text:
# Particle Aspects of Cosmology and BaryogenesisLectures delivered at Department of Physics, KFUPM, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia (April 2002 and September 2002).

## 1 Introduction

I will first discuss Nucleosynthesis and show how it leads to two big problems in cosmology: Dark Matter and Baryogenesis. Before I discuss Primordial Nucleo-synthesis, I give you some background:

Cosmology – Physics of Early Universe

$``$

High Temperature

$``$

High Energy

$``$

Particle Physics – Physics at Short Distances

## 2 Thermal Equilibrium

Consider an arbitrary volume $`V`$ in thermal equilibrium with a heat bath at temperature $`T`$. The particle density $`n_i`$ (i, particle index) at temperature $`T`$ is given by

$$n_i=\frac{N_i}{V}=\frac{g_i}{2\pi ^2}\left(\frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}c}\right)^3_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{E}{k_BT}\right)\pm 1\right]^1z^2dz.$$
(1)
The energy density is given by

$$\rho _ic^2=\frac{g_i}{2\pi ^2}\left(\frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}c}\right)^3\left(k_BT\right)_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{E}{k_BT}\right)\pm 1\right]^1\left(\frac{E}{k_BT}\right)z^2dz^2,$$
(2)
where

$$z=\frac{qc}{k_BT},E=\left[\left(qc\right)^2+\left(m_ic^2\right)^2\right]^{1/2}$$
(3)
and $`g_i`$ are the number of spin states, $`q`$ is the momentum of the particle and $`m_i`$ is its mass. The + sign is for the fermions ($`F`$) and $``$ sign is for the bosons ($`B`$). In particular for $`i=`$ photon, $`m=0,g=2`$. In writing Eqs. (1) and (2), we have put the chemical potential $`\mu _i=0`$. For photon $`\mu =0`$. Since particles and antiparticles are in equilibrium with photons $`\mu _i=\mu _{\overline{i}}`$ . If there is no asymmetry between the number of particles and antiparticles, $`\mu _i=\mu _{\overline{i}}=0`$. If the difference between the number of particles and antiparticles is small compared with the number of photons,

$$\left|\frac{\mu _i}{k_BT}\right|=\left|\frac{\mu _{\overline{i}}}{k_BT}\right|1$$
(4)
and the chemical potential can be neglected. For the photon gas, we get from Eqs. (1) and (2) \[$`T_0=2.725^0`$ K, subscript 0 denotes the present value of the temperature of cosmic background (CMB) radiation\]

$`n_\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta \left(3\right)}{\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}c}}\right)^3=2{\displaystyle \frac{1.2}{\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}c}}\right)^3\left(k_BT\right)^3`$ (5)
$`n_{\gamma _0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2.4}{\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}c}}\right)^3\left(k_BT_0\right)^3=410.50\text{cm}^3`$ (6)
$`n_\gamma \left(T\right)`$ $`=`$ $`410.50\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{2.725}}\right)^3\text{cm}^3,`$ (7)
$`\rho _\gamma c^2`$ $`=`$ $`6{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta \left(4\right)}{\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}c}}\right)^3\left(k_BT\right)^4`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{15}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}c}}\right)^3\left(k_BT\right)^42.7n_\gamma \left(k_BT\right)`$
$`\rho _{\gamma _0}`$ $`=`$ $`2.60\times 10^{10}\text{GeV cm}^3`$ (9)
The zeta functions are defined as follows

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^2dz}{e^z1}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(3\right)\zeta \left(3\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^2dz}{e^z+1}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(12^2\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(3\right)\zeta \left(3\right)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(3\right)\zeta \left(3\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^3dz}{e^z1}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(4\right)\zeta \left(4\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^3dz}{e^z+1}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(12^3\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(4\right)\zeta \left(4\right)={\displaystyle \frac{7}{8}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(4\right)\zeta \left(4\right)`$
For a gas of extreme relativistic particles (ER), $`k_BTm_ic^2`$, $`qcm_ic^2`$, we thus get

$`n_B`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_B}{2}}\right)n_\gamma ,\rho _B=\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_B}{2}}\right)\rho _\gamma `$ (10a)
$`n_F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_F}{2}}\right)n_\gamma ,\rho _F={\displaystyle \frac{7}{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_F}{2}}\right)\rho _\gamma .`$ (10b)
The entropy $`S`$ for the photon gas is given by

$$S=\frac{R^3}{T}\frac{4}{3}\rho _\gamma \left(T\right).$$
(11)
For any relativistic gas

$$S=\frac{R^3}{T}\frac{4}{3}\rho \left(T\right).$$
(12)
Thus for a gas consisting of extreme relativistic particles (bosons and fermions): $`(\mathrm{}=c=1)`$

$`n(T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{}(T)n_\gamma (T)`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1.2}{\pi ^2}}g^{}(T)\left(k_BT\right)^3`$
$`\rho \left(T\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{}(T)\rho _\gamma (T)`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{30}}g_{}(T)\left(k_BT\right)^4`$
$$S=\frac{R^3}{T}\frac{2}{3}g_{}(T)\rho _\gamma (T),$$
(15)
where

$`g^{}(T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{B}{}}g_B+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{F}{}}g_F`$ (16a)
$`g_{}(T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{B}{}}g_B+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{8}}{\displaystyle \underset{F}{}}g_F`$ (16b)
are called the “effective” degrees of freedom. We note that entropy per unit volume is given by

$$\frac{1}{k_B}\frac{S}{R^3}=\frac{s}{k_B}=\frac{2\pi ^2}{45}g_{}(T)\left(k_BT\right)^3.$$
(17)
For non-relativistic gas $`k_BTm_ic^2`$, we use the Boltzmann distribution

$$n_i=\frac{g_i}{2\pi ^2}\left(\frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}c}\right)^3_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{E}{k_BT}\right)z^2dz$$
(18)
$$Em_ic^2\left[1+\frac{1}{2}\frac{q^2c^2}{\left(m_ic^2\right)^2}\right].$$
(19)
This gives

$$n_i=\left[\frac{g_i}{\left(2\pi \right)^{3/2}}\right]\left(\frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}c}\right)^3\left[\left(\frac{m_ic^2}{k_BT}\right)^{3/2}e^{m_ic^2/k_BT}\right]$$
(20)
$$\rho _i=n_im_i.$$
(21)
Expansion rate is given by the Hubble Parameter

$$H=\frac{\dot{R}}{R}$$

where \[$`R\left(t\right)`$ is a scale factor for distances in co–moving coordinates and describes the expansion of the universe\]

$$\dot{R}^2=\frac{8\pi G_N\rho }{3}R^2kc^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2R^2}{3}$$
(22)
The second term on the right hand side is due to curvature of space while the third term containing the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which being very small ($`\left|\mathrm{\Lambda }\right|<3\times 10^{52}`$ m<sup>-2</sup>) is usually neglected. There is now evidence that $`k=0`$ (in any case for early universe $`\rho 1/R^4`$ and as such the second and third terms on r.h.s. of Eq. (22) can be neglected compared to the first term). Thus

$$H=\frac{\dot{R}}{R}\left(\frac{8\pi G_N\rho }{3}\right)^{1/2}$$
(23)
For relativistic particles as already seen

$$\rho \left(T\right)=\frac{\pi ^2}{30}g_{}\left(T\right)\left(k_BT\right)^4$$

and

$$g_{}\left(T\right)=\underset{Bosons}{}g_B+\frac{7}{8}\underset{F}{}g_F$$

denote the effective degrees of freedom. Thus

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^3}{45}}}\left[g^{}\left(T\right)\right]^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(k_BT\right)^2}{\mathrm{}M_{pl}}}`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`1.66\left[g^{}\left(T\right)\right]^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(k_BT\right)^2}{\mathrm{}M_{pl}}}`$
$`=`$ $`0.21\left[g^{}\left(T\right)\right]^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{\text{MeV}}}\right)^2\text{s}^1`$
where $`\mathrm{}M_{pl}=G_N^{1/2}`$ is the Planck mass: $`M_{pl}10^{19}`$ GeV.

### 2.1 Freeze Out

At high temperatures $`(k_BTm)`$, thermodynamic equilibrium is maintained through the processes of decays, inverse decays and scatterings. As the universe cools and expands, the reaction rates will fail to keep up with the expansion rate and there will come a time when equilibrium will no longer be maintained. At various stages then, depending on masses and interaction strengths, different particles will decouple with a “freeze out” surviving abundance. We now determine conditions under which the statistical equilibrium is established.

¿From dimensional analysis, the reaction rate for a typical process can be written as follows. For the decay of a $`X`$particle, the decay rate is given by

$$\gamma _X=g_d\alpha _Xm_X\frac{m_X}{\left[\left(k_BT\right)^2+m_X^2\right]^{1/2}},$$
(25)
where $`m_X`$ is the mass of the $`X`$particle, $`\alpha _X=\frac{f_X^2}{4\pi }`$ is the measure of coupling strength of $`X`$particle to the decay products, and $`g_d`$ are number of spin states for the decay channels.Note that

| $`\gamma _X`$ | $``$ | $`\{\begin{array}{c}g_d\alpha _Xm_X\\ g_d\alpha _X\frac{m_X^2}{k_BT}\end{array}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}k_BTm_X\\ k_BTm_X.\end{array}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

(26)
The reaction rate for the collision processes is given by

$$\gamma _c=\sigma v\begin{array}{c}[\text{number of target particles per unit volume}\\ \text{which is proportional to }\left(k_BT\right)^3].\end{array}$$

Thus

$`\gamma _c`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_d\alpha _X^2\left(k_BT\right)^5}{\left[\left(k_BT\right)^2+m_X^2\right]^2}}`$ (27)
$`\gamma `$ $``$ $`H\text{Equilibrium}`$ (28)
$`\gamma `$ $``$ $`H\text{Freeze Out}`$ (29)
$`\gamma `$ $``$ $`H\text{Out of Equilibrium}`$ (30)
## 3 Primordial Nucleosynthesis

After the discovery of cosmic back ground radiation (CMB), the firse success of big bang cosmology was the correct prediction of primordial abundance of He ($`24\%`$). This was cooked by nuclear reactions when the universe was seconds old ($`T10^{10}`$ K$`=1`$ MeV)

At temperatures $`1`$ MeV, the weak reactions such as

$`\overline{\nu }_e+p`$ $``$ $`e^++n`$
$`e^{}+p`$ $``$ $`\nu _e+n`$ (31)
are still fast compared with the expansion rate of the universe to maintain thermodynamic equilibrium between $`p`$ and $`n`$. The abundance ratio at equilibrium is given by

$$\frac{n}{p}e^{\mathrm{\Delta }m/\left(k_BT\right)},k_BT>k_BT_D1\text{MeV, }t=1\text{ sec}.$$
(32)
Using $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=(m_nm_p)=1.3`$ MeV and $`k_BT=k_BT_D=1`$ MeV, we find $`n/p=0.27`$. The rates for the above reactions are given by weak interactions except that we have to take into account Pauli’s exclusion principle. Then

$$\gamma ^{\left(np\right)}=\frac{1}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3}\frac{G_F^2}{\pi }AE_e^2p_\nu ^2𝑑p_\nu \left[1+e^{E_\nu /k_BT}\right]^1\left[1\left[1+e^{E_e/kT}\right]^1\right]$$
(33)
where

$$A=g_V^2+3g_A^2=g_V^2\left(1+3g_A^2/g_V^2\right),g_A/g_V1.26,g_V0.9750,$$
(34)
$`g_V`$ and $`g_A`$ are vector and axial vector coupling constants of the nucleon. The second factor in the integral is due to Pauli Principle which suppresses the rate by a factor equal to fraction of all states that are unfilled. For $`k_BTQ=\left(m_nm_p\right)`$ we have

$$E_eE_\nu p_\nu c=qc=\left(k_BT\right)z.$$

Thus we obtain

$$\gamma ^{\left(np\right)}\gamma ^{\left(pn\right)}\frac{1}{\pi ^2}\frac{G_F^2}{\pi }A\left(\frac{k_BT}{\mathrm{}c}\right)^3\left(k_BT\right)^2_0^{\mathrm{}}z^4𝑑z\left[1+e^z\right]^1\left[1+e^z\right]^1$$

The integral can be evaluated by differentiating by parts

$`{\displaystyle \frac{7}{8}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(4\right)\zeta \left(4\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}z^3{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{1+e^z}}={\displaystyle \frac{z^4}{4}}\left(1+e^z\right)^1|_0^{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^4}{4}}\left(1\right)e^z\left(1+e^z\right)^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}z^4\left[1+e^z\right]^1\left[1+e^z\right]^1`$
Thus we get

$$\gamma =\frac{1}{\pi ^2}\left(k_BT\right)^5\frac{G_F^2}{\pi }A\frac{7}{2}6\zeta \left(4\right)=\frac{7\pi }{30}G_F^2g_V^2\left(1+g_A^2\right)\left(k_BT\right)^5=0.8\left(\frac{k_BT}{\text{MeV}}\right)^5\text{s}^1$$
(35)
The decoupling temperature is given by

$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`H`$
$`=`$ $`0.21g^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_BT}{\text{MeV}}}\right)^2\text{s}^1`$
where

$`g^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{8}}2+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{8}}1N_\nu \right]`$
$`\gamma e^\pm \nu /\overline{\nu }`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{22+7N_\nu }{4}}`$
This gives the decoupling temperature

$`0.8\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_BT_D}{\text{MeV}}}\right)^5`$ $`=`$ $`\left(0.21\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{22+7N_\nu }{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_BT_D}{\text{MeV}}}\right)^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{k_BT_D}{\text{MeV}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{0.21}{0.8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{22+7N_\nu }{.2}}\right)^{1/2}\right]^{1/3}`$ (37)
$``$ $`1`$
if $`N_\nu =3.`$

As the temperature cools past the decoupling temperature $`k_BT_D1`$ MeV, it is no longer possible to maintain the thermal equilibrium. The ratio $`n/p`$ thereafter is frozen out and is approximately constant (it decreases slowly due to weak decay of neutron). The freeze out $`n/p`$ ratio is given by

$`X_n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`n/pe^{Q/k_BT_D}0.16,`$ (38)
$`X_n(t)`$ $`=`$ $`X_n^{}e^{t/\tau _n}`$
where $`\tau _n`$ is neutron life time and we have used the $`Q`$value $`Q=(m_nm_p)+m_e=1.8`$MeV for the reactions (31). Helium nucleosynthesis occurs at $`T<T_S`$ because of deuteron bottle neck. For $`T>T_S`$, the deuteron formed is knocked out by photo dissociation

$$\gamma +Dp+n,$$

since the binding energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ for the deuteron is only 2.2 MeV. The formation of deuteron actually starts after $`k_BT_S0.1`$ MeV; $`T_S`$ is called nucleosynthesis temperature. The estimate that $`k_BT_S0.1`$ MeV can be obtained as follows \[$`\eta =\frac{n_{B0}}{n_{\gamma 0}}`$\]:

$$\frac{n_\gamma ^{\text{diss}}}{n_B}\frac{1}{\eta }e^{\mathrm{\Delta }B/k_BT}1.$$
(39)
Thus

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }B}{k_BT_S}\mathrm{ln}\eta .$$
(40)
Using $`\mathrm{\Delta }B2.2`$ MeV , and $`\eta 10^{10}`$, we find $`k_BT_S0.1`$ MeV.

For $`T>T_S`$, photodissociation is so rapid that deuteron abundance is negligibly small and this provides a bottleneck to further nucleosynethesis. The deuteron “bottleneck” thus delay nucleosynthesis till $`k_BT0.1`$ MeV. But once the bottleneck is passed, nucleosynthesis proceeds rapidly and essentially all neutrons are incorporated into $`{}_{}{}^{4}He:`$

$`n+p`$ $``$ $`D+\gamma `$
$`D+D`$ $``$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}H+p,^3H_e+n`$
$`{}_{}{}^{3}H+D`$ $``$ $`{}_{}{}^{4}H_{e}^{}+n`$
$`{}_{}{}^{3}H+^4H_e`$ $``$ $`{}_{}{}^{7}Li`$
It is clear from the above reactions that $`{}_{}{}^{4}He`$ abundance is given by

$$Y=\frac{2\left(n/p\right)}{1+n/p}=\frac{0.32}{1.16}=0.276.$$
(41a)
The ratio $`Y`$ changes from $`T_D`$ to $`T_S`$ due to the neutron decay $`np+e^{}+\overline{\nu }_e`$. During this time $`n/p`$ changes from 0.16 to 0.14. Thus at $`T=T_S`$,

$$Y=\frac{0.28}{1.14}=0.246.$$
(41b)
It is clear from Eqs. (37) and (40) that

$`N_\nu `$ $``$ $`T_DX_n^{}X_n\left(\tau _N\right)Y`$
$`\eta `$ $``$ $`T_SX_nY`$
We take $`N_\nu =3`$ as given by LEP data and use $`Y`$ to constraint $`\eta `$.

It turns out that a small amount of $`D`$ remained unburned. The amount of unburned $`D`$ is very sensitive to $`\eta `$:

$$\eta T_S,Y\text{less unburned }D$$

Now $`D/H`$ ratio in primeval samples of the universe has been measured. The UV light (neutral $`H`$ and $`D`$ are seen by their UV absorption) came from distant quasars and absorbers were pregalactic gas clouds. The abundance was found to be:

$$D/H=\left(3.0\pm 0.1\right)\times 10^5,$$

pinning

$$\eta =\left(6\pm 3\right)\times 10^{10}$$
(42)
We now want to express it in terms of baryon density as a fraction of the critical density $`\rho _c`$

$`\rho _B`$ $`=`$ $`m_Nn_B,\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{n_{B_0}}{n_{\gamma _0}}},n_{\gamma _0}=410.50\text{cm}^3`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _B}{\rho _c}}`$
$`\rho _c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3H_0^2}{8\pi G_N}}=1.054\times 10^5h_0^2\text{GeVcm}^3`$
$`H_0`$ (the present value of Hubble parmater)

$`=`$ $`100h_0\text{kms}^1\text{Mpc}^1`$
$`=`$ $`h_0\left(1\times 10^9\text{yr}\right)^1`$
$`h_0`$ $`=`$ $`0.65\pm 0.05`$
Combining these relations

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh_0^2`$ $`=`$ $`366\times 10^5\eta =\left(0.019\pm 0.001\right)`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ $`=`$ $`0.045\pm 0.01\text{.}`$ (43)
This is confirmed by an independent determination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ involving measurements of microwave background (CMB) anisotropy, where the underlying physics is very different, gravitational rather than nuclear. This gives

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_B=0.042\pm 0.008$$
(44)
in very good agreement with the value inferred from Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis \[BBN\].

## 4 Dark Matter

At a large scale, measurements of velocity flows of galaxies give

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_m=\frac{\rho _m}{\rho _c}=0.35\pm 0.007$$
(45)
Such a matter density is much larger than the visible matter density. This implies that most of the mass in the universe is dark; it does not emit or absorb any of the electromagnetic ratio. The value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ given in Eq. (43)is far below the amount of dark matter needed to hold structures in the universe together. The situation is summarized in the pyramid shown in Fig. 1.

The detection of the CMB signature of acoustic oscillations in measuerements of CMB anisotropy also implies

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_T`$ $`=`$ $`1.03\pm 0.06`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
In the inflationary scienario of the universe, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is driven to unity, in agreement with the above observed value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Now from the relation (22)

$$H^2=\frac{\dot{R}^2}{R^2}=\frac{8\pi }{3}G_N\rho \frac{kc^2}{R^2}+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2$$

we obtain

$$1=\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_k+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(46)
where we have expressed the cosmological constant in terms of vacuum energy $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }:`$

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi G_N\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (47)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\rho _c}}`$
Further $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.35`$ implies that

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ (48)
$`=`$ $`0.65`$
In anology with Dark matter, it is called the Dark energy. Finally

$$\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{2}{3}\rho _c3\times 10^3\text{eVcm}^3$$
(49)
giving

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=4\times 10^{58}\text{cm}^3$$
(50)
The nature of both the Dark Matter and the Dark energy is a mystry.

### 4.1 Matter-antimatter asymmetry

We also note that $`\eta `$ has another role. It appears that the Universe is matter-antimatter asymmetric. For example anti-proton $`\overline{p}`$ to proton $`p`$ ratio in cosmic rays is $`\left[\frac{\overline{p}}{p}10^4\right]`$. In general $`p`$ and $`\overline{p}`$ may annihilate if they are brought togather. In a typical reaction

$$p+\overline{p}\gamma +\gamma .$$

The question we wish to answer is, how does the interchange affect the nuclear density $`n_B`$ or $`n_{\overline{B}}.`$ We start with $`n_B=n_{\overline{B}}`$. At $`T1`$GeV, the equilibrium abundance of nucleons and antinucleons is, using Eqs. (20) and (5)

$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n_B}{n_\gamma }}={\displaystyle \frac{n_{\overline{B}}}{n_\gamma }}`$ (51)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_i}{2.4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(2\pi \right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_N}{k_BT}}\right)^{3/2}e^{m_N/k_BT}`$
The freeze out temperature $`T`$ is given by

$$\gamma _{ann}H=1.66\left(g^{}\right)^{1/2}\left(k_BT^{}\right)^2\frac{1}{M_{pl}}$$
(52)
where

$$\gamma _{ann}=n_B\sigma v$$

$`\sigma `$ is the nucleon-antinucleon annhilation crosssection which we may take as $`\frac{1}{m_\pi ^2}`$ with $`vc=1`$. Thus using Eq. (20) for $`n_B`$

$$g_i\left(\frac{m_Nk_BT^{}}{2\pi }\right)^{3/2}e^{m_N/k_BT^{}}\frac{1}{m_\pi ^2}=1.66\left(g^{}\right)^{1/2}\left(k_BT^{}\right)^2\frac{1}{M_{pl}}$$
(53)
For nucleons $`(p,n)`$ and antinucleons, $`g_i=8`$, and

$$g^{}=g_\gamma +\frac{7}{8}g_F=2+\frac{7}{8}8=9$$

Putting $`x^{}=\frac{m_N}{k_BT^{}}`$ we have

$`8{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(2\pi \right)^{3/2}}}m_Nx^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_\pi ^2}}e^x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`1.66\left(9\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{pl}}}`$ (54)
$`x^{1/2}e^x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3\left(1.66\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(2\pi \right)^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{pl}}{m_\pi ^2}}m_N5\times 10^{19}`$ (55)
Hence $`x^{}=47`$. Thus $`T^{}=20`$ MeV.

With $`T=`$ $`T^{}=20`$ MeV, $`g_i=8`$, Eq (51) gives

$$\eta =\frac{n_B}{n_\gamma }=\frac{n_{\overline{B}}}{n_\gamma }=2\times 10^{18}$$
(56)
This contradicts $`\eta =\left(6\pm 3\right)\times 10^{10},`$ which then reflect some primordial baryon asymmetry in the universe. To summarize

$`n_B`$ $``$ $`n_Bn_{\overline{B}}`$
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n_Bn_{\overline{B}}}{n_\gamma }}\left(6\pm 3\right)\times 10^{10}`$ (57)
## 5 Baryogensis

### 5.1 Sakharov’s Conditions

Towards finding a solution of the second big problem of Cosmology, namly, that of baryogensis $`\left(\eta 3\times 10^{10}\right)`$, Sakharov’s three conditions, which we enumerate below, must be satisfied: Assuming that the universe started with a complete matter-antimatter symmetry in a standard big bang picture, one can obtain matter-antimatter asymmetry in the universe provided that the following three conditions are satisfied

(i) Underlying theory must posses

$$\mathrm{\Delta }B0$$

where $`B`$ is the baryon number.

(ii) Charge Conjugation, and $`CP`$ symmetry must be violated; otherwise

$$n_B_{C,CP}n_{\overline{B}}$$

So even if $`B`$ is violated, one can never establish baryon-antibaryon asymmetry unless $`C`$ and $`CP`$ are violated.

(iii) Departure from thermal equilibrium of X-particles mediating $`\mathrm{\Delta }B0`$ processes is necessary. This is because if all processes, including those which violate baryon number, are in thermal equilibrium, the baryon asymmetry vanishes. This is a direct consquence of the $`CPT`$ invariance.

Proof:

The density matrix at time $`t`$ is

$$\rho \left(t\right)=e^{\beta \left(t\right)H\left(t\right)},$$
(58)
where $`\beta =\frac{1}{k_BT}`$. Equilibrium average of $`B`$ is

$`B_T`$ $`=`$ $`Tr\left(e^{\beta H}\widehat{B}\right)`$ (59)
$`=`$ $`Tr\left(\theta ^1\theta e^{\beta H}\widehat{B}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`Tr\left(\theta e^{\beta H}\widehat{B}\theta ^1\right)`$
$`=`$ $`Tr\left(\theta e^{\beta H}\theta ^1\theta \widehat{B}\theta ^1\right)`$
$`=`$ $`Tr\left(e^{\beta H}\left(\widehat{B}\right)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`Tr\left(e^{\beta H}\widehat{B}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`B_T`$
where we have used the fact that $`H`$ commutes with $`CPT\theta `$. Thus $`B_T=0`$.

Finally to establish asymmetry dynamically, $`B`$ violating processes must be out of equilibrium in the Universe. This can be seen as follows:

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }n_B}{dt}=\left[\gamma _{\mathit{}}e^{\left(\frac{m\mu }{k_BT}\right)}\gamma _{\mathit{}}e^{\left(\frac{\overline{m}\overline{\mu }}{k_BT}\right)}\right]$$
(60)
where $`\gamma _{\mathit{}}`$ denotes the rate for $`\mathit{}`$ and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential: $`\overline{\mu }=\mu `$. Since $`m=\overline{m}`$ by $`CPT`$ theorem, $`e^{\frac{m}{k_BT}}`$ is not relevent and we omit it. Then for $`k_BT\mu `$,

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }n_B}{dt}=\frac{2\mu }{k_BT}\gamma _{\mathit{}}$$
(61)
On the other hand

$`\mathrm{\Delta }n_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\zeta \left(3\right)}{\pi ^2}}g^{}\left(k_BT\right)^3\left[e^{\frac{\mu }{k_BT}}e^{\frac{\mu }{k_BT}}\right]`$ (62)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi ^2}}g^{}\left(k_BT\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu }{k_BT}}.`$
Thus eliminating $`\frac{2\mu }{k_BT}`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }n_B}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{\mathit{}}}{g^{}\left(k_BT\right)^3}}\mathrm{\Delta }n_B`$ (63)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathit{}}\mathrm{\Delta }n_B`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathit{}}=\frac{\gamma _{\mathit{}}}{g^{}\left(k_BT\right)^3}=\frac{\gamma _{\mathit{}}}{n_B}`$ gives the rate for $`\mathit{}`$. The solution of above equation gives

$$\mathrm{\Delta }n_B=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }n_B\right)_{\text{initial}}e^{\frac{\pi ^2}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathit{}}t}.$$
(64)
What we learn from this result is that if $`B`$-violating processes are ever in equilibrium, then these processes actully washes out any initial condition for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathit{}}t1.`$

After establishing the above preliminaries we shall consider baryogensis at three levels: (i) Grand Unification (GUT) (ii) Electroweak (iii) Baryogensis induced by Leptogensis.

### 5.2 Baryogensis at GUT Level

In a typical GUT, quarks and leptons are assigned in one representation so that the Sakharov condition (i) is naturally satisfied. Taking the example of the simplest GUT, $`SU\left(5\right)`$, the fermions are assigned to the irreducible representations $`\overline{5}_f`$ and $`10_f`$

$$\overline{5}_f=[d_L^c,l_L],\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}_f=\{d_L,u_L^c,e_L^c\}$$

Coupling with gauge bosons is

$$\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}24_V\left[\left(\overline{5}_f\right)^{}\left(\overline{5}_f\right)+\left(10_f\right)^{}\left(10_f\right)\right]$$

There are 24 gauge bosons \[$`W^\pm ,Z,\gamma ,8`$ gluons and $`12`$ lepto-quarks $`X`$, $`\overline{X}`$ belonging to the adjoint representation $`24_V`$\].

The condition (iii) of Sakharov is supplied by the expansion of the Universe. As already mentioned the condition (i) is naturally satisfied in a GUT, e.g. by lepto-quarks $`X`$, $`\overline{X}`$ predicted by GUTs.

At $`T=T_D`$ (the decoupling temperature i.e. the temperature at which $`X`$particles go out of equilibrium), the number density of $`X`$particles is given by \[cf. Eq. (13)\]:

$$n_{XD}=\frac{2.4}{\pi ^2}\frac{g_X}{2}\left(k_BT_D\right)^3,$$
(65)
where $`g_X`$ is the total number of $`X`$ (and $`\overline{X}`$) spin states. Now the entropy density at $`T_D`$ is given by \[cf. Eq. (17)\]

$$s=\frac{S}{R^3}=\frac{4}{3}\rho \left(T\right)=k_B\frac{\pi ^2}{15}\left(\frac{4}{3}\right)\left(k_BT_D\right)^3g_{}/2,$$
(66)
where $`g_{}`$ is the effective number of degrees of freedom. The number of baryons at $`T_D`$ are given by

$$n_B=n_{XD}\mathrm{\Delta }B.$$
(67)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ denotes baryon asymmetry in $`X`$-decays. Thus from Eqs. (65) and (66)

$`k_B\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_B}{s}}\right)_D`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2.4\right){\displaystyle \frac{45}{4\pi ^4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_X}{g_{}}}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ (68)
$`=`$ $`0.28\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_X}{g_{}}}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }B.`$
Now $`g_{}`$ is over 100 in a typical GUT. \[ In SU(5): $`\gamma ,W^\pm ,Z^0,`$8G’s, 34 Higgs, 6 quarks, 3 leptons, 3 neutrinos, 12 $`X`$’s. Thus $`g_{}=(24\times 2)+34+\frac{7}{8}(18\times 4+3\times 4+3\times 2)=160.8`$\]. We, therefore, expect $`g_X/g_{}10^2`$ to $`10^1`$. Thus we have

$$k_B\left(\frac{n_B}{s}\right)_D0.28\times \left(10^2\text{ }10^1\right)\mathrm{\Delta }B_X3\times \left(10^310^2\right)\mathrm{\Delta }B.$$
(69)
But $`\left(n_B/s\right)_D`$ $`=\left(n_B/s\right)_0`$, where $`0`$ denotes the present time. Thus

$$k_B\left(\frac{n_B}{s}\right)_03\times \left(10^3\text{ }10^2\right)\mathrm{\Delta }B.$$
(70)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{k_B}}\right)_0`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{k_B}}\right)_{\gamma _0}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{k_B}}\right)_{\nu _0}`$ (71)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^4}{45\times 1.2\text{ }}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_\gamma n_{\gamma _0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}g_{\nu i}n_{\nu _0}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`3.6\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{21}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{11}}\right]n_{\gamma _0}7n_{\gamma _0}.`$
Now \[cf. Eqs. (17) and (5)\] where we have used that $`n_{\nu _0}=\left(3/11\right)n_{\gamma _0}`$ and $`_ig_{\nu i}=3(7/8)\mathrm{.1.2}.`$ Hence from Eq. (70), we get

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_B}{n_\gamma }}\right)_0`$ $``$ $`21\times \left(10^3\text{ to }10^2\right)\mathrm{\Delta }B2\times \left(10^2\text{ to }10^1\right)\mathrm{\Delta }B.`$ (72)
$``$ $`A\left(\mathrm{\Delta }B\right),`$
where $`A10^110^2.`$ Now we can write

$`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}B_f{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(Xf\right)\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\left(\overline{X}\overline{f}\right)\right]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}\left(X\right)}},`$ (73)
$`f`$ $``$ $`\{ql,\overline{q}\overline{q}\},B_f={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ vanishes if CP and C are conserved. The $`X`$particles can generate $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$, by the processes of the following type \[$`r`$ is the branching ratio\]

$`X`$ $``$ $`ql:rB_1=1/3`$
$`X`$ $``$ $`\overline{q}\overline{q}:1r\overline{B}_2=2/3`$
$`\overline{X}`$ $``$ $`\overline{q}\overline{l}:\overline{r}\overline{B}_1=1/3`$
$`\overline{X}`$ $``$ $`qq:1\overline{r}B_2=2/3.`$
The mean baryon number per decay

$`B_X`$ $`=`$ $`rB_1+\left(1r\right)\overline{B}_2`$
$`B_{\overline{X}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{r}\overline{B}_1+\left(1\overline{r}\right)B_2.`$ (74)
Thus

$`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[rB_1+\left(1r\right)\overline{B}_2+\overline{r}\overline{B}_1+\left(1\overline{r}\right)B_2\right]`$ (75)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[r\left(B_1\overline{B}_2\right)+\overline{r}\left(\overline{B}_1B_2\right)+\left(\overline{B}_2+B_2\right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(r\overline{r}\right).`$
¿From Eqs. (75) and (72), we see that we can explain the baryon number generation if $`r\overline{r}`$ i.e. $`X`$interactions violate $`C`$ and CP. Also we require $`\mathrm{\Delta }B10^8`$ in order to explain the present baryon number $`\eta =n_B/n_\gamma 10^{10}`$.

Let us now obtain an estimate for $`T_D`$. If $`k_BT_D>m_X`$, the thermal equilibrium can be maintained by inverse decays. Thus the condition for departure from equilibrium is \[cf. Eqs. (24) and (26) $`k_BT_Dm_X`$\]:

$$\frac{1}{3}\alpha _Xg_d\left(k_BT_D\right)1.66g_{}^{1/2}\frac{\left(k_BT_D\right)^2}{M_{pl}}.$$
(76)
The factor 1/3 is due to spin average \[$`X`$ is a vector particle\]. Now using $`g_d12\times 2=24`$ and $`g_{}160`$, we get

$$k_BT_D\alpha _X\left(4.0\right)10^{18}GeV.$$
(77)
Using $`\alpha _X1/40`$ \[SU(5) value\], we get

$$k_BT_D10^{17}GeV.$$
(78)
Thus if $`X`$bosons are vector bosons, $`k_BT_D>`$ mass of vector bosons of SU(5) \[$`10^{15}10^{16}`$ GeV\]and therefore vector bosons of SU(5) cannot give rise to baryon asymmetry.

### 5.3 Can Higgs particles give rise to the baryon asymmetry?

Whereas the gauge sector of the $`SU(5)`$ structure is uniquely determined by the gauge group, in the Higgs sector the results depend on the choice of representation. Now the Higgs fields that couple to fermions belong to

$$5_H,10_H,15_H,45_H\text{ and }50_H.$$

Let us first consider the minimal $`5_H`$ which contains Higgs doublet of the SM:

Color singlet

$$(1,2,1/2),$$

the latter two quantum numbers refer to

$$SU(2)\times U(1).$$

$`B`$ violating color triplet

$$H_3(3,1,1/3).$$

At tree level, the Higgs coupling with fermions are shown in Fig. 2. In any vertex of $`SU(5)`$, $`BL`$ is preserved.

$`h_U`$, $`h_D`$ are complex Yukawa coupling matrices. CP–violation arises from complex phases of the Yukawa couplings, which can not be absorbed by field redefinations. At tree level, these phases do not give any contribution to baryon asymmetry since $`\mathrm{I}m`$ $`Tr\left[h_D^{}h_D\right]=0`$. One has to go to loop level, where denoting by $`\chi `$, a member of $`H_3`$, where $`\varphi `$ is some exchanged state, another Higgs or a gauge boson. Thus $`r`$ is given by Fig. 3.

$$r\left|\gamma _0+\gamma _1I\left(M_\chi ^2i\epsilon \right)\right|^2$$
(79)
where $`\gamma _0`$ and $`\gamma _1`$ are complex and $`I`$ has an analytical structure. Then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(r\overline{r}\right)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{\left|\gamma _0+\gamma _1I\left(M_\chi ^2i\epsilon \right)\right|^2\left|\gamma _0^{}+\gamma _1^{}I\left(M_\chi ^2i\epsilon \right)\right|^2\right\}`$ (80)
$``$ $`2\mathrm{I}m\left(\gamma _0\gamma _1^{}\right)\mathrm{I}m\left(I\left(M_\chi ^2i\epsilon \right)\right)`$
where the first part is the $`CP`$ violating and the second part is determined by the rescattering dynamics. Thus

$$\eta =A\mathrm{\Delta }B_\chi =A\frac{1}{2}\left(r\overline{r}\right)A\mathrm{I}m\left(\gamma _0\gamma _1^{}\right)\mathrm{I}mI$$
(81)
where $`A`$ comes from out of the equilibrium condition as seen previously; $`\mathrm{I}m\left(\gamma _0\gamma _1^{}\right)`$ gives $`CP`$ and $`C`$ violation while $`\mathrm{I}mI`$ comes from GUT’s dynamics. There is no firm pediction for $`\eta .`$

In particular, take $`\varphi `$ in the above figure as $`5_H`$ as shown in Fig.4. We can choose $`f`$ to be real and $`h`$ has 3 phases. Even so we can not generate in the lowest non-trival order CP violation. This is because $`\gamma _0f`$ real and $`\gamma _1fh\overline{h}`$, which has no $`CP`$ phase. Also gauge exchange \[$`\varphi G^\mu `$\] give no phase. One can eventually generate $`\eta `$ to higher order loop graphs. But then $`\eta 10^{16}`$, which is too small .

It is possible to obtain $`\eta 10^{10}`$ by either (i) adding Higgs in the $`45`$ representation or (ii) by using more elaborate GUT’s e.g. $`SO(10)`$. In $`SO(10)`$ there exists a fermion that is singlet under SM, carries $`L=1`$ and is identified with $`\nu _R`$. $`CP`$ violation may be provided by the complex Yukawa couplings between the right-handed and the left-handed neutrinos and scalar Higgs. The right-handed neutrinos acquire a Majorana mass $`M_N=O\left(BL\right)`$ i.e. at the scale where $`U(1)_{BL}`$ is broken, and its out of equilibrium decays may generate a non-vanishing $`\left(BL\right)`$ asymmetry. We shall come back to the role of right-handed neutrino in generating $`\eta `$ when we consider Leptogenesis.

## 6 Electroweak Baryogenesis

In the SM, both baryon number ,$`B`$, and lepton number ,$`L`$, symmetries hold at the classical level

$$_{\text{SM}}_{B,L}_{\text{SM}}.$$

However, because of the chiral nature of electroweak theory, at quantum level both $`J_B^\mu `$ and $`J_L^\mu `$ are not conserved, so called electroweak anamoly:

$`_\mu J_B^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu J_L^\mu `$ (82)
$`=`$ $`N_g\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2}{\pi }}W_a^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{W}_{a\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{8\pi }}F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }\right)`$
where $`N_g`$ is the number of generations, $`\alpha _2=\frac{g_2^2}{4\pi },`$ $`\alpha ^{}=\frac{g^2}{4\pi }`$ are couplings corresponding to $`SU_L(2)\times U(1)`$; $`\stackrel{~}{W}_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }W_{\alpha \beta }`$. Then

$`_\mu \left(J_B^\mu J_L^\mu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu J_{BL}^\mu =0`$
$`_\mu \left(J_B^\mu +J_L^\mu \right)`$ $``$ $`0`$ (83)
Further

$`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ $`=`$ $`B\left(+\mathrm{}\right)B\left(\mathrm{}\right)`$ (84)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_0{\displaystyle d^3xJ_B^0(\stackrel{}{x},t)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle d^3x_\mu J_B^\mu (\stackrel{}{x},t)}`$
since by Gauss’s theorm we can convert $`d^3x_iJ_B^i(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ into a surface integral which we can put equal to zero. Similarly for $`\mathrm{\Delta }L`$. Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(BL\right)=0`$; the electroweak anamoly preserves $`BL`$. But

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(B+L\right)`$ $``$ $`0`$ (85)
$`=`$ $`2N_g\nu `$
where

$$\nu =\frac{\alpha _2}{8\pi }d^4xW_a^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{W}_{a\mu \nu }$$

Now in some theories, one can find classical solutions of the Euclidean field equations. These solutions, called instantons, are localized in Euclidean time as well as in space. Let us consider a pure Yang-Mills field: Time $`t`$ in Minkowsky space must be replaced by $`it`$ in Euclidean space. Then the Euclidean Action

$`S_E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x_E_E\left(x_E\right)}=iS`$
$`_E\left(x_E\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}F_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\mu \nu }^a`$ (86)
There is no distinction between covariant and contravariant indices in Euclidean space. Here

$`A_\mu ^a`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{g}}A_\mu ^a`$
$`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{g}}F_{\mu \nu }^a`$
$`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^a+[A_\mu ^a,A_\nu ^a]`$
$`A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}T^aA_\mu ^a`$
$`F_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}T^aF_{\mu \nu }^a`$
It can be shown that

$`S_E\left[A\right]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4xTr[F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }]}`$ (87)
$`=`$ $`8{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{g}}\left|\nu \left[A\right]\right|,`$
the lower bound is obtained when

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }=\pm F_{\mu \nu }.$$

It is necessary to find an interpretation for instanton solution in Euclidean four-space (imaginary $`t`$) within Minkowsky $`3+1`$ space-time (time real) in order to understand their physical significance. It has been shown that instantons become ‘tunneling events’ between two different Minkowski events. The gauge vacuum is given by

$$|\theta =\underset{i}{}e^{in\theta }|n.$$
(88)
It has been shown by t’Hooft that the transition probility between two closet vacuua is given by

$$e^{8\pi ^2/g^2}\text{for }\nu =1.$$
(89)
This is the zero temperature solution:

$$S_E\frac{8\pi ^2}{g^2}$$
(90)
For our problem $`\frac{g^2}{4\pi }=\alpha _2`$. Thus $`\left(B+L\right)`$ violating amplitude is

$$Ae^{\left(2\pi /\alpha _2\right)\nu }$$
(91)
which is extremely small$`10^{90}`$. Thus the probability of B–violating processes is highly supressed at zero temperature.

The situation is different at high temperature which is relevent at early Universe. Here one goes from one vacuum to another by thermal flucatuations rather than tunneling \[see Fig. 5\].

The transition probability (per unit time per unit volume) is given by

$$Pe^{V_0(T)/T}$$
(92)
where $`V_0(T)`$ is the height of the barrier. If the system is able to perform a transition from one vacuum to the closest one, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(B+L\right)=2N_g=6.`$

Each transition creats nine left-handed quarks as only these are coupled to $`W`$ bosons (3 color states for each generation) and left-handed leptons (one per generation). However, adjacent vacuua of the EW theory are separated by a ridge of configrations with energies larger than that of the vacuua. The lowest energy point on this ridge is a saddle point solution to the equations of motion, and is refered to as the Sphaleron.

The thermal rate of B–violation in the broken phase is proportional to \[in units $`k_B=1`$\]

$$\mathrm{exp}(S_3/T)$$

where $`S_3`$ is the three dimentional action computed along the sphaleron configration:

$$S_3E_{sp}(T)C\left(\frac{m_H}{m_W}\right)\frac{\pi m_W\left(T\right)}{\alpha _2}$$
(93)
where $`C\left(\frac{m_H}{m_W}\right)`$ is a function of $`\lambda `$, $`\frac{m_H^2}{m_W^2}\lambda `$:

$$E_{sp}714\text{ TeV as }\lambda \text{ increases from }0\text{ to }\mathrm{}.$$

Then, the transition probability per unit time per unit volume is

$$𝒫_{sp}\left(T\right)=\mu \left[\frac{m_W}{\alpha _2T}\right]^3m_W^4\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{E_{sp}(T)}{T}\right]$$
(94)
where $`\mu `$ is a dimensionless constant and the Boltzmann suppression appears large.

However, it is to be expected that, when EW symmetry becomes restored at temperature of around $`100`$ GeV \[$`m_W(T)0`$, Electroweak phase transition\] there will no longer be an exponential suppression. Now the only important scale in the symmetric phase is $`\alpha _2T`$ so that dimensional ground, we expect

$$𝒫_{sp}\left(T\right)=𝒦\left(\alpha _2T\right)^4$$
(95)
where numerical estimates yielded $`𝒦0.11.`$

Lattice simulation indicates

$$𝒫_{sp}30\alpha _2^5T^4$$
(96)
not very different from above as $`\alpha _2\frac{1}{30}.`$

Now $`\mathit{}`$ and $`\mathit{}`$ processes are in thermal equilibrium for

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sp}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒫_{sp}}{T^3}}>H1.66g^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/2}{\displaystyle \frac{T^2}{M_{\text{pl}}}}`$ (97)
$`𝒦\alpha _2^4T`$ $`>`$ $`1.66g^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/2}{\displaystyle \frac{T^2}{M_{\text{pl}}}}`$
$`\alpha _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _e}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{137}}0.029`$
$`\alpha _2^4`$ $``$ $`10^6`$ (98)
$`T`$ $`<`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒦}{1.66g^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/2}}}\right)\alpha _2^4M_{\text{pl}}10^{12}\text{ GeV}`$ (99)
Thus $`\mathit{}`$ and $`\mathit{}`$ processes are in thermal equilibrium for the temperature in the range

$$T_{\text{EW}}100\text{ GeV}<T<T_{sp}10^{12}\text{ GeV}$$
(100)
This implies any $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_{B+L}`$ established above

$$T_{\text{max}}(\alpha _2^4M_{\text{pl}})\text{ }$$

e.g., GUT, will get washed out down to $`T_{\text{EW}}.`$

Given the above result, to generate $`\eta `$ at the EW phase transition: First the baryon number is violated. as we have seen above. Second $`CP`$ is violated, in the standard model. The third condition of Sakharov can be satisfied if the EW transition is of first order since then the coexistance of broken and unbroken phases at the phase transition is a departure from equilibrium. However one can not get the first order transition unless Higgs is light, $`m_H<60`$ GeV, which is ruled out by LEP, $`m_H114`$ GeV. Another problem is the size of CP–violation:

$$\eta \alpha _2^4ϵ_C\mathit{}10^6ϵ_C\mathit{}$$
(101)
where

$$ϵ_C\mathit{}\lambda ^6\mathrm{sin}\delta $$
(102)
due to several GIM suppression factors in CKM, $`\lambda 0.22`$ so that

$$\lambda ^65.5\times 10^6.$$
(103)
This gives

$$\eta 5.5\times 10^{12}\delta 10^{18}$$

The other possibility is the leptogensis, where one tries to generate $`L0`$ but no B from neutrino physics well before the electroweak transition, and L gets partially converted into B due to electroweak anamoly. This is discussed in the next section.

## 7 Baryogenesis via Leptogenesis

As already seen sphaleron transitions lead to

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(BL\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(B+L\right)`$ $`=`$ $`2N_g=6`$
the baryon asymmetry can be generated by the lepton asymmetry.

Further $`B+L`$ asymmetry generated before EW transition i.e. at $`T>T_{\text{EW}},`$ will be washed out. However, since only left handed fields couple to sphalerons, a non zero value of $`B+L`$ can persist in the high temperature symmetric phase if there exist a non vanishing $`BL`$ asymmetry \[see below\]. As already seen

$$n_i\overline{n}_i=\frac{2}{\pi ^2}g^{}T^3\left(\frac{2\mu _i}{T}\right)$$

This also implies

$`n_B`$ $`=`$ $`B\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi ^2}}g^{}T^2\right)`$
$`n_L`$ $`=`$ $`L\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi ^2}}g^{}T^2\right)`$ (104)
where $`B`$ and $`L`$ are baryon and lepton asymmetry respectively.

Note that in SM

$`q_{Li}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}u_{Li}\\ d_{Li}\end{array}\right)\text{ }B={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\text{}L=0`$
$`u_{Ri},d_{Ri}`$
$`\mathrm{}_{Li}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{Li}\\ e_{Li}\end{array}\right)\text{ }B=0\text{}L=1`$
$`\nu _{Ri},e_{Ri}`$
Thus in Eq. (104)

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`3\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(2\mu _{qi}+2\mu _{ui}+2\mu _{di}\right)`$
$`L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(2\mu _{li}+2\mu _{ei}\right)`$ (107)
In high temperature plasma quarks, leptons and Higgs interact via Yukawa and gauge couplings and in addition, via the non perturbative sphaleron processes. In thermal equilibrium all these processes yield constraints between various chemical potentials. The effective interaction

$$O_{B+L}=\mathrm{\Pi }_i\left(q_{Li}q_{Li}q_{Li}\mathrm{}_{Li}\right)$$

yields

$$\underset{i}{}\left(3\mu _{qi}+\mu _{li}\right)=0$$
(108)
Another constraint is provided by vanishing of total charge of plasma

$$\underset{i}{}\left[\begin{array}{c}3\frac{1}{3}2\mu _{qi}+3\frac{4}{3}\mu _{ui}\\ +3\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)\mu _{di}+\left(1\right)2\mu _{li}+\left(2\right)\mu _{ei}+\frac{1}{N}\left(1\right)\mu _\varphi \end{array}\right]=0$$

where we have used

$$Y_q=\frac{1}{3},Y_u=\frac{4}{3},Y_d=\frac{2}{3},Y_l=1,Y_e^{}=2,Y_\varphi =1$$

The above equation can be written as

$$\underset{i}{}\left(\mu _{qi}+2\mu _{ui}\mu _{di}\mu _{li}\mu _{ei}+\frac{2}{N}\mu _\varphi \right)=0$$
(109)
Further invariance of Yukawa couplings $`\overline{q}_{Li}\varphi d_{Ri}`$, etc give

$`\mu _{qi}\mu _\varphi \mu _{dj}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\mu _{qi}\mu _\varphi \mu _{uj}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\mu _{li}\mu _\varphi \mu _{ej}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (110)
When all Yukawa interactions are in equilibrium, these interactions establish equilibrium in different generations

$$\mu _{li}=\mu _l,\mu _{qi}=\mu _q\text{ etc.}$$

Thus we obtain from Eqs (108) and (109)

$`\mu _q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mu _l`$
$`\mu _q+2\mu _u\mu _d\mu _l\mu _e+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}\mu _\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`0`$
giving

$$\frac{4}{3}\mu _l+2\mu _u\mu _d\mu _e+\frac{2}{N}\mu _\varphi =0$$
(111)
Further Eqs. (110) imply

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mu _l\mu _\varphi \mu _d`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mu _l\mu _\varphi \mu _u`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\mu _l\mu _\varphi \mu _e`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (112)
Using the above equations, we can write (111) as

$$\frac{4}{3}\mu _l+2\left(\frac{1}{3}\mu _l+\mu _\varphi \right)\left(\frac{1}{3}\mu _l\mu _\varphi \right)\left(\mu _l\mu _\varphi \right)+\frac{2}{N}\mu _\varphi =0$$

Thus finally we can express $`\mu _q`$, $`\mu _u`$, $`\mu _d`$, $`\mu _e`$, and $`\mu _\varphi `$ interms of $`\mu _l.`$

$`\mu _\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}N{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4N+2}}\mu _l={\displaystyle \frac{4N}{6N+3}}\mu _l`$
$`\mu _d`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mu _l\mu _\varphi `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mu _l{\displaystyle \frac{4N}{6N+3}}\mu _l`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6N+1}{6N+3}}\mu _l`$
$`\mu _u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mu _l+\mu _\varphi `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mu _l+{\displaystyle \frac{4N}{6N+3}}\mu _l`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2N1}{6N+3}}\mu _l`$
$`\mu _e`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _l\mu _\varphi `$ (113)
$`=`$ $`\mu _l{\displaystyle \frac{4N}{6N+3}}\mu _l`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2N+3}{6N+3}}\mu _l`$
Hence from Eqs. (107)

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`N\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mu _l+{\displaystyle \frac{2N1}{6N+3}}\mu _l{\displaystyle \frac{6N+1}{6N+3}}\mu _l\right\}`$ (114)
$`=`$ $`\left[4N2+2N16N1\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _l}{6N+3}}`$
$`=`$ $`N{\displaystyle \frac{\left(8N+4\right)}{3\left(2N+1\right)}}\mu _l`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4N}{3}}\mu _l`$
$`L`$ $`=`$ $`N\left(2\mu _l+{\displaystyle \frac{2N+3}{6N+3}}\mu _l\right)`$ (115)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{14N^2+9N}{6N+3}}\mu _l`$
$`BL`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8N^2+4N+14N^2+9N}{6N+3}}\mu _l`$ (116)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{22N^2+13N}{6N+3}}\mu _l`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{BL}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8N^2+4N}{22N^2+13N}}`$ (117)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8N+4}{22N+13}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8N_g+4n_H}{22N_g+13n_H}}a`$
These relations hold for $`Tv`$. In general $`B/BL`$ is a function of $`v/T`$. For SM, $`N_g=3`$, $`n_H=1`$ so that $`a=28/79`$.

Thus finally we obtain

$`Y_B(`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n_Bn_{\overline{B}}}{s}})`$ (118)
$`=`$ $`aY_{BL}={\displaystyle \frac{a}{a1}}Y_L`$
Note that by using Eq. (71),

$`Y_B`$ $`=`$ $`\eta \left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta _\gamma }{s}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{7}}\eta `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{7}}\left(6\pm 3\right)\times 10^{10}`$
In SM as well as in $`SU(5)`$, $`BL`$ is conserved and no asymmetry in $`BL`$ can be generated. However, adding a right handed Majorana neutrino to the SM breaks $`BL`$, and the primordial lepton asymmetry may be generated by the out of equilibrium decay of heavy right handed Majorana neutrino $`N_R`$. The simple extension of SM can be embedded in GUTs with gauge group containing $`SO(10)`$. Majorana neutrinos can also lead to See-saw mechanism, explaining the smallness of light neutrino $`\nu `$ masses.

The relevent couplings are

$$=\overline{\mathrm{}}_L\varphi h_\nu N_R+\frac{1}{2}\overline{N}_R^cMN_R+h.c.$$
(119)
where $`\varphi `$ is the usual Higgs doublet under $`SU(2)_L`$ while the second term gives Majorana mass for the right handed neutrino $`N`$. The vacuum expection value of the Higgs field $`\varphi `$ generates neutrino Dirac masses

$$m_D=h_\nu \varphi $$
(120)
The Lagrangian (119) also generate an effective $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=2`$ Lagrangian

$`_{\mathrm{\Delta }L=2}`$ (121)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G}{M}}\left(\mathrm{}_L^Ti\sigma _2\varphi \right)C^1\left(\varphi ^Ti\sigma _2\mathrm{}_L\right)`$
This generates a Majorana mass for light neutrinos

$$m_\nu =\frac{G}{M}\varphi _0^2$$
(122)
Further

$$m_NMm_D$$
(123)
If the $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=2`$ interactions are in equilibrium, but the right handed electrons are not, then $`\mu _l\mu _\varphi \mu _e=0`$ is replaced by \[c.f. Eq. (119)\]

$$\mu _l+\mu _\varphi =0\mu _l=\mu _\varphi $$
(124)
Thus using all the other previous equations

$`\mu _q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mu _l`$
$`\mu _d`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mu _l`$
$`\mu _u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\mu _l`$
$`\mu _\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\mu _l`$
$$\mu _q+2\mu _u\mu _d\mu _l+\frac{2}{N}\mu _\varphi =0$$
(125)
The equations give

$`\mu _l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3N}{14N+6}}\mu _e`$
$`\mu _d`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2N}{14N+6}}\mu _l`$
$`\mu _u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4N}{14N+6}}`$
$`\mu _q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{14N+6}},`$ (126)
so that from Eq. (107)

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`N\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2N}{14N+6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4N}{14N+6}}{\displaystyle \frac{2N}{14N+6}}\right]\mu _e`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4N^2}{14N+6}}\mu _e`$
$`L`$ $`=`$ $`N\left[{\displaystyle \frac{6N}{14N+6}}+1\right]\mu _e`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8N^2+6N}{14N+6}}\mu _e`$
$`BL`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4N^26N}{14N+6}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{BL}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4N^2}{4N^26N}}={\displaystyle \frac{2N}{2N+3}}=a;a1={\displaystyle \frac{4N3}{2N+3}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{L}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2N}{4N+3}}={\displaystyle \frac{a}{a1}}`$ (127)
The above relations hold if the corresponding interactions are in thermal equilibrium i.e. in the range

$$T_{ew}100\text{ GeV}<T_{\text{sph}}10^{12}\text{ GeV}$$

which is of interest for baryongenesis; this is the case for all gauge interactions. This is not always true for Yukawa interactions. The rate of a scattering process between left and right handed fermions, Higgs bosons and $`W`$-bosons

$$\psi _L\varphi \psi _RW$$

is \[c.f. Eq. (27), $`k_B=1`$\]

$$\gamma \alpha _2h^2\frac{\left(k_BT\right)^5}{\left(k_BT\right)^4}=\alpha _2h^2T$$
(128)
The equilibrium condition is satisfied for

$`\gamma `$ $`>`$ $`H=1.66g_{}^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{T^2}{M_{\text{Pl}}}}`$
$`T`$ $`<`$ $`\alpha _2h^2M_{\text{Pl}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1.66g_{}^{1/2}}}h^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{1.66g_{}^{1/2}}}10^{17}`$
$`T`$ $`<`$ $`h^210^{16}\text{ GeV}`$ (129)
where we have used

$$g^{}=4\times 2+1+\frac{7}{8}\left(9\times 4+2\times 4+3\times 2\right)50$$

Now \[$`\varphi =v/\sqrt{2}=175`$ GeV\]

$`h_e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_e}{\varphi }}={\displaystyle \frac{5\times 10^1\text{ MeV}}{\left(250\right)\times 10^3\text{ MeV}}}`$
$`=`$ $`3\times 10^6`$
$`T_e`$ $``$ $`10^{11}\times 10^{16}\text{ GeV}10^5\text{ GeV}`$
$`T_u`$ $``$ $`10^7\text{ GeV}`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`T_s`$ $`=`$ $`10^7\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{m_u}}\right)^2\left(0.9\right)10^{10}10^{10}\text{ GeV}`$ (130)
At temperature $`T10^{10}`$ GeV, which is characterestics of leptogenesis, $`e_R`$, $`\mu _R`$, $`d_R`$, $`s_R`$ and $`u_R`$ are out of equilibrium. When the Majorana right-handed $`\nu `$’s (these existed in early universe) decay into leptons and Higgs scalar,

$`N_R`$ $``$ $`\overline{\varphi }+\mathrm{}`$
$`N_R`$ $``$ $`\varphi +\overline{\mathrm{}}`$
they violate lepton number. The interference between the tree-level amplitude and the absorption part of the one-loop vertex leads to lepton asymmetry (and baryon asymmetry $`\eta _B=\frac{a}{a1}\eta _L`$) of the right order of magnitude to explain the observed $`\eta _B`$. It has been observed that $`CP`$ violation may be considerably enhanced if two heavy right handed $`\nu `$’s are nearly degenerate in mass.

As already seen $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=2`$ interaction of the form

$$\frac{G}{M}\left(\mathrm{}_L\mathrm{}_L\varphi \varphi \right)=\frac{m_\nu }{\varphi ^2}\mathrm{}_L\mathrm{}_L\varphi \varphi $$
(131)
is generated through the exchange of $`N_R`$ \[Fig. 7\].

These processes will take place with the rate

$$\gamma _{\mathrm{\Delta }L=2}\left(T\right)=\frac{1}{\pi ^3}\frac{T^3}{\varphi ^4}\underset{i=e,\mu ,\tau }{}m_{\nu _i}^2$$

The requirement for the harmless lepton number violation

$$\gamma _L<H$$

give

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{T^3}{\varphi ^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=e,\mu ,\tau }{}}m_{\nu _i}^2`$ $`<`$ $`1.66g^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{T^2}{M_{\text{Pl}}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=e,\mu ,\tau }{}}m_{\nu _i}^2`$ $`<`$ $`1.66g^{1/2}\pi ^3{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^4}{M_{\text{Pl}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}`$
$`=`$ $`1.66g^{1/2}\pi ^3{\displaystyle \frac{10^9\text{ GeV}^4}{10^{19}\text{ GeV}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=e,\mu ,\tau }{}}m_{\nu _i}^2`$ $`=`$ $`<1.66g^{1/2}\times 31\left({\displaystyle \frac{10^8\text{ GeV}}{T}}\right)\text{eV}^2`$
$`=`$ $`g^{1/2}0.56\left({\displaystyle \frac{10^{10}\text{ GeV}}{T}}\right)\text{eV}^2`$
$`=`$ $`4\left({\displaystyle \frac{10^{10}\text{ GeV}}{T}}\right)\text{eV}^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=e,\mu ,\tau }{}}m_{\nu _i}^2`$ $``$ $`\left[2\text{ eV}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_X}{10^{10}\text{ GeV}}}\right)^{1/2}\right]^2`$ (132)
where

$$T_XMin\left(T_{BL}\text{}10^{12}\text{ GeV}\right)$$
(133)
$`T_{BL}`$ is the temperature at which $`BL`$ number production takes place.

Now $`10^{12}`$ is the temperature at which sphaleron transitions enter in equilibrium. Thus

$$\underset{i=e,\mu ,\tau }{}m_{\nu _i}^2\left[0.4\text{ eV}\left(\frac{T_X}{T_{\text{SPH}}}\right)^{1/2}\right]^2$$
(134)
We can reverse the argument and for $`T_{BL}10^{16}`$ GeV as in $`SO(10)`$, Eq. (132) implies

$$m_\nu 2\text{ eV}\left(10^6\right)^{1/2}=2\times 10^3\text{ eV}$$
(135)
which is of interest in neutrino oscillations.

## 8 Thermal Leptogenesis

One starts from a thermal distribution of heavy Majorana neutrinos which have $`CP`$ violating decay modes into standard leptons: Natural candidates are $`\nu _{Ri}`$, $`i=1,2,3`$; one in each of the three lepton families, while the Lagrangian of electroweak interactions keep invariance under the $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ gauge transformations.

In this case Yukawa interactions are described by

$$_Y=\overline{\mathrm{}}_{Li}\varphi h_{Lij}e_{Rj}+\overline{\mathrm{}}_{Li}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }h_{Lij}^{}\nu _{Rj}\frac{1}{2}\overline{\nu }_R^cM\nu _R+h.c.$$
(136)
the lepton number violation is induced by the third term. $`M`$ is a Majorana mass matrix while $`h_L`$ are the Yukawa couplings. After spontaneous symmetry breaking the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field $`\varphi =v175`$ GeV generates the Dirac mass term $`\left(m_D\right)_{ij}=h_{ij}v`$, assumed to be small compared to $`M`$. Light neutrino mass matrix $`M_\nu `$ arises from the diagonalizating the $`6\times 6`$ neutrino mass matrix

$$M_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& m_D^T\\ m_D& M\end{array}\right)$$
(137)
and takes the seesaw form

$$m_\nu =m_D^TM^1m_D$$
(138)
This also yields light and heavy neutrino mass eigenstates

$`\nu `$ $``$ $`V_\nu ^T\nu _L+\nu _L^cV_\nu ^{}`$
$`N`$ $``$ $`\nu _R+\nu _R^c`$
$`m_{N_i}`$ $`=`$ $`M_i`$ (139)
where $`V_\nu `$ is the neutrino mixing matrix. We shall restrict our discussion to the case of hierarchical Majorana neutrino masses, $`M_1M_2,M_3`$ so that if the interactions of $`N_1=N`$ are in thermal equilibrium when $`N_2`$ and $`N_3`$ decay, the asymmetry produced by $`N_2`$ and $`N_3`$ can be erased before $`N_1`$ decays. The asymmetry is then generated by the out of equilibrium $`CP`$ violating decays of $`N\mathrm{}H`$ versus $`N\overline{\mathrm{}}H`$ at a temperature $`TMM_1M_2`$, $`M_3.`$

The crcuial ingredients in leptogenesis scenario is $`CP`$ asymmetry generated through the interference between tree level and one-loop Majorana neutrino decay diagrams. In the simplest extension of SM, these are shown below in Fig. 8.

Then the $`CP`$ asymmetry is caused by interference between the above diagrams:

$`ϵ_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N_1\mathrm{}_iH\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N_1\overline{\mathrm{}}_iH^{}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N_1\mathrm{}_iH\right)+\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N_1\overline{\mathrm{}}_iH^{}\right)}}`$ (140)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left|h_{1i}\right|^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=2,3}{}}\mathrm{I}m\left[h_{1i}h_{1k}h_\mathrm{}i^{}h_\mathrm{}k^{}\right]\left[f\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{}}^2}{M_1^2}}\right)+g\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{}}^2}{M_1^2}}\right)\right]`$
$`f\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{x}\left[1\left(1+x\right)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+x}{x}}\right)\right]`$ (141)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{x}}{x}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right]\text{, as }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}0`$
$`g\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{x}}{1x}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{x}}{x}}`$
and

$$I_{1l}^{ik}=\frac{1}{\left|h_{1i}\right|^2}\mathrm{I}m\left[h_{1i}h_{1k}h_\mathrm{}i^{}h_{2k}^{}\right]$$
(142)
Thus

$`ϵ_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\pi }}\left[I_{12}^{ik}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{M_2}}+I_{13}^{ik}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{M_3}}\right]`$ (143)
$`I_{12}^{ik}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left|h_{1i}\right|^2}}\mathrm{I}m\left[h_{1i}h_{1k}h_{2i}^{}h_{2k}^{}\right]`$ (144)
The lepton asymmetry $`Y_L`$ is related to the $`CP`$ asymmetry through the relation

$$Y_L=\frac{n_L\overline{n}_L}{s}=𝒦\frac{ϵ_1}{g^{}}$$
(145)
where $`g^{}`$ is the effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom contributing to the entropy and $`𝒦`$ is the so called dilution factor which accounts for the wash out processes \[inverse decay and lepton number violating scattering; such processes can create a thermal population of heavy neutrinos of high temperature $`T>M`$\] and it can be obtained through solving the Boltzmann equations. In the SM, $`g^{}=12\times 2+\frac{7}{8}\left(18\times 4+3\times 4+3\times 2\right)=103.75.`$

The produced lepton asymmetry through $`Y_L`$ is converted into a baryon asymmetry as already seen \[$`a=\frac{2}{3}`$\]

$`Y_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{a1}}Y_L`$ (146)
$``$ $`0.4Y_L`$
Now

$`\left(m_D\right)_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`h_{ij}v`$
$`\left(m_Dm_D^{}\right)_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(m_D\right)_{1i}\left(m_D^{}\right)_{i1}`$ (147)
$`=`$ $`\left(h_{1i}h_{1i}^{}\right)v^2=\left|h_{1i}\right|^2v^2`$
$`\left(m_Dm_D^{}\right)_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(m_D\right)_{1i}\left(m_D^{}\right)_{i2}`$
$`=`$ $`\left(h_{1i}h_{2i}^{}\right)v^2\left(h_{1k}h_{2k}^{}\right)v^2`$
Thus from Eq. (144)

$$I_{12}^{ik}=\frac{1}{v^2\left(m_Dm_D^{}\right)_{11}}\mathrm{I}m\left[\left(\left(m_Dm_D^{}\right)_{12}\right)^2\right]\frac{M_1}{M_2}+\mathrm{I}m\left[\left(\left(m_Dm_D^{}\right)_{13}\right)^2\right]\frac{M_1}{M_3}$$

For illustrative purposes we consider two right handed neutrinos $`N_{1,2}`$ and take

$$m_D=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a& a^{}& 0\\ 0& b& b^{}\end{array}\right)$$
(148)
Then the seesaw form (138) becomes

$`m_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ a^{}& b\\ 0& b^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{M_1}& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{M_2}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a& a^{}& 0\\ 0& b& b^{}\end{array}\right)`$ (156)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{a^2}{M_1}& \frac{aa^{}}{M_1}& 0\\ \frac{aa^{}}{M_1}& \frac{a^2}{M_1}+\frac{b^2}{M_2}& \frac{bb^{}}{M_2}\\ 0& \frac{bb^{}}{M_2}& \frac{b^2}{M_1}\end{array}\right)`$ (160)
We have to diagonalize it in order to go to mass basis:

$$\left|\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{a^2}{M_1}\lambda & \frac{aa^{}}{M_1}& 0\\ \frac{aa^{}}{M_1}& \frac{a^2}{M_1}+\frac{b^2}{M_2}\lambda & \frac{bb^{}}{M_2}\\ 0& \frac{bb^{}}{M_2}& \frac{b^2}{M_2}\lambda \end{array}\right|=0$$
(161)
Under the assumption, $`\frac{b^2}{M_2},\frac{b^2}{M_2}\frac{a^2}{M_1}`$, this give the mass eigenvalues $`0`$, $`\frac{b^2}{M_2}`$,$`\frac{a^2+a^2}{M_1}`$. We may identify

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\text{atm}}^2=m_3^2m_1^2=\left(\frac{a^2+a^2}{M_1}\right)^2$$
(162)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_s^2=m_2^2m_1^2=\left(\frac{b^2}{M_2}\right)^2$$
(163)
so that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{a^2+a^2}{M_1}}`$ $``$ $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\text{atm}}^2\right)^{1/2}\left(3\times 10^3\text{ eV}^2\right)^{1/2}`$ (164)
$``$ $`5\times 10^2\text{ eV}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{M_2}}`$ $``$ $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }m_s^2\right)^{1/2}=\left(5\times 10^2\text{ eV}^2\right)^{1/2}`$
$``$ $`7\times 10^3\text{ eV}`$
Now

$`\left(m_Dm_D^{}\right)_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\left|a\right|^2+\left|a^{}\right|^2`$
$`\left(m_Dm_D^{}\right)_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`a^{}b^{}`$ (166)
Therefore \[c.f. Eq. (143)\]

$$ϵ_1=\frac{3}{16\pi v^2}\frac{1}{\left|a\right|^2+\left|a^{}\right|^2}\left\{\mathrm{I}m\left[\left(a^{}b^{}\right)^2\right]\frac{M_1}{M_2}\right\}$$
(167)
Take now $`a^{}=Yae^{i\delta }`$ and $`b^{}=b`$ as real. Then

$`ϵ_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\pi v^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Y^2}{1+Y^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{M_2}}\mathrm{sin}2\delta `$ (168)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{v^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Y^2}{1+Y^2}}7\times 10^3\text{ eV}\mathrm{sin}2\delta `$
$``$ $`1.36\times 10^{17}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{\text{GeV}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Y^2}{1+Y^2}}\mathrm{sin}2\delta `$
Taking $`Y1`$, $`\mathrm{sin}2\delta 1`$, $`M_110^{10}`$ GeV

$$ϵ_1=0.68\times 10^7=6.8\times 10^8$$
(169)
Thus from equations (145) and (146)

$$Y_B=𝒦\left(2.7\right)\times 10^{10}$$
(170)
This gives the right order magnitude as typical numbers one expects for $`𝒦10^1`$ to $`10^2`$ .

Acknowledgements: The author would like to acknowledge the support of King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals for this work.

## 9 Figure Captions

* Cosmic density pyramid
* Tree level Higgs couplings with fermions in SU(5)
* Loop level Higgs and gauge particles contribution to baryon asymmetry
* Loop level contribution of <sup>5</sup>H Higgs boson to baryon asymmetry
* Transition from one vacuum to another by thermal fluctuations
* Feynmann diagram for scattering process between left and right handed fermions, Higgs bosons and $`W`$ boson
* See–saw mechenism for Majorana light neutrino masses
* Tree and one–loop level Majorana (heavy) neutrino decay diagrams


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Evidence of eelctron antineutrino disappearance in a beam of antineutrinos in the KamLAND experiment has been recently presented . The analysis of these results  in terms of neutrino oscillations have largely improved our knowledge of neutrino mixing in the LMA region. The results appear to confirm in a independent way that the observed deficit of solar neutrinos is indeed due to neutrino oscillations. The ability to measure the LMA solution, the one preferred by the solar neutrino data at present, “in the lab” puts KamLAND in a pioneering situation: after these results there should remain little doubt of the physical reality of neutrino mass and oscillations. Once neutrino mass is observed, neutrino magnetic moments are an inevitable consequence in the Standard Model and beyond. Magnetic moment interactions arise in any renormalizable gauge theory only as finite radiative corrections: the diagrams which contribute to the neutrino mass will inevitably generate a magnetic moment once the external photon line is added.

The KamLAND experiment is the successor of previous reactor experiments ( CHOOZ , PaloVerde ) at a much larger scale in terms of baseline distance and total incident flux. This experiment relies upon a 1 kton liquid scintillator detector located at the old, enlarged, Kamiokande site. It searches for the oscillation of antineutrinos emitted by several nuclear power plants in Japan. The nearby 16 (of a total of 51) nuclear power stations deliver a $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ flux of $`1.3\times 10^6cm^2s^1`$ for neutrino energies $`E_\nu >1.8`$ MeV at the detector position. About $`85\%`$ of this flux comes from reactors forming a well defined baseline of 139-344 km. Thus, the flight range is limited in spite of using several reactors, because of this fact the sensitivity of KamLAND increases by nearly two orders of magnitude compared to previous reactor experiments.

Beyond reactor neutrino measurements, the secondary physics program of KamLAND includes diverse objectives as the measurement of geoneutrino flux emitted by the radioactivity of the earth’s crust and mantle, the detection of antineutrino bursts from galactic supernova and, after extensive improvement of the detection sensitivity, the detection of low energy $`{}_{}{}^{7}Be`$ neutrinos using neutrino-electron elastic scattering.

Moreover, the KamLAND experiment is capable of detecting potential electron antineutrinos produced on fly from solar 8B neutrinos . These antineutrinos are predicted by spin-flavor oscillations at a significant rate if the neutrino is a Majorana particle and if its magnetic moment is high enough . In Ref. as been remarked that the flux of reactor antineutrinos at the Kamiokande site is comparable, and in fact smaller, to the flux of 8B neutrinos emitted by the sun ,$`\mathrm{\Phi }({}_{}{}^{8}B)5.6\times 10^6cm^2s^1`$ . Their energy spectrum is important at energies $`24`$ MeV while solar neutrino spectrum peaks at around $`910`$ MeV. As the inverse beta decay reaction cross section increases as the square of the energy, we would expect nearly 10 times more solar electron antineutrino events even if the initial fluxes were equal in magnitude.

The publication of the SNO results  has already made an important breakthrough towards the solution of the long standing solar neutrino  problem (SNP) possible. These results provide the strongest evidence so far (at least until KamLAND improves its statistics) for flavor oscillation in the neutral lepton sector.

The existing bounds on solar electron antineutrinos are strict. The present upper limit on the absolute flux of solar antineutrinos originated from $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ neutrinos is  $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }}({}_{}{}^{8}B)<1.8\times 10^5cm^2s^1`$ which is equivalent to an averaged conversion probability bound of $`P<3.5\%`$ (SSM-BP98 model). There are also bounds on their differential energy spectrum : the conversion probability is smaller than $`8\%`$ for all $`E_{e,vis}>6.5`$ MeV going down the $`5\%`$ level above $`E_{e,vis}10`$ MeV.

The main aim of this work is to study the implications of the recent KamLAND results on the determination of the solar electron antineutrino appearance probability, independently from concrete models on antineutrino production. The structure of this work is the following. In section 2 we discuss the main features of KamLAND experiment that are relevant for our analysis: The salient aspects of the procedure we are adopting and the results of our analysis are presented and discussed in sections 3. In Section 4 we apply the results we obtained in a particular model for the solar magnetic field, we obtain bounds on the values of the intrinsic neutrino transition magnetic moments. Finally, in section 5 we draw our conclusions and discuss possible future scenarios.

## 2 The computation of the expected signals

### 2.1 The KamLAND signal

Electron antineutrinos from any source, nuclear reactors or solar origin, with energies above 1.8 MeV are measured in KamLAND by detecting the inverse $`\beta `$-decay reaction $`\overline{\nu }_e+pn+e^+`$. The time coincidence, the space correlation and the energy balance between the positron signal and the 2.2 MeV $`\gamma `$-ray produced by the capture of a already-thermalized neutron on a free proton make it possible to identify this reaction unambiguously, even in the presence of a rather large background.

The two principal ingredients in the calculation of the expected signal in KamLAND are the corresponding flux and the electron antineutrino cross section on protons. The average number of positrons $`N_i`$ originated from the solar source which are detected per visible energy bin $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_i`$ is given by the convolution of different quantities:

$`N_i`$ $`=`$ $`Q_0{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Delta }E_i}}𝑑E_e{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑E_e^rϵ(E_e)R(E_e,E_e^r){\displaystyle _{E_e^r}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑E_{\overline{\nu }}\overline{p}(E_{\overline{\nu }})\mathrm{\Phi }(E_{\overline{\nu }})\sigma (E_{\overline{\nu }},E_e^r)`$ (1)
where $`Q_0`$ is a normalization constant accounting for the fiducial volume and live time of the experiment, $`\overline{p}`$. Expressions for the electron antineutrino capture cross section $`\sigma (E_{\overline{\nu }},E_e^r)`$ are taken from the literature . The matrix element for this cross section can be written in terms of the neutron half-life, we have used the latest published value $`t_{1/2}=613.9\pm 0.55`$ . The functions $`ϵ(E_e)`$ and $`R(E_e,E_e^r)`$ are the detection efficiency and the energy resolution function. We use in our analysis the following expression for the energy resolution in the prompt positron detection $`\sigma (E_e)=0.0062+0.065\sqrt{E_e}`$ . This expression is obtained from the raw calibration data presented in Ref.. Note that we prefer to use this expression instead of the much less accurate one given in Ref.. Moreover, we assume a 408 ton fiducial mass and the detection efficiency is taken independent of the energy , $`ϵ=80\%`$. In order to obtain concrete limits, a model should be taken which predict $`\overline{p}`$ and its dependence with the energy. For our purpose it will suffice to suppose $`\overline{p}`$ a constant. This is justified at least in two cases: a) if the energy range $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ over which we perfom the integration is small enough so the variation of the probability is not very large, or b) if we reinterpret $`\overline{p}`$ as an energy-averaged probability, note that, in a general case, this is always true because the un-avoidable convolution with a finite energy resolution. (see Expression 10 in Ref.):

$`\overline{p}_{\mathrm{\Delta }E}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Delta }E}}𝑑E\sigma (E)\mathrm{\Phi }(E)P_{\overline{\nu }}(E)/{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Delta }E}}𝑑E\sigma (E)\mathrm{\Phi }(E).`$ (2)
Let us finally note that independently of the reasons above, upper limits to be obtained on continuation are still valid even if the antineutrino probabilities are significantly different from constant: if we take $`\overline{p}=\mathrm{max}_{\mathrm{\Delta }E}P_{\overline{\nu }}(E)`$ the expected antineutrino signal computed with $`\overline{p}`$ will be always larger than the signal obtained inserting the full probability.

The results of our simulation are summarized in Fig.1 where we show the “solar” positron spectrum obtained assuming the shape of the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ neutrino flux and a total normalization $`10^2\times \mathrm{\Phi }({}_{}{}^{8}B)`$ which means an overall $`\nu _e\overline{\nu }_e`$ conversion probability $`\overline{P}1\%`$.

In addition we have computed the expected signal coming from antineutrino reactors. A number of short baseline experiments (See Ref.\[21, vogel2\] and references therein) have previously measured the energy spectrum of reactors at distances where oscillatory effects have been shown to be inexistent. They have shown that the theoretical neutrino flux predictions are reliable within 2% . The effective flux of antineutrinos released by the nuclear plants is a rather well understood function of the thermal power of the reactor and the amount of thermal power emitted during the fission of a given nucleus, which gives the total amount, and the isotopic composition of the reactor fuel which gives the spectral shape. Detailed tables for these magnitudes can be found in Ref. \[21, vogel2mq\]. For a given isotope the energy spectrum can be parametrized by an exponential expression  where the coefficients depend on the nature of the fissionable isotope (see Ref. for explicit values). Along the year, between periods of refueling, the total effective flux changes with time as the fuel is expended and the isotope relative composition varies. We take the average of the relative fission yields over the live time as given by the experiment: $`{}_{}{}^{235}U=57\%`$, $`{}_{}{}^{238}U=7.8\%`$, $`{}_{}{}^{239}Pu=30\%`$, $`{}_{}{}^{241}Pu=5.7\%`$. In order to obtain the expected number of events at KamLAND, we sum the expectations for all the relevant reactor sources weighting each source by its power and distance to the detector (table II in Ref. ), assuming the same spectrum originated from each reactor. We sum over the nearby power reactors, we neglect farther Japanese and Korean reactors and even farther rest-of-the-world reactors which give only a minor additional contribution.

## 3 Analysis and Results

We will obtain upper bounds on the solar electron antineutrino appearance probability analyzing the observed KamLAND rates in three different ways. In the first one, we will make a standard $`\chi ^2`$ analysis of the observed and expected solar signals in the 13 prompt positron energy bins considered by KamLAND . In the second and third cases we will apply Gaussian and poissonian probabilistic considerations to the global rate seen by the experiment and to the individual event content in the highest energy bins ($`E_e>6`$ MeV) where KamLAND observes zero events. This null signal makes particularly simple the extraction of statistical conclusions in this case.

### 3.1  Analysis of the KamLAND Energy Spectrum

Here we fully use the binned KamLAND signal (see Fig. 5 in Ref.) for estimating the parameters of solar electron antineutrino production from the method of maximum-likelihood. We minimize the quantity

$`\chi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _{i=1,9}^2+\chi _{i=10,13}^2`$ (3)
where the first term correspond to the contribution of the first nine bins where the signal is large enough and the use of the Gaussian approximation is justified. The second term correspond to the latest bins where the observed and expected signals are very small and poissonian statistics is needed. The explicit expressions are:

$`\chi _{i=1,9}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,9}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(S_i^{exp}S_i^{teo})^2}{\sigma ^2}}`$ (4)
$`\chi _{i=10,13}^2`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{i=10,13}{}}S_i^{teo}S_i^{exp}+S_i^{exp}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{S_i^{exp}}{S_i^{teo}}}.`$ (5)
The quantities $`S_i`$ are the observed bin contents from KamLAND. The theoretical signals are in principle a function of three different parameters: the solar electron antineutrino appearance probability $`\overline{p}`$ and the neutrino oscillation parameters $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\theta )`$. Both contributions, the contribution from solar antineutrinos and that one from solar reactors, can be treated as different summands:

$`S_i(\overline{p},\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`S_i^{solar}(\overline{p})+S_i^{reactor}(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\theta ).`$ (6)
According to our model, the solar antineutrino appearance probability $`\overline{p}`$ is taken as a constant and we can finally write:

$`S_i(\overline{p},\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{p}\times S_i^0+S_i^{reactor}(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\theta ).`$ (7)
In this work we will take for the minimization values of the oscillation parameters those obtained when ignoring any solar antineutrinos (LMA solution $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=6.9\times 10^5`$ eV2, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =1`$ from Ref.) and we will perform a one-parameter minimization with respect $`\overline{p}`$. This approximation is well justified because the solar antineutrino probability is clearly very small, We avoid in this way the simultaneous minimization with respect to the three parameters ($`\overline{p},\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\theta )`$.

We perform a minimization of the one dimensional function $`\chi ^2(\overline{p})`$. to test a particular oscillation hypothesis against the parameters of the best fit and obtain the allowed interval in $`\overline{p}`$ parameter space taking into account the asymptotic properties of the likelihood function, i.e. $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}_{min}`$ behaves asymptotically as a $`\chi ^2`$ with one degree of freedom. In our case, the minimization can be performed analytically because of the simple, lineal, dependence. A given point in the confidence interval is allowed if the globally subtracted quantity fulfills the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=\chi ^2(\overline{p})\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2<\chi _n^2(CL)`$. Where $`\chi _{n=1}^2(90\%,95\%,\mathrm{})=2.70,3.84,..`$ are the quantiles for one degree of freedom.

Restricting to physical values of $`\overline{p}`$, the minimum of the $`\chi ^2`$ function is obtained for $`\overline{p}=0`$. The corresponding confidence intervals are $`\overline{p}<4.5\%`$ (90% CL) and $`\overline{p}<7.0\%`$ (95% CL). We have explicitly checked, varying the concrete place where the division between “Gaussian” and “poissonian” bins is established in Expression 3, that the values of these upper limits are largely insensitive to details of our analysis. In particular, similar upper limits are obtained in the extreme cases: if Gaussian or poissonian statistics is employed for all 13 bins. These upper limits are considerably weaker than those obtained in the next section. One possible reason for that is that they are obtained applying asymptotic general arguments to the $`\chi ^2`$ distribution, stronger, or more precise limits could be obtained if a Monte Carlo simulation of the distribution of the finite sample $`\chi ^2`$ distribution is performed (where the boundary condition $`\overline{p}>0`$ should be properly included).

### 3.2  Analysis of the global rate and highest energy bins

We can make an estimation of the upper bound on the appearance solar electron antineutrino probability simply counting the number of observed events and subtracting the number of events expected from the best-fit oscillation solution. For our purposes this difference, which in this case is positive, can be interpreted as a hypothetical signal coming from solar antineutrinos ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_0^2=6.9\times 10^5eV^2,\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _0=1)`$.:

$`S_{solar}=\overline{p}\times S_{solar}^0`$ $`=`$ $`S_{obs}S_{react}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_0^2,\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _0).`$ (8)
Putting  $`S_{obs}=54.3\pm 7.5`$ and $`S_{react}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_0^2,\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _0)=49\pm 1.3`$, we obtain $`S_{obs}S_{react}<64.8(67.2)`$ at 90 (95)% CL. From these numbers, the corresponding limits on solar electron antineutrino appearance probability are $`\overline{p}<0.45\%,0.52\%`$ at 90 or 95% CL. These limits are valid for the neutrino energy range $`E_\nu 28`$ MeV. In this case, due to the large range, the limits are better interpreted as limits on an energy-averaged probability according to expression 2.

In a similar approach, we use on continuation the binned KamLAND signal corresponding to the four highest energy bins (see Fig.1) which, as we will see, provide the strongest statistical significance and bounds. The reason for that is that the experiment KamLAND does not observe any signal here and, furthermore, the expected signal from oscillating neutrinos with LMA parameters is negligibly small.

Due to the small sample, we apply Poisson statistics to any of these bins and use the fact that a sum of Poisson variables of mean $`\mu _i`$ is itself a Poisson variable of mean $`\mu _i`$. The background (here the reactor antineutrinos) and the signal (solar electron antineutrinos) are assumed to be independent Poisson Random variables with known means.

If no events are observed, and, in particular, no background is observed, the unified intervals  $`[0,ϵ_{CL}]`$ are $`[0,2.44]`$ at 90% CL and $`[0,3.09]`$ at 95% CL. From here, we obtain $`\overline{p}\times S_0^{solar}<ϵ_{CL}`$ or $`\overline{p}<ϵ_{CL}/S_0^{solar}`$. Taking the expected number of events in the first 145 days of data taking and in this energy range (6-8 MeV) we obtain: $`\overline{p}<0.12\%`$ (90% CL) and $`\overline{p}<0.15\%`$ (95% CL).

## 4 A model for solar antineutrino production

The combined action of spin flavor precession in a magnetic field and ordinary neutrino matter oscillations can produce an observable flux of $`\overline{\nu }_{eR}`$’s from the Sun in the case of the neutrino being a Majorana particle. In the simplest model, where a thin layer of highly chaotic of magnetic field is assumed at the bottom of the convective zone (situated at $`R0.7R_{}`$), the antineutrino appearance probability at the exit of the layer $`P(\overline{\nu })`$ is basically equal to the appearance probability of antineutrinos at the earth  ( see also Refs. for some recent studies on RSFP solutions to the Solar Neutrino Problem). The quantity $`P(\overline{\nu })`$ is in general a function of the neutrino oscillation parameters $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\theta )`$, the neutrino intrinsic magnetic moment and also of the neutrino energy and the characteristics and magnitude of the solar magnetic field. However, in a accurate enough approximation, such probability can be factorized in a term depending only on the oscillation parameters and another one depending only on the spin-flavor precession parameters:

$$P(\overline{\nu })=\frac{1}{2}P_{e\mu }(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\theta )\times \left[1\mathrm{exp}\left(4\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{\Delta }r\right)\right]$$
(9)
where $`P_{e\mu }`$ is the $`e\mu `$ solar conversion probability. We will assume in this work the LMA central values for $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\theta )`$ obtained from recent KamLAND data and which are compatible with the SNO observations in solar neutrinos , we will take $`P_{e\mu }(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\theta )P_{e\mu }^{exp,SNO}0.4`$. The second factor appearing in the expression contains the effect of the magnetic field. This quantity depends on the layer width $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ ($`0.1R_{}`$) and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2\frac{1}{3}L_0\mu ^2B^2`$, where $`B^2`$ the r.m.s strength of the magnetic field and $`L_0`$ is a scale length ($`L_01000`$ km). For small values of the argument we have the following approximate expression which is accurate enough for many applications

$$P(\overline{\nu })P_{e\mu }\times 2\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{\Delta }r=\kappa \mu ^2B^2$$

the solar astrophysical factor $`\kappa 2/3P_{e\mu }L_0\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ is numerically $`\kappa ^{LMA}2.8\times 10^{44}`$ MeV-2. Upper limits on the antineutrino appearance probability can be translated into upper limits on the neutrino transition magnetic moment and the magnitude of the magnetic field in the solar interior. The results of the Formula 9 can be seen in Figure 2. An upper bound $`\overline{p}<0.150.20\%`$ (95% CL) implies an upper limit on the product of the intrinsic neutrino magnetic moment and the value of the convective solar magnetic field as $`\mu B<2.3\times 10^{21}`$ MeV (95% CL). In Fig.2 we show the antineutrino probability as a function of the magnetic moment $`\mu `$ for fixed values of the magnitude of the magnetic field. For realistic values of other astrophysical solar parameters ($`L_01000`$ km, $`\mathrm{\Delta }r0.1R_{}`$), these upper limits would imply that the neutrino magnetic moment is constrained to be, in the most desfavourable case, $`\mu 3.9\times 10^{12}\mu _B`$ (95% CL) for a relatively small field $`B=50`$ kG. Stronger limits are obtained for slightly higher values of the magnetic field: $`\mu 9.0\times 10^{13}\mu _B`$ (95% CL) for field $`B=200`$ kG and $`\mu 2.0\times 10^{13}\mu _B`$ (95% CL) for field $`B=1000`$ kG. Let us note that these assumed values for the magnetic field at the base the solar convective zone are relatively mild and well within present astrophysical expectatives.

## 5  Conclusions

In summary in this work we investigate the possibility of detecting solar antineutrinos with the KamLAND experiment. These antineutrinos are predicted by spin-flavor solutions to the solar neutrino problem.

The KamLAND experiment is sensitive to potential antineutrinos originated from solar 8B neutrinos. We find that the results of the KamLAND experiment put relatively strict limits on the flux of solar electron antineutrinos $`\mathrm{\Phi }({}_{}{}^{8}B)<1.13.5\times 10^4cm^2s^1`$, and their energy averaged appearance probability ($`P<0.150.50\%`$). These limits are largely independent from any model on the solar magnetic field or any other astrophysical properties. As we remarked in Section 2.1, these upper limits on antineutrino probabilities and fluxes are still valid even if the antineutrino probabilities are significantly different from constant.

Next we assume a concrete model for antineutrino production where they are produced by spin-flavor precession in the convective solar magnetic field. In this model, the antineutrino appearance probability is given by a simple expression as $`P(\overline{\nu })=\kappa \mu ^2B^2`$ with $`\kappa ^{LMA}2.8\times 10^{44}`$ MeV-2. In the context of this model and assuming LMA central values for neutrino oscillation parameters ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=6.9\times 10^5`$ eV2, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =1`$) , the upper bound $`\overline{p}<0.15\%`$ (95% CL) implies an upper limit on the product of the intrinsic neutrino magnetic moment and the value of the convective solar magnetic field as $`\mu B<2.3\times 10^{21}`$ MeV (95% CL). For realistic values of other astrophysical solar parameters these upper limits would imply that the neutrino magnetic moment is constrained to be, in the most desfavourable case, $`\mu 3.9\times 10^{12}\mu _B`$ (95% CL) for a relatively small field $`B=50`$ kG. For slightly higher values of the magnetic field: $`\mu 9.0\times 10^{13}\mu _B`$ (95% CL) for field $`B=200`$ kG and $`\mu 2.0\times 10^{13}\mu _B`$ (95% CL) for field $`B=1000`$ kG. These assumed values for the magnetic field at the base the solar convective zone are relatively mild and well within present astrophysical expectatives.

### Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge many useful conversations with P. Aliani, M. Picariello and V. Antonelli. I acknowledge the financial support of the Spanish CYCIT funding agency.