1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: %% ws-procs9x6.tex   :   25 July 2002

3: %% Text file to use with ws-procs9x6.cls written in Latex2E.

4: %% The content, structure, format and layout of this style file is the

5: %% property of World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.

6: %% Copyright 1995, 2002 by World Scientific Publishing Co.

7: %% All rights are reserved.

8: %%

9: %% Proceedings Trim Size: 9in x 6in

10: %% Text Area: 7.35in (include runningheads) x 4.5in

11: %% Main Text is 10/13pt

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

13: %\documentclass[draft]{ws-procs9x6}

14: \documentclass{ws-procs9x6}

15: \usepackage{graphicx}

16: %

17: \newcommand{\calH}{{\cal H}}

18: \renewcommand{\d}{\mbox{d}}

19: \newcommand{\intvecp}{\int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3}\,}

20: \newcommand{\intp}{\int \frac{d^4 p}{(2\pi)^4}\,}

21: \newcommand{\intq}{\int \frac{d^4 q}{(2\pi)^4}\,}

22: \newcommand{\intk}{\int \frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}\,}

23: \newcommand{\intx}{\int d^4 x\,}

24: \newcommand{\inty}{\int d^4 y\,}

25: \newcommand{\intvecx}{\int d^3 x\,}

26: %

27: \newcommand{\tR}{\mbox{}^3\!R}

28: %

29: \newcommand{\psl}{p\!\!\!/}

30: %

31: \newcommand{\ub}{\bar{u}}

32: \newcommand{\vb}{\bar{v}}

33: \newcommand{\vecvr}{\boldsymbol{\vr}}

34: \newcommand{\vecbt}{\boldsymbol{\bt}}

35: \newcommand{\vecch}{\boldsymbol{\ch}}

36: \newcommand{\vecsg}{\boldsymbol{\sg}}

37: \newcommand{\vecSg}{\boldsymbol{\Sg}}

38: %\pagestyle{empty}

39: %

40: \newcommand{\noq}{|\emptyset\rangle}

41: \newcommand{\vac}{|0\rangle}

42: \newcommand{\bvac}{\langle 0|}

43: \newcommand{\qdot}{\dot{q}}

44: \newcommand{\Adot}{\dot{A}}

45: \newcommand{\ad}{a^{\dagger}}

46: \newcommand{\vecj}{{\bf j}}

47: \newcommand{\vecv}{{\bf v}}

48: \newcommand{\vecE}{{\bf E}}

49: \newcommand{\vecB}{{\bf B}}

50: \newcommand{\vecA}{{\bf A}}

51: \newcommand{\vecD}{{\bf D}}

52: \newcommand{\vecf}{{\bf f}}

53: \newcommand{\veck}{{\bf k}}

54: \newcommand{\vecl}{{\bf l}}

55: \newcommand{\vece}{{\bf e}}

56: \newcommand{\vecp}{{\bf p}}

57: \newcommand{\vecq}{{\bf q}}

58: \newcommand{\vecx}{{\bf x}}       %(vette x)

59: \newcommand{\vecy}{{\bf y}}

60: \newcommand{\vecz}{{\bf z}}

61: \newcommand{\vecr}{{\bf r}}

62: \newcommand{\vecJ}{{\bf J}}

63: \newcommand{\vecn}{{\bf n}}

64: %%

65: \newcommand{\ko}{\mbox{}^0 \! k}

66: \newcommand{\kov}{\mbox{}^0 \! \veck}

67: \newcommand{\phz}{\ph_0}

68: %

69: \newcommand{\Uh}{\hat{U}}

70: \newcommand{\Hh}{\hat{H}}

71: \newcommand{\vrh}{\hat{\vr}}

72: \newcommand{\vrt}{\tilde{\vr}}

73: \newcommand{\vrth}{\hat{\tilde{\vr}}}

74: \newcommand{\vrthd}{\hat{\tilde{\vr}}^{\dagger}}

75: \newcommand{\pith}{\hat{\tilde{\pi}}}

76: \newcommand{\pih}{\hat{\pi}}

77: \newcommand{\pithd}{\hat{\tilde{\pi}}^{\dagger}}

78: %

79: \newcommand{\un}{1\!\!\! 1}

80: \newcommand{\lag}{\langle}

81: \newcommand{\rag}{\rangle}

82: %

83: \newcommand{\al}{\alpha}

84: \newcommand{\bt}{\beta}

85: \newcommand{\gm}{\gamma}

86: \newcommand{\dl}{\delta}

87: \newcommand{\ep}{\epsilon}

88: \newcommand{\zt}{\zeta}

89: \newcommand{\et}{\eta}

90: %\newcommand{\th}{\theta}

91: \newcommand{\kp}{\kappa}

92: \newcommand{\lm}{\lambda}

93: \newcommand{\rh}{\rho}

94: \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma}

95: \newcommand{\ta}{\tau}

96: \newcommand{\phb}{\bar{\ph}}

97: \newcommand{\ph}{\phi}

98: \newcommand{\vr}{\varphi}

99: \newcommand{\ch}{\chi}

100: \newcommand{\ps}{\psi}

101: \newcommand{\om}{\omega}

102: %

103: \newcommand{\Om}{\Omega}

104: \newcommand{\Omd}{\Omega^{\dagger}}

105: \newcommand{\Gm}{\Gamma}

106: \newcommand{\Lm}{\Lambda}

107: \newcommand{\Sg}{\Sigma}

108: \newcommand{\Ph}{\Phi}

109: \newcommand{\Phd}{\Phi^{\dagger}}

110: \newcommand{\Ps}{\Psi}

111: \newcommand{\Psb}{\bar\Psi}

112: %

113: \newcommand{\vecal}{\mbox{\boldmath $\al$}}

114: \newcommand{\vecgm}{\mbox{\boldmath $\gm$}}

115: \newcommand{\vecep}{\mbox{\boldmath $\ep$}}

116: %

117: \newcommand{\empt}{|\emptyset\rangle}

118: %

119: %\newcommand{\omb}{\overline{\om}}

120: \newcommand{\psd}{\psi^{\dagger}}

121: \newcommand{\omt}{\tilde{\om}}

122: \newcommand{\Vd}{V^{\dagger}}

123: \newcommand{\Dsl}{D\!\!\!\!/}

124: \newcommand{\parsl}{\partial\!\!\!/}

125: \newcommand{\ssl}{s\!\!\!/}

126: \newcommand{\hmu}{\hat{\mu}}

127: \newcommand{\Th}{\hat{T}}

128: \newcommand{\qh}{\hat{q}}

129: \newcommand{\phat}{\hat{p}}

130: \newcommand{\qhat}{\hat{q}}

131: \newcommand{\half}{\frac{1}{2}}

132: \newcommand{\quart}{\frac{1}{4}}

133: \newcommand{\third}{\frac{1}{3}}

134: \newcommand{\Tr}{\mbox{Tr}}

135: \newcommand{\tr}{\mbox{tr}}

136: \newcommand{\unity}{1\!\! 1}

137: \newcommand{\HDas}{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{H_D}}

138: \newcommand{\dmuas}{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial_{\mu}}}

139: \newcommand{\Dmuas}{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{D_{\mu}}}

140: \newcommand{\dnuasup}{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial^{\nu}}}

141: \newcommand{\dmu}{\partial_{\mu}}

142: \newcommand{\dm}{\partial_{m}}

143: \newcommand{\dn}{\partial_{n}}

144: \newcommand{\dnot}{\partial_{0}}

145: \newcommand{\dt}{\partial_{t}}

146: \newcommand{\dnu}{\partial_{\nu}}

147: \newcommand{\dmup}{\partial'_{\mu}}

148: \newcommand{\phd}{\ph^{\dagger}}

149: \newcommand{\Umux}{U_{\mu x}}

150: %

151: %\newcommand{\psb}{\overline{\psi}}

152: \newcommand{\psb}{\bar{\psi}}

153: \newcommand{\xib}{\bar{\xi}}

154: \newcommand{\dlb}{\bar{\dl}}

155: %\newcommand{\etb}{\overline{\eta}}

156: \newcommand{\etb}{\bar{\eta}}

157: \newcommand{\Umx}{U_{\mu}(x)}

158: \newcommand{\Umdx}{U_{\mu}^{\dagger}(x)}

159: \newcommand{\Umdxm}{U_{\mu}^{\dagger}(x-a_{\mu}}

160: \newcommand{\Umdxp}{U_{\mu}^{\dagger}(x+a_{\mu}}

161: \newcommand{\cb}{\overline{\chi}}

162: %

163: \newcommand{\rr}[1]{$^{#1}$}

164: \newcommand{\eela}[1]{\label{#1}\end{equation}}

165: \newcommand{\eeala}[1]{\label{#1}\end{eqnarray}}

166: %

167: \newcommand{\ra}{\rightarrow}

168: \newcommand{\aleq}{\mbox{}^{\textstyle <}_{\textstyle\sim}}

169: \newcommand{\ageq}{\mbox{}^{\textstyle >}_{\textstyle\sim}}

170: %

171: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

172: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

173: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

174: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

175: %

176: \newcommand{\ahk}{\hat{a}_k}

177: \newcommand{\ahl}{\hat{a}_l}

178: \newcommand{\ahdk}{\hat{a}^{\dagger}_k}

179: \newcommand{\ahdko}{\hat{a}^{\dagger}_{k_1}}

180: \newcommand{\ahdkp}{\hat{a}^{\dagger}_{k_p}}

181: \newcommand{\ahdl}{\hat{a}^{\dagger}_l}

182: \newcommand{\ahlo}{\hat{a}_{l_1}}

183: \newcommand{\ahlq}{\hat{a}_{l_q}}

184: \newcommand{\ah}{\hat{a}}

185: \newcommand{\ahd}{\hat{a}^{\dagger}}

186: \newcommand{\apko}{a^+_{k_1}}

187: \newcommand{\apkp}{a^+_{k_p}}

188: \newcommand{\apl}{a^+_l}

189: \newcommand{\alo}{a_{l_1}}

190: \newcommand{\alq}{a_{l_q}}

191: \newcommand{\Ah}{\hat{A}}

192: %

193: \newcommand{\psh}{\hat{\ps}}

194: \newcommand{\psbh}{\hat{\psb}}

195: %

196: \newcommand{\eplus}{\mbox{$\left( \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ 0 \end{array} \right)$}}

197: \newcommand{\eminus}{\mbox{$\left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 1 \end{array} \right)$}}

198: \newcommand{\sigp}{\mbox{$\left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}

199: \right)$}}

200: \newcommand{\sigm}{\mbox{$\left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 \end{array}

201: \right)$}}

202: \newcommand{\delsym}{\delta^{k_1 \cdots k_p}_{l_1 \cdots l_q}}

203: %

204: \newcommand{\barx}{\bar{x}}

205: \newcommand{\hnu}{\hat{\nu}}

206: \newcommand{\amu}{a_{\mu}}

207: \newcommand{\anu}{a_{\nu}}

208: \newcommand{\Umuxd}{\Umux^{\dagger}}

209: %

210: \newcommand{\vrd}{\vr^{\dagger}}

211: \newcommand{\ncs}{N_{\rm CS}}

212: \newcommand{\nw}{N_{\rm w}}

213: \newcommand{\gmsp}{\gm_{\rm sp}}

214: \newcommand{\ffd}{\tr(F\tilde F)}

215: %

216: \newcommand{\lmsp}{\lm_{\sg\ph}}

217: \newcommand{\mueff}{\mu_{\rm eff}}

218: \newcommand{\beaa}{\begin{eqnarray*}}

219: \newcommand{\eeaa}{\end{eqnarray*}}

220: \newcommand{\bc}{\begin{center}}

221: \newcommand{\ec}{\end{center}}

222: %

223: \newcommand{\dlcp}{\delta_{\rm CP}}

224: \newcommand{\gmeff}{\Gamma_{\rm eff}}

225: %\newcommand{\vrd}{\varphi^{\dagger}}

226: \begin{document}

227: 

228: \title{Cold Electroweak Baryogenesis

229: %\footnote{\uppercase{P}resented by \uppercase{J}.\ \uppercase{S}mit}

230: }

231: 

232: \author{Jan Smit}

233: %\footnote{\uppercase{W}ork

234: %supported by \uppercase{F}\uppercase{O}\uppercase{M}.}}

235: 

236: \address{Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Amsterdam\\

237: Valckenierstraat 65, 1018 XE Amsterdam, the Netherlands}

238: 

239: \maketitle

240: 

241: \abstracts{We present arguments that the CKM CP-violation in the standard model 

242: may be sufficient

243: for the generation of the baryon asymmetry, if the electroweak transition

244: in the early universe was of the cold, tachyonic, type

245: after electroweak-scale inflation. A model implementing this is

246: described which complies with the CMB constraints and which is falsifiable with

247: the LHC. 

248: Numerical simulations of the tachyonic transition 

249: with an effective CP-bias indicate that the observed

250: baryon asymmetry can be generated this way.

251: }

252: 

253: \section{Introduction}

254: There are three families in the minimal Standard Model (SM), why?

255: Such why-questions lie outside the scope of the model, but the thought

256: `to allow for CP-violation and baryogenesis' comes up easily. What is

257: currently known experimentally about CP violation\cite{pdg} can be

258: attributed to the CKM matrix being complex, which is only

259: possible for three or more families.

260: This provides a strong

261: motivation for finding a scenario for baryogenesis that makes use of

262: this fact.  SM electroweak baryogenesis\cite{Rubakov:1996vz},

263: is believed by many to be impossible, because of ($i$) the

264: weakness of CKM CP-violation, and ($ii$) the smoothness of the 

265: finite-temperature electroweak transition\cite{Kajantie:1995kf}.

266: 

267: Of course, the SM assumes neutrinos to be massless, and a better framework

268: is its extension that includes right-handed neutrino fields

269: with renormalizable Yukawa couplings and a Majorana mass matrix,

270: which may be called the Extended Standard Model (ESM). Leptogenesis is

271: an attractive possibility within this framework\cite{Plu}. However,

272: it makes use of physics at the scale of $10^{10}$ GeV and it seems worth

273: putting effort into scenarios closer to what we know on the scale $\lesssim 200$

274: GeV. So we must face issues ($i$) and ($ii$).

275: 

276: In the following a scenario\cite{Garcia-Bellido:1999sv,Krauss:1999ng,Copeland:2001qw,Tranberg:2003gi,vanTent:2004rc}

277: will be reviewed based on a cold (`tachyonic')

278: electroweak transition caused by the coupling of a gauge-singlet inflaton to 

279: the ESM.

280: First, we shall

281: argue that CP violation is much stronger at {\em zero} temperature

282: than often stated.

283: 

284: \section{Magnitude of CKM CP-violation}

285: \label{strength}

286: The usual estimate for the magnitude of CP violation is\cite{Jarlskog:1985ht,Rubakov:1996vz}

287: \be

288: \dl_{\rm CP} = J\,

289: (m_{u}^{2}-m_{c}^{2}) (m_{c}^{2}-m_{t}^{2}) (m_{t}^{2}-m_{u}^{2})

290: (m_{d}^{2}-m_{s}^{2}) (m_{s}^{2}-m_{b}^{2}) (m_{b}^{2}-m_{d}^{2})

291: /T^{12},

292: % \approx 10^{-19},

293: \label{dlcpest1}

294: \ee

295: where $m_u$, \ldots,$m_b$ are the quark masses and\cite{pdg}

296: \be

297: J = |{\rm Im} (V_{fg}V_{hi}V_{fi}^* V_{hg}^*)| = (2.88 \pm 0.33)

298: \times 10^{-5}

299: \label{J}

300: \ee

301: is the simplest rephasing-invariant combination of the CKM matrix $V$. 

302: For $T=100$ GeV, of order of

303: the finite-temperature electroweak phase transition, (\ref{dlcpest1}) gives

304: the discouraging value $\dlcp \approx 10^{-19}$.

305: %

306: At zero temperature one would replace $m_j/T$ by the Yukawa

307: coupling $\lm_j = \sqrt{2}\, m_j/v$, with $v= 246$ GeV the vev of

308: the Higgs field, giving

309: \be

310: \dl_{\rm CP} = J\,

311: (\lm_{u}^{2}-\lm_{c}^{2}) (\lm_{c}^{2}-\lm_{t}^{2})

312: (\lm_{t}^{2}-\lm_{u}^{2}) (\lm_{d}^{2}-\lm_{s}^{2})

313: (\lm_{s}^{2}-\lm_{b}^{2}) (\lm_{b}^{2}-\lm_{d}^{2})

314: \approx 10^{-22},

315: \label{dlcpest2}

316: \ee

317: even smaller than (\ref{dlcpest1}).

318: However, even with the Higgs field settled in its vev, the

319: measured CP violating effects in accelerator experiments are at a

320: much higher level than $10^{-23}$, e.g.\ the magnitude of the

321: decay asymmetry $\ep'$ in the $K^0-\bar K^0$ system is about\cite{pdg}

322: $4\times 10^{-6}$.

323: This suggests that the above order of magnitude estimates of

324: $\dl_{\rm CP}$ are misleading, at least at zero temperature.

325: 

326: To make the discussion more concrete, consider the effective action obtained

327: by integrating our the fermions, $\gmeff = -\Tr(\ln D)$,

328: with $D$ the Dirac operator. In studies and discussions of

329: electroweak baryogenesis,

330: CP violation has been taken into account by approximating the

331: CP asymmetry in $\gmeff$ by a leading dimension-six term\cite{Shaposhnikov:1987tw}

332: %\cite{Shaposhnikov:1987tw,Shaposhnikov:1988pf}

333: \be

334: -\mathcal{L}_{\rm CP} = 

335: \frac{3\delta_{\rm CP}}{16\pi^2 M^2}\,

336: \vr^{\dagger}\vr\; \tr(F^{\mu\nu}\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}),

337: \label{CPterm}

338: \ee

339: where $F_{\mu\nu}$ is the SU(2) field strength tensor,

340: $\tilde F_{\mu\nu}$ its dual, and

341: $M$ is a mass depending on the scale of the problem. 

342: It could be the mass scale of an extension of the ESM. 

343: {\em Within} the ESM, at finite temperature,

344: one could take $M=T$, but what to use when $T=0$?

345: The fermion masses are $\propto \langle \vr\rangle$,

346: but $\vrd\vr/\langle\vrd\vr\rangle$ does not seem to make sense.

347: The ordering of the terms in $\gmeff$ according to increasing

348: dimension is questionable in a zero-temperature

349: transition in which $\langle\vr^{\dagger}\vr\rangle$ increases from zero

350: to some finite value.

351: 

352: Luckily, there exists a very detailed calculation of the zero-temperature

353: effective action in a general chiral gauge model,

354: based on a gauge-covariant derivative-expansion that is

355: completely non-perturbative in the Higgs field, by L.L.\ Salcedo\cite{Salcedo:2000hp,Salcedo:2000hx}.

356: We have applied his results to the ESM (without Majorana mass terms), and

357: found that (\ref{CPterm}) is incorrect for this case:

358: the rephasing invariant $J$ does not appear as a coefficient of

359: $\tr(F^{\mu\nu}\tilde F_{\mu\nu})$ times a function of the un-differentiated

360: Higgs field\cite{Smit:2004kh}.

361: The first CKM CP-violating contribution

362: lies unfortunately still beyond the scope of Salcedo's

363: results,

364: but a typical term is expected to have the form, in {\em unitary gauge}

365: $A_{\mu} \to W_{\mu}$, 

366: %$\sqrt{\vrd\vr} \to h$, 

367: $\vr = (0,h)^T$,

368: \[

369: \ep^{\kp\lm\mu\nu} W_{\kp\lm}^a W_{\mu\nu}^b W^c_{\rh} W^{d\rh}\, n'_{abcd}(\lm h),

370: \]

371: where $a,b,c,d$ are $SU(2)$ indices and $n'_{abcd}(\lm h)$ is a non-trivial

372: function of 

373: %the Higgs field $h = \sqrt{\vrd\vr}$ times the Yukawa couplings, 

374: %$\lm_j\, h \equiv d_j$,

375: the Yukawa couplings times the Higgs field,

376: $d_j \equiv \lm_j\, h$.

377: %\footnote{There is a similar contribution from the leptons.}. 

378: For e.g.\ $a=b=c=d=1$ the above expression violates CP and is 

379: expected to contain the invariant $J$. The crucial point is now that

380: $n'_{abcd}$ is expected to be a {\em homogeneous} function of the $d_j$. 

381: This is the case for the explicitly calculated 

382: coefficient functions at fourth order of the 

383: gauge-covariant derivative-expansion (involving four Lorentz indices),

384: which are homogeneous of degree zero\cite{Salcedo:2000hp,Salcedo:2000hx},

385: which is why (\ref{CPterm}) cannot occur.

386: For the higher order term we expect that,

387: when we rescale the Yukawa couplings $\lm_j\to s \lm_j$, 

388: the coefficient functions $n(\lm h)$

389: scale by some negative power of $s$ (perhaps up to logarithms). 

390: This strongly suggests

391: that we should not include the product of Yukawa couplings (\ref{dlcpest2})

392: in estimating $\dlcp$, leaving only $J$, which is a factor of about $10^{17}$

393: larger.

394: For example,

395: \[

396: \frac{(\lm_{u}^{2}-\lm_{c}^{2}) (\lm_{c}^{2}-\lm_{t}^{2})

397: (\lm_{t}^{2}-\lm_{u}^{2}) (\lm_{d}^{2}-\lm_{s}^{2})

398: (\lm_{s}^{2}-\lm_{b}^{2}) (\lm_{b}^{2}-\lm_{d}^{2})}

399: {(\lm_{u}^{2}+\lm_{c}^{2}) (\lm_{c}^{2}+\lm_{t}^{2})

400: (\lm_{t}^{2}+\lm_{u}^{2}) (\lm_{d}^{2}+\lm_{s}^{2})

401: (\lm_{s}^{2}+\lm_{b}^{2}) (\lm_{b}^{2}+\lm_{d}^{2})}

402: \simeq 0.99.

403: \]

404: The argument applies only at zero temperature,

405: since at finite $T$ a new scale appears, e.g.\ the thermal QCD

406: quark mass $m_{\rm th} = g_{\rm s} T/\sqrt{6}$.

407: 

408: \section{A falsifiable model of electroweak-scale inflation}

409: \label{falsif}

410: Here we take seriously a minimal phenomenological

411: extension of the ESM with an additional 

412: gauge-singlet inflaton that couples only to the Higgs field\cite{vanTent:2004rc}.

413: Its inflaton-Higgs potential is constructed after \cite{Copeland:2001qw}, 

414: \be

415: V(\sigma,\ph) = V_0 - \frac{1}{p} \al_p \sigma^p + \frac{1}{q}

416: \al_q \sigma^q

417: - \frac{1}{2} \lmsp \sigma^2 \ph^2 + \frac{1}{2} \mu_\ph^2 \ph^2 +

418: \frac{1}{4} \lm_\ph (\ph^2)^2,

419: \label{core}

420: \ee

421: where $\sg$ is the inflaton field and $\ph^2 \equiv 2\vrd\vr$.

422: During inflation, $\sg$ slow-rolls away from the origin. After

423: inflation has ended it accelerates, and

424: %when $\sg^2$ gets larger than  $\sg_c^2 =\mu_\ph^2/\lmsp$,

425: the effective Higgs mass

426: \be

427: \mueff^2 = \mu_\ph^2 - \lmsp \sg^2

428: \ee

429: changes sign from positive to negative, and the tachyonic electroweak

430: transition starts. During the transition the baryon asymmetry is

431: to be generated through the electroweak anomaly and the

432: CKM CP-bias. To avoid sphaleron washout of the asymmetry the

433: reheating temperature

434: $T_{\rm rh}$ has to be small enough. Taking $V_0^{1/4}=100$ GeV,

435: the Hubble rate is tiny, $H\approx 10^{-14}$ GeV, 

436: and $T_{\rm rh} =[30 V_0/(\pi^2 g_*)]^{1/4} \simeq

437: 51$ GeV ($g_* = 86.25$ is the effective number of SM degrees of

438: freedom below the $W$ mass), at which temperature the sphaleron

439: rate is negligible.

440: %Since we are dealing with the (E)SM, the reheating physics physics is reasonably

441: %well understood.

442: 

443: As a phenomenological model it has to comply with what is

444: currently known. Firstly, we have the CMB constraints\cite{Spergel:2003cb}: 

445: the large-scale normalization

446: $|\dl_\veck|^2 = (3.8 \pm 0.5)\times 10^{-5}$, and the scalar spectral-index

447: $n_S-1 = -0.03\pm 0.03$. The latter is given by $n_S-1 \simeq -

448: (2/N)(p-1)/(p-2)$, with $N$ the number of e-folds before the end

449: inflation, and $p>2$ for slow-roll to end naturally. For

450: electroweak-scale inflation

451: $N\simeq 24$, which is much lower than usually mentioned $\approx

452: 60$, and the resulting

453: $n_S-1 \lesssim -0.083$ is too low. This is fixed\cite{vanTent:2004rc} 

454: as mentioned below.

455: 

456: Secondly, in the minimum of the potential we have (approximating

457: the cosmological constant by zero)

458: \bea

459: \frac{dV}{d\sg}(v_\sg,v_\ph)&=&0,\;\;\frac{dV}{d\ph}(v_\sg,v_\ph)=0,

460: \quad V(v_\sg,v_\ph)=0,

461: \quad v_\ph = 246\; \mbox{GeV},

462: \nonumber\\

463: \mu_\ph^2 -\lmsp v_\sg^2 &=& -\half\, m_{\ph}^2,

464: \;\;

465: m_\ph^2 = 2\lm_\ph v_\ph^2,

466: \label{lmspconstraint}

467: \eea

468: where $m_\ph$ would be the SM Higgs mass, were it not that $\lmsp$

469: leads to a considerable inflaton-Higgs mixing, to be addressed

470: shortly. For definiteness we continue with $V_0^{1/4} = 100$ GeV,

471: $\mu_\ph = 100$ GeV, $m_\ph= 200$ GeV, for which the Higgs self-coupling

472: $\lm_\ph=0.33$, and we expect a particle mass above the current lower bound

473: of 114 GeV\cite{pdg}.

474: 

475: Thirdly, the transition has to be reasonably rapid to

476: allow for successful baryogenesis, 

477: which leads\cite{Copeland:2001qw,vanTent:2004rc} to the constraint 

478: $\lmsp \gtrsim 0.01$.

479: Essentially this constraint now fixes $p=5$ (the choices for $V_0$,

480: $\mu_\ph$ and $m_\ph$ are not critical in this respect). 

481: The basic reason is that for $p<5$ the potential goes down rather slowly, giving

482: a large $\sg$-vev 

483: $v_\sg$ and consequently a too small $\lmsp$

484: (cf.\ (\ref{lmspconstraint})), whereas for $p>5$

485: the result is a ridiculously large $\lmsp$.

486: %

487: % as the following table illustrates:

488: %\begin{center}

489: %\begin{tabular}{c|cccc}

490: %& $\lmsp$ & $\al_p$ & $\al_q$ & $v_\sigma$\\

491: %\hline

492: %$p=4$, $q=6$ & $1 \, 10^{-6}$ & $3\, 10^{-12}$ & $3\, 10^{-22}$

493: %& $1\, 10^{5}$ \\

494: %$p=5$, $q=6$ & 0.36 & $1/661$ & $1/344^2 $ & 288\\

495: %$p=6$, $q=7$ & $2 \, 10^3$ & $7\,10^{5}$ & $3 \, 10^{5}$

496: %& 4\\

497: %$p=6$, $q=8$ & $3 \, 10^3$ & $7\,10^5$ & $3 \, 10^{5}$ & 3

498: %\end{tabular}

499: %\end{center}

500: So we end up with non-renormalizable couplings, 

501: and to keep the powers of $\sg$ as low as possible we have chosen $q=6$.

502: 

503: Returning to the minimum of the potential, the inflaton-Higgs

504: mixing follows from the mass matrix

505: \[

506: %\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial\sg^2}&\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial\sg\, \partial\ph}

507: %\\\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial\sg\, \partial\ph}&\frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial\ph^2}

508: %\end{array}\right)_{v_\sg,v_\ph}

509: \partial^2 V/\partial(\sg,\ph)_{v_\sg,v_\ph}

510: \Rightarrow \mbox{$m_1 = 385$ GeV, $m_2 = 125$ GeV, $\xi = 0.44$

511: },

512: \]

513: where $\xi$ is the mixing angle. The model thus predicts (only)

514: two scalar particles with couplings to the rest of the SM

515: determined by the mixing.

516: 

517: The CMB scalar spectral-index can be accommodated by adding terms

518: $-\half\,\al_2\sg^2 + \third\, \al_3 \sg^3 -\quart\, \al_4\sg^4$

519: to the potential that were artificially set to zero in (\ref{core}).

520: For example, still with $\al_3=0$ we found that we could

521: fit $n_S$ easily, see figure \ref{pars}.

522: \begin{figure}[h]

523: \centerline{\epsfxsize=6cm\epsfbox{smit_fig1.eps}

524: \epsfxsize=6cm\epsfbox{smit_fig2.eps}

525: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=6cm\epsfbox{parsx1.eps}

526: %\epsfxsize=6cm\epsfbox{parsx2.eps}

527: %

528: %\bc

529: %\includegraphics*[width=5.5cm,clip]{parsx1.eps}

530: %\includegraphics*[width=5.5cm,clip]{parsx2.eps}

531: %\ec

532: }

533: \caption{Dimension-full (left) and dimension-less (right) parameters

534: as a function of 

535: $x\equiv \al_2 m_{\rm Planck}^2/V_0$, for the central WMAP value

536: $n_S-1=-0.03$.

537: %($\gm_{122}$ is the three-point coupling of the scalars).

538: \label{pars}}

539: \end{figure}

540: Furthermore, in a one-loop study we verified that the potential

541: can be kept flat enough so as not to upset slow-roll inflation;

542: the non-renormalizable couplings lead to the conclusion that

543: the model breaks down at scales around a TeV or so.

544: 

545: The flatness of the potential is finely tuned, but we stress that

546: there is nothing wrong with this in a {\em phenomenological}

547: model. 

548: It is a minimal extension of the SM that incorporates

549: inflation as well as the tachyonic electroweak transition desired

550: for baryogenesis, 

551: %in which the gauge-singlet inflaton is coupled only to the Higgs field, 

552: with signatures due to inflaton-Higgs

553: mixing that allow it to be {\em falsified} by the LHC.

554: 

555: \section{

556: %The transition in quench approximation}

557: Tachyonic way-out-of-equilibrium transition}

558: \label{quench}

559: 

560: After inflation and before the transition, the universe is cold and

561: approximately in the ground state corresponding to the symmetric

562: phase of the SM. Then $\mueff^2$ changes sign and the tachyonic

563: transition develops. The initial part of such transitions with

564: given `speed' $\partial \mueff^2/\partial t$ has been studied

565: analytically as well as numerically\cite{Asaka:2001ez,Copeland:2002ku,Garcia-Bellido:2002aj,Garcia-Bellido:2003wd,Borsanyi:2003ib}.

566: We used the infinitely-fast quench,

567: \beaa

568: \mueff^2 &=& +\mu^2,\quad t<0

569: \\&=& -\mu^2, \quad t>0,

570: \eeaa

571: in our simulations of the $SU(2)$-Higgs 

572: model described by

573: \be

574: -\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{2g^2}\,\tr(F_{\mu \nu}F^{\mu \nu})

575: %\right.\\&&\left.\frac{\mbox{}}{\mbox{}}

576:  +(D_{\mu}\vr)^{\dagger}D^{\mu}\vr

577:  + \mueff^2 \vr^{\dagger}\vr+\lambda(\vr^{\dagger}\vr)^{2}

578: \label{su2hlag}

579: \ee

580: as an explorative approximation for studying baryogenesis\cite{Tranberg:2003gi}. 

581: In the gaussian approximation the Fourier modes of a real

582: component

583: $\ph_\veck$ of the Higgs field can be solved in the form

584: $\al_{\veck}\, e^{-i\omega_{k}^{-}t}

585: + \bt_\veck\, e^{i\omega_{k}^{-}t}$, with

586: $\omega_{k}^{-}=\sqrt{-\mu^2 +k^{2}}$. The modes with

587: $k<\mu$ are unstable and grow exponentially $\propto e^{|\om_k^-|t}$.

588: After some time $\mu t \gg 1$, 

589: the equal-time correlators of $\ph_\veck$ and $\pi_\veck = \dt\ph_\veck$ 

590: are generically well approximated by the {\em classical distribution}\cite{Smit:2002yg}

591: %

592: \be

593: \exp\left[-\half\sum_{|\veck|<\mu }

594: \left(\frac{|\xi^+_\veck|^2}{n_k + 1/2 + \tilde n_k}

595: + \frac{|\xi^-_\veck|^2}{n_k + 1/2 - \tilde n_k}\right)\right],

596: \label{dist}

597: \ee

598: %

599: where $\xi^{\pm}_{\veck} =

600: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\om_k}}\left(\om_k\,\ph_{\veck} \pm

601: \pi_\veck\right)$,

602: %The occupation numbers $n_k$ and $\tilde n_k$ start at zero for $t=0$ and for $\mu t \gg1$,

603: and $n_k + 1/2 + \tilde n_k \gg 1$ and

604: $n_k + 1/2 - \tilde n_k \ll 1$. So the typical $\xi_k^+$ grow

605: large, while $\xi_k^- \to 0$; the distribution gets {\em

606: squeezed}. In the classical approximation\footnote{See \cite{ST}

607: for a comparison in the $O(4)$ model with the quantum case using 

608: $\Phi$-derivable approximation.}, realizations of the

609: distribution (\ref{dist}) are used as initial conditions for time

610: evolution using the classical equations of motion.

611: %

612: For a weakly coupled system such as the SU(2)-Higgs sector of the

613: SM we don't have to wait till the occupation numbers have grown

614: large, as the quantum and classical evolutions are identical in

615: the gaussian approximation. Our `just a half' initial conditions

616: start directly at $t=0$, for which the occupation numbers $n_k =\tilde n_k

617: =0$. In temporal gauge, $A_0=0$, the gauge field $\vecA$

618: is initialized to zero, and the initial $\dt\vecA$ is found from

619: Gauss' law\cite{Tranberg:2003gi}. 

620: 

621: In \cite{Skullerud:2003ki} 

622: we studied the particle-number distribution of the Higgs and W.  

623: For example,

624: Fig.\ \ref{figzeromod} shows how the W-particle $n_k$ in Coulomb gauge

625: change in time. The rapid rise of the low momentum modes end at

626: about $t m_H = 7$ and after

627: $t m_H =30$ the distribution does not change much anymore.

628: %

629: \begin{figure}[h]

630: \bc

631: %\includegraphics*[width=10cm,clip]{Wtc_n.eps}

632: \includegraphics*[width=10cm,clip]{smit_fig3.eps}

633: \ec

634: \caption{Coulomb-gauge W-particle numbers vs.\ momentum, time in

635: units of $m_H^{-1}$. }

636: \label{figzeromod}

637: \end{figure}

638: %

639: These $n_k$ differ initially very much from the corresponding ones

640: in the unitary gauge, but by time $t m_H = 100$ they are

641: practically the same. The particle numbers of

642: the longitudinal polarization are initially

643: similar to those of the Higgs but later appear to be slower in

644: adjusting to the same distribution. The distributions at $t m_H =

645: 100$ can be fitted to Bose-Einstein distributions, separately in

646: the more important low momentum region and for the higher momentum

647: tails, giving effective temperatures and (at that time still

648: considerable) chemical potentials. The overall lesson learned from

649: these studies is that the transition is strongly out of equilibrium, and

650: over after a few tens of

651: $m_H^{-1}$. The finer details of thermalization will be different

652: when the other d.o.f.\ from the quarks, gluons, etc.\

653: have been taken into account.

654: 

655: \section{Baryogenesis}

656: To estimate the asymmetry generated by the transition under influence of

657: CP violation we simulated\cite{Tranberg:2003gi}

658: the $SU(2)$-Higgs model with the effective CP

659: violating term (\ref{CPterm}) added to the lagrangian (\ref{su2hlag}).

660: Although it was mentioned in section \ref{strength} that this term does not apply

661: to the ESM, it is still interesting to see how large its parameter

662: $\dlcp$ has to be in order to obtain the observed asymmetry. For the simulation

663: we relabelled

664: \be

665: \frac{3\delta_{\rm CP}}{16\pi^2 M^2} \equiv \kp,

666: \quad

667: k \equiv 16\pi^2 m_W^2\, \kp.

668: \label{kappa}

669: \ee

670: The baryon asymmetry is given by the anomaly equation

671: \[

672: B(t) = 3 \ncs(t) = 3 \frac{1}{16\pi^2}\int_0^t dt' \intvecx 

673: \left\langle \tr\left(F_{\mu\nu}(\vecx,t') \tilde F^{\mu\nu}(\vecx,t')\right) \right\rangle,

674: \]

675: where we assumed $B(0)=0$ (after inflation,

676: just before the transition) and initial Chern-Simon number

677: $\ncs(0)=0$ (choice of gauge). Another useful observable is the winding number

678: of the Higgs field,

679: \bea

680: \nw &=&\frac{1}{24\pi^2}\intvecx \ep_{klm}

681: \tr (\partial_k U U^{\dagger} \partial_l U U^{\dagger}

682: \dm U U^{\dagger}),

683: \nonumber\\

684: U &=&

685: \left(i\tau_2 \vr^*,\,\vr \right)/(\vrd\vr)^{1/2}

686: \in SU(2).

687: \nonumber

688: \eea

689: At relatively

690: low energy the gauge and Higgs fields are close to being pure-gauge and then 

691: $\ncs(A) \approx \nw(\vr)$.

692: 

693: We simulated with parameters such that $m_H/m_W = 1$ and $\sqrt{2}$, and various 

694: values of $k$ defined in 

695: (\ref{kappa}). The initial conditions were `just a half' (cf.\ Sect.\ \ref{quench})

696: and `thermal'. The latter are simply Higgs-field realizations drawn from a free

697: BE ensemble at low temperature $T=0.1\, m_H$, thermal noise 

698: that we used to get an impression of the sensitivity to the initial conditions.

699: Figure \ref{avtraj} shows an example of how at first

700: %

701: \begin{figure}[h!]

702: \centerline{

703: %\includegraphics*[width=8cm,clip]{avtraj_k16_h_1.eps}

704: \includegraphics*[width=8cm,clip]{smit_fig4.eps}

705: }

706: \caption{Averages: Higgs field $2\langle\vrd\vr\rangle/v^2$, Chern-Simons number

707: $\langle\ncs\rangle$ and Higgs winding number $\langle \nw\rangle$, for $m_H=m_w$, $k=16$,

708: `just a half' initial conditions. }

709: \label{avtraj}

710: \end{figure}

711: %

712: $\langle\vrd\vr\rangle$ rises exponentially and then settles into a damped

713: oscillation near the vev. 

714: The Chern-Simons number has a small bump near $t m_H = 7$, 

715: which we can understand analytically, after which

716: it appears to resonate with $\langle\vrd\vr\rangle$ and settle near the

717: winding number. The latter is at first erratic but then appears to stabilize

718: earlier than $\ncs$. 

719: 

720: Fig.\ \ref{allkandm} shows results for the Chern-Simons number-density at time

721: $t m_H = 100$. There is no evidence for a sensitive dependence on the initial

722: ensemble, and apparently the dependence on the magnitude of CP violation

723: becomes non-linear for $k\gtrsim 5-10$.

724: The dependence on the mass ratio 

725: $m_H/m_W$ appears limited. 

726: This is in contrast to what we found\cite{Smit:2002yg}

727: in the 1+1D abelian-Higgs toy model, for which there is a sensitive dependence on

728: $m_H/m_W$; it also showed nice linear behavior in the 

729: 1+1D analog $\kp$ for small enough values. 

730: %

731: \begin{figure}[h!]

732: \centerline{

733: %\includegraphics*[width=8cm,clip]{allkandm.eps}

734: \includegraphics*[width=8cm,clip]{smit_fig5.eps}

735: }

736: \caption{Chern-Simons number density vs.\ $k$.}

737: \label{allkandm}

738: \end{figure}

739: %

740: The dashed lines are linear fits through the origin, ignoring the data at $k=0$

741: and 16. The straight full lines go through the two data points with lowest $k$.

742: Including the data at $k=0$

743: is meaningful because these were generated with the same sequence of

744: pseudo-random numbers as for 

745: $k=3$ ($m_H = m_W$) and $k=1.5$ ($m_H = \sqrt{2}\, m_W$).

746: (Note that the $k=0$ data is shifted somewhat away from zero for $m_H = m_W$).

747: Using the dashed-line fit for the case $m_H = \sqrt{2}\, m_W\simeq 114$ GeV 

748: gives a baryon asymmetry

749: \[

750: \frac{n_{B}}{n_{\gamma}} =

751: (0.46\pm 0.21) \times 10^{-2}\kappa\, m_{W}^{2}.

752: \]

753: To fit the observed $n_B/n_\gm \simeq 6.5\times 10^{-10}$, requires $\kp$ to be

754: \[

755: \kappa\approx\frac{1.4 \times 10^{-7}}{m_{W}^{2}}

756: \approx \frac{2.2\times 10^{-5}}{1{\rm TeV}^{2}}.

757: \]

758: The 1 TeV scale is reasonable if we interpret 

759: $\mathcal{L}_{\rm CP}$ as being due to physics beyond the ESM. 

760: On the other hand, if we boldly assume that the results make sense for the

761: ESM by taking the scale $M = m_W$, then the required $\dlcp$ turns out

762: to be of the order of $J$ in (\ref{J}):

763: \[

764: \dl_{\rm CP} \approx 0.7\times 10^{-5}.

765: \]

766: We consider this as very encouraging for further developing 

767: the scenario of cold electroweak baryogenesis.

768: 

769: 

770: \section*{Acknowledgments}

771: I would like to thank 

772: Anders Tranberg, Jon-Ivar Skullerud and Bartjan van Tent, for a very fruitful 

773: and pleasant collaboration.

774: This work was supported by FOM/NWO.

775: 

776: %\section*{Appendix}

777: 

778: %\renewcommand{\theequation}{A.\arabic{equation}}

779: 

780: \begin{thebibliography}{0}

781: 

782: %\cite{Eidelman:2004wy}

783: %\bibitem{Eidelman:2004wy}

784: \bibitem{pdg}

785: S.~Eidelman {\it et al.}  [Particle Data Group Collaboration],

786: %``Review of particle physics,''

787: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 592} (2004) 1.

788: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B592,1;%%

789: 

790: %\cite{Rubakov:1996vz}

791: \bibitem{Rubakov:1996vz}

792: V.~A.~Rubakov and M.~E.~Shaposhnikov,

793: %``Electroweak baryon number non-conservation in the early universe and in

794: %high-energy collisions,''

795: Usp.\ Fiz.\ Nauk {\bf 166}, 493 (1996)

796: [Phys.\ Usp.\  {\bf 39}, 461 (1996)]

797: [arXiv:hep-ph/9603208].

798: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603208;%%

799: 

800: %\cite{Kajantie:1995kf}

801: \bibitem{Kajantie:1995kf}

802: K.~Kajantie, M.~Laine, K.~Rummukainen and M.~E.~Shaposhnikov,

803: %``The Electroweak Phase Transition: A Non-Perturbative Analysis,''

804: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 466} (1996) 189

805: [arXiv:hep-lat/9510020].

806: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9510020;%%

807: 

808: \bibitem{Plu}

809: M.~Pl\"umacher, these proceedings.

810: 

811: %\cite{Garcia-Bellido:1999sv}

812: \bibitem{Garcia-Bellido:1999sv}

813: J.~Garc\'{\i}a-Bellido, D.~Y.~Grigoriev, A.~Kusenko and M.~E.~Shaposhnikov,

814: %``Non-equilibrium electroweak baryogenesis from preheating after  inflation,''

815: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 123504 (1999)

816: [arXiv:hep-ph/9902449].

817: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9902449;%%

818: 

819: %\cite{Krauss:1999ng}

820: \bibitem{Krauss:1999ng}

821: L.M.~Krauss and M.~Trodden,

822: %``Baryogenesis below the electroweak scale,''

823: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 83}, 1502 (1999).

824: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9902420].

825: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9902420;%%

826: 

827: %\cite{Copeland:2001qw}

828: \bibitem{Copeland:2001qw}

829: E.~J.~Copeland, D.~Lyth, A.~Rajantie and M.~Trodden,

830: %``Hybrid inflation and baryogenesis at the TeV scale,''

831: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 043506 (2001)

832: [arXiv:hep-ph/0103231].

833: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103231;%%

834: 

835: %\cite{Tranberg:2003gi}

836: \bibitem{Tranberg:2003gi}

837: A.~Tranberg and J.~Smit,

838: %``Baryon asymmetry from electroweak tachyonic preheating,''

839: JHEP {\bf 0311}, 016 (2003)

840: [arXiv:hep-ph/0310342].

841: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310342;%%%\cite{Tranberg:2003gi}

842: 

843: %\cite{vanTent:2004rc}

844: \bibitem{vanTent:2004rc}

845: B.~van Tent, J.~Smit and A.~Tranberg,

846: %``Electroweak-scale inflation, inflaton-Higgs mixing and the scalar spectral

847: %index,''

848: JCAP {\bf 0407}, 003 (2004).

849: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0404128].

850: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404128;%%

851: 

852: %\cite{Jarlskog:1985ht}

853: \bibitem{Jarlskog:1985ht}

854: C.~Jarlskog,

855: %``Commutator Of The Quark Mass Matrices In The Standard Electroweak Model And A

856: %Measure Of Maximal CP Violation,''

857: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 55}, 1039 (1985).

858: %%CITATION = PRLTA,55,1039;%%

859: 

860: %\cite{Shaposhnikov:1987tw}

861: \bibitem{Shaposhnikov:1987tw}

862: M.~E.~Shaposhnikov,

863: %``Baryon Asymmetry Of The Universe In Standard Electroweak Theory,''

864: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 287}, 757 (1987).

865: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B287,757;%%

866: 

867: %\cite{Salcedo:2000hp}

868: \bibitem{Salcedo:2000hp}

869: L.~L.~Salcedo,

870: %``Derivative expansion for the effective action of chiral gauge fermions:  The

871: %normal parity component,''

872: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 20}, 147 (2001)

873: [arXiv:hep-th/0012166].

874: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012166;%%

875: 

876: %\cite{Salcedo:2000hx}

877: \bibitem{Salcedo:2000hx}

878: L.~L.~Salcedo,

879: %``Derivative expansion for the effective action of chiral gauge fermions:  The

880: %abnormal parity component,''

881: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 20}, 161 (2001)

882: [arXiv:hep-th/0012174].

883: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012174;%%

884: 

885: %\cite{Smit:2004kh}

886: \bibitem{Smit:2004kh}

887: J.~Smit,

888: %``Effective CP violation in the standard model,''

889: arXiv:hep-ph/0407161.

890: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407161;%%

891: 

892: %\cite{Spergel:2003cb}

893: \bibitem{Spergel:2003cb}

894: D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.},

895: %``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:

896: %Determination of Cosmological Parameters,''

897: Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 148}, 175 (2003).

898: %[arXiv:astro-ph/0302209].

899: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302209;%%

900: 

901: %\cite{Asaka:2001ez}

902: \bibitem{Asaka:2001ez}

903: T.~Asaka, W.~Buchmuller and L.~Covi,

904: %``False vacuum decay after inflation,''

905: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 510}, 271 (2001).

906: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0104037].

907: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104037;%%

908: 

909: %\cite{Copeland:2002ku}

910: \bibitem{Copeland:2002ku}

911: E.~J.~Copeland, S.~Pascoli and A.~Rajantie,

912: %``Dynamics of tachyonic preheating after hybrid inflation,''

913: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 103517 (2002).

914: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0202031].

915: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202031;%%

916: 

917: %\cite{Garcia-Bellido:2002aj}

918: \bibitem{Garcia-Bellido:2002aj}

919: J.\ Garc\'{\i}a-Bellido, M.\ Garc\'{\i}a-P\'erez, A.\ Gonz\'ales-Arroyo,

920: %``Symmetry breaking and false vacuum decay after hybrid inflation,''

921: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 103501 (2003)

922: [arXiv:hep-ph/0208228].

923: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208228;%%

924: 

925: %\cite{Garcia-Bellido:2003wd}

926: \bibitem{Garcia-Bellido:2003wd}

927: J.\ Garc\'{\i}a-Bellido, M.\ Garc\'{\i}a-P\'erez, A.\ Gonz\'ales-Arroyo,

928: %``Chern-Simons production during preheating in hybrid inflation models,''

929: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 023504 (2004)

930: [arXiv:hep-ph/0304285].

931: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304285;%%

932: 

933: %\cite{Borsanyi:2003ib}

934: \bibitem{Borsanyi:2003ib}

935: S.~Borsanyi, A.~Patkos and D.~Sexty,

936: %``Non-equilibrium Goldstone phenomenon in tachyonic preheating,''

937: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 063512 (2003).

938: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0303147].

939: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303147;%%

940: 

941: %\cite{Smit:2002yg}

942: \bibitem{Smit:2002yg}

943: J.~Smit and A.~Tranberg,

944: %``Chern-Simons number asymmetry from CP violation at electroweak tachyonic

945: %preheating,''

946: JHEP {\bf 0212}, 020 (2002)

947: [arXiv:hep-ph/0211243].

948: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211243;%%

949: 

950: %\cite{Skullerud:2003ki}

951: \bibitem{Skullerud:2003ki}

952: J.~I.~Skullerud, J.~Smit and A.~Tranberg,

953: %``W and Higgs particle distributions during electroweak tachyonic preheating,''

954: JHEP {\bf 0308}, 045 (2003).

955: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0307094].

956: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307094;%%

957: 

958: \bibitem{ST}

959: A.\ Tranberg, these proceedings.

960: 

961: 

962: \end{thebibliography}

963: 

964: \end{document}

965: