- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Standard model CP violation is enough

Gilly Elor1,*, Rachel Houtz2,3,†, Seyda Ipek4,‡, and Martha Ulloa2,§

  • *Contact author: gilly.elor@austin.utexas.edu
  • †Contact author: rachel.houtz@ufl.edu
  • ‡Contact author: Seyda.Ipek@carleton.ca
  • §Contact author: m.ulloacalzonzin@ufl.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 112, L011701 – Published 2 July, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/glgl-v4v6

Abstract

Is the standard model charge-parity (CP) violation ever enough to generate the observed baryon asymmetry? Yes! We introduce a mechanism of baryogenesis (and dark matter production) that can generate the entire observed baryon asymmetry of the Universe using only the CP violation within standard model systems—a feat which no other mechanism currently proposed can achieve. Baryogenesis proceeds through a mesogenesis scenario but with well motivated additional dark sector dynamics: a morphon field generates present day mass contributions for the particle mediating the decay responsible for baryogenesis. The effect is an enhancement of baryon production while evading present day collider constraints. The CP violation comes entirely from standard model contributions to neutral meson systems. Meanwhile, the dark dynamics generate gravitational waves that may be searched for with current and upcoming pulsar timing arrays, as we demonstrate with an example potential that is tuned to generate domain walls that annihilate later. This mechanism, mesogenesis with a morphing mediator, motivates probing a new parameter space as well as improving the sensitivity of existing mesogenesis searches at hadron and electron colliders.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (52)

  1. A. D. Sakharov, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 5, 32 (1967).
  2. C. Jarlskog, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 1039 (1985).
  3. M. B. Gavela, P. Hernandez, J. Orloff, and O. Pene, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 9, 795 (1994).
  4. M. B. Gavela, M. Lozano, J. Orloff, and O. Pene, Nucl. Phys. B430, 345 (1994).
  5. M. B. Gavela, P. Hernandez, J. Orloff, O. Pene, and C. Quimbay, Nucl. Phys. B430, 382 (1994).
  6. P. Huet, in 1994 Meeting of the American Physical Society, Division of Particles and Fields (DPF 94) (World Scientific Pub Co Inc., Singapore, 1994), pp. 1377–1380, https://inspirehep.net/conferences/968643?ui-citation-summary=true.
  7. P. Huet and E. Sather, Phys. Rev. D 51, 379 (1995).
  8. M. Berkooz, Y. Nir, and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 051301 (2004).
  9. G. Perez and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. D 72, 103522 (2005).
  10. S. Bruggisser, T. Konstandin, and G. Servant, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2017) 034.
  11. I. Baldes, T. Konstandin, and G. Servant, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2016) 073.
  12. B. von Harling and G. Servant, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2017) 077.
  13. S. Bruggisser, B. von Harling, O. Matsedonskyi, and G. Servant, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 131801 (2018).
  14. I. Baldes, T. Konstandin, and G. Servant, Phys. Lett. B 786, 373 (2018).
  15. S. Bruggisser, B. von Harling, O. Matsedonskyi, and G. Servant, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2018) 099.
  16. K. Fuyuto, W.-S. Hou, and E. Senaha, Phys. Lett. B 776, 402 (2018).
  17. F. Elahi, G. Elor, and R. McGehee, Phys. Rev. D 105, 055024 (2022).
  18. G. Elor and R. McGehee, Phys. Rev. D 103, 035005 (2021).
  19. G. Elor, M. Escudero, and A. Nelson, Phys. Rev. D 99, 035031 (2019).
  20. J. Berger and G. Elor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 081002 (2024).
  21. G. Elor and A. W. M. Guerrera, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2023) 100.
  22. G. Alonso-Álvarez, G. Elor, and M. Escudero, Phys. Rev. D 104, 035028 (2021).
  23. M. Borsato et al., Rep. Prog. Phys. 85, 024201 (2022).
  24. G. Alonso-Álvarez, G. Elor, M. Escudero, B. Fornal, B. Grinstein, and J. Martin Camalich, Phys. Rev. D 105, 115005 (2022).
  25. A. Lenz and G. Tetlalmatzi-Xolocotzi, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2020) 177.
  26. G. Alonso-Álvarez, G. Elor, A. E. Nelson, and H. Xiao, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2020) 046.
  27. P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck Collaboration), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016).
  28. N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020).
  29. R. H. Cyburt, B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive, and T.-H. Yeh, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 015004 (2016).
  30. M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018).
  31. C. Hadjivasiliou et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 105, L051101 (2022).
  32. J. P. Lees et al. (BABAR Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 107, 092001 (2023).
  33. G. Elor, R. Houtz, S. Ipek, and M. Ulloa (to be published).
  34. G. B. Gelmini, M. Gleiser, and E. W. Kolb, Phys. Rev. D 39, 1558 (1989).
  35. G. B. Gelmini, S. Pascoli, E. Vitagliano, and Y.-L. Zhou, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2021) 032.
  36. J. Preskill, S. P. Trivedi, F. Wilczek, and M. B. Wise, Nucl. Phys. B363, 207 (1991).
  37. A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 23, 852 (1981).
  38. M. Gleiser and R. Roberts, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5497 (1998).
  39. T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, and K. Saikawa, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2010) 032.
  40. M. Kawasaki and K. Saikawa, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 09 (2011) 008.
  41. D. Stauffer, Phys. Rep. 54, 1 (1979).
  42. T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, and K. Saikawa, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2014) 031.
  43. L. Lentati et al. (EPTA Collaboration), Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 453, 2576 (2015).
  44. G. Janssen et al., Proc. Sci. AASKA14 (2015) 037 [arXiv:1501.00127].
  45. J. Garcia-Bellido, H. Murayama, and G. White, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2021) 023.
  46. G. Agazie et al. (NANOGrav Collaboration), Astrophys. J. Lett. 951, L8 (2023).
  47. A. Afzal et al. (NANOGrav Collaboration), Astrophys. J. Lett. 951, L11 (2023); 971, L27(E) (2024).
  48. F. Riva, Phys. Lett. B 690, 443 (2010).
  49. S. Antusch and D. Nolde, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2013) 028.
  50. P. Schwaller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 181101 (2015).
  51. F. Niedermann and M. S. Sloth, The Hubble Constant Tension (Springer, Singapore, 2024).
  52. R. Fardon, A. E. Nelson, and N. Weiner, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2004) 005.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 112, L011701– Published 2 July, 2025
  • Received 19 September 2024
  • Accepted 16 May 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation