1: \documentclass[superscriptaddress,prd,preprint,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}

3: \usepackage{graphicx,epsfig}

4: %

5: %

6: \def\simgt{\mathrel{\lower2.5pt\vbox{\lineskip=0pt\baselineskip=0pt

7:            \hbox{$>$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

8: \def\simlt{\mathrel{\lower2.5pt\vbox{\lineskip=0pt\baselineskip=0pt

9:            \hbox{$<$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

10: \newcommand{\abs}[1]{\left\vert#1\right\vert}

11: \def\spur#1{\mathord{\not\mathrel{#1}}}

12: \def\vev#1{\left\langle#1\right\rangle}

13: %

14: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

15: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

16: \def\beqa{\begin{eqnarray}}

17: \def\eeqa{\end{eqnarray}}

18: %%

19: %%

20: %%

21: \begin{document}

22: 

23: \preprint{UCB-PTH-03/34}

24: \preprint{LBNL-54211}

25: \preprint{BUHEP-03-22}

26: 

27: \title{CMB Signals of Neutrino Mass Generation}

28: 

29: \author{Z.~Chacko}

30: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley,\\

31:       and\\

32:       Theoretical Physics Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,\\

33:       Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}

34: \author{Lawrence J.~Hall}

35: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley,\\

36:       and\\

37:       Theoretical Physics Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,\\

38:       Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}

39: \author{Takemichi Okui}

40: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Boston University,\\

41:      Boston, MA 02215, USA}

42: \author{Steven J.~Oliver}

43: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley,\\

44:                           and\\

45:       Theoretical Physics Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,\\

46:       Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}

47: 

48: \begin{abstract}

49: We propose signals in the cosmic microwave background to probe the type 

50: and spectrum of neutrino masses. In theories that have spontaneous breaking 

51: of approximate lepton flavor symmetries at or below the weak scale, 

52: light pseudo-Goldstone  bosons recouple to the cosmic neutrinos after 

53: nucleosynthesis  and affect the acoustic oscillations  of the electron-photon 

54: fluid during the eV era. Deviations from the Standard Model are predicted for 

55: both the total energy density in radiation during this epoch, $\Delta N_\nu$, 

56: and for the multipole of the n'th CMB peak at large n, $\Delta l_n$. The latter 

57: signal is difficult to reproduce other than by scattering of the known neutrinos, 

58: and is therefore an ideal test of our class of theories. In many models, the 

59: large shift $\Delta l_n \approx 8 n_S$ depends on the number of neutrino species 

60: that scatter via the pseudo-Goldstone  boson interaction. This interaction is 

61: proportional to the neutrino masses, so that the signal reflects the neutrino 

62: spectrum. The prediction for $\Delta N_\nu$ is highly model dependent, but can 

63: be accurately computed within any given model. It is very sensitive to the number 

64: of pseudo-Goldstone bosons, and therefore to the underlying symmetries of the 

65: leptons, and is typically in the region of $0.03 < \Delta N_\nu < 1$. This signal 

66: is significantly larger for Majorana neutrinos than for Dirac neutrinos, and, 

67: like the scattering signal, varies as the spectrum of neutrinos is changed 

68: from hierarchical to inverse hierarchical to degenerate.

69: \end{abstract}

70: 

71: \maketitle

72: %%

73: %%

74: %%

75: \section{\label{sec:intro} Introduction}

76: 

77: Over the last five years, a variety of experiments, involving

78: neutrinos from the sun, atmospheric air showers, nuclear reactors and

79: accelerators, have amassed compelling evidence that neutrinos have

80: non-zero masses \cite{neutrinomass}. A remarkable feature of this data is

81: that the two measured leptonic mixing angles are large. This was a

82: surprise: theories which unify quarks and leptons had led to the

83: expectation that the mixing amongst leptons, like that between quarks,

84: would be small. Hence the data has sparked considerable activity

85: directed toward understanding the origin of these large mixing

86: angles.  The more fundamental question of why the neutrino masses are

87: so much smaller than the charged fermion masses has received less

88: attention. There is a general belief that this problem was solved many

89: years ago by the seesaw mechanism \cite{seesaw}. Indeed, one sometimes

90: forgets that the data has not confirmed the seesaw mechanism, and it

91: is worth stressing that there is no known experiment or observation

92: which could test this plausible idea. Given our current theoretical

93: understanding of effective field theories, the seesaw mechanism does

94: indeed appear to give a very natural explanation for the lightness of

95: the neutrinos.  But this, like the belief in small mixing angles, is a

96: theoretical prejudice, and in neutrino physics we have learnt to

97: expect surprises.

98: 

99: In this paper we pursue an alternative idea: the neutrinos are light

100: because they are protected from acquiring a mass by a global symmetry

101: which is not broken until energies at or beneath the weak scale. The

102: philosophy is precisely opposite to that of the seesaw mechanism ---

103: the underlying physics is not all at extremely high energies where it is

104: hard to test, rather some is at very low energies, and we have missed it

105: because it couples only to neutrinos. Instead of right-handed

106: neutrinos acquiring very large masses at some high scale of lepton

107: number breaking, neutrino masses arise from symmetry breaking at much lower

108: energies. We explore the cosmological consequences of neutrino mass

109: generation at a phase transition at or below the weak scale. 

110: 

111: While we do not know of

112: laboratory tests for this idea, signals in the cosmic

113: microwave background (CMB) could not only answer whether the neutrinos

114: are Majorana or Dirac, but also distinguish between the 

115: hierarchical, inverted and degenerate patterns of neutrino 

116: masses. This signal results because the acoustic oscillations at the

117: eV era are sensitive to the total energy density in relativistic

118: particles and to whether these relativistic particles scatter or

119: free-stream. A measurement of the energy density of this radiation at the few

120: percent level, and especially its scattering characteristics,

121: will probe physical processes occurring in the

122: neutrino fluid at and before the eV era.

123: 

124: \section{Neutrino Mass Generation}

125: \label{sec:numass}

126: 

127: \subsection{Why are Neutrinos Light?}

128: 

129: The mass scale of all the quarks and charged leptons is set by the

130: scale $v$ of electroweak symmetry breaking: $\vev{h} = v$, 

131: where $h$ is the electroweak Higgs field. 

132: The interaction generating these masses is assumed to

133: have the form $\overline{\psi}_L \psi_R h$, where $\psi$ can be any of the

134: quarks or charged leptons. If neutrino masses also originate from such

135: an interaction, it is hard to understand why neutrinos would be so

136: much lighter than the charged fermions. The beauty of the seesaw

137: mechanism is that it explains why, of all the fermions, it is the

138: neutrinos which are light. The only fermion that does not couple to

139: the known gauge interactions is the right-handed neutrino, and hence

140: it is not protected by gauge symmetry from acquiring a large Majorana 

141: mass, $M_R$. On integrating it out of the theory, the left-handed 

142: lepton doublet $\ell$ acquires an interaction which is bilinear in $h$

143: %

144: \begin{equation}

145: \frac{1}{M_R} \ell\ell \; hh,

146: \label{eq:seesaw1}

147: \end{equation}

148: %

149: leading to a neutrino mass which is quadratic in $v$, $m_\nu \approx

150: v^2/M_R$, rather than the linear formula that applies to the charged

151: fermions: $m \approx v$. Indeed, Eqn. (\ref{eq:seesaw1}) provides a 

152: more primitive understanding of why the neutrinos are light. As long 

153: as the low energy effective theory does not contain right-handed neutrinos, 

154: there are no renormalizable operators that give a neutrino mass --- the first 

155: neutrino mass operator appears at dimension 5.

156: 

157: We propose instead that the neutrinos are protected from acquiring a mass 

158: at the weak scale by a global symmetry, as in {\cite{majoron1}}, 

159: {\cite{majoron2}}.

160: The operator (\ref{eq:seesaw1}) does not possess such a symmetry, and hence is

161: not the TeV description of neutrino masses we seek. The operators relevant for

162: neutrino masses must involve a new scalar field $\phi$ which carries a charge

163: under the global symmetry. Thus the TeV description of neutrino masses is given

164: by operators of the form

165: %

166: \begin{equation}

167:  \ell n \; h  \left({\phi \over M}\right)^N, \;  \; \;  

168:   \ell\ell \; {hh \over M} \left({\phi \over M}\right)^N,

169: \label{eq:tevops}

170: \end{equation}

171: %

172: where $n$ represents the right-handed neutrino, $M$ is a mass scale

173: larger than $v$, and $N$ is a positive integer. 

174: The first operator applies if lepton number is

175: conserved, leading to Dirac neutrino masses, otherwise the second

176: operator applies and the neutrinos are Majorana. Unlike the case of

177: the seesaw mechanism, there is no preference for the neutrinos to be

178: Majorana.  Very stringent bounds would result if the Goldstone

179: coupled to charged leptons and quarks; but these couplings are 

180: predicted to be absent because the charged fermion masses are not 

181: protected by the global symmetry. 

182: 

183: At sufficiently high temperatures in the hot big bang, the $\phi$ and

184: $n$ particles will be in thermal equilibrium with the particles of the

185: standard model. However, if $\phi$ and $n$ only interact with standard

186: model particles via (\ref{eq:tevops}), then they will drop out of

187: thermal equilibrium as the universe cools so that there is an era of

188: two separate sectors. During this era we assume that sufficient

189: entropy is created in the standard model sector, from phase transitions

190: or from heavy particle annihilations, so that the temperature rises

191: significantly above that of the $(\phi,n)$ sector. Hence big bang

192: nucleosynthesis is essentially unchanged by the extra sector. 

193: 

194: Below we describe a minimal model for the flavor

195: symmetry breaking sector. However, the details of any particular model

196: are not as important as the model independent mechanism. Once symmetry

197: breaking occurs in the $\phi$ sector, a set of Goldstone bosons, $G$,

198: are produced. The CMB signals result from the interactions of $G$

199: with neutrinos at very low energies, and will be discussed in section III. 

200: 

201: \subsection{A Minimal Model: $U(1)_L$}

202: 

203: We choose the global symmetry to be lepton number, $U(1)_L$, defined

204: with charge +1 on all neutrino fields ({\it i.e.} on both $\nu_i$ and $n_i$).

205: Just below the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking the neutrino mass 

206: generation sector is described by

207: %

208: \begin{equation}

209: \mathcal{L}_\nu 

210:  = \sqrt{2} g_i 

211:      \left( \nu_i n_i \phi, \; \frac{1}{ 2} \nu_i \nu_i \phi \right) 

212:       + \mbox{h.c.}

213:    - (- \mu^2 \phi^\dagger \phi + \frac{\lambda}{2} (\phi^\dagger \phi)^2)

214: \label{eq:minmod}

215: \end{equation}

216: %

217: together with kinetic energy terms for $\nu_i, \phi$ (and for $n_i$ if the

218: neutrino is Dirac). For simplicity we have taken the neutrino interaction

219: to be linear in $\phi$ by requiring

220: the complex scalar $\phi$ to have lepton number $-2$.

221: The index $i$ runs over the three generations of

222: neutrinos, and we have rotated the neutrino fields to a mass

223: eigenstate basis. Small values for the dimensionless couplings $g_i$ 

224: are perfectly natural, reflecting the hierarchy between $v$ and $M$.

225: 

226: We have taken the sign of the scalar mass term

227: negative to ensure that $U(1)_L$ is

228: spontaneously broken, $\vev{\phi} = f/\sqrt{2} = \mu/ \sqrt{\lambda}$.

229: This minimal model does not address the origin of the neutrino mass

230: ratios, which follow from $g_{1,2}/g_3$. We assume the largest

231: coupling, $g_3$, does not involve any small dimensionless parameter,

232: so that $g_3$ is $v/M$  for the Dirac case or $(v/M)^2$ for the

233: Majorana case, giving a neutrino mass

234: $m_{\nu_3}$ of $(v/M)f$ or $(v/M)^2 f$ respectively.

235: The mass scale $M$ is then

236: $(f/m_{\nu_3})v$ or $\sqrt{f/m_{\nu_3}} \; v$, respectively. This should be

237: compared with the seesaw result: $M_R \approx (v/m_{\nu_3})v \approx

238: 10^{12}v$. For $f \ll v$, the scale of the underlying 

239: physics is reduced: $M \ll M_R$. At what scale, $f$, should the global symmetry

240: be broken? If we take $f$

241: all the way down to $m_{\nu_3}$, then $M \approx v$ so that the physics

242: generating the non-renormalizable operators (\ref{eq:tevops}) becomes

243: accessible to high energy colliders. However, in this case the

244: dimensionless coupling $g_3$ is of order unity, so that in the early universe

245: both $\phi$ and $n$ become part of the thermal bath

246: during the MeV era, conflicting with big bang nucleosynthesis \cite{BBN}. 

247: If $f$ were larger than the electroweak scale, then $g_3 \simlt 10^{-12}$,

248: which is too small to generate the CMB signals we have in mind. 

249: Hence we study an intermediate situation where 

250: %

251: \begin{equation}

252: m_\nu \ll f \simlt v.

253: \label{eq:f}

254: \end{equation}

255: %

256: We will construct theories in which such low symmetry breaking scales arise

257: naturally in section \ref{sec:susy}. Breaking lepton number below the weak

258: scale also avoids the potential danger that the baryon asymmetry will be

259: erased {\cite{Olive}}.

260: 

261: In the spontaneously broken phase, $\phi = (f + H+iG)/ \sqrt{2}$, 

262: where $G$ is a physical Goldstone boson, and $H$ a

263: Higgs boson. The coupling of the neutrino to $G$ and $H$ is given by

264: %

265: \begin{equation}

266: \mathcal{L}_\nu = g_i \left( \nu_i n_i,  \;

267:                       \frac{1}{ 2} \nu_i \nu_i \right) (H+iG).

268: \label{eq:GHint}

269: \end{equation}

270: %

271: 

272: The analysis of this paper is almost entirely based on these

273: couplings, and the symmetry breaking sector that leads to them is of

274: lesser importance. The masses of $G$ and $H$ play a very important

275: role. If the self interactions of $\phi$ are of order unity, then one

276: expects $m_H \approx f$. In this case it is $G$ which is of interest

277: to us. We assume that $G$ is actually a pseudo-Goldstone boson, 

278: with a non-zero mass $m_G$, as studied in {\cite{massivemajoron}}. If this

279: mass arises from a dimension 5 interaction suppressed by the Planck

280: scale, $M_P$, then we expect $m_G^2 \approx f^3/M_P$. We will not

281: limit ourselves to this case, but take $m_G \ll f$ to be a free

282: parameter.  If $\phi$ is weakly coupled so that $m_H \ll f$, then the

283: Higgs can also play an important role in generating CMB

284: signals. However, Higgs particles lighter than $f$ require further

285: small parameters.  In this paper we focus on signals from

286: pseudo-Goldstone bosons (PGBs). They are naturally light, and they

287: interact with neutrinos only via the couplings $g_i$.  Furthermore,

288: they generically have interactions among themselves with strength

289: proportional to explicit symmetry breaking that gives PGBs mass.  In

290: more general models of spontaneously broken lepton flavor symmetry

291: there are many PGBs, $G_A$.

292: 

293: \subsection{Origins of CMB Signals}

294: 

295: The interactions of PGBs with neutrinos can alter the energy density

296: in neutrinos and cause neutrinos to scatter

297: rather than free stream during the eV era. Both effects leave

298: characteristic signals in the CMB.  The PGBs, $G_A$, interact only via

299: the small dimensionless couplings $g_i$ to neutrinos, implying that in

300: the early universe the rate for neutrinos to scatter into $G_A$ has a

301: recoupling form; that is, the rate increases relative to the expansion

302: rate as the temperature, $T$, drops.  At some recoupling temperature

303: some subset of the $n_i,G_A$ sector recouples to the left-handed

304: neutrinos, $\nu_i$, so that this subset gets reheated. Different subsets

305: may get reheated at various recoupling temperatures. However, while

306: this reheating creates entropy, it does not change the total radiation

307: energy density, so recoupling itself does not lead to a change in the

308: radiation energy density at the eV era. 

309: 

310: As the $\nu,n,G$ fluid cools, the temperature will drop beneath the

311: mass of one of the PGBs, $G_H$. Since $G_H$ is in thermal equilibrium

312: with $\nu,n$ and $G_A$, its number density becomes exponentially

313: reduced via decays or annihilations and the neutrino fluid is

314: adiabatically heated, which {\em does} lead to a change in the

315: radiation energy density.  The size of this signal depends on how many

316: right-handed neutrinos and scalars are recoupled, which depends on

317: whether the neutrinos are Dirac or Majorana and on the strength of the

318: couplings $g_i$ that each neutrino has with $G_A$.  Provided $G_H$ has

319: recoupled and then disappeared before the eV era, the cosmic microwave

320: background will have acoustic oscillations which reflect a radiation

321: energy density that differs from standard cosmology and depends on the

322: type and spectrum of the neutrinos.

323: 

324: If a light PGB recouples to neutrinos before the eV era, but has a mass

325: less than 1 eV, it may prevent one or more of the neutrino species

326: from free-streaming. In the standard model, neutrino free streaming

327: shifts the multipoles of the nth CMB peak by a large amount, $\Delta l

328: \approx -23$, at large $l$, so the absence of free-streaming will produce a 

329: large signal in future CMB datasets.

330: 

331: 

332: \section{The CMB Signals.}

333: \label{sec:cmbsignals}

334: 

335: In the previous section we have discussed an alternative origin for

336: light neutrino masses, involving extra states at low energy, including

337: Goldstone bosons, Higgs and possibly right-handed neutrino states. We

338: have outlined how the interaction of these extra states could lead to

339: signals in the CMB. In this section we study each of the CMB signals

340: in some depth. We give general formulas for both signals in a model

341: independent way, and discuss the range of new physics which could lead

342: to each signal.

343: 

344: \subsection{\label{subsec:rhorelsig} The Relativistic Energy Density Signal}

345: 

346: Measurements of the precise form of the CMB acoustic oscillations

347: provide a powerful constraint on the relativistic energy density of

348: the universe during the eV era, $\rho_{rel}$. In the standard model,

349: $\rho_{rel}$ is precisely predicted during this era, so these

350: measurements are powerful probes of non-standard physics.  Increasing

351: $\rho_{rel}$ has several physical effects. For example,  last scatter

352: occurs at a fixed temperature, and hence as  $\rho_{rel}$ increases so

353: the time at last scatter decreases. This decreases the horizon at last

354: scatter and hence shifts the acoustic peaks to higher multipole

355: $l$. An increase in  $\rho_{rel}$ leads to a  lowering of the redshift

356: of matter radiation equality. This leads to larger amplitude acoustic peaks

357: at low $l$ \cite{Hu:1995fq}, and a marked increase in the

358: damping of the peaks at large $l$ \cite{BS}.

359: 

360: What mechanism would allow the total radiation energy density during

361: the eV era to differ from that predicted by standard cosmology? 

362: We begin by discussing three important types of process: fragmentation, 

363: recoupling and disappearance by decay or annihilation.

364: 

365: In cosmology it is well known that particles which interact with

366: each other at very high temperature may no longer have thermal

367: communication at lower temperature. In general one should expect that

368: as the universe cools the fluid fragments into multiple components or

369: sectors. This fragmentation occurs whenever there are no large

370: renormalizable interactions between particles. Neutrinos provide the 

371: most familiar example: below the weak scale they only interact via the

372: non-renormalizable Fermi interaction and they fragment away from the

373: electron/photon fluid at the MeV era. It appears quite likely that

374: dark matter and dark energy are sectors that fragmented from the

375: visible sector at some stage of cosmological evolution. We therefore

376: write the relativistic energy density after fragmentation of the known 

377: neutrinos as

378: %

379: \begin{equation}

380: \rho_{rel} = \frac{\pi^2}{ 30} \left( 2 T^4 + g_\nu T_\nu^4 

381:               + \sum_a g_a T_a^4 \right)

382: \label{eq:rhorad}

383: \end{equation}

384: %

385: where $T,T_\nu,T_a$ are the temperatures of the photons, neutrinos and

386: other sectors and the spin degeneracies $g_\nu, g_a$ for neutrinos and

387: other radiation sectors include a factor of 7/8 for fermions. It is

388: not always necessary that each sector actually be in thermal

389: equilibrium. For example, during this era in the standard cosmology

390: the neutrinos are free-streaming.  In the standard cosmology, $g_a =

391: 0$, $g_\nu=21/4$ and $T_\nu = (4/11)^{1/3} T$, so that

392: %

393: \begin{equation}

394: \rho_{rel} = \frac{\pi^2}{ 30} (2 + 0.45 N_\nu) T^4

395: \label{eq:rhorad2}

396: \end{equation}

397: %

398: where the number of neutrinos, $N_\nu$, is 3. In non-standard

399: cosmologies we use (\ref{eq:rhorad2}) to define $N_\nu$, so that

400: $N_\nu$ may differ from 3 even if there are three species of neutrinos.

401: 

402: It is important to distinguish two very different ways in which CMB

403: experiments could measure $N_\nu \neq 3$.  If $N_\nu$ does not change

404: between nucleosynthesis (BBN) and the eV era (CMB), then CMB could

405: then discover $\delta N_\nu = \pm (0.5 - 1.0)$, depending on the

406: uncertainties from BBN. Such a signal could be very significant given

407: the small uncertainties possible in future CMB measurements. Since

408: $N_\nu = (\rho_\nu + \sum_a \rho_a)/ 0.23\rho_\gamma$, this could

409: probe the radiation density $\rho_a$ in some sector that fragmented

410: from the standard model sector before, perhaps much before, BBN.

411: 

412: Perhaps less well known than the phenomenon of fragmentation is that of

413: recoupling. If the renormalizable couplings between particles in 

414: different fragmented sectors are small rather than vanishing,

415: then eventually, as the universe cools, the

416: sectors will recouple back into a single thermal component. The

417: smaller the renormalizable coupling the lower the recoupling

418: temperature.

419: 

420: In this paper we will be concerned with recoupling contributing to a signal

421: arising from a change in the ratio $(\rho_\nu + \sum_a \rho_a)/ \rho_\gamma$

422: between BBN and CMB \cite{BBNCMB}. We find such a possibility particularly

423: exciting because it indicates that new physics is affecting cosmological

424: evolution after BBN. It could arise from a non-standard evolution of

425: $\rho_\gamma$ or of ($\rho_\nu + \sum_a \rho_a$). Particularly large effects

426: result if the electron/photon fluid recouples to some previously fragmented

427: sector of spin degeneracy $g$. If the temperature of the fragmented sector

428: is small prior to recoupling, the photon cooling results in a large relative

429: increase in the importance of the neutrinos, giving $\delta N_\nu = 3.7 g$.

430: This has already been excluded by the first year of the WMAP data

431: {\cite{WMAP}}, except for the case of $g=1$

432: \cite{BBN}\cite{Hannestad:2003xv}. Photon heating is also possible, for

433: example from the out-of-equilibrium decay of a non-relativistic species.

434: 

435: A particularly important way of changing the radiation density of any

436: sector is if some particle species in that sector becomes

437: non-relativistic. If the number density of the heavy particle

438: maintains an exponentially suppressed equilibrium form, then the decay

439: or annihilation of the particle occurs at constant entropy.  This results

440: in an increase in the temperature of the remaining radiation of that

441: sector by a factor $(g_i/g_f)^{1/3}$, where $g_i$ and $g_f$ are spin

442: degeneracies of the radiation of that sector before and after the

443: disappearance of the heavy species. This mechanism is familiar from

444: the annihilation of electron/positron pairs which heat the photons

445: giving $T_\nu = (4/11)^{1/3} T_\gamma$.  As an example of a

446: non-standard evolution of $\rho_\gamma$, suppose that the photon

447: first recouples to a sector of spin degeneracy $g$, and then all the

448: species of that sector become non-relativistic before the eV era, the

449: CMB signal is $\delta N_\nu = 3(2/(2+g))^{1/3} -3$. A wide range of

450: $g$ is allowed by the WMAP data and could be observed by future CMB

451: experiments.

452: 

453: In this paper, we will be interested in the case that a CMB signal

454: arises because of a non-standard evolution of $\rho_\nu + \sum_a

455: \rho_a$ after BBN, even though the signals tend to be smaller than

456: those which arise from a non-standard evolution of $\rho_\gamma$.

457: Such a signal could arise whenever some particle of a fragmented

458: sector becomes non-relativistic and disappears. While the temperature

459: of this sector would rise by a factor of $(g_i/g_f)^{1/3}$, this

460: typically does not give an observable signal since the energy density

461: in the sector is highly sub-dominant. We will explore theories of

462: neutrino mass generation where the sector that generates the neutrino

463: masses, including the right-handed neutrinos if they are Dirac,

464: recouples to the sector of the left-handed neutrinos. This recoupling

465: ensures that the physics of the new sector is not sub-dominant. While

466: the recoupling of two such relativistic sectors does not by itself lead to a

467: change in the total energy density\footnote{When heat is exchanged

468: between two relativistic sectors, the form of the energy momentum

469: tensor is not changed, hence the expansion rate of the universe is

470: also unchanged. Since there is no change in the gravitational energy,

471: the total fluid energy is unchanged.}, the effects of particle decay

472: or annihilation in the new sector does give signals which depend on the

473: type and spectrum of the neutrinos, and on the mass generation

474: mechanism, and which can be computed from equilibrium thermodynamics.

475: 

476: Suppose that after BBN $n_R$ of the left-handed neutrino species

477: recouple to some sector of $G,n$ particles with spin degeneracy

478: $g$. This recoupling may occur at a variety of temperatures, but we

479: assume that at some stage the resulting $\nu,G,n$ fluid thermalizes at

480: a single temperature. Subsequently we assume that some subset of the

481: states of this recoupled sector, with spin degeneracy $g_H$, become

482: heavy. As the universe expands further, but well before the eV era,

483: the number density of the heavy states becomes exponentially

484: suppressed so that their entropy is transferred to the lighter

485: states. This may occur at several stages with different heavy species

486: having different masses. If the whole process occurs without chemical

487: potentials, then the prediction for the relativistic energy

488: density during the eV era is then given by

489: %

490: \begin{equation}

491: N_\nu =  3 - n_R + n_R \left( 

492: \frac{n_R +\frac{4}{ 7} g }{ n_R + \frac{4}{ 7} (g - g_H)} \right)^{1/3}.

493: \label{eq:Nnuenergy}

494: \end{equation}

495: %

496: 

497: In the case where the recoupling reactions lead to chemical potentials

498: this prediction is modified.  It is no longer sufficient to

499: calculate the neutrino temperature after the pseudo-Goldstone bosons

500: disappear.  Instead, both the temperature and all chemical potentials

501: must be determined at each step.  Typically all chemical potentials

502: are related such that there exists only one additional degree of

503: freedom.

504: 

505: At the first step, when the pseudo-Goldstone bosons equilibrate, the

506: total energy density is conserved.  In addition, the presence of a

507: non-zero chemical potential implies that there exists an additional

508: conserved charge.  These two conservation laws provide us with two

509: equations to solve for the two unknowns: temperature and chemical

510: potential.  When the Goldstone bosons disappear energy is not

511: conserved.  Instead comoving entropy density, together with the

512: additional quantum number, are conserved.  This again allows us to

513: calculate the final temperature and chemical potential.  From these

514: two parameters we are able to calculate the final energy density in

515: neutrinos and finally the effective number of neutrinos at

516: matter-radiation equality

517: % 

518:  \beq 

519:    N_\nu = (3-n_R)+n_R \frac{\rho_{\nu_R}(T,\mu)}{\rho_{\nu_R}(T_{SM},0)} 

520: \label{eq:Nnumu} 

521: \eeq 

522: %

523: where $T_{SM}= (4/11)^{1/3}T_{\gamma}$ is the temperature the neutrinos

524: would have had in the standard model and $\rho_{\nu_R}$ is the energy density

525: in the $n_R$ neutrino species that recoupled.

526: 

527: 

528: \subsection{The Neutrino Scattering Signal}

529: 

530: Recently Bashinsky and Seljak have given an analytic understanding of

531: the effects of neutrino free-streaming on the position and amplitudes

532: of the CMB acoustic peaks in the standard model \cite{BS}. Here we

533: briefly summarize some of their results, using their notation.

534: 

535: In the conformal Newtonian gauge, the Robertson-Walker metric with scalar 

536: metric perturbations takes the form

537: %

538: \begin{equation}

539: ds^2 = a^2(\tau) \left( -(1+2 \Phi) d \tau^2 + (1-2 \Psi) d {\bf r}^2

540: \right),

541: \label{eq:metric}

542: \end{equation}

543: %

544: where $\tau$ is conformal time and $a$ is the cosmological scale

545: factor. In this gauge, the density perturbation in the relative photon

546: number density $d_\gamma = \delta n_\gamma({\bf r}) /

547: n_\gamma({\bf r})$ satisfies the equation

548: %

549: \begin{equation}

550: \frac{d^2 d_\gamma}{ d \tau^2} - \frac{1}{ 3} \nabla^2 d_\gamma =

551: \nabla^2 (\Psi + \Phi).

552: \label{eq:gammapert}

553: \end{equation}

554: %

555: In the absence of any particle species which free-streams, the 

556: energy-momentum tensor takes the form for a locally isotropic fluid,

557: resulting in the equality of the scalar metric perturbations: $\Psi =

558: \Phi$. However, neutrino free-streaming introduces a direction at each

559: locality, so that the energy-momentum tensor becomes anisotropic, with

560: off-diagonal entries in the spatial subspace proportional to a

561: free-streaming potential $\pi_\nu$. This anisotropy induces a

562: difference between the scalar metric perturbations:

563: %

564: \begin{equation}

565: \Psi - \Phi = 6 \frac {R_\nu \pi_\nu}{ \tau^2},

566: \label{eq:perturbdiff}

567: \end{equation}

568: %

569: where $R_\nu$ is the fraction of radiation in neutrinos: 

570: %

571: \begin{equation}

572: R_\nu =  \frac{\rho_\nu}{ \rho_\nu + \rho_\gamma} \simeq

573:  \frac {0.23 N_\nu}{1 +  0.23 N_\nu}.

574: \label{eq:Rnu}

575: \end{equation}

576: %

577: 

578: If the initial density perturbations are adiabatic, then the

579: perturbation in the relative number density of all species, before

580: they enter the horizon, are given by $d({\bf r}) = -3 \xi({\bf r})$,

581: where $ \xi(\bf{r})$ describes the primordial perturbation. Solving

582: first for $\pi_\nu$, next for the metric perturbations, and finally

583: for the photon perturbation at comoving wavenumber $k$, Bashinsky and

584: Seljak find acoustic oscillations in the radiation dominated era for

585: high $k$ of the form

586: %

587: \begin{equation}

588: d_\gamma(\tau,k) = 3  \xi(k) (1 + \Delta_\gamma) \cos (k \tau /

589: \sqrt{3} + \delta \varphi)

590: \label{eq:pertsol}

591: \end{equation}

592: %

593: where, to leading order in $R_\nu$, $\Delta_\gamma = - 0.27 R_\nu$ and

594: %

595: \begin{equation}

596: \delta \varphi =  0.19 \pi R_\nu.

597: \label{eq:deltaphi}

598: \end{equation}

599: %

600: The amplitude shift of the primordial spectrum, $\Delta_\gamma$, can

601: only be probed by observations which compare the photon and cold dark

602: matter perturbations, and we do not consider them further.

603: The $n$th peak of the CMB acoustic oscillations occurs at a wavenumber

604: $k_n$ such that the mode has $n$ half cycles of oscillation between

605: horizon crossing and last scatter (LS):

606: %

607: \begin{equation}

608:  \frac{k_n \tau_{LS}}{ \sqrt{3}} = n \pi - \delta \varphi.

609: \label{eq:k_n}

610: \end{equation}

611: %

612: Since the multipole of the peak $l_n \propto k_n$, $\delta \varphi$

613: causes a shift in the position of the $n$th peak. This analytic

614: solution accurately reproduces the numerical results obtained by the

615: CMBFAST code, and it is apparent that this shift of the position of the

616: peaks is purely due to the free-streaming of the neutrinos, since, in the

617: absence of free-streaming, both $\pi_\nu$ and $\delta \varphi$

618: vanish. Thus, the free-streaming of $N_\nu$ species of neutrinos shifts

619: the positions of the peaks, at large $n$, by

620: %

621: \begin{equation}

622: \Delta l_n \simeq - 57 \left( \frac{0.23 N_\nu}{ 1+ 0.23 N_\nu} \right)

623: \left(  \frac{\Delta l_{peak}}{ 300} \right),

624: \label{eq:lshift}

625: \end{equation}

626: %

627: giving $\Delta l_n \simeq -23.3$ for $N_\nu = 3$.

628: Here $\Delta l_{peak}$ is the difference in multipole between successive 

629: peaks at large $n$.

630: As the number of free-streaming neutrinos is increased above the

631: standard model value of 3,  so the peaks shift to lower $l$. The

632: beauty of this signal is that, for adiabatic perturbations, it is not

633: mimicked by changing other parameters of the theory. While other

634: parameters do cause a shift in the positions of the peaks, only by

635: changing the free-streaming behavior can one obtain a non-isotropic

636: energy-momentum tensor which leads to a shift in the $n$th peak which

637: is {\em independent} of $n$.

638: 

639: With these results in hand, we immediately see that there is an

640: important signal in the position of the CMB peaks for theories

641: where one or more neutrinos are scattering during the eV

642: era rather than free-streaming. In general one must replace

643: (\ref{eq:Rnu}) by

644: %

645: \begin{equation}

646: R_\nu = \frac{\rho_{FS} }{ \rho_{rel}} = \frac{0.23 N_{\nu FS}}{ 1+ 0.23 N_\nu}

647: \label{eq:Rnugeneral}

648: \end{equation}

649: %

650: where $\rho_{FS}$ is the energy density of the relativistic components

651: that free-stream, while $\rho_{rel}$ is the total relativistic energy

652: density, including both free-streaming and scattering components.

653: $N_{\nu FS}$ is the energy density of the relativistic free-streaming

654: particles, expressed as an equivalent number of neutrino species.

655: 

656: Consider a simple limit where the energy density of the free-streaming

657: neutrinos and the total radiation is standard.  If only $n_{FS}$ of

658: the three neutrino species free-stream, then

659: %

660: \begin{equation}

661: \Delta l_n \simeq - 7.8 \; n_{FS} \left(  \frac{\Delta l_{peak}}{ 300} \right).

662: \label{eq:lshiftscatt}

663: \end{equation}

664: %

665: Relative to the position of the peaks expected for the standard model

666: with three free-streaming neutrinos, there is a uniform shift in the

667: position of the peaks to {\em larger} $l$. This  can only result if some of

668: the known neutrinos are not free-streaming, and in this simple example

669: the shift in $l$ is 7.8 for each scattering neutrino species.

670: 

671: The result (\ref{eq:lshiftscatt}) applies if the energy densities are

672: standard. However, since non-standard physics is

673: required to prevent free-streaming, it could well be that the neutrino

674: energy densities are also non-standard, or there could be energy

675: density from light PGBs. How does this effect the

676: change in the position of the peaks induced by the  phase shift

677: $\delta \phi$? From (\ref{eq:Rnugeneral}) we need expressions for

678: $N_{\nu FS}$ and $N_\nu$. The value of $N_\nu$ is predicted in our

679: theories by (\ref{eq:Nnuenergy}), or (\ref{eq:Nnumu}) for a non-zero 

680: chemical potential, and a similar result can be derived for $N_{\nu FS}$.

681: In terms of these quantities

682: %

683: \begin{equation}

684: \Delta l_n \simeq - 57 \left( \frac{0.23 N_{\nu FS}}{ 1+ 0.23 N_\nu} \right)

685: \left(  \frac{\Delta l_{peak}}{ 300} \right).

686: \label{eq:lshiftdeltaE}

687: \end{equation}

688: %

689: % (\ref{eq:rhorad2})

690: 

691: Clearly, in general the position of

692: the peaks could be determined by a combination of extra neutrinos

693: (\ref{eq:lshift}), scattering of the known neutrinos

694: (\ref{eq:lshiftscatt}), and non-standard energy densities of the

695: known neutrinos (\ref{eq:lshiftdeltaE}).  In this paper we limit our

696: consideration to the case of theories with three neutrinos. We will

697: find that the mass generation mechanism gives large regions 

698: where the prediction (\ref{eq:lshiftdeltaE}) differs significantly

699: from the shift of $-23.3$ expected in the standard model. The largest

700: effect comes from $n_{FS} \neq 3$, but a significant deviation from

701: (\ref{eq:lshiftscatt}) may result because the energy density in each 

702: free-streaming neutrino is non-standard.

703: 

704: In this section we have discussed two different CMB signals  that

705: occur in theories with three neutrino species if their interactions are

706: non-standard. The first probes non-standard neutrino energy densities

707: which lead to effects such as delayed matter radiation equality and

708: enhanced damping of acoustic oscillations at higher $l$. However, we have 

709: shown that such signals can result from a

710: variety of underlying physics origins which lead to a change of

711: $N_\nu$. In contrast, the second signal --- a uniform shift of the CMB

712: peaks to larger $l$, (\ref{eq:lshiftscatt}) --- is a unique signal for

713: the absence of free-streaming of one or more of the known neutrino

714: species. 

715: If the physics leading to neutrino scattering also substantially affects

716: the neutrino energy densities, then a measurement of $\Delta l_n$ would

717: not only reveal neutrino scattering, but would also confirm non-standard 

718: energy densities.

719: 

720: \section{\label{sec:1nu} Signal Regions For One Neutrino}

721: 

722: %In this section we will discuss a simplified model in which a single

723: %neutrino recouples to a single scalar.  We will assume that the scalar

724: %is a pseudo-Goldstone boson and thus light and that the related Higgs

725: %boson is sufficiently heavy so as to be irrelevant.  This model

726: %possesses all of the key features of the minimal model introduced in

727: %Sec.\ref{sec:minimalmodel} including the possibility of generating

728: %signals in both the radiation energy density and in the overall phase

729: %of the angular power spectrum.  

730: 

731: A complete analysis of the CMB energy density and scattering signals

732: from the interactions of PGBs with neutrinos is complicated. Several

733: stages of spontaneous breaking of lepton flavor symmetries can each lead 

734: to several PGBs, and the combination of neutrino and PGB mass matrices

735: leads to many parameters. In this section we study the simplest

736: situation that leads to our CMB signals: a single PGB coupled to a

737: single neutrino. There are three independent parameters, the PGB and

738: neutrino masses, $m_G$ and $m_\nu$, and the coupling strength $g$ of

739: the interaction between them. This coupling parameter $g$ can be traded 

740: for the symmetry breaking scale at which the PGB is produced $f= m_\nu/g$. 

741: We aim to discover whether, for typical values of the neutrino mass 

742: suggested by data, there are large regions in the $(f, m_G)$ parameter

743: space that give observable CMB signals.

744: We will first consider the case that

745: the neutrinos are Majorana, and later discuss the minor changes that 

746: must be made in the case of Dirac neutrinos.

747: 

748: \subsection{\label{subsec:majorana} Majorana Neutrinos}

749: 

750: Since $G$ is a pseudo-Goldstone boson, at low energies it does not

751: possess significant self-interactions, so that the only interaction of

752: interest is given by the Lagrangian term 

753:  \beq 

754:    \mathcal{L} \supset\frac{g}{2} \nu \nu (H+iG).  

755:  \eeq 

756: This interaction results in three possibly interesting processes: $\nu

757: \nu \leftrightarrow G$, $\nu \bar{\nu} \leftrightarrow G G$ and $\nu

758: \nu \leftrightarrow \nu \nu$. We will show that the first process has

759: a rate that increases relative to the Hubble expansion rate as the

760: temperature of the universe decreases.  Therefore, this rate may lead

761: to the recoupling required to produce the signals we seek.  The second

762: process may also couple neutrinos to the pseudo-Goldstone boson.

763: However, for $T<\mathrm{MeV}<m_{H}$ the rate has a decoupling form and

764: is therefore unable to produce either signal.  Instead, demanding

765: that neutrinos and Goldstone bosons be decoupled prior to big bang

766: nucleosynthesis will lead to an upper bound on the coupling constant

767: $g$, and therefore a lower bound on $f$.  

768: Finally, the rate for $\nu\nu \leftrightarrow \nu\nu$ will be

769: shown to be too slow to produce a signal.  

770: 

771: The first process, $\nu \nu \leftrightarrow G$, is able to generate

772: either a $\Delta N_\nu$ and $\Delta l$ signal.  The regions of parameter

773: space in which each signal is possible are clearly separated by simple

774: kinematics.  For a change in the effective number of neutrinos $N_\nu$

775: to be possible, $G$ must go out of the bath prior to $T_{eq} \sim 1$

776: eV.  Therefore, the scalar mass must satisfy $m_G > 1$ eV.  On the

777: other hand, for the neutrinos to not free-stream during the era probed

778: by the acoustic oscillations they must be scattering during the eV

779: era.  For this to be possible the scalar mass must satisfy $m_G < 1$

780: eV. 

781: 

782: To see more precisely in what regions of parameter space a signal

783: results, we will consider each process separately, beginning with the

784: two-to-one process $\nu \nu \leftrightarrow G$.  This process occurs

785: at a rapid rate in the presence of a thermal bath of particles despite

786: the severe kinematic restrictions. For $T \gg m_G>2m_\nu$ the rate is

787: approximately given by\footnote{The approximations we made here

788: include: (a) neglecting the difference between $T^n$ and the average

789: of $E^n$, (b) using simply $T^2/M_{pl}$ and $T^3$ for the expansion

790: rate $H$ and the number densities, respectively, neglecting prefactors

791: such as $g\pi^2/30$ and subdominant corrections due to possible

792: non-zero chemical potentials.}

793: %

794:  \beq 

795:    \Gamma (\nu \nu \leftrightarrow G) 

796:       \approx \frac {m_\nu^2 m_G^2}{16\pi f^2 T}.  

797:  \eeq 

798: Defining the recoupling temperature as the temperature at which

799: $\Gamma(T_{rec})=H(T_{rec})$, we find that

800:  \beq 

801:    T_{rec}(\nu \nu \leftrightarrow G) \approx 

802:  \left( \frac{m_\nu^2 m_G^2 M_{pl}}{16\pi f^2} \right)^{1/3}.  

803:  \eeq 

804: For temperatures below $T_{rec}$, $G$ will be in

805: equilibrium with the neutrinos.  If this is the only process that brings

806: the $G$ into thermal contact with the neutrinos,

807: then there is a conserved quantity, $n_\nu + 2n_G$, that is left

808: unchanged as the Goldstone boson comes into equilibrium.  This

809: conservation law implies the presence of a chemical potential

810: satisfying $2\mu_\nu = 2\mu_{\bar{\nu}} = \mu_G$.

811: 

812: If the recoupling temperature is below $m_G$, then the number of

813: Goldstone bosons produced will be exponentially suppressed and they

814: will not be able to generate a signal.  Thus we must demand that

815: $T_{rec} > m_G$.  This leads to a bound on the symmetry breaking scale $f$

816:  \beq 

817: %  g > g_1= \left( 16\pi \frac{m_G}{M_{pl}} \right)^{1/2}.

818:   f < f_1= m_\nu \left( \frac{M_{pl}}{16 \pi m_G} \right)^{1/2}.

819:  \label{eqn:2to1recouplimit}

820:  \eeq If this limit is satisfied, and $m_G > 1$ eV, then the Goldstone

821: boson will decay prior to $T_{eq}$.  This will alter the energy

822: density in neutrinos as discussed in Sec. \ref{subsec:rhorelsig},

823: changing the effective number of neutrinos, $N_\nu$, that will be

824: measured by a CMB experiment.  The presence of a non-zero chemical

825: potential does not alter this key result but will affect the magnitude

826: of this shift.  The line $f=f_1$ is displayed in figure

827: \ref{fig:majorana}.

828: 

829: \begin{figure}

830: \begin{center}

831:   \includegraphics[width=16cm]{majorana.eps}

832: \caption{Signal regions and cosmological bounds for a single Majorana

833:   neutrino coupled to a single pseudo-Goldstone boson. The lines and

834:   regions are labeled as in the text. CMB signals occur throughout 

835:   the two shaded regions. The area below $f_3$ and $f_4$ is

836:   excluded by BBN, and in the region above $f_1$ and $f_2$ the

837:   PGB is too weakly coupled to give any signal. There is an energy

838:   density signal in region I and a scattering signal in

839:   region II. We have assumed $m_\nu = 0.05$ eV $\lambda = 1$.}

840:  \label{fig:majorana}

841: \end{center}

842: \end{figure}

843: 

844: On the other hand, if $m_G < 1$ eV, then $\nu \nu \leftrightarrow G$

845: will be kinematically allowed during acoustic oscillation and may

846: therefore prevent the neutrinos from free streaming during this

847: period.  However, the scattering angle is kinematically

848: restricted to be quite small, $\theta \sim m_G/T$.  For this process to

849: isotropize the neutrino momentum they must participate in $N$

850: scatterings such that $\theta_{tot}^2 \approx (m_G/T)^2 N \approx 1$.

851: In this case, we must demand that $\Gamma > H N$ resulting in the

852: limit

853: %

854:  \beq

855: %   g > g_2= \left( 16\pi \frac{T_*^5}{M_{pl} m_G^4} \right)^{1/2},

856:    f < f_2= m_\nu \left( \frac{M_{pl} m_G^4}{16 \pi T_*^5} \right)^{1/2},

857:  \label{eqn:2to1scatterlimit}

858:  \eeq

859: where $T_* \sim 1$ eV is the temperature at which the perturbation

860: enters the horizon.

861: 

862: We must also require that $G$ does not come

863: into equilibrium with the neutrinos prior to the decoupling of the

864: weak interactions.  If this were to occur they would increase the

865: energy density in radiation during big bang nucleosynthesis

866: conflicting with observations of primordial elemental abundances.

867: Therefore we must demand that $T_{rec} < T_W \sim 1$ MeV.  This places

868: a bound on $f$ of

869:  \beq 

870: %   g < g_3 = \left( 16\pi \frac{T_W^3}{m_G^2 M_{pl}} \right)^{1/2}.

871:    f > f_3 = m_\nu \left( \frac{m_G^2 M_{pl}}{16 \pi T_W^3} \right)^{1/2}.

872:  \label{eqn:2to1BBNbound}

873:  \eeq

874: 

875: We now turn to the two-to-two process $\nu \bar{\nu}

876: \leftrightarrow GG$. In the non-derivatively coupled basis in which we

877: work, this process is dominated by the exchange of a virtual Higgs

878: boson for $T>m_\nu$.  The rate is given approximately by

879:  \beq

880:    \Gamma(\nu \bar{\nu} \leftrightarrow GG) \approx 

881:      \frac{m_\nu^2 T^3 m_H^4}{32\pi f^4 (T^2 - m_H^2)^2}.

882:  \label{eq:2to2rate}

883:  \eeq

884: 

885: For temperatures below the Higgs mass, $m_H$, this rate goes like $T^3$

886: and has a decoupling form. Therefore, this process cannot be used to

887: recouple the Goldstone boson to the neutrinos.  Instead, we must

888: demand that this process not keep neutrinos and Goldstone bosons in

889: equilibrium prior to BBN. To insure that the neutrino and Goldstone

890: boson sectors are decoupled it suffices to demand that they not be in

891: thermal contact at $T \sim m_H$ when the rate relative to the Hubble

892: expansion rate is maximal.  The requirement that

893: $\Gamma(T=m_H) < H(T=m_H)$ leads to a lower bound on $f$ given by

894:  \beq

895: %   g < \left( 4\pi \frac{m_\nu^2}{m_H M_{pl}} \right)^{1/4}.

896:    f > \left( \frac{m_H m_\nu^2 M_{pl}}{32 \pi } \right)^{1/4}.

897:  \eeq

898: Setting $m_H = \sqrt{\lambda} f$ gives

899:  \beq

900: %   g < g_4 = \left( 4\pi \frac{m_\nu}{M_{pl}} \right)^{1/3},

901:    f > f_4 = \left(  \frac{\sqrt{\lambda} m_\nu ^2 M_{pl}}{32 \pi } \right)^{1/3},

902:  \eeq

903: where $\lambda$ is a dimensionless parameter describing the Higgs self coupling. 

904: 

905: % \beq

906: %   T_{rec}(\nu \nu \leftrightarrow GG) = \frac{g^4 M_{pl}}{4\pi}.

907: % \label{eqn:2to2temp}

908: % \eeq

909: %For all of the parameter space of interest, this temperature is much

910: %below the recoupling temperature due to $\nu \nu \leftrightarrow G$.

911: %Therefore, the $\nu \nu \leftrightarrow G$ process will have already

912: %equilibrated the Goldstone boson when this process becomes active.

913: %However, this additional process violates $n_\nu + 2n_G$ which is

914: %conserved by the two to one process.  As a result, if both processes

915: %are active prior to the Goldstone bosons decaying, then the chemical

916: %potential is forced to zero thus changing the prediction for $\Delta

917: %N_\nu$.  This will be the case if the above recoupling temperature

918: %satisfies $T_{rec} > m_G$, which implies a bound on the coupling

919: %constant $g$:

920: % \beq

921: %   g> g_4= \left( 4\pi \frac{m_G}{M_{pl}} \right)^{1/4}.

922: % \eeq

923: %Similarly, we must satisfy $T_{rec} < T_W$ for big bang

924: %nucleosynthesis.

925: % \beq

926: %   g < g_5=\left( 4\pi \frac{T_W}{M_{pl}} \right)^{1/4}.

927: % \eeq

928: %

929: %Consideration of neutrino scattering is slightly different in this

930: %case because, unlike the two to one process, it is possible to scatter

931: %through a large angle in just one scattering event.  As a result, if

932: %$T_{rec}>1$ eV and $m_G < 1$ eV such that this process occurs rapidly

933: %during acoustic oscillation, then a phase shift signal is

934: %automatic.  This will be the case if the coupling constant $g$

935: %satisfies

936: % \beq

937: %   g > g_6=\left( 4\pi \frac{\mathrm{eV}}{M_{pl}} \right)^{1/4}.

938: % \eeq

939:    

940: 

941: Finally, we consider $\nu \nu \leftrightarrow \nu \nu$ which is mediated

942: by the exchange of a virtual Goldstone boson. 

943: The rate for this process is given approximately by

944:  \beq

945:    \Gamma(\nu \nu \leftrightarrow \nu \nu) \approx \frac{m_\nu^4 T^5}{16\pi f^4

946:  (T^2-m_G^2)^2}.

947:  \eeq

948: For our purposes, this process is only interesting if it is able to

949: prevent the neutrino from free-streaming during the eV era.  This will

950: be the case if $\Gamma(T\sim 1~\mathrm{eV}) > H(T\sim 1 ~\mathrm{eV})$.

951: For $m_G < 1$ eV this implies

952:  \beq

953: %   g > \left( 4\pi \frac{\mathrm{eV}}{M_{pl}} \right)^{1/4}.

954:    f < m_\nu  \left( \frac{M_{pl}}{ 16 \pi \mathrm{eV}} \right)^{1/4}.

955:  \eeq

956: For $m_\nu < 1$ eV, as implied by the recent WMAP data combined with

957: the measurements of large scale structure, this bound is larger than

958: the upper bound coming from $\nu\nu\leftrightarrow GG$.  If $m_G > 1$

959: eV then the rate will be further suppressed by $\mathrm{eV}^4/m_G^4$.

960: Therefore, as stated at the beginning of this section, the

961: $\nu\nu\leftrightarrow \nu\nu$ process is unable to produce an

962: interesting signal.

963: 

964: 

965: %In order for this process to prevent free-streaming, the rate must

966: %satisfy the condition that $\Gamma(T_*) > H(T_*)$ because large angle

967: %scattering events are possible.  This in turn implies a condition on

968: %the coupling constant $g$

969: % \beq

970: %   g > g_7=\left( 4\pi \frac{m_G^4}{T_*^3 M_{pl}} \right)^{1/4}.

971: % \eeq%

972: 

973: %This region of parameter space lies in the region where a signal in

974: %the relativistic energy density is also produced via $\nu \nu

975: %\leftrightarrow G$ and $\nu \bar{\nu} \leftrightarrow GG$.  Therefore,

976: %for $g$ satisfying the above bound both signals are generated.  For

977: %this region of parameter space the signals observed from the cosmic

978: %microwave background will be quite unique.  Measurements that are

979: %sensitive primarily to $\rho_{rel}$ will measure an effective number

980: %of neutrinos greater than 3 while measurements of the phase of the

981: %angular power spectrum will imply that the number of free streaming

982: %species is fewer than three neutrinos.

983: 

984: All of the above signal regions, together with the cosmological bounds

985: arising from big bang nucleosynthesis, are displayed in Figure

986: \ref{fig:majorana}. 

987: Note that the line for $f_4$ has been drawn for a self coupling 

988: parameter $\lambda = 1$. For smaller values of $\lambda$ the allowed 

989: region grows to include lower values of $f$. 

990: There we see that there are two distinct signal

991: regions.  In region $I$, $\Delta N_\nu$, as measured from the

992: relativistic energy density, is non-zero.  Further, the neutrinos (and

993: Goldstone bosons prior to decay) have a non-zero chemical potential.

994: In region $II$, $\rho_{rel}$ is unchanged, but

995: the neutrino is no longer able to free-stream at $T \sim 1$ eV.  As a

996: result, there will be an overall phase shift in the angular power

997: spectrum relative to the standard model prediction.

998: 

999: It is important to also understand if there are any bounds on our

1000: scenario from astrophysical processes. Because the pseudo-Goldstones

1001: couple to the quarks and leptons that make up astrophysical objects

1002: only through neutrinos, their effects only show up in highly dense

1003: regions like the cores of supernovae {\cite{farzan}}, {\cite{valle}};

1004: for earlier work see, for example, {\cite{earlySN}}. The presence of

1005: pseudo-Goldstone bosons can affect a supernova in two different

1006: ways. The decay of electron neutrinos into Goldstone bosons can

1007: deleptonize the core prior to the `bounce' preventing the bounce from

1008: taking place. This puts a bound on the electron neutrino coupling to

1009: Goldstone bosons.  Further, after the bounce, the supernova can lose

1010: energy too rapidly through neutrino or antineutrino decays into

1011: Goldstone bosons, which then free-stream out. This also puts bounds on

1012: the Goldstone boson couplings to the various neutrino species. All

1013: these constraints tend to depend in detail on the supernova dynamics

1014: but are typically at the $g \simlt 10^{-6}$ level or so. This is a much

1015: weaker bound than that arising from considerations of big bang

1016: nucleosynthesis and is therefore not included in Figure

1017: \ref{fig:majorana}.

1018: 

1019: \subsection{\label{subsec:dirac} Dirac Neutrinos}

1020: 

1021: For Dirac neutrinos the relevant interaction vertex involves

1022: both a left- and right-handed neutrino.

1023:  \beq

1024:    \mathcal{L} \supset g \nu n (H+iG)

1025:  \eeq

1026: 

1027: The two-to-two process $\nu \bar{\nu} \leftrightarrow G G$ is changed

1028: because now the Higgs boson couples to one left-handed neutrino and

1029: one right-handed neutrino.  Consequently, the diagram with the virtual

1030: Higgs boson, which was the dominant one in the Majorana case, now

1031: needs a chirality flip for one of the initial left-handed neutrinos.

1032: The flip suppresses this diagram by a factor of $m_\nu/T$ in the

1033: amplitude.  The amplitude now equals that from diagrams a virtual

1034: right-handed neutrino and no chirality flip.  Thus the rate for both

1035: is suppressed by $m_\nu^2/T^2$ relative to Eqn.(\ref{eq:2to2rate}).

1036: Alternatively, the process could involve an initial state right-handed

1037: neutrino, in which case the rate will be suppressed by $r =

1038: n_n/n_\nu$.  The value for $r$ is expected to be smaller than $0.1$

1039: but still non-zero.  Therefore, $\nu n \leftrightarrow GG$ may

1040: dominate over the process with the chirality flip.  As a result the

1041: bound on $f$ is lowered to

1042: %

1043:  \beq

1044: %   g < g_{4b} = \left( 4\pi \frac{m_\nu}{r M_{pl}} \right)^{1/3}.

1045:    f > f_4 = \left( \frac{r \sqrt{\lambda} m_\nu^2 M_{pl}}{32\pi} \right)^{1/3}.

1046:  \eeq

1047: The rate with the chirality flip goes like $g^4 T$ and has a recoupling 

1048: form.  However, the region where this recoupling would lead to signals is 

1049: already excluded by the above bound, $f>f_4$.  

1050: 

1051: The two-to-one process $\nu \nu \leftrightarrow G$ is also changed.

1052: We must again introduce a mass insertion to convert one of the initial

1053: neutrinos into a right-handed neutrino.  The rate will therefore be

1054: suppressed by a factor of $m_\nu^2/T^2$ relative to the rate for the

1055: Majorana neutrino.  Therefore, the recoupling temperature is given by

1056:  \beq

1057:    T_{rec} \approx \left( \frac{m_G^2 m_\nu^4 M_{pl}}{16\pi f^2}

1058:    \right)^{1/5}

1059:  \eeq

1060: Demanding that $T_{rec} > m_{G}$ then results in a limit

1061:  \beq

1062:  %  g > g_{1a}= \left( \frac{m_G^3 8\pi}{m_\nu^2 M_{pl}} \right)^{1/2}.

1063:     f < f_1 = \left( \frac{m_\nu^4 M_{pl}}{16 \pi m_G^3} \right)^{1/2}.

1064:  \label{eqn:nunuGrecouplimit}

1065:  \eeq

1066: Notice that this limit is a factor of $m_\nu/m_G$ lower than the

1067: corresponding limit in the Majorana neutrino case

1068: Eqn.(\ref{eqn:2to1recouplimit}). 

1069: 

1070: \begin{figure}

1071: \begin{center}

1072:   \includegraphics[width=16cm]{dirac1.eps}

1073: \caption{Signal regions and cosmological bounds for a single Dirac

1074:   neutrino coupled to a single pseudo-Goldstone boson. The region

1075:   below line $f_4$ is exclude by BBN.  In the region above lines

1076:   $f_1$ and $f_2$ the Goldstone boson is too weakly coupled to

1077:   give any signal. There is a signal in $\rho_{rel}$ in region I, and

1078:   in region II there is an overall phase shift. We have assumed $m_\nu

1079:   = 0.05$ eV, $\lambda=1$ and $r=0.0001$. The lower bound on $f$ scales as 

1080:   $f_4 \propto r^{1/3}$.}

1081:  \label{fig:dirac1}

1082: \end{center}

1083: \end{figure}

1084: 

1085: Similarly, the bounds that must be satisfied to prevent the neutrino

1086:  from free-streaming at $T=T_*$ and to agree with big bang

1087:  nucleosynthesis are changed to

1088:  \beqa

1089:  %  g &>& g_{2a} = \left( 8\pi \frac{T_*^7}{m_G^4 m_\nu^2 M_{pl}}

1090:  %     \right)^{1/2} \nonumber \\

1091:   f &<& f_2 = \left( \frac{m_G^4 m_\nu^4 M_{pl}}{16\pi T_*^7}

1092:       \right)^{1/2} \nonumber \\

1093:  %  g &<& g_{3a} = \left( 8\pi \frac{T_W^5}{m_G^2 m_\nu^2 M_{pl}}

1094:  %     \right)^{1/2}.

1095:   f &>& f_3 = \left( \frac{m_G^2 m_\nu^4 M_{pl}}{16\pi T_W^5}

1096:       \right)^{1/2}.

1097:  \eeqa

1098: 

1099: An additional process is also possible in the case of a Dirac neutrino

1100: mass, $\nu n \leftrightarrow G$. Again, this rate is suppressed by $r$

1101: relative to $\nu \nu \leftrightarrow G$ in the case of Majorana

1102: neutrinos because of the initial state right-handed neutrino. More

1103: importantly, $n_\nu +n_n +2n_G$ is conserved.  As a result, the number

1104: of Goldstone bosons present will never exceed $n_n =r n_\nu$.  Such a

1105: small number of Goldstone bosons will not produce a sizable change in

1106: the neutrino energy density.  However, if the rate is large enough, it

1107: may still contribute to neutrino scattering thus producing a phase

1108: shift in the angular power spectrum. For a signal to result, the

1109: scale $f$ must be lowered by a factor of $1/\sqrt{r}$ compared to

1110: Eqn.(\ref{eqn:2to1scatterlimit}). The rate and limit on $f$ are given by

1111: 

1112:  \beqa

1113: %   \Gamma &\approx& \frac{ g^4 m_G^2}{8\pi T} r \nonumber \\

1114: %   g &>& g_{2b}= \left( \frac{T_*^5 8 \pi}{m_G^4 M_{pl} r}  \right)^{1/2} .

1115:    \Gamma &\approx& \frac{ m_\nu^2 m_G^2}{8\pi f^2 T} r \nonumber \\

1116:    f &<& f_2' = \left( \frac{r m_G^4 m_\nu^2 M_{pl}}{8 \pi T_*^5}  \right)^{1/2} .

1117:  \label{eqn:nunGrecouplimit}

1118:  \eeqa

1119: 

1120: The signal regions and big bang nucleosynthesis bounds are shown in

1121: figure \ref{fig:dirac1} for $m_\nu = 0.05$ eV and $r=0.0001$.  For these

1122: values the relevant scattering process is $\nu \nu \leftrightarrow G$;

1123: identical to the process which equilibrates the Goldstone boson.  The

1124: signal regions are the same as those for Majorana neutrinos.  

1125: 

1126: %

1127: %\begin{figure}

1128: %\begin{center}

1129: %  \includegraphics[width=16cm]{dirac2.eps}

1130: %\caption{Scattering and equilibration limits for two different

1131: %  neutrino masses $m_\nu = 0.05$ eV and $m_\nu = 0.002$ eV and

1132: %  $r=0.001$.  Hatching from lower right to upper left indicates the

1133: %  region in which the heavier neutrino would produce a signal.

1134: %  Hatching from upper right to lower left indicates the regions in

1135: %  which the lighter neutrino would produce a signal.}

1136: % \label{fig:dirac2}

1137: %\end{center}

1138: %\end{figure}

1139: 

1140: 

1141: \section{\label{sec:3nu} Signal Regions for Three Neutrinos}

1142: 

1143: We are now in a position to study the cosmological signals of three

1144: neutrinos interacting with a single pseudo-Goldstone boson. As in the

1145: single neutrino case, if recoupling occurs we expect an energy density

1146: signal for $m_G > 1$ eV and a scattering signal for $m_G < 1$ eV.  The

1147: crucial difference, however, is that now the number of neutrinos that

1148: recouple to the pseudo-Goldstone boson may be one, two or three. Since

1149: the pseudo-Goldstone boson couples to each neutrino with a strength

1150: proportional to its mass, even at the quantum level

1151: {\cite{neutrinostability}}, the pattern of neutrino masses determines

1152: the number of neutrinos which recouple, and thereby the magnitudes of

1153: the energy density and scattering signals. This is very exciting,

1154: because it implies that a careful investigation of the cosmic

1155: microwave background may help determine the pattern of neutrino

1156: masses.

1157: 

1158: The neutrinos may be Majorana or Dirac, the pattern of their masses

1159: hierarchical, inverse hierarchical or degenerate. We consider each of

1160: these cases separately, starting with the case of hierarchical

1161: Majorana neutrinos. Oscillation data reveals that for such a pattern

1162: the heaviest neutrino has a mass of about 0.05 eV, while the

1163: intermediate neutrino has mass of about 0.008 eV. The mass of the

1164: lightest neutrino is significantly smaller, and for concreteness we

1165: take it to be 0.002 eV. The allowed signal region is plotted as a

1166: function of the symmetry breaking scale $f$ and the the

1167: pseudo-Goldstone boson mass $m_G$ in figure \ref{fig:majorana3}. The

1168: various regions in this plot are generically labeled by an integer

1169: which lies between 1 and 3. If the region lies in the $m_G > 1$ eV

1170: portion of the plot this number indicates the number of neutrinos in

1171: equilibrium with the heavy pseudo-Goldstone boson when it

1172: disappeared, $n_R$. If it lies in the $m_G < 1$ eV region of the plot

1173: it indicates the number of neutrinos scattering at an eV, $n_S$.

1174: 

1175: %$S_i U_j$, where $i$ and

1176: %$j$ are integers. Here $i$ is the number of neutrinos scattering at an

1177: %eV, while $j$ is the number of neutrinos that the pseudo-Goldstone

1178: %decouples from at temperatures above an eV, and which can therefore

1179: %contribute to an energy density signal. (For example, in the region

1180: %labelled $S_1 U_0$, there is one neutrino scattering at an eV, but no

1181: %neutrinos which the pseudo-Goldstone decoupled from above an eV.) Each

1182: %of these different regions gives rise to a different signal. The

1183: %greater portion of the signal region is dominated by $2 \rightarrow 1$

1184: %processes.  The $2 \rightarrow 2$ processes contribute to the signal only

1185: %in the regions above the dashed lines.

1186: 

1187: \begin{figure}

1188: \begin{center}

1189:   \includegraphics[width=16cm]{majorana3.eps}

1190: \caption{The signal regions and bounds for three Majorana neutrinos

1191:   with hierarchical masses $m_\nu = 0.05, 0.008, 0.002$ eV.  The

1192:   regions are labeled by the number of neutrinos species that recouple

1193:   to the pseudo-Goldstone boson for $m_G>1$ eV and by the number of

1194:   neutrinos that scatter at $T \sim 1$ eV for $m_G < 1$ eV.}

1195:  \label{fig:majorana3}

1196: \end{center}

1197: \end{figure}

1198: 

1199: The hierarchy in the masses of the three neutrinos implies that there are

1200: large, distinct parts of the plot where one, two or three neutrinos

1201: contribute to the signal. This is to be contrasted with the case where the

1202: spectrum of neutrino masses is inverse hierarchical or degenerate. If the

1203: neutrino masses exhibit an inverted hierarchy, the mass of both the two

1204: heavier neutrinos is close to 0.05 eV, with a splitting smaller than 0.001

1205: eV. This implies that there is almost no region of parameter space in $f$

1206: where only one neutrino contributes to a signal, and in general we expect

1207: either two or three neutrinos to contribute. If the neutrino masses are

1208: degenerate, then the small mass splitting (less than 0.001 eV) between each

1209: pair of neutrinos implies that in the entire signal region all three

1210: neutrinos will contribute. It may therefore be possible to determine the

1211: pattern of neutrino masses from a careful measurement of the cosmic

1212: microwave background.

1213: 

1214: How well can these different patterns be distinguished? That depends on

1215: the magnitude of the signal for each case. The energy density signals

1216: for a single pseudo-Goldstone boson decaying or annihilating into one, two or

1217: three Majorana neutrinos are shown in Table \ref{table:Nnu}. We see

1218: from the table that the differences in the energy density signal

1219: between the various patterns is rather small, which means that it is

1220: unlikely that we will be able to distinguish between them in upcoming

1221: experiments.  If the PGB interacts only via $\nu \nu \leftrightarrow

1222: G$ then the relevant signal corresponds to the column of Table

1223: \ref{table:Nnu} labeled ``$\mu \neq 0$'', since the PGB and neutrinos possess a chemical

1224: potential. In theories with multiple PGBs, the reaction $G'

1225: \leftrightarrow GG$ will force the chemical potential to vanish, as we

1226: discuss in \ref{sec:theoriesofmass},

1227: giving larger signals, as shown in the  ``$\mu = 0$'' column.

1228: 

1229: However, the differences in the scattering signal, which

1230: can immediately be read off from Eqn. (\ref{eq:lshiftscatt}), are

1231: large enough that in this region of parameter space there is indeed

1232: the distinct possibility of distinguishing between different patterns

1233: of neutrino masses.

1234: 

1235: 

1236: \begin{table}

1237: \begin{center}

1238: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c||c|c|} \cline{1-5} \cline{1-5}

1239:     &\multicolumn{2}{|c}{Dirac} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Majorana} \\

1240:  \cline{1-5} \cline{1-5}

1241:     $n_{R}$ & $\mu = 0$ & $\mu \ne 0$ & $\mu = 0$  &

1242:     $\mu\ne 0$  \\ \cline{1-5}

1243:     1& 3.09 & 3.03 & 3.16 & 3.08  \\ \cline{1-5}

1244:     2& 3.09 & 3.03 & 3.17 & 3.10  \\ \cline{1-5}

1245:     3& 3.09 & 3.03 & 3.18 & 3.12  \\ \cline{1-5}  

1246: \end{tabular}

1247: \caption{Table of effective number of neutrinos as determined by the

1248: relativistic energy density.  Predictions are given for both Dirac 

1249: and Majorana masses and for cases in which 1, 2 or 3 neutrinos recouple

1250: to the pseudo-Goldstone boson.}

1251: \label{table:Nnu}

1252: \end{center}

1253: \end{table}

1254: 

1255: We now move over to the case of three Dirac neutrinos. As before we

1256: first consider a hierarchical pattern of masses. The signal region is

1257: as shown in figure \ref{fig:dirac3}, where we have used the same

1258: values for the neutrino masses as in the Majorana case. As in the one

1259: neutrino model, the signal region differs from that of Majorana

1260: neutrinos. The reason is that, because there are a reduced number of

1261: pseudo-Goldstone bosons and right-handed neutrinos in the bath

1262: initially, the only $2 \leftrightarrow 1$ processes that can

1263: significantly alter the energy density in radiation necessarily

1264: involve a chirality flip on one of the neutrino legs, and are

1265: therefore suppressed except at very low temperatures. The reduced

1266: number of pseudo-Goldstones and right-handed neutrinos initially

1267: present also weaken the bounds from BBN.  The scattering signal region

1268: is also altered because of the reduced number of right-handed

1269: neutrinos available for scattering.  As in the Majorana case, we

1270: obtain either an energy density signal or a scattering signal,

1271: depending on whether or not the pseudo-Goldstone boson mass exceeds an

1272: eV. 

1273: 

1274: Notice that for illustrative purposes we have chosen a somewhat small

1275: value of $r$.  As a result, for the largest mass the scattering

1276: process is mass suppressed.  However, for the smallest mass the most

1277: rapid scattering process is $\nu n \leftrightarrow G$ which is $r$

1278: suppressed. (For the intermediate mass the two rates are comparable.)

1279: As a result, the region in which there exists a scattering signal

1280: shrinks less rapidly as $m_\nu$ is lowered from $m_2$ to $m_1$ than

1281: the region in which $\Delta N_\nu \ne 0$. This is because the

1282: equilibration process $\nu \nu \leftrightarrow G$ is suppressed by

1283: $m_\nu^2/T^2$.  This leads to a discontinuity in the signal region at

1284: $m_G=1$ eV.

1285: 

1286: Since the neutrino masses are hierarchical, there are large,

1287: distinct regions where one, two or three neutrinos contribute to the

1288: signal. As in the Majorana case, for an inverted hierarchy we expect

1289: either two or three neutrinos to contribute, while for the degenerate

1290: case all three are expected to contribute. Once again, this opens the

1291: door to the possibility of determining the pattern of neutrino masses

1292: from precision measurements of the cosmic microwave background.

1293: 

1294: 

1295: \begin{figure}

1296: \begin{center}

1297:   \includegraphics[width=16cm]{dirac3.eps}

1298: \caption{The signal regions and bounds for three Dirac neutrinos

1299:   with hierarchical masses $m_\nu = 0.05, 0.008, 0.002$ eV.  The

1300:   regions are labeled by the number of neutrinos species that recouple

1301:   to the pseudo-Goldstone boson for $m_G>1$ eV and by the number of

1302:   neutrinos that scatter at $T \sim 1$ eV for $m_G < 1$ eV and $r=0.0001$.}

1303:  \label{fig:dirac3}

1304: \end{center}

1305: \end{figure}

1306: 

1307: The energy density signals for a pseudo-Goldstone boson decaying or

1308: annihilating into one, two or three Dirac neutrinos are shown in Table

1309: \ref{table:Nnu}, and can be contrasted with the Majorana case.  Once

1310: again the differences in the energy density signals are too small to

1311: distinguish between the various patterns of neutrino masses in

1312: upcoming experiments.  However the differences in energy density

1313: signals between the Dirac and Majorana cases are large enough that it

1314: may be possible to distinguish between these two cases. As before, for a given

1315: number of scattering neutrinos, the scattering signal may be

1316: immediately obtained from Eqn. (\ref{eq:lshiftscatt}). In this region

1317: of parameter space we expect that it will indeed be possible to

1318: distinguish between different patterns of neutrino masses.

1319: 

1320: 

1321: 

1322: \section{\label{sec:leptonflavor} Multiple PGBs from

1323: Approximate Lepton Flavor Symmetries}

1324: 

1325: Until now we have assumed that the neutrinos couple to a single 

1326: pseudo-Goldstone boson, $G$, resulting from the spontaneous breakdown 

1327: of an Abelian, flavor-diagonal symmetry. In the Majorana case, $G$ is the 

1328: Majoron of broken lepton number symmetry. However, the flavor

1329: symmetries of the neutrino sector are much richer than this, offering

1330: the hope of larger CMB signals which could probe the mass generation

1331: mechanism at a deeper level.

1332: 

1333: The most general lepton flavor symmetries acting on three generations

1334: of left-handed fermions $\ell,e$ and $n$ are $U(3)_\ell \times U(3)_e

1335: \times U(3)_n$. Here and below we give the symmetries for the Dirac

1336: case, with the understanding that the Majorana case is trivially

1337: obtained by deleting any symmetries on $n$. The charged lepton masses

1338: arise from operators such as $\ell \Sigma e h$ when $\Sigma$ acquires

1339: a vev. Part of the flavor symmetry is broken, and any Goldstones

1340: produced at this stage are constrained to be very weakly

1341: coupled. However, some flavor symmetries escape breaking at this stage,

1342: and remain as symmetries of the low energy neutrino interactions. They necessarily include 

1343: $U(3)_n$ and a flavor symmetric $U(1)$ acting on the neutrinos, which

1344: we write as $e+ \mu + \tau = U(1)_L$. They could also include two flavor

1345: asymmetric $U(1)s$, $e-\mu$ and $\mu - \tau$. The Goldstones which

1346: result from the spontaneous breaking of these symmetries we call

1347: $G_N$ because the symmetries can only be broken by Neutral lepton

1348: masses not charged lepton masses. Some of the symmetries broken by the charged

1349: lepton masses may also be of interest for neutrino physics. It could

1350: be that these symmetries reappear as accidental symmetries

1351: of the neutrino mass sector, {\it i.e.} of the interactions of

1352: (\ref{eq:tevops}). If they are broken by vevs of $\phi$, then

1353: Goldstones $G_C$ appear, where the label indicates that explicit

1354: symmetry breaking arises from the Charged lepton masses.. 

1355: 

1356: We assume that all global symmetries are not exact but receive

1357: explicit breakings from some mass scale $M_E$, which might be as high

1358: as the Planck scale. All the Goldstones are therefore really

1359: pseudo-Goldstones bosons, PGBs, and acquire small masses. If these arise from

1360: dimension 5 operators, $\phi^5/M_E$, then we expect 

1361: %

1362: \begin{equation}

1363: m_G \approx \sqrt{ \frac{f}{ M_E}} f

1364: \approx  \mbox{eV} \left( {f \over \mbox{GeV}} \right)^{\frac{3}{2}}

1365:  \left( {M_{Pl} \over M_E} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}},

1366: \label{eq:mG1}

1367: \end{equation}

1368: %

1369: where $f$ is the vev of the relevant $\phi$ field. This result is very 

1370: interesting. All global symmetries are expected to be broken at the Planck

1371: scale, and the simplest possibility leads to a correlation between $m_G$ 

1372: and $f$ that passes right through our signal regions --- for both 

1373: $\Delta N_\nu$ and $\Delta l$ signals.

1374: 

1375: This dimension 5 explicit symmetry breaking operator also induces a

1376: low energy self interaction for the PGB, $(f/M_E) G^4$. Depending on

1377: parameters, this may recouple the $GG \leftrightarrow GG$

1378: reaction. However, such a process appears not to have any signals.

1379: For the case that there are several PGBs, a much more interesting

1380: question is whether the explicit symmetry breaking can lead to the

1381: reaction $G' \leftrightarrow GG$ recoupling. This would have the

1382: important consequence of forcing the chemical potential of the

1383: Goldstones and neutrinos to vanish, and, as we have seen, this gives a

1384: large increase to the size of the $\Delta N_\nu$ signal. We find that

1385: the recoupling of this reaction is generic to theories of

1386: multi-PGBs. Suppose the PGBs result from fields $\phi, \phi' ...$ and

1387: that the explicit symmetry breaking at dimension 5 includes several

1388: operators $(1/M_E)(a \phi^5 + b \phi^4 \phi' + c \phi^3 \phi'^2 +

1389: ...)$. Substituting $\phi = (f + iG)/\sqrt{2}, \phi' = (f' + i

1390: G')/\sqrt{2}, ...$, and performing field phase redefinitions to remove

1391: linear terms in $G,G' ...$, one discovers that the phases of $a,b,c,

1392: ... $ are not all removed, so that interactions of the form $G'GG$

1393: appear in the low energy theory, even after rotating to the PGB mass

1394: basis.  The recoupling temperature for $G' \leftrightarrow GG$ is

1395: %

1396: \begin{equation}

1397: T_{rec}(G' \leftrightarrow GG) \approx 

1398: \left( {m_{G'}^4 M_{pl} \over f^2 16\pi} \right)^{1/3}

1399: \approx \mbox{keV} \left( {m_{G'} \over \mbox{keV}} \right)^{4/3}

1400: \left( {\mbox{GeV} \over f} \right)^{2/3},

1401: \label{eq:G'GG}

1402: \end{equation}

1403: %

1404: where $f$ is the larger of $f$ and $f'$, and we have taken $G'$

1405: heavier than $G$. For the entire region of $f$ and $m_G$ of interest for the

1406: $\Delta N_\nu$ signal, $T_{rec} > m_{G'}$. Hence, for multi-PGB

1407: theories, the generic situation is that $G'

1408: \leftrightarrow GG$ recouples and we expect the larger $\Delta N_\nu$ 

1409: signals appropriate for vanishing chemical potential.

1410: 

1411: 

1412: The difference

1413: between the $G_N$ and $G_C$ PGBs, is that the $G_C$ also have

1414: contributions to their mass from explicit breakings of the accidental

1415: low energy neutrino symmetries by the interactions that generate the

1416: charged fermion masses. Although, these contributions are model dependent, 

1417: for a wide range of theories we can estimate their size. Suppose that the 

1418: explicit symmetry breaking appears in the low energy neutrino theory as 

1419: powers of the insertion $\lambda_E$, the charged lepton Yukawa coupling

1420: matrix, which transforms under $SU(3)_\ell \times SU(3)_e$ as $(3,3)$.

1421: Assume also that, in the symmetric limit, a potential for $\phi$ is generated 

1422: with a mass term of order $-f^2 \phi^\dagger \phi$. Including the effects of 

1423: explicit symmetry breaking, this term will be modified to

1424: $-f^2 \phi^\dagger (1 + c \lambda_E \lambda_E^\dagger) \phi$, 

1425: where $c$ depends on coupling parameters and loop factors. Ignoring $c$, 

1426: gives

1427: %

1428: \begin{equation}

1429: m_{G_C} \approx \lambda'_E f

1430: \approx ( \mbox{keV -- $10$ MeV} ) {f \over \mbox{GeV}},

1431: \label{eq:mG2}

1432: \end{equation}

1433: %

1434: where $\lambda'_E$ are the eigenvalues of the charged lepton Yukawa

1435: coupling matrix. The $G_C$ PGBs

1436: have hierarchical masses typically in the range to give a

1437: $\Delta N_\nu$ CMB signals, while $G_N$ are typically lighter and

1438: could give either a  $\Delta N_\nu$ or a $\Delta l$ CMB signal.

1439: 

1440: In Table \ref{table:G} we list the number of each type of PGB, for both

1441: Majorana and Dirac cases, when the flavor symmetry is maximal. 

1442: It is immediately clear that if there are

1443: anywhere near these numbers of PGB, then the $\Delta N_\nu$ signal is

1444: likely to be much larger than in the previous sections. How many

1445: Goldstones do we expect? Zero, 1 or of order 10? 

1446: If the mass scale of the physics generating neutrino masses is

1447: substantially below the weak scale then it is plausible that this

1448: scale, $f$, results from the breaking of a global symmetry. There

1449: need only be one symmetry, leading to a single PGB as discussed in

1450: the previous sections. However, if the entire structure of the

1451: neutrino mass matrix follows from broken symmetries, in analogy to the

1452: Froggatt-Nielson symmetry breaking frequently studied in the charged

1453: sector, then many more Goldstones are to be expected. While the number

1454: need not necessarily be the maximal number listed in Table \ref{table:G}, no

1455: non-Abelian subgroup can escape breaking, since we know that the three

1456: neutrinos have no exact degeneracies, and hence, if the underlying

1457: symmetries of the neutrino sector is $U(3)_\ell \times U(3)_n$, 

1458: we expect the number of Goldstones to be near maximal.

1459: 

1460: \begin{table}

1461: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|}

1462: \hline

1463:       &  Majorana  & Dirac \\

1464: \hline \hline

1465: $G_N$ &  1 -- 3    &  10 -- 12 \\

1466: \hline

1467: $G_C$ & 8 -- 6 & 8 -- 6\\

1468: \hline

1469: \end{tabular}

1470: \caption{The number of $G_N$ and $G_C$ PGBs in theories with

1471:   three generations of Majorana or Dirac neutrinos and maximal flavor 

1472: symmetry. For the Majorana (Dirac) case there are a total of 9 (18) PGB.

1473: The number of $G_C$ is increased from 6 to 7 or 8 if the physics 

1474: responsible for the charged lepton masses breaks $e-\mu$ and 

1475: $\mu- \tau$ symmetries.}

1476: \label{table:G}

1477: \end{table}

1478: 

1479: As an example, consider a $U(3)_\ell$ theory of Majorana neutrinos

1480: based on operators of the form $ g \nu_i \phi_{ij} \nu_j$ where the

1481: generation indices $i,j$ run over 1,2,3.  Suppose that the vevs of the $\phi$ 

1482: multiplet are hierarchical, and we have chosen the basis where the largest vev

1483: lies in the 33 direction, breaking

1484: $U(3)_\ell$ to $U(2)_\ell$, creating 5 PGB. Since 4 of these PGBs are

1485: associated with off-diagonal generators, they are $G_C$. These 5 PGB

1486: all have the same coupling, $g$, to neutrinos and for a large range of

1487: parameters will be produced by the $2 \leftrightarrow 1$ process

1488: $\nu_i \nu_j \leftrightarrow G_{ij}$. Other $\phi$ components with smaller 

1489: vevs will break the remaining $U(2)_\ell$ symmetry

1490: creating further PGBs. Since the majority of PGBs are $G_C$ rather 

1491: than $G_N$, they are likely to have hierarchical masses, for example

1492: as in (\ref{eq:mG2}), that are heavy enough to give a CMB $\Delta N_\nu$

1493: signal. A similar analysis

1494: would occur for a $U(3)_\ell \times U(3)_n$ theory of Dirac

1495: neutrinos, with two important differences. First, many more $G_N$ are

1496: expected from the $U(3)_n$ symmetry. 

1497: However, countering this, for any Goldstone with dominant

1498: coupling to mass eigenstates $\nu_i n_j$ the rate for being recoupled

1499: by the $2 \leftrightarrow 1$ process is suppressed by a factor

1500: $(m_j/T)^2$ at temperature $T$. This would make the $\Delta N_\nu$ signal

1501: sensitive to the spectrum of both  the neutrinos and the PGBs.

1502: 

1503: Rather than compute the spectrum for any specific model, in Table 

1504: \ref{table:manyG} we present the energy density signal for generic situations. 

1505: A particular model is likely

1506: to have a signal which can be computed and differs from those in the

1507: Table. However, the Table does give an impression of the size of the

1508: signals which should be expected.

1509: For illustration we have taken Majorana models with 2 or 8 PGB that 

1510: have recoupled to 1,2 or 3 neutrinos and are heavier than 1 eV. This 

1511: could be the situation for models based on $U(1)_e \times U(1)_\mu

1512: \times U(1)_\tau$ or $U(3)_\ell$, where only the PGB for overall lepton

1513: number is lighter than 1 eV. For Dirac neutrinos we have chosen  2, 8

1514: or 16 heavy PGB, corresponding to models based on $U(1)_e \times U(1)_\mu

1515: \times U(1)_\tau$, $U(3)_{\ell+n}$ or  $U(3)_\ell \times U(3)_n$

1516: symmetries, where again one or two flavor diagonal PGB  are taken

1517: lighter than 1 eV. We note that in both Majorana and Dirac cases,

1518: planned CMB experiments are now able to distinguish between

1519: cases where the PGB recouples to 1,2 and 3 neutrinos, giving

1520: sensitivity to differing neutrino spectra. The energy density signal

1521: clearly grows substantially when more PGB contribute. 

1522: 

1523: \begin{table}

1524: \begin{center}

1525: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c||c|c|} \cline{1-5} \cline{1-5}

1526:     &\multicolumn{2}{|c}{Dirac} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Majorana} \\

1527:  \cline{1-5}

1528:     $n_{G}$ & $\mu = 0$ & $\mu \ne 0$ & $\mu = 0$  &

1529:     $\mu\ne 0$  \\ \cline{1-5}

1530:     2& 3.18 & 3.06 & 3.34 & 3.19  \\ \cline{1-5}

1531:     8& 3.62 & 3.18 & 4.08 & 3.42  \\ \cline{1-5}

1532:     16& 4.08 & 3.27 & X & X  \\ \cline{1-5}

1533: \end{tabular}

1534: \caption{Table of effective number of neutrinos as determined by the

1535: relativistic energy density.  Predictions are given for both Dirac and

1536: Majorana masses and for cases in which $n_G$ Goldstone bosons recouple

1537: to $n_R=3$ neutrinos and then decay.  We have assumed that all

1538: Goldstone bosons equilibrate prior to any decaying. We assume that all

1539: heavy Goldstone bosons have decayed or annihilated prior to the

1540: equilibration of any light PGBs.}

1541: \label{table:manyG}

1542: \end{center}

1543: \end{table}

1544: 

1545: \begin{table}

1546: \begin{center}

1547: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c||c|c|} \cline{1-5} \cline{1-5}

1548:     &\multicolumn{2}{|c}{Dirac} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Majorana} \\

1549:  \cline{1-5}

1550:     $n_R$ & $\mu = 0$ & $\mu \ne 0$ & $\mu = 0$  &

1551:     $\mu\ne 0$  \\ \cline{1-5}

1552:     3& 3.62 & 3.18 & 4.08 & 3.42  \\ \cline{1-5}

1553:     2& 3.58 & 3.15 & 3.97 & 3.35  \\ \cline{1-5}

1554:     1& 3.49 & 3.12 & 3.77 & 3.24  \\ \cline{1-5}

1555: \end{tabular}

1556: \caption{Table of effective number of neutrinos as determined by the

1557: relativistic energy density.  Predictions are given for both Dirac and

1558: Majorana masses and for cases in which $n_G=8$ Goldstone bosons

1559: recouple to $n_R$ neutrinos and then decay.  We have assumed that

1560: all Goldstone bosons equilibrate prior to any decaying.  We assume

1561: that all heavy Goldstone bosons have decayed or annihilated prior to

1562: the equilibration of any light PGBs.}

1563: \label{table:nrec}

1564: \end{center}

1565: \end{table}

1566: 

1567: In the Dirac case one might question whether it is really plausible

1568: that so many PGB are recoupled --- as mentioned earlier, a PGB $G_A$ that

1569: couples predominantly to neutrino mass eigenstates via

1570: $\nu_i T^A_{ij} n_j$ has a recoupling rate suppressed

1571: by $(m_j/T)^2$. However, the issue here is whether the mass eigenstate

1572: bases for the PGB and the neutrinos line up. Since the explicit

1573: symmetry breaking from very high scales, or from the charged lepton

1574: mass sector, is unrelated to the neutrino mass generation, it seems

1575: that the two bases will be very different. Indeed, for the symmetry 

1576: breaking coming from the charged lepton sector, neutrino oscillation

1577: data already tell us that there are large mixing angles between the

1578: two bases. Hence, if we consider the coupling to the

1579: heaviest mass eigenstate neutrino $\nu_3 n_3 G_{33}$, we expect that

1580: $G_{33}$ will be a linear combination of all the PGB mass eigenstates

1581: without any small mixing angles. Hence the suppression factor for all

1582: of them is only $(m_3/T)^2$. If one of the PGB recouples we typically

1583: expect that they all do. 

1584: 

1585: This does not mean that the signal is insensitive to the neutrino

1586: spectrum, since the signal does depend on the number of neutrinos that

1587: get recoupled. From Table \ref{table:nrec} we see that the dependence

1588: on the number of recoupled neutrinos is large and future CMB

1589: experiments will be able to probe the nature of the neutrino spectrum,

1590: unlike the case of a single PGB discussed in the previous section.

1591: 

1592: The change in the neutrino energy density is now so large that this

1593: has repercussions for the size of the scattering signal.  This results

1594: from large deviations of $N_\nu$ from three in

1595: Eqn. (\ref{eq:lshiftdeltaE}).  Additionally, if some neutrinos that

1596: were coupled to the heavy pseudo-Goldstone bosons are not coupled to

1597: the light PGB and hence free-stream, it is possible that $N_{\nu FS}

1598: \ne (3-n_S)$.  In general, assuming that all scattering neutrinos and

1599: light Goldstone bosons were heated by the disappearance of the heavy

1600: PGBs, $N_{\nu FS}$ is given by

1601:  \beq

1602:    N_{\nu FS} = \left( 3-n_R \right)+ \frac{n_R - n_S}{n_R + g_G / g_\nu} \left( N_\nu -

1603:    \left( 3-n_R \right) \right) 

1604:  \eeq  

1605: where $g_\nu = 7/4$ or $7/2$ if the neutrinos are Majorana or Dirac

1606: and $g_G$ is the spin degeneracy of the light PGBs.  This, combined

1607: with Eqn. (\ref{eq:lshiftdeltaE}) allows us to calculate $\Delta l_n$.

1608: 

1609: \begin{table}

1610: \begin{center}

1611: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \cline{1-3} 

1612:     $n_R$ & $N_{\nu FS}$ & $\Delta l_n$ \\

1613:  \cline{1-3} \cline{1-3}

1614:     1& 2.00 & -14.04 \\ \cline{1-3}

1615:     2& 2.16 & -14.77 \\ \cline{1-3}

1616:     3& 2.28 & -15.45 \\ \cline{1-3}  

1617: \end{tabular}

1618: \caption{Illustration of how the scattering signal,  $\Delta l_n$, depends on

1619:   $\Delta N_\nu$ and  $\Delta N_{\nu FS}$. These predictions are for the case that

1620:   one Majorana neutrino scatters due to interactions with one 

1621:   light pseudo-Goldstone boson. In this illustration,  $\Delta N_\nu$ and 

1622:   $\Delta N_{\nu FS}$ are calculated by assuming that

1623:   $n_R$ neutrinos, including the one that scatters, are 

1624:   heated by the disappearance of 8 heavy PGBs. These  $\Delta l_n$ predictions

1625:   should be compared to the value $-15.6$ that results for $N_\nu =3$ and  

1626: $N_{\nu FS}=2$.}

1627: \label{table:deltal}

1628: \end{center}

1629: \end{table}

1630: 

1631: Notice that $\Delta l_n$ is no longer proportional to $n_S$ and in fact

1632: has a dependence on $n_R$ and $n_G$ through $N_{\nu FS}$ and

1633: $N_\nu$.  As a result, the phase of the acoustic oscillations may

1634: give us information about the number of neutrino species that were

1635: coupled to the heavy pseudo-Goldstone bosons and the number of heavy

1636: PGBs as well as the number of neutrinos that are scattering at an eV.

1637: An example of this is shown in Table \ref{table:deltal}, which shows

1638: the case of Majorana neutrinos coupled to 8

1639: heavy and 1 light PGB.  We assume that one neutrino

1640: species is scattering and that this species was also heated by the

1641: decay or annihilation of the heavy PGBs.  We see that in this case the

1642: $\Delta l_n$ shift has a noticeable dependence on the number of recoupled

1643: neutrino species, in contrast with Eqn. (\ref{eq:lshiftscatt}), and 

1644: could be discovered with an observational resolution of  

1645: $\Delta l_n \leq \pm 1$.

1646: 

1647: 

1648: \section{\label{sec:theoriesofmass} Probing Theories of Neutrino Mass}

1649: 

1650: One aspect of the PGB couplings is very general, and is

1651: independent of the underlying symmetry structure, the $\phi$ multiplet

1652: structure and the interactions coupling $\phi$ to neutrinos.

1653: If a PGB is produced at a symmetry breaking of strength $f$ that

1654: produces a mass term $m_\nu$ for some neutrinos, then the

1655: PGB coupling strength to these neutrinos is $g=m_\nu/f$. This means

1656: that the analysis of section \ref{sec:1nu} applies to any individual PGB,

1657: providing $m_\nu$ is interpreted as the neutrino mass arising from

1658: this particular PGB coupling. For the Majorana case, the lines of

1659: Figure 1 do not depend on $m_\nu$, hence the only modification necessary

1660: is to rescale the $f$ axis by a factor $m_\nu/0.05$eV. From this

1661: we see that CMB signals may arise in {\em any} theory of Majorana

1662: neutrinos where neutrino flavor symmetries are broken in the mass range

1663: %

1664: \begin{equation}

1665: f = ( \mbox{ $50$ MeV -- $500$ GeV}) \frac{m_\nu }{ 0.05 eV}.

1666: \label{eq:frange}

1667: \end{equation}

1668: %

1669: For the Dirac case, the slopes of some of the lines do depend on

1670: $m_\nu$, and some limits depend on $r$, so that the relevant regions

1671: are shifted to somewhat lower values of $f$. 

1672: We seek theories where lepton flavor symmetries are broken at the 

1673: weak scale, or up to four orders of magnitude below the weak scale. 

1674: Whatever breaks the weak interaction might also break lepton flavor 

1675: symmetries, either directly or at one or two loop order.

1676: 

1677: This large range in $f$ 

1678: allows a wide variety of models, not just those of

1679: Eqn. (\ref{eq:tevops}), but does not include the popular seesaw models

1680: where lepton number is broken quite close to the scale of grand

1681: unification.  In general two factors contribute to explaining why the

1682: neutrinos are much lighter than the weak scale: $f/v$ and $v/M$. The

1683: relative importance of these two factors is model dependent. However,

1684: for all models it is clear that a crucial ingredient is that an

1685: approximate lepton flavor symmetry is broken at some scale $f$ much

1686: less than the energy scale, $M$, responsible for the physics of

1687: neutrino masses.  Below we choose two models to illustrate the rich

1688: range of possibilities.

1689: 

1690: \subsection{A low energy seesaw}

1691: 

1692: It may be that $M \approx v$ and the suppression of neutrino masses is

1693: entirely due to a small value for $f/v$. As an example of such a

1694: theory, consider the seesaw model:

1695: \begin{equation}

1696: L = nn \phi + \ell nh  \left( \frac{\phi'}{ v} \right)^2,

1697: \label{eq:seesawL}

1698: \end{equation}

1699: where order unity couplings are understood. Suppose that lepton number

1700: is spontaneously broken at the weak scale $\phi \approx v e^{iG/v}$,

1701: while other lepton flavor symmetries are broken at some lower scale

1702: $f$:  $\phi' \approx f e^{iG'/f}$. The light neutrinos are Majorana with

1703: a mass seesawed down to

1704: $f^4/v^3$, so that $f$ should be of order 1 GeV. There are two very

1705: different types of PGB: $G$ and $G'$ with symmetry breaking parameters

1706: $v$ and $f$. From Figure \ref{fig:majorana} we find that either could give scattering

1707: or energy density CMB signals. The mass of $G$ would need to be

1708: close to 1 eV, but $G'$ could give a signal for a wide range of

1709: masses. 

1710: 

1711: \subsection{A $SU(3) \times U(1)_L$ theory}

1712: 

1713: A discussion of realistic three neutrino theories with a

1714: single Goldstone was given in section \ref{sec:3nu}. With more than one

1715: Goldstone an important new ingredient appears: multiple symmetry

1716: breaking scales $f$. 

1717: Neutrino mass ratios may now arise from a hierarchy of $g$ parameters 

1718: or from a hierarchy of $f$ parameters.  Of course, given the observed 

1719: pattern of neutrino oscillations the hierarchies need not be large.

1720: In the case of hierarchical flavor 

1721: symmetry breaking, for a fixed pattern of neutrino masses, smaller 

1722: values of $f$ translate into larger values for $g$. Hence the couplings 

1723: of the PGBs to the lighter neutrinos are larger than for the case of a single 

1724: symmetry breaking scale, discussed in section \ref{sec:3nu}, and the signal regions are 

1725: correspondingly enhanced for the lighter neutrinos compared to the 

1726: regions shown in Figures \ref{fig:majorana3} and \ref{fig:dirac3}.

1727: 

1728: A particularly interesting model with a hierarchy of global symmetry 

1729: breaking scales is a $SU(3) \times U(1)_L$ theory of Majorana neutrinos

1730: described by 

1731: \begin{equation}

1732: L =  \frac{ 1}{ M^3} \ell_i \left( \phi_{A_{ij}} \phi_L \right) \ell_j hh

1733: \label{eq:31model}

1734: \end{equation}

1735: where $\phi_L$ carries overall lepton number, while the multiplet

1736: $\phi_A$ is a representation of $SU(3)$. This theory not only has

1737: multiple symmetry breaking scales with hierarchical vevs of $\phi_A$, but 

1738: neutrino masses occur at second order in symmetry breaking, rather than at 

1739: linear order.

1740: 

1741: The neutrino mass is a product of symmetry breaking terms

1742: \begin{equation}

1743: m_\nu =  \frac{f_A f_L}{ M}  \frac{v^2}{ M^2},

1744: \label{eq:31mnu}

1745: \end{equation}

1746: that could lead, for example, to a hierarchical spectrum. The coupling

1747: of the Goldstone of overall lepton number, $G_L$,  is proportional to

1748: the $SU(3)$ symmetry breaking:

1749: \begin{equation}

1750: g_L =  \frac{f_A }{ M}  \frac{v^2}{ M^2},

1751: \label{eq:gL}

1752: \end{equation}

1753: while the couplings of the Goldstones of broken $SU(3)$ are

1754: proportional to the breaking of lepton number:

1755: \begin{equation}

1756: g_A =  \frac{f_L}{ M} \frac{v^2 }{ M^2}.

1757: \label{eq:gA}

1758: \end{equation}

1759: 

1760: The CMB signals for this model vary drastically as $(f_A,f_L)$ are

1761: varied.  If $f_{A,L} > v$ there are no CMB signals. If only $f_L < v$

1762: then there is a single flavor-diagonal PGB, $G_L$, with signals as

1763: given in section \ref{sec:3nu}.  On the other hand if $f_A < v$ while

1764: $f_L > v$, then there are several PGB, $G_A$, which contribute to CMB

1765: signals and which may have a hierarchy of $f_A$. If $f_{A,L} <v$ we

1766: have a model of Majorana neutrinos where the maximal number of PGBs

1767: can contribute to CMB signals. Since $G_L$ is a member of $G_N$, it

1768: may have a small mass and give rise to a scattering signal. Even

1769: though it derives from overall lepton number symmetry, it has a

1770: different coupling to each neutrino species, so that the scattering

1771: signal may correspond to 1,2 or 3 neutrinos depending on the neutrino

1772: spectrum.  The 8 flavor PGB, $G_A$, may all be $G_C$ type with larger

1773: masses, giving a very large $\Delta N_{\nu}$ signal as shown in Table

1774: \ref{table:manyG}.

1775: 

1776: 

1777: \section{$f<v$ from Supersymmetry}

1778: \label{sec:susy}

1779: 

1780: CMB signals are possible even if the lepton flavor symmetries are

1781: broken at scales as high as the electroweak scale, $v$. However,

1782: observable signals result from a much wider range of PGB masses if $f

1783: < v$. There are a variety of scenarios for naturally inducing symmetry

1784: breaking scales well beneath the weak scale; in this section we study

1785: a supersymmetric theory.

1786: 

1787: Consider the superpotential below, where in addition to a Dirac mass for the neutrino of the form

1788: of equation (\ref{eq:tevops}), we have added a mass $M_N$ for the right-handed neutrino. As we

1789: will argue later, the natural size of $M_N$ is of order the weak scale, and therefore the neutrino

1790: masses in this theory are Majorana. The theory has an R symmetry corresponding to lepton number

1791: under which $L, N$ and $\Phi$ are all charged. In the absence of the mass term $M_N$ for the

1792: right-handed neutrino the theory has an additional right-handed lepton number symmetry under

1793: only $N$ and $\Phi$ are charged; this symmetry is broken at the weak scale generating a

1794: right-handed neutrino mass.

1795: 

1796: \begin{eqnarray}

1797:   \mbox{W} = \frac{\lambda}{M} L N H_u \Phi + M_N N^2

1798:                + \frac{\alpha}{3!} \Phi^3

1799: \label{eq:superpot} ~.

1800: \end{eqnarray}

1801: After supersymmetry and electroweak symmetry breaking, we obtain the

1802: coupling $\sqrt{2} g_{ij} \nu_i n_i \phi$ which leads to a Dirac mass term,

1803: and the scalar potential

1804: \begin{eqnarray}

1805:    V =

1806:                   \tilde{m}^2 (

1807:                   |\tilde{\nu}_i|^2 + |\tilde{n}_i|^2 )

1808:                 + | g_{ij} \tilde{\nu}_j \phi + 

1809:                  2 \left({M_N} \right)_{ij} \tilde{n}_j|^2

1810:                 + | g_{ij}\tilde{n}_j|^2 |\phi|^2

1811:                 + |\frac{\alpha}{2}\phi^2 + g_{ij}\tilde{\nu}_i \tilde{n}_j|^2     ~,

1812: \label{eq:lag}

1813: \end{eqnarray}

1814: where we have taken a common soft mass, $\tilde{m}$,

1815: for $\tilde{\nu}_i$ and $\tilde{n}_i$ for simplicity.  Note that

1816: we have made a crucial assumption that $\Phi$ does not

1817: feel supersymmetry breaking directly; namely there is no

1818: soft mass for $\phi$.  This would occur, for example, in certain

1819: theories of gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking if

1820: $\Phi$ does not have any  gauge interactions. Since $\Phi$ couples

1821: through $g_i$ to particles which do feel supersymmetry breaking,

1822: radiative corrections must induce a supersymmetry breaking mass at

1823: least as big as

1824: \begin{eqnarray}

1825:    \delta m_\phi^2 = -\frac{g^2}{16 \pi^2} \tilde{m}^2,

1826: \end{eqnarray}

1827: where $g$ is the largest coupling of $\Phi$ to neutrinos.

1828: Note that the sign is negative, and will induce symmetry breaking, in

1829: a very similar fashion to radiative electroweak symmetry breaking in

1830: the standard supersymmetric model.

1831: Therefore, the VEV of $\phi$, namely $f$, is given by

1832: \begin{eqnarray}

1833:   f \simeq \sqrt{\frac{-2\delta m_\phi^2}{\alpha^2}}

1834:     \approx \frac{g\tilde{m}}{4 \pi\alpha}.

1835: \label{f1}

1836: \end{eqnarray}

1837: For $\alpha$ of order unity, we see that supersymmetry protects $f$

1838: down to the scale $f_{susy} \approx g \tilde{m} / 4 \pi$. If there are

1839: several $\Phi$ multiplets with a hierarchy of couplings to neutrinos,

1840: then their symmetry breaking scales will reflect that hierarchy. The

1841: coupling $g$ is naturally small, $g \approx v/M$, and is related to

1842: the observed neutrino mass as

1843: \begin{equation}

1844: m_\nu \approx g^2 \frac{f^2}{M_N}

1845: \label{f2}

1846: \end{equation}

1847: Eliminating $g$ between Eqs. ({\ref{f1}}) and ({\ref{f2}}) we

1848: obtain an approximate expression for the scale $f$ given below

1849: \begin{equation}

1850: f^2_{susy}   \approx   \frac{\tilde{m}}{ 4 \pi} \sqrt{m_{\nu} M_N}

1851: \label{eq:fsusy}

1852: \end{equation}

1853: A natural value for the scale $M_N$ at which right-handed lepton

1854: number is broken is the weak scale. This scale could for example

1855: be generated from a

1856: term of the form $\lambda_N \Phi_n N N$ in the superpotential. Here $\phi_n$ 

1857: acquires a VEV and thereby breaks right-handed lepton

1858: number, and $\lambda_N$ is a coupling constant. If $\lambda_N$ is of

1859: order one and the $\tilde{n}$'s have a soft mass of order the weak scale

1860: then $S$ can acquire a VEV of order the weak scale radiatively, exactly

1861: the way the Higgs does in the minimal supersymmetric model.

1862: 

1863: For $m_\nu = 10^{-2}$ eV and $\tilde{m} = 100$ GeV we find that

1864: supersymmetry is able to protect $f$ down to 30 MeV. This is the

1865: lowest $f$ for which our CMB signals are compatible with BBN

1866: constraints. Larger $f$ could be obtained in this simple model of

1867: radiative lepton flavor symmetry breaking 

1868: in several ways, for example by reducing the coupling $\alpha$

1869: or by introducing additional couplings of $\Phi$ to the supersymmetry

1870: breaking sector. Hence we conclude that no fine tuning is necessary

1871: anywhere in the wide range of $(f,m_G)$ parameter space that leads to

1872: CMB signals.

1873: 

1874: 

1875: \section{Conclusions}

1876: \label{sec:conc}

1877: 

1878: 

1879: We have proposed that future measurements of the CMB  will provide a

1880: powerful probe of theories of neutrino mass that have lepton flavor

1881: symmetries spontaneously broken at or below the weak scale. Such

1882: theories lead to light pseudo-Goldstone bosons that interact with

1883: neutrinos with couplings proportional to the neutrino masses. Such

1884: interactions can modify the acoustic oscillations of the electron-photon

1885: fluid during the eV era. In particular there is a change in the

1886: relativistic energy density, parameterized by an effective change in

1887: the number of neutrino species, $\Delta N_\nu$, and a change in the

1888: multipole of the $n$th CMB peak, $\Delta l_n$, for large $n$. While

1889: other new physics could lead to an energy density signal, a

1890: uniform shift in the high $n$ peaks to larger $l$ can only result from

1891: scattering of the known neutrinos, and is therefore an ideal test of

1892: our class of theories.

1893: 

1894: The present experimental limit on deviations from the relativistic

1895: energy density predicted by the standard model is roughly

1896: $-2 < \Delta N_\nu < 4$ \cite{BBN} \cite{Hannestad:2003xv}, 

1897: although the precise numbers depend 

1898: what other data are included in the fit. Our predictions are well within

1899: these bounds, typically in the range $0 < \Delta N_\nu < 1$. The

1900: Planck experiment is expected to reach a sensitivity of $\pm 0.20$ at one

1901: standard deviation, and the proposed satellite experiment CMBPOL could

1902: probe to $\pm 0.05$ \cite{BS}. These projections assume that the

1903: neutrinos are free-streaming; in the presence of our scattering signal

1904: we do not know how well the energy density can be measured.

1905: The inherent limit on  $\Delta N_\nu$ from cosmic variance is at the 

1906: level of $\pm 0.04$ for measurements up to $l$ of 2000, if the CMB is

1907: to determine all the cosmological parameters \cite{cosvarlim}. If the CMB is used only

1908: to determine $N_\nu$, then the cosmic variance limit drops to $\pm

1909: 0.003$. All numbers assume polarization correlations are measured as

1910: well as the temperature correlations. While the positions of the low

1911: $n$ CMB peaks are now accurately determined, the higher $n$ peaks will

1912: have to await future measurements at higher $l$. To first

1913: approximation, our signal is $\Delta l_n \approx +8 n_S$, where $n_S =

1914: 1,2,3$ is the number of neutrino species that scatter by PGB exchange

1915: during the eV era. This is a clear order of magnitude larger than the 

1916: expected reach of Planck,  $\Delta l \approx \pm 2$, and CMBPOL,  $\Delta

1917: l \approx \pm 1$, always at 1 standard deviation \cite{BS}. 

1918: 

1919: The signals can be precisely calculated in any particular theory of

1920: neutrino masses, and reflect both the spectrum of the neutrinos and

1921: whether the neutrinos are Majorana or Dirac. Signals are expected for

1922: a wide range of lepton symmetry breaking parameters, 10 MeV  $<f<$ 

1923: TeV, and for a wide range of the PGB masses, $m_G < $ MeV. The signal

1924: regions for a Goldstone boson produced at scale $f$ with mass $m_G$

1925: are shown in Figure 1 for Majorana neutrinos and in Figure 2 for Dirac

1926: neutrinos. In the case that the same symmetry breaking scale $f$

1927: produces all three neutrino masses, the signal regions are shown in

1928: Figures 3 and 4, for a hierarchical pattern of neutrino masses. The

1929: size of the signals differs in the regions labeled 1,2,3, and the

1930: sizes of these regions change as the pattern of neutrino masses

1931: changes. 

1932: 

1933: In many cases the scattering signal depends only on the number of

1934: scattering neutrino species and is given by  $\Delta l \approx +7.8

1935: n_S (\Delta l_{peak}/300)$, relative to the prediction of the standard model, 

1936: which will be easily seen in upcoming

1937: experiments. On the other hand, the size of  $\Delta N_\nu$ is highly

1938: dependent on the number and spectrum of PGBs and the neutrino

1939: spectrum. For a single PGB the signal is small; for example, with a

1940: non-zero chemical potential  $\Delta N_\nu = 0.03, 0.10$ for the

1941: Dirac, Majorana cases, for the PGB

1942: recoupling to $n_R = 2$ neutrino species. The dependence on $n_R$ is

1943: mild, so that in this case the signal does not allow a discrimination

1944: between hierarchical, inverted or degenerate spectra.

1945: 

1946: The size of the  $\Delta N_\nu$ signal increases dramatically in

1947: theories with multiple PGB. This is partly due to the larger number of

1948: degrees of freedom, and partly because the interactions between

1949: different PGB generically sets the chemical potential to zero. 

1950: For example, for 8 PGB, corresponding to breaking a $SU(3)$ lepton

1951: flavor symmetry, if all three neutrino are recoupled, $n_R = 3$,

1952: then  $\Delta N_\nu = 0.62,1.08$ for the Dirac and Majorana cases.

1953: The signals for $n_R = 1,2,3$ are $0.49, 0.58,0.62$ for the Dirac case

1954: and $0.77,0.97,1.08$ for the Majorana case. Hence a precise

1955: measurement of  $\Delta N_\nu$ has the ability to distinguish 

1956: both the type and spectrum of the neutrinos. In cases such as this,

1957: where there is a large  $\Delta N_\nu$ signal, there are deviations

1958: from the simple prediction for the scattering signal, $\Delta l_n$,

1959: which now also depends on $n_R$ and the number of PGB.

1960: 

1961: For a theory of neutrino masses to give a CMB signal, the crucial

1962: ingredient is the spontaneous breaking of lepton flavor symmetry at a

1963: scale $f$ of the weak scale or below. This does not occur in the 

1964: conventional seesaw models. We have shown that the well-known

1965: radiative symmetry breaking mechanism of supersymmetry can yield such

1966: values for $f$, and we have demonstrated that the explicit

1967: breaking of the global lepton symmetries expected  from the Planck

1968: scale leads to PGB masses precisely in the range that gives CMB signals.  

1969: There is a rich variety of models with CMB signals. We have given two

1970: illustrations where the interactions of the neutrinos are bilinear in

1971: the field $\phi$ that breaks the lepton symmetries. In the first model

1972: the right-handed neutrinos are at the weak scale, $v$, and the lightness of

1973: the neutrinos is due to powers of $f/v$. In the second model there are

1974: two types of PGB, the flavor-diagonal Majoron,  and the flavor-changing 

1975: PGB associated with $SU(3)$. One possibility is that the

1976: latter contribute to a large  $\Delta N_\nu$ signal, while the Majoron 

1977: is lighter and gives a scattering signal. It is remarkable that the

1978: CMB offers a powerful probe of this physics.

1979: 

1980: 

1981: 

1982: 

1983: \section*{Acknowledgments}

1984: \label{acknowledgements}

1985: 

1986: We thank Maxim Perelstein and Martin White for valuable discussions and 

1987: Manoj Kaplinghat, Lloyd Knox, Uros Seljak and David Spergel for communications.

1988: T.O. thanks Danny Marfatia for many useful conversations.

1989: This work was supported in part by the Director, 

1990: Office of Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, of the

1991: U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098 

1992: and DE-FG03-91ER-40676, and in

1993: part by the National Science Foundation under grant PHY-00-98840.

1994: 

1995: 

1996: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1997: 

1998: %\cite{Fukuda:1998mi}

1999: \bibitem{neutrinomass}

2000: Y.~Fukuda {\it et al.}  [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration],

2001: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 81}, 1562 (1998)

2002: [arXiv:hep-ex/9807003];

2003: \newline

2004: Q.~R.~Ahmad {\it et al.}  [SNO Collaboration],

2005: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 89}, 011301 (2002)

2006: [arXiv:nucl-ex/0204008];

2007: \newline

2008: K.~Eguchi {\it et al.}  [KamLAND Collaboration],

2009: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 90}, 021802 (2003)

2010: [arXiv:hep-ex/0212021].

2011: 

2012: 

2013: \bibitem{seesaw} 

2014: M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, in

2015: $Supergravity$ (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979);

2016: \newline 

2017: T. Yanagida, in {\it Proc. Workshop on Unified Theories and

2018: Baryon Number in the Universe};

2019: \newline 

2020: R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. \ Rev. {\bf 44} (1980) 912.

2021: 

2022: \bibitem{majoron1} 

2023: Y. Chikashige, R.N. Mohapatra and R.D. Peccei, Phys. \ Lett B {\bf 98} (1981) 

2024: 265.

2025: 

2026: \bibitem{majoron2} 

2027: G.~Gelmini and M.~Roncadelli, Phys. \ Lett B {\bf 99} (1981) 411;

2028: \newline 

2029: H.~Georgi, S.~Glashow, and S.~Nussinov, Nucl. \ Phys.\ B {\bf 193} (1981) 297.

2030: 

2031: %\bibitem{Olive}

2032: %J.~M.~Cline, K.~Kainulainen and K.~A.~Olive,

2033: %Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 1}, 387 (1993)

2034: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9304229].

2035: 

2036: \bibitem{BBN}

2037: V.~Barger, J.~P.~Kneller, H.~S.~Lee, D.~Marfatia and G.~Steigman,

2038: %``Effective number of neutrinos and baryon asymmetry from BBN and WMAP,''

2039: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 566}, 8 (2003)

2040: [arXiv:hep-ph/0305075].

2041: 

2042: \bibitem{Olive}

2043: J.~M.~Cline, K.~Kainulainen and K.~A.~Olive,

2044: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 1}, 387 (1993)

2045: [arXiv:hep-ph/9304229].

2046: 

2047: \bibitem{massivemajoron} 

2048: E.~K.~Akhmedov, Z.~G.~Berezhiani, R.~N.~Mohapatra and G.~Senjanovic,

2049: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 299}, 90 (1993)

2050: [arXiv:hep-ph/9209285].

2051: \newline

2052: I.~Z.~Rothstein, K.~S.~Babu and D.~Seckel,

2053: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 403}, 725 (1993)

2054: [arXiv:hep-ph/9301213].

2055: 

2056: \bibitem{Hu:1995fq}

2057: W.~Hu, D.~Scott, N.~Sugiyama and M.~J.~White,

2058: %``The Effect of physical assumptions on the calculation of microwave background 

2059: % anisotropies,''

2060: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52}, 5498 (1995)

2061: [arXiv:astro-ph/9505043].

2062: 

2063: \bibitem{BS}

2064: S. Bashinsky and U. Seljak, astro-ph/0310198.

2065: 

2066: \bibitem{BBNCMB}

2067: J. Bartlett and L. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 66} 541 (1991);

2068: M. White, G. Gelmini and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. {\bf D51} 2669 (1995);

2069: R. Bean, S. Hansen and A. Melchiorri, 

2070: Phys.Rev. {\bf D64} (2001) 103508, astro-ph/0104162;

2071: R. Bowen, S. Hansen, A. Melchiorri, J. Silk and R. Trotta, 

2072: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 334 (2002) 760, astro-ph/0110636.

2073: 

2074: \bibitem{WMAP}

2075: C.~L.~Bennett {\it et al.},

2076:  %``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:

2077: %Preliminary Maps and Basic Results,''

2078: Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 148}, 1 (2003)

2079: [arXiv:astro-ph/0302207].

2080: 

2081: \bibitem{Hannestad:2003xv}

2082: P. Crotty, J. Lesgourgues and S. Pastor,

2083: %``Measuring  the cosmological background,''

2084: Phys. Rev. {\bf D67}, 123005 (2003)

2085: [arXiv:astro-ph/0302337],

2086: E. Pierpaoli,

2087: %``Constraints on the cosmic neutrino background,''

2088: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. {\bf 342}, L63 (2003)

2089: [arXiv:astro-ph/0302465],

2090: S.~Hannestad,

2091: %``Neutrino masses and the number of neutrino species from WMAP and  2dFGRS,''

2092: JCAP {\bf 0305}, 004 (2003)

2093: [arXiv:astro-ph/0303076].

2094: 

2095: %\bibitem{numasscos}

2096: %W. Hu, D.J Eisenstein and M. Tegmark, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 80}, 

2097: %5255 (1998), astro-ph/9712057; O. Elgaroy et al, astro-ph/0204152; D. Spergel

2098: %et al, astro-ph/0302209.

2099: 

2100: %\bibitem{GZ}

2101: %G. Gerstein and Y. B. Zel'dovich, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. Pis'ma

2102: %Red. {\bf 4} 174 (1966); R. Cowsik and J. McClelland

2103: %Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 29}, 669 (1972).

2104: 

2105: %\bibitem{PDG} Review of Particle Physics, 

2106: %Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 010001-381 (2002).

2107: 

2108: %\bibitem{Primack}

2109: %J. Primack and M. Gross, Current Aspects of Neutrino Physics, Ed. D. Caldwell, 

2110: %p287 (2001), astro-ph/0112336.

2111: 

2112: %\bibitem{Dicus:bz}

2113: %D.~A.~Dicus, E.~W.~Kolb, A.~M.~Gleeson, E.~C.~Sudarshan, V.~L.~Teplitz and M.~S.~Turner,

2114: %``Primordial Nucleosynthesis Including Radiative, Coulomb, And Finite Temperature Corrections To Weak Rates,''

2115: %Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 26}, 2694 (1982).

2116: 

2117: %\bibitem{Rana:xk}

2118: %N.~C.~Rana and B.~Mitra,

2119: %``Effect Of Neutrino Heating In The Early Universe On Neutrino Decoupling Temperatures And Nucleosynthesis,''

2120: %Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 44}, 393 (1991). \\

2121: %\bibitem{Dodelson:1992km}

2122: %S.~Dodelson and M.~S.~Turner,

2123: %``Nonequilibrium neutrino statistical mechanics in the expanding universe,''

2124: %Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46}, 3372 (1992). \\

2125: %\bibitem{Dolgov:qg}

2126: %A.~D.~Dolgov and M.~Fukugita,

2127: %``Nonequilibrium Effect Of The Neutrino Distribution On Primordial Helium Synthesis,''

2128: %Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46}, 5378 (1992). \\

2129: %\bibitem{Hannestad:1995rs}

2130: %S.~Hannestad and J.~Madsen,

2131: %``Neutrino decoupling in the early universe,''

2132: %Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52}, 1764 (1995)

2133: %[arXiv:astro-ph/9506015]. \\

2134: %\bibitem{Dolgov:1997mb}

2135: %A.~D.~Dolgov, S.~H.~Hansen and D.~V.~Semikoz,

2136: %``Non-equilibrium corrections to the spectra of massless neutrinos in the  early universe,''

2137: %Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 503}, 426 (1997)

2138: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9703315].

2139: 

2140: %\bibitem{Heckler:tv}

2141: %A.~F.~Heckler,

2142: %``Astrophysical Applications Of Quantum Corrections To The Equation Of State Of A Plasma,''

2143: %Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 611 (1994).

2144: 

2145: \bibitem{farzan}

2146: Y.~Farzan,

2147: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 073015 (2003)

2148: [arXiv:hep-ph/0211375].

2149: 

2150: \bibitem{valle}

2151: M.~Kachelriess, R.~Tomas and J.~W.~F.~Valle,

2152: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 023004 (2000)

2153: [arXiv:hep-ph/0001039].

2154: 

2155: \bibitem{earlySN}

2156: K. Choi and A. Santamaria, Phys \ Rev \ D {\bf 42} (1990) 293;

2157: \newline K. Choi, C.W. Kim, J. Kim and W.P. Lam, Phys. \ Rev. \ D {\bf 37} (1988) 

2158: 3325;

2159: \newline J.A. Grifols, E. Masso and S. Peris, Phys.\ Lett \ B {\bf 215} (1988) 

2160: 593.

2161: 

2162: \bibitem{neutrinostability}

2163: J.~Schechter and J.~W.~F.~Valle,

2164: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 25}, 774 (1982);

2165: \newline

2166: J.~M.~Cline, K.~Kainulainen and S.~Paban,

2167: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 319}, 513 (1993)

2168: [arXiv:hep-ph/9309316];

2169: \newline

2170: J.~T.~Peltoniemi,

2171: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 5509 (1998).

2172: 

2173: 

2174: \bibitem{cosvarlim} 

2175: R. Lopez, S. Dodelson, A. Heckler and M. Turner, 

2176: astro-ph/9803095,

2177: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 82}, 3952 (1999).

2178: 

2179: %\bibitem{paperIII}

2180: %L.J. Hall, T. Okui and S.J. Oliver, UCB-PTH-03/10, LBNL-52847.

2181: 

2182: %Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 544}, 503 (1999)

2183: 

2184: %Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 438}, 255 (1998)

2185: 

2186: \end{thebibliography}

2187: 

2188: \end{document}

2189: