1: \documentstyle[prd,aps,12pt,epsf,psfig]{revtex}
2: %sg\documentstyle[12pt,psfig]{article}
3: \textheight 9.5 in
4: \begin{document}
5:
6: \baselineskip=7mm
7: \def\ap#1#2#3{ {\it Ann. Phys. (NY) }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
8: \def\arnps#1#2#3{ {\it Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
9: \def\cnpp#1#2#3{ {\it Comm. Nucl. Part. Phys. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
10: \def\apj#1#2#3{ {\it Astrophys. J. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
11: \def\asr#1#2#3{ {\it Astrophys. Space Rev. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
12: \def\ass#1#2#3{ {\it Astrophys. Space Sci. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
13:
14: \def\apjl#1#2#3{ {\it Astrophys. J. Lett. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
15: \def\ass#1#2#3{ {\it Astrophys. Space Sci. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
16: \def\jel#1#2#3{ {\it Journal Europhys. Lett. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
17:
18: \def\ib#1#2#3{ {\it ibid. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
19: \def\nat#1#2#3{ {\it Nature }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
20: \def\nps#1#2#3{ {\it Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) } {\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
21: \def\np#1#2#3{ {\it Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
22:
23: \def\pl#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Lett. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
24: \def\pr#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Rev. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
25: \def\prep#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Rep. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
26: \def\prl#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
27: \def\pw#1#2#3{ {\it Particle World }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
28: \def\ptp#1#2#3{ {\it Prog. Theor. Phys. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
29: \def\jppnp#1#2#3{ {\it J. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1} (1 {\it Nuovo Cim. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
30: \def\r.n.c.#1#2#3{ {\it Riv. del Nuovo Cim. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
31: \def\sjnp#1#2#3{ {\it Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
32: \def\yf#1#2#3{ {\it Yad. Fiz. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
33: \def\zetf#1#2#3{ {\it Z. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
34: \def\zetfpr#1#2#3{ {\it Z. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. Pisma. Red. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
35: \def\jetp#1#2#3{ {\it JETP }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
36: \def\mpl#1#2#3{ {\it Mod. Phys. Lett. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
37: \def\ufn#1#2#3{ {\it Usp. Fiz. Naut. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
38: \def\sp#1#2#3{ {\it Sov. Phys.-Usp.}{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
39: \def\ppnp#1#2#3{ {\it Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
40: \def\cnpp#1#2#3{ {\it Comm. Nucl. Part. Phys. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
41: \def\ijmp#1#2#3{ {\it Int. J. Mod. Phys. }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
42: \def\ic#1#2#3{ {\it Investigaci\'on y Ciencia }{\bf #1} (19#2) #3}
43: \def\tp{these proceedings}
44: \def\pc{private communication}
45: \def\ip{in preparation}
46: %
47: \newcommand{\TeV}{\,{\rm TeV}}
48: \newcommand{\GeV}{\,{\rm GeV}}
49: \newcommand{\MeV}{\,{\rm MeV}}
50: \newcommand{\keV}{\,{\rm keV}}
51: \newcommand{\eV}{\,{\rm eV}}
52: \newcommand{\Tr}{{\rm Tr}\!}
53: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
54: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
55: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
56: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
57: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
58: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}
59: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}
60: \newcommand{\bmat}{\left(\ba}
61: \newcommand{\emat}{\ea\right)}
62: \newcommand{\refs}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
63: \newcommand{\ler}{\stackrel{\scriptstyle <}{\scriptstyle\sim}}
64: \newcommand{\ger}{\stackrel{\scriptstyle >}{\scriptstyle\sim}}
65: \newcommand{\lag}{\langle}
66: \newcommand{\rag}{\rangle}
67: \newcommand{\ns}{\normalsize}
68: \newcommand{\cm}{{\cal M}}
69: \newcommand{\gr}{m_{3/2}}
70: \newcommand{\p}{\partial}
71: \renewcommand{\le}{\left(}
72: \newcommand{\ri}{\right)}
73: \relax
74: %
75: \def\321{$SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$}
76: \def\ord{{\cal O}}
77: \def\mee{m_{ee}}
78: \def\tl{{\tilde{l}}}
79: \def\tL{{\tilde{L}}}
80: \def\bd{{\overline{d}}}
81: \def\tL{{\tilde{L}}}
82: \def\a{\alpha}
83: \def\b{\beta}
84: \def\g{\gamma}
85: \def\c{\chi}
86: \def\d{\delta}
87: \def\D{\Delta}
88: \def\db{{\overline{\delta}}}
89: \def\Db{{\overline{\Delta}}}
90: \def\e{\epsilon}
91: \def\l{\lambda}
92: \def\n{\nu}
93: \def\m{\mu}
94: \def\nt{{\tilde{\nu}}}
95: \def\p{\phi}
96: \def\P{\Phi}
97: \def\sol{\Delta_{\odot}}
98: \def\atm{\Delta_{\mathbf{atm}}}
99: \def\k{\kappa}
100: \def\x{\xi}
101: \def\r{\rho}
102: \def\s{\sigma}
103: \def\t{\tau}
104: \def\th{\theta}
105: \def\om{\omega}
106: \def\ne{\nu_e}
107: \def\nm{\nu_{\mu}}
108: \def\snui{\tilde{\nu_i}}
109: \def\ehat{\hat{e}}
110: \def\la{{\makebox{\tiny{\bf loop}}}}
111: \def\ta{\tilde{a}}
112: \def\tb{\tilde{b}}
113: \def\mb{m_{1b}}
114: \def\mt{m_{1 \tau}}
115: \def\rl{{\rho}_l}
116: \def\meg{\m \rightarrow e \g}
117:
118: %
119: \renewcommand{\Huge}{\Large}
120: \renewcommand{\LARGE}{\Large}
121: \renewcommand{\Large}{\large}
122: \title{
123: \hfill hep-ph/0202064\\ \vskip .5cm
124: {\Large{\bf A predictive scheme for neutrino masses}}} \vskip .5cm
125: \author{ Anjan S. Joshipura and Saurabh D. Rindani\\
126: {\ns\it Theoretical Physics Group, Physical Research Laboratory,}\\
127: {\ns\it Navarangpura, Ahmedabad, 380 009, India.}}
128: \maketitle
129: \vskip .5cm
130: \begin{center}
131: {\bf Abstract}
132: \end{center}
133:
134: The solar and atmospheric data and possibly large value for the
135: effective neutrino mass in neutrinoless double beta decay
136: experiment together indicate that all the three neutrinos are
137: nearly degenerate. A verifiable texture for the neutrino mass matrix
138: is proposed to accommodate these results. This texture allows
139: almost degenerate neutrino masses two of which are exactly
140: degenerate at tree level. The standard model radiative corrections
141: lift this degeneracy and account for the solar deficit. The solar
142: scale is correlated with the effective neutrino mass $\mee$ probed
143: in neutrinoless double beta decay experiments. The model can
144: accommodate a large value ($\sim \ord(\eV)$) for $\mee$. Six
145: observables corresponding to three neutrino masses and three
146: mixing angles are determined in terms of only three unknown
147: parameters within the proposed texture.
148: %
149: \vskip .5cm
150: %\begin{abstract}
151: %\end{abstract}
152: \noindent {\bf Introduction:} Measurement of neutrinoless double
153: beta decay is of considerable theoretical importance on two
154: counts. Positive result would provide an unambiguous evidence for
155: the non-conservation of lepton number. It would also give
156: direct information on neutrino masses rather than on neutrino
157: (mass)$^2$ differences which are probed in neutrino oscillation
158: experiments.
159:
160:
161: Neutrinoless double beta decay experiments measure absolute value
162: of an effective mass $\mee$ for the electron neutrino defined as:
163: %
164: \be \label{mee1}
165: %
166: \mee\equiv \sum U_{ei}^2 m_{\nu_i}~. \ee
167: %
168: $U$ denotes here the neutrino mixing matrix and $m_{\nu_i}
169: (i=1,2,3)$ are neutrino mass values which can take either sign.
170: The $\mee$ is given by the $11$ element of neutrino mass matrix in
171: the basis with diagonal charged lepton masses.
172:
173: The experimental bound on $\mee$ is given by \cite{hm1}
174: %
175: $$ |\mee|\leq 0.38 ~h ~\eV~~~~~~~~{\rm at~95\%~ CL}~,$$
176: %
177: where $h\sim 0.6-2.8$ denotes the uncertainty in nuclear matrix
178: element \cite{vissani}. Recent analysis \cite{hm2} claims a
179: positive evidence \be \label{mee}
180: %
181: |\mee|\approx 0.05-0.86 \eV~~~~~~{\rm ~at~ ~95\% ~CL} \ee taking
182: account of uncertainty in the relevant nuclear matrix element.
183:
184: The value of $\mee$ in this range if established in future
185: \cite{vissani} can have very important implications for particle
186: physics and cosmology \cite {glashow}. The implications of
187: neutrinoless double beta decay measurements on neutrino mass
188: hierarchies have been worked out in detail in a number of papers
189: \cite{vissani,bb,hambey}. If there are only three light neutrinos
190: with hierarchical masses then the result on the atmospheric
191: neutrino deficit ($m_{\nu_3}\leq 0.07 \eV$) and the negative
192: results from CHOOZ \cite{chooz} $|U_{e3}|\leq 0.12$ together imply
193: $\mee\leq 10^{-3}\eV$, which is substantially lower than the value
194: quoted in eq.(\ref{mee}). The inverted mass hierarchy
195: $m_{\nu_1}\approx m_{\nu 2}\gg m_{\nu_3}$ would be allowed for
196: $\mee$ less than or close to the atmospheric mass scale. In
197: contrast, one would need almost degenerate masses \cite{deg} for
198: all the three neutrinos if $\mee$ is substantially higher than the
199: atmospheric scale.
200:
201: The combined inference from the solar and atmospheric deficit and
202: a possible large $\mee$ is a neutrino spectrum in which the common
203: mass of any two neutrinos is much larger than their (mass)$^2$
204: difference. One can distinguish two theoretical schemes which
205: allow this \cite{wolf}. Either two neutrinos have the same CP in
206: which case they form two almost degenerate Majorana neutrinos or
207: they have opposite CP and together form a pseudo-Dirac state.
208:
209: A pseudo-Dirac neutrino corresponds to either of the following
210: structures in case of two generations, $\nu_e$ and $\nu_{x}\; (x=\mu$
211: or $\tau$):
212: %
213: \be \label{pd1}
214: %
215: \bmat{cc}\delta&m\\m&\delta' \emat ~,\ee
216: %
217: or \be \label{pd2}
218: %
219: \bmat{cc}a&b\\b&-a \emat ~,\ee
220: %
221: with $\d,\d'\ll m$ and $a\sim b$. These two textures differ from
222: each other both conceptually and phenomenologically. For
223: $\d,\d'=0$, both of them lead to neutrinos with equal and opposite
224: masses. The former is invariant under a global $L_e-L_x$ symmetry
225: which needs to be broken by non-zero $\d,\d'$ in order to generate
226: splitting . In contrast, the texture (\ref{pd2}) is not invariant
227: under any combination of $L_e$ and $L_x$. As a result, there does
228: not exist any symmetry to protect degeneracy and the standard
229: charged current interactions automatically introduce
230: \cite{wolf,petcov} radiative splitting among neutrinos. At the
231: phenomenological level, the texture in (\ref{pd1}) implies almost
232: maximal mixing while the mixing implied by (\ref{pd2}) is
233: arbitrary ($\tan 2\theta={b\over a}$). Finally, the neutrinoless
234: double beta decay amplitude implied by eq.(\ref{pd1}) is much
235: smaller than the common mass (for $\d\leq m$) while it is
236: comparable to the neutrino mass ($\sqrt{a^2+b^2}$) in case of
237: eq.(\ref{pd2}).
238:
239: It follows from above that the texture in eq.(\ref{pd2}) leads to
240: almost degenerate pair of neutrinos with large neutrinoless double
241: beta decay amplitude and very small splitting. It seems ideal for
242: the description of neutrino masses if the latest result \cite{hm2}
243: are correct. The splitting introduced by the standard model
244: radiative correction is of $\ord({\mee m_{\tau}^2\over 16 \pi^2
245: M_Z^2})$. This would be in the correct range for the description
246: of the solar neutrino scale. One needs to generalize the basic
247: texture in eq.(\ref{pd2}) to three generations in order to
248: incorporate a solution to the atmospheric neutrino problem as
249: well. In the following, we suggest an economical and very
250: predictive scheme which provides a natural and coherent
251: understanding of neutrino properties required on phenomenological
252: ground.
253:
254: \noindent {\bf Proposed Texture:} Let us consider a CP conserving
255: theory specified by a general $3\times 3$ real symmetric neutrino mass
256: matrix $M_\nu$. We require that above $M_\nu$ leads to a pseudo
257: Dirac neutrino. General conditions on $M_{\nu}$ under which this
258: happens were discussed in \cite{pdp}. In particular, the $M_{\nu}$
259: should satisfy
260:
261: $$ tr(M_\nu)\sum_i \Delta_i=det M_\nu ~,$$ where $\Delta_i$
262: represents the determinant of the $2\times 2$ block of $M_{\nu}$ obtained
263: by blocking the $i^{th}$ row and column. While many solutions to
264: this constraint are possible \cite{pdp}, we study here a specific
265: solution which meets the requirement demanded by the observed
266: features of neutrino masses and mixing. The proposed solution to
267: the above constraint corresponds to the following neutrino mass
268: matrix {\it in the basis with diagonal charged leptons}:
269: %
270: \be \label{ansatz}M_{0\nu}= \bmat{ccc} s&t&u\\ t&-s&0\\u&0&-s\\
271: \emat ~.\ee
272: %
273: This ansatz is a direct generalization of eq.(\ref{pd2}) and
274: contains all the features mentioned in the $2\times 2$ case. It is given
275: in terms of only three parameters $s,t,u$ which after the known
276: radiative corrections lead to three neutrino masses and three
277: mixing angles making the scheme very predictive.
278:
279: The $M_{0\nu }$ in eq.(\ref{ansatz}) is diagonalized to obtain
280: %
281: $$U_0^T~M_{0\nu}~U_0=Diag.(m,-m,-s)$$ with $$ m=\sqrt{s^2+t^2+u^2}
282: ~.$$ The tree level mixing matrix $U_0$ is given by
283: %
284: \be \label{u0} U_0=\bmat{ccc}
285: %
286: c_1&-s_1&0\\
287: s_1c_2&c_2 c_1&-s_2\\
288: s_1s_2&s_2 c_1&c_2\\ \emat ~,\ee $s_i=\sin\theta_i$ and
289: $c_i=\cos\theta_i$.
290: %
291: The mixing angles are given by
292: %
293: \bea\label{theta0} \tan\theta_1&=&\sqrt{{m-s\over m+s}}~,
294: \nonumber \\ \tan\theta_2&=&{u\over t}~. \eea
295: %
296: The above mass matrix contains many desirable features at the tree
297: level itself.
298: \begin{itemize}
299: \item The effective neutrino mass probed in the neutrinoless
300: double beta decay is given by $$\mee^0=s$$
301: \item At the tree level, there is only one $(\rm mass)^2$ difference
302: which provides the atmospheric scale \be
303: \label{atm0}\Delta_{0A}=m^2-s^2 ~. \ee
304: %
305: The corresponding mixing angle ($\equiv \theta_{0A}$) coincides with
306: $\theta_2$ and is large when $t\sim u$:
307: %
308: \be \label{atang0} \sin^22 \theta_{0A}=\sin^2 2 \theta_2 ~.\ee
309: %
310: \item Eq.(\ref{ansatz}) already incorporates the constraint of
311: CHOOZ \cite{chooz} since it predicts $(U_0)_{e3}=0.$ This
312: prediction would receive a calculable radiative correction making
313: it possible to predict $U_{e3}$.
314: \item There is no solar splitting at this stage but the would-be solar
315: mixing angle is given by \be \label{solang0}
316: %
317: \tan^2\theta_{0S}=\tan^2\theta_{1}={\sqrt{\Delta_{0A}+(m^0_{ee})^2}-
318: m^0_{ee}\over \sqrt{\Delta_{0A}+(m^0_{ee})^2}+m^0_{ee}}~, \ee
319: %
320: It is seen that the solar mixing angle is determined in terms of
321: the atmospheric scale and the effective neutrino mass $m^0_{ee}$
322: at tree level. We will see that the radiative corrections
323: generate the solar splitting but do not change the above angle
324: appreciably.
325: \end{itemize}
326:
327: The presence of equal and opposite neutrino masses implies a Dirac
328: neutrino and hence a $U(1)$ symmetry at tree level. This symmetry
329: is however broken by the standard charged current interactions as
330: can be seen from the general expressions given in \cite{pdp}. Thus
331: the degenerate pair would split due to radiative interactions. This
332: splitting can be easily obtained \cite{pdp} using the relevant
333: renormalization group equations \cite{rg}. The consequences of
334: these equations have been discussed in a number of
335: papers \cite{ellislola}.
336:
337: The radiatively corrected neutrino mass matrix is given by
338: %
339: \be \label{radmnu} M_{\nu}=I_gI_t\bmat{ccc}I_e^{\frac{1}{2}}&0&0
340: \\ 0&I_\m^{\frac{1}{2}}&0 \\ 0&0&I_\tau^{\frac{1}{2}}\\\emat~M_{0\nu}
341: ~\bmat{ccc}I_e^{\frac{1}{2}}&0&0 \\ 0&I_\m^{\frac{1}{2}}&0 \\
342: 0&0&I_\tau^{\frac{1}{2}}\\\emat ~,\ee where
343:
344: $$I_\a^{\frac{1}{2}}\equiv 1+\delta_a~,$$
345: with \be \label{deltai}
346: %
347: \delta_\a\approx c\left({m_\alpha\over 4 \pi v }\right)^2 \ln{M_X\over M_Z}~.
348: \ee $M_X$ here corresponds to a large scale,
349: $c=\frac{1}{2},-\frac{1}{\cos^2\b}$ in respective cases of the
350: standard model and the minimal supersymmetric standard model
351: \cite{ellislola} and $\a=e,\mu,\tau$. $I_{g,t}$ are calculable
352: coefficients summarizing the effect of the gauge and the top quark
353: corrections.
354:
355: Apart from the overall factor $I_gI_t$, the radiative corrections
356: are largely dominated by the $\tau$ Yukawa couplings and it is
357: easy to determine neutrino mixing angle and masses keeping only
358: $\delta_\tau$ corrections and working to the lowest order in
359: $\delta_\tau$. We now have
360: %
361: $$U^T~M_\nu~U=Diag.(m_{\nu_1},m_{\nu_2},m_{\nu_3})~,$$ with \bea
362: \label{masses}
363: %
364: m_{\nu_1}&\approx& I_g I_t ~(m+{\delta_\tau u^2\over
365: m+s})~,\nonumber \\ m_{\nu_2}&\approx& I_g I_t ~(-m-{\delta_\tau
366: u^2\over m-s})~,\nonumber \\ m_{\nu_3}&\approx& I_g I_t ~(-s-{2
367: \delta_\tau s t^2\over m^2-s^2})~. \eea
368: %
369: The tree level mixing matrix $U_0$ gets modified to a general $U$:
370:
371: %
372: \be \label{u} U=\bmat{ccc}
373: %
374: c_1c_3&-s_1c_3&s_3\\
375: c_1s_2s_3+c_2s_1&c_2 c_1-s_1s_2s_3&-s_2c_3\\
376: -c_1c_2s_3+s_1s_2&s_1s_3c_2+s_2 c_1&c_2c_3\\ \emat ~,\ee
377: %
378:
379: As before the angles, $\theta_1,\theta_2$ respectively correspond
380: to the solar and atmospheric mixing angles. These are now given by
381: %
382: \bea\label{theta}
383: \tan\theta_A&\approx&\tan\theta_{0A}(1-\delta_\tau), \nonumber
384: \\ \tan^2\theta_S&\approx&\tan^2\theta_{0S}~, \eea
385: %
386: where $\theta_{0A}$ (eq.(\ref{atang0}) and
387: $\theta_{0S}$(eq.(\ref{solang0}))denote the tree level solar
388: mixing angle. The effective neutrino mass $\mee^0$ is now
389: corrected to \be \label{meff} \mee=I_gI_t~s .\ee
390: %
391: The atmospheric scale also receives radiative corrections and is
392: now given by \be \label{atm}\Delta_{A}\equiv
393: %\frac{1}{2}(m_{\nu_1}^2+m_{\nu_2}^2)-m_{\nu_3}^2=I_g^2I_t^2(\Delta_{0A}
394: %+\delta_{\tau})(2 \sin^2\theta_{0A} \Delta_{0A}+\mee^{0~2} \cos 2
395: %\theta_{0A}) ~. \ee
396: \frac{1}{2}(m_{\nu_1}^2+m_{\nu_2}^2)-m_{\nu_3}^2=I_g^2I_t^2(\Delta_{0A}
397: +\delta_{\tau}(2 \sin^2\theta_{0A} \Delta_{0A}-\mee^{0~2} \cos 2
398: \theta_{0A})) ~. \ee
399: %
400: It is seen that all the tree level predictions receive small
401: radiative corrections. Hence the basic ansatz is stable against
402: radiaiative corrections unlike some of the ansatz considered in
403: \cite{ellislola}. The non-trivial effect of the radiative
404: corrections is generation of the solar splitting and a non-zero
405: $U_{e3}$: \bea \label{split}
406: %
407: \Delta_S&\equiv&m_{\nu_2}^2-m_{\nu_1}^2\approx
408: 2{\delta_\tau}\mee\sqrt{\Delta_A+\mee^2}\sin ^2 2 \theta_{0A} ~,\nonumber \\
409: s_3&\equiv&U_{e3}\approx {\delta_\tau \mee\over
410: \sqrt{\Delta_A}}\sin 2 \theta_{0A}. \eea
411:
412: Both $\Delta_S$ and $U_{e3}$ are correlated with the effective
413: neutrino mass $\mee$. This correlation is easy to understand. The
414: neutrino mass matrix in eq.(\ref{ansatz}) coincides with
415: $L_{e}-L_\m-L_\t$ symmetric structure proposed in many works
416: \cite{emt} when $s$ (and hence $\mee$) is zero. Since this
417: symmetry is also preserved by the diagonal charged lepton masses
418: one cannot generate the solar splitting radiatively in this case.
419: The presence of $s$ in the ansatz simultaneously leads to non-zero
420: $\mee$ and $\Delta_S$ resulting in their correlation.
421:
422: \noindent{\bf Phenomenology:} It is possible to subject our ansatz
423: to stringent phenomenological tests since three basic parameters
424: predict six observables namely, $\mee$,
425: $U_{e3}$, ($\Delta_A,\theta_A)$ and ($\Delta_S,\theta_S)$. The
426: oscillation interpretation of the atmospheric neutrinos constrain
427: $(\Delta_A,\theta_A)$ over a narrow range
428: %
429: $$ \Delta_A\approx (1.5-5.0)\cdot
430: 10^{-3}\eV^2~~~~;~~~~\sin^2 2\theta_A\approx 0.8-1 $$
431: %
432: The presently available results on solar neutrinos allow various
433: possibilities \cite{solar}. The most preferred solution based on
434: the global analysis of data corresponds to large mixing angle
435: solution (LMA) which involves relatively larger $\Delta_S$ and
436: $\theta_S$. The next best one corresponds to LOW and quasi-vacuum
437: oscillation (QVO) region. The small mixing solution is least preferred.
438: The standard
439: model restricted fit to all the solar data rules out this
440: solution at 99.73\% CL but this it is still allowed in a more
441: general analysis including variations in the boron and/or hep
442: neutrino fluxes. We summarize below inference based on the
443: analysis of the observed rates in various experiments
444: \cite{solar}.
445: %
446: \vskip 1.0truecm
447: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
448: \hline
449: No &Solution & $\Delta_S$&$\tan^2\theta_S$ \\
450: \hline
451: 1 & LMA & $(1-50)\cdot 10^{-5}\eV^2$ & $0.2-0.7$ \\
452: \hline
453: 2& SMA & $(5-10)\cdot 10^{-6}\eV^2$ & $(8-20)\cdot 10^{-4}$
454: \\
455: \hline
456: 3& LOW-QVO & $(3\cdot 10^{-9}-3\cdot 10^{-7})\eV^2$ & 0.6-2.0
457: \\
458: \hline
459: 4& VAC & $(1-2)\cdot 10^{-10}\eV^2$ & 0.2-0.6; 1.2-1.5
460: \\
461: \hline
462: \end{tabular}
463: \vskip .5cm
464: \begin{center}
465: {\bf Table:} The allowed ranges in parameters $\Delta_S$ and
466: $\tan^2\theta_S$ following from analysis of the solar rates \cite{solar}.
467: All the quoted ranges are at 95\% CL. \end{center}
468: \vskip1.0cm Note that the angle $\tan^2\theta_S$ is required to
469: be less than one for most solutions. This is crucial in
470: distinguishing two cases namely the standard model and the MSSM.
471: These two cases give different signs for $\Delta_S$ due to
472: difference in signs of the radiative corrections in these cases.
473: $\Delta_S$ is positive (negative) in case of the SM (MSSM) when
474: $\mee$ is positive. Conventionally, the $\tan^2\theta_S$ is
475: allowed to be greater than one in the analysis of the solar data
476: but $\Delta_S$ is assumed positive. In the case of MSSM, positive
477: values of $\Delta_S$ correspond \footnote{For positive $\mee$ one
478: needs to reverse the role of $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$. The relevant
479: $\tan^2\theta_S$ is inverse of eq.(\ref{solang0}) and is also
480: greater than 1.} to $\mee<0$ and negative $\mee$ implies
481: $\tan^2\theta_S>1$ from eq.(\ref{solang0}). Because of this reason,
482: the radiative corrections in MSSM are not suitable in describing
483: the solar data and we will restrict ourselves to the case of the
484: SM in the following.
485:
486: We show in Fig. 1 the predicted values for $\Delta_S, \tan^2\theta_S$ and
487: $|U_{e3}|$ as a function of the effective mass $\mee$ for maximal
488: atmospheric neutrino mixing and for two extreme values for the
489: atmospheric mass scale. The numerical predictions include
490: sub-dominant corrections from the electron and muon couplings
491: also. We have varied $\mee$ from the maximum value of $\ord(\eV)$
492: to the value $\sim 10^{-3}$ which the future experiment
493: \cite{genius} will probe. There are two regions corresponding to
494: $\mee\sim 0.001-0.05 \eV$ and $\mee\sim 0.05-1.0 \eV$. The former
495: region corresponds to $\Delta_S\approx 10^{-9}-10^{-7} \eV^2$ and
496: $\tan^2\theta_S\approx 0.7-1.0$. This region encompasses the
497: LOW-QVO and vacuum oscillation solutions. The other region of
498: $\mee$ corresponds to the range reported in \cite{hm2}. In this region
499: only the SMA solution can be realized. As follows from
500: eqs.(\ref{solang0},\ref{split}), $\Delta_S$ ($\tan^2\theta_S$)
501: decreases (increases) with decreasing $\mee$. As a result, there
502: does not exist a value for $\mee$ which can simultaneously
503: reproduce the $\Delta_S$ and $\tan^2\theta_S$ required to realize
504: the most preferred LMA solution. The predicted values for $U_{e3}$
505: is below the expected experimental sensitivity for the entire
506: range in $\mee$.
507:
508: \noindent {\bf Summary:} Possibly large value for the effective
509: majorana mass for the electron neutrino observed \cite{hm2} in
510: the neutrinoless double beta decay experiment points to
511: non-hierarchical neutrino masses which do not arise in many of the
512: conventional schemes such as the seesaw model or supersymmetric
513: model with $R$ parity violation. We have proposed an economical
514: ansatz for the neutrino mass matrix to describe almost degenerate
515: neutrino masses \cite{deg}. Justification of this ansatz from
516: simple symmetry may require an elaborate model. The proposed ansatz
517: differs in spirit from many textures discussed recently
518: \cite{vissani,hambey}. Unlike in these works, we discuss a
519: well-defined mechanism built into our ansatz and leading to
520: generation of the solar scale and $U_{e3}$ through the standard
521: model radiative corrections. This makes the ansatz testable. The
522: ansatz has stringent predictions for the solar neutrino solution
523: which can be used to rule it out. These predictions correspond to
524: SMA solution if $\mee$ is in the range reported in \cite{hm2} or
525: to vacuum or the LOW-QVO solution if $\mee$ is much smaller.
526: Observation of sizable $U_{e3}> 10^{-3}$ \cite{choozm} would
527: also go against the ansatz.
528: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
529: %
530: \bibitem{hm1}H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus {\it et al.}, Euro. Phys.
531: Journal {\bf A12} (2001) 147.
532: %
533: \bibitem{vissani} F. Feruglio, A. Strumia and F. Vissani,
534: hep-ph/0201291.
535: %
536: \bibitem{hm2} H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus {\it et al.}, Mod. Phys.
537: Lett. {\bf A37} (2001) 2409.
538: %
539: \bibitem{glashow} V. Barger {\it et al.} hep-ph/0201262.
540:
541: \bibitem{bb}
542: An incomplete list of the references is: H. V.
543: Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, H. Pas and A. Yu. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. {\bf
544: D63} (2001) 73005; W. Rodejohann, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B597} (2001)
545: 110; F. Vissani, hep-ph/9904349; S. M. Bilenky {\it et al.}, Phys.
546: Lett. {\bf B465} (1999) 193; S. M. Bilenky, S. Pascoli and S. T.
547: Petcov, Phys. Rev. {\bf D64} (2001) 053010; H. Minakata and H.
548: Sugiyama, hep-ph/0111269, hep-ph/0202003.
549: %
550: \bibitem{hambey} H. Georgi and S. Glashow, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 61} (2000)
551: 097301; P. H. Frampton, S. L. Glashow and D. Marfatia,
552: hep-ph/0201008; H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and U. Sarkar,
553: hep-ph/0201224 and hep-ph/0202006; T. Hambye, hep-ph/0201307.
554: %
555: \bibitem{chooz}
556: CHOOZ collaboration, M. Apollonio {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf
557: B466} (1999) 415.
558: %
559: \bibitem{deg} D. Caldwell and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. {\bf
560: D48} (1993) 3259; A.S.Joshipura, Zeit. fur Physik, {\bf C64}
561: (1994) 31; A. Ioannissyan and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Lett. {\bf 332 }
562: (1994) 93; E. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83} (1999) 2514; E. J. Chun
563: and S. K. Kang, hep-ph/9912524; E. Ma and G. Rajasekaran, Phys.
564: Rev. {\bf D64} (2001) 113012; E. Ma, hep-ph/0201225.
565: %
566: \bibitem{wolf} L. Wolfenstein, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 186} (1981) 147.
567: %
568: \bibitem{petcov} S. T. Petcov, Phys. Lett. {\bf 110 B} (1982) 245;
569: S. T. Petcov and C. N. Leung, Phys. Lett. {\bf 125 B} (1983) 461.
570: %
571: \bibitem{pdp}
572: Anjan S. Joshipura and S. D. Rindani, Phys. Lett. {\bf B494}
573: (2000)114.
574: %
575: \bibitem{rg} K. S. Babu, C. N. Leung and J. Pantaleone, Phys. Lett. {\bf B139}
576: (1993) 191;P. H. Chankowaski, Z. Pluciennik, Phys. Lett. {\bf B316}
577: (1993) 312.
578: %
579: \bibitem{ellislola} J. Eliis {\it et al.}, Eur. Phys. Jou. {\bf C9}
580: (1999) 310; J. Ellis and S. Lola, Phys. Lett. {\bf 110 458} (1999)
581: 389; A. Casas {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B556} (1999) 3;A.
582: Dighe and A.S. Joshipura, hep-ph/0010079.
583: %
584: \bibitem{solar}
585: G. L. Fogli {\it et. al}, hep-ph/0106247; J. N. Bahcall {\it et.
586: al}, hep-ph/0106258; A. Bandyopadhyay {\it et al.},
587: hep-ph/0106264,P. Krastev and A. Yu. Smirnov, hep-ph/0108177; V.
588: Barger {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0106207.
589: %
590: \bibitem{emt} R. Barbieri {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B445}
591: (1999) 239; A. S. Joshipura, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 60} (1999) 053002;
592: R. N. Mohapatra {\it et al.} Phys. Lett. {\bf 474} (2000) 355; A.
593: S. Joshipura and S. D. Rindani, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 464} (1999)
594: 239; Euro. Phys. Journal, {\bf C14} (2000) 85; K. S. Babu and R.
595: N. Mohapatra, hep-ph/0201176.
596: \bibitem{genius} H. GENIUS collaboration, V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus
597: {\it et al.}, hep-ph/9910205.
598: \bibitem{choozm} ICARUS collaboration, F. Arneodo, {\it et al.}
599: hep-ex/0106019.
600: \end{thebibliography}
601:
602: \newpage
603: \begin{figure}[h]
604: \centerline{\psfig{figure=Fig.ps,height=20cm,width=15cm}}
605: \vskip.25cm \caption{ $10^6 \Delta_S$ in ($\eV^2$) (dotted line),
606: $\tan^2\theta_S$ (solid line) and $10^3|U_{e3}|$ (dashed line) shown as a
607: function of $\mee$ (in $\eV$). The labels $A$ and $B$ correspond
608: to $\sqrt{\Delta_A}=0.03\, \eV$ and $0.07\,\eV$ respectively. The
609: atmospheric mixing is assumed maximal.}
610: \end{figure}
611: \end{document}
612: