1: \tolerance=10000
2: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
3: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
4: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
5: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
6: \newcommand{\beas}{\begin{eqnarray*}}
7: \newcommand{\eeas}{\end{eqnarray*}}
8: \newcommand{\dia}{\!\!\!\!\!\not\,\,\,}
9: \newcommand{\para}{||}
10: \newcommand{\sss}{{s}}
11: \newcommand{\sy}{{\mbox{{\bf \scriptsize{Y}}}}}
12: \newcommand{\syy}{{\mbox{\tiny{Y}}}}
13: \newcommand{\sye}{{\mbox{{\bf \tiny{Y}}}}}
14: \newcommand{\ext}{{\mbox{\tiny{ext}}}}
15: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
16: \newcommand{\slsh}[1]{{\not \! #1}}
17: \newcommand{\slshh}[1]{{\not \!\! #1}}
18: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{\left| #1 \right.\rangle}
19: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\langle \left.#1 \right|}
20: \newcommand{\sand}[3]{\langle #1 \left| #2 \right| #3 \rangle}
21: \newcommand{\dk}{\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}}
22: \documentclass[twocolumn,aps,showpacs,nofootinbib,epsfig]{revtex4}
23: \usepackage{graphics}
24: \usepackage{epsfig}
25: \begin{document}
26:
27: \title{Effective potential at finite temperature in a constant
28: hypermagnetic field: Ring diagrams in the Standard Model}
29:
30: \author{Angel Sanchez$^\dagger$,
31: Alejandro Ayala$^\dagger$
32: and Gabriella Piccinelli$^\ddagger$
33: }
34:
35: \affiliation{$^\dagger$Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad
36: Nacional Aut\'onoma de M\'exico, Apartado Postal 70-543, M\'exico
37: Distrito Federal 04510, M\'exico.\\
38: $^\ddagger$Centro Tecnol\'ogico, FES Arag\'on,
39: Universidad Nacional Aut\'onoma de M\'exico,
40: Avenida Rancho Seco S/N, Bosques de Arag\'on,
41: Nezahualc\'oyotl, Estado de
42: M\'exico 57130, M\'exico.}
43:
44:
45: \begin{abstract}
46:
47: We study the symmetry breaking phenomenon in the standard model during the
48: electroweak phase transition in the presence of a constant
49: hypermagnetic field. We compute the finite temperature effective potential up
50: to the contribution of ring diagrams in the weak field, high temperature limit
51: and show that under these conditions, the phase transition becomes stronger
52: first order.
53:
54: \end{abstract}
55:
56: \pacs{98.62.En, 98.80.Cq, 12.38.Cy}
57:
58: \maketitle
59:
60: \section{Introduction}\label{I}
61:
62: The problem of baryogenesis is still one of the outstanding open questions in
63: cosmology, despite the large amount of work devoted to find a viable
64: explanation. The conditions for developing a baryon asymmetry in an initially
65: symmetric universe were established by Sakharov in 1967~\cite{Sakharov}
66: and the search for a scenario to encompass them continues. These three
67: well-known conditions are: (1) existence of
68: interactions that violate baryon number; (2) C and CP violation and
69: (3) departure from thermal equilibrium.
70:
71: The Standard Model (SM) of electroweak interactions meets all these
72: requirements, provided the electroweak phase transition (EWPT) be
73: first order, since, at that stage of the universe evolution, this is
74: the only possible source of departure from thermal equilibrium.
75: Nonetheless, it is well known that neither the amount of CP violation within
76: the minimal SM~\cite{Gavela}, nor the strength of the EWPT are enough to
77: generate a sizable baryon number~\cite{Kajantie1}.
78:
79: During the EWPT, the Higgs field vacuum expectation value changes from zero
80: (false vacuum) in the symmetric phase, to a finite value $\langle v\rangle$
81: (true vacuum) in the broken phase. This evolution is determined by the finite
82: temperature effective potential of the theory, that develops a barrier between
83: the two minima if the phase transition is first order. The temperature at
84: which the two minima are degenerate is called the critical temperature $T_c$
85: and this instant is considered the beginning of the phase transition. From
86: there on, the transition is accomplished through the nucleation, expansion and
87: percolation of true vacuum bubbles in the background of false vacuum, leading
88: to a departure from equilibrium conditions.
89:
90: The existence of baryon number violation is realized in the SM by
91: means of its vacuum structure through {\it sphaleron} mediated processes.
92: The sphaleron~\cite{Klinkhamer} is a static and unstable solution of the
93: field equations of non-Abelian gauge theories, corresponding to the top of the
94: energy barrier between topologically distinct vacua, where the minima
95: correspond to configurations with zero gauge field energy but
96: different baryon number. Transitions are associated to baryon number
97: $n_{B}-n_{\bar{B}}$ violation and can either induce or wash
98: out a baryon asymmetry.
99:
100: The above property of sphalerons makes the preservation of a given baryon
101: asymmetry one of the most difficult conditions to meet during the baryogenesis
102: process in the majority of the proposed scenarios. This requires that the
103: baryon violating transition between different topological vacua is suppressed
104: in the broken phase, when the universe returns to thermal equilibrium.
105: In other words, the sphaleron transitions must be slow
106: compared to the expansion rate of the universe and this in turn
107: translates into the condition $\langle v\rangle/T_c\geq 1.0 -
108: 1.5$~\cite{Kajantie1}. Although the above is an
109: estimate emerging from approximate calculations, it is nowadays widely
110: accepted and has proven to be a rather difficult condition to meet.
111:
112: Although there have been several attempts to link the baryogenesis process to
113: the EWPT~\cite{reviewsEWPT, Petropoulos} in general these all share the
114: characteristic that
115: the Sakharov conditions are only partially met. Here we want to further
116: explore the possibility to embed the baryogenesis process in the EWPT
117: scenario, including the effect of an extra ingredient: the possible presence
118: of primordial magnetic fields. Before the EWPT, magnetic fields couple to
119: matter through the particle's hypercharge and thus properly receive the name
120: of {\it hypermagnetic} fields.
121:
122: Magnetic fields seem to pervade the entire universe and their
123: generation may be either primordial or associated to the process of
124: structure formation. They have been observed in galaxies, clusters,
125: intracluster medium and high redshift objects~\cite{31}. In order to
126: distinguish between primordial and protogalactic fields, it is useful to
127: search for their imprint on the cosmic microwave background radiation
128: (CMBR). A homogeneous magnetic field would
129: give rise to a dipole anisotropy in the background radiation, on this basis,
130: Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) results
131: give an upper bound on the present equivalent field strength of $B_0\lesssim
132: 10^{-9}$ G~\cite{Barrow}. An upper limit to the field strength of $B_0\lesssim
133: 4.7\times 10^{-9}$ G at the present scale of 1 Mpc is obtained by an analysis
134: that includes small scale CMBR anisotropies from Wilkinson Microwave
135: Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), Cosmic Background Imager (CBI) and Arc Minute
136: Cosmology Bolometer Array Receiver (ACBAR)~\cite{Yamazaki}. On the other hand,
137: tangled random fields on small scales could reach up to $\sim 10^{-6}$
138: G~\cite{Barrow2}. Nucleosynthesis also imposes limits on
139: primordial magnetic fields since they have an influence on both the universe
140: expansion rate and the electron quantum statistics. The observed helium
141: abundance implies $B \lesssim 10^{12}$ G at scales greater than 10 cm at the
142: end of nucleosynthesis~\cite{Grasso}.
143:
144: Although at present there is no conclusive evidence about the origin
145: of magnetic fields, their existence prior to the EWPT cannot certainly
146: be ruled out making it important to investigate their effect on the
147: baryogenesis process~\cite{elreview}. In fact, it has been
148: shown that these fields provide mechanisms to affect
149: all the Sakharov conditions: In the presence of a magnetic field, the
150: phase transition becomes stronger first order in analogy to the case of a type
151: I superconductor, where the Meissner effect brings the phase transition from
152: second to first order~\cite{Giovannini,Elmfors,Kajantie}; it has also been
153: shown that extra CP violation is
154: obtained from the segregation of axial charge during the reflection and
155: transmission of fermions through the vacuum bubbles due to the chiral nature of
156: their coupling to the hypermagnetic field~\cite{Pallares}; finally, regarding
157: the sphaleron transitions the presence of a magnetic field works against the
158: preservation of a baryon asymmetry due to the coupling between the sphaleron
159: dipole moment and the magnetic field that lowers the energy barrier between
160: topologically distinct minima~\cite{Dario}.
161:
162: The effect of magnetic fields on the EWPT has been analytically studied both
163: classically ~\cite{Giovannini} and to one-loop order~\cite{Elmfors}, as well
164: as by means of lattice simulations~\cite{Kajantie}. These calculations all
165: agree that the strength of the phase transition is enhanced by the presence of
166: hypermagnetic fields, although the ratio $\langle v\rangle/T_c$ does not reach
167: the desired value, for a large Higgs boson mass. On the other hand, other
168: analytical approaches where the SM finite temperature effective potential is
169: studied for the case of strong magnetic fields~\cite{Skalozub1,Skalozub2},
170: reach the conclusion that these fields inhibit the first order phase
171: transition and attribute the result to the contribution of light fermion
172: masses which are generally neglected in other computations.
173:
174: In this work we concentrate on studying the relation between the presence of a
175: large scale magnetic field and the dynamics of the EWPT by computing the SM
176: finite temperature effective potential in a constant hypermagnetic
177: field up to the contribution of ring diagrams, that have been shown to be
178: crucial for the description of the long wavelength properties of the
179: theory~\cite{Carrington}. We carry out a systematic calculation of each SM
180: sector showing that the major contribution producing an enhancement of the
181: EWPT comes from the Higgs and gauge boson sectors and that fermions do not act
182: against this behavior. Working in the limit where the magnetic field is weak,
183: we find an enhanced value of the ratio $\langle v\rangle/T_c$.
184:
185: The paper is organized as follows: In Sec.~\ref{II} we lay down
186: the formalism to include weak magnetic fields in the computation of
187: hypercharged particle propagators. In Sec.~\ref{III} we write down the SM
188: using the degrees of freedom in the symmetric phase. In Sec.~\ref{IV}, we
189: work with these degrees of freedom to compute particle self energies that
190: are used in Sec.~\ref{V} to compute the SM effective potential
191: up to the contributions of ring diagrams. In Sec.~\ref{VI} we study this
192: effective potential as a function of the Higgs vacuum expectation value and
193: show that the order of the EWPT becomes stronger first order in the presence of
194: the hypermagnetic field. Finally, we conclude and discuss our results in
195: Sec.~\ref{VII} and leave for the appendix the computation of some
196: intermediate results of the analysis.
197:
198: \section{Charged particle propagators in the presence of a Hypermagnetic
199: Field}\label{II}
200:
201: We work with the degrees of freedom of the SM in the symmetric phase, where
202: the external (hyper)magnetic field belongs to the $U(1)_Y$ group.
203: To include the effect of the external field, we use Schwinger's proper time
204: method~\cite{Schwinger}. In the symmetric phase, we have only two kinds of
205: hypercharged particles that couple to the external field namely, scalars
206: and fermions, whose propagators are
207: \bea
208: D_{H}(x,x') = \phi(x,x') \int \frac{d^4 K}{(2 \pi)^4} e^{-i k \cdot
209: (x-x')} D_{H}(k),
210: \label{scalprop}
211: \eea
212: \bea
213: S_{H}(x,x') = \phi(x,x') \int \frac{d^4 K}{(2 \pi)^4} e^{-i k \cdot
214: (x-x')} S_{H} (k),
215: \label{ferprop}
216: \eea
217: respectively. The phase factor $\phi(x,x')$, that breaks translation
218: invariance, is given by
219: \bea
220: \phi (x,x') &\equiv& e^{i \sye \int^x_{x'} d\xi^\mu \left[B^{\ext}_\mu +\frac{1}{2}
221: F_{\mu\nu} (\xi-x')^{\nu}\right]},
222: \label{phase}
223: \eea
224: where the vector potential $B^{\ext}_\mu=\frac{H}{2}(0,y,-x,0)$ gives rise
225: to a constant hypermagnetic field of strength $H$ along the $\hat{z}$ axis
226: and $F^{\ext}_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu B^{\ext}_\nu-\partial_\nu B^{\ext}_\mu$ is
227: the external field strength tensor.
228:
229: The momentum dependent functions $D_{H} (k)$ and $S_{H} (k)$ are given
230: by
231: \bea
232: i D_{H} (k)&=&\int_0^\infty \frac{ds}{\cos{ \sy H s}}
233: \nonumber \\
234: &\times&
235: \exp\left\{ i s (k_{\para}^2-k_{\bot}^2
236: \frac{\tan{\sy H \sss}}{\sy Hs}-m^2
237: +i \epsilon)\right\},
238: \label{scalpropmom}
239: \eea
240: \bea
241: i S_{H} (k)&=&\int_0^\infty \frac{ds}{\cos{ \sy H s}}
242: \nonumber \\
243: &\times&
244: \exp\left\{ i s (k_{\para}^2-k_{\bot}^2
245: \frac{\tan{\sy H \sss}}{\sy Hs}-m^2
246: +i \epsilon)\right\}
247: \nonumber \\
248: &\times& \left[ (m_f-\slsh{k}_{\para})e^{i \sye H s \sigma_3}
249: -\frac{\slsh{k_\bot}}{\cos{\sy H s}}\right],
250: \label{ferpropmom}
251: \eea
252: where $\mbox{\bf \scriptsize{Y}}$ is the particle's hypercharge and we use the
253: notation $k_{\para}^2=k_0^2-k_3^2$ and $k_\perp^2=k_1^2+k_2^2$.
254:
255: Since the gauge bosons do not couple to the external field their propagator is
256: given by
257: \bea
258: iD^{\mu\nu}_{ab}(k)=-i \left\{
259: \frac{g^{\mu\nu}-(1-\xi)\frac{k^{\mu}k^{\nu}}
260: {k^2-\xi m_G^2}}{k^2-m_G^2+i\epsilon}\right\}_{ab}
261: \eea
262: where $a,b=1,2,3,4$ and the first three values correspond to the $SU(2)_L$
263: fields and the fourth to the $U(1)_Y$ field. Notice that the matrix $m_G^2$
264: is not diagonal in the basis of the weak-interacting fields in the symmetric
265: phase.
266:
267: It has been show that, by deforming the contour of integration,
268: Eqs.~(\ref{scalpropmom}) and~(\ref{ferpropmom}) can be written
269: as~\cite{nosotros,Tzuu}
270: \bea
271: iD_{H}(k)=2i\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^lL_l(\frac{2k_\perp^2}{\sye
272: H})
273: \exp\left\{-\frac{k^2_\perp}{\sye H}\right\}}{k^2_{\para}-(2l+1)\sy
274: H-m^2+i\epsilon},
275: \label{scalpropsum}
276: \eea
277: \bea
278: iS_{H}(k)= i \sum^\infty_{l=0}
279: \frac{d_l(\frac{k_\perp^2}{\sye H})D +
280: d'_l(\frac{k_\perp^2}{\sye H}) \bar D}{k^2_{\para}-2
281: l\sy H-m_f^2
282: + i\epsilon} + \frac{\slsh{k_{\bot}}}{k^2_\perp},
283: \label{ferpropsum}
284: \eea
285: where
286: $d_l(\alpha)\equiv (-1)^n e^{-\alpha}
287: L^{-1}_l(2\alpha)$, $d'_n=\partial d_n/\partial \alpha$,
288: \bea
289: D &=& (m_f+\slsh{k_{\para}})+ \slsh{k_{\perp}} \frac{m_f^2-k^2_{\para}}{
290: {k^2_{\perp}}},\nonumber \\
291: \bar D &=& \gamma_5 \slsh{u}\slsh{b}(m_f + \slsh{k_{\para}}),
292: \label{DDe}
293: \eea
294: $L_l$, $L_l^m$ are Laguerre and Associated Laguerre polynomials, respectively,
295: and $u^\mu$, $b^\mu$ are four-vectors describing the plasma rest frame and
296: the direction of the hypermagnetic field, respectively.
297:
298: In order to set the appropriate hierarchy of energy scales we resort to
299: qualitative cosmological bounds on the possible strength of primordial
300: magnetic fields during the EWPT. CMBR sets stringent bounds on large scale
301: primordial fields but no so much stringent when the fields are tangled. This
302: dependence on the scale makes it difficult to extrapolate these bounds down to
303: the EWPT epoch. We use instead the requirement that the magnetic energy
304: density $\rho_{mag} \sim B^2$ should be smaller than the overall radiation
305: energy density $\rho_{rad} \sim T^4$ at nucleosynthesis, in order to preserve
306: %not spoil
307: the estimated abundances of light elements. With this, one obtains the simple
308: bound $B\lesssim T^2$~\cite{Maartens}.
309:
310: On the other hand stability conditions against the formation of $W$-condensate
311: indicate~\cite{Ambjorn} that the field strength is also weak compared to the
312: square of the $W$ mass, $m_W^2$. Notice however that when thermal corrections
313: are taken into account, this bound could be avoided~\cite{Skalozub1,
314: Skalozub2}.
315:
316: We work explicitly with the assumption that the hierarchy of scales
317: \bea
318: \sy H \ll m^2 \ll T^2,
319: \label{hierarchy}
320: \eea
321: is obeyed, were we consider $m$ as a generic mass of the problem at the
322: electroweak scale.
323:
324: We can thus perform a weak field expansion in
325: Eqs.~(\ref{scalpropsum}) and~(\ref{ferpropsum}) which allows to carry out the
326: summation over Landau levels to write the scalar and fermion propagators as
327: power series in $\sy H$, that up to order $(\sy H)^2$ read
328: as~\cite{nosotros,Tzuu}
329: \bea
330: D(k)_{H}=\frac{1}{k^2-m^2}\left( 1-\frac{(\sy H)^2}{(k^2-m^2)^2}-
331: \frac{2(\sy H)^2 k_\perp^2}{(k^2-m^2)^3}\right),\nonumber\\
332: \label{scalpropweak}
333: \eea
334: and
335: \bea
336: {S(k)_{H}}= \frac{\slsh{k}+m_f}{\slsh{k}^2-m_f^2}+
337: \frac{\gamma_5
338: \slsh{u}\slsh{b}(k_{\para}+m_f)(\sy H)}{(k^2-m_f^2)^3}
339: \nonumber \\
340: -\frac{2(\sy H)^2 k_\perp^2}{(k^2-m_f^2)^4}
341: (m_f+\slsh{k_{\para}}+\slsh{k_\perp}\frac{m_f^2-k_{\para}^2}{k_\perp^2}),
342: \label{ferpropweak}
343: \eea
344: respectively.
345:
346: There is an analogous result for gauge bosons, but since in the symmetric
347: phase these do not couple to the external hypermagnetic field, we do not need
348: to account for them.
349:
350: \section{Standard Model}\label{III}
351:
352: In order to consider all the contributions to the SM effective potential, we
353: write the Lagrangian for each sector.
354:
355: The Lagrangian for the Higgs sector is
356: \be
357: \mathcal{L}_{H}=(D_{\mu} \Phi)^{\dagger}(D^{\mu}
358: \Phi)+c^2(\Phi^{\dagger} \Phi)
359: -\lambda (\Phi^{\dagger} \Phi)^2,
360: \label{lhiggs}
361: \ee
362: where $D_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu} +ig\frac{\tau^a}{2} {
363: A^a_{\mu}} + i \frac{g' \sy}{2}B'_{\mu}$, $\tau^a$ are the Pauli
364: matrices, $B'_\mu=B_\mu+B^\ext_\mu$ and $A^a_\mu$, $B_\mu$ are the $SU(2)_L$
365: and $U(1)_Y$ gauge bosons, respectively. To allow for spontaneous symmetry
366: breaking the mass parameter $c$ must satisfy $c^2>0$.
367:
368: The Higgs field is a complex doublet with $\mbox{\bf \scriptsize{Y}}=+1$
369: \bea
370: \Phi=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
371: &\phi_3+i\phi_4 \\
372: &\phi_1+i\phi_2
373: \end{array}\right),
374: \label{higgsdobl}
375: \eea
376: where $\phi_i$ are real scalar fields. We take $\phi_1$ as the physical Higgs
377: field that develops a vacuum expectation value $v$. Extremizing the tree
378: level potential, the parameter $c$ is related to the classical minimum
379: $v_{class}$
380: by
381: \bea
382: c^2=\lambda v_{class}^2.
383: \label{cclass}
384: \eea
385:
386: For the Higgs field hypercharge conjugate doublet we use ${\tilde
387: \Phi}=i\sigma_2\Phi^*$.
388:
389: The kinetic energy from the $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$ gauge bosons is
390: \bea
391: \mathcal{L}_{gb}=& & -\frac{1}{4} {\bf F}^{\mu \nu} \cdot
392: {\bf F}_{\mu \nu} - \frac{1}{4} F'^{\mu \nu} F'_{\mu \nu} ,
393: \label{kingb}
394: \eea
395: where
396: \bea
397: {\bf F}_{\mu \nu}&=& \partial_\mu {\bf A_\nu}- \partial_\nu {\bf
398: A}_\mu-g {\bf A}_\mu \times {\bf A}_\nu \nonumber \\
399: F'_{\mu \nu}&=&\partial_\mu B'_\nu- \partial_\nu B'_\mu .
400: \label{fieldstrength}
401: \eea
402:
403: The Lagrangian for the fermion sector is
404: \bea
405: \mathcal{L}_{f}= & &\overline{\Psi}_R \left( i \slsh{\partial}-
406: \frac{g'}{2} \sy \slshh{B'} \right) \Psi_R +
407: \nonumber \\
408: & &\overline{\Psi}_L \left( i \slsh{\partial} -
409: \frac{g'}{2} \sy \slshh{B'} - \frac{g}{2}{\bf \tau}
410: \cdot
411: \bf{\slshh{A}}
412: \right) \Psi_L ,
413: \label{lfer}
414: \eea
415: where $\Psi_L=\frac{1}{2}(1-\gamma_5)\Psi$ is an $SU(2)$ doublet
416: of left-handed fermions and $\Psi_R=\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma_5)\Psi$ is an
417: $SU(2)$ singlet of right-handed fermions.
418:
419: We work in the limit that all fermion masses except the top
420: quark mass are negligible, so that the main contribution to the Yukawa sector
421: is
422: \be
423: \mathcal{L}_{Yukawa}=f \overline{q_L} {\tilde \Phi} {t}_R + h.c.
424: \label{lyuk}
425: \ee
426:
427: Finally, in the $R_{\xi}$ gauge, the gauge fixing Lagrangian is
428: \bea
429: \mathcal{L}_{gf}=&-&\frac{1}{2 \xi} (\partial^{\mu}A_{\mu}^i
430: -\frac{1}{2} \xi g v \phi^i)^2- \nonumber \\
431: & &\frac{1}{2 \xi} (\partial^{\mu}B_{\mu}
432: -\frac{1}{2} \xi g' v \phi_2)^2 ,
433: \label{lgf}
434: \eea
435: where $i=2,3,4$ and $\xi$ is the gauge parameter. We choose to work in the
436: Landau gauge ($\xi = 0 $) in which the ghost fields do not acquire mass
437: and hence do not contribute to the $v$-dependent part of the one-loop
438: effective potential. Note that the effective potential is in principle a gauge
439: dependent object~\cite{Dolan}, however, physical quantities obtained from it
440: are gauge independent~\cite{Nielsen}.
441:
442: \section{Self-energies}\label{IV}
443:
444: In this section we compute the SM self-energies that are in turn used for the
445: computation of the ring diagrams in the effective potential.
446:
447: It is well known that in the absence of an external magnetic field, the
448: SM thermal self-energies are gauge independent when considering only the
449: leading contributions in temperature~\cite{LeBellac}. However, as we will
450: show, when considering the effects of and external magnetic field, these
451: self-energies turn out to be gauge dependent.
452: \begin{figure}[t!] % fig1
453: \vspace{0.4cm}
454: {\centering
455: \resizebox*{0.42\textwidth}
456: {0.18\textheight}{\includegraphics{sapfig1.eps}}
457: \par}
458: \caption{Self-energy Feynman diagrams for the Higgs bosons that contain
459: loop particles affected by the hypermagnetic field. These particles are
460: represented by thick lines. $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ represent Higgs and Fermion
461: fields whereas $A_\mu^a$ and $B_\mu$ represent the $U(1)_Y$ and $SU(2)_L$
462: gauge fields, respectively.}
463: \label{fig1}
464: \end{figure}
465:
466: \begin{figure}[t!] % fig2
467: \vspace{0.4cm}
468: {\centering
469: \resizebox*{0.45\textwidth}
470: {0.10\textheight}{\includegraphics{sapfig2.eps}}
471: \par}
472: \caption{Self-energy Feynman diagrams for the Higgs bosons that contain
473: loop particles not affected by the hypermagnetic field. These particles are
474: represented by thin lines. $c$ represents the ghost fields. Working in the
475: Landau gauge $\xi=0$, the second diagram vanishes.}
476: \label{fig2}
477: \end{figure}
478:
479: In what follows, we work in the imaginary-time formalism of thermal field
480: theory. First, we note that the integration over four-momenta is carried out
481: in Euclidean space with $k_0=ik_4$, this means that
482: \bea
483: \int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4} \rightarrow i \int \frac{d^4k_E}{(2\pi)^4}.
484: \label{minkeuc}
485: \eea
486: Next, we recall that boson energies take discrete values, namely
487: $k_4=\omega_n=2n \pi T$ with $n$ an integer, and thus
488: \bea
489: \int \frac{d^4k_E}{(2\pi)^4} \rightarrow T \sum_n \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}.
490: \eea
491:
492: \subsection{Higgs boson}\label{IVa}
493:
494: Figure~\ref{fig1} shows the diagrams that contribute to the Higgs boson
495: self-energies affected by the hypermagnetic field. Let us explicitly compute
496: the momentum independent diagram shown in fig.~\ref{fig1}($I$) for a single
497: scalar field. In the weak field limit, its expression is
498: \bea
499: \Pi^{Higgs}_{(I)}&=&\frac{\lambda}{4}
500: T \sum_n \int \frac{d^3 {\bf k}}{(2\pi)^3}\nonumber\\
501: &\times&
502: D_{H}(\omega_n,{\bf k};m^2\rightarrow m^2 + \Pi_1),
503: \label{piselfcons}
504: \eea
505: where $D_{H}$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{scalpropweak}). Notice that
506: Eq.~(\ref{piselfcons}) is computed self-consistently, with the
507: approximation that on the right hand-side,
508: $\Pi^{Higgs}_{(I)}\rightarrow\Pi_1$, where $\Pi_1$ is given
509: by~\cite{Carrington}
510: \bea
511: \Pi_1&=& \frac{T^2}{4}
512: \left\{ \frac{3}{4}g^2+\frac{1}{4}g'^2+2\lambda+f^2
513: \right\},
514: \label{pi1}
515: \eea
516: and represents the leading temperature contribution to the scalar
517: self-energy. The need to compute $\Pi^{Higgs}$ self-consistently is
518: linked to the fact that, on the one hand, in the SM, scalar masses can vanish
519: as a function of $v$ and, on the other, the presence of the magnetic field
520: originates terms inversely proportional to these masses [see
521: Eq.~(\ref{autohiggsa})]. Thus, for soft momentum, where the contribution of
522: the ring diagrams is relevant, a naive perturbative expansion is not
523: sufficient. The well known correction of the infrared behavior is given by
524: the plasma screening properties and in the case of Eq.~(\ref{piselfcons}) we
525: approximate such correction as consisting only of the leading temperature
526: contribution to $\Pi^{Higgs}$ which, upon resummation, take care of the
527: most severe infrared divergences~\cite{Dolan}.
528:
529: Using the Euclidean version of Eq.~(\ref{scalpropweak}), we have
530: \bea
531: \Pi^{Higgs}_{(I)}&=& \frac{\lambda}{4}
532: T \sum_n \int \frac{d^3 {\bf k}}{(2\pi)^3}
533: \frac{1}{(\omega_n^2+{\bf k}^2+\tilde{m}^2)} \nonumber \\
534: &\times& \left(1-\frac{(\sy H)^2}{(\omega_n^2+{\bf k}^2+\tilde{m}^2)^2}
535: \nonumber \right.\\
536: &+& \left.
537: \frac{2(\sy H)^2 {\bf k}_\perp^2}{(\omega_n^2+{\bf k}^2+\tilde{m}^2)^3}
538: \right),
539: \label{autohiggs}
540: \eea
541: where we use the short hand notation $\tilde{m}^2=m^2 + \Pi_1$.
542:
543: The integrand in Eq.~(\ref{autohiggs}) contains terms whose general form
544: is
545: \bea
546: I_{\alpha\beta}({\bf k},{\bf q})=\frac{1}{[\omega_n^2+{\bf
547: k}^2+\tilde{m}^2]^\alpha[\omega_n^2+
548: {({\bf k-q})}^2+\tilde{m}^2]^\beta}.\nonumber\\
549: \label{iab}
550: \eea
551: We make use of the Feynman parametrization to write $I_{\alpha\beta}$ as
552: \bea
553: I_{\alpha\beta}({\bf k},{\bf
554: q})=\frac{\Gamma(\alpha+\beta)}{\Gamma(\alpha)\Gamma(\beta)}
555: \int_0^1 \frac{dx \ x^{\alpha-1} (1-x)^{\beta-1}}
556: {[\omega_n^2+{\bf k'}^2(x)+{m'}^2(x)]^{\alpha+\beta}},\nonumber\\
557: \label{feynman}
558: \eea
559: where
560: \bea
561: {\bf k'}(x)&=& {\bf k}-(1-x){\bf q} \nonumber \\
562: {m'}^2(x)&=&\tilde{m}^2+x(1-x){\bf q}^2,
563: \label{defsfeynman}
564: \eea
565: and $\Gamma$ is the Gamma function. Notice that this parametrization is
566: allowed since we work in the imaginary-time formalism~\cite{weldon}.
567:
568: To carry out the sum over Matsubara frequencies together with the integration
569: in Eq.~(\ref{autohiggs}), we perform an asymptotic expansion in the high
570: temperature limit. This is done by means of a Mellin transform as
571: described in detail in Ref.~\cite{Bedingham}.
572: The explicit result, generalized to also include the fermion case is
573: \begin{widetext}
574: \bea
575: T\sum_{n} \int \frac{d^d k}{(2\pi)^d}
576: {\bf k}^{2a}{\omega^{2t}_{n}}I_{\alpha \beta}({\bf k},{\bf q})&=&
577: \frac{(2T)(2\pi T)^{d+2a+2t-2(\alpha+\beta)} }{(4\pi)^{d/2}
578: \Gamma(\alpha)\Gamma(\beta)}
579: \frac{\Gamma(\frac{d}{2}+a)}{\Gamma(\frac{d}{2})}\mu^{2\epsilon}
580: \sum_{j=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^j}{j!}
581: \zeta(2(j+\alpha+\beta-t-\frac{d}{2}-a),Z)
582: \nonumber \\
583: &\times& \Gamma(j+\alpha+\beta-\frac{d}{2}-a)
584: \int_0^1 dx \ x^{\alpha-1} \ (1-x)^{\beta-1}
585: \left(\frac{m'(x)}{2\pi T}\right)^{2j},
586: \label{highT}
587: \eea
588: \end{widetext}
589: where $\zeta$ is the modified Riemann Zeta function, $\mu$ is the energy scale
590: of dimensional regularization and $d=3-2\epsilon$. For fermions the
591: sum runs over all integers $n$ and $Z=1/2$, while for bosons the $n=0$ term is
592: excluded and $Z=0$. It is important to stress that the method
593: advocated in Ref.~\cite{Bedingham} to perform an expression such as
594: Eq.~(\ref{highT}) calls for the use of dimensional regularization, which is an
595: appropriate method to use for non-Abelian gauge theories.
596:
597: For the terms involving the $n=0$ Matsubara frequency for bosons, we use the
598: result
599: \begin{widetext}
600: \bea
601: T \int \frac{d^d k}{(2\pi^d)}{\bf k}^{2a} I_{\alpha\beta}({\bf k},{\bf q})&=&
602: \frac{T}{(4\pi)^{d/2}}
603: \frac{\Gamma(\frac{d}{2}+a)}{\Gamma(\frac{d}{2})}
604: \frac{\Gamma(\alpha +\beta-\frac{d}{2})}{\Gamma(\alpha)\Gamma(\beta)}
605: \int_0^1 dx \ x^{\alpha-1} \ (1-x)^{\beta-1}
606: \left(\frac{1}{m'(x)} \right)^{2\alpha+2\beta-d+2a}.
607: \label{highT0}
608: \eea
609: \end{widetext}
610:
611: In terms of the functions $I_{\alpha \beta}$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{iab}) we can
612: write Eq.~(\ref{autohiggs}) as
613: \bea
614: \Pi^{Higgs}_{(I)}&=& \frac{\lambda}{4}
615: T \sum_{n} \int \frac{d^3 {\bf k}}{(2\pi)^3}
616: \Big[I_{10}({\bf k},0)+I_{30}({\bf k},0)\nonumber\\
617: &+&I_{40}({\bf k},0)\Big].
618: \label{autohiggsI}
619: \eea
620:
621: Using Eq.~(\ref{highT}) for the terms with $n \neq 0$ and Eq.~(\ref{highT0})
622: for the term with $n=0$, we get
623: \bea
624: \Pi^{Higgs}_{(I)}=\frac{\lambda}{2} T^2
625: \left(1-\sum_{i=1}^{2}
626: \left[\frac{3}{2\pi}\frac{\tilde{m}_i}{T}+
627: \frac{(\sy H)^2}{16 \pi T \tilde{m}_i^3}
628: \right] \right),
629: \label{autohiggsa}
630: \eea
631: where we have included the contribution from all scalar fields with
632: $\tilde{m}_i^2=m_i^2+\Pi_1$, $m_i$ standing for the scalar boson masses, given
633: by
634: \bea
635: m_1^2&=&3\lambda v^2 -c^2\nonumber\\
636: m_2^2&=&m^2_3=m_4^2=\lambda v^2-c^2.
637: \label{higssmasses}
638: \eea
639: In a similar fashion the contribution from the diagram in fig.~\ref{fig1}($II$)
640: in the {\it infrared limit}, namely $q_0=0$, $\mathbf{q} \rightarrow 0$, is
641: \bea
642: \Pi^{Higgs}_{(II)}(0)=\frac{f^2}{4} T^2 \left(
643: 1+\frac{14\zeta(3)}{(2\pi)^4} \frac{(\sy H)^2}{T^4} \right),
644: \label{autohiggsb}
645: \eea
646: where hereafter we use the notation ${\mathcal F}(0) \equiv {\mathcal
647: F}(q_0=0,{\bf q}\rightarrow 0)$ to represent the infrared limit of any
648: function ${\mathcal F}$.
649:
650: We point out that in Eqs.~(\ref{autohiggsa}) and~(\ref{autohiggsb}) we have
651: kept terms representing the leading contribution of each kind arising in the
652: calculation, namely, terms of order $(\sy H)^2/T^4$, $\tilde{m}_i/T$ and
653: $(\sy H)^2/T \tilde{m}_i^3$. For the hierarchy of scales considered, the
654: first kind of terms can be
655: safely neglected. Recall that terms of order $\tilde{m}_i/T$ are usually
656: neglected in a high temperature expansion. However, since we are here
657: interested in keeping the leading contribution in the magnetic field strength,
658: we are forced to keep this kind of terms which, for a large top quark mass,
659: namely a large $f$, are of the same order as terms $(\sy H)^2/T
660: \tilde{m}_i^3$. Notice that for large values of the coupling constants, a
661: perturbative calculation is not entirely justified. Nevertheless, here we
662: consider our calculation as an analytical tool to explore this non-perturbative
663: domain and regard terms of order $\tilde{m}_i/T$ as an estimate of the
664: theoretical uncertainty of our results.
665:
666: On the other hand, the diagram in fig.~\ref{fig1}($III$) is proportional to the
667: parameter $\xi$ and thus vanishes for our gauge parameter choice.
668: Accounting also for the diagrams that are not affected by the hypermagnetic
669: field, and that are depicted in fig.~\ref{fig2}, the Higgs field self-energy,
670: in the infrared limit is given by
671: \bea
672: \Pi^{Higgs}(0)&=&\frac{T^2}{4}
673: \left\{ \frac{3}{4}g^2+\frac{1}{4}g'^2+2\lambda+f^2
674: \right. \nonumber \\
675: &-&
676: \frac{\lambda}{\pi}\sum_{i=1}^2\left[
677: \frac{3(m_i^2+\Pi_1)^{1/2}}{T}\right.\nonumber\\
678: &+& \left.\left.
679: \frac{(\sy H)^2}
680: {8T (m_i^2+\Pi_1)^{3/2}}\right]
681: \right\}.
682: \label{autohiggstot}
683: \eea
684:
685: \subsection{Gauge bosons}
686:
687: To express the gauge boson self-energies, %notice that
688: in the presence of the
689: external field, we have three independent vectors to our disposal to form
690: tensor structures transverse to the gauge boson momentum $q^\mu$, namely
691: $u^\mu$, $q^\mu$ and $b^\mu$. This means that in general, these self-energies
692: can be written as linear combinations of nine independent
693: structures~\cite{Dolivo}. Since we are interested in considering
694: the infrared limit, $q_0=0,{\bf q}\rightarrow0$, only $u^\mu$ and $b^\mu$
695: remain. Notice that the correct symmetry property for the self-energy is
696: $\Pi_{ab}^{\mu\nu}(q)=\Pi_{ab}^{\nu\mu}(-q)$~\cite{nievespal}. However, in the
697: infrared limit, this condition means that the self-energy must be symmetric
698: under the exchange of the Lorentz indices and therefore we can write.
699: \bea
700: \Pi^{\mu \nu}_{ab}= \Pi^Q_{ab} Q^{\mu\nu} +
701: \Pi^R_{ab} R^{\mu\nu} +
702: \Pi^S_{ab} S^{\mu\nu} +
703: \Pi^M_{ab} g^{\mu\nu},
704: \label{pibosonu1}
705: \eea
706: where
707: \bea
708: Q^{\mu\nu}&=&u^\mu u^\nu,\nonumber \\
709: R^{\mu\nu}&=&b^\mu b^\nu,\nonumber \\
710: S^{\mu\nu}&=&u^\mu b^\nu + u^\nu b^\mu,
711: \label{base}
712: \eea
713: and the transversality condition $q_\mu\Pi^{\mu\nu}_{ab}=0$ is trivially
714: satisfied in the infrared limit.
715:
716: \begin{figure}[t!] % fig3
717: \vspace{0.4cm}
718: {\centering
719: \resizebox*{0.45\textwidth}
720: {0.20\textheight}{\includegraphics{sapfig3.eps}}
721: \par}
722: \caption{Self-energy Feynman diagrams for the gauge bosons that contain
723: loop particles affected by the hypermagnetic field. These particles are
724: represented by thick lines. $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ represent Higgs and Fermion
725: fields whereas $A_\mu^a$ and $B_\mu$ represent the $U(1)_Y$ and $SU(2)_L$
726: gauge fields, respectively.}
727: \label{fig3}
728: \end{figure}
729:
730: \begin{figure}[h!] % fig4
731: \vspace{0.4cm}
732: {\centering
733: \resizebox*{0.45\textwidth}
734: {0.20\textheight}{\includegraphics{sapfig4.eps}}
735: \par}
736: \caption{Self-energy Feynman diagrams for the gauge bosons that contain
737: loop particles not affected by the hypermagnetic field. These particles are
738: represented by thin lines. $c$ represents the ghost fields.}
739: \label{fig4}
740: \end{figure}
741:
742: Figure~\ref{fig3} shows the gauge boson self-energy diagrams that are affected
743: by the external hypermagnetic field. These include diagrams involving
744: scalars as well as fermions in the loop. Let us explicitly compute the diagram
745: shown in fig.~\ref{fig3}($I$) for the $B_\mu$ field. Its expression is
746: \bea
747: \Pi^{\mu \nu}_{(I)B}(q)&=&\left(\frac{g'}{2}\right)^2
748: \int \frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}
749: (2 k^\mu - q^\mu)(2 k^\nu - q^\nu) \nonumber \\
750: &\times & D_{H}(k)D_{H}(k-q).
751: \label{auto1a}
752: \eea
753: Notice that since the net hypercharge flowing in the loop is zero, the phase
754: factor in Eq.~(\ref{phase}) vanishes.
755:
756: Let us compute $\Pi^{00}_{(I)B}$ for a single scalar field with mass
757: $m$. Working in the rest frame of the medium,
758: $\Pi^{00}_{(I)B}=\Pi^{Q}_{(I)B}+\Pi^{M}_{(I)B}$. From Eq.~(\ref{auto1a}) and
759: at finite temperature this component is given by
760: \bea
761: \Pi^{00}_{(I)B}(q)&=& - g'^2
762: T \sum_n \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2\pi)^3}
763: \omega_n^2 \nonumber \\
764: &\times & D_{H}(\omega_n,{\bf k};m^2)
765: \nonumber \\
766: &\times & D_{H}(\omega_n,{\bf k-q};m^2).
767: \label{auto1a00}
768: \eea
769: Since the integral in Eq.~(\ref{auto1a00}) does not give rise to terms
770: inversely proportional to $m$, we have omitted the replacement $m^2\rightarrow
771: m^2+\Pi_1$.
772:
773: Using the Euclidean version of the scalar propagator $D_{H}$ obtained from
774: Eq.~(\ref{scalpropweak}), and in terms of the functions $I_{\alpha\beta}$
775: defined in Eq.~(\ref{feynman}), we can write Eq.~(\ref{auto1a00}) as
776: \begin{widetext}
777: \bea
778: \Pi^{00}_{(I)B}(0) = - g'^2
779: T \sum_n \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2\pi)^3} \omega_n^2
780: \left\{ I_{11}({\bf k},0)
781: + (\sy H)^2\left[I_{13}({\bf k},0)
782: + I_{31}({\bf k},0)
783: + 2{\bf k}^2_\perp I_{14}({\bf k},0)
784: +2{\bf k}^2_\perp I_{41}({\bf k},0)\right]
785: \right\}.
786: \label{auto001aI}
787: \eea
788: \end{widetext}
789:
790: Using Eq.~(\ref{highT}) into Eq.~(\ref{auto001aI}) and keeping only the
791: leading term as discussed in Sec.~\ref{IVa}, we get
792: \bea
793: \Pi^{00}_{(I)B}(0) &=& \frac{g'^2 }{12} T^2
794: \label{auto001ares}
795: \eea
796: where the contribution from the four real scalar fields has been accounted
797: for.
798:
799: In a similar fashion, the explicit expressions for $\Pi^{00}_{(II)B}$ and
800: $\Pi^{00}_{(III)B}$ are computed to yield
801: \bea
802: \Pi^{00}_{(II)B}(0) &=&
803: \frac{5 g'^2}{3} T^2
804: \nonumber \\
805: \Pi^{00}_{(III)B}(0) &=&
806: \frac{g'^2}{12} T^2 \left(1 - \sum_{i=0}^{4}
807: \left[\frac{3}{4\pi}\frac{\tilde{m}_i}{T}
808: + \frac{1}{32\pi}\frac{(\sy H)^2}{T \tilde{m}_i^3}\right] \right),
809: \nonumber\\
810: \label{auto1bcres}
811: \eea
812: where in the first of the Eqs.~(\ref{auto1bcres}) we have performed the sum
813: over all hypercharged fermions. We stress that the origin of the terms $\sim
814: 1/\tilde{m}_i^3$ is the topology of diagrams such as the one in
815: fig.~\ref{fig3}($III$) or fig.~\ref{fig1}($I$), involving a tadpole of
816: hypercharged scalars in the presence of the external field. In the computation
817: of these diagrams, we require to consider the replacement $m^2\rightarrow m^2
818: + \Pi_1$ (see the discussion in Sec.~\ref{IVa}).
819:
820: Adding up the above three contributions, we get
821: \bea
822: \Pi^{00}_B=\frac{11}{6} g'^2 T^2 \left(1 -
823: \sum_{i=0}^{4}\left[\frac{3}{88\pi}\frac{\tilde{m}_i}{T}
824: +\frac{1}{704 \pi}\frac{(\sy H)^2}{T \tilde{m}_i^3}\right] \right).
825: \nonumber\\
826: \label{piB}
827: \eea
828:
829: Performing a similar exercise for the case of the ${\bf A}_\mu$ fields, for
830: which we also include the contribution from the diagrams that are not affected
831: by the hypermagnetic field, depicted in fig.~\ref{fig4}, we can
832: write the result for the four gauge bosons as
833: \bea
834: {\Pi^{00}_{ab}} &=&{\tilde{g}}^2\frac{11}{6} T^2 \left(1 -
835: \sum_{i=0}^{4}\left[\frac{3}{88\pi}\frac{(m_i^2+\Pi_1)^{1/2}}{T}\right.
836: \right.\nonumber\\
837: &+&\left.\left.\frac{1}{704 \pi}\frac{(\sy
838: H)^2}{T(m_i^2+\Pi_1)^{3/2}}\right]\right)
839: \delta_{ab}
840: \nonumber \\
841: &\equiv& \tilde{g}^2\Pi_{G}(T,H) \delta_{ab}.
842: \label{piA}
843: \eea
844: where ${\tilde{g}}=g$ for a=b=1,2,3 and ${\tilde{g}}=g'$ for a=b=4.
845:
846: As is sketched in the appendix, the other non zero components of the gauge
847: boson self-energy are negligible
848: \bea
849: \Pi^{11}_{ab}=\Pi^{22}_{ab}, \ \Pi^{33}_{ab}&\sim& {\mathcal
850: O}(m_i^2)\nonumber\\
851: \Pi^{03}_{ab}=\Pi^{30}_{ab}&\sim& {\mathcal O}(\sy H),
852: \label{negligible}
853: \eea
854: which means that $\Pi^{00}_{ab}\simeq\Pi^Q_{ab}$.
855:
856: Notice that in Eq.~(\ref{piA}) we have not included terms of
857: order ${\mathcal O}(M_{ab}/T)$, where $M_{ab}$ is the gauge boson mass
858: matrix. These masses are proportional to $\tilde{g}v$ whereas for large $f$,
859: $\tilde{m}_i$ are proportional to $fv$. Thus in this limit, terms of order
860: ${\mathcal O}(M_{ab}/T)$ are smaller than terms of order ${\mathcal
861: O}(\tilde{m}_i/T)$. These terms can in principle be calculated by
862: diagonalization of $M_{ab}$ or else by explicitly considering the calculation
863: in the basis of fields in the broken symmetry phase. We will present such
864: calculation in a forthcoming work along with the gauge parameter dependence of
865: the self-energies and effective potential.
866:
867: Although in principle the fermion self-energies are also affected by the
868: hypermagnetic field, as in the case of zero external field, their
869: contribution to the ring diagrams is subdominant in the infrared and do
870: not need to be taken into account.
871:
872: \section{Effective Potential}\label{V}
873:
874: \subsection{One-loop}
875:
876: In the standard model the tree level potential is
877: \bea
878: V_{tree}(v)= -\frac{1}{2} c^2 v^2 + \frac{1}{4} \lambda v^4.
879: \label{pothiggs}
880: \eea
881: To one loop, the effective potential (EP) receives contributions
882: from each sector, namely
883: \bea
884: V^{(1)}(v)=V^{(1)}_{gb}(v)+V^{(1)}_{Higgs}(v)+V^{(1)}_{f}(v),
885: \label{oneloop}
886: \eea
887: where in general each one of these contributions is given by
888: \bea
889: V^{(1)}(v)= \frac{T}{2} \sum_n\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}
890: {\mbox{Tr}}\left(\ln\left[D(\omega_n,{\bf k})^{-1}\right]
891: \right),
892: \label{onelooptr}
893: \eea
894: with $D$ stands for either the scalar, fermion or gauge boson
895: propagator, and the trace is taken over all internal indices.
896:
897: In the weak field limit, the contribution from the Higgs sector is given by
898: \begin{widetext}
899: \bea
900: V^{(1)}_{Higgs}&=&\sum_{i=1}^4 \frac{T}{2}
901: \sum_n\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\ln
902: [D_{H}^{-1}(\omega_n,{\bf k};m_i^2 \rightarrow m_i^2+\Pi_1)]
903: \simeq \sum_{i=1}^4 \frac{T}{2} \sum_n\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}
904: \Big\{
905: \ln(\omega_n^2+{\mathbf{k}}^2+m_i^2+\Pi_1)
906: \nonumber \\
907: &+&(\sy H)^2 \left[
908: \frac{1}{(\omega_n^2+{\mathbf{k}}^2+m_i^2+\Pi_1)^2}
909: -\frac{2(k_\perp^2)}{(\omega_n^2+{\mathbf{k}}^2+m_i^2+\Pi_1)^3}
910: \right]\Big\}\, .
911: \label{V1ap}
912: \eea
913: \end{widetext}
914: The first term in Eq.~(\ref{V1ap}) with $\Pi_1=0$ represents the lowest order
915: contribution to the effective potential at finite temperature and zero
916: external magnetic field, usually referred to as the boson {\it ideal gas}
917: contribution~\cite{LeBellac}. In order to keep track of the lowest order
918: corrections in $\lambda$, we set $\Pi_1=0$ in Eq.~(\ref{V1ap}). Thus for the
919: hierarchy of scales considered here and dropping out the zero-point energy,
920: this contribution is given by~\cite{Dolan}
921: \begin{widetext}
922: \bea
923: \sum_{i=1}^4 \frac{T}{2}\sum_n\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}
924: \ln(\omega_n^2+{\mathbf{k}}^2+m_i^2)
925: \simeq\sum_{i=1}^4\left( -\frac{\pi^2T^4}{90}
926: +\frac{m_i^2T^2}{24}-\frac{m_i^3T}{12\pi}-\frac{m_i^4}{32\pi^2}
927: \ln\left(\frac{m_i}{4\pi T}\right)+{\mathcal{O}}(m_i^4)\right).
928: \label{idealgas}
929: \eea
930: \end{widetext}
931: Notice that there are potentially dangerous terms $m_i^3$ in
932: Eq~(\ref{idealgas}) that can become imaginary for negative values of
933: $m_i$. However as we will show, these terms cancel when including the Higgs
934: contribution from the ring diagrams.
935:
936: The second, $H$-dependent term in Eq.~(\ref{V1ap}) vanishes
937: identically~\cite{nosotros}. Therefore, to one-loop order, the
938: contribution to the EP in the weak field case from the Higgs sector is
939: independent of $\sy H$ and is given by Eq.~(\ref{idealgas}).
940:
941: In the weak field limit, the contribution from the fermion sector is given by
942: \begin{widetext}
943: \bea
944: V^{(1)}_{f}=\sum_{i=1}^{N_f} T \sum_n\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\ln
945: [S_{H}^{-1}(\omega_n,{\bf k};{m_f}_i)]
946: &\simeq& \sum_{i=1}^{N_f} 2T\sum_n \int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}
947: \Big\{ \ln[\omega_n^2+{\bf k}^2+{m_f}_i^2] \nonumber \\
948: &+&
949: 2(\sy H)^2 \frac{\omega_n^2+k_3^2+{m_f}_i^2}
950: {(\omega_n^2+{\bf k}^2+{m_f}_i^2)^3}
951: \Big\},
952: \label{oneloopfer}
953: \eea
954: \end{widetext}
955: where the sum runs over the number of SM fermions, $N_f$, with masses
956: ${m_f}_i=\frac{f}{\sqrt{2}}v$. We emphasize that the only fermion mass we keep
957: in the analysis is the top mass.
958:
959: The first term in Eq.~(\ref{oneloopfer}) represents the fermion {\it ideal gas}
960: contribution~\cite{LeBellac}, which is explicitly given by~\cite{Dolan}
961: \begin{widetext}
962: \bea
963: \sum_{i=1}^{N_f} 2 T \sum_n\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}
964: \ln[\omega_n^2+{\bf k}^2+{m_f}_i^2]
965: &\simeq& \sum_{i=1}^{N_f} \Big\{-7\frac{\pi^2 T^4}{180}
966: +\frac{{m_f}_i^2T^2}{12} +\frac{{m_f}_i^4}{16 \pi^2}
967: \ln\left(\frac{{m_f}_i^2}{T^2}\right)
968: +{\mathcal{O}}({m_f}_i^4) \Big\}.
969: \label{idealgasfer}
970: \eea
971: \end{widetext}
972: The second term in Eq.~(\ref{oneloopfer}) is subdominant, after taking care of
973: renormalization and running of the coupling constant, as we sketch in the
974: Appendix. Therefore, to one-loop order, the
975: contribution to the EP in the weak field case from the fermion sector is
976: only given by Eq.~(\ref{idealgasfer}).
977:
978: Finally, since in the symmetric phase the gauge bosons do not couple to the
979: external field, their contribution to the EP is given by~\cite{Carrington}
980: \bea
981: V^{(1)}_{gb}&=&\sum_{G}\frac{T}{2}\sum_n\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}
982: {\mbox{Tr}} \ln[{(D^{\mu\nu}_{ab})}^{-1}(\omega_n,{\bf k};m_G)]\nonumber \\
983: &\simeq& \frac{T}{2} \sum_n\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}
984: \Big\{ 6 \ln(\omega_n^2+{\mathbf{k}}^2+m_W^2) \nonumber \\
985: &+& \
986: 3 \ln(\omega_n^2+{\mathbf{k}}^2+m_Z^2) \nonumber \\
987: &+&
988: 2 \ln(\omega_n^2+{\mathbf{k}}^2)
989: \Big\},
990: \label{idealgasgb}
991: \eea
992: where on the right-hand side in the first line, the index $G$ runs over the
993: four SM gauge bosons and thereafter, we have used the mass eigenbasis with
994: $m_W^2=g^2v^2/4 $ and $m_Z^2=(g^2+g'^2)v^2/4$. The
995: factors in front of each contribution correspond to the two $W'$s, the $Z$ and
996: the photon polarizations.
997:
998: Using Eq.~(\ref{idealgas}) into Eq.~(\ref{idealgasgb}), the contribution to
999: the EP from the gauge boson sector is
1000: \begin{widetext}
1001: \bea
1002: V^{(1)}_{gb}=
1003: -11 \frac{\pi^2T^4}{90}
1004: +3\frac{(2m_W^2+m_Z^2)T^2}{24}-\frac{(2m_W^3+m_Z^3)T}{12\pi}
1005: -6\frac{m_W^4}{32\pi^2}\ln\left(\frac{m_W}{4\pi T}\right)
1006: -3\frac{m_Z^4}{32\pi^2}\ln\left(\frac{m_Z}{4\pi T}\right)
1007: +{\mathcal{O}}(m_W^4).
1008: \label{idealgasgbT}
1009: \eea
1010: \end{widetext}
1011:
1012: In our expressions for the 1-loop potential, ultraviolet divergences are
1013: absorbed by the standard renormalization procedure~\cite{arnold}.
1014:
1015: \subsection{Ring diagrams}
1016:
1017: It is well known that the next order correction to the EP
1018: comes from the so called {\it ring diagrams}. These are schematically depicted
1019: in fig.~\ref{fig5}. Their contribution to the EP is given by
1020: \bea
1021: V^{(ring)}_{Higgs}(v)&=&-\sum_{i=1}^4 \frac{T}{2}
1022: \sum_n\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \mbox{Tr}
1023: \nonumber \\
1024: &\times& \left\{\sum_{N=1}^{\infty}
1025: \frac{1}{N}\left[-D_{H}(\omega_n,{\bf k};m_i)\Pi^{Higgs}(0)
1026: \right]^N \right\} \nonumber \\
1027: &=&-\sum_{i=1}^4 \frac{T}{2} \sum_n\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}
1028: \nonumber \\
1029: &\times&
1030: \mbox{Tr} \ \ln[1+\Pi^{Higgs}(0)D_{H}(\omega_n,{\bf k};m_i)],
1031: \label{ringhiggs}
1032: \eea
1033: for the scalar case, and by
1034: \bea
1035: V^{(ring)}_{gb}(v)&=&-\frac{T}{2}\sum_n\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}
1036: \nonumber \\
1037: &\times& \mbox{Tr} \left\{\sum_{N=1}^{\infty}
1038: \frac{1}{N}\left[-\Pi^{ab}_{\mu\lambda}(0)
1039: D_{bc}^{\lambda\nu}(\omega_n,{\bf k})
1040: \right]^N \right\},\nonumber \\
1041: \label{ringgb}
1042: \eea
1043: for the gauge boson case. The dominant contribution comes from the mode $n=0$
1044: in Eqs.~(\ref{ringhiggs}) and~(\ref{ringgb})~\cite{LeBellac}. The scalar case
1045: has been treated in detail in Ref.~\cite{nosotros} for the weak field limit
1046: and here we just quote the result
1047: \begin{widetext}
1048: \bea
1049: V^{(ring)}_{Higgs}\!\!=\!\!- \sum_{i=1}^4 \left\{
1050: \frac{T}{12\pi}\left[\left(m_i^2+
1051: \Pi_1\right)^{3/2} - m_i^3 \right]
1052: - \frac{(\sy H)^2}{4\pi}\left(\frac{\Pi_1}{48}\right)
1053: \left(\frac{T}{(m_i^2+\Pi_1)^{3/2}}\right) \right\},
1054: \label{VringBno0}
1055: \eea
1056: \end{widetext}
1057: where the contributions from all scalars has been accounted for.
1058:
1059: In order to compute the contribution from the gauge bosons, we have to
1060: diagonalize the matrix product
1061: $\Pi^{ab}_{\mu\lambda}(0)D_{bc}^{\lambda\nu}(\omega_n,{\bf k})$ in
1062: Eq.~(\ref{ringgb}). In the gauge group space, we notice that since
1063: $\Pi^{ab}(0)$ is, according to Eq.~(\ref{piA}), diagonal we can
1064: use the same matrix that diagonalizes the mass matrix, given explicitly for
1065: instance in Ref.~\cite{arnold}. On the other hand in Lorentz space, the
1066: Euclidean version of the gauge boson propagator in the Landau gauge can be
1067: written as
1068: \bea
1069: D_{\mu\nu}&=& \Big\{P^L_{\mu\nu}+P^T_{\mu\nu}\Big\} \frac{1}{k^2+m^2},
1070: \label{propbas}
1071: \eea
1072: where
1073: \bea
1074: P^T_{00}=P^T_{0i}=0& &P^T_{ij}=\delta_{ij}-{\bf \hat{k}}_i{\bf \hat{k}}_j
1075: \nonumber \\
1076: P^L_{\mu\nu}=\delta^{\mu\nu} \!\!&-&\!\!
1077: \frac{k_\mu k_\nu}{k^2}-P^T_{\mu\nu}.
1078: \label{translong}
1079: \eea
1080: It is easy to see that considering only the dominant term in the product
1081: $\Pi_{\mu\lambda}(0)D^{\lambda\nu}(\omega_n,{\bf k})$ one gets
1082: \bea
1083: \Pi_{\mu_\lambda} D^{\lambda\nu}&=& \frac{\Pi^{Q}_{ab}}{k^2+m^2}
1084: \left[1+\frac{(k\cdot u)^2}{k^2}\right]Q_\mu^\nu.
1085: \label{propbas2}
1086: \eea
1087: Considering the $n=0$ term and taking the trace, Eq.~(\ref{ringgb}) gives
1088: \begin{widetext}
1089: \bea
1090: V^{(ring)}_{gb}(v) &=&-\sum_{G} \frac{1}{2} T \int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}
1091: \ln[1+\frac{\Pi^{Q}_{ab}}{{\bf k}^2+m_G^2}]
1092: \nonumber \\
1093: &=&-\frac{T}{12\pi}\left\{
1094: 2m_W^3(T,H)+m_Z^3(T,H)+m_{\gamma}^3(T,H)
1095: - 2m_W^3-m_Z^3 \right\},
1096: \label{ringgb2}
1097: \eea
1098: \end{widetext}
1099: where $m_G(T,H)$ are explicitly given by
1100: \begin{widetext}
1101: \bea
1102: m_W^2(T,H)&=&m_W^2+g^2\Pi_G \nonumber \\
1103: m_Z^2(T,H)&=&\frac{1}{2}\left\{ m_Z^2+(g^2+g'^2)\Pi_G
1104: + \sqrt{[m_Z^2+(g^2+g'^2)\Pi_G]^2-
1105: 8\frac{g^2g'^2\Pi_G}{(g^2+g'^2)}
1106: [m_Z^2+\frac{(g^2+g'^2)}{2}\Pi_G]}\right\}
1107: \nonumber \\
1108: m_\gamma^2(T,H)&=&\frac{1}{2}\left\{ m_Z^2+(g^2+g'^2)\Pi_G
1109: - \sqrt{[m_Z^2+(g^2+g'^2)\Pi_G]^2-
1110: 8\frac{g^2g'^2\Pi_G}{(g^2+g'^2)}
1111: [m_Z^2+\frac{(g^2+g'^2)}{2}\Pi_G]}\right\}. \nonumber \\
1112: \label{massT}
1113: \eea
1114: \end{widetext}
1115: Note that both the temperature as well as the magnetic field corrections to
1116: the gauge boson masses are encoded in $\Pi_G$. When $H \rightarrow 0$
1117: the gauge boson masses tend to their usual thermal masses~\cite{Carrington}
1118: \bea
1119: m_W^2(T,H\rightarrow 0) &\rightarrow&
1120: m_W^2(T)\nonumber \\
1121: m_Z^2(T,H\rightarrow 0) &\rightarrow& m_Z^2(T) \nonumber \\
1122: m_\gamma^2(T,H\rightarrow 0)&\rightarrow& m_\gamma^2(T).
1123: \label{massesT0}
1124: \eea
1125: where $m_G^2(T)$ can be obtained from Eqs.~(\ref{piA}) and~(\ref{massT}) by
1126: setting $H=0$.
1127:
1128: To bring about the explicit dependence of $V_{gb}^{(ring)}$ on the
1129: hypermagnetic field strength, let us expand the the cube of the
1130: gauge boson masses appearing in Eq.~(\ref{ringgb2}) up to order $(\sy
1131: H)^2$, which is our working order. From the expressions in
1132: Eqs.~(\ref{massT}) this gives
1133:
1134: \begin{widetext}
1135: \bea
1136: V^{(ring)}_{gb}(v) &=& -\frac{T}{12\pi}\left\{
1137: 2m_W^3(T)+m_Z^3(T)+m_{\gamma}^3(T)
1138: - 2m_W^3-m_Z^3 \right\} \nonumber \\
1139: &+&\frac{T}{12\pi}\Big\{
1140: \frac{3}{4}
1141: \left[2 g^2m_W(T)+(g^2+g'^2)(m_Z(T)R_Z-m_\gamma(T)R_\gamma)\right]
1142: \nonumber \\
1143: &\times& \frac{T}{384 \pi} \sum_{i=1}^4
1144: \left(\frac{1}{\left(m_i^2+\Pi_1\right)^{3/2}}
1145: \right)\Big\} (\sy H)^2
1146: \label{massesTexpanded}
1147: \eea
1148: \end{widetext}
1149: where
1150: \bea
1151: R_Z&=& \frac{2m_Z^2(T)}{m_Z^2(T)-m_\gamma^2(T)}-
1152: \frac{g^2g'^2}{(g^2+g'^2)^2}
1153: \frac{m_Z^2(T)+m_\gamma^2(T)}{m_Z^2(T)-m_\gamma^2(T)} \nonumber \\
1154: R_\gamma&=& \frac{2m_\gamma^2(T)}{m_Z^2(T)-m_\gamma^2(T)}-
1155: \frac{g^2g'^2}{(g^2+g'^2)^2}
1156: \frac{m_Z^2(T)+m_\gamma^2(T)}{m_Z^2(T)-m_\gamma^2(T)}. \nonumber \\
1157: \label{Rs}
1158: \eea
1159:
1160: The final expression for the effective potential is obtained by adding up the
1161: results in Eqs.~(\ref{pothiggs}), (\ref{idealgas}), (\ref{idealgasfer}),
1162: (\ref{idealgasgbT}), (\ref{VringBno0}) and~(\ref{massesTexpanded}).
1163: \bea
1164: V(v)&=&V_{tree}(v)+V^{(1)}_{Higgs}+V_f^{(1)}+V^{(1)}_{gb} \nonumber \\
1165: &+& V^{(ring)}_{Higgs}+V^{(ring)}_{gb}
1166: \label{finalpot}
1167: \eea
1168: Notice that the dangerous terms $m_i^3$ which come from $V^{(1)}_{Higgs}$
1169: cancel with the corresponding terms coming from $V^{(ring)}_{Higgs}$. The
1170: cubic term in the masses of the gauge bosons do not cancel but since these
1171: masses are positive definite, these terms do not pose any problem. Also, in
1172: order for the terms involving the square of the bosons' thermal mass to be
1173: real, the temperature must be such that
1174: \bea
1175: T>T_1&\equiv&\sqrt{\frac{-16 m_1^2(v=0)}{3g^2+g'^2+8\lambda+4f^2}},
1176: \label{bound1}
1177: \eea
1178: which defines a lower bound for the temperature. A more restrictive bound is
1179: obtained by requiring that $\sy H < \tilde{m}^2$ for the weak field expansion
1180: to work. This condition translates into the bound
1181: \bea
1182: T>T_2&\equiv&\sqrt{\frac{\sy H-16 m_1^2(v=0)}{3g^2+g'^2+8\lambda+4f^2}}.
1183: \label{bound2}
1184: \eea
1185: \begin{figure}[t!] % fig5
1186: \vspace{0.4cm}{\centering
1187: \resizebox*{0.46\textwidth}
1188: {0.08\textheight}{\includegraphics{sapfig5.eps}}
1189: \par}
1190: \caption{Schematic representation of ring diagrams, that consist in the
1191: resummation of successive insertions of self-energies in vacuum bubbles.}
1192: \label{fig5}
1193: \end{figure}
1194:
1195: The relevant factor that enhances the order of transition, present both in
1196: $V^{(ring)}_{Higgs}$ and $V^{(ring)}_{gb}$, is $(\sy H)^2/\tilde{m}_i^3$
1197: which can be traced back to the boson self-energy diagrams involving a tadpole
1198: of hypercharged scalars in the presence of the external field.
1199:
1200: \section{Symmetry Breaking}\label{VI}
1201:
1202: In order to quantitatively check the effect of the magnetic field during the
1203: EWPT, we proceed to plot $V_{eff}$ as a function of the vacuum expectation
1204: value $v$. For the analysis we use $g'=0.344$ and $g=0.637$, $m_Z=91$ GeV,
1205: $m_W=80$ GeV, $f=1$, $\lambda=0.11$ which corresponds to the current bound on
1206: the Higgs mass.
1207:
1208: \begin{figure}[t!] % fig6
1209: \vspace{0.4cm}
1210: {\centering
1211: \resizebox*{0.4\textwidth}
1212: {0.20\textheight}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{sapfig6.eps}}
1213: \par}
1214: \caption{(Color on line) $V_{eff}$ as a function of $v$ for different
1215: temperatures and
1216: $H =0$. At high temperature ($T_1$) the symmetry is restored.
1217: Decreasing the temperature ($T_2$) causes $V_{eff}$ to develop a secondary
1218: minimum that becomes degenerate with the original one for a critical
1219: temperature $T_c^0<T_1<T_2$, where $v=v^0$. Lowering further the temperature
1220: below $T_c^0$ produces the system to spinodaly decompose. For the analysis we
1221: use $g'=0.344$ and $g=0.637$, $m_Z=91$ GeV, $m_W=80$ GeV, $f=1$,
1222: $\lambda=0.11$.}
1223: \label{fig6}
1224: \end{figure}
1225:
1226: Figure~\ref{fig6} shows $V_{eff}$ for different temperatures and
1227: $H =0$. This figure shows the usual behavior whereby at high
1228: temperature the symmetry is restored and, when decreasing the temperature,
1229: $V_{eff}$ develops a secondary minimum that becomes degenerate with the
1230: original one for a critical temperature $T_c^0$, where $v=v^0$. Lowering
1231: further the temperature below $T_c^0$ produces the system to spinodaly
1232: decompose.
1233:
1234: To study the effect of the hypermagnetic field on the effective potential, we
1235: parametrize $H=h\,(100\ \mbox{GeV})^2$. In what follows, we always choose
1236: values for $h$ that comply with the condition $h(\sy \,(100\
1237: \mbox{GeV})^2)<\tilde{m}_1^2(v=0)$, as required from our hierarchy of scales,
1238: since the smallest possible mass is always that of a scalar boson in the
1239: symmetric phase. Figure~\ref{fig7} shows $V_{eff}$ for different field
1240: strengths $H_3>H_2>H_1$ and constant $T$ where $T$ is taken as the critical
1241: temperature for the $h=0$ case. We can see that for higher field strengths,
1242: the phase transition is delayed, favoring higher values of the ratio of the
1243: vacuum expectation value $\langle v\rangle$ in the broken symmetry phase to
1244: the critical temperature $T_c$. This makes the transition stronger first order
1245: as the strength of the field increases.
1246:
1247: Figure~\ref{fig8} shows a comparison of $V_{eff}$ for different field
1248: strengths $H_3>H_2>H_1$ at their corresponding critical
1249: temperatures with $T_c(h_3)<T_c(h_2)<T_c(h_1)$ for $h_3=0.25$, $h_2=0.2$ and
1250: $h_1=0.1$. From this
1251: figure we also note that increasing the intensity of the field, the barrier
1252: between minima becomes higher and the ratio $\langle v\rangle /T$ becomes
1253: larger, making the EWPT become stronger first order~\cite{Petropoulos}.
1254:
1255: The effect of the hypermagnetic field is therefore twofold: first it delays
1256: the beginning of the phase transition and second the Higgs vacuum expectation
1257: value in the broken symmetry phase becomes larger. Both effects favor the
1258: suppression of the sphaleron transition rate and therefore help the freezing
1259: of a possible baryon asymmetry during the EWPT.
1260:
1261: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}\label{VII}
1262:
1263: In conclusion, we have shown that in the presence of an external magnetic
1264: field, the EWPT becomes stronger first order. Our treatment has been
1265: implemented for the case of weak fields for the hierarchy of scales $\sy H
1266: \ll m^2 \ll T^2$ where $m$ is taken as a generic mass involved in the
1267: calculation. Notice that when this relation is applied to the case of the
1268: scalar masses, $m^2$ should be regarded as $\tilde{m}^2$. We have explicitly
1269: worked with the degrees of freedom in the
1270: symmetric phase where the external magnetic field belongs to the $U(1)_Y$
1271: group and therefore properly receives the name of {\it hypermagnetic}
1272: field. The calculation is carried out up to the contribution of ring
1273: diagrams to the effective potential at finite temperature. To include the
1274: effects of this external field, we have made use of the Schwinger proper-time
1275: method. In this way, the contribution from all Landau levels has been
1276: accounted for. We have carried out a systematic expansion up to order $(\sy
1277: H)^2$. The presence of the external hypermagnetic field gives rise to terms
1278: in the effective potential proportional to $1/\tilde{m}_i^3$, where
1279: $\tilde{m}_i^2=m_i^2+\Pi_1$, coming from tadpole diagrams in the boson
1280: self-energies where the loop particle is a hypercharged scalar and $m_i$ are
1281: their masses. These terms are the relevant ones for the strengthening of the
1282: order of the phase transition since $\tilde{m}_i(v)$ is small for small values
1283: of $v$, which enhances the curvature of the effective potential near $v=0$.
1284:
1285: The presence of the hypermagnetic field has two simultaneous effects: first it
1286: delays the beginning of the phase transition as compared to the case with no
1287: hypermagnetic field. Second, the Higgs vacuum expectation value in the broken
1288: symmetry phase becomes larger. Both effects favor the suppression of the
1289: sphaleron transition rate and therefore help the freezing of a possible
1290: baryon asymmetry during the EWPT. Although our %qualitative
1291: study suggests that
1292: for reasonable values of the magnetic field strength the ratio $\langle
1293: v\rangle/T$ does not reach the necessary values to avoid the sphaleron
1294: erasure, we should keep in mind that we have worked under very restrictive
1295: assumptions, derived from our assumed hierarchy of scales. Lifting some of the
1296: restrictions, in particular the weakness of the magnetic field compared to
1297: the mass scale, could open a window to make the above ratio larger, while
1298: remaining within the observational bounds. This is a subject under current
1299: study and will be reported elsewhere.
1300: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1301: \begin{figure}[t!] % fig7
1302: \vspace{0.4cm}
1303: {\centering
1304: \resizebox*{0.4\textwidth}
1305: {0.20\textheight}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{sapfig7.eps}}
1306: \par}
1307: \caption{(Color on line) $V_{eff}$ as a function of $v$ for constant $T$ and
1308: different values
1309: $H=h\,(100\ \mbox{GeV})^2$ where $h_1=0$, $h_2=0.03$ and $h_3=0.06$.
1310: The choosen temperature $T$ is the critical temperature for $h_1=0$. For
1311: higher field strengths, the phase transition is delayed, favoring higher
1312: values of $\langle v\rangle/T_c$. For the analysis we use $g'=0.344$ and
1313: $g=0.637$, $m_Z=91$ GeV, $m_W=80$ GeV, $f=1$, $\lambda=0.11$.}
1314: \label{fig7}
1315: \end{figure}
1316: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1317: The calculation has been carried out in the framework of perturbation theory
1318: but in order to make contact with the values for the masses of the top quark
1319: and the current bounds on the Higgs mass, in the numerical analysis we have
1320: used large values for the coupling constants, in particular we have considered
1321: the top Yukawa coupling $f=1$. In this sense, our calculation has to be
1322: considered as an analytical tool to explore this non perturbative regime.
1323:
1324: Our results go along the same direction as the ones obtained at
1325: tree~\cite{Giovannini} and one-loop~\cite{Elmfors}levels. We should however
1326: point out that the same problem has been also treated in
1327: Refs.~\cite{Skalozub1,Skalozub2} in the context of strong external
1328: magnetic/hypermagnetic fields. These authors conclude that the magnetic field
1329: gives rise to logarithmic terms of the ratio of the temperature to the fermion
1330: masses and
1331: that for light fermions, these terms increase the {\it inertia} of the Higgs
1332: field producing the phase transition to become second order. Similar
1333: logarithmic terms appear in a weak field expansion of the effective potential
1334: in Ref.~\cite{Persson} although, as pointed out by the authors of that work,
1335: their weak field expansion is not necessarily reliable since it is given in
1336: terms of a Borel summable rather than a convergent series. In this work we
1337: have not come across such terms but a detailed comparison between the methods
1338: used in the above mentioned works with ours to include the effects of the
1339: magnetic field is certainly called for. Also the study of the gauge parameter
1340: dependence and the inclusion of small but not necessarily negligible terms
1341: proportional to the gauge boson masses is a natural extension of this
1342: work. Progress in this direction is being made and we will report on it
1343: elsewhere~\cite{Jorge}.
1344:
1345: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1346: \begin{figure}[t!] % fig8
1347: \vspace{0.4cm}
1348: {\centering
1349: \resizebox*{0.4\textwidth}
1350: {0.20\textheight}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{sapfig8.eps}}
1351: \par}
1352: \caption{(Color on line) $V_{eff}$ as a function of $v$ for different
1353: hypermagnetic field
1354: strengths $h_3>h_2>h_1$ at their corresponding critical
1355: temperatures
1356: $T_c(h_3)<T_c(h_2)<T_c(h_1)$, where $H=h\,(100\ \mbox{GeV})^2$. We
1357: note that increasing the intensity of the field, the barrier
1358: between minima becomes higher and that the ratio $\langle v\rangle /T$ becomes
1359: larger. For the analysis we use $g'=0.344$ and
1360: $g=0.637$, $m_Z=91$ GeV, $m_W=80$ GeV, $f=1$, $\lambda=0.11$.}
1361: \label{fig8}
1362: \end{figure}
1363: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1364:
1365: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1366:
1367: We acknowledge useful conversations with M.E. Tejeda, S. Sahu A. Raya and
1368: J.L. Navarro during the genesis and realization of the work. Support has been
1369: received in part by DGAPA-UNAM under PAPIIT Grant No. IN107105 and by
1370: CONACyT-M\'exico under Grant No. 40025-F.
1371:
1372: \section*{Appendix}
1373:
1374: First we sketch the computation of the diagram depicted in
1375: fig.~\ref{fig3}($II$) representing the fermion contribution to the one-loop
1376: gauge boson self-energy tensor up to order $(\sy H)^2$, where it is not
1377: evident that the off-diagonal components are negligible. We use the notation
1378: $^n\Pi_{\mu\nu}$, $n=0,1,2$, where $n$ is the power of $\sy H$. To zeroth
1379: order we have
1380: \bea
1381: ^0\Pi_{\mu\nu}&=&\left(\frac{g}{4}\right)^2
1382: T\sum_{n}\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\nonumber\\
1383: &\times&\frac{16 k_\mu k_\nu-8k^2\delta_{\mu\nu}}{[k^2+{m_f}_i^2]
1384: [(k-p)^2+{m_f}_i^2]}.
1385: \label{A1}
1386: \eea
1387: Using the result in Eq.~(\ref{highT}) for fermions
1388: we get
1389: \bea
1390: ^0\Pi_{\mu\nu}&=&\left(\frac{g}{4}\right)^2
1391: \Big\{\left(\frac{2}{3}T^2 + \frac{{m_f}_i^2}{2\pi^2}
1392: \left[
1393: \frac{1}{\epsilon}+\gamma_E+\ln{\frac{4\mu^2}{\pi T^2}}-1
1394: \right]\right) \nonumber \\
1395: &\times&\delta_{\mu 0}\delta_{\nu 0}
1396: +\frac{{m_f}_i^2}{(4\pi)^2}
1397: \left[\frac{2}{3}+\frac{1}{\epsilon}+\gamma_E+
1398: \ln{\frac{4\mu^2}{\pi T^2}}\right]
1399: \delta_{i\mu}\delta_{j\nu}
1400: \Big\}\!.\nonumber\\
1401: \label{A1a}
1402: \eea
1403: To first order we have
1404: \bea
1405: ^1\Pi_{\mu\nu}&=& -8(\sy H) \left(\frac{g}{4}\right)^2
1406: T\sum_{n}\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\nonumber\\
1407: &\times&
1408: \left[ k_3(k_\mu u_\nu+k_\nu u_\mu) +
1409: \omega_n(k_\mu b_\nu+k_\nu b_\mu)\right.\nonumber\\
1410: &-& \left. 2\omega_n k_3\delta_{\mu\nu}
1411: \right][I_{12}({\bf k},{\bf q})+I_{21}({\bf k},{\bf q})]\nonumber\\
1412: &+&8i\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\left[k_3 k^\alpha u^\beta
1413: +\omega_n k^\alpha b^\beta\right]\nonumber\\
1414: &\times&[I_{12}({\bf k},{\bf q})-I_{21}({\bf k},{\bf q})].
1415: \label{A2}
1416: \eea
1417: Using again Eq.~(\ref{highT})
1418: we explicitly get
1419: \bea
1420: ^1\Pi_{\mu\nu}&=&\left(\frac{g}{4}\right)^2 \frac{(\sy H)}{2\pi^2}
1421: \left[
1422: \frac{1}{\epsilon}+\gamma_E+\ln{\frac{4 \mu}{\pi T}}+\frac{1}{3}
1423: \right] \nonumber \\
1424: &\times& (\delta_{\mu 3}\delta_{\nu 0} +\delta_{\mu 0}\delta_{\nu 3}).
1425: \label{A2a}
1426: \eea
1427: To second order we get contributions from two terms
1428: \bea
1429: ^2\Pi_{\mu\nu}^{a}&=& 8(\sy H)^2 \left(\frac{g}{4}\right)^2
1430: T\sum_{n}\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}
1431: \left[k_3^2(2u_\mu u_\nu-\delta_{\mu\nu}) \right. \nonumber \\
1432: &+& \left. 2\omega_n k_3(u_\mu b_\nu+u_\nu b_\mu)
1433: +\omega_n^2(2b_\mu b_\nu-\delta_{\mu\nu})\right]\nonumber \\
1434: &\times& I_{22}({\bf k},{\bf q}),
1435: \label{A3}
1436: \eea
1437: and
1438: \bea
1439: ^2\Pi_{\mu\nu}^{b}&=&-8(\sy H)^2 \left(\frac{g}{4}\right)^2
1440: T\sum_{n}\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3} \nonumber \\
1441: &\times& \left[
1442: 4k_\mu k_\nu(k_3^2-\omega_n^2) -2((k_\mu b_\nu +k_\nu b_\mu)k_3
1443: \right. \nonumber \\
1444: &-& \left.
1445: (k_\mu b_\nu +k_\nu b_\mu)\omega_n)(\omega_n^2+{\bf k}^2)\right]
1446: \nonumber \\
1447: &\times& \left(I_{41}({\bf k},{\bf q})+I_{14}({\bf k},{\bf q})
1448: \right) \nonumber \\
1449: &-& 2 i\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\left[k_3 b^\alpha k^\beta
1450: -\omega_n u^\alpha k^\beta\right]k^2 \nonumber \\
1451: &\times& (I_{41}({\bf k},{\bf q})-I_{14}({\bf k},{\bf q})).
1452: \label{A4}
1453: \eea
1454: Using once more Eq.~(\ref{highT})
1455: we get
1456: \bea
1457: ^2\Pi_{\mu\nu}^{a}&=& -8\left(\frac{\sy H}{T}\right)^2
1458: \left(\frac{g}{4}\right)^2
1459: \frac{7 \xi(3)}{48\pi^4}
1460: \left\{ \delta_{\mu 0}\delta_{\nu 0} \right. \nonumber \\
1461: &+&\left. (2
1462: + 3b^i b^j ) \delta_{\mu i} \delta_{\nu j}
1463: \right\},
1464: \label{A3a}
1465: \eea
1466: and
1467: \bea
1468: ^2\Pi_{\mu\nu}^{b}&=&8\left(\frac{\sy H}{T}\right)^2
1469: \left(\frac{g}{4}\right)^2
1470: \frac{7 \xi(3)}{144\pi^4}
1471: \left\{ \delta_{\mu i}\delta_{\nu j} \right. \nonumber \\
1472: &+& \left. 6\delta_{\mu 3}\delta_{\nu 3}
1473: -9\delta_{\mu 0}\delta_{\nu 0} \right\}.
1474: \label{A4a}
1475: \eea
1476:
1477: From Eq.~(\ref{A1a}), we see that the leading contribution corresponds to the
1478: term proportional to $T^2$ and thus the result in the first of
1479: Eqs.~(\ref{auto1bcres}), after summing over all hypercharged fermions. After
1480: factorizing the leading contribution, we also
1481: notice that the terms proportional to $({m_f}_i/T)^2$ come together with a
1482: factor reminiscent of renormalization and running of the fermion mass and
1483: couplings with the scale $\mu$. We do not carry out this procedure in detail
1484: but when absorbing these factors into the redefinition of the fermion mass, we
1485: see that corrections to the leading term are proportional to $({m_f}_i/T)^2$
1486: and therefore for the values taken by $v$ during the EWPT, these corrections
1487: can be safely neglected.
1488:
1489: From Eq.~(\ref{A2a}), and by the same procedure as for the case of the zeroth
1490: order terms, the off-diagonal terms contribute an amount proportional to $\sy
1491: H/T^2$, compared to the leading term and thus for the hierarchy of scales
1492: considered, this term can also be neglected.
1493:
1494: Finally from Eqs.~(\ref{A3a}) and~(\ref{A4a}) we can see that the second order
1495: contributions are proportional to $(\sy H/T^2)^2$ and therefore can also
1496: be safely neglected.
1497:
1498: Next, we sketch the computation of the hypermagnetic field contribution to the
1499: fermion one-loop effective potential $V_f^{(1)}$. According to
1500: Eq.~(\ref{oneloopfer}), this contribution is of second order in $\sy H$.
1501: \bea
1502: ^2V_f^{(1)}=2(\sy H)^2 T \sum_n \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}
1503: \frac{\omega_n^2+k_3^2+{m_f}_i^2}
1504: {(\omega_n^2+{\bf k}^2+{m_f}_i^2)^3}.
1505: \label{A5}
1506: \eea
1507: Using Eq.~(\ref{highT})
1508: we get
1509: \bea
1510: ^2V_f^{(1)}&=&\frac{2(\sy H)^2}{32 \pi^2}
1511: \left[\frac{1}{\epsilon}-\frac{7\xi(3)}{2\pi^2}\frac{{m_f}_i^2}{T^2}
1512: \right.\nonumber\\
1513: &+&\left.\ln(\frac{4 \mu^2}{\pi T^2})+\gamma_E+\frac{2}{3}
1514: \right].
1515: \label{A6}
1516: \eea
1517: After renormalization and running of the couplings with the scale $\mu$ we see
1518: that this contribution is of order $(\sy H/T^2)^2$ and can also be safely
1519: neglected.
1520:
1521:
1522: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1523:
1524: \bibitem{Sakharov}
1525: A.D. Sakharov, Pis'ma Zh. \'Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 5, 32 (1967) [JETP Lett. 5, 24
1526: (1967)].
1527:
1528: \bibitem{Gavela}
1529: M.B. Gavela, P. Hern\'andez, J. Orloff and O. P\`ene, Mod. Phys. Lett. A {\bf
1530: 9}, 795 (1994).
1531:
1532: \bibitem{Kajantie1}
1533: K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen and M. Shaposhnikov, Nucl. Phys. {\bf
1534: B466}, 189 (1996).
1535:
1536: \bibitem{Klinkhamer}
1537: F.R. Klinkhamer and N.S. Manton, \prd {\bf 30}, 2212 (1984).
1538:
1539: \bibitem{reviewsEWPT}
1540: For comprehensive reviews on EW baryogenesis see for example:
1541: M. Trodden, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 71}, 1463 (1999);
1542: A. Megevand, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D {\bf 9}, 733 (2000).
1543:
1544: \bibitem{Petropoulos}
1545: N. Petropoulos, ``Baryogenesis at the electroweak phase transition'',
1546: hep-ph/0304275.
1547:
1548: \bibitem{31}
1549: For comprehensive reviews see P.P. Kronberg, Rep. Prog. Phys. {\bf 57}, 325
1550: (1994); R. Beck, A. Brandedenburg, D. Moss, A. Shukurov and D. Sokoloff,
1551: Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophysics, {\bf 34}, 155 (1996); C.L. Carilli and
1552: G.B. Taylor, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophysics, {\bf 40}, 319 (2002).
1553:
1554:
1555: \bibitem{Barrow}
1556: J.D. Barrow, P. Ferreira and J. Silk, \prl {\bf 78}, 3610 (1997).
1557:
1558: \bibitem{Yamazaki}
1559: D.G. Yamazaki, K. Ichiki, T. Kajino and G.J. Mathews, {\it Constraints on the
1560: evolution of the primordial magnetic field from the small scale cmb angular
1561: anisotropy}, astro-ph/0602224.
1562:
1563: \bibitem{Barrow2}
1564: See J.D. Barrow, R. Maartens and C.G. Tsagas, {\it Cosmology with inhomogeneous
1565: magnetic fields}, astro-ph/0611537 and references therein.
1566:
1567: \bibitem{Grasso}
1568: D. Grasso and H.R. Rubinstein, Phys. Lett. {\bf 379} 73, (1996)
1569:
1570: \bibitem{elreview}
1571: See for example: G. Piccinelli and A. Ayala, Lect. Notes Phys. {\bf 646},
1572: 293-308 (2004).
1573:
1574: \bibitem{Giovannini}
1575: M. Giovannini and M. E. Shaposhnikov, \prd {\bf 57}, 2186 (1998).
1576:
1577: \bibitem{Elmfors}
1578: P. Elmfors, K. Enqvist and K. Kainulainen, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 440},
1579: 269 (1998).
1580:
1581: \bibitem{Kajantie}
1582: K. Kajantie, M. Laine, J. Peisa, K. Rummukainen and M. Shaposhnikov,
1583: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 544}, 357 (1999).
1584:
1585: \bibitem{Pallares}
1586: A. Ayala, J. Besprosvany, G. Pallares and G. Piccinelli, \prd {\bf 64},
1587: 123529 (2001); A. Ayala, G. Piccinelli and G. Pallares, \prd {\bf66},
1588: 103503 (2002), A. Ayala and J. Besprosvany, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B651},
1589: 211 (2004).
1590:
1591: \bibitem{Dario}
1592: D. Comelli, D. Grasso, M. Pietroni and A. Riotto, Phys. Lett. {\bf B458}, 304
1593: (1999).
1594:
1595: \bibitem{Skalozub1}
1596: V. Skalozub and V. Demchik, {\it Electroweak phase transition in strong
1597: magnetic fields in the Standard Model of elementary particles};
1598: hep-th/9912071.
1599:
1600: \bibitem{Skalozub2}
1601: V. Skalozub and M. Bordag, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 15}, 349
1602: (2000).
1603:
1604: \bibitem{Carrington} M.E. Carrington, \prd {\bf 45}, 2933 (1992).
1605:
1606: \bibitem{Schwinger} J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. {\bf 82}, 664 (1951).
1607:
1608: \bibitem{nosotros}
1609: A. Ayala, A. S\'anchez, G. Piccinelli and S. Sahu,
1610: \prd {\bf 71}, 023004 (2005).
1611:
1612: \bibitem{Tzuu}
1613: T.-K. Chyi, C.-W. Hwang, W.F. Kao, G.L. Lin, K.-W. Ng and J.-J. Tseng,
1614: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 105014, (2000).
1615:
1616: \bibitem{Maartens}
1617: R. Maartens, Pramana {\bf 55}, 575 (2000).
1618:
1619: \bibitem{Ambjorn}
1620: J. Ambj{\o}rn and P. Olesen, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B315}, 606 (1989).
1621:
1622: \bibitem{Dolan} L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, \prd {\bf 9}, 3320 (1974).
1623:
1624: \bibitem{Nielsen} N. K. Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B} 101, 173 (1975).
1625:
1626: \bibitem{LeBellac} M. Le Bellac {\it Thermal Field Theory},
1627: Cambridge University Press (1996).
1628:
1629: \bibitem{weldon} H.A. Weldon, \prd {\bf 47}, 594 (1993).
1630:
1631: \bibitem{Bedingham} D.J. Bedingham, \lq\lq Dimensional regularization
1632: and Mellin summation in high temperature calculations'',
1633: hep-ph/0011012.
1634:
1635: \bibitem{Dolivo}
1636: J.C. D'Olivo, J.F. Nieves, S. Sahu, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67}, 025018
1637: (2003).
1638:
1639: \bibitem{nievespal} J.F. Nieves and P.B. Pal, \prd {\bf 39}, 652 (1989).
1640:
1641: \bibitem{arnold} P. Arnold and O. Espinosa \prd {\bf 47}, 3546 (1993).
1642:
1643: \bibitem{Persson} P. Elmfors, D. Persson and B.-S. Skagerstam,
1644: Astropart. Phys. {\bf 2} 299 (1994).
1645:
1646: \bibitem{Jorge}
1647: J.L. Navarro, A. Ayala, G. Piccinelli, A. S\'anchez and M.E. Tejeda, in
1648: progress.
1649:
1650: \end{thebibliography}
1651:
1652: \end{document}
1653: