1: \documentstyle[12pt,aps,amsfonts,axodraw] {revtex}
2: \tighten
3: \draft
4: \widetext
5: \input epsf
6: \topmargin -0.3in
7: \textwidth 6.5in
8: \textheight 8.5in
9:
10: \oddsidemargin 0in
11:
12: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
13: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
14: \newcommand{\beqs}{\begin{eqnarray}}
15: \newcommand{\eeqs}{\end{eqnarray}}
16: \newcommand{\lsim}{\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}$}}}
17: \newcommand{\gsim}{\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle>}{\sim}$}}}
18: \newcommand{\drawsquare}[2]{\hbox{%
19: \rule{#2pt}{#1pt}\hskip-#2pt% left vertical
20: \rule{#1pt}{#2pt}\hskip-#1pt% lower horizontal
21: \rule[#1pt]{#1pt}{#2pt}}\rule[#1pt]{#2pt}{#2pt}\hskip-#2pt% upper horizontal
22: \rule{#2pt}{#1pt}}% right vertical
23: \newcommand{\fund}{\raisebox{-.5pt}{\drawsquare{6.5}{0.4}}}% fund
24: \newcommand{\sym}{\raisebox{-.5pt}{\drawsquare{6.5}{0.4}}\hskip-0.4pt%
25: \raisebox{-.5pt}{\drawsquare{6.5}{0.4}}}% symmetric second rank
26: \newcommand{\asym}{\raisebox{-3.5pt}{\drawsquare{6.5}{0.4}}\hskip-6.9pt%
27: \raisebox{3pt}{\drawsquare{6.5}{0.4}}}% antisymmetric second rank
28:
29: \begin{document}
30:
31: \draft
32:
33: \baselineskip 5.0mm
34:
35: \bigskip
36: \bigskip
37:
38: \title{Neutrino Masses in Theories with Dynamical Electroweak Symmetry
39: Breaking}
40:
41: \vspace{6mm}
42:
43: \author{
44: Thomas Appelquist$^{a}$ \thanks{email: thomas.appelquist@yale.edu} \and
45: Robert Shrock$^{b}$ \thanks{email: robert.shrock@sunysb.edu}}
46:
47: \vspace{6mm}
48:
49: \address{a \ Physics Department, Sloane Laboratory \\
50: Yale University 06520 \\
51: New Haven, CT }
52:
53: \address{(b) \ C. N. Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics \\
54: State University of New York \\
55: Stony Brook, N. Y. 11794 }
56:
57: \maketitle
58:
59: \vspace{10mm}
60:
61: \begin{abstract}
62:
63: We address the problem of accounting for light neutrino masses in theories
64: with dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking. We discuss this in the
65: context of a class of (extended) technicolor (ETC) models and analyze the
66: full set of Dirac and Majorana masses that arise in such theories. As a
67: possible solution, we propose a combination of suppressed Dirac masses and a
68: seesaw involving dynamically generated $|\Delta L|=2$ condensates of
69: standard-model singlet, ETC-nonsinglet fermions. We show how this can be
70: realized in an explicit ETC model. An important feature of this proposal is
71: that, because of the suppression of Dirac neutrino mass terms, a seesaw
72: yielding realistic neutrino masses does not require superheavy Majorana
73: masses; indeed, these Majorana masses are typically much smaller than the
74: largest ETC scale.
75:
76: \end{abstract}
77:
78: \pacs{14.60.PQ, 12.60.Nz, 14.60.St}
79:
80: \vspace{16mm}
81:
82: \newpage
83: \pagestyle{plain}
84: \pagenumbering{arabic}
85:
86: \section{Introduction}
87:
88: An understanding of the fermion mass spectrum remains an intriguing challenge
89: for particle physics. The standard model (SM) accomodates quark and charged
90: lepton masses by the mechanism of Yukawa couplings to a postulated Higgs boson,
91: but this does not provide insight into these masses, especially since it
92: requires small dimensionless Yukawa couplings for all of the charged fermions
93: except the top quark, ranging down to $10^{-6} - 10^{-5}$ for the electron and
94: $u$ and $d$ quarks. The standard model has zero neutrino masses, and hence must
95: be modified to take account of the increasingly strong evidence for the very
96: small but non-zero neutrino masses and significant lepton mixing from solar and
97: atmospheric data \cite{sol,atm}, consistent with the K2K accelerator neutrino
98: experiment \cite{k2k}.
99:
100: Since masses for the quarks, charged leptons, and observed neutrinos break the
101: chiral gauge symmetry of the standard model, an explanation of these masses
102: necessarily involves a model for electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB). One
103: possibility is dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking driven by a strongly
104: coupled gauge interaction, associated with an exact gauge symmetry, denoted
105: generically as technicolor (TC) \cite{tc}-\cite{tcrev}. The EWSB arises from
106: the condensation of technifermion bilinears. The generation of realistic masses
107: for the charged leptons and $u$, $d$, $s$, $c$, and $b$ quarks seems attainable
108: in this framework, via extended technicolor, in particular with slowly running
109: ("walking") technicolor. Although additional ingredients are very likely
110: necessary to explain the large top-quark mass, we explore here the possibility
111: that an ETC model of the above type can yield a plausible explanation for small
112: neutrino masses. This is a significant challenge for dynamical EWSB models. As
113: conventionally formulated, these theories have no very large mass scale
114: analogous to the grand unification scale $M_{GUT}$ that enters in the seesaw
115: mechanism \cite{seesaw} yielding a Majorana mass $m_\nu \sim m_D^2/m_R$, where
116: $m_D$ is a Dirac mass and $m_R \sim M_{GUT}$ is the mass characterizing
117: electroweak-singlet neutrinos.
118:
119: Although some previous attempts have been made to study this problem
120: \cite{ssvz,holdom,at94}, it is important to reconsider it in light of later
121: theoretical and experimental developments. Refs. \cite{ssvz,at94} did not
122: include Majorana neutrino mass terms and instead explored a suppression
123: mechanism for Dirac neutrino masses. This approach does not, however, yield
124: enough suppression to agree with current experiments. Here we give a general
125: treatment including both Dirac and Majorana mass terms. We show how ETC
126: theories dynamically produce such Majorana mass terms and associated
127: condensates, violating lepton number $L$ as $|\Delta L|=2$ \cite{lfv}. We
128: propose, as a possible solution for how to get light neutrino masses, a
129: combination of naturally suppressed Dirac masses and a seesaw involving the
130: dynamically generated Majorana mass terms. We show how this proposal can be
131: realized in an explicit ETC model.
132:
133:
134: \section{ Neutrino Mass Terms in Extended Technicolor Theories}
135:
136: We first present a general discussion taking the technicolor gauge group to
137: be SU($N_{TC})$. The set of technifermions includes, as a subset, one
138: family, viz., $Q_L = {U \choose D}_L$, $L_{TC,L} = {N \choose E}_L$, $U_R$,
139: $D_R$, $N_R$, $E_R$ transforming according to the fundamental representation
140: of SU($N_{TC}$) and the usual representations of $G_{SM} = {\rm SU}(3)
141: \times {\rm SU}(2)_L \times {\rm U}(1)_Y$ (color and TC indices are usually
142: suppressed). To satisfy constraints from flavor-changing neutral-current
143: processes, the ETC vector bosons, which can mediate generation-changing
144: transitions, must have large masses. We envision that these arise from
145: self-breaking of the ETC gauge symmetry, which requires that ETC be a
146: strongly coupled, chiral gauge theory. The self-breaking occurs in stages,
147: for example at the three stages $\Lambda_1 \sim 10^3$ TeV, $\Lambda_2 \sim
148: 50$ TeV, and $\Lambda_3 \sim 3$ TeV, corresponding to the $N_{gen}=3$
149: standard-model fermion generations. Then $N_{ETC}=N_{TC}+N_{gen}$.
150:
151: A particularly attractive choice for the technicolor group, used in the
152: explicit model to be studied here, is ${\rm SU}(2)_{TC}$, which has the appeal
153: that it minimizes the TC contributions to the $S$ parameter \cite{nutev} and
154: can yield walking behavior, allowing for realistically large quark and charged
155: lepton masses. With $N_{gen}=3$, the choice $N_{TC}=2$ corresponds to
156: $N_{ETC}=5$. With $N_f = 8$ vectorially coupled technifermions in the
157: fundamental representation, studies suggest that this SU(2)$_{TC}$ theory could
158: have an (approximate) infrared fixed point (IRFP) in the confining phase with
159: spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking but near to the phase transition (as a
160: function of $N_f$ for fixed $N_{TC}$) beyond which the theory would go over
161: into a nonabelian Coulomb phase \cite{vals,gap}. This approximate IRFP provides
162: the walking behavior, enhancing the technifermion condensates that control the
163: quark and charged lepton masses. The walking can also enhance the masses of
164: pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone bosons, but further ingredients are likely needed to
165: ensure the absence of some massless Nambu-Goldstone bosons.
166:
167: A rough estimate of the quark and charged lepton masses can be made by
168: considering a one-loop diagram in which a fermion $f_a$ emits a virtual ETC
169: gauge boson, going to a virtual technifermion $F$ which reabsorbs the gauge
170: boson, producing the mass term $m_{f_a} \bar f_{a,L} f_{a,R} + h.c.$ with
171: %
172: \beq
173: m_{f_a} \sim \frac{g_{_{ETC}}^2 \eta_a N_{TC}\Lambda_{TC}^3}{4\pi^2 M_a^2}
174: \label{mfa}
175: \eeq
176: %
177: where $M_a \sim g_{_{ETC}}\Lambda_a$ is the mass of the ETC gauge bosons
178: that gain mass at scale $\Lambda_a$ and $g_{_{ETC}}$ is the running ETC
179: gauge coupling evaluated at this scale. In eq. (\ref{mfa}) $\eta_a$ is a
180: possible enhancement factor incorporating walking, which can be as large as
181: $\Lambda_a/f_F$ \cite{wtc,eta}, where $f_F$ is the technicolor pseudoscalar
182: decay constant (for our purposes we can take $f_L \simeq f_Q \equiv f_F$).
183: We recall that $\Lambda_{TC}$ is determined by using the relation $m_W^2 =
184: (g^2/4)(N_c f_Q^2 + f_L^2) \simeq (g^2/4)(N_c+1)f_F^2$, which gives $f_F
185: \simeq 130$ GeV. In QCD, $f_\pi = 93$ MeV and $\Lambda_{QCD} \sim 170$ MeV,
186: so that $\Lambda_{QCD}/f_\pi \sim 2$; using this as a guide to technicolor,
187: we infer $\Lambda_{TC} \sim 260$ MeV.
188:
189: Technicolor models in general also have a set of electroweak-singlet neutrinos,
190: $\chi_R=(\chi_1,...,\chi_{n_s})_R$ \cite{rh}, some technicolored and some
191: techni-singlets, in addition to the left-handed, weak-isospin-doublet neutrinos
192: and technineutrinos. The contributions to the total neutrino mass matrix,
193: generated by condensates arising at the TC and ETC scales, are then of three
194: types: (i) left-handed Majorana, (ii) Dirac, and (iii) right-handed Majorana.
195: The left-handed Majorana mass terms, which violate $L$ by two units, take the
196: form
197: %
198: \beq
199: \sum_{i,j=1}^{N_{ETC}}[n_{iL}^T C (M_L)_{ij} n_{jL}] + h.c.
200: \label{mleftgen}
201: \eeq
202: %
203: where $n_L=(\{\nu_\ell \},\{N\})_L$ includes the electroweak-doublet
204: left-handed neutrinos for $i,j=1,2,3$ and technineutrinos for
205: $i,j=4,....N_{ETC}$; and $C=i\gamma_2\gamma_0$. Left-handed Majorana masses
206: violate the electroweak gauge symmetry, and, for technineutrinos, also the
207: TC symmetry, which is exact. Thus, $(M_L)_{ij}=0$ for $i$ or $j$ $= 4,....
208: N_{ETC}$. The Dirac mass terms take the form
209: %
210: \beq
211: \sum_{a=1}^{N_{ETC}} \sum_{s=1}^{n_s} \bar
212: n_{aL}(M_D)_{as}\chi_{sR} + h.c.
213: \label{mdirac}
214: \eeq
215: %
216: Finally, the Majorana bilinears with SM-singlet neutrinos are
217: %
218: \beq
219: \sum_{s,s^\prime=1}^{n_s} \chi_{s R}^T C (M_R)_{ss^\prime}\chi_{s^\prime R} \ ,
220: \label{mroperator}
221: \eeq
222: %
223: In (\ref{mdirac}) and (\ref{mroperator}) $(M_D)_{as}=0$ and
224: $(M_R)_{ss^\prime}=0$ for technicolor-noninvariant entries.
225:
226:
227: The full neutrino mass term is then
228: %
229: \beq
230: -{\cal L}_m =
231: {1 \over 2}(\bar n_L \ \overline{\chi^c}_L)
232: \left( \begin{array}{cc}
233: M_L & M_D \\
234: (M_D)^T & M_R \end{array} \right )\left( \begin{array}{c}
235: n^{c}_R \\
236: \chi_R \end{array} \right ) + h.c.
237: \label{mnugeneral}
238: \eeq
239: %
240: Since $(M_L)^T=M_L$ and $(M_R)^T=M_R$, the full $(N_{ETC}+n_s) \times
241: (N_{ETC}+n_s)$ neutrino mass matrix $M$ in (\ref{mnugeneral}) is complex
242: symmetric and can be diagonalized by a unitary transformation $U_\nu^\dagger$
243: as $M_{diag.}=U_\nu^\dagger M (U_\nu^\dagger)^T$. This yields the neutrino
244: masses and transformation $U_\nu$ relating the group eigenstates
245: $\nu_L = (\bar n, \overline{\chi^c})_L^T$ and the corresponding mass
246: eigenstates $\nu_{m,L}$, according to $\nu_{j,L} = \sum_{k=1}^{N_{ETC}+n_s}
247: (U_\nu)_{jk} \nu_{k,m,L}$, $1 \le j \le N_{ETC}+n_s$ (the elements
248: $(U_\nu)_{jk}$ connecting techni-singlet and technicolored neutrinos vanish
249: identically). The lepton mixing matrix for the observed neutrinos \cite{ms}
250: $\nu_{\ell,L} = U \nu_{m,L}$ is then given by
251: %
252: \beq
253: U_{ik} = \sum_{j=1}^3 (U_{\ell,L})_{ij} (U_\nu)_{jk} \ , \quad 1 \le i \le 3,
254: \quad 1 \le k \le N_{ETC}+n_s
255: \label{u}
256: \eeq
257: %
258: where $U_{1k} \equiv U_{ek}$, etc., and where the diagonalization of the
259: charged lepton mass matrix is carried out by the bi-unitary transformation
260: $M_{\ell,diag.} = U_{\ell,L} M_\ell U_{\ell,R}^\dagger$.
261:
262:
263: \section{Specific Extended Technicolor Model}
264:
265: We next present an analysis of a specific ETC model based on the gauge group $G
266: = {\rm SU}(5)_{ETC} \times {\rm SU}(2)_{HC} \times G_{SM}$. One additional
267: gauge interaction, $SU(2)_{HC}$, where HC denotes hypercolor, has been
268: introduced along with $SU(5)_{ETC}$ and $G_{SM}$. Both the $SU(2)_{HC}$ and
269: $SU(5)_{ETC}$ interactions become strong, triggering a sequential breaking
270: pattern. The fermion content of this model is listed below, where the numbers
271: indicate the representations under ${\rm SU}(5)_{ETC} \times {\rm SU}(2)_{HC}
272: \times {\rm SU}(3)_c \times {\rm SU}(2)_L$ and the subscript gives the weak
273: hypercharge:
274: %
275: \beqs
276: (5,1,3,2)_{1/3,L} \ , \quad\quad & & (5,1,3,1)_{4/3,R} \ , \quad
277: (5,1,3,1)_{-2/3,R} \cr\cr
278: (5,1,1,2)_{-1,L} \ , \quad\quad & & (5,1,1,1)_{-2,R} \ , \quad
279: (\overline{10},1,1,1)_{0,R} \ , \cr\cr
280: & & (10,2,1,1)_{0,R} \ .
281: \label{minimalfermions}
282: \eeqs
283: %
284: Thus the fermions include quarks and techniquarks in the representations
285: $(5,1,3,2)_{1/3,L}$, $(5,1,3,1)_{4/3,R}$, and $(5,1,3,1)_{-2/3,R}$, left-handed
286: charged leptons and neutrinos and technileptons in $(5,1,1,2)_{-1,L}$, and
287: right-handed charged leptons and technileptons in $(5,1,1,1)_{-2,R}$, together
288: with SM-singlet fermions $\psi_{ij,R}$ in the antisymmetric tensor
289: representation $(\overline{10},1,1,1)_{0,R}$. The unusual assignment of the SM
290: singlets makes the $SU(5)_{ETC}$ gauge theory chiral. Finally, in order to
291: render the theory anomaly-free and to provide interactions to help trigger the
292: symmetry breaking, one adds the hypercolored fields in the $(10,2,1,1)_{0,R}$,
293: denoted $\zeta^{ij,\alpha}_R$, where $ij$ and $\alpha$ are ETC and HC indices.
294: Thus, $n_s=30$. We label the ETC gauge bosons as $(V^i_j)_\mu$, $1 \le i,j \le
295: 5$. To fix the convention for the lepton number assigned to $\psi_{ij,R}$, we
296: take it to be $L=1$ in order that Dirac terms $\bar n_{i,L} \psi_{jk,R}$
297: conserve lepton number. The lepton number assigned to the
298: $\zeta^{ij,\alpha}_R$ fields is also a convention; since they have no Dirac
299: terms with observed neutrinos, we leave it arbitrary. We write $\chi_R =
300: (\psi,\zeta)_R$.
301:
302: Each of the nonabelian factor groups in $G$ is asymptotically free. There are
303: no bilinear fermion operators invariant under $G$ and hence there are no bare
304: fermion mass terms. The SU(2)$_{HC}$ and U(1)$_{HC}$ interactions and the
305: SU(2)$_{TC}$ subsector of SU(5)$_{TC}$ are vectorial. This model has some
306: features in common with the ETC model, denoted AT94, of \cite{at94}, but has
307: different gauge groups and fermion content.
308:
309: We next analyze the stages of symmetry breaking. We envision that at $E \sim
310: \Lambda_1 \sim 10^3$ TeV, $\alpha_{_{ETC}}$ is sufficiently large to produce
311: condensation in the attractive channel $(\overline{10},1,1,1)_{0,R} \times
312: (\overline{10},1,1,1)_{0,R} \to (5,1,1,1)_0$, breaking ${\rm SU}(5)_{ETC} \to
313: {\rm SU}(4)_{ETC}$. In the most attractive channel (MAC) analysis this is a
314: highly attractive channel, with $\Delta C_2=24/5$, although it is not the MAC
315: itself. (The MAC is $(\overline {10},1,1,1)_{0,R} \times (10,2,1,1)_{0,R} \to
316: (1,2,1,1)$, with $\Delta C_2=36/5$; this is undesired since it would break
317: SU(2)$_{HC}$.). The desired condensation channel is nearly as strong and is
318: just as probable within the uncertainties of MAC analyses. With no loss of
319: generality, we take the breaking direction in SU(5)$_{ETC}$ as $i=1$; this
320: entails the separation of the first generation of quarks and leptons from the
321: components of SU(5)$_{ETC}$ fields with indices lying in the set
322: $\{2,3,4,5\}$. With respect to the unbroken ${\rm SU}(4)_{ETC}$, we have the
323: decomposition $(\overline{10},1,1,1)_{0,R} = (\bar 4,1,1,1)_{0,R} + (\bar
324: 6,1,1,1)_{0,R}$ We denote the $(\bar 4,1,1,1)_{0,R}$ and antisymmetric tensor
325: representation $(\bar 6,1,1,1)_{0,R}$ as $\alpha_{1i R} \equiv \psi_{1i,R}$ for
326: $2 \le i \le 5$ and $\xi_{ij,R} \equiv \psi_{ij,R}$ for $2 \le i,j \le 5$. The
327: associated SU(5)$_{ETC}$-breaking, SU(4)$_{ETC}$-invariant condensate is then
328: %
329: \beq
330: \langle \epsilon_{1 i j k \ell} \xi^{ij T}_R C \xi^{k \ell}_R \rangle =
331: 4\langle \xi^{23 T}_R C \xi^{45}_R - \xi^{24 T}_R C \xi^{35}_R +
332: \xi^{25 T}_R C \xi^{34}_R \rangle \ .
333: \label{xixi}
334: \eeq
335: %
336: This condensate and the resultant dynamical Majorana mass terms for the six
337: components of $\xi$ in eq. (\ref{xixi}) violate total lepton number as $|\Delta
338: L|=2$. The dynamical formation of Majorana mass terms and violation of total
339: lepton number is an important feature of these models, providing a
340: necessary ingredient for a (dynamical) seesaw mechanism \cite{inst}.
341:
342: At lower scales, depending on relative strengths of couplings, different
343: symmetry-breaking sequences occur. One plausible sequence, denoted $G_a$, is
344: as follows: at $\Lambda_2 \sim 10^2$ TeV, SU(4)$_{ETC}$ and SU(2)$_{HC}$
345: couplings are sufficiently large to lead together to the condensation
346: $(4,2,1,1)_{0,R} \times (6,2,1,1)_{0,R} \to (\bar 4,1,1,1)$, breaking ${\rm
347: SU}(4)_{ETC} \to {\rm SU}(3)_{ETC}$ \cite{at94}. This condensate is
348: %
349: \beq
350: \langle \epsilon_{\alpha\beta}\epsilon_{i2jk \ell}\zeta^{ij,\alpha \ T}_R C
351: \zeta^{k \ell,\beta}_R \rangle = 4\langle \epsilon_{\alpha\beta}(
352: \zeta^{13,\alpha \ T}_R C \zeta^{45,\beta}_R -
353: \zeta^{14,\alpha \ T}_R C \zeta^{35,\beta}_R +
354: \zeta^{15,\alpha \ T}_R C \zeta^{34,\beta}_R ) \rangle \ ,
355: \label{zetacondensate}
356: \eeq
357: %
358: and the twelve $\zeta^{ij,\alpha}_R$ fields in this condensate gain masses
359: $\sim \Lambda_2$. Both the SU(4)$_{ETC}$ and SU(2)$_{HC}$ interactions are
360: strongly attractive in this channel, together making the channel an example
361: of the big-MAC of Ref. \cite{at94}. The fact that the neutrino-like fields
362: $\alpha_{1i,R}$ transform as a $\bar 4$ of SU(4)$_{ETC}$, while the
363: left-handed neutrinos and technineutrinos transform as a 4, will lead to a
364: strong suppression of relevant entries in the Dirac submatrix $M_D$
365: \cite{ssvz,at94}.
366:
367: In the $G_a$ symmetry-breaking sequence, at the lowest ETC scale, $\Lambda_3
368: \sim 3$ TeV, the $(3,2,1,1)_{0,R}$, $\zeta^{2j,\alpha}_R$, $j=3,4,5$, from the
369: $(6,2,1,1)_{0,R}$ is assumed to condense as $(3,2,1,1)_{0,R} \times
370: (3,2,1,1)_{0,R} \to (\bar 3,1,1,1)$, breaking ${\rm SU}(3)_{ETC} \to {\rm
371: SU}(2)_{TC}$ \cite{at94}. The condensate is $\langle
372: \epsilon_{\alpha\beta}\zeta^{24,\alpha \ T}_R C \zeta^{25,\beta}_R \rangle$.
373: This breaking again involves the combination of attractive ETC and HC
374: interactions \cite{at94}. Further, we expect that at a scale $\sim \Lambda_3$
375: the HC interaction produces the condensate $\langle \epsilon_{\alpha\beta}
376: \zeta^{12,\alpha \ T}_R C \zeta^{23,\beta}_R\rangle$. Thus, just as the six
377: $\xi_{ij,R}$ condense out of the theory at energies below $\Lambda_1$, all of
378: the 20 fields $\zeta^{ij,\alpha}$ in the $(10,2,1,1)_{0,R}$ have condensed out
379: of the effective theory at energies below $\Lambda_3$. Since one may assign
380: lepton number zero to $\zeta^{ij,\alpha}_R$, condensates of the form $\langle
381: \zeta_R^T C \zeta_R \rangle$ do not necessarily violate total lepton number in
382: this model.
383:
384: A different sequence of condensations, denoted $G_b$, can occur if the
385: SU(2)$_{HC}$ coupling is somewhat smaller. At a scale $\Lambda_{BHC} \lsim
386: \Lambda_1$ (BHC = broken HC), the SU(4)$_{ETC}$ interaction produces a
387: condensation in the channel $(6,2,1,1)_{0,R} \times (6,2,1,1)_{0,R} \to
388: (1,3,1,1)_0$. With respect to ETC, this channel has $\Delta C_2 = 5$ and is
389: hence slightly more attractive than the initial condensation (\ref{xixi})
390: with $\Delta C_2 = 24/5$, but it can to occur at the somewhat lower scale
391: $\Lambda_{BHC}$ because it is repulsive with respect to hypercolor. With no
392: loss of generality, one can orient SU(2)$_{HC}$ axes so that the condensate
393: is
394: %
395: \beq
396: \langle \epsilon_{1 i j k \ell} \zeta^{ij,1 \ T}_R C
397: \zeta^{k \ell,2}_R \rangle + (1 \leftrightarrow 2) \ .
398: \label{6x6}
399: \eeq
400: %
401: Since this is an adjoint representation of hypercolor, it breaks ${\rm
402: SU}(2)_{HC} \to {\rm U}(1)_{HC}$. We let $\alpha=1,2$ correspond to
403: $Q_{HC}=\pm 1$ under the U(1)$_{HC}$. This gives dynamical masses $\sim
404: \Lambda_{BHC}$ to the twelve $\zeta^{ij,\alpha}_R$ fields involved.
405:
406: At a lower scale, $\Lambda_{23}$, in the $G_b$ sequence, we envision that a
407: combination of the SU(4)$_{ETC}$ and U(1)$_{HC}$ attractive interactions
408: produces the condensation $4 \times 4 \to 6$ with condensate $\langle
409: \epsilon_{\alpha \beta} \zeta^{12,\alpha \ T}_R C \zeta^{13,\beta}_R \rangle$,
410: which then breaks ${\rm SU}(4)_{ETC} \to {\rm SU}(2)_{ETC}$ and is
411: U(1)$_{HC}$-invariant. Thus, the sequence $G_b$ has only two ETC breaking
412: scales, $\Lambda_1$ and $\Lambda_{23}$; additional ingredients are needed to
413: obtain the requisite range of SM fermion masses. Here we take $\Lambda_{23}
414: \sim 10$ TeV. Although there is a residual U(1)$_{HC}$ gauge interaction in
415: these models, its effects are shielded since it does not couple directly to SM
416: particles. Finally, for both $G_a$ and $G_b$, at the still lower scale
417: $\Lambda_{TC} \sim f_F$, technifermion condensation takes place, breaking ${\rm
418: SU}(2)_L \times {\rm U}(1)_Y \to {\rm U}(1)_{em}$.
419:
420: \section{Calculations and Results}
421:
422: The mass matrix $M$ of neutrino-like (colorless and electrically neutral)
423: states in Eq. (\ref{mnugeneral}) has $N_{ETC}=5$ and $n_s=30$. Since the
424: hypercolored fields do not form bilinear condensates and resultant mass terms
425: with hypercolor singlets, $M$ is block-diagonal, comprised of a $15 \times 15$
426: block $M_{HCS}$ involving hypercolor-singlet neutrinos and a $20 \times 20$
427: block $M_{HC}$ involving the hypercolored fermions, $M_{HC}$. The entries in
428: the matrix $M$ arise as the high-energy physics is integrated out at each stage
429: of condensation from $\Lambda_1$ down to $\Lambda_{TC}$. Composite operators of
430: various dimension are formed, with bilinear condensation then leading to the
431: masses. The nonzero entries of $M$ arise in two different ways: (i) directly,
432: as dynamical masses associated with various condensates, and (ii) via loop
433: diagrams involving dynamical mass insertions on internal fermion lines and, in
434: most cases, also mixings among ETC gauge bosons on internal lines. Since the
435: ETC gauge boson mixing arises at the level of one or more loops, most graphs
436: for nonzero type-(ii) elements of $M$ arise at the level of at least two-loop
437: diagrams. The different origins for the elements of $M$ give rise to quite
438: different magnitudes for these elements; in particular, there is substantial
439: suppression of most type-(ii) entries. This suppression is not primarily due
440: to the ETC gauge couplings, which are strong, but to the fact that the diagrams
441: involve ratios of small scales such as $\Lambda_{TC}$ and lower ETC scales to
442: larger scales such as $\Lambda_1$. The $20 \times 20$ matrix $M_{HC}$
443: involving the $(10,2,1,1)_{0,R}$ fermions contains dynamical fermion mass
444: entries resulting from the hypercolor condensates and has Tr($M_{HC})=0$.
445:
446: The matrix of primary interest, $M_{HCS}$, is given by the operator product
447: %
448: \beq
449: -{\cal L}_{HCS} =
450: {1 \over 2}(\bar n_L, \ \overline{\alpha^c}_L, \ \overline{\xi^c}_L)
451: \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
452: M_L & (M_D)_{\bar n \alpha} & (M_D)_{\bar n \xi} \\
453: (M_D)_{\bar n \alpha}^T & (M_R)_{\alpha \alpha} & (M_R)_{\alpha \xi} \\
454: (M_D)_{\bar n \xi}^T & (M_R)_{\alpha \xi}^T & (M_R)_{\xi \xi}
455: \end{array} \right )\left( \begin{array}{c}
456: n^{c}_R \\
457: \alpha_R \\
458: \xi_R \end{array} \right ) + h.c.
459: \label{mhcs}
460: \eeq
461: %
462: The five-component $n_R^c$, the four-component $\alpha_,R$, and the
463: six-component $\xi_R$ each contain TC singlets as well as nonsinglets.
464: One of the two Dirac submatrices is
465: %
466: \beq
467: (M_D)_{\bar n \alpha} =
468: \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
469: b_{12} & b_{13} & 0 & 0 \\
470: b_{22} & b_{23} & 0 & 0 \\
471: b_{32} & b_{33} & 0 & 0 \\
472: 0 & 0 & 0 & c_1 \\
473: 0 & 0 & -c_1 & 0 \end{array} \right )
474: \label{MDnualpha}
475: \eeq
476: %
477: The vanishing entries are zero because of exact technicolor gauge invariance.
478: The entry $c_1$ represents a dynamical mass directly generated by technicolor
479: interactions corresponding to $\sum_{i,j=4,5} \epsilon^{ij} \bar n_{i,L}
480: \alpha_{1j,R}$, so that $|c_1| \sim \Lambda_{TC}$. Note that this involves the
481: antisymmetric, $\epsilon^{ij}$, rather than the $\delta^i_j$, contraction of
482: SU(2)$_{TC}$ indices and thus makes crucial use of the fact that the
483: technicolor group is SU(2) rather than SU($N$) with $N \ge 3$.
484:
485:
486: \begin{center}
487: \begin{picture}(200,100)(0,0)
488: \ArrowLine(0,20)(30,20)
489: \ArrowLine(30,20)(70,20)
490: \ArrowLine(70,20)(110,20)
491: \ArrowLine(110,20)(140,20)
492: \PhotonArc(70,20)(40,0,180){4}{8.5}
493: \Text(70,20)[]{$\times$}
494: \Text(70,63)[]{$\times$}
495: \Text(10,10)[]{$\alpha_{1j,R}$}
496: \Text(50,10)[]{$\alpha_{14,R}$}
497: \Text(90,10)[]{$n^5_L$}
498: \Text(120,10)[l]{$n^i_L$}
499: \Text(40,65)[]{$V_j^4$}
500: \Text(100,65)[]{$V_5^i$}
501: \Text(170,40)[]{$+ \ (4 \leftrightarrow 5)$}
502: \end{picture}
503: \end{center}
504:
505: \begin{figure}
506: \caption{\footnotesize{Graphs generating $\bar n_{i,L} b_{ij} \alpha_{1j,R}$
507: for $i=1,2,3$ and $j=2,3$, assuming that the indicated mixings of ETC gauge
508: bosons occur.}}
509: \label{alpha-n}
510: \end{figure}
511:
512:
513: \begin{center}
514: \begin{picture}(240,200)(0,0)
515: \Photon(0,100)(25,100){3}{4.5}
516: \ArrowArcn(60,100)(35,180,90)
517: \Text(60,135)[]{$\times$}
518: \ArrowArcn(60,100)(35,90,0)
519: \ArrowArcn(60,100)(35,0,270)
520: \Text(60,65)[]{$\times$}
521: \ArrowArcn(60,100)(35,270,180)
522: \Photon(95,100)(120,100){3}{4}
523: \Text(0,115)[]{$(V_3^4)_\mu$}
524: \Text(122,115)[]{$(V_5^2)_\nu$}
525: \Text(25,135)[]{$\zeta^{14,\alpha}_R$}
526: \Text(20,70)[]{$\zeta^{13,\alpha}_R$}
527: \Text(105,135)[c]{$\zeta^c_{15,\beta,L}$}
528: \Text(105,70)[c]{$\zeta^c_{12,\beta,L}$}
529: \end{picture}
530: \end{center}
531:
532: \begin{figure}
533: \caption{\footnotesize{One-loop graph contributing to the gauge boson mixing
534: $V_3^4 \leftrightarrow V_5^2$. The graph with indices 4 and 5 interchanged on
535: the internal $\zeta$ lines also contributes.}}
536: \label{vb23}
537: \end{figure}
538:
539: In Fig. \ref{alpha-n} we show graphs that could yield the $b_{ij}$'s. Here the
540: $\times$ on the fermion line represents the dynamical mass corresponding to a
541: technicolor condensate. Each graph requires nondiagonal insertions on
542: the internal ETC gauge bosons lines. We find that the requisite ETC gauge boson
543: mixings occur to leading (one-loop) order in the $G_a$ sequence for (i)
544: $b_{13}$, which involves $V_3^4 \leftrightarrow V_5^1$ and $V_3^5
545: \leftrightarrow V_4^1$, and (ii) $b_{22}$, which involves $V_2^4
546: \leftrightarrow V^2_5$; and in the $G_b$ sequence for $b_{23}$ and $b_{32}$,
547: which involve $V_3^4 \leftrightarrow V_5^2$ and $V_3^5 \leftrightarrow V_4^2$.
548: For example, for $G_b$ we show in Fig. \ref{vb23} the one-loop graphs
549: contributing to $V_3^4 \leftrightarrow V_5^2$. In each respective case, $G_a$
550: and $G_b$, the other $b_{ij}$'s are produced by higher-loop diagrams. For
551: example, starting from Fig. \ref{alpha-n} for $b_{23}$ in case $G_b$, one can
552: construct diagrams in which the incoming $\alpha_{13,R}$ or the virtual
553: $\alpha_{14,R}$ or $n^5_L$ emits a virtual $V^k_k$ ETC gauge boson with $k \in
554: \{1,2,3\}$ which, via mixing, becomes $V^i_2$, which is then absorbed by the
555: $n^2_L$ to yield an outgoing $n^i_L$, $i=1,3$. Other similar graphs involving
556: a triple ETC gauge-boson vertex along with mixing also contribute in this way.
557: These generate $b_{13}$ and $b_{33}$
558: at a level suppressed relative to $b_{23}$. The $V^k_k \to V^i_2$ mixing
559: arises generically from loop graphs in which at least one internal fermion line
560: is a standard-model quark or charged lepton with a mass insertion that is
561: nondiagonal in generation, incorporating the mixing of the weak eigenstates of
562: these fermions to form mass eigenstates. The entries $b_{12}$ and $b_{22}$ are
563: generated in a similar way.
564:
565: We next estimate the leading $b_{ij}$ entries. For either breaking
566: sequence, we denote the ETC gauge boson 2-point function as
567: %
568: \beq
569: {}^k_n \Pi^i_j(q)_{\mu\lambda} = \int \frac{d^4x}{(2\pi)^4} e^{iq \cdot x}
570: \langle T \left [ (V^k_n)_\mu(x/2) (V^i_j)_\lambda(-x/2) \right ] \rangle_0 \ .
571: \eeq
572: %
573: After some manipulations (and Wick rotation), the graph in Fig. \ref{alpha-n}
574: yields
575: %
576: \beq
577: g_{ETC}^2 [\bar n_{i,L}(p)\gamma_\mu\gamma_\lambda \alpha_{1j,R}(p)] \
578: \int \frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4} \
579: \frac{k^2 \Sigma_{TC}(k) [{}^i_5 \Pi^4_j((p-k)^2)]^{\mu\lambda}}
580: {(k^2+\Sigma_{TC}(k)^2)^2[(p-k)^2+M_j^2][(p-k)^2+M_i^2]} \ ,
581: \label{alpha-n-integral_simplified}
582: \eeq
583: %
584: where $\Sigma_{TC}(k)$ is the dynamical technicolor mass associated with the
585: transition $\alpha_{14,R} \to n^5_L$. This mass has the behavior
586: $\Sigma_{TC}(k) \sim \Lambda_{TC}$ for $k^2 << \Lambda_{TC}^2$, while for $k^2
587: >> \Lambda_{TC}^2$, (i) $\Sigma_{TC}(k) \sim \Lambda_{TC}^2/k$ for a walking
588: theory \cite{wtc}, (ii) $\Sigma_{TC}(k) \sim \Lambda_{TC}^3/k^2$ in a QCD-like
589: theory. Hence, we need ${}^k_n \Pi^i_j((p-k)^2)_{\mu\lambda}$ only for
590: $(p-k)^2/\Lambda_1^2 << 1$, since the loop momenta in Fig. \ref{alpha-n} are
591: cut off far below $\Lambda_1$ (at $\Lambda_3$ for $G_a$ or $\Lambda_{23}$ for
592: $G_b$). In eq. (\ref{alpha-n-integral_simplified}), $M_j$ denotes the mass
593: of the ETC gauge boson that picks up mass at $\Lambda_j$.
594:
595: In the sequence $G_b$, for $q^2 << \Lambda_1^2$, we estimate
596: %
597: \beq
598: [{}_5^2 \Pi_3^4(q)]_{\mu\lambda} \sim [{}_4^2 \Pi_3^5(q)]_{\mu\lambda} \sim
599: \frac{g_{ETC}^2\Lambda_{TC}^2}{(2\pi^2)}g_{\mu\lambda} \ .
600: \label{piv43tov15}
601: \eeq
602: %
603: where we have assumed a walking behavior of the TC theory up to $\Lambda_{23}$.
604: For $i,j=2,3$ and $3,2$, adding the other graph with $4 \leftrightarrow 5$
605: in Fig. \ref{alpha-n}, we find
606: %
607: \beq
608: |b_{23}| = |b_{32}| \sim \frac{g_{_{ETC}}^4 \Lambda_{TC}^4\Lambda_{23}}
609: {2\pi^4 M_{23}^4} \sim
610: \frac{\Lambda_{TC}^4}{2\pi^4 \Lambda_{23}^3} \quad {\rm for} \ \ G_b \ ,
611: \label{b23}
612: \eeq
613: %
614: where we have again assumed the above walking TC behavior. For sequence $G_a$,
615: we estimate, using similar methods,
616: %
617: \beq
618: |b_{13}| \sim \frac{\Lambda_{TC}^2\Lambda_3}{2\pi^4 \Lambda_1^2} \ , \quad
619: |b_{22}| \sim \frac{\Lambda_{TC}^2\Lambda_3^4}{2\pi^4 \Lambda_2^5} \quad
620: {\rm for} \ \ G_a \ .
621: \label{b13b22}
622: \eeq
623: %
624: With the numerical inputs given above, we get $|b_{23}|=|b_{32}| \sim O(1)$ KeV
625: for $G_b$ and $|b_{13}| \sim O(1)$ KeV and $|b_{22}| \sim O(10)$ eV for $G_a$.
626: Because the ETC and TC theories are strongly coupled, these estimates based on
627: perturbative expansions in powers of $\alpha_{_{ETC}}$ involve an obvious
628: uncertainty. For each case, the other $b_{ij}$'s are generated at smaller
629: levels. These calculations show how this aspect - suppressed Dirac neutrino
630: masses - of our proposal are realized in an explicit model. While the specific
631: results for the various $b_{ij}$ are dependent on the model and symmetry
632: breaking pattern, one can infer that this type of suppression can be achieved
633: in a general class of ETC models where Dirac mass terms are generated in a
634: similar manner.
635:
636:
637: The second Dirac submatrix in eq. (\ref{mhcs}) is
638: %
639: \beq
640: (M_D)_{\bar n \xi} =
641: \left( \begin{array}{cccccc}
642: d_{1,23} & d_{1,45} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
643: d_{2,23} & d_{2,45} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
644: d_{3,23} & d_{3,45} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
645: 0 & 0 & 0 & c_2 & 0 & c_3 \\
646: 0 & 0 &-c_2& 0 &-c_3 & 0 \end{array} \right )
647: \label{MDnuxi}
648: \eeq
649: %
650: Again, the zeros are exact and follow from technicolor invariance. Because the
651: $\xi$ fields decouple from the theory at scales below $\Lambda_1$, the nonzero
652: elements of $(M_D)_{\bar n \xi}$ arise indirectly, via loop diagrams and are
653: highly suppressed. These elements of $(M_D)_{\bar n \xi}$ have only a small
654: effect on the neutrino eigenvalues because in the characteristic polynomial
655: $P(x)$ they occur as corrections to much larger terms involving $\Lambda_1$.
656:
657: \begin{center}
658: \begin{picture}(200,100)(0,0)
659: \ArrowLine(0,20)(30,20)
660: \ArrowLine(30,20)(70,20)
661: \ArrowLine(70,20)(110,20)
662: \ArrowLine(110,20)(140,20)
663: \PhotonArc(70,20)(40,0,180){4}{8.5}
664: \Text(70,20)[]{$\times$}
665: \Text(70,63)[]{$\times$}
666: \Text(10,10)[]{$\alpha_{13,R}$}
667: \Text(50,10)[]{$\xi_{43,R}$}
668: \Text(90,10)[]{$\overline{\xi^c}^{52}_L$}
669: \Text(120,10)[l]{$\overline{\alpha^c}^{12}_L$}
670: \Text(40,65)[]{$V_1^4$}
671: \Text(100,65)[]{$V_5^1$}
672: \Text(170,40)[]{$+ \ (4 \leftrightarrow 5)$}
673: \end{picture}
674: \end{center}
675:
676: \begin{figure}[h]
677: \caption{\footnotesize{Graphs for $\alpha_{12,R}^T C r_{23} \alpha_{13,R}$ in
678: case $G_b$.}}
679: \label{alpha-alpha}
680: \end{figure}
681:
682:
683: In $M_R$ the $6 \times 6$ submatrix $(M_R)_{\xi \xi}$ has six nonzero entries
684: that are dynamical mass terms of order $\Lambda_1$ arising directly from the
685: condensate (\ref{xixi}). These are important since they are $|\Delta L|=2$
686: operators, and they, in turn, induce the $(M_R)_{\alpha \alpha}$ Majorana mass
687: terms which play a central role in the seesaw. Thus the $(M_R)_{\xi \xi}$
688: entries are the underlying seed for the Majorana mass terms involving the
689: observed neutrinos. Note that ${\rm Tr}(M_R)=0$.
690:
691: The submatrix $(M_R)_{\alpha \alpha}$ has the form
692: %
693: \beq
694: (M_R)_{\alpha \alpha}= \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
695: r_{22} & r_{23} & 0 & 0 \\
696: r_{23} & r_{33} & 0 & 0 \\
697: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
698: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right )
699: \label{rqmatrix}
700: \eeq
701: %
702: As before, the zeros are exact and are due to technicolor invariance. If
703: the $2 \times 2$ $r_{ij}$ submatrix has maximal rank, this can provide a
704: seesaw which, in conjunction with the suppression of the Dirac entries
705: $b_{ij}$ discussed above, can yield adequate suppression of neutrino masses.
706: The submatrix $r_{ij}$, $2 \le i,j \le 3$, produces this seesaw because
707: $\alpha_{12,R}$ and $\alpha_{13,R}$ are the electroweak-singlet techni-singlet
708: neutrinos that remain as part of the low-energy effective field theory at
709: and below the electroweak scale.
710:
711: Consider the sequence $G_b$. In Fig. \ref{alpha-alpha} we show graphs
712: contributing to $r_{23}$ for this case. These depend on the $V_1^4
713: \leftrightarrow V^1_5$ ETC gauge mixing produced by the graphs in Fig.
714: \ref{vr23}. From these we calculate
715: %
716: \beq
717: r_{23} \sim \frac{\Lambda_{BHC}^2 \Lambda_{23}^2}{2\pi^4 \Lambda_1^3}
718: \quad {\rm for} \ \ G_b \ .
719: \label{r23gb}
720: \eeq
721: %
722: where here we have assumed a walking behavior of the ETC theory below
723: $\Lambda_{BHC}$. The entries $r_{22}$ and $r_{33}$ are generated by
724: higher-loop diagrams starting from the graphs in Fig. \ref{alpha-alpha} for
725: $r_{23}$ in a manner similar to that whereby subdominant $b_{ij}$ are generated
726: starting from Fig. \ref{alpha-n} for $b_{23}$ and $b_{32}$. Numerically, with
727: the above inputs, $|r_{23}| \sim O(0.1)$ GeV, with smaller values for $r_{ii}$,
728: $i=2,3$. For sequence $G_a$ we find that the $r_{ij}$ entries are generated
729: via higher-loop diagrams analogous to those for $r_{22}$ and $r_{33}$ in
730: sequence $G_b$ and hence are smaller than eq. (\ref{r23gb}). In the estimates
731: to follow we concentrate on the sequence $G_b$ since it yields a
732: phenomenologically more successful seesaw, although this sequence has only two
733: ETC breaking scales.
734:
735:
736: \begin{center}
737: \begin{picture}(240,200)(0,0)
738: \Photon(0,100)(25,100){3}{4.5}
739: \ArrowArcn(60,100)(35,180,90)
740: \Text(60,135)[]{$\times$}
741: \ArrowArcn(60,100)(35,90,0)
742: \ArrowArcn(60,100)(35,0,270)
743: \Text(60,65)[]{$\times$}
744: \ArrowArcn(60,100)(35,270,180)
745: \Photon(95,100)(120,100){3}{4}
746: \Text(0,115)[]{$(V_1^4)_\mu$}
747: \Text(122,115)[]{$(V_5^1)_\nu$}
748: \Text(25,135)[]{$\zeta^{24,\alpha}_R$}
749: \Text(20,70)[]{$\zeta^{21,\alpha}_R$}
750: \Text(105,135)[c]{$\zeta^c_{35,\beta,L}$}
751: \Text(105,70)[c]{$\zeta^c_{31,\beta,L}$}
752: \end{picture}
753: \end{center}
754:
755:
756: \begin{figure}[h]
757: \caption{\footnotesize{One-loop graph for the ETC gauge boson mixing
758: $V_1^4 \leftrightarrow V^1_5$ in case $G_b$. The graph with indices 4 and 5
759: interchanged on the internal $\zeta$ lines also contributes.}}
760: \label{vr23}
761: \end{figure}
762:
763:
764: In the $4 \times 6$ submatrix $(M_R)_{\alpha \xi}$ the entries are either
765: exactly zero by technicolor invariance or are nonzero but highly suppressed
766: because the $\xi$ fields decouple from the effective theory below $\Lambda_1$.
767: The nonzero entries do not have an important effect on the masses of
768: neutrino-like states because of the way that they enter in the characteristic
769: polynomial (similar to the elements of $(M_D)_{\bar n \xi}$).
770:
771:
772: We next summarize the above discussion from the viewpoint of effective field
773: theory. At energy scales below $\Lambda_{TC}$, in either the breaking
774: sequence $G_a$ or $G_b$, the sector of neutrino-like states consists of the
775: the techni-singlet components $i=1,2,3$ of $n^i_L$ and the techni-singlet
776: components $\alpha_{1i,R}$, $i=2,3$; other fields have gained masses at
777: higher scales and have been integrated out. The effective theory comprised
778: of these degrees of freedom involves bilinear (mass) operators along with a
779: tower of higher-dimension operators. The mass operators are either of the
780: Dirac type (the $b_{ij}$ terms of eq. (\ref{mhcs})) or of the Majorana type
781: (the $r_{ij}$ of eq. (\ref{rqmatrix})). They form a $5 \times 5$ submatrix
782: of $M_{HCS}$, and their magnitudes, which depend on the specific breaking
783: sequence, are $<< \Lambda_{TC}$.
784:
785: Integrating out the $\alpha_{12,R}$ and $\alpha_{13,R}$ fields then yields the
786: lowest-scale effective field theory, in which there are three light fermions,
787: the $n^i_L$. The mass terms in this theory correspond to elements of $M_{L}$,
788: and there are also higher-dimension operators involving the $n^i_L$. With
789: respect to the mass terms, this procedure corresponds to a block
790: diagonalization (``block-seesaw'') of the $5 \times 5$ submatrix of $M_{HCS}$,
791: keeping only the light, $M_{L}$ matrix. Its dominant terms arise in this
792: manner; other, smaller entries are generated via higher-loop diagrams involving
793: higher-dimension operators, for example induced by the exchange and mixing of
794: ETC gauge bosons. The final step in the effective-field-theory approach is to
795: diagonalize this $3 \times 3$ matrix, leading to the neutrino mass eigenvalues
796: and mixing angles. Equivalently, one can think in terms of diagonalizing the
797: full $M_{HCS}$-matrix in one fell swoop.
798:
799: To be specific, we focus on the $G_b$ sequence since it most clearly yields a
800: seesaw. The largest $M_{L}$ entry is $(M_L)_{23}$ (since $M_L=M_L^T$, we take
801: $i \le j$.), and other, smaller terms arise from higher dimension operators.
802: The electroweak-nonsinglet neutrinos are, to very good approximation, linear
803: combinations of three mass eigenstates, of which the heaviest is $\nu_3$ or
804: $\nu_2$ and has a mass
805: %
806: \beq
807: m_{\nu,max} \sim \frac{|b_{23}b_{32}|}{|r_{23}|} \sim
808: \frac{\Lambda_{TC}^8 \Lambda_1^3}{2\pi^4 \Lambda_{23}^8 \Lambda_{BHC}^2} \ .
809: \label{mnu3}
810: \eeq
811: %
812: With the above-mentioned numerical values and $\Lambda_{BHC} \simeq 0.3
813: \Lambda_1$, we find $m_{\nu,max} \simeq 0.05$ eV, consistent with
814: experimental indications \cite{atm} based on a hierarchical spectrum,
815: in which $m_{\nu,max} \simeq \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{32}}$. The model naturally
816: yields large $\nu_\mu-\nu_\tau$ mixing because of the leading off-diagonal
817: structure of the $b_{ij}$ and $r_{ij}$ with $ij=23$ and $32$. The value of
818: $|\Delta m^2_{32}|$ depends on details of the model but is on the low side
819: of the experimental range. The lightest neutrino mass, $m(\nu_1)$, arises
820: from the subdominant terms in $M_L$ and is therefore predicted to be
821: considerably smaller than $m(\nu_i)$, $i=2,3$. The group eigenstates
822: involved in these (Majorana) mass eigenstates are $n^c_{i,R}$, $i=1,2,3$ and
823: $\alpha_{1j,R}$, $j=2,3$. This model thus exhibits our proposed explanation
824: for light neutrino masses incorporating highly suppressed Dirac neutrino
825: mass entries, $|\Delta L|=2$ neutrino condensates and associated dynamical
826: Majorana mass terms, and a resultant seesaw.
827:
828:
829: The model also yields the following mass eigenvalues and corresponding
830: eigenvectors for the other neutrino-like states: (i) linear combinations (LC's)
831: of components of the six $\xi_{ij,R}$ with $2 \le i,j \le 5$ get masses $\sim
832: \Lambda_1$; (ii) LC's of the $\zeta^{ij,\alpha}_R$ with $2 \le i,j \le 5$ get
833: masses $\sim \Lambda_{BHC}$; (iii) LC's of the $\zeta^{1j,\alpha}$ with $j=1,2$
834: get masses $\sim \Lambda_{23}$; (iv) for technicolor nonsinglets, LC's of the
835: $\zeta^{1j,\alpha}$ with $j=4,5$ and LC's of $n^c_{i,R}$ and $\alpha_{1i,R}$,
836: with $i=4,5$ get masses $\sim \Lambda_{TC}$; (v) LC's of $\alpha_{1i,R}$ with
837: $i=2,3$ get masses $\sim r_{23}$. These masses are (nearly) Dirac.
838:
839: Not only are the $m_R$ entries responsible for the seesaw not superheavy
840: masses; they are actually much smaller than the ETC scales $\Lambda_i$. A
841: generic prediction of ETC models with the proposed seesaw is that some
842: components of SM-singlet neutrino group eigenstates comprise dominant parts of
843: mass eigenstates with masses given by the elements in $M_R$ that are involved
844: in the seesaw (here, $r_{23}$). A condition to fit current limits on the
845: emission of massive neutrinos, via lepton mixing, in particle decays would be
846: that the $|U_{ek}|^2, \ |U_{\mu k}|^2 \lsim 10^{-7}$ for $k > 3$ \cite{rs,pdg},
847: which can be met while also maintaining sufficiently short lifetimes to satisfy
848: astrophysical constraints.
849:
850: \section{Conclusions}
851:
852: In summary, we have given a general analysis of neutrino masses in the context
853: of dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking theories, taking account of both
854: Dirac and Majorana mass terms. We proposed a possible solution to the problem
855: of obtaining light neutrino masses in this class of theories. This solution
856: involves two main parts: (i) strong suppression of Dirac neutrino masses, and
857: (ii) dynamical formation of bilinear Majorana neutrino condensates at ETC
858: scales and resultant Majorana masses violating total lepton number as $|\Delta
859: L|=2$, and consequently a seesaw mechanism. We have shown how this proposal
860: can be realized in an explicit ETC model. While further work is needed to
861: obtain the detailed structural features needed to fit current indications for
862: neutrino masses and lepton mixing, we believe that our proposal contains key
863: ingredients for a solution to this problem in the context of theories with
864: dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking. An important aspect of this suggestion
865: is that it does not need any superheavy scale for a viable seesaw; indeed, the
866: relevant Majorana masses may be much smaller than the highest ETC scale.
867:
868: This research was partially supported by the grants DE-FG02-92ER-4074 (T.A.)
869: and NSF-PHY-00-98527 (R.S.). T.A. thanks B. Dobrescu for helpful comments.
870:
871: \vspace{-6mm}
872:
873: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
874:
875: \bibitem{sol}{S. Fukuda, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86} (2001) 5651, 5656;
876: Phys. Lett. {\bf B539} (2002) 179 (SuperK); Q. Ahmad et al.,
877: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87} (2001) 071301; {\it ibid.} {\bf 89} (2002) 011301,
878: 011302 (SNO). Other data is from the Homestake, Kamiokande, GALLEX, and SAGE
879: experiments. The optimal fit to this data involves $\nu_e$ oscillations into
880: $\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\tau$ with $\Delta m^2_{21} \sim 5 \times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$,
881: where $\Delta m^2_{ij} = m(\nu_i)^2- m(\nu_j)^2$, and a relatively large
882: associated mixing angle.}
883:
884: \bibitem{atm}{Y. Fukuda et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B433} (1998) 9;
885: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81} (1998) 1562; {\it ibid.}, {\bf 82} (1999) 2644;
886: Phys. Lett. {\bf B467} (1999) 185; Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85} (2000) 3999
887: (SuperK) and data from Kamiokande, IMB, Soudan-2, and MACRO experiments. This
888: data can be explained by $\nu_\mu \to \nu_\tau$ oscillations with $|\Delta
889: m^2_{32}| \simeq 2.5 \times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ and a maximal value of the
890: associated mixing angle factor $\sin^2 2\theta_{23}$. (The sign of $\Delta
891: m^2_{3j}$, $j=1,2$, is not determined by this data.)}
892:
893: \bibitem{k2k}{S. H. Ahn et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B511} (2001) 178;
894: K. Nishikawa, talk at Neutrino-2002 (May, 2002).}
895:
896:
897: \bibitem{tc}{S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 19} (1979) 1277; L. Susskind,
898: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 20} (1979) 2619; E. Eichten and K. Lane, Phys.
899: Lett. {\bf B90} (1980) 125.}
900:
901: \bibitem{ssvz}{P. Sikivie, L. Susskind, M. Voloshin, and V. Zakharov,
902: Nuc. Phys. {\bf B173} (1980) 189.}
903:
904: \bibitem{wtc}{B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 150} (1985) 301; K Yamawaki,
905: M. Bando, and K. Matumoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 56} (1986) 1335;
906: T. Appelquist, D. Karabali, and L. Wijewardhana, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 57}
907: (1986) 957; T. Appelquist and L.C.R. Wijewardhana, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 35} (1987)
908: 774; Phys. Rev. D {\bf 36} (1987) 568.}
909:
910: \bibitem{holdom}{B. Holdom, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 23} (1981) 1637; Phys. Lett. B
911: {\bf 246} (1990) 169.}
912:
913: \bibitem{precision}{ T. Appelquist and J. Terning, Phys. Lett. {\bf B315}
914: (1993) 139; T. Appelquist, J. Terning, and L. Wijewardhana, Phys. Rev. Lett.
915: {\bf 77} (1996) 1214; {\it ibid.} {\bf 79} (1997) 2767; T. Appelquist, N.
916: Evans, S. Selipsky, Phys. Lett. {\bf B374} (1996) 145; T. Appelquist and
917: S. Selipsky, Phys. Lett. {\bf B400} (1997) 364.}
918:
919: \bibitem{at94}{T. Appelquist, J. Terning, Phys. Rev. {\bf D50} (1994) 2116.}
920:
921: \bibitem{tcrev}{Two recent reviews are R. Chivukula, hep-ph/0011264, K. Lane,
922: hep-ph/0202255;, C. Hill E. Simmons, hep-ph/0203079.}
923:
924: \bibitem{seesaw}{M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, R. Slansky, in {\it Supergravity}
925: (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1979), p. 315; T. Yanagida in
926: proceedings of {\it Workshop on Unified Theory and Baryon Number
927: in the Universe}, KEK, 1979.}
928:
929: \bibitem{lfv}{In general, lepton family number is violated by both Dirac and
930: Majorana mass terms.}
931:
932: \bibitem{nutev}{Although we require our model to yield small $S$, a reanalysis
933: of precision electroweak data is in order in view of the recent measurement of
934: $\sin^2\theta_W$ by the NuTeV experiment; see G. Zeller et al., Phys. Rev.
935: Lett. {\bf 88} (2002) 091802.}
936:
937: \bibitem{vals}{For a vectorial SU($N$) theory with $N_f$ fermions in the
938: fundamental representation, an IRFP occurs if $N_f > N_{f,min,IR}$, where,
939: perturbatively, $N_{f,min,IR} \simeq 34N^3/(13N^2-3)$. At this IRFP, using the
940: criticality condition \cite{gap}, the theory is expected to exist in a
941: confining phase with S$\chi$SB if $N_{f,min,IR} < N_f < N_{f,con}$, where
942: $N_{f,con} \simeq (2/5)N(50N^2-33)/(5N^2-3)$ and in a conformal phase if
943: $N_{f,con} < N_f < 11N/2$. For $N = 2$ we have $N_{f,min,IR} \sim 5$ and
944: $N_{f,con} \simeq 8$, respectively. For attempts at nonperturbative lattice
945: studies of these properties, see R. Mawhinney, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. {\bf
946: 83}, 57 (2000).}
947:
948: \bibitem{gap}{In the approximation of a single-gauge-boson exchange, the
949: critical coupling for condensation $R_1 \times R_2 \to R_c$ is given by the
950: condition $\frac{3\alpha}{2\pi}\Delta C_2 = 1$, where $\Delta C_2 =
951: [C_2(R_1)+C_2(R_2)-C_2(R_c)]$, and $C_2(R)$ is the quadratic Casimir invariant.
952: Instanton contributions are also important \cite{precision}.}
953:
954: \bibitem{eta}{Here $\eta_a = \exp[\int_{f_F}^{\Lambda_a}
955: (d\mu/\mu) \gamma(\alpha(\mu))]$, and in walking TC theories the anomalous
956: dimension $\gamma \simeq 1$ so $\eta_a \simeq \Lambda_a/f_F$. }
957:
958: \bibitem{rh}{We write SM-singlet neutrinos as right-handed fields
959: $\chi_{j,R}$.}
960:
961: \bibitem{ms}{Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, S. Sakata,
962: Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 28} (1962) 870 ($2 \times 2$ matrix); B. W. Lee,
963: S. Pakvasa, R. Shrock, and H. Sugawara, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 38} (1977) 937
964: ($3 \times 3$ matrix).}
965:
966: \bibitem{as2}{T. Appelquist and R. Shrock, to appear.}
967:
968: \bibitem{inst}{Since ETC is a chiral gauge theory which is strongly interacting
969: at its self-breaking scale (here, $\Lambda_1$) and since
970: $\pi_3({\rm SU}(N))= {\mathbb Z}$, the associated ETC instantons will
971: generically violate total lepton number $L$. Because $g_{_{ETC}} \sim O(1)$ at
972: $\Lambda_1$, these instantons are not suppressed by small
973: $e^{-16\pi^2/g^2}$ factors, in contrast to the situation at zero temperature
974: in the weak SU(2) sector. However, the resultant effective multifermion
975: operators are of quite high dimension and are thus suppressed at low energies.}
976:
977: \bibitem{rs}{R. Shrock, Phys. Lett. {\bf 96B} (1980) 159; Phys. Rev. D {\bf 24}
978: (1981) 1232, 1275.}
979:
980: \bibitem{pdg}{Current limits are summarized in http://pdg.lbl.gov.}
981:
982: \end{thebibliography}
983: \vfill
984: \eject
985:
986: \end{document}
987: