1: \documentclass[aps,12pt,superscriptaddress,preprintnumbers,
2: secnumarabic]{revtex4}
3: %\documentclass[hyper,notoc]{JHEP3}
4:
5: \usepackage{epsfig}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \title{\Large Perturbative and Nonperturbative Contributions to a Simple
10: Model for Baryogenesis}
11:
12:
13: \author{K.~R.~S.~Balaji}
14: \email[]{balaji@hep.physics.mcgill.ca}
15: \affiliation{
16: Dept.~of Physics, McGill University, 3600 University Street, Montr´eal QC, H3A 2T8,
17: Canada}
18: \affiliation{
19: Physique des Particules, Universit\'e
20: de Montr\'eal,C.P. 6128, succ. centre-ville, Montr\'eal, QC,
21: Canada H3C 3J7}
22: \affiliation{D\'epartement des Sciences de la Terre et de
23: l'Atmosph\`ere, Universit\'e du Qu\'ebec \`a Montr\'eal,
24: C.P. 8888, succ. centre-ville, Montr\'eal, QC, Canada H3C 3P8}
25:
26: \author{Bj\"orn~Garbrecht}
27: \email[]{bjorn@hep.man.ac.uk}
28: \affiliation{School of Physics \& Astronomy, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK}
29:
30:
31:
32: %\author{K.~R.~S.~Balaji, Robert~H.~Brandenberger,\\
33: %Montr\'eal\\
34: %E-mail: \email{}, \email{}
35: %}
36: %\author{Bj\"orn~Garbrecht,\\
37: %Heidelberg\\
38: %E-mail: \email{B.Garbrecht@ThPhys.Uni-Heidelberg.De}
39: %}
40:
41: %\author{Kimmo~Kainulainen\\
42: % Department of Physics, Jyv\"askul\"a University, Jyv\"askul\"a, Finland\\
43: % E-mail: \email{Kainulai@Phys.JyU.Fi}
44: %}
45:
46:
47:
48: \preprint{MCGILL-01-06}
49: \preprint{MAN/HEP/2006/4}
50:
51:
52: \begin{abstract}
53: Single field baryogenesis, a scenario for Dirac leptogenesis sourced by
54: a time-dependent scalar condensate, is studied on a toy model.
55: We compare the creation of
56: the charge asymmetry by the perturbative decay
57: of the condensate with the nonperturbative decay, a process of particle
58: production commonly known in the context of inflation as preheating.
59: Neglecting backreaction effects, we find that over a wide parametric range
60: perturbative decay and
61: preheating contribute by the same order of magnitude to the baryon asymmetry.
62: \end{abstract}
63:
64: %\keywords{}
65:
66: \maketitle
67:
68: \section{Introduction}
69:
70: Models for baryogenesis tie together cosmology and particle
71: physics~\cite{baryo}. The discovery of small neutrino masses~\cite{sk}
72: and their explanation \emph{via} lepton-number violating
73: Majorana masses and the see-saw mechanism strongly supports the
74: leptogenesis mechanism~\cite{lepto}.
75: An alternative to this scenario is to assume pure
76: Dirac mass terms for the neutrinos, that is the absence of Majorana masses,
77: and to induce an asymmetry between the left- and right-handed neutrinos,
78: which is subsequently turned into baryon number through sphaleron transitions.
79: This idea is referred to as
80: Dirac leptogenesis~\cite{DickLindnerRatzWright:1999}.
81:
82:
83: In many scenarios for baryogenesis the necessary $C$ and $CP$ violation
84: occur simultaneously, induced by a matrix of Yukawa couplings.
85: An exception is electroweak baryogenesis~\cite{KuzminRubakovShaposhnikov:1985,KonstandinProkopecSchmidt:2005},
86: where in first place a $CP$-violating axial asymmetry is produced which is
87: subsequently not erased {\it via} equilibration. Parity violation
88: is then contributed in a second step due to sphaleron interactions.
89:
90: Also Dirac leptogenesis relies on the transition of an
91: axial asymmetry into baryons through the sphaleron process.
92: The initial asymmetry is stored within Dirac neutrinos and does not get
93: erased due to equilibration until electroweak symmetry breaking
94: since the Yukawa coupling to the Standard Model Higss field is tiny.
95: While the $CP$ asymmetry can be provided through a matrix of Yukawa couplings
96: and the out-of equilibrium decay of heavy scalar particles
97: into Dirac neutrinos~\cite{DickLindnerRatzWright:1999},
98: it has been suggested that also a single Dirac mass term can
99: source $CP$, provided it is time dependent.
100: This mass term can arise due to Yukawa couplings of neutrinos to
101: a rolling scalar field, and the resulting mechanism has been named
102: single field baryogenesis~\cite{BalajiBrandenberger:2005}.
103: Recently, an interesting realisation of this mechanism through a decaying
104: Affleck Dine condensate has been proposed~\cite{AbelPage:2006}.
105:
106: Interpreting the scalar condensate oscillating around \emph{zero} as
107: a large amount of scalar quanta at zero momentum, the axial asymmetry
108: can be generated due to the perturbative decay of these particles,
109: as commonly assumed in scenarios for
110: Affleck-Dine baryogenesis~\cite{AffleckDine:1984}.
111: However particles can also be produced nonperturbatively, as first pointed
112: out in Ref.~\cite{TraschenBrandenberger:1990}, a process which is
113: often referred to as preheating in the context of the decay of the
114: inflaton~\cite{preheating}.
115: Various aspects of preheating from the decay of flat directions are discussed
116: in~\cite{PostmaMazumdar:2003}.
117:
118: In parallel, in the coherent baryogenesis~\cite{GarbrechtProkopecSchmidt:2004}
119: scenario, the oscillating condensate
120: leads directly and at tree-level to the production of a charge asymmetry
121: during preheating
122: when it couples to matter such that a time-dependent $C$ and $CP$ violating
123: mass matrix arises. Consequently, in the case of a single time-dependent
124: mass term a preheating process can lead to an
125: axial asymmetry~\cite{GarbrechtProkopecSchmidt:2002} and thereby source single field
126: baryogenesis.
127:
128: In the present analysis, we focus on the importance of non-perturbative
129: contributions to the baryon asymmetry, and we choose the single field model
130: due to its simplicity. We emphasise nonetheless that
131: nonperturbative particle production may be of relevance for other
132: scenarios, {\it e.g} Affleck-Dine baryogenesis.
133:
134: \section{Perturbatively sourced single field baryogenesis}
135: Let us begin by considering a simple toy-model potential
136: \begin{eqnarray}
137: \label{Potential:Interactions}
138: %{\cal L}=
139: V=
140: %\frac 12 (\partial_\mu \phi_u)^2 +\frac 12 (\partial_\mu \phi_d)^2
141: \frac{\mu^2}{2}\left(|\phi_u|^2+|\phi_d|^2\right)
142: +\frac{m^2}{2}\left(\phi_u \phi_d +\phi_u^* \phi_d^*\right)
143: +\lambda_\nu L \phi_u \bar\nu_R+\lambda_\nu \bar L \phi_u^* \nu_R~
144: .
145: \end{eqnarray}
146: The fields $\phi_u$ and $\phi_d$ are scalar and are multiplets
147: of the electroweak group $G_{EW}={\rm SU}(2)_L \times {\rm U}(1)_Y$,
148: $\phi_u=\left({\bf 2},\frac 12\right)$,
149: $\phi_d=\left({\bf 2},-\frac 12\right)$, while
150: $L=\left({\bf 2},-\frac 12 \right)$
151: with the components
152: \begin{equation}
153: L=\left(
154: \begin{array}{c}
155: \nu_L\\
156: e_L
157: \end{array}
158: \right)~,
159: \end{equation}
160: and $\nu_R=\left({\bf 1},0\right)$
161: are Weyl fermions.
162: The scalar mass eigenstates are then
163: $\frac{1}{\sqrt 2}\left(\Im[\phi_u]+\Im[\phi_d]\right)$ and
164: $\frac{1}{\sqrt 2}\left(-\Re[\phi_u]+\Re[\phi_d]\right)$, both with
165: mass $\sqrt{\mu^2-m^2}$, and eigenstates,
166: $\frac{1}{\sqrt 2}\left(-\Im[\phi_u]+\Im[\phi_d]\right)$ and
167: $\frac{1}{\sqrt 2}\left(\Re[\phi_u]+\Re[\phi_d]\right)$
168: with mass $\sqrt{\mu^2+m^2}$. The inflationary Hubble rate is given by
169: $H_I$, and we assume that both of these mass eigenvalues are slightly
170: below this value.
171: Therefore, at horizon exit the scalar fields get
172: amplified up to a magnitude $\sim H_I$ and a random direction in
173: ${\rm SU}(2)_L$-space. Inflationary expansion then leaves behind a homogeneous
174: vacuum expectation value for the scalar fields in our patch of the Universe.
175: This induces large neutrino masses, such that they
176: initially do not thermalise. In turn, the potential for $\phi_{u,d}$ does not
177: get altered by thermal corrections.
178:
179: Since we are interested in neutrino production, in the following, we consider
180: only the neutral components $\phi^0_{u,d}$. In particular, since the asymmetry is
181: produced from $\phi^0_u$, we take this to be the source field as in the
182: single field baryogenesis scenario. Furthermore, we assume $m\ll\mu$.
183:
184:
185: Coherent oscillations begin at the time when the Hubble rate has decreased
186: to the value $\mu$, and the solution for $\phi_u^0$ can be approximated
187: for small small $\mu/H$ by
188: \begin{eqnarray}
189: \Re[\phi_u^0]&=&\left[A_1^R \cos\left(\sqrt{\mu^2-m^2}t\right)
190: +A_2^R \cos\left(\sqrt{\mu^2+m^2}t\right)\right]a^{-3/2}(t)~,\\
191: \Im[\phi_u^0]&=&\left[A_1^I \cos\left(\sqrt{\mu^2-m^2}t\right)
192: +A_2^I \cos\left(\sqrt{\mu^2+m^2}t\right)\right]a^{-3/2}(t)~,
193: \nonumber
194: \end{eqnarray}
195: where the values of $A^{R,I}_{1,2}$ are random initial values arising from
196: inflation, as described above, and $a(t)$ denotes the scale factor of the
197: Universe, $t$ denotes comoving time. In order to keep the present
198: discussion simple, we assume $A_1^R=A^R$,
199: $A_2^R=0$, $A_2^I=A^I$ and $A_1^I=0$ in our patch of the Universe.
200: Under these conditions, the charge density
201: carried by the field $\phi_u^0$ is given by
202: \begin{eqnarray}
203: \label{charge:scalar}
204: Q_\phi&=&\frac{\rm i}{2}
205: \left({\phi_u^{0^*}}\dot\phi_u^0-\phi_u^0 {{\dot\phi_u^{0^*}}}\right)
206: %\\
207: %&=&a^{-3}A^R A^I
208: %\sin\left[\left(\sqrt{\mu^2+m^2}-\sqrt{\mu^2-m^2}\right)t\right]
209: \approx a^{-3} \mu A^R A^I \sin\left(\frac{m^2}{\mu}t\right)~,
210: \end{eqnarray}
211: where we expanded in $\mu/m$ and neglected time derivatives acting on the
212: scale factor. According to the interaction term with the leptons in the
213: potential~(\ref{Potential:Interactions}), $Q_\phi$ is transferred
214: to a charge asymmetry within the left handed neutrinos when $\phi_u^0$
215: decays. Due to conservation of total lepton number, a precisely opposite amount of the
216: asymmetry is stored within the right handed neutrinos. However, this asymmetry in the right-handed
217: sector is not transferred into baryons by sphalerons due to the left-handed nature of interactions.
218:
219: We assume that the Universe is radiation dominated when coherent oscillations
220: commence and that this remains so until the scalar fields decay,
221: such that they contribute only negligibly to the entropy density $s$.
222: Just like $Q_\phi$, $s$ scales down as $a^{-3}$, such that we find for the
223: asymmetry within left-handed neutrinos at the time $\Gamma^{-1}$, when
224: the scalar field decays,
225: \begin{equation}
226: \frac{n(\nu_L)-n(\bar\nu_L)}{s}=
227: \alpha
228: \frac{\Gamma_\nu}{\Gamma}
229: \frac{A^R A^I}{\mu^{1/2}m_{Pl}^{3/2}}
230: \sin\left(\frac{m^2}{\mu}\Gamma^{-1}\right)~.
231: \label{Asymmetry:Perturbative}
232: \end{equation}
233: Here, we have used the relations $H=1.66 g_*^{1/2} T^2/m_{Pl}$~,
234: $s=\frac{2\pi^2}{45}g_*T^3$ and have taken $H\approx\mu$.
235: The number of relativistic degrees of freedom is denoted by
236: $g_*$, such that $\alpha$ is a numerical constant of order \emph{one} for
237: realistic values of $g_*$. Furthermore, we have assumed that $\phi_u^0$
238: decays at a total rate $\Gamma$, whereas the decay rate into neutrinos
239: is given by $\Gamma_\nu=\lambda_\nu^2\mu/(8\pi)$, such that a branching factor of
240: $\Gamma_\nu/\Gamma$ arises.
241:
242: \section{Nonperturbative source}
243: Following Ref.~\cite{GarbrechtProkopecSchmidt:2002},
244: we calculate the axial asymmetry induced by the nonperturbative decay
245: of $\phi_u^0$.
246: We do so by solving numerically the conformally
247: rescaled Dirac equation
248: \begin{equation}
249: \label{Dirac:Eqn}
250: \left[{\rm i}\partial\!\!\!/-m_R+{\rm i}\gamma^5m_I\right]\psi=0\,.
251: \end{equation}
252: We take
253: \begin{equation}
254: \psi=\left(\begin{array}{c}
255: \nu_L\\
256: \nu_R
257: \end{array}\right)~,
258: \end{equation}
259: such that by the potential~(\ref{Potential:Interactions}), we have
260: \begin{equation}
261: m_R=a\lambda_\nu\Re[\phi_u^0],\quad m_I=a\lambda_\nu\Im[\phi_u^0]~.
262: \label{m:Phi}
263: \end{equation}
264: Furthermore, we introduce the conformal time $\eta$, which is related
265: to comoving time as $dt=ad\eta$, and we take $\partial_0=\partial_\eta$.
266:
267: Let us introduce the positive and negative frequency
268: mode functions, $u_{h}(\mathbf{k},\eta)$ and
269: $v_{h}(\mathbf{k},\eta) = - i\gamma^2(u_{h}(\mathbf{k},\eta))^{*}$,
270: respectively.
271: They form a basis for the Dirac field,
272: %
273: \begin{eqnarray}
274: \psi(x) \!=\! \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\sum\limits_h
275: {\rm e}^{\!-{\rm i}\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{x}}
276: \left(u_{h}a_h(\mathbf{k})
277: + v_{h}b_h^\dagger(-\mathbf{k})
278: \right)
279: ,\quad\!\!
280: u_{h} \!=\! \biggl(\begin{array}{c}\!L_{h}\! \\
281: \!R_{h}\!
282: \end{array}
283: \biggr)\otimes \xi_{h}
284: \,,
285: %\label{expfer}
286: \end{eqnarray}
287: %
288: where $\xi_{h}$ is the helicity two-eigenspinor,
289: $\hat h \xi_{h} = h \xi_{h}$. The Dirac equation then decomposes into
290: %
291: \begin{eqnarray}
292: {\rm i}\partial_{\eta}L_{h}-h|\mathbf{k}|L_{h} &=& m_{R}R_{h}+{\rm i}m_{I}R_{h}\,,
293: \label{LhRh}\\
294: {\rm i}\partial_{\eta}R_{h}+h|\mathbf{k}|R_{h} &=& m_{R}L_{h}-{\rm i}m_{I}L_{h}
295: \,.\nonumber
296: \end{eqnarray}
297: %
298:
299: From $L_h$ and $R_h$, we can define the quantities
300: %
301: \begin{eqnarray}
302: f_{0h} &=& |L_{h}|^2+|R_{h}|^{2},
303: \quad\;
304: f_{3h} = |R_{h}|^2-|L_{h}|^2,
305: \label{f3asLR}\\
306: f_{1h} &=& -2\Re(L_{h}R_{h}^{*}),
307: \qquad
308: f_{2h} = 2\Im(L_{h}^{*}R_{h})
309: ,
310: \nonumber
311: \end{eqnarray}
312: where $f_{0h}$ is the charge density, $f_{3h}$ the axial charge density,
313: $f_{1h}$ the scalar density and $f_{2h}$ the pseudoscalar density. Note that
314: one can easily show that $f_{0h}$ is conserved by Eq.~(\ref{LhRh}), reflecting
315: the charge conservation of the Dirac neutrinos.
316:
317: The initial conditions corresponding to a particle number
318: $n_h(\mathbf{k})=|\beta_0|^2$ are
319: %
320: \begin{eqnarray}
321: \psi_{\mathbf{k}}=
322: \left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha_0L_{h}^{+} + \beta_0L_{h}^{-}\\
323: \alpha_0R_{h}^{+} + \beta_0R_{h}^{-}
324: \end{array}
325: \right)
326: \,,\qquad
327: |\alpha_0|^{2} + |\beta_0|^{2}=1
328: \,,
329: \end{eqnarray}
330: %
331: where
332: %
333: \begin{eqnarray}
334: L_{h}^{+} &=& \sqrt{\frac{\omega(\mathbf{k})+h{k}}{2\omega(\mathbf{k})}}
335: \,,
336: \qquad\qquad
337: L_{h}^{-} = -i\frac{m}{|m|}
338: \sqrt{\frac{\omega(\mathbf{k})-h{k}}{2\omega(\mathbf{k})}}\,,
339: \\
340: R_{h}^{+} &=& \frac{m^{*}}
341: {\sqrt{2\omega(\mathbf{k})(\omega(\mathbf{k})+h{k})}}
342: \,,
343: \qquad
344: R_{h}^{-} = i\frac{|m|}{\sqrt{2\omega(\mathbf{k})(\omega(\mathbf{k})-h{k})}}\,,
345: \nonumber
346: \end{eqnarray}
347: and $\omega(\mathbf{k}) =\sqrt{\mathbf{k}^2+|m|^2}$.
348: Since we assume to have initially zero neutrinos, we take $\beta_0=0$
349: in the following.
350:
351: When $\phi_u^0$ ceases to oscillate, the particle number is given by
352: %
353: \begin{equation}
354: n_h(\mathbf{k}) = \frac{1}{2\omega(\mathbf{k})}\left( h{k}f_{3h}
355: + m_{R}f_{1h}
356: + m_{I}f_{2h}
357: \right)
358: + \frac{1}{2}
359: \,.
360: \label{particle-number:fermions:kin}
361: \end{equation}
362: Of course there is no charge asymmetry, since there is an opposite amount of
363: antiparticles. However, when $m_I\not=0$, an asymmetry in the number of
364: particles with positive ($h=+$) and negative ($h=-$) helicity may be generated.
365: Note that in the limit $m_R,m_I\rightarrow 0$,
366: $n_{\mathbf{k}h}=\frac 12 hf_{3h}+ \frac 12$, since then chirality and
367: helicity coincide. Therefore,
368: \begin{equation}
369: 2\left(n_+ - n_- \right)=f_{3+}+f_{3-}
370: \end{equation}
371: when the masses vanish. The factor \emph{two} on the left hand side occurs
372: because the total axial asymmetry gets contributions from particles and
373: antiparticles, while $n_h(\mathbf{k})$ counts just the particles.
374:
375: With a prime denoting a derivative \emph{w.r.t.} $\eta$, the scalar
376: equation of motion reads
377: \begin{equation}
378: \phi^{\prime\prime}+2\frac{a^\prime}{a}\phi^\prime
379: +a^2\frac{dV}{d\phi}+a \Gamma \phi^{\prime}=0\,.
380: \end{equation}
381: During radiation expansion, $a=a_R\eta$, and when
382: $H=a^\prime/a^2\ll \sqrt{\mu^2 \pm m^2}$, the solution to this equation is
383: well approximated by
384: \begin{equation}
385: \label{phiu0}
386: \phi_u^0\approx
387: \left[
388: A^R \cos\left(\sqrt{\mu^2-m^2}\frac{a_R}{2}\eta^2\right)+
389: {\rm i}
390: A^I \cos\left(\sqrt{\mu^2+m^2}\frac{a_R}{2}\eta^2\right)
391: \right]
392: (a_R\eta)^{-3/2}{\rm e}^{-\frac 14 \Gamma a_R \eta^2}\,,
393: \end{equation}
394: with the same assumptions for the real and imaginary parts as in the
395: previous section.
396: We use this solution to obtain the Dirac neutrino mass term~(\ref{m:Phi})
397: and numerically solve Eq.~(\ref{LhRh}) by integrating up to
398: the time when $\Gamma>H$, such that the Dirac mass term ceases to oscillate
399: and the axial charges
400: $f_{3h}(\mathbf{k})$ get frozen in. A typical plot of the spectrum of the
401: generated charge charge asymmetry is given in FIG.~\ref{f3_k}.
402: \begin{figure}[htbp]
403: \epsfig{file=sf_k.eps,width=13cm}
404: \caption{\label{f3_k}
405: The axial asymmetry plotted over momentum $k$, which is taken to be
406: the physical momentum at the time when coherent oscillations begin.
407: The choice of parameters is: $\lambda_\nu=0.2$, $A^R=A^I=20\mu$,
408: $m=0.05\mu$, $\Gamma=0.002\mu$.
409: }
410: \end{figure}
411: Particle production occurs at a time $t_{\rm Res}$ when the fermionic mode is
412: in resonance with the coherently oscillating field. The production of
413: the soft modes with small momentum $k$ is suppressed because the initial charge
414: asymmetry in the scalar field is small $(m^2/\mu) t_{\rm Res}\ll 1$, {\it cf.}
415: Eq.~(\ref{Asymmetry:Perturbative}). Consequently, the production of
416: asymmetry within modes which resonate later becomes stronger first. Eventually,
417: there is a damping effect due to the red-shifting of the oscillating
418: condensate and finally due to its decay at the rate $\Gamma$. Note that
419: due to Pauli blocking $-2\leq f_{3+}(\mathbf{k})+f_{3-}(\mathbf{k})\leq2$.
420:
421: Of course, the axial asymmetry vanishes
422: in the case when the scalar charge~(\ref{charge:scalar}) is \emph{zero}.
423: When $A^I=0$, the term $\propto\gamma^5$ in the
424: Dirac equation~(\ref{Dirac:Eqn}) vanishes and there is obviously no
425: $CP$-violation. When $A^I\not=0$ but $m=0$ there is also \emph{zero}
426: scalar charge. Since then the phase is constant,
427: $\partial_\eta {\rm arg}(m_r+{\rm i}m_I)=0$,
428: the $\gamma^5$-term can in principle be removed at all times
429: by a rephasing of the fermionic field. Consequently, even if we
430: do not perform this rephasing, we expect to find
431: $f_{3+}(\mathbf{k})+f_{3-}(\mathbf{k})\equiv 0$,
432: which can also be verified numerically.
433:
434: The axial charge density stored within the neutrinos
435: is is the integral over the asymmetry within the modes
436: \begin{equation}
437: \label{Asymmetry:Resonant}
438: Q_A=\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\left(
439: f_{3+}(\mathbf{k})+f_{3-}(\mathbf{k})
440: \right)\,,
441: \end{equation}
442: where $k$ is to be understood as the physical momentum at the time when
443: coherent oscillations begin.
444: The axial asymmetry to entropy ratio then turns out to be
445: \begin{equation}
446: \frac{n(\nu_L)-n(\bar\nu_L)}{s}=\alpha\frac{Q_A}{(\mu m_{Pl})^{3/2}}\,,
447: \end{equation}
448: which we want to compare with the perturbative
449: result~(\ref{Asymmetry:Perturbative}).
450:
451: We denote the axial densities $n(\nu_L)-n(\bar\nu_L)$ by
452: $\rho_{\rm res}$ for the nonperturbative or resonant case of
453: Eq.~(\ref{Asymmetry:Resonant}) and
454: by $\rho_{\rm pert}$ for the perturbative decay as expressed in
455: Eq.~(\ref{Asymmetry:Perturbative}). The initial
456: amplitudes of the scalar field are chosen to be $A^R=A^I$.
457: We display the produced
458: axial asymmetries over the initial amplitudes
459: in FIGs.~\ref{q_l:1} and~\ref{q_l:3}, where
460: we have taken different values for the damping rate $\Gamma$.
461:
462: Clearly, the perturbative source $\rho_{\rm pert}$ gets enhanced by the
463: factor $\Gamma_\nu/\Gamma$ in~(\ref{Asymmetry:Perturbative})
464: as the damping $\Gamma$ becomes smaller.
465: Note that we have consistently chosen $\Gamma_\nu \leq \Gamma$ with
466: the case $\Gamma_\nu=\Gamma$ displayed in FIG.~\ref{q_l:3}.
467: But also the nonperturbative contribution grows for smaller decay rates,
468: because coherent oscillations last longer and a larger phase space volume may
469: be filled as the fermionic modes are red-shifted. However,
470: while initially $\rho_{\rm pert}$ and $\rho_{\rm res}$
471: grow as the square of the initial scalar amplitude, $\rho_{\rm res}$ gets
472: suppressed
473: for large amplitudes due to Pauli blocking, which we do not take into account
474: in our formula for the perturbative asymmetry~(\ref{Asymmetry:Perturbative}).
475: In either case as displayed in FIGs.~\ref{q_l:1} and~\ref{q_l:3},
476: we note that the total asymmetry is the sum
477: of the individual contributions, $\rho_{\rm pert}+\rho_{\rm res}$.
478:
479: \begin{figure}[htbp]
480: \epsfig{file=sf_l8.eps,width=13cm}
481: \caption{\label{q_l:1}
482: The axial asymmetry plotted over the initial
483: amplitude of $\phi_u^0=A^R+{\rm i}A^I$.
484: The choice of parameters is $\lambda_\nu=0.2$,
485: $m=0.05\mu$, $\Gamma=0.01\mu$.
486: }
487: \end{figure}
488:
489: \begin{figure}[htbp]
490: \epsfig{file=sf_l9.eps,width=13cm}
491: \caption{\label{q_l:3}
492: The axial asymmetry plotted over the initial
493: amplitude of $\phi_u^0=A^R+{\rm i}A^I$.
494: The choice of parameters is $\lambda_\nu=0.2$,
495: $m=0.05\mu$, $\Gamma=\Gamma_\nu=0.0016\mu$.
496: }
497: \end{figure}
498:
499:
500: \section{Conclusions}
501: Nonperturbatively sourced single field baryogenesis
502: is a viable scenario. We have shown that it contributes over a wide range
503: of parameter space by the same order of magnitude as the perturbative source
504: to the baryon asymmetry. Note that a rescaling of the Yukawa coupling
505: $\lambda_\nu$ can be absorbed into different intitial amplitudes $A^{R,I}$,
506: such that the effect can be read of from FIGs.~\ref{q_l:1} and~\ref{q_l:3}.
507: Besides the model presented
508: here, the coherent baryogenesis mechanism is an example for generating the
509: bayon asymmetry directly from preheating.
510: We conclude that
511: processes of nonperturbative particle production may be of importance
512: for explaining the baryon asymmetry of the Universe.
513: %It is also
514: %conceivable that nonperturbative effects can enhance supersymmetric
515: %Affleck-Dine baryogenesis.
516:
517: \begin{acknowledgments}
518: We thank R.~H.~Brandenberger
519: and K.~Kainulainen for participation in early stages of this
520: work and A.~Notari for useful discussions.
521: The work of KB is funded by NSERC (Canada) and by the Fonds de Recherche
522: sur la Nature et les Technologies du Qu\'ebec.
523: \end{acknowledgments}
524:
525: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
526:
527:
528:
529:
530: \bibitem{baryo}
531: A.~D.~Sakharov,
532: %``Violation Of CP Invariance, C Asymmetry, And Baryon Asymmetry Of The
533: %Universe,''
534: Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 5}, 32 (1967)
535: [JETP Lett.\ {\bf 5}, 24 (1967\ SOPUA,34,392-393.1991\ UFNAA,161,61-64.1991)];
536: %%CITATION = ZFPRA,5,32;%%
537: For a review on baryogenesis, see A.~Riotto and M.~Trodden,
538: %``Recent progress in baryogenesis,''
539: Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf 49}, 35 (1999)
540: [arXiv:hep-ph/9901362].
541:
542:
543: \bibitem{sk}
544: Super--Kamiokande Collaboration, Y.~Fukuda, Phys.~Rev.~Lett.
545: {\bf 81}, 1562 (1998); Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B467}, 185 (1999);
546: GALLEX Collaboration, W.~Hampel {\it et al.}, Phys.~Lett.~{\bf
547: B447}, 127 (1999);
548: SAGE Collaboration, J.~N.~Abdurashitov {\it et al.} Phys.~Rev.~{\bf
549: C60}, 055801 (1999);
550: Kamiokande Collaboration, Y.~Fukuda {\it et al.},
551: Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~{\bf 77}, 1683 (1996);
552: Homestake Collaboration, B.T.~Cleveland {\it et al.},
553: Astrophys.~J.~{\bf 496} 505 (1998);
554: GNO Collaboration, M.~Altmann {\it et al.}, Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B490} 16 (2000);
555: SNO Collaboration, Q.R.~Ahmad {\it et al.},
556: Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 87}, 071301 (2001):
557: S. Fukuda {\em et al.,} Super--Kamiokande Collaboration,
558: Phys.Lett. {\bf B539}, 197 (2002);
559: S.N. Ahmed {\em et al.,} SNO Collaboration, arXiv:nucl-ex/0309004;
560: Super--Kamiokande Collaboration, Y. Ashie {\em et al.}, hep-ex/0404034.
561:
562: \bibitem{lepto}
563: M. Fukugita, T. Yanagida, Phys.Lett. {\bf B174}, 45, (1986);
564: for reviews, see, e.g.
565: W.~Buchmuller, R.~D.~Peccei and T.~Yanagida,
566: %``Leptogenesis as the origin of matter,''
567: arXiv:hep-ph/0502169;
568: W.~Buchm\"uller, M.~Pl\"umacher, hep-ph/0007176;
569: A.~Pilaftis, Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf A14};
570: 1811 (1999).
571:
572: \bibitem{DickLindnerRatzWright:1999}
573: K.~Dick, M.~Lindner, M.~Ratz and D.~Wright,
574: %``Leptogenesis with Dirac neutrinos,''
575: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84} (2000) 4039
576: [arXiv:hep-ph/9907562].
577: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907562;%%
578:
579:
580: %\bibitem{peskin}
581: %S.~H.~S.~Alexander, M.~E.~Peskin and M.~M.~Sheikh-Jabbari,
582: %``Leptogenesis from gravity waves in models of inflation,''
583: %arXiv:hep-th/0403069
584: %A.~Pilaftsis and T.~E.~J.~Underwood,
585: %``Resonant leptogenesis,''
586: %Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 692} (2004) 303
587: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0309342].
588: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309342;%%
589:
590: \bibitem{KuzminRubakovShaposhnikov:1985}
591: V.~A.~Kuzmin, V.~A.~Rubakov and M.~E.~Shaposhnikov,
592: % ``On the anomalous electroweak baryon number nonconservation in the early
593: % Universe,''
594: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 155} (1985) 36.
595: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B155,36;%%
596:
597:
598: \bibitem{KonstandinProkopecSchmidt:2005}
599: T.~Konstandin, T.~Prokopec, M.~G.~Schmidt and M.~Seco,
600: %``MSSM electroweak baryogenesis and flavour mixing in transport equations,''
601: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 738} (2006) 1
602: [arXiv:hep-ph/0505103].
603:
604:
605: \bibitem{BalajiBrandenberger:2005}
606: K.~R.~S.~Balaji and R.~H.~Brandenberger,
607: % ``Single field baryogenesis,''
608: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 94} (2005) 031301
609: [arXiv:hep-ph/0407090];
610: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407090;%%
611: %\bibitem{BalajiBrandenbergerNotari:2005}
612: K.~R.~S.~Balaji, R.~H.~Brandenberger and A.~Notari,
613: % ``Single field baryogenesis and the scale of inflation,''
614: arXiv:hep-ph/0412197.
615: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412197;%%
616:
617: \bibitem{AbelPage:2006}
618: S.~Abel and V.~Page,
619: %``Affleck-Dine (pseudo)-Dirac neutrinogenesis,''
620: arXiv:hep-ph/0601149.
621: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0601149;%%
622:
623: \bibitem{AffleckDine:1984}
624: I.~Affleck and M.~Dine,
625: %``A New Mechanism For Baryogenesis,''
626: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 249} (1985) 361.
627: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B249,361;%%
628:
629: \bibitem{TraschenBrandenberger:1990}
630: J.~H.~Traschen and R.~H.~Brandenberger,
631: % ``Particle production during out-of-equilibrium phase transitions,''
632: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 42} (1990) 2491.
633: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D42,2491;%%
634:
635: \bibitem{preheating}
636: %\bibitem{KofmanLindeStarobinsky:1997}
637: L.~Kofman, A.~D.~Linde and A.~A.~Starobinsky,
638: % ``Towards the theory of reheating after inflation,''
639: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} (1997) 3258
640: [arXiv:hep-ph/9704452];
641: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704452;%%
642: %\bibitem{ChungKolbRiottoTkachev:1999}
643: D.~J.~H.~Chung, E.~W.~Kolb, A.~Riotto and I.~I.~Tkachev,
644: % ``Probing Planckian physics: Resonant production of particles during
645: % inflation and features in the primordial power spectrum,''
646: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 043508
647: [arXiv:hep-ph/9910437];
648: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910437;%%
649: %\bibitem{GiudicePelosoRiottoTkachev:1999}
650: G.~F.~Giudice, M.~Peloso, A.~Riotto and I.~Tkachev,
651: % ``Production of massive fermions at preheating and leptogenesis,''
652: JHEP {\bf 9908} (1999) 014
653: [arXiv:hep-ph/9905242].
654: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905242;%%
655:
656: \bibitem{PostmaMazumdar:2003}
657: M.~Postma and A.~Mazumdar,
658: %``Resonant decay of flat directions: Applications to curvaton scenarios,
659: %Affleck-Dine baryogenesis, and leptogenesis from a sneutrino condensate,''
660: JCAP {\bf 0401} (2004) 005
661: [arXiv:hep-ph/0304246].
662: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304246;%%
663:
664: \bibitem{GarbrechtProkopecSchmidt:2004}
665: B.~Garbrecht, T.~Prokopec and M.~G.~Schmidt,
666: % ``Coherent baryogenesis,''
667: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92} (2004) 061303
668: [arXiv:hep-ph/0304088];
669: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304088;%%
670: %\bibitem{Garbrecht:2005rr}
671: B.~Garbrecht, T.~Prokopec and M.~G.~Schmidt,
672: %``SO(10) - GUT coherent baryogenesis,''
673: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 736} (2006) 133
674: [arXiv:hep-ph/0509190];
675: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509190;%%
676: %\bibitem{Garbrecht:2004gv}
677: B.~Garbrecht, T.~Prokopec and M.~G.~Schmidt,
678: %``Coherent baryogenesis and nonthermal leptogenesis: A comparison,''
679: arXiv:hep-ph/0410132.
680: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410132;%%
681:
682: \bibitem{GarbrechtProkopecSchmidt:2002}
683: B.~Garbrecht, T.~Prokopec and M.~G.~Schmidt,
684: % ``Particle number in kinetic theory,''
685: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 38} (2004) 135
686: [arXiv:hep-th/0211219].
687: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0211219;%%
688:
689: \end{thebibliography}
690:
691: \end{document}
692: