1: \documentclass{PoS}
2:
3:
4:
5: \title{SU(2,CMB), the nature of light and accelerated cosmological expansion }
6:
7:
8:
9: \ShortTitle{SU(2,CMB), the nature of light and accelerated cosmological expansion }
10:
11:
12:
13: \author{\speaker{Ralf Hofmann}\\
14:
15: Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Frankfurt,
16: Johann Wolfgang Goethe - Universit\"at, 60054 Frankfurt, Germany\\
17:
18: E-mail: \email{r.hofmann@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de}}
19:
20: \abstract{We present quantitative and qualitative arguments in favor of the claim that,
21: within the present cosmological epoch, the U(1)$_Y$ factor in the
22: Standard Model is an effective manifestation of
23: SU(2) pure gauge dynamics of Yang-Mills scale $\Lambda\sim 10^{-4}$\,eV.
24: Results for the pressure and
25: the energy density in the deconfining phase of
26: this theory, obtained in a nonperturbative and analytical way,
27: support this connection in view of large-angle
28: features inherent in the map of the CMB temperature
29: fluctuations and temperature-polarization cross correlations.}
30:
31: \dedicated{Dedicated to Pierre van Baal with best wishes for a
32: soon recuperation.}
33:
34: \FullConference{29th Johns Hopkins Workshop on current problems
35: in particle theory: strong matter in the heavens\\
36:
37: 1-3 August\\
38:
39: Budapest}
40:
41:
42: \begin{document}
43:
44:
45: The principle of relativity and the constancy
46: of the velocity of light are the two empirical facts
47: Special Relativity is built on. For the electrodynamics of
48: moving bodies they imply the nonexistence of a
49: singled-out inertial frame of reference: all inertial
50: frames are connected by Lorentz transformations under
51: which electric and magnetic fields behave like the components
52: of a second-rank tensor. As a consequence,
53: the long-nurtured idea of a world ether, allegedly enabling
54: the propagation of electromagnetic waves and thus defining a
55: preferred rest frame, is abandoned \cite{Einstein1905}.
56: At first sight this seems to clash wih the observation of an
57: almost perfect black-body spectrum in the
58: cosmic microwave background (CMB) since one is tempted to tie the
59: temperature of the latter to the existence of the
60: rest frame of a heat bath. This apparent contradiction
61: can, however, be avoided
62: if todays CMB and tiny
63: deviations in its Planck spectrum by photon emission from
64: localized sources (stars), are shown to {\sl decouple} from an existing,
65: overall rest frame of a heat bath.
66:
67: Conventionally, the
68: decoupling of the CMB from its heat bath is
69: thought to occur when the Universe becomes
70: transparent through the capture of electrons by ions
71: and the subsequent formation of neutral atoms. That is,
72: at redshift $z\sim 1100$ or temperatures
73: in the eV range. This point of view, however, is likely to be overly
74: simplistic. As we will argue below, the existence of the CMB is tied
75: to the existence of a ground state (or heat bath) which
76: only within the {\sl present} cosmological epoch
77: happens to be undetectable in the properties of its (photon) excitations.
78: (Gravity, however, is sensitive to the
79: existence of such an invisible ground state.)
80: In other words, the observed decoupling of the background
81: radiation from its
82: heat bath (ground state) today, implying
83: the exact Lorentz covariance of the laws
84: of electromagnetism, could be a singled out
85: situation in the cosmological evolution. If that is to be the case
86: then there must be a good, that is, a dynamical
87: reason.
88:
89: The purpose of this presentation is to propose a scenario where today's
90: Lorentz invariance and certain properties of the CMB, as observed in its
91: power spectra at large angles,
92: {\sl emerge} due to strongly interacting SU(2)
93: Yang-Mills dynamics of scale $\Lambda\sim 10^{-4}$\,eV. We will show
94: why the (finite) temperature, where the thermalized SU(2) Yang-Mills theory dynamically restores
95: Lorentz invariance, happens
96: to be that of the cosmic microwave background $T_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}=2.35\times 10^{-4}$\,eV.
97: Because the scale $\Lambda$ of this Yang-Mills theory essentially is
98: $T_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$ we adopt the name SU(2)$_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$.
99:
100: We would like to remark at this point
101: that besides the particular situation at $T_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$
102: and for $T\ll T_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$ \cite{Hofmann2005}
103: the Lorentz invariance of the fundamental Lagrangian
104: of the SU(2) Yang-Mills theory is an exact symmetry
105: of Nature only in the limit of an asymptotically large
106: temperature: In this limit all excitations
107: are massless, and the ground state, although far from being trivial, neither is
108: visible in the spectrum of excitations nor directly
109: contributes to any thermodynamical quantity \cite{Hofmann2005}.
110:
111: The outline of the presentation is as follows: First, we list a number of
112: motivations for the claim that $SU(2)_{{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}}\stackrel{\tiny\mbox{today}}=U(1)_Y$.
113: Before we discuss some of the
114: physics of the CMB, as it follows from that
115: claim, we need to provide prerequisites on a number of
116: results, obtained in a nonperturbative and analytical way,
117: for the thermodynamics of an SU(2) Yang-Mills theory
118: \cite{Hofmann2005,HerbstHofmann2004,HerbstHofmannRohrer2004}.
119: Subsequently, we discuss this theory at a particular point $T_{c,E}$ of its
120: phase diagram: the boundary between the deconfining
121: and preconfining phase. While the ground state of
122: the former phase emerges as a spatial average over interacting, topology changing
123: quantum fluctuations (calorons and anticalorons subject to
124: gluon exchanges between and radiative corrections
125: within them which manifest themselves
126: in terms of an inert adjoint Higgs field with $T$-dependent modulus on the one hand
127: and a pure-gauge configuration on the other hand) the ground state of the
128: preconfining phase is a condensate of magnetically
129: charged monopoles.
130:
131: The point $T_{c,E}$ is remarkable because a
132: coincidence between an electric and magnetic
133: description takes place. (To avoid confusion: A magnetic charge emerging as a result of the apparent
134: gauge-symmetry breaking SU(2)$\to$U(1) in the deconfining phase
135: is interpreted as an electric charge with respect to U(1)$_Y$. Nevertheless we
136: will in the following refer to electric and magnetic
137: charges as if the $F_{0i}$ components of the field strength in the
138: underlying SU(2) theory defined the color {\sl electric} field.) While
139: electrically charged gauge modes decouple
140: thermodynamically at $T_{c,E}$ because their mass diverges
141: there the charge and the mass of a magnetic monopole
142: vanishes at $T_{c,E}$. Thus the photon is precisely
143: massless and unscreened at
144: $T_{c,E}=T_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$: a result which is in agreement
145: with our daily experience. This situation is singled-out in the cosmological evolution.
146: As a function of temperature a dynamically emerging Lorentz invariance is
147: stabilized at $T_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$ by an infinitely sharp dip in the energy density.
148: Next we investigate to
149: what extent the energy density of the ground state at $T_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$ and the associated
150: (negative) pressure contribute to the Universe's present equation of state.
151:
152: A discussion of radiative corrections to the pressure at the
153: two-loop level is performed subsequently. We observe
154: that within an error of about 50\% the corresponding
155: maximal deviation from the pressure of a free photon
156: gas at $T\sim 3\,T_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$ matches the strength
157: of the dipole temperature fluctuation extracted from the CMB map by WMAP and COBE.
158: We subsequently discuss this result.
159:
160: Finally, we present a summary and
161: an outlook on future research. We stress the
162: necessity to observationally and theoretically
163: investigate the cross correlation
164: between electric/magnetic polarization and
165: temperature fluctuation at large angles: Information about both
166: correlations would allow to identify
167: CP violation in the CMB. The identification
168: of CP violation, in turn, would support the claim that cosmic coincidence, namely
169: the approximate equality of today's energy densities
170: in dark matter and dark energy, is explained
171: by the slow-roll of a Planck-scale axion
172: \cite{Hofmann2005,Wilczek2004}.
173: The latter field also would have played
174: an important role in the generation of the
175: lepton and baryon asymmetries
176: as we observe them today \cite{Hofmann2005}.
177:
178: \section{Why $SU(2)_{{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}}\stackrel{\tiny\mbox{today}}=U(1)_Y$?}
179:
180: There are several reasons to consider the possibility that a larger gauge symmetry masquerades as
181: the U(1)$_Y$ factor of the standard model within the present cosmological epoch.
182: On the theoretical side, Quantum Electrodynamics exhibits ultraviolet slavery as
183: opposed to asymptotic freedom - an esthetically not overly appealing property.
184: On the observational side there are a number of puzzling large-angle
185: anomalies in the one-year data on the cosmic microwave sky as released by
186: the WMAP collaboration which, however, have to be
187: viewed with a healthy scepticism \cite{Copi2005}.
188: Decisive results are expected within the near future. If the $U(1)_Y$ factor of the
189: standard model is, indeed, an effective manifestation of strongly interacting SU(2) gauge
190: dynamics then the radiation history of the Universe needs some
191: rewriting in the low redshift regime. This opens up the potential to
192: explain the puzzling anomalies occurring for $z\le 20$.
193: In addition, a near coincidence for the densities of cosmological dark
194: matter ($\rho_{\tiny\mbox{DM}}\sim 0.3\rho_{\tiny\mbox{crit}}$) and dark energy
195: ($\rho_{\tiny\mbox{DE}}\sim 0.7\rho_{\tiny\mbox{crit}}$) is observed - a fact which, as we will
196: argue below and have argued in \cite{Hofmann2005},
197: may be tightly related to strongly interacting, nonabelian gauge dynamics.
198: (A slowly rolling Planck-scale axion receiving its mass through the topologically
199: nontrivial fluctuations of SU(2)$_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$ - calorons, see \cite{frieman1995}.)
200: The obvious because minimal candidate for such a scenario is a dynamical breaking of an
201: SU(2) Yang-Mills theory down to its Abelian subgroup U(1).
202:
203: \section{SU(2) Yang-Mills thermodynamics}
204:
205: A nonperturbative approach to SU(2) and SU(3) Yang-Mills
206: thermodynamics was worked out recently
207: in \cite{Hofmann2005,HerbstHofmann2004,HerbstHofmannRohrer2004}.
208: This approach benefits from strong research efforts in SU(N) Yang-Mills theory
209: performed both within the
210: perturbative \cite{NP2004,Linde1980} and within the nonperturbative
211: \cite{Polyakov1975,BPST1976,'tHooft1976,HarringtonShepard1977,GPY1981,Nahm1981,LeeLu1998,
212: KraanVanBaal1998,Ilgenfitz2002,Diakonov2004} realm.
213: In \cite{Hofmann2005} we have derived the phase structure of an
214: SU(2) and an SU(3) Yang-Mills theory. Each theory comes in three phases:
215: a deconfining, a preconfing, and a confining one,
216: see Fig.\,\ref{Fig0}.
217: %***********************
218: \begin{figure}
219: \begin{center}
220: \leavevmode
221: %\epsfxsize=9.cm
222: \leavevmode
223: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}
224: \vspace{5.3cm}
225: \special{psfile=Fig-0.ps angle=0 voffset=-170
226: hoffset=-155 hscale=50 vscale=60}
227: \end{center}
228: \caption{\protect{The phase diagram of an SU(2) Yang-Mills theory.\label{Fig0}}}
229: \end{figure}
230: %************************
231: While the transition between the deconfining and the
232: preconfining phase is of a second-order like nature the transition towards
233: the confining phase is genuinely nonthermal and
234: of the Hagedorn type. The latter transition goes with a change of statistics:
235: The excitation in the preconfining phase are massive spin-1 bosons while they are massless and massive
236: spin-1/2 fermions (single and selfintersecting center-vortex loops, respectively)
237: in the confining phase. For our discussion of
238: the CMB power spectra a large angles it is sufficient to resort to
239: deconfining dynamics of the SU(2) theory. Therefore
240: we will elucidate (but not derive) the dynamical facts
241: for this phase only.
242:
243: We start by considering a Euclidean formulation of the thermalized
244: SU(2) theory where time is constrained to a
245: circle, $0\le\tau\le\beta\equiv\frac{1}{T}$ (periodicity of gauge-field configurations).
246: From a unique, nonlocal definition involving a pair
247: of a noninteracting trivial-holonomy caloron and its anticaloron
248: (Harrington-Shepard solution) \cite{HarringtonShepard1977}
249: the computation of the $\tau$ dependence of the phase of a
250: spatially homogeneous, quantum mechanically and statistically inert,
251: adjoint scalar field $\phi$ is the first step in
252: deriving a spatially coarse-grained action.
253: Notice that it is consistent to determine the phase in terms
254: of classical (Euclidean) field configurations since the periodic
255: dependence in $\tau$ is solely determined by $T$, that is,
256: dimensional transmutation is irrelevant for $\phi'$s phase.
257: (To explain the term holonomy: A nontrivial holonomy is the feature of a finite-temperature gauge-field
258: configuration that its Polyakov loop, evaluated at spatial
259: infinity, is different from an element of the center $Z_2$ of SU(2).
260: The Harrington-Shepard solution \cite{HarringtonShepard1977},
261: which is (anti)selfdual and thus energy-pressure free, is a periodic
262: instanton in singular gauge with trivial holonomy (no substructure) and topological charge $\pm 1$.
263: The Lee-Lu-Kraan-van-Baal solution \cite{LeeLu1998,KraanVanBaal1998} is
264: (anti)selfdual with nontrivial holonomy and
265: topological charge $\pm 1$. Because the nonvanishing $a_4(\vec{x}\to\infty,\tau)$ sets a
266: mass scale proportional to temperature the solution exhibits a
267: substructure in terms of a BPS magnetic monopole-antimonopole pair whose combined
268: mass $M_m+M_a$ is $8\pi^2 T$. By computing the one-loop quantum weight for a
269: nontrivial-holonomy caloron, which is a heroic deed, it can be shown
270: that there is an attractive (repulsive), quantum-induced potential between monopole
271: and antimonopole if the holonomy is small (large) \cite{Diakonov2004}.)
272: Assuming the existence of a Yang-Mills scale $\Lambda_E$, which is strongly
273: supported by one-loop perturbation theory \cite{NP2004}, the modulus $|\phi|$
274: follows. (At this level the scale $\Lambda_E$ only enters into a constraint for
275: the finite size of the spatial volume that saturates the
276: infinite-volume average.) Since $\phi$, describing averaged-over noninteracting trivial holonomy calorons and
277: anticalorons at a spatial resolution $|\phi|$, turns out to be
278: nondeformable it represents a fixed source to the coarse-grained
279: Yang-Mills equations for the trivial-topology sector of
280: the theory. Thus it turns out to be selfconsistent to consider (anti)caloron
281: interactions, which are mediated by the topologically trivial sector, {\sl after}
282: the spatial coarse-graining has been performed. These interactions manifest
283: thermselves in terms of a pure-gauge configuration $a_\mu^{bg}$ solving the
284: coarse-grained Yang-Mills equations. As a consequence, the pressure and the energy density
285: of the ground state is shifted by (anti)caloron interactions
286: from zero to $\mp 4\pi T\Lambda_E^3$. (The concept of a thermal
287: ground state thus emerges in view of the average effect of interacting quantum fluctuations of
288: trivial and nontrivial topology.) How this shift comes about
289: on the microscopic level is depicted in Fig.\,\ref{Fig1}.
290: %***********************
291: \begin{figure}
292: \begin{center}
293: \leavevmode
294: %\epsfxsize=9.cm
295: \leavevmode
296: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}
297: \vspace{5.7cm}
298: \special{psfile=Fig-1.ps angle=0 voffset=-170
299: hoffset=-145 hscale=50 vscale=30}
300: \end{center}
301: \caption{\protect{Stepwise and selfconsistent derivation of a thermal ground state upon
302: spatial coarse-graining. (a) A homogeneous and inert adjoint scalar field $\phi$
303: emerges from a pair of trivial-holonomy caloron and anticaloron upon spatial coarse-graining
304: down to a resolution given by $|\phi|$. (b) Interactions between caloron and anticaloron, mediated by plane-waves of a
305: resolution not much larger than $|\phi|$, induce a nontrivial holonomy and thus a BPS
306: monopole-antimonopole pair in each configuration. (c) plane-wave fluctuations
307: of resolution considerably larger than $|\phi|$ induce a potential between
308: monopole and antimonopole which is attractive (repulsive) for a small (large) holonomy. \label{Fig1}}}
309: \end{figure}
310: %************************
311: On length scales not much
312: smaller than $|\phi|^{-1}$ a gluon exchange between a trivial-holonomy
313: caloron and its anticaloron essentially shifts the holonomy only,
314: thereby creating a monopole-antimonopole pair in both the
315: caloron and the anticaloron. Fluctuations of much higher resolution induce a potential
316: between the monopole and its antimonopole. Since the latter attract for a
317: small holonomy monopole and antimonopole eventually annihilate.
318: Thus the quantum weight for the process of
319: monopole-antimonopole creation and their subsequent annihilation essentially is
320: given by that for a trivial-holonomy caloron \cite{GPY1981}. Depending
321: on the scale parameter of the caloron this quantum weight can be sizable.
322: In the opposite case of monopole-antimonopole repulsion (large holonomy) the (anti)caloron dissociates into
323: an isolated but screened monopole and antimonopole. (The screening of magnetic charge
324: is facilitated by intermediate, small-holonomy (anti)caloron fluctuations
325: which generate short-lived magnetic dipoles.) The weight for such a process essentially is
326: given by $\exp\left[-\frac{M_m+M_a}{T}\right]=\exp[-8\pi^2]$
327: which is an extremely small number. We thus conclude that the dissociation
328: of (anti)calorons is an extremely rare process as compared to the fall-back process of
329: a small-holonomy caloron onto trivial holonomy by monopole-antimonopole
330: annihilation. The latter process involves {\sl attraction} between the (anti)caloron
331: constituents: a situation which is responsible for the negative and
332: spatially homogeneous ground-state pressure $P^{gs}=-4\pi T\Lambda_E^3$ emerging upon spatial coarse-graining.
333:
334: What about propagating excitations? Depending on the direction in color
335: space an excitation either gets scattered off caloron or anticalorons (off-Cartan directions
336: in a gauge where the spatial projection of an (anti)caloron is `combed'
337: into a given color-space direction) or it propagates in an
338: unadulterated way through the caloron-anticaloron 'forrest' (Cartan direction).
339: In the former case an excitations describes a zig-zag like
340: trajectory while there is straight-line propagation in the latter case. Upon spatial
341: coarse-graining a zig-zag like propagation is converted into
342: straight-line propagation but now subject to a mass term,
343: see Fig.\,\ref{Fig2}. Straight-line propagation on the
344: microscopic level is left untouched by spatial coarse-graining.
345: After spatial coarse-graining the situation is summarized by
346: the adjoint Higgs mechanism: two out of three
347: directions in adjoint color space become massive
348: ($m_{W^\pm}=2e|\phi|=2e\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda_E}{2\pi T}}$ where $e$ denotes
349: the {\sl effective} gauge coupling, the subscript $W^\pm$ solely indicates the massiveness and the electric
350: charge of the excitation and is not to be associated with the massive bosons
351: in the electroweak unification) due to coarse-grained, interacting (anti)calorons while the
352: third direction remains massless ($m_\gamma=0$). Interactions between
353: coarse-grained excitations are mediated by plane-wave fluctuations which, however, can not be further off
354: their mass shell than $|\phi|^2$ since all fluctuations of resolution
355: larger than $|\phi|$ are integrated into the pure-gauge configuration
356: $a_\mu^{bg}$ already. This renders the effect of explicit interactions very
357: small after spatial coarse-graining \cite{Hofmann2005,HerbstHofmannRohrer2004}.
358: As far as large-angle signatures in the fluctuation map for the cosmic microwave background are
359: concerned they do, however, play an important role.
360: %***********************
361: \begin{figure}
362: \begin{center}
363: \leavevmode
364: %\epsfxsize=9.cm
365: \leavevmode
366: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}
367: \vspace{5.8cm}
368: \special{psfile=Fig-2.ps angle=0 voffset=-180
369: hoffset=-145 hscale=50 vscale=60}
370: \end{center}
371: \caption{\protect{Consecutive scattering of off-Cartan modes
372: off calorons and anticalorons (a) and the emergence of mass
373: by optimized spatial coarse-graining (b). \label{Fig2}}}
374: \end{figure}
375: %************************
376:
377: The invariance of the Legendre transformations between thermodynamical
378: quantities (thermodynamical selfconsistency \cite{Gorenstein1995}) demands a
379: first-order evolution equation for the {\sl effective} gauge coupling $e$ \cite{Hofmann2005}.
380: The solution of this equation is depicted in Fig.\,\ref{Fig3} for both SU(2) (grey line) and SU(3)
381: (black line). A number of comments are in order (only discussing the SU(2) case).
382: First, there is an attractor to
383: the evolution being a plateau $e=8.89$ and a logarithmic divergence
384: $e\propto -\log(\lambda_E-\lambda_{c,E})$ where $\lambda_{c,E}=13.867$. That is, the low-temperature
385: behavior in the evolution of $e$ is independent of the boundary condition set at
386: high temperatures. This is the celebrated ultraviolet-infrared decoupling property of the SU(2)
387: Yang-Mills theory, which, in a logarithmic fashion, is already observed
388: in perturbation theory. Second, the plateau value signals the conservation
389: of the magnetic charge $g=\frac{4\pi}{e}$ of an isolated and screened
390: magnetic monopole: Even after screening by intermediate small-holonomy caloron
391: fluctuations each isolated monopole or antimonopole is a nonrelativistic
392: particle for temperatures not too close to $\lambda_{c,E}$. The very limited mobility of a (anti)monopole then
393: implies that the magnetic charge per unit volume is a conserved quantity.
394: Third, only close to $\lambda_{c,E}$ do (anti)monopoles become mobile
395: due to increased screening leading to the instability of (anti)calorons
396: with respect to a switch to large holonomy (monopole condensation) \cite{Diakonov2004}:
397: local charge conservation does no longer hold. This is the relevant regime for an investigation
398: of polarization-temperature cross correlations in the angular power spectrum of the CMB. At
399: $\lambda_{c,E}$ monopoles become precisely massless and thus Bose condense while the off-Cartan
400: excitations exhibit a diverging mass and thus fall out of thermal equilibrium.
401:
402: In Fig.\,\ref{Fig4} a plot of the total pressure $P$ over $T^4$ as a function of temperature
403: is shown for both the deconfining and the preconfining phases. Notice the rapid (power-like) approach to
404: the Stefan-Boltzmann limit. Notice also that the total pressure is negative shortly above $\lambda_{c,E}$ and even more
405: so in the preconfining phase. This is a consequence of the ever increasing dominance
406: of the ground state when cooling the system in the regime where the temperature is comparable
407: to the Yang-Mills scale and where excitations becoming increasingly massive.
408: (Recall that the ground-state physics in the
409: deconfining phase originates from a spatial average over pairs of {\sl attracting}, {\sl annihilating},
410: and subsequently {\sl recreated} monopoles and antimonopoles while there are collapsing and recreated
411: center-vortex loops in the preconfining phase making up the {\sl negative} ground-state pressure.)
412: %***********************
413: \begin{figure}
414: \begin{center}
415: \leavevmode
416: %\epsfxsize=9.cm
417: \leavevmode
418: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}
419: \vspace{4.3cm}
420: \special{psfile=Fig-3.ps angle=0 voffset=-140
421: hoffset=-155 hscale=70 vscale=40}
422: \end{center}
423: \caption{\protect{The evolution of the effective gauge coupling $e$ with temperature in the deconfining phase. The grey
424: line depicts the SU(2) case while the black line is for SU(3). We have introduced a dimensionless temperature
425: as $\lambda_E\equiv\frac{2\pi T}{\Lambda_E}$.
426: \label{Fig3}}}
427: \end{figure}
428: %************************
429: In Fig.\,\ref{Fig5} we show a plot of the total energy density $\rho$ over $T^4$ as a
430: function of temperature. Again, there is a power-like approach to
431: the Stefan-Boltzmann limit. Notice the infinite-curvature
432: dip at $\lambda_{c,E}$. The upwards jump toward the preconfining phase is a consequence
433: of the dual gauge mode acquiring an extra polarization by
434: the Abelian Higgs mechanism compared to the Cartan-excitation
435: in the deconfining phase. To excite this additional polarization costs
436: energy, therefore the jump. The steep slope to the right of the
437: dip arises due to the logarithmic decoupling of
438: the off-Cartan excitations when approaching
439: $\lambda_{c,E}$. Because off-Cartan excitations possess infinite mass
440: at $\lambda_{c,E}$ the Cartan excitation (our photon if the theory SU(2)$_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$ is
441: considered) propagates in a completely unscreened way. Moreover, the photon is precisely
442: massless because the magnetic coupling $g=\frac{4\pi}{e}$
443: to the monopole condensate vanishes at $\lambda_{c,E}$. This situation is strongly
444: stabilized in terms of the dip in the energy density: Only a departure from thermal
445: equilibrium, which is induced by an external source,
446: will elevate the system into its preconfining phase.
447:
448: Let us briefly discuss how this likely happens in the real Universe.
449: A Planck-scale axion field \cite{frieman1995}, which is spatially homogeneous
450: on cosmological length scales and
451: glued to the slope of its potential by cosmological friction at
452: temperatures well above $\lambda_{c,E}$ (see e.g. \cite{Wilczek2004}),
453: starts to roll for $\lambda\stackrel{>}\sim\lambda_{c,E}$. At a critical velocity
454: of axion rolling, which is going to be reached eventually because the ratio of axion mass to the
455: Hubble parameter increases with increasing axion velocity and because
456: the bulk of the Universe's energy density is stored in the axion field,
457: thermal equilibrium is sufficiently violated to overcome the
458: discontinuity in the energy density of
459: SU(2)$_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$ at $\lambda_{c,E}$. As a consequence, the
460: photon will acquire a Meissner mass (visible superconductivity of
461: the Universe's ground state).
462:
463: Taking the dual gauge
464: boson mass as an `order parameter' for the second-order like transition at
465: $\lambda_{c,E}$ (associated with an apparent gauge symmetry breaking $U(1)_D\to 1$
466: in the preconfining phase) we have determined the critical
467: exponent to $\nu=0.5$ in \cite{Hofmann2005}.
468: %***********************
469: \begin{figure}
470: \begin{center}
471: \leavevmode
472: %\epsfxsize=9.cm
473: \leavevmode
474: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}
475: \vspace{4.3cm}
476: \special{psfile=Fig-4.ps angle=0 voffset=-140
477: hoffset=-155 hscale=40 vscale=40}
478: \end{center}
479: \caption{\protect{The ratio $\frac{P}{T^4}$ for an SU(2) (left panel) and an SU(3) (right panel) Yang-Mills
480: theory throughout its deconfining and preconfining
481: phase. \label{Fig4}}}
482: \end{figure}
483: %************************
484: Even though both results, the pressure and the energy density, were obtained by a one-loop calculation they
485: are accurate to within the 0.1\% level, see below.
486: %***********************
487: \begin{figure}
488: \begin{center}
489: \leavevmode
490: %\epsfxsize=9.cm
491: \leavevmode
492: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}
493: \vspace{4.3cm}
494: \special{psfile=Fig-5.ps angle=0 voffset=-140
495: hoffset=-155 hscale=40 vscale=40}
496: \end{center}
497: \caption{\protect{The ratio $\frac{\rho}{T^4}$ for an SU(2) (left panel) and an SU(3) (right panel) Yang-Mills theory
498: throughout its deconfining and preconfining
499: phase. \label{Fig5}}}
500: \end{figure}
501: %************************
502:
503: \section{Electric-magnetic coincidence}
504:
505: At the point $\lambda_{c,E}$ we encounter an exact coincidence in
506: the electric and the magnetic description of the thermalized
507: gauge system. Namely, no dynamical electric charges exist because the off-Cartan
508: modes are decoupled and at the same time magnetic charges are
509: condensed in such a way that they do not influence the properties
510: of the left-over excitations (the magnetic coupling $g$ vanishes
511: precisely at $\lambda_{c,E}$). The dynamical equations of the effective
512: theory, which coincide with Maxwell's equations in the absence of sources,
513: thus are invariant under an electric-magnetic duality transformation
514: at the point $\lambda_{c,E}$. The ground state, although gravitationally
515: detectable by a measurement of the expansion rate of the Universe, is not
516: visible otherwise. To abandon the idea of a world ether, as it was done by Einstein a
517: hundred years ago \cite{Einstein1905}, is correct as far as the electrodynamics of
518: moving bodies is concerned but appears
519: too radical when extending one's perspective by including gravity.
520: This coins the name {\sl invisible ether} for today's SU(2)$_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$
521: monopole condensate not influencing the propagation of photon
522: excitations (including those being excited by accelerated electric charges):
523: At $\lambda_{c,E}$ the photon is massless and unscreened as we observe it today.
524: Thus identifying the point
525: $\lambda_{c,E}$ with the present temperature of the
526: cosmic microwave background
527: $T_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}=2.351\times 10^{-4}\,$eV defines a
528: boundary condition to the thermodynamics of the
529: associated SU(2) Yang-Mills theory. As a result, we determine the
530: scale of the Yang-Mills theory to $\Lambda_E=1.065\times 10^{-4}$\,eV.
531: Knowing $\Lambda_E$ yields a prediction for the energy density $\rho^{gs}$ of the
532: invisible ether (a contribution to dark energy). We have $\rho^{gs}=(2.444\times 10^{-4}\,\mbox{eV})^4$.
533: If we take the measured value of today's density of dark
534: energy to be $\sim (10^{-3}\,\mbox{eV})^4$
535: \cite{Perlmutter1998,Schmidt1998,WMAP2003I} then we derive that
536: only about $0.36$\% of the Universe's present dark energy density is
537: provided by the ground state of SU(2)$_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$.
538: Therefore the bulk of today's dark energy density arises from another source.
539: In \cite{Hofmann2005} we have scetched how a slowly-rolling Planck-scale
540: axion besides generating today's dark energy density also may explain
541: why there is a near coincidence of this value with that of the cosmological dark
542: matter density. In addition, a Planck-scale axion, which becomes mobile
543: whenever an SU(2) or an SU(3) Yang-Mills theory approaches its center (or confining)
544: phase during the Universe's evolution and is frozen-in otherwise, represents a
545: candidate mechanism for the generation of the observed baryon-
546: and lepton asymmetries \cite{Hofmann2005}.
547:
548: The conceptually interesting thing is that Lorentz invariance, which is one of the defining
549: features of the underlying Yang-Mills theory in the
550: limit $T\to\infty$ and which is dynamically violated
551: by interactions with a nontrivial, thermal ground state inside
552: the deconfining and the preconfining phase
553: (Higgs mechanism induced, temperature dependent masses),
554: is {\sl dynamically} restored at the point $\lambda_{c,E}$ and in
555: the effective theory at zero temperature (confining phase): A strongly
556: interacting gauge theory restores an asymptotically valid
557: spacetime symmetry at two specific points of its phase diagram.
558:
559: \section{Large-angle fluctuations in the CMB as radiative corrections}
560:
561: We now would like to address how temperature fluctuations and temperature-polarization
562: cross correlations at large angles may be generated in the associated power spectra
563: of the cosmic microwave background. While we have something quantitative to say concerning
564: the former case we need, for the time being, constrain ourselves to a
565: qualitative statement in the latter case.
566: %***********************
567: \begin{figure}
568: \begin{center}
569: \leavevmode
570: %\epsfxsize=9.cm
571: \leavevmode
572: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}
573: \vspace{2.7cm}
574: \special{psfile=Fig-6.ps angle=0 voffset=-70
575: hoffset=-165 hscale=50 vscale=40}
576: \end{center}
577: \caption{\protect{Two-loop corrections to the pressure.
578: The nonlocal diagram is the by-far dominating contribution. \label{Fig6}}}
579: \end{figure}
580: %************************
581: Radiative corrections to the pressure at the two-loop level correspond to the set of diagrams as
582: depicted in Fig.\,\ref{Fig6}. To evaluate these diagrams one has to work in a physical
583: gauge (Coulomb-unitary) for a meaningful implementation of the cutoffs for the off-shellnes of
584: quantum fluctuations. Recall that these cutoffs arise from the
585: spatial coarse-graining inherent in the effective theory. The by-far dominating diagram
586: is the nonlocal one. In Fig.\,\ref{Fig7} the relative
587: correction to the free-gas pressure asrising from this diagram
588: is shown as a function of temperature.
589: %***********************
590: \begin{figure}
591: \begin{center}
592: \leavevmode
593: %\epsfxsize=9.cm
594: \leavevmode
595: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}
596: \vspace{4.2cm}
597: \special{psfile=Fig-7.ps angle=0 voffset=-125
598: hoffset=-135 hscale=50 vscale=40}
599: \end{center}
600: \caption{\protect{The dominating two-loop correction to the
601: pressure in the deconfining phase of an SU(2) Yang-Mills theory as a
602: function of temperature.\label{Fig7}}}
603: \end{figure}
604: %************************
605: The power of the dipole fluctuation measured
606: in the CMB is $\left.\frac{\Delta T}{T_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}}\right|_{l=1}=1.24\times 10^{-3}$
607: which is close to the value obtained from the modification of
608: black-body spectra, see \cite{SHG2006}.
609:
610: The standard explanation for the dipole moment is in terms of a
611: net velocity $v\sim 370$\,km s$^{-1}$ of the solar rest frame as compared
612: to the CMB rest frame \cite{PeeblesWilkinson1968}. This is a purely
613: kinematical explanation of the dipole in terms of the relativistic
614: Doppler effect. It is known for a long time that the inferred velocity
615: $v$ is unexpectedly larger than the relative velocity measured between the center-of-mass
616: frame of galaxies and the solar system, see for example
617: http://apod.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990627.html. It is well possible
618: that a combination of kinematical and dynamical effects
619: generates the dipole as follows: Let us, for simplicity, imagine a pure
620: de Sitter Universe such that the Hubble radius, which sets the size of the horizon,
621: is constant in time. Assume that the solar system started to move at $z\sim 3$ where
622: global temperature fluctuations peak. Due to its net velocity with respect to the comoving frame
623: the solar system's horizon volume at $z=0$ is spatially shifted as compared
624: to that at $z\sim 3$. While a temperature fluctuation is of horizon-size
625: at $z\sim 3$ temperature fluctuations no longer are global at $z=0$ because the latter
626: horizon volume has picked up a sequence of temperature changes
627: along the direction of its motion by diving into
628: formerly causally disconnected regions,
629: see Fig.\,\ref{Fig8}. As a consequence, the pure kinematically inferred
630: $v\sim 370$\,km s$^{-1}$ would represent an upper bound only,
631: the actual value may be signifantly lower.
632: In reality there is no pure de Sitter expansion at $0\le z\stackrel{\sim}< 3$
633: but this does not alter the qualitative validity of the argument.
634: %***********************
635: \begin{figure}
636: \begin{center}
637: \leavevmode
638: %\epsfxsize=9.cm
639: \leavevmode
640: %\epsffile[80 25 534 344]{}
641: \vspace{4.3cm}
642: \special{psfile=Fig-8.ps angle=0 voffset=-120
643: hoffset=-105 hscale=60 vscale=60}
644: \end{center}
645: \caption{\protect{Motion of a Hubble volume from $z\sim 3$ to $z=0$
646: in a de Sitter Universe.\label{Fig8}}}
647: \end{figure}
648: %************************
649:
650: Let us now discuss how a large cross correlation between temperature
651: fluctuation and electric field polarization at large angles is likely to be generated
652: without relying on the hypothesis of an early
653: reionization of the Universe. Fig.\,\ref{Fig7} shows that the dominating
654: radiative correction to the photon-gas pressure starts to become sizable at
655: $\lambda_{E}\sim 10\,\lambda_{c,E}$. In this regime the isolated
656: magnetic monopoles, which are electrically charged with respect to U(1)$_{Y}$,
657: become increasingly light by an ever increasing screening by intermediate
658: small-holonomy caloron fluctuations. This renders them explicit
659: and mobile electric charges capable of amplifying a primordially
660: existing cross correlation. At $\lambda_{c,E}$ monopoles condense
661: and therefore are not available as isolated scattering centers
662: anymore.
663:
664: Finally, we would like to stress that it may be premature to take the observed
665: large-angle anomalies, as suggested by the analysis of the one-year WMAP data,
666: at face value as far as their cosmological origin is concerned \cite{Copi2005}.
667:
668: \section{Summary, conclusions and future work}
669:
670: We have proposed that a strongly interacting SU(2) pure gauge theory (SU(2)$_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$)
671: of Yang-Mills scale $\Lambda_E=1.177\times 10^{-4}$\,eV masquerades
672: as the U(1)$_Y$ factor of the standard model of particle physics
673: within the present cosmological epoch. This proposal looks in so far
674: viable and consistent as (i) there exists a dynamical stabilization
675: mechanism for the exact restoration of Lorentz invariance at a
676: particular point in the phase diagram of the Yang-Mills theory (the boundary between the
677: deconfining and the preconfining phase), (ii) the ground-state energy density of
678: SU(2)$_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$ (not coupling the Planck-scale axion to it) at this point represents
679: only about $0.36$\% of the measured density in
680: dark energy of the present Universe (assuming $\rho_\Lambda\sim (10^{-3}\,eV)^4$) , (iii) the dipole strength in the temperature
681: map of the CMB is close to the effect arising from nonabelian fluctuations in SU(2)$_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$,
682: (iv) there is a mechanism for providing a large correlation between
683: temperature fluctuation and electric field polarization at large angles in terms of mobile and isolated
684: electrically charged monopoles (the hypothesis of an early
685: reionization may turn out to be redundant), and (v) coupling a (slowly rolling)
686: Planck-scale axion to the theory, possibly explains the
687: observed near coincidence between cosmological dark matter and
688: dark energy. (Notice, however, that this would imply that structure
689: formation would be due to ripples and lumps in the
690: coherent axion field \cite{Wetterich2001}.) The increasing rate of rolling of the latter will
691: eventually destroy the present thermal equilibirum and elevate
692: SU(2)$_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$ into its preconfining phase where the
693: photon is Meissner massive.
694:
695: Furthermore, the system SU(2)$_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$ plus
696: Planck-scale axion may provide a future theoretical framework to
697: investigate the overall strength and distribution of intergalactic
698: magnetic fields. (For a slight deviation from thermal equilibrium patches of the
699: Universe's ground state are visibly superconducting by the
700: condensate of electric monopoles coupling to its excitations.)
701:
702: To substantiate the scenario further we need to investigate various angular
703: two-point correlations by a diagrammatic analysis of the radiative
704: corrections in the deconfining phase of SU(2)$_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$.
705: On a microscopic level, we also may
706: investigate CMB photon scattering processes off individual, electrically
707: charged monopoles for $T>T_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$. (At a given temperature
708: $T>T_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$ the number density, the mass, and the charge radius
709: of the latter can be reliably estimated \cite{Hofmann2005,Diakonov2004}.)
710: This provides a handle on the amount of induced electric polarization.
711: A fluctuating Planck-scale
712: axion should introduce an asymmetry between the
713: electric and the magnetic polarization-temperature
714: cross correlation at large angles. It also should make the expectation in
715: the large-angle fluctuation of electric times magnetic mode nonvanishing.
716: If future observations of the CMB at large angles detect a clear
717: signal for CP violation then this would be another indication
718: that the system SU(2)$_{\tiny\mbox{CMB}}$ plus
719: Planck-scale axion is responsible for the ground-state
720: physics of our present Universe.
721:
722: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
723: \bibitem{Einstein1905}
724:
725: A. Einstein, Annalen Phys. {\bf 17}, 891 (1905).
726:
727: \bibitem{Hofmann2005}
728: R. Hofmann, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 20}, 4123 (2005).
729:
730: \bibitem{HerbstHofmann2004}
731: U. Herbst and R. Hofmann, hep-th/0411214.
732:
733: \bibitem{HerbstHofmannRohrer2004}
734: U. Herbst, R. Hofmann, and J. Rohrer, Act. Phys. Pol. B {\bf 36}, 881 (2005).
735:
736: \bibitem{frieman1995}
737: J. A. Frieman, C. T. Hill, A. Stebbins, and I. Waga, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}, 2077 (1995).
738:
739: \bibitem{Wilczek2004}
740: F. Wilczek, hep-ph/0408167.
741:
742: \bibitem{NP2004}
743: D. J. Gross and Frank Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 8}, 3633 (1973).\\
744: D. J. Gross and Frank Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 30}, 1343 (1973).\\
745: H. David Politzer, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 30}, 1346 (1973).\\
746: H. David Politzer, Phys. Rep. {\bf 14}, 129 (1974).
747:
748: \bibitem{Linde1980}
749: A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 96}, 289 (1980).
750:
751: \bibitem{Polyakov1975}
752: A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 59}, 82 (1975).
753:
754: \bibitem{BPST1976}
755: A. A. Belavin, A. M. Polyakov, A. S. Shvarts, and
756: Yu. S. Tyupkin, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 59}, 85 (1975).
757:
758: \bibitem{'tHooft1976}
759: G. 't Hooft, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 14}, 3432 (1976).\\
760: Erratum-ibid. Phys. Rev. D {\bf 18}, 2199 (1978).
761:
762: \bibitem{HarringtonShepard1977}
763: B. J. Harrington and H. K. Shepard, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 17}, 2122 (1978).
764:
765: \bibitem{GPY1981}
766: D. J. Gross, R. D. Pisarski, and L. G. Yaffe, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 53}, 43 (1981).
767:
768: \bibitem{Nahm1981}
769: W. Nahm, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 90}, 413 (1980).\\
770: W. Nahm, Lect. Notes in Physics. 201, eds. G. Denaro, e.a. (1984) p. 189.
771:
772: \bibitem{LeeLu1998}
773: K.-M. Lee and C.-H. Lu, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58}, 025011 (1998).
774:
775: \bibitem{KraanVanBaal1998}
776: T. C. Kraan and P. van Baal, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 533}, 627 (1998),\\
777: T. C. Kraan and P. van Baal, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 428}, 268 (1998),\\
778: T. C. Kraan and P. van Baal, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 435}, 389 (1998).
779:
780: \bibitem{Ilgenfitz2002}
781: E.-M. Ilgenfritz, B. V. Martemyanov,
782: M. Muller-Preussker, S. Shcheredin, A. I. Veselov, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. {\bf 119}, 754 (2003).
783:
784: \bibitem{Diakonov2004}
785: D. Diakonov, N. Gromov, V. Petrov, and S. Slizovskiy, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70}, 036003 (2004).
786:
787: \bibitem{Gorenstein1995}
788: M. I. Gorenstein and S.-N. Yang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 52}, 5206 (1995).
789:
790: \bibitem{Perlmutter1998}
791: S. Perlmutter {\sl et al.}, Astrophys. J. {\bf 517}, 565 (1999).
792:
793: \bibitem{Schmidt1998}
794: A. G. Riess {\sl et al.}, Astron. J. {\bf 116}, 1009 (1998).
795:
796: \bibitem{WMAP2003I}
797: D. N. Spergel {\sl et al.}, Astrophys. J. 148, 175 (2005).
798:
799: \bibitem{SHG2006}
800: M. Schwarz, R. Hofmann, and F. Giacosa, hep-ph/0603174
801:
802: \bibitem{PeeblesWilkinson1968}
803: P. J. Peebles and D. T. Wilkinson, Phys. Rev. {\bf 174}, 2168 (2168)..
804:
805: \bibitem{Copi2005}
806: C. J. Copi, D. Huterer, D. J. Schwarz, and G. D. Starkman, astro-ph/0508047.
807:
808: \bibitem{Wetterich2001}
809: C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 522}, 5 (2001).
810:
811: \end{thebibliography}
812:
813:
814:
815: \end{document}
816: