arxiv:hep-ph/ v1 31 Dec 1998

Transcription

1 hep-ph/ Electric charge breaking in two stage phase transitions of models with two Higgs doublets A. B. Lahanas, V. C. Spanos and Vasilios Zarikas arxiv:hep-ph/ v1 31 Dec 1998 University of Athens, Physics Department, Nuclear and Particle Physics Division, GR Athens, Greece Abstract We discuss the features of a two Higgs doublet model exhibiting a two stage phase transition in the presence of soft terms in the scalar potential. Such terms are necessary in order to explain the observed baryon asymmetry B in the Universe. At finite temperatures electric charge violating stationary points are developed. In conjuction with CP violation in the Higgs or the Yukawa sector, the phase transition to the charge conserving vacuum, generates a net charge asymmetry Q, which may be well above the astrophysical bounds put on Q. The model is of relevance for supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model, since it shares the characteristic features of such extensions namely two Higgs doublets and similar CP violating sources. alahanas@cc.uoa.gr, vspanos@cc.uoa.gr, vzarikas@cc.uoa.gr

2 I. INTRODUCTION A major problem of cosmology is the explanation of the observed baryon asymmetry. One of the great achievements of the standard hot big bang cosmological model is certainly nucleosynthesis, which explains the measured abundances of the light elements in the Universe. It leads, however, to a fine tuning problem of one parameter, the baryon to entropy ratio. It is required that this parameter be in the range < n B /s < , where n B is the net baryon density in a commoving volume and s is the entropy density. The requirement for cosmological baryon asymmetry poses severe constraints on the allowed particle models. A. Sakharov, first in 1967, tried to explain the value of the baryon to entropy ratio assuming symmetric cosmological initial conditions. He concluded that in order to generate the baryon asymmetry dynamically, as the Universe cools, the following criteria should be satisfied: The baryon number is not conserved, C and CP symmetries are violated and there are non equilibrium conditions. The only successful attempts so far, in explaining baryogenesis at the electroweak scale, are those based on the simplest extensions of the Standard Model (SM) with two Higgs doublet models. The CP violation provided by the Kobayashi Maskawa matrix proves to be too small to explain cosmic baryon asymmetry [1]. These models have a new source of CP violation the phase between the two vacuum expectation values of the Higgs fields Φ 1 Φ 2 = Re iϕ, [2], [3,4], [5]. Shaposnikov [6] and MacLerran [7] first proposed that the two-higgs model is a candidate model for electroweak baryogenesis. Turok and Zadrozny subsequently analyzed how it could work [8]. Thus a model with two scalar boson doublets can be a sensible extension of the SM, if one requires sufficient baryon asymmetry at the electroweak phase transition. In supersymmetric models it is necessary to have at least two Higgs doublets, while extra CP violating sources arise naturally. However it should be noted that in this case too, 1

3 the magnitude of CP violation proves to be rather small in a wide range of the parameter space [9]. In the two-higgs model the desired baryogenesis at the electroweak scale implemented by the introduction of terms that break CP invariance explicitly at the tree level. The necessity for the introduction of soft CP violating terms is the natural suppression [4] of Higgs mediated flavor changing neutral currents (FCNC). It is well known that CP symmetry is spontaneously broken in the presence of two Higgs doublets, at the expense of introducing unnatural suppression of FCNC processes [10]. On the other hand, CP violation with two Higgs doublets and FCNC processes that are suppressed due to the heaviness of the Higgses involved [11], lead to second order phase transitions making the baryogenesis scenario almost impossible to implement [12]. The magnitude of CP violation required in baryogenesis is rather large, particularly if the two-higgs model is the relic of a symmetry breaking at scales above the electroweak scale, where it is more natural that any explicit CP violating terms are small [9,13], [14]. However in the context of a two-higgs model it has been shown [15] that, in the absence of soft CP violating terms, domains of the Universe can first tunnel to a new type of minimum. In this case either of the two Higgs doublets develop no vacuum expectation value before evolving to the usual electroweak symmetry breaking minimum. In other words the phase transition occurs in two stages. The first stage is a first order transition, while the subsequent is of second order. Then fluctuations of the minimum due to the presence of the soft terms discussed above which are proved to lead to amplified CP violation at high temperature, resulting therefore to a reasonably large baryon asymmetry. This happens in a significant range of the parameters that also Land and Carlson [16] first noticed the possibility of a two stage phase transition. However the characteristics of it are different from the one we are discussing here. 2

4 cover the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM). The present work is a complete analysis of the two-higgs phase transition in the sense that we fully take into account the contribution of the soft breaking terms. The calculation reveals a very interesting feature: The phase transition takes place again in two stages. This happens for the entire range of the parameters, as long as the ratio of the vacuum expectation values is smaller than unity. The explicit CP violating angles developed in this first stage are indeed amplified compared to the zero temperature ones as required from baryogenesis. However during this stage, a stationary point that breaks the U(1) gauge symmetry of electromagnetism is always develope, which may lead to a large net cosmic charge asymmetry. The presence of such an asymmetry can lead to dramatic effects in the cosmological evolution due to the large strength of the electromagnetic interactions as compared to those of gravity. Any specific model that produces a charge asymmetry beyond a certain limit can be excluded on cosmological grounds. On the other hand, a small electric charge asymmetry is useful for the production of a primordial magnetic seed field [17]. II. THE SCALAR POTENTIAL Using doublets both of weak hypercharge Y weak = +1 the two-higgs scalar potential can be written [18]as follows V Higgs = µ 2 1Φ 1Φ 1 + µ 2 2Φ 2Φ 2 + λ 1 (Φ 1Φ 1 ) 2 + λ 2 (Φ 2Φ 2 ) 2 + λ 3 (Φ 1Φ 1 )(Φ 2Φ 2 ) +λ 4 (Φ 1Φ 2 )(Φ 2Φ 1 ) λ 5[(Φ 1Φ 2 ) 2 + (Φ 2Φ 1 ) 2 ] + V soft, (1) where λ i are real numbers and We follow here the notation of [18] who uses both Higgs doublet fields of same hypercharge. 3

5 Φ 1 = 1 ( ) φ1 + iφ 2, Φ 2 = 1 ( ) φ5 + iφ 6. (2) 2 φ 3 + iφ 4 2 φ 7 + iφ 8 The above potential without its soft breaking part V soft, which we discuss in the following, is the most general one satisfying the following discrete symmetries: Φ 2 Φ 2, Φ 1 Φ 1, d i R di R, ui R ui R, (3) where u i R and di R represent the right-handed weak eigenstates with charges 2 and respectively. All other fields involved remain intact under the above discrete symmetry. This symmetry forces all the quarks of a given charge to interact with only one doublet, and thus Higgs mediated flavor-changing neutral currents are absent. When this discrete symmetry is broken, during a cosmological phase transition, it produces stable domain walls via the Kibble mechanism [19]. One can overcome this problem by adding terms, which break this symmetry providing at the same time the required explicit CP violation for baryogenesis. The most general form of the V soft part of the potential is V soft = µ 2 3 Φ 1 Φ 2 + λ 6 (Φ 1 Φ 1)(Φ 1 Φ 2) + λ 7 (Φ 2 Φ 2)(Φ 1 Φ 2) + h.c. (4) The parameters µ 3, λ 6 and λ 7 are in general complex numbers µ 2 3 = m2 3 eiθ 3, λ 6 = l 6 e iθ 6, λ 7 = l 7 e iθ 7 (5) providing explicit CP violation at the tree level. In order to study the structure of the vacua we can perform an SU(2) rotation, that sets the vev s of the fields for φ 1,2,3 of Eq. (2) equal to zero. Solving the system V/ φ i = 0 implies several different stationary points. One of them is the usual asymmetric minimum, that respects the U(1) of electromagnetism The discrete symmetry is broken softly in the presence of λ 6, λ 7 0 and µ terms. Only the term µ 2 3 breaks softly this symmetry. However we call all these three terms, as soft terms. 4

6 Φ 1 = 1 ( ) 0, Φ 2 = 1 ( ) 0. (6) 2 u 2 ve iϕ In Eq. (6), u, v, ϕ are real numbers. The phase ϕ is the explicit CP violating angle that appears due to existence of the soft breaking terms. The acceptable parameters of the model are those ensuring that the above stationary point becomes the absolute minimum at zero temperature. The free parameters of the model can be taken to be the quartic couplings λ i, the ratio β = u/v and the mass parameter µ 3, since we have the following extremization conditions: µ 2 1 = λ 1 β 2 v (λ 3 + λ 4 + λ 5 )v 2 + m 2 3 cosθ 3 β 1 m 2 3 sin θ 3 β 1 ϕ 1 4 l 7 cos θ 7 v 2 β l 7 sin θ 7 v 2 β 1 ϕ 3 4 l 6 cos θ 6 v 2 β l 6 sin θ 6 v 2 βϕ, (7) µ 2 2 = λ 2v (λ 3 + λ 4 + λ 5 ) β 2 v 2 + m 2 3 cos θ 3 β 3 4 l 7 cosθ 7 v 2 β l 7 sin θ 7 v 2 βϕ 1 4 l 6 cos θ 6 v 2 β 3 (8) and m 2 3 ϕ = sin θ 3 + 1l 4 7 sin θ 7 v 2 + 1l 4 6 sin θ 6 v 2 β 2 λ 5 v 2 β m 2 3 cosθ 3 + 1l 4 7 cosθ 7 v 2 + 1l 4 6 cosθ 6 v 2 β. (9) 2 In deriving Eq. (7), and Eq. (8) we have made use of the fact that the zero temperature phase is small ϕ 1, as discussed previously. The value of ϕ can become very small either by taking the phases θ 3, θ 6, θ 7 to be small or by choosing the quartic coupling λ 5 to be large enough. The relations among the parameters ensuring that the stationary point Eq. (6) is indeed the minimum and the potential is bounded from below are given in Appendix A. The value of the phase ϕ is severely constrained by data on neutron s dipole moment and will be taken to be small in the following. 5

7 Scanning the whole parameter space would be too time consuming. Therefore in our analysis we consider values of the quartic coupling constants such that the ratios λ i g 2 vary in the range 0.01 to 1, where g is the SU(2) coupling constant. The set of the parameters displayed in Table I is a sample which respects the necessary constraints (see Eqs. (A1), (A4), (A5)) the experimental limits on the Higgs masses, ensuring at the same time an absolute U(1) em minimum at zero temperature. III. THE TWO STAGE PHASE TRANSITION The cosmological phase transition of the model under consideration can be studied using the finite temperature effective potential. A handy feature of two Higgs doublet models is that they can give a stronger first order phase transition and thinner bubble walls [20], [21], [22]. In order to get a complete picture of the transition it is necessary to explore the full range of the potential. At T = 0 the right vacuum is chosen to be the absolute minimum after symmetry breaking takes place. For a model with two complex doublets this is realized by selecting the two neutral components to develope non vanishing vacuum expectation values. In other words the minimum rests in a specified plane. However this by no means ensures that during the phase transition the absolute minimum remains in the same plane since, the field space is effectively five dimensional. What is usually assumed is that the minimum remains in the same plane as in the zero temperature case. However this picture may not be correct leading to wrong conclusions. We include one loop radiative corrections to the tree level potential, using the temperature corrected fermion and gauge boson masses. Expanding the loop integrals we get a cubic in the scalar fields term, which stems from the Matsubara zero mode [23]. For simplicity we ignore the contribution of the scalar bosons. Their precence makes the 6

8 It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss well known problems associated with the validity of the pertubation and the high temperature expansion. Thus we employ the simplified potential V β = V Higgs [ i (M 2 A ) i + 2 m 2 t ] T 2 1 4π i (M 2 A )3/2 i T, (10) where m t is the top quark mass and (M 2 A ) i are the eigenvalues of the gauge boson mass matrix: 2 (MA) 2 ab = g 2 Φ k T a T b Φ k. (11) The Lie algebra matrices appeared in Eq. (11) are defined as follows: k=1 T a = σ a for a = 1, 2, 3, with t = g /g, g is the U(1) coupling constant. T a = ti for a = 4, (12) In order to find the location of the stationary points of the potential we adopt the following procedure: At any given temperature and for given set of couplings we first check for the shape of the potential in every two dimensional plane, (φ i, φ j ) specified by φ k = 0, k i, j in order to locate all possible stationary points. In the following we identify those ones which correspond to saddle points. This is simply done by examining the signs of the eigenvalues of the second derivative of the potential. What the analysis reveals is stated in the following: At very high temperatures the symmetry is restored, as expected, and as the temperature drops, the first asymmetric minimum develops. There is a barrier linear in temperature term smaller and the first order transition weaker. However the main results of the paper charge breaking intermediate phase remain the same irrespectively of the specific form of the effective potential. 7

9 between this minimum and the symmetric one, which lies higher, so we have a first order transition. When β = 1 a charge preserving minimum, see Eq. (6), appears in the plane where φ 3 = φ 7, φ 8 0 and φ i = 0, and everything looks conventional. For β < 1the picture alters considerably. In these cases, as for instance the ones displayed in Table I, a new type of stationary point appears which is charge breaking. At the same time, a second stationary point which is charge preserving develops. It may appear later or have appeared earlier. The phase transition details depend on the combination of the values of the parameters. For a qualitative discussion it suffices to distinguish three subcases. 1. The charge breaking stationary point is an absolute minimum at high temperatures. This happens for instance when β < 0.8, λ 6,7 g 2, m GeV. If the parameter β is very small, one can relax the bound m GeV. Bubbles of this charge breaking vacuum nucleate and propagate. As the temperature further drops by about T 100 GeV, the charge preserving stationary point becomes the absolute minimum and the charge breaking vacuum becomes unstable and through a second order phase transition the scalar fields roll towards it. 2. The usual charge preserving stationary point turns out to be the absolute minimum in favor of the charge breaking one at high temperatures. This happens for instance in the region 0.8 β < 1, λ 6,7 < g 2, m 3 > 100 GeV. However this does not guarantee bubble formation with kink-like walls [24]. The case β > 1 is identical to β < 1 with the interchange of Φ 1 Φ 2. 8

10 As in case 1, this is not the only parameter region where this subcase is realized. 3. There is also a parameter range where both stationary points exist (of course one of them is the minimum and the other is a saddle point) and have similar potential depths, similar barriers and therefore transition to these points proceeds with similar tunneling rates leading to the nucleation of both types of bubbles for a while. It is worth mentioning here, that the tunneling rate for the transition between two stationary points with a barrier separating them, in a multidimensional potential, receives corrections from paths not belonging to the plane of the two points. However these corrections, which are given in a form of a determinant, little affect [25] the well known exponential law. Therefore it suffices to apply the one-loop corrected tunneling rate, as given in [26], [27]. In order to study the minima of the potential at finite temperature, in the eight dimensional field space, we exploit the SU(2) invariance and eliminate three out of the eight degrees of freedom. In fact by an SU(2) rotation R(T) = e iσα f α(t) the doublets Φ 1, Φ 2 can be brought into the following standard form Φ 1 = 1 ( ) 0, Φ 2 = 1 ( ) z(t), (13) 2 u(t) 2 w(t) where u(t) is real and z(t), w(t) complex. The reduction to five component simplifies the picture a great deal. With the above parametrization the two types of the stationary points discussed previously, are as follows: Charge conserving: u(t) 0, z(t) = 0, w(t) = v(t)e iϕ(t) 0 (where v is real), Charge breaking: u(t) = 0, z(t) 0, w(t) = v(t)e iϕ(t) 0 (both z, w complex). There is a degeneracy in the vacuum structure of the charge breaking minimum, since the potential V β in Eq. (10) has an SU(2) symmetry, if one sets Φ 1 = 0. Therefore, there 9

11 is a manifold of absolute minima satisfying φ i = 0, for i = 1,..., 4, and φ 2 5+φ 2 6+φ 2 7+φ 2 8 = z(t) 2 + w(t) 2. This vacuum degeneracy forbids the creation of net baryon and charge asymmetry [9]. What we should stress is the significance of the soft breaking terms. Their presence signals the existence of charge breaking stationary points. Another thing that the multidimensional analysis of the phase transition makes clear, is that the explicit CP violating phase ϕ(t), at high temperatures is significantly enhanced for all the examined sets of parameters, as compared to the zero temperature values. Recall that ϕ(t) is non vanishing, provided that the soft terms of Eq. (4) are present. This is true even in the case where the phases θ 3,6,7 are quite small. This is due to large temperature depended factors in front of the arguments of the soft breaking terms [15]. The development of a large ϕ(t) affects the baryogenesis scenario, since the baryon asymmetry depends linearly on ϕ(t). In fact within the context of the popular non-local mechanisms, which seem to work more efficiently, the fermion reflects from the bubble wall experience a space dependent phase. Since right-handed fermions have different reflection coefficients from the left-handed anti-particles a baryon asymmetry is produced [33], which for small velocities v w of the bubble wall is given by n B s 15 2g s π 4v wf 2 for Yukawa coupling f and g s spin states. ( m T c ) ϕ (14) IV. COSMIC CHARGE ASYMMETRY BOUNDS A net excess of charge density ρ Q e n Q, is produced during the first charge breaking stage of the phase transition, if Sakharov s last two conditions hold as in the baryon case. If C and CP are conserved, then C and CP conjugate reactions produce equal amounts of opposite sign charge asymmetry resulting to zero net charge asymmetry. As 10

12 we shall see in our case we have CP violation in charge violating processes, resulted from the soft breaking terms in Eq. (4), which are in general complex, or from complex Yukawa couplings. The number density of particles and antiparticles is zero in thermal equilibrium, since the masses of a particle and it s CP T conjugate antiparticle are equal. However this is not the case during a phase transition. The idea of a charged Universe was first considered by Lyttleton and Bondi [29]. The fact that the strength of electromagnetic interaction is much larger that the gravitational one, causes any net charge asymmetry to have serious cosmological implications. Soon, upper limits on the magnitude of the allowed asymmetry were posed, for recent results see Ref. [30] and [31]. The most safe constraint comes from the requirement, that the gravitational interaction is larger than the electrostatic repulsion of the net charge. This gives n Q /s n Q is the number of elementary charges in excess. The entropy density is used as a measure of the commoving volume, since from entropy conservation we get s R 3. Another upper limit comes from the demand the anisotropic angular distribution of cosmic rays induced by the electric field of the net charge be lower than the observed one. This leads to a more severe bound n Q /s An additional bound is determined by the observed isotropy in the cosmic microwave background radiation. A small charge asymmetry can cause very large anisotropies through the same mechanism of the gravitational density pertubations. They induce temperature fluctuations in the microwave background (Sachs-Wolfe effect). In this case the constraint is: n Q /s Any specific two Higgs doublet model which does not respect the aforementioned bounds has to be excluded on cosmological grounds. 11

13 V. ELECTRIC CHARGE PRODUCTION DURING THE FIRST STAGE As we have already seen the phase transition happens in two stages. The U(1) em gauge symmetry can be broken during the first one. One can realise the violation of the U(1) em gauge symmetry because of the development of non-vanishing vev s at the charged compoments of the Higgs doublets. The Higgs part of Lagrangian of the model under consideration is: L Higgs = (D µ Φ i ) (D µ Φ i ) + L Yuk V Higgs, (15) i=1,2 where the Yukawa term for one family of fermions are: L Yuk = h u QΦ c 2 u R h d QΦ 1 d R h e LΦ 1 e R + h.c., (16) and V Higgs reads from Eq. (1). Q and L denote the quark and lepton SU(2) L doublets, respectively. The higgs doublets can be written as: Φ 1,2 = φ+ 1,2 φ 0 1,2, Φ c 2 iσ2 Φ 2 = φ0 2 φ 2. (17) During the charge breaking phase only the second Higgs doublet develops nonvanishing vev s, as have been discussed in Sect. III. The development of charged vev s has two major implications: (a) There is a mixing between neutral and charged gauge eigenstates resulting to new mass eigenstates without electric charge assigment, and (b) there are electric charge violating interactions between the gauge eigenstates. Note that all the electrically charged particles become really charged only after the U(1) em restoration. Therefore in this section terms like neutral, charged, etc., are used only to label the gauge eigenstates. Bearing in mind this comment we abandon, in what follows, the punctuation marks. The aferomentioned two major implications are discussed bellow for each of the three terms in the Higgs part of the Lagrangian in Eq. (15). 12

14 1. Kinetic terms The presence of the charged vev s alters significally the mixing of gauge bosons W ±, W (3), B. In place of the usual mixing between the neutral gauge eigenstates W (3), B, which results to the mass eigenstates of γ, Z, there is a mixing between the neutral and charged gauge eigenstates (W (3), B, W ± ), yielding to new mass eigenstates V i, i = 1,...,4. These eigenstates do not have any electric charge assigment. The second novel feature of charged vev s is the existence of charge violating interactions among gauge and Higgs bosons. 2. Yukawa terms The Yukawa part of the Lagrangian, after the development of vev s, receives the following form: L Yuk = h u ū L u R φ 0 2 h d dl d R φ 0 1 h e ē L e R φ 0 1 +h u dl u R φ 2 h dū L d R φ + 1 h e ν L e R φ h.c. (18) The first three terms yield the usual mass terms for the fermions, while the rest lead to a mixing between fermions of different electric charge. The mixing between e and ν is absent, because φ +,0 1 = 0 and neutrinos are massless. In this case the gauge and mass eigenstates of leptons are the same. There are no charge violating interactions, resulting from the Yukawa terms. 3. Potential There are new mass terms that mix the charge and neutral components of Higgs doublets. These are of two types: (a) terms that arise from the soft part of the The W ± are defined as the usual linear combination 1 2 (W (1) iw (2) ). During the charge breaking stage the ± labels do not correspond to any physical electric charge assigment. 13

15 potential, Eq. 1, and carry CP violating sources (λ 6,7 ), and (b) terms that arise from the rest quartic part, which are CP preserving. In addition there are also charge violating interactions, with the same behaviour under CP operation. Terms carring CP violating phase will be proved extremely important to produce net electric charge, during the first stage of the phase transition. We intend to calculate the net electric charge production, during the U(1) em breaking stage of the phase transition. Therefore we focus our attention at CP-odd charge violating interactions, that participate charge violating processes. CP violating complex phases can be found in the Higgs potential (soft terms couplings) and in the Yukawa terms (Yukawa couplings). In some models the complexity of the Yukawa couplings arises naturally through the evolution of the couplings from high to low scales [9], [14]. Although the number density of the light leptons is abundant in the plasma, processes involving them, for example the decay ν l l ν ν in Fig. 1, yield to vanishing net electric charge production, because there is always sufficient thermal energy to activate the inverse process, l ν ν ν l. Therefore the two processes coexist in equilibrium in the plasma, resulting to vanishing net charge. Thus we focus our attention on these charge violating processes, in which the initial state is characterized by large mass, compared to the masses of the particles produced in the final state. In these cases only when the produced particles acquires large kinetic energy, due to their thermal motion, the inverse reaction can be activated. We consider the charge violating decay t d(s) ν ν. The diagrams contributing to this up to one-loop order, are presented in Fig. 2. Actually the process t s ν ν doninates, because the Kabayashi Maskawa element V ts and the Yakawa coupling h s are much larger than the V td and h d, respectively. In order to calculate the net electric charge production rate we compare, as in the case of baryon asymmetry production [12,32], the decay rate of process t s ν ν and that of its CP conjugate. The difference of these 14

16 rates will be proportional to the average net electric charge produced. In Fig. 2 filled boxes (circled crosses) are used to indicate CP-even (odd) charge violating mixings or interactions between the gauge eigenstates. The circled crosses depend on complex couplings µ 3, λ 6,7. Internal lines represent gauge eigenstates just in order to make apparent the charge violating mixings and interactions. These gauge eigenstates are known linear combinations of the corresponding mass eigenstates, which must be used in order to get the exact result for the amplitude of this process. In Fig. 2a the tree level graph does not depend on any CP violating complex parameter. In the Born approximation there is no net electric charge production, since the cross section remains invariant under the CP transformation, even if complex couplings were involved: Γ Born (t s ν ν) = Γ Born ( t s ν ν). (19) On the other hand the one-loop diagram in Fig. 2b depends on the complex parameters µ 3, λ 7, through the φ 0 1,2 mixing. It depends also linearly on the Yukawa coupling h s, which can be complex. These complex parameters result to non-vanishing net electric charge production from the interference term of the tree level graph in Fig. 2a and the one-loop graph in Fig. 2b. The contribution of this interference term can be written as: Γ Interf (t s ν ν) = α 3 h s I ts φ 2 V ts 2 i,j Ui1 U j2 + h.c., (20) where I ts denotes the kinematic factor corresponds to this interference term and U ij are the corresponding elements of the diagonalization matrix of the Higgs bosons. The CP dependence of these elements is of the order of the phases of µ 2 3 and λ 7. The CP conjugate process t s ν ν yields an intereference contribution: This matrix relates the Higgs bosons gauge eigenstates (φ 0 1,φ0 2,φ+ 1,φ 2 ) with the Higgs mass eigenstates H i, i = 1,...,4, through the relation (φ 0 1,φ0 2,φ+ 1,φ 2 ) = j U ji H j. 15

17 Γ Interf ( t sν ν) = α 3 h s I ts φ 2 V ts 2 i,j U i1 U j2 + h.c., (21) where φ 2 is considered real, since spontanous CP violating phases cancel each other. The net electric charge produced during the first stage of the phase transition and is related with the process t s ν ν will be proportional, at the one-loop order, to the quantity Γ Interf (t s ν ν) Γ Interf ( t sν ν) = 4 α 3 φ 2 Im [I ts] V ts 2 i,j Im [ h s U i1 U j2], (22) where Im [ h s U i1 U j2] hs (θ 3 + θ 7 + Arg(h s )). (23) The average net electric charge produced via the above charge violating process, measured in units of the electron charge, is Q = 1 Γ top [ Γ Interf (t s ν ν) Γ Interf ( t sν ν) ], (24) where Γ top is the total top quark width. Using Eq. (22), Eq. (24) reads as: Q 4α3 Γ top h s φ 2 V ts 2 (θ 3 + θ 7 + Arg(h s )) Im [I ts ]. (25) Here some comments are in order: (a) Even if the soft breaking couplings are real a net electric charge survives as long as Yukawa coupling h s is complex; (b) Except from the aforementioned charge violating process t s ν ν, there are other similar processes, like t s l l, which turn out to yield to a much smaller net electric charge production. In this kind of decays, net charge is also depended on the phase l 6, which does not appear in Eq. (25). So the net charge density produced during the charge violating phase if all the CP violating phases are of order 10 4 is: One can see that the time scale of these charge violating decays is much smaller than the duration of the charge breaking phase. 16

18 Therefore the net charge produced will be: Q (26) n Q /s Q n top g n γ (27) The above result overestimates the actual produced net charge. Since the temperature is not much smaller than the mass of the top quark, some inverse decays will take place reducing the final result. A detailed calculation requires solving the relevant Boltzmann equations. However crudely speaking, the inverse decays are suppressed as the fraction of decay products with sufficient energy to produce a top quark, is suppressed by a Boltzmann factor [32]. Therefore n Q /s = Q n [ top 1 ( m top g n γ T )3/2 exp( m ] top T ) (28) This charge asymmetry is clearly much larger than the bound 10 30, discussed in the previous section. Besides this mechanism there is an alternative way to produce a net charge asymmetry using the out of equilibrium conditions induced by the bubble growth. It is obvious that we have to focus only on charge violating reactions that occur on the bubble wall in order to determine the produced asymmetry. The out of equilibrium conditions, occurring due to the passage of the bubble wall, affect the number density of the left-handed fermions, which propagate in a different way from their antiparticles leading to an injected net left-handed fermion number [33], [34]. The effect is not zero only for massive fermions and consequently we can not employ the fast charge violating processes of leptons since in our case they are massless. Detailed calculations for these injected fluxes are given in Ref. [33]. Following the same agruments we have. Γ Q N F T µ i f = 12N Γ F T F 3 L, (29) i 17

19 where N F is the number of families, Γ is the rate of the charge violating reactions, F L the total left-handed fermion number density, and µ i f the chemical potential of fermions involved in the reactions. Note that the charged asymmetry created by the wall, passes in the broken phase, inside the bubble, but unlike the baryon case it is not erased from the fast charged violating reactions since the chemical potential of top quarks is not zero. In order to calculate the produced charge asymmetry, using this proccedure, we need to know the bubble wall velocity, the diffusion and the screening of quarks into the plasma. The details of such study are under consideration. VI. CONCLUSION In this paper we discuss the phase transition of a model with two Higgs doublets in which soft CP violating terms are present in the scalar potential. The motivation for this study originates from the fact that the successful mechanisms for explaining baryogenesis are based on such models. Besides this, such an extented Higgs sector resembles that of supersymmetric (SUSY) models and hence our conlusions may be of relevance for SUSY extensions of the SM. Using the finite temperature one-loop corrected effective potential we have found that the phase transition occurs in two stages, assuming only that the parameters of the model are so chosen that the ratio of the vacuum expectation values at zero temperature is different from unity. During the first stage of the transition CP violating angles are amplified, as required in order to have enough baryogenesis, and at the same time a charge breaking stationary point is developed. This stationary point is a minimum, in a wide range of the parameter space, and leads to a large net charge asymmetry due to the appearance of the CP violating sources within the soft terms or Yukawa couplings. The magnitude of the asymmetry is calculated through the interference of the tree and one-loop contributions to the top quark charge violating decays. The predicted cosmic 18

20 charge asymmetry is found to exceed the existing astrophysical bounds putting therefore stringent constraints on the parameters of the model. The study undertaken in this paper is of relevance for the MSSM and other extensions of the SM which are characterized by a complicated Higgs sector. In the case of the MSSM we have two Higgs doublets and natural appearance of CP violating sources in the soft SUSY breaking terms of the scalar potential. The development of a charge breaking minimum during the cooling down of the Universe may lead, in this case too, to a large net charge asymmetry restricting the allowed parameter space. Besides this one has also to pay special attention to the appearance of other sorts of minima at finite temperatures, such as color breaking for instance, which in turn may impose further constraints on the parameters affecting therefore the phenomenological predictions. Such a study is under consideration and the results will appear in a forthcoming publication [36]. Before closing it is worth mentioning that the possible two stage phase transition may be a feature shared by other multiscalar potentials as well, and it bears very interesting characteristics. In fact long time ago Langacker and Pi [28] proposed a very interesting solution to the monopole problem, assuming that at the GUT scale the universe experienced a stage during which the U(1) em gauge symmetry was broken. Whether this mechanism for the resolution of the monopole problem is applicable to SUSY-GUT s or other extension of the SM needs further investigation. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank D.V. Nanopoulos for helpful discussions. A.B.L. acknoweledges support from ERBFMRXCT TMR programme and V.C.S. from the EU Human Capital and Mobility Programme CHRX CT

21 APPENDIX A: CONSTRAINTS The constraints given below are valid at tree level. They are very useful since they are the initial point for the specification of the accepted range of the model s free parameters. The constraints coming from the requirement the potential to be bounded below are exactly valid and can also be used for one loop effective potentials (and temperature corrected), using the redefined parameters [9], [13], [37]. We have the following constraints on the parameters: The potential is bounded from below if and only if: { λ 1 > 0, λ 2 > 0, 2 λ 1 λ 2 > λ 3 } and F(ρ) > 0 if Q > 0 F(ρ) > 0, F( ρ/2) > 0 if Q = 0 F(ρ i ) > 0 i = 1, 2, 3 if Q < 0 (A1) for every set of (Λ 3, L 6, L 7 ) of the following three combinations: Λ 3 = λ 3 + λ 4 + λ 5, L 6 = l 6 cosθ 6, L 7 = l 7 cos θ 7, Λ 3 = λ 3 + λ 4 λ 5, L 6 = l 6 sin θ 6, L 7 = l 7 sin θ 7, Λ 3 = λ 3 λ 4 + λ 5, L 6 = l 6 sin θ 6, L 7 = l 7 sin θ 7. (A2) In Eq. (A1) and (A2) F(x) = x 4 + R 2 x 2 + R 1 x + R 0, Q = ( Λ3 R 2 = 3 ) L 2 7, R λ 2 8 λ 2 1 = 2 R 0 = λ 1 L 6L 7 + Λ 3L λ 2 4λ 2 2 λ 3 2L ( ) 3 R2 + 6 ( L6 Λ 3L 7 + L3 7 λ 2 2λ 2 2 8λ 3 2 ) 2, 4 ), ( R1 L 4 7, ρ = 3 R 1 λ Q + 3 R 1 4 Q, 20

22 ρ 1 = 2 R 2 6 cos(α/3), ρ 2,3 = 2 R 1 R 2 6 cos(α ± π ), 3 cosα =. (A3) 4 (R 2 /6) 3 The other type of constraints comes from the requirement all the scalar bosons masses be positive, or in other words, the eigenvalues of the 8 8 matrix M ij = 2 V φ i φ j representing the second derivatives of the potential be positive. The expressions involved are highly complicated due to the existence of the soft breaking terms. This is the reason we present only one inequality analytically and determine the others in a handy way for numerical setting. The stationary point given Eq. (6), is the minimum if and only if: The eigenvalues of the matrix W are positive a e f g e b h i W = f h c j g i j d (A4) and (dropping second order terms in all phases ϕ, θ i ) m 2 3 > [ 2β(λ 4 + λ 5 ) + β 2 l 6 + l 7 ] v 2 4, (A5) where a = M 44, b = M 33, c = M 77, d = M 88, e = M 34, f = M 47, g = M 48, h = M 37, i = M 38, j = M 78. (A6) 21

23 TABLES TABLE I. Sample of allowed parameters from the various theoretical and experimental constraints λ 1 /g 2 λ 2 /g 2 λ 3 /g 2 λ 4 /g 2 λ 5 /g

24 FIGURES ν ν W (3),B W ν W (3),B W φ 2 0φ 1 0 ν ν l (a) l ν l l l (b) FIG. 1. Diagrams which contribute, up to one-loop order, to charge violating process ν l l ν ν. Filled boxes (circled crosses) are used to indicate CP-even (odd) charge violating mixings or interactions between the gauge eigenstates. Diagrams that involve φ + 1 are not considered, as explained in the text. ν ν W (3),B W ν W (3),B W φ 2 0φ 1 0 ν t (a) d (s) t d (s) d (s) (b) FIG. 2. Diagrams which contribute to the process t d(s)ν ν. 23

25 REFERENCES [1] M. B. Gavela, P. Hernandez, J. Orloff, O. Pene and C. Quimbay, Nucl. Phys. 430B 382 (1994). [2] T. D. Lee, Phys. Rev. D8 (1973) 1226; Phys. Rep. 96 (1974) 143. [3] G. Branco, Phys. Rev. D22 (1980) [4] G. Branco, and M. Rebelo, Phys. Lett. B160 (1985) 117. [5] J. Liu and L. Wolfenstein, Nucl. Phys. B289 (1987) 1. [6] M. Shaposhnikov, JETP Lett. 44 (1986) 465. [7] L. McLerran, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62 (1989) [8] N. Turok and N. J. Zadrozny, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990) 2331; Nucl. Phys. B358 (1991) 471. [9] D. Comelli, M. Pietroni and A. Riotto, Nucl. Phys. B412 (1994) 441. [10] S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37 (1976) 657. [11] A. B. Lahanas and C. E. Vayonakis, Phys. Rev. D19 (1979) [12] A. Riotto, Lectures at Summer School in High Energy Physics and Cosmology, ICTP Miramare-Trieste, July 1998, hep-ph/ [13] D. Comelli and M. Pietroni, Phys. Lett. B306 (1993) 67. [14] M. Dugan, B. Grinstein and L. Hall, Nucl. Phys. B25 (1985) 413. [15] V. Zarikas, Phys. Lett. B384 (1996) 180. [16] D. Land and E. D. Carlson, Phys. Lett. B292 (1992) 107. [17] A. Dolgov and J. Silk, Phys.Rev. D47 (1993)

26 [18] M. Sher, Phys. Rep. 179 (1989) 273. [19] T. W. B. Kibble, in Topology of cosmic domains and strings, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 9 (1976) [20] J. M. Cline, K. Kainulainen, A. P. Vischer, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) [21] J. M. Moreno, M. Quiros and M. Seco, hep-ph/ [22] M. Laine and K. Rummukainen, Phys. Rev. Lett.80 (1998) [23] L.Dolan and R.Jackiw, Phys.Rev. D9 (1974) 3320 [24] N. Goldenfeld, in Proc. NATO ARW on Formation and Interactions of Topological Defects, A. C. Davis and R. H. Brandeberger (eds), Plenum Press, New York [25] T. Tanaka, M. Sasaki and K. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) [26] I. Moss and V. Zarikas, preprint NCL95-TP5. [27] M. Dine, R. G. Leigh, P. Huet, A. Linde and D. Linde, Phys. Rev. D46 (1992) 550. [28] P. Langacker and S. -Y. Pi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45 (1980) 1. [29] R. A. Lyttleton and H. Bondi, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A252 (1959) 313. [30] S. Sengupta and P. B. Pal, Phys. Lett. B365 (1996) 175; Erratum B390 (1997) 450. [31] S. Orito and M. Yoshimura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 (1985) [32] E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, The Early Universe, Addison-Wesley, New York [33] M. Joyce, T. Prokopec and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 2930; Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) [34] A. Cohen, D. Caplan and A. Nelson, Phys. Lett. B263 (1991) 86; Nucl. Phys B373 25

27 (1992) 453. [35] V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B155 (1985) 36. [36] A. B. Lahanas, V. C. Spanos and V. Zarikas, in preparation. [37] K. Funakubo, A. Kakuto, S. Otsuki and F. Toyoda, Prog. Theor. Phys. 98 (1997)