Skip to main content

Full text of "Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays and Inflation"

See other formats

Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays and 


Igor I. Tkachev 

ON ■ TH Division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland 



Institute for Nuclear Research, Russian Academy of Sciences, 
60th October Anniversary Prosp. 7a, Moscow 117312, Russia 




Abstract. Two processes of matter creation after inflation: 1) gravitational creation 
of superheavy (quasi)stable particles, and 2) non-thermal phase transitions leading 
to formation of topological defects, may be relevant to the resolution of the puzzle of 
cosmic rays observed with energies beyond GZK cut-off. Both possibilities are reviewed 
1 in this talk. 




According to the modern tale, all matter in the Universe was created in reheating 
after inflation. While this happened really long ago and on very small scales, this 
process is obviously of such vital importance that one may hope to find some observ- 
able consequences, specific for particular models of particle physics. And, indeed, 
we now believe that there can be some clues left. Among those are: topological 
defects production in non-thermal phase transitions [1], GUT scale baryogenesis 
[2], generation of primordial background of stochastic gravitational waves at high 
frequencies [3], just to mention a few. However, matter appears in many kinds 
and forms, and it is hard to review all possibilities in one talk. I'll concentrate on 
a possible relation to a mounting puzzle of the Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays 

When proton (or neutron) propagates in CMB, it gradually looses energy col- 
liding with photons and creating pions [4]. There is a threshold energy for the 
process, so it is effective for very energetic nucleons only, which leads to the famous 
Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin (GZK) cutoff of the high energy tail of the spectrum of 
cosmic rays. All this means that detection of, say, 3 x 10 20 eV proton would require 
its source to be within ~ 50 Mpc. However, many events above the cut-off were 
observed by Yakutsk, Haverah Park, Fly Eye and AGASA collaborations [5] (for 
the review see Ref. [6]). 

Results from the AGASA experiment [7] are shown in Fig. 1. The dashed curve 
represents the expected spectrum if conventional extragalactic sources of UHECR 
would be distributed uniformly in the Universe. This curve displays the theoretical 
GZK cut-off, but we see events which are way above it. (Numbers attached to the 
data points show the number of events observed in each energy bin.) Note that 
no candidate astrophysical source, like powerful active galaxy nuclei, were found in 
the directions of all six events with E > 10 20 eV [7] 

There were no conventional explanation found to these observations, and the 
question arises, is it indication of the long awayted new physics, at last ? 

Many solutions to the puzzle were suggested, which rely on different extensions 
of the standard model, in one way or the other. Among those are: 

• A particle which is immune to CMBR. In this scenario, primary particle is 
produced in conventional astrophysical accelerators and is able to travel cos- 
mological distances. There are variations to this scheme. This can be a new 
exotic particle able to produce normal air showers in Earth's atmosphere [8], 
or this can be an accelerated (anti) neutrino annihilating via Z° resonance on 
the relic neutrinos in a local high density neutrino clump, thus producing ener- 
getic gamma or nucleon [9]. Massiveness of neutrino, m v ~ eV, is a necessary 
requirement in this scheme. 

• Another possibility is that UHECR are produced when topological defects de- 
struct near the lab (on the cosmological scale) [10]. Topological defects which 
were considered in these kinds of scenarios were: strings [11], superconduct- 
ing strings [10], networks of monopoles connected by strings [12], magnetic 
monopoles [13]. 

• Conceptually the simplest possibility is that UHECR are produced (again 
cosmologically locally) in decays of some new particle [14]. The candidate X- 
particle must obviously obey constraints on mass, number density and lifetime. 

18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 


FIGURE 1. AGASA data set [7], February 1990 - October 1997. 


In order to produce cosmic rays in the energy range E > 10 11 GeV, the decaying 
primary particle has to be heavy, with the mass well above GZK cut-off, m x > 10 12 
GeV. The lifetime, r x , cannot be much smaller than the age of the Universe, 
Tu ~ 10 10 yr. Given this shortest possible lifetime, the observed flux of UHE cosmic 
rays will be generated with the rather low density of X-particles, Qx ~ 10~ 12 , 
where Qx = n^x^x/ Pent, nx is the number density of X-particles and p cr i t is the 
critical density. On the other hand, X-particles must not overdose the Universe, 
il x < 1- With Q x ~ 1, the X-particles may play the role of cold dark matter and 
the observed flux of UHE cosmic rays can be matched if Tx ~ 10 22 yr. 

The problem of the particle physics mechanism responsible for a long but finite 
lifetime of very heavy particles can be solved in several ways. For example, other- 
wise conserved quantum number carried by X-particles may be broken very weakly 
due to instanton transitions, or quantum gravity (wormhole) effects [14]. Other 
interesting models of superheavy long-living particles were found in Refs. [15]. 

Spectra of UHE cosmic rays arising in decays of relic X-particles were successfully 
fitted to the data for mx in the range 10 12 < mx/GeV < 10 14 [16]. 

Here I address the issue of X-particle abundance. It was noticed [17,18] that such 
heavy particles are produced in the early Universe from the vacuum fluctuations and 
their abundance can be correct naturally, if the standard Friedmann epoch in the 
Universe evolution was preceded by the inflationary stage. This is a fundamental 
process of particle creation unavoidable in the time varying background and it 
requires no interactions. Temporal change of the metric is the single cause of 
particle production. Basically, it is the same process which during inflation had 
generated primordial large scale density perturbations. No coupling (e.g. to the 
inflaton or plasma) is needed. All one needs are stable (very long-living) X-particles 
with the mass of order of the inflaton mass, m x ~ 10 13 GeV. Inflationary stage 
is not required to produce superheavy particles from the vacuum. Rather, the 
inflation provides a cut off in excessive gravitational production of heavy particles 
which would happen in the Friedmann Universe if it would start from the initial 
singularity [18]. Resulting abundance is quite independent of detailed nature of 
the particle which makes the superheavy (quasi) stable X-particle a very interesting 
dark matter candidate. New particle needs good name. I like Wimpzilla [19]. 

Friedmann Cosmology. For particles with conformal coupling to gravity 
(fermions or scalars with £ = 1/6 in £i?0 2 interaction term with the curvature), 
it is the particle mass which couples the system to the background expansion and 
serves as the source of particle creation. Therefore, just on dimensional grounds, we 
expect nx oc m x a~ 3 at late times when particle creation diminishes. In Friedmann 
cosmology, a oc (mt) a oc (m/H) a and the anticipated formulae for the X-particles 
abundance can be parameterised as nx = C a m x (H/mx) 3a - It is expansion of 
the Universe which is responsible for particle creation. Therefore, this equation 
which describes simple dilution of already created particles is valid when already 
H « m X - On the other hand particles with m x » H cannot be created by 

m x /l0 13 GeV 

FIGURE 2. Ratio of the energy density in JT-particles, gravitationally generated in inflationary 
cosmology, to the critical energy density is shown as a function of X-particle mass, Ref. [18]. 

this mechanism. Creation occurs when H ~ mx- Coefficient C a can be found 
numerically [18], its typical value is O(10~ 2 ), and we find that stable particles with 
rnx > 10 9 GeV will overdose the Universe. There is no room for Superheavy par- 
ticles in our Universe if it started from the initial Friedmann singularity [18], since 
the value of the Hubble constant is limited from above only by the Planck constant 
in this case. 

Inflationary Cosmology. If there was inflation, the Hubble constant (in ef- 
fect) did not exceeded the inflaton mass, H < m^. The mass of the inflaton field 
has to be R3 10 13 GeV as constrained by the amplitude of primordial density 
fluctuations relevant for the large scale structure formation. Therefore, production 
of particles with mx > H ~ 10 13 GeV has to be suppressed in inflationary cos- 
mology. Results of direct numerical integration of gravitational particle creation in 
chaotic inflation model with the potential V{4>) = m 2 2 /2 is shown in Fig. 2. 

This figure was calculated assuming T R = 10 9 GeV for the reheating temperature. 
(At reheating the entropy of the Universe was created in addition to X-particles. In 
general, multiply this figure by the ratio Tr/10 9 GeV and divide it by the fractional 
entropy increase per comoving volume if it was significant at some late epoch.) 
Reheating temperature is constrained, T R < 10 9 GeV, in supergravity theory [20]. 
We find that Vt x h 2 < 1 if m x ~ (few) x 10 13 GeV. This value of mass is in the 
range suitable for the explanation of UHECR events [18]. Gravitationally created 
superheavy X-particles can even be the dominating form of matter in the Universe 
today if X-particles are in this mass range [17,18]. 


Decaying topological defect can naturally produce very energetic particles, and 
this may be related to UHECR [10] - [13], for recent reviews see [6]. However, 

FIGURE 3. String distribution at two successive moments of time. 

among motivations for inflation there was the necessity to get rid of unwanted 
topological defects. And inflation is excellent doing this job. Since temperature 
after reheating is constrained, especially severely in supergravity models, it might 
be that the Universe was never reheated up to the point of GUT phase transitions. 
Topological defects with a sufficiently high scale of symmetry breaking cannot be 
created. How then topological defects could populate the Universe? 

The answer may be provided by non-thermal phase transitions [1] which can 
occur in preheating [21] after inflation. Explosive particle production caused by 
stimulated decay of inflaton oscillations lead to anomalously high field variances 
which restore symmetries of the theory even if actual reheating temperature is 
small. Defects form when variances are reduced by the continuing expansion of the 
Universe and phase transition occur. This problem is complicated, and while some 
features can be anticipated and some quantities roughly estimated, the problem 
requires numerical study. In recent papers [22] the defect formation and even the 
possibility of the first order phase transitions during preheating was demonstrated 
explicitly. Fig. 3 shows string distribution in a simulation with symmetry breaking 
scale v = 3 x 10 16 GeV, when a pair of "infinite" strings and one big loop had 
formed. Size of the box is comparable to the Hubble length at this time. 


Next generation cosmic ray experiments, which will be soon operational, will tell 
us which model for UHECR may be correct and which has to be ruled out. One 
unambiguous signature is related to homogeneity and anisotropy of cosmic rays. 
If particles immune to CMBR are there, the UHECR events should point towards 
distant, extraordinary astrophysical sources [23]. If wimpzillas are in the game, the 
Galaxy halo will be reflected in anisotropy of the UHECR flux [24] . It is remarkable 
that we might be able to learn about the earliest stages of the Universe's evolution. 
Discovery of heavy X-particles will mean that the model of inflation is likely correct, 
or that at least "standard" Friedmann evolution from the singularity is ruled out, 
since otherwise X-particles would have been inevitably overproduced [18]. 


1. L. Kofman, A. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1011 (1996); 
I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Lett. B376, 35 (1996); 

2. E. W. Kolb, A. D. Linde and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4290 (1996); 
E. W. Kolb, A. Riotto and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Lett. B423, 348 (1998). 

3. S. Y. Khlebnikov and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. D56, 653 (1997). 

4. K. Greisen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 748 (1966); 

G. T. Zatsepin and V. A. Kuzmin, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 4, 114 (1966). 

5. N. Hayashida et. al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 3491 (1994); D. J. Bird et. al, Astroph. J. 
424, 491 (1994); 441, 144 (1995); T. A. Egorov et. al, in: Proc. Tokyo Workshop 
on Techniques for the Study of Extremely High Energy Cosmic Rays, ed. M.Nagano 
(ICRR, U. of Tokyo, 1993). 

6. P. Bhattacharjee and G. Sigl, astro-ph/9811011; V. Berezinsky, astro-ph/9811268. 

7. Takeda M. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1163 (1998). 

8. D. J. Chung, G. R. Farrar, and E. W. Kolb, astro-ph/9707036. 

9. T. J. Weiler, hep-ph/9710431; 

S. Yoshida, G. Sigl, S. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 55 (1998). 

10. C. T. Hill, D. N. Schramm and T. P. Walker, Phys. Rev. D36, 1007 (1987); 

11. J. H. MacGibbon and R. H. Brandenberger, Nucl. Phys. B331, 153 (1990); 
P. Bhattacharjee and N. C. Rana, Phys. Lett. B246, 356 (1990). 

12. V. Berezinsky, X. Martin and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D56, 2024 (1997); 
V. Berezinsky and A. Vilenkin Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 5202 (1997). 

13. C. T. Hill, Nucl. Phys. B224, 469 (1983); 

T. W. Kephart and T. J. Weiler, Astropart. Phys. 4, 271 (1996). 

14. V. Berezinsky, M. Kachelriess and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4302 (1997); 
V. A. Kuzmin and V. A. Rubakov, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 61, 1028 (1998). 

15. K. Benakli, J. Ellis, and D. V. Nanopoulos, hep-ph/9803333; T. Han, T. Yanagida 
and R.-J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D58, 095011 (1998); K. Hamaguchi, Y. Nomura, T. 
Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D58, 103503 (1998). 

16. V. Berezinsky, P. Blasi, A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D58, 103515 (1998); 
M. Birkel and S. Sarkar, Astropart. Phys. 9, 297 (1998). 

17. D. J. H. Chung, E. W. Kolb and A. Riotto, hep-ph/9802238. 

18. V. A. Kuzmin and I. I. Tkachev, JETP Lett. 68, 271 (1998); and hep-ph/9809547. 

19. E. W. Kolb, D. J.H. Chung, A. Riotto, hep-ph/9810361. 

20. J. Ellis, J. Kim and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B145, 181 (1984). 

21. L. Kofman, A. Linde, and A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 3195 (1994); 

S. Y. Khlebnikov and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 219 (1996), Phys. Rev. Lett. 
79, 1607 (1997), Phys. Lett. B390, 80 (1997); 

22. S. Khlebnikov, L. Kofman, A. Linde, and I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2012 
(1998); I. Tkachev, S. Khlebnikov, L. Kofman, and A. Linde, Phys. Lett. B440, 262 
(1998); S. Kasuya and M. Kawasaki, Phys. Rev. D58, 083516 (1998). 

23. G. R. Farrar and P. L. Biermann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3579 (1998). 

24. S. L. Dubovskii, P. G. Tinyakov JETP Lett. 68, 107 (1998).