-
In this section, we give a brief review of
$F(R)$ gravity and chameleon mechanism for the scalar field. We also introduce the specific model of$F(R)$ gravity and its properties. -
The action of generic
$F(R)$ gravity is given as follows:$\begin{align} S = \frac{1}{2\kappa^{2}} \int {\rm d}^{4}x \sqrt{-g} F(R) + \int {\rm d}^{4}x \sqrt{-g} {\cal L}_{\rm Matter} [g^{\mu \nu}, \Phi] \, , \end{align}$
(1) where
$F(R)$ is a function of the Ricci scalar R, and$ \kappa^{2} = 8\pi G =$ $ 1/M^{2}_{\rm pl}$ .$M_{\rm pl}$ is the reduced Planck mass$\sim 2 \times 10^{18} [{\rm GeV}]$ .${\cal L}_{\rm Matter}$ denotes the Lagrangian of a matter field$\Phi$ , and the matter field$\Phi$ follows the geodesics of a metric$g_{\mu \nu}$ .The variation with respect to the metric
$g_{\mu \nu}$ leads to the equation of motion:$\begin{align} F_{R}(R) R_{\mu \nu} - \frac{1}{2} F(R) g_{\mu \nu} + (g_{\mu \nu} \Box - \nabla_{\mu} \nabla_{\nu}) F_{R}(R) = \kappa^{2} T_{\mu \nu} (g^{\mu \nu}, \Phi) \, . \end{align}$
(2) Here,
$F_{R}(R)$ means the derivative of$F(R)$ with respect to R,$F_{R}(R) = \partial_{R} F(R)$ , and the energy-momentum tensor$T_{\mu \nu}$ is given by$\begin{align} T_{\mu \nu}(g^{\mu \nu}, \Phi) = \frac{-2}{\sqrt{-g}} \frac{\delta \left(\sqrt{-g} {\cal L}_{\rm Matter} (g^{\mu \nu}, \Phi) \right)}{\delta g^{\mu \nu}} \, . \end{align}$
(3) We can look into the dynamics of the new scalar field via the Weyl transformation. It is known that the
$F(R)$ gravity is equivalent to the scalar-tensor theory via the Weyl transformation of the metric, which is the frame transformation from the Jordan frame$g_{\mu \nu}$ to the Einstein frame$\tilde{g}_{\mu \nu}$ :$\begin{align} g_{\mu \nu} \rightarrow \tilde{g}_{\mu \nu} = {\rm e}^{2 \sqrt{1/6} \kappa \varphi } g_{\mu \nu} \equiv F_{R} (R) g_{\mu\nu} \, . \end{align}$
(4) Under the Weyl transformation, the original action Eq. (1) is transformed as follows:
$\begin{split} S = & \frac{1}{2\kappa^{2}} \int {\rm d}^{4}x \sqrt{-\tilde{g}} \tilde{R} \\ & + \int {\rm d}^{4}x \sqrt{-\tilde{g}} \left[ - \frac{1}{2} \tilde{g}^{\mu \nu} (\partial_{\mu} \varphi) (\partial_{\nu} \varphi) - V_{s}(\varphi) \right] \\ & + \int {\rm d}^{4}x \sqrt{-\tilde{g}} \, {\rm e}^{-4 \sqrt{1/6} \kappa \varphi } {\cal L}_{\rm Matter} \left[ {\rm e}^{2 \sqrt{1/6} \kappa \varphi } \tilde{g}^{\mu \nu}, \Phi \right] \, . \end{split}$
(5) We call
$\varphi(x)$ the scalaron field and define its potential as,$\begin{align} V_{s}(\varphi) \equiv \frac{1}{2\kappa^{2}} \frac{R F_{R}(R) - F(R)}{F^{2}_{R}(R)} \, . \end{align}$
(6) Note that through the Weyl transformation in Eq. (4), the Ricci scalar R is given as a function of the scalaron field
$\varphi$ , such as$R = R(\varphi)$ .By the variation of the action in Eq. (5) with respect to the Einstein frame metric
$\tilde{g}_{\mu \nu}$ , we obtain the Einstein equation with the minimally coupled scalaron field. The variation with respect to the scalaron field$\varphi$ gives us the equation of motion for the scalaron field,$\begin{align} \tilde{\Box} \varphi = \frac{\partial V_{s}(\varphi)}{\partial \varphi} + \frac{\kappa}{\sqrt{6}} {\rm e}^{-4 \sqrt{1/6} \kappa \varphi } T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} \, . \end{align}$
(7) Note that
$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}$ involves the scalaron field induced by the nonlinear (dilatonic) coupling with matter fields,$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} = T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} (\varphi, \tilde{g}^{\mu \nu}, \Phi )$ , from Eqs. (3) and (5). From Eq. (7), we define the effective potential of the scalaron field as follows:$\begin{align} V_{s\, {\rm eff.}}(\varphi) = V_{s}(\varphi) + \int {\rm d}\varphi \frac{\kappa}{\sqrt{6}} {\rm e}^{-4 \sqrt{1/6} \kappa \varphi } T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} \, . \end{align}$
(8) We note that the effective potential of the scalaron includes the trace of energy-momentum tensor
$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}$ . In other words, the matter distributions affect the potential structure of the scalaron, which leads the environment-dependent mass in the scalaron dynamics. This feature is related to so-called the chameleon mechanism, which we will see later in detail.In general,
$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}$ has a nontrivial dependence on$\varphi$ ($T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} = T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} (\varphi)$ ), which comes up from the metric$g^{\mu \nu} = $ $ {\rm e}^{2 \sqrt{1/6} \kappa \varphi } \tilde{g}^{\mu \nu}$ . Given a certain type of the$\varphi$ -dependence, we can find the matter-sector interactions with the scalaron as well as the self-interactions. In the previous work by two of authors [11],$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}$ was assumed to be constant in$\varphi$ by following the earlier works [25, 26], to give the simplified formula$\begin{align} V_{s\, {\rm eff.}}(\varphi) = V_{s}(\varphi) - \frac{1}{4} {\rm e}^{-4 \sqrt{1/6} \kappa \varphi } T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} \, . \end{align}$
(9) Although one can observe the above formula in many literature, it is not a precise evaluation but just a modeled one. As will turn out later, this modeled expression in Eq. (9) is justifiable in the field-theoretical manner, which actually allows us to apply it directly to the evaluation of chameleon mechanism influenced by a strong-first order EWPT.
-
Next, we discuss the minimum of the scalaron effective potential and the scalaron mass with the matter effect
$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}$ included. The first derivative of the scalaron effective potential is written in terms of the$F(R)$ function:$\begin{align} \frac{\partial V_{s\, {\rm eff.}}(\varphi)}{\partial \varphi} =\frac{1}{\sqrt{6} \kappa} \left( \frac{2F(R) - R F_{R}(R) + \kappa^{2}T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} }{F^{2}_{R}(R)} \right) \, . \end{align}$
(10) The minimum of the potential at
$\varphi = \varphi_{\min}$ should satisfy the stationary condition that Eq. (10) vanishes, which leads to$\begin{align} 2F(R_{\min}) - R_{\min} F_{R}(R_{\min}) + \kappa^{2} T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} = 0 \, . \end{align}$
(11) Note that
$R_{\min}$ is related to$\varphi_{\min}$ through the Weyl transformation${\rm e}^{2 \sqrt{1/6} \kappa \varphi_{\min} } = F_{R} (R_{\min})$ . Moreover, the square of scalaron mass$m_{\varphi}$ is defined as the value of the second derivative of the effective potential at the minimum. The second derivative of the effective potential is evaluated as follows:$\begin{split} \frac{\partial^{2} V_{s\, {\rm eff.}}(\varphi)}{\partial \varphi^{2}} =& \frac{1}{3F_{RR}(R)} \\&\times \left[ 1 + \frac{ R F_{RR}(R)}{F_{R}(R)} - \frac{ 2 \left( 2 F(R) + \kappa^{2}T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} \right) F_{RR}(R)}{F^{2}_{R}(R)} \right] \, . \end{split}$
(12) Substituting Eq. (11) into Eq. (12), we obtain
$\begin{align} m^{2}_{\varphi} (T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}) = \frac{1}{3F_{RR}(R_{\min})} \left(1 - \frac{ R_{\min} F_{RR}(R_{\min})}{F_{R}(R_{\min})} \right) \, . \end{align}$
(13) Note that since the stationary condition Eq. (11) determines
$\varphi_{\min}$ or$R_{\min}$ , the scalaron mass changes according to the trace of the energy-momentum tensor$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}$ .As Eqs. (8) and (13) show, the effective potential and mass of the scalaron depend on the trace of the energy-momentum tensor
$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}$ , which is a key part of the chameleon mechanism. Now, we consider more on the construction of the energy-momentum tensor. In the context of the cosmology and astrophysics, various literature has employed the fluid description to express the environment surrounding the scalaron field (for example, see [27]), and the trace of the energy-momentum tensor is computed as$\begin{align} T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} = - (\rho - 3p) \end{align}$
(14) where
$\rho$ and p are the energy density and pressure of the fluid.The simplest case is the pressure-less dust
$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} = -\rho$ , which is a good approximation to describe the matters in the current Universe, and the chameleon mechanism is controlled by the energy density$\rho$ . For instance, Eq. (7) is reduced to$\begin{align} \tilde{\Box} \varphi = \frac{\partial V_{s}(\varphi)}{\partial \varphi} - \frac{\kappa}{\sqrt{6}} \rho {\rm e}^{-4 \sqrt{1/6} \kappa \varphi } \, . \end{align}$
(15) If one can design the
$F(R)$ function so that the scalaron mass becomes large enough in the high-density region, the scalaron is screened because of its heavy mass. This feature is called chameleon mechanism which is one of the screening mechanism in the modified gravity. As a consequence, for example, the scalaron becomes heavy in the Solar System, where the scalaron field is screened, and the$F(R)$ gravity can be relevant to the observations. On the other hand, in the low-energy density environment, that is, on the cosmological scale, the scalaron field becomes dynamical dark energy.Here, we emphasize that the trace of the energy-momentum tensor
$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}$ is not necessarily evaluated in the framework of the conventional fluid approximation, and thus, one can utilize the other frameworks for the different purpose. For instance, it is natural that one should compute$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}$ in framework of the quantum field theory in the early and high-energetic epoch of the Universe. Because we are interested in the EWPT in the early Universe, we introduce the suitable model beyond the standard model of particle physics as the ingredient of the energy-momentum tensor. In the rest of paper, we formulate the trace of the energy-momentum tensor with the field-theoretical techniques and compute$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}$ for the model of our interest. Then, we substitute it into Eqs. (8) and (13) to study the scalaron physics and related chameleon mechanism in the EWPT epoch. -
In this section, we consider a scale-invariant embedding for a scenario beyond the standard model of particle physics and compute the effective potential of the matter sector to discuss how the scalaron is affected by the EWPT environment in the early Universe. As a reference scenario beyond the standard model, we shall take a class of general 2HDM which yields a realistic cosmic history with realization of the right amount of BAU accompanied with a desired strong-first order EWPT [17-19]. In the present study, we shall apply such an EWBG scenario by extending it to be scale-invariant (general SI-2HDM).
-
We begin with introducing a general SI-2HDM, defined by the following Lagrangian:
$\begin{align} {\cal L} = {\cal L}_{{\rm 2HDM|w/o} \ V_{0}} - V_{0} \left( \Phi_{1}, \Phi_{2} \right) \, , \end{align}$
(16) where
$V_0$ is the tree-level Higgs potential and the two Higgs doublets$(\Phi_{1}, \Phi_{2})$ are parametrized in terms of the fluctuation fields in the broken phase as$\begin{align} \Phi_{i} = \left( \begin{array}{c} \phi_{i}^{+} \\ \displaystyle\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left[ v_{i} + h_{i}(x) + ia_{i }\right] \end{array} \right) \, , \quad \mbox{for} \quad i = 1,2 \, . \end{align}$
(17) Their vacuum expectation values (VEVs) are characterized as
$v_{1} = v \cos \beta$ and$v_{2} = v \sin \beta$ , in which$v \simeq 246 [{\rm GeV}]$ .Hereafter, we work in the Higgs-Georgi basis, where all the Nambu-Goldstone (NG) bosons do not show up in the physical Higgs spectra, and the only one Higgs doublet
$\Phi_{1}$ acquires the VEV$v \simeq 246 [{\rm GeV}]$ . The two Higgs doublet fields$(\Phi_1,\Phi_2)$ in Eq. (17) are transformed by the orthogonal-basis rotation with the angle$\beta$ into$(H_1,H_2)$ as follows:$\begin{split} H_1 =& \left( \begin{array}{c} G^+ \\ \displaystyle\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left[ v + h_1^\prime + i G^0 \right] \end{array} \right) \,, \\ H_2 =& \left( \begin{array}{c} H^+ \\ \displaystyle\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left[ v + h_2^\prime + i A \right] \end{array} \right) \, , \\ \left( \begin{array}{c} h_1^\prime \\ h_2^\prime \end{array} \right) & = \left( \begin{array}{cc} c_\beta & s_\beta \\ - s_\beta & c_\beta \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{c} h_1 \\ h_2 \end{array} \right) \, , \end{split}$
(18) where
$c_\beta \equiv \cos \beta$ and$s_\beta \equiv \sin \beta$ .$G^{\pm,0}$ denote the NG boson fields to be eaten by$W^\pm$ and Z. The neutral Higgs fields$(h_1, h_2)$ will be further orthogonally rotated by an angle$\alpha$ to be mass eigenstate fields$(h, H)$ in a similar manner.The tree-level Higgs potential in the Higgs-Georgi basis is defined as
$ \begin{split} V_{0} \left(H_{1}, H_{2} \right) = & \frac{\lambda_{1}}{2} \left( H_1^{\dagger} H_1 \right)^{2} + \frac{\lambda_{2}}{2} \left( H_2^{\dagger} H_2 \right)^{2} + \lambda_{3} \left( H_1^{\dagger} H_1 \right) \left( H_2^{\dagger} H_2 \right) \\&+ \lambda_{4} \left( H_1^{\dagger} H_2 \right) \left( H_2^{\dagger} H_1 \right) + \left \{ \frac{\lambda_{5}}{2} \left( H_1^{\dagger} H_2 \right)^{2}\right.\\&\left. + \left[ \lambda_{6} \left( H_1^{\dagger} H_1 \right) + \lambda_{7} \left( H_2^{\dagger} H_2 \right) \right] \left( H_1^{\dagger} H_2 \right) + \mbox{h.c.} \right \} \, ,\end{split}$
(19) from which the tadpole conditions at tree-level are found to be
$\begin{split}\frac{\lambda_{1}}{2} v^3 =& 0 \, , \\ \frac{\lambda_{6}}{2} v^3 =& 0 \, .\end{split}$
(20) Therefore, for nonzero v, we find
$\begin{align} \lambda_{1} = \lambda_{6} = 0 \, , \ \quad V_{0}(v) = 0 \, . \end{align}$
(21) The masses of the charged Higgs
$H^{\pm}$ , CP-odd Higgs A, and CP-even Higgs$\left( h, H \right)$ are evaluated as$\begin{split}m_{H^{\pm}}^{2} = \frac{\lambda_{3}}{2} v^2 \, , \qquad m_{A}^{2} = \frac{1}{2} \left( \lambda_{3} + \lambda_{4} - \lambda_{5} \right) v^2 \, , \\ m_{{\rm even}}^{2} \equiv \left( \begin{array}{cc} m_{h}^{2}\quad 0 \\ 0\quad m_{H}^{2} \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{l} 0 \quad 0 \\ 0 \quad \displaystyle\frac{1}{2} \left( \lambda_{3} + \lambda_{4} + \lambda_{5} \right) v^2 \end{array} \right) \, .\end{split}$
(22) Here, the massless neutral Higgs
$(h)$ in the mass matrix$m_{\rm even}^2$ is called “scalon” [28] (not confused with scalaron), which arises as the consequence of the classical-scale invariance in the present model. This massless scalon ensures the existence of a flat direction in the potential. We will investigate the EW symmetry breaking along this flat direction by assuming the scalon-Higgs mass to be zero at some renormalization scale.Regarding the choice of the potential parameters, we further assume the custodial symmetric limit to protect the possibly sizable contribution to the
$\rho$ parameter, which is set as$\begin{align} m_{H^{\pm}}^{2} = m_{A}^{2} \, , \end{align}$
(23) and then, we obtain
$\lambda_{4} = \lambda_{5} = \frac{m_{H}^{2} - m_{A}^{2}}{v^{2}} \, .$
(24) In addition, we take
$m_{H} = m_{A}$ for the benchmark point in addressing the EWPT and baryogenesis. In this case, we have$\lambda_{3} = \frac{2m_{H}^{2}}{v^{2}} \, , \ \lambda_{4} = \lambda_{5} = 0 \, .$
(25) Finally, for the benchmark point where
$m_{H} = m_{A} = m_{H^{\pm}}$ and$t_{\beta} \equiv \tan \beta = 1$ , the Higgs potential in the present model is controlled only by the parameters$\lambda_{3}$ and$\lambda_{7}$ :$\begin{split}V_{0}(\phi) =& \frac{\lambda_{3}}{2} \left(2\phi h + \phi^{2}\right) \left( H^{+} H^{-} + \frac{1}{2} A^{2} + \frac{1}{2} H^{2} \right) \\&- \lambda_{7}\phi H \left( H^{+} H^{-} + \frac{1}{2} A^{2} + \frac{1}{2} H^{2} \right) \, ,\end{split}$
(26) where
$\phi = \sqrt{\phi_{1}^{2} + \phi_{2}^{2}}$ with$\phi_{i}$ being the constant background fields of the two Higgs doublets.As long as the effective potential of the background field
$\phi$ is evaluated at the one-loop level, the second term with the coupling$\lambda_7$ in Eq. (26) does not contribute to the effective potential, but only the first term with the coupling$\lambda_3$ does. It will be replaced by the heavy Higgs mass coupling Eq. (25) and reduced to be the field-dependent (common) masses for the$H, H^\pm$ and A as will be seen in Eq. (28). Thus, we can straightforwardly quote the result in the EWPT as well as the sphaleron freeze-out condition in [17] where the analyzed model has been set up in the scale-invariant limit, but not generic due to the requirement of a$Z_2$ symmetry among the two Higgs doublet fields. In particular, the numerical values listed in Table 1 of the reference can be directly applied even in the general 2HDM-setup, as we will see them in the next subsection.Note that the only one exception is on estimation for the cutoff scale
$\Lambda$ regarding the present general SI-2HDM: one can compute the one-loop renormalization group equations for the potential couplings (for the explicit expressions, see [29]). The straightforward one-loop computation tells us that the present model has a Landau pole ($\Lambda_{\rm LP}$ ) at the scale$\simeq 8.8 [{\rm TeV}]$ which is regarded as a cutoff scale up to which the present model is valid. This computation is based on the Higgs-Georgi basis with the massless Higgs and other related inputs which are used in the later subsection.$\tilde{\mu}$ is determined by other inputs (See, Eq. (33)).$\Lambda_{\rm LP} \simeq 8.8 [{\rm TeV}]$ in the present model is somewhat larger than that in the SI-2HDM with the$Z_2$ symmetry imposed ($\Lambda_{\rm LP} \simeq 6.3 [{\rm TeV}]$ ) [17]. -
We follow the Gildener-Weinberg method [28] to compute the one-loop effective potential at zero temperature,
$V_{1}(\phi)$ , along the flat direction at tree-level. In the Gildener-Weinberg method, the NG bosons are exactly massless along the flat direction, hence they do not contribute to the one-loop effective Higgs potential, making the potential gauge invariant. At finite temperature, however, the NG bosons get thermal masses, rendering the effective potential gauge dependent after thermal resummation [30] (see also Ref. [31]). Since there is no satisfactory gauge-invariant perturbative calculation method at present, we do not pursue this issue and take Landau gauge in our numerical analysis. In this gauge, the NG contributions are ϕ independent at leading order in resummed perturbation theory so that they do not appear in the following calculations. Thus, we can readily compute the one-loop effective potential by using the tree-level relation$\lambda_{3} = 2m_{H}^2/v^2$ in Eq. (25) and the usual Yukawa and gauge interaction terms in the standard model,$V_{1} (\phi) = \sum\limits_{i = H,A,H^{\pm},W^{\pm},Z,t,b} n_{i} \frac{\tilde{m}(\phi)_{i}^{4}}{64 \pi^2} \left( \log \frac{\tilde{m}_{i}^{2}(\phi)}{\tilde{\mu}^2} - c_{i} \right) \, ,$
(27) where
$n_{i}$ stands for the degree of freedom for each particle (n.b., a minus sign appears for fermion loops):$n_{H} = n_{A} = 1$ ,$n_{H^{\pm}} = 2$ ,$n_{W^{\pm}} = 6$ ,$n_{Z} = 3$ ,$n_{t} = n_{b} = -12$ , and$c_{i} = 3/2 \ (5/6)$ for scalars and fermions (gauge bosons). They come in the potential due to the ($\overline{\rm{MS}}$ ) renormalization procedure at one-loop level. In Eq. (27), the$\tilde{m}(\phi)$ denotes the field-dependent masses for the heavy Higgses$(H, A, H^{\pm})$ and the standard-model particles (with being selected to be relatively heavy ones with the larger couplings to the$\phi$ , such as$W^{\pm}, Z, t, b$ ), which are defined by$\tilde{m}_{i}^{2} = m_{i}^{2} \frac{\phi^{2}}{ v^{2}} \,.$
(28) Since the VEV v does not develop at the tree-level as the consequence of the classically scale-invariant setup, v emerges through the renormalization scale
$(\tilde{\mu})$ at the one-loop reflecting the dimensional transmutation, which is usually called radiative-EW breaking-mechanism. The tadpole condition at the one-loop level$\partial V_{1} (\phi) / \partial \phi = 0 |_{\phi = v}$ leads to$\begin{split} v^{2} & = \tilde{\mu}^2 \exp \left[- \frac{1}{2} - \frac{A}{B} \right] \, , \\ A & = \sum\limits_{i = H,A,H^{\pm},W^{\pm},Z,t,b} n_{i} \frac{\tilde{m}_{i}^{4}(\phi)}{64 \pi^2 v^{4}} \left( \log \frac{\tilde{m}_{i}^{2}(\phi)}{v^2} - c_{i} \right) \, , \\ B & = \sum\limits_{i = H,A,H^{\pm},W^{\pm},Z,t,b} n_{i} \frac{\tilde{m}_{i}^{4}(\phi)}{64 \pi^2 v^{4}} \, . \end{split}$
(29) Then the vacuum energy becomes
$V_1(v) = - \frac{B}{2} v^4 \, ,$
(30) which has to be negative (i.e.
$B>0$ since$V_0(v) = 0$ along the flat direction) so as to realize the EW breaking at the true vacuum. Eliminating the renormalization scale$\tilde{\mu}$ by using Eq. (29), the one-loop effective potential takes the form$V_1(\phi) = B \phi^4 \left( \log \frac{\phi^2}{v^2} - \frac{1}{2} \right) \,,$
(31) and the 125 GeV Higgs mass is thus radiatively generated as follows:
$(125 [{\rm GeV}])^2 = m_{h}^{2} = \left. \frac{\partial^2 V_{1} (\phi)}{\partial \phi^2} \right |_{\phi = v} = 8Bv^2 \, .$
(32) -
Including the finite temperature effect via the imaginary-time formalism and applying the resummation prescription [32-35], the one-loop potential Eq. (27) receives the corrections, and we obtain the effective potential
$V_{h\, {\rm eff.}} (\phi, T)$ :$\begin{split}V_{h\, {\rm eff.}} (\phi, T) =& \sum\limits_{\substack{i = H,A,H^{\pm}, W_{L,T}^{\pm},\\ Z_{L,T}, \gamma_L,t,b}} n_{i} \left [ \frac{\tilde{M}_{i}^{4}(\phi,T)}{64 \pi^2} \left( \log \frac{\tilde{M}_{i}^{2}(\phi,T)}{\tilde{\mu}^2} - c_{i} \right) \right. \\&\left.+ \frac{T^{4}}{2\pi^{2}} I_{B,F} \left( \frac{\tilde{M}_{i}^{2}(\phi,T)}{T^2} \right) \right ] \, ,\end{split}$
(33) where
$n_{W_{L(T)}} = 2(4)$ ,$n_{Z_{L(T)}} = 1(2)$ ,$c_{V_{L(T)}} = 3/2(1/2)\; (V = W, Z)$ . The field-dependent masses at the finite temperature$\tilde{M}_{i}^{2} (\phi, T)$ are given by$\tilde{M}_{H,A,H^\pm}^{2}(\phi,T) = \tilde{m}_{H,A,H^\pm}^{2} (\phi) + \Pi_{H,A,H^\pm} (T)\,,$
(34) $\tilde{M}_{W_L}^2(\phi, T) = \tilde{m}_W^2(\phi)+\Pi_W(T)\,,$
(35) $\begin{split} \tilde{M}_{Z_L, \gamma_L}^2&(\phi, T) = \frac{1}{2} \left [ \frac{1}{4}(g_2^2+g_1^2)\phi^2 + \Pi_W(T) + \Pi_B(T) \right. \\ & \left. \pm \sqrt{\left(\frac{1}{4}(g_2^2-g_1^2)\phi^2+\Pi_W(T)-\Pi_B(T)\right)^2 +\frac{g_2^2g_1^2}{4}\phi^4} \right ] \, , \end{split}$
(36) and for each field [36],
$\Pi_{H, A, H^{\pm}} (T) = \frac{T^{2}}{12 v^{2}} \left ( 6m_{W}^{2} + 3m_{Z}^{2} + 4m_{H}^{2} + 6 m_{t}^{2} + 6m_{b}^{2} \right ) \, , $
(37) $\Pi_W(T) = 2g_2^2T^2\,,$
(38) $\Pi_B(T) = 2g_1^2T^2\,,$
(39) where
$g_2$ and$g_1$ are the${{{SU}}(2)}_L$ and${{{U}}(1)}_Y$ couplings, respectively. For the other species,$\tilde{M}_i^2(\phi, T) = \tilde{m}_i^2(\phi)$ . And,$I_{B,F} ( \tilde{M}_{i}^{2}(\phi,T)/T^2 )$ is defined by$I_{B,F} (a^{2}) = \int^{\infty}_{0} {\rm d}x x^{2} \log \left( 1 \mp {\rm e}^{-\sqrt{x^{2} + a^{2}}} \right) \, ,$
(40) where the minus sign is applied for bosons and the plus one for fermions. For the numerical evaluations of
$I_{B,F}(a^2)$ and their derivatives with respect to$a^2$ , we employ fitting functions used in Ref. [37]. Their errors are small enough for our purpose.With the effective potential in Eq. (33), we can analyze the EWPT and sphaleron freeze-out after we normalize the effective potential to be 0 at
$\phi = 0$ , (i.e., making a shift$V(\phi, T) \to V(\phi, T) - V(\phi = 0, T)$ ). For successful EWBG, one has to satisfy$v/T>\xi_{\rm{sph}}(T)$ at a transition temperature T (described below), where$\xi_{\rm{sph}}(T)$ predominantly depends on sphaleron energy [38, 39]. We take$m_{H}^{2} = m_{A}^{2} = m_{H^{\pm}}^{2} ( = 382 [{\rm GeV}])^2$ [17] as the benchmark point. It turns out that all the results are the same as given in Table 1 of [17] except for the cutoff scale around$10$ [TeV], as noted in the previous subsection.Therefore, we can directly quote the successful benchmark parameters relevant to the strong first-order PT at the critical temperature
$(T_C)$ and the nucleation temperature for the EW-broken phase bubble$(T_N)$ [17]:$\begin{split} v_{C}/T_{C} & = 211 [{\rm GeV}]/91.5 [{\rm GeV}] = 2.31 \,, \\ \xi_{{\rm sph}}(T_{C}) & = 1.23 \, , \\ v_{N}/T_{N} & = 229 [{\rm GeV}]/77.8 [{\rm GeV}] = 2.94 \,, \\ \xi_{{\rm sph}}(T_{N}) & = 1.20 \,, \\ E_{{\rm cb}}(T_{N})/T_N & = 151.7 \, , \end{split}$
(41) for
$m_{h} = 125 [{\rm GeV}]$ ,$m_{H} = m_{A} = m_{H^{\pm}} = 382[{\rm GeV}]$ , and$t_{\beta} = 1$ .$v_{C/N}$ is the Higgs VEV at$T_{C(N)}$ ,$\xi_{{\rm sph}}(T_{C(N)})$ denotes the related sphaleron decoupling parameter, and$E_{\rm cb}(T_N)$ represents the energy of the critical bubble (three-dimensional bounce action) [40]. In calculating$\xi_{\rm{sph}}$ , thermal effects on the sphaleron configuration are also taken into account. This is the reason why$\xi_{\rm{sph}}$ is slightly greater than a conventional rough criterion of$\xi_{\rm{sph}} = 1$ .The parameters listed in Eq. (41) makes it possible to accumulate the realistic amount of BAU by introducing a moderate size of extra CP-violating Yukawa couplings in the top-charm sector [18] or bottom-strange sector [19]. Actually, the benchmark value for the heavy Higgs mass (
$382 [{\rm GeV}]$ ) is somewhat smaller than those adopted in [18] ($500 [{\rm GeV}]$ ) and [19] ($600 [{\rm GeV}]$ ), as well as the related quantities such as$T_{C}, T_{N}$ and so on. In evaluating the chiral/CP-violating transport process, however, such a small range of the mass difference will not give a significant effect on the (coupled) diffusion rates and the thermal decay rates unless extra colored particles are present.Therefore, the generated BAU in the SI-2HDM is expected to be the same order in magnitude as that estimated in [18, 19] (for theoretical uncertainties of the BAU calculation, see [18, 19]). However, one crucial difference is that our scenarios do not suffer from any severe experimental constraints, such as the electric dipole moment of electron whose upper limit has been improved down to
$1.1\times 10^{-29}\; [e\; \rm{cm}]$ by ACME Collaboration [41], since so-called alignment limit,$\sin(\beta-\alpha)\to1$ , is naturally realized in the current model. -
In the previous section, we have introduced the SI-2HDM to describe the EWPT in the matter sector. Now, we consider the method to evaluate the trace of energy-momentum tensor in a way relevant to such a PT environment. As will be addressed below, the key point is to note that since the evolution of the vacuum state (as well as the mass spectrum) during the EWPT can be described by the free energy, namely an effective potential, the variation of the trace of energy-momentum tensor around that epoch can be static. Such a static trace of the energy-momentum tensor,
$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} |_{\rm static}$ , can be computed in the field theory, and we will apply this procedure to the SI-2HDM. We also discuss the comparison of the (static)$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}$ s derived from the proposed field-theoretical approach and the conventional fluid approximation. -
To achieve the complete evaluation of the trace of the energy-momentum tensor, we have to take into account the nonlinear coupling between the scalaron and matter fields, which is technically hard to accomplish. Noting characteristic features which we are generically faced with in evaluation of the trace of energy-momentum tensor, we demonstrate how the complexity of the issue can be relaxed in the present case we mainly concern about.
First of all, we note that in contrast to the fluid picture where the couplings to scalaron are implicit, we have to pay our attention to the interactions between the scalaron and the target-matter sector induced by the Weyl transformation: The Lagrangian for the matter sector can be read off from Eq. (5) as follows:
$S_{{\rm Matter}} = \int {\rm d}^{4}x \sqrt{-\tilde{g}} \, {\rm e}^{-4 \sqrt{1/6} \kappa \varphi } {\cal L}_{\rm Matter} \left[{\rm e}^{2 \sqrt{1/6} \kappa \varphi } \tilde{g}^{\mu \nu}, \Phi \right] \, .$
(42) That is, in addition to the overall
$\exp[-4 \sqrt{1/6} \kappa \varphi]$ , we need to consider couplings between the scalaron and matter sector induced by the metric through the kinetic terms, which in general causes the non-trivial$\varphi$ -dependence of the$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}$ as in Eq. (8).However, it is actually not such a complicated case as far as the PT epoch is concerned: Because one can consider that the evolution of the vacuum (including the mass spectra) during the EWPT is (quasi-) static process, the trace of the energy-momentum tensor can be identified with the static one,
$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} = \left. T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} \right|_{\rm static} \qquad {\rm in}\; {{\rm the}}\; {{\rm EWPT}} \;{{\rm epoch}} \, .$
(43) By using this
$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} |_{\rm static}$ , we can safely ignore the nontrivial$\varphi$ -dependence in the trace of the energy-momentum tensor$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}$ arising from the kinetic terms. The static trace of energy-momentum tensor can be simply evaluated by the scale transformation of the effective potential for the matter sector:$\left. T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} \right|_{\rm static} = - \delta_{D} V_{{\rm Matter}}$
(44) up to total derivative.
$\delta_{D}$ represents the operation of the infinitesimal scale (or dilatation) transformation. Note that Eq. (44) implies that the static trace of the energy-momentum tensor does not depend on the metric. Moreover, in this case, the original expression for the effective potential of the scalaron in Eq. (8) is reduced to the modeled one in Eq. (9).Although the intrinsic
$\varphi$ -dependence arising from the Wely transformation is ignored, we still have the overall$\exp[-4 \sqrt{1/6} \kappa \varphi]$ , which leads to the interactions between the scalaron and potential terms in the matter sector. As the second step, we introduce a perturbative picture in the scalaron field discussed in [42]. When we consider the fluctuation mode of scalaron field$\kappa \varphi \rightarrow \kappa \varphi_{\min} + \kappa \varphi \, , \ |\kappa \varphi| \ll 1 \, ,$
(45) nonlinear exponential form of scalaron can be reduced into the polynomial form:
$\begin{align} {\rm e}^{Q\kappa \varphi} \rightarrow {\rm e}^{Q\kappa \varphi_{\min}} {\rm e}^{Q\kappa \varphi} = {\rm e}^{Q\kappa \varphi_{\min}} \left( 1 + Q\kappa \varphi + \cdots \right) \, , \end{align}$
(46) where Q is an arbitrary coefficient.
${\rm exp}[Q \kappa \varphi_{\min}]$ corresponds to the difference between the Jordan and Einstein frames.One can find that the leading order does not include interaction with the scalaron and that the contributions from the scalaron couplings appear at the loop-order. Because such interaction terms are suppressed by the Planck mass scale
$\kappa \propto 1/M_{{\rm pl}}$ , we can neglect them at the EWPT scale in which we work. Thus, the trace of the energy-momentum tensor can be evaluated only with the original matter sector and without including the scalaron, up to the frame difference. As we will see in the final section, we will find${\rm exp}[Q \kappa \varphi_{\min}] \sim 1$ , and we can also ignore the frame difference. We note that thermal loop corrections by the SI-2HDM are included in itself in term of the effective potential$V_{h\, {\rm eff.}} (\phi, T)$ , which does not include the loop corrections by the scalaron.Thereby, Eq. (9) is actually applicable directly to the case in which the scalaron acts as a background field overall coupled to matter-sector dynamics, as has been discussed in the present analysis①. Thus, we can make the scalaron completely decoupled from the dynamics of the target matter sector, which allows us to compute the trace of the energy-momentum tensor as we do in the Jordan frame. We also note that the correspondence between the fluid prescription and field theory is not so straightforward because there are many theoretical difficulties to reproduce the fluid picture starting from the field-theoretical viewpoint although we have derived Eq. (9) under the several relevant assumptions.
-
By incorporating the general SI-2HDM in the previous section into the targeted matter Lagrangian, we can evaluate the
$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}$ as$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} = \left. T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} \right|_{\rm static} = - \delta^{\phi}_{D} \left[ V_{h\, {\rm eff}} (\phi, T) \right] |_{\phi = v(T)} \, ,$
(47) where
$V_{h\, {\rm eff}} (\phi, T)$ is given in Eq. (33), and$\delta^{\phi}_{D}$ expresses the infinitesimal operator$\delta_{D}$ with respect to the Higgs field$\phi$ , which is constant in the space-time:$\delta^{\phi}_{D} \varphi = \varphi$ ①. Eq. (47) can be computed as follows:$\begin{split} \delta^{\phi}_{D} \left[ V_{h\, {\rm eff}} (\phi, T) \right] |_{\phi = v(T)} = & \sum_{i} n_{i} \tilde{m}_{i}^{2}(\phi) \left. \left[ \frac{\tilde{M}_{i}^2(\phi,T)}{16 \pi^2} \left( \log \frac{\tilde{M}^2_i (\phi,T)}{\tilde{\mu}^2}\right.\right.\right.\\&\left.\left.\left. - c_{i} \!+\! \frac{1}{2} \right) \! +\! \frac{T^2}{\pi^{2}} I_{B,F}^\prime \left( \frac{\tilde{M}_{i}^{2}(\phi,T)}{T^2} \right) \right] \right |_{\phi = v(T)} \! . \end{split}$
(48) where
$I_{B,F}^\prime(a^2) \equiv \displaystyle\frac{\partial}{\partial a^2} I_{B,F}(a^2)$ . Here, the temperature dependence of the Higgs VEV$v(T)$ is completely determined by the potential analysis in the previous section.The scalaron
$\varphi$ couples to the$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}$ as in Eq. (9) (with the$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}$ replaced by the static one in Eq. (47)), with the dilatation variance given in Eq. (48), so that the scalaron dynamics gets significantly affected by the matter sector, the SI-2HDM, after the EWPT at$T = T_C$ . There, the explicit scale symmetry breaking is provided by introduction of the renormalization scale$\tilde{\mu}$ as well as the temperature T transported from the one-loop effective potential of the Higgs$\phi$ field, as clearly seen from Eq. (48). To be more explicit, we expand the Higgs field$\phi(T)$ in Eq. (48) around the VEV$v(T)$ ($T\leqslant T_C$ ) by introducing the fluctuating field$\phi$ via a shift$v \to v + \phi$ . We can read off the coupling terms between the Higgs$\phi$ and the scalaron$\varphi$ in the scalaron effective potential (in Eq. (9) with the$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}$ replaced by the static one in Eq. (47), together with the dilatation variance given in Eq. (48)) as follows:$\begin{split} V_{s\, {\rm eff}} (\varphi) = & V_s(\varphi) + \frac{1}{4} {\rm e}^{-4 \sqrt{1/6} \kappa \varphi} \\ & \times \sum_in_i\tilde{m}_i^2(\phi) \left. \left[ \frac{\tilde{M}_i^2(\phi, T)}{16\pi^2}\left(\log \frac{\tilde{M}_i^2(\phi, T)}{\tilde{\mu}^2}-c_i +\frac{1}{2}\right) \right.\right.\\&\left.\left.+\frac{T^2}{\pi^2}I'_{B,F}\left(\frac{\tilde{M}_i^2(\phi, T)}{T^2}\right) \right] \right |_{\phi = v(T)} \\ = & V_s(\varphi) + \frac{1}{4} {\rm e}^{-4 \sqrt{1/6} \kappa \varphi} \left. \left [ 4B\phi^4 \log \frac{\phi^2}{v^2}\right.\right.\\&\left.\left.+ \sum_in_i\tilde{m}_i^2(\phi) \frac{T^2}{\pi^2}I'_{B,F}\left(\frac{\tilde{M}_i^2(\phi, T)}{T^2} \right) \right] \right|_{\phi = v(T)} \, , \end{split}$
(49) and
$\begin{split} V_{s\, {\rm eff}} (\varphi) \mathop{\simeq}_{{\rm{high-}}T} & V_s(\varphi) + \frac{1}{4} {\rm e}^{-4 \sqrt{1/6} \kappa \varphi} \left. \left [ 4B\phi^4\ln\frac{\phi^2}{v^2} + \Pi_\phi(T)\phi^2 \right.\right.\\&\left.\left.- 4B\phi^4\ln\frac{\phi^2}{v^2} - 3ET\phi^3 + \lambda_T \phi^4 + \cdots \right] \right|_{\phi = v(T)} \\ \rightarrow \ & V_s(\varphi) + \frac{1}{4} {\rm e}^{-4 \sqrt{1/6} \kappa \varphi} \left[ \Pi_\phi(T) (v(T) + \phi)^2 \right.\\&\left.- 2 E T (v(T) + \phi)^3 + \lambda_T (v(T) + \phi)^4 + \cdots \right] \, . \end{split}$
(50) In arriving at the second equality from the first one in Eq. (49), we have used the tadpole condition
$\partial V_{h\, {\rm eff}}/\partial \phi|_{\phi = v(T)}\! \!=\! 0$ . In reaching the last expression in Eq. (50), we have curried out the high-temperature expansion (for the unresummed potential), to make the temperature dependence clearer②. We also made the VEV$v(T)$ developed to have the fluctuating Higgs field$\phi$ , and the ellipses denote higher order terms with respect to the$\phi$ field. In Eq. (50), the$\Pi_\phi(T)$ , E and$\lambda_T$ are defined as$\begin{split} \Pi_\phi (T)& = \sum_{i = {\rm bosons}} n_i \frac{m_i^2}{v^2} \frac{T^2}{12} - \sum_{i = {\rm fermions}} n_i \frac{m_i^2}{v^2} \frac{T^2}{24} \,, \\ E & = \sum_{i = {\rm bosons}} n_i \frac{m_i^3}{12 \pi v^3} \, , \\ \lambda_T & = 4 B - \sum_{i} n_i \frac{m_i^4}{16 \pi^2 v^4} \log \frac{m_i^2}{\alpha_{B,F} T^2} \, , \end{split}$
(51) where the definitions of
$\alpha_B$ and$\alpha_F$ being in the footnote 2.Note that the
$\phi$ -tadpole terms in Eq. (50) should be eliminated by imposing the tadpole condition$\partial V_{h\, {\rm eff}}/\partial v = 0$ . Obviously, the scale symmetry is not respected in the induced scalaron-coupling form, which has been spontaneously (radiatively) broken by the Higgs VEV v and explicitly broken by the renormalization (i.e. the Higgs VEV) and introduction of temperature②. As expected from Eq. (50), it implies that the chameleon mechanism will be influenced by the coupling with the Higgs potential with those net scale-symmetry breaking-effects encoded, as will clearly be seen later soon.A similar discussion of the chameleon mechanism affected by the Higgs potential term has been made in [43] at zero temperature, in which the scalaron plays a role of compensator for the scale invariance in the matter sector (i.e. the standard model) and develops its VEV at the tree-level of the standard model to trigger the scale-symmetry breaking and subsequently breaking the EW symmetry. In comparison with the earlier work, in the present our case, the scale symmetry is spontaneously (radiatively) broken by the matter-sector dynamics (SI-2HDM) at the one-loop level, and explicitly broken by introduction of the renormalization scale and temperature, which gives the significant effect on the chameleon mechanism at around the EWPT epoch (
$T \sim T_C$ ) as we will explicitly demonstrate in the next subsection. A distinct difference from the earlier work can also be observed in the target-Higgs potential form of logarithmic type including the finite temperature terms in the present scenario.Nevertheless, one might simply suspect that the chameleon mechanism may not significantly be affected as was indicated in [12] and [13, 14], unless the scale-symmetry breaking is supplied by emergence of non-derivative couplings (i.e. potential terms); for instance, the Higgs portal coupling [43]. Going beyond the tree-level, this observation might still be operative even including radiative corrections if they are regularized by a scale-invariant dimensional regularization [15, 16]. The scale-invariant dimensional regularization could wash out scalaron couplings to the Higgs potential independent of the temperature T, as displayed in Eq. (50). However, in the present our scenario, the scalaron would still be left with finite temperature terms as seen in Eq. (50), which serve as another explicit-breaking source.
Note also that such a temperature-dependent part will not be moved away in contrast to an artificial renormalization-scale dependence, which manifests the fact that the scale symmetry for the matte sector is explicitly broken once it is put in the the thermal bath with the characteristic temperature. Moreover, its breaking effect arises to be seen at the loop level of the thermal field theory.
-
Now we evaluate the
$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}$ in Eq. (47) in the SI-2HDM based on Eq. (48) with respect to the temperature T, to obtain the plot in Fig. 1. The$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu}$ has been set to exactly zero before the EWPT because of the potential convention for the sphaleron freeze-out analysis (i.e.$V(\phi, T) \to V(\phi, T) - V(\phi = 0, T$ ) as was done in Sec. 3.3), in which thermally-driven vacuum-energy terms, possibly present in the EW symmetric phase, have been dropped. That is, the scale-invariant limit has been achieved in the symmetric phase. Here, we have applied two different ways (the dashed red and dot-dashed blue lines) in taking into account the resummation prescription. In both two cases, the SI-2HDM model predicts a sharp dump at around$80 - 90 [{\rm GeV}]$ , which indeed reflects the strong-first order EWPT, and the trace of the energy-momentum tensor becomes zero as we expected. We also plot the result in the previous study [11] where we calculate the trace of the energy-momentum tensor comprised only by the standard model particles in the conventional fluid approximation (the solid black line).Figure 1. (color online) The dashed red and dot-dashed blue lines show the trace of the energy-momentum tensor with and without the resummation prescription, respectively. The solid black line shows the trace of the energy-momentum tensor constructed only from the Standard Model particles in the conventional fluid approach. The similar magnitude of the solid black and other curves implies the validity of the approximation and the thermal decoupling of the heavier Higgs with mass above 100 [GeV].
Figure 1 clearly demonstrates that the SI-2HDM with the exact analysis based on the quantum field theory does not show a large deviation from the approximated fluid description in the trace of energy-momentum tensor, though they are somewhat different by a factor of order one. Thus, it has been shown that the conventional approach actually works appropriately in the evaluation of the chameleon mechanism although it cannot describe the EWPT.
-
In this section, we formulate the chameleon mechanism in the environment of the EWPT in the early Universe. Then, we apply it to the evaluation of the scalaron mass and potential in the EWPT environment, where the SI-2HDM plays a significant role as we introduced in the previous section.
-
In order to examine the chameleon mechanism in the EWPT background, we consider the following model [44],
$F(R) = R - \beta R_{c} \left[ 1 - \left( 1 + \frac{R^{2}}{R^{2}_{c}} \right)^{-n} \right] + \alpha R^{2} \, .$
(52) The
$R_{c}$ is taken to be a typical energy scale, where the gravitational action deviates from the Einstein-Hilbert action, and one expects$R_{c} \sim \Lambda \simeq 4 \times 10^{-84} [{\rm GeV}^{2}]$ . The index n and the parameter$\beta$ are chosen to be positive constants. The$\alpha$ expresses another high energy scale. It has been known that the$F(R)$ gravity models for the dark energy generally suffer from the curvature singularity problem [45]. This problem can be cured with$R^{2}$ correction [46, 47], and the scalaron mass is upper-bounded and becomes finite in the high-density region [11, 48]. Note that$R^{2}$ term is not necessarily identified with the part of$R^{2}$ inflation model.The curvature scale R should be larger than the dark energy scale
$R_{c}$ because the chameleon mechanism works in the presence of matters. Therefore, we work in the large curvature limit$R_{c}<R$ . In the large curvature limit, the minimum of the potential is determined with Eq. (11)$0 = R_{\min} - 2 \beta R_{c} + 2 (n+1) \beta R_{c} \left( \frac{R_{\min}}{R_{c}} \right)^{-2n} + \kappa^{2} T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} \, .$
(53) Note that the
$\alpha R^2$ does not affect the stationary condition. The second and third terms in Eq. (53) are negligible in the large curvature limit$R_{c}<R_{\min}$ , and one finds$R_{\min} \approx - \kappa^{2} T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} \, .$
(54) As an illustration, we assume that the matter contribution is approximately expressed as the pressure-less dust,
$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} = -\rho$ , where$\rho$ is the matter energy density. Then, the scalaron mass in Eq. (13) is evaluated in the large curvature limit as$\begin{split}m_{\varphi}^{2} (\rho) \approx &\frac{R_{c}}{6n (2n\!+\!1) \beta} \left[ \left( \frac{\kappa^{2} \rho}{R_{c} } \right)^{-2(n+1)}\right. \\&\left.+ \frac{\alpha R_{c}}{n(2n+1)\beta} \right]^{-1} \frac{1}{1 + 2 \alpha \kappa^{2} \rho} \, .\end{split}$
(55) We find that the scalaron mass is given by the increasing function of the energy density
$\rho$ , and thus, the scalaron becomes heavy in the high-density region of matter as we expected. In the following analysis, we use this$F(R)$ model to study the chameleon mechanism and effective potential of the scalaron in the EWPT environment. -
Next, we convert the trace of energy-momentum tensor as in Fig. 1 into the temperature-dependence of the scalaron mass. We show the result in Fig. 2. As an illustration, we take the parameters in Eq. (52) as
$n = 1$ ,$\beta = 2$ ,$\alpha = 1[{\rm GeV}^{-2}]$ . Since the trace of energy-momentum tensor is zero before the EWPT, the dashed red and dot-dashed blue lines show that the scalaron mass is given by the dark energy scale,$m_{\varphi} \sim 3\times10^{-33}[{\rm eV}]$ . After the EWPT, the effective potential of scalaron achieves the finite trace of energy-momentum tensor, and the chameleon mechanism makes the scalaron mass heavy. The scalaron mass after the EWPT takes the constant value as in [11],$m_{\varphi} \sim 0.1[{\rm GeV}]$ , for the choice of$\alpha = 1[{\rm GeV}^{-2}]$ .Figure 2. (color online) The dashed red and dot-dashed blue lines show the scalaron mass for SI-2HDM with and without the resummation prescription, respectively. The solid black line shows the scalaron mass in the conventional fluid approach. The parameters of the
$F(R)$ function are chosen as$n = 1$ ,$\beta = 2$ ,$\alpha = 1[{\rm GeV}^{-2}]$ .We note that the constancy of the scalaron mass is due to
$R^{2}$ term in the$F(R)$ model Eq. (52). When we work in a large curvature limit where$R_{c}<R<1/\alpha$ , we find that the mass formula Eq. (55) is reduced to$m^{2}_{\varphi} \approx \frac{1}{6\alpha} \, .$
(56) This is why the scalaron mass
$m_{\varphi}$ is approximately computed to be$\sim 0.1[{\rm GeV}]$ when$\alpha = 1[{\rm GeV}^{-2}]$ . It is also noted that the scalaron mass becomes a trans-Planckian scale without$R^{2}$ corrections, which is related to the singularity problem in the$F(R)$ gravity. -
Finally, we discuss the scalaron potential over the EWPT environment created from the SI-2HDM. We consider the effective potential of the scalaron field before and after the EWPT. Right after the EWPT (
$T \lesssim T_C \simeq 91.5$ [GeV]) with and without the resummation prescription, the trace of energy-momentum tensor keeps almost a constant value (See Fig. 1). Hence, by inputting$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} = 0 [{\rm GeV}^{4}]$ and$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} \sim 4 \times 10^{7} [{\rm GeV}^{4}]$ , we plot the form of the effective potential before and after the EWPT, given in Figs. 3 and 4.Figure 3. The solid black line shows the effective potential of the scalar field with
$n = 1$ ,$\beta = 2$ , and$\alpha = 10^{22}[{\rm GeV}^{-2}]$ . The potential is normalized to$V_{0} = \frac{R_{c}}{2\kappa^{2}} \sim \rho_{\Lambda}$ , where$\rho_{\Lambda}$ is the dark energy density. Before EWPT, SI-2HDM does not generate the trace of the energy-momentum tensor, and thus the chameleon mechanism does not work.Figure 4. (color online) The same parameters as in Fig. 3. The solid black line shows the effective potential and the blue dashed line represents the original potential of the scalaron field. The red dotted line shows the matter contribution. After EWPT, the trace of the energy-momentum tensor has a non-zero value, and affects the effective potential due to the chameleon mechanism. Immediately after EWPT,
$T^{\mu}_{\ \mu} \sim 4 \times 10^{7} [{\rm GeV}^{4}]$ .In this analysis, we set
$\alpha = 10^{22}[{\rm GeV}^{-2}]$ , which corresponds to the experimental upper-bound from the fifth forth experiment [49]. Before the EWPT ($T \gtrsim T_C$ ), the effective potential does not receive the effect of the chameleon mechanism because the trace of energy-momentum tensor vanishes. Then, the potential minimum locates at around$\kappa \varphi \sim - 0.1$ . Immediately after the EWPT ($T \lesssim T_C$ ), the chameleon mechanism starts to work due to the non-zero trace of energy-momentum tensor induced by the radiative breaking of the scale and EW symmetries, and the effective potential is lifted by the SI-2HDM-matter contributions. Then, the potential minimum locates at around$\kappa \varphi \sim 0$ .From the potential analysis, we can conjecture the new thermal history of the scalaron field with taking into account the EWPT; the scalaron field at the original potential minimum is pushed away from the minimum by the EWPT via the chameleon mechanism, and the scalaron field would locate around the new potential minimum. As the Universe expands, the matter effect is decreasing in the effective potential, and the potential form is approaching to the original one. The above scenario gives the nonperturbative effect to the time-evolution of the scalaron field, and the behavior of the scalaron field after the EWPT is nontrivial, but expected to be around the potential minimum.
F(R) gravity in the early Universe: electroweak phase transition and chameleon mechanism
- Received Date: 2019-06-05
- Available Online: 2019-10-01
Abstract: It is widely believed that the screening mechanism is an essential feature for the modified gravity theory. Although this mechanism has been examined thoroughly in the past decade, their analyses are based on a conventional fluid prescription for the matter-sector configuration. In this paper, we demonstrate a new formulation of the chameleon mechanism in F(R) gravity theory, to shed light on quantum-field theoretical effects on the chameleon mechanism as well as the related scalaron physics, induced by the matter sector. We show a possibility that the chameleon mechanism is absent in the early Universe based on a scale-invariant-extended scenario beyond the standard model of particle physics, in which a realistic electroweak phase transition, yielding the right amount of baryon asymmetry of Universe today, simultaneously breaks the scale invariance in the early Universe. We also briefly discuss the oscillation of the scalaron field and indirect generation of non-tensorial gravitational waves induced by the electroweak phase transition.