1: %X!TEX TS-program = pdflatex

2: \documentclass[a4paper,12pt]{article}

3: \usepackage{graphicx, rotating}

4: \usepackage{ifpdf}

5: \ifpdf

6: \usepackage{hyperref, pdfsync, epstopdf}    % This is for pdftex

7: \else

8: \usepackage[dvips,bookmarks]{hyperref}  % This is for arXiv.org

9: \fi

10: \hypersetup{colorlinks,bookmarksopen,bookmarksnumbered,citecolor=verdes,

11: linkcolor=blus,pdfstartview=FitH,urlcolor=rossos}

12: \def\hhref#1{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/#1}{#1}} % in bibliography

13: \def\mhref#1{\href{mailto:#1}{#1}}      % email on title page

14: 

15: %\newcommand{\riga}[1]{\noalign{\hbox{\parbox{\textwidth}{#1}}}\nonumber}

16: %\usepackage{amsfonts}

17: \usepackage{amsmath}

18: \usepackage{slashed}

19: 

20: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

21: 

22:  \newcommand{\gr}{\ensuremath{\Psi}}

23: \newcommand{\gl}{\ensuremath{\lambda}}

24: \newcommand{\sq}{\ensuremath{\tilde{q}}}

25: 

26: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

27: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

28: \newcommand{\fig}[1]{~\ref{fig:#1}}

29: 

30: \newcommand{\xxx}[1]{{\bf\color{magenta}[\color{red}#1\color{magenta}]}}

31: \newcommand{\Op}{{\cal O}}

32: 

33: \newcommand{\mbt}{\tilde{\mb{m}}}

34: 

35: \oddsidemargin -0.5cm \evensidemargin -0.5cm

36: \topmargin -1cm  \textwidth 17cm  \textheight 24.5cm

37: \def\baselinestretch{0.99}

38: \newcommand{\scatola}[1]{\Blue\fbox{$\displaystyle #1$}\Black}

39: \newcount\Mac  \Mac=1  % devo mettere Mac=1 se sto lavorando sul file Mac

40: \newcommand{\ifMac}[2]{\ifnum\Mac=1 #1 \else #2 \fi}

41: \def\putps(#1,#2)(#3,#4)#5#6{\ifnum\Mac=1 \put(#1,#2){\special{picture #5}}

42: \else  \put(#3,#4){\special{psfile=#6}} \fi}

43: 

44: \def\spartial{\partial\hspace{-5pt}{\scriptstyle/}\hspace{1pt}}

45: \def\slashp{p\hspace{-4pt}{\scriptstyle/}\hspace{1pt}}

46: \def\slasheps{\varepsilon\hspace{-4pt}{\scriptstyle/}\hspace{1pt}}

47: 

48: 

49: \newcommand{\riga}[1]{\noalign{\hbox{\parbox{\textwidth}{#1}}}\nonumber}

50: \newcommand{\bAk}[3]{\langle #1|#2|#3\rangle}

51: \newcommand{\One}{\hbox{1\kern-.24em I}}

52: \newcommand{\dafare}[1]{{\bf (#1)}}

53: \renewcommand{\Im}{\mathop{\rm Im}}

54: \newcommand{\M}{{\cal M}}

55: \newcommand{\GeV}{\,{\rm GeV}}

56: \newcommand{\TeV}{\,{\rm TeV}}

57: \newcommand{\MeV}{\,{\rm MeV}}

58: \newcommand{\eV}{\,{\rm eV}}

59: \newcommand{\NP}{Nucl. Phys.}

60: \newcommand{\PRL}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

61: \newcommand{\PL}{Phys. Lett.}

62: \newcommand{\PR}{Phys. Rev.}

63: \newcommand{\pL}{{\cal P}_{\rm L}} % attenzione a \PL =  Phys. Lett.

64: \newcommand{\pR}{{\cal P}_{\rm R}}

65: \newcommand{\BM}{B_{-\!\!-\hspace{-1.8ex}\times\,\,}}

66: \newcommand{\Bk}{B_{-\!\!-\hspace{-1.8ex}>\,\,}}

67: \newcommand{\Pglu}{P_{-\!\!-\hspace{-1.8ex}>\,\,}}

68: \newcommand{\PgluE}{P_{-\!\!-\hspace{-1.8ex}\times\,\,}}

69: \newcommand{\PgluI}{P_{\cdots\hspace{-2ex}\cdots\hspace{-1.3ex}\times\,\,}}

70: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{~{\rm (\ref{eq:#1})}}

71: \newcommand{\sys}[1]{~{\rm (\ref{sys:#1})}}

72: \newcommand{\md}[1]{\langle#1\rangle}

73: \newcommand{\lnEps}{\ln\frac{\mub^2}{m_t^2}}

74: \newcommand{\epsIR}{\varepsilon_{\rm ir}}

75: \newcommand{\epsUV}{\varepsilon_{\rm uv}}

76: \newcommand{\eps}{\varepsilon}

77: \newcommand{\mub}{\bar{\mu}}

78: \newcommand{\Ord}{{\cal O}}

79: \newcommand{\Pl}{P\hspace{-1.5ex}/\,}

80: \newcommand{\Ul}{U\hspace{-1.5ex}/}

81: \newcommand{\pl}{p\hspace{-4.2pt}{\scriptstyle/}}

82: \newcommand{\qsl}{q\hspace{-4.9pt}{\scriptstyle /}}

83: \newcommand{\ds}{\partial\!\!\!\raisebox{2pt}[0pt][0pt]{$\scriptstyle/$}\,}

84: \newcommand{\ksl}{k\hspace{-5pt}/}

85: \newcommand{\Ksl}{K\hspace{-1.6ex}/}

86: \newcommand{\Ssl}{S\hspace{-1.4ex}/\,}

87: \newcommand{\Li}{\hbox{Li}_2}

88: \newcommand{\K}{\hbox{K}}

89: \newcommand{\bk}[1]{|#1\rangle}

90: 

91: \newcommand{\MGUT}{M_{\rm G}}

92: \def\Red{\special{color cmyk 0 1. 1. 0.5}}

93: \def\Black{\special{color cmyk 0 0 0 1.}}

94: \def\Blue{\special{color cmyk 1. 1. 0 0}}

95: \def\RV{R\!\!\!/\,}

96: \newcommand{\lascia}[1]{}

97: \makeatletter

98: %

99: % formato bibliografico standard

100: %

101: %\art[hep-ph/yymmnnn]{autori}{rivista}{numero}{pagina}{anno}

102: \def\art{\@ifnextchar[{\eart}{\oart}}

103: \def\eart[#1]#2#3#4#5#6{{\rm #2}, {#3 #4} {\rm (#6) #5} [{\hhref{#1}}]}

104: %\def\eart[#1]#2#3#4#5#6{{\rm #2}, {\em #1}}

105: \def\hepart[#1]#2{{\rm #2, \hhref{#1}}}

106: \newcommand{\oart}[5]{{\rm #1}, {#2 #3} {\rm (#5) #4}}

107: \newcommand{\y}{{\rm and} }

108: 

109: 

110: %

111: % definizione della macro EQNSYSTEM

112: %

113: \newcounter{alphaequation}[equation]

114: %\def\thealphaequation{\theequation\alph{alphaequation}}

115: \def\thealphaequation{\theequation\hbox to

116: 0.6em{\hfil\alph{alphaequation}\hfil}}

117: % MODIFICATA PER DARE UNA DIMENSIONE UGUALE AD UN 1em AD OGNI LETTERA

118: \def\eqnsystem#1{

119: \def\@eqnnum{{\rm (\thealphaequation)}}

120: %

121: \def\@@eqncr{\let\@tempa\relax \ifcase\@eqcnt \def\@tempa{& & &} \or

122:   \def\@tempa{& &}\or \def\@tempa{&}\fi\@tempa

123:   \if@eqnsw\@eqnnum\refstepcounter{alphaequation}\fi

124: \global\@eqnswtrue\global\@eqcnt=0\cr}

125: %

126: \refstepcounter{equation} \let\@currentlabel\theequation \def\@tempb{#1}

127: \ifx\@tempb\empty\else\label{#1}\fi

128: %

129: \refstepcounter{alphaequation}

130: \let\@currentlabel\thealphaequation

131: %

132: \global\@eqnswtrue\global\@eqcnt=0 \tabskip\@centering\let\\=\@eqncr

133: $$\halign to \displaywidth\bgroup \@eqnsel\hskip\@centering

134: $\displaystyle\tabskip\z@{##}$&\global\@eqcnt\@ne

135: \hskip2\arraycolsep\hfil${##}$\hfil& \global\@eqcnt\tw@\hskip2\arraycolsep

136: $\displaystyle\tabskip\z@{##}$\hfil

137: \tabskip\@centering&\llap{##}\tabskip\z@\cr}

138: 

139: \def\endeqnsystem{\@@eqncr\egroup$$\global\@ignoretrue} \makeatother

140: 

141: 

142: \def\diag{\mathop{\rm diag}}

143: \newcommand{\mb}[1]{\mbox{\normalsize\boldmath $#1$}}

144: \def\Ord{{\cal O}}

145: \def\Lag{{\cal L}}

146: \def\SU{{\rm SU}}

147: \def\SO{{\rm SO}}

148: \def\Tr{\mathop{\rm Tr}}

149: \def\circa#1{\,\raise.3ex\hbox{$#1$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\,}

150: 

151: \usepackage{multicol}

152: \usepackage{color}

153: \definecolor{rosso}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.4}

154: \definecolor{rossos}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.55}

155: \definecolor{rossoc}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.2}

156: \definecolor{blu}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.3}

157: \definecolor{blus}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.6}

158: \definecolor{bluc}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.1}

159: \definecolor{verde}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.25}

160: \definecolor{verdec}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.15}

161: \definecolor{verdes}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.4}

162: \definecolor{grigio}{cmyk}{0,0,0,0.07}

163: \definecolor{rosa}{cmyk}{0,0.1,0.1,0.02}

164: \definecolor{rosino}{cmyk}{0,0.05,0.05,0.02}

165: \definecolor{rosas}{cmyk}{0,0.3,0.25,0.05}

166: \definecolor{celeste}{cmyk}{0.1,0,0,0.02}

167: \definecolor{giallino}{cmyk}{0,0,0.4,0.02}

168: \definecolor{rosso}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.4}

169: \definecolor{rossos}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.55}

170: \definecolor{rossoc}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.2}

171: \definecolor{blu}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.3}

172: \definecolor{bluc}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.1}

173: \definecolor{blucc}{cmyk}{0.7,0.5,0,0}

174: \definecolor{viola}{cmyk}{0,1,0,0.6}

175: \definecolor{viola2}{cmyk}{0,1,0.2,0.6}

176: \definecolor{verde}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.25}

177: \definecolor{verdec}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.15}

178: \definecolor{verdes}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.4}

179: \definecolor{verdino}{cmyk}{0.12,0,0.09,0.05}

180: \definecolor{giallo}{cmyk}{0,0,1,0}

181: \definecolor{gialloverde}{cmyk}{0.44,0,0.74,0}

182: 

183: 

184: 

185: \font\tenrsfs=rsfs10 at 12pt

186: \font\smallsfs=rsfs10 at 11pt

187: \font\sevenrsfs=rsfs7

188: \font\fiversfs=rsfs5

189: \newfam\rsfsfam

190: \textfont\rsfsfam=\tenrsfs

191: \scriptfont\rsfsfam=\sevenrsfs

192: \scriptscriptfont\rsfsfam=\fiversfs

193: \def\mathscr#1{{\fam\rsfsfam\relax#1}}

194: \def\Lag{\mathscr{L}}

195: \def\Lags{\hbox{\smallsfs L}}

196: \def\Ham{\mathscr{H}}

197: \def\Amp{\mathscr{A}}

198: 

199: 

200: \begin{document}% IFUP-TH/2007-01

201: \color{black}

202: \vspace{0.5cm}

203: \begin{center}

204: {\Huge\bf\color{rossos}Thermal production of gravitinos}

205: \bigskip\color{black}\vspace{0.6cm}{

206: {\large\bf  Vyacheslav S. Rychkov}$^a$,

207: {\large\bf Alessandro Strumia}$^b$.

208: } \\[7mm]

209: {\it $^a$ Scuola Normale Superiore and INFN, Piazza dei Cavalieri 7, I-56126 Pisa, Italy}\\[3mm]

210: {\it $^b$ Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit{\`a} di Pisa and INFN, Italia}

211: \end{center}

212: \bigskip

213: \centerline{\large\bf\color{blus} Abstract}

214: \begin{quote}

215: We reconsider thermal production of gravitinos in the early universe,

216: adding to previously considered $2\to 2$ gauge scatterings:

217: a) production via $1\to2$ decays, allowed by thermal masses:

218: this is the main new effect;

219: b) the effect of the top Yukawa coupling;

220: c) a proper treatment of the reheating process.

221: Our final result behaves physically

222: (larger couplings give a larger rate) and is twice larger than previous results,

223: implying e.g.\ a twice stronger constraint on the reheating temperature.

224: Accessory results about

225: (supersymmetric) theories at finite temperature and gravitino couplings

226: might have some interest.

227: 

228: 

229: 

230: 

231: \color{black}

232: \end{quote}

233: {\small\tableofcontents}

234: 

235: 

236: 

237: \newpage

238: 

239: 

240: 

241: \section{Introduction}

242: We compute the abundance of gravitinos thermally produced in the

243: early universe at temperature $T$. In the usual scenario where

244: sparticles around the weak scale keep it naturally small, this

245: process implies an important constraint on the maximal reheating

246: temperature, possibly saturated if such gravitinos are all observed

247: Dark Matter (DM). If instead sparticles exist much above the weak

248: scale, gravitino production is one of their very few experimental

249: implications that survive.

250: 

251: %Experimental constraints on this scenario become strong enough to challenge its plausibility~\cite{GRS}.

252: %Experimental constraints have grown such that doubts...

253: %and string anthropic also allow sparticles

254: %around $M_Z$, or around $4\pi M_Z$, or at the string scale (which might be anywhere below the Planck scale)

255: %or anywhere, or split, or super-split.

256: 

257: 

258: 

259: 

260: 

261: %by demanding

262: %that the produced gravitinos do not destroy Big Bang Nucleosynthesis,

263: %see~\cite{Moroi} for a recent precise study.

264: %This constraint also applies if sparticles are too heavy to be seen at colliders.

265: 

266: %Since thermal production of gravitinos already has a vast literature, we start

267: %presenting the difference with respect to previous computations.

268: The gravitino production thermal rate was previously computed

269: in~\cite{gravitinoCosmo,Buch} at leading order in the gauge

270: couplings $g_3$ (and $g_2,g_Y$ in~\cite{postBuch}; we will add

271: effects due the top Yukawa coupling, which also has a sizeable

272: value). This roughly amounts to compute $2\to 2$ scatterings (like

273: gluon + gluon $\to$ gluon $\to$ gluino + gravitino), with thermal

274: effects ignored everywhere expect in the propagator of the virtual

275: intermediate gluon: a massless gluon exchanged in the $t$-channel

276: gives an infinite cross-section because it mediates a long-range

277: Coulomb-like force; the resulting logarithmic divergence is cut off

278: by the thermal mass of the gluon, $m\sim gT$, leaving a $\ln T/m$.

279: The explicit expression for the number of scatterings per space-time

280: volume, at leading order in the dominant QCD gauge coupling, was

281: found to be~\cite{Buch,postBuch}\footnote{Since we will adopt a

282: different technique, we cannot resolve the minor disagreement

283: between the results of~\cite{Buch} and~\cite{postBuch}.

284: %Anyhow we will find a significantly different result.

285: Notice also that, for later convenience, in eq.\eq{Buch} we explicitly show the power $\pi^5$

286: (following from the phase space for scattering processes, and

287: dictated by na\"{\i}ve dimensional analysis), which is explicitly

288: present in~\cite{gravitinoCosmo} and partially hidden in numerical coefficients in~\cite{Buch}.

289: }

290: \beq\label{eq:Buch}

291:  \gamma_{\rm scattering} =\frac{T^6}{2\pi^3 \bar M_{\rm Pl}^2}\left(1+\frac{M_3^2}{3 m_{3/2}^2}\right)f(g_3),\qquad

292:  f(g_3) = \frac{320.}{\pi^2}

293: g_3^2 \ln \frac{1.2}{g_3}\eeq

294: %\beq\label{eq:Buch}

295: % \gamma_{\rm scattering} =7.3 \frac{3\zeta(3)T^6}{16\pi^5 \bar M_{\rm Pl}^2}\left(1+\frac{M_3^2}{3 m_{3/2}^2}\right)

296: %g_3^2 \ln \frac{1.2}{g_3}\eeq

297: where $\bar M_{\rm Pl} = 2.4~10^{18}\GeV$ is the reduced Planck mass,

298: $M_3$ is gluino mass and $m_{3/2}$ is the gravitino mass.

299: This production rate unphysically decreases for $g_3\circa{>} 0.7$ becoming

300: negative for $g_3\circa{>}1.2$.

301: Fig.\fig{res} shows that the physical value, $g_3\approx 0.85$ at $T\sim 10^{10}\GeV$,

302: lies in the region where the leading-order rate function $f(g_3)$ (dashed line) is unreliable. 

303: Fig.\fig{res} also illustrates our final result (to be precisely described in section~\ref{fNsummary}): 

304: $f$ will be replaced by the continuous lines,

305: which agree with the leading order result at $g \sim m/T \ll 1$

306: and differ at $g\sim 1$.

307: 

308: 

309: % the function $f$

310: 

311: %As illustrated in fig.\fig{res} (to be precisely described in section~\ref{fNsummary})

312: % the physical value, $g_3\approx 0.85$ at $T\sim 10^{10}\GeV$, lies in the region where eq.\eq{Buch}

313: % (i.e.\ the dashed `small $g$' line in the plot) is unreliable.

314: % We will compute the function that replaces $g^2 \ln 1.2/g$ (valid for $g\ll1$)

315: % at physical values of the gauge coupling:

316: % the continuous lines in fig.\fig{res} basically show our result.

317: 

318: \medskip

319: 

320: %[

321: 

322: %In agreement with na\"{\i}ve dimensional analysis, the

323: %result for the number of scatterings per space-time volume at leading order in $g$

324: %has the form

325: %\beq \gamma_{\rm scattering} \sim\frac{T^6}{\pi^5 \bar M_{\rm Pl}^2}   g^2 \ln\frac{1}{g} \eeq

326: %where

327: %We now explain why this result is unsatisfactory.

328: %The practical reason can be easily seen looking at t

329: 

330: %

331: 

332: 

333: 

334: Let us now explain why the leading-order approximation in\eq{Buch} starts to be

335: inadequate already at $g\sim 0.7$. In thermal field theory higher

336: order corrections are usually suppressed by $g/\pi$: somewhat worse

337: than the usual expansion coefficient $(g/\pi)^2$ at $T=0$, but still

338: typically good enough at $g\sim 0.7$. Na\"{\i}ve power counting fails

339: (without signaling a breaking of the perturbative expansion) when

340: some new phenomenon only starts entering at higher orders, and this

341: is what happens in the case of gravitino production: a new simpler

342: process gives corrections of relative order $(g\pi)^2$.

343: %Gravitino

344: %production computations of \cite{Buch,postBuch} were modeled after

345: %the computation of axion production from QED plasma \cite{BY}.

346: %However, while the axion couples to two photons,

347: The gravitino couples to two particles with different thermal

348: masses: gluon/gluino, and quark/squark. 

349: Since thermal masses grow like $T$, this gives rise to a new

350: process with a rate growing like $T^6$: gravitino

351: production via decays, such as gluon $\to$ gluino + gravitino, whose

352: rate can be crudely estimated as \beq \gamma_{\rm decay} \sim

353: \frac{m}{T} \frac{T^3 \Gamma}{\pi^2} \sim \frac{m^4T^2}{\pi^3 \bar

354: M_{\rm Pl}^2} \sim \frac{g^4}{\pi^3}\frac{T^6}{\bar M_{\rm

355: Pl}^2}\eeq Indeed $\gamma_{\rm decay}$ is of course proportional to

356: the decay rate at rest $\Gamma\sim m^3/\pi \bar M^2_{\rm Pl} $;

357: which is slowed down by the Lorentz dilatation $m/T$ factor; the

358: $T^3$ takes care of dimensions, and less $\pi$ are present at the

359: denominator because a $1\to 2$ decay involves less particles than a

360: $2\to 2$ scattering.

361: %Inserting a typical thermal mass $M\sim gT$ one finds

362: %\beq \gamma_{\rm decay} \sim \frac{g^4}{\pi^3}\frac{T^6}{M_{\rm Pl}^2}\qquad\hbox{and so}\qquad

363: %\frac{\gamma_{\rm decay}}{\gamma_{\rm scattering}} \sim g^2 \pi^2\eeq

364: So, despite being higher order in $g$, the decay rate can be enhanced by a phase space factor $\pi^2$.

365: Subsequent higher order corrections should be suppressed by the usual $g/\pi$ factors.

366: Our goal is including such enhanced higher order terms, and this finite-temperature computation is

367: practically feasible  because a decay is a simple enough process.

368: 

369: \begin{figure}[t]

370: \begin{center}

371: $$\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{res}$$

372: \caption{\label{fig:res}\em Functions $f_3$, $f_2$ and $f_1$

373: that, as summarized in section~\ref{fNsummary}, 

374: describe our result for the gravitino production rate

375: from $\SU(3)_c$ (upper continuous curve, in red), $\SU(2)_L$ (middle continuous curve, in blue), ${\rm U}(1)_Y$ (lower continuous curve, in green) gauge interactions.

376: The arrows indicate the MSSM values of the thermal mass at $T\sim 10^{9}\GeV$.

377: The lower dashed curve shows the result from~\cite{Buch}, which agrees with our result in the limit of small

378: gauge coupling, and behaves unphysically for relevant ${\cal O}(1)$ values of the MSSM gauge couplings.

379: %The upper dashed curve indicates that the Hard Thermal Loop approximation is not accurate for this computation.

380: %\xxx{FISSARE $g\to 0$}

381: }

382: \end{center}

383: \end{figure}

384: 

385: 

386: \medskip

387: 

388: So far we explained the physical picture in a simple intuitive way.

389: A more precise  technical language is necessary to present how we

390: will proceed. To get the gravitino production rate we actually

391: compute the imaginary part of the gravitino propagator in the

392: thermal plasma. Thermal effects distort the dispersion relations

393: $E(k)$ of gluons, gluinos, quarks, squarks by i) adding a thermal

394: mass $E^2 = k^2 + m^2(k)$ to the modes already existing at  zero

395: temperature; ii) by introducing  new collective excitations (gluons

396: with longitudinal polarization, gluinos with `wrong' helicity, ...)

397: with their own dispersion relation; iii) beyond the two poles

398: mentioned above, the spectral densities of particles in a thermal

399: plasma also develop a `continuum' contribution, that can be thought

400: of as a parton-like distribution, with a continuum range of masses.

401: Physically it arises because particles can exchange energy with the

402: plasma.

403: 

404: 

405: %The `continuum' in iii) gives a `decay' contribution even in the

406: %axion case, $\gamma\to a \gamma$, and

407: 

408: In previous works~\cite{Buch,postBuch} the gluon thermal mass was taken into account

409: to regulate infra-red divergences encountered in scattering rates,

410: and the contribution of the gluon `continuum' was computed using

411: a standard technique introduced in axion computations \cite{BY},

412: that allows to extract the rate at leading order in $g$.

413: This was achieved by introducing an arbitrary splitting scale $k$ that obeys

414: $gT \ll k \ll T$.

415: 

416: We will not use this technique:

417: because its validity is doubtful for  $g_3 \approx 0.85$,

418: and because we actually

419: want to include the enhanced higher order terms,

420: taking into account that a gravitino (unlike an axion) couples to two particles

421: with different thermal masses.

422: We will instead compute the decay diagram (D in fig.\fig{Feyn1}) using resummed finite-temperature propagators for gluons, gluinos, quarks, squarks.

423: The perturbative expansion of this diagram D contains the two-loop diagrams in  fig.\fig{Feyn3}:

424: their imaginary parts correspond to well-defined combinations of scattering processes, as dictated by cutting rules.

425: This fixes how scatterings must be subtracted in order to avoid overcountings of effects already

426:  described by thermal masses via diagram D.

427:  In section~\ref{subtractions} we compute the subtracted scattering rates,

428:  in section~\ref{decay} we compute the gravitino production rate via `decay',

429:  and in section~\ref{top} we add the rate due to the top quark Yukawa coupling.

430: 

431: In section~\ref{reh} we sum these effects and compute the gravitino

432: abundance writing a set of Boltzmann equations that describe the

433: reheating process, previously approximated assuming a

434: maximal temperature equal to the reheating temperature $T_{\rm RH}$.

435: %(previously approximated with the universe

436: %suddenly appearing at a maximal temperature $T_{\rm RH}$).

437: Our

438: results are summarized in the conclusions,

439: section~\ref{conclusions}.

440: 

441: In the passing we address some issues related to finite-temperature

442: and to supersymmetry. In section~\ref{TQFT} we list explicit values

443: for thermal masses for all particles and sparticles, noticing that

444: they obey some supersymmetric relation. Appendix~\ref{gravitino}

445: gives a (non uselessly) fully precise summary of gravitino

446: interactions, and in appendices~\ref{thermal}, \ref{thermalF} we

447: collect full expressions for the thermal corrections to vector and

448: fermion propagators.

449: 

450: 

451: 

452: 

453: 

454: 

455: 

456: \begin{figure}[t]

457: \begin{center}

458: $$\includegraphics[width=0.98\textwidth]{Feyn1}$$\vspace{-1cm}

459: \caption{\label{fig:Feyn1}\em Some Feynman diagrams that contribute to the imaginary part of the gravitino propagator. Thick lines denote resummed thermal propagators for the gluon $g$ and gluino $\lambda$. We do not plot diagrams involving quarks $q$ and squarks $\tilde{q}$, but they are of course included in our computation.}

460: $$\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Feyn3}$$

461: \vspace{-1cm}

462: \caption{\label{fig:Feyn3}\em Two-loop Feynman diagrams that appear in the expansion of  diagram ${\rm D}$, that resums

463: all higher loop diagrams with iterated one-loop corrections to

464: gluon and gluino propagators.}

465: \end{center}

466: \end{figure}

467: 

468: \begin{figure}[t]

469: \begin{center}

470: $$\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{FeynA}$$

471: \caption{\label{fig:FeynA}\em Feynman diagrams that contribute to $gg\to \lambda\gr $ scatterings.}

472: $$\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{FeynB}$$

473: \caption{\label{fig:FeynB}\em Feynman diagrams that contribute to $g\lambda\to g\gr$ scatterings.}

474: %the gravitino production rate.

475: %Analogous diagrams ${\rm A}_{\rm s}$, ${\rm B}_{\rm s}$, ${\rm C}_{\rm s}$, ${\rm A}_{\rm u}$, ${\rm B}_{\rm u}$, ${\rm C}_{\rm u}$ (not plotted) have the intermediate particle exchanged in the $s$ and $u$ channels. }

476: \end{center}

477: \end{figure}

478: 

479: 

480: \setcounter{equation}{0}

481: 

482: \section{Subtracted scattering rate}\label{subtractions}

483: Gravitinos $\Psi_{\mu}$ with momentum

484: $P=(E,\mb{p})$ are

485: produced via their coupling $\bar{\Psi}_{\mu}S^{\mu}/{2\bar{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}}%

486: $, where $S^{\mu}$ is the supercurrent of the visible sector of a

487: supersymmetric theory, here assumed to be the MSSM. The visible

488: sector is thermalized, while the gravitino is not, since its

489: coupling to the MSSM plasma is weak. According to the general

490: formalism of thermal field theory \cite{LeBellac}, the production

491: rate of such a weakly interacting fermion is related to the

492: imaginary part of its propagator $\Pi$ as

493: \begin{equation}

494: \gamma= \frac{dN}{dV\,dt}=-2\int d\vec{P}\,f_{F}(E)\Im\Pi=\int d\vec{P}%

495: ~\Pi^{<}(P),\qquad d\vec{P}\equiv\frac{d^{3}p}{2E(2\pi)^{3}} .

496: \label{eq:ImProp}%

497: \end{equation}

498: Here $\Pi^{<}$ is the non time-ordered gravitino propagator summed

499: over its polarizations i.e.\ traced with the gravitino polarization

500: tensor $\Pi_{\mu \nu}$ (appendix~\ref{gravitino} gives explicit

501: expressions):

502: \begin{equation}

503: \Pi^{<}(P)=\frac{1}{4\bar{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}^{2}}\Tr\big[\Pi_{\mu\nu}(P)\langle

504: S^{\nu}(P){\bar{S}}^{\mu}(-P)\rangle_{T}\big] \label{eq:Pi<}%

505: \end{equation}

506: where $\langle\cdots\rangle_{T}$ denotes thermal average. We employ

507: $\Pi^{<}$ because it gives slightly cleaner formul\ae {} than

508: $\Im\Pi$. Eq. (\ref{eq:ImProp}) is valid at leading order in the

509: gravitino coupling $\bar {M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}^{-1}$, and to all orders

510: in the MSSM couplings, $g_{Y,2,3}$ and $\lambda_{t}$. Extracting

511: predictions from (\ref{eq:ImProp}) is limited only by our ability to

512: evaluate (\ref{eq:Pi<}).

513: 

514: Thermal field theory cutting rules allow to see that, at leading

515: order in the MSSM couplings, eq.\eq{ImProp} is equivalent to summing

516: rates for the various tree-level processes that lead to gravitino

517: production. At tree level this formalism is more cumbersome than a

518: direct computation of production rates. However, in this paper we

519: want to take into account finite temperature corrections to the MSSM

520: particle propagators arising at one loop level: eq.\eq{ImProp}

521: becomes more convenient because it cleanly dictates how one must

522: resolve ambiguities encountered in scattering computations that

523: arise because Lorentz invariance is broken by the thermal plasma.

524: %(more later).

525: 

526: 

527: \smallskip

528: 

529: Fig.\fig{Feyn1} shows some main Feynman diagrams that contribute to

530: $\Im\Pi$. What we actually compute in this paper is the first

531: one-loop diagram `D', using the Feynman gauge resummed

532: finite-temperature propagators for the gluon and gluino in the loop.

533: Therefore it describes a sum of an infinite number of multi-loop

534: diagrams: the lowest-order ones are shown in fig.\fig{Feyn3}.

535: Resummation is needed because thermal effect drastically change the

536: gluon and gluino propagators, in particular opening a phase space

537: for decays, such as $g\rightarrow\lambda\Psi$ and/or

538: $\lambda\rightarrow g\Psi$. Clearly diagram D contains this decay

539: process. However, by cutting fig.\fig{Feyn3}, one sees that diagram

540: D also describes some of the $2\rightarrow2$ scattering processes

541: computed in previous analyses~\cite{Buch}. Therefore, before

542: starting the computation, we clarify this issue showing how the

543: total gravitino production rate is obtained.

544: 

545: \medskip

546: 

547: The total scattering rate is the sum of various $2\to2$ processes A,

548: B, C,\ldots, listed in table~\ref{tab:diffcs}. Each process is the

549: modulus squared of the sum of a few amplitudes, corresponding to the

550: single Feynman diagrams, that we label as $s,t,u,x$:

551: \[

552: \gamma_{\mathrm{scattering}} = |A_{s} + A_{t}+A_{u}+A_{x}|^{2} +

553: |B_{s} + B_{t} + B_{u}+B_{x}|^{2} + \cdots.

554: \]

555: This notation indicates that often 4 diagrams contribute to a given

556: process: 3 diagrams are generated by $s$, $t$ and $u$-channel

557: exchange of some particle among two vertices ($g_{3}$ and

558: $1/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$), and a fourth diagram arises from a quartic

559: supergravity vertex with coupling $g/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$.

560: Fig.\fig{FeynA} and\fig{FeynB} show concrete examples of the 4

561: diagrams that contribute to $gg\to\Psi\lambda$ and to

562: $g\lambda\to\Psi g$ scatterings, respectively. The latter rate is

563: logarithmically infra-red (IR) divergent, because diagram B$_{t}$ is

564: mediated by $t$-channel gluon exchange, that describes a

565: Coulomb-like scattering.

566: 

567: The main result can be obtained by careful visual inspection of

568: cutting rules: diagram D describes the sum $|A_{s}|^{2} +

569: |A_{t}|^{2} + |A_{u}|^{2} + |B_{s}|^{2} + |B_{t}|^{2}

570: +|B_{u}|^{2}+\cdots$ of the modulus squared of all $2\to2$ diagrams

571: that contain the gauge coupling $g_{3}$. $2\to2$ scattering rates

572: generated by supergravity quartic vertices are instead described by

573: diagrams like S$_{3}$ in fig.\fig{Feyn1}. Some cuts of the two loop

574: diagrams like S$_{1}$ and S$_{2}$ describe the interference terms

575: among the various Feynman diagrams.

576: %${\rm S}_1 = {\rm A}_{\rm s}{\rm A}_{\rm t}^*+{\rm B}_{\rm s}^*{\rm B}_{\rm t}+\cdots$

577: %{\bf CHECK}

578: (Notice that the imaginary part of a single two-loop diagram can

579: describe contributions to different scattering processes). Other

580: cuts of these diagrams describe one loop corrections to the

581: gravitino vertices, that do not give any leading order contribution

582: if thermal masses are neglected. Thermal masses open a phase space

583: for $1\to2$ processes (we can neglect the decay rate generated

584: by zero-temperature masses $m$, since we are interested in $T\gg m$), 

585: and we will later

586: argue that we can still neglect thermal corrections to the gravitino

587: vertex.

588: 

589: \begin{table}[h]

590: \begin{center}%

591: \begin{tabular}

592: [c]{c|r@{~$\to$~}l|ccc}

593: & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{process} & $|\Amp|^{2}_{\mathrm{full}}$ & $|\Amp|^{2}%

594: _{\mathrm{subtracted}}$ & \\\hline\hline F & $\gl \gl $ & $\gl \gr $

595: & $-8C{(s^{2}+t^{2}+u^{2})^{2}}/{stu}$ & 0 &

596: \\\hline

597: A & $g g $ & $\gl \gr $ & $\phantom{+}4C(s+2t+2t^{2}/s)$ & $-2sC$ &

598: \\\hline B & $g \gl $ & $g \gr $ & $-4C(t+2s+2s^{2}/t)$ &

599: $\phantom{+}2tC$ & \\\hline H & $\sq \gl $ & $\sq \gr $ &

600: $-2C^{\prime}(t+2s+2{s^{2}}/{t})$ & $-tC^{\prime}$ & \\\hline

601: J & $\sq \bar{\sq} $ & $\gl \gr $ & $\phantom{+}2C^{\prime}(s+2t+2{t^{2}}%

602: /{s})$ & $\phantom{+}sC^{\prime}$ & \\\hline C & $\sq g $ & $q \gr $

603: & $\phantom{+}2sC^{\prime}$ & 0 & \\\hline D & $g q $ & $\sq \gr $ &

604: $-2tC^{\prime}$ & 0 & \\\hline E & $\bar{\sq} q $ & $g \gr $ &

605: $-2tC^{\prime}$ & 0 & \\\hline G & $q \gl $ & $q \gr $ &

606: $-4C^{\prime}(s+{s^{2}}/{t})$ & 0 & \\\hline I & $q \bar{q} $ & $\gl

607: \gr $ & $-4C^{\prime}(t+{t^{2}}/{s})$ & 0 & \\\hline

608: \end{tabular}

609: \medskip

610: \end{center}

611: \caption{\textit{Squared matrix elements for gravitino ($\gr$)

612: production in units of $g^{2}_{N}/\bar{M}^{2}_{\mathrm{Pl}} (1+

613: M^{2}_{N}/3m_{3/2}^{2})$, summed over all polarizations and gauge

614: indices. The result hold for all three factors of the SM gauge group

615: with $N=\{1,2,3\}$, although the notations are appropriate for the

616: $\SU(3)$ case: $g,\lambda, q,\tilde{q}$ denote gluons, gluinos,

617: quarks, squarks. The gauge factors $C_{N}$ and $C^{\prime}_{N}$ are

618: defined in the text. Rates A and B are the sum of vector and ghost

619: contributions. }}%

620: \label{tab:diffcs}%

621: \end{table}

622: 

623: In conclusion, the total gravitino production rate due to gauge

624: couplings will be computed as

625: \begin{equation}

626: \gamma=\gamma_{D}+\gamma_{S}^{\mathrm{sub}},

627: \end{equation}

628: the sum of diagram D (that describes decay plus modulus squared of

629: many single $2\rightarrow2$ diagrams) plus the set of remaining

630: $2\rightarrow2$ rates, obtained by subtracting from the total

631: scattering rate $\gamma_S$ the effects already included in

632: $\gamma_D$.

633: Explicit results for $\gamma_D$ and for $\gamma_S^{\rm sub}$

634: will be given in eq.\eq{res} and eq.\eq{Ssub} respectively,

635: and the conclusions will describe how to use them.

636: 

637: 

638: 

639: 

640: %\subsection{Equivalence theorem and gravitino gauge invariance}

641: 

642: 

643: \bigskip

644: 

645: Before proceeding to actual computations, we have to clarify the

646: issues of gravitino coupling and gravitino gauge invariance. We are

647: interested in $T\gg m$, where $m$ denotes sparticle or gravitino

648: masses: gravitino $\leftrightarrow$ Goldstino equivalence

649: (appendix~\ref{gravitino}) means that at leading order in $m/T$ the

650: massive gravitino field $\Psi_{\mu}$ can be replaced with two

651: massless field: a massless gravitino $\psi$ coupled to the

652: supercurrent $S_{\mu}$ (given in eq.\eq{4-comp}, it can be evaluated in

653: the supersymmetric limit ignoring soft terms) plus a massless

654: Goldstino $\chi$, coupled to the divergence of the supercurrent

655: (given in eq.\eq{dS}, only the soft terms factored out are

656: relevant):

657: \begin{equation}

658: \Lag_{\mathrm{int}}=\frac{\bar{\psi}_{\mu}S^{\mu}}{2\bar{M}_{\text{Pl}}}%

659: +\frac{\bar{\chi}\,(\partial_{\mu}S^{\mu})}{\sqrt{6}\bar{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}%

660: }m_{3/2}}\ . \label{eq:ET}%

661: \end{equation}

662: The gravitino production rate is given by

663: $\gamma(\Psi_{\mu})\simeq\gamma (\psi_{\mu})+\gamma(\chi)$.

664: %The supersymmetry will be broken explicitly by soft terms and $\partial S\sim

665: %m_{\text{soft}}$ is given in the Appendix. Computation of the Goldstino

666: %production rate is thus unambiguous. The massless gravitino production rate as

667: %given by (\ref{eq:equiv}) is ambiguous due to this current nonconservation,

668: %however the ambiguity is negligible and can be ignored as we will now explain.

669: %The way to study this ambiguity is to see how the production rate changes when

670: %the projector of massless gravitino is changed by gravitino gauge

671: %transformation. For instance one can compare the transverse, the van N and the

672: %"physical" projectors. We see that the projector changes by terms proportional

673: %to $P_{\mu}O(1)$ which will give production rate suppressed by a factor

674: %$m_{\text{soft}}/T$ with respect to the inambiguous terms. The conclusion is

675: %that the soft terms are relevant only for the Goldstino production, but can be

676: %ignored when computing the massless gravitino production rate.

677: %The above ambiguity $O(m_{\text{soft}}/T)$ is inavoidable but totally

678: %negligible.

679: While the total rate is gauge independent (vectors have $\SU(3)_{c}%

680: \otimes\SU(2)_{L}\otimes\mathrm{U}(1)_{Y}$ gauge invariance; the

681: computation of $\gamma(\psi_{\mu})$ also involves gravitino gauge

682: invariance), its splitting in resummed and not-resummed

683: contributions is not. We are resumming a well-defined class of

684: effects, but we cannot systematically include all the effects up to

685: a given order in $g$: therefore our result has a residual

686: gauge-dependence, of relative order $g^2/\pi^2$, due to partial

687: inclusion of higher-order terms.

688: %We will later discuss gauge-dependent

689: To make the computation feasible, we choose for vectors the Feynman

690: gauge, and for the massless gravitino $\psi_{\mu}$ the gauge where

691: its propagator and polarization tensor does not involve terms

692: containing $P_{\mu}$ or $P_{\nu}$, eq.\eq{PiSenzaP}:

693: \begin{equation}

694: \Pi_{\mu\nu}^{3/2}=-\frac{1}{2}\gamma_{\mu}P\hspace{-1.5ex}/\,\gamma_{\nu

695: }-P\hspace{-1.5ex}/\,\eta_{\mu\nu}. \label{eq:ripetuta}%

696: \end{equation}

697: One first motivation for this choice is that, in the supersymmetric

698: limit, the full supercurrent satisfies $P_{\mu}S^{\mu}=0$, while

699: sub-sets of $S_{\mu}$ are not separately conserved: with

700: choice\eq{ripetuta} we never have to deal with such terms. Of

701: course, the same gauge is used for computing both the resummed

702: diagram D and the subtracted scattering rates.

703: 

704: 

705: 

706: 

707: Table~\ref{tab:diffcs} gives explicit values for the subtracted

708: massless gravitino  and Goldstino

709: scattering rates due to gauge interactions. It is important to

710: notice that, unlike the total rate, \emph{the subtracted rates are

711: infra-red convergent}: no $1/t$ factors appear because all divergent

712: Coloumb-like scatterings, like $|B_{t}|^{2}$, are included in

713: diagram D, that we compute using thermal masses that provide the

714: physical cut-off. Unlike in the conventional technique~\cite{BY}

715: employed in~\cite{Buch,postBuch}, our technique does not need to

716: introduce an arbitrary splitting scale $k_{\ast}$ that satisfies the

717: problematic conditions $gT\ll k_{\ast}\ll T$ in order to control

718: infra-red divergences. Some contributions to subtracted scattering

719: rates turn out to be negative, but the total rate will be positive

720: and dominated by diagram D. In Feynman gauge, rates for the

721: processes A and B (the ones that involve two vectors) actually are

722: the sum of scatterings involving two vectors (four diagrams,

723: computed with the Feynman polarization tensor

724: $\sum\epsilon_{\mu}\epsilon_{\nu}^{\ast}=-\eta_{\mu\nu}$) plus

725: scatterings containing two ghosts (one diagram, negative

726: $|\Amp|^{2}$).

727: 

728: A curious fact happens. Despite the fact that the massless gravitino

729: $\psi$ and the Goldstino $\chi$ have different couplings (in

730: particular the Goldstino has no coupling to quark/squark, and

731: consequently a reduced set of Feynman diagrams), the differential

732: production cross sections for these two particles are the same,

733: process by process, up to the universal factor

734: $M_{N}^{2}/3m_{3/2}^{2}$, where $M_{1,2,3}$ are the gaugino masses.

735: We don't know if there is a simple generic reason behind this

736: equality. The second reason for choosing the gravitino projector of

737: eq.\eq{ripetuta} is that it respects this equality also for

738: subtracted scattering rates.

739: 

740: Subtracted rates for processes C, D, E, G, I vanish, and looking at

741: Goldstinos one can easily understand why: a single Goldstino diagram

742: contributes, such that no interference terms exist. This is not the

743: case for scatterings H and J, where a second Goldstino diagram

744: contributes, generated by the quartic Goldstino coupling in

745: eq.\eq{dS}. (This extra coupling is not present for the ghost

746: scatterings in A and B analogous to H and J, as we employ a

747: non-supersymmetric gauge without ghostinos). In case of scattering F

748: the subtracted rate vanishes because proportional to $s+t+u=0$. A

749: $1/2!$ factor must be included for the A and F processes that have

750: equal initial state particles, and a factor 2 for C, D, G, H that

751: can occur with particles and with anti-particles. The total result

752: for the subtracted gravitino production rate is

753: \begin{equation}

754: \gamma_{S}^{\mathrm{sub}}=1.29\frac{T^{6}}{8\pi^{5}\bar{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}^{2}%

755: }\sum_{N=1}^{3}g_{N}^{2}(1+\frac{M_{N}^{2}}{3m_{3/2}^{2}})(C_{N}^{\prime

756: }-C_{N}) \label{eq:Ssub}%

757: \end{equation}

758: where the numerical factor accounts for the difference with respect to the

759: scattering

760: rate computed in Boltzmann approximation, where $\gamma\approx\sigma T^{6}%

761: /\pi^{4}$ where $\sigma=\sum\int_{-s}^{0}dt~|\Amp|^{2}/16\pi s^{2}$

762: is a

763: constant. The sum runs over the three components $\mathrm{U}(1)_{Y}%

764: \otimes\SU(2)_{L}\otimes\SU(3)_{c}$ of the MSSM gauge group with

765: $N=\{1,2,3\}$, and $C_{N}=|f^{abc}|^{2}=N(N^{2}-1)=\{0,6,24\}$ and

766: $C_{N}^{\prime}=\sum_{\Phi}|T_{ij}^{a}|^{2}=\{11,21,48\}$ where

767: $\sum_{\Phi}$ runs over all chiral multiplets. We use the standard

768: normalization for hypercharge, where left-handed leptons have

769: $Y=-1/2$, that differs from the SU(5) normalization by a factor

770: $\sqrt{3/5}$.

771: %pREVIOUS VERSIONS WITH DIFFERENT NOTATIONS

772: %era  gamma = (N^2-1) [  - N  +  \frac{N_f}{8} ]

773: %C'_N=  Nf (N_c^2-1)/2$.

774: %One has $N=\{3,2,0  OR 1 \}$ and $N_f=\{6,7,11\}$ for the three $\SU(3)_c \otimes\SU(2)_L\otimes U(1)_Y$

775: %factors of the SM gauge group $i=\{3,2,1\}$.

776: All parameters are renormalized at an energy scale $\mu\sim T$.

777: 

778: The next step is computing diagram D: we first need to introduce finite temperature effects.

779: 

780: 

781: 

782: \setcounter{equation}{0}

783: \section{Finite temperature effects}\label{TQFT}

784: We here summarize some well known results from quantum field theory at finite temperature

785: that are relevant for our computations: the spectral densities of scalars, fermions and vectors

786: that  play a r\^ole analogous to parton densities in hadron scattering processes.

787: This section also contains a few original points:

788: practical formul\ae{} for thermal masses that apply to generic supersymmetric  models,

789: the observation that thermal effects respect supersymmetry  at $E\gg T$;

790: we explain what qualitatively changes and why we must go beyond the

791: Hard Thermal Loop approximation;

792: we discuss a possibly non-standard point of view about the problem of

793: negative spectral densities.

794: 

795: 

796: \begin{figure}[t]

797: \begin{center}

798: $$\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fSUSYT}$$

799: \caption{\label{fig:SUSYMT}\em Dispersion relations at finite temperature in HTL approximation

800: for the components within a chiral (left) and vector (right) massless super-multiplet. Thermal effects are supersymmetric at $k\gg m\sim gT$.}

801: \end{center}

802: \end{figure}

803: 

804: 

805: 

806: \subsection{The Hard Thermal Loop approximation}

807: Thermal corrections simplify when one restricts the attention to diagrams with `{\em soft}' external momenta, $k\ll T$~\cite{Pisarski92,LeBellac}.

808: This approximation is useful if couplings are small, $g\ll 1$,

809: as it describes collective phenomena that develop at energies of ${\cal O}(gT)$

810: via simple effective thermal Lagrangians.

811: In the rest frame of the plasma, the non-local HTL Lagrangian for scalars $\phi$,

812: fermions $\psi$ and vectors is~\cite{Pisarski92,LeBellac}

813: \beq\label{eq:LHTL} \Lag_{\rm HTL} = m_S^2|A|^2 +

814: m_F^2 \int_\Omega   \bar\psi \frac{i\hat{K}\hspace{-1.5ex}/}{\hat{K}\cdot D} \psi -

815: m_V^2  {\rm Tr}\int_\Omega F_{\mu\alpha}\frac{\hat{K}_\alpha \hat{K}_\beta}{(\hat{K}\cdot D)^2}

816: F_{\beta\mu}+\cdots \eeq

817: where $\cdots$ denotes Yukawa or scalar couplings that do not receive HTL corrections;

818: gauge couplings receive thermal corrections such that $\Lag_{\rm HTL}$ is

819: gauge invariant (indeed $D$ denotes the usual gauge-covariant derivative);

820: $\hat K = (1,\hat{\mb{k}})$ is the `loop' momentum ($\hat{K}^2=0$);

821: $\int_\Omega = \int d\Omega/4\pi$ denotes angular average.

822: It is performed analytically in the more explicit results in

823: appendices~\ref{thermal} and~\ref{thermalF}

824: 

825: 

826: 

827: The key parameters are `thermal masses' of order $m\sim gT$. By

828: explicit computation we find the following values for thermal masses

829: in an unbroken supersymmetric theory with massless chiral

830: $\Phi=(\phi,\xi )$ and vector $V=(V_\mu,\lambda)$

831: superfields:\footnote{$\phi$ is a complex scalar, $\xi$ and

832: $\lambda$ are Weyl fermions. Explicit formul\ae{} for thermal masses

833: of bosonic sparticles had been given in~\cite{CE}; we agree with

834: their results.}

835: \beq\label{eq:MTSUSY} m_\phi^2= 2{m_\xi^2}=

836: \bigg[\frac{C_R}{2} g^2 + \frac{1}{4}\lambda^2\bigg]T^2, \qquad

837: m_V^2 = 2 m_\lambda^2 = \bigg[g^2\frac{C_V + T^2_R}{4}\bigg] T^2

838: \eeq where $g$ is the gauge coupling and $\lambda$ the coupling in

839: the superpotential $W = \lambda \Phi \Phi' \Phi''$. Summation over

840: gauge, flavor and any indices is understood. The group factors $C_R$

841: and $T^2_R$ are defined as ${\rm Tr}T_R^a T_R^b = T_R^2 \delta^{ab}$

842: (index of the representation) and as $(T_R^a T_R^a)_{ij}=C_R

843: \delta_{ij}$ (quadratic Casimir) where the generators are in the

844: representation $R$. By summing both over $ij$ and over $ab$ one

845: finds that they are related by $T^2_R \dim G = C_R \dim R$. Explicit

846: values are $T_R^2=1/2$ and $C_R = (N^2 - 1)/2N$ for the fundamental

847: of SU($N$) ($\dim R = N$, $\dim G = N^2-1$), $C_V=N$ for the adjoint

848: of SU($N$), and $C_R= q^2$ for a representation of U(1) with charge

849: $q$. In the MSSM with $3$ generations and one pair of Higgses one

850: has the following vector thermal masses \beq m_{V_3}^2

851: =\label{eq:mVn}

852:  \frac{9}{4} g_3^2 T^2,\qquad

853:  m_{V_2}^2 =

854:   \frac{9}{4} g_2^2 T^2, \qquad

855: m_{V_1}^2 = \frac{11}{4} g_Y^2 T^2\eeq

856: and the following scalar masses

857: \beq

858: m_{\tilde{E}}^2 = \frac{g_Y^2}{2}  T^2,\qquad

859: m_{\tilde{L}}^2 = m_{H_{\rm d}}^2 = \bigg[\frac{3}{8} g^2_2 + \frac{g^2_Y}{8} \bigg] T^2,\qquad

860: m_{H_{\rm u}}^2 = \bigg[\frac{3}{8} g^2_2 + \frac{g^2_Y}{8} +\frac{3}{4}\lambda_t^2 \bigg]T^2\eeq

861: $$

862: m_{\tilde{Q}}^2 =\bigg[\frac{2}{3} g_3^2 +  \frac{3}{8} g^2_2 + \frac{g^2_Y }{72} +

863: \frac{ \lambda_t^2}{4}\bigg] T^2 ,\qquad

864: m_{\tilde{U}}^2 = \bigg[\frac{2}{3} g_3^2 +  \frac{2}{9} g^2_Y + \frac{\lambda_t^2 }{2}\bigg] T^2,\qquad

865: m_{\tilde{D}}^2 = \bigg[\frac{2}{3} g_3^2 +  \frac{g^2_Y}{18}   \bigg] T^2

866: $$

867: where the $\lambda_t$ terms are present only for third generation squarks, and we

868: neglected analogous $\lambda_b$ and $\lambda_\tau$ terms, possibly relevant if $\tan\beta \sim m_t/m_b$.

869: Squared thermal masses for gauginos, higgsinos, quarks and leptons are a factor 2 smaller, as

870: summarized in\eq{MTSUSY}.

871: 

872: 

873: \medskip

874: 

875: We followed the standard convention for thermal masses.

876: Let us recall how they parameterize thermal dispersion relations $\omega(k)$ where

877: $\omega$ and $k$ are the energy and momentum with respect to the plasma rest frame.

878: Scalar thermal masses $m^2$ correspond to the relativistic dispersion relation

879: $\omega^2 = k^2 + m^2$, see eq.\eq{LHTL}.

880: For fermions the thermal mass $m$ tells the energy at rest of particle and hole (or `plasmon')

881: excitations, $\omega(k=0)=m$, while at large momentum the hole disappears\footnote{More precisely,

882: its residue at the pole is exponentially suppressed by $k^2/m^2$.

883: The fact that residues $Z(k)$ are not constant is one reason why

884: computing the imaginary part of the gravitino propagator in terms of particle and sparticle

885: spectral densities is a better formalism  than directly computing the gravitino production rate:

886: it precisely dictates how all these non-relativistic factors must be taken into account.}

887: and particles have $\omega^2(k\gg T) \simeq k^2 + 2 m^2$.

888: For vectors the thermal mass $m$ tells the dispersion relation of transverse polarizations

889: at large momentum,

890: $\omega^2(k\gg T) \simeq k^2 + m^2$, while at rest both transverse and

891: longitudinal polarizations have energy $\omega^2(k=0)=2 m^2/3$.

892: 

893: Therefore, despite the misleading conventional factors 2,

894: eq.\eq{MTSUSY} means that

895: {\em within each multiplet, vector or chiral, thermal effects  at $k\gg T$

896: modify in the same way the dispersion relation of its bosonic and of its fermionic components}.

897: This likely is a consequence of the eikonal theorem,

898: that tells that gauge interactions with soft vectors

899: do not depend on the particle spin but only on its gauge current

900: (thermal masses physically describe the kinetic energy that

901: a particle acquires due to scatterings with the thermal plasma).

902: Fig.\fig{SUSYMT} shows the dispersion relations $\omega(k)$

903: of the particles within chiral and vector multiplets.

904: Particles and sparticles have similar dispersion relations,

905: reducing the phase space for gravitino production via decays.

906: 

907: 

908: 

909: 

910: 

911: \begin{figure}[t]

912: \begin{center}\vspace{-1cm}

913: $$\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth,height=0.5\textheight]{Fermionm}$$

914: %$$\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth,height=0.5\textheight]{Vectorm}$$

915: \vspace{-16mm}

916: \caption{\label{fig:Fermionm}\em Spectral density of a massless fermion in a thermal plasma,

917: plotted in HTL approximation ($g\ll 1$, i.e.\ thermal mass $m\sim gT \ll T$) and beyond.

918: Notice the main differences:

919: the particle ($\omega>0$) and `holes' ($\omega<0$) poles develop a finite width, and,

920: more importantly,

921: the continuum below the light-cone gets

922: Boltzmann suppressed at $k\circa{>} T$.

923: Contours are equispaced in $\log$ scale.

924: }

925: \end{center}

926: \end{figure}

927: 

928: 

929: \subsection{Full one loop thermal effects}

930: The HTL approximation holds at momenta and energies  $k,\omega \ll T$,

931: correctly describing thermal effects that arise at $k,\omega \sim gT$ if $g\ll 1$.

932: However, the physically relevant values of gauge couplings

933: (especially the strong coupling) are not small enough to justify the use

934: of the HTL approximation.

935: We therefore use the full one-loop thermal and quantum corrections to propagators of

936: scalars, fermions and vectors.

937: Explicit expressions are collected in appendices~\ref{thermal} and~\ref{thermalF}

938: (see also~\cite{WeldonFermion,WeldonVector,thoma,LeBellac})

939: and fig.\fig{Fermionm} illustrates (in the case of a massless fermion)

940: the qualitatively new effects that arise beyond the HTL limit.

941: 

942: The most visible effect (although not the most important one) happens at $|\omega|>k$

943: i.e.\ `above the light cone'.

944: In the $g\to 0$ limit particles (and quasi-particles such as fermion `holes')

945: have an infinitesimal width: their dispersion relations are plotted as

946: thin lines in fig.\fig{Fermionm}a.

947: For finite $g$ they get a finite width $\Gamma$ (both from $T=0$ quantum effects and from

948: thermal effects), such that their spectral density

949: gets smeared acquiring the usual bell-like shape.

950: This is why a continuum appears also above the light cone in fig.\fig{Fermionm}b.

951: A well known problem encountered in thermal computations

952: is that sometimes thermal effects give $\Gamma <0$.

953: We therefore included the $T=0$ contribution, finding that the total $\Gamma$ is positive

954: for scalars and fermions.

955: %In agreement with earlier studies, we find that fermions have $\Gamma>0$.

956: %In the simpler case of scalars we verified that the $T=0$ contribution

957: %to $\Gamma$ has exactly the minimal value needed to make the full $\Gamma$ positive

958: %for all values of the momentum. Of course, the physical $\Gamma$ is the full one.

959: This cure does not work for vectors, because the $T=0$ contribution

960: to their $\Gamma$ can itself   be negative depending on the gauge choice, see eq.\eq{pi0}.

961: %(and on if the non-abelian gauge contribution dominates over the matter contribution).

962: We therefore think that the negativity of $\Gamma$ is not related to higher-order subtleties in the

963: thermal expansion, but just to gauge invariance.

964: It should not affect computations of physical gauge-invariant quantities, provided

965: that one can do an exact computation up to some order in the perturbative expansion.

966: The only trouble is that in practice it is difficult to achieve this in finite temperature computations.

967: In view of this situation, since the would-be poles are anyhow reasonably narrow for

968: the physical values of the coupling that enter our computation,

969: we use for them the HTL approximation\footnote{

970: This might be not an entirely satisfactory approximation

971: for the pole-pole contribution to gravitino production, as

972: particle and sparticles happen to have similar dispersion relations at $k\sim T$,

973: and what matters for the phase space is their mass difference.

974: Due to this reason, we will find that the pole-pole contribution is small,

975: and it seems unlikely that adding a finite width can change this conclusion.

976: 

977: Furthermore, one might compensate this approximation by not subtracting

978: modulus squared of $s$-channel diagrams when computing subtracted rates.

979: Since these details have negligible numerical significance, we prefect to avoid them.}.

980: Notice that the HTL approximation correctly describes the position of the poles

981: (i.e.\ the dispersion relations) even at large $k\circa{>}T$:

982: poles lie close to the light-cone, $|\omega|\approx k$, even if $g\sim 1$~\cite{thoma}.

983: %The longitudinal and hole collective excitations have a residue that exponentially vanishes

984: %at $p \gg m$, therefore there is no need of accurately approximating their dispersion relations

985: %outside the soft regime.

986: 

987: \bigskip

988: 

989: 

990: The new effect important for our purposes arises at $|\omega|<k$,

991: i.e.\ `below the light cone'. Quantum effects do not give any

992: contribution to spectral densities here (and more generally below

993: the threshold for zero-temperature decays), and the purely thermal

994: contribution is not problematic. Even in HTL approximation, thermal

995: effects give non zero spectral densities below the light cone: this

996: describes `Landau damping' i.e.\ the fact that particles  exchange

997: energy with the thermal plasma. However the HTL approximation cannot

998: be applied at $k\sim T$ (a region relevant for us, since $g\sim 1$),

999: and indeed it misses one key physical fact: {\em at $k \gg T$

1000: spectral densities get suppressed by an exponential Boltzmann

1001: factor}. Indeed the  thermally averaged coupling of a particle with

1002: large momentum

1003:  $k\gg T$ is small, since very few of the particles in the plasma have

1004: the large momentum demanded by energy-momentum conservation.

1005: This Boltzmann suppression of the spectral density below the light cone

1006: is the main difference between fig.\fig{Fermionm}a (HTL approximation)

1007: and fig.\fig{Fermionm}b (full one loop),

1008: and makes the gravitino production rate about $50\%$ smaller than

1009: what one would find by applying the HTL approximation at all momenta,

1010: outside its domain of validity $p\ll T$.

1011: %

1012: 

1013: %Furthermore, going beyond the HTL approximation creates a continuum also

1014: %above the light cone. The rest of  this section discusses the physical interpretation of this result,

1015: %explaining why we will neglect it.

1016: %It just describes a smearing of the particle and plasmon poles:

1017: %as well known from the $T=0$ analogue

1018: %this just means that they acquire a finite width $\Gamma$,

1019: %as illustrated in fig.\fig{Fermionm}.

1020: 

1021: 

1022: 

1023: \subsection{Vector and gaugino propagators}

1024: We are now going to present how spectral densities are practically used.

1025: We need the resummed propagators for the vector with four-momentum $K=(k_0,\mb{k})$

1026: and the gaugino with four-momentum $Q=(q_0,\mb{q})$ in the loop.

1027: We employ non-time ordered propagators (as they allow slightly cleaner formul\ae{} than

1028: imaginary parts of propagators), denoted with a $^<$ in the notation of~\cite{LeBellac} that we follow.

1029: Thermally resummed

1030: propagators are denoted with a $^*$: they are

1031: (see appendices~\ref{thermal},~\ref{thermalF} for more details)

1032: \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:HTLprop<}

1033: ^*S^<(Q) &=&\frac{f_F(q_0)}{2}\bigg[(\gamma_0 - \mb{\gamma}\cdot\hat{\mb{q}})

1034: \rho_+(Q)+(\gamma_0 + \mb{\gamma}\cdot\hat{\mb{q}})

1035: \rho_-(Q)\bigg], \\

1036: ^*D_{\mu\nu}^<(K) &=& f_B(k_0)\bigg[ \Pi_{\mu\nu}^T \rho_T(K)+\Pi_{\mu\nu}^L \frac{|\mb{k}|^2}{K^2}\rho_L(K)+

1037: \xi \frac{k_\mu k_\nu}{K^4}\bigg].\label{eq:rhoV}

1038: \end{eqnsystem}

1039: Some explanations are in order.

1040: First,  $q_0>0$ or $k_0>0$ describes a fermion or a vector in the final state,

1041: and $q_0<0$ or $k_0<0$ describes a fermion or a vector in the initial state:

1042: this convention allows to compactly describe all possible processes. Indeed

1043: the factors

1044: \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:fBF}

1045: f_B(k_0)&\equiv& \frac{1}{e^{k_0/T}-1} = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}

1046: n_B & \hbox{if $k_0>0$}\\

1047: -(1+n_B) & \hbox{if $k_0<0$}

1048: \end{array}\right.\\

1049: f_F(q_0)&\equiv& \frac{1}{e^{q_0/T}-1}=

1050: \left\{\begin{array}{ll}

1051: n_F & \hbox{if $q_0>0$}\\

1052: 1-n_F& \hbox{if $q_0<0$}

1053: \end{array}\right.\end{eqnsystem}

1054: give the usual statistical factors: $-n$ (number of particles in the initial state) or $1\pm n$ (stimulated emission or Pauli-blocking in the final state),

1055: where $n_{B,F}(E)\equiv 1/(e^{|E|/T}\mp 1)$ are the usual Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac distributions.

1056: 

1057: \medskip

1058: 

1059: Second,

1060: $\rho_+$, $\rho_-$, $\rho_T$, $\rho_L$ are the spectral densities for

1061: the fermion, fermion pole, transverse vectors and longitudinal vectors respectively.

1062: As discussed in the previous section, we can keep the HTL pole approximation

1063: outside the light cone, so that

1064: \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:rho}

1065: \rho_\pm(Q) &=& 2\pi \bigg[Z_\pm(q)\,\delta(q_0-\omega_\pm(q))+Z_\mp\,

1066: \delta(q_0+\omega_\mp (q))\bigg] + \rho_\pm^{\rm cont}(Q),\\

1067: \rho_{L,T}(K) &=& 2\pi \bigg[Z_{L,T}(k)\,\delta(k_0-\omega_{L,T}(k))-Z_{L,T}\,

1068: \delta(k_0+\omega_{L,T} (k))\bigg] + \rho_{L,T}^{\rm cont}(Q).

1069: \end{eqnsystem}

1070: In HTL approximation the residues at the poles are given in terms of

1071: the pole positions $\omega_\pm(q)$ and $\omega_{L,T}(k)$ as~\cite{WeldonVector, WeldonFermion,LeBellac}

1072: \beq

1073: Z_\pm=\frac{\omega_\pm^2-q^2}{2m_F^2},\qquad

1074: Z_L = \frac{\omega_L(\omega_L-k^2)}{k^2 (k^2+2m_V^2-\omega_L^2)},\qquad

1075: Z_T=\frac{\omega_T(\omega_T^2-k^2)}{2m_V^2 \omega_T^2-(\omega_T^2-k^2)^2}.

1076: \eeq

1077: These formul\ae{} tell that residues for

1078: longitudinal and hole excitations are exponentially suppressed at energies larger than $gT$:

1079: they are low-energy collective phenomena.

1080: The continua $\rho^{\rm cont}$ only

1081: exist below the light cone, at $|q_0|<q$ and $|k_0|<k$.

1082: The spectral densities satisfy sum rules such as

1083: \beq\label{eq:sumrules}

1084: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{dq_0}{2\pi} \rho_\pm(Q)=1,\qquad

1085: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{dk_0}{2\pi} \rho_T(K)=1,\qquad

1086: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{dk_0}{2\pi} \rho_L(K)=\frac{2m_V^2}{3k^2}\eeq

1087: and the continuum turns out to contribute $\sim (10\div 20)\%$ less than

1088: the poles.

1089: Eq.\eq{sumrules} means that the number density of

1090: longitudinal vectors diverges at $k\to 0$,

1091: but this leaves finite gravitino rates thanks to the $d^3k$ integration factor.

1092: In the $T=0$ limit $\omega_\pm(q) =\pm q$, $\omega_{L,T}(k)=k$ and one

1093: can check that the standard expressions for the propagators are recovered.

1094: Notice that $\rho_{L,T}$ have dimensions mass$^{-2}$, while $\rho_\pm$ have dimensions

1095: mass$^{-1}$.

1096: 

1097: 

1098: \setcounter{equation}{0}

1099: \section{Gravitino production rate due to decay effects}

1100: 

1101: \label{decay} We can now compute the imaginary part of diagram D in

1102: fig.\fig{Feyn1}, and extract from it the gravitino production rate.

1103: Using the gravitino $\leftrightarrow$ Goldstino equivalence,

1104: eq.~(\ref{eq:ET}), diagram D is obtained from eq.~(\ref{eq:Pi<}) by

1105: inserting the quadratic parts of the MSSM supercurrent

1106: (\ref{eq:4-comp}) and of its divergence (\ref{eq:dS}):

1107: \begin{align*}

1108: S_{(2)}^{\mu}  &

1109: =-\sum_{N=1}^{3}\frac{1}{4}F_{\nu\rho}^{(N)}[\gamma^{\nu},\gamma^{\rho

1110: }]\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{5}\lambda^{(N)}-\sqrt{2}\left[

1111: (\partial^{\nu}\phi

1112: _{i})^{\ast}(\gamma^{\nu}\gamma^{\mu}\xi_{L}^{i})+(\partial^{\nu}\phi

1113: _{i})(\gamma^{\nu}\gamma^{\mu}\xi_{R}^{i})\right]  ,\\

1114: (\partial\cdot S)_{(2)}  & =-\sum_{N=1}^{3}\frac{M_N}{4}\Op_N,\qquad

1115: \Op_{N}=F_{\mu\nu}^{(N)}[\gamma_{\mu},\gamma_{\nu}] i\gamma^5 \lambda^{(N)}

1116: \end{align*}

1117: where $N$ runs over the three factors of the MSSM gauge group, and

1118: $F_{\nu \rho}^{(N)}$ here stands for the linearized part of the

1119: corresponding field strength. We ignored soft-breaking squared

1120: masses of scalars, as they have higher dimension than gaugino masses

1121: $M_N$. The contribution to $\Pi^<$ from diagram D is

1122: \begin{align}

1123: \Pi^{<}(P)  & =\frac{1}{4\bar{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}^{2}}\left[

1124: \mathrm{Tr}\langle{\bar{S}}_{(2)}^{\mu}\Pi^{3/2}_{\mu\nu}S_{(2)}^{\nu}%

1125: \rangle_{T}-\frac{2}{3m_{3/2}^{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\langle(\partial\cdot\bar

1126: {S})_{(2)}\Pl(\partial\cdot S)_{(2)}\rangle_{T}\right]  \\

1127: & =\sum_{N=1}^{3}\frac{1}{32 \bar{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}^{2}}\left(  1+\frac{M_{N}%

1128: ^{2}}{3m_{3/2}^{2}}\right)  \mathrm{Tr}\langle\bar{\Op}_{N}\Pl\Op_{N}%

1129: \rangle_{T}.\label{eq:magic}

1130: \end{align}

1131: We now explain how eq.\eq{magic} is obtained.

1132: The Goldstino part, proportional to $M_N^2/3 m_{3/2}^2$, is straightforward.

1133: We emphasize that

1134: the divergence of the supercurrent is evaluated before evaluating its thermal matrix element.

1135: Indeed, while thermal masses na\"{\i}vely look like SUSY-breaking terms of order

1136: $g^2T$, they actually do not contribute to $\partial_\mu S^\mu$,

1137: and a mistake about this issue would make

1138: the Goldstino rate qualitatively wrong~\cite{wrong,LR,Ellis}

1139: (see also appendix~\ref{gravitino}).

1140: Indeed, despite the nice formalism employed to compute them

1141: (periodic and anti-periodic boundary conditions in

1142: imaginary time for bosons and fermions respectively),

1143: thermal effects just are one particular

1144: background:  no background affects the operator equations of motion, such that

1145: a supercurrent which is conserved at $T=0$ remains conserved at finite $T$.\footnote{Although this is not relevant for us, we can be more

1146: precise: thermal effects spontaneously break supersymmetry in the

1147: visible sector, and the associated thermal Goldstino mode was

1148: identified with a particular collective excitation~\cite{SUSYT}. The

1149: conservation of the supercurrent at finite temperature is therefore

1150: analogous to how electroweak gauge currents remain conserved despite

1151: the Higgs vev.

1152: However, since the thermal Goldstino is a low energy phenomenon,

1153: we don't know how to extend it to write an

1154: explicit conserved  supercurrent that also holds at energies $E\sim T$.}

1155: %As we mentioned above, our computation has a

1156: %residual gravitino gauge dependence which as discussed in appendix A

1157: %is most likely related to the fact that we do not compute

1158: %corrections to the gravitino

1159: %vertices. Therefore we need to enforce $\partial_{\mu}{}S_{\mu}\symbol{126}%

1160: %m_{\text{soft}}$ by hand. The simplest way to do it is to compute the  when

1161: %computing the divergence in absence of softYou can say that we only know

1162: %$S^{\mu}$ and

1163: 

1164: 

1165: 

1166: For the remaining massless gravitino part, we insert the explicit value of the gravitino

1167: polarization tensor (\ref{eq:ripetuta}) and get two terms of the

1168: form

1169: \begin{equation}

1170: \mathrm{Tr}\langle{\bar{S}}_{(2)}^{\mu}\Pl S_{(2)}^{\mu}\,\rangle

1171: _{T}+ \frac{1}{2} \mathrm{Tr}\langle\Ssl_{(2)}\Pl\overline{\Ssl}_{(2)}%

1172: \,\rangle_{T}\label{eq:decompo}%

1173: \end{equation}

1174: where ${}\Ssl_{(2)}\equiv\gamma_{\mu}{}\,S_{(2)}^{\mu}$. We can now

1175: perform simplifications that only employ the known Dirac-matrix

1176: structure of ${S}_{(2)}^{\mu}$:

1177: 

1178: \begin{itemize}

1179: \item The vector/gaugino contributions obey $\Ssl_{(2)}=0$ (thanks to

1180: $\gamma_{\mu}[\gamma_{\alpha},\gamma_{\beta}]\gamma^{\mu}=0$), such

1181: that only the first term of eq.\eq{decompo} contributes. It is

1182: reduced to the same

1183: operator $\Op_N$ using the $\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{\alpha}\gamma^{\mu}%

1184: =-2\gamma_{\alpha}$ identity and taking into account that the

1185: thermally corrected gluino propagator has the same $\gamma$-matrix

1186: structure as the massless propagator. This leads to the

1187: $1+M_{N}^{2}/3m_{3/2}^{2}$ prefactor in eq.\eq{magic}.

1188: 

1189: \item The quark/squark contributions vanish, thanks to a cancellation between

1190: the two terms in eq.\eq{decompo}. Indeed, by applying the $\gamma_{\mu}%

1191: \gamma_{\alpha}\gamma^{\mu}=-2\gamma_{\alpha}$ identity (one time in

1192: the first term, and two times in the second term) both terms reduce

1193: to the matrix

1194: element $\mathrm{Tr}\langle\bar{\xi}_{R}(\ds\varphi)\Pl(\ds\varphi^{\ast}%

1195: )\xi_{L}\rangle$, with opposite coefficients.

1196: \end{itemize}

1197: 

1198: We don't know if there is some deeper reason dictating these

1199: cancellations such that the full result is controlled by the thermal matrix

1200: element of the operator $\Op_{N}$ times the prefactor

1201: $1+M_{N}^{2}/3m_{3/2}^{2}$.

1202: A general proof of this result would

1203: allow to get the full production rate from the simple Goltstino rate

1204: according to eq.\eq{magic}.

1205: 

1206: %A similar phenomenon was previously encountered

1207: %(and partly explained with arguments similar to ours)

1208: %in~\cite{Buch}, where it was noticed the differential cross sections for the production

1209: %of the spin-1/2 and spin-3/2 gravitino components are proportional, process by process, with the same

1210: %prefactor. A similar relation is encountered in our computation of the production rate due to the

1211: %top Yukawa coupling (section~\ref{top}).

1212: 

1213: 

1214: \bigskip

1215: 

1216: For completeness we mention that we have

1217: studied thermal corrections to the $\Op_N$ operators in HTL

1218: approximation. As well known gauge vertices $g$ receive very large

1219: thermal corrections of order $g(1+g^{2}T^{2}/k^{2})$ where $k\ll T$

1220: (HTL approximation) is some external momentum: their presence would

1221: be problematic, as they seem to describe infra-red divergent effects

1222: (see e.g.\ section 10.3 of~\cite{LeBellac}). In the case of gauge

1223: vertices these corrections are demanded by gauge invariance:

1224: different diagrams combine such that $\Lag_{\rm HTL}$ of eq.\eq{LHTL}

1225: contains the gauge-covariant derivative $D$.

1226: On the contrary Yukawa couplings do not receive these problematic HTL

1227: corrections. We verified that the Goldstino vertex $\chi\Op_N$ does

1228: not receive any HTL correction.\footnote{The basic reason is the

1229: following. Since the Goldstino vertex has dimension 5, by

1230: dimensional analysis it receives gauge

1231: corrections of order $g^{2}\int d^{4}K(K^{3})_{\mu}/[K^{2}(K+P_{1}%

1232: )^{2}(K+P_{2})^{2}]$ where $(K^{3})_{\mu}$ denotes any vector formed

1233: with 3 powers of $K$: it necessarily contains the combination

1234: $K^{2}$, that, as explained in~\cite{LeBellac}, does not lead to HTL

1235: vertices.} Beyond the HTL limit there will be corrections suppressed

1236: by powers of $g/\pi$, that we can ignore.

1237: 

1238: 

1239: 

1240: 

1241: 

1242: 

1243: \subsection{Gravitino propagator}

1244: We now restart from eq.\eq{magic} and

1245: explicitly compute the imaginary part of the gravitino propagator

1246: with four-momentum $P=(p_0,\mb{p})=K+Q$,

1247: summed over its polarizations:

1248: % PL...PR was replaced by    i gamma5...i gamma5    *  1/2

1249: \beq

1250: \Pi^<(E) =\sum_{N=1}^3\bigg(1+\frac{M_N^2}{3m_{3/2}^2}\bigg) \frac{n_N}{16(2\pi)^2 \bar{M}_{\rm Pl}^2 } \int \frac{d^4K}{(2\pi)^4} {\rm Tr}

1251: [\Pl [\Ksl,\gamma_\mu] i\gamma_5 {} ^*{\!}S^<(Q)i\gamma_5 [-\Ksl,\gamma_\nu]

1252: ^*D_{\mu\nu}(K)].

1253: \eeq

1254: where $N=\{1,2,3\}$ runs over the three factors of the SM gauge group with $n_N=\{1,3,8\}$

1255: vectors;

1256: $M_N$ are the gaugino masses at zero temperature (renormalized at some scale around $T$).

1257: Inserting the explicit parameterization

1258: $$ K=(k_0, k,0,0),\qquad

1259: Q=(q_0,q\cos\theta_q,q\sin\theta_q),\qquad

1260: P=(p,p \cos\theta_p,p\sin\theta_p)$$

1261: for the vector, gaugino and gravitino four-momenta respectively one finds

1262: \begin{eqnarray}

1263: \Pi^<(p) &=& \sum_{N=1}^3 p\bigg(1+\frac{M_N^2}{3m_{3/2}^2}\bigg) \frac{n_N}{ \bar{M}_{\rm Pl}^2 } \int \frac{d^4K}{(2\pi)^4} \nonumber

1264: f_B(k_0) f_F(q_0)\times\\

1265: && \bigg[\rho_L(K)\rho_-(Q)  k^2 \cos^2 \frac{\theta_p+\theta_q}{2}+\nonumber

1266: \rho_L(K)\rho_+(Q)  k^2 \sin^2 \frac{\theta_p+\theta_q}{2}+\\

1267: &&+\rho_T(K)\rho_+(Q) \bigg((k^2+k_0^2)(1+\cos\theta_p \cos\theta_q)-2k k_0 (\cos\theta_p + \cos\theta_q)\bigg)+\\

1268: \nonumber&&+\rho_T(K)\rho_-(Q) \bigg((k^2+k_0^2)(1-\cos\theta_p \cos\theta_q)-2k k_0 (\cos\theta_p- \cos\theta_q)\bigg)\bigg]

1269: \end{eqnarray}

1270: To compute the total rate $\gamma_D$ using eq.\eq{ImProp}

1271: %\beq \gamma_D = \frac{dN}{dV~dt}= \int d\vec{P} ~\Pi^<(P),\qquad

1272: %d\vec{P}\equiv  \frac{d^3p}{2p_0(2\pi)^3}\eeq

1273: it is convenient to multiply by $1 = \int d^4 Q~\delta^4(K-P-Q)$,\footnote{This step also allows

1274: to see that the seemingly esoteric expression is actually

1275: equivalent to what one would na\"{\i}vely guess from

1276: the kinetic theory, if spectral densities are treated like parton densities

1277: $$\frac{dN}{dV\,dt\, d\vec{P}}=  \sum \int_{q_0,k_0\ge 0} \frac{d^4 Q}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{d^4 K}{(2\pi)^4}

1278: \rho_\pm(Q) \rho_{L,T}(K) |\Amp|^2 (2\pi)^4 \delta^{4}(P\pm Q \pm K)

1279: \cdot\hbox{(statistical factors})$$ where the sum is over all

1280: polarizations, gauge indices, gravitino production processes with

1281: amplitudes $\Amp$. As discussed around eq.~(\ref{sys:fBF}), the

1282: factors $f_B(k_0)$ and $f_F(q_0)$ reproduce the usual statistical

1283: factors, $1\pm n$ or $-n$.} perform the non-trivial angular

1284: integrations over $\theta_p$ and $\theta_q$, obtaining

1285: %\begin{eqnarray}

1286: %\gamma_D &=&\nonumber

1287: %\frac{1}{2(2\pi)^5} \sum_{N=1}^3\bigg(1+\frac{M_N^2}{3m_{3/2}^2}\bigg) \frac{n_N}{\bar{M}_{\rm Pl}^2 } \int_0^\infty dq~dk \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dq_0~dk_0~k f_B(k_0) f_F(q_0) \times\\  \nonumber

1288: %&&  \times \bigg[

1289: %\rho_L(K)\rho_-(Q)  (p-q)^2 [(p+q)^2-k^2]+

1290: %\rho_L(K)\rho_+(Q)  (p+q)^2[k^2-(p-q)^2]+\\

1291: %&&+\rho_T(K)\rho_+(Q) ((p+q)^2-k^2)\bigg((1+k_0^2/k^2)(k^2+(p-q)^2)-4 k_0(p-q)\bigg)+\\

1292: %\nonumber

1293: %&&+\rho_T(K)\rho_-(Q) (k^2-(p-q)^2)\bigg((1+k_0^2/k^2)(k^2+(p+q)^2)-4 k_0(p+q)\bigg)\bigg].

1294: %\end{eqnarray}

1295: \beq\label{eq:res}

1296:  \gamma_D =\frac{T^6}{2(2\pi)^3\bar{M}_{\rm Pl}^2}  \sum_{N=1}^3 n_N \bigg (1+\frac{   M_N^2}{3  m_{3/2}^2}\bigg)

1297:  f_N,

1298: \eeq

1299: where

1300: \begin{eqnarray}

1301: f_N&=&T^{-6}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dq_0~dk_0~k f_B(k_0) f_F(q_0)

1302: \times\nonumber\\

1303: \nonumber &&  \times \bigg[ \rho_L(K)\rho_-(Q)  (p-q)^2

1304: [(p+q)^2-k^2]+

1305: \rho_L(K)\rho_+(Q)  (p+q)^2[k^2-(p-q)^2]+\\

1306: &&+\rho_T(K)\rho_+(Q) ((p+q)^2-k^2)\bigg((1+k_0^2/k^2)(k^2+(p-q)^2)-4 k_0(p-q)\bigg)+\label{eq:f_N}\\

1307: \nonumber &&+\rho_T(K)\rho_-(Q)

1308: (k^2-(p-q)^2)\bigg((1+k_0^2/k^2)(k^2+(p+q)^2)-4

1309: k_0(p+q)\bigg)\bigg].

1310: \end{eqnarray}

1311: The dimensionless coefficients $f_N$ are positive:

1312: each term in the square brackets is positive in the allowed region,

1313: except $\rho_T$ that becomes positive after being multiplied by

1314: $f_B(k_0)$. The integration range is restricted by momentum

1315: conservation, $\mb{p}+\mb{k}+\mb{q}=0$, i.e.\  $|k-q|\le p=k_0+q_0

1316: \le k+q$: any side of a triangle cannot be longer than the sum of

1317: the other two or shorter than their difference.

1318: 

1319: \medskip

1320: 

1321: The last two equations generalize eq.\ (38) of~\cite{Buch}, who considered the vector/gaugino loop in the

1322: limit of hard gravitino and soft vector (small $k_0\ll p,T$, such

1323: that $f_B(k_0)\simeq T/k_0$) and neglected the gaugino thermal mass

1324: (i.e.\ $\rho_- \simeq 0$ and $\rho_+\simeq 2\pi \delta(q_0 - q)$

1325: such that $q=q_0 = p-k_0$).

1326: 

1327: %We approximate the spectral densities outside the light cone as $\delta$-function poles

1328: %(using full expressions they would be narrow bells, making numerical integration

1329: %difficult for our limited computing power), such that we have four types of contributions:

1330: %pole-pole, continuum-continuum, (vector pole)-(gaugino continuum) and (vector continuum)-(gaugino pole). A vector can be either longitudinal or transverse, in the initial state or in the final state,

1331: %and similarly for the gaugino.

1332: %

1333: 

1334: \subsection{Decay contribution to the gravitino production rate}\label{fNsummary}

1335: %After summing all decay contributions we get the decay contribution to the gravitino production

1336: %rate per space-time volume as

1337: %\beq\label{eq:res}

1338: % \gamma_D =\frac{T^6}{2(2\pi)^3\bar{M}_{\rm Pl}^2}  \sum_{N=1}^3 n_N \bigg (1+\frac{   M_N^2}{3  m_{3/2}^2}\bigg) f_N(\frac{m_{V_N}}{T})

1339: %\eeq

1340: In conclusion, the decay contribution to the gravitino production rate

1341: per space-time volume is given by eq.\eq{res}. The

1342: coefficients $f_N$ have to be evaluated numerically. We approximate

1343: the spectral densities outside the light cone as $\delta$-function

1344: poles (using full expressions they would be narrow bells, making

1345: numerical integration difficult for our limited computing power),

1346: such that we have four types of contributions: pole-pole,

1347: continuum-continuum, (vector pole)-(gaugino continuum) and (vector

1348: continuum)-(gaugino pole). A vector can be either longitudinal or

1349: transverse, in the initial state or in the final state, and

1350: similarly for the gaugino.

1351: 

1352: The resulting coefficients $f_N$ depend on the gauge couplings and on

1353: the content of matter charged under the given gauge group; 

1354: in the MSSM it is convenient to parametrize them as functions of the thermal vector

1355: masses $m_{V_N}$ listed in eq.\eq{mVn}: \beq f_N\equiv f_N(\frac

1356: {m_{V_N}}{T}) .\eeq For example $m_{3}\approx 1.3T$ for the gluon at

1357: $T\approx 10^{9}\GeV$. 

1358: The functions $f_N$ are plotted in

1359: fig.\fig{res}. In HTL approximation there would be a unique

1360: $N$-independent function $f$, and the functions $f_N$ turn out to be

1361: somewhat different, depending on the relative amount of vector and

1362: chiral multiplets present within each group. In  non-minimal models

1363: with more chiral multiplets than in the MSSM, one would have to add

1364: their extra contributions to vector thermal masses, and to slightly

1365: revise the functions $f_N$.

1366: 

1367: 

1368: Finally, let us try to discuss the accuracy of our result.

1369: Thermal corrections to the pressure have been computed up to high

1370: orders in $g_3$~\cite{largeNf}:

1371: these computations can be used to see how convergent the perturbative

1372: expansion is in practice.

1373: In the favorable limit $N_f\gg N_c$ (where $N_f$ is the number of

1374: flavors and $N_c$ is the number of colors)

1375: the perturbative expansion for the pressure remains accurate up to $m_

1376: {V}/T \approx 1$

1377: %  i.e. g_eff^2 = 6 in his notation

1378: (fig.~1 of~\cite{largeNf}).

1379: This presumably also applies to our case, as

1380: SUSY-QCD has a set of fermions and scalars that give the same

1381: contribution

1382: to the gluon thermal mass as $N_f = 21$ flavors in the fundamental.

1383: 

1384: Furthermore, AdS/CFT techniques should allow to compute the large

1385: coupling limit of the gravitino emission rate in some supersymmetric theory, maybe not unrealistically

1386: different from SUSY-QCD. This could be done analogously to how \cite{Starinets} used AdS/CFT to compute the photon emission rate from strongly coupled $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM in the large $N_c$ limit.

1387: By analogy, we expect that at strong coupling the gravitino rate functions $f_N$ will have a finite limit, $N_c$-independent up to $1/N_c$ corrections.

1388: % i.e. \gamma=const. T^6 where const=N^2 up to 1/N corrections

1389: 

1390: 

1391: 

1392: \begin{figure}[t]

1393: \begin{center}\vspace{-1cm}

1394: $$\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{top4}$$

1395: \caption{\label{fig:top4}\em {\bf Top scatterings}.

1396: Feynman diagrams contributing to $QU \to \Psi_\mu \tilde{H}$.

1397: The $\bullet$ denotes the top Yukawa coupling.}

1398: $$\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{top22}$$

1399: \caption{\label{fig:top22}\em {\bf Top scatterings}.

1400: Feynman diagrams contributing to $\tilde{Q}\tilde{U} \to \Psi_\mu \tilde{H}$.

1401: The $\bullet$ denotes a coupling proportional to $\lambda_t$, and

1402: $\circ$ its $A$-term.}

1403: \end{center}

1404: \end{figure}

1405: 

1406: 

1407: 

1408: \setcounter{equation}{0}

1409: \section{Production of gravitinos due to the top Yukawa}\label{top}

1410: Previous works considered gravitino production due to the

1411: $g_3$, $g_2$ and $g_Y$ gauge couplings;

1412: the top quark Yukawa, $\lambda_t ~ QUH$,

1413: also has a sizable coupling $\lambda_t$.

1414: There are two main kind of scattering processes:

1415: \begin{itemize}

1416: \item[a)]  Scatterings involving fermions only,

1417: such as $QU \to \Psi \tilde{H}$: fig.\fig{top4} shows the relevant

1418: Feynman diagrams. They would populate only the spin 3/2 component of

1419: the gravitino, as only dimension-2 soft terms enter these diagrams,

1420: so that Goldstinos are not produced. However, an explicit

1421: computation shows that the dominant contribution, of order

1422: $T^6/M_{\rm Pl}^2$, vanishes.

1423: 

1424: 

1425: 

1426: \item[b)] Scatterings involving two fermions and two scalars, such as

1427: $\tilde{Q}\tilde{U}\to \Psi \tilde{H}$: fig.\fig{top22} shows the

1428: relevant Feynman diagrams. The first diagram involves $A_t$, the

1429: dimension-1 $A$-term of the top Yukawa coupling, and populates the

1430: spin 1/2 component of the gravitino. The other three diagrams

1431: populate the spin 3/2 component.

1432: \end{itemize}

1433: The total result is:

1434: \beq \label{eq:sigmatop}

1435: \sum_{\rm all} | \Amp(\hbox{top scatterings})|^2 = 72 \frac{\lambda_t^2}{\bar M_{\rm Pl}^2}

1436: (1 + \frac{A_t^2}{3m_{3/2}^2}) s

1437: \eeq

1438: where $s=(P_1+P_2)^2$ is the usual kinematical variable.

1439: The corresponding gravitino production rate is

1440: \beq\label{eq:gammatop}

1441: \gamma_{\rm top} =1.30  \frac{9\lambda_t^2 T^6}{2\bar{M}_{\rm Pl}^2\pi^5}(1 + \frac{A_t^2}{3m_{3/2}^2})

1442: \eeq

1443: where the numerical factor $1.30$ is the correction due to the Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein

1444: factors with respect to the Boltzmann approximation.

1445: 

1446: In the language of previous sections, eq.\eq{gammatop} is the scattering contribution.

1447: We now explain why it also is our total result.

1448: First, it happens to be infra-red convergent: the potentially divergent contributions

1449: given by the modulus squared of the $t$-channel and $u$-channel diagrams in fig.\fig{top22}

1450: actually vanish.

1451: Therefore, unlike in the case of gauge scatterings,

1452: the inclusion of thermal masses is not necessary for obtaining a finite result.

1453: Furthermore, including thermal effects along the lines of the previous sections does not affect

1454: the final result.

1455: Indeed the top Yukawa coupling gives a thermal mass for top, stops (and higgs and higgsinos):

1456: the resulting quark/squark/gravitino (and higgs/higgsino/gravitino) decay rates have been

1457: computed in section~\ref{decay} for generic thermal masses, and vanish.

1458: Consistency requires that the subtracted top scattering rate

1459: equals the total scattering rate of eq.\eq{gammatop}, and indeed the

1460: subtracted terms are

1461: the modulus squared of the $t$-channel and $u$-channel diagrams in fig.\fig{top22},

1462: which vanish.

1463: 

1464: \medskip

1465: 

1466: Again, all these cancellations have a simple interpretation:

1467: they are the ones needed such that the production rate for

1468: the spin 3/2 components of the gravitino equals the production rate for

1469: the spin 1/2 Goldstino components, up to the prefactor in eq.\eq{sigmatop}.

1470: Indeed, using the gravitino/Goldstino equivalence,

1471: the Goldstino production rate can be equivalently computed from one single diagram

1472: that only involves the single {\em quartic} Goldstino coupling,

1473: $$ A_t \lambda_t ~\hbox{Goldstino}~(\hbox{higgsino} ~\hbox{squark}~\hbox{squark}^* +

1474: \hbox{quark}~\hbox{squark}^*~\hbox{higgs} + \hbox{h.c.}),$$

1475: such that decay contributions and subtracted scattering rates simply do not exist for the Goldstino.

1476: 

1477: 

1478: 

1479: 

1480: % FROM SLAVA:

1481: %The true result is equal to the Boltzmann one times the factor (7.9+8.3)/(6.2*2)=1.30

1482: %Here 7.9 is the scalar+scalar->gravitino+fermion part, and 8.3 is the scalar+fermion->gravitino+scalar

1483: %In the Boltzmann approximation both are equal 6.2 (in arbitrary units).

1484: 

1485: %

1486: %This is comparable to the (subtracted) SU(3) effect, which was not very important.

1487: %To

1488: %keep the MSSM alive one sometimes wants to get the maximal Higgs mass, obtained for

1489: %a somewhat large $A_t\approx \sqrt{6}m_{\tilde{t}}$ at the weak scale.

1490: 

1491: 

1492: 

1493: 

1494: 

1495: 

1496: \begin{figure}[t]

1497: $$\includegraphics[width=10cm]{TRH}$$

1498: \caption{\label{fig:TRH}\em Evolution of the gravitino abundancy

1499: $n/s$ in units of $\gamma/H_Rs$ at $T=T_{\rm RH}$

1500: for na\"{\i}ve instant reheating and for the conventional model of reheating.}

1501: \end{figure}

1502: 

1503: \setcounter{equation}{0}

1504: \section{Boltzmann equations with reheating}\label{reh}

1505: We here compute the gravitino abundance by integrating the relevant

1506: Boltzmann equations. While previous works ignored the

1507: history of the universe prior to its reheating

1508: (from the point of view of computing gravitino production this in practice

1509: amounts to assuming that the Big Bang started at the

1510: maximal temperature $T_{\rm RH}$),

1511: %assumed the big-bang

1512: %suddenly started at the maximal temperature $T_{\rm RH}$,

1513: we here

1514: follow the standard definition of the reheating temperature $T_{\rm

1515: RH}$, where MSSM particles are progressively reheated by the energy

1516: released by some non-relativistic energy density $\rho_\phi$, which

1517: could describe e.g.\ an oscillating inflaton field, or some

1518: non-relativistic particle decaying into MSSM particles.\footnote{

1519: Alternatively, some of the flat directions present in the MSSM supersymmetric potential might develop large vevs during inflation.

1520: There is a debate in the literature whether such condensates can be sufficiently long-lived to affect reheating~\cite{flat}.

1521: For simplicity, we here do not consider these possible but model-depenent phenomena.}

1522: In both cases the relevant Boltzmann equations are

1523: \beq\label{eq:Boltzt}\left\{\begin{array}{l} \dot\rho_\phi +

1524: 3H\rho_\phi = -\Gamma_\phi \rho_\phi \cr \dot\rho_R + 4 H \rho_R =

1525: \Gamma_\phi \rho_\phi \cr \dot n_{3/2} + 3 H n_{3/2} = \gamma

1526: \end{array}\right.\eeq

1527: where $n_{3/2}$ is the gravitino number density summed over its polarizations,

1528: a dot denotes $d/dt$,

1529: $H = \dot R/R = \sqrt{8\pi(\rho_\phi  + \rho_R)/3}/M_{\rm Pl}$ is the expansion factor,

1530: $\rho_R=\pi^2 g_*  T^4/30$ is the energy density of MSSM radiation at temperature $T$

1531: (with $g_*=228.75$, up to ${\cal O}(g^2)$ corrections, and up to adding right-handed neutrinos), and

1532: $\Gamma_\phi$ parameterizes the decay width of $\rho_\phi$.

1533: The reheating temperature $T_{\rm RH}$ is defined in terms of $\Gamma_\phi$ as the

1534: temperature at which~\cite{book}

1535: \beq

1536: \Gamma_\phi = H_R\equiv \frac{1}{M_{\rm Pl}}\sqrt{\frac{8\pi}{3}\rho_R(T_{\rm RH})}

1537: \qquad\hbox{i.e.}\qquad

1538: T_{\rm RH}= \left[ \frac{45}{4\pi^3 g_*}\,\Gamma_\phi^2

1539: M_{\rm Pl}^2\right]^{1/4}  .\eeq

1540: It is convenient to rewrite equations\eq{Boltzt} in terms of $Y(z)$,

1541: where $z\equiv T_{\rm RH}/T$ and

1542: $Y\equiv n_{3/2}/s$, with $s=4\rho_R/3T$ being the MSSM entropy density.

1543: Following~\cite{leptog} one gets

1544: \begin{equation}\label{eq:dY/dz}

1545: \left\{\begin{array}{rcl}\displaystyle

1546:   HZz\frac{d\rho_\phi}{dz}&=& -

1547: {3H\rho_\phi}-{\Gamma_\phi\rho_\phi}\,   ,\\[4mm]

1548: \displaystyle

1549: sHZz \frac{dY}{dz} &=& 3sH(Z-1)Y+\gamma

1550: \end{array}\right.\eeq

1551: where \beq

1552: Z =-\frac{\dot\rho_R}{4\rho_R H}= 1 - \frac{\Gamma_\phi \rho_\phi}{4 H \rho_R}.

1553: \end{equation}

1554: To clarify the physical meaning of $T_{\rm RH}$, we emphasize that

1555: $T_{\rm RH}$ is not the maximal temperature; however what happens at

1556: $T\gg T_{\rm RH}$ gets diluted by the entropy release described by

1557: the $Z-1$ factor ($Z\simeq 3/8$ at $T\gg T_{\rm RH}$ and $Z\simeq 1$

1558: at $T\ll T_{\rm RH}$). In our case $\gamma(T)\propto T^6$ and the

1559: solution is \beq \label{eq:Yres} Y(T\ll T_{\rm RH}) = 2\left.

1560: \frac{\gamma}{Hs}\right|_{T=T_{\rm RH}}=0.745 \left.

1561: \frac{\gamma}{H_Rs}\right|_{T=T_{\rm RH}} = 6.11~10^{-12}

1562: \frac{T_{\rm RH}}{10^{10}\GeV} \frac{\gamma|_{T=T_{\rm RH}}}{T_{\rm

1563: RH}^6/\bar M_{\rm Pl}^2}. \eeq Fig.\fig{rate} shows our results for

1564: the dimensionless order-one combination $\gamma/(T^6/\bar{M}_{\rm

1565: Pl}^2)$ that appears in~\eq{Yres}. Notice that the gravitino

1566: abundance is proportional to it, and to $T_{\rm RH}$: the large

1567: power $\gamma(T)\propto T^6$ gets almost compensated by cosmological

1568: factors.

1569: 

1570: 

1571: In previous analyses $\rho_\phi$ was ignored and the 

1572: `instantaneous reheating' approximation was used, which amounts to

1573: start the Big Bang from a maximal temperature 

1574: $T=T_{\rm RH}$: this gives a slightly larger gravitino abundance

1575: \beq Y(T\ll T_{\rm RH}) = \left.

1576: \frac{\gamma}{H_Rs}\right|_{T=T_{\rm RH}} .\eeq Fig.\fig{TRH}

1577: illustrates the different evolution of $Y$ (in arbitrary units)

1578: between the two cases.

1579: 

1580: \medskip

1581: 

1582: Within the standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model, present data demand a DM energy density

1583:  $\Omega_{\rm DM} h^2=0.110\pm 0.006$; if DM are non relativistic particles with mass $M\gg {\rm keV}$

1584:  this corresponds to $Y_{\rm DM} = (0.40\pm0.02)\eV/M$~\cite{WMAP}.

1585:  One has $Y=Y_{\rm DM}$ if gravitinos are the observed DM.

1586: Equivalently, one can compute the present gravitino mass density in

1587: terms of their relative entropy $Y$ as \beq \Omega_{3/2} h^2 =

1588: \frac{m_{3/2} Y s_{0}}{\rho_{\rm cr}/h^2}=0.274~10^9~ Y

1589: \frac{m_{3/2}}{\GeV} = 0.00167 \frac{m_{3/2}}{\GeV}\frac{T_{\rm

1590: RH}}{10^{10}\GeV} \frac{\gamma|_{T=T_{\rm RH}}}{T_{\rm RH}^6/\bar

1591: M_{\rm Pl}^2}. \eeq where $\rho_{\rm cr} = 3H_0^2 M_{\rm Pl}^2/8\pi

1592: $ is the critical energy density, $H_0 = 100\, h

1593: \,\hbox{km/sec$\cdot$Mpc}$ is the Hubble constant, the present

1594: entropy density is $s_{\rm 0}  =2\pi^2 g_{*s}T_0^3/45$ with $g_{*s}

1595: = 43/11$ and $T_0=2.725\,{\rm K}$. Fig.\fig{DM} compares the regions

1596: where the thermal gravitino abundance equals the DM abundance with

1597: the regions compatible with standard thermal leptogenesis~\cite{DI}, as

1598: computed in~\cite{leptog} with the same definition of the reheating

1599: process.

1600: This plot ignores all model dependent issues, including who is the LSP and the NLSP.

1601: Let us briefly summarize these

1602: issues~\cite{gravitinoCosmo,Moroi,Viel,altri}.

1603: \begin{itemize}

1604: \item If the gravitino is the stable LSP then

1605: \begin{itemize}

1606: \item if $m_{3/2}\gg {\rm keV}$ the gravitino behaves as cold dark matter and its

1607: energy density  can be at most equal to the DM density.

1608: 

1609: 

1610: \item a somewhat stronger constraint applies if the gravitino is lighter,

1611: $T_0 \ll m_{3/2}\circa{<} {\rm keV}$, and consequently behaves as

1612: warm dark matter or radiation.

1613: The Goldstino component of such a light gravitino thermalizes

1614: (unless $T_{\rm RH}$ is as low as possible),

1615: so that this scenario is severely constrained:

1616: assuming that the  Goldstino  was in thermal equilibrium

1617: when $g_* \sim 100$, present data demand

1618: $m_{3/2}\circa{<}16\eV$~\cite{Viel}.

1619: 

1620: \end{itemize}

1621: An additional contribution to the gravitino energy density,

1622: $\Omega_{3/2}^{\rm extra}\simeq \Omega_{\rm NLSP}m_{3/2}/m_{\rm NLSP}$

1623: (having neglected entropy production, which typically is an excellent approximation)

1624: is  generated by NLSP decays, with mass $m_{\rm NLSP}$ and mass density

1625: $\Omega_{\rm NLSP}$ after their freeze-out.

1626: Weak scale sparticles give $\Omega_{\rm NLSP}\sim 1$, such that this extra contribution is significant

1627: if $m_{3/2}$ is not much smaller than $m_{\rm NLSP}$.

1628: 

1629: 

1630: \item If heavier than the LSP (which possibly has mass $m_{\rm LSP}\sim 100 \GeV$),

1631: the gravitino gravitationally decays into the LSP and some SM particles:

1632: \begin{itemize}

1633: \item If $m_{3/2}\gg 10 \TeV$ the gravitino decays before BBN,

1634: generating a contribution to the LSP energy density,

1635: $\Omega_{\rm LSP}\simeq m_{\rm LSP}  \Omega_{3/2}/m_{3/2} $~\cite{gravitinoCosmo} (we neglected the entropy in gravitinos).

1636: 

1637: \item A lighter gravitino

1638: decays during or after BBN, damaging nucleosynthesis. The resulting

1639: bound on $\Omega_{3/2}$ depends on which SM particles are produced

1640: by gravitino decays, and typically is some orders of magnitude

1641: stronger than the DM bound $\Omega_{3/2} h^2

1642: \circa{<}0.1$~\cite{Moroi}. Very late gravitino decay into photons

1643: would also distort the CMB energy spectrum.

1644: \end{itemize}

1645: \end{itemize}

1646: We recall that we computed thermal production of gravitinos  from MSSM particles

1647: at temperatures $T_{\rm RH}\gg m_{3/2}, m_{\rm soft}$.

1648: The true physics might be different.

1649: For example, the messenger fields with mass $M_{\rm GM}$

1650: employed by gauge mediation models

1651: might be so light that they get thermalized (together with the hidden sector)

1652: and later decay back to MSSM particles,

1653: leaving a thermalized Goldstino.

1654: Eq.\eq{dY/dz} shows that this phenomenon is dominant if $M_{\rm GM}\circa{<}(10\div100) T_{\rm RH}$,

1655: as the gravitino abundance gets washed-out as $Y\propto T^{5}$

1656: during reheating at $T\circa{>}T_{\rm RH}$.

1657: 

1658: 

1659: 

1660: 

1661: 

1662: 

1663: \begin{figure}[t]

1664: \parbox{0.5\textwidth}{\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{DM}}

1665: \hspace{0.05\textwidth}

1666: \parbox{0.45\textwidth}{

1667: \caption{\label{fig:DM}\em The bands show the region where the

1668: thermal gravitino abundance equals the DM abundance ($3\sigma$

1669: regions), assuming unified gaugino masses with $m_{1/2}=150\GeV$

1670: (roughly the minimal value allowed by present data) or

1671: $m_{1/2}=1\TeV$ at the unification scale, and negligible $A_t$.

1672: Model-dependent issues are here ignored, including who is the LSP and the NLSP.

1673: Successful thermal leptogenesis with zero initial right-handed

1674: neutrino abundance is not possible within the gray

1675: band~\cite{DI,leptog}. }}

1676: \end{figure}

1677: 

1678: 

1679: 

1680: 

1681: \begin{figure}[t]

1682: $$\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{rate}$$

1683: \caption{\label{fig:rate}\em Production rate $\gamma=dN/dV\,dt$

1684: in units of $T^6/\bar M_{\rm Pl}^2$

1685: for the spin-3/2 gravitino components

1686: in the MSSM. The upper curve is the total rate,

1687: and the other continuous curves show the contributions from

1688: $\{g_3,g_2,g_Y,\lambda_t\}$ interactions (summed over decay and scattering processes).

1689: The production rate for the Goldstino spin-1/2 components is obtained by multiplying

1690: these four contributions times $\{M_3^2,M_2^2,M_1^2,A_t^2\}/3m_{3/2}^2$ respectively.

1691: The dotted curve show previous results from~\cite{Buch} and~\cite{postBuch}.}

1692: \end{figure}

1693: 

1694: 

1695: \setcounter{equation}{0}

1696: \section{Conclusions}\label{conclusions}

1697: Previous computations of the thermal gravitino production rate~\cite{Buch,postBuch}

1698: were performed at leading order in small gauge couplings,

1699: finding a rate of the form $\gamma \propto g^2 \ln 1/g$, which

1700:  behaves unphysically when extrapolated to the true MSSM  values of the

1701:  gauge couplings, $g\sim 1$  (see fig.\fig{res}).

1702:  We improved on these results in the following ways:

1703: \begin{enumerate}

1704: \item  We included gravitino production via gluon $\to$ gluino + gravitino and other decays:

1705: these effects first arise at higher order in $g$ (the phase space is

1706: opened by thermal masses), but are enhanced with respect to

1707: scattering processes by a phase-space $\pi^2$ factor, typical of

1708: 3-body vs 4-body rates. The gravitino production rate becomes about

1709: twice larger, or more if $M_3 \circa{>} M_{1,2}\gg m_{3/2}$.

1710: \item   We added production processes induced by the top quark Yukawa coupling.

1711: This enhances the gravitino production rate by almost $10\%$

1712: % $3\% $ with respect to our total

1713: or more if $A_t$ is bigger than gaugino masses.

1714: 

1715: 

1716:  \item   Finally, we computed the gravitino abundance replacing the instant reheating approximation

1717:  with  the standard definition of the reheating process, where $T_{\rm RH}$ is not

1718: the maximal temperature but defines the temperature

1719: at which inflaton decay ends, ceasing to release entropy.

1720:  This improvement decreases the gravitino abundance by $25\%$ and allows a precise

1721:  comparison with  leptogenesis~\cite{DI}, where reheating was included in~\cite{leptog}.

1722:  \end{enumerate}

1723:  Our result for the gravitino production rate is

1724:  \beq \gamma = \gamma_D + \gamma_{S}^{\rm sub} + \gamma_{\rm top}.\eeq

1725:  where the decay rate $\gamma_D$ (which dominates the total rate)

1726:  is given in eq.\eq{res}, the subtracted scattering rate $\gamma_S^{\rm sub}$ in eq.\eq{Ssub}, and the rate induced by the top Yukawa coupling in eq.\eq{gammatop}.

1727: Fig.\fig{rate} summarizes our results, showing the value of the

1728: dimensionless combination

1729:  $\gamma/(T^6/\bar{M}_{\rm Pl}^2)$ (as well as the values of the single gauge and top contributions to it)

1730: which determines the gravitino abundance as in~\eq{Yres}. In this

1731: plot we assumed $\lambda_t = 0.7$ and a unified $\alpha =1/24$,

1732: renormalized at the scale $M_{\rm GUT}=2\cdot 10^{16}\GeV$.

1733: 

1734: 

1735: \medskip

1736: 

1737: Accessory results scattered through the paper include: a clean

1738: precise re-derivation of gravitino couplings; expressions for

1739: thermal masses in a generic supersymmetric theory; the observation

1740: that they respect supersymmetry at energy much larger than the

1741: temperature; a collection of formul\ae{} for thermal corrections to

1742: vectors (including correct imaginary parts) beyond the Hard Thermal

1743: Loop (HTL) approximation; a possibly non-standard discussion of the

1744: physical meaning of negative spectral densities; a technique that

1745: allows to deal with Coulomb-like infra-red divergences without

1746: introducing an arbitrary splitting scale $k_*$ that satisfies the

1747: problematic condition $gT \ll k_* \ll T$.

1748: 

1749: \medskip

1750: 

1751: A curious result simplified our computation:

1752: the differential production rates for the spin 3/2 and for the spin 1/2 (Goldstino)

1753: gravitino component are equal up to a universal prefactor,

1754: despite that

1755: Goldstino couplings (to dimension-1 SUSY-breaking soft terms in the supercurrent)

1756: apparently are much simpler than

1757: the spin-3/2 couplings (gravitational, to the supersymmetric supercurrent).

1758: This equality holds thanks to various cancellations,

1759: such that various troubling contributions automatically drop out from our  computation.

1760: 

1761: 

1762: \small\bigskip

1763: 

1764: \paragraph{Acknowledgements}

1765: We thank R. Barbieri, C. Scrucca, G. Giudice, A. Notari, G. Moore.

1766: A.S.\ thanks R. Rattazzi who suggested that we look into the

1767: higher-order corrections to the gravitino production rate because

1768: this problem involves conceptual issues of academic interest. On the

1769: contrary the 100\% enhancement with respect to previous results is

1770: relevant for phenomenology, and we could compute it without

1771: understanding why we don't need to understand how to write the

1772: supercurrent at finite temperature.

1773: 

1774: \bigskip\bigskip% \newpage

1775: 

1776: %

1777: %It would be interesting to sort out the general reason behind

1778: %the cancellations mentioned above,

1779: %but  R. Rattazzi told us that we addressed the issue of higher-order corrections to the

1780: %gravitino production rate because its conceptual issues have academical interest.

1781: %On the contrary the 100\%

1782: %enhancement with respect to previous results is relevant for

1783: %phenomenology, and we could compute it without understanding

1784: %why we don't need to understand how to write the supercurrent at finite temperature.

1785: %We thank R. Barbieri, C. Scrucca, G. Giudice, A. Notari, G. Moore, and R. Rattazzi.

1786: 

1787: 

1788: 

1789: \appendix

1790: 

1791: \setcounter{equation}{0}

1792: \section{Gravitino propagator and couplings}

1793: 

1794: \label{gravitino} We here derive the needed gravitino propagator and

1795: couplings, both generic and specialized for the MSSM. The results contained in

1796: this section are not new, but they are useful for two reasons. First, because

1797: all factors ($i,\gamma_{5},P_{L}$, etc) and subtleties should be right, and

1798: are relevant for satisfying the consistency checks that we performed in our

1799: subsequent computations. Second, because we recomputed relevant gravitino

1800: properties in a way that we consider simpler than in previous literature: we

1801: proceed directly, without using Noether and supergravity techniques, which are

1802: unnecessarily cumbersome for our purposes.

1803: We use the standard Weyl spinor and $\gamma$-matrix conventions

1804: corresponding to the signature $(+---)$, see e.g. \cite{Lykken}. The

1805: phase of the gauginos is chosen such that gaugino couplings to

1806: matter are real. We assume a Minkowski background i.e.\ we neglect

1807: the small cosmological constant.

1808: 

1809: \subsection{The gravitino Lagrangian}

1810: 

1811: The gravitino is the gauge field associated with local supersymmetry, and

1812: becomes massive by means of a super-Higgs mechanism: `eating' the massless

1813: Goldstino fermion arising when global supersymmetry is spontaneously broken.

1814: This is analogous to a gauge vector that becomes massive via the usual Higgs

1815: mechanism, so that we start recalling some general properties of this well

1816: known simpler case, and this analogy will later allow us to derive gravitino

1817: properties following the same logic.

1818: 

1819: \subsubsection*{Paradigmatic digression}

1820: 

1821: %\subsection{Goldstone and Higgs mechanisms}

1822: We thus consider a U(1) gauge symmetry broken by the vev of a charged scalar field

1823: $H$.

1824: %It is convenient to split discussion into two parts.

1825: In the limit of vanishing gauge coupling, a massless Goldstone $\chi$ appears

1826: in the expansion of $H$ around the minimum, $H=v+i\chi$, and $\chi$

1827: transforms (under a U(1) rotation with infinitesimal angle $\varepsilon$) as

1828: $\delta\chi=v\varepsilon$. The total U(1) current is given by

1829: \begin{equation}

1830: J_{\mu}=J_{\mu}^{\text{mat}}-v\, \partial_{\mu}\chi, \label{eq:totalJ}%

1831: \end{equation}

1832: where $J_{\mu}^{\text{mat}}$ is the U(1) current of the rest of the theory

1833: (e.g.\ fermionic matter).

1834: %In presence of global symmetry breaking, $J_{\mu}^{\text{vis}}\neq0$ in general.

1835: The total U(1) current is conserved:%

1836: \begin{equation}

1837: \partial_{\mu}J_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu}J_{\mu}^{\text{mat}}-v\,\partial^{2}%

1838: \chi=0. \label{total}%

1839: \end{equation}

1840: This is the case if and only if the Lagrangian contains the coupling

1841: \begin{equation}

1842: {\fam\rsfsfam\relax L}\supset\frac{1}{v}\chi\cdot\partial_{\mu}J_{\mu

1843: }^{\text{mat}}. \label{eq:GT}%

1844: \end{equation}

1845: This is sometimes known as Goldberger-Treiman relation, and shows that

1846: Goldstone interactions are predicted in terms of nonconservation of the matter

1847: symmetry current induced in the process of symmetry breaking.

1848: 

1849: \medskip

1850: 

1851: When the U(1) symmetry is gauged, the total gauge-invariant Lagrangian is%

1852: \begin{equation}

1853: \Lags=-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}^{2}+\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\chi-vA_{\mu}%

1854: )^{2}+(A_{\mu}-\frac{1}{v}\partial_{\mu}\chi)J_{\mu}^{\text{mat}%

1855: }+\Lags_{\text{mat}}. \label{eq:Lgauge}%

1856: \end{equation}

1857: We can fix the unitary gauge by setting $\chi$ to zero or, equivalently, by

1858: redefining $A_{\mu}^{\prime}=A_{\mu}-\partial_{\mu}\chi/v$. The second term in

1859: \textrm{(\ref{eq:Lgauge}) }becomes a mass term for $A_{\mu}^{\prime}$. Notice

1860: that while $A_{\mu}$ couples to the total conserved current $J_{\mu}$ given by

1861: eq.~\textrm{(\ref{eq:totalJ})}, the massive vector $A_{\mu}^{\prime}$ couples

1862: to $J_{\mu}^{\text{mat}}$.

1863: 

1864: \medskip

1865: 

1866: The last thing that we want to recall concerns production of massive gauge

1867: bosons at high energy $E\gg v$. The effective Lagrangian appropriate for this

1868: situation is obtained from \textrm{(\ref{eq:Lgauge})} by keeping terms with

1869: the highest number of derivatives in $A_{\mu}$ and $\chi$, and is given by

1870: \begin{equation}

1871: \Lags_{\text{HE}}=-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}^{2}+\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}%

1872: \chi)^{2}+A_{\mu}J_{\mu}^{\text{mat}}+\frac{1}{v}\chi\cdot\partial_{\mu}%

1873: J_{\mu}^{\text{mat}}+{\fam\rsfsfam\relax L}_{\text{mat}}.

1874: \end{equation}

1875: We thus see that the total cross section can be approximated (up to terms suppressed by

1876: $v/E$)

1877: by the sum of

1878: massless gauge boson production plus production of Goldstones with coupling

1879: (\ref{eq:GT}):%

1880: \begin{equation}

1881: \sigma(A_{\mu}^{\prime})=\sigma(A_{\mu})+\sigma(\chi). \label{eq:equivGauge}%

1882: \end{equation}

1883: This statement is called the equivalence theorem. It can also be deduced (in a

1884: less transparent way) from the fact that the physical state projector for the

1885: gauge boson of mass $m$ takes the form $-g_{\mu\nu}+k_{\mu}k_{\mu}/m^{2}$.

1886: Notice that, while to get the correct Goldstone production rate it is crucial

1887: to take current nonconservation into account, in computing $\sigma(A_{\mu})$

1888: we can actually assume that $J_{\mu}^{\text{mat}}$ is conserved.

1889: %The error

1890: %induced by neglecting $\partial_{\mu}J_{\mu}^{\text{mat}}\sim v$ in this

1891: %computation is $O(v/E)$ just as the accuracy of the equivalence theorem

1892: %itself. One can estimate this error e.g. by comparing the transverse state and

1893: %the Feynman gauge projectors for the massless gauge boson:

1894: %\[

1895: %\Pi_{\mu\nu}^{\perp}=\varepsilon_{\mu}^{+}\left(  \varepsilon_{\nu}%

1896: %^{+}\right)  ^{\ast}+\varepsilon_{\mu}^{-}\left(  \varepsilon_{\nu}%

1897: %^{-}\right)  ^{\ast}=-\eta_{\mu\nu}-P_{\mu}Q_{\nu}-P_{\nu}Q_{\mu},\quad

1898: %Q_{\mu}=O(1/E).

1899: %\]

1900: 

1901: 

1902: The main points of the above discussion --- the form of the total current, the

1903: Goldberger-Treiman relation, the fact that the massive gauge boson couples to

1904: the same matter current, and the equivalence theorem --- will find their

1905: analogues in the gravitino case.

1906: 

1907: \subsubsection*{Goldstino interaction}

1908: 

1909: We now repeat the steps in the previous section in the case of supersymmetry,

1910: under which the Goldstino $\chi$ transforms as $\delta\chi=\sqrt

1911: {2}F\varepsilon$, where $F$ is a supersymmetry-breaking vev\footnote{Although

1912: we choose the notations and normalizations which are standard for $F$-term

1913: supersymmetry breaking, the result apply to any combination of $F$ and

1914: $D$-term breaking.} and $\varepsilon$ is the supersymmetric parameter. The

1915: supercurrent is

1916: \begin{equation}

1917: S^{\mu}=S_{\text{vis}}^{\mu}+i\sqrt{2}F\gamma^{\mu}\chi\label{s-full}%

1918: \end{equation}

1919: where the apex `vis' signals that we are interested in theories consisting of

1920: a visible and a hidden sector. Supersymmetry is broken spontaneously in a

1921: heavy hidden sector, and its  low energy remnant is the Goldstino field:

1922: all other hidden sector fields can be integrated out, if one is interested in

1923: energies below the  messenger scale. The full supercurrent is

1924: conserved:

1925: \begin{equation}

1926: \partial_{\mu}S^{\mu}=\partial_{\mu}S_{\text{vis}}^{\mu}+i\sqrt{2}%

1927: F\ds \,\chi=0. \label{eq:dS0}%

1928: \end{equation}

1929: The vanishing of~\textrm{(\ref{eq:dS0})} gives the equation of

1930: motion for $\chi$,

1931: %has to have the

1932: %form%

1933: %\[

1934: %i\partial\hspace{-5pt}{\scriptstyle/}\hspace{1pt}\chi=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}%

1935: %F}\partial_{\mu}S_{\text{vis}}^{\mu}%

1936: %\]

1937: and consequently implies the following Goldstino Lagrangian:

1938: \begin{equation}

1939: \Lags_{\text{Goldstino}}=\frac{1}{2}\bar{\chi}i\ds \,\chi

1940: -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}F}\bar{\chi}\,\partial_{\mu}S_{\text{vis}}^{\mu}%

1941: +\cdots\label{eq:LGoldstino}%

1942: \end{equation}

1943: where $\cdots$ indicates couplings involving two or more Goldstinos, not

1944: needed in our computation.

1945: 

1946: \subsubsection*{Massless gravitino}

1947: 

1948: In the supersymmetric limit, the massless gravitino is described by a Majorana

1949: Rarita-Schwinger field $\psi_{\mu}$ with Lagrangian

1950: \begin{equation}

1951: {{\fam\rsfsfam\relax L}}=-\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\bar{\psi

1952: }_{\mu}\gamma_{5}\gamma_{\nu}\partial_{\rho}\psi_{\sigma}\label{RS-lagr}%

1953: \end{equation}

1954: invariant under the gauge SUSY transformations with parameter $\varepsilon$:

1955: $\delta\psi_{\mu}=-2\bar{M}_{\text{Pl}}\partial_{\mu}\varepsilon$. Here

1956: $\bar{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}=M_{\mathrm{Pl}}/8\pi=2.4~10^{18}\,\mathrm{GeV}$ is the

1957: reduced Planck mass. The variation of the matter action defines the Majorana

1958: supercurrent $S_{\mu}$ as

1959: \begin{equation}

1960: \delta S_{\text{matter}}=\int d^{4}x~\bar{S}^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}\varepsilon.

1961: \end{equation}

1962: Demanding that the full action is invariant to zeroth order in $\bar

1963: {M}_{\text{Pl}}^{-1}$ one obtains how the massless gravitino interacts with

1964: the supercurrent

1965: \begin{equation}

1966: {\Lags}_{\text{int}}=\frac{1}{2\bar{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\bar{\psi}_{\mu}S^{\mu

1967: }.\label{grav-int}%

1968: \end{equation}

1969: %no +h.c.

1970: 

1971: 

1972: \subsubsection*{Super-Higgs mechanism}

1973: 

1974: We will now follow how the massless gravitino eats the Goldstino, getting a

1975: mass via the super-Higgs mechanism. First of all, the gauge-invariant action

1976: for the goldstino-gravitino system is~\cite{GraviGold,Cremmer}:

1977: \begin{equation}

1978: \Lags =-\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\bar{\psi

1979: }_{\mu}\gamma_{5}\gamma_{\nu}\partial_{\rho}\psi_{\sigma}+\frac{1}{2}\bar

1980: {\chi}i\ds\,\chi-m_{3/2}\bigg[\frac{1}{4}\bar{\psi}_{\mu}[\gamma^{\mu}%

1981: ,\gamma^{\nu}]\psi_{\nu}+\bar{\chi}\chi-\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\bar{\psi}_{\mu

1982: }i\gamma^{\mu}\chi\bigg].\label{grav-gold}%

1983: \end{equation}

1984: It contains a gravitino-goldstino mixing mass term, that agrees with the form

1985: of the supercurrent, eq.~(\ref{s-full}). Indeed, this Lagrangian is invariant

1986: under the local field transformations:

1987: \begin{align*}

1988: \delta\psi_{\mu} &  =-\bar{M}_{\text{Pl}}(2\partial_{\mu}\varepsilon

1989: +im_{3/2}\gamma^{\mu}\varepsilon),\\

1990: \delta\chi &  =\sqrt{2}F\varepsilon,

1991: \end{align*}

1992: provided that the gravitino mass $m_{3/2}$ and the SUSY breaking vev $F$ are

1993: related as

1994: \begin{equation}

1995: m_{3/2}=\frac{F}{\sqrt{3}\bar{M}_{\text{Pl}}}.\label{eq:Gmass}%

1996: \end{equation}

1997: (The derivation above used the flat space assumption). Introducing the

1998: gravitino mass required a deformation of the supersymmetric transformation of

1999: the gravitino, and the gravitino interaction term with matter (\ref{grav-int})

2000: is no longer invariant. To restore invariance, we must add to the Lagrangian

2001: the term

2002: \begin{equation}

2003: \frac{m_{3/2}}{2\sqrt{2}F}\bar{\chi}i\slashed{S}=\frac{1}{2\bar{M}_{\text{Pl}%

2004: }}\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\bar{\chi}i\slashed{S}\qquad\slashed{S}=\gamma_{\mu

2005: }S_{\mathrm{vis}}^{\mu}\label{eq:trace}%

2006: \end{equation}

2007: It may seem surprising at first to find this new coupling of Goldstino to the

2008: supercurrent in addition to the one in (\ref{eq:LGoldstino}). However, there

2009: is no contradiction since the new term vanishes as gravity is decoupled.

2010: 

2011: We can now choose the unitary gauge $\chi=0$ or equivalently

2012: define\footnote{This notation reflects the fact that $\Psi_{\mu}$ is `bigger'

2013: than $\psi_{\mu}$ since it contains more degrees of freedom.}

2014: \begin{equation}

2015: \Psi_{\mu}=\psi_{\mu}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}i\gamma^{\mu}\chi-\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}%

2016: }\frac{\partial_{\mu}\chi}{m_{3/2}},\label{eq:massive}%

2017: \end{equation}

2018: such that the whole Lagrangian describing gravitino, goldstino, and their

2019: interaction with matter can be rewritten as~\cite{Cremmer}

2020: \begin{equation}

2021: \Lags=-\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\bar{\Psi

2022: }_{\mu}\gamma_{5}\gamma_{\nu}\partial_{\rho}\Psi_{\sigma}-\frac{m_{3/2}}%

2023: {4}\bar{\Psi}_{\mu}[\gamma^{\mu},\gamma^{\nu}]\Psi_{\nu}+\frac{1}{2\bar

2024: {M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\bar{\Psi}_{\mu}S_{\mathrm{vis}}^{\mu}.\label{eq:full}%

2025: \end{equation}

2026: %This is similar to the standard Higgs mechanism, when the full action could be

2027: %written in terms of $A_{\mu}-\frac{1}{v}\partial_{\mu}\chi$. Alternatively to

2028: %such rewriting, we can simply use local susy invariance to set $\chi=0.$

2029: This is the Lagrangian describing the massive gravitino $\Psi_{\mu}$. We see

2030: that it couples to $S_{\mathrm{vis}}^{\mu}$.

2031: 

2032: \subsubsection*{Equivalence theorem}

2033: 

2034: The Lagrangian (\ref{eq:full}) could be used to study production of

2035: massive gravitinos at any energy below the messenger scale. In this

2036: paper, we are interested in energies much bigger than $m_{3/2}$ and

2037: the sparticle masses. A simpler effective Lagrangian appropriate for

2038: these energies can be derived by noticing that the mass terms and

2039: mixings between $\psi_{\mu}$ and $\chi$ in (\ref{grav-gold}) can be

2040: neglected. Thus we can study production of \textit{massless}

2041: gravitinos $\psi_{\mu}$ and Goldstinos $\chi$ coupled to the

2042: visible sector by%

2043: \begin{equation}

2044: \Lags_{\text{int}}=\frac{1}{2\bar{M}_{\text{Pl}}}\bar{S}_{\text{vis}}^{\mu

2045: }(\psi_{\mu}-\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}}i\gamma_{\mu}\chi)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}F}\bar

2046: {\chi}\partial_{\mu}S_{\text{vis}}^{\mu}.\label{eq:ETappendix}%

2047: \end{equation}

2048: This is the analogue of the previously mentioned equivalence theorem for

2049: production of gauge bosons at energies much larger than their masses. In the

2050: massive gauge boson case, the equivalence theorem could also be derived from

2051: the form of the physical state projector of the massive gauge boson. Below we

2052: will see that an analogous derivation can also be given for the massive

2053: gravitino case. Just as in the gauge boson case, we can assume that the

2054: supercurrent in the coupling $\bar{S}_{\text{vis}}^{\mu}\psi_{\mu}$ is

2055: conserved; in the Goldstino coupling the current nonconservation is of course

2056: crucial and has to be taken into account.

2057: %We can neglect the gravitino mass and use the polarization tensor... and

2058: %$p\hspace{-4.2pt}{\scriptstyle/}$ for Goldstinos. (In other words, we can

2059: %treat the mass terms as small perturbations). In the MSSM we can drop

2060: %$\slashed{S}$%

2061: %.\textbf{\color{magenta}[\color{red}BUT: CANCELLATION IN \eq{decompo}??

2062: %EFFECTS OF NEW TERM ZERO IN SCATTERINGS AND SUPPRESSED BY $g^2$ at FINITE $T$?\color{magenta}]}

2063: %The supercurrent is given in... and its divergence in.... In practice, this

2064: %means that we should use the projector obtained by keeping only $m_{3/2}^{-2}$

2065: %and $m_{3/2}^{0}$ terms in (\ref{Pi-massive}).

2066: 

2067: 

2068: A further simplification concerns the Goldstino coupling (\ref{eq:trace}): as

2069: we explain below this coupling is irrelevant in MSSM at energies much above

2070: the $\mu$-term due to approximate scale-invariance. Thus

2071: \begin{equation}

2072: \Lags_{\text{int}}=\frac{1}{2\bar{M}_{\text{Pl}}}\bar{\psi}_{\mu}%

2073: S_{\text{vis}}^{\mu}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}F}\bar{\chi}\partial_{\mu}S_{\text{vis}%

2074: }^{\mu}\qquad \text{ \ (MSSM)}.\label{eq:ET_MSSM}%

2075: \end{equation}

2076: 

2077: 

2078: It is instructive to compare the relative importance of the two terms in

2079: (\ref{eq:ET_MSSM}) for the total production rate. Since the divergence of the

2080: supercurrent will be proportional to the soft-breaking masses (see below), the

2081: effective coupling in the second term is $m_{\text{soft}}/F\sim

2082: 1/M_{\text{mess}}$. Thus the two terms are equally important if SUSY breaking

2083: is mediated by gravity, $M_{\mathrm{mess}}\sim\bar{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}$. If

2084: instead $M_{\mathrm{mess}}\ll\bar{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}$, like in gauge-mediation

2085: models, the Goldstino term dominates~\cite{gravitinoCosmo}.

2086: 

2087: %\textit{Remark}. In a more complete analysis the action (\ref{full}) comes out

2088: %of the full SUGRA action. The above discussion shows that the relevant terms

2089: %can be derived in a simpler way.

2090: 

2091: 

2092: \subsection{The gravitino propagator and polarization tensor}

2093: 

2094: \subsubsection*{Massless gravitino}

2095: 

2096: Since the Lagrangian is invariant under local supersymmetry, the same physics

2097: can be described by different choices of gravitino propagators and

2098: polarization tensors. Analogously to the vector case, the sum over the two

2099: physical transverse polarizations is (see \cite{Van})

2100: \begin{equation}

2101: \Pi^{3/2}_{\mu\nu}(P)\equiv\sum_{i=\pm}\Psi_{\mu}^{(i)}\bar{\Psi}_{\nu}^{(i)}%

2102: =\frac{1}{2}\gamma_{\nu}P\hspace{-1.5ex}/\,\gamma_{\mu}

2103: -\frac{1}{2}P_{\mu}\gamma_{\nu}P\hspace{-1.5ex}/\,\slashed{Q}

2104: -\frac{1}{2}P_{\nu}\slashed{Q}P\hspace{-1.5ex}/\gamma^{\mu}

2105: +P_{\mu}P_{\nu}\slashed{Q}

2106: \end{equation}

2107: where $U$ is an arbitrary 4-velocity that defines a preferred reference frame

2108: used to define what `transverse' means, and $Q^{\mu}\equiv\lbrack2U^{\mu

2109: }(U\cdot P)-P^{\mu}]/2(U\cdot P)^{2}$. Gauge-invariant observables do not

2110: depend on the choice of $U$.

2111: %$$

2112: %\frac{1}{2} \left\{\hat{},\gamma _{},\gamma _{}\right\}-\frac{\left\{\hat{},\hat{},\gamma _{}\right\} P_{\mu }}{2 (P\cdot

2113: %V)}-\frac{\left\{\hat{}\right\} P_{\mu } P_{\nu }}{2 (P\cdot V)^2}+\frac{\left\{\hat{},\hat{},\gamma _{}\right\} P_{\nu

2114: %}}{2 (P\cdot V)}+\frac{\left\{\hat{}\right\} P_{\mu } V_{\nu }}{(P\cdot V)}-\left\{\hat{}\right\} \eta _{\mu \nu }$$

2115: 

2116: 

2117: \smallskip

2118: 

2119: As usual, local gauge invariance allows to define more convenient gauge

2120: choices. For example, one can impose the gauge-fixing condition $F\equiv

2121: \gamma^{\mu}\Psi_{\mu}=0$ (in this gauge one also has $\partial_{\mu}\Psi

2122: ^{\mu}=0$ as a consequence of the equations of motion). To derive the

2123: propagator, it is best to consider an analogue of the $\xi$-gauge by adding to

2124: the Lagrangian the gauge-fixing term $\bar{F} i \ds \,F/\xi$. Then the kinetic

2125: operator is invertible, and the gravitino propagator is~\cite{Das}

2126: \begin{equation}

2127: \frac{\Pi^{3/2}_{\mu\nu}}{P^{2}+i\varepsilon}\qquad\hbox{with}\qquad\Pi^{3/2}_{\mu\nu

2128: }=\frac{1}{2}\gamma^{\nu}P\hspace{-1.5ex}/\,\gamma^{\mu}-(2+\xi)\frac{P^{\mu

2129: }P\hspace{-1.5ex}/\,\,P^{\nu}}{P^{2}}. \label{ProjN}%

2130: \end{equation}

2131: As usual, $\Pi^{3/2}_{\mu\nu}$ is also the projector to be used when the massless

2132: gravitino production rate is summed over the gravitino polarizations. The

2133: dependence on the gauge-fixing parameter $\xi$ is irrelevant because the

2134: massless gravitino couples to the conserved supercurrent, $P_{\mu}S_{\mu}=0$.

2135: For the simplest choice $\xi=-2$ one has

2136: \begin{equation}

2137: \Pi^{3/2}_{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2}\gamma_{\nu}P\hspace{-1.5ex}/\,\gamma_{\mu}=-\frac

2138: {1}{2}\gamma_{\mu}P\hspace{-1.5ex}/\,\gamma_{\nu}-P\hspace{-1.5ex}/\,\eta

2139: _{\mu\nu}+\gamma_{\mu}P_{\nu}+P_{\mu}\gamma_{\nu}. \label{eq:PiN}%

2140: \end{equation}

2141: The last two terms do not contribute, again because the supercurrent is

2142: conserved. For our later computation we will choose

2143: \begin{equation}\label{eq:PiSenzaP}

2144: \Pi^{3/2}_{\mu\nu}=-\frac{1}{2}\gamma_{\mu}P\hspace{-1.5ex}/\,\gamma_{\nu}%

2145: -P\hspace{-1.5ex}/\,\eta_{\mu\nu}.

2146: \end{equation}

2147: %Indeed we will not have an explicit expression for the conserved supercurrent...........

2148: 

2149: 

2150: %\footnote{

2151: %More precisely, the sum over physical polarizations is

2152: %\[

2153: %\Pi_{\mu\nu}^{\text{phys}}=\sum_{i=\pm}\Psi_{\mu}^{(i)}\bar{\Psi}_{\nu}^{(i)}%

2154: %\]

2155: %where $\Psi_{\mu}^{\pm}$ are the helicity $\pm3/2$ states constructed by

2156: %multiplying the photon polarization vectors $\varepsilon_{\mu}^{\pm}$ and

2157: %helicity spinors: $\Psi_{\mu}^{\pm}=\varepsilon_{\mu}^{\pm}u^{\pm}$. However,

2158: %it can be checked that $\Pi_{\mu\nu}^{\text{phys}}$ and $\Pi_{\mu\nu}$ differ

2159: %only by terms proportional to $p^{\mu}$ and $p^{\nu}$ [van Nieuwenhuizen,

2160: %PhysRep 68, 1981, p.189]. One substitutes in (\ref{ProjN})

2161: %\begin{align*}

2162: %\ p\hspace{-4pt}{\scriptstyle/}\hspace{1pt}  &  =u^{+}\bar{u}^{+}+u^{-}\bar

2163: %{u}^{-},\\

2164: %\gamma^{\mu}  &  =\gamma^{\lambda}g_{\mu\lambda}=\gamma^{\lambda}%

2165: %(\varepsilon_{\mu}^{+}\varepsilon_{\lambda}^{-}+\varepsilon_{\mu}%

2166: %^{-}\varepsilon_{\lambda}^{+}+\text{terms proportional to }p_{\mu}\text{ or

2167: %}p_{\lambda})\\

2168: %&  =\varepsilon_{\mu}^{+}\varepsilon\hspace{-4pt}{\scriptstyle/}\hspace

2169: %{1pt}^{-}+\varepsilon_{\mu}^{-}\varepsilon\hspace{-4pt}{\scriptstyle/}%

2170: %\hspace{1pt}^{+}+\text{terms prop to }p_{\mu}\text{ or }p\hspace

2171: %{-4pt}{\scriptstyle/}\hspace{1pt}\text{ }%

2172: %\end{align*}

2173: %The terms proportional to $p_{\mu}$ are irrelevant for comparison, while terms

2174: %prop to $p\hspace{-4pt}{\scriptstyle/}\hspace{1pt}$ vanish because

2175: %$p\hspace{-4pt}{\scriptstyle/}\hspace{1pt}p\hspace{-4pt}{\scriptstyle/}%

2176: %\hspace{1pt}=0$ on shell. Thus we have

2177: %\begin{align*}

2178: %\Pi_{\mu\nu}  &  \sim\frac{1}{2}(\varepsilon_{\nu}^{+}\varepsilon\hspace

2179: %{-4pt}{\scriptstyle/}\hspace{1pt}^{-}+\varepsilon_{\nu}^{-}\varepsilon

2180: %\hspace{-4pt}{\scriptstyle/}\hspace{1pt}^{+})(u^{+}\bar{u}^{+}+u^{-}\bar

2181: %{u}^{-})(\varepsilon_{\mu}^{+}\varepsilon\hspace{-4pt}{\scriptstyle/}%

2182: %\hspace{1pt}^{-}+\varepsilon_{\mu}^{-}\varepsilon\hspace{-4pt}{\scriptstyle/}%

2183: %\hspace{1pt}^{+})\\

2184: %&  =\varepsilon_{\nu}^{-}u^{+}\bar{u}^{+}\varepsilon_{\mu}^{+}+\varepsilon

2185: %_{\nu}^{+}u^{-}\bar{u}^{-}\varepsilon_{\mu}^{-}=\Pi_{\mu\nu}^{\text{phys}}%

2186: %\end{align*}

2187: %where we used $\ \varepsilon\hspace{-4pt}{\scriptstyle/}\hspace{1pt}^{\pm

2188: %}u^{\pm}=0$,$\ \varepsilon\hspace{-4pt}{\scriptstyle/}\hspace{1pt}^{\mp}%

2189: %u^{\pm}=\sqrt{2}u^{\mp}$ which are best checked using explicit expressions for

2190: %$p$ along the 3-axis.

2191: 

2192: 

2193: %\[

2194: %\Pi_{\mu\nu}^{\text{t}}=\Pi_{\mu\nu}^{N}-\frac{1}{2}p_{\mu}\gamma^{\nu

2195: %}p\hspace{-4pt}{\scriptstyle/}\hspace{1pt}Q\hspace{-7pt}{/}-\frac{1}{2}p_{\nu

2196: %}Q\hspace{-7pt}{/}p\hspace{-4pt}{\scriptstyle/}\hspace{1pt}\gamma^{\mu}%

2197: %+p_{\nu}p_{\mu}Q\hspace{-7pt}{/}%

2198: %\]

2199: %where for lightlike $p_{\mu}=(p_{0},\vec{p}),$ $\vec{p}^{2}=p_{0}^{2}$ we have

2200: %$Q=\frac{1}{2p_{0}^{2}}(p_{0},-\vec{p})$. Covariantly one can define $U^{\mu

2201: %}=(1,0,0,0),$ and then $Q^{\mu}=[2U^{\mu}(Up)-p^{\mu}]/(2(Up)^{2}).$

2202: 

2203: 

2204: %}

2205: 

2206: 

2207: \subsubsection*{Massive gravitino and the equivalence theorem}

2208: 

2209: The massive gravitino is described by the Lagrangian (\ref{eq:full}). The mass

2210: term breaks the gauge symmetry present in the massless case. The equations of

2211: motion coming from the free part of~\textrm{(\ref{eq:full})} imply

2212: \begin{equation}

2213: \gamma_{\mu}\Psi_{\mu}=0,\qquad\partial_{\mu}\Psi_{\mu}=0,\qquad

2214: (\slashed{P}-m_{3/2})\Psi_{\mu}=0.\label{on-shell}%

2215: \end{equation}

2216: In the massless case the first two equations could have been imposed as

2217: gauge-fixing conditions. The resulting propagator is~\cite{Van} $\Pi_{\mu\nu

2218: }/(P^{2}-m_{3/2}^{2}+i\varepsilon)$ where

2219: \begin{equation}

2220: \Pi_{\mu\nu}=-(\slashed{P}+m_{3/2})\left(  g_{\mu\nu}-\frac{P_{\mu}P_{\nu}%

2221: }{m_{3/2}^{2}}\right)  -\frac{1}{3}\left(  \gamma^{\mu}+\frac{P^{\mu}}%

2222: {m_{3/2}}\right)  (\slashed{P}-m_{3/2})\left(  \gamma^{\nu}+\frac{P^{\nu}%

2223: }{m_{3/2}}\right)  .\label{eq:Pimassive}%

2224: \end{equation}

2225: Again $\Pi_{\mu\nu}$ is also the polarization tensor to be used when summing

2226: over all physical polarizations: $\Pi_{\mu\nu}=\sum_{i=\pm\frac{1}{2},\pm

2227: \frac{3}{2}}\Psi_{\mu}^{(i)}\bar{\Psi}_{\nu}^{(i)}$. One can check

2228: that~\textrm{(\ref{eq:Pimassive})} is consistent with (\ref{on-shell}).

2229: 

2230: In this paper we are interested in production of ultrarelativistic gravitinos.

2231: To study this limit, we expand~\textrm{(\ref{eq:Pimassive}) }in powers of

2232: $m_{\text{3/2}}$:

2233: \begin{align}

2234: \Pi_{\mu\nu}= &  ~\frac{2}{3}\frac{P_{\mu}P_{\nu}\slashed{P}}{m_{3/2}^{2}%

2235: }+\frac{4P_{\mu}P_{\nu}-\slashed{P}\gamma^{\nu}P^{\mu}-\gamma^{\mu

2236: }\slashed{P}P^{\nu}}{3m_{3/2}}\nonumber\\

2237: &  ~+\left(  -g_{\mu\nu}\slashed{P}-\frac{1}{3}\gamma_{\mu}\slashed{P}\gamma

2238: _{\nu}+\frac{1}{3}\gamma^{\mu}P^{\nu}+\frac{1}{3}\gamma^{\nu}P^{\mu}\right)

2239: +\left(  \frac{\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{\nu}}{3}-g^{\mu\nu}\right)  m_{3/2} .

2240: \label{Pi-massive}%

2241: \end{align}

2242: If the supercurrent to which the gravitino couples is conserved, the terms

2243: singular in $m_{3/2}$ give no contribution. The last term vanishes for

2244: $m_{3/2}\rightarrow0$. The term that does not depend on $m_{3/2}$

2245: \emph{differs} from the massless gravitino projector (\ref{eq:PiN}) by

2246: $\gamma_{\mu}\slashed{P}\gamma_{\nu}/6$, modulo irrelevant terms proportional

2247: to $P_{\mu}$ or $P_{\nu}$.

2248: 

2249: Thus in the limit $m_{3/2}\rightarrow0$ we not only recover the massless

2250: gravitino, but also get an additional massless spin $1/2$ fermion which

2251: couples to ${1}/\sqrt{6}$ times the `trace' of the supercurrent,

2252: $\slashed{S}=\gamma_{\mu}S^{\mu}$. This is akin to the van

2253: Dam-Veltman-Zakharov discontinuity~\cite{vVZ} encountered when adding to the

2254: graviton a Fierz-Pauli mass term $m_{g}$: the limit $m_{g}\rightarrow0$ then

2255: describes the usual massless graviton plus a scalar coupled to the trace of

2256: the energy-momentum tensor $T_{~\mu}^{\mu}$. In our case this `discontinuity'

2257: is entirely expected and is consistent with the equivalence theorem as

2258: expressed by eq.~(\ref{eq:ETappendix}): the extra spin 1/2 fermion is nothing but the Goldstino.

2259: 

2260: \medskip

2261: 

2262: When we take soft SUSY-breaking into account, the supercurrent is no

2263: longer conserved.

2264: The first term in (\ref{Pi-massive}) can then be interpreted as

2265: corresponding to the Goldstino production due to the last term in

2266: (\ref{eq:ETappendix}) (the coefficient agrees as one checks using

2267: (\ref{eq:Gmass})). In this derivation of the equivalence theorem it

2268: is non-obvious that the terms in (\ref{eq:Pimassive}) proportional

2269: to $m_{3/2}^{-1}$ should cancel, as is required for full agreement

2270: with~(\ref{eq:ETappendix}). However this cancellation does

2271: happen, as verified in the explicit computations needed for this paper.

2272: 

2273: 

2274: 

2275: 

2276: \subsection{MSSM supercurrent at zero temperature}

2277: 

2278: \subsubsection*{Gravitino couplings}

2279: 

2280: In a generic renormalizable SUSY gauge theory with vector supermultiplets

2281: $(A_{\mu}^{a},\lambda^{a})$ and matter chiral supermultiplets $\Phi_{i}%

2282: =(\phi_{i},\xi_{i})$ and superpotential $W$ the Weyl part $s^{\mu}$ of the

2283: Majorana supercurrent $S^{\mu}=(s^{\mu}$,$\bar{s}^{\mu})$ is (see

2284: e.g.\ \cite{Drees} or explicitly compute it)

2285: \begin{equation}

2286: s^{\mu}=-\sqrt{2}\left[  (D^{\nu}\phi_{i})^{\ast}(\sigma_{\nu}\bar{\sigma

2287: }^{\mu}\xi_{i})+iW_{i}^{\ast}(\phi^{\ast})\sigma^{\mu}\bar{\xi}_{i}\right]

2288: -\frac{1}{2}F_{\nu\rho}^{a}(\sigma^{\nu}\bar{\sigma}^{\rho}\sigma^{\mu}%

2289: \bar{\lambda}^{a})-ig(\phi_{i}^{\ast}T_{ij}^{a}\phi_{j})(\sigma^{\mu}%

2290: \bar{\lambda}^{a}) \label{eq:2-comp}%

2291: \end{equation}

2292: where $D_{ij}^{\mu}=\delta_{ij}\partial_{\mu}+igA^{\mu a}T_{ij}^{a}$ is the

2293: gauge-covariant derivative. The first two terms are the supercurrent of the

2294: Wess-Zumino model and of the SUSY gauge theory without matter. The third term

2295: is a correction which arises as a result of coupling between the two. (With

2296: the Noether formalism it would arise because the Lagrangian is supersymmetric

2297: up to a total derivative). In 4-component notation it becomes\footnote{See

2298: \cite{Weinberg}, page 141. Notice that~\cite{Weinberg} has a misprint in

2299: normalizing the second line of the RHS of (27.4.40), cf (26.7.10). The

2300: difference in $\gamma^{5}$ in the terms involving gluinos is because our

2301: gluino-squark-quark coupling is real: $\lambda_{\text{our}}=i\gamma^{5}%

2302: \lambda_{\text{his}}$. The extra $i$ is then compensated by the difference in

2303: $\gamma_{\text{our}}^{\mu}=i\gamma_{\text{his}}^{\mu}$.}:%

2304: \begin{align}

2305: S^{\mu}=  &  -\sqrt{2}\left[  (D^{\nu}\phi_{i})^{\ast}(\gamma^{\nu}\gamma

2306: ^{\mu}\xi_{L}^{i})+(D^{\nu}\phi_{i})(\gamma^{\nu}\gamma^{\mu}\xi_{R}%

2307: ^{i})-iW_{i}(\phi)\gamma^{\mu}\xi_{L}^{i}-iW_{i}^{\ast}(\phi^{\ast}%

2308: )\gamma^{\mu}\xi_{R}^{i}\right] \label{eq:4-comp}\\

2309: &  -\frac{1}{4}F_{\nu\rho}^{a}[\gamma^{\nu},\gamma^{\rho}]\gamma^{\mu}%

2310: \gamma^{5}\lambda^{a}-ig(\phi_{i}^{\ast}T_{ij}^{a}\phi_{j})\gamma^{\mu}%

2311: \lambda^{a}\nonumber

2312: \end{align}

2313: where we introduced Majorana spinors ($\xi_{i},\bar{\xi}_{i})^{T}$ and

2314: $(\lambda^{a},\bar{\lambda}^{a})^{T}$ which by abuse of notation we denoted

2315: again $\xi_{i}$ and $\lambda^{a}$. As usual $\xi_{L}\equiv P_{L}\xi$, $\xi

2316: _{R}\equiv P_{R}\xi$, $W_{i}=\partial W/\partial\phi_{i}$ and the index $i$

2317: runs over all chiral multiplets.

2318: 

2319: The supercurrent is conserved $\partial_{\mu}S^{\mu}=0$ as a

2320: consequence of equations of motion. After fixing the vector gauge

2321: symmetries in the usual way, the vector equations of motion change

2322: due to the gauge-fixing terms and to the ghost current. The ghosts

2323: are scalars under supersymmetry (in particular, they do not have

2324: superpartners and they couple only to the gauge field but not to the

2325: gaugino), and one could be worried that SUSY is broken by the gauge

2326: choice. Indeed the supercurrent divergence is no longer zero,

2327: however it is BRST exact (see e.g.~\cite{BRST}). Thus the amplitude

2328: for longitudinal gravitino emission still vanishes, and the

2329: gravitino gauge invariance is preserved.

2330: %The last terms of each line do not

2331: %contribute to massive gravitino production because $\gamma^{\mu}\Psi_{\mu}=0$

2332: %on shell, but must be taken into account when computing production of massless

2333: %gravitinos using the previously discussed gauge fixing.

2334: 

2335: 

2336: \smallskip

2337: 

2338: The terms proportional to $\gamma^{\mu}$ are sometimes omitted from the

2339: supercurrent expression (\ref{eq:4-comp}), because they do not contribute to

2340: the massive gravitino production due to the on-shell condition $\gamma^{\mu

2341: }\Psi_{\mu}=0$. However, one should be careful to keep these terms if one

2342: wants to use the equivalence theorem and the massless gravitino gauge

2343: invariance, because the supercurrent is no longer conserved if they are omitted.

2344: 

2345: %We are interested in gravitino production in the MSSM, which is dominated by the largest

2346: %adimensional  couplings:

2347: %the gauge couplings $g_3,g_2,g_Y$ and the top Yukawa coupling.

2348: 

2349: 

2350: %\subsubsection*{Gauge couplings. A CHE SERVE?}

2351: 

2352: 

2353: %This is the case considered by Buchmuller. We have gravitino production from

2354: %SUSY QCD with 6 chiral multiplets in fundamental and 6 in antifundamental.

2355: %Notationally it is simpler to employ Majorana notation for quarks rather than

2356: %to combine the fermions belonging to conjugate representations into one Dirac

2357: %spinor. The relevant supercurrent has the form\ (see (\ref{eq:4-comp})) where

2358: %$q$ is one of the 12 Majorana quarks and $\tilde{q}$ is the corresponding

2359: %squark:%

2360: %\begin{equation}

2361: %S^{\mu}=-\sqrt{2}\left[  (D^{\nu}\tilde{q})^{\ast}(\gamma^{\nu}\gamma^{\mu

2362: %}q_{L})+(D^{\nu}\tilde{q})(\gamma^{\nu}\gamma^{\mu}q_{R})\right]  -\frac{1}%

2363: %{4}F_{\nu\rho}^{a}[\gamma^{\nu},\gamma^{\rho}]\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{5}%

2364: %\lambda_{M}^{a}-ig_{3}(\tilde{q}^{\ast}T^{a}\tilde{q})\gamma^{\mu}\lambda

2365: %_{M}^{a} \label{eq:s_qcd}%

2366: %\end{equation}

2367: %The last term does not contribute to gravitino production because $\gamma

2368: %^{\mu}\Psi_{\mu}=0$ on shell. Typical gravitino production processes are

2369: %scatterings such as $gg\rightarrow\tilde{g}\tilde{G}$ via gluon exchange or

2370: %$qg\rightarrow\tilde{q}\tilde{G}$ via $q$ exchange, where one vertex comes

2371: %from the supercurrent and the other from the QCD Lagrangian. All the diagrams

2372: %are listed in Buchmuller.

2373: %\subsubsection*{Yukawa couplings}

2374: 

2375: 

2376: %In this case we have gravitino production from the Wess-Zumino model with the

2377: %superpotential:%

2378: %\begin{equation}

2379: %W=\lambda_{t}(QH)T\equiv\lambda_{t}\Phi_{1}(\Phi_{2}\Phi_{3}+\Phi_{4}\Phi_{5})

2380: %\label{eq:W_top}%

2381: %\end{equation}

2382: %The relevant terms in the superpotential are:%

2383: %\begin{equation}

2384: %S^{\mu}=-\sqrt{2}\left[  (\partial^{\nu}\phi_{i})^{\ast}(\gamma^{\nu}%

2385: %\gamma^{\mu}\xi_{L}^{i})+(\partial^{\nu}\phi_{i})(\gamma^{\nu}\gamma^{\mu}%

2386: %\xi_{R}^{i})-iW_{i}(\phi)\gamma^{\mu}\xi_{L}^{i}-iW_{i}^{\ast}(\phi^{\ast

2387: %})\gamma^{\mu}\xi_{R}^{i}\right]  \label{eq:s_WZ}%

2388: %\end{equation}

2389: %The last term does not contribute to gravitino production because $\gamma

2390: %^{\mu}\Psi_{\mu}=0$ on shell. Gravitino production processes are scatterings

2391: %$\phi\phi\rightarrow\xi\tilde{G}$, $\phi\xi\rightarrow\phi\tilde{G}$ via $\xi$

2392: %exchange and $\xi\xi\rightarrow\xi\tilde{G}$ via $\phi$ exchange, where one

2393: %vertex comes from the supercurrent and the other from the $\lambda_{\text{t}}$

2394: %Yukawa coupling term in the Wess-Zumino Lagrangian.

2395: 

2396: 

2397: \subsubsection*{Goldstino couplings}

2398: 

2399: According to the equivalence theorem discussed above, the spin $\pm1/2$

2400: component of the massive gravitino at high energies can be replaced by the

2401: Goldstino coupled to the divergence and trace $\slashed{S}$ of the visible

2402: sector supercurrent with coefficients given in (\ref{eq:ETappendix}).

2403: %. We have%

2404: %\begin{equation}

2405: %S_{\text{goldstino}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}F}\bar{\chi}\cdot\partial_{\mu}S^{\mu}.

2406: %\end{equation}

2407: The divergence $\partial_{\mu}S_{\text{vis}}^{\mu}$ measures the SUSY breaking

2408: in the visible sector, which at energies lower than the messenger scale looks

2409: like explicit breaking by soft terms. In absence of soft terms $\partial_{\mu

2410: }S_{\text{vis}}^{\mu}=0$ as a consequence of equations of motion. Nonzero soft

2411: terms modify the equations of motion, so that $\partial_{\mu}S_{\text{vis}%

2412: }^{\mu}\sim m_{\text{soft}}\neq0$. For dimensional reasons we can neglect

2413: dimension 2 soft terms (i.e.\ scalar squared masses): only soft terms with

2414: dimension 1 (i.e.\ gaugino masses $M$ and trilinear scalar couplings $A$)

2415: contribute to Goldstino production at dominant order, $\gamma\propto T^{6}$.

2416: By taking into account how the relevant soft terms modify the equations of

2417: motion of particles and sparticles we get

2418: %To obtain the goldstino coupling, we have to compute $\partial_{\mu}S^{\mu}$

2419: %taking into account that the equations of motion of gauginos and scalars get

2420: %modified in presence of the soft-breaking terms by the following correction

2421: %terms:%

2422: %\begin{equation}

2423: %\Delta(i\partial\!\!\!\raisebox{2pt}[0pt][0pt]{$\scriptstyle/$}\,\lambda

2424: %^{a})=m_{\lambda}\lambda^{a},\qquad\Delta(\partial^{2}\tilde{q})=-\lambda

2425: %_{t}A_{t}(h\tilde{t})^{\ast}\text{ }\&~\text{permutations.}%

2426: %\label{eq:gluino-mass}%

2427: %\end{equation}

2428: %We can treat the gauge and $\lambda_{t}$ effects independently. For the gauge

2429: %term we find, differentiating (\ref{eq:s_qcd}) and taking

2430: %eq.~(\ref{eq:gluino-mass}) into account:%

2431: \begin{equation}

2432: \partial_{\mu}S_{\text{vis}}^{\mu}=-\frac{iM}{4}F_{\nu\rho}^{a}[\gamma^{\nu

2433: },\gamma^{\rho}]\gamma^{5}\lambda^{a}-Mg(\phi^{\ast}T^{a}\phi)\lambda

2434: ^{a}+\sqrt{2}[(AW)_{i}(\phi)\xi_{L}^{i}+(AW)_{i}^{\ast}(\phi^{\ast})\xi

2435: _{R}^{i}] \label{eq:dS}%

2436: \end{equation}

2437: where $i$ runs over all chiral multiplets and a sum is understood over the

2438: components of the gauge group. The presence of the second gauge term was first

2439: noticed in~\cite{LeeWu}, and is here reobtained via a simple direct

2440: computation. Notice that to get it, it is crucial to keep the last term in

2441: eq.~\textrm{(\ref{eq:4-comp})}, that does not contribute to massive gravitino

2442: production due to the on-shell condition $\gamma^{\mu}\Psi_{\mu}=0$.

2443: 

2444: In the MSSM the relevant soft terms are the three gaugino masses

2445: $M_{1,2,3}$ and the top $A$-term, $A_{t}$:

2446: \begin{equation}

2447: \Lags_{\text{soft}}=\sum_{N=1}^{3} \frac{M_{N}}{2} \lambda^{a}_{N}\lambda

2448: ^{a}_{N}+ \lambda_{t}A_{t}(\tilde{Q}\tilde{U} H_{\mathrm{u}}%

2449: +\hbox{h.c.})+\cdots.

2450: \end{equation}

2451: 

2452: 

2453: \bigskip

2454: 

2455: %For the superpotential coupling (\ref{eq:W_top}) we find, differentiating

2456: %(\ref{eq:s_WZ}):

2457: %\[

2458: %\partial_{\mu}S^{\mu}=\sqrt{2}\lambda_{t}A_{\text{t}}[W_{i}(\phi)\xi_{L}%

2459: %^{i}+W_{i}^{\ast}(\phi^{\ast})\xi_{R}^{i}]\text{ \ \ (}\lambda_{t}\text{

2460: %contribution)}%

2461: %\]

2462: Finally, we elaborate on the Goldstino coupling to $\slashed{S}$, finding that

2463: it can be neglected in the MSSM. Using $\gamma^{\mu}[\gamma^{\nu},\gamma

2464: ^{\rho}]\gamma^{\mu}=0$, (\ref{eq:2-comp}) implies%

2465: \begin{equation}

2466: \bar{\sigma}^{\mu}s^{\mu}=-\sqrt{2}\left[  -2(D^{\nu}\phi_{i})^{\ast}%

2467: \sigma_{\nu}\xi_{i}+4iW_{i}^{\ast}(\phi^{\ast})\bar{\xi}_{i}\right]

2468: -4ig(\phi_{i}^{\ast}T_{ij}^{a}\phi_{j})\bar{\lambda}^{a}%

2469: \end{equation}

2470: Rewriting the first term as

2471: \[

2472: (D^{\nu}\phi_{i})^{\ast}\sigma_{\nu}\xi_{i}=\partial_{\nu}(\phi_{i}^{\ast

2473: }\sigma_{\nu}\xi_{i})-\phi_{i}^{\ast}\sigma_{\nu}D_{\nu}\xi_{i}%

2474: \]

2475: and using the fermion equation of motion, several terms cancel and we remain

2476: with%

2477: \begin{equation}

2478: \bar{\sigma}^{\mu}s^{\mu}=2\sqrt{2}\partial_{\nu}(\phi_{i}^{\ast}\sigma_{\nu

2479: }\xi_{i})+2\sqrt{2}i[\phi_{i}^{\ast}W_{ij}^{\ast}-2W_{j}^{\ast}(\phi^{\ast

2480: })]\bar{\xi}_{j}\label{Sslash}%

2481: \end{equation}

2482: The first term does not contribute to massless Goldstino production

2483: rate since

2484: $\bar{\chi}\partial_{\nu}(\phi_{i}^{\ast}\sigma_{\nu}\xi_{i})$

2485: vanishes on-shell due to $\bar{\sigma}_{\nu}\partial_{\nu}\chi=0.$

2486: The second term vanishes if $W_{j}$ is a quadratic function of the

2487: fields, i.e.\ for cubic terms in $W$. We thus conclude that the only

2488: nontrivial coupling to Goldstino arising from the (\ref{eq:trace})

2489: vertex is due to the

2490: $\mu$-term and is of the form%

2491: \[

2492: \sim\frac{\mu}{\bar{M}_{\text{Pl}}}\chi(H_{1}\tilde{H}_{2}+\tilde{H}_{1}%

2493: H_{2})+\text{h.c.}%

2494: \]

2495: This vertex is irrelevant at energies much bigger than $\mu$.

2496: 

2497: The reason for the above is that the trace of the supercurent $\slashed{S}$

2498: falls into a supersymmetric ``anomaly multiplet"

2499: \[

2500: \{\slashed{S},\partial_{\mu}R^{\mu},T_{\,\mu}^{\mu}\},

2501: \]

2502: where $T_{\,\mu}^{\mu}$ is the trace of the energy-momentum tensor expressing

2503: the scale invariance of the theory, and $R^{\mu}$ is the current of the

2504: $R$-symmetry under which all chiral multiplets have charge $2/3$ (see

2505: \cite{Weinberg}). In MSSM, both the scale invariance and the above

2506: $R$-symmetry are broken classically only by the $\mu$-term, and this explains

2507: $\slashed{S}\sim\mu$. At quantum level the scale invariance and the

2508: $R$-symmetry are anomalous, e.g. $\partial_{\mu}R^{\mu}$ is given by the

2509: triangle anomaly equation:%

2510: \[

2511: \partial_{\mu}R^{\mu}=\sum\frac{b_{N}g_{N}^{2}}{48\pi^{2}}F_{\mu\nu}%

2512: ^{(N)}\tilde{F}_{\mu\nu}^{(N)}%

2513: \]

2514: where the anomaly coefficients $b_{N}=\{11,1,-3\}$ are the same as the

2515: one-loop $\beta$-function coefficients of the MSSM gauge groups, which is

2516: again related to the fact that $\partial_{\mu}R^{\mu}$ and $T_{\,\mu}^{\mu}$

2517: are in the same supermultiplet. Since supersymmetry relates $\slashed{S}$ to

2518: $\partial_{\mu}R^{\mu}$, one can show that (see \cite{West})

2519: \begin{equation}

2520: \slashed{S}=\sum\frac{b_{N}g_{N}^{2}}{16\pi^{2}}F_{\mu\nu}^{(N)}[\gamma^{\mu

2521: },\gamma^{\nu}]\lambda^{(N)}.\label{anomaly}%

2522: \end{equation}

2523: Below we  argue that this equation can be used also at finite temperature.

2524: 

2525: \subsection{Gravitino and goldstino couplings at finite temperature}

2526: Gravitino production from a supersymmetric thermal plasma is best

2527: studied in terms of its non-time ordered propagator $\Pi^{<}(P)$ given by eq.~(\ref{eq:Pi<}). Supersymmetry is broken by finite temperature, but this

2528: breaking is spontaneous, so the supercurrent remains conserved:

2529: $\partial_{\mu}{}S_{\mu}=0$ holds as an operator equation. This means that the

2530: production rate of longitudinal gravitinos vanishes also at finite

2531: temperature. Equivalently, $\Pi^{<}(P)$ is invariant under gauge

2532: transformations of the gravitino polarization tensor,

2533: $

2534: \delta\Pi_{\mu\nu}^{3/2}=P_{\mu}A_{\nu}+P_{\nu}B_{\mu}$,

2535: with arbitrary $A,B$. The statements of the previous paragraph should hold identically in any

2536: computation including all diagrams to a given order in the thermal bath

2537: coupling $g$. In practice, however, it may be difficult to see the vanishing

2538: of $\delta\Pi^{<}$ explicitly. E.g.\ as explained in section~\ref{subtractions} we

2539: are resumming a well-defined class of physical effects to order $g^{4}$:

2540: those enhanced by a $1\to 2$ phase space factor, unlike a generic

2541: ${\cal O}(g^{4})$ correction. More precisely, diagram D is computed including thermal

2542: corrections to the propagators of particles to which the gravitino couples,

2543: while diagrams S$_{1,2,3}$ are computed using tree-level propagators.

2544: In particular, we do not include corrections to the gravitino vertex.

2545: For this reason we expect a residual gravitino gauge dependence, which we believe

2546: to be of relative order $g^{2}/\pi^2$ with respect to our result. The reason is that

2547: in our calculation of the massless gravitino production rate, thermal masses act

2548: similar to soft SUSY-breaking terms, modifying equations of motion by terms of

2549: order $g^{2}T$, so that $\partial\cdot S\sim g^{2}T$ rather than being zero.

2550: This means that $\delta\Pi^{<}\sim {\cal O}(g^{4})$.

2551: We see that this non-gauge invariance is of the right order of

2552: magnitude to be cancelled by vertex corrections.

2553: The above residual non-gauge invariance can be tolerated when computing

2554: the massless gravitino production rate.

2555: 

2556: When computing the Goldstino

2557: production rate, we have taken into account that,

2558: in absence of soft-SUSY breaking,

2559:  the Goldstino coupling to $\partial\cdot S$ vanishes at finite temperature

2560:  by evaluating  the divergence of the supercurrent before

2561: computing the thermal matrix element, i.e.\ we start the

2562: finite-temperature computation from eq. (\ref{eq:dS}). Since we do

2563: not evaluate vertex corrections, this procedure is expected to give

2564: a result with the same ${\cal O}(g^{2}/\pi^2)$ error as the

2565: gravitino production rate.

2566: 

2567: Finally, the anomaly relation (\ref{anomaly}) valid at zero

2568: temperature also holds at finite temperature.

2569: The argument is the same as in case of the supercurrent conservation:

2570: the thermal bath is a background, and~(\ref{anomaly})

2571: is a dynamical property of the Hamiltonian valid for any background. In

2572: practice this means that the Goldstino coupling to $\slashed{S}$ can be neglected.

2573: 

2574: 

2575: 

2576: 

2577: 

2578: \setcounter{equation}{0}

2579: \section{Vector propagator at finite temperature}\label{thermal}

2580: We list the full one-loop expressions for thermal corrections to a vector

2581: with four-momentum $K=(\omega,\vec{k})$ ($K^2=\omega^2-k^2$)

2582: with respect to the  rest frame of the thermal plasma.

2583: In general, we denote by $U_\mu$ the four-velocity $U_\mu$ of the plasma.

2584: We use the Feynman gauge where all effects are condensed in two

2585: form factors even in the non-abelian case~\cite{WeldonVector}.

2586: Polarizations are conveniently decomposed in

2587:  $T$ransverse

2588: (i.e.\ orthogonal to $K$ and to $\vec{k}$), $L$ongitudinal

2589: (i.e.\ orthogonal to $K$ and parallel to $\vec{k}$) and

2590: parallel to $K$.

2591: The corresponding projectors $(\Pi^T +\Pi^L +\Pi^K)_{\mu \nu}=-\eta_{\mu\nu}$ are

2592: \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:PiV}

2593: \Pi_{\mu\nu}^T &=&-\tilde{\eta}_{\mu\nu}+\frac{\tilde{K}_\mu\tilde{K}_\nu}{-k^2}=

2594:  \begin{pmatrix}

2595: 0 & 0\cr 0 & \delta_{ij}- k_i k_j/k^2 \end{pmatrix},\\

2596:  \Pi_{\mu\nu}^L &=& -\eta_{\mu\nu} + \frac{K_\mu K_\nu}{K^2} -\Pi_{\mu\nu}^T ,\\

2597: \Pi_{\mu\nu}^K  &=&  - \frac{K_\mu K_\nu}{K^2},

2598: \end{eqnsystem}

2599: where $\tilde{\eta}_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}-U_\mu U_\nu$, $\tilde{K}_{\mu} = K_\mu - (K\cdot U) U_\mu$.

2600: The vector propagator is

2601: \beq^*D_{\mu\nu} =  i\bigg[\frac{\Pi_{\mu\nu}^T}{K^2-\pi_0- \pi_T} + \frac{\Pi_{\mu\nu}^L}{K^2-\pi_0-\pi_L} +  \frac{\Pi_{\mu\nu}^K}{K^2}\bigg].\eeq

2602: In the following $\simeq$ denotes the HTL limit,

2603: where the result can be expressed in terms of the  vector thermal mass $m_V^2 = \frac{1}{6}g^2 T^2 (N+N_S + N_F/2)$, where the $V$ector, $F$ermion and $S$calar coefficients  are defined having in mind a group $\SU(N)$ with $N_F$ massless

2604: Dirac fermions and $N_S$ scalars plus anti-scalars  in the fundamental representation. Table~\ref{tab:NNN} lists the explicit values of $N,N_F,N_S$ in the SM and in the MSSM.

2605: The one-loop quantum correction at $T=0$ in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme is

2606: % COMPUTATION OF THE SCALAR COEFFICIENT.

2607: % the ratios for fermions and scalars are the same as in gauge beta functions.

2608: % in the SM H contributes to the beta function 1/2  than L.

2609: % we are using units where both L and H count as "N=1/2"

2610: %%\footnote{\color{red}

2611: %%ADD $N_S$, FIX FACTORS USING [WELDON]

2612: %%$$

2613: %%\Pi_{\mu\nu} = g^2 \frac{-5N+2 N_F}{48\pi^2} \ln \frac{-K^2}{\bar\mu^2}

2614: %%(K^2 \eta_{\mu\nu}-K_\mu K_\nu)$$}

2615: \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:vector}

2616: \pi_0 &=&  g^2 K^2 \frac{2 N_F+N_S-5N}{48\pi^2} \ln \frac{-K^2}{\bar\mu^2}   \label{eq:pi0}\\

2617: \riga{where the gauge-dependent vector loop gives a negative contribution to spectral densities

2618: above the light cone, at $K^2>0$.

2619: %{\em\color{red} MATTER WINS, but $\pi_0$ is 10 times smaller than $\pi_{L,T}$

2620: %above the light cone: is the $48\pi^2$ factor correct?.}

2621: The thermal corrections are}\\

2622: \pi_L &=&  -\frac{K^2}{k^2} g^2 (N_S H_S + N_F H_F + N H_V) \simeq

2623: -\frac{K^2}{k^2} (L+1) m_V^2 ,\\

2624: \pi_T &=& -\frac{\pi_L}{2} + \frac{g^2}{2}(N_S G_S + N_F G_F + N G_V)\simeq m_V^2 (1+\frac{K^2}{k^2}\frac{L+1}{2})\\

2625: \riga{where}\\[-2ex]

2626: G_S &=& \int_0^\infty \frac{dp}{2\pi^2}\bigg[4p - \frac{K^2}{4k} L_- \bigg] n_B(p)\simeq \frac{T^2}{3} \\

2627: G_F &=& \int_0^\infty \frac{dp}{2\pi^2}\bigg[4p + \frac{K^2}{2k}L_- \bigg] n_F(p) \simeq \frac{T^2}{6}\\

2628: G_V &=& \int_0^\infty \frac{dp}{2\pi^2}\bigg[4p+\frac{5K^2}{4k}L_- \bigg]n_B(p) \simeq \frac{1}{3}T^2\\

2629: H_S &=& \int_0^\infty \frac{dp}{2\pi^2}\bigg[2p L

2630: +\frac{M}{k}  +\frac{k}{4} L_- \bigg]n_B(p) \simeq \frac{L+1}{6}T^2  \\

2631: H_F &=& \int_0^\infty \frac{dp}{2\pi^2}\bigg[2pL+\frac{M}{k}

2632:  \bigg] n_F (p)\simeq  \frac{L+1}{12}T^2\\

2633: H_V &=& \int_0^\infty \frac{dp}{2\pi^2}\bigg[ 2pL+\frac{M}{k} -\frac{k}{4} L_- \bigg]n_B(p) \simeq \frac{L+1}{6}T^2

2634: \end{eqnsystem}

2635: having defined $\omega_\pm\equiv (\omega\pm k)/2$,

2636: $$L \equiv  1-\frac{\omega}{k}\ln\frac{\omega_+}{\omega_-},\qquad

2637: L_\pm  \equiv  \ln\frac{p+\omega_+}{p+\omega_-}\pm\ln\frac{p-\omega_+}{p-\omega_-},$$

2638: $$M  \equiv  (p+\omega_+)(p+\omega_-)\ln\frac{p+\omega_+}{p+\omega_-}-(p-\omega_+)(p-\omega_-)\ln\frac{p-\omega_+}{p-\omega_-}\simeq 2kp$$

2639: See~\cite{WeldonVector,thoma} for previous results. We added scalar

2640: loops and wrote logarithms such that imaginary parts (needed to get

2641: spectral densities) are obtained using the prescription $\omega\to

2642: \omega + i0^+$, with $\ln z$ having a cut along the negative real

2643: axis. We emphasize that our expressions cannot be simplified using

2644: $\ln(a b) = \ln a + \ln b$, because this would give wrong imaginary

2645: parts. The spectral densities employed in eq.\eq{rhoV} are defined

2646: as \beq \rho_T = -2\Im  \frac{1}{K^2 -\pi_0-\pi_T},\qquad \rho_L

2647: =-2\Im \frac{K^2}{k^2}\frac{1}{K^2-\pi_0-\pi_L}. \eeq As well

2648: known~\cite{WeldonVector,LeBellac} $\rho_L$ contains a collective

2649: longitudinal excitation, that corresponds to longitudinal waves of

2650: electric fields allowed by Maxwell equations with vanishing

2651: dielectric constant.

2652: 

2653: \begin{table}[t]

2654: \begin{center}

2655: $$\begin{array}{c|ccc|ccc}

2656: & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\hbox{Standard Model}} & \multicolumn{3}{|c}{\hbox{MSSM}}\\

2657: \hbox{Vector} & N & N_F & N_S & N & N_F & N_S\\ \hline

2658: \hbox{Gluon $\SU(3)_c$} & 3 &6 &0& 3&9&6\\

2659: \hbox{Weak $\SU(2)_L$}&2 & 6 &1/2 & 2 & 9 &7\\

2660: \hbox{Hypercharge ${\rm U}(1)_Y$} &0 & 10 & 1/2 & 0 & 11 & 11

2661: \end{array}$$

2662: \end{center}

2663: \caption{\label{tab:NNN}\em Numerical coefficients for vector thermal mass $m_V^2 = \frac{1}{6}g^2 T^2 (N+N_S + N_F/2)$.}

2664: \end{table}%

2665: 

2666: 

2667: \setcounter{equation}{0}

2668: \section{Fermion propagator at finite temperature}\label{thermalF}

2669: Fermions can receive thermal corrections from gauge and Yukawa couplings.

2670: In HTL approximation the full result is determined, in a generic non-supersymmetric theory,

2671: by one parameter, the thermal mass:

2672: \beq

2673: m_F^2 = \bigg[ \frac{C_R}{8} g^2 + \frac{\lambda^2}{16}\bigg]T^2\eeq

2674: where we used for $g,\lambda,C_R$ the same notation as in\eq{MTSUSY},

2675: except that $g,\lambda$ here denote non-supersymmetric couplings.

2676: The same parameter $m_F$ controls the full one-loop expression in the Feynman gauge.

2677: See~\cite{WeldonFermion,thoma} for previous results.

2678: %Real parts have been computed in~\cite{WeldonFermion}.

2679: %Our results are basically identical, except that our expressions

2680: %can also be used to compute imaginary parts.

2681: The spectral densities for particles ($\rho_+$) and holes ($\rho_-$) are given by

2682: %\beq

2683: %\rho_+ = -2 \Im\bigg[\omega - k - \frac{m_F^2}{k}(K+U(k-\omega))\bigg]^{-1},\qquad

2684: %% \frac{1}{A_0 - A_S},\qquad

2685: %\rho_- = - 2\Im\bigg[\omega + k + \frac{m_F^2}{k}(K-U(k+\omega))\bigg]^{-1}

2686: %% \frac{1}{A_0 + A_S}

2687: %\eeq

2688: %%where

2689: %%$$A_0 = \omega - m_F^2 U,\qquad A_S = k + \frac{m_F^2}{k} (K - \omega U)$$

2690: %where

2691: %\begin{eqnsystem}{sys:fermion}

2692: %K(\omega,k) &=& \int_0^\infty \frac{dp}{\pi^2}  \frac{\omega^2-k^2}{2k} L_- [n_F(p)-n_B(p)] ,\\

2693: %U(\omega,k) &=&  \int_0^\infty \frac{dp}{\pi^2} \frac{1}{k}\bigg[-L_+ p[n_F(p) + n_B(p)] - L_- \omega n_B(p)\bigg] .

2694: %\end{eqnsystem}

2695: \beq \rho_\pm = - \Im\bigg[\omega_\mp \bigg(1 - \frac{1}{2\pi^2}

2696: (\frac{C_R}{8} g^2+ \frac{\lambda^2}{16}) \ln \frac{-K^2}{\bar\mu^2}\bigg)

2697: + m_F^2 F_\pm

2698:   \bigg]^{-1}\eeq

2699: where the $T=0$ contribution gives a spectral density only above the light-cone, and

2700: \beq

2701: F_\pm (\omega,k) =

2702: \mp  \int_0^\infty \frac{dp}{\pi^2}\frac{\omega_\mp}{k^2}

2703: \bigg[ pL_+\cdot  (n_B(p)+n_F(p)) + L_- \cdot (n_B(p)\omega_- +n_F(p)\omega_+ )\bigg]

2704: %  \int_0^\infty \frac{dp}{\pi^2}\frac{\omega_\mp}{k^2}

2705: %\bigg[ k L_- [n_B(p)-n_F(p)] \mp (2 p L_+ + \omega L_-)[n_B(p)+n_F(p)]\bigg]

2706: \mp \frac{L \omega_\mp + \omega_\pm}{k\omega}.

2707: \eeq

2708: The functions $\omega_\pm = (\omega \pm k)/2$

2709: and $L_\pm$ are the same previously defined for vectors.

2710: The last terms is the HTL contribution (complex only below the light-cone).

2711: Again branch cuts are defined by the prescription $\omega\to \omega + i 0^+$.

2712: 

2713: 

2714: \footnotesize

2715: 

2716: \bigskip\bigskip

2717: 

2718: 

2719: \begin{multicols}{2}

2720: \begin{thebibliography}{nn}

2721: 

2722: \bibitem{gravitinoCosmo}

2723: \art{J.R.~Ellis, J.~E.~Kim, D.V.~Nanopoulos}{\PL}{B145}{181}{1984}.

2724: \art[hep-ph/9403364]{M. Kawasaki, T. Moroi}{Prog. Theor. Phys.}{93}{879}{1995}.

2725: See also \hepart[hep-ph/9503210]{T. Moroi}.

2726: \art[hep-ph/9809381]{M. Bolz, W. Buchmuller, M. Plumacher}{Phys. Lett.}{B443}{209}{1998}.

2727: 

2728: 

2729: \bibitem{Buch}

2730: \art[hep-ph/0012052]{M. Bolz, A. Brandenburg, W. Buchmuller}{Nucl. Phys.}{B606}{518}{2001}.

2731: 

2732: 

2733: \bibitem{postBuch}

2734: \hepart[hep-ph/0608344]{J. Pradler, F.D. Steffen}.

2735: \hepart[hep-ph/0612291]{J. Pradler, F.D. Steffen}.

2736: 

2737: 

2738: \bibitem{BY} \art{E. Braaten, T.C. Yuan}{\PRL}{66}{2183}{1991}.

2739: 

2740: 

2741: \bibitem{LeBellac}

2742: M. Le Bellac, {\em Thermal Field Theory}, Cambridge University Press (2000).

2743: %, ISBN0521654777.

2744: 

2745: 

2746: \bibitem{Pisarski92}

2747: \art{E. Braaten, R.D. Pisarski}{\PR}{D45}{R1827}{1992}.

2748: 

2749: 

2750: \bibitem{CE}

2751: \art[hep-ph/9606438]{D. Comelli, J. Espinosa}{Phys. Rev.}{D55}{6253}{1997}.

2752: 

2753: 

2754: \bibitem{WeldonFermion}

2755: Fermions at finite temperature.

2756: V.V. Klimov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 33, 934 (1981);

2757: H.~A.~Weldon, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {26}, 2789 (1982)

2758: and Phys.\ Rev.\ D {40}, 2410 (1989).

2759: 

2760: 

2761: \bibitem{WeldonVector}

2762: {Vectors at finite temperature}.

2763: D.~J.~Gross, R.~D.~Pisarski and L.~G.~Yaffe,

2764: %``QCD And Instantons At Finite Temperature,''

2765: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {53}, 43 (1981).

2766: \art{H. Weldon}{\PR}{D26}{1394}{1982}.

2767: H.~T.~Elze, K.~Kajantie and T.~Toimela,

2768: %``CHROMOMAGNETIC SCREENING AT HIGH TEMPERATURE,''

2769: Z.\ Phys.\ C {37}, 601 (1988).

2770: R.~Kobes, G.~Kunstatter and K.~W.~Mak,

2771: %``LINEAR RESPONSE OF THE HOT QCD PLASMA FROM THE GLUON PROPAGATOR,''

2772: Z.\ Phys.\ C {45}, 129 (1989).

2773: \art[hep-ph/9701279]{H. Weldon}{Annals Phys.}{271}{141}{1999}.

2774: %\art[hep-ph/9908204]{H. Weldon}{Phys. Rev.}{D61}{036003}{2000}.

2775: 

2776: 

2777: \bibitem{thoma}

2778: \art[hep-ph/9708434]{A. Peshier, K. Schertler, M. Thoma}{Annals Phys.}{266}{162}{1998}.

2779: 

2780: 

2781: \bibitem{wrong}

2782:   \art[hep-th/9404044]{W. Fischler}{Phys. Lett.}{B332}{277}{1994}.

2783: 

2784: 

2785: \bibitem{LR}

2786:   \art[hep-ph/9503402]{R. Leigh, R. Rattazzi}{Phys. Lett.}{B352}{20}{1995} and

2787:   \art[hep-ph/9505438]{J. Ellis, D. Nanopoulos, K. Olive, S. Rey}{Astropart. Phys.}{4}{371}{1996}

2788: showed that thermal effects do not give contributions to the gravitino production rate

2789: of the form $\gamma\approx T^8/m_{3/2}^2M_{\rm Pl}^2$.

2790: The first paper also showed that the mixing of the true Goldstino

2791: with the thermal Goldstino can be ignored.

2792: 

2793: 

2794: \bibitem{Ellis}

2795: \art[hep-ph/9505438]{J. Ellis, D. Nanopoulos, K. Olive, S. Rey}{Astropart. Phys.}{4}{371}{1996}.

2796: 

2797: 

2798: \bibitem{SUSYT}

2799: Supersymmetry at finite temperature.

2800:  \art{D. Boyanovsky}{\PR}{D29}{743}{1984}.

2801:  \art{H. Aoyama}{\PL}{B171}{420}{1986}.

2802:  \art{R. Gudmundsdottir, P. Salomonson}{\NP}{B285}{1}{1987}.

2803: \art[hep-th/0303260]{K. Kratzert}{Ann. Phys.}{308}{285}{2003}.

2804: See also among the references of these papers.

2805: %Other incorrect or out of focus works about the issue of  supersymmetry at finite temperature

2806: %can be found among the references of these works.

2807: We are aware of no works containing explicit results for the supercurrent at finite temperature.

2808: 

2809: \bibitem{largeNf}

2810: See \art[hep-ph/0301057]{A. Ipp, G. Moore, A. Rebhan}{JHEP}{01}{037}{2003}

2811: for a recent discussion and references.

2812: 

2813: 

2814: \bibitem{Starinets}

2815:   S.~Caron-Huot, P.~Kovtun, G.~D.~Moore, A.~Starinets and L.~G.~Yaffe,

2816:   %``Photon and dilepton production in supersymmetric Yang-Mills plasma,''

2817:   JHEP {0612}, 015 (2006)

2818:   [hep-th/0607237].

2819:   

2820:   

2821: \bibitem{flat}

2822: %\art[hep-ph/0512227]{R. Allahverdi, A. Mazumdar}{JCAP}{0610}{008}{2006}.

2823: For recent discussions see

2824: \art[hep-ph/0608096]{K. Olive, M. Peloso}{Phys. Rev.}{D74}{103514}{2006} and

2825: \hepart[hep-ph/0608296]{R. Allahverdi, A. Mazumdar}.

2826: 

2827: 

2828: 

2829: \bibitem{book} See e.g.\

2830: E. W. Kolb, M. S. Turner, {\it The Early

2831: Universe},

2832: (Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, Ca., 1990).

2833: 

2834: 

2835: \bibitem{leptog}

2836: The constraint on the reheating temperature for successful thermal MSSM leptogenesis was found to be

2837: $T_{\rm RH}> 1.6~10^{9}\GeV$ in

2838: \art[hep-ph/0310123]{G.F. Giudice, A. Notari, M. Raidal, A. Riotto, A. Strumia}{Nucl. Phys.}{B685}{89}{2004},

2839: working in one flavor approximation and warning that this approximation is generically accurate up to ${\cal O}(1)$ corrections.

2840: The constraint was reconsidered in  \hepart[hep-ph/0611232]{S. Antusch, A.M. Texeira},

2841: where flavor was included (and some ${\cal O}(g^2/\pi^2)$ corrections neglected),

2842: finding  $T_{\rm RH}>1.9~10^{9}\GeV$.

2843: 

2844: 

2845: \bibitem{WMAP}

2846: \hepart[astro-ph/0603449]{D.N.~Spergel {\it et al.} (WMAP Science Team)}.

2847: 

2848: 

2849: \bibitem{Moroi}

2850: \art[hep-ph/0507245]{K. Kohri, T. Moroi, A. Yotsuyanagi}{Phys. Rev.}{D73}{123511}{2006}.

2851: \hepart[hep-ph/0605215]{M. Pospelov}.

2852: 

2853: 

2854: \bibitem{Viel}

2855: \art[astro-ph/0605706]{M. Viel, J. Lesgourgues, M. Haehnelt, S. Matarrese, A. Riotto}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}{97}{071301}{2006}.

2856: 

2857: 

2858: \bibitem{altri}

2859: For recent works, see e.g.\

2860: \art[hep-ph/0512044]{K. Jedamzik, K. Choi, L. Roszkowski, R. Ruiz de Austri}{JCAP}{0607}{007}{2006}.

2861: \art[hep-ph/0607261]{J. Ellis, A. Raklev, O. Oye}{JHEP}{10}{061}{2006}.

2862: \hepart[astro-ph/0608562]{R.~H.~Cyburt, J.~Ellis, B.~D.~Fields, K.~A.~Olive and V.~C.~Spanos}{JCAP}{0611}{014}{2006}.

2863: %\art[hep-ph/0312262]{J.R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive, Y.~Santoso, V.~C.~Spanos}{\PL}{B588}{7}{2004}.

2864: 

2865: 

2866: \bibitem{DI}

2867: We here discuss the leptogenesis constraint on the reheating temperature.

2868: It is implied by  the Davidson-Ibarra bound

2869: \art[hep-ph/0202239]{S. Davidson, A. Ibarra}{Phys. Lett.}{B535}{25}{2002},

2870: that only holds up to an ${\cal O}(1)$ flavor factor

2871: (see e.g.\

2872: \art[hep-ph/0601084]{E. Nardi, Y. Nir, E. Roulet, J. Racker}{JHEP}{01}{164}{2006} and

2873: \hepart[hep-ph/0605281]{A. Abada, S. Davidson, F. Josse-Michaux, M. Losada, A. Riotto} for a recent discussion)

2874: as already claimed in

2875: \art[hep-ph/9911315]{R. Barbieri, P. Creminelli, N. Tetradis, A. Strumia}{\NP}{B575}{61}{2000}.

2876: Furthermore it holds assuming that right-handed neutrinos are very hierarchical:

2877: thermal leptogenesis at low temperature is possible within the standard see-saw

2878: if right-handed neutrinos  are mildly hierarchical (see e.g.\

2879: \art[hep-ph/0408015]{M. Raidal, A. Strumia, K. Turzynski}{Phys. Lett.}{B609}{351}{2005})

2880: or quasi-degenerate

2881: (see e.g.\

2882: \art{M. Flanz, E.A. Paschos, U. Sarkar and J. Weiss}{\PL}{B389}{693}{1996};

2883: \art{L. Covi, E. Roulet}{\PL}{B399}{113}{1997};

2884: \art[hep-ph/0309342]{A. Pilaftsis, T. Underwood}{Nucl. Phys.}{B692}{303}{2004}).

2885: 

2886: 

2887: \bibitem{Lykken}

2888: \hepart[hep-th/9612114]{J.~D.~Lykken}.

2889:   %``Introduction to supersymmetry,''

2890: 

2891: 

2892: 

2893: \bibitem{GraviGold}

2894: S.~Deser and B.~Zumino,

2895:   %``Broken Supersymmetry And Supergravity,''

2896:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {38}, 1433 (1977).

2897: 

2898: 

2899: \bibitem{Cremmer} E.~Cremmer, B.~Julia, J.~Scherk, S.~Ferrara, L.~Girardello

2900: and P.~van Nieuwenhuizen,

2901:   %``Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking And Higgs Effect In Supergravity Without

2902:   %Cosmological Constant,''

2903:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {147}, 105 (1979).

2904: 

2905: 

2906: \bibitem{Van}

2907:  P.~Van Nieuwenhuizen,

2908:   %``Supergravity,''

2909:   Phys.\ Rept.\  {68}, 189 (1981).

2910: 

2911: 

2912: \bibitem{Das}

2913:  A.~Das and D.~Z.~Freedman,

2914:   %``Gauge Quantization For Spin 3/2 Fields,''

2915:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {114}, 271 (1976).

2916: 

2917: 

2918: \bibitem{vVZ}

2919:  H.~van Dam and M.~J.~G.~Veltman,

2920:   %``Massive And Massless Yang-Mills And Gravitational Fields,''

2921:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {22}, 397 (1970).

2922:   V.~I.~Zakharov,

2923:   %``Linearized gravitation theory and the graviton mass,''

2924:   JETP Lett.\  {12}, 312 (1970)

2925:   [Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\  {12}, 447 (1970)].

2926: 

2927: 

2928: \bibitem{Drees}

2929:   M.~Drees, R.~Godbole and P.~Roy,

2930:   ``{\em Theory and phenomenology of sparticles: An account of four-dimensional $N=1$

2931:   supersymmetry in high energy physics}'', World Scientific, 2004.

2932: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=6240364}{SPIRES entry}

2933: 

2934: 

2935: \bibitem{Weinberg}

2936:   S.~Weinberg,

2937:   ``{\it The quantum theory of fields.  Vol. 3: Supersymmetry}''.

2938: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=4384008}{SPIRES entry}

2939: 

2940: 

2941: \bibitem{BRST}

2942: \art[hep-th/9708007]{K.~Fujikawa and K.~Okuyama}{\NP}{B521}{401}{1998}.

2943:   %``BRST gauge fixing and the algebra of global supersymmetry,'' .

2944: 

2945: 

2946: \bibitem{LeeWu}

2947: %\art{P. Fayet}{\PL}{84B}{421}{1979}.

2948: \art{T. Lee, G.-H. Wu}{\PL}{B447}{83}{1999}.

2949: 

2950: 

2951: \bibitem{West}

2952:   P.~C.~West, ``{\em Introduction to supersymmetry and supergravity}'', World Scientific, 1990.

2953: 

2954: 

2955: \end{thebibliography}\end{multicols}

2956: \end{document}

2957: