Dark matter, baryogenesis and UV- completeness of the Standard Model - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
dark matter baryogenesis and uv completeness of the
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Dark matter, baryogenesis and UV- completeness of the Standard Model - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sep 11, 2022 460 likes •720 views

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Dark matter, baryogenesis and UV- completeness of the Standard Model

  • m=0

m>0 m>0 m>0 m>0 m>0 m>0

SM (almost UV-) complete DM and BAU still unexplained Portal models EWBG:

  • Transition strength
  • CP-violation
  • Dark sector baryogenesis

Kimmo Kainulainen,

Helsinki Higgs Forum Helsinki, 15.12 2016

with: Tommi Alanne, Jim Cline, Sami Nurmi, Pat Scott, Mike Trott, Kimmo Tuominen, Ville Vaskonen, Christoph Weniger,…

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Alternative to UV-complex

(SUSY, and the likes of her)

Robinson and Wilctzeck, PRL 96, 231601 (2006) Wetterich and Shaposhnikov, Phys.Lett. B683 (2010)

Might we have just (almost) SM all the way to the Planck scale?

HIERARCHY PROBLEM Asymptotic safety No intermediate scales UNIFICATION

problem of gauge Landau poles behaviour of relevant operators

102 104 106 108 1010 1012 1014 1016 1018 1020

  • 0.04
  • 0.02

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 RGE scale m in GeV Higgs quartic coupling l 3s bands in Mt = 173.1 ± 0.6 GeV HgrayL a3HMZL = 0.1184 ± 0.0007HredL Mh = 125.7 ± 0.3 GeV HblueL Mt = 171.3 GeV asHMZL = 0.1163 asHMZL = 0.1205 Mt = 174.9 GeV

Espinosa, Giudice, Riotto, JCAP 0805 (2008) 002 Degrassi etal, JHEP 1208 (2012) 098

with gravity corrections, or…

Apparent running to negative coupling can be cured for example by a singlet S

λhs|H|2S2 ⇒ β(λ) → β(λ)SM + 1 2λ2

hs

(λhs ≈ 0.7)

1 2

(technically)

Remain the questions of BARYOGENESIS

DARK MATTER

Should be handled at low scale

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Possible context: (singlet) portal models

S, ?

SM

Dark sector Simple Portals to (perhaps simple) Dark sector

J.M.Cline, KK, JHEP 1111 (2011) 089 JCAP 1301 (2013) 012 Phys.Rev. D87 (2013)7,071701 J.M.Cline, KK, P.Scott, C.Weniger PRD88 (2013) 055025 J.M.Cline, KK. D.Tucker-Smith, in progress. KK, K.Tuominen and V.Vaskonen Phys.Rev. D93 (2016) 7 ,015016 T.Alanne, KK, K.Tuominen, V.Vaskonen arXiv:1607.03303, JCAP, to appear KK, S.Nurmi, T.Tenkanen, K.Tuominen and V.Vaskonen JCAP 1606 (2016) no.06, 022

DM v/T CP

+ 1 2λshS2|H|2

y ¯ χφLτ

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Motivation: DM

Given Z2-symmetry singlet can be DM:

V = VMSM + 1 2µ2

SS2 + 1

2λshS2|H|2 + 1 4λsS4

The model:

Ω

S

/ Ω

D M

= 1 Γh→SS XENON100 (2012) XENON100 × 5 X E N O N 1 × 2 X E N O N 1 T

−3 −2 −1 log10 λhs 45 50 55 60 65 70 mS (GeV)

ΩS/ΩDM = 1 XENON100 (2012) XENON100 × 5 X E N O N 1 × 2 XENON1T

−2 −1 log10 λhs 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 log10(mS/GeV) For ms > 100 GeV there is a potential instability due to gravitational couplings (P . Ko’s talk)

Ω ⇠ 1 hvMolσi ⇠ 1 λ2

hs

Xenon bounds account for the fact that frel ≤ 1.

J.M.Cline, KK, P.Scott, C.Weniger PRD88 (2013) 055025

Low-side opening reflects the thermal distribution width ∆√s ~ 0.1mS

slide-5
SLIDE 5

CP B B

H

  • m = 0

f

m = y

f

Interaction rate,

  • m = 0

f

m = 0

f

z

b

(n-n) source asymmetry

L

vw Broken phase Symmetric phase

EWBG *low scale

Introduction - Baryogenesis

<H> = v baryon # conserved <H> = 0 L R L R baryon violation by sphalerons

〈

〉 〉

〈

H ∼ 10−14T 2

100GeV

Γ ∼ 10−5T100GeV

* Strength of the transition * CP-violation? * Out-of-eq => BSM

vn Tn > 1.1,

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Transition strength singlet model

Anderson, Hall, PRD45, 2685 (1992)
 Profumo, Ramsey-Musolf, Shaughnessy, JHEP 0708 (2007) 010

V = 1 2λhsh2s2 − (µ2

s − csT 2)s2 − (µ2 h − chT 2)h2 + ...

Use tree level barrier:

1.

  • 2. EWPT and EWBG

|S| |H|

Arrange cs, ch, µs and µh so that transition goes in two steps → large barrier at Tc → strong transition. This WORKS

J.R.Espinosa, T.Konstandin, F.Riva, NPB854 (2012) 592

  • nly the leading high-T
  • large barrier requires largish λhs
  • 2-step mechanism needs small ms

Inoue, Ovanesyan, Ramsey-Musolf, PRD93 (2016) 015013, etc…

Variants of the scheme: Idea actually present in the MSSM ~color breaking

Laine, Rummukainen, Cline, Moore, Quiros …,

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Strong transition and S-DM?

However, large λhs gives small Ω:

Ω ⇠ 1 hvMolσi ⇠ 1 λ2

hs

X E N O N 1 ( 2 1 2 ) X E N O N 1 × 5 Relic

Allowed

× 2 X E N O N 1 Relic density density excluded excluded

excluded by

Strong EWPT allowed

J.M.Cline, KK, P.Scott and C.Weniger, PRD88 (2013) 055025

Further extensions with more singlets,

  • r new fermions, or …

KK, K.Tuominen and V.Vaskonen, PRD93(2016) 7,015016

mS(GeV)

Strong transition implies a subdominant DM

J.M. Cline, KK, JCAP 1301 (2013) 012

BAU acceptable v/T >1 models

frel = ΩDMh2 0.119

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Singlet model / BAU

Source of CP violation Dim-6 operator

ηB / ηB,obs 1 TeV Λ = Λ / 1 TeV )2 ( @ ηB = ηB,obs @

  • r

region of interest frequency

(η ≡ i)

yt ¯ QLH ⇤ 1 + η Λ2 S2⌅ tR + h.c.

mt(z) = yt √ 2 h(z)

  • 1 + iS2(z)

Λ2 ⇥ ≡

BAU from top transport

DM stability =>Z2 symmetry:

<S>T=0 = 0

(If not DM could take Dim-5 as well) Espinosa, etal

However, there goes the UV-completion

J.M. Cline, KK, JCAP 1301 (2013) 012

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Singlet model / BAU and gravitational waves

This singlet model can also give rise to an observable gravitational wave signature:

  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1

1

  • 20
  • 18
  • 16
  • 14
  • 12
  • 10

log10(f/Hz) log10(Ωgwh2)

Λ/TeV

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

eLISA BBO

Large GW-signal correlates with strong transition (large supercooling) and a very thin wall … Models with correct BAU

Ville Vaskonen, arXiv:1611.02073 Kari Rummukainen, Physics Days 2016

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 5 10 15 vn/Tn LwTn

Tn/Tc 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

slide-10
SLIDE 10
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1

1

log ηB / ηobs

full constraints: constraints

  • nly

mass EWPO, b→sγ, Landau pole neutron EDM, Rb =

Γ(Z→bb) Γ(Z→hadrons) _

Strong EWPT and large BAU points were rare then: <1/104.

V = λ 4

  • H† i Hi − v2

2 2 + m2

1 (S†i Si) + (m2 2 H† iSi + h.c.),

+λ1 (H† iHi) (S† jSj), +λ2 (H†i Hj) (S†j Si) +

  • λ3H†i H†j Si Sj + h.c.
  • ,

+

  • λ4H†i S†j Si Sj + λ5S†i H†j Hi Hj + h.c.
  • + λ6(S†iSi)2,

+ yt¯ tL(H0⇤δti + (ηUδti + η0

UV ⇤ tbVbi))S0⇤)qi R

MFV to avoid FCNC (Yukawa sector)

G.C.Branco, W.Grimus & L.Lavoura, PLB380 (1996) 119

2HD models (renormalizable…)

Need to add something to alleviate burden

  • n 2HDM λi’s

Generic issue: Strong transition > large |λi’s| Large B > large phases

  • > large EDM’s

Full GL(2,C)-

reparametrization invariant potential

J.Cline, KK, M.Trott, JHEP 1111 (2011) 089

Strongest bounds always from EDM’s, so ACME killed these models

many new CP- violating pms.

slide-11
SLIDE 11

2HD+S model: CP from 2HDM - strength from S / constraints

m2

a(T) = m2 a + ca

T 2 12

Only loop corrections: Go through the usual excerices:

  • Accelerator constraints
  • EWP-data
  • EDM’s (electron, ACME)
  • Perturbatiivity up to 1.5 TeV
  • LUX-limits
  • Strong transition (subleading DM)

γ Z h t e

A diagram contributing to e-EDM:

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

  • 3
  • 2
  • 1

1 2 |sinΔCP| log10(de/8.7×10-29ecm)

ACME-excluded

42 ⌘ hH0

2I|h0i ⌘

de = dhγγ

t

+ dhZγ

t

+ dhγγ

W ± + dhZγ W ± + dhγγ H± + dhZγ H± + dH±W ⌥γ,

| < 8.7 ⇥ 10−29ecm ,

ACME Collaboration, Science 343 (2014) 269–272

If all above ok, compute BAU

Lscalar = Zij(DµHi)†DµHj + 1 2(∂µS)2 − V

⇣ | | | | ⌘ + 1

4λSS4 + 1 2λS1S2|H1|2 + 1 2λS2S2|H2|2 +

⇣

1 2λS12S2H† 2H1 + h.c.

⌘

V (H1, H2)2HDM

−[

]

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1

|sinΔCP| log10(ηB/8.7×10-11)

∂zϕ2 = − h2

1

h2

1 + h2 2

∂zϕ . mt(z) = yt √ 2 h2(z)eiϕ2(z).

slide-12
SLIDE 12

α ≡ ∆V (Tn) ρ(Tn) < 1 3(1 − ξw)

13 10 ≡ αmax

condition for deflagrations

Espinosa, Konstandin, No, Servant, JCAP 1006 (2010) 028;

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1

Tn/Tc log10(ηB/8.7×10-11)

0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

  • 2
  • 1

1 Tn/Tc log10(α/αmax)

blue = thin wall

  • range = numerical

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

  • 2.0
  • 1.5
  • 1.0
  • 0.5

0.0 Tn/Tc log10(ηB/8.7×10-11)

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

  • 3
  • 2
  • 1

Tn/Tc log10(α/αmax)

Tune fore models with large Tc

(> 80 GeV)

  • k

2HD+S model: Nucleation

The bubble nucleation rate

Models in red: no Tn Remaining ones may be detonations

Indeed: Danger: unlike the “cubic term” the tree-level barrier does not go away with a decreasing T.

Γ ∼ T 4 ✓S3(T) 2πT ◆3/2 exp ✓ −S3(T) T ◆ ,

is slow if Tn << Tc (lot of supercooling) => Danger of being trapped

Tn Tc

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1

|sinΔCP| log10(ηB/8.7×10-11)

slide-13
SLIDE 13

2HDM bounces back?

Because of generic low energy Landau poles 2HD-models no better than singlet model with Dim N>4 operators.

  • No UV-completion => solving BAU recreates need for BSM
  • Problem is with the CP-violation

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

tan β

10−2 10−1 π/2

δ1 − δ2

483 GeV 480 GeV 460 GeV 450 GeV

Bd − Bd CMS search eEDM nEDM

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

αn

5 10 15 20

LwTn LwTn

Toy model M = mh/2 Hierarchical 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

vw vw

Dorsh, Huber, Konstandin and No, arXiv:1611.05874

M = mH0 = 200 GeV and varying mA0 =mH±.

Recent paper claim 2HDM (with Z2 symmetry) is still OK (and may also give lots of GW’s)

= h2/h1

…but solutions require very small Lw, and large vw (very strong transitions) [also presumably very large couplings] ?

?

main difference to us…

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Dark sector EWBG

Generic issue: Difficulty of obtaining large CP-violation consistent with observations (and UV-completeness idea)

Idea: Move CP-violation to dark sector Work in progress with J. Cline and D. Tucker Smith Problem: How to transfer the asymmetry to the visible sector / sphalerons? Solution: a CP-portal Gain: Get rid of most constraints, EDM’s in particular

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Dark sector EWBG: ( IDM + S + CP-portal )

  • 1. CP-asymmetry source involving a sterile neutrino 𝜓

spontaneous CP-violation => 𝜓-helicity asymmetry

  • 2. CP-portal: involving an inert doublet Φ

L ∋

singlet scalar

1 2 ¯

χ [mχ + S(η PL + η∗PR)] χ

y ¯ χφLτ

L ∋

Asymmetry transported to 𝛖’s mainly via decays

χ¯ Lτ → φ, φ → ¯ Lτχ,

  • 4. Bonus: 𝜓 can be the DM

mχ ∼ 50 GeV, mφ ∼ 150 GeV, y ∼ = 0.65

This can be made to work with reasonable parameters:

, y ∼ =

  • 3. 𝛖’s bias sphalerons to produce baryon asymmetry
  • 2
  • 1

1 2 3 4

z (GeV

  • 1)
  • 0.002
  • 0.001

0.001

µi (GeV)

µχ/10 µτ µφ

η 0.1

Valentins talk! (VIDM irrelevant here)

slide-16
SLIDE 16

y 2 [0.5, 0.9], η 2 [0.025, 0.25], λm 2 [0.3, 0.6], mχ 2 [40, 60], mφ 2 [100, 140], log10(vc/wc) 2 [2, 1.5], v0/vc 2 [1.1, 10] (22)

Dark sector EWBG and DM / preliminary results

Preliminary scan: Region of parameters that gives the BAU and DM of the right magnitude: Couplings reasonably small, so we are likely to succeed in being UV-complete (not tested yet)

1

ηB / ηobs

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Ωdm h

2 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

y

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Ωχ h

2

  • bserved

300/75000

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Dark sector EWBG collider constraints

Main collider signature of the singlet χ and inert doublet φ model is the Drell-Yan production

  • f φ+φ− followed by φ± → τ±χ, which resembles pp → τ

̃τ ̃∗, τ ̃ → τχ0

1 in the MSSM.

SUSY

σ / σ 95% CL Limit on 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

ATLAS

=8 TeV s ,

  • 1

L dt=20.3 fb

∫

,

1

χ ∼

1

χ ∼

  • τ

+

τ →

  • τ

∼

+

τ ∼ = 0 GeV

1

χ ∼

m

)

exp

σ 1 ± Expected limit ( )

SUSY theory

σ 1 ± Observed limit (

=20 GeV

1

χ ∼

m =40 GeV

1

χ ∼

m

[GeV]

R

τ ∼

m 100 150 200 250 300

SUSY

σ / σ 95% CL Limit on 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

=60 GeV

1

χ ∼

m

[GeV]

R

τ ∼

m 100 150 200 250 300

=80 GeV

1

χ ∼

m

[GeV]

R

τ ∼

m 100 150 200 250 300

=100 GeV

1

χ ∼

m

ATLAS: 1407.0350

Run 2 should probe the model in interesting parameter range

JHEP 1410 (2014) 096

un 1 which are

  • r mχ . 20 GeV

d mφ < 130 GeV ⇠

~Excluded

mχ ⇠ = 40 GeV and mφ < 170 GeV,

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Dark sector EWBG Direct dectection

Slight breaking of Z2 symmetry is necessary to avoid dilution of BAU by creation of domains with opposite S

1a 2a EWPT and EWBG |S| |H| 1b 2b EWPT and EWBG

With exact Z2-symmetry the effective CP-angle opposite in paths a and b Z2 broken by a small real part of eta = But this leads to a small vev for S and mixing with h => direct search sensitivity

〈s〉 〈h〉 χ h s χ

χ χ s s h h χ χ φ τ γ

hsη0

θhsη0 < 0.053 l with mχ = 44, ms = 104,

Panda-X-II (12/2016):

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Conclusions

“Simple and yet complete” an interesting paradigm to follow

DM Strong EWPT

Some aspects are easily realized with help of singlets

EWBG challenging due to need for new CP-violation

Unification and Hieararchy Problem not necessarily relevant EWBG is may be possible in 2HDM or 2HD+S

  • r in S-model with 5D/6D operators,

but not UV-complete

Dark sector EWBG with a CP-portal, a promising avenue, which might fulfill all expectations, DM, BAU and UV-completeness.

Will be probed by LHC run II (and by direct detection)

slide-20
SLIDE 20

EXTRA SLIDES

slide-21
SLIDE 21

log(7=GeV)

10 20 30 40 50

gi;MS

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

g1 g2 g3 y t

Asymptotic safety by gravity?

g

E Mp

E

E Mp

gi

E MPl(E) E MPl(E)

nd ag ≈ −1. dependence

P

is a sca ere ⇠ ≈ 0.024 is at one-loop l a ayt ≈ −0.5

S.P. Robinson and F.Wilczek, PRL96 (2006) 231601 Laura Laulumaa, MSc Thesis, JyU 2015.

Running couplings (incl. yukawas):

µ∂gi ∂µ = βSM(gi) + βgrav(gi) β(gi)grav = aiµ2 M 2

Pl + ξµ2 gi

Where gravity correction is parametrically:

Wetterich and Shaposhnikov, Phys.Lett. B683 (2010) …

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Transition strength / B-violation rate, SM

PT in SM, is a cross-over at

T = 159.6 ± 0.1 ± 1.5 GeV

M.d’Onofrio, K.Rummukainen, A.Tranberg, Phys.Rev.Lett. 113 (2014) no.14, 141602

140 150 160 170 180 T / GeV 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 v

2(T) / T 2

multicanonical standard perturbative

v2(T)/T 2 T/GeV

Sphalerons in equilibrium until T ≈ 132 GeV < TPT

ΓSymm./T 4 = (8.0 ± 1.3) × 10−7 ≈ (18 ± 3)α5

W ,

log ΓBroken T 4 = (0.83 ± 0.01) T GeV − (147.7 ± 1.9).

Sphaleron rate in SM

130 140 150 160 170 T / GeV

  • 45
  • 40
  • 35
  • 30
  • 25
  • 20
  • 15
  • 10

log Γ/Τ

4

standard multicanonical fit perturbative perturbative + correction pure gauge log[αH(T)/T]

T/GeV

log Γ/T 4

=> washout !

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Traditionally: increase the strength by (effective cubic) loop corrections Need new light (mi < T) bosonic fields strongly coupled to Higgs

lD=0, Tc=121.32 GeV<vc lD=1.0, Tc=124.15 GeV>vc lD=3.0, Tc=128.75 GeV>vc

50 100 150 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 vc HGeVL VtotHvc,TcL H¥106GeV4L

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

φ

Veff(φ)

increas δ

δVeff = − X

i

Tm3

i (φ, T)

12π + ...

=> Light Stop Scenario in the MSSM and NMSSM

[Carena, Quiros, Wagner (1996), … Espinosa, Quiros, Zwirner, Laine,Cline,KK,Losada,...]

Σ Σ Σ

.. and this just has gotten too tight …

However, higgs mass mostly from squarks:

Tension: light tR => very heavy tL

m2

h ∼ y2 t log

m2

˜ tRm2 ˜ tL

m4

t

Transition strength, extensions / LSS

114 117 120 123 126 129 132 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

mQ ≤ 10

6 TeV E A G F B C D

mh [GeV] m˜

t

[GeV]

φc Tc > 1

Carena, etal. 2009, 2013

But mstop > 210-540 GeV

Kobakihidze etal, Phys.Lett. B755 (2016) 76-81

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Creating baryons / CP-violation / Semiclassical limit

ω z m(z),k0

s

q ±k

s s

vg(p) ¯ vg(p)

̸=

CP -force

(t + vg · x + F · p)fi = C[fi, fj, . . .] .

˙ p = −|m||m| ω + sCP s(|m|2θ) 2ω2 .

⇥ − | | = p0 ω

  • 1 + sCP

s|m|2θ 2p2

0ω

⇤

vg

F

WKB CTP

J.M. Cline, M. Joyce and K. Kainulainen. PLB417 (1998) 79; JHEP 0007 (2000) 018 J.M. Cline and K. Kainulainen, PRL85 (2000) 5519.

  • M. Joyce, T. Prokopec and N. Turok, PRD53, 2958 (1996); PRL75, 1695 (1995); PRD53, 2930 (1996).
  • K. Kainulainen, T. Prokopec, M.G. Schmidt and S. Weinstock, JHEP 0106, 031 (2001); PRD66 (2002) 043502.
  • T. Prokopec, M.G. Schmidt and S.Weinstock, Annals Phys. 314, 208 (2004), Annals Phys. 314, 267 (2004)

fi(z, pz, p) = 1 eβ[γw(Ei+vwpz)−µi] ± 1 + δfi(z, pz, p) (

  • (vgz∂z + Fz∂pz)fi = Ci[f],

s ui ≡ (pz/E0)δfi. W

. d3p δfi = 0

Stationary frame Fluid ansaz

=> Fluid equations for

µ and

With CP-violating source

S ~ (|m|2𝜄’)’

slide-25
SLIDE 25

S h1 h2

  • 4
  • 2

2 4 50 100 150 zTc hi(GeV)

  • 4
  • 2

2 4

  • 2.35
  • 2.30
  • 2.25
  • 2.20
  • 2.15

zTc φ

S1 = Z dz X

i

1 2(∂zhi)2 + 1 2(∂zS)2 + 1 2 h2

1h2 2

h2

1 + h2 2

(∂zϕ)2 + V (h1, h2, S, ϕ, Tc) !

2HD+S model: BAU-generation

Minimize the Action => H1,H2, S and 𝜒

ηB = 405 4π2ξwg⇤Tc Z 1 dz Γsph(z)µBL(z)e45Γsph(z)z/4ξw.

relative phase between H1 and H2

∂zϕ2 = − h2

1

h2

1 + h2 2

∂zϕ . mt(z) = yt √ 2 h2(z)eiϕ2(z).

=> CP-violating SC-source = complex mt

  • 50

50 100

  • 6
  • 4
  • 2

2 4 6 8 zTc 106 × μBL/Tc

µBL = µq1,2 + µq2,2 + 1 2(µt,2 + µb,2) 1 1

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1

|sinΔCP| log10(ηB/8.7×10-11)