text:
# Flavor-dependent 𝐶𝑃 violation and electroweak baryogenesis in supersymmetric theories

## I Introduction

During the last few years, the data collected from the acoustic peaks in the cosmic microwave background radiation Jungman:1995bz  has allowed to obtain a more precise measurement of the baryon asymmetry of the universe (BAU). This is expected to further improve in the near future with the MAP experiment MAP  and the PLANCK satellite PLANCK . At the present time, the measurement of the baryon-to-entropy ratio is

$$0.7\times 10^{10}\frac{n_B}{s}1.0\times 10^{10},$$
(1)
where $`s=2\pi ^2g_{}T^3/45`$ is the entropy density and $`g_{}`$ is the effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom.

It is well known that in order to obtain an asymmetry starting from a symmetric state with a vanishing baryon number, three requirements must be satisfied: baryon number violation, $`C`$ and $`CP`$ violation, and departure from thermal and kinetic equilibrium Sakharov:dj . In the standard model (SM) of electroweak interactions, the main source of $`CP`$ violation comes from the phase $`\delta _{CKM}`$ in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) quark mixing matrix. Although this phase is able to account for the experimentally observed $`CP`$ violation in the neutral $`K`$-mesons and, as recently observed, in the $`B_d`$ system, it has been shown that it is not possible to generate sufficient BAU through $`\delta _{CKM}`$ Farrar:sp . Furthermore, the strength of the phase transition is too weak in the SM and the universe is approximately in equilibrium Buchmuller:1994qy  (for reviews on electroweak baryogenesis, see for instance Refs. Cohen:1993nk ; Riotto:1999yt ).

In the context of supersymmetric (SUSY) extensions of the SM, it has been pointed out that the above problems can be in principle overcome Giudice:hh . Moreover, in the presence of light stops the electroweak phase transition can be strong enough for baryogenesis to take place Carena:1996wj ; Espinosa:1996qw ; Delepine:1996vn ; Cline:1996cr ; Laine:1996ms ; Laine:1998qk ; Quiros:2000wk . Moreover, SUSY models contain new $`CP`$-violating sources beyond $`\delta _{CKM}`$, namely the Higgs bilinear term, $`\mu `$, and the soft breaking terms (gaugino and squark soft masses, bilinear and trilinear couplings). These can be classified as flavor-blind or flavor-dependent. The first category includes the phases of the $`\mu `$\- and $`B`$-parameters, of the gaugino masses and the overall phase of the trilinear couplings $`A_{ij}`$. Two of these phases can be eliminated by $`U(1)_R`$ and $`U(1)_{PQ}`$ transformations. The second category contains the phases of $`A_{ij}`$ (after the overall phase is factored out), as well as the ones appearing in the off-diagonal elements of the soft squark masses. The low energy implications of these flavor-dependent phases on $`K`$ and $`B`$ meson $`CP`$-violating observables, as well as in rare decays, have been extensively studied in the literature Khalil:1999zn ; Barbieri:1999ax ; Branco:2002kz . The question that naturally arises is whether the new SUSY phases could significantly enhance the $`CP`$-violating sources, so that supersymmetric electroweak baryogenesis could account for the observed baryon asymmetry of the universe.

A considerable amount of work has been done concerning the implications of the new flavor-independent $`CP`$-violating phases on generating an acceptable value of the baryon asymmetry Huet:1995sh ; Riotto:1997vy ; Carena:1997gx ; Cline:2000kb ; Kainulainen:2001cn ; Carena:2002ss . It has been shown that in the minimal supersymmetric extension of the SM (MSSM), if the relative phase $`\varphi _\mu `$ between the gaugino soft mass and the $`\mu `$ term is not too small, $`\varphi _\mu 0.04`$, a considerable BAU can be generated through the scattering of the charginos with the bubble wall. However, the non-observation of the electric dipole moment (EDM) of the electron, neutron and mercury atom Harris:jx ; Hagiwara:pw  imposes severe constraints on the flavor-diagonal phases Pokorski:1999hz ; Abel:2001vy , forcing them to be small. Since in this limit the theory does not acquire any new symmetry, one has to deal with a naturalness problem, and this is precisely the so-called SUSY $`CP`$ problem.

In particular, the EDM’s bound the phase $`\varphi _\mu `$ to be $`10^2`$, if the SUSY particle masses are not too heavy ($`1`$ TeV). It has recently been claimed that new contributions to the EDM of the electron could eventually rule out the electroweak baryogenesis scenario based on flavor-independent $`CP`$-violating phases Chang:1998uc . A possible way to generate enough BAU while evading these constraints is to work in the heavy squark limit ($`m_Q3\text{TeV}`$Pilaftsis:2002fe .

However, if we assume that SUSY $`CP`$ violation has a flavor character such as in the SM Abel:2000hn , one is led to a scenario where all flavor conserving parameters as the $`\mu `$-term and gaugino masses are real. In this framework, the dominant sources of $`CP`$ violation that are relevant to electroweak baryogenesis are in general associated with the lightest of the right-handed up-squarks Worah:1997hk . In the usual MSSM scenario with complex $`\mu `$ and gaugino masses, this contribution would be always subdominant, and could even be neglected when compared to that of the charginos and neutralinos Riotto:1997vy ; Carena:1997gx .

In this paper we study the effects of the flavor-dependent $`CP`$-violating phases on the mechanism of electroweak baryogenesis. We show that in generic SUSY models with non-universal soft SUSY breaking terms, and in particular with non-universal $`A`$-terms, the squark contributions to the BAU are far from being negligible. Although in this framework the $`\mu `$-term is real, flavor mixing might lead to a potentially large baryon asymmetry. As an example, we analyze the baryon asymmetry in supersymmetric models with Hermitian flavor structures, a type of model that also provides an elegant solution for the EDM’s suppression Abel:2000hn ; Chen:2001cv ; Khalil:2002jq .

Obtaining sufficiently accurate transport equations for particles propagating in the presence of a $`CP`$-violating bubble wall at the electroweak phase transition is crucial for the computation of the baryon asymmetry generated in the context of electroweak baryogenesis. In spite of the general consensus on the existence and nature of the $`CP`$-violating sources responsible for the baryon production, there is still a controversy in the literature in what concerns the strength and form of these sources as well as the transport equations to be used in the calculations Huet:1995sh ; Riotto:1997vy ; Carena:1997gx ; Cline:2000kb ; Kainulainen:2001cn ; Carena:2002ss . For instance, the results obtained in the MSSM framework for the chargino and squark sources by making use of the continuity equations and the relaxation time approximation Riotto:1997vy ; Carena:1997gx  are different from those based on WKB-methods Cline:2000kb . Furthermore, it has been claimed in Ref. Cline:2000kb ; Kainulainen:2001cn  that the dominant contribution to the chargino source, typically found within the MSSM and which is of the form $`ϵ_{ij}v_i_\mu v_j`$ ($`v_{1,2}`$ are the expectation values of the two Higgs doublets) Riotto:1997vy ; Carena:1997gx , is absent, thus leading to a suppressed baryon asymmetry Cline:2000kb ; Kainulainen:2001cn . However, in a recent work Carena:2002ss  it is argued that such a suppression is in fact an artifact of the approximation used by the authors of Refs. Cline:2000kb ; Kainulainen:2001cn  in order to compute the $`CP`$-violating currents. In view of the above discussion, we adopt in the present work the approach of Refs. Huet:1995sh ; Riotto:1997vy ; Carena:1997gx ; Carena:2002ss  in order to derive the $`CP`$-violating currents and sources.

The paper is organized as follows. By using the closed time path formalism, we build in Section II the quantum Boltzmann equations to obtain the $`CP`$-violating sources relevant to baryogenesis and discuss their general flavor dependence. In Section III we compute the baryon asymmetry induced by these $`CP`$-violating sources. An analytical approximate expression for the asymmetry is also presented. In Section IV we obtain model independent bounds for the up-squark left-right mass insertions by requiring the baryon-to-entropy ratio to lie in the experimental range. We also consider some specific SUSY models with minimal and non-minimal flavor structure and discuss whether or not they can account for the required BAU. Our numerical results are presented in Section V. Finally, we present our concluding remarks in Section VI.

## II $`CP`$-violating sources for the baryon asymmetry

Before computing the $`CP`$-violating sources for the baryon asymmetry, we shall briefly recall some characteristics of non-equilibrium quantum field theory Kadanoff:1962 ; Chou:es . During a first-order phase transition, the thermodynamical system is far from equilibrium. In order to keep an explicit time dependence, one should use the real-time finite temperature quantum field theory. The most used and powerful formalism to describe such a system is the so-called closed time path formalism (CTP), which is a generalization of the time contour integration to a closed time path. More precisely, the time integration is deformed to run from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$ and back to $`\mathrm{}`$. The main effect of this closed time path is to double the field variables so that for each field we have four different real-time propagators on the contour. In the case of a boson field $`\varphi `$, we can write the corresponding Green functions in terms of the $`2\times 2`$ matrices craig1968

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_\varphi =\left(\begin{array}{cc}G_\varphi ^t& G_\varphi ^<\\ G_\varphi ^>& G_\varphi ^{\overline{t}}\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
where

$`G_\varphi ^>(x,y)=i\varphi (x)\varphi ^{}(y),G_\varphi ^<(x,y)=i\varphi ^{}(y)\varphi (x),`$ (3)
$`G_\varphi ^t(x,y)`$ $`=\theta (x,y)G_\varphi ^>(x,y)+\theta (y,x)G_\varphi ^<(x,y),`$
$`G_\varphi ^{\overline{t}}(x,y)`$ $`=\theta (y,x)G_\varphi ^>(x,y)+\theta (x,y)G_\varphi ^<(x,y).`$ (4)
In what follows the subscript $`\varphi `$ will be omitted to simplify our notation.

As mentioned in the introduction, an accurate computation of the $`CP`$-violating sources responsible for electroweak baryogenesis is crucial to obtain a reliable estimate of the baryon asymmetry. Here we adopt the method developed by Kadanoff and Baym Kadanoff:1962  to derive the quantum Boltzmann equations for a generic bosonic particle asymmetry. We shall compute the sources using the formalism based on CTP and the Dyson equations as described in Ref. Riotto:1997vy .

In general it is possible to write the Dyson equation for any propagator $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ as

$`\stackrel{~}{G}(x,y)`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{G}^0(x,y)+{\displaystyle d^4x_1d^4x_2\stackrel{~}{G}^0(x,x_1)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(x_1,x_2)\stackrel{~}{G}(x_2,y)}`$
$`=\stackrel{~}{G}^0(x,y)+{\displaystyle d^4x_1d^4x_2\stackrel{~}{G}(x,x_1)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(x_1,x_2)\stackrel{~}{G}^0(x_2,y)},`$ (5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{G}^0`$ are the non-interacting Green functions and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ are the self-energy functions, which can be also expressed in terms of the $`2\times 2`$ matrices

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Sigma }^t& \mathrm{\Sigma }^<\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }^>& \mathrm{\Sigma }^{\overline{t}}\end{array}\right),$$
(6)
satisfying the relations

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^t(x,y)`$ $`=\theta (x,y)\mathrm{\Sigma }^>(x,y)+\theta (y,x)\mathrm{\Sigma }^<(x,y),`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\overline{t}}(x,y)`$ $`=\theta (y,x)\mathrm{\Sigma }^>(x,y)+\theta (x,y)\mathrm{\Sigma }^<(x,y).`$ (7)
Iterating Eq. (II) one finds

$`\stackrel{~}{G}(x,y)`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{G}^0(x,y)+{\displaystyle d^4x_1d^4x_2\stackrel{~}{G}^0(x,x_1)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(x_1,x_2)\stackrel{~}{G}^0(x_2,y)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle d^4x_1d^4x_2d^4x_3d^4x_4\stackrel{~}{G}^0(x,x_1)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(x_1,x_2)\stackrel{~}{G}^0(x_2,x_3)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(x_3,x_4)\stackrel{~}{G}^0(x_4,y)}`$
$`+\mathrm{}.`$ (8)
In order to compute the sources for the squark diffusion equations, we shall write the quantum Boltzmann equations (QBE) for a generic bosonic particle asymmetry,

$$\frac{n_\varphi }{T}+\mathbf{}𝑱_\varphi =𝒮,$$
(9)
where $`n_\varphi `$ is the number density of particles minus antiparticles and $`𝒮`$ is the associated $`CP`$-violating source. More specifically, we shall derive the QBE for the current

$$J_\varphi ^\mu (x)i\varphi ^{}(x)\stackrel{}{}_x^\mu \varphi (x)(n_\varphi (x),𝑱_\varphi (x)),$$
(10)
or in terms of the Green functions,

$$J_\varphi ^\mu (x)=\underset{xy}{lim}(_x^\mu _y^\mu )G^<(x,y).$$
(11)
It proves convenient to work in the coordinate system of the center of mass, which is defined by

$$X=(T,𝑹)=\frac{1}{2}(x+y),\overline{x}=(t,𝒓)=xy.$$

Hence

$$G^<(x,y)=G^<(t,𝒓,T,𝑹)=i\varphi ^{}(T\frac{t}{2},𝑹\frac{𝒓}{2})\varphi (T+\frac{t}{2},𝑹+\frac{𝒓}{2}).$$

The next step is to find a solution for $`G^<`$ when the system is not in equilibrium. This can be achieved by applying the operator $`(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}+m^2)`$ on both sides of the equivalent representations of the Schwinger-Dyson equation (II):

$`(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}_x+m^2)\stackrel{~}{G}(x,y)`$ $`=\delta ^4(x,y)𝟙+{\displaystyle 𝕕^\mathrm{𝟜}𝕩_\mathrm{𝟙}\stackrel{~}{\mathbb{\Sigma }}(𝕩,𝕩_\mathrm{𝟙})\stackrel{~}{𝔾}(𝕩_\mathrm{𝟙},𝕪)},`$ (12)
$`\stackrel{~}{G}(x,y)(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}_y+m^2)`$ $`=\delta ^4(x,y)𝟙+{\displaystyle 𝕕^\mathrm{𝟜}𝕩_\mathrm{𝟙}\stackrel{~}{𝔾}(𝕩,𝕩_\mathrm{𝟙})\stackrel{~}{\mathbb{\Sigma }}(𝕩_\mathrm{𝟙},𝕪)},`$ (13)
where $`𝟙`$ is the identity matrix. Since $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }G)^<=\mathrm{\Sigma }^tG^<\mathrm{\Sigma }^<G^{\overline{t}}`$ and $`(G\mathrm{\Sigma })^<=G^t\mathrm{\Sigma }^<G^<\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\overline{t}}`$, the equations for the $`G^<`$ component read as

$`(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}_x+m^2)\stackrel{~}{G}^<(x,y)`$ $`={\displaystyle d^4x_1[\mathrm{\Sigma }^t(x,x_1)G^<(x_1,y)\mathrm{\Sigma }^<(x,x_1)G^{\overline{t}}(x_1,y)]},`$ (14)
$`\stackrel{~}{G}^<(x,y)(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}_y+m^2)`$ $`={\displaystyle d^4x_1[G^t(x,x_1)\mathrm{\Sigma }^<(x_1,y)G^<(x,x_1)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\overline{t}}(x_1,y)]}.`$ (15)
The variation of the current is thus given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{J_\varphi ^\mu (X)}{X^\mu }}`$ $`=_\mu ^X\left\{\underset{xy}{lim}(_x^\mu _y^\mu )G^<(x,y)\right\}`$
$`={\displaystyle }d^4x_1[\mathrm{\Sigma }^t(X,x_1)G^<(x_1,X)\mathrm{\Sigma }^<(X,x_1)G^{\overline{t}}(x_1,X)`$
$`G^t(X,x_1)\mathrm{\Sigma }^<(x_1,X)+G^<(X,x_1)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\overline{t}}(x_1,X)].`$ (16)
Using Eqs. (4) and (II), we can compute the $`CP`$-violating source for a generic squark current:

$`𝒮={\displaystyle \frac{n_\varphi (X)}{T}}+\mathbf{}𝑱_\varphi (X)`$ $`={\displaystyle }d^3r^{}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{T}{}}}dt^{}\{\mathrm{\Sigma }^>(X,x^{})G^<(x^{},X)\mathrm{\Sigma }^<(X,x^{})G^>(x^{},X)`$
$`G^>(X,x^{})\mathrm{\Sigma }^<(x^{},X)+G^<(X,x^{})\mathrm{\Sigma }^>(x^{},X)\}.`$ (17)
Inserting the interactions of the $`\varphi `$ field with the background, the self-energy functions $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^>(x,y)`$ can be written as follows

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^>(x,y)`$ $`=g(x)\delta ^4(xy)+g(x)G_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{>}(x,y)g(y)+{\displaystyle d^4z\left[g(x)\stackrel{~}{G^0}(x,z)g(z)\stackrel{~}{G^0}(z,y)g(y)\right]^>}`$
$`+{\displaystyle d^4wd^4z\left[g(x)\stackrel{~}{G^0}(x,w)g(w)\stackrel{~}{G^0}(w,z)g(z)\stackrel{~}{G^0}(z,y)g(y)\right]^>}+\mathrm{},`$ (18)
where the scalar function $`g(x)`$ describes the interaction of the field $`\varphi `$ at position $`x`$ with the background fields.

Taking into account the chiral and flavor structures of the squarks, this generic squark source can be written as

$`𝒮_{ij}^{AB}=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^3r^{}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{T}{}}}dt^{}\{\left[g(X)\right]_{ij}^{AB}\delta ^4(Xx^{})\delta _{ij}^{AB}[G^<(x^{},X)]_j^B`$
$`\left[g(X)\right]_{ij}^{AB}\delta ^4(Xx^{})\delta _{ij}^{AB}[G^>(x^{},X)]_j^B`$
$`[G^>(X,x^{})]_i^A\left[g(x^{})\right]_{ij}^{AB}\delta ^4(Xx^{})\delta _{ij}^{AB}`$
$`+[G^<(X,x^{})]_i^A[g_(x^{})]_{ij}^{AB}\delta ^4(Xx^{})\delta _{ij}^{AB}`$
$`+\left[g(X)\right]_{ik}^{AC}[G^>(X,x^{})]_k^C\left[g(x^{})\right]_{kj}^{CB}[G^<(x^{},X)]_j^B`$
$`\left[g(X)\right]_{ik}^{AC}[G^<(X,x^{})]_k^C\left[g(x^{})\right]_{kj}^{CB}[G^>(x^{},X)]_j^B`$
$`[G^>(X,x^{})]_i^A\left[g(x^{})\right]_{ik}^{AC}[G^<(x^{},X)]_k^C\left[g(X)\right]_{kj}^{CB}`$
$`+[G^<(X,x^{})]_i^A\left[g(x^{})\right]_{ik}^{AC}[G^>(x^{},X)]_k^C\left[g(X)\right]_{kj}^{CB}+𝒪([g(x)]^3)\},`$ (19)
where $`(i,j,k)`$ are flavor indices and $`(A,B,C)`$ refer to $`L,R`$ chiralities. In the above expression, we have kept only terms up to second order in $`g(x)`$. Note that this formula is valid for squarks of any flavor and/or chirality. Thus, we have

$$_\mu ^XJ_{\varphi _i^A}^\mu =\delta _{AB}\delta ^{ij}𝒮_{ij}^{AB}=𝒮_{ii}^{AA},$$
(20)
with $`\varphi _i^L\stackrel{~}{U}_{Li}`$ and $`\varphi _i^R\stackrel{~}{U}_{Ri}`$, the left and right-handed up-squark fields, respectively. As expected, the contributions of the terms proportional to $`\delta ^4(Xx^{})`$ vanish111Throughout we are using the relations: $`G^<(x)=G^>(x),[G^<(x)]^{}=G^<(x),[G^>(x)]^{}=G^>(x),`$ which imply $`G^<(x)=[G^>(x)]^{}`$.. The structure of the source can be symbolically depicted as in Fig. 1, where the $``$ denotes interactions with the background fields, parametrized by the scalar function $`g(x)`$.

Before proceeding, let us consider the Higgs-squark interaction terms, arising from both SUSY conserving and SUSY breaking terms, that can be parametrized in the following way (flavor indices are omitted) :

$$_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=\stackrel{~}{U}_L^{}\left[g(X)\right]^{LL}\stackrel{~}{U}_L+\stackrel{~}{U}_R^{}\left[g(X)\right]^{RR}\stackrel{~}{U}_R+(\stackrel{~}{U}_L^{}\left[g(X)\right]^{LR}\stackrel{~}{U}_R+\text{H.c}).$$
(21)
Note that in addition to the interactions with the background, the functions $`\left[g(X)\right]^{AB}`$ contain flavor and chirality mixing terms that originate from the soft breaking SUSY Lagrangian and become relevant when one computes higher order terms like those appearing in Fig. 1(b).

Within a generic supersymmetric extension of the SM, the functions $`g(X)`$ can be parametrized as follows:

$`\left[g(X)\right]_{ij}^{LL}`$ $`=\left(M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}^2+v_2^2(X)h_u^{}h_u^T+D_L^2(X)\right)_{ij},`$
$`\left[g(X)\right]_{ij}^{RR}`$ $`=\left(M_{\stackrel{~}{U}_R}^2+v_2^2(X)h_u^Th_u^{}+D_R^2(X)\right)_{ij},`$
$`\left[g(X)\right]_{ij}^{LR}`$ $`=\left(v_1(X)\mu h_u^{}+v_2(X)(Y_u^A)^{}\right)_{ij},`$
$`\left[g(X)\right]^{RL}`$ $`=\left[g(X)\right]_{}^{LR}{}_{}{}^{}.`$ (22)
In the above equations, $`h_u`$ denotes the Yukawa coupling matrix for the up quarks and $`v_{1,2}(x)`$ are the $`x`$-dependent vacuum expectation values of the MSSM Higgs fields $`H_{1,2}`$, defined as $`v_1=v\mathrm{cos}\beta /\sqrt{2}`$ and $`v_2=v\mathrm{sin}\beta /\sqrt{2}`$, with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$. $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}`$ and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{U}_R}`$ are the squark soft breaking mass matrices, $`\mu `$ is the Higgs bilinear term and $`Y_u^A`$ the soft trilinear terms, which are decomposed as

$$(Y_u^A)_{ij}(h_u)_{ij}A_{ij}^u,$$
(23)
with no summation over $`i,j`$.

The $`D`$-term contributions are given by

$`D_L^2(X)=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\right){\displaystyle \frac{g^2+g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}}(v_1^2(X)v_2^2(X)),`$
$`D_R^2(X)=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\right){\displaystyle \frac{g^2+g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}}(v_1^2(X)v_2^2(X)),`$ (24)
$`g,g^{}`$ are the $`SU(2)`$ and $`U(1)`$ weak couplings, respectively. These terms can be neglected at the electroweak phase transition since they are suppressed by the weak couplings when compared to the terms proportional to the top Yukawa coupling.

Since we are interested in performing a basis independent calculation, we should express the current as an invariant quantity. Let us define the invariant current as

$$_\mu ^XJ_{\varphi ^A}^\mu =\underset{i=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}𝒮_{ii}^{AA}=\mathrm{Tr}𝒮^{AA},$$
(25)
where $`n_f`$ is the number of up-squark flavors.

Under a generic rotation that transforms the left- and right-handed up squarks as $`\stackrel{~}{U}_LW_L\stackrel{~}{U}_L,\stackrel{~}{U}_RZ_R\stackrel{~}{U}_R,`$ we have

$`\left[G(x,y)^{>,<}\right]^LW_L\left[G(x,y)^{>,<}\right]^LW_L^{}\left[G(x,y)^{>,<}\right]^L,`$
$`\left[G(x,y)^{>,<}\right]^RZ_R\left[G(x,y)^{>,<}\right]^RZ_R^{}\left[\overline{G}(x,y)^{>,<}\right]^R,`$ (26)
$`\left[g(x)\right]^{LL}W_L\left[g(x)\right]^{LL}W_L^{}`$ $`\left[\overline{g}(x)\right]^{LL},`$
$`\left[g(x)\right]^{LR}W_L\left[g(x)\right]^{LR}Z_R^{}`$ $`\left[\overline{g}(x)\right]^{LR},`$
$`\left[g(x)\right]^{RR}Z_R\left[g(x)\right]^{RR}Z_R^{}`$ $`\left[\overline{g}(x)\right]^{RR}.`$ (27)
Thus the invariant source which is given by

$`\mathrm{Tr}𝒮^{AA}=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^3r^{}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{T}{}}}dt^{}{\displaystyle \underset{i,k=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}}\{\left[g(X)\right]_{ik}^{AC}[G^>(X,x^{})]_k^C\left[g(x^{})\right]_{ki}^{CA}[G^<(x^{},X)]_i^A`$
$`\left[g(X)\right]_{ik}^{AC}[G^<(X,x^{})]_k^C\left[g(x^{})\right]_{ki}^{CA}[G^>(x^{},X)]_i^A+(Xx^{})+\mathrm{}\},`$ (28)
can be rewritten in any weak basis. The above equation can be recast in the form

$`\mathrm{Tr}𝒮^{AA}=`$ $`2i{\displaystyle }d^3r^{}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{T}{}}}dt^{}{\displaystyle \underset{i,k=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}}\{\mathrm{Im}\left([\overline{G}^<(X,x^{})]_k^C[\overline{G}^<(x^{},X)]_i^A\right)`$
$`\times (\left[\overline{g}(X)\right]_{ik}^{AC}\left[\overline{g}(x^{})\right]_{ki}^{CA}\left[\overline{g}(x^{})\right]_{ik}^{AC}\left[\overline{g}(X)\right]_{ki}^{CA})+\mathrm{}\}.`$ (29)
Finally we obtain

$`\mathrm{Tr}𝒮^{RR}=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}{\displaystyle }d^3r^{}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{T}{}}}dt^{}(v_1(X)v_2(x^{})v_2(X)v_1(x^{})){\displaystyle \underset{i,k=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}}\{\mathrm{Im}\left([\overline{G}^<(X,x^{})]_k^L[\overline{G}^<(x^{},X)]_i^R\right)`$
$`\times \mathrm{Im}\left(\mu \left[Z_R(Y_u^A)^TW_L^{}\right]_{ik}\left[W_Lh_u^{}Z_R^{}\right]_{ki}\right)\}.`$ (30)
A convenient basis for the current associated with the right-handed up-squark $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{Ri}`$ is that where the Green functions are diagonal. For simplicity, we shall assume that the left-handed squark mass matrix $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{LL}`$ is already diagonal. Therefore one has $`W_L=𝟙`$. Moreover, we will also assume that the left-handed squarks are heavy ($`m_Qm_t`$) and nearly degenerate, so that $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{LL}\mathrm{diag}(m_Q,m_Q,m_Q)`$ and $`\overline{G}(x)_k^L\overline{G}(x)^L`$ for any flavor. The right-handed squark mass matrix $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{RR}`$ is diagonalized by a unitary matrix $`Z_R`$ so that

$$Z_R\stackrel{~}{M}_{RR}^2Z_R^{}=d_{RR}^2,$$
(31)
$`d_{RR}=\mathrm{diag}(m_{R1},m_{R2},m_{R3})`$. In this case,

$`\text{Tr}𝒮^{RR}=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}{\displaystyle }d^3r^{}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{T}{}}}dt^{}(v_1(X)v_2(x^{})v_2(X)v_1(x^{})){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}}\{\mathrm{Im}\left([\overline{G}^<(X,x^{})]^L[\overline{G}^<(x^{},X)]_i^R\right)`$
$`\times \mathrm{Im}\left(\mu \left[Z_R(Y_u^A)^Th_u^{}Z_R^{}\right]_{ii}\right)\}.`$ (32)
In order to obtain an analytical expression, it is useful to perform an expansion in the bubble wall velocity $`v_w`$. Such an expansion is well justified in the case of the MSSM, since bubbles are typically formed with thick walls ($`L_w(10100)/T`$) and propagate with extremely nonrelativistic velocities ($`v_w0.10.01`$) Moreno:1998bq ; Moore:2000wx . Using the derivative expansion

$$v_i(x)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}\frac{^n}{(X^\mu )^n}v_i(X)\left(x^\mu X^\mu \right)^n,$$
(33)
it is easy to check that the first nonzero contribution to Eq. (II) is given by the $`n=1`$ term in the expansion (33). The associated contribution to the source is proportional to the function

$$v_1(X)_X^\mu v_2(X)v_2(X)_X^\mu v_1(X)\frac{1}{2}v^2(X)_X^\mu \beta (X),$$
(34)
which in turn implies that the source (II) is linear in the wall velocity $`v_w`$. Neglecting terms of higher order in $`v_w`$, which amounts to using the thermal equilibrium Green functions, one can obtain an explicit expression for the dominant contribution:

$$\mathrm{Tr}𝒮^{RR}=v^2(X)_X\beta (X)\left\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}I_{RR}^i\mathrm{Im}\left(\mu \left[Z_R(Y_u^A)^Th_u^{}Z_R^{}\right]_{ii}\right)\right\},$$
(35)
with $`I_{RR}^i`$ given by Riotto:1997vy

$`I_{RR}^i`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}dk{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{4\pi ^2\omega _Q\omega _R^i}}[(1+2\mathrm{Re}(n_Q))I(\omega _R^i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^i,\omega _Q,\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q)`$
$`+(1+2\mathrm{Re}(n_R^i))I(\omega _Q,\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q,\omega _R^i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^i)+2(\mathrm{Im}(n_R^i)+\mathrm{Im}(n_Q))G(\omega _R^i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^i,\omega _Q,\mathrm{\Gamma }_Q)].`$ (36)
The squark equilibrium distribution functions are

$$n_{R,Q}^i=1/\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\omega _{R,Q}^i/T+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{R,Q}^i/T\right)1\right],$$
(37)
where the finite widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{R,Q}^i`$ account for the interactions with the plasma,

$`\omega _Q^2=𝒌^2+m_Q^2+\overline{m}_Q^2(\varphi ,T),\omega _{Ri}^2=𝒌^2+m_{Ri}^2+\overline{m}_{Ri}^2(\varphi ,T),`$ (38)
and $`\overline{m}_{Q,Ri}^2(\varphi ,T)`$ are the field-dependent contributions to the squark masses, which include the temperature dependent self-energies $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{Q,Ri}(T)`$ Comelli:1996vm . The functions $`I`$ and $`G`$ can be written as follows:

$`I(a,b,c,d)=I_+(a,b,c,d)+I_{}(a,b,c,d),G(a,b,c,d)=G_+(a,b,c,d)+G_{}(a,b,c,d),`$ (39)
$`I_\pm (a,b,c,d)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(a\pm c)^2+(b+d)^2}}\mathrm{sin}\left(2\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{a\pm c}{b+d}}\right),`$
$`G_\pm (a,b,c,d)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(a\pm c)^2+(b+d)^2}}\mathrm{cos}\left(2\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{a\pm c}{b+d}}\right).`$ (40)
Before proceeding to the explicit computation of the baryon asymmetry, it is worth emphasizing that from Eqs. (35) and (II), the dominant contribution to $`\text{Tr}𝒮^{RR}`$ will be associated with the lightest of the right-handed squarks, typically $`\stackrel{~}{t}_R`$. In this framework, usually known as the light stop scenario, to satisfy the out-of-equilibrium conditions the mass of the right-handed stop should be small enough so that at the electroweak phase transition temperature $`T_{\mathrm{ew}}`$ one has $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}(T_{\mathrm{ew}})m_t(T_{\mathrm{ew}})=h_tv_2(T_{\mathrm{ew}})`$. This is precisely the case we shall consider from now on. In this context, the right-handed soft breaking masses are chosen so that $`m_{R1}^2m_{R2}^2m_Q^2,m_{R3}^2m_R^2m_Q^2`$. In particular, the parameter $`m_R^2`$ could be negative provided that no charge or color breaking minima appear Carena:1996wj .

In this case,

$$\mathrm{Tr}𝒮^{RR}v^2(X)_X\beta (X)I_{RR}^t\mathrm{Im}\left(\mu \left[Z_R(Y_u^A)^Th_u^{}Z_R^{}\right]_{33}\right).$$
(41)
In the limit where the trilinear terms are flavor conserving, one can easily recognize the well-known expressions obtained in Refs. Riotto:1997vy ; Carena:1997gx .

## III Electroweak baryogenesis

In the present scenario, the baryon asymmetry generated in the broken phase is determined by the density of left-handed quarks222In principle, the baryon asymmetry is determined by the density of all left-handed fermions, including leptons. However, in the usual electroweak baryogenesis scenario, there is essentially no lepton asymmetry., $`n_L`$, created in front of the bubble wall in the symmetric phase Huet:1995sh ; Riotto:1997vy ; Carena:1997gx ; Cline:2000kb . Such densities induce weak sphalerons to produce a nonvanishing baryon number 'tHooft:up ; Manton:1983nd ; Kuzmin:1985mm . If the system is near thermal equilibrium and the particles are weakly interacting, the particle densities $`n_i`$ are given by $`n_i=k_i\mu _iT^2/6,`$ where $`\mu _i`$ are the local chemical potentials and $`k_i`$ are statistical factors equal to 2 (1) for bosons (fermions) and exponentially suppressed for particles with masses $`m_iT.`$ Assuming the supergauge interactions to be in thermal equilibrium and neglecting all Yukawa couplings except those corresponding to the top quark, it is possible to express $`n_L`$ in terms of the densities of the chiral supermultiplet $`Q_i(q,\stackrel{~}{q})`$, $`n_{Q_i}=n_{q_i}+n_{\stackrel{~}{q}_i}`$, and of the right-handed top quark and squark, $`T=t_R+\stackrel{~}{t}_R`$. Indeed, assuming that all the quarks have nearly the same diffusion constant, one obtains due to the strong sphaleron processes, $`n_{Q_1}=n_{Q_2}=2(n_Q+n_T)`$, implying the relation

$$n_L=n_{Q_1}+n_{Q_2}+n_{Q_3}=5n_Q+4n_T.$$
(42)
We can write down a set of coupled diffusion equations for the relevant densities $`n_Q`$, $`n_T`$, $`n_H=n_{H_1}+n_{H_2}`$ and $`n_h=n_{H_2}n_{H_1}`$. Ignoring the curvature of the bubble wall, all the quantities become functions of $`zr+v_wt`$, the coordinate normal to the bubble wall surface. In the rest frame of the bubble wall we obtain

$`D_qn_Q^{\prime \prime }v_wn_Q^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_yN_16\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ss}N_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_mN_3+\gamma _Q`$ $`=0,`$ (43)
$`D_qn_T^{\prime \prime }v_wn_T^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_yN_1+3\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ss}N_2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_mN_3\gamma _Q`$ $`=0,`$ (44)
$`D_hn_H^{\prime \prime }v_wn_H^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_yN_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_h{\displaystyle \frac{n_H}{k_H}}`$ $`=0,`$ (45)
$`D_hn_h^{\prime \prime }v_wn_h^{}+\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_yN_4(\mathrm{\Gamma }_h+4\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{n_h}{k_H}}`$ $`=0,`$ (46)
where, according to Eq. (41), the $`CP`$-violating squark current is given by

$$\gamma _Qv_wv^2(z)\beta ^{}(z)I_{RR}^t\mathrm{Im}\left(\mu \left[Z_R(Y_u^A)^Th_u^{}Z_R^{}\right]_{33}\right).$$
(47)
Moreover,

$`N_1={\displaystyle \frac{n_Q}{k_Q}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_T}{k_T}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_H+\rho n_h}{k_H}},`$ $`N_2=2{\displaystyle \frac{n_Q}{k_Q}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_T}{k_T}}+9{\displaystyle \frac{n_Q+n_T}{k_B}},`$
$`N_3={\displaystyle \frac{n_Q}{k_Q}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_T}{k_T}},`$ $`N_4={\displaystyle \frac{n_Q}{k_Q}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_T}{k_T}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_H+n_h/\rho }{k_H}},`$ (48)
with the parameter $`\rho `$ varying in the range from 0 to 1. The coefficients $`k_B=3`$, $`k_Q=6`$, $`k_T=9`$, $`k_H=12`$ are statistical factors and the quantities

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_y{\displaystyle \frac{27\zeta (3)^2}{2\pi ^4}}h_t^2\alpha _sT2.4\times 10^2T,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ss}=16\alpha _s^4T3.3\times 10^3T,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m={\displaystyle \frac{v^2(T)}{21T}}h_t^2\mathrm{sin}^2\beta 4.8\times 10^2T,`$ (49)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h={\displaystyle \frac{v^2(T)}{140T}}7.1\times 10^3T,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu 0.1T,`$
are reaction rates: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_y`$ corresponds to the SUSY trilinear scalar interaction involving the third generation squarks and the Higgs $`H_1`$ plus all SUSY and soft breaking trilinear interactions arising from the superpotential term $`h_tH_2QT`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ss}`$ is the strong sphaleron rate, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ arise from the Higgs and axial top number violating processes, while $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ corresponds to the Higgs bilinear term. The numerical estimates of these rates are obtained assuming the top quark Yukawa coupling $`h_t=1`$, the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s=0.12`$, $`v(T)T`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$. Finally, the diffusion coefficients are given by

$`D_q{\displaystyle \frac{6}{T}},D_h{\displaystyle \frac{110}{T}}.`$ (50)
Let us assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_y`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ss}`$ are fast enough so that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_yD_h,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ss}D_q,\mathrm{\Gamma }_yD_qv_w^2.`$ In this case $`N_1=𝒪(\mathrm{\Gamma }_y^1),N_2=𝒪(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ss}^1)`$ and

$$\frac{n_Q}{k_Q}\frac{n_T}{k_T}\frac{n_H+\rho n_h}{k_H}0,2\frac{n_Q}{k_Q}\frac{n_T}{k_T}+9\frac{n_Q+n_T}{k_B}0.$$
(51)
This implies

$`n_Q`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{k_Q(9k_Tk_B)}{k_H(k_B+9k_Q+9k_{T)}}}(n_H+\rho n_h),`$ (52)
$`n_T`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{k_T(9k_T+2k_B)}{k_H(k_B+9k_Q+9k_{T)}}}(n_H+\rho n_h),`$ (53)
and

$$N_3\frac{n_H+\rho n_h}{k_H},N_4N_1\frac{1\rho ^2}{\rho }\frac{n_h}{k_H}.$$
(54)
Thus, Eq. (46) can be rewritten as:

$$D_hn_h^{\prime \prime }v_wn_h^{}+\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_yN_1\left[(1\rho ^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_y+\mathrm{\Gamma }_h+4\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \right]\frac{n_h}{k_H}=0.$$
(55)
First we notice that for typical values of the scattering rate due to the top quark Yukawa coupling Huet:1995sh , the interaction rate $`(1\rho ^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_y`$ is fast enough in a wide range of values of $`\rho `$ (except those values very close to 1), leading to the solution

$$n_h0.$$
(56)
Indeed, assuming $`v_w0.1,`$ the condition $`(1\rho ^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_yD_hv_w^2`$ together with Eqs. (III)-(50) imply that $`\rho 0.998.`$

Next, from Eqs. (52), (53) and (42) we find:

$`n_H`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_H(k_B+9k_Q+9k_{T)}}{k_Q(9k_Tk_B)}}n_Q,`$ (57)
$`n_T`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_T}{k_Q}}{\displaystyle \frac{9k_Q+2k_B}{9k_Tk_B}}n_Q,`$ (58)
$`n_L`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9k_Qk_T5k_Qk_B8k_Tk_B}{k_Q(9k_Tk_B)}}n_Q.`$ (59)
Taking a linear combination of Eqs. (43)-(45), which is independent of the fast rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_y`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ss}`$ we obtain an effective diffusion equation for $`n_Q`$ :

$$Dn_Q^{\prime \prime }v_wn_Q^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }n_Q+\gamma =0,$$
(60)
where

$`D`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left[D_q(9k_Qk_T+k_Qk_B+4k_Tk_B)+D_hk_H(k_B+9k_Q+9k_T)\right],`$ (61)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{k_B+9k_Q+9k_T}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_m+\mathrm{\Gamma }_h\right)\theta (z),`$ (62)
$`\gamma `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{k_Q(9k_Tk_B)}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\gamma _Q\theta (z),`$ (63)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=9k_Qk_T+k_Qk_B+4k_Tk_B+k_H(k_B+9k_Q+9k_T),`$ (64)
and $`\theta (z)`$ is the step function, which accounts for the fact that the rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ are active only in the broken phase.

To estimate the baryon asymmetry we need to solve Eq. (60) in the symmetric phase ($`z0`$). Imposing the boundary conditions $`n_Q(\pm \mathrm{})=0`$ and the continuity of $`n_Q`$ and $`n_Q^{}`$ at $`z=0,`$ a simple analytical approximation can be given:

$$n_Q(z)=A_Qe^{v_wz/D},$$
(65)
where

$$A_Q=\frac{1}{\lambda _+D}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}dz^{}e^{\lambda _+z^{}}\gamma (z^{}),\lambda _\pm =\frac{v_w\pm \sqrt{v_w^2+4\mathrm{\Gamma }D}}{2D}.$$
(66)
Assuming that the weak sphalerons are inactive in the broken phase (i.e. inside the bubble), $`n_B`$ will be constant in this phase. To find the value of this constant, one has to solve the diffusion equation for the baryon asymmetry in the symmetric phase:

$$v_wn_B^{}=\theta (z)\left[n_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ws}n_L(z)+Rn_B(z)\right],$$
(67)
where $`n_F=3`$ is the number of families, $`R=\frac{5}{4}n_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ws}`$ is the relaxation coefficient Shaposhnikov:tw  and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ws}120\alpha _w^5T`$ is the weak sphaleron rate. The above equation is easily integrated and we find

$$n_B=\frac{n_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ws}}{v_w}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}}{}}dze^{zR/v_w}n_L(z).$$
(68)
Using Eqs. (59) and (65), one gets

$$n_B=n_F\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ws}\frac{9k_Qk_B8k_Bk_T5k_Bk_Q}{k_Q(9k_T9k_{B)}}\left(\frac{DA_Q}{DR+v_w^2}\right).$$
(69)
To obtain a reliable approximation for the squark current, it is necessary to specify the Higgs profiles as functions of $`z`$, i.e. the functions $`v(z)`$ and $`\beta (z)`$ which appear in Eq. (47). A simple expression is given by the kink approximation Carena:1997gx

$`v(z)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v(T)\left[1\mathrm{tanh}\left(\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{L_w}}z\right)\right],`$ (70)
$`\beta (z)`$ $`=\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }\beta \left[1+\mathrm{tanh}\left(\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{L_w}}z\right)\right],`$ (71)
where $`L_w/(2\alpha )`$ parametrizes the thickness of the bubble wall, $`\alpha 3/2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta `$ is the variation of the angle $`\beta (z)`$ along the bubble wall, which lies in the range $`10^2\mathrm{\Delta }\beta 4\times 10^3`$ for $`100`$ GeV $`m_A200`$ GeV Moreno:1998bq . At first order in $`v_w`$, all the dependence in $`z`$ of the source $`\gamma _Q`$ is given by the combination $`v^2(z)\beta ^{}(z)`$. Substituting the profiles (70) and (71) into $`A_Q`$ (cf. Eq. (65)), it is possible to integrate explicitly the $`z`$ dependence. Finally we have

$$A_Q=\frac{v^2(T)\mathrm{\Delta }\beta }{48D\lambda _+}\frac{k_Q(9k_Tk_B)}{\mathrm{\Delta }}v_w\mathrm{Im}\left(\mu \left[Z_R(Y_u^A)^Th_u^{}Z_R^{}\right]_{33}\right)I_{RR}^tf_{\lambda _+},$$
(72)
with $`I_{RR}^t`$ given by Eqs. (II)-(II),

$`f_{\lambda _+}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2a(a4)(a2)}{a6}}e^{6\alpha }{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1,3{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}};4{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}};e^{2\alpha })+a(a4)(a2)\pi e^{a\alpha }\mathrm{cosec}(a\pi /2)`$
$`2(1+e^{2\alpha })^3e^{4\alpha }\left[(a^2+8)e^{4\alpha }+2a(a1)e^{2\alpha }+a(a2)\right],`$ (73)
$`a=\lambda _+L_w/(2\alpha )`$ and $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ is the hypergeometric function.

In Section V we will present our numerical results for the baryon asymmetry using the approximate solution given by Eqs. (69), (72) and (III).

## IV Baryon asymmetry in supersymmetric models

In this section we study the flavor-dependent contribution to the squark current, which enters in Eq. (41) through the imaginary part

$$\mathrm{Tr}𝒮_{RR}\mathrm{Im}\left(\mu \left[Z_R(Y_u^A)^Th_u^{}Z_R^{}\right]_{33}\right).$$
(74)
Our goal is to maximize the above quantity and, simultaneously, satisfy the experimental constraints on the off-diagonal $`A`$ terms as well as on the CKM mixing matrix.

To establish a direct connection between $`𝒮_{RR}`$ and low energy supersymmetry phenomenology, let us express $`𝒮_{RR}`$ in terms of the up left-right mass insertions, $`\delta _{LR}^u`$:

$$\left(\delta _{LR}^u\right)_{ij}\frac{v_2\left(U^L\left(Y_u^A\right)^{}U^R\right)_{ij}v_1\mu \left(d_u\right)_{ij}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2},$$
(75)
normalized to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2`$, the mean value of the squark masses; $`U^{L,R}`$ are the unitary matrices that diagonalize $`h_u`$,

$$U^Lh_u^{}U^R=d_u=\frac{1}{v_2}\mathrm{diag}(m_u,m_c,m_t).$$
(76)
For the sake of simplicity and to maximize $`\mathrm{Tr}𝒮_{RR}`$, let us assume that $`Z_R=𝟙`$. We notice that the unitarity of $`Z_R`$ implies that any deviation from the identity (or its permutations) will introduce additional suppression factors in the $`CP`$-violating source. From Eqs. (74) and (75) we obtain

$$\mathrm{Tr}𝒮_{RR}\mu h_t^2\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2}{m_t}\mathrm{Im}\left[U_{i3}^RU_{33}^R\left(\delta _{LR}^u\right)_{3i}^{}\right].$$
(77)
Assuming for instance that the dominant contribution comes from large mixing between the $`t`$\- and either the $`u`$\- or $`c`$-quark, i.e. taking $`U_{i3}^R=U_{33}^R=1/\sqrt{2}(i=1,2)`$, we have

$$\mathrm{Tr}𝒮_{RR}\frac{1}{2}\mu h_t^2\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2}{m_t}\mathrm{Im}\left[\left(\delta _{LR}^u\right)_{3i}^{}\right].$$
(78)
In Fig. 2 we plot the baryon asymmetry as a function of $`\mathrm{Im}(\delta _{LR}^u)_{3i}`$ for different values of $`m_A`$. It is seen that even for light pseudo-scalar masses $`m_A`$, large values of $`\mathrm{Im}(\delta _{LR}^u)_{3i}`$ are required in order to reproduce the observed BAU. In Fig. 3 the baryon asymmetry is given as a function of $`\mathrm{Im}(\delta _{LR}^u)_{3i}`$ for different values of $`\mu `$. We notice that it is possible to get a sufficient BAU if

$`\mathrm{Im}\left[\left(\delta _{LR}^u\right)_{3i}^{}\right]0.14,\text{for}\mu 1\text{TeV}.`$ (79)
It is worth noticing that these bounds on the imaginary part of the mass insertions $`(\delta _{LR}^u)_{3i}`$, $`i=1,2`$ are compatible with the bounds obtained from the chargino contributions to $`B_d\overline{B}_d`$ mixing and the $`CP`$ asymmetry of $`B_dJ/\psi K_S`$ Gabrielli:2002fr . In addition to fulfilling the bounds on the $`LR`$ mass insertions that arise from satisfying the BAU requirements (as shown in Figs. 2 and 3), the textures for the Yukawa couplings and trilinear terms must be compatible with the FCNC constraints Gabbiani:1996hi , charge and color breaking bounds Casas:1996de  and those associated with the measurements of the electric dipole moments of the neutron and mercury atom. Regarding the latter, the current experimental bounds are Harris:jx

$`d_n<6.3\times 10^{26}e\text{cm},d_{Hg}<2.1\times 10^{28}e\text{cm}.`$ (80)
These values can be translated into bounds for the imaginary parts of the up and down $`(\delta _{LR})_{11,22}`$ Abel:2001vy . In particular,

$`\mathrm{Im}(\delta _{11}^u)_{LR}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}^6\text{and}\mathrm{Im}(\delta _{11}^u)_{LR}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}^710^8,`$ (81)
from the neutron and mercury atom EDM’s, respectively.

Besides the underlying EDM problem that is associated with the imaginary parts of the diagonal elements of $`\delta _{LR}^u`$, one should also bear in mind the extensive array of constraints on the non-diagonal entries. These stem from FCNC bounds, limits on rare decays and the observed amount of $`CP`$-violation in the $`K`$ and $`B_d`$ meson systems Buras:1997ij .

We can also express Eq. (74) in a different manner using the definition (23). Assuming $`\mu `$ real and keeping only terms proportional to $`h_t`$, one has

$$\mathrm{Tr}𝒮_{RR}\mu h_t^2\left|U_{3k}^L\right|^2\mathrm{Im}\left[\left(Z_R\right)_{3j}A_{kj}^uU_{3j}^RU_{3l}^R(Z_R^{})_{3l}\right],$$
(82)
where a summation over the indices $`j,k,l=1,2,3`$ is understood. In this case, the imaginary part of $`\mathrm{Tr}𝒮_{RR}`$ is given by the simple form:

$$\mathrm{Tr}𝒮_{RR}\mu h_t^2\left|U_{3k}^L\right|^2\left|U_{33}^R\right|^2\mathrm{Im}\left(A_{k3}^u\right),$$
(83)
where $`Z_R=𝟙`$ has been assumed. The important point is that $`𝒮_{RR}`$ is proportional to the imaginary part of $`A_{k3}^u`$, which are quantities weakly constrained by experimental data in contrast to other terms proportional to $`A_{ij}`$ ($`i,j=1,2`$) Gabbiani:1996hi .

In the case of hierarchical Yukawa couplings, the matrix $`U^R`$ can be assumed to be very close to the identity and the maximum values for $`U^L`$ are bounded by the CKM matrix. In such scenario, we have

$`\mathrm{Tr}𝒮_{RR}\mu h_t^2\left|U_{3k}^L\right|^2\mathrm{Im}\left(A_{k3}^u\right)\mu h_t^2\left|V_{3k}^{CKM}\right|^2\mathrm{Im}\left(A_{k3}^u\right).`$ (84)
It is easy to see that the contribution proportional to $`A_{13}^u`$ and $`A_{23}^u`$ is very suppressed by $`\left|V_{td}\right|^2`$ and $`\left|V_{ts}\right|^2`$ and thus, the dominant contribution comes from the imaginary part of $`A_{33}^u`$ which is always constrained in GUT-inspired SUSY models by the EDM bounds. In particular, in the minimal supergravity inspired model where the $`A`$-terms are universal and the overall phase is constrained to be $`10^1`$, this contribution becomes quite negligible and one cannot obtain a viable BAU through the squark current.

Therefore, the flavor-dependent phases will play an important role in baryogenesis only if significant mixing between the top quark and up and/or charm quark is present. This mixing can be obtained in supersymmetric models with non-universal soft breaking terms and, for instance, with nearly democratic Yukawa couplings. Of course, this means that processes like $`tu+\gamma ,tc+\gamma `$ may have much larger branching ratios than those predicted in the SM.

To illustrate our results, let us now consider some simple textures for the quark and squark mass matrices at the electroweak scale. In case A we present the generic case of a SUSY texture where the CKM matrix is dominated by the down quark mixing. Case B corresponds to SUSY models with Hermitian Yukawa couplings and trilinear terms at GUT scale. Of course, the RGE running down to the electroweak scale will induce some deviations from hermiticity, but their contributions will not be relevant to our BAU analysis. In case C, the textures are chosen such that the BAU produced at the electroweak scale is maximized and the phenomenological constraints are still satisfied.

Case A

We first consider the following simple texture for the trilinear matrix $`A_u`$:

$$A_u=A_t\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& ae^{i\pi /2}\end{array}\right),$$
(85)
with $`a=𝒪(1)`$ a real parameter. We also assume that the up quark Yukawa coupling matrix $`h_u`$ is diagonal, i.e. $`h_u=d_u,U_L=𝟙,𝕌_{}=𝟙`$. In this case one obtains

$$\mathrm{Tr}𝒮_{RR}\mu h_t^2\mathrm{Im}\left(A_{33}^u\right)=aA_t\mu h_t^2.$$
(86)
Case B

Let us now assume that the up- and down-quark Yukawa couplings as well as the trilinear ones are Hermitian matrices. In this case the up-quark Yukawa coupling matrix is diagonalized by a unitary matrix $`U`$ such that $`h_u=U^Td_uU^{}`$. Since the trilinear matrix $`A_u`$ is Hermitian too, then $`\mathrm{Im}A_{33}=0`$. The squark source $`𝒮_{RR}`$ can be expressed as

$`\mathrm{Tr}𝒮_{RR}\mu h_t^2\left|U_{33}\right|^2\left\{\left|U_{31}\right|^2\mathrm{Im}\left(A_{13}^u\right)+\left|U_{32}\right|^2\mathrm{Im}\left(A_{23}^u\right)\right\}.`$ (87)
It is easy to see that in order to maximize the imaginary part of $`𝒮_{RR}`$, a large mixing between the third and the first (or the second) families of up quarks is needed. For instance, assuming maximal mixing between the $`c`$ and $`t`$ quarks, i.e.

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 0& 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right),$$
(88)
and the following Hermitian texture for the trilinear matrix $`A_u`$,

$$A_u=A_t\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& be^{i\pi /2}\\ 1& be^{i\pi /2}& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(89)
with $`b`$ a real parameter of order $`𝒪(1)`$, one obtains

$$\mathrm{Tr}𝒮_{RR}\frac{1}{4}\mu h_t^2\mathrm{Im}\left(A_{23}^u\right)=\frac{b}{4}A_t\mu h_t^2.$$
(90)
The corresponding texture for the down-quark Yukawa matrix $`h_d`$ is fixed by the structure of the CKM matrix, $`V_{CKM}=UD^{}`$, where $`D`$ is the mixing matrix that diagonalizes the down quark mass matrix, $`h_d=D^Td_dD^{}`$, with $`d_d={\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_1}}\mathrm{diag}(m_d,m_s,m_b)`$. Thus, we have

$$h_d=U^TV_{CKM}^{}d_dV_{CKM}^TU^{}.$$
(91)
Case C

In this case we take

$$A_u=A_t\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& ce^{i\pi /2}\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right),U_L=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right),U_R=𝟙,$$
(92)
where $`c=𝒪(1)`$. The squark source $`𝒮_{RR}`$ is then given by

$$\mathrm{Tr}𝒮_{RR}\mu h_t^2\mathrm{Im}\left(A_{13}^u\right)=cA_t\mu h_t^2.$$
(93)
Let us remark that in the previous examples most of the entries in the trilinear matrix $`A_u`$ were set for simplicity equal to one. It is clear that in general those elements can be nondegenerate and even complex.

In the next section we shall present some numerical examples for the textures considered above and compute the BAU generated by the corresponding $`CP`$-violating squark current.

## V Numerical results

In order to produce the required BAU, it is needed not only to violate the $`CP`$ and $`C`$ symmetries, but the universe has also to be out of equilibrium during the stage of baryogenesis, to avoid any washout by the electroweak sphalerons. This can happen if the electroweak phase transition is of first-order. To freeze the action of the sphalerons, their rate in the broken phase has to be smaller than the Hubble rate, i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ew}}(T_\mathrm{c})<H(T_\mathrm{c}),$$

where $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is the critical temperature of the phase transition. Using the sphaleron rate in the broken phase Arnold:1987mh , this equation is translated into a condition on the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs fields at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$:

$$\frac{v(T_\mathrm{c})}{T_\mathrm{c}}1.$$
(94)
In the standard model of electroweak interactions, this would imply a Higgs mass lighter than 43 GeV, which is already experimentally ruled out Hagiwara:pw . A way to avoid this constraint is to add scalar fields (with Higgs field-dependent masses) such that their contribution to the finite temperature potential will increase the strength of the phase transition. Naturally, the MSSM is an appealing alternative to the SM. In particular, it has been shown that the presence of a light right-handed top squark with small mixing considerably enhances the strength of the phase transition Carena:1996wj ; Espinosa:1996qw ; Delepine:1996vn . However, in this case a few constraints need to be satisfied. Within the MSSM, all these requirements impose restrictions to the allowed parameter space Quiros:2000wk : (i) a heavy pseudoscalar mass $`m_A`$ and a large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ regime, $`m_A150`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 5`$; (ii) heavy left-handed stops with a relatively small mixing, $`m_Q1`$ TeV, $`0.25(A_t\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta )/m_Q0.4`$; (iii) a light right-handed stop, $`105`$ GeV $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}165`$ GeV.

In the context of models with non-universal $`A`$ terms, we can expect to have more freedom and that some of these conditions may be relaxed. In fact, if we want to keep alive the light stop scenario, the constraints imposed by the electroweak phase transition (cf. Eq. (94)) are typically the same than in the one squark generation case, except that now we should require

$$|(\delta _{LR}^u)_{ij}|0.4\times \frac{m_tm_Q}{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2}0.07,$$
(95)
if one assumes that $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2=m_Q^2=1`$ TeV2.

From the last equation and the bound given in Eq. (79) (see also Figs. 2 and 3), we conclude that it is difficult to produce enough BAU using the flavor-dependent phases of the trilinear soft breaking terms unless $`\mu 1`$ TeV.

In Fig. 4 we present the baryon-to-entropy ratio $`n_B/s`$ as a function of the $`\mu `$ parameter for different up-quark Yukawa coupling and trilinear term textures (cases A, B and C considered in Section IV). The coefficients $`a,b,c`$ that appear in the textures (85), (89) and (92), are chosen so that the $`CP`$-violating squark source is maximized and the constraints coming from the electroweak phase transition are satisfied. We also require the lightest Higgs mass to be consistent with the present experimental lower bound, $`m_H109`$ GeV Hagiwara:pw . In particular, to maximize the $`CP`$-violating source and, simultaneously, satisfy the bounds on the lightest right-handed squark mass, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}105`$ GeV, we take $`a=1,b=1`$ and $`c=1.8`$. From the figure it is seen that textures A and B cannot generate enough BAU. This is related to the fact that the coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ cannot be increased without violating the bounds on $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$. It is also clear that the produced BAU in the Hermitian case (B) is further suppressed by a factor 1/4 due to the Yukawa quark mixings. On the other hand, texture C can produce the observed baryon asymmetry provided that the $`\mu `$ parameter is large enough. We also notice that in this case the coefficient $`c`$ is less constrained by $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$.

The baryon asymmetry as a function of the wall velocity $`v_w`$ is plotted in Fig. 5 for different values of $`\mu `$ and assuming the textures of case C, which succeeds in producing enough BAU. As we can see from the figure, to get a BAU compatible with the observational limits on $`n_B/s`$ (cf. Eq. (1)) large values of $`\mu `$ ($`\mu 700`$ GeV) are required.

We should emphasize however that the electroweak baryogenesis is a strongly out-of-equilibrium process and all our computation is based on several approximations. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to estimate the errors done during the calculation because typically they come from different sources. Nevertheless, we can conclude that the scenario with a light stop and $`CP`$ violation coming from flavor-dependent phases is in general disfavored. Of course, the constraints coming from the electroweak phase transition can be in principle relaxed in extensions of the MSSM with new scalar fields, for example by adding singlet fields (NMSSM) Pietroni:in .

In the present model, where the $`CP`$-violating sources arise from the flavor-dependent phases of the SUSY soft breaking trilinear terms, the strongest constraint comes from the lightest up squark mass. Indeed, two conditions that will push the lightest up-squark mass to smaller values must be fulfilled. First, $`m_RT_{\mathrm{ew}}`$, otherwise the contribution of the lightest right-handed squark to the BAU will be exponentially suppressed by a Boltzmann factor. Secondly, as we have seen from Fig. 3, $`\mathrm{Im}\left(\delta _{LR}^u\right)_{3i}0.14`$, which typically means that some of the $`A_{ij}`$’s have to be of the order or larger than $`m_Q`$. In other words, the $`6\times 6`$ up-squark mass matrix will have large mixings.

In this paper, we have restricted ourselves to the range of parameters satisfying the upper bound (95) such that all the experimental and theoretical constraints on the squarks and the lightest Higgs are satisfied in the light stop scenario. An important question that remains is whether it is possible to find GUT patterns for the trilinear terms, SUSY soft-breaking squark masses and quark Yukawa couplings, such as to obtain large values of $`\delta _{LR}^u`$ and a strong first-order phase transition, while still satisfying the experimental limits on the squark and Higgs masses, as well as the EDM’s constraints.

## VI Conclusions

Recent EDM bounds impose severe constraints on the usual scenario of supersymmetric electroweak baryogenesis based on flavor-conserving $`CP`$-violating phases. A natural solution to this problem is to work in the framework where all the flavor-conserving parameters, such as the $`\mu `$-term and gaugino masses are real. In this case, the dominant contribution to the baryon asymmetry is associated to the flavor-dependent $`CP`$-violating squark sources.

In this work we have studied in detail the impact of non-universal $`A`$ terms on the scenario of electroweak baryogenesis. By generalizing the standard approach, we have obtained the expression for the $`CP`$-violating squark sources with explicit flavor dependence. We have shown that if we impose on these terms the condition to have a strong first-order phase transition induced by a light right-handed squark, the baryon asymmetry of the universe produced at the electroweak scale is typically too small, thus disfavoring this scenario.

On the other hand, if we assume that the problem of the strength of the first-order electroweak phase transition is solved through another mechanism as it can happen in extensions of the MSSM with additional Higgs scalars, it is possible to have textures for the up- and down-quark Yukawa coupling matrices in order to maximize the $`CP`$-violating source. This however implies a large mixing between the top quark and one of the light up-quarks ($`u`$ or $`c`$) as well as large deviations from universality for the $`A`$ terms (typically, $`\left(\delta _{LR}^u\right)_{13,23}0.14`$). Such large $`\delta _{LR}^u`$ could have important implications on flavor-changing top decays.

Supersymmetric electroweak baryogenesis is an attractive mechanism to explain the observed baryon asymmetry of the universe. Not only the physics involved in this process is directly related to low-energy observables, but it can also be testable in accelerator experiments in the near future. In particular, searches for a light Higgs boson and a light stop at LHC and Tevatron will constitute a test of the viability of this scenario.

There are still a few questions to be answered and controversial issues to be clarified. For instance, the precise details of the electroweak phase transition are still unknown and there is at present a debate regarding the structure of the $`CP`$-violating currents that are relevant to baryogenesis. Nevertheless, a considerable progress has been done during the past few years, and the effort directed to resolve these problems could give us definite answers in the near future.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Marcos Seco for useful discussions and comments. The work of D.D. was supported by *Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia* (FCT) through the project POCTI/36288/FIS/2000. The work of R.G.F. has been supported by FCT under the grant SFRH/BPD/1549/2000. The work of S.K. was supported by PPARC. A.T. acknowledges the support from FCT under the grant PRAXIS XXI BD/11030/97.


format: text

text:
# The Kelvin-Helmholtz Instability in an Expanding Universe and its Effect on Dark Matter

## 1 Introduction

In the standard cosmological model quantum fluctuations are magnified from microscopic to cosmological scales during a period of exponential expansion (inflation) and source curvature perturbations with a scale-invariant or nearly scale-invariant spectrum (Kolb and Turner, (1990); Liddle and Lyth, (2000)). After inflation these perturbations act as seeds for the large scale structure of the universe: first, beginning during radiation domination, non-baryonic dark matter “falls” into the potential wells formed during inflation and later, during matter domination but after decoupling, radiation and baryonic matter follow.

In this picture radiation and baryonic matter can “fall” into the potential wells only after decoupling since before that their Jeans length is larger than the Hubble radius. After decoupling perturbations whose wavelength is larger than the Jeans-length grow, but on scales smaller than the Jeans-length they oscillate, leaving imprints in the CMB that can be observed today. On very small scales structure is wiped out through the tight coupling of the baryons to the photons until decoupling (Silk, (1968)). Unlike in baryonic matter and radiation, perturbations in the non-baryonic dark matter can start growing as soon as their wavelength is smaller than the horizon, since the Jeans scale is negligible for non-interacting dark matter. The non-baryonic dark matter can therefore cluster and “fall” into the potential wells much earlier than the other matter.

In fluid dynamics the study of instabilities (Chandrasekhar, (1981)) is well established and has also been extended to the astrophysical context (see Inogamov, (1999), and references therein). The Kelvin-Helmholtz instability has been known for nearly 150 years (Chandrasekhar, (1981)). In its simplest form two large fluid volumes, separated by an interface, move in opposite directions. Neglecting the stabilizing effects of density and gravity gradients this setup is unstable for all non-zero velocities and wavenumbers.

We study the initial stages in the evolution of small perturbations in an irrotational, non-viscous fluid due to a Kelvin-Helmholtz instability in an expanding universe. We show that even in such a background these instabilities occur. We then apply these results in the early universe. Two large colliding regions of cold dark matter might serve as an example: the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability can arise at the contact surfaces of the two regions. We model the dark matter as a fluid with vanishing background pressure in concordance with the standard cold dark matter models (Kolb and Turner, (1990); Liddle and Lyth, (2000)). Depending on when this happens in the evolution of the background the perturbations arising from the instability grow either exponentially or linearly on scales smaller than a critical wavenumber which we determine. On the basis of these results we argue that it will be interesting to test these perturbations in simulations because they could have relevance to the dark matter cusp and halo problems and to anisotropies in the CMB.

In the next section we give the governing equations for the fluid. In Sec. 3 we specify the model geometry and the general setup. After giving the background solution in Sec. 4, we derive the perturbed equations in Sec. 5 and analyse the stability of the system. In Sec. 6 we then calculate the critical wavenumbers for which instability can occur. We apply our results to standard cold dark matter in the final section and discuss possible implications.

## 2 Governing equations

We are interested in the dynamics of a fluid in the early universe on scales much smaller than the horizon size, i.e. $`\lambda H`$. We can therefore use a Newtonian approximation on an expanding background where only the background expansion is described by a flat FRW model (Kolb and Turner, (1990); Liddle and Lyth, (2000)).

We assume that the fluid is non-viscous and irrotational, its dynamics therefore governed by the Euler equation. The fluid does not have to be the only or dominant matter component in the model of the universe, we merely require that it does not interact with the other fluids such as radiation. As outlined above we envisage this fluid to describe standard cold dark matter, which has vanishing background pressure. We shall nevertheless keep the discussion in this and the following sections applicable to the general case of a perfect fluid and restrict the analysis to cold dark matter only when we consider a particular example in the final section.

The Euler equation in an expanding background is given by (Peebles, (1980))

$$\frac{}{t}u^i+Hu^i+u^k\frac{}{ax^k}u^i+\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{}{ax^i}P+\frac{}{ax^i}\varphi =0,$$
(1)
where $`u^i`$ is the three-velocity of the fluid, $`P`$ is the pressure, $`\rho `$ is the energy density of the fluid, $`\varphi `$ is the gravitational potential, $`a=a(t)`$ is the scale factor and $`H\dot{a}/a`$ is the Hubble rate 111 Notation: a dot denotes differentiation with respect to coordinate time $`t`$, and $`i,j=1,2,3`$. Comoving length scales $`\lambda `$ are related to the wavenumber by $`k2\pi /\lambda `$.. The energy conservation equation in an expanding background is given by

$$\frac{}{t}\rho +3H\rho +\frac{}{ax^k}\left(\rho u^k\right)=0.$$
(2)
The condition for the fluid to be irrotational is,

$$\frac{}{x^i}u^i=0.$$
(3)
## 3 General formulation

We can split the variables describing our problem into a time-dependent background part and time- and space-dependent first order perturbations,

$$\psi =\psi (t)+\delta \psi (t,x^i),$$
(4)
where $`\psi \rho ,\varphi ,P,u^i`$.

The geometry of our model is outlined in Fig. 1: two large volumes of fluid are separated by an interface at $`x^3=0`$ and move in opposite directions with velocities $`U_\mathrm{a}`$ and $`U_\mathrm{b}`$ above and below the interface, respectively. We allow for a perturbation of the fluid interface separating the two flows which is denoted by $`\zeta =\zeta (t,x^1,x^2)`$.

The velocity can also be split according to Eq. (4), $`u^i=U^i+v^i`$, where $`U^i`$ is the background part and $`v^i`$ the perturbation. Without loss of generality we can choose our coordinate system such that the $`x^1`$-coordinate is aligned with the direction of the background flow as in Fig. 1. The background flow is therefore separated by the $`x^3=0`$ plane. The background velocity $`U^i`$ has then only one non-zero component $`U^1=U(t)`$, but for the velocity perturbation we still have $`v^i=v^i(t,x^i)`$.

We neglect gravitational back reaction on the perturbations and therefore set $`\delta \varphi 0`$, i.e. the gravitational potential $`\varphi `$ only has a time-dependent zeroth order part.

## 4 Background solutions

For the background described in the previous section we get from Eqs. (1) and (2) the simple background Euler and energy conservation equations

$`\dot{U}+HU=0,`$ (5)
$`\dot{\rho }+3H\rho =0,`$ (6)
which have the solutions

$$U=U_0\left(\frac{a}{a_0}\right)^1,\rho =\rho _0\left(\frac{a}{a_0}\right)^3,$$
(7)
where $`U_0`$ and $`\rho _0`$ are constants of integration such that at $`t=t_0`$ we have $`U=U_0`$ and $`\rho =\rho _0`$.

The background expansion is described by a FRW model. We therefore get a power law solution for the scale factor (Kolb and Turner, (1990); Liddle and Lyth, (2000))

$$a=a_0\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^\gamma ,$$
(8)
where the constant of integration is chosen such that $`a=a_0`$ at $`t=t_0`$. The exponent $`\gamma `$ characterizes the different epochs of the early and late universe: $`\gamma =1/2`$ during radiation domination and $`\gamma =2/3`$ during matter domination. The evolution of the scale factor is governed by the total background energy density. The solution (8) is therefore consistent with our model in the matter dominated regime and in the radiation dominated regime despite the fact that the dark matter fluid always scales as $`\rho a^3`$.

## 5 Stability analysis

In order to analyze the stability of our model we first linearize the governing equations and then look for growing mode solutions.

Linearizing around the background described in Sec. 3 we get from Eq. (1) the linearized perturbed Euler equation to first order

$$\frac{}{t}v^i+Hv^i+U^1\frac{}{ax^1}v^i+\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{}{ax^i}\delta P=0,$$
(9)
and the energy conservation equation (2) becomes

$$\dot{\delta \rho }+3H\delta \rho +U^1\frac{1}{a}\frac{}{x^1}\delta \rho +\rho _0\frac{1}{a}\frac{}{x^k}v^k=0.$$
(10)
The condition for the flow to be irrotational, Eq. (3), becomes

$$\frac{}{x^i}v^i=0.$$
(11)
Substituting Eq. (11) into Eq. (10), we see that the velocity perturbations decouple from the density perturbations. To analyse the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability it is therefore sufficient to study Eqs. (9) and (11).

The perturbation in the position of the interface, given by $`x^3=\zeta (t,x^1,x^2)`$, is a first order quantity and has to be included in our analysis. The velocity of the fluid interface in the 3-direction is given by

$$v^3=a\left[\frac{\zeta }{t}+H\zeta +u^1\frac{\zeta }{ax^1}+u^2\frac{\zeta }{ax^2}\right],$$
(12)
where the RHS is simply the material derivative of the physical fluid interface position. Linearizing around the background described in Sec. 3

$$v^3=a\left[\frac{\zeta }{t}+H\zeta +U^1\frac{\zeta }{ax^1}\right].$$
(13)
We now make an ansatz for the first order quantities, extending Chandrasekhar (Chandrasekhar, (1981)),

$$\delta Q(t,x^i)e^{i\left(k_1x^1+k_2x^2\right)+\omega (t)},$$
(14)
where $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ are the components of the wavevector and $`\omega `$ is the *time dependent* frequency. With this ansatz growth of the perturbations and hence possible instability will set in if $`\omega (t)>0`$. Using the ansatz (14) the linearized Euler equations (9) become

$`\left(\dot{\omega }+H+iU^1{\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{a}}\right)v^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{k_\alpha }{a}}\delta P,`$
$`\left(\dot{\omega }+H+iU^1{\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{a}}\right)v^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^3}}\delta P,`$ (15)
where $`\alpha =1,2`$, whereas the continuity equation (11) and the linearized kinematic condition Eq. (13) give, respectively,

$`i\left(k_1v^1+k_2v^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^3}}v^3=0,`$
$`v^3=\left(\dot{\omega }+H+iU^1{\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{a}}\right)a\zeta .`$ (16)
The system of equations (5) and (16) can be solved for the velocity perturbation $`v^3`$,

$$\left(\dot{\omega }+H+iU^1\frac{k_1}{a}\right)\left(\frac{^2}{x_{}^{3}{}_{}{}^{2}}\overline{k}^2\right)v^3=0,$$
(17)
where $`\overline{k}^2=k_1^2+k_2^2`$. We see from Eq. (17) that the $`x^3`$ dependent part of the solution to $`v^3`$ has to be $`e^{\pm \overline{k}x^3}`$. The kinematic condition (16) shows that $`v^3/\left(\dot{\omega }+H+iU^1\frac{k_1}{a}\right)`$ has to be continuous across the interface. The solution for $`v^3`$ is therefore given by

$`v_\mathrm{a}^3`$ $`=`$ $`A\left(\dot{\omega }+H+iU_\mathrm{a}^1{\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{a}}\right)e^{\overline{k}x^3}\mathrm{for}x^3>0,`$
$`v_\mathrm{b}^3`$ $`=`$ $`A\left(\dot{\omega }+H+iU_\mathrm{b}^1{\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{a}}\right)e^{\overline{k}x^3}\mathrm{for}x^3<0,`$ (18)
where we have used the condition that the velocity has to stay finite as $`x^3\pm \mathrm{}`$.

We now integrate Eq. (17) across the interface from $`\zeta ϵ`$ to $`\zeta +ϵ`$ and then let $`ϵ0`$ to get

$`\left(\dot{\omega }+H+iU_\mathrm{a}^1{\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{a}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{x^3}}v_\mathrm{a}^3`$ (19)
$`\left(\dot{\omega }+H+iU_\mathrm{b}^1{\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{a}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{x^3}}v_\mathrm{b}^3=0.`$
Combining Eqs. (5) and (19) finally gives an equation for the time derivative of $`\omega `$,

$$\dot{\omega }=H\frac{1}{2}\frac{k_1}{a}\left[i\left(U_\mathrm{a}+U_\mathrm{b}\right)\pm \left|U_\mathrm{b}U_\mathrm{a}\right|\right].$$
(20)
Since we are studying the growing or decaying behavior of the solution we are only interested in the real part of $`\omega `$. We can therefore neglect the complex term in the square brackets in Eq. (20) above, because it would only contribute an oscillatory part to the solution. We also see that Eq. (20) allows two solutions depending on which sign we choose in front of the $`\left|U_\mathrm{b}U_\mathrm{a}\right|`$ term. We only consider the “$``$” sign in the following, since it can already be seen that because the Hubble parameter $`H`$ is always positive the “$`+`$” choice will only lead to damped solutions.

Note that we recover the standard result of Chandrasekhar (Chandrasekhar, (1981)), i.e. that all wavenumbers are exponentially unstable, if we set $`a=1`$.

Equation (20) can now be integrated using the solution for the background velocity Eq. (7) and the scale factor Eq. (8). We have $`\left|U_\mathrm{b}U_\mathrm{a}\right|=\overline{U}(t/t_0)^\gamma `$ where we have defined $`\overline{U}\left|U_{\mathrm{b0}}U_{\mathrm{a0}}\right|`$. We choose as initial condition that there is no amplification at the beginning, i.e. $`\omega =0`$ at $`t=t_0`$.

We study the case of a radiation dominated universe, i.e. $`\gamma =1/2`$, and a universe with a different exponent $`\gamma `$ separately.

Integrating the real part of Eq. (20) we get for the case $`\gamma =1/2`$

$$\omega =\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{k_1\overline{U}t_0}{a_0}1\right)\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{t},$$
(21)
where we have defined $`\stackrel{~}{t}t/t_0`$.

In the case where $`\gamma 1/2`$ we get, by integrating the real part of Eq. (20),

$$\omega =\gamma \mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{t}+\frac{k_1}{A\left(2\gamma 1\right)}\left[1\stackrel{~}{t}^{12\gamma }\right],$$
(22)
where we have introduced the quantity

$$A\frac{2a_0}{\overline{U}t_0},$$
(23)
because it plays a crucial role in defining critical wavenumbers in the following section.

## 6 Critical wavenumber

We can now analyze the solutions we have found in the previous section and calculate the critical wavenumber beyond which the perturbations are growing.

### 6.1 Radiation domination, $`\gamma =1/2`$

In the radiation dominated regime, $`\gamma =1/2`$, we find from Eq. (21) and our ansatz (14) that the flow is linearly unstable for all wavenumbers with

$$k_1>k_{\mathrm{crit},\mathrm{rad}}\frac{A}{2}.$$
(24)
From Eqs. (21) and (24) we see that during radiation domination perturbations with wavenumbers $`k_1>k_{\mathrm{crit},\mathrm{rad}}`$ only grow linearly, i.e, $`\delta Qt`$.

### 6.2 Case $`\gamma 1/2`$

In the case of $`\gamma 1/2`$ the behavior of the perturbations is more complicated than in the radiation dominated case, since here the critical wave number is time dependent.

The solution Eq. (22) has two parts with different behaviors: the logarithmic part will always lead to a decrease in $`\omega `$, whereas the second term behaves differently depending on whether $`\gamma `$ is smaller or larger than 1/2. In the case $`\gamma <1/2`$ the second term is always increasing and will dominate after a finite time for large enough wavenumbers. For $`\gamma >1/2`$ the second term in Eq. (22) will first increase and then decrease but can lead to instability if it dominates for a long enough period. From Eq. (22) the critical wavenumber for which small perturbations begin to grow is

$$k_1>k_{\mathrm{crit},\gamma }\gamma A\frac{\left(2\gamma 1\right)\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{t}}{1\stackrel{~}{t}^{12\gamma }}.$$
(25)
Note that the limit $`\stackrel{~}{t}1`$ of the RHS of Eq. (25) above is well defined, $`lim_{\stackrel{~}{t}1}\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{t}/(1\stackrel{~}{t}^{12\gamma })=1`$.

We will now discuss the two cases $`\gamma <1/2`$ and $`\gamma >1/2`$ separately.

#### 6.2.1 Case $`\gamma <1/2`$

The case $`\gamma <1/2`$ is particularly simple. Using the relation (Abramowitz and Stegun, (1972))

$$\mathrm{ln}xn(x^{1/n}1)\mathrm{for}x,n>0,$$
(26)
we see that the time dependent part of Eq. (25) is decreasing and we therefore get, as a conservative value for the unstable wavenumber,

$$k_{\mathrm{crit},\mathrm{L}}>\gamma A.$$
(27)
For wave numbers satisfying this condition $`\omega >0`$ and the perturbations grow exponentially with time as $`\mathrm{exp}(t^{12\gamma })`$ and so the flow is exponentially unstable to small perturbations.

#### 6.2.2 Case $`\gamma >1/2`$

From Eq. (25) we see that for large $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ the time dependent term $`\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{t}/(1\stackrel{~}{t}^{12\gamma })`$ tends to $`\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{t}`$. Hence, in this case, the critical wave number increases with time. In order to get a conservative estimate of the critical wavenumber we evaluate Eq. (25) at the time when a given perturbation is largest.

The perturbations reach their maximum value at

$$t_{\mathrm{max}}=t_0\left(\frac{k_1}{\gamma A}\right)^{\frac{1}{2\gamma 1}}.$$
(28)
We can now evaluate Eq. (25) at $`t=t_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and get an implicit equation for the critical wavenumber for $`\gamma >1/2`$

$$\frac{k_{\mathrm{crit},\mathrm{G}}}{\gamma A}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{k_{\mathrm{crit},\mathrm{G}}}{\gamma A}\right)=1.$$
(29)
Solving Eq. (29) numerically shows that the error in neglecting the logarithmic term is $`0.1\%`$. We can therefore neglect it and get as an estimate that the perturbations will grow for wavenumbers

$$k_1\gamma A.$$
(30)
When the perturbations reach their maximum they have grown as $`\delta Q(t_{\mathrm{max}})=\delta Q(t_0)e^{\omega _{\mathrm{max}}}`$, where $`\omega _{\mathrm{max}}=\omega (t_{\mathrm{max}})`$. Note that we have chosen $`\omega (t_0)=0`$. We therefore find that the perturbations have grown at time $`t_{\mathrm{max}}`$ by a factor of $`e^{\omega _{\mathrm{max}}}`$, where $`\omega _{\mathrm{max}}`$ is given by

$$\omega _{\mathrm{max}}=\frac{\gamma }{2\gamma 1}\left[\frac{k_1}{\gamma A}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{k_1}{\gamma A}\right)1\right].$$
(31)
From Eq. (26) we see that in Eq. (31) the square bracket is dominated by the first term and hence the perturbations are amplified by a factor of $`e^{k_1/A}`$.

Our model covers the irrotational, non-viscous case. The inclusion of viscosity is even more complicated: for small Reynolds numbers it tends to dampen the instability, whereas for large Reynolds numbers the development of turbulence becomes more likely. Although the simplest CDM model does not include viscosity there are models, like neutralino dark matter studied in (Hofmann et al., (2001)), which are viscous. We note these instabilities will probably not be detected in models based on collision-free Boltzmann distributions and that the fluid model we use will break down at some small scale dependent on the dark matter properties.

## 7 Discussion and Conclusions

In standard fluid dynamics the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability in the incompressible case develops for all wavenumbers $`k>0`$. However in an expanding universe we have shown that this is no longer the case and that there are critical wave numbers which separate stable and unstable domains. These wave numbers depend on the expansion of the background and the background velocity. For wave numbers larger than the critical wavenumber, $`k>k_{\mathrm{crit}}`$, small perturbations will grow.

More specifically, for a scale factor exponent $`\gamma >1/2`$ perturbations will grow for a wavenumber-dependent time. In the case $`\gamma =1/2`$, i.e. during radiation domination, perturbations grow linearly for all times and for $`\gamma <1/2`$ they grow exponentially for all times.

As an illustration we look at the case of cold dark matter at the beginning of matter domination, $`\gamma =2/3`$. The physical setting could be two large volumes of cold dark matter colliding or some non-homogeneous velocity flows in the early universe. In the first case the contact surface would be prone to the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability and in the second the instability would occur inside the flow. From Eq. (23) and (30) the physical critical wavenumber at the time of matter and radiation equality is given by

$$\frac{k_{\mathrm{crit}}}{a_{\mathrm{eq}}}=\frac{2\gamma }{\overline{U}t_0}\frac{a_0}{a_{\mathrm{eq}}},$$
(32)
where $`a_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ is the scale factor at equality. We choose $`t_0`$ to be the present age of the universe, $`t_0=H_0^1`$, where $`H_0=100kms^1Mpc^1h`$, $`a_0/a_{\mathrm{eq}}=24000\mathrm{\Omega }_0h^2`$ (see (Kolb and Turner, (1990); Liddle and Lyth, (2000))), with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_01`$ and the characteristic velocity is $`\overline{U}100kms^1`$ (see Green, (2002); Klypin et al., (2001)). With these numbers the critical scale below which perturbations are amplified is

$$\lambda _{\mathrm{crit}}1kpc.$$
(33)
Although detailed numerical analysis will be necessary in order to make definite quantitative predictions of the effect of the instability on the density distribution, we can nevertheless speculate that it will lead to a redistribution of power from scales $`\lambda _{crit}`$ to much smaller scales.

A significant feature of this example is that the instability occurs at such a small scale. This is important because it is well known that the cold dark matter model has problems at small scales. It seems to predict higher densities and more small scale structure than is observed. Modifications of the CDM have been tried, e.g. Warm Dark Matter and Self-Interacting Dark Matter but neither of these solves all the problems, see e.g. (Primack, (2002); Tasitsiomi, (2002)) for an outline of the ideas and detailed references. While these discrepancies may be, at least partially, due to numerical and observational resolution and selection effects or the consequences of baryonic physics, there still appears to be a residual problem.

The surprising element of the Kelvin-Helmholtz effect is that it occurs even on expanding backgrounds and depending on the value of $`\gamma `$ the instabilities can grow exponentially. Our results indicate that further analysis using numerical methods is needed to explore the effect into the nonlinear regime.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank Anne Green, Andrew Liddle, Roy Maartens, Dominik Schwarz, David Wands and David Weinberg for useful discussions. KM is supported by a Marie Curie Fellowship under the contract number *HPMF-CT-2000-00981*.


text:
# NORDITA-2002-58 HE Duality in Semi-Exclusive Processes∗

## 1 Bloom-Gilman Duality

The remarkable relation between DIS $`eNeX`$ and exclusive resonance production $`eNeN^{}`$ known as Bloom-Gilman duality has been confirmed and extended by data from JLab. Empirically,

$$\underset{\delta x}{}𝑑xF_2^{scaling}(x)\frac{d\sigma }{dQ^2}(eNeN^{})|F_{pN^{}}(Q^2)|^2$$
(1)
where $`F_{pN^{}}(Q^2)`$ is the exclusive $`pN^{}`$ electromagnetic form factor. The Bjorken variable $`x=Q^2/(W^2+Q^2M_N^2)`$ is given by the photon virtuality $`Q^2`$ and the hadron mass $`W=M_N^{}`$. On the lhs of (1) the leading twist structure function $`F_2^{scaling}(x)`$ is integrated over an interval $`\delta x`$ covering the $`N^{}`$ mass region. This semi-local duality relation is approximately satisfied for each nucleon resonance region including the Born term: $`N^{}=P_{11}(938),P_{33}(1232),S_{11}(1535)`$ and $`F_{15}(1680)`$. The magnitude and $`x`$-dependence of the scaling structure function is thus related to the magnitude and $`Q^2`$-dependence of the $`N^{}`$ electromagnetic form factors. The duality relation is approximately satisfied even at low $`Q^2`$.

Bloom-Gilman duality means that the DIS scaling function is coded into the $`N^{}`$ form factors. This is surprising because hard inclusive and exclusive processes are usually thought to be determined by separate parts of the nucleon wave function. The $`F_2`$ structure function is (at lowest order in $`\alpha _s`$) an incoherent sum, weighted by $`e_q^2`$, of inclusive quark distributions built from non-compact multiparton Fock states. The exclusive form factor on the other hand is believed to be governed by the wave function of the valence Fock state $`|qqq`$ of transverse size $`1/Q`$ . The virtual photon then couples coherently to the valence quarks, implying a dependence on the quark electric charge of the form $`(_qe_q)^2`$. Such a different dependence on $`e_q`$ of the two sides in Eq. (1) contradicts the observed fact that duality is satisfied in a semilocal sense for both proton and neutron targets.

Data thus indicates that the Fock states in the nucleon electromagnetic form factors have size $`1/Q`$ so that the contribution of each quark to $`|F_{pN^{}}(Q^2)|^2`$ is $`e_q^2`$. With the standard scaling laws $`F_{pN^{}}(Q^2)1/Q^4`$ and $`F_2^{scaling}(x)(1x)^3`$ both sides of Eq. (1) have the same $`Q^2`$-dependence. Duality and incoherent exclusive scattering will then hold at arbitrarily high $`Q^2`$. We shall find further evidence below that exclusive processes at large momentum transfer involve non-compact Fock states.

## 2 Semi-Exclusive Processes

Further information on the relation between inclusive and exclusive scattering can be obtained from generalizations of Bloom-Gilman duality. It was already observed that the spin and nuclear target $`A`$ dependence of the resonances agrees with that of the DIS scaling region as required by duality.

Semi-exclusive processes such as $`\gamma p\pi ^+Y`$ (Fig. 1) provide a qualitatively new testing ground of duality. In the kinematic limit where the total energy $`s=(q+p)^2`$ is much larger than the mass of the inclusive system $`Y`$ ($`sM_Y^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2`$) the produced $`\pi ^+`$ meson is separated from the hadrons in $`Y`$ by a rapidity gap. When also the momentum transfer $`t=(qq^{})^2`$ is large the $`\pi ^+`$ is expected to be produced via a hard subprocess such as $`\gamma u\pi ^+d`$. We have then a generalisation of ordinary DIS, with the $`eqeq`$ subprocess replaced by $`\gamma q\pi ^+q^{}`$ and with the physical cross section given by

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dxdt}(\gamma p\pi ^+Y)=\underset{q,q^{}}{}q(x)\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(\gamma q\pi ^+q^{})$$
(2)
where $`q(x)`$ is the inclusive distribution of the struck quark in the target. From the point of view of the target physics, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the semi-exclusive process and ordinary DIS, with $`Q^2t`$ and $`W^2M_Y^2`$. The momentum fraction of the struck quark in the semi-exclusive process is thus $`x=t/(M_Y^2tM_N^2)`$.

The close analogy with DIS makes it natural to study Bloom-Gilman duality for semi-exclusive processes. This links large momentum transfer exclusive cross sections to standard DIS structure functions and, via Eq. (1), to exclusive form factors, e.g.,

$$_{\delta x}\left[u(x)+\overline{d}(x)\right]\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(\gamma u\pi ^+d)\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(\gamma p\pi ^+N^{})$$
(3)
With the standard behavior $`u(x)(1x)^3`$ we find, for $`N^{}=n`$,

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(\gamma p\pi ^+n)\frac{1}{s^2t^5}$$
(4)
which is consistent with data.

Combining Eqs. (1) and (3) one obtains

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(\gamma p\pi ^+n)=16\pi ^2\frac{\alpha \alpha _s^2f_\pi ^2}{|t|s^2}\frac{G_{Mp}^2(t)}{(1+r_{du}/4)}$$
(5)
where $`r_{du}`$ is the $`d/u`$-quark distribution ratio for $`x1`$. This estimate turns out to be nearly two orders of magnitude smaller than the measured $`\gamma p\pi ^+n`$ cross section at $`E_\gamma =7.5\mathrm{GeV},|t|2\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. The discrepancy is even worse at fixed angle – in which case the $`1/s^7`$ scaling of both theory and data implies that the situation will not improve with momentum transfer. A similar result was found for Compton scattering $`\gamma p\gamma p`$, where duality underestimates data by about an order of magnitude.

Unfortunately there is no data on the semi-exclusive process $`\gamma p\pi ^+Y`$ in the continuum mass region of the inclusive system $`Y`$, where the prediction (2) could be tested directly. However, it is unlikely that the resonance/continuum ratio can be very different in the semi-exclusive process as compared to DIS. Hence the most likely reason for the failure of Eq. (5) is that (2) underestimates the semi-exclusive cross section. This could happen if endpoint contributions soften the meson production subprocess. In the previous section we saw that standard DIS duality also points in this direction.

## 3 Spin Dependence of Semi-Exclusive $`\rho `$ Production

The ZEUS Collaboration recently published striking data on polarization effects in semi-exclusive vector meson production $`\gamma +pV+Y`$, for $`V=\rho ^0,\varphi ,J/\psi `$. The $`\rho ^0`$ cross section scales as $`d\sigma /dt(t)^n`$, with $`n=3.21\pm 0.04\pm 0.15`$ in close agreement with $`n=3`$ expected from dimensional counting for the subprocess $`\gamma gq\overline{q}+g`$. The corresponding data on $`\varphi `$ production gives a power $`n=2.7\pm 0.1\pm 0.2`$. The ratio $`\sigma (\varphi )/\sigma (\rho )2/9`$ for $`t\stackrel{>}{_{}}3\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ is in accordance with flavor SU3. These features suggest that the subprocess is hard and described by PQCD.

Helicity conservation at the level of the hard subprocess requires that the quark and antiquark are created with opposite helicities. Hence the $`\rho `$ meson they form is predicted to be longitudinally polarized, $`\lambda _\rho =0`$. At the level of the external particles, on the other hand, helicity conservation implies that the $`\rho `$ meson has the same helicity as the (real) projectile photon, i.e., $`\lambda _\rho =\pm 1`$. We thus have a situation where helicity conservation at the external particle level is in conflict with helicity conservation at the quark level.

The ZEUS data shows that $`s`$-channel helicity is nearly conserved in the entire measured range ($`t6\mathrm{GeV}^2`$) for both $`\rho `$ and $`\varphi `$ mesons. Hence helicity is violated at the subprocess level. In PQCD this brings a suppression factor proportional to the quark mass squared, $`m_q^2/(t)`$. The cross section is then expected to scale with a power $`n=4`$, whereas the data is closer to the dimensional counting rule $`n=3`$. Taken at face value, this suggests that the subprocess is soft and endpoint dominated (one quark carrying most of the meson momentum) yet obeys the dimensional counting rule.

## 4 Endpoint Behavior of Parton Subprocesses

We have seen that Bloom-Gilman duality (in DIS as well as in semi-exclusive production) and quark helicity violation in vector meson production suggest a dominance of endpoint effects in exclusive hadron processes. PQCD estimates of the Lepage-Brodsky hard exclusive scattering dynamics likewise show that configurations where one quark carries most of the hadron momentum contribute importantly due to (nearly) on-shell internal propagators.

A possible reason for the failure to observe color transparency in large angle elastic $`ep`$ and $`pp`$ scattering on nuclear targets is that the relevant nucleon Fock states are not compact, again due to endpoint contributions. We recently studied the size of the $`\gamma u\pi ^+d`$ subprocess at large momentum transfer $`t`$ in PQCD, based on the derivative of the cross section wrt. the virtuality $`Q^2`$ of the photon at $`Q^2=0`$. It turns out that while the amplitude itself is regular at the endpoints, $`A(e_ue_d)𝑑z\varphi _\pi (z)/(1z)`$, the $`Q^2`$ derivative brings another factor of $`1z`$ in the denominator. The integral over the quark momentum fraction $`z`$ is then singular at $`z=1`$, even though the pion distribution amplitude $`\varphi _\pi (z)1z`$. The singularity of the $`Q^2`$-derivative implies an infinite size for the photoproduction subprocess!

The situation for the quark helicity flip subprocess $`\gamma gq\overline{q}+g`$ (cf. section 3) is similar. The $`\lambda _\rho =1`$ amplitude has the form

$$A\frac{m_q}{\sqrt{t}}𝑑z\frac{\varphi _\rho (z)}{z^2(1z)^2}\left[1+O\left(\frac{m_q^2}{t}\right)\right]$$
(6)
and is thus endpoint sensitive. This may explain the dominance of the quark helicity flip amplitude in the ZEUS data. Dimensional scaling can be understood by noting that the amplitude is not light-cone (LC) dominated at the endpoints: the soft quark moves with non-relativistic speed for $`z\stackrel{<}{_{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/\sqrt{t}`$. In this region the amplitude is not proportional to the LC distribution amplitude $`\varphi _\rho `$ and there is no reason to expect that the numerator of the integrand in Eq. (6) vanishes. The linearly divergent integral then gives a factor $`\sqrt{t}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ which precisely compensates the $`t`$-dependence induced by the quark helicity flip. Details will be presented elsewhere.

## 5 Conclusions

There are several indications that large momentum transfer exclusive processes are not given by compact PQCD subprocesses and hadron distribution amplitudes. Rather, it appears that exclusive production is dominated by configurations where one quark carries most of the hadron momentum. The cross section scales dimensionally but does not obey quark helicity conservation nor color transparency.

## Acknowledgments

The results presented here were obtained in collaborations with Patrik Edén, Alexander Khodjamirian, Jonathan Lenaghan, Kimmo Tuominen and Carsten Vogt. I am also grateful for discussions with Stan Brodsky and Jim Crittenden. Research supported in part by the European Commission under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00130.