1: %%%%%%%%%% npb.tex %%%%%%%%%%
2: \documentstyle[twoside,fleqn,npb,epsfig]{article}
3: %
4: % put your own definitions here:
5: % \newcommand{\cZ}{\cal{Z}}
6: % \newtheorem{def}{Definition}[section]
7: % ...
8: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}
9: \newcommand{\AmS}{{\protect\the\textfont2
10: A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}
11:
12: %\pagestyle{empty}
13:
14: % add words to TeX's hyphenation exception list
15: \hyphenation{author another created financial paper re-commend-ed}
16:
17: % declarations for front matter
18: \title{The Minimal Left-Right Symmetric Model and Radiative Corrections to the Muon Decay}
19:
20: \author{M. Czakon\address{Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Karlsruhe, D-76128 Karlsruhe, Germany}, J. Gluza\address{DESY Zeuthen, Platanenallee 6, D-15738 Zeuthen, Germany},
21: J. Hejczyk\address{
22: Institute of Physics, University of Silesia, Uniwersytecka 4, PL-40-007 Katowice,
23: Poland}}
24: \begin{document}
25:
26: \begin{abstract}
27: A self-consistent version of the left-right (LR) symmetric model is used to examine tree- as well as one-loop level
28: radiative corrections to the muon decay. It is shown that constraints on the heavy sector
29: of the model parameters are different
30: when going beyond tree-level physics. In fact, in our case, the only useful constraints
31: on the model can be obtained from the one-loop
32: level calculation. Furthermore, corrections coming from the subset of SM particles within the LR model have
33: a different structure from their SM equivalent, e.g. the top quark leading term contribution to $\Delta \rho$ within the LR model
34: is different from its SM counterpart. As a consequence, care must be taken in fitting procedures of models beyond the SM,
35: where usually, only tree-level couplings modified by the SM radiative corrections are considered.
36: This procedure is not always correct.
37: \end{abstract}
38:
39: % typeset front matter (including abstract)
40: \maketitle
41:
42: \section{Introduction}
43: The smallest gauge group which implements the hypothesis of the left-right
44: symmetry of weak interactions is \cite{pati2}
45:
46: \begin{equation}
47: \label{symmetry}
48: G_{LR}=SU(2)_L \otimes SU(2)_R \otimes U(1)_{B-L}.
49: \end{equation}
50:
51: This gauge group can be understood as a second step (after the SM)
52: in unifying fundamental interactions. The main feature of the model
53: is the restoration of both the quark-lepton and parity symmetry.
54: At the same time the $U(1)$ generator gets its physical interpretation as the
55: B-L quantum number. Other phenomena which
56: are investigated are connected with small masses of light neutrinos,
57: charge quantization, understanding of CP violation
58: in the quark sector, the strong CP problem, baryogenesis, etc.
59: Until present days literally hundreds of papers
60: have been devoted to these concepts and their theoretical
61: and phenomenological consequences.
62: An extended literature on the subject can be found
63: e.g. in the Introduction of \cite{ann}.
64: %There are many beyound the SM features
65: %in the model. We have chosen a plan of the review which is
66: %based on the clasification due to new
67: %particles which appear there.
68: The model is baroque
69: with many new particles of different types.
70: New neutral leptons,
71: charged and neutral gauge bosons, neutral and charged
72: Higgs particles appear.
73: There are many different versions of the LR models
74: with the same or different left and right gauge couplings
75: $g_{L,R}$ and specific Higgs-sector representations.
76: We chose the model with $g_L=g_R$ and a Higgs representation
77: with a bidoublet $\Phi$ and two (left and right) triplets $\Delta_{L,R}$.
78: We also assume that the VEV of the left-handed triplet $\Delta_{L}$ vanishes,
79: $<\Delta_{L}>=0$ and the CP symmetry is violated only by complex phases in quark
80: and lepton mixing matrices. We call this model the Minimal Left-Right Symmetric
81: Model (MLRM). Our aim is to show that constraints on the heavy sector of the model from
82: muon decay at tree and one loop levels are completely different.
83: First we will discuss tree-level muon decay.
