We study the effect of next-to-leading order contributions on the phenomenon
of symmetry non-restoration at high temperature in an $O(N_1)\times O(N_2)$
model.Comment: 8 pages. Two figures in a separate fil

Banerjee

Dolan

G. Bimonte

G. Lozano

Kirzhnits

Langacker

Mohapatra

Parwani

Weinberg

Physics Letters B

English

arXiv

Crossref

On symmetry non-restoration at high temperature

We study the effect of next-to-leading order contributions on the phenomenon of symmetry non-restoration at high temperature in an O(N_1)\times O(N_2) model

Bimonte, G

Lozano, G S

CERN Document Server

IC/95/159
July 1995
ON SYMMETRY NON-RESTORATION
AT HIGH TEMPERATURE
G. Bimonte
and
G. Lozano
1
International Centre for Theoretical Physics, P.O.BOX 586
I-34100 Trieste, ITALY
Abstract
We study the eect of next-to-leading order contributions on the phenomenon of sym-
metry non-restoration at high temperature in an O(N
1
)O(N
2
) model.
1
E-mail addresses: Bimonte@ictp.trieste.it , Lozano@ictp.trieste.it
It is a well known fact that broken symmetries are usually restored at suciently high temperatures
[1, 2, 3]. Nevertheless, as already noticed by Weinberg [2], there are models, like the O(N )O(N ) scalar
theory, for which the high temperature phase is less symmetric than the low temperature one in a certain
region of the parameter space.
As noticed by Mohapatra and Senjanovic [4], the eects of symmetry non restoration can have inter-
esting phenomenological implications in connection to the CP problem. The same phenomenon has also
been used to provide non inationary solutions to the monopole problem, as argued by Langacker and
Pi [5] and more recently by Dvali et al. [6].
Weinberg's analysis of the problem [2] is based on a lowest order perturbative calculation of the
thermal masses, the region of parameters giving symmetry non restoration being associated to the values
of the coupling constants giving imaginary values for some thermal masses.
In this letter, we will compute the next-to-leading order contributions to the thermal masses and
analyze how the region of symmetry non-restoration gets modied by their inclusion. The reason for
doing this is twofold: from one side, as these models contain more than one coupling constants, it may
very well happen that next-to-leading order eects dominate over the leading ones, in certain regions of
the parameter space. On the other side, when trying to achieve symmetry-non restoration in realistic
models, such as those considered in ref.[6], one may have to take values of the coupling constants large
enough for next-to-leading order corrections to become signicant.
For simplicity, we will discuss here only the simplest model presenting this phenomenon, that is, when
the O(N
1
)O(N
2
) symmetry is global. In this case, the theory is described by the renormalized euclidean
Lagrangian
L
R
=
1
2
@


1
@


1
+
1
2
@


2
@


2
+ V (
1
; 
2
) + L
ct
; (1)
where 
1
( 
2
) is a N
1
(N
2
) components real vector, V (
1
; 
2
) is a O(N
1
) O(N
2
) symmetric potential:
V (
1
; 
2
) =
1
2
m
2
1

1

1
+
1
2
m
2
2

2

2
+
1
4!

1

2
(
1

1
)
2
+
1
4!

2

2
(
2

2
)
2
+
1
4

2
(
1

1
)(
2

2
) (2)
and L
ct
stands for the counterterms Lagrangian, calculated in the MS scheme ( is the dimensional
1
regularization scale parameter and  =
4 d
2
). As we shall see later, the crucial fact for symmetry non-
restoration is that the mixing coupling constant  can take negative values. In order for the potential to
be bounded from below, the coupling constants have to satisfy the following relation

1

2
> 9
2
: (3)
We will show how next-to leading order corrections to the thermal masses are calculated, by rst
looking at the simpler O(N ) case, which can be obtained from the above Lagrangian by simply setting

2
= 0.
L
R
=
1
2
@


1
@


1
+
1
2
m
2
1

1

1
+
1
4!

1

2
(
1

1
)
2
+ L
ct
: (4)
As explained in [2], perturbation theory based on this Lagrangian breaks down at high temperatures
as powers of the temperature can compensate for powers of the coupling constants making radiative
corrections large. The remedy to this problem consists in a redenition of the mass and the introduction
of a compensating counterterm
L
R
=
1
2
@


1
@


1
+
1
2
M
2

2
1
+
1
4!

1

2
(
1

1
)
2
+ L
ct
 
1
2

2

1

1
; (5)
where
M
2
= m
2
+ 
2
(6)
and 
2
is a temperature dependent counterterm (not to be confused with the mass renormalization
counterterm already contained in L
ct
) which should be determined self consistently in such a way to
eliminate from the self-energy the terms which diverge quadratically with the temperature. To illustrate
how the mechanism works, it is sucient to consider the case m
2
 0. To one loop, one has for the self
energy at zero momentum,
 =  
1
2 + N
1
96
2
M
2
ln

M
2
4
2

  
1
2 +N
1
3
T
2
h

M
T

+ 
2
: (7)
Here h is dened as:
h(y) =
1
4
2
Z
1
0
dx
x
2
(x
2
+ y
2
)
1
2
(e
(x
2
+y
2
)
1
2
  1)
: (8)
2
For small values of y, h(y) has the asymptotic expansion
h(y) =
1
24
 
1
8
y  
1
16
2
y
2

ln
y
4
+   
1
2

; (9)
 being the Euler constant. Notice that in eq.(7) we have subtracted the following UV divergent part
which is cancelled by the mass counterterm in the MS scheme:

UV
=  
1
M
2
2N
1
+ 1
96
2
[
1

+ 1  ] : (10)
From eq.(7), one derives the "gap equation":
M
2
T
2
=
m
2
T
2
+ 
1
(2 +N
1
)
3
h

M
T

; (11)
which, after making use of eq.(9), becomes
M
2
T
2
=
m
2
T
2
+ 
1
(2 +N
1
)
3

1
24
 
M
8T

+O(
1
M
2
T
2
ln
M
T
) : (12)
Solving this equation to lowest order gives the well known thermal mass,
M
2
= m
2
+
2 +N
1
3
1
24

1
T
2
: (13)
.
This choice of M would in principle restore the validity of perturbation theory for
T
m
 1 in the sense
that higher loops corrections will be suppressed by powers of  with respect to the \tree level" thermal
mass eq.(13). Notice that when eq.(13) is introduced in eq.(7), one gets at high temperatures (T  m)
 =
3


2 + N
1
3

1
24

3
2
T
2
: (14)
This term is the next to leading order correction to the self-energy, and although it is not immediately
obvious, does not get modied by higher loops corrections, as they are at least of order 
2
1
ln
1
(see ref.
[7] for details).
Notice that the same contribution could have been obtained more directly by just solving the gap
equation to next to leading order, that is, by keeping the term linear in
M
T
,
M
2
T
2
=
m
2
T
2
+ 
1
(2 + N
1
)
3
(
1
24
 
M
8T
) ; (15)
3
giving, for
T
M
 1
M
2
=
2 +N
1
3

1
T
2
24
 
3


2 +N
1
3

1
24

3
2
T
2
: (16)
At this stage, one would be tempted to improve the result eq.(16), by incorporating also the logarithmic
terms in the expansion of h. This would give us a correction to
M
2
T
2
of order 
2
1
ln
1
, but, as contributions
of this order arise also from two-loops diagrams, it would be necessary to include them as well for
consistency, something that we will not attempt in this paper.
As we said above, we were assuming that m
2
was positive. In fact, the case in which m
2
is negative can
be treated in a completely analogous way, because one is working in the regime of very high temperatures
where one "self consistently " assumes that the symmetry is restored. By self consistency we mean that
one is able to nd solutions to the gap equations of the unbroken phase giving a positive result for M
2
.
In this respect, notice that the next to leading correction, although coming with the opposite sign than
the leading one (see eq.(16), will not change the sign of the self-energy unless 
1
becomes large, in which
case any attempt of a perturbative calculation becomes meaningless. Thus, in this case the subleading
correction cannot alter the symmetry breaking pattern at high T .
We now turn to the O(N
1
) O(N
2
) model. There will be a set of two coupled gap equations,
x
2
1
=
m
2
1
T
2
+ 
1
2 +N
1
3
h(x
1
) + N
2
h(x
2
) ; (17)
x
2
2
=
m
2
2
T
2
+ 
2
2 +N
2
3
h(x
2
) + N
1
h(x
1
) ; (18)
where
x
i
=M
i
=T (19)
Using the asymptotic expansion eq.(9), and keeping up to the linear terms, eqs.(17-18) become, for
T
m
 1
x
2
1
= c
1
  
1
2 +N
1
24
x
1
  
N
2
8
x
2
; (20)
x
2
2
= c
2
  
2
2 +N
2
24
x
2
  
N
1
8
x
1
; (21)
where we have introduced the constants c
i
as
c
1
= 
1
2 +N
1
72
+ 
N
2
24
; (22)
4
c2
= 
2
2 +N
2
72
+ 
N
1
24
: (23)
The constants c
i
give the thermal masses M
2
i
to lowest order:
M
2
i
= c
i
T
2
: (24)
As noticed in ref.[2], it is possible to take  negative and still satisfying the constraint eq.(3), in such
a way that one of these combinations of coupling constants, say c
2
, is negative (notice that due to the
constraint eq.(3) c
1
is necessarily positive), namely:
 < 0 ; (25)

1

2
> 9
2
; (26)
jj >
2 +N
2
3N
1

2
: (27)
In this case, to lowest order, eqs.(17-18) have no self-consistent real solutions and the corresponding region
of parameter space was identied by Weinberg as the region of symmetry non-restoration (or rather of
symmetry breaking at high T , if the symmetry was unbroken at T = 0). The question that now arises is
whether the subleading corrections represented by the linear terms in eqs.(20-21) can alter this picture.
Notice that, as opposed to the simpler O(N ) case, we now have more than one coupling constants and
thus next to leading order eects could become dominant even when all the couplings are of the same
order of magnitude. Now, eqs.(20-21) represent a pair of parabolae in the plane x
1
and x
2
which intersect
in the upper right plane (then giving an acceptable solution to the gap equations and signalling symmetry
restoration at high T ) if and only if:
8
c
2
N
1

8
<
:
 
1
2 + N
1
48
+
"


1
2 + N
1
48

2
+ c
1
#
1
2
9
=
;
: (28)
The corresponding region of symmetry non-restoration is then described by the set of inequalities:
 < 0 ; (29)

1

2
> 9
2
; (30)
5
jj > 
2
2 +N
2
3N
1
+ jj
3

8
<
:
 
1
2 + N
1
48
+
"


1
2 +N
1
48

2
+ c
1
#
1
2
9
=
;
: (31)
By comparing with eqs.(25-27), it is clear that the inclusion of next-to-leading order corrections reduces
the region of the parameter space in which symmetry non-restoration takes place. We observe that even
if there is always a region of symmetry non restoration, its size becomes smaller and smaller as N
1
and
N
2
grow large.
We can think of our model as representing the Higgs sector of a SU (5) grand unied model, like the
one considered in ref.[6]. In this case, taking N
1
= 90, 
1
represents the real components of the Higgs
in the 45 representation of the group SU (5), while taking N
2
= 24, 
2
corresponds to its adjoint 24
representation.
A qualitative indication of the importance of the subleading terms can be obtained by plotting the
regions (25-27), (29-31) at xed values of one of the coupling constants and of N
1
and N
2
. Figures (1) and
(2) display these regions for 
1
= 4=5 and 
2
= 1 respectively and N
1
= 90, N
2
= 24, which correspond
to typycal values of the SU (5) parameters considered in ref.[6]. It is clear from both gures that the
subleading terms have a non negligible eect, as they reduce (in the considered region of parametrs) by
a factor of roughly two the size of the region of symmetry non-restoration.
In conclusion, we have shown that the inclusion of next-to-leading order contributions can modify in
a substantial way the symmetry breaking pattern of an O(N
1
)O(N
2
) model at large T . Naturally, the
phenomenologically interesting models are those in which part of this symmetry is gauged. Consequently,
our analysis of the gap equations should be generalized to include this case. The results presented here
lead us to expect that subleading corrections will play an important role also in grand-unied models.
We expect to report on this issue in a forthcoming publication.
Acknowledgements
Wewould like to thank G.Senjanovic and Alejandra Melfo for useful discussions and for communicating
us their results prior to publication of their work.
6
References
[1] D.A. Kirzhnits and A.D. Linde, Phys. Lett. 42 B, 471 (1972).
[2] S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D9, 3357 (1974).
[3] L. Dolan and R. Jachiw, Phys. Rev. 9D, 3320 (1974).
[4] R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Lett. 89 B, 57 (1979); Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 1651 (1979);
Phys. Rev. D20, 3390 (1979).
[5] P. Langacker and S.-Y. Pi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 1 (1980).
[6] G. Dvali, A. Melfo and G. Senjanovic, \Is there a Monopole Problem ?", IC/95/145, SISSA
Ref.81/95/A, hep-ph/9507230.
[7] N. Banerjee and S. Mallik, Phys. Rev. D43, 3368 (1991);
R.R. Parwani, Phys. Rev. D45, 4695 (1992).
7
FIGURE CAPTIONS
Figure 1. [Region of symmetry non-restoration at xed 
1
= 4=5 for N
1
= 90 and N
2
= 24. The zeroth
order region is the one enclosed by the solid curves, while the region obtained by including next-to-leading
order corrections is the one enclosed by the upper solid line and the dashed line.]
Figure 2. [Region of symmetry non-restoration at xed 
2
= 1 for N
1
= 90 and N
2
= 24. The zeroth
order region is the one enclosed by the solid curves, while the region obtained by including next-to-leading
order corrections is the one enclosed by the upper solid line and the dashed line.]
8


BIMONTE, GIUSEPPE ROBERTO

Archivio della ricerca - Università degli studi di Napoli Federico II

On Symmetry nonrestoration at high temperature.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.267.1719

On Symmetry Non-Restoration at High Temperature

On Symmetry Non-Restoration at High Temperature

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Crossref

CERN Document Server

Archivio della ricerca - Università degli studi di Napoli Federico II