Axion predictions in Grand Unified Theories Axion-WIMP workshop - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
axion predictions in grand unified theories
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Axion predictions in Grand Unified Theories Axion-WIMP workshop - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jul 01, 2023 187 likes •811 views

Axion predictions in Grand Unified Theories Axion-WIMP workshop 2018 DESY Hamburg, 19/06/18 Anne Ernst based on JHEP 02(2018)103 , in collaboration with Andreas Ringwald and Carlos Tamarit Motivation search for a well-motivated model solving

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Axion predictions in Grand Unified Theories

Axion-WIMP workshop 2018 DESY Hamburg, 19/06/18 Anne Ernst based on JHEP 02(2018)103 , in collaboration with Andreas Ringwald and Carlos Tamarit

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Motivation

search for a well-motivated model solving fundamental problems of the Standard Model axion solves Strong CP-problem and is a good candidate for Cold Dark Matter can we use GUT to constrain the axion mass? unification of gauge couplings

  • ne gauge group instead of 3

why SO(10)? simplest SU(5) models: disfavoured neutrinos massive: seesaw mechanism

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Status

models have been studied before [Lazarides, Kim, Bajc et al, Babu et al, Altarelli et al, …] however, a few things were missing: a systematic identification of axion field and decay constant in the presence of gauge symmetries a systematic calculation of the couplings to other particles a direct calculation of associated domain wall number two-loop analysis of unification constraints including threshold corrections

SO(10) × U(1)P Q

slide-4
SLIDE 4

GUT model building: non-SUSY SO(10)

SO(10) 4C2L2R 4C2L1R 3C2L1R1B−L 3C2L1Y scale 16F (4, 2, 1) (4, 2, 0)

  • 3, 2, 0, 1

3

  • 3, 2, 1

6

  • := Q

MZ (1, 2, 0, −1)

  • 1, 2, − 1

2

  • := L

MZ (¯ 4, 1, 2) ¯ 4, 1, 1

2

  • ¯

3, 1, 1

2, − 1 3

  • ¯

3, 1, 1

3

  • := d

MZ

  • 1, 1, 1

2, 1

  • (1, 1, 1) := e

MZ ¯ 4, 1, − 1

2

  • ¯

3, 1, − 1

2, − 1 3

  • ¯

3, 1, − 2

3

  • := u

MZ

  • 1, 1, − 1

2, 1

  • (1, 1, 0) := N

MBL

  • one generation of SM fermions + heavy right-

handed neutrinos fits perfectly into one 16 representation of SO(10)

  • most general Yukawa coupling:

LY = 16F

  • Y1010H + Y120120H + Y126126H
  • 16F + h.c.,
slide-5
SLIDE 5

GUT model building: non-SUSY SO(10)

SO(10) 4C2L2R 4C2L1R 3C2L1R1B−L 3C2L1Y scale 16F (4, 2, 1) (4, 2, 0)

  • 3, 2, 0, 1

3

  • 3, 2, 1

6

  • := Q

MZ (1, 2, 0, −1)

  • 1, 2, − 1

2

  • := L

MZ (¯ 4, 1, 2) ¯ 4, 1, 1

2

  • ¯

3, 1, 1

2, − 1 3

  • ¯

3, 1, 1

3

  • := d

MZ

  • 1, 1, 1

2, 1

  • (1, 1, 1) := e

MZ ¯ 4, 1, − 1

2

  • ¯

3, 1, − 1

2, − 1 3

  • ¯

3, 1, − 2

3

  • := u

MZ

  • 1, 1, − 1

2, 1

  • (1, 1, 0) := N

MBL

  • one generation of SM fermions + heavy right-

handed neutrinos fits perfectly into one 16 representation of SO(10)

  • most general Yukawa coupling:

LY = 16F

  • Y1010H + Y120120H + Y126126H
  • 16F + h.c.,

minimality

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Role of PQ-symmetry in GUT model building

complex representation necessary to reproduce realistic mass relations reduced predictivity in Yukawa sector

LY = 16F ⇣ Y1010H + ˜ Y1010∗

H + Y126126H

⌘ 16F + h.c.

10H

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Role of PQ-symmetry in GUT model building

complex representation necessary to reproduce realistic mass relations reduced predictivity in Yukawa sector

LY = 16F ⇣ Y1010H + ˜ Y1010∗

H + Y126126H

⌘ 16F + h.c.

solution: impose global U(1) symmetry!

16F → 16F eiα 10H → 10He−2iα 126H → 126He−2iα U(1)PQ :

10H

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Role of PQ-symmetry in GUT model building

complex representation necessary to reproduce realistic mass relations reduced predictivity in Yukawa sector

LY = 16F ⇣ Y1010H + ˜ Y1010∗

H + Y126126H

⌘ 16F + h.c.

solution: impose global U(1) symmetry!

16F → 16F eiα 10H → 10He−2iα 126H → 126He−2iα U(1)PQ :

10H

broken global symmetry Goldstone boson!

Color-anomalous symmetry solution to Strong CP -problem

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Peccei-Quinn solution

assume existence of anomalous global symmetry, spontaneously broken at a scale Goldstone boson: anomaly induces effective change in the Lagrangian : can rewrite CP violating term as

SU(3)C − SU(3)C − U(1)P Q Leff = − g2 32π2 ✓ A fA + ¯ θ ◆ | {z } θ Gaµν ˜ Ga

µν

fA A fA ∈ [0, 2π) U(1)P Q : A fA → A fA + ✏ δL = − g2 32π2 A fA Gaµν ˜ Ga

µν

U(1)PQ

slide-10
SLIDE 10

non-perturbative effects introduce potential for A ! minimum at

Peccei-Quinn solution

A0 fA + ¯ θ = θ = 0

slide-11
SLIDE 11

non-perturbative effects introduce potential for A ! minimum at

Peccei-Quinn solution

A0 fA + ¯ θ = θ = 0

Dynamical solution of strong CP problem ! Particle excitation of field A: the axion.

slide-12
SLIDE 12

non-perturbative effects introduce potential for A ! minimum at

Peccei-Quinn solution

A0 fA + ¯ θ = θ = 0

Dynamical solution of strong CP problem ! Particle excitation of field A: the axion.

mA(T)fA = p χ(T)

Axion properties are described by axion decay constant

fA

Q: Can we use GUT to constrain ?

fA

slide-13
SLIDE 13

non-perturbative effects introduce potential for A ! minimum at

Peccei-Quinn solution

A0 fA + ¯ θ = θ = 0

Dynamical solution of strong CP problem ! Particle excitation of field A: the axion.

mA(T)fA = p χ(T)

Axion properties are described by axion decay constant

fA

Q: Can we use GUT to constrain ?

fA

A: It depends…

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Higgs sector of SO(10): symmetry breaking chains

cannot break SO(10) down to the Standard Model (as it leaves an SU(5) subgroup unbroken), we need at least one additional rep choosing , obtain the two-step symmetry breaking chain

126H

210H

SO(10)

MU−210H

− → 4C 2L 2R

MBL−126H

− → 3C 2L 1Y

MZ−10H

− → 3C 1em

SO(10) 4C2L2R 4C2L1R 3C2L1R1B−L 3C2L1Y 3C1em scale 10H (1, 2, 2) (1, 2, 1

2)

(1, 2, 1

2, 0)

(1, 2, 1

2)

(1, 0) =: Hd MZ (1, 2, − 1

2)

(1, 2, − 1

2, 0)

(1, 2, − 1

2)

(1, 0) =: Hu MZ 45H (1, 1, 3) (1, 1, 0) := σ (1, 1, 0, 0) (1, 1, 0) (1, 0) MPQ 126H (10, 1, 3) (10, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1, −2) (1, 1, 0) := ∆R (1, 0) MBL (15, 2, 2) (15, 2, 1

2)

(1, 2, 1

2, 0)

(1, 2, 1

2)

(1, 0) := Σd MZ (15, 2, − 1

2)

(1, 2, − 1

2, 0)

(1, 2, − 1

2)

(1, 0) := Σu MZ 210H (1, 1, 1) := φ (1, 1, 0) (1, 1, 0, 0) (1, 1, 0) (1, 0) MU

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Higgs sector of SO(10): symmetry breaking chains

cannot break SO(10) down to the Standard Model (as it leaves an SU(5) subgroup unbroken), we need at least one additional rep choosing , obtain the two-step symmetry breaking chain

126H

210H

SO(10)

MU−210H

− → 4C 2L 2R

MBL−126H

− → 3C 2L 1Y

MZ−10H

− → 3C 1em

SO(10) 4C2L2R 4C2L1R 3C2L1R1B−L 3C2L1Y 3C1em scale 10H (1, 2, 2) (1, 2, 1

2)

(1, 2, 1

2, 0)

(1, 2, 1

2)

(1, 0) =: Hd MZ (1, 2, − 1

2)

(1, 2, − 1

2, 0)

(1, 2, − 1

2)

(1, 0) =: Hu MZ 45H (1, 1, 3) (1, 1, 0) := σ (1, 1, 0, 0) (1, 1, 0) (1, 0) MPQ 126H (10, 1, 3) (10, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1, −2) (1, 1, 0) := ∆R (1, 0) MBL (15, 2, 2) (15, 2, 1

2)

(1, 2, 1

2, 0)

(1, 2, 1

2)

(1, 0) := Σd MZ (15, 2, − 1

2)

(1, 2, − 1

2, 0)

(1, 2, − 1

2)

(1, 0) := Σu MZ 210H (1, 1, 1) := φ (1, 1, 0) (1, 1, 0, 0) (1, 1, 0) (1, 0) MU

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Physical PQ symmetry

16F → 16F eiα 10H → 10He−2iα 126H → 126He−2iα

U(1)PQ :

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Physical PQ symmetry

linear combination of gauge and global symmetries axion is massless at the perturbative level

  • rthogonal to all gauge

symmetries, in particular B-L lower decay constant!

16F → 16F eiα 10H → 10He−2iα 126H → 126He−2iα

U(1)PQ :

fA ∼ MZ

visible axion! For an explicit construction

  • f the physical axion, check
  • ut our paper!
slide-18
SLIDE 18

Lifting the axion from the electroweak scale

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 extend PQ symmetry extra scalar singlet extra scalar multiplet

slide-19
SLIDE 19

M1: extended PQ symmetry

16F → 16F eiα 10H → 10He−2iα 126H → 126He−2iα

U(1)PQ :

slide-20
SLIDE 20

M1: extended PQ symmetry

16F → 16F eiα 10H → 10He−2iα 126H → 126He−2iα

U(1)PQ : minimal extension: include in the PQ symmetry axion construction similar as before, but now obtain

210H → 210He4iα

slide-21
SLIDE 21

M1: extended PQ symmetry

16F → 16F eiα 10H → 10He−2iα 126H → 126He−2iα

U(1)PQ : minimal extension: include in the PQ symmetry axion construction similar as before, but now obtain

210H → 210He4iα

fixed by the requirement of gauge coupling unification!

fA ⇠ vU 3 ⇠ h210Hi 3

slide-22
SLIDE 22

M1: RGE running

dα−1

i (µ)

d ln µ = − ai 2π − X

j

bij 8π2α−1

j (µ)

106 109 1012 1015 20 30 40 50

(no threshold corrections)

slide-23
SLIDE 23

M1: Matching conditions

matching conditions depend on the group structure and the contained particles size of threshold corrections depends on the masses of heavy scalars (more specifically, the deviation from the threshold scale)

α−1

1Y (MBL) = 3

5α

00−1

2R (MBL) + 2

5α

00−1

4C (MBL) − λ1Y

12π α−1

2L(MBL) = α

00−1

2L (MBL) − λ2L

12π α−1

3C(MBL) = α

00−1

4C (MBL) − λ3C

12π

α

001

2R (MU) = α1 G (MU) − λ00 2R

12π α

001

2L (MU) = α1 G (MU) − λ00 2L

12π α

001

4C (MU) = α1 G (MU) − λ00 4C

12π

slide-24
SLIDE 24

M1: gauge coupling unification

in lack of detailed knowledge of the scalar sector, scalar masses have been randomized in the interval imposed limits: proton stability B-L scale black hole superradiance

[ 1

10MT , 10MT ]

  • 8

10 12 14 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

slide-25
SLIDE 25

M1: predictions

  • relatively sharp prediction of axion mass
  • axion decay constant at the GUT scale
slide-26
SLIDE 26

M1: predictions

  • relatively sharp prediction of axion mass
  • axion decay constant at the GUT scale

allowed region if HyperK discovers proton decay

slide-27
SLIDE 27

M1: predictions

  • relatively sharp prediction of axion mass
  • axion decay constant at the GUT scale
slide-28
SLIDE 28

M1: predictions

  • relatively sharp prediction of axion mass
  • axion decay constant at the GUT scale

allowed region if HyperK excludes proton decay

slide-29
SLIDE 29

CASPEr electric

[arXiv: 1711.0899]

slide-30
SLIDE 30

M2: additional multiplet

include PQ charged multiplet axion decay constant

16F → 16F eiα 10H → 10He−2iα 126H → 126He−2iα

U(1)PQ :

210H → 210H 45H → 45He4iα

45H

fA = vPQ 3 = h45Hi 3

slide-31
SLIDE 31

M2: additional multiplet

include PQ charged multiplet axion decay constant

16F → 16F eiα 10H → 10He−2iα 126H → 126He−2iα

U(1)PQ :

210H → 210H 45H → 45He4iα

45H

fA = vPQ 3 = h45Hi 3

can we constrain this using gauge coupling unification?

slide-32
SLIDE 32

SO(10) 4C2L2R 4C2L1R 3C2L1R1B−L 3C2L1Y 3C1em scale 10H (1, 2, 2) (1, 2, 1

2)

(1, 2, 1

2, 0)

(1, 2, 1

2)

(1, 0) =: Hd MZ (1, 2, − 1

2)

(1, 2, − 1

2, 0)

(1, 2, − 1

2)

(1, 0) =: Hu MZ 45H (1, 1, 3) (1, 1, 0) := σ (1, 1, 0, 0) (1, 1, 0) (1, 0) MPQ 126H (10, 1, 3) (10, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1, −2) (1, 1, 0) := ∆R (1, 0) MBL (15, 2, 2) (15, 2, 1

2)

(1, 2, 1

2, 0)

(1, 2, 1

2)

(1, 0) := Σd MZ (15, 2, − 1

2)

(1, 2, − 1

2, 0)

(1, 2, − 1

2)

(1, 0) := Σu MZ 210H (1, 1, 1) := φ (1, 1, 0) (1, 1, 0, 0) (1, 1, 0) (1, 0) MU

M2: three-step symmetry breaking

MPQ > MBL : SO(10)

MU−210H

− → 4C 2L 2R

MPQ−45H

− → 4C 2L 1R

MBL−126H

− → 3C 2L 1Y

MZ−10H

− → 3C 1em

slide-33
SLIDE 33

M2: three-step symmetry breaking

MPQ > MBL : SO(10)

MU−210H

− → 4C 2L 2R

MPQ−45H

− → 4C 2L 1R

MBL−126H

− → 3C 2L 1Y

MZ−10H

− → 3C 1em

106 109 1012 1015 GeV 20 30 40 50 60

  • 1

MPQ < MBL : SO(10)

MU−210H

− → 4C 2L 2R

MBL−126H

− → 3C 2L 1Y

MZ−10H

− → 3C 1em

A: B:

slide-34
SLIDE 34

M2: three-step symmetry breaking

slide-35
SLIDE 35

M2: three-step symmetry breaking

slide-36
SLIDE 36

M2: predictions

  • axion mass largely unconstrained
  • accommodates a natural DM candidate axion
slide-37
SLIDE 37

M3: additional singlet

include PQ charged singlet axion decay constant given by vev of S as S is not charged under the gauge symmetry, no constraints can be placed

  • n axion mass in this model

16F → 16F eiα 10H → 10He−2iα 126H → 126He−2iα

U(1)PQ :

210H → 210H S → Se4iα

slide-38
SLIDE 38

M3: additional singlet

include PQ charged singlet axion decay constant given by vev of S as S is not charged under the gauge symmetry, no constraints can be placed

  • n axion mass in this model

16F → 16F eiα 10H → 10He−2iα 126H → 126He−2iα

U(1)PQ :

210H → 210H S → Se4iα

similar to M2, M3 in its simplest version has domain wall problem define M3.2, a model with an extra singlet and two generations of extra fermions

slide-39
SLIDE 39

M3: (no) predictions

  • axion mass unconstrained
  • accommodates a natural DM candidate axion
slide-40
SLIDE 40

Summary

[Saikawa]

16F 126H 10H 210H 45H S 10F Model 1 1 −2 −2 4 − − − Model 2.1 1 −2 −2 4 − − Model 2.2 1 −2 −2 4 − −2 Model 3 1 −2 −2 − 4 −

slide-41
SLIDE 41
slide-42
SLIDE 42

Backup

slide-43
SLIDE 43

CASPEr wind

[arXiv: 1711.0899]

slide-44
SLIDE 44

If Hyper-Kamiokande were to discover proton decay in the next decade

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Symmetry breaking chains

[Di Luzio 2011 ]

slide-46
SLIDE 46

(model dependent) couplings to gluons, photons and fermions, suppressed by

Axion properties

1/fA

mA(T)fA = p χ(T)

temperature- dependent mass

slide-47
SLIDE 47

(model dependent) couplings to gluons, photons and fermions, suppressed by

Axion properties

1/fA

mA(T)fA = p χ(T)

temperature- dependent mass

„axion decay constant“

slide-48
SLIDE 48

Axion production: Misalignment mechanism

scalar field in expanding FRW universe at : field starts to

  • scillate
  • scillating field behaves as cold dark

matter!

¨ φ + 3H ˙ φ + m2

a(T)φ = 0

m(Tosc) ≈ 3H(Tosc)

slide-49
SLIDE 49

Axion production: Misalignment mechanism

[Saikawa]

Ωah2 ⇠ 2 ⇥ 104 ✓ fA 1016GeV ◆7/6 hθ2

Ii

slide-50
SLIDE 50

Axion production: Misalignment mechanism

[Saikawa]

Ωah2 ⇠ 2 ⇥ 104 ✓ fA 1016GeV ◆7/6 hθ2

Ii

„initial misalignment angle“

slide-51
SLIDE 51

Axion production: Misalignment mechanism

[Saikawa]

Ωah2 ⇠ 2 ⇥ 104 ✓ fA 1016GeV ◆7/6 hθ2

Ii

„initial misalignment angle“

ΩCDMh2 ∼ 0.11

[WMAP7]

slide-52
SLIDE 52

PQ breaking: before or after inflation

[Saikawa]

slide-53
SLIDE 53

PQ breaking: before or after inflation

is a free parameter - can be tuned anthropic constraints constraints from isocurvature perturbations „anthropic axion window"

axion decay constant fixed topological defects „classic axion window“

θI hθ2

Ii = π2

3

slide-54
SLIDE 54

M2: domain wall number

this model has which can cause cosmological problems if inflation happens before the PQ symmetry is broken Model 2.2: M2 + two additional generations of PQ charged fermions in the this lowers the domain wall number to 1 (Lazarides mechanism) additional particles change RGE running

NDW = 3

10F

slide-55
SLIDE 55

M2.2: predictions

107 109 1011 1013 109 1012 1015

slide-56
SLIDE 56

M2.2: predictions

  • axion mass largely unconstrained
  • accommodates a natural DM candidate axion
slide-57
SLIDE 57

Example: Axion construction in GUT theories

axion is Goldstone boson of PQ symmetry breaking must be linear combination of phases here we have defined

field vev phase U(1)BL U(1)R U(1)PQ φ1 ≡ Σu v1 A1 − 1

2

−2 φ2 ≡ Σd v2 A2

1 2

−2 φ3 ≡ Hu v3 A3 − 1

2

−2 φ4 ≡ Hd v4 A4

1 2

−2 φ5 ≡ ∆R v5 A5 −2 1 −2 φ6 ≡ φ v6 A6

A = X

i

ciAi φi = 1 √ 2(vi + ρi)ei Ai

vi

slide-58
SLIDE 58

Example: Axion construction in GUT theories

gauge invariance of the axion requires

field vev phase U(1)BL U(1)R U(1)PQ φ1 ≡ Σu v1 A1 − 1

2

−2 φ2 ≡ Σd v2 A2

1 2

−2 φ3 ≡ Hu v3 A3 − 1

2

−2 φ4 ≡ Hd v4 A4

1 2

−2 φ5 ≡ ∆R v5 A5 −2 1 −2 φ6 ≡ φ v6 A6

c1v1 − c2v2 + c3v3 − c4v4 − 2c5v5 = 0 c5v5 = 0

slide-59
SLIDE 59

Example: Axion construction in GUT theories

imposed symmetries allow mass terms:

10H 10H 126

† H 126 † H|inv + h.c. ⊃ (1, 2, 2)(1, 2, 2, )(15, 2, 2)(15, 2, 2)|inv + h.c.

⊃ (Hu + Hd)(Hu + Hd)(Σ†

u + Σ† d)(Σ† u + Σ† d)|inv + h.c.

⊃ −v2

3v2 1

✓A3 v3 − A1 v1 ◆2 − v2

4v2 2

✓A4 v4 − A2 v2 ◆2 .

gauge invariance of the axion requires

c1v1 − c2v2 + c3v3 − c4v4 − 2c5v5 = 0 c5v5 = 0

slide-60
SLIDE 60

Example: Axion construction in GUT theories

imposed symmetries allow mass terms:

10H 10H 126

† H 126 † H|inv + h.c. ⊃ (1, 2, 2)(1, 2, 2, )(15, 2, 2)(15, 2, 2)|inv + h.c.

⊃ (Hu + Hd)(Hu + Hd)(Σ†

u + Σ† d)(Σ† u + Σ† d)|inv + h.c.

⊃ −v2

3v2 1

✓A3 v3 − A1 v1 ◆2 − v2

4v2 2

✓A4 v4 − A2 v2 ◆2 .

axion is perturbatively massless:

−c1 v1 + c3 v3 = 0 − c2 v2 + c4 v4 = 0 c6 = 0

gauge invariance of the axion requires

c1v1 − c2v2 + c3v3 − c4v4 − 2c5v5 = 0 c5v5 = 0

slide-61
SLIDE 61

solving system of linear equations

Example: Axion construction in GUT theories

A = −(A4v4 + A2v2)(v2

3 + v2 1) + (A3v3 + A1v1)(v2 4 + v2 2)

p v2(v2

4 + v2 2)(v2 3 + v2 1)

, v2 ≡

4

X

i=1

v2

i

after symmetry breaking, Axion appears in Yukawa couplings

L ⊃ yi

abφiψaψb + c.c. ⊃ yi abvi

√ 2 eiqiA/fPQψaψb + c.c.

can be rotated away - but need to take into account Fujikawa’s anomaly formula: [Dias et.al. 2014]

slide-62
SLIDE 62
  • btain Axion effective Lagrangian

note: even though B-L breaking vev is higher, Axion decay constant at the electroweak scale experimentally excluded in general, if a vev breaks both PQ symmetry and a local U(1) symmetry, PQ symmetry survives to lower scales (’t Hooft mechanism)

Lint, gauge =1 2∂µA∂µA + αs 8π A fA Gb

µν ˜

Gbµν + α 8π 8 3 A fA Fµν ˜ F µν

Example: Axion construction in GUT theories

fA = 1 3 r (v2

1 + v2 3) (v2 2 + v2 4)

v2 ∼ 4 3MZ