84: Bounds on $M_{W_2}$ (the additional charged gauge boson mass) from
85: this tree level process are cited permanently by PDG
86: \cite{pdg02}. We view
87: the situation in the following way:
88: a consistent model gives very weak limits on charged
89: current parameters from the tree level muon decay.
90: As quite impressive bounds derived from muon decay still persist
91: through the succeeding PDG journals, we found it worth to clarify the case.
92: Then we go to the one-loop level results. We end up with conclusions and outlook.
93:
94: \subsection{Muon decay at tree level: no bounds on charged current parameters}
95:
96: As a low energy process,
97: with a momentum transfer small relative to the involved gauge boson mass, the muon
98: decay can be conveniently described by a four-fermion interaction.
99: For very small neutrino masses, neglecting the mixing between them, the
100: Lagrangian can be written in the form
101:
102: \begin{eqnarray}
103: \label{1l}
104: -{\cal L} &=&\sum\limits_{i,j=L,R}\bar{c}_{ij} \bar{e} \gamma_{\alpha}P_i \nu_{e}
105: \bar{\nu}_{\mu}\gamma^{\alpha}P_j \mu .
106: %-{\cal L} &=&\bar{c}_{LL} \bar{e} \gamma_{\alpha}P_L \nu_{e}
107: % \bar{\nu}_{\mu}\gamma^{\alpha}P_L \mu \nonumber \\
108: %&+&\bar{c}_{RR} \bar{e} \gamma_{\alpha}P_R \nu_{e}
109: % \bar{\nu}_{\mu}\gamma^{\alpha}P_R \mu \nonumber \\
110: %&+&\bar{c}_{LR} \bar{e} \gamma_{\alpha}P_L \nu_{e}
111: % \bar{\nu}_{\mu}\gamma^{\alpha}P_R \mu \nonumber \\
112: %&+& \bar{c}_{RL} \bar{e} \gamma_{\alpha}P_R \nu_{e}
113: % \bar{\nu}_{\mu}\gamma^{\alpha}P_L \mu .
114: \end{eqnarray}
115: where ($g=g_L=g_R$):
116: \begin{eqnarray}
117: \bar{c}_{LL}&=&\frac{g^2}{2M_{W_1}^2} (\cos^2{\xi}+\beta \sin^2{\xi}),
118: \\
119: \bar{c}_{RR}&=&\frac{g^2}{2M_{W_1}^2} (\sin^2{\xi}+\beta \cos^2{\xi}),
120: \\
121: \bar{c}_{RL}=\bar{c}_{LR}&=&\frac{g^2}{2M_{W_1}^2} (-1+\beta)
122: \sin{\xi} \cos{\xi}.
123: \end{eqnarray}
124: $\beta = \frac{M_{W_1}^2}{M_{W_2}^2}$,
125: $\xi$ is the mixing between
126: the charged gauge bosons \cite{pati2,gluzzr1}.
127: Obviously, the $\beta \rightarrow 0$, $\xi \rightarrow 0$ limit leads to the SM result, with a purely
128: left-handed interaction.
129:
130: To have neutrino mixings properly included, we have to write:
131: \begin{eqnarray}
132: -{\cal L} &=& \sum\limits_{i,j=L,R} \left( {c}_{ij} \right)_{ab} \bar{e} \gamma_{\alpha}P_i
133: \nu_{a} \bar{\nu}_{b}\gamma^{\alpha}P_j \mu +{\cal L}_{heavy}, \nonumber
134: %-{\cal L} &=& \left( {c}_{LL} \right)_{ab} \bar{e} \gamma_{\alpha}P_L \nu_{a}
135: % \bar{\nu}_{b}\gamma^{\alpha}P_L \mu \\
136: %&+& \left( {c}_{RR} \right)_{ab} \bar{e} \gamma_{\alpha}P_R \nu_{a}
137: % \bar{\nu}_{b}\gamma^{\alpha}P_R \mu \nonumber \\
138: %&+& \left( {c}_{LR} \right)_{ab} \bar{e} \gamma_{\alpha}P_L \nu_{a}
139: % \bar{\nu}_{b}\gamma^{\alpha}P_R \mu \nonumber \\
140: %&+& \left( {c}_{RL} \right)_{ab} \bar{e} \gamma_{\alpha}P_R \nu_{a}
141: % \bar{\nu}_{b}\gamma^{\alpha}P_L \mu +{\cal L}_{heavy} , \nonumber
142: \end{eqnarray}
143: where:
144: \begin{eqnarray}
145: \left( {c}_{ij} \right)_{ab} &=&\bar{c}_{ij} (K_i^\dagger)_{e a}
146: (K_j)_{b \mu},\;i,j=L,R.
147: %\left( {c}_{LL} \right)_{ab} &=&\bar{c}_{LL} (K_L^\dagger)_{e a}
148: %(K_L)_{b \mu} , \\
149: %\left( {c}_{RR} \right)_{ab} &=&\bar{c}_{RR} (K_R^\dagger)_{e a}
150: %(K_R)_{b \mu} , \\
151: %\left( {c}_{LR} \right)_{ab} &=&\bar{c}_{LR} (K_L^\dagger)_{e a}
152: %(K_R)_{b \mu} , \\
153: %\left( {c}_{RL} \right)_{ab} &=&\bar{c}_{RL} (K_R^\dagger)_{e a}
154: %(K_L)_{b \mu} .
155: \end{eqnarray}
156:
157: The matrices $K_{L,R}$ build up the neutrino mixing matrix $U$, which can be approximated
158: to be \cite{gluzzr1,hej}
159:
160: \begin{equation}
161: U= \left( \matrix{ K^T_L \cr K_R^{\dagger} } \right)=
162: \left( \matrix{ O(1) & O(\frac{m_D}{M_N}) \cr
163: O(\frac{m_D}{M_N}) & O(1)} \right).
164: \label{hlmix}
165: \end{equation}
166:
167: $m_D$ is the Dirac neutrino mass matrix which emerges from vacuum expectation values (VEVs) in the bidoublet
168: Higgs-sector and $M_N$ stands for diagonal elements of the neutrino mass matrix $M_R$
169: connected with the right handed triplet Higgs representation
170: (for details see e.g. \cite{gluzzr1}).
171: The sum over $a$ and $b$ is understood, with both states light.
172: ${\cal L}_{heavy}$ contains the sum over at least one heavy neutrino
173: and for our purposes is irrelevant.
174: We can see that apart from a pure left-handed term
175: $c_{LL}$, all others get extra damping factors connected with the $K_R$ mixing
176: matrix of light-heavy neutrinos being at most
177: $\propto O(1\;{\rm GeV}/m_N) << 1$,
178: where $m_N$ is the lightest of heavy neutrinos ($m_N = min(M_N)$).
179: In what follows we consider $m_N \geq 100$ GeV.
180:
181: In terms of the four-fermion interaction we can find
182: \cite{sch,bos}:
183: \begin{equation}
184: 8 G_F^2=|c_{LL}|^2+|c_{LR}|^2+|c_{RL}|^2+|c_{RR}|^2.
185: \end{equation}
186:
187: Using relations $c_{LL} \gg c_{RR},c_{LR},c_{RL}$
188: and $\sum\limits_{a=light}
189: \left| {\left( K_L \right)}_{ea} \right|^2 \simeq 1$,
190: we have:
191:
192: \begin{eqnarray}
193: \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}} & \simeq & \frac{|c_{LL}|}{4} \\
194: &=& \frac{\pi \alpha}{2 s_W^2 M_{W_1}^2
195: (1-\Delta r)}(cos^2{\xi}+\beta \sin^2{\xi}) \nonumber \\
196: & \simeq &
197: \frac{\pi \alpha}{2 s_W^2 M_{W_1}^2
198: (1-\Delta r)}(1+\beta \xi^2). \nonumber
199: \end{eqnarray}
200:
201: To make the fitting procedure of the $\xi$ and $\beta$ parameters
202: possible at all at the tree-level,
203: we have to naively rely on SM corrections, we thus take \cite{pdg02}
204: $M_{W_1}=80.446\pm0.040$ GeV, $\Delta r=0.0355\pm0.0021$ and $s_W^2\equiv
205: (s_W^2)_{SM}=1-\frac{M_{W_1}^2}{M_{Z_1}^2} = 0.2228 \pm 0.0004$. The result of the fit
206: is plotted in Fig.~\ref{beta}.
207:
208: %\begin{center}
209: \begin{figure}
210: \epsfig{file=gf2002.eps, width=7.5cm}
211: \caption{90 \% C.L. region for the allowed $\beta \xi^2$ and $\Delta r$ parameters.}
212: \label{beta}
213: \end{figure}
214: %\end{center}
215: Although $\beta\xi^2 < 0.007$ looks fine,
216: with the most optimistic bound on $\xi$ below 0.1 \cite{pdg02,lowplb},
217: we get $\beta \leq 0.84$, i.e. $M_{W_2} \geq 1.2 M_{W_1} \simeq 100$ GeV.
218:
219: Let us finally note that if we only had light
220: neutrinos (Eq.~\ref{1l}) then much better bounds on $M_{W_2}$ would be available
221: \cite{bos}.
222:
223: Let us summarize.
224: In a realistic LR model (i.e. when the mixing of
225: heavy Majorana neutrinos is taken into account),
226: the tree-level diagrams for the muon decay give no
227: interesting bounds on $\beta$ (see also \cite{jap}).
228: Moreover, as it will be clear in the next Section, the procedure
229: we have used, where the SM values $\Delta r$ and $s_W^2$
230: have been taken into account, is wrong.
231:
232:
233: %\begin{center}
234: \begin{figure}[h]
235: \epsfig{file= delta_rBis.eps, width=7.5cm}
236: \caption{
237: $\Delta r$ as function of $v_R$ for different heavy neutrino masses.
238: Higgs masses are chosen according to Eq.~\ref{ha}. The (a)
239: line is for (three heavy neutrinos) $m_N=100$ GeV; (b) is for
240: $m_N=500$ GeV; (c) is for $m_N=2$ TeV. Line (d) shows the results
241: when heavy neutrino masses follow from the maximal Yukawa coupling
242: of the right-handed triplet Higgs-sector, $h_M=1$ \cite{hej}.
243: The gray area shows the experimentally allowed values
244: of $\Delta r$ (SM prediction).}
245: \label{delta_r}
246: \end{figure}
247: %\end{center}
248:
249: \subsection{Constraints on the model parameters from the one-loop level}
250:
251: Oblique radiative corrections to this process have been
252: considered in the frame of the MLRM
253: in \cite{npb}. Further analysis has been given in \cite{hej}.
254: Though the model has more free parameters (see e.g. \cite{ann,hej}),
255: namely two gauge coplings $g=e/\sin{\Theta_W}$
256: and $g'=e/\sqrt{\cos{2\Theta_W}}$ altogether with three VEVs:
257: $\kappa_1,\kappa_2$ (connected with the bidoublet $\Phi$)
258: and $v_R$ (connected with
259: the right handed triplet $\Delta_R$),
260: there are simultaneously more physical
261: quantities ($e,M_{W_1},M_{W_2},M_{Z_1},M_{Z_2}$,)
262: and unambiguous relations among them can be found
263: ($5 \to 5$ mapping).
264: This enables us to find (analogous to the SM)
265: the counterterm of
266: the sine squared of the Weinberg angle as function of
267: masses and their counterterms\footnote{For versions of the LR model
268: with more free parameters (e.g. $g_L \neq g_R$) the situation
269: would be quite different: $s_W^2$ would not be predictable
270: in terms of gauge boson masses and their counter terms),
271: but would have to be tuned to experimental data).}
272: \begin{eqnarray}
273: \delta (s_W^2)_{LR} & = & 2 c_W^2
274: \frac{(\delta M_{Z_2}^2+\delta M_{Z_1}^2)}{\langle S \rangle } \nonumber \\
275: & - & 2 c_W^2
276: \frac{(\delta M_{W_2}^2+\delta M_{W_1}^2)}
277: {\langle S \rangle } \nonumber \\ & & \nonumber \\
278: &+ & \frac{1}{2} \frac{(M_{W_2}^2+M_{W_1}^2)(\delta M_{Z_2}^2
279: +\delta M_{Z_1}^2)}{\langle S \rangle ^2} \nonumber \\
280: &+&\frac{1}{2} \frac{(M_{Z_2}^2+M_{Z_1}^2)(\delta M_{W_2}^2+\delta M_{W_1}^2)
281: }{\langle S \rangle ^2}
282: \nonumber \\
283: %&-& \frac{1}{2} \frac{
284: %(\delta M_{W_2}^2+\delta M_{W_1}^2)}
285: %{\langle S \rangle ^2} \nonumber \\ & & \nonumber \\
286: &- & \frac{1}{2} \frac{(2 M_{Z_1}^2+M_{Z_2}^2)\delta M_{Z_1}^2}{\langle S \rangle ^2}
287: \nonumber \\
288: &-& \frac{1}{2} \frac{(2 M_{Z_2}^2+M_{Z_1}^2)\delta M_{Z_2}^2}
289: {\langle S \rangle ^2}.
290: \end{eqnarray}
291:
292: Let us note that the denominator $\langle S \rangle $ is proportional to the scale
293: of the right sector $v_R$
294: \begin{eqnarray}
295: \langle S \rangle & \equiv & (M_{Z_2}^2+M_{Z_1}^2)-(M_{W_2}^2+M_{W_1}^2)
296: \nonumber \\
297: & = & \frac{g^2}{2 \cos{2 \Theta_W} } v_R^2.
298: \end{eqnarray}
299: \\
300: $(\delta s_W^2)_{LR}$ exhibits a different structure from the SM case.
301:
302: %\begin{equation}
303: %\delta s_W^2=c_W^2 \left( \frac{\delta M_{Z}^2}{M_{Z}^2}-\frac{\delta M_{W}^2}{M_{W}^2} \right).
304: %\end{equation}
305:
306: %\begin{center}
307: \begin{figure}[h]
308: \epsfig{file= Mn.eps, width=7.5cm}
309: \caption{$\Delta r$ as function of $v_R$. Sets with and without
310: primes show results for three heavy neutrino masses with $m_N=100$ GeV
311: and $m_N=2$ TeV respectively. The lines describe different values of
312: Higgs scalar masses: (a) is for all Higgs masses $M_{H}=1$ TeV; (b)
313: is for $M_{H}=5$ TeV; (c) is for $M_{H}=10$ TeV.}
314: \label{mn}
315: \end{figure}
316: %\end{center}
317: %\begin{center}
318: \begin{figure}[h]
319: \epsfig{file= mtop.eps, width=7.5cm}
320: \caption{The contribution of the third quark family to $\Delta r$ as
321: function of $v_R$ for different top quark masses.}
322: \label{top}
323: \end{figure}
324: %\end{center}
325:
326: In Figs.~\ref{delta_r}-\ref{top} the contributions to the $\Delta r$ parameter defined as\footnote{To make possible a comparison to the SM result
327: on $\Delta r$, $\Delta r$
328: is modified to account for a different definition of the Weinberg
329: angle in both models \cite{hej} and the relation
330: $\frac{e^2}{(8 M_{W_1}^2 (s_W)^2_{SM})}(1+\Delta r) = \frac{e^2}{(8 M_{W_1}^2 (s_W)^2_{LR})}
331: (1+ \Delta r_{LR})$ is used. Let us add that not only $\delta s_W^2$ is different in
332: LR and SM models, $\frac{\delta e}{e}$ has turned out to be a finite quantity \cite{npb,hej}.}
333:
334: \begin{eqnarray}
335: \Delta r &=& \frac{(s_W^2)_{SM}}{(s_W^2)_{LR}} (\Delta r)_{LR}+
336: \frac{(s_W^2)_{SM}}{(s_W^2)_{LR}}-1, \nonumber \\
337: && \nonumber \\
338: (\Delta r)_{LR}& =& \left(
339: \frac{-\Pi^T_{W_1}(0)-\delta M_{W_1}^2}{M_{W_1}^2}
340: +2\frac{\delta e}{e} \right. \nonumber \\
341: &-& \left. \frac{(\delta s_W^2)_{LR}}{(s_W^2)_{LR}}+\delta \right)
342: \end{eqnarray}
343:
344:
345: %\begin{eqnarray}
346: %&& \Delta r = \frac{(s_W^2)_{SM}}{(s_W^2)_{MLRM}} \times \nonumber \\
347: %&& \nonumber \\
348: %&& \;\;\;\; \left(
349: % \frac{-\Pi^T_W(0)-\delta M_W^2}{M_W^2}
350: % +2\frac{\delta e}{e} -
351: % \frac{\delta s_W^2}{s_W^2}+\delta_{VB} \right)
352: % \nonumber \\
353: %&& \nonumber \\
354: % &&\;\;\;\; - \frac{(s_W^2)_{MLRM}-(s_W^2)_{SM}}{(s_W^2)_{MLRM}},
355: %\end{eqnarray}
356: are given. $\delta$ denotes the complete vertex, box
357: and external line corrections within the MLRM.
358:
359: If we parametrize the Higgs scalar masses by (no fine-tuning in the Higgs potential \cite{hej,gun})
360: \begin{eqnarray}
361: M_{H_a} & \equiv & M_{H_1^0}=M_{H_3^0}=M_{A_1^0}=M_{A_2^0} \label{ha} \\
362: &=&M_{H_1^+}=M_{H_2^+}=M_{\delta_L^{++}} = v_R/\sqrt{2}, \nonumber \\
363: % && \label{ha} \\
364: M_{H_b} & \equiv & M_{H_2^0}=M_{\delta_R^{++}}=\sqrt{2} v_R, \;\;
365: M_{H_0^0} = \sqrt{2} \kappa_1 \nonumber
366: \end{eqnarray}
367:
368: then we can observe from Fig.~\ref{delta_r} that the experimental data on the
369: muon decay lifetime can not be accomodated. It is possible, however, if
370: all heavy Higgs particle masses are equal (see Fig.~\ref{mn}).
371: Line (d) in Fig.~\ref{delta_r} shows the results
372: when heavy neutrino masses follow from the maximal Yukawa coupling
373: connected with right-handed triplet representation $h_M=1$,
374: $m_N = \sqrt{2} v_R$ \cite{hej}.
375:
376: For $h_M > 1$ the perturbative theory breaks, which can be seen if the
377: box diagrams are
378: considered \cite{hej}. In the model under investigation the
379: light-heavy neutrino mixing has been neglected and the light-heavy gauge boson
380: mixing angle $\xi$ is neglected.
381: These assumptions are well motivated phenomenologically \cite{hej,app}.
382: Fig.~\ref{top} shows explicitly that $\Delta r$
383: strongly depends on the relation between $m_t$ and $v_R$.
384: This means that $m_t$ can not be predicted in the MLRM model
385: without knowledge of the
386: $v_R$ scale and furthermore that for larger $v_R$ the dependence will lead only to a very
387: crude bound.
388:
389: The results shown here (for details, see \cite{hej,npb}) justify again
390: our statements considered in \cite{epj}.
391: It has been concluded there, that the only sensible way to confront a model beyond the SM with the experimental data is
392: to renormalize it self-consistently as it does not necessarily embed
393: the SM structure of radiative corrections. If this is
394: not done, parameters which depend strongly on quantum effects should be left free in fits, though essential physics is
395: lost in this way.
396:
397: \section{Conclusions}
398:
399: In LR models there are several new extra parameters (e.g. mixing
400: angles in the gauge sector, the $g'$ gauge coupling) along with quite
401: a lot of new particles and interactions. These cause that the model is a very
402: good theoretical lab for examining many phenomenological
403: problems and issues of fundamental interactions. However, the freedom
404: of parameter space connected with the extra sector is not
405: unlimited, moreover, sometimes the model can be even more
406: restricted than the SM alone. This seems to be particularly
407: true when processes are considered at the loop level.
408: Though we have restricted ourselves to the case of the minimal LR model,
409: the results already show that fine-tuning of the heavy sector parameters
410: must be done to recover experimental data.
411: This is in our opinion the main direction of future investigations
412: which has certainly not been fully exploited in the past \cite{oth}.
413:
414: \section*{Acknowledgements}
415:
416: M. C. would like to thank the Alexander von Humboldt foundation for
417: fellowship. This work was partly supported by the Polish Committee
418: for Scientific Research under Grant No. 2P03B05418 and by the European
419: Community's Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149
420: Physics at Colliders.
421:
422: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
423: \bibitem{pati2} J.C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. {\bf D10} (1974) 275;
424: R.N. Mohapatra, J.C.Pati, Phys. Rev. {\bf D11} (1975) 2558;
425: ibid. {\bf D11} (1975) 566;
426: G. Senjanovic and R.N Mohapatra, ibid. {\bf D12} (1975) 1502;
427: R.N. Mohapatra, P.B. Pal, Phys. Rev. {\bf D38} (1998) 2226;
428: G. Senjanovic, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B153} (1979) 334.
429: \bibitem{ann}
430: P. Duka et al.,
431: %J. Gluza and M. Zra\l ek,
432: Ann. of Phys. {\bf 280}
433: (2000) 336.
434: \bibitem{pdg02} K. Hagiwara et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf D66} (2002) 010001.
435: \bibitem{gluzzr1} J. Gluza, M. Zralek, Phys. Rev. {\bf D48} (1993) 5093;
436: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D51} (1995) 4695.
437: \bibitem{hej} M.~Czakon, J.~Gluza and J.~Hejczyk,
438: %``Muon decay to one loop order in the left-right symmetric model,''
439: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 642} (2002) 157.
440: \bibitem{sch} K. Mursula, F. Scheck, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B253} (1985) 189;
441: F. Scheck, Phys. Rep. {\bf 44} (1978) 187.
442: \bibitem{bos} J.~Polak, M.~Zra\l ek, Phys. Rev. {\bf D46} (1992) 3871;
443: J.~Maalampi, J.~Sirkka, Z. Phys. {\bf C61} (1994) 471;
444: G.~Barenboim et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf D55} (1997) 4213.
445: \bibitem{lowplb} M. Czakon, J. Gluza and M. Zra\l ek, Phys. Lett.
446: {\bf B458} (1999) 355.
447: \bibitem{jap} M. Doi, T. Kotani, E. Takasugi, Prog. Theor. Phys.,
448: {\bf 71} (1984) 1440.
449: \bibitem{npb} M. Czakon, J. Gluza,M. Zra\l ek,
450: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B573} (2000) 57.
451: \bibitem{gun} J.~F.~Gunion, et al., Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 40} (1989) 1546;
452: N.~G.~Deshpande et al., Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 44} (1991) 837.
453: \bibitem{app} J.~Gluza,
454: %``On teraelectronvolt Majorana neutrinos,''
455: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 33} (2002) 1735.
456: \bibitem{epj} M. Czakon, J. Gluza, F. Jegerlehner, M. Zra\l ek,
457: Europ. J. Phys. {\bf C13} (2000) 275.
458: \bibitem{oth} G.~Senjanovic, A.~Sokorac,
459: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 18} (1978) 2708;
460: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 76} (1978) 610;
461: G. Beall, M. Bander, A. Soni, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 48} (1982) 848;
462: J.~Basecq et al., Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 32} (1985) 175;
463: A.~Pilaftsis, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52} (1995) 459;
464: Z. Gagyi-Palffy et al., Nucl.Phys. {\bf B513} (1998) 517;
465: A.~V.~Gulov, V.~V.~Skalozub, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 17} (2000) 685.
466: P.~Ball et al.,
467: % J.~M.~Frere and J.~Matias,
468: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 572} (2000) 3;
469: M.~E.~Pospelov, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} (1997) 259;
470: K.~Kiers, et al., hep-ph/0205082;
471: T.G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. {\bf D50} (1994) 3303;
472: P. Cho, M. Misiak, Phys. Rev. {\bf D49} (1994) 5894.
473: \end{thebibliography}
474:
475: \newpage
476:
477:
478: \end{document}
479:
480:
481:
482:
483:
484: