1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
3: \usepackage[reqno]{amsmath}
4: %\documentclass[epj]{svjour}
5: \usepackage{bbm}
6: \usepackage{epsfig}
7: \usepackage{array}
8: \usepackage{float}
9: %\usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
10: %\usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
11: %\usepackage{bm}% bold math
12:
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14: % WR
15:
16: \usepackage{a4}
17: %\usepackage{epsfig}
18:
19: \usepackage{a4wide}
20: \usepackage{wasysym}
21: %A useful Journal macro
22:
23: \def\Jo#1#2#3#4{{\it #1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
24: \def\bi#1{#1}
25: % Some useful journal names
26: \def\NPB{{Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B}}
27: \def\NPBP{{Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B} (Proc. Suppl.)}
28: \def\PLB{{Phys. Lett.} {\bf B}}
29: \def\PRL{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
30: \def\PRD{{Phys. Rev.} {\bf D}}
31: \def\EPC{{Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C}}
32: \def\EPA{{Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf A}}
33: \def\ZPC{{Z. Phys.} {\bf C}}
34: \def\IJMP{Int. J. of Mod. Phys. {\bf A}}
35: \def\JHEP{JHEP}
36: \def\PTP{Prog. Theo. Phys.}
37: \def\MPLA{{Mod. Phys. Lett} {\bf A}}
38: \def\PPNP{Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.}
39: \def\NIMA{{Nucl. Instrum. Methods} A}
40:
41:
42: % Some other macros used in the sample text
43: \def\ra{\rightarrow}
44: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
45: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
46: \def\gs{\mathrel{
47: \rlap{\raise 0.511ex \hbox{$>$}}{\lower 0.511ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}}
48: \def\ls{\mathrel{
49: \rlap{\raise 0.511ex \hbox{$<$}}{\lower 0.511ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}}
50: \newcommand{\obb}{0\mbox{$\nu\beta\beta$}}
51: \newcommand{\onbb}{neutrinoless double beta decay }
52: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}{c}}
53: \newcommand{\baz}{\begin{array}{cc}}
54: \newcommand{\bad}{\begin{array}{ccc}}
55: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{equation} \begin{array}{c}}
56: \newcommand{\eea}{ \end{array} \end{equation}}
57: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}
58: \newcommand{\D}{\displaystyle}
59: \newcommand{\dms}{\mbox{$\Delta m^2_{\odot}$}}
60: \newcommand{\dma}{\mbox{$\Delta m^2_{\rm A}$}}
61: \newcommand{\meff}{\mbox{$\langle m \rangle$}}
62: \newcommand{\eV}{\mbox{ eV}}
63: \newcommand{\ppp}{\mbox{$(+++)$ }}
64: \newcommand{\pmm}{\mbox{$(+--)$ }}
65: \newcommand{\mpm}{\mbox{$(-+-)$ }}
66: \newcommand{\mmp}{\mbox{$(--+)$ }}
67: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
68:
69:
70: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
71: %\renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{1}
72: %\renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
73: %\renewcommand{\topfraction}{1}
74: %\renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.5}
75:
76:
77: \hyphenation{par-ti-cu-lar}
78: \hyphenation{ex-pe-ri-men-tal}
79: \hyphenation{dif-fe-rent}
80: \hyphenation{bet-we-en}
81: \hyphenation{mo-du-lus}
82:
83: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
84:
85: \begin{document}
86: \title{
87: \hfill {\small Ref. SISSA 73/2003/EP}\\
88: \hfill {\small hep-ph/0308119} \\ \vskip 1cm
89: \bf Neutrino mass matrices leaving no trace
90: }
91: % \end{center}
92: \author{
93: W.\ Rodejohann\footnote{Email: {\tt werner@sissa.it}}\\[0.3cm]
94: {\normalsize \it Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati,
95: I-34014 Trieste, Italy}\\
96: {\normalsize and }\\
97: {\normalsize \it Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare,
98: Sezione di Trieste, I-34014 Trieste, Italy}\\}
99: \date{}
100: \maketitle
101: \thispagestyle{empty}
102: \begin{abstract}
103: \noindent We point attention to the fact that in $SO(10)$ models
104: with non--canonical (type II) see--saw mechanism
105: and exact $b-\tau$ unification the trace of the
106: neutrino mass matrix is very small, in fact practically zero.
107: This has the advantage of being a basis independent feature.
108: Taking a vanishing trace as input, immediate phenomenological
109: consequences for the values of the neutrino masses, the $CP$ phases
110: or the predictions for neutrinoless double beta decay arise.
111: We analyze the impact of the zero trace condition for the normal
112: and inverted mass ordering and in case of $CP$
113: conservation and violation.
114: Simple candidate mass matrices
115: with (close to) vanishing trace and non--zero $U_{e3}$ are proposed.
116: We also compare the results with the other most simple
117: basis independent property, namely a vanishing determinant.
118:
119:
120:
121: \end{abstract}
122:
123:
124:
125: \newpage
126:
127:
128:
129:
130: \section{\label{sec:intro}Introduction}
131: The neutrino mass matrix $m_\nu$ contains more parameters than can
132: be measured in realistic experiments. This concerns
133: in particular the lightest of the three mass eigenstates and
134: one if not both of the Majorana phases \cite{ichCP}. In addition, if the
135: mixing matrix element $|U_{e3}|$ is too small, also the Dirac phase will
136: be unobservable. Thus, the presence of certain
137: conditions or simplifications of the neutrino mass matrix is more than
138: welcome. What comes first to one's mind is of course
139: the presence of zeros in the mass matrix \cite{zeros}. However, zeros in
140: a certain basis must not be zeros in another one, so that basis
141: independent conditions are advantageous to consider.
142: Any matrix possesses two basis independent quantities, namely its
143: trace and its determinant. The most simple situation is present if these
144: quantities are zero.
145: The condition
146: $\det m_\nu = 0$ \cite{det}
147: leads to one neutrino with vanishing mass and courtesy of
148: this fact one gets also rid of one of the notorious Majorana phases.
149: A vanishing determinant
150: can be motivated on various grounds \cite{detmot1,detmot2}.
151: The second, most simple basis independent requirement is a
152: vanishing trace, i.e., ${\rm Tr} \, m_\nu = 0$.
153: Its consequences have first been investigated in \cite{Tr1} applying a
154: three neutrino framework that simultaneously explains the anomalies of
155: solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillation
156: experiments as well as the LSND experiment.
157: In \cite{Tr2}, the $CP$ conserving
158: traceless $m_\nu$ has been investigated for the more realistic case
159: of explaining only the atmospheric and solar neutrino deficits.
160: Motivation of traceless mass matrices can be provided by models in which
161: $m_\nu$ is constructed through a commutator of two matrices, as it
162: happens in models of radiative mass generation \cite{modrad}.
163: More interestingly, and stressed here, a
164: (close to) traceless $m_\nu$ can be the consequence of exact $b-\tau$
165: unification at high scale within type II see--saw models \cite{typeII},
166: which in this framework is also the reason for maximal
167: atmospheric neutrino mixing \cite{btau1,btau2}.
168: The type II see--saw mechanism was the
169: original motivation of the traceless $m_\nu$ condition as
170: investigated in \cite{Tr1}.\\
171:
172: \noindent In this letter we shall investigate the outcomes of
173: the requirement ${\rm Tr} \, m_\nu = 0$ for the values of the
174: neutrino masses and in case of $CP$ violation also of the $CP$ phases.
175: We investigate the predictions for observables such as the effective
176: mass measured in neutrinoless double beta decay and
177: compare them with the ones stemming from the zero determinant case.
178: Simple forms of $m_\nu$ that accomplish the
179: traceless condition and allow for simple correlations between the
180: mixing parameters, mass squared differences and
181: the effective mass as measurable
182: in neutrinoless double beta decay are presented.
183:
184:
185:
186:
187:
188:
189: \section{\label{sec:frame}Framework}
190:
191: \subsection{\label{sec:data}Data}
192: The light neutrino Majorana mass matrix $m_\nu$ is observable in terms of
193: \be \label{eq:mnu}
194: m_\nu = U \, \, m_\nu^{\rm diag} \, U^T~.
195: \ee
196: Here $m_\nu^{\rm diag}$ is a diagonal matrix containing the
197: light neutrino mass eigenstates $m_i$. For the normal mass
198: ordering (NH) one has $|m_3| > |m_2| > |m_1|$, whereas the inverted mass
199: ordering (IH) implies $|m_2| > |m_1| > |m_3|$.
200: Mixing is described by $U$, the unitary
201: Pontecorvo--Maki--Nagakawa--Sakata \cite{PMNS} lepton
202: mixing matrix, which can be parametrized as
203: \bea \label{eq:Upara}
204: U = \left( \bad
205: c_{12} c_{13} & s_{12} c_{13} & s_{13} e^{-i \delta} \\[0.2cm]
206: -s_{12} c_{23} - c_{12} s_{23} s_{13} e^{i \delta}
207: & c_{12} c_{23} - s_{12} s_{23} s_{13} e^{i \delta}
208: & s_{23} c_{13} \\[0.2cm]
209: s_{12} s_{23} - c_{12} c_{23} s_{13} e^{i \delta} &
210: - c_{12} s_{23} - s_{12} c_{23} s_{13} e^{i \delta}
211: & c_{23} c_{13}\\
212: \ea \right)
213: {\rm diag}(1, e^{i \alpha}, e^{i (\beta + \delta)}) \, ,
214: \eea
215: where $c_{ij} = \cos\theta_{ij}$ and $s_{ij} = \sin\theta_{ij}$.
216: The phases are usually distinguished as the ``Dirac phase'' $\delta$
217: and the ``Majorana phases'' \cite{STP} $\alpha$ and $\beta$.
218: The former can be measured in oscillation experiments, whereas
219: the latter show up only in lepton number violating processes.
220: Their influence on
221: the values of the mass matrix elements is known \cite{ichJPG,mnu}, however,
222: only the $ee$ element of $m_\nu$ can realistically be expected
223: to be measured \cite{ichPRD,ichJPG}.
224:
225: \noindent In case of $CP$
226: conservation, different relative signs of the masses $m_i$ are
227: possible, corresponding to the intrinsic $CP$ parities of the
228: neutrinos \cite{phaalt,ichNPB}. Four situations are possible,
229: with $m_i = \eta_i |m_i|$ one can write these cases
230: as \ppp$\!\!$, \pmm$\!\!$, \mpm and \mmp$\!\!$, where the
231: $(\pm\pm\pm)$ correspond to the relative signs of the mass states.
232: Special values of the phases correspond to these
233: sign signatures \cite{ichNPB}:
234: \be \label{eq:CPV}
235: \bad (+++) &
236: \eta_1 = \eta_2 = \eta_3 = 1
237: & \leftrightarrow \alpha = \beta = \pi \\[0.2cm]
238: (+--) &
239: \eta_1 = - \eta_2 = - \eta_3 = 1
240: & \leftrightarrow \alpha = \beta = \frac{\pi}{2}\\[0.2cm]
241: (-+-) &
242: \eta_1 = - \eta_2 = \eta_3 = -1
243: & \leftrightarrow \alpha = \frac{\beta}{2} = \frac{\pi}{2}\\[0.2cm]
244: (--+) &
245: \eta_1 = \eta_2 = - \eta_3 = -1
246: & \leftrightarrow \alpha = 2 \beta = \pi
247: \ea \, .
248: \ee
249: Observation implies the following values of the oscillation
250: parameters \cite{carlos}:
251: \be \label{eq:data}
252: \bad
253: \tan^2 \theta_{12} = 0.29 \ldots 0.82 ~,~ & %\\[0.3cm]
254: \sin^2 \theta_{13} < 0.05 ~,~ & %\\[0.3cm]
255: \tan^2 \theta_{23} = 0.45 \ldots 2.3 ~, \ea \ee
256: \be \nonumber
257: \baz
258: \dms \simeq (5.4 \, (14) \ldots 10 \, (19))
259: \times 10^{-5} \, \rm eV^2 ~,~ & %\\[0.3cm]
260: \dma \simeq (1.5 \ldots 3.9) \times 10^{-3} \, \rm eV^2 ~,
261: \ea
262: \ee
263: where the 90 \% C.L.\ ranges for the respective quantities are
264: given. For \dms{} two upper and lower limits are given,
265: corresponding to the so--called LMA--I and LMA--II solutions \cite{LMAI}.
266: The best--fit points are located in the LMA--I parameter space
267: and are \cite{carlos}
268: $\tan^2\theta_{12} = 0.45$, $\dms = 7.1 \times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$.
269: For the atmospheric sector one finds the best--fit points
270: $\tan^2\theta_{23} = 1 $ and $\dma = 2.6 \times 10^{-3}$
271: eV$^2$ \cite{carlos}.
272: At the moment no information at all about the $CP$ phases or relative $CP$
273: parities exists. \\
274:
275: \noindent Regarding the total neutrino mass scale, only upper limits exist.
276: Three different observables are at one's disposal,
277: the effective Majorana mass \meff{} as
278: measurable in neutrinoless double beta decay, the sum of neutrino
279: masses $\Sigma$ as testable through cosmology and
280: the mass parameter $m_{\nu_e}$
281: as testable in direct kinematical experiments. Their
282: definitions and current limits read
283: \bea
284: \meff \equiv |\sum U_{ei}^2 \, m_i| \ls 1 \eV \, \, \cite{0vbb}~, \\[0.3cm]
285: \Sigma \equiv \sum |m_i| < 1.01 \eV \, \, \cite{Sigma}~, \\[0.3cm]
286: m_{\nu_e} \equiv \sqrt{\sum |U_{ei}^2 \, m_i^2|} < 2.2 \eV \, \,
287: \cite{trit}~.
288: \eea
289: Regarding \meff, a factor of $\sim 3$ for the uncertainty in the nuclear
290: matrix element calculations was included. The Heidelberg--Moscow
291: collaboration gives --- using the results of one specific
292: calculation for the nuclear matrix elements ---
293: a limit of $\meff < 0.35 $ eV at $90 \%$ C.L.~\cite{0vbb}.
294:
295:
296:
297: \subsection{\label{sec:theory}Theory}
298: This letter is supposed to analyze the impact of a traceless $m_\nu$.
299: There exists a very simple and phenomenologically highly
300: interesting explanation for this possibility \cite{Tr1}.
301: The neutrino mass matrix is given by the see--saw mechanism
302: \cite{seesaw} in general as
303: \be
304: \label{eq:seesaw}
305: m_\nu = M_L - m_D \, M_R^{-1} \, m_D^T~,
306: \ee
307: where $m_D$ is a Dirac mass matrix and $M_R$ ($M_L$) a
308: right--handed (left--handed) Majorana mass matrix.
309: In $SO(10)$ models,
310: choosing Higgs fields in ${\bf 10}$ and ${\bf \overline{126}}$ and the
311: $B - L$ breaking being performed by a ${\bf 126}$ Higgs,
312: one can write (see e.g.\ \cite{SO10}):
313: \be \label{eq:so10}
314: \baz
315: M_L = Y_{126} \, v_L & M_R = Y_{126} \, v_R \\[0.3cm]
316: m_{\rm down} = Y_{10} \, v_{10}^{\rm down}
317: + Y_{126} \, v_{126}^{\rm down} &
318: m_{\rm lep} = Y_{10} \, v_{10}^{\rm down}
319: -3 \, Y_{126} \, v_{126}^{\rm down}\\[0.3cm]
320: m_{\rm up} = Y_{10} \, v_{10}^{\rm up}
321: + Y_{126} \, v_{126}^{\rm up} &
322: m_{D} = Y_{10} \, v_{10}^{\rm up}
323: -3 \, Y_{126} \, v_{126}^{\rm up}~,
324: \ea
325: \ee
326: where $m_{\rm down \, (lep)}$ are the down quark (charged lepton),
327: $m_{\rm up \, (D)}$ the up quark (Dirac) mass matrices,
328: $Y_{10}$ and $Y_{126}$ are the Yukawa coupling matrices
329: and $v_{10, 126}^{\rm down\, (up)}$ are the vevs of the
330: corresponding Higgs fields.
331: The vevs corresponding to the Majorana mass matrices
332: are denoted $v_L$ and $v_R$.
333: From (\ref{eq:so10}) one finds
334: $4 \, Y_{126} = (m_{\rm down} - m_{\rm lep})/v_{10}^{\rm down} $.
335: Suppose now that the first term in the see--saw formula (\ref{eq:seesaw})
336: dominates. The mass matrix reads in this case:
337: \be \label{eq:typeII}
338: m_\nu = Y_{126} \, v_L = (m_{\rm down} - m_{\rm lep})
339: \frac{v_L}{4 \, v_{10}^{\rm down}}~.
340: \ee
341: %The maximal entry in $m_\nu$ can
342: %be expected to be of the order of $m_b/v_{10}^{\rm down} \, v_L \simeq v_L$.
343: %Since typically $v_L \, v_R \sim v^2 = (174 \, {\rm GeV})^2$ \cite{vlvr}
344: %and $v_R \simeq M_{B-L} \sim 10^{15}$ GeV the scale of $v_L$ is
345: %approximately $0.01 \eV$.
346: %In terms of the vevs, the condition for this type II see--saw mechanism
347: %to be realized is
348: %\be
349: %\frac{v_{i}^{\rm up} \, v_{j}^{\rm up}}{v_L \, v_R} \sim
350: %\frac{v^2 \sin^2 \beta}{v^2} \ll 1~,
351: %\ee
352: %where $i,j = 10, 126$. Thus, small values of $\tan \beta$ are required.
353: %For an analysis of leptogenesis in scenarios like these
354: %see \cite{ichlepto}.
355:
356: \noindent Suppose now that $m_{\rm down}$ and $ m_{\rm lep}$
357: are hierarchical,
358: i.e., they contain small off--diagonal entries and
359: the diagonal entries correspond roughly to the down quark and charged lepton
360: masses, respectively. Then, the 23 sector of $m_\nu$ is diagonalized by
361: \be
362: \tan 2 \theta_{23} \propto \frac{1}{m_b - m_\tau}~.
363: \ee
364: This mixing becomes maximal when
365: $b-\tau$ unification takes place, i.e., $m_b = m_\tau$. This simple and
366: appealing argument was first given in \cite{btau1}. In \cite{btau2} the
367: idea was generalized to the full 3 flavor case and shown to be fully
368: consistent with existing neutrino data.\\
369:
370: \noindent
371: Here we wish to emphasize that due to the same fact, $b-\tau$ unification,
372: the trace of $m_\nu$ is proportional to $m_b - m_\tau$ and therefore,
373: to a good precision, the trace vanishes \cite{Tr1}.
374: We can quantify the smallness of the trace as
375: \be
376: {\rm Tr} \, m_\nu \simeq \frac{(m_s - m_\mu) \, v_L}{4 \, v_{10}^{\rm down}}
377: \simeq 0.025 \, \left( \frac{v_L}{\rm eV}\right)
378: \, \left( \frac{\rm GeV}{v_{10}^{\rm down}}\right) \, \eV ~.
379: \ee
380: Here, $m_s \simeq 0.2 $ GeV and $m_\mu \simeq 0.1 $ GeV are the
381: masses of the strange quark and muon, respectively.
382: For the typical values of \cite{Mohbook}
383: $v_L \ls 0.1$ eV and $v_{10}^{\rm down} \gs 1$ GeV we can expect
384: the trace to be less than $10^{-3}$ eV\@.
385: %In the next Section we shall see
386: %that our results for this small value and exactly zero trace are
387: %basically identical.
388: We shall take the fact as the starting point of our purely
389: phenomenological analysis. Note that most of
390: our results should be
391: a specific case of a more detailed, but model--dependent analysis
392: as performed in \cite{btau2}. They can serve as a simple insight
393: of the physics involved and results obtained.
394:
395:
396: \section{\label{sec:CPcons}The $CP$ conserving case}
397: We shall investigate now the consequences of the requirement
398: ${\rm Tr} \, m_\nu = 0$ on the mass states in the $CP$ conserving case.
399: %The presented discussion is similar to the one in \cite{TR2}
400: %but more detaille
401:
402: \subsection{\label{sec:consNH}Normal hierarchy}
403: Allowing for arbitrary relative signs of the mass
404: states $m_i$ with the convention $|m_3| > |m_2| > |m_1|$,
405: the condition $m_1 + m_2 + m_3 = 0$ together with the experimental
406: constraints of $\Delta m^2_{32} = \dma = 2.6 \times 10^{-3} \, \rm eV^2$
407: and $\Delta m^2_{21} = \dms = 7.1 \times 10^{-5} \, \rm eV^2$ is
408: solved by
409: \be
410: m_1 = 0.0290 \eV \simeq m_2 = 0.0302 \eV
411: \mbox{ and } m_3 = -0.0593 \eV \simeq -2 \, m_2 ~.
412: \ee
413: The numbers of course coincide with the ones presented in \cite{Tr2}.
414: %Varying \dms{} and \dma{} within their allowed range does not change the
415: %solutions by more than a few percent.
416: The characteristic relation $|m_3| \simeq 2 \, |m_2| \simeq 2 \, |m_1|$
417: holds as long as ${\rm Tr} \, m_\nu \ls 10^{-3}$ eV\@. The mass
418: spectrum corresponds to a ``partially degenerate'' scheme.\\
419:
420:
421: \noindent The different relative signs of the mass states correspond to the
422: \mmp configuration, for which $\alpha = 2\beta = \pi$.
423: The effective mass \meff{} reads for these values and for
424: $|m_3| \simeq 2 \, |m_2| \simeq 2 \, |m_1|$
425: \be \label{eq:meffNH0}
426: \meff \simeq \frac{|m_3|}{4} \,
427: \left(3 \, \cos 2 \theta_{13} - 1 \right)~,
428: \ee
429: which is independent on $\tan^2 \theta_{12}$. Varying $\theta_{13}$
430: leads to values of
431: $0.025 \eV \! \ls \meff \ls 0.030$ eV, thus predicting a very narrow range
432: within the reach of running and future experiments \cite{ovbbrev}.
433:
434:
435:
436: \noindent Direct kinematical measurements will have to
437: measure
438: \be
439: m_{\nu_e} \simeq \frac{|m_3|}{2} \, \sqrt{1 + 4 \, \sin^2 \theta_{13}}
440: \simeq (0.030 \ldots 0.032) \eV~,
441: \ee
442: which is one order of magnitude
443: below the limit of the future KATRIN experiment \cite{KATRIN}.
444:
445:
446: \noindent The sum of the absolute values of the neutrino masses
447: is $\Sigma \simeq 0.12$ eV.
448: As shown in \cite{han}, this is the lowest
449: value (at 95 \% C.L.) measurable by
450: combining data from the PLANCK satellite experiment and the
451: Sloan Digital Sky Survey.
452: Galaxy surveys one order of magnitude larger could reduce this limit by
453: a factor of two \cite{han} and thus test the prediction.\\
454:
455:
456:
457: \noindent We turn now to a simple form of the mass matrix that
458: accomplishes the requirement of being traceless.
459: We concentrate on mass matrices with three parameters, sizable
460: $U_{e3}$ and no zero entries.
461: For hierarchical neutrinos one might expect a quasi--degenerated and
462: dominant 23 block of the mass matrix. Thus, one is lead to propose
463: \be \label{eq:mnuNH1}
464: m_\nu =
465: \left(
466: \bad
467: -a & \epsilon_1 & \epsilon_2 \\[0.3cm]
468: \cdot & a/2 & 3a/2 \\[0.3cm]
469: \cdot & \cdot & a/2
470: \ea
471: \right)~,
472: \ee
473: where $\epsilon_{1,2} \ll a$.
474: %The 23--entry $3a/2$ is necessary in order to
475: %produce large solar neutrino mixing.
476: Note that with $\epsilon_i = 0$
477: the mixing angles are $\theta_{23} = \pi/4$, $\theta_{13} = 0$
478: and $\tan \theta_{12} = 1/\sqrt{2}$, which is a widely discussed
479: scheme \cite{bitri}.
480: We find with the mass matrix (\ref{eq:mnuNH1}) that the mass states
481: are
482: \be
483: \bad \D
484: m_3 \simeq 2 \, a~, & \D m_2 \simeq -a -
485: \frac{\epsilon_1 - \epsilon_2}{\sqrt{2}}~,
486: & \D m_2 \simeq -a + \frac{\epsilon_1 - \epsilon_2}{\sqrt{2}}~,
487: \ea
488: \ee
489: and the observables are given by
490: \be \label{eq:resNH1}
491: \baz \D \D
492: \dma \simeq 3 \, a^2 ~,& \D \dms \simeq 2 \, \sqrt{2} \, a \,
493: (\epsilon_1 - \epsilon_2)~,
494: \\[0.3cm] \D
495: \tan 2 \theta_{12} \simeq 6 \, \sqrt{2} \, a \,
496: \frac{\epsilon_1 - \epsilon_2}{(\epsilon_1 + \epsilon_2)^2}~, & \D
497: \sin \theta_{13} \simeq \frac{1}{3 \, \sqrt{2} \, a} \,
498: (\epsilon_1 + \epsilon_2 )~,
499: \ea
500: \ee
501: together with maximal atmospheric mixing.
502: For $\epsilon_1 = \epsilon_2 \neq 0$ the solar mixing angle
503: vanishes.
504: Comparing the last two equations with the data from Eq.\ (\ref{eq:data}),
505: one finds that $a^2 \simeq 10^{-3} \eV^2$, $\epsilon_1 - \epsilon_2 \simeq
506: 10^{-3} \eV$ and $\epsilon_1 + \epsilon_2 \simeq 10^{-2} \eV$ in
507: order to reproduce the observations. It is seen that
508: $|U_{e3}|$ should be sizable; we can express this element
509: in terms of the other observables as
510: \be \label{eq:corNH}
511: U_{e3}^2 \simeq \frac{1}{4} \, \frac{\dms}{\dma} \,
512: \frac{1 - \tan^2 \theta_{12}}{\tan \theta_{12}}~,
513: \ee
514: which becomes smaller, the larger the solar neutrino mixing angle
515: $\theta_{12}$ becomes. Inserting the data from Eq.\ (\ref{eq:data})
516: in the right--hand side of the equation, the range
517: of $U_{e3}^2$ is found for the LMA--I (LMA--II) case to lie
518: between 0.0007 (0.002) and 0.0022 (0.04) in accordance with its current
519: limit. The best--fit point predicts
520: $U_{e3}^2 \simeq 0.0056$. The effective mass is given by
521: \be \label{eq:meffNH}
522: \meff = a \simeq \sqrt{\dma/3} \sim 0.03 \eV~,
523: \ee
524: where we inserted the best--fit value of \dma.
525: The allowed range of \meff{}
526: lies between 0.022 eV and 0.036 eV, with a
527: best--fit prediction of 0.029 eV\@.
528: Both observables should thus be measurable
529: with the next round of experiments. An alternative
530: formulation of the correlation of observables reads
531: \be \label{eq:corNH2}
532: U_{e3}^2 \simeq \frac{\dms}{12 \, \meff^2} \,
533: \frac{1 - \tan^2 \theta_{12}}{\tan \theta_{12}}~,
534: \ee
535: which could be used as a further check if both \meff{} and $U_{e3}^2$ were
536: measured.\\
537:
538: \noindent
539: The question arises if the results are stable against radiative corrections.
540: As known, the 12 sector is unstable for quasi--degenerate
541: neutrinos with equal relative $CP$ parity \cite{rad}, which is what
542: happens here.
543: The effect of radiative corrections can be estimated by multiplying
544: the $\alpha \beta$ element of $m_\nu$ with a term
545: $(1 + \delta_\alpha) \, (1 + \delta_\beta)$, where
546: \be
547: \delta_\alpha = c \, \frac{m_\alpha^2}{16 \, \pi^2 \, v^2}
548: \, \ln \frac{M_X}{m_Z}~.
549: \ee
550: Here $m_\alpha$ is the mass of the corresponding charged lepton,
551: $M_X \simeq 10^{16}$ GeV and $c = -(1 + \tan^2 \beta)$ (3/2) in case of the
552: MSSM (SM). We checked numerically that
553: for the SM there is no significant change of $\theta_{12}$ and \dms{}
554: but for the MSSM and $\tan \beta \gs 20$ the
555: results become unstable.
556: %solar neutrino mixing angle becomes too
557: %low and \dms{} too large.
558: Also, the relation between $|U_{e3}|$ and the other
559: observables remains its validity for the SM and for the MSSM
560: with $\tan \beta \ls 20$.\\
561:
562: \noindent One can relax the traceless condition a bit by adding a term
563: proportional to $\mathbbm{1} \times \xi/3 $ to $m_\nu$,
564: where $\xi = $ Tr $m_\nu$. The mixing angles are of course
565: unaffected by this term but the masses are changed by
566: $m_i \rightarrow m_i + \xi/3$. Thus, the new mass squared
567: differences read
568: \be
569: \dms \simeq 2 \, \sqrt{2} \, (\epsilon_1 - \epsilon_2) \, (a - \xi/3)
570: \mbox{ and } \dma \simeq 3 \, a \, \left(a + \frac{2}{3} \, \xi\right)~.
571: \ee
572: The correlation of the observables $U_{e3}$ and \meff{} also
573: changes, it is now given by
574: \bea \D
575: U_{e3}^2 \simeq \frac{1}{4} \, \dms \,
576: \frac{1 - \tan^2 \theta_{12}}{\tan \theta_{12}}
577: \frac{1}{\dma + \xi (\xi - \sqrt{\xi^2 + 3 \, \dma})}~, \\[0.4cm] \D
578: \meff = a - \xi/3 \simeq \frac{1}{3} \,
579: \left( \sqrt{\xi^2 + 3 \, \dma} - 2 \, \xi
580: \right)~.
581: \eea
582: For $\xi = 0$ the previous two equations reproduce
583: (\ref{eq:resNH1},\ref{eq:corNH},\ref{eq:meffNH}).
584: The formula for the correlations of the
585: observables, Eq.\ (\ref{eq:corNH2}), holds also in the case of $\xi \neq 0$.
586: As long as $\xi$ does not exceed $10^{-3}$ eV,
587: the corrections due to Tr $m_\nu = \xi \neq 0$ increase (reduce) the
588: predictions for $U_{e3}^2$ (\meff) by $\sim \xi/\sqrt{\dma} \simeq
589: 3 \, \% $.
590:
591: %\noindent In \cite{btau2} the minimal SUSY $SO(10)$ in the type II
592: %see--saw Mechanism has been analyzed by inserting
593: %and shown to predict $U_{e3} \simeq 0.016$
594:
595:
596:
597: \subsection{\label{sec:consIH}Inverted hierarchy}
598: Allowing for arbitrary relative signs of the mass
599: states $m_i$ together with the convention $|m_2| > |m_1| > |m_3|$,
600: the condition $m_1 + m_2 + m_3 = 0$ with the experimental
601: constraints of $\Delta m^2_{13} = \dma = 2.6 \times 10^{-3} \, \rm eV^2$
602: and $\Delta m^2_{21} = \dms = 7.1 \times 10^{-5} \, \rm eV^2$ is
603: solved by
604: \be
605: m_2 = 0.0517 \eV \simeq -m_1 = 0.0510 \eV
606: \mbox{ and } m_3 = -0.0007 \eV~.
607: \ee
608: The
609: characteristic relation $|m_2| \simeq |m_1| \gg |m_3|$
610: holds as long as ${\rm Tr} \, m_\nu \ls 10^{-2}$ eV\@.\\
611:
612: \noindent The signs of the mass states correspond to the
613: \pmm configuration for which $\alpha = \beta = \pi/2$. The
614: effective mass then reads for
615: $|m_2| \simeq |m_1| \gg |m_3|$
616: \be \label{eq:meffIH0}
617: \meff \simeq |m_2| \, \cos2 \theta_{12} \, \cos^2 \theta_{13}
618: \simeq |m_2| \, \frac{1 - \tan^2 \theta_{12}}{1 + \tan^2 \theta_{12}}~,
619: \ee
620: which lies between 0.005 eV and 0.028 eV, thus predicting a range
621: with the upper (lower) limit
622: within (outside)
623: the reach of running and future experiments \cite{ovbbrev}.
624: The
625: lower limit is however reachable by the 10t version of the
626: GENIUS \cite{GENIUS} project.
627: The best--fit prediction is $\meff \simeq 0.020$ eV\@.
628: In contrast to
629: the normal mass ordering, \meff{} has a crucial dependence
630: on $\tan^2 \theta_{12}$ and thus a rather large allowed range.
631:
632:
633: \noindent The mass measured in direct kinematical experiments
634: is $m_{\nu_e} \simeq |m_2| \simeq 0.05$ eV, which is larger than
635: the corresponding quantity in the normal hierarchy but still almost
636: one order of magnitude below the limit of the future KATRIN experiment.
637:
638:
639: \noindent The sum of the absolute values of the neutrino masses
640: is $\Sigma \simeq 0.10$ eV, lower than the corresponding quantity
641: in the normal hierarchy and thus still requiring larger galaxy surveys,
642: as shown in \cite{han}.\\
643:
644: \noindent We present again a simple 3 parameter
645: mass matrix with the traceless feature, no zero entries and
646: non--vanishing $U_{e3}$. One is naturally lead to propose
647: \be \label{eq:mnuIH1}
648: m_\nu =
649: \left(
650: \bad
651: -a & b & -b \\[0.3cm]
652: \cdot & a/2 - \eta & -a/2 \\[0.3cm]
653: \cdot & \cdot & a/2 + \eta
654: \ea
655: \right)~,
656: \ee
657: where $b > a > \eta$.
658: We find with the mass matrix (\ref{eq:mnuNH1}) that the mass states
659: for $b^2 \gg \eta^2$ are
660: \be
661: m_{2,1} \simeq \pm \frac{8 \, b^4 + a^2 \,
662: \left(4 \, b^2 + \left(1 \pm \sqrt{1 + 2 \, b^2/a^2} \right) \, \eta^2 \right)}
663: {4 \, b^2 \sqrt{a^2 + 2 \, b^2}} \mbox{ and }
664: m_3 \simeq \frac{-a}{2 \, b^2} \, \eta^2~.
665: \ee
666: The observables are found to be
667: \be \label{eq:resIH1}
668: \baz \D
669: \tan 2 \theta_{12} \simeq \sqrt{2} \, \frac{b}{a}~, & \D
670: \sin \theta_{13} \simeq \frac{\eta}{\sqrt{2} \, b}~,
671: \\[0.3cm] \D
672: \dma \simeq a^2 + 2 \, b^2 ~,&
673: \D \dms \simeq \frac{a}{b^2} \, \sqrt{a^2 + 2 \, b^2} \, \eta^2~.
674: \ea
675: \ee
676: Again, the observed values
677: of the quantities are easy to reproduce with, in this case, e.g.,
678: $b > a > \eta \sim 0.01$ eV\@.
679:
680: \noindent There is again a simple correlation of the
681: observables, namely
682: \be \label{eq:corIH1}
683: U_{e3}^2 \simeq \frac{1}{2} \, \frac{\dms}{\dma} \,
684: \frac{1 + \tan^2 \theta_{12}}{1 - \tan^2 \theta_{12}}~.
685: \ee
686: Putting again the data from Eq.\ (\ref{eq:data}) in the right--hand side of
687: this equation leads to $U_{e3}^2 \gs 0.013$ with a best--fit
688: prediction of $U_{e3}^2 \simeq 0.036$. For large values of \dms, i.e.,
689: in the less favored
690: LMA--II solution, which corresponds to
691: $\dms \gs 10^{-4} \eV^2$, the value of $U_{e3}$ is above its current
692: experimental limit. Comparing the expressions for $U_{e3}$ in the
693: normal (Eq.\ (\ref{eq:corNH})) and inverted (Eq.\ (\ref{eq:corIH1}))
694: ordering leads to the observation that for the first case the value is
695: smaller by a factor of
696: $\simeq 1/2 \, (1 - \tan^2 \theta_{12})^2
697: /((1 + \tan^2 \theta_{12}) \tan \theta_{12}) \ls 0.35$.
698:
699:
700: \noindent The effective mass is given by
701: \be \label{eq:IHmeff}
702: \meff = a
703: \simeq \frac{\dms}{2 \, \sqrt{\dma} \, U_{e3}^2}
704: = \sqrt{\dma} \, \frac{1 - \tan^2 \theta_{12}}{1 + \tan^2 \theta_{12}}
705: \sim 0.02 \eV~.
706: \ee
707: Comparing this result with our prediction for \meff{} in the
708: normal mass ordering, Eq.\ (\ref{eq:resNH1}), one finds that
709: the inverted mass hierarchy predicts an effective mass smaller than a factor
710: $\sqrt{3} \tan 2 \theta_{12} \gs 4$. This is larger than the typical
711: uncertainty of the nuclear matrix elements that usually tends to spoil
712: extraction of information from \onbb$\!\!$.
713:
714: \noindent If both, \meff{} and $U_{e3}$ are measured,
715: one can further check the mass matrix by the relation
716: \be \label{eq:corIH2}
717: U_{e3}^2 \simeq \frac{\dms}{2 \, \meff{} \, \sqrt{\dma} }~.
718: \ee
719: We checked numerically
720: that the results are stable under radiative corrections in the SM and
721: in the MSSM for $\tan \beta \ls 50$.\\
722:
723:
724: \noindent One can again relax the traceless condition
725: through a contribution $\mathbbm{1} \times \xi/3 $ to $m_\nu$,
726: where $\xi = $ Tr $m_\nu$. The new mass squared
727: differences are
728: \be
729: \dms \simeq \frac{a \, \eta^2 + \frac{4}{3} \, b^2 \, \xi}{b^2} \,
730: \sqrt{a^2 + 2 \, b^2}
731: \mbox{ and }
732: \dma \simeq a^2 + 2 \, b^2 - \frac{2}{3} \, \sqrt{a^2 + 2 \, b^2} \, \xi~.
733: \ee
734: Again, the correlation of the observables $U_{e3}$ and \meff{}
735: changes, one finds
736: \bea \D
737: U_{e3}^2 \simeq \frac{9}{2} \,
738: \frac{1 + \tan^2 \theta_{12}}{1 - \tan^2 \theta_{12}}
739: \frac{\dms - \frac{4}{9} \, \xi (\xi + \sqrt{9 \, \dma + \xi^2})}
740: {(\xi + \sqrt{9 \, \dma + \xi^2})^2} \\[0.4cm] \D
741: \meff = a - \xi/3 \simeq
742: %\frac{\dms \, \sqrt{9 \, \dma + \xi^2} - \left(2 \, \dma \,
743: %(2 + U_{e3}^2) + \dms \right) \, \xi}
744: %{6 \, \dma \, U_{e3}^2}
745: \frac{1}{3 \, (1 + \tan^2 \theta_{12})} \, \left(
746: (1 - \tan^2 \theta_{12}) \, \sqrt{\xi^2 + 9 \, \dma}
747: - 2 \, \tan^2 \theta_{12}\right)
748: ~.
749: \eea
750: For $\xi = 0$ the results for exact zero trace given above are
751: re--obtained.\\
752:
753:
754: \noindent Interestingly, the same mass matrix, Eq.\ (\ref{eq:mnuIH1}),
755: has been found in \cite{detmot2}.
756: In this work a local horizontal $SU(2)$ symmetry
757: has been applied to the charged leptons. A consequence was
758: a vanishing determinant of $m_\nu$ and an inverted hierarchy
759: for the neutrino masses (i.e.\ $m_3 = 0$)
760: with opposite signs for $m_2$ and $m_1$. In this case, both the trace and
761: the determinant of $m_\nu$ are vanishing, which explains that our results
762: are identical to the ones in \cite{detmot2}.\\
763:
764: \noindent To put this Section in a nutshell, the requirement of a vanishing
765: trace of $m_\nu$ leads in the $CP$ conserving case to
766: values of \meff, larger in the NH than in the IH.
767: Due to the dependence on $\tan \theta_{12}$, \meff{} in case of IH
768: has a broad range.
769: Simple mass matrices were proposed which reproduce the values found by
770: the traceless condition and in addition predict larger $U_{e3}$ in the
771: IH case.
772: Relaxing the traceless condition does not significantly
773: change the predicted values
774: as long as the trace stays below the expected $10^{-3}$ eV.
775:
776:
777:
778:
779: \section{\label{sec:CPviol}The $CP$ violating case}
780: Now we shall investigate the more realistic case of
781: $CP$ violation and the consequences of the traceless $m_\nu$
782: condition. Within the parametrization (\ref{eq:Upara}) one finds
783: --- using Eq.\ (\ref{eq:mnu}) --- for the trace of $m_\nu$ that
784: %The trace can in case of $CP$ violation be written as
785: \be \label{eq:compl}
786: {\rm Tr \,} m_\nu \simeq m_1 + m_2 \, e^{2 i \alpha} \, +
787: m_3 \, e^{2 i (\beta + \delta)}~.
788: \ee
789: Terms of order $\sin^2 \theta_{13}$ were neglected, which can be shown to be
790: a justified approximation.
791: The condition of zero trace holds for the real and
792: imaginary part of Tr $m_\nu$, i.e.,
793: \bea \label{eq:compl12}
794: m_1 + m_2 \, \cos 2 \alpha + m_3 \, \cos 2 (\beta + \delta) = 0 \\[0.3cm]
795: m_2 \, \sin 2 \alpha + m_3 \, \sin 2 (\beta + \delta) = 0~.
796: \eea
797: %From here on, the mass states $m_i$ are real positive.
798: The minimal values of $m_1$ or $m_3$ that fulfill the condition
799: (\ref{eq:compl12}) are the ones that correspond to the $CP$
800: conserving case discussed in the previous Section.
801: As a check, one can convince oneself that for $\delta = 0$ and
802: $m_1 = m_2 = m_3/2$ the solution of the two
803: equations in (\ref{eq:compl12}) is given by $\alpha = 2 \beta = \pi$
804: while for $\delta = 0$ and $m_1 = m_2 \gg m_3 \simeq 0$ one finds that
805: $\alpha = \pi/2$, which is in accordance with the previous Section.
806: This means that in case of the normal hierarchy and
807: the LMA I (LMA II) solution a lower limit
808: on the neutrino mass of 0.019 (0.021) eV can be set, which is obtained by
809: inserting the lowest allowed \dma{} and the largest \dms.
810: In case of inverted hierarchy, one finds that
811: $|m_3| \ge 0.0013$ (0.0024) eV for the LMA I (LMA II) solution.
812: %In Fig.\
813: %\ref{fig:NH}a the smallest mass is plotted against the other two and
814: %the lower limit on $m_1$ (obtained by inserting the best--fit values
815: %for the two $\delta m^2$) is indicated.
816:
817:
818: \noindent Due to the zero trace condition one can write
819: \be \label{eq:m123}
820: m_1^2 = m_2^2 + m_3^2 + 2 \, m_2 \, m_3 \, \cos \phi~
821: \mbox{, where }~ \phi = 2(\alpha - \beta - \delta)~.
822: \ee
823: Interestingly, this implies that in the expressions for
824: $\Sigma$ and $m_{\nu_e}$ the phases appear. In particular,
825: \be
826: m_{\nu_e}^2 = \frac{1}{1 + \tan^2 \theta_{12}} \,
827: \left(
828: m_3^2 + m_2^2 \, (1 + \tan^2 \theta_{12}) + 2 \, m_2 \, m_3 \,
829: \cos \phi
830: \right) + m_3^2 \, \sin^2 \theta_{13}~.
831: \ee
832: For quasi--degenerate neutrinos, i.e., $m_3 \simeq m_2 \simeq m_1
833: \equiv m_0$, one finds from Eq.\ (\ref{eq:m123}) that
834: $\cos \phi = -1/2$ or
835: equivalently $\alpha - \beta - \delta \simeq \pm \pi/3 \pm n \pi$. Thus,
836: quasi--degenerate neutrinos and the zero trace condition demand
837: non--trivial correlations between the $CP$ phases.\\
838:
839:
840: \noindent Applying the condition Tr $m_\nu = 0$ to Eq.\ (\ref{eq:m123}) and
841: inserting it in the expression for \meff{} one finds
842: \be \D
843: \meff \simeq \frac{1}{1 + \tan^2 \theta_{12}} \,
844: \sqrt{m_3^2 + m_2 \, (1 - \tan^2 \theta_{12}) \,
845: \left(
846: m_2 \, (1 - \tan^2 \theta_{12}) + 2 \, m_3 \, \cos \phi
847: \right)}~,
848: \ee
849: where we neglected $\sin^2 \theta_{13}$.
850: Courtesy of the zero trace condition, \meff{} depends
851: effectively only on one phase.
852: The $CP$ conserving cases in the previous Section should come as
853: special cases of the last formula. Indeed,
854: for $\delta = 0$,
855: $m_2 = m_3/2$ and $\alpha = 2 \beta = \pi$ one recovers
856: Eq.\ (\ref{eq:meffNH0}) and for $\delta = 0$ and $m_3 = 0$ one re--obtains
857: Eq.\ (\ref{eq:meffIH0}).
858: For quasi--degenerate neutrinos $m_0 \equiv m_2 \simeq m_3$
859: the above formula simplifies.
860: Then, since $\cos \phi \simeq -1/2$:
861: \be
862: \meff \simeq m_0 \,
863: \frac{\sqrt{1 + \tan^2 \theta_{12} \, (\tan^2 \theta_{12} - 1)}}
864: {1 + \tan^2 \theta_{12}}~,
865: \ee
866: which can be used to set an upper limit on $m_0$.
867: %which is due to the range of $\tan^2 \theta_{12}$ given by
868: %$c \, m_0$, where $c$ is a number between 0.51 and 0.69 with a best--fit
869: %point prediction of $c = 0.60$. The resulting values can be
870: %above the current limit on \meff. Hence, an upper limit on $m_0$
871: %can be set and is given by the experimental limit on
872: %\meff{} divided by $c$.
873: %Thus
874: For $\meff \ls 1$ eV we have $m_0 \ls 1.96$ eV with a best--fit limit
875: of 1.67 eV.
876: Therefore, the zero trace condition implies a limit stronger than the
877: one stemming from direct kinematical experiments. Using the less
878: conservative limit given by the Heidelberg--Moscow collaboration,
879: the above limits are reduced by a factor of roughly 2.9 and
880: the limits come nearer to the ones from cosmological observations.
881: To be precise, for $\meff < 0.35$ eV one finds $m_0 \ls 0.69$ eV and,
882: for the best--fit value, $m_0 \ls 0.58$ eV.
883: The values are testable by the KATRIN experiment. Thus, together with
884: the lower limit (about 0.02 eV for NH and 0.002 eV for IH)
885: from the beginning of this Section, a neutrino mass window is defined.\\
886:
887: %\noindent One can compare this with the general case. For degenerate
888: %neutrinos, the minimal \meff{} is obtained for
889: %$\alpha = \beta = \pi/2$ and reads
890: %\be
891: %\meff < \frac{\cos^2 \theta_{13} \, m_0}{1 + \tan^2 \theta_{12}} \,
892: %\left( 1 - \tan^2 \theta_{12} - (1 + \tan^2 \theta_{12}) \,
893: %\tan^2 \theta_{13}
894: %\right) ~.
895: %\ee
896: %An upper limit
897: %on $m_0$ which is smaller than 2.2 eV is only possible when
898: %the limit on \meff{} is, for $\sin^2 \theta_{13} = 0$ (0.05),
899: %smaller than 0.23 (0.11) eV\@. Alternatively, with the current limit
900: %on $\meff < 0.35$ eV, the limit on $m_0$ reads 3.33 (7.03) eV for
901: %$\sin^2 \theta_{13} = 0$ (0.05). When the more conservative limit
902: %of 1 eV on \meff{} is taken, the upper limits on $m_0$ are even
903: %higher by a factor of $\simeq 2.9$.\\
904:
905: \noindent One can
906: compare the predictions for $\meff$ in case of zero trace
907: with the ones in case of zero determinant \cite{det}.
908: This corresponds for NH (IH) to zero $m_1$ ($m_3$), which results
909: in particular simple forms of \meff, see \cite{det} for details.
910: Regarding the inverted hierarchy, we already commented
911: that in case of an opposite relative sign of the
912: two quasi--degenerate neutrinos and a very small $m_3$
913: both the trace and the determinant vanish and the situation is identical.
914: We use the data from Eq.\ (\ref{eq:data}) for our predictions.
915: For the normal mass ordering strong cancellations are
916: possible \cite{ichNPB,cancel}, and \meff{} is
917: in general predicted to be below 0.01 eV.
918: In case of the inverted mass ordering,
919: \meff{} lies between 0.004 and 0.034 eV, independent on
920: $\sin^2 \theta_{13}$.
921: Unlike the zero trace case, the zero determinant conditions allows no
922: statements about the phases, at least not before the limit on \meff{}
923: is significantly improved.\\
924:
925:
926:
927: \noindent We also
928: performed a numerical analysis of the zero trace condition.
929: For this exercise the mass squared differences and
930: solar neutrino mixing angle were fixed to
931: their best--fit points and the
932: smallest neutrino mass and the phases $\alpha$ as well as
933: $\beta - \delta$ were
934: varied within their allowed range.
935: % while demanding Tr $m_\nu < 10^{-3}$ eV.
936: The results in the form of scatter plots for the normal hierarchy is shown
937: in Fig.\ \ref{fig:NH} and for the inverted scheme in Fig.\ \ref{fig:IH}.
938: One recognizes for example in Figs.\ (\ref{fig:NH},\ref{fig:IH})c
939: the correlation of $\Sigma$ with
940: $\alpha - \beta - \delta$ as implied by Eq.\ (\ref{eq:m123}).
941: %and the fact that for large neutrino masses it holds
942: %$\alpha - \beta - \delta \simeq \pm \pi/3 \pm n \pi$.
943: For the inverted hierarchy, the spread of the phases
944: is rather different from the case of normal hierarchy.
945: This can be understood from the fact
946: that for small $m_3$ the dependence on $\beta - \delta$
947: practically vanishes.
948:
949:
950:
951:
952:
953:
954:
955: \section{\label{sec:concl}Summary and Conclusions}
956: The condition of a zero trace of the neutrino mass matrix $m_\nu$
957: was reanalyzed in case of $CP$ conservation and violation for both
958: possible mass orderings.
959: The motivation for this purely phenomenological analysis
960: was given by exact $b-\tau$ unification in connection to
961: the non--canonical type II see--saw
962: mechanism in $SO(10)$ models. This situation has
963: recently gathered renewed attention because of its ability to
964: produce large atmospheric neutrino mixing in a simple way.
965: In case of $CP$ conservation, the values of the neutrino masses
966: and their relative $CP$ parities are fixed and allow to give
967: simple expressions for the effective mass as measurable in \onbb$\!\!$.
968: The masses are given by $m_1 \simeq m_2 \simeq -m_3/2 \simeq 0.03$ eV for
969: the normal mass ordering and $\sqrt{\dma} \simeq
970: m_2 \simeq - m_1 \gg- m_3$ for the
971: inverted mass ordering.
972: In case of the normal hierarchy, \meff{} does not depend on the
973: solar neutrino mixing angle and is predicted to be
974: around 0.03 eV. In case of inverted hierarchy, \meff{} depends rather
975: strongly on the solar neutrino mixing angle and its range is between
976: 0.005 eV and 0.03 eV; the best--fit prediction is 0.02 eV.
977: The presence of $CP$ violation and therefore non--trivial values of the
978: Majorana phases allows for larger values of the masses. In case of
979: quasi--degenerate neutrinos a peculiar relation between the
980: phases exists: $\alpha - \beta - \delta = \pm \pi/3 \pm n \pi$.
981: The minimal
982: values of the masses correspond to the $CP$ conserving case and are
983: in case of the normal (inverted) hierarchy roughly 0.02 (0.002) eV.
984: The upper limit comes from non--observation of neutrinoless
985: double beta decay and is for $\meff < 0.35$ eV roughly 0.7 eV.
986: Correlations of various parameters are possible, some of which
987: are shown in Figs.\ \ref{fig:NH} and \ref{fig:IH}.
988:
989:
990:
991:
992:
993:
994: \vspace{0.5cm}
995: \begin{center}
996: {\bf Acknowledgments}
997: \end{center}
998: I thank R.~Mohapatra and S.T.~Petcov
999: for helpful discussions and careful reading of the
1000: manuscript.
1001: Part of this work was performed at the
1002: Baryogenesis Workshop at the MCTP in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
1003: I wish to thank the organizers for the stimulating
1004: atmosphere they created and for financial support.
1005: The hospitality of the DESY theory group, where other parts of the work were
1006: performed, is gratefully acknowledged.
1007: This work was supported by the EC network HPRN-CT-2000-00152.
1008:
1009:
1010:
1011: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1012: \bibitem{ichCP}S.~Pascoli, S.~T.~Petcov and L.~Wolfenstein,
1013: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 524} (2002) 319;
1014: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110287;%%
1015: W.~Rodejohann, hep-ph/0203214;
1016: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203214;%%
1017: a very pessimistic view is given in
1018: V.~Barger, {\it et al.},
1019: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 540} (2002) 247,
1020: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205291;%%
1021: a more optimistic one in
1022: S.~Pascoli, S.~T.~Petcov and W.~Rodejohann,
1023: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 549} (2002) 177.
1024: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209059;%%
1025: \bibitem{zeros}P.~H.~Frampton, S.~L.~Glashow and D.~Marfatia,
1026: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 536} (2002) 79;
1027: Z.~Z.~Xing, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 530}, 159 (2002);
1028: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 539}, 85 (2002);
1029: P.~H.~Frampton, M.~C.~Oh and T.~Yoshikawa,
1030: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 033007;
1031: A.~Kageyama, {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 538}, 96 (2002);
1032: B.~R.~Desai, D.~P.~Roy and A.~R.~Vaucher, Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 18}
1033: (2003) 1355.
1034: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201008;%%
1035: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201151;%%
1036: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204273;%%
1037: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204291;%%
1038: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205032;%%
1039: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209035;%%
1040: \bibitem{det}G.~C.~Branco, {\it et al.},
1041: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 562} (2003) 265.
1042: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212341;%%
1043: \bibitem{detmot1}See, e.g.,
1044: W.~Grimus and L.~Lavoura,
1045: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 093012;
1046: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007011;%%
1047: T.~Asaka, {\it et al.},
1048: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 123514;
1049: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008041;%%
1050: R.~Kuchimanchi and R.~N.~Mohapatra,
1051: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 051301 (2002);
1052: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207110;%%
1053: P.~H.~Frampton, S.~L.~Glashow and T.~Yanagida,
1054: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 548} (2002) 119;
1055: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208157;%%
1056: T.~Endoh, {\it et al.},
1057: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89} (2002) 231601;
1058: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209020;%%
1059: M.~Raidal and A.~Strumia,
1060: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 553} (2003) 72;
1061: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210021;%%
1062: B.~Dutta and R.~N.~Mohapatra, hep-ph/0305059.
1063: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305059;%%
1064: \bibitem{detmot2}R.~Kuchimanchi and R.~N.~Mohapatra,
1065: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 552} (2003) 198.
1066: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207373;%%
1067: \bibitem{Tr1}D.~Black, {\it et al.},
1068: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 073015;
1069: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004105;%%
1070: \bibitem{Tr2}X.~G.~He and A.~Zee, hep-ph/0302201.
1071: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302201;%%
1072: \bibitem{modrad}A.~Zee,
1073: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 93} (1980) 389
1074: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 95} (1980) 461];
1075: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B93,389;%%
1076: L.~Wolfenstein,
1077: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 175} (1980) 93.
1078: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B175,93;%%
1079: \bibitem{typeII}
1080: R.~N.~Mohapatra and G.~Senjanovic,
1081: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 23}, 165 (1981);
1082: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D23,165;%%
1083: C.~Wetterich,
1084: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 187}, 343 (1981);
1085: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B187,343;%%
1086: J.~C.~Montero, C.~A.~de S. Pires and V.~Pleitez,
1087: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 502} (2001) 167;
1088: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011296;%%
1089: R.~N.~Mohapatra, A.~Perez-Lorenzana and C.~A.~de Sousa Pires,
1090: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 474}, 355 (2000);
1091: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911395;%%
1092: \bibitem{btau1}B.~Bajc, G.~Senjanovic and F.~Vissani, hep-ph/0110310;
1093: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110310;%%
1094: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 90} (2003) 051802.
1095: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210207;%%
1096: \bibitem{btau2}H.~S.~Goh, R.~N.~Mohapatra and S.~P.~Ng, hep-ph/0303055.
1097: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303055;%%
1098: \bibitem{PMNS}B. Pontecorvo, Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 33}, 549 (1957)
1099: and {\bf 34}, 247 (1958);
1100: Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata,
1101: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 28}, 870 (1962).
1102: %%CITATION = SPHJA,6,429;%%
1103: %%CITATION = SPHJA,7,172;%%
1104: %%CITATION = PTPKA,28,870;%%
1105: \bibitem{STP}S.~M.\ Bilenky {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 94},
1106: 495 (1980);
1107: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B94,495;%%
1108: M.~Doi, {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 102}, 323 (1981);
1109: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B102,323;%%
1110: J.~Schechter and J.~W.~Valle,
1111: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 22}, 2227 (1980).
1112: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D22,2227;%%
1113: \bibitem{ichJPG}W.~Rodejohann,
1114: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 28} (2002) 1477.
1115: %%CITATION = JPHGB,G28,1477;%%
1116: \bibitem{mnu}M.~Frigerio and A.~Y.~Smirnov,
1117: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 640} (2002) 233;
1118: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 013007.
1119: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202247;%%
1120: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207366;%%
1121: \bibitem{ichPRD}W.~Rodejohann,
1122: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 013011.
1123: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003149;%%
1124: \bibitem{phaalt}L.~Wolfenstein,
1125: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 107} (1981) 77;
1126: S.~M.~Bilenky, N.~P.~Nedelcheva and S.~T.~Petcov,
1127: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 247}, 61 (1984);
1128: B.~Kayser,
1129: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 30}, 1023 (1984).
1130: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B107,77;%%
1131: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B247,61;%%
1132: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D30,1023;%%
1133: \bibitem{ichNPB}W.~Rodejohann,
1134: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 597}, 110 (2001).
1135: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008044;%%
1136: \bibitem{carlos}M.~C.~Gonzalez-Garcia and C.~Pena-Garay, hep-ph/0306001.
1137: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306001;%%
1138: \bibitem{LMAI}
1139: G.~L.~Fogli, E.~Lisi, A.~Marrone, D.~Montanino, A.~Palazzo and A.~M.~Rotunno,
1140: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 073002;
1141: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212127;%%
1142: A.~Bandyopadhyay, S.~Choubey, R.~Gandhi, S.~Goswami and D.~P.~Roy,
1143: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 559} (2003) 121;
1144: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212146;%%
1145: J.~N.~Bahcall, M.~C.~Gonzalez-Garcia and C.~Pe{\~n}a-Garay,
1146: JHEP {\bf 0302} (2003) 009;
1147: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212147;%%
1148: P.~C.~de Holanda and A.~Y.~Smirnov,
1149: JCAP {\bf 0302} (2003) 001.
1150: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212270;%%
1151: \bibitem{0vbb}H.~V.~Klapdor-Kleingrothaus {\it et al.},
1152: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ A {\bf 12} (2001) 147.
1153: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103062;%%
1154: \bibitem{Sigma}S.~Hannestad, astro-ph/0303076.
1155: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0303076;%%
1156: \bibitem{trit}C.~Weinheimer, hep-ex/0306057.
1157: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0306057;%%
1158: \bibitem{seesaw}M. Gell--Mann, P. Ramond,
1159: and R. Slansky in {\it Supergravity},
1160: p. 315, edited by F. Nieuwenhuizen
1161: and D. Friedman, North Holland,
1162: Amsterdam, 1979;
1163: T. Yanagida, Proc. of the
1164: {\it Workshop on Unified Theories and the Baryon
1165: Number of the Universe}, edited by
1166: O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto, KEK, Japan 1979;
1167: R.N. Mohapatra, G. Senjanovic, \Jo{\PRL}{44}{912}{1980}.
1168: %%CITATION = PRLTA,44,912;%%
1169: \bibitem{SO10}See, e.g., K.~S.~Babu and R.~N.~Mohapatra,
1170: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 70}, 2845 (1993);
1171: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9209215;%%
1172: K.~Matsuda, T.~Fukuyama and H.~Nishiura,
1173: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 053001.
1174: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906433;%%
1175: \bibitem{Mohbook}See, e.g.,
1176: R.~N.~Mohapatra, Unification and supersymmetry :
1177: The Frontiers of quark -- lepton physics, Springer-Verlag, 3rd edition 2003.
1178: \bibitem{ovbbrev}O. Cremonesi, Invited talk at the
1179: XXth Internat. Conf. on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics (Neutrino 2002),
1180: Munich, Germany, May 25-30, 2002, hep-ex/0210007.
1181: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0210007;%%
1182: \bibitem{KATRIN}A.~Osipowicz {\it et al.} [KATRIN Collaboration],
1183: hep-ex/0109033.
1184: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0109033;%%
1185: \bibitem{han}S.~Hannestad,
1186: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 085017.
1187: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0211106;%%
1188: \bibitem{bitri}L.~Wolfenstein,
1189: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 18} (1978) 958;
1190: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D18,958;%%
1191: P.~F.~Harrison, D.~H.~Perkins and W.~G.~Scott,
1192: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 458} (1999) 79;
1193: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904297;%%
1194: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 530}, 167 (2002);
1195: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202074;%%
1196: Z.~Z.~Xing,
1197: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 533} (2002) 85;
1198: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204049;%%
1199: X.~G.~He and A.~Zee,
1200: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 560}, 87 (2003);
1201: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301092;%%
1202: \bibitem{rad}S.~Antusch, {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0305273.
1203: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305273;%%
1204: \bibitem{GENIUS}H.~V.~Klapdor-Kleingrothaus {\it et al.}
1205: [GENIUS Collaboration], hep-ph/9910205.
1206: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910205;%%
1207: \bibitem{cancel}E.g.,
1208: S.~M.~Bilenky, S.~Pascoli and S.~T.~Petcov,
1209: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 053010 (2001);
1210: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102265;%%
1211: Z.~Z.~Xing, hep-ph/0305195.
1212: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305195;%%
1213: \end{thebibliography}
1214:
1215: \newpage
1216:
1217:
1218: %\begin{figure}
1219: %\begin{center}
1220: %\epsfig{file=meff.ps,width=12cm,height=8cm}
1221: %\caption{\label{fig:meff}Scatter plot of the range of the effective mass
1222: %\meff{} for both hierarchies.}
1223: %\end{center}
1224: %\end{figure}
1225: %\newpage
1226:
1227: \pagestyle{empty}
1228: \begin{figure}
1229: \begin{center}
1230: \hspace{-3cm}\vspace{-2cm}
1231: \epsfig{file=NH.ps,width=19cm,height=22cm}
1232: \caption{\label{fig:NH}Scatter plot of different parameters in the
1233: normal mass ordering obtained by
1234: varying the smallest mass state $m_1$ and the phases.
1235: The oscillation parameters were set to their best--fit values.
1236: Shown are
1237: (a) $m_1$ against the two other two masses,
1238: (b) $m_1$ against the minimal and maximal value of \meff{} (given
1239: by varying $\theta_{13}$),
1240: (c) $\alpha - \beta$ against $\Sigma$,
1241: (d) $\alpha$ against $\beta$,
1242: (e) $m_1$ against $\alpha$ and
1243: (f) $m_1$ against $\beta$.}
1244: \end{center}
1245: \end{figure}
1246:
1247:
1248: %\newpage
1249:
1250: %\thispagestyle{empty}
1251: \begin{figure}
1252: \begin{center}
1253: \hspace{-3cm}%\vspace{-3cm}
1254: \epsfig{file=IH.ps,width=19cm,height=22cm}
1255: \caption{\label{fig:IH}Same as previuos figure for the inverted mass
1256: ordering.}
1257: \end{center}
1258: \end{figure}
1259:
1260: \end{document}
1261:
1262: \begin{figure}
1263: \begin{center}
1264: \epsfig{file=m123NH.ps,width=14cm,height=10cm}
1265: \caption{\label{}}
1266: \epsfig{file=meffNH.ps,width=14cm,height=10cm}
1267: \caption{\label{}}
1268: \end{center}
1269: \end{figure}
1270:
1271: \begin{figure}
1272: \begin{center}
1273: \epsfig{file=mabSNH.ps,width=14cm,height=10cm}
1274: \caption{\label{}}
1275: \epsfig{file=mabNH.ps,width=14cm,height=10cm}
1276: \caption{\label{}}
1277: \end{center}
1278: \end{figure}
1279:
1280:
1281: \begin{figure}
1282: \begin{center}
1283: \epsfig{file=maNH.ps,width=14cm,height=10cm}
1284: \caption{\label{}}
1285: \epsfig{file=mbNH.ps,width=14cm,height=10cm}
1286: \caption{\label{}}
1287: \end{center}
1288: \end{figure}
1289:
1290:
1291:
1292: \end{document}
1293:
1294:
1295:
1296: \bibitem{seesaw}M. Gell--Mann, P. Ramond,
1297: and R. Slansky in {\it Supergravity},
1298: p. 315, edited by F. Nieuwenhuizen
1299: and D. Friedman, North Holland,
1300: Amsterdam, 1979;
1301: T. Yanagida, Proc. of the
1302: {\it Workshop on Unified Theories and the Baryon
1303: Number of the Universe}, edited by
1304: O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto, KEK, Japan 1979;
1305: R.N. Mohapatra, G. Senjanovic, \Jo{\PRL}{44}{912}{1980}.
1306: %%CITATION = PRLTA,44,912;%%
1307:
1308: \bibitem{lepto}
1309: M. Fukugita, T. Yanagida, \Jo{\PLB}{174}{45}{1986}.
1310: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B174,45;%%
1311:
1312:
1313: \bibitem{SNO2} SNO Collaboration,
1314: Q.R. Ahmad \textit{et al.},
1315: {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 89} (2002) 011302 and 011301.
1316: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0204009;%%
1317: %
1318:
1319: \bibitem{KamLAND}
1320: K. Eguchi {\em et al.} (KamLAND collab.), \Jo{\PRL}{90}{021802}{2003}.
1321: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0212021;%%
1322:
1323: \bibitem{fogli} G.L. Fogli \textit{et al.}, hep-ph/0212127.
1324: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212127;%%
1325:
1326: \bibitem{SKatm00}
1327: % H.\ Sobel {\em et al.},
1328: % {\em Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.} {\bf 91} (2001) 127;
1329: M. Shiozawa (Super-Kamiokande collab.),
1330: talk at the Int. Conf. on Neutrino Physics and
1331: Astrophysics ``Neutrino'02'', May 25 - 30, 2002,
1332: Munich, Germany;
1333: G.L. Fogli \textit{et al.}, \Jo{\PRD}{66}{093008}{2002}.
1334: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208026;%%
1335:
1336:
1337: \bibitem{comb}
1338: M.S. Berger and B. Brahmachari, \Jo{\PRD}{60}{073009}{2000};
1339: M.S. Berger, \Jo{\PRD}{62}{013007}{2000};
1340: A.S. Joshipura, E.A. Paschos, hep-ph/9906498;
1341: H. Goldberg, \Jo{\PLB}{474}{389}{2000};
1342: E. Nezri, J. Orloff, hep-ph/0004227;
1343: D. Falcone, F. Tramontano, \Jo{\PRD}{63}{073007}{2001};
1344: \Jo{\PLB}{506}{1}{2001}; and F. Bucella, \Jo{\PLB}{524}{241}{2002};
1345: D. Falcone, \Jo{\PRD}{65}{077301}{2002}; \Jo{\PRD}{66}{053001}{2002};
1346: A.S. Joshipura, E.A. Paschos, and W. Rodejohann, \Jo{\NPB}{611}{227}{2001}.
1347: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909477;%% goldberg
1348: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011053;%% FT1
1349: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0101151;%% FT2
1350: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108172;%% FTB
1351: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111176;%% F1
1352: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204335;%% F2
1353: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004227;%% NO
1354: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906498;%% JP
1355: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104228;%% JPR
1356: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903406;%% BB
1357: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906490;%% B
1358:
1359: \bibitem{ich}A.S.~Joshipura, E.A.~Paschos and W.~Rodejohann,
1360: \Jo{\JHEP}{08}{029}{2001};
1361: W. Rodejohann, \Jo{\PLB}{542}{100}{2002}.
1362: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105175;%%
1363: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207053;%%
1364:
1365: \bibitem{others}H.B. Nielsen, Y. Takanishi, \Jo{\PLB}{507}{241}{2001};
1366: \Jo{\NPB}{636}{305}{2002};
1367: W. Buchm\"uller, D. Wyler, \Jo{\PLB}{521}{291}{2001};
1368: Z.Z. Xing, \Jo{\PLB}{545}{352}{2002};
1369: J. Ellis, M. Raidal, and T. Yanagida, \Jo{\PLB}{546}{228}{2002};
1370: S. Davidson, A. Ibarra, \Jo{\NPB}{648}{345}{2003};
1371: S.F. King, hep-ph/0211228.
1372: J.I. Silvia-Marcos, hep-ph/0212089.
1373: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0101307;%%
1374: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202030;%%
1375: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108216;%%
1376: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206245;%%
1377: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206300;%%
1378: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206304;%%
1379: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211228;%%
1380: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212089;%%
1381:
1382: \bibitem{others2}M. Hirsch, S.F. King, \Jo{\PRD}{64}{113005}{2001};
1383: G.C.\ Branco {\it et al.}, \Jo{\NPB}{640}{202}{2002};
1384: J. Ellis, M. Raidal, \Jo{\NPB}{643}{229}{2002}.
1385: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107014;%%
1386: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204027;%%
1387: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206174;%%
1388:
1389: \bibitem{nolowCP} M.N. Rebelo, \Jo{\PRD}{67}{013008}{2003}.
1390: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207236;%%
1391:
1392:
1393:
1394: \bibitem{23}P.H.\ Frampton, S.L.\ Glashow, and T.\ Yanagida,
1395: \Jo{\PLB}{548}{119}{2002};
1396: M.\ Raidal, A. Strumia, \Jo{\PLB}{553}{72}{2003}.
1397: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208157;%%
1398: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210021;%%
1399:
1400: \bibitem{231}T.\ Endoh {\it et al.}, \Jo{\PRL}{89}{231601}{2002}.
1401: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209020;%%
1402:
1403:
1404: \bibitem{triangular}T.\ Endoh {\it et al.}, \Jo{\PRD}{64}{013006}{2001};
1405: \Jo{ibid}{64}{059904}{2001} (E).
1406: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012345;%%
1407:
1408: \bibitem{lissac}G.C.\ Branco {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0211001.
1409: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211001;%%
1410:
1411: \bibitem{PKSP88} P.I. Krastev and S.T. Petcov,
1412: \Jo{\PLB}{205}{84}{1988}.
1413:
1414: \bibitem{first}W. Buchm\"uller, M. Pl\"umacher, \Jo{\PLB}{389}{73}{1996}.
1415: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9608308;%%
1416:
1417: \bibitem{berger}M.S. Berger, K. Siyeon, \Jo{\PRD}{65}{053019}{2002}.
1418: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110001;%%
1419:
1420: \bibitem{PMNS}B. Pontecorvo, {\em Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.} {\bf 33}, 549 (1957)
1421: and {\bf 34}, 247 (1958);
1422: Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata,
1423: {\em Prog. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 28}, 870 (1962).
1424: %%CITATION = SPHJA,6,429;%%
1425: %%CITATION = SPHJA,7,172;%%
1426: %%CITATION = PTPKA,28,870;%%
1427:
1428: \bibitem{BHP80}S.M. Bilenky, J. Hosek, and S.T. Petcov,
1429: \Jo{\PLB}{94}{495}{1980}.
1430: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B94,495;%%
1431:
1432:
1433:
1434: \bibitem{Doi81} M.~Doi \textit{et al.}, \Jo{\PLB}{102}{323}{1981}.
1435: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B102,323;%%
1436:
1437: \bibitem{CHOOZ} M.\ Apollonio \textit{et al.}
1438: (CHOOZ collab.), {\em Phys. Lett. }{\bf B 466}, 415 (1999);
1439: % \bibitem{PaloV}
1440: F. Boehm \textit{et al.} (Palo Verde collab.),
1441: {\em Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ } {\bf 84}, 3764 (2000) and
1442: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 62} 072002 (2000).
1443: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9907037;%%
1444: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9912050;%%
1445: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0003022;%%
1446:
1447:
1448: \bibitem{AMMS}M. Freund, {\it et al.}, \Jo{\NPB}{578}{27}{2000}.
1449: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912457;%%
1450:
1451: \bibitem{CPosc} See, e.g., M. Lindner,
1452: Invited talk at 20th International Conference on
1453: Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics (Neutrino 2002), Munich,
1454: Germany, 25-30 May 2002, hep-ph/0210377 and references quoted therein.
1455: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210377;%%
1456:
1457: \bibitem{Lang87} P. Langacker {\it et al.},
1458: \Jo{\NPB}{282}{589}{1987}.
1459: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B282,589;%%
1460:
1461: \bibitem{BGKP96} S.M. Bilenky \textit{et al.},
1462: \Jo{\PRD}{54}{4432}{1996}.
1463: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9604364;%%
1464:
1465: \bibitem{BPP1} S.M. Bilenky, S. Pascoli, and S.T. Petcov,
1466: \Jo{\PRD}{64}{053010}{2001}; S. Pascoli, S.T. Petcov and L. Wolfenstein,
1467: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 524}, 319 (2002).
1468: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102265;%%
1469: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B524,319;%%
1470:
1471: \bibitem{PPR1} W. Rodejohann, {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 597}, 110 (2001) and
1472: hep-ph/0203214; S. Pascoli, S.T. Petcov, and W. Rodejohann,
1473: \Jo{\PLB}{549}{177}{2002} and references quoted therein.
1474: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209059;%%
1475: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008044;%%
1476: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203214;%%
1477:
1478:
1479: \bibitem{ichJPG}W. Rodejohann, \Jo{\PRD}{62}{013011}{2000};
1480: {\em J. Phys.} {\bf G 28}, 1477 (2002) and references quoted
1481: therein.
1482: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003149;%%
1483: %%CITATION = JPHGB,G28,1477;%%
1484:
1485: \bibitem{kayser}A. de Gouvea, B. Kayser, and R. Mohapatra,
1486: hep-ph/0211394.
1487: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211394;%%
1488:
1489: \bibitem{sakharov}A.D. Sakharov, JETP Lett. {\bf 5}, 24 (1967).
1490: %%CITATION = ZFPRA,5,32;%%
1491:
1492: \bibitem{vertex}
1493: M.A. Luty, \Jo{\PRD}{45}{455}{1992};
1494: M. Flanz, E.A.~Paschos, and U.~Sarkar, \Jo{\PLB}{345}{248}{1995};
1495: M. Pl\"umacher, \Jo{\ZPC}{74}{549}{1997}.
1496: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D45,455;%%
1497: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9411366;%%
1498: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9604229;%%
1499:
1500: \bibitem{self}
1501: L. Covi, E. Roulet, and F. Vissani, \Jo{\PLB}{384}{169}{1996};
1502: M.~Flanz {\it et al.}, \Jo{\PLB}{389}{693}{1996};
1503: L. Covi, E. Roulet, \Jo{\PLB}{399}{113}{1997};
1504: A.~Pilaftsis, \Jo{\PRD}{56}{5431}{1997};
1505: W. Buchm\"uller, M. Pl\"umacher, \Jo{\PLB}{431}{354}{1998}.
1506: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9605319;%%
1507: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9607310;%%
1508: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9611425;%%
1509: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707235;%%
1510: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710460;%%
1511:
1512: \bibitem{conv}V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov, and M. E. Shaposhnikov,
1513: \Jo{\PLB}{155}{36}{1985};
1514: J.A. Harvey, M.S. Turner, \Jo{\PRD}{42}{3344}{1990}.
1515: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B155,36;%%
1516: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D42,3344;%%
1517:
1518: \bibitem{BiPet87} S.M.\ Bilenky and S.T.\ Petcov,
1519: {\em Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.} {\bf 59} (1987) 671.
1520: %%CITATION = RMPHA,59,671;%%
1521:
1522:
1523: \bibitem{SP76} S.T. Petcov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 25}, 340 (1977).
1524: %%CITATION = SJNCA,25,340;%%
1525:
1526: \bibitem{lfv} S.M. Bilenky, S.T. Petcov and B. Pontecorvo,
1527: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 67}, 309 (1977);
1528: T.P. Cheng and L. Li, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 45}, 1908 (1980).
1529: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B67,309;%%
1530: %%CITATION = PRLTA,45,1908;%%
1531:
1532:
1533: \bibitem{mega}M.L. Brooks {\it et al.} (MEGA collab.),
1534: \Jo{\PRL}{83}{1521}{1999}.
1535: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9905013;%%
1536:
1537: \bibitem{psi}L. Barkov {\it et al.}, available at
1538: http://www.icepp.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/meg.
1539:
1540: \bibitem{taulfv}BELLE Collaboration, K. Inami {\it et al.},
1541: hep-ex/0210036.
1542: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0210026;%%
1543:
1544: \bibitem{Ohshima} T. Ohshima, Talk given at the
1545: Int. Workshop on Neutrino Oscillations and their Origin (NOON2001),
1546: December 2001, ICRR, Univ. of Tokyo, Kashowa, Japan.
1547:
1548:
1549: \bibitem{borz}F. Borzumati, A. Masiero, \Jo{\PRL}{57}{961}{1986}.
1550: %%CITATION = PRLTA,57,961;%%
1551:
1552: \bibitem{iba}J.A.\ Casas, A. Ibarra, \Jo{\NPB}{618}{171}{2002}.
1553: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103065;%%
1554:
1555:
1556: \bibitem{JohnE}J. Ellis {\it et al.},
1557: {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 621}, 208 (2002);
1558: \Jo{\PRD}{66}{115013}{2002}.
1559: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109125;%%
1560: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206110;%%
1561:
1562:
1563:
1564: \bibitem{0vbbrev}O. Cremonesi, Invited talk at the
1565: XXth Internat. Conf. on Neutrino Physics and Astro physics (Neutrino 2002),
1566: Munich, Germany, May 25-30, 2002, hep-ex/0210007.
1567: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0210007;%%
1568:
1569: \bibitem{oscrev}See the recent reviews
1570: M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Y. Nir, hep-ph/0202058;
1571: S. Pakvasa, and J.W.F. Valle, hep-ph/0301061.
1572: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202058;%%
1573: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301061;%%
1574: \bibitem{seesaw}M. Gell--Mann, P. Ramond,
1575: and R. Slansky in {\it Supergravity},
1576: p. 315, edited by F. Nieuwenhuizen
1577: and D. Friedman, North Holland,
1578: Amsterdam, 1979;
1579: T. Yanagida, Proc. of the
1580: {\it Workshop on Unified Theories and the Baryon
1581: Number of the Universe}, edited by
1582: O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto, KEK, Japan 1979;
1583: R.N. Mohapatra, G. Senjanovic, \Jo{\PRL}{44}{912}{1980}.
1584: %%CITATION = PRLTA,44,912;%%
1585: \bibitem{earlier}A.Yu. Smirnov, \Jo{\PRD}{48}{3264}{1993};
1586: M. Tanimoto, \Jo{\PLB}{345}{477}{1995};
1587: G. Altarelli, F. Ferruglio, and I. Masina,
1588: \Jo{\PLB}{472}{382}{2000};
1589: E.K. Akhmedov, G.C. Branco, and M.N. Rebelo, \Jo{\PLB}{478}{215}{2000}.
1590: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9304205;%%
1591: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9503318;%%
1592: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907532;%%
1593: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911364;%%
1594: \bibitem{king}See, e.g.,
1595: M. Frigerio, A.Yu. Smirnov, \Jo{\NPB}{640}{233}{2002};
1596: S.F. King, \Jo{\JHEP}{0209}{011}{2002}.
1597: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202247;%%
1598: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204360;%%
1599: \bibitem{PMNS}B. Pontecorvo, {\em Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.} {\bf 33}, 549 (1957)
1600: and {\bf 34}, 247 (1958);
1601: Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata,
1602: {\em Prog. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 28}, 870 (1962).
1603: %%CITATION = SPHJA,6,429;%%
1604: %%CITATION = SPHJA,7,172;%%
1605: %%CITATION = PTPKA,28,870;%%
1606: \bibitem{leptogenesis}M. Fukugita, T. Yanagida, \Jo{\PLB}{174}{45}{1986}.
1607: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B174,45;%%
1608: \bibitem{leptorev}A.~Pilaftis, \Jo{\IJMP}{14}{1811}{1999};
1609: W.~Buchm\"uller, M.~Pl\"umacher, \Jo{\IJMP}{15}{5047}{2000}.
1610: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812256;%%
1611: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007176;%%
1612: \bibitem{washout}W.~Buchm\"uller, P. Di Bari, and M.~Pl\"umacher,
1613: \Jo{\NPB}{643}{367}{2002}
1614: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205349;%%
1615: \bibitem{gravitino}
1616: M.Y. Khlopov and A.D. Linde, \Jo{\PLB}{138}{265}{1984};
1617: J. Ellis, J.E. Kim, and D.V. Nanopoulos, \Jo{\PLB}{145}{1984}{181};
1618: M. Kawasaki, and T. Moroi, {\em Prog. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 93}, 879 (1995);
1619: E. Holtmann {\it et al.}, \Jo{\PRD}{60}{023506}{1999}.
1620: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B138,265;%%
1621: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B145,181;%%
1622: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9403364;%%
1623: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9805405;%%
1624: \bibitem{branco}G.C. Branco, T. Morozumi, and B.M. Nobre,
1625: \Jo{\NPB}{617}{475}{2001}; M.N. Rebelo, \Jo{\PRD}{67}{013008}{2003}.
1626: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107164;%%
1627: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207236;%%
1628: \bibitem{PPR3}S. Pascoli, S.T. Petcov, and W. Rodejohann, hep-ph/0302054.
1629: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302054;%%
1630: \bibitem{ibarra}S. Davidson, and A. Ibarra, \Jo{\PLB}{535}{25}{2002}.
1631: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202239;%%
1632: \bibitem{lfv}F. Borzumati, A. Masiero, \Jo{\PRL}{57}{961}{1986}.
1633: %%CITATION = PRLTA,57,961;%%
1634: \bibitem{radcor}See, e.g.,
1635: P.H.~Chankowski, S.\ Pokorski,
1636: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 17} (2002) 575
1637: and references therein; for the
1638: scenario under study see the discussion in the third
1639: reference in \cite{earlier}.
1640: The stability of $J_{CP}$ has been analyzed in C.W. Chiang,
1641: \Jo{\PRD}{63}{076009}{2001}.
1642: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110249;%%
1643: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011195;%%
1644: \bibitem{t13}See, e.g., M. Lindner,
1645: Invited talk at XXth International Conference on
1646: Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics (Neutrino 2002), Munich,
1647: Germany, 25-30 May 2002, hep-ph/0210377 and references therein.
1648: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210377;%%
1649: \bibitem{Ue3}Some recent redictions for $U_{e3}$ through
1650: radiatice corrections
1651: A.~S.~Joshipura, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf B 543}, 276 (2002);
1652: R.~N.~Mohapatra, M.~K.~Parida and G.~Rajasekaran, hep-ph/0301234;
1653: in the type II see--saw mechanism:
1654: H.~S.~Goh, R.~N.~Mohapatra and S.~P.~Ng, hep-ph/0303055;
1655: for Fritzsch type mass matrices:
1656: M.~Fukugita, M.~Tanimoto and T.~Yanagida, hep-ph/0303177;
1657: from physics above the GUT scale:
1658: F.~Vissani, M.~Narayan and V.~Berezinsky, hep-ph/0305233.
1659: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205038;%%
1660: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301234;%%
1661: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303055;%%
1662: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303177;%%
1663: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305255;%%
1664: See also the reviews
1665: S.~M.~Barr and I.~Dorsner,
1666: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 585} (2000) 79;
1667: M.~Tanimoto, hep-ph/0305274 and references therein.
1668: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003058;%%
1669: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305274;%%
1670: \bibitem{others}See, e.g.,
1671: A.S.~Joshipura, E.A.~Paschos and W.~Rodejohann,
1672: \Jo{\JHEP}{08}{029}{2001};
1673: W. Buchm\"uller, D. Wyler, \Jo{\PLB}{521}{291}{2001};
1674: G.C.\ Branco {\it et al.}, \Jo{\NPB}{640}{202}{2002};
1675: H.B. Nielsen, Y. Takanishi,\Jo{\NPB}{636}{305}{2002};
1676: J. Ellis, M. Raidal, \Jo{\NPB}{643}{229}{2002}.
1677: Z.Z. Xing, \Jo{\PLB}{545}{352}{2002};
1678: S. Davidson, A. Ibarra, \Jo{\NPB}{648}{345}{2003};
1679: W. Rodejohann, \Jo{\PLB}{542}{100}{2002};
1680: P.H.\ Frampton, S.L.\ Glashow, and T.\ Yanagida,
1681: \Jo{\PLB}{548}{119}{2002};
1682: T.\ Endoh {\it et al.}, \Jo{\PRL}{89}{231601}{2002};
1683: S.F. King, hep-ph/0211228;
1684: S. Kaneko, M. Katsumata, and M. Tanimoto, hep-ph/0305014.
1685: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211001;%%
1686: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105175;%%
1687: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108216;%%
1688: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202030;%%
1689: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204027;%%
1690: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206174;%%
1691: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206245;%%
1692: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206304;%%
1693: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207053;%%
1694: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208157;%%
1695: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209020;%%
1696: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211228;%%
1697: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305014;%%
1698: \bibitem{JCP}G.C.\ Branco {\it et al.}, \Jo{\PRD}{67}{073025}{2003}.
1699: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211001;%%
1700: \bibitem{0vbb}O. Cremonesi, Invited talk at the
1701: XXth Internat. Conf. on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics (Neutrino 2002),
1702: Munich, Germany, May 25-30, 2002, hep-ex/0210007.
1703: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0210007;%%
1704:
1705:
1706:
1707: \begin{samepage}
1708: \begin{figure}
1709: \begin{center}
1710: \epsfig{file=examix22.ps,width=13cm,height=8cm}
1711: \caption{\label{fig:examix22}
1712: Result for the mixing angle in a $2 \times 2$,
1713: Eq.\ (\ref{eq:t2t22}), obtained for
1714: hierarchical Dirac and Majorana neutrino mass matrices
1715: $m_D$ and $M_R$ and different values of the relevant parameters. }
1716: \end{center}
1717: \end{figure}
1718:
1719: \begin{figure}
1720: \begin{center}
1721: \hspace{-1cm}
1722: \epsfig{file=examix33.ps,width=19cm,height=25cm}
1723: \vspace{-18cm}
1724: \caption{\label{fig:examix33}
1725: Result for the mixing parameters $\sin^2 \theta_{13}$ (dashed--dotted) and
1726: $\tan^2 \theta_{12}$ (solid),
1727: as obtained from Eqs.\ (\ref{eq:t13},\ref{eq:t12}),
1728: for $a = 3, \, b = 2$ (left) and $a = 2, \, b = 1$ (right)
1729: as a function of the leptogenesis phase $\beta$. The range of these
1730: quantities as implied by experiment is indicated.
1731: Plotted is also the
1732: decay asymmetry $\varepsilon_1$ from Eq.\ (\ref{eq:vareps3}) multiplied with
1733: $10^5$ (dotted).}
1734: \end{center}
1735: \end{figure}
1736: