1: \documentclass{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx,floatflt,amssymb}
3: \textwidth=17cm
4: \textheight=22.5cm
5: \oddsidemargin -0.3cm
6: \topmargin -1.5cm
7: \parskip 0.3cm
8: \tolerance=10000
9: %\renewcommand{\rmdefault}{ptm}
10: %\baselineskip 30pt
11: %\parindent 20pt
12: %\pagestyle{empty}
13: %-------------------------------------------------------------------%
14: \newcommand{\vn}{{\vec{n}}}
15: \def\mpl{\ifmmode \overline M_{P}\else $\overline M_{P}$\fi}
16: %-------------------------------------------------------------------%
17: \begin{document}
18: %\vspace*{-1in}
19: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
20: \begin{flushright}
21: SINP/TNP/02-04\\
22: hep-ph/0202147
23: \end{flushright}
24: %\vskip 5mm
25: \begin{center}
26: {\Large \bf Power law enhancement of neutrino mixing angles \\ in
27: extra dimensions}\\
28: \vspace*{1cm}
29: {\large\sf Gautam Bhattacharyya ${}^1$, Srubabati Goswami ${}^1$,
30: Amitava Raychaudhuri ${}^2$} \\
31: \vspace{10pt}
32: {\small 1. Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, 1/AF Bidhan
33: Nagar, Kolkata 700064, India \\
34: 2. Department of Physics, University of Calcutta, 92 Acharya
35: Prafulla Chandra Road, \\ Kolkata 700009, India }
36:
37: \normalsize
38: \end{center}
39:
40: \begin{abstract}
41: We study the renormalization of the $llHH$-type Majorana neutrino
42: mass operator in a scenario where there is a compactified extra
43: dimension and the fields involved correspond to only the standard
44: model particles and their Kaluza-Klein excitations. We observe
45: that in a two flavour scenario, where one of the neutrinos is
46: necessarily $\nu_\tau$, it is indeed possible to generate a large
47: mixing at $\sim$ 100 GeV starting from a very small mixing near
48: the ultra-violet cutoff $\sim$ 30 TeV. {\em En passant}, we also
49: derive the Higgs mass upper and lower limits from perturbative
50: unitarity and stability of the potential, respectively.
51:
52: \vskip 5pt \noindent
53: %\texttt{Keywords:} Majorana neutrino, Extra dimensions \\
54: \texttt{PACS Nos:} 14.60.Pq, 11.10.Kk, 11.30. Hv., 11.25.Mj
55:
56: \end{abstract}
57: \vskip 20pt
58:
59: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
60: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
61:
62: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
63: If lepton number is not a good symmetry of the Lagrangian, then,
64: without enlarging the standard model (SM) particle content, a neutrino
65: Majorana mass operator can be written as (with $i,j$ as generation
66: indices)
67: %
68: \begin{eqnarray}
69: -{\cal{L}}^{\rm SM} = {{\kappa_{ij}}\over{M_X}} \bar{l^c}_i l_j H H +
70: {\rm h.c.}
71: \label{smlag}
72: \end{eqnarray}
73: %
74: This dimension-5 operator can be viewed as a consequence of
75: integrating out a superheavy right-handed neutrino of mass $\sim M_X$
76: which is exchanged at the tree level. Here $l$ is the SM lepton
77: doublet and $H$ is the SM Higgs doublet. Eq.~(\ref{smlag}) gives a
78: neutrino mass matrix $m_{ij} \sim \kappa_{ij} (v^2/M_X)$, where $v$ is
79: the vacuum expectation value of the SM Higgs. Assuming $\kappa \sim
80: 1$, a choice of $M_X \sim 10^{15}$ GeV produces $m \sim 0.1$ eV. It
81: has been pointed out in \cite{babu1,chan,rest} that starting from a
82: small mixing angle between two active neutrinos at a high scale, a
83: large mixing between them can be generated at a low scale due to
84: renormalization group (RG) evolution. In this paper we intend to
85: investigate the renormalization of the above operator in
86: extra-dimensional models. For simplicity, we consider only one
87: additional space dimension which is compactified on a circle. Since
88: both solar and atmospheric neutrino data prefer large neutrino mixing,
89: our primary aim is to examine whether the extra-dimensional models can
90: reproduce this feature. We restrict ourselves only to the case of
91: oscillation between two active generations where one of the two
92: neutrinos is necessarily $\nu_\tau$. Even though the mass scales in
93: such models are expected to be quite close -- around 1 TeV in our
94: choice -- and the energy range for RG running small, we will show that
95: because of the power law evolution of the $\kappa$ operator, the
96: neutrino mixing angle runs rather fast once the Kaluza-Klein (KK)
97: modes of the higher dimensional fields open up. As a result, even if
98: the two-flavour mixing angle happens to be quite small near the
99: ultra-violet cut-off $\Lambda \sim {\cal{O}}$ (10 TeV), where the
100: textures are defined, near-maximal mixing can be generated at the 100
101: GeV scale. If the mixing is large at the high scale then it undersgoes
102: further enhancement due to RG running.
103:
104: We stick to a very simple extra-dimensional scenario in which the extra
105: space dimension ($y$) is compactified on a circle of radius $R$, i.e., $y
106: \leftrightarrow y + 2\pi R$. In our simple approach, all fermions are
107: localized at the brane at $y = 0$, but the bosons can also travel in the
108: bulk \cite{anto,ddg,addj}. In the effective 4-dimensional
109: representation, after the fifth coordinate is integrated out, the
110: resulting Majorana mass operator looks like
111: %
112: \begin{eqnarray}
113: -{\cal{L}}^{\rm eff} = {{\kappa_{ij}}\over{\pi M^2 R}} \bar{l^c}_i
114: l_j H_0 H_0 + {\rm h.c.}
115: \label{efflag}
116: \end{eqnarray}
117: %
118: Above, $H_0(x)$ is the zero mode of the KK excitations of the doublet
119: scalar in five dimensions: $H(x,y) = (1/\sqrt{\pi R})
120: \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} H_n(x) ~{\rm exp}~(iny/R)$. $M$ corresponds
121: to some higher dimensional mass scale beyond which new physics sets
122: in.
123:
124: The neutrino mass matrix is given by $m_{ij} \sim \kappa_{ij} (v^2/\pi
125: M^2 R)$. For definiteness, we assume $\mu_0 \equiv R^{-1} = {\cal O}$ (1
126: TeV). $\mu_0$ determines the mass splittings of the KK excitations. The
127: appearance of $M$ may be interpreted as a consequence of integrating out
128: some physical states around $\sim M$ (e.g., a right-handed neutrino $N$
129: with a mass $M$ that couples like $LHN$) which leads to the effective
130: operator in Eq.~(\ref{efflag}). Thus below the scale $M$ the theory is
131: essentially non-renormalizable in the sense that a heavy state is
132: integerated out leading to effective Lagrangian in Eq.~(\ref{efflag}).
133: Since we are basically interested in the evolution of $\kappa$, which in
134: turn requires the running of gauge, Yukawa, and Higgs self-couplings, it
135: seems quite reasonable to associate the cut-off parameter $\Lambda$ with
136: $M$.
137:
138: Now we attempt to briefly address the issue of a second kind of
139: non-renormalisibility which stems mainly from the presence of an {\em
140: infinite} tower of KK states after compactification to 4 dimensions (for
141: an extensive discussion see Appendix B of \cite{ddg}). In fact, as
142: stressed in \cite{ddg}, the couplings do not strictly run in a
143: non-renormalizable theory. Instead they receive finite quantum
144: corrections whose magnitudes explicitly depend upon the cut-off $\Lambda
145: \sim M$. It also turns out that very often the mathematical dependence
146: of a coupling on $\Lambda$ is identical to its scale-dependence that
147: follows from a naive calculation assuming a renormalizable theory. Since
148: the root of this non-renormalisibility lies in having an {\em infinite}
149: KK tower, the remedy, as suggested in \cite{ddg}, is to consider a {\em
150: truncated} KK series which has been shown to serve as an excellent
151: approximation for calculating the scale dependence of couplings. Under
152: the above guideline, we continue to describe the quantum corrections of
153: couplings as their RG running. Indeed, all the couplings have to remain
154: perturbative throughout the energy interval $M_Z <\mu<M$, and a rough
155: estimate of the hierarchy \cite{bando}, namely $(M/\mu_0)^\delta \sim
156: \ln~(M_{\rm GUT}/M_W)$, with $M_{\rm GUT}$ as the 4-dimensional GUT
157: scale and $\delta$ as the number of extra dimensions, yields $M \sim 30
158: \mu_0$ for $\delta = 1$.
159:
160:
161: Here, for the sake of clarity, we stress that $M$ should not, in
162: general, be equated to the 5-dimensional Planck scale $M_\star$. In
163: fact, it follows from the relation $M_P^2 = M_\star^2 (M_\star
164: R)^\delta$, where $M_P$ is the 4-dimensional Planck scale, that
165: $M_\star \sim 10^{10} - 10^{11}$ TeV for $\delta = 1$ and $R^{-1} = 1$
166: TeV. Thus $M_\star \gg M$ and hence quantum gravity effects on the
167: effective Majorana mass operator at the scale $M$ or below are
168: insignificant.
169:
170: Assuming $\kappa \sim 1$, a further suppression of 9 orders of
171: magnitude is required to produce a neutrino mass of order 0.1 eV. Such
172: a suppression may come from a distant brane where lepton number ($L$)
173: is violated and the effect at the brane under consideration is damped
174: by the distance between the two branes \cite{addj}.
175:
176: Since quark mixing angles are small, our main curiosity in this paper
177: will be to check whether a small $\nu_\tau$-$\nu_e$ or
178: $\nu_\tau$-$\nu_\mu$ mixing near $\Lambda \sim M$ can indeed become
179: large at $M_Z$ due to power law RG running. The mixing angle depends
180: not on the absolute value of $\kappa_{ij}$, but on the degree of
181: degeneracy of $\kappa_{11}$ and $\kappa_{22}$. We will need to tune
182: this difference at $\sim M$ to obtain a large mixing angle at $\sim
183: M_Z$. In fact, we have found that this tuning ensures the mixing at
184: $M_Z$ to be large for essentially {\em any} initial mixing, small or
185: large.
186:
187:
188:
189: The presence of extra dimension modifies the running of $\kappa$
190: (matrix) in the region $\mu > \mu_0$ as follows:
191: %
192: \begin{eqnarray}
193: \label{kappa}
194: 16\pi^2 \frac{d\kappa}{d\ln\mu} & = & \left(-3g_2^2 +
195: 2\lambda + 2S\right)t_\delta \kappa - \frac{3}{2}
196: t_\delta\left[\kappa(Y_l^\dagger Y_l) + (Y_l^\dagger
197: Y_l)\kappa\right],
198: \end{eqnarray}
199: %
200: where $S = {\rm Tr}~ (3Y_u^\dagger Y_u + 3 Y_d^\dagger Y_d +
201: Y_l^\dagger Y_l)$, and $t_\delta = (\mu/\mu_0)^\delta X_\delta$. In
202: Eq.~(\ref{kappa}), $t_\delta$ controls the power law behaviour, where
203: $X_\delta$ can be expressed in terms of the Euler Gamma function as
204: $X_\delta = 2 \pi^{\delta/2}/\delta \; \Gamma(\delta/2)$. For $\delta
205: = 0(1)$, $X_\delta = 1(2)$. It is important, for later discussions, to
206: bear in mind that Eq.~(\ref{kappa}) is homogenous in $\kappa$.
207:
208: The running of the Yukawa couplings ($Y_u, Y_d$) and Higgs
209: self-coupling ($\lambda$) for $\mu > \mu_0$ are given by
210: %
211: \begin{eqnarray}
212: \label{yukawa}
213: 16\pi^2 \frac{d Y_u}{d\ln\mu} & = & \frac{3}{2}
214: t_\delta\left(Y_u Y_u^\dagger Y_u
215: - Y_d^\dagger Y_d Y_u\right) + t_\delta S Y_u - t_\delta \left(8g_3^2 +
216: \frac{17}{20} g_1^2 + \frac{9}{4} g_2^2\right) Y_u, \nonumber\\
217: 16\pi^2 \frac{d Y_d}{d\ln\mu} & = & \frac{3}{2}
218: t_\delta\left(Y_d Y_d^\dagger Y_d
219: - Y_d Y_u Y_u^\dagger \right) + t_\delta S Y_d - t_\delta \left(8g_3^2 +
220: \frac{1}{4} g_1^2 + \frac{9}{4} g_2^2\right) Y_d, \\
221: 16\pi^2 \frac{d\lambda}{d\ln\mu} & = & 12 t_\delta \lambda^2 -
222: \left(\frac{9}{5} g_1^2 + 9 g_2^2\right)t_\delta \lambda +
223: \frac{9}{4} t_\delta
224: \left(\frac{3}{25} g_1^4 + \frac{2}{5} g_1^2 g_2^2 + g_2^4\right)
225: \nonumber \\
226: & + & 4 S \lambda -
227: 4 {\rm Tr}~\left[(Y_l^\dagger Y_l)^2 + 3 (Y_d^\dagger Y_d)^2
228: + 3 (Y_u^\dagger Y_u)^2\right] ~. \nonumber
229: \end{eqnarray}
230: %
231: It should be noted that in the limit $\delta = 0$ (i.e., $t_\delta =
232: 1$) one reproduces the SM expressions \cite{babu1,chan,drees,mv}
233: which control the evolution in the interval $M_Z < \mu <\mu_0$.
234: We stress here that our calculation of $\kappa$ evolution agrees with
235: that of \cite{drees} who have pointed out a small error in the
236: original calculations of \cite{babu1,chan}: more specifically,
237: the numerical factor in front of the leptonic Yukawa contribution in
238: Eq.~(\ref{kappa}) is indeed 3/2 rather than 1/2.
239:
240: The evolution of the gauge couplings in an extra-dimensional
241: scenario have been worked out in
242: \cite{ddg}, and for $\mu > \mu_0$ are given by
243: %
244: \begin{eqnarray}
245: \label{gauge}
246: 16\pi^2 \frac{d g_i}{d\ln\mu} & = & b_i g_i^3, ~~~{\rm where} \\
247: b_1 & = & 41/10 + (t_\delta - 1)(1/10), \nonumber \\
248: b_2 & = & -(19/6) - (t_\delta - 1)(41/6), \nonumber \\
249: b_3 & = & -7 - (t_\delta - 1)(21/2). \nonumber
250: \end{eqnarray}
251: %
252: In the interval $M_Z < \mu <\mu_0$, the gauge couplings run as in the
253: SM and the corresponding beta functions are obtained by putting
254: $t_\delta = 1$ in Eq.~(\ref{gauge}).
255:
256: The computational procedure behind the power law running behaviour is
257: simple \cite{ddg,abelking}. In the scenario under consideration, gauge
258: bosons and scalars have KK excitations, but fermions are localised at a
259: brane, which is a fixed point. The external boson legs in any diagram
260: are their KK zero modes which represent their SM states. In the loop
261: diagrams there can be either one or two internal KK modes. If there is
262: only one, then each time a KK threshold is crossed, the diagram
263: contributes the same as in the SM regardless of the KK number of the
264: internal line. Such a situation may arise only when an internal boson
265: meets a fermion at the brane where KK number is not conserved due to the
266: breakdown of the fifth-dimensional translational invariance at the fixed
267: point. If there are two internal KK modes, then both should have the
268: same KK number as the latter is assumed to be conserved at the vertex,
269: hence a single summation. As before, each time such a KK threshold is
270: crossed, the diagram contributes an amount identical to the SM. Then
271: after summing over an infinite tower of KK modes, as shown in
272: \cite{ddg}, one obtains the following simple working rule: identify the
273: diagram which contains internal KK modes and multiply its SM
274: contribution by $t_\delta$. In fact, $t_\delta$ represents the volume of
275: a $\delta$-dimensional sphere of radius $\mu$ where the unit of volume
276: is $\mu_0^\delta$ -- it counts the number of KK modes excited upto an
277: energy scale $\mu$. So, in a sense, $t_\delta$ is a measure of the
278: density of KK modes which accelerates the running by inducing an
279: explicit $\mu^\delta$ dependence on the right hand side of
280: Eqs.~(\ref{kappa}), (\ref{yukawa}) and (\ref{gauge}). Clearly, in the
281: limit $\delta = 0$, one recovers the usual logarithmic
282: running. Intuitively, the power law behaviour stems from the fact that
283: couplings which are dimensionless in 4 dimensions become dimensionful in
284: higher dimensions.
285:
286: Before embarking on the main theme of the running of the neutrino
287: mixing angle, we touch upon a related issue which concerns the allowed
288: range of the Higgs mass. In the SM, where Higgs constitutes the only
289: scalar, the requirement that the scalar potential remains bounded from
290: below (i.e., $\lambda > 0$) throughout the energy thoroughfare $M_Z <
291: \mu < M_{\rm GUT}$ restricts the Higgs mass to lie above $\sim 145$
292: GeV. The crucial controlling factor is, in fact, the splitting between
293: the top and the Higgs masses. Supposing the Higgs to weigh $\sim 115$
294: GeV, where a preliminary hint was claimed by the LEP Collaborations,
295: the one-loop RG running in the SM drives the $\lambda$ parameter
296: towards negative values near a scale as close as $\sim 10^{4}-10^{5}$
297: GeV, which prompted the authors of Ref.~\cite{ellisross} to invoke the
298: case for supersymmetry which prevents the occurence of a negative
299: $\lambda$. In our case, which deals with only SM and its bosonic KK
300: excitations, the energy interval, as we discussed before, is $M_Z <
301: \mu <M$, where $M \sim 30$ TeV with $R^{-1} = 1$ TeV. We have found,
302: with the RG running given by Eq.~(\ref{yukawa}), that (i) the
303: stability of the potential ($\lambda > 0$) requires a lower limit $M_H
304: > 98$ GeV, and (ii) the requirement of perturbativity demands an upper
305: limit $M_H < 153$ GeV. Admittedly, these limits are merely indicative
306: as they are based on only one loop RG evolution.
307:
308: Now let us take a stock of the parameters which control the running of
309: $\kappa_{ij}$ and the neutrino mixing angle ($\theta$). The values of
310: all the gauge and the relevant Yukawa couplings at the weak scale are
311: input parameters. Similarly, a choice of the Higgs mass is necessary
312: to fix the quartic coupling, $\lambda$, at the weak scale. We have
313: checked that the mixing angle evolution is insensitive to the choice
314: of the Higgs mass as long as the latter respects the stability and the
315: perturbativity conditions of the potential. As a reference point, we
316: have chosen $M_H = 115$ GeV. Then a two-step running
317: determines the values of all these couplings at the scale $M$. In the
318: interval $M_Z < \mu < \mu_0$, the running is logarithmic, controlled
319: by the SM beta functions (putting $\delta = 0$), while in the range
320: $\mu_0 < \mu < M$, power law running takes over with $\delta = 1$. We
321: choose $\mu_0 = 10^3$ GeV and $M = 10^{4.5}$ GeV = 30 TeV to be our
322: reference scales. Variations of $\mu$ and $M$ around these reference
323: values do not throw much insight into our agenda, and hence, for the
324: sake of brevity and concise illustration, we stick to these values
325: throughout this paper. The $\kappa$ matrix is defined and parametrized
326: at the scale $M$ for the two-flavour case as $d\kappa \equiv
327: (\kappa_{11} - \kappa_{22})/\kappa_{22}$. The other parameter to be
328: fixed at $M$ is the neutrino mixing angle given by $\tan 2\theta =
329: 2\kappa_{12}/(\kappa_{22}-\kappa_{11})$, in a basis in which the
330: charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal. The mixing angle runs
331: according to
332: %
333: \begin{eqnarray}
334: 16\pi^2 \frac{d\sin^2 2\theta}{d\ln\mu} & = & \sin^2 2\theta
335: (1 - \sin^2 2\theta) (y_2^2 - y_1^2) \frac{\kappa_{22}+\kappa_{11}}
336: {\kappa_{22}-\kappa_{11}},
337: \label{angrun}
338: \end{eqnarray}
339: %
340: where $y_2$ and $y_1$ are the charged lepton Yukawa couplings. In our
341: case, $y_2$ is $Y_\tau$ and $y_1$ is either $Y_e$ or $Y_\mu$.
342: It is important to note, as emphasized by Chankowski et al. in
343: \cite{rest}, that although $\theta = 0$ is a fixed point, $\theta =
344: \pi/4$ is not. In fact, the evolution of $d\kappa$
345: does not have a fixed point at $d\kappa = 0$.
346:
347: Our goal is to choose small but non-zero values of $\sin^2 2\theta|_M$
348: and then investigate whether appropriate values of $d\kappa|_M$ exist
349: which would magnify $\sin^2 2\theta|_{M_Z}$ following a two-step
350: running. An inspection of Eq.~(\ref{angrun}) reveals that this
351: running would be significant only when $d\kappa$ is less than or close
352: to $Y_\tau^2$. This requires $\kappa_{22} < \kappa_{11}$ at $M$. In
353: fact, during the process of running, $\kappa_{11}$ and $\kappa_{22}$
354: cross each other at some energy scale leading to a resonance in the
355: mixing angle at that scale. This happens due to the appearance of
356: $d\kappa$ in the denominator of the right hand side of
357: Eq.~(\ref{angrun}). Indeed, the scale at which this resonance occurs
358: depends crucially on the interplay between $d\kappa|_M$ and the
359: distinct lengths of the logarithmic and power law running determined
360: by the choices of $\mu_0$ and $M$. Our purpose is to attribute a very
361: small mixing angle at $M$ and probe the appropriate parameter range
362: that generates a large mixing angle near $M_Z$.
363:
364: \begin{floatingfigure}[r]{8cm}
365: \centerline{\input{bgr_fig.pic}}
366: \caption[]{\small $\sin^2 2\theta$ has been plotted against the
367: renormalization scale. The values of $M_H$, $\mu_0$ and $M$ are 115
368: GeV, 1 TeV and 30 TeV, respectively. The different plots correspond
369: to different combinations of ($d\kappa|_M$, $\sin^2 2\theta|_M$)
370: given by: (a) $(1.5\times 10^{-4}, 0.05)$, (b) $(1.5\times 10^{-4},
371: 0.1)$, (c) $(1.5\times 10^{-4}, 0.01)$, (d) $(1.3\times 10^{-4},
372: 0.05)$, and (e) $(1.7\times 10^{-4}, 0.05)$.
373: \label{fig1}}
374: \end{floatingfigure}
375:
376: In Fig.~1 we have plotted $\sin^2 2\theta$ as a function of the
377: renormalization scale for different values of $d\kappa|_M$ and $\sin^2
378: 2\theta|_M$. The graphs labelled by (a), (b) and (c) correspond to the
379: choices of the initial mixing angle $\sin^2 2\theta|_M = 0.05, 0.1$
380: and $0.01$, respectively, for a fixed $d\kappa|_M = 1.5 \times
381: 10^{-4}$. We observe that for the plots (a) and (b) $\sin^2
382: 2\theta|_{M_Z}$ reaches near maximal values, while for (c) it is still
383: quite large. For the other two cases (d) and (e), $\sin^2 2\theta|_M$
384: has been fixed to $0.05$, only that for (d) $d\kappa|_M = 1.3 \times
385: 10^{-4}$ while for (e) $d\kappa|_M = 1.7 \times 10^{-4}$. We make
386: two observations: (i) for smaller values of $d\kappa|_M$, the
387: mixing angle resonance occurs at a higher scale as a result of
388: $\kappa_{22} - \kappa_{11}$ approaching zero with less running
389: from above, and (ii) with smaller values of $\sin^2 2\theta|_M$,
390: the values of $\sin^2 2\theta|_{M_Z}$ are smaller, as expected.
391: Thus, with the ultimate goal of generating a large mixing angle
392: at $M_Z$ in mind, a significantly large fine-tuning is admittedly
393: involved in the selection of $d\kappa|_M$, but the situation is
394: not at all fine-tuned when it comes to the choice of the initial
395: mixing angle.
396:
397:
398: Since $d\kappa \sim 0.5 \Delta m^2/m^2$, where $m = (m_{11} + m_{22})/2$,
399: the requirement of the mixing angle resonance near $M_Z$ almost pins
400: down the associated mass splitting. For the reference case $d\kappa|_M
401: = 1.5 \times 10^{-4}$, we obtain $(\Delta m^2/m^2)_M = 3 \times
402: 10^{-4}$. Now, we have observed that $d\kappa$ decreases by one order
403: of magnitude during the RG evolution from $M$ to $M_Z$, the bulk of
404: the effect coming from the power law region $M> \mu > \mu_0$. This
405: means $(\Delta m^2/m^2)_{M_Z} \simeq 3 \times 10^{-5}$. According to
406: the recently claimed evidence of neutrinoless double beta decay
407: \cite{klap}, $m$ is expected to lie in the range 0.05 to 0.84 eV at
408: 95\% C.L. Now with $\nu_\tau$-$\nu_e$ oscillation in mind, with $m$
409: towards the higher end of the above range, corresponding to $\kappa
410: \sim 10^{-8}$, we find a mass splitting appropriate for a MSW solar
411: neutrino oscillation in the LMA region, while with $m$ sitting in the
412: lower end of that range, which arises when $\kappa \sim 10^{-9}$, we
413: may expect a MSW solar neutrino oscillation in the LOW region
414: \cite{kamal}. We make two observations at this point. First, it is
415: not possible to produce a $\Delta m^2$ large enough to explain the
416: atmospheric neutrino data. Second, if we consider $\nu_\mu$-$\nu_e$
417: oscillation, i.e., leave out $\nu_\tau$ from consideration, then
418: $d\kappa$ would have to be $\sim Y_\mu^2$ to ensure mixing angle
419: resonance, but the corresponding $\Delta m^2$ would be too small to
420: fit any experimental data.
421:
422: If we take the neutrinoless double beta decay upper and lower limits
423: on the absolute Majorana mass seriously, then from one stand-point our
424: prediction can be contrasted with that of the usual 4-dimensional
425: model. While in our extra-dimensional case, as we pointed out, both
426: LMA and LOW solutions can be obtained, in the 4-dimensional scenario
427: only the LOW solution can be easily achieved. Interestingly, the LOW
428: solution is only marginally allowed after the incorporation of the SNO
429: neutral current data \cite{snonc}.
430:
431: Evidently, the large mixing angle which is being sought will be in the
432: so-called `dark side' if $\kappa_{22}-\kappa_{11}$ is negative and
433: $\kappa_{12}$ positive or {\em vice versa}. Only the magnitude of
434: $\kappa_{12}$ is fixed by $\sin^22\theta$, while its sign is
435: arbitrary. If we take $\kappa_{12}$ to be negative (positive) then the
436: reference boundary value chosen, namely, $d\kappa|_M = 1.5 \times
437: 10^{-4}$, puts this solution in the bright (dark) side at both $M$ and
438: $M_Z$ ($\sin^22\theta$ has not crossed unity in curve (a) of Fig.~1). It
439: is also possible to have small mixing in the dark (bright) side at $M$
440: become large mixing in the bright (dark) side at $M_Z$ by choosing, for
441: example, $d\kappa|_M = 1.3 \times 10^{-4}$ (see curve (d) in Fig.~1) and
442: $\kappa_{12}$ positive (negative).
443:
444: The main thrust of the paper has been on the magnification of a small
445: mixing angle at $M$ to a large one at the scale $M_Z$. For the examples
446: that have been presented, we have verified that for the chosen
447: parameters essentially {\em any} initial mixing results in a large
448: mixing at the low scale.
449:
450:
451: Our main focus of attention has been the RG running of the neutrino
452: mixing angles in the extra-dimensional scenario. In the process, we have
453: also examined the evolution of the other SM parameters and we
454: summarize the essential features now. Till the scale $\mu_0$ no KK
455: modes are excited and all couplings evolve as in the SM. The running
456: is different only in the $\mu_0 < \mu < M$ range. The gauge couplings,
457: $g_i~(i=1,2,3)$ achieve a near equality at a scale of $1.4 \times
458: 10^4$ GeV, as noted already in \cite{ddg}. The quark Yukawa couplings
459: run much faster than in the SM and $m_b = m_\tau$ is achieved at around
460: $1.6 \times 10^4$ GeV. The evolution of the quartic scalar coupling
461: $\lambda$ is critical for limiting the range of the allowed Higgs
462: masses and has already been discussed earlier. Beyond $\mu_0$ it
463: initially falls faster but then there is a slowing down and eventually
464: even a slight increase. This is a major departure from the SM.
465:
466:
467: In summary, we have considered the effect on the RG evolution of the
468: Majorana neutrino mass operator and the different SM (gauge, Yukawa,
469: and quartic scalar) couplings due to the KK excitations arising from
470: the compactification of one extra dimension. In the scenario under
471: consideration, the fermions are restricted to a fixed brane and have
472: no KK excitations, while the bosons can travel in the bulk and have
473: higher KK modes. Our main conclusion is that in a two flavour picture,
474: due to power law acceleration, the mixing between the $\nu_\tau$ and
475: another active neutrino can achieve near maximal values at $M_Z$ even
476: if it is only a few per cent at the ${\cal{O}}$ (10 TeV) scale. It is
477: worth extending our analysis to the cases which concern fermionic KK
478: excitations and promoting the analysis to the study of three flavour
479: oscillation. Furthermore, all these questions can be addressed in the
480: context of supersymmetry.
481:
482:
483: {\bf Acknowledgements:} GB acknowledges hospitality of the CERN Theory
484: Division and LPT, Orsay, where part of the work was done. The research
485: of AR has been supported by the Council of Scientific and Industrial
486: Research, India.
487:
488:
489:
490: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
491:
492: \bibitem{babu1} K.S. Babu, C.N. Leung, J. Pantaleone, Phys. Lett. B
493: 319 (1993) 191.
494:
495: \bibitem{chan} P.H. Chankowski, Z. Pluciennik, Phys. Lett. B 316
496: (1993) 312.
497:
498: \bibitem{rest} P.H. Chankowski, S. Pokorski, hep-ph/0110249;
499: P.H. Chankowski, W. Krolikowski, S. Pokorski, Phys. Lett. B 473 (2000)
500: 109; K.S. Babu, C.N. Leung, Nucl. Phys. B 619 (2001) 667;
501: K.R.S. Balaji, R.N. Mohapatra, M.K. Parida, E.A. Paschos, Phys. Rev. D
502: 63 (2001) 113002; J. Ellis, S. Lola, Phys. Lett. B 458 (1999) 310;
503: J.A. Casas, J.R. Espinosa, A. Ibarra and I. Navarro,
504: Nucl. Phys. B 573 (2000) 652.
505:
506: \bibitem{anto} I. Antoniadis, Phys. Lett. B 246 (1990) 377;
507: I. Antoniadis, K. Benakli, Phys. Lett. B 326 (1994) 69.
508:
509: \bibitem{ddg} K.R. Dienes, E. Dudas, T. Gherghetta, Nucl. Phys. B 537
510: (1999) 47.
511:
512: \bibitem{addj} N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. Dvali,
513: J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 024032.
514:
515: \bibitem{bando} M. Bando, T. Kobayashi, T. Noguchi, K. Yoshioka,
516: Phys. Lett. B480 (2000) 187.
517:
518: \bibitem{drees} S. Antusch, M. Drees, J. Kersten, M. Lindner, M. Ratz,
519: Phys. Lett. B 525 (2002) 130.
520:
521: \bibitem{mv} M. Machacek, M.T. Vaughn, Phys. Lett. B 103 (1981) 427.
522:
523: \bibitem{abelking} S.A. Abel, S.F. King, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999)
524: 095010.
525:
526: \bibitem{ellisross} J. Ellis, D.A. Ross, Phys. Lett. B 506 (2001)
527: 331.
528:
529: \bibitem{klap} H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, A. Dietz, H.L. Harney,
530: I.V. Krivosheina, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 16 (2001) 2409.
531:
532: \bibitem{kamal} G.L. Fogli, E. Lisi, D. Montanino, A. Palazzo,
533: Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 093007; J.N. Bahcall, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia,
534: C. Pe\~{n}a-Garay, JHEP 0108 (2001) 014; A. Bandopadhyay, S. Choubey,
535: S. Goswami, K. Kar, Phys. Lett. B 519 (2001) 83; P.I. Krastev,
536: A. Yu. Smirnov, hep-ph/0108177.
537:
538: \bibitem{snonc} Q.R. Ahmad {\em et al.}, (SNO Collaboration),
539: nucl-ex/0204008.
540:
541: \end{thebibliography}
542:
543: \end{document}
544: