DOCSLIB.ORG

Baryogenesis, Leptogenesis, and New Interactions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Baryogenesis, Leptogenesis, and New Interactions • The baryon (matter) asymmetry • The Sakharov conditions • Possible mechanisms • A new very weak interaction Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) Recent Reviews • A. Riotto and M. Trodden, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 49, 35 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9901362]. • M. Trodden, Electroweak baryogenesis, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 1463 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9803479]. • W. Bernreuther, CP violation and baryogenesis, Lect. Notes Phys. 591, 237 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0205279]. • M. Dine and A. Kusenko, The origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry, arXiv:hep-ph/0303065. • A. D. Dolgov, Cosmological matter antimatter asymmetry and antimatter in the universe, arXiv:hep-ph/0211260. Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) The baryon (matter) asymmetry The baryon asymmetry: • Matter and antimatter are (almost) symmetric, but our part of the universe involves matter only • nB ∼ 6.1+0.7 ×10−10 (Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN)), nγ −0.5 6.14 ± 0.25×10−10 (WMAP) • nB¯ ∼ 0 (small amounts consistent with secondary production) Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) − + BBN: νen ↔ e p and e n ↔ ν¯ep keep nn/np in equilibrium as long as it is rapid enough Freezeout at T? ∼ 1 MeV, when Γweak ∼ H nn −(mn−mp+µνe)/T? 4 = e → He (µν ∼ νe − ν¯e asymmetry) np e 4 4n4He He mass fraction: Yp = depends strongly on ξe ≡ nH nB µν /T?, weakly on η ≡ e nγ D nB +0.7 −10 Y2 = depends on η (baryometer) ⇒ ∼ 6.1 ×10 H nγ −0.5 Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) Independent determination of η from CMB ⇒nB ∼ 6.14 ± nγ 0.25×10−10 Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) Angular Scale 90° 2° 0.5° 0.2° 6000 TT Cross Power Spectrum 5000 Λ - CDM All Data WMAP 4000 CBI ) 2 ACBAR (µK π /2 3000 l +1)C l ( l 2000 1000 0 TE Cross Power 3 Reionization Spectrum ) 2 2 (µK π /2 l 1 +1)C l ( 0 -1 0 10 40100 200 400 800 1400 Multipole moment (l) Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) • nB¯ ∼ 0 (small amounts consistent with secondary production) > ¯ • For T ∼ GeV, had nB ∼ nB¯ ∼ nγ; most BB pairs annihilated, −18 leaving small baryon excess (Otherwise, nB = nB¯ ∼ 10 nγ) n −n • Hence, need B B¯ ∼ 6×10−10 for T ∼> GeV nγ • Neutrality: ne− ∼ nB; ne+ ∼ 0 (up to secondary production) • Large neutrino-antineutrino asymmetry possible (important for BBN), but unlikely Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) (Barger, Kneller, Marfatia, PL, Steigman) Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) Origin: Where did the asymmetry come from? Prexisting asymmetry? Only if no inflation Domains of matter and antimatter? • Absence of annihilation radiation implies separation > 10 Mpc (probably much stronger by CMB) • Separation of symmetric plasma? No known mechanism. −6 Causality constraints imply regions contain less than 10 M • Domains by spontaneous CP breaking possible, but hard to avoid domain wall difficulties Baryogenesis: dynamical generation of asymmetry from initially symmetric conditions Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) The Sakharov conditions Basic ideas worked out by Sakharov in 1967, but no concrete model 1. Baryon number violation 2. CP violation: to distinguish baryons from antibaryons 3. Nonequilibrium of B-violating processes Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) 1. Baryon number violation • Processes involving black holes • Standard model: tunneling between vacua with different B (Rate 2 at T = 0 is ∼ e−4πsin θW /α ∼ 10−170!) • Grand unification (GUT): new interactions lead to proton decay Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) 2. CP violation: to distinguish baryons from antibaryons • Complex phases introduced by mass terms or interactions with spin-0 • Need interference of two amplitudes • Active programs in neutrino physics and heavy (b) quark decays to further explore CP violation Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) 3. Nonequilibrium of B-violating processes (or CPT violation due to expanding universe) • Out of equilibrium decays of heavy particles (n e−m/T ) • Phase transitions • Classical field dynamics (e.g., inflaton) Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) Grand Unification Pati-Salam, 73; Georgi-Glashow, 74 > Strong, weak, electromagnetic unified at Q ∼ MX MZ • Simple group G → SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1) MX • Gravity not included (perhaps not ambitious enough) • Couplings meet at MX ∼ 1014 GeV (w/o SUSY) (works much better with SUSY 16 →MX ∼ 10 GeV) Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) 4 qX = 3 1 qY = 3 • q, q,¯ l, ¯l unified (in same multiplets)⇒ – Charge quantization (no U(1) factors) – Proton decay mediated by new gauge bosons, e.g. p→e+π0 (other modes in SUSY GUTS) 4 MX 30 14 – τp ∼ 2 5 ∼ 10 yr for MX ∼ 10 GeV α mp (1038 yr in SUSY, but faster p→νK¯ +) Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) Possible mechanisms for generating the asymmetry GUT baryogenesis (Yoshimura, 1979) • Out of equilibrium decay of heavy (M ∼> 1013 GeV) colored spin-0 particle H (grand unification partner of Higgs boson): H→q¯q¯ or ql; H¯ →qq orq ¯¯l • Equal total rates (CPT conservation) but unequal partial rates (CP violation) • Large enough asymmetry generated (for nonminimal model) • B − L conserved ⇒B = L Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) • Hard to combine with inflation unless very high reheating T • Electroweak baryon number unsuppressed at T ∼> 100 GeV (electroweak scale); wipes out asymmetry with B = L Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) Leptogenesis: (Fukugita, Yanagida) CDHSW • Seesaw model of neutrino CHORUS NOMAD mass: mixing between light 100 KARMEN2 NOMAD LSND CHORUS and heavy neutrino Bugey BNL E776 SuperK 2 CHOO mD 10–3 Z PaloVerde mlight ∼ mD m heavy ] LMA 2 KamLAND SMA [eV where mD is similar to 2 –6 m 10 quark or charged lepton ∆ 12 LOW mass, and mheavy ∼ 10 νe↔νX νµ↔ντ GeV ν ↔ν 10–9 e τ νe↔νµ VAC • Successful for neutrino mass scales, but mixings –12 10 –4 –2 0 2 problematic 10 10 10 10 tan2θ Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) Leptonic CP violating Phases • Weak charge-raising current 3 µ† X 0 µ 5 0 0 µ 5 0 JW = ν¯mγ (1 − γ )em +u ¯mγ (1 − γ )dm m=1 e− µ 5 − = (¯ν1ν¯2ν¯3)γ (1 − γ )VMNS µ τ − d µ 5 + (¯u c¯ t¯)γ (1 − γ )VCKM s b u† d – VCKM = AL AL is 3×3 unitary Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix from mismatch between weak and Yukawa interactions Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) ν† e – VMNS = AL AL is leptonic analogue f – AL relates weak and mass eigenstate left-handed fields • VCKM has 3 angles and 1 CP-violating phase • For Dirac neutrinos, VMNS also has one CP-violating phase, measurable in oscillations, e.g., νµ→νe vs ν¯µ→ν¯e • For Majorana neutrinos, VMNS has additional factor diag (eiφ1, eiφ2, 1) (Majorana phases, due to fewer physical fields with unobservable phases) – Observable in principle in neutrinoless double beta decay, which P3 2 depends on i=1 Veimνi – Probably impossible in practice due to nuclear matrix element uncertainties (Barger, Glashow, PL, Marfatia) • Leptogenesis has 3 additional phases from Yukawa couplings to heavy right-handed neutrinos Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) • Out of equilibrium decays of Nheavy→l + Higgs 6= Nheavy→¯l + Higgs created a lepton asymmetry • Electroweak tunneling (actually thermal fluctucation) then converts some of the lepton asymmetry into a baryon asymmetry! • Difficulties in supersymmetric version: gravitino problem suggests reheating temperature too low (unless Nheavy produced nonthermally) Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) Electroweak baryogenesis Utilize the electroweak (B-violating) tunneling to generate the asymmetry at time of electroweak phase transition (Kuzmin, Rubakov, Shaposhnikov) Off the wall scenario (Cohen, Kaplan, Nelson) V eff T = T 2 > TC • Strong first order phase transition from electroweak symmetry unbroken (massless W , Z, fermions) to broken phase T = TC (massive W , Z, fermions) T = T < T proceeds by nucleation and 1 C 0 φ φ expansion of bubbles crit (Figures: W. Bernreuther, hep-ph/0205279) Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) • CP violation by asymmetric reflection/transmission of quarks and leptons from the wall (e.g. quarks transmitted, antiquarks reflected) • Electroweak B violation in unbroken phase outside wall > • Scenario requires strong first order transition, v(Tc)/Tc ∼ 1−1.3 and adequate CP violation in expanding bubble wall v Wall unbroken phase broken phase q φ = 0 q q q becomes our world CP Γ Sph ~_ 0 CP B + L _ _ q q _ _ q q Γ Sph >> H B + L Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) Implementation of “off the wall” Standard model: no strong first order for Mh > 114.4 GeV; CP violation too small Minimal supersymmetric extension (MSSM): small parameter space for light Higgs and stop NMSSM (extension to include extra Higgs fields): can have strong first order but cosmological domain walls Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) A new very weak interaction? Extended gauge symmetry: (extra Z boson with mass ∼ TeV) (M. Cvetiˇc, PL, et al; J. Erler, PL, T. Li) • Expected in many string theories, grand unification, dynamical symmetry breaking • Solves supersymmetric mass (µ) problem Germantown (December 3, 2003) Paul Langacker (Penn) MZ [GeV] 2500 • Typically MZ0 > 500 − 800 Zχ GeV (Tevatron, LEP 2, WNC), 2000 −3 |θZ−Z0| < few
Recommended publications
  • Baryogenesis and Leptogenesis by U

    Baryogenesis and Leptogenesis by U

    Baryogenesis and Leptogenesis by U. A. Yajnik, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay Dark Candles ICTS-TIFR Bengaluru, 9 June 2017 Overview Three paradigms of baryogenesis : GUT decay ... essentially thermal, high scale ¡ TeV scale ... essentially non-thermal, low scale ¡ Leptogenesis ... combination of possibilities ¡ Sphaleron physics MSSM status ¡ Leptogenesis the thermal case Compatibility with ination and supersymmetry ¡ CP violation from to light neutrino data ¡ Leptogenesis Resonance enhancement; soft-term leptogenesis Aeck-Dine mechanism SUSY at directions and B-genesis Leptogenesis the non-thermal case; D-parity breaking Comprehensive models DM, BAU, ination ... Genesis of baryogenesis The cosmology nuclear physics connection Alpher, Bethe and Gamow paper estiamtes He to H ratio 1948 ¡ Alpher and Hermann estimate 5K as the temperature of residual photons ¡ 1949 Gamow; Alpher; Herman One concerns the MeV scale, the other concerns the eV scale! Discovery of CP violation at Brookhaven National Lab 1963 Nobel 1980 (schematic courtsy hyperphysics website Georgia State U.) Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation discovered 1965 Nobel 1978 Postdicting Baryon asymmetry Matter- antimatter asymmetry apparent ... but above discoveries opened up the possibility of explaining quantitatively the number n B 10 9 s = ¡ Weinberg's comment in Brandeis lectures Dynamic and Algebraic Symmetries 1964; Specic model Sakharov 1967 Current status From Nucleosynthesis calculations and observed obundances of D, 3He, 4He and 7Li, nB nB 10 2 ¡ = 5 10¡ ; 0.017 < Bh < 0.024 n H0 h100 km/s/Mpc; h = 0.7 17 Note from random uctuations at the QCD scale, the residual would be 10¡ From WMAP data, h2 0.022 B = The candle is ... 9 Half lit ..
  • Leptogenesis in Minimal Supersymmtry Standard Model

    Leptogenesis in Minimal Supersymmtry Standard Model

    International Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering (IJECE) ISSN(P): 2278-9901; ISSN(E): 2278-991X Vol. 3, Issue 2, Mar 2014, 69-80 © IASET LEPTOGENESIS IN MINIMAL SUPERSYMMTRY STANDARD MODEL NG. K. FRANCIS Department of Physics, Tezpur University, Tezpur, Assam, India ABSTRACT We study leptogenesis in the minimal supersymmetric standard model and compare with the non-supersymmetric Fukugita-Yanagida scenario. We identify that the picture of leptogenesis is qualitatively quite different from the non-supersymmetric case, but it turns out that, quantitatively, they are very similar. The lepton number asymmetries in fermions and scalars do not equilibrate, and are related vis a non-vanishing gaugino chemical potential. The recent great discovery of this century, the detection of Higgs bosons mass of 126 Ge V and reactor neutrino mixing angle non-zero make all the more plausible for leptogenesis. Over-production of gravitinos in SUSY or MSSM is a big hindrance in leptogenesis. Besides inflation models, there are three well-known approaches, “soft leptogenesis”, “resonant leptogenesis” and “non-thermal leptogenesis” to overcome gravitinos problem. We investigate the last one.We also discuss the different results present in the literature and compare with our results. Inflaton mass needed to produce the observe baryon asymmetry GeV is found to be GeV corresponding to the reheating temperature GeV. KEYWORDS: Leptogenesis, MSSM, Inflaton Mass PACS No: 12.60.Jv, 12.90. +b, 14.60.Pq, 14.60.St 1. INTRODUCTION The discovery of tiny but very small non-zero neutrino mass [1] has promoted leptogenesis to an utmost attractive scenario to explain the origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the Universe.
  • Report from the Dark Energy Task Force (DETF)

    Report from the Dark Energy Task Force (DETF)

    Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Fermilab Particle Astrophysics Center P.O.Box 500 - MS209 Batavia, Il l i noi s • 60510 June 6, 2006 Dr. Garth Illingworth Chair, Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee Dr. Mel Shochet Chair, High Energy Physics Advisory Panel Dear Garth, Dear Mel, I am pleased to transmit to you the report of the Dark Energy Task Force. The report is a comprehensive study of the dark energy issue, perhaps the most compelling of all outstanding problems in physical science. In the Report, we outline the crucial need for a vigorous program to explore dark energy as fully as possible since it challenges our understanding of fundamental physical laws and the nature of the cosmos. We recommend that program elements include 1. Prompt critical evaluation of the benefits, costs, and risks of proposed long-term projects. 2. Commitment to a program combining observational techniques from one or more of these projects that will lead to a dramatic improvement in our understanding of dark energy. (A quantitative measure for that improvement is presented in the report.) 3. Immediately expanded support for long-term projects judged to be the most promising components of the long-term program. 4. Expanded support for ancillary measurements required for the long-term program and for projects that will improve our understanding and reduction of the dominant systematic measurement errors. 5. An immediate start for nearer term projects designed to advance our knowledge of dark energy and to develop the observational and analytical techniques that will be needed for the long-term program. Sincerely yours, on behalf of the Dark Energy Task Force, Edward Kolb Director, Particle Astrophysics Center Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics The University of Chicago REPORT OF THE DARK ENERGY TASK FORCE Dark energy appears to be the dominant component of the physical Universe, yet there is no persuasive theoretical explanation for its existence or magnitude.
  • Arxiv:1707.01004V1 [Astro-Ph.CO] 4 Jul 2017

    Arxiv:1707.01004V1 [Astro-Ph.CO] 4 Jul 2017

    July 5, 2017 0:15 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE coc2ijmpe International Journal of Modern Physics E c World Scientific Publishing Company Primordial Nucleosynthesis Alain Coc Centre de Sciences Nucl´eaires et de Sciences de la Mati`ere (CSNSM), CNRS/IN2P3, Univ. Paris-Sud, Universit´eParis–Saclay, Bˆatiment 104, F–91405 Orsay Campus, France [email protected] Elisabeth Vangioni Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris, UMR-7095 du CNRS, Universit´ePierre et Marie Curie, 98 bis bd Arago, 75014 Paris (France), Sorbonne Universit´es, Institut Lagrange de Paris, 98 bis bd Arago, 75014 Paris (France) [email protected] Received July 5, 2017 Revised Day Month Year Primordial nucleosynthesis, or big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), is one of the three evi- dences for the big bang model, together with the expansion of the universe and the Cos- mic Microwave Background. There is a good global agreement over a range of nine orders of magnitude between abundances of 4He, D, 3He and 7Li deduced from observations, and calculated in primordial nucleosynthesis. However, there remains a yet–unexplained discrepancy of a factor ≈3, between the calculated and observed lithium primordial abundances, that has not been reduced, neither by recent nuclear physics experiments, nor by new observations. The precision in deuterium observations in cosmological clouds has recently improved dramatically, so that nuclear cross sections involved in deuterium BBN need to be known with similar precision. We will shortly discuss nuclear aspects re- lated to BBN of Li and D, BBN with non-standard neutron sources, and finally, improved sensitivity studies using Monte Carlo that can be used in other sites of nucleosynthesis.
  • Lecture 17 : the Cosmic Microwave Background

    Lecture 17 : the Cosmic Microwave Background

    Let’s think about the early Universe… Lecture 17 : The Cosmic ! From Hubble’s observations, we know the Universe is Microwave Background expanding ! This can be understood theoretically in terms of solutions of GR equations !Discovery of the Cosmic Microwave ! Earlier in time, all the matter must have been Background (ch 14) squeezed more tightly together ! If crushed together at high enough density, the galaxies, stars, etc could not exist as we see them now -- everything must have been different! !The Hot Big Bang This week: read Chapter 12/14 in textbook 4/15/14 1 4/15/14 3 Let’s think about the early Universe… Let’s think about the early Universe… ! From Hubble’s observations, we know the Universe is ! From Hubble’s observations, we know the Universe is expanding expanding ! This can be understood theoretically in terms of solutions of ! This can be understood theoretically in terms of solutions of GR equations GR equations ! Earlier in time, all the matter must have been squeezed more tightly together ! If crushed together at high enough density, the galaxies, stars, etc could not exist as we see them now -- everything must have been different! ! What was the Universe like long, long ago? ! What were the original contents? ! What were the early conditions like? ! What physical processes occurred under those conditions? ! How did changes over time result in the contents and structure we see today? 4/15/14 2 4/15/14 4 The Poetic Version ! In a brilliant flash about fourteen billion years ago, time and matter were born in a single instant of creation.
  • Neutrino CPV Phase and Leptogenesis

    Neutrino CPV Phase and Leptogenesis

    Neutrino CPV phase and Leptogenesis Andrew, Brandon, Erika, Larry, Varuna, Wing The Question How can the CP-violating phase in the neutrino mixing matrix, delta, possibly be related to leptogenesis? Can you make a model where this is transparent and has testable predictions? 2 What is it? ● Experiments have observed an asymmetry in the number of baryons versus anti-baryons in the universe ● Leptogenesis – The process of generating baryogenesis through lepton asymmetry ● This lepton asymmetry is converted into a baryon asymmetry by the sphaleron process ● Leptogenesis is a mechanism that attempts to explain the observed asymmetry – Many different models of Leptogenesis exist – We only consider Leptogenesis with Type I Seesaw 3 Sakharov Conditions Three conditions for dynamically generated baryon asymmetry: I. Baryon (and lepton) Number Violation II. C and CP Symmetry Violation III. Interactions out of Thermal Equilibrium 4 Seesaw Mechanism ● Introduce three right-handed heavy neutrinos, NRi with the following Lagrangian: ● The Majorana mass matrix M is diagonal, the Yukawa matrix may be complex, and the Higgs will give a Majorana mass term to the neutrinos after symmetry breaking ● This gives a mass to the light neutrinos: ● For 0.1 eV light neutrinos and taking λ at the GeV scale, that gives a heavy mass scale of 1010 GeV 5 Seesaw Mechanism ● Self energy diagram N showing flavor change at high energy νf νf’ ● The interaction can be described by: H ● Self energy diagram at low energy νf νf’ with the heavy fields integrated out ● Creates an effective point interaction that can be described by: 6 Seesaw Mechanism ● Relating the high and low energy interactions, we can write the following: ● Where R is orthogonal but may be complex (Casas-Ibarra parametrization); it reshuffles and re-phases the flavors.
  • The Reionization of Cosmic Hydrogen by the First Galaxies Abstract 1

    The Reionization of Cosmic Hydrogen by the First Galaxies Abstract 1

    David Goodstein’s Cosmology Book The Reionization of Cosmic Hydrogen by the First Galaxies Abraham Loeb Department of Astronomy, Harvard University, 60 Garden St., Cambridge MA, 02138 Abstract Cosmology is by now a mature experimental science. We are privileged to live at a time when the story of genesis (how the Universe started and developed) can be critically explored by direct observations. Looking deep into the Universe through powerful telescopes, we can see images of the Universe when it was younger because of the finite time it takes light to travel to us from distant sources. Existing data sets include an image of the Universe when it was 0.4 million years old (in the form of the cosmic microwave background), as well as images of individual galaxies when the Universe was older than a billion years. But there is a serious challenge: in between these two epochs was a period when the Universe was dark, stars had not yet formed, and the cosmic microwave background no longer traced the distribution of matter. And this is precisely the most interesting period, when the primordial soup evolved into the rich zoo of objects we now see. The observers are moving ahead along several fronts. The first involves the construction of large infrared telescopes on the ground and in space, that will provide us with new photos of the first galaxies. Current plans include ground-based telescopes which are 24-42 meter in diameter, and NASA’s successor to the Hubble Space Telescope, called the James Webb Space Telescope. In addition, several observational groups around the globe are constructing radio arrays that will be capable of mapping the three-dimensional distribution of cosmic hydrogen in the infant Universe.
  • Baryogenesis and Dark Matter from B Mesons: B-Mesogenesis

    Baryogenesis and Dark Matter from B Mesons: B-Mesogenesis

    Baryogenesis and Dark Matter from B Mesons: B-Mesogenesis Miguel Escudero Abenza [email protected] arXiv:1810.00880, PRD 99, 035031 (2019) with: Gilly Elor & Ann Nelson Based on: arXiv:2101.XXXXX with: Gonzalo Alonso-Álvarez & Gilly Elor New Trends in Dark Matter 09-12-2020 The Universe Baryonic Matter 5% 26% Dark Matter 69% Dark Energy Planck 2018 1807.06209 Miguel Escudero (TUM) B-Mesogenesis New Trends in DM 09-12-20 !2 Theoretical Understanding? Motivating Question: What fraction of the Energy Density of the Universe comes from Physics Beyond the Standard Model? 99.85%! Miguel Escudero (TUM) B-Mesogenesis New Trends in DM 09-12-20 !3 SM Prediction: Neutrinos 40% 60% Photons Miguel Escudero (TUM) B-Mesogenesis New Trends in DM 09-12-20 !4 The Universe Baryonic Matter 5% 26% Dark Matter 69% Dark Energy Planck 2018 1807.06209 Miguel Escudero (TUM) B-Mesogenesis New Trends in DM 09-12-20 !5 Baryogenesis and Dark Matter from B Mesons: B-Mesogenesis arXiv:1810.00880 Elor, Escudero & Nelson 1) Baryogenesis and Dark Matter are linked 2) Baryon asymmetry directly related to B-Meson observables 3) Leads to unique collider signatures 4) Fully testable at current collider experiments Miguel Escudero (TUM) B-Mesogenesis New Trends in DM 09-12-20 !6 Outline 1) B-Mesogenesis 1) C/CP violation 2) Out of equilibrium 3) Baryon number violation? 2) A Minimal Model & Cosmology 3) Implications for Collider Experiments 4) Dark Matter Phenomenology 5) Summary and Outlook Miguel Escudero (TUM) B-Mesogenesis New Trends in DM 09-12-20 !7 Baryogenesis
  • DARK AGES of the Universe the DARK AGES of the Universe Astronomers Are Trying to fill in the Blank Pages in Our Photo Album of the Infant Universe by Abraham Loeb

    DARK AGES of the Universe the DARK AGES of the Universe Astronomers Are Trying to fill in the Blank Pages in Our Photo Album of the Infant Universe by Abraham Loeb

    THE DARK AGES of the Universe THE DARK AGES of the Universe Astronomers are trying to fill in the blank pages in our photo album of the infant universe By Abraham Loeb W hen I look up into the sky at night, I often wonder whether we humans are too preoccupied with ourselves. There is much more to the universe than meets the eye on earth. As an astrophysicist I have the privilege of being paid to think about it, and it puts things in perspective for me. There are things that I would otherwise be bothered by—my own death, for example. Everyone will die sometime, but when I see the universe as a whole, it gives me a sense of longevity. I do not care so much about myself as I would otherwise, because of the big picture. Cosmologists are addressing some of the fundamental questions that people attempted to resolve over the centuries through philosophical thinking, but we are doing so based on systematic observation and a quantitative methodology. Perhaps the greatest triumph of the past century has been a model of the uni- verse that is supported by a large body of data. The value of such a model to our society is sometimes underappreciated. When I open the daily newspaper as part of my morning routine, I often see lengthy de- scriptions of conflicts between people about borders, possessions or liberties. Today’s news is often forgotten a few days later. But when one opens ancient texts that have appealed to a broad audience over a longer period of time, such as the Bible, what does one often find in the opening chap- ter? A discussion of how the constituents of the universe—light, stars, life—were created.
  • The Matter – Antimatter Asymmetry of the Universe and Baryogenesis

    The Matter – Antimatter Asymmetry of the Universe and Baryogenesis

    The matter – antimatter asymmetry of the universe and baryogenesis Andrew Long Lecture for KICP Cosmology Class Feb 16, 2017 Baryogenesis Reviews in General • Kolb & Wolfram’s Baryon Number Genera.on in the Early Universe (1979) • Rio5o's Theories of Baryogenesis [hep-ph/9807454]} (emphasis on GUT-BG and EW-BG) • Rio5o & Trodden's Recent Progress in Baryogenesis [hep-ph/9901362] (touches on EWBG, GUTBG, and ADBG) • Dine & Kusenko The Origin of the Ma?er-An.ma?er Asymmetry [hep-ph/ 0303065] (emphasis on Affleck-Dine BG) • Cline's Baryogenesis [hep-ph/0609145] (emphasis on EW-BG; cartoons!) Leptogenesis Reviews • Buchmuller, Di Bari, & Plumacher’s Leptogenesis for PeDestrians, [hep-ph/ 0401240] • Buchmulcer, Peccei, & Yanagida's Leptogenesis as the Origin of Ma?er, [hep-ph/ 0502169] Electroweak Baryogenesis Reviews • Cohen, Kaplan, & Nelson's Progress in Electroweak Baryogenesis, [hep-ph/ 9302210] • Trodden's Electroweak Baryogenesis, [hep-ph/9803479] • Petropoulos's Baryogenesis at the Electroweak Phase Transi.on, [hep-ph/ 0304275] • Morrissey & Ramsey-Musolf Electroweak Baryogenesis, [hep-ph/1206.2942] • Konstandin's Quantum Transport anD Electroweak Baryogenesis, [hep-ph/ 1302.6713] Constituents of the Universe formaon of large scale structure (galaxy clusters) stars, planets, dust, people late ame accelerated expansion Image stolen from the Planck website What does “ordinary matter” refer to? Let’s break it down to elementary particles & compare number densities … electron equal, universe is neutral proton x10 billion 3⇣(3) 3 3 n =3 T 168 cm− neutron x7 ⌫ ⇥ 4⇡2 ⌫ ' matter neutrinos photon positron =0 2⇣(3) 3 3 n = T 413 cm− γ ⇡2 CMB ' anti-proton =0 3⇣(3) 3 3 anti-neutron =0 n =3 T 168 cm− ⌫¯ ⇥ 4⇡2 ⌫ ' anti-neutrinos antimatter What is antimatter? First predicted by Dirac (1928).
  • Dermining the Photon Budget of Galaxies During Reionization with Numerical Simulations, and Studying the Impact of Dust Joseph Lewis

    Dermining the Photon Budget of Galaxies During Reionization with Numerical Simulations, and Studying the Impact of Dust Joseph Lewis

    Who reionized the Universe ? : dermining the photon budget of galaxies during reionization with numerical simulations, and studying the impact of dust Joseph Lewis To cite this version: Joseph Lewis. Who reionized the Universe ? : dermining the photon budget of galaxies during reioniza- tion with numerical simulations, and studying the impact of dust. Astrophysics [astro-ph]. Université de Strasbourg, 2020. English. NNT : 2020STRAE041. tel-03199136 HAL Id: tel-03199136 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-03199136 Submitted on 15 Apr 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. UNIVERSITÉ DE STRASBOURG ÉCOLE DOCTORALE 182 UMR 7550, Observatoire astronomique de Strasbourg THÈSE présentée par : Joseph Lewis soutenue le : 25 septembre 2020 pour obtenir le grade de : Docteur de l’université de Strasbourg Discipline/ Spécialité : Astrophysique Qui a réionisé l’Univers ? Détermination par la simulation numérique du budget de photons des galaxies pendant l’époque de la Réionisation, et étude de l’impact des poussières THÈSE dirigée par : M. AUBERT Dominique Professeur des universités, Université de Strasbourg RAPPORTEURS : M. GONZALES Mathias Maître de conférences, Université de Paris M. LANGER Mathieu Professeur des universités, Université Paris-Saclay AUTRES MEMBRES DU JURY : M.
  • Determining the Redshift of Reionization from the Spectra Of

    Determining the Redshift of Reionization from the Spectra Of

    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by CERN Document Server Determining the Redshift of Reionization From the Sp ectra of High{Redshift Sources 1;2 1 Zoltan Haiman and Abraham Lo eb ABSTRACT The redshift at which the universe was reionized is currently unknown. We examine the optimal strategy for extracting this redshift, z , from the sp ectra of reion early sources. For a source lo cated at a redshift z beyond but close to reionization, s 32 (1 + z ) < (1 + z ) < (1 + z ), the Gunn{Peterson trough splits into disjoint reion s reion 27 Lyman , , and p ossibly higher Lyman series troughs, with some transmitted ux in b etween these troughs. We show that although the transmitted ux is suppressed considerably by the dense Ly forest after reionization, it is still detectable for suciently bright sources and can b e used to infer the reionization redshift. The Next Generation Space Telescop e will reach the sp ectroscopic sensitivity required for the detection of such sources. Subject headings: cosmology: theory { quasars: absorption lines { galaxies: formation {intergalactic medium { radiative transfer Submitted to The Astrophysical Journal, July 1998 1. Intro duction The standard Big Bang mo del predicts that the primeval plasma recombined and b ecame predominantly neutral as the universe co oled b elow a temp erature of several thousand degrees at 3 a redshift z 10 (Peebles 1968). Indeed, the recent detection of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropies rules out a fully ionized intergalactic medium (IGM) beyond z 300 (Scott, Silk & White 1995). However, the lack of a Gunn{Peterson trough (GP, Gunn & Peterson 1965) in the sp ectra of high{redshift quasars (Schneider, Schmidt & Gunn 1991) and galaxies (Franx et < al.