1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx,floatflt,amssymb,epsf,psfig,rotate}
3: \textwidth=17cm
4: \textheight=22.5cm
5: \topmargin -1.5cm
6: \oddsidemargin -0.3cm
7: \evensidemargin -0.3cm
8: \parskip 0.25cm
9: \def\DESepsf(#1 width #2){\epsfxsize=#2 \epsfbox{#1}}
10: %\usepackage{mathrsfs}
11: %\usepackage{psfig}
12: %\usepackage{epsf}
13: %\tolerance=10000
14:
15: \def\ol{\overline}
16: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
17: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
18: \def\ba{\begin{eqnarray}}
19: \def\ea{\end{eqnarray}}
20: \def\un{\underline}
21: \def\op{\oplus}
22: \def\al{\alpha}
23: \def\Z{M_Z}
24: \def\SUSY{M_{SUSY}}
25: \def\S{M_S}
26: \def\R{M_R}
27: \def\P{M_P}
28: \def\DD{M_{\Delta}}
29: \def\U{M_U}
30: \def\D{\Delta}
31: \def\T{\Theta}
32: \def\ep{\epsilon}
33: \def\br{\begin{array}}
34: \def\er{\end{array}}
35: \def\bc{\begin{center}}
36: \def\ec{\end{center}}
37: \def\gsim{\mathop{\smash{>}}\limits_\sim}
38: \def\ps{{\cal G}_{PS}}
39: \def\lr{{\cal G}_{LR}}
40: \def\std{{\cal G}_{std}}
41: \parindent 0pt
42: \begin{document}
43: \thispagestyle{empty}
44: \begin{flushright}
45: %\texttt{hep-ph/yymmnnn}\\
46: HRI-P-08-07-002 \\
47: CU-Physics/11 - 2008\\
48: \end{flushright}
49: \vskip 10pt
50: \begin{center}
51: {\Large \bf Neutrino mass and low-scale leptogenesis
52: in a testable SUSY SO(10) model\\} \vskip .1in
53:
54: \bf{\sf Swarup Kumar Majee${}^{1}$, Mina K. Parida${}^2$, Amitava
55: Raychaudhuri${}^{1,3}$}
56: \vskip .20in
57: {\sl ${}^1$ Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Jhunsi, Allahabad
58: 211 019, India}\\
59: {\sl ${}^2$ National Institute of Science Education and Research,
60: Institute of Physics Campus,\\ Sachivalaya Marg, Bhubaneswar 751
61: 005, India}\\
62: {\sl ${}^3$ Department of Physics, University of Calcutta,
63: Kolkata 700 009, India}
64:
65: \end{center}
66: \vskip .25in
67:
68: \begin{abstract}
69: \noindent
70: It is shown that a supersymmetric ~$\bf {SO(10)}$ model
71: extended with fermion singlets can accommodate the observed
72: neutrino masses and mixings as well as generate the desired
73: lepton asymmetry in concordance with the gravitino constraint.
74: A necessary prediction of the model is near-TeV scale
75: doubly-charged Higgs scalars which should be detectable at the
76: LHC.
77:
78: %\vskip 5pt \noindent
79: %\texttt{PACS Nos:~ 14.60.Pq, 12.10.Dm, 12.60.Jv} \\
80: %\texttt{Key Words:~~Neutrino mass and mixings, Grand Unified Theory, Leptogenesis}
81:
82: \end{abstract}
83:
84: %\newpage
85:
86:
87: The observed neutrino masses constitute a compelling evidence of
88: interactions beyond
89: the Standard Model of particle physics and leave
90: an impact in areas as diverse as astrophysics, cosmology,
91: nuclear physics, and geophysics. The smallness of these masses
92: finds a natural explanation in the see-saw mechanism
93: \cite{seesaw}, which requires a heavy Majorana (self-conjugate)
94: neutrino. Such heavy neutrinos appear in grand unified theories
95: (GUTs) based on $\bf {SO(10)}$, which incorporate
96: quark-lepton unification and left-right symmetry \cite{ps,lr}.
97: The wide disparity between the weak and unification
98: scales in these models calls for a protection mechanism and
99: supersymmetry (SUSY) is widely considered to be an attractive
100: candidate. Further, such a model with a low SUSY scale leads to a
101: unification of gauge couplings at high energies. These positive
102: features have encouraged many explorations of the SUSY $\bf
103: {SO(10)}$ model.
104:
105: Another open problem, also of much interest, is the origin of the
106: observed baryon asymmetry of the universe. Originally it was
107: expected that baryon number violation inherent in GUTs will lead
108: to this small asymmetry when heavy gauge (and/or Higgs) bosons
109: decay while they are out of equilibrium. This hope was belied
110: however since any primordial GUT-origin asymmetry will be totally
111: diluted in the inflationary epoch. This has provided impetus to
112: look for lower energy avenues for generating this asymmetry.
113: An oft-chosen route is to generate a lepton asymmetry through the
114: C and CP-violating out-of-equilibrium decay of heavy Majorana
115: neutrinos. This is later converted to a baryon asymmetry through
116: anomalous $(B+L)$ violation, which is implicit in the Standard
117: Model \cite{yana, lep2bar}.
118:
119: It is but natural to ask whether the heavy Majorana neutrino
120: which drives the neutrino mass see-saw can also generate the
121: lepton asymmetry through its decay. This would have been truly
122: economical.
123:
124:
125:
126: Hindrances to this programme arise from several directions. (a) The
127: observed light neutrino masses require the heavy neutrino, which
128: is right-handed (RH), to have a
129: mass $\sim 10^{13}$ GeV. This sets the
130: scale, $M_R$, for the $\bf {SU(2)_R \times SU(2)_L \times
131: U(1)_{(B-L)} \rightarrow SU(2)_L}$ $\bf {\times U(1)_Y}$ gauge
132: symmetry breaking. (b) Within the $\bf {SO(10)}$ GUT
133: framework, the intermediate symmetry breaking scales are fixed through
134: the Renormalization Group (RG) equations which reflect the gauge
135: couplings' evolution with energy. In the simplest $\bf {SO(10)}$
136: GUT it is well-known that $M_R$ turns out to be $\sim 10^{16}$
137: GeV. (c) In a SUSY context there is an additional constraint,
138: namely, to ensure that there is no overabundance of gravitinos in
139: the universe. To maintain consistency with this, it has been
140: demonstrated \cite{lepto, khlopov, di} that the lepton asymmetry
141: must be generated through the decay of a heavy neutrino whose
142: mass does not exceed $\sim 10^{7-9}$ GeV in order to prevent a
143: washout, whereas leptogenesis through the canonical Type-I
144: see-saw mechanism sets the lower bound $4.5 \times 10^9$ GeV.
145: These conflicting requirements have acted as obstacles to a
146: successful implementation of this attractive possibility.
147:
148: In this letter we propose a remedy for these maladies confining
149: ourselves to the SUSY $\bf {SO(10)}$ GUT. If sterile -- i.e.,
150: $\bf {SO(10)}$ singlet -- leptons are introduced, one for each
151: generation \cite{e6, vm, barr, kk}, then a novel way can be found to
152: meet the demands outlined in the previous paragraph.
153:
154: The uncharged fermions in this model, per generation, are the
155: following: a left-handed neutrino $\nu$, a right-handed neutrino,
156: $N$, and a sterile neutrino, $S$. For the three generation
157: neutral fermion system, the mass matrix on which we focus is:
158: \ba
159: M_\nu = \pmatrix{\nu & N^c & S}_L \pmatrix{ 0 & m_D & 0 \cr
160: m_D^T & M_N & M_X\cr 0 & M_X^T & \mu }
161: \pmatrix{ \nu^c \cr N \cr S}_R
162: \label{matrix}
163: \ea
164: where $m_D, M_N, M_X$, and $\mu$ are all 3$\times$3 matrix blocks.
165:
166: It is not unreasonable to expect that the mass matrix in eq.
167: (\ref{matrix}) will alleviate the tension,
168: summarised earlier, between light neutrino masses and adequate
169: low-scale thermal leptogenesis. As discussed below, the double
170: see-saw structure for the light neutrino masses,
171: arising from eq. (\ref{matrix}), also decouples it to some extent from
172: low-scale leptogenesis; $M_N, M_X$, and $\mu$ appear in
173: different fashions in the expressions. Utilizing an extension of
174: the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) by the
175: addition of RH neutrinos and extra fermion singlets, which results in
176: a neutrino mass matrix of the structure of eq. (\ref{matrix}), Kang and
177: Kim \cite{kk} have found solutions to both the above issues.
178: There, $m_D$ has been identified, as is done in the MSSM, with
179: the charged lepton mass matrix. On the other hand, in the $\bf
180: {SO(10)}$ model which is espoused here, quark-lepton symmetry
181: \cite{ps} identifies the neutrino Dirac mass matrix $m_D$ with
182: the up-quark mass matrix whose 33 element is nearly 100 times
183: heavier. This, along with other GUT constraints, pose additional
184: hurdles in addressing the problems in SUSY $\bf {SO(10)}$.
185:
186:
187: We work in a basis in which the down-quark and charged lepton
188: mass matrices are diagonal. This ensures that the entire mixings
189: in the quark and lepton sectors can be ascribed to the mass
190: matrices of the up-type quarks and the neutrinos, respectively.
191: Using quark-lepton unification, the quark masses, and the
192: Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa mixing angles, one therefore obtains
193: $m_D$, upto $\cal O$(1) effects due to RG evolution.
194:
195:
196: We utilize spontaneous symmetry breaking of SUSY $\bf {SO(10)}$
197: with the Higgs representations ${\bf {210}, {54}}$, ${\bf 126
198: \oplus \overline {126}, 16\oplus \overline {16}}$, and $\bf
199: {10}$. By using the mechanism of D-Parity breaking near the GUT
200: scale \cite{dpar}, the RH-triplet pair $\Delta_R(1,3,1,-2)
201: \oplus \overline{\Delta}_R(1,3,1,2)$, and the RH-doublet pair
202: $\chi_R(1,2,1,-1) \oplus \overline{\chi}_R(1,2,1,1)$ are treated
203: to have masses at much lower scales compared to their left-handed
204: counterparts. $M_X = F x_R$, in eq. (\ref{matrix}), is generated
205: {\em via} the vacuum expectation value (vev)
206: $<\chi_R(1,2,1,-1)> =$ $<\overline{\chi}_R(1,2,1,1)> = x_R$,
207: where we take $F$ to be a matrix with entries $\cal O$(0.1).
208:
209:
210:
211: Although we do not assign any direct vev to the RH-triplets,
212: through a $\Delta_R$ exchange involving a trilinear coupling in
213: the superpotential, $\lambda \Delta_R \overline{\chi}_R
214: \overline{\chi}_R$, an effective vev $
215: {<\Delta_R(1,3,1,-2)> \equiv v_R = \lambda
216: \frac{x_R^2}{m_{\Delta_R}}}$ is generated, resulting in the mass
217: term $M_N \sim f <\Delta_R(1,3,1,-2)>$, where $f$ is a typical
218: Yukawa coupling of Majorana type. If ${m_{\Delta_R}}$ is around 1
219: TeV, which can be arranged by a tuning of the D-parity breaking
220: term in the Lagrangian, the entries of $M_N$ are ${\cal
221: O}(10^{11})$ GeV. Without any loss of generality, $M_N$ can be
222: chosen to be diagonal.
223:
224: Notice that the {\bf $SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{B-L}$} symmetry breaks at the scale
225: \mbox{$<\Delta_R(1,3,1,-2)>$} $\simeq 10^{11}$ GeV while $x_R
226: \sim 10^7$ GeV. The states $\Delta^+_R$ and $Re(\Delta^0_R)$ are
227: eaten up as Goldstone bosons by the $W_R^\pm$ and $W_R^0$ fields and
228: $\Delta^{++}_R$ and $Im(\Delta^0_R)$ survive as physical states
229: with mass $\sim$ 1 TeV.
230: The Type-II seesaw contribution to the light neutrino mass matrix is
231: damped out in this case because of the large masses of the left-handed
232: Higgs triplet leading to $m_{II} \simeq 10^{-5}$ eV -- $ 10^{-6}$
233: eV \cite{typeII,cm}.
234: Further, the vev of $\chi_L$ is zero or negligible.
235:
236: Block diagonalization of
237: the mass matrix in eq. (\ref{matrix}) in the limit in which we
238: are working ({\em i.e.,} $M_N \gg M_X \gg \mu \gg m_D$) leads to:
239: \begin{equation}
240: m_{\nu} \sim - {m_D}\,\left[{M_X}^{-1}\mu
241: ({M_X}^T)^{-1}\right]\,{m_D}^T, \,\,\,\, M_S \sim \mu -
242: \frac{M_X^2}{M_N},
243: \,\,\,\,M \sim M_N + \frac{M_X^2}{M_N},
244: \label{double}
245: \end{equation}
246: where $m_\nu, M_S$, and $M$ are $3\times3$ matrices. The light
247: neutrino masses are in a double see-saw pattern and $\mu$ is
248: determined once $M_X$ is fixed. It may be noted that the mass
249: matrix structure in eq. (\ref{matrix}) ensures that the type I
250: see-saw contribution is absent and $M_N$ remains unconstrained
251: by the light neutrino masses. This freedom in $M_N$ -- a hallmark
252: of the model -- is vital to ensure adequate leptogenesis.
253: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
254: \begin{figure}[tbh]
255: \hskip 2.5cm
256: \psfig{figure=mprf1.eps,width=12.0cm,height=3cm,angle=0}
257: \caption{\sf \small The tree and one-loop contributions to the
258: decay of $T_1$ that generate the lepton asymmetry.}
259: \label{f1}
260: \end{figure}
261: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
262:
263: The eigenstates of $M_S$, which we denote by $T_i, (i=1,2,3)$,
264: are superpositions of the sterile neutrinos $S$ (predominant) and
265: the right-handed ones $N$. These states are found to lie
266: well-below $10^9$ GeV, consistent with the gravitino constraint.
267: In fact we show that this model allows successful leptogenesis at
268: a temperature ${\rm T}\simeq M_T \simeq 5\times 10^{5}$ GeV, which is
269: nearly 4 orders below the maximum allowed value. Further, the
270: singlet fermions decay through their mixing with the $N_i$
271: which is controlled by the ratio $M_X/M_N$. The latter, which
272: have masses ${\cal O}(10^{11})$ GeV and are off-shell, decay to a
273: final $l \phi$ state, where $l$ is a lepton doublet and $\phi$
274: the up-type MSSM Higgs doublet. This two-step process -- for
275: which tree and loop diagrams are depicted in Fig. \ref{f1}
276: (SUSY contributions are small) --
277: results in a lepton asymmetry of the correct order. Because of
278: the large value of $M_N \gg M_X$, a small $S-N$ mixing results
279: naturally in the $T_i$ which in turn guarantees the
280: out-of-equilibrium condition to be realized near temperatures
281: ${\rm T}\simeq M_T$.
282:
283: A quantitative analysis of this programme has been carried out
284: using the Boltzmann equations determining the number densities
285: in a co-moving volume $Y_{T} = n_{T}/n_S$ and $Y_L =
286: n_L/n_S$, where $n_T$, $n_L$ and $n_S$ are respectively the number
287: densities of the decaying neutrinos, leptons and the entropy:
288: \be
289: \frac{dY_{T}}{dz}=-\left(Y_{T}-Y_T^{eq}\right) \left[ \frac{\Gamma_D^T}
290: {zH(z)}+\frac{\Gamma_s^T}{zH(z)} \right],\,\,
291: \frac{dY_{L}}{dz}=\epsilon_T \frac{\Gamma_D^T}{zH(z)} \left( Y_{T}-Y_T^{eq}
292: \right)-\frac{\Gamma_W^\ell}{zH(z)}Y_L.
293: \label{BE}
294: \ee
295: where $\Gamma_D^T$, $\Gamma_s^T$ and $\Gamma_W^\ell$ represent
296: the decay, scattering, and wash-out rates, respectively, that
297: take part in establishing a net lepton asymmetry. We refrain from
298: presenting their detailed expressions here \cite{mpr}. The Hubble
299: expansion rate $H(z)$, where $z = M_T/{\rm T}$, and the CP-violation
300: parameter are given by
301: \be
302: H(z)=\frac{H(M_T)}{z^2}, \,\,\,\, H(M_T)=1.67 g_*^{1/2}
303: \frac{M_T^2}{M_{pl}},\;\;\; \epsilon_T = \frac{\Gamma (T\rightarrow l
304: \phi) - \Gamma (T\rightarrow \bar{l}
305: \phi^*)}{\Gamma (T\rightarrow l
306: \phi) + \Gamma (T\rightarrow \bar{l}
307: \phi^*)}.
308: \label{hubble_eps}
309: \ee
310: Our target is to use eqs. (\ref{double}) and (\ref{BE}) to
311: obtain an acceptable solution within the framework of SUSY $\bf
312: {SO(10)}$. Through an exhaustive analysis we find an appropriate
313: choice of the block matrices appearing in eq. (\ref{matrix})
314: which guarantees adequate leptogenesis while maintaining full
315: consistency with the observed neutrino masses and mixing as well
316: as the gravitino constraint. The mass scales are fixed as
317: dictated by the RG evolution of gauge couplings in SUSY $\bf {SO(10)}$
318: when effects of two $\rm {dim}.5$ operators scaled by the Planck mass
319: are included \cite{mpr,mprs,d5}. The strategy we follow is to choose
320: the matrix $M_X$ first.
321: To minimize the number of independent parameters, we take the
322: matrix $F$ to be real and diagonal, which is reflected in $M_X$.
323: Then using $m_D$, as fixed by quark-lepton unification, $\mu$ is
324: determined from the double see-saw formula given in eq. (\ref{double}).
325: Using these inputs, one has to examine, by trial and error,
326: different choices of $M_N$ for adequate lepton asymmetry
327: generation.
328: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
329: \begin{figure}[bth]
330: \hskip 3.5cm
331: \psfig{figure=mprf2.ps,width=10.0cm,height=7.0cm,angle=270}
332: \caption{\sf \small
333: The comoving density of $T_1$ -- $Y_T$ -- and the leptonic
334: asymmetry -- $Y_L$ -- as a function of $z$. Also shown is
335: $Y_T^{eq}$. The inset displays the decay ($\Gamma_T^D$) and
336: inverse-decay ($\Gamma_T^{ID}$) rates of $T_1$ compared with the
337: Hubble expansion rate, $H$, as a function of $z$. }
338: \label{f2}
339: \end{figure}
340: %\vskip -20pt
341: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
342:
343: The results for the development of the leptonic asymmetry as the
344: universe evolves
345: are
346: shown in Fig. \ref{f2}. They are obtained with the choice $M_X$
347: = diag (0.2, 0.3, 0.4)$ x_R$ with $x_R = 6 \times 10^6$ GeV. The
348: neutrino Dirac mass matrix, $m_D$, is constructed utilizing
349: quark-lepton symmetry; the up-type quark mass eigenvalues and the
350: CKM mixings are taken at the PDG \cite{pdg} values with the
351: CKM-phase as 1 radian. The neutrino masses are fixed so as to
352: satisfy $\Delta m^2_{21} = 8.0
353: \times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$ and $\Delta m^2_{32} = 2.5 \times
354: 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ with the lightest neutrino taken massless. The
355: neutrino mixing angles used are $\theta_{23} = 45^\circ$,
356: $\theta_{12} = 32^\circ$, and $\theta_{13} = 7^\circ$. No other
357: CP-phases are introduced in the lepton sector except the one
358: through the CKM matrix for quarks. With these inputs the matrix
359: $\mu$ is calculated following eq. (\ref{double}). For the
360: RH-neutrino we use the mass matrix $M_N = {\rm diag}(0.1, 0.5,
361: 0.9) \times 10^{11}$ GeV. This is consistent with $m_{\Delta_R}
362: \sim$ 1 TeV. We assume that in the very initial stages the number
363: densities, $Y_{T_i}, \,i=1,2,3$, and the leptonic asymmetry, $Y_L$, are zero.
364: The chosen input values of the mass parameters result in a $T_i$
365: mass spectrum such that only one state -- $T_1$ -- is above the
366: kinematic threshold for $l \phi$ production ($m_{T_1} = 3.9
367: \times 10^5$ GeV) and the lepton asymmetry results through its
368: decay. This ensures that the leptogenesis is consistent with the
369: gravitino bound. It is seen from Fig. \ref{f2} that $T_1$ decays
370: fall out of equilibrium as the universe expands (inset) and $Y_L$
371: achieves the right order ($\sim 10^{-10}$) starting off from a
372: vanishing initial value while $Y_{T}$ steadily tends towards
373: $Y^{eq}_{T}$.
374:
375: We stress again that an important outcome of the symmetry
376: breaking is that out of the triplet $\Delta_R$ the
377: components $\Delta_R^\pm$ and $Re
378: \Delta_R^\circ$ are absorbed as longitudinal modes of the broken
379: generators of $SU(2)_R \times U(1)_{B-L}$. The physical states
380: are $\Delta_R^{++}$ and $Im
381: \Delta_R^\circ$ and their superpartners. They will be within
382: striking range of the LHC and the ILC with $m_{\Delta} \simeq
383: 300$ GeV -- 1 TeV.
384:
385: Finally, we briefly discuss the mechanism of SUSY $\bf {SO(10)}$ breaking
386: \cite{mpr,mprs,d5}:
387: \begin{eqnarray}
388: SO(10) & \stackrel{\mathbf{M_U}}{\longrightarrow} &
389: SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_R \times SU(2)_L \times U(1)_{B-L}
390: ~~[{\cal G}_{3221}] \nonumber \\
391: &\stackrel{\mathbf{M_R}}{\longrightarrow}& SU(3)_C \times
392: SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y ~~[\std]
393: \stackrel{\mathbf{M_Z}}{\longrightarrow}SU(3)_C \times U(1)_Q
394: \label{chain}
395: \end{eqnarray}
396: The $\bf {SO(10)}$ Higgs multiplets {\bf 210} and {\bf 54} are
397: utilized to break the symmetry at $M_U$. Within the {\bf 210}
398: there are two components which develop vevs; one breaks $\bf
399: {SO(10)}$ to ${\cal G}_{3221}$ while the other is responsible for
400: D-parity breaking. The vev of the singlet under the Pati-Salam
401: group contained in {\bf 54} ensures that there are no light
402: pseudo-goldstone bosons arising from the {\bf 210} to upset
403: perturbative gauge coupling evolution. As already discussed, $\bf
404: {SU(2)_R}\times U(1)_{B-L}$ is broken by the vevs of RH-triplets
405: in {\bf 126} $\oplus$ {\bf $\overline{\bf 126}$}. This induced
406: vev, $v_R \sim 10^{11}$ GeV, is also responsible for the masses
407: of the $N_i$. The last step of breaking in eq. (\ref{chain})
408: relies on the electroweak vev of the weak bi-doublet in {\bf
409: 10}. We have carried out an analysis of the RG evolution of the
410: gauge couplings to determine the intermediate mass scales. We
411: find that $M_R \sim 10^{9-11}$ GeV can be obtained through the
412: introduction of effective $\rm {dim}.5$ operators scaled by the
413: Planck mass, $M_{Pl}$ \cite{d5}. It is noteworthy that both {\bf
414: 210} and {\bf 54} are necessary for a viable SUSY $\bf {SO(10)}$
415: breaking pattern and that the resulting two $\rm {dim}.5$
416: operators are instrumental in alleviating the problem of
417: leptogenesis under the gravitino constraint:
418: \ba
419: {\cal L}_{NRO} &=& -{\eta_1\over
420: 2M_{Pl}}Tr\left(F_{\mu\nu}\Phi_{210}F^{\mu\nu}\right) -{\eta_2\over
421: 2M_{Pl}} Tr\left(F_{\mu\nu}\Phi_{54}F^{\mu\nu}\right).
422: \label{dim5}
423: \ea
424: The details of this analysis will be presented elsewhere
425: \cite{mpr}. Suffice it to state that $|\eta_{1,2}| \sim {\cal{O}}(1)$ and
426: the interactions in eq.
427: (\ref{dim5}) lead to finite
428: corrections to the gauge couplings at the GUT-scale.
429: The couplings of the left-right gauge group thus emerge from
430: one effective GUT-gauge coupling. The
431: upshot of this is that with these additional contributions
432: it is possible to lower $M_R$ to as low as
433: $10^9 - 10^{11}$ GeV as required in this model. The grand
434: unification scale is high: $M_U \sim
435: 10^{17-18}$ GeV and the model predicts a stable proton for all
436: practical purposes.
437:
438:
439: We expect that this model will have a natural extension to an $\bf
440: {E(6)}$-GUT wherein the matter multiplets and the singlet fields
441: will constitute the fundamental {\bf 27} representation of the
442: gauge group.
443:
444: In conclusion, we have presented a SUSY $\bf {SO(10)}$-based
445: model relying on a double see-saw mechanism which is (a)
446: consistent with the known neutrino masses and mixing, and (b) can
447: lead to a correct lepton asymmetry via the decays of sterile,
448: i.e., $\bf {SO(10)}$ singlet, neutrinos while remaining in
449: concordance with the gravitino constraint. The intermediate
450: scales are obtained through an RG analysis of the gauge coupling
451: running and are consistent with a long-lived proton. The model is
452: falsifiable through its prediction of doubly-charged Higgs bosons
453: within the reach of the LHC.
454:
455:
456: \vskip 5pt
457: {\bf Acknowledgements}: M.K.P. thanks the Harish-Chandra Research
458: Institute for hospitality. The work is supported from funds of
459: the XIth Plan Neutrino project at HRI. Computation facility of the HRI
460: Cluster project is also acknowledged.
461:
462: %\vskip 10pt
463:
464: \begin{thebibliography}{[99]}
465:
466: \bibitem{seesaw} P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. {\bf B67} (1977)
467: 421; M. Gell-Mann, P. Rammond and R. Slansky, in {\it
468: Supergravity}, eds. D. Freedman {\it et al.} (North-Holland, Amsterdam,
469: 1980); T. Yanagida, in proc. KEK workshop, 1979
470: (unpublished); R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi\'c,
471: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 44} (1980) 912; S. L. Glashow, {\it Cargese
472: lectures}, (1979).
473:
474: \bibitem{ps}J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. {\bf D10} (1974) 275.
475:
476:
477: \bibitem{lr} R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati, Phys. Rev. {\bf D11}
478: (1975) 566, 2558; G. Senjanovi\'c and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys.
479: Rev. {\bf D12} (1975) 1502.
480:
481: \bibitem{yana} M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. {\bf B174} (1986) 45.
482:
483: \bibitem{lep2bar} V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov and M. E. Shaposhnikov,
484: Phys. Lett. {\bf B155} (1985) 36.
485:
486: \bibitem{lepto}W. Buchmuller, R. D. Peccei and T. Yanagida,
487: Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 55} (2005) 311; L. Covi, E. Roulet and
488: F. Vissani, Phys. Lett. {\bf B384} (1996) 169; A. Pilaftsis,
489: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B504} (1997) 61;
490: W. Buchmuller and M. Plumacher, Phys. Lett. {\bf B431} (1998) 354;
491: M. Flanz, E. Paschos
492: and U. Sarkar, {\em ibid.} {\bf B345} (1995) 248; E. Ma, N. Sahu and
493: U. Sarkar, J. Phys. {\bf G34} (2007) 741. %; arXiv: hep-ph/0611257.
494:
495: \bibitem{khlopov} M. Y. Khlopov and A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. {\bf
496: B138} (1984) 265; J. R. Ellis, D. V. Nanopoulos and S. Sarkar,
497: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B259} (1985) 175; J. R. Ellis, D. V. Nanopoulos,
498: K. A. Olive and S. J. Rey, Astropart. Phys. {\bf 4}
499: (1996) 371; M. Kawasaki and T. Moroi, Prog. Theor. Phys.
500: {\bf 93} (1995) 879; V. S. Rychkov and A. Strumia, Phys. Rev.
501: {\bf D75} (2007) 075011.%hep-ph/0701104
502:
503:
504: \bibitem{di} S. Davidson and A. Ibarra, Phys. Lett. {\bf B535} (2002) 25; T.
505: Hambye and G. Senjanovi\'c, Phys. Lett. {\bf B582} (2004) 73.
506:
507: \bibitem{e6} F. G\"{u}rsey, P. Ramond and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett.
508: {\bf B60} (1976) 177.
509:
510:
511: \bibitem{vm} R N Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 56} (1986) 561;
512: R. N. Mohapatra and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. {\bf D34} (1986) 1642.
513:
514: \bibitem{barr} S.M. Barr, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92} (2004)
515: 101601; C. Albright and S.M. Barr, Phys. Rev. {\bf D69} (2004)
516: 073010; M. Lindner, M.A. Schmidt and A. Yu. Smirnov, JHEP {\bf
517: 0507} (2005) 048.
518:
519: \bibitem{kk} S. K. Kang and C. S. Kim, Phys. Lett. {\bf B646} (2007) 248.
520:
521: \bibitem{dpar} D. Chang, R. N. Mohapatra and M. K. Parida, Phys.
522: Rev. Lett. {\bf 52} (1984) 1072; Phys. Rev. {\bf D30} (1984)
523: 1052; D. Chang, R. N. Mohapatra, J. Gipson, R. E. Marshak and M.
524: K. Parida, Phys. Rev. {\bf D31} (1985) 1718.
525:
526: \bibitem{typeII} R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi\'c, Phys. Rev.
527: {\bf D23} (1981) 165; G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi and C. Wetterich,
528: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B181} (1981) 287.
529:
530: \bibitem{cm} D. Chang and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. {\bf D32}
531: (1985) 1248.
532:
533: \bibitem{mpr} S. K. Majee, M.K. Parida and A. Raychaudhuri
534: (work in progress).
535:
536: \bibitem{mprs} S. K. Majee, M. K. Parida, A. Raychaudhuri and U. Sarkar,
537: Phys. Rev. {\bf D75} (2007) 075003. %; arxiv: hep-ph/0701109.
538:
539: \bibitem{d5} Q. Shafi and C. Wetterich, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 52}
540: (1984) 875; C. T. Hill, Phys. Lett. {\bf B135} (1984) 47; M. K.
541: Parida and P. K. Patra, Phys. Rev. {\bf D39} (1989) 2000; M. K.
542: Parida and P. K. Patra, Phys. Lett. {\bf B432} (1990) 45.
543:
544: \bibitem{pdg} W. -M. Yao {\it et al}. J. Phys. {\bf G33} (2006) 1.
545:
546:
547:
548:
549:
550:
551:
552:
553: \end{thebibliography}
554: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
555:
556: \end{document}
557: