1: \documentstyle[prd,aps,preprint,tighten,epsfig]{revtex}
2:
3: \begin{document}
4:
5: \draft
6:
7: \title{Correlation between the Charged Current Interactions \\ of Light and
8: Heavy Majorana Neutrinos}
9: \author{{\bf Zhi-zhong Xing}
10: \thanks{E-mail: xingzz@ihep.ac.cn}}
11: \address{\sl Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of
12: Sciences, Beijing, China} \maketitle
13:
14: \begin{abstract}
15: The evidence for neutrino oscillations implies that three neutrino
16: flavors ($\nu^{}_e, \nu^{}_\mu, \nu^{}_\tau$) must have different
17: mass states ($\nu^{}_1, \nu^{}_2, \nu^{}_3$). The most popular
18: idea of generating tiny masses of $\nu^{}_i$ is to introduce three
19: heavy Majorana neutrinos $N^{}_i$ (for $i = 1, 2, 3$) into the
20: standard model and implement the seesaw mechanism. In this
21: approach the neutrino mixing matrix $V$ appearing in the charged
22: current interactions of $\nu^{}_i$ is not unitary, and the
23: strength of unitarity violation of $V$ is associated with the
24: matrix $R$ which describes the strength of charged current
25: interactions of $N^{}_i$. We present an explicit parametrization
26: of the correlation between $V$ and $R$ in terms of nine rotation
27: angles and nine phase angles, which can be measured or constrained
28: in the precision neutrino oscillation experiments and by exploring
29: possible signatures of $N^{}_i$ at the LHC and ILC. Two special
30: but viable scenarios, the Type-I seesaw model with two heavy
31: Majorana neutrinos and the Type-II seesaw model with one heavy
32: Majorana neutrino and one Higgs triplet, are taken into account to
33: illustrate the simplified $V$-$R$ correlation. The implications of
34: $R\neq 0$ on the low-energy neutrino phenomenology are also
35: discussed. In particular, we demonstrate that the non-unitarity of
36: $V$ is possible to give rise to an appreciable CP-violating
37: asymmetry between $\nu^{}_\mu \rightarrow \nu^{}_\tau$ and
38: $\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \rightarrow \overline{\nu}^{}_\tau$
39: oscillations with short or medium baselines.
40: \end{abstract}
41:
42: \pacs{PACS number(s): 14.60.Pq, 13.10.+q, 25.30.Pt}
43:
44: \newpage
45:
46: \framebox{\large\bf 1} ~ Very robust evidence for non-zero
47: neutrino masses and large lepton flavor mixing has recently been
48: achieved from solar \cite{SNO}, atmospheric \cite{SK}, reactor
49: \cite{KM} and accelerator \cite{K2K} neutrino oscillation
50: experiments. This great breakthrough opens a new window to physics
51: beyond the standard model (SM), because the SM itself only
52: contains three massless neutrinos whose flavor states
53: $\nu^{}_\alpha$ (for $\alpha = e, \mu, \tau$) and mass states
54: $\nu^{}_i$ (for $i=1, 2, 3$) are identical. The most natural and
55: popular way to generate non-vanishing but tiny masses $m^{}_i$ for
56: $\nu^{}_i$ is to extend the SM by introducing three right-handed
57: neutrinos but preserving its $SU(2)_{\rm L} \times U(1)_{\rm Y}$
58: gauge symmetry. This class of neutrino mass models is commonly
59: referred to as the Type-I seesaw models \cite{SS1}. If one Higgs
60: triplet $\Delta^{}_{\rm L}$ and three right-handed neutrinos are
61: simultaneously introduced into the SM, the resultant $SU(2)_{\rm
62: L} \times U(1)_{\rm Y}$ gauge models are usually classified as the
63: Type-II seesaw models \cite{SS2}. In either case the mass states
64: of three right-handed neutrinos, denoted as $N^{}_i$ (for
65: $i=1,2,3$), have the positive eigenvalues $M^{}_i$ which can be
66: much larger than the electroweak symmetry breaking scale $v
67: \approx 174$ GeV. The smallness of $m^{}_i$ is therefore
68: attributed to the smallness of $v^2/M^{}_i$ (and the smallness of
69: the vacuum expectation value of $\Delta^{}_{\rm L}$ in the Type-II
70: seesaw models). Both light and heavy neutrinos are the Majorana
71: particles in such seesaw models, in which the lepton number ($L$)
72: is not conserved. Associated with the seesaw mechanism, the
73: leptogenesis mechanism \cite{FY} may naturally work to account for
74: the cosmological matter-antimatter asymmetry via the CP-violating
75: and out-of-equilibrium decays of $N^{}_i$ and the
76: $(B-L)$-conserving sphaleron processes \cite{Kuzmin}.
77:
78: To directly test the seesaw and leptogenesis mechanisms, it is
79: desirable to experimentally discover the heavy Majorana neutrinos
80: $N^{}_i$ at high-energy $e^+e^-$ and (or) hadron colliders. Since
81: such neutral and weakly interacting particles leave no trace in
82: ordinary detectors, their possible collider signatures must
83: involve charged leptons via the charged current interactions for
84: some $\Delta L = 2$ processes (i.e., those processes with the
85: lepton number being violated by two units) \cite{Han}. In the
86: basis of mass states, the standard charged current interactions of
87: $\nu^{}_i$ and $N^{}_i$ can be written as
88: \begin{eqnarray}
89: -{\cal L}^{}_{\rm cc} \; = \; \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}} \left[
90: \overline{\left(e~~ \mu~~ \tau\right)^{}_{\rm L}} ~V \gamma^\mu
91: \left( \matrix{\nu^{}_1 \cr \nu^{}_2 \cr \nu^{}_3} \right)^{}_{\rm
92: L} W^-_{\mu} + \overline{\left(e~~ \mu~~ \tau\right)^{}_{\rm L}}
93: ~R \gamma^\mu \left( \matrix{N^{}_1 \cr N^{}_2 \cr N^{}_3}
94: \right)^{}_{\rm L} W^-_\mu \right] ~ + ~ {\rm h.c.} \; ,
95: % (1)
96: \end{eqnarray}
97: where $V$ is just the Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (MNS) neutrino mixing
98: matrix \cite{MNS} responsible for neutrino oscillations, and $R$
99: describes the strength of charged current interactions between
100: $(e, \mu, \tau)$ and $(N^{}_1, N^{}_2, N^{}_3)$. It has been
101: noticed that $V$ is not exactly unitary in the seesaw models and
102: its deviation from unitarity is essentially characterized by
103: non-vanishing $R$ \cite{Zhou}. Indeed, the production and
104: detection of $N^{}_i$ at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) or the
105: International Linear Collider (ILC) require not only $M^{}_i
106: \lesssim {\cal O}(10)$ TeV but also appreciable sizes of the
107: matrix elements of $R$. Hence the unitarity violation of $V$ might
108: show up in the future long-baseline neutrino oscillation
109: experiments, if the collider signatures of heavy Majorana
110: neutrinos are really accessible. In this sense, the correlation
111: between $V$ and $R$ signifies an important relationship between
112: neutrino physics and collider physics.
113:
114: The purpose of this work is just to reveal how the charged current
115: interactions of light and heavy Majorana neutrinos are correlated
116: with each other. We shall show that the correlation between $V$
117: and $R$ can in general be parametrized in terms of nine rotation
118: angles and nine phase angles. This parametrization is independent
119: of any details of a Type-I or Type-II seesaw model, and its
120: parameters can be measured or constrained in the precision
121: neutrino oscillation experiments and by exploring possible
122: signatures of $N^{}_i$ at the LHC and ILC. We shall take two
123: special but viable examples, the Type-I seesaw model with two
124: heavy Majorana neutrinos and the Type-II seesaw model with one
125: heavy Majorana neutrino and one Higgs triplet, to illustrate the
126: simplified form of $V$-$R$ correlation. The implications of $R\neq
127: 0$ on the low-energy neutrino phenomenology will also be
128: discussed. In particular, we shall demonstrate that the
129: non-unitarity of $V$ is possible to give rise to an appreciable
130: CP-violating asymmetry between $\nu^{}_\mu \rightarrow
131: \nu^{}_\tau$ and $\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \rightarrow
132: \overline{\nu}^{}_\tau$ oscillations with short or medium
133: baselines.
134:
135: \vspace{0.4cm}
136:
137: \framebox{\large\bf 2} ~ Without loss of generality, we choose the
138: basis in which the flavor and mass states of three charged leptons
139: are identical. In this basis, the neutrino mass terms generated
140: from spontaneous $SU(2)^{}_{\rm L} \times U(1)^{}_{\rm Y}
141: \rightarrow U(1)^{}_{\rm em}$ symmetry breaking can be written as
142: \begin{eqnarray}
143: -{\cal L}_{\rm mass} \; = \; \frac{1}{2} ~ \overline{\left(
144: \nu^{}_{\rm L} ~N^c_{\rm R}\right)} ~ \left( \matrix{ M^{}_{\rm L}
145: & M^{}_{\rm D} \cr M^T_{\rm D} & M^{}_{\rm R}}\right) \left(
146: \matrix{ \nu^c_{\rm L} \cr N^{}_{\rm R}}\right) ~ + ~ {\rm h.c.}
147: \; ,
148: % (2)
149: \end{eqnarray}
150: where $\nu^c_{\rm L}$ and $N^c_{\rm R}$ are defined as $\nu^c_{\rm
151: L} \equiv C \overline{\nu^{}_{\rm L}}^T$ and $N^c_{\rm R} \equiv C
152: \overline{N^{}_{\rm R}}^T$ with $C$ being the charge conjugation
153: matrix, $M^{}_{\rm D} = Y^{}_\nu v$ and $M^{}_{\rm L} =
154: Y^{}_\Delta v^{}_{\rm L}$ result from the Yukawa interactions of
155: Higgs doublet and triplet with $v\approx 174 ~{\rm GeV}$ and
156: $v^{}_{\rm L} \lesssim 1 ~ {\rm GeV}$ being the corresponding
157: vacuum expectation values, and $M^{}_{\rm R}$ is the mass matrix
158: of three right-handed Majorana neutrinos. The overall $6\times 6$
159: neutrino mass matrix in ${\cal L}^{}_{\rm mass}$, denoted as
160: ${\cal M}$, is symmetric and can be diagonalized by a unitary
161: transformation ${\cal U}^\dagger {\cal M} {\cal U}^* =
162: \widehat{\cal M}$; or explicitly,
163: \begin{eqnarray}
164: \left(\matrix{V & R \cr S & U}\right)^\dagger \left( \matrix{
165: M^{}_{\rm L} & M^{}_{\rm D} \cr M^T_{\rm D} & M^{}_{\rm R}}\right)
166: \left(\matrix{V & R \cr S & U}\right)^* = \left( \matrix{
167: \widehat{M}^{}_\nu & {\bf 0} \cr {\bf 0} & \widehat{M}^{}_{\rm
168: N}}\right) \; ,
169: % (3)
170: \end{eqnarray}
171: where $\widehat{M}^{}_\nu = {\rm Diag}\{m^{}_1, m^{}_2, m^{}_3\}$
172: and $\widehat{M}^{}_{\rm N} = {\rm Diag}\{M^{}_1, M^{}_2,
173: M^{}_3\}$ with $m^{}_i$ and $M^{}_i$ (for $i=1, 2, 3$) being the
174: light and heavy Majorana neutrino masses, respectively. After this
175: diagonalization, one may express the neutrino flavor states
176: $\nu^{}_\alpha$ (for $\alpha = e, \mu, \tau$) in terms of the
177: light and heavy neutrino mass states $\nu^{}_i$ and $N^{}_i$ (for
178: $i=1, 2, 3$):
179: \begin{eqnarray}
180: \left(\matrix{ \nu^{}_e \cr \nu^{}_\mu \cr \nu^{}_\tau
181: }\right)^{}_{\rm L} = V \left( \matrix{\nu^{}_1 \cr \nu^{}_2 \cr
182: \nu^{}_3} \right)^{}_{\rm L} + R \left( \matrix{N^{}_1 \cr N^{}_2
183: \cr N^{}_3} \right)^{}_{\rm L} \; .
184: % (4)
185: \end{eqnarray}
186: Then the standard charged current interactions between
187: $\nu^{}_\alpha$ and $\alpha$ (for $\alpha = e, \mu, \tau$) in the
188: basis of flavor states,
189: \begin{eqnarray}
190: -{\cal L}^{}_{\rm cc} \; = \; \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}} ~
191: \overline{\left(e~~ \mu~~ \tau\right)^{}_{\rm L}} ~ \gamma^\mu
192: \left( \matrix{\nu^{}_e \cr \nu^{}_\mu \cr \nu^{}_\tau}
193: \right)^{}_{\rm L} W^-_{\mu} ~ + ~ {\rm h.c.} \; ,
194: % (5)
195: \end{eqnarray}
196: turn out to be of the form given in Eq. (1) in the basis of mass
197: states. It is clear that $V$ and $R$ describe the charged current
198: interactions of three light and heavy Majorana neutrinos,
199: respectively. While $V$ can be measured from a variety of neutrino
200: oscillation experiments, $R$ may be determined from possible
201: collider signatures of $N^{}_i$.
202:
203: Note that $V$ itself is not unitary. Indeed, $V V^\dagger + R
204: R^\dagger = {\bf 1}$ holds as a consequence of unitarity of the
205: $6\times 6$ transformation matrix ${\cal U}$ in Eq. (3)
206: \cite{Chao}. The non-unitarity of the MNS matrix $V$ is an
207: intrinsic feature of the seesaw models, no matter whether they are
208: of type I or of type II. Since $V$ and $R$ are two $3\times 3$
209: sub-matrices of ${\cal U}$, their elements must be correlated with
210: each other. To find out the explicit correlation between $V$ and
211: $R$, we may parametrize ${\cal U}$ in terms of 15 rotation angles
212: and 15 phase angles \cite{FN1}. Then the common parameters
213: appearing in both $V$ and $R$ characterize their correlation.
214: First of all, let us define the 2-dimensional (1,2), (1,3) and
215: (2,3) rotation matrices in a 6-dimensional complex space:
216: \begin{eqnarray}
217: O^{}_{12} & = & \left( \matrix{c^{}_{12} & \hat{s}^*_{12} & 0 & 0
218: & 0 & 0 \cr -\hat{s}^{}_{12} & c^{}_{12} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0
219: & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 &
220: 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \cr} \right) \; , \nonumber \\
221: O^{}_{13} & = & \left( \matrix{c^{}_{13} & 0 & \hat{s}^*_{13} & 0
222: & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr -\hat{s}^{}_{13} & 0 &
223: c^{}_{13} & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
224: & 1 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \cr} \right) \; , \nonumber \\
225: O^{}_{23} & = & \left( \matrix{1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 &
226: c^{}_{23} & \hat{s}^*_{23} & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & -\hat{s}^{}_{23} &
227: c^{}_{23} & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
228: & 1 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \cr} \right) \; ,
229: % (6)
230: \end{eqnarray}
231: where $c^{}_{ij} \equiv \cos\theta^{}_{ij}$ and $\hat{s} \equiv
232: e^{i\delta^{}_{ij}} \sin\theta^{}_{ij}$ with $\theta^{}_{ij}$ and
233: $\delta^{}_{ij}$ being the rotation angle and phase angle,
234: respectively. Other 2-dimensional rotation matrices $O^{}_{ij}$
235: (for $1\leq i<j \leq 6$) can be defined in an analogous way
236: \cite{Fritzsch}. We parametrize the $6\times 6$ unitary matrix
237: ${\cal U}$ as
238: \begin{equation}
239: {\cal U} \; = \; \left( \matrix{A & R \cr B & U \cr} \right)
240: \left( \matrix{V^{}_0 & {\bf 0} \cr {\bf 0} & {\bf 1} \cr} \right)
241: % (7)
242: \end{equation}
243: with
244: \begin{eqnarray}
245: \left( \matrix{A & R \cr B & U \cr} \right) & = & O^{}_{56}
246: O^{}_{46} O^{}_{36} O^{}_{26} O^{}_{16} O^{}_{45} O^{}_{35}
247: O^{}_{25} O^{}_{15} O^{}_{34} O^{}_{24} O^{}_{14} \; , \nonumber
248: \\
249: \left( \matrix{V^{}_0 & {\bf 0} \cr {\bf 0} & {\bf 1} \cr} \right)
250: & = & O^{}_{23} O^{}_{13} O^{}_{12} \; .
251: % (8)
252: \end{eqnarray}
253: Comparing between Eqs. (3) and (7), we get $V = A V^{}_0$ and $S =
254: B V^{}_0$, in which
255: \begin{equation}
256: V^{}_0 = \left( \matrix{ c^{}_{12} c^{}_{13} & \hat{s}^*_{12}
257: c^{}_{13} & \hat{s}^*_{13} \cr -\hat{s}^{}_{12} c^{}_{23} -
258: c^{}_{12} \hat{s}^{}_{13} \hat{s}^*_{23} & c^{}_{12} c^{}_{23} -
259: \hat{s}^*_{12} \hat{s}^{}_{13} \hat{s}^*_{23} & c^{}_{13}
260: \hat{s}^*_{23} \cr \hat{s}^{}_{12} \hat{s}^{}_{23} - c^{}_{12}
261: \hat{s}^{}_{13} c^{}_{23} & -c^{}_{12} \hat{s}^{}_{23} -
262: \hat{s}^*_{12} \hat{s}^{}_{13} c^{}_{23} & c^{}_{13} c^{}_{23}
263: \cr} \right)
264: % (9)
265: \end{equation}
266: is just the standard parametrization of the unitary MNS matrix (up
267: to some proper phase rearrangements) \cite{PDG}. It is obvious
268: that $V \rightarrow V^{}_0$ in the limit of $A \rightarrow {\bf
269: 1}$ (or equivalently, $R \rightarrow {\bf 0}$ and $S \rightarrow
270: {\bf 0}$). Thus $A$ signifies the unitarity violation of $V$.
271: After a lengthy but straightforward calculation, we obtain the
272: explicit expressions of $A$ and $R$ as follows:
273: \begin{eqnarray}
274: A & = & \left( \matrix{ c^{}_{14} c^{}_{15} c^{}_{16} & 0 & 0
275: \cr\cr
276: \begin{array}{l} -c^{}_{14} c^{}_{15} \hat{s}^{}_{16} \hat{s}^*_{26} -
277: c^{}_{14} \hat{s}^{}_{15} \hat{s}^*_{25} c^{}_{26} \\
278: -\hat{s}^{}_{14} \hat{s}^*_{24} c^{}_{25} c^{}_{26} \end{array} &
279: c^{}_{24} c^{}_{25} c^{}_{26} & 0 \cr\cr
280: \begin{array}{l} -c^{}_{14} c^{}_{15} \hat{s}^{}_{16} c^{}_{26} \hat{s}^*_{36}
281: + c^{}_{14} \hat{s}^{}_{15} \hat{s}^*_{25} \hat{s}^{}_{26} \hat{s}^*_{36} \\
282: - c^{}_{14} \hat{s}^{}_{15} c^{}_{25} \hat{s}^*_{35} c^{}_{36} +
283: \hat{s}^{}_{14} \hat{s}^*_{24} c^{}_{25} \hat{s}^{}_{26}
284: \hat{s}^*_{36} \\
285: + \hat{s}^{}_{14} \hat{s}^*_{24} \hat{s}^{}_{25} \hat{s}^*_{35}
286: c^{}_{36} - \hat{s}^{}_{14} c^{}_{24} \hat{s}^*_{34} c^{}_{35}
287: c^{}_{36} \end{array} &
288: \begin{array}{l} -c^{}_{24} c^{}_{25} \hat{s}^{}_{26} \hat{s}^*_{36} -
289: c^{}_{24} \hat{s}^{}_{25} \hat{s}^*_{35} c^{}_{36} \\
290: -\hat{s}^{}_{24} \hat{s}^*_{34} c^{}_{35} c^{}_{36} \end{array} &
291: c^{}_{34} c^{}_{35} c^{}_{36} \cr} \right) \; , \nonumber \\
292: R & = & \left( \matrix{ \hat{s}^*_{14} c^{}_{15} c^{}_{16} &
293: \hat{s}^*_{15} c^{}_{16} & \hat{s}^*_{16} \cr\cr
294: \begin{array}{l} -\hat{s}^*_{14} c^{}_{15} \hat{s}^{}_{16} \hat{s}^*_{26} -
295: \hat{s}^*_{14} \hat{s}^{}_{15} \hat{s}^*_{25} c^{}_{26} \\
296: + c^{}_{14} \hat{s}^*_{24} c^{}_{25} c^{}_{26} \end{array} & -
297: \hat{s}^*_{15} \hat{s}^{}_{16} \hat{s}^*_{26} + c^{}_{15}
298: \hat{s}^*_{25} c^{}_{26} & c^{}_{16} \hat{s}^*_{26} \cr\cr
299: \begin{array}{l} -\hat{s}^*_{14} c^{}_{15} \hat{s}^{}_{16} c^{}_{26} \hat{s}^*_{36}
300: + \hat{s}^*_{14} \hat{s}^{}_{15} \hat{s}^*_{25} \hat{s}^{}_{26} \hat{s}^*_{36} \\
301: - \hat{s}^*_{14} \hat{s}^{}_{15} c^{}_{25} \hat{s}^*_{35}
302: c^{}_{36} - c^{}_{14} \hat{s}^*_{24} c^{}_{25} \hat{s}^{}_{26}
303: \hat{s}^*_{36} \\
304: - c^{}_{14} \hat{s}^*_{24} \hat{s}^{}_{25} \hat{s}^*_{35}
305: c^{}_{36} + c^{}_{14} c^{}_{24} \hat{s}^*_{34} c^{}_{35} c^{}_{36}
306: \end{array} &
307: \begin{array}{l} -\hat{s}^*_{15} \hat{s}^{}_{16} c^{}_{26} \hat{s}^*_{36} -
308: c^{}_{15} \hat{s}^*_{25} \hat{s}^{}_{26} \hat{s}^*_{36} \\
309: +c^{}_{15} c^{}_{25} \hat{s}^*_{35} c^{}_{36} \end{array} &
310: c^{}_{16} c^{}_{26} \hat{s}^*_{36} \cr} \right) \; .
311: % (10)
312: \end{eqnarray}
313: One can see that $A$ and $R$ involve the same parameters: nine
314: rotation angles ($\theta^{}_{i4}$, $\theta^{}_{i5}$ and
315: $\theta^{}_{i6}$ for $i=1$, $2$ and $3$) and nine phase angles
316: ($\delta^{}_{i4}$, $\delta^{}_{i5}$ and $\delta^{}_{i6}$ for
317: $i=1$, $2$ and $3$). If all of them are switched off, we shall be
318: left with $R = {\bf 0}$ and $A = {\bf 1}$. Nontrivial $A$ is
319: therefore the bridge between $V = A V^{}_0$ and $R$.
320:
321: Considering the fact that the unitarity violation of $V$ must be a
322: small effect (at most at the $1\%$ level as constrained by current
323: neutrino oscillation data and precision electroweak data
324: \cite{Antusch}), we may treat $A$ as a perturbation to $V^{}_0$.
325: The smallness of $\theta^{}_{ij}$ (for $i=1,2,3$ and $j=4,5,6$)
326: allows us to make the excellent approximations
327: \begin{eqnarray}
328: A & = & {\bf 1} - \left( \matrix{ \frac{1}{2} \left( s^2_{14} +
329: s^2_{15} + s^2_{16} \right) & 0 & 0 \cr \hat{s}^{}_{14}
330: \hat{s}^*_{24} + \hat{s}^{}_{15} \hat{s}^*_{25} + \hat{s}^{}_{16}
331: \hat{s}^*_{26} & \frac{1}{2} \left( s^2_{24} + s^2_{25} + s^2_{26}
332: \right) & 0 \cr \hat{s}^{}_{14} \hat{s}^*_{34} + \hat{s}^{}_{15}
333: \hat{s}^*_{35} + \hat{s}^{}_{16} \hat{s}^*_{36} & \hat{s}^{}_{24}
334: \hat{s}^*_{34} + \hat{s}^{}_{25} \hat{s}^*_{35} + \hat{s}^{}_{26}
335: \hat{s}^*_{36} & \frac{1}{2} \left( s^2_{34} +
336: s^2_{35} + s^2_{36} \right) \cr} \right) + {\cal O}(s^4_{ij}) \; , \nonumber \\
337: R & = & {\bf 0} + \left( \matrix{ \hat{s}^*_{14} & \hat{s}^*_{15}
338: & \hat{s}^*_{16} \cr \hat{s}^*_{24} & \hat{s}^*_{25} &
339: \hat{s}^*_{26} \cr \hat{s}^*_{34} & \hat{s}^*_{35} &
340: \hat{s}^*_{36} \cr} \right) + {\cal O}(s^3_{ij}) \; ,
341: % (11)
342: \end{eqnarray}
343: from which one can easily check the validity of $VV^\dagger =
344: AA^\dagger = {\bf 1} - RR^\dagger$ to a good degree of accuracy.
345: Thus the nine mixing angles in Eq. (10) or (11) are all of ${\cal
346: O}(10^{-1})$ or smaller, such that the unitarity violation of $V$
347: can maximally be of ${\cal O}(10^{-2})$. The nine CP-violating
348: phases of $A$ or $R$ are in general not suppressed, however. It is
349: worth remarking that $R \sim {\cal O}(10^{-3})$ to ${\cal
350: O}(10^{-1})$ may lead to appreciable collider signatures of lepton
351: number violation, if the masses of heavy Majorana neutrinos $M^{}_i$
352: are of ${\cal O}(10^2)$ GeV to ${\cal O}(10)$ TeV. At the LHC, for
353: instance, the promising lepton-number-violating processes mediated
354: by $N^{}_i$ include $pp \to W^\pm W^\pm \to \mu^\pm \mu^\pm jj$ and
355: $pp \to W^\pm \to \mu^\pm N \to \mu^\pm \mu^\pm jj$, where the
356: $\Delta L =2$ like-sign dilepton production can unambiguously signal
357: the existence of $N^{}_i$ \cite{Han,LHC,Smirnov}. A preliminary
358: analysis made in Ref. \cite{Han} has shown that it is possible to
359: probe $(RR^\dagger)^{}_{\mu\mu} \approx s^2_{24} + s^2_{25} +
360: s^2_{26}$ to ${\cal O}(10^{-4})$ for $M^{}_i \sim 100$ GeV and to
361: ${\cal O}(10^{-2})$ for $M^{}_i \sim 400$ GeV at the LHC with an
362: integrated luminosity $100 ~{\rm fb^{-1}}$. The sensitivity will in
363: general become worse for much larger values of the heavy Majorana
364: neutrino masses.
365:
366: Note that the triangular form of $A$ is a salient feature of our
367: parametrization. Some straightforward consequences on $V =
368: AV^{}_0$ can be obtained from Eqs. (9) and (10).
369: \begin{itemize}
370: \item $V^{}_{e3} = c^{}_{14} c^{}_{15} c^{}_{16} \hat{s}^*_{13}$
371: holds. Given $\theta^{}_{13} = 0$ for $V^{}_0$, which might result
372: from certain flavor symmetries imposed on $M^{}_{\rm L}$,
373: $M^{}_{\rm D}$ and $M^{}_{\rm R}$ \cite{Chao,Smirnov}, $V^{}_{e3}$
374: turns out to vanish.
375:
376: \item The ratio $|V^{}_{e2}/V^{}_{e1}| = \tan\theta^{}_{12}$
377: is completely irrelevant to the parameters appearing in $A$ or
378: $R$. This result implies that the extraction of $\theta^{}_{12}$
379: from the solar neutrino oscillation data is essentially
380: independent of possible unitarity violation of $V$.
381:
382: \item $|V^{}_{e1}|^2 + |V^{}_{e2}|^2 + |V^{}_{e3}|^2 =
383: c^2_{14} c^2_{15} c^2_{16} \approx 1 - (s^2_{14} + s^2_{15} +
384: s^2_{16})$ holds. Hence non-vanishing $\theta^{}_{14}$,
385: $\theta^{}_{15}$ and $\theta^{}_{16}$ violate the normalization
386: condition of three matrix elements in the first row of $V$.
387: Current experimental data require $(s^2_{14} + s^2_{15} +
388: s^2_{16}) \lesssim 1\%$ \cite{Antusch}.
389:
390: \item $\langle m\rangle^{}_{ee} = c^2_{14} c^2_{15} c^2_{16}
391: |m^{}_1 (c^{}_{12} c^{}_{13})^2 + m^{}_2 (\hat{s}^*_{12}
392: c^{}_{13})^2 + m^{}_3 (\hat{s}^*_{13})^2|$ holds for the effective
393: mass of the neutrinoless double-beta decay. The smallness of
394: $\theta^{}_{14}$, $\theta^{}_{15}$ and $\theta^{}_{16}$ implies
395: that their effects on $\langle m\rangle^{}_{ee}$ are in practice
396: negligible.
397:
398: \item $\langle m\rangle^{}_{e} = c^{}_{14} c^{}_{15} c^{}_{16}
399: \sqrt{m^2_1 c^2_{12} c^2_{13} + m^2_2 s^2_{12} c^2_{13} + m^2_3
400: s^2_{13}}$ holds for the effective mass term of the tritium beta
401: decay. The smallness of $\theta^{}_{14}$, $\theta^{}_{15}$ and
402: $\theta^{}_{16}$ implies that their effects on $\langle
403: m\rangle^{}_{e}$ are also negligible.
404: \end{itemize}
405: Another consequence of the non-unitarity of $V$ is the loss of
406: universality for the Jarlskog invariants of CP violation \cite{J},
407: $J^{ij}_{\alpha\beta} \equiv {\rm Im}(V^{}_{\alpha i} V^{}_{\beta
408: j} V^*_{\alpha j} V^*_{\beta i})$, where the Greek indices run
409: over $(e, \mu, \tau)$ and the Latin indices run over $(1,2,3$).
410: The explicit expressions of $J^{ij}_{\alpha\beta}$ in terms of
411: $\theta^{}_{ij}$ and $\delta^{}_{ij}$ are rather complicated and
412: will be presented elsewhere. But we shall illustrate that the
413: extra CP-violating phases of $V$ are possible to give rise to a
414: significant asymmetry between $\nu^{}_\mu \rightarrow \nu^{}_\tau$
415: and $\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \rightarrow \overline{\nu}^{}_\tau$
416: oscillations with short or medium baselines in the subsequent
417: section.
418:
419: \vspace{0.4cm}
420:
421: \framebox{\large\bf 3} ~ For the sake of simplicity, here we only
422: consider a special but interesting pattern of $V^{}_0$:
423: $\tan\theta^{}_{12} = 1/\sqrt{2}$, $\theta^{}_{13} = 0$ and
424: $\theta^{}_{23} =\pi/4$ (namely, $V^{}_0$ takes the well-known
425: tri-bimaximal mixing pattern \cite{TB}). Then the non-unitary
426: neutrino mixing matrix $V = A V^{}_0$ can approximate to
427: \begin{equation}
428: V \; \approx \; \left( \matrix{ \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}} &
429: \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}} ~ e^{-i\delta^{}_{12}} & 0 \cr
430: -\sqrt{\frac{1}{6}} ~\left( 1 + 2 X \right) e^{i\delta^{}_{12}} &
431: \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}} ~\left( 1 - X \right) & \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}} ~
432: e^{-i\delta^{}_{23}} \cr \sqrt{\frac{1}{6}} ~\left( 1 - 2Y + Z
433: \right) e^{i (\delta^{}_{12} + \delta^{}_{23})} &
434: -\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}} ~\left( 1 + Y + Z \right) e^{i\delta^{}_{23}}
435: & \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}} ~\left( 1 - Z \right) \cr} \right) \; ,
436: % (12)
437: \end{equation}
438: where
439: \begin{eqnarray}
440: X & = & \left( \hat{s}^{}_{14} \hat{s}^*_{24} + \hat{s}^{}_{15}
441: \hat{s}^*_{25} + \hat{s}^{}_{16} \hat{s}^*_{26} \right)
442: e^{-i\delta^{}_{12}} \; , \nonumber \\
443: Y & = & \left( \hat{s}^{}_{14} \hat{s}^*_{34} + \hat{s}^{}_{15}
444: \hat{s}^*_{35} + \hat{s}^{}_{16} \hat{s}^*_{36} \right)
445: e^{-i(\delta^{}_{12} + \delta^{}_{23})} \; , \nonumber \\
446: Z & = & \left( \hat{s}^{}_{24} \hat{s}^*_{34} + \hat{s}^{}_{25}
447: \hat{s}^*_{35} + \hat{s}^{}_{26} \hat{s}^*_{36} \right)
448: e^{-i\delta^{}_{23}} \; .
449: % (13)
450: \end{eqnarray}
451: The Jarlskog invariants $J^{ij}_{\alpha\beta}$ turn out to be
452: $J^{23}_{e\mu} = J^{23}_{\tau e} = J^{31}_{e\mu} = J^{31}_{\tau e} =
453: 0$, $J^{12}_{e\mu} \approx {\rm Im}X/3$, $J^{12}_{\tau e} \approx
454: {\rm Im}Y/3$, and
455: \begin{eqnarray}
456: J^{12}_{\mu\tau} & \approx & \left( {\rm Im}X + {\rm Im}Y
457: \right)/6 \; , \nonumber \\
458: J^{23}_{\mu\tau} & \approx & \left( {\rm Im}X + {\rm
459: Im}Y + 2{\rm Im}Z \right)/6 \; , \nonumber \\
460: J^{31}_{\mu\tau} & \approx & \left( {\rm Im}X + {\rm Im}Y - {\rm
461: Im}Z \right)/6 \; .
462: % (14)
463: \end{eqnarray}
464: Note that $J^{ji}_{\alpha\beta} = J^{ij}_{\beta\alpha} =
465: -J^{ij}_{\alpha\beta}$ holds as a direct consequence of the
466: definition of $J^{ij}_{\alpha\beta}$. It becomes clear that
467: different $J^{ij}_{\alpha\beta}$ may in general have different
468: values in the presence of unitarity violation, which can result in
469: some new CP-violating effects in neutrino oscillations via the
470: phase parameters $\delta^{}_{kl}$ (for $k=1,2,3$ and $l=4,5,6$)
471: hidden in $X$, $Y$ and $Z$.
472:
473: Taking the steps outlined in Ref. \cite{Antusch}, one may easily
474: derive the probabilities of $\nu^{}_\alpha \rightarrow
475: \nu^{}_\beta$ oscillations in vacuum. The result is
476: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
477: \footnote{Note that the signs of three CP-violating terms in our
478: Eq. (15) are opposite to those in Eq. (18) of Ref. \cite{Antusch}.
479: The latter might result from a misprint.}
480: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
481: \begin{equation}
482: P(\nu^{}_\alpha \rightarrow \nu^{}_\beta) \; = \;
483: \frac{\displaystyle \sum^{}_i |V^{}_{\alpha i}|^2 |V^{}_{\beta
484: i}|^2 + 2 \sum^{}_{i<j} {\rm Re} \left( V^{}_{\alpha i}
485: V^{}_{\beta j} V^*_{\alpha j} V^*_{\beta i} \right) \cos
486: \Delta^{}_{ij} - 2 \sum^{}_{i<j} J^{ij}_{\alpha\beta}
487: \sin\Delta^{}_{ij}}{\displaystyle \left(
488: VV^\dagger\right)^{}_{\alpha\alpha} \left(
489: VV^\dagger\right)^{}_{\beta\beta}} \; ,
490: % (15)
491: \end{equation}
492: where $\Delta^{}_{ij} \equiv \Delta m^2_{ij} L/(2E)$ with $\Delta
493: m^2_{ij} \equiv m^2_i - m^2_j$, $E$ being the neutrino beam energy
494: and $L$ being the baseline length. It is straightforward to write
495: out the expression of $P(\overline{\nu}^{}_\alpha \rightarrow
496: \overline{\nu}^{}_\beta)$ from Eq. (15) by making the replacement
497: $V \Longrightarrow V^*$ or equivalently $J^{ij}_{\alpha\beta}
498: \Longrightarrow - J^{ij}_{\alpha\beta}$. If $V$ is exactly unitary
499: (i.e., $A = {\bf 1}$ and $V = V^{}_0$), the denominator of Eq.
500: (15) will become unity and the conventional formula of
501: $P(\nu^{}_\alpha \rightarrow \nu^{}_\beta)$ will be reproduced. It
502: has been observed in Ref. \cite{Yasuda} that $\nu^{}_\mu
503: \rightarrow \nu^{}_\tau$ and $\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \rightarrow
504: \overline{\nu}^{}_\tau$ oscillations may serve as an excellent
505: tool to probe possible signatures of CP violation induced by the
506: non-unitarity of $V$. To see this point more clearly, we consider
507: a short- or medium-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment with
508: $|\sin\Delta^{}_{13}| \sim |\sin\Delta^{}_{23}| \gg
509: |\sin\Delta^{}_{12}|$, in which the terrestrial matter effects are
510: expected to be insignificant or negligibly small. Then the
511: dominant CP-conserving and CP-violating terms of $P(\nu^{}_\mu
512: \rightarrow \nu^{}_\tau)$ and $P(\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \rightarrow
513: \overline{\nu}^{}_\tau)$ can simply be obtained from Eq. (15)
514: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
515: \footnote{Note that the CP-violating term shown in our Eq. (16) is
516: apparently different from that given in Eq. (12) of Ref.
517: \cite{Yasuda}, where a very different parametrization of the
518: unitarity violation of $V$ has been adopted.}:
519: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
520: \begin{eqnarray}
521: P(\nu^{}_\mu \rightarrow \nu^{}_\tau) & \approx & \sin^2
522: 2\theta^{}_{23} \sin^2 \frac{\Delta^{}_{23}}{2} ~ - ~ 2 \left(
523: J^{23}_{\mu\tau} + J^{13}_{\mu\tau} \right) \sin\Delta^{}_{23} \; ,
524: \nonumber \\
525: P(\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \rightarrow \overline{\nu}^{}_\tau) &
526: \approx & \sin^2 2\theta^{}_{23} \sin^2 \frac{\Delta^{}_{23}}{2} ~
527: + ~ 2 \left( J^{23}_{\mu\tau} + J^{13}_{\mu\tau} \right)
528: \sin\Delta^{}_{23} \; ,
529: % (16)
530: \end{eqnarray}
531: where the good approximation $\Delta^{}_{13} \approx
532: \Delta^{}_{23}$ has been used in view of the experimental fact
533: $|\Delta m^2_{13}| \approx |\Delta m^2_{23}| \gg |\Delta
534: m^2_{12}|$ \cite{SNO,SK,KM,K2K}, and the sub-leading and
535: CP-conserving ``zero-distance" effect \cite{Antusch} has been
536: omitted. Taking account of Eq. (14), we find $J^{23}_{\mu\tau} +
537: J^{13}_{\mu\tau} = J^{23}_{\mu\tau} - J^{31}_{\mu\tau} \approx
538: {\rm Im}Z/2$. To be more specific,
539: \begin{eqnarray}
540: J^{23}_{\mu\tau} + J^{13}_{\mu\tau} & \approx & \frac{1}{2} \left[
541: s^{}_{24} s^{}_{34} \sin \left( \delta^{}_{24} - \delta^{}_{34} -
542: \delta^{}_{23} \right) ~ + ~ s^{}_{25} s^{}_{35} \sin \left(
543: \delta^{}_{25} - \delta^{}_{35} - \delta^{}_{23} \right) \right .
544: \nonumber \\
545: && \left . + ~ s^{}_{26} s^{}_{36} \sin \left( \delta^{}_{26} -
546: \delta^{}_{36} - \delta^{}_{23} \right) \right] \; .
547: % (17)
548: \end{eqnarray}
549: In the assumption of $s^{}_{2l} \sim s^{}_{3l} \sim 0.1$ and
550: $(\delta^{}_{2l} - \delta^{}_{3l}) \sim 1$ (for $l=4,5,6$), this
551: non-trivial CP-violating quantity can reach the percent level.
552:
553: FIG. 1 illustrates the CP-violating asymmetry between $\nu^{}_\mu
554: \rightarrow \nu^{}_\tau$ and $\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \rightarrow
555: \overline{\nu}^{}_\tau$ oscillations, where $\theta^{}_{23} \sim
556: \pi/4$, $\Delta m^2_{23} \sim 2.5 \times 10^{-3} ~ {\rm eV}^2$ and
557: $(J^{23}_{\mu\tau} + J^{13}_{\mu\tau}) \sim 0.01$ have typically
558: been input. One can see that it is possible to measure this
559: asymmetry in the range $L/E \sim (100 \cdots 400)$ km/GeV, if the
560: experimental sensitivity is $\lesssim 1\%$. A short- or
561: medium-baseline neutrino factory with the beam energy $E$ being
562: above $m^{}_\tau \approx 1.78$ GeV is expected to have a good chance
563: to probe or constrain the effect of CP violation induced by the
564: non-unitarity of $V$ (see Ref. \cite{Yasuda} for some detailed
565: discussions).
566:
567: \vspace{0.4cm}
568:
569: \framebox{\large\bf 4} ~ No matter whether a neutrino mass model
570: is of Type-I seesaw or Type-II seesaw, nine rotation angles and
571: nine phase angles are in general needed to parametrize the
572: correlation between the charged current interactions of three
573: heavy Majorana neutrinos $(N^{}_1, N^{}_2, N^{}_3)$ and their
574: light counterparts $(\nu^{}_1, \nu^{}_2, \nu^{}_3)$. To reduce the
575: number of free parameters, one may consider the ``unbalanced"
576: seesaw scenarios in which the number of heavy Majorana neutrinos
577: is smaller than that of ligh Majorana neutrinos \cite{Xing07}.
578: There are at least two phenomenologically viable scenarios of this
579: nature: one is the minimal Type-I seesaw model with two heavy
580: Majorana neutrinos \cite{FGY} and the other is the minimal Type-II
581: seesaw model with one heavy Majorana neutrino and one Higgs
582: triplet \cite{Chan}. In either case, we can arrive at the
583: simplified correlation between $V$ and $R$.
584:
585: (1) The minimal Type-I seesaw model with two heavy Majorana
586: neutrinos. In this case, $M^{}_{\rm R}$ is $2\times 2$, $M^{}_{\rm
587: D}$ is $3\times 2$, and $M^{}_{\rm L} = {\bf 0}$ holds in the
588: overall $5\times 5$ neutrino mass matrix ${\cal M}$. Switching off
589: the rotation matrices $O^{}_{i6}$ (for $i=1,\cdots,5$) in Eq. (8),
590: we are able to fully parametrize the $3\times 3$ matrix $A$ and
591: the $3\times 2$ matrix $R$ in terms of six rotation angles
592: ($\theta^{}_{i4}$ and $\theta^{}_{i5}$ for $i=1,2,3$) and six
593: phase angles ($\delta^{}_{i4}$ and $\delta^{}_{i5}$ for
594: $i=1,2,3$):
595: \begin{eqnarray}
596: A & = & \left( \matrix{ c^{}_{14} c^{}_{15} & 0 & 0 \cr -c^{}_{14}
597: \hat{s}^{}_{15} \hat{s}^*_{25} -\hat{s}^{}_{14} \hat{s}^*_{24}
598: c^{}_{25} & c^{}_{24} c^{}_{25} & 0 \cr -c^{}_{14} \hat{s}^{}_{15}
599: c^{}_{25} \hat{s}^*_{35} + \hat{s}^{}_{14} \hat{s}^*_{24}
600: \hat{s}^{}_{25} \hat{s}^*_{35} - \hat{s}^{}_{14} c^{}_{24}
601: \hat{s}^*_{34} c^{}_{35} & -c^{}_{24} \hat{s}^{}_{25}
602: \hat{s}^*_{35} - \hat{s}^{}_{24} \hat{s}^*_{34}
603: c^{}_{35} & c^{}_{34} c^{}_{35} \cr} \right) \; , ~~~~~~ \nonumber \\
604: R & = & \left( \matrix{ \hat{s}^*_{14} c^{}_{15} & \hat{s}^*_{15}
605: \cr -\hat{s}^*_{14} \hat{s}^{}_{15} \hat{s}^*_{25} + c^{}_{14}
606: \hat{s}^*_{24} c^{}_{25} & c^{}_{15} \hat{s}^*_{25} \cr
607: -\hat{s}^*_{14} \hat{s}^{}_{15} c^{}_{25} \hat{s}^*_{35} -
608: c^{}_{14} \hat{s}^*_{24} \hat{s}^{}_{25} \hat{s}^*_{35} +
609: c^{}_{14} c^{}_{24} \hat{s}^*_{34} c^{}_{35} & c^{}_{15} c^{}_{25}
610: \hat{s}^*_{35} \cr} \right) \; .
611: % (18)
612: \end{eqnarray}
613: It is therefore straightforward to obtain the correlation between
614: $V = AV^{}_0$ and $R$.
615:
616: (2) The minimal Type-II seesaw model with one heavy Majorana
617: neutrino and one Higgs triplet. In this case, $M^{}_{\rm R}$ is
618: $1\times 1$, $M^{}_{\rm D}$ is $3\times 1$, and $M^{}_{\rm L}$ is
619: $3\times 3$ in the overall $4\times 4$ neutrino mass matrix ${\cal
620: M}$. Switching off the rotation matrices $O^{}_{i5}$ (for $i < 5$)
621: and $O^{}_{i6}$ (for $i < 6$) in Eq. (8), we can parametrize the
622: $3\times 3$ matrix $A$ and the $3\times 1$ matrix $R$ in terms of
623: three rotation angles ($\theta^{}_{i4}$ for $i=1,2,3$) and three
624: phase angles ($\delta^{}_{i4}$ for $i=1,2,3$) as follows:
625: \begin{eqnarray}
626: A & = & \left( \matrix{ c^{}_{14} & 0 & 0 \cr -\hat{s}^{}_{14}
627: \hat{s}^*_{24} & c^{}_{24} & 0 \cr - \hat{s}^{}_{14} c^{}_{24}
628: \hat{s}^*_{34} & - \hat{s}^{}_{24} \hat{s}^*_{34} & c^{}_{34} \cr}
629: \right) \; , \nonumber \\
630: R & = & \left( \matrix{ \hat{s}^*_{14} \cr c^{}_{14}
631: \hat{s}^*_{24} \cr c^{}_{14} c^{}_{24} \hat{s}^*_{34} \cr} \right)
632: \; .
633: % (19)
634: \end{eqnarray}
635: Of course, the correlation between $V = AV^{}_0$ and $R$ is more
636: obvious in this scenario. Taking the Jarlskog invariant
637: $J^{23}_{e\mu}$ for example, we find
638: \begin{eqnarray}
639: J^{23}_{e\mu} & = & s^{}_{12} c^{}_{13} s^{}_{13} c^2_{14}
640: c^{}_{24} \left[ c^{}_{12} c^{}_{13} c^{}_{23} s^{}_{23} c^{}_{24}
641: \sin \left( \delta^{}_{13} - \delta^{}_{12} - \delta^{}_{23}
642: \right) \right . \nonumber \\
643: && \left . - c^{}_{12} s^{}_{13} s^{}_{14} c^{}_{23} s^{}_{24}
644: \sin \left( \delta^{}_{14} - \delta^{}_{12} - \delta^{}_{24}
645: \right) + s^{}_{12} s^{}_{14} s^{}_{23} s^{}_{24} \sin \left(
646: \delta^{}_{14} - \delta^{}_{13} + \delta^{}_{23} - \delta^{}_{24}
647: \right) \right] \; ,
648: % (20)
649: \end{eqnarray}
650: in which the first term is essentially governed by the phase
651: parameters of $V^{}_0$, but the second and third terms result from
652: the unitarity-violating effects. One may similarly calculate the
653: other Jarlskog invariants of CP violation. As for $\nu^{}_\mu
654: \rightarrow \nu^{}_\tau$ and $\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \rightarrow
655: \overline{\nu}^{}_\tau$ oscillations with short or medium
656: baselines, the approximate probabilities obtained in Eq. (16) are
657: generally applicable and the CP-violating quantity
658: $(J^{23}_{\mu\tau} + J^{13}_{\mu\tau})$ may unambiguously signify
659: the non-unitarity of $V$ or the existence of certain non-standard
660: neutrino interactions.
661:
662: \vspace{0.4cm}
663:
664: \framebox{\large\bf 5} ~ In summary, we have investigated how the
665: charged current interactions of light and heavy Majorana neutrinos
666: are correlated with each other in the Type-I and Type-II seesaw
667: models. It is the first time that an explicit parametrization of
668: this correlation, which is independent of any details of the
669: seesaw models, has been presented to bridge the gap between
670: neutrino physics and collider physics. The rotation angles and
671: phase angles in such a parametrization are expected to be measured
672: or constrained in the precision neutrino oscillation experiments
673: and by exploring possible signatures of heavy Majorana neutrinos
674: at the LHC and ILC. We have taken two special but viable examples,
675: the minimal Type-I seesaw model with two heavy Majorana neutrinos
676: and the minimal Type-II seesaw model with one heavy Majorana
677: neutrino and one Higgs triplet, to illustrate the simplified
678: $V$-$R$ correlation. The implications of $R\neq 0$ on the
679: low-energy neutrino phenomenology, such as the neutrinoless
680: double-beta decay, the tritium beta decay and CP violation in
681: neutrino oscillations, have also been discussed. In particular, we
682: have demonstrated that the non-unitarity of $V$ is possible to
683: give rise to an appreciable CP-violating asymmetry between
684: $\nu^{}_\mu \rightarrow \nu^{}_\tau$ and $\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu
685: \rightarrow \overline{\nu}^{}_\tau$ oscillations with short or
686: medium baselines. Our generic results remain valid even if the
687: Type-I or Type-II seesaw mechanism is embedded in the
688: supersymmetric standard model and some other extensions of the
689: standard model.
690:
691: How to naturally realize an appreciable correlation between $V$
692: and $R$ in a TeV-scale seesaw model is actually a real challenge
693: to model builders. The reason is simply that the main textures of
694: $M^{}_{\rm D}$ and $M^{}_{\rm R}$ in the Type-I seesaw scenarios
695: or those of $M^{}_{\rm D}$, $M^{}_{\rm L}$ and $M^{}_{\rm R}$ in
696: the Type-II seesaw scenarios, which are relevant to possibly
697: observable collider signatures, are difficult to imprint on those
698: sub-leading effects (due to explicit perturbations or radiative
699: corrections) responsible for the tiny masses of light Majorana
700: neutrinos \cite{Chao,Smirnov}. Much more efforts are certainly
701: needed to build viable and natural seesaw models at the TeV scale.
702: One may even speculate the possibility to naturally achieve the
703: TeV-scale leptogenesis and to experimentally test it at the LHC
704: and ILC.
705:
706: Let us stress that testing the unitarity of the light Majorana
707: neutrino mixing matrix in neutrino oscillations and searching for
708: the signatures of heavy Majorana neutrinos at TeV-scale colliders
709: can be complementary to each other, both qualitatively and
710: quantitatively, in order to deeply understand the intrinsic
711: properties of Majorana particles. Any experimental breakthrough in
712: this aspect will pave the way towards the true theory of neutrino
713: mass generation and flavor mixing.
714:
715: \vspace{0.6cm}
716:
717: The author would like to thank S. Zhou for useful discussions.
718: This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science
719: Foundation of China.
720:
721: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
722: \bibitem{SNO} SNO Collaboration, Q.R. Ahmad {\it et al.},
723: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 011301 (2002).
724:
725: \bibitem{SK} For a review, see: C.K. Jung {\it et al.},
726: Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 51}, 451 (2001).
727:
728: \bibitem{KM} KamLAND Collaboration, K. Eguchi {\it et al.},
729: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 021802 (2003).
730:
731: \bibitem{K2K} K2K Collaboration, M.H. Ahn {\it et al.},
732: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 041801 (2003).
733:
734: \bibitem{SS1} P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 67}, 421 (1977);
735: T. Yanagida, in {\it Proceedings of the Workshop on Unified Theory
736: and the Baryon Number of the Universe}, edited by O. Sawada and A.
737: Sugamoto (KEK, Tsukuba, 1979); M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R.
738: Slansky, in {\it Supergravity}, edited by P. van Nieuwenhuizen and
739: D. Freedman (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1979); S.L. Glashow, in
740: {\it Quarks and Leptons}, edited by M. L$\acute{\rm e}$vy {\it et
741: al.} (Plenum, New York, 1980); R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic,
742: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 44}, 912 (1980).
743:
744: \bibitem{SS2} J. Schechter and J.W.F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D
745: {\bf 22}, 2227 (1980); T.P. Cheng and L.F. Li, Phys. Rev. D {\bf
746: 22}, 2860 (1980); M. Magg and C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B {\bf
747: 94}, 61 (1980); R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. D
748: {\bf 23}, 165 (1981).
749:
750: \bibitem{FY} M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 174},
751: 45 (1986).
752:
753: \bibitem{Kuzmin} V.A. Kuzmin, V.A. Rubakov, and M.E. Shaposhnikov,
754: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 155}, 36 (1985).
755:
756: \bibitem{Han} T. Han and B. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97},
757: 171804 (2006); T. Han, B. Mukhopadhyaha, Z. Si, and K. Wang, Phys.
758: Rev. D {\bf 76}, 075013 (2007).
759:
760: \bibitem{MNS} Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, and S. Sakata, Prog. Theor.
761: Phys. {\bf 28}, 870 (1962).
762:
763: \bibitem{Zhou} Z.Z. Xing and S. Zhou, High Energy Phys. Nucl. Phys.
764: {\bf 30}, 828 (2006).
765:
766: \bibitem{Chao} W. Chao, S. Luo, Z.Z. Xing, and S. Zhou, arXiv:0709.1069
767: [hep-ph], accepted for publication in Phys. Rev. D;
768: arXiv:0712.2612 [hep-ph].
769:
770: \bibitem{FN1} In general, the flavor
771: mixing of $n$ Majorana neutrinos is described by a $n\times n$
772: unitary matrix and can be parametrized in terms of $n(n-1)/2$
773: rotation angles and the same number of phase angles. This $n\times
774: n$ flavor mixing matrix totally has $(n-1)^2(n-2)^2/4$ rephasing
775: invariants of CP violation. See: Z.Z. Xing, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A
776: {\bf 19}, 1 (2004).
777:
778: \bibitem{Fritzsch} H. Harari and M. Leurer,
779: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 181}, 123 (1980); H. Fritzsch and J. Plankl,
780: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 35}, 1732 (1987).
781:
782: \bibitem{PDG} Particle Data Group,
783: W.M. Yao {\it et al.}, J. Phys. G {\bf 33}, 1 (2006).
784:
785: \bibitem{Antusch} S. Antusch, C. Biggio, E. Fernandez-Martinez, M.B.
786: Gavela, and J. Lopez-Pavon, JHEP {\bf 0610}, 084 (2006).
787:
788: \bibitem{LHC} F.M.L. de Almeida {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 75}, 075002
789: (2007); F. del Aguila, J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra, and R. Pittau, J.
790: Phys. Conf. Ser. {\bf 53}, 506 (2006); hep-ph/0703261.
791:
792: \bibitem{Smirnov} J. Kersten and A.Yu. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. D {\bf
793: 76}, 073005 (2007).
794:
795: \bibitem{J} C. Jarlskog, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 55}, 1039 (1985);
796: H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 45}, 1
797: (2000).
798:
799: \bibitem{TB} P.F. Harrison, D.H. Perkins, and W.G. Scott, Phys.
800: Lett. B {\bf 530}, 167 (2002); Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 533},
801: 85 (2002); P.F. Harrison and W.G. Scott, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 535},
802: 163 (2002); X.G. He and A. Zee, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 560}, 87
803: (2003).
804:
805: \bibitem{Yasuda} E. Fernandez-Martinez, M.B. Gavela, J. Lopez-Pavon,
806: and O. Yasuda, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 649}, 427 (2007).
807:
808: \bibitem{Xing07} Z.Z. Xing, arXiv:0706.0052 [hep-ph];
809: and references therein.
810:
811: \bibitem{FGY} P. Frampton, S.L. Glashow, and T. Yanagida, Phys.
812: Lett. B {\bf 548}, 119 (2002). For a review, see: W.L. Guo, Z.Z.
813: Xing, and S. Zhou, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E {\bf 16}, 1 (2007).
814:
815: \bibitem{Chan} P.H. Gu, H. Zhang, and S. Zhou,
816: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 74}, 076002 (2006); A.H. Chan, H. Fritzsch, S.
817: Luo, and Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 76}, 073009 (2007); S. Luo
818: and Z.Z. Xing, arXiv:0712.2610 [hep-ph].
819:
820: \end{thebibliography}
821:
822: \newpage
823:
824: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
825: \begin{figure}[t]
826: \vspace{0cm}
827: \epsfig{file=FIG.ps,bbllx=2.5cm,bblly=14cm,bburx=12.3cm,bbury=29cm,%
828: width=10cm,height=16cm,angle=0,clip=0} \vspace{-0.9cm}
829: \caption{Illustration of the CP-violating asymmetry, which is
830: induced by the non-unitarity of $V$, between $\nu^{}_\mu
831: \rightarrow \nu^{}_\tau$ and $\overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \rightarrow
832: \overline{\nu}^{}_\tau$ oscillations with short or medium
833: baselines. Here $\theta^{}_{23} \sim \pi/4$, $\Delta m^2_{23} \sim
834: 2.5 \times 10^{-3} ~ {\rm eV}^2$ and $(J^{23}_{\mu\tau} +
835: J^{13}_{\mu\tau}) \sim 0.01$ have typically been input.}
836: \end{figure}
837: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
838:
839:
840: \end{document}
841: