1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{epsf}
3: \textwidth 6.0in
4: \textheight 9.0in
5: \topmargin 0.0in
6: \oddsidemargin 0.5in
7: \evensidemargin 0.5in
8: \parskip 0.08in
9: \parskip 0.3cm
10: \begin{document}
11: \baselineskip 24pt
12: \newcommand{\sheptitle}
13: {Effects of the scale-dependent vacuum expectation values in
14: the renormalisation group analysis of neutrino masses}
15: \newcommand{\shepauthor}
16: { N.Nimai Singh\footnote{Permanent Address: Department of Physics,
17: Gauhati University, Guwahati -781014, India}}
18:
19:
20:
21:
22: \newcommand{\shepaddress}
23: { Department of Physics and Astronomy,
24: University of Southampton, Southampton,
25: SO17 1BJ, U.K.}
26:
27:
28:
29: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
30: \newcommand{\shepabstract}
31: {The contribution of scale-dependent vacuum expectation values (VEVs)
32: of Higgs scalars, which gives significant effects in the evolution of
33: fundamental fermion masses in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model
34: (MSSM), is now considered in the derivation of
35: the one-loop analytic expression for the evolution of the
36: left-handed Majorana neutrino masses with energies. The inclusion of such
37: effect of the running VEV
38: increases the stability of the neutrino
39: masses under quantum corrections even for low values of
40: $\tan\beta \geq 1.42$ at
41: the scale $\mu =10^{12}$GeV, and leads to a mild
42: decrease of neutrino masses with higher energies. Such trend
43: is common to that of other fundamental fermion masses.}
44:
45: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
46: \begin{titlepage}
47: \begin{flushright}
48: hep-ph/0009211\\
49: \end{flushright}
50: \begin{center}
51: {\large{\bf \sheptitle}}
52: \bigskip \\ \shepauthor \\ \mbox{} \\ {\it \shepaddress} \\ \vspace{.5in}
53: {\bf Abstract} \bigskip \end{center} \setcounter{page}{0}
54: \shepabstract
55: \end{titlepage}
56:
57:
58: In recent years a large number of theoretical papers were devoted to building
59: models for generating small neutrino masses and lepton mixings within or
60: outside
61: the framework of the Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) with extended $U(1)$ group[1].
62: Both analytic and numerical studies[2,3,4] have been carried out for
63: checking the
64: stability of the textures of neutrino mass matrix and lepton mixing matrix
65: under quantum
66: radiative corrections[5]. There are basically two approaches: the top-down
67: approach[2] which predicts the neutrino masses and mixings in terms of
68: GUT-parameters, and the bottom-up approach [6] which predicts the running
69: parameters at higher scales in terms of experimentally determined values
70: at low energies. In the top-down programme, one usually
71: starts with the running of a set of the RGEs for Yukawa matrices and gauge
72: couplings in the MSSM (or SM), with three right-handed heavy neutrinos,
73: taking into account the effects of the heavy neutrino mass thresholds,
74: from GUT
75: scale down to the lightest right-handed neutrino mass scale $(M_{R1})$.
76: This fixes the left-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrix $m_{LL}(M_{R1})$
77: through the see-saw mechanism[7] at this scale,
78: \begin{equation}
79: m_{LL}(M_{R1})=v^2_{u}Y_{\nu}(M_{R1})M^{-1}_{RR}Y_{\nu}^{T}(M_{R1})
80: \end{equation}
81: Below this scale $M_{R1}$ the right-handed neutrinos decouple from the theory,
82: and the neutrino mass matrix in Eq.(1) is taken as[2]
83: \begin{equation}
84: m_{LL}(M_{R1})=v^2_{u}\kappa (M_{R1})
85: \end{equation}
86: where $\kappa$ is the coefficient of the dimension 5 neutrino mass operator.
87: In the energy range from $M_{R1}$ down to
88: low energy at $m_t$, the running of the coefficient $\kappa$ in the diagonal
89: charged lepton basis,
90: fixes the neutrino mass matrix at scale $m_t$,
91: \begin{equation}
92: m_{LL}(m_t)=v_u^2\kappa(m_t).
93: \end{equation}
94: In the above discussion only the scale-dependence of
95: $\kappa$ is considered, and not the running of the vacuum
96: expectation value(VEV),$v_u$ in Eqs.(1)-(3). This led to the increase of
97: neutrino mass eigenvalues with energy scales, giving significant effect
98: for low $\tan\beta$ values.
99: As it is strongly $\tan\beta$ dependent, this efect may lead to the
100: instability of the neutrino masses
101: under quantum radiative corrections\footnote
102: {In Refs.[3,4] the stability condition is decided by the change in
103: texture of neutrino mass matrix only. Here we emphasise that changing
104: pattern of the overall magnitudes of neutrino mass eigenvalues at different
105: energies, may also cause instability.}. For higher values of $\tan\beta$
106: the stability is again improved.
107: Such increasing trend of neutrino mass eigenvalues
108: with the increase in energies, is opposite to that of the general trend
109: shown by
110: other fundamental fermions (charged leptons and quarks)[8,9].
111: The effects of the contributions of the scale-dependent vacuum expectation values(VEVs)
112: of Higgs scalars in the one-loop analytic expressions, in the evolution of
113: quarks
114: and charged leptons masses at higher energies in the MSSM, had been studied
115: in Ref.(8), and this effect is quite significant.
116:
117:
118: In this paper we study the stability of the magnitudes of neutrino
119: masses at low $\tan\beta$ and their running behaviour at different energies,
120: by considering
121: the scale-dependence[10] of the vacuum expectation
122: value (VEV), $v_{u}$, along with that of $\kappa$. The expression in Eq.(3)
123: is now modified as
124: \begin{equation}
125: m_{LL}(t)=v_u^2(t)\kappa(t)
126: \end{equation}
127: where $v_u(t_0)=v_0\sin\beta$, $v_0=174$GeV, $t=\ln\mu,
128: t_0=\ln m_t$. The above equation(4) can be written as
129: \begin{equation}
130: \frac{d\ln m_{LL}(t)}{dt}=\frac{d\ln\kappa (t)}{dt} +
131: 2\frac{d\ln v_{u}(t)}{dt}
132: \end{equation}
133: where the second term on the right-hand side of the above equation
134: is the contribution from the running of the VEV.
135: The RGEs for $v_u$ [8,10] and $\kappa$ [2,5]in the diagonal charged
136: lepton basis, for one-loop order in MSSM, in the energy range
137: $t\geq t_0$, are given by
138: \begin{equation}
139: \frac{d\ln v_u}{dt}=\frac{1}{16\pi^2}[\frac{3}{20}g_1^2 + \frac{3}{4}g_2^2
140: -3h_t^2],
141: \end{equation}
142: and,
143: \begin{equation}
144: \frac{d\ln\kappa}{dt}=-\frac{1}{16\pi^2}[\frac{6}{5}g_1^2 + 6g_2^2
145: -6h_t^2 -\delta_{i3}h_\tau^2 - \delta_{3j}h_\tau^{2}]
146: \end{equation}
147: respectively. Substituition of Eqs.(6,7) in Eq.(5) gives
148: \begin{equation}
149: \frac{d\ln m_{LL}}{dt}=\frac{1}{16\pi^2}[-\frac{9}{10}g_1^2 - \frac{9}{2}g_2^2
150: +\delta_{i3}h_\tau^2 + \delta_{3j}h_\tau^{2}]
151: \end{equation}
152: Upon integration from low scale $t_0=\ln m_t$ to high scale $t_{R1}=\ln M_{R1}$ where
153: $t_{R1}\geq t_0$,
154: we get the correct expression for the neutrino mass matrix at $t_0$,
155: \begin{equation}
156: \frac{(m_{LL}(t_0))_{ij}}{(m_{LL}(t_{R1}))_{ij}}=e^{(\frac{9}{10}I_{g1} +
157: \frac{9}{2}I_{g2})}
158: e^{-I_{\tau}(\delta_{i3} + \delta_{3j})},
159: \end{equation}
160: \begin{equation}
161: I_f=\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\int_{\ln m_t}^{\ln M_{R1}}h_{f}^{2}(t)dt,
162: \end{equation}
163: \begin{equation}
164: I_{g_i}=\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\int_{\ln m_t}^{\ln M_{R1}}g_{i}^2(t)dt
165: \simeq\ln\left(\frac{g_{i}(t_{R1})}{g_{i}(t_0)}\right)^{(1/b_i)}
166: \end{equation}
167: where $f=t,\tau$; $i=1,2,3$, and $b_i=(33/5,1,-3)$ for MSSM. The correct
168: expression in Eq.(9) will
169: certainly affect the earlier numerical results obtained without taking
170: the effect of the running VEV [2]
171: at scale $M_{R1}$.
172: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
173:
174:
175:
176: For simplicity we now follow the analysis of the RGEs for neutrino mass
177: eigenvalues[4].
178: With the inclusion of such scale-dependence of VEV in Eq.(6),
179: the RGEs for
180: the mass eigenvalues given in Ref.[4] in the diagonal charged lepton
181: basis, is now modified as,
182: \begin{equation}
183: \frac{d\ln m_{\nu a}}{dt}=\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\sum_{b=e,\mu,\tau}[
184: -\frac{9}{10}g_1^2 - \frac{9}{2}g_2^2 + 2h_b^{2}V_{ba}^2]
185: \end{equation}
186: where $a=1,2,3$, and $V_{ba}$ is the MNS mixing matrix element.
187: The correct expression for the neutrino mass ratio at different
188: energy scales, is also
189: obtained by integrating Eq.(12) as
190: \begin{equation}
191: R_{a}(t_{R1})=\frac{m_{\nu a}(t_{R1})}{m_{\nu a}(t_{0})}\approx
192: e^{-(\frac{9}{10}I_{g1}+ \frac{9}{2}I_{g2})}
193: e^{2 V_{\tau a}^{2}I_{\tau}}
194: \end{equation}
195: In getting Eq.(13) we have neglected very small effects due to $I_{\mu,e}$
196: compared to $I_{\tau}$, and also assumed $V_{\tau a}$ does not change much
197: in the integration range\footnote { Such approximation can be justified
198: for the calculation of the mass eigenvalues and their ratios as the
199: second exponential term in Eq.(13) gives almost 1 for low values of
200: $I_{\tau}$.}.
201: For a typical value of the element of MNS mixing matrix
202: $V_{\tau3}\simeq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$,
203: we can get the condition $m_{\nu3}(t_0) > m_{\nu3}(t_{R1})$ following
204: Eq.(13), which shows
205: a mild increase in neutrino masses with the decrease in energies,
206: even for small $\tan\beta\geq 1.42$. This is due to the fact that the
207: ratio $R_{3}(t_{R1})$
208: is now independent of $e^{6I_t}$ in the first exponential factor in Eq.(13).
209: The same is true in Eq.(9). In fact the contribution of the running VEV
210: effectively makes the replacement in the exponential factor:
211: \begin{equation}
212: e^{-(\frac{6}{5}I_{g1} + 6I_{g2}-6I_t)}\rightarrow
213: e^{-(\frac{9}{10}I_{g1} + \frac{9}{2}I_{g2})}
214: \end{equation}
215: in Eqs.(9,13).
216: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
217:
218:
219: We now study the effect of the running VEV in the evolution of squared
220: neutrino
221: mass difference,
222: $\bigtriangleup m^{2}_{ij}= |m_{\nu i}^{2}-m_{\nu j}^{2}|$
223: with energies. By taking square on both sides of Eq.(13), and considering
224: for two mass eigenvalues $a=i,j$, we get approximately,
225: \begin{equation}
226: \bigtriangleup m_{ij}^{2}(t_{R1})\approx
227: \bigtriangleup m_{ij}^{2}(t_{0})e^{-2(\frac{9}{10}I_{g1}
228: + \frac{9}{2}I_{g2})}
229: e^{4 V_{\tau i}^{2}I_{\tau}}
230: \end{equation}
231: where we assume that the small difference between $V_{\tau i}$ and
232: $V_{\tau j}$ for $i,j=1,2,3$, does not alter much the last exponential term
233: which can be approximately taken as $e^{4V^{2}_{\tau i}I_{\tau}}\simeq
234: e^{4V^{2}_{\tau j}I_{\tau}}\approx 1$ for the low values of $I_{\tau}$.
235: This amounts to neglecting small changes in the texture of neutrino
236: mass matrix which would be relevant for the evolution of mixing angles.
237: The evolution of $\bigtriangleup m_{ij}^{2}(t_{R1})$
238: is now stable with the effects of running VEV for both low and high values
239: of $\tan\beta$, otherwise it would have been
240: more strongly $\tan\beta$-dependent with $e^{12I_{t}}$ in the exponential
241: factor in the case where the effect of running VEV is not included,
242: causing more instability at low $\tan\beta$ values.
243:
244:
245:
246: The running of the ratio of two neutrino mass eigenvalues,
247: $R_{23}=m_{\nu2}/m_{\nu3}$
248: (and hence the running of $RR_{23}$)
249: is independent of the effect of running VEV, so that the ratio of ratios is,
250: \begin{equation}
251: RR_{23}(t_{R1})=\frac{R_{23}(t_{R1})}{R_{23}(t_{0})}\approx e^{-2\delta V_{\tau 32}^{2}I_{\tau}}
252: \end{equation}
253: where
254: \begin{equation}
255: \delta V_{\tau 32}^{2}=V_{\tau 3}^{2} - V_{\tau 2}^{2}
256: \end{equation}
257: which can be either positive, negative or zero. For the positive value,
258: $\delta V_{\tau 32}^{2}>0$
259: as in hierarchical
260: case[2], one gets the condition,
261: \begin{equation}
262: R_{23}(t_0)\geq R_{23}(t_{R1})
263: \end{equation}
264: which implies the increase in the neutrino mass ratio $m_{\nu2}/m_{\nu3}$
265: with the decrease in energies[2]. If we start with degenerate
266: neutrinos,
267: $m_{\nu2}=m_{\nu3}$ at the scale $M_{R1}$, then we would get
268: $m_{\nu2}>m_{\nu3}$ at scale $m_t$. This shows that nearly degenerate
269: neutrinos are not stable under quantum corrections[3].
270:
271: The above relations in Eqs.(16-18) for $a=2,3$, can be generalised
272: for any pair of mass eigenvalues $a=i,j$. For inverted hierarchical case [2]
273: with $m_{\nu 1}>m_{\nu 2}$, we may have $\delta V^{2}_{\tau 21}<0$
274: which leads to
275: \begin{equation}
276: R_{12}(t_0)\leq R_{12}(t_{R1})
277: \end{equation}
278: where the neutrino mass ratio $m_{\nu 1}/m_{\nu 2}$ decrease with
279: the decrease in energies[2]. The effect of the running VEV does not
280: change the textures of neutrino mass matrix and hence the MNS mixing matrix.
281: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
282:
283:
284:
285: Next we turn to numerical analysis of the RGEs in the bottom-up approach
286: in running from low energy scale $t_0$ to high energy scale,
287: replacing $t_{R1}$ by
288: running t in the above equations (9-19).
289: We make use of the following input values of the running fermion masses
290: $m_{i}(m_i)$ of the third family:
291: \begin{equation}
292: m_{t,b,\tau}=(166.5, 4.2, 1.785)GeV
293: \end{equation}
294: where, for heavy flavours(top and bottom quarks) the values are derived from
295: input pole-masses $m_t^{pole}=175.6$GeV [11] and $m_b^{pole}=4.7$GeV [12,13]
296: using
297: two-loop RGEs in QCD. The initial input values for the top, the bottom and
298: $\tau$-lepton Yukawa couplings at top-quark mass scale $t_0=\ln m_t$ in the RGEs in MSSM, are usually obtained as
299: \begin{equation}
300: h_{t}(t_0)=m_t/(174\sin\beta),
301: h_{b,\tau}(t_0)=m_{b,\tau}/(174\eta_{b,\tau}\cos\beta).
302: \end{equation}
303: Using the CERN-LEP measurements at $M_{Z}=91.18$GeV,
304: \begin{equation}
305: \alpha_{3}(M_Z)=0.118\pm 0.004, \alpha^{-1}(M_Z)=127.9\pm0.1,
306: \sin^{2}\theta_{\omega}(M_Z)=0.2313\pm 0.0003,
307: \end{equation}
308: we obtain the values of gauge couplings at scale $t_0$ using one-loop RGEs,
309: assuming the existence of one-light Higgs doublet (n=1) and five quark flavours below $m_t$ scale,
310: \begin{equation}
311: \alpha^{-1}_{1,2,3}(t_0)=58.42,29.67,8.89
312: \end{equation}
313: The QCD-QED rescaling factors [6] are calculated as
314: \begin{equation}
315: \eta_{f}=(1.54,1.017),f=b,\tau
316: \end{equation}
317: As a result of the numerical analysis of the RGEs for Yukawa and gauge
318: couplings at two-loop level[6] in the energy range $t_0<t<t_{U}$,
319: the unification of three
320: gauge couplings is observed at $M_{U}=1.82\times10^{16}$GeV.
321: The values of Yukawa couplings $(h_t,h_b,h_{\tau})$, gauge couplings
322: and values of integrals $I_{i}$ defined in Eqs.(10,11) for different
323: values of $\tan\beta=1.42-60.0$
324: are estimated at different energy scales.
325:
326:
327: We present our numerical results in Figs.(1-4) where the solid line
328: refers to the analysis with the effects of running VEV in the present
329: calculation (referred to as case A).
330: We also present the corresponding results without the effect of
331: running VEV in dotted line (referred to as case B) for comparison only.
332: With a typical
333: input value $V_{\tau 3}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$, the variation of the ratio
334: $R_{3}(t)$ defined in Eq.(13), with energy scales t for two
335: representative values of
336: $\tan\beta=1.63$ and
337: $ 57.29$, are presented in Figs.1 and 2 respectively. These figures show the
338: evolutions of neutrino
339: mass eigenvalue $m_{\nu 3}$ with the increase in energy scale.
340:
341:
342: We observe that for high value of $\tan\beta = 57.29$ in Fig.2,
343: the evolution of the ratio $R_{3}(t)=m_{\nu3}(t)/m_{\nu3}(t_0)$ is
344: almost stable in both cases A and B. However, for low value of $\tan\beta=1.63$
345: in Fig.1, there is a significant increase in $R_{3}(t)$ at higher energies
346: in case B. For example, at $\mu=1.82\times10^{16}$ GeV, the ratio $R_{3}(t)$
347: is
348: about $5.63$ in case B as shown in Fig.1 by dotted line.
349: Such unwanted feature
350: which may cause instability, is not present in
351: case A (solid line in Fig.1). Fig.3 shows the variation
352: of neutrino mass, $R_{3}(t_{R1})=m_{\nu 3}(t_{R1})/m_{\nu 3}(t_0)$ at a
353: particular scale, $t_{R1}=27.63 $ corresponding to $M_{R1}= 10^{12}GeV$,
354: with different values of
355: $\tan\beta = 1.42 - 60$. We see that
356: at low $\tan\beta\geq 1.42$ region there is a significant enhancement in
357: $R_{3}\leq 5.3$ in case B whereas the ratio is stable in case A for all
358: values
359: of $\tan\beta$.
360: For higher values of $\tan\beta$ the ratio is again stable in case B.
361: The same analysis is true for the cases of other two mass eigenvalues
362: with $a=1,2$.
363: Similar analysis can be done for the evolution of
364: $\bigtriangleup m^{2}_{ij}$ in Eq.(15), which would be very unstable
365: in the low $\tan\beta$ region in case B. However, it is now stable
366: for all values of $\tan\beta$ under radiative corrections at higher energies in case A.
367:
368:
369: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
370:
371: \vbox{
372: \noindent
373: \hfil
374: \vbox{
375: \epsfxsize=10cm
376: \epsffile[130 380 510 735]{newplot4.ps}}
377:
378: {\narrower\narrower\footnotesize\noindent
379: {Fig.1}
380: Variation of $R_{3}(t)=m_{\nu 3}(t)/m_{\nu 3}(t_0)$
381: with energies $t=\ln\mu$ for small value of $\tan\beta=1.63$. The results
382: with and without the effect of running VEV, are shown in solid line
383: and dotted line respectively.
384: \par}}
385:
386: \vbox{
387: \noindent
388: \hfil
389: \vbox{
390: \epsfxsize=10cm
391: \epsffile[130 380 510 735]{newplot1.ps}}
392:
393: {\narrower\narrower\footnotesize\noindent
394: {Fig.2}
395: Variation of $R_{3}(t)=m_{\nu 3}(t)/m_{\nu 3}(t_0)$
396: with energies $t=\ln\mu$ for large value of $\tan\beta=57.29$. The results
397: with and without the effect of running VEV are shown in
398: solid line and dotted line respectively.
399:
400: \par}}
401:
402: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
403:
404:
405: \vbox{
406: \noindent
407: \hfil
408: \vbox{
409: \epsfxsize=10cm
410: \epsffile[130 380 510 735]{newplot2.ps}}
411:
412: {\narrower\narrower\footnotesize\noindent
413: {Fig.3}
414: Variation of
415: $R_{3}(t_{R1})=m_{\nu 3}(t_{R1})/m_{\nu 3}(t_0)$
416: with $\ln(\tan\beta)$ for $M_{R1}=10^{12}GeV$. The results
417: with and without the effect of running VEV are shown in solid line
418: and dotted line respectively.
419: \par}}
420:
421: \vbox{
422: \noindent
423: \hfil
424: \vbox{
425: \epsfxsize=10cm
426: \epsffile[130 380 510 735]{newplot3.ps}}
427:
428: {\narrower\narrower\footnotesize\noindent
429: {Fig.4}
430: Variation of the ratio of the neutrino mass ratio
431: $RR_{23}(t)=(\frac{m_{\nu 2}(t)}
432: {m_{\nu 3}(t)})/ (\frac{m_{\nu 2}(t_0)}
433: {m_{\nu 3}(t_0)})$
434: with energies $t=\ln\mu$ for large value of $\tan\beta=57.29$.
435:
436: \par\bigskip}}
437:
438:
439: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
440: %\vbox{
441: %\noindent
442: %\hfil
443: %\hbox{
444: %\epsfxsize=7cm
445: %\epsffile[130 380 510 735]{newplot.ps}}
446: %\hbox{
447: %\epsfxsize=7cm
448: %\epsffile[130 380 510 735]{newplot1.ps}}
449:
450: %{\narrower\narrower\footnotesize\noindent
451: %{FIG. 23}
452: %Caption dsfds fsdf sdfsdf
453: %\par\bigskip}}
454:
455: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
456:
457: Finally, we study the relative rates of the evolution of two neutrino mass
458: eigenvalues in terms of their ratio, $R_{23}=m_{\nu2}/m_{\nu3}$
459: given in Eq.(16), in going from low to high
460: energies. We consider high value of $\tan\beta=57.29$ where the effect of
461: $I_{\tau}$ is large, and this ratio increases with the decrease in
462: energies by a few percent only. This is shown in Fig.4 where we present
463: the evolution of the ratio of the ratios $RR_{23}(t)$ in Eq.(16)
464: with energies.
465: This leads to a mild increase in the hierarchical relation,
466: $m_{\nu 2}/m_{\nu 3}$ at lower energies. As noted earlier,
467: such hierarchical ratios are
468: independent of the effect of running VEV.
469: Finally we point out the changes aring from the running of VEV in
470: the earlier calculations[2] of neutrino masses. The earlier results at
471: low scale $m_t$
472: in Ref.[2] do not change at all. However if we prefer to express the
473: neutrino mass matrix at higher scale $M_{R1}$, then we have to take the
474: effect of running VEV, $v_{u}(t_{R1})$ in place of $v_{u}(t_0)$,
475: which modifies the earlier numerical results at
476: the scale $M_{R1}$.
477:
478:
479: To conclude, we have considered the contributions of scale-dependent
480: vacuum expectation values (VEVs) of Higgs scalars in deriving one-loop
481: analytic expression for running the
482: left-handed Majorana neutrino masses with energies
483: in the MSSM. This gives significant changes in the expression of the
484: evolution of neutrino masses, and also increases the stability
485: of the neutrino
486: masses under quantum corrections even for low $\tan\beta$. We observed
487: a mild decreasing trend of neutrino masses with higher energies, which
488: is now common to that of all other fermion masses in nature.
489:
490:
491: \section*{Acknowledgement}
492: The author would like to thank S.F.King for useful discussions and M.Oliveira
493: for helping in computations.
494:
495:
496:
497: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
498: \bibitem{ref1}
499: R.N.Mohapatra, hep-ph/9910365; H.Fritzsch and Z.Z.Xing, hep-ph/ 9912358;
500: S.M.Barr and Ilja Dorsner, hep-ph/ 0003058; G. Altarelli, F. Feruglio
501: and I. Masina, Phys. Lett. {\bf B472} (2000) 472; S.F.King, Nucl. Phys.
502: {\bf B562} (1999)
503: 57; {\it ibid}, Nucl. Phys.{\bf B576} (2000) 85; J. Ellis,
504: G. K. Leontaris, S.Lola,
505: D.V. Nanopoulos, Eur. Phys. J.{\bf C9} (1999) 389; S. Lola and G. Ross,
506: Nucl. Phys.{\bf B553} (1999) 81; R. Barbieri, P.Creminelli and A. Romanino,
507: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B559} (1999) 17.
508:
509: \bibitem{ref2}
510: S.F.King and N.Nimai Singh,hep-ph/0007243, hep-ph/0006229.
511:
512: \bibitem{ref3}
513: N.Haba and N.Okamura, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C14} (2000) 347;
514: J.A.Casas, J.R.Espinosa, A.Ibarra and I.Navarro, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B556}
515: (1999) 3; hep-ph/9904395; hep-ph/9905381;
516: J.Ellis, S.Lola, Phys. Lett. {\bf B458} (1999) 310;
517: K.R.S.Balaji, A.S.Dighe, R.N.Mohapatra, M.K.Parida, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}
518: (2000) 5034;
519:
520:
521:
522: \bibitem{ref4}
523: P.H.Chankowski, W.Krolikowski and S.Pokorski, Phys. Lett. {\bf B473} (2000)
524: 109.
525:
526: \bibitem{ref5}
527: K.S.Babu, C.N.Leung and J.Pantaleone, Phys. Lett. {\bf B319} (1993) 319;
528: P.H.Chankowski and Z.Pluciennik, Phys. Lett. {\bf B316} (1993) 312.
529:
530: \bibitem{ref6}
531:
532: V.Barger, M.S.Berger and P.Ohmann, Phys. Rev. {\bf D47} (1993) 1093;
533: M.K.Parida and N.Nimai Singh, Phys. Rev. {\bf D59} (1999) 32002.
534:
535: \bibitem{ref7}
536: M.Gell-Mann, P.Ramond and R.Slansky in Sanibel Talk, CALT-68-709,
537: Feb 1979, and in Supergravity ( North Holland, Amsterdam 1979);
538: T. Yanagida in Proc. of the workshop on Unified Theory and Baryon
539: Number of the Universe, KEK, Japan, 1979;
540: R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 44} (1980)
541: 912; Phys. Rev. {\bf D23} (1981) 165.
542:
543: \bibitem{ref8}
544: M.K.Parida and B.Purkayastha, Eur. J. Phys. {\bf C14} (2000) 159.
545:
546: \bibitem{ref9}
547: H. Fusaoka and Y.Koide, Phys. Rev. {\bf D57} (1998) 3986;
548: S.R.Juarez W., S. F. Herrera H., P. Kielanowski and G. Mora H., hep-ph/
549: 0009148.
550:
551: \bibitem{ref10}
552: H.Arason, D.T.Castano, B.Kesthelyi, S.Mikaelian, E.J.Piard and P.Ramond, Phys. Rev. {\bf D9} (1992) 3945;
553: D.J.Castano, E.J.Piard and P.Ramond, Phys. Rev. {\bf D49} (1994) 4882.
554:
555:
556: \bibitem{ref11}
557: M.C.Smith and S.S.Willenbrock, Phys. Lett. {\bf 79} (1997) 3825.
558:
559: \bibitem{ref12}
560: N.Gray, D.Broadhurst, W.Grafe and K.Schilcher, Z. Phys. {\bf C48}
561: (1990) 673.
562:
563: \bibitem{ref13}
564: P. Abreu et.al., DELPHI Collab. CERN - PPE/97-141(1997);
565: N. Nimai Singh and S. Biramani Singh, Indian J.Phys. {\bf 73A (3)}(1999) 439.
566:
567:
568: \end{thebibliography}
569:
570: \end{document}
571:
572:
573:
574:
575:
576:
577:
578:
579:
580:
581:
582: