1: %\documentstyle[graphicx,12pt]{article}
2: \documentclass[dvips]{article}
3: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
4: %#!latex
5: \topmargin -0.4cm
6: \textwidth 16cm
7: \textheight 22cm
8: \oddsidemargin 0.3cm
9: %\baselineskip=20.5pt plus 0.2pt minus 0.1pt
10:
11:
12: %\renewcommand\epsilon{\varepsilon}
13:
14: \title{
15: Low-Energy Predictions of Lopsided Family Charges
16: }
17:
18:
19: %
20: %
21: \author{
22: J.~Sato\\%
23: {\footnotesize \it%
24: Research Center for Higher Education, Kyushu University,
25: Ropponmatsu, Chuo-ku, Fukuoka, 810-8560, Japan%
26: }
27: \\
28: and
29: \\
30: T.~Yanagida\\%
31: %
32: {\footnotesize \it%
33: Department of Physics and RESCEU,
34: University of Tokyo, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo
35: 113-0033, Japan%
36: }
37: }
38:
39: \begin{document}
40:
41: \maketitle
42: %
43: \abstract{%
44: We consider the Froggatt-Nielsen (FN) mechanism reproducing the observed
45: mass hierarchies and mixing angles for quarks and leptons. The large
46: $\nu_\mu $-$ \nu_\tau$ mixing suggested from recent Superkamiokande
47: experiments on the atmospheric neutrinos implies lopsided FN U(1)
48: charges for the lepton doublets. There are two possible charge
49: assignments to generate the large $\nu_\mu$-$ \nu_\tau$ mixing. We point
50: out that the two models with different charge assignments have distinct
51: low-energy predictions and hence they are distinguishable in future
52: neutrino experiments on such as CP violation and $2\beta 0\nu$ decay.
53: }
54:
55: \section{Introduction}
56: The observed quark-lepton mass spectra and mixing angles may provide us
57: with important information on a more fundamental theory beyond the
58: standard model. There have been proposed many mechanisms and symmetries
59: to account for the observed mass spectra and mixings for quarks and
60: leptons. Among them we consider that the Froggatt-Nielsen(FN)
61: mechanism\cite{FN} using a broken U(1) family symmetry is the simplest
62: and the most promising candidate. In this scheme the masses and mixings
63: for quarks are well understood by choosing properly the FN U(1) charges
64: for each quarks.
65:
66: The large $\nu_\mu$ -$\nu_\tau$ mixing observed by Superkamiokande
67: experiments on atmospheric neutrinos\cite{SK} has led us to propose
68: lopsided U(1) charges to the left-handed lepton doublets $l_i
69: (i=1-3)$\cite{SY,Lop}. Namely, we propose that the lepton doublets $l_2$
70: and $l_3$ of the second and third families have the same U(1) charges
71: $A$ and the lepton doublet $l_1$ of the first family has the U(1) charge
72: $A+1$\cite{SY}, while the right-handed charged leptons $\bar e_i
73: (i=1-3)$ have the U(1) charges, 2,1,0, respectively(model I). This
74: lopsided charge assignment for $l_i$ is a crucial point to produce the
75: large mixing between $\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\tau$. However, the above choice
76: of U(1) charge is not unique to reproduce the large $\nu_\mu$ and
77: $\nu_\tau$ mixing. That is, there is another charge assignment that all
78: lepton doublets $l_i$ have the same charge $A$(model II)\cite{HKY},
79: where the right-handed charged leptons $\bar e_i$ have the FN U(1)
80: charges 3,1,0.
81:
82:
83: In this letter we show that the above two charge choices lead to
84: distinct low-energy predictions and hence the two models can be
85: testable in future neutrino experiments on such as CP violation
86: in neutrino oscillation and 2$\beta$0$\nu$ decay. We show the FN U(1)
87: charges $Q_{l_i}$ for $l_i $.
88: % and $\bar e_i$ i.e $(Q_{e_i})$
89: in Table 1. We assume that the FN U(1) charge for the
90: Higgs doublet $H$ is zero.
91:
92: \begin{table}[hbt]
93: \begin{center}
94: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
95: &I&II\\
96: \hline
97: $Q_{l_3}$ &$A$&$A$\\
98: $Q_{l_2}$ &$A$&$A$\\
99: $Q_{l_1}$ &$A+1$&$A$\\
100: \end{tabular}
101: \end{center}
102: \caption{U(1) charges for lepton doublets}
103: \label{uptable}
104: \end{table}
105:
106: In the FN mechanism the U(1) symmetry is explicitly broken by the vacuum
107: expectation value of $\phi$, $<\phi>$, where the U(1) charge for $\phi$
108: is -1. Then all Yukawa couplings are given by the following form:
109:
110: \begin{eqnarray}
111: L&=&h_{ij} \psi_i \psi_j H (\ {\rm or}\ H^*)\left(
112: \frac{<\phi>}{M_*}\right)^{Q_{\psi_i}+Q_{\psi_j}},
113: \nonumber\\
114: &\equiv&
115: h_{ij} \psi_i \psi_j H (\ {\rm or}\ H^*)\epsilon^{Q_{\psi_i}+Q_{\psi_j}}
116: \end{eqnarray}
117: where $h_{ij}$ is a constant with its norm of O(1), $Q_{\psi_i}$ is the FN
118: charge for the filed $\psi_i$, $M_*$ the gravitational scale
119: $M_*\simeq 2.4\times 10^{18}$ GeV and
120: $\epsilon\equiv\frac{<\phi>}{M_*}$.
121:
122: Then, the neutrino Dirac mass matrix in the model I is given
123: by\footnote{%
124: The Dirac mass matrix $M_D$ is defined as
125: \begin{eqnarray}
126: L&=&(\nu_L)_i M_{Dij}\bar\nu_R + \ {\rm h.c}.
127: \nonumber
128: \end{eqnarray}
129: }
130: \begin{eqnarray}
131: M_D&=& \epsilon^A m_0
132: \left(
133: \begin{array}{ c c c}
134: h_{11}\epsilon^{c+1} &h_{12}\epsilon^{b+1} & h_{13}\epsilon^{a+1} \\
135: h_{21}\epsilon^{c} &h_{22}\epsilon^{b} & h_{23}\epsilon^{a} \\
136: h_{31}\epsilon^{c} &h_{32}\epsilon^{b} & h_{33}\epsilon^{a}
137: \end{array}
138: \right)
139: \label{mdI}\\
140: &=&\epsilon^A m_0
141: \left(
142: \begin{array}{ c c c}
143: h_{11}\epsilon &h_{12}\epsilon & h_{13}\epsilon \\
144: h_{21} &h_{22} & h_{23} \\
145: h_{31} &h_{32} & h_{33}
146: \end{array}
147: \right)
148: \left(
149: \begin{array}{ c c c}
150: \epsilon^{c} &0 & 0 \\
151: 0 &\epsilon^{b} & 0 \\
152: 0 &0 &\epsilon^{a}
153: \end{array}
154: \right)
155: \nonumber
156: \end{eqnarray}
157: and that in the model II takes the following form
158: \begin{eqnarray}
159: M_D&=& \epsilon^A m_0
160: \left(
161: \begin{array}{ c c c}
162: h_{11}\epsilon^{c} &h_{12}\epsilon^{b} & h_{13}\epsilon^{a} \\
163: h_{21}\epsilon^{c} &h_{22}\epsilon^{b} & h_{23}\epsilon^{a} \\
164: h_{31}\epsilon^{c} &h_{32}\epsilon^{b} & h_{33}\epsilon^{a}
165: \end{array}
166: \right)
167: \label{mdII}\\
168: &=&\epsilon^A m_0
169: \left(
170: \begin{array}{ c c c}
171: h_{11} &h_{12} & h_{13} \\
172: h_{21} &h_{22} & h_{23} \\
173: h_{31} &h_{32} & h_{33}
174: \end{array}
175: \right)
176: \left(
177: \begin{array}{ c c c}
178: \epsilon^{c} &0 & 0 \\
179: 0 &\epsilon^{b} & 0 \\
180: 0 &0 &\epsilon^{a}
181: \end{array}
182: \right)
183: \nonumber
184: \end{eqnarray}
185: The Majorana mass term for right-handed neutrinos $\nu_R$
186: takes a similar form
187: \begin{eqnarray}
188: M_{\nu_R}&=& M_R
189: \left(
190: \begin{array}{ c c c}
191: m_{11}\epsilon^{2c} &m_{12}\epsilon^{c+b} & m_{13}\epsilon^{c+a} \\
192: m_{12}\epsilon^{b+c} &m_{22}\epsilon^{2b} & m_{23}\epsilon^{b+a} \\
193: m_{13}\epsilon^{a+c} &m_{23}\epsilon^{a+b} & m_{33}\epsilon^{2a}
194: \end{array}
195: \right)
196: \label{mR}\\
197: &=&M_R
198: \left(
199: \begin{array}{ c c c}
200: \epsilon^{c} &0 & 0 \\
201: 0 &\epsilon^{b} & 0 \\
202: 0 &0 &\epsilon^{a}
203: \end{array}
204: \right)
205: \left(
206: \begin{array}{ c c c}
207: m_{11} &m_{12} & m_{13} \\
208: m_{12} &m_{22} & m_{23} \\
209: m_{13} &m_{23} & m_{33}
210: \end{array}
211: \right)
212: \left(
213: \begin{array}{ c c c}
214: \epsilon^{c} &0 & 0 \\
215: 0 &\epsilon^{b} & 0 \\
216: 0 &0 &\epsilon^{a}
217: \end{array}
218: \right),
219: \nonumber
220: \end{eqnarray}
221: where we assume that $Q_{\nu_R}$ for right-handed neutrinos are $a,b,c$,
222: and $m_0$ and $M_R$ represent weak scale and right-handed neutrino mass
223: scale, respectively. Here $m_{ij}$ is a constant with its norm of O(1)
224: like the coupling $h_{ij}$. For numerical convenience we take a basis
225: where the charged leptons are diagonalized, throughout this letter
226: except when we determine the $\epsilon$ parameter using the charged
227: lepton mass matrix (\ref{mlform}).
228:
229:
230: %For the prediction on CP violation in neutrino
231: %oscillation and 2$\beta$0$\nu$ decay, the relevant quantity
232: %is the Majorana mass term for left-handed neutrinos.
233: From eq.(\ref{mdI}), (\ref{mdII}) and (\ref{mR}) we have the following
234: Majorana mass term for left-handed neutrinos $\nu_L$\cite{seesaw} in the
235: model I
236: \begin{eqnarray}
237: &&M_{\nu_L}\label{mlI}\\
238: &=& \frac{\epsilon^{2A}m_0^2}{M_R}
239: \left(
240: \begin{array}{ c c c}
241: h_{11}\epsilon &h_{12}\epsilon & h_{13}\epsilon \\
242: h_{21} &h_{22} & h_{23} \\
243: h_{31} &h_{32} & h_{33}
244: \end{array}
245: \right)
246: \left(
247: \begin{array}{ c c c}
248: m_{11} &m_{12} & m_{13} \\
249: m_{12} &m_{22} & m_{23} \\
250: m_{13} &m_{23} & m_{33}
251: \end{array}
252: \right)^{-1}
253: \left(
254: \begin{array}{ c c c}
255: h_{11}\epsilon &h_{12}\epsilon & h_{13}\epsilon \\
256: h_{21} &h_{22} & h_{23} \\
257: h_{31} &h_{32} & h_{33}
258: \end{array}
259: \right)^T
260: \nonumber\\
261: &\sim&
262: \left(
263: \begin{array}{ c c c}
264: \epsilon^2 & \epsilon & \epsilon \\
265: \epsilon & 1 & 1 \\
266: \epsilon & 1 & 1
267: \end{array}
268: \right)
269: \label{symmetry}
270: \end{eqnarray}
271: and in the model II
272: \begin{eqnarray}
273: &&M_{\nu_L}\label{mlII}\\
274: &=& \frac{\epsilon^{2A}m_0^2}{M_R}
275: \left(
276: \begin{array}{ c c c}
277: h_{11} &h_{12} & h_{13} \\
278: h_{21} &h_{22} & h_{23} \\
279: h_{31} &h_{32} & h_{33}
280: \end{array}
281: \right)
282: \left(
283: \begin{array}{ c c c}
284: m_{11} &m_{12} & m_{13} \\
285: m_{12} &m_{22} & m_{23} \\
286: m_{13} &m_{23} & m_{33}
287: \end{array}
288: \right)^{-1}
289: \left(
290: \begin{array}{ c c c}
291: h_{11} &h_{12} & h_{13} \\
292: h_{21} &h_{22} & h_{23} \\
293: h_{31} &h_{32} & h_{33}
294: \end{array}
295: \right)^T
296: \nonumber\\
297: &\sim&
298: \left(
299: \begin{array}{ c c c}
300: 1 & 1 & 1 \\
301: 1 & 1 & 1 \\
302: 1 & 1 & 1
303: \end{array}
304: \right)
305: \end{eqnarray}
306: Note that the FN charges of $\nu_R$'s are irrelevant to the above
307: $M_{\nu_L}$'s. Therefore, we take $a=b=c=0$ in the present analysis.
308:
309: We randomly generate the coefficients $h_{ij}$ and $m_{ij}$ such that
310: their magnitudes be between 0.8 and 1.2\footnote{ In this letter we take
311: the range between 0.8 and 1.2 for the norm $|h_{ij}|$ and $|m_{ij}|$.
312: However, the results do not change much even if one takes
313: a wider range of the norms, say 0.5-1.5.} and their complex phases be
314: distributed from 0 to 2$\pi$, and calculate the lepton mixing angles and
315: the mass square differences for each generated parameters. We require
316: that those mixings and the mass square differences satisfy the
317: conservative constraints from the current experiments\cite{Exp}:
318:
319: \begin{enumerate}
320: \item[A.]
321: $|U_{e3}|< 0.15$ to satisfy the CHOOZ limit.\cite{CHOOZ}
322: \item[B.]
323: $4|U_{\mu 3}|^2(1-|U_{\mu 3}|^2)>0.5$
324: to have the large mixing for atmospheric neutrino oscillation.\cite{SK}
325: \item[C.]
326: To satisfy the constraint from solar neutrino deficit,
327: one of the following two conditions is required to be
328: satisfied:\cite{solarK}
329: \begin{enumerate}
330: \item For the small angle solution,
331: $10^{-4}<r<10^{-2}$ and
332: $10^{-4}<\tan^2\theta<5\times 10^{-3}$.
333: \item for the large angle solution,
334: $r<0.1$ and $10^{-1}<\tan^2\theta< 10$.
335: \end{enumerate}
336: Here $\tan^2\theta\equiv|U_{e2}/U_{e1}|^2$ and
337: $r$ is the ratio between the smallest mass square difference and
338: the second smallest one,
339: i.e $r\equiv\delta m^2_{\rm solar}/\delta m^2_{\rm atm}$.
340: \end{enumerate}
341: Notice that the criterion A is automatically satisfied in the model I,
342: while $|U_{e3}| \sim $ O(1) generally in the model II.
343:
344: To calculate the Majorana masses for left-handed neutrinos
345: in the model I, we need to fix the value of $\epsilon$.
346: To find how small value we should take for $\epsilon$,
347: we calculate the charged lepton masses with $Q_{e_i}=(0,1,2)$,
348: \begin{equation}
349: M_l \propto
350: \left(
351: \begin{array}{ c c c}
352: l_{11}\epsilon^{3} &l_{12}\epsilon^{2} & l_{13}\epsilon^{1} \\
353: l_{21}\epsilon^{2} &l_{22}\epsilon^{1} & l_{23}\epsilon^{0} \\
354: l_{31}\epsilon^{2} &l_{32}\epsilon^{1} & l_{33}\epsilon^{0}
355: \end{array}
356: \right),
357: \label{mlform}
358: \end{equation}
359: where $l_{ij}$'s are randomly generated coefficients
360: in the same way as $h_{ij}$ and $m_{ij}$.
361: To see how easily we can have a solution for a given set of coefficients,
362: we randomly generate 1000000 sets of the coefficients and
363: find how many sets can satisfy the following cuts.
364: \begin{eqnarray}
365: 14<&\frac{m_\tau}{m_\mu}&<20
366: \label{cuts}\\
367: 180<&\frac{m_\mu}{m_e}&<240\nonumber
368: \end{eqnarray}
369: The number of sets satisfying these cuts depends on the value of
370: $\epsilon$. From the dependence on $\epsilon$ of it in
371: fig.(\ref{leptoneps}), we can find that $\epsilon$ is likely in the
372: range between 0.05 and 0.1.\footnote{The absolute values of the vertical
373: axis depends on how tightly we select samples, so only the shape of the
374: graph should be considered.} We find that the number of sets in the
375: model II satisfying the same cuts (eq,(\ref{cuts})) is almost the same
376: as that in the model I if the right-handed charged leptons $\bar
377: e_i$ have the FN U(1) charges 3,1,0.
378:
379:
380: \begin{figure}[h]
381: \unitlength 1cm
382: \begin{picture}(14,10.5)(0,0)
383: \put(14.1,0.1){\Large $\displaystyle \epsilon$}
384: \includegraphics[width=14cm,height=10.5cm,clip]{epsilon.eps}
385: \end{picture}
386: \caption{Dependence on $\epsilon$ of how easily we can get
387: solutions for lepton masses. The shape of the dependence does not change
388: with the tightness of the selection.}
389: \label{leptoneps}
390: \end{figure}
391:
392: %For simplicity, we use
393: %$\epsilon = 0.1$ in graphs and show the dependence of the
394: %predictions on $\epsilon$.
395:
396: From now on we show the results. We generate one million sets of
397: coefficients for each $\epsilon=(0.05,0.06,0.07,0.08,0.09,0.1)$ in the
398: model I and in the model II. Note that the parameter $\epsilon$ is
399: irrelevant to the neutrino mass matrix (see eq.(\ref{mlII})) in the
400: model II. First we see how many sets can remain after the constraints
401: (A,B and C) are imposed. It is summarized in table \ref{survive}, where we
402: list the number of sets separating the cases of small and large mixing
403: solar neutrino solutions.
404:
405: \begin{table}[hbt]
406: \begin{center}
407: \begin{tabular}{l|c|c}
408: &small mixing&large mixing\\
409: \hline\hline
410: I($\epsilon=0.05$)&81818&20025\\
411: \hline
412: I($\epsilon=0.06$)&64353&28837\\
413: \hline
414: I($\epsilon=0.07$)&51867&38638\\
415: \hline
416: I($\epsilon=0.08$)&42436&49616\\
417: \hline
418: I($\epsilon=0.09$)&34714&61220\\
419: \hline
420: I($\epsilon=0.1$)&29330&72372\\
421: \hline\hline
422: II&6&9703
423: \end{tabular}
424: \end{center}
425: \caption{Sample of how many sets can satisfy the criterion. Here,
426: ``small(large) mixing'' implies that the set satisfies the criterion for
427: the small(large) mixing angle solution to the solar neutrino problem.}
428: \label{survive}
429: \end{table}
430:
431: In the model I, we have about 10\% sets of coefficients as solutions
432: independently of $\epsilon$. This was first pointed out in
433: ref.\cite{vissani}. On the contrary, in the model II about 1 \% sets can
434: satisfy the criterion.\footnote{ Note that the model II is essentially
435: different from the idea of anarchy\cite{anarchy}, where the norms of all
436: Yukawa couplings vary from 0 to 1. Since they can take very small values
437: $\sim 0$, the probability realizing small $U_{e3}$ increases.} This
438: lower probability (1\%) comes mainly from the constraint
439: $|U_{e3}|<0.15$. We have also small mixing angle solutions in the model
440: I, whose physical reason will be discussed later. In fig. \ref{tan2-dm}
441: we show the relation between the solar angle $\tan^2\theta\equiv
442: |U_{e2}/U_{e1}|^2$ and the ratio of the mass square differences $r$.
443:
444: \begin{figure}[h]
445: \unitlength 1cm
446: \begin{picture}(14,9.5)(0,0)
447: \put(0,9.5){$\displaystyle r=\frac{\delta m^2_{\rm solar}}{\delta m^2_{atm}}$}
448: \put(13,-0.1){$\displaystyle |\frac{U_{e2}}{U_{e1}}|^2$}
449: \put(6,-0.3){model I ($\displaystyle \epsilon=0.1$)}
450: \includegraphics[width=13cm,height=9cm,clip]{tan2-dm-eps0.1.eps}
451: \end{picture}
452: \begin{picture}(14,10.5)(0,0)
453: \put(0,9.5){$\displaystyle r=\frac{\delta m^2_{\rm solar}}{\delta m^2_{atm}}$}
454: \put(13,-0.1){$\displaystyle |\frac{U_{e2}}{U_{e1}}|^2$}
455: \put(6,-0.3){model II }
456: \includegraphics[width=13cm,height=9cm,clip]{tan2-dm-ana.eps}
457: \end{picture}
458: \caption{Relations between the mixing angles and mass ratio. The shape of
459: the dependence does not change much with the tightness of the selection.}
460: \label{tan2-dm}
461: \end{figure}
462:
463: In the model II $r$ and $\tan^2\theta$ distribute almost uniformly
464: while in the model I, there is a disfavored region at right top end for
465: the large angle solutions. This disfavored region can be understood in
466: the following way. First we note that the Majorana mass matrix takes the
467: form of eq.(\ref{symmetry}). By diagonalizing the dominant 2 by 2 part,
468: we will have the following mass matrix,
469: \begin{equation}
470: \left(
471: \begin{array}{ c c c}
472: \epsilon^2 & \epsilon & \epsilon \\
473: \epsilon & \delta & 0 \\
474: \epsilon & 0 & 1
475: \end{array}
476: \right),
477: \label{eq11}
478: \end{equation}
479: %The requirement that $r$ should be less than 0.1 in large angle region
480: %implies $\delta$ is less than 0.3 since roughly
481: in which $\delta^2$ corresponds to $r$ approximately. At the same time
482: \begin{equation}
483: \tan\theta \simeq \epsilon/\delta\ {\rm for}\ \epsilon<\delta.
484: \end{equation}
485: Thus
486: \begin{equation}
487: r\times \tan^2\theta \simeq \epsilon^2
488: \label{dmtan2}
489: \end{equation}
490: and hence $\tan^2\theta>1 $ can be hardly obtained for $r\simeq 0.1$ and
491: $\epsilon \simeq 0.1$.
492:
493: The above arguement also shows the reason why we obtain the large mixing
494: angle solution for solar neutrino. However it is not complete. Due to
495: the uncertainties in the right-handed neutrino Majorana mass matrix, the
496: 33 element in eq.(\ref{eq11}) can be rather large and hence there is a
497: possibility to make $r$ sufficiently small keeping $\delta\sim$ O(1). In
498: this case the small mixing angle solution may be obtained. This
499: possibility was not found in \cite{vissani}, since the author of
500: ref\cite{vissani} considered only the effective operator,
501: \begin{eqnarray}
502: L&=&\frac{H^2}{M_R}\kappa_{ij}\nu_{Li}\nu_{Lj}.
503: \end{eqnarray}
504:
505:
506: Next we see the distribution of $U_{e3}$ which is one of the most
507: important parameters in the next generation neutrino oscillation
508: experiments. In fig. \ref{ue3} we show the distributions of $U_{e3}$ for
509: both models which satisfy our criterion (A,B and C). From
510: eq.(\ref{symmetry}), $U_{e3}$ in the model I is expected to be
511: proportional to $\epsilon$. Indeed this scaling can be seen
512: numerically. On the contrary, since there is no symmetry which
513: distinguishes the generation in the model II, $U_{e3}$ is likely to be
514: large and indeed this is seen in fig. \ref{ue3}. In both models
515: $U_{e3}$ is expected to be large enough to be observed in future
516: oscillation experiments like neutrino factory\cite{geer}.
517:
518:
519: \begin{figure}[h]
520: \unitlength 1cm
521: \begin{picture}(14,9.5)(0,0)
522: \put(13,-0.1){$\displaystyle |U_{e3}|$}
523: \put(6,-0.3){model I ($\displaystyle \epsilon=0.1$)}
524: \includegraphics[width=13cm,height=9cm,clip]{ue3-eps0.1.eps}
525: \end{picture}
526: \begin{picture}(14,10.5)(0,0)
527: \put(13,-0.1){$\displaystyle |U_{e3}|$}
528: \put(6,-0.3){model II }
529: \includegraphics[width=13cm,height=9cm,clip]{ue3-ana.eps}
530: \end{picture}
531: \caption{Distributions of $|U_{e3}|$.}
532: \label{ue3}
533: \end{figure}
534:
535:
536: Next we consider how large CP violation can be seen in neutrino
537: oscillation experiments. The magnitude of CP violation
538: is characterized by the Jarlskog parameter\cite{jarlskog}
539: with the Paticle Data Group notation for mixing matrix\cite{PDG}
540: \begin{eqnarray}
541: J&\equiv&|{\rm Im}(U^*_{\alpha i} U^*_{\beta j} U_{\alpha j} U_{\beta i})|
542: \label{defJ}\\
543: &=&|{\rm Im}(U^*_{e3} U^*_{\mu 2} U_{e2} U_{\mu 3})|\nonumber\\
544: &=&\frac{1}{4} |\sin\theta_{13} \cos^2\theta_{13} \sin 2\theta_{23}
545: \sin 2\theta_{12} \sin\delta|.\nonumber
546: \end{eqnarray}
547: Here $\sin\theta_{13}$ is $U_{e3}$, $\theta_{23}$ and $\theta_{12}$
548: almost correspond to $\theta_{\rm atm}$ and $\theta_{solar}$,
549: respectively and $\delta$ is the CP violating phase.
550: %Note that as a function of $\theta_{13}$ $J$ takes its maximum value
551: %when $\sin\theta_{13}=U_{e3}=1/\sqrt{3}$.
552: The distributions of $|J|$ are shown in fig.\ref{J}. To draw the
553: graph for the model I, we use only samples which reproduce the large
554: angle solution for solar neutrino, since samples with the small angle
555: solution make $J$ much smaller which may not be observable.
556:
557: \begin{figure}[h]
558: \unitlength 1cm
559: \begin{picture}(13,9.5)(0,0)
560: \put(13,-0.1){$\displaystyle J$}
561: \put(6,-0.3){model I ($\displaystyle \epsilon=0.1$)}
562: \includegraphics[width=13cm,height=9cm,clip]{j-eps0.1.eps}
563: \end{picture}
564: \begin{picture}(14,10.5)(0,0)
565: \put(13,-0.1){$\displaystyle J$}
566: \put(6,-0.3){model II }
567: \includegraphics[width=13cm,height=9cm,clip]{j-ana.eps}
568: \end{picture}
569: \caption{Distributions of $J$. The number of $J$ in the right bin means
570: that of $J>0.029$.}
571: \label{J}
572: \end{figure}
573:
574: The dependence on $\epsilon$ of $J$ in the model I is $J\sim\epsilon$
575: since $U_{e3}$ is proportional to $\epsilon$ as we see in fig.\ref{ue3},
576: while the other angles including CP violating phase are of O(1). That
577: is,
578: \begin{eqnarray}
579: J &\sim&
580: \begin{array}{ccccc}
581: 0.25&\times&U_{e3}&\times&{\rm\ other\ contribution\ in
582: \ eq.(\ref{defJ}) } \\
583: {\rm prefactor}& &\epsilon&&{\rm O(1)}\\
584: \end{array}\\
585: &\simeq&0.1\epsilon.
586: \nonumber
587: \end{eqnarray}
588: %Here we roughly estimate the contributions by the terms of O(1)
589: %reduce $J$ by a several factor.
590: On the other hand, $J$ in the model II is estimated to be
591: \begin{eqnarray}
592: J &\sim&
593: \begin{array}{ccccc}
594: 0.25&\times&U_{e3}&\times&{\rm\ other\ contribution\ in
595: \ eq.(\ref{defJ}) } \\
596: {\rm prefactor}& &0.15&&{\rm O(1)}\\
597: \end{array}\\
598: &\sim& 0.01.
599: \nonumber
600: \end{eqnarray}
601: and hence slightly larger than that in the model I.
602:
603: In the realistic neutrino oscillation experiment, the measurable
604: quantity for CP violation is not $J$ itself but\cite{AKS}
605: \begin{equation}
606: \tilde J \equiv |J\times \frac{\delta m^2_{\rm solar}}{\delta m^2_{\rm atm}}|.
607: \end{equation}
608:
609: \begin{figure}[h]
610: \unitlength 1cm
611: \begin{picture}(14,9.5)(0,0)
612: \put(13,-0.1){$\displaystyle \tilde J$}
613: \put(6,-0.3){model I ($\displaystyle \epsilon=0.1$)}
614: \includegraphics[width=13cm,height=9cm,clip]{jtilde-eps0.1.eps}
615: \end{picture}
616: \begin{picture}(14,10.5)(0,0)
617: \put(13,-0.1){$\displaystyle \tilde J$}
618: \put(6,-0.3){model II }
619: \includegraphics[width=13cm,height=9cm,clip]{jtilde-ana.eps}
620: \end{picture}
621: \caption{Distributions of $\tilde J \equiv |J\times r|$.
622: The number of $\tilde J$ in the right bin means
623: that of $\tilde J>0.0009$ for the model I and $\tilde J>0.00145$ for the
624: model II.}
625: \label{tildeJ}
626: \end{figure}
627:
628: In fig.\ref{tildeJ} we plot the distribution of $|\tilde J|$.
629: The dependence on $\epsilon$ of $\tilde J$ in the model I is rather
630: complicated. Due to eq.(\ref{dmtan2}),
631: \begin{eqnarray}
632: \tilde J &\sim&
633: \begin{array}{ccccccc}
634: 0.5&\times&U_{e3}&\times&
635: \frac{\delta m^2_{\rm solar}}{\delta m^2_{\rm atm}} \tan\theta_{12}
636: &\times&{\rm\ other\ contribution\ in
637: \ eq.(\ref{defJ}) } \\
638: {\rm prefactor}& &\sim\epsilon&&
639: \epsilon^2/\tan\theta_{12}&&{\rm O(1)}\\
640: \end{array}\\
641: &\simeq&0.1\times \epsilon^3.
642: \nonumber
643: \end{eqnarray}
644: On the contrary $\tilde J$ in the model II
645: is estimated easily as
646: \begin{equation}
647: J\times\frac{\delta m^2_{\rm solar}}{\delta m^2_{\rm atm}} \sim 0.01 \times
648: (0.1 - 0.01) \sim ( 0.001 - 0.0001 ).
649: \end{equation}
650: Thus, there is a possibility to measure CP violation in the next
651: generation neutrino oscillation experiments for the model II while there
652: seems to be little hope to see CP violation in the near future
653: experiments\cite{CP} for the model I.
654:
655:
656: \begin{figure}[h]
657: \unitlength 1cm
658: \begin{picture}(14,9.5)(0,0)
659: \put(13,-0.1){$\displaystyle m_{ee}$ [eV]}
660: \put(6,-0.3){model I ($\displaystyle \epsilon=0.1$)}
661: \includegraphics[width=13cm,height=9cm,clip]{mee-eps0.1.eps}
662: \end{picture}
663: \begin{picture}(14,10.5)(0,0)
664: \put(13,-0.1){$\displaystyle m_{ee}$ [eV]}
665: \put(6,-0.3){model II }
666: \includegraphics[width=13cm,height=9cm,clip]{mee-ana.eps}
667: \end{picture}
668: \caption{Distributions of $m_{ee}$.The number of $m_{ee}$ in the right
669: bin for the model I means that of $m_{ee}>0.00095$ eV.}
670: \label{mee}
671: \end{figure}
672:
673: Finally, we calculate $m_{ee}\equiv |\sum_i U^2_{ei}m_i|$ which is a crucial
674: parameter to determine the 2$\beta$0$\nu$ decay rate. In fig.\ref{mee}
675: we show the distributions of $m_{ee}$ in the both models. In the
676: figure, we have assumed $\delta m^2_{\rm atm}=3\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$.
677: The dependence on $\epsilon$ of $m_{ee}$ in the model I is very simple.
678: Due to eq.(\ref{symmetry}),
679: \begin{eqnarray}
680: m_{ee} &\sim& \sqrt{3\times 10^{-3}} \epsilon^2
681: \label{meeI}\\
682: &\simeq&0.05\times \epsilon^2\ {\rm eV}.
683: \nonumber
684: \end{eqnarray}
685: On the contrary $m_{ee}$ in the model II is naively expected to be
686: $\sqrt{3\times 10^{-3}}\sim 0.05$ eV. However the samples which satisfy
687: our criterion prefer values lower by almost one order of magnitude.
688:
689: Again, there is a possibility to find the 2$\beta$0$\nu$ decay in the
690: next generation experiments for the model II while there is little hope to
691: see it in the near future experiments for the model I.\cite{nuless}
692:
693: In conclusion, we summarize the results. There are two kinds of FN U(1)
694: charges which realize lopsided structure for the lepton doublets mass
695: matrices, i.e the model I (001) and the model II(000). These two sets of
696: charge assignments have very different feature from each other and hence
697: it is testable in the near future experiments which type is likely the
698: case.
699:
700: We have considered first the solar neutrino oscillation. In the model
701: II we hardly get a small angle solution to the solar neutrino problem,
702: so if the solar neutrino deficit is explained by the small angle
703: solution, then the model II will be rejected. In the model I there is a
704: disfavored region, which is explained by eq.(\ref{dmtan2}), and hence if
705: it explains the solar neutrino deficit then the model I will be
706: disfavored.
707:
708: Next we have discussed the distribution of $U_{e3}$. Unfortunately
709: as is seen in fig.\ref{ue3} it is very difficult to distinguish the
710: model I from the model II by this angle.
711:
712: Then we have studied CP violation in the lepton sector. As is shown in
713: fig's.\ref{J} and \ref{tildeJ}, it seems difficult to see CP violation
714: in the next generation neutrino oscillation experiments in the model I,
715: while there is a possibility to observe it in the model II. Therefore,
716: if we detect the CP violation in the lepton sector then the model II
717: will be favored.
718:
719: Finally, we have examined how large $m_{ee}\equiv \sum_i U^2_{ei}m_i$
720: can be, which is a key element for 2$\beta$0$\nu$ decay. The
721: distribution of it in the model I shows the expected shape from
722: eq.(\ref{meeI}) as is seen in fig\ref{mee}, while in the model II its
723: magnitude is smaller almost by one order of magnitude than that naively
724: expected. However, $m_{ee}$ in the model II lies in the range
725: accessible in the near future experiments while it will be harder to see
726: 2$\beta$0$\nu$ decay in the model I.
727:
728:
729: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
730: \subsection*{Acknowledgments}
731: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
732:
733: The authors are grateful to N. Haba and H. Murayama for useful discussions.
734: The work of J. S is supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
735: Research of the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture,
736: \#12047221, \#12740157.
737: The work of T.Y is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid,
738: Priority Area ``Supersymmetry and Unified Theory of Elementary
739: Particles''(\#707).
740:
741:
742:
743:
744: %%%%%%%%%%
745:
746:
747: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
748: \bibitem{FN} C.D.~Froggatt and H.B.~Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B147}
749: (1979) 277.
750:
751: \bibitem{SK}
752: Y.~Fukuda {\it et al.} [Superkamiokande Collaboration],
753: Phys. Lett. {\bf B433} (1998) 9;
754: Phys. Lett. {\bf B436} (1998) 33;
755: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81} (1998) 1562.
756:
757: \bibitem{SY} J. ~Sato and T. ~Yanagida, Phys. Lett. {\bf B430} (1998) 127;
758: Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 77 (1999) 293.\\
759: W. Buchmuller and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. {\bf B445} (1999) 399.
760:
761: \bibitem{Lop}C. H. Albright, K.S. Babu and S.M. Barr ,
762: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81} (1998) 1167.\\
763: N. Irges, S. Lavignac and P. Ramond,
764: Phys. Rev. {\bf D58} (1998) 035003.
765:
766: \bibitem{HKY}
767: J.~Hisano , K. ~Kurosawa and Y. ~Nomura,
768: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B584} (2000) 3.
769:
770: \bibitem{seesaw}
771: T. Yanagida,
772: {\it in} Proc. Workshop on the unified theory and
773: the baryon number in the universe, (Tsukuba, 1979),
774: {\it eds.} O. Sawada and S. Sugamoto,
775: Report KEK-79-18 (1979);\\
776: M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky,
777: {\it in} ``Supergravity''
778: (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979)
779: {\it eds.} D.Z. Freedman and P. van Nieuwenhuizen.
780:
781: \bibitem{Exp} G.L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone and G. Scioscia
782: Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 033001\\
783: M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia and C. Pea-Garay, hep-ph/0009041.
784:
785: \bibitem{CHOOZ}
786: M. Apollonio {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B466} (1999) 415.
787:
788: \bibitem{solarK} Super--Kamiokande Collaboration, Y. Fukuda {\it et al.},
789: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81} (1998) 1158 ; Erratum {\bf 81} (1998) 4279 ;
790: {\bf 82} (1999) 1810; {\bf 82} (1999) 2430 ;
791: Y. Suzuki, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 77} (1999) 35.
792:
793: \bibitem{vissani}F. Vissani, JHEP 9811 (1998) 025.
794:
795: \bibitem{anarchy}L. Hall, H. Murayama and N. Weiner,
796: Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 2572.
797:
798: \bibitem{geer} S. Geer, Phys. Rev. {\bf D57} (1998) 6989,
799: Erratum-ibid {\bf D59} (1999) 039903.
800:
801: \bibitem{jarlskog} C. Jarlskog, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 55} (1985) 1039.
802:
803: \bibitem{PDG}
804: Particle Data Group Eur. Phys. J. C15 (2000) 1.
805:
806: \bibitem{AKS}
807: J.~Arafune, M.~Koike and J.~Sato,
808: Phys. Rev. {\bf D56 } (1997) 3093, Erratum-ibid. {\bf D60} (1999) 119905.
809:
810: \bibitem{CP}J Sato, hep-ph/0008056\\
811: B. Richter, hep-ph/0008222 \\
812: A. Cervera, A. Donini, M.B. Gavela, J.J. Gomez Cadenas, P. Hernandez,
813: O. Mena and S. Rigolin, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B579} (2000)17.
814:
815: \bibitem{nuless} J.~Hellmig and H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus,
816: Z. Phys. {\bf A359} (1997) 351.\\
817: Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and M. Hirsch,
818: Z. Phys. {\bf A359} (1997) 361.
819:
820: \end{thebibliography}
821: \end{document}
822: