1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: % Dec 23 2004 %
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4: \documentclass[preprint,prd,amsmath,amssymb,nofootinbib,tightenlines,floatfix]{revtex4}
5: %\documentclass[12pt]{article}
6: \usepackage[dvips]{graphics}
7: %\usepackage{cite}
8: \usepackage{epsfig}
9: \usepackage{latexsym}
10:
11: %\setlength{\textwidth}{492pt}
12: %\setlength{\textheight}{630pt}
13: %\setlength{\evensidemargin}{-11pt}
14: %\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-11pt}
15: %\setlength{\topmargin}{-23pt}
16: \newcommand{\lsim}{\buildrel < \over {_\sim}}
17: \newcommand{\gsim}{\buildrel > \over {_\sim}}
18: \newcommand{\vier}{\\ [4 pt]}
19: \newcommand{\acht}{\\ [8 pt]}
20: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
21: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
22: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
23: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
24: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}
25: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}
26: \def\ra{\rightarrow}
27: \def\RA{\rightarrow}
28: %\newcommand{\Box}{\mathchoice\sqr74\sqr74\sqr{6.3}3\sqr{3.5}3}
29: %
30: %\newcommand{\pla}[2]{{\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf #1A}, #2 }
31: %\newcommand{\plb}[2]{{\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf #1B}, #2 }
32: %\newcommand{\npb}[2]{{\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B#1}, #2 }
33: %\newcommand{\npp}[2]{{\em Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.} {\bf #1}, #2 }
34: %\newcommand{\pr }[2]{{\em Phys. Rep.} {\bf #1}, #2 }
35: %\newcommand{\pra}[2]{{\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf A#1}, #2 }
36: %\newcommand{\prc}[2]{{\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf C#1}, #2 }
37: %\newcommand{\prd}[2]{{\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D#1}, #2 }
38: %\newcommand{\prl}[2]{{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf #1}, #2 }
39: %\newcommand{\zpc}[2]{{\em Z. Phys.} {\bf C#1}, #2 }
40: %\newcommand{\sci}[2]{{\em Science} {\bf #1}, #2 }
41: %\newcommand{\jpb}[2]{{\em J. Phys.} {\bf B#1}, #2 }
42: %\newcommand{\jpc}[2]{{\em J. Phys.} {\bf C#1}, #2 }
43: %\newcommand{\jpf}[2]{{\em J. Phys.} (France) {\bf #1}, #2 }
44: %\newcommand{\app}[2]{{\em Acta Phys. Polon.} {\bf B#1}, #2 }
45: %\newcommand{\mpl}[2]{{\em Mod. Phys. Lett.} {\bf A#1}, #2 }
46: %\newcommand{\rmp}[2]{{\em Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf #1}, #2 }
47: %\newcommand{\cpc}[2]{{\em Comput. Phys. Commun} {\bf #1}, #2 }
48: %\newcommand{\epj}[2]{{\em Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C#1}, #2 }
49: %\newcommand{\nca}[2]{{\em Nuovo Cim.} {\bf A#1}, #2 }
50: %\newcommand{\con}[2]{ {\bf #1}, #2 }
51: %\newcommand{\etal}{{\em et al.}}
52: %\newcommand{\ibid}{{\em ibid.}}
53: %\newcommand{\erratum}{Erratum {\em ibid.}}
54: %\newcommand{\col}{Collaboration}
55: \def\sinhat{\hat{s}^2}
56: \def\coshat{\hat{c}^2}
57: \def\sinzero{\sin^2\hat\theta_W (0)}
58: \def\alphat{\hat\alpha}
59: \def\qwp{{Q_W(p)}}
60: \def\qwe{{Q_W(e)}}
61: \def\qwcs{{Q_W({\rm Cs})}}
62: \def\qwtl{{Q_W({\rm Tl})}}
63: \def\sstw{{\sin^2\theta_W}}
64: \def\lscal{{\lambda_S}}
65: \def\lvect{{\lambda_V}}
66: \def\mlq{{M_{LQ}}}
67:
68: \def\omh{{\omega_{\widetilde H}}} \def\omw{{\omega_{\widetilde W}}}
69: \def\omb{{\omega_{\widetilde B}}} \def\gamh{{\Gamma_{\widetilde H}}}
70: \def\gamw{{\Gamma_{\widetilde W}}} \def\gamb{{\Gamma_{\widetilde B}}}
71: \def\mwtil{{M_{\widetilde W}}} \def\mhtil{{M_{\widetilde H}}}
72: \def\kwtilp{{h_{\widetilde W}^+}} \def\khtilp{{h_{\widetilde H}^+}}
73: \def\nwtilp{{N_{\widetilde W}^+}} \def\nhtilp{{N_{\widetilde H}^+}}
74:
75: \def\gamp{{\Gamma_p}}
76: \def\gamps{{\Gamma_p^2}}
77: \def\lampl{{\lambda_{pL}}}
78: \def\lampr{{\lambda_{pR}}}
79: \def\lamhl{{\lambda_{hL}}}
80: \def\lamhr{{\lambda_{hR}}}
81: \def\delpl{{\delta_{pL}}}
82: \def\delpr{{\delta_{pR}}}
83: \def\nplm{{N_{pL}^-}}
84: \def\nprm{{N_{pR}^-}}
85: \def\nplp{{N_{pL}^+}}
86: \def\nprp{{N_{pR}^+}}
87: \def\kplm{{h_{pL}^-}}
88: \def\kprm{{h_{pR}^-}}
89: \def\kplp{{h_{pL}^+}}
90: \def\kprp{{h_{pR}^+}}
91: \def\nhlm{{N_{hL}^-}}
92: \def\nhrm{{N_{hR}^-}}
93: \def\nhlp{{N_{hL}^+}}
94: \def\nhrp{{N_{hR}^+}}
95: \def\khlm{{h_{hL}^-}}
96: \def\khrm{{h_{hR}^-}}
97: \def\khlp{{h_{hL}^+}}
98: \def\khrp{{h_{hR}^+}}
99:
100: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{\left\lvert #1\right\rangle}
101: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\left\langle #1\right\rvert}
102: \newcommand{\vect}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}
103: \newcommand{\op}[1]{\textsf{#1}}
104: \newcommand{\abs}[1]{\left\lvert #1\right\rvert}
105: \newcommand{\boldgamma}{\mbox{\boldmath$\gamma$}}
106: \newcommand{\diracslash}[1]{#1\!\!\!/}
107: \newcommand{\pd}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}
108: \newcommand{\mcdot}{\!\cdot\!}
109: \newcommand{\CPV}{CP\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\raisebox{0pt}{\small$\diagup$}}
110:
111: \DeclareMathOperator{\Real}{Re}
112: \DeclareMathOperator{\Imag}{Im}
113: \DeclareMathOperator{\Tr}{Tr}
114:
115: \begin{document}
116:
117: \preprint{Caltech MAP-304}
118: \preprint{CALT-68-2535}
119:
120: \title{\Large Resonant Relaxation in Electroweak Baryogenesis}
121:
122: \author{\sc Christopher Lee\footnote{
123: Electronic address: leec@theory.caltech.edu}}
124:
125: \author{Vincenzo Cirigliano\footnote{
126: Electronic address: vincenzo@caltech.edu}}
127:
128: \author{Michael J. Ramsey-Musolf\footnote{
129: Electronic address: mjrm@krl.caltech.edu}}
130: \affiliation{California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125}
131:
132: \date{December 23, 2004\\ \vspace{1cm} }
133:
134:
135: %\begin{document}
136: %\hfill
137: %\begin{tabular}{r}
138: %{\normalsize Caltech MAP--304} \\
139: %{\normalsize CALT-68-25nn}
140: %\end{tabular}
141: %\vspace{24pt}
142: %
143: %\centerline{\Large\bf Resonant Relaxation in Electroweak Baryogenesis}
144: %\vspace{18pt}
145: %\centerline{\sc Christopher Lee, Vincenzo Cirigliano, and
146: %Michael J. Ramsey-Musolf}
147: %\vspace{6pt}
148: %\centerline{\it California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA}
149: %\vspace{18pt}
150: \begin{abstract}
151:
152: We compute the leading, chiral charge-changing relaxation term in the quantum transport equations that govern electroweak baryogenesis using the closed time path formulation of non-equilibrium quantum field theory. We show that the relaxation transport coefficients may be resonantly enhanced under appropriate conditions on electroweak model parameters and that such enhancements can mitigate the impact of similar enhancements in the $CP$-violating source terms. We also develop a power counting in the time and energy scales entering electroweak baryogenesis and include effects through second order in ratios $\epsilon$ of the small and large scales. We illustrate the implications of the resonantly enhanced ${\cal O}(\epsilon^2)$ terms using the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, focusing on the interplay between the requirements of baryogenesis and constraints obtained from collider studies, precision electroweak data, and electric dipole moment searches.
153:
154:
155: \end{abstract}
156: %\vspace{0pt}
157:
158: \maketitle
159:
160: %\newpage
161:
162: \section{Introduction}
163: \label{sec:intro}
164:
165: The origin of the baryon asymmetry of the Universe (BAU) remains an
166: important, unsolved problem for particle physics and
167: cosmology. Assuming that the Universe was matter-antimatter symmetric
168: at its birth, it is reasonable to suppose that interactions involving
169: elementary particles generated the BAU during subsequent cosmological
170: evolution. As noted by Sakharov \cite{Sakharov:1967dj}, obtaining a nonzero BAU requires
171: both a departure from thermal equilibrium as well as the breakdown of
172: various discrete symmetries: baryon number ($B$) conservation, charge
173: conjugation ($C$) invariance, and invariance under the combined $C$
174: and parity ($P$) transformations\footnote{Allowing for a breakdown of
175: $CPT$ invariance relaxes the requirement of departure from thermal
176: equilibrium.}. The Standard Model (SM) of strong and electroweak
177: interactions satisfies these conditions and could, in principle,
178: explain the observed size of the BAU:
179: \be
180: Y_B\equiv \frac{\rho_B}{s} =
181: \begin{cases}(7.3\pm 2.5)\times 10^{-11}, & \text{BBN \cite{pdg04}}\\
182: (9.2\pm 1.1)\times 10^{-11}, & \text{WMAP \cite{wmap}}
183: \end{cases}
184: \ee
185: where $\rho_B$ is the baryon number density, $s$ is the entropy density of the universe, and where the values shown correspond to 95\% confidence level results obtained from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) and the cosmic microwave background (WMAP), respectively.
186: In practice, however, neither the strength of the first-order electroweak phase transition in the SM nor the magnitude of SM
187: $CP$-violating interactions are sufficient to prevent washout of any
188: net baryon number created by $B$-violating electroweak sphaleron
189: transitions during the phase transition.
190:
191: The search for physics beyond the SM is motivated, in part, by the
192: desire to find new particles whose interactions could overcome the
193: failure of the SM to explain the BAU. From a phenomenological
194: standpoint, a particularly attractive possibility is that masses of
195: such particles are not too different from weak scale
196: and that their interactions both strengthen the first-order
197: electroweak phase transition and provide the requisite level of
198: $CP$-violation needed for the BAU. Precision electroweak measurements
199: as well as direct searches for new particles at the Tevatron and Large
200: Hadron Collider may test this possibility, and experiment already
201: provides rather stringent constraints on some of the most widely
202: considered extensions of the SM. In the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard
203: Model (MSSM), for example, present lower bounds on the mass of the lightest
204: Higgs boson leave open only a small window for a sufficiently strong
205: first-order phase transition, although this constraint may be relaxed
206: by introducing new gauge degrees of freedom (see, {\em e.g.}, \cite{Dine:2003ax,Kang:2004pp}). Similarly, limits on the permanent electric dipole moments (EDMs) of elementary
207: particles and atoms imply that the $CP$-violating phases in the MSSM
208: must be unnaturally small ($\sim\! 10^{-2})$. Whether such small phases
209: (supersymmetric or otherwise) can provide for successful electroweak
210: baryogenesis (EWB) has been an important consideration in past studies
211: of this problem.
212:
213: In order to confront phenomenological constraints on the parameters of
214: various electroweak models with the requirements of EWB, one must
215: describe the microscopic dynamics of the electroweak phase transition
216: in a realistic way. Theoretically, the basic mechanism driving
217: baryogenesis during the phase transition is
218: well-established. Weak sphaleron transitions that conserve $B-L$ but
219: change $B$ and $L$ individually are unsuppressed in regions of
220: spacetime where electroweak symmetry is unbroken, while they become
221: exponentially suppressed in regions of broken symmetry. Net baryon
222: number is captured by expanding regions of broken symmetry (\lq\lq
223: bubbles"). Given sufficiently strong $C$ and $CP$-violation as well as
224: departure from thermal equilibrium, the non-zero $B$ generated outside the bubble cannot be entirely washed out by elementary particle interactions that occur at the phase boundary. The baryon number density, $\rho_B$, is governed by a diffusion equation of the form:
225: %
226: \be
227: \label{eq:rhob1}
228: {\partial }_t \rho_B(x) -D\nabla^2\rho_B(x) =
229: - \Gamma_{\rm ws} F_{\rm ws}(x)[n_L(x) + R\rho_B(x)]\,,
230: \ee
231: %
232: where $D$ is the diffusion coefficient for baryon number, $\Gamma_{\rm
233: ws}$ is the weak sphaleron transition rate, $F_{\rm ws}(x)$ is a
234: sphaleron transition profile function that goes to zero inside the
235: regions of broken electroweak symmetry and asymptotically to unity
236: outside, $R$ is a relaxation coefficient for the decay of baryon
237: number through weak sphaleron transitions, and $n_L(x)$ is the number
238: density of left-handed doublet fields created by \lq\lq fast" chirality changing processes (see, {\em e.g.}, \cite{Cline:1993bd}). Thus, in order
239: to obtain nonzero $\rho_B$ inside the bubble of broken electroweak
240: symmetry, the left-handed density $n_L$ must be non-vanishing
241: in the plasma at the phase boundary and possibly beyond into the
242: region of unbroken symmetry.
243:
244: In effect, $n_L(x)$ acts as a seed for the $B$-changing weak sphaleron
245: transitions, and its spacetime profile is determined by the
246: $CP$-violating sources and the quantum transport of various charges in
247: the non-equilibrium environment of the plasma. Typical treatments of
248: these dynamics involve writing down a set of coupled quantum transport
249: equations (QTEs) for the relevant charges, estimating (or
250: parameterizing) the relevant transport coefficients, and solving the
251: system of equations under the appropriate boundary conditions.
252:
253: Among the developments in the past decade or so which have made significant impacts on
254: this program, we identify two that form the basis of our investigation in this work. First, the authors of Ref.~\cite{Cohen:1994ss} noted
255: that diffusion of chiral charge ahead of the advancing phase
256: transition boundary into the region of unbroken symmetry could enhance
257: impact of baryon number-changing sphaleron processes, thereby leading
258: to more effective EWB. The second, perhaps less widely-appreciated, development has been the observation by the author of Ref. \cite{Riotto:1998zb}
259: that the application of equilibrium quantum field theory (QFT) to
260: transport properties in the plasma is not necessarily appropriate. In
261: contrast to equilibrium quantum dynamics, the time evolution of
262: quantum states during the phase transition is
263: non-adiabatic. Consequently, scattering processes that drive quantum
264: transport are no longer Markovian, but rather retain some memory of
265: the system's quantum evolution. Using the closed time path (CTP)
266: formulation of non-equilibrium QFT \cite{CTP} to compute the
267: $CP$-violating source terms in the plasma for the MSSM, the author of
268: Ref. \cite{Riotto:1998zb} found that these ``memory effects" may lead
269: to significant resonant enhancements (of order $10^3$) of the sources over
270: their strength estimated in previous treatments (see, {\em e.g.}, Ref. \cite{Huet:1995sh} and references therein). The authors of Ref. \cite{Carena:2000id,Carena:2002ss} subsequently found that performing an all-orders summation of scattering from Higgs backgrounds reduces the size of the $CP$-violating sources to some extent, but that the resonant enhancements nonetheless persist. Taken at face value,
271: these enhancements would imply that successful EWB could occur
272: with significantly smaller $CP$-violating phases than previously
273: believed, thereby evading the present and prospective limits obtained
274: from EDMs.
275:
276: To determine whether or not such conclusions are warranted, however,
277: requires that one treat the other terms in the transport equations in
278: the same manner as the $CP$-violating sources. Here, we attempt to do so, focusing on the terms that, in previous studies, have governed the relaxation of $n_L(x)$. In particular, chirality-changing Yukawa interactions with the Higgs fields and their spacetime varying vacuum expectation values (vevs) tend to wash out excess $n_L(x)$. In earlier studies---including those in which non-equilibrium QFT has been applied to the $CP$-violating sources---these relaxation terms were estimated using conventional quantum transport theory \cite{Huet:1995sh,Riotto:1998zb,Carena:2000id,Carena:2002ss}. However, if the memory effects that enhance the $CP$-violating sources have a similar effect on these Yukawa terms, then
279: the net effect on $\rho_B$ may not be as substantial as suggested in
280: Refs. \cite{Riotto:1998zb,Carena:2000id,Carena:2002ss}.
281:
282: The goal of the present study is to
283: address this question by developing a more comprehensive
284: treatment of EWB using the CTP formulation of non-equilibrium QFT. In doing
285: so, we follow the direction suggested in Ref. \cite{Riotto:1998zb} and
286: compute the transport coefficients of the chiral charges using the CTP
287: formalism. To make the calculation more systematic, we identify the relevant energy and time scales that govern finite temperature, non-equilibrium dynamics and develop a power counting in the ratios of small to large scales (generically denoted here as $\epsilon$). As we show below, both the $CP$-violating sources and the driving relaxation terms first arise at ${\cal O}(\epsilon^2)$, and we truncate our analysis at this order. In contrast to the computation of the $CP$-violating sources, the derivation of the relaxation terms requires the use of finite density Green's functions. Given the resulting complexity, we consider here only
288: the terms in the transport equations that previous authors have
289: considered the dominant ones, and use our analysis of these terms to
290: illustrate a method for obtaining a more comprehensive
291: treatment of the QTEs. To make the phenomenological implications
292: concrete, we focus on the MSSM, realizing, however, that one may need to
293: include extensions of the MSSM in order to satisfy the requirements of
294: a strong first-order phase transition. Finally, we also attempt to identify the
295: different approximations that have entered previous treatments of EWB,
296: such as the implicit truncation at a given order in $\epsilon$ and outline additional calculations needed to obtain a comprehensive treatment.
297:
298: Based on our analysis, we find that under that same conditions that lead to resonant enhancements of the $CP$-violating sources, $S^{\CPV}$, one also obtains a similar, resonant enhancement of the driving chirality-changing transport coefficient, ${\bar\Gamma}$. Since $Y_B\sim S^{\CPV}/\sqrt{\bar\Gamma}$, resonant relaxation counteracts the enhanced sources, though some overall enhancement of EWB still persists. Consequently, it will be important in future work to study the other transport coefficients whose impact has been considered sub-leading, since they may be enhanced under other conditions than for the leading terms. From the standpoint of phenomenology, we also illustrate how the implications of EDM searches for EWB depends in a detailed way on the electroweak model of interest as well as results from collider experiments and precision electroweak data.
299:
300: In presenting our study, we attempt to be somewhat pedagogical, since the methods are, perhaps, not generally familiar to either the practitioners of field theory or experimentalists. Most of the formal development appears in Sections \ref{sec:CTP}--\ref{sec:qtes}. In
301: Section~\ref{sec:CTP} we review the CTP formalism and its application
302: to the QTEs and discuss in detail the formulation of density-dependent
303: Green's functions. In
304: Section~\ref{sec:source} we compute the $CP$-violating source terms,
305: providing a check of Ref.~\cite{Riotto:1998zb}, as well as the
306: transport coefficients of the chiral charge densities. Here, we also
307: enumerate the approximations used to obtain a set of coupled, linear
308: differential diffusion equations, discuss their limits of validity,
309: and identify additional terms (usually assumed to be sub-leading) that we
310: defer to a future study. In Section~\ref{sec:qtes} we solve these
311: equations for the baryon density. A reader primarily interested in the phenomenological implications may want to turn directly to
312: Section~\ref{sec:numerics}, which gives
313: illustrative numerical studies using the parameters of the
314: MSSM. A discussion of the implications for EDMs also appears here. Section~\ref{sec:summary} contains a summary and outlook, while several technical details appear in the Appendices.
315:
316:
317: \section{Non-equilibrium transport: CTP formulation}
318: \label{sec:CTP}
319:
320: In what follows, we treat all $CP$-violating and non-topological
321: chirality-changing interactions perturbatively\footnote{Sphaleron
322: transitions, however, are manifestly non-perturbative, and we
323: parameterize their effects in the standard way.}. In contrast to
324: zero-temperature, equilibrium perturbation theory, however, the
325: perturbative expansion under non-equilibrium,
326: $T>0$ conditions requires the use of a more general set of Green's functions
327: that take into account the non-adiabatic evolution of
328: states as well as the presence of degeneracies in the thermal bath. Specifically, the matrix element of any operator
329: $\mathcal{O}(x)$ in the interaction representation is given by:
330: %
331: \be
332: \label{eq:ctp1}
333: \langle n| S^{\dag}_{\rm int} T\{\mathcal{O}(x)
334: S_{\rm int}\} | n\rangle\, ,
335: \ee
336: where
337: \be
338: S_{\rm int} = T\exp\left( i\int d^4x \,{\cal L}_{\rm int}\right)
339: \ee
340: %
341: for an interaction Lagrangian ${\cal L}_{\rm int}$, $T$ is the
342: time-ordering operator, and $|n\rangle$ is an in-state. In ordinary,
343: zero-temperature equilibrium field theory, the assumptions of
344: adiabaticity and of non-degeneracy of the states $| n\rangle$ implies
345: that the only impact of $S^{\dag}_{\rm int}$ is the introduction of an
346: overall phase, allowing one to rewrite (\ref{eq:ctp1}) as:
347: %
348: \be
349: \label{eq:ctp2}
350: \frac{\langle n | T\{\mathcal{O}(x) S_{\rm int}\} | n\rangle}{
351: \langle n| S_{\rm int} |n\rangle}\,.
352: \ee
353: %
354: This simplification is no longer valid for non-equilibrium $T>0$ evolution,
355: and one must take into account the action of $S^{\dag}_{\rm int}$
356: appearing to the left of $\mathcal{O}(x)$ in (\ref{eq:ctp1}). Doing so is
357: facilitated by giving every field in $S_{\rm int}$ and $S^{\dag}_{\rm
358: int}$ a ``$+$" and ``$-$" subscript respectively. The matrix
359: element in (\ref{eq:ctp1}) then becomes:
360: %
361: \be
362: \label{eq:ctp3}
363: \langle n| {\cal P}\left\{ \mathcal{O}(x)
364: \exp i\left(\int d^4x\ {\cal L}_{+}-\int d^4x\
365: {\cal L}_{-}\right)\right\}|n\rangle\,,
366: \ee
367: %
368: where the path ordering operator ${\cal P}$ indicates that all
369: ``+" fields appear to the right of all ``$-$" fields, with the former
370: being ordered according to the usual time-ordering prescription and
371: the latter being anti-time-ordered [here, $\mathcal{O}(x)$ has been taken to
372: be a ``+" field]. Note that the two integrals in the exponential
373: in (\ref{eq:ctp3}) can be written as a single integral along a closed
374: time path running from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$ and then back to
375: $-\infty$.
376:
377: Perturbation theory now proceeds from the matrix element
378: (\ref{eq:ctp3}) along the same lines as in ordinary field theory via
379: the application of Wick's theorem, but with the more general ${\cal
380: P}$ operator replacing the $T$ operator. As a result, one now has a
381: set of four two-point functions, corresponding to the different
382: combinations of ``+" and ``$-$" fields that arise from
383: contractions. It is convenient to write them as a matrix ${\widetilde
384: G}(x,y)$:
385: %
386: \be
387: \label{eq:ctp4}
388: \widetilde G(x,y)=
389: \left(\begin{array}{cc}
390: G^t(x,y) & -G^<(x,y) \\
391: G^>(x,y) & -G^{\bar t}(x,y)
392: \end{array}\right)
393: \ee
394: where
395: \begin{subequations}
396: \label{eq:Greens1}
397: \begin{align}
398: G^>(x,y) &= \langle \phi_-(x) \phi_+^\dag(y) \rangle \\
399: G^<(x,y) &= \langle \phi_-^\dag(y) \phi_+(x)\rangle \\
400: G^t(x,y) &= \langle T\bigl\{\phi_+(x) \phi_+(y)\bigr\}\rangle =
401: \theta(x_0-y_0)G^>(x,y)+ \theta(y_0-x_0)G^<(x,y)\\
402: G^{\bar t}(x,y) &=
403: \langle T\bigl\{\phi_-(x) \phi_-^\dag(y)\bigr\}\rangle =
404: \theta(x_0-y_0)G^<(x,y) + \theta(y_0-x_0)G^>(x,y)\,,
405: \end{align}
406: \end{subequations}
407: and where the $\langle\ \ \rangle$ denote ensemble averages,
408: \be
409: \langle \mathcal{O} (x)\rangle \equiv \frac{1}{Z}
410: {\rm Tr}\left[\hat\rho \, \mathcal{O}(x)\right]\, .
411: \ee
412: $\hat\rho$ is the density matrix containing
413: information about the state of the system.
414: In thermal equilibrium $\hat\rho$ is time-independent and is
415: given by $\hat\rho = e^{-\beta (\op{H} - \mu_i \op{N}_i)}$
416: for a grand-canonical ensemble.
417: Note that the matrix ${\widetilde G}(x,y)$ may be written more compactly as:
418: \be
419: \widetilde G(x,y)_{a b} =
420: \langle {\cal P}\left\{\phi_a(x)\phi_b^\dag(y)\right\}\rangle
421: (\tau_3)_{bb} \,.
422: \ee
423: %
424: The presence of the $\tau_3$ factor is a bookkeeping device to keep
425: track of the relative minus sign between the ${\cal L}_+$ and ${\cal
426: L}_-$ terms in Eq. (\ref{eq:ctp3}).
427:
428: The path-ordered two-point functions satisfy the Schwinger-Dyson equations:
429: %
430: \begin{subequations}
431: \label{eq:sd}
432: \begin{align}
433: \label{eq:sda}
434: {\widetilde G}(x,y) &= {\widetilde G}^0(x,y)+\int d^4w \int d^4 z\
435: {\widetilde G}^0(x,w){\widetilde \Sigma}(w,z){\widetilde G}(z,y) \\
436: \label{eq:sdb}
437: {\widetilde G}(x,y) &= {\widetilde G}^0(x,y)+\int d^4w \int d^4 z\
438: {\widetilde G}(x,w){\widetilde \Sigma}(w,z){\widetilde G}^0(z,y)\,,
439: \end{align}
440: \end{subequations}
441: %
442: where the ``0" superscript indicates a non-interacting Green's
443: function and where ${\widetilde\Sigma}(x,y)$ is the matrix of interacting
444: self energies defined analogously to the ${\widetilde G}(x,y)$. An
445: analogous set of expressions apply for fermion Green's functions, with
446: an appropriate insertion of $-1$ to account for anticommutation
447: relations.
448:
449: \subsection{Quantum Transport Equations from CTP Formalism}
450:
451: The Schwinger-Dyson Eqs.~(\ref{eq:sd}) are the starting
452: point for obtaining the transport equations governing $n_L(x)$. To do
453: so, we follow Ref. \cite{Riotto:1998zb} and apply the Klein-Gordon
454: operator to ${\widetilde G}(x,y)$. Using
455: %
456: \be
457: \left({{\square}}_x+m^2\right) {\widetilde G}^0(x,y)=
458: \left({{\square}}_y+m^2\right) {\widetilde G}^0(x,y)=-i\delta^{(4)}(x-y)
459: \ee
460: gives
461: \begin{subequations}
462: \begin{align}
463: \left({{\square}}_x+m^2\right){\widetilde G}(x,y) &= -i\delta^{(4)}(x-y) -i
464: \int d^4z\ {\widetilde\Sigma}(x,z){\widetilde G}(z,y) \\
465: \left({{\square}}_y+m^2\right){\widetilde G}(x,y) &= -i\delta^{(4)}(x-y) -i
466: \int d^4z\ {\widetilde G}(x,z){\widetilde\Sigma}(z,y)\,.
467: \end{align}
468: \end{subequations}
469: It is useful now to consider the $(a,b)=(1,2)$ components of these equations:
470: \begin{subequations}
471: \begin{align}
472: \label{eq:sdc}
473: \left({{\square}}_x+m^2\right)G^<(x,y) &= -i\int d^4z\
474: \left[\Sigma^t(x,z) G^<(z,y)-\Sigma^<(x,z) G^{\bar t}(z,y) \right]\\
475: \label{eq:sdd}
476: \left({{\square}}_y+m^2\right)G^<(x,y) &= -i\int d^4z\ \left[G^t(x,z)
477: \Sigma^<(z,y)-G^<(x,z) \Sigma^{\bar t}(z,y) \right]\,.
478: \end{align}
479: \end{subequations}
480: %
481: Subtracting Eq. (\ref{eq:sdd}) from Eq. (\ref{eq:sdc}) and multiplying
482: through by $i$ gives
483: %
484: \be
485: \label{eq:sde}
486: i\left({\square}_x-{\square}_y\right) G^<(x,y)=i\lim_{x\to y}
487: \partial_\mu^X\left(\partial^\mu_x-\partial^\mu_y\right)G^<(x,y)\,,
488: \ee
489: where $X=(x+y)/2$. However,
490: \be
491: \lim_{x\to y}(\partial_\mu^x-\partial_\mu^y) G^<(x,y) = -i j_\mu(X)\,,
492: \ee
493: %
494: where $j_\mu(x) = i\langle :\!\phi^\dag(x)\overset{\leftrightarrow}{\partial_\mu}\phi(x)\!:\rangle \equiv(n(x), {\vec j}(x))$, since the ``$+$" and ``$-$" labels
495: simply indicate the order in which the fields $\phi^\dag(y)$ and
496: $\phi(x)$ occur and may be dropped at this point. Finally, expressing $G^{t, {\bar t}}(x,y)$ and
497: $\Sigma^{t,{\bar t}}(x,y)$ in terms of $\theta$-functions as in
498: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Greens1}), we obtain from Eq.~(\ref{eq:sde}):
499: %
500: \begin{equation}
501: \begin{split}
502: \pd{n}{X_0}+{\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}}\mcdot\vect{j}(X)
503: = \int d^3 z\int_{-\infty}^{X_0} dz_0\
504: \Bigl[ \Sigma^>(X,z) G^<(z,X)&-G^>(X,z)\Sigma^<(z,X)\\
505: +G^<(X,z) \Sigma^>(z,X) &- \Sigma^<(X,z) G^>(z,X)\Bigr]\,.
506: \label{eq:scalar1}
507: \end{split}
508: \end{equation}
509: Following similar steps, but taking the sum rather than the difference of the components of the Schwinger-Dyson equations involving the $S^{>}(x,y)$ component on the LHS, one obtains the analogous continuity equation
510: for Dirac fermions:
511: \begin{equation}
512: \begin{split}
513: \pd{n}{X_0} + {\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}}\mcdot\vect{j}(X) =
514: -\int d^3 z\int_{-\infty}^{X_0} dz_0\
515: {\rm Tr}\Bigl[ \Sigma^>(X,z) S^<(z,X)&-S^>(X,z)\Sigma^<(z,X)\\
516: +S^<(X,z) \Sigma^>(z,X) &- \Sigma^<(X,z) S^>(z,X)\Bigr]\,,
517: \label{eq:fermion1}
518: \end{split}
519: \end{equation}
520: where
521: \begin{subequations}
522: \begin{align}
523: S^>_{\alpha\beta}(x,y) &= \langle \psi_{-\alpha}(x) {\bar\psi}_{+\beta}(y)\rangle \\
524: S^<_{\alpha\beta}(x,y) &= -\langle {\bar\psi}_{-\beta}(y) {\psi}_{+\alpha}(x)\rangle\,,
525: \end{align}
526: \end{subequations}
527: %
528: displaying explicitly the spinor indices $\alpha,\beta$.
529: Note that the overall sign of the RHS of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:scalar1},
530: \ref{eq:fermion1}) differs from that in Ref. \cite{Riotto:1998zb}
531: since the definition of our Green's functions $G(x,y)$ and $S(x,y)$
532: differ by an overall factor of $-i$.
533:
534: In many extensions of the SM, one encounters both chiral and Majorana fermions, which carry no conserved charge. It is useful, therefore, to derive the analogous continuity equation for the axial current $j_{\mu 5}(x) = \langle {\bar\psi}(x)\gamma_\mu\gamma_5\psi(x)\rangle$. Doing so involves multiplying the Schwinger-Dyson equations by $\gamma_5$, performing the trace, and taking the difference rather than the sum of the components involving $S^{>}(x,y)$ on the LHS. The result is:
535: \begin{align}
536: \label{eq:fermion1b}
537: \pd{n_5}{X_0} + {\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}}\mcdot\vect{j}_5(X) = & 2im P(X) \\
538: &+\int d^3 z\int_{-\infty}^{X_0} dz_0\Tr\Bigl\{\Bigl[\Sigma^>(X,z) S^<(z,X) + S^>(X,z)\Sigma^<(z,X) \nonumber \\
539: &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad-S^<(X,z) \Sigma^>(z,X) - \Sigma^<(X,z) S^>(z,X)\Bigr]\gamma_5\Bigr\}\,, \nonumber
540: \end{align}
541: where $P(x) = \langle {\bar\psi}(x)\gamma_5 \psi(x)\rangle$ and $m$ is the fermion mass. In principle, one could evaluate $P(x)$ using path-ordered perturbation theory as outlined above.
542:
543:
544:
545: \subsection{Power Counting of Physical Scales}
546:
547: Evaluating the various terms in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:scalar1},
548: \ref{eq:fermion1}) leads to a system of coupled quantum transport
549: equations for the charges that ultimately determine $n_L(x)$. On the
550: LHS of these equations, it is conventional to parameterize $\vect{j} =
551: - D(\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}\!n)$, in terms of the diffusion coefficient
552: $D$ (whose expressions we take from Ref.~\cite{Joyce:1994zn}).
553: The RHS involves integrating the products of various Green's functions
554: and self-energies over the entire history of the system. In practice,
555: this integral depends on the various time and energy scales associated with non-equilibrium dynamics at finite temperature and density. Here, we observe that there exists a hierarchy among these scales that leads to a natural power counting in their ratios (generically denoted here as
556: $\epsilon$) and that provides for a systematic expansion of the RHS of the transport equations
557: (\ref{eq:scalar1}, \ref{eq:fermion1}, \ref{eq:fermion1b}).
558:
559: The changing geometry associated with the expanding region of broken symmetry and the spacetime variation of the Higgs vevs leads to a decoherence of states that have, initially, precise energy and momentum. The effect is analogous to the quantum mechanical evolution of a particle in a box of side $L$. If the value of $L$ is changed to $L+\Delta L$ in some time interval $\Delta t$, a state that is initially a stationary state for the original box will become an admixture of the stationary states of new box. The shorter the interval $\Delta t$ or the greater the wavenumber $k$ of the initial state, the smaller the probability will be of finding the particle in the state with the same wavenumber in the new system. The time scale that characterizes this decoherence, $\tau_d$, is naturally given by $\tau_d\sim 1/vk$, where $v=\Delta L/\Delta t$ is the velocity of expansion of the box and $k=p/\hbar$. In the present case, the relevant velocity is just $v_w$, the expanding bubble wall velocity, the relevant wavenumber is $k=\abs{\vect{k}}$. The smaller the velocity or the longer the wavelength, the more adiabatic the dynamics of the expanding bubble become and the longer the decoherence time. Equilibrium dynamics are approached in the adiabatic limit: $\tau_d\to\infty$. The need to employ the CTP formalism follows from being in a situation with $v_w>0$, or $\tau_d <\infty$.
560:
561: A second time scale that one encounters in quantum transport at the phase boundary arises from the presence of degeneracies among states in the thermal bath that vanish in the $T\to 0$ limit. At finite $T$, for example, a single, on-shell fermion may be degenerate with another state involving an on-shell fermion-gluon pair---a situation that is forbidden at $T=0$. Interactions of strength $g$ that cause mixing between such degenerate states give rise to thermal---or plasma---widths $\Gamma_p$ of order $\alpha T$ with $\alpha=g^2/4\pi$, and transitions between the degenerate states take place on a plasma time scale $\tau_p$ of order $\sim 1/\Gamma_p$. Again, the use of the CTP formalism is necessitated when $\tau_p <\infty$ or $T> 0$.
562:
563: A third time scale, which we denote $\tau_{\rm int}$, is associated with the intrinsic frequency $\omega_k$ of the quasiparticle states that characterize the plasma dynamics. This time scale is naturally given by $\tau_{\rm int}\sim1/\omega_k$. In the present case, we note that although the decoherence and plasma times are finite, they are typically much smaller than $\tau_{\rm int}$. For example, $\tau_{\rm int}/\tau_d = v_w k/\omega_k \leq v_w/c$. Numerical studies indicate that $v_w/c \ll 1$. Similarly, $\tau_{\rm int}/\tau_p = \alpha T/\omega_k$. Since quasiparticle thermal masses are of order $gT$ or larger, one also has that the latter ratio is smaller than unity. Thus, one is naturally led to expand the RHS of the transport equations in these ratios:
564: \begin{subequations}
565: \label{eq:tauratios}
566: \begin{align}
567: \label{eq:decratio}
568: 0 &< \tau_{\rm int}/\tau_d \ll 1 \\
569: \label{eq:plasratio}
570: 0 &< \tau_{\rm int}/\tau_p \ll 1\,.
571: \end{align}
572: \end{subequations}
573:
574: Finally, we observe that the generation of baryon number takes place in an environment of finite, but small particle number (or chiral charge) densities $n_i$ that are associated with chemical potentials $\mu_i$. For the temperatures and densities of interest here, one has $|\mu_i|/T \ll 1$, so that the latter ratio also provides for a natural expansion parameter. Denoting each of the ratios\footnote{For our purposes, it is not necessary to distinguish a hierarchy among the different scale ratios.} in Eq.~(\ref{eq:tauratios}) and $\mu_i/T$ by $\epsilon$, we show below that both the $CP$-violating sources and the relaxation term first arise at ${\cal O}(\epsilon^2)$, and we truncate our analysis at this order. We note that doing so introduces some simplifications into the evaluation of the RHS of the transport equations. For example, both the self energies $\Sigma^\gtrless$ and the Green's functions $G^\gtrless$, {\rm etc.} depend on thermal distribution functions $f(T,\mu_i)$ that differ, in general, from their equilibrium values, $f_0(T,\mu_i)$. The difference $\delta f\equiv f(T,\mu_i)-f_0(T,\mu_i)$ that characterizes the departure from equilibrium will be at least of ${\cal O}(\epsilon)$, since it must vanish in the $v_w\to 0$ limit. We find below that the effect of having $\delta f\not\!= 0$ contributes at higher order in $\epsilon$ than we consider here, so that we may use the equilibrium distribution functions in the Green's functions and self-energies.
575:
576: \subsection{Green's Functions at Nonzero Temperature and Density}
577:
578: The computation of the various components of ${\widetilde G}(x,y)$ and
579: ${\widetilde\Sigma}(x,y)$ appearing in Eqs. (\ref{eq:scalar1},
580: \ref{eq:fermion1}) at nonzero temperature and density requires
581: knowledge of $(T,\mu_i)$-dependent fermion and boson
582: propagators. The $T$-dependence of propagators has been studied extensively
583: (see, {\em e.g.} Ref. \cite{LeBellac} and references therein), while the $\mu_i$-dependence of fermion propagators has been studied in Refs.~\cite{finitemu}. Here we summarize the features of $(T,\mu_i)$-dependent propagators which are important for our subsequent application of the real-time, CTP formalism of Sec.~\ref{sec:CTP}, and give some more technical details in Appendix~\ref{appx:props}.
584:
585: For pedagogical purposes, we provide
586: here a brief derivation of the non-interacting fermion propagator but
587: only give final results for the case of interacting fermions and
588: bosons. To do so, we start from the mode
589: expansions for the field operators appearing in the free Dirac
590: Lagrangian, $\psi(x)$ and ${\bar\psi}(x)$:
591: %
592: \begin{subequations}
593: \label{eq:modeexp}
594: \begin{align}
595: \psi(x) &= \int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{1}{2\omega_{\vect{k}}}
596: \sum_{\alpha=1,2}\left[b_\alpha(\vect{k}) u(\vect{k},\alpha)
597: e^{-ik\cdot x} + d^\dag_\alpha(\vect{k})
598: v(\vect{k},\alpha)e^{ik\cdot x}\right] \\
599: {\bar\psi(x)} &= \int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{1}{2\omega_{\vect{k}}}
600: \sum_{\alpha=1,2}\left[b_\alpha^\dag(\vect{k})
601: {\bar u}(\vect{k},\alpha)e^{ik\cdot x} + d_\alpha(\vect{k})
602: {\bar v}(\vect{k},\alpha)e^{-ik\cdot x}\right]\,,
603: \end{align}
604: \end{subequations}
605: %
606: where $k^\mu=(\omega_{\vect{k}}, \vect{k})$, $\omega_{\vect{k}}=\sqrt{\abs{\vect{k}}^2 + m^2}$, the mode operators satisfy:
607: \begin{equation}
608: \bigl\{b_\alpha(\vect{k}), b_\beta^\dag(\vect{k}^\prime)\bigr\} = \bigl\{d_\alpha(\vect{k}), d_\beta^\dag(\vect{k}^\prime)\bigr\} =
609: (2\pi)^3\delta^{(3)}(\vect{k}-\vect{k}^\prime)2\omega_{\vect{k}}\delta_{\alpha\beta},
610: \end{equation}
611: and
612: \begin{subequations}
613: \begin{align}
614: \langle b_\alpha(\vect{k})^\dag b_\beta(\vect{k}^\prime)\rangle &=
615: f(\omega_k,\mu_i) (2\pi)^3 \delta^{(3)}(\vect{k}-\vect{k}^\prime)2\omega_{\vect{k}}\delta_{\alpha\beta}\\
616: \langle d_\alpha(\vect{k})^\dag d_\beta(\vect{k}^\prime)\rangle &=
617: f(\omega_k,-\mu_i) (2\pi)^3 \delta^{(3)}(\vect{k}-\vect{k}^\prime)2\omega_{\vect{k}}
618: \delta_{\alpha\beta}\ ,
619: \end{align}
620: \end{subequations}
621: %
622: with $f(\omega,\mu_i)$ being the non-equilibrium Fermi distribution
623: function. For our purposes, the relative change $\delta
624: f(\omega,\mu_i)/f_0(\omega,\mu_i)$ enters the transport equations
625: multiplying explicit factors of $\Gamma_p$ and either $v_w$ or $\mu$, so that in working to second order in $\epsilon$ we may replace $f$ by the equilibrium
626: distributions $f_0(\omega,\mu_i)=n_F(\omega-\mu_i)=[e^{(\omega-\mu_i)/T} +
627: 1]^{-1}$. Using the mode expansion (\ref{eq:modeexp}) it is
628: straightforward to show that
629: $S^>(x,y)=\langle \psi(x){\bar\psi}(y)\rangle$ and
630: $S^<(x,y)=-\langle \psi(x){\bar\psi}(y)\rangle$ can be expressed
631: as ($\lambda$ denotes either ``$>$" or ``$<$"):
632: %
633: \be
634: \label{eq:slambdafree}
635: S^\lambda(x,y)=\int {d^4k\over (2\pi)^4} e^{-i{k}\cdot(x-y)}
636: g_F^\lambda({k}_0,\mu_i)\rho(k_0,\vect{k})\left(\diracslash{k}+m\right)
637: \,,
638: \ee
639: %
640: in terms of the free particle spectral density:
641: %
642: \be
643: \rho({k}_0, \vect{k}) = {i\over 2\omega_k}\biggl[
644: \left({1\over
645: {k}_0-\omega_k+i\epsilon}-{1\over {k}_0+\omega_k+i\epsilon}\right)
646: -\left({1\over {k}_0-\omega_k-i\epsilon}-
647: {1\over {k}_0+\omega_k-i\epsilon}\right)\biggr]\ .
648: \label{eq:spectral1}
649: \ee
650: %
651: and the functions:
652: \begin{subequations}
653: \begin{align}
654: g_F^>(k_0,\mu_i)&=1-n_F(k_0-\mu_i) \\
655: g_F^<(k_0,\mu_i)&= -n_F(k_0-\mu_i)\,.
656: \end{align}
657: \end{subequations}
658: %
659: The propagators $S^{t,\bar t}(x,y)$ can now be constructed from the
660: $S^\lambda(x,y)$ as in Eqs. (\ref{eq:Greens1}).
661:
662: In the presence of interactions (characterized by a generic coupling
663: $g$), the fermion propagator becomes considerably more complicated
664: than given by Eq. (\ref{eq:slambdafree}). In particular, single
665: fermion states can mix with other multiparticle states in the thermal
666: bath, leading to the presence of additional poles (the ``hole"
667: modes) in the fermion propagator \cite{Klimov,Weldon:1989ys}. The general structure of the fermion propagator arising from these effects has been studied extensively at zero density \cite{Weldon:1999th}. In Appendix A we generalize to the
668: case of non-zero $\mu_i$. For massless fermions, the resulting
669: propagators are given by:
670: %
671: \be
672: \label{eq:slambdaint}
673: S^\lambda(x,y;\mu_i)=\int {d^4k\over (2\pi)^4} e^{-ik\cdot(x-y)}
674: g_F^\lambda(k_0, \mu)
675: \left[\frac{\gamma_0-\boldgamma\mcdot\vect{\hat k}}{2}\rho_+(k_0, \vect{k}, \mu_i)
676: + \frac{\gamma_0+\boldgamma\mcdot\vect{\hat k}}{2}\rho_-(k_0, \vect{k}, \mu_i)\right]
677: \,,
678: \ee
679: where $\vect{\hat k}$ is the unit vector in the $\vect{k}$ direction, and
680: \begin{equation}
681: \label{eq:rhoplus}
682: \begin{split}
683: \rho_+(k_0,\vect{k},\mu_i) = i\biggl[&\frac{Z_p(k,\mu_i)}{k_0-\mathcal{E}_p(k,\mu_i)}
684: -\frac{Z_p(k,\mu_i)^*}{k_0-\mathcal{E}_p(k,\mu_i)^*} \\
685: + &\frac{Z_h(k,-\mu_i)^*}{k_0+\mathcal{E}_h(k,-\mu_i)^*}
686: - \frac{Z_h(k,-\mu_i)}{k_0+\mathcal{E}_h(k,-\mu_i)}+F(k_0^*,k,\mu_i)^*-F(k_0,k,\mu_i)\biggr]\,,
687: \end{split}
688: \end{equation}
689: and
690: \begin{equation}
691: \label{eq:rhominus}
692: \rho_-(k_0,\vect{k},\mu_i) = [\rho_+(-k^{0*},\vect{k},-\mu_i)]^*\,.
693: \end{equation}
694: %i\biggl[{Z_p(k,-\mu)^*\over k_0+E_p(k,-\mu)^*}
695: %-{Z_p(k,-\mu)\over k_0+E_p(k,-\mu)}\\
696: %\nonumber
697: %&&+{Z_h(k,\mu)\over k_0-E_h(k,\mu)}
698: %-{Z_h(k,\mu)^*\over k_0-E_h(k,\mu)^*}+F(-k_0^*,k,-\mu)^*-F(-k_0,k,-\mu)\biggr]
699: %\eea
700: %
701: Here, $\mathcal{E}_p(k,\mu_i)$ and $-\mathcal{E}_h(k,-\mu_i)^*$ are the two (complex) roots (in $k_0$) of the equation:
702: \be
703: 0 = k_0-k+D_+(k_0, k,\mu_i)+i\epsilon
704: \ee
705: %
706: where $iD_{\pm}(k_0,k,\mu_i)$ are contributions to the inverse, retarded
707: propagator proportional to $(\gamma_0\mp\boldgamma\mcdot\vect{\hat k})/2$
708: arising from interactions. The function $F(k_0, k,\mu_i)$ gives the
709: non-pole part of the propagator, and $k=\abs{\vect{k}}$. We find that the resonant contributions to the particle number-changing sources arise from the pole parts of the propagators, so from here on we neglect the terms containing $F(k_0,k,\mu_i)$.
710:
711: In the limit $g\to 0$, one has $Z_h\to 0$ and $Z_p\to 1$, recovering
712: the form of the propagator given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:slambdafree}). For
713: nonzero $g$, however, $Z_h$ is not of order $g^2$ since the particle
714: and hole modes arise from mixtures of degenerate states. In
715: particular, at $k=0$ one has $Z_p=Z_h=1/2$. As $k$ becomes large (of
716: order the thermal mass or larger), $Z_h/Z_p \ll 1$, and the particle
717: dispersion relation is well-approximated by $\mathcal{E}_p^2 =
718: \abs{\vect{k}}^2 + m^2(T,\mu_i)$, where $m(T,\mu_i)$ is the thermal mass.
719: In our particular application to the MSSM, the gaugino $M_i$ masses
720: will typically be taken to be of order several hundred GeV, and for
721: the SU(2)$_L\times$U(1)$_Y$ sector, thermal effects do not induce
722: substantial mass corrections. We find that the gaugino contributions
723: to the RHS of Eqs. (\ref{eq:scalar1}, \ref{eq:fermion1}) are dominated
724: by momenta of order $M_i$, so that the hole contributions to the
725: gaugino $S^{\lambda}(x,y)$ can be neglected. In contrast, for quarks
726: we find non-negligible contributions from the low-momentum region, so
727: we retain the full structure given by
728: Eqs. (\ref{eq:slambdaint}-\ref{eq:rhominus}) in computing their
729: contributions.
730:
731: It has been noted in previous studies of quark damping rates that the
732: one-loop thermal widths $\Gamma_{p,h}= \Imag{\mathcal{E}_{p,h}(k,\mu)}$ are
733: gauge-dependent (see Ref.~\cite{Braaten:1989mz} and Ref. [3] therein), whereas the thermal masses $m(T,\mu)$ entering
734: $\mathcal{E}_{p,h}$ are gauge-independent to this order. Gauge-independent
735: widths can be obtained by performing an appropriate resummation of
736: hard thermal loops (HTLs) \cite{LeBellac,Braaten:1989mz,Braaten:1991gm}. The latter are associated with momenta
737: $k_0,k\sim gT$, for which the one-loop functions $D_{\pm}(k_0,k,\mu)$
738: are of the same order in $g$ as the tree-level inverse propagators. In
739: what follows, we will estimate the widths $\Gamma_{p,h}$ based on
740: existing computations~of damping~\cite{Braaten:1992gd, Enqvist:1997ff, Elmfors:1998hh}, deferring a
741: complete computation of the gauge-invariant, $\mu_i$-dependent
742: contributions in the MSSM to a future study. In general,
743: the residues $Z_{p,h}$ also carry a gauge-dependence, and at this time
744: we are not aware of any HTL resummation that could eliminate this
745: dependence. In principle, elimination of this gauge-dependence
746: requires inclusion of one-loop vertex corrections in the computation
747: of the $\Sigma^\lambda(x,y)$ and $S^\lambda(x,y)$ appearing on the RHS
748: of Eqs. (\ref{eq:scalar1}, \ref{eq:fermion1}), and
749: we again defer a complete one-loop computation to a future study.
750:
751: The derivation of the finite-density scalar propagators proceeds along
752: similar lines. Starting from the mode expansion of the free scalar
753: field $\phi(x)$ in terms of plane-wave solutions to the Klein-Gordon
754: equation and following analogous arguments as for fermions, one
755: arrives at the following scalar Green's functions:
756: %
757: \be
758: G^\lambda(x,y)=\int{d^4k\over (2\pi)^4} e^{-ik\cdot(x-y)}
759: g_B^\lambda(k_0, \mu_i)\rho(k_0,\vect{k})
760: \ee
761: where the equilibrium distribution functions are:
762: \begin{subequations}
763: \begin{align}
764: g_B^>(\omega, \mu) &= 1+n_B(\omega-\mu_i)\\
765: g_B^<(\omega, \mu) &= n_B(\omega - \mu_i)\,,
766: \end{align}
767: \end{subequations}
768: with $n_B(x) = 1/(e^{x/T} - 1)$ and $\rho(k_0,\vect{k})$
769: given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:spectral1}). As with fermions, one may include
770: the effect of thermal masses and widths by replacing $m^2\to
771: m^2(T,\mu_i)$ and $i\epsilon\to i\epsilon+i\Gamma(T,\mu_i)$.
772:
773:
774:
775:
776:
777:
778: \section{Source Terms for Quantum Transport}
779: \label{sec:source}
780:
781: \begin{figure}[!b]
782: \centering
783: \begin{picture}(150,180)
784: \put(50,50){\makebox(50,50){\epsfig{figure=fig1.eps,width=13cm}}}
785: \end{picture}
786: \caption{
787: Contributions to the relevant self-energies
788: from scattering of particles from the spacetime
789: varying Higgs vevs.
790: \label{fig:graphs1}
791: }
792: \end{figure}
793: %
794:
795: The expressions for $G^\lambda(x,y)$ and $S^\lambda(x,y)$ now allow us
796: to compute the perturbative contributions to the source terms on the
797: RHS of Eqs. (\ref{eq:scalar1},\ref{eq:fermion1}) starting from a given
798: electroweak model Lagrangian. Here, we work within the MSSM as an
799: illustrative case, but emphasize that the methods are general. The
800: Feynman rules giving the relevant interaction vertices in the MSSM are
801: taken from Ref.~\cite{Martin:1997ns}, and in what follows, we only write
802: down those relevant for the computations undertaken here. It is
803: useful, however, to place our calculation in a broader context by
804: considering the various classes of graphs that generate different
805: terms in the QTEs. The simplest topologies are those involving
806: scattering of particles and their superpartners from the spacetime
807: varying Higgs vevs (generically denoted $v$) in the plasma
808: [Fig.~\ref{fig:graphs1}].
809: These graphs give rise to both the $CP$-violating source
810: terms discussed in Ref. \cite{Riotto:1998zb} as well as terms
811: proportional to chiral charge. The latter involve the number densities
812: of at most two different species, such as the left- and right-handed
813: top quarks [Fig.~\ref{fig:graphs1}(a)] or their superpartners
814: [Fig.~\ref{fig:graphs1}(b)]. For purposes of illustration, we follow Ref.~\cite{Riotto:1998zb} and work in a basis of mass eigenstates in the unbroken phase, treating the interactions with the Higgs vevs perturbatively. This approximation should be reasonable near the phase transition boundary, where both the vevs and their rate of change are small, but it clearly breaks down farther inside the bubble wall, where the vevs become large (of order the
815: phase transition temperature, $T_c$). In general, one would like to perform a resummation to all orders in the vevs, possibly employing the approximation scheme proposed in Refs. \cite{Carena:2000id,Prokopec}. We postpone a treatment of this resummation to a future study\footnote{ The authors of Ref.~\cite{Carena:2000id} find that carrying out such a resummation reduces the resonant enhancements of the $CP$-violating sources, but they did not consider the $CP$-conserving, chirality-changing terms that are our focus here. The consistency of the proposed approximate resummation with our power counting remains to be analyzed.}.
816:
817: %
818:
819: Yukawa interactions involving quarks (squarks) and Higgs (Higgsinos)
820: are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:graphs2}
821: (the self-energies $\Sigma^\lambda(x,y)$ are
822: obtained by amputating the external legs). These interactions cause
823: transitions such as $f\leftrightarrow f H$, ${\tilde f}\leftrightarrow
824: {\tilde f} H$, and $f\leftrightarrow {\tilde f}{\tilde
825: H}$. Contributions from gauge interactions appear
826: in Fig.~\ref{fig:graphs3}. The
827: latter induce transitions of the type $f\leftrightarrow f V$, ${\tilde
828: f}\leftrightarrow {\tilde f}V$, and $f\leftrightarrow{\tilde f}{\tilde
829: V}$.
830: %Diagrams involving $f\leftrightarrow{\tilde f}{\tilde V}$ and
831: %$f\leftrightarrow {\tilde f}{\tilde H}$ may, of course, be expressed
832: %in terms of the basis of charginos and neutralinos, but for purposes
833: %of discussion we will distinguish between Higgsino and gaugino
834: %contributions.
835: In general, one expects the Yukawa and gauge
836: interactions involving three different species to depend on sums and
837: differences of the corresponding chemical potentials, as in
838: $\mu_f-\mu_{\tilde f}-\mu_{\tilde V}$ for the supergauge
839: interactions. In previous studies, it has been assumed that the
840: gauginos ${\tilde V}$ are sufficiently light and the coefficients of
841: the corresponding terms in the QTEs sufficiently large than one has
842: $\mu_{\tilde V}\approx 0$ and $\mu_f\approx \mu_{\tilde f}$. Although
843: the quantitative validity of this assumption could be explored using
844: our framework here, we defer that analysis to a future study and take
845: $\mu_{\tilde V}\approx 0$, $\mu_f\approx \mu_{\tilde
846: f}$. Consequently, one may, as in Ref. \cite{Huet:1995sh}, define a
847: common chemical potential for SM particles (including the two Higgs
848: doublets) and their superpartners.
849: %
850: \begin{figure}[!t]
851: \centering
852: \begin{picture}(150,200)
853: \put(50,90){\makebox(50,50){\epsfig{figure=fig2.eps,width=10cm}}}
854: \end{picture}
855: \caption{
856: \label{fig:graphs2}
857: Contributions to the relevant self-energies from Yukawa interactions
858: }
859: \end{figure}
860:
861: In previous studies, it has also been assumed -- based largely on simple estimates (see, {\em e.g.}, Ref.~\cite{Huet:1995sh}) -- that the Yukawa interactions of Fig.~\ref{fig:graphs2} are
862: sufficiently fast that they decouple from the set of QTEs, leading
863: to relations between the chemical potentials for the Higgs (Higgsino)
864: fields and those for matter fields. For example, Yukawa interactions
865: that couple the Higgs doublet fields $H$ with those of the third
866: generation SU(2)$_L$ doublet quarks, $Q$ with the singlet top quark
867: supermultiplet field, $T$, generate terms of the form:
868: %
869: \be
870: \Gamma_Y \left(\mu_Q-\mu_T+\mu_H\right)\,.
871: \ee
872: %
873: To the extent that $\Gamma_Y$ is much larger than the other transport
874: coefficients appearing in Eqs. (\ref{eq:scalar1},\ref{eq:fermion1}),
875: one has $\mu_Q=\mu_T-\mu_H$ plus terms of ${\cal O}(1/\Gamma_Y)$. The
876: remaining terms in the QTEs will involve the $CP$-violating sources,
877: sphaleron terms, and terms that couple left- and right-handed chiral
878: charges, such as $\Gamma_M(\mu_Q-\mu_T)$. Again, this assumption could
879: be tested using the current framework, but the computation of
880: $\Gamma_Y$ is considerably more arduous than those discussed below,
881: where we focus on the $CP$-violating sources and the $\Gamma_M$-type
882: terms that are generated by the diagrams in Fig.~\ref{fig:graphs1}.
883: %
884: \begin{figure}[!t]
885: \centering
886: \begin{picture}(150,230)
887: \put(50,90){\makebox(50,50){\epsfig{figure=fig3.eps,width=10cm}}}
888: \end{picture}
889: \caption{Representative contributions to self-energies from
890: (super)gauge interactions.
891: \label{fig:graphs3}
892: }
893: \end{figure}
894:
895:
896: \subsection{Bosons}
897:
898: We consider first the scalar interactions in Fig.~\ref{fig:graphs1}(a).
899: The largest contributions involve the L and R top squarks, ${\tilde
900: t}_{L,R}$ owing to their large Yukawa coupling, $y_t$. In the basis of weak eigenstates, the relevant interaction
901: Lagrangian is:
902: %
903: \begin{equation}
904: \label{eq:scalarhiggs}
905: \mathcal{L} = y_t\tilde t_L\tilde t_R^*(A_t v_u - \mu^* v_d) + \text{h.c.}\,,
906: \end{equation}
907: %{\cal L} = {Y_t\over\sqrt{2}}{\tilde t}_L{\tilde
908: %t}_R^\ast\left[\mu^\ast\left(Z_R^{1j} H_j^0+v_d\right)-A_t
909: %\left(Z_R^{2j} H_j^0+v_u\right)\right]+{\rm h.c.}\ \ \ ,
910: %\ee
911: %where the physical, neutral Higgs eigenstates $H^0_j$, $H^0_{j+2}$,
912: %$j=1,2$ are defined in terms of the weak eigenstates $H_i^i$, $i=1,2$
913: %as
914: %\bea
915: %\label{eq;higgeseigen}
916: %{\rm Re} H_i^i & = & \frac{1}{2}\left(Z_R^{ij} H_j^0+v_i\right)\\
917: %\nonumber
918: %{\rm Im} H_i^i & = & \frac{1}{2} Z_H^{ij} H_{j+2}^0\ \ \
919: %\eea
920: %
921: %where $v_1\equiv v_d$ and $v_2\equiv v_u$ are the vevs of the $H_i^i$
922: where $v_{u,d}$ are the vevs of $H_{u,d}^0$, and we take $v\equiv\sqrt{v_u^2+v_d^2}$ and $\tan\beta\equiv
923: v_u/v_d$. Note that in Eq. (\ref{eq:scalarhiggs}) we allow the $v_{u,d}$ to
924: be spacetime-dependent. In the region of broken electroweak symmetry
925: and stable vevs, we have $m_t=y_t v_u$.
926:
927: Using the Feynman rules for path ordered perturbation theory, it is
928: straightforward to show that the diagrams in Fig.~\ref{fig:graphs1}(a)
929: generate contributions to ${\widetilde\Sigma}_R(x,y)$ of the form:
930: %
931: \be
932: \label{eq:sigmascalar}
933: {\widetilde\Sigma}_R(x,y) = -g(x,y){\widetilde G}_L^0(x,y)
934: \ee
935: where
936: \begin{equation}
937: \label{eq:gxyscalar}
938: g(x,y) = y_t^2\bigl[A_t v_u(x) - \mu^* v_d(x)\bigr] \bigl[A_t^* v_u(y) - \mu v_d(y)\bigr]\,.
939: \end{equation}
940: Substituting Eq. (\ref{eq:sigmascalar}) into Eq. (\ref{eq:scalar1}) leads to:
941: \be
942: \partial_\mu {\tilde t}^\mu_R(x) = S_{{\tilde t}_R}(x)
943: \ee
944: for right-handed top squarks, where ${\tilde t}^\mu_R$ is the
945: corresponding current density and the source $S_{{\tilde t}_R}(x)$ is
946: \begin{equation}
947: \label{eq:scalar2}
948: \begin{split}
949: S_{{\tilde t}_R}(x) = -\int d^3z\int_{-\infty}^{x_0}dz_0\
950: \biggl\{[g(x,z)&+g(z,x)]\Real \bigl[G^>_L(x,z)G^<_R(z,x)-G^<_L(x,z)G^>_R(z,x)\bigr] \\
951: +i[g(x,z)&-g(z,x)]\Imag\bigl[G^>_L(x,z)G^<_R(z,x)-G^<_L(x,z)G^>_R(z,x)\bigr]\biggr\}\,,
952: \end{split}
953: \end{equation}
954: where the L,R subscripts indicate the propagators for the L and R
955: top squarks.
956:
957: The first term in the integrand of $S_{{\tilde t}_R}(x)$ is
958: $CP$-conserving and leads to the $\Gamma_M$-type terms discussed
959: above, while the second term in the integrand provides the
960: $CP$-violating sources. We concentrate first on the former. Expanding
961: $g(x,z)$ about $z=x$ it is straightforward to show that only terms
962: involving even powers of derivatives survive in $g(x,z)+g(z,x)$. Under
963: the assumptions of gentle spacetime dependence of the $v_i(x)$ near
964: the phase boundary, we will neglect terms beyond leading order and
965: take $g(x,z)+g(z,x)\approx 2 g(x,x)$. Consequently, the
966: $CP$-conserving source is:
967: %
968: \bea
969: \label{eq:scalar3}
970: S_{{\tilde t}_R}^{CP}(x) &\approx& -2g(x,x) \Real
971: \int d^3z\int_{-\infty}^{x_0}dz_0\ \left [G^>_L(x,z)G^<_R(z,x)
972: -G^<_L(x,z)G^>_R(z,x)\right]\\
973: \nonumber
974: &=& -2g(x,x)\Real\int d^3z \int_{-\infty}^{x_0}dz_0\int{d^4k\over
975: (2\pi)^4}\int {d^4q\over (2\pi)^4}
976: e^{-i(k-q)\cdot(x-z)}\rho_L(k_0,\vect{k})\rho_R(q_0,\vect{q})\\
977: \nonumber
978: &&
979: \ \ \ \times \left[g_B^>(k_0,\mu_L)g_B^<(q_0,\mu_R)-
980: g_B^<(k_0,\mu_L) g_B^>(q_0,\mu_R)\right]\,,
981: \eea
982: with
983: \be
984: \label{eq:scalargxx}
985: g(x,x) = y_t^2 \bigl[|\mu|^2 v_d^2(x) + |A_t|^2 v_u^2(x) -
986: 2v_d(x) v_u(x) \Real(\mu A_t)\bigr]\,.
987: \ee
988: Performing the $d^3z$ integral leads to a $\delta$ function in
989: momentum space. After carrying out the $d^3q$ integral,
990: %and changing variables to $t=x_0-z_0$, we obtain
991: %\bea
992: %\label{eq:scalar4}
993: %S_{{\tilde t}_R}(x)^{CP} &\approx& -2g(x,x)
994: %{\rm Re}\int_{-\infty}^0dt \int{d^3k\over (2\pi)^3}
995: %\int {dk_0\over 2\pi}\int {dq_0\over 2\pi} e^{ik_0t}e^{-iq_0t}
996: %\rho_L(k_0,{\vec k})\rho_R(q_0,{\vec q})\\
997: %\nonumber
998: %&&
999: %\ \ \ \times \left[f_1^>(k_0,\mu_L)
1000: %f_1^<(q_0,\mu_R)-f_1^<(k_0,\mu_L)f_1^>(q_0,\mu_R)\right]\ \ \ ,
1001: %\eea
1002: %with
1003: %\be
1004: %\label{eq:scalargxx}
1005: %g(x,x) = {Y_t^2\over 2} \left[|\mu|^2 v_d^2(x) + |A_t|^2 v_u^2(x) -
1006: % 2v_d(x) v_u(x)\Real(\mu A_t)\right]\ \ \ .
1007: %\ee
1008: we perform the contour integrals for $k_0$ and $q_0$, expand to
1009: first order in $\mu_{L,R}/T$, and obtain:
1010: \begin{equation}
1011: \label{eq:scalar5}
1012: \begin{split}
1013: S^{CP}_{\tilde t_R}(x) &= -\frac{1}{T}\frac{N_C y_t^2}{2\pi^2}\abs{A_t v_u(x) - \mu^*v_d(x)}^2 \int_0^\infty\frac{dk\,k^2}{\omega_L\omega_R} \\
1014: &\qquad\times\Imag\biggl\{\frac{\mu_L h_B(\mathcal{E}_L) - \mu_R h_B(\mathcal{E}_R^*)}{\mathcal{E}_L - \mathcal{E}_R^*} + \frac{\mu_R h_B(\mathcal{E}_R) - \mu_L h_B(\mathcal{E}_L)}{\mathcal{E}_L + \mathcal{E}_R}\biggr\},
1015: \end{split}
1016: \end{equation}
1017: where
1018: \begin{subequations}
1019: \label{eq:scalardefs}
1020: \begin{align}
1021: \omega_{L,R}^2 &= \abs{\vect{k}}^2 + M_{\tilde t_{L,R}}^2 \\
1022: \mathcal{E}_{L,R} &= \omega_{L,R} - i\Gamma_{L,R} \\
1023: h_B(x) &= -\frac{e^{x/T}}{(e^{x/T} - 1)^2},
1024: \end{align}
1025: \end{subequations}
1026: and $M_{\tilde t_{L,R}},\Gamma_{L,R}$ are the thermal masses and widths
1027: for the $\tilde t_{L,R}$, and the factor of $N_C$ comes from
1028: summing over the colors. Note that, in arriving at Eq. (\ref{eq:scalar5}), we have neglected the $\mu_i$-dependence of the pole residues $Z(T, \mu_{L,R})$, thermal frequencies, $\omega_{ L,R}(T,\mu_{L,R})$, and widths, $\Gamma_{L,R}(T,\mu_{L,R})$. The effect on $S^{CP}_{\tilde t_R}(x)$ of the $\mu_i$-dependence of the residues and thermal frequencies is sub-leading in the gauge and Yukawa couplings, whereas the effect from the thermal widths occurs at leading order. The $\mu_i$-dependence of $\Gamma_{L,R}(T,\mu_{L,R})$ is simply not known, however, so we do not include it here. A more explicit expression for the dependence of $S^{CP}_{\tilde t_R}(x)$ on the thermal frequencies and widths is given in Eqs. (\ref{appx:scalar5}-\ref{appx:gammascalarpm}) Appendix \ref{appx:expand}.
1029:
1030:
1031: For purposes of future analysis, it is useful to rewrite
1032: Eq. (\ref{eq:scalar5}) as:
1033: \begin{equation}
1034: \label{eq:scalar6}
1035: S^{CP}_{\tilde t_R} = \Gamma_{\tilde t}^+ (\mu_L + \mu_R) + \Gamma_{\tilde t}^-(\mu_L - \mu_R)\,,
1036: \end{equation}
1037: where
1038: \begin{equation}
1039: \label{eq:gammascalarpm}
1040: \Gamma_{\tilde t}^\pm = -\frac{1}{T}\frac{N_C y_t^2}{4\pi^2}\abs{A_t v_u(x) - \mu^*v_d(x)}^2\!\!\int_0^\infty\!\!\frac{dk\,k^2}{\omega_R\omega_L}\Imag\left\{\frac{h_B(\mathcal{E}_L) \mp h_B(\mathcal{E}_R^*)}{\mathcal{E}_L - \mathcal{E}_R^*} - \frac{h_B(\mathcal{E}_L) \mp h_B(\mathcal{E}_R)}{\mathcal{E}_L + \mathcal{E}_R}\right\}.
1041: \end{equation}
1042:
1043: Before proceeding with the $CP$-violating source, we comment briefly
1044: on the structure of Eqs. (\ref{eq:scalar6}-\ref{eq:gammascalarpm}). In
1045: particular, we note that
1046: \begin{itemize}
1047: \item[(i)] Terms of the type $\Gamma^{+}_{\tilde t}$ are
1048: absent from the conventional QTEs for EWB. It is straightforward to
1049: see that in the absence of interactions that distinguish between
1050: ${\tilde t}_L$ and ${\tilde t}_R$, $\Gamma^{+}_{\tilde t}=0$, as the
1051: integrand of Eq.~(\ref{eq:gammascalarpm}) is antisymmetric under
1052: $L\leftrightarrow R$ interchange. In contrast, the transport
1053: coefficient $\Gamma^{-}_{\tilde t}$ is nonzero in the limit of exact
1054: ${\tilde t}_L\leftrightarrow {\tilde t}_R$ symmetry. This term
1055: corresponds to the usual damping term in the QTEs associated with
1056: scattering from the Higgs vevs.
1057: \item[(ii)] In the absence of thermal widths $\Gamma_{L,R}$, the quantity in
1058: brackets in Eq.~(\ref{eq:gammascalarpm}) is purely real, and so the
1059: damping term would be zero.
1060: \item[(iii)] The structure of the energy
1061: denominators implies a resonant enhancement of the integrand for $
1062: M_{\tilde t_{L}}^2 \sim M_{\tilde t_{R}}^2 $. A similar effect was observed to occur
1063: for the $CP$-violating sources (see below) in
1064: Refs.~\cite{Riotto:1998zb,Carena:1997gx}. The expression in Eq. (\ref{eq:gammascalarpm}) makes it clear that the relaxation terms display a resonant behavior as
1065: well. The resulting quantitative impact of this resonance baryon asymmetry
1066: is discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec:numerics}.
1067: \end{itemize}
1068: Properties (ii) and (iii) are shared by all source and damping terms,
1069: we discuss below. Note that the explicit factors of $\mu_{L,R}/T$ and property (ii) imply that, away from the resonance region,
1070: $S^{CP}_{\tilde t_R}$ is $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)$.
1071:
1072: The computation of the $CP$-violating source, given by the second term
1073: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:scalar2}), proceeds along similar lines. In this case,
1074: the coefficient $[g(x,z)-g(z,x)]$ vanishes for $x=z$, so we must
1075: retain terms at least to first order in the expansion about $x=z$:
1076: \begin{equation}
1077: \begin{split}
1078: \label{eq:gexpand1}
1079: g(x,z)-g(z,x) & = 2i y_t^2 \Imag(\mu A_t)\left[v_d(x) v_u(z)
1080: -v_d(z) v_u(x)\right]\\
1081: &= 2i y_t^2 \Imag(\mu A_t) (z-x)^\lambda\left[ v_d(x)
1082: \partial_\lambda v_u(x)-
1083: v_u(x)\partial_\lambda v_d(x)\right] +\cdots\,,
1084: \end{split}
1085: \end{equation}
1086: %
1087: where the $+\cdots$ indicate higher order terms in the derivative
1088: expansion that we neglect for the same reasons as discussed
1089: previously. When the linear term in Eq. (\ref{eq:gexpand1}) is
1090: substituted in Eq. (\ref{eq:scalar2}), only the time component yields
1091: a nonzero contribution. The spatial components
1092: vanish due to the spatial isotropy of the spectral
1093: density: $g_B^\lambda(k_0,\mu) \rho(k_0, \vect{k})
1094: \equiv g_B^\lambda(k_0,\mu) \rho(k_0, \abs{\vect{k}})$.
1095: We may then make the replacement:
1096: %
1097: \begin{equation}
1098: \begin{split}
1099: \label{eq:gexpand2}
1100: g(x,z)-g(z,x) & \rightarrow 2i
1101: y_t^2\Imag(\mu A_t)\left[v_d(x) {\dot v}_u(x)-{\dot v}_d(x) v_u(x)\right]
1102: \, (z - x)^0 \\
1103: &= 2i y_t^2\Imag(\mu A_t) v(x)^2{\dot\beta}(x) \, (z - x)^0 \ .
1104: \end{split}
1105: \end{equation}
1106: %
1107: In general, we expect ${\dot\beta}$ to be of order $v_w/c$, so that
1108: the $CP$-violating source is first-order in one of the small expansion
1109: parameters discussed earlier. Consequently, when evaluating this term,
1110: we may neglect the $\mu_{L,R}$-dependence of the
1111: $g_B^\lambda(k_0,\mu)$. After carrying out the ($k_0$,$q_0$) contour
1112: integrals and performing the time integration, we obtain:
1113: %
1114: \begin{equation}
1115: \label{eq:scalarcp1}
1116: \begin{split}
1117: S_{\tilde t_R}^{\CPV} &= \frac{N_C y_t^2}{2\pi^2}\Imag(\mu A_t)v(x)^2 \dot\beta(x)\int_0^\infty\frac{dk\,k^2}{\omega_R\omega_L}\Imag\biggl\{\frac{n_B(\mathcal{E}_R^*) - n_B(\mathcal{E}_L)}{(\mathcal{E}_L - \mathcal{E}_R^*)^2} + \frac{1+n_B(\mathcal{E}_R) + n_B(\mathcal{E}_L)}{(\mathcal{E}_L + \mathcal{E}_R)^2}\biggr\}.
1118: \end{split}
1119: \end{equation}
1120: %
1121: Again, property (ii), in conjunction with the factor of ${\dot\beta}\propto v_w$, implies that $S_{\tilde t_R}^{\CPV} $ is $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)$. An expression giving a more explicit dependence on the widths and frequencies appears Eq. (\ref{appx:scalarcp1}) of Appendix \ref{appx:expand}.
1122: We note that our result agrees with that of Ref.~\cite{Riotto:1998zb} except for a
1123: different relative sign in front of the $\cos 2\phi$ term of that equation and the overall factor of $N_C$.
1124:
1125:
1126:
1127: \subsection{Massive fermions}
1128:
1129: The computations for fermions proceed along similar lines. We consider
1130: first the source terms for Higgsinos.
1131: We recall that it is useful to redefine the Higgsino fields to remove the
1132: complex phase from the Higgsino mass term:
1133: %
1134: \be
1135: {\cal L}_{\widetilde H}^{\rm mass} = \mu \left(\psi_{H_d^0}\psi_{H_u^0}-
1136: \psi_{H_d^-}\psi_{H_u^+}\right)
1137: +\mu^\ast \left(
1138: {\bar\psi}_{H_d^0}{\bar\psi}_{H_u^0}-{\bar\psi}_{H_d^-}{\bar\psi}_{H_u^+}
1139: \right)
1140: \ee
1141: via
1142: \be
1143: \psi_{H_d^{0,-}}\to{\widetilde H}_d^{0,-}\quad\quad
1144: \psi_{H_u^{0,+}}\to e^{-i\theta_\mu}{\widetilde H}_u^{0,+}
1145: \ee
1146: leading to:
1147: \be
1148: {\cal L}_{\widetilde H}^{\rm mass}=
1149: \abs{\mu}\left({\widetilde H}_d^0{\widetilde H}_u^0-{\widetilde H}_d^-{\widetilde H}_u^+\right)
1150: + \abs{\mu} \left( {\widetilde H}_d^{0\dag}
1151: {\widetilde H}_u^{0\dag}-{\widetilde H}_d^{-\dag}{\widetilde H}_u^{+\dag}
1152: \right)\,.
1153: \ee
1154: Defining the four component spinors,
1155: \be
1156: \label{eq:higgsinodef}
1157: \Psi_{\widetilde H^+} = \left(\begin{array}{c}
1158: {\widetilde H}_u^+\\ {\widetilde H}_d^{-\dag}
1159: \end{array}
1160: \right)\quad\quad
1161: \Psi_{\widetilde H^0} = \left(\begin{array}{c}
1162: -{\widetilde H}_u^0\\ {\widetilde H}_d^{0\dag}
1163: \end{array}
1164: \right)\,
1165: \ee
1166: for the Higgsinos, and
1167: %
1168: \be
1169: \label{eq:gauginodef}
1170: \Psi_{\widetilde W^+}= \left(\begin{array}{c}
1171: {\widetilde W}^+ \\
1172: {\widetilde W}^{-\dag}
1173: \end{array}
1174: \right)\quad\quad
1175: \Psi_{\widetilde W^0}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
1176: {\widetilde W}^3
1177: \\
1178: {\widetilde W}^{3\dag}
1179: \end{array}
1180: \right)\quad\quad
1181: \Psi_{\widetilde B}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
1182: {\widetilde B}
1183: \\
1184: {\widetilde B}^\dag
1185: \end{array}
1186: \right)\,
1187: \ee
1188: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1189: for the gauginos, leads to the Higgsino-gaugino-vev interaction:
1190: \begin{equation}
1191: \begin{split}
1192: \label{eq:higgsinoint1}
1193: {\cal L}^{\rm int} &=
1194: -g_2\bar\Psi_{\widetilde H^+}\left[v_d(x)P_L+v_u(x) e^{i\theta_\mu}P_R\right]\Psi_{\widetilde W^+}\\
1195: &\quad -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\bar\Psi_{\widetilde H^0}\left[v_d(x)P_L+v_u(x) e^{i\theta_\mu}P_R\right] \left(g_2\Psi_{\widetilde W^0}-
1196: g_1\Psi_{\widetilde B}\right)\ +\ {\rm h.c.}
1197: \end{split}
1198: \end{equation}
1199:
1200: Note that the spinors $\Psi_{\widetilde H^0}$ and $\Psi_{\widetilde H^+}$ satisfy a
1201: Dirac equation with Dirac mass $|\mu|$, even
1202: though the ${\widetilde H}_{d,u}^0$ are Majorana particles. The $\Psi_{\widetilde W^\pm}$ are Dirac particles of mass $M_2$, whereas the $\Psi_{\widetilde W^0}$ and $\Psi_{\widetilde B^0}$ are Majorana particles with Majorana masses $M_2$
1203: and $M_1$, respectively. We also note that the construction of the
1204: Dirac spinor $\Psi_{\widetilde H^0}$ allows one to define a vector charge and
1205: corresponding chemical potential, $\mu_{{\widetilde H}^0}$, for the
1206: neutral Higgsinos, even though they are Majorana particles. In
1207: contrast, there exists no such vector charge for the $\Psi_{\widetilde W^0}$
1208: and $\psi_{\widetilde B^0}$. One may, however, study the quantum transport of the axial charge of the Majorana fermions using Eq. (\ref{eq:fermion1b}). An attempt to do so for the neutral Higgsinos was made in Ref. \cite{Carena:2000id}, though only the $CP$-violating sources were evaluated using non-equilibrium methods. The impact of the corresponding axial charge density on the baryon asymmetry was found to be small. We return to this issue in a future study, and consider only the vector densities below.
1209:
1210: The most straightforward computation is that of the ${\widetilde H}^\pm$
1211: source terms. For notational convenience, we rewrite the chargino
1212: interactions in Eq. (\ref{eq:higgsinoint1}) as:
1213: %
1214: \be
1215: \label{eq:charginoint}
1216: -g_2 \bar\Psi_{\widetilde H^+}\left[g_L(x)P_L+g_R(x)P_R\right]\Psi_{\widetilde W^+}
1217: +{\rm h.c.}
1218: \ee
1219: In this case, the self-energy generated by Fig.~\ref{fig:graphs1}(a) is:
1220: \be
1221: {\widetilde \Sigma}_{\widetilde H^\pm}(x,y) =
1222: -g_2^2 \left[g_L(x)P_L+g_R(x) P_R\right] \,
1223: {\tilde S}_{\widetilde W^\pm} (x,y) \, \left[g_L(y)^*P_R+g_R(y)^* P_L\right]\ \ \ .
1224: \ee
1225: Defining:
1226: \begin{subequations}
1227: \begin{align}
1228: g_A(x,y) & \equiv \frac{g^2_2}{2}\left[g_L(x) g_L(y)^*+g_R(x)
1229: g_R(y)^*\right]\\
1230: g_B(x,y) & \equiv \frac{g_2^2}{2}\left[g_L(x) g_R(y)^*+g_R(x) g_L(y)^*\right]\,,
1231: \end{align}
1232: \end{subequations}
1233: we obtain for the RHS of Eq. (\ref{eq:fermion1}):
1234: \bea
1235: \label{eq:fermion2a}
1236: S_{\widetilde H^\pm}(x) & = &
1237: \int d^3z\int_{-\infty}^0 dz_0 \sum_{j=A,B}\biggl\{ \\
1238: &&
1239: \nonumber
1240: \left[g_j(x,z)+g_j(z,x)\right]\ \ {\rm Re}\
1241: {\rm Tr}\ \left[S_{\widetilde W^\pm}^>(x,z) S_{\widetilde H^\pm}^<(z,x)
1242: -S_{\widetilde W^\pm}^<(x,z) S_{\widetilde H^\pm}^>(z,x)\right]_j\\
1243: \nonumber
1244: &+& i \left[g_j(x,z)-g_j(z,x)\right]\ {\rm Im}\
1245: {\rm Tr}\ \left[S_{\widetilde W^\pm}^>(x,z) S_{\widetilde H^\pm}^<(z,x)
1246: -S_{\widetilde W^\pm}^<(x,z) S_{\widetilde H^\pm}^>(z,x)\right]_j\biggr\}\,,
1247: \eea
1248: %
1249: where the subscripts \lq\lq A" and \lq\lq B" on the traces denote the
1250: contributions arising from the ${\not\! k}$ and $m$ terms,
1251: respectively, in the spectral function in Eq. (\ref{eq:slambdafree})
1252: (an overall factor of $1/2$ due to the presence of the chiral
1253: projectors $P_{L,R}$ has been absorbed in the definition of the
1254: $g_{A,B}$).
1255:
1256: As in the case of the scalar fields, the leading density-dependent,
1257: $CP$-conserving contribution to $S_{\widetilde H^\pm}(x) $ arises from the
1258: term in Eq. (\ref{eq:fermion2a}) containing the $x\leftrightarrow z$
1259: symmetric factors $[g_j(x,z)+g_j(z,x)]$. To lowest order in $v_w$, we
1260: may set $x=z$ in these factors. Using the spectral representation of
1261: the $S^{\lambda}(x,y)$ given in Eq. (\ref{eq:slambdafree}), including
1262: gauge-invariant thermal masses and widths, and expanding to first
1263: order in $\mu_{i}/T$, we obtain the chirality-changing source term:
1264: %
1265: \be
1266: \label{eq:chargino1}
1267: S^{CP}_{\widetilde H^\pm}(x) = \Gamma_{\widetilde H^\pm}^{+}
1268: \left( \mu_{\widetilde W^\pm}
1269: +
1270: \mu_{\widetilde H^\pm} \right)
1271: +
1272: \Gamma_{\widetilde H^\pm}^{-}
1273: \left( \mu_{\widetilde W^\pm}-\mu_{\widetilde H^\pm}
1274: \right)\,,
1275: \ee
1276: where
1277: \begin{equation}
1278: \label{eq:gammaHiggsinopm}
1279: \begin{split}
1280: \Gamma_{\widetilde H^\pm}^{\pm} = \frac{1}{T}\frac{g_2^2}{2\pi^2}v(x)^2\int_0^\infty\!\frac{dk\,k^2}{\omega_{\widetilde H}\omega_{\widetilde W}} \Imag\biggl\{&\left[\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde W}\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde H}^* - k^2 + M_2\abs{\mu}\cos\theta_\mu\sin 2\beta\right]\frac{h_F(\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde W}) \mp h_F(\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde H}^*)}{\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde W} - \mathcal{E}_{\widetilde H}^*} \\
1281: + &\left[\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde W}\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde H}
1282: + k^2 - M_2\abs{\mu}\cos\theta_\mu\sin 2\beta\right]
1283: \frac{h_F(\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde W}) \mp h_F(\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde H})}{\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde W} + \mathcal{E}_{\widetilde H}}\biggr\}\,,
1284: \end{split}
1285: \end{equation}
1286: %
1287: where the definitions of $\omega_{\widetilde H,\widetilde W}$ and
1288: $\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde H,\widetilde W}$ are analogous to those given
1289: in Eqs. (\ref{eq:scalardefs}) and
1290: %
1291: \begin{equation}
1292: \label{eq:fermiondefs}
1293: h_F(x) = \frac{e^{x/T}}{(e^{x/T} + 1)^2}\,.
1294: \end{equation}
1295: Also, the factor of $\cos\theta_\mu$ is very nearly 1 for the region of small $\theta_\mu$ in which we find ourselves in subsequent sections. The explicit dependence of $\Gamma_{\widetilde H^\pm}^{\pm}$ on thermal frequencies and widths is given in Eq. (\ref{appx:gammaHiggsinopm}) of Appendix \ref{appx:expand}.
1296:
1297: In the present case, we follow Ref. \cite{Huet:1995sh} and assume no
1298: net density of gauginos, thereby setting $\mu_{\widetilde W^\pm}=0$ in
1299: Eq. (\ref{eq:chargino1}) and giving:
1300: %
1301: \be
1302: \label{eq:chargino2}
1303: S^{CP}_{\widetilde H^\pm}(x) = - \Gamma_{\widetilde H^\pm}\mu_{\widetilde H^\pm}\,,
1304: \ee
1305: %
1306: with $\Gamma_{\widetilde H^\pm}=\Gamma_{\widetilde H^\pm}^{+}+\Gamma_{\widetilde
1307: H^\pm}^{-}$. In this case, it is straightforward to obtain the
1308: corresponding source term for the neutral Higgsinos,
1309: %
1310: \be
1311: \label{eq:neutralino1}
1312: S^{CP}_{\widetilde H^0}(x)=- \Gamma_{\widetilde H^0}\mu_{\widetilde H^0}\,,
1313: \ee
1314: %
1315: where $\Gamma_{\widetilde H^0}$ can be obtained from the formulae for
1316: $\Gamma_{\widetilde H^\pm}$ by making the following replacements: $g_2\to
1317: g_2/\sqrt{2}$ for ${\widetilde W}^0$ intermediate states and $g_2\to
1318: g_1/\sqrt{2}$,
1319: $\omw\to\omb$, and $\gamw\to\gamb$ for the ${\widetilde B}$ intermediate
1320: states.
1321:
1322: The Higgsino $CP$-violating source arises from the second term in
1323: Eq. (\ref{eq:fermion2a}). As before, we expand the $g_j(x,z)$ to first
1324: order about $x=z$ and observe that only the $x_0-y_0$ component survives
1325: when the $d^3 z$ integration is performed. Also note that $g_A(x,y)-g_A(y,x)=2i\ {\rm
1326: Im} g_A(x,y)=0$ so that only the terms proportional to the Higgsino
1327: and gaugino masses contribute. The result is:
1328: %
1329: \begin{equation}
1330: \label{eq:chargino3}
1331: \begin{split}
1332: S_{\widetilde H^\pm}^{\CPV}(x) &= \frac{g_2^2}{\pi^2}v(x)^2\dot\beta(x)
1333: M_2\abs{\mu}\sin\theta_\mu \\
1334: &\qquad\times\int_0^\infty\frac{dk\,k^2}{\omega_{\widetilde H}\omega_{\widetilde W}}\Imag\biggl\{\frac{n_F(\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde W}) - n_F(\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde H}^*)}{(\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde W} - \mathcal{E}_{\widetilde H}^*)^2} + \frac{1-n_F(\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde W}) - n_F(\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde H})}{(\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde W} + \mathcal{E}_{\widetilde H})^2}\biggr\}\,.
1335: \end{split}
1336: \end{equation}
1337: %
1338: The corresponding expression for
1339: $S_{\widetilde H^0}^{\CPV} (x)$ can be obtained by making the same
1340: replacements as indicated above for the $CP$-conserving terms. The correspondence with the results of Ref. \cite{Riotto:1998zb} can be seen from Eq. (\ref{appx:chargino3}) of Appendix
1341: \ref{appx:expand}. We again find essential agreement, apart from a sign difference on the $\cos 2\phi$ term.
1342:
1343: \subsection{Chiral fermions}
1344:
1345: The final source term associated with Fig.~\ref{fig:graphs1}(a)
1346: involves $L$ and $R$ top quarks. At this order, the latter only
1347: contribute a $\mu_i$-dependent $CP$-conserving term. In order to
1348: illustrate the structure of this term that arises when the terms of
1349: ${\cal O}(g^2)$ are retained, we employ the interacting fermion
1350: propagators of Eqs. (\ref{eq:slambdaint}-\ref{eq:rhominus}). The
1351: result is:
1352: %
1353: \be
1354: \label{eq:topmass1}
1355: S^{CP}_{t_R}(x) = \Gamma_{t_R}^{+}\left(\mu_{t_L}+\mu_{t_R}\right)+
1356: \Gamma_{t_R}^{-}\left(\mu_{t_L}-\mu_{t_R}\right)\,,
1357: \ee
1358: with
1359: %
1360: \begin{equation}
1361: \label{eq:gquarkplusminus}
1362: \begin{split}
1363: \Gamma_{t_R}^\pm = \frac{1}{T}\frac{N_C y_t^2 v_u(x)^2}{\pi^2}\int_0^\infty dk\,k^2 \Imag&\biggl\{\frac{Z_p^R(k) Z_p^L(k)}{\mathcal{E}_p^R + \mathcal{E}_p^L}\bigl[h_F(\mathcal{E}_p^L) \mp h_F(\mathcal{E}_p^R)\bigr] \\
1364: &+ \frac{Z_p^L(k) Z_h^R(k)^*}{\mathcal{E}_p^L - \mathcal{E}_h^{R*}}\bigl[h_F(\mathcal{E}_p^L) \mp h_F(\mathcal{E}_h^{R*})\bigr] + (p\leftrightarrow h)\biggr\}\,.
1365: \end{split}
1366: \end{equation}
1367: %
1368: Here, the ``$p$" and ``$h$" subscripts indicate
1369: contributions from the particle and hole modes, and
1370: ``$L$ " and ``$R$" refer to left- and right-handed quarks. We have not included in our calculation the effects of $\mu_{t_{L,R}}$-dependence of the widths $\Gamma_{p,h}^{L,R}(T,\mu_{t_{L,R}})$, which in principle also enter at this order. For an expanded version of Eq.~(\ref{eq:gquarkplusminus}), including these effects, see Eq. (\ref{appx:gquarkplus}) in Appendix \ref{appx:expand}.
1371:
1372: In the limit of $t_L\leftrightarrow t_R$ symmetry, $\Gamma_{t_R}^+$ vanishes, and $\Gamma_{t_R}^-$ simplifies to:
1373: \begin{equation}
1374: \begin{split}
1375: \Gamma_{t_R}^- = \frac{1}{T}\frac{N_C y_t^2 v_u(x)^2}{\pi^2}\int_0^\infty dk\,k^2\Imag\biggl\{\frac{Z_p(k)^2}{\mathcal{E}_p}&h_F(\mathcal{E}_p) + \frac{Z_h(k)^2}{\mathcal{E}_h}h_F(\mathcal{E}_h) \\
1376: &+ \frac{2Z_p(k) Z_h^*(k)}{\mathcal{E}_p - \mathcal{E}_h^*}\bigl[h_F(\mathcal{E}_p) + h_F(\mathcal{E}_h^*)\bigr]\biggr\}\,.
1377: \end{split}
1378: \end{equation}
1379: We observe that all contributions to the $CP$-violating source terms
1380: and the $\Gamma^{\pm}$ vanish in the limit of zero thermal
1381: widths. Since the widths are generically of order $g^2 T$ (here, $g$
1382: denotes either a gauge or Yukawa coupling), the source terms for the
1383: QTEs are generally fourth order in the couplings.
1384:
1385: %%%%%% We argued these away, as necessarily higher order %%%%%%%%%%%
1386: %For consistency, one
1387: %should include all contributions of this order. In Fig. 4, we show
1388: %additional contributions of this order that are not included in the
1389: %approximation
1390: %%
1391: %\be
1392: %{\widetilde\Sigma}(x,y)=g(x,y){\widetilde G}(x,y)
1393: %\ee
1394: %%
1395: %with the $g(x,y)$ and thermally corrected propagators as given
1396: %above. Calculating these contributions is technically more challenging
1397: %than for the graphs of Fig. 1. We consider first the vertex
1398: %corrections of Fig. 4a. ....
1399: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1400:
1401:
1402:
1403: \section{Quantum Transport Equations and $\rho_B $}
1404: \label{sec:qtes}
1405:
1406: We now discuss diffusion equations for the particle species that
1407: significantly contribute to the density of left-handed doublet fermions
1408: $n_L(x)$ [cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq:rhob1})] that acts as the ``seed'' for
1409: baryogenesis. We subsequently relate $\rho_B$ to $n_L$ and solve
1410: explicitly the equations in the case of a simple geometry and profile
1411: for the bubble wall describing the phase boundary.
1412:
1413:
1414: \subsection{Solving the diffusion equations}
1415:
1416: Using the source terms computed in Section \ref{sec:source}, one can
1417: arrive at a coupled set of differential equations for the various
1418: particle number densities. These equations simplify considerably under
1419: the assumptions of approximate chemical equilibrium between SM
1420: particles and their superpartners ($\mu_f\approx\mu_{\tilde f}$ with
1421: $\mu_{\tilde V}\approx 0$), as well as the
1422: between different members of left-handed fermion doublets
1423: ($\mu_{W^\pm}\approx 0$). In this case, one obtains transport
1424: equations for densities associated with different members of a
1425: supermultiplet. This approach is the one followed in
1426: Ref.~\cite{Huet:1995sh}, and for pedagogical purposes we summarize the
1427: development here.
1428:
1429: First, we define the appropriate supermultiplet densities:
1430: %
1431: \begin{subequations}
1432: \begin{align}
1433: Q &\equiv n_{t_L}+n_{\tilde t_L}+n_{b_L} + n_{\tilde b_L}\\
1434: T &\equiv n_{t_R}+n_{\tilde t_R}\\
1435: B &\equiv n_{b_R}+n_{\tilde b_R} \\
1436: H &\equiv
1437: n_{H_u^+} + n_{H_u^0} - n_{H_d^-} - n_{H_d^0} +n_{\widetilde H_u^+} - n_{\widetilde H_d^-} +n_{\widetilde H_u^0}- n_{\widetilde H_d^0}\,,
1438: \end{align}
1439: \end{subequations}
1440: %
1441: where the Higgsino densities arise from the vector charges $n_{\widetilde H^+}={\bar\Psi_{\widetilde H^+}}\gamma^0\Psi_{\widetilde H^+}$ and
1442: $n_{\widetilde H^0}={\bar\Psi_{\widetilde H^0}}\gamma^0 \Psi_{\widetilde H^0}$ associated with the Dirac fields defined in
1443: Eq. (\ref{eq:higgsinodef}). There are analogous definitions for the
1444: first- and second-generation (s)quarks. Although we do not consider them here, one may also define the corresponding axial charge densities. In the case of the Higgsinos, for example, it will involve the sum, rather than the difference, of the $u$- and $d$-type Higgsino densities\footnote{This density was considered in Ref. \cite{Carena:2000id}, and its overall impact on the baryon asymmetry found to be small.}
1445:
1446: The diffusion equation for a density $n_i$ has the structure:
1447: %
1448: \be
1449: \partial_\mu J_i^\mu = S_i^{CP} + S_i^{\CPV} + S_i^{\rm sph} \ ,
1450: \ee
1451: %
1452: where $J_i^\mu$ is the current associated with the density $n_i$,
1453: $S_i^{CP}$ and $S_i^{\CPV}$ are the source terms computed above,
1454: and $S_i^{\rm sph}$ is the sphaleron transition term.
1455: Various derivations of the strong sphaleron term
1456: %, $S^{\rm sph}$,
1457: appear in the literature, so we do not reproduce them here. However,
1458: we note that the expressions in
1459: Refs. \cite{Giudice:1993bb,Huet:1995sh} have erroneously omitted a
1460: factor of $1/N_C$~\cite{Moore:1997im}.
1461:
1462: The $CP$-conserving damping terms $S_i^{CP}$ have been given in
1463: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:scalar6}), (\ref{eq:chargino1}), and
1464: (\ref{eq:topmass1}) to linear order in the appropriate chemical
1465: potentials.
1466: Assuming local thermal equilibrium we relate the number densities to
1467: the chemical potentials via:
1468: %
1469: \be
1470: n_i=g_i\ \int_0^\infty {d^3k\over (2\pi)^3}
1471: \left[N(\omega_k,\mu_i)-N(\omega_k, -\mu_i)\right]\,,
1472: \ee
1473: %
1474: where $N(\omega,\mu)$ is the appropriate boson or fermion distribution
1475: function and $g_i$ counts the internal degrees of freedom (spin and
1476: color). Dropping terms of ${\cal O}(\mu_i^3)$, one obtains:
1477: %
1478: \be
1479: n_i={k_i (m_i/T) \, T^2\over 6}\mu_i \ ,
1480: \label{eq:muvsn}
1481: \ee
1482: %
1483: where the factors $k_i (m_i/T)$ are exponentially small in the regime
1484: $m_i/T \gg 1$, and reduce in the massless limit to $k_i(0) = 1$ for
1485: chiral fermions, $k_i (0) =2$ for Dirac fermions, and $k_i (0) =2$ for complex
1486: scalars. In our analysis we keep the full dependence on $m_i/T$:
1487: \begin{equation}
1488: k_i(m_i/T) = k_i(0)\frac{c_{F,B}}{\pi^2}\int_{m/T}^\infty dx\,x\,
1489: \frac{e^x}{(e^x \pm 1)^2}\sqrt{x^2 - m^2/T^2}\,,
1490: \end{equation}
1491: where for fermions (bosons) $c_{F(B)} = 6\,(3)$, and we choose the $+(-)$ sign in the denominator.
1492: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1493: % For quarks and their superpartners, these values should be
1494: % multiplied by $N_C$.
1495: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1496:
1497: Using Eq.~(\ref{eq:muvsn}) in
1498: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:scalar6},\ref{eq:chargino1},\ref{eq:topmass1}), and
1499: defining:
1500: %
1501: \begin{subequations}
1502: \begin{align}
1503: \Gamma_M^{\pm} &=
1504: {6\over T^2}\left(\Gamma_{t}^{\pm}+\Gamma_{\tilde t}^{\pm}\right) \\
1505: \Gamma_h &= \frac{6}{T^2} \left(
1506: \Gamma_{\widetilde H^\pm}+\Gamma_{\widetilde H^0} \right) \,,
1507: \end{align}
1508: \end{subequations}
1509: %
1510: the resulting set of coupled transport equations is:
1511: %
1512: \begin{subequations}
1513: \label{eq:qte}
1514: \begin{align}
1515: \label{eq:qte1a}
1516: \partial^\mu T_\mu &=
1517: \Gamma_M^{+} \left({T\over k_T}+{Q\over k_Q}\right)-\Gamma_M^{-}
1518: \left({T\over k_T}-{Q\over k_Q}\right)\\
1519: \nonumber
1520: &\quad -\Gamma_Y\left({T\over k_T}-{H\over k_H}-{Q\over k_Q}\right) +
1521: \Gamma_{ss}\left({2Q\over k_Q} -{T\over k_T}+{9(Q+T)\over k_B}\right)+
1522: S_{\tilde t}^{\CPV}\\
1523: \label{eq:qte1b}
1524: \partial^\mu Q_\mu &= -\Gamma_M^{+} \left({T\over k_T}+
1525: {Q\over k_Q}\right)+\Gamma_M^{-} \left({T\over k_T}-{Q\over k_Q}\right)\\
1526: \nonumber
1527: &\quad +\Gamma_Y\left({T\over k_T}-{H\over k_H}-{Q\over k_Q}\right)-
1528: 2\Gamma_{ss}\left({2Q\over k_Q}
1529: -{T\over k_T}+{9(Q+T)\over k_B}\right)-
1530: S_{\tilde t}^{\CPV}\\
1531: \label{eq:qte1c}
1532: \partial^\mu H_\mu &= -\Gamma_h{H\over k_H}-\Gamma_Y\left({Q\over k_Q}+{
1533: H\over k_H}-{T\over k_T}\right)+S_{{\widetilde H}}^{\CPV}\,,
1534: \end{align}
1535: \end{subequations}
1536: %
1537: where $\Gamma_{ss}=6 \kappa' \frac{8}{3} \alpha_{s}^4 T$, with $\kappa' \sim
1538: O(1)$.
1539:
1540: In writing down Eqs. (\ref{eq:qte1a}-\ref{eq:qte1c}), we have also
1541: included the $H {\tilde q}_L {\tilde q}_R$ and $H q_L q_R$ Yukawa
1542: interaction term that arises from Fig. 2, though we have not computed
1543: the corresponding transport coefficient $\Gamma_Y$.
1544: In this work we will again follow the authors of
1545: Ref. \cite{Huet:1995sh}, who estimate $\Gamma_Y \gg \Gamma_M^{-}$.
1546: For $\kappa' \sim {\cal O}(1)$, one also has $\Gamma_{ss} \gg
1547: \Gamma_M^{\pm}$. These facts allow one to algebraically relate the
1548: densities $Q$ and $T$ to $H$, by
1549: setting the linear combinations multiplying $\Gamma_Y$ and
1550: $\Gamma_{ss}$ equal to $\delta_Y=O(1/\Gamma_Y)$ and
1551: $\delta_{ss} = O(1/\Gamma_{ss})$,
1552: respectively.
1553: One then obtains:
1554: %
1555: \begin{subequations}
1556: \label{eq:qte2}
1557: \begin{align}
1558: \label{eq:qte2a}
1559: Q & = {(k_B-9k_T)k_Q\over (9k_T+9k_Q+k_B)k_H} \, H
1560: + \alpha_{QY}\delta_Y+\alpha_{Qs}\delta_{ss}\\
1561: % \nonumber
1562: \label{eq:qte2b}
1563: T & = {(9k_T+2k_B)k_T\over (9k_T+9k_Q+k_B)k_H} \, H +
1564: \alpha_{TY}\delta_Y+\alpha_{Ts}\delta_{ss}\,,
1565: \end{align}
1566: \end{subequations}
1567: %
1568: with known coefficients $\alpha_{QY,Qs,TY,Ts}$.
1569: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% removed because not essential %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1570: %\bea
1571: %\nonumber
1572: %\alpha_{QH} & = & {(9k_T-k_B)k_Q\over (9k_T+9k_Q+k_B)k_H}\\
1573: %\nonumber
1574: %\alpha_{QY} & = & {(9k_T-k_B)k_Q\over (9k_T+9k_Q+k_B)}\\
1575: %\label{eq:alphadefs}
1576: %\alpha_{Qs} & = & {k_B k_Q\over (9k_T+9k_Q+k_B)}\\
1577: %\nonumber
1578: %\alpha_{TH} & = & {-(9k_T+2k_B)k_T\over (9k_T+9k_Q+k_B)k_H}\\
1579: %\nonumber
1580: %\alpha_{TY} & = & -{(9k_T+2k_B)k_T\over (9k_T+9k_Q+k_B)}\\
1581: %\nonumber
1582: %\alpha_{Ts} & = & {k_B k_T\over (9k_T+9k_Q+k_B)}\ \ \ .
1583: %\eea
1584: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1585: Taking 2 $\times$ [Eq. (\ref{eq:qte1a})] $+$ [Eq. (\ref{eq:qte1b})]
1586: $+$ [Eq. (\ref{eq:qte1c})],
1587: %\footnote{
1588: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1589: %[Eq. (\ref{eq:qte1a})] $+2\times$ [Eq. (\ref{eq:qte1b})] $+$
1590: %[Eq. (\ref{eq:qte1c})],
1591: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1592: %It appears that the authors of Ref.~\cite{Huet:1995sh} took
1593: %a different linear combination,
1594: %which would not eliminate the dependence on
1595: %$\Gamma_Y$ or $\Gamma_{ss}$ from the coupled equations as we have done
1596: %here. This accounts for some differences
1597: %in factors appearing in Eq.~(\ref{eq:qte5}) with
1598: %the corresponding terms in Ref.~\cite{Huet:1995sh}.},
1599: introducing the
1600: diffusion approximations $\vect{T}=-D_q\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}T$,
1601: $\vect{Q}=-D_q\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$} Q$,
1602: $\vect{H}=-D_h\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$} H$, and using
1603: Eq.~(\ref{eq:qte2}) leads to:
1604: %
1605: \be
1606: \label{eq:qte4}
1607: {\dot H} -{\bar D} \nabla^2 H +{\bar \Gamma} H-{\bar S}=
1608: \mathcal{O}(\delta_{ss}, \delta_Y)
1609: \ \ \ ,
1610: \ee
1611: where\footnote{Our expressions differ from those
1612: in Ref.~\cite{Huet:1995sh}, which we believe result from an algebraic error. The numerical impact of this difference, however, is not significant.}
1613: \begin{subequations}
1614: \begin{align}
1615: \label{eq:qte5}
1616: {\bar D}& = {(9k_Q k_T + k_B k_Q + 4k_T k_B)D_q +k_H(9k_T+9k_Q+k_B)D_h\over
1617: 9k_Qk_T + k_Bk_Q + 4k_T k_B +k_H(9k_T+9k_Q+k_B)}\\
1618: {\bar \Gamma} & = \frac{(9k_Q+9k_T+k_B)(\Gamma_M^{-}+\Gamma_h) - (3k_B+9k_Q-9k_T)\Gamma_M^{+}}{9k_Qk_T + k_Bk_Q + 4k_T k_B +k_H(9k_T+9k_Q+k_B)} \\
1619: {\bar S} & = {k_H (9k_Q+9k_T+k_B)\over
1620: 9k_Qk_T + k_Bk_Q + 4k_T k_B +k_H(9k_T+9k_Q+k_B)}
1621: \left(S_{\tilde t}^{\CPV}+S_{\widetilde H}^{\CPV}\right)\,.
1622: \end{align}
1623: \end{subequations}
1624: %
1625: The subleading terms $\delta_{Y,ss}$ can be determined by use of
1626: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:qte2}) in
1627: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:qte1a},\ref{eq:qte1b}). We include the effect of
1628: $\delta_{ss}$ in our final expression for $\rho_B$~\cite{Huet:1995sh},
1629: although its effect is negligible in the relevant MSSM
1630: parameter region.
1631:
1632: Equation (\ref{eq:qte4}) can now be solved for a given set of
1633: assumptions about the geometry of the bubble wall. Again, for
1634: clarity of illustration,
1635: we will work in a framework that allows us to carry analytic calculations as far as possible,
1636: leaving to the future a numerical solution of the
1637: equations for a realistic wall geometry and profile. First, as commonly done in earlier
1638: studies, we
1639: ignore the wall curvature, thereby reducing the problem to a one-dimensional one in
1640: which all relevant functions depend on the variable $\bar{z} =
1641: |\vect{x} + \vect{v}_{w} t|$, where $\vect{v}_{w}$ is the wall velocity.
1642: Thus, $\bar{z} < 0$ is associated with the unbroken phase, $\bar{z} > 0$
1643: with the broken phase, and the boundary wall extends over $0 < \bar{z}
1644: < L_{w}$. Second, we take the relaxation term $\bar{\Gamma}$ to be nonzero and
1645: constant for $\bar{z} > 0$. The resulting solution for $H$ in the unbroken phase
1646: $\bar{z} < 0$ (related to $\rho_B$ as shown below) is:
1647: %
1648: \be
1649: \label{eq:sol1}
1650: H(\bar{z}) = {\cal A} \, e^{ v_{w}\bar{z}/\bar{D}} \,
1651: \ee
1652: %
1653: with
1654: \be
1655: \label{eq:sol2}
1656: {\cal A} =
1657: %\displaystyle
1658: \frac{1}{\bar{D} \kappa_{+}} \,
1659: \int_{0}^{\infty} \ \bar{S}(y) \, e^{- \kappa_+ y} \
1660: d y \qquad \qquad
1661: \kappa_+ = \frac{v_w + \sqrt{v_w^2 + 4 \bar{\Gamma} \bar{D}}}{2 \bar{D}}
1662: \simeq
1663: %\displaystyle
1664: \sqrt{\frac{\bar{\Gamma}}{\bar{D}}}\ .
1665: \ee
1666: %
1667: The above equation is valid for any shape of the source
1668: $\bar{S}(\bar{z})$. For simplicity, however, we
1669: assume a simple step-function type behavior for the
1670: source: $\bar S$ nonzero and constant for
1671: $0 < \bar{z} < L_{w}$.
1672: Specializing to this case of constant sources
1673: in $0 < \bar{z} < L_{w}$, using $4 \bar{D} \bar{\Gamma} \gg v_w^2$,
1674: $L_w \sqrt{\bar{\Gamma}/\bar{D}} \ll 1$, and taking
1675: $\bar{\Gamma} = r_{\Gamma} \, (\Gamma_h + \Gamma_{M}^{-})$ from
1676: Eq.~(\ref{eq:qte5}), we arrive at:
1677: %
1678: \be
1679: \label{eq:sol3}
1680: {\cal A} = k_H \, L_w \, \displaystyle\sqrt{\frac{r_\Gamma}{\bar{D}}} \
1681: \frac{ S_{\tilde{H}}^{\CPV} + S_{\tilde{t}}^{\CPV}
1682: }{
1683: \sqrt{\Gamma_h + \Gamma_{M}^{-}}} \ .
1684: \ee
1685: %
1686: When evaluating the source terms $S_{\tilde{H}}^{\CPV},
1687: S_{\tilde{t}}^{\CPV}$ [see
1688: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:scalarcp1}),(\ref{eq:chargino3})] for this simple
1689: profile one has to use $\dot{\beta} = v_{w} \Delta \beta/L_w$:
1690: thus ${\cal A}$ is explicitly proportional to $v_w$ and is only
1691: weakly dependent on $L_{w}$. Solutions for $Q$ and $T$ are then
1692: obtained via Eqs.~(\ref{eq:sol1}) and (\ref{eq:qte2}).
1693:
1694:
1695:
1696: \subsection{The baryon density $\rho_{B}$}
1697:
1698: Neglecting the wall curvature and assuming a step-function
1699: profile for the weak sphaleron rate, the baryon density satisfies
1700: the equation~\cite{Cline:2000nw,Carena:2002ss}:
1701: %
1702: \be
1703: \label{eq:rhob2}
1704: D_q \rho_B '' (\bar{z}) - v_{w} \rho_B ' (\bar{z})
1705: - \theta(-\bar{z}) \, {\cal R} \, \rho_B
1706: = \theta(-\bar{z})
1707: \, \frac{n_F}{2} \Gamma_{\rm ws} n_L(\bar{z})
1708: \ ,
1709: \ee
1710: %
1711: where $n_F$ is the number of fermion families and the relaxation term
1712: is given by~\cite{Cline:2000nw}:
1713: \be
1714: {\cal R} = \Gamma_{\rm ws}\, \left[
1715: \frac{9}{4} \, \left(1 + \frac{ n_{\rm sq}}{6}\right)^{-1} + \frac{3}{2}
1716: \right] \ ,
1717: \ee
1718: %
1719: where $n_{\rm sq}$ indicates the number of light squark flavors, and
1720: the weak sphaleron rate is given by $\Gamma_{\rm ws} = 6 \kappa
1721: \alpha_w^5 T$, with $\kappa \simeq 20$~\cite{wsrate}.
1722:
1723: The solution to Eq.~(\ref{eq:rhob2}) in the broken phase, eventually
1724: growing into the Universe, is constant and given by:
1725: %
1726: \be
1727: \label{eq:rhob3}
1728: \rho_B = - \frac{n_F \Gamma_{\rm ws}}{2 v_{w}} \, \int_{-\infty}^{0} \
1729: n_L (x)
1730: \, e^{x \, {\cal R}/v_w} \,
1731: dx \ .
1732: \ee
1733: %
1734: Neglecting leptonic contributions, $n_L$is given in the unbroken phase
1735: by the sum of left-handed quark densities over the three
1736: generations ($Q_{1L}, Q_{2L}, Q$). Since appreciable densities of
1737: first and second generation quarks are only generated via strong
1738: sphaleron processes, it is possible to express $Q_{1L}$ and $Q_{2L}$
1739: in terms of $Q$ and $T$, in such a way that $n_L =
1740: Q + Q_{1L} + Q_{2L} = 5 Q + 4 T$~\cite{Huet:1995sh}.
1741: Using then Eq.~(\ref{eq:qte2}) one obtains :
1742: %
1743: \begin{equation}
1744: \label{eq:rhob4a}
1745: n_L = -H \, \left[ r_1 + r_2 \, \frac{v_w^2}{\Gamma_{\rm ss} \, \bar{D}}
1746: \left(1- \frac{D_q}{\bar{D}} \right) \right]\,,
1747: \end{equation}
1748: where
1749: \begin{subequations}
1750: \begin{align}
1751: \label{eq:rhob4b}
1752: r_1 &= \frac{9 k_Q k_T - 5 k_Q k_B - 8 k_T k_B}{k_H (9k_Q+9k_T+k_B)} \\
1753: \label{eq:rhob4c}
1754: r_2 &=
1755: \frac{k_B^2 (5k_Q+4k_T)(k_Q + 2 k_T)}{k_H (9k_Q+9k_T+k_B)^2} \ ,
1756: \end{align}
1757: \end{subequations}
1758: %
1759: and finally, in the broken phase:
1760: %
1761: \begin{equation}
1762: \label{eq:rhob5}
1763: \begin{split}
1764: \rho_B (\bar{z} > 0) &= \frac{n_F}{2} {\cal A} \
1765: \left[ r_1 \Gamma_{\rm ws}
1766: + r_2 \, \frac{\Gamma_{\rm ws}}{\Gamma_{\rm ss}}\frac{v_w^2}{\bar D}
1767: \left(1- \frac{D_q}{\bar{D}} \right) \right] \, \frac{2\bar D}{v_w\Bigl[v_w + \sqrt{v_w^2 + 4\mathcal{R}D_q}\Bigr] + 2\mathcal{R}\bar D} \\
1768: &=\frac{n_F}{2} {\cal A} \
1769: \left[ r_1 \Gamma_{\rm ws}
1770: + r_2 \, \frac{\Gamma_{\rm ws}}{\Gamma_{\rm ss}}\frac{v_w^2}{\bar D}
1771: \left(1- \frac{D_q}{\bar{D}} \right) \right] \,
1772: \frac{\bar D}{v_w^2 + {\cal R}(\bar{D} + D_q)} \,,
1773: \end{split}
1774: \end{equation}
1775: %
1776: where the second line is true in the limit $v_w^2\gg 4 D_q\mathcal{R}$, which holds for the parameters we have chosen in this calculation. The contribution from the first term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:rhob5}) is linear in $v_w$, due to the
1777: linear dependence on $v_w$ contained in the ${\dot\beta}$ appearing in the $CP$-violating sources.
1778: The second term is suppressed by two additional powers of $v_w$ and generally leads to a negligible contribution to $\rho_B$ in the MSSM case (see discussion below). It
1779: could, however, be dominant in the case of heavy degenerate $\tilde{t}_L$ and
1780: $\tilde{t}_R$, which leads to $r_1\sim 0$ ~\cite{Huet:1995sh}.
1781:
1782: The central feature emerging from the above discussion is that the net
1783: baryon density is proportional to ${\cal A} \sim S^{\CPV}/\sqrt{\Gamma}$. A large relaxation rate $\Gamma$ for the relevant
1784: charges will suppress the overall baryon asymmetry. While in
1785: Refs.~\cite{Riotto:1998zb,Carena:1997gx} it was pointed out how a
1786: non-equilibrium quantum transport could result in a resonant
1787: enhancement of $S^{\CPV}$, we observe here that similar resonance effects in the relaxation terms will mitigate the impact of the enhanced sources.
1788: %our primary motivation is to study,
1789: %within the same approach, similar resonance effects in the relaxation
1790: %term. Our results in
1791: %Eqs.~(\ref{eq:scalar6},\ref{eq:chargino1},\ref{eq:topmass1}) show that
1792: %relaxation terms can be resonant for appropriate choice of the mass
1793: %parameters.
1794: In the next section we discuss the numerical impact within the MSSM, but caution that reaching definitive conclusions will require computing the other transport coefficients, such as $\Gamma_Y$, within the same framework.
1795:
1796:
1797:
1798:
1799: \section{Baryogenesis and Electroweak Phenomenology within the MSSM}
1800: \label{sec:numerics}
1801:
1802: The results derived in the previous Sections allow us to perform an illustrative,
1803: preliminary analysis of baryogenesis within the MSSM. This should be
1804: taken as an exploration, whose robustness will be tested once we
1805: implement the next steps in our treatment of the source terms in the
1806: transport equations. With this caveat in mind, we explore the
1807: connections between electroweak baryogenesis and phenomenology
1808: within the MSSM, focusing in particular on the implications for EDM searches.
1809: %%%%
1810: Throughout, we assume that all the terms in the Higgs scalar potential
1811: and all gaugino masses are real, while all the $A$-parameters (trilinear
1812: scalar couplings) are equal at the GUT scale, therefore sharing the
1813: same phase $\phi_A$. In this case, the baryon asymmetry and EDMs are
1814: sensitive to the two independent $CP$ violating phases $\phi_\mu$ and
1815: $\phi_A$.
1816:
1817: From the structure of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:rhob5},\ref{eq:sol3}) and
1818: (\ref{eq:scalarcp1},\ref{eq:chargino3}) we can write the
1819: baryon-to-entropy density ratio\footnote{
1820: We evaluate the entropy density at the electroweak phase
1821: transitions via $s = (2 \pi^2)/45 \times g_{\rm eff} (T) \, T^3$,
1822: with $g_{\rm eff} = 130.75$, resulting in $s = 57.35 \, T^3$.
1823: Similarly, to convert the present ratio $\rho_B/n_\gamma$
1824: to $Y_B$, we use the relation $s = 7.04 \, n_\gamma$.
1825: }
1826: $Y_{B} \equiv \rho_B/s$ as:
1827: %
1828: \be
1829: \label{eq:pheno1}
1830: Y_{B} = F_1\, \sin \phi_\mu \ + \ F_2\, \sin \left( \phi_\mu +
1831: \phi_A \right) \,,
1832: \ee
1833: %
1834: where we have isolated the dependence on the phases $\phi_\mu$ and
1835: $\phi_A$. The first term that contains $F_{1}$ stems from the Higgsino source, while the $F_{2}$ term arises from the squark source.
1836:
1837: The functions $F_{1}$ and $F_{2}$ display a common overall dependence on bubble
1838: wall parameters ($v_w$, $L_w$, $\Delta \beta$), while having distinct
1839: dependence on other MSSM mass paramters such as $|\mu|$, the soft mass parameters
1840: for gauginos ($M_{1,2}$) and squarks
1841: ($M_{\tilde{t}_L},M_{\tilde{t}_R}$), the triscalar coupling
1842: $|A_t|$, and $\tan \beta$. In order to assess the size of $Y_B$ and
1843: the impact on $CP$-violating phases, we must choose a reference region
1844: in the MSSM parameter space, and we follow two obvious guidelines: (i)
1845: we require that $v(T_c)/T_c \gsim 1$, so that the baryon asymmetry is
1846: not washed out in the broken symmetry phase; (ii) we require no
1847: conflict with precision electroweak physics and direct collider
1848: searches. Both criteria lead to non-trivial restrictions.
1849:
1850: \begin{figure}[!t]
1851: \centering
1852: \begin{picture}(300,170)
1853: \put(0,60){\makebox(50,50){\epsfig{figure=sh.eps,width=7.5cm}}}
1854: %\put(110,10){{\scriptsize $\displaystyle\frac{|\mu|}{T}$ }}
1855: %\put(350,10){{\scriptsize $\displaystyle\frac{|\mu|}{T}$ }}
1856: \put(110,10){{\scriptsize $\displaystyle |\mu| \ ({\rm GeV})$ }}
1857: \put(350,10){{\scriptsize $\displaystyle |\mu| \ ({\rm GeV})$ }}
1858: \put(240,60){\makebox(50,50){\epsfig{figure=gamma.eps,width=7.5cm}}}
1859: \put(-90,160){{\small $ \hat{S}_{\tilde{H}} $}}
1860: \put(150,160){{\small $ R_{\Gamma} $ }}
1861: \end{picture}
1862: \caption{
1863: Left panel: $CP$-violating Higgsino source
1864: $ \hat{S}_{\widetilde{H}} =
1865: -S_{\widetilde{H}}^{CP\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\mbox{\normalsize$\diagup$}}/(v^2 \dot{\beta} \sin \phi_\mu) $,
1866: as a function of $|\mu|$.
1867: Right panel: relaxation rate
1868: $ R_{\Gamma} = (\Gamma_h + \Gamma_{M}^{-})/(\Gamma_h + \Gamma_m)_{H.N.}$,
1869: normalized to the value used in~\cite{Huet:1995sh},
1870: as a function of $|\mu|$. We have taken $M_2 = 200\text{ GeV}$, and the values of all other parameters as indicated in the text.
1871: \label{fig:sg}
1872: }
1873: \end{figure}
1874: %
1875:
1876: The condition of a strongly first-order phase transition [$v(T_c)/T_c
1877: \gsim 1$] requires light scalar degrees of freedom coupling to the
1878: Higgs sector. It has been shown \cite{Carena:1997ki,Laine:1998qk}
1879: that within the MSSM the only viable candidate is a light top quark,
1880: which should be mainly right-handed ($\tilde{t}_R$) in order to avoid
1881: large contributions to the $\rho$ parameter. Quantitatively, for
1882: lightest Higgs boson mass $m_h \lsim 120$ GeV, one needs $100 \
1883: \mbox{GeV} \lsim m_{\tilde{t}} < m_t$, and sufficiently small stop
1884: mixing parameter $|A_t - \mu/\tan \beta | \lsim 0.6
1885: M_{\tilde{t}_L}$~\cite{Carena:1997ki}. Moreover, present experimental
1886: limits on $m_h$ and the constraint $v(T_c)/T_c \gsim 1$ jointly
1887: require either values of $\tan \beta >5$ or $M_{\tilde{t}_L}$ in the
1888: multi-TeV region~\cite{Carena:2000id}. Based on these considerations,
1889: for illustrative purposes we work with the following values of MSSM
1890: parameters at the electroweak scale: $M_{\tilde{t}_R} = 0$,
1891: $M_{\tilde{t}_L} = 1$ TeV, $|A_t| = 200$ GeV, $M_{2} = 200$ GeV, $\tan
1892: \beta = 10$. We also take for the $CP$-odd Higgs mass $m_A = 150$ GeV,
1893: which translates into $\Delta \beta \sim 0.015$~\cite{bubble}.
1894: We vary in the plots the scale $|\mu|$, in order to display the
1895: resonant behavior for $|\mu| \sim M_2$. Finally, for the bubble wall
1896: parameters we adopt the central values $v_w = 0.05$ and $L_w = 25/T$
1897: ~\cite{bubble}.
1898:
1899: %
1900: \begin{figure}[!t]
1901: \centering
1902: \begin{picture}(300,170)
1903: \put(0,60){\makebox(50,50){\epsfig{figure=F1.eps,width=7.5cm}}}
1904: \put(240,60){\makebox(50,50){\epsfig{figure=F2.eps,width=7.5cm}}}
1905: \put(110,10){{\scriptsize $\displaystyle |\mu| \ ({\rm GeV})$ }}
1906: \put(350,10){{\scriptsize $\displaystyle M_{\tilde{t}_L} \ ({\rm GeV})$ }}
1907: \put(-100,160){{\scriptsize
1908: $\displaystyle\frac{F_1}{Y_{B}^{\rm WMAP}}$
1909: }}
1910: \put(145,160){{\scriptsize
1911: $\displaystyle\frac{F_2}{Y_{B}^{\rm WMAP}}$
1912: }}
1913: \end{picture}
1914: \caption{Left panel: Higgsino contribution to $Y_B$
1915: ({\it Cf} Eq.~(\ref{eq:pheno1})), normalized to the observed value. $F_{1}$
1916: displays residual resonant behavior for $|\mu| \sim M_2$. All other
1917: input parameters are given in the text. Right panel: Stop
1918: contribution to $Y_B$ ({\it Cf} Eq.~(\ref{eq:pheno1})) normalized to
1919: the observed value. The upper curve is for
1920: $M_{\tilde{b}_L}=M_{\tilde{t}_L}$, while the lower one is for
1921: $M_{\tilde{b}_L} \gg M_{\tilde{t}_L}$. We have taken here
1922: $M_{\tilde{t}_R}= 100$ GeV, $| \mu | = 200$ GeV, and have allowed
1923: $M_{\tilde{t}_L}$ to reach unrealistically low values to explore the
1924: size of the squark resonance. For realistic input parameters $F_2 \ll
1925: F_1$.
1926: \label{fig:F1}
1927: }
1928: \end{figure}
1929:
1930: With the above choice of MSSM parameters, the stop-induced
1931: contribution to $Y_B$ is suppressed ($F_2 \sim 10^{-3} F_1$),
1932: since one is far off the squark resonance [$(M_{\tilde{t}_L} - M_{\tilde{t}_R}) \gg M_{\tilde{t}_R})$].
1933: On the other hand, the Higgsino-induced contribution $F_1$ can account for
1934: the observed $Y_B$ even without maximal values of $|\sin \phi_\mu |$.
1935: We highlight below the salient results of our study:
1936: %
1937: \begin{itemize}
1938: \item The primary result of our analysis is that both the source
1939: $S_{\tilde{H}}^{\CPV}$ and the relaxation term $\Gamma_h$ display
1940: the resonant behavior~\cite{Riotto:1998zb,Carena:1997gx} typical of
1941: quantum transport for $|\mu| \sim M_2$.
1942: We illustrate this in Fig.~\ref{fig:sg}: the left panel shows the
1943: behavior of the rescaled $CP$-violating higgsino source
1944: ${\hat S}_{\tilde H} \equiv -S_{\tilde{H}}^{\CPV}/(v^2 \dot{\beta} \sin \phi_\mu)$
1945: versus $|\mu|$, while the right panel displays the ratio $R_\Gamma$ of the
1946: relaxation term $(\Gamma_h + \Gamma_{M}^{-})$ as calculated in this
1947: work to the one used in previous studies, $(\Gamma_h + \Gamma_{M}^{-})_{H.N.}$~\cite{Huet:1995sh}. To our
1948: knowledge this is the first explicit calculation showing resonance
1949: behavior for the relaxation term ${\bar\Gamma}\sim r_\Gamma (\Gamma_h + \Gamma_{M}^{-})$.
1950:
1951: \item Since $F_1$ is proportional to
1952: $S_{\tilde{H}}^{\CPV}/\sqrt{\Gamma_{h} + \Gamma_{M}^-}$,
1953: the baryon asymmetry retains a resonant behavior, albeit with an
1954: attenuation of the peak due to the enhanced relaxation term. This is
1955: shown explicitly in Fig.~\ref{fig:F1}. In the left panel we plot
1956: $F_1/Y_{B}^{\rm WMAP}$, normalizing to the baryon asymmetry extracted
1957: from CMB studies~\cite{wmap}: $Y_B^{\rm WMAP} = (9.2 \pm 1.1)\times
1958: 10^{-11}$ (the quoted error corresponds to $95 \%$ CL).
1959:
1960: \item For completeness we also display in Fig.~\ref{fig:F1} (right
1961: panel) the behavior of the squark contribution $F_2/Y_{B}^{\rm WMAP}$
1962: as a function of $M_{\tilde{t}_L}$, with $M_{\tilde{t}_R}= 100$ GeV.
1963: Within the MSSM, precision electroweak data and the requirement that
1964: $v(T_c)/T_c \gsim 1$ force the masses to be far away from the peak region.
1965: However, in extensions of the MSSM where the phase transition is
1966: strenghtened by additional scalar degrees of freedom this
1967: contribution might be important (see, {\em e.g.}, Refs.~\cite{Dine:2003ax,Kang:2004pp}).
1968:
1969: \item For given values of the MSSM parameter space explored here, successful EWB carves out
1970: a band in $|\sin \phi_\mu|$ centered at $|\sin \phi_\mu| = Y_{B}^{\rm
1971: exp}/|F_1|$ (whose width depends on the uncertainty in $Y_B^{\rm
1972: exp}$). Due to the resonant behavior of $F_1$, the location of this
1973: band is highly sensitive to the relative size of $M_2$ and $|\mu|$. As
1974: illustration, in Fig.~\ref{fig:phimu} we plot the allowed band in the
1975: $|\sin \phi_\mu|$--$|\mu|$ plane determined by the baryon asymmetry,
1976: with all other MSSM parameters fixed as above. The
1977: bands in the plot combined together correspond to the baryon density determined from Big
1978: Bang Nucleosynthesis, $Y_B^{\rm BBN} = (7.3 \pm 2.5)\times 10^{-11}$
1979: (the error corresponds to $95 \%$ CL~\cite{pdg04}). Using WMAP
1980: input leads to the narrow, lighter-shaded band in our plot located at the upper edge
1981: of the BBN-induced band.
1982: \end{itemize}
1983:
1984: %
1985: \begin{figure}[!t]
1986: \centering
1987: \begin{picture}(300,180)
1988: \put(120,68){\makebox(50,50){\epsfig{figure=phimu.eps,width=11cm}}}
1989: \put(265,-9){{\small % \scriptsize
1990: $\displaystyle |\mu| \ ({\rm GeV})$ }}
1991: \put(-30,157){{\small %\scriptsize
1992: %$ {\rm Log} \, |\sin \phi_\mu| $
1993: $|\sin \phi_\mu| $
1994: }}
1995: \end{picture}
1996: \caption{
1997: Allowed band in the $ |\sin \phi_\mu| $--$|\mu|$ plane,
1998: obtained by requiring successful electroweak baryogenesis. All other
1999: MSSM parameters are given in the text. The light-shaded (green) narrow band
2000: corresponds to the experimental input from WMAP,
2001: while the two bands combined [dark (blue) + light (green)] correspond to input from
2002: Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.
2003: \label{fig:phimu}
2004: }
2005: \end{figure}
2006:
2007: We conclude this section with a brief account of the connections
2008: between the baryon asymmetry and EDM phenomenology. Since the Standard
2009: Model predictions are in general highly suppressed and well below
2010: present experimental sensitivity, limits on the electron, neutron, and
2011: atomic EDMs can be used to constrain the phases of a given new physics
2012: model. Present limits of interest to us are:
2013: \begin{equation*}
2014: |d_e| < 1.9 \times 10^{-27} e \cdot \text{cm}
2015: \ (95 \%\text{ CL})~\text{\cite{Regan:2002ta}} \ ,
2016: \qquad \qquad
2017: |d_{Hg}| < 2.1 \times 10^{-28} e \cdot \text{cm}
2018: \ (95 \%\text{ CL})~\text{\cite{Romalis:2000mg}}
2019: \ .
2020: \end{equation*}
2021: %
2022: Although a single EDM can be sufficiently small even for maximally
2023: large $CP$-violating phases (due to cancellations), constraints from more than one
2024: EDM can be very powerful. In Ref.~\cite{Falk:1999tm}, for example, it was pointed
2025: out how limits on electron and $^{199}$Hg EDMs single out a well
2026: defined region in the $\phi_\mu$--$\phi_A$ plane, for given values of
2027: gauginos, squark and slepton masses. As shown above, for each point
2028: in the MSSM paramter space, electroweak baryogenesis also selects a
2029: band in the $\phi_\mu$--$\phi_A$ plane. This implies in general
2030: non-trivial constraints on the MSSM parameter space, as the EDM-allowed region
2031: need not in general coincide with the one required by the baryon asymmetry.
2032:
2033: \begin{figure}[!t]
2034: \centering
2035: \begin{picture}(300,250)
2036: \put(-10,100){\makebox(50,50){\epsfig{figure=peak.eps,width=7.5cm}}}
2037: \put(240,100){\makebox(50,50){\epsfig{figure=offpeak.eps,width=7.5cm}}}
2038: \put(7,15){{\small $\phi_\mu$ (rad)}}
2039: \put(260,15){{\small $\phi_\mu$ (rad) }}
2040: \put(-100,130){{\small $\phi_A$ }}
2041: \put(-105,115){{\small (rad)}}
2042: \put(150,130){{\small $\phi_A$ }}
2043: \put(145,115){{\small (rad)}}
2044: %%%%%%%%%%% right panel %%%%%%%%%%%%
2045: \put(250,70){{\small $d_e$ }}
2046: \put(320,90){{\small $d_{Hg}$ }}
2047: \put(205,75){{\scriptsize EWB}}
2048: %%%%%%%%% left panel %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2049: \put(-20,60){{\scriptsize EWB }}
2050: \put(45,170){{\small $d_e$ }}
2051: \put(80,100){{\small $d_{Hg}$ }}
2052: \end{picture}
2053: \caption{ Allowed bands in the $\phi_\mu$--$\phi_A$ plane implied by
2054: consistency with the $95 \%$ C.L. limits on electron EDM ($|d_e| < 1.9
2055: \times 10^{-27} e \cdot {\rm cm} $~\cite{Regan:2002ta}),
2056: mercury EDM ($|d_{Hg}| < 2.1 \times 10^{-28} e
2057: \cdot {\rm cm}$~\cite{Romalis:2000mg}), and baryogenesis.
2058: The shaded [dark (blue) and light (green) combined] EWB band corresponds to BBN
2059: input~\cite{pdg04}, while the narrow light-shaded (green)
2060: band on the left corresponds to WMAP input~\cite{wmap}.
2061: In the left panel we use $|\mu| = M_2 = 200$ GeV (resonance peak),
2062: while in the right panel we use
2063: $M_2= 200$ GeV and $|\mu| = 250$ GeV (off resonance). In both cases
2064: the other supersymmetric masses are as specified in the text.
2065: \label{fig:bands}
2066: }
2067: \end{figure}
2068:
2069: To illustrate this situation, we have evaluated the bands in $\phi_\mu-\phi_A$
2070: allowed by present limits on electron EDM, mercury EDM, and EWB
2071: for two representative points in the MSSM parameter space
2072: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:bands}). In our analysis we take the expressions
2073: for the electron EDM and quark chromo-electric dipole moments from
2074: Ref.~\cite{Ibrahim:1997gj}. In relating the $^{199}$Hg EDM to the
2075: quark-level $CP$-violating couplings, we follow the treatment of
2076: Ref.~\cite{Falk:1999tm}~\footnote{For a recent reanalysis of hadronic
2077: EDMs in SUSY see Ref.~\cite{Hisano:2004tf}.}, where it was shown that
2078: the dominant contribution arises from the chromo-electric dipole
2079: moments of quarks ($\tilde{d}_q$) according to
2080: %
2081: \be
2082: d_{Hg} = - \left(\tilde{d}_d - \tilde{d}_u - 0.012 \tilde{d}_s \right)
2083: \times 3.2 \cdot 10^{-2} e \ .
2084: \ee
2085: %
2086: According to the same authors, the analysis of the neutron EDM involves additional effects, such as the $CP$-violating three-gluon operator ${\tilde G}GG$, that require a detailed analysis going beyond the scope of the present work. Although the experimental bounds on the neutron EDM---as well as the prospects for future improvements---are competitive with those for the electron and neutral atoms, we defer an analysis of its implications for EWB to a future study.
2087: We also neglect the renormalization group evolution of
2088: $\phi_\mu$ and $\phi_A$ from the weak scale to the atomic scale, having assumed a common, flavor-independent phase for the tri-scalar coupling at the former.
2089:
2090: The plots in Fig.~\ref{fig:bands} correspond to taking the first and
2091: second generation sfermions, along with the gluinos, to be degenerate with masses equal to
2092: 750 GeV; the gaugino mass $M_1 = 100$ GeV; and the triscalar coupling
2093: $A = 200$ GeV. We consider then two cases for $M_2$ and $\mu$: the
2094: left panel corresponds to the resonance peak $M_2=|\mu| = 200$ GeV,
2095: while the right panel corresponds to off-resonance parameters $M_2=
2096: 200$ GeV, $|\mu| = 250$ GeV. For these choices of MSSM parameters, Eq.~(\ref{eq:pheno1}) predicts for $Y_B$:
2097: \begin{align*}
2098: M_2 = \abs{\mu} = 200\text{ GeV}:\qquad Y_B &= -1.3\times 10^{-8}\sin\phi_\mu + 1.7\times 10^{-11}\sin(\phi_A + \phi_\mu) \\
2099: M_2 = 200\text{ GeV}, \abs{\mu} = 250\text{ GeV}:\, Y_B &= -2.0\times 10^{-9}\sin\phi_\mu + 4.6\times 10^{-11}\sin(\phi_A + \phi_\mu)
2100: \end{align*}
2101: These cases illustrate the main trend:
2102: for $M_2 \sim |\mu|$ electroweak baryogenesis requires relatively
2103: small phases, and is consistent with the constraints from EDMs. As
2104: one moves off resonance, then larger phases are needed to generate
2105: the observed baryon asymmetry, and this requirement tends to conflict with the EDM constraints. Indeed, within our simplified analysis, we find that
2106: baryogenesis and EDM constraints become inconsistent for $|\mu| - M_2
2107: \gsim 50$ GeV, when all other superpartners are kept around $750$ GeV.
2108: Of course, increasing (decreasing) the sfermion masses relaxes
2109: (tightens) the EDM limits on $CP$-violating phases and affects the above
2110: conclusion.
2111:
2112: Ultimately, if supersymmetry is discovered at collider experiments,
2113: spectroscopy will dictate the input for mass parameters. Then joint
2114: constraints from low-energy EDM measurements and collider searches
2115: could be used to tightly test the scenario of baryogenesis at the
2116: electroweak scale.
2117:
2118:
2119: \section{Conclusions}
2120: \label{sec:summary}
2121:
2122: It is instructive to consider the essential physics leading to the enhanced sources and relaxation terms discussed in this work. The propagation of quasiparticles in the plasma is modified by scattering from the spacetime varying Higgs vevs that causes transitions to intermediate states involving other quasiparticle species. The system retains some memory of each scattering due to the presence of thermal widths, $\Gamma_i$, that reflect the degeneracy of states in the thermal bath. For $\Gamma_i=0$, the oscillating exponentials appearing in the Green's functions wash out any memory of the scattering. For $\Gamma_i\not\!= 0$, the Green's functions now contain decaying exponentials as well as oscillating terms, and the memory wash out is incomplete. The impact of quantum memory effects are, thus, characterized by the ratio of time scales, $\tau_{\rm int}/\tau_p\sim \Gamma_i/\omega_i$, where $\tau_{\rm int}$ is the characteristic propagation time associated with a quasiparticle of frequency $\omega_i$ and $\tau_p\sim 1/\Gamma_i$, the plasma time, is time scale on which transitions between the quasiparticle and other, degenerate states may occur. To the extent that the quasiparticle thermal mass and/or three-momentum is large compared to $\Gamma_i$, this ratio $\tau_{\rm int}/\tau_p$ is ${\cal O}(\epsilon)$.
2123:
2124: A special situation arises, however, when the spacetime variation of the Higgs vevs is gentle and the thermal mass of an intermediate state is close to that of the initial state. Under these conditions, the scattering event injects essentially zero four-momentum into the initial state $i$, leading to resonant production of the intermediate state $j$. The characteristic lifetime of the latter is no longer $\tau_{\rm int}\sim 1/\omega_i$, but rather the resonance time scale
2125: \be
2126: \tau_{\rm res}\sim \frac{1}{\sqrt{\Delta\omega^2+\Gamma_{ij}^2}}\ \ \ ,
2127: \ee
2128: where $\Delta\omega=\omega_i-\omega_j$ and $\Gamma_{ij}=\Gamma_i+\Gamma_j$ [see, {\em e.g.}, Eqs. (\ref{appx:scalar5}-\ref{appx:gammascalarpm}) and (\ref{appx:gammaHiggsinopm}-\ref{appx:chargino3}) of Appendix \ref{appx:expand}]. In this case, the impact of quantum memory is characterized by the ratio $\tau_{\rm res}/\tau_p$. For $|\Delta\omega| \ll \Gamma_{ij}$, this ratio becomes of ${\cal O}(1)$, and the impact of quantum memory is resonantly enhanced\footnote{An examination of Eqs. (\ref{appx:scalar5}-\ref{appx:gammascalarpm}) and (\ref{appx:gammaHiggsinopm}-\ref{appx:chargino3}) of Appendix \ref{appx:expand}, {\em etc.} indicates the presence of an additional, dynamical enhancement factor $\sim\omega/\sqrt{\Delta\omega^2+\Gamma_{ij}^2}$ in the relevant integrals.}. On the other hand, for $|\Delta\omega|\gg\Gamma_{ij}$, the ratio is ${\cal O}(\epsilon)$ and one returns to the more generic conditions.
2129:
2130: In this study, we have shown how this effect can enhance both the particle number-changing relaxation terms as well as the $CP$-violating sources that enter the transport equations relevant to electroweak baryogenesis. Importantly, the effect of resonant relaxation tends to mitigate the impact of resonantly-enhanced sources, as both enhancements occur under the same conditions for the electroweak model parameters (in this case, those of the MSSM). We suspect that analogous resonant effects occur in other transport coefficients, such as the $\Gamma_Y$ Yukawa terms discussed above, but that the conditions on model parameters leading to enhancements---owing to simple kinematic considerations---will be different. It may be, for example, that the Yukawa interactions are no longer fast compared to the Higgs vev induced transitions when the latter are resonantly enhanced, and in this case, the solution to the differential equations will differ from the general structure obtained here and by other authors. This possibility is one that should be explored in future work.
2131:
2132: Additional refinements of the present analysis are clearly in order, including some form of all-orders resummation of the Higgs vev insertions (possibly along the lines proposed in Refs. \cite{Carena:2000id,Prokopec})
2133: and a treatment of the axial charge transport equations via Eq. (\ref{eq:fermion1b}). In principle, one would also like to study the density dependence of the thermal frequencies and widths, the impact of nonzero gaugino densities, variations in bubble wall geometry, and possibly higher-order effects in $\epsilon$, such as the departure of $\delta f$ of the thermal distribution functions from their equilibrium values. In short, it is apparent that EWB is not yet a solved problem, but rather one that calls for additional study.
2134:
2135: Undertaking this effort will be important for electroweak phenomenology. As illustrated here as well as in other studies (\emph{e.g.}, \cite{Balazs:2004ae}), determining the viability of EWB within a given electroweak model involves a detailed interplay of collider phenomenology, precision electroweak data, EDM searches, and a careful treatment of the dynamics of the electroweak phase transition. In particular, in light of the open questions pertaining to the latter, it is too soon to draw definitive conclusions about the implications of the next generation of EDM searches for the baryon asymmetry. One hopes, however, that by the time these searches obtain their first results, the context for their theoretical interpretation will have been further clarified.
2136:
2137:
2138:
2139:
2140:
2141: \acknowledgments The authors are grateful for the support from the
2142: Institute for Nuclear Theory, where part of this work was completed.
2143: This work was supported in part by U.S. Department of Energy contracts
2144: DE-FG03-02ER41215 and DE-FG03-92ER40701, and by a National Science
2145: Foundation Grant PHY00-71856. VC was supported by a Sherman Fairchild
2146: Fellowship. CL was supported in part by a National Defense Science and
2147: Engineering Graduate Fellowship.
2148:
2149: \appendix
2150:
2151: \section{Propagators at Finite Temperature and Density}
2152: \label{appx:props}
2153:
2154: In this section, we derive some useful properties of propagators at finite temperature and density, using derivations based on those for the case of finite temperature and zero density in Refs.~\cite{Weldon:1989ys,Weldon:1999th}.
2155:
2156: \subsection{General Structure of Fermion Propagators}
2157:
2158: We begin with the spectral function for fermions at temperature $T = 1/\beta$ in the presence of a chemical potential $\mu$:
2159: \begin{equation}
2160: \label{rhodef}
2161: \rho_{\alpha\beta}(x) = \frac{1}{Z}\Tr\left[e^{-\beta(\op{H}-\mu\op{N})}\{\psi_\alpha(x),\bar\psi_\beta(0)\}\right],
2162: \end{equation}
2163: where $Z = \Tr[e^{-\beta(\op{H}-\mu\op{N})}]$. It is convenient to define the retarded and advanced propagators:
2164: \begin{subequations}
2165: \label{SRSAdef}
2166: \begin{align}
2167: S^R(x) &= \theta(x^0)\rho(x) \\
2168: S^A(x) &= -\theta(x^0)\rho(x),
2169: \end{align}
2170: \end{subequations}
2171: supressing spinor indices. The Fourier transforms of $S^{R,A}(x)$ and $\rho(x)$ are related by:
2172: \begin{subequations}
2173: \begin{align}
2174: S^R(k^0,\vect{k}) &= i\int_{-\infty}^\infty\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}\frac{\rho(\omega,\vect{k})}{k^0 - \omega + i\epsilon} \\
2175: S^A(k^0,\vect{k}) &= i\int_{-\infty}^\infty\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}\frac{\rho(\omega,\vect{k})}{k^0 - \omega - i\epsilon} \,.
2176: \end{align}
2177: \end{subequations}
2178: It is possible to express the momentum-space spectral function in terms of a single product of $\psi_\alpha(x)$ and $\bar\psi_\beta(x)$ instead of the anticommutator in Eq.~(\ref{rhodef}), whose Fourier transform is:
2179: \begin{equation}
2180: \begin{split}
2181: \rho_{\alpha\beta}(\omega,\vect{k}) &= \int d^4 x\,e^{i(\omega t - \vect{k}\cdot\vect{x})}\rho_{\alpha\beta}(t,\vect{x}) \\
2182: &= \int d^4 x\,e^{i(\omega t - \vect{k}\cdot\vect{x})}\frac{1}{Z}\sum_n\bra{n}e^{-\beta(\op{H}-\mu\op{N})}\bigl[\psi_\alpha(x)\bar\psi_\beta(0) + \bar\psi_\beta(0)\psi_\alpha(x)\bigr]\ket{n}.
2183: \end{split}
2184: \end{equation}
2185: Now insert a complete set of states between the fermion fields:
2186: \begin{equation}
2187: \label{complete}
2188: \begin{split}
2189: \rho(\omega,\vect{k}) = \int d^4 x\,e^{i(\omega t - \vect{k}\cdot\vect{x})}\frac{1}{Z}\sum_{n,j}\Bigl[&\bra{n}e^{-\beta(\op{H}-\mu\op{N})}\psi_\alpha(x)\ket{j}\bra{j}\bar\psi_\beta(0)\ket{n} \\
2190: + &\bra{n}e^{-\beta(\op{H}-\mu\op{N})}\bar\psi_\beta(0)\ket{j}\bra{j}\psi_\alpha(x)\ket{n}\Bigr].
2191: \end{split}
2192: \end{equation}
2193: We can rewrite the second term by switching summation labels and translating $\psi_\alpha$ from $x$ to 0:
2194: \begin{equation}
2195: \begin{split}
2196: \sum_{n,j}&\bra{n}e^{-\beta(\op{H}-\mu\op{N})}\bar\psi_\beta(0)\ket{j}\bra{j}\psi_\alpha(x)\ket{n} \\
2197: &=\sum_{j,n}e^{i(E_n-E_j)t} e^{-i(\vect{k}_n-\vect{k}_j)\cdot\vect x}e^{-\beta E_j}e^{\beta\mu(N_n+1)}\bra{n}\psi_\alpha(0)\ket{j}\bra{j}\bar\psi_\beta(0)\ket{n},
2198: \end{split}
2199: \end{equation}
2200: which after integrating in Eq.~(\ref{complete}), becomes
2201: \begin{equation}
2202: \frac{1}{Z}\sum_{j,n}(2\pi)^4\delta(\omega+E_n-E_j)\delta^3(\vect{k}+\vect{k}_n-\vect{k}_j)e^{-\beta(E_n+\omega)}e^{\beta\mu(N_n+1)}\bra{n}\psi_\alpha(0)\ket{j}\bra{j}\bar\psi_\beta(0)\ket{n},
2203: \end{equation}
2204: where we used the first delta function to replace $E_j$ with $E_n+\omega$ in the exponential $e^{-\beta E_j}$. This can now be written:
2205: \begin{equation}
2206: e^{-\beta(\omega-\mu)}\frac{1}{Z}\int d^4 x\,e^{i(\omega t - \vect{k}\cdot\vect{x})}\sum_{n,j}\bra{n}e^{-\beta(\op{H}-\mu\op{N})}\psi_{\alpha}(x)\ket{j}\bra{j}\bar\psi_\beta(0)\ket{n}
2207: \end{equation}
2208: which is $e^{-\beta(\omega-\mu)}$ times the first term of Eq.~(\ref{complete}), so we conclude:
2209: \begin{equation}
2210: \label{rhomom1}
2211: \rho(\omega,\vect{k}) = \left[1 + e^{-\beta(\omega-\mu)}\right]\int d^4 x\,e^{i(\omega t-\vect{k}\cdot\vect{x})}\frac{1}{Z}\Tr\bigl[e^{-\beta(\op{H}-\mu\op{N})}\psi_\alpha(x)\bar\psi_\beta(0)\bigr].
2212: \end{equation}
2213: Similarly, we could have manipulated the first term of Eq.~(\ref{complete}) in the same way, and derived the companion relation:
2214: \begin{equation}
2215: \label{rhomom2}
2216: \rho(\omega,\vect{k}) = \left[1 + e^{\beta(\omega-\mu)}\right]\int d^4 x\,
2217: e^{i(\omega t-\vect{k}\cdot\vect{x})}\frac{1}{Z}
2218: \Tr\bigl[e^{-\beta(\op{H}-\mu\op{N})}\bar\psi_\beta(0)\psi_\alpha(x)\bigr].
2219: \end{equation}
2220: The Green's functions $S^>(k^0,\vect{k})$ and $-S^<(k^0,\vect{k})$ appear on the right-hand sides of Eqs.~(\ref{rhomom1},\ref{rhomom2}), giving the relations:
2221: \begin{subequations}
2222: \label{S>S<fromrho}
2223: \begin{align}
2224: S^>(k^0,\vect{k}) &= [1 - n_F(k^0-\mu)]\rho(k^0,\vect{k}) \\
2225: S^<(k^0,\vect{k}) &= -n_F(k^0-\mu)\rho(k^0,\vect{k}),
2226: \end{align}
2227: \end{subequations}
2228: where $n_F(x) = 1/(1 + e^x)$.
2229:
2230: The various Green's functions satisfy the identities:
2231: \begin{subequations}
2232: \begin{align}
2233: S^t(x,y) &= S^R(x,y) + S^<(x,y) = S^A(x,y) + S^>(x,y) \\
2234: S^{\bar t}(x,y) &= S^>(x,y) - S^R(x,y) = S^<(x,y) - S^A(x,y)\,,
2235: \end{align}
2236: \end{subequations}
2237: %
2238: which follow directly from the definitions in
2239: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Greens1},\ref{SRSAdef}). Thus, using
2240: Eq.~(\ref{S>S<fromrho}), the time- and anti-time-ordered propagators
2241: can be expressed in terms of the retarded and advanced propagators:
2242: %
2243: \begin{subequations}
2244: \label{StfromSR}
2245: \begin{align}
2246: S^t(k^0,\vect{k}) &= [1 - n_F(k^0-\mu)]S^R(k^0,\vect{k}) +
2247: n_F(k^0-\mu)S^A(k^0,\vect{k}) \\
2248: S^{\bar t}(k^0,\vect{k}) &= -n_F(k^0-\mu)S^R(k^0,\vect{k}) -
2249: [1-n_F(k^0-\mu)]S^A(k^0,\vect{k})\,.
2250: \end{align}
2251: \end{subequations}
2252: Also note that $\rho = S^R-S^A = S^> - S^<$.
2253:
2254: \subsection{Bosonic Propagators}
2255:
2256: Similar results may be derived from scalar bosonic propagators, for which the analog to Eq.~(\ref{S>S<fromrho}) is:
2257: \begin{subequations}
2258: \begin{align}
2259: G^>(k^0,\vect{k}) &= [1+n_B(k^0-\mu)]\rho(k^0,\vect{k}) \\
2260: G^<(k^0,\vect{k}) &= n_B(k^0-\mu)\rho(k^0,\vect{k})\,,
2261: \end{align}
2262: \end{subequations}
2263: where the momentum-space spectral function $\rho(k^0,\vect{k})$ for bosons is the Fourier transform of:
2264: \begin{equation}
2265: \rho(x) = \frac{1}{Z}\Tr\left\{e^{-\beta(\op{H}-\mu\op{N})}[\phi(x),\phi^*(0)]\right\}\,.
2266: \end{equation}
2267: The bosonic propagators also satisfy the identity $\rho = G^R - G^A = G^> - G^<$.
2268:
2269: \subsection{Tree-Level Propagators}
2270:
2271: At tree level, the propagators $S^{R,A}$ for fermions are given by:
2272: \begin{equation}
2273: S^{R,A}(k^0,\vect{k}) = \frac{i(\diracslash{k} + m)}{(k^0\pm i\epsilon)^2 - E_{\vect{k}}^2}\,,
2274: \end{equation}
2275: and $G^{R,A}$ for bosons are given by:
2276: \begin{equation}
2277: G^{R,A}(k^0,\vect{k}) = \frac{i}{(k^0\pm i\epsilon)^2 - E_{\vect{k}}^2}\,,
2278: \end{equation}
2279: where $E_{\vect{k}}^2 = \abs{\vect{k}}^2 + m^2$. Note that these propagators are independent of the temperature and chemical potential, which only enter in the thermal distribution functions appearing in the relations of the retarded and advanced propagators to the other Green's functions, for example, in Eq.~(\ref{StfromSR}).
2280:
2281: \subsection{One-Loop Corrections to Massless Fermion Propagators}
2282:
2283: Resumming the one-loop self-energy into the fermion propagator at finite temperature changes the pole structure of the propagator dramatically, introducing a new collective ``hole'' excitation of the plasma \cite{Klimov,Weldon:1989ys}. In fact, this structure can be shown to hold even beyond perturbation theory \cite{Weldon:1999th}. Extending the results of Ref.~\cite{Weldon:1999th} to include dependence on a chemical potential, the propagator takes the form given in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:slambdaint}--\ref{eq:rhominus}). Recall that in those equations $\mathcal{E}_{p,h} = \omega_{p,h} - i\Gamma_{p,h}$ are the complex poles of the spectral function, and $Z_{p,h}$ are the corresponding residues. At leading order in the ``hard thermal loop'' approximation (see Ref.~\cite{LeBellac}), calculating the poles only to order $\mathcal{E}\sim gT$, one finds $\Gamma = 0$, and $Z_{p,h}(k,\mu)$ and $\omega_{p,h}(k,\mu)$, where $k = \abs{\vect{k}}$, depend only quadratically on $\mu/T$, which we thus neglect in our analysis in the present work, where we keep only effects linear in $\mu/T$. In this limit, and including only a single gluon loop in the quark self-energy diagram, the poles of the spectral function are given by the solutions to the equation:
2284: \begin{equation}
2285: 0 = k^0 - k - \frac{\alpha_s C_F\pi T^2}{4k}\left[\left(1-\frac{k^0}{k}\right)\log\abs{\frac{k^0+k}{k^0-k}} + 2\right]\,,
2286: \end{equation}
2287: where $C_F = 4/3$ is the Casimir of the fundamental representation of $SU(3)$. The solutions to this equation give the poles $k^0 = E_p(k), -E_h(k)$. The residues satisfy:
2288: \begin{equation}
2289: Z_{p,h}(k) = \frac{E_{p,h}^2 - k^2}{m_f^2}\,,
2290: \end{equation}
2291: where
2292: \begin{equation}
2293: m_f^2 = \frac{\alpha_s C_F\pi T^2}{2}\,.
2294: \end{equation}
2295: Calculation of the imaginary parts $\Gamma_{p,h}$ of the poles, since they begin at order $g^2 T$, requires a resummation of hard thermal loops in self-energy diagrams \cite{Braaten:1989mz,Braaten:1991gm,Braaten:1992gd}. We are also interested in their dependence on the chemical potential $\mu$. We leave the calculation of these effects to a future study.
2296:
2297:
2298:
2299:
2300: \section{Expanded Source Terms for Quantum Transport}
2301: \label{appx:expand}
2302:
2303: \subsection{Bosons}
2304:
2305: The $CP$-conserving source term for right-handed stops in Eq.~(\ref{eq:scalar5}) can be expanded by explicitly taking the imaginary part of the integrand:
2306: \begin{align}
2307: \label{appx:scalar5}
2308: S^{CP}_{{\tilde t}_R}(x) = -\frac{1}{T}&\frac{N_C y_t^2}{2\pi^2}\abs{A_t v_u(x) - \mu^* v_d(x)}^2
2309: \int_0^\infty\frac{k^2 dk}{\omega_R\omega_L} \\
2310: \nonumber
2311: \times\biggl\{&\mu_R\left[{1\over\Delta}\left(\sin\phi\Imag h_R^++\cos\phi\
2312: {\rm Re}\ h_R^+\right)
2313: -{1\over\delta}\left(\cos\theta\Real h_R^+-\sin\theta\Imag h_R^+\right)\right]\\
2314: \nonumber
2315: +&\mu_L\left[{1\over\Delta}\left(\sin\phi\Imag h_L^+-\cos\phi\Real h_L^+\right)
2316: +{1\over\delta}\left(\cos\theta\Real h_L^+ - \sin\theta\Imag h_L^+\right)\right]\biggr\}\,,
2317: \end{align}
2318: where
2319: \bea
2320: \label{appx:scalardefs}
2321: \omega_{L,R} & = & \sqrt{\abs{\vect{k}}^2+M_{{\tilde t}_{L,R}}^2}\\
2322: \nonumber
2323: \Delta & = & \sqrt{(\Gamma_L + \Gamma_R)^2+(\omega_L - \omega_R)^2}\\
2324: \nonumber
2325: \delta & = & \sqrt{(\Gamma_L + \Gamma_R)^2+(\omega_L + \omega_R)^2}\\
2326: \nonumber
2327: \tan\theta & = & \frac{\omega_L + \omega_R}{\Gamma_L + \Gamma_R} \\
2328: \nonumber
2329: \tan\phi & = & \frac{\omega_L - \omega_R}{\Gamma_L + \Gamma_R} \\
2330: \nonumber
2331: h_{L,R}^\pm & = & \frac{\exp[(\omega_{L,R}\pm i\Gamma_{L,R})/T]}
2332: {\{\exp[(\omega_{L,R}\pm i\Gamma_{L,R})/T]-1\}^{2}}
2333: \eea
2334: and where $\Gamma_{L,R}$ are the thermal widths for the ${\tilde
2335: t}_{L,R}$. The rates $\Gamma_{\tilde t}^\pm$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:gammascalarpm}) can then be expressed:
2336: \begin{align}
2337: \label{appx:gammascalarpm}
2338: \Gamma_{\tilde t}^{\pm} = -\frac{1}{T}\frac{y_t^2}{4\pi^2}\abs{A_t v_u(x) - \mu^* v_d(x)}^2 & \\
2339: \nonumber
2340: \times\int_0^\infty\frac{k^2 dk}{\omega_R\omega_L}
2341: \biggl\{\frac{1}{\Delta}&\left[\sin\phi\Imag(h_L^+\pm h_R^+)-
2342: \cos\phi\Real(h_L^+\mp h_R^+)\right]\\
2343: \nonumber
2344: +{1\over\delta}&\left[\cos\theta\Real(h_L^+\mp h_R^+) -
2345: \sin\theta \Imag(h_L^+\mp h_R^+)\right]\biggr\}\,.
2346: \end{align}
2347: Meanwhile, the $CP$-violating source given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:scalarcp1}) can be expanded:
2348: \begin{align}
2349: \label{appx:scalarcp1}
2350: S^{\CPV}_{{\tilde t}_R}(x) = N_C y_t^2&\Imag
2351: (\mu A_t) v(x)^2{\dot\beta}(x) \int_0^\infty{k^2 dk\over 2\pi^2}{1
2352: \over\omega_L\omega_R} \\
2353: \nonumber
2354: \times\biggl\{ &{1\over\delta^2}\left[\Real \left(1+n_R^++n_L^+\right)
2355: \sin 2\theta+
2356: \Imag\left(n_R^++n_L^+\right)\cos 2\theta\right]\\
2357: \nonumber
2358: +&{1\over\Delta^2}\left[\Real\left(n_R^+-n_L^+\right)
2359: \sin 2\phi -
2360: \Imag\left(n_R^++n_L^+\right)\cos 2\phi\right]\biggr\}\,,
2361: \end{align}
2362: where $n_{L,R}^\pm = n_B(\omega_{\tilde t_{L,R}} \pm \Gamma_{L,R})$.
2363: Our result agrees with that of Ref.~\cite{Riotto:1998zb} except for a
2364: different relative sign in front of the $\cos 2\phi$ term and the overall factor of $N_C$.
2365:
2366:
2367: \subsection{Massive Fermions}
2368:
2369: The $CP$-conserving rates for Higgsino-gaugino interactions given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:gammaHiggsinopm}) can be expanded:
2370: \begin{align}
2371: \label{appx:gammaHiggsinopm}
2372: \Gamma_{\widetilde H^\pm}^{\pm} = g_2^2 {v(x)^2}&\frac{1}{T}
2373: \int_0^\infty{k^2 dk\over 2\pi^2}\left({1\over\omh\omw}\right) \\
2374: \nonumber
2375: \times\Biggl(
2376: &{1\over\Delta}\biggl\{
2377: \left[\omh\omw+\gamh\gamw- k^2 + M_2\abs{\mu}\cos\theta_\mu\sin 2\beta(x)\right] \\
2378: \nonumber
2379: &\qquad\qquad\times\Bigl[\cos\phi\Real(\kwtilp \mp \khtilp) - \sin\phi\Imag(\kwtilp \pm \khtilp)\Bigr]\\
2380: \nonumber
2381: &\qquad+\left[\gamh\omw-\gamw\omh\right]\left[\sin\phi\Real(\kwtilp\mp\khtilp)
2382: +\cos\phi\Imag(\kwtilp\pm\khtilp)\right]\biggr\}\\
2383: \nonumber
2384: +&
2385: {1\over\delta}\biggl\{
2386: \left[\omh\omw-\gamh\gamw+ k^2- M_2\abs{\mu}\cos\theta_\mu\sin 2\beta(x)\right] \\
2387: \nonumber
2388: &\qquad\qquad\times\Bigl[
2389: \cos\theta\Real(\kwtilp\mp\khtilp) -\sin\theta\Imag(\kwtilp\mp\khtilp)\Bigr]\\
2390: \nonumber
2391: &\qquad-\left[\gamh\omw+\gamw\omh\right]\left[
2392: \cos\theta\Imag(\kwtilp\mp\khtilp)+\sin\theta\Real(\kwtilp\mp\khtilp)\right]\biggr\}\Biggr)
2393: \end{align}
2394: where
2395: \bea
2396: \label{appx:fermiondefs}
2397: \omega_{\widetilde H,\widetilde W} & = & \sqrt{\abs{\vect{k}}^2+M_{\widetilde H,\widetilde W}^2}\\
2398: \nonumber
2399: \Delta & = & \sqrt{(\Gamma_{\widetilde W} + \Gamma_{\widetilde H})^2+(\omega_{\widetilde W} - \omega_{\widetilde H})^2}\\
2400: \nonumber
2401: \delta & = & \sqrt{(\Gamma_{\widetilde W} + \Gamma_{\widetilde H})^2+(\omega_{\widetilde W} + \omega_{\widetilde H})^2}\\
2402: \nonumber
2403: \tan\theta & = & \frac{\omega_{\widetilde W} + \omega_{\widetilde H}}{\Gamma_{\widetilde W} + \Gamma_{\widetilde H}} \\
2404: \nonumber
2405: \tan\phi & = & \frac{\omega_{\widetilde W} - \omega_{\widetilde H}}{\Gamma_{\widetilde W} + \Gamma_{\widetilde H}} \\
2406: \nonumber
2407: h_{{\widetilde W},{\widetilde H}}^\pm &=& \frac{\exp[(\omega_{{\widetilde W},{\widetilde H}}\pm i\Gamma_{{\widetilde W},{\widetilde H}})/T]}{\{\exp[(\omega_{{\widetilde W},{\widetilde H}}\pm i\Gamma_{{\widetilde W},{\widetilde H}})/T]+1\}^{2}}
2408: \end{eqnarray}
2409: The $CP$-violating Higgsino source in Eq.~(\ref{eq:chargino3}) can be expressed:
2410: \begin{align}
2411: \label{appx:chargino3}
2412: S^{\CPV}_{\widetilde H^\pm}(x) =
2413: \nonumber
2414: 2 g_2^2 M_2 &\Imag(\mu) v(x)^2{\dot\beta}\ \int_0^\infty\
2415: {k^2 dk\over 2\pi^2}\left({1\over \omh\omw}\right)
2416: \\
2417: \times\biggl\{&{1\over\Delta^2}\left[\sin 2\phi\ {\rm Re}\left(\nwtilp-\nhtilp\right)+\cos 2\phi\
2418: {\rm Im}\left(\nwtilp+\nhtilp\right)\right]\\
2419: \nonumber
2420: +&{1\over\delta^2}\left[\sin 2\theta\ {\rm Re}\left(1-\nwtilp-\nhtilp\right)
2421: -\cos 2\theta\ {\rm Im}\left(\nwtilp+\nhtilp\right)\right]\biggr\}\,,
2422: \end{align}
2423: where $N_{\widetilde H,\widetilde W}^\pm = n_B(\omega_{\widetilde H,\widetilde W}\pm i\Gamma_{\widetilde H,\widetilde W})$.
2424: Our result agrees with that of Ref. \cite{Riotto:1998zb} except for
2425: the sign of the $\cos 2\phi$ term.
2426:
2427:
2428:
2429: \subsection{Chiral Fermions}
2430: For chiral fermions, the $CP$-conserving chirality-changing rates in Eq.~(\ref{eq:gquarkplusminus}) can be expanded:
2431: \begin{align}
2432: \label{appx:gquarkplus}
2433: \Gamma_{t_R}^{\pm} = \frac{1}{T}\frac{N_C y_t v_u^2}{\pi^2}&\int_0^\infty k^2 dk \\
2434: \times\biggl\{\frac{Z_p^R Z_p^L}{\delta_p}&\Bigr[\sin\theta_p\bigl\{\Real(\lambda_p^L \kplp \mp \lambda_p^R \kprp) - \Imag(\kplp\mp \kprp)\bigr\} + \cos\theta_p\Real(\kplp \mp \kprp) \nonumber \\
2435: &+ \frac{T}{\delta_p}\cos 2\theta_p(\lambda_p^L \mp \lambda_p^R)\Real(1-N_{pL}^+ - N_{pR}^+)\Bigr] \nonumber \\
2436: -\frac{Z_p^L Z_h^R}{\Delta_{hp}}&\Bigl[\sin\phi_{hp}\bigl\{\Real(\lambda_p^L\kplp \pm \lambda_h^R\khrp) - \Imag(\kplp \pm \khrp)\bigr\} - \cos\phi_{hp}\Real(\kplp \mp \khrp) \nonumber \\
2437: & + \frac{T}{\Delta_{hp}}\cos 2\phi_{hp}(\lambda_p^L\pm\lambda_h^R)\Real(N_{pL}^+ - N_{hR}^+)\Bigr] \nonumber \\
2438: + (p\leftrightarrow h) &\biggr\} \nonumber
2439: \end{align}
2440: where
2441: \begin{equation}
2442: \begin{split}
2443: \delta_p &= \sqrt{(\omega_p^R + \omega_p^L)^2 + (\Gamma_p^R + \Gamma_p^L)^2} \\
2444: \Delta_{hp} &= \sqrt{(\omega_p^L - \omega_h^R)^2 + (\Gamma_h^R + \Gamma_p^L)^2} \\
2445: h_{pL}^\pm &= h_F(\omega_p^L \pm i\Gamma_p^L)\text{, etc.} \\
2446: N_{pL}^\pm &= n_F(\omega_p^L \pm i\Gamma_p^L)\text{, etc.} \\
2447: \tan\theta_p &= \frac{\omega_p^L + \omega_p^R}{\Gamma_p^L + \Gamma_p^R} \\
2448: \tan\phi_{hp} &= \frac{\omega_h^R - \omega_p^L}{\Gamma_p^L + \Gamma_h^R},
2449: \end{split}
2450: \end{equation}
2451: and where the
2452: \begin{equation}
2453: \lambda_{p,h}^{L,R} = \pd{\Gamma_{p,h}^{L,R}}{\mu_{t_{L,R}}}\,,
2454: \end{equation}
2455: parameterize the linear shifts in the thermal widths due to non-vanishing chemical potential. As noted at the end of Appendix~\ref{appx:props}, in a fully resummed calculation of the fermion self-energy, such shifts which are linear in $\mu_i/T$ may arise, and thus have to be included in our calculations, which we defer to future work. Also note that we have approximated the residues $Z_{p,h}^{L,R}$ to be purely real, which is true at the order we are working.
2456:
2457:
2458: \begin{thebibliography}{}
2459:
2460: %\cite{Sakharov:1967dj}
2461: \bibitem{Sakharov:1967dj}
2462: A.~D.~Sakharov,
2463: %``Violation Of CP Invariance, C Asymmetry, And Baryon Asymmetry Of The
2464: %Universe,''
2465: Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 5}, 32 (1967)
2466: [JETP Lett.\ {\bf 5}, 24 (1967)].
2467: %\ SOPUA,34,392-393.1991\ UFNAA,161,61-64.1991)].
2468: %%CITATION = ZFPRA,5,32;%%
2469:
2470:
2471: \bibitem{pdg04}
2472: %\cite{Eidelman:2004wy}
2473: %\bibitem{Eidelman:2004wy}
2474: S.~Eidelman {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group Collaboration],
2475: %``Review of particle physics,''
2476: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 592}, 1 (2004).
2477: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B592,1;%%
2478:
2479: %\cite{Spergel:2003cb}
2480: %\bibitem{Spergel:2003cb}
2481: \bibitem{wmap}
2482: D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.} [WMAP Collaboration],
2483: %``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:
2484: %Determination of Cosmological Parameters,''
2485: Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 148}, 175 (2003)
2486: [arXiv:astro-ph/0302209].
2487: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302209;%%
2488:
2489: %\cite{Dine:2003ax}
2490: \bibitem{Dine:2003ax}
2491: M.~Dine and A.~Kusenko,
2492: %``The origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry,''
2493: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 76}, 1 (2004)
2494: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303065].
2495: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303065;%%
2496:
2497: %\cite{Kang:2004pp}
2498: \bibitem{Kang:2004pp}
2499: J.~Kang, P.~Langacker, T.~j.~Li and T.~Liu,
2500: %``Electroweak baryogenesis in a supersymmetric U(1)' model,''
2501: arXiv:hep-ph/0402086.
2502: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402086;%%
2503:
2504: %\cite{Cline:1993bd}
2505: \bibitem{Cline:1993bd}
2506: J.~M.~Cline, K.~Kainulainen and K.~A.~Olive,
2507: %``Protecting the primordial baryon asymmetry from erasure by sphalerons,''
2508: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 6394 (1994)
2509: [arXiv:hep-ph/9401208].
2510: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9401208;%%
2511:
2512: %\cite{Cohen:1994ss}
2513: \bibitem{Cohen:1994ss}
2514: A.~G.~Cohen, D.~B.~Kaplan and A.~E.~Nelson,
2515: %``Diffusion enhances spontaneous electroweak baryogenesis,''
2516: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 336}, 41 (1994)
2517: [arXiv:hep-ph/9406345].
2518: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9406345;%%
2519:
2520:
2521: %\cite{Riotto:1998zb}
2522: \bibitem{Riotto:1998zb}
2523: A.~Riotto,
2524: %``The more relaxed supersymmetric electroweak baryogenesis,''
2525: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 095009 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9803357].
2526: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803357;%%
2527:
2528: \bibitem{CTP}
2529: J.~Schwinger, J.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 2}, 407 (1961); \\
2530: K.~T.~Mahanthappa, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 126}, 329 (1962); \\
2531: P.~M.~Bakshi and K.~T.~Mahanthappa, J.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 4}, 1 (1963); {\bf 4}, 12 (1963); \\
2532: L.~V.~Keldysh, %``Diagram Technique For Nonequilibrium Processes,''
2533: Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 47}, 1515 (1964)
2534: [Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf 20}, 1018 (1965)]; \\
2535: R.~A.~Craig, J.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 9}, 605 (1968); \\
2536: K.~c.~Chou, Z.~b.~Su, B.~l.~Hao and L.~Yu,
2537: %``Equilibrium And Nonequilibrium Formalisms Made Unified,''
2538: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 118}, 1 (1985).
2539:
2540: %\cite{Huet:1995sh}
2541: \bibitem{Huet:1995sh}
2542: P.~Huet and A.~E.~Nelson,
2543: %``Electroweak baryogenesis in supersymmetric models,''
2544: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53}, 4578 (1996)
2545: [arXiv:hep-ph/9506477].
2546: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506477;%%
2547:
2548: %\cite{Carena:2000id}
2549: \bibitem{Carena:2000id}
2550: M.~Carena, J.~M.~Moreno, M.~Quiros, M.~Seco and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
2551: %``Supersymmetric CP-violating currents and electroweak baryogenesis,''
2552: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 599}, 158 (2001)
2553: [arXiv:hep-ph/0011055].
2554: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011055;%%
2555:
2556: %\cite{Carena:2000id}%\cite{Carena:2002ss}
2557: \bibitem{Carena:2002ss}
2558: M.~Carena, M.~Quiros, M.~Seco and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
2559: %``Improved results in supersymmetric electroweak baryogenesis,''
2560: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 650}, 24 (2003)
2561: [arXiv:hep-ph/0208043].
2562: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208043;%%
2563:
2564: %\cite{Joyce:1994zn}
2565: \bibitem{Joyce:1994zn}
2566: M.~Joyce, T.~Prokopec and N.~Turok,
2567: %``Nonlocal electroweak baryogenesis. Part 1: Thin wall regime,''
2568: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53}, 2930 (1996)
2569: [arXiv:hep-ph/9410281].
2570: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9410281;%%
2571:
2572: \bibitem{LeBellac}
2573: M. Le Bellac, \emph{Thermal Field Theory} (Cambridge University Press,
2574: Cambridge 1996).
2575:
2576: \bibitem{finitemu}
2577: %\cite{Levinson:1985ub}
2578: %\bibitem{Levinson:1985ub}
2579: E.~J.~Levinson and D.~H.~Boal,
2580: %``Selfenergy Corrections To Fermions In The Presence Of A Thermal
2581: %Background,''
2582: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 31}, 3280 (1985);
2583: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D31,3280;%%
2584:
2585: %\cite{Blaizot:1993bb}
2586: %\bibitem{Blaizot:1993bb}
2587: J.~P.~Blaizot and J.~Y.~Ollitrault,
2588: %``Collective fermionic excitations in systems with a large chemical%potential,''
2589: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48}, 1390 (1993)
2590: [arXiv:hep-th/9303070];
2591: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9303070;%%
2592:
2593: %\cite{Kalashnikov:1996ye}
2594: %\bibitem{Kalashnikov:1996ye}
2595: O.~K.~Kalashnikov,
2596: %``Fermi excitations in hot and dense quark-gluon plasma,''
2597: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 12}, 347 (1997)
2598: [arXiv:hep-ph/9612323];
2599: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612323;%%
2600: %\cite{Kalashnikov:1997wr}
2601: %\bibitem{Kalashnikov:1997wr}
2602: %O.~K.~Kalashnikov,
2603: %``Collective excitations of massive Dirac particles in a hot and dense
2604: %medium,''
2605: JETP Lett.\ {\bf 67}, 1 (1998)
2606: [arXiv:hep-ph/9710322];
2607: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710322;%%
2608: %\cite{Kalashnikov:1998av}
2609: %\bibitem{Kalashnikov:1998av}
2610: %O.~K.~Kalashnikov,
2611: %``Photon and electron spectra in hot and dense QED,''
2612: Phys.\ Scripta {\bf 58}, 310 (1998)
2613: [arXiv:hep-ph/9802427];
2614: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9802427;%%
2615: %\cite{Kalashnikov:1998fh}
2616: %\bibitem{Kalashnikov:1998fh}
2617: %O.~K.~Kalashnikov,
2618: %``One-particle and collective electron spectra in hot and dense QED and their
2619: %gauge dependence,''
2620: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 13}, 1719 (1998)
2621: [arXiv:hep-ph/9805385];
2622: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9805385;%%
2623: %\cite{Kalashnikov:1998bj}
2624: %\bibitem{Kalashnikov:1998bj}
2625: %O.~K.~Kalashnikov,
2626: %``Fermi spectra and their gauge invariance in hot and dense Abelian and
2627: %non-Abelian theories,''
2628: Phys.\ Scripta {\bf 60}, 131 (1999)
2629: [arXiv:hep-ph/9810317].
2630: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810317;%%
2631:
2632:
2633: %\cite{Weldon:1989ys}
2634: \bibitem{Weldon:1989ys}
2635: H.~A.~Weldon,
2636: %``Dynamical Holes In The Quark - Gluon Plasma,''
2637: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 40}, 2410 (1989).
2638: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D40,2410;%%
2639:
2640:
2641: %\cite{Klimov:1981ka}
2642: \bibitem{Klimov}
2643: V.~V.~Klimov,
2644: %``Spectrum Of Elementary Fermi Excitations In Quark Gluon Plasma. (In
2645: %Russian),''
2646: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 33}, 934 (1981)
2647: [Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 33}, 1734 (1981)];
2648: %%CITATION = SJNCA,33,934;%%
2649: %\cite{Klimov:1982bv}
2650: %\bibitem{Klimov:1982bv}
2651: %V.~V.~Klimov,
2652: %``Collective Excitations In A Hot Quark Gluon Plasma,''
2653: Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf 55}, 199 (1982)
2654: [Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 82}, 336 (1982)].
2655: %%CITATION = SPHJA,55,199;%%
2656:
2657:
2658: %\cite{Weldon:1999th}
2659: \bibitem{Weldon:1999th}
2660: H.~A.~Weldon,
2661: %``Structure of the quark propagator at high temperature,''
2662: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 036003 (2000)
2663: [arXiv:hep-ph/9908204].
2664: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908204;%%
2665:
2666: %\cite{Braaten:1989mz}
2667: \bibitem{Braaten:1989mz}
2668: E.~Braaten and R.~D.~Pisarski,
2669: %``Soft Amplitudes In Hot Gauge Theories: A General Analysis,''
2670: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 337}, 569 (1990).
2671: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B337,569;%%
2672:
2673: %\cite{Braaten:1991gm}
2674: \bibitem{Braaten:1991gm}
2675: E.~Braaten and R.~D.~Pisarski,
2676: %``Simple effective Lagrangian for hard thermal loops,''
2677: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 45}, 1827 (1992).
2678: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D45,1827;%%
2679:
2680: %\cite{Braaten:1992gd}
2681: \bibitem{Braaten:1992gd}
2682: E.~Braaten and R.~D.~Pisarski,
2683: %``Calculation of the quark damping rate in hot QCD,''
2684: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46}, 1829 (1992).
2685: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D46,1829;%%
2686:
2687: %\cite{Enqvist:1997ff}
2688: \bibitem{Enqvist:1997ff}
2689: K.~Enqvist, A.~Riotto and I.~Vilja,
2690: %``Baryogenesis and the thermalization rate of stop,''
2691: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 438}, 273 (1998)
2692: [arXiv:hep-ph/9710373].
2693: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710373;%%
2694:
2695: %\cite{Elmfors:1998hh}
2696: \bibitem{Elmfors:1998hh}
2697: P.~Elmfors, K.~Enqvist, A.~Riotto and I.~Vilja,
2698: %``Damping rates in the MSSM and electroweak baryogenesis,''
2699: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 452}, 279 (1999)
2700: [arXiv:hep-ph/9809529].
2701: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9809529;%%
2702:
2703:
2704: %\cite{Martin:1997ns}
2705: \bibitem{Martin:1997ns}
2706: S.~P.~Martin,
2707: %``A supersymmetry primer,''
2708: arXiv:hep-ph/9709356.
2709: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9709356;%%
2710:
2711:
2712: %\cite{Prokopec:2003pj}
2713: \bibitem{Prokopec}
2714: %\bibitem{Prokopec:2003pj}
2715: T.~Prokopec, M.~G.~Schmidt and S.~Weinstock,
2716: %``Transport equations for chiral fermions to order h-bar and electroweak%baryogenesis,''
2717: Annals Phys.\ {\bf 314}, 208 (2004)
2718: [arXiv:hep-ph/0312110];
2719: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312110;
2720: %%%\cite{Prokopec:2004ic}
2721: %\bibitem{Prokopec:2004ic}
2722: %T.~Prokopec, M.~G.~Schmidt and S.~Weinstock,
2723: %``Transport equations for chiral fermions to order h-bar and electroweak
2724: %baryogenesis. II,''
2725: Annals Phys.\ {\bf 314}, 267 (2004)
2726: [arXiv:hep-ph/0406140].
2727: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406140;%%
2728:
2729:
2730: %\cite{Carena:1997gx}
2731: \bibitem{Carena:1997gx}
2732: M.~Carena, M.~Quiros, A.~Riotto, I.~Vilja and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
2733: %``Electroweak baryogenesis and low energy supersymmetry,''
2734: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 503}, 387 (1997)
2735: [arXiv:hep-ph/9702409].
2736: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9702409;%%
2737:
2738: %\cite{Giudice:1993bb}
2739: \bibitem{Giudice:1993bb}
2740: G.~F.~Giudice and M.~E.~Shaposhnikov,
2741: %``Strong sphalerons and electroweak baryogenesis,''
2742: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 326}, 118 (1994)
2743: [arXiv:hep-ph/9311367].
2744:
2745: %\cite{Moore:1997im}
2746: \bibitem{Moore:1997im}
2747: G.~D.~Moore,
2748: %``Computing the strong sphaleron rate,''
2749: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 412}, 359 (1997)
2750: [arXiv:hep-ph/9705248].
2751: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9705248;%%
2752:
2753:
2754:
2755:
2756:
2757: %\cite{Cline:2000nw}
2758: \bibitem{Cline:2000nw}
2759: J.~M.~Cline, M.~Joyce and K.~Kainulainen,
2760: %``Supersymmetric electroweak baryogenesis,''
2761: JHEP {\bf 0007}, 018 (2000)
2762: [arXiv:hep-ph/0006119].
2763: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006119;%%
2764:
2765: %\cite{Bodeker:1999gx}
2766: \bibitem{wsrate}
2767: D.~Bodeker, G.~D.~Moore and K.~Rummukainen,
2768: %``Chern-Simons number diffusion and hard thermal loops on the lattice,''
2769: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 056003 (2000)
2770: [arXiv:hep-ph/9907545];
2771: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907545;%%
2772: %\cite{Moore:1999fs}
2773: %\bibitem{Moore:1999fs}
2774: G.~D.~Moore and K.~Rummukainen,
2775: %``Classical sphaleron rate on fine lattices,''
2776: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 105008 (2000)
2777: [arXiv:hep-ph/9906259] ;
2778: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906259;%%
2779: %\cite{Moore:2000mx}
2780: % \bibitem{Moore:2000mx}
2781: G.~D.~Moore,
2782: %``Sphaleron rate in the symmetric electroweak phase,''
2783: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 085011 (2000)
2784: [arXiv:hep-ph/0001216].
2785: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001216;%%
2786:
2787: %\cite{Carena:1997ki}
2788: \bibitem{Carena:1997ki}
2789: M.~Carena, M.~Quiros and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
2790: %``Electroweak baryogenesis and Higgs and stop searches at LEP and the
2791: %Tevatron,''
2792: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 524}, 3 (1998)
2793: [arXiv:hep-ph/9710401].
2794: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710401;%%
2795:
2796:
2797: %\cite{Laine:1998qk}
2798: \bibitem{Laine:1998qk}
2799: M.~Laine and K.~Rummukainen,
2800: %``The MSSM electroweak phase transition on the lattice,''
2801: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 535}, 423 (1998)
2802: [arXiv:hep-lat/9804019].
2803: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9804019;%%
2804:
2805:
2806: \bibitem{bubble}
2807: %\cite{Moreno:1998bq}
2808: %\bibitem{Moreno:1998bq}
2809: J.~M.~Moreno, M.~Quiros and M.~Seco,
2810: %``Bubbles in the supersymmetric standard model,''
2811: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 526}, 489 (1998)
2812: [arXiv:hep-ph/9801272].
2813: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9801272;%%
2814:
2815:
2816:
2817: %\cite{Regan:2002ta}
2818: \bibitem{Regan:2002ta}
2819: B.~C.~Regan, E.~D.~Commins, C.~J.~Schmidt and D.~DeMille,
2820: %``New limit on the electron electric dipole moment,''
2821: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88}, 071805 (2002).
2822: %%CITATION = PRLTA,88,071805;%%
2823:
2824:
2825: %\cite{Romalis:2000mg}
2826: \bibitem{Romalis:2000mg}
2827: M.~V.~Romalis, W.~C.~Griffith and E.~N.~Fortson,
2828: %``A new limit on the permanent electric dipole moment of Hg-199,''
2829: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86}, 2505 (2001)
2830: [arXiv:hep-ex/0012001].
2831: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0012001;%%
2832:
2833: %\cite{Falk:1999tm}
2834: \bibitem{Falk:1999tm}
2835: T.~Falk, K.~A.~Olive, M.~Pospelov and R.~Roiban,
2836: %``MSSM predictions for the electric dipole moment of the Hg-199 atom,''
2837: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 560}, 3 (1999)
2838: [arXiv:hep-ph/9904393].
2839: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904393;%%
2840:
2841:
2842:
2843: %\cite{Ibrahim:1997gj}
2844: \bibitem{Ibrahim:1997gj}
2845: T.~Ibrahim and P.~Nath,
2846: %``The neutron and the electron electric dipole moment in N = 1 supergravity
2847: %unification,''
2848: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 478 (1998)
2849: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 58}, 019901
2850: (1998), D {\bf 60}, 079903]\
2851: %\ ERRAT,D60,079903.1999\ ERRAT,D60,119901.1999)]
2852: [arXiv:hep-ph/9708456].
2853: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9708456;%%
2854:
2855: %\cite{Hisano:2004tf}
2856: \bibitem{Hisano:2004tf}
2857: J.~Hisano and Y.~Shimizu,
2858: %``Hadronic EDMs induced by the strangeness and constraints on supersymmetric
2859: %CP phases,''
2860: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 093001 (2004)
2861: [arXiv:hep-ph/0406091].
2862: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406091;%%
2863:
2864:
2865: %\cite{Balazs:2004ae}
2866: \bibitem{Balazs:2004ae}
2867: C.~Balazs, M.~Carena, A.~Menon, D.~E.~Morrissey and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
2868: %``The Supersymmetric Origin of Matter,''
2869: arXiv:hep-ph/0412264.
2870: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412264;%%
2871:
2872:
2873:
2874:
2875: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2876:
2877:
2878:
2879: \end{thebibliography}
2880:
2881: \end{document}