1: %\usepackage{psfig,epsfig,supertabular}
2: %\setlength{\footheight}{0 cm}
3:
4:
5: \documentstyle[amssymb,amstex,marvosym,epsfig,12pt]{article}
6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
7: %TCIDATA{OutputFilter=LATEX.DLL}
8: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Wed Aug 14 12:04:42 2002}
9: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="GraphicsSave" CONTENT="32">}
10: %TCIDATA{Language=British English}
11: %TCIDATA{CSTFile=article.cst}
12:
13: \setlength{\textwidth}{17.17 cm}
14: \setlength{\textheight}{23cm}
15: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.5cm}
16: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{-0.5cm}
17: \setlength{\topmargin}{-1.3 cm}
18: \pagestyle{plain}
19: \def\npb#1#2#3{\mbox{Nucl. Phys. {\bf B#1} (#2) #3}}
20: \def\plb#1#2#3{\mbox{Phys. Lett. {\bf B#1} (#2) #3}}
21: \def\prd#1#2#3{\mbox{Phys. Rev. {\bf D#1} (#2) #3}}
22: \def\prl#1#2#3{\mbox{Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf #1} (#2) #3}}
23: \def\prc#1#2#3{\mbox{Phys. Rep. {\bf #1} (#2) #3}}
24: \def\zpc#1#2#3{\mbox{Z. Phys. {\bf C#1} (#2) #3}}
25: \def\ijmp#1#2#3{\mbox{Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf A#1} (#2) #3}}
26: \def\sspace{\baselineskip = .16in}
27: \def\dspace{\baselineskip = .30in}
28: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
29: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
30: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
31: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
32: \def\bq{\begin{quote}}
33: \def\eq{\end{quote}}
34: \def\ra{\rightarrow}
35: \def\lra{\leftrightarrow}
36: \def\ups{\upsilon}
37: \def\bq{\begin{quote}}
38: \def\eq{\end{quote}}
39: \def\ra{\rightarrow}
40: \def\un{\underline}
41: \def\ov{\overline}
42: \def\nn{\nonumber}
43: \def\t{\theta^{(1)}}
44: \def\tb{\bar{\theta}^{(-1)}}
45: \def\Qone{Q_1^{(-4)}}
46: \def\Qtwo{Q_2^{(1)}}
47: \def\Qthree{Q_3^{(0)}}
48: %\input{tcilatex}
49: %\usepackage{floatflt,graphicx} %useful for figures
50:
51:
52:
53: \begin{document}
54: \titlepage
55: \begin{flushright}
56: OUTP-02-37P\\
57: \end{flushright}
58: \begin{center}
59: {\Large \bf Symmetries and fermion masses}\\
60: \vspace*{0.5cm}
61: G.\ G.\ Ross{\footnote{g.ross1$\MVAt$physics.ox.ac.uk}} and L.\ Velasco-Sevilla{\footnote{velasco$\MVAt$thphys.ox.ac.uk}} \\ Department of Physics, Theoretical Physics, University of Oxford,\\
62: 1 Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3NP,U.K.\\
63: \end{center}
64:
65: \begin{abstract}
66: We discuss whether quark, charged lepton and neutrino masses and mixing
67: angles may be related by an extended flavour and family symmetry group. We
68: show that current measurements of all fermion masses and mixing angles are
69: consistent with a combination of an underlying $SU(3)$ family symmetry
70: together with a GUT symmetry such as $SO(10)$. In this the near bi-maximal
71: mixing observed in the neutrino sector is directly related to the small
72: mixing observed in the quark sector, the difference between quark and lepton
73: mixing angles being due to the see-saw mechanism. Using this connection we
74: make a detailed prediction for the lepton mixing angles determining neutrino
75: oscillation phenomena.
76: \end{abstract}
77:
78: \section{Introduction}
79:
80: While the measurement of quark and lepton masses and mixing angles continues
81: to improve, their theoretical understanding remains elusive. In the Standard
82: Model the quark masses and mixing angles and charged lepton masses are
83: determined by the Yukawa couplings, parameters which must be specified when
84: defining the Standard Model. The renormalisable couplings of the Standard
85: Model do not allow neutrino masses although they can be introduced through
86: the addition of higher dimensional operators, presumably originating in
87: physics Beyond the Standard Model.
88:
89: There are a few promising suggestions for structure Beyond the Standard
90: Model which address the fermion mass problem. For simple symmetry breaking
91: schemes Grand Unification can relate quark and lepton masses. The most
92: promising of such relations is the equality $m_{b}=m_{\tau },$ a result
93: which applies at the GUT scale. Radiative corrections are dominated by QCD
94: interactions which increase the bottom quark mass at low energy scales,
95: giving a prediction for the bottom quark mass in good agreement with
96: experiment. A fairly straightforward generalisation of such GUT relations,
97: which invokes a new family symmetry, also provides good relations between
98: the down quarks and charged leptons of the first two generations \cite
99: {Georgi:1979df}.
100:
101: However the recent measurement of neutrino masses and mixing angles has shed
102: doubt on the validity of simple relations between quark and lepton masses
103: and mixing angles. The most obvious difference is the fact that neutrinos
104: have masses much smaller than those of the quarks or charged leptons. In the
105: context of Grand Unification the ``see-saw'' mechanism \cite{GellRamSla79, Yanag79, Mohapatra:1980ia} provides an elegant
106: mechanism to explain this difference. In this scheme the Standard Model
107: spectrum is extended to include the right-handed ($SU(2)$ singlet) partners
108: of the SM neutrinos. As these states can acquire $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times
109: U(1)$ \ invariant Majorana masses, naturalness implies they should acquire
110: mass at the scale (the GUT scale?) at which the theory Beyond the Standard
111: Model breaks to the Standard Model. In addition one expects Dirac masses
112: between the left- and right- handed neutrino states. These are generated by
113: electroweak symmetry breaking in a similar way to that of the charged
114: leptons and quarks and so it is reasonable to assume they will be of
115: comparable magnitude. Diagnosing the matrix of Dirac and Majorana masses
116: gives the mass matrix for the three light states, dominantly composed of the
117: doublet neutrinos, of the form
118: \begin{equation}
119: M_{eff}=M_{D}^{\nu }.M_{\nu }^{-1}.M_{D}^{\nu \text{T}} \label{seesaw}
120: \end{equation}
121: Here $M_{\nu }$ is the $3\times 3$ matrix of Majorana masses for the three
122: generations of right-handed neutrinos and $M_{D}^{\nu }$ is the $3\times 3$
123: matrix of Dirac neutrino masses. Given that the natural size of $M_{D}^{\nu
124: } $ is much less than that of $M_{\nu },$ it is clear this offers an elegant
125: explanation for the smallness of neutrino masses.
126:
127: There remains the question why lepton mixing angles should be so different
128: from quark mixing angles. This is the question we address here in the light
129: of new information about the quark mass matrix that has recently been
130: obtained from an analysis of the wealth of b-quark data and the information from neutrino oscillations. Our approach is to
131: look for the largest symmetry consistent with the fermion masses
132: concentrating on the possibility that quark and lepton masses are related.
133: We show that the data in the quark sector data is consistent with an
134: underlying (spontaneously broken) non-Abelian family symmetry together with
135: an extension of the Standard Model flavour symmetry to include an $SU(2)_{R}$
136: flavour symmetry acting on the right-handed components. The charged lepton
137: masses and neutrino masses and mixings are consistent with this symmetry
138: provided the flavour symmetry is extended, for example to $SO(10)$, to
139: generate GUT relations between lepton and quarks. This structure can lead
140: quite naturally to large lepton mixing angles. Indeed, due to the see-saw
141: mechanism, lepton mixing angles are large because quark mixing angles are
142: small \cite{Ross:2000fn, kingross}!
143:
144: \section{The quark mass matrix \label{quarkmassmats}}
145:
146: Our starting point is the form of the quark mass matrix. Since experiment is
147: only able to determine the mass eigenvalues and the CKM mixing matrix, it is
148: not possible unambiguously to determine the quark mass matrix because the
149: full form of the left- handed and right-handed rotation matrices needed to
150: diagonalise the quark masses is not known. However the very reasonable
151: assumption that the smallness of the mixing angles is due to the smallness
152: of the mixing angles in the up- and down- sectors separately, allows one to
153: determine the mass matrix elements on and above the diagonal to good
154: precision for the down quarks and to lesser precision for the up quarks. In
155: reference \cite{rrrv}, under this assumption, the quark mass matrices were
156: determined using the most recent experimental data. This gave the form
157: \begin{equation}
158: \frac{M^{u}}{m_{t}}=\left(
159: \begin{array}{ccc}
160: 0 & b^{\prime }\epsilon ^{3} & c^{\prime }\epsilon ^{3} \\
161: b^{\prime }\epsilon ^{3} & \epsilon ^{2} & a^{\prime }\epsilon ^{2} \\
162: ? & ? & 1
163: \end{array}
164: \right) \label{mu}
165: \end{equation}
166:
167: and
168: \begin{equation}
169: \frac{M^{d}}{m_{b}}=\left(
170: \begin{array}{ccc}
171: 0 & b\bar{\epsilon}^{3} & c\bar{\epsilon}^{3} \\
172: b\bar{\epsilon}^{3} & \bar{\epsilon}^{2} & a\bar{\epsilon}^{2} \\
173: ? & ? & 1
174: \end{array}
175: \right) \label{md}
176: \end{equation}
177: In this the parameters of the up quark mass matrix $\ $are given by $%
178: \epsilon =0.05,$ $b^{\prime }\simeq e^{i\phi },$ where in the phase
179: convention used here $\phi \approx 90^{0}$ is the `standard' (i.e.PDG
180: convention) CP violating phase $\delta $ \cite{rrrv} while $a^{\prime }$ and
181: $c^{\prime }$ are very weakly constrained. The parameters of the down quark
182: mass matrix are much better determined with
183: \begin{eqnarray}
184: \bar{\epsilon} &=&0.15\pm 0.01\quad b=1.5\pm 0.1\quad a=1.31\pm 0.14
185: \nonumber \\
186: {|c|} &=&{0.4\pm 0.05\quad \psi \equiv Arg(c)=-24^{0}\pm 3^{0}}\quad \text{ or }
187: \nonumber \\
188: {|c|} &=&1.28{\pm 0.05\quad \psi =60^{0}\pm 5^{0}}\quad \label{fit}
189: \end{eqnarray}
190: In both $M^u$ and $M^{d}$ the entries marked with a question mark are
191: only weakly constrained. In what follows we shall consider the case that the
192: mass matrices are symmetric or antisymmetric or some combination of the two
193: so that the elements below the diagonal are also determined. This is in the
194: spirit of looking for the maximal symmetry consistent with the masses and is
195: motivated by certain GUTs, notably $SO(10).$ There is one strong piece of
196: experimental evidence for such a symmetric structure, namely the success of
197: the Gatto, Sartori, Tonin relation \cite{gst} between the Cabibbo angle and
198: the quark masses of the first two generations
199: \begin{equation}
200: V_{us}=\sqrt{\frac{m_{d}}{m_{s}}}-\sqrt{\frac{m_{u}}{m_{c}}}e^{i\sigma }
201: \label{gst}
202: \end{equation}
203: where $\sigma $ is the CP violating phase entering the Jarlskog invariant
204: \cite{rrrv,Fritzsch:1999ee}. This relation only applies if
205: the $(1,2)$ and $(2,1)$ matrix elements are equal in magnitude. The solution
206: of eqs(\ref{mu}) and (\ref{md}) has this structure. Of course there is no
207: direct indication that the same reflection symmetry applies to the remaining
208: matrix elements but it is the most natural generalisation of this result. In
209: any case, as stressed above, we think it of interest to ask whether the most
210: symmetric form for the quark mass matrices can be simply related to viable
211: forms for the lepton mass matrices.
212:
213: \section{Quark family and flavour symmetries\label{family}}
214:
215: In this Section we will discuss whether the quark mass matrices are
216: consistent with a larger set of symmetries than those of the Standard Model%
217: \footnote{%
218: Here we shall only consider supersymmetric theories.}. These may be flavour
219: symmetries acting in the same way on each of the three families; for example
220: simple Grand Unified theories are flavour symmetries. Alternatively they may
221: also be family symmetries distinguishing between families. In our opinion
222: the structure of the quark mass matrices strongly suggests an underlying
223: (spontaneously) broken family symmetry. In such a scheme, in leading order,
224: only the $(3,3)$ elements are allowed. In terms of the parameter, $\epsilon
225: , $ \ characterising the symmetry breaking the remaining matrix elements are
226: filled in at some order $\epsilon ^{n}$ which is also determined by the
227: symmetry, thus generating the hierarchical structure of fermion masses.
228:
229: The candidate family symmetry group, namely those symmetries which commutes
230: with the gauge interactions of the Standard Model, is quite large. For the
231: quarks it is $U(3)^{3},$ corresponding to a separate $U(3)$ factor for the
232: left-handed doublets and each of the right-handed $SU(2)$ singlet fields
233: respectively. To generate quark mass matrices with a left- right- symmetry
234: we restrict the choice to one with the same transformation for the
235: left-handed and the charge conjugate right-handed quarks, this symmetry is
236: reduced to a diagonal $U(3)$ or one of its subgroups\footnote{%
237: It is possible there is an even larger symmetry with separate gauge group
238: factors operating on left-and right- handed components and related by a
239: discrete reflection symmetry. If one requires the left- right- symmetry is
240: preserved on spontaneous symmetry breaking, the phenomenological
241: implications of this scheme are the same as the case considered here.}.
242:
243: Abelian family symmetries have been widely explored. They are capable of
244: explaining the hierarchical structure of the quark masses and generate quite
245: acceptable forms for the quark matrices \cite{Ibanez:1994ig,Ross:2000fn}.
246: The main shortcoming of these schemes is that they do not give a reason for
247: the smallness of $V_{cb}.$ This follows because if one assigns Abelian
248: charges to generate the mass hierarchy between $m_{s}$ and $m_{b},$ it leads
249: to the prediction for $V_{cb}\simeq \sqrt{m_{s}/m_{b}}$ which is too large
250: \cite{Ibanez:1994ig,Lola:1999un}. Although this relation is quite sensitive
251: to corrections of $O(1)$ due to unknown Yukawa couplings, it is an
252: unsatisfactory feature of an Abelian symmetry. To obtain the correct form
253: for $V_{cb}$ it is necessary for the ratio of the $(2,2)$ and $(2,3)$ matrix
254: elements to be close to $1;$ a ratio of $1$ implies $V_{cb}\simeq $ $%
255: m_{s}/m_{b},$ in good agreement with experiment. In contrast to the Abelian
256: case a non-Abelian family symmetry can relate the magnitude of the couplings
257: in different positions in the mass matrix and thus offers the possibility of
258: explaining this near equality.
259:
260: \subsection{Non-Abelian family symmetry\label{nonabelian}}
261:
262: The largest non-Abelian symmetry which treats the left- and charge conjugate
263: right- handed components in the same way is $SU(3).$ In \cite{kingross} a
264: specific $SU(3)$ theory has been constructed which relates the $(2,2)$ and $%
265: (2,3)$ matrix elements. In it the left-handed quark doublets and the up and
266: down charge conjugate quarks are assigned to $SU(3)$ triplets, $\psi _{i},$ $%
267: u_{i}^{c}$ and $d_{i}^{c}$ respectively. The critical part of the theory
268: lies in the pattern of symmetry breaking which leads to the desired mass
269: matrix. This is achieved through the antitriplet scalar fields $\phi
270: _{23}^{i},$ $\phi _{3}^{i}$ and triplet fields $\overline{\phi }_{23,i},$ $%
271: \overline{\phi }_{3,i}$ which acquire vacuum expectation values (VEVs) $\phi
272: _{3}^{T}=\left(
273: \begin{array}{ccc}
274: 0 & 0 & M
275: \end{array}
276: \right) $, $\phi _{23}^{T}=\left(
277: \begin{array}{ccc}
278: 0 & a_{2} & a_{2}
279: \end{array}
280: \right) ,$ $\overline{\phi }_{3}=\left(
281: \begin{array}{ccc}
282: 0 & 0 & M
283: \end{array}
284: \right) $ and $\overline{\phi }_{23}=\left(
285: \begin{array}{ccc}
286: 0 & a_{2} & -a_{2}
287: \end{array}
288: \right) .$ In \cite{kingross} it was shown how such vacuum alignment can be
289: achieved in a supersymmetric theory, with $M>a_{2}$.
290:
291: With this pattern of symmetry breaking it is easy to generate the required
292: form of the mass matrices via the superpotential
293: \begin{eqnarray}
294: P_{Yukawa} &=&(\psi _{i}^{c}\phi _{3}^{i}\phi _{3}^{j}\psi _{j}+\psi
295: _{i}^{c}\phi _{23}^{i}\phi _{23}^{j}\psi _{j})H_{\alpha }/M^{2}+\epsilon
296: ^{2}\epsilon ^{ijk}\psi _{i}^{c}\overline{\phi }_{23,j}^{i}\psi
297: _{k}^{c}H_{\alpha }/M \label{yukawa} \\
298: &&+\epsilon ^{6}\left( \epsilon ^{ijk}\psi _{i}^{c}\overline{\phi }%
299: _{23,j}^{i}\overline{\phi }_{3,k}^{c}\right) \left( \epsilon ^{ijk}\psi _{i}%
300: \overline{\phi }_{23,j}^{i}\overline{\phi }_{3,k}^{c}\right) H_{\alpha
301: }/M^{4} \nonumber
302: \end{eqnarray}
303: where $H_{1,2}$ are the Higgs doublets of the MSSM, which are $SU(3)$
304: singlets. If $\psi ^{c}=$ $u_{i}^{c},$ $d_{i}^{c}$ then $\alpha =2,$ $1$
305: respectively, giving rise to the up and down quark masses in a
306: supersymmetric theory. In eq(\ref{yukawa}) we have suppressed the couplings
307: of $O(1)$ associated with each operator. The first two operators shown are
308: the leading (dimension 6) ones consistent with a simple family symmetry%
309: \footnote{%
310: In a specific realisation of the scheme it is necessary to introduce further
311: Abelian family symmetries to ensure this is the most general form. A
312: specific realisation is given in reference \cite{kingross}.}\cite{kingross}.
313: The third and fourth operators are only generated via higher dimension
314: operators involving additional powers of fields $\phi _{23},$ $\phi _{3.}$
315: Replacing these fields by their vevs leads to the suppression factors $%
316: \epsilon ^{2}$ and $\epsilon ^{6}$ shown, where $\epsilon =a_{2}/M.$ This
317: gives rise to the mass matrices of the form
318: \begin{equation}
319: \frac{M}{M_{3,3}}=\left(
320: \begin{array}{ccc}
321: \lambda ^{\prime }\epsilon ^{8} & \lambda \epsilon ^{3} & \lambda \epsilon
322: ^{3} \\
323: -\lambda \epsilon ^{3} & \lambda ^{\prime \prime }\epsilon ^{2} & \lambda
324: ^{\prime \prime }\epsilon ^{2} \\
325: -\lambda \epsilon ^{3} & \lambda ^{\prime \prime }\epsilon ^{2} & 1+\lambda
326: ^{\prime \prime }\epsilon ^{2}
327: \end{array}
328: \right) \label{nonabelianmatrix}
329: \end{equation}
330: where the expansion parameter $\epsilon $ may differ for the up and down
331: sectors and we have explicitly included the $O(1)$ coefficients $\lambda ,$ $%
332: \lambda ^{\prime },$ $\lambda ^{\prime \prime }$ that arise due to the $O(1)$
333: couplings in eq(\ref{yukawa}) which are not related by the non-Abelian
334: symmetry. The effect of the $SU(3)$ family symmetry may be readily seen
335: relating the $(1,2)$ and $(1,3)$ matrix elements as well as the $(2,2)$ and $%
336: (2,3)$ matrix elements. Of course there are corrections to these equalities
337: coming at higher order in $\epsilon $ from operators of higher dimension. We
338: shall consider their effect in detail later.
339:
340: The form of eq(\ref{nonabelianmatrix}) gives good agreement with the
341: measured quark mass matrices and can also be extended to give a viable
342: description of charged lepton and neutrino masses and mixing angles \cite
343: {kingross}. Here we consider whether the $O(1)$ coefficients can be related
344: by further symmetries and whether it is possible to determine the lepton
345: masses and mixing angles in terms of the quark masses and mixing angles.
346:
347: \subsection{$SU(2)_{R}$ and Grand Unification}
348:
349: In implementing the $SU(3)$ family symmetry the family structure has been
350: strongly constrained to generate left-right symmetry by assigning the left-
351: and the charge conjugate of the right- handed components of a given quark to
352: the same representation. Since, in addition, the family symmetry must
353: respect the $SU(2)_{L}$ gauge symmetry the up and down left-handed
354: components of a given quark family doublet must also carry the same family
355: charge. As a result of these two constraints one immediately sees that left-
356: and charge conjugate right- handed components of the up and down quark
357: members of a given family have the same family charge. This means that the
358: up and down quark mass matrices have the same {\it form} as in eqs(\ref{mu})
359: and (\ref{md}), although the expansion parameters may be different and the
360: operator coefficients of $O(1)$ may differ.
361:
362: If $SU(2)_{R}$ is also an exact symmetry of the theory even the expansion
363: parameters and operator coefficients are equal and the mass matrices are
364: identical. This is clearly not acceptable and, if there is an underlying $%
365: SU(2)_{R}$ symmetry, it must be spontaneously broken so that the equality of
366: the mass matrices will be lost through soft symmetry breaking terms. These
367: enter through the expansion parameter $\epsilon $ which is determined by $%
368: \theta /M$ where $\theta $ is the field spontaneously breaking the symmetry
369: and $M$ is the messenger mass of the state responsible for communicating the
370: symmetry breaking and generating the higher dimension operators. Due to $%
371: SU(2)_{R}$ breaking the messenger mass may be different for the up and down
372: quark sectors and hence the expansion parameters may differ. It is also
373: possible that the family symmetry breaking field, $\theta ,$ is not a
374: singlet under $SU(2)_{R}$ and its vev breaks $SU(2)_{R},$ again leading to a
375: different expansion parameter for the up and the down sectors. However there
376: will still be some measurable effects of an underlying structure $SU(2)_{R}$
377: in the quark masses because the Yukawa couplings of the field $\theta $ to
378: the quarks and the messenger sector, which are responsible for the $O(1)$ \
379: coefficients, will respect the symmetry. How large are the corrections to
380: this result? They occur in radiative order but, in a supersymmetric theory,
381: supersymmetry guarantees that superpotential is not renormalised. In this
382: case the dominant radiative corrections to the Yukawa couplings come from
383: the D-terms controlling wavefunction renormalisation. Thus we may expect
384: that fields falling into $SU(2)_{R}$ doublets will have normalisation which
385: differ only in higher order, $O(|\theta |^{2}/M^{2}).$ The resulting
386: corrections to the $O(1)$ coefficients will also be at this order.
387:
388: What are the phenomenological implications of an underlying $SU(2)_{R}?$ If
389: only the leading operator contributions to eq(\ref{nonabelianmatrix}) are
390: included the coefficients $a,$ $b$ and $c$ in eq(\ref{md}) will equal $%
391: a^{\prime },$ $b^{\prime }$ and $c^{\prime }$ in eq(\ref{mu}) respectively%
392: \footnote{%
393: In general we expect higher order operators contributing to a given matrix
394: element at $O(\theta /M)$ or above relative to the leading term.}. We wish
395: to explore whether such a broken symmetry expansion is consistent with the
396: quark and lepton masses and mixings. Unfortunately the tests of the $%
397: SU(2)_{R}$ relations in the quark sector are somewhat imprecise at present
398: because the contribution to the mixing angles from the up sector is small
399: and sensitive to small changes in the down sector. As a result $a^{\prime }$
400: and $c^{\prime }$ are only poorly determined. Given that in eqs(\ref{mu})
401: and (\ref{md}) the $(2,2)$ matrix elements have been used to define the
402: expansion parameters, the remaining test is to compare $b$ and $b^{\prime }.$
403: It is easy to eliminate the dependence on the expansion parameters by
404: combining $(1,1),$ $(2,2)$ and $(1,3)$ elements. Using eqs(\ref{mu}) and (%
405: \ref{md}) this gives
406: \begin{equation}
407: \frac{b^{\prime }}{b}=\frac{m_{s}}{m_{c}}\sqrt{\frac{m_{u}m_{t}}{m_{d}m_{b}}}
408: \label{su2r}
409: \end{equation}
410: where this relation applies at the unification scale where $SU(2)_{R}$ is a
411: good symmetry. This gives
412: \begin{equation}
413: \frac{b^{\prime }}{b}=0.5\pm 0.3 \label{su2rtest}
414: \end{equation}
415: Given that the expansion parameter in the down quark sector is quite large, $%
416: \overline{\epsilon }=0.15,$ and that higher order corrections may be
417: significant, the result of eq(\ref{su2rtest}) may be consistent with an
418: underlying $SU(2)_{R}$ relation prediction between $b^{\prime }$ and $b$,
419: with a significant correction at $O(\theta /M)$ coming from such higher
420: dimension operators. We shall return to a discussion of this possibility in
421: Section \ref{fit}.
422:
423: Of course it is likely that $SU(2)_{R}$ is part of an underlying GUT such as
424: $SO(10).$ In this case the question whether $SU(2)_{R}$ is an
425: approximate symmetry of the couplings depends on the pattern of symmetry
426: breaking. We shall also discuss a second possibility for reconciling the GUT
427: prediction with eq(\ref{su2rtest}) in which the couplings themselves feel $%
428: SU(2)_{R}$ breaking.
429:
430: \subsection{GUTs and charged lepton masses}
431:
432: We have seen that the quark mass matrices are consistent with the choice
433: that all the states of the (left-handed) components of a given family have
434: the same transformation properties under the family symmetry. This is
435: suggestive of a larger underlying GUT symmetry. The GUT $SO(10)$ is
436: particularly promising as all the (left-handed) states of a family, plus the
437: charge conjugate of the right handed neutrino, fit into a single $16$
438: dimensional representation. If $SO(10)$ is an underlying symmetry of the
439: theory any family symmetry must commute with it implying all the charges of
440: a given family must be the same, consistent with the form of the mass matrix
441: discussed above. An associated advantage of such a family symmetry is that
442: the mixed anomalies of the Standard Model gauge group with the family
443: symmetry will automatically cancel because of the structure of the
444: underlying $SO(10).$ It also contains $SU(2)_{R}$ and can relate the up to
445: the down sectors as discussed above. In addition a GUT symmetry can relate
446: quark and lepton mass matrices and this is the issue we wish to study here.
447:
448: We first consider the charged leptons. Given the same family properties the
449: form of the charged lepton mass matrix will be the same as that of the down
450: quark matrices\ in eq(\ref{md}) up to coefficients of $O(1).$ If there is an
451: underlying GUT the coefficients too may be related. As mentioned above the
452: relation $m_{b}=m_{\tau }$ at the unification scale is in good agreement
453: with the measured masses. Such an equality applies in $SU(5)$ if the Higgs
454: responsible for the third generation masses transforms as a $\overline{5}$
455: of $SU(5).$ In $SO(10)$ equality applies if the Higgs belongs to a $10$ representation, this also gives equality between
456: the top quark and the third generation Dirac neutrino mass, something we
457: explore below.
458:
459: What about the two lighter generations? In this case we must address the
460: question whether the expansion parameters are related. From a
461: phenomenological point of view, note that, after taking radiative
462: corrections into account, the relation $Det[M^{d}]=Det[M^{l}]$ at the
463: unification scale is also in good agreement with the experimental
464: measurements. From eq(\ref{nonabelianmatrix}) we see $Det[M]/M_{33}=\lambda
465: ^{2}\epsilon ^{6}$ and so equality requires that the $(1,2)$ matrix element
466: of magnitude $\lambda \epsilon ^{3}$ be the same for the down quarks and the
467: leptons. This is consistent with an underlying broken $SU(2)_{R}$ symmetry
468: because the down quarks and leptons are both $T_{R,3}=-1/2$ states and both
469: can acquire their mass from the same Higgs doublet, $H_{2},$ in a
470: supersymmetric theory.\ Thus the strong $SU(2)_{R}$ breaking, needed to
471: split the $T_{R,3}=\pm 1/2$ states, is consistent with this equality.
472:
473: \subsubsection{Symmetry breaking expansion parameters\label{exp}}
474:
475: Of course equality of the down quark and charged lepton matrix elements in the $(1,2)$ position requires that the
476: expansion parameters be the same in the two sectors. This is consistent with
477: an underlying broken $SU(2)_{R}$ symmetry because the down quarks and
478: leptons are both $T_{R,3}=-1/2$ states and both can acquire their mass from
479: the same Higgs doublet, $H_{2},$ in a supersymmetric theory.
480: Thus the strong $SU(2)_{R}$ breaking, needed to split the $T_{R,3}=\pm 1/2$ states,
481: does not differentiate between the down quarks and charged leptons. Clearly
482: if the dominant messenger sector for family symmetry breaking is in the
483: Higgs sector the expansion parameter in these two sectors will be equal.
484: Similarly, in this case, the expansion parameter in the up quark and
485: neutrino sectors will be the same, since both acquire Dirac masses from the
486: same Higgs doublet, $H_{1}.$ A similar conclusion applies if the family
487: symmetry breaking field, $\theta ,$ is not a singlet under $SU(2)_{R}$ and
488: its vev breaks $SU(2)_{R},$ again leading to a different expansion parameter
489: for the up and the down sectors.
490:
491: The other possibility is that there are
492: significant contributions from messengers carrying quark and lepton quantum
493: numbers. For the messengers carrying left-handed generation quantum numbers,
494: $SU(2)_{L}$ requires the messenger masses should be equal so the only way
495: that these terms could be consistent with the up and down masses is if the
496: family symmetry breaking field, $\theta ,$ is not a singlet under
497: $SU(2)_{R}$ and its vev breaks $SU(2)_{R}.$ Finally it is possible that the
498: messengers carry the quantum numbers of the left-handed charge congugate
499: generations. In this case the up and down sectors could, through $SU(2)_{R}$
500: breaking, have a different masses leading to different expansion parameters.
501: If the underlying symmetry breaking pattern is
502: \begin{equation}
503: SO(10)\rightarrow SU(4)\times SU(2)_{L}\times
504: SU(2)_{R}\rightarrow SU(4)\times SU(2)_{L}\times U(1)
505: \end{equation}
506: the down quarks and charged leptons will have the same expansion parameter and so will the up quarks and neutrinos.
507:
508: In what follows we will explore the
509: most predictive possibility, namely that there is an expansion paramete
510: $\overline{\epsilon }$ which applies to the down quarks and charged leptons,
511: and an expansion parameter $\epsilon $ which applies to the up quarks and
512: neutrinos.
513:
514:
515: \subsubsection{Quark/lepton couplings\label{couplings}}
516:
517: If the expansion parameter is indeed the same for the down quarks and
518: leptons the quantities $Det[M^{d}]$ and $Det[M^{l}]$ occur at the same
519: order as is requires phenomenologically. Exact equality requires also the
520: equality of the coefficients determining the $(1,2)$ matrix elements. Just
521: as for the $(3,3)$ elements such equality will follow if the Higgs
522: responsible for this element transforms as a $\overline{5}$ of $SU(5)$ or to
523: a $10$ dimensional representation of $SO(10).$ However it is not possible to
524: have {\it identical} charged lepton and down quark mass matrices because,
525: after taking account of the radiative correction on going from high to low
526: scale, giving approximately a factor of 3 increase in the quark masses, the
527: relations $m_{s}=m_{\mu }$ and $m_{d}=m_{e}$ are in gross disagreement with
528: experiment. As pointed out by Georgi and Jarlskog \cite{Georgi:1979df} this discrepancy is
529: readily explained if there is an underlying GUT through the appearance of
530: Clebsch Gordon factors in the matrix element coefficients. In particular if
531: the Higgs responsible for the $(2,2)$ matrix element should belong to a $%
532: \overline{45}$ of $SU(5)$ (or $126$ of $SO(10)$) the lepton coupling is a
533: factor $-3$ times the down quark coupling. In this case, taking account of
534: the equality of the determinants, the relations for the light generations
535: are modified to give $m_{s}=m_{\mu }/3$ and $m_{d}=3m_{e}.$ Including the
536: radiative corrections needed to determine the masses at laboratory scales,
537: these relations are in excellent agreement with the measured masses. If
538: there is also an underlying non-Abelian family symmetry relating the matrix
539: elements as in eq(\ref{nonabelian}), the $(2,2)$ and $(2,3)$ matrix elements
540: are related and so it is necessary that the Higgs field responsible for the $%
541: (2,3)$ matrix element be also due to a Higgs the $\overline{45}$ of $SU(5).$
542: With this the resulting form of the lepton mass matrix coming from eq(\ref
543: {md}) is given by
544: \begin{equation}
545: M^{l}\simeq \left(
546: \begin{array}{ccc}
547: \overline{\epsilon }^{8} & b\overline{\epsilon }^{3} & c\overline{\epsilon }%
548: ^{3} \\
549: b\overline{\epsilon }^{3} & -3\overline{\epsilon }^{2} & -3a\overline{%
550: \epsilon }^{2} \\
551: c\overline{\epsilon }^{3} & -3a\overline{\epsilon }^{2} & 1
552: \end{array}
553: \right) \label{leptonmass}
554: \end{equation}
555: Note that in order to realise this scheme there must be a very particular
556: origin to the effective Lagrangian given in eq(\ref{yukawa}). The effective
557: operators may be generated through quark or Higgs mixing with states
558: carrying different family symmetry quantum numbers. In order to generate the
559: factor $3$ it is necessary that the operators responsible for these terms be
560: dominantly given by Higgs mixing of the $\overline{5}$ Higgs responsible for
561: the $(3,3)$ element with the $\overline{45}$ generating the factor $-3$
562: enhanced terms. Note that it is not necessary for the $\overline{45}$ to be
563: an elementary Higgs field, it can arise as an effective Higgs, for example
564: from the coupling of a $\overline{5}$ and $24$ (in $SO(10)$ the $126$ can be
565: generated by a $10$ and $45$) as in Figure 1\cite{raby}. In
566: these graphs $\overline{\chi }$ and $\chi $ ($\overline{\chi ^{c}}$ and $%
567: \chi ^{c}$) are a vectorlike pair of chiral supermultiplets with mass $M$ ($%
568: M^{\prime }),$ where $\chi $ ($\chi ^{c})$ has the same SM quantum numbers
569: as the left-handed generations $\psi $ (left-handed antigenerations $\psi
570: ^{c}).$
571:
572:
573: Since the adjoint fields are
574: already needed to break $SU(5)$ (or $SO(10)$) this represents a
575: simplification of the Higgs sector. Moreover we see that such graphs can
576: also generate a coupling to an effective $120$ dimensional representation of
577: $SO(10)$. This coupling would be antisymmetric in family space if the $120$
578: were fundamental but need not be so in the case they are given by Figure 1 because the intermediate messenger masses associated with the
579: graphs coupling to $H_{10}$ and $\Sigma _{45}$ are not necessarily the same
580: as those coupling to $\Sigma _{45}$ and $H_{10}.$ Writing the vacuum
581: expectation value
582: \begin{equation}
583: <\Sigma >=B-L+\kappa T_{R,3}, \label{effectivehiggs}
584: \end{equation}
585: \begin{figure}[ht*] % fig 1
586: \label{treegraph}
587: \centering
588: \mbox{\epsfig{file=graphHSpsichi.eps, height=1.6in, width=5.2in}}
589: \caption{Froggatt Nielsen supergraphs generating fermion masses.}
590: \end{figure}
591: the relative contribution of these graphs to the down quarks and leptons is
592: respectively $1/3$ and -$1$ for Figure 1a and $(1/3-\kappa /2)$
593: and $(-1-\kappa /2)$ for Figure 1b. Consider the case the
594: second graph has lighter messengers and dominates. For $\kappa =0$ we obtain
595: the form of eq(\ref{leptonmass}). However for case $\kappa =2$ the
596: contribution to the leptons is $+3$ times that of the quarks so we obtain eq(\ref{leptonmass}) with $+3$ rather than $-3.$ Since the lepton mass
597: eigenvalues are insensitive to this sign we obtain identical masses for
598: either form. This case corresponds to the coupling of an effective $120$
599: dimensional representation and has different implications for the structure
600: of the up quarks and neutrinos that we explore below.
601:
602: The mass matrix of eq(\ref{leptonmass}) gives excellent relation between the
603: down quarks and charged lepton masses of all three generations. Due to the
604: approximate texture zero in the $(1,1)$ position it also implies a
605: contribution to the $(1,2)$ element of the matrix $V^l$ diagonalising the charged lepton mass matrix, given approximately by
606: \begin{equation}
607: V^{l}_{12}\simeq \sqrt{\frac{m_{e}}{m_{\mu }}} \label{nuemix}.
608: \end{equation}
609: In turn this gives a contribution to the $(1,2)$ element of the MNS mixing matrix, $V^{MNS}=V^{l\dagger}V^{\nu}$ \cite{Maki:1962mu}. As we shall discuss this is significant in solar neutrino oscillations if the
610: (now disfavoured) SMA solution applies; it is also important in determining $V^{MNS}_{13}$. On the other hand, due to the
611: smallness of the $(1,3)$ matrix element, the contribution of the $(2,3)$ element of $V^l$ to the MNS mixing matrix is small
612: \begin{equation}
613: V_{23}^{l}\simeq \frac{m_{\mu }}{m_{\tau }}.
614: \end{equation}
615: This is the analogue to the relation in the down quark sector $V_{cb}\simeq
616: m_{s}/m_{b},$ which is in good agreement with the small value observed.
617: However it is too small to explain the large mixing angle observed in
618: atmospheric neutrino oscillation. This discrepancy is at the heart of the
619: apparent conflict between quark and lepton masses and we turn now to the
620: discussion how this conflict may be resolved.
621:
622: \section{Neutrino masses.}
623:
624: \subsection{Dirac mass}
625:
626: Following the discussion in Section \ref{family} we immediately see that the
627: $SU(3)$ family symmetry properties of the left- and right- handed neutrinos
628: must be the same as those of the charged leptons. As a result the form of
629: the neutrino Dirac mass matrix between the doublet neutrinos and the singlet
630: (right-handed) neutrinos should be the same as eq(\ref{leptonmass}),
631: although the expansion parameter may be different. Given the success of GUT
632: relations in the charged mass matrix it is obviously reasonable to explore
633: the possibility that neutrino masses are similarly related to quark masses.
634: As discussed above the expansion parameter for neutrino
635: masses may be equal to that for up quark masses. This is consistent with an underlying $%
636: SU(2)_{R}$ (contained in $SO(10))$ because the up quarks and right-handed
637: neutrinos are both $T_{3,R}=1/2$ states. In this case the resulting Dirac
638: neutrino mass matrix is of the form
639: \begin{equation}
640: M_{D}^{\nu }/M_{D,33}^{\nu }=\left(
641: \begin{array}{ccc}
642: O(\epsilon ^{8}) & b_{\nu }^{\prime }\epsilon ^{3} & c_{\nu }^{\prime
643: }\epsilon ^{3} \\
644: b_{\nu }^{\prime }\epsilon ^{3} & d_{\nu }^{\prime }\epsilon ^{2} & a_{\nu
645: }^{\prime }\epsilon ^{2} \\
646: c_{\nu }^{\prime }\epsilon ^{3} & a_{\nu }^{\prime }\epsilon ^{2} & 1
647: \end{array}
648: \right) \label{diracneutrino}
649: \end{equation}
650: The underlying GUT symmetry relates the renormalisable couplings of the
651: messenger states. For the case the Higgs responsible for the $(3,3),$ $(1,2)$
652: and $(2,1)$ matrix elements transforms as the $10$ of $SO(10)$ and the
653: Higgs responsible for the $(2,2),$ $(2,3)$ and $(3,2)$ matrix elements
654: transforms as the $126$ of $SO(10)$ we have $a_{\nu }^{\prime }=-3a,$ $d_{\nu
655: }^{\prime }=-3,$ $b_{\nu }^{\prime }=b,$ and $c_{\nu }^{\prime }=c.$ In the
656: case just discussed where the Higgs responsible for the $(2,2),$ $(2,3)$ and
657: $(3,2)$ matrix elements transform as the $120$ of $SO(10)$ (with the second
658: graph of Figure 1 dominating) we have $a_{\nu }^{\prime }=-%
659: \frac{(6-3\kappa )}{(2+3\kappa )}a,$ $d_{\nu }^{\prime }=-\frac{(6-3\kappa )%
660: }{(2+3\kappa )},$ $b_{\nu }^{\prime }=b,$ and $c_{\nu }^{\prime }=c$
661:
662: \subsection{Majorana mass}
663:
664: Of course it is necessary to determine the Majorana mass matrix before one
665: can determine the effective neutrino mass matrix via the see-saw formula of
666: eq(\ref{seesaw}). Although the family symmetry properties of the
667: right-handed neutrinos are related to those of the charged leptons it is not
668: possible to use this information unambiguously to determine the structure of
669: the Majorana mass matrix. In particular it may not have the same form as is
670: found for the Dirac matrix. The reason is twofold. Firstly the Majorana
671: masses are generated via a new $\Delta L=2$ lepton number violating Higgs
672: sector and it is necessary to specify the family symmetry representation
673: content of this sector before the Majorana mass structure is fixed. Secondly
674: the Majorana mass matrix involves the coupling of identical fermions and so
675: antisymmetric terms allowed in the Dirac mass matrix will not arise in the
676: Majorana matrix. Despite this we can make some general statements about the
677: structure. In particular we expect an hierarchical structure for the
678: Majorana mass matrix because the underlying family symmetry ($SU(3)),$ is
679: the same as applies to the Dirac matrix which leads to a structure ordered
680: by a new expansion parameter $\varepsilon _{M}$.
681: If a single $\Delta L=2$ (effective) symmetry breaking
682: field, $\Phi$ with definite $SU(3)$ family transformation properties, dominates there will no possibility of degeneracy between
683: matrix elements. For a large part of the parameter space, the form
684: of the Majorana mass matrix is in practice determined. In the limit that\ $%
685: \varepsilon _{M}<<\epsilon $ (which is the case if the messenger sector in
686: the $\Phi $ sector is heavier than in the electroweak breaking sector) the
687: mixing in the neutrino sector is dominated by the mixing coming from the
688: Dirac mass. If $\Phi$ couples dominantly to the $(3,3)$ position the resulting mass matrix can be diagonalised by
689: small rotations of $O(\varepsilon _{M})$ giving
690: \begin{equation}
691: M_{\nu }=\left(
692: \begin{array}{ccc}
693: m_{1} & & \\
694: & m_{2} & \\
695: & & m_{3}
696: \end{array}
697: \right) \label{majneutrino1}
698: \end{equation}
699: It is important to note that this mass eigenstate basis is likely to be very
700: close to that used for the Dirac matrix, eq(\ref{diracneutrino}), the mass
701: eigenstates will be the family symmetry eigenstates up to corrections of $%
702: O(\varepsilon _{M}).$
703:
704: This is the general form we shall use in our phenomenological analysis. It
705: corresponds to one of the two most reasonable possibilities. By
706: ``reasonable'', we mean that large mixing should not be due to a detailed
707: correlation between the Dirac and Majorana mass matrix elements because this
708: would require a correlation between the $\Delta L=2$ and $\Delta L=0$
709: symmetry breaking sectors and there is no obvious symmetry that could
710: achieve this. The other reasonable possibility is that the mixing is
711: dominated by the mixing in the Majorana mass matrix (the case $\varepsilon
712: _{M}\gg \epsilon ).$This is less predictive (and hence less interesting)
713: because, in this case, we cannot relate neutrino mixing angles with quark
714: mixing angles. For this reason we concentrate here on the first possibility.
715:
716: \section{The light neutrino mass matrix}
717:
718: We are now able to determine the masses and mixing angles of the light
719: neutrinos using eqs(\ref{diracneutrino},\ref{majneutrino1}) in eq(\ref
720: {seesaw}). The effective Lagrangian associated with the see-saw mass is of
721: the form
722: \begin{equation}
723: {\cal L}=\frac{\epsilon ^{6}}{m_{1}}(b_{\nu }^{\prime }\nu _{\mu }+c_{\nu
724: }^{\prime }\nu _{\tau }+O(\epsilon ^{5})\nu _{e})^{2}H_{1}^{2}+\frac{%
725: \epsilon ^{4}}{m_{2}}(d_{\nu }^{\prime }\nu _{\mu }+a_{\nu }^{\prime }\nu
726: _{\tau }+\epsilon b_{\nu }^{\prime }\nu _{e})^{2}H_{1}^{2}+\frac{1}{m_{3}}%
727: (\nu _{\tau }+a_{\nu }^{\prime }\nu _{\nu }+\epsilon c_{\nu }^{\prime }\nu
728: _{e})^{2}H_{1}^{2} \label{effmass}
729: \end{equation}
730:
731: \subsection{Near maximal mixing\label{maximal}}
732:
733: It is now straightforward to determine the viable forms of the mass matrix.
734: Consider first the heaviest neutrino which should have near maximal mixing
735: to explain atmospheric neutrino oscillation. One sees from eq(\ref{effmass})
736: that, surprisingly, this is easy to achieve.
737:
738: We first consider the case $\frac{\epsilon ^{4}}{m_{2}}>\frac{\epsilon ^{6}}{%
739: m_{1}},$ $\frac{1}{m_{3}}.$ The heaviest eigenstate is $\nu _{1}\propto
740: d_{\nu }^{\prime }\nu _{\mu }+a_{\nu }^{\prime }\nu _{\tau }+\epsilon b_{\nu
741: }^{\prime }\nu _{e}.$ If $SU(2)_{R}$ is an underlying symmetry of the
742: couplings ($\kappa =0$ in eq(\ref{effectivehiggs})), $a_{\nu }^{\prime
743: }/d_{\nu }^{\prime }\simeq a\simeq 1.3.$ In this case $\nu _{1}$ is very
744: close to a maximal mixed state of muon and tau neutrinos. Note, as remarked
745: in Section \ref{family}, it is the smallness of $V_{cb}$ which requires a $%
746: (2,3)$ entry of $O(\overline{\epsilon }^{2})$ that leads to near maximal
747: mixing in the neutrino sector\cite{kingross}!
748:
749: It is also straightforward to compute the next lightest neutrino state. It
750: will have mass of $O(\frac{\epsilon ^{6}}{m_{1}}$ $or$ $\frac{1}{m_{3}})$
751: whichever is the larger. Let us consider the first possibility first. The
752: eigenstate $\nu _{2}$ has the form
753: \begin{equation}
754: \nu _{2}\varpropto (a_{\nu }^{\prime }b_{\nu }^{\prime }-c_{\nu }^{\prime
755: }d_{\nu }^{\prime })(d_{\nu }^{\prime }\nu _{\tau }-a_{\nu }^{\prime }\nu
756: _{\mu })+O(\epsilon )\nu _{e} \label{second state}
757: \end{equation}
758: Except for the case the factor $(a_{\nu }^{\prime }b_{\nu }^{\prime }-c_{\nu
759: }^{\prime }d_{\nu }^{\prime })$ is anomalously small the second eigenstate
760: will be predominately in the $\nu _{\mu },$ $\nu _{\tau }$ direction. The
761: same conclusion applies if the second eigenstate is dominated by the third
762: term of eq(\ref{effmass}). Thus in both cases the mixing angle $V_{\nu
763: _{e}\mu }$ relevant to solar neutrino oscillation will be dominated by the
764: contribution of $O(\overline{\epsilon })$ from the charged lepton sector
765: given in eq(\ref{nuemix}). This is of the correct magnitude to fit the SMA
766: solution. The ratio of the two heaviest masses is given by $%
767: M_{3}/M_{2}=O(\epsilon ^{2}m_{2}/m_{1}\;or\;\epsilon ^{4}m_{2}/m_{3})$ and
768: the Majorana masses can be adjusted to get the value needed for the SMA
769: solution. For the case $\frac{\epsilon ^{6}}{m_{1}}>\frac{\epsilon ^{4}}{%
770: m_{2}},\frac{1}{m_{3}}$ a similar pattern emerges except that the heaviest
771: state is now $\nu _{1}\propto b_{\nu }^{\prime }\nu _{\mu }+c_{\nu }^{\prime
772: }\nu _{\tau }.$ $SU(2)_{R}$ symmetry leads to the relation $b_{\nu }^{\prime
773: }/c_{\nu }^{\prime }\simeq b/c\simeq 0.5$ and so the mixing is large but not
774: maximal. Provided the factor $(a_{\nu }^{\prime }b_{\nu }^{\prime }-c_{\nu
775: }^{\prime }d_{\nu }^{\prime })$ is not anomalously small the lighter states
776: are not strongly mixed and the dominant contribution to $V^{MNS}_{12}$
777: comes from the charged lepton sector. From this we see that a large
778: atmospheric neutrino mixing angle and the SMA solar neutrino solution is
779: consistent with a very symmetrical structure for the mass matrices in which
780: there is an approximate up-down $SU(2)_{L}\times SU(2)_{R}$ symmetry
781: together with a GUT symmetry relating quarks and leptons.
782:
783: This analysis has demonstrated that, through the see-saw mechanism, it is
784: quite natural to get near maximal mixing in the neutrino channel for
785: atmospheric neutrino mixing, the large lepton mixing being due to the small
786: mixing in the quark sector! However inclusion of the recent SNO data now
787: strongly disfavours the SMA solution for the solar mixing angle and favours
788: large mixing in this case too. To address this we now turn to the question
789: whether near bi-maximal mixing is consistent with an enlarged family and
790: flavour symmetry.
791:
792: \subsection{Near bi-maximal mixing}
793:
794: At first sight is seems that our analysis has already ruled out the
795: possibility of near bi-maximal mixing. The possible exception to this is if
796: the factor $(a_{\nu }^{\prime }b_{\nu }^{\prime }-c_{\nu }^{\prime }d_{\nu
797: }^{\prime })$ is of $O(\epsilon ),$ in which case the second state of eq(\ref
798: {second state}) has a large $\nu _{e}$ component. There are two ways that
799: this may happen naturally. The first is through $SU(2)_{R}$ breaking in the
800: coefficients which occurs through spontaneous breaking via the vev of eq(\ref
801: {effectivehiggs}) for the case $\kappa \neq 0$.
802: For the special case $\kappa=2,$ which generates good charged lepton masses, we have $a_{\nu }^{\prime}=d_{\nu }^{\prime }=0.$ In this case higher order terms in the expansion in
803: terms of the symmetry breaking parameter can generate $(a_{\nu }^{\prime
804: }b_{\nu }^{\prime }-c_{\nu }^{\prime }d_{\nu }^{\prime })$ of $O(\epsilon )$
805: as required. The case $\kappa =2$ can arise quite naturally on spontaneous \
806: symmetry breaking as it corresponds to an enhanced symmetry point at which
807: the effective potential can easily have a minimum. The second way $(a_{\nu
808: }^{\prime }b_{\nu }^{\prime }-c_{\nu }^{\prime }d_{\nu }^{\prime })$ may
809: naturally be of $O(\epsilon )$ applies even to the case $\kappa =0$ and
810: again relies on higher order terms in the expansion in terms of the symmetry
811: breaking parameter.
812:
813: Let us start with a discussion of the sub-leading terms. Consider the case of the $SU(3)$ family symmetry which leads to the leading
814: order mass matrix of the form given in eq(\ref{nonabelianmatrix}). Including
815: higher order terms in the symmetry breaking expansion parameter gives a mass
816: matrix of the form
817:
818: \begin{equation} \label{massmatpar}
819: M/M_{3,3}=\left(
820: \begin{array}{ccc}
821: \varepsilon ^{8} & \varepsilon ^{3}(z+(x+y)\varepsilon) & \varepsilon ^{3}(z
822: +(x-y)\varepsilon ) \\
823: -\varepsilon ^{3}(z+(x+y)\varepsilon) & \varepsilon ^{2}(aw+u\varepsilon) &
824: \varepsilon ^{2}(aw-u\varepsilon ) \\
825: -\varepsilon ^{3}(z +(x-y)\varepsilon) & \varepsilon ^{2}(aw-u\varepsilon) &
826: 1
827: \end{array}
828: \right) \label{mdexp}
829: \end{equation}
830:
831: Here $z$, $w$ and $u$ are real coefficients and $x$ and $y$ complex
832: coefficients of order 1. For the case of the down quarks and leptons the
833: expansion parameter is $\varepsilon =\bar{\epsilon}$ and for up quarks and neutrinos $%
834: \varepsilon =\epsilon $ ({\it cf.}the discussion of Section \ref{exp}).
835: The higher order terms are necessary to fit the data for $M_{d}$ of eq(\ref
836: {md}). Following the discussion of Section \ref{couplings} we assume that
837: the coefficient $a$ arises from an effective $120$ or $126$\ $SO(10)$
838: representation in order to generate the correct lepton mass spectrum. Thus $%
839: a $ is determined by the value of $\kappa $ in eq(\ref{effectivehiggs}) and
840: there are two possibilities
841: \begin{eqnarray}
842: \kappa &=&0,\;a_{l}=-3,\quad a_{\nu }=-3 \\
843: \kappa &=&2,\;a_{l}=+3,\quad a_{\nu }=0
844: \end{eqnarray}
845: We assume all other coefficients come from a $10$ of $SO(10)$ so they are
846: the same as for the quarks$.$
847:
848: We may determine the neutrino effective mass matrix using the see-saw
849: formula, eq(\ref{seesaw}). We focus on the case that the dominant
850: contribution to the heaviest of the light neutrino states is due to the
851: exchange of the right handed neutrino with mass $m_{1}$ which couples to the
852: first row of the Dirac mass matrix (\ref{massmatpar}). As a result it is
853: given by
854:
855: \begin{equation}
856: \nu _{a}=\frac{(z+x\epsilon )(\nu _{\mu }+\nu _{\tau })+y\epsilon (\nu _{\mu
857: }-\nu _{\tau })}{\sqrt{(z+(x+y)\epsilon )^{2}+(z+(x-y)\epsilon )^{2}}}
858: \end{equation}
859: The state orthogonal to it is
860: \begin{equation}
861: \nu _{b}=\frac{(z+x\epsilon )(\nu _{\mu }-\nu _{\tau })-y\epsilon (\nu _{\mu
862: }+\nu _{\tau })}{\sqrt{(z+(x+y)\epsilon )^{2}+(z+(x-y)\epsilon )^{2}}}.
863: \end{equation}
864: We concentrate on the case that the dominant contribution to the second
865: heaviest state is due to the exchange of the right handed neutrino with mass
866: $m_{2}$ which couples to the second row in the Dirac mass matrix. The mass
867: eigenstates are given by
868: \begin{eqnarray}
869: \nu _{3} &\simeq &\nu _{a} \\
870: \nu _{2} &\simeq &\frac{|z|e^{i\xi }\nu _{e}+|r|\nu _{b}}{\sqrt{z^{2}+r^{2}}}
871: \\
872: \nu _{1} &\simeq &\frac{|r|\nu _{e}-|z|e^{-i\xi }\nu _{b}}{\sqrt{z^{2}+r^{2}}%
873: },
874: \end{eqnarray}
875: where
876: \[
877: \xi =\phi _{z}-\phi _{r}
878: \]
879: \begin{equation}
880: r=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{z}(zu-a_{\nu }wy)
881: \end{equation}
882: Note the importance of the higher order terms in determining the lighter
883: neutrino eigenstates. In particular, the $SU(3)$ family symmetry
884: aligns the leading terms in the $(2,2)$ and the $(2,3)$ directions and the $%
885: (1,2)$ and the $(1,3)$ directions; at this order $b^{\prime}_{\nu}=c^{\prime}_{\nu}=z$, $d^{\prime}_{\nu}=a^{\prime}_{\nu}=aw$ so the coefficient $a^{\prime}_{\nu}b^{\prime}_{\nu}-c^{\prime}_{\nu}d^{\prime}_{\nu}$ vanishes in leading order (this is the second case mentioned above). For this reason the second heaviest neutrino can have a
886: large $\nu _{e}$ component due to the higher order terms. Let us consider
887: the phenomenological implications of this fit. The mixing angle $\theta
888: _{23} $ relevant to atmospheric neutrino mixing is given by
889: \begin{equation}
890: \tan ^{2}\theta _{23}\simeq \left| \frac{z+(x+y)\epsilon }{z+(x-y)\epsilon }%
891: \right| ^{2}.
892: \end{equation}
893: Note that it is relatively insensitive to the higher order terms of eq(\ref
894: {massmatpar}).
895:
896: The mixing angle $\theta _{12}$ relevant to solar neutrino mixing is
897: given by
898: \begin{equation}
899: \tan ^{2}\theta _{12}\simeq \left| \frac{z}{r}\right| ^{2}
900: \end{equation}
901: With these results we may now ask whether it is possible to obtain near
902: bi-maximal mixing with the parameterisation of eq(\ref{mdexp}), with the
903: parameters constrained to fit the quark masses. As the latter do not
904: determine all the parameters precisely, we will use the remaining freedom to
905: try to generate all the phenomenologically allowed cases, namely the LMA,
906: LOW and VAC solutions although we note that the recent SNO\ data prefers the
907: LMA solution.
908:
909: \subsubsection{Solution for $\protect\kappa $=0}
910:
911: %TCIMACRO{
912: %\TeXButton{B}{\begin{table}[htbp] \centering%
913: %}}%
914: %BeginExpansion
915: \begin{table}[htbp] \centering%
916: %
917: %EndExpansion
918: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
919: \hline
920: $z$ & $0.91\pm 0.06$ \\
921: $x$ & $-(2.95\pm 0.1)$ \\
922: $y$ & $0.74\pm 0.07$ \\
923: $\phi _{x}$ & $0.05\pm 0.01$ \\
924: $\phi _{y}$ & $0.19\pm 0.01$ \\
925: $w$ & $0.57\pm 0.05$ \\
926: $u$ & $-(0.55\pm 0.12)$ \\
927: $\bar{\epsilon}$ & $0.21\pm 0.01$ \\
928: $\epsilon$ & $0.07\pm 0.01$\\
929: $t_{12}^{2}$ & $0.58\pm 0.02$ \\
930: $t_{23}^{2}$ & $1.49\pm 0.05$ \\
931: $\left( \frac{M_{2}}{M_{3}}\right) ^{2}<$ & ($0.8\pm 0.4)\times 10^{-5}$ \\
932: $a_{u}$ & $2.4\pm 0.3$ \\ \hline
933: \end{tabular}
934: \caption{The parameters for a fit to the down quark mass matrix under the
935: LOW constraint for $\theta_{12}$ in Table 6. \label{tlowfitafsno}}%
936: %TCIMACRO{
937: %\TeXButton{E}{\end{table}%
938: %}}%
939: %BeginExpansion
940: \end{table}%
941: %
942: %EndExpansion
943:
944: %TCIMACRO{
945: %\TeXButton{B}{\begin{table}[htbp] \centering%
946: %}}%
947: %BeginExpansion
948: \begin{table}[htbp] \centering%
949: %
950: %EndExpansion
951: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
952: \hline
953: $z$ & $0.95\pm 0.01$ \\
954: $x$ & $-(3.15\pm 0.31)$ \\
955: $y$ & $0.64\pm 0.03$ \\
956: $\phi _{x}$ & $0.039\pm 0.006$ \\
957: $\phi _{y}$ & $0.19\pm 0.01$ \\
958: $w$ & $0.53\pm 0.03$ \\
959: $u$ & $-(0.5\pm 0.1)$ \\
960: $\bar{\epsilon}$ & $0.22\pm 0.01$ \\
961: $\epsilon$ & $0.07\pm 0.01$\\
962: $t_{12}^{2}$ & $1.27\pm 0.04$ \\
963: $t_{23}^{2}$ & $1.4\pm 0.11$ \\
964: $\left( \frac{M_{2}}{M_{3}}\right) ^{2}<$ & ($6.0\pm 1.6)\times 10^{-6}$ \\
965: $a_{u}$ & $2.7\pm 0.1$ \\ \hline
966: \end{tabular}
967: \caption{The parameters for a fit to the down quark mass matrix under the
968: VAC constraint for $\theta_{12}$ in Table 6. \label{tvacfitafsno}}%
969: %TCIMACRO{
970: %\TeXButton{E}{\end{table}%
971: %}}%
972: %BeginExpansion
973: \end{table}%
974: %
975: %EndExpansion
976:
977: For $\kappa =0$, i.e. $a_{\nu }=-3$, the condition assumed above that the
978: right handed neutrinos of mass $m_{1}$ and $m_{2}$ dominate the see-saw
979: contribution to the heaviest and next heaviest light neutrino masses
980: respectively is $\frac{z^2\epsilon ^{6}}{m_{1}}>\frac{9\omega ^{2}\epsilon ^{4}%
981: }{m_{2}}.$ In this case the masses of the light neutrino mass eigenstates
982: are given approximately by
983: \begin{eqnarray}
984: M_{3} &=&\frac{\epsilon ^{6}}{m_{1}}2z^{2}v^{2} \\
985: M_{2} &=&\frac{\epsilon ^{6}}{m_{2}}z^{2}(1+\tan ^{-2}\theta _{12})v^{2} \\
986: M_{1} &<&\frac{1}{m_{3}}v^{2}
987: \end{eqnarray}
988: Thus for $\frac{z^2\epsilon ^{6}}{m_{1}}>\frac{9\omega ^{2}\epsilon ^{4}}{m_{2}}
989: $ we have
990: \begin{equation}
991: \frac{M_{2}}{M_{3}}<\left( \frac{z}{3w}\right) ^{2}\left( \frac{1+\tan
992: ^{-2}\theta _{12}}{2}\right) \epsilon ^{2}
993: \end{equation}
994: As we have discussed a large value for $\theta _{12}$ appears naturally.
995: However $M_{2}/M_{3}$ is of $O(\epsilon ^{2})$ and for choices of the
996: parameters $z,$ $\omega $ of $O(1)$ and $\theta _{12}$ in the observed
997: range, we can not obtain a large enough value for the ratio $M_{2}/M_{3}$ to
998: fit the LMA solution. Thus in this case we can only obtain the LOW and VAC
999: solutions of the data analysis of neutrino oscillations and mixings. The
1000: remaining parameters are constrained by the requirement that the
1001: parameterisation of equation (\ref{massmatpar}) fits the down quark mass
1002: matrix (the first fit of eq(\ref{fit})). The results are presented in Tables
1003: \ref{tlowfitafsno} and \ref{tvacfitafsno}. These may be compared to the fits
1004: to neutrino masses and mixing angles coming from the analysis of neutrino
1005: oscillations; for convenience we summarise the present situation in the
1006: Appendix in Tables \ref{appendixt1}, \ref{appendixt2},\ref{appendixt4} and
1007: \ref{appendixt5}. As may be seen we can obtain a good description of both the LOW and VAC solutions.
1008:
1009: An important cross check of the structure of the GUT relations used in this
1010: analysis comes from the up quark mass matrix. It is given by eq(\ref
1011: {massmatpar}) with $\varepsilon =\epsilon $ and $a=a_{u}=1$ (since $\kappa
1012: =0 $). The prediction $a_{u}=1$ is the analogue of the prediction $b^{\prime
1013: }=b $ in eq(\ref{su2rtest}). Given the parameters $z$ and $\omega $ from the
1014: fit of Tables \ref{tlowfitafsno} and \ref{tvacfitafsno}, we can test this
1015: prediction by using the up quark masses to determine $a_{u}.$ The results
1016: are also given in the Tables. We may see that the inclusion of the higher
1017: order corrections has actually made the fit to the up quark mass matrix
1018: worse than the case ($b^{\prime }=b$) tested in eq(\ref{su2rtest}) casting
1019: doubt on the viability of the $\kappa =0$ solution.
1020:
1021: \subsubsection{Solution for $\protect\kappa $=2}
1022:
1023: %TCIMACRO{
1024: %\TeXButton{B}{\begin{table}[htbp] \centering%
1025: %}}%
1026: %BeginExpansion
1027: \begin{table}[htbp] \centering%
1028: %
1029: %EndExpansion
1030: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
1031: \hline
1032: $z$ & $0.78\pm 0.14$ \\
1033: $x$ & $-(1.86\pm 0.51)$ \\
1034: $y$ & $1.37\pm 0.21$ \\
1035: $\phi _{x}$ & $0.14\pm 0.04$ \\
1036: $\phi _{y}$ & $0.19\pm 0.05$ \\
1037: $w$ & $0.77\pm 0.06$ \\
1038: $u$ & $-(0.87\pm 0.15)$ \\
1039: $\bar{\epsilon}$ & $0.18\pm 0.02$ \\
1040: $\epsilon$ & $0.06\pm 0.01$\\
1041: $t_{12}^{2}$ & $0.4\pm 0.1$ \\
1042: $t_{23}^{2}$ & $1.7\pm 0.2$ \\
1043: $\left( \frac{M_{2}}{M_{3}}\right) ^{2}$ & $(3\pm 0.11)$ $\left( \frac{m_{1}}{m_{2}}%
1044: \right) ^{2}$ \\
1045: $a_{u}$ & $1.6\pm 0.4$ \\ \hline
1046: \end{tabular}
1047: \caption{The parameters for a fit to the down quark mass matrix under the
1048: LMA constraint for $\theta_{12}$ in Table 6. \label{lmasnopar}}%
1049: %TCIMACRO{
1050: %\TeXButton{E}{\end{table}%
1051: %}}%
1052: %BeginExpansion
1053: \end{table}%
1054: %
1055: %EndExpansion
1056:
1057: \begin{table}[tbp]
1058: \label{lowkeq2}
1059: \par
1060: \begin{center}
1061: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
1062: \hline
1063: $z$ & $0.95\pm 0.05$ \\
1064: $x$ & $-2.80\pm 0.13$ \\
1065: $y$ & $1.37\pm 0.16$ \\
1066: $\phi_x$ & $0.09\pm 0.01$ \\
1067: $\phi_y$ & $0.18\pm 0.01$ \\
1068: $w$ & $0.77\pm 0.02$ \\
1069: $u$ & $-0.86\pm 0.06$ \\
1070: $t^2_{12}$ & $0.58\pm 0.04$ \\
1071: $t^2_{23}$ & $1.75\pm 0.18$ \\
1072: $\bar{\epsilon}$ & $0.19\pm 0.03$ \\
1073: $\epsilon$ & $0.07\pm 0.01$\\
1074: $\left(\frac{M_2}{M_3}\right)^2$ & $(1.77\pm 0.11)\left(\frac{m_1}{m_2}\right)^2$ \\
1075: $a_u$ & $1.9\pm 0.1$ \\ \hline
1076: \end{tabular}
1077: \end{center}
1078: \caption{{\protect\small {The parameters for a fit to the down quark mass
1079: matrix for the solution $k=2$, under the LOW constraint for $\protect\theta %
1080: _{12}$.}}}
1081: \label{tlowfitafsnok2}
1082: \end{table}
1083:
1084: \begin{table}[tbp]
1085: \label{vackeq2}
1086: \par
1087: \begin{center}
1088: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
1089: \hline
1090: $z$ & $0.96\pm 0.06$ \\
1091: $x$ & $-3.20\pm 0.13$ \\
1092: $y$ & $0.87\pm 0.13$ \\
1093: $\phi_x$ & $0.05\pm 0.01$ \\
1094: $\phi_y$ & $0.19\pm 0.01$ \\
1095: $w$ & $0.61\pm 0.02$ \\
1096: $u$ & $-0.61\pm 0.04$ \\
1097: $t^2_{12}$ & $1.23\pm 0.01$ \\
1098: $t^2_{23}$ & $1.55\pm 0.20$ \\
1099: $\bar{\epsilon}$ & $0.20\pm 0.03$ \\
1100: $\epsilon$ & $0.07\pm 0.01$\\
1101: $\left(\frac{M_2}{M_3}\right)^2$ & $(0.82\pm 0.1)\left(\frac{m_1}{m_2}\right)^2$ \\
1102: $a_u$ & $2.4\pm 0.2$ \\ \hline
1103: \end{tabular}
1104: \end{center}
1105: \caption{{\protect\small {The parameters for a fit to the down quark mass
1106: matrix for the solution $k=2$ and under the VAC constraint for $\protect%
1107: \theta _{12}$.}}}
1108: \label{tvacfitafsnok2}
1109: \end{table}
1110:
1111: For $\kappa =2$, i.e. $a_{\nu }=0$, the condition that the right handed
1112: neutrinos of mass $m_{1}$ and $m_{2}$ respectively dominate the see-saw
1113: contribution to the heaviest and next heaviest light neutrino eigenstates
1114: masses is $\frac{\epsilon ^{6}}{m_{1}}>O(\frac{\epsilon ^{6}}{m_{2}}).$ In
1115: this case the masses of neutrino mass eigenstates are given approximately by
1116: \begin{eqnarray}
1117: M_{3} &=&\frac{\epsilon ^{6}}{m_{1}}2z^{2}v^{2} \\
1118: M_{2} &=&\frac{\epsilon ^{6}}{m_{2}}(2u^{2}+z^{2})v^{2} \\
1119: M_{1} &<&\frac{1}{m_{3}}v^{2}
1120: \end{eqnarray}
1121:
1122: \begin{equation}
1123: \frac{M_{2}}{M_{3}}\approx \frac{2u^{2}+z^{2}}{2z^{2}}\left( \frac{m_{1}}{%
1124: m_{2}}\right) .
1125: \end{equation}
1126:
1127: Since the condition $\frac{z^2\epsilon ^{6}}{m_{1}}>O(\frac{\epsilon ^{6}}{%
1128: m_{2}})$ is readily satisfied for $m_{1}/m_{2}\lesssim O(1)$ the LMA
1129: solution for neutrinos can readily be reproduced through a choice of the
1130: ratio $m_{1}/m_{2}$. The results of the fit to the down quark mass matrix is
1131: given in Table \ref{lmasnopar}. This solution is obtained when $\tan \theta
1132: _{12}^{2}=0.4$, which is the favoured value for the LMA solution. As may be
1133: seen from a comparison with Tables \ref{appendixt1}, \ref{appendixt2} and
1134: \ref{appendixt3}, the agreement with neutrino mixing angles is good.
1135:
1136: For the case $\kappa =2$ the prediction for the up quark mass matrix is that
1137: $a_{u}=2.$ We may see from Table \ref{lmasnopar} that this is in better
1138: agreement with the up quark masses than the case $\kappa =0$ and also with
1139: the case tested in tested in eq(\ref{su2rtest}) when the effects of higher
1140: order operators were not included. This is an encouraging indication that the
1141: case $\kappa =2$ may be realised.
1142:
1143: It is also possible to obtain the LOW and VAC solutions for $\kappa =2.$ The
1144: results are presented in Tables \ref{tlowfitafsnok2} and \ref{tvacfitafsnok2}%
1145: . These may be compared to the fits to neutrino masses and mixing angles
1146: coming from the analysis of neutrino oscillations in good agreement with the
1147: fits to experiment which are summarised in the Appendix in Tables \ref
1148: {appendixt1}, \ref{appendixt2},\ref{appendixt4} and \ref{appendixt5}. In
1149: contrast to the $\kappa =0$ case, the value for $a_{u}$ is in excellent
1150: agreement with the measured up quark masses.
1151:
1152:
1153: \subsection{The prediction for $V_{13}$}
1154:
1155: Our analyses has so far investigated the implications for $V_{23}$ and $%
1156: V_{12}$ which follow from an enhanced flavour and family symmetry. What are
1157: the implications for $V_{13}?$ This is a particularly interesting question
1158: for only if $V_{13}$ is quite large will there be any prospect of seeing CP
1159: violation in future long baseline neutrino experiments. Due to the form
1160: of the hierarchy in the mass matrices, both the charged leptonic mass matrix
1161: and the effective neutrino mass matrix, it is possible to diagonalise them
1162: by the rotations $R_{23}R_{13}R_{12}$ together with diagonal matrices
1163: carrying the phases. From this the $13$ ($e3)$ $V^{MNS}$ mixing matrix is
1164: given by \cite{VeMNCP,King:2002nf}
1165: \begin{equation}
1166: V^{MNS}_{13}=s_{13}^{\nu }c_{12}^{l}c_{13}^{l}e^{i\omega
1167: _{1}}-s_{13}^{l}c_{12}^{l}c_{13}^{\nu }c_{23}^{\prime }e^{i\omega
1168: _{2}}+s_{12}^{l}s_{23}^{L\prime }c_{13}^{\nu }e^{i\omega _{3}}
1169: \label{eleUe3}
1170: \end{equation}
1171: where $s_{ij}^{f}$, for $i,j=1,2,3$ and $f=l,\nu $ represent the sines of
1172: the mixing angles, analogously for the cosines and the phases $\omega _{i}$,
1173: $i=1,2,3$ are functions of the phases appearing in the mass matrix. The
1174: angle $s_{23}^{L\prime }$ is given by $|c_{23}^{\nu }s_{23}^{l}-s_{23}^{\nu
1175: }c_{23}^{l}e^{i\omega _{4}}|$. Since the neutrino oscillations experiments are not sensitive to Majorana CP phases, the standard parametrisation used for the case of quarks \cite{Hagiwara:2002pw} is commonly used for the case of leptons.
1176: In this parameterisation $%
1177: V_{13}=s_{13}e^{-i\delta }$, where $s_{13}$ should be identified with the
1178: sine of the CHOOZ angle and $\delta $ is the analogue to the quark CP violation phase. Thus identifying $s_{13}$ with the absolute value
1179: of eq(\ref{eleUe3}) we can trace the contributions from charged leptons and
1180: neutrinos to the CHOOZ angle.
1181:
1182: We can see that, in both the $\kappa =0$ and $\kappa =2$ cases discussed
1183: above, the value of $s_{13}^{\nu }$ is negligible because of the hierarchy
1184: of the Majorana masses we have taken ($m_{3}>>m_{2},m_{1}$). The mixings in
1185: the leptonic sector are small and are given by
1186: \begin{equation}
1187: s_{12}^{l}\approx \frac{|Y_{12}^{l}-\frac{Y_{13}^{l}Y_{23}^{l}}{Y_{33}^{l}}|%
1188: }{|Y_{22}^{l}-\frac{(Y_{23}^{l})^2}{Y_{33}^{l}}|};\qquad s_{13}^{l}\approx \frac{%
1189: |Y_{13}^{l}+\frac{Y_{12}^{l}Y_{23}^{l}}{Y_{33}^{l}}|}{|Y_{33}^{l}|},
1190: \label{sin1213cle}
1191: \end{equation}
1192: where $Y_{12}^{l}$ are the elements of the charged lepton mass matrix. From eq(\ref{massmatpar}) we see that $s_{13}^{l}=O(\bar{\epsilon}%
1193: ^{3})$ and $s_{12}^{l}=O(\bar{\epsilon}^{2})$, therefore the latter is
1194: the dominant contribution. This result is interesting because $%
1195: Y_{12}^{l}/Y_{22}^{l}\approx \sqrt{m_{e}/m_{\mu }}$ and hence from eqs(\ref
1196: {eleUe3}) and (\ref{sin1213cle})
1197: \begin{equation}
1198: V^{MNS}_{13}\simeq \sqrt{\frac{m_{e}}{m_{\mu }}}
1199: \end{equation}
1200: which is a testable prediction. This gives a value $V^{MNS}_{13}\approx 0.07,$ close to
1201: the present bound and large enough for the future CP violating experiments
1202: to be viable. This point has been made explicitly by King \cite{King:2002nf}
1203: and the value given is consistent with the results of \cite{Lavignac:2002gf}\cite{Frigerio:2002rd}.
1204: When the third term in equation (\ref{eleUe3}) is dominant, $\delta$, the analogue to the quark CP violation phase, is $-\omega_3$, which in terms of the elements, $|Y^{\nu}_{ij}|e^{i\phi_{ij}}$, of the effective neutrino mass matrix it is given by:
1205: \begin{equation}
1206: \delta=-\omega_3\approx \frac{\gamma^{\nu}_{23} -\gamma^{\nu}_{12}-\gamma^{\nu}_{13}}{2}
1207: \end{equation}
1208: where
1209: \bea
1210: \tan\gamma^{\nu}_{ij}&\approx& \frac{Y^{\nu}_{ij}Y^{\nu}_{jj}\sin(\phi_{ij}-\phi_{jj})+ Y^{\nu}_{ik}Y^{\nu}_{jk}\sin(\phi_{ik}-\phi_{jk})}{Y^{\nu}_{ij}Y^{\nu}_{jj}\cos(\phi_{ij}-\phi_{jj})+ Y^{\nu}_{ik}Y^{\nu}_{jk}\cos(\phi_{ik}-\phi_{jk})}\\
1211: \gamma^{\nu}_{23}&\approx& \phi_{23}-\phi_{33}
1212: \eea
1213: for $ij=12,13$ and $k\neq i,j$.
1214: In the same way as discussed for the quarks, Section \ref{quarkmassmats}, we may choose the phases to be $\phi^l$, the phase of the $(1,2)$ element of the Dirac $M^{\nu}$ and $\chi^l$ the phase of the $(1,3)$ element of $M^l$, then $\delta\approx\phi^l$.
1215:
1216: The process of extracting the angles and phases from successive rotations is
1217: general and can be applied directly to hierarchical mass matrices; for a
1218: further work on this applied to leptons and the implications for CP
1219: violation see \cite{VeMNCP}.
1220:
1221: \subsubsection{\protect\bigskip $\protect\mu \rightarrow e\protect\gamma $}
1222:
1223: Several groups \cite{Casas:2001sr,Lavignac:2001vp} have pointed out that off diagonal lepton Yukawa couplings can lead to unacceptably large contributions for lepton family number violation processes such as $\mu \rightarrow e\gamma$. In a supersymmetric framework the branching ratio, $BR(\mu \rightarrow e\gamma)$ has the form
1224: \begin{equation}
1225: \label{brmugamma}
1226: BR(\mu \rightarrow e\gamma)\propto |(Y_{\nu }^{\dagger }\ln\frac{M_X}{M_R}Y_{\nu })_{21}|^{2} \tan ^{2}\beta,
1227: \end{equation}
1228: where $Y_{\nu }$ is the matrix of Yukawa couplings for Dirac neutrinos (in the basis in which charged leptons are flavour diagonal), $M_{X}$ is the scale of Grand Unification, $M_{R}$ is the scale where right handed neutrinos decouple and
1229: $\tan \beta $ is equal to the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the
1230: two Higgs doublets of the MSSM. Since $BR(\mu \rightarrow e\gamma)$ depends as well on the soft supersymmetric mass spectrum is useful to determine instead the matrix element $C_{\mu e}=(Y_{\nu }^{\dagger }\ln (M_{X}/M_{R})Y_{\nu })_{21}$ and hence study the predictions of the structure of $Y_{\nu}$ and the scale of $M_R$ for lepton flavour violating processes \cite{Lavignac:2001vp}.
1231:
1232: We can compute the element $C_{\mu e}$ for our
1233: texture of $Y_{\nu }$. For the preferred case $\kappa =2$ we have $C_{\mu
1234: e}\approx 6\times 10^{-3}$ for the LMA solution, $C_{\mu e}\approx 5.6\times 10^{-3}$
1235: for the LOW solution and $C_{\mu e}\approx 4.2\times 10^{-3}$ for VAC solution . Even for the case that $\tan \beta $ is
1236: large ($h_{t}\simeq h_{b})$, due to the hierarchical form of the Yukawa
1237: couplings, eq(\ref{massmatpar}), $|(Y_{\nu }^{\dagger }Y_{\nu })_{21}|\tan \beta$ is small and therefore does not conflict the bounds for $\mu \rightarrow e\gamma$ {\footnote {The structure of the effective mass matrix for low energy neutrinos (provided by the
1238: see-saw mechanism) in the models considered here belongs to the Class 3 of
1239: reference \cite{Lavignac:2001vp}.}}.
1240: As can be seen from Figure 2 \cite{Lavignac:2001vp} the coefficients $C_{\mu e}$ given above fall below current experimental bounds \cite{Brooks:1999pu} for a wide range of the soft supersymmetric breaking parameter space {\footnote {To compare with the bounds presented in \cite{Lavignac:2001vp} we need to multiply the upper bounds for $C_{\mu e}$ by $10/50$, since $\tan \beta \approx 50$.}}.
1241:
1242:
1243: \subsection{Summary and conclusions}
1244:
1245: Due to the see-saw mechanism the significant differences between quark and
1246: lepton mixing can be explained while keeping the form of their Dirac mass
1247: matrices the same. As a result the observed masses and mixings can be
1248: accommodated in a theory in which there is a very large underlying family and
1249: flavour symmetry group. We have explored the phenomenological implications
1250: of an $SU(3)$ family symmetry together with a $SO(10)$ GUT flavour symmetry
1251: and additional Abelian family symmetries, chosen to restrict the allowed
1252: Yukawa couplings. Allowing for spontaneous (perturbative) breaking of this
1253: group we found a symmetry breaking scheme in which the observed hierarchical
1254: quark masses and mixings are quantitatively described together with the
1255: hierarchy of charged lepton masses and an hierarchical structure for
1256: neutrino masses with near bi-maximal mixing in the lepton sector. In this
1257: the presently unknown mixing angle, $(\theta _{MNS})_{13},$ is determined
1258: mainly by the mixing in the lepton sector. While smaller than the other
1259: mixing angles, it is close to the present limits, and is large enough to
1260: allow for significant CP\ violating effects to be visible in future long
1261: baseline neutrino experiments.
1262:
1263: Given the very large underlying symmetry, the fermion masses are heavily
1264: constrained. The perturbative breaking ensures an hierarchical structure for
1265: the masses and in terms of the breaking parameters, the order of magnitude
1266: of the ratios of the quark and lepton masses is determined once the family
1267: symmetry properties of the fields are determined. For quarks, having constrained the family charges to fix the down quark mass ratios, one obtains one order of magnitude prediction for the ratio of up quark masses which is in good agreement with experiment. Further
1268: the family symmetry ensures an approximate texture zero in the $(1,1)$
1269: matrix element which gives rise to the successful GST relation between the
1270: CKM mixing and the mass ratios of the first two generations of up and down
1271: quarks.
1272:
1273: The extension of the family symmetry to leptons can be done together with
1274: via an enlarged GUT flavour symmetry, $SO(10).$ This results in predictions
1275: for the charged lepton masses in terms of the symmetry breaking pattern of $%
1276: SO(10).$ For one particular choice, the
1277: predictions are in good agreement with measurement, reproducing the Georgi
1278: Jarlskog structure for the light lepton masses. In addition the $SO(10)$
1279: symmetry relates the Yukawa couplings of the up and down quark sectors and
1280: replaces the order of magnitude prediction for the ratio of up quarks by an
1281: absolute prediction. For the preferred choice of symmetry breaking this
1282: prediction is in excellent agreement with experiment.
1283:
1284: The neutrino mass matrices are also strongly constrained by the symmetry. If
1285: the expansion parameter for the Majorana masses is smaller than that for the
1286: up quarks, the Majorana mass matrix is approximately diagonal in the family
1287: symmetry basis. In this case the lepton mixing angles are determined by the
1288: Dirac mass matrices for the charged leptons and neutrinos and these in turn
1289: are related by the GUT symmetry to the Dirac mass matrices of the quarks. As
1290: a result the lepton mixing angles\footnote{The neutrino masses, while constrained in some case, are largely determined by the unknown Majorana mass eigenvalues.} are determined by the properties of the
1291: quarks. The mixing angle relevant to atmospheric neutrino mixing is well
1292: determined by the leading order operators in the symmetry breaking
1293: expansion. Through vacuum alignment in the $SU(3)$ family sector this mixing
1294: angle is large and consistent with the measure atmospheric mixing
1295: angle. The solar mixing angle turns out to be quite sensitive to subdominant
1296: terms in the symmetry breaking expansion. As a result one obtains only an
1297: order of magnitude prediction for this angle{\it \ }determining it to
1298: be of $O(1).$ For the favoured $SO(10)$ symmetry breaking pattern the
1299: coefficients of the sub-dominant operators needed to obtain a quantitative
1300: agreement of this mixing angle with data are consistent with the constraints
1301: on the expansion which follow from fitting the down quark mass matrix
1302: structure. Finally the value of $(\theta _{MNS})_{13}$ is determined to be
1303: approximately $\sqrt{m_{e}/m_{\mu }}$, coming mainly from the charged lepton
1304: sector.
1305:
1306: To summarise, the data on all quark and lepton masses and mixings is
1307: qualitatively consistent with a significantly enlarged family and flavour
1308: symmetry. Given the disparity between these quantities in the quark and
1309: lepton sectors this is already remarkable. On a more quantitative level, a
1310: specific pattern of family symmetries and symmetry breaking leads to a
1311: quantitative prediction for seven of the parameters of the Standard Model,
1312: namely ($\theta _{CKM})_{12},$ $m_{u}m_{t}/m_{c}^{2},$ $m_{e},$ $m_{\mu },$ $%
1313: m_{\tau }$ and $(\theta _{MNS})_{23}$ together with an order of magnitude
1314: prediction for $(\theta _{MNS})_{13}.$ Such agreement is encouraging and
1315: suggests one should try to construct a complete underlying theory, be it a
1316: SUSY GUT or perhaps a superstring theory.\bigskip
1317:
1318: \noindent {\large {\bf Acknowledgements}}\bigskip
1319:
1320: We would like to thank A.Ibarra, S.King, I.Masina and O.Vives for useful
1321: conversations. L. Velasco-Sevilla would like to thank CONACyT-Mexico and
1322: Universities UK through an ORS Award for financial support.
1323:
1324:
1325: \bibliographystyle{h-physrev4}
1326: \bibliography{nt}
1327:
1328:
1329: \appendix
1330:
1331: \section{Appendix}
1332:
1333: %TCIMACRO{
1334: %\TeXButton{B}{\begin{table}[ht*] \centering%
1335: %}}%
1336: %BeginExpansion
1337:
1338: \begin{table}[ht*] \centering%
1339: %
1340: %EndExpansion
1341: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
1342: \hline
1343: & LMA & LOW & VAC & Ref.\\ \hline
1344: $\tan ^{2}\theta _{12}$ & $(4.0\pm 1)\times 10^{-1}$ & $(5.8\pm 4)\times 10^{-1}$ & $(1.23\pm 0.1)$& \\
1345: $\frac{|M_{2}|}{|M_{3}|}^{2}$ & $3\frac{m_{1}^{2}}{m_{2}^{2}}$ &
1346: $1.77\frac{m_{1}^{2}}{m_{2}^{2}}$ & $8.2\times 10^{-1}\frac{m_{1}^{2}}{m_{2}^{2}}$ & \\
1347: $(\tan ^{2}\theta _{12})_{{\rm exp}}$ & $4.0\times 10^{-1}$ & $5.8\times
1348: 10^{-1}$ & $(0.68,1.8)$ & \cite{pdholsmsno02, bagopesno02,alianisno02} \\
1349: $\frac{|\Delta m_{12}^{2}|}{|\Delta m_{23}^{2}|}_{{\rm exp}}$ &
1350: $(0.3,33.6)\times 10^{-2}$ & $(0.48,10)\times 10^{-5}$ & $\approx 1.16\times
1351: 10^{-7}$ & \cite{Gonzalez-Garcia:2000sq} \\
1352: $\frac{|\Delta m_{12}^{2}|}{|\Delta m_{23}^{2}|}_{{\rm exp}}$ &
1353: $(0.5,30.8)\times 10^{-2}$ & $(0.73,10)\times 10^{-5}$ & $\approx 1.44\times
1354: 10^{-7}$ & \cite{Maltoni:2002at} \\ \hline
1355: \end{tabular}
1356: \caption{ Comparision between the predictions for $k=2$ and the
1357: experiments for $\tan^{2}\protect\theta_{12}$ and $|\frac{M_{2}}{M_{3}}|^2$
1358: for the LMA, LOW and VAC solutions for solar neutrinos. The confidence levels
1359: presented are at $3\protect\sigma$.\label{appendixt1}}%
1360: %TCIMACRO{
1361: %\TeXButton{E}{\end{table}%
1362: %}}%
1363: %BeginExpansion
1364: \end{table}%
1365:
1366: %
1367: %EndExpansion
1368:
1369: %TCIMACRO{
1370: %\TeXButton{B}{\begin{table}[ht*] \centering%
1371: %}}%
1372: %BeginExpansion
1373: \begin{table}[ht*] \centering%
1374: %
1375: %EndExpansion
1376: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
1377: \hline
1378: \multicolumn{7}{|c|}{Atmospheric+chooz information} \\ \hline\hline
1379: $\Delta m_{32}^{2}$ & & $t_{23}^{2}$ & & $t_{13}^{2}$ & & Ref. \\ \hline
1380: BFP & Range & BFP & Range & BFP & at 90 \%CL & \\ \hline
1381: $3.1\times 10^{-3}$ & $(1.1,7.3)\times 10^{-3}$ & $1.4$ & $(0.33,3.7)$ & $%
1382: 0.005$ & $<0.055$ & \cite{Gonzalez-Garcia:2000sq} \\
1383: & at 99 \%CL & & at 99 \%CL & & & \\
1384: $2.5\times 10^{-3}$ & $(1.2,4.8)\times 10^{-3}$ & $1$ & $(0.43,2.3)$ & & &
1385: \cite{Maltoni:2002at} \\
1386: & at $3\sigma $ & & at $3\sigma $ & & & \\ \hline
1387: \end{tabular}
1388: \caption{The constraints on neutrino mixing parameters
1389: coming from Atmospheric neutrino data and from CHOOZ. The second analysis cited
1390: has been performed with updated atmospheric data. For
1391: different values of $t_{13}^2$ there are different two dimensional C.L.
1392: regions for the variables $t_{23}$ and $\Delta m_{23}^2$; here we present
1393: the appropriate for the value of $t_{13}^2$ obtained with the mass matrix
1394: structure discussed here.\label{appendixt2}}%
1395: %TCIMACRO{
1396: %\TeXButton{E}{\end{table}%
1397: %}}%
1398: %BeginExpansion
1399: \end{table}%
1400: %
1401: %EndExpansion
1402:
1403: %TCIMACRO{
1404: %\TeXButton{B}{\begin{table}[ht*] \centering%
1405: %}}%
1406: %BeginExpansion
1407: \begin{table}[ht*] \centering%
1408: %
1409: %EndExpansion
1410: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
1411: \hline
1412: \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{LMA, solar information} \\ \hline\hline
1413: $\Delta m_{12}^{2}$ (eV)$^{2}$ & & $t_{12}^{2}$ & & g.o.f. & Ref. \\ \hline
1414: BFP & at $3 \sigma$ CL & BFP & at $3 \sigma$ CL & & \\ \hline
1415: $5.5\times 10^{-5}$ & $(0.23,3.7)\times 10^{-4}$ & $4.2\times 10^{-1}$ & $%
1416: (2.4,8.9)\times 10^{-1}$ & 49\% & \cite{bagopesno02} \\
1417: $5.6\times 10^{-5}$ & $(0.22,2.2)\times 10^{-4}$ & $3.9\times 10^{-1}$ & $%
1418: (2.0,6.4)\times 10^{-1}$ & & \cite{bamawhisno02} \\
1419: $6.2\times 10^{-5}$ & $(0.23,3.4)\times 10^{-5}$ & $4.0\times 10^{-1}$ & $%
1420: (2.3,7.9)\times 10^{-1}$ & 84\% & \cite{pdholsmsno02} \\ \hline
1421: & at $ 1\sigma$ CL & & at $1\sigma$ CL& & \\
1422: $4.5\times 10^{-5}$ & $(3.1,7.2)\times 10^{-1}$ & $4.0\times 10^{-1}$ & $%
1423: (3.2,4.8)\times 10^{-1}$ & & \cite{alianisno02} \\ \hline
1424: \end{tabular}
1425: \caption{ Experimental constraints for LMA solution. BFP
1426: refers to the best fit point given in the cited references, the $3\protect\sigma$=$99.73\%$ CL or the $1\protect\sigma$ C.L. is shown. \label{appendixt3}}%
1427: %TCIMACRO{
1428: %\TeXButton{E}{\end{table}%
1429: %}}%
1430: %BeginExpansion
1431: \end{table}%
1432: %
1433: %EndExpansion
1434:
1435: \begin{table}[tbp]
1436: \label{lows}
1437: \par
1438: \begin{center}
1439: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
1440: \hline
1441: \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{LOW, solar information} \\ \hline\hline
1442: $\Delta m_{12}^{2}$ & $\Delta m_{12}^{2}$ & $t_{12}^{2}$ & $t_{12}^{2}$ &
1443: g.o.f. & Ref. \\ \hline
1444: BFP & at $3 \sigma $ CL & BFP & at $3 \sigma $ CL & & \\ \hline
1445: $1.0\times 10^{-7}$ & $(0.5,1.1)\times 10^{-7}$ & $7.1\times 10^{-1}$ & $%
1446: (5.5,10)\times 10^{-1}$ & 45\% & \cite{Bahcall:2001zu} \\
1447: $1.1\times 10^{-7}$ & $(0.6,1.2)\times 10^{-7}$ & $6.9\times 10^{-1}$ & $%
1448: (4,9)\times 10^{-1}$ & 69\% & \cite{Krastev:2001tv} \\
1449: & $(0.9,1)\times 10^{-7}$ & & $(6,7.5)\times 10^{-1}$ & & \cite
1450: {Fogli:2001vr} \\ \hline
1451: \end{tabular}
1452: \end{center}
1453: \caption{{\protect\small {Experimental constraints for the LOW solution. BFP
1454: refers to the best fit point given in the cited references, the $3 \sigma$ CL
1455: has been estimated from those references. The analyses cited have been
1456: performed using the latest SNO information.}}}
1457: \label{appendixt4}
1458: \end{table}
1459:
1460: \begin{table}[tbp]
1461: \label{vacs}
1462: \par
1463: \begin{center}
1464: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
1465: \hline
1466: \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{VAC} \\ \hline\hline
1467: $\Delta m_{12}^{2}$ & $\Delta m_{12}^{2}$ & $t_{12}^{2}$ & $t_{12}^{2}$ &
1468: g.o.f. & Ref. \\ \hline
1469: BFP &at $3 \sigma$ CL & BFP & at $3 \sigma$ CL & & \\ \hline
1470: $4.6\times 10^{-10}$ & $(3.5,5.7)\times 10^{-10}$ & $2.4\times 10^{0}$ & $%
1471: (0.3,3.5)$ & 42\% & \cite{Bahcall:2001zu} \\ \hline
1472: \end{tabular}
1473: \end{center}
1474: \caption{{\protect\small {Experimental constraints for VAC solution. BFP
1475: refers to the best fit point given in the cited references, the $3 \sigma$ CL
1476: has been estimated from those references. The analysis cited has been
1477: performed using the latest SNO information and with an enhanced CC cross section for deuterium, as quoted in \protect\cite{Bahcall:2001zu}.}}}
1478: \label{appendixt5}
1479: \end{table}
1480:
1481:
1482: \end{document}
1483: