1: \documentstyle[12pt,axodraw]{article}
2: \def\baselinestretch{1.20}
3: \parskip 5pt plus 1pt
4: \catcode`@=12
5: \topmargin -0.5in
6: \evensidemargin 0.0in
7: \oddsidemargin 0.0in
8: \textheight 8.5in
9: \textwidth 6.5in
10: \begin{document}
11: \thispagestyle{empty}
12: \begin{flushright}
13: UCRHEP-T326\\
14: TIFR/TH/01-48\\
15: November 2001\
16: \end{flushright}
17: \vspace{0.5in}
18: \begin{center}
19: {\LARGE \bf Anomalous Neutrino Interaction, Muon g-2,\\
20: and Atomic Parity Nonconservation\\}
21: \vspace{1.5in}
22: {\bf Ernest Ma$^a$ and D. P. Roy$^b$\\}
23: \vspace{0.2in}
24: {$^a$ \sl Physics Department, University of California, Riverside,
25: California 92521, USA\\}
26: \vspace{0.1in}
27: {$^b$ \sl Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai (Bombay) 400005,
28: India\\}
29: \vspace{1.5in}
30: \end{center}
31: \begin{abstract}\
32: We propose a simple unified description of two recent precision
33: measurements which suggest new physics beyond the Standard Model
34: of particle interactions, i.e. the deviation of $\sin^2 \theta_W$ in deep
35: inelastic neutrino-nucleon scattering and that of the anomalous magnetic
36: moment of the muon. Our proposal is also consistent with a third precision
37: measurement, i.e. that of parity nonconservation in atomic Cesium, which
38: agrees with the Standard Model.
39: \end{abstract}
40: \newpage
41: \baselineskip 24pt
42:
43: The minimal Standard Model (SM) of particle interactions is consistent with
44: all present experimental data with only a few possible exceptions.
45: One such is a recent measurement \cite{nutev} of the electroweak
46: parameter $\sin^2 \theta_W$ from $\nu_\mu$ and $\bar \nu_\mu$ interactions
47: with nucleons, which claims a three-standard-deviation departure from the SM
48: prediction. Another is the measurement \cite{g-2} of the
49: anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, which originally claimed a value
50: higher than the SM prediction by 2.6 standard deviations \cite{qcd}, but
51: is now revised down to only 1.6$\sigma$ after a theoretical sign error has
52: been corrected \cite{cor}. A third
53: important constraint comes from the measurement \cite{apv} of parity
54: nonconservation in atomic Cesium, which was thought to be in disagreement
55: with the SM, but subsequent improved theoretical calculations \cite{improved}
56: have shown it to be in good agreement. In addition, the phenomonena
57: of neutrino oscillations are now well-established \cite{atm,solar} which
58: suggest strongly that neutrinos have mass and mix with one another.
59:
60: In this paper we propose a simple unified description of all the above
61: effects by extending the SM to include the gauge symmetry $L_\mu -
62: L_\tau$ \cite{hjlv}. The relevance of this symmetry to the muon $g-2$ value
63: and neutrino mass has been discussed by us in a previous paper \cite{maroy,
64: others}. Here we focus on how it can also explain the NuTeV result
65: \cite{nutev} and its other possible experimental consequences.
66:
67: Our model assumes the anomaly-free gauge symmetry $U(1)_X$ with gauge boson
68: $X$ which couples to $(\nu_\mu,\mu)_L$, $\mu_R$ with charge $+1$ and to
69: $(\nu_\tau,\tau)_L$, $\tau_R$ with charge $-1$, but not to any other fermion.
70: This means that it has the contribution
71: \begin{equation}
72: \Delta a_\mu = {g_X^2 m_\mu^2 \over 12 \pi^2 M_X^2}
73: \end{equation}
74: to the muon anomalous magnetic moment. It also contributes to $\nu_\mu$ and
75: $\bar \nu_\mu$ interactions, but since $X$ does not couple to quarks, the
76: NuTeV result \cite{nutev} is only affected if $X$ mixes with the $Z$ boson
77: of the SM. This also applies to atomic parity nonconservation.
78:
79: In our previous paper \cite{maroy}, we assume for simplicity that $X-Z$
80: mixing is zero by
81: the imposition of an interchange symmetry in the Higgs sector, but we also
82: mention that this symmetry cannot be maintained for the entire theory, so that
83: a small deviation is to be expected. This small deviation (corresponding to
84: a mixing angle of order $10^{-3}$) turns out to be just what is needed to
85: explain the NuTeV result, as shown below.
86:
87: The Higgs sector of our model consists of three doublets: $\Phi = (\phi^+,
88: \phi^0)$ with charge 0 and $\eta_{1,2} = (\eta^+_{1,2},\eta^0_{1,2})$ with
89: charge $\pm 1$ under $U(1)_X$. The mass matrix spanning $X$ and $Z$ is then
90: given by
91: \begin{equation}
92: {\cal M}^2_{XZ} = \left[ \begin{array} {c@{\quad}c} 2 g_X^2 (v_1^2 + v_2^2)
93: & g_X g_Z (v_1^2 - v_2^2) \\ g_X g_Z (v_1^2 - v_2^2) & (g_Z^2/2) (v_0^2 +
94: v_1^2 + v_2^2) \end{array} \right],
95: \end{equation}
96: where $v_0 \equiv \langle \phi^0 \rangle$ and $v_{1,2}^2 \equiv \langle
97: \eta^0_{1,2} \rangle$ with $v_0^2 + v_1^2 + v_2^2 = (2 \sqrt 2 G_F)^{-1}$.
98: Assuming that $v_1 \simeq v_2$ so that the $X-Z$ mixing is small, we then
99: have
100: \begin{equation}
101: M_Z^2 \simeq {1 \over 2} g_Z^2 (v_0^2 + 2 v_1^2), ~~~ M_X^2 \simeq
102: 4 g_X^2 v_1^2,
103: \end{equation}
104: with the $X-Z$ mixing angle given by
105: \begin{equation}
106: \sin \theta \simeq {g_X g_X (v_1^2 - v_2^2) \over M_X^2 - M_Z^2}.
107: \end{equation}
108:
109: The effective $\nu_\mu$ and $\bar \nu_\mu$ interactions with quarks has
110: the same structure as the SM, but the effective strength is changed from
111: $g_Z^2/M_Z^2$ to
112: \begin{eqnarray}
113: && g_Z^2 \left( {\cos^2 \theta \over M_Z^2} + {\sin^2 \theta \over M_X^2}
114: \right) - 2 g_X g_Z \sin \theta \cos \theta \left( {1 \over M_Z^2} - {1 \over
115: M_X^2} \right) \nonumber \\ && \simeq {g_Z^2 \over M_Z^2} \left[ 1 +
116: {2 g_X \over g_Z} \left( {M_Z^2 \over M_X^2} - 1 \right) \sin \theta \right]
117: \equiv {g_Z^2 \over M_Z^2} \rho_\mu.
118: \end{eqnarray}
119: Note that the factor of 2 in the $\sin \theta$ term comes from the fact that
120: $X$ couples to $\nu_\mu$ with strength 1 whereas $Z$ couples to $\nu_\mu$
121: with strength 1/2 $(=I_3)$.
122:
123: In the NuTeV analysis, if $\rho_\mu = 1$ is assumed, then $\sin^2 \theta_W
124: = 0.2277 \pm 0.0013 \pm 0.0009$, which deviates from the SM prediction of
125: $0.2227 \pm 0.00037$ by approximately $3\sigma$. On the other hand, if a
126: simultaneous fit to both $\rho_\mu$ and $\sin^2 \theta_W$ is made, they
127: obtain
128: \begin{equation}
129: \rho_\mu = 0.9983 \pm 0.0040, ~~~ \sin^2 \theta_W = 0.2265 \pm 0.0031,
130: \end{equation}
131: with a correlation coefficient of 0.85 between the two parameters. They
132: then suggest that one but not both of them may be consistent with SM
133: expectations. Here we choose to consider the deviation of the NuTeV result
134: as being due to $\rho_\mu$.
135:
136: The NuTeV analysis also makes a two-parameter fit in terms of the isoscalar
137: combinations of the effective neutral-current quark couplings, resulting in
138: \begin{equation}
139: (g_L^{eff})^2 = 0.3005 \pm 0.0014, ~~~ (g_R^{eff})^2 = 0.0310 \pm 0.0011,
140: \end{equation}
141: with a negligibly small correlation coefficient, whereas the SM
142: predictions are
143: \begin{equation}
144: (g_L^{eff})^2_{SM} = 0.3042, ~~~ (g_R^{eff})^2_{SM} = 0.0301.
145: \end{equation}
146: Now if we take for example $\rho_\mu = 0.9962$, then the above two values
147: become $(g_L^{eff})^2 = 0.3019$ and $(g_R^{eff})^2 = 0.0299$, placing them
148: both within $1\sigma$ of the experimental measurements.
149:
150: In atomic parity nonconservation, because $X$ does not couple to electrons,
151: we have
152: \begin{equation}
153: \rho_e = \cos^2 \theta + \sin^2 \theta \left( {M_Z^2 \over M_X^2} \right)
154: \simeq 1
155: \end{equation}
156: to a very good approximation. Thus there should be no deviation from the
157: SM, in agreement with experiment.
158:
159: From Eq.~(5) we obtain
160: \begin{equation}
161: \sin \theta = (\rho_\mu - 1) \left( {g_Z \over 2 g_X} \right) \left( {M_X^2
162: \over M_Z^2 - M_X^2} \right),
163: \end{equation}
164: which is of order $10^{-3}$ for $\rho_\mu = 0.9962$.
165: This will affect precision data at the $Z$ resonance in the following way.
166: First, the observed resonance is of course the physical $Z$ boson which
167: has a small $X$ component. However, since $X$ does not couple to electrons,
168: the production of $Z$ is only suppressed by $\cos^2 \theta$ which is
169: indistinguishable from 1. The decay of $Z$ to most fermions is also
170: unaffected because the suppression factor is again just $\cos^2 \theta$.
171: The exceptions are $Z \to \mu^+ \mu^-, ~ \bar \nu_\mu \nu_\mu, ~ \tau^+
172: \tau^-, ~ \bar \nu_\tau \nu_\tau$. Their effective couplings are
173: \begin{eqnarray}
174: \mu &:& g_V = -{1 \over 2} + 2 \sin^2 \theta_W - 2 \left( {g_X \over g_Z}
175: \right) \sin \theta, ~~~ g_A = -{1 \over 2}, \\
176: \nu_\mu &:& g_V = {1 \over 2} - 2 \left( {g_X \over g_Z} \right) \sin \theta,
177: ~~~ g_A = {1 \over 2} - 2 \left( {g_X \over g_Z} \right) \sin \theta, \\
178: \tau &:& g_V = -{1 \over 2} + 2 \sin^2 \theta_W + 2 \left( {g_X \over g_Z}
179: \right) \sin \theta, ~~~ g_A = -{1 \over 2}, \\
180: \nu_\tau &:& g_V = {1 \over 2} + 2 \left( {g_X \over g_Z} \right) \sin \theta,
181: ~~~ g_A = {1 \over 2} + 2 \left( {g_X \over g_Z} \right) \sin \theta.
182: \end{eqnarray}
183:
184: Precision measurements of $Z$ couplings at LEP-I give \cite{euro}
185: \begin{equation}
186: g^\mu_V = -0.0359 \pm 0.0033, ~~~ g^\tau_V = -0.0366 \pm 0.0014,
187: \end{equation}
188: where the smaller error on $g^\tau_V$ is due to the use of $\tau$
189: polarization along with the forward-backward asymmetry. Thus
190: \begin{equation}
191: g^\tau_V - g^\mu_V = 4 (g_X/g_Z) \sin \theta = -0.0007 \pm 0.0036,
192: \end{equation}
193: adding the two errors in quadrature. Consider now Eq.~(10) with the
194: more conservative choice
195: \begin{equation}
196: \rho_\mu = 0.9976
197: \end{equation}
198: which is within $1.6\sigma$ of the NuTeV measurement of $(g_L^{eff})^2$.
199: Comparing it to Eq.~(16), we then obtain the following $2\sigma$ bounds
200: on $M_X$:
201: \begin{equation}
202: M_X < 72~{\rm GeV} ~{\rm or}~ M_X > 178~{\rm GeV}.
203: \end{equation}
204:
205: A lower bound on $M_X$ as a function of $g_X$ is also available from LEP-I
206: data on $Z$ decay into the 4-muon final state via $Z \rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-
207: X$ \cite{maroy}. For example, if $g_X = 0.2$, then $M_X > 58$ GeV.
208: Furthermore, Eq.~(3) requires
209: \begin{equation}
210: g_X > {g_Z M_X \over 2 M_Z}.
211: \end{equation}
212: In Figure 1 we show the above lower limit on $g_X$ as well as the $2\sigma$
213: upper limits on $g_X$ as functions of $M_X$ from $Z \to \mu^+ \mu^- X$
214: decay and the difference of the $Z \to e^+ e^-$ and $Z \to \mu^+ \mu^-$
215: partial widths as the result of the $X$ radiative contribution. Details
216: are provided in Ref.~[9]. The $Z$ decay limit essentially rules out
217: $M_X < 60$ GeV. The analogous process $e^+ e^- \to \mu^+ \mu^- X$ at
218: LEP-II does not improve this bound, as already shown \cite{maroy}.
219: Thus we conclude that $M_X$ between 60 and 72 GeV is still allowed,
220: but perhaps $M_X > 178$ GeV is more likely.
221:
222: Going back to Eq.~(1) for the muon $g-2$ discrepancy, we note that
223: there is a theoretical \underline {lower} bound \cite{maroy} of $1.56 \times
224: 10^{-9}$ in this model, whereas the corrected \cite{cor} range of the
225: experimental discrepancy is $2.65 \pm 1.65 \times 10^{-9}$. This is
226: entirely consistent with the low $M_X$ solution, while in the case of the
227: high $M_X$ solution, the maximum deviation we get is $2.7 \times 10^{-9}$. In
228: either case, the $X$ boson signal will be too small to be observable at the
229: Fermilab Tevatron, but will be clearly visible at the CERN LHC \cite{maroy}
230: via the associated production processes $u \bar u (d \bar d) \to \mu \mu X$
231: and $u \bar d (d \bar u) \to \mu \nu X$. At a future muon collider, $X$
232: would be copiously produced, especially if it turns out to be light.
233:
234: To obtain naturally small Majorana neutrino masses, we may add one heavy
235: neutral fermion singlet $N_R$ with $U(1)_X$ charge 0 as in our previous
236: paper, but then an extra charged scalar boson $\zeta^+$ with charge +1
237: is needed there to get a second neutrino mass term, i.e. $\nu_e \nu_\tau$,
238: radiatively. A possible alternative is to add two $N_R$'s. One is
239: assumed to couple only to a linear combination of $(\nu_\mu \eta_2^0 -\mu_L
240: \eta^+_2)$ and $(\nu_\tau \eta^0_1 - \tau_L \eta_1^+)$, and the other to
241: $(\nu_e \phi^0 - e_L \phi^+)$ as well. Using the canonical seesaw
242: mechanism \cite{seesaw}, this structure allows for the appearance of two
243: massive neutrinos: one is predominantly a mixture of $\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\tau$,
244: the other is a linear combination of $\nu_e$ and the orthogonal $\nu_\mu -
245: \nu_\tau$ mixture. This may then lead to a consistent pattern of neutrino
246: masses and mixing for explaining the present atmospheric \cite{atm} and solar
247: \cite{solar} neutrino data.
248:
249: The interchange symmetry $\eta_1 \leftrightarrow \eta_2$ in the Higgs
250: sector allows us to assume $v_1 = v_2$, but this cannot be maintained
251: for the entire theory. If we try to extend this to the gauge sector, then
252: $\mu \leftrightarrow \tau$ is implied. Hence $m_\mu \neq m_\tau$ in the
253: Yukawa sector would break this symmetry. However, the size of this breaking
254: is only of order
255: $(m_\tau^2 - m_\mu^2)/v_0^2$ which is smaller than what we require for
256: $\sin \theta$. In other words, $X-Z$ mixing of order $10^{-3}$ is a very
257: reasonable value.
258:
259: In conclusion we have shown in this paper how the gauge symmetry $L_\mu -
260: L_\tau$ (as realized specifically by us in a previous paper \cite{maroy})
261: explains
262: naturally the recent NuTeV result \cite{nutev} on the possible deviation
263: from the Standard Model in $\nu_\mu$ and $\bar \nu_\mu$ scattering with
264: nucleons. Our proposal also explains the possible discrepancy in the
265: recent measurement \cite{g-2} of the anomalous magnetic moment of the
266: muon. It further explains why there is no deviation from the Standard Model
267: in atomic parity nonconservation \cite{apv}. Our model is constrained by
268: the precision measurements of $Z \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ and $Z \to \tau^+ \tau^-$,
269: from which we predict that the new gauge boson $X$ is likely to have a mass
270: between 60 and 72 GeV, or be heavier than 178 GeV. As such, our model is
271: verifiable experimentally in the future at the LHC.
272:
273: We thank S.~N.~Ganguli and A.~Gurtu for discussions on the LEP data.
274: This work was supported in part by the U.~S.~Department of Energy under
275: Grant No.~DE-FG03-94ER40837.
276:
277: %\newpage
278: \bibliographystyle{unsrt}
279: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
280: \bibitem{nutev} G. P. Zeller {\it et al.}, NuTeV Collaboration,
281: hep-ex/0110059.
282: \bibitem{g-2} H. N. Brown {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 2227
283: (2001).
284: \bibitem{qcd} This is subject to theoretical uncertainties in the calculation
285: of the hadronic contributions. A. Czarnecki and W. J. Marciano, Phys. Rev.
286: {\bf D64}, 013014 (2001); J. Erler and M. Luo, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87},
287: 071804 (2001); F. J. Yndurain, hep-ph/0102312; S. Narison, Phys. Lett.
288: {\bf B513}, 53 (2001); F. Jegerlehner, hep-ph/0104304; K. Melnikov,
289: hep-ph/0105267.
290: \bibitem{cor} M. Knecht and A. Nyffeler, hep-ph/0111058; M. Knecht,
291: A. Nyffeler, M. Perrottet, and E. de Rafael, hep-ph/0111059; M. Hayakawa and
292: T. Kinoshita, hep-ph/0112102; I. Blokland, A. Czarnecki, and K. Melnikov,
293: hep-ph/0112117.
294: \bibitem{apv} S. C. Bennett and C. E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82},
295: 2484 (1999).
296: \bibitem{improved} A. Derevianko, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 1618 (2000);
297: M. G. Kozlov, S. G. Porsev, and I. I. Tupitsyn, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86},
298: 3260 (2001); V. A. Dzuba, C. Harabati, W. R. Johnson, and M. S. Safronova,
299: Phys. Rev. {\bf A63}, 044103 (2001).
300: \bibitem{atm} S. Fukuda {\it et al.}, Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, Phys.
301: Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 3999 (2000) and references therein.
302: \bibitem{solar} S. Fukuda {\it et al.}, Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, Phys.
303: Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 5656 (2001) and references therein. See also Q. R.
304: Ahmad {\it et al.}, SNO Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 071301
305: (2001).
306: \bibitem{hjlv} X. G. He, G. C. Joshi, H. Lew, and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev.
307: {\bf D43}, 22 (1991); {\bf 44}, 2118 (1991).
308: \bibitem{maroy} E. Ma, D. P. Roy, and S. Roy, hep-ph/0110146 (Phys. Lett.
309: {\bf B}, in press).
310: \bibitem{others} See also S. Baek,
311: N. G. Deshpande, X.-G. He, and P. Ko, Phys. Rev. {\bf D64}, 055006 (2001);
312: S. N. Gninenko and N. V. Krasnikov, Phys. Lett. {\bf B513}, 119 (2001).
313: \bibitem{euro} Particle Data Group, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C15}, 1 (2000).
314: \bibitem{seesaw} M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, in {\em
315: Supergravity}, edited by P. van Nieuwenhuizen and D. Z. Freedman
316: (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979), p.~315; T. Yanagida, in {\em Proceedings
317: of the Workshop on the Unified Theory and the Baryon Number in the
318: Universe}, edited by O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto (KEK, Tsukuba, Japan, 1979),
319: p.~95; R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 44}, 912
320: (1980).
321: \end{thebibliography}
322:
323:
324:
325: \newpage
326:
327:
328: \begin{figure}
329: \begin{center}
330: \vspace*{3.5in}
331: \special{psfile=gxlim.eps hscale=60 vscale=60 voffset=350
332: hoffset=5 angle=270}
333: \end{center}
334: \caption{The predicted lower limit of the $X$ boson coupling shown
335: along with the LEP-I upper limits from $Z \rightarrow \mu^+\mu^- X$
336: decay and the universality relation between the $Z \rightarrow e^+e^-$
337: and $\mu^+\mu^-$ partial widths. The $X$ mass ranges of interest to
338: the NuTeV anomaly are $M_X = 60 - 72$ GeV or $M_X > 178$ GeV.}
339: \end{figure}
340:
341:
342:
343: \end{document}
344:
345:
346:
347:
348:
349:
350:
351:
352:
353:
354:
355:
356:
357:
358:
359:
360: \end{document}
361:
362:
363:
364:
365:
366:
367:
368:
369:
370:
371:
372:
373:
374:
375:
376:
377:
378:
379: