arxiv:hep-ph/ v1 4 Jun 1996

Transcription

1 CERN-TH/96-98 On the Expansion Rate of the Universe at the Electroweak Scale Michael Joyce Theory Division, CERN, 1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland arxiv:hep-ph/ v1 4 Jun 1996 (4/6/96) Abstract A homogeneous mode of a scalar field in a fast roll ( φ 2 >> V (φ)), which has an energy density scaling as 1/a 6 in an expanding universe, could dominate the universe at the electroweak epoch. The requirement that the energy in the mode red-shift away before nucleosynthesis gives a significantly weakened sphaleron bound for the preservation of a baryon asymmetry produced at a first-order phase transition. The observed baryon asymmetry might even be produced at the electroweak scale in the case that the phase transition is second-order or cross-over. A period where the energy in the universe is dominated by such a mode, which I term kination, can occur as a scalar field rolls down an exponential potential well motivated in many extensions of standard model physics. A cosmological constant at the present epoch may also result. The Hubble expansion rate H of a homogeneous and isotropic Big Bang universe is given by the very simple formula H 2 = (ȧ a )2 = 8πG 3 ρ k a 2 (1) where a is the scale factor, ρ is the energy density and k is a constant which depends on the spatial curvature [1]. The main contribution to ρ today comes from matter which scales as 1

2 1/a 3, with perhaps also a curvature term and even a small cosmological (ρ =constant) term. Going back in time the scale factor decreases and the energy density in the microwave background radiation blueshifts, scaling as 1/a 4, until it comes to dominate the right handside of (1). The most impressive evidence for this extrapolation comes from nucleosynthesis.the precise abundances of the various nuclei synthesised from the nucleons as the universe cools below 1MeV depends sensitively on the relation between the temperature of the radiation (which goes as 1/a) and the expansion rate, and the radiation dominated picture does remarkably well. Going back further in time we reach the electroweak epoch at T 100GeV. The expansion rate again enters in determining the details of the relics left behind, most notably the baryon asymmetry [2]. The point of this Letter is to place in question the assumption of radiation domination at the electroweak epoch, which has been an important element of electroweak cosmology. Just as constraints are placed in the case of nucleosynthesis on the energy density (e.g. the number of relativistic degrees of freedom, the contribution of a magnetic field) I argue that the total energy density (or, more generally, the expansion rate) of the universe at the electroweak epoch should be considered as a parameter, rather than as a known input in electroweak cosmology. I make my point by actually constructing a model, with a simple and well motivated scalar potential, in which a quite different phase of the universe to those normally considered occurs and has precisely the effect of speeding up the rate of expansion at the electroweak scale. Consider first the dynamics of a real scalar field φ with potential V (φ). Variation of the action S = d 4 x ( ) 1 g 2 gµν ( µ φ) ( ν φ) V (φ). (2) taking the FRW metric with scale factor a(t), gives the equation of motion for the homogeneous modes, which can be written d dt (1 2 φ 2 + V (φ)) + 3H φ 2 = 0 (3) 2

3 after multiplication by φ. Defining η(t) = V (φ) 1 2 φ 2 and writing the energy density ρ(t) = 1 2 φ 2 + V (φ), we find ρ(t) = ρ(t o )e t to 6 1+η(t) H(t)dt = ρ(t o )e a ao 6 da 1+η(a) a (4) When the kinetic energy dominates η 0 and ρ 1 a 6 (5) This represents the opposite limit to inflation driven by the potential energy with η and ρ(t) ρ(t o ). Indeed for any homogeneous mode (assuming only that V (φ) is positive) we have that ρ(t o )( a o a )6 ρ(t) ρ(t o ) t t o (6) Putting these limiting behaviours of the energy density into (1) one finds a t 1 3 (with k = 0) for the 1/a 6 scaling, in contrast to a e Ht for inflation(h=const). Instead of superluminal expansion in inflation a kinetic energy dominated mode of a scalar potential drives a subluminal expansion very similar to that of radiation (a t 1 2) or matter (a t 2 3). Writing the stress energy tensor in terms of a pressure p and the energy density in the standard way, the equation of state is p = ρ for the kinetic mode in contrast to p = 1 ρ(radiation), p = 0(matter) and p = ρ(inflation). I will refer to a phase dominated by 3 the kinetic energy of a scalar mode as kination. Now let us suppose that an unknown amount of energy is stored in such a mode at the electroweak epoch. The expansion rate in (1) becomes H 2 = (ȧ a )2 = 8πG 3 ρ e 2 ((a e a )6 + f(a)( a e a )4 ) (7) where a e is the scale factor when the density in the mode becomes equal to that in radiation and ρ e is the energy density at that time. The factor f(a) accounts for the effect of decouplings, and in the approximation that they are instantaneous is f(a) = (g(a e )/g(a)) 1 3 where g(a) is the number of relativistic degrees of freedom. The sphaleron bound [3] results 3

4 from the requirement that the rate of baryon number violating (sphaleron) processes after the electroweak phase transition be less than the expansion rate of the universe so that the baryon asymmetry (putatively) created at the electroweak phase transition be frozen in. Thus Γ sph T w e E sph/t w < H 6 = ( H 6 H 4 )H 4 (8) where H 6 is the Hubble expansion rate and H 4 = 1.66 g w T 2 M pl is the expansion rate we get if we assume radiation domination in the usual way, with g w =g(a w ) 100 and T w 100GeV. The bound on E sph, the sphaleron energy, can thus be written in terms of the usual bound on the same quantity E o sph as E sph = Esph o T w ln[( g w ) 1 T w 2 ] (9) g e T e using the relation Ta=f(a)T e a e where T e is the temperature at radiation-kinetic energy equality (at a = a e ). Let us take the following approximate bound from nucleosynthesis: We allow 10% of the energy to come from the coherent mode at 1MeV, just before the first stage of n p freezout begins [4]. Then T e 3MeV, so taking T w 100GeV, the bound on the sphaleron energy is reduced by approximately one quarter from its usual value of 45T [2]. The lower bound on E sph can be translated into constraints on the parameters in the zero temperature theory, most notably an upper bound on the lightest Higgs particle. Constraints are usually derived using the bound expressed as the ratio of the VEV v in the nucleated bubbles to the nucleation temperature T b, to which the sphaleron energy is linearly proportional. Typically the change being discussed will therefore mean v T b > 1 v T b > 0.75 (10) How significant a difference is this? According to recent lattice studies of the electroweak phase transition in the minimal standard model [5], [2], the usual sphaleron bound cannot be satisfied for any physical Higgs mass, for a top quark mass of m t = 175GeV. The new 4

5 bound in (10) is satisfied for Higgs masses up to about 35GeV. For m t = 155GeV the bound changes from about 35GeV (for the usual case) to 50GeV. The new bounds are still however too low to be consistent with the LEP bounds on the standard model Higgs mass m H > 65GeV. In extensions of the standard model, such as the minimal supersymmetric model (MSSM), recent perturbative [6] and non-perturbative [7] analyses indicate that the usual sphaleron bound can be satisfied in various parts of experimentally allowed parameter space. The new bound simply widens this allowed parameter space. In what sense can this widening be said to be significant or not? For baryogenesis what one must calculate given any set of physical parameters (ultimately to be fixed by particle physical experiments, we hope) is a depletion factor X, where B f = e X B(T o ) is the baryon number at nucleosynthesis and B(T o ) is the baryon number created during the departure from equilibrium at some temperature T o (usually very close to the critical temperature for the phase transition). It is simple to show that X = t o To dtγ sph (t) = Ho 1 dt Γ sph 0 T (T o T )p (11) where p = 2 in the case of radiation domination, and p = 3 for kination. The extra power in the integral is negligible because the integral is cut-off very rapidly due to the exponential dependence in the sphaleron rate, so that the depletion factor is simply changed in inverse proportion to the expansion rate at the phase transition H o. The estimate given above allowing for the potential contribution of the kinetic mode corresponds to a change in the expansion rate by up to a factor of 10 5, so that it could make the difference in a given model between an asymmetry consistent with observation, and one e 105 times smaller. This is certainly in an absolute sense a significant difference! Has such a change to the expansion rate other consequences? An expansion rate at the electroweak scale of T, instead of T in the radiation dominated case, leaves the usual treatment of the phase transition intact, because the timescale for the expansion is still very long compared to thermalization time scales. Details will change. 5

6 The phase transition will proceed slightly differently e.g. with more supercooling before the nucleation of bubbles (if it is first order) [8]. For larger Higgs masses (m H > 80GeV in the standard model) the phase transition is believed to be very weakly first order, second order or cross-over. In this case it has been assumed that a baryon asymmetry of the observed magnitude cannot be created, because the departure from equilibrium required by the Sakharov conditions is too small, being controlled by the expansion rate of the universe rather than by the much shorter time-scales characterizing the propagation of bubbles at a first order phase transition [9], [10], [11]. A simple calculation in the extensions of the standard model with extra CP violation considered in [12] gives the baryon to entropy ratio n B s H f T f θ CP g w (12) where θ CP is the change in a CP violating field during its evolution, times some modeldependent suppression. H f is the Hubble expansion rate when the asymmetry freezes out at temperature T f. Thus, taking the potential effect of the kinetic energy dominated mode into account, we could get n B s (T f /100GeV ) 2 θ CP. Naively one expects that, at most, θ CP 1, but both this and the value of T f depend on the detailed dynamics of the phase transition. A transition temperature somewhat above 100GeV and/or a CP violating field changing slightly faster at the freezout temperature would lead to an asymmetry compatible with the observed n B s More detailed study of the case where the phase transition is second order or cross-over in these models is required before a definitive conclusion can be drawn. The rest of this Letter will be concerned with the question of how kination might occur, with the potentially important consequences just discussed. I wish however to emphasize the following more general point. The only variable in an ab initio calculation of electroweak baryogenesis which we cannot access (at least in principle) through direct measurement is the expansion rate at the electroweak epoch. Rather than assuming radiation domination, the procedure should be to ask what expansion rate would be required to generate the observed asymmetry in any particular model. That there is any such expansion rate is 6

7 itself a very non-trivial requirement of a theory. If an expansion rate different from that corresponding to radiation domination can account for the observed asymmetry, we should ask what extensions of standard model physics - ideally with other observable consequences - might lead to this result. What one requires in the scenario sketched is that the energy in the kinetic mode be much greater than the energy in radiation at the electroweak scale. An explanation of the usual scenario in which the universe is dominated by uniform radiation at the electroweak epoch is provided by inflation: A scalar field φ displaced from its minimum rolls in its potential V (φ), sufficiently slowly that it satisfies the condition V (φ) >> φ 2 for long enough to inflate a small uniform region outside our present horizon; the field eventually reaches its minimum and oscillates about it, until it decays to produce radiation at the re-heat temperature T RH. Kination, on the other hand, will occur (commencing at some temperature T k above or at the electroweak scale T w ) if (1) a scalar field deposits a potential energy density V o >> T 4 k into a kinetic energy density, and (2) this roll occur without inflating away the radiation (leaving it instead at the temperature T k ). In order to have the proposed cosmological effects it is also necessary that (3) the energy of the field continues to be dominated by its kinetic energy for sufficiently long. Consider the equations governing the dynamics of the scalar field in a universe in which there is also some energy density ρ r in radiation, to which the scalar field is coupled only through the Einstein equation (1): φ + 3H φ + V (φ) = 1 a 3 d dt (a3 φ) + V (φ) = 0 (13) H 2 = 1 ( 1 3Mp 2 2 φ 2 + V (φ) + ρ r ) (14) ρ r + 4Hρ r = 0 (15) where M p = 1/ 8πG is the reduced Planck mass. Suppose at the end of an epoch of inflation (driven by some other field) the universe is reheated to temperature T RH. The first two conditions for kination will be satisfied if the field φ lies away from its minimum at φ RH, with V (φ RH ) >> Tw 4, and curvature so that a roll down the potential occurs rapidly 7

8 enough that it does not inflate away the radiation, but leaves it at T k > T w. The third condition requires that after this roll the potential become sufficiently flat, the potential energy decreasing as the field continues its roll at least as fast as the kinetic energy (which is being damped by the expansion). How flat then is flat enough? Consider the solution to (13) and (14) with V = 0 = ρ r : φ(t) = φ o ( a o a )3 = φ o ( t o t ) φ(t) = φ o + φ o t o ln t t o (16) The logarithmic behaviour suggests an exponential potential. It was shown in [13] that there are particular attractor solutions to (13) and (14), with ρ r = 0, for the potential V (φ) = V o e λφ/mp which are where λ = φ(t) = M p 2Aln(Mp t) a t A V (φ) 1 φ = 3A 1 (17) 2 2 2/A and the origin of φ is redefined so that V o = MpA(3A 4 1). The context within which [13] discussed this potential was power-law inflation the superluminal expansion which occurs when A > 1. From (4) it follows that ρ 1/a 2 A (η = 3A 1) so that here we are interested in the case A 1 3. One of the drawbacks of the superluminal case was that the supergravity theories which motivated the potentials favoured values λ > 2. For example the authors of [14] find λ = 2 and λ = 6 for two scalar fields in N = 2, six dimensional supergravity with S 2 compactification, and the same in N = 1, ten dimensional supergravity with gaugino condensation. In [14] it is shown that a damping term due to a coupling to some other field can remedy this problem, because it sharply increases the power of the solution in (17). This is simply because such a term damps the kinetic energy more efficiently and leads to a larger ratio η, and hence potentially inflation instead of kination [15]. In the present context this observation is also relevant. With an exponential with A 1 3 [16] we satisfy the third condition for kination, but not the first two. In such a steep potential the roll down after a prior inflationary period to the solution (17) will happen without any inflation to cool the radiation. With a damping term however, the required transition from inflation to 8

9 kination could happen without any extra structure in the potential at φ RH. If, for example, φ couples only to some very heavy degree of freedom, a damping term which switches off at some temperature results, allowing the field then to run into its roll down the exponential. Alternatively, one can consider a potential like V o e φ2 /M 2 p with φrh 0, in which case a transient period of inflation can occur without any damping. Details of various such models will be presented in [17]. Now consider further the evolution in the simple exponential potential with A = 1 +ǫ, and 3 V o = ǫm 4 p m 2 M 2 p. We take the field to evolve in the kinetic energy dominated solution (17) from time t k, at which the temperature of the radiation is T k (with ρ 1 2 φ 2 = Mp 3t 2 k >> T 4 k ), until the time t r and temperature T r at which radiation domination begins i.e. 1 2 φ 2 T 4 r (neglecting for simplicity all prefactors). For t > t r the V (φ) term in (13) is initially negligible and the approximate solution for φ is φ(t) = M p 2A[ln(Mp t r ) + 2(1 ( t r t )1 2 )] (18) i.e. φ gets stuck very close to its value at the end of kination φ r = φ(t r ), because of the stronger damping in a radiation dominated universe. Using this solution it is easy to estimate the temperature at which the potential term again becomes relevant in (13) to be T v (T r V (φ r )) 1 5 T r ǫ 1 5. Until this time the kinetic energy density just scales away as 1/a 6 and the potential energy remains constant. What happens when the potential starts to make the field roll again at T T v? The possibility that an energy density in such a potential could play an interesting cosmological role at late times has been discussed in [18]. There is another attractor solution to (13)-(15) with ρ r 0 (or in general for an energy density which scales as 1/a n, so that the third equation is ρ n + nhρ n = 0) in which both the kinetic energy and the potential energy of the scalar field are in a fixed ratio to ρ n (all scaling as 1/a n ) V (φ) 1 φ = 6 n ρ φ = n 2 2 n ρ φ + ρ n λ = 1 na (19) 2 2 provided n < λ 2 = 2/A (i.e.provided the energy in the scalar field scales faster than 1/a n when ρ n is negligible). A simple analysis shows that the field ends up in this solution 9

10 some time after T T v and before T (V (φ r )) 1 4 = T r ǫ 1 4. With the choice m 1TeV ( SUSY breaking scale) and taking T r 10MeV (i.e. for radiation domination before nucleosynthesis), this corresponds to T ev so that, for A 1, half the energy in the 3 universe during the matter dominated era (n = 3) is in the scalar field. The constraints on this type of cosmological constant usually infered from nucleosynthesis are circumvented because the constant solution is reached only after nucleosynthesis [19]. As mentioned above a damping term can also change the scaling - a very weakly coupled field φ could produce an inflationary solution at late times, potentially giving an effect like that of a real cosmological constant. Wetterich [18] discusses the possibility that such a variation of the steepness of the exponential could come from a running coupling in the model he considers. There are clearly many interesting issues to be investigated in both the particle physics and the detailed cosmology of such models. Acknowledgements. I am indebted to M. Shaposhnikov for many useful discussions, and to P. Elmfors, P. Ferreira, K. Kainulainen, C. Korthals-Altes, G. Moore, T. Prokopec and N. Turok for conversations or comments. 10

11 REFERENCES [1] See, for example, P.J.E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton (1993); E. Kolb and M. Turner, The Early Universe, Addison Wesley(1990). [2] For a recent review see V. A. Rubakov and M.E. Shaposhnikov, hep-ph/ [3] M.E. Shaposhnikov, JETP Lett. 44, 465 (1986); Nucl. Phys. B287, 757 (1987). [4] See, for example, B. Fields, K. Kainulainen, K. Olive and D. Thomas, astro-ph [5] K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen and M. Shaposhnikov, hep-lat/ [6] M. Carena, M. Quiros and C. Wagner, hep-ph/ [7] J. Cline and K. Kainulainen, hep-ph/ ; M. Laine, hep-ph/ [8] This will also further weaken the sphaleron bound since the bubbles will nucleate later, at a larger VEV. [9] V. Kuzmin, V. Rubakov and M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett.155B, 36 (1985). [10] For a recent discussion see T.Prokopec, R.Brandenberger and A.Davis, hep-ph/ [11] One exception is a mechanism involving topological defects, cf. R. Brandenberger, A. Davis, T. Prokopec and M. Trodden, hep-ph/ and references therein. [12] N. Turok and J. Zadrozny, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 2331 (1990); M. Dine, P. Huet, R. Singleton and L. Susskind, Phys. Lett. 257B, 351 (1991); A.Cohen, D.Kaplan and A.Nelson, Phys. Lett. 263B, 86 (1991). [13] J.J. Halliwell, Phys. Lett. 185B, 341 (1987); I use the notation of J.D.Barrow, Phys. Lett. 187B, 12 (1987). [14] J. Yokoyama and K. Maeda, Phys. Lett. 207B, 31 (1988). [15] This is just a special case of thermal inflation, cf. D. Lyth and E. Stewart, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 201 (1995). 11

12 [16] Any more rapidly decreasing potential, e.g. the simple exponential with A 1 3, has solutions approaching 1/a 6 scaling. I concentrate here on the case A 1 3 since it has the exact solution (17) and the motivation given in [14]. [17] M. Joyce, in preparation. It is noteworthy that these potentials do not suffer from the Polonyi problem. [18] C. Wetterich, Nucl. Phys. B302, 668(1988); B. Ratra and P.J.E. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D37, 3406 (1988); C. Wetterich, hep-th/ [19] See M. Birkel and S. Sarkar, astro-ph/ and references therein. 12