Arxiv:1711.04534V4

Home , Erick Weinberg

arXiv:1711.04534v4 [hep-ph] 9 Apr 2019 h osbesmer raigptsadteefcsthereo effects studying the by and determined paths be breaking may symmetry Universe this possible In the the so times. of more fate once, or the least one case broken at be previous broken structure the current was the Universe are as may Universe the then of the symmetries, structure of to group temperature respect and with age special current not the If ture. past. would the Nature of in pattern breaking realized symmetry if the and extend dark gravity, notably quantum SM, and the new beyond matter by physics T by SM [1]. motivated symmetry temperatures highly the higher are and larger to times down earlier into at broken fields scalar typically physics are particle which groups of sectors troweak the of field. mechanism Higgs (SSB) breaking wel and symmetry as masses, spontaneous particles neutrino the known of currently exception the all particle with contains interactions, of (SM) SM Model The Higgs Standard the the physics. by by broken described is was and that field symmetry a electromag- interactions, and weak netic the combined Universe early The years. ag ru structure group gauge nvrehscagda es neoe h past the over once least at changed of has structure Universe symmetry fundamental The interactions. their hs oa ymtishl oa.A ale ie,ie at i.e. times, earlier At today. th hold evidence symmetries compelling local proper- gives particle these interactions predicting and in decays QCD and ties, QED both of success ∗ [email protected] h atcepyisfaeoko the of framework physics particle The tmyb fitrs osuysmer raigi h fu- the in breaking symmetry study to interest of be may It elec- and strong the unify (GUTs) theories unified Grand ymtiso aueaedel once oprilsand particles to connected deeply are Nature of Symmetries ilcagdSaa ils asv htn n h Breaki the and Photons Massive Fields, Scalar Millicharged oo n lcrwa r discussed. are - electroweak and color pnaeu ymtybekn of breaking symmetry Spontaneous oghsoyo rcse npril hsc,tecosmolo the physics, particle in processes of history long a ihcharge with ftesrn neato sstudied. is interaction strong the of field scalar fteclrdvcu tfiietmeauei hsseai i scenario this in temperature of finite fate at vacuum colored the of applicable, than m urn pe ii,i on orqieasotnossymme spontaneous a require to found is limit, upper current QCD clrfilswt ilcagsaeval n iiso thei on limits and viable are millicharges with fields Scalar φ ne h supinta h urn pc fteUies i Universe the of epoch current the that assumption the Under EM T + .INTRODUCTION I. SU LCNtoa ceeao aoaoy tnodUniversit Stanford Laboratory, Accelerator National SLAC . 2 = eateto hsc n srnm,Uiest fCalifor of University Astronomy, and Physics of Department ooe clr seuvln oasotnosybroken spontaneously a to equivalent is scalars colored SU 10 (3) SU φ . q 7 − EM K C (3) 10 = 5 (3) eV slf pn omlgclipiain o h metastabil the for implications Cosmological open. left is ie h ozr iiso h aso h htn htnma photon A photon. the of mass the on limits nonzero the given hc rastesmer sfudt erldotfrtechar the for out ruled be to found is symmetry the breaks which C C utemr,i spsil that possible is it Furthermore, . − × a utpesmer raigptswt aiu nlsymm final various with paths breaking symmetry multiple has 6 e U elwti h loe aaee pc ftemdl Final model. the of space parameter allowed the within well , (1) EM 2 . 7 h remarkable The . K U SU nvrei the is Universe (1) enfrRtehueWest Rittenhouse Jennifer (3) 13 EM . C 8 Dtd ue1,2021) 16, June (Dated: ttetmeaueo h nvretdyi are u.Tec The out. carried is today Universe the of temperature the at stse o opeetrt nwihtecnnmn phase confinement the which in complementarity for tested is × 10 hey as l the at f. 9 U (1) ihyseiccniin,afc h aeo h Universe. the of fate the affect If conditions, specific highly CB htn anms.Tepoo as ssonin shown as mass, photon The Section mass. background gain microwave photons cosmic (CMB) the field, scalar charged cally iae hte h urn ru tutr stuytefina the truly is Universe. the structure of group state symmetry current the whether tigates ftetesaa oeta utb uhta h proposed the that such be must potential shape scalar The SU with the fields needed. scalar the are new ques- of charge occur, the to electromagnetic for SSB allows and/or For sense, color SSB. a future in stunning of existence tion a of d in proof That 2012 a 3]. [2, covery, in physics confirmed collider experimental was of via achievement field SM Higgs the scalar of breaking the symmetry spontaneous of hypothesis er raighdntytocre n h agrgroup larger the and occurred SM, yet the of not structure had breaking metry vv ftesaa field, scalar the of (vev) hreand charge eprtrsgetrthan greater temperatures asdb omlgclconstant, cosmological a by caused where hs,ntigcnoetk h fetof effect the overtake can th nothing During phase, phase. en- dominated recently constant has cosmological the domination, tered matter by radiat followed of phases domination through energy passed total previously the ho- having Universe density, FLRW the flat Friedmann- In and isotropic a mogenous, of Universe. assumption fat usual (FLRW) the the on Lemaître-Robertson-Walker effect under no Universe have will the vev) of the of value the of gardless nteepninrt n h xaso ilb tra and eternal be will expansion the [4]. and accelerated rate expansion the on assadcagsaefudt be to found are charges and masses r EM oprubtv n entv ttmn nthe on statement definitive a and nonperturbative s h omlgclft of fate cosmological The fteaclrto fteepnino h nvreis Universe the of expansion the of acceleration the If ia aeof fate gical U (3) r raigsaa asof mass scalar breaking try a led enboe ttmeaue higher temperatures at broken been already has (1) SU C q EM III o pca,ie snttefia tt of state final the not is i.e. special, not s ,Safr,Clfri 40,USA 94309, California Stanford, y, (3) stecag ftesaa edi nt felectron of units in field scalar the of charge the is × i,Ivn,C 29,UAand USA 92697, CA Irvine, nia, ∗ sdpnetuo h aumepcainvalue expectation vacuum the upon dependent is , v U ag hoy fcmlmnaiyi not is complementarity If theory. gauge ssotnosyboe ya electromagneti- an by broken spontaneously is stevev. the is (1) SU t ftevca-electromagnetic, - vacua the of ity EM (3) SU gof ng C aumi eatbe hswr inves- work This metastable. is vacuum tysrcue.Testability The structures. etry × eo h electron, the of ge sof ss m (3) y h omlgclfate cosmological the ly, U γ T (1) C SU = m SU ∼ m × EM γ √ φ (3) SU 10 = (3) 0 GeV 100 EM 2 q sinvestigated. is qv, . C (2) C ∼ Λ − 10 × hsgi nms (re- mass in gain this , × 18 L 10 − UCI-HEP-TR-2017-15 U eV q × U − harged 3 lcrwa sym- electroweak , Λ (1) e 13 = U the , (1) seeg density energy ’s and eV (1) of EM e . EM Y a,under may, ed The held. , ion (1) is- is e l 2

However, if the acceleration is not caused by a cosmolog- physics beyond the SM, including a theory of quantum grav- ical constant and instead dark energy evolves in the future in ity [15, 16]. The necessary precision on the top quark mass such a way that its energydensity parametervaries as the scale for a 3σ metastability confirmation is ∆mt < 250 MeV [17]. factor ay(t) with y < 3, the CMB photons’ gain in mass With the current uncertainty of the top quark mass from di- − could be important. Radiation is the only currently known rect measurements, mt = 173.21 0.51 0.71 GeV [18], type of energy density that evolves in the necessary way, as this question will likely not be answered± with± additional Large 4 a− (t). If the dark energy were to be modeled by a scalar Hadron Collider (LHC) Run II results. Uncertainties of less field (or fields) which decays in the future to radiation then than 200 MeV may be accessible when the high luminosity the breaking of U(1)EM could affect the fate of the Universe (HL-LHC) upgradeis complete and the full dataset taken [19]. given a large enough value of mγ . The expansion rate could The stability of a QCD-QED vacuum is a separate question. slow down or even reverse. The vacuum metastability investigated in this case is due to The 2018 cosmological parameters from the Planck satel- a colored scalar field or fields with a nonzero vev and/or an lite strongly favor a small positive cosmological constant to- electromagnetically charged scalar field with a nonzero vev. day [5]. There is currently no reason to believe the evolution The presence of a new scalar chargedunder SU(2)W U(1)Y outlined above would occur, however, the cause of the acceler- - as any field with q = 0 must be - affects the shape× of the ation of the expansion is unknown and some kind of evolution Higgs potential at high6 energies and therefore may have an in time is plausible. effect on electroweak vacuum stability. For the SSB potential considered in this work, the allowed If it were possible to rule out the existence of a new elec- masses for an electromagnetically charged scalar field are tromagnetically charged scalar field, the electroweak vacuum quite small and must be millicharged in order to be viable. stability question would remain dependent upon future preci- More complicated scalar potentials, e.g. composed of scalar sion measurements of the top quark mass as well as any new fields carrying both electromagnetic and color charge, or the physics effects. The sub-eV mass millicharged scalar fields use of a non-SSB mechanism (e.g. radiative symmetry break- used in the model presented here would have very little effect ing [6]) could affect this conclusion. Previous studies of a on the shape of the Higgs potential but with higher mass mil- charged Higgs boson related to the SM Higgs at finite temper- licharged scalar fields (discussed in Section IIIE) this could atures did not support a SSB, a fact relayed to the author after change. submitting an earlier version of this work [7]. It would be interesting to allow for higher mass millicharged fields as these are excellent dark matter candidates, III. U(1)EM SPONTANEOUS SYMMETRY BREAKING e.g. [8]. New experiments such as the Light Dark Matter Ex- periment (LDMX) [9], MilliQuan [10], NA64 [11] and SHiP In order to break the U(1)EM gauge symmetry, an electro- [12] propose to detect 1 MeV to 10 GeV particles with magnetically charged scalar field φEM is introduced (the sub- 1 ∼ 4 ∼ charges from 10− e to 10− e. Sub-MeV millicharged par- script will be dropped for clarity). It is a color singlet with ticle tabletop detectors are currently in development as well. charge q under U(1)EM and gives rise to a new scalar section The millicharged particles discussed in this work are too light of the QED Lagrangian, for these direct detection experiments but they may be of in- 1 µν µ terest for next generation experiments. There is a possibility LQED F Fµν + D φ∗Dµφ V (φ), (3) of pushing to higher masses while retaining millicharges, dis- ⊃−4 − cussed in Section IIIE. with covariant derivative Dν = ∂ν + iqAν and field transfor- mations under U(1)EM

II. STABILITY OF THE VACUA iα 1 φ e φ, Aν Aν ∂ν α. (4) → → − e The implicit assumption is that the electroweak vacuum is stable and the SM Higgs vacuum expectation value of The scalar potential is given by 246 GeV is the true vacuum. This may not be true. More 2 µ 2 λ 2 precise measurements of the Higgs coupling to the top quark V (φ)= φ + (φ∗φ) (5) are needed to determine the stability of the electroweak vac- − 2 | | 4! uum, with consequences of metastability outlined in the 1980s where the ﬁeld φ gains a vev for the choice of mass param- 2 [13]. A state-of-the-art calculation [14] suggests that we are eter µ > 0. Labeling the minimum of the potential ve, in a metastable electroweak vacuum with a lifetime of 2 2 2 6µ +817 ve φ = (6) τ = 10561−270 years, (2) ≡ h i λ the Lagrangian is expanded about the minimum. The complex with the given uncertainties due only to the top quark mass scalar ﬁeld may be written as φ = v + 1 (φ + iφ ) to yield (other SM parameter measurement uncertainties contribute e √2 1 2 but the top quark mass dominates). This result may set- 3 V (φ)= µ4 + µ2φ2 + O(φ3) (7) tle into absolute stability or shorter lifetime metastability by −2λ 1 i 3

One of the scalar fields gains mass mφ = µ and the other to be is the massless pseudo-Goldstone boson which provides the longitudinal polarization of the now massive photon. 2 1 4 mi (φe) 3 The photon gains its mass via the kinetic energy term of L , V (φe)= ni m (φe)(log )+ 1 64π2 { i m2(v ) − 2 i i e (12) 2 2 2 X mA =2q ve . (8) 2 2 2m (ve)m (φe) . i i } Here i = γ, φ and ni the degrees of freedom with nγ = 3 A. Electromagnetic scalar potential in the . K Universe 2 7 for the newly massive photon and nφ =1 for the scalar field. The contributions to the thermal effective potential to 1- In order to study the effects of new scalar fields in the cur- loop order are given by rent epoch, we calculate the scalar potential at the temperature of the cosmic background radiation today. Computing n ∞ 2 2 2 4 i 2 √x +β m (φe) V (φ, T ) for T 10− eV gives an estimate of the effects in V1T = dx x log 1 e− i .(13) ≈ 2π2β4 Z − terms of relationships between the parameters of the model. Xi 0 It is important to note that the finite temperature field the- The high temperature expansion cannot be used in the case ory equations assume both equilibrium conditions and homo- of the T = 2.7K Universe and an analytic solution to the geneity of the medium. To accommodate the non-equilibrium temperature dependent integral does not exist. However, a conditions - the CMB has a thermal distribution but is not in numerical solution is possible under the conditions outlined equilibrium due to the expansion of the Universe - a time slice in the following subsection. at T = 2.7 K is used. Equilibrium is assumed for this mo- ment in time. The assumption of homogeneity in the Uni- verse is length scale dependent. On the largest length scales B. Spontaneous symmetry breaking conditions both homogeneity and isotropy appear to hold. This work is concerned with such cosmological scales. Any future spontaneous symmetry breaking will depend Closely following the treatment of Quirós 1999 [20] and upon the sign of the quadratic coefficient in the effective po- Coleman and Weinberg 1973 [6], the finite temperature po- d2V tential, 2 evaluated at φe = 0. Two constraints must be tential in terms of the constant background field φe is given dφe by satisfied. First, that there has been no SSB until today. This stability condition becomes V (φ ,T )= V (φ )+ V (φ , 0)+ V (φ ,T ) , (9) e 0 e 1 e 1T e d2V 0. (14) where the first term is the zero temperature classical poten- dφ2 ≥ e φe=0, T 2.7K tial as in (5), the second term is the zero temperatureColeman- ≥ Weinberg correction to one-loop order and the final term is the Second, that a SSB may occur in the future, and let us take the finite temperature contribution, also calculated to one-loop. furthest future possible in temperature, i.e. T =0, Both zero temperature and finite temperature loop calculations include contributions from all relevant particles coupled d2V < 0. (15) to the scalar field. The gauge boson of the U(1)EM gauge dφ2 e φe=0,T =0 group, the fermions charged under it, and the scalar field itself all may run in the loop. Fermions will not be relevant for the When this second derivative is negative for temperatures temperatures and densities considered here due to the baryon- T < 2.7K, with the additional requirement that λ > 0, SSB to-photon ratio data as given by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis will occur. Setting these constraints on V (φe,T ) allows for a (BBN) [21] numerical evaluation of the integrals for any value of µ2 and λ, as the derivatives may be taken prior to integration. The equation to be constrained is 10 10 5.8 10− n /nγ 6.6 10− (95%CL), (10) × ≤ b ≤ × d2V 3q4µ2 λµ2 q2T 2 µ2 however photons and φ both contribute to the effective poten- 2 2 (16) 2 = µ + 2 2 + +λT f 2 tial. dφe − 2π λ − 64π 2 T The 1-loop T =0 contributions are given, using MS renor- where the function f is the second derivative of the thermal malization counter terms with a cut-off regularization and the bosonic function in [20], evaluated for the scalar boson at φe = assumption that the minimum and the scalar mass do not 0 with the quadratic temperature dependence and the quartic change with respect to their tree level values, that is coupling factored out. It is given by c.t. d(V1 + V1 ) =0 2 2 µ dφe 2 2 x 2 φe=ve µ 1 ∞ x e−q − T c.t. (11) f = dx . (17) 2 2 2 2 d (V1 + V1 ) T 2π 2 µ 2 Z0 qx 2 2 µ 2 =0, 1 e− − T x 2 d(φe) T φe=ve − q −

2 C. Charge q = 1 Scalar Fields 2 3q e force a positive overall φ coefﬁcient. The condition λ< 2π2 3 12 forces a stable scalar potential. For q = 10− e, λ < 10− For a charge equal to the electron charge, satisfying both satisﬁes this with no constraint on the mass of the scalar. On 3q4 SSB conditions with 0 <λ< 4π requires the allowed masses the other hand, the now 2 conditions λ> 2π2 and of φ to be too light, much less than the mass of the electron. Such particles would have been produced, for example, 3q4 q2T 2 at the Large Electron-Positron Collider (LEP) in great quan- µ2 1 > (19) 2π2λ − 2 tities and they were not detected, thus ruling out a SSB for

U(1)EM with a q = e field. More concretely, the light masses force a metastable scalar potential. For the previously con- found here are neatly excluded by the SLAC Anomalous Sin- 3 5 13 sidered q 10− e and mφEM 10− eV, λ 10− ac- gle Photon (SLAC ASP) search which ruled out q> 0.08e for complishes∼ the task. The problem∼ is managing∼ a transition mMCP . 10 GeV, a result holding for any weakly interacting between these two states, either by varying λ with tempera- millicharged particle [22]. ture/time or by some other means. It does not seem possible The stability constraint is satisfied for any µ2 < 0 and any to do this. 2 charge q as well as for µ > 0 with ranges of allowed q and λ, Astrophysical bounds on millicharged particles from stellar so a heavier electrically charged scalar field with the tree level cooling constraints set limits on m . keV masses requiring 15 potential in (5) is possible in Nature. However such a scalar charges q . 10− e [23]. The very light masses consid- could not be the source of spontaneous symmetry breaking for ered here allow for charges within these upper bounds. For 15 U(1)EM and could not give the photon a mass. q = 10− e, λ = 1, the necessary mass is of the order 5 mφEM 10− eV. The final term in Eqn. 16 is independent of the coupling∼ q, thus the scalar mass does not change much D. Millicharged (Minicharged) Scalar Fields from the previous value.

Millicharged scalar fields can spontaneously break U(1)EM. Millicharge describes any charge less than that of E. U(1)EM Breaking in the T > 2.7K Universe 3 the electron (i.e. not exclusively 10− e), although it may also mean any charge less than that of the down quark, 1 . q < 3 e It may be that the U(1)EM has already been broken by a The more accurate (but less used) term is minicharged millicharged scalar field. The accepted 2018 limits on the particles. 18 mass of the photon, mγ . 10− eV, come from magnetohy- The key to a SSB in the finite temperature Universe in this drodynamic studies of the solar wind [21]. Tighter limits are case is to choose parameters that yield an unstable potential at given by studies of the galactic magnetic field but depend crit- T = 0 which gives a SSB in the future and is easily accom- ically on assumptions that may not hold, e.g. the applicability plished. The first term in Eqn. (16) is negative and dominates of the virial theorem. However, for the sake of completeness, the other terms even with a choice for the charge. There 27 q = e the tightest limits of mγ . 10− eV are also discussed here. are no constraints on the mass in this case, as stated in the 18 The accepted limit of mγ = 10− eV requires a mass for previous section. 13 the millicharged field of mφEM = 3 10− eV for a charge Next, turn on the finite temperature loop contributions and 6 × of q = 10− e and λ = 1, well within the bounds found here. find parameter ranges that create an overall positive coefficient 3 9 For q = 10− e and q = 10− e, the necessary masses are mφ for the 2 terms. The finite temperature pieces are small. The 16 10 φ of 10− eV and 10− eV respectively. first term arises from the photon running in the loop of the 27 The smaller mγ . 10− eV upper bound on the mass of background scalar field. With or 4 eV and 22 T = 2.7K 10− the photon requires mφ =3 10− with the same chargeand 2 ≈ 12 a millicharge even as large as q = 10− e it is of order 10− . quartic coupling value, also× within the limits of the model. The next term is the scalar boson running in the loop and is Recent work [24] suggests that determining whether the 8 bounded by . 10− eV for the ranges of masses and charges Standard Model photon is exactly massless or not is of interest tested here. The constraint equation becomes to light mass dark photon model builders as a strict mγ = 0 rules out some of this model parameter space. 4 2 2 In order to accomplish this, it must be that they gain mass 2 3q µ λµ n µ + . 10− (18) − 2π2λ − 64π2 via the Stückelberg mechanism ([25] and references within) and not a Higgs mechanism. The SSB mechanism here is able n where 10− is defined to be the size of the finite tempera- to give photons a mass without putting any restrictions on light ture terms. The term inside of the absolute value is nega- dark photon models. tive, its magnitude must be less than that of the positive fi- 3 nite temperature terms. For λ = 1 and q = 10− e, this gives 5 IV. SU(3)C SYMMETRY BREAKING - mφEM . 10− eV with a finite temperature term of order 8 COMPLEMENTARITY 10− . Smaller masses and smaller charges are also viable. Upon inspection of Eqn. 16 it appears that small enough values of the quartic coupling λ could open up a larger param- Breaking the symmetry of QCD is not straightforward. The eter space but in fact this is not so. A very small λ, λ 1, can strong coupling αs is nonperturbative at 2.7 K. The effects ≪ 5 of SSB in the 2.7K Universe require finite temperature field transitions from a positive number to a negative number. The 2 theory calculations. Lattice QCD is needed to calculate the mc finite temperature pieces fc 2 are suppressed by the light- nonperturbative corrections to the effective potential of a new T est QCD particles, the 100 MeV pions. This implies that color charged scalar field, φa, at temperatures below Λ . c QCD m2 and Λ2 are very∼ nearly the same, i.e. the mass of the Complementarity between the confined phase of QCD + c QCD colored scalar particle would be on the order of hundreds of φa and the broken symmetry phase of SU(3) may be able to c C MeV. Colored scalars in this mass range could bind strongly eliminate the need for a SSB to investigate the fate of SU(3) . C to single quarks, forming a pion-like system of spin 1 rather A test for the applicability of complementarity has been pro- 2 than spin 0. Such mesons would have been detected long ago. posed by Georgi [26]. According to that work, the structure In particular, for e+e colliders, the R ratio of the hadronic of the heavy stable particles of the confined phase must match − cross section to the muonic cross section that of the broken symmetry phase in order for complementarity to hold. In order to make use of complementarity, however, a (0) + σ (e e− hadrons ) continuously varying parameter must take the confined phase R = → (22) σ(0) (e+e µ+µ ) of QCD + a colored scalar field to the spontaneously broken − → − SU(3)C. The mass parameter of a colored scalar field (or has been extremely well measured [27] and colored scalars of fields) is a natural choice as it mirrors the process of U(1)EM. this mass range are ruled out. The finite temperature effective potential calculations for A precise calculation is needed for a definitive statement. colored scalars require the use of lattice QCD. There is a As mentioned previously, the effects of new colored scalars possibility of 3 colored scalar fields being able to manage are highly nontrivial and are not explored further here. the transition [H. Georgi, personal communication] but the nonperturbative calculations are far beyond the scope of this work. It may be of interest to note that 3 colored scalar fields VI. CONCLUSIONS are 1 more than is necessary for a SSB of SU(3)C down to no gauge structure at all. The cosmological fate of the electromagnetic and strong interactions have been investigated under the assumption that we currently live in an intermediate rather than final stage of the symmetries, charges and interactions of particle physics. V. SU(3)C SYMMETRY BREAKING - SSB It is found that U(1)EM will remain an infinite range interaction forever for the case of a scalar field with the charge of With the applicability of complementarity unclear, the pos- the electron which is a singlet under SU(3)C. sibility of a carrying out a symmetry breaking of SU(3)C re- The more interesting case of a millicharged scalar field, still mains. Both the adjoint and fundamental representations of a singlet under SU(3)C, is viable within a specific range of SU(3)C are a priori viable as the masses of the gluons are un- masses and millicharges. It is capable of spontaneously break- constrained in the future. When restricting to SSB, at least 1 ing the symmetry of U(1)EM and may also be a dark matter colored scalar field in the fundamental representation is added candidate[28]. This scenario gives a mass to the photonwhich to the theory of QCD and multiple final states of gauge sym- is light enough that it would not change the cosmological ex- metries are possible. For SSB of to end with no local SU(3)C pansion rate H(z) for z < 0 and would likely not affect the symmetries, 2 new colored scalar fields are needed. The other fate of the Universe. possible final symmetry states, a gauged SU(2) or U(1), are U(1) may already have been spontaneously broken by a realized with one new colored scalar field. An example of a EM scalar of mass m . 10 13 eV for a photon mass equal to final symmetry state is sketched out next. φEM − SU(2) the current upper bound of m 10 18 eV and a charge For SU(3) to be spontaneously broken to an SU(2), a γ − C of q = 10 6e. If the astrophysical∼ limits from the galac- colored scalar triplet, a is proposed. This new Higgs field − φc tic magnetic field studies on m hold, this upper bound be- has a (3, 0) assignment under SU(3) U(1) and removes γ C EM comes m 10 27 and the mass of the millicharged field one rank from the strong force gauge group,× leaving the struc- γ − m . 10∼ 22 again for microcharges q = 10 6e. The ture . Here BC stands for "broken color." φEM − − SU(2)BC U(1)EM higher temperatures of the earlier Universe appear to lift the The minimal effective× potential at tree level is low mass constraint on mφ and this will be explored in a fol- 2 2 lowup paper [28]. This would push into the realm of V0(φc)= mcφc†φc + λc φc†φc . (20) φEM − | | detection with the dark matter experiments discussed in Sec- with color indices suppressed. tion I. On purely dimensional analysis grounds it may be argued The fate of SU(3)C is likely to remain unbroken but is as d2V that any contribution to 2 from nonperturbative corrections yet unknown. dφc 2 If it emerges that U(1) was broken at higher temper- would be of the order ΛQCD. In order for SSB to occur, it EM must be that the quantity atures in the early Universe or will be broken in the future, there may be some aesthetic appeal to either breaking the 2 2 d V (φc) 2 2 mc one remaining symmetry of SU(3)C or forbidding it from = m +Λ + fc (21) dφ2 − c QCD T 2 being broken. Should this be the case, future work would c φc=0

6 include testing Georgi’s complementarity principle in earnest I am grateful to the theory group at SLAC National Ac- with collaborators in the QCD community. The successful celerator Laboratory as well as the University of California, implementation of complementarity along with a broken Santa Cruz for their insightful questions and comments on U(1)EM would yield a ﬁnal state of the Universe with no millicharged ﬁelds at the SLAC theory seminar where this local symmetries at all, satisfying an evolution from early work was presented. I am particularly grateful to Howard Universe higher symmetry structures to none at all at late Haber for his question on applying this model to the current times. limits on the mass of the photon as this opened up a relevant new avenue for me to pursue. This work was completed at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and I am indebted to the theory group for their Acknowledgments kind hospitality, especially Stan Brodsky, Michael Peskin and Tom Rizzo. I thank Tim Tait, Howard Georgi and Michael Ratz for use- This research was partially supported by the GAANN Fed- ful discussions on an earlier version of this paper. eral Fellowship.

[1] A. J. Buras, John R. Ellis, M. K. Gaillard, and Dimitri V. [17] A. Andreassen, W. Frost, and M. D. Schwartz. Scale Invariant Nanopoulos. Aspects of the Grand Unification of Strong, Weak Instantons and the Complete Lifetime of the Standard Model. and Electromagnetic Interactions. Nucl. Phys., B135:66–92, ArXiv e-prints 1707.08124, July 2017. 1978. [18] C. Patrignani et al. Review of Particle Physics. Chin. Phys., [2] Georges Aad et al. Observation of a new particle in the search C40(10):100001, 2016. for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector [19] Ulrich Husemann. Top-Quark Physics: Status and Prospects. at the LHC. Phys. Lett., B716:1–29, 2012. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 95:48–97, 2017. [3] Serguei Chatrchyan et al. Observation of a new boson at a mass [20] Mariano Quirós. Finite temperature field theory and phase tran- of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC. Phys. Lett., sitions. In Proceedings, Summer School in High-energy physics B716:30–61, 2012. and cosmology: Trieste, Italy, June 29-July 17, 1998, pages [4] Sean M. Carroll. The Cosmological constant. Living Rev. Rel., 187–259, 1999. 4:1, 2001. [21] M. Tanabashi, K. Hagiwara, K. Hikasa, K. Nakamura, Y. Sum- [5] N. Aghanim et al. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological pa- ino, F. Takahashi, J. Tanaka, K. Agashe, G. Aielli, C. Amsler, rameters. 2018. M. Antonelli, D. M. Asner, H. Baer, Sw. Banerjee, R. M. Bar- [6] Sidney Coleman and Erick Weinberg. Radiative corrections as nett, T. Basaglia, C. W. Bauer, J. J. Beatty, V. I. Belousov, the origin of spontaneous symmetry breaking. Phys. Rev. D, J. Beringer, S. Bethke, A. Bettini, H. Bichsel, O. Biebel, 7:1888–1910, Mar 1973. K. M. Black, E. Blucher, O. Buchmuller, V. Burkert, M. A. [7] Joel R. Primack and Marc A. Sher. Photon mass at low temper- Bychkov, R. N. Cahn, M. Carena, A. Ceccucci, A. Cerri, ature? Nature, 288(5792):680–681, 1980. D. Chakraborty, M.-C. Chen, R. S. Chivukula, G. Cowan, [8] Rennan Barkana. Possible interaction between baryons and O. Dahl, G. D’Ambrosio, T. Damour, D. de Florian, A. de Gou- dark-matter particles revealed by the first stars. Nature, vêa, T. DeGrand, P. de Jong, G. Dissertori, B. A. Dobrescu, 555(7694):71–74, 2018. M. D’Onofrio, M. Doser, M. Drees, H. K. Dreiner, D. A. [9] Asher Berlin, Nikita Blinov, Gordan Krnjaic, Philip Schuster, Dwyer, P. Eerola, S. Eidelman, J. Ellis, J. Erler, V. V. Ezhela, and Natalia Toro. Dark Matter, Millicharges, Axion and Scalar W. Fetscher, B. D. Fields, R. Firestone, B. Foster, A. Freitas, Particles, Gauge Bosons, and Other New Physics with LDMX. H. Gallagher, L. Garren, H.-J. Gerber, G. Gerbier, T. Ger- 2018. shon, Y. Gershtein, T. Gherghetta, A. A. Godizov, M. Good- [10] Austin Ball et al. A Letter of Intent to Install a milli-charged man, C. Grab, A. V. Gritsan, C. Grojean, D. E. Groom, Particle Detector at LHC P5. 2016. M. Grünewald, A. Gurtu, T. Gutsche, H. E. Haber, C. Han- [11] S. N. Gninenko, D. V. Kirpichnikov, and N. V. Krasnikov. Prob- hart, S. Hashimoto, Y. Hayato, K. G. Hayes, A. Hebecker, ing millicharged particles with NA64 experiment at CERN. S. Heinemeyer, B. Heltsley, J. J. Hernández-Rey, J. Hisano, 2018. A. Höcker, J. Holder, A. Holtkamp, T. Hyodo, K. D. Irwin, [12] C. Ahdida et al. The experimental facility for the Search for K. F. Johnson, M. Kado, M. Karliner, U. F. Katz, S. R. Klein, Hidden Particles at the CERN SPS. 2018. E. Klempt, R. V. Kowalewski, F. Krauss, M. Kreps, B. Kr- [13] Michael S. Turner and Frank Wilczek. Is our vacuum usche, Yu. V. Kuyanov, Y. Kwon, O. Lahav, J. Laiho, J. Les- metastable? Nature, 298(5875):633–634, 08 1982. gourgues, A. Liddle, Z. Ligeti, C.-J. Lin, C. Lippmann, T. M. [14] So Chigusa, Takeo Moroi, and Yutaro Shoji. State-of-the-art Liss, L. Littenberg, K. S. Lugovsky, S. B. Lugovsky, A. Lusiani, calculation of the decay rate of electroweak vacuum in the stan- Y. Makida, F. Maltoni, T. Mannel, A. V. Manohar, W. J. Mar- dard model. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119:211801, Nov 2017. ciano, A. D. Martin, A. Masoni, J. Matthews, U.-G. Meißner, [15] V. Branchina and E. Messina. Stability, Higgs Boson Mass and D. Milstead, R. E. Mitchell, K. Mönig, P. Molaro, F. Moortgat, New Physics. Phys. Rev. Lett., 111:241801, 2013. M. Moskovic, H. Murayama, M. Narain, P. Nason, S. Navas, [16] E. Bentivegna, V. Branchina, F. Contino, and D. Zappalà. Im- M. Neubert, P. Nevski, Y. Nir, K. A. Olive, S. Pagan Griso, pact of New Physics on the EW vacuum stability in a curved J. Parsons, C. Patrignani, J. A. Peacock, M. Pennington, S. T. spacetime background. ArXiv e-prints 1708.01138, August Petcov, V. A. Petrov, E. Pianori, A. Piepke, A. Pomarol, 2017. A. Quadt, J. Rademacker, G. Raffelt, B. N. Ratcliff, P. Richard- 7

son, A. Ringwald, S. Roesler, S. Rolli, A. Romaniouk, L. J. Coupled Particles. In Proceedings, 2013 Community Summer Rosenberg, J. L. Rosner, G. Rybka, R. A. Ryutin, C. T. Sachra- Study on the Future of U.S. Particle Physics: Snowmass on the jda, Y. Sakai, G. P. Salam, S. Sarkar, F. Sauli, O. Schneider, Mississippi (CSS2013): Minneapolis, MN, USA, July 29-August K. Scholberg, A. J. Schwartz, D. Scott, V.Sharma, S. R. Sharpe, 6, 2013, 2013. T. Shutt, M. Silari, T. Sjöstrand, P. Skands, T. Skwarnicki, [23] Edward Hardy and Robert Lasenby. Stellar cooling bounds on J. G. Smith, G. F. Smoot, S. Spanier, H. Spieler, C. Spiering, new light particles: plasma mixing effects. Journal of High A. Stahl, S. L. Stone, T. Sumiyoshi, M. J. Syphers, K. Terashi, Energy Physics, 2017:33, Feb 2017. J. Terning, U. Thoma, R. S. Thorne, L. Tiator, M. Titov, [24] Matthew Reece. Photon Masses in the Landscape and the N. P. Tkachenko, N. A. Törnqvist, D. R. Tovey, G. Valencia, Swampland. 2018. R. Van de Water, N. Varelas, G. Venanzoni, L. Verde, M. G. [25] Henri Ruegg and Marti Ruiz-Altaba. The Stueckelberg ﬁeld. Vincter, P. Vogel, A. Vogt, S. P. Wakely, W. Walkowiak, C. W. Int. J. Mod. Phys., A19:3265–3348, 2004. Walter, D. Wands, D. R. Ward, M. O. Wascko, G. Weiglein, [26] Howard Georgi. Complementarity and Stability Conditions. D. H. Weinberg, E. J. Weinberg, M. White, L. R. Wiencke, Phys. Lett., B771:558–562, 2017. S. Willocq, C. G. Wohl, J. Womersley, C. L. Woody, R. L. [27] S. Eidelman and F. Jegerlehner. Hadronic contributions to g-2 Workman, W.-M. Yao, G. P. Zeller, O. V. Zenin, R.-Y. Zhu, of the leptons and to the effective ﬁne structure constant alpha S.-L. Zhu, F. Zimmermann, P. A. Zyla, J. Anderson, L. Fuller, (M(z)**2). Z. Phys., C67:585–602, 1995. V. S. Lugovsky, and P. Schaffner. Review of particle physics. [28] J. Rittenhouse West. Early Universe Spontaneous Symmetry Phys. Rev. D, 98:030001, Aug 2018. Breaking of U(1)EM with Millicharged Scalar Dark Matter. In [22] Rouven Essig et al. Working Group Report: New Light Weakly preparation.