1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{axodraw,graphicx,amsbsy,latexsym,graphics}
3:
4: %\setlength{\footheight}{.0 cm}
5: \setlength{\textwidth}{17.17 cm} \setlength{\textheight}{23cm}
6: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.5cm} \setlength{\evensidemargin}{-0.5cm}
7: \setlength{\topmargin}{-1.3 cm}
8: \pagestyle{plain}
9: \begin{document}
10:
11: %\baselineskip 24pt
12:
13: \newcommand{\sheptitle}
14: {SUSY, Inflation and the Origin of Matter in the
15: Universe\footnote{This is a review article to be published in J.Phys.G.
16: Based on a plenary talk given by S.F.K. at the IPPP BSM Workshop,
17: Durham, UK 6-11th May 2001.}}
18:
19: \newcommand{\shepauthor}
20: {S. F. King and D. A. J. Rayner}
21:
22: \newcommand{\shepaddress}
23: {Department of Physics and Astronomy,
24: University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, U.K.}
25:
26: \newcommand{\shepabstract}
27: {We consider the Standard Models of particle physics and hot big bang
28: cosmology, and review the theoretical and experimental motivations for
29: extending these models to include supersymmetry and inflation. An obvious
30: extension would be to unite these two models into a single
31: all-encompassing theory. We identify a list of theoretical challenges that
32: such a theory must address, which we illustrate with a simple model - a
33: variant of the next-to-minimal supersymmetric Standard Model - that addresses
34: these challenges.}
35:
36: \begin{titlepage}
37: \begin{flushright}
38: SHEP 01-26
39: \end{flushright}
40: \vspace{0.5in}
41: \begin{center}
42: {\Large{\bf \sheptitle}}
43: \vspace{0.5in}
44: \bigskip \\ \shepauthor \\ \mbox{} \\ {\it \shepaddress} \\
45: \vspace{0.5in}
46: {\bf Abstract} \bigskip \end{center} \setcounter{page}{0}
47: \shepabstract
48: \end{titlepage}
49:
50: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
51: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% INTRODUCTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
52: \section{A Tale of Two Standard Models} \label{sec:intro}
53:
54: The Standard Model (SM) of particle physics provides a description of the
55: fundamental particles and forces present in Nature. It is expressed as a
56: quantum field theory and combines quantum mechanics with special relativity
57: into a single consistent framework. Local {\it gauge} symmetry is an
58: essential ingredient, and the combined gauge group
59: $SU(3)_{C} \otimes SU(2)_{L} \otimes U(1)_{Y}$ correctly describes
60: electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. It can account
61: for the observed low-energy phenomena such as the infinite range of the
62: electromagnetic force and radioactive decay of unstable nuclei in terms of
63: force-mediating quanta. The model has been in place for over 30 years and has
64: been rigorously tested by experiments at high-energy particle accelerators.
65: There are many theoretical reasons to believe in a deeper theory - such as
66: supersymmetry (SUSY) - but it is only in the last few years that new
67: experiments have been able to probe physics
68: beyond the Standard Model (BSM), e.g. massive neutrinos
69: and neutrino oscillations~\cite{neutrino}, $g_{\mu}-2$ measurements~\cite{g-2}
70: and even the recent Higgs candidate at LEP~\cite{lep}.
71:
72: There is a similar situation in cosmology where the hot big bang (HBB)
73: Standard Model can account for the evolution of the early universe for cosmic
74: times $t \ge t_{P} \sim 10^{-44}s$ following the big bang, where quantum
75: gravity effects are negligible. The model
76: was developed after the two important discoveries of the cosmic microwave
77: background (CMB) radiation and the Hubble expansion of the universe.
78: Among its many successes, the HBB paradigm can explain nucleosynthesis and
79: reproduce the observed abundances of light elements; and predict a blackbody
80: CMB spectrum with the correct temperature of $T_{CMB} \sim 3 \, K$. However
81: it has a number of long-standing problems that either require severely
82: fine-tuned initial conditions, or a new theory - such as inflation - that
83: provide observationally-consistent solutions to these problems in a natural
84: way. Recently satellite and balloon-based experiments have yielded evidence
85: that verify the theoretical problems and provide experimental constraints for
86: any extended cosmological model - e.g. COBE density/temperature
87: fluctuations~\cite{cobe}, and the BOOMERANG~\cite{boomerang},
88: MAXIMA~\cite{maxima} and DASI~\cite{dasi} observations of the angular
89: power spectrum\footnote{These observations
90: simultaneously provide information about the matter density and
91: curvature of the universe today.}.
92:
93: It would be desirable to combine the two Standard Models (and their
94: extensions) within a single all-encompassing theory - a supersymmetric
95: inflationary model - that provides solutions for the
96: long-standing problems in each SM separately, and is also highly predictive
97: with fewer free parameters~\cite{king2}. For example, such a theory may
98: eventually unite string theory with cosmology~\cite{stringcosmo} since
99: superstrings offer the best way of unifying all four fundamental forces in a
100: mathematically consistent way.
101:
102: The layout of the remainder of this review is as follows. In section
103: \ref{sec:whybsm} we discuss how supersymmetry and inflation solve the
104: theoretical and experimental problems of the Standard Models of particle
105: physics and cosmology. In section \ref{sec:ippp} we introduce the notion of
106: an all-embracing theory that combines supersymmetry and inflation into a
107: single unified framework. Section \ref{sec:challenges} lists the challenges
108: that a supersymmetric inflationary model must address, which we illustrate
109: with a well-studied example in section \ref{sec:phinmssm} - a variant of the
110: next-to-minimal supersymmetric Standard Model (NMSSM). Section
111: \ref{sec:conc} concludes the review.
112:
113: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
114: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% why bsm? %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
115: \section{Why go beyond the Standard Models?} \label{sec:whybsm}
116:
117: In this section we will show how low-energy SUSY and inflation tackle
118: the problems present in the Standard Models of particle physics and
119: cosmology. There are many good references in the literature with further
120: details~\cite{susy,cosmo}.
121:
122: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
123: \subsection{Beyond the Particle Physics Standard Model - Supersymmetry}
124: \label{sec:ppbsm}
125:
126: The Standard Model of particle physics is a quantum field theory that unites
127: the two great successes of twentieth century physics - quantum mechanics and
128: special relativity. It describes the fundamental forces and particles of
129: Nature in terms of the local gauge group $SU(3)_{C} \otimes SU(2)_{L} \otimes
130: U(1)_{Y}$, where force-carrying bosons mediate interactions between elementary
131: matter fermions and particles generate masses via their coupling to the Higgs
132: boson. This model has survived rigorous experimental tests at high-energy
133: particle accelerators for over 30 years, but recently experiments have
134: begun to observe hints of new physics that cannot be explained by the Standard
135: Model\cite{neutrino,g-2,lep}. These experimental anomalies support the many
136: theoretical reasons - such as the hierarchy and gauge coupling unification
137: problem - which suggest that a new extended model is required.
138: %
139: \begin{figure}[h]
140: \begin{center}
141: \scalebox{0.8}{
142: \begin{picture}(550,165)(0,30)
143: \DashLine(5,140)(55,140){6}
144: \DashLine(115,140)(165,140){6}
145: \ArrowArc(85,140)(30,0,180)
146: \ArrowArc(85,140)(30,180,360)
147: \Vertex(55,140){2}
148: \Vertex(115,140){2}
149: \Text(0,140)[r]{{\large $H_{u}$}}
150: \Text(170,140)[l]{{\large $H_{u}$}}
151: \Text(-20,165)[r]{{\Large (a)}}
152: \Text(85,175)[b]{{\large $t_{L}$}}
153: \Text(85,115)[b]{{\large $t_{R}$}}
154: %
155: \Text(575,150)[r]{{\large $ \delta m_{H_{u}}^{2} \approx
156: \frac{y_{t}^{2}}{16 \pi^{2}} \left[ -2\Lambda_{UV}^{2}
157: + 6 m_{t}^{2} \ln \left( \frac{\Lambda_{UV}}{m_{t}} \right) \right]
158: + \ldots $}}
159: %
160: \Text(-20,70)[r]{{\Large (b)}}
161: \DashLine(5,45)(55,45){6}
162: \DashLine(115,45)(165,45){6}
163: \ArrowArc(85,45)(30,0,180)
164: \ArrowArc(85,45)(30,180,360)
165: \Vertex(55,45){2}
166: \Vertex(115,45){2}
167: \Text(0,45)[r]{{\large $H_{u}$}}
168: \Text(170,45)[l]{{\large $H_{u}$}}
169: \Text(85,80)[b]{{\large $t_{L}$}}
170: \Text(85,20)[b]{{\large $t_{R}$}}
171: \Text(205,50)[]{{\LARGE $+$}}
172: %
173: \DashLine(240,20)(310,20){6}
174: \DashLine(310,20)(380,20){6}
175: \DashCArc(310,50)(30,90,450){4}
176: \Vertex(310,20){2}
177: \Text(235,20)[r]{{\large $H_{u}$}}
178: \Text(385,20)[l]{{\large $H_{u}$}}
179: \Text(310,85)[b]{{\large $\tilde{t}_{L}$ ($\tilde{t}_{R}$)}}
180: %
181: \Text(575,55)[r]{{\large $ \delta m_{H_{u}}^{2} \approx
182: - \frac{6 y_{t}^{2}}{16 \pi^{2}} m_{\tilde{t}}^{2}
183: \ln \left( \frac{\Lambda_{UV}}{m_{\tilde{t}}} \right) + \ldots$}}
184: \end{picture}
185: }
186: \end{center}
187: \caption{{\small The dominant top (stop) 1-loop corrections to the Higgs
188: mass, where $y_{t}$ is the top(stop) Yukawa coupling.
189: In the absence of SUSY (a), only top loops contribute, and the
190: radiative correction is found to be quadratically divergent in powers of the
191: ultraviolet momentum cutoff $\Lambda_{UV}$. However, when stop loops are
192: included (b), the quadratically divergent pieces cancel out to leave a softer
193: logarithmically divergent correction. In the limit that SUSY is preserved
194: ($m_{\tilde{t}} = m_{t}$), there is an exact cancellation between the top
195: and stop 1-loop corrections to the Higgs mass.}}
196: \label{fig:higgs}
197: \end{figure}
198:
199: A leading candidate is supersymmetry - an underlying symmetry that
200: unites fermionic and bosonic degrees of freedom within the same
201: {\it superfield} multiplets. The minimal extension (MSSM) adds a
202: fermion (boson) superpartner for each boson (fermion) particle in the Standard
203: Model\footnote{Notice that the (up-like) Higgs scalar obtains a spin-1/2
204: Higgsino partner with identical gauge quantum numbers that leads to a gauge
205: anomaly in the theory. This requires that another (down-like) Higgs scalar
206: and Higgsino must be
207: added to cancel this anomaly.}. SUSY combines internal and space-time
208: Poincar\'{e} symmetries in a non-trivial way\footnote{The use of
209: anti-commuting {\it Grassmann} variables evade the famous Coleman-Mandula
210: No-Go theorem.}. We know that a theory invariant with respect to these
211: symmetries can provide a realistic model of elementary particles and
212: fundamental forces, so it is natural to want to unite internal and space-time
213: symmetries within {\it global} supersymmetry. Notice that a {\it gauged}
214: local
215: supersymmetry includes general coordinate transformations and necessarily
216: incorporates a theory of gravity\footnote{Superstrings (so far) provide the
217: only consistent quantum theory involving gravity, and supersymmetry is an
218: essential ingredient.}.
219:
220: SUSY solves the gauge hierarchy and naturalness problems by providing
221: a symmetry that protects scalars (Higgs bosons) from acquiring masses of order
222: the underlying gravity (Planck) scale $M_{P}$
223: through radiative corrections. Gauge fields are protected by an
224: unbroken gauge invariance and fermions cannot acquire a large mass due to a
225: chiral symmetry. As shown in figure \ref{fig:higgs},
226: SUSY stabilizes the puzzling ratio:
227: ${\mbox m_{W}^{2}/M_{P}^{2} \simeq 10^{-34}}$ by contributing virtual
228: sparticle loops for each particle loop that {\it soften} the quadratic
229: divergence into a logarithmic divergence. This avoids the unnecessary
230: fine-tuning problems, provided SUSY breaking (and consequently sparticle
231: masses) appear around the TeV scale. Supersymmetry also provides an
232: explanation for the mysterious Higgs mechanism. Electroweak symmetry
233: breaking (EWSB) is triggered by radiative corrections to the Higgs
234: scalar masses, such that 1-loop corrections turn the up-like Higgs scalar
235: squared-mass negative at the origin.
236: %
237: \begin{figure}[h]
238: \begin{center}
239: \begin{picture}(300,120)(35,20)
240: \hspace*{-2cm}
241: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{SM.eps}
242: \hspace*{1cm}
243: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{MSSM.eps}
244: \end{picture}
245: \end{center}
246: \caption{{\small The renormalization group equation (RGE) running of gauge
247: coupling constants $\alpha_{i}$
248: as a function of the renormalization scale $\mu$. In the absence of SUSY,
249: the three coupling constants do not meet at a single unified value. However
250: in the MSSM, additional sparticle loops modify the evolution of the gauge
251: couplings so that the coupling constants now meet at a unification scale of
252: $M_{X} \simeq 10^{16}$ GeV.}}
253: \label{fig:gcu}
254: \end{figure}
255:
256: SUSY also modifies the gauge coupling renormalization group equation (RGE)
257: running by introducing higher-order loop corrections involving virtual SUSY
258: partners as shown in figure \ref{fig:higgs}.
259: The gauge coupling constants now meet at a scale
260: ${\mbox M_{X} \simeq 10^{16}}$GeV for $M_{SUSY} \sim 1$ TeV as shown in
261: figure \ref{fig:gcu}. The addition of supersymmetry to grand unified models
262: pushes the potentially dangerous proton decay rate {\it above} experimental
263: lower bounds. SUSY also offers a solution to the cold dark matter (CDM)
264: problem - the missing mass in the universe - in the form of the lightest
265: supersymmetric particle (LSP) that is very weakly-coupled and stable from
266: decay due to a global R-parity conservation. There are various models
267: predicting the precise nature of the LSP, and neutralinos, gravitinos and
268: axinos have all been considered\footnote{See L.Roszkowski's plenary talk at
269: this meeting for a discussion.}.
270:
271: However this is not to say that low-energy SUSY is complete. There are still
272: many unanswered questions, including the precise mechanism responsible for
273: SUSY breaking\footnote{Many models have been proposed, but it will only be
274: after we have observed supersymmetric sparticle spectra that we will be able
275: to identify the mechanism(s) responsible for SUSY breaking.} and the
276: connection
277: of low-energy physics to the proposed underlying superstring theory. However,
278: SUSY is an excellent candidate for TeV-scale physics and its predictions will
279: soon be tested at future accelerators.
280:
281: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
282: \subsection{Beyond the Hot Big Bang Model - Inflation}
283: \label{sec:cosmobsm}
284:
285: The HBB Standard Model of cosmology combines general relativity and classical
286: thermodynamics to describe the evolution of the universe for cosmic times
287: $t \geq t_{P} \sim 10^{-44}$ s after the big bang, where quantum gravity
288: effects are negligible. The model can successfully reproduce the observed
289: Hubble expansion of the universe; the existence of the cosmic microwave
290: background radiation with the correct temperature; and can also predict the
291: relative abundances of light elements following nucleosynthesis. In the
292: simplest terms, the HBB model hypothesizes
293: that the universe exploded into existence (perhaps from quantum fluctuations)
294: as a microscopic ball with an unimaginably high temperature. Following
295: unknown quantum effects, the universe contained a hot ``soup'' of massless
296: particles (quarks, leptons, gauge bosons and Higgs fields) that rapidly
297: cooled as it expanded in size. As it cools, it undergoes a
298: series of phase transitions during which the four fundamental forces separate
299: from a single unified interaction; massless quarks and leptons acquire masses
300: as the Higgs mechanism breaks the electroweak symmetry; and quarks become
301: bound together by the strong force to form hadrons. Eventually the universe
302: cools down sufficiently that nucleosynthesis occurs, where protons and
303: neutrons bind together as nuclei. After the universe cools down further,
304: photons have insufficient energy to prevent electrons from binding to nuclei
305: to form neutral atoms. The photons effectively decouple from matter and no
306: longer interact. This is the epoch when the CMB radiation is formed, and
307: begins to cool down to the temperature we observe today.
308: %
309: \begin{figure}[h!]
310: \begin{center}
311: \begin{picture}(300,170)(0,25)
312: \includegraphics[scale=0.65]{boomer.eps}
313: \end{picture}
314: \end{center}
315: \caption{{\small The sky map at 150 GHz, taken from BOOMERANG
316: ~\cite{boomerang}, that shows the temperature anisotopies
317: $\delta T/T \sim 10^{-5}$ in the cosmic microwave background radiation. The
318: location of three quasars are shown as circles.}}
319: \label{fig:boomerang}
320: \end{figure}
321:
322: Despite these theoretical successes, satellite and balloon-based experiments
323: ~\cite{boomerang}-\cite{dasi} have identified features that cannot be
324: explained by the HBB model in a natural way without severe fine-tuning. The
325: BOOMERANG experiment~\cite{boomerang} observed a highly uniform CMB
326: temperature in all directions in the sky as shown in figure
327: \ref{fig:boomerang}. This level of
328: uniformity requires that all of these regions were causally-connected when
329: photons decoupled from matter, such that all regions equilibrated to a common
330: temperature. Photons can only have travelled a finite distance, at the speed
331: of light, since the CMB radiation was formed. However this horizon is much
332: smaller than the size of the observable universe. So, how did
333: causally-unconnected regions of space achieve a uniform temperature to 1 part
334: in $10^{5}$?
335: A short period of exponential growth - or inflation - prior to the
336: power-law expansion of the HBB model, would solve this ``horizon problem''
337: since a small region of causally-connected (and thermalized) space could be
338: instantaneously stretched to a size greater than the observable universe.
339: %
340: \begin{figure}[h]
341: \begin{center}
342: \begin{picture}(300,270)(0,25)
343: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{f2.eps}
344: \end{picture}
345: \end{center}
346: \caption{{\small The angular power spectrum of the CMB, as measured at 150
347: GHz by BOOMERANG and taken from ref.~\cite{boomerang}. The blue(square) and
348: red(triangle) points show the results of two independent analyses. The basic
349: result is independent of binning. The vertical error bars show the
350: statistical $+$ sample variance errors on each point. The location of the
351: first peak at $l \approx 200$ is consistent with a flat universe with total
352: density of unity $\Omega_{total} = 1 \pm 0.06$. The presence of the smaller
353: amplitude acoustic peaks effectively rules out models involving topological
354: objects in the early universe such as textures and cosmic strings. Notice
355: that the details of the peaks are dependent on other cosmological quantities
356: such as the Hubble constant and baryon density.}}
357: \label{fig:boomerangspectra}
358: \end{figure}
359:
360: The universe is surprisingly uniform on cosmological scales, but we also know
361: that stars, planets and human-beings exist, which require density fluctuations
362: on smaller scales as shown in figure \ref{fig:boomerang}
363: ($\delta T/T = \delta \rho/\rho \sim 10^{-5}$). How are such density
364: fluctuations generated, while maintaining very large-scale uniformity?
365: Inflation smoothes out any large-scale inhomogeneities in the initial
366: conditions, but regenerates inhomogeneities by stretching quantum
367: fluctuations to an astronomical scale. These fluctuations remain
368: scale-invariant, and lead to the observed large-scale structure in the
369: universe.
370:
371: Figure \ref{fig:boomerangspectra} shows the angular power spectrum of the CMB
372: as measured at 150 GHz by BOOMERANG~\cite{boomerang}. The location of the
373: first peak at a multipole moment $l\approx 200$ corresponds to the angular
374: scale subtended by the Hubble radius at recombination, and is tied to the
375: geometry of the universe\footnote{Photon paths diverge (converge) in a
376: negatively (positively) curved universe which leads to a larger (smaller)
377: angular size compared to a flat universe with zero curvature. Negative
378: (positive) curvature pushes the first peak to higher (lower) values of $l$.}.
379: A flat universe has the first peak at $l \sim 200$, and the data provides the
380: best evidence that we live in a flat universe with a total density
381: $\Omega_{total} \approx 1 \pm 0.06$. Resolution of the second and third
382: acoustic peaks in figure \ref{fig:boomerangspectra} provides very strong
383: support for inflation, and effectively rules out models involving topological
384: objects such as textures and cosmic strings. The data also supports a
385: $\Lambda$CDM universe in which the energy density is dominated by dark energy
386: (possibly a cosmological constant $\Lambda$) and cold dark matter CDM.
387:
388: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
389: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ippp challenges %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
390: \section{A Supersymmetric Inflationary Model} \label{sec:ippp}
391:
392: In this section we introduce the idea of an all-encompassing theory
393: that combines inflation with supersymmetry, and discuss the motivations for
394: such a model\footnote{For example, a supersymmetric model of inflation helps
395: to keep the inflaton potential flat.}. We also list
396: the issues that such a supersymmetric inflationary model must confront, and
397: we give an explicit example that has already been well
398: studied~\cite{phinmssm,mar}. Recently, there has been a more detailed
399: discussion of these issues in this supersymmetric inflationary model in
400: ref.~\cite{king2}.
401:
402: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
403: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% challenges for ippp %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
404: \subsection{Challenges for a Supersymmetric Inflationary model}
405: \label{sec:challenges}
406:
407: Traditionally, the MSSM derives from a supersymmetric grand unified theory,
408: with an increased unified gauge group such as $SU(5) , SU(5) \otimes U(1) ,
409: SO(10) , E_{6}$ or $E_{8}$. This SUSY GUT in turn arises from an effective
410: supergravity model which is the low-energy realization of a superstring
411: theory. The phenomenologically desirable features in the low-energy theory
412: should be derivable (in principle) from the underlying string theory.
413: Unfortunately the lack of knowledge regarding the physical string vacuum state
414: and infinite class of allowed manifolds upon which the theory can be
415: compactified, lead to a confusing ambiguity as to the precise details of the
416: superstring model. However various ``bottom-up'' approaches to model-building
417: have identified ten important challenges that a supersymmetric inflationary
418: model must be able to address.
419: %
420: \begin{enumerate}
421: \item {\bf $\mu$-term} - the problematic ``Higgsino mass'' that mixes up and
422: down-like Higgsino fields in the superpotential. Examples of possible
423: solutions include the NMSSM where a gauge-singlet field is added to the MSSM
424: spectrum and generates a $\mu$-term after the singlet acquires a VEV.
425: Alternatively the $\mu$-term may be forbidden in the superpotential by gauge
426: invariance for models with larger gauge groups than the MSSM. Instead it may
427: derive from the K\"{a}hler potential through the Giudice-Masiero
428: mechanism~\cite{gm}.
429:
430: \item {\bf Strong CP problem} - the non-abelian gauge group $SU(3)_{C}$
431: describing the strong interaction allows a CP-violating lagrangian term, where
432: the amount of CP-violation is parametrized by an angle $\theta$. However,
433: experimental tests of the neutron electic-dipole moment show that strong
434: interactions preserve CP-symmetry to a very high accuracy,
435: $| \theta | \le 10^{-12}$. There is no explanation why $\theta$ is so small
436: without fine-tuning. A popular solution imposes an approximate global, axial
437: $U(1)_{PQ}$ Peccei-Quinn symmetry~\cite{pq} that is broken at a very high
438: energy scale
439: and allows the $\theta$ to be rotated away. The breaking of $U(1)_{PQ}$
440: generates a pseudo-Goldstone boson (axion) that when combined with SUSY offers
441: a cold Dark Matter candidate (axino)~\cite{axino}.
442:
443: \item {\bf Right-handed neutrinos} - the fermions in the Standard Model are
444: divided into three families of quarks and leptons, where the left-handed
445: fermions transform as doublets and the right-handed fields are singlets with
446: respect to $SU(2)_{L}$. The absence of
447: right-handed neutrinos in the Standard Model is inconsistent with the
448: observation of (very small) neutrino masses~\cite{neutrino}. If we add
449: right-handed neutrinos, we can form a gauge-invariant Yukawa term coupling
450: neutrinos and a Higgs field together that will generate an electroweak-scale
451: Dirac mass after symmetry breaking. The Standard Model gauge symmetry cannot
452: forbid the addition of
453: a right-handed Majorana mass term at a high scale. The see-saw mechanism can
454: now generate heavily suppressed neutrino masses consistent with experiment.
455: Note that grand unified models models based on the extended gauge groups of
456: $SO(10)$ or $SU(4) \otimes SU(2)_{L} \otimes SU(2)_{R}$ naturally incorporate
457: right-handed neutrinos since quarks and leptons are unified within the same
458: multiplets.
459:
460: \item {\bf SUSY breaking} - in the same way that the Higgs mechanism was the
461: final piece of the Standard Model to be discovered, the precise mechanism
462: responsible for SUSY breaking (and the splitting of SM particles and their
463: superpartners) is one of the long-standing problems in supersymmetry. A
464: variety of viable mechanisms have been proposed - such as gravity, gauge,
465: anomaly and gaugino mediation - that make predictions for the supersymmetric
466: mass spectrum. However we will only be able to identify the actual
467: mechanism(s) responsible for breaking supersymmetry following the next
468: generation of accelerators such as LHC and Tevatron Run II.
469:
470: \item {\bf Inflaton candidate} - inflation is driven by the vacuum energy of
471: a fundamental scalar field - the inflaton - that has so far eluded
472: identification. The NMSSM singlet, and even the two Higgs fields, have been
473: considered as candidates, but none of them provide a sufficiently flat
474: potential. The conventional view is to invoke an additional scalar field (or
475: two such fields in the case of hybrid inflation\cite{hybridinf}) and assume
476: that they arise from some deeper theory.
477:
478: \item {\bf Moduli problems} - big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) places limits on
479: the time variation of the coupling constants in the SM. In string theory,
480: these couplings are related to the expectation values of moduli
481: fields\footnote{Moduli and dilaton fields parametrize the geometry of the
482: theory, especially ``flat directions'' in field space.} and can vary in time.
483: Massive moduli fields are produced as non-thermal relics due to vacuum
484: displacement. They could make an embarrassingly large contribution to the
485: critical density of the universe and must be removed~\cite{stringcosmo,dine}.
486: The moduli could decay to other particles, but this would
487: destroy the successes of BBN. Not only is moduli over-production a problem,
488: but the dilaton must also be stabilized at a value that does not correspond
489: to weak coupling in string theory\footnote{Dilaton stabilization has been
490: recently discussed in the context of type I string theory~\cite{abel}.}.
491:
492: \item {\bf Gravitino problems} - in supergravity models constrained by Big
493: Bang nucleosynthesis\footnote{SUSY is broken at an intermediate scale
494: $\sim 10^{11} \, GeV$ in a hidden sector and communicated to the visible
495: sector via gravity mediation.}, the gravitino is predicted to have a mass
496: of $m_{3/2} \sim 10^{3} \, GeV$ which is comparable to the scale of SUSY
497: breaking in the visible sector. The gravitino has very weak couplings
498: (gravitational in origin) so that it decouples very early in the evolution of
499: the universe, leaving a large relic abundance after
500: nucleosynthesis. These slowly-decaying gravitinos ($\tau_{3/2} \sim 10^{3} s
501: > t_{BBN}$) produce a large number of high energy photons that can dilute
502: baryons, and photodissociate nuclei to affect the agreement with the
503: observed abundances. These relic gravitinos need to be removed
504: somehow~\cite{mazumdar}.
505:
506: \item {\bf Baryogenesis\footnote{Notice that the next three challenges have
507: no answer in the Standard Model, and strongly depend on the particular
508: inflationary model.}} - the problem of the origin of baryons, specifically
509: the source (and stabilization) of the observed baryon-antibaryon asymmetry.
510: The inclusion of right-handed neutrinos can lead to baryogenesis via
511: leptogenesis~\cite{lepto}.
512: Today baryons contribute $\Omega_{b} \sim 0.05$ to the energy density of the
513: universe, where recent observations suggest that a total energy density of
514: unity is required. This leaves the problem of the missing mass
515: in the universe that may occur in the form of cold Dark Matter (CDM) or as
516: ``Dark Energy''.
517:
518: \item {\bf Cold Dark Matter candidates\footnote{This is the subject of
519: L. Roszkowski's plenary talk at this meeting.}} - observations require the
520: existence of so-far unobserved and very weakly-interacting particles - cold
521: Dark Matter (CDM) - that contribute $\Omega_{CDM} \sim 0.3$ to the total
522: energy density. Supersymmetric extensions of the SM offer CDM candidate
523: particles - gravitinos, neutalinos, axinos and neutrinos - that are stable and
524: therefore cannot decay into SM matter particles.
525:
526: \item {\bf Dark Energy problems} - there is still $\Omega_{\Lambda} \sim
527: 2/3$ of the total energy density in the universe that has not been identified.
528: The so-called ``Dark Energy'' density can either be time-independent
529: (cosmological constant), or vary with time (quintessence). However we need
530: to understand why $\Omega_{\Lambda} \sim \Omega_{matter}$ now~\cite{arkani}.
531: Recent work has considered how the dark energy density can be deduced from a
532: supersymmetric model of inflation using only the CMB temperature and Hubble
533: constant as input parameters~\cite{king2}.
534:
535: \end{enumerate}
536:
537: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
538: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ippp example %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
539: \subsection{$\phi$NMSSM and Hybrid Inflation - an explicit example}
540: \label{sec:phinmssm}
541:
542: We will now outline a model that one of us (S.F.K.) has worked on
543: ~\cite{phinmssm} - a variant of the
544: NMSSM~\cite{nmssm} - that addresses the challenges set down in
545: section \ref{sec:challenges}. There is a summary of the model in section 8.7
546: of ref. ~\cite{riotto}. We closely follow the recent analysis in
547: ref.~\cite{king2}.
548:
549: This variant of the NMSSM has the following superpotential terms involving the
550: standard Higgs doublets and two gauge singlet fields $\phi$ (inflaton)
551: and $N$.
552: \begin{equation}
553: W = \lambda N H_{u} H_{d} - k \phi N^{2} \label{eq:super}
554: \end{equation}
555: Notice that the standard NMSSM is recovered if we replace the inflaton $\phi$
556: by N. However this leads to the familiar domain wall problems arising from
557: the discrete $Z_{3}$ symmetry. In this new variant, the $Z_{3}$
558: becomes a global Peccei-Quinn $U(1)_{PQ}$ symmetry~\cite{pq} that is commonly
559: invoked to solve the strong CP problem. This symmetry is broken in the true
560: vacuum by non-zero $\phi$ and N VEVS, where the axion is the pseudo-Goldstone
561: boson from the spontaneous symmetry breaking and constrains the size of the
562: VEVS. For the inflation model to work, axion physics require $\langle \phi
563: \rangle \sim \langle N \rangle \sim 10^{10}-10^{13}$ GeV.
564:
565: The $\mu$-term of the MSSM is identified as
566: \begin{equation}
567: \mu \equiv \lambda \langle N \rangle \sim 10^{3} \, GeV
568: \end{equation}
569: which implies that $\lambda \sim 10^{-10}$ if $\langle N \rangle \sim 10^{13}$
570: GeV. A model with such large VEVS gives an intermediate scale solution to the
571: $\mu$-problem, and will have collider signatures as discussed in
572: ref.~\cite{spm}. The question remains why the coupling constants
573: $\lambda , k$ appear to
574: be {\it unnaturally} small in comparison to the larger gauge-singlet VEVS at
575: $10^{13}$ GeV. This problem has been addressed in ref.~\cite{kane} where
576: such tiny couplings arise from non-renormalizable operators.
577:
578: We can make the $\phi$-field real by a choice of the (approximately) massless
579: axion field. We will now regard $\phi$ and $N$ to be the real components of
580: the complex singlets in what follows.
581: When we include soft SUSY breaking mass terms,
582: trilinear terms $A_{k}k \phi N^{2} + h.c.$ (for real $A_{k}$) and neglect the
583: $H_{u} H_{d}$ superpotential term, we have the following
584: potential\footnote{Notice that since $\phi$ and $N$ are regarded as the real
585: components of the complex singlets, they must have the same overall factor of
586: $1/2$ in their mass terms.}:
587: %
588: \begin{eqnarray}
589: V=V_{0} + k^{2} N^{4} + \frac{1}{2} m^{2}(\phi) N^{2}
590: + \frac{1}{2} m_{\phi}^{2} \phi^{2}
591: \label{eq:potential} \\
592: {\mathrm where} \hspace*{5mm}
593: m^{2}(\phi)= m_{N}^{2} + 4k^{2} \phi^{2} - 2k A_{k} \phi
594: \end{eqnarray}
595: %
596: We can identify the various elements of the potential: $V_{0}$ arises
597: from some other sector of the theory, SUGRA for example, and dominates the
598: potential; the soft SUSY breaking parameters $A_{k}$ and $m_{N}$ are
599: generated through some
600: gravity-mediated mechanism with a generic value of ${\mathcal O}(TeV)$; and
601: $m_{\phi}$ comes from no-scale SUGRA, and
602: vanishes at the Planck scale\footnote{It is generated through radiative
603: corrections such that $m_{\phi}^{2} \sim -k^{2} A_{k}^{2} \sim
604: -(100eV)^{2}$.}.
605:
606: Note that the $N$-field is destabilized if $\phi$ lies between the values:
607: \begin{equation}
608: \phi_{c}^{\pm} = \frac{A_{k}}{4k} \left( 1 \pm \sqrt{ 1 -
609: \frac{4 m_{N}^{2}}{A_{k}^{2}}} \right) \label{eq:phicrit}
610: \end{equation}
611: where we are assuming that $4 m_{N}^{2} < A_{k}^{2}$ in the following
612: analysis.
613: %
614: \begin{figure}[h]
615: \begin{center}
616: \begin{picture}(300,200)(0,20)
617: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{inflation.eps}
618: \end{picture}
619: \end{center}
620: \caption{{\small During (inverted hybrid) inflation the singlet $N$ is
621: trapped at the origin and the
622: inflaton rolls towards a critical value at $\phi_{c}^{-}$, whereupon
623: the potential acquires an instability and rolls down towards the true global
624: minimum (NOW) where the singlets have VEVS $\sim 10^{13} GeV$ and the
625: cosmological constant vanishes in agreement with observation. Notice that
626: $\phi$ and $N$ are the real components of the complex singlets.}}
627: \label{fig:potential}
628: \end{figure}
629:
630: In order to discuss inflation as illustrated by figure \ref{fig:potential},
631: we need to specify the sign of the inflaton mass
632: squared $m_{\phi}^{2}$. If $m_{\phi}^{2} >0$ (hybrid inflation) then, for
633: $\phi > \phi_{c}^{+}$, $N$ will be driven to a local minimum
634: (false vacuum) with $N=0$. $\phi$ will roll towards the origin and
635: $m_{\phi}^{2}$ will change
636: signs and become negative for $\phi \approx \phi_{c}^{+}$. Following this
637: sign change, the potential develops an instability in the $N=0$ direction
638: and both singlets roll down towards the global minimum (true vacuum) at:
639: %
640: \begin{eqnarray}
641: \langle \phi \rangle &=& \frac{A_{k}}{4k} \\
642: %
643: \langle N \rangle &=& \frac{A_{k}}{2\sqrt{2} k}
644: \sqrt{ 1- \frac{4 m_{N}^{2}}{A_{k}^{2}}}
645: %
646: = \sqrt{2} \left| \phi_{c}^{\pm} - \langle \phi \rangle \right|
647: \end{eqnarray}
648: that signals the end of inflation.
649:
650: However if $m_{\phi}^{2} < 0$ (inverted hybrid inflation), we suppose that
651: during inflation $\phi < \phi_{c}^{-}$, and the inflaton rolls away from the
652: origin, eventually reaching $\phi_{c}^{-}$ and ending inflation at the same
653: global mimimum as before. Notice that the global (true vacuum) VEV
654: $\langle \phi \rangle$ lies between $\phi_{c}^{-}$ and $\phi_{c}^{+}$, so
655: either hybrid or inverted hybrid inflation is possible\footnote{However the
656: radiative corrections to the inflaton mass actually give inverted hybrid
657: inflation as shown in figure \ref{fig:potential}.} depending on the sign of
658: the inflaton mass squared $m_{\phi}^{2}$.
659:
660: We will also ignore the tiny effect of $m_{\phi}$ when we calculated the
661: true vacuum VEVS to obtain the following order of magnitude results:
662: \begin{eqnarray}
663: A_{k} \sim k \phi_{c}^{\pm} \sim k \langle N \rangle
664: \sim k \langle \phi \rangle \sim 1 TeV
665: \label{eq:ak}
666: \end{eqnarray}
667: For VEVS at the axion scale $\sim 10^{13} GeV$, we require that $k \sim
668: {\mathcal O}(10^{-10})$, and $\lambda$ must also take a similarly small value
669: since the combination $\lambda \langle N \rangle$ provide the
670: $\mu$-parameter.
671: Notice that the SUGRA-derived potential contribution $V_{0}$ exactly cancels
672: with the other terms (by tuning) to provide agreement with the observed small
673: cosmological constant. Thus we assume:
674: \begin{eqnarray}
675: V(0) = - V(\langle \phi \rangle , \langle N \rangle )
676: = k^{2} \langle N \rangle^{4}
677: = 4k^{2} (\phi_{c}^{\pm} - \langle \phi \rangle )^{4}
678: \end{eqnarray}
679: We may set $N=0$ during inflation, so the potential of
680: eq.(\ref{eq:potential}) simplifies to:
681: \begin{eqnarray}
682: V = V(0) + \frac{1}{2} m_{\phi}^{2} \phi^{2}
683: \label{eq:potential2}
684: \end{eqnarray}
685:
686: During inflation, the inflaton field $\phi$
687: is supposed to be on a region of the potential which satisfies the following
688: {\it flatness conditions}\footnote{See ref.~\cite{liddlelyth} for further
689: details.}:
690: %
691: \begin{eqnarray}
692: \epsilon &\equiv& \frac{1}{2} \tilde{M}_{P}^{2}
693: \left( \frac{V'}{V} \right)^{2} \ll 1 \label{eq:slowepsilon} \\
694: %
695: | \eta | &\equiv& \left| \frac{ \tilde{M}_{P}^{2} V''}{V} \right| \ll 1
696: \label{eq:sloweta}
697: \end{eqnarray}
698: where $V' (V'')$ are the first (second) derivatives of the potential, and
699: $\tilde{M}^{2}_{P} = M^{2}_{P}/8 \pi$ is the reduced Planck mass.
700: %
701: From eqs.(\ref{eq:slowepsilon},\ref{eq:sloweta}), the slow roll conditions
702: are given by:
703: \begin{eqnarray}
704: \epsilon_{{\mathcal N}} &=& \frac{M_{P}^{2} m_{\phi}^{4}
705: \phi_{{\mathcal N}}^{2}}{16 \pi V(0)^{2}} \ll 1 \\
706: %
707: \left| \eta_{{\mathcal N}} \right| &=& \frac{M_{P}^{2} |m_{\phi}^{2}|}{8
708: \pi V(0)} \ll 1
709: \label{eq:slowroll}
710: \end{eqnarray}
711: where $\epsilon_{{\mathcal N}} , \eta_{{\mathcal N}}$ and
712: $\phi_{{\mathcal N}}$ are evaluated around ${\mathcal N}=60$
713: e-folds before the end of inflation\footnote{The scale factors $a(t)$ before
714: and after inflation are related by $a(t_{after})/a(t_{end})
715: = e^{{\mathcal N}}$, where ${\mathcal N}$ is called the number of
716: ``e-folds''.} and $V(0)$ is the dominant term in
717: eq.(\ref{eq:potential2}) during inflation, $\phi_{{\mathcal N}}
718: = \phi_{c}^{\pm} e^{\eta {\mathcal N}} \approx \phi_{c}^{\pm}$.
719: The height of the potential during inflation is approximately constant and
720: given by:
721: \begin{equation}
722: V_{0}^{1/4} \sim k^{1/2} \langle N \rangle \sim 10^{8} GeV
723: \label{eq:height}
724: \end{equation}
725:
726: We need to check that we can reproduce the correct level of density
727: perturbation - responsible for the large scale structure in the universe -
728: according to the COBE anisotropy measurements, where the spectrum of
729: perturbations is given by\cite{liddle}:
730: \begin{eqnarray}
731: \delta_{H}^{2} = \frac{32 V(0)}{75 M_{P}^{4} \epsilon_{{\mathcal N}}}
732: \label{eq:cobedh}
733: \end{eqnarray}
734: with the COBE value, $\delta_{H} = 1.95 \times 10^{-5}$ ~\cite{bunn}.
735: Writing $\phi^{\pm}_{c} \sim \phi_{c}$ and combining eqs.(\ref{eq:ak},
736: \ref{eq:slowepsilon}, \ref{eq:height}, \ref{eq:cobedh}), we obtain the order
737: of magnitude constraint:
738: \begin{eqnarray}
739: | k m_{\phi} | \simeq 8 \left( \frac{8\pi}{75} \right)^{1/4}
740: \delta_{H}^{-1/2} \frac{ (k \phi_{c})^{5/2}}{M_{P}^{3/2}}
741: %
742: \simeq 10^{-18} \, GeV \, \left( \frac{k \phi_{c} }{1 \, TeV} \right)^{5/2}
743: \end{eqnarray}
744: %
745: which is adequate to broadly satisfy the slow-roll conditions of
746: eqs.(\ref{eq:slowepsilon},\ref{eq:sloweta})
747: \begin{eqnarray}
748: | \eta_{{\mathcal N}} | &\simeq& \frac{ M_{P}^{2}}{8 \pi}
749: \frac{ | k m_{\phi} |^{2} }{ \left( \sqrt{2} k \phi_{c} \right)^{4} }
750: \sim 10^{-12} ,
751: \label{eq:sloweta2} \\
752: %
753: \epsilon_{{\mathcal N}} &\sim& \frac{ M_{P}^{2}}{16 \pi}
754: \frac{ | k m_{\phi} |^{4} }{ \left( \sqrt{2} k \phi_{c} \right)^{8} }
755: \phi_{{\mathcal N}}^{2} \sim 4 \pi
756: \frac{ \phi_{{\mathcal N}}^{2}}{M_{P}^{2}} \eta_{{\mathcal N}}^{2}
757: \label{eq:slowepsilon2}
758: \end{eqnarray}
759: %
760: This (inverted) hybrid model predicts a very flat spectrum of density
761: perturbations, with no appreciable deviation in the spectral index,
762: $n=1+2\eta - 6\epsilon$ from unity which is consistent with observations and
763: predictions from an $n=1$ scale-invariant Harrison-Zel'dovich spectrum.
764: Notice that the COBE results require the product $|k m_{\phi}|$ to be
765: extremely small, which implies that the inflaton mass is in the electronvolt
766: range ($m_{\phi} \sim eV$) when we take $k \sim 10^{-10}$ which is motivated
767: by axion physics as discussed earlier.
768:
769: Inflation ends with the singlets $\phi,N$ oscillating about their global
770: minimum. Although the final reheating temperature is estimated to be of order
771: 1 GeV~\cite{phinmssm}, during the reheating process the effective temperature
772: of the universe (as determined by the radiation density) can be viewed as
773: rapidly rising to $V_{0}^{1/4} =k^{1/2} \langle N \rangle \sim 10^{8} GeV$
774: then slowly falling to the final reheat temperature during the reheating
775: process~\cite{mar}. This reheating gives entropy to the universe.
776: Non-perturbative effects can produce particles with masses up to the potential
777: height, i.e. $m \leq V_{0}^{1/4} \sim 10^{8} GeV$ (preheating)
778: ~\cite{preheating}. We can check that problematic axions and gravitinos are
779: not over produced~\cite{mazumdar,sanderson}.
780: The superpotential is modified since Higgses and right-handed sneutrinos
781: $\tilde{\nu}_{R}$ are copiously produced during this preheating phase via the
782: couplings $\lambda$ and $k$ to the oscillating inflaton fields.
783: \begin{equation}
784: W = \lambda N H_{u} H_{d} - k \phi N^{2}
785: + Y_{\nu} L \cdot H_{u} \nu_{R} + M \nu_{R} \nu_{R}
786: \end{equation}
787: These additional superpotential terms solve the problem of non-zero neutrino
788: masses. The right-handed neutrinos are SM gauge-singlets and so a heavy
789: Majorana mass term can be added at a high energy scale. Neutrino Dirac
790: masses are then generated by electroweak symmetry breaking from the Yukawa
791: coupling terms in the superpotential. The see-saw mechanism generates two
792: mass eigenvalues - one is very large (above the reach of current detection) -
793: and the other is very light and therefore consistent with the recent
794: experimental constraints.
795:
796: Now consider the origin of matter in the universe\footnote{We will only give
797: a summary of the results since a detailed discussion is given in
798: ref.~\cite{mar}.}. Baryons originate from sleptogenesis~\cite{lepto} via the
799: out-of-equilibrium decay of right-handed sneutrinos ($\tilde{\nu}_{R}$) and
800: Higgses that violate lepton number (and hence $B-L$) asymmetry before
801: subsequently converting into baryon number asymmetry through sphaleron
802: interactions. From the perspective of inflation, the conventional
803: leptogenesis picture will change if the reheat temperature is below
804: the mass of the lightest right-handed neutrino.
805: Notice that, unlike the usual hot big bang scenario, the
806: out-of-equilibrium condition is automatically satisfied during reheating, and
807: the production mechanism of right-handed neutrinos is totally different and
808: due to direct or indirect couplings to the inflaton field.
809:
810: In the standard hot big bang scenario, the baryon asymmetry is given by:
811: \begin{equation}
812: Y_{b} \sim \frac{d \epsilon}{g^{\ast}}
813: \end{equation}
814: where $\epsilon$ is the lepton number asymmetry produced in the decay of the
815: lightest right-handed neutrino
816: \begin{eqnarray}
817: \epsilon = \frac{ \Gamma \left( \tilde{\nu}_{R} \rightarrow \tilde{l} + H_{u}
818: \right)
819: %
820: - \Gamma \left( \tilde{\nu}_{R} \rightarrow \overline{\tilde{l}} +
821: \overline{H}_{u} \right) }{
822: %
823: \Gamma \left( \tilde{\nu}_{R} \rightarrow \tilde{l} + H_{u} \right)
824: %
825: + \Gamma \left( \tilde{\nu}_{R} \rightarrow \overline{\tilde{l}} +
826: \overline{H}_{u} \right) }
827: \label{eq:epsilon}
828: \end{eqnarray}
829: $g^{\ast}$ counts the effective number of degrees of freedom\footnote{For
830: the SM, $g^{\ast}=106.75$, and for the MSSM $g^{\ast}=228.75$.}, and $d$ is
831: the dilution factor. However for the non-standard leptogenesis picture
832: outlined above, the baryon asymmetry is given by:
833: \begin{equation}
834: Y_{b} \sim \frac{ \gamma \epsilon (c V_{0})^{1/4} }{M_{1}}
835: \end{equation}
836: where $c$ is the fraction of the total vacuum energy density converted into
837: right handed neutrinos (mass $M_{1}$) due to preheating, and $\gamma$ accounts
838: for dilution due to entropy production during reheating.
839:
840: There are two primary contributions to the cold Dark Matter candidate
841: particles, either supersymmetric partners or the Peccei-Quinn axion.
842: \begin{itemize}
843: \item Neutralino~\cite{neutralino} / singlino~\cite{spm}
844: / inflatino~\cite{inflatino} / axino~\cite{axino} -
845: the Higgs bosons can decay into radiation and a neutralino $H_{u},H_{d}
846: \rightarrow \gamma + \tilde{\chi}^{0}$, where the neutralino can subsequently
847: decay into an inflatino $\tilde{\phi}$, singlino $\tilde{N}$ or axino
848: $\tilde{a} \sim \alpha \tilde{\phi} + \beta \tilde{N}$, provided that they are
849: lighter than the neutralino $\tilde{\chi}^{0}$.
850: \item Axions - relativistic axions are produced during preheating and so they
851: are red-shifted away; non-relativistic axions are generated at the QCD scale
852: by the misalignment mechanism, and make CDM candidates.
853: \end{itemize}
854: %
855: \begin{figure}[h]
856: \begin{center}
857: \begin{picture}(300,240)(0,20)
858: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{rhodraft2.eps}
859: \end{picture}
860: \end{center}
861: \caption{{\small Evolution of the energy densities of the singlets
862: ($\phi,N$), axions, Higgses, radiation (dashed line) and neutralinos
863: (long-dashed line). The full analysis and figure are taken from
864: ref.~\cite{mar}.}}
865: \label{fig:rho}
866: \end{figure}
867: %
868: The time evolution of the various particle densities can be determined
869: by solving a series of coupled Boltzmann equations~\cite{mar} for a
870: particular choice of parameters as shown in figure \ref{fig:rho}. In
871: principle, we can calculate the densities of neutralinos, radiation,
872: relativistic axions and baryons at reheating time $t_{RH}$ (defined as the
873: time at which the oscillating singlet energy density rapidly decayed to
874: zero~\cite{mar}) which represents the start of the hot big bang.
875:
876: The important point to emphasize for a given model is that, at this time
877: $t_{RH}$, the Boltzmann equations allow us to calculate the energy densities
878: of matter and radiation (at $t_{RH}$). As pointed out recently~\cite{king2},
879: this allows us to calculate the dark energy density (in principle) without
880: having a specific dark energy model in mind, but only inputting the
881: CMB temperature $T_{CMB}$ and Hubble constant.
882:
883: Finally we will mention a few important points about SUGRA, where the
884: K\"{a}hler potential can be split into separate K\"{a}hler potential and
885: superpotential terms that are functions of the dilaton ($S$), an overall
886: moduli ($T$), inflaton ($\phi$) and gauge singlet ($N$) fields. These
887: functions include non-perturbative terms to stabilize the dilaton and moduli
888: potentials.
889: \begin{eqnarray}
890: G &=& K + \ln |W|^{2} \\
891: %
892: K &=& -3 \ln (\rho) + \frac{ \beta_{np}}{\rho^{3}} - \ln ( S + S^{\ast} )
893: + \hat{K}_{np}(S) \\
894: %
895: W &=& -k \phi N^{2} + \Lambda^{3} e^{-S/b_{0}} + \ldots
896: \label{eq:kahler}
897: \end{eqnarray}
898: where $\rho = (T + T^{\ast}) - \phi^{\ast} \phi - N^{\ast} N$, and we assume
899: an overall modulus $T$. Notice that $\beta_{np}/\rho^{3}$, $\hat{K}_{np}(S)$
900: and $\Lambda^{3} e^{-S/b_{0}}$ arise through non-perturbative mechanisms.
901:
902: Notice that eq.(\ref{eq:kahler}) has a no-scale structure with
903: $m_{\phi}=m_{N}=0$ at tree-level. As mentioned earlier, the cosmological
904: constant can be tuned to zero by an appropriate choice of $V_{0}=|F_{S}|^{2}
905: + |F_{\rho}|^{2} \sim (10^{8} \, GeV)^{4}$.
906:
907: During inflation, the dilaton $S$
908: and ``moduli'' $\rho$ are stabilized at their respective minima since as the
909: inflaton $\phi$ rolls (and $N=0$), the overall modulus field $T$ adjusts to
910: keep the combination $\rho = (T + T^{\ast}) - \phi^{\ast} \phi$ fixed.
911: After inflation, $S$ and $\rho$ only shift by $\sim 10^{-10}$, and so there is
912: no moduli problem. However, it is important to clarify the connection with
913: string theory, e.g. stabilization of the dilaton potential in type I string
914: models~\cite{abel}.
915:
916: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
917: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% conclusions %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
918: \section{Final Thoughts} \label{sec:conc}
919:
920: We will soon see considerable progress in cosmology and supersymmetric
921: particle physics due to the observations of the Map and Planck explorer
922: satellites, and the Tevatron and LHC accelerators. These experiments will
923: accurately measure the fundamental parameters such as the
924: abundances $\Omega_{b},\Omega_{CDM}$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ present in the
925: universe and the supersymmetric mixing angles and soft parameters.
926: However {\it ab initio} predictions of these parameters are difficult to
927: obtain, but within the framework of an all-embracing supersymmetric
928: inflationary model there will be fewer variables (and more predictivity)
929: since the same parameters control both inflation {\it and} collider
930: physics~\cite{king2}.
931:
932: The NMSSM variant discussed in section \ref{sec:phinmssm} is an example of
933: such a model which addresses the ten theoretical challenges outlined in
934: section \ref{sec:challenges}. However we admit that it is a long way from
935: being able to make accurate predictions for $\Omega_{b},\Omega_{CDM}$ and
936: $\Omega_{\Lambda}$. In particular there also needs to be an explanation why
937: $\rho_{\Lambda}^{1/4} \sim M_{W}^{2}/M_{P}$. However, this model is a step
938: towards more realistic supersymmetric inflationary models that may also
939: incorporate superstring theory.
940:
941: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
942: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Acknowledgements %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
943: \newpage
944: \begin{center}
945: {\bf \large Acknowledgements}
946: \end{center}
947: S.K. and D.R. would like to thank PPARC for a Senior Fellowship
948: and a Studentship. We would both like to thank the IPPP for their
949: hospitality and support. We would also like to thank all of the
950: organisers at the IPPP for arranging such a stimulating BSM meeting.
951: We would like to thank James Hockings for reading the manuscript.
952:
953: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% REFERENCES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
954: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
955: %
956: \bibitem{neutrino} For a review and further references, see S.F. King,
957: hep-ph/0105261.
958: \bibitem{g-2} Muon g-2 Collaboration, hep-ex/0102017,
959: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 86} (2001) 2227.
960: \bibitem{lep} The L3 Collaboration, hep-ex/0011043, {\it Phys. Lett.}
961: {\bf B495} (2000) 18; The ALEPH Collaboration,
962: hep-ex/0011045, {\it Phys. Lett.} {bf B495} (2000) 1.
963: \bibitem{cobe} COBE: G.F. Smoot et al., {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 396}
964: (1992) L1; E.L. Wright et al., {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 396}
965: (1992) L13; C.L. Bennett et al., astro-ph/9601067,
966: {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 464} (1996) L1.
967: \bibitem{boomerang} BOOMERANG: C.B. Netterfield et al., astro-ph/0104460.
968: \bibitem{maxima} MAXIMA: A.T. Lee et al., astro-ph/0104459.
969: \bibitem{dasi} DASI: N.W. Halverson et al., astro-ph/0104489;
970: C.Pryke et al., astro-ph/0104490.
971: \bibitem{king2} G.L. Kane and S.F. King, hep-ph/0109118.
972: \bibitem{stringcosmo} See for example the TASI-99 lectures, S.M. Carroll,
973: hep-th/0011110.
974: \bibitem{susy} For a discussion of low-energy supersymmetry, see for example,
975: S.P. Martin, hep-ph/9709356.
976: \bibitem{cosmo} For an introduction to inflationary cosmology and a
977: discussion of the theoretical problems, see for example,
978: G. Lazarides, hep-ph/9904502; R.H. Brandenberger,
979: hep-ph/0101119.
980: \bibitem{phinmssm} M. Bastero-Gil and S.F. King, hep-ph/9709502, {\it Phys.
981: Lett.} {\bf B423} (1998) 27; M. Bastero-Gil and S.F.
982: King, hep-ph/9801451; M. Bastero-Gil and S.F. King,
983: hep-ph/9806477, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B549} (1999) 391.
984: \bibitem{mar} M. Bastero-Gil and S.F. King, hep-ph/0011385, {\it Phys.Rev.}
985: {\bf D63} (2001) 123509.
986: \bibitem{gm} G.F. Giudice and A. Masiero, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 206B}
987: (1988) 480.
988: \bibitem{pq} R.D. Peccei and H.R. Quinn, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 38}
989: (1977) 1440; {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D16} (1977) 1791.
990: \bibitem{axino} L. Covi, J.E. Kim and L. Roszkowski, hep-ph/9905212,
991: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 82} (1999) 4180;
992: L. Covi, H. Kim, J.E. Kim and L. Roszkowski, hep-ph/0101009,
993: {\it JHEP} {\bf 0105} (2001) 033.
994: \bibitem{hybridinf} A.D. Linde, astro-ph/9307002, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D49}
995: (1994) 748; E.J. Copeland, A.R. Liddle, D.H. Lyth,
996: E.D. Stewart and D. Wands, astro-ph/9401011,
997: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D49} (1994) 6410.
998: \bibitem{dine} M. Dine, hep-th/0003175.
999: \bibitem{abel} S.A. Abel and G. Servant, hep-th/0009089, {\it Nucl. Phys.}
1000: {\bf B597} (2001) 3.
1001: \bibitem{mazumdar} M. Bastero-Gil and A. Mazumdar, hep-ph/0002004,
1002: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D62} (2000) 083510.
1003: \bibitem{lepto} M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B174}
1004: (1986) 45; M.A. Luty, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D45} (1992) 455;
1005: W. Buchmuller and M. Plumacher, hep-ph/0007176; M. Hirsch
1006: and S.F. King, hep-ph/0107014.
1007: \bibitem{arkani} N. Arkani-Hamed, L.J. Hall, C. Kolda and H. Murayama,
1008: astro-ph/0005111, {\it Phys.Rev.Lett.} {\bf 85} (2000)
1009: 4434.
1010: \bibitem{nmssm} P. Fayet, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B90} (1975) 104; H.P.
1011: Nilles, M. Srednicki and D. Wyler, {\it Phys. Lett.}
1012: {\bf B120} (1983) 346; J.-P. Derendinger and C.A. Savoy,
1013: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B237} (1984) 307.
1014: \bibitem{riotto} D.H Lyth and A. Riotto, hep-ph/9807278, {\it Phys. Rep.}
1015: {\bf 314} (1999) 1.
1016: \bibitem{spm} S.P. Martin, hep-ph/0005116, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D62} (2000)
1017: 095008.
1018: \bibitem{kane} T. Gherghetta and G.L. Kane, hep-ph/9504420, {\it Phys. Lett.}
1019: {\bf B354} (1995) 300; See also the earlier papers
1020: H. Murayama, H. Suzuki and T. Yanagida, {\it Phys. Lett.}
1021: {\bf B291} (1992) 418; H. Murayama, H. Suzuki, T. Yanagida
1022: and J. Yokoyama, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 70} (1993) 1912;
1023: H. Murayama, H. Suzuki, T. Yanagida and J. Yokoyama,
1024: hep-ph/9311326, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D50} (1994) 2356;
1025: G. Dvali, Q. Shafi and R. Schaefer, hep-ph/9406319,
1026: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 73} (1994) 1886.
1027: \bibitem{liddlelyth} A.R. Liddle and D.H. Lyth, 2000, {\it Cosmological
1028: Inflation and Large-Scale Structure}, Cambridge
1029: University Press, Cambridge, UK.
1030: \bibitem{liddle} A.R. Liddle and D.H. Lyth, astro-ph/9303019,
1031: {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 231} (1993) 1.
1032: \bibitem{bunn} E.F. Bunn, D. Scott and M. White, {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 441}
1033: (1995) L9; E.F. Bunn and M. White, astro-ph/9607060,
1034: {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 480} (1997) 6.
1035: \bibitem{preheating} L. Kofman, A.D. Linde, A.A. Starobinsky, hep-th/9405187,
1036: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 73} (1994) 3195;
1037: hep-ph/9704452, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D56} (1997) 3258.
1038: \bibitem{sanderson} M. Bastero-Gil, S.F. King and J. Sanderson,
1039: hep-ph/9904315, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D60}
1040: (1999) 103517.
1041: \bibitem{neutralino} S.A. Bonometto, F. Gabbiani and A. Masiero,
1042: hep-ph/9305237, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D49}
1043: (1994) 3918.
1044: \bibitem{inflatino} R. Allahverdi, M. Bastero-Gil and A. Mazumdar,
1045: hep-ph/0012057, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D64} (2001)
1046: 023516.
1047: \end{thebibliography}
1048:
1049:
1050: \end{document}
1051:
1052:
1053:
1054:
1055:
1056:
1057:
1058: