4.4 Article

Heavy-lifting of gauge theories by cosmic inflation

期刊

JOURNAL OF HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
卷 -, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/JHEP05(2018)011

关键词

Cosmology of Theories beyond the SM; Gauge Symmetry

资金

  1. NSF [PHY-1620074]
  2. Maryland Center for Fundamental Physics (MCFP)
  3. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  4. Division Of Physics [1620074] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Future measurements of primordial non-Gaussianity can reveal cosmologically produced particles with masses of order the inflationary Hubble scale and their interactions with the inflaton, giving us crucial insights into the structure of fundamental physics at extremely high energies. We study gauge-Higgs theories that may be accessible in this regime, carefully imposing the constraints of gauge symmetry and its (partial) Higgsing. We distinguish two types of Higgs mechanisms: (i) a standard one in which the Higgs scale is constant before and after inflation, where the particles observable in non-Gaussianities are far heavier than can be accessed by laboratory experiments, perhaps associated with gauge unification, and (ii) a heavy-lifting mechanism in which couplings to curvature can result in Higgs scales of order the Hubble scale during inflation while reducing to far lower scales in the current era, where they may now be accessible to collider and other laboratory experiments. In the heavy-lifting option, renormalization-group running of terrestrial measurements yield predictions for cosmological non-Gaussianities. If the heavy-lifted gauge theory suffers a hierarchy problem, such as does the Standard Model, confirming such predictions would demonstrate a striking violation of the Naturalness Principle. While observing gauge-Higgs sectors in non-Gaussianities will be challenging given the constraints of cosmic variance, we show that it may be possible with reasonable precision given favorable couplings to the inflationary dynamics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据