1: \chapter{Constraints on Supersymmetric Electroweak Baryogenesis}
2: \label{chap:ewb}
3: \thispagestyle{empty}
4:
5: \begin{quote}
6: \singlespace\small
7: In principio creavit Deus c\ae lum et terram. \\
8: Terra autem erat inanis et vacua et tenebr\ae\ super faciem abyssi et spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas. \\
9: \flushright\vskip -22pt\emph{Genesis} 1:1--2
10: \end{quote}
11: We begin our investigations beyond the Standard Model, considering the constraints that currently available data, especially the baryon density of the Universe and limits on electric dipole moments of elementary particles, might place on the parameters of the speculative but popular Minimal Supersymmetric Extension of the Standard Model, which we adopt as a theoretical testing ground for the application of the closed-time-path formalism of quantum field theory to the calculation of the baryon density generated in electroweak baryogenesis. (Much of this chapter appeared in Ref.~\cite{Lee:2004we}.)
12:
13: \section{Introduction}
14: \label{sec:introduction}
15:
16: The origin of the baryon asymmetry of the Universe (BAU) remains an
17: important, unsolved problem for particle physics and
18: cosmology. Assuming that the Universe was matter-antimatter symmetric
19: at its birth, it is reasonable to suppose that interactions involving
20: elementary particles generated the BAU during subsequent cosmological
21: evolution. As noted by Sakharov \cite{Sakharov:1967dj}, obtaining a nonzero BAU requires
22: both a departure from thermal equilibrium as well as the breakdown of
23: various discrete symmetries: baryon number ($B$) conservation, charge
24: conjugation ($C$) invariance, and invariance under the combined $C$
25: and parity ($P$) transformations\footnote{Allowing for a breakdown of
26: $CPT$ invariance relaxes the requirement of departure from thermal
27: equilibrium.}. The Standard Model (SM) of strong and electroweak
28: interactions satisfies these conditions and could, in principle,
29: explain the observed size of the BAU:
30: \be
31: Y_B\equiv \frac{\rho_B}{s} =
32: \begin{cases}(7.3\pm 2.5)\times 10^{-11}, & \text{BBN}\\
33: (9.2\pm 1.1)\times 10^{-11}, & \text{WMAP}
34: \end{cases}
35: \ee
36: 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) \cite{Eidelman:2004wy} and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) \cite{wmap}, respectively.
37: In practice, however, neither the strength of the first-order electroweak phase transition in the SM nor the magnitude of SM
38: $CP$-violating interactions are sufficient to prevent washout of any
39: net baryon number created by $B$-violating electroweak sphaleron
40: transitions during the phase transition.
41:
42: The search for physics beyond the SM is motivated, in part, by the
43: desire to find new particles whose interactions could overcome the
44: failure of the SM to explain the BAU. From a phenomenological
45: standpoint, a particularly attractive possibility is that masses of
46: such particles are not too different from weak scale
47: and that their interactions both strengthen the first-order
48: electroweak phase transition and provide the requisite level of
49: $CP$-violation needed for the BAU. Precision electroweak measurements
50: as well as direct searches for new particles at the Tevatron and Large
51: Hadron Collider may test this possibility, and experiment already
52: provides rather stringent constraints on some of the most widely
53: considered extensions of the SM. In the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard
54: Model (MSSM), for example, present lower bounds on the mass of the lightest
55: Higgs boson leave open only a small window for a sufficiently strong
56: first-order phase transition, although this constraint may be relaxed
57: 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
58: particles and atoms imply that the $CP$-violating phases in the MSSM
59: must be unnaturally small ($\sim\! 10^{-2})$. Whether such small phases
60: (supersymmetric or otherwise) can provide for successful electroweak
61: baryogenesis (EWB) has been an important consideration in past studies
62: of this problem.
63:
64: In order to confront phenomenological constraints on the parameters of
65: various electroweak models with the requirements of EWB, one must
66: describe the microscopic dynamics of the electroweak phase transition
67: in a realistic way. Theoretically, the basic mechanism driving
68: baryogenesis during the phase transition is
69: well-established. Weak sphaleron transitions that conserve $B-L$ but
70: change $B$ and $L$ individually are unsuppressed in regions of
71: spacetime where electroweak symmetry is unbroken, while they become
72: exponentially suppressed in regions of broken symmetry. Net baryon
73: number is captured by expanding regions of broken symmetry (\lq\lq
74: bubbles"). Given sufficiently strong $C$ and $CP$-violation as well as
75: 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:
76: %
77: \be
78: \label{eq:rhob1}
79: {\partial }_t \rho_B(x) -D\nabla^2\rho_B(x) =
80: - \Gamma_{\rm ws} F_{\rm ws}(x)[n_L(x) + R\rho_B(x)]\,,
81: \ee
82: %
83: where $D$ is the diffusion coefficient for baryon number, $\Gamma_{\rm
84: ws}$ is the weak sphaleron transition rate, $F_{\rm ws}(x)$ is a
85: sphaleron transition profile function that goes to zero inside the
86: regions of broken electroweak symmetry and asymptotically to unity
87: outside, $R$ is a relaxation coefficient for the decay of baryon
88: number through weak sphaleron transitions, and $n_L(x)$ is the number
89: density of left-handed doublet fields created by \lq\lq fast" chirality changing processes (see, {\em e.g.}, \cite{Cline:1993bd}). Thus, in order
90: to obtain nonzero $\rho_B$ inside the bubble of broken electroweak
91: symmetry, the left-handed density $n_L$ must be non-vanishing
92: in the plasma at the phase boundary and possibly beyond into the
93: region of unbroken symmetry.
94:
95: In effect, $n_L(x)$ acts as a seed for the $B$-changing weak sphaleron
96: transitions, and its spacetime profile is determined by the
97: $CP$-violating sources and the quantum transport of various charges in
98: the non-equilibrium environment of the plasma. Typical treatments of
99: these dynamics involve writing down a set of coupled quantum transport
100: equations (QTEs) for the relevant charges, estimating (or
101: parameterizing) the relevant transport coefficients, and solving the
102: system of equations under the appropriate boundary conditions.
103:
104: Among the developments in the past decade or so which have made significant impacts on
105: this program, we identify two that form the basis of our investigation in this work. First, the authors of Ref.~\cite{Cohen:1994ss} noted
106: that diffusion of chiral charge ahead of the advancing phase
107: transition boundary into the region of unbroken symmetry could enhance the
108: impact of baryon number-changing sphaleron processes, thereby leading
109: to more effective EWB. The second, perhaps less widely-appreciated, development has been the observation by the author of Ref. \cite{Riotto:1998zb}
110: that the application of equilibrium quantum field theory (QFT) to
111: transport properties in the plasma is not necessarily appropriate. In
112: contrast to equilibrium quantum dynamics, the time evolution of
113: quantum states during the phase transition is
114: non-adiabatic. Consequently, scattering processes that drive quantum
115: transport are no longer Markovian, but rather retain some memory of
116: the system's quantum evolution. Using the closed time path (CTP)
117: formulation of non-equilibrium QFT \cite{CTP} to compute the
118: $CP$-violating source terms in the plasma for the MSSM, the author of
119: Ref.~\cite{Riotto:1998zb} found that these ``memory effects" may lead
120: to significant resonant enhancements (of order $10^3$) of the sources over
121: 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,
122: these enhancements would imply that successful EWB could occur
123: with significantly smaller $CP$-violating phases than previously
124: believed, thereby evading the present and prospective limits obtained
125: from EDMs.
126:
127: To determine whether or not such conclusions are warranted, however,
128: requires that one treat the other terms in the transport equations in
129: 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
130: the net effect on $\rho_B$ may not be as substantial as suggested in
131: Refs. \cite{Riotto:1998zb,Carena:2000id,Carena:2002ss}.
132:
133: The goal of the present study is to
134: address this question by developing a more comprehensive
135: treatment of EWB using the CTP formulation of non-equilibrium QFT. In doing
136: so, we follow the direction suggested in Ref. \cite{Riotto:1998zb} and
137: compute the transport coefficients of the chiral charges using the CTP
138: 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
139: the terms in the transport equations that previous authors have
140: considered the dominant ones, and use our analysis of these terms to
141: illustrate a method for obtaining a more comprehensive
142: treatment of the QTEs. To make the phenomenological implications
143: concrete, we focus on the MSSM, realizing, however, that one may need to
144: include extensions of the MSSM in order to satisfy the requirements of
145: a strong first-order phase transition. Finally, we also attempt to identify the
146: different approximations that have entered previous treatments of EWB,
147: such as the implicit truncation at a given order in $\epsilon$ and outline additional calculations needed to obtain a comprehensive treatment.
148:
149: 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 conditions other than those relevant 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.
150:
151: 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
152: Section~\ref{sec:CTP} we review the CTP formalism and its application
153: to the QTEs and discuss in detail the formulation of density-dependent
154: Green's functions. In
155: Section~\ref{sec:source} we compute the $CP$-violating source terms,
156: providing a check of Ref.~\cite{Riotto:1998zb}, as well as the
157: transport coefficients of the chiral charge densities. Here, we also
158: enumerate the approximations used to obtain a set of coupled, linear
159: differential diffusion equations, discuss their limits of validity,
160: and identify additional terms (usually assumed to be sub-leading) that we
161: defer to a future study. In Section~\ref{sec:qtes} we solve these
162: equations for the baryon density. A reader primarily interested in the phenomenological implications may want to turn directly to
163: Section~\ref{sec:numerics}, which gives
164: illustrative numerical studies using the parameters of the
165: 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.
166:
167:
168: \section{Non-equilibrium Transport: CTP Formulation}
169: \label{sec:CTP}
170:
171: In what follows, we treat all $CP$-violating and non-topological
172: chirality-changing interactions perturbatively\footnote{Sphaleron
173: transitions, however, are manifestly non-perturbative, and we
174: parameterize their effects in the standard way.}. In contrast to
175: zero-temperature, equilibrium perturbation theory, however, the
176: perturbative expansion under non-equilibrium,
177: $T>0$ conditions requires the use of a more general set of Green's functions
178: that take into account the non-adiabatic evolution of
179: states as well as the presence of degeneracies in the thermal bath. Specifically, the matrix element of any operator
180: $\mathcal{O}(x)$ in the interaction representation is given by:
181: %
182: \be
183: \label{eq:ctp1}
184: \langle n| S^{\dag}_{\rm int} T\{\mathcal{O}(x)
185: S_{\rm int}\} | n\rangle\, ,
186: \ee
187: where
188: \be
189: S_{\rm int} = T\exp\left( i\int d^4x \,{\cal L}_{\rm int}\right)
190: \ee
191: %
192: for an interaction Lagrangian ${\cal L}_{\rm int}$, $T$ is the
193: time-ordering operator, and $|n\rangle$ is an in-state. Inserting a complete set of states inside Eq.~(\ref{eq:ctp1}), we obtain:
194: \begin{equation}
195: \label{eq:ctp1a}
196: \sum_{m}\bra{n}S_{\text{int}}^\dag\ket{m}\bra{m}T\{\mathcal{O}(x)S_{\text{int}}\}\ket{n}.
197: \end{equation}
198: In ordinary, zero-temperature equilibrium field theory, the assumptions of
199: adiabaticity and of non-degeneracy of the states $\ket{n}$ imply
200: that only the single state $m=n$ contributes to this sum, so the only impact of $S^{\dag}_{\rm int}$ is the introduction of an
201: overall phase, allowing one to rewrite Eq.~(\ref{eq:ctp1a}) as:
202: %
203: \be
204: \label{eq:ctp2}
205: \frac{\langle n | T\{\mathcal{O}(x) S_{\rm int}\} | n\rangle}{
206: \langle n| S_{\rm int} |n\rangle}\,.
207: \ee
208: %
209: This simplification is no longer valid for non-equilibrium $T>0$ evolution,
210: and one must take into account the action of $S^{\dag}_{\rm int}$
211: appearing to the left of $\mathcal{O}(x)$ in (\ref{eq:ctp1}). Doing so is
212: facilitated by giving every field in $S_{\rm int}$ and $S^{\dag}_{\rm
213: int}$ a ``$+$" and ``$-$" subscript respectively. The matrix
214: element in (\ref{eq:ctp1}) then becomes:
215: %
216: \be
217: \label{eq:ctp3}
218: \langle n| {\cal P}\left\{ \mathcal{O}(x)
219: \exp \left(i\int d^4x\ {\cal L}_{+} - i\int d^4x\
220: {\cal L}_{-}\right)\right\}|n\rangle\,,
221: \ee
222: %
223: where the path ordering operator ${\cal P}$ indicates that all
224: ``+" fields appear to the right of all ``$-$" fields, with the former
225: being ordered according to the usual time-ordering prescription and
226: the latter being anti-time-ordered [here, $\mathcal{O}(x)$ has been taken to
227: be a ``+" field]. Note that the two integrals in the exponential
228: in (\ref{eq:ctp3}) can be written as a single integral along a closed
229: time path running from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$ and then back to
230: $-\infty$:
231: \begin{equation}
232: \int_{-\infty}^\infty dt\int d^3 x (\mathcal{L}_+ - \mathcal{L}_-) = \int_{\mathcal{C}} dt\int d^3 x\,\mathcal{L},
233: \end{equation}
234: where the time $t$ on the right-hand side is integrated over the contour $\mathcal{C}$ shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ctp}.
235: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}
236: \begin{figure}
237: \begin{center}
238: \begin{picture}(0,40)(0,-10)
239: \drawline(-56,0)(56,0)
240: \put(56,0){\vector(1,0){0}}
241: \put(-54,2){$-\infty$}
242: \put(47,2){$+\infty$}
243: \put(58,-1){$t$}
244: \drawline(0,-15)(0,15)
245: \put(0,15){\vector(0,1){0}}
246: \thicklines
247: \drawline(-47,2)(45,2)
248: \drawline(45,-2)(-47,-2)
249: \put(45,0){\arc{4}{-1.57}{1.57}}
250: \put(-20,2){\vector(1,0){0}}
251: \put(-20,4){$\mathcal{C}$}
252: \put(-20,-2){\vector(-1,0){0}}
253: \put(20,2){\circle*{1}}
254: \put(15,-2){\circle*{1}}
255: \put(19,4){$\phi_+$}
256: \put(14,-6){$\phi_-$}
257: \end{picture}
258: \end{center}
259: \caption[Closed time path integration contour.]{Closed time path integration contour. Fields $\phi$ are distinguished according to their placement on the forward ($\phi_+$) or backward ($\phi_-$) portions of the contour.}
260: \label{fig:ctp}
261: \end{figure}
262: \setlength{\unitlength}{1pt}
263:
264: Perturbation theory now proceeds from the matrix element
265: (\ref{eq:ctp3}) along the same lines as in ordinary field theory via
266: the application of Wick's theorem, but with the more general ${\cal
267: P}$ operator replacing the $T$ operator. As a result, one now has a
268: set of four two-point functions, corresponding to the different
269: combinations of ``+" and ``$-$" fields that arise from
270: contractions. It is convenient to write them as a matrix ${\widetilde
271: G}(x,y)$:
272: %
273: \be
274: \label{eq:ctp4}
275: \widetilde G(x,y)=
276: \left(\begin{array}{cc}
277: G^t(x,y) & -G^<(x,y) \\
278: G^>(x,y) & -G^{\bar t}(x,y)
279: \end{array}\right)
280: \ee
281: where
282: \begin{subequations}
283: \label{eq:Greens1}
284: \begin{align}
285: G^>(x,y) &= \langle \phi_-(x) \phi_+^\dag(y) \rangle \\
286: G^<(x,y) &= \langle \phi_-^\dag(y) \phi_+(x)\rangle \\
287: G^t(x,y) &= \langle T\bigl\{\phi_+(x) \phi_+^\dag(y)\bigr\}\rangle =
288: \theta(x_0-y_0)G^>(x,y)+ \theta(y_0-x_0)G^<(x,y)\\
289: G^{\bar t}(x,y) &=
290: \langle \bar T\bigl\{\phi_-(x) \phi_-^\dag(y)\bigr\}\rangle =
291: \theta(x_0-y_0)G^<(x,y) + \theta(y_0-x_0)G^>(x,y)\,,
292: \end{align}
293: \end{subequations}
294: and where the $\langle\ \ \rangle$ denote ensemble averages,
295: \be
296: \langle \mathcal{O} (x)\rangle \equiv \frac{1}{Z}
297: {\rm Tr}\left[\hat\rho \, \mathcal{O}(x)\right]\, .
298: \ee
299: Here $\hat\rho$ is the density matrix containing
300: information about the state of the system, and $Z = \Tr(\hat\rho)$.
301: In thermal equilibrium $\hat\rho$ is time-independent and is
302: given by $\hat\rho = e^{-\beta (\op{H} - \mu_i \op{N}_i)}$
303: for a grand-canonical ensemble.
304: Note that the matrix ${\widetilde G}(x,y)$ may be written more compactly as:
305: \be
306: \widetilde G(x,y)_{a b} =
307: \langle {\cal P}\left\{\phi_a(x)\phi_b^\dag(y)\right\}\rangle
308: (\tau_3)_{bb} \,.
309: \ee
310: %
311: The presence of the $\tau_3$ factor is a bookkeeping device to keep
312: track of the relative minus sign between the ${\cal L}_+$ and ${\cal
313: L}_-$ terms in Eq. (\ref{eq:ctp3}).
314:
315: The path-ordered two-point functions satisfy the Schwinger-Dyson equations:
316: %
317: \begin{subequations}
318: \label{eq:sd}
319: \begin{align}
320: \label{eq:sda}
321: {\widetilde G}(x,y) &= {\widetilde G}^0(x,y)+\int d^4w \int d^4 z\
322: {\widetilde G}^0(x,w){\widetilde \Sigma}(w,z){\widetilde G}(z,y) \\
323: \label{eq:sdb}
324: {\widetilde G}(x,y) &= {\widetilde G}^0(x,y)+\int d^4w \int d^4 z\
325: {\widetilde G}(x,w){\widetilde \Sigma}(w,z){\widetilde G}^0(z,y)\,,
326: \end{align}
327: \end{subequations}
328: %
329: where the ``0" superscript indicates a non-interacting Green's
330: function and where ${\widetilde\Sigma}(x,y)$ is the matrix of interacting
331: self energies defined analogously to the ${\widetilde G}(x,y)$. An
332: analogous set of expressions apply for fermion Green's functions, with
333: an appropriate insertion of $-1$ to account for anticommutation
334: relations.
335: %\begin{subequations}
336: %\label{eq:GreensFermion}
337: %\begin{align}
338: %S_{\alpha\beta}^>(x,y) &= \langle \psi_{\alpha -}(x) \psi_{\beta +}^\dag(y) \rangle \\
339: %S_{\alpha\beta}^<(x,y) &= -\langle \psi_{\beta -}^\dag(y) \psi_{\alpha +}(x)\rangle \\
340: %S_{\alpha\beta}^t(x,y) &= \langle T\bigl\{\psi_{\alpha +}(x) \psi_{\beta +}^\dag(y)\bigr\}\rangle =
341: %\theta(x_0-y_0)S_{\alpha\beta}^>(x,y)+ \theta(y_0-x_0)S_{\alpha\beta}^<(x,y)\\
342: %S_{\alpha\beta}^{\bar t}(x,y) &=
343: %\langle \bar T\bigl\{\psi_{\alpha -}(x) \psi_{\beta -}^\dag(y)\bigr\}\rangle =
344: %\theta(x_0-y_0)S_{\alpha\beta}^<(x,y) + \theta(y_0-x_0)S_{\alpha\beta}^>(x,y)\,,
345: %\end{align}
346: %\end{subequations}
347: %where $\alpha,\beta$ are spinor indices.
348:
349: \subsection{Quantum Transport Equations from CTP Formalism}
350:
351: The Schwinger-Dyson Eqs.~(\ref{eq:sd}) are the starting
352: point for obtaining the transport equations governing $n_L(x)$. To do
353: so, we follow Ref. \cite{Riotto:1998zb} and apply the Klein-Gordon
354: operator to ${\widetilde G}(x,y)$. Using
355: %
356: \be
357: \left({{\square}}_x+m^2\right) {\widetilde G}^0(x,y)=
358: \left({{\square}}_y+m^2\right) {\widetilde G}^0(x,y)=-i\delta^{(4)}(x-y)
359: \ee
360: gives
361: \begin{subequations}
362: \begin{align}
363: \left({{\square}}_x+m^2\right){\widetilde G}(x,y) &= -i\delta^{(4)}(x-y) -i
364: \int d^4z\ {\widetilde\Sigma}(x,z){\widetilde G}(z,y) \\
365: \left({{\square}}_y+m^2\right){\widetilde G}(x,y) &= -i\delta^{(4)}(x-y) -i
366: \int d^4z\ {\widetilde G}(x,z){\widetilde\Sigma}(z,y)\,.
367: \end{align}
368: \end{subequations}
369: It is useful now to consider the $(a,b)=(1,2)$ components of these equations:
370: \begin{subequations}
371: \begin{align}
372: \label{eq:sdc}
373: \left({{\square}}_x+m^2\right)G^<(x,y) &= -i\int d^4z\
374: \left[\Sigma^t(x,z) G^<(z,y)-\Sigma^<(x,z) G^{\bar t}(z,y) \right]\\
375: \label{eq:sdd}
376: \left({{\square}}_y+m^2\right)G^<(x,y) &= -i\int d^4z\ \left[G^t(x,z)
377: \Sigma^<(z,y)-G^<(x,z) \Sigma^{\bar t}(z,y) \right]\,.
378: \end{align}
379: \end{subequations}
380: %
381: Subtracting Eq. (\ref{eq:sdd}) from Eq. (\ref{eq:sdc}) and multiplying
382: through by $i$ gives
383: %
384: \be
385: \label{eq:sde}
386: i\left({\square}_x-{\square}_y\right) G^<(x,y)\bigr\rvert_{x=y\equiv X} =i
387: \partial_\mu^X\left(\partial^\mu_x-\partial^\mu_y\right)G^<(x,y)\bigr\rvert_{x=y\equiv X}\,.
388: \ee
389: However,
390: \be
391: (\partial^\mu_x-\partial^\mu_y) G^<(x,y)\bigr\rvert_{x=y\equiv X} = -i j_\phi^\mu(X)\,,
392: \ee
393: %
394: where $j_\phi^\mu(x) = i\langle :\!\phi^\dag(x)\overset{\leftrightarrow}{\partial_\mu}\phi(x)\!:\rangle \equiv(n_\phi(x), \vect{j}_\phi(x))$, since the ``$+$" and ``$-$" labels
395: simply indicate the order in which the fields $\phi^\dag(y)$ and
396: $\phi(x)$ occur and may be dropped at this point. Finally, expressing $G^{t, {\bar t}}(x,y)$ and
397: $\Sigma^{t,{\bar t}}(x,y)$ in terms of $\theta$-functions as in
398: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Greens1}), we obtain from Eq.~(\ref{eq:sde}):
399: %
400: \begin{equation}
401: \begin{split}
402: \pd{n_\phi}{X_0}+{\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}}\mcdot\vect{j}_\phi(X)
403: = \int d^3 z\int_{-\infty}^{X_0} dz_0\
404: \Bigl[ \Sigma^>(X,z) G^<(z,X)&-G^>(X,z)\Sigma^<(z,X)\\
405: +G^<(X,z) \Sigma^>(z,X) &- \Sigma^<(X,z) G^>(z,X)\Bigr]\,.
406: \label{eq:scalar1}
407: \end{split}
408: \end{equation}
409: 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
410: for Dirac fermions:
411: \begin{equation}
412: \begin{split}
413: \pd{n_\psi}{X_0} + {\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}}\mcdot\vect{j}_\psi(X) =
414: -\int d^3 z\int_{-\infty}^{X_0} dz_0\
415: {\rm Tr}\Bigl[ \Sigma^>(X,z) S^<(z,X)&-S^>(X,z)\Sigma^<(z,X)\\
416: +S^<(X,z) \Sigma^>(z,X) &- \Sigma^<(X,z) S^>(z,X)\Bigr]\,,
417: \label{eq:fermion1}
418: \end{split}
419: \end{equation}
420: where
421: \begin{equation}
422: j_\psi^\mu(x) = \langle :\!\bar\psi\gamma^\mu\psi(x)\!:\rangle,
423: \end{equation}
424: and
425: \begin{subequations}
426: \begin{align}
427: S^>_{\alpha\beta}(x,y) &= \langle \psi_{-\alpha}(x) {\bar\psi}_{+\beta}(y)\rangle \\
428: S^<_{\alpha\beta}(x,y) &= -\langle {\bar\psi}_{-\beta}(y) {\psi}_{+\alpha}(x)\rangle\,,
429: \end{align}
430: \end{subequations}
431: %
432: displaying explicitly the spinor indices $\alpha,\beta$.
433: Note that the overall sign of the RHS of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:scalar1},
434: \ref{eq:fermion1}) differs from that in Ref. \cite{Riotto:1998zb}
435: since the definition of our Green's functions $G(x,y)$ and $S(x,y)$
436: differ by an overall factor of $-i$.
437:
438: 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:
439: \begin{align}
440: \label{eq:fermion1b}
441: \pd{n_5}{X_0} + {\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}}\mcdot\vect{j}_5(X) = & 2im P(X) \\
442: &+\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 \\
443: &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad-S^<(X,z) \Sigma^>(z,X) - \Sigma^<(X,z) S^>(z,X)\Bigr]\gamma_5\Bigr\}\,, \nonumber
444: \end{align}
445: 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.
446:
447:
448:
449: \subsection{Power Counting of Physical Scales}
450:
451: Evaluating the various terms in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:scalar1},
452: \ref{eq:fermion1}) leads to a system of coupled quantum transport
453: equations for the charges that ultimately determine $n_L(x)$. On the
454: LHS of these equations, it is conventional to parameterize $\vect{j} =
455: - D(\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}\!n)$, in terms of the diffusion coefficient
456: $D$ (whose expressions we take from Ref.~\cite{Joyce:1994zn}).
457: The RHS involves integrating the products of various Green's functions
458: and self-energies over the entire history of the system. In practice,
459: 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
460: $\epsilon$) and that provides for a systematic expansion of the RHS of the transport equations
461: (\ref{eq:scalar1}, \ref{eq:fermion1}, \ref{eq:fermion1b}).
462:
463: 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 effective wave number $k$ depends on $\abs{\vect{k}}$ and the wall thickness, $L_w$. 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 $\tau_d <\infty$.
464:
465: 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 $T> 0$.
466:
467: 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 larger 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:
468: \begin{subequations}
469: \label{eq:tauratios}
470: \begin{align}
471: \label{eq:decratio}
472: 0 &< \tau_{\rm int}/\tau_d \ll 1 \\
473: \label{eq:plasratio}
474: 0 &< \tau_{\rm int}/\tau_p \ll 1\,.
475: \end{align}
476: \end{subequations}
477:
478: 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, as we work to leading nontrivial order in $\epsilon$.} 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.
479:
480: \subsection{Green's Functions at Nonzero Temperature and Density}
481:
482: The computation of the various components of ${\widetilde G}(x,y)$ and
483: ${\widetilde\Sigma}(x,y)$ appearing in Eqs. (\ref{eq:scalar1},
484: \ref{eq:fermion1}) at nonzero temperature and density requires
485: knowledge of $(T,\mu_i)$-dependent fermion and boson
486: propagators. The $T$-dependence of propagators has been studied extensively
487: (see, for instance, 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}.
488:
489: For pedagogical purposes, we provide
490: here a brief derivation of the non-interacting fermion propagator but
491: only give final results for the case of interacting fermions and
492: bosons. To do so, we start from the mode
493: expansions for the field operators appearing in the free Dirac
494: Lagrangian, $\psi(x)$ and ${\bar\psi}(x)$:
495: %
496: \begin{subequations}
497: \label{eq:modeexp}
498: \begin{align}
499: \psi(x) &= \int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{1}{2\omega_{\vect{k}}}
500: \sum_{\alpha=1,2}\left[a^\alpha_{\vect{k}} u^\alpha(\vect{k})
501: e^{-ik\cdot x} + b^{\alpha\dag}_{\vect{k}}
502: v^\alpha(\vect{k})e^{ik\cdot x}\right] \\
503: {\bar\psi(x)} &= \int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{1}{2\omega_{\vect{k}}}
504: \sum_{\alpha=1,2}\left[a^{\alpha\dag}_{\vect{k}}
505: {\bar u}^\alpha(\vect{k})e^{ik\cdot x} + b^\alpha_{\vect{k}}
506: {\bar v}^\alpha(\vect{k})e^{-ik\cdot x}\right]\,,
507: \end{align}
508: \end{subequations}
509: %
510: where $k^\mu=(\omega_{\vect{k}}, \vect{k})$, $\omega_{\vect{k}}=\sqrt{\abs{\vect{k}}^2 + m^2}$, the mode operators satisfy:
511: \begin{equation}
512: \bigl\{a^\alpha_{\vect{k}}, a^{\beta\dag}_{\vect{k}^\prime}\bigr\} = \bigl\{b^\alpha_{\vect{k}}, b^{\beta\dag}_{\vect{k}^\prime}\bigr\} =
513: (2\pi)^3\delta^{(3)}(\vect{k}-\vect{k}^\prime)2\omega_{\vect{k}}\delta^{\alpha\beta},
514: \end{equation}
515: and
516: \begin{subequations}
517: \begin{align}
518: \langle a^{\alpha\dag}_{\vect{k}} a^\beta_{\vect{k}^\prime}\rangle &=
519: f(\omega_k,\mu_i) (2\pi)^3 \delta^{(3)}(\vect{k}-\vect{k}^\prime)2\omega_{\vect{k}}\delta^{\alpha\beta}\\
520: \langle b^{\alpha\dag}_{\vect{k}} b^\beta_{\vect{k}^\prime}\rangle &=
521: f(\omega_k,-\mu_i) (2\pi)^3 \delta^{(3)}(\vect{k}-\vect{k}^\prime)2\omega_{\vect{k}}
522: \delta^{\alpha\beta},
523: \end{align}
524: \end{subequations}
525: %
526: with $f(\omega,\mu_i)$ being the non-equilibrium Fermi distribution
527: function. For our purposes, the relative change $\delta
528: f(\omega,\mu_i)/f_0(\omega,\mu_i)$ enters the transport equations
529: 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
530: distributions $f_0(\omega,\mu_i)=n_F(\omega-\mu_i)=[e^{(\omega-\mu_i)/T} +
531: 1]^{-1}$. Using the mode expansion (\ref{eq:modeexp}) it is
532: straightforward to show that
533: $S^>(x,y)=\langle \psi(x){\bar\psi}(y)\rangle$ and
534: $S^<(x,y)=-\langle {\bar\psi}(y)\psi(x)\rangle$ can be expressed
535: as:
536: %
537: \be
538: \label{eq:slambdafree}
539: S^\gtrless(x,y)=\int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4} e^{-i{k}\cdot(x-y)}
540: g_F^\gtrless({k}_0,\mu_i)\rho(k_0,\vect{k})\left(\diracslash{k}+m\right)
541: \ee
542: %
543: in terms of the free particle spectral density:
544: %
545: \be
546: \rho({k}_0, \vect{k}) = {i\over 2\omega_k}\biggl[
547: \left({1\over
548: {k}_0-\omega_k+i\epsilon}-{1\over {k}_0+\omega_k+i\epsilon}\right)
549: -\left({1\over {k}_0-\omega_k-i\epsilon}-
550: {1\over {k}_0+\omega_k-i\epsilon}\right)\biggr]\ .
551: \label{eq:spectral1}
552: \ee
553: %
554: and the functions:
555: \begin{subequations}
556: \begin{align}
557: g_F^>(k_0,\mu_i)&=1-n_F(k_0-\mu_i) \\
558: g_F^<(k_0,\mu_i)&= -n_F(k_0-\mu_i)\,.
559: \end{align}
560: \end{subequations}
561: %
562: The propagators $S^{t,\bar t}(x,y)$ can now be constructed from the
563: $S^\lambda(x,y)$ as in Eqs. (\ref{eq:Greens1}).
564:
565: In the presence of interactions (characterized by a generic coupling
566: $g$), the fermion propagator becomes considerably more complicated
567: than given by Eq. (\ref{eq:slambdafree}). In particular, single
568: fermion states can mix with other multiparticle states in the thermal
569: bath, leading to the presence of additional poles (the ``hole"
570: 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
571: case of non-zero $\mu_i$. For massless fermions, the resulting
572: propagators are given by:
573: %
574: \be
575: \label{eq:slambdaint}
576: S^\gtrless(x,y;\mu_i)=\int {d^4k\over (2\pi)^4} e^{-ik\cdot(x-y)}
577: g_F^\gtrless(k_0, \mu)
578: \left[\frac{\gamma_0-\boldgamma\mcdot\vect{\hat k}}{2}\rho_+(k_0, \vect{k}, \mu_i)
579: + \frac{\gamma_0+\boldgamma\mcdot\vect{\hat k}}{2}\rho_-(k_0, \vect{k}, \mu_i)\right]
580: \,,
581: \ee
582: where $\vect{\hat k}$ is the unit vector in the $\vect{k}$ direction, and
583: \begin{equation}
584: \label{eq:rhoplus}
585: \begin{split}
586: \rho_+(k_0,\vect{k},\mu_i) = i\biggl[&\frac{Z_p(k,\mu_i)}{k_0-\mathcal{E}_p(k,\mu_i)}
587: -\frac{Z_p(k,\mu_i)^*}{k_0-\mathcal{E}_p(k,\mu_i)^*} \\
588: + &\frac{Z_h(k,-\mu_i)^*}{k_0+\mathcal{E}_h(k,-\mu_i)^*}
589: - \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]\,,
590: \end{split}
591: \end{equation}
592: and
593: \begin{equation}
594: \label{eq:rhominus}
595: \rho_-(k_0,\vect{k},\mu_i) = [\rho_+(-k_0^*,\vect{k},-\mu_i)]^*\,.
596: \end{equation}
597: %i\biggl[{Z_p(k,-\mu)^*\over k_0+E_p(k,-\mu)^*}
598: %-{Z_p(k,-\mu)\over k_0+E_p(k,-\mu)}\\
599: %\nonumber
600: %&&+{Z_h(k,\mu)\over k_0-E_h(k,\mu)}
601: %-{Z_h(k,\mu)^*\over k_0-E_h(k,\mu)^*}+F(-k_0^*,k,-\mu)^*-F(-k_0,k,-\mu)\biggr]
602: %\eea
603: %
604: 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:
605: \be
606: 0 = k_0-k+D_+(k_0, k,\mu_i)+i\epsilon
607: \ee
608: %
609: where $iD_{\pm}(k_0,k,\mu_i)$ are contributions to the inverse, retarded
610: propagator proportional to $(\gamma_0\mp\boldgamma\mcdot\vect{\hat k})/2$
611: arising from interactions. The function $F(k_0, k,\mu_i)$ gives the
612: 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 $F(k_0,k,\mu_i)$.
613:
614: In the limit $g\to 0$, one has $Z_h\to 0$ and $Z_p\to 1$, recovering
615: the form of the propagator given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:slambdafree}). For
616: nonzero $g$, however, $Z_h$ is not of order $g^2$ since the particle
617: and hole modes arise from mixtures of degenerate states. In
618: particular, at $k=0$ one has $Z_p=Z_h=1/2$. As $k$ becomes large (of
619: order the thermal mass or larger), $Z_h/Z_p \ll 1$, and the particle
620: dispersion relation is well-approximated by $\mathcal{E}_p^2 =
621: \abs{\vect{k}}^2 + m^2(T,\mu_i)$, where $m(T,\mu_i)$ is the thermal mass.
622: In our particular application to the MSSM, the gaugino $M_i$ masses
623: will typically be taken to be of order several hundred GeV, and for
624: the SU(2)$_L\times$U(1)$_Y$ sector, thermal effects do not induce
625: substantial mass corrections. We find that the gaugino contributions
626: to the RHS of Eqs. (\ref{eq:scalar1}, \ref{eq:fermion1}) are dominated
627: by momenta of order $M_i$, so that the hole contributions to the
628: gaugino $S^\gtrless(x,y)$ can be neglected. In contrast, for quarks
629: we find non-negligible contributions from the low-momentum region, so
630: we retain the full structure given by
631: Eqs. (\ref{eq:slambdaint}-\ref{eq:rhominus}) in computing their
632: contributions.
633:
634: It has been noted in previous studies of quark damping rates that the
635: one-loop thermal widths $\Gamma_{p,h}= \Imag{\mathcal{E}_{p,h}(k,\mu)}$ are
636: gauge-dependent (see Ref.~\cite{Braaten:1989mz} and Ref. [3] therein), whereas the thermal masses $m(T,\mu)$ entering
637: $\mathcal{E}_{p,h}$ are gauge-independent to this order. Gauge-independent
638: widths can be obtained by performing an appropriate resummation of
639: hard thermal loops (HTLs) \cite{LeBellac,Braaten:1989mz,Braaten:1991gm}. The latter are associated with momenta
640: $k_0,k\sim gT$, for which the one-loop functions $D_{\pm}(k_0,k,\mu)$
641: are of the same order in $g$ as the tree-level inverse propagators. In
642: what follows, we will estimate the widths $\Gamma_{p,h}$ based on
643: existing computations~of damping~\cite{Braaten:1992gd, Enqvist:1997ff, Elmfors:1998hh}, deferring a
644: complete computation of the gauge-invariant, $\mu_i$-dependent
645: contributions in the MSSM to a future study. In general,
646: the residues $Z_{p,h}$ also carry a gauge-dependence, and at this time
647: we are not aware of any HTL resummation that could eliminate this
648: dependence. In principle, elimination of this gauge-dependence
649: requires inclusion of one-loop vertex corrections in the computation
650: of the $\Sigma^\gtrless(x,y)$ and $S^\gtrless(x,y)$ appearing on the RHS
651: of Eqs. (\ref{eq:scalar1}, \ref{eq:fermion1}), and
652: we again defer a complete one-loop computation to a future study.
653:
654: The derivation of the finite-density scalar propagators proceeds along
655: similar lines. Starting from the mode expansion of the free scalar
656: field $\phi(x)$ in terms of plane-wave solutions to the Klein-Gordon
657: equation and following analogous arguments as for fermions, one
658: arrives at the following scalar Green's functions:
659: %
660: \be
661: G^\gtrless(x,y)=\int{d^4k\over (2\pi)^4} e^{-ik\cdot(x-y)}
662: g_B^\gtrless(k_0, \mu_i)\rho(k_0,\vect{k}),
663: \ee
664: where the equilibrium distribution functions are:
665: \begin{subequations}
666: \begin{align}
667: g_B^>(\omega, \mu) &= 1+n_B(\omega-\mu_i)\\
668: g_B^<(\omega, \mu) &= n_B(\omega - \mu_i)\,,
669: \end{align}
670: \end{subequations}
671: with $n_B(x) = 1/(e^{x/T} - 1)$ and $\rho(k_0,\vect{k})$
672: given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:spectral1}). As with fermions, one may include
673: the effect of thermal masses and widths by replacing $m^2\to
674: m^2(T,\mu_i)$ and $i\epsilon\to i\epsilon+i\Gamma(T,\mu_i)$.
675:
676:
677:
678:
679:
680:
681: \section{Source Terms for Quantum Transport}
682: \label{sec:source}
683:
684:
685:
686: The expressions for $G^\gtrless(x,y)$ and $S^\gtrless(x,y)$ now allow us
687: to compute the perturbative contributions to the source terms on the
688: RHS of Eqs. (\ref{eq:scalar1},\ref{eq:fermion1}) starting from a given
689: electroweak model Lagrangian. Here, we work within the MSSM as an
690: illustrative case, but emphasize that the methods are general. The
691: Feynman rules giving the relevant interaction vertices in the MSSM are
692: taken from Ref.~\cite{Martin:1997ns}, and in what follows, we only write
693: down those relevant for the computations undertaken here. It is
694: useful, however, to place our calculation in a broader context by
695: considering the various classes of graphs that generate different
696: terms in the QTEs. The simplest topologies are those involving
697: scattering of particles and their superpartners from the spacetime
698: varying Higgs vevs (generically denoted $v$) in the plasma
699: [Fig.~\ref{fig:graphs1}].
700: \begin{figure}
701: \centering
702: \begin{picture}(150,180)
703: \put(50,50){\makebox(50,50){\epsfig{figure=fig1.eps,width=13cm}}}
704: \end{picture}
705: \caption[Contributions to self-energies
706: from scattering of particles from Higgs vevs.]{
707: Contributions to the relevant self-energies
708: from scattering of particles from the spacetime
709: varying Higgs vevs.
710: \label{fig:graphs1}
711: }
712: \end{figure}
713: %
714: These graphs give rise to both the $CP$-violating source
715: terms discussed in Ref. \cite{Riotto:1998zb} as well as terms
716: proportional to chiral charge. The latter involve the number densities
717: of at most two different species, such as the left- and right-handed
718: top quarks [Fig.~\ref{fig:graphs1}(a)] or their superpartners
719: [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
720: 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.}.
721:
722: %
723:
724: Yukawa interactions involving quarks (squarks) and Higgs (Higgsinos)
725: are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:graphs2}
726: \begin{figure}
727: \centering
728: \begin{picture}(150,200)
729: \put(50,80){\makebox(50,50){\epsfig{figure=fig2.eps,width=10cm}}}
730: \end{picture}
731: \caption{
732: \label{fig:graphs2}
733: Contributions to the relevant self-energies from Yukawa interactions.
734: }
735: \end{figure}
736: (the self-energies $\Sigma^\gtrless(x,y)$ are
737: obtained by amputating the external legs).
738:
739: These interactions cause
740: transitions such as $f\leftrightarrow f H$, ${\tilde f}\leftrightarrow
741: {\tilde f} H$, and $f\leftrightarrow {\tilde f}{\tilde
742: H}$. Contributions from gauge interactions appear
743: in Fig.~\ref{fig:graphs3}. The
744: latter induce transitions of the type $f\leftrightarrow f V$, ${\tilde
745: f}\leftrightarrow {\tilde f}V$, and $f\leftrightarrow{\tilde f}{\tilde
746: V}$.
747: %Diagrams involving $f\leftrightarrow{\tilde f}{\tilde V}$ and
748: %$f\leftrightarrow {\tilde f}{\tilde H}$ may, of course, be expressed
749: %in terms of the basis of charginos and neutralinos, but for purposes
750: %of discussion we will distinguish between Higgsino and gaugino
751: %contributions.
752: In general, one expects the Yukawa and gauge
753: interactions involving three different species to depend on sums and
754: differences of the corresponding chemical potentials, as in
755: $\mu_f-\mu_{\tilde f}-\mu_{\tilde V}$ for the supergauge
756: interactions. In previous studies, it has been assumed that the
757: gauginos ${\tilde V}$ are sufficiently light and the coefficients of
758: the corresponding terms in the QTEs sufficiently large than one has
759: $\mu_{\tilde V}\approx 0$ and $\mu_f\approx \mu_{\tilde f}$. Although
760: the quantitative validity of this assumption could be explored using
761: our framework here, we defer that analysis to a future study and take
762: $\mu_{\tilde V}\approx 0$, $\mu_f\approx \mu_{\tilde
763: f}$. Consequently, one may, as in Ref. \cite{Huet:1995sh}, define a
764: common chemical potential for SM particles (including the two Higgs
765: doublets) and their superpartners.
766: %
767:
768:
769: In previous studies, it has also been assumed---based largely on simple estimates (see, for instance, Ref.~\cite{Huet:1995sh})---that the Yukawa interactions of Fig.~\ref{fig:graphs2} are
770: sufficiently fast that they decouple from the set of QTEs, leading
771: to relations between the chemical potentials for the Higgs (Higgsino)
772: fields and those for matter fields. For example, Yukawa interactions
773: that couple the Higgs doublet fields $H$ with those of the third
774: generation SU(2)$_L$ doublet quarks, $Q$ with the singlet top quark
775: supermultiplet field, $T$, generate terms of the form:
776: %
777: \be
778: \Gamma_Y \left(\mu_Q-\mu_T+\mu_H\right)\,.
779: \ee
780: %
781: To the extent that $\Gamma_Y$ is much larger than the other transport
782: coefficients appearing in Eqs. (\ref{eq:scalar1},\ref{eq:fermion1}),
783: one has $\mu_Q=\mu_T-\mu_H$ plus terms of ${\cal O}(1/\Gamma_Y)$. The
784: remaining terms in the QTEs will involve the $CP$-violating sources,
785: sphaleron terms, and terms that couple left- and right-handed chiral
786: charges, such as $\Gamma_M(\mu_Q-\mu_T)$. Again, this assumption could
787: be tested using the current framework, but the computation of
788: $\Gamma_Y$ is considerably more arduous than those discussed below,
789: where we focus on the $CP$-violating sources and the $\Gamma_M$-type
790: terms that are generated by the diagrams in Fig.~\ref{fig:graphs1}.
791: %
792: \begin{figure}
793: \centering
794: \begin{picture}(150,230)
795: \put(50,90){\makebox(50,50){\epsfig{figure=fig3.eps,width=10cm}}}
796: \end{picture}
797: \caption{Representative contributions to self-energies from
798: (super)gauge interactions.
799: \label{fig:graphs3}
800: }
801: \end{figure}
802:
803:
804: \subsection{Bosons}
805:
806: We consider first the scalar interactions in Fig.~\ref{fig:graphs1}(a).
807: The largest contributions involve the L and R top squarks, ${\tilde
808: t}_{L,R}$ owing to their large Yukawa coupling, $y_t$. In the basis of weak eigenstates, the relevant interaction
809: Lagrangian is:
810: %
811: \begin{equation}
812: \label{eq:scalarhiggs}
813: \mathcal{L} = y_t\tilde t_L\tilde t_R^*(A_t v_u - \mu^* v_d) + \text{h.c.}\,,
814: \end{equation}
815: %{\cal L} = {Y_t\over\sqrt{2}}{\tilde t}_L{\tilde
816: %t}_R^\ast\left[\mu^\ast\left(Z_R^{1j} H_j^0+v_d\right)-A_t
817: %\left(Z_R^{2j} H_j^0+v_u\right)\right]+{\rm h.c.}\ \ \ ,
818: %\ee
819: %where the physical, neutral Higgs eigenstates $H^0_j$, $H^0_{j+2}$,
820: %$j=1,2$ are defined in terms of the weak eigenstates $H_i^i$, $i=1,2$
821: %as
822: %\bea
823: %\label{eq;higgeseigen}
824: %{\rm Re} H_i^i & = & \frac{1}{2}\left(Z_R^{ij} H_j^0+v_i\right)\\
825: %\nonumber
826: %{\rm Im} H_i^i & = & \frac{1}{2} Z_H^{ij} H_{j+2}^0\ \ \
827: %\eea
828: %
829: %where $v_1\equiv v_d$ and $v_2\equiv v_u$ are the vevs of the $H_i^i$
830: 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 $\tan\beta\equiv
831: v_u/v_d$. Note that in Eq. (\ref{eq:scalarhiggs}) we allow the $v_{u,d}$ to
832: be spacetime-dependent. In the region of broken electroweak symmetry
833: and stable vevs, we have $m_t=y_t v_u$.
834:
835: Using the Feynman rules for path-ordered perturbation theory, it is
836: straightforward to show that the diagrams in Fig.~\ref{fig:graphs1}(a)
837: generate contributions to ${\widetilde\Sigma}_R(x,y)$ of the form:
838: %
839: \be
840: \label{eq:sigmascalar}
841: {\widetilde\Sigma}_R(x,y) = -g(x,y){\widetilde G}_L^0(x,y),
842: \ee
843: where
844: \begin{equation}
845: \label{eq:gxyscalar}
846: 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]\,.
847: \end{equation}
848: Substituting Eq. (\ref{eq:sigmascalar}) into Eq. (\ref{eq:scalar1}) leads to:
849: \be
850: \partial_\mu {\tilde t}^\mu_R(x) = S_{{\tilde t}_R}(x)
851: \ee
852: for right-handed top squarks, where ${\tilde t}^\mu_R$ is the
853: corresponding current density and the source $S_{{\tilde t}_R}(x)$ is
854: \begin{equation}
855: \label{eq:scalar2}
856: \begin{split}
857: S_{{\tilde t}_R}(x) = -\int d^3z\int_{-\infty}^{x_0}dz_0\
858: \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] \\
859: +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\}\,,
860: \end{split}
861: \end{equation}
862: where the L,R subscripts indicate the propagators for the L and R
863: top squarks.
864:
865: The first term in the integrand of $S_{{\tilde t}_R}(x)$ is
866: $CP$-conserving and leads to the $\Gamma_M$-type terms discussed
867: above, while the second term in the integrand provides the
868: $CP$-violating sources. We concentrate first on the former. Expanding
869: $g(x,z)$ about $z=x$ it is straightforward to show that only terms
870: involving even powers of derivatives survive in $g(x,z)+g(z,x)$. Under
871: the assumptions of gentle spacetime dependence of the $v_i(x)$ near
872: the phase boundary, we will neglect terms beyond leading order and
873: take $g(x,z)+g(z,x)\approx 2 g(x,x)$. Consequently, the
874: $CP$-conserving source is:
875: %
876: \bea
877: \label{eq:scalar3}
878: S_{{\tilde t}_R}^{CP}(x) &\approx& -2g(x,x) \Real
879: \int d^3z\int_{-\infty}^{x_0}dz_0\ \left [G^>_L(x,z)G^<_R(z,x)
880: -G^<_L(x,z)G^>_R(z,x)\right]\\
881: \nonumber
882: &=& -2g(x,x)\Real\int d^3z \int_{-\infty}^{x_0}dz_0\int{d^4k\over
883: (2\pi)^4}\int {d^4q\over (2\pi)^4}
884: e^{-i(k-q)\cdot(x-z)}\rho_L(k_0,\vect{k})\rho_R(q_0,\vect{q})\\
885: \nonumber
886: &&
887: \ \ \ \times \left[g_B^>(k_0,\mu_L)g_B^<(q_0,\mu_R)-
888: g_B^<(k_0,\mu_L) g_B^>(q_0,\mu_R)\right]\,,
889: \eea
890: with
891: \be
892: \label{eq:scalargxx}
893: g(x,x) = y_t^2 \bigl[|\mu|^2 v_d^2(x) + |A_t|^2 v_u^2(x) -
894: 2v_d(x) v_u(x) \Real(\mu A_t)\bigr].
895: \ee
896: Note the simplification
897: \begin{equation}
898: g_B^>(k_0,\mu_L)g_B^<(q_0,\mu_R)-
899: g_B^<(k_0,\mu_L) g_B^>(q_0,\mu_R) = n_B(q_0-\mu_R) - n_B(k_0-\mu_L).
900: \end{equation}
901: Performing the $d^3z$ integral leads to a $\delta$ function in
902: momentum space. After carrying out the $d^3q$ integral,
903: %and changing variables to $t=x_0-z_0$, we obtain
904: %\bea
905: %\label{eq:scalar4}
906: %S_{{\tilde t}_R}(x)^{CP} &\approx& -2g(x,x)
907: %{\rm Re}\int_{-\infty}^0dt \int{d^3k\over (2\pi)^3}
908: %\int {dk_0\over 2\pi}\int {dq_0\over 2\pi} e^{ik_0t}e^{-iq_0t}
909: %\rho_L(k_0,{\vec k})\rho_R(q_0,{\vec q})\\
910: %\nonumber
911: %&&
912: %\ \ \ \times \left[f_1^>(k_0,\mu_L)
913: %f_1^<(q_0,\mu_R)-f_1^<(k_0,\mu_L)f_1^>(q_0,\mu_R)\right]\ \ \ ,
914: %\eea
915: %with
916: %\be
917: %\label{eq:scalargxx}
918: %g(x,x) = {Y_t^2\over 2} \left[|\mu|^2 v_d^2(x) + |A_t|^2 v_u^2(x) -
919: % 2v_d(x) v_u(x)\Real(\mu A_t)\right]\ \ \ .
920: %\ee
921: we perform the $k^0,q^0$ integrals by contour integration\footnote{Here and in subsequent equations, we show only the terms arising from picking up the residues of the poles in the spectral functions such as $\rho_L(k^0,\vect{k}),\rho_R(q^0,\vect{q})$. A careful calculation would also include the residues from the poles in the thermal distribution functions such as $n_B(k^0), h_B(k^0)$, etc. We relegate these to Appendix.~\ref{appx:poles}, where we find their contribution to the final numerical results to be unimportant compared to the terms retained in the main text.}, expand to
922: first order in $\mu_{L,R}/T$, and obtain:
923: \begin{equation}
924: \label{eq:scalar5}
925: \begin{split}
926: 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} \\
927: &\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\},
928: \end{split}
929: \end{equation}
930: where
931: \begin{subequations}
932: \label{eq:scalardefs}
933: \begin{align}
934: \omega_{L,R}^2 &= \abs{\vect{k}}^2 + M_{\tilde t_{L,R}}^2 \\
935: \mathcal{E}_{L,R} &= \omega_{L,R} - i\Gamma_{L,R} \\
936: h_B(x) &= -\frac{e^{x/T}}{(e^{x/T} - 1)^2},
937: \end{align}
938: \end{subequations}
939: and $M_{\tilde t_{L,R}},\Gamma_{L,R}$ are the thermal masses and widths
940: for the $\tilde t_{L,R}$, and the factor of $N_C$ comes from
941: 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}) of Appendix \ref{appx:expand}.
942:
943:
944: For purposes of future analysis, it is useful to rewrite
945: Eq. (\ref{eq:scalar5}) as:
946: \begin{equation}
947: \label{eq:scalar6}
948: S^{CP}_{\tilde t_R} = \Gamma_{\tilde t}^+ (\mu_L + \mu_R) + \Gamma_{\tilde t}^-(\mu_L - \mu_R)\,,
949: \end{equation}
950: where
951: \begin{equation}
952: \label{eq:gammascalarpm}
953: \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\}.
954: \end{equation}
955:
956: Before proceeding with the $CP$-violating source, we comment briefly
957: on the structure of Eqs. (\ref{eq:scalar6}-\ref{eq:gammascalarpm}). In
958: particular, we note that
959: \begin{itemize}
960: \item[(i)] Terms of the type $\Gamma^{+}_{\tilde t}$ are
961: absent from the conventional QTEs for EWB. It is straightforward to
962: see that in the absence of interactions that distinguish between
963: ${\tilde t}_L$ and ${\tilde t}_R$, $\Gamma^{+}_{\tilde t}=0$, as the
964: integrand of Eq.~(\ref{eq:gammascalarpm}) is antisymmetric under
965: $L\leftrightarrow R$ interchange. In contrast, the transport
966: coefficient $\Gamma^{-}_{\tilde t}$ is nonzero in the limit of exact
967: ${\tilde t}_L\leftrightarrow {\tilde t}_R$ symmetry. This term
968: corresponds to the usual damping term in the QTEs associated with
969: scattering from the Higgs vevs.
970: \item[(ii)] In the absence of thermal widths $\Gamma_{L,R}$, the quantity in
971: brackets in Eq.~(\ref{eq:gammascalarpm}) is purely real, and so the
972: damping term would be zero.
973: \item[(iii)] The structure of the energy
974: denominators implies a resonant enhancement of the integrand for $
975: M_{\tilde t_{L}}^2 \sim M_{\tilde t_{R}}^2 $. A similar effect was observed to occur
976: for the $CP$-violating sources (see below) in
977: 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
978: well. The resulting quantitative impact of this resonance on the baryon asymmetry
979: is discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec:numerics}.
980: \end{itemize}
981: Properties (ii) and (iii) are shared by all source and damping terms,
982: we discuss below. Note that the explicit factors of $\mu_{L,R}/T$ and property (ii) imply that, away from the resonance region,
983: $S^{CP}_{\tilde t_R}$ is $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)$.
984:
985: The computation of the $CP$-violating source, given by the second term
986: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:scalar2}), proceeds along similar lines. In this case,
987: the coefficient $[g(x,z)-g(z,x)]$ vanishes for $x=z$, so we must
988: retain terms at least to first order in the expansion about $x=z$:
989: \begin{equation}
990: \begin{split}
991: \label{eq:gexpand1}
992: g(x,z)-g(z,x) & = 2i y_t^2 \Imag(\mu A_t)\left[v_d(x) v_u(z)
993: -v_d(z) v_u(x)\right]\\
994: &= 2i y_t^2 \Imag(\mu A_t) (z-x)^\lambda\left[ v_d(x)
995: \partial_\lambda v_u(x)-
996: v_u(x)\partial_\lambda v_d(x)\right] +\cdots\,,
997: \end{split}
998: \end{equation}
999: %
1000: where the $+\cdots$ indicate higher order terms in the derivative
1001: expansion that we neglect for the same reasons as discussed
1002: previously. When the linear term in Eq. (\ref{eq:gexpand1}) is
1003: substituted in Eq. (\ref{eq:scalar2}), only the time component yields
1004: a nonzero contribution. The spatial components
1005: vanish due to the spatial isotropy of the spectral
1006: density: $g_B^\gtrless(k_0,\mu) \rho(k_0, \vect{k})
1007: \equiv g_B^\gtrless(k_0,\mu) \rho(k_0, \abs{\vect{k}})$.
1008: We may then make the replacement:
1009: %
1010: \begin{equation}
1011: \begin{split}
1012: \label{eq:gexpand2}
1013: g(x,z)-g(z,x) & \rightarrow 2i
1014: y_t^2\Imag(\mu A_t)\left[v_d(x) {\dot v}_u(x)-{\dot v}_d(x) v_u(x)\right]
1015: \, (z - x)^0 \\
1016: &= 2i y_t^2\Imag(\mu A_t) v(x)^2{\dot\beta}(x) \, (z - x)^0 \ .
1017: \end{split}
1018: \end{equation}
1019: %
1020: In general, we expect ${\dot\beta}$ to be of order $v_w/c$, so that
1021: the $CP$-violating source is first-order in one of the small expansion
1022: parameters discussed earlier. Consequently, when evaluating this term,
1023: we may neglect the $\mu_{L,R}$-dependence of the
1024: $g_B^\gtrless(k_0,\mu)$. After carrying out the ($k_0$,$q_0$) contour
1025: integrals and performing the time integration, we obtain:
1026: %
1027: \begin{equation}
1028: \label{eq:scalarcp1}
1029: \begin{split}
1030: 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\}.
1031: \end{split}
1032: \end{equation}
1033: %
1034: 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}, which we note agrees with that of Ref.~\cite{Riotto:1998zb} except for a
1035: different relative sign in front of the $\cos 2\phi$ term of that equation and the overall factor of $N_C$.
1036:
1037:
1038:
1039: \subsection{Massive Fermions}
1040:
1041: The computations for fermions proceed along similar lines. We consider
1042: first the source terms for Higgsinos.
1043: We recall that it is useful to redefine the Higgsino fields to remove the
1044: complex phase from the Higgsino mass term:
1045: %
1046: \be
1047: {\cal L}_{\widetilde H}^{\rm mass} = \mu \left(\psi_{H_d^0}\psi_{H_u^0}-
1048: \psi_{H_d^-}\psi_{H_u^+}\right)
1049: +\mu^\ast \left(
1050: {\bar\psi}_{H_d^0}{\bar\psi}_{H_u^0}-{\bar\psi}_{H_d^-}{\bar\psi}_{H_u^+}
1051: \right)
1052: \ee
1053: via
1054: \be
1055: \psi_{H_d^{0,-}}\to{\widetilde H}_d^{0,-}\quad\quad
1056: \psi_{H_u^{0,+}}\to e^{-i\phi_\mu}{\widetilde H}_u^{0,+}
1057: \ee
1058: leading to:
1059: \be
1060: \label{eq:higgsinomass}
1061: {\cal L}_{\widetilde H}^{\rm mass}=
1062: \abs{\mu}\left({\widetilde H}_d^0{\widetilde H}_u^0-{\widetilde H}_d^-{\widetilde H}_u^+\right)
1063: + \abs{\mu} \left( {\widetilde H}_d^{0\dag}
1064: {\widetilde H}_u^{0\dag}-{\widetilde H}_d^{-\dag}{\widetilde H}_u^{+\dag}
1065: \right)\,.
1066: \ee
1067: Defining the four component spinors,
1068: \be
1069: \label{eq:higgsinodef}
1070: \Psi_{\widetilde H^+} = \left(\begin{array}{c}
1071: {\widetilde H}_u^+\\ {\widetilde H}_d^{-\dag}
1072: \end{array}
1073: \right)\quad\quad
1074: \Psi_{\widetilde H^0} = \left(\begin{array}{c}
1075: -{\widetilde H}_u^0\\ {\widetilde H}_d^{0\dag}
1076: \end{array}
1077: \right)\,
1078: \ee
1079: for the Higgsinos, and
1080: %
1081: \be
1082: \label{eq:gauginodef}
1083: \Psi_{\widetilde W^+}= \left(\begin{array}{c}
1084: {\widetilde W}^+ \\
1085: {\widetilde W}^{-\dag}
1086: \end{array}
1087: \right)\quad\quad
1088: \Psi_{\widetilde W^0}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
1089: {\widetilde W}^3
1090: \\
1091: {\widetilde W}^{3\dag}
1092: \end{array}
1093: \right)\quad\quad
1094: \Psi_{\widetilde B}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
1095: {\widetilde B}
1096: \\
1097: {\widetilde B}^\dag
1098: \end{array}
1099: \right)\,
1100: \ee
1101: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1102: for the gauginos, leads to the Higgsino-gaugino-vev interaction:
1103: \begin{equation}
1104: \begin{split}
1105: \label{eq:higgsinoint1}
1106: {\cal L}^{\rm int} &=
1107: -g_2\bar\Psi_{\widetilde H^+}\left[v_d(x)P_L+v_u(x) e^{i\phi_\mu}P_R\right]\Psi_{\widetilde W^+}\\
1108: &\quad -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\bar\Psi_{\widetilde H^0}\left[v_d(x)P_L+v_u(x) e^{i\phi_\mu}P_R\right] \left(g_2\Psi_{\widetilde W^0}-
1109: g_1\Psi_{\widetilde B}\right)\ +\ {\rm h.c.},
1110: \end{split}
1111: \end{equation}
1112: where
1113: \begin{equation}
1114: P_{L,R} = \frac{1\mp\gamma^5}{2},
1115: \end{equation}
1116: while the mass terms (\ref{eq:higgsinomass}) in the Higgsino Lagrangian become:
1117: \begin{equation}
1118: \mathcal{L}_{\tilde H}^{\text{mass}} = -\abs{\mu}(\bar\Psi_{\widetilde H_0}\Psi_{\widetilde H_0} + \bar\Psi_{\widetilde H^+}\Psi_{\widetilde H^+}).
1119: \end{equation}
1120: Note that the spinors $\Psi_{\widetilde H^0}$ and $\Psi_{\widetilde H^+}$ satisfy a
1121: Dirac equation with Dirac mass $|\mu|$, even
1122: 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 $M_2$
1123: and $M_1$, respectively. We also note that the construction of the
1124: Dirac spinor $\Psi_{\widetilde H^0}$ allows one to define a vector charge and
1125: corresponding chemical potential, $\mu_{{\widetilde H}^0}$, for the
1126: neutral Higgsinos, even though they are Majorana particles. In
1127: contrast, there exists no such vector charge for the $\Psi_{\widetilde W^0}$
1128: 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 will return to this issue in a future study, and consider only the vector densities below.
1129:
1130: The most straightforward computation is that of the ${\widetilde H}^\pm$
1131: source terms. For notational convenience, we rewrite the chargino
1132: interactions in Eq. (\ref{eq:higgsinoint1}) as:
1133: %
1134: \be
1135: \label{eq:charginoint}
1136: -g_2 \bar\Psi_{\widetilde H^+}\left[g_L(x)P_L+g_R(x)P_R\right]\Psi_{\widetilde W^+}
1137: +{\rm h.c.}
1138: \ee
1139: In this case, the self-energy generated by Fig.~\ref{fig:graphs1}(a) is:
1140: \be
1141: {\widetilde \Sigma}_{\widetilde H^\pm}(x,y) =
1142: -g_2^2 \left[g_L(x)P_L+g_R(x) P_R\right] \,
1143: {\tilde S}_{\widetilde W^\pm} (x,y) \, \left[g_L(y)^*P_R+g_R(y)^* P_L\right]\ \ \ .
1144: \ee
1145: Defining:
1146: \begin{subequations}
1147: \begin{align}
1148: g_A(x,y) & \equiv \frac{g^2_2}{2}\left[g_L(x) g_L(y)^*+g_R(x)
1149: g_R(y)^*\right]\\
1150: g_B(x,y) & \equiv \frac{g_2^2}{2}\left[g_L(x) g_R(y)^*+g_R(x) g_L(y)^*\right]\,,
1151: \end{align}
1152: \end{subequations}
1153: we obtain for the RHS of Eq. (\ref{eq:fermion1}):
1154: \begin{equation}
1155: \label{eq:fermion2a}
1156: \begin{split}
1157: S_{\widetilde H^\pm}(x) =
1158: \int d^3z \int_{-\infty}^{x_0} &dz_0 \sum_{j=A,B}\biggl\{ \\
1159: [g_j(x,z) &+g_j(z,x)]\Real\Tr \left[S_{\widetilde W^\pm}^>(x,z) S_{\widetilde H^\pm}^<(z,x)
1160: -S_{\widetilde W^\pm}^<(x,z) S_{\widetilde H^\pm}^>(z,x)\right]_j\\
1161: + i [g_j(x,z) &-g_j(z,x)]\Imag \Tr \left[S_{\widetilde W^\pm}^>(x,z) S_{\widetilde H^\pm}^<(z,x)
1162: -S_{\widetilde W^\pm}^<(x,z) S_{\widetilde H^\pm}^>(z,x)\right]_j\biggr\},
1163: \end{split}
1164: \end{equation}
1165: %
1166: where the subscripts \lq\lq A" and \lq\lq B" on the traces denote the
1167: contributions arising from the ${\not\! k}$ and $m$ terms,
1168: respectively, in the spectral function in Eq. (\ref{eq:slambdafree})
1169: (an overall factor of $1/2$ due to the presence of the chiral
1170: projectors $P_{L,R}$ has been absorbed in the definition of the
1171: $g_{A,B}$).
1172:
1173: As in the case of the scalar fields, the leading density-dependent,
1174: $CP$-conserving contribution to $S_{\widetilde H^\pm}(x) $ arises from the
1175: term in Eq. (\ref{eq:fermion2a}) containing the $x\leftrightarrow z$
1176: symmetric factors $[g_j(x,z)+g_j(z,x)]$. To lowest order in $v_w$, we
1177: may set $x=z$ in these factors. Using the spectral representation of
1178: the $S^{\gtrless}(x,y)$ given in Eq. (\ref{eq:slambdafree}), including
1179: gauge-invariant thermal masses and widths, and expanding to first
1180: order in $\mu_{i}/T$, we obtain the chirality-changing source term:
1181: %
1182: \be
1183: \label{eq:chargino1}
1184: S^{CP}_{\widetilde H^\pm}(x) = \Gamma_{\widetilde H^\pm}^{+}
1185: \left( \mu_{\widetilde W^\pm}
1186: +
1187: \mu_{\widetilde H^\pm} \right)
1188: +
1189: \Gamma_{\widetilde H^\pm}^{-}
1190: \left( \mu_{\widetilde W^\pm}-\mu_{\widetilde H^\pm}
1191: \right)\,,
1192: \ee
1193: where
1194: \begin{equation}
1195: \label{eq:gammaHiggsinopm}
1196: \begin{split}
1197: \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\phi_\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}^*} \\
1198: + &\left[\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde W}\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde H}
1199: + k^2 - M_2\abs{\mu}\cos\phi_\mu\sin 2\beta\right]
1200: \frac{h_F(\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde W}) \mp h_F(\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde H})}{\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde W} + \mathcal{E}_{\widetilde H}}\biggr\}\,,
1201: \end{split}
1202: \end{equation}
1203: %
1204: where the definitions of $\omega_{\widetilde H,\widetilde W}$ and
1205: $\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde H,\widetilde W}$ are analogous to those given
1206: in Eqs. (\ref{eq:scalardefs}) and
1207: %
1208: \begin{equation}
1209: \label{eq:fermiondefs}
1210: h_F(x) = \frac{e^{x/T}}{(e^{x/T} + 1)^2}\,.
1211: \end{equation}
1212: Also, the factor of $\cos\phi_\mu$ is very nearly 1 for the region of small $\phi_\mu$ 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}.
1213:
1214: In the present case, we follow Ref. \cite{Huet:1995sh} and assume no
1215: net density of gauginos, thereby setting $\mu_{\widetilde W^\pm}=0$ in
1216: Eq. (\ref{eq:chargino1}) and giving:
1217: %
1218: \be
1219: \label{eq:chargino2}
1220: S^{CP}_{\widetilde H^\pm}(x) = - \Gamma_{\widetilde H^\pm}\mu_{\widetilde H^\pm}\,,
1221: \ee
1222: %
1223: with $\Gamma_{\widetilde H^\pm}=\Gamma_{\widetilde H^\pm}^{+}+\Gamma_{\widetilde
1224: H^\pm}^{-}$. In this case, it is straightforward to obtain the
1225: corresponding source term for the neutral Higgsinos,
1226: %
1227: \be
1228: \label{eq:neutralino1}
1229: S^{CP}_{\widetilde H^0}(x)=- \Gamma_{\widetilde H^0}\mu_{\widetilde H^0}\,,
1230: \ee
1231: %
1232: where $\Gamma_{\widetilde H^0}$ can be obtained from the formulae for
1233: $\Gamma_{\widetilde H^\pm}$ by making the following replacements: $g_2\to
1234: g_2/\sqrt{2}$ for ${\widetilde W}^0$ intermediate states and $g_2\to
1235: g_1/\sqrt{2}$,
1236: $\omw\to\omb$, and $\gamw\to\gamb$ for the ${\widetilde B}$ intermediate
1237: states.
1238:
1239: The Higgsino $CP$-violating source arises from the second term in
1240: Eq. (\ref{eq:fermion2a}). As before, we expand the $g_j(x,z)$ to first
1241: order about $x=z$ and observe that only the $x_0-z_0$ component survives
1242: when the $d^3 z$ integration is performed. Also note that $g_A(x,z)-g_A(z,x)=2i\ {\rm
1243: Im} g_A(x,z)=0$ so that only the terms proportional to the Higgsino
1244: and gaugino masses contribute. The result is:
1245: %
1246: \begin{equation}
1247: \label{eq:chargino3}
1248: \begin{split}
1249: S_{\widetilde H^\pm}^{\CPV}(x) &= \frac{g_2^2}{\pi^2}v(x)^2\dot\beta(x)
1250: M_2\abs{\mu}\sin\phi_\mu \\
1251: &\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\}\,.
1252: \end{split}
1253: \end{equation}
1254: %
1255: The corresponding expression for
1256: $S_{\widetilde H^0}^{\CPV} (x)$ can be obtained by making the same
1257: 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
1258: \ref{appx:expand}. We again find essential agreement, apart from a sign difference on the $\cos 2\phi$ term.
1259:
1260: \subsection{Chiral Fermions}
1261:
1262: The final source term associated with Fig.~\ref{fig:graphs1}(a)
1263: involves $L$ and $R$ top quarks. At this order, the latter only
1264: contribute a $\mu_i$-dependent $CP$-conserving term. In order to
1265: illustrate the structure of this term that arises when the terms of
1266: ${\cal O}(g^2)$ are retained, we employ the interacting fermion
1267: propagators of Eqs. (\ref{eq:slambdaint}-\ref{eq:rhominus}). The
1268: result is:
1269: %
1270: \be
1271: \label{eq:topmass1}
1272: S^{CP}_{t_R}(x) = \Gamma_{t_R}^{+}\left(\mu_{t_L}+\mu_{t_R}\right)+
1273: \Gamma_{t_R}^{-}\left(\mu_{t_L}-\mu_{t_R}\right)\,,
1274: \ee
1275: with
1276: %
1277: \begin{equation}
1278: \label{eq:gquarkplusminus}
1279: \begin{split}
1280: \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] \\
1281: &+ \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\}\,.
1282: \end{split}
1283: \end{equation}
1284: %
1285: Here, the ``$p$" and ``$h$" subscripts indicate
1286: contributions from the particle and hole modes, and
1287: ``$L$ " 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}.
1288:
1289: In the limit of $t_L\leftrightarrow t_R$ symmetry, $\Gamma_{t_R}^+$ vanishes, and $\Gamma_{t_R}^-$ simplifies to:
1290: \begin{equation}
1291: \begin{split}
1292: \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) \\
1293: &+ \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\}\,.
1294: \end{split}
1295: \end{equation}
1296: We observe that all contributions to the $CP$-violating source terms
1297: and the $\Gamma^{\pm}$ vanish in the limit of zero thermal
1298: widths. Since the widths are generically of order $g^2 T$ (here, $g$
1299: denotes either a gauge or Yukawa coupling), the source terms for the
1300: QTEs are generally fourth order in the couplings.
1301:
1302: %%%%%% We argued these away, as necessarily higher order %%%%%%%%%%%
1303: %For consistency, one
1304: %should include all contributions of this order. In Fig. 4, we show
1305: %additional contributions of this order that are not included in the
1306: %approximation
1307: %%
1308: %\be
1309: %{\widetilde\Sigma}(x,y)=g(x,y){\widetilde G}(x,y)
1310: %\ee
1311: %%
1312: %with the $g(x,y)$ and thermally corrected propagators as given
1313: %above. Calculating these contributions is technically more challenging
1314: %than for the graphs of Fig. 1. We consider first the vertex
1315: %corrections of Fig. 4a. ....
1316: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1317:
1318:
1319:
1320: \section{Quantum Transport Equations and $\rho_B $}
1321: \label{sec:qtes}
1322:
1323: We now discuss diffusion equations for the particle species that
1324: significantly contribute to the density of left-handed doublet fermions
1325: $n_L(x)$ [cf. Eq.~(\ref{eq:rhob1})] that acts as the ``seed'' for
1326: baryogenesis. We subsequently relate $\rho_B$ to $n_L$ and solve
1327: explicitly the equations in the case of a simple geometry and profile
1328: for the bubble wall describing the phase boundary.
1329:
1330:
1331: \subsection{Solving the Diffusion Equations}
1332:
1333: Using the source terms computed in Section \ref{sec:source}, one can
1334: arrive at a coupled set of differential equations for the various
1335: particle number densities. These equations simplify considerably under
1336: the assumptions of approximate chemical equilibrium between SM
1337: particles and their superpartners ($\mu_f\approx\mu_{\tilde f}$ with
1338: $\mu_{\tilde V}\approx 0$), as well as the
1339: between different members of left-handed fermion doublets
1340: ($\mu_{W^\pm}\approx 0$). In this case, one obtains transport
1341: equations for densities associated with different members of a
1342: supermultiplet. This approach is the one followed in
1343: Ref.~\cite{Huet:1995sh}, and for pedagogical purposes we summarize the
1344: development here.
1345:
1346: First, we define the appropriate supermultiplet densities:
1347: %
1348: \begin{subequations}
1349: \begin{align}
1350: Q &\equiv n_{t_L}+n_{\tilde t_L}+n_{b_L} + n_{\tilde b_L}\\
1351: T &\equiv n_{t_R}+n_{\tilde t_R}\\
1352: B &\equiv n_{b_R}+n_{\tilde b_R} \\
1353: H &\equiv
1354: 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}\,,
1355: \end{align}
1356: \end{subequations}
1357: %
1358: where the Higgsino densities arise from the vector charges $n_{\widetilde H^+}={\bar\Psi_{\widetilde H^+}}\gamma^0\Psi_{\widetilde H^+}$ and
1359: $n_{\widetilde H^0}={\bar\Psi_{\widetilde H^0}}\gamma^0 \Psi_{\widetilde H^0}$ associated with the Dirac fields defined in
1360: Eq. (\ref{eq:higgsinodef}). There are analogous definitions for the
1361: 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.}
1362:
1363: The diffusion equation for a density $n_i$ has the structure:
1364: %
1365: \be
1366: \partial_\mu J_i^\mu = S_i^{CP} + S_i^{\CPV} + S_i^{\rm sph} \ ,
1367: \ee
1368: %
1369: where $J_i^\mu$ is the current associated with the density $n_i$,
1370: $S_i^{CP}$ and $S_i^{\CPV}$ are the source terms computed above,
1371: and $S_i^{\rm sph}$ is the strong sphaleron transition term, arising from the QCD anomaly of the axial quark current:
1372: \begin{equation}
1373: \partial_\mu j_5^\mu = \frac{n_f g_s^2}{16\pi^2}G^A_{\alpha\beta}\widetilde G^{A\alpha\beta},
1374: \end{equation}
1375: where $j_5^\mu = \sum_i \bar q_i\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 q_i$, summed over flavors $i$.
1376: Various derivations of the strong sphaleron term
1377: %, $S^{\rm sph}$,
1378: appear in the literature, so we do not reproduce them here. However,
1379: we note that the expressions in
1380: Refs. \cite{Huet:1995sh,Giudice:1993bb} have erroneously omitted a
1381: factor of $1/N_C$~\cite{Moore:1997im}.
1382:
1383: The $CP$-conserving damping terms $S_i^{CP}$ have been given in
1384: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:scalar6}), (\ref{eq:chargino1}), and
1385: (\ref{eq:topmass1}) to linear order in the appropriate chemical
1386: potentials.
1387: Assuming local thermal equilibrium we relate the number densities to
1388: the chemical potentials via:
1389: %
1390: \be
1391: n_i=g_i\ \int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}
1392: \left[N(\omega_k,\mu_i)-N(\omega_k, -\mu_i)\right]\,,
1393: \ee
1394: %
1395: where $N(\omega,\mu)$ is the appropriate boson or fermion distribution
1396: function and $g_i$ counts the internal degrees of freedom (spin and
1397: color). Dropping terms of ${\cal O}(\mu_i^3)$, one obtains:
1398: %
1399: \be
1400: n_i=\frac{k_i (m_i/T) T^2}{6}\mu_i \ ,
1401: \label{eq:muvsn}
1402: \ee
1403: %
1404: where the factors $k_i (m_i/T)$ are exponentially small in the regime
1405: $m_i/T \gg 1$, and reduce in the massless limit to $k_i(0) = 1$ for
1406: chiral fermions, $k_i (0) =2$ for Dirac fermions, and $k_i (0) =2$ for complex
1407: scalars. In our analysis we keep the full dependence on $m_i/T$:
1408: \begin{equation}
1409: k_i(m_i/T) = k_i(0)\frac{c_{F,B}}{\pi^2}\int_{m/T}^\infty dx\,x\,
1410: \frac{e^x}{(e^x \pm 1)^2}\sqrt{x^2 - m^2/T^2}\,,
1411: \end{equation}
1412: where for fermions (bosons) $c_{F(B)} = 6\,(3)$, and we choose the $+(-)$ sign in the denominator.
1413: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1414: % For quarks and their superpartners, these values should be
1415: % multiplied by $N_C$.
1416: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1417:
1418: Using Eq.~(\ref{eq:muvsn}) in
1419: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:scalar6}, \ref{eq:chargino1}, \ref{eq:topmass1}), and
1420: defining:
1421: %
1422: \begin{subequations}
1423: \begin{align}
1424: \Gamma_M^{\pm} &=
1425: {6\over T^2}\left(\Gamma_{t}^{\pm}+\Gamma_{\tilde t}^{\pm}\right) \\
1426: \Gamma_h &= \frac{6}{T^2} \left(
1427: \Gamma_{\widetilde H^\pm}+\Gamma_{\widetilde H^0} \right) \,,
1428: \end{align}
1429: \end{subequations}
1430: %
1431: the resulting set of coupled transport equations is:
1432: %
1433: \begin{subequations}
1434: \label{eq:qte}
1435: \begin{align}
1436: \label{eq:qte1a}
1437: \partial^\mu T_\mu &=
1438: \Gamma_M^{+} \left({T\over k_T}+{Q\over k_Q}\right)-\Gamma_M^{-}
1439: \left({T\over k_T}-{Q\over k_Q}\right)\\
1440: \nonumber
1441: &\quad -\Gamma_Y\left({T\over k_T}-{H\over k_H}-{Q\over k_Q}\right) +
1442: \Gamma_{ss}\left({2Q\over k_Q} -{T\over k_T}+{9(Q+T)\over k_B}\right)+
1443: S_{\tilde t}^{\CPV}\\
1444: \label{eq:qte1b}
1445: \partial^\mu Q_\mu &= -\Gamma_M^{+} \left({T\over k_T}+
1446: {Q\over k_Q}\right)+\Gamma_M^{-} \left({T\over k_T}-{Q\over k_Q}\right)\\
1447: \nonumber
1448: &\quad +\Gamma_Y\left({T\over k_T}-{H\over k_H}-{Q\over k_Q}\right)-
1449: 2\Gamma_{ss}\left({2Q\over k_Q}
1450: -{T\over k_T}+{9(Q+T)\over k_B}\right)-
1451: S_{\tilde t}^{\CPV}\\
1452: \label{eq:qte1c}
1453: \partial^\mu H_\mu &= -\Gamma_h{H\over k_H}-\Gamma_Y\left({Q\over k_Q}+{
1454: H\over k_H}-{T\over k_T}\right)+S_{{\widetilde H}}^{\CPV}\,,
1455: \end{align}
1456: \end{subequations}
1457: %
1458: where $\Gamma_{ss}=6 \kappa' \frac{8}{3} \alpha_{s}^4 T$, with $\kappa' \sim
1459: O(1)$.
1460:
1461: We comment briefly on the structure of these equations. In previous derivations of these transport equations, the terms on the right-hand sides containing the various reaction rates $\Gamma_M^-,\Gamma_Y,\text{ etc.}$ were derived using semi-classical statisical mechanics. Consider a microscopic reaction which changes the number densities $n_i$ of particles $i$ each by an amount $\Delta n_i$. Let $\mu_i$ be the chemical potentials for these particles. In one reaction, then, the free energy $F$ changes by and amount $\Delta F = \sum_i\mu_i\Delta n_i$. In a thermal ensemble, the probabilities to occupy a state with a number of particles $n_i$ (``old'') or with $n_i+\Delta n_i$ (``new'') are proportional to:
1462: \begin{equation}
1463: \begin{split}
1464: P_{\text{old}} &\propto e^{\beta\sum_i\mu_i n_i} \\
1465: P_{\text{new}} &\propto e^{\beta\sum_i\mu_i(n_i+\Delta n_i)},
1466: \end{split}
1467: \end{equation}
1468: where $\beta=1/T$. The net rates to transition from the old to the new state or vice versa are proportional to these occupation probabilities:
1469: \begin{equation}
1470: \Gamma_{q.m.}(P_{\text{old}} - P_{\text{new}}) = \Gamma_{q.m.}P_{\text{old}}(1 - e^{\beta\sum_i\mu_i\Delta n_i}),
1471: \end{equation}
1472: where $\Gamma_{q.m.}$ is the quantum mechanical rate for the individual reaction $n_i\leftrightarrow n_i+\Delta n_i$. Summing over all possible starting states ``old'', we have $\sum_{\text{states}}P_{\text{old}} = 1$, so the net rate, in the limit of small chemical potentials $\mu_i/T\ll 1$, is:
1473: \begin{equation}
1474: \Gamma_{\text{net}} = -\Gamma_{q.m.}\sum_i\frac{\mu_i\Delta n_i}{T}.
1475: \end{equation}
1476: Then, the rate of change of a particular density $n_j$, since one reaction changes it by $\Delta n_j$, is given by:
1477: \begin{equation}
1478: \dot n_j = -\Gamma_{q.m.}\Delta n_j\sum_i\frac{\mu_i\Delta n_i}{T}.
1479: \end{equation}
1480: The minus sign indicates that the reactions will tend to cause $n_j$ to relax back to zero. The chemical potentials $\mu_i$ are related back to the densities $n_i$ themselves by Eq.~(\ref{eq:muvsn}).
1481:
1482: This sort of argument accounts for the structure of the $\Gamma_M^-, \Gamma_Y, \Gamma_h$, and $\Gamma_{s.s.}$ terms in (\ref{eq:qte}). In the treatment of Ref.~\cite{Huet:1995sh}, these are the only terms that appear, with the thermodynamic rates being given simply by:
1483: \begin{equation}
1484: \label{Gammasimple}
1485: \Gamma = \frac{6\Gamma_{q.m.}}{T^3}.
1486: \end{equation}
1487: However, deriving the equations by starting from the Schwinger-Dyson Eqs.~(\ref{eq:sd}) in nonequilibrium quantum field theory, we obtain more general combinations of densities on the right-hand sides of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:qte}), such as the $\Gamma_M^+$ terms, with more involved expressions for the rates $\Gamma$ than Eq.~(\ref{Gammasimple}). In this work, we have only completed this computation for the $\Gamma_M^\pm,\Gamma_h$ terms, leaving the recalculation of $\Gamma_Y$ to a future study. For $\Gamma_{s.s.}$ we adopt the semi-classical derivation.
1488:
1489: For now, though we have not computed $\Gamma_Y$,
1490: we will follow the authors of
1491: Ref. \cite{Huet:1995sh}, who estimate $\Gamma_Y \gg \Gamma_M^{-}$.
1492: For $\kappa' \sim {\cal O}(1)$, one also has $\Gamma_{ss} \gg
1493: \Gamma_M^{\pm}$. These facts allow one to relate algebraically the
1494: densities $Q$ and $T$ to $H$, by
1495: setting the linear combinations multiplying $\Gamma_Y$ and
1496: $\Gamma_{ss}$ equal to $\delta_Y=O(1/\Gamma_Y)$ and
1497: $\delta_{ss} = O(1/\Gamma_{ss})$,
1498: respectively.
1499: One then obtains:
1500: %
1501: \begin{subequations}
1502: \label{eq:qte2}
1503: \begin{align}
1504: \label{eq:qte2a}
1505: Q & = {(k_B-9k_T)k_Q\over (9k_T+9k_Q+k_B)k_H} \, H
1506: + \alpha_{QY}\delta_Y+\alpha_{Qs}\delta_{ss}\\
1507: % \nonumber
1508: \label{eq:qte2b}
1509: T & = {(9k_T+2k_B)k_T\over (9k_T+9k_Q+k_B)k_H} \, H +
1510: \alpha_{TY}\delta_Y+\alpha_{Ts}\delta_{ss}\,,
1511: \end{align}
1512: \end{subequations}
1513: %
1514: with known coefficients $\alpha_{QY,Qs,TY,Ts}$.
1515: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% removed because not essential %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1516: %\bea
1517: %\nonumber
1518: %\alpha_{QH} & = & {(9k_T-k_B)k_Q\over (9k_T+9k_Q+k_B)k_H}\\
1519: %\nonumber
1520: %\alpha_{QY} & = & {(9k_T-k_B)k_Q\over (9k_T+9k_Q+k_B)}\\
1521: %\label{eq:alphadefs}
1522: %\alpha_{Qs} & = & {k_B k_Q\over (9k_T+9k_Q+k_B)}\\
1523: %\nonumber
1524: %\alpha_{TH} & = & {-(9k_T+2k_B)k_T\over (9k_T+9k_Q+k_B)k_H}\\
1525: %\nonumber
1526: %\alpha_{TY} & = & -{(9k_T+2k_B)k_T\over (9k_T+9k_Q+k_B)}\\
1527: %\nonumber
1528: %\alpha_{Ts} & = & {k_B k_T\over (9k_T+9k_Q+k_B)}\ \ \ .
1529: %\eea
1530: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1531: Taking 2 $\times$ [Eq. (\ref{eq:qte1a})] $+$ [Eq. (\ref{eq:qte1b})]
1532: $+$ [Eq. (\ref{eq:qte1c})],
1533: %\footnote{
1534: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1535: %[Eq. (\ref{eq:qte1a})] $+2\times$ [Eq. (\ref{eq:qte1b})] $+$
1536: %[Eq. (\ref{eq:qte1c})],
1537: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1538: %It appears that the authors of Ref.~\cite{Huet:1995sh} took
1539: %a different linear combination,
1540: %which would not eliminate the dependence on
1541: %$\Gamma_Y$ or $\Gamma_{ss}$ from the coupled equations as we have done
1542: %here. This accounts for some differences
1543: %in factors appearing in Eq.~(\ref{eq:qte5}) with
1544: %the corresponding terms in Ref.~\cite{Huet:1995sh}.},
1545: introducing the
1546: diffusion approximations $\vect{T}=-D_q\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$}T$,
1547: $\vect{Q}=-D_q\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$} Q$,
1548: $\vect{H}=-D_h\mbox{\boldmath$\nabla$} H$, and using
1549: Eq.~(\ref{eq:qte2}) leads to:
1550: %
1551: \be
1552: \label{eq:qte4}
1553: {\dot H} -{\bar D} \nabla^2 H +{\bar \Gamma} H-{\bar S}=
1554: \mathcal{O}(\delta_{ss}, \delta_Y)
1555: \ \ \ ,
1556: \ee
1557: where\footnote{Our expressions differ from those
1558: in Ref.~\cite{Huet:1995sh}, which we believe result from an algebraic error. The numerical impact of this difference, however, is not significant.}
1559: \begin{subequations}
1560: \begin{align}
1561: \label{eq:qte5}
1562: {\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
1563: 9k_Qk_T + k_Bk_Q + 4k_T k_B +k_H(9k_T+9k_Q+k_B)}\\
1564: {\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)} \\
1565: {\bar S} & = {k_H (9k_Q+9k_T+k_B)\over
1566: 9k_Qk_T + k_Bk_Q + 4k_T k_B +k_H(9k_T+9k_Q+k_B)}
1567: \left(S_{\tilde t}^{\CPV}+S_{\widetilde H}^{\CPV}\right)\,.
1568: \end{align}
1569: \end{subequations}
1570: %
1571: The subleading terms $\delta_{Y,ss}$ can be determined by use of
1572: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:qte2}) in
1573: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:qte1a},\ref{eq:qte1b}). We include the effect of
1574: $\delta_{ss}$ in our final expression for $\rho_B$~\cite{Huet:1995sh},
1575: although its effect is negligible in the relevant MSSM
1576: parameter region.
1577:
1578: Equation (\ref{eq:qte4}) can now be solved for a given set of
1579: assumptions about the geometry of the bubble wall. Again, for
1580: clarity of illustration,
1581: we will work in a framework that allows us to carry analytic calculations as far as possible,
1582: leaving to the future a numerical solution of the
1583: equations for a realistic wall geometry and profile. First, as commonly done in earlier
1584: studies, we
1585: ignore the wall curvature, thereby reducing the problem to a one-dimensional one in
1586: which all relevant functions depend on the variable $\bar{z} =
1587: |\vect{x} + \vect{v}_{w} t|$, where $\vect{v}_{w}$ is the wall velocity.
1588: Thus, $\bar{z} < 0$ is associated with the unbroken phase, $\bar{z} > 0$
1589: with the broken phase, and the boundary wall extends over $0 < \bar{z}
1590: < L_{w}$. Second, we take the relaxation term $\bar{\Gamma}$ to be nonzero and
1591: constant for $\bar{z} > 0$. The resulting solution for $H$ in the unbroken phase
1592: $\bar{z} < 0$ (related to $\rho_B$ as shown below) is:
1593: %
1594: \be
1595: \label{eq:sol1}
1596: H(\bar{z}) = {\cal A} \, e^{ v_{w}\bar{z}/\bar{D}} \,
1597: \ee
1598: %
1599: with
1600: \be
1601: \label{eq:sol2}
1602: {\cal A} =
1603: %\displaystyle
1604: \frac{1}{\bar{D} \kappa_{+}} \,
1605: \int_{0}^{\infty} \ \bar{S}(y) \, e^{- \kappa_+ y} \
1606: d y \qquad \qquad
1607: \kappa_+ = \frac{v_w + \sqrt{v_w^2 + 4 \bar{\Gamma} \bar{D}}}{2 \bar{D}}
1608: \simeq
1609: %\displaystyle
1610: \sqrt{\frac{\bar{\Gamma}}{\bar{D}}}\ .
1611: \ee
1612: %
1613: The above equation is valid for any shape of the source
1614: $\bar{S}(\bar{z})$. For simplicity, however, we
1615: assume a simple step-function type behavior for the
1616: source: $\bar S$ nonzero and constant for
1617: $0 < \bar{z} < L_{w}$.
1618: Specializing to this case of constant sources
1619: in $0 < \bar{z} < L_{w}$, using $4 \bar{D} \bar{\Gamma} \gg v_w^2$,
1620: $L_w \sqrt{\bar{\Gamma}/\bar{D}} \ll 1$, and taking
1621: $\bar{\Gamma} = r_{\Gamma} \, (\Gamma_h + \Gamma_{M}^{-})$ from
1622: Eq.~(\ref{eq:qte5}), we arrive at:
1623: %
1624: \be
1625: \label{eq:sol3}
1626: {\cal A} = k_H \, L_w \, \displaystyle\sqrt{\frac{r_\Gamma}{\bar{D}}} \
1627: \frac{ S_{\tilde{H}}^{\CPV} + S_{\tilde{t}}^{\CPV}
1628: }{
1629: \sqrt{\Gamma_h + \Gamma_{M}^{-}}} \ .
1630: \ee
1631: %
1632: When evaluating the source terms $S_{\tilde{H}}^{\CPV},
1633: S_{\tilde{t}}^{\CPV}$ [see
1634: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:scalarcp1}),(\ref{eq:chargino3})] for this simple
1635: profile one has to use $\dot{\beta} = v_{w} \Delta \beta/L_w$:
1636: thus ${\cal A}$ is explicitly proportional to $v_w$ and is only
1637: weakly dependent on $L_{w}$. Solutions for $Q$ and $T$ are then
1638: obtained via Eqs.~(\ref{eq:sol1}) and (\ref{eq:qte2}).
1639:
1640:
1641:
1642: \subsection{The Baryon Density $\rho_{B}$}
1643:
1644: Neglecting the wall curvature and assuming a step-function
1645: profile for the weak sphaleron rate, the baryon density satisfies
1646: the equation~\cite{Carena:2002ss,Cline:2000nw}:
1647: %
1648: \be
1649: \label{eq:rhob2}
1650: D_q \rho_B '' (\bar{z}) - v_{w} \rho_B ' (\bar{z})
1651: - \theta(-\bar{z}) \, {\cal R} \, \rho_B
1652: = \theta(-\bar{z})
1653: \, \frac{n_F}{2} \Gamma_{\rm ws} n_L(\bar{z})
1654: \ ,
1655: \ee
1656: %
1657: where $n_F$ is the number of fermion families and the relaxation term
1658: is given by~\cite{Cline:2000nw}:
1659: \be
1660: {\cal R} = \Gamma_{\rm ws}\, \left[
1661: \frac{9}{4} \, \left(1 + \frac{ n_{\rm sq}}{6}\right)^{-1} + \frac{3}{2}
1662: \right] \ ,
1663: \ee
1664: %
1665: where $n_{\rm sq}$ indicates the number of light squark flavors, and
1666: the weak sphaleron rate is given by $\Gamma_{\rm ws} = 6 \kappa
1667: \alpha_w^5 T$, with $\kappa \simeq 20$~\cite{wsrate}.
1668:
1669: The solution to Eq.~(\ref{eq:rhob2}) in the broken phase, eventually
1670: growing into the Universe, is constant and given by:
1671: %
1672: \be
1673: \label{eq:rhob3}
1674: \rho_B = - \frac{n_F \Gamma_{\rm ws}}{2 v_{w}} \, \int_{-\infty}^{0} \
1675: n_L (x)
1676: \, e^{x \, {\cal R}/v_w} \,
1677: dx \ .
1678: \ee
1679: %
1680: Neglecting leptonic contributions, $n_L$ is given in the unbroken phase
1681: by the sum of left-handed quark densities over the three
1682: generations ($Q_{1L}, Q_{2L}, Q$). Since appreciable densities of
1683: first and second generation quarks are only generated via strong
1684: sphaleron processes, it is possible to express $Q_{1L}$ and $Q_{2L}$
1685: in terms of $Q$ and $T$, in such a way that $n_L =
1686: Q + Q_{1L} + Q_{2L} = 5 Q + 4 T$~\cite{Huet:1995sh}.
1687: Using then Eq.~(\ref{eq:qte2}) one obtains :
1688: %
1689: \begin{equation}
1690: \label{eq:rhob4a}
1691: n_L = -H \, \left[ r_1 + r_2 \, \frac{v_w^2}{\Gamma_{\rm ss} \, \bar{D}}
1692: \left(1- \frac{D_q}{\bar{D}} \right) \right]\,,
1693: \end{equation}
1694: where
1695: \begin{subequations}
1696: \begin{align}
1697: \label{eq:rhob4b}
1698: 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)} \\
1699: \label{eq:rhob4c}
1700: r_2 &=
1701: \frac{k_B^2 (5k_Q+4k_T)(k_Q + 2 k_T)}{k_H (9k_Q+9k_T+k_B)^2} \ ,
1702: \end{align}
1703: \end{subequations}
1704: %
1705: and finally, in the broken phase:
1706: %
1707: \begin{equation}
1708: \label{eq:rhob5}
1709: \begin{split}
1710: \rho_B (\bar{z} > 0) &= \frac{n_F}{2} {\cal A} \
1711: \left[ r_1 \Gamma_{\rm ws}
1712: + r_2 \, \frac{\Gamma_{\rm ws}}{\Gamma_{\rm ss}}\frac{v_w^2}{\bar D}
1713: \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} \\
1714: &=\frac{n_F}{2} {\cal A} \
1715: \left[ r_1 \Gamma_{\rm ws}
1716: + r_2 \, \frac{\Gamma_{\rm ws}}{\Gamma_{\rm ss}}\frac{v_w^2}{\bar D}
1717: \left(1- \frac{D_q}{\bar{D}} \right) \right] \,
1718: \frac{\bar D}{v_w^2 + {\cal R}(\bar{D} + D_q)} \,,
1719: \end{split}
1720: \end{equation}
1721: %
1722: where the second equality 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
1723: linear dependence on $v_w$ contained in the ${\dot\beta}$ appearing in the $CP$-violating sources.
1724: 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
1725: could, however, be dominant in the case of heavy degenerate $\tilde{t}_L$ and
1726: $\tilde{t}_R$, which leads to $r_1\sim 0$ ~\cite{Huet:1995sh}.
1727:
1728: The central feature emerging from the above discussion is that the net
1729: baryon density is proportional to ${\cal A} \sim S^{\CPV}/\sqrt{\Gamma}$. A large relaxation rate $\Gamma$ for the relevant
1730: charges will suppress the overall baryon asymmetry. While in
1731: Refs.~\cite{Riotto:1998zb,Carena:1997gx} it was pointed out how a
1732: non-equilibrium quantum transport could result in a resonant
1733: enhancement of $S^{\CPV}$, we observe here that similar resonance effects in the relaxation terms will mitigate the impact of the enhanced sources.
1734: %our primary motivation is to study,
1735: %within the same approach, similar resonance effects in the relaxation
1736: %term. Our results in
1737: %Eqs.~(\ref{eq:scalar6},\ref{eq:chargino1},\ref{eq:topmass1}) show that
1738: %relaxation terms can be resonant for appropriate choice of the mass
1739: %parameters.
1740: 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.
1741:
1742:
1743:
1744:
1745: \section{Baryogenesis and Electroweak Phenomenology within the MSSM}
1746: \label{sec:numerics}
1747:
1748: The results derived in the previous Sections allow us to perform an illustrative,
1749: preliminary analysis of baryogenesis within the MSSM. This should be
1750: taken as an exploration, whose robustness will be tested once we
1751: implement the next steps in our treatment of the source terms in the
1752: transport equations. With this caveat in mind, we explore the
1753: connections between electroweak baryogenesis and phenomenology
1754: within the MSSM, focusing in particular on the implications for EDM searches.
1755: %%%%
1756: Throughout, we assume---as in mSUGRA---that all the terms in the Higgs scalar potential
1757: and all gaugino masses are real, while all the $A$-parameters (trilinear
1758: scalar couplings) are equal at the GUT scale, therefore sharing the
1759: same phase $\phi_A$. In this case, the baryon asymmetry and EDMs are
1760: sensitive to the two independent $CP$ violating phases $\phi_\mu$ and
1761: $\phi_A$.\footnote{One may, of course, work with a more general soft SUSY-breaking sector that contains additional $CP$-violating phases.}
1762:
1763: \subsection{Dependence of the BAU on MSSM Parameters}
1764:
1765: {}From the structure of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:rhob5},\ref{eq:sol3}) and
1766: (\ref{eq:scalarcp1},\ref{eq:chargino3}) we can write the
1767: baryon-to-entropy density ratio\footnote{
1768: We evaluate the entropy density at the electroweak phase
1769: transitions via $s = (2 \pi^2)/45 \times g_{\rm eff} (T) \, T^3$,
1770: with $g_{\rm eff} = 130.75$, resulting in $s = 57.35 \, T^3$.
1771: Similarly, to convert the present ratio $\rho_B/n_\gamma$
1772: to $Y_B$, we use the relation $s = 7.04 \, n_\gamma$. \cite{Eidelman:2004wy} None of these densities, of course, exhibits an equation of state with $w\equiv p/\rho<-1$ \cite{Hsu:2004vr}.
1773: }
1774: $Y_{B} \equiv \rho_B/s$ as:
1775: %
1776: \be
1777: \label{eq:pheno1}
1778: Y_{B} = F_1\, \sin \phi_\mu \ + \ F_2\, \sin \left( \phi_\mu +
1779: \phi_A \right) \,,
1780: \ee
1781: %
1782: where we have isolated the dependence on the phases $\phi_\mu$ and
1783: $\phi_A$. The first term that contains $F_{1}$ stems from the Higgsino source, while the $F_{2}$ term arises from the squark source.
1784:
1785: The functions $F_{1}$ and $F_{2}$ display a common overall dependence on bubble
1786: wall parameters ($v_w$, $L_w$, $\Delta \beta$), while having distinct
1787: dependence on other MSSM mass parameters such as $|\mu|$, the soft mass parameters
1788: for gauginos ($M_{1,2}$) and squarks
1789: ($M_{\tilde{t}_L},M_{\tilde{t}_R}$), the triscalar coupling
1790: $|A_t|$, and $\tan \beta$. In order to assess the size of $Y_B$ and
1791: the impact on $CP$-violating phases, we must choose a reference region
1792: in the MSSM parameter space, and we follow two obvious guidelines: (i)
1793: we require that $v(T_c)/T_c \gtrsim 1$, so that the baryon asymmetry is
1794: not washed out in the broken symmetry phase; (ii) we require no
1795: conflict with precision electroweak physics and direct collider
1796: searches. Both criteria lead to non-trivial restrictions.
1797:
1798: \begin{figure}[!t]
1799: \centering
1800: \begin{picture}(300,170)
1801: \put(0,60){\makebox(50,50){\epsfig{figure=sh.eps,width=7.5cm}}}
1802: %\put(110,10){{\scriptsize $\displaystyle\frac{|\mu|}{T}$ }}
1803: %\put(350,10){{\scriptsize $\displaystyle\frac{|\mu|}{T}$ }}
1804: \put(110,10){{\scriptsize $\displaystyle |\mu| \ ({\rm GeV})$ }}
1805: \put(350,10){{\scriptsize $\displaystyle |\mu| \ ({\rm GeV})$ }}
1806: \put(240,60){\makebox(50,50){\epsfig{figure=gamma.eps,width=7.5cm}}}
1807: \put(-90,160){{\small $ \hat{S}_{\tilde{H}} $}}
1808: \put(150,160){{\small $ R_{\Gamma} $ }}
1809: \end{picture}
1810: \caption[Higgsino $CP$-violating source and relaxation rate]{
1811: Left panel: $CP$-violating Higgsino source
1812: $ \hat{S}_{\widetilde{H}} =
1813: -S_{\widetilde{H}}^{CP\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\mbox{\normalsize$\diagup$}}/(v^2 \dot{\beta} \sin \phi_\mu) $,
1814: as a function of $|\mu|$.
1815: Right panel: relaxation rate
1816: $ R_{\Gamma} = (\Gamma_h + \Gamma_{M}^{-})/(\Gamma_h + \Gamma_m)_{H.N.}$,
1817: normalized to the value used in~\cite{Huet:1995sh},
1818: 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.
1819: \label{fig:sg}
1820: }
1821: \end{figure}
1822: %
1823:
1824: The condition of a strongly first-order phase transition [$v(T_c)/T_c
1825: \gtrsim 1$] requires light scalar degrees of freedom coupling to the
1826: Higgs sector. It has been shown \cite{Carena:1997ki,Laine:1998qk}
1827: that within the MSSM the only viable candidate is a light top squark,
1828: which should be mainly right-handed ($\tilde{t}_R$) in order to avoid
1829: large contributions to the $\rho$ parameter. Quantitatively, for
1830: lightest Higgs boson mass $m_h \lesssim 120$ GeV, one needs $100 \
1831: \mbox{GeV} \lesssim m_{\tilde{t}} < m_t$, and sufficiently small stop
1832: mixing parameter $|A_t - \mu/\tan \beta | \lesssim 0.6
1833: M_{\tilde{t}_L}$~\cite{Carena:1997ki}. Moreover, present experimental
1834: limits on $m_h$ and the constraint $v(T_c)/T_c \gtrsim 1$ jointly
1835: require either values of $\tan \beta >5$ or $M_{\tilde{t}_L}$ in the
1836: multi-TeV region~\cite{Carena:2000id}. Based on these considerations,
1837: for illustrative purposes we work with the following values of MSSM
1838: parameters at the electroweak scale: $M_{\tilde{t}_R} = 0$,
1839: $M_{\tilde{t}_L} = 1$ TeV, $|A_t| = 200$ GeV, $M_{2} = 200$ GeV, $\tan
1840: \beta = 10$. We also take for the $CP$-odd Higgs mass $m_A = 150$ GeV,
1841: which translates into $\Delta \beta \sim 0.015$~\cite{bubble}.
1842: We vary in the plots the scale $|\mu|$, in order to display the
1843: resonant behavior for $|\mu| \sim M_2$. Finally, for the bubble wall
1844: parameters we adopt the central values $v_w = 0.05$ and $L_w = 25/T$
1845: ~\cite{bubble}.
1846:
1847: %
1848: \begin{figure}[!t]
1849: \centering
1850: \begin{picture}(300,170)
1851: \put(0,60){\makebox(50,50){\epsfig{figure=F1.eps,width=7.5cm}}}
1852: \put(240,60){\makebox(50,50){\epsfig{figure=F2.eps,width=7.5cm}}}
1853: \put(110,10){{\scriptsize $\displaystyle |\mu| \ ({\rm GeV})$ }}
1854: \put(350,10){{\scriptsize $\displaystyle M_{\tilde{t}_L} \ ({\rm GeV})$ }}
1855: \put(-100,160){{\scriptsize
1856: $\displaystyle\frac{F_1}{Y_{B}^{\rm WMAP}}$
1857: }}
1858: \put(145,160){{\scriptsize
1859: $\displaystyle\frac{F_2}{Y_{B}^{\rm WMAP}}$
1860: }}
1861: \end{picture}
1862: \caption[Higgsino and squark contributions to baryon asymmetry]{Left panel: Higgsino contribution to $Y_B$
1863: ({\it Cf} Eq.~(\ref{eq:pheno1})), normalized to the observed value. $F_{1}$
1864: displays residual resonant behavior for $|\mu| \sim M_2$. All other
1865: input parameters are given in the text. Right panel: Stop
1866: contribution to $Y_B$ ({\it Cf} Eq.~(\ref{eq:pheno1})) normalized to
1867: the observed value. The upper curve is for
1868: $M_{\tilde{b}_L}=M_{\tilde{t}_L}$, while the lower one is for
1869: $M_{\tilde{b}_L} \gg M_{\tilde{t}_L}$. We have taken here
1870: $M_{\tilde{t}_R}= 100$ GeV, $| \mu | = 200$ GeV, and have allowed
1871: $M_{\tilde{t}_L}$ to reach unrealistically low values to explore the
1872: size of the squark resonance. For realistic input parameters $F_2 \ll
1873: F_1$.
1874: \label{fig:F1}
1875: }
1876: \end{figure}
1877:
1878: With the above choice of MSSM parameters, the stop-induced
1879: contribution to $Y_B$ is suppressed ($F_2 \sim 10^{-3} F_1$),
1880: since one is far off the squark resonance [$(M_{\tilde{t}_L} - M_{\tilde{t}_R}) \gg M_{\tilde{t}_R}$].
1881: On the other hand, the Higgsino-induced contribution $F_1$ can account for
1882: the observed $Y_B$ even without maximal values of $|\sin \phi_\mu |$.
1883: We highlight below the salient results of our study:
1884: %
1885: \begin{itemize}
1886: \item The primary result of our analysis is that both the source
1887: $S_{\tilde{H}}^{\CPV}$ and the relaxation term $\Gamma_h$ display
1888: the resonant behavior~\cite{Riotto:1998zb,Carena:1997gx} typical of
1889: quantum transport for $|\mu| \sim M_2$.
1890: We illustrate this in Fig.~\ref{fig:sg}: the left panel shows the
1891: behavior of the rescaled $CP$-violating higgsino source
1892: ${\hat S}_{\tilde H} \equiv -S_{\tilde{H}}^{\CPV}/(v^2 \dot{\beta} \sin \phi_\mu)$
1893: versus $|\mu|$, while the right panel displays the ratio $R_\Gamma$ of the
1894: relaxation term $(\Gamma_h + \Gamma_{M}^{-})$ as calculated in this
1895: work to the one used in previous studies, $(\Gamma_h + \Gamma_{M}^{-})_{H.N.}$~\cite{Huet:1995sh}. To our
1896: knowledge this is the first explicit calculation showing resonance
1897: behavior for the relaxation term ${\bar\Gamma}\sim r_\Gamma (\Gamma_h + \Gamma_{M}^{-})$.
1898:
1899: \item Since $F_1$ is proportional to
1900: $S_{\tilde{H}}^{\CPV}/\sqrt{\Gamma_{h} + \Gamma_{M}^-}$,
1901: the baryon asymmetry retains a resonant behavior, albeit with an
1902: attenuation of the peak due to the enhanced relaxation term. This is
1903: shown explicitly in Fig.~\ref{fig:F1}. In the left panel we plot
1904: $F_1/Y_{B}^{\rm WMAP}$, normalizing to the baryon asymmetry extracted
1905: from CMB studies~\cite{wmap}: $Y_B^{\rm WMAP} = (9.2 \pm 1.1)\times
1906: 10^{-11}$ (the quoted error corresponds to $95 \%$ CL).
1907:
1908: \item For completeness we also display in Fig.~\ref{fig:F1} (right
1909: panel) the behavior of the squark contribution $F_2/Y_{B}^{\rm WMAP}$
1910: as a function of $M_{\tilde{t}_L}$, with $M_{\tilde{t}_R}= 100$ GeV.
1911: Within the MSSM, precision electroweak data and the requirement that
1912: $v(T_c)/T_c \gtrsim 1$ force the masses to be far away from the peak region.
1913: However, in extensions of the MSSM where the phase transition is
1914: strenghtened by additional scalar degrees of freedom this
1915: contribution might be important (see, {\em e.g.}, Refs.~\cite{Dine:2003ax,Kang:2004pp}).
1916:
1917: \item For given values of the MSSM parameter space explored here, successful EWB carves out
1918: a band in $|\sin \phi_\mu|$ centered at $|\sin \phi_\mu| = Y_{B}^{\rm
1919: exp}/|F_1|$ (whose width depends on the uncertainty in $Y_B^{\rm
1920: exp}$). Due to the resonant behavior of $F_1$, the location of this
1921: band is highly sensitive to the relative size of $M_2$ and $|\mu|$. As
1922: illustration, in Fig.~\ref{fig:phimu} we plot the allowed band in the
1923: $|\sin \phi_\mu|$--$|\mu|$ plane determined by the baryon asymmetry,
1924: with all other MSSM parameters fixed as above. The
1925: bands in the plot combined together correspond to the baryon density determined from Big
1926: Bang Nucleosynthesis, $Y_B^{\rm BBN} = (7.3 \pm 2.5)\times 10^{-11}$
1927: (the error corresponds to $95 \%$ CL~\cite{Eidelman:2004wy}). Using WMAP
1928: input leads to the narrow, lighter-shaded band in our plot located at the upper edge
1929: of the BBN-induced band.
1930: \end{itemize}
1931:
1932: %
1933: \begin{figure}[!t]
1934: \centering
1935: \begin{picture}(300,180)
1936: \put(120,68){\makebox(50,50){\epsfig{figure=phimu.eps,width=11cm}}}
1937: \put(265,-9){{\small % \scriptsize
1938: $\displaystyle |\mu| \ ({\rm GeV})$ }}
1939: \put(-30,157){{\small %\scriptsize
1940: %$ {\rm Log} \, |\sin \phi_\mu| $
1941: $|\sin \phi_\mu| $
1942: }}
1943: \end{picture}
1944: \caption[
1945: Allowed band in the $ |\sin \phi_\mu| $--$|\mu|$ plane from successful EWB.]{Allowed band in the $ |\sin \phi_\mu| $--$|\mu|$ plane,
1946: obtained by requiring successful electroweak baryogenesis. All other
1947: MSSM parameters are given in the text. The light-shaded (green) narrow band
1948: corresponds to the experimental input from WMAP,
1949: while the two bands combined [dark (blue) + light (green)] correspond to input from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.}
1950: \label{fig:phimu}
1951: \end{figure}
1952:
1953: \subsection{SUSY-induced EDMs}
1954:
1955: We conclude this investigation with a brief account of the connections
1956: between the baryon asymmetry and EDM phenomenology. Since the Standard
1957: Model predictions are in general highly suppressed and well below
1958: present experimental sensitivity, limits on the electron, neutron, and
1959: atomic EDMs can be used to constrain the phases of a given new physics
1960: model.
1961:
1962: Let us first review how an EDM can be generated. The EDM of a spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ fermion $f$ is the coefficient $d_f$ in the low-energy effective Lagrangian\footnote{The notational conventions for the terms in the effective Lagrangian are those of Ref.~\cite{Ibrahim:1997gj}.}:
1963: \begin{equation}
1964: \label{EDMLag}
1965: \mathcal{L}_{E} = -\frac{i}{2}d_f\bar\psi\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_5\psi F^{\mu\nu}.
1966: \end{equation}
1967: Such a term could be induced by one-loop diagrams in SUSY containing a $CP$-violating coupling in one of the vertices, such as those in Fig.~\ref{fig:edm}.
1968: \begin{figure}
1969: \begin{picture}(0,0)(0,0)
1970: \put(110,-30){$\gamma$}
1971: \put(55,-90){$q$}
1972: \put(175,-90){$q$}
1973: \put(85,-70){$\tilde q$}
1974: \put(145,-70){$\tilde q$}
1975: \put(100,-115){$\chi^0,\chi^+,\tilde g$}
1976: \put(310,-110){$\gamma$}
1977: \put(250,-45){$q$}
1978: \put(367,-45){$q$}
1979: \put(308,-20){$\tilde q$}
1980: \put(287,-67){$\chi^+$}
1981: \put(327,-67){$\chi^+$}
1982: \end{picture}
1983: \begin{center}
1984: \begin{fmffile}{edm}
1985: \begin{fmfgraph}(150,70)
1986: \fmfleft{qi}
1987: \fmftop{gamma}
1988: \fmfright{qf}
1989: \fmf{fermion}{qi,v1,v2,qf}
1990: \fmf{dashes,left=.4}{v1,v3,v2}
1991: \fmf{photon}{v3,gamma}
1992: \fmfforce{(0,0)}{qi}
1993: \fmfforce{(.25w,0)}{v1}
1994: \fmfforce{(.75w,0)}{v2}
1995: \fmfforce{(w,0)}{qf}
1996: \fmfforce{(.5w,.5h)}{v3}
1997: \end{fmfgraph}
1998: \qquad\quad
1999: \begin{fmfgraph}(150,90)
2000: \fmfleft{qi}
2001: \fmfright{qf}
2002: \fmfbottom{gamma}
2003: \fmf{fermion}{qi,v1,v2,v3,qf}
2004: \fmf{dashes,left=.7}{v1,v3}
2005: \fmf{photon}{v2,gamma}
2006: \fmfforce{(0,.5h)}{qi}
2007: \fmfforce{(.25w,.5h)}{v1}
2008: \fmfforce{(.5w,.5h)}{v2}
2009: \fmfforce{(.75w,.5h)}{v3}
2010: \fmfforce{(w,.5h)}{qf}
2011: \end{fmfgraph}
2012: \end{fmffile}
2013: \end{center}
2014: \caption[SUSY loop graphs inducing quark EDM.]{SUSY loop graphs inducing quark EDM. A quark may develop an electric dipole moment through one-loop effects involving superparticles with $CP$-violating couplings at one of the vertices. The external photon sees one of the charged particles in the loop. The vertex couplings may involve the phases $\phi_\mu,\phi_A$ in the MSSM.}
2015: \label{fig:edm}
2016: \end{figure}
2017: For an elementary particle such as the electron, it is only the coefficient $d_f$ in Eq.~(\ref{EDMLag}) which gives rise to the measured EDM. However, for composite particles such as the neutron or an atom, the EDM $d_n$ or $d_A$ of the whole particle may arise from not only the EDMs of the constituent particles, but also other $CP$-violating operators involving these constituents. Quarks, for instance, may develop a chromoelectric dipole moment $\tilde d^C$:
2018: \begin{equation}
2019: \mathcal{L}_C = -\frac{i}{2}\tilde d^C\bar q \sigma^{\mu\nu}\gamma_5 T^A q G^A_{\mu\nu},
2020: \end{equation}
2021: or a gluonic dipole moment $d^G$:
2022: \begin{equation}
2023: \mathcal{L}_G = -\frac{1}{6}d^G f^{ABC}G^A_{\mu\rho}G^{B\rho}_\nu G^{C\lambda\sigma}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma},
2024: \end{equation}
2025: which is called the \emph{Weinberg operator} \cite{Weinberg:1989dx}. The chromo-EDM can be induced by the MSSM through the graph in Fig.~\ref{fig:cedm}.
2026: \begin{figure}
2027: \begin{picture}(0,0)(-97,-21)
2028: \put(110,-30){$g$}
2029: \put(55,-90){$q$}
2030: \put(175,-90){$q$}
2031: \put(85,-70){$\tilde q$}
2032: \put(145,-70){$\tilde q$}
2033: \put(100,-115){$\chi^0,\chi^+,\tilde g$}
2034: \end{picture}
2035: \begin{center}
2036: \begin{fmffile}{cedm}
2037: \begin{fmfgraph}(150,70)
2038: \fmfleft{qi}
2039: \fmftop{g}
2040: \fmfright{qf}
2041: \fmf{fermion}{qi,v1,v2,qf}
2042: \fmf{dashes,left=.4}{v1,v3,v2}
2043: \fmf{gluon}{v3,g}
2044: \fmfforce{(0,0)}{qi}
2045: \fmfforce{(.25w,0)}{v1}
2046: \fmfforce{(.75w,0)}{v2}
2047: \fmfforce{(w,0)}{qf}
2048: \fmfforce{(.5w,.5h)}{v3}
2049: \end{fmfgraph}
2050: \end{fmffile}
2051: \end{center}
2052: \caption[SUSY loop graph inducing quark chromo-EDM]{SUSY loop graphs inducing quark chromo-EDM. A chromoelectric dipole moment of the quark may be induced by SUSY loops containing squarks with $CP$-violating couplings to the other particles.}
2053: \label{fig:cedm}
2054: \end{figure}
2055:
2056: \subsection{Combining Constraints from the BAU and Electric Dipole Moments}
2057:
2058: The present experimental limits on EDMs of interest to us are those for the electron \cite{Regan:2002ta}, neutron \cite{Harris:1999jx}, and $^{199}$Hg \cite{Romalis:2000mg} EDMs:
2059: \begin{align*}
2060: \abs{d_e} &< 1.9 \times 10^{-27} e \cdot \text{cm} \\
2061: \abs{d_n} &< 7.5 \times 10^{-26} e\cdot\text{cm} \\
2062: \abs{d_{\text{Hg}}} &< 2.1 \times 10^{-28} e \cdot \text{cm},
2063: \end{align*}
2064: %
2065: all given at 95\% CL.
2066: New experiments under development promise to improve upon these bounds by up to two orders of magnitude or more. For example, an experiment using PbO molecules at Yale may achieve a sensitivity of $\sim\!10^{-29}\ e\cdot\text{cm}$ for the electron EDM, while an experiment at Los Alamos may reach $\sim\!10^{-30}\ e\cdot\text{cm}$. Meanwhile, another experiment at Los Alamos using ultra-cold neutrons may test the neutron EDM with a sensitivity of $\sim 10^{-28}\ e\cdot\text{cm}$.\footnote{These and other present and proposed EDM limits are reviewed in Ref.~\cite{Erler:2004cx}.}
2067:
2068: Although a single EDM can be sufficiently small even for maximally
2069: large $CP$-violating phases (due to cancellations), constraints from more than one
2070: EDM can be very powerful. In Ref.~\cite{Falk:1999tm}, for example, it was pointed
2071: out how limits on electron and $^{199}$Hg EDMs single out a well
2072: defined region in the $\phi_\mu$--$\phi_A$ plane, for given values of
2073: gauginos, squark and slepton masses. As shown above, for each point
2074: in the MSSM paramter space, electroweak baryogenesis also selects a
2075: band in the $\phi_\mu$--$\phi_A$ plane. This implies in general
2076: non-trivial constraints on the MSSM parameter space, as the EDM-allowed region
2077: need not in general coincide with the one required by the baryon asymmetry.
2078:
2079:
2080: To illustrate this situation, we have evaluated the bands in $\phi_\mu$--$\phi_A$
2081: allowed by present limits on electron, neutron, and mercury EDMs, and EWB
2082: for several representative points in the MSSM parameter space
2083: (see Figs.~\ref{fig:bands} and \ref{fig:out}). In our analysis we take the expressions
2084: for the electron EDM and quark chromo-electric dipole moments from
2085: Ref.~\cite{Ibrahim:1997gj}. In relating the $^{199}$Hg EDM to the
2086: quark-level $CP$-violating couplings, we follow the treatment of
2087: Ref.~\cite{Falk:1999tm}~\footnote{For a recent reanalysis of hadronic
2088: EDMs in SUSY see Ref.~\cite{Hisano:2004tf}.}, where it was shown that
2089: the dominant contribution arises from the chromo-electric dipole
2090: moments of quarks ($\tilde{d}_q$) according to
2091: %
2092: \be
2093: d_{\text{Hg}} = - \left(\tilde{d}_d - \tilde{d}_u - 0.012 \tilde{d}_s \right)
2094: \times 3.2 \cdot 10^{-2} e .
2095: \ee
2096: %
2097: For the neutron EDM, QCD sum rule techniques were used in Refs.~\cite{PospelovRitz} to derive the expression in terms of quark EDMs and chromo-EDMs:
2098: \begin{equation}
2099: \label{neutronEDM}
2100: d_n = 0.7(d_d - 0.25 d_u) + 0.55 eg_s(\tilde d_d + 0.5\tilde d_u).
2101: \end{equation}
2102: There are also in general contributions from the Weinberg operator and also four-quark operators, but Ref.~\cite{Demir:2003js} demonstrated that, in the MSSM with large $\tan\beta$, these contributions are only about $\sim\!10\%$ the size of those in Eq.~(\ref{neutronEDM}). In this work, since we will take $\tan\beta=10$, we ignore these extra contributions for our purposes. We also neglect the renormalization group evolution of
2103: $\phi_\mu$ 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.
2104:
2105:
2106: \begin{figure}[!t]
2107: \begin{center}
2108: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{cbau3edm.eps}~
2109: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{cbaulanl.eps}
2110: \end{center}
2111: \begin{picture}(0,0)(-100,0)
2112: \put(7,15){{\small $\phi_\mu$ (rad)}}
2113: \put(260,15){{\small $\phi_\mu$ (rad) }}
2114: \put(-100,130){{\small $\phi_A$ }}
2115: \put(-105,115){{\small (rad)}}
2116: %\put(150,130){{\small $\phi_A$ }}
2117: %\put(145,115){{\small (rad)}}
2118: %%%%%%%%%%% right panel %%%%%%%%%%%%
2119: \put(245,50){{\small $d_e^{\text{future}}$ }}
2120: \put(290,55){{\small $d_n^{\text{future}}$ }}
2121: \put(205,70){{\scriptsize EWB}}
2122: %%%%%%%%% left panel %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2123: \put(-15,60){{\scriptsize EWB }}
2124: \put(30,200){{\small $d_e$ }}
2125: \put(90,60){{\small $d_n$ }}
2126: \put(55,50){\small $d_{\text{Hg}}$}
2127: \end{picture}
2128: \caption[Allowed bands in the $\phi_\mu$--$\phi_A$ plane from EDM limits and baryogenesis]{Allowed bands in the $\phi_\mu$--$\phi_A$ plane implied by consistency with the $95 \%$ C.L. limits on current and proposed limits in EDMs. In the left panel, we use the current limits on the electron, mercury, and neutron EDMs. In the right panel, we illustrate future limits that could come from improved sensitivities to electron and neutron EDMs. These constraints are shown together with the phases required by baryogenesis. The shaded [dark (blue) and light (green) combined] EWB band corresponds to BBN
2129: input~\cite{Eidelman:2004wy}, while the narrow light-shaded (green)
2130: band on the left corresponds to WMAP input~\cite{wmap}.
2131: In these plots we use $|\mu| = M_2 = 200$ GeV (resonance peak). The
2132: the other supersymmetric masses are as specified in the text.
2133: \label{fig:bands}
2134: }
2135: \end{figure}
2136: The plots in Fig.~\ref{fig:bands} correspond to taking the first and
2137: second generation sfermions, along with the gluinos, to be degenerate with masses equal to
2138: 750 GeV; the gaugino mass $M_1 = 100$ GeV; and the triscalar coupling
2139: $A = 200$ GeV. We consider then values of $M_2$ and $\abs{\mu}$ corresponding to the peak of resonant baryon generation, $M_2=|\mu| = 200$ GeV. In the left panel we show the current EDM constraints on the phases $\phi_{\mu,A}$, and in the right the limits that could come from proposed electron and neutron EDM experiments. For these choices of MSSM parameters, Eq.~(\ref{eq:pheno1}) predicts for $Y_B$:
2140: \begin{equation}
2141: \label{YB200}
2142: 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).
2143: \end{equation}
2144: In the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:out}, we consider lowering the masses of heavy sfermions and gluinos to 500 GeV, which does not change Eq.~(\ref{YB200}) for $Y_B$, but tightens the EDM bands. In the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:out}, we move the heavy sparticles back to 750 GeV, but move off the peak of resonant baryon production, to $M_2 = 200$ GeV, $\abs{\mu} = 250$ GeV. In this case,
2145: \begin{equation}
2146: 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).
2147: \end{equation}
2148: In both cases in Fig.~\ref{fig:out}, EDM constraints already rule out successful baryogenesis for the chosen parameters. Thus, we find the general trend that for $M_2 \sim |\mu|$ (and some relatively heavy sparticle masses), electroweak baryogenesis requires only small phases, consistent with the constraints from EDMs. As
2149: one moves off resonance (or lowers heavy sparticle masses), then larger phases are needed to generate
2150: the observed baryon asymmetry, and this requirement tends to conflict with the EDM constraints.
2151: \begin{figure}[t]
2152: \begin{center}
2153: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{ccbau500.eps}~
2154: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{cbauoff.eps}
2155: \end{center}
2156: \begin{picture}(0,0)(-100,0)
2157: \put(7,15){{\small $\phi_\mu$ (rad)}}
2158: \put(260,15){{\small $\phi_\mu$ (rad) }}
2159: \put(-100,130){{\small $\phi_A$ }}
2160: \put(-105,115){{\small (rad)}}
2161: %\put(150,130){{\small $\phi_A$ }}
2162: %\put(145,115){{\small (rad)}}
2163: %%%%%%%%%%% right panel %%%%%%%%%%%%
2164: \put(214,50){{\small $d_e$ }}
2165: \put(274,50){\small$d_{\text{Hg}}$}
2166: \put(305,57){{\small $d_n$ }}
2167: \put(162,70){{\scriptsize EWB}}
2168: %%%%%%%%% left panel %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2169: \put(-25,60){{\scriptsize EWB }}
2170: \put(27,53){{\small $d_e$ }}
2171: \put(84,67){{\small $d_n$ }}
2172: \put(51,52){\small $d_{\text{Hg}}$}
2173: \end{picture}
2174: \caption[Choices for MSSM parameters ruled out by EDM limits and successful EWB]{Choices for MSSM parameters ruled out by EDM constraints and requiring successful electroweak baryogenesis. Left panel: EDM and EWB bands in $\phi_\mu$--$\phi_A$ plane on the resonant peak $M_2 = \abs{\mu} = 200\text{ GeV}$, but with first- and second-generation sfermion and gluino masses at 500 GeV. The EDM limits are tighter in this case, ruling out successful baryogenesis. Right panel: For heavy sparticles at 750 GeV, but with $M_2=200\text{ GeV},\abs{\mu}=250\text{ GeV}$, which lies off the resonant peak for the creation of the baryon asymmetry. The required phases are already ruled out by present EDM limits.}
2175: \label{fig:out}
2176: \end{figure}
2177:
2178:
2179: Ultimately, if supersymmetry is discovered at collider experiments,
2180: spectroscopy will dictate the input for mass parameters. Then joint
2181: constraints from low-energy EDM measurements and collider searches
2182: could be used to tightly test the scenario of baryogenesis at the
2183: electroweak scale, especially as a new generation of lepton, neutron, and neutral atom EDM searches will likely tighten the constraints in Fig.~7 by two or more orders of magnitude (for a recent discussion, see Ref.~\cite{Erler:2004cx} and references therein).
2184:
2185:
2186: \section{Conclusions}
2187: \label{sec:summary}
2188:
2189: 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 washout 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 the 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 ${\cal O}(\epsilon)$.
2190:
2191: 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
2192: \be
2193: \tau_{\rm res}\sim \frac{1}{\sqrt{\Delta\omega^2+\Gamma_{ij}^2}}\ \ \ ,
2194: \ee
2195: 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} 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.
2196:
2197: 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.
2198:
2199: 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})
2200: 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.
2201:
2202: 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.
2203:
2204:
2205: \setcounter{section}{0}
2206: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{chapter}.\Alph{section}}
2207:
2208: \section{Appendix: Propagators at Finite Temperature and Density}
2209: \label{appx:props}
2210:
2211: 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}.
2212:
2213: \subsection{General Structure of Fermion Propagators}
2214:
2215: We begin with the spectral function for fermions at temperature $T = 1/\beta$ in the presence of a chemical potential $\mu$:
2216: \begin{equation}
2217: \label{rhodef}
2218: \rho_{\alpha\beta}(x) = \frac{1}{Z}\Tr\left[e^{-\beta(\op{H}-\mu\op{N})}\{\psi_\alpha(x),\bar\psi_\beta(0)\}\right],
2219: \end{equation}
2220: where $Z = \Tr[e^{-\beta(\op{H}-\mu\op{N})}]$. It is convenient to define the retarded and advanced propagators:
2221: \begin{subequations}
2222: \label{SRSAdef}
2223: \begin{align}
2224: S^R(x) &= \theta(x^0)\rho(x) \\
2225: S^A(x) &= -\theta(x^0)\rho(x),
2226: \end{align}
2227: \end{subequations}
2228: supressing spinor indices. The Fourier transforms of $S^{R,A}(x)$ and $\rho(x)$ are related by:
2229: \begin{subequations}
2230: \begin{align}
2231: 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} \\
2232: 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} \,.
2233: \end{align}
2234: \end{subequations}
2235: 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:
2236: \begin{equation}
2237: \begin{split}
2238: \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}) \\
2239: &= \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}.
2240: \end{split}
2241: \end{equation}
2242: Now insert a complete set of states between the fermion fields:
2243: \begin{equation}
2244: \label{complete}
2245: \begin{split}
2246: \rho_{\alpha\beta}(\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} \\
2247: + &\bra{n}e^{-\beta(\op{H}-\mu\op{N})}\bar\psi_\beta(0)\ket{j}\bra{j}\psi_\alpha(x)\ket{n}\Bigr].
2248: \end{split}
2249: \end{equation}
2250: We can rewrite the second term by switching summation labels and translating $\psi_\alpha$ from $x$ to 0:
2251: \begin{equation}
2252: \begin{split}
2253: \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} \\
2254: &=\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},
2255: \end{split}
2256: \end{equation}
2257: which after integrating in Eq.~(\ref{complete}), becomes
2258: \begin{equation}
2259: \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},
2260: \end{equation}
2261: 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:
2262: \begin{equation}
2263: 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}
2264: \end{equation}
2265: which is $e^{-\beta(\omega-\mu)}$ times the first term of Eq.~(\ref{complete}), so we conclude:
2266: \begin{equation}
2267: \label{rhomom1}
2268: \rho_{\alpha\beta}(\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].
2269: \end{equation}
2270: Similarly, we could have manipulated the first term of Eq.~(\ref{complete}) in the same way, and derived the companion relation:
2271: \begin{equation}
2272: \label{rhomom2}
2273: \rho_{\alpha\beta}(\omega,\vect{k}) = \left[1 + e^{\beta(\omega-\mu)}\right]\int d^4 x\,
2274: e^{i(\omega t-\vect{k}\cdot\vect{x})}\frac{1}{Z}
2275: \Tr\bigl[e^{-\beta(\op{H}-\mu\op{N})}\bar\psi_\beta(0)\psi_\alpha(x)\bigr].
2276: \end{equation}
2277: Appearing on the right-hand sides of Eqs.~(\ref{rhomom1},\ref{rhomom2}) are the Green's functions $S^>(k^0,\vect{k})$ and $-S^<(k^0,\vect{k})$, giving the relations:
2278: \begin{subequations}
2279: \label{S>S<fromrho}
2280: \begin{align}
2281: S^>(k^0,\vect{k}) &= [1 - n_F(k^0-\mu)]\rho(k^0,\vect{k}) \\
2282: S^<(k^0,\vect{k}) &= -n_F(k^0-\mu)\rho(k^0,\vect{k}),
2283: \end{align}
2284: \end{subequations}
2285: where $n_F(x) = 1/(1 + e^x)$.
2286:
2287: The various Green's functions satisfy the identities:
2288: \begin{subequations}
2289: \begin{align}
2290: S^t(x,y) &= S^R(x,y) + S^<(x,y) = S^A(x,y) + S^>(x,y) \\
2291: S^{\bar t}(x,y) &= S^>(x,y) - S^R(x,y) = S^<(x,y) - S^A(x,y)\,,
2292: \end{align}
2293: \end{subequations}
2294: %
2295: which follow directly from the definitions in
2296: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Greens1},\ref{SRSAdef}). Thus, using
2297: Eq.~(\ref{S>S<fromrho}), the time- and anti-time-ordered propagators
2298: can be expressed in terms of the retarded and advanced propagators:
2299: %
2300: \begin{subequations}
2301: \label{StfromSR}
2302: \begin{align}
2303: S^t(k^0,\vect{k}) &= [1 - n_F(k^0-\mu)]S^R(k^0,\vect{k}) +
2304: n_F(k^0-\mu)S^A(k^0,\vect{k}) \\
2305: S^{\bar t}(k^0,\vect{k}) &= -n_F(k^0-\mu)S^R(k^0,\vect{k}) -
2306: [1-n_F(k^0-\mu)]S^A(k^0,\vect{k})\,.
2307: \end{align}
2308: \end{subequations}
2309: Also note that $\rho = S^R-S^A = S^> - S^<$.
2310:
2311: \subsection{Bosonic Propagators}
2312:
2313: Similar results may be derived from scalar bosonic propagators, for which the analog to Eq.~(\ref{S>S<fromrho}) is:
2314: \begin{subequations}
2315: \begin{align}
2316: G^>(k^0,\vect{k}) &= [1+n_B(k^0-\mu)]\rho(k^0,\vect{k}) \\
2317: G^<(k^0,\vect{k}) &= n_B(k^0-\mu)\rho(k^0,\vect{k})\,,
2318: \end{align}
2319: \end{subequations}
2320: where the momentum-space spectral function $\rho(k^0,\vect{k})$ for bosons is the Fourier transform of:
2321: \begin{equation}
2322: \rho(x) = \frac{1}{Z}\Tr\left\{e^{-\beta(\op{H}-\mu\op{N})}[\phi(x),\phi^*(0)]\right\}\,.
2323: \end{equation}
2324: The bosonic propagators also satisfy the identity $\rho = G^R - G^A = G^> - G^<$.
2325:
2326: \subsection{Tree-Level Propagators}
2327:
2328: At tree level, the propagators $S^{R,A}$ for fermions are given by:
2329: \begin{equation}
2330: S^{R,A}(k^0,\vect{k}) = \frac{i(\diracslash{k} + m)}{(k^0\pm i\epsilon)^2 - E_{\vect{k}}^2}\,,
2331: \end{equation}
2332: and $G^{R,A}$ for bosons are given by:
2333: \begin{equation}
2334: G^{R,A}(k^0,\vect{k}) = \frac{i}{(k^0\pm i\epsilon)^2 - E_{\vect{k}}^2}\,,
2335: \end{equation}
2336: 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}).
2337:
2338: \subsection{One-Loop Corrections to Massless Fermion Propagators}
2339:
2340: 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:
2341: \begin{equation}
2342: 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]\,,
2343: \end{equation}
2344: 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:
2345: \begin{equation}
2346: Z_{p,h}(k) = \frac{E_{p,h}^2 - k^2}{m_f^2}\,,
2347: \end{equation}
2348: where
2349: \begin{equation}
2350: m_f^2 = \frac{\alpha_s C_F\pi T^2}{2}\,.
2351: \end{equation}
2352: 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.
2353:
2354:
2355:
2356:
2357: \section{Appendix: Expanded Source Terms for Quantum Transport}
2358: \label{appx:expand}
2359:
2360: \subsection{Bosons}
2361:
2362: 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:
2363: \begin{align}
2364: \label{appx:scalar5}
2365: 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
2366: \int_0^\infty\frac{k^2 dk}{\omega_R\omega_L} \\
2367: \nonumber
2368: \times\biggl\{&\mu_R\left[{1\over\Delta}\left(\sin\phi\Imag h_R^++\cos\phi\
2369: {\rm Re}\ h_R^+\right)
2370: -{1\over\delta}\left(\cos\theta\Real h_R^+-\sin\theta\Imag h_R^+\right)\right]\\
2371: \nonumber
2372: +&\mu_L\left[{1\over\Delta}\left(\sin\phi\Imag h_L^+-\cos\phi\Real h_L^+\right)
2373: +{1\over\delta}\left(\cos\theta\Real h_L^+ - \sin\theta\Imag h_L^+\right)\right]\biggr\}\,,
2374: \end{align}
2375: where
2376: \bea
2377: \label{appx:scalardefs}
2378: \omega_{L,R} & = & \sqrt{\abs{\vect{k}}^2+M_{{\tilde t}_{L,R}}^2}\\
2379: \nonumber
2380: \Delta & = & \sqrt{(\Gamma_L + \Gamma_R)^2+(\omega_L - \omega_R)^2}\\
2381: \nonumber
2382: \delta & = & \sqrt{(\Gamma_L + \Gamma_R)^2+(\omega_L + \omega_R)^2}\\
2383: \nonumber
2384: \tan\theta & = & \frac{\omega_L + \omega_R}{\Gamma_L + \Gamma_R} \\
2385: \nonumber
2386: \tan\phi & = & \frac{\omega_L - \omega_R}{\Gamma_L + \Gamma_R} \\
2387: \nonumber
2388: h_{L,R}^\pm & = & \frac{\exp[(\omega_{L,R}\pm i\Gamma_{L,R})/T]}
2389: {\{\exp[(\omega_{L,R}\pm i\Gamma_{L,R})/T]-1\}^{2}}
2390: \eea
2391: and where $\Gamma_{L,R}$ are the thermal widths for the ${\tilde
2392: t}_{L,R}$. The rates $\Gamma_{\tilde t}^\pm$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:gammascalarpm}) can then be expressed:
2393: \begin{align}
2394: \label{appx:gammascalarpm}
2395: \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 & \\
2396: \nonumber
2397: \times\int_0^\infty\frac{k^2 dk}{\omega_R\omega_L}
2398: \biggl\{\frac{1}{\Delta}&\left[\sin\phi\Imag(h_L^+\pm h_R^+)-
2399: \cos\phi\Real(h_L^+\mp h_R^+)\right]\\
2400: \nonumber
2401: +{1\over\delta}&\left[\cos\theta\Real(h_L^+\mp h_R^+) -
2402: \sin\theta \Imag(h_L^+\mp h_R^+)\right]\biggr\}\,.
2403: \end{align}
2404: Meanwhile, the $CP$-violating source given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:scalarcp1}) can be expanded:
2405: \begin{align}
2406: \label{appx:scalarcp1}
2407: S^{\CPV}_{{\tilde t}_R}(x) = N_C y_t^2&\Imag
2408: (\mu A_t) v(x)^2{\dot\beta}(x) \int_0^\infty{k^2 dk\over 2\pi^2}{1
2409: \over\omega_L\omega_R} \\
2410: \nonumber
2411: \times\biggl\{ &{1\over\delta^2}\left[\Real \left(1+n_R^++n_L^+\right)
2412: \sin 2\theta+
2413: \Imag\left(n_R^++n_L^+\right)\cos 2\theta\right]\\
2414: \nonumber
2415: +&{1\over\Delta^2}\left[\Real\left(n_R^+-n_L^+\right)
2416: \sin 2\phi -
2417: \Imag\left(n_R^++n_L^+\right)\cos 2\phi\right]\biggr\}\,,
2418: \end{align}
2419: where $n_{L,R}^\pm = n_B(\omega_{\tilde t_{L,R}} \pm \Gamma_{L,R})$.
2420: Our result agrees with that of Ref.~\cite{Riotto:1998zb} except for a
2421: different relative sign in front of the $\cos 2\phi$ term and the overall factor of $N_C$.
2422:
2423:
2424: \subsection{Massive Fermions}
2425:
2426: The $CP$-conserving rates for Higgsino-gaugino interactions given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:gammaHiggsinopm}) can be expanded:
2427: \begin{align}
2428: \label{appx:gammaHiggsinopm}
2429: \Gamma_{\widetilde H^\pm}^{\pm} = g_2^2 {v(x)^2}&\frac{1}{T}
2430: \int_0^\infty{k^2 dk\over 2\pi^2}\left({1\over\omh\omw}\right) \\
2431: \nonumber
2432: \times\Biggl(
2433: &{1\over\Delta}\biggl\{
2434: \left[\omh\omw+\gamh\gamw- k^2 + M_2\abs{\mu}\cos\phi_\mu\sin 2\beta(x)\right] \\
2435: \nonumber
2436: &\qquad\qquad\times\Bigl[\cos\phi\Real(\kwtilp \mp \khtilp) - \sin\phi\Imag(\kwtilp \pm \khtilp)\Bigr]\\
2437: \nonumber
2438: &\qquad+\left[\gamh\omw-\gamw\omh\right]\left[\sin\phi\Real(\kwtilp\mp\khtilp)
2439: +\cos\phi\Imag(\kwtilp\pm\khtilp)\right]\biggr\}\\
2440: \nonumber
2441: +&
2442: {1\over\delta}\biggl\{
2443: \left[\omh\omw-\gamh\gamw+ k^2- M_2\abs{\mu}\cos\phi_\mu\sin 2\beta(x)\right] \\
2444: \nonumber
2445: &\qquad\qquad\times\Bigl[
2446: \cos\theta\Real(\kwtilp\mp\khtilp) -\sin\theta\Imag(\kwtilp\mp\khtilp)\Bigr]\\
2447: \nonumber
2448: &\qquad-\left[\gamh\omw+\gamw\omh\right]\left[
2449: \cos\theta\Imag(\kwtilp\mp\khtilp)+\sin\theta\Real(\kwtilp\mp\khtilp)\right]\biggr\}\Biggr),
2450: \end{align}
2451: where
2452: \bea
2453: \label{appx:fermiondefs}
2454: \omega_{\widetilde H,\widetilde W} & = & \sqrt{\abs{\vect{k}}^2+M_{\widetilde H,\widetilde W}^2}\\
2455: \nonumber
2456: \Delta & = & \sqrt{(\Gamma_{\widetilde W} + \Gamma_{\widetilde H})^2+(\omega_{\widetilde W} - \omega_{\widetilde H})^2}\\
2457: \nonumber
2458: \delta & = & \sqrt{(\Gamma_{\widetilde W} + \Gamma_{\widetilde H})^2+(\omega_{\widetilde W} + \omega_{\widetilde H})^2}\\
2459: \nonumber
2460: \tan\theta & = & \frac{\omega_{\widetilde W} + \omega_{\widetilde H}}{\Gamma_{\widetilde W} + \Gamma_{\widetilde H}} \\
2461: \nonumber
2462: \tan\phi & = & \frac{\omega_{\widetilde W} - \omega_{\widetilde H}}{\Gamma_{\widetilde W} + \Gamma_{\widetilde H}} \\
2463: \nonumber
2464: 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}}\ .
2465: \end{eqnarray}
2466: The $CP$-violating Higgsino source in Eq.~(\ref{eq:chargino3}) can be expressed:
2467: \begin{align}
2468: \label{appx:chargino3}
2469: S^{\CPV}_{\widetilde H^\pm}(x) =
2470: \nonumber
2471: 2 g_2^2 M_2 &\Imag(\mu) v(x)^2{\dot\beta}\ \int_0^\infty\
2472: {k^2 dk\over 2\pi^2}\left({1\over \omh\omw}\right)
2473: \\
2474: \times\biggl\{&{1\over\Delta^2}\left[\sin 2\phi\ {\rm Re}\left(\nwtilp-\nhtilp\right)+\cos 2\phi\
2475: {\rm Im}\left(\nwtilp+\nhtilp\right)\right]\\
2476: \nonumber
2477: +&{1\over\delta^2}\left[\sin 2\theta\ {\rm Re}\left(1-\nwtilp-\nhtilp\right)
2478: -\cos 2\theta\ {\rm Im}\left(\nwtilp+\nhtilp\right)\right]\biggr\}\,,
2479: \end{align}
2480: where $N_{\widetilde H,\widetilde W}^\pm = n_B(\omega_{\widetilde H,\widetilde W}\pm i\Gamma_{\widetilde H,\widetilde W})$.
2481: Our result agrees with that of Ref. \cite{Riotto:1998zb} except for
2482: the sign of the $\cos 2\phi$ term.
2483:
2484:
2485:
2486: \subsection{Chiral Fermions}
2487: For chiral fermions, the $CP$-conserving chirality-changing rates in Eq.~(\ref{eq:gquarkplusminus}) can be expanded:
2488: \begin{align}
2489: \label{appx:gquarkplus}
2490: \Gamma_{t_R}^{\pm} = \frac{1}{T}\frac{N_C y_t v_u^2}{\pi^2}&\int_0^\infty k^2 dk \\
2491: \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 \\
2492: &+ \frac{T}{\delta_p}\cos 2\theta_p(\lambda_p^L \mp \lambda_p^R)\Real(1-N_{pL}^+ - N_{pR}^+)\Bigr] \nonumber \\
2493: -\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 \\
2494: & + \frac{T}{\Delta_{hp}}\cos 2\phi_{hp}(\lambda_p^L\pm\lambda_h^R)\Real(N_{pL}^+ - N_{hR}^+)\Bigr] \nonumber \\
2495: + (p\leftrightarrow h) &\biggr\}, \nonumber
2496: \end{align}
2497: where
2498: \begin{equation}
2499: \begin{split}
2500: \delta_p &= \sqrt{(\omega_p^R + \omega_p^L)^2 + (\Gamma_p^R + \Gamma_p^L)^2} \\
2501: \Delta_{hp} &= \sqrt{(\omega_p^L - \omega_h^R)^2 + (\Gamma_h^R + \Gamma_p^L)^2} \\
2502: h_{pL}^\pm &= h_F(\omega_p^L \pm i\Gamma_p^L)\text{, etc.} \\
2503: N_{pL}^\pm &= n_F(\omega_p^L \pm i\Gamma_p^L)\text{, etc.} \\
2504: \tan\theta_p &= \frac{\omega_p^L + \omega_p^R}{\Gamma_p^L + \Gamma_p^R} \\
2505: \tan\phi_{hp} &= \frac{\omega_h^R - \omega_p^L}{\Gamma_p^L + \Gamma_h^R},
2506: \end{split}
2507: \end{equation}
2508: and where the
2509: \begin{equation}
2510: \lambda_{p,h}^{L,R} = \pd{\Gamma_{p,h}^{L,R}}{\mu_{t_{L,R}}}\,,
2511: \end{equation}
2512: 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.
2513:
2514:
2515:
2516: \section{Appendix: Residues of Thermal Distribution Functions}
2517: \label{appx:poles}
2518:
2519: The expressions for the $CP$-violating and conserving sources presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:source} omit the terms arising from the residues of the poles of the thermal distribution functions appearing in the thermal Green's functions.
2520:
2521: For example, the $CP$-violating source for squarks, Eq.~(\ref{eq:scalarcp1}), arises from the second term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:scalar2}), which at an intermediate stage in the derivation takes the form:
2522: \begin{equation}
2523: \label{eq:SCPVa}
2524: \begin{split}
2525: S_{\tilde t_R}^{\CPV}(X) &= -2iy_t^2\Imag(\mu A_t)v^2(X)\dot\beta(X)\int_{-\infty}^0dt\,t\int\frac{d^3 k}{(2\pi)^3}\int_{-\infty}^\infty\frac{dk^0}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^\infty\frac{dq^0}{2\pi}e^{i(k^0-q^0)t} \\
2526: &\qquad\qquad\times[n_B(k^0) - n_B(q^0)]\rho_R(k^0,\vect{k})\rho_L(q^0,\vect{q}).
2527: \end{split}
2528: \end{equation}
2529: The $k^0,q^0$ integrals can be done by contour integration. The exponential factor $e^{i(k^0-q^0)t}$ determines that the $k^0$ contour should be closed in the lower half-place, while the $q^0$ contour should be closed above. The terms in Eq.~(\ref{eq:scalarcp1}) come from picking up the residues of the poles in the spectral functions $\rho_R(k^0,\vect{k})$ and $\rho_L(q^0,\vect{q})$. However, $n_B(k^0)$ and $n_B(q^0)$ also contain poles. The function $n_B(x)$,
2530: \begin{equation}
2531: n_B(x) = \frac{1}{e^{x/T} - 1},
2532: \end{equation}
2533: has poles at the points $x_n = 2\pi i n T$, where $n$ is any integer. These are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:contour}.
2534: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}
2535: \begin{figure}
2536: \begin{center}
2537: \begin{picture}(0,56)(0,-22)
2538: \drawline(-52,0)(52,0)
2539: \put(52,0){\vector(1,0){0}}
2540: \put(53,-1){$q^0$}
2541: \drawline(0,-30)(0,30)
2542: \put(0,30){\vector(0,1){0}}
2543: \put(35,3){\circle*{1}}
2544: \put(-35,3){\circle*{1}}
2545: \put(-35,-3){\circle*{1}}
2546: \put(35,-3){\circle*{1}}
2547: \put(-38,5){$-\mathcal{E}_L$}
2548: \put(-38,-8){$-\mathcal{E}_L^*$}
2549: \put(33,5){$\mathcal{E}_L^*$}
2550: \put(33,-7){$\mathcal{E}_L$}
2551: \multiput(0,-28)(0,7){9}{\circle*{1}}
2552: \put(2,14){$x_n$}
2553: \Thicklines
2554: \drawline(-48,0)(-2,0)
2555: \drawline(2,0)(48,0)
2556: \put(0,0){\arc{4}{0}{3.14}}
2557: \qbezier(-48,0)(-48,33)(0,33)
2558: \qbezier(0,33)(48,33)(48,0)
2559: \put(-25,0){\vector(1,0){0}}
2560: \put(25,0){\vector(1,0){0}}
2561: \put(0,33){\vector(-1,0){0}}
2562: \end{picture}
2563: \end{center}
2564: \caption[Analytic structure of integrand in source terms]{The $q^0$ integral in Eq.~(\ref{eq:SCPVa}) is evaluated along the contour closed in the upper half-plane. The integrand contains poles at the locations $\pm\mathcal{E}_L^{(*)}$ from the spectral function and at $x_n = 2\pi i n T$ from the Bose-Einstein function $n_B(q^0)$. The other integrands appearing in the various source terms all have this basic analytic structure.}
2565: \label{fig:contour}
2566: \end{figure}
2567: Near one of these points, the Bose-Einstein function behaves as:
2568: \begin{equation}
2569: n_B(x) = \frac{T}{x-x_n} + \cdots,
2570: \end{equation}
2571: where the ellipses denote non-singular terms in the series expansion of $n_B(x)$. The residues of these poles generate new contributions to $S_{\tilde t_R}^{\CPV}$. First, note that the residues at $k^0,q^0=0$ contribute nothing, as $\rho_R(0,\vect{k}) = \rho_L(0,\vect{q}) = 0$, as seen by inspection of Eq.~(\ref{eq:slambdafree}). The remaining residues give, after completing the time and $d\Omega_{\vect{k}}$ integrals in Eq.~(\ref{eq:SCPVa}), the extra contributions:
2572: \begin{equation}
2573: \begin{split}
2574: \Delta S_{\tilde t_R}^{\CPV}(X) = -\frac{y_t^2}{\pi^2}\Imag(\mu A_t)v^2(X)\dot\beta(X) T\int_0^\infty & dk\,k^2 \\
2575: \times\sum_{n=1}^\infty\biggl\{\frac{1}{2\omega_L}\biggl[\frac{1}{(\mathcal{E}_L^* + 2\pi i nT)^2} &- \frac{1}{(\mathcal{E}_L - 2\pi i nT)^2}\biggr]\rho_R(-2\pi i n T,k) \\
2576: + \frac{1}{2\omega_R}\biggl[\frac{1}{(\mathcal{E}_R - 2\pi i nT)^2} &- \frac{1}{(\mathcal{E}_R^* + 2\pi i nT)^2}\biggr]\rho_L(2\pi i n T,k)\biggr\}.
2577: \end{split}
2578: \end{equation}
2579: In the region of resonant enhancement of the original terms in $S_{\tilde t_R}^{\CPV}$, where $M_{\tilde t_L}\approx M_{\tilde t_R}$, these new terms are numerically about $10^3$ times smaller (primarily because of the large factors of $T$ in the denominators), while they become comparable only far away from the resonant region. Since these regions are phenomenologically unimporant in our analysis, we can safely ignore $\Delta S_{\tilde t_R}^{\CPV}$ for our purposes, although they should be included in future calculations for complete consistency.
2580:
2581: Corrections to the $CP$-violating Higgsino source $S_{\tilde H^\pm}^{\CPV}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:chargino3}) come similarly from poles in the Fermi-Dirac function $n_F(x)$ at the points $\kappa_n = (2n-1)i\pi T$ for integers $n$:
2582: \begin{equation}
2583: n_F(x) = \frac{1}{e^{x/T} + 1} = -\frac{T}{x - \kappa_n} + \cdots
2584: \end{equation}
2585: The extra contribution to the source generated by the residues of these poles:
2586: \begin{equation}
2587: \begin{split}
2588: \Delta S_{\tilde H^\pm}^{\CPV}(X) = \frac{2g_2^2}{\pi^2}\Imag(\mu)v(X)^2\dot\beta(X) M_2 T\int_0^\infty &dk\,k^2 \\
2589: \times\sum_{n=1}^\infty\biggl\{\frac{1}{2\omega_{\widetilde W}}\biggl[\frac{1}{(\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde W} - \kappa_n)^2} &- \frac{1}{(\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde W}^* + \kappa_n)^2}\biggr]\rho_{\widetilde H^\pm}(\kappa_n,k) \\
2590: + \frac{1}{2\omega_{\widetilde H}}\biggl[\frac{1}{(\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde W}^* + \kappa_n)^2} &- \frac{1}{(\mathcal{E}_{\widetilde W} - \kappa_n)^2}\biggr]\rho_{\widetilde W}(-\kappa_n,k)\biggr\}.
2591: \end{split}
2592: \end{equation}
2593: Again, the size of $\Delta S_{\tilde H^\pm}^{\CPV}$ is numerically insignificant compared to $S_{\tilde H^\pm}^{\CPV}$ given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:chargino3}), except far away from the region $\abs{\mu}=M_2$, thus leaving our phenomenological studies substantially unaffected.
2594:
2595: The $CP$-conserving sources $S^{CP}$ are also modified. For instance, to $S_{\tilde t_R}^{CP}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:scalar5}) must be added the terms:
2596: \begin{equation}
2597: \begin{split}
2598: \Delta S_{\tilde t_R}^{CP}(X) = -\frac{y_t^2}{\pi^2}\abs{A_t v_u(X) - \mu^* v_d(X)}^2 T &\int_0^\infty dk\,k^2 \\
2599: \times\Biggl(\mu_R\frac{1}{2\omega_L}\Biggl\{\frac{1}{2}\rho'_R(0,k)\biggl(\frac{1}{\mathcal{E}_L} &+ \frac{1}{\mathcal{E}_L^*}\biggr) \\
2600: + \sum_{n=1}^\infty \biggl[\rho'_R(-2\pi i n&T,k)\biggl(\frac{1}{\mathcal{E}_L - 2\pi i n T} + \frac{1}{\mathcal{E}_L^* + 2\pi i n T}\biggr) \\
2601: - \rho_R(-2\pi i n&T,k)\biggl(\frac{1}{(\mathcal{E}_L - 2\pi i nT)^2} - \frac{1}{(\mathcal{E}_L^* + 2\pi i nT)^2}\biggr)\biggr]\Biggr\} \\
2602: -\mu_L\frac{1}{2\omega_R}\Biggl\{\frac{1}{2}\rho'_L(0,k)\biggl(\frac{1}{\mathcal{E}_R} &+ \frac{1}{\mathcal{E}_R^*}\biggr) \\
2603: + \sum_{n=1}^\infty \biggl[\rho'_L(2\pi i n&T,k)\biggl(\frac{1}{\mathcal{E}_R - 2\pi i n T} + \frac{1}{\mathcal{E}_R^* + 2\pi i n T}\biggr) \\
2604: + \rho_L(2\pi i n&T,k)\biggl(\frac{1}{(\mathcal{E}_R - 2\pi i nT)^2} - \frac{1}{(\mathcal{E}_R^* + 2\pi i nT)^2}\biggr)\biggr]\Biggr\}\Biggr),
2605: \end{split}
2606: \end{equation}
2607: where
2608: \begin{equation}
2609: \begin{split}
2610: \rho_{R,L}'(k^0,k) &= \pd{}{k^0}\rho(k^0,k) \\
2611: &= -\frac{i}{2\omega_k}\biggl[\frac{1}{(k^0 - \mathcal{E}_{R,L})^2} - \frac{1}{(k^0 + \mathcal{E}_{R,L}^*)^2} - \frac{1}{(k^0 - \mathcal{E}_{R,L}^*)^2} + \frac{1}{(k^0 + \mathcal{E}_{R,L})^2}\biggr].
2612: \end{split}
2613: \end{equation}
2614: These corrections are also numerically insignificant compared to Eq.~(\ref{eq:scalar5}), except far away from the region $M_{\tilde t_L}\approx M_{\tilde t_R}$. Similar expressions should hold for the $CP$-conserving sources for quarks and Higgsinos, which we also expect we can safely ignore, though we do not include their explicit expressions here.
2615:
2616: \section{Appendix: Towards the Yukawa Source}
2617:
2618: In this Appendix we take initial steps towards a computation of the source terms arising from the Yukawa interactions illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:graphs2}. These describe the interactions, for instance, of squarks with real Higgs bosons:
2619: \begin{equation}
2620: \mathcal{L}_{\text{int}}^y = y_t \tilde t_L(A_t H_u^0 - \mu^* H_d^{0*})\tilde t_R^* + \text{h.c.}
2621: \end{equation}
2622: These interactions contribute to the squark source given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:scalar1}):
2623: \begin{equation}
2624: \label{squarksourceY}
2625: \begin{split}
2626: S_{\tilde t_R}(X) = \int d^3 z\int_{-\infty}^{X^0}dz^0 \Bigl[G_R^<(X,z)\Sigma_R^>(z,X) &- G_R^>(X,z)\Sigma_R^<(z,X) \\
2627: + \Sigma_R^>(X,z)G_R^<(z,X) &- \Sigma_R^<(X,z)G_R^>(z,X)\Bigr],
2628: \end{split}
2629: \end{equation}
2630: by inducing the self-energies:
2631: \begin{subequations}
2632: \label{selfenergyY}
2633: \begin{align}
2634: \Sigma_R^>(x,y) &= -y_t^2 G_L^>(x,y)\bigl[\abs{A_t}^2 G_{H_u^0}^>(x,y) + \abs{\mu}^2G_{H_d^{0*}}^>(x,y)\bigr] \\
2635: \Sigma_R^<(x,y) &= -y_t^2 G_L^<(x,y)\bigl[\abs{A_t}^2 G_{H_u^0}^<(x,y) + \abs{\mu}^2G_{H_d^{0*}}^<(x,y)\bigr].
2636: \end{align}
2637: \end{subequations}
2638: Note that these self-energies contain no $CP$-violating phases, unlike Eqs.~(\ref{eq:sigmascalar},\ref{eq:gxyscalar}), which contained cross-terms between the $v_u$ and $v_d$ vevs. Thus, these Yukawa interactions involving real Higgs particles contribute only to the $CP$-conserving part of the squark source. The $H_u$ and $H_d$ contributions to the self-energy have essentially the same structure, so for clarity, we include only the former in the following calculations. The $H_d$ contributions can be restored straightforwardly.
2639:
2640: Every Green's function appearing in Eqs.~(\ref{squarksourceY}, \ref{selfenergyY}) contains dependence on the corresponding chemical potential $\mu_i$. Expanding each one to first order in $\mu_i/T$,
2641: \begin{equation}
2642: \label{deltaG}
2643: G_i(X,z) = G_i^0(X,z) + \mu_i\delta G_i(X,z).
2644: \end{equation}
2645: Let us Wigner transform each of the Green's functions to momentum space:
2646: \begin{equation}
2647: \label{WignerG}
2648: G_i(X,z) = \int\frac{d^4 p}{(2\pi)^4}e^{-ip\cdot(X-z)}G_i(p;\mu_i(X)),
2649: \end{equation}
2650: where we have approximated the dependence of the chemical potentials $\mu_i(X+z)$ on the collective coordinate $X+z$ by simply $\mu(X)$, which assumes the variation in $\mu_i$ is slow compared to the typical scale of individual interactions between particles. With this assumption, after plugging Eqs.~(\ref{selfenergyY}) into Eq.~(\ref{squarksourceY}), using the Wigner transforms (\ref{WignerG}), and expanding to first-order in the chemical potential $\mu_i/T$ as in Eq.~(\ref{deltaG}), the Yukawa-type source for squarks can be rearranged into the following useful form:
2651: \begin{equation}
2652: \label{enigma}
2653: \begin{split}
2654: S_{\tilde t_R}^Y(X) = \int_{-\infty}^0 dt\int\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}\int\frac{dq^0}{2\pi}&\bigl[e^{i(p^0-q^0)t} + e^{-i(p^0-q^0)t}\bigr]h_B(p^0) \\
2655: \times\biggl\{&-\frac{\mu_R}{T}\rho_R(p^0,\vect{p})\bigl[\Sigma_R^{>}(q^0,\vect{p}) - \Sigma_R^{<}(q^0,\vect{p})\bigr] \\
2656: &+\frac{\mu_L}{T}\rho_L(p^0,\vect{p})\bigl[\Sigma_L^{>}(q^0,\vect{p}) - \Sigma_L^{<}(q^0,\vect{p})\bigr] \\
2657: &+\frac{\mu_H}{T}\rho_H(p^0,\vect{p})\bigl[\Sigma_H^{>}(q^0,\vect{p}) - \Sigma_H^{<}(q^0,\vect{p})\bigr]\biggr\},
2658: \end{split}
2659: \end{equation}
2660: where we have used
2661: \begin{subequations}
2662: \begin{align}
2663: G_i^>(p) &= [1+n_B(p^0-\mu_i)]\rho_i(p) \\
2664: G_i^<(p) &= n_B(p^0-\mu_i)\rho_i(p),
2665: \end{align}
2666: \end{subequations}
2667: so that
2668: \begin{equation}
2669: \delta G_i^>(p) = \delta G_i^<(p) = -\frac{\mu_i}{T}h_B(p^0)\rho_i(p).
2670: \end{equation}
2671: The momentum-space self-energies are evaluated at zero chemical potentials and are given by:
2672: \begin{subequations}
2673: \begin{align}
2674: \Sigma_R^>(q) &= -y_t^2\abs{A_t}^2\int\frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}G_L^>(k)G_H^>(q-k) \\
2675: \Sigma_L^>(q) &= -y_t^2\abs{A_t}^2\int\frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}G_R^>(k)G_H^<(k-q) \\
2676: \Sigma_H^>(q) &= -y_t^2\abs{A_t}^2\int\frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}G_R^>(k)G_L^<(k-q),
2677: \end{align}
2678: \end{subequations}
2679: where, again, all Green's functions here are evaluated with zero chemical potentials. The self-energies $\Sigma_i^<$ are obtained by flipping all $\gtrless$ signs.
2680:
2681: The evaluation of Eq.~(\ref{enigma}) is considerably complicated by the presence of finite widths $\Gamma_i$ in the Green's functions appearing inside the integrand. Na\"{\i}ve contour integration as for the $\Gamma_M$-type sources derived earlier produces a result which is ultraviolet-divergent. Investigations into the proper regulation of these terms or a correct procedure for integration (which is even further complicated by the poles in the thermal distribution functions as described in the previous Appendix) is still underway at the time of this writing. The quantitative analysis of $S_{\tilde t_R}^Y$ and the comparison of its size to the $\Gamma_M$-type sources derived earlier is essential to check the consistency of the approximations used in solving the transport equations that give the left-handed weak doublet fermion density $n_L$ and, thereby, the baryon density, $\rho_B$. If the coefficient $\Gamma_Y$ appearing in the transport equations is not considerably larger than $\Gamma_M^-$, then the assumption that $\Gamma_Y\gg\Gamma_M^-$ must be discarded, changing the solution of the transport equations entirely. This scenario is particularly likely to occur in the regions of MSSM parameter space where $\Gamma_M^-$ is enhanced. The evaluation of the Yukawa-type sources and their impact on the phenomenological analysis presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:numerics} is one of the most urgent tasks handed to us by the basic foundational analysis presented in this chapter.
2682:
2683:
2684: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{chapter}.\arabic{section}}