format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The discovery of neutrino oscillations has been one of the most exciting experimental results in the last years. Although a deficit in the flux of solar neutrinos, observed for the first time in the late 60s , suggested that neutrinos oscillate, it was not until the Super-Kamiokande experiment  that the oscillation hypothesis acquired strength111Other hints for neutrino oscillations have been reported in .. As is widely known, these results are nicely explained if neutrinos have a small mass. Explaining why the neutrino mass scale is so small is one of the current unsolved problems in particle physics. An elegant solution is the see-saw mechanism , which consists on adding a heavy Majorana fermion per generation to the Standard Model (SM) particle content, singlet with respect to the SM gauge group, and coupled to the Higgs doublet through a Yukawa coupling. Although very appealing, this model suffers from a serious hierarchy problem, since the right-handed neutrinos produce a (large) quadratically-divergent radiative correction to the Higgs mass. Hence, in this letter we will concentrate on the supersymmetric version of the see-saw mechanism, that stabilizes the Higgs mass against the dangerous quadratic divergences that otherwise appear.

The leptonic part of the corresponding superpotential reads

$`W_{lep}=e_{R}^{c}{}_{}{}^{T}𝐘_𝐞LH_d+\nu _{R}^{c}{}_{}{}^{T}𝐘_\nu LH_u{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\nu _{R}^{c}{}_{}{}^{T}\nu _R^c,`$ (1)
where $`L_i`$ and $`e_{Ri}`$ ($`i=e,\mu ,\tau `$) are the left-handed lepton doublet and the right-handed charged-lepton singlet, respectively, and $`H_d`$ ($`H_u`$) is the hypercharge $`1/2`$ ($`+1/2`$) Higgs doublet. $`𝐘_𝐞`$ and $`𝐘_\nu `$ are the Yukawa couplings that give masses to the charged leptons and generate the neutrino Dirac mass, and $``$ is a $`3\times 3`$ Majorana mass matrix that does not break the SM gauge symmetry.

It is natural to assume that the overall scale of $``$, denoted by $`M`$, is much larger than the electroweak scale or any soft mass. Therefore, at low energies the right-handed neutrinos are decoupled and the corresponding effective Lagrangian contains a Majorana mass term for the left-handed neutrinos:

$`\delta _{lep}=e_{R}^{c}{}_{}{}^{T}𝐘_𝐞LH_d{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\nu ^T_\nu \nu +\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (2)
with

$`_\nu =𝐦_{𝐃}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}^1𝐦_𝐃=𝐘_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{T}^1𝐘_\nu H_u^0^2,`$ (3)
giving neutrino masses suppressed with respect to the typical fermion masses by the inverse power of the large scale $`M`$.

Another attractive feature of the see-saw mechanism is that it provides a natural mechanism  to generate the observed Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe (BAU) , which we parametrize as $`\eta _B=(n_Bn_{\overline{B}})/s`$, where $`s`$ is the entropy density. This quantity, that governs the abundances of the light nuclei D, 3He, 4He and 7Li, must have a value in the range $`\eta _B(0.30.9)\times 10^{10}`$ to reproduce the observed abundances , according to the Standard Big Bang Nucleosynthesis scenario. The generation of this baryon asymmetry requires three ingredients: baryon number violation, C and CP violation, and a deviation from thermal equilibrium . All these conditions are fulfilled in the out of equilibrium decay of right-handed neutrinos  and sneutrinos in the early Universe. For conciseness, and since we are concerned only with supersymmetric leptogenesis, in what follows we will use right-handed neutrinos, and the shorthand notation $`\nu _R`$, to refer both to right-handed neutrinos and right-handed sneutrinos.

Let us briefly review the mechanism of generation of the BAU through leptogenesis . At the end of inflation, a certain number density of right-handed neutrinos, $`n_{\nu _R}`$, is produced, that depends on the cosmological scenario. These right-handed neutrinos decay, with a decay rate that reads, at tree level,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D_i}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _{R_i}\mathrm{}_iH_u)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _{R_i}\stackrel{~}{L}_i\stackrel{~}{h}_u)=\frac{1}{8\pi }(𝐘_\nu 𝐘_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{})_{ii}M_i.$$
(4)
The out of equilibrium decay of the lightest right-handed neutrino $`\nu _{R_1}`$ creates a lepton asymmetry given by

$$\eta _L=\frac{n_{\mathrm{}}n_\overline{\mathrm{}}}{s}=\frac{n_{\nu _R}+n_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_R}}{s}ϵ\delta .$$
(5)
The value of $`(n_{\nu _R}+n_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_R})/s`$ depends on the particular mechanism to generate the right-handed (s)neutrinos. On the other hand, the CP-violating parameter

$$ϵ_i=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D_i}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{D_i}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D_i}+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{D_i}},$$
(6)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{D_i}`$ is the CP conjugated version of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D_i}`$, is determined by the particle physics model that gives the masses and couplings of the $`\nu _R`$. Finally, $`\delta `$ is the fraction of the produced asymmetry that survives washout by lepton number violating interactions after $`\nu _R`$ decay. To ensure $`\delta 1`$, lepton number violating interactions (decays, inverse decays and scatterings) must be out of equilibrium when the right-handed neutrinos decay. This corresponds approximately to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D_1}<H|_{TM_1}`$, where $`H`$ is the Hubble parameter at the temperature $`T`$, and can be expressed in terms of an effective light neutrino mass , $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$, as

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_1=\frac{8\pi H_u^0^2}{M_1^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{D_1}=(𝐘_\nu 𝐘_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{})_{11}\frac{H_u^0^2}{M_1}<5\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}.$$
(7)
This requirement has been carefully studied ; the precise numerical bound on $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ depends on $`M_1`$, and can be found in .

The last step is the transformation of the lepton asymmetry into a baryon asymmetry by non-perturbative B+L violating (sphaleron) processes , giving

$$\eta _B=\frac{C}{C1}\eta _L,$$
(8)
where $`C`$ is a number $`𝒪(1)`$, that in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model takes the value $`C=8/23`$.

Although the supersymmetric leptogenesis scenario is a very attractive framework to generate the BAU, it is not free of problems. Namely, there is a potential conflict  between the gravitino bound  on the reheat temperature, and the thermal creation of right-handed neutrinos. In a plasma at high temperature, gravitinos are abundantly produced, and their late decay could modify the abundances of light nuclei, contrary to observation. This sets an upper bound on the reheat temperature that will have an important role in our discussion.

## 2 Upper bound on the CP asymmetry

As was explained in the introduction, the out of equilibrium decay of $`\nu _R`$s generates a lepton asymmetry that is proportional to the CP asymmetry, $`ϵ`$. To compute the CP asymmetry, it is convenient to work in the flavour basis in which the charged-lepton Yukawa matrix, $`𝐘_𝐞`$, and the gauge interactions are flavour-diagonal (therefore, all the lepton flavour mixing is in $`𝐘_\nu `$). In this basis, the neutrino mass matrix can be diagonalized by the MNS  matrix $`U`$ according to

$$U^T_\nu U=\mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3)D_m,$$
(9)
where $`U`$ is a unitary matrix that relates flavour to mass eigenstates

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _\mu \\ \nu _\tau \end{array}\right)=U\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _1\\ \nu _2\\ \nu _3\end{array}\right).`$ (10)
On the other hand, one can always choose to work in a basis of right-handed neutrinos where $``$ is diagonal

$$=\mathrm{diag}(M_1,M_2,M_3)D_M,$$
(11)
with $`M_i0`$. In this basis, the CP asymmetry can be readily computed, yielding the result

$`ϵ_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[𝐘_\nu 𝐘_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}]_{ii}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{Im}\left\{[𝐘_\nu 𝐘_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}]_{ij}^2\right\}f\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_j^2}{M_i^2}}\right),`$ (12)
where

$$f(x)=\sqrt{x}\left(\frac{2}{x1}+\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{1+x}{x}\right]\right).$$
(13)
Here, we will assume that the masses of the right-handed neutrinos are hierarchical222See  for a discussion on leptogenesis with degenerate right-handed neutrinos.. In this case, the lepton asymmetry is essentially generated in the decay of the lightest right-handed neutrino, so is proportional to

$`ϵ_1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[𝐘_\nu 𝐘_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}]_{11}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{Im}\left\{[𝐘_\nu 𝐘_\nu ^{}]_{1j}^2\right\}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{M_j}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{H_u^0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[𝐘_\nu 𝐘_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}]_{11}}}\mathrm{Im}\left\{[𝐘_\nu _{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝐘_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{T}]_{11}\right\}.`$ (14)
The value of the CP asymmetry depends on the details of the model, however, we will show that there exists a model independent upper bound on the CP asymmetry with several interesting physical consequences.

To derive the upper bound on $`|ϵ_1|`$, we will use the parametrization of the Yukawa couplings introduced in . There, it was proved that the most general Yukawa coupling that satisfies eq.(3) is given by

$`𝐘_\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{H_u^0}}D_\sqrt{M}RD_\sqrt{m}U^+,`$ (15)
where, in an obvious notation, $`D_\sqrt{A}+\sqrt{D_A}`$, and $`R`$ is a (complex) orthogonal matrix. Substituting in eq.(14), one gets

$`ϵ_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{H_u^0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{_jm_j^2\mathrm{Im}(R_{1j}^2)}{_jm_j|R_{1j}|^2}}.`$ (16)
Then, using the orthogonality condition $`_jR_{1j}^2=1`$, it is straight-forward to show that

|ϵ1|

<

38πM1Hu02(m3m1).

<

subscriptitalic-ϵ138𝜋subscript𝑀1superscriptdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝐻𝑢02subscript𝑚3subscript𝑚1\displaystyle|\epsilon_{1}|\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}\frac{3}{8\pi}\frac{M_{1}}{\langle H_{u}^{0}\rangle^{2}}(m_{3}-m_{1}). (17)
(Notice that the upper bound, like the CP asymmetry, goes to zero when the light neutrinos are degenerate in mass.) A hierarchical spectrum of right-handed neutrinos strongly suggests a spectrum of left-handed neutrinos also hierarchical, otherwise a big conspiracy would be needed between $`𝐘_\nu `$ and $``$ to produce a non-hierarchical spectrum. Therefore, we can assume $`m_3m_1`$, hence

|ϵ1|

<

38πM1m3Hu02.

<

subscriptitalic-ϵ138𝜋subscript𝑀1subscript𝑚3superscriptdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝐻𝑢02\displaystyle|\epsilon_{1}|\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}\frac{3}{8\pi}\frac{M_{1}m_{3}}{\langle H_{u}^{0}\rangle^{2}}. (18)
Equations (18) and (17) are the main results of this letter. They are valid in the seesaw model with hierarchical right-handed neutrino masses, and arbitrary Yukawa matrices. A formula similar to eq.(18) can be found in , who estimate $`ϵ`$ to be our bound, but say that unspecified cancellations can allow it to be larger. The limit eq.(18) is present in , who use it to argue in favour of non-thermal right-handed sneutrino production. Numerically similar bounds have been found in specific models .

An immediate consequence of eq.(18) is that the CP asymmetry, $`ϵ`$, and the lightest right-handed neutrino mass, $`M_1`$, are not completely independent parameters, contrary to what is often assumed in the literature. $`ϵ`$ clearly depends on $`M_1`$, but also on the unknown couplings of the $`\nu _R`$, so it would seem reasonable to parametrize the predictions of leptogenesis with $`ϵ`$, $`M_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$, regarding them as independent parameters. However, the upper bound eq.(18) sets a constraint on this parametrization: for instance, if $`ϵ>10^6`$, the reference value chosen by Buchmüller and Plümacher(BP), then $`M_1>4\times 10^9`$ GeV.

This bound is not significantly weakened as the right-handed neutrinos become less hierarchical. If $`M_3>2M_2`$ and $`M_2>2M_1`$, then

|ϵ1|

<

12πM1Hu021[𝐘ν𝐘ν]11Im{[𝐘ν𝐘νT]11}12πM1Hu02(m3m1),

<

subscriptitalic-ϵ112𝜋subscript𝑀1superscriptdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝐻𝑢021subscriptdelimited-[]subscript𝐘𝜈superscriptsubscript𝐘𝜈11Imsubscriptdelimited-[]subscript𝐘𝜈superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝐘𝜈𝑇1112𝜋subscript𝑀1superscriptdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝐻𝑢02subscript𝑚3subscript𝑚1\displaystyle|\epsilon_{1}|\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{M_{1}}{\langle H_{u}^{0}\rangle^{2}}\frac{1}{[{\bf Y_{\nu}Y_{\nu}}^{\dagger}]_{11}}{\mathrm{Im}}\left\{[{\bf Y_{\nu}}{\cal M}^{\dagger}{\bf Y_{\nu}}^{T}]_{11}\right\}\leq\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{M_{1}}{\langle H_{u}^{0}\rangle^{2}}(m_{3}-m_{1}), (19)
i.e., a factor 4/3 larger than the bound eq.(17). As before, for hierarchical left-handed neutrinos, $`m_3m_1`$ can be safely approximated by $`m_3`$. Nonetheless, this mild hierarchy of right-handed masses could be compatible with degenerate left-handed neutrinos, with a certain amount of fine-tuning. In that case, $`m_3m_1\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2/2m_3`$, hence, the maximum CP asymmetry decreases as the overall scale of neutrino masses increases.

So far, we have not implemented in our bound the out-of- equilibrium condition,

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_1={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}m_j|R_{1j}|^2<5\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}.`$ (20)
When one does this, the bound on $`ϵ`$ only becomes slightly stronger, and the improvement is numerically irrelevant. Therefore, and for the sake of clarity, we will use eq.(18) in the forthcoming discussion.

Notice that from eq.(20) we can obtain an upper bound on the lightest left-handed neutrino mass, $`m_1`$. There is a well-known bound on $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$, eq.(7), from requiring that lepton number violating $`\nu _{R_1}`$ decays be out of equilibrium at $`TM_1`$ (to avoid washing-out any lepton asymmetry present at that time). The bound $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1<5\times 10^3`$ eV is usually applied to $`m_1`$, assuming that $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1m_1`$. This is not immediately obvious; $`m_1`$ is the $`\nu _{L_1}`$ mass, and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ the rescaled $`\nu _{R_1}`$ decay rate. However, using the orthogonality of $`R`$, it is clear that $`m_1\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$, so this assumption is justified. This upper limit implies that, in the minimal seesaw model considered here, leptogenesis cannot generate the baryon asymmetry if the $`\nu _L`$ are degenerate333This statement supposes that the Universe is radiation dominated when the $`\nu _R`$ decay. If it is matter dominated ($`e.g.`$ by a scalar condensate), leptogenesis might be possible. . More complicated models are required .

## 3 Lower bound on the lightest right-handed neutrino mass

In this section we will derive a bound on $`M_1`$ using the lower bound on the CP asymmetry, and the information available on neutrino masses and cosmology, for the case of hierarchical right-handed and left-handed neutrinos. From eqs.(5,8,18), one obtains

M1

>

ηB1CC[nνR+nν~Rs38πm3Hu02δ]1.

>

subscript𝑀1subscript𝜂𝐵1𝐶𝐶superscriptdelimited-[]subscript𝑛subscript𝜈𝑅subscript𝑛subscript~𝜈𝑅𝑠38𝜋subscript𝑚3superscriptdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝐻𝑢02𝛿1\displaystyle M_{1}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}\eta_{B}\frac{1-C}{C}\left[\frac{n_{\nu_{R}}+n_{\tilde{\nu}_{R}}}{s}~{}\frac{3}{8\pi}\frac{m_{3}}{\langle H_{u}^{0}\rangle^{2}}~{}\delta\right]^{-1}. (21)
In this inequality, $`\eta _B`$ is constrained by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis to lie in the range $`(0.30.9)\times 10^{10}`$, and $`m_3\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}`$ by atmospheric neutrino data to be within $`0.040.08\mathrm{eV}`$. The washout parameter, $`\delta <1`$, should be calculated case by case by integrating the full Boltzmann equations . On the other hand, the remaining quantity, the right-handed neutrino density over the entropy density, depends crucially on the mechanism of generation of right-handed neutrinos: thermal production, or non-thermal production (for instance during preheating) lead to different bounds on $`M_1`$. Let us discuss each case separately.

Thermal production

In this case, the right-handed neutrinos are generated by scatterings in the thermal bath. When the number density of right-handed neutrinos is thermal at $`T>M_1`$, the prediction for the ratio of $`n_{\nu _R}`$ to the entropy density, $`s`$, is $`n_{\nu _R}/s0.4/g_{}`$, where $`g_{}230`$ is the number of propagating states in the supersymmetric plasma. Assuming that the asymmetry was not washed-out after being generated ($`\delta 1`$) gives a conservative lower bound of M1

>

108

>

subscript𝑀1superscript108M_{1}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{8} GeV. However, the numerical results of BP suggest that this is improbable: if the Yukawa couplings are large enough to produce a thermal density $`n_{\nu _R}`$, then the asymmetry will be partially washed-out by lepton number violating interactions after the decay of the right-handed neutrinos. Therefore, scaling our bound by $`n_{\nu _R}/s\delta 0.04/g_{}`$ , we obtain

M1

>

109(ηB5×1011)(.06eVm3)(2×104nνR/sδ)GeV.

>

subscript𝑀1superscript109subscript𝜂𝐵5superscript1011.06𝑒𝑉subscript𝑚32superscript104subscript𝑛subscript𝜈𝑅𝑠𝛿GeVM_{1}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{9}\left(\frac{\eta_{B}}{5\times 10^{-11}}\right)\left(\frac{.06eV}{m_{3}}\right)\left(\frac{2\times 10^{-4}}{n_{\nu_{R}}/s~{}\delta}\right){\rm~{}GeV}. (22)
The thermal production of right-handed neutrinos requires a reheat temperature larger than $`M_1`$. A typical value might be $`T_{reh}10M_1`$ , so we get

Treh

>

1010(ηB5×1011)(.06eVm3)(2×104nνR/sδ)(Treh10M1)GeV,

>

subscript𝑇𝑟𝑒superscript1010subscript𝜂𝐵5superscript1011.06𝑒𝑉subscript𝑚32superscript104subscript𝑛subscript𝜈𝑅𝑠𝛿subscript𝑇𝑟𝑒10subscript𝑀1GeVT_{reh}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{10}\left(\frac{\eta_{B}}{5\times 10^{-11}}\right)\left(\frac{.06eV}{m_{3}}\right)\left(\frac{2\times 10^{-4}}{n_{\nu_{R}}/s~{}\delta}\right)\left(\frac{T_{reh}}{10M_{1}}\right){\rm~{}GeV}, (23)
or, using $`T_{reh}>(110)M_1`$,

Treh

>

1081010GeV(baryonasymmetry),

>

subscript𝑇𝑟𝑒superscript108superscript1010GeVbaryonasymmetryT_{reh}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{8}-10^{10}{\rm~{}GeV~{}~{}~{}~{}(baryon~{}asymmetry)}, (24)
being more probable the large values in this range, since they take into account the unavoidable washout effects. The bound (23) applies to hierarchical right-handed neutrinos, irrespective of the form of the Yukawa matrix. It is the same as the estimate made in  for specific texture models.

It is enlightening to compare this lower bound on the reheat temperature with the upper bound obtained from gravitino overproduction . Gravitinos are produced by scattering in the thermal bath at a rate $`T^3/m_{pl}^2`$, and then decay with a lifetime $`m_{pl}^2/m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}^3`$. Their decay products can disassociate light elements, jeopardizing the successful predictions of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis . To prevent this, gravitinos should not be abundantly produced, and this in turn imposes an upper bound on the reheat temperature :

Treh

<

1091012GeV(gravitinoproduction).

<

subscript𝑇𝑟𝑒superscript109superscript1012GeVgravitinoproductionT_{reh}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{9}-10^{12}{\rm~{}GeV~{}~{}~{}~{}(gravitino~{}production)}. (25)
The first value, $`T_{reh}10^9`$ GeV, is the most commonly used in the literature, although the weaker bound $`T_{reh}10^{12}`$ GeV, corresponding to 3 TeV $`<m_{\stackrel{~}{G}}<`$ 10 TeV, cannot be precluded. Gravitinos can also be produced efficiently in the oscillations of the inflaton , if the inflatino mixes significantly with the gravitino . This leads to a stronger, although model-dependent, bound on $`T_{reh}`$, which we do not consider.

Interestingly enough, there is a potential conflict between equations (24) and (25). If the right-handed neutrinos are produced thermally, the preferred gravitino bound Treh

<

109

<

subscript𝑇𝑟𝑒superscript109T_{reh}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{9} GeV is below the preferred leptogenesis bound Treh

>

1010

>

subscript𝑇𝑟𝑒superscript1010T_{reh}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}10^{10} GeV. There are various solutions to this possible problem. If the gravitino is heavy, $`T_{reh}>10^{10}`$ GeV is consistent with BBN. It is also possible to construct models where the gravitino is the LSP, that allow reheat temperatures $`<10^{11}`$ GeV . Alternatively, the number of right-handed neutrinos produced thermally may be insufficient to generate the baryon asymmetry. In this case, other (non-thermal) production mechanisms should come into play .

Non-thermal production

Right-handed neutrinos could be coupled to the inflaton, and hence produced perturbatively  or non-perturbatively  in inflaton decay. A right-handed sneutrino condensate could also be generated by the Affleck-Dine mechanism . In these cases, $`M_1<T_{reh}`$ is not required. Then, it is clear that the gravitino problem will be easily avoided, since it is possible to create rather heavy particles with relatively low reheat temperatures, that do not endanger the predictions of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.

There is nonetheless a bound on $`M_1`$ in this scenario, and on the temperature of the Universe when the $`\nu _R`$ decay, $`T_\mathrm{\Gamma }<M_1`$. This has been considered in , for the decay of a $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_R`$ condensate. We briefly review their discussion here, applied to the general case of non-thermally produced $`\nu _R`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_R`$. We assume a distribution of right-handed neutrinos that decay instantaneously, at a time equal to the right-handed neutrino lifetime, to radiation that dominates the Universe. The decay products are thermalized because they have gauge interactions. Probably, the right-handed neutrinos only contribute a fraction of the energy density of the Universe, $`\rho _U`$, when they decay; however, the baryon to entropy ratio will be maximum if the right-handed neutrinos dominate the Universe. Hence, if we assume $`\rho _U\rho _{\nu _R}`$, we will obtain a lower bound on $`ϵ_1`$ and therefore on $`M_1`$. When the right-handed neutrinos decay

$$M_1n_{\nu _R}\frac{g_{}\pi ^2}{30}T_\mathrm{\Gamma }^4sT_\mathrm{\Gamma },$$
(26)
which combined with eq.(21) gives

M1>TΓ

>

5×105(ηB5×1011)(.06eVm3)GeV.subscript𝑀1subscript𝑇Γ

>

5superscript105subscript𝜂𝐵5superscript1011.06𝑒𝑉subscript𝑚3GeV\displaystyle M_{1}>T_{\Gamma}\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}5\times 10^{5}\left(\frac{\eta_{B}}{5\times 10^{-11}}\right)\left(\frac{.06eV}{m_{3}}\right)~{}~{}{\rm GeV}. (27)
There is a lower bound on $`T_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, because if $`M_1`$ is large (implying large $`ϵ_1`$) but $`T_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is small, then the entropy produced per $`\nu _R`$ decay is large, and dilutes the asymmetry. The bound on $`T_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ sets the minimum temperature possible in the Universe at the time that the lepton asymmetry is generated. Consequently, it also represents a bound on the temperature at which all the unwanted relics (gravitinos, moduli,…) cannot be overproduced, since any relics produced after this moment cannot be diluted by entropy production (otherwise, the baryon asymmetry would also be diluted).

A particular example of non-thermal $`\nu _R`$ production is to create the population of right-handed neutrinos during preheating. The previous lower limit on $`M_1`$, eq.(27), applies to this scenario. In addition, the lower bound on $`ϵ_1`$ from eq.(18) implies that neutrinos must be relatively strongly coupled to the inflaton in the model of , as we will now see.

Reference  assumes a model of chaotic inflation, where the right-handed neutrino interacts with the inflaton, $`\varphi `$, via $`g\varphi \nu _R\nu _R`$. The effective mass of the $`\nu _R`$ is $`M+g\varphi (t)`$, so, as $`\varphi `$ oscillates, it goes through zero for sufficiently large $`\varphi `$ oscillations. Significant numbers of $`\nu _R`$ can be produced while they are effectively massless. The energy density in right-handed neutrinos, divided by the energy density of the inflaton, is of order

$$\frac{\rho _{\nu _R}}{\rho _\varphi }\frac{4}{3\pi ^2}\frac{m_\varphi ^2}{\varphi _0^2}q=\frac{g^2}{3\pi ^2},$$
(28)
where $`m_\varphi 10^6m_{pl}`$ is the oscillation frequency of the inflaton, $`\varphi _0m_{pl}/3`$ is its initial value at the start of oscillations, and $`qg^2\varphi _0^2/m_\varphi ^2`$. The final asymmetry can be estimated as

$$\frac{n_{BL}}{s}9\times 10^8ϵ_1\frac{T_{reh}}{10^9GeV}\frac{10^{15}GeV}{M_1}\frac{q}{10^{10}}.$$
(29)
Implementing our bound in this estimate, we find

$$\frac{n_{BL}}{s}<2\times 10^8\frac{T_{reh}}{10^9GeV}\frac{q}{10^{10}},$$
(30)
so $`q>10^8`$ is required. This corresponds to $`g>.06`$.

Loopholes

There are various ways of evading our lower bound on $`M_1`$ and $`T_{reh}`$.

The formula we use for $`ϵ_1`$ is applicable to hierarchical right-handed neutrino masses: $`M_3M_2M_1`$. The bound does not apply for quasi-degenerate $`\nu _R`$ (see $`e.g.`$ ), where leptogenesis is complicated by mixing among the $`\nu _R`$. However, the right-handed masses must be quite close for the bound on $`ϵ_1`$ to weaken: as shown in Section 2, the upper bound on $`ϵ_1`$ is only 4/3 larger when $`M_3>2M_2`$, $`M_2>2M_1`$.

In supersymmetric models, the baryon asymmetry can be generated via the Affleck-Dine mechanism . The magnitude of the asymmetry in this scenario is controlled by a different combination of parameters; we have not considered any possible implications our bound might have.

Finally, we note that in non-supersymmetric models, there is no upper bound on the reheat temperature from gravitino overproduction. So, the lower bound on $`T_{reh}`$ from leptogenesis is not disturbing. However, the seesaw without SUSY suffers from a hierarchy problem.

## 4 Summary

In leptogenesis scenarios, the baryon asymmetry is generated in the out-of-equilibrium decay of right-handed neutrinos and sneutrinos in the early Universe. The asymmetry is proportional to $`ϵ_1`$, which parametrizes CP violation in these decays.

We have shown that there exists a model independent upper bound on $`ϵ_1`$ as a function of $`M_1`$:

|ϵ1|

<

38πM1Hu02(m3m1).

<

subscriptitalic-ϵ138𝜋subscript𝑀1superscriptdelimited-⟨⟩superscriptsubscript𝐻𝑢02subscript𝑚3subscript𝑚1\displaystyle|\epsilon_{1}|\mathrel{\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}\frac{3}{8\pi}\frac{M_{1}}{\langle H_{u}^{0}\rangle^{2}}(m_{3}-m_{1}). (31)
where $`m_3`$ is the heaviest light neutrino mass (we take $`(m_3m_1)\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}`$), and $`M_1`$ is the lightest right-handed neutrino mass. This bound assumes hierarchical right-handed neutrino masses.

The observed baryon asymmetry $`\eta _{BL}10^{10}`$ sets a lower limit on $`ϵ_1`$, and therefore on $`M_1`$. If the right-handed neutrinos are thermally produced, then $`\eta _{BL}<10^{(23)}ϵ_1`$ and $`M_1>10^{89}`$ GeV. The reheat temperature must be at least as large as $`M_1`$, so this implies $`T_{reh}>10^810^{10}`$ GeV. Numerical and analytic results  suggest that $`\eta _{BL}<10^3ϵ_1`$ for $`T_{reh}=10M_1`$. These parameters correspond to the lower bound $`T_{reh}>10^{10}`$ GeV, that in some scenarios conflicts with the upper bound from gravitino overproduction.

We briefly discussed various loopholes in the limit on $`ϵ_1`$, and in the bound derived from it on $`T_{reh}`$. If the right-handed neutrinos are produced by a non-thermal process, $`M_1`$ can be much larger than $`T_{reh}`$, so there is no lower bound on $`T_{reh}`$. There are analytic approximations  for the lepton asymmetry due to right-handed neutrinos generated during preheating; implementing the bound (31) in these formulae, we find that very efficient $`\nu _R`$ production ($`q>10^8`$) is required to get a large enough asymmetry.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Marco Peloso, Michael Plümacher, Graham Ross and Alessandro Strumia for comments and discussions.


text:
# 1 Microscopic Approach

## 1 Microscopic Approach

Consider a dielectric nonmagnetic ball of the radius $`a`$ and permittivity $`\epsilon `$ at zero temperature, surrounded by a vacuum. The ball is dilute, i.e. all final expressions are obtained under the assumption $`\epsilon 11`$ in the order $`(\epsilon (i\omega )1)^2`$, the lowest order that yields the energy of interaction between atoms of the ball.

The Casimir energy of a disjoint macroscopic system (two dispersive dielectric parallel plates is a classic example by Lifshitz) depends only on the distance between macroscopic bodies and dispersion of dielectrics?. On the other hand, it was first argued in Refs.?,? that for a dilute connected dielectric the Casimir energy at zero temperature is equal to the energy of dipole-dipole pairwise interactions of all atoms constituting the dielectric and thus should also depend on an average minimum distance between atoms of a dielectric $`\lambda `$. For a dilute dispersive dielectric ball with an arbitrary frequency dependent dielectric permittivity the Casimir energy at zero temperature was first derived in Ref.?.

A dipole-dipole interaction of two neutral atoms with atomic polarizabilities $`\alpha _1(i\omega )`$ and $`\alpha _2(i\omega )`$ is described by a potential ?

$$U(r)=\frac{1}{\pi r^2}_0^+\mathrm{}\omega ^4\alpha _1(i\omega )\alpha _2(i\omega )e^{2\omega r}\left[1+\frac{2}{\omega r}+\frac{5}{(\omega r)^2}+\frac{6}{(\omega r)^3}+\frac{3}{(\omega r)^4}\right]𝑑\omega ,$$
(1)
where $`r`$ is a distance between two atoms. The energy calculation for the ball is illustrated by Fig.$`1`$. Suppose that an atom with an atomic polarizability $`\alpha (i\omega )`$ is located at the point $`B`$. One has to integrate interaction of an atom at the point $`B`$ via a potential (1) with the atoms separated by distances greater than interatomic distances $`\lambda `$ from the point $`B`$, integrate over all atom locations $`B`$ inside the ball and multiply by a factor $`1/2`$ to calculate the energy.

Assuming homogeneity of the ball (it results in $`\alpha _1(i\omega )=\alpha _2(i\omega )=\alpha (i\omega )`$ and the condition that the number density of atoms $`\rho `$ doesn’t depend on the point inside the ball), the Casimir energy is equal to

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{2}}({\displaystyle _0^{a\lambda }}dp\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi p^2{\displaystyle _\lambda ^{ap}}dr\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi r^2U(r)`$ (2)
$`+{\displaystyle _0^{a\lambda }}𝑑p\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi p^2{\displaystyle _{ap}^{a+p}}𝑑r\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi r^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2p}}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2a^2}{2pr}}\right)U(r)`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{a\lambda }^a}dp\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi p^2{\displaystyle _\lambda ^{a+p}}dr\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi r^2(1{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2p}}{\displaystyle \frac{p^2a^2}{2pr}})U(r))`$
Performing calculations, it is possible to derive an analytic result?:

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`\rho ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{48}}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}d\omega \alpha ^2(i\omega )({\displaystyle \frac{a^3}{\lambda ^3}}e^{2\omega \lambda }(128+256\omega \lambda +128\omega ^2\lambda ^2+64\omega ^3\lambda ^3)`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{\lambda ^2}}\left(e^{2\omega \lambda }(144+288\omega \lambda +120\omega ^2\lambda ^2+48\omega ^3\lambda ^3)96\omega ^2\lambda ^2E_1(2\omega \lambda )\right)+`$
$`\left(e^{2\omega \lambda }(41+34\omega \lambda +14\omega ^2\lambda ^2+4\omega ^3\lambda ^3)+24E_1(2\omega \lambda )\right)+`$
$`(e^{4\omega a}(21+12\omega a)E_1(4\omega a)(24+96\omega ^2a^2))),`$
where $`E_1(x)=_1^+\mathrm{}e^{tx}/t𝑑t`$.

Eq.(3) finally solves the problem of the Casimir energy for a dilute dielectric ball at zero temperature. This energy is finite and physical only when a finite minimum separation between atoms $`\lambda `$ is taken into account.

Some words need to be said about the change of a viewpoint on the physical definition of the Casimir energy. When an interatomic distance $`\lambda `$ is taken into account, the Casimir energy can be calculated without divergences by use of Eq.(2), and so calculated energy doesn’t require further renormalization. No further renormalization is needed since it is obvious from the method of calculations that the Casimir energy (3) coincides with a potential (binding) energy of the ball when $`\lambda `$ is large enough, so that effects of short-range interatomic repulsive forces and other interactions can be neglected. In this case there is no classical part of the energy in the beginning of calculations, there exists only a set of atoms with specified interactions between them due to quantum fluctuations. The sum of all these interactions between atoms should give the Casimir contribution to the binding energy of a dielectric ball – a macroscopic classical system.

The leading contribution from the last line in (3) is equal to

$``$ $`\rho ^2\alpha ^2(0){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{48}}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \left(e^{4\omega a}(21+12\omega a)E_1(4\omega a)(24+96\omega ^2a^2)\right)`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`\rho ^2\alpha ^2(0){\displaystyle \frac{23}{96}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{a}}={\displaystyle \frac{23}{1536\pi a}}(\epsilon 1)^2=E_{ld}.`$
The term (4) can be called a contribution from large distances to the Casimir energy of the ball. Usually all terms different from (4) were simply discarded or added up to macroscopic quantities of the ball (e.g., volume, surface energies) during the renormalization procedure, as it often happens in field theory. So only the term (4) was usually considered as the Casimir energy term. In fact, this was an erroneous definition of the Casimir energy since no physical quantities can be calculated by use of Eq.(4). All physical quantities that can be measurable at least in principle for a dilute ball (e.g., surface force or trajectories of the particles near the ball surface during the ball collapse in the adiabatic approximation) have to be calculated by use of a total potential energy of the ball (3). The term (4) has little influence on physics. The reason is quite simple - the term (4) is much less in magnitude than the terms in the first, second and third lines of (3). For example, ratio of terms in the first line of (3) to (4) is $`(\omega _0a)(a/\lambda )^31`$, where $`\omega _0`$ is a characteristic atomic absorption frequency. However, the term (4) was really important for development of the theory of Casimir effect in connected dielectrics since this term has been derived via microscopic ? and macroscopic ? techniques - so the equivalence of large distance parts of the Casimir energy for a dilute dielectric ball derived by microscopic and macroscopic approaches was proved.

It is important to stress that so far macroscopic methods did not yield satisfactorily short distance contributions to the Casimir energy of connected dielectrics?. The reason is simple: these methods were developed for disjoint, not connected dielectrics.

From (2) it follows that Casimir surface force on a dilute dielectric ball is attractive. It is convenient to define $`Na/\lambda ,p\omega \lambda `$. Then Eq.(3) can be rewritten in a general form

$$E=\frac{\rho ^2}{\lambda }_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑p\alpha ^2\left(i\frac{p}{\lambda }\right)f(N,p).$$
(5)
The function $`f(N,p)>0`$ for $`N>1/2,p>0`$. Conservation of atoms inside the ball and homogeneity impose the condition

$$\rho \frac{4\pi a^3}{3}=const.$$
(6)
From the condition of an atomic conservation (6) it follows that during the ball collapse or expansion

$$N=\mathrm{const}.$$
(7)
It is convenient to use Kramers–Kronig relations in the form

$$\alpha (i\omega )=_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑x\frac{xg(x)}{x^2+\omega ^2},$$
(8)
where the condition $`g(x)>0`$ always holds. Using (5), (6), (7), (8), Casimir force on a unit surface is equal to

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{E}{a}}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{4\pi a^3}}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x(7x^2+3\omega ^2)g(x)}{(x^2+\omega ^2)^2}}\alpha (i\omega )f(N,\omega \lambda )<0.`$
$`F<0`$ because all functions inside integrals are positive. Casimir surface force is attractive for every model of atomic polarizability consistent with general causal requirements.

References