1036: \ddot{\phi}+2\phi^3+v^2\phi+w (\alpha \dot{\phi}^2+ \dot{\phi}\ddot{\phi})=0.
1037: \end{equation}
1038: The coefficients $w,\alpha $ are -0.2 and 0.1 respectively. If $w$ gets even a little larger in magnitude (say, $w=-0.21$) a singularity seems to develop, although we have not explored this phenomenon in any detail. Fig.~\ref{cp1fig4} shows the results. The $\dot{\phi}^2$ term in (\ref{ddoteqn}) is always of one sign and leads to secular CP violation; if only the $\dot{\phi}\ddot{\phi}$ term were kept, the running-average CP violation slowly wanders from one sign to the other.
1039:
1040:
1041: \section{From Chern-Simons Number to Baryons }
1042:
1043:
1044: In this section we comment on some very difficult questions: How is
1045: the homogeneous condensate of Chern-Simons number,
1046: \footnote{Throughout this section we will make a distinction between total Chern-Simons
1047: number $\ncs$ or Higgs winding number $\nw$ in a fixed volume $V$ of
1048: space (or length $L$ in 1+1 dimensions) and their densities
1049: $\ncsmall,\;n_{\rm wind}$, and similarly between the total energy $E$
1050: in $V$ and its density $\varepsilon$. Note that $E/V$ is a function
1051: of $\ncsmall,\;n_{\rm wind}$ but not of $V$; nonetheless, it is
1052: appropriate to discuss the dependence of $E$ on the total topological
1053: numbers $\ncs,\;\nw$ at fixed $V$.} equivalent to a B+L condensate,
1054: turned into actual baryons and leptons, which are localized states?
1055: What fraction of the condensate is turned into baryons and leptons?
1056: How does the winding number of the Higgs field enter in? We are in no
1057: position to give definitive answers; all these questions are still
1058: under active investigation.
1059:
1060: Let us begin with a comment concerning washout of baryons and leptons after reheating.
1061: The attractive feature of EW preheating is that the temperature after full
1062: reheating is rather smaller than the EW cross-over temperature $T_c$,
1063: so that baryons and leptons created during preheating are not completely washed out
1064: (the sphaleron transition rate $\sim \exp (-M_S/T)$ is very small because
1065: the sphaleron mass $M_S$ is large compared to the temperature). We will
1066: assume that this mechanism protects baryons, once produced, from washout during reheating. Nonetheless, there can be washout during preheating, and we will have to discuss that.
1067:
1068: Our discussion will invoke insights derived from numerical and analytical work on these issues in the 1+1-dimensional Abelian Higgs model; from simple arguments based on effective temperature; and on approximations to an analysis based on modifications of earlier work on B+L violation in two-particle collisions (where B+L violation is still extremely small because of the poor overlap of states, even though there may be no tunneling barrier).
1069:
1070:
1071: A real baryon is a spatially-localized state, so the transformation to baryons requires quasi-localized states resembling (but not necessarily identical to) sphalerons; these states involve not only the gauge fields but also Higgs fields, which carry a winding number $\nw$ of their own. In the {\it ansatz} we have used so far the Higgs field has no winding number.
1072:
1073: Presumably a major influence on the dynamics of spatial localization is the instability of the gauge-Higgs equations to growth of spatial ripples, as alluded to in \cite{alexmike}. We will not discuss this mechanism here, which is non-linear and time-dependent (so it may be amplified by parametric resonance).
1074:
1075: \subsection{Dependence of energy on topological quantum numbers}
1076:
1077: In the presence of a Chern-Simons
1078: condensate it is energetically favorable to shift the winding number
1079: of the Higgs field $\nw$ in the direction of Chern-Simons number. One way to see this is to note that the energy $E=\int d^3x\varepsilon$ depends on both $\ncs$ and $\nw$. In the homogeneous $ansatz$ used so far the energy, with terms in $\phi^2$ and $\phi^4$, grows monotonically with $\ncsmall$ since $\ncsmall \sim \phi^3$. The Higgs winding number $\nw$ is zero (see equation (\ref{higgs})). Now the energy of a state with finite values of $\nw,\;\ncs$ is, under a large gauge transformation with Chern-Simons number $-\nw$, equivalent to one with zero Higgs winding:
1080: \be\label{eminus1}
1081: E(\ncs,\nw)=E(\ncs-\nw,\nw=0)
1082: \ee
1083: By the above remarks the energy with $\nw=0$ has its minimum at $\ncs-\nw =0$.
1084:
1085: More explicitly, once the system has become a condensate of more or less localized objects, these are described by a large gauge transformation at spatial infinity:
1086: \be
1087: \label{gauge}
1088: A_{\mu}\rightarrow U\partial_{\mu}U^{-1},
1089: \ee
1090: \be
1091: \label{higgs2}
1092: H(x)\rightarrow \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}U\left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\
1093: v_0
1094: \end{array} \right).
1095: \ee
1096: The same gauge transformation $U$ appears in both the gauge potential and in the Higgs field in order that the Higgs contribution $\int |D\phi|^2$ to the action be finite in infinite volume.\footnote{The gauge transformation $U$ has the usual properties of large gauge transformations, including compactness on the sphere at infinity; a typical example is given in equation (\ref{bc}) below.} Evidently these localized states have lower energy than a homogeneous condensate which, so to speak, fills in the volume between the localized states.
1097:
1098: The vacuum states with $\ncs =\nw$ are minima on the energy landscape, so $E(\ncs ,\nw )$ is zero along the line $\ncs =\nw$. Any transitions proceeding toward this line are energetically favorable. For example, beginning from the homogeneous $ansatz$ state with large positive $\ncs$ but zero $\nw$, it is favorable to $decrease$ $\ncs$ and $increase$ $\nw$. Of course, it is also energetically favorable to decrease $\ncs$ toward zero with no change in $\nw$, but then no baryons will be produced; B+L will rise and fall in lockstep with $\ncs$, according to the usual anomaly relation, yielding no baryons at the end. So among the changes which decrease $\ncs$ there is a competition between those which increase $\nw$ and those which do not change $\nw$.
1099:
1100:
1101: We illustrate these statements in Figs. \ref{figNN}, \ref{fromabove}, \ref{ncsplot}, \ref{nwplot}. Fig. \ref{figNN} is drawn assuming that the gauge boson mass (and {\it a posteriori} the sphaleron mass) are somewhere near their conventional values, so that there is a sphaleron barrier hindering topological charge change as indicated by the corrugations on the figure. However, as we have seen in the numerical studies, it is possible for this barrier to vanish as the Higgs VEV passes through zero. Fig. \ref{fromabove} is a view from above of the energy profile plot of Fig. \ref{figNN}. In Fig. \ref{fromabove} the filled circles along the $\ncs=\nw$ line indicate states of zero energy (with $\nw$ an integer), and the open circles on the dashed lines indicate non-vacuum states of positive energy, constant along each dashed line. A conventional sphaleron transition from the point A moves along such a line with equal probability in either direction. This is not the case for topological transitions along other possible paths, such as the maximal energy gradient path (on Fig.\ref{fromabove}, this path is orthogonal to the conventional sphaleron-transition path). Fig. \ref{ncsplot}, showing two cross-sections of the energy profile at $\nw =0,1$, illustrates some possible transitions which change the topological numbers and the associated changes in energy. Fig. \ref{nwplot} shows the energy profile at constant $\ncs$, with the corrugations corresponding to tunneling barriers.
1102:
1103:
1104: The energy profile $E(\ncs,\;\nw =0)$ can be estimated in the case of static or slowly-changing spatially-homogeneous fields (see equation (\ref{ansatz}). For the 1+1 Abelian Higgs model \cite{grsnpb} one has:
1105: \be\label{e11}
1106: E(\ncsmall)/L ={1\over 2}v^2\left(gA_1\right)^2 = {3\over 2}\pi^2{\esph\over{M_H}}\ncsmall^2
1107: \ee
1108: and for the present 3+1 case
1109: \be\label{e31}
1110: E(\ncsmall)/V = {m^4\over {2g^2}} \left((8\pi^2\ncsmall)^{4/3} + (8\pi^2\ncsmall)^{2/3}\right).
1111: \ee
1112: This profile is repeated along the $\nw$
1113: axis with a corresponding shift along $\ncs$ axis so that the minimum
1114: $E=0$ is always on the $\ncs=\nw$ line (see Figs.~\ref{figNN},\ref{fromabove}).
1115:
1116:
1117: \begin{figure}[!t]
1118: \centering
1119: \hspace*{-5.5mm}
1120: \leavevmode\epsfysize=8.5cm \epsfbox{nn4.eps}\\[3mm]
1121: \caption[fig9]{\label{figNN} \small The static system energy $E$ as a function of the
1122: Chern-Simons number {$\ncs$} and the winding number {$\nw$}. Note that $E(\ncs ,\; \nw )$ is minimal along the vacuum line $\ncs =\nw$ and increases with $|\ncs -\nw |$.
1123: }
1124: \end{figure}
1125:
1126: \begin{figure}[!t]
1127: \centering
1128: \hspace*{-5.5mm}
1129: \leavevmode\epsfysize=8.5cm \epsfbox{diag3.ps}\\[3mm]
1130: \caption[fig10]{\label{fromabove} \small Possible paths of topological
1131: transitions are shown on the $\ncs$ -- $\nw$ diagram, viewed from above. Path AB represents the simplest non-sphaleronic topological transition in the Higgs sector. See the text for explanation of the notations.}
1132: \end{figure}
1133:
1134: \begin{figure}[!t]
1135: \centering
1136: \hspace*{-5.5mm}
1137: \leavevmode\epsfysize=8.5cm \epsfbox{diag1.ps}\\[3mm]
1138: \caption[fig3]{\label{ncsplot} \small A cross-section of the energy profile at constant $\nw$. The lack of any barriers makes the downward evolution of $\ncs$ completely unsuppressed. States A and B correspond to the same states in Fig. \ref{fromabove}. At non-zero $\ncs$ the transitions which decrease $|\ncs -\nw |$ become energetically favorable; a simple case discussed in the text corresponds to the path AB with $\ncs$ held constant.
1139: }
1140: \end{figure}
1141:
1142:
1143:
1144: \begin{figure}[!t]
1145: \centering
1146: \hspace*{-5.5mm}
1147: \leavevmode\epsfysize=8.5cm \epsfbox{diag2.ps}\\[3mm]
1148: \caption[fig4]{\label{nwplot} \small Energy profile $E(\ncs,\nw)$ along the $\nw$
1149: axis for several values of $\ncs$. Note that $\nw$ is integer for
1150: $any$ field configuration; the curve profile at non-integer $\nw$
1151: reflects the presence of sphaleron-like energy barriers separating the
1152: states with $\Delta\nw = \pm 1$. These barriers disappear at sufficiently high $|\ncs -\nw |$.}
1153: \end{figure}
1154:
1155:
1156: As mentioned before, there is no energy barrier for movement along the
1157: $\ncs$ axis, so this movement is completely unsuppressed and
1158: controlled by the dynamics of the gauge field condensate $\phi$ according
1159: to equation (\ref{e31}). This lack of suppression means that any (potentially
1160: large) number of baryons produced by variations in $\ncs$ would
1161: instantly disappear immediately after $\ncs$ returned to the
1162: energetically favorable value $\ncs=\nw$, provided there were no
1163: transitions in Higgs sector ($\nw$ remained unchanged). In other
1164: words, even though the fermions are coupled through the anomaly to
1165: Chern-Simons number, long-living fermionic states appear only
1166: due to transitions in Higgs sector which modify the energy profile
1167: along $\ncs$ axis by moving the center (minimal energy) value of
1168: $\ncs$ around which it oscillates.
1169:
1170:
1171: As opposed to the absence of barriers for variations in $\ncs$ only, transitions along the $\nw$ axis
1172: require passing over sphaleron-like barriers (for simplicity, the barriers are shown at half-integer values in Fig.~\ref{figNN}). Precisely how high this barrier is depends on several circumstances, to be discussed below, notably the Higgs VEV and the spatial scales of the gauge and Higgs fields. In 3+1 dimensions spatially-homogeneous fields have a high barrier (provided the Higgs VEV is not zero), by an argument similar to that given earlier: it
1173: would be energetically favorable to separate regions with nontrivial
1174: gauge and Higgs fields in sphaleron configuration). In other words, the sphaleron, of size $\sim m^{-1}$, corresponds to the $minimum$ barrier height and the barrier height is greater for all other spatial scales. However,
1175: in the 1+1 Abelian Higgs model the barrier at any $\ncs,\;\nw$ is the same
1176: as the sphaleron barrier, as can be shown by making a large gauge
1177: transformation that eliminates the
1178: background gauge field and taking into account that the gauge field
1179: component of the 1+1-dimensional sphaleron \cite{sph11} is inversely
1180: proportional to the spatial volume. So the contribution of the gauge field
1181: to the (static) energy vanishes at infinite volume, while the Higgs field
1182: contribution is identical to that of the sphaleron. The 3+1 dimensional
1183: case will be discussed below.
1184:
1185: In the homogeneous case discussed in previous sections, when the
1186: dimensionless gauge potential $\phi$ is of order one there is both a large
1187: Chern-Simons number and a large energy, but zero Higgs winding number
1188: $\nw$. It is possible that the energy in a volume containing one unit of
1189: Chern-Simons number can exceed the usual sphaleron energy, and (as we show
1190: in the next section) this does mean that transitions which change the Higgs
1191: winding number become unsuppressed. Note also that literal sphaleron
1192: transitions,
1193: which change $\ncs$ and $\nw$ equally, on average do not change the Higgs
1194: winding number, which is what is required to produce baryons.
1195: These do not change $E(\ncs-\nw)$ and so
1196: their rate is not affected by the presence of a nonzero $\ncs$ density. At
1197: any $\ncs$, the rates of transitions with $\Delta\ncs=+1$ and
1198: $\Delta\ncs=-1$ equal each other and the
1199: contribution of normal topological transitions to total
1200: baryoproduction is zero.
1201:
1202:
1203: \subsection{\label{efft}Effective-temperature estimates of transition rates}
1204:
1205: Here we give some simple estimates of transition rates based on a commonly-used approximation, in which the net rate of baryon production is evaluated from a first-order expansion of the rate in powers of an energy difference, leading to a form in which the rate is evaluated as a zeroth-order sphaleron-like part times a certain energy difference. In order that this be useful, one requires explicit knowledge of this energy dependence. A further simplification, used here, is to assume a Boltzmann dependence with an effective temperature. In Section \ref{rates}
1206: we give an approximate study of the sphaleron-like part of the rate, looking for conditions under which the tunneling barrier to baryoproduction can vanish.
1207:
1208:
1209: To evaluate the transition rate in the Higgs sector, assume that the
1210: transition from zero winding to $\nw=1$ proceeds along $\nw$ axis
1211: on the path $AB$ (see Fig.~\ref{fromabove}). Then the barrier height $E_+$ along this path
1212: can be estimated as
1213: \be\label{eminus}
1214: E_+ = \esph - \left(E(\ncs) - E(\ncs-1/2)\right)
1215: \ee
1216: Similarly, the height of the barrier in the opposite
1217: direction is $E_- = \esph + (E(\ncs-1/2) -
1218: E(\ncs-1))$. If one could further assume a Boltzmann distribution
1219: with an effective temperature $\teff$, one would obtain different rates $\Gamma_{\pm}$ for transitions in the two directions, with a net rate:
1220: \be\label{myrate}
1221: \dot{B}/V=\ndw /V = \Gamma_+ - \Gamma_- \simeq {\Gamma_{\rm
1222: sph}\over{2}}{{1}\over{\teff}}\,{{\partial E}\over{\partial\ncs}}
1223: \ee
1224: where $\Gamma_{\rm sph}$ is the sphaleron rate at zero energy change.
1225: Then with the help of
1226: equations~(\ref{e11},\ref{e31}), the winding number rate of change in 1+1 dimensions is:
1227: \be\label{rate11}
1228: \ndw /L = 3\pi^2 \Gamma_{\rm sph}{\esph\over\teff}{\ncsmall\over{M_H}}
1229: \ee
1230: and in (3+1) dimensions:
1231: \be\label{rate31}
1232: \ndw /V =
1233: {\Gamma_{\rm sph}\over\teff} {\ncsmall\over{|\ncsmall|}}
1234: {{2\pi}\over{3\alpha_W}}
1235: \left(2(8\pi^2\ncsmall)^{1/3}+M_W^2(8\pi^2\ncsmall)^{-1/3}\right)
1236: \ee
1237: (here we assume the barrier height at $\nw=0$ equals $\esph$, and
1238: note that the total rate is $\Gamma_{\rm sph}=\Gamma_+ + \Gamma_-$).
1239:
1240: It is worth noting that the expression \eq{rate31} becomes infinitely large at
1241: small $\ncsmall$. This divergence appears because in 3+1 dimensions the
1242: homogeneous $ansatz$ \eq{smaction}--\eq{higgs} used throughout the present paper is inadequate
1243: for field configurations with small topological charge densities,
1244: simply because gauge field configurations with unit Chern-Simons
1245: number are localized in space (this is not the case in 1+1 dimensions).
1246:
1247: Strictly speaking, it is unclear whether the topological transitions in
1248: Higgs sector proceed along the $\nw$ axis or along the maximal gradient
1249: direction orthogonal to the $\nw=\ncs$ line. However, the energy gains
1250: $E_{\pm}-\esph$ in the latter case are larger only by factor of 2, which
1251: makes no qualitative difference in our analysis.
1252:
1253: With the increase in $\ncs-\nw$ the energy gain obtained by transitions
1254: with $\nw=\pm 1$ also increases, so at very large values of $\ncs-\nw$
1255: transitions along the $\nw$ axis also become unsuppressed because the
1256: energy gain \eq{eminus} becomes equal to or greater than the barrier
1257: height, {\it i.e.}, the energy of a sphaleron-like Higgs configuration. The
1258: critical values can be estimated by putting $E_-=0$ in \eq{eminus} and
1259: using equations~(\ref{e11},\ref{e31}):
1260: %
1261: \be\label{crit11}
1262: \ncsmall^{crit} \sim {2\over{3\pi^2}} M_H = {2\over{3\pi^2}} {L_{\rm
1263: sph}}^{-1}
1264: \ee
1265: %
1266: In proper dimensionless units
1267: \cite{grsnpb} equation \eq{crit11} becomes $\ncsmall^{crit} \sim 1/10$ or
1268: $A_1\sim 1/2$) in 1+1 dimensions and
1269: \be\label{crit31}
1270: \ncsmall^{crit} \sim {1\over{2\pi^2}}m^3
1271: \ee
1272: in 3+1 dimensions, which is about $1/(2\pi^2)$ per sphaleron volume.
1273: Equation~\eq{crit31} is equivalent to $\phi\gsim 1$, comparable to the
1274: maximum amplitudes of $\phi$ seen in the numerical simulations.
1275:
1276:
1277: \subsection{\label{baryoproduction} Baryoproduction}
1278:
1279:
1280: Let us give some simple estimates of baryon production in the 1+1 Abelian
1281: Higgs model.\footnote{ The estimates in sections
1282: \ref{baryoproduction} and \ref{washout} can be straightforwardly
1283: generalized to the 3+1 dimensional case using equation (\ref{rate31}),
1284: which should be applicable at least for large $\ncsmall$.} Taking into
1285: account that the number of long-living fermionic states is equal to the net
1286: shift of Higgs winding number, and using equation \eq{rate11}, one obtains
1287: %
1288: \be\label{bdot}
1289: \dot{B} = 3\pi^2 {\esph\over{M_H}}{\Gamma_{\rm sph}\over\teff}\ncsmall L
1290: \ee
1291: and
1292: \be\label{bint}
1293: \Delta B = 3\pi^2{\esph\over{M_H}} \int dt\, {\Gamma_{\rm
1294: sph}\over\teff}\ncsmall L
1295: \ee
1296: where $\Delta B$ is the total number of generated baryons.
1297:
1298: Although the detailed discussion of $\Gamma_{\rm sph}$ and $\teff$
1299: time dependence goes beyond the scope of this paper, there are no
1300: reasons to expect any qualitative difference from previous studies
1301: \cite{ggks,gg,ew2000}. There it was argued that $\Gamma_{\rm sph}/\teff$ is a
1302: smooth function of time with a sharp increase at the beginning of
1303: preheating and a slow decrease in the course of thermalization to the final
1304: reheating temperature. The exact timing depends on initial
1305: conditions. However, equation \eq{bint} provides a simple way to check how
1306: efficient the baryoproduction is for {\em any} reasonable time
1307: evolution of $\Gamma_{\rm sph}$ and $\teff$. As long as the frequency
1308: of $\ncs$ oscillations is much larger the inverse thermalization time,
1309: we may substitute $\Gamma_{\rm sph}/\teff$ by 1 in the right-hand side of
1310: equation \eq{bint} which turns into the integrated average of Chern-Simons
1311: number density
1312: \be\label{ncsavg}
1313: \ncsmt = \int_0^t dt\, \ncsmall(t)
1314: \ee
1315: Time intervals when $\ncsmt$ remains constant give zero
1316: baryoproduction; an increase or decrease in $\ncsmt$ corresponds to a
1317: nonzero secular average of $\ncs$ and thus to
1318: positive or negative baryoproduction (provided the transition rate
1319: $\Gamma_{\rm sph}(t)$ is nonzero). The simplest way to get a nonzero
1320: $\ncs$ secular average is to introduce a bias or tilt in $E(\ncs)$
1321: through CP-violating terms either directly coupled to $\ncs$ in the
1322: bosonic Lagrangian, as in equation \eq{cpop1}, or coupled to the fermion
1323: density
1324: operator of equation \eq{missing} which modifies $E(\ncs)$ through the anomaly.
1325: It is also possible to shift the time average of $\ncs$ in other ways
1326: through dynamical effects already described in section \ref{cpeqns}.
1327:
1328: \subsection{\label{washout} Washout from fermion backreaction}
1329:
1330: Washout is one of the most prominent forms of fermionic
1331: backreaction. As long as the topological transitions keep going,
1332: newly-created baryons tend to disappear through the same anomaly mechanism
1333: that created them, to the extent that the decrease of fermionic density
1334: reduces the system energy. Washout (in 1+1 dimensions) can
1335: be accounted for by adding a dissipative term to equation \eq{bdot}:
1336: \be\label{bwash}
1337: \dot{B} =
1338: 3\pi^2 {\esph\over{M_H}}{\Gamma_{\rm sph}\over\teff}\ncsmall L - \Gamma_B B
1339: \ee
1340: where the dissipation rate $\Gamma_B$ is generally proportional to the
1341: sphaleron rate $\gsph$. In 3+1 dimensions \cite{ggks},
1342: \be
1343: \label{gammab}
1344: \Gamma_B = {39\over 2}{\Gamma_{\rm sph}\over{\teff^3}}
1345: \ee
1346: The solution of equation \eq{bwash} can be found in the form (compare to
1347: equation (\ref{bint})):
1348: \be\label{fullwash}
1349: \Delta B = 3\pi^2{\esph\over{M_H}} e^{-\gamma(t)} \int_0^t d\tau\,
1350: e^{\gamma(\tau)}
1351: {{\Gamma_{\rm sph}(\tau)}\over\teff(\tau)}\ncsmall(\tau)L
1352: \ee
1353: (here $\gamma(t) = \int_0^t d\tau\, \Gamma_B(\tau)$).
1354: Direct use of equations~(\ref{bwash},\ref{fullwash}) appears to be problematic
1355: in our simulations for two reasons. First, explicit time dependences
1356: of the rate $\Gamma_{\rm sph}$ and the effective temperature $\teff$ are
1357: controlled by dynamics in the inflaton and Higgs sector which are beyond
1358: the scope of the present paper. Second, equation \eq{bwash} assumes the
1359: fermions to be
1360: thermalized, which obviously is not the case if Chern-Simons number
1361: oscillates with frequency of order of $m$.
1362:
1363:
1364: However, it is easy to see that solution \eq{fullwash} decays
1365: exponentially with time if $\ncsmall=0$ and $\Gamma_B \neq
1366: 0$. Therefore, it is desirable to keep baryoproduction going until the
1367: topological transitions end (e.g. because of freeze-out during
1368: thermalization to a low reheating temperature). Otherwise, if
1369: baryoproduction ends before the sphaleron transition rate approaches
1370: zero, wash-out could crucially affect the final density of baryons.
1371:
1372: Again, the time dependence of the $\ncsmall$ running average \eq{ncsavg}
1373: provides important information about the baryoproduction period and
1374: allows one to estimate acceptable thermalization times. For example,
1375: short-term baryoproduction followed by stabilization of $\ncsmt$ at a
1376: certain value (see Fig.~\ref{cp1fig2}) would seldom survive the
1377: wash-out, while steady baryoproduction (such as is shown in
1378: Fig.~\ref{cp1fig3}) leaves ample time for the sphaleron transitions
1379: to freeze.
1380:
1381:
1382: \subsection{\label{rates} Dependence of tunneling barriers on $\phi$ and
1383: scale sizes}
1384:
1385:
1386: Our purpose here is to find approximately the conditions under which the
1387: tunneling barrier in the sphaleron rate $\Gamma_{\rm
1388: sph}=\Gamma_++\Gamma_-$ (see equation
1389: (\ref{myrate})) can vanish. It will not be necessary to use an
1390: effective-temperature approximation. The techniques used here, based on
1391: work of a decade or more ago \cite{bc,co89,cr,mamo} on
1392: topological charge-changing transitions, are qualitative but useful. They
1393: go beyond 't Hooft's original work,
1394: whose famous tunneling factor of $\exp [-8\pi^2 /g^2]$ holds only at zero
1395: energy and, at that energy, is (classically) independent of scale size. We
1396: give an approximate barrier-factor formula with explicit dependences on
1397: energy, scale size, and Higgs VEV, and outline the regions of this
1398: parameter space where the tunneling exponent can vanish. We do not discuss
1399: the origin or distribution of spatial scales, but simply assumes that these
1400: arise through some mechanism such as the unstable growth of spatial ripples
1401: \cite{alexmike}.
1402:
1403: There are other interesting approaches to this kind of problem, which we
1404: intend to investigate in the future. These include studies of non-Abelian
1405: gauge dynamics in the presence of a non-vanishing topological charge
1406: density \cite{niki} or in the presence of a time-varying electric
1407: background potential \cite{ndg}, and a study of the conversion of a
1408: time-varying background topological charge to fermions through the anomaly
1409: \cite{kl}. These works use various specialized backgrounds not exactly
1410: comparable to the Chern-Simons condensate used in the present paper, but
1411: they should still have qualitative applicability.
1412:
1413: There are at least two mechanisms which can remove tunneling barriers, and
1414: these may operate at the same time. The first mechanism is generally
1415: important for large scale sizes (large means compared to the vacuum W-boson
1416: mass); it involves swinging of the Higgs VEV through zero. The second
1417: mechanism involves selection of a spatial scale such that the original
1418: Chern-Simons condensate is well-matched to baryon production through the
1419: anomaly. As one might expect, the best overlap occurs when the size scale
1420: is about $m^{-1}$, and the corresponding configurations are somewhat like
1421: sphalerons in size, but it is apparently possible for tunneling barriers to
1422: be overcome at considerably larger spatial scales. However, baryon
1423: production is inefficient at these large scales.
1424:
1425:
1426: First we discuss the conditions for no tunneling barriers with a fixed and
1427: finite W-boson mass $m$, and then remark briefly on what happens when
1428: there is no mass because the Higgs VEV vanishes.
1429:
1430: \subsubsection{The no-barrier condition for finite W-boson mass}
1431:
1432: There must be a transformation of Chern-Simons number from the
1433: spatially-homogeneous condensate to one characterized by spatial
1434: inhomogeneities such as sphalerons. That is, in the expression for
1435: $\ncs$
1436: \begin{equation}
1437: \label{ncs}
1438: \ncs=\frac{-1}{8\pi^2}\int
1439: d^3x\epsilon_{ijk}{\rm\,Tr\,}[A_i\partial_jA_k+\frac{2}{3}A_iA_jA_k]
1440: \end{equation}
1441: the relevant sphaleron-like configurations of the $A_i$ are typified by
1442: gauge potentials which approach at infinity pure-gauge terms carrying
1443: winding number; the Higgs field carries the same winding number for a
1444: minimum-energy configuration. The gauge in question was termed $U$ in
1445: equations (\ref{gauge}, \ref{higgs2}).
1446:
1447:
1448:
1449: A typical form for a gauge matrix $U$ carrying unit winding number is
1450: \cite{bc,co89}:
1451: \begin{equation}
1452: \label{bc}
1453: U=\exp \left[\frac{i}{2}\vec{\tau}\cdot \hat{r}\beta (r,t)];\;\;\beta
1454: (r,t)=2\arctan [r/\lambda (t)\right]
1455: \end{equation}
1456: where $\lambda (t)$ is a monotonic function of $t$ going to $-\infty$ at
1457: $t=-\infty$ and to $\infty$ at $t=\infty$. A gauge matrix for Chern-Simons
1458: number $\ncs$ is simply a product of $\ncs$ terms of the form (\ref{bc})
1459: translated to various spatial and temporal centers.
1460: We will refer to the spatially-homogeneous gauge potentials dealt with in
1461: earlier sections as $\phi$ form potentials, and the spatially-dependent
1462: sphaleron-like configurations as $U$ form potentials. Of course, either
1463: form is at best an approximation; the $\phi$ form potentials will develop
1464: spatial gradients by several mechanisms, and the $U$ form potentials will
1465: not literally be of the approximate form we use below.
1466:
1467: Long ago, Bitar and Chang \cite{bc} constructed Minkowski-space gauge
1468: potentials of unbroken $SU(2)$ gauge theory whose asymptotic behavior was
1469: precisely that of equation (\ref{bc}). They chose the single dynamical
1470: degree of freedom to be the function $\lambda (t)$ of this equation; the
1471: non-asymptotic gauge potential is further parameterized by a non-dynamical
1472: scale coordinate and translation coordinates. The parameterization is
1473: conveniently written as:
1474: \begin{equation}
1475: \label{bcpot}
1476: A_{\mu}= \left(\frac{r^2+\lambda^2}{r^2+
1477: \lambda^2+\rho^2}\right)U\partial_{\mu}U^{-1}
1478: \end{equation}
1479: where $\rho$ is the scale coordinate (we will not need to display the
1480: translation coordinates, which we set to zero). Bitar and Chang \cite{bc}
1481: show that the topological charge of this potential is unity for any scale
1482: coordinate value. They also show that the dynamical degree of freedom
1483: $\lambda$ has a Hamiltonian which is quadratic in $\dot{\lambda}$ but a
1484: complicated function of $\lambda$, and computed the barrier exponent $\int
1485: pdq$ at zero energy from this Hamiltonian, recovering the 't Hooft result.
1486: Later this work was extended \cite{co89} to EW theory with a Higgs field
1487: (as well as a chemical potential for Chern-Simons number); this work then
1488: formed the basis \cite{co90} for an investigation of scattering processes
1489: involving topological charge change at very high energies. In this paper,
1490: we extend these earlier works to cover the entire range of scale
1491: coordinates (Ref. \cite{co90} only covered the regime of small scale
1492: coordinates).
1493:
1494:
1495: We wish to find the conditions under which the corrugations or barrier
1496: factors described in connection with Fig. \ref{figNN} vanish, within a
1497: framework general enough to go beyond thermal quasi-equilibrium.
1498: Begin with a general formula of Cline and Raby \cite{cr} for the diffusive
1499: rate. Originally the Cline-Raby formula was given for thermal equilibrium
1500: conditions, but it is easily modified for non-equilibrium conditions. The
1501: derivation is slightly different from Cline and Raby's because of the
1502: non-equilibrium nature of the process. Consider diffusive dynamics of the
1503: Chern-Simons number $\ncs(t)$ in which the diffusion
1504: constant\footnote{Roughly speaking the diffusion constant $\Gamma$ used
1505: here is equivalent to $V\gsph$ of section \ref{efft}.} $\Gamma$
1506: can be written in the usual form:
1507: \begin{equation}
1508: \label{diff}
1509: \frac{\Gamma}{V}=\frac{1}{2V} \int^{\infty}_{-\infty}\langle
1510: \ndcs(t)\ndcs(0)\rangle=\frac{\pi}{V} \sum_{if}\rho(i)\delta
1511: (E_f-E_i)|\langle i,E_i|\ndcs(0)|f,E_f\rangle |^2
1512: \end{equation}
1513: where $V$ is the volume of space and the brackets refer to a trace over the
1514: density matrix; this density matrix is, for the present purposes, taken to
1515: be diagonal in the energies $E_i,E_f$ of the states summed over, with
1516: entries $\rho(i)$. In fact, the density matrix is changing in time and so
1517: does not commute with the Hamiltonian, but at the present level of
1518: (in)accuracy this is an inessential complication. Cline and Raby take the
1519: $i$ states to be in states at $t=-\infty$ and the $f$ states to be out
1520: states at $t=+\infty$, and then use the formula:
1521: \begin{eqnarray}
1522: \label{creq}
1523: \int^{\infty}_{-\infty}dt\langle i,E_i|\ndcs(t)|f,E_f\rangle = 2\pi\delta
1524: (E_i-E_f)\langle i,E_i|\ndcs(0)|f,E_f\rangle \\ \nonumber
1525: =\langle i,E_i|\ncs(\infty )-\ncs(-\infty )|f,E_f\rangle = i\Delta
1526: N_{fi}(2\pi)^4\delta_4(p_f-p_i)T_{fi}
1527: \end{eqnarray}
1528: where $T_{fi}$ is the zero-temperature S-matrix element from the initial to
1529: the final state, and $\Delta N_{fi}$ is the change in Chern-Simons number
1530: (or topological charge) from the initial to the final state. Substitution
1531: in (\ref{creq}) yields:
1532: \begin{equation}
1533: \label{crsecond}
1534: \frac{\Gamma}{V}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{if}\rho(i)(2\pi)^4\delta_4(p_f-p_i)(
1535: \Delta N_{fi})^2|T_{if}|^2.
1536: \end{equation}
1537:
1538:
1539: Further progress depends on analysis of B+L-violating S-matrix elements at
1540: zero temperature, a subject of some considerable interest a decade ago
1541: (see, {\it e.g.}, \cite{mamo}). Ref. \cite{co90} gives the following
1542: very crude approximation to the $|\Delta N_{fi}|=1$ S-matrix elements at
1543: fixed energy $E$:
1544: \begin{equation}
1545: \label{c90}
1546: T_{if}\sim (\frac{4\pi^2}{g})^N\int_0^{\infty}d\rho \rho^{N-5}\prod_j
1547: e^{-\rho k_j}e^{-Q(\rho ,E)}
1548: \end{equation}
1549: where $Q$ is a barrier exponent, $N$ is the total number of particles
1550: involved in the scattering process, $\rho$ is a scale collective
1551: coordinate, and $k_j$ is the magnitude of the three-momentum of particle
1552: $j$. This formula is based on a transcription of familiar Euclidean
1553: formulas for scattering in the presence of instantons to Minkowski space.
1554: Unlike naive instanton-based amplitudes, the above amplitudes $T_{if}$
1555: behave properly at high energy (where one expects $\rho \simeq N/E$) but
1556: are not correctly unitarized; this will not be an important issue
1557: here.\footnote{See \cite{hc} for a multi-channel study of unitarization
1558: effects.}
1559:
1560:
1561: The barrier exponent $Q$ was originally \cite{co90} given for small $\rho$.
1562: The appropriate expression for all $\rho$ can straightforwardly found using
1563: the techniques of \cite{bc,co89}:
1564: \begin{equation}
1565: \label{barrier1}
1566: Q(\rho , E)=\frac{6\pi^2}{g^2} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\xi
1567: F(\xi)^{1/2}\Theta [F(\xi)],
1568: \end{equation} where the function $F$ is:
1569: \begin{equation}
1570: \label{barrier2}
1571: F(\xi)=(\xi^2+1)^{-5/2}[(\xi^2+1)^{-5/2} +m(t)^2\rho^2f(\xi
1572: )-\frac{1}{3\pi^2}E\rho g^2].
1573: \end{equation}
1574: Here we make it explicit that the W-boson mass $m(t)$ depends on time,
1575: because the Higgs field depends on time.
1576: The function $f(\xi )$ is not expressible analytically, but one can show
1577: that $f$ is positive and obeys $f(\xi)\leq f(0)=4/3$.
1578:
1579: The barrier factor $Q$ vanishes if the function $F$ is always negative,
1580: which happens for certain regimes of energy $E$, mass $m(t)$, and scale
1581: coordinate $\rho$. Clearly, there is always a finite barrier at $\rho=0$
1582: (just the 't Hooft barrier if $m$=0). For non-zero $\rho$ it is generally
1583: true that if $F(\xi =0;\rho, m, E)$ vanishes then $F\leq 0$ for all $\xi$.
1584: The no-barrier condition then is:
1585: \begin{equation}
1586: \label{nobarrier}
1587: 1+\frac{4m^2\rho^2}{3}-\frac{E\rho g^2}{3\pi^2}\leq 0.
1588: \end{equation}
1589: Consider first the usual case where $m$ is the standard W mass.
1590: The minimum energy $E$ yielding equality in equation (\ref{nobarrier})
1591: occurs at $\rho =\sqrt 3/2m,\;E_{min}=4\pi^2 \sqrt 3m/g^2$. This minimum
1592: should be the sphaleron energy, and it is indeed a very good numerical
1593: approximation \cite{co89} in the limit of large Higgs mass.
1594:
1595: Next we take up the case where the W mass, or Higgs VEV, is near zero.
1596:
1597: \subsubsection{Higgs VEV near zero}
1598:
1599: It appears that large scales $\rho$, which would be expected in the first
1600: stages of transition of Chern-Simons number from $\phi$ form to $U$ form,
1601: will have a disastrously large barrier factor going like $\exp (-{\rm
1602: const}\;m\rho /g^2)$, if the mass $m$ is anywhere near its standard value.
1603: However, if---as discussed in Sec. 5A---the Higgs field $v$ oscillates
1604: through zero because of gauge back reaction, the gauge mass $m=gv/2$
1605: vanishes and the barrier $Q$ will vanish periodically (see (\ref{barrier2})
1606: at energies $E\sim 1/(\rho g^2)$; that is, more easily at large scales than
1607: at small.\footnote{The idea that preheating causes oscillations or
1608: vanishing of $v$ and therefore reduction or elimination of the barrier
1609: factor is given in Refs. \cite{gg,kof}.} So Higgs oscillations are one
1610: potentially-vital means of generating baryons from Chern-Simons number. It
1611: is easy to check that if the barrier factor is unity for a time $\tau$
1612: during a Higgs oscillation period $\tau_{\rm Higgs}$, the averaged barrier
1613: factor over a Higgs period is not exponentially small, but is of order
1614: $\tau /\tau_{\rm Higgs}$.
1615:
1616: Unfortunately, this is not the end of the story, since there are other
1617: possible suppression effects to deal with; a poor overlap of
1618: anomaly-produced baryons with the Chern-Simons condensate can be
1619: disastrous.
1620:
1621: \subsection{Good overlap condition}
1622:
1623:
1624: Here we explore how the conditions of both no barrier as well as a good
1625: overlap between a $U$ form potential and baryons produced through the
1626: anomaly can be satisfied.
1627:
1628:
1629: Even if $v$ does not vanish during preheating it is possible in principle
1630: to have a zero barrier factor, depending on what values of the
1631: dimensionless gauge potential $\phi$ are reached. Values of $|\phi |$ near
1632: or slightly greater than one are fairly readily gotten, as is evident from
1633: the structure of the equations of motion and from the numerical studies
1634: reported above, and for such values of $\phi$ there need be no barrier.
1635: However, it is possible for $|\phi |$ to be small compared to unity; we
1636: explore that possibility here. As one might expect, for values of $\phi$
1637: rather less than one, it requires a rather large region to gather together
1638: enough energy to overcome the barrier. It will turn out that spatial scales
1639: much larger than the inverse of the vacuum W-boson mass are self-consistent
1640: only if the Higgs VEV does go near zero.
1641:
1642: Consider a region of space of size $\rho$ as defined by gradients appearing
1643: during preheating and further unstable amplification. In this region the
1644: total energy and Chern-Simons number are approximately:
1645: \begin{equation}
1646: \label{totalen}
1647: E(\rho)\simeq \frac{4\pi m}{g^2}(m\rho )^3(\phi^2+\phi^4);\;\;N_{tot}(\rho
1648: )\simeq \frac{(m\rho \phi )^3}{6\pi}.
1649: \end{equation}
1650: Inserting these estimates in the no-barrier condition (\ref{nobarrier}) yields:
1651: \begin{equation}
1652: \label{nobarrier2}
1653: (m\rho
1654: )^2=
1655: \frac{\pi}{2(\phi^2+\phi^4)}\left\{1+[1+\frac{3}{\pi}(\phi^2+
1656: \phi^4)]^{1/2}\right\}\simeq
1657: \frac{\pi}{\phi^2},
1658: \end{equation}
1659: with the last form holding for small $|\phi |$. In this case the total
1660: energy and Chern-Simons number in terms of $\phi$ are:
1661: \begin{equation}
1662: \label{encs}
1663: E=\frac{4\pi^{5/2}m}{g^2|\phi |};\;N_{tot}=\frac{\pi^{1/2}}{6}=O(1).
1664: \end{equation}
1665:
1666: The appearance of inverse powers of $\phi $ suggests the inefficiencies of
1667: avoiding a barrier when parametric resonance amplification of the EW gauge
1668: potential is small: The energy is large compared to the sphaleron mass,
1669: but the change in B+L is only of order one (per unit flavor). Still, these
1670: inefficiencies could be tolerable in view of the exponentially-small
1671: efficiency of actual barrier penetration. When amplification leads to
1672: $|\phi |\sim 1$, avoiding a barrier is rather like having energy at or
1673: above the sphaleron mass.
1674:
1675: Next turn to the conditions specifying a good overlap between the $\phi$
1676: condensate and baryogenesis. We will find that a good overlap means $|\phi
1677: |$ cannot be too far below unity, but we cannot quantify this statement
1678: with the present crude approximations. The point of a good overlap is that
1679: having an energy larger than the barrier energy is by no means sufficient
1680: in many cases to lead to unsuppressed B+L violation, as many authors have
1681: discussed \cite{mamo,co90}. For example, in the formula (\ref{c90}) for
1682: S-matrix elements, the other factors integrated over $\rho$ in that
1683: equation can lead to suppression of the S-matrix element by a factor of
1684: order $\exp [-\zeta 8\pi^2/g^2]$ with $\zeta\sim 1/2$ or so \cite{co90}.
1685: This sort of suppression even in the absence of a tunneling barrier comes
1686: about because of a very poor overlap between multi-particle initial and
1687: final states when these have very different numbers of particles and at
1688: least one particle number is very large. When the states are sufficiently
1689: similar there is no such extra suppression, which is what happens in
1690: thermal equilibrium at large enough temperature. In the present case
1691: something similar happens. The initial state in the Cline-Raby formula
1692: (\ref{creq},\ref{crsecond}) is not a conventional particle state; it is a
1693: coherent state somewhat similar to the $\phi$ form potential, but with a
1694: spatial size $\rho$ coming from various effects, such as growth of unstable
1695: momentum modes \cite{alexmike}. If this state has a large overlap with the
1696: $U$ form potentials such as in (\ref{bcpot}), {\em and} if there is no
1697: barrier for tunneling, then the amplitude for baryon creation will be
1698: unsuppressed. One can say that the exponentially-small rate of B+L
1699: violation in $2\rightarrow N$ collisions stems from the Drukier-Nussinov
1700: effect \cite{dn} that it is extremely unlikely for a two-particle collision
1701: state to couple well to a soliton like the sphaleron, but in our case the
1702: Chern-Simons condensate may, for certain values of $\phi$ and $\rho$,look
1703: enough like a ``soliton" for there to be good overlap.
1704:
1705: We seek this substantial overlap between a generic $\phi$ form potential,
1706: somehow modified to have an overall spatial scale $\rho$, and a $U$ form
1707: (Bitar-Chang) potential, when $\rho$ is a large scale compared to other
1708: spatial scales. At large $\rho$ the Bitar-Chang fields scale as:
1709: \begin{equation}
1710: \label{bcfields}
1711: gE\sim \frac{\dot{\lambda}}{\rho^2};\;gB\sim \frac{1}{\rho^2}.
1712: \end{equation}
1713: By comparison\footnote{The fields $\phi ,\;\dot{\phi}$ in equation
1714: (\ref{EB}) are dimensionful; the ones we use now are scaled by appropriate
1715: powers of $m$ to be dimensionless.}to the $\phi$ form potentials of
1716: equation (\ref{EB}) one sees from the B field consistency with the relation
1717: $m\rho \sim 1/|\phi |$, and that consistency with the E field can be
1718: achieved if $\lambda \sim \ln \phi$.
1719:
1720: Now return to the approximate form of the S-matrix elements (\ref{c90}).
1721: The process to be described is the transformation of a $\phi$ form field
1722: with certain spatial scales to a final state of $N$ particles, including a
1723: set of particles which violates B+L. The process is only interesting if
1724: there is no tunneling barrier, so we assume the validity of equation
1725: (\ref{nobarrier}). The next question to ask is whether one can, consistent
1726: with (\ref{nobarrier}), argue for a non-suppressed overlap between the
1727: modified $\phi$ form and the final state. In the crude approximation of
1728: equation (\ref{c90}) this simply amounts to asking whether the constraint
1729: on scale coming from the final-state wave function is consistent with other
1730: information on that scale, such as the condition (\ref{nobarrier}) for no
1731: barrier. In (\ref{c90}) there occurs a product of exponentials of the type
1732: $\exp (-k_i\rho )$ where $k_i$ is the spatial momentum of the $i^{th}$
1733: particle. It is reasonable to assume that all the particles are
1734: effectively massless, and then the product of wave functions reduces to
1735: $\exp (-E\rho )$. One easily sees that, if the barrier exponential factor
1736: $\exp -Q$ is unity, the $\rho$ integrand maximizes at $\rho=N/E$, just as
1737: estimated \cite{co90} for more conventional S-matrix elements. So a good
1738: overlap simply means that the number of produced particles is (more or
1739: less) determined. This turns out, taking into consideration the no-barrier
1740: condition (\ref{encs}), to yield $N\sim 1/g^2\phi^2$. (One might argue
1741: that in fact particles do have mass, and so one should have $N\leq E/M\sim
1742: 1/g^2|\phi|$ which would require $|\phi|$ at least of order unity.
1743: However, $m$ is the W-boson mass, and all baryons and leptons except for
1744: baryons with top quarks are not nearly that heavy.)
1745:
1746: As in \cite{co90} we can form a rate from the Cline-Raby formula
1747: \ref{crsecond} by multiplying the squared S-matrix elements from
1748: (\ref{c90}) by massless $N$-particle phase space \cite{co90}. Nothing
1749: quantitative should be trusted about the resulting equation
1750: (\ref{gammarate}) below, except for its dependence on $\phi$:
1751: \begin{equation}
1752: \label{gammarate}
1753: \frac{\Gamma }{V}\sim \frac{E^4}{N!g^{2N}}\sim
1754: (\frac{m}{g^2\phi})^4(\frac{\phi^2}{\phi_c^2})^N.
1755: \end{equation}
1756: Here $\phi_c$ is a critical value of $\phi$ separating small from large
1757: rates (in the present highly inaccurate approximation, $\phi_c^2=e^{-1}$).
1758: Whatever $\phi_c$ is, and it is evidently of order unity, it is clear that
1759: for $N\geq 2$ and for $\phi^2\geq \phi_c^2$ the B+L process is
1760: unsuppressed, while in the opposite limit it is strongly suppressed. Note
1761: that if the dimensionless potential $\phi$ is of order unity the energy
1762: scale is the sphaleron mass and the spatial scale is $m^{-1}$. So we
1763: conclude, not unexpectedly, that if the Higgs VEV is not oscillating near
1764: zero spatial scales near the sphaleron mass must be formed; if the Higgs
1765: field is oscillating near zero, much larger spatial scales will serve for
1766: unsuppressed B+L production.
1767:
1768: \section{Conclusions}
1769:
1770: In this work we studied a scenario of baryogenesis in the Standard
1771: Model, based on inflation on EW scales with the Higgs coupled to the
1772: oscillating inflaton in a preheating phase. If baryons could be
1773: generated, they could be saved from washout at reheating because the
1774: reheat temperature is less than the EW cross-over temperature where
1775: sphaleron washout can be large, so the topological transitions can
1776: completely freeze out before the preheating ends. However, the
1777: dynamics of conversion of Chern-Simons condensate to B+L and the
1778: dynamics of washout of this B+L are very complex and not yet
1779: well-understood.
1780:
1781:
1782: Although we have no rigorous proof that B+L production involving only
1783: standard-model fields (coupled to the inflaton) is truly viable, we can at
1784: least say that so far that we have not identified any mechanisms which rule
1785: out a pure EW/inflaton scenario.
1786:
1787:
1788: Extending the earlier work of Ref. \cite{alexmike}, we added explicit
1789: CP violation to the spatially-homogeneous classical gauge equations of
1790: motion, rather than (as in \cite{alexmike}) depending only on initial
1791: value of the functions
1792: $\phi ,\dot{\phi}$ for CP violation. The effects of explicit
1793: CP-violating terms was studied analytically in some simple models, as
1794: well as numerically. We studied numerically the classical dynamics of
1795: the Higgs field, including classical back reaction of the gauge field
1796: on the Higgs field.
1797:
1798: The gauge reaction on the Higgs equation of motion is important in two
1799: respects: It can broaden parametric resonances by getting away from pure
1800: sinusoidal variation of the Higgs field, which was the only case considered
1801: in \cite{alexmike}. And it can, as discussed above, lead to conversion of
1802: Chern-Simons number to baryons which for some fraction of the time is
1803: unsuppressed by tunneling barriers, since gauge backreaction often modifies
1804: the Higgs potential and causes the Higgs field to oscillate through zero,
1805: rather than staying at the bottom of the potential well.
1806:
1807: There are various forms of CP violation which could be added to the
1808: equations of motion; we explored three in the gauge equations and one in
1809: the Higgs equation. In the gauge sector one came from strong
1810: out-of-equilibrium CP violation; another came from a multi-Higgs sector
1811: with spontaneous CP violation; and the third was a higher-derivative
1812: CP-violating term, which could be associated with other lower-dimension
1813: operators. In the Higgs sector we explored spontaneous baryogenesis in a
1814: multi-Higgs model, leading to an effective chemical potential for baryons.
1815: Generally speaking, the resultant secular average of the Chern-Simons
1816: number is a few orders of magnitude less than the dimensionless coefficient
1817: multiplying the CP-violating term in the gauge equations of motion.
1818:
1819: Formation of a spatially-homogeneous Chern-Simons condensate is only the
1820: beginning of the story; it is necessary to convert this condensate into
1821: something resembling a condensate of sphalerons of the same Chern-Simons
1822: number, in order to generate the Higgs winding number which is converted
1823: to baryons. The usual approach of invoking a thermal (or effectively
1824: thermal) regime immediately following the parametric resonance regime is
1825: not likely to be applicable. A quantitatively-adequate study of these
1826: non-thermal non-equilibrium processes remains to be done, but we have
1827: given useful criteria for evading the two possible process which lead to
1828: exponential suppression of baryogenesis. The first, of course, is the
1829: topological-charge tunneling barrier. The second is a poor overlap between
1830: initial and final states in a process even with no barrier.
1831: Based on earlier work which studied the (im)possibility of baryon
1832: production in accelerator collisions, we gave crude estimates of the
1833: parameter ranges which avoid both barriers and bad overlap, and pointed out
1834: the influence of the Higgs VEV passing near zero for these parameter
1835: ranges. The conclusion is that if the Higgs VEV stays near its vacuum
1836: value, spatial scales near the vacuum inverse W-boson mass and energies
1837: near the vacuum sphaleron mass can avoid both forms of suppression, quite
1838: unlike the $2\rightarrow N$ collision case where poor overlap cannot be
1839: avoided. If this VEV goes near zero, the spatial scales can be larger
1840: and the energy scales smaller.
1841:
1842: If this view proves to be correct, the rate-limiting step in baryogenesis
1843: will be the conversion of $\phi$ form EW fields to $U$ form fields, by
1844: growth of perturbations at various spatial scales.
1845:
1846:
1847: The scenario of regions of almost spatially-homogeneous Chern-Simons
1848: condensate of order of the EW Hubble size, may have consequences beyond B+L
1849: generation. It has been proposed \cite{co97} that any mechanism of B+L
1850: generation involving the EW anomaly will leave its trace on the early
1851: universe through large-scale helicity of the Maxwell magnetic fields which
1852: descend from EW gauge fields as the universe cools. As is well-known, if
1853: these magnetic fields have typical EW scales of $10^{-16}$ cm, the
1854: present-day magnetic-field scale will be far too small even taking
1855: expansion of the universe into account. Following earlier studies in
1856: magnetohydrodynamics, Ref. \cite{co97} proposed that the helicity would
1857: drive an inverse cascade to longer scales. This idea was further pursued
1858: by Son and by Field and Carroll \cite{son}. If the EW fields which lead to
1859: Maxwell magnetic fields are generated on the EW Hubble size scale, one
1860: gains many orders of magnitude toward seeding present-day intergalactic
1861: magnetic fields by EW processes. Moreover, there might be much more
1862: Maxwell helicity than the minimum required to produce the present-day
1863: abundance of baryons, since only a fraction of the $\phi$ form Chern-Simons
1864: condensate will be turned into baryons. The Maxwell helicity produced
1865: during preheating amplification of CP violation can be very much greater
1866: than the number of baryons. Work is underway to investigate these points.
1867:
1868: \newpage
1869:
1870: \begin{center}
1871: {\large \bf Acknowledgments}
1872: \end{center}
1873: This work was supported in part by the US Department of Energy, grant
1874: DE-FG03-91ER40662, Task C, and by the NATO Collaborative Linkage Grant
1875: PST.CLG.976397. D. G. thanks the Elementary Particle Theory group of UCLA,
1876: where this work was performed, for their kind hospitality during his
1877: visit; his work is supported in part by CRDF grant
1878: RP1-2103. D. G. is indebted to N. Manton, S. Nussinov and M. Shaposhnikov for
1879: discussions and comments.
1880:
1881: \newpage
1882:
1883: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1884: \bibitem{kls} L.~Kofman, A.~Linde, and A.~A.~Starobinsky,
1885: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 3195 (1994), {\it ibid.} {\bf 76}, 1011 (1996);
1886: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 3258 (1997).
1887: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9405187;%%
1888: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9510119;%%
1889: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704452;%%
1890: \bibitem{kt} L.~M.~Krauss and M.~Trodden, Phys. Rev. Lett.{\bf 83}, 1502
1891: (1999).
1892: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9902420;%%
1893: \bibitem{ggks} J.~Garc\'ia-Bellido, D.~Grigoriev, A.~Kusenko, and
1894: M.~Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60}, 123504 (1999).
1895: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9902449;%%
1896: \bibitem{gg}
1897: J.Garc\'ia-Bellido and D.Grigoriev,
1898: JHEP{\bf 0001}, 017 (2000).
1899: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912515;%%
1900: \bibitem{grs} G.~Germ\'an, G.~Ross, and S.~Sarkar, hep-ph/0103243.
1901: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103243;%%
1902: \bibitem{krs} V.~A.~Kuzmin, V.~A.~Rubakov, and M.~Shaposhnikov,
1903: Phys. Lett. {\bf 155B}, 36 (1985).
1904: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B155,36;%%
1905: \bibitem{ckn} A.~Cohen, D.~Kaplan, and A.~Nelson,
1906: Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 43}, 27 (1993).
1907: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9302210;%%
1908: \bibitem{alexmike} J.~M.~Cornwall and A.~Kusenko, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61},
1909: 103510 (2000).
1910: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001058;%%
1911: \bibitem{ckn1} A.~G.~Cohen, D.~B.~Kaplan and A.~E.~Nelson,
1912: %``Spontaneous baryogenesis at the weak phase transition,''
1913: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 263}, 86 (1991).
1914: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B263,86;%%
1915:
1916: \bibitem{lw} T.~D.~Lee, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 8}, 1226 (1973); Phys. Reports
1917: {\bf 9}, 143 (1974); S.~Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 37}, 657 (1976).
1918: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D8,1226;%%
1919: %%CITATION = PRPLC,9,143;%%
1920: %%CITATION = PRLTA,37,657;%%
1921:
1922:
1923: \bibitem{ew2000} D.~Grigoriev, in Proceedings of the {\em 35th Rencontres
1924: de Moriond}, hep-ph/0006115.
1925: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006115;%%
1926: \bibitem{mamo} {\it Baryon Number Violation at the SSC}, Proceedings of
1927: the Santa Fe Workshop, ed. M.~Mattis and E.~Mottola (World Scientific,
1928: Singapore, 1990).
1929: \bibitem{co90} J.~M.~Cornwall, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 243}, 271 (1990).
1930: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B243,271;%%
1931: \bibitem{dn} A.~K.~Drukier and S. Nussinov, Phys. Rev. Letters {\bf 49},
1932: 102 (1982).
1933: %%CITATION = PRLTA,49,102;%%
1934: \bibitem{ratchet} P.~H\"anggi and R.~Bartusek, in {\it Lecture Notes in
1935: Physics}, Vol. 476, ed. J.~Parisi, S.~C.~M\"uller, and W.~Zimmerman
1936: (Springer, New York, 1996), p. 294.
1937: \bibitem{rc} A.~Rajantie and E.~J.~Copeland, Phys. Rev. Letters {\bf 85},
1938: 916 (2000).
1939: %%CITATION = PRLTA,85,916;%%
1940: \bibitem{ksc} A.~Rajantie, P.~M.~Saffin, and E.~J.~Copeland, hep-ph/0012097.
1941: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012097;%%
1942: \bibitem{Grigoriev:1992nv}
1943: D.Yu.~Grigoriev, M.~Shaposhnikov and N.~Turok,
1944: %``Electroweak baryogenesis: A Numerical study in (1+1)-dimensions,''
1945: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 275}, 395 (1992).
1946: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B275,395;%%
1947:
1948: \bibitem{comelli}
1949: M.~Dine and S.~Thomas,
1950: %``Electroweak baryogenesis in the adiabatic limit,''
1951: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 328}, 73 (1994)
1952: [hep-ph/9401265];
1953: D.~Comelli, M.~Pietroni and A.~Riotto,
1954: %``Particle currents on a CP violating Higgs background and the spontaneous
1955: %baryogenesis mechanism,''
1956: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 354}, 91 (1995)
1957: [hep-ph/9504265];
1958: %D.~Comelli, M.~Pietroni and A.~Riotto,
1959: %``Particle currents in a space-time dependent and CP violating Higgs
1960: %background: A Field theory approach,''
1961: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53}, 4668 (1996)
1962: [hep-ph/9506278];
1963: P.~Huet and A.~E.~Nelson,
1964: %``Electroweak baryogenesis in supersymmetric models,''
1965: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53}, 4578 (1996)
1966: [hep-ph/9506477].
1967:
1968: \bibitem{brustein} R.~Brustein and D.~H.~Oaknin,
1969: %``Electroweak baryogenesis induced by a scalar field,''
1970: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82}, 2628 (1999)
1971: [hep-ph/9809365];
1972: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9809365;%%
1973: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 023508 (1999)
1974: [hep-ph/9901242];
1975: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9901242;%%
1976: hep-ph/0003166.
1977: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003166;%%
1978:
1979: \bibitem{witven} E.~Witten, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B156}, 269 (1979);
1980: G.~Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B159}, 213 (1979).
1981: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B156,269;%%
1982: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B159,213;%%
1983: \bibitem{grsnpb} D.~Yu.~Grigoriev, V.A.~Rubakov and M.~E.~Shaposhnikov,
1984: Phys. Lett. {\bf B216}, 172 (1989);
1985: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B326}, 737 (1989).
1986: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B216,172;%%
1987: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B326,737;%%
1988: \bibitem{sph11}
1989: A.~I.~Bochkarev and M.~E.~Shaposhnikov,
1990: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 2}, 991 (1987)
1991: [Erratum-ibid.\ A {\bf 4}, 1495 (1987)];
1992: %%CITATION = MPLAE,A2,991;%%
1993: D.~Yu.~Grigoriev and V.~A.~Rubakov,
1994: %``Soliton Pair Creation At Finite Temperatures. Numerical Study In
1995: %(1+1)-Dimensions,''
1996: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 299}, 67 (1988).
1997: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B299,67;%%
1998:
1999: \bibitem{onehalf}
2000: S.~Yu.~Khlebnikov and M.~E.~Shaposhnikov,
2001: %``The Statistical Theory Of Anomalous Fermion Number Nonconservation,''
2002: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 308}, 885 (1988);
2003: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B308,885;%%
2004: V.~A.~Rubakov and M.~E.~Shaposhnikov,
2005: %``Electroweak baryon number non-conservation in the early universe and in
2006: %high-energy collisions,''
2007: Usp.\ Fiz.\ Nauk {\bf 166}, 493 (1996)
2008: [Phys.\ Usp.\ {\bf 39}, 461 (1996)];
2009: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603208;%%
2010: G.~D.~Moore,
2011: %``Motion of Chern-Simons Number at High Temperatures under a Chemical
2012: %Potential,''
2013: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 480}, 657 (1996).
2014: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603384;%%
2015: \bibitem{bc} K.~M.~Bitar and S.-J.~Chang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 17}, 486 (1978).
2016: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D17,486;%%
2017: \bibitem{co89} J.~M.~Cornwall, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 40},4130 (1989).
2018: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D40,4130;%%
2019: \bibitem{cr} J.~Cline and S.~Raby, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 246}, 163 (1990).
2020: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B246,163;%%
2021: \bibitem{niki} A.~I.~Nikishov, hep-th/0104019.
2022: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0104019;%%
2023: \bibitem{ndg} G.~C.~Nayak, D.~D.~Dietrich, and W.~Greiner, hep-ph/0104030.
2024: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104030;%%
2025: \bibitem{kl} F.~R.~Klinkhamer and Y.~J.~Lee, hep-th/0104096.
2026: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0104096;%%
2027: \bibitem{hc} N.~Hatzigeorgiou and J.~M.~Cornwall, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 327},
2028: 313 (1994).
2029: \bibitem{kof}%\cite{Khlebnikov:1998sz}
2030: S.~Khlebnikov, L.~Kofman, A.~Linde and I.~Tkachev,
2031: %``First-order nonthermal phase transition after preheating,''
2032: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 81}, 2012 (1998).
2033: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804425;%%
2034: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B327,313;%%
2035: \bibitem{co97} J.~M.~Cornwall, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 6146 (1997).
2036: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9704022;%%
2037: \bibitem{son} D.~T.~Son, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}, 063008 (1999);
2038: G.~B.~Field and S.~M.~Carroll,
2039: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 103008 (2000).
2040: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803412;%%
2041: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9811206;%%
2042: \end{thebibliography}
2043:
2044:
2045:
2046:
2047:
2048:
2049: \end{document}
2050:
2051:
2052: