text:
# Development of the electroweak phase transition and baryogenesis

## 1 Introduction

The electroweak phase transition is an appealing scenario for the generation of the baryon asymmetry of the universe (BAU), since it contains the three necessary ingredients known as Sakharov’s conditions, namely, baryon number violation, $`C`$ and $`CP`$ violation, and a departure from thermal equilibrium. However, to obtain a quantitatively successful electroweak baryogenesis, one has to consider some extension of the Standard Model (SM) in which there is enough $`CP`$ violation as well as a sufficiently strong first-order phase transition (see  for reviews). The order parameter used to measure the strength of the elecroweak phase transition is the mean value of the Higgs field in the broken symmetry phase at the critical temperature, $`v\left(T_c\right)=\varphi _{T_c}`$.

In the standard mechanism for electroweak baryogenesis, which assumes a first-order phase transition, the non-equilibrium condition acts in two different ways. The first of them is through the expansion of bubbles of the stable phase, which combined with $`CP`$ violation inside the walls of bubbles produce non-equilibrium particle densities, which then give rise to the baryon asymmetry. The second effect of the departure from equilibrium is connected to the baryon number violation condition: baryon number violating processes must be turned off before the system reaches thermal equilibrium in order to avoid the washout of the generated BAU.

In the expansion of bubbles an asymmetry between left handed quarks and their antiparticles (and an opposite right handed asymmetry) is built up in front of the moving walls. This asymmetry biases the anomalous, baryon number violating sphaleron processes present in the high temperature phase. Thus, bubble walls must have a nonvanishing velocity to generate a net baryon asymmetry. On the other hand, the left-handed asymmetry injected in front of the wall needs some time to diffuse and bias the sphaleron processes before the reflected particles are re-caught by the wall. If the wall moves too fast, there won’t be enough time for sphalerons to produce baryons. As a consequence, the generated baryon asymmetry has a peak at some small velocity which depends on the time scales associated to particle diffusion and baryon number violation . In particular, it was shown in Ref.  that for the MSSM the peak is at $`v_w=0.010.03`$.

The chiral quark asymmetry generated in front of the bubble wall depends also on the wall thickness. If the wall width is small compared to the inverse temperature, the $`CP`$-violating reflection of particles by the bubble wall can be treated quantum mechanically . Otherwise, the effect of $`CP`$ violation acts as a classical force on the quarks as they pass through the wall . This is the case in the electroweak phase transition, since the wall width has been estimated to be $`l_w10T^1`$ . The final baryon asymmetry will thus also depend on $`l_w`$, resulting a larger asymmetry for thinner walls.

Regarding the avoiding of washout, sphaleron processes must be suppressed in the broken phase so that baryons that are created in front of the moving wall are not erased after entering the bubble. This requirement imposes a constraint on the sphaleron energy which can be expressed as the well known condition for the Higgs mean value

$$\frac{v\left(T_c\right)}{T_c}1.$$
(1)
This condition gives a severe constraint for the theory of the electroweak interactions. Indeed, the minimal SM is unable to explain the observed BAU, since in this model the phase transition is not of the first order, but only a smooth crossover . Furthermore, electroweak baryogenesis constrains the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) to a small region of parameter space, where the Higgs mass is less than about $`105GeV`$ and the stop mass is less than the top one .

From the above it becomes apparent that phase transition dynamics plays a relevant role in electroweak baryogenesis. Being the baryon production very sensitive to the bubble wall width and velocity, and to the Higgs mean value, it is important to determine as accurately as possible the values of these parameters at the actual temperature of the phase transition. Indeed, all of these parameters vary significantly in the temperature interval in which the first-order phase transition can take place, that is to say, between the critical temperature $`T_c`$ at which the two phases have the same free energy and the temperature $`T_0`$ at which the barrier between the two minima of free energy disappears. The exact temperature $`T_t`$ of the transition depends on the evolution of the bubbles after they are nucleated, which in turn depends on the viscosity of the plasma.

In this paper we will analyze in detail the dependence on temperature of the parameters $`l_w`$, $`v_w`$, and $`v\left(T\right)/T`$, and we will determine the relative position of the temperature $`T_t`$ in the interval $`T_0T_c`$. We will do this computation for different values of the parameters of our model, placing emphasis on those that adequate to the context of the MSSM. We will also discuss several aspects of the phase transition dynamics, such as transitory states in the evolution of the Higgs field, or the possibility that the transition occurs near the temperature $`T_0`$, where the mechanism of baryogenesis would be different from the usual one.

The plan is the following. In the next section we introduce our model for the first-order elecroweak phase transition, and calculate the shape of the nucleated bubbles as a function of temperature. In section 3 we study the subsequent evolution of the bubbles in the hot plasma. In section 4 we determine a temperature interval outside which the phase transition cannot occur, independently of the bubble evolution. Finally, in section 5 we compute the temperature and duration of the transition and discuss the implications for baryogenesis. In the appendix we show some details of the numerical calculation.

## 2 The phase transition

The electroweak phase transition takes place when the expectation value of the Higgs field passes from its high temperature value $`\varphi =0`$ to its nonzero value in the low temperature broken phase. We will use a simple model for the phase transition, which is nevertheless representative of the electroweak theory at high temperature.

### 2.1 The effective potential

We will assume that the free energy has the well known general form

$$V(\varphi ,T)=D\left(T^2T_0^2\right)\varphi ^2ET\varphi ^3+\lambda \varphi ^4,$$
(2)
which will be suitable for our analysis, since it contains the essential features of the first order phase transition. Moreover, it can be a very good approximation to the actual effective potential. This is for instance the form of the perturbative high temperature effective potential in the SM . Even in the MSSM, which has two Higgs doublets, the free energy takes the SM-like form (2) in the limit in which the pseudoscalar particle of the Higgs sector is heavy ($`m_AT_c`$) .

All the parameters in Eq. (2) depend on the particle content of the theory. Parameter $`D`$ contains contributions from all the particles that acquire their masses through the Higgs mechanism. These contributions are of the form $`m_i^2/v^2`$, where $`m_i`$ is the zero-temperature mass of particle $`i`$ and $`v`$ is the zero-temperature vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field. Parameter $`E`$ has only boson contributions, of the form $`m_i^3/v^3`$. In the SM we have $`D10^1`$, $`E10^2`$, while in the MSSM, due to the larger particle zoo, $`D`$ and $`E`$ can be more than an order of magnitude larger than in the SM. Parameter $`\lambda `$ is in general temperature dependent, but it is almost constant in the range of temperatures in which the phase transition can take place. This parameter is very sensitive to the Higgs mass and for our discussion we will assume it to be given parametrically by $`m_H\lambda v^2`$.

The cubic term in $`V(\varphi ,T)`$ is responsible for the first-order feature of the phase transition, by causing the coexistence of two minima separated by a barrier. Hence, the strength of the transition depends on the value of parameter $`E`$. At high temperature the global minimum of the potential is at $`\varphi =0`$. At the critical temperature

$$T_c=\frac{T_0}{\sqrt{1\frac{E^2}{\lambda D}}}$$
(3)
the two minima become degenerate, and below this temperature the stable minimum of $`V`$ is at

$$v\left(T\right)=\frac{3ET}{2\lambda }\left(1+\sqrt{1\frac{8}{9}\frac{\lambda D}{E^2}\left(1\frac{T_0^2}{T^2}\right)}\right).$$
(4)
At temperature $`T_0`$ the barrier between minima disappears, and $`\varphi =0`$ becomes a maximum of the potential. The exact value of $`T_0`$ depends on the parameters of the theory, but we can assume it to be roughly $`100GeV`$ since the dynamics of the phase transition is not very sensitive to the value of this constant. The number $`E^2/\lambda D`$ is in general small, and the difference between $`T_c`$ and $`T_0`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }T10^2T_c`$. However, as we shall see, things change rapidly as the temperature falls from $`T_c`$ to $`T_0`$. Hence it proves useful to define a dimensionless variable

$$\epsilon \frac{T_c^2T^2}{T_c^2T_0^2}\frac{T_cT}{T_cT_0},$$
(5)
which goes from $`0`$ to $`1`$ as $`T`$ runs between $`T_c`$ and $`T_0`$.

At the critical temperature, Eq. (4) gives $`v\left(T_c\right)=2ET_c/\lambda `$. Inserting this value into the condition for avoiding the washout of the baryon asymmetry \[Eq. (1)\], gives the constraint $`\lambda 2E`$. In the SM this results in the bound on the Higgs mass $`m_H40GeV`$, well below the experimental bound $`m_H^{\mathrm{exp}}95GeV`$. In the MSSM, the one loop stop contribution increases the value of parameter $`E`$, but this contribution is limited by the danger of inducing charge and color breaking minima. As a consequence, the bound on $`m_H`$ can be shifted only to $`80GeV`$, provided that the light stop mass is in the range $`100GeVm_{\stackrel{~}{t}}m_t`$ . It turns out that two loop corrections produce an enhancement of the strength of the phase transition, leading to an upper bound on the Higgs mass of $`105GeV`$ .

Although Eq. (1) is written in terms of the critical temperature $`T_c`$, this condition is somewhat inexact, since at $`T_c`$ the nucleation of bubbles has not yet begun. On the other hand, the phase transition must be completed when the temperature of the Universe is still above $`T_0`$, because bubbles of the true phase are copiously produced as the barrier between minima gets small and disappears. Hence, the transition takes place at an intermediate temperature $`T_0<T_t<T_c`$ with

$$\frac{v\left(T_c\right)}{T_c}<\frac{v\left(T_t\right)}{T_t}<\frac{v\left(T_0\right)}{T_0}.$$
(6)
The temperature $`T_t`$ is usually estimated by the condition $`S_3\left(T_t\right)/T_t130140`$, where $`S_3`$ is the fluctuation in free energy which is necessary for bubble formation . However, as was stressed in Ref. , a more careful determination of the temperature $`T_t`$ is important, because the rate of anomalous baryon number violation is an exponentially sensitive function of $`v\left(T\right)/T`$. In the effective potential (2), $`v\left(T\right)/T`$ varies from $`2E/\lambda `$ at temperature $`T_c`$ to $`3E/\lambda `$ at $`T_0`$. This variation by a factor of $`3/2`$ gives an uncertainty of a 50% in the bound on the Higgs mass coming from Eq. (1). Elimination of this uncertainty is thus essential given the current experimental bounds on $`m_H`$. So the correct condition for avoiding the washout of the baryon asymmetry would be, according to Eq. (4),

$$\lambda <p\left(T\right)E,$$
(7)
where $`p\left(T\right)`$ is a number between $`2`$ and $`3`$, to be evaluated at the temperature of the phase transition, $`T_t`$.

### 2.2 Bubble nucleation

At a temperature below $`T_c`$, bubbles of the low temperature phase begin to nucleate. The thermal tunneling probability (per unit volume and time) for bubble nucleation is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }A\left(T\right)e^{S_3/T}.$$
(8)
The prefactor $`A\left(T\right)`$ is roughly of order $`T^4`$ (so we will set $`A\left(T\right)=T^4`$), and $`S_3\left(T\right)`$ is the three-dimensional instanton action, which coincides with the free energy of the nucleated bubble. At high temperature the bounce solution is $`O\left(3\right)`$ symmetric, and the corresponding action takes the simple form

$$S_3=4\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}r^2𝑑r\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d\varphi }{dr}\right)^2+V(\varphi \left(r\right),T)\right],$$
(9)
where $`r^2=𝐱^2`$, and the equation for the configuration of the bubble is

$$\frac{d^2\varphi }{dr^2}+\frac{2}{r}\frac{d\varphi }{dr}=V^{}\left(\varphi \right),$$
(10)
with the boundary conditions $`\varphi \left(r=\mathrm{}\right)=0`$ and $`\frac{d\varphi }{dr}\left(r=0\right)=0`$.

For temperatures close to $`T_c`$, the width of the bubble wall at the moment of formation is much smaller than its radius, and $`S_3`$ can be expressed as a function of the bubble radius $`r_0`$, the energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ between the two minima of the potential, and the bubble wall surface energy $`\sigma `$ . The radius of the critical bubble to be nucleated can thus be obtained by finding an extremum of $`S_3\left(r_0\right)`$. A similar approximation can be used to estimate the radius of a thick-walled bubble (i.e., outside the range of validity of the thin wall approximation) . However, as was pointed out in Ref. , one must be very careful when evaluating $`S_3`$ in this way. Since the solution of Eq. (10) is a *maximum* of the action, the corresponding value of $`S_3`$ will be higher than the action of any approximate solution. As a consequence one can strongly overestimate the tunneling probability, leading to a sooner completion of the phase transition.

For the potential (2), Eq. (10) can be solved numerically and then integrated to obtain the action $`S_3`$, which can be expressed as a function of a dimensionless parameter $`\alpha =\frac{\lambda D}{E^2}\left(\frac{T^2T_0^2}{T^2}\right)`$,

$$\frac{S_3}{T}=13.72\frac{E}{\lambda ^{3/2}}\alpha ^{3/2}f\left(\alpha \right).$$
(11)
Dine et al.  have found a useful analytical approximation to their numerical result for the function $`f\left(\alpha \right)`$,

$$f\left(\alpha \right)=1+\frac{\alpha }{4}\left(1+\frac{2.4}{1\alpha }+\frac{0.26}{\left(1\alpha \right)^2}\right),$$
(12)
with an accuracy of about 2% in the interval111It is easy to see from Eq. (3) that $`\alpha \left(Tc\right)=1`$, $`\alpha \left(T_0\right)=0`$, and $`\alpha 1\epsilon `$ in the whole interval. $`0<\alpha <1`$. Using the same procedure we have calculated the radius $`r_0`$ of the nucleated bubble, the thickness $`l_w`$ of its wall, and the value of the Higgs field inside it, $`\varphi _0`$, as functions of $`\alpha `$. The calculation is described in the Appendix. Notice that the dimensionless function $`p\left(T\right)`$ defined by Eqs. (4) and (7) has also a simple expression as a function of $`\alpha `$,

$$p\left(\alpha \right)=\frac{3}{2}\left(1+\sqrt{1\frac{8}{9}\alpha }\right).$$
(13)
Figure 1 illustrates the behavior of $`r_0\left(\epsilon \right)`$ and $`l_w\left(\epsilon \right)`$. Near the critical temperature ($`\epsilon =0`$) the bubbles that nucleate are thin-walled ($`l_wr_0`$). This is because the energy difference between the two minima of the potential is much smaller than the energy barrier between them. In such a case the radius must be very large, so that the negative potential energy inside the volume of the bubble is able to compete with the positive surface energy. As $`\epsilon `$ increases, the wall width becomes of the same order of the radius and the thin wall approximation breaks down. For $`\epsilon 1`$ the size of the critical bubbles diverges. This is because the width of the bubble wall is associated to the correlation length, $`l_w\xi \left(T\right)m\left(T\right)^1`$, with $`m\left(T\right)=2D\left(T^2T_0^2\right)`$. This divergence is easily understood by looking at the shape of the bubbles. Figure 2 shows the bubble profile at a temperature near $`T_c`$ ($`\epsilon =0.1`$), a temperature near $`T_0`$ ($`\epsilon =0.9`$), and at an intermediate temperature ($`\epsilon =0.5`$). Note that the value of the Higgs field inside the bubble decreases with $`\epsilon `$.

In Fig. 3 we have plotted this value together with the minimum of the potential $`v\left(T\right)`$ for comparison. At $`\epsilon =0`$ the value of $`\varphi _0`$ coincides with that of $`v\left(T_c\right)`$. However, as the temperature decreases from the critical one, this value moves away from the minimum of $`V\left(\varphi \right)`$ and goes to zero. This behavior is due the decreasing of the height of the barrier and the increasing in the energy difference between minima. In this case the value of $`\varphi \left(x\right)`$ inside the bubble needs not anymore to be exactly at the minimum of the potential to get enough volume energy. Moreover, as the barrier between minima disappears, it becomes easier to form a large bubble with a small value of $`\varphi `$ inside it. Therefore, near the temperature $`T_0`$, bubbles with $`r_0\mathrm{}`$ and $`\varphi _00`$ will be formed.

Consequently, if for any reason the transition does not occur until the temperature is close to $`T_0`$, then it will tend to proceed by a homogeneous growing of the order parameter $`\varphi `$, instead of by the nucleation and expansion of bubbles. This is not surprising since, without a barrier, one expects the field to “roll down” homogeneously towards the minimum of the effective potential . There would still be some baryon number generation in such a scenario, due to the coherent variation of the $`CP`$ violating field $`\varphi \left(t\right)`$, which would produce an effective chemical potential for baryon number. However, this would be a kind of local baryogenesis  mechanism, and hence it would lack the enhancement due to diffusion, which characterizes the usual non-local electroweak baryogenesis. Furthermore, after rolling down the field will start to oscillate around the minimum of the potential until all its energy is transferred to the plasma. This oscillations can further spoil the generated baryon asymmetry, depending on their amplitude. This effect would be avoided in a phase transition at a higher scale, where the motion of $`\varphi `$ would be strongly damped by the expansion of the Universe apart from the damping due to the plasma. Nevertheless, we shall see in section 4 that the phase transition is unlikely to occur beyond $`\epsilon =0.5`$, so the value of $`\varphi `$ inside the bubbles at the moment of nucleation will not be far from $`v\left(T\right)`$.

We also see from Fig. 1 that the wall thickness is almost constant up to that value of $`\epsilon `$, so we can anticipate that the width $`l_w`$, (which enters the generated baryon number), will depend weakly on the temperature of the phase transition.

## 3 The evolution of bubbles

After a bubble is formed, it starts to grow due to the pressure difference between the phases separated by the bubble wall, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=V(v,T)V(0,T)`$. After a short acceleration stage, the wall reaches a terminal velocity which depends on its interaction with the plasma. In this section we will analyze the evolution of bubbles from the moment they are nucleated until they fill the Universe

### 3.1 Bubble wall propagation

If the time it takes a bubble wall to accelerate up to terminal velocity is much smaller than the time it propagates before colliding with other bubbles, then the initial acceleration stage can be ignored. In order to check that this is the case, we can estimate the time needed for the wall to reach terminal velocity from the equation of motion for $`\varphi `$ in the plasma, Eq. (17) below. If the field is strongly damped the wall will reach terminal velocity faster than without damping, so using Eq. (17) without the damping term one can estimate the maximum acceleration time . In such a case the wall reaches the speed of light in a time $`\tau v\left(T\right)^2/\left(l_wV(v\left(T\right),T)\right)`$. For the values of the parameters of $`V(\varphi ,T)`$ that we will consider, this gives $`\tau \left(10^210^4\right)T^1`$.

In order to compare this time with the typical times associated with the phase transition, we need the relation between the temperature of the Universe and time. At the radiation-dominated era it is given by

$$t=\frac{\xi M_{Pl}}{T^2},$$
(14)
where $`M_{Pl}=1.22\times 10^{19}GeV`$ is the Plank mass, and $`\xi `$ is a factor that depends on the effective degrees of freedom of the plasma. Near the temperature of the electroweak phase transition, $`\xi 1/34`$. The time elapsed between $`T_c`$ and $`T_0`$, for instance, is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t_{T_cT_0}\frac{\xi M_{Pl}}{T_c}\frac{T_cT_0}{T_c}T_c^110^{13}T^1,$$
(15)
which is many orders of magnitude larger than $`\tau `$. However, to check if the short acceleration assumption is correct we must compare $`\tau `$ with the time in which a typical bubble propagates until all space is filled by broken symmetry bubbles. This time is of the order of the duration of the phase transition $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_t`$, which is less than $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{T_cT_0}`$. We will see in section 5 that $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_t10^3\left(T_cT_0\right)`$, so $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_t10^{10}T^1`$. The assumption is thus valid.

There is another transitory stage, associated with the growing of $`\varphi `$ in the interior of the bubble. As seen in Fig. 3, bubbles nucleate with a value of the field inside them, $`\varphi _0\left(T\right)`$, that is less than that of the minimum of the potential $`v\left(T\right)`$. This fact can be important for the bubble wall propagation, since the pressure difference $`V(\varphi _0,T)V(0,T)`$ that pushes the wall would then be less than $`V(v,T)V(0,T)`$. Again, we can use Eq. (17), this time discarding all spatial derivatives, to calculate the time in which $`\varphi \left(r=0\right)`$ grows from $`\varphi _0`$ to $`v`$. Neglecting the damping term we obtain $`\tau \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi /V^{}\left(\varphi \right)}`$. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \varphi _0v/2`$ this gives $`\tau 10T^1`$. With a damping term it will take the field a longer time to get to $`v`$. Assuming a typical damping $`\eta 100`$ (see below), we obtain $`\tau \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \eta /V^{}\left(\varphi \right)\left(10^410^5\right)T^1`$, which is again much less than $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_t`$.

We can therefore safely assume that $`\varphi \left(r=0\right)=v\left(T\right)`$, and that bubble walls move with constant velocity through the plasma. The friction on the bubble wall depends on the departure from equilibrium of the particle distributions near the wall . Particles which interact with the Higgs field in such a way that their masses change across the bubble wall profile will feel a force as they are caught by the propagating wall. Integration of these forces weighted with the particle distributions gives the total force exerted on the wall by the plasma. When equilibrium distributions appropriate for the local value of $`\varphi `$ are considered, this force only accounts for the finite temperature part of $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$, and does not depend on the wall velocity. Nevertheless, a departure from equilibrium is in fact produced by the motion of the wall. Particles that, for energetic reasons, cannot penetrate the wall, are reflected in front of it. These particles slow down the wall by giving momentum to it, and this effect becomes more important the faster the wall moves. Expanding the non-equilibrium particle distributions to first order in the wall velocity, the force gets a contribution proportional to the wall velocity . The terminal velocity is thus obtained by equating this frictional force with $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$.

The propagation of the bubble wall can also be affected by hydrodynamics (see for instance ). Although hydrodynamic considerations are important for large velocities, if the wall velocity is small the only important effect is a global reheating due to the latent heat released by the expanding bubbles . Indeed, when the velocity of the bubble wall is less than the speed of sound in the relativistic plasma $`c_s=\sqrt{1/3}`$, it propagates as a deflagration front. This means that a shock front precedes the wall, with a velocity $`v_{sh}>c_s`$. Hence, the latent heat is transmitted away from the wall. If the wall velocity is small enough, the latent heat has time to distribute throughout space, causing a homogeneous reheating of the plasma as the wall propagates.

There exist other effects that can influence the growth of bubbles. An example is that of strong magnetic fields that can be formed before  or during  the electroweak phase transition. The presence of these fields changes the free energy difference between phases, thus affecting the temperature and strength of the first order phase transition . In the case that the magnetic fields are generated during the electroweak phase transition, they can delay the completion of the latter by strongly affecting the evolution of bubbles .

### 3.2 The wall velocity

The equation of motion for the bubble wall in the hot plasma can be derived by energy conservation considerations  ,

$$_\mu ^\mu \varphi +\frac{V(\varphi ,T)}{\varphi }+\underset{i}{}\frac{m_i^2}{\varphi }\frac{d^3p}{\left(2\pi \right)^32E_i}\delta f_i=0,$$
(16)
where $`\delta f_i`$ is the deviation from the equilibrium distribution function for particle species $`i`$ in the heat bath. The last term can be expressed  as a frictional damping term proportional to $`d\varphi /dt`$. Due to Lorentz invariance this term must be of the form $`u^\mu _\mu \varphi `$, where $`u_\mu `$ is the four-velocity of the plasma. Eq. (16) then becomes

$$_\mu ^\mu \varphi +V^{}\left(\varphi \right)+\left(\eta T\right)u^\mu _\mu \varphi =0,$$
(17)
where $`\eta `$ is a dimensionless damping coefficient that depends on the viscosity of the medium, and is obtained by calculating the deviations $`\delta f_i`$ near the wall.

The calculation of the friction is usually treated with kinetic theory , giving for the Standard Model roughly $`\eta 1`$. However, it was noticed  that infrared boson excitations which are treated classically , increase the value of $`\eta `$ by an order of magnitude. In the MSSM there is an additional enhancement of the friction due to the larger particle content of the model. In Ref.  the contribution of a light right-handed stop has been calculated, which added to the contributions of tops and $`W`$ bosons give a lower bound on the friction coefficient of $`\eta 70`$.

We will not take into account other effects such as the influence of magnetic fields on the bubble growth. Instead, we will consider values of the friction beyond $`\eta 100`$ to allow for the possibility of additional damping, and we will assume that that kind of effects can be parametrized in this way. Accordingly, we will let $`\eta `$ vary in the range $`1<\eta <1000`$.

The nucleated bubbles grow rapidly to a size large enough so that we can go to 1+1 dimensions. Boosting to a frame that moves with the wall and assuming stationary motion in the $`x`$ direction we then have

$$\frac{d^2\varphi }{dx^2}=V^{}\left(\varphi \right)\eta Tv_w\gamma \frac{d\varphi }{dx},$$
(18)
where $`\gamma =1/\sqrt{1v^2}`$. Multiplying both sides by $`d\varphi /dx`$ and integrating over $`\mathrm{}<x<\mathrm{}`$, we obtain a formula for the wall velocity,

$$v_w\gamma =\frac{1}{\eta T}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }V}{\sigma },$$
(19)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }V\left(T\right)`$ is the free energy difference between the two phases and $`\sigma \left(T\right)`$ is the surface tension of the wall,

$$\sigma \left(T\right)=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\left(\frac{d\varphi }{dx}\right)^2𝑑x.$$
(20)
We have assumed here that temperature is constant across the wall. This is right if the wall velocity is small enough that the latent heat it releases has time to be uniformly distributed throughout space . If we use the well known kink approximation for the wall profile (see for instance )

$$\varphi \left(x\right)=\frac{v\left(T\right)}{2}\left[1+\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{x}{l_w}\right)\right],$$
(21)
then the surface energy (20) is $`\sigma =v^2/3l_w`$, and the wall velocity is given by

$$v_w\gamma =\frac{3l_w\mathrm{\Delta }V}{T\eta v^2}.$$
(22)
We see from Eq. (22) that $`v_w`$ increases with $`l_w`$. This is because the thicker the bubble wall, the slower will be the variation of $`\varphi `$ as the wall sweeps through a given point in the plasma, and consequently, the smaller the disturbance of the plasma near the wall. Hence, thicker walls experience a smaller friction force from the medium. Since $`l_w`$ diverges at $`T_0`$, one can infer that the dependence of the velocity with the wall width gives an important variation of $`v_w`$ with temperature. In the literature, however, $`l_w`$ is usually evaluated near the critical temperature. For instance, it is often roughly approximated by the correlation length $`m\left(T_c\right)^1`$ , or it is taken from the wall profile at the temperature at which $`S_3\left(T\right)/T130140`$ . This gives $`l_w\left(1040\right)T^1`$ for the electroweak bubble. We can see from Fig. 1 that these approximations are good as long as the phase transition completes before the temperature gets close to $`T_0`$, since $`l_w`$ is almost constant until $`\epsilon 0.8`$. As we will see in the next section, the phase transition hardly occurs beyond that value of $`\epsilon `$.

Figure 4 shows the terminal velocity of the bubble wall as a function of $`\epsilon `$. In the interval $`0<\epsilon <1`$ it varies from $`v_w=0`$ (since $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=0`$ at the critical temperature) to $`v_w=1`$ (since $`l_w\mathrm{}`$ for $`\epsilon 1`$). Note, however, that at the beginning of the interval the wall velocity grows rapidly from $`0`$ to some value proportional to $`\eta ^1`$, then it becomes rather insensitive to $`\epsilon `$, and finally it grows again up to $`v_w=1`$. As we shall see, the electroweak phase transition generally occurs at some intermediate $`\epsilon `$ so, for fixed $`\eta `$, the wall velocity will not be very sensitive to the temperature of the transition.

### 3.3 Fraction of space occupied by bubbles

Once a bubble has nucleated, its wall rapidly reaches the terminal velocity $`v_w`$, which depends on temperature. Due to the large time-temperature relationship (14), $`v_w`$ varies slowly with time, so the evolution of the bubble radius can be approximated by

$$r(t^{},t)=r_0\left(t^{}\right)+v_w\left(t^{}\right)\left(tt^{}\right)$$
(23)
where $`r_0\left(t^{}\right)`$ is the radius of the bubble at the moment $`t^{}`$ of its formation222By the epoch of the electroweak phase transition, the variation of length scales due to the expansion of the Universe can be neglected during the short period between $`T_c`$ and $`T_0`$.. The number of bubbles created per unit volume between $`t^{}`$ and $`t^{}+dt^{}`$ is $`dn_b\left(t^{}\right)=\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(t^{}\right)dt^{}`$. Then at time $`t`$ the total volume of bubbles that have nucleated at previous times $`t_c<t^{}<t`$ is (per unit volume of space) $`_{t_c}^t\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(t^{}\right)\left(4\pi /3\right)r(t^{},t)^3𝑑t^{}`$. This formula, however, contains multiple counting of volume where bubbles overlap. A more exact expression was obtained in Ref.  for the fraction of space $`f\left(t\right)`$ that is still in the false vacuum,

$$f\left(t\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{4\pi }{3}_{t_c}^t\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(t^{}\right)\left[r_0\left(t^{}\right)+v_w\left(t^{}\right)\left(tt^{}\right)\right]^3𝑑t^{}\right\}.$$
(24)
The phase transition then completes when $`f\left(t\right)`$ falls to zero. All the quantities appearing in the integral are in fact functions of temperature, so the use of the time-temperature relation (14) will be needed in the computation.

Some reheating will occur at the end of the transition due to collisions of bubble walls. However, for small wall velocities this effect should not be important. As we have already mentioned, the main consequence of the release of energy by slowly-expanding bubbles is a global reheating *during* the bubble expansion stage, which would manifest itself by changing the time-temperature relation. Taking into account this effect would require solving the two coupled equations for $`T\left(t\right)`$ and $`f\left(t\right)`$, which is outside the scope of the present paper. Before going on, however, we would like to discuss the relevance of such an effect. As pointed out in Ref. , one can get an idea of how important the reheating is by comparing the latent heat

$$LT\frac{V(\varphi ,T)}{T}|_{v,T_c}=8\frac{DE^2}{\lambda ^2}T_0^4$$
(25)
with the energy needed to bring the plasma back up to $`T_c`$ from $`T_t`$,

$$\rho \left(T_c\right)\rho \left(T_t\right)=a\left(T_c^4T_t^4\right),$$
(26)
where the factor $`a`$ depends on the number of effectively massless degrees of freedom. At the time of the electroweak phase transition $`a35`$. Since $`T_cT_tT_cT_0`$, the energy density difference will be $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho T_c^4`$. For SM values of $`D`$ and $`E`$, the latent heat is smaller than $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ by one or two orders of magnitude, depending on the value of $`\lambda `$. For MSSM values of the parameters, instead, $`L`$ can be of the same order of magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$. In such a case the latent heat released by the bubbles could reheat the plasma back up to temperatures near $`T_c`$. So we must remark that this effect might be important for baryogenesis. Due to the small velocity of the bubble walls, the gradually released latent heat will prevent the temperature of the bath to decrease, rather than reheating the plasma at the end of the transition. If the temperature stays close to $`T_c`$, the pressure difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ across the bubble walls will be small, and hence the wall velocity can decrease considerably from the current estimations .

## 4 The temperature of the phase transition

The progress of the phase transition is determined by the fraction of space $`f\left(T\right)`$ that is still in the symmetric phase, given by Eq. (24). In the next section we will calculate the temperature $`T_t`$ of the transition and its duration $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_t`$ for different values of the friction. However, since the exact evolution of the bubble wall velocity is not known, it will be convenient to begin our analysis by putting reliable constraints on $`T_t`$ inside the interval $`T_0T_c`$.

We will consider two sets of values for the parameters $`E`$ and $`D`$ of the potential: those corresponding to the SM, $`E6\times 10^3`$, $`D0.2`$; and MSSM-like values, which for definiteness we set $`E6\times 10^2`$, $`D1`$. In both cases we will take $`\lambda /E=2`$ or $`3`$, which correspond respectively to $`v\left(T_c\right)/T_c=1`$ or $`v\left(T_0\right)/T_0=1`$. Although the SM with these values of the parameters is not a realistic model, for the sake of comparison it is useful to consider such a kind of parameters besides those corresponding to the MSSM, in order to simulate a different phase transition with the same simple form of the effective potential. Regarding the MSSM-like values, it is worthy to remind that our model Eq. (2) corresponds to the limit of only one light Higgs boson of the MSSM, and the values of the parameters correspond to the light right-handed stop scenario.

### 4.1 An upper bound

The temperature $`T_N`$ at which nucleation of bubbles begins is defined as that at which the first bubble is formed inside a causal volume . In the radiation dominated era the horizon size scales like $`d_H=2t`$, where the age of the Universe $`t`$ is given by Eq. (14). Hence the size of a causal volume is $`V_H8\xi ^3M_{Pl}^3/T^6`$, and the probability of nucleating a bubble inside it is

$$P\left(T\right)=_{t_c}^t\mathrm{\Gamma }V_H𝑑t=\left(2\xi M_{Pl}\right)^4_{T_c}^Te^{S_3/T}\frac{dT}{T^5},$$
(27)
where we have used Eqs. (8) and (14) in the last step. The temperature $`T_N`$ is thus determined by the condition $`P\left(T_N\right)1`$. This can be solved either by an analytical approximation  or numerically, and gives

$$S_3\left(T_N\right)/T_N135.$$
(28)
Although $`T_N`$ is often assumed to be the temperature of the transition, it only corresponds to the onset of nucleation, so it gives an upper bound for $`T_t`$.

Once bubbles begin to nucleate, however, it still takes them some time to fill all space, since bubble walls cannot move faster than light. A less conservative bound $`T_{\mathrm{max}}<T_N`$ can thus be obtained by setting $`v_w=1`$ instead of using Eq.(22) for $`v_w`$ in Eq. (24). In this limit the expansion of bubbles is so fast that we can neglect their initial radius $`r_0`$. Then the condition that the fraction $`f\left(T\right)`$ falls to zero can be expressed as

$$\frac{4\pi }{3}\left(2\xi M_{Pl}\right)^4_T^{T_c}e^{S_3\left(T^{}\right)/T^{}}\left(T^{}T\right)^3\frac{dT^{}}{T^5}1,$$
(29)
giving for the upper bound $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$

$$S_3\left(T_{\mathrm{max}}\right)/T_{\mathrm{max}}105109.$$
(30)
The small uncertainty is due to the variation of the parameters of the potential as we take SM-like or MSSM-like values and the ratio $`\lambda /E`$ in the range $`23`$.

### 4.2 A lower bound

It is easy to see from Eqs. (11) and (12) that the instanton action $`S_3`$ vanishes at $`T_0`$. Hence, there is no exponential suppression to the nucleation rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at that temperature (this is a consequence of the disappearance of the barrier of $`V\left(\varphi \right)`$ at $`T_0`$). At temperatures near $`T_0`$ the nucleation rate is thus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }T^4`$, which is extremely large. Indeed, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=T^4`$ means that in a time interval $`\tau T^1`$ a bubble forms in every volume $`𝒱T^3`$. This time $`\tau `$ is many orders of magnitude less than the time elapsed between $`T_c`$ and $`T_0`$, Eq. (15). In addition, the size of the nucleated bubbles is larger than the volume per bubble $`𝒱`$, since the radius of the electroweak bubble is always larger than a few $`T^1`$. So all space must be filled with bubbles before the Universe cools down to some temperature $`T_{\mathrm{min}}>T_0`$ , when the exponential factor in Eq. (8) is still much less than $`1`$.

We can calculate the lower bound $`T_{\mathrm{min}}`$ by setting $`v_w=0`$ in Eq. (24),

$$\frac{8\pi \xi M_{Pl}}{3}_{T_{\mathrm{min}}}^{T_c}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(T\right)r_0^3\left(T\right)\frac{dT}{T^3}1.$$
(31)
This corresponds to the (unrealistic) limit of a nucleation-dominated first-order phase transition. The opposite limit is that of a bubble expansion dominated phase transition, in which the nucleated bubbles grow so rapidly that the original size is negligible, and the transition is completed when the nucleation rate is still small . This is the case of the upper bound $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$ we have just estimated. As we shall see, the electroweak phase transition is closer to an expansion dominated transition than to a nucleation dominated one. The temperature $`T_{\mathrm{min}}`$ determined by Eq. (31) is given by $`S_3\left(T_{\mathrm{min}}\right)/T_{\mathrm{min}}3538`$.

In terms of the relative variable $`\epsilon `$, the bounds on the temperature of the transition are expressed as $`0.31\epsilon _t0.52`$ for SM values of $`E`$ and $`D`$, and $`0.15\epsilon _t0.31`$ for MSSM values of the parameters (setting for definiteness $`\lambda =2E`$ in both cases).

## 5 Numerical results

In the last section we have determined the temperatures $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{min}}`$ between which the phase transition takes place. Depending on the value of the friction parameter $`\eta `$, the temperature of the phase transition will be closer to one of these bounds.

### 5.1 The development of the phase transition

The fraction of space that is still in the symmetric phase is obtained by inserting Eq. (22) into Eq. (24) and solving numerically for $`f\left(T\right)`$. We have plotted $`f\left(\epsilon \right)`$ in Fig. 5 for a given choice of parameters, in order to illustrate the evolution of the phase transition. Note that, once the fraction of volume occupied by bubbles becomes appreciable, the phase transition completes in a tiny temperature interval. That is why we speak of the “temperature of the transition” rather than of a “temperature interval”. No relevant quantity will change appreciably in this interval. This is due to the large time-temperature relation, which governs the nucleation and expansion of bubbles. The duration of the phase transition varies very little with the friction. It is given by

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_t}{T_cT_0}\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _t5\times 10^3$$
(32)
for values of $`\eta `$ as large as $`10^5`$ as well as for no friction at all.

With no friction, the phase transition occurs at $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$. When friction is turned on, the transition is retarded, as shown in Fig. 6. Note that the dependence of $`\epsilon _t`$ with $`\eta `$ is almost logarithmic, so $`\epsilon _t`$ increases more slowly for large $`\eta `$. As a consequence, $`T_t`$ will be closer to $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$ rather than to $`T_{\mathrm{min}}`$ for not extremely high values of $`\eta `$. As discussed in section 3, $`\eta `$ should not be out of the range $`11000`$.

In Fig. 7 we have plotted the value of $`S_3/T`$ at the moment of the transition, as a function of the damping coefficient. The solid line corresponds to MSSM values of the parameters. For likely values of the friction, $`\eta 100`$, the temperature of the transition is given by $`S_3\left(T_t\right)/T_t90`$. The dashed line indicates the variation in $`S_3/T`$ when considering different parameters of the effective potential, as explained in the previous section. Since the ambiguity in $`S_3\left(T_t\right)/T_t`$ produced by such a variation is of only a 5%, we believe that Fig. 7 not only describes qualitatively the general case, but it would also give a good approximation for the determination of the temperature of the electroweak phase transition within different models.

### 5.2 Implications for baryogenesis

The amount of baryon number generated at the electroweak phase transition depends on the shape of bubbles. We have seen that the relevant parameters, namely, the width and velocity of the bubble wall and the value of the Higgs field in the broken symmetry phase, vary significantly between the temperatures $`T_c`$ and $`T_0`$, and hence the importance of determining their values at the intermediate temperature $`T_t`$ at which the phase transition occurs.

Regarding the wall velocity, we have shown in section 3 that, although $`v_w`$ takes all the possible values $`0<v_w<1`$ in the interval $`0<\epsilon <1`$, it changes rapidly at the beginning and at the end of that interval, but remains of the same order of magnitude for intermediate values of $`\epsilon `$, roughly between $`\epsilon =0.1`$ and $`\epsilon =0.8`$ (see Fig. 4). Since the bounds on $`T_t`$ obtained in section 4 fall in this region of slow variation of $`v_w`$, we see that the wall velocity depends weakly on the actual temperature of the transition, although it is sensitive to the friction, as shown in Fig. 4. Therefore, rough approximations of the temperature of the transition, such as the usual $`T_tT_N`$, do not introduce significant errors in the estimation of $`v_w`$. The same can be said of the wall thickness, as inferred from Fig. 1.

Typical values of these quantities are found by taking for instance $`\eta =70`$ and MSSM-like parameters for $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$. Then we obtain $`l_w\left(T_t\right)16T^1`$, which inserted into Eq. (22) gives $`v_w\left(T_t\right)3\times 10^3`$. This is in agreement with the value obtained in Ref. , and supports an MSSM scenario for electroweak baryogenesis.

With respect to the Higgs mean value $`v\left(T\right)`$, although it varies by a 50% between $`T_c`$ and $`T_0`$, the variation between the critical temperature and $`T_t`$ will be smaller. As shown in Fig 6, the temperature of the transition stays close to the upper bound (lower bound on $`\epsilon _t`$), even for large values of $`\eta `$. We can use Eq. (13) to estimate by which amount the order parameter can change. Setting for definiteness $`\lambda =2E`$, like in Fig. 6, we see that for $`\eta 100`$ the upper curve in the figure gives $`\epsilon _t0.35`$. Since $`v\left(T\right)/T=\left(E/\lambda \right)p\left(\alpha \right)`$ and $`\alpha 1\epsilon `$, we readily obtain $`v\left(T_t\right)/T_t1.2`$. Similarly, for the lower curve we obtain $`v\left(T_t\right)/T_t1.1`$. Comparing with $`v\left(T_c\right)/T_c=1`$, we find a difference of at least a $`1020\%`$ between the critical temperature and the actual temperature of the transition. This means that the use of Eq. (1) can result in an upper bound on the Higgs mass that is by that percentage more severe than the correct constraint. A more precise bound for $`\lambda `$ can be obtained by using Eq. (7) recursively. For instance, after computing $`\epsilon _t`$ with the assumption $`\lambda =2E`$ and calculating the constraint $`\lambda =p\left(\epsilon _t\right)E`$, this new value of $`\lambda `$ can be used to recalculate $`\epsilon _t`$ and obtain a higher order correction to the bound. This may be useful when considering a more concrete model for the phase transition.

The error in the determination of $`v\left(T_t\right)/T_t`$ diminishes considerably when using the temperature $`T_N`$ of the onset of nucleation instead of $`T_c`$. For the values of the parameters that we have considered, $`v\left(T\right)/T`$ increases by less than a 5% between $`T_N`$ and $`T_t`$. Hence, regarding the constraints that result by avoiding the washout of the baryon asymmetry, we again find that $`T_tT_N`$ is a good approximation in the calculations of electroweak baryogenesis.

Before concluding, we would like to discuss the behavior of another bubble parameter that is relevant for baryogenesis in the MSSM, that is, the relative variation of the two Higgs fields across the wall, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta `$. The $`CP`$-violating force on the quarks depends on this variation, and thus the final baryon asymmetry results proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta `$. In order to investigate the temperature dependence of this parameter, however, we would need to consider the full two-Higgs model. The computation of the bubble profile with more than one scalar field is a difficult task (see for instance ). Nevertheless, our results for the temperature of the transition can be used to verify the approximations employed in existing calculations of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta `$. Moreno *et.al.* , for example, have calculated the Higgs profile of the bubble in the light stop scenario. They performed the calculation at the temperature we have called $`T_N`$, and also at $`T_N+0.4GeV`$ and $`T_N0.4GeV`$, and the variation they obtained of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta `$ along the bubble wall is very similar among these temperatures. Translating that temperature interval to the variable $`\epsilon `$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon \mathrm{\Delta }T/\left(T_cT_0\right)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=0.8GeV`$ and $`T_cT_03GeV`$, gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon 0.2`$. So the conclusion is that the parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta `$ does not change significantly in an ample interval around $`\epsilon _N`$, which, according to our results, includes the possible values of $`\epsilon _t`$.

## 6 Conclusions and discussion

It is well know that phase transition dynamics plays an important role in electroweak baryogenesis. Although the production of the baryonic asymmetry of the Universe at the electroweak phase transition is an exciting possibility, it is clear that a complete picture of the phase transition is needed to check quantitatively this possibility. This includes the detailed investigation of the evolution of bubbles, as well as the accurate calculation of the temperature of the transition. In this paper we have investigated both of this problems, which are certainly related with each other.

We have determined the upper and lower temperature limits $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{min}}`$ inside the interval $`T_0T_c`$, between which the phase transition must take place regardless of the velocity of expansion of bubbles. Our main conclusion in this respect is that, for the electroweak phase transition, the lower bound on $`T_t`$ avoids the possibility that the phase transition occurs at a temperature near $`T_0`$. This is good for baryogenesis, since in such a case the transition would proceed by an almost homogeneous growing of the Higgs field, what would lead to the generation of a smaller baryon abundance.

When the evolution of the bubble wall is included, the temperature of the phase transition varies between the limits $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{min}}`$ as the friction parameter $`\eta `$ goes from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. However, it turns out that, due to the slow decreasing of temperature with time, the temperature $`T_t`$ stays close to $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$ for not extremely high values of $`\eta `$. According to our numerical computations, for likely values of the viscosity of the plasma the temperature of the electroweak phase transition is given by $`S_3\left(T_t\right)/T_t90`$.

On the other hand, the values of the wall thickness $`l_w\left(T\right)`$ and wall velocity $`v_w\left(T\right)`$ are rather insensitive to temperature in the range $`T_{\mathrm{min}}T_{\mathrm{max}}`$, so they depend weakly on the actual temperature of the phase transition. Regarding the Higgs mean value $`v\left(T\right)`$, although baryogenesis is very sensitive to this parameter, and hence the uncertainty between $`T_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$ would still be considerable, the result that the phase transition takes place near $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$ eliminates this uncertainty. Furthermore, the temperature $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is in general close to that of the onset of nucleation. Hence we conclude that $`l_w\left(T_t\right)`$, $`v_w\left(T_t\right)`$, and $`v\left(T_t\right)`$, which are relevant parameters for baryogenesis, do not change significantly from those obtained with the usual estimation of the temperature of the transition, i.e., with the condition $`S_3\left(T\right)/T135`$. We have also shown that the same applies to other quantities, which we have not computed, such as the parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta `$, which is relevant for electroweak baryogenesis in the context of the MSSM.

Regarding further development of this analysis, a detailed investigation of the effect of reheating due to the latent heat released by the expanding bubbles would be necessary . As we have discussed in section 4, such an investigation would be especially important in the case of the MSSM, where the main consequence of this effect would be to prevent the wall velocity to reach the value $`10^310^2`$ that is needed for a satisfactory result of electroweak baryogenesis.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Prof. Luis Masperi for helpful comments. Part of this work was done with the support of a fellowship of the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Argentina.

## Appendix A The shape of bubbles

In this appendix we give some interesting details of the calculation of the bubble radius, the wall width, and the value of the Higgs field inside the bubble at the moment of formation.

The shape of the bubble is given by Eq. (10) with potential (2),

$$\frac{d^2\varphi }{dr^2}+\frac{2}{r}\frac{d\varphi }{dr}=2D\left(T^2T_0^2\right)\varphi 3ET\varphi ^2+\lambda \varphi ^3.$$
(33)
Following Dine et al. , we define $`\varphi =\left[D\left(T^2T_0^2\right)/\left(ET\right)\right]\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`r=R/\sqrt{2D\left(T^2T_0^2\right)}`$, so that Eq. (33) becomes

$$\frac{d^2\mathrm{\Phi }}{dR^2}+\frac{2}{R}\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dR}=\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\frac{1}{2}\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^3,$$
(34)
with $`\alpha =\lambda D\left(T^2T_0^2\right)/\left(ET\right)^2`$. We have solved numerically this equation with the usual overshooting-undershooting method, to obtain the configuration $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(R\right)`$ for different values of $`\alpha `$. The graphics of Fig. 2 for $`\varphi /T`$ as a function of the dimensionless radius $`Tr`$ are then given by

$$\frac{\varphi \left(T\right)}{T}=\frac{E\alpha }{\lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\sqrt{\frac{2E^2\alpha }{\lambda }}Tr\right).$$
(35)
The expression (11) for $`S_3\left(T\right)/T`$ is then obtained by an appropriate integration of the solution over $`d^3X=4\pi R^2dR`$.

We define the radius $`R_0\left(\alpha \right)`$ of the configuration as that at which $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(R\right)`$ falls to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0\left(\alpha \right)=\mathrm{\Phi }\left(R=0\right)`$. Similarly, we calculate the radii $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ corresponding to $`0.9\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ and $`0.1\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ respectively, and define the wall width as $`L_w=R_2R_1`$. This quantities are related to the physical radius $`r_0`$ and width $`l_w`$ of Fig. 1 by

$$Tr_0=\frac{\sqrt{\lambda /2}}{E}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha }}R_0\left(\alpha \right),Tl_w=\frac{\sqrt{\lambda /2}}{E}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha }}L_w\left(\alpha \right).$$
(36)
The value of the field inside the bubble, plotted in Fig. 3, is defined as $`\varphi _0=\varphi \left(r=0\right)`$ and is related to the dimensionless $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ by

$$\frac{\varphi _0\left(T\right)}{T}=\frac{E}{\lambda }\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_0\left(\alpha \right),$$
(37)
to be compared with the minimum $`v\left(T\right)`$ of the potential, given by

$$\frac{v\left(T\right)}{T}=\frac{E}{\lambda }p\left(\alpha \right).$$
(38)
The divergence of $`r_0`$ and $`l_w`$ at $`\alpha =0`$ is apparent in Eq. (36). The divergence of $`r_0`$ at $`\alpha =1`$, instead, is hidden in the function $`R_0\left(\alpha \right)`$. The wall width is finite at $`\alpha =1`$, but due to the divergence of the radius the shape of the bubble wall cannot be calculated using the numerical method. Interestingly, in this limit $`L_w`$ can be obtained analytically, what is useful to check that the numerical curve goes to the right limit for $`\alpha 1`$: Since $`R_0\mathrm{}`$ the second term disappears from Eq. (34). Then multiplying by $`\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dR}`$ and integrating over $`dR`$ gives for $`\alpha =1`$

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dR}=\mathrm{\Phi }\left(1\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{2}\right)$$
(39)
Integrating again across the wall we obtain

$$L_w=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }2}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)|_{0.9\mathrm{\Phi }_0}^{0.1\mathrm{\Phi }_0}.$$
(40)
Similarly we can see that $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(R\right)`$ goes from $`2`$ to $`0`$ across the wall, so in this case $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=2`$, and Eq. (40) gives $`L_w=2\mathrm{ln}9`$. We can then verify that in Fig. 1, with $`\lambda =2E`$ and $`E=0.06`$, the wall width has the correct value at $`\epsilon =0`$.


format: text

text:
# EXPECTED BEHAVIOUR OF DIFFERENT SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS IN HADRON FIELDS

## 1 Introduction

The crystalline materials for semiconductor devices used in high fluences of particles are strongly affected by the effects of radiation. After the interaction between the incoming particle and the target, mainly two classes of degradation effects are observed: surface and bulk material damage, due to the displacement of atoms from their sites in the lattice. For electrons and gammas the effects are dominantly at the surface, while the heavy particles (pions, protons, neutrons, ions) produce both types of damages.

Up to now, in spite of the experimental and theoretical efforts, the problems related to the behaviour of the semiconductor materials in radiation fields, the identification of the induced defects and their characterisation, as well as the explanation of the degradation mechanisms are still open problems.

The utilisation of semiconductor materials as detectors and devices operating in high radiation environments, at the future particle colliders, in space applications, in medicine and industry, makes necessary to obtain radiation harder materials.

The diamond and different AIIIBV compounds (GaAs, GaP, InP, InAs, InSb) are in principle, possible competitors for silicon to different electronic devices. In the present paper a systematic theoretical study of the expected behaviour of these semiconductor materials in hadron fields (protons and pions) is presented.

All analysed materials have a zinc-blend crystalline structure. Silicon is at the base of electronic industry, diamond and the AIIIBV compounds present attractive electrical and/or luminescence properties , of interest for different applications.

## 2 Interaction of charged hadrons with semiconductor materials and mechanisms of defect creation by irradition

The charged particles interact with both atomic and electronic systems in a solid. The total rate of energy loss, as a function of distance, is called the stopping power. This one could, in general, be divided artificially into two components, the nuclear and the electronic part:

$`\left(\frac{dE}{dx}\right)_{total}=\left(\frac{dE}{dx}\right)_{nuclear}+\left(\frac{dE}{dx}\right)_{electronic}`$

Roughly speaking, the energy lost due to interactions with electrons gives rise to material ionisation, while the energy lost in interactions with nuclei is to the origin of defect creation.

A comprehensive theoretical treatment of electronic stopping which covers all energies of interest cannot be formulated simply because of different approximations concerning both the scattering and contribution of different electrons in the solid. For fast particles with velocities higher then the orbital velocities of the electron, the Bethe-Bloch formula is to be used . At lower velocities, inner electrons have velocities greater than particle velocity, and therefore do not contribute to the energy loss. This regime was modelled by Lindhard and Scharff .

If the particle has a positive charge, and a velocity close to the orbital velocity of its outer electrons, it has a high probability of capturing an electron from one of the atoms of the medium through which it passes. This process contributes to the total inelastic energy loss since the moving ion has to expend energy in the removal of the electrons which it captures.

The nuclear stopping depends on the detailed nature of the atomic scattering, and this in turn depends intimately on the form of the interaction potential. At low energies, a realistic potential based on the Thomas-Fermi approximation was used in the literature  and at higher energies, where scattering results from the interaction of unscreened nuclei, a Rutherford collision model is to be used.

In Figure 1, the nuclear stopping power calculated for protons and pions in diamond, silicon and GaAs is represented, as a function of the kinetic energy of the particle. The nuclear stopping power is greater for heavier incident particles (protons compared with pions), and for lighter media (diamond in comparison with silicon and GaAs). The position of its maximum is the same for protons and pions in the same medium.

The process of partitioning the energy of the recoil nuclei (produced due the interaction of the incident particle with the nucleus, placed in its lattice site) by new interaction processes, between electrons (ionisation) and atomic motion (displacements) is considered in the frame of Lindhard theory .

The mechanism considered in the study of the interaction between the incoming particle and the solid, by which bulk defects are produced, is the following: the particle, heavier than the electron, with electrical charge or not, interacts with the electrons and with the nuclei of the crystalline lattice. The nuclear interaction produces the bulk defects. As a result of the interaction, depending on the energy and on the nature of the incident particle, one or more light particles are formed, and usually one or more heavy recoil nuclei. These nuclei have charge and mass numbers lower or at least equal with the medium. After this interaction process, the recoil nucleus or nuclei, if they have sufficient energy, are displaced from the lattice positions in interstitials. Thus, the primary knock-on nucleus, if its energy is large enough, can produce the displacement of a new nucleus, and the process can continue as a cascade, until the energy of the nucleus becomes lower than the threshold for atomic displacements. Because of the regular nature of the crystalline lattice, the displacement energy is anisotropic. In the present model, averaged values for displacement energies have been considered. In the concrete evaluation of defect production, the nuclear interactions must be modelled, see for example . The primary interaction between the hadron and the nucleus of the lattice presents characteristics reflecting the peculiarities of the hadron, especially at relatively low energies. If the inelastic process is initiated by nucleons, the identity of the incoming projectile is lost, and the creation of secondary particles is associated with energy exchanges which are of the order of MeV or larger. For pion nucleus processes, the absorption, the process by which the pion disappears as a real particle, is also possible.

The energy dependence of cross sections, for proton and pion interaction with the nucleus, present very different behaviours: the proton-nucleus cross sections decrease with the increase of the projectile energy, then have a minimum at relatively low energies, followed by a smooth increase, while the pion nucleus cross sections present for all processes a large maximum, at about 160 MeV, reflecting the resonant structure of interaction (the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{33}`$ resonance production), followed by other resonances, at higher energies, but with much less importance. Due to the multitude of open channels in these processes, some simplifying hypothesis have been done .

The physical quantity that characterise the primary defects is the concentration of primary radiation induced defects on the unit particle fluence (CPD) . This quantity permits the correlation of damages produced in different materials at the same kinetic energy of the incident hadron. For the comparison of the effects of different particles in the same semiconductor material, the non ionising energy loss (NIEL) is useful.

## 3 Theoretical expected material behaviour

The behaviour of these materials in proton fields is characterised by the CPD. In Figure 2, the dependence of the CPD as a function of the protons kinetic energy and medium mass number (diamond, silicon, GaAs and InP) is presented - see references  and references cited therein. Low kinetic energy protons produce higher degradation in all materials.

For pion induced degradation, the energy dependence of CPD and NIEL presents two maxima, the relative importance of which depends on the target mass number: one in the region of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{33}`$ resonance, more pronounced for light elements and compounds containing light elements, and another one around 1 GeV kinetic energy, more pronounced for heavy elements. At higher energies, an weak energy dependence is observed, and a general dependence of the NIEL can be approximated . In Figure 3a, the CPD for all these materials is represented as a function of the pion kinetic energy and of material average mass number.

These materials could be separated into two classes, the first with monoatomic materials or materials with relatively close mass numbers, and the second comprising binary materials with remote mass numbers of the elements. In Figures 3b and 3c respectively, the energy and mass number dependence of the CPD for the two groups of materials are represented separately.

A slow variation of the primary defect concentration has been found for pion irradiation of diamond, silicon, GaP and GaAs, in the whole energy range of interest, with less than 2 displacements/cm/unit of fluence. In contrast to this situation, GaP, InAs and InSb are characterised by a low CPD in the energy range up to 200 MeV, followed by a pronounced increase of displacement concentration, to more than 8 displacements/cm/unit of fluence at high energies.

## 4 Summary

A systematic theoretical study has been performed, investigating the interaction of charged hadrons with semiconductor materials and the mechanisms of defect creation by irradiation. The mechanisms of the primary interaction of the hadron with the semiconductor nucleus lattice have been explicitly modelled and the Lindhard theory of the partition between ionisation and displacements has been considered.

The nuclear stopping power is greater for heavier incident particles (protons compared with pions), and for lighter media (diamond in comparison with silicon and GaAs). The position of its maximum is the same for protons and pions in the same medium.

The behaviour of these materials in hadron fields is characterised by the CPD and NIEL.

For protons, the low kinetic energy protons produce higher degradation in all materials.

For pion induced degradation, the energy dependence of CPD and NIEL presents two maxima, the relative importance of which depends on the target mass number: one in the region of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{33}`$ resonance, more pronounced for light elements and compounds containing light elements, and another one around 1 GeV kinetic energy, more pronounced for heavy elements. At higher energies, an weak energy dependence is observed. A slow variation of the primary defect concentration has been found for pion irradiation of diamond, silicon, GaP and GaAs, in the whole energy range of interest, with less than 2 displacements/cm/unit of fluence. In contrast to this situation, GaP, InAs and InSb are characterised by a low CPD in the energy range up to 200 MeV, (which represent the energy range up to their utilisation in pion field is recommended), followed by a pronounced increase of displacement concentration to more than 8 displacements/cm/unit of fluence at high energies.

Figure captions

Figure 1: Nuclear stopping power of protons and pions in diamond, silicon and GaAs.

Figure 2: The concentration of primary induced defects for unit of fluence (CPD) in diamond, silicon, GaAs and InP by protons. The mesh surfaces are drawn only to guide the eye only. The discontinuity in the surface represent the behaviour. The data for proton - diamond are from , the silicon data are averaged values from  and , and that for GaAs and InP are from .

Figure 3a: The energy and material dependence of the concentration of primary defects on unit pion fluence in diamond, silicon, GaP, GaAs, InP, InAs and InSb. The mesh surfaces are plotted for guide the eyes. The differences in the behaviour of these materials are clearly suggested by the discontinuity in the mesh surface.

Figure 3b: The energy and material dependence of the concentration of primary defects on unit pion fluence, induced by pions in diamond, silicon, GaAs and InSb. The mesh surfaces are drawn to guide the eyes. A pronounced maximum, corresponding to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{33}`$ resonance is clearly visible, and the second maximum at higher energies is important especially for InSb.

Figure 3c: The same as in Figure 3b, but for GaP, InP and InAs. The effects of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{33}`$ resonance are less pronounced in respect to the effects of the inelastic region, at high energies.


text:
# References and links

## 1 Introduction

The vertical structure of light in the sea is important in marine bio-optics. Sunlight is the energy source for the biological food chain, and the amount and spectrum of solar energy available at a given depth must be known if accurate productivity calculations are to be made. The vertical structure of the diffuse attenuation coefficient in the near surface regime is important in understanding optical remote sensing. The behavior of the light field in the sea is described by the equation of radiative transfer, which relates the light field to the inherent optical properties of water and its constituents \[References and links\]. Once this equation is solved certain moments of the light field can be derived and compared with measurements. Of particular interest is the average cosine of irradiance at depth $`z`$ which is defined by $`\overline{\mu }(z)=E(z)/E_0(z),`$ where $`E_0(z)`$ is the scalar irradiance and $`E(z)`$ is the net (vector) irradiance, both with units $`\mathrm{Wm}^2`$. The downwelling average cosine is $`\overline{\mu }_d(z)=E_d/E_0`$, where $`E_d`$ is the downwelling irradiance. The average cosine, which can vary between -1 and 1, gives directional information about the radiance distribution. The average cosine is also related to the diffuse attenuation coefficient $`K(z)=1/E(z)dE(z)/dz`$. Integration of the radiative transfer equation over all directions leads to $`dE(z)/dz=a(z)E_0(z)`$ so that $`\overline{\mu }(z)=a(z)/K(z)`$, which is known as Gershun’s equation. We can now measure $`a(z)`$ and $`K(z)`$ routinely, so that it is possible to verify predictions of the vertical distribution of $`\overline{\mu }`$ on the basis of observations. A number of models of the vertical structure of the average cosine of the light field have been presented \[References and links-References and links\] but they have all been limited to homogeneous media with a flat surface. On the other hand, using the data from the Gulf of California and the East Coast shelf one of us (JRVZ, unpublished) concluded that the average cosine models do not fit the determination of $`\overline{\mu }(z)`$ from $`K(z)`$ and $`a(z)`$. It is speculated that this departure from theory is due to vertical inhomogeneities in the inherent optical properties (IOPs) and the possibility that the light field in the surface layer of the ocean may be more diffuse than theoretical models assume. This diffuse light field may be due to haze and clouds in the atmosphere, relatively low solar zenith angles, surface waves, and microbubbles in the surface layer. A combination of these factors contributes to the light field being quite diffuse throughout the water column. In this study we demonstrate the capacity of air bubbles to be an efficient scatterer.

## 2 Results

There is limited knowledge \[References and links-References and links\] about the radiative transfer properties of bubble clouds, their inherent optical properties, and their global climatology. Recently, we reported \[References and links\] on the influence of submerged bubble clouds within the water on the remote sensing reflectance. Individual bubble clouds persist for several minutes and are generated by breaking waves. There is evidence that at high wind speeds, separate bubble clouds near the surface coalesce, producing a stratus layer \[References and links,References and links\]. The majority of bubbles injected into the surface layers of natural waters are unstable, either dissolving due to enhanced surface tension and hydrostatic pressures or rising to the air-water interface where they break \[References and links\]. However, bubbles with long residence times, i.e. stable microbubbles have been observed \[References and links-References and links\]. One of the stabilization mechanisms \[References and links,References and links\] assumes that the surfactant material is a natural degradation product of chlorophyll, present in photosynthesizing algae.

We consider three simple situations: (1) “infinitely” deep homogeneous ocean composed of CDOM, water, and particulates; (2) “infinitely” deep homogeneous ocean composed of the same CDOM, water, and particulates but also with bubbles; (3) two meter layer of bubbles and “background” CDOM, water, and particulates. In Fig. 1 the two-layer case is presented. (based on \[References and links\]).

The background water, CDOM, and particulates are characterized by absorption and scattering coefficients $`a=0.1801\mathrm{m}^1`$ and $`b=1.2525\mathrm{m}^1`$ (thus we include water a and b). It corresponds to a chlorophyll concentration of $`10\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{m}^3`$ at a wavelength $`\lambda =550\mathrm{n}\mathrm{m}`$. The particulate phase function is that of Petzold for turbid water . The phase function for bubbles was calculated by averaging from size parameter $`x=10350`$, where $`x=2\pi r/\lambda `$, $`r`$ is radius. The size distribution follows a $`r^4`$ law. A phase function was derived using the exact method for spheres and we assume a refractive index $`n=3/4`$. The scattering coefficient for bubbles is assumed to be $`b_{\mathrm{bubble}}=0.6181\mathrm{m}^1`$. In our recent paper \[References and links\] we discuss in detail the climatology of bubble layer depth, vertical distribution, and dependence of depth on the wind speed. Assumptions made here are typical for $`10\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}`$ winds in bubble-stratus regime. The radiative transfer calculations were performed using the Monte-Carlo technique \[References and links\]. The main results of this note are presented in Figs. 2-3. Fig. 2 shows the average cosine for the downwelling radiation for the three cases discussed above. In this figure “circles” are for the two-layer system. At first there a is rapid decrease in the value of the average cosine as initially collimated photons are efficiently scattered. After exiting the “bubble” layer the light is already diffuse and only a small adjustment is needed to attain an asymptotic regime for the “no bubbles” situation. This double-exponential transition mechanism seems to be particularly efficient in establishing the near-surface diffuse light field. Clearly, the depth of the bubble layer and the inherent optical properties will further determine this efficiency. Fig 3 shows $`\overline{\mu }(z)`$, which contains contribution from the upwelling radiation as well. The upwelling radiance field adjusts gradually when photons interact with the “bubble” layer. There is preferential loss of photons traveling in the horizontal direction. This leads to more collimated light and increased average cosine close to the surface. In reference  we discuss in more detail the climatology of bubble clouds, which strongly depends on wind speed. The importance of bubbles on an asymptotic light field depends on wind speed, wind gustiness, and microphysical properties of bubbles. Incoming field projects and laboratory studies should give a clearer answer on the influence of bubbles on marine light fields.

In summary we show that the submerged microbubbles are an efficient source of diffuse radiance and, if present, contribute to rapid transition to the diffuse asymptotic regime.

## Acknowledgements

P. J. Flatau was supported in part by the Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Program. J. Piskozub has been supported in part by the Institute of Oceanology PAS and by Office of Naval Research Europe Visiting Scientist Program (VSP). J. Ronald V. Zaneveld acknowledges support of the Environmental Optics program of the Office of Naval Research and the Biogeochemistry program of NASA.


text:
# Comment on the paper: Quantum backaction of optical observations on Bose-Einstein condensates by U. Leonhardt, T. Kiss, and P. Piwnicki, Eur. Phys. J. D7, 413 (1999)

\[

\]

Dispersive imaging with off-resonant light is an important technique for observing Bose-Einstein condensates . Compared to absorption imaging it causes much less heating, and hence, allows the recording of non-destructive real-time “movies” of the dynamics of Bose-Einstein condensates . We observed that a limitation of dispersive imaging comes from residual absorption or Rayleigh scattering. The momentum transfer to the condensate atoms depletes the condensate and heats the cloud due to the transferred recoil energy .

In contrast, a recent paper  emphasized that the limit of dispersive imaging is not residual absorption, but a different form of quantum backaction of the probe light which was determined with a new approach to quantum-optical propagation. This note points out that these conclusions are incorrect, and that Rayleigh scattering is the dominant quantum backaction of dispersive imaging.

First, the absorption rate cannot be completely suppressed by imaging with far-detuned light. For a desired signal-to-noise ratio, a further detuning has to be compensated by higher laser intensity in such a way that the rate of far-wing absorption is constant . The absorption rate per atom is simply the Rayleigh scattering rate $`\gamma _s=\mathrm{\Gamma }f_{\mathrm{exc}}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the natural linewidth and the excited state fraction $`f_{\mathrm{exc}}=(\omega _R/2\mathrm{\Delta })^2`$ is given by the Rabi frequency $`\omega _R`$ of the probe light and its detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The recoil due to the scattering of photons knocks atoms out of the condensate and depletes it with a rate $`\gamma _s`$.

Leonhardt et al.  derived an expression for the depletion of the condensate $`\gamma _L`$ (their Eq. (62)). The rate $`\gamma _L`$ turns out to be proportional to the absorption rate $`\gamma _s`$ but is smaller by a factor of (3/16) . This indicates that the calculated backaction is related to Rayleigh scattering. It seems that it is just Rayleigh scattering with the smaller prefactor caused by approximations of the theory. Therefore, the statement by the authors that their result is *qualitatively* different from Rayleigh scattering is inconsistent with their results.

Another major result of Ref.  is that the phase diffusion rate is always smaller than the depletion rate. Our experiments  were not sensitive to perturbations of the phase, and we didn’t estimate this effect.

In conclusion, residual absorption or Rayleigh scattering is the dominant perturbation of dispersive imaging, and this process is the dominant quantum backaction of the probe light on the Bose-Einstein condensate